The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCarlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study August 1998CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY Ketchikan Public Utilities August 1998 Final Report WESCORP CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY Ketchikan Public Utilities August 1998 Final Report WESCORP CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY race aces x cee sacs cece ecco ca 00- sect saceveascstscnss-ncseee i 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location and Existing Facilities........000..0 eee 1-1 Description of Recommended Project ..............ccccccsseeeeeeeeeeseees 1-1 2 BASIN HYDROLOGY DEVOGU CHI ON Ser creccte once cree nce nveceencssrense occste cee seme = 2-1 IME OOO Y rca nm ncn ances eee nner 2-1 3 ENERGY GENERATION ANALYSIS Plant Operation Assumptions ................0::ccsceessceesseeeeseeeenneeeeees 3-1 Methodology 7 Average Annual Energy.............:::cccccsccesseeseeeeeeereeeeeeereeneeeneeeneees 3-2 Meant CCN Fern nce nc nwa cerns rnere eoen renee eee 3-2 Comparison with Existing Generation Resources..................... 3-3 4 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Direct Construction and Investment Costs............0..:ccceeeeeeeees 4-1 Basis of Cost Estimate .............000cccccececeeeeeeeeeteeeeeseteeeeeeeeees 4-1 5 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS First-Vear Gost! Of EMCI OY e-cscre-ccsreccaces access -cntevene seers 5-1 6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ............00...0..cceceeeeeee 6-1 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES Water Quality:amd| Quantity <<<. nccccc.ccecccencsscss.nsesneracsoeceseieeses 7-1 Fisheries 7 ee a 7-4 Wildlife RESOUrCES........... cece eccceeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeeeneeeeee 7-6 Land Use and Ownership .. 7-9 Recreation Resources... 7-10 NiStalli ROSOULCOS f-<..cx cxcesvscttosatee sce sstoceseerss etree tea 7-11 Historic/Cultural RESOUPCES .............c cee eeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeetteeeeeeeeeeee 7-12 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......00000.....cccceeeeeee 8-1 APPENDIX A - Geotechnical Report APPENDIX B - Turbine Vendor Cost Data EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY INTRODUCTION In August 1997, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) retained WESCORP to conduct an engineering study to determine the feasibility of developing three hydroelectric power projects in the Ketchikan area. This report presents the results of the study for the Carlanna Lake Project. Carlanna Lake is located at Ketchikan, Alaska. KPU’s decision to study the hydropower potential at Carlanna Lake was based on conclusions and recommendations presented in KPU’s 1996 Power Supply Planning Study prepared by R.W. Beck in December 1996. Based on the recommendations, KPU applied for, and received, a Preliminary Permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Obtaining the Preliminary Permit was the first step in the FERC licensing process, and provides KPU priority over any competing License Application during the three year term of the permit. BASIS OF ANALYSIS The study findings and conclusions presented herein were based on the following objectives, criteria and assumptions: ls Determine the optimum project arrangement that would generate the greatest average annual energy for the least cost. 2. The project would be operated primarily as a base load plant. Maximizing the annual energy output from the project was considered more important than developing firm capacity to help meet peak power demands. 3: KPU will be able to utilize the full energy generating capability of the plant by year 2003, the scheduled on-line date. 4. The selected project arrangement and mode of operation should be compatible with the existing fishery resource, and should provide a reasonable balance between the value of energy and value of environmental resources to the region and local community. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project i Feasibility Study August 1998 RECOMMENDED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT The Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project will utilize the existing 30-foot high rockfill dam located at the lake outlet. The dam and 32 acre lake were formerly used in the City of Ketchikan’s water supply system, but was removed from service in 1982. The natural drainage area to the lake is 1.5 square miles, which is small. However, with an existing dam in place and about 450 feet of developable head, the site is suitable for hydroelectric power development. Based on engineering analysis of the site, the recommended project arrangement will consist of the following major elements: ds Existing Carlanna Lake Dam. The existing dam provides 255 acre-feet of regulated storage capability. The volume of storage is equivalent to about 5 days of average inflow to the lake with no releases from the dam. The dam was constructed in 1975 and has been well maintained. No major rehabilitation work to the structure will be required. 2. New 24-inch diameter penstock. A new 3,670-foot long steel penstock will be constructed from the existing dam to a new powerhouse. Average slope of the pipe will be 12.5 percent. The pipe will be a combination of above- ground and buried pipe. 3. Diversion structure. The natural drainage area into Carlanna Lake is 1.5 square miles. Streamflow in the upper reach of a small tributary to Carlanna Creek, located immediately west of the dam, will be partially diverted to Carlanna Lake via a 2,800-foot long, 18-inch diameter, diversion pipe. Diverting this flow will increase available flow to the turbines by about 40 percent. 4. Powerhouse. A 1,900 square foot steel-framed powerhouse will be constructed at the base of a steep hillside about 500 feet upstream from Tongass Avenue. The powerhouse will contain a single 1.2 MW turbine/generator unit. A “Turgo” type turbine, as manufactured by Gilkes, has operating characteristics that would be attractive for this site. The unit is similar in design to a Pelton turbine, but has a higher specific speed. The unit will operate over a wide flow range between 4 and 40 cfs. Installing this type of unit, Turgo or Pelton, eliminates the cost of a surge tank or synchronous bypass valve to cushion waterhammer pressures. A 3-phase synchronous generator is proposed, however, a lower cost induction generator should be considered in the final design. The plant will be automated to re-start without supervision, and to operate intermittently when the daily available turbine flow is below the 4 cfs minimum turbine flow rate. Discharges from the powerhouse will be directed back into Carlanna Creek. 5; Switchyard and Transmission Line. The plant switchyard will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and will contain a power transformer, circuit Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project ii Feasibility Study August 1998 breakers and disconnect switches. Generator voltage will be stepped up to 12.47 kV and transmitted about 100 feet to the existing grid. AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY The project will annually generate an average of 6,756,000 kWh. Based on an installed plant capacity of 1.2 MW, the project will operate at a 63 percent plant factor. There do not exist any recorded streamflow records on Carlanna Creek, therefore the hydrology used in the average annual energy computation was determined based on synthesized monthly streamflow records from the adjacent Ketchikan Creek drainage area. The synthesized monthly streamflow records were calculated based on linear regression analysis of each month with recorded flows on Ketchikan Creek as the independent variable. The statistical correlation was found to be acceptable although melting spring runoff skewed some of the data. The energy generation analysis is based on an assumed constant minimum instream flow of 1 cfs, although power studies indicate the long-term average will be about twice this amount due to uncontrolled spill during heavy runoff. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Project development will occur in three major phases; licensing, final design/contract documents, and construction. The project will need to be licensed with FERC prior to beginning construction. Based on our knowledge of the issues that would need to be addressed in a License Application for this project, we estimate it would take approximately 18 months to prepare the Application. Once filed with FERC, it has typically taken them between 12 and 20 months to process an Application of this type and issue the license. Preparation of the Turbine/Generator supply contract, penstock supply contract and general construction contract will take about 8 to 10 months to complete, and the construction contracts will be executed over an approximate 18 month period, depending on time of year the contracts are awarded. Based on these time frames, the project can be placed into service as early as the fourth quarter of 2003. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE A construction cost estimate was prepared based on experience data and vendor budget quotes for major equipment and materials. Turbine and generator costs were determined based on review of budget quotations from five reputable turbine vendors. Vendor quotes for steel pipe and the steel-framed powerhouse superstructure were also obtained. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project iii Feasibility Study August 1998 Based on engineering analysis of the recommended project arrangement, and a January 1998 bid price level, the Direct Construction Cost is estimated to be $3,200,000. The Total Investment Cost, including engineering, construction contingency, interest during construction and escalation to a 2002 bid date, is estimated to be $4,957,000. COST OF ENERGY The Total Capital Requirements (bond issue size), and first year annual cost was determined based on 20 year bonds sold at a 6 percent annual interest rate. Total Capital Requirements are estimated to be $5,645,000, and the first year annual cost is $631,000. The annual cost includes debt service, earnings on reserves, operation and maintenance, administration and general expenses, FERC compliance expenses, plant interim replacements and insurance. Based on an average annual energy of 6,756,000 kWh, the first year cost of power is 9.3 cents per kWh. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, it is not recommended that KPU pursue further development of the Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project at this time. The cost of power from the project is competitive with the current cost of diesel generation, but higher in cost than several other alternative power supply resources available to KPU. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project iv Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 1 Project Description SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING FACILITIES Carlanna Lake is a 32 acre lake located in Ketchikan, Alaska as shown on Fig. 1-1. An existing rockfill dam was constructed in 1975 at the outlet to the lake following failure of a timber crib dam at the site during an October 1973 flood. The original timber crib dam was constructed in 1922 and later raised and rehabilitated in 1950. The dam and reservoir was a part of the City’s water supply system until 1982, when it was decided to retire it from service. Carlanna Lake is now primarily used for recreation. Existing facilities that could be used for hydroelectric power purposes include the rockfill dam and a 36-inch gated outlet works conduit through the dam. Based on discussions with KPU, a 16-inch buried pipe used for the City’s water supply system remains underground, but the exact location could not be readily determined. Since the alignment, age, wall thickness, type and condition of the pipe are not known, reuse of the pipe for hydropower purposes was not considered. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT The primary engineering studies conducted for this report included hydrologic analysis of lake inflow, penstock sizing and alignment, turbine/generator sizing and determination of the powerhouse location. Based on these studies, an optimum project arrangement was determined. Principal statistics of the recommended project arrangement are shown in Table 1-1. Major elements of the project are as follows: Existing Carlanna Lake Dam and Reservoir The crest elevation of the existing rockfill dam is at El. 528. The dam has a maximum height of 31 feet and a crest length of 340 feet. A 70-foot wide uncontrolled spillway is located in the right abutment (downstream orientation) and its crest is 8 feet below the dam crest. There is 255 acre-feet of regulated storage capability between the normal minimum operating pool level, El. 510, and the spillway crest at El. 520. The volume of active storage is equivalent to about 5 days of average inflow to the lake with no releases from the dam. No major rehabilitation work to the dam will be required as part of the project. Diversion Structure and Pipeline The natural drainage area into Carlanna Lake is 1.5 square miles. Streamflow in the upper reach of a small tributary to Carlanna Creek, located immediately west of the dam, will be partially diverted to Carlanna Lake via a 2,800-foot long, 18-inch diameter, Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 1-1 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Statistics Drainage Area Natural Drainage Area Diversion Area Average Annual Natural Outflow at Dam Average Annual Flow at Diversion Site Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Elevation Normal Minimum Operating Elevation Active Storage at El. 520 Surface Area at El. 520 Surface Area at El. 510 Existing Dam Dam Type Maximum Structural Height Crest Length Dam Crest Elevation Spillway Type Spillway Crest Elevation Spillway Width Outlets Penstock Penstock Diameter Penstock Length Powerhouse Type Size Unit Rated Capacity Rated Head Maximum Discharge Transmission Line Voltage Length Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-2 | Feasibility Study 1.5 square miles 0.65 square miles 22 cfs 9.5 cfs 520 510 255 acre-feet 32 acres 19 acres Rockfill 31 feet 340 feet 