The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGrant Lake Lake Elva Conceptual Feasibility Study 2013NUSHAGAK ELECTRIC AND TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE DILLINGHAM AREA HYDROE ~ECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Octo b er 2013 ~ INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. NUSHAGAK ELECTRIC AND TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE DILLINGHAM AREA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Mark C. Storm, P .E. AK Professional Engineer CE 8840 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECIJTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 1 BACKGROlJND ............................................................................................................. 2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .................................................. 3 GENERATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED ....................................................... 3 Grant Lake Project. ...................................................................................................... 3 Lake Elva Project. ........................................................................................................ 4 TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 5 Park Boundary Alternative .......................................................................................... 5 Glacial Moraine Alternative ........................................................................................ 6 ESTIMATED ENERGY PRODUCTION AND COSTS ............................................... 6 Installed Capacity and Generation ............................................................................... 6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND VALUES ......................................... 7 Benefit/Cost Ratios for Project Alternatives ............................................................... 7 Projected Energy Costs of Generation Alternatives .................................................... 8 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 9 Grant Lake ................................................................................................................... 9 Lake Elva ................................................................................................................... 1 0 PROJECT SUMMARY DATA .................................................................................... 11 INTRODlJCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT HISTORY and OTHER INFORMATION .................................................... 1 Study History ............................................................................................................... 1 NETC Study Involvement ........................................................................................... 3 Hydrologic and Environmental Studies ....................................................................... 3 Transmission Alternative Evaluations ......................................................................... 3 WOR.KSCOPE and METHODS ...................................................................................... 4 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS TASK 1. REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION ........................................................ 4 TASK 2. SITE VISITS and EVALUATION ................................................................. 4 TASK 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN of ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS ......... 4 Dam Height and Location Alternatives ....................................................................... 5 Run-of-The-River vs. Storage Alternatives ................................................................. 5 Tunnel vs. Penstock Design Alternatives .................................................................... 5 Air vs. Land or Water Mobilization Alternatives ........................................................ 5 Transmission and Construction Access Road Routing Alternatives ........................... 5 TASK 4. DETERMINE FEASIBILITY BASED on ELECTRICAL GENERATION and ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 5 Hydrologic Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................... 6 Energy Calculations ..................................................................................................... 7 TASK 5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 7 B/C Ratio Calculation .................................................................................................. 8 Cost of Energy to the Consumer. ............................................................................... 1 0 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................... 11 RESUL,..I"S ........................................................................................................................ l2 TASK 1. REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION ...................................................... 12 TASK2. SITEVISITandEVALUATION ................................................................. 12 TASK 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN of ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS ....... 12 Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration ............................................... 12 Generation Alternatives Analyzed ............................................................................. 14 TASK 4. DETERMINE FEASIBILITY BASED on ELECTRICAL GENERATION and ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 24 Operations and Electrical Generation ........................................................................ 24 Hydrologic Data Set Development.. .......................................................................... 26 Operations/Generation Model Results ....................................................................... 28 TASK 5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS of ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 38 Construction and Finance Costs ................................................................................ 38 BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 44 Project Benefits .......................................................................................................... 44 ii DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Benefit-Cost Ratios .................................................................................................... 46 Projected Cost of Project Debt Service ..................................................................... 4 7 Cost ofEnergy (At 2018 Startup) .............................................................................. 48 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................... 50 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 53 FISHERIES and AQUA TIC RESOURCES ................................................................. 53 Grant Lake Project. .................................................................................................... 53 Lake Elva Project. ...................................................................................................... 54 SCENIC/AESTHETIC RESOURCES .......................................................................... 54 WILDLIFE/BOTANICAL ............................................................................................ 54 Wildlife Resources ........................................................................................................ 54 Botanical Resources .................................................................................................. 55 CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 55 RECREATION RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 55 FERC LICENSING and STATE and FEDERAL PERMITTING ................................ 56 LAND USE ................................................................................................................... 56 SUMMARYofENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................... 57 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 57 GENERATION COMPONENTS and PROJECT ECONOMICS ................................ 57 GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL SURVEYS ......................................................... 59 TRANSMISSION and ACCESS ROUTING ............................................................... 59 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 59 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 60 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 63 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 63 iii DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDICES APPENDIX I. PROJECT SUMMARY DATA APPENDIX II. TRANSMISSION FEASIBILITY STUDIES, DILLINGHAM AREA HYDROPOWER PROJECT (DAHP) -LAKE ELVA AND GRANT LAKE SITES APPENDIX Ill. HYDROLOGICAL SYNTHESIS, RESERVOIR ROUTING & ENERGY GENERATION FORMULAE APPENDIX IV. ECONOMIC FORMULAE APPENDIX V. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX VI. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX VII. MAJOR PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DAHP CONSTRUCTION MAPS OF AFFECTED INHOLDINGS APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1. Project Location Map .......................................................................... ES-11 Figure ES-2. DAHP Alternative Transmission and Access Routes ......................... ES-12 Figure I. Project Location Map ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Alternatives G-l & G-2 Project Features and Configuration ......................... 18 Figure 3. Alternatives E-1 & Project Configuration Map ....................................... 21 Figure 4. DAHP Alternative Transmission and Analysis .............................................. 25 Figure 5. Synthesized Monthly 20th, 50 1h, Average and 80th Percent Exceedance Flows, Grant Lake Outlet Gaging Station .................................................... 27 Figure 6. Synthesized Monthly 201\ 50 1 h, Average and 801h Percent Exceedance Flows, Lake Elva Outlet Gaging Station ..................................................... 29 Figure 7. Grant Lake Project Alternative G-1 & Alternative G-2 Mean Monthly Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Reservoir Levels .......................................................................................... 32 Lake Elva Project Alternative E-1 Mean Monthly Reservoir Levels .......... 33 Lake Elva Alternative E-2 Monthly Reservoir Levels for Wet, Average and Dry Years ..................................................................................................... 33 Mean Monthly Energy Generation and percent of Load Supplied by Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2 ....................................................... 35 Figure 11. Mean Monthly Energy Generation and percent of Load Supplied by Lake Elva Project Alternatives l and E-2 ......................................................... 37 iv DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1. Estimated Installed Capacity, Annual Energy Generation and Annual Diesel A voidance for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Alternatives ............. ES-6 Table ES-2. B/C Ratios for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives ........... ES-7 Table ES-3. Projected Cost of Energy in $/kWh from NETC Generation Alternatives at 2018 startup ....................................................................................... ES-8 Table 1. Synthesized Monthly 20th, 50th, Average and 80th Percent Exceedance Flows, Grant Lake Outlet Gaging Station .................................................................. 27 Table 2. Synthesized Monthly 20th' 50 1h, Average and 80th Percent Exceedance Flows, Lake Elva Outlet Gaging Station .................................................................... 29 Table 3. Mean Monthly Reservoir Inflows in cfs for Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2 .................................................................................................... 30 Table 4. Mean Monthly Reservoir Inflows in cfs for Lake Elva Project Alternatives E- 1 and E-2 ......................................................................................................... 31 Table 5. Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Energy Production for Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2 and Current NETC Monthly Demand in kWh ...... 34 Table 6. Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Energy Production for Lake Elva Project Alternatives E-1 and E-2 and Current NETC Monthly Demand in kWh ....... 36 Table 7. Annual Energy Production by DAHP Alternatives in kWh for Wet, Dry, Median and Average Years ............................................................................. 38 Table 8. Estimated Grant Lake Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction Costs {in $2013) .............................................................................................. 39 Table 9. Estimated Lake Elva Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction Costs (in $2013) .............................................................................................. 40 Table I 0. Estimated Grant Lake Project Alternative Transmission System Pre- Contingency Construction Costs {in $2013) ................................................... 41 Table 11. Estimated Lake Elva Project Alternative Transmission System Pre- Contingency Construction Costs (in $2013) ................................................... 41 Table 12. Total Estimated Capital Costs for Project Alternatives .................................. 42 Table 13. Annual O&M Costs for Grant Lake Alternative G-1 ..................................... 43 Table 14. Annual O&M Costs for Lake Elva and Grant Lake Alternatives ................... 43 Table 15. Grant Lake Project Annual Diesel Avoidance and Project Benefits at start-up . ......................................................................................................................... 45 Table 16. Lake Elva Project Diesel Avoidance and Annual Project Benefits at 2018 start-up ............................................................................................................ 46 Table 17. B/C Ratios for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives ..................... 47 Table 18. Long-term Debt Service on Capital for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 48 v DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 19. Estimated Cost ofEnergy per kWh at 2018 Startup ....................................... 49 Table 20. Alternatives G-1 & G-2. Sensitivity Analysis of Selected Project Parameters . ......................................................................................................................... 51 Table 21. Alternative I & E-2. Sensitivity Analysis of Selected Project Parameters. 51 vi DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative (NETC) holds a Preliminary Permit (PP) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to study the feasibility of the Dillingham Area Hydroelectric Project (DAHP, FERC No. 14356). The DAHP, or "Project", consists of the Grant Lake and Lake Elva Hydroelectric Projects, described in more detail in the following report. Both Projects are within the boundaries ofWood- Tikchik State Park (WTSP) which is administered by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR). The Grant Lake Project would be located approximately 52 miles N of Dillingham, Alaska (Figure ES-1 ). The waters of Grant Lake flow through a smaller outlet lake, referred to as Little Grant Lake, before flowing as Grant River. Grant River flows 7.5 miles before entering Lake Kulik at Stream Mile (SM) 0 of the stream. The Lake Elva Project would be located approximately 45 miles NNW of Dillingham (Figure ES-1 ). Elva Creek flows from Lake Elva at SM 3.5 before its confluence with Lake Nerka (SM 0). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Study results indicated that both of the Grant Lake Project Alternatives analyzed would be economically feasible (Benefit/Cost Ratio > 1.0), under the economic conditions analyzed. The Lake Elva Project, however, would not be economically feasible (Benefit/Cost Ratio <1) under any of the base conditions analyzed Sensitivity testing indicated that the Grant Lake Project would remain economically feasible over a broad range of values for input variables such as capital cost, discount rate, economic analysis period and load growth. The Lake Elva Project, using the same sensitivity test, would be economically unfeasible under most values of the input variables tested. ES-1 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS At the currently-accepted NETC load growth forecast, Lake Elva Project energy might be needed after approximately 20 years. This forecast greatly reduces the current need to proceed with licensing for the Lake Elva Project. Results of this analysis, then, rather strongly suggest that FERC licensing proceed for the Grant Lake Project only at this time. This study examined more environmental factors than have earlier studies. Environmental issues such as instream flow requirements and Project consistency with management objectives of WTSP might have significant etlects on overall Project feasibility. BACKGROUND Several earlier studies have addressed feasibility of the Lake Elva Project with lesser emphasis on the Grant Lake Project. In 2009, EES Engineering conducted a reconnaissance-level study based on existing data. That report concluded that the Grant Lake Project would be economically feasible while the Lake Elva Project would not. Hydrologic and fisheries data and information that have been obtained recently have allowed the present report to evaluate both Projects under better-defined resource conditions. Continuous streamflow and fisheries data from both Grant River and Elva Creek allowed better inflow estimates on which to base installed capacity and to predict operations in terms of reservoir elevations and downstream releases. Fisheries information supported powerhouse locations at both Projects. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT In 2012, Civil Science Infrastructure (CSI) was tasked with conducting a new feasibility study incorporating new fisheries, hydrology and topographic information. CSI developed several alternative project configurations (dam heights, positions and materials) and operations (run of the river and storage). In addition, CSI evaluated various construction access alternatives such as access routes (summer, winter and watercraft), materials airlift (helicopter and fixed-wing), power conduit types (penstocks or tunnels) and intake locations. ES-2 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Initial analysis led to elimination of certain alternatives, including: • Aircraft Access, based primarily on expense, but also on travel limitations due to weather and environmental impacts (noise and visual aesthetics); • Run of the River configuration and operations, based on optimal utilization of inflow resources; and • Power Conduit Tunnels, based on their lengthy construction periods, expense, and risks for leakage and schedule delays. • Ice road access for construction of generation facilities, based on shortened construction seasons, increased time of construction and greatly increased risk for delays and cost overruns because of weather. After elimination of these factors, two separate generation alternatives for each Project were developed, characterized by: 1) storage operations; 2) buried penstocks; 3) overland (Grant Lake) or over-water (Lake Elva) construction access (as opposed to use of fixed- wing or helicopter aircraft); and 4) different dam locations, heights, and materials. GENERATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED Access for construction of Generation Alternatives for the Grant Lake Project would be via a surface roadway constructed along the Glacial Moraine just inside WTSP. The following Generation Alternatives were carried forward for more detailed analysis: Grant Lake Project Grant Lake, Alternative G-1, Little Grant Lake Rockfill Dam with Powerhouse at SM 3. 7 (Figure ES-1) In detail, this alternative would consist of the following primary components: • A 24-foot high by 640-foot long rockfill dam with auxiliary spillway on the left bank located at SM 7.5 of Grant River, just below the outlet of Little Grant Lake; ES-3 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS • A 66-in diameter buried pipe penstock approximately 16,100 feet in total length; and • A 40-ft x 60-ft steel-frame powerhouse at SM 3. 7 at El 192 housing a 1.9 megawatt (MW) Francis turbine with associated controls and electro/mechanical equipment. Total net head for this configuration would be 304 feet. Grant Lake Alternative G-2, Concrete Dam at SM 6.5 with Powerhouse at SM 3. 7 (See Figure ES-1) The primary difference between this alternative and Alternative G-1 would be the position and structure of the dam, as described below: • A 60-foot high by 120-foot long concrete dam constructed at the top ofthe canyon at SM 6.7 of Grant River. • A 66-in diameter buried pipe penstock approximately 16, I 00 feet in total length; and • A 40-ft x 60-ft steel-frame powerhouse at SM 3.7 at El 192 housing a 1.9 megawatt (MW) Francis turbine with associated controls and electro/mechanical equipment. Total net head for this configuration would be 304 feet. Under both alternatives, the project would operate as a storage facility and may suspend operations during periods when reservoir storage is depleted. Such periods would usually occur in March and/or April of certain low-water years. Lake Elva Project Lake Elva Alternative E-1, "High Dam" (or "Downstream Dam") Alternative (Figure ES-1) In detail, this alternative would consist of the following primary components: • An approximately II 0 ft-high, 620 ft-long rock fill dam at Stream SM 1.6 on Elva Creek, 1.9 miles downstream from the outlet of Lake Elva (Figure ES-1 ). ES-4 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS • A48-inch diameter buried penstock, approximately 7,800-ft in length located on the left bank of Elva Creek. The penstock would be located within and along the access road used to construct the dam. The alignment of the penstock would generally parallel the course of the stream. • A 40-ft x 60-ft steel-frame powerhouse at El 66, just upstream of Lake Nerka on the left bank of lower Elva Creek at SM 0.2. The powerhouse would be situated to be just upstream of the comparatively limited anadromous habitat in Elva Creek that is located from the immediate vicinity of the lower stream gage and downstream in the stream. Lake Elva Alternative E-2, "Low Dam" (or "Lake Outlet Dam'') Alternative (See Figure ES-1) In detail, this alternative would consist of the following primary components: • A 38-ft high 362-ft long rock fill dam located at the outlet of Lake Elva. • A 48-inch diameter buried penstock and access road approximately 15,200 feet in length. The penstock would be located within the road corridor. The powerhouse would be the same construction and at the same location as for Alternative E-1. Both Project Alternatives would operate throughout the year with occasional shutdowns in late winter of certain low-flow years. TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES Additionally, CSI reviewed a report by Dryden and LaRue (D&L 2012) which evaluated several potential transmission routes. CSI further analyzed the D&L transmission and access routes and developed the following alternatives: Park Boundary Alternative This route of this alternative traveled east from the Lake Elva and Grant Lake generating facilities to the east boundary ofWTSP, where it traveled north to south outside the park ES-5 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS to the existing transmission system at Aleknagik (Figure ES-2). The Park Boundary Alternative is the recommended alternative from the D&L report. Glacial Moraine Alternative This Alternative's route followed higher elevations and more stable subsurface material near the terminus of a large glacial moraine, with much of the route inside WTSP (See Figure ES-2). The Glacial Moraine Route was shown in earlier regional energy studies (Retherford, 1980). This route was favored over the Park Boundary route which followed lower-gradient, extensively muskeg ground with greater length outside WTSP. To address environmental concerns, this route could be designed as a temporary feature with revegetation of the route following the end of construction. In both Transmission Alternatives, the construction access road for the generation facilities would be a temporary feature, visible during construction but allowed to revegetate afterwards with the objective of limited scenic resources impacts inside the Park ESTIMATED ENERGY PRODUCTION AND COSTS Installed Capacity and Generation Operations modeling suggested 1.9 MW installed capacity for Grant Lake Alternative and 1.0 MW for Lake Elva Project Alternatives (Table ES-1 ). Annual energy output from either Grant Lake Alternative would be approximately 15 gigawatt hours (GWh) in an average year, equivalent to over 1 million gallons of diesel-based energy at current NETC plant efficiency. Annual energy output from either Lake Elva Alternative would be approximately 7 GWh in an average year, equivalent to approximately 0.5 million gallons of diesel-electric energy at current NETC plant efficiency. ES-6 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table ES-1. Estimated Installed Capacity, Annual Energy Generation and Annual Diesel A voidance for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Alternatives. Project and Alternative Grant Lake Alt. G-1 Grant Lake Alt. G-2 Lake Elva Alt. E-1 Lake Elva Alt. E-2 Estimated Installed ~~p-~ity (MW) 1.90 1.95 1.0 1.0 14.3 14.7 7.4 6.9 Annual Dies~l' Avoidance:· ·····(Millions~f' Gallons) 0.97 1.00 0.50 0.47 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND VALUES Economic analyses of the Lake Elva Project envisioned that it would be developed as a supplement to the Grant Lake Project. Under this concept, Lake Elva costs would be reduced for such components as mobilization, access road and transmission line construction and labor utilization. Benefit/Cost Ratios for Project Alternatives Project economics were calculated using a spreadsheet operations model based on the following parameters and values: Finance Rate/Discount Rate: Construction Finance Period: Project Finance Period Economic Analysis Period: Current Diesel Fuel Price (2013): Annual Fuel-oil Price Escalation Rate: Fuel Price@ 2018 startup: Annual Escalation in Non-fuel-oil items: NETC Annual Load Growth: Estimated Startup Year: ES-7 5.0% 3 years 30 years 40 years $3.42/gal. 3.0% $3.96 1.5% 0.5% 2018 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Estimated total capital costs (construction and short-term finance) for the Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives, based on 2013 dollars ($2013) with a 2015-16 construction bid date are shown in (Table ES-2). There was very little difference between the B/C ratios tor each Project's two Alternatives given the differences in proposed dam locations and types. Table ES-2. 8/C Ratios for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives. Alternative G-1 G-2 E-1* E-2* Total Net Project $89,848,579 $92,398,729 $42,882,929 $41 '903 ,280 Benefits Total Capital $65,492,396 $68,683,832 $57,843,560 $51,305,451 Costs 8/C 1.37 1.35 0.74 0.82 Alternative G-1 used in this analysis. Results are similar using Alternative G-2. *Supplemental to the Grant Lake Pn?ject Projected Energy Costs of Generation Alternatives The Grant Lake project was estimated to reduce 2018 electric rates that are approximately the same as the projected 100% diesel-electric generation scenario at a 2018 startup (Table ES-3). The addition of the Lake Elva project increased rates over a 100% diesel-electric generation scenario by a significant amount (Table ES-3) for a startup concurrent with the Grant Lake project. The cost increase for initial inclusion of the Lake Elva Project Alternatives was due in large part to the lack ofNETC load projected tor the time of Project start-up (20 18). This situation would create a large annual debt service without compensating generation revenue for several years into the licensing period. ES-8 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBiliTY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table ES-3. Projected Cost of Energy in $/kWh from NETC Generation Alternatives at 2018 startup. DAHP DAHP All Diesel Generation Alternative G-1 G-2 (Current G-1 & E-1 G-1 & E-2 Condition) Projected $0.4475 $0.4522 $0.5811 * $0.5580* $0.4412 Rate Surplus Capacrty exrsts at a 2018 startup wtth 0.5% annual load growth. