The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGrant Lake Reconnaissance Report 2009Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Prepared by: ~ .., HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 March 2009 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance u~~·~-· Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Studies ................................................................................................................... 1 Project Area .......................................................................................................................... 2 Environmental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 3 Project Area Fish Resources ............................................................................................... 3 Grant Lake Fish Resources .................................................................................................. 4 Grant Creek Fish Resources ................................................................................................. 4 Falls Creek Fish Resources .................................................................................................. 6 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................ 7 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 7 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources ........................................................................ 9 Subsistence ........................................................................................................................... 9 Cultural and historic resources ......................................................................................... I 0 Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights .............................................................. IO Alternative Project Arrangements ............................................................................................. ]! Powerhouse Location ........................................................................................................ 12 Active Storage .................................................................................................................... 12 Alternative I: Run-of-River Project ................................................................................ 13 Alternative 2: Impoundment ............................................................................................ 13 Alternative 3: Impoundment+ Drawdown ..................................................................... l3 Alternative 4: Ebasco's 1984 Preferred Project. ............................................................ l3 Alternative 5: Impoundment+ Drawdown +Falls Creek ............................................ l4 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance llor•n .. t Summary of Altematives .................................................................................................. l4 Turbine Sizing .................................................................................................................... 14 Other Alternatives Evaluated ........................................................................................... 15 Energy Generation ....................................................................................................................... 15 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 15 Objective Function ............................................................................................................. 16 Results ................................................................................................................................. 16 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................................. 16 Results ................................................................................................................................. 18 Economic Evaluation and Alternative Ranking ....................................................................... IS Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 18 References ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A -Land Status Information .................................................................................... 46 Appendix B -Energy Calculations ............................................................................................ 53 Appendix C-Cost Information ................. ., ............................................................................... 59 Appendix D -Project Photographs ............................................................................................ 73 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report List of Tables Table l. Falls Creek scale factors (determined by APA 1984) used to simulate flow of Falls Creek from stream flow data collected at Grant Creek ........................ 23 Table 2. Temperature comparisons for Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Adapted from Table 2-8 in APA (1984) ........................................................... 24 Table 3. 2008 instantaneous flow measurements collected by HDR staff, October to December 2008 ................................................................................................. 24 Table 4. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula ...................................................... 25 Table 5. USPS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula ................................................. 25 Table 6. Parameters for all five alternatives considered. Elevations of maximum headwater (HW), minimum HW, tailwater elevation and net head (in feet) are given for each alternative. Design flow (cfs), capacity (MW), average inflow (cfs), and active storage are detailed for each project. .......................... 26 Table 7. Seasonal energy valuation for hydroelectric projects. Seasonal variations in energy value are shown for an average water year* (after Table 17-1 of APA 1984) ........................................................................................................ 27 Table 8. Energy generation estimate summary for the alternatives considered. Capacity (MW) and annual energy production (GWh) are shown for each alternative. The modeled plant factor and seasonal benefit are also given for each alternative. For details of energy calculations, see Appendix B. ....... 28 Table 9. Reconnaissance-level cost estimates for all alternatives. Rated capacity (MW) and estimated project cost are presented fore each alterative in millions of dollars (For details of cost estimates, see Appendix C .................. .29 Table l 0. Estimated energy cost ($/KWh), economic rank and environmental rank of all alternatives considered ................................................................................. 30 Grant Lake --Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance woron .. t List of Figures Figure 1. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Grant Lake on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska ................................................................................... 32 Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Grant Creek (section of stream in which anadromous fish are documented by the A WC; Johnson and Daigneault 2008) ................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 3. The anadromous reach of Falls Creek ............................................................... 34 Figure 4. Average monthly flow data at Grant Creek. Average annual flow (for period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5246000) is shown as a solid horizontal line ( 193 cfs) ........................................................................... 35 Figure 5. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek ................................................................ 35 Figure 6. Mean monthly discharge of Falls Creek, modeled using data from USGS gage 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984; using one open water season of flow data. at Falls Creek) ........................................................................................... 36 Figure 7. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on the y-axis .......... 37 Figure 8. Grant Creek discharge data ............................................................................... 38 Figure 9. Falls Creek modeled discharge based on data from USGS gauge 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984) using one open water season of current flow data .......... .39 Figure 10. Private Parcels near Grant Lake ..................................................................... .40 Figure 12. Private parcels of Falls Creek area ................................................................. .41 Figure 13. Water rights and mineral claims in the Grant Lake area ................................ .42 Figure 14. Water rights and mineral claims in the Grant Lake area ................................ .43 Figure 15. Alternative 1 for propos project at Grant Lake .............................................. .44 Figure 16. Maximum energy analysis for Alternative 3 (impoundment and drawdown) during an average water year ........................................................ .45 ADF&G AEIDC AHRS APA AWC BLM oc cfs em OF DNR EPA FERC fps ft G&A GWh HEP in KPB kWh LLC mi mm MSL MW MWh NWI O&M RVDs USACE USFS USFWS USGS Grant Lake --Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Acronyms and Abbreviations Alaska Department ofFish and Game Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (University of Alaska) Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Alaska Power Authority Anadromous Waters Catalog Bureau of Land Management Degrees Celsius Cubic feet per second centimeter Degrees Fahrenheit Alaska Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission feet per second feet general and administrative Gigawatt-hours Hydroelectric Evaluation Program inch Kenai Peninsula Borough kilowatt -hours Limited liability company mile millimeter Mean sea level Megawatt Megawatt-hours National Wetlands Inventory Operations & maintenance Recreation visitor days U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey v Introduction Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Kenai Hydro LLC contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to evaluate the feasibility of small-scale hydroelectric projects at Crescent Lake, Ptarmigan Lake, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake near Moose Pass, Alaska (Figure I). This reconnaissance report examines the viability of several alternatives for small-scale hydroelectric energy generation at Grant Creek that would minimize environmental and other impacts. A team consisting of engineers and environmental scientists made reconnaissance- level site visits and analyzed existing information in order to determine if further feasibility analyses were appropriate based on potential constructability, cost effectiveness, and potential environmental impacts. The scope of work defined for this assignment included: • Field reconnaissance by team members; • Review of available project documentation and related information; • Development of conceptual alternatives; • Review of existing hydraulic and hydrologic parameters; • Estimation of energy production and new facility costs; • Preparation of this reconnaissance report. This report should be considered a high-level overview intended to identify projects which demonstrate a basic measure of feasibility and to eliminate projects that have evident fatal flaws from an engineering and/or economic perspective. Previous Studies The hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake (figure I) has been evaluated several times as a potential power source for the Seward/Kenai Peninsula area. In 1954, R. W. Beck and Associates (cited by APA 1984) prepared a preliminary investigation and concluded that a project was feasible. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). In 1980 CthM Hill (cited by APA, 1984) prepared a pre-feasibility study for a Grant Lake project and concluded that a project developed at the site would be feasible. The Grant Lake Project was referenced in the 1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study (USACE 1981 ). The most extensive study was performed by Ebasco Services, Inc. in 1984 for the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority; APA 1984). Two of the alternatives evaluated by Ebasco included the diversion of adjacent Falls Creek into Grant Lake to provide additional water for power generation. This report relies on the Ebasco report for the basis of the current technical conclusions with regard to hydrology, geotechnical, and environmental considerations. Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance llor•.nrt The Ebasco report evaluated six project alternatives and concluded that the preferred alternative was a 7 megawatt (MW) hydroelectric project (Alternative D from APA 1984) that consisted of a lake-tap intake on the west shore of Grant Lake connected by a tunnel to a powerhouse located at the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes. The project would make use of approximately 48,000 acre-feet (AF) of storage during operations between pool elevations of 691-660 feet (ft). Average annual energy from the project was estimated at 25 gigawatt-hours (GWh). The estimated capital cost was $24.7 million in 1983 dollars. The benefit-cost ratio was 1.2. The Alaska Power Authority (APA) and Ebasco conducted detailed environmental studies of water use and quality; aquatic, botanical and wildlife resources; historical and archaeological resources; socioeconomic impacts; geological and soil resources; recreational resources; aesthetic resources; and land use. The primary environmental impact of Ebasco's preferred project would have been the complete dewatering and subsequent loss of all fish habitat in Grant Creek (natural outflow from Grant Lake; APA 1984). Under this alternative, Grant Creek would have been completely dewatered except for localized run-off and high flow events resulting in spill from the reservoir (APA 1984). Project Area The project is located near the town of Moose Pass, Alaska (pop. 206), approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska (pop. 3,016), just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9); this highway connects Anchorage (pop. 279,671) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the route of the Seward Highway, and is also adjacent to the project area. The town of Cooper Landing is located 24 miles to the northwest and is accessible via the Sterling Highway (State Route 1) which connects to the Seward Highway approximately 10 miles northwest of Moose Pass. Grant Lake is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast from Moose Pass. It is located at an elevation of approximately 696 ft above mean sea level (MSL ), with a maximum depth of nearly 300 ft and surface area of 2.6 square miles (APA 1984). Grant Lake's total drainage area is approximately 44 square miles. Tributaries include Inlet Creek at the headwaters and other glacial-fed streams in the watershed. Grant Lake consists of an upper and lower portion separated by a natural constriction and island near the midpoint. The lake is ringed by mountains of the Kenai Mountain Range to the east, north, and south, with elevations ranging from 4, 500 to 5,500 ft. Grant Lake supports resident populations of sculpin (Cottidae) and threes pine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), but salmon were not caught in Grant Lake or any of its tributaries during environmental assessments (USFWS 1961; AEIDC 1982; APA 1984); it is not included in the Anadromous Waters Catalog (A WC) published by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G; Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Grant Lake's only outlet, Grant Creek, runs west approximately 1 mile from the south end of Grant Lake to drain into the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lake. Trail River drains Lower Trail Lake, and then flows into Kenai Lake. Kenai Lake drains to the Kenai River at its west end near Cooper Landing (APA 1984). Grant Creek has a mean annual flow of 193 cubic feet per second (cfs; see Hydrology and Water Quality below), is 5,180 ft long, with an average gradient of 207 ft/mi; its substrate includes cobble and boulder alluvial deposits and gravel 2 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report shoals (APA 1984). The stream is 25 ft wide on average. In its upper half, the stream passes through a rocky gorge with three substantial waterfalls; in its lower half, the stream becomes less turbulent as it passes over gravel shoals and diminishing boulder substrate (APA 1984). Grant Creek is included in the A WC due to the presence of spawning Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon and rearing coho salmon (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Falls Creek is located approximately 2 miles south of the south end of Grant Lake; it flows into Trail River just downstream of Lower Trail Lake (approximately 1.8 miles downstream of Grant Creek). The Falls Creek watershed drains steep terrain between the Grant Lake and Ptarmigan Lake watersheds, is 11.9 square miles in area, contains no lakes, and has no major tributaries. Estimated mean annual flow of Falls Creek is 38 cfs; stream flow during the winter is minimal. Falls Creek is 42,240 ft (approx. 