528 Uncontrolled Concrete Sill 510 70 feet 1-36” dia. and 1-16” dia. 24 inches 3,670 feet Steel-Frame Metal Building 1,900 square feet 1,200 kW 450 feet 40 cfs 12.47 kV 100 feet August 1998 uc & PERSEVERANCE PROJECT LOCATION GRAVINA ISLAND PROJECT LOCATION REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND PACIFIC KEY MAP OCEAN PROJECT LOCATION KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11598 PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1-1 KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11598 PROJECT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 1-2 diversion pipe. The diversion alignment is shown on Fig. 1-2. Diverting this flow will increase available flow to the turbines by about 40 percent. The diversion will be a rockfill structure constructed from boulders, rock fragments and gravel that can be easily excavated nearby. The diversion structure will have a concrete or HDPE liner blanket on the upstream face to act as an impervious barrier. Future field studies should investigate the availability of sufficient clay as an alternative impervious barrier. At each diversion there will be a small gated intake structure, spillway slot with flashboards, and a gated sluice pipe. All gates will be manually operated. The intake gate will be normally in the full open position and will be used primarily to dewater the diversion pipeline for maintenance or repair. Sediment, tree limbs and other debris that collects behind the diversion structure will need to be periodically removed by sluicing or manual means. The 18-inch diversion pipeline will be laid at a 1 to 2 percent slope generally following the contours of the land. The pipe will be buried or mounded where feasible to provide protection from falling trees or boulders. The pipe will be anchored to minimize potential movement. It appears possible to construct the diversion and pipeline without helicopter support. The creek becomes steep below the spillway, but a dozer and backhoe could cross the creek below the spillway with a little preparation and drawing the lake level below the spillway crest. New 24-inch Diameter Penstock A new 3,670-foot long, 24-inch diameter steel penstock will be constructed from the existing dam to a new powerhouse. Fig. 1-2 shows the general penstock alignment. Average slope of the pipe will be 12.5 percent. The upper 1,550 feet of the penstock would be constructed above ground on saddles. The remaining lower portion would be buried within the right-of-way along portions of North Canyon Road, Baranof Avenue and Tower Road. The final 150 feet of the penstock will follow a steep cliff from Tower Road to the powerhouse located along the left bank of Carlanna Creek. Powerhouse A 1,900 square foot steel-framed powerhouse will be constructed at the base of a steep hillside about 500 feet upstream from Tongass Avenue. The powerhouse will contain a single 1.2 MW turbine/generator unit. The unit will be a low-head Pelton or “Turgo” type turbine as manufactured by Gilkes. The Turgo has operating characteristics that would be attractive for this site. Francis type turbines were considered, but do not have as wide of a flow range as the impulse (Pelton, Turgo) type turbines and would require a synchronous bypass valve to protect the penstock from high, short-duration, transient pressures. Installing a Turgo or Pelton turbine eliminates the cost of a surge tank or synchronous bypass valve to cushion the waterhammer pressures. The Turgo unit is similar in design to a Pelton turbine, but has a higher specific speed. The unit will operate over a wide flow range between 4 and 40 cfs, which is needed in this case due to the lack of reservoir storage and wide swings in creek runoff. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-3 Feasibility Study August 1998 A 3-phase synchronous generator is proposed, however, a lower cost induction generator should be considered in the final design. The plant will be automated to re- start without supervision, and to operate intermittently when the daily available turbine flow is below the 4 cfs minimum turbine flow rate. Discharges from the powerhouse will be directed back into Carlanna Creek. Switchyard and Transmission Line The plant switchyard will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and will contain a power transformer, circuit breakers and disconnect switches. Based on discussions with KPU, power can be locally interconnected to an existing 12.47 kV line located within 100 feet of the switchyard and powerhouse. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-4 Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 2 Basin Hydrology SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROLOGY INTRODUCTION In order to estimate average annual energy from the proposed hydroelectric project, long-term streamflow records are required. Based on review of published records, there does not exist any gaged records of streamflow on Carlanna Creek. Therefore, synthesized monthly streamflow records were developed for the area above Carlanna Dam based on correlation of recorded streamflow from an adjacent basin. METHODOLOGY A 10-year period of synthesized monthly streamflow records were developed for the period October 1959 through September 1969. This 10 year period was selected because it included 10 years of actual streamflow records within the adjacent Perseverance Creek basin and 3 years of records within the Ketchikan Creek basin. The Perseverance Creek basin shares its south ridge line with the Carlanna Creek basin, and the Ketchikan Creek basin is immediately west of Carlanna Creek. Inflow to Carlanna Lake was synthesized based on correlation of actual USGS published monthly records on Ketchikan Creek during the period October 1964 through September 1967. Precipitation within the Ketchikan Creek basin are probably more representative of precipitation in the Carlanna Creek basin because they are geographically oriented in the same direction with respect to the majority of weather patterns. The Perseverance Creek basin has some protection with its south ridge and would be expected to yield slightly less average annual precipitation than the Carlanna or Ketchikan Creek basins. For this reason, synthetic streamflows above Carlanna Dam for the period October 1959 through September 1964 and October 1967 through September 1969 were determined based on regression analysis between monthly Ketchikan Creek streamflows and monthly Ketchikan precipitation. Good correlation was found for most months. The resultant Carlanna Creek streamflow values were then checked against Perseverance Creek flows, adjusted for drainage area size, and found to be in good agreement. Final synthesized streamflow values are shown in the energy generation analysis, Table 3-1. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 2-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 3 Energy Generation Analysis SECTION 3 ENERGY GENERATION ANALYSIS PLANT OPERATION ASSUMPTIONS The project configuration and operation for this study was developed based on maximizing average annual energy generation at the least cost. In order to achieve this goal it was further assumed that spill past the dam will be minimized by operating the plant with reservoir level sensors and that plant operation will have priority over all other KPU-owned generating resources. For example, if all reservoirs in KPU’s system are full and system load is low, then Carlanna Lake Project generation will be fully utilized at the expense of spilling at one of KPU’s other hydro projects. In accordance with the Four-Dam Pool Agreement, KPU is required to purchase power from the Swan Lake Project before using power from any of its own generating resources. This requirement should have no impact on the ability to maximize energy generation at the Carlanna Lake Project because even in very wet years coupled with low system demand the Swan Lake Project could deliver only about 70 percent of the system energy requirements. METHODOLOGY Average annual energy generation from the project was estimated based on a 10-year simulation of plant operation for water years 1960 through 1969. Reasons for selecting this time period are discussed in Section 2. A custom spreadsheet program was developed and results are presented in Table 3-1. The program performs calculations based on a multitude of user-supplied input variables. Fixed program values include reservoir storage-elevation data and monthly inflow. The program user selects the number of units, turbine efficiency as a function of discharge, generator efficiency, length and diameter of the penstock, penstock friction factor, reservoir elevation operating range, a monthly reservoir rule curve, average tailwater elevation, monthly instream flow release, and a percentage of monthly inflow designated as “excess flow above turbine capacity”. The monthly excess flow values were developed to reduce the monthly inflow values by a factor that accounts for periodic high inflows that are in excess of the maximum turbine hydraulic capacity. The program places that portion of the excess flow volume that can be stored into storage then spills the remaining volume. One of the key variables that affects annual energy generation is the reservoir rule curve, or “target end-of-month (EOM) reservoir elevation”. The target elevations shown in Table 3-1 are the optimum monthly values that result in the highest average annual generation. Other target elevations can be input to estimate average firm Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 3-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 TABLE 3-1 KPU HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY ANNUAL ENERGY GENERATION ANALYSIS Carlanna Lake Project ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Physical and Operating Statistics: Target EOM Reservoir El. AVERAGE ANNUAL GENERATION = 6,756 MWH Unit 1 Rated Capacity = 1220 kW Jan 518 UNIT 1 GENERATION = 6,756 MWH Unit 1 Rated Head = 440 feet Feb —517 AVERAGE SPILL = 4.8 cfs Unit 1 Design Discharge 40 cfs Mar 516 AVG. EOM RES. EL. = 512.7 ft Penstock Diameter = 24 inches Apr 510 AVG. NET HEAD = 431.5 ft Penstock Length = 3670 feet May 510 AVG. ANNUAL PLANT FACTOR = 0.63 Spillway Crest El. = 520 Jun 510 Minimum Oper. Res. El. = 510 Jul 510 Average Tailwater El. = 45 Aug _—510 Instream Flow = 1 cfs Spt 510 Oct 510 Nov 516 Dec 516 Excess Instream Flow Average Total Total Calculated Storage Average] Flow in| Above Available Monthly | Average | Monthly Annual Calculated| Target EOM surplus or | Monthly | Excess | Turbine Turbine Turbine 1 Spillway Net Delivered | Delivered EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, | of Spill, | Capacity, Flow, Discharge, | Discharge] Head, | Generation | Generation Month Res. El. | Storage at af cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs feet MWH MWH Spt sioo | 135 | 135 Om Oct 510.0 135 | 135 0 19.5 704 Nov 516.0 282 282 147 96 _ 808 Dec __ 516.0 2e2_ | 282 «| So 20 — _ 842 Jan 336 _ 336 _-54 04 447 Feb 309 309 27 0.0 312 Mar 282 282 27 04 831 Apr 135, 135 147 12 570 May 135 135 0 0.0] it 28 663 Jun | 4 i 135 135 o- 34.0 0.0 11.0] | - 67 603 Jul_ | 1960 _ | 135 — 135 oO! 480| ool 11.3 72 829 Aug 135 135 oO 20.0} oo] 55) 1.3 430 Spt 135 135 0 30.0 0.0 13.5 9.2 469 7,508 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Excess Instream Flow Average Total Total Calculated Storage Average| Flow in | Above Available Monthly | Average | Monthly Annual Target | Calculated} Target EOM surplus or | Monthly | Excess | Turbine Turbine Turbine 1 Spillway Net Delivered | Delivered EOM EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, of Spill, | Capacity, Flow, Discharge, | Discharge] Head, | Generation | Generation Res. El. af cfs cfs MWH 38.9] 26.0 24.6 29 31.9) 19.4 7,109 6,948 6,907 Page 2 of 4 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Excess Instream Flow Average Total Total Calculated Storage Average| Flow in | Above Available Monthly | Average | Monthly Annual Target | Calculated} Target EOM surplus or | Monthly | Excess | Turbine Turbine Turbine 1 Spillway Net Delivered | Delivered EOM EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, | of Spill, | Capacity, Flow, Discharge, | Discharge] Head, | Generation | Generation Res. El. cfs feet MWH MWH 510.0 | 32.0 714 516.0 7,138 4,956 6,826 Page 3 of 4 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Excess Instream Flow Average Total Total Calculated Storage Average] Flow in | Above Available Monthly | Average | Monthly Annual Calculated Target EOM surplus or | Monthly | Excess | Turbine Turbine Turbine 1 Spillway Net Delivered | Delivered EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, of Spill, | Capacity, Flow, Discharge, Discharge| Head, | Generation | Generation Res. El. a-f a-f cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs feet MWH MWH 510.0 a5 | lo 48.0 22.3) 29.9 298] 181 | 4198 | 676 | | 516, 7 79] 26.9] Ss6.9] 3.6 =| 431.4 | 600 516.0 28 22] 26.0 259| 05 | 4368 605 518.0 toi 27 24.1 —244| 09 | 4424 | 570 517.0 | 434.3 | 595 516.0 450.3 | 485 ‘ 510.0 510.0 4424 | _ 507 767 386 7,548 6,437 6,182 Page 4 of 4 capacity in any given month or to maximize the amount of energy that can be generated over a select series of months. The energy generation analysis is based on an assumed constant minimum instream flow of 1 cfs, although power studies indicate the long-term average spill will be about 5 cfs due to uncontrolled spill during heavy runoff. AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY The project will generate an average of 6,756 MWh annually, including station service requirements and estimated transmission losses. The lowest annual energy generated during the 10-year simulation period was 4,956 MWh, which is 73 percent of average. The highest single year generated 7,548 MWh, or 112 percent of average. Except for the one low year (1965), the range of annual energy generation values indicates that annual project output will be relatively consistent from one year to the next. Average monthly energy generation is shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Average Monthly Energy Generation, MWh Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Spt Oct Nov Dec Annual 483 434 524 536 682 545 588 579 499 686 568 633 6,756 PLANT FACTOR Based on an installed plant capacity of 1.2 MW, the project will operate at a 63 percent plant factor. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING GENERATION RESOURCES Table 3-3 is a comparison of Carlanna Lake Project generation and plant capacity to other hydro plants in the KPU system during calendar years 1992 through 1996. Table 3-3 KPU Generating Resource Statistics Average Annual Estimated Energy, 1992-96 | Avg. Annual Plant Capacity Resource MWh Energy, MWh MW Plant Factor Ketchikan Lakes 17,884 - 4.2 49 Silvis 10,383 - 2.1 56 Beaver Falls 37,548 - 5.6 77 Swan Lake 72,032 - 22.5 aa Carlanna Lake - 6,756 1.2 .63 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 3-2 Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 4 Project Cost Estimate SECTION 4 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE DIRECT CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT COSTS An estimate of construction and associated development costs was prepared based on experience data and vendor budget quotes for major equipment and materials. Based on a January 1998 bid price level, the Direct Construction Cost is estimated to be $3,200,000. The Total Investment Cost, including engineering, construction contingency, interest during construction and escalation to a 2002 bid date, is estimated to be $4,957,000. The Direct Construction Cost is the estimated bid price a qualified contractor would submit today in a competitive construction market after fully understanding the specific job conditions and requirements. The Total Investment Cost is the total project development cost prior to adding in costs associated with selling bonds. The detailed cost estimate for the project is shown in Table 4-1. A summary of the Total Investment Cost is shown in Table 4-2. BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE The cost estimate was prepared based on a combination of vendor quotes and experience data for hydroelectric projects constructed in Alaska. Turbine and generator costs were determined based on review of budget quotations from five reputable turbine vendors. Copies of turbine vendor responses are presented in Appendix B. Vendor quotes for steel pipe, the synchronous bypass valve and the steel-framed powerhouse superstructure were also obtained. Contingencies of 10 percent on turbine and generator equipment and 20 percent on all other items were included in the estimate. The lower contingency for the generating equipment reflects greater certainty that vendors understand the scope of the equipment contract. A 20 percent contingency for all other items reflects the degree of uncertainty in estimating final design quantities, subsurface conditions and other project design criteria that will become clearer in later stages of development. The Total Investment Cost was escalated at 3 percent annually from January 1998 to May 2002 to account for inflation to the estimated actual bid date. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 4-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 4-1 CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Selected Project Arrangement FERC FERC ACCT. ACCT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL Land and Land Rights Easement Ls $5,000 Total Acct. 330 $5,000 331 Structures and Improvements Care of Water Ls $20,000 Clearing and Grubbing Ls $5,000 Excavation Powerhouse 700 cy 40 $28,000 Tailrace 20 cy 25 Backfill 100 cy 18 $1,800 Gravel Surfacing 60 cy 20 $1,200 Landscaping and Revegetation Ls $3,000 Riprap 80 cy 75 $6,000 Concrete Substructure 190 cy 450 $85,500 Tailrace 10 cY 450 $4,500 Insulated Metal Building Superstructure 1900 SF 60 $114,000 Miscellaneous Metals Ls $22,000 Grounding Grid and Connections Ls | __ $7,000 Fire Protection Ls $12,000 Drainage System Ls $7,000 Office Equipment LS $10,000 Construction Surveying - General Contract Ls $40,000 Mob/Demob - General Contract Ls $200,000 Total Acct. 331 $567,000 332 Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways Care of Water Ls $15,000 Clearing and Grubbing us $25,000 Excavation Shallow/Surface Excavation 2900} CY 20}$ 58,000 Rock Excavation (buried pipe section) 1100 cy 50}$ 55,000 Backfill Select Fill 1400] CY 22|$ 30,800 Random Fill (from trench excavation) 2200 cy 12|$ 26,400 24-inch Diameter Steel Pipe Bare Pipe 3/16" wall thickness 3520 LF 38] $ 133,760 1/4" wall thickness 150 LF 45/$ 6,750 Shipping Ls $32,000 Installation LS $169,000 Special Construction-Existing Utilities Ls $30,000 Concrete Anchors Ls $12,000 Pipe Fitting for Existing Outlet ts $3,500 Diversion Facility Diversion and Care of Water Ls $5,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $10,000 Excavation 50 cy 120] $ 6,000 Backfill 120] CY 40/$ 4,800 | __ Concrete TT Check Dam 5 cy 1,500] $ 7,500 Pipe supports/anchors 28 cY 1,500] $ 42,000 Gates/Miscellaneous Metal Ls $ 4,500 18" Dia. HDPE Pipe 2800 LF 22|$ 61,600 Pipe Installation Ls $ 92,400 Revegetation ts $10,000 Total Acct. 332 $831,010 Continued next page Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 1 of 2 August 1998 Table 4-1 (continued) FERC FERC ACCT. ACCT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL Turbines and Generators 1200 kW Turbine/Generator Unit LS _ $ 490,000 Generator Cooling System _ ts | $ 35,000 24" Turbine Inlet Butterfly Valve LS $18,000 ___ Equipment Installation Ls $ 50,000 Unit Testing and Startup ee Ls |s_ __ Construction Surveying - Equip. Cont. LS $ 8,000 Mob/Demob - Equipment Contract Ls __|$__ 82,000 Total Acct. 333 | $ 698,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment a Control and Protection System _ a Ls $ 220,000 4.16 kV Metal-Clad Switchgear LS __|$ 55,000 __ Station Service Power System ts | $45,000 DC Power System | LS $ 18,000 Cables, Conduits, Trays, Accessories a Ls $40,000 Reservoir Level Measurement System | LS $35,000 Lighting LS $ 15,000 Unit Heaters | LS $ 3,000 Total Acct. 334 | $ 431,000 335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment === 5-ton Hoist, Rails and Structural Supports LS $ 16,000 Ventilation Fans and Louvers LS $4,000 Sump Pump and Oil Separator LS $ 15,000 Total Acct. 335 | $ 35,000 336 Roads, Railroads and Bridges T Asphalt Restoration 880 SY 15| $ 13,200 Dam Access Path Restoration LS $ 5,000 Powerhouse Access Improvements LS $ 4,000 Total Acct. 336 | $ 22,200 353 Switchyard Grading and Gravel Surfacing LS $2,500 Concrete Equipment Pads | ts $ 5,000 Transformer, Circuit Breakers, Disconnects _ | ws $ 130,000 Grounding Grid and Connections — LS $12,000 Fencing, Gate Ls $ 3,500 Lighting Ls $8,000 Total Acct. 353 | $ 161,000 355 Poles and Fixtures LS $ 8,000 Total Acct. 355 | $ 8,000 356 Overhead Conductors and Devices LS $ 3,000 Total Acct. 356 3,000 Total Direct Construction Cost $2,761,210 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 2 of 2 August 1998 Table 4-2 CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1.2 MW PLANT PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FERC TOTAL ACCT DESCRIPTION COST COSTS 330 Land and Land Rights $5,000 331 Structures and Improvements $567,000 332 Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways $831,000 333 Turbines and Generators $698,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $431,000 335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment $35,000 336 Roads, Railroads and Bridges $22,000 353 Switchyard $161,000 355 Poles and Fixtures $8,000 356 Overhead Conductors and Devices $3,000 Direct Construction Cost $2,761,000 Contingency (Accounts 333,334), 10% $113,000 Contingency (All other Accounts), 20% $326,000 Direct Construction Cost Plus Contingencies $3,200,000 Owner Administration $80,000 Engineering and Licensing: FERC Licensing and Other Permits $280,000 Final Design and Field Studies $400,000 Construction Management $180,000 Total Construction Cost $4,140,000 Interest During Construction (6%/yr) $210,000 Total Investment Cost (bid Jan 98, on-line Jul 99) $4,350,000 Escalation to Proposed Bid Date (3.0%/yr) $607,000 Total Investment Cost (bid May 02, on-line Nov 03) $4,957,000 Total Investment Cost per Installed kW $4,131 Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 5 Cost of Energy Analysis SECTION 5 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS FIRST-YEAR COST OF ENERGY A first-year cost of energy analysis was prepared based on the energy generation analysis and project cost estimate. Results of the analysis are sown in Table 5-1. The Total Capital Requirements (bond issue size), and first year annual cost were determined assuming KPU would issue 20 year bonds at 6 percent annual interest. For the recommended project arrangement, Total Capital Requirements are estimated to be $5,645,000, and the first year annual cost is $631,000 based on selling bonds and beginning construction in 2002. The annual cost includes debt service, earnings on reserves, operation and maintenance, administration and general expenses, FERC compliance expenses, plant interim replacements and insurance. Based on an average annual energy of 6,756,000 kWh, the first year cost of energy is 9.3 cents per kWh. This is slightly below KPU’s current cost for diesel generation, but higher than several alternative sources of generation being considered by KPU. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 5-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 5-1 CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1.2 MW PLANT ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS CAPITAL COSTS Total Investment Cost Financing Expenses Bond Reserve Working Capital Reserve TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL COSTS Fixed Costs Debt Service Less Earnings on Reserves Total Fixed Costs Variable Costs Operation and Maintenance Administrative and General Expenses FERC Compliance Interim Replacements Insurance Total Variable Costs TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (First Year) $4,957,000 $141,000 $492,000 $55,000 $492,000 $33,000 $110,000 $25,000 $7,000 $18,000 $12,000 FIRST YEAR COST OF ENERGY (cents/kWh) Assumptions: Annual Interest Rate on Bonds 6% Bond Term 20 years Reinvestment Rate 6% Financing Expenses 2.5 % of TCR Bond Reserve 1 year of debt service Working Capital Reserve 6 months of O&M costs Average Annual Energy 6,756 MWH Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study $5,645,000 $459,000 $172,000 $631,000 9.3 August 1998 SECTION 6 Project Development Schedule SECTION 6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Project development will occur in three major phases; licensing, final design/contract documents, and construction. A schedule to complete all phases of development is shown on Fig. 6-1. The project will need to be licensed with FERC prior to beginning construction. Based on our knowledge of the issues that would need to be addressed in a License Application for the Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project, we estimate it would take approximately 18 months to prepare the Application. Once the license application is filed with FERC it has typically taken them between 12 and 20 months to process an Application of this type and issue the license. The elements of project construction should be divided into three major contracts; a Turbine/Generator supply contract, penstock supply contract and general construction contract. The Turbine/Generator contract will need to be sent out for bid as early as possible after the FERC license is issued because of the long lead times required for fabrication. Preparation of the Turbine/Generator supply contract will take about 3 months to prepare, and contract documents for all three construction contracts will take between 8 and 10 months to complete. Construction contracts will be executed over an approximate 18 month period depending on time of year the contracts are awarded. Based on these time frames, the project can be placed into service in late 2003. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 6-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 FIGURE 6-1 CARLANNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 1998 | 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ACTIVITY JFMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJASONDIJFMAMJJASOND|JFMAMJJASOND |FERCLICENSING eT PEE Te Ty San eeeeee FERC 6-mo. Reports L | Atel | {|} "FERC Preliminary Permit Expires | | | | | | | || PEPE License Application Preparation FINAL DESIGN Turbine/Generator P&S _ Penstock Supply P&S ~ General Construction P&S _ ; oe LETT | CONSTRUCTION Turbine/Generator Supply Penstock Supply General Construction Unit Testing and Startup Plant On-Line —_ al E : So + — ie et a a Bs 5 SECTION 7 Environmental and Regulatory Issues SECTION 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Existing Information Existing information of water quality of Carlanna Lake indicates that conditions are good for fishery resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) conducted limited studies in Carlanna Lake in 1988 to evaluate fishery resources and results of this study is listed on Table 7-1. These data are similar to data collected from seven other lakes in the Ketchikan area as part of these studies. Table 7-1 Water Quality Data for Carlanna Lake (Source: Hubartt and Bingham,1989) TEMP | DISSOLVED | CONDUCTIVITY | ALKALINITY | pH OXYGEN (°C) (mg/l) (mg/l) Carlanna; 8/10/88 Surface 12.0 62.1* 190 21 6.0 Middle 10.0 Bottom 10.0 45.9* 25 6.0 * These data are suspect. The quantity of precipitation combined with steep slopes and shallow soils allow surface water to drain quickly into the lakes and reduces the time for water to concentrate dissolved ions and minerals (Dames and Moore, 1990). Though the existing information does not include chemical analysis of the water samples, it is likely that chemical conditions of these lakes are consistent with federal and state water quality standards. KPU currently has a water right for Carlanna Creek of 2.7 MGD (approximately 4 cfs) for a public water supply (a consumptive use), as issued by the State of Alaska on August 19, 1970. KPU would be required to amend the purpose of the water right to non-consumptive use, and apply for an additional 21 cfs on an average annual basis based on the energy generation analysis. Water supply available for diversion in the low flow summer months may be greatly reduced or not available. Mean median flows (50% exceedence) in Carlanna Creek range from a low of 6 cfs in August to a high of 29 cfs in October. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7eA Feasibility Study August 1998 Water Quality/Quantity Issues and Agency Concerns Water quality issues that have been identified by ADFG are temperature, gas saturation and water quantity. These concerns can be managed with project design features and monitoring of water quality. The proposed Carlanna Lake Project will not likely have long-term impacts on water quality of the lake or bypass reaches. Project construction may cause short-term impacts such as increased turbidity and suspended solids. An erosion and sediment control plan will need to be developed and strict adherence to best-management practices (BMPs) will need to be followed to avoid excessive impacts to the waterbodies during the construction phase. Additional Studies A request from USEPA is on record (USEPA, 1997) for baseline water quality study to include physical, chemical and biological characteristics of all water bodies and tributaries which would be impacted by the project and by-pass reaches. These studies would include temperature, pH, gas saturation, dissolved solids, alkalinity, acidity, chemical analysis for heavy metals, ammonia, nitrates, sulfates, and carbonate. In addition to these studies, macroinvertebrate analysis will give a baseline indication of the biological health of the water systems and will be useful to the fisheries and wildlife portions of these studies. Although the agencies have not specifically requested macroinvertebrate analysis, it has increasingly become a focus of aquatic studies during licensing and relicensing procedures. The agencies may request macroinvertebrate studies during formal consultation. Water quality studies should be conducted in July or August when water temperature will be at a maximum and dissolved oxygen might be at a minimum. This period would give a “worse case” situation and would compare to historical data collected by ADFG. Water quality investigations can be conducted in conjunction with fisheries and wildlife studies which will make field work more efficient and cost effective. Water quality certification will need be obtained from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) as part of the permitting process. Revisions to the existing water rights (from a consumptive to non-consumptive use) and a request for additional water rights will be needed from Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). FISHERIES Existing Information ADFG conducted fisheries investigations in Carlanna Lake in 1988. During surveys conducted in July and August of that year, ADFG captured 282 rainbow trout. No other species were captured (Hubartt and Bingham, 1989). According to Carol Denton (ADFG) the rainbow trout population was introduced into Carlanna Lake in the 1950s Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 72 Feasibility Study August 1998 as part of a program to provide a sport fishery in the lake. The program is still in place. The fish planted in the lake are triploid (i.e., sterile) and ADFG wants the fish to remain in the lake and not migrate to downstream areas. Currently ADFG’s stream catalog indicates that pink, chum and coho salmon are present in Carlanna Creek and have access to the entire creek downstream of Carlanna Lake. A reconnaissance physical stream survey conducted on October 7, 1997 by Cascades Environmental Services (CES) indicates the presence of a potential anadromous barrier at the mouth of the canyon adjacent to the trailer court. After a short stretch in the lower canyon, Carlanna Creek ascends steeply over in a series of waterfalls, cascades and chutes over bedrock to Carlanna Lake. Access to anadromous fish is not possible. This observation by CES apparently is collaborated by Mr. Don House, ADFG. According to Carol Denton, Mr. House of her office is familiar with Carlanna Creek and has stated that anadromous fish have access to only a brief, short span of stream which occurs near the mouth. At the October 8, 1997 meeting, Carol Denton suggested that she and Ms. Ruth Lewis of ADFG walk Carlanna Creek and verify our observations. If they concur, they will decertify Carlanna Creek for anadromous fish use upstream of the canyon. Per telephone conversation with Ms. Denton on October 17, this task had not yet been undertaken. Fisheries in this reach then would not be a major concern. Fisheries Issues and Agency Concerns None of the agencies have expressed any major fisheries concerns for Carlanna Creek. ADFG has planted sterile, triploid rainbow trout in Carlanna Lake and do not wish those fish to be given access to areas outside of the lake. This may require some work on the dam outlet. If ADFG decertifies Carlanna Creek upstream of the canyon, there do not at this time appear to be any major fisheries issues unresolved. Instream Flow Requirements lf ADFG decertifies Carlanna Creek, a minimum instream flow would be most likely established for Carlanna Creek. The resource agencies most likely would not allow KPU to take all the water at the diversions; however the requirement would probably be minimal. For the purpose of this analysis, a constant instream flow of 1 cfs was assumed. An instream flow study is not expected for the FERC license application. Additional Studies The following studies may be required if efforts on the project proceed ahead: . Fish surveys on Carlanna Creek and the unnamed tributary downstream of the diversions. . lf ADFG decertifies Carlanna Creek for anadromous fish upstream of the canyon mouth, it is not anticipated that an instream flow study would be required due to the precipitous nature of Carlanna Creek. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-3 Feasibility Study August 1998 Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures At this time, no mitigation measures are likely to be required. It does not appear that ADFG would require screening of the intake or outflow from the penstocks, based upon previous comments to the Beaver Falls and Mahoney Lakes projects. BOTANICAL RESOURCES Existing Information The project area includes a variety of mixed aged conifer forests ranging from mature and old growth stands, with dense canopies and open subcanopy layers, to younger generation tree plantations. Native species of conifer trees found in the area include; Sitka spruce (Picea sitkensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterphylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and yellow cedar (charmaecyparis nootkatensis). The western hemlock-Sitka spruce forest system extends from sea level to treeline. Other conifer species found in lower densities include: Alaska cedar, mountain hemlock, alpine fir, pacific fir and lodgepole pine. Deciduous trees species includes red alder, sitka alder, and cottonwood. These forest typically have very dense canopy and understory layers. Species comprising the understory vegetation include; huckleberry, blueberry, devils club, copper bush, juniper, skunk cabbage, ferns, mosses, grasses and sedges. Intermediate plant communities that combine elements of forest and bog habitat grow near the forest edge and along the shorelines of Carlanna Lake. Wetland delineation maps do not distinguish between the acidic peat-moss (spagnum spp.) bogs and the emergent vegetation wetlands, that latter of which generally supports greater wildlife diversity and richness than the former habitat type. Bogs are also expected to be the more plentiful wetland type found near the project area. Botanical Resources Issues and Agency Concerns Some vegetation will likely be lost due to construction activities associated with building the diversion, powerhouse and penstock. Revegetation of disturbed areas will occur as soon as construction activities are completed. Threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species could potentially be a concern. Table 7-2 details sensitive plants known or suspected to occur within the project area. Additional Studies Sensitive plant surveys would need to be conducted in locations where development, construction, or environmental changes are expected to occur. This includes construction of the pipeline and powerhouse, inundation of shoreline and riparian areas, and clearing of right-of-ways. The location of sensitive plants found within the project area will be mapped, photographed and data submitted to the Alaska Natural Heritage Program. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-4 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 7-2 Sensitive Plants Known or Suspected to Occur within the Project Area (Source: Alaska Natural Heritage Program, 1997 and USFS, pers. Comm. 1997a) Choris bog orchid (Plantanthera chorisiana) Circumpolar strwort (Stellaria ruscifolia ssp. Aleutica) Bog orchid (Platanthera gracilis) Calder lovage (ligusticum calderi) Goose-grass sedge (Carex /enticularis var. dolia) Pale poppy (papaver alboroseum) Edible thistle (Cirsium edule) Loose-flowered bluegrass (Poa laxiflora) Davy mannagrass (Glyceria leptostachya) Northern bog clubmoss (Lycopodium inundatum) Two-flowered marsh marigold (Caltha biflora) Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) Poverty oat-grass (Danthonia spicata) dj Straight-beak buttercup (Ranunculus orthorhynchus var. alaschensis) Western paper birch (Betula papyrifera var commutata) Water lobelia (Lobelia dortmanna) Cassiope lycopodioides Small cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) Prairie lupine (Lupinus lepidus) Northern bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus) Mexican hedge-nettle (Stachys mexicana) Kamchatka spike-rush (Eleocharis kamtschatica) Water bulrush (Scirpus subterminalis) False solomon’s-seal (Smilacina racermosa) Bog bluegrass (Poa leptocoma) Asplenium viride Alaska holly fern (Polystichum setigerum) Boreal bedstraw (Galium kamtschticum) Lewis monkeyflower (Mimulus /ewisii) Sxifraga occidentalis Cascade beardtongue (Penstemon serrulatus) Subalpin fir (Abies lasiocarpa) Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) Wright filmy fern (Hymenophyllum wrightii) Black hawthorn (Crateagus douglasii var douglasii) Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-5 Feasibility Study August 1998 Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures The majority of sensitive plant species listed above are found in wet, moist habitats such as wetlands, bogs, riparian areas and shorelines. In many cases these areas can be avoided when planning project facilities, particularly since these areas also contain high wildlife values. However, in cases where project development cannot avoid a sensitive area, steps will be taken to minimize impacts to that area and on-site mitigation or near-site mitigation will need to be provided. Costs for potential mitigation measures are expected to be minor. WILDLIFE RESOURCES Existing Information Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area can be divided into seven broad categories: alpine, subalpine, estuary, riparian forest, upland forest, open water, and wetland. The alpine category encompasses lands above the timberline, including cliff and talus slopes. The subalpine category includes forested and scrub covered areas, with some unvegetated terrain lying between the alpine zone and the upland forest. The upland forest includes all forested and non-forested habitat below the subalpine zone and outside of riparian and wetland areas. Open water habitat includes all lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters. Riparian and wetland habitats include those lands adjacent to streams, lakes, and estuaries that support plant and animal species requiring more mesic habitat conditions. Estuaries are comprised of all lands lying within the zone of tidal influence. Very little wildlife information exists specific to the project area. As such the following species information is more general and can be applied to the project area. In cases where specific information exists for the project area, the species, location and source for the reference is provided. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: There are no endangered or threatened wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the project (USFWS, 1997; USFS, pers. comm. 1997a; ADFG, pers. comm. 1997). Birds: Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus pealei) is the only listed species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project. This species may occur as a transient in Southeast Alaska, primarily during seasonal migration. No critical habitat has been designed for this species and there have been no historical records of peregrine falcons the project area. Preliminary review of photographs and topographic maps did not reveal suitable nesting habitat (cliff eyries) and relatively low usage of waterfowl in the project area indicates that there may not be much of a prey base to support peregrine falcons. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 74 Feasibility Study August 1998 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Although the bald eagle is not a threatened or endangered species in Alaska, it is protected by the state and therefore surveys will likely be requested by the various state and federal agencies in the area. The marbled murrelet (Branchyramphus mamrmoratus) and the Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) are both species of special interest to the USFS and the USFWS due to their association with old growth and mature conifer forest habitats. According to ADFG and USFWS, it is possible that marbled murrelets and northern goshawks are nesting in the vicinity of the project area (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997; USFS, pers. comm.1997a). However, preliminary research indicates these species are not present, but field studies will be necessary during the licensing phase to determine their absence or presence in the project area. Complete raptor and marbled murrelet surveys will need to be conducted in order to document the presence or absence of these birds within the project area. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) was also mentioned as a species of special interest and might warrant surveys due to its close association with open water and riparian habitats (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997) Surveys for this species can be combined with stream habitat inventories. Mammals: The Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) is a high profile species known and/or suspected to occur in the vicinity of the project (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997). Whitman Lake is expected to contain the greatest number of wolves with the highest usage of the three project areas, followed by Connell Lake (moderate usage) and Carlanna Lake (low usage). Studies of wolf populations and range are also good indicators of the overall deer population and habitat sustainability. The USFS and USFWS have both identified the Alexander wolf as a possible species for federal listing, which also makes surveying for this species important. Revillagigedo Island red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi solus) is a subspecies of the red-backed vole and is only found on Revillagigedo Island. There is a mapped record for this vole in Ketchikan (Natural Heritage Database, 1997) and therefore may occur within the project area. These voles appear to prefer mesic areas in coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests with dense cover and abundant litter, stumps, rotting logs, exposed roots, and a dense leaf litter. Habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor for this species and there was no mention of declining population status in the literature. Therefore, surveys for red-backed vole may not be warranted in the project area. Opportunistic sightings and areas with good habitat suitability could be documented in conjunction with other studies. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 27 Feasibility Study August 1998 Although Ketchikan is not classified as a subsistence community, many residents rely on hunting in the surrounding Tongass to provide food for their families. Sitka black-tailed deer and black bear are two primary game species with importance to local residents of Ketchikan. Habitat mapping and field reconnaissance surveys would be useful for identifying baseline conditions and providing an analysis tool for managing deer and bear habitat within the project area (ADFG, pers. comm. 1997). Amphibians: Spotted Frog is a species of special interest to the agencies (USFWS, ADFG, USFS). Opportunistic searches and dip-netting of selected areas will identify presence of the species and project related effects. Wildlife Resources Issues and Agency Concerns No wildlife issues were expressed specific to Carlanna Lake. The fisheries resources in Carlanna Lake are minimal compared to Connell Lake, and to a lesser degree Whitman Lake. This fact is worth noting because it may indicate that the foraging potential for eagle, osprey, bear, heron and other fish dependent wildlife is significantly lower than the other two project areas. Therefore, the reduced prey base might indicate lower wildlife diversity and density. The status of threatened and endangered species is a concern for the natural resource agencies and most likely will need to be addressed if the project is considered for licensing. Additional Studies For project licensing, wildlife and habitat field studies would likely include the following: ° Qualitative surveys of wildlife habitats and plant communities e Inventory of individual plant and animal species, including threatened and endangered ° Obtaining information on topography and historical land use ° Special habitats (wetlands, old growth forests, etc..) will be located, mapped and described ° Ancillary observation (including identification of calls, tracks, scat, and raptor pellet analysis). Specifc studies and analysis for animal species will need to be determined through consultation with the agencies. Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures Protecting high wildlife use areas such as emergent vegetation wetlands, riparian corridors and old growth forests will help maintain good biodiversity and species Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-8 Feasibility Study August 1998 richness within the project area. Proper design of project facilities, can also reduce the amount of habitat fragmentation which could occur. Gating new and existing roads coupled with seasonal access restrictions may help prevent over hunting and protect rearing habitats for deer, bear, mountain goat, waterfowl, and other game species. Currently waterfowl habitat appears to be limited within the project area due to a lack of forage and refuge cover at certain times of the year. Nevertheless, the projects may be good candidates for enhancement efforts to improve waterfowl! production around the reservoir. These efforts may include increasing water depths in certain areas for diving ducks, reducing water elevations in other areas to allow for more emergent vegetation growth along shorelines, create island habitats to reduce predation and provide cover, and constructing nest boxes and platforms to promote nesting. Another effective strategy for improving wildlife resources is instituting an effective monitoring program to evaluate changes (both positive and negative) in the environment. Establishing photopoint monitoring stations and Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) sites are two proven methods for documenting baseline (pre-project) habitat conditions and assessing the effectiveness of management prescriptions and enhancement efforts within the project area. In-kind mitigation plans can also be developed for individual species following a more precise assessment of project related impacts. LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP Existing Information Lands around Carlanna Lake and along Carlanna Creek, just downstream of Carlanna Lake, are undeveloped and used mainly for dispersed recreation such as hunting, fishing, and swimming. Lands adjacent to the mid- and lower portion of Carlanna Creek are occupied by housing developments. A mobile home court is located near, and downstream of, the proposed powerhouse site. For approximately three-fourths of a mile below the lake, Carlanna Creek is confined in a deep, steep sided canyon well below the elevation of the nearest residential area. Below the escapement at the mouth of the canyon the creek flows past the mobile home park at near the same elevation as the adjacent mobile home park. The majority of the project is located in an area of Federal land that was withdrawn by the Act of July 27, 1930 and set aside for municipal water supply purposes. The withdrawn lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Requests have been made to transfer the BLM administered lands back to the USFS. KPU owns the lands that surround the dam and also owns another parcel part way down Carlanna Creek, within the steep canyon. Carlanna Creek and adjacent lands within the canyon, downstream of the KPU owned parcel and upstream of the mobile Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-9 Feasibility Study August 1998 home park, are designated as the “Carlanna Creek Reserve” in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assessors maps. The upper portion of the Pipeline route would be located along an existing gravel road on lands administered by the BLM. The lower portion of the pipeline would be located adjacent to existing roadways within a private housing development, with a few areas traversing through private property where easements would need to be obtained. The proposed powerhouse is sited on private property at the edge of the mobile home park. The majority of the project is located on Future Development Zone lands as designated by Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Under this designation, hydroelectric generation is considered a permitted use. No National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, National Trails Systems or Wilderness Areas are located within the Carlanna Lake Project area. Land Use Issues and Agency Concerns No concerns regarding land use are anticipated. Additional Studies No significant land use studies are expected as part of project licensing. Only an update of the information presented in this section would be expected. A use permit and/or approvals would likely be required from the BLM. Costs would be minor. Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures Potential mitigation or enhancement measures are not expected. RECREATION RESOURCES Existing Information Activities such as hiking, fishing, boating, hunting, camping, and picnicking are popular among residents and tourists of Ketchikan. The USFS Tongass National Forest, which surrounds Ketchikan, has constructed many hiking trails and cabins for public use in southeast Alaska. Carlanna Lake and the surrounding area is used for dispersed recreation, including fishing, hunting, and swimming. No developed facilities are located at the Lake. People access Carlanna Lake and surrounding area by going through a gate at the end of Canyon Road and walking up a gravel road. An approximate 4 mile unmarked trail extends from Carlanna Lake to the Minerva Mountain Trail. This trail receives low use. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-10 Feasibility Study August 1998 Development of a new trail at Carlanna Lake was identified during the Ketchikan Trails Coalition planning process as one of the “Top Ten” actions. It includes developing parking and picnic facilities, improving the access road to the lake, and developing a primitive trail around the lake (Ketchikan Trails Coalition, 1995). A small resident rainbow trout population was introduced to Carlanna Lake in the 1950’s in conjunction with access to the lake for sport fishing. The access to the lake was never upgraded but the program is still in place. The USFS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) map shows the area around Carlanna Lake as Semi Primitive Non-Motorized, and the area downstream of Carlanna Lake as Rural. Under the SPNM designation, alterations are few and subordinate to the landscape, trails and lakes are closed to motorized use, and human use is noticeable but not degrading to the resources elements. Under the Rural designation, alterations to landform and vegetation dominate the landscape, all methods of access and travel may occur, and there is moderate to high concentrations of people. (USFS, 1997) Recreation Issues and Agency Concerns No significant impacts to recreation resources are expected as a result of construction and operation of the project. Construction of the pipeline may temporarily disturb recreation users. Additional Studies No significant recreation studies are expected to be required for project licensing. Additional details on recreation use and demands in the area will likely be required for the License Application. Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures Agencies may require cooperation and/or assistance in development of a trail system at Carlanna Lake. The costs are expected to be minor. VISUAL RESOURCES Existing Information The project area consists of western hemlock-sitka forests that extend from the tidewater to the treeline. The forests extend to the edge of Carlanna Lake. The existing dam structure is visible from the air and by those who hike up to the lake. The upper portion of Carlanna Creek is located within a steep canyon. A large waterfall exists just downstream of the dam. The remainder of Carlanna Creek is rocky and contains numerous cataracts, waterfalls and rapids. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-11 Feasibility Study August 1998 Visual Issues and Agency Concerns The proposed project would use the existing dam, therefore, impacts to the visual resources would be minimal. The pipeline would be buried along the existing roadway right-of-ways and in easements through a few private properties. Only short term visual impacts during construction of the pipeline and powerhouse would result. The new powerhouse would be visible from areas near the mobile home park. Changes in the lake elevation at Carlanna Lake would change the appearance of the lake. Reduced flows in Carlanna Creek would change the appearance of the Creek. Since flows would be reduced in the portion of the creek that is located within a steep canyon and not easily visible from the public, visual impacts would be minimal. Additional Studies No major visual resources studies are anticipated for the license application. Only minor updates to the information presented in this section are anticipated. Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures Revegetation following any clearing activities would be required to reduce any visual impacts resulting from construction of the project. Vegetative plantings could also be used to screen the powerhouse from adjacent areas. HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Information Little is recorded regarding the prehistoric period for southeast Alaska, although it is known that the Tlingit Indians for years had fish camps near the present City of Ketchikan and that they had a village at Ketchikan Creek. White settlements formed around canneries and mines in early Alaska. Ketchikan was founded near the salmon saltery at the mouth of Ketchikan Creek and canneries gradually relocated to Ketchikan because of its convenience for shipping. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was contacted regarding reported historic and prehistoric sites within the project area. A review of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database and maps by the SHPO revealed a reported historic cannery complex near the shore, downstream of the proposed powerhouse site. The proposed project is not expected to impact this site. Cultural Resources Issues and Agency Concerns No cultural resources issues or agency concerns are anticipated unless additional eligible cultural resources sites are identified during field surveys. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-12 Feasibility Study August 1998 Additional Studies Cultural surveys would be required prior to project licensing. Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures If cultural resources are identified during surveys, compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be required. The site’s eligibility under the National Register and the effects of activities on the property would need to be determined. If the property is found eligible, avoidance or mitigation measures would need to be developed in consultation with the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources office of History and Archaeology. If during construction, it is determined that the project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, work would be suspended and the responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would need to be followed. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-13 Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 8 Conclusions and Recommendations SECTION 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the studies completed to date for the Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project, the following conclusions can be made: Ve The Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project is technically feasible and can be constructed without significant adverse environmental impacts. The first-year cost of power is 9.3 cents per kWh. The recommended project arrangement includes utilizing the existing Carlanna Lake Dam, constructing a small diversion structure on an adjacent tributary, constructing a 3,670-foot long, 24-inch diameter, penstock to a powerhouse containing a single 1.2 MW unit. The project will generate 6,756,000 kWh on an average annual basis. The Total Investment Cost for the project is $4,957,000 based on escalation to a year 2002 bid date. The project can be placed into service by the fourth quarter of 2003. Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, it is not recommended that KPU pursue further development of the Carlanna Lake Project at this time. The cost of power from the project is competitive with the current cost of diesel generation, but higher in cost than several other alternative power supply resources available to KPU. Although the amount of annual generation from the project would be small, KPU should keep the project under consideration for future development because the technical and current environmental issues associated with the project appear to be relatively minor. If KPU elects not to pursue the project at this time, it should surrender its Preliminary Permit with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Carlanna Lake Hydroelectric Project 8-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 APPENDIX A Geotechnical Report KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES HYDROELECTRIC RECONNAISSANCE GEOTECHNICAL STUDY WHITMAN, CARLANNA & CONNELL LAKES Prepared for: WESCORP 18021 15th Ave., N.E., Suite 101 Shoreline, WA 98155 Prepared by: R&M ENGINEERING, INC. 6205 Glacier Highway P.O. Box 34278 Juneau, AK 99803 R&M Project No. 972116 December 19, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2.0. 1 PURPOSE ... 0... ce ence te ene nett ete nese ee ens 1 SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL STUDY ........... 0000000 eee 1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ......00 0022 eee 2 AREA BEDROCK GEOLOGY ... 20.00. eee ee 2 GLACIATION 2.201 eee cette eee eee 2 SEISMICITY 2.00... eee eee 2 SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .... 00.000. ene 3 WHITMAN LAKE ... 2.2.12 eee ee eee 3 CARLANNA LAKE 2.001. eee eee eee eae 5 CONNELL LAKE .. 200 ee ec eee cence 6 CLOSURE ..... 61. eee eee e eee aan 8 SELECTED REFERENCED ..........00 2.2 cence eee 9 DIVISION D nc ses gee eget same s aes oe tae see sme septs ne sees aes ae fees see cons MAPS DIVISION ID... eee eee PHOTOGRAPHS SEM KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES HYDROELECTRIC RECONNAISSANCE GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Whitman, Carlanna & Connell Lakes INTRODUCTION PURPOSE Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) is currently operating their hydroelectric generating facilities near maximum capacity. In an effort to locate additional hydroelectric resources, KPU has asked Wescorp of Seattle, Washington to conduct preliminary studies of three potential hydro sites. R&M Engineering was engaged by Wescorp to provide geotechnical services in connection with this study. The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide a preliminary evaluation of the geologic conditions at the three hydroelectric sites. The sites being considered are Whitman Lake, Carlanna Lake and Connell Lake (See location map Drawing 1). Specifically, information was provided about foundation conditions, geologic hazards, sources of borrow materials, tunneling conditions (Whitman Lake) and scope of future geotechnical investigations. No sampling or test drilling was conducted in conjunction with this study. SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Our geotechnical evaluation assessed the foundation conditions at proposed powerhouse, penstock and intake sites. Geologic hazards that could affect the location, alignment, or design of project features were discussed. Sources of borrow and usability of excavated material were assessed. Geologic conditions along the proposed Whitman Lake tunnel were assessed based on map and surface observations. Two field trips were accomplished: a preliminary site visit (August 20, 1997 - summarized in letter to Wescorp August 26, 1997) and a second trip to evaluate the powerhouse sites on November 5 and 6, 1997. Additionally a review of available topographic maps, aerial photographs and geologic reports/maps was conducted. This was a preliminary investigation to evaluate geotechnical aspects of the three sites, but is not intended to provide specific design or foundation recommendations. No test holes were drilled nor was any laboratory testing conducted. The on site studies were limited to observing existing outcrops and geomorphology. | REGIONAL GEOLOGY AREA BEDROCK GEOLOGY Southeast Alaska is underlain by Quaternary surficial deposits and by sedimentary, volcanic, intrusive and metamorphosed rocks ranging in age from Quaternary to Precambrian (Gehrels, 1992). The area is within an active tectonic belt than borders the north Pacific Basin. The bedrock outcrop pattern is the result of late Mesozoic and Tertiary deformation and intrusive events (Brew, 1966). Large scale right-lateral strike-slip faulting is common. Most of this tectonic activity is the result of the North American continental plate colliding with the Pacific plate. The physical manifestation in the bedrock structure is the general northwest- southeast trend of the major mountain ranges and waterways of Southeast Alaska. The pre-Cenozoic strata (basically the bedrock) in the Ketchikan area has been divided into five fault bounded rock assemblages: Alexander terrain, Gravina-Nutzotin belt, Taku terrain, Tracy Arm terrain and Stikine terrain (Berg and others, 1988). All three hydroelectric sites are in the Taku terrain (Drawing 1). In the study area the Taku terrain consist of Tertiary gabbro and Cretaceous granodiorite and quartzdiorite igneous intrusive rocks, Mesozoic or Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks and Mesozoic or Paleozoic metavolcanic rocks (Drawing 2). GLACIATION Southeast Alaska, except for the highest peaks, was covered by ice during the late Pleistocene ice ages. The glacier ice varied in maximum thickness from 2000 feet near the outside coast line to 6000 feet in the Coast Mountains (Drawing 4). In the Ketchikan area the surface of the ice was 3500 feet above present day sea level (Coulter and others, 1962). The present day topography of deep fiords, elongated lakes and steep sided U-shaped valleys reflect the effects of glaciation. When the ice begin melting 10,000 years ago the glacial gouged valleys begin filling with sea water. At the time sea level was over 300' higher than it is today. Over time the land rose relative to sea level due to the unloading of the ice and tectonic forces. Large amounts of silt and sand were deposited by outwash streams into the sea water, concurrently wave cut sand and gravel beaches were being formed along some of the shorelines. The bedrock mantling deposits left behind by the glaciers, outwash streams and seawater include glacial till, alluvium filled fiords, marine deposits and elevated beach deposits. Bedrock in the Ketchikan area is often exposed or at relatively shallow depths, the land having been scrapped bare by the passage of the glaciers. SEISMICITY Evaluating earthquake probability, strength and destructive affects is difficult if not impossible. The most common approach has been to review the area's earthquake history and its proximity to major active faults. With this information seismic zone maps are prepared that define design parameters for structures in each zone. See Drawing 5 for 1994 UBC Seismic Zone Map of Southeast Alaska. iy Southeast Alaska lies in one of the two most seismically active areas in Alaska. Since the turn of the century 8 earthquakes with magnitudes of 7 or greater have occurred and 23 with magnitudes between 7 and 5. However there are no recorded epicenters of earthquakes in the immediate Ketchikan area (Lemke, 1975). Within a radius of 100 miles there have been 2 quakes recorded with magnitudes between 6 and 7, other 100 mile radius earthquakes have been less than magnitude 5 (Drawing 4). Geologic mapping has indicated the existence of several faults in the Ketchikan area (Drawing 6). Most of these faults are structural manifestations of faulting that occurred in the Mesozoic Era. However they do represent weak zones along which faulting could again occur. An active fault, and the one along which Southeast Alaska’s strongest recent earthquakes have occurred, is the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte fault system. This fault roughly parallels the coast line, and at its closest point is over 100 miles from Ketchikan. An earthquake strong enough to cause major damage in Ketchikan would most likely occur along the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Fault. Predicting the effects of such an earthquake is problematical. Some of the destructive events associated with strong ground motion are: surface displacement, ground shaking, compaction, liquefaction, slides, slumps, water ejection and seismic waves. SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHITMAN LAKE Whitman Lake is located four miles east of Ketchikan . It's outlet stream flows into Herring Bay on Carroll Inlet. Two alternative projects arrangements are being considered. The first is a lake tap with a 1,650' long tunnel and 900' long steel penstock conveying water to a powerhouse at Herring Cove. The second is to take water from the base of the existing dam, or new dam just downstream of it, and convey the water in a penstock following the existing hatchery pipeline alignment. The powerhouse would be located near the SSARAA hatchery incubation building. The current dam is a concrete arch structure that is approximately 35' high. The structure is keyed into bedrock. The bedrock outcropping at the base of the dam is a hard dense metagraywacke with garnet inclusions. The apparent bedding strikes 276 degrees and dips 80 degrees north. This structural orientation is nearly perpendicular to the face of the dam. The outlet stream coarse is a steep sided bedrock canyon. The bedrock is a relatively massive metagraywacke with widely spaced fractures (1' to 10'). The rock is generally hard, unweathered and strong, but tends to part along preferred cleavages. Dam construction will require the removal of loose rock and stream bed deposits. The bedrock should provide a suitable foundation for the proposed dam. Some grouting may be required to seal the fractures. The existing penstock route is over shallow bedrock. Holes dug for the hatchery pipeline support improvements showed thin organics and roots over shallow colluvial angular cobble sized rocks mixed with sand and silt. Those excavations observed were less than 2.0' deep to bedrock. Penstock burial would require blasting and is not considered a good alternative to above ground placement of the penstock. J0 Q < The proposed lake tap tunnel would be thru metamorphosed phyllite and hornfels. The phyllite contains some schistose zones. The bedrock is in a contact metamorphism aureole surrounding the Tertiary gabbro pluton north of Whitman Lake. The major manifestation of this metamorphism are the large (0.1" to 0.5") pyroxene crystals in the fine grained groundmass (hornfels texture). The bedrock outcropping at the cliff near the proposed tunnel outlet portal is cut by widely spaced joints (1' to 4’). A tunnel in this bedrock will require some grouting to seal the joints and rock bolting in some fractured areas to prevent rock falls. Some schistose zones may require lining. It is estimated from surface outcrops that less than 10% of the tunnel will require lining. However, a minimum of three test borings along the tunnel alignment are required to further assess the tunneling conditions. Test borings are recommended to extend at least 5' below the proposed tunnel floor elevation. The waste rock from the tunneling operation will be suitable for embankment and rock fill dam core material. However much of it will be phyllite which is unsuitable for concrete aggregate. The penstock route from the tunnel portal to the powerhouse is over hornfels/phyllite bedrock and colluvium covered with thin forest soils and roots. The vegetation is spruce and hemlock trees with an understory of blueberry, devils club and other brush. The depth to bedrock along the entire penstock route is unknown. However surface indications are that it is generally shallow, indicating that an above ground penstock would be most feasible. Two powerhouse sites were considered. Both are immediately north of the Southern Southeast Alaska Regional Aquaculture Association (SSARAA) salmon hatchery at Herring Bay. The alternate 1 site is northeast of the rearing ponds and the alternate 2 site is immediately north of the main hatchery building. The #1 site is in line with the lake tap tunnel option. The #2 site is near the routing for the dam intake option, adjacent to the terminus of the present hatchery water line. Geotechnically both the areas "behind" the hatchery being considered for powerhouses are similar. Spruce/hemlock forest growing from thin forest soils. Bedrock is shallow, covered with colluvium and blocky boulders to 6'. The powerhouses will be founded on bedrock after the organics, forest soil and colluvium are removed. Some blasting may be required to provide level footing pads. The tail race near the powerhouses could be blasted from the bedrock. However some grouting will be required to prevent leakage in the rocks natural fracture zones. A portion of the tailraces will cross the man made fill and marine estuary zone, some type of lining will be required in these areas to prevent erosion of these soft deposits. Both powerhouses should be relocated 200' east of their proposed sites to more suitable terrain. This would place the alternate 1 site on a natural bench approximately 40' above the hatchery rearing ponds. Moving the alternate 2 site 200' east will move it off a steep boulder covered hillside to gentler sloping terrain. A quarry could be developed in the project area to procure material suitable for a rock fill dam. Bedrock in the area is generally near the surface (covered with less than 2.0' of overburden). However, phyllite is one of the rock types known to react deleteriously when used as concrete aggregate (Concrete Manual, US Bureau of Reclamation). Therefore concrete aggregate will have to be acquired from another source. 