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES In the following sections, preferred alternatives are in bold type face on first reference. Grant Lake Generation Facilities The Grant Lake Project Alternative G-1, the low dam located at Little Grant Lake, was slightly less expensive to construct than Alternative G-2, which had essentially the same energy generation and overall B/C ratio. Final selection of a preferred alternative will require detailed surface and sub-surface geologic and geotechnical information. At the time of this analysis, there are few decision factors on which to base confirmed selection of one over the other Grant Lake Project Alternative. Both Grant Lake Alternatives had the potential for environmental effects on project feasibility. Instream flow releases and prescribed lake levels will be important factors potentially reducing generation and overall feasibility. Both alternatives remained economically feasible after application of a year-round instream flow requirement equal to 17 percent of mean annual flow, but higher base flow requirements or differing flow requirements during different seasons could have greater effects on feasibility. Construction timing constraints to avoid wildlife disturbance could affect overall schedule and budget. Costs of environmental studies and mitigation measures may reduce B/C ratios. ES-9 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Transmission and Access The Glacial Moraine Transmission Alternative was preferred because it was significantly shorter in length, less expensive and otTers better construction conditions than the Park Boundary Alternative. The moraine landform this route follows offers higher, more stable roadbed conditions than the extensive muskegs found to the east at the park's boundary. This transmission route for the Grant Lake Project was shown in energy studies (Retherford, 1979, 1980) under discussion at the time of the creation of WTSP. Consistency of this alternative with WTSP policies regarding such features within the Park will be a major factor in determining its feasibility. Lake Elva Generation Facilities The Lake Elva Project Alternative E-1, the downstream, higher dam alternative, while more expensive to construct than Alternative E-1, had significantly greater energy production with less potential for spill and late winter shutdown. As with the Grant Lake Alternatives, final selection of a Lake Elva Project alternative will depend on surface and subsurface information. Environmental constraints on either Lake Elva Alternative are expected to be less influential than those for the Grant Lake Project, but may still have significant effect on project feasibility. Transmission and Access The Lake Elva Overland Transmission Alternative as opposed to submarine transmission alternative was significantly cheaper and had fewer unknowns relative to Lake Nerka lake bottom configuration. Visual effects of the overland route should be the subject of consultation with WTSP to determine consistency with Park visual resources policies. Staged Development Development of both Projects simultaneously would result in a substantial increase in energy costs in the NETC service area. This cost increase for initial inclusion of either of the Lake Elva Project Alternatives would be largely due to lack ofNETC load at the time ES-10 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS of project start-up. This situation would create a large annual debt service without compensating revenue from energy sales for several years into the licensing period. Under the current analysis, the Lake Elva Project would be feasible only if it were brought on line at the time that NETC load was fully met by the combined Grant Lake- Lake Elva projects. . This would require that Lake Elva Project licensing would begin no less than about 7 years prior to expected need. During future licensing steps, NETC will decide which Project or Projects to carry forward to the license application stage. It is likely that licensing will involve only the Grant Lake Project. PROJECT SUMMARY DATA The analyses described above resulted in the summary data presented in Tables AI-l and AI-2 in Appendix I for the Grant Lake and Lake Elva Projects respectively. These data are based on conceptual-level designs and are likely to change during the design development process. ES-11 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS i ~ I. .. . ~ --... ;I ~~· tl .,.~ lit ..,. 1111 t: > r-0 c: -~ ~ 0 I ~ 1'1 ~ -> -;II: ~I ~ ~ E ~---- i i i ~ ~1 l1 ~ ~ : .. ~ ;:::~ ;~ ~~Il L.... ::.1 ~ g .. :;: I~ I ~ 2 ~ ~ :?, ~ :::: • l:tr N ~ -: ..,_." ~. ~ ~ ' .., •• I 0 c ~ I. ~ .J Sx ~i 1!~! SCALE HOR.: 1"=4MI. VERT.: 1" = 4 MI. -o Figure ES-1. Project Location Map ~ ..,o• Jt. ';,i ----·---~,_-~. ·.~f ~s: : I I -'", '-·f' -LA~<~ ELYA lw o o D :::-~ -o :r I K r:.H i K .,. LAKE ELVA PROJECT GENERATION FACILITIES ~-;..~ e ,;./t ,, ;.:. FIGURE ES-1 . PROJECT LOCATION MAP ES-12 SlATE P .\ R K GRANT LAKE PROJECT GENERATION FACILITIES CML .-----, c.:..;.,;;:-SCIENCE ILAiWII;tWI&& IW ·-· ·--••• UCTU-, INC. DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS ~ .. . -_.a -j ~ 'jp~~- ~ '). ... ~ ... tl I -~ 6 • :II> Ia "!"! I"' 0 I ~ ~ ;I ~- 1 (II ... , ~ ~ !I ~1 ~ ~ ; .... ::1 • :!l ~ ~ ~ s~ ~~~·- 't. ~, ... ,_d r \ IF' , til ':. :v-·~ ~ :.. "' 14'1. ak Cll"~tv-1: 1"••WLES SCALE HOR.: 1" = 4 MI. VERT.: 1" = 4 MI. >'l '() 'II II- ') \ .... .. .,. ---~-----... _-· 'll STATE PA;RK SUBMARINE . ··~~ TRANSMISSION SEGMENT FIGURE ES-2 DAHP ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION AND ACCESS ROUTES CML __ .. ---, ~SCIENCE IUFRXITRUCT\JREO INC . Figure ES-2. DAHP Alternative Transmission and Access Routes ES-13 DRAFT DAHP CONCEP TUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS l INTRODUCTION Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative (NETC) holds a Preliminary Permit (PP) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to study the feasibility of the Dillingham Area Hydroelectric Project (DAHP, FERC No. 14356). The DAHP, or "Project", consists ofthe Grant Lake and Lake Elva Hydroelectric Projects, described in more detail in the following sections. Both Projects are within the boundaries of Wood Tikchik State Park (WTSP) which is administered by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR). DAHP project generation and transmission features are shown in Figure 1. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to determine whether the Project, evaluated in terms of engineering, environmental/regulatory and economics factors, would be feasible to construct and operate. A primary factor would be the Project's ability to replace the expensive and volatile- cost diesel generation on which NETC is wholly dependent at this time. The study would employ newly available data for hydrology, fisheries, and land surface and lake bathymetric mapping to supplement previous studies. PROJECT HISTORY and OTHER INFORMATION Study History The Grant Lake and Lake Elva projects have been studied as potential energy sites for over half a century. Several reconnaissance-level studies have resulted in design proposals for generating and transmission facilities for both projects. The emphasis of earlier studies was on the Lake Elva Project, shifting recently to the Grant Lake project. In legislation that created WTSP, the Grant Lake and Lake Elva projects were deemed consistent with the park's purposes. 1 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS t -~ 1 ~ 0 0 ·~ 1-~q ~ 0 ('J'J • r I I t-(J) ' ~~ ()W • '1.s; w-J.,. )' ...., ..... I 0::! 0::() Q.<( ~~ ~a W-~~ ::Sw z w (!) ..,. ... ~ fO> Q ~ .... -. 00 D.. <( ::.::! ~ z 0 ~ () 0 '"· ..J ..,_ () w ...., 0 0:: D.. . 'r' w a:: N ::::> (!) u: ,.,; ,. le ·. ~~ ~J • ~· • ~ I ,· .b ~TO G I AK Ill :lMO'dVICI/Ollv:lO,-lO -:l-l0-00'06ll1•J-.~jl•! lJJHS\O•tJ -00<\•Gf\lS A!niBIM:f 1'0&1 <»>OAH Vltfo/I'Mi:lNn110 -00'06lll •~\ll0~ J~t l:l~\51:JJf'Occ\.v·~!i'f1t'\ 1 !Hl'ld l'ld ~~'9''' rlo~/~l /9 )1:.4 :wuOld l'ld zo:a:z I:LOZ/O l /9 ~~ :.1.11 0311'VS NETC Study Involvement NETC began work on the DAHP in 2008 after a declaration of non-jurisdictionality was issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Later, NETC elected to proceed under FERC jurisdiction to provide a structured licensing pathway and more formal consultation with Stakeholders. During the early licensing phases, NETC retained EES Engineering of Kirkland, Washington to prepare a preliminary feasibility report (EES, 2009). The EES study provided conceptual-level analysis of the DAHP under both run-of-the-river and storage alternatives. The study's conclusion was that the Grant Lake project would be feasible under both alternatives while neither Lake Elva alternative would be feasible if developed on its own. In 2012, NETC retained Civil Science Infrastructure (CSI) to conduct a second feasibility study in which newly-acquired hydrologic and fisheries data could be used to improve the information base for the assessment. In this second study, CSI was tasked with evaluating specific generation facility designs and new transmission and access routes. Hydrologic and Environmental Studies In the EES report, no allowance was made for instream flow releases, minimum or maximum reservoir elevation restrictions, or other environmental factors shown to have significant effects on the feasibility of other hydro projects in Alaska. Further, the hydrologic data used in the EES study were based on a rather short period of record from earlier studies. Newer and more extensive stream gage data were available for the current assessment. Similarly, the EES report did not have the benefit of fisheries study results to support project design. In this report, detailed salmon spawning information was available to help determine such features as powerhouse locations. Finally, NETC obtained LIDAR imagery for the Project areas to more precisely determine elevations, distances, areas and lake volumes relative to those used in earlier studies. Transmission Alternative Evaluations The EES study included a reconnaissance-level analysis of several transmission route alternatives conducted by Dryden and LaRue (D&L ). Among these alternatives was an underwater route beneath the north arm of Lake Nerka. In 2012, NETC retained D&L to evaluate a smaller set of alternative routes for both the Grant Lake and Lake Elva Projects (D&L, 3 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 2012). In this report, we have incorporated results from D&L (2012) and have developed new routing alternatives based on the D&L results and more recent analyses. The D&L report is included in this report in Appendix II. WORKSCOPE and METHODS The following section describes steps taken by CSI to conduct the feasibility analysis. Tasks are those listed in the CSI contract with NETC with some modifications to facilitate report organization. TASK 1. REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION Previous studies were reviewed to summarize findings on construction alternatives and energy generation estimates. Also reviewed were economic assumptions and historical hydrologic data. Geologic reports for both the Project areas and the surrounding region were reviewed. TASK 2. SITE VISITS and EVALUATION Project team members visited the Project sites to perform resource studies and to evaluate availability of construction materials and soil conditions. TASK 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN of ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS The conceptual design process proceeded in two steps: 1) development of a preliminary list of both generation and transmission alternatives based on earlier studies and data collected in 2011 and 2012; and 2) elimination of certain alternatives through more detailed economic evaluation and Benefit/Cost analysis. As a starting point, the project team focused on alternatives identified in EES (2008) and earlier literature. Conceptual plan and profile drawings of several alternatives were drafted, using available topographic data and LIDAR imagery collected in 2012. The alternative project features and processes included the following: 4 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Dam Height and Location Alternatives For both the Lake Elva and Grant Lake Projects, two different dam locations and construction types (rockfill and concrete) were evaluated. For each Project, one dam option reflected low cost considerations and the other reflected optimum storage given topographic restraints. Run-of-The-River vs. Storage Alternatives The Grant Lake and Lake Elva Projects were evaluated as both run-of-the-river and storage projects. This was a general evaluation of the alternatives' ability to meet NETC loads to the greatest extent possible given inflow available for hydroelectric generation. Tunnel vs. Penstock Design Alternatives For the storage alternatives for both projects, we evaluated power conduits featuring both tunneling and penstock designs. Evaluations of these conduit alternatives were based on equipment and labor costs, risk of leakage, schedule and environmental considerations. Air vs. Land or Water Mobilization Alternatives Both fixed-wing and helicopter mobilization alternatives were evaluated against land and water access in terms of cost, environmental effects, and aircraft load capabilities. Transmission and Construction Access Road Routing Alternatives Two transmission alternatives and two access alternatives were developed for each project. To the extent possible, the access routes followed the transmission routes to take advantage of existing soil and topographic conditions. TASK 4. DETERMINE FEASIBILITY BASED on ELECTRICAL GENERATION and ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS Under this Task, CSI generally applied engineering and cost criteria to the broad array of alternatives to eliminate certain alternatives from further consideration. Then, for the remaining alternatives, CSI utilized a spreadsheet generation model to predict electrical generation based on updated hydrologic data. Detailed methods for hydrologic synthesis and the energy generation calculation processes are described in Appendix III. 5 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Also under this Task, CSI reviewed earlier geotechnical results as well as surface and sub- surface observations from recent field visits to determine reconnaissance-level feasibility of constructability at the various dam locations. The first step in developing the generation analysis was collection and analysis ofhydrologic data followed by use of the spreadsheet model to predict generation, as described in the following: Hydrologic Data Collection and Analysis Hydrologic Data Collection Hydrologic data were obtained from four separate sources including existing USGS gage records and project-specific data collected by CSI during 2011 and 2012. These sources were: 1. Short-term data from USGS gages installed at the outlets of both Lake Elva and Grant Lake ("USGS Elva-USGS Grant"). USGS Grant was active from July 1959 through June, 1965. USGS Elva was active between October 1979 through June, 1982; 2. Short-term data, collected by CSI in 2011 and 2012 at the same locations as the above- described USGS sites ("CSI Elva, CSI Grant"); and Long-term data collected by USGS on the Nuyakuk River ("USGS Nuyakuk") which was used as the basis for synthesizing long-term streamflow forecasts for the outlets of Lake Elva and Grant Lake. The USGS Nuyakuk gage was active from March, 1953 through September, 1996, and from July 2002 through September, 2004. The Nuyakuk River gage was re-established in July 2007 and has remained in operation since that date. Hydrologic Data Analysis and Synthesis To develop the long-term synthesized data set, CSI correlated data from the USGS Elva-Grant sites and the CSI Elva-Grant sites with the corresponding data from the USGS Nuyakuk site. Relationships from these comparisons were used to create long-term streamflow forecasts for both the Lake Elva and Grant Lake outlet locations which were used as input to the operations and generation model. 6 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS To evaluate the synthesized Grant-Elva data, CSI compared the short term data sets with the respective USGS Nuyakuk data to determine whether the short-term data had been collected during wet, dry or average years, and to adjust the forecast data accordingly. Also, the synthesized Elva-Grant data sets were compared to the USGS Nuyakuk data to see whether long-term trends from the measured data were in accord with those trends in the forecast data. Energy Calculations Using the spreadsheet model, energy generation was calculated for alternative Project configurations vs. monthly NETC loads. The model was also used to predict monthly reservoir levels Reservoir levels were predicted relative to upper (reservoir at spill elevation) and lower (bottom of active storage zone) limits. Project energy was calculated using the standard "water to wire" formula. Generation losses were estimated using manufacturer-provided efficiency values. Transmission losses were estimated at 4.5% of generator output per consultation with D&L. Reservoir storage and energy generation formulae are presented in Appendix III. To simulate effects of a possible instream release requirement, a year-round release equal to 17 percent of mean annual t1ow was input to the model for both Projects. Since no detailed instream t1ow requirements were available at this stage of project development, we used the proposed quantity from the "Tenant Method" (Tenant 1975). In this study, salmonid flow needs in mountain streams were found to be accommodated by 1 7 percent of mean annual flow. Modifications of the Tenant method have been used in Alaska to make reconnaissance level claims for instream flow needs. Energy generation results reflected the 17 percent of mean annual flow instream release requirement. TASK 5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Economic analyses were conducted to predict two primary values for each Project Alternative: 1) Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio; and 2) cost of electricity per kilowatt hour to NETC consumers. In this section we describe the calculation processes for these values. 7 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 8/C Ratio Calculation The B/C ratio in this analysis was defined as the Project's total net benefits (B) divided by its capital cost (C). The Project was assumed to be financed over a 30-year period. Annual revenues from diesel avoidance benefits were discounted over a 40-year period (to reflect the expected service life of the Project) to present-day values using a 5% discount rate. Cost Calculation The Project's capital cost, C, was the sum the Project construction cost, including a 25% contingency and the short-term finance costs, necessary to fund the Project's construction without impact or with minimal impact on rates before the project comes online. C was annualized over the finance period and rate to calculate the Project's annual debt service cost for estimation of the projected cost of energy to NETC consumers. All Capital costs are in 2013 dollars ($2013) for a 2015116 bid and operations to start-up in 2018. Construction Costs Construction costs were estimated for total quantities of the principal infrastructure components, based on communications with specialty contractors, suppliers, logistics experts and manufactures. Local businesses were contacted for lodging, transportation and aviation service cost estimates. Costs for major infrastructure components, e.g., turbine, generator, transformers, penstock, etc., were obtained through consultation with suppliers to estimate material and shipping costs. Equipment and labor requirements were estimated based on logistics and seasonal access constraints. The cost estimate also included construction management, testing and certification and environmental monitoring during construction. Transmission line and access road costs were calculated from estimates in D&L (20 12). D&L unit costs were preserved but quantities were adjusted to match the lengths of new transmission line alignments developed by CSI. Icc road costs that were included in D&L estimates were eliminated from the D&L costs where the transmission system would be constructed from the Project access road. All project alternatives were estimated to have a three year construction period, with the project coming on line in the third year. This schedule was used to estimate the drawdown of construction funds to calculate construction finance costs. Construction funding draws were 8 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS allocated at 25%, 50% and 25% of the total cost in the first, second and final years of construction. The short-term financing would allow NETC to make payments to construct the Project without an excessive burden on the ratepayers before the Project began producing energy. Detailed descriptions of financial formulae are presented in Appendix IV. Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs Operations costs included estimates for staffing, equipment, materials, supplies, transportation and administration/insurance. Maintenance costs included those for project intake, SCADA system, right of way, load controls, lines, roads and miscellaneous items. All O&M costs were estimated in $2013 and escalated to a 2018 startup. O&M Costs were escalated at 1.5% per year throughout the analysis period. Addition of the Lake Elva Project to the DAHP was assumed to add an additional 50% to O&M costs on a kWh basis. This reduction was assumed to come from economies of scale resulting from combined hydroelectric operations and that the Lake Elva Project's transmission line is approximately half the length of the Grant Lake transmission line. Contingency Estimated construction costs were based on conceptual-level engineering and associated uncertainties due to lack of detail in geotechnical, environmental, and regulatory information. To account for this uncertainty, a 25% contingency was included in the construction cost estimate. Inflation No allowance for inflation was used in the capital cost estimates because of the short period (2-3 years) before short-term financing took effect. Fuel oil and O&M costs were escalated at 3% and 1.5% per year, respectively. Benefits Calculation Benefits of the DAHP are derived from offsetting the costs of equivalent diesel generation since all electricity within the NETC service area is currently diesel generated. Annual Net Project Benefits (ANB) were calculated for each year of the 40-year analysis period as the Annual Benefits (A) from diesel avoidance less the Project's Annual O&M costs (0). In equation form: 9 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS ANB =A-0 Where: ANB Annual Net Benefits; A Annual Project Benefits; and 0 Annual O&M Costs Annual Project benefits equaled the avoided costs of the diesel fuel required to produce the projected annual energy sales from a given Project Alternative. Fuel costs included the costs of purchase, shipping, delivery and storage of the volume of diesel fuel required to produce the average annual energy generated by a given Project Alternative. The avoided diesel volume was determined using NETC's current plant efficiency of 14.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per gallon of diesel fuel consumed. Annual benefits in dollars were then calculated using the price per-gallon (PPG) of diesel fuel at the NETC plant injectors multiplied by the number of gallons of avoided diesel consumption, as shown in the following equation: A= (E/14.8) x PPG Where: A = Annual Project Benefits, $ E = Average Estimated Annual Project Energy Sales in kWh; PPG =Price per Gallon of diesel delivered to NETC plant injectors. Annual Net Benefits (ANB) were calculated by subtracting annual O&M from the annual benefits for each year of the analysis period. Each ANB in the 40-year analysis period series was then discounted at an annual rate of 5% from the year it occurred to its present value. Total benefits, B, were the sum of the discounted ANB series over the 40-year analysis period. Cost of Energy to the Consumer The cost of energy to the consumer was the cost per kWh of hydroelectric energy plus the cost per kWh of supplemental diesel-generated energy for each Alternative. Hydroelectric energy 10 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS costs were the sum of annual costs for long-term debt service, O&M, distribution, and general and administrative costs divided by the projected annual hydroelectric energy sales in kWh. For cases where annual hydroelectric capacity exceeded annual demand, the diesel-electric production was assumed to be 2% of the annual sales to cover peak loads. Hydroelectric energy costs were the sum of annual costs for long-term debt service, O&M, distribution, and general and administrative costs divided by the annual hydroelectric energy production in kWh. Annual long-term debt service was calculated as the equivalent ordinary annuity payment for the Project's capital cost divided by the Project's projected energy sales. The supplemental diesel generation cost for the hydro-diesel generation scenario was the sum of diesel fuel costs, as described above, divided by the annual supplemental diesel generation in kWh. All cost components, except estimates for hydroelectric debt service and O&M, were from NETC's most recent accounting of their annual costs. These costs from NETC were escalated at 1.5% annually. Energy costs for the l 00% diesel generation scenario (for comparisons with costs perk Wh under the hydro-diesel scenario) were calculated in the same manner as was used for supplemental diesel-electric energy. In this case, fuel storage costs were apportioned over the entire annual energy sales rather than only the portion of the total load met by supplemental diesel generation that would exist with hydroelectric generation in place. For this analysis, the long-term interest rate was set at 5% and the finance term was 30 years. The Project was assumed to be online in 2018 with annual NETC load growth set at 0.5%. As with the B/C calculations, annual diesel costs were escalated at 3.0% and all non-fuel costs were escalated at 1.5% per year. Sensitivity Analysis CSI evaluated the sensitivity of the Alternatives' B/C ratio to such variables as capital cost, interest rates, annual fuel cost escalation, Annual O&M costs, economic analysis period and load growth. These sensitivity analyses were projected over the 40-year economic analysis period to depict a conservative estimate of the Project's useful service life. All variables were kept at their base rate and the selected parameter was varied to see its effect on the alternative's B/C ratio. 11 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS RESULTS TASK 1. REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION Studies of the Lake Elva project resulted in a recommendation by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) [now Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)] leading to reconnaissance work by Retherford and Associates (Retherford 1980) and a detailed feasibility study by R. W. Beck ( 1981 ). The Grant Lake project has been mentioned in energy planning documents (UAF, 1976., US Dept. of Energy, 1979) but interest in the Grant Lake project was lower than that in the Lake Elva project until recently. Stream discharge data were collected at sites relative to both projects by the US Geological Survey (USGS). Geological information relating to topography was gathered and organized, along with stratigraphy, geologic structures and seismicity via publications and teleconference communications with the Alaska Geological Society, the USGS, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geology Department. Topographic information was obtained via LIDAR data acquired specifically for this project. TASK 2. SITE VISIT and EVALUATION American Geotechnics of Boise, Idaho, performed a geological site reconnaissance at both Project sites in early July, 2012, to assess ground conditions relative to various Project features. These surveys did not include subsurface investigations, but rather sought to: 1) generally evaluate suitability of foundation and abutment conditions for major project features, including dams, penstocks and powerhouses; 2) locate potential borrow sources for aggregates, blast rock, and clay or silt materials; and 3) assess geologic benefits or constraints that would affect the design and construction of the project. The geotechnical report is included as Appendix V. TASK 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN of ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration Air Mobilization Air mobilization was deemed technically infeasible for either project for the following reasons: 12 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS • Aircraft load capacity would not be sufficient to transport large earth moving equipment like scrapers, large dozers, off-highway trucks and heavy compaction equipment; • The disturbance caused by multiple large aircraft flights through WTSP would be far greater than that from lake barge operations on Lake Nerka or road access to Grant Lake; and • Weather and air traffic could jeopardize delivery schedules, often by days or weeks. Run of the River Operations Run ofthe river operations were eliminated from further consideration on both Projects because energy generation would be significantly less than that produced using the advantages of reservoir storage and release schedules. Energy generation resulting from even optimal storage operation barely exceeded NETC load requirements. Further losses due to run of the river operation would bring the Projects below acceptable ability to meet area loads. Lake Nerka Project Submarine Transmission Alternative The submarine transmission alternative (beneath the North Arm of Lake Nerka) was eliminated from the Lake Elva Project on the basis of cost. Estimates for this transmission route in D&L (2012) were nearly fifty million dollars, sufficient to eliminate this alternative from further consideration. Lake Elva Tunnel A tunnel was considered as an option for the power conduit at the Lake Elva project. The tunnel was initially attractive due to its low visual impacts and very long service life. The tunnel was deemed unfeasible, however, due to lengthy construction periods resulting from low production rates. The expected soft subsurface material added to the uncertainty of conditions which might cause leakage and loss of generating efficiency. Even with extensive exploratory drilling, the uncertainty of subsurface rock conditions would be a major factor reducing certainty of success of the tunnel option. Grant Lake Canal The Grant Lake canal, generally following the route of an ancient glacial-fed river channel at the northwest comer of Grant Lake, was envisioned as component of the power conduit in earlier 13 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS studies. It was eliminated from further consideration in this study because 1) an open channel would be inoperable during winter and thus unsuited to storage project operations; 2) the canal would require extensive excavation which would greatly increase construction costs, and, 3) the canal's alignment would traverse the terminal moraine at the northwest side of Grant Lake where significant losses of water for power production could be reasonably expected due to leakage from the canal into the porous moraine deposits. Ice Road Access for Construction of Generation Facilities The use of an ice road was eliminated from consideration for access to construct the generation facilities at Grant Lake. An ice road would greatly increase the risk of costly delays and would not provide sufficient capacity for transporting heavy generation and construction materials and equipment. Generation Alternatives Analyzed After preliminary evaluation of numerous alternative project configurations, including dam type and location, power conduit material and alignment, powerhouse locations and transmission line and access road routing, the following alternatives for both the Lake Elva and Grant Lake projects were further analyzed. In the following project descriptions, elevations are denoted using "El" as the height above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD 88), as in "El 255" or "El458". Stream bank locations were as seen looking downstream. Locations on Grant River are noted in Stream Miles (SM) upstream from the confluence of Grant River with Lake Kulik. SM on Elva Creek are in miles upstream from Elva Creek's confluence with Lake Nerka. Grant Lake Project Generation Alternatives Grant Lake Alternatives were developed based on differences in two primary project features: 1. Dam Location and Type; and 2. Transmission Line and Access Road Routing. Dam Location and Tvpe Alternatives The two Grant Lake Alternatives would differ only in terms of dam size and location. The project under both alternatives would operate as a storage project with operations occurring 14 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS throughout the year with occasional shutdowns, usually in March and/or April of certain low water years, when operations would exhaust reservoir storage before spring runoff. Alternative G-1. Little Grant Lake Rockfill Dam with Powerhouse at SM 3. 