8 miles) long, average stream gradient is 418 ft/mi and stream width averages 15 ft wide. The Falls Creek substrate includes cobble, boulder deposits, few gravel bars and a thin layer of fine silt near the mouth; the lower one mile of stream has been extensively channelized and modified by placer mining (APA 1984 ). Three to four acres adjacent to the active channel in the lower 0.5 miles are covered with tailings and l 00 yards of the streambed in this area has been relocated (AEIDC 1982). The lower 2,300 ft of Falls Creek is classified as anadromous in the A WC (Chinook present; Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Anadromous species (juvenile Chinook and juvenile Dolly Varden) have been found in its lower half; a series of waterfalls prevents fish passage above that point (Johnson and Daigneault 2008; AEIDC 1982). Environmental Considerations The following presents a general overview of potential expected environmental considerations for a hydroelectric project at Grant Lake. This section describes fish resources, wetlands, hydrology and water quality, recreation, subsistence, and cultural resources of the project area. The area is managed using several specific management plans, including the Chugach National Forest Plan (Meade 2006), Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (DNR 1998), and Kenai Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Another search for all relevant land management plans would be required as part of FERC licensing and by other required permitting processes. Ebasco (APA 1984) compiled a detailed feasibility report on the Grant Lake hydroelectric project, including environmental issues. The Arctic Environmental Data Center (AIEDC 1982) and USFWS (1961) conducted environmental baseline studies in the project area. For the purposes of this feasibility report, HDR Alaska did not conduct any environmental work beyond initial reconnaissance visits and a few instantaneous flow measurements (see Hydrology and Water Quality below). Project Area Fish Resources Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek support different assemblages of fish species and possess varying quality and quantity of fish habitat. Only non-anadromous fish have been found in Grant Lake (AlE DC 1982, USFWS 1961, Johnson and Daigneault 2008), whereas 3 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report anadromous fish are present in Grant and Falls Creeks (Figure 2). The following sections provide information on fish resources for each water body. Grant Lake Fish Resources Grant Lake is divided into upper and lower basins by a narrow shallow area, preventing effective mixing between the basins (Figure I). Limited mixing results in the upper basin being more sediment-laden than the lower basin. The shoreline of Grant Lake is made up of slopes of steep bedrock with isolated small gravel deposits formed by runoff(APA 1984). A 1981-1982 sampling program found no fish in any of the tributaries of Grant Lake (AEIDC 1982). Sculpin and threespine stickleback were the only fish found to inhabit Grant Lake. A series of impassable falls 1 near Grant Lake's outlet prevents colonization of the lake by salmonids via Grant Creek (AP A 1984 ). Grant Lake supports a "small" population of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and a "dense" population of threespine stickleback (USFWS 1961 ). Density of threespine stickleback was ten times higher in the lower basin than the upper basin of Grant Lake (AEIDC 1982). Grant Creek Fish Resources Both anadromous and resident fish are present in Grant Creek, including salmon, trout and other fish. Spawning Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), as well as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Dolly Varden are found in the lower reaches of Grant Creek (APA 1984; Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Rearing Chinook, coho and rainbow trout are also present (APA 1984, Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were caught during angling surveys, but not assumed to spawn in Grant Creek (APA 1984). Upper Grant Creek is impassable to salmon one half (APA 1984) to one mile (Johnson and Daigneault 2008) upstream of the mouth; fish habitat is most likely concentrated within the lower portion of stream. Habitat for juvenile fish exists mainly in stream margins, eddies, deep pools and side channels offering reduced velocities (APA 1984 ). Substrate material is coarse throughout the entire length of the creek due to high water velocity, which tends to wash away smaller gravels. Isolated areas of suitable spawning gravels occur in the lower half of the stream (APA 1984). Periodic minnow trapping on Grant Creek from July 1959 through January 1961 captured Chinook salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden and sculpin (extent of sampling area unknown; USFWS 1961). Minnow trapping and electrofishing in lower reaches of Grant Creek for week- long periods in October 1981 and March, May, June, and August 1982 yielded higher catches of trout, salmon and Dolly Varden in the fall and summer than in winter and spring (AEIDC 1982 in APA 1984; AIEDC 1983). Catches of Dolly Varden were generally most abundant in minnow 1 2007 ADFG Stream survey referenced in Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153, http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm 4 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report traps, followed by juvenile Chinook, juvenile rainbow trout, and juvenile coho. Juvenile Chinook were the most commonly caught fish during electro fishing surveys (APA 1984 ). Fish may delay one to two months between entry into the Kenai River and arrival at Grant Creek, previous studies have concentrated efforts of spawning surveys from mid August and early September (APA 1984). AP A (1984) estimated that Grant Creek supported 250 Chinook spawners and l ,650 sockeye spawners (APA 1984). These estimates were likely biased low due to visual counting methods. The stream was also estimated to support 209 8-inch "trout" (including Dolly Varden and rainbow trout; APA 1984). Spawning coho were not surveyed (APA 1984), but have been recorded as being present at unknown levels in the stream by the A WC (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Maximum counts from intermittent stream surveys by ADFG were 76 Chinook (1963) and 324 (1952) sockeye salmon.2 In 1984, less than 500 angler-days of fishing were estimated for rainbow trout, Dolly Varden and whitefish (APA 1984 ). Current 2009 sport fishing regulations allow sport fishing on Grant Creek June 11 -May I. Grant Creek is closed to all salmon fishing. Rainbow trout are limited to one fish less than 16 inches long per day. Dolly Varden are limited to one fish less than 16 inches long per day.3 Current sport fishing effort is unknown. Chinook salmon Typically, Chinook returning to Grant Creek were part of the early season salmon run (May through late June; APA 1984) which is characterized by salmon that tend to spawn in tributaries (Boggs et al. 1997). Chinook juveniles were observed most often in the lower part of the creek, but during October (1981) were distributed throughout the creek from the mouth of the gorge to the stream mouth at Trail Lake. Fish caught in March, May and June were greater than 65 mm (2.6 in), suggesting they would probably smolt in June (APA 1984). Juvenile Chinook were the second-most abundant fish after Dolly Varden in minnow trap catches (APA 1984). Juvenile Chinook were present year-round in minnow trap surveys, but in low numbers in March, May, and June, suggesting they were either very inactive during these months or had left the system to rear elsewhere prior to downstream migration (APA 1984); these fish may have reared in Trail River or Kenai Lake. Rearing in Trail Lakes is assumed unlikely due to the high turbidity of the lakes (Dudiak 1980). Natural emergence may have been later than June because no young of the year were captured in minnow traps until August, but this could have been caused by gear bias; young of the year were caught during electrofishing surveys in May, though they may have been stimulated out ofthe gravel by electrofishing (APA 1984). 2Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153, http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination!FDDNomHome.cfm 3 http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/regulations/southcentral/SCkenai.pdf 5 Coho salmon Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Surveys found juvenile coho to use Grant Creek for rearing, but that they were present in small numbers (APA 1984). Coho were caught nearly exclusively in the lower part of the stream, but were low in abundance. Length ( 40 mm [ 1.6 in]), of several fish caught in August 1982 suggested that coho spawn in Grant Creek, since juvenile coho do not generally venture far from their natal areas, and flow at the mouth of Grant Creek is very rapid (APA 1984). Older, larger coho were thought to be recruited into Grant Creek from the turbid waters of Trail Lake since fish up to 103 mm (4.2 in) were caught (APA 1984). Sockeye salmon Peak counts averaged 61 sockeye salmon for the years 1952-1981, but these counts were probably underestimates due to infrequency of spawning surveys (e.g. foot surveys) and poor visibility due to high turbidity and high discharge rates (APA 1984). No juvenile sockeye were caught in minnow trapping or electrofishing efforts (APA 1984). Rainbow trout Rainbow trout were evenly distributed in the lower reaches of Grant Creek and ranged from 43 to 106 mm in length (1.8 to 4.2 inches). Catches were greatest in October (including many young of the year), suggesting spring spawning may occur in Grant Creek. Many of these young of the year may have moved upstream from the Trail Lakes area to rear and are generally inactive during the winter months (APA 1984). Dolly Varden Dolly Varden were more abundant near the mouth of Grant Creek, except in August, when they were distributed throughout the lower creek. No spawning Dolly Varden were observed. It is possible that the high abundance of fish in August may be a result of fish moving into Grant Creek to feed and avoid high turbidity (APA 1984 ). A variety of size classes of Dolly Varden were caught (55mm to 30cm [2.2 to 11.8 in]; APA 1984 ). Falls Creek Fish Resources Anadromous fish are present in Falls Creek (Figure 3). The most information on fish is available for Grant Creek, the only water body in the area possessing documented runs of spawning anadromous fish. Current 2009 sport fishing regulations allow sport fishing on Falls Creek June 11 -May I. Falls Creek is closed to all salmon fishing. Rainbow trout are limited to one fish less than 16 inches long per day. Dolly Varden are limited to one fish less than 16 inches long per day4 • Current sport fishing effort is unknown. The following provides information on fish resources of Falls Creek. Previous investigators suggested that Falls Creek may have limited salmon spawning potential in the lower mile of Falls Creek due to low water temperatures that may limiting its production; this was supported 4 http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/regulations/southcentral/SCkenai.pdf 6 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance NPrlnrt by a lack of observations of spawning salmon during week~long field visits in October 1981 and March, May, June, and August 1982 (AEIDC 1982 and 1983). Instream cover available to juvenile fish consists of debris jams and a few cutbank meanders (AEIDC 1982). In 1960 minnow trapping, juvenile Chinook were only caught in the lower 200 yards of the stream, though traps were set from the mouth to one mile upstream (months sampled: June~November; USFWS 1961). Wetlands Most bogs in the project area exist on the ridge separating Lower Trail Lake from Grant Lake. Others exist in areas of low relief in mixed and coniferous forests (APA 1984). These wet meadow range from extremely wet, floating mats to firm, treed bogs with many shrubs. Many of the bogs have a wet spot or small pond in the center (APA 1984). No information exists in historical reports for the Falls Creek area regarding wetlands. No additional investigation of wetlands was performed for the purposes of this feasibility report. Data regarding wetlands resources in the project area are available from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping system; this type of detailed assessment was outside the scope of this reconnaissance~Ievel report. Hydrology and Water Quality In 1947, the USGS installed a stream gage (#15246000) approximately 0.3 miles upstream ofthe mouth of Grant Creek. This gage recorded continuously for II years between 1947 and 1958 (average annual flow was 193 cfs; drainage area at gage site is 44.2 square miles; Figure 4). Flow was generally lower in the winter months (December through April, <50 cfs; Figure 4). During the ice-free seasons (June through September) flow exceeded 300 cfs (Figure 4). Peak flow occurred during the month of July, with an average of 518 cfs (Figure 4). Grant Creek's flows rarely exceeded 600 cfs or dropped below 50 cfs (Figure 5). To estimate the hydrology of Falls Creek, the daily flows of gage #15246000 at Grant Creek were scaled by factors determined by Ebasco (AP A 1984; Table I) to create a simulated daily flow file. In estimating the hydrology for hydropower generation, it was assumed that the Falls Creek basin will be snowbound and frozen during the months of November through April and therefore generation is not possible (and therefore was not estimated). Using this assumption, for this period of record the average flow (May-Oct) was estimated to be 56 cfs (Figure 6). During ice~free months, Falls Creek's flow was modeled to be lowest during break~up and freeze-up in May (8 cfs) and October (II cfs), and highest in mid summer (approximately I10 cfs). The flow simulation rarely exceeded 200 cfs or dropped below 70 cfs (Figure 7). Historical water quality data were limited to a few studies between 1959 and 198 I (USFWS 1961, ADF&G 1981 cited by APA 1984, Quilliam 1982 cited by APA 1984 and USGS 1981 cited by APA 1984). A year-long water quality monitoring program was also carried out at Grant Lake and Grant Creek from 198I to 1982 (AEIDC 1982). Water quality in the study area was generally good and met all applicable water quality standards, except certain trace metal concentrations occasionally exceeded 24-hr average Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria for freshwater aquatic life. Waters in the study area were found to be slightly acidic to 7 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Nor>n .. , neutral in pH, soft and low in suspended and dissolved solids. Grant Lake was found to be oligotrophic (low in nutrients), typical of similar lakes in southcentral Alaska (APA 1984). Grant Lake was thermally stratified in August and September, although a sharply defined thermocline was not observed. Summer temperatures ranged from 14 °C (57°F) at the surface to 5°C (4l°F) at 98ft deep. Fall overturn commenced in mid-September 1982 and October 1981. In March 1982, an inverted thermocline was present, with temperatures ranging from 2°C at the ice/water line to 4°C (39°F) at 9.8 ft deep. Spring overturn was complete by June, with an isothermal profile at approximately 6°C (43°F; APA 1984). Historical Grant Creek temperatures ranged from 13 to 0°C (55 to 32°F), with temperature closely related to Grant Lake surface temperatures (maximum difference was less than l.7°C; Table 2). Falls Creek was generally colder than Grant Creek, ranging from 7.0°C (12.6°F) colder in July, 1959, to 2.5°C (4.5°F) colder in October 1981 (APA 1984; Table 2). Water quality of Falls Creek was typical of low-productivity Kenai Peninsula area streams (AEIDC 1982). HDR Alaska gathered instantaneous discharge data at Grant Creek on October 4, October 23, and December 3, 2008. Stream discharge measurements were taken just downstream of the original site of the USGS stream gauge, at a site that allowed safe fording of the stream, using standard USGS gauging protocols (Buchanan and Somers 1969; 3). Measurements from 2008 were compiled with historical discharge data from USGS Gage 15246000 (1947-1958; Figure 8). Wetted stream width ranged from 35.0 (October 4, 2008) to 38.9 ft (December 3, 2008; Table 3). Stream flow and stream widths were measured at Falls Creek on October 5 and October 24, 2008 (Table 2). Measurements were taken at a site approximately 100 ft downstream of the Seward Highway Bridge. Falls Creek modeled discharge data were compiled with field measurements from 2008; data were generated from USGS gauge 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek and adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984) using one open water season of current flow data from Falls Creek (Figure 9). Recreation Lands in the project area are predominantly undeveloped, with high scenic and recreational value. The Kenai Peninsula supports significant tourism from residents of the region, of Anchorage, of Alaska and from outside of Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008) includes Grant Creek/Grant Lake as a designated recreation usc area. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administers Chugach National Forest, which surrounds most of the project area; Grant Lake is located within the Seward ranger district. Peak use of area campgrounds (Table 4) coincides with salmon runs (APA 1984). Total recreational use in the campgrounds in 1981 was estimated at 442,400 recreation visitor days (RVDs), representing 40% of 1.1 million total RVDs for the entire Chugach National Forest (APA 1984). 8 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report The project area currently is not developed for recreation, with the exception of a few of trails developed by users but not maintained by USFS. These informal trails consist oftrails from both Upper and Lower Trail Lakes to Grant Lake, snow machine trails to Grant Lake and a primitive road to mining claims on Falls Creek. Only the Vagt Lake trail is maintained as part of the USFS trail system; Vagt Lake is stocked with rainbow trout for recreational fishing (APA 1984). Other USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula are shown in Table 5. More detailed information assessing recreational use of the project and adjacent areas is needed in order to comply with requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application. Detailed user data are available upon request from the USFS, but inclusion and analysis of these data were outside the scope of this reconnaissance-level report. The project area received limited recreational use such as fishing, hunting, hiking, backpacking and camping, mostly in spring and summer. Hunters occasionally canoe on Grant Lake. Snowmobiles also utilize the area in winter (APA 1984). The project lies within the Ptarmigan/Grant Lake subunit of Chugach National Forest for backcountry motorized winter use, and receives very little use from any winter user group (motorized or non-motorized; Meade 2006). Helicopter skiing is permitted in the Ptarmigan/Grant Lake subunit (Meade 2006). Principle recreation attractions are hunting, fishing, and opportunity for experiencing the backcountry (APA 1984). Game animals present in the area were: mountain goat, black bear, brown bear, Dall sheep, and moose (APA 1984). Float plane and foot travel were the only means of access to hunting areas such as the east end of Grant Lake (APA 1984). Recreational fishing for Dolly Varden and rainbow trout was limited to the lower portion of Grant Creek and is also limited by difficult access, either by boat via Trail Lakes or by hiking several miles from the highway (APA 1984). Estimates of recreational use within the project area or in the project vicinity are limited to USFS statistics on use of Vagt Lake Trail (a two-hour round trip hike), which received an estimated 500 RVDs in 1981 (unpublished data, Chugach National Forest cited by APA 1984). In 1981, a hiking trail paralleled Vagt Creek to lower Trail Lake and appeared to be well used (AEIDC 1982). AEIDC ( 1981) reported sport fishing in the creek to be poor due to its small size and placement of barriers to prevent fish outmigration from Vagt Lake. Backpackers were observed camping at Grant Lake in the 1980s, mostly at the northern end of the lower basin, but the USFS had not estimated use during the 1980s (APA 1984; it is not known whether the USFS currently tracks usage of Grant Lake). APA (1984) estimated 72 RVDs per year for Grant Lake based on two backpacking parties per month, an average party size of three people, a four month backpacking season, and an average stay of 36 hours (AP A 1984). Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources Subsistence Grant Creek, Grant Lake, and the surrounding areas are not designated a subsistence use area by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Qualified residents of Cooper Landing may harvest moose in game units 7, 15A and 15B on the Kenai Peninsula under 9 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance HPrmrt Federal subsistence regulations5 (Grant Lake is located in game unit 7.) Federally-qualified subsistence users of Cooper Landing are also allowed to take salmon through a dip net/rod-and- reel fishery, and lake trout, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout in the Kenai River through a rod- and-reel fishery 6 • A more detailed analysis of subsistence uses of the project area will be required by FERC licensing and other permitting processes. Cultural and historic resources Based on a preliminary investigation of Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) data at the State Office of History and Archaeology, 65 cultural resource sites have been documented in the general vicinity of Grant Lake, Falls Creek, and Ptarmigan Lake. Several of the sites are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Most cultural resource sites are located along Upper and Lower Trail lakes and Trail River. Several mining-related sites are located in the area between Falls Creek and Grant Lake. A more detailed review of cultural and historic resources ofthe project area will be necessary to comply with requirements of the FERC license application process. Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights HDR real estate specialists researched public land, private holdings (Figures I 0 and II), mineral claims and water rights (Figures 12 and I3) of the Grant Lake and Falls Creek areas using information from Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land status maps7 arid case file abstracts8, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)9, the State Recorder's Office 10 and Kenai Peninsula Borough 11 • A detailed investigation of private land holdings, mining claims and water rights will be integral in identifying stakeholders in the permitting process. All lands on which project facilities would be located are under either State or Federal ownership (Figures I 0 and II). No private lands are known to overlap with project facility footprints. Private property (33 parcels; Figure II) is located along the Seward Highway and the lower portion of the Falls Creek access road. HDR real estate specialists investigated both State and Federal mining claims (Figures 12 and 13). It will be necessary to work closely with State/Federal agencies and the claim holders. Ideally, recreational mining claims would be extinguished by paying a negotiated amount; however it is conceivable that the price for a claim could depend on provable grade and quantity 5 http:/ /alaska.fws.gov/asm/newsrel/r050208.html 6 http:/ /alaska.fws.gov /asm/newsrel/r0511 07 .html 7 http://mapper.landrecords.info/ 8 http://dnr.alaska.gov/projects/las/lasmenu.cfm 9 http://sdms.ak.blm.gov/sdms/ 10 http://dnr.alaska.gov/ssd/recoftlsearch.cfm 11 http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/assessingdept/ 10 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report of the locatable mineral. A records search found four mining claims to the north of Grant Lake (Figure 12; see Appendix A for more information). As of 1984, Falls Creek was used extensively for placer mining during summer months. Land adjacent to Falls Creek is almost continuously claimed for placer mining from I ,300 ft elevation to the mouth for the creek. Mining claims (Figure 13) are located both along Falls Creek and on hillsides of the drainage (15 federal mining claims and four state mining claims within the project area). Several of these claims were seen during site visits and are located in the vicinity of the preferred intake site (Figure 13; see Appendix A for more information). Neither Grant Creek nor Grant Lake is currently used for domestic water supply. In the 1980s, a seasonal mining operation existed on the north shore of Grant Lake's lower basin. Water from streams feeding the lake is used for placer mining; a small amount of this water is presumably used for domestic purposes (APA 1984). APA (1984) reported that this mining operation holds a permit for use of 0.36 cfs to be taken from Grant Lake and an unnamed stream flowing into Grant Lake. No domestic use of water from Grant Creek occurs, though the lower half mile is recreationally fished (APA 1984). HDR's search of official records yielded no documented water rights within the Grant Lake drainage (Figure 12; see Appendix A for detailed information on water rights); more detailed research into water rights is warranted. A search of official records found that the Falls Creek project area contains one subsurface water right at its far west end (Figure 13). APA ( 1984) noted that several cabins were located within 2 miles of the mouth of Falls Creek and operated under USFS special use permits; water was likely carried in from outside the project vicinity. A water right of I cfs was reported (for placer mining on Falls Creek at 1200 ft elevation; APA 1984). As with the Grant Lake area, more detailed research of water right in the Falls Creek area is warranted. Alternative Project Arrangements In the past, several different alternatives were proposed to produce hydroelectric power at Grant Lake. This section of the report revisits the preferred alternative from 1984 (APA 1984) and presents additional new configurations. The following alternatives were considered: • Alternative 1 -Run-of-river • Alternative 2 Low head intake structure • Alternative 3 -Low head intake structure and drawdown • Alternative 4 -Lake tap, tunnel and powerhouse located on Trail Lake (1984 preferred alternative) • Alternative 5-Low head intake structure, drawdown, and diversion of Falls Creek All new alternatives assumed that a powerhouse would be located on Grant Creek at elevation 530 ft (which is to be verified with better topography is located near the boundary of high and low quality fish habitat; Figure 2). Each new alternative has a different amount of active storage. 11 Grant Lake --Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Powerhouse location and active storage are discussed below. Our assumption was that any project would require a low-level outlet at the natural outlet to Grant Lake to release flows into Grant Creek in times of plant outages. Each alternative considered is discussed below. Powerhouse Location In 1984, Ebasco (APA 1984) completed a detailed feasibility analysis and concluded that the powerhouse should be located approximately Yz mile north of the point where Grant Creek enters the Trail Lake system (Figure l). With this configuration, flow would have been completely diverted from Grant Creek. To offset negative impacts to Grant Creek fish, the APA ( 1984) study proposed off-site mitigation at a location other than Grant Creek. In the last 25 years, the regulatory climate has changed dramatically. In particular for hydroelectric projects, fish resources have become one of the major issues for proposed projects to address. The resource agencies almost always require diverted flows to be returned to the original source as close as possible to the anadromous barrier (if one exists). In the case of storage projects, instream flow requirements are almost always required for fish. It is extremely unlikely that the preferred alternative from AP A ( 1984) would be viable today due to the flow restrictions that would be placed on operations. Preliminary estimates are that energy generation of this alternative could be reduced by 40-70% from what has been previously assumed due to these requirements. This study assumes that any new powerhouse would be located on or near Grant Creek so all diverted flows are returned back to Grant Creek. A detailed fisheries assessment is beyond the scope of reconnaissance-level study but for the purposes of defining alternatives, the anadromous fish barrier and subsequently the tailwater elevation was assumed to be at elevation 530 ft (Figure 2). This elevation will be confirmed with more detailed topographic mapping when available. Active Storage With any hydroelectric project, energy generation will increase and operational concerns will ease if storage of water is possible in comparison to the same project operating in a run-of-river mode. The initial amount of storage to capture this benefit is usually small in comparison to the annual yield of the basin. This operational storage may only be equivalent to a few minutes, hours or days of operation. Active storage in excess of operational storage would allow the ability to seasonally shift generation by capturing high flows (that might otherwise have passed as spill) and release this water later in the year (to supplement low natural flows). Thus, the cost of providing storage above the operational requirement needs to be offset by the increase in generating revenue that comes from seasonally shifting the generation. The seasonal benefit of generation is much easier to define in isolated power grids where often the new hydroelectric project is the prime generator. In the case of Grant Lake, the project would be a small component of a complex integrated system. Determination of the seasonal 12 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report characteristics of the market, and thus the benefits, can be a significant task and is beyond the scope of this study. However, in this evaluation we did assume that a seasonal benefit would exist in some form to allow comparison of alternatives with storage and without. For a Grant Lake project, active storage could be accomplished with a siphon or lake tap intake that allows for drawdown, a structure which provides impoundment or a combination of the two. Alternative 1: Run-of-River Project Alternative l is considered the base case and would be comprised of a simple diversion structure or intake located at the natural outlet to Grant Lake (Figure 14). A sluiceway capable of releasing incremental flows (should the plant be taken offline) and a spillway would be located next to the intake. An above-ground steel penstock supported on saddles would convey water to the powerhouse (Figure 14). Water velocity was limited to 12 feet per second (fps) in determining the size of the penstock. A surge tank was assumed to be needed, and would be located near the top of the slope. A concrete-reinforced powerhouse structure would contain a single Francis-type turbine, synchronous generator and associated switchgear and controls (Figure 14). A new route beginning at the downstream end of Lower Trail Lake and continuing around the east side ofVagt Lake would split to provide access to the powerhouse and the intake sites (Figure 14). An overhead transmission line would connect directly to the existing transmission line along the Seward Highway. Detailed parameters for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 5. Alternative 2: Impoundment This alternative would provide active storage (see Active Storage, above) by creating a small impoundment of Grant Lake. Key features would include a 9-foot-high concrete gravity structure located at the outlet of Grant Lake. An intake and sluiceway would be constructed integral to the structure. The remaining project features would be the same as in Alternative 1 (for detailed parameters, see Table 5). Alternative 3: Impoundment+ Drawdown Alternative 3 would enhance Alternative 2 by providing additional active storage through drawdown of Grant Lake below its naturally occurring minimum elevation. Drawdown would be made possible by extending a pipeline into the lake and installing vacuum pump equipment. At low lake levels the intake would act as a siphon allowing the lake to be drawn down to an elevation of675 ft. Detailed parameters for Alternative 3 are shown in Table 5. Alternative 4: Ebasco's 1984 Preferred Project Alternative 4 was the preferred project identified by Ebasco (APA 1984; Alternative D), and would consist of a lake tap in Grant Lake, a tunnel from Grant Lake to the powerhouse on Upper Trail Lake and a powerhouse located on Upper Trail Lake. Detailed parameters for Alternative 4 are shown in Table 5. 13 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Alternative 5: Impoundment+ Drawdown + Falls Creek Earlier evaluations identified the possibility of increasing flows in Grant Creek by diverting nearby Falls Creek. Alternative 4 would combine the features of Alternative 3 with the diversion of Falls Creek in order to augment flows available for hydroelectric generation. Detailed parameters for Alternative 5 are shown in Table 5. Summary of Alternatives Table 6 summarizes the key parameters of alternatives that were evaluated. Maximum headwater for alternatives that would not include storage would be lower for Alternatives I and 4 (691 ft, natural elevation of Grant Lake). For alternatives that would feature storage, the maximum headwater would be located at an elevation of 700 ft. Minimum headwater would be lower in alternatives that would feature drawdown (Alternatives 3 and 5, both 675 ft) or a lake tap (Alternative 4, 660 ft). Projects including no drawdown would have a minimum headwater at 691 ft, Grant Lake's natural elevation. All alternatives would include a tail water elevation of 530 ft (powerhouse located alongside Grant Creek), except the alternative that would employ a lake tap and powerhouse on Trail Lake (470ft). Alternative 4, with a powerhouse at Trail Lake, would utilize the greatest net head (206 ft); net head for alternatives with a powerhouse along Grant Creek would range from 145ft (Alternative I) to 154ft (Alternatives 2, 3 and 5; Table 6), depending on drawdown and storage. Design flow was 430 cfs (see Turbine Sizing, below) for all alternatives except Alternative 4 (lake tap to Trail Lake), designed for 460 cfs (Table 6). It follows that all alternatives would have a capacity of 4.7 MW, except Alternative 4 which could generate 7.0 MW because of its higher head and flows. All alternatives would use an average inflow of 193 cfs, except for Alternative 5, which would utilize an average inflow for 222 cfs (with addition of flows from Falls Creek). Alternative I provides no storage, as would operate in run-of-the-river mode. Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 include 38,500 AF of active storage. Alternative 4 provides the most storage, at 48,000 AF (Table 6). Turbine Sizing For Alternative l, the rated flow of the turbine was sized at 15% on the flow duration curve, or 430 cfs. A sensitivity analysis indicated that design flows within I 0% of this assumption yield near identical energy generation estimates 12 • This assumption is appropriate for reconnaissance- level study. Alternatives utilizing storage (Alternatives 2 through 5) produced similar results; in order to simplify evaluation of competing alternatives; the design flow was kept constant. 12 For comparison purposes, APA (1984) concluded that the energy from their preferred alternative was nearly constant over flows ranging from 390-531 cfs (Ref. Table 17-3 of APA 1984). 14 Other Alternatives Evaluated Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance An alternative that would have made use of a siphon intake in conjunction with a pipeline to convey water to a powerhouse on Upper Trail Lake was given a brief evaluation. This alternative would be similar in energy potential and cost to Alternative 4 (lake tap). In addition to the environmental concerns listed for Alternative 4, a siphon alternative would likely require a low level outlet to provide flow for fish and would still require excavation in the lake. Additionally, with a siphon it is more difficult to provide a multilevel intake (compared to a traditional intake) to utilize the warmer surface water for fish in the tailrace. The siphon option would require energy for operation and constant attention by an operator. Also, with the large diameter penstock piping maintaining a vacuum for the siphon may be problematic. The siphon option was dismissed for continued evaluation because of potential operational issues, added environmental concerns, and ongoing energy costs to maintain the vacuum in the penstock. Energy Generation Energy generation estimates for Alternative I were made using HDR's proprietary software "Hydroelectric Evaluation Program" (HEP). HEP has been specifically designed to model run- of-river operations. HEP uses tabulated daily flows, turbine and generator efficiencies, friction coefficients and physical parameters to simulate energy production through a period of record. Turbine and generator efficiencies are determined from tables. HEP outputs were: effective capacity rating of the unit( s ), simulated production in megawatt -hours (MWh ), percent operating time, and overall plant factor. Energy generation estimates for alternatives with storage were made using a spreadsheet-based optimization model. The model uses average monthly flow data and stage/storage characteristics to optimize dispatch using inflows and storage to maximize energy generation. Outputs from the model include estimated monthly generation and pool elevations. Assumptions The following were key assumptions used in modeling energy production: • The reservoir was assumed to start full in October and was constrained to return to the starting elevation at the end of September to maintain year-to-year continuity. • For the alternatives with storage, a water-to-wire efficiency was assumed at 85%. For the generating equipment likely to be used at this project, turbine efficiencies can vary greatly depending on the flow. However, at this level of study a constant level of efficiency was considered appropriate because the storage would allow for optimized dispatch within the monthly time step, i.e. 30 days of discharge at 200 cfs could be re- regulated as 15 days of discharge at 400 cfs. • Tailwater elevation was assumed to remain constant over all flows. In practice, it would likely vary slightly; however, not enough data were available to refine this assumption. 