2M SS Generally sand and gravel deposits suitable for the production of concrete aggregate are not available along the Ketchikan road system. Aggregate is either produced from quarry rock or imported by barge. Ketchikan Ready Mix is the commercial source of concrete in the Ketchikan area. The three possible diversion dam sites are all on steep terrain. Insufficient data is available to accurately evaluate all the factors affecting slope stability. Slope angle, soil type, soil depth, bedrock type, bedrock structure, faults, fractures, water availability, soil moisture. However some generalizations can be made. The slope angles in the areas of the diversions range from 22 degrees to 30 degrees. Generally slopes steeper than 30 degrees are considered potentially unstable. The general geology of the area is one of shallow forest soils over bedrock. Two types of slides are common in these conditions, Transnational slides and debris slides. Transnational slides are controlled by the interface between surficial material and bedrock. Slides of this type are shallow but may extend a considerable distance. Heavy rainfall is often the triggering mechanism. Debris slides begin as small slides on steep thinly mantled bedrock slopes. They tend to follow steep "V" notched gullies picking up material as they accelerate downslope. They are also often triggered by heavy rainfall. A third factor affecting small diversion dams in steep narrow drainages is the large bedloads transported during periods of heavy rainfall. Our experience with small water supply and hydro dams in the steep canyons of Southeast Alaska is that after a period of a few years small dams (less than 5' high) become plugged with granular soils (silt to cobbles) and organic debris. Diversion dams in steep canyons would require at least annual cleaning to remain effective. The diversion dams are in areas potentially threatened by slides and will require clearing of bedload debris to remain effective. The major detrimental affect of a strong earthquake to the proposed facilities would be caused by the triggering of slides. The only structures in areas likely to be impacted by slides are the diversion structures. However slides could impact Whitman Lake causing a potentially damaging seiche wave to impact or overtop the dam. In 1949 a earthquake caused a 2 foot high seiche wave in Ward Lake, 5 miles northwest of Ketchikan. CARLANNA LAKE Carlanna Lake is located 2.5 miles northwest of downtown Ketchikan. Its outlet creek flows approximately 3/4 mile south into Tongass Narrows. Carlanna Creek is contained in a steep sided gorge as much as 100' deep. The proposed project will utilize the existing dam with a steel penstock carrying water to a powerhouse near Carlanna Creek and Hunt Way (one block upstream of Tongass Ave.). The dam is a concrete faced rockfill structure founded on bedrock, The bedrock is a gray massive metagraywacke with an irregular joint pattern. No changes are planned for the existing dam structure. The upper portion (approximately 200') of the penstock may have to be above ground. Bedrock out crops are numerous in this area, indicating shallow soils. A test pit will be required to accurately determine if there is sufficient suitable soil for pipeline burial. REM Ww The lower portion of the penstock can be buried. This portion begins at the access gate on Canyon Road and extends to the cliff just above the powerhouse. Much of this alignment is in an existing utility corridor. The proposed powerhouse location is at the base of a cliff on the bank of Carlanna Creek, approximately 800' from Tongass Narrows. The bedrock outcropping in the vicinity of the proposed powerhouse is brown irregularly banded metasediment with abundant quartz stringers. Cliffs and scaled rock slopes in the are standing at 1/4:1 slopes. The soils in the area of the proposed powerhouse are a mixture of rock fall and stream flood deposits. They are poorly consolidated and will require removal and replacement before the foundation is constructed. Indications from the Carlanna Creek cut bank are that these deposits are on the order of 8' thick over bedrock. The rock slope behind the powerhouse site could be cleared of loose rock and organics and be stable at 1/4:1 slopes. Scaling and reshaping of this cliff slope may jeopardize the house at the top of the cliff (on Tower Rd). Moving the powerhouse 50' east to the site now occupied by a trailer house (201 Hunt Street) has two geotechnical advantages. First it will position the powerhouse far enough from the cliff to eliminate the need to disturb the cliff below the house on Tower Road. Second it will likely place the powerhouse on stable foundation soils eliminating requirement to excavate and replace the soil at the presently proposed location. Test borings will be required to determine the exact foundation soil conditions. There is one proposed diversion structure planned to increase the area of the projects drainage basin. The proposed diversion dam is at the base of a 30 degree slope. It is subject to potential transnational and debris slides as discussed for the Whitman Lake diversions. The diversion dam is in an area potentially threatened by slides and will require clearing of bedload debris to remain effective. Ketchikan Ready Mix is located 1/2 mile northwest and is probably the most economical source of construction material for this project. CONNELL LAKE (WARD COVE) Ward Cove is approximately 8 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The Ward Cove facility proposes to use the existing Ketchikan Pulp wood stave pipeline from Connell Lake to the pulp mill site at Ward Cove as a source of generation water. The wood stave pipe will be connected to a steel penstock leading to the powerhouse. The existing dam is a large reinforced concrete structure founded in bedrock. The bedrock is graywacke and phyllite with some schistose zones. No changes are planned for the existing dam. The wood stave pipeline is approximately 3.1 miles long. With the exception of two tunnels (totaling 0.3 mi) it is founded on concrete footings resting on a roadbed type embankment. Total embankment width is 12', providing room for the pipeline and an 8' wide maintenance road. OU REM In two locations the pipeline has been impacted by transnational slides (0.2 mi and 0.6 mi from the dam). The first slide averages 100' wide and released from the 775' high knob just east of the dam. It crossed the access toad and pipeline and traveled an additional 250' to Ward Creek. The second slide is similar in nature but much smaller, only 35' wide. Both slides bared the slopes down to weathered and fractured schistose bedrock. The pipeline in both these sections has been converted to 48" plastic and buried in a protective berm averaging 10' thick. These defensive structures are adequate to protect it from potential future slides. Since its completion in 1952 the pipeline has not been impacted by any slides other than the two already discussed (conversation with Dan Loitz, KP Planning and Engineering). However over most of its length the pipeline is within 1000' of the base of slope of a steep (average 35 degrees) high (1300') ridge. Slides with runouts long enough to reach the pipeline are possible, especially during periods of heavy rainfall. Two powerhouse locations are being considered. One on KP property at Ward Cove and the other at the upper end of the Ward Cove estuary . Dan Loitz, Engineer for KP, thought that citing the powerhouse on the KP property at Ward Cove seems unlikely because of site commitments to the KP Sawmill and planned usages of the pulp mill site for a veneer mill. The KP property at Ward Cove can be divided into three broad foundation soils situations. The sloping higher elevation terrain is generally bedrock or shallow soils over bedrock. The level areas below elevation 30' were constructed by end dumping shot rock on top of in-situ intertidal and marine sediments. The shot rock was not consolidated (November 11, 1996 interview with Ralph Dale, KP Engineer). In November of 1995 R&M Engineering drilled a test hole adjacent to the machine shop that indicated 41' of shot rock over 20' of marine sediments. The third area is presently occupied by the KP Sawmill. This area was used for disposal of overburden soils and waste during construction of the pulpmill. Pilings for recently constructed sawmill building were driven to over 115' (November 6, 1997 interview - Dan Loitz, KP Engineer). The second powerhouse site at the upper end of the Ward Cove estuary will be connected to the existing pipeline by a 1700' long steel penstock. The soils for the penstock route and the powerhouse site are very similar. The area being considered for these structures is second growth spruce and hemlock forest growing out of thin forest soils. Bedrock outcrops and large surface boulders are common. The exception to this is the section starting at the under construction forest road and extending 150' downhill of it. This area is a forested wetland with organic soils that may be as much as S' thick. It appears from our reconnaissance that the steel penstock should be above ground. The foundation for the powerhouse will most likely be on bedrock. We recommend drilling at least two test holes at the final powerhouse locations to obtain the soils information necessary for foundation design. Construction materials for this site will most likely be from processed shot rock from an as yet unidentified source. To increase runoff area a diversion dam and pipeline are planned for the headwaters of the White River drainage. The dam is planned for a wide low swale with muskeg soils on the east side and diorite bedrock outcrops on the west side. The stream bed is composed of subrounded sand and gravel. A rock fill dam will probably be constructed diverting water into a pipeline. Due to the variety of soils evident at the site general soils conditions cannot be estimated. BEM We recommend a geotechnical investigation that includes at least two test borings be conducted to obtain the required dam foundation information. The diversion pipeline as planned does not traverse any slide hazard areas. CLOSURE It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Should there be questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, R&M ENGINEERING, INC. Aj ful Ralph Swedell Malcolm A. Menzies, P.E. Engineering Geologist Civil Engineer Ysh if FLU tree SELE D REFERENCE Berg, H. C., Elliott, R. L., and Koch, R. D., 1988 Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles, Southeastern Alaska, USGS Map I-1807. Buddington, A. F. and Chapin, T., 1929, Geology and Mineral Deposits of Southeastern Alaska, USGS Bulletin 800. Coulter, H. W. and others, 1965, Map Showing Extent of Glaciation in Alaska, USGS Map I-415. Gehrels, G. E. and Berg, H. C., 1992, Geologic Map of Southeastern Alaska, USGS Map I-1876, 1992. Lemke, R. W., 1974, Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of the Wrangell Area, Alaska, USGS Open File Report 74-1062. Open File Report. Lemke, R. W., 1975, Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of the Ketchikan Area, Alaska, USGS Open File Report 75-250. Lemke, R. Wk. and Yehle, L. A., 1972, Regional and Other General Factors Bearing on Evaluation of Earthquake and Other Geologic Hizards to Coastal Communities of Southeastern Alaska, USGS, USGS Open File Report Preliminary. Selkregg, L. L. and others, 1977, Alaska Regional Profiles, Southeast Region, University of Alaska. Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., Mesri, G., 1996, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Turner, A. K., Schuster, R. L., 1996, Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Transportation Research Board Special Report 247. US Bureau of Reclamation, 1966, Concrete Manual. Wolff, E. N. and Heiner, L. E., 1971, Mineral Resources of Southeastern Alaska, University of Alaska MIRL Report No. 28. CAWP61\REPORTSI972116.REP 9721 16/LOCMAP. DWG/EFIT CONNELL LAKE SITE CARLANNA LAKE SITE SCALE IN MILES R & M ENGINEERING, INC. \ WHITMAN LAKE SITE iP LOCATION MAP KPU HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY od NO. DRAWING NO orang | 1 or 10_) LEGEND; R & M ENGINEERING, INC. TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHIC TERRAINE Gu_} GRAVINA-NUTZOTIN BELT ALEXANDER TERRAINE eee HIGH-ANGLE FAULT AC] CRAIGSUBTERRAINE Aa_| ANNETTE SUBTERRAINE me THRUST FAULT TK | TAKU TERRAINE —”~— —A— UNDEFINED BOUNDARY OF TERRAINE Ta_| TRACEY ARM TERRAINE ST | STIKINE TERRAINE of Wales Island ai C aw > : \ BASED ON 1994 UNIFORM GEOLOGIC TERRAINE BUILDING CODE, FIGURE 16-2 UNITS SCALE IN MILES KPU HYDROELECTRIC I FEASIBILITY STUDY 972116/KET-GEO.DWG/1:1 “~\_ CONNELL ©) LAKE SITE eee GRANODIORITE AND \ NX QUARTZ DIORITE (CRETACEOUS) GABBRO (TERTIARY) | METAVOLCANIC ROCKS SCALE IN MILES GEOLOGIC MAP SY HYDROELECTRIC 25 5 75 FEASIBILITY STUDY CA aL DRAWN CHECKED BY ROJECT NO. rrozensr_| noreo | ne | as | aren 9721 16/GEO.UWG/FIT SCALE IN MILES —_[_—_—__e eee Qo 50 75 100 125 150 FIGURE. 