7 Alternative G-1 would consist of a 24-foot high rock fill dam at the outlet of Little Grant Lake (Figure 2) at Grant River SM 7.5. The penstock would run to a powerhouse at SM 3.7, at El 192 feet. Total gross head of this configuration would be 316 feet. In detail, this alternative would consist of the following primary components: A 24-foot high rockfill dam with impervious membrane liner and auxiliary spillway to pass peak flood events. The dam would be located at SM 7.5 of Grant River, at a location just below the outlet of Little Grant Lake. The dam would have a crest at El 514 and would be approximately 636 feet long. The dam would impound Grant Lake to a maximum elevation of 508 feet (20 feet impoundment) and provide 44,000 acre feet of active storage. The dam would increase Grant Lake's surface area to 2,558 acres at 508, an increase of 645 acres over the Grant and Little Grant Lake's existing combined surface area. • A gated outlet works, controlled to provide instream flow release to upper Grant River or drain the reservoir if needed. • A submerged intake in the northwest comer of Grant Lake. The intake would be situated at a depth sufficient to minimize the probability of entraining floating debris and/or ice/slush at the low pool levels experienced during late winter and early spring. • A 66-in diameter buried pipe penstock approximately 16,100 feet in total length. The penstock would follow the alignment of the ancient glacial-fed river channel from the northwest comer of Grant Lake. From near the old channel's confluence with Grant River, the penstock would continue further downstream along the right bank of Grant River, generally approaching the stream until terminating at the powerhouse at SM 3.7. • A 40-ft x 60-ft steel-frame powerhouse with reinforced concrete foundation and tailrace which would house the turbine/generator unit(s) and all associated mechanical and electrical equipment located on the right bank of Grant River at SM 3. 7. A reinforced concrete tailrace structure would control tailwater levels with a riprap-lined transition 15 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS channel providing for the water's re-entrance to Grant River. Total net head for this configuration would be 304 feet. Alternative G-2. Concrete Dam at SM 6. 7 with Powerhouse at SM 3. 7 Alternative G-2 would feature a concrete gravity dam located at SM 6.7 instead of the rockfill dam in Alternative 1 (Figure 2). This Alternative's powerhouse, power conduit, intake and transmission facilities would be identical to the respective components in Alternative G-1. The primary difference between this alternative and Alternative G-1 would be the position and structure of the dam, as described below: • A 60-foot high concrete dam would be constructed at the top of the canyon (SM 6.7) of Grant River. The dam would have a crest at El 508 with a length of 400 feet. It would impound approximately 47,000 acre feet of storage in Grant Lake. Surface area of the new reservoir would be 2,659 acres, an increase of 7 46 acres (about 1 square mile) over Grant Lake's existing surface area. • An integral spillway would convey peak flood events and a gated outlet works would be used to release flows to upper Grant River for instream flow maintenance. • A submerged intake in the northwest comer of Grant Lake. The intake would be situated at a depth sufficient to minimize the probability of entraining floating debris and/or ice/slush at the low pool levels experienced during late winter and early spring. • A 66-in diameter buried pipe penstock approximately 16,100 feet in total length. The penstock would follow the alignment of the ancient glacial-fed river channel from the northwest comer of Grant Lake. From near the old channel's confluence with Grant River, the penstock would continue further downstream along the right bank of Grant River, generally approaching the stream until terminating at the powerhouse at SM 3.7. • A 40-ft x 60-ft steel-frame powerhouse with reinforced concrete foundation and tailrace which would house the turbine/generator unit(s) and all associated mechanical and electrical equipment located on the right bank of Grant River at SM 3. 7. A reinforced concrete tailrace structure would control tailwater levels with a riprap-lined transition 16 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS channel providing for the water's re-entrance to Grant River. Total net head for this configuration would be 304 feet. Under Alternative G-2, the project would operate as a storage facility and would suspend operations during March and/or April of certain low-water years, or when operations reduced the reservoir to below critical levels prior to spring runoff. Operations modeling has shown that, under Alternative G-2, these operations suspensions would be only slightly less frequent than they would under Alternative G-1. 17% of average annual flows at the dam site would be released to Grant River for instream flow maintenance. 17 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS " ~ a: 3 ~. ~·~~ z ~. . ~ r.> I 0 I ~ a, 0 0 ci "' ~ ~ if, ~ I 8 ~ ~ (fJ 5 ffi ~ ~ Q_ 0 5: ~ :r. ;::j ; ~ ~ ~ -" ~3 ~ a ~I "" 0 "" 0 .. g ~ ~ g 1:: a_/ ~ 0 a_ N g ~ a :t ::! ::: 0 ~ "' ::J '"' "' :1. Z <i ALTERNATIVE G-1/G-2 POWERHOUSE TAILRACE ELEV: 192± FT @ SM 3.7 ,~ ' 11 250' 500' 1 000' 0" 1" ,. = 41VVY ~! a .. "' :r ~ ~ it~ SCALE HOR.: 1• = 1000' VERT.: 1• = 1000' ALTERNATIVE G-1/G-2 GRANT LAKE n , .. ~ .. ,: EXISTING WSE: 488 FT PROPOSED WSE: 508 FT • ·k li '"'W?..fr. 41nr:~~~~·~ • , ... -,•L•.---.~....._ 'if •. J..~ ~~ -~ FIGURE 2. ALTERNATIVES G-1 & G-2 PROJECT FEATURES & CONFIGURATION 18 CML .....------, c.:,.:..;;:gCIENCE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. Lake Elva Project Generation Alternatives After analysis of various Lake Elva Project generation features, two configurations were developed, the "High Dam" and "Low Dam" Alternatives, as described in the following: Alternative E-1: "High Dam" (or "Downstream Dam") Alternative Alternative E-1 was characterized by a relatively high rockfill dam located somewhat downstream of the Lake Elva outlet. This Alternative provided the greater storage of the two Alternatives by tapping inflow from greater watershed area in a significantly larger capacity reservou. Construction cost of the higher dam would be a factor in the Alternative's economic analysis. ln detail, this alternative would consist of the following primary components: • An approximately 110 ft-high rockfill dam with impervious core at SM 1.6 on Elva Creek, 1.9 miles downstream of the outlet of Lake Elva at SM 3.5 (Figure 3). The dam crest elevation would be at approximately El 380 and the dam's length would be approximately 620 feet. The dam would impound approximately 27,000 acre feet of active storage in the new Lake Elva reservoir. Surface area of the new reservoir would be 775 acres, an increase of 487 acres over the existing area of Lake Elva. • An auxiliary uncontrolled spillway, excavated in an old channel of Elva Creek to the left ofthe dam. • A 7,760-ft long, 48-inch diameter penstock located on the left bank of Elva Creek generally paralleling the path of the creek. • A 40-ft x 60-ft steel-frame powerhouse at El 66 housing the turbine/generator(s) and associated mechanical and electrical equipment, including switchgear and transformer, on the left bank of Elva Creek at SM 0.2. A reinforced concrete tailrace, integral with the powerhouse/turbine foundation, would reintroduce flows to the stream. Total net head for this alternative would be 297 feet. Access to the powerhouse, penstock and dam from the shore of Lake Elva would be via a road developed along the penstock route. 19 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Alternative E-2. "Low Dam" (or "Lake Outlet Dam") Alternative Under Alternative E-2, a lower rock fill dam would be located near the existing Lake Elva outlet. This Alternative would provide less storage than Alternative E-1, but the cost of dam construction would be significantly less. In detail, Alternative E-2 would consist of the following primary components: • A 38-ft high rockfill dam with impervious membrane at Elva Creek SM 3.2, at the outlet of Lake Elva. ·rhe dam crest elevation would be approximately 362 feet. This dam would raise Lake Elva by 28 feet and impound approximately 11 ,000 acre feet of water. Surface area of the new reservoir would be 488 acres, an increase in 200 acres over the existing Lake Elva surface area. • A 48-inch diameter buried penstock and access road 15,200 feet in length located on the right bank and generally paralleling the course of Elva Creek. The penstock would cross the stream to the left bank of the Elva Creek at SM 1. 7 at slightly less than half (7 ,000 feet) the distance to Lake Nerka. After crossing the stream, the penstock would continue for another 8,200 feet downstream to the powerhouse site. • The powerhouse would be the same construction and at the same location as for Alternative E-1. Total net head for this alternative would be 274 feet. Access for both Alternatives from Dillingham would be first via the selected access road route to a point near the east end of the lower (South) arm of Lake Nerka. From there, a short spur road would lead to Lake Nerka, from which point watercraft would carry material to a location near the mouth of Elva Creek. From this point, access to the powerhouse, penstock and dam from would be via a road developed along the penstock route located on the left of, and generally paralleling, the stream. 20 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 0 I "'I .... 0 I 0 0 ci "' ~ E / ~ ~I "' I ~ ~ u I 0 0 .... f: ::::> ti i'= ::J (jj ~ "- ~ (l_ 0 a: Cl ~ ?i: :.G iS ;..: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'"' ~ z 0 ::J "' _J :;,-a ';;;-I ""0 "" 0 ci om 1:! :: ox _J "-a_/ "' 0 (l_"' ~ ~ a tJ "' <( ALTERNATIVE E-2 RESERVOIR LIMITS LAKE ELVA EXISTING WSE: 328 FT PROPOSED WSE E-1: 370 FT PROPOSED WSE E-2: 356 FT * ..... ~ 0' 250' 500' 1000' o· 1• = 10oo· 1" i 111 ~/ ;;,-;2 ~ "' ~ ~ ~~ I SCALE HOR.: 1" = 1000' ~ ~ Vl (l_ VERT.: 1" = 1000' E-1 INTAKE SM 1.7 r ALTERNATIVE E-1 DAM LOCATION SM 1.6 ALTERNATIVE E-1 PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE E-2 PENSTOCK STREAM CROSSING SM 1.7 LAKE NERKA ·- EXISTING WATER SURFACE ELEV: 56 FT ALTERNATIVE E-2 PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT t ~...m~. PROPOSED POWERHOUSE SM 0.2 TAILRACE ELE V. 60± FT I I FIGURE 3. ALTERNATIVES E-1 & E-2 PROJECT FEATURES & CONFIGURATION /CIVIL .. ~ ~CIENCE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. Under both Alternatives, the Project would operate as a storage facility with infrequent shutdowns during March and/or April of certain low-water years, or when operations reduced reservoir elevation below the minimum level prior to spring runoff. Instream maintenance flows of 17% average annual flow would be released from the E-1 reservoir. The E-2 Alternative would rely on natural accretion in the watershed below the darn to provide instrearn flows in the anadrornous reaches of lower Elva Creek with no instrearn release from the darn site. Transmission Line and Access Road Routing Alternatives At the Grant Lake project, two transmission line/access road routing alternatives were evaluated: 1. The Park Boundary Alternative; and 2. The Glacial Moraine Alternative; as described in the following The Park Boundary Alternative Transmission Line Routing This is the preferred alternative from the D&L report. Under this alternative's routing, a 34.5 kV overhead line would follow a direct west to east routing from the Grant Lake powerhouse 8.7 miles to the eastern boundary ofWTSP (Figure 4). From the intersection with the park boundary, the route would continue south 22.3 miles along the park boundary to the southeast corner of the park, where it would angle southwest for 13.2 miles to its interconnection with existing transmission facilities Aleknagik. This line would be a total of 44.2 miles long with 8. 7 miles of its length inside WTSP. From Aleknagik, the existing 12.5 kV overhead line would be upgraded to a new 15.5-rnile long 34.5 kV transmission line to a new substation at Waskey Road. A new 5.6-rnile long 12.5 kV distribution line would be routed along Waskey Road to provide power delivery from the hydroelectric projects to the NETC's existing main powerhouse substation in Dillingham. Access Road Routing Transmission line construction access under this alternative would be via an ice road which would follow the transmission route (Figure 4). Use of the ice road would restrict construction to winter months. Consequently, this access route would not be used for construction access to for the generation facilities for the Grant Lake Project. A separate access route would be needed 22 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS for the generation facilities. The access route for the generation facilities would follow the glacial moraine landform separate from the transmission route (See Figure 4 ). Construction access to the Lake Elva Project site would be via a short (approximately 0.5 mile) all-season spur trom the main access road constructed for the Grant Lake project to the eastern shore of Lake N erka. From there, construction access would be via watercraft across Lake Nerka during the open water period. Glacial Moraine Alternative Transmission Routing Under this routing Alternative, a 34.5 kV overhead transmission line would be routed to the east of Grant Lake then generally south near the park's eastern boundary along the terminal moraine which forms the drainage divide between the Wood and Nushagak Rivers (Figure 4). This transmission route would continue southerly along the divide to Aleknagik following the original design concept in effect when the Grant Lake Project was being considered with the creation of WTSP (Retherford, 1980). The total length ofthe new 34.5 kV overhead transmission line from the powerhouse to Aleknagik would be 41.5 miles, with 26.6 miles located inside WTSP. Access Road Routing Under this routing alternative, access to the Grant Lake project site as well as access for construction of the transmission line would be via a road which would be generally congruent with the transmission line routing (Figure 4). Preliminary reconnaissance ofthis route indicates more suitable soil conditions than those along the Park Boundary route, particularly in the segment of the Park Boundary route east of the park boundary. The access road in this alternative would be developed under the concept of a temporary feature with restoration of the vegetation in the developed area conducted as part of the mitigation package for the feature. Lake Elva Transmission Facilities Transmission facilities would include a 2.3 mile long 35 kV submarine crossing at the "elbow" of Lake Nerka followed by a 21.9 mile long 35 kV overhead line routed along upper Lake Nerka's north shore to a junction with the Grant Lake transmission line near the park's eastern 23 DRAFT OAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS boundary. From the Junction, a 34.5 kV overhead line would continue to Aleknagik following the terminal moraine for a total length of 22 miles. This transmission segment would be congruent with the "Glacial Moraine 11 transmission alternative described for the Grant Lake project in the following section. From Aleknagik, the existing 12.5 kV overhead line would be upgraded to a new 15.5-mile long 34.5 kV transmission line to a new substation at Waskey Road. A new 5.6-mile long 1 kV distribution line would be routed along Waskey Road to provide power delivery to the existing main powerhouse substation in Dillingham TASK 4. DETERMINE FEASIBILITY BASED on ELECTRICAL GENERATION and ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS Operations and Electrical Generation As described above, economic analysis of the four major alternatives was the result of a series of steps involving: I. Development of hydrology data sets to represent monthly streamflow available for energy generation at both projects; 2. Use of a reservoir operations model to translate monthly reservoir inflow into: 1) forecast reservoir elevations and corresponding storage volumes resulting from operations; and 2) forecast monthly energy generation time series noting percent of time NETC load would be met; 3. Evaluation of the generation time series to determine two decision factors: • Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio expressing Benefits divided by Costs, as described in the Methods section; and • Cost per kWh to compare unit energy costs to those for NETC diesel generation. 24 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 0 ~ ~ g. .. .. ~~'--~--. 'i . ~ I ~ ;., I ~ !:l ~ I ' 0 -lll ~ o, ~ .: s :r "~: ~ ·~ ~i -w-.. > :-0 ~ - .. "•l' ~ '() 1: 1s > i .s:'' K~oii t I .• ~-, ,n~ -~ r 1': ro.-4 MILES " . «"" . , I SCALE HOR.: 1•"' 4 MI. VERT.: 1•:4 MI. '1o. - ~ --- ' · ~ · . · o a)t u , ..... _ r. , 1 .wt, Q' rltJ \' j. --IIi_;--_ -----~--t -' ...... ~ ' " ,.i. ~..., . ·· A 1 ~- [LAKE ELVA I -~'(),.-N, ~"' $ .. .> ~ LAKE ELVA PROJECT GENERATION FACILITIES FIGURE 4. DAHP ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION AND ACCESS ROUTES 25 W 0 0 D -T I K C~H I K ...-CML ~ ~CIENCE iNFRASTRUCTURI!, INC. .-:, --)......: :~~::;:; ~...: :0:1 • In the following sections we present results of 1) the hydrologic analysis; 2) summarized output of the operations/generation model; and 3) results in terms ofB/C and cost per kWh. Hydrologic Data Set Development Annual Runoff Cycle Analysis The USGS Grant gage operated during a period (1959-1965) when the Nuyakuk River flowed at 92% of its long-term average while USGS Elva gage operated during a period (1979-1982) when the Nuyakuk flowed at 116% of its long-term average. The USGS Grant gage average flow was 93.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the USGS Elva gage averaged 56.6 cfs during their respective periods of stream gaging. Given similar runoff trends in the region, the Elva-Grant annual runoff averages in cfs and cfs per square mile ofwatershed (csm) would be: Grant Lake gage: 1/92% x 93.7 cfs 102 cfs or 2.97 csm Lake Elva gage: 1/116% x 56.6 cfs 48.9 cfs or 5.43 csm Synthesized Long-Term Hydrologic Time Series Results of flow synthesis for both Grant Lake outlet and Lake Elva outlet locations compared well with the results found by comparison with Nuyakuk flow ratios above. The long-term average flow for the synthesized record was found to be 1 01 cfs for the Grant Lake outlet station. The long term average calculated from the USGS Nuyakuk station's annual flow ratios was 102 cfs, resulting in a difference of less than 1 percent. The long-term average synthesized flow for the Lake Elva outlet station was 46.2 cfs which compared reasonably well (-5.8%) with the value of 48.9 cfs calculated from annual flow ratios from the USGS Nuyakuk gage. Grant Lake Synthesized Flows The long-term synthesis results for Grant Lake shown in Figure 5 and Table 1 resembled a typical Alaskan flow pattern characterized by yearly low flows in winter followed by peak flows during the spring snowmelt cycle and a secondary high flow period in early fall related to high rainfall. Peak monthly flows of over 200 cfs were forecast to occur in May and June with lower monthly peaks over 150 cfs were forecast for August and September. Yearly lows of all exceedance intervals were forecast to occur in March and April. The annual average flow for the 33-year forecast was 101 cfs. 26 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 300 ~--------------------------------------------------------~ 250 • 20th Percentile Monthly Flow Vl -u • 50th Percentile Monthly Flow OJ-200 !!_0 • Average Monthly Flow ltl .s:: u • 80th Percentile Monthly Flow Vl 0 ~ 150 .s:: ..... c: 0 ~ 100 so 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 5. Synthesized Monthly 20t\ sot\ Average and 80th Percent Exceedance Flows, Grant Lake Outlet Gaging Station Table 1. Synthesized Monthly 20th, 50th, Average and 80th Percent Exceedance Flows, Grant Lake Outlet Gaging Station. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q2o 46.3 43.3 30.2 30.3 123 192 Qso 58.2 53.2 35.3 36.0 162 202 QAverage 60.9 54.9 35.2 35.9 198 203 Qso 73.8 68.6 39.7 42.9 277 216 27 Jul 94.9 104 108 121 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 70.9 87.6 94.5 117 85.0 102 59.1 48.2 112 137 84.4 52.3 125 144 93.1 55.1 173 215 117 60.9 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Lake Elva Synthesized Flows The long-term synthesis results for Lake Elva shown in Figure 6 and Table 2, as with the Grant Lake forecast flows, also resembled a typical Alaskan flow pattern characterized by yearly low flows in winter followed by peak flows during the spring snowmelt cycle and a secondary high flow period in early fall related to high rainfall. As expected based on its significantly smaller watershed area, Lake Elva inflows was lower throughout the year than inflow to Grant Lake. Peak monthly flows of over 120 cfs were forecast to occur in June and July, somewhat later than at Grant Lake. This was probably due to the steeper topography within the watershed and increased shading of slopes, resulting in later runoff. A secondary set of high flows, averaging from 60 to 80 cfs occurred in July through September. Yearly low flows of all exceedance intervals were forecast to occur in January through April. The annual average flow for the 33- year forecast was 46.2cfs. Reservoir Inflows The synthesized streamflow data was adjusted to match the drainage area of the project alternatives. Alternatives G-1 (Table 3) and E-2 (Table 4) both had their respective dam located at the respective system's gaging station location. The drainage area was 34.3 square miles for Grant Lake outlet and 9.0 square miles for Lake Elva outlet respectively. Alternative G-2's drainage area was 35.3 square miles and thus had reservoir inflows 2.9% larger (Table 3). Alternative E-1 had a drainage area of 10.3 square miles, with flows 14.4% larger than the flow measured at the gage (Table 4). Operations/Generation Model Results Reservoir Levels Predicted reservoir levels for both projects were graphed relative to the projects' maximum reservoir level (the spill level) and the minimum level which was in both cases the lowest elevation of active storage. 28 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 140 120 100 • 20th Percentile Monthly Flow • 50th Percentile Monthly Flow • Average Monthly Flow 11'1 't; 80 • 80th Percentile Monthly Flow a) tiD .._ "' 60 ..c:. u 11'1 0 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 6. Synthesized Monthly 20th, so•\ Average and 80th Percent Exceedance Flows, Lake Elva Outlet Gaging Station. Table 2. Synthesized Monthly 20th, so•\ Average and 80th Percent Exceedance Flows, Lake Elva Outlet Gaging Station. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q2o 13.1 12.6 12.2 12.1 15 .8 94.8 Qso 14.0 13.3 12.9 12.8 17.3 111 QA verage 14.2 13.4 12.9 12.8 18.5 112 Qso 15.1 14.1 13.4 13.5 21.2 131 29 Jul Aug 80.1 55.1 96.5 66.3 101 70.2 116 82.8 Sep Oct Nov Dec 49.6 46.7 16.2 0.25 60.5 72.6 33.8 8.75 63.8 77.1 39.1 13.7 76.6 120.7 54.0 21.1 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FE ASIBILITY STUDY GR AN T LAKE AN D LA KE ELVA PROJECTS Table 3. Average Monthly Reservoir Inflows in cfs for Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2. Month Alternative G-1 Jan 60.9 Feb 54.9 Mar 35.2 Apr 35.9 May 198 Jun 203 Jul 108 Aug 94.5 Sep 125 Oct 144 Nov 93.1 Dec 55.1 Annual Average 101 30 Alternative G-2 62.6 56.5 36.2 37.0 203 209 Ill 97.3 128 148 95.8 56.7 104 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 4. Average Monthly Reservoir Inflows in cfs for Lake Elva Project Alternatives E-1 and E-2. Month Alternative E-1 Alternative E-2 Jan 16.2 14.2 Feb 15.3 13.4 Mar 14.8 12.9 Apr 14.6 12.8 May 21.2 18.5 Jun 129 112 Jul 115 I 01 Aug 80.3 70.2 Sep 73.0 63.8 Oct 88.2 77.1 Nov 44.8 39.1 Dec 15.7 13.7 Annual Average 52.4 46.2 Grant Lake Reservoir operations modeling revealed essentially identical water levels for operation of both Grant Lake Project Alternatives (Figure 7). There was about a 3% chance of spilling and about the same odds of shutting down due to lack of water over the 33 year analysis period. 31 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 510 505 500 495 490 485 480 Lake Elva 1- ,_,_ ________ ......... _ ......... I ~ ....... , ......._ I ........ --~ ............. ---..,.,..-........ / -....... / ............. / ............ __ , - -WetYear -Average Year t--- - -DryYear -Min. Reservoir Level --Max. Reservoir Level D F M A M A s 0 N D Figure 7. Grant Lake Project Alternative G-1 & Alternative G-2 Mean Monthly Reservoir Levels There was a significant difference in the performance of the two Lake Elva Project Alternatives with Alternative E-2's smaller reservoir spilling much more frequently and also depleting storage more frequently than Alternative E-1 (Figures 8 and 9). This is directly attributable to the large difference in storage capacity afforded by Alternative E-1 's higher downstream dam. 32 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 375 00 .,.---00 --....... ... 0 365 ........ > ....... /,. C( ....... z ....... / ... Cll ....... / ____........------.......... Cll ............ .... , 355 r:: ....... / / "' 0 -·.;:::: ~ ra > ,.,..--._ Cll 'Uj 345 --....... Cll ~ //" ..... u ra 't: ::I ....... Vl .......... ... / ! 335 --Average Year f----ra ,, I ~ - -Wetyear ... ....... I --Max. Reservoir Level ·a ....... , c: I - -DryYear 5: 325 ~ Cll 'J --Min. Reservoir Level a:: 315 D J F M A M J J A s 0 N D J Figure 8. Lake Elva Project Alternative E-1 Mean Monthly Reservoir Levels. 370 00 365 00 c ~ 360 z ... 3l 355 , ...... ~ ... ... c , r--:: ... ... ' I -., ' ~ 350 --ra ·~,-' > ... I , ' Ql Li:i 345 ' . ... Ql ', ,'fl , u " ' .. ra I I --Average Year ~ 340 "' ' ·""' ---Wet Year :u ' ' //,1 ---Dry Year ... ' ' I 3 335 ' ~ .f,l --Max. Reservoir Level ... ''... '--_I I --Min. Reservoir Level '6 ~ 330 Ql ...... -· "' Ql a: 325 320 D J F M A M J J A s 0 N D J Figure 9. Lake Elva Alternative E-2 Monthly Reservoir Levels for Wet, Average and Dry Years. 33 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Energy Generation Output of the operations/generation model was averaged over the analysis period to determine mean monthly energy output. Formulae used to estimate losses for the hydraulic (power conduit), electro-mechanical (turbine/generator) and transmission systems are included in Appendix III for reference. Grant Lake Both Grant Lake Project Alternatives met more than 80 percent ofNETC load during the September-December period (Table 5, Figure 1 0). Both alternatives met between 60 and 80 percent ofNETC load during the remaining months of the year, with the lowest percentages occurring between April and August. Table 5. Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Energy Production 1 for Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2 and Current NETC Monthly Demand in kWh. Month Current (2011) Alternative G-1 Alternative G-2 Demand Jan 1,583,256 1,251,194 1,259,841 Feb 1,359,060 1,085,087 1,090,690 Mar 1,530,960 1,169,716 1,109,125 Apr 1,454,390 984,607 933,170 May 1,516,040 1,071,182 1,015,212 Jun 1,657,720 1,194,065 1,186,908 Jul 2,018,020 1,310,923 1,337,556 Aug 1,591,640 1,310,755 1,337,753 Sep 1,364,340 1,267,205 1,293,422 Oct 1,474,975 1,303,896 1,338,933 Nov 1,456,621 1,258,547 1,282,715 Dec 1,585,790 1,281,020 1,290,325 Annual 18,592,812 14,320,762 14,727,225 1. Energy production values are net after instream flow releases. 