15 Grant Lake --Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance • For daily simulations, head loss was calculated using the daily flow. For monthly simulations, the project was assumed to operate at the best gate position, corresponding to a 7.5% head loss. • All available flow was used for energy production. No minimum instream flow was released in the bypass reach of Grant Creek. The tail water of the powerhouse was placed at 530 ft elevation to reintroduce water into Grant Creek above the most productive fish habitat. Objective Function When the prices for energy (or other benefits of generation) are not constant throughout the year due to seasonal variations, it may be desirable to dispatch the project to maximize revenue instead of energy. To model this situation, seasonal variations in energy values were weighted as shown in Table 7. In this reconnaissance-level report, the effect of maximizing energy based upon seasonal incentive is referred to as the "seasonal benefit" (See Energy Calculations, Appendix B, for more detail). Figure 15 illustrates this concept for Alternative 3 (impoundment and drawdown) during an average water year. In this instance weighting the months shifts the generation to the high value months of December and January. Overall energy generation actually decreased by 1.7% due to lower headwater elevations but total revenue increased by 6.1% (Figure 15) by generating more in more valuable months. Results Table 8 presents the results of the reconnaissance level energy generation estimates for the various alternatives. Alternatives featuring storage (Alternatives 2 through 5) would produce more energy annually (19.0-25.4 GWh) than a run-of-the-river project (Alternative I; 13.7 GWh). Plant factor, the ratio of average power load to its rated capacity, was lower for the run- of-the-river project (Alternative 1; 0.33) than for projects featuring storage (Alternatives 2 through 5; 0.42-0.51 ), due to the lower rated capacity of the run-of-the-river project. Seasonal benefit ranged from 2.7-6.1 % for alternatives with storage, owing to the fact that stored water could be used to produce energy in winter. A run-of-the-river project would not take advantage of storage and thus would have no associated seasonal benefit (Table 8). Cost Estimates Opinions of probable construction costs were derived for each of the alternatives presented above. Cost information detail is included in Appendix C. We assumed most alternatives would make use of many of the same construction features. At this level of study, variances in alternative project costs can be directly attributed to the type of intake and impoundment. The approach used was to develop base work units and unit prices and then apply these units and prices consistently to the various alternatives. This approach allowed a common platform from which to quickly establish priority amongst the alternatives, although slight differences do exist. It should also be noted that the project sizes for the various alternatives may not be the true 16 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance optimum. For example, future refinement may determine that the design flow for the turbine should be slightly greater or smaller than what was assumed. A sensitivity analysis performed as part ofthe energy generation estimating process indicated assumed values were appropriate. Although future refinement of the estimated unit costs or generation estimates may affect the final benefit/cost evaluation, it should not affect the ranking of the alternatives amongst themselves. The following assumptions were used in the cost estimate: • Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, construction management, licensing, permitting and the owner's internal costs were added to the direct construction cost estimate as either percentages or lump sum amounts. • Design engineering was assumed to be 10% of the total direct construction costs. • A lump sum value of $1,000,000 was assumed to provide environmental baseline studies in support of the FERC licensing application. As well as preparation for the FERC licensing application. • The Owner's General Administration and Overhead of the design and construction was assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs. • Construction management was assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs. • A contingency of 30% was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs to reflect uncertainties of layout and design that wouldn't be resolved until later in the development process. • Interest accrued during a 3-year construction period was assumed to be 7% and was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs. • The estimate assumed first-year operations and maintenance (O&M) expense were comprised ofthe following three expenses o Total labor, expenses and owner's general and administrative (G&A) expenses were estimated at $300,000/yr13 • o A repair and replacement fund of $50,000 was also included. o General liability and business interruption insurance was estimated at $1.00 per $100.00 of asset. 13 The estimated G&A expense could be reduced if several of the sites investigated are constructed which would allow some economies to be realized between the similar operations of the hydroelectric projects. 17 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report • Cost estimates assumed that the project would be designed for un-manned operations and would be part of a larger organization; thereby the project would experience lower administrative expenses. On-site O&M labor would be limited to periodic inspections and seasonal maintenance. Results Table 9 presents the results of the reconnaissance level cost estimates for the five alternatives considered. It should be noted that the costs in Table 9 are relative and not absolute. A run-of- the-river project (Alternative 1) would have the lowest estimated project cost of $24.0 M. Estimated project cost of Alternatives 2 and 3 was similar at $25.3 and $26.3 M, respectively. Alternatives 1 through 3 would all provide the same 4.7 MW capacity for energy generation. Estimated project cost for Alternative 4 ($52.2M) was more than twice that of Alternatives I through 3, but this project would have a greater capacity of 7.0 MW. Alternative 5 would have the same capacity as Alternatives 1 through 3, but this project would have a greater estimated project cost of $39.8 M (Table 9). For comparison, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, consumer prices have risen 217% since 1983. Using this statistic, the preferred alternative identified in the APA (1984; Alternative 4 in this report) would have a current price of approximately $55M. Economic Evaluation and Alternative Ranking A detailed economic evaluation was not included in the scope of this work. However, in order to provide a conceptual view of the economics and to provide a means of ranking the alternatives, we have made some generic financial assumptions. We have chosen to present the results as estimated annual cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2008 dollars. In deriving these costs, we assumed that the project could be financed through the issuance of bonds. Our assumption was that I 00% of the debt would be financed at 6% for 30 years. Results of the economic evaluation and alternative ranking analysis are shown in Table I 0. A sensitivity analysis of the key assumptions showed the relative ranking of the alternatives unchanged by reasonable variation in unit prices and quantities, providing verification of the estimating approach outlined above. It should be noted that the costs in Table 10 are relative and not absolute. A complete analysis of cost of each of the alternatives requires not only consideration of the financial parameters but also an integration of environmental and licensing considerations. These latter concerns are not nearly as tangible as estimating costs and energy, so their impact on cost is subjective at this point. Based upon past experience, we have integrated them as fairly as possible into the ranking (Table I 0). Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon the results of this reconnaissance level study, development of a project at the outlet to Grant Lake with storage between I 0,000-40,000 acre-feet appears to be the most feasible. Storage levels below this minimum reduce the ability to capture and release high flows. Storage 18 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report levels above this maximum must bear the cost of deepening the channel at mid lake without a commensurate increase in energy production. The main benefit of increased storage within this target range is the ability to potentially shift generation to higher valued months. It is recommended that Alternatives 2 (impoundment) and 3 (impoundment and drawdown), be studied at a feasibility level in order to better identify project features and costs. References Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1998. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. Rep. from Division of Land and Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division, and Kenai Peninsula Borough. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1982. Preliminary summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area. Interim report submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1983 Summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area. Final Report submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. Boggs, K., J. C. Davis, A.A. Milner. January 1997. Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources of the Kenai River Watershed: A Synthesis of Publications. Alaska Natural Heritage Program for the Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, EPA 910/R-97-001. Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P. 1969. Discharge measurements at gauging stations. In Chapter A8, Book 3, Techniques of water resources investigations of the United States Geological Survey. CH2 M Hill. 1980. Feasibility assessment -hydropower development at Grant Lake. City of Seward, AK. Dudiak, N. t 980. Environmental assessment, Trail Lakes Hatchery, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Submitted to U.S. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest by Alaska Dept of Fish and Game, Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development Division, Anchorage, Alaska. 1980 Johnson, J. and M. Daigneault. 2008. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes -Southcentral Region, Effective June 2, 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 08-05, Anchorage, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2008. Coastal management plan. Effective June 2008. Meade, J. 2006. Draft environmental impact statement: Kenai winter access. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest. Anchorage, Alaska 20 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Plafker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Quilliam, R. 1982. Personal communication. 1982. Resource Assistant, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Seward, AK. R. W. Beck and Associates. 1982. Kenai Peninsula power supply and transmission study supplement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. National Hydroelectric Power Study, Regional Report. Regional Report: Volume XXIII -Alaska. USACE North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon and Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1961. Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, progress report on the fish and wildlife resources. Department of the Interior. Juneau, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1981. Surface water quality records, Southcentral Alaska, 1949-1974. Unpublished computer printout. 21 Tables 22 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Table 1. Falls Creek scale factors (determined by APA 1984) used to simulate flow of Falls Creek from stream flow data collected at Grant Creek. Scale factor October 6.2% November 0 December 0 Januarv 0 Februarv 0 March 0 April 0 Mav 5.2% June 24.2% Julv 21.2% August 14.6% September 13.4% 23 Reconnaissance Tables Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance -Tables Table 2. Temperature comparisons for Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Adapted from Table 2-8 in APA (1984). Values for Grant Lake were surface temperatures. Temperature Difference Temperature between difference Falls Grant Lake between Grant Grant Cr. and Grant Cr Grant Cr. Date Source Lake CF} Cr. {°F} {oF} CF} and Falls Cr. I I/3/l959 USFWS (1961) 39.9 32.5 6/8/1960 " I! 46.0 41.0 6/17/1960 II " 53.1 7/20/1960 " " 53.1 52.0 41.0 1.1 ll.O 8/8/1960 II " 55.0 52.0 3.1 8/13/1960 " " 52.0 51.1 44.1 0.9 7.0 9/1/1960 " " 50.0 42.1 9/14/1960 " " 48.9 41.0 10/16/1930 " " 44.1 42.1 36.0 2.0 6.1 10/13/1981 AIEDC ( 1982) 45.0 42.8 38.3 2.2 4.5 3/211982 " " 35.6 33.8 1.8 6/9/1982 " " 43.9 43.7 39.2 0.2 4.5 8/3/1982 " " 57.2 54.5 41.9 2.7 12.6 Average Temperature Difference (°F} 1.7 7.6 Table 3. 2008 instantaneous flow measurements collected by HDR staff, October to December 2008. Site Date Instantaneous Stream Width (ft) Discharge ( cfs) Grant Creek 10/4/2008 126.0 35.0 10/23/2008 108.3 38.9 12/3/2008 47.3 36.8 Falls Creek 10/5/2008 22.1 19.1 10/24/2008 13.9 16.7 24 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance -Tables Table 4. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula. Location Number of sites Cooper Creek 26 Crescent Creek 9 Porcupine Creek 24 Primrose Creek 10 Ptarmigan Creek 16 Quartz Creek 45 Russian River 84 Table 5. USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula. Location Length (mi) Carter Lake 3.5 Crescent Creek 6.4 Devil's Pass 10 Grayling Lake 1.5 Gull Rock 5.1 Hope Point 2.5 Johnson Pass 23 Lost Lake 7.5 Primrose 7.5 Ptarmigan Creek 7.1 Rainbow Lake 0.24 25 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance -Tables Table 6. Parameters for all five alternatives considered. Elevations of maximum headwater (HW), minimum HW, tailwater elevation and net head (in feet) are given for each alternative. Design flow (cfs), capacity (MW), average inflow (cfs), and active storage are detailed for each project. Alternative 2 3 4 5 Low Head Low Head Run-of-Low Head Intake Lake Tap, Intake Description River Intake Structure & Tunnel & Structure, Structure Drawdown Powerhouse Drawdown& Falls Creek Max. Head 691 700 700 691 700 Water (HW), ft Min. HW, ft 691 691 675 660 675 Tai1water, ft 530 530 530 470 530 Net Head, ft 145 154 154 206 154 Design Flow, cfs 430 430 430 460 430 Capacity, MW 4.7 4.7 4.7 7.0 4.7 A vg. Inflow, cfs 193 193 193 193 222 Active Storage, 0 13,800 38,200 48,000 38,200 AF 26 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance -Tables Table 7. Seasonal energy valuation for hydroelectric projects. Seasonal variations in energy value are shown for an average water year* (after Table 17-1 of APA 1984). Month Energ~ valuation October 1.22 November 1.39 December 1.58 January 1.52 February 1.37 March 1.37 April l.l9 May 1.10 June 1.00 July 1.01 August 1.04 Segtember 1.10 *Hydrologic water year is defined by the USGS as the 12-month period from October through September. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 of the 12 months. (http:/ /water .usgs.gov /wsc/glossary .html). 27 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report-Tables Table 8. Energy generation estimate summary for the alternatives considered. Capacity (MW) and annual energy production (GWh) are shown for each alternative. The modeled plant factor and seasonal benefit are also given for each alternative. For detai Is of energy calculations, see Appendix B. Annual Plant Seasonal Alternative Description Capacity Energy Factor* Benefit (MW) (GWh) Run-of-River 4.7 13.7 0.33 0 2 Impoundment 4.7 19.1 0.47 +2.7% 3 Impoundment & 4.7 19.0 0.46 +6.1% Drawdown 4 Lake tap, Tunnel, 7.0 25.4 0.42 +4.7% & Powerhouse Impoundment, 5 Drawdown, & 4.7 21.1 0.51 +5.2% Falls Creek *Plant factor is defined as the ration of power load to rated capacity of a power plant. 28 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance -Tables Table 9. Reconnaissance-level cost estimates for all alternatives. Rated capacity (MW) and estimated project cost are presented fore each alterative in millions of dollars (For details of cost estimates, see Appendix C. Alternative 2 3 4 5 Description Run-of-River Impoundment Impoundment & Drawdown Lake Tap, Tunnel, & Powerhouse Impoundment, Drawdown, & Falls Creek Capacity Est. Project (MW) Cost 4.7 $24.0M 4.7 $25.3M 4.7 $26.3M 7.0 $52.2M 4.7 $39.8M Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance -Tables Table 10. Estimated energy cost ($/KWh), economic rank and environmental rank of all alternatives considered. Alternative Description Energy Cost Economic Rank Environmental Rank Run-of-River $0.164 3 2 Impoundment $0.123 2 3 Impoundment & $0.127 2 3 Draw down 4 Lake Tap, Tunnel, $0.174 4 5 & Powerhouse 5 Impoundment, $0.166 5 4 Drawdown, & Falls Creek 30 Figures 31 @"s ~ Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures K•naJ Hydro Facility I -- Siting Project -=--tiD .... _ ~ ---Propoud I c::J ------.. __ Project Study ANa c -.. -...... -- Figure 1. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Grant Lake on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. 32 ~"---- ~"\, f \ •' 4..0. ~ Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures D ~ ,{" ~like ~ ---------- -- G',.a,, ~~~.f~ ~ Proposed Project Study Area --Stream -..-..-..-Anadromous Reach Miles 0 0.2!1 0.5 Land Status • Alaska Railroad DChugacll NF IZliil State of Alaska OPrlvllle ~ HDR Alaska, Inc. December 2008 Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Grant Creek (section of stream in which anadromous fish are documented by the A WC; Johnson and Daigneault 2008). 33 Figure 3. The anadromous reach ofFalls Creek. Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures Proposed Project Study Area -Stream -'LLL Anadromous Reach Land Sllltus -Alaska Railroad CJ Chugach NF 1::1 State of Alaska OPrlvate ~ Miles 'lf 0 0.25 0.5 HDR Alasl<a,lnc. DK.ember 2008 The anadromous reach is defined as the section of stream in which anadromous fish are documented by the A WC; Johnson and Daigneault 2008). 34 600 T I 500 400 100 0 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures Grant Creek Mean Monthly Flows 193 cfs mean annual flow 152 518 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Figure 4. Average monthly flow data at Grant Creek. Average annual flow (for period of record 194 7-1958, from USGS gauge #5246000) is shown as a solid horizontal line (193 cfs ). 1000 900 800 700 ~600 -soo ~ ~ 400 300 200 100 Grant Creek Flow Duration ol---,---~-~-~T---~-~---~--===~~~~==~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Exceedance Figure 5. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on they-axis. This curve was generated using data from the period 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5246000. 35 120 100 80 -~ 0 -60 ;: 0 u::: 40 20 0 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures Falls Creek Mean Monthly Flows 108 11 0 56 cfs mean OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Figure 6. Mean monthly discharge of Falls Creek, modeled using data from USGS gage 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984; using one open water season of flow data. at Falls Creek). Average annual flow (for period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5246000) is shown as a solid horizontal line (56 cfs). 36 500 400 :i? 300 0 .._.. 3: I ~ 200 ~ I 100 0 10 20 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures Falls Creek Flow Duration 30 40 50 60 70. 80 90 100 % Exceedance Figure 7. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on they-axis. This curve was generated using modeled data from USGS gage 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984; using one open water season of flow data. at Falls Creek). 37 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report-Figures Grant Creek Discharge , I I I ~ ' I I I I I 0 I Ill I ' ' I • I .11/ 1.1 I I I , ' .. ~ ", .. , I ~ .. -.. ~ .. --4ilt - - ? ~ ~ ~~ .,}:> ~ro ~ ':j~~ '?-.::><:!> (lJJ 'loS r-:,0~ ov ~0 <J Historic data are from USGS gauge 15246000 (1947-1958) and manual instantaneous flow measurements made in 2008 by HDR Alaska. Mean discharge (heavy blue line), 10% flow exceedence (dashed aqua line), and 90% flow exceedence (solid pink line), in cubic feet per second are shown for historical data. Manually collected instantaneous stream flow measurements collected in 2008 by HDR Alaska are shown as black dots. 38 200 180 160 140 -13 120 -Q) e> 100 ca ..c. 0 1/) 80 5 60 40 20 0 " -::,ttJ.« -Daily Mean __._ Manual Measurements, 2008 :--«.~ '5.?:> ~qj. ~":> """<;! _,,t;. ~fb."' Falls Creek Modeled Discharge > -::,v<::.' ;-, -::,.S.--\ ;-, ""v<:f> Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures • r~--r :--~--r---~ ~~ '11.,:((:) ~;o ~ e:;,0'J ov ~0 <::>rJJ Figure 9. Falls Creek modeled discharge based on data from USGS gauge 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984) using one open water season of current flow data. Mean discharge is shown by a heavy blue line in cubic feet per second. Manually collected instantaneous stream flow measurements collected in 2008 by HDR Alaska are shown as black dots. 39 Figure 10. Private Parcels near Grant Lake. Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroele~tric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures - LAND STATUS KPB Parcels ......,_, -~----...- ........... (il I'Njll-1 o iCII-- •~~~~~-.-..-110-~~ -131-CIIin -130 __ _ -131--llopQoly -IIID-~IIIIfg ------................ c-. ---~ --~-.--SZII-----c:tu.il __ __,Illig ---.. .._ ·--"""""*-I (-10.11111-) ; IWED1A!d:llll» --~ --ta'B.-USFS liR State and Federal lands are shown by yellow. Private properties are denoted other colors. 40 F igure II. Private parcels of Falls Creek area. 41 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures -- LAND STATUS KPB Parcels ....,._, -a..-------- legend Q l'lo;ol-2 o ~~~~--~as-....-UNI -110-~1-4 -1211-c:at -1311 __ _ -131 ___ 0nlr c;I IDO-~~ -3111 eo.-..iii--335 ....... -IUiploc:a. -350-eo..---~_.,~ -1211-----a...---~--ttyllldg ---. .__... a.--Piqoat-2 (-;z.IIJO-) ; Dllloc 01 Apil211011 --......-. -ADNR.KFB. GINA. USAI lill Figure 12. Water rights and mineral claims in the Grant Lake area. Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures LAND STATUS Water R ights & M ineral Estate Praject Ale. 1 Grwllllle---Booough.- Legend Gl Projet Area 1 .. Federal Mining Claim .. State Mining Claim • Surface Water Right • Subsurface Water Right .. lake/Pond ., Ice Mass PI'Clject _, (-10,8110-) + ~=22~2008 -HCR~ SCUteo; ~ KPB, ~ Hl'1 Federal mining claims are shown by yellow shading. Aqua shading denotes state mining claims. 42 Figure 13. Water rights and mineral claims in the Grant Lake area. Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures LAND STATUS Water Rights & Mineral Estate PnlfoctANe2. Fall Cl'loll- --~.- Legend .. State Mining Claim .. Federal Mining Claim • Sutface Water Right • Subsurface Water Right 0 Proiet Area 2 • lake/Pond ~ lceMass ProjeCt -2 (~2,600-) + r ---,_ __ _JMiles 0 0.5 1 com: 22 Decoflm« 200e -ttlft Etlgir,.;ng SCU.:.: AONR, KPB, GINA •Jill, Federal mining claims are shown by yellow shading. Aqua shading denotes state mining claims. 43 ~~fill • HDR Ala ska, Inc. J.· ,, --.......... •. Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures KHL SITE EVALUATION PROJECT OPTION DESCRIPTIONS GRANT LAKE Figure 14. Alternative 1 for propos project at Grant Lake. Alternative 1 showing location of intake at the natural outlet of Grant Lake, possible penstock route, powerhouse location and proposed access routes. 44 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Figures ~~--------------------------------------------------~ 3500 +-------- 3000 +------- ~ 2500 +------ ::::&: >; 2000 +------ ~ ~ 1500 w 1000 500 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Figure 15. Maximum energy analysis for Alternative 3 (impoundment and drawdown) during an average water year. A hydrologic water year is defined by the USGS as the 12-month period from October through September. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which . includes 9 of the 12 months (http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html). In this analysis, months were weighted using seasonal variations in energy values from Table 7. 45 Appendix A-Land Status Information 46 PARCELID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE LEGAL OWNER T 5N R 1W SEC 36 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12520106 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 86 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12520214 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 1 00 Residential Vacant . 18 14 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1W SEC 36 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12520110 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 2 10 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1 E SEC 3 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW SECTIONS 3 & 4 & 8 THROUGH 17 & 20 THROUGH 26 & 32 & 36 & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 1 & 2 & 5 EXCLUDING GRANT LAKE & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 27 & 28 & 29 & 33 & 34 & 35 EXCLUDING PTARMIGAN LAKE & USDA FOREST 12532109 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 1 00 Residential Vacant 19,096 PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 30 & 31 E SERVICE T 4N R 1W SEC 12 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0003081 BRYSON REVOCABLE 12517002 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 120 Residential Cabin 3 US SURVEY 3081 MARITAL TRUST WERNER LAWRENCE E TRUSTEE OF RACHEL K& T 4N R 1W SEC 12 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0003300 KIMBERLY A WERNER 12517003 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 120 Residential Cabin 6 US SURVEY 3300 TRUSTS ET AL T 5N R 1W SEC 36 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12520101 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 13 1 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1W SEC 36 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12520105 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 19 5 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1E SEC 19 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOTS 1 2 3 4 5 W1/2 NE1/4 & SE1/4 NW1/4 & E1/2 & 12531004 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 319 SW1/4 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1 E SEC 30 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT 12531005 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 557 LOTS 1 THRU 4 & S1/2 NE1/4 & E1/2 W1/2 & SE1/4 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1E SEC 31 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT 12531006 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 476 LOTS 1 2 5 & 6 & W1/2 E1/2 & E1/2 W1/2 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1E SEC 19 & 20 & 30 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW SE1/4 SEC 19 & W1/2 SW1/4 SEC 20 & N1/2 NE1/4 SEC 12531018 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 320 30 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1 E SEC 31 & 32 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GL 3 4 & 7 & NE1/4 NE1/4 WITHIN SEC 31 & GL 1 WITHIN 12531019 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 133 SEC 32 ALASKA STATED N R T 5N R 1E SEC 10 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW SECTIONS 10 THROUGH 17 & 21 THROUGH 27 & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 4 & 8 & 9 SOUTH OF ALASKA RAILROAD & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 18 THROUGH 20 & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 28 & 29 & 33 THROUGH USDA FOREST 12531022 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 1 00 Residential Vacant 17,105 36 NORTH & EAST OF GRANT LAKE SERVICE T 4N R 1 E SEC 6 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOTS 12532101 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 461 1 THRU 11 & W1/2 E1/2 & E1/2 W1/2 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1 E SEC 7 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOTS 12532102 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 560 1 THRU 7 & E1/2 & NE1/4 NW1/4 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1 E SEC 6 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12532108 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 47 12 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 1 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12532301 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 1 00 Residential Vacant 0 1 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 1 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12532304 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 1 00 Residential Vacant 1 4 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 1 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12532306 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 1 00 Residential Vacant 06 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 1 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12532312 - §}_-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 6 12 -~SKA STATED N R 47 ADDRESS CITYSTATE 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 3301 C ST STE 300 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 11351 DISCOVERY VIEW ANCHORAGE, AK 99515 PO BOX.242782 ANCHORAGE, AK 99524 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 3301 C ST STE 300 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status LANDVAL IMPVAL ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT $157,700 $0 $157,700 $0 STATE $126,100 $0 $126,100 $0 STATE $37,200 $0 $37,200 $0 STATE $11 ,457,600 $0 $11,457,600 $0 FEDERAL $51,600 $1,700 $53,300 $53,300 PRIVATE $50,000 $30,400 $80,400 $80,400 PRIVATE $102,200 $0 $102,200 $0 STATE $263,300 $0 $263,300 $0 STATE $240,800 $0 $240,800 $0 STATE $421,200 $0 $421,200 $0 STATE $3!50,000 $0 $360,000 $0 STATE $134,300 $0 $134,300 $0 STATE $100,200 $0 $100,200 $0 STATE $10,263,000 $0 $10,263,000 $0 FEDERAL $348,200 $0 $348,200 $0 STATE $4l3, 100 $0 $423,100 $0 STATE $·19,700 $0 $49,700 $0 STATE $9,600 $0 $9,600 $0 STATE $23,800 $0 $23,800 $0 STATE S14,300 $0 $14,300 $0 STATE $66,500 $0 $66,500 $0 STATE PARCELID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE LEGAL OWNER T 4N R 1W SEC 12 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12532314 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 25 1 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 12 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOT 12532315 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 9 2 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 1 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW SOUTH 12532330 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 18 PORTION GOVT LOT 3 ALASKA STATED N R SEWARD MERIDIAN SW T05N R02E THRU R04E; T04N R02E THRU R04E; T03N R02E & R03E; T02N R02E; T1 N USDA FOREST 12542002 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 167,750 R02E LYING NW OF PLO 3665 & EXCLUDING IC 1584 SERVICE ----~ 48 ADDRESS CITYSTATE 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 3301 C ST STE 300 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status LANDVAL IMPVAL ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT $147,500 $0 $147,500 $0 STATE $142,900 $0 $142,900 $0 STATE $189,100 $0 $189,100 $0 STATE $40,260,000 $0 $40,260,000 $0 FEDERAL PARCEL ID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE LEGAL AKAA 080514 18 S 5N 1E 29 NE I WHITE ROCK NO 2 AKAA 082592 16 S 5N 1 E 29 SW I GLMC P1 AKAA 080513 18 S 5N 1E 29 NE I WHITE ROCK NO 1 AKAA 085758 21 S 5N 1 E 29 NE I WHITE ROCK NO. 3 OWNER ADDRESS CITYSTATE ERICHSEN THOR BRANDT TORGERSON PAUL T ERICHSEN THOR BRANDT TOWER JAMES C 49 LANDVAL IMPVAL -- Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT PARCELID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE Lt:uAL OWNER T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12532421 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 6 SW GOVT LOT 8 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12532422 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 36 SWGOVTLOT9 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12532423 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 1 SW GOVT LOT 10 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12532424 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 131 Mobile Home Imp Only 9 SW GOVT LOT 11 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1E SEC 3 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW SECTIONS 3 & 4 & 8 THROUGH 17 & 20 THROUGH 26 & 32 & 36 & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 1 & 2 & 5 EXCLUDING GRANT LAKE & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 27 & 28 & 29 & 33 & 34 & 35 EXCLUDING PTARMIGAN LAKE & 12532109 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 19,096 PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 30 & 31 E USDA FOREST SERVICE T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516007 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 6 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516008 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 110 Residential Units 1-4 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 5 PFLUM TIMOTHY M T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516009 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 110 Residential Units 1-4 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 8 BARNETT THOMAS E T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516010 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 7 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516011 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 120 Residential Cabin 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 10 LYNCH SHAWN M T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516012 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 110 Residential Units 1-4 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 9 HANLEY JAMES P T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516013 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 110 Residential Units 1-4 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 12 ROTGABER GEORGE E T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516014 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 11 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0910009 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516015 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 0 SURVEY 86-6 TRACT B (ADL 217604) ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1E SEC 18 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12516018 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 10 SW 0000000 US SURVEY 8666 LOT 2 UNITED STATES BLM T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12516019 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 8 SW 0008666 US SURVEY 8666 LOT 1 UNITED STATES BLM T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12516020 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 105 Residential Improved Lane 2 SW 0008666 US SURVEY 8666 LOT 3 UNITED STATES BLM T 4N