3 MAP SHOWING SURFACE ELEVATION OF PLEISTOCENE GLACIATION IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA (AFTER COULTER, 1962) DA SZAL DRAWN 11-21-87 972116/SE-GLAC.DWG, 972116/SE-EARTH.DWG, NOTE; BASED ON 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, FIGURE 16-2 SCALE {N MILES 0 25 50 75 = =100 125150 FIGURE 6 SOUTHEAST ALASKA SEISMIC ZONE MAP 11-20-97 & =" % ye ra OP OG ~! Sp oa ~o tG > Qa a : h ics . RS RS R & M ENGINEERING, INC. 20 N/A y7Z1l6sraucl.Owosell v Vo oO Da 11-24-97 Lp CS Peraic of Wales island y b a ATS Hyatburg “Phe (a) = v 2 Metlakatla) s Dixon Entrance LEGEND WELL-DEFINED INFERRED hehehe ? ade THRUST FAULT \Ke Q 2 MAP OF SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA AND ADJACENT CANADA SHOWING MAJOR FAULTS 10 OF 10 } | R & M ENGINEERING, INC. s S = 9 LAKE EXISTING DAM CARLANNA_ LAKE SITE KPU HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY 24” DIA. | PENSTOCK DIVERSION STRUCTURE DIVERSION \ PIPELINE: i CARLANNA CREEK CHARCOAL POINT DATE 12/26/97 \ 0001-1 /9MO'WNNVIAVI/9bAZLE APPENDIX B Turbine Vendor Cost Data BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. BH [> 3 Spruce Road « Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355 HYDRO TURBINES Telephone: (610) 889-9900 e« Fax: (610) 889-9901 & EQUIPMENT November 4, 1997 WESCORP 18021 15th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 Seattle, WA 98155 Attention: Mr. D. Thompson Subject: Carlanna Lake Hydro Project Dear Mr. Thompson: Thank you for your recent inquiry requesting budgetary price and technical information on hydroturbine equipment for the subject application. Based on the site net head data and discharge requirements submitted with your FAX of October 30, 1997, we propose one horizontal Pelton type turbine including synchronous generator and hydraulic pressure unit for operation of the needle valves and deflectors. Also included is a controls/switchgear package. The turbine configuration proposed is a horizontal two jet arrangement with the runner mounted directly onto the generator shaft. The following data is submitted: Turbine Type - Horizontal Pelton Overhung runner mounting Number of Jets - 2 Runner Diameter - 1030 mm Speed = 450 rpm Max. Turbine Output (@ 450 feet Net Head) - 1355 KW (40.4 cfs) Needle Operator Type - Hydraulic Cylinder with Spring Closure Mr. D. Thompson -2- November 4, 1997 Generator Type - Horizontal Induction Generator Rating - 1300 KW (Nominal) Generator Speed c 450 rpm Voltage : - 4160 V Temperature Rise - 80°C over 40°C Ambient Our budgetary price for the above equipment is as follows: Turbine, Generator, HPU, Controls/switchgear - US$ 975,000 Price is F.O.B. Ketchikan, Alaska and includes any applicable import duties. Delivery time for the proposed equipment is approximately 12 months after contract award. Attached for your information are turbine performance characteristics of the proposed solution. It should be noted that the net head of 450 feet is still rather low for a Pelton type turbine application. This results in a somewhat large turbine size, slow speed and high cost. As an alternative, we would suggest considering a Francis turbine unit. Such a unit would have a runner diameter of approximately 400 m, a speed of 1200 rpm and could still be set above tailwater. For a Francis turbine unit including induction generator and controls/switchgear our budgetary price would be USS 600,000. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. Mark S. Barandy enc cc W. Benning; Bouvier Hydropower Date To From Copy No. of pages Fax November 18, 1997 WESCORP Mr. Don Thompson Phone Fax 206 361-8990 Edy O. Sennhauser Phone (415) 441-7230 Fax (415) 441-8868 15 (including this one) Ketchikan Public Utilities Your Oct. 29; 1997 Fax SULZER Technology Corporation Sulzer USA Inc. 1255 Post Street, Suite 946 San Francisco, CA 94109 For your projects: we: recommend Compact Turbines.in each case: The corresponding, data are listed on the attachments. Unfortunately, we do not yet have: a dimension sketch for the 6-jet Pelton turbine. Scope of Supply e 1x Compact Turbine with the following sub-assemblies: - stainless steel runner assembly distributor assembly spiral case and stay ring draft tube elbow and liner e 1x horizontal synchronous generator e 1x hydraulic pumping unit Delivery 12 months after award of contract. Please note that these are Compact Turbines and, therefore, the turbine would be shipped to site with the generator completely assembled except for the draft tube. SULZER Technology Corporation Page 2 of 2 /November 18, 1997 Budget Price Budget prices are for equipment delivered fob project site. Local taxes and fees are not included. Field service (supervisor, commissioning and start-up) are estimated to be $ 18,000 per unit for any of the options. Electrical Package Sulzer Hydro can supply electrical packages to complete the water to wire supply for each project. If each unit is in a separate powerhouse then the cost for each powerhouse would be about $ 300,000. If the units are all within a single powerhouse then the package costs would be about $ 450,000 for Whitman and $ 375,000 for Lake Connell. The supply would include 5 KV metalclad switchgear line-up and turbine/generator controls for automatic operation of an unmanned plant. We shail be happy to provide you with any further information which you may require. Regards. ITEM WHITMAN LAKE WHITMAN LAKE WHITMAN LAKE LAKE CONNELL LAKE CONNELL CARLANNA LAKE hi v2 U3 Ul v2 Net head (ft) | 330 350) 320 195 205 450 Discharge 150 55 ny G} 130 100 40 (cfs) Turbine Compact Compact Compact Compact Compact 6-jet Compact Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis Pelton Runner 781 477 781 720 663 659 diameter (mm) Speed (rpm) 900 1200 [900 900 900 720 Turbine 13576 1473 |4315 1970 1580 1360 output (kW) Generator Synchronous Synchronous Synchronous Synchronous Synchronous Induction Voltage (V) 4160 4160 4160 4160 4160 4160 Output (kW) 3800 1400 4200 1900 1500 1300 Speed (rpm) 900 1200 900 900 900 720 Budget Price |$ 762,850.- $ 463,600.- $ 762,850,- $ 496,500.- $ 474,200.- $ 587,700.- 11/18/97 sch GIULKES Inc. 2815S5465TT Le FROM GILEERT Giese GPDO. TD GILKES Inc, P.O2-@4 Fax Message Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd. Canal Iron Works To : WESCORP Kendal ; Cumbria Attention of : =M: Don Thompson England LA97 Even a teniperer Fax : 01539 732110 ei: 01539 720028 Far Number : 00 1 281 554.6577 (International +44 1539) Date : 2S November, 1997 E-mail: chris@gilkes.com Shethof : 3 web site: http//www.gilkesu-aet.com Telefax FO/ SUBJECT : Request for Budgetary Price Quowitions for KPU Ketchikan, Alaska Dear Don, We are pleased to supply the following budgeiur pices in response to your fax enquiry sent to Mr David Priestley of Gilkes Inc. USA We have provided prices for both Francis Turbines end Turgo Impulse Turbines for all three projects for your consideration. In general the Turgo Impulse Turbine equipment prices are higher than the Francis prices. The price difference varies on each site option due zo differences in turbine prices for the turbines required. To compensate for the higher turbine cost the Turgo offers other important technical and. financial advantages aver Francis turbines on project civil costs and running costs. The other important technicai and financial advantages offered by the Turgo Impulse turbine are -- a) The Turgo does not require a surce t¢“er incorporating in the penstock pipeline design te accommodate turbine pressurs surges. Being an Impulse type turbine the Turgo does not produce sufficient surg: pressures to necessitate this feature. b} The Turgo is more capable in waiutzi..3 slectrical supply frequency stability dunng load changes than a Francis because fasi speed gaverning is possible by regulation of the jet deflector mechanism withovi preducing any oressure surge in the penstock ¢) The Turgo does no: have close rinniny surfaces round :he runner periphery as a Francis dees so is able to handle abrasive water without undue wear taking place. dq) The Turgo is a rugged machine specitically designed tu provide reliable trouble fee Operation without the need of femsent maintenance on projects which cperate with abrasive watcr. es Being an Impulse Turbine desig’. the Turgo Impulse turbine do not suffer from cavitation wear as a Francis turbine does Am GIlkes INC. 2315546s57TT P.as 14:23 FROM GILES HLnSS Co ROR OH TO SILKES INC P.33-06 NIP/T3522,3 & 4 paze 2 21 November 1997 f) Turgo Impulse turbines de net have 2 lirnit on the minimum operable flow rate asa Francis Turbine does ob Tf these turbine yenerator sets are required to ¢ with speed governing to assist in maintaining electrical supply frequency and are :equired iv uy iver a wide flow range then the Turgo Impulse turbine has much to offer If the supply wats contains abrasives then they offer considerable advantages over Francis Turbines. The scope of equipment we have included in the following package prices is :- Francis and Turgo [mpulse Turbir > Ooticns. Maun Inlet Valves with Fail-sale to close operators. Electronic Speed Govermng Equipments, Hydraulic Control Module Systems 4.16kV Synchronous Generators Lubricating Oil Systems Electrical Control & Swich-gear Pa+els. Expon Packing USA Tmport Duty Sea-freight to USA international sap. + The electrical termination poim of the above pevkage is at the outgoing terminals of the Switchboards, please note we have nor included Sic, Transformers oc any other outgoing electrical items. We submit the following Turbine Generator packazes fur the three projects requested :- Whitman Lake Gilkes Ref. 13522 Whitman Lake Unit 1 Number of Units 2 each for 150 cfs = 300 cfs total. 2 Gilkes 700G190 Francis Turbine, 3640 kW Synchronous Generator Packages = 2,090,090.00 USD 2 Gukes 38HCTIT/J Turgo Turbine, 3360 kW S.chronous Generator Packages 2,890,000.00 USD Whitman Lake Unit 2 Number of Units 1 1 Gilkes $00G1509 Francis Turbine, 1400 kW Synchronous Generator Package 640,000.00 USD me tenner 1 Gilkes 2SHCTIT/J Turgo Turbine, 1285 kW Syrcbrencus Generator Package 765,000.00 USD Whitman Lake Alternative to Unit 1 Number of Units 2 each for 125 cfs = 250 cfs total. 2 Gilkes 700G190 Francis Turbine, 3080 KW Synchranous Generator Packages 2.010,000.00 USD 2 Gilkxes 38HCTIT'J Turgo Turbine, 2790 kW Synch: u»cus Generator Packages 2,828,000.09 USD NIP’T35$22,3&4 Pesca Lake Connell Gilkes Ref. T3523 Lake Connell Unit 1 Number of Units 1 | Gilkes 675G270 Francis Turbine, 1870 KW Sach: oncus Generator Package 1 Gilkes 43HCTUT/S Turgo Turbine, 1710 kW Syachronous Generator Package Lake Connell Alternative Alternative Unit 1 Number of Units 1 } Gilkes 625G270 Francis Turbine, 1520 kW Synzhre ious Generator Package 1 Gilkkes 38HCTIT,J Turgo Turbine, 1410 kW Synchronous Generator Package Calanna Lake Gi T3424 Calanna Lake Unit 1 Number of Units 1 1 Gilkes 450Gi30 Francis Turbine, 1310 KW Syncluonuus Generator Package 1 Gilkes 22 SHCUIL/S ‘Lurgo Turbine, 1216 kW Synchronous Generator Package 21 November 1997 805,000.00 USD 1,310,000.00 USD 726,500.00 USD i,105,000.60 USD 657,000.00 USD 706,000.00 USD For Whitman Lake we hope that we have intergrsiec your requirements cunectly as in your enquiry the number of units stated is 2 with a design max discharge as 150 cfs. We have offered two units each capable of passing. 150 cis for Unit 1 and 2 two units each capable of passing 125 cfs for Alternative to Unit | We hope that the above prices provide everything you require but if you require any clarification or modification please contact us Best Regards. aan lan Porter, Hydro & Power Systems Division, Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd TOTAL P. ao. VOITH HYDRO eee POWER GENERATION Telephone: 509 255 6398 Telefax: 509 255 6399 Voith Hydro, inc., 203 N. Kelsea Court, Liberty Lake, Washington 99012 Email: pjmegrath@voithyork.com November 11, 1997 Wescorp 18021 15" Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Shoreline, WA 98155 Attn: Mr. Don Thompson - Dear Mr. Thompson, Thank you for your inquiry, dated October 31, 1997 regarding three projects being studied for Ketchikan Public Utilities. Enclosed are some brochures describing the range of impulse and Francis turbines we can offer for small hydro applications. These would be considered our “standard” designs for such smaller turbines. The brochures will aid you in getting a feel for the physical size of the machines you are interested in, as well as the nominal performance of the machines. Budgetary pricing for a complete water-to-wire package including turbine, generator, exciter, governor, unit controls, switchgear, and iniet vaive, would be as follows: Whitman Lake - Unit #1, Horizontal Francis, approx. 4 MW at 720 RPM: $1,400,000.00 Unit #2, Horizontal Francis, approx. 1.5 MW at 720 RPM: $700,000.00 Unit #3, Horizontal Francis, approx. 4.5 MW at 720 RPM: | $1,400,000.00 Lake Connell - Unit #1, Horizontal Francis, approx. 2 MW at 720 RPM: $800,000.00 Unit #2, Horizontal Francis, approx. 1.7 MW at 720 RPM: $700,000.00 Carlanna Lake - Unit #1, Horizontal Francis, approx. 1.4 MW at 1800 RPM: $700,000.00 The above prices are exclusive of any applicable taxes or duties, are FOB Ketchikan, and do not include installation/commissioning. VOITH GROUP OF COMPANIES eat Kvaerner Hydro Power November 5, 1997 Mr. Don Thompson Wescorp 18021 15" Ave. NE, Suite 101 Shoreline, WA 98155 Subject: Whitman Lake Project Lake Connell Project Carianna Lake Project Dear Mr. Thompson: Please find below our reply to your telefax dated 29-Oct-97. Due to our current workload, the information is very limited and preliminary, however should the project go ahead we would be very interested to have the opportunity to put together a firm proposal. The following is for a water-to-wire equipment package, based on the head and flow given in your fax. The water-to-wire package includes supply of turbine, turbine shut-off valve, hydraulic power unit, generator, and switchgear/controls: Whitman Lake Project Unit 1: horizontal Francis; 3.9 MW; 720 rpm Unit 2: horizontal Francis; 1.5 MW; 1200 rpm Unit 3: horizontal Francis; 4.4 MW; 720 rpm Preliminary budget price = USD$ 3,000,000. Lake Connell Project Unit 1: horizontal Francis; 2 MW; 720 rpm Unit 2: horizontal Francis; 1.6 MW; 900 rpm Preliminary budget price = USD$ 1,500,000. Carianna Lake Project Unit 1: horizontal 2-jet Pelton; 1.4 MW; 360 rpm Preliminary budget price = USD$ 1,250,000. This estimate is very preliminary and additional work is required to come up with a more accurate cost. 5 KVAERNER Kvaerner Hydro Power Inc Tet -1 415 777 3800 49 Stevenson Street Fax +1 415 543 5134 Suite 1075 San Francisco, CA 94105 USA