34 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 1,600,000 1,500,000 ~ 1,400,000 ~ .:I! g 1,300,000 ... "' .. Cll ~ 1,200,000 ~ > ~ 1,100,000 c:: w ~ '5 1,000,000 c:: 0 ~ 900,000 "' Cll :E 800,000 700,000 600,000 100% ... -.... +---------------------------------~n'~""'--'~'~~~-----+ 90% ' ' --.... ............ ,, ,, ........ Cll +-----~~~--------------------~L---------------~-+ 80% > 70% +----------------------------------------------------+ 10% +---.---.---.---.----.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.---+ 0% D F M A M A s 0 N D ~ "' c:: .. Cll ... ct E E -Cll :a .!!! ·~ <C Figure 10. Mean Monthly Energy Generation and percent of Load Supplied by Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2. Lake Elva Energy generation from both Lake Elva Alternatives fell short of meeting NETC loads in all months by virtue of the limited installed capacity of the alternatives (Table 6, Figure 11). Of the two alternatives, Alternative E-1 provided the largest generation relative to load, especially during the May through August period. 35 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 6. Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Energy Production 1 for Lake Elva Project Alternatives E-1 and E-2 and Current NETC Monthly Demand in kWh. Month Current (2011) Alternative E-1 Alternative E-2 Demand Jan 1,583,256 637,603 640,526 Feb 1,359,060 587,589 573,081 Mar 1,530,960 591,454 569,885 Apr 1,454,390 593,715 507,276 May 1,516,040 526,731 384,437 Jun 1,657,720 521,912 284,518 Jul 2,018,020 636,145 650,181 Aug 1,591,640 651,968 668,195 Sep 1,364,340 635,835 649,729 Oct 1,474,975 660,231 673,144 Nov 1,456,621 643,089 652,268 Dec 1,585,790 646,139 668,816 Annual 18,592,812 7,442,284 6,947,626 1. Energy productiOn values are net after mstream flow releases. 36 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS 800,000 60% 700,000 50% Qj > J600,000 ·o:; --"' ..ll: c ... c' Qj 0 40%~ .. ~ 500,000 E 0 c ... Qj .... CJ Qj ~ ::c "' ~ 400,000 \ 30%:; c > w \ "' > ' "D ::c "' .... \ 0 5 300,000 ..... \ --Alternative E-1 .... ~ \ 20% 5i ... c 'J --Alternative E-2 ... :I "' u ~ 200,000 .... ---%Load E-1 0 '*' -- -% Load E-2 10% 100,000 0% D F M A M A s 0 N D Figure 11. Mean Monthl y E nergy Genera tion an d perce nt of Load Supplied by Lake Elva Proj ect A ltern ativ es E-1 and E-2. To better depict energy generation across a range of potential inflows, we calculated energy generation during wet, average and dry years (Table 7). For this analysis, the annual energy production from a wet year was defined as the value having a 20 percent annual probability of being equaled or exceeded while a dry year was defined as the amount of annual energy production that had an 80 percent annual probability of being equaled or exceeded. Lake Elva alternatives E-1 and E-2 showed 18% and 11% energy increases, respectively , between wet and dry years (See Table 7). Grant Lake alternatives G-1 and G-2 showed 25% and 25% energy increases, respectively between wet and dry years. This could indicate that the Grant Lake alternatives would benefit more from any future precipitation increases such as those possibly associated with climate change. 37 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 7. Annual Energy Production by DAHP Alternatives in kWh for Wet, Dry, Median and Average Years. Project Wet Year Median Year Average Year Dry Year Alternative ( exceedance o/o) Grant Lake G-1 15,682,871 15,248,641 14,320,762 12,590,182 (33.8%) Grant Lake G-2 16,147,613 15,676,275 14,727,225 12,884,794 (33.7%) Lake Elva E-1 7,997,354 7,749,430 7,442,284 6,788,666 (30.9%) Lake Elva E-2 7,153,396 7,064,208 6,947,626 6,461,763 (30.0%) TASK 5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS of ALTERNATIVES Construction and Finance Costs Generation Facilities Construction Costs Construction costs shown in this section are for generation facilities only. Construction costs for the transmission alternatives are in the following section. Grant Lake Project Generation Alternatives Grant Lake project Alternatives G-1 and G-2 were identical in configuration with the exception ofthe dam type and location. Alternative G-2 featured a concrete gravity dam versus the smaller embankment dam used in Alternative G-1. As such, the difference in cost between the two alternatives was almost entirely due to the difference between the different dam configurations. Cost differences among all other principal project features were negligible (Table 8). 38 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 8. Estimated Grant Lake Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction Costs (in $2013). PROJECT FEATURE ALTERNATIVE G-1 ALTERNATE G-2 Mobilization, Camp and $7,227,340 $7,230,844 Construction Management. Access Road $4,155,000 $4,155,000 Dam; including Diversion, $3,329,100 $5,640,000 Foundation. Prep., Outlet works & Spillway Penstock, Intake & $12,511,200 $12,511,200 Appurtenant structures, incl. roadway Powerhouse and Switchgear $4,266,000 $4,266,000 Total Pre-contingency Generation System Cost $31,488,640 $33,803,044 Lake Elva Project Generation Alternatives Costs for Lake Elva Project alternatives 1 and E-2 were essentially the same for all the major project features except for the dams and penstocks. The E-1 alternative's large dam [225,000 cubic yards (CY) in volume] contributed significantly to the cost for this Alternative. The Alternative E-2 dam was an order of magnitude smaller (25,900 CY), but its penstock and access road were much longer (15,200 feet) than the penstock/access road for Alternative E-1. The longer penstock and access road for Alternative E-2 were significantly more costly than those for Alternative E-1. Even with this difference, however, Alternative 1 remained significantly more costly than Alternative E-2, because of its much larger dam (Table 9). 39 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 9. Estimated Lake Elva Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction Costs (in $2013). PROJECT FEATURE ALTERNATIVE E-1 ALTERNATIVE E-2 Mobilization, Camp and Construction $7,011,680 $7,159,040 Management. Access Road/ferry/landings $1,832,500 $1,832,500 Dam; incl. Diversion, Foundation. Prep., Outlet $11,010,000 $3,133,300 works & Spillway Penstock, Intake & Appurtenant structures, $6,589,902 $9,740,358 incl. roadway Powerhouse and Switchgear $3,626,000 $3,463,500 Total Pre-contingency Generation System Cost $30,070,082 $25,328,698 Transmission Alternative Costs Costs for the alternative transmission systems for the Grant Lake project differed primarily due to the differing lengths of the two routes. However, the Glacial Moraine Route would be constructed using the same construction access road used for construction of the generation components of the Grant Lake Project eliminating the need for an ice road. The elimination of the ice road costs and the Glacial Moraine Route's shorter alignment results in a cost reduction of approximately $5.3M from the Park Boundary Route (Table I 0). These Glacial Moraine Routes costs do not take into account the higher efficiency that would occur with a construction in summer instead of winter construction via an ice road; therefore, the stated cost reduction is conservative. 40 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 10. Estimated Grant Lake Project Alternative Transmission System Pre- Contingency Construction Costs (in $2013). Transmission Alternative Glacial Moraine Park Boundary Alternative Alternative T -Line to Aleknagik & upgrade existing line to 35 $16,005,916 $21,339,200 kV Costs for the alternative transmission systems for the Lake Elva project differed greatly due to the high cost of the submarine cable. Lengths of the two routes were similar but the submarine cable added nearly 27 million dollars in additional cost over the overhead route with no contingency applied (Table 11 ). Table 11. Estimated Lake Elva Project Alternative Transmission System Pre-Contingency Construction Costs (in $2013). Transmission Alternative Overland Route Submarine Route T -Line to Grant Lake $11,877,600 $39,533,600 Junction Total Capital Costs Total Project alternative capital costs were estimated as the sum of the costs of generation facilities with the cost ofthe preferred transmission system plus contingencies and short-term (construction) finance costs (Table 12). Detailed cost estimates which include unit costs and quantities are included in Appendix VI. 41 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 12. Total Estimated Capital Costs for Project Alternatives. Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative G-1 G-2 E-1 E-2 Generation $31,488,640 $33,803,044 $30,070,082 $25,328,698 Facilities Transmission $16,005,916 $16,005,916 $11,877,600 $11,877,600 System Subtotal $47,494,556 $49,808,960 $41,947,682 $37,206,298 Contingency $11,873,639 $12,452,240 $1 0,486, 921 $9,301,575 (25%) Construction $59,368,195 $62,261,200 $52,434,603 $46,507,873 Subtotal Short-term $6,124,200 $6,422,632 $5,408,957 $4,797,578 Finance Cost Total Estimated Capital Cost $65,492,396 $68,683,832 $57,843,560 $51,305,451 The Park Boundary Transmission Alternative would add an estimated $7,354,306 if it were used instead of the Glacial Moraine Alternative for either the Grant Lake Project Generation Alternatives G-1 or G-2. The use of the Park Boundary Alternative would result in Total Estimated Capital Costs of$72,846,702 and $76,038,139 for Generation Alternatives G-1 and G- 2 respectively (See Appendix VI). The use of the Park Boundary Transmission Alternative would not affect the cost of either Lake Elva Project Alternative because the location of the Grant Lake-Lake Elva Transmission junction would be the same for either transmission alternative. O&MCosts Annual O&M costs estimated as the total of the cost components and factors presented above in the methods section totaled approximately $580,000 ($2013) for the Grant Lake Alternative G-1 (Table 13). This cost equated to $0.04/k.Wh and was assumed to apply to the Grant Lake Alternative G-2. The inclusion of the Lake Elva Project added an additional 50% ($0.02/k.Wh) 42 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANTLAKEANDLAKEELVAPROJECTS in annual O&M costs to the Grant Lake Project which results in a total annual O&M cost of $0.06/kWh for the combined DAHP (Table 14). These O&M costs were assumed to be applicable to either the Glacial Moraine or Park Boundary Transmission Alternatives. Table 13. Annual O&M Costs for Grant Lake Alternative G-1. Operations Labor ( 1 FTE) Transportation (24 trips) Equipment, materials and supplies Insurance Maintenance Intake SCADA System T-Line (Plant to Aleknagik) Misc. TOTAL Annual 0 & M Subtotal Subtotal 43 Alternative G-1 $250,000 $72,000 $25,000 $98,000 $445,000 $20,000 $10,000 $75,000 $30,000 $135,000 $580,000 ($0.04/kWh) DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 14. Annual O&M Costs for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives. Alternative Average Annual O&MCost, AnnualO&M Energy $2013/kWh Costs, $2013/kWh Production, kWh Grant Lake G-1 14,320,762 $0.04 $580k Grant Lake G-2 14,727,225 $0.04 $590k Lake Elva E-1 7,458,848 $0.02* $150k* Lake Elva E-2 6,989,552 $0.02* $140k* *Incremental O&M cost when combined with Grant Lake Project operations. BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS Project economic analysis was completed with the following base economic parameters. Finance Rate/Discount Rate: 5.0% Project Finance Period; 30 years Economic Analysis Period (Service life): 40 years Current Diesel Fuel Price (2013): $3.42/gal. Annual Fuel-oil Price Escalation Rate: 3.0% Fuel Price @ 2018 start-up: $3.96 Annual Escalation Rate on Non-fuel-oil items: 1.5% NETC Annual Load Growth: 0.5% Estimated Startup Year: 2018 Project Benefits Annual Net Benefits and Total Net Benefits over the analysis period for the Grant Lake Project Alternatives were nearly equal due to the two projects nearly-identical average annual energy output and O&M costs (Table 15). 44 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 15. Grant Lake Project Annual Diesel Avoidance and Project Benefits at start-up. Item Alternative G-1 Alternative G-2 Annual Diesel A voidance 967,619 995,083 (Gallons) Annual Diesel Avoidance $3,836,336 $3,945,222 Benefits at 2018 Start-up Annual O&M Costs at $617,101 $634,616 2018 Start-up Annual Net Benefits at $3,219,235 $3,310,606 2018 Start-up Total Net Project Benefits $89,848,579 $92,398,729 at Start-up* *Total Net Prqject Benefits over analysis period discounted to start-up. Annual net benefits for the Lake Elva Project alternatives were similar to each other with the larger, more expensive Alternative E-1 producing approximately 7% more annual net benefits than Alternative E-2 (Table 16). Both Lake Elva Alternatives were burdened with significant excess capacity in 2018 which reduced Project Benefits. 45 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 16. Lake Elva Project Diesel Avoidance and Annual Project Benefits at 2018 start-up. Item Alternative E-1 Alternative E-2 Annual Diesel A voidance 502,857 469,434 at full utilization (gallons) Annual Diesel-equivalent Excess Energy at 2018 169,570 136,148 Start-up (gallons) Annual Diesel-equivalent Energy Sales at 2018 333,287 333,287 Start-up (gallons) Annual Diesel A voidance .$1,321,387 $1,321,387 Benefits at 2018 Start-up Annual Supplemental O&M Costs at 2018 Start-$160,349 $149,691 up Annual Net Benefits $1,161,038 $1 '171 ,696 Total Project Benefits* $42,882,929 $41,903,280 *Total Net Project Benefits over analysis period discounted to start-up. Benefit-Cost Ratios Benefit-Cost ratios provide an index of economic feasibility for the conditions analyzed. Both Grant Lake project alternatives show a positive B/C indicating benefits exceed costs. The addition of the Lake Elva project appears economically infeasible for the economic conditions analyzed (Table 17). 46 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 17. 8/C Ratios for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives. Alternative G-1 G-2 E-1* E-2* Total Net Project $89,848,579 $92,398,729 $42,882,929 $41 '903 ,280 Benefits Total Project $65,492,396 $68,683,832 $57,843,560 $51,305,451 Costs 8/C 1.37 1.35 0.74 0.82 Alternative G-1 used in this analysis. Results are similar using Alternative G-2. *Supplemental to the Grant Lake Pr(~ject. The use of the Park Boundary Alternative would reduce B/Cs to 1.23 and 1.18 for Generation Alternatives G-1 and G-2 respectively. This indicates that the Grant Lake Project would still be economically feasible for the more expensive Park Boundary Transmission Alternative under the conditions analyzed. The use of the Park Boundary Transmission Alternative would not affect the cost of either Lake Elva Project Alternative and therefore have no effect on the B/Cs of those Alternatives. Projected Cost of Project Debt Service The cost of energy generation was estimated for the Grant Lake Project alternatives with supplemental diesel-electric generation and for the combined DAHP with alternatives E-1 and E- 2 as a cost per kWh. Annual debt service costs, which are substituted for fuel costs, for the Grant Lake Alternatives are projected to be approximately $4.3 to $4.5M at 2018 start-up. The addition of the Lake Elva Alternatives at that time would add another $3.3 to $3.8M in annual debt service depending on the alternative. Total debt service on a kWh basis is approximately 30 cents for either Grant Lake Alternative. The addition of the Lake Elva Project raises DAHP debt service cost to about 40 to 42 cents per kWh for the combined DAHP Project depending on the Alternative (Table 18). 47 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 18. Alternative Total Capital Cost Annual Debt Service at start- up Combined DAHP Debt Service at start- up Projected Hydroelectric Sales* at start- up, kWh Projected Debt Service Cost at Startup*, $/kWh Long-term Debt Service on Capital for Grant Lake and Lake Elva Project Alternatives. G-1 G-2 DAHP DAHP G-1 & E-1* G-1 & E-2* $65,492,396 $68,683,832 $57,843,560 $41,903,280 $4,260,374 $4,467,982 $3,762,807 $3,337,493 $4,260,374 $4,467,982 $8,023,181 $7,597,867 14,320,762 14,727,225 18,494,226 18,494,226 $0.2975 $0.3034 $0.4338 $0.4108 *Projected 2018 Load ofl8,871,659 kWh. Diesel Electric estimated to provide 2% of annual loadfor peak demands with combined DAHP. Cost of Energy (At 2018 Startup) The Grant Lake Project was projected to have electric costs at start-up that are approximately equal to the projected 100% diesel-electric generation scenario for the first year of operation. The addition of the Lake Elva Project was found to increase costs by approximately 30% compared to the projected diesel-electric generation scenario (Table 19) for a 2018 start-up concurrent with the Grant Lake Project. 48 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 19. Estimated Cost of Energy per kWh at 2018 Startup. Alternative DAHP DAHP Component G-1 G-2 G-1 & E-1 G-1 & E-2 Cost Long-term $0.2975 $0.3034 $0.4338 $0.4108 Debt service O&M $0.0431 $0.0431 $0.0647 $0.0647 Distribution $0.0215 $0.0215 $0.0215 $0.0215 General & $0.0794 $0.0794 $0.0794 $0.0794 Administrative Cost of Hydroelectric $0.4415 $0.4474 $0.5768 $0.5532 Energy Cost of Supplemental $0.4663 $0.4692 $0.7902 $0.7902 Diesel-Electric Energy** %Load by 75.9% 78.0% 98%# 98%# Hydro (2018) Cost of Blended $0.4475 $0.4522 $0.5811 $0.5580 Hydro-Diesel Energy Cost for 100% Diesel-electric $0.4441 $0.4441 $0.4441 $0.4441 Energy** Change from 100% Diesel-+0.77% +1.8% +31%* +26%* Electric *Surplus Capacity exists at 2018 start-up assuming 0.5% load growth. * * Supplemental Diesel-electric exceeds l 00% Diesel-electric due to constant storage costs apportioned over lower diesel-electric sales. 11 2% (dAnnual demand estimatedfrom diesel-electric to meet peak loads. 49 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS The large increase in rates for the Lake Elva project is reflective of both Alternatives' high development costs, their small watersheds and the excess capacity that would be brought to the NETC market as a supplemental energy source to the Grant Lake project. Energy generation from hydroelectric production has a stabilizing effect on electric rates when compared to diesel generation, because the cost of Project debt service is substituted for fuel oil costs as the major component in the cost of energy generation. Diesel fuel costs currently make up approximately 80% ofNETC's generation outlays, and are subject to sometimes large price swings over yearly or even monthly timeframes. These volatile diesel costs would be largely replaced by the fixed cost of debt service. Sensitivity Analysis Inputs to the energy generation and economic analysis were varied independently to assess their effect on the overall economic feasibility of the project. Input parameters analyzed included total project costs, discount rate, annual fuel escalation rate and annual load growth. Grant Lake Project Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2 had positive B/C ratios for all variables considered within the ranges examined with the exception of high discount rates(> 7%). Marginal capital costs, $90M and $92 for Alternatives G-1 and G-2 respectively, exceeded these Alternative's respective estimated capital costs by over 37% for both alternatives (Table 20). so DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 20. Alternatives G-1 & G-2. Sensitivity Analysis of Selected Project Parameters. Parameter Base Value Range Resulting Marginal Value BIC Range (BIC = 1) (G-1 I G-2) Evaluated (G-1 I G-2) (G-1 I G-2) Total Capital Cost $65,492,396 I 1.06 to 1.96 I $89,848,579 I ±30% $68,683,832 1.03 to 1.92 $92,398,729 Annual Discount 1.5% to 2.75 to 0.86 I 6.95% I Rate 5.0% 8.0% 2.69 to 0.85 6.8% Annual Fuel 0.67 to 2.92 I 1.6% I Escalation Rate 3.0% 0 to 6.0% 0.65 to 2.86 1.7% Annual O&M $0.02 to 1.47 to 1.071 $0.1140/kWh I $0.04/kWh $0.10/kWh 1.40 to 1.05 $0.1100/kWh Benefits Period 1.11 to 1.44 I 26 years I 40 years 30 to 50 1.09 to 1.56 27 years Annual Load 0.5% NIA* NIA* NIA* Growth * No excess capacity. Both Lake Elva project alternatives were found to have a marginal BIC only with substantial variance of their input parameters from their base condition. For Alternative E-1 to be marginal, i.e., BIC = 1.0, the project's Total Capital Costs would have to be over 25% less than estimated. Similarly, other parameters would need to be at very high levels, e.g., annual fuel escalation at approximately 4%, etc. in order to make marginal economic conditions for the project at a 2018 start-up (Table 21 ). 51 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table 21. Alternative E-1 & E-2. Sensitivity Analysis of Selected Project Parameters. Parameter Base Value Range Resulting B/C Marginal Value Range (B/C = 1) (E-1/ E-2) Evaluated (E-1/ E-2) (E-1/ E-2) Total Capital $57,843,5601 0.57 to 1.06 I $42,882,9291 ±30% Cost $51,305,451 0.63 to 1.17 $41 '903,280 Annual Discount 0.45 to 1.56 I 0.50% I Rate 5.0% 1.5% to 8.0% 0.45 to 1.69 1.15% Annual Fuel 0.36 to 1.60 I 3.8% I 3.0% 0 to 6.0% Escalation Rate 0.41 to 1.74 4.2% $0.01 -0.51 to 0. 77 I NIAI Annual O&M* $0.02/kWh $0.101kWh 0.57 to 0.85 NIA 0.58 to 0.88 I 61 years I Benefits Period 40 years 30 to 50 0.65 to 0.96 54 years Annual Load 0.47 to 0.87/ NIAI 0.5% 0 to 4% Growth 0.54 to 0.91 NIA Alternative G-1 used in this analysis. Results are similar using Alternative G-2. *O&M costs are supplemental to the Grant Lake Project O&M. The lower BIC ratios of the Lake Elva project are in large part due to the excess capacity that this project brings to the system at the current demand forecast of0.5% annual load growth. 52 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS In addition to engineering and economic factors, there are several environmental issues which might influence feasibility. Experience in Alaska has shown that resource-related issues can affect both project configuration and operation. Following is a list of resource-specific considerations as known at this time. Further consultation with resource agencies will better define these issues, and likely add to the list as well. FISHERIES and AQUATIC RESOURCES Grant Lake Project Of the two Projects, the Grant Lake Project has the greater fisheries resource impact potential, related primarily to the value of Grant River as a sockeye spawning location. Two years of detailed study has shown that Grant River supports spawning for as many as 1 0,000 sockeye salmon each year. At this time, the two most likely sockeye salmon issues arc: 1. Instream flow related to the amount of habitat available for various salmon life stages under the with-project flow regimes, both above and below the powerhouse location. Determination of final instream flow requirements is a critical factor in project feasibility because of the potential for lost revenue due to instream flow release requirements which conflict with optimal generation. 2. Powerhouse location, related to the need to place the powerhouse at a point which impacts the fewest spawning or incubating fish. Powerhouse location atl'ects feasibility through potential loss of head and length of the penstock. In addition to Grant River impacts, there are some concerns for aquatic resources in Grant Lake. These include water quality impacts related to 1) water temperature at the intake which in tum affects Grant River water temperature below the powerhouse and 2) potential for disruption of the mercury compounds in the bottom of Grant Lake. This second issue has been deemed unlikely because no methyl mercury was found in sampling during 2011. Neither of the Grant Lake issues are likely to influence overall project feasibility, but this will not be known until after consultation with resource agencies. 53 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Lake Elva Project Lake Elva and Elva Creek, based on studies conducted in 2012, have far less potential for salmon impacts and resultant effects on project feasibility. Salmon were shown to ascend Elva Creek only a few hundred feet until reaching impassable stream conditions. Studies at Lake Elva showed only minimal fish populations with no salmonid or other game species. SCENIC/AESTHETIC RESOURCES Scenic values in WTSP are exceptionally high and represent one of the major attributes of the park purpose. Scenic and aesthetic values are high at both projects and along the transmission/access routes. Because of this, it will be necessary to consult with DPOR on details of all project features, both permanent and temporary. Of particular concern are access roads, transmission lines and dams. If these features are to be approved by DPOR, extensive consultation will be required to determine their exact locations and final appearance as well as the management plans necessary to maintain these attributes. WILDLIFE/BOTANICAL Wildlife Resources Grant Lake Project Grant Lake wildlife resources are diverse and range from effects on aquatic mammals to effects on large game animals, particularly moose. The primary potential for impact would be during the construction period, and would relate to disturbance from equipment movement, human activity and blasting. These actions would likely disturb the moose hunting activity from various lakeside camps which are established each year. This might cause suspension of construction or access during a portion of the critical snow-free construction period. Water level fluctuation might also affect aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters, with potential for limitation lake level fluctuation primarily during the open water season. Lake Elva Project Lake Elva also supports a good population of moose although it is not known to be used as much as Grant Lake as a base for hunting. Previous studies (Dames & Moore, 1980) identified moose and brown bear habitat in the upper Elva Creek above Lake Elva and the reach below the lake. Current wildlife surveys at or near Lake Elva/Elva Creek have not been as extensive as those 54 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS around Grant Lake, and it remains tor more detailed studies and consultation with agencies to determine a current list of wildlife related impacts at the Lake Elva Project. Transmission/ Access Roads Wildlife impacts might also be associated with the building and operation of the access roads to both Lake Elva and Grant Lake. Activity on the roads or waterways might disturb animal movements and/or migrations. Transmission line routes might intersect areas of important wildlife habitat or life history requirements, necessitating re-routing the lines. Botanical Resources Botanical resources in all construction areas, potentially-inundated areas, and along the transmission/access routes may include rare, endangered or sensitive plants. Prior to construction of any project feature, a detailed plant survey will be required, results of which might require repositioning of project features or realignment of a transmission line or access road. If such plants are found in a potentially-inundated area, it may be necessary to re-establish them in a suitable area. CULTURAL RESOURCES Similar to botanical resources, prior to any ground-disturbance, it will be necessary to conduct a detailed survey tor cultural or historical resources. Preliminary cultural resources surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 have shown low likelihood of encountering such resources. A detailed cultural resources management plan will be required prior to construction, and, as with botanical resources, actions may be necessary to avoid loss of important cultural resources. RECREATION RESOURCES Although overall numbers of visitors are small relative to more accessible state and federal parks in Alaska, WTSP is known to offer some of the highest value recreation in the state. Among the attributes sought by visitors to WTSP are the largely unspoiled setting and lack of disturbance from other recreationists and commercial interests. For these reasons, disturbance associated with construction of the DAHP is expected to have a major effect on the recreation experience near the projects. These and other recreation impacts might affect feasibility through the need to limit construction or access during certain high-use 55 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS periods of the summer, reducing an already short construction season. As with all other resource issues, consultation with resource agencies will be required before decisions may be made. FERC LICENSING and STATE and FEDERAL PERMITTING Because the project is proceeding under FERC jurisdiction, development of the DAHP will require a federal license to be issued. The FERC license in tum requires completion ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The NEPA process is based on either and Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmentallmpact Statement (EIS) for both of which FERC is the federal lead agency. Both EA's and EIS's developed under FERC guidance contain a list of proposed mitigation measures which, after approval through resource agency consultation, become Articles to the FERC license. These mitigation measures and license Articles may impose significant constraints on construction and operation of the project, all of which may affect project feasibility. In addition, several state and federal permits, including those from ADNR, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), ADF&G, and the State Historic Preservation Office will impose more constraints in addition or similar to those in the FERC license. A list of anticipated permits required to develop the DAHP is included in Appendix VII. LAND USE A private inholding (USS 12063) exists at the outlet of Grant Lake which will require landowner coordination for construction and operation of the Grant Lake project. An easement from the landowner or outright land acquisition will be necessary to construct and operate the Grant Lake project. The Lake Elva project is burdened by the presence of a conservation easement on two parcels (Lots 1 & 2, USS 120 16) owned by the state of Alaska that are located at the mouth of the Elva Creek. Limited land records research suggests that this conservation easement may be able to be vacated through compensation or exchange for lands of a "reasonably equivalent location with public purposes which meet or exceed those of the Property;" Maps showing the two parcels at the mouth of Elva Creek and the parcel at Little Grant Lake outlet are provided in Appendix VIII. 56 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS SUMMARY of ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS At this time, the environmental considerations deemed most likely to affect Project feasibility arc: • DPOR policy regarding construction of an access road and transmission line in the Park under the Glacial Moraine Alternative; • Effects of in stream flow requirements in Grant River as they affect sockeye salmon spawning, incubation and early rearing; • The presence of conservation easements on state lands at the powerhouse site at mouth of Elva Creek and of private inholdings at Grant Lake outlet. The Grant Lake inholding which will require negotiated agreement or acquisition to construct and operate the project. The lots at the mouth of Elva Creek will require a land exchange, vacation of the easements or other mechanism to allow development of the project. • Effects of construction activity and permanent features of both projects on wildlife movement and migration; • Potential existence of botanical species of concern and significant cultural resources within the area of potential effect, or all potential ground disturbance areas; • Effects, related to all of the above, of FERC license Articles and other permit conditions on construction and operation ofthe Project. DISCUSSION GENERATION COMPONENTS and PROJECT ECONOMICS The following discussion reflects results of conceptual-level engineering and economic analyses, and represents general guidelines. More extensive data and information will be necessary in most analysis areas, as suggested in the following recommendations. 