R 1W SEC 13 & 24 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW US SURVEY 7391 LOT 2 EXCLUDING THAT PTN AS PER ARRC 12514101 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 81 6043 ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION T 4N R 1W SEC 24 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW USS 7391 THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 12514103 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 651 Leased Commercial 0 AS PER ARRC 6509 ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION --- 50 ADDRESS CITYSTATE 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 3301 C ST STE 300 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 19445 POND MEADOW AVE BEND, OR 97702 3124 MADISON WAY ANCHORAGE, AK 99508 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 PO BOX24 MOOSE PASS, AK 9963 3910 W 37TH CT ANCHORAGE, AK 99517 PO BOX 164 MOOSE PASS, AK 9963 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 PO BOX 107500 ANCHORAGE, AK 99510 PO BOX 107500 ANCHORAGE, AK 99510 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status LANDVAL IMPVAL ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT $100,600 $0 $100,600 $0 STATE $312,800 $0 $312,800 $0 STATE $17,600 $0 $17,600 $0 STATE $52,100 $0 $52,100 $0 STATE $11,457,600 $0 $11 ,457,600 $0 FEDERAL $13,800 $0 $13,800 $0 STATE $13,800 $53,300 $67,100 $67,100 PRIVATE $13,900 $11,800 $25,700 $25,700 PRIVATE $12,700 $0 $12,700 $0 STATE $12,500 $22,900 $35,400 $15,400 PRIVATE $13,600 $62,000 $75,600 $75,600 PRIVATE $12,700 $27,300 $40,000 $40,000 PRIVATE $11,300 $0 $11,300 $0 STATE $8,900 $0 $8,900 $0 STATE $57,700 $0 $57,700 $0 FEDERAL $70,200 $0 $70,200 $0 FEDERAL $48,600 $1,000 $49,600 $0 FEDERAL $252,500 $0 $252,500 $0 STATE $13,000 $8,900 $21,900 $21,900 STATE PARCELID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE Lt:\:OAL OWNER T 4N R 1W SEC 13 & 24 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW FALLS CREEK GROUP 12515001 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 110 Residential Units 1-4 5 US SURVEY 2519 LOT K (HS R1) LINDQUIST GARY V & JULIE R T 4N R 1W SEC 24 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0000000 FALLS CREEK GROUP US 12515002 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 110 Residential Units 1-4 5 SURVEY 2519 LOT J (HS 38) MERRITT WILLIAM T JR & JUDY L T 4N R 1W SEC 24 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0002519 FALLS CREEK GROUP OF HOMESITE-USS 2519 LOT I THAT PORTION BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I PROCEED WEST 361.68 FT TH SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST BANK OF TRAIL RIVER 78 FT TO THE BANK OF 12515006 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 11 0 Residential Units 1-4 1 A SLOUGH TH VITARIS CLIFFORD R & KATHLEEN A T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516003 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 120 Residential Cabin 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 2 BARTOLINI TONY T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516004 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 120 Residential Cabin 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 1 KROMREY MARK T & KAREN L T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516005 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 4 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516006 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 120 Residential Cabin 1 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 3 CARTER LARRY JAMES (JIM) LIVING TRUST T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND SURVEY 86-176 TRACT A EXCEPT ASLS 12516022 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 37 86-6 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 0880002 ALASKA STATE LAND 12516023 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 45 SURVEY 86-176 LOT 1-A ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1 E SEC 7 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOTS 1 THRU 7 & E1/2 & 12532102 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 560 NE1/4 NW1/4 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1E SEC 18 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOTS 1 THRU 5 & E1/2 & E1/2 12532103 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 544 NW1/4 & NE1/4 SW1/4 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1E SEC 19 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT LOTS 1 THRU 4 & E1/2 & E1/2 12532104 67 -KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 605 W1/2 ALASKA STATED N R T 4N R 1W SEC 24 SEWARD MERIDIAN 12532401 67-KPB ROAD MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 43 SWGOVT LOT 1 ALASKA STATED N R 51 ADDRESS CITYSTATE 31087 SEWARD HWY SEWARD, AK 99664 PO BOX 172 MOOSE PASS, AK 9963 30919 SEWARD HWY SEWARD, AK 99664 8901 E RAVENDALE DR PALMER, AK 99645 PO BOX68 MOOSE PASS, AK 9963 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 3804 ARKANSAS DR ANCHORAGE, AK 99517 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status LANDVAL IMPVAL ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT $54,400 $188,700 $243,100 $223,100 PRIVATE $39,100 $110,300 $149,400 $129,400 PRIVATE $20,300 $108,200 $128,500 $108,500 PRIVATE $17,400 $16,200 $33,600 $33,600 PRIVATE $17,400 $22,800 $40,200 $40,200 PRIVATE $17,000 $0 $17,000 $0 STATE $17,600 $1,000 $18,600 $18,600 PRIVATE $277,600 $0 $277,600 $0 STATE $233,800 $0 $233,800 $0 STATE ' I I $423,100 $0 $423,100 $0 STATE $411,200 $0 $411,200 $0 STATE $296,500 $0 $296,500 $0 STATE $35,600 $0 $35,600 $0 STATE PARCEL ID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE LEGAL AK932 EW 21 S 4N 1E 9 SE AKAA 055112 21 S 4N 1E 21 NE AKAA 076796 7 S4N 1W24 NE AKAA 030237 22 S 4N 1E 21 NE AKAA 076794 21 S 4N 1E 16 NW AKAA 055109 21 S 4N 1E 16 SE AKAA 055111 21 S4N 1E21 NE AKAA 076795 4 S4N 1W 13 SW AKAA 030239 21 S 4N 1E 17 SW AKAA 087532 21 S 4N 1E 16 SE AKAA 055107 21 S 4N 1E 21 NE AKAA 031337 21 S 4N 1E 16 NW AKAA 055110 21 S 4N 1E 16 SW AKAA 055113 21 S 4N 1E 16 SE AKAA 055108 21 S 4N 1E 16 AKAA 055114 -------------- OWNER ADDRESS CITYSTATE LANDVAL 52 IMPVAL ASSESSED Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status TAXABLE PLAT Appendix B -Energy Calculations 53 Grant Lake Run of River POWER GENERATION DATA FILE USED: 15246000.QCH MODEL DESCRIPTION PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MTNOR LOSSES 3000 84 .01 3 HEADWATER ELEV: 691 TAJLWATER ELEV: 530 GROSS HEAD 161 NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 145.5 NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW) 4762.0@ I POWER FACTOR STATION SERVICE LOSS TRANSFORMER LOSS TRANSMISSION LOSS I SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: TURBINE SELECTED I FRANCIS GENERATORSELECTED:GE 54 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations MINIMUM TNSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIMULATED PRODUCIION IN MEGA WAIT-HOURS Grant Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL --~---------------------------------""---------------------------------... ~---------------------------------------------------- 1948 2060.4 967.9 486.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1780.6 3173.0 3399.3 2943.6 971.8 15783.1 1949 1857.6 81.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 930.3 2958.6 3344.7 2560.5 2752.8 14485.9 1950 1268.5 11516 100.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 585.2 2629.2 3384.6 3357.6 2581.8 15058.8 1951 265.5 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 680.2 2533.5 3320.9 2985.6 3291.5 13077.1 1952 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 138.5 2535.1 3400.1 3067.8 2024.4 11165.9 1953 2456.7 2038.4 398.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 2244.9 3291.5 3401.2 3307.2 2145.6 19345.3 1954 1533.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 1137.7 3062.1 3241.0 2911.9 1464.3 13351.0 1955 948.8 600.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2003.3 3396.7 2749.9 1584.8 11284.2 1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 464.8 2050.1 3364.8 3286.5 1509.2 I 0675.4 1957 0.0 97.6 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 1103.1 3057.7 2907.1 2921.1 2898.1 12984.6 . 1958 1274.7 877.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 I 114.0 32339 3303.7 3073.7 876.5 13754.0 AVERAGE 1060.5 528.7 89.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 9254 2775.3 3314.9 3015.0 2009.2 13724.1 55 AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.33 AVG. # DAYSNEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 201 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES %LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ---------------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 00 10 0.0 92.8 0.0 20 0.0 94.9 0.0 30 50.0 96.3 48.2 40 80.0 97.0 77.6 50 84.0 97.3 81.7 60 88.0 97.5 85.8 70 90.5 97.7 88.4 80 92.0 97.7 89.9 90 93.5 97.7 91.4 100 92.0 97.7 89.9 56 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations Start Pool El. 700 ft Start Storage 253053 AF Max. Pool El. 700 Max. Storage 253053 AF Min. Pool El. 660 Min. Storage I '!IMIIAF Usable Storage 61053 Taitwater El. L 530 ft Headloss 7.5% Efficiency 85% Design Flow [ 430 ds Capacity 4867kW DaX! Oct 31 Nov 30 Dec 31 Jan 31 Feb 28 Mar 31 AfK ' 30 May 31 Jun 30 Jul 31 Aug 31 Sep 30 Avg. 705.0 700.0 895.0 .. 690.0 .: 8 685.0 i 680.0 iii 675.0 870.0 15155.0 aeo.o Grant Lake Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations Oct Nov O.C Jan Feb Mar 149r May Jun Jul Aug Sep Avg. Avg. Inflow Power Storage End End Avg. Cap. Energy Load · Weighted cfs Flow ChanQ!! §e!U Storai! Pool El . Pool El. kW MWh Factor Ene~ 188 188 0 0 253053 700.0 700.0 2128 1583 1.22 1937 106 106 0 0 253053 700.0 700.0 1200 864 1.39 1199 56 430 -22996 0 230056 684.9 692.5 4651 3460 1.58 5475 41 283 -14861 0 215196 675.2 680 .1 2824 2101 1.52 3199 34 39 -301 0 214895 675.0 675.1 381 256 1.37 351 27 27 0 0 214895 675.0 675.0 261 194 1.37 266 35 35 0 0 214895 675.0 675.0 338 243 1.19 290 168 36 8112 0 223007 680.3 677.7 355 264 1.10 291 447 19 25496 0 248503 697.0 688.7 196 141 1.00 141 504 430 4550 0 253053 700.0 698.5 4824 3589 1.01 3643 414 414 0 o. 253053 700.0 700.0 4686 3486 1.04 3642 310 310 0 0 253053 700.0 700.0 3508 2526 1.10 2790 0 18707 23225 194 193 0% 57 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project R econnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations Seasonall!leneflts based upon weighted objective func:t ion POWER FLOW Oct Nov bee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep POOL ELEVATIOPI Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep E NERGY Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Max Energy Predicted Weighted 19,129 21 ,488 19,027 21 ,886 25,422 30,371 21,114 24,543 Plant Factor 46.!5% 46.2% 41.5% 51.3% MAXIMIZED REVENU E Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 188 106 279 41 22 38 35 167 294 430 414 310 700.0 700.0 695.5 691 .0 691.2 691.2 691.0 691 .0 694.0 698.5 700.0 700.0 1583 864 2290 327 160 301 270 1331 2310 3589 3486 2526 19037 188 106 430 283 39 27 35 36 19 430 414 310 700.0 700.0 692.5 680.1 675.1 675.0 675.0 677.7 688.7 698.5 700.0 700.0 1583 864 3460 2101 256 194 243 264 141 3589 3486 2526 18707 188 106 460 304 148 25 38 146 159 194 255 310 691.0 691.0 682.9 669.4 662.1 660.0 660.0 660.4 666.5 678.4 687.8 691 .0 2151 1174 5078 3152 1335 243 360 1454 1569 2095 2683 3432 24926 58 200 106 430 288 0 58 35 1n 147 430 430 352 700.0 700.0 692.5 680.0 675.6 675.6 675.0 675.0 683.0 694.6 699.1 700.0 1681 864 3460 2136 0 416 243 1268 1on 3505 3602 2865 21118 Max Revenue Seasonal Predicted Weighted Benefit 19,037 22,068 2 .7% 18,707 23,225 6.1% 24,928 31,795 4.7% 21,118 25,807 5.2% MAXIMIZED ENERGY All 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 168 163 1 46 89 96 97 139 363 430 414 310 700.0 698.9 698.9 699.9 698.8 696.4 693.8 693.2 695.4 698.5 700.0 700.0 1583 1317 9 389 669 794 763 1127 2876 3589 3486 2526 19129 168 107 112 75 123 n 130 88 284 430 430 293 700.0 700.0 698.8 697.0 694.7 692.1 689.2 689.0 693.8 698.5 699.6 699.7 1583 871 936 623 907 614 991 690 2232 3588 3613 2379 19027 168 147 121 150 149 153 154 153 196 225 460 239 691.0 690.2 688.1 684 .6 680.3 675.7 670.8 668 .8 674.0 684.5 689.2 689.6 2148 1619 1367 1671 1469 1630 1557 1586 2013 2503 5222 2635 25422 326 154 0 161 154 165 164 94 317 362 430 350 697.5 694.0 694.2 692.9 688.2 683.3 678.0 677.1 683.5 693.1 699.0 700.0 2705 1212 0 1302 1091 1249 1165 665 2330 2922 3600 2652 21114 Appendix C -Cost Information 59 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C-Cost Information GRANT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 1 • Run of river Item I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 $ 50.000 .3 Surveying LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE $ . 1 Excavation 1900 CY $ 150 s 285.000 .2 Concrete (ind. reinforcement) 280 CY $ 1.200 s 336,000 .3 Metal building 2500 SF $ 350 s 875.000 .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50.000 $ 50.000 .5 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50.000 $ 50.000 .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25.000 s 25.000 . 7 Fire Protection LS $ 25.000 $ 25.000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK $ .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50.000 s 50.000 .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY $ . 1 Excavation CY $ 150 $ .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100,000 $ .3 Concre1e (structural) CY $ 1,200 s .4 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $ .3 INTAKE $ . 1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56.250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50.000 $ 50.000 .4 Control GatesNalve w/operator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150.000 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120.000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $ .7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25,000 s 25.000 .8 Siphon pipe (mat'! & instellation) LF $ 750 $ .9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS s 100,000 s .4 SLUICEWAY $ .1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45.000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100.000 s 100.000 .3 Sluice Gate wloperator 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 .4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1.000 $ 100.000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK s .a Clearing 4 ACRE $ 25.000 s 100,000 .b Steel penstock material 3000 LF $ 370 $ 1,110.000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 800 CY $ 1,000 s 800,000 .d Penstock installation 3000 LF $ 150 $ 450,000 .e Slope stabilization 1 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125.000 .f Surge tank 1 LS $ 100.000 s 100,000 .2 TUNNEL .a Excavation LF $ .b Tunnel Support LF s .c Lining LF s .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation LS $ 25,000 s 25,000 .b Support and lining LS $ 25,000 s 25.000 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply LS $ 2,115,000 s 2.115,000 .2 Install LS s 500,000 s 500.000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENl .1 Switchgear LS $ 150.000 s 150.000 60 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information GRANT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 1 ·Run of river Item I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost Amount .2 Station Service 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .3 Control Panel 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 .4 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .5 Power to intake 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .2 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Highway to Powerhouse (upgrade mining road 1mi) 3 Ml $ 300,000 $ 750,000 .2 Powerhouse to intake 0.5 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125,000 .3 Bridge (possible bridge over Grant Creek to PH) 1 LS $ 200,000 s 200,000 .4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 100,000 s 100,000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights -transmission line LS $ 10,000 s 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 s 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 Grounding grid LS $ 10,000 s 10,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transfonner LS $ 100,000 s 100,000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 s 350,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line Ml $ 750,000 s 750.000 Total Direct Construction Costs s 11.700,000 Design Engineering 10% s 1,170,000 FERC and other licensing s 1,000,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% s 585.000 Construdion Management 5% s 585,000 Subtotal $ 15,040,000 Contingency 30% s 4,512.000 Interest during construdion 7% s 4.401,000 2008 Estimated Project Cost s 23,960,000 Annual Energy, MWh 13,700 Debt Service s 1,740.668 O&M s 500.400 2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh s 0.164 61 Item 330 331 .1 332 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .1 .2 .3 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information GRANT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 2 -Low Storage I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 s 50,000 .2 Special use permits LS s 50.000 s 50.000 .3 Surveying LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS POWERHOUSE $ .1 Excavation 1900 CY $ 150 s 285,000 .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 280 CY $ 1,200 $ 336,000 .3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 350 5 875,000 .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50.000 5 50,000 .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50.000 s 50.000 .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25.000 s 25.000 . 7 Fire Protection LS $ 25.000 s 25.000 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS SITE WORK $ .