57 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Currently available data and analyses demonstrate that both Grant Lake Project Alternatives G-1 and G-2 would be economically feasible with either transmission alternative while neither Lake Elva Project Alternative would be feasible for 2018 development. Total capital costs, including a 25% contingency and short-term financing to avoid a rate-shock during the construction period before power production, for the various alternatives were: G-1: $65,492,396 G-2: $68,683,832 E-1: $57,843,560 E-2: $51,305,451 Costs were considered insignificantly different between the Grant Lake Alternatives; cost for Lake Elva Alternative E-2 was considerably less than for Alternative E-1 due to the much smaller dam. This smaller dam, however, left the Project much more susceptible to both spilling and suspension of operation because of the reduced reservoir active storage capacity. Annual energy output from the Grant Lake Alternatives was approximately 14.5 GWh during an average precipitation year. This energy would annually displace approximately 1 million gallons of diesel fuel consumption at current NETC plant efficiency. This diesel avoidance would be valued at $3.5M per year at current NETC delivered diesel prices. Annual energy output from Lake Elva Alternates E-1 and E-2 were approximately 7.4 and 6.9 GWh, respectively. This energy would annually displace about 0.48-0.5 million gallons of diesel fuel at an avoided cost of about $1. 7M per year at current prices. B/C ratios for both Grant Lake Alternatives were essentially equal at about 1.36 under established conditions. Similarly, B/C Ratios for Lake Elva Alternatives 1 and E-2 were quite close in value at about 0.74 and 0.82, respectively. These values reflected development of the Lake Elva Project supplemental to the Grant Lake Project. This supplemental nature results in savings from "piggy-backing" the Lake Elva Project's costs tor access roads, upgrades to the existing system as well as a portion of the Project's transmission system on those from the Grant Lake Project. 58 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Sensitivity analysis showed that the Grant Lake project B/C ratio generally remained at or above 1.0 even under rather extreme values of tested parameters. The Lake Elva Project would result in a moderate increase in NETC electric rates if it were developed at the same time as the Grant Lake project. This rate increase would result from the need to service the additional debt that the Lake Elva Project would bring without compensating generation revenue for several years into the project life. Rates would increase over time but at a much lower and more predictable rate than they would with all diesel-electric generation. This would be due to the substitution of non-escalating debt service (fixed interest payments) for the highly-volatile diesel fuel outlay for the largest component of the generation cost. GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL SURVEYS Final selection of dam location and type at both the Grant Lake and Lake Elva sites will depend heavily on surface and sub-surface conditions. For the Grant Lake project, if suitable conditions were found near the lake outlet, it would facilitate construction of a significantly lower cost dam at the outlet of Little Grant Lake (Alternative G-1 ). Similarly, for the Lake Elva Project, the feasibility of the more cost-effective downstream high dam (Alternative 1) would be highly dependent on geotechnical conditions suitable for the large gravity-type dam. TRANSMISSION and ACCESS ROUTING The proposed Glacial Moraine transmission/access route occupies relatively high ground on a series of terminal moraines just inside WTSP and largely avoids problematic muskeg areas found along the park's eastern boundary. The overland (as opposed to submarine) transmission route to Lake Elva generating facilities would otler a substantial cost savings. Consistency of the various transmission elements with DPOR policies will be a major factor in final feasibility of the both the Glacial Moraine and Lake Elva overland transmission routes. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Due to the high fisheries, scenic and recreational values in the potentially-affected area, environmental constraints may well become the most influential factors determining Project feasibility. The FERC licensing process requires extensive consultation with state and federal 59 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS resource agencies and affected Indian tribes to determine studies, impacts and mitigation measures. Costs associated with further studies and mitigation measures must be added to overall project cost and may, at a certain point, significantly influence feasibility. Consultation and negotiation of mitigation measures and other conditions will proceed over the next two years, after which time it will be possible to more precisely estimate their effect on Project feasibility. The Projects are far enough apart geographically that studies on each Project would be largely independent. Therefore, it is expected that licensing of the two Projects at the same time would realize few cost savings relative to overlapping travel and study team efficiency. RECOMMENDATIONS • Conduct a load growth and rate study to assess in more detail the effects of load growth and fuel escalation on the feasibility of the Grant Lake Project. • Conduct a study assessing joint operations of wind and DAHP generation. At least one study (Marsh Creek et al., 2013) has examined this topic, but a future study should examine the wind-hydro relationship using Alternatives from this report and the most recent wind energy proposals. • Determine during the next licensing phase, whether to proceed with the Grant Lake Project only or to include the Lake Elva Project in licensing efforts. The current analysis suggests that the Lake Elva Project would be feasible only if and when NETC load grows to the point at which that Project's generation could be fully utilized. The decision to proceed with the Grant Lake Project only would focus resources on that Project and expedite the licensing process. • Continue the FERC licensing process beginning with Preferred Alternative for the Grant Lake Project from this report or others developed during the licensing process. FERC license application requirements will advance the design and operations proposals for the Project including both generation and transmission facilities. Licensing should also 60 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS require detailed analysis of staged development and the potential for a joint wind-DAHP system. • Consult with DPOR on the Park's requirements for restoration of the Glacial Moraine access road and mitigation measures necessary for construction and operation of the transmission line in WTSP from the Grant Lake Project powerhouse for either the Glacial Moraine or Park Boundary Transmission Alternatives. Both of these Transmission Alternatives feature some length of their respective alignments within WTSP. • Conduct more extensive geotechnical surveys, particularly at the dam, penstock and powerhouse location(s) of preferred Alternatives. Such investigations will necessarily require special use permits from DPOR. More invasive investigation, e.g., drilling and/or test pits, will likely have to be conducted under strict constraints. Planning for this study will need to be comprehensive and timely. • Conduct field verification of past soils and shallow subsurface work, to investigate the availability of suitable materials for dam construction in the vicinity of dam sites and along all proposed generation features of the project as well as along the proposed access road. • Increase efforts of hydrologic studies during winter to better understand and quantifY low flows particularly at times critical to salmonid incubation and emergence. • Analyze the potential for seepage that might result from raising lake levels, particularly through the glacial moraine along Grant Lake's northwestern shore. Such a seepage analysis may require piezometers or other field measurements of subsurface conditions to detennine the potential for lost energy generation. • Continue environmental studies in support of the licensing and permitting processes. Fisheries studies, particularly those addressing instream flows for salmon in Grant River, should be conducted as soon as possible. Studies already underway, such as those for cultural, wildlife, water quality and hydrology should be completed while studies of recreation and aesthetics should begin as soon as possible. 61 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS • Investigate land ownership restrictions to further review and assess potential impacts as it relates to project development. Right-of-Way or easements will be required from the property owner at Grant Lake outlet for project construction and operation of either Alternatives G-1 or G-2. • Develop an outreach program, with informational materials and public presentations to educate project stakeholders, potential financiers, and the general public about the project. Such an effort should include a project web site. Such a program can help to improve public awareness ofthe project's economic and environmental benefits, increase public support and help secure financing for the project. 62 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS REFERENCES Alaska Power Authority. Findings and Recommendations: Bristol Bay Power Plan. 1986. Alaska Power Authority. Lake Elva Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study. Findings and Recommendations. 1981. http://akenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1981-0422.pdf R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc., Lake Elva Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Alaska Power Authority. April 1981. http://akenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1981-0127 .pdf Robert W. Retherford Associates, A Division oflntemational Engineering Company, Inc. Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and Other Hydroelectric Power Potential in the Dillingham Area. Supplemental Report. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Power Authority. June 1980. http://akenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1980-0 186.pdf Robert W. Retherford Associates, A Division oflntemational Engineering Company, Inc. Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and Alternate Hydroelectric Power Potentials in the Dillingham Area. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Power Authority. January 1980. http://akenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1980-0 188.pdf Robert W. Retherford Associates, A Division of International Engineering Company, Inc., Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential. Prepared for United States Department of Energy. December 1979. http:/ /akenergyinventory.org/hyd/S SH -1979-007 5 .pdf Alaska Power and Telephone, Inc. Klawock, Alaska, Conversation with Prince of Wales Division Electric Production Manager re: Black Bear Lake Project O&M costs and factors. April 2013. Cordova Electric Cooperative. Cordova, Alaska, Conversation with General Manager Re: Humpback Creek project O&M costs and factors. April2013. EES Consulting. Review of Dillingham Area Hydro Projects. Nushagak Area Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Draft Report. Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative (NETC). 2009. Marsh Creek, LLC and Coffman Engineers, Inc. Wind, Hydro & Heat Recovery Analysis Report. NET C. May 2013. HDR Engineering, Inc. Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study. Iliamna- Newhalen-Nondalton Electrical Co-Op (INNEC). May 1991. http://a kenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1991-0190.pdf 63 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative. Information Document. Nushagak Area Hydroelectric Project Lake Elva and Grant Lake Projects Near Dillingham, Alaska. April 2009. NETC. "Region 5 Dillingham, Snake Lake, Nushagak Bay Summary ofResources and Uses in the Region" Chapter 3 Region 5: Dillingham, Snake Lake, Nushagak Bay, Bristol Bay Area Plan. April2005. Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (now NETC). Demand Management Project. Before the Federal Energy Administration. Feb 1975. http://akenergyinventorv.org/hyd/SSH-1975- 0187.pdf Sachin Mishra, S. K. Singal, and D. K. Khatod. Costing of a Small Hydropower Projects. IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, No.3, June 2013. www. i jetch .o rg/pa pers/357 -P013. pdf Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. Feasibility Report Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project. Alaska Power Authority. Mar 1987. http:llakenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1991- 0190.pdf Tennant, D. L., 1975. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Billings, Mont. University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995, 1976. http:llakenergyinventory.org/hyd/SSH-1976-0393.pdf United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging Station Records. "USGS 15302800 Grant LK Outlet NR Aleknagik AK" National Water Information System: Web Interface. http:ljwaterdata .usgs.gov /nwis/nwisma n/?site no= 15302800&agency cd= USGS. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging Station Records. USGS Station No. 15302800. Elva Lake Outlet near Aleknagik, Alaska. National Water Information System: Web Interface. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site no=15302840&agency cd=USGS United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging Station Records. USGS Station No. 15302000 Nuyakuk River near Dillingham, Alaska. National Water Information System: Web Interface. http:ljwaterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site no=15302000&agency cd=USGS United States Geological Survey (USGS) Streamflow Measurement Records. USGS Station No. 15302800. Grant Lake Outlet near Aleknagik, Alaska. National Water Information System: Web Interface. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/measurements/?site no=15302800 64 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS United States Geological Survey (USGS) Streamflow Measurement Records. USGS Station No. 15302800. Elva Lake Outlet near Aleknagik, Alaska. National Water Information System: Web Interface. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/measurements/?site no=15302840. Walsh, Patrick, Kaufman, Darrell, and Liedberg, Paul. Inventory of the Ahklun Mountain Glaciers, Southwest Alaska. Alaska Refuges Report 07-004. Dillingham, Alaska. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. May 2007. Western Regional Climate Center for the Lake Nerka, Alaska Station 505374 Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Period ofRecord: 1/9/1952 to 5/31/1965. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ak5374. Zaheer, Syed H., Eng, P. and Fallows, Craig. Document Project Readiness by Estimate Class Using PDR/.2011 AACE International Transactions, EST. 604. 65 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX I PROJECT SUMMARY DATA Appendix 1-1 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANTLAKEANDLAKEELVAPROJECTS Grant Lake Project Alternative G-1 (SM 7.5 Dam) Hydrology Watershed Average Annual Runoff Average Annual Runoff per square mile Average Annual Net Precipitation Reservoir Active Storage Capacity Full Reservoir Water Surface Elevation Full Reservoir Water Surface Area Minimum Water Surface Elevation Average Water Surface Elevation Average Annual Reservoir lnOow Average lnstrcam Maintenance Release Dam & Spillway Dam Location Dam Type Dam Height Crest Elevation Crest Length Spillway Powerhouse Powerhouse Location, Stream mile (SM) above Lake Kulik (SM 0) Powerhouse Elevation Installed Capacity Turbine Type Project Power Flow lnstrcam Flow Maintenance Release Static Head Net Head Transmission Line Type Length, Powerhouse to Aleknagik Upgrade, Existing System, 34.5 kV 30 to Waskcy Rd. Upgrade, Existing System, 12.5 kV 10 Waskcy Rd. to Plant Energy Production Average Annual Net Energy Output' Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Y car) Exceeds 80% of years Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Year) Exceeds 20% of years A vcragc Annual Diesel Avoidance 1 Net Energy after instream flow maintenance release. TABLE AI-1. Grant Lake Project Summary Data. 35.5 Square miles 101 cts 2.85 csm 38.6 inches 43.4 1000 AF 508 feet NAVD 88 2,558 Acres 488 feet NAVD 88 498.2 feet NA VD 88 101.2 cts 17.2 cts SM 7.5 Rockfill with impermeable membrane liner 24 feet 514 fectNAVD88 600 feet Uncontrolled. Auxiliary on left bank of dam 3.7 SM 192 fcctNAVD 88 1.89 MW Francis or Turgo 84.0 cfs 17.0 cfs 316.0 feet 304.0 feet 34.5 kilovolt 3-Phasc ACSR Single-pole Overhead 38.0 miles 15.5 miles 5.6 14,320,762 15,682,871 12,590,182 967,619 miles kWh kWh kWh Gallons Grant Lake Alternative G-2 (SM 6.5 Dam) Hydrology Watershed A vcragc Annual RunotT A vcragc Annual Run otT per square mile A vcragc Annual Net Precipitation Reservoir Active Storage Capacity Full Reservoir Water Surface Elevation Full Reservoir Water Surface Area Minimum Water Surface Elevation Average Water Surface Elevation A vcragc Annual Reservoir Inflow Average lnstrcam Maintenance Release Dam & Spillway Dam Location Dam Type Dam Height Crest Elevation Crest Length Spillway Type/Location Powerhouse Powerhouse Location, Stream mile (SM) above Lake Kulik (SM 0) Powerhouse Elevation Installed Capacity Turbine Type Project Power Flow lnstrcam Flow Maintenance Release Static Head Net Head Transmission Line Type Length, Powerhouse to Aleknagik Upgrade, Existing System, 34.5 kV 30 to Waskcy Rd. Upgrade, Existing System, 12.5 kV 10 Waskcy Rd. to Plant Energy Production A vcragc Annual Net Energy Output1 Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Year) Exceeds 80% of years Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Year) Exceeds 20% of years Average Annual Diesel Avoidance Appendix 1-2 36.5 Square miles 104.3 cfs 2.85 csm 38.6 inches 46.8 1000 AF 508 feet NA VD 88 2,659 Acres 488 feet NAVD 88 498.1 feet NA VD 88 104.3 cis 17.7 cfs SM 6.7 Concrete Gravity 60 feet 508 feet NA VD 88 120 feet Uncontrolled. Integral with Dam (Ogcc) 3.7 SM 192 feet NAVD 88 1.95 MW Francis or Turgo 86.7 cfs 17.7 cts 316.0 feet 304.0 feet 34.5 kilovolt 3-Phasc ACSR Single-pole Overhead 38.0 miles 15.5 miles 5.6 miles 14,727,225 kWh 16,147,613 kWh 12,884,794 kWh 995,083 Gallons DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Lake !<:Iva Project Alternative •:.1 (SM 1.6 llam) Hydrology Watershed A vcrage Annual RunolT Average Annual Runoff per square mile Average Annual Net Precipitation Reservoir Active Storage Capacity Full Reservoir Water Surface Elevation Full Reservoir Water Surface Area Minimum Water Surface Elevation Average Water Surlace Elevation Average Annual Reservoir Jntlow Average lnstream Maintenance Release llam & Spillway Dam Location Dam Type Dam Height Crest Elevation Crest Length Spillway Powerhouse Powerhouse Location, Stream mile (SM) above Lake Nerka (SM 0) Powerhouse Elevation Installed Capacity Turbine Type Project Power Flow lnstream Flow Maintenance Release Static Head Net Head Transmission Line Segment I Type: Length, Elbow Point to Grant Lake Transmision Line Segment 2 Type: Length, Elbow Point to Grant Lake Transmision Line Energy Prod uclion Average Annual Net Energy Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Year) Exceeds 80% of years Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Year) Exceeds 20'% of years Average Annual Diesel Avoidance (full utili7ation) I Net linergy after instrcam now maintenance release. 21nstrcam flows in anadromous reach assumed provided hy accretion in bypass reach. TABLE AI-2. Lake Elva Project Summary Data. 10.3 52.9 5.13 69.7 28.1 370 775 320 350.2 53.5 9.00 SM 1.6 108 380 620 Square miles efs csm inches 1000 AF fectNAVD88 Acres feet NAVD 88 feet NAVD 88 efs cis Rock fill with impervious core feet feet NAVD 88 teet Uncontrolled. Auxiliary spillway to Jell of dam via old channel 0.2 SM 66 feet NAVD 88 1.0 MW Francis or Turgo 44 cfs 9 cfs 304 feet 297 feet 34.5 kilovolt 3-Phase Submarine 2.3 miles 34.5 kilovolt 3-Phase ACSR Single-pole Overhead 21.9 miles 7,442,284 7,997,354 6,788,666 502,857 kWh kWh kWh Gallons Appendix 1-3 Lake •:tva Project Alternative E-2 (SM 3.3 Dam) Hydrology Watershed Average Annual Runotl' Average Annual RunotT per square mile Average Annual Net Precipitation Reservoir Active Storage Capacity h!ll Reservoir Water Surface Elevation Full Reservoir Water Surface !\rea Min Water Surlace Elevation Average Water Surtace Elevation Average Annual Reservoir lnllow Average Instream Maintenance Release Darn & Spillway Dam Location Dam Type Dam Height Crest Elevation Crest Length Spillway Powerhouse Location, Stream mile (SM) above Lake Ncrka (SM OJ Powerhouse Elevation Installed Capacity Turbine Type Project Flow Jnstream Flow Maintenance Relcasc2 Static !lead Net Head Transmission Line Segment I Type: Length, Elbow Point to Orant Lake Transmision Line Segment 2 Type: Length, Elbow Point to Grant Lake Transmision Line Energy Production A vemge Annual Net Energy Output Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Year) Exceeds 80% of years Annual Net Energy Output (Wet Year) Exceeds 20% ol'years Average Annual Diesel Avoidance (lull utilization) 9.0 Square miles 46.2 efs 5.13 csm 69.7 inches 10.9 1000 Af 356 l'cet NAVD 88 48H Acres 328 l'cct NAVD 88 344.5 feet NA VD 88 46.2 cfs 0* cfs SM 3.3 Rockfill with impervious core or membrane 38 feet 362 feet NA VD 88 620 feet Uncontrolled. Auxiliary spillway to right of dam via excavated channel 0.2 0.96 46.2 0 290 27H SM feet NAVD HH MW Prancis or Turgo cfs ds feet !Cct 34.5 kilovolt 3-Phasc Submarine 2.3 miles 34.5 kilovolt 3-Phase ACSR Single-pole Overhead 21.9 miles 6,947,626 kWh 7,153,396 kWh 6,461,763 kWh 469,434 Gallons DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX II TRANSMISSION FEASIBILITY STUDIES, DILLINGHAM AREA HYDROPOWER PROJECT (DAHP) -LAKE ELVA AND GRANT LAKE SITES Dryden & LaRue Draft Study, November 2012 Appendix 11-1 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS TRANSMISSION FEASIBILITY STUDIES, DILLINGHAM AREA HYDROPOWER PROJECT (DAHP)-LAKE ELVA AND GRANT LAKE SITES November 5, 2012 :lJrgden ~ ofaRue,~. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • SUMMARY OF CHANGES Revision Number Revision Date Revision Description A 11/05/2012 Review Draft Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Right of Way and Land Use ..................................................................................................... 1 3. Environmental ......................................................................................................................... 2 4. Transmission Line Alignments ................................................................................................. 2 5. Preliminary Transmission Design ............................................................................................ 4 6. Construction Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX A-Land Use and Status Maps B-Environmental Report C-Transmission Line Alignments D-Basis of Design Memorandum E -Voltage Profiles Page ii Transmission Facilities Feasibility Studies, DAHP, Lake Elva and Grant Lake Sites 1. INTRODUCTION Development of the Dillingham Area Hydropower Project (DAHP), Lake Elva and Grant Lake, requires the construction of electrical transmission facilities from the hydro sites to Dillingham. Estimated generation capacities are 1.5 MW from Lake Elva and 3.0 MW from Grant Lake. Dryden & LaRue, Inc. (D&L) was contracted by Nushagak Cooperative, Inc. (Nushagak) to complete a Transmission Line Facilities Feasibility Study for the DAHP. The scope of the study is to evaluate and refine transmission alignments developed in previous studies from the two hydro sites to the Nushagak Power House Substation. The final transmission alignments shall consider land use, environmental, constructability, operational and economic factors. A cost estimate for the transmission line and interconnecting facilities will also be completed. 2. RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND USE Right of way and land use for the transmission line alignments was reviewed by the D&L Right of Way Department. Land use and status maps are located in Appendix A. The following are their findings: Lands crossed by the proposed transmission line corridor include ANCSA Native Corporation lands owned by Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Aleknagik Natives, Limited, State of Alaska patented and tentatively approved lands and City of Aleknagik property. The bulk of the State of Alaska owned lands are within the Wood-Tikchik State Park. Wood-Tikchik State Park The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan at page 5-7 contains the following statement: Hydropower Development When Wood-Tikchik State Park was established, all state-owned lands and waters within the park were withdrawn from the public domain and designated for special purpose management. The enabling legislation gives the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation a clearly defined management purpose, which it cannot exceed without specific legislative action. The Legislature made a special finding that two potential hydro projects, at Lake Elva and Grant Lake, were compatible with park purposes. Both projects have since been determined unfeasible and dismissed from further consideration. Chikuminuk Lake has also been considered in the past for hydroelectric development, although it has not received the legislative recognition of Lake Elva and Grant Lake. Hydroelectric development at sites other than Lake Elva and Grant Lake is incompatible with the special park purpose management mandated by the Legislature and therefore already prohibited by law. The park enabling legislation must be amended to specifically allow hydroelectric development at Chikuminuk Lake. Section 41.21.167 of the Alaska Statutes addresses incompatible uses within the park. Paragraph (c) specifies that hydropower development at Lake Elva and Grant Lake are not incompatible uses of the park. Page 1 Transmission Facilities Feasibility Studies, DAHP, Lake Elva and Grant Lake Sites (c) Development and operation of a hydroelectric site at Lake Elva or Grant Lake is not considered an incompatible use. Although the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan states the projects are unfeasible and dismissed from further consideration, the legislative declaration takes precedence over the management plan. Development of the hydropower facilities authorized by AS 41.21.167(c) are subject to reasonable stipulations to protect park values and resources. Page 8-12 of the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. A Land Use Permit will be required for the preliminary project research; leases and rights of way for project facilities, power house and switchyard, transmission line and access roads will need to be obtained through the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. State Lands Outside Wood-Tikchik State Park For the State of Alaska owned lands outside of the Wood-Tikchik Park, a right of way grant will be required for transmission line and access easements. Removal of gravel from State lands outside of the park will require a material sale application. These permits will be issued by the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water. ANCSA Corporate Lands Easements for the transmission and access for the transmission line and to the project area will need to be acquired from Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Aleknagik Natives, Limited. City of Aleknagik Easements for the transmission and access for the transmission line to connect to existing easements will need to be acquired from the City of Aleknagik. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental issues which may be realized along the proposed alignments were addressed by Travis and Peterson Environmental Consultants, Inc. An environmental report addressing potential environmental issues, potential permits and approvals is included in Appendix B. 4. TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENTS A site visit was performed on August gth, 2012 to visually inspect and photographically record alignments established after review of the previous hydro studies, ROW, land use and environmental factors. Final transmission line alignments were then refined utilizing the field collected data, satellite aerial photography and USGS topographical maps. Lake Elva and Grant Lake Hydro Sites are both located within the Wood -Tikchik Alaska State Park. The required transmission facilities shall be minimized in the park by establishing alignments following construction favorable terrain which will allow the most direct route to the park boundary. The alignments were optimized to maximize constructability and reduce environmental impact. Page 2 Transmission Facilities Feasibility Studies, DAHP, Lake Elva and Grant Lake Sites The transmission of power from the Grant Lake Hydro site to the Nushagak existing power distribution system at the City of Aleknagik shall be constructed utilizing conventional overhead {OH) single pole power structures. Both conventional overhead construction and submarine cable will be needed for the Lake Elva transmission line facilities within the Park. Two alignment options will be investigated for the Lake Elva transmission line from the Hydro site to the Grant Lake transmission line just east of the park boundary. The upgrade of the Nushagak existing overhead single phase distribution line to three phase will be required from the City of Aleknagik to Waskey Road where a substation will be required to transform the power to the existing distribution voltage. A new 12.47 kV power line routed along Waskey Road will be required from this substation to the Nushagak power house substation. A 12.47 kV beaker addition will be needed at the Nushagak power house substation. As shown in Exhibit A, the following defines the refined alignments (a larger scale depiction of the alignments are located in Appendix C): LEGEND -------GRANT LAKE HYDRO lRANSioltSSION UNE ----------LAKE ELVA SUEIWARINE OPllON -----------LAKE ELVA 0\IERHEAD OPOON ------11000-nKOilK STATE PARK NUSHAGAK COOP . ELVA/GRANT HYDRO • ~rL~9~-EXHIBIT A Page 3 Transmission Facilities Feasibility Studies, DAHP, Lake Elva and Grant Lake Sites Grant Lake Transmission Line alignment heads dues east from the Grant Lake Hydro Site, taking the most direct route to the Wood-Tikchik State Park boundary. Once out of the state park, the alignment heads southward paralleling the park boundary to the Elva/Grant Junction (approximately 22.3 mile-Sub and 20.8 mile-OH). Two options for the Lake Elva Transmission Line from Lake Elva to Elva/Grant Junction were established. The first option is an underwater submarine cable routing through Lake Nerka which follows an alignment due east toward the park boundary (approximately 20.4 miles). The alignment exits the eastern most edge of the lake and proceeds overhead (approximately 3.5 miles) to the park boundary at the Elva/Grant Junction (Sub). The second option requires submarine cable water crossing of Lake Nerka (approximately 2.3 miles}, near the mouth of Amakuk Arm, and then proceeds via overhead construction easterly to the park boundary (approximately 21.9 miles) at Elva/Grant Junction (OH). From Elva/Grant Junction, the transmission line alignment continues southward, east of the state park boundary, to the point where the park boundary turns due west. From this point, the transmission alignment runs the most direct possible route, allowing deviations for geographical/water body obstacles, to the existing Nushagak distribution line on the north side of Wood River at the City of Aleknagik (approximately 21.8 miles-Sub and 23.4-0H). The new transmission line will follow the existing Nushagak distribution line alignment from the City of Aleknagik along Aleknagik Lake Road to the intersection of Waskey Road (approximately 15.5 miles). The Substation planned at the intersection of Aleknagik Lake Road and Waskey Road will feed a new 12.5 kV distribution line routed along Waskey Road to the Nushagak Power House which will allow power delivery from the Hydro Sites to the Nushagak main powerhouse substation (approximately 5.6 miles). 5. PRELIMINARY TRANSMISSION DESIGN Preliminary design determined transmission design parameters including loading criteria, optimum voltage, conductor size, typical structure type and pole size. Loading criteria was developed based on climatological data available from the Western Region Climate Center and Applied Technology Council. A basis of design is included in Appendix D. Voltage profiles were generated utilizing simple power flow models. The results are shown in Appendix E. In all cases it was assumed the Nushagak diesel generation was online which is needed to maintain voltage profiles. The modeling confirmed that a 336.4 ACSR conductor at an operating voltage of 34.5 kV will perform well for the transmission line power delivery requirements. The use of 4/0 ACSR will maintain voltage profiles on feeds to the Elva/Grant junction, with a 336.4 ACSR required from the Junction into Dillingham. For feasibility level purposes, it was decided to follow a more conservative approach utilizing 336.4 ACSR for all overhead portions of the project. Power flows indicated that the charging current required for the Lake Elva submarine cable option running the length of Lake Nerka is a problem. The Page 4 Transmission Facilities Feasibility Studies, DAHP, Lake Elva and Grant Lake Sites reactive power requirement for energizing and operation of the cable poses technical challenges with an extreme high cost. The upgrade in voltage to 34.5 kV of the single phase line along Aleknagik Lake Road will require the change out of existing distribution transformers. Conventional single bushing transformers will be utilized. A neutral will be included on the entire transmission line to help facilitate protective relaying of the line. Rural Utility Service (RUS) design parameters are utilized. RUS structures types will be used for the overhead section of the transmission line and will be single wood pole design. A typical tangent structure is as shown in Exhibit B. Raptor protection is taken into consideration and "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art in 2006, Avian Power line Interaction Committee" is used as a guideline . ... I tiEll'fftAL ! I . I I I I I I I I \ I I b.J Sll2E 34.5 kV 3¢ TANGENT LINE POST ASSEMBLIE {NOT TO SCALE) NUSHAGAK COOP. 1 TANGENT STRUCTURE (TYP) ~~Jn~§~-EXHIBIT 8-___.., The typical pole sizes are 40 ft Class 2, and 45 Class 2 and will be direct buried where soils are acceptable. Pile type foundations are expected in deep peat, or swampy areas. 6. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE A construction cost estimate was completed for the alignments shown in Exhibit A. The following is a list of the assumptions used in the development of the estimate: • Winter construction will be required for all activities north of City of Aleknagik. Use of snow/ice roads is assumed for the entire length of the alignments north of the City of Aleknagik. ----------------------------------PageS Transmission Facilities Feasibility Studies, DAHP, Lake Elva and Grant Lake Sites • Hydro sites substation transformation and switching is not included in estimate. • Complete replacement of structures, transformers and conductor for the existing distribution line along Aleknagik Lake Road. • Costs associated with easements, environmental studies and permits are not included in estimate. • Land cost for the Substation needed at Waskey and Aleknagik Lake Road are not included in the estimate. • Due to uncertainties associated with man camps, duration of winter (ice road availability), and material logistics for facilities north of the City of Aleknagik, a bottom line contingency of 30% were utilized. A 20% contingency was used for all other facilities. • The cost estimate is based on 2012 dollar value. The following table presents the estimated costs for the different segments of the project: --- Grant Lake to Power House Construction Grant Lake to City of Aleknagik 35 kV Line $18,655,000 City of Aleknagik to Waskey Road OH 15 kV to 35 kV Conversion $4,236,000 Step Down Substation and PH Sub Addition 15 kV/35 kV 5 MVA, PH Breaker $1,500,000 Waskey Road Power Line New 15 KV Line $1,386,000 Lake Elva 34.5 kV 3 Phase Transmission Line Options Lake Elva Hydro to Elva/Grant Junction-OH 35 kV Overhead Option $14,847,000 Lake Elva Hydro to Elva/Grant Junction-Sub 35 kV Submarine Option $49,417,000 - Mobilization/Demobilization $897,000 ----- ---------------------------------PageG APPENDIX A-LAND USE AND STATUS MAPS Generalized Land Status CJ National Wildlife Refuge CJ National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Bureau of Land Management Native Corporation State Owned (TA & Patent) Other private land /// State selected "-"'-'\:' Native selected e Native allotments within the park ~ Other private lands within the park Lands Addressed by this Plan § Lake Aleknagik State Rec. Site (SRS) N Wood-Tikchik State Park Miscellaneous • • • it. Natural features Private lodge Research cabin State Park camp sites o.,,. -.. I --+-- -~ 11 l :'"l Kisara!ik Lake • \ ~~/ /; lj ...._ {? c::;--;· ' r ·· . .J , t 1 --._J_ t MAP 7-1 PRIVATE LAND WITHIN WOOD-TIKCHIK STATE PARK •• ~I ..... - o ..... - -1., ---· L r--- LEGEND Generalized Land Status CJ National Wildlife Refuge CJ National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Bureau af Land Management Native Corporation State Owned [TA & Patanl) Other privata land /// State selected '-" '\.; Native selected Lands Addressed by this Plan G Lake Aleknagik Slata Rec. Sita (SRS) N Wood-ntcchik State Part< Private Land withi n Wood-Tikchik State Park Native al lotments • 101 pan:els e T181"lll conservation easement allows no commercial development on these parcels · 2 e ner II conservation easement allows one commercial sita per parcel-33 e nor 1 conservation easament doesn't restrict commercial development -39 No conservation easement in place • 27 • Other private lan ds • 9 l I I"" \ / 1- Konarut Mt \ Smiles I N :, A j \ ... • on~utvaJ< ill<>l:'n atn MAP 8 ·1 LAND USE DESIGNATION IN WOOD-TIKCHIK STATE PARK c ~\ .::; . I ~~ r·-- l • /, ':-INa~uraJ! ' -~ .. • Tikchik Mt • t::=:=l Lake Aleknagik State 1::::::::::::1 Rec. Site (SRS) § Proposed pari< additions N Wood-1ikchik State Pari< N Management Unit boundaries ----:;.A:~ -----~~ MUG· AGULUKPAK Land Use Designations in Wood-Tikchik State Park • -MU7 • LA-i<E NERKA !Naruniti' LAKE NERKA ' (Second Lake) ./~~~~ I tr _'1~ulowak ~UB • I ---su uw y ll&iind A~OWAK RIVER -(JJ;Irt o!SltS! l !f~o)l=/ • \ -.. LAKE ~ ALEKNAGIK -· • • RIVER~N61ura'l 1lTITIIl1 Wilderness c:J Natural l .,m .. I Recreational Development Miscellaneous • • • A. Natural features Private lodge Research cabin State Pari< camp sites • ~•AlEKNAGIK '---,-------.:;;'......,;;;:;...J' • ~.,Z'!I' (flrs1 Lal;e) Lake AJ' 1191;__.....--.-MU9 ·LAKE "I..EKNAGIK S S SRS &. J~arog•r Station I!' • APPENDIX B- ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT NUSHAGAK ELECTRIC AND TELEPHONE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTING ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY Prepared for: DRYDEN & LaRUE, INC. 3305 Arctic Blvd., Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 f /"/'lot e !/1'hfl ((( . .'im·. CUiill a Uifi"G t•CIIillflRK Prepared by: TRAVIS/PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 3305 Arctic Blvd., Suite 102 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 329 2nd Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Travis/Peterson EnvlronmentaiConsulttng, Inc. 1088-30 Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environmental Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS August 30, 2012 Page ii 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Purpose of Project ................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Need of Project ....................................................................................................... 2 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ...................................................................... 2 3.1 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Ecosystems and Biological Communities ............................................................... 3 3.3 Visual Landscape .................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Social, Cultural, and Economic Impacts ................................................................ .4 4.0 POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROV ALS .................................................................... 6 4.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................. 6 4.2 Alaska Department of Natural Resources ................................................................ ? 4.3 United States Environmental Protection Agency .................................................... 8 4.4 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ............................................... 8 4.5 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................. 9 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9 6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 10 FIGURES Figure 1 -Proposed Transmission Line Routes .................................................................. 1 Figure 2-Private Land within Wood-Tikchik State Park .................................................. 5 Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK Sept. 10, 2012 Page 1 Dryden &LaRue Inc. contracted Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (TPECI) to investigate possible environmental issues concerning the proposed transmission line routes for the proposed Elva Lake and Grant Lake Hydroelectric Projects (Figure 1). TPECI reviewed the proposed transmission line routes, aerial photos, and area maps. This report summarizes TPECI findings and discusses what environmental issues will require attention for this project. 0 5 10 •-===Miles ;I'V --... o--/V T----..... ....... ... o---- «ushagak Cooperative Lake Elva a Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Location Map Dlltr. 1/4/2012 """"" o-.tow __ _ -* Figure 1 -Proposed Transmission Line Routes Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 Purpose of Project Sept. 10, 2012 Page 2 The NETC is proposing to build two hydroelectric generating stations within the boundaries of the Wood-Tichik State Park. One facility is proposed at Elva Lake and another sited at Grant Lake. Transmission lines would transport power to Aleknagik where it would link to an existing line (as shown in Figure 1). The project's intent is to provide Nushagak customers with a cost-effective and reliable energy source while meeting future load demands. 2.2 Need of Project Nushagak Cooperative serves residents of Dillingham, Aleknagik, and remote villages throughout the Dillingham census area. Currently, NETC has a diesel engine powered generating plant in Dillingham which serves its loads. The NETC system currently has a summer peak load of 3.4 MW and a minimum load of 1.4 MW (at night). Peak demand occurs in July. The proposed hydroelectric projects would combine to meet nearly seventy-five (7 5) percent of the annual load requirements. The Nushagak Cooperative electric load is met by diesel generators. Therefore, member rates are highly dependent on fuel costs. Also, the remote nature of the area limits the electric generation options due to transmission constraints and reliability concerns. Because of high electricity rates, approximately $0.23/kWh for residential customers, the State of Alaska pays a portion of customer electric bills via the Power Cost Equalization Program. The proposed hydroelectric projects at Elva Lake and Grant Lake would reduce electricity costs and provide clean, renewable energy to their members. 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 3.1 Water Resources The majority of the proposed transmission line will travel occurs within and directly adjacent to the boundaries of the Wood-Tikchik State Park and Lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site. The Wood River-Tikchik Lakes system is a long series of interconnected lakes and rivers which empty into Bristol Bay. Lake Nerka, the Grant and Muklung Rivers, Elva Creek, and other unnamed streams are anadromous bodies of water that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. These waters are important spawning grounds for salmon, predominately sockeye, but other species are also present. Every possible effort must be made to minimize any impediments (i.e. dams, spillways, powerline foundations, etc.) that prevent the movement of salmon to and within these bodies of water. Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary Sept. 10, 2012 Page 3 With respect to the transmission lines routing, the upper arm of Lake Nerka would be most directly affected. The transmission line leaving the Elva Lake Powerhouse is proposed to be a submarine line within Lake Nerka and exiting the eastern reach of the lake while transitioning to an aerial line. At Lake Nerka and throughout the project area's streams and smaller water-bodies, best management practices (BMP) should be utilized to minimize the disruption of fish habitat and recreational/subsistence activities as a result of construction. Wetlands are prevalent throughout the project area. There would be no way to avoid impacting wetlands during this operation. A Section 404 permit from the United States Corp of Engineers will be required for this project. This project may fall under COE Nationwide permits 12 and 17 if it meets the established criteria. Nationwide Permit 12 pertains to utility line activities provided that they do not result in a loss greater than Y2 acre of waters for each single and complete project. Considering the scope of the proposed project, it is unlikely that the project will qualify for a Nationwide Permit 12. Nationwide Permit 17 is applicable to hydroelectric projects that are less than 5.0 MW of total generating capacity at the reservoir. 3.2 Ecosystems and Biological Communities Ecosystems Vegetation throughout the project site lies within the transitional zone between the Hudsonian and Eskimoan Biotic Provinces. While dominated by coniferous forest, vegetation can vary greatly due to topography, geology, and other local environmental influences. In general, white spruce and mixed spruce-birch thickets are found up to 900-feet in elevation. Forest stands growing above 500 to 600 feet typically do not develop to saw- timber size. Above 900-feet the land is comprised of bare rock, heath tundra, and alpine meadow. Wet tundra or marsh, are common at the lowest elevations. Cursory investigation using Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse maps have shown little evidence of invasive, nonnative species within the project area. Hits have been documented in the Dillingham area causing a potential for invasive, nonnative species to be transported into the project area on equipment and material. Biological Communities The project area is home to a large variety of fauna. Mammal habitat includes: moose, Brown and Black bear, caribou, wolf, coyote, and wolverine. Small game and furbearers found in the park include beaver, muskrat, otter, fox, weasel, marten, hare, and lynx. Ground squirrels and marmots are abundant. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has designated the area between the upper and lower arms of Lake Nerka and areas south of Grant Lake to be important moose habitat (and critical habitat in winter months). Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary Sept. 10, 2012 Page4 Due to the large number of waterbodies, wetlands, and the variety of upland habitats, the list of birds seen in the park is higher and of greater variety than typically found in inland Alaska. Bird strikes to the transmission lines would be an area of concern for the project. Five species of Pacific salmon [chinook (king), sockeye (red), coho (silver), pink, and chum] spawn in the Wood River and Tikchik Lakes systems. Rainbow trout, grayling, lake trout, Arctic char, and Dolly Varden are also abundant. All play a significant role in the area's sport and subsistence fishing. Super saturation of nitrogen as a result of spillway drainages from dams has been found to have a negative impact on juvenile salmon potentially resulting in immediate death. Protection of fish populations and habitat would be a primary environmental concern within the project area. 3.3 Visual Landscape The Wood-Tikchik State Park and surrounding areas have long been a recreational destination for people from Alaska, the states, and globally. Photography and general sightseeing (non-hunting, fishing, or subsistence activities) comprise a large portion of park visitors. The visual impact of the project is an issue of concern. There is significant air traffic due to the remote nature of the region. Private and charter floatplane operations are free to land in the park's numerous lakes. Floatplanes often fly 'knap of the earth' based on landmarks instead of a set flight plan and mid-air collisions with power lines is not uncommon. Power line tower lights and line markers would be a necessary precaution for the proposed lines creating a significant visual impact. 3.4 Social, Cultural, and Economic Impacts Social Impacts The proposed project area lies with a recreational haven used by people from around the world. World class hunting and fishing, boating and sightseeing tours, wildlife viewing, photography, and numerous other outdoor activities are enjoyed throughout the park. Minimizing negative impact and access to these activities due to project construction would be a high priority. Temporary impacts during construction include increases in noise and the impact of construction equipment and crew on tranquil and sensitive areas. Also, the underwater cable may prevent fisherman (recreational and subsistence) from anchoring their boats along the corridor and limiting the fishable area of the lake. There are several parcels of private property within Wood-Tikchik State Park, including a number of properties that may be affected by the transmission line project (Figure 2). These properties include parcels at Grant Lake, at the discharge of Elva Creek into Lake Nerka, and numerous sites along the shores of Lake Nerka. Dryden & LaRue, Inc . 1088-30 Nushagak: E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary -r- t-- • 1.4 --I I ~ l • Sept. 10, 2012 Page 5 General._ Londlhlltua D --RoAI!It D --RoAI!It--a~~..~n~~....__ -~ -Oonod(TAI _, Olwpt<-.llnt ///.-- ,,~-- Linda---by thla Pl.ln § LIU_,.SIIIIRoc.lllo(SRS) N -·,._-Pn Pmm• Lind within Wood.nkchlk-Port< -ol-·111_.. • !lorN ___ .., ----.. -...... 2 • !lor·------·por ...... 3J • Tlorl ___ , -----·31 llo--~--·21 • Cltlw...--.• ,0-4<>, F igure 2-Private Land within Wood-T ikchik State Park Cultural Impacts Many of the residents of Aleknagik and Dillingham as well as the surrounding villages are highly dependent on a subsistence lifestyle. The most important fish and game subsiste nce resource in the area is salmon, although moose, caribou, and resident fish are also important. The area is also used for gathering firewood, picking berries, trapping and providing other renewable resources for food, clothi ng, shelter, transportation and handicrafts. Minimizing the project's impact on these activities would be a high priority. As the transmission line route approaches Aleknagik and the surrounding tribal-owned lands, the possibility of encroaching traditional, historic, or religious properties or other archeological resources is heightened. An AS 41.35.080 permit may be needed for historic and archeological investigation on state land. Economic Impacts Economic impacts during the transmission line construction and related activities would rest primarily on its effect on tourism/recreation throughout the area. Construction could restrict access to large recreational areas (Lake Nerka, Grant Lake, and the Grant River) as well as sections of Lake Aleknagik, the Wood River, and the Town of Aleknagik itself. • Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary Sept. 10, 2012 Page 6 The proposed transmission line routes lies within the area of important salmon spawning grounds. The Wood-Tikchik State Park, Lake Aleknagik, and surrounding area's waters contribute a significant share of the Bristol Bay commercial sockeye salmon fishery. Protection and minimization of impact on these waters and habitats are vital to the population's economic and subsistence well being. 4.0 POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS When Wood-Tikchik State Park was established, all state-owned lands and waters within the park were withdrawn from the public domain and designated for special purpose management. The Legislature made a special finding that two potential hydroelectric projects, at Lake Elva and Grant Lake, were compatible with park purposes. Permits and approvals for this project depend on environmental conditions, land ownership/status, and regulatory jurisdiction. The following section describes federal and state agency jurisdiction and their permit requirements as they apply specifically to the project. 4.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 404 Permit The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates impacts to wetlands. The COE enforces Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the COE. Because wetlands exist at several locations along the power line, a Section 404 Permit will be required. In addition, if a temporary access road is constructed for this project on wetlands, a Section 404 permit will be required. This project may fall under COE nationwide permits 12 and 17 if it meets the established criteria. Nationwide Permit 12 pertains to utility line activities provided that they do not result in a loss greater than '12 acre of waters for each single and complete project. The proposed project is not expected to meet these qualifications. Nationwide Permit 17 is applicable to hydroelectric projects that are less than 5.0 MW of total generating capacity at the reservoir. A pre-application consultation with the COE is not required but recommended. This consultation will prevent delays once the application is submitted for review. Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary 4.2 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) The State Historic Preservation Office SepL 10,2012 Page 7 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 requires all federal and state agencies take into account the effects on historic properties. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is a division of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) and regulates impacts to historic, cultural, and archeological resources. According to the 1966 NHPA, all projects must be submitted to the SHPO for their analysis and approval. If investigation, excavation, gathering, or removal from the natural state, of any historic, prehistoric, or archeological resources of the state (such as Wood-Tikchik State Park) is required, an Alaska Statute Title 41.35.080 permit may be issued. If the historic, prehistoric, or archeological resource involved is one which is, sacred, holy, or of religious significance to a cultural group, the consent of that cultural group must be obtained before a permit may be issued under this section. Alaska Statute Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit The Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulates specific rivers, lakes, and streams or parts of them that arc important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fish. The Anadromous Fish Act (AS 16.05.871) and the Fishway Act (AS 16.05.840) require that activities within or across specified anadromous fish streams that could represent an impediment to the efficient passage of fish or construction activities that would disturb the natural flow of a specified anadromous stream, river, or lake, will require a Title 16 Fish Habitat permit. Because work will be performed in or around numerous anadromous habitats (Lake Nerka, the Grant and Muklung Rivers, Elva Creek, and other unnamed streams), a Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit will be required for this project. State Land Use Permit An ADNR land use permit is required for construction projects on state-owned lands or crossing state-owned lands for access. This includes temporary access roads. In addition, a land use permit may be required for certain activities on state-owned land that occur below the ordinary high water line of navigable streams and lakes. This permit is required for most activities that occur in streams and lakes. In addition, any hydro- electric project must receive approval of an ADNP dam engineer for dam designs and maintenance and operations plans. Dryden & LaRue, Inc. I 088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary Temporary Water Use Permit (at Dam Sites) Sept. 10, 2012 Page 8 ADNR regulates temporary withdrawals from water from state owned sources and issue a water use permit. A Temporary Water Use Permit is required if freshwater from any subsurface or surface source, on a temporary basis, on all lands regardless of ownership, is used. This permit may be required when taking freshwater for uses for dust abatement, material compaction during construction, domestic uses at construction camps, and hydro-seeding after construction. Special Use Permit Special Use Permits are issued by ADNR State Parks for a variety of activities and uses occurring within a state recreation area or state park. Special Use Permits under 11 AAC 18.0 I 0 is required of all commercial activities in the park. 4.3 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) To prevent the discharge of oil into waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established the Pollution Prevention Rule published under the Clean Water Act. This rule mandates that all facilities and/or projects implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan if the project is non-transportation-related, above ground storage capacity greater than I ,320 gallons, and has a reasonable expectation of a discharge into or upon navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. If the Nushagak Hydroelectric Transmission Line Project meets these three criteria, an SPCC plan will be required. 