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS s 50.000 s 50.000 DAM AND SPILLWAY s .1 Excavation 500 CY 5 150 s 75,000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100.000 s 100.000 .3 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1.200 5 .4 Concrete (mass) 400 CY $ 1,000 $ 400.000 INTAKE 5 .1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 s 56,250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100,000 5 100.000 .3 Trash racks LS s 50,000 s 50,000 .4 Control GatesNalve w/operator 1 LS $ 150.000 s 150,000 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1.200 s 120.000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 700 s .7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25.000 $ 25.000 .8 Siphon pipe (mat'l & installation) LF $ 750 $ .9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS 5 100.000 5 SLUICEWAY s .1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 s 45,000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100.000 .3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100,000 s 100,000 .4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1.200 s 120.000 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES PENSTOCK s .a Clearing 4 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 100.000 .b Steel penstock material 3000 LF $ 370 $ 1.110,000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 800 CY $ 1.200 $ 960,000 .d Penstock installation 3000 LF $ 150 $ 450.000 .e Slope stabilization 1 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125.000 .f Surge tank LS $ 100.000 $ 100.000 TUNNEL .a Excavation LF $ .b Tunnel Support LF s .c Lining LF 5 TAILRACE .a Excavation LS $ 25.000 s 25,000 .b Support and lining LS $ 25.000 $ 25.000 62 Grant Lake Reconnaissance 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply LS $ 2.115.000 s 2,115,000 .2 Install LS $ 500,000 $ 500.000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .2 Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .3 Control Panel LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 .4 Conduit/wires/cables LS $ 150,000 $ 150.000 .5 Power to intake LS $ 75.000 $ 75.000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System LS $ 25.000 $ 25,000 .2 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Highway to Powerhouse 3 Ml $ 300,000 $ 750,000 .2 Powerhouse to intake 0.5 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125.000 .3 Bridge LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000 .4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights -transmission line LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 s 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 Grounding grid LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 s 350.000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line Ml $ 750.000 s 750,000 Total Direct Construction Costs $ 12,400,000 Design Engineering 10% s 1,240,000 FERC and other licensing $ 1.000,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 620,000 Construction Management 5% s 620,000 Subtotal s 15,880,000 Contingency 30% s 4.764.000 Interest during construction 7% s 4,646,000 2008 Estimated Project Cost s 25.290.000 Annual Energy, MWh 19,100 Debt Service $ 1,837,291 O&M $ 508,800 2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh s 0.123 63 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information GRANT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 3 -Enhanced Storage Hem I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 s 50,000 .2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .3 Surveying LS $ 100.000 $ 100.000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE $ . 1 Excavation 1900 CY $ 150 s 285,000 .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 280 CY $ 1,200 s 336,000 .3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 350 s 875,000 .4 Misc. Metals LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .5 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical LS $ 50.000 $ 50.000 .6 Grounding Grid LS $ 25,000 s 25,000 .7 Fire Protection LS $ 25.000 $ 25.000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK $ .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50.000 s 50.000 2 DAM AND SPILLWAY s . 1 Excavation 500 CY $ 150 s 75.000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100.000 $ 100.000 .3 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1.000 s .4 Concrete (mass) 400 CY $ 1,000 s 400,000 .3 INTAKE s . 1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56.250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 s 100,000 .3 Trash racks LS $ 50,000 s 50.000 .4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator 1 LS $ 150,000 s 150,000 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 s 120.000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 s .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 25,000 s 25,000 .8 Siphon pipe (mat'l & installation) 500 LF $ 750 $ 375,000 .9 Siphon electrical & mechanical 1 LS $ 100.000 s 100,000 .4 SLUICEWAY s .1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 s 45,000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 .3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100.000 s 100.000 .4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1.200 s 120.000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK s .a Clearing 4 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 100,000 .b Steel penstock material 3000 LF $ 370 $ 1.110.000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports l 800 CY $ 1,200 s 960,000 .d Penstock installation 3000 LF $ 150 s 450,000 .e Slope stabilization 1 Ml $ 250,000 s 125,000 .f Surge tank 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .2 TUNNEL .a Excavation LF s .b Tunnel Support LF $ .c Lining LF s .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation LS $ 25.000 s 25,000 .b Support and lining LS $ 25.000 $ 25,000 64 Grant Lake Reconnaissance 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply LS $ 2.115,000 $ 2.115,000 .2 Install LS $ 500.000 s 500.000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear LS $ 150.000 $ 150,000 .2 Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .3 Control Panel LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 .4 Conduit/Wires/cables LS $ 150,000 s 150,000 .5 Power to intake LS $ 75,000 s 75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System LS $ 25,000 s 25,000 .2 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250.000 $ 250,000 336 ROADS. RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Highway to Powerhouse 3 Ml $ 300,000 s 750,000 .2 Powerhouse to intake 0.5 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125,000 .3 Bridge 1 LS $ 200.000 $ 200,000 .4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights -transmission line LS $ 10.000 $ 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 s 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment LS $ 25.000 $ 25,000 .3 Grounding grid LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer LS $ 100,000 s 100,000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 $ 350.000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line Ml $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Total Direct Construction Costs $ 12.900.000 Design Engineering 10% $ 1.290,000 FERC and other licensing s 1.000,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 645,000 . Construction Management 5% s 645,000 Subtotal s 16.480,000 Contingency 30% $ 4.944,000 Interest during construction 7% s 4.822,000 2008 Estimated Project Cost s 26.250,000 Annual Energy, MWh 19.000 Debt Service $ 1.907,034 O&M $ 514,800 2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh $ 0.127 65 Grant Lake Reconnaissance GRANT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 4-Ebasco Preferred Alternative (Alt. D) Item I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost Amount 330 L.AND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 s 50.000 .2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 s 50,000 .3 Surveying LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS . , POWERHOUSE $ .1 Excavation 5000 CY $ 150 s 750.000 .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 1150 CY $ 1,200 $ 1,380,000 .3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 350 $ 875,000 .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .5 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .6 Grounding Grid LS $ 25,000 s 25.000 . 7 Fire Protection LS $ 25.000 s 25,000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK s .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY s .1 Excavation CY $ 150 $ .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100.000 s .3 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1,200 s .4 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1.000 $ .3 INTAKE $ .1 Excavation CY $ 75 $ .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100.000 s .3 Trash racks LS $ 50,000 s 50,000 .4 Control GatesNalve wloperator LS $ 150,000 $ .5 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1,200 s .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 s . 7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25,000 s .8 Siphon pipe (mafl & installation) LF $ 750 $ .9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 $ .4 SLUICEWAY $ .1 Excavation CY $ 75 $ .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100.000 $ .3 Sluice Gate w/operator LS $ 100,000 $ .4 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1,200 $ .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK $ .a Clearing ACRE $ 25,000 $ .b Steel penstock material LF $ 370 $ .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) CY $ 1.200 $ .d Penstock installation LF $ 150 s .e Slope stabilization Ml $ 250,000 s . f Surge tank LS $ 100,000 $ .2 TUNNEL .a Excavation 3200 LF $ 2.500 $ 8.000,000 .b Tunnel Support 2300 LF $ 500 $ 1,150,000 .c Lining 800 LF $ 1,000 $ 800,000 .d Gateshaft excavation 300 LF $ 1,000 $ 300,000 .e Shaft support and lining 300 LF $ 500 $ 150,000 .f Gates 1 LS $ 500.000 $ 500,000 .g Lake tap 1 LS $ 1.000.000 $ 1.000,000 66 .3 .6 333 '1 .2 334 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 335 .1 .2 336 .1 .2 .3 .4 350 .1 352 .1 .2 .3 353 '1 .2 356 .1 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information TAILRACE .a Excavation 20000 CY $ 35 s 700,000 .b Support and lining LS $ 75,000 s 75,000 MID LAKE CHANNEL . 1 Excavation 60000 CY s 50 s 3.000,000 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS Supply LS $ 3,150.000 s 3.150,000 Install LS s 500.000 s 500.000 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Switchgear LS $ 150,000 s 150,000 Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Control Panel LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Conduit/wires/cables LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Power to intake LS $ 75,000 s 75,000 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT Cooling Water System LS s 25.000 $ 25,000 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250,000 s 250,000 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES Highway to Powerhouse 3 Ml $ 300.000 s 750,000 Powerhouse to intake 0.5 Ml $ 250,000 s 125,000 Bridge LS s 200.000 s 200,000 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS s 100,000 $ 100,000 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Land rights -transmission line LS s 10.000 s 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 s 50.000 Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 s 25,000 Grounding grid LS s 10.000 s 10,000 STATION EQUIPMENT Main transformer LS $ 120.000 s 120.000 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 s 350,000 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New pole line 1.2 Ml $ 750,000 s 900,000 Total Direct Construction Costs s 26.500,000 Design Engineering 10% s 2.650,000 FERC and other licensing s 1.000,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% s 1.325,000 Construction Management 5% s 1,325.000 Subtotal s 32.800,000 Contingency 30% $ 9,840,000 Interest during construction 7% s 9,596,000 2008 Estimated Project Cost s 52.240,000 Annual Energy, MWh 25,700 Debt Service s 3,795,179 O&M s 678,000 2008 Cost of Energy, SlkWh s 0.174 67 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C Cost Information GRANT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 5 -Enhanced Storage + Falls Creek Item I I I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .3 Surveying LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE $ . 1 Excavation 1900 CY $ 150 $ 285.000 .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 280 CY $ 1.200 $ 336.000 .3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 350 $ 875,000 .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50.000 $ 50,000 .5 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000 . 7 Fire Protection LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000 332 RESERVOIRS. DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK $ .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 2 DAM AND SPILLWAY $ .1 Excavation 500 CY $ 150 $ 75.000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 .3 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1.200 $ .4 Concrete (mass) 400 CY $ 1,000 $ 400,000 .3 INTAKE $ .1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56,250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 .3 Trasn racks 1 LS $ 50.000 $ 50,000 .4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $ . 7 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000 .8 Sipnon pipe (mat'l & installation) 500 LF $ 750 $ 375.000 .9 Sipnon electrical & mechanical 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 .4 SLUICEWAY $ .1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45,000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 .3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 .4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1.200 $ 120,000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK $ .a Clearing 4 ACRE $ 25.000 $ 100.000 . b Steel penstock material 3000 LF $ 370 $ 1.110,000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 800 CY $ 1.200 $ 960.000 .d Penstock installation 3000 LF $ 150 $ 450,000 .e Slope stabilization 1 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125,000 .f Surge tank LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 68 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C Cost Information .2 FALLS CREEK DIVERSION .a Diversion dam 2000 CY $ 1.000 $ 2,000.000 .b Steel penstock material 12800 LF $ 125 $ 1.600,000 .c Penstocl< installation 12800 LF $ 250 $ 3,200,000 .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation LS $ 25.000 $ 25.000 .b Support and lining LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply LS $ 2.115,000 $ 2.115,000 .2 Install LS $ 500,000 $ 500.000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .2 Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .3 Control Panel LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 .4 Conduit/Wires/cables LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .5 Power to intake LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000 .2 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250,000 $ 250.000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Highway to Powerhouse 3 Ml $ 300,000 $ 900,000 .2 Powerhouse to intake 0.5 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125,000 .3 Highway to Falls Creek Diversion 0.5 Ml $ 250,000 $ 125,000 .4 Bridge 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000 .5 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights -transmission line LS $ 10.000 $ 10.000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACIUTY) .1 Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 Grounding grid LS $ 10,000 $ 10.000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line Ml $ 750.000 $ 750.000 Total Direct Construction Costs $ 20,000,000 Design Engineering 10% $ 2.000.000 FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000 Owne(s General Administration & overhead 5% $ 1.000.000 Construction Management 5% $ 1.000.000 Subtotal $ 25,000,000 Contingency 30% $ 7.500,000 Interest during construction 7% $ 7,314.000 2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 39.820.000 Annual Energy. MWh 21.100 Debt Service $ 2,892,880 O&M $ 600,000 2008 Cost of Energy. $/kWh $ 0.186 69 Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C Cost Information Dam Type Simple concrete gravity Crest Length 250ft Max height 9ft Crest width 1.5 Section length height area, sf vol, cy A 50% 100% 54 250 B 30% 80% 37 102 c 20% 50% 17 31 383 Excavation Width 27 Depth 2 Volume 500 cy Box Intake Length 30 Width 15 Height 15 Thickness, avg 1.5 Concrete volumes Floor 25 cy Walls 75 Total 100 cy Excavation 375 cy Sluiceway Length 30 Width 10 Height 18 Thickness, avg 2 Concrete volumes Floor 17 cy Walls 70 87 Excavation 300 cy 70 PENSTOCK Head 200ft Flow 430 cfs Vel, max 12 fps Dia,req 81.1 inches t,req 0.1952 t, handling 0.2527 t, min 0.2527 wt,ft 201.1 lbs area 21.2 Cost Material $ 1.50 lb $ 301.70 Uning $ 1.50 sf $ 31.64 Coating $ 1.50 sf $ 31.64 $ 365.37 Supports Span Leng\tl # 50 Width,2d 13.512595 Depth, .5d 3.3781488 Height •. 5d 3.3781488 Vol 285.56342 Thrust Blocks # 5.0 Width,2d 13.512595 Depth,2d 13.512595 Height, 2d 13.512595 Vol 456.90147 Total 742.46489 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C -Cost Information FALLS CREEK DIVERSION Head 100ft Flow 110 cfs Vel, max 12 fps Dia. req 41.0 inches t,req 0.0494 t, handling 0.1525 t,mln 0.1525 wt,ft 61.4 lbs area 10.7 Cost Material $ 1.50 lb $ 92.10 Lining $ 1.50 sf $ 16.10 Coating $ 1.50 sf $ 16.10 $ 124.31 Supports Span . 60ft Length # 0 Width,2d 6.834408 Depth, .5 1.708602 Height, .f 1.708602 Vol 0 Thrust Blocks # 0.0 Width, 2d 13.5126 Depth,2d 13.5126 Height, 2• 13.5126 Vol 0 Total 0 71 POWERHOUSE Powerhouse structure Prefab metal building ($/sf) Length Width Thickness Draft tube chamber Length Width Depth Thickness, avg Concrete Volumes Foundation Floor Prefab Building Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information 350 50 50 2 15 15 10 4 88.9 185.2 274.0741 875000 72 Excavation 1900 Appendix D -Project Photographs 73 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D -Project Photographs Grant Lake looking south towards natural outlet. Proposed intake at the natural outlet. Grant Lake drainage basin. 74 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D -Project Photogf.aphs Grant Lake looking north with natural outlet in foreground. 75 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D -Project Photographs Looking upstream at one of potential intake sites at Falls Creek. 