4.4 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Section 401 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants States and eligible Tribes the authority to review, approve or deny federal permits that result in discharge into State and Tribal waters including wetlands. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), in conjunction with the COE 404 permitting, will analyze projects for impacts to water quality and recommend mitigation measures to prevent water pollution. ADEC will issue a Certificate of Assurance in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, under Section 40 l of the Clean Water Act, ADEC has the authority to review and comment on the SPCC Plan required by EPA for storage of large quantities of oil. Dryden & LaRue. Inc. I 081'\-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Sept. 10, 2012 Page 9 The goal of ADEC's Storm Water Program is to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm waters so that pollutants do not reach land or waters of the state. Storm water discharges often contain pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect water quality. Storm water discharges are regulated under the NPDES program, and certain storm water discharges require an NPDES permit from EPA. The State of Alaska requires that any construction project that disturbs one or more acres must be covered by a Construction General Permit (CGP) before any soil is disturbed at the site. The permit coverage must be continued until all building is completed and the ground is completely stabilized with a permanent, perennial, vegetative cover. Development and implementation of a construction storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is the key condition of the CGP. 4.5 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity. FERC also regulates natural gas and hydropower projects. As part of that responsibility, FERC regulates the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce and licenses and inspects private, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects. Furthermore, FERC oversees environmental matters related to natural gas and hydroelectricity projects and major electricity policy initiatives. FERC safeguards the environment by ensuring that planned projects will mmtmize damage to the environment. As a result, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process will be initiated. NEPA is required to analyze environmental impacts of the proposed project as a whole. Both the dam and transmission portions of the project will be considered as one. A key component of this is that FERC requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. NEPA documents typically require at least three years to complete and has an extensive public involvement program. 5.0 CONCLUSION The rising cost of shipping fuel to the Dillingham and Aleknagik requires NETC to investigate other sources of energy. The proposed hydroelectric projects at Elva Lake and Grant Lake are a viable alternative to diesel fuels. The ability to reduce energy cost, lower the dependency on diesel fuel, increase reliability and opportunities for future growth, and provide a clean, renewable energy source are all benefits the proposed project can provide. Dryden & LaRue, Inc. I 088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary Sept. 10,2012 Page 10 TPECI has reviewed available pertinent information regarding the Nushagak Transmission Line Project including the proposed transmission line routes, aerial photos, and area maps. TPECI anticipates the following environmental permits are required for this project: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o Section 404 Wetland Fill Permit. • Alaska Department of Natural Resources o State Historic Preservation Office Clearance; o Alaska Statute Title I6 Fish Habitat Permit; o State Land Use Permit; o Temporary Water Use Permit; and o State Parks Special Use Permit. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency o Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan; and o Review of Wetland Impacts. • Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation o Section 401 Certification; and o Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission o FERC Licensing; and o NEPA -Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. TPECI recommends the following actions for the transmission line route: • A void spanning areas where float planes access the lake system; • A void laying underwater cable in areas where fisherman congregate; • Span all creeks and rivers wherever possible; • Utilize existing trails as much as possible; • A void construction during hunting season; • Limit construction on wetlands areas to winter months; and • Start the FERC NEPA process as soon as possible. 6.0 REFERENCES ACHP,2012. Section 106 Regulations Summary. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Website Database, August, 2012. ADNR, 2012. Coastal Management Program. Alaska Department ofNatural Resources, Website Database, August, 2012. Dryden & LaRue, Inc. I 088-30 Nushagak E&T Proposed Transmission Line Routing Environment Summary Sept. 10, 2012 Page 11 ADNR, 2012. Permits and Leases. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Website Database, August, 2012. ALRC, 201 Alaska Statutes. Alaska Legal Resource Center, Website Database, August, 2012. EPA, 2012. Section 401 Certification. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Website Database, August, 2012. EPA, 2010. Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Regulation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. pp.1-8. J. Wall, 1985. United States Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Application Information. Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. pp.I-20. ADNR, 2002. Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, pp. 1-139 APPENDIX C-TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENTS LEGEND -------GRANT lAKE HYDRO lRAHSWISSION LINE ----------LAKE ELVA SUBNARINE OP110N ---- ------ -lAKE ELVA O'IERHEAD OP110N W000-11KCHIK STATE PARK - -I - -I - -I - - -SHEET BOUN>MY 0 5 10 MILES MAP SOURCE USGS TOPOS ~r-1~ I 1 2 3 4 -~~§~ DESIGNED BY1 GSG DRA\r/N BYI T JG -10 /30/2012 NUSHAGAK COOPERATIVE TRANSM ISSION FACILITIES FEASIB ILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE HYDROPOWER AND LAKE ELVA HYDROPOWER $~ I' • !I Nll.£S DRAWING NO. SITE MAP REVISION: A NEW STEP-DOWN SUBSTATION (IN DIWNGHAM) rf--·------·-r2---·--·--·--·1 I j ~ I I \ \ i \ \ i ) \ ~ I \ I .,.,_... . I I I /"" '\,..... I J' I J - I ' I I \ I ~/ ' I I j ~ L_ --·----·-'\J:.:-==... . .J...-:-~=--·-J LEGEND ---------------GRANT LAKE H'I1>RO lRANSMISSION UNE LAKE ElVA SUBMARINE OPTION LAKE El. VA OVERHEAD OPTION 'MlOO-TIKCHIK STATE PARK - -I -SHEET BOUNOARY -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -MATa-t UN£ 0 3 6 MILES 1 2 SCALE: I' • 3 ~ -~~§~ DESIGNED BY• GSG DRA\r/N BY• T JG -10/30/2012 NUSHAGAK COOPERATIVE TRANSMIS SION FACILITlES FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE HYDROPOWER AND LAKE ELVA HYDROPOWER DRAWING NO. SHEET 1 OF 2 REVISION: A ~~ • ~ LAKE ELVA OVERHEAD FOR SUBMARINE OPTION (3.5 MILES) \ \ \ \ ....... , t: ~~ r1 ·--·--·--·--·-T2-·--·----·--·1 I j ~ I ,, I I , \ I I I ) \ ~ I \ I .,._... . I I I I"' '\,..... I J' I J . I I " I I \ I ~/ ' I I j ~ L---.--.--.-'\J:.:-=-=... .....__:--==-:=--.-J LEGEND -------GRANT LAKE HYDRO 1RANSMISSION UNE ----------LAKE ELVA SUBMARINE OPTION - ------ - - - -LAKE ELVA OVERHEAD OPTION 'MlOD-TIKQIIK STATE PARK --__ , ____ ,_ SHEETBOUNDARY -1 -I -1 -I -I -I -I -WATOi UNE 0 3 6 MILES 1 2 SCAt.£: ••• 3 MIL!:!: lift ~~§~ DESIGNED BY1 GSG DRA'w'N BY1 T JG -10 /30/2012 NUSHAGAK COOPERATIVE TRANSM ISSION FACILITIES FEASIBILI TY STUDY GRANT LAKE HYDROPOWER AND LAKE ELVA HYDROPOWER DRAWING NO. SHEE T 2 OF 2 REVISION: A APPENDIX D-BASIS OF DESIGN 1. STANDARDS Dillingham Area Hydro Project Basis of Design Memorandum 34.5kV Transmission Line The line will comply with the requirements of the following standards: a. 2012 edition, National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), Grade B construction b. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) c. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) d. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) e. American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI) f. Rural Utility Service (RUS) 2. DETAILED DESIGN REQUIREMENTS a. Loading Criteria The line will be designed for the following loading criteria: ( 1) NESC Heavy Loading: 4 psf wind (40 mph), Y2-inch radial ice, 0°F with NESC Grade B load/strength factors as summarized below: Item Wind Wire Tension Vertical Loads Loads Loads Steel Structures, Anchors & 2.50/1.00 1.65/1.00 1.50/1.00 Foundations Guys 2.50/0.90 1.65/0.90 NIA Wood Structures 2.50/0.65 1.65/0.65 1.50/0.65 (2) Extreme Wind Loading 10/30/2012 While NESC Rule 250C does not apply to structures under 60 ft in height the importance and remoteness of the line dictates some attention to high wind exposure. 1 00 mph will be used on structure and wire with no ice, 20°F with load/strength factors = 1.33/1.00 for wood structures and 1.111.00 for steel structures, guys, anchors and foundations. 1 (3) Extreme Ice Loading: One (1.0) inch radial ice at a density of 57 lbs/cubic ft., 0°F, no wind, with load/strength factors = 1.30/1.00 for wood structures and 1.111.00 for steel structures. b. Structure Type 34.5 kV deadend structures will be single wood pole with Hughes type arms configured toRUS assembly ZC8X, a double deadend on crossarm modified for raptor protection. 34.5 kV tangent structures will be single wood poles configured to RUS assembly ZC I X, modified for raptor protection 15 kV deadend structures will be single wood pole with Hughes type arms configured toRUS assembly C8X, a double deadend on crossarm modified for raptor protection. 15 kV tangent structures will be single wood poles configured to RUS assembly C IX, modified for raptor protection c. Line Conductor Future conductor for the 35kV and 15 kV circuits will be: 336.4 kcmil, 26/7 ACSR Code name: "Linnet" Weight: 0.463 lbs/ft. Diameter: 0. 720 inches Rated Tensile Strength: 14, I 00 lbs Rated Ampacity: 51 0 Amps New conductor tension in percent of the conductor's rated tensile strength will not exceed the following: NESC Loading Clz-inch ice, 4 psfwind, 0°F, plus k = 0.30) .................................... 50% Extreme Ice Loading (1.0 inch ice, no wind, 0°F) ............................................... 70% Initial Unloaded Tension, 0°F ................................................................................... 20% Final Unloaded Tension, 0°F ................................................................................... 15% Typical sag and tension tables for Linnet conductors are included at the end of the design memorandum. g. Clearances Minimum vertical design clearance above ground will be 23.5 ft. Ground clearances will be based on the conductor sag at 1.0 inch radial ice (57 pet), at 0°F, or at the maximum design operating temperature, whichever is greater. The maximum design operating temperatures for the 35 kV circuit is 120° F. Following is a table detailing the derivation of the ground clearance criteria: 10/30/2012 2 Clearance Over Roads and lands traversed by vehicles Snow 7.0 Height of object under line (reference height) 10.0 Mechanical and Electrical clearance component 4.5 Extra clearance for survey and construction variations, and possible sag increase due to unusual snow/ice 2.0 TOTAL DESIGN CLEARANCE 23.5 feet Attachments: Sag-Tension Tables 10/30/2012 3 ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA DAHP -336.4 ACSR Conductor LINNET 336.4 Kcmil 26/ 7 Stranding ACSR Area= .3070 Sq. In Dia= .720 In Wt= . 463 Lb/F RTS= 14100 Lb Data from Chart No. 1-782 English Units Span= 300.0 Feet NESC Heavy Load Zone Creep is NOT a Factor Rolled Rod Design Points Final Initial Temp Ice Wind K weight Sag Tension Sag Tension F In Psf Lb/F Lb/F Ft Lb Ft Lb 0. 1. 00 .00 . 00 2.603 5.92 4958 . 5.92 4958. 0. .50 4.00 . 30 1.650 4.85 3831 . 4.61 4032. 32. .50 .00 .00 1.222 4.93 2794. 4.39 3136. -50. .00 .00 .00 . 463 1. 50 3474 . 1.37 3807. -20. .00 .00 .00 . 463 2.00 2605 . 1.64 3173. 0. . 00 .00 . 00 .463 2.46 2115 . * 1.89 2751 . 30. .00 .00 .00 . 463 3.33 1566 . 2.42 2156. 60. .00 .00 .00 . 463 4.26 1223 . 3.13 1665. 90. .00 .00 .00 . 463 5.01 1042 . 3.97 1315. 120. .00 .00 .00 . 463 5.42 963 . 4.82 1083. 167. .00 .00 .00 .463 6.06 861. 6.02 868. 212. . 00 .00 . 00 .463 6.66 785 . 6.62 789 . Design Condition 10/30/2012 4 APPENDIX E-VOLTAGE PROFILES The following Power Flow results are based on 1.5 MW from Lake Elva and 3.0 MW from Grant Lake delivered to the Nushagak Power Plant with a system peak load of 4 MW and a minimum load of 1.4 MW with Nushagak diesel generation on line. The values displayed are the bus voltages(%) and the line flows (MW/MVAr) .. All loads were set to 95% power factor. The transformer taps were adjusted by a maximum value of 2.5% to improve the voltage profile (varies from case to case). The results confirm two facts. First, the Nushagak plant needs to be online under most, if not all, loading conditions (minimum loading results look okay). Second, the charging produced by the Lake Elva cable is a problem. At 1.0 per unit voltage, it produces about 2.65 MV Ar. Overall, Grant Lake looks acceptable and Lake Elva have reactive issues that need to be overcome which may be possible installation of reactors and operational procedures. Lake Elva Gen 4.16kv - Gen3 Lake Elva 34.5-kV Junction2 34.5 kV Grant Lake Gen 4 .16 kV - Grant Lake 34.5 kV Junction 34.5 kV ~f-----+------<3 t>---t----~~~----J----~---o..>" "-.0 3 t Cable1 T3 3 MVA Open Dillingham 34.5 kV Dillingham Gen 12.47 kV - Gen2 5MW h .2 j1.7 Gen1 3 MW 1 3 ·-j 0. 4 +3 -j0.4 +3 -j 0. 5 +2. 9 -j 0. 4 +2. 9 -j 0. 3 T1 T2 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA 5 MVA +4 j1.3 Max 4.211 MVA Grant Lake -Maximum Load :.474 Lake Elva Gen 4.16 kV - Lake Elva 34 .5-kV T3 3 MVA Junction2 34.5 kV Grant Lake Gen 4.16 kV - Grant_Lake 34.5 kV Junction 34.5 kV Open Dillingham 34.5 kV Dillingham Gen 12.47 kV - Gen2 !:> Gen1 3MW I 1.4 .j 0. 09 h .4 j 0. 09 h .4 j0.07 h .4 j0.2 h .4 j 0.5 T2 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA T1 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA Max 4. 211 Grant Lake -Minimum Load h .4 j0.5 Min 1.474 MVA Lake Elva Gen 4.16kV - Lake_Elva 34.5 kV Junction2 34.5 kV Genl 3MW Grant Lake Gen 3 4.16 k:v -+jl.l 1-oo' +3 jl.l T2 -2.5% TapP T 5MVA Grant Lake 9, 34 .5 kV 1.00·1 Junction 34.5 kV +3 jl Gen3 J 1.5MW ~~( ~~------~----------~----4-------~~~---------+--~~·~oo~--~,.,.~~~ \.D Cablel · +2. 9 jl T3 3 MVA -2.5% TapP Open Dillingham 34.5 kV Dillingham Gen 12.47 kV - Gen2 5 +2. 8 jl.l Tl -2.5% TapP u.V0 5 MVA +2. 8 j0.9 Max 2.948 MVA Grant Lake Only -Maximum Grant Output 1.474 .... Lake Elva Gen 4.16 kV - Lake Elva 34.5-kV T3 3 MVA -2.5% TapP Junction2 34.5 kV Grant Lake Gen 4.16 kV - Grant Lake 34.5 kV Junction 34.5 kV Open Dillingham 34.5 kV Dillingham Gen 12.47 kV - Gen2 5 Gen1 3MW y 1.4 +j 0. 09 0.09 1.4 T2 -2.5' TapP rY'(Y' 5 MVA h .4 j0.07 h .4 j0 .2 h .4 j0.5 I..A..i..AJ T1 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA Max 2. 948 JJ'. Grant Lake Only -Minimum Load h .4 j0.5 Min 1.474 MVA • • • • • Lake Elva Gen 4 .1G kV - 1.1.0 ·64"' Lake Elva 34.5-kV Gen3 1.5 MW ~ )----,--1.~5 • ,.....,.....-,. 1. 5 -------( jO jO T3 I ~ •1 ·5 Cable1 -j0.04 3 MVA -2.5% TapP Junction2 34.5 kV Grant Lake Gen 4 .16 kV - y Grant Lake 34 .5 kV T T2 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA Junction 34.5 kV I • 1. ~------o-..<>---o -" j3.3 Dillingham 34.5 kV Dillingham Gen 12.47 kV - t 2. 7 -j 1. 9 Gen2 (~ 5 MW ) /'Open h .5 j3.3 h .3 j3.4 T1 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA •4 j1.3 Max 4.211 MVA Lake Elva -Maximum Load 1. 474 Lake Elva Lake Elva Gen 4.1GkV - 1.1.0 ·6"'" 34.5-kv z>'" 1.1.>· Gen3 1.5 MW ~ ,...._....,_1.~5 .... ~1. 5 -----( jO jO T3 3 MVA -2 .5% TapP I ~ ... 1 ·5 Cable1 -j0.04 Junction2 34.5 kV Grant_Lake_Gen 4.16 kV Grant Lake 34.5 kV Junction 34.5 kV 1 •1.~~, .... j3.3 Dillingham 34.5 kV Dillingham Gen 12 .47 kV - Gen1 3 y T {'Open I h .5 j3 .3 h .3 T2 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA J:. 4 T1 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA t o. 06 -j2.8 Gen2 5 MW 0 Max 4. 211 Lake Elva -Minimum Load •1. 4 j0 .5 Min 1.474 MVA • • Lake Elva Gen 4.16kV- ").1.3 ·'}.4% Gen3 Lake Elva 34.5-kV 1.5 MW ,.,_~~~--<t 1.5 _. 1.5 jO jO T3 3 MVA -2.5% TapP I ~ -• 1. 5 Cable1 -j0.04 Junction2 34.5 kV Gen1 3 MW ~ Grant Lake Gen 2.9 4 .16 kV -t j 0 I t 2. 9 jO \..JJ....Jv T2 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA Grant Lake I 34.5 kV ----------~----------- Junction 34.5 kV -j0.09 1 -.1.~~, .... j3.5 t 4. 3 j3.5 Dillingham 34.5 kV Dillingham_Gen 12.47 kV t o - j 1. 6 Gen2 ( ~\ 5 MW 'C:J T1 -2.5% TapP 5 MVA •4 j 1. 3 Max 4 . 211 MVA Grant Lake & Lake Elva -Maximum Load :.47 Lake Elva Gen 4o16kv - 'l.ooo1l .. Gen3 1.5 MW Lake Elva 34o5-kV 'l.oloos"" ~ Cable1 r )-----;;---;o----:-l----:--c~~--< >-----1 Open 1.5 -oo 1.5 Open jO jO T3 3 MVA -2o5t TapP -oo 1.5 -jooo5 Junction2 34o5 kV 1.0~0~9 .. -o-1. jOo1 Grant Lake Gen 4o16 kV - Grant Lake 34o5 kV Junction 34o5 kV Dillingham 34o5 kV Dillingham Gen 12o47 kV - Gen2 5MW to jl.5 Gen1 3 MW y .2 0 7 -j0o1 .4 02 jOo1 T2 -2o5t TapP 5 MVA T1 -2 o 5t TapP 5 MVA h jl.3 Max 4o2ll MVA 1in 1. 474 Grant Lake & Lake Elva -Maximum Load w/OH Lake Elva Gen 4 .1GkV - ~,.s'" Gen3 1.5 MW Lake Elva 34.5-kV ~e-6~" )-}-.,.......,,.---,-1-:-..-,------< >------1 Open 1.5 ...... 1.5 j0 .5 j0.5 T3 3 MVA -2.5\ TapP ... 1.5 j0.4 Open Junction2 34 .5 kV Gen1 3 MW Grant Lake Gen 2.9 4 .16 kV -+j1.5 r ·~ :. 9 ~1.5 T2 -2.5\ TapP 5 MVA Grant Lake I 34.5 kV ----------~-----------r' Junctio n 34.5 kV Dillingham 34.5 kV +4 j1.6 T1 -2.5 \ TapP 5 MVA Dillingham Gen 12.47 kV - Ge n2 +4 j1 .3 Max 4 .211 MVA Grant Lake & Lake Elva Only -Maximum Load w/OH APPENDIX III HYDROLOGICAL SYNTHESIS, RESERVOIR ROUTING & ENERGY GENERATION FORMULAE Appendix 111-1 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX III HYDROLOGICAL SYNTHESIS, RESERVOIR ROUTING & ENERGY GENERATION FORMULAE Table AIII-I. Slope & Intercept Values with Correlation Coefficients for Synthetic Monthly Correlation Equations for Grant Lake Outlet discharge as a function of N uyakuk River discharge. Month m b r2 January 1.2544 -0.3346 0.977 February 1.6095 -0.6807 0.977 March 0.8376 -0.0188 0.996 April 0.8495 0.0226 0.953 May 2.5315 -2.2183 0.959 June 0.201 3.8373 0.978 July 0.2473 0.8845 0.972 August 0.5103 -0.3408 0.993 September 1.0803 -2.2224 0.959 October 1.0278 -1.168 0.574 November 1.0319 -0.8747 0.914 December 0.4435 0.6022 0.966 QGrant = m QNuyakuk + b m and b are the monthly slope and intercept values respectively as above and; QGrant= Unit runoff from Grant Lake Gage watershed, cfs per square mile (csm) QNuyakuk =Unit runoff from Nuyakuk River gage watershed, csm Appendix 111-2 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Table AIII-2. Slope & Intercept Values with Correlation Coefficients for Synthetic Seasonal Correlation Equations for Lake Elva Outlet discharge as a function of Nuyakuk River discharge. Winter: (J, F, M & A) Summer: (M, J, J, A Fall: (0, N & D) & S) m 0.326193 1.0957 2.411593 b 1.027267 1.1505 -4.036737 R' 0.565 0.784 0.885 Quva m QNuyakuk + b Where; m and b are the seasonal slope and intercept respectively as above and; Unit runoff from Lake Elva gage watershed, csm & 0Nuyakuk = Unit runoff from Nuyakuk River gage watershed, csm RESERVOIR STORAGE FORMULAE Reservoir Storage-Inflow I Outflow Relationship where; = An integer in value from I to 12 corresponding the month of the year. .0.Si = Change in active storage volume in reservoir for month i, Acre feet Ii = Reservoir inflow volume for month i, Acre feet Oi = Reservoir outflow volume for month i, Acre feet With oi = 1.98 (Qipwr + Qi fish+ Qi Spill) Appendix 111-3 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANTLAKEANDLAKEELVAPROJECTS Where: Qi pwr = Project Power Production Flow for Month i, cfs Qi fish = Instream Flow Release for Month i, cfs Qi Spill= Reservoir Spill, cfs Reservoir Stage-Storage Relationships Grant Lake G-1 : Grant Lake G-2: Lake Elva E-1: Lake Elva E-2: where; S = [(WSEI193.85)12 · 08 -69,576] I 1000 S = [(WSEI188.13)11.81 -77,149] I 1000 S = (WSEI196.87)6· 13 -19.6 S = (WSEI48.29)5 ·19 -20.7 S = Reservoir Storage Volume, 1000 Acre Feet WSE = Reservoir Water Surface Elevation, feet NAVD 88 ENERGY GENERATION FORMULAE Monthly energy output from Project where; Ei =Net monthly energy output at bus after losses for month i, kWh =An integer in value from 1 to 12 corresponding the month ofthe year. Ni =Total number of days in month i, i.e., Jan.= 31, Feb.= 28.25 ... Dec.= 31. Pi =Average monthly electrical power at bus, as determined by equation (eq.) II, below. Appendix 111-4 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS where; Pi Net average electrical power output from Project for month i, kW Qi = Power flow for month i, cfs Hneti = Net head for month i,feet; as determined by eq. III, below, and; y = Unit weight of water= 62.4 pounds/cubic foot lJnet = Generation/transmission system efficiency,%; with; lJnet = lJhyd lJgenlJtrans = 83.5% where; lJhyd = Turbine efficiency,% = 92.5% lJgen = Generator Efficiency,%= 94.5% lJtrans =Transmission system effiency,% = 95.5% where; = Hi-hr-+ Lhminor· , where; 1 1 Static Head for month i, feet Net head for month i, feet Head loss in penstock due to friction for month i, feet Sum of minor hydraulic energy losses in intake, penstock, fittings, bends, etc. for month i, feet h = f (~)viz fi D 2g Appendix 111-5 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS and; with; f = Darcy-Weisbach friction factor L = Penstock length, feet vi. =Velocity in water in penstock for month i, feet/sec g = 32.2 feet/sec 2 kminor = minor loss coefficient, varies with fitting Appendix 111-6 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX IV ECONOMIC FORMULAE Appendix IV-1 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX IV ECONOMIC FORMULAE Present lump-sum-value of a future lump-sum value PV = FV/(1 + i)n Present lump-sum value of a uniform series of benefits (or payments) PV = A (Cl+i)n -1) i(l +on Where; = Annual Discount or Finance Rate, % n =Number of periods, years A = Annual payment or benefit, $2013 PV =Present-value lump sum, $2013 FV = Future-value lump sum, $(Year F) F = 2013 + n Appendix IV-2 DRAFT DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX V GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Appendix V-1 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJFCTS DRAFT August 31, 2012 File No. 12B-G2303 Civil Science 3160 W. Clubhouse Drive Lehi, UT 84043 Attention: Brian Craven, PE SUBJECT: Elva Lake Hydroelectric Project Geotechnical Reconnaissance Dear Brian, This letter constitutes our geotechnical report of observations and recommendations for the proposed Elva Lake Hydropower Facility located in the Wood-Tikchick State Park, Alaska. On July 6th 2012, our geotechnical engineer, Mr. Stan Crawforth, performed a reconnaissance level review of site conditions via helicopter with Mr. Mark Storm, Hydrological Engineer, of Civil Science. Our general objectives were to evaluate the situation and layout of possible water retention structures, types and locations of earthen borrow for dam construction, reservoir overflow locations, conditions along penstock corridors, and conditions at potential powerhouse locations. Additionally, my field reconnaissance was an opportunity to understand the logistics for planning possible future subsurface explorations leading to the detailed engineering design of the aforementioned facilities. Two alternative concepts are considered here in, namely, • Run of the River Dam and Penstock • Lake Tap and Tunnel Run of the River Dam and Penstock Lake Elva is a deep lake situated within a high mountain lake setting with an outflow creek that empties into Lake Nerka, as shown on Figure 1. For a run of the river, it appears feasible to locate a retention dam about 200 yards below the southeast end of the lake at the outflow creek. An overflow spillway may be located over the top of the dam with American Geotechnics 2300 N Yellowstone Hwy, Suite 203 • Idaho Falls, ID 83401 • (208) 523-8710 5260 Chinden Blvd. • Boise, ID 83714 • (208) 658-8700 Elva Lake Hydroelectric Project-DRAFT Geotechnical Reconnaissance File No. 12B-G2303 August 3 1, 20 12 AMERICAN ""e• ..... ~ ... ~ ~ TECHNICS an armored downstream face or possibly cut onto the adjacent abutment rock (preferred). The location of a proposed dam site is shown on Figure I. We have discussed the special site conditions and the project objectives with the Dam Safety and Construction Unit of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Borrow constraints include the lack of low permeability soil such as silt or clay. Limited quantities of sand and gravel are assumed to be available based on surface observations. The possible lack of easily accessible sand and .brravel may preclude the feasibility of roller compacted concrete dams, unless lake dredging is possible. There is an abundance of rock. Graded blast rock could be utilized for random fill and erosion countermeasures. It is desirable to use minimal quantities of man-made materials. Such materials must ultimately be airlifted to the project site. Two typical dam sections are presented as Figures 2 and 3. Rock-fill dam with Concrete Facing: A rock-fill dam with concrete facing is illustrated for concept. This alternate provides for a large zone of random rock fill (blast rock). A 1 V: 1.5H steepened downstream slope is not uncommon for rock fill dams. A continuously reinforced layer of concrete facing may be placed on the upstream face as the primary liner inhibiting water infiltration and to resist erosion by water and ice. An upstream slope no steeper than 2.5H: 1 V is required for construction of the concrete facing. Rock-fill Dam with Composite Liner: A second alternate consisting of a rock-fill dam with composite liner is illustrated. Random rock fill is the dominant earth material placed in downstream and upstream zones. The downstream slope is steepened to 1 V: 1.5H. Within the interior of the dam is a composite liner surrounded by a cushion and filter layers. The filters are necessary to control migration of soil particles under hydraulic pressure. The composite liner could consist of a textured 60-mil HDPE liner placed immediate on top of a pre-fabricated geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). The GCL comes in rolls and consists of a thin layer of expansive bentonite clay sandwiched between two synthetic fabrics. If a hole in the HDPE liner exists, water will penetrate causing the clay to swell and effectively seal small holes in the HOPE liner. Together, the HOPE membrane with the GCL create a very low-permeability composite liner. This type of infiltration barrier is not common with dams where there is an abundance of clayey material to create a massive low-permeability zone. American Geotechnics Page 2 Elva Lake Hydroelectric Project-DRAFT Geotechnical Reconnaissance File No. 12B-G2303 August 31,2012 AMERICAN r-e•e., ~ ~~ ~ TECHNICS This concept is presented herein due to the unique borrow constraints at the project site. Based on a telephone conversation, the Dam Safety and Construction Unit appears willing to consider this type of liner system as feasible. At the upstream slope, a large rock (riprap) layer is proposed to resist erosion by water and ice. Borrow The region has been glacially scoured leaving little soil for conventional dam construction. However, we suspect that sand and gravel deposits may exist as small alluvial fans in the immediate vicinity of the proposed power house. Blast rock will be plentiful. Lake Tap and Tunnel Lake Elva is situated about 260 feet above Lake Nerka as shown on Figures 1 and 4. It appears feasible that a tunnel ( 10-foot diameter horseshoe shape) could be excavated, using drill and blast methods from Lake Nerka upward towards Lake Elva. Figure 4 shows a lake tap concept; wherein, a rock plug is removed to release lake water into a tunnel. The tunnel could be partially fitted with an HDPE penstock between the power house and a concrete tunnel plug fitted with a butterfly control valve. This concept allows for winter tunnel construction. Tunneling with a lake tap is not regulated by the Dam Safety and Construction Unit of the Alaska Department ofNatural Resources. There are several natural shoreline protrusions along the shoreline of Lake Nerka that appear protected from snow slides that could accommodate a power house facility and boat dock. Rock from tunnel excavations would be used to build the terrain around the power house. Most likely, the powerhouse can be founded on rock. Steel penstock pipe from the tunnel portal to the powerhouse could be covered with blast rock. Data Deficiencies Topographic survey information is needed to determine crest elevations for dams and the associated storage-capacity curve for the lake. An aerial survey should be commissioned to advance the engmeenng. American Geotechnics Page 3 Elva Lake Hydroelectric Project-DRAFT Geotechnical Reconnaissance File No. 12B-G2303 August 3 1 , 20 12 AMERICAN ,..e•• ~ :.....