76 Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D-Project Photographs Second potential intake at Falls Creek. Proposed penstock would exit on the left hand side of this photograph. Aerial view of Falls Creek area. 77 Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Update The Grant Lake Falls Creek Hydroelectric project was first reviewed in the 1980's as a potential source of hydroelectric power. More recently, in 2008, a reconnaissance study aimed at identifying new alternatives for hydropower at Grant Lake was completed by Kenai Hydro LLC with a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority. Kenai Hydro LLC is a renewable energy partnership between Homer Electric Association and Wind Energy Alaska. This update is intended to document changes to the project layout and features associated with the Grant Lake/Falls Creek hydroelectric project development since the completion of the Reconnaissance Report in March 2009. These changes in the project are as a result of many different factors including; • More accurate environmental data gathered through one full field season of project impact studies; • Several reconnaissance field trips to walk potential pipeline and road alignments; • A ground survey of the lake outlet and the potential power house location; • Acquisition ofLidar geographic data provided by the Kenai Watershed Forum; • Additional feedback from agency representatives on information gathered in the field; • Consultation with Homer Electric operations personnel on how this project would be integrated into the existing system. This new information has necessitated the modification of many aspects of the preferred layout identified in the March reconnaissance report. These changes are significant and will affect the construction, environmental impact, operation, and cost of the proposed facility. The changes are summarized below. 1. Replacement of penstock with tunnel. This major change was a result of several field visits to the site to stake out a potential penstock alignment as shown in several of the early studies of the project. The site walks and new Lidar data made available showed that there was not a cost effective means of conveying the water from the intake to the powerhouse with a penstock. A route along the edge of the canyon proved to be too steep and unstable to allow excavating a bench for the pipe. An overland route along the north side of Grant Creek had an unfavorable profile which would preclude gravity flow. Low saddles along the lake were also reviewed using the Lidar data and none proved low enough for a penstock alignment. After determining that an above ground penstock would not be feasible, focus shifted to a tunnel to bring the water from a low level in the lake directly to the powerhouse. Preliminary work now calls for a 2800-lf 10 ft diameter tunnel on the south side of the creek exiting the hillside directly above the powerhouse where the water conveyance system transitions to an above ground penstock for the remaining distance to the powerhouse. 2. Intake configuration modifications. The switch to a tunnel and penstock necessitated several changes to the layout of the intake. Initially it was thought that a low head diversion structure with an intake and low level outlet integral to this structure was the preferred configuration. With a tunnel being used for conveyance, the intake structure was moved to the south east of the natural outlet and impoundment, into deeper water. It is currently configured as a tower type intake structure, with multiple level intakes to provide for temperature regulation in response to environmental concerns. The tunnel configuration now allows for a direct intake thus improving the reliability and operation of the system. A diversion with a crest elevation of706.0 is still required at the outlet of Grant Lake. The requirement of a low level outlet to release bypass flows into the canyon has not yet been determined. Such a requirement becomes very problematic at levels below the natural lake level, Technical Memo #I October 2009 Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project as the topography below the natural outlet does not allow for an easy way to get water into the creek without significant excavation or pumping requirements. 3. Unit size and configuration. After energy optimization studies and discussions with Homer Electric operations staff and fisheries biologists, the preliminary arrangement of the turbines and how they will be operated was decided. It was initially hoped that the project could be used to balance wind power production that Homer Electric has plans on developing. This type of operation would result in potentially large fluctuations in downstream flow levels in Grant Creek as load is either added or taken away from the turbines. Discussions with fish biologists have indicated that this type of operation could be harmful to resident fish. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the generating units would have enough capacity and response times to counter fluctuations in wind generation. With this information, it was decided that the plant would be designed to provide firm capacity in the winter and optimized energy production year round. The preferred selection has the plant equipped with two units. One smaller unit will be optimized for winter flows and an additional larger flow unit will be available for higher spring/summer flows. These units are 1.2MW and 3.3 MW Francis units. This unit selection is based upon preliminary studies and may be revised as additional operational constraints become known. 4. Surge tank requirement. With the length of the water conveyance system and the use of reaction turbines, it is expected that some form of surge protection will be required to absorb water hammer effects and transients as load on the turbine changes. The current configuration uses an above ground surge tank located at the transition from tunnel to the penstock above the powerhouse. The final configuration will be determined once equipment selection and operational considerations are finalized. Other configurations that may be considered in final design to address surge include synchronous bypass valves in the powerhouse, a surge shaft in the tunnel, an inclined surge tank, and a partially buried surge tank excavated back into the hillside. 5. Falls Creek intake location. The location described and depicted in the 1980's era studies for the Falls Creek Diversion was not in a suitable location. Site visits and Lidar data indicate that the diversion/intake should be located at approximately elevation 800. The exact location will be detailed upon further survey. These are the changes that have been made to the project since the original March 2009 HDR Reconnaissance report. These changes are the basis of the project description that was included in the Preliminary Application Document that was submitted to the FERC this fall. The project layout is still preliminary in nature, and will likely undergo changes in order to accommodate agency requirements. Items which still need further research include the intake configuration, surge tank configuration and location, and the exact location of the Falls Creek intake and pipeline. Work will be done to continue to refine the project as the FERC process evolves. An inclusion of modifications to the reconnaissance level cost estimate to reflect the above changes in project configuration is attached. Contingency levels and interest rates have been changed based upon KHL input. The revised estimate is included in the following pages. Technical Memo #I October 2009 Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project GRANT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 5 -Enhanced Storage + Falls Creek Item Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .2 Special use permits LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .3 Surveying LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE .1 Excavation 700 CY $150 $105,000 0.2 $21,000 .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 390 CY $1,200 $468,000 0.2 $93,600 .3 Metal Building 2700 SF $350 $945,000 0.2 $189,000 .4 Misc. Metals LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .6 Grounding Grid LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 .7 Fire Protection LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY .1 Excavation 330 CY $150 $49,500 0.3 $14,850 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .3 Concrete (structural) 0 CY $1,200 $-0.3 $- .4 Concrete (mass) 250 CY $1,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .3 INTAKE $- .1 Excavation 375 CY $150 $56,250 0.3 $16,875 .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .4 Control Gate w/operator 2 LS $100,000 $200,000 0.3 $60,000 .5 Shutoff Gate w/operator 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 0.3 $45,000 .6 Concrete (structural) 225 CY $1,500 $337,500 0.3 $101,250 .7 Concrete (mass) 0 CY $1,000 $-0.3 $- .8 Misc. Metals LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 .9 Misc. electrical & mechanical LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 0.10 Access Bridge LS $200,000 $200,000 0.3 $60,000 .4 LOW LEVEL OUTLET .1 Excavation 300 CY $150 $45,000 0.3 $13,500 .2 Concrete (structural) 90 CY $1,200 $108,000 0.3 $32,400 .3 Valve w/operator LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 .4 Misc. Metals LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 Technical Memo #1 October 2009 Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK .a Clearing 0.7 ACRE $25,000 $18,652 0.3 $5,596 .b Steel penstock material 650 LF $370 $240,500 0.2 $48,100 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 150 CY $1,200 $180,000 0.3 $54,000 .d Penstock installation 650 LF $250 $162,500 0.2 $32,500 .e Slope stabilization 0.1 Ml $250,000 $30,000 0.3 $9,000 .f Surge tank LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .2 TUNNEL .a Excavation 2800 LF $1,500 $4,200,000 0.3 $1,260,000 .b Tunnel Support 1400 LF $1,000 $1,400,000 0.3 $420,000 .c Lining 1400 LF $500 $700,000 0.3 $210,000 .d Portals 2 EA $250,000 $500,000 0.3 $150,000 .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation LS $75,000 $75,000 0.3 $22,500 .b Support and lining LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 .4 FALLS CREEK PIPELINE .a Clearing 20.0 ACRE $25,000 $500,000 0.3 $150,000 .b Steel pipeline material 13000 LF $130 $1,690,000 0.2 $338,000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 620 CY $1,200 $744,000 0.3 $223,200 .d Pipeline installation 13000 LF $100 $1,300,000 0.2 $260,000 .e Slope stabilization 2.5 Ml $250,000 $625,000 0.3 $187,500 .6 FALLS CREEK DIVERSION .1 Excavation 200 CY $150 $30,000 0.3 $9,000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 0.3 $45,000 .3 Concrete (structural) 50 CY $1,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .4 Concrete (mass) 100 CY $1,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 .5 Valve w/operator LS $75,000 $75,000 0.3 $22,500 .6 Sluice gate w/operator 1.0 LS $75,000 $75,000 0.3 $22,500 .7 Misc. metals 1.0 LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply LS $2,025,000 $2,025,000 0.3 $607,500 .2 Install LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear LS $300,000 $300,000 0.3 $90,000 .2 Station Service LS $150,000 $150,000 0.3 $45,000 .3 Control Panel LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .4 Conduit/wires/cables LS $200,000 $200,000 0.3 $60,000 .5 Power and controls to intake LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 Power and controls to Falls Creek .6 Diversion LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT Technical Memo #] October 2009 Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project .1 Cooling Water System LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 .2 Powerhouse crane LS $300,000 $300,000 0.3 $90,000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Upgrade Existing Road 1.2 Ml $50,000 $60,000 0.2 $12,000 .2 New Road to Intake and Powerhouse 3.0 Ml $250,000 $750,000 0.2 $150,000 .3 New Road to Falls Creek Diversion 0.4 Ml $250,000 $100,000 1.2 $120,000 .4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights -transmission line LS $10,000 $10,000 0.3 $3,000 0.3 $- 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .2 Oil spill containment LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 .3 Grounding grid 2 LS $10,000 $20,000 0.3 $6,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer LS $157,500 $157,500 0.3 $47,250 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $350,000 $350,000 0.3 $105,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line 0.8 Ml $750,000 $600,000 0.2 $120,000 Total Direct Construction Costs 23,300,000 $6,427,621 Design Engineering 10% $2,330,000 0.2 $466,000 FERC and other licensing $1,000,000 0.2 $200,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $1,165,000 0.2 $233,000 Construction Management 5% $1,165,000 0.2 $233,000 Subtotal $28,960,000 $7,559,621 Interest during construction 8.0% $6,162,000 2009 Estimated Project Cost $42,690,000 Annual Energy, MWh 23,400 Debt Service 8.0% $3,792,043 O&M $639,600 2009 Cost of Energy, $/kWh $0.189 Assumptions: 1 Financing and interest rates have been assumed at 8% per KHL guidance. 2 The cost of energy is only a representative indicator to evaluate similar alternatives. The actual cost of energy will largely be a function of the financing ultimately arranged for the project. 3 The effect of grant funding is not reflected in the cost of energy. GRANT LAKE Technical Memo #I October 2009 Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Alternative 3 -Enhanced Storage Item Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .2 Special use permits LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .3 Surveying LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE .1 Excavation 700 CY $150 $105,000 0.2 $21,000 .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 390 CY $1,200 $468,000 0.2 $93,600 .3 Metal Building 2700 SF $350 $945,000 0.2 $189,000 .4 Misc. Metals LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .6 Grounding Grid LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 .7 Fire Protection LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY .1 Excavation 330 CY $150 $49,500 0.3 $14,850 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .3 Concrete (structural) 0 CY $1,200 $-0.3 $ - .4 Concrete (mass) 250 CY $1,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .3 INTAKE $- .1 Excavation 375 CY $150 $56,250 0.3 $16,875 .2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 .3 Trash racks LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .4 Control Gate w/operator 2 LS $100,000 $200,000 0.3 $60,000 .5 Shutoff Gate w/operator LS $150,000 $150,000 0.3 $45,000 .6 Concrete (structural) 225 CY $1,500 $337,500 0.3 $101,250 .7 Concrete (mass) 0 CY $1,000 $-0.3 $ - .8 Misc. Metals 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $ 7,500 .9 Misc. electrical & mechanical LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 0.10 Access Bridge LS $200,000 $200,000 0.3 $60,000 .4 LOW LEVEL OUTLET .1 Excavation 300 CY $150 $45,000 0.3 $13,500 .2 Concrete (structural) 90 LS $1,200 $108,000 0.3 $32,400 .3 Valve w/operator LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 .4 Misc. Metals LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES Technical Memo #I October 2009 Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project .1 PENSTOCK .a Clearing 0.7 ACRE $25,000 $18,652 0.3 $5,596 .b Steel penstock material 650 LF $370 $240,500 0.2 $48,100 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 150 CY $1,200 $180,000 0.3 $54,000 .d Penstock installation 650 LF $250 $162,500 0.2 $32,500 .e Slope stabilization 0.1 Ml $250,000 $30,000 0.3 $9,000 .f Surge tank LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .2 TUNNEL $ .a Excavation 2800 LF $1,500 4,200,000 0.3 $1,260,000 $ .b Tunnel Support 1400 LF $1,000 1,400,000 0.3 $420,000 .c Lining 1400 LF $500 $700,000 0.3 $210,000 .d Portals 2 EA $250,000 $500,000 0.3 $150,000 .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation LS $75,000 $75,000 0.3 $22,500 .b Support and lining LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $ 7,500 0.3 $ - 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS $ .1 Supply LS $2,025,000 2,025,000 0.3 $607,500 .2 Install LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear LS $300,000 $300,000 0.3 $90,000 .2 Station Service LS $150,000 $150,000 0.3 $45,000 .3 Control Panel LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 .4 ConduiVwires/cables LS $200,000 $200,000 0.3 $60,000 .5 Power and controls to intake LS $250,000 $250,000 0.3 $75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $ 7,500 .2 Powerhouse crane LS $300,000 $300,000 0.3 $90,000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Upgrade Existing Road 1.2 Ml $50,000 $60,000 0.2 $12,000 .2 New Road to Intake and Powerhouse 3.0 Ml $250,000 $750,000 0.2 $150,000 .3 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 0.3 $30,000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights -transmission line LS $10,000 $10,000 0.3 $3,000 0.3 $ - 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS(TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 0.3 $15,000 .2 Oil spill containment LS $25,000 $25,000 0.3 $7,500 .3 Grounding grid 2 LS $10,000 $20,000 0.3 $6,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer LS $157,500 $157,500 0.3 $47,250 Technical Memo #1 October 2009 356 Grant Lake and Falls Creek .2 .1 Accessory switchgear equipment OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New pole line Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering FERC and other licensing Owner's General Administration & overhead Construction Management Interest during construction 2009 Estimated Project Cost Annual Energy, MWh Debt Service O&M 2009 Cost of Energy, $/kWh Assumptions: Subtotal LS $350,000 0.8 Ml $750,000 10% 5% 5% 8.0% 8.0% Financing and interest rates have been assumed at 8% per KHL guidance. $350,000 $600,000 $17,700,000 $ 1,770,000 $ 1,000,000 $885,000 $885,000 $22,240,000 $ 4,742,000 $32,850,000 19,000 $ 2,917,981 $572,400 $0.184 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 $105,000 $120,000 $4,959,921 $354,000 $200,000 $177,000 $177,000 $5,867,921 The cost of energy is only a representative indicator to evaluate similar alternatives. The actual cost of energy will largely be 2 a function of the financing ultimately arranged for the project. 3 The effect of grant funding is not reflected in the cost of energy. Technical Memo #1 October 2009