~ ~ TECHNICS Geotechnical drilling and soundings should be performed at structure locations and potential borrow sources to prove-out quantities for potential concrete and filter aggregates and other earthen materials. A value analysis should compare the concepts of a Run of the River Dam and Penstock verses a Lake Tap and Tunnel. Closure Please contact our office if we can provide an additional briefing on the aforementioned reconnaissance level observations and opinions. Respectfully Submitted American Geotechnics DRAFT Stanley G. Crawforth, PE Alaska Geotechnical Engineer American Geotechnics G. Alexander Rush, PE Idaho Geotechnical Engineer Page4 ·c ., ~ ;;; o!> ~ ~ ~ ~ ! l ~ ;; ~ "' @ ·i 11 >:!, " ·i ~ J ~ 'I: ... Elva Lake Location Map Dillingham Area Hydro Dillingham, AK File No. 12B-G2303 August 31, 20 12 " "' ~ ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ~ £ ~ ~ N "' ~ iii 1 ~ ·~ ~ ~ >: ~ -.; ~------------------AmericanGeotechnics ................................................................................................................................................................................ ------------------------------------------------------~ HIGH POOL ""7 ·~1>-~~,c~ LOW POOL ""7 SMALL ROCK ZONE REINFORCED CONCRETE FACING r---14' ---l RANDOM ROCK FILL ZONE PREPARED BEDROCK FOUNDATION TYPICAL SECTION OF ROCK-FILL DAM WITH CONCRETE FACING Typical Dam Section Dillingham Area Hydro Dillingham, AK File No. 12B-G2303 August 31,2012 ;j ~ ~ ! ll: ~ ~ l l ~ ~ "' ;;; "' 51 ·~ ] I " ~ ~ " ~------------------AmericanGeorechnics .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ._, HIGH POOL V' LOW POOL V' LARGE ROCK ZONE \}\.~€. \C'i:. PERVIOUS SAND AND GRAVEL CUSHION ZONE REDUNDANT FILTER FABRIC PERVIOUS SAND AND GRAVEL FILTER ZONE \~: PREPAREDBEDROCK FOUNDATION BENTONITE GROUT SEAL TRENCH COMPOSITE HOPE AND GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER --RANDOM ROCK FILL ZONE TYPICAL SECTION OF ROCK-HLL DAM WITH COMPOSITE LINER Typical Dam Section Dillingham Area Hydro Dillingham, AK File No. 12B-G2303 August 31, 2012 ~ ( § ~ ~ j ~ ' ~~--------------AinericanGeorecrurucs ----------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------------------------------- LAKE ELVA ELEV. -300 BEFORE FINAL BLAST AFTER FINAL BLAST LAKE TAP UN-LINED TUNNEL PLUG CONCRETE PLUG AND BUTTERFLY VALVE PENSTOCK IN TUNNEL POWERHOUSE Tunnel Profile Dillingham Area Hydro Dillingham, AK. - LAKE NERKA ELEV. -40 August 31, 2012 File No. 12B-G2303 APPENDIX VI CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES Appendix Vl-1 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS TABLE AVI-1. GRANT LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE G-1 fi:STlMATED CAPITAL COSTS. GRANT lAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE G-1 ITEM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Planning & Design LEGAL COUNCIL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT ACQUISITIONS PRE PROJECT DRILLING PERMITIING LICENSING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & MANAGEMENT EXPENSES MOBILIZATION STANDARD MOBILIZATION STAGING YARD MACHINERY AT 20 UNITS 20 TONS EACH BARGE FREIGHT SEA TILE WASHINGTON DILLINGHAM AK PIPE FREIGHT CEMENT FREIGHT TURBINES & transformer FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY@ 44,000 II each COMMUNICATIONS TOWER cut raw cost PROJECT ROADS Foundation grouting DAM DAM liNER CONCRETE SIX BAG DAM WORKS incl. Spillway PIPELINE & Intake PENSTOCK APPURTENANT ITEMS; THRUST RESTRAINT, CORROSION SYSTEM, VACUUM/AIR RELEASE, DRAINS TAIL RACE POWER HOUSE TURBINE DECK POWER HOUSE STRUCTURE POWER SWITCHING & WATER CONTROl Turbine/Generator POWER LINE ROAD & REVEG. MAN CAMP MATERIAL SUPPLIES & CONSUMABLE S FREIGHT Grant· Aleknagik T-line (Glacial Moraine -Adjusted to Route and w/o ice road) ALEKNAGIK TO DilliNGHAM 3SkV Upgrade UNITS HRS. HRS. ACRES FEET HRS. HRS. LUMP lUMP lUMP TONS TONS TONS TONS TONS PIECES lUMP CU YD. FEET Ea CU YD. CU YD. LINER FEET SUBASSEMBLY'S CU YD. CU YD. BUILDING PIECES KW MILES UNITS TONS MILES LS QUANTITY unit cost DESCRIPTION SUB TOTAL $ $ $ 1 $ $ $ 1 $ 1 $ 10% $ 600 $ 5,732 $ 1,471 $ 290 $ 120 $ 22 $ 1 $ 270,000 $ 19,660 $ 800 $ 20,260 $ 800 $ 1 $ 16,100 $ 5 $ 120 $ 450 $ 1 $ 14 $ 2,400 $ 51 $ 35 $ 3,220 $ 41.5 $ $ 150 500 250,000 50,000 200 200 3,500,000 500,000 400,000 82 270 164 164 197 150,000 120,000 7 20 600 35 600 1,000,000 480 170,000 800 800 350,000 80,000 650 75,000 20,000 164 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ Other NETC Funding $ Other NETC Funding $ OPTION PAYMENT $ 50,000 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS s PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ 3,500,000 $ 500,000 LEASE $, & SET UP $ 40,000 CAT-JOHN DEER-CASE-OTHER $ 49,200 $ 1,547,640 $ 241,244 $ 47,560 $ 23,616 NET LESS SALVAGE $ 3,300,000 TURN KEY $ 120,000 ON SITE PIT $ 1,890,000 ON SITE PIT $ 393,200 Press. Grouting $ 480,000 ON SITE PIT $ 709,100 TBD $ 480,000 TBD $ 1,000,000 1/4 WAll STEEl $ 7,728,000 MISC. $ 850,000 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 96,000 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 160,000 STEEL $ 350,000 STANDARD TYPE $ 1,170,000 Francis Type $ 1,560,000 BUILT W TRANSMISSION $ 3,825,000 $ 700,000 GROUND TRANSPORT $ 528,080 Generation Alternative G-1 Subtotal $ 31,488,640 Contingency (25%) $ 7,872,160 Generation Alternative G-1 Total S 39,360,800 224,661 T-line: Glacial Moraine Alternative $ 9,323,416 6,682,500 ALK > DLG $ 6,682,500 Subtotal Glacial Moraine Alternative $ 16,005,916 Contingency (25%) $ 4,001,479 Glacial Moraine Transmission Alternative Total $ 20,007,395 Construction Total (Genoration+Transmission+Contingency) $ 59,368,195 Const. Finance 10.3% $ 6,124,200 TOTAL PROJECT COST: G-1 with Glacial Moraine Alternative $ 65,492,396 Appendix Vl-2 T-line: Park boundary Transmission AlternatiVe $ 14,656,700 ALK > DLG $ 6,682,500 Subtotal Park Boundary Alternative $ 21,339,200 Contingency (25%) $ 5,334,800 Park Boundary Transmission Alternative Total $ 26,674,000 Construction Total (Generation • Transmission+Contingency) $ 66,034,800 Canst. Finance $ 6,811,902.34 G-1 with Park Boundary Transmission Alternative $ 72,846,702 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS TABLE A VI -2. GRANT LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE G-2 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS. GRANT LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE G-2 ITEM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Planning & Design LEGAL COUNCIL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT ACQUISITIONS PRE PROJECT DRILLING PER MiniNG LICENSING FINANCING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & MANAGEMENT EXPENSES MOBILIZATION STANDARD MOBILIZATION STAGING YARD MACHINERY AT 20 UNITS 20TONS EACH BARGE FREIGHT SEA TILE WASHINGTON DILLINGHAM AK PIPE FREIGHT CEMENT FREIGHT TURBINES FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY@ 44,000 #each COMMUNICATIONS TOWER cut raw cost PROJECT ROADS Foundation Prep/Grouting (35' deep hole) Gravity Dam w/ Ogee Crest DAM FDN prep/diversion DAM WORKS PIPELINE PENSTOCK APPURTENANT ITEMS; THRUST RESTRAINT, CORROSION SYSTEM, VACUUM/AIR RELEASE, DRAINS TAIL RACE POWER HOUSE TURBINE DECK POWER HOUSE STRUCTURE POWER SWITCHING & WATER CONTROL TURBINE POWER LINE ROAD MAN CAMP MATERIAL SUPPLIES & CONSUMABLE S FREIGHT Grant -Aleknagik T-Une (Glacial Moraine -Adjusted to Route and wjo ice road) ALEKNAGIK TO DILLINGHAM 3SkV Upgrade UNITS QUANTITY HRS. HRS. ACRES FEET 1 HRS. HRS. HRS. LUMP 1 LUMP 1 LUMP 0 TONS 600 TONS 5,732 TONS 1,471 TONS 290 TONS 120 PIECES 22 LUMP 1 CU YD. 270,000 FEET 19,660 Ea 1,100 CU YD. 10,000 LS 1 LS 1 FEET 16,100 SUB ASSEMBLY'S 5 CU YD. 120 CU YD. 450 BUILDING 1 PIECES 14 KW 2,400 MILES 51 UNITS 36 TONS 3,120 MILES 41.5 LS 1 UNIT COST DESCRIPTION SUB TOTAL $ 150 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ $ 500 Other NETC Funding $ $ 25,000 Other NETC Funding $ $ 50,000 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ 50,000 $ 200 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ $ 200 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ $ 150 Other NETC Funding $ $ 3,500,000 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ 3,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 400,000 LEASE$, & SET UP $ 40,000 $ 82 CAT-JOHN DEER-CASE-OTHER $ 49,200 $ 270 $ 1,547,640 $ 164 $ 241,244 $ 164 $ 47,560 $ 196 $ 23,520 $ 150,000 NET LESS SALVAGE $ 3,300,000 $ 120,000 TURN KEY $ 120,000 $ 7 ON SITE PIT $ 1,890,000 $ 20 ON SITE PIT $ 393,200 $ 600 $ 660,000 $ 350 Sand from Roadway or Penstock alignments $ 3,500,000 $ 500,000 TBD $ 500,000 $ 320,000 TBD $ 320,000 $ 480 1/4 WALL STEEL $ 7,728,000 $ 170,000 MISC. $ 850,000 $ 800 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 96,000 $ 800 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 360,000 $ 350,000 STEEL $ 350,000 $ 80,000 STANDARD TYPE $ 1,120,000 $ 650 Francis Type $ 1,560,000 $ 75,000 BUILT W TRANSMISSION $ 3,825,000 $ 20,000 $ 720,000 $ 164 GROUND TRANSPORT $ 511,680 Generation Alternative G-2 Subtotal $ 33,803,044 Contingency (25%) $ 8,450,761 Generation Alternative G-2 Total $ 42,253,805 $ 224,661 T-line: Glacial Moraine Alternative $ 9,323,416 $ 6,682,500 ALK > DLG $ 6,682,500 Subtotal Glacial Moraine Alternative $ 16,005,916 Contingency (25%) $ 4,001,479 Glacial Moraine Transmission Alternative Total $ 20,007,395 Construction Total (Generation+ Transmission+Contingency) 62,261,200 Const. Finance 10.3% 6,422,632 TOTAL PROJECT COST: G-2 with Glacial Moraine Alternative 68,683,832 Appendix Vl-3 T-line: Park boundary Transmission Alternative $ 14,656,700 ALK > DLG $ 6,682,500 Subtotal Park Boundary Alternative $ 21,339,200 Contingency {25%) $ 5,334,800 Park Boundary Transmission Alternative Total $ 26,674,000 Construction Total (Generation+ Transmission+Contingency) 68,927,805 Canst. Finance $ 7,110,333.88 G-2 with Park Boundary Transmission Alternative 76,038,139 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS TABLE AVI-3. LAKE ELVA PROJECT ALTERNATIVE E-1 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS. LAKE ELVA PROJECT ALTERNATIVE E-1 ITEM UNITS QUANTITY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Planning & Design HRS. $ LEGAL COUNCIL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT HRS. $ ACQUISITIONS ACRES $ PRE PROJECT DRILLING FEET 1 $ PERMITIING HRS. $ LICENSING HRS. $ FINANCING HRS. $ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & MANAGEMENT EXPENSES LUMP 1 $ STANDARD MOBILIZATION LUMP 2 $ STAGING YARD LUMP 20% $ MACHINERY AT 20 UNITS 20 TONS EACH TONS 600 $ FERRY TIME FOR AIR LIFT EQUIPMENT MOVE IN HRS. 22 $ BARGE FREIGHT SEA TILE WASHINGTON DILLINGHAM AK TONS 3,216 $ PIPE FREIGHT TONS 944 $ CEMENT FREIGHT TONS 346 $ TURBINES FREIGHT TONS 80 $ INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY PIECES 17 $ COMMUNICATIONS TOWER LUMP 1 $ PROJECT ROADS FEET 16,838 $ DAM CU YD. 225,000 $ DAM LINER CONCRETE SIX BAG CU YD. 650 $ GROUTED HOLES EA 2,550 $ PIPELINE FEET 7,757 $ PENSTOCK APPURTENANT ITEMS; THRUST RESTRAINT, CORROSION SYSTEM, VACUUM/AIR RELEASE, DRAINS SUB ASSEMBLY'S 5 $ TAIL RACE CU YD. 120 $ POWER HOUSE TURBINE DECK CU YD. 450 $ POWER HOUSE STRUCTURE BUILDING 1 $ POWER SWITCHING & WATER CONTROL PIECES 12 $ TURBINE KW 1,500 $ POWER LINE ROAD MILES 2 $ Docks-2 East Nerka & Elva mouth lump 1 $ MAN CAMP UNITS 36 $ MATERIAL SUPPLIES & CONSUMABLE S FREIGHT TONS 1,608 $ Transmission (To Grant Lake Junction -includes submarine cable 2.3 miles) Appendix Vl-4 UNIT COST 150 500 25,000 50,000 200 200 150 3,000,000 500,000 400,000 395 10,000 270 300 300 300 225,000 120,000 20 37 600 600 450 170,000 800 800 350,000 80,000 650 75,000 1,300,000 20,000 420 contingency Canst. Finance DESCRIPTION SUB TOTAL PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ Other NETC Funding $ Other NETC Funding $ PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ 50,000 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ Other NETC Funding $ PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ 3,000,000 $ 750,000 LEASE$, & SET UP $ 80,000 CAT-JOHN DEER-CASE-OTHER $ 237,000 $ 220,000 $ 868,320 $ 283,200 $ 103,800 $ 24,000 NET LESS SALVAGE $ 3,825,000 TURN KEY $ 120,000 ON SITE PIT $ 336,752 ON SITE PIT $ 8,325,000 TBD $ 390,000 high fracture in rock $ 1,530,000 1/4 WALL STEEL $ 3,490,650 MISC. $ 850,000 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 96,000 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 360,000 STEEL $ 350,000 STANDARD TYPE $ 960,000 Francis Type $ 975,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 720,000 GROUND TRANSPORT $ 675,360 11,877,600 Subtotal $ 41,947,682 25% $ 10,486,920.50 Subtotal Construction $ 52,434,603 10.3% $ 5,408,957 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 57,843,559 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FESIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS TABLE A VI-4. LAKE ELVA PROJECT ALTERNATIVE E-2 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS. LAKE ELVA PROJECT ALTERNATIVE E-2 ITEM UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Planning & Design HRS. $ 150 LEGAL COUNCIL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT HRS. $ 500 ACQUISITIONS ACRES $ 25,000 PRE PROJECT DRILLING FEET 1 $ 50,000 PERMITIING HRS. $ 200 LICENSING HRS. $ 200 FINANCING HRS. $ 150 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & MANAGEMENT EXPENSES LUMP 1 $ 3,000,000 STANDARD MOBILIZATION LUMP 2 $ soo,ooo STAGING YARD LUMP 10% $ 400,000 MACHINERY AT 20 UNITS 20 TONS EACH TONS 600 $ 395 FERRY TIME FOR AIR LIFT EQUIPMENT MOVE IN HRS. 22 $ 10,000 BARGE FREIGHT SEA TILE WASHINGTON DILLINGHAM AK TONS 4,112 $ 270 PIPE FREIGHT TONS 944 $ 300 CEMENT FREIGHT TONS 346 $ 300 TURBINES FREIGHT TONS 80 $ 350 INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY@ 44,000 #each PIECES 17 $ 225,000 COMMUNICATIONS TOWER LUMP 1 $ 120,000 PROJECT ROADS FEET 17,018 $ 20 DAM CU YD. 25,900 $ 37 DAM LINER CONCRETE SIX BAG CUYD. 650 $ 600 GROUTED HOLES Ea 1,700 $ 600 PIPELINE FEET 15,200 $ 450 PENSTOCK APPURTENANT ITEMS; THRUST RESTRAINT, CORROSION SYSTEM, VACUUM/AIR RELEASE, DRAINS SUB ASSEMBLY'S 5 $ 170,000 TAILRACE CU YD. 120 $ 800 POWER HOUSE TURBINE DECK CUYD. 450 $ 800 POWER HOUSE STRUCTURE BUILDING 1 $ 350,000 POWER SWITCHING & WATER CONTROL PIECES 12 $ 80,000 TURBINE KW 1,250 $ 650 POWER LINE ROAD MILES 2 $ 75,000 DOCKS, 1@ Nerka south 1 @ Elva Creek lump 1 $ 1,300,000 MAN CAMP UNITS 36 $ 20,000 MATERIAL SUPPLIES & CONSUMABLE S FREIGHT TONS 2,0S6 $ 300 Transmission (To Grant Lake Junction -includes submarine cable 2.3 miles) Contingency Const. Finance Appendix Vl-5 DESCRIPTION SUB TOTAL PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ Other NETC Funding $ Other NETC Funding $ PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ 50,000 PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ PAID W DEVELOPMENT GRANTS $ Other NETC Funding $ Construction Phase $ 2,800,000 $ 750,000 LEASE $, & SET UP $ 40,000 CAT-JOHN DEER-CASE-OTHER $ 235,000 $ 220,000 $ 1,110,240 $ 283,200 $ 103,800 $ 28,000 NET LESS SALVAGE $ 3,825,000 TURN KEY $ 120,000 ON SITE PIT $ 340,358 ON SITE PIT $ 958,300 TBD $ 390,000 TBD $ 1,020,000 1/4 WALL STEEL $ 6,840,000 MISC. $ 8SO,OOO 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 96,000 6 BAG CONCRETE $ 360,000 STEEL $ 350,000 STANDARD TYPE $ 960,000 Francis Type $ 812,500 BUll T W TRANSMISSION $ 150,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 720,000 GROUND TRANSPORT $ 616,300 11,877,600 Subtotal $ 37,206,298 25% $ 9,301,575 Subtotal Construction $ 46,507,873 10.3% $ 4,797,578 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 51,305,450 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS Elevation (ft) 490 495 500 505 510 514 Elevation (ft) 450 460 470 480 490 500 508 Elevation (ft) 280 300 320 340 360 380 Elevation (ft) 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 362 TABLE AVI-S. DAM VOLUME ESTIMATES Alternative G-1 Dam Volume Contour area (sq ft) Depth (ft) Incremental Cummulative Volume (cu ft) Volume (cu ft) 15,718 0 18,097 5 84,538 84,538 29,359 5 118,641 203,179 27,546 5 142,264 345,443 18,902 5 116,122 461,564 9,491 4 56,787 518,352 Alternative G-2 Dam Volume Contour area (sq ft} Depth (ft} Incremental Cummulative Volume (cu ft} Volume (cu ft} 2,698 0 2,961 10 28,294 28,294 2,943 10 29,519 57,814 2,763 10 28,529 86,343 2,373 10 25,678 112,021 1,902 10 21,372 133,393 1,527 8 13,714 147,107 Alternative E-1 Dam Volume Contour area (sq ft} Depth (ft) Incremental Cummulative Volume (cu ft} Volume (cu ft) 54,919 0 75,462 20 1,303,805 1,303,805 75,098 20 1,505,598 2,809,403 65,551 20 1,406,491 4,215,895 53,874 20 1,194,246 5,410,140 12,269 20 661,426 6,071,567 Alternative E-2 Dam Volume Contour area (sq ft) Depth (ft) Incremental Cummulative Volume (cu ft) Volume (cu ft) 9,884 0 24,941 5 87,060 87,060 25,554 5 126,237 213,297 23,436 5 122,474 335,771 20,440 5 109,688 445,460 16,372 5 92,030 537,489 11,696 5 70,170 607,659 8,062 5 49,396 657,055 5,103 2 13,166 670,221 Appendix AVI-6 Estimated Dam Volume (cu yd} 19,198 Estimated Dam Volume (cu yd) 5,448 Estimated Dam Volume (cu yd) 224,873 Estimated Dam Volume (cu yd) 24,823 Dam Volume (cu yds) from CAD 20,259 Dam Volume (cu yds) from CAD 5,383 Dam Volume (cu yds) from CAD 224,712 Dam Volume (cu yds) from CAD 25,821 Percent Difference (%) 5.2% Percent Difference (%) -1.2% Percent Difference(%) -0.07% Percent Difference (%) 3.9% DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX VII MAJOR PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DAHP CONSTRUCTION Appendix Vll-1 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS APPENDIX VII MAJOR PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DAHP CONSTRUCTION Table AVI-1. Major Permits Required for DAHP Construction. Agency I Entity Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. EPA ADNRDPOR ADNR Property Rights ADNR ADNR Water Rights ADF&G ADF&G ADOT&PF ADOT&PF Permit I Finding I Action Comments License to Construct Preliminary Permit No. 14356 Issued Wetlands Permit, NWP 1 7 - Storm Water Pollution -Prevention Plan Special Use Permits Also required for studies. Transfer I Lease I - Easement Authorizations Materials Sale Agreement - Water Use Permit I Water Requires 'possessory interest' in Rights property before issuance. Subject to MOA with ADF&G. *Required for Construction. Other Fish Habitat Permit T 16 Permits may be required for study activities. Instream Flow *Memorandum of Agreement for Instream Flow Reservation Right-of-Way Use Permit *Aleknagik-Dillingham Distribution Line Upgrade Load Permits* *Varies depending on construction mobilization method. Appendix Vll-2 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANTLAKEANDLAKEELVAPROJECTS APPENDIX VIII MAPS OF AFFECTED INHOLDINGS Appendix Vlll-1 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS •• -~ • • • • • • Native Allotment Location Map ParOOI:AJ<AA 007161A t16:$8~s") AlkJt$8: 8otmrt L NlchQisqn Servtce Ptovlder Anm: AliiiknsgiK USGS Quadrangle: DILLINGHAM D·7 U.$. Survey: 12083 "AcriN~repartad IDCIWM.d ... GIS <let.-and ~beYOI'iiedfvOU9/'I &!i ~ntcertili¢410 Not':~~ tQpHJW/lJdtrytMIJwNIIIJI/ndiMtAflflrt• pru!MJHbrlheButUI.I oflitfldl.&w!~ 1Mywe~W~~-S&e1WM'Yf!kb1W~~CI'~ Legend G BLM SUM!)! Point CJ Canmunlty Profde Pan:e13 ~ Resmcle<l Allotment (il SorviCG Provider Ateas Q Partial/FuUyiJnrestrictedAI!olment i!l<l<ground;lttflll ~(2003-111) & USGS 1;03,000111<1PPU'l1 Bristol Bay .Zii Native Association file produae4; 9a512012 Appendix Vlll-2 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS t @ ~0 ~) @ ~~ l';l!))' !•t • t.ra....: ... dasrsou~. ;<!'-' ""f ~"il· 2 'I~""" .,...,..__, ZG. "'" "' 11~• ':1"-4.. ••~1'1> trn• «; ~4 ~~ '~"~• ''wr> .. ~~~ A ~)'"''"· j:l ...,~ •.o.., <lit«l N', .of()" t;. lti ~~~ ~41 ""''* XIH ~~ ~ ti4A:u~ lh•l li'Ut. 2$ ,.._.._ 14"'f. <tv~ ;u o.-. 24> "'~' :~ ')• y.;;...,(. V>lf• Q.r.;u (~ 11'~4 If ~~«~•~. ''~•}il:lt o..,..,.,j o "'·~··· •• ~ <> ¢·.-v ~~~"''' O:H •• '"' !r.t )Q ... ¢( I~• •'o'N»• ~~ ... :I'<:>! I @ ® :;,., ... ~~.....: ... .,,.,1 !l>"i· llll"•~· 4.0~ ~;:~~~:·;" ~lOu u~ o.~,.P 'I "'"1"-•t."'" d<>4• ~~·'-~ ,~ ... 'lit~~····· qt>ll• ,~,.. ... 'IU'U11 "'"~"'¢t, 01.<4 &111./11'\.U.-,. lj. }{.• ·-· Ill lis ~-" N•XIH o., ... l11l¥'~U,o'tt:t:IUO'fi<:•!:c t'<IH. tt 0'>t !)!l•• Ol IM ot~th 1»<11~o1 2-?.6Q © ® !.,1" 11Wi'J .. ~ •IUijltH. ~· "'l i¢1>f.2<12""*~~l&l.:nL-.<1'• '"'~""' .,~/1, -!>f ... ~ CO;> Ml.<! U l"'C¥,., ,. ...... 1\otl' Altro~• . .c,,o-...,&o•u :i ~·C.~' ••• +st. .,.,. XtH D•~.,..,f ""'•1"•'· "'0 "~'loll' PHI>? ;.,;n. 11 1h lu~ "' 111• ••~n ';"" <1 •'~•n tiMI ~«1~. l:O •~I ~~~f. 1' Vl.>~t .,...,., 1G W"<a ·~ I~• ~·~·•· •·H• l>ro~~u cu w.lo 111 ._, •• ~ l"olo"' •"11.~11 ··~""-· ~·"'" "~~. t.d. •.:1•11 »JUI•~ "• •'otilllau Officiolly Filed DATE_ J.L!_Nj_1~.j999 U.S. SURVEY No. 12063. ALASKA Tt111 plr.::t CJ:~!'It¢1:'!( Jl':c eM••o '~r~•1 rtc~;~-n:: OR!GlNAL T~e: Ulll':•or ~o:..n<!,!"••'-~t loYflt~ltl <0 $o·~tn, ~:~n.;e: 54 Watt. Sit1ft.l'~ Mer;c,ott. ••U J 6r,171m,~rtt' tlttiZ f"toll<ori-ck 'IW Wtlr(l. t~o~r1141fC''· ll'l t'l6& 11\:QV'j'h l961 '!'htl :e•a"'•Y "lifO~ •uc~.-r•o i>t S!'IIN•J E So.::~rL. Rog.ato~r>~><! ~Je~;~c Lend 5u~"•J<~r No 2087~$. l¢t a:,~tol Bo, Nllh'u Cl)rC¢-to;~f>on, i:.i.l91<SJ 19. !991 llltM'ijJ: A\l'i<J:St f.C., 1998, :n 4C:~Of<l¢.!1<:.• ••II'~ l!'.oe ~pe.e,f;eet.oo:s t<:>tt/\ 1n ~~. ~~.._~_c;_! i1 S\)•vty•l\s l:'lt.n~:..: 1~0,.., ~. S;:.u:11~; doted Jol'l.oor; 6, !'$97'. opc~ro'<e"' f"cbr\l~ry '1. C~:~tr~.:t k"' :.trt<!~NiSO·C97~~ose. orl:rded 4:.rut o:-:C' N:~hc~ to Pt-o<;ud <!C!C"d J<.;ly 23. 1$11)1' TJ\a t~or"'~~1' •Q' c.c~~m.~J,.bcd {GPS/ HI~ eoMr-o~ •O$ Q!!toV~od Nnt-'~:t<em.;h'"a {RTJii) ..-iH~ CPS 1 ••r• Cotttrm,t~tO w>tfl Ri'X l.itlrt;: ~~;CH! p.o~•h~;~l'a vtf• <:¢."11,rtN!>! .. ttl'l 1:1 stet.e o~-..or¥ohon Fu:l-d OU<sfC!IU ••ro· Tom R ~~Cor~ J lfilli•O.fT' Arcq,: 19.'9$ Acru 'l'Qc!1n•e,e"' or:tTIJJHr .rQ;: <:t>tcinoO \l,,'lq gi(IJ!I~1 ot~a.:t:.pl'l<;'l~ ilo~.$1Q-•T· co:r:~t fl\;lll>>'tn en~ retort t()o tl\e tnooe me'<e:!l'"> TM <jllll>9rcptlle ;~u,till., 1"0to;JnGar r:c.:~">ef. Se". 19 or>~ 30. i:!ttd Z5. r o.r.,h•p 4 Att~~lla .• .:..; l~:hlto'lit: 5e• -.1· so so• Notth * ~I l ""I ~ U.S. SURVEY ~ t!\.tO en Lug;tu-dt:: 1~6" !.:r 44 3.:· wut 1. sr.:111<ry £ S•ort. ><t:IREB'r CI:RII~Y '· 1997. I 1'1~~e 2' i5 "' I £'Asr s.,ecjGil' ~~:;.~,;-~:..J~f."!!t;~~~~\;;-~;:,'><*;; ~~-'l"ttt <;J.._'L 'i. . S..~ _,J ~~~or No. \2063 ....... ~}'"' _ ...... '?; ...... !\~i'• ;<..";·· ...&;,;:-~+· ... :,:.tgm J!lr -..?;, , .......................... .:;_ ~ .. ~:::6.!:,.~.~ #Jj \; .• SfiU<~~:F$ /~~ .. -.-·. /./..-.,, ~····~·y•:;S>- \\.~~~~· .. GRANT LAKE @) ' ' . ' '<, Q 46 ~~ ~. Z4 t"' ),1)1 (1\t 2 Joli ChL "'i' llool i:OI'III._&I"~t. •i -GtQIII :..ak'f, ~~-~~, •• 11:1~4 < ••1l-4tflll4$ qru.,., t•qc~ Q l9 1 11 ••~•. u ~;,a I"'' ')I .H~oiiOt 1 ~•'ll:>< a.cltu. ' . • 10 "· '' .._2 • ....,.. E u•!l: ! . 4'11"12 £ 1(>•42' ;E:., (;,!•41 £ . ~·oo t )t'H> r, "*·~,.-e • I 40 dl• t . ..-CIH ~ U tiH l-"t <'11'11 ~ i!Kl (''1'0 1.~1 <:.'If l.?O (h 0 :u ... h uo,._...,: • .:: ~·~~ ~ :<h•<fl•n 9u1, z 1/~ _... .t·~· ~.ri'I'Jt ul, '''"~t;...g ~ ,.. »•t• <h cu~>~'>~~, ••Ill ~•u •~ ..... t& IJ>oU'f'\ "'I Ct44 4 ...... •~--. It'"'""'«"' Or4>-"'¢! (l~{•n•'''"' ••I• «1H "" let(lt.1'11lla _ ........... kf ,.~~·"' ;nl..-..,..14& ••tMf uuO!oo~ Y~<1 mten PtJ~lhOI'H'Ifi <lt:.;l:~r:~iron 'II'CI deiC.Ufl>l)~d u'l.:no; g~o-t.>oi .COTt!t:f pl"I:H.q~ fQ(.~Hir:. or-gQI"l•eli ovcrl;Jr.-9 :rtt <l<:-t1 ~r.,.,e~ w;fl'! t111~en:r..nuo,a JH:rmotro~~ Ae.ceu t-c lhu :s:\lna; ••a ll) t.et:.~ov~~" ref..,>HH-141'\d'~'t ll':o ~,,.,._ lo!::tlhon. qr ~C.s.e~c• ot l'r'luq~tCor m1~~ tc <:t:~He:t )ol'll:folf bo:tlt·e~ UMTEO ~YATES OtPAR:~t.NI Of T~o~f: <NTUIOFI ~VAEA.U OF l.ANO MMOA.;;E"M!:NT A"J(f\crc:~. Alo.tlo.a .. Fer 11':..-CHcd?I /cJ~_/a~ 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~~------------------------~0:•~P':''~'~':••:•~D:,r•:':":'~'w~C~'':':"~":':•':'·~·~>·~·~''~"~'--------_j ~~~ Appendix Vlll-3 DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS ' M(ANDERS LOT; AlG-t~f o '*•II -••hf i~>ed ora..-•~ .. tlllitllt ~~ t ... )0 il ····-"'' f lO!til ;f!f G~d i"'•HJ ;,1'11" ·~i4!< s l~"!• £ 5 24'21' [ s 10•zo· r s 1 1 ~o!l w ! 72 ..,., fJ 47 CIU 3 ~2 (1\l -<L21 ch. AI e!ljl 9~ <: '" r ••. ~r ••II, wi41•, =ouf•• $ 4e.' E s •e.·~o-* 1 tJo7 ¢l'l• \1 '..\ ~. SEC I SEC 12 SEC 6 I CO* Of KCt 4ii .U.O 1, Y T '1-, It H W, ANO Ke.•t~J.NI;IU,T ,.,.,JI !t-ll•~tM.,Il,; t---- " ... "' "' . SEC. 7 I I I I \~ ~ ""' -EAST --\-1-l. •"" <'' --5795 ---.,•'. I ~ ""' l ~ ~ + ! "' "' ~ 23H "" ./ V.S. SURVEY No. 12016 2311 4 3 Jl ?3 4 t ..... ' ~-~-. ., I LAK£ # ..... :_ •• ' ~ 30.52 ' N£RKA I~ I~ "'"' ~ ~ ~ 2 92 44 "' '\ .,. "\ '· . ~.lU l 2 1521 Z3d O'P I ~c... ~" I"'~ I " ~ MUN MAGNE:TlC 0£CUNATJON 16: 1/2. £, cl --w~:srt-·· -6143+~--;7·~~ ~ \~ L Startl•r E Se<H•. ReQ'IIhted Alotio:o L<m:d Surnror No 208?HS. k[qf:B'r Crfn'lf'Y' u;ptHl hMC' tho-1 '"' piHI.l.IQ~"<<:e of Am•nOed S,pee!ol IMf''l.HihD\'11 l:ja-led Ju:ne jl, ~997, Spe<:ta! llutr~.teltl)l'l-t dale;J Octo-ber ~0. 199iS-, oM >ln!fer Cl>l'lttaci fli-o J-4Z:Z:-N66-0-C'3T-l056, t:wo~!OIU J11n• fO, 1991,! hf)'f• euc.utd H'l• .. ~,~,,.,. depfct•4 Ol'l Hua p-lof tl'! ttf1ct c:ol'lfqfmtly ll'ltl1 •onf Sp•~~of lt!Jfrt.ithOflt. th'lt M;tUW1!1 qt lfltryd!Q1'11 !9! tbt Svrut of tht P!lbl!t.~ ttt• Urillt4 Stqtu f~7), q-n" t!'l tht &pt('l1ic m11nn•r <l:•scrfb•C 0r1 H~ii l)'l<il Mov 27. t999 ~...].....,. 'L. c,..........., Cot• Re91•1"if•d lol'ld Svrnya, SEC 12 SEC. 25 ....... ,,,,, -'"\~.9-f .. ~ .. --; .... 't:.·· ..4,;;·~ "~49m "' \~1. t················ .. ··· .. ·':t ..... ~:'; .. ~ .. l .... ~· """""'....., .. ,.. "f. f!."'\ rCM",;! /J' ;II ··,;·.. ,...-,; ., ~;~;:.;:.·~"' .. 4W ,,,,,~ .... I ~ .. l \ lO SEC. 7 ~ / ---- SEC 30 W.C. III.C OF HC. Z~. r 1 J .• 11: !• •. oiiNO S[C !0, T 1 IL Ill :n fL lUI, .II; tne IC!t~>J:I, yflo1t~ 1• fQilll'!i tttrQtl'i ntfn; t-c o~tprcuame~t•l1 !?5 feet abo•• t-Ile ord1n-ory 1'1:1~ w~~cter lm• at I..Okl N•rllc, !1 ve91h111f •1th Mti'W$ tpaU ... ttl'~dro. hrty JM<mtl with e.cott•r•d to d•""s.e titCII'l.fl of lliH"Ct. ~nrc~, wtlti!IV, >3h~•r. O:I'U! eoH~WOO<I: Tfr1• Uti J)r.afill eJ:HU-!&h. o:~t f,bro--ut Gf~<lNC'-Cl'o'lf1J!rli t!lnd, I).C~, t.l!i Otl(l ljlfa~•l, ll'lfi'l dltcol'ltmuo-1.\1 ~~~mcfro&t 10 20 30 40 U.l!U .. l.!.l.I.l ChG~s Appendix Vlll-4 50 Qji-Tf~UI1_t.._IU, _I_! 11 SHit.., , (J, t! .!l.tot"-e£TS U.S. SURVEY No. 12016, ALASKA COMPRISED Of LOTS I AND 2 AND THE DEPENDENT RESURVEY Of A PORTION Of THE WEST BOUNDARY Of TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 57 WEST, SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA T~t• plo• c:ontoiflt ~"" 11!11\ilfl svr ... •)' 1ec:Otd Tlll uf-.rlor tiOioifldlanel. at Town•Afttc 1 5oufP,, ROP'IIJil 51 ol'ld Stl 'lfU(, $•••<1lf1:1 M•r•C!~GI'!, ••f't •-ur<~•y-.4 'tJ f r•<l•r~o;ll W WQr4, :Super-w1a.otr CadathQ! Surul'Of, '" 196t ond f~Hn - H•1t •urwe:r wu e'li•cut•d b1 Sto~l-ey -E S•or,, Reg~s.f•red Alu~c Lol'lllt Surnyof Ho 4!081·S, for 8rla.tm 6c)' Nah-we Co:!fPOtt~fl()ll, Airoitu•t 1, 19:97 fMovti'l S-.p!•~b•t 3. 19198. ;n ott<:~tdat~ee •;H" !f'.e •l>•~hc:ohMe nt forth m th• Mgnyo! of Sy(lff)'!l)q trut(\liS!!g!}l \ill, Ame~'~4•d Sfl•t.I<Jill'lsltl,l~f•Ofte dot•d Jvl'l• P, 19'iH, <~wrcu¢ JuJJ 14.!9-97, Sp•CAol !na.tr~ttHont d>~~hui Octob-er 30, !'9-96, opprow•d Furuor, 7. 1997, ooder Co,.lracf No 14.z2-Jl66Q-C97<!0~8. CI'Wotd•d JUI'JI 10. !997 Ol'ld NohC:e ~0 Pro.;;,.d da.led Jut, 2!. 1997 Th•• t.-llt'"•J •o• oec:omp-be."'lllil ldll'lQ g:!ob4l po•lliOI'lthQ systtM• (-GPS.}. Th• co.t~tr~t .,.,. t~biau••d •dtnf •tot~~. f1a! -.toh~. oJtd r•o.l hmt' -1nem-ohc1 (A:nq ••th: GPS c:om•r p-hou '•celvta M•t:n4eU -~· dl't.rrniMI$ W1tl'l RTK IIIIIOI"'IUm-"tt Wt!l: poaiiiOr\t<f WllAQ RH::. Gl'ld p.osttione ••'• conhrrn~td w1fh a recklndont h&f 1hhe: 6-b .. r ... at.o'l j::"!<ll1f:t OUIIlCJftt• •t;l~ T 44'1"J R. Moor 1. Sun••y1ng T tC'PiniCIOII Wllltom M. TIMJIOft. Jr, Swne)'U~Q TtC:hni'CIO~ Morll,. M O'Ootn~l"'. Sun•'t~t i,:.dt Wou,IJie Wot~l'w)lo (NM'l}. S1.1ruro~~~~ A1de TimoH~y l Yhtntlolo, Sr, Swtnfmt Aide Atel:l~ Jli 96 •~r•• T~e ar:lftl!ilfll •a& obtotne:lt \fJir., giobcf DOilhOiiMI4jl IJ•Iam corner pt~-ue ttc:•tnn end r•f•rs to l!'le true m•ndtcn Tbt gaof11!11)1'1:~(. postlto-n r.JI o;:c.n•1er Ho 3, lol !, Jd•r<tJcol to cor N.o 4, lot (!, u 111•!•-rmm-ed h' o iJ~eet ft• fo ffrl111 ~ot of Sttl 6- 01'14 7, Tow,.•li-lF 1 Sot~U~. Fl:ont"' 57 w .. !, aM Sees I 111n~ 12. Tgwnl~'li:p "f SCI"I.I't'-, F!ontlll 5fJ ~~"•tt, Se110tG M•n-llllon. Al~tko, IIi Lohfud•: ~9• 3.~' 04 95~ North {NAD 21l Lol'lg,fulta; 1~94 03' 1'9 02:'" •••t the ~·~ I'I>Ofrl"f11~ 4toCI•~~:o1<0f'li wO& 0-.f.rm~ed \l.ll'UJ <JI~b:!fl po,ihOI'IIti:Q 1yefem corfler pi'lon f-eCetltl'r-1 rn •• 1ur¥t)' 11 lttuoh4 OOf>tc11MQt•l)l 27 mcl .. l'lortJI.•rly of tl'le "'i:llog--e qf & .. lti'Hit•l!, AlotiH1, "" tht ••&terly •ho.re o.l lake NerkD. Wltft<n •unepedl To.-.netup., 7 St~utPI, Roru~es 5'1' ortd ~9 Wuf, S..•ot-d l1bt1dt~. Al~;~t•c Ac:eeu to ~htt 4--llr•tf Wi)l. h !'!olltop1c-r 11.-:t•pto~• cd Hu1 ~o~,~:r"'•Y do•• ~1:1t ~"'rpotl lc tral'!•t•t cn:r iflftrt•l If! aubm•rs•d 1oncb to .-hie-h th• Stole of A!u~o ,, .ntfH•d. ~m-;Jer tf\e £1i1Uol F oohftl Oo~t''"• Ql'l(l n~;t;ofl (l.(m) (If ttl• Alod.o Sto!•hcod •ct. P L 8~~~08. n.otwltlils"tondl:nljJ the uu, JQ-~4h91l, OJ" olt••~'"• of "''0"41•• ilfll-t• J-o '!iept~t WQ:ter tlo9ih·t UNIT£0 STAT£$ 0[:PA~TMENi Of" THE INTER!DR BUREAU Of l.A.NO MANAG(.MENT AI'J~:tlor<~Jg•. 41cn.\o Tl\• &\¥1'f'tJ' rep-t•••M•d b7 tiht plot. "Q"u"i o •• ,.. eorr6tUy •••cut-eel ~ oc:-eortl-on~• wiJl'! tnc reqU:Jremen!l. of lc• ond tf'.e t•fuiOtfO!'.!I of tiM• 8urear.~. '' ~•r•by D(:(.•Q.t•d For Hill! O~r•~t~r A.~ ,')) {!t4 y-Ju.NE /?}'~ Oa!• D•P&~fJ Sh1e Olt-eGfor for CQColfrQI S~.tr"'~· Alot,IU:l ....... DAHP CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT LAKE AND LAKE ELVA PROJECTS • ~----------------------------------------~· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • L_------------------------------------------~: