Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study August 1998
CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY Ketchikan Public Utilities August 1998 Final Report WESCORP CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY Ketchikan Public Utilities August 1998 Final Report WESCORP CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) eecceccecccccseeeccoesccseececsenssteeesacesrsersarseras eareecaerssees i 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Alternative Project Arrangement ............:::cccccescesseeeetseeeseeeeees 1-1 Alternative A — Powerhouse Located at Ketchikan Pulp Mill...... 1-2 Alternative B —- Powerhouse Located at Upper End of Ward) COVO rerecccoccrcrecscccrceccesserescecsvorsssetessecsceseec 1-4 Diversion from White River.............::ccccceseeeeseeseeeeeeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 1-5 2 DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROLOGY Representative Time Period for Hydrologic Analysis ................ 2-1 Development of Average Monthly Flow Values Average Monthly FIOWS ...............::cecceeseeeeeeee = Divertable Flows from White River ...............0:cceecceeseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeee Flow-Duration Curve Data ..............cccccccsseesseceeseeeeseeesseeeesseeeenee 3 ENERGY GENERATION ANALYSIS Plant Operating ASSUMPTiONS ...............cccceeeeeceeseeeseeeteeeeteeeeenee 3-1 Methodology xcqccccccsscecszccecenccaceorcessesesetcesvacevsstrssccessnceeencesscecevsors 3-1 Average Annual Energy.. 3-2 Instream Flow Release...... 3-2 Diversion for Industrial Use .. 3-3 Plant Factor ..........cccecceceseeescesecesseeseeesseeeseeeaes 3-3 Comparison With Existing Generation Resources ................005 3-3 4 PROJECT) COST) ESTIMATES iooccccscccscccccsececsecezcezssonesesessceesesservs-ees 4-1 5 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS ...0.0o.o... ccc cccecceeeeeceeeteeeteeneeeeeeeee 5-1 6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ............0..0.....ccecceeeeereeeees 6-1 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES Water Quality and Quantity 00.00.00... ce eeeeceeeesceseeeseesseeseeeneeenes 7-1 Fisheries.................. Botanical Resources... wee Wildlife) RESOUNCOS © sec. s<-ccs<cseres seems sesesvecsosncescceessateesstesustessees se 7-8 Table of Contents (Continued) Section Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES Land Use and Ownership Recreational Resources TLR PRE OIE seiecwrectensrivensnic cia tik teeta eeentnieces eirn rercrcene de geetanmnnecs Historic/Cultural Resources ... FERC Licensing Alternatives 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........0000...... cee 8-1 APPENDIX A - Geotechnical Report APPENDIX B - Turbine Vendor Cost Data EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONNELL 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 Connell Lake Project. Connell Lake is located 5 miles north of Ketchikan, Alaska. KPU’s decision to study the hydropower potential at Connell 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: 1. 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. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project i Feasibility Study August 1998 RECOMMENDED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT The Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project will utilize the reservoir storage and head developed by the existing Connell Lake Dam. The dam and water supply conduit were constructed in the early 1950's to deliver process water to the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) mill located at Ward Cove. Closure of the mill in early 1997 provides an opportunity for the community to continue utilizing the mill’s valuable water supply system for generating hydroelectric power. Two alternative sites for the powerhouse were investigated: (1) at the mill, and (2) at the upstream end of the Ward Cove estuary north of the highway bridge. Economic analysis indicates no significant difference between the two sites. However, it is recommended that the powerhouse be constructed at the mill site primarily because it will cause the least disturbance to existing natural resources, has fewer uncertainties about potential environmental impacts, and may be easier to construct and operate within an existing industrial site. The recommended project arrangement will consist of the following major elements: 1. Existing Connell Lake Dam. This 78-foot high concrete gravity dam was constructed in 1953 at the outlet to Connell Lake, and provides 7,400 acre-feet of regulated storage capability. The volume of storage is equivalent to about 25 days of average inflow to the lake with no releases from the dam. The dam has been well maintained, and no major rehabilitation work to the dam or spillway will be required. The existing 5-foot diameter water supply conduit is not directly connected to the dam. Regulated reservoir releases are discharged to a concrete forebay at the toe of the dam prior to entering the conduit. This results in up to 46 feet of head loss through the dam. This head will be recovered by directly connecting the two existing 30-inch diameter outlets within the dam to the inlet of the existing 5-foot diameter wood-stave pipe. A 77-foot long fabricated steel pipe section will be installed to make the connection. 2. Existing wood-stave pipe and tunnels. About 14,530 feet of the existing wood-stave pipe, 1675 feet of tunnel, and 375 feet of the existing 48-inch steel pipe will be utilized for the project. The existing pipe is in good condition and has been well maintained. Additional steel bands will need to be installed on about 3,800 feet of the pipe in order to safely withstand the additional head created with the direct connection to the dam. 3. New 48-inch diameter above-ground penstock. A new 600-foot long steel penstock will be constructed from the existing pipe to a new powerhouse. The new pipe will tap into the existing pipe about 100 feet north of the filter plant and provisions will be made to maintain the option of making future diversions to the mill site through that portion of the existing conduit not needed for power generation. 4. Diversion structure. The natural drainage area into Connell Lake is 12.4 square miles. A portion of the flow from the upper reaches of the White River basin, located immediately east of Connell Lake, will be diverted to the Connell Lake Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project ii Feasibility Study August 1998 drainage area via a 5,200-foot, 24-inch diameter pipeline in order to increase the amount of flow available for power generation. The diversion will augment the natural basin flow by 15 percent. 5: Powerhouse. A 2,400 square foot steel-framed powerhouse will be constructed adjacent to Ward Cove on the existing KPC mill site. The powerhouse will contain a single 1.9 MW turbine/generator unit. The unit will operate over a flow range between 50 and 130 cfs. The plant will be automated to re-start without supervision, and to operate intermittently when the daily available turbine flow is below the 50 cfs minimum turbine flow rate. The turbine will be a horizontal Francis type machine, which is the most appropriate type unit with the given head and flow conditions. An 18-inch synchronous bypass valve will be installed to suppress hydraulic transient pressures that can occur when a unit trips. The valve takes the place of a surge tower. Turbine flow will be discharged into Ward Cove through a short tailrace. 6. 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. A new 400 foot long 34.5 kV transmission line will be constructed from the switchyard to an intertie with an exiting 34.5 kV line along the North Tongass Highway. AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY The project will annually generate an average of 11,643,000 kWh. Based on an installed plant capacity of 1.9 MW, the project will operate at a 70 percent plant factor. The hydrology used in the average annual energy computation was determined based on a combination of actual gaged data and synthesized monthly streamflow records during the period from 1948 to 1958. This period of time was chosen for the energy analysis because it was found to be representative of the long term average hydrologic conditions within the basin, and also included the time period (1948-1952) when flows were recorded at the dam site prior to completion of the dam. The synthesized monthly streamflow records for the remaining 5 years were calculated based on linear regression analysis of each month with recorded flows on Perseverance Creek as the independent variable. The statistical correlation was found to be very good, resulting in correlation coefficients averaging 0.92. The energy generation analysis is based on an assumed variable minimum instream flow averaging about 35 cfs, which is 31 cfs higher than the current established minimum flow release. The monthly minimum release values were established based on preliminary discussions with state and federal resource agencies, review of the existing fishery, and knowledge of optimum flow requirements for species present at the site. Obtaining agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on instream flow rates will be an important task during the licensing phase of work. The actual future negotiated flow rates will likely vary on a monthly or seasonal basis, and could be more or less than the assumed values. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project iii Feasibility Study August 1998 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 22 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 20 month period, depending upon the time of year the contracts are awarded. Based on these time frames, the project could be placed into service by December 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, the synchronous bypass valve and the steel-framed powerhouse superstructure were also obtained. Based on engineering analysis of the recommended project arrangement, and a January 1998 bid price level, the Direct Construction Cost is estimated to be $4,126,000. The Total Investment Cost, including engineering, interest during construction and escalation to a 2002 bid date, is estimated to be $6,118,000. 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 $6,953,000, and the first year annual cost is $764,000. 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 11,643,000 kWh, the first year cost of power is 6.6 cents per kWh. CONCLUSIONS Based on the studies conducted for this feasibility report, the following conclusions can be made: 1. The Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project is technically and economically feasible, and can be constructed without significant adverse environmental impacts. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project iv Feasibility Study August 1998 25 Resource agencies have shown great interest in the proposed action, and will likely be very active in pursuing the interests of their respective agencies. There are many issues that will need to be addressed in a FERC license application. One of the more significant issues involves the existing fishery in the Ward Creek basin and the minimum flow rate resource agencies can accept below Connell Dam. Another issue involves uncertainty over the extent of clean up the EPA will require at the existing mill site, and how such requirements might affect the feasibility of constructing a powerhouse at the mill. 35 The recommended project arrangement includes utilizing the existing Connell Lake Dam and all but 100 feet of the existing water supply conduit, connecting the existing dam outlets to the wood-stave pipe inlet, constructing a small diversion on the White River, constructing a new 600-foot long penstock to a powerhouse containing a single 1.9 MW unit, and constructing a 400-foot long transmission line. 4. The project will generate 11,643,000 kWh on an average annual basis. 5: The Total Investment Cost for the project is $6,118,000 based on escalation to a year 2002 bid date. 6. First year cost of power is 6.6 cents per kWh assuming no future diversion for domestic, commercial or industrial use. Ue Assuming no major delay in the development schedule presented herein, the project can be placed into service by December 2003. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Vv Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 1 Project Description SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project would be located approximately 5 miles northwest of Ketchikan and would utilize the water supply and head developed by the existing Connell Lake dam. The water supply was developed in the early 1950’s for the recently closed Ketchikan Pulp Company mill located on Ward Cove. The hydroelectric project would utilize the existing water supply pipeline to deliver water to a hydroelectric plant constructed at one of two locations on the shore of Ward Cove. Figure 1-1 shows the location of the proposed project. Connell Lake Dam was constructed by the Ketchikan Pulp Company and began storing water in 1952. Since that time, the lake has supplied approximately 45 mgd (70 cfs) to the mill on a continuous basis. The existing dam is approximately 78 feet high and impounds approximately 8,370 acre-feet of stored water. Water from the dam is transferred to the mill through approximately 3 miles of wood stave and steel pipe and two sections of concrete lined tunnel. However, due to a decrease in demands for pulp, the plant was closed in early 1997 and its water supply is being considered as a waters source for the proposed hydroelectric plant. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS The project includes two alternative powerhouse locations and one additional source of water to supplement water available in Connell Lake as shown on Figure 1-2. The supplemental water source can be used with either of the powerhouse locations. Each alternative will be evaluated separately and then evaluated utilizing the additional water supply from the adjacent White River drainage. e Alternative A - This alternative utilizes the existing water supply pipeline to furnish water to a powerhouse located on the existing pulp mill site with discharge to Ward Cove downstream of North Tongass Highway. e Alternative B - This alternative also utilizes the existing water supply pipeline but the powerhouse would be located near the head of Ward Cove, upstream of North Tongass Highway. e Added Water Source - Water from the upper reaches of White River would be diverted into upper Ward Creek and provide an additional supply of water for either of the above alternatives. A preliminary evaluation was made of several possible hydroelectric projects related to Perseverance Creek, a major tributary of Ward Creek. Although the availability of hydraulic head makes projects appear desirable, low flows and expensive electrical transmission facilities makes projects at these locations uneconomical. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 124 Feasibility Study August 1998 ALTERNATIVE A - POWERHOUSE LOCATED AT KETCHIKAN PULP MILL This alternative involves using the existing Connell Lake as the water supply source for the hydroelectric project, a penstock which utilizes the existing pipeline plus 2 new sections of steel pipe, a powerhouse located at the pulp mill, and a discharge tube which leads to Ward Cove. Pertinent statistics on the project are presented in Table 1-1. Connell Lake The lake can be operated between the crest of the spillway gates, elevation 254, and approximately elevation 210. The existing outlet works on the dam discharge to a concrete forebay which then discharges to the 60-inch wood stave pipe. This section will be modified and a 77-foot section of 48-inch steel pipe will be added to fully pressurize the entire pipeline and take advantage of approximately 44 feet of additional head. Penstock The existing pipeline will be used to convey up to 130 cfs to the powerhouse. Since the pipeline will be pressurized to the reservoir elevation, an increase of about 50 feet, the 1,780 feet of 48-inch wood stave pipe will require additional bands to withstand the additional pressure. Based upon discussions with the suppliers of wood stave pipe, approximately 2000 feet of the existing pipe will need to be re-banded. As shown in Figure 1-3, the penstock to the powerhouse will take off of the existing 48-inch steel pipe approximately 100 feet north of the filtration plant and run approximately 600 feet to the powerhouse. Several alternative sizes for the penstock were investigated (42-, 48-, and 54-inch) and the 48-inch was found to be the most cost effective. Powerhouse , Turbine, and Generator There are several potential locations for the powerhouse on the site of the closed pulp mill. Mill personnel identified several potential locations in the vicinity of the existing wood chip silos on the east side of the complex. The preliminary selected site is located adjacent to the silos, within 200 feet of the shore of Ward Cove. The powerhouse is planned to be rectangular steel and concrete building with approximately 2400 square feet of floor space. The building will house the turbine, generator, and controls as well as a small office and storage space. The turbine will be a horizontal Francis type unit with maximum output of approximately 1.9 MW at 195 feet of net head. The turbine runner elevation will be approximately 5 feet above the tailwater elevation of 18 feet. The generator will be a horizontal synchronous type with a nominal output of 1.9 MW at 4160 volts. A layout of the powerhouse is shown in Figure 1-4. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-2 Feasibility Study August 1998 Switchyard The switchyard will be located just east of the powerhouse and will include the transformers, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches and will transform the generator output to 34.5 kV. An overhead line will connect to KPU’s existing 34.5 kV line along North Tongass Avenue. Table 1-1 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description — Alternative A Existing Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Level Surface Area at Elev. 254 Reservoir Storage at Elev. 254 Reservoir Storage at Min. Pool (Elev. 210) 254 feet 400 acres 8370 acre-feet 970 acre-feet Existing Dam Type Concrete gravity Structural Height 76 feet Crest Length 600 feet Dam Crest Elevation 263.5 feet Spillway Crest Elevation 250.0 feet Top of Spillway Crest Gates 254.0 feet Penstock Length of existing 60-inch wood stave pipe 12,750 feet Length of existing 48-inch wood stave pipe 1,780 feet Length of existing tunnels 1,675 feet Length of existing 48-inch steel pipe 375 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ dam) 77 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ p. h. 600 feet Powerhouse Size 2,400 square feet Type Concrete substructure with steel frame Number of Units 4 Capacity 1.9 MW Type of Unit Horizontal Francis w/ synchronous bypass Switchyard Location Adjacent to powerhouse Intertie To KPU 34.5 kV line along N. Tongass Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 123) Feasibility Study August 1998 ALTERNATIVE B - POWERHOUSE LOCATED AT UPPER END OF WARD COVE This alternative is similar to the plan described above with the only major difference being the location of the powerhouse. The location and layout of the powerhouse and facilities is shown on Figures 1-2 and 1-3. The pertinent statistics on the project are shown in Table 1-2. Table 1-2 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description — Alternative B Existing Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Level 254 feet Surface Area at Elev. 254 400 acres Reservoir Storage at Elev. 254 8370 acre-feet Reservoir Storage at Min. Pool (Elev. 210) 970 acre-feet Existing Dam Type Concrete gravity Structural Height 76 feet Crest Length 600 feet Dam Crest Elevation 263.5 feet Spillway Crest Elevation 250.0 feet Top of Spillway Crest Gates 254.0 feet Penstock Length of existing 60-inch wood stave pipe 12,750 feet Length of existing tunnels 1,150 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ dam) 77 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ p. h. 1800 feet Powerhouse Size 2,400 square feet Type Concrete substructure wi steel frame Number of Units 1 Capacity 1.9 MW Type of Unit Horizontal Francis with Synchronous bypass Switchyard Location Adjacent to powerhouse Connection To KPU 34.5 kV line along N. Tongass Ave Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-4 Feasibility Study August 1998 The Connell Lake facilities (lake, outlet, and connecting pipeline) are exactly the same as Alternative A. The major difference in the configuration is that the penstock takes off at the upstream end of the last tunnel section and a 1,800-foot penstock leads to the powerhouse which will be located adjacent to the upper end of Ward Cove. The 48-inch steel penstock leads to the powerhouse which will be similar to the one described earlier. The powerhouse, turbine and generator will be the same as described above for Alternative A. Since the powerhouse will be located adjacent to Ward Cove, the draft tube will be about 50 foot long and will discharge directly to the cove. The switchyard will be locate just west of the powerhouse and the transmission line will run westward about 1,400 feet to the existing 34.5 kV KPU line along North Tongass Avenue. DIVERSION FROM WHITE RIVER The upper reaches of the White River is located about 2,000 feet east of upper Ward Creek and a portion of its water could be diverted into Ward Creek and Connell Lake to increase the amount of power generated in either Alternative A or B. A simple, 5- foot high, concrete diversion structure would be used to divert flows in excess of those needed in the White River below the diversion. A 24-inch pipeline, approximately a mile long, will be used to deliver water to Ward Creek upstream of Talbot Lake. This addition of this project to either of the previous alternatives will increase the amount of energy produced but will not require that the size of either alternative be modified from what has been described. Consequently, the addition of the diversion from the White River can be compared directly on it own merits (i.e., cost versus energy produced). Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-5 Feasibility Study August 1998 HARRIET PROJECT LOCATION REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND & D> “f UPPER PROJECT bs] KETCHIKAN LOWER SILVIS LAKE LOCATION CARLANNA KETCHIKAN LAKE iy Ac v ea” Q PYALG) Fadi OCEAN GRAVINA a KEY MAP ISLAND WHATMAN LAKE PROJECT LOCATION KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 0 1 2 3 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT a FERC PROJECT NO. 11599 PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1-1 WESCORP FERC PROJECT NO. 11599 KETCHIKAN PUBUC UTILITIES CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 1-2 LAT fy Amy y ey CONNELL LAKE NORMAL W.S. EL 254 INO, “f CaN WES Weg y \ i NY, i MEAITO PV HN IAZS SWITCHYARD NEW 34.5 KV TRANSMISSION LINE we \SWITCHYARD PLAN 0 SCALE IN FEET KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11599 PENSTOCK PLAN FIGURE 1-3 18” SYNCHRONOUS BYPASS VALVE “\ I & GUARDRAIL { STOPLOG | (NORMALLY WTHORAWN) | ES = S ~s | = ==] ———= 2 a CTAILWATER | TAILWATER CONTROL WEIR CONTROL THRUST BLOCK EL. 18 (APPROX. MHHW) WEIR EL 18 i 6 _ TAILRACE COVER Q 4'0 STEEL PENSTOCK —/ GENERATOR & ft FLOOR EL. 23 48" BUTTERFLY VALVE 2100 kVA GENERATOR ORAFT TUBE nid TAILRACE CONNECTED (0 EXISTING UNDERGROUND ROLL—-UP DOOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL SECTION A-A EQUIPMENT LEGEND KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONTROL AND RELAY PANEL FERC PROJECT NO. 11597 SWITCHGEAR AND STATION SERVICE POWER CENTER MOTOR CONTROL CENTER BATTERY BANK AND CHARGER POWERHOUSE PLAN AND SECTION HYDRAULIC PRESSURE UNIT FIGURE 1-4 SUMP AND SUMP PUMP SECTION 2 Drainage Basin Hydrology SECTION 2 DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROLOGY The hydrology for the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project is based upon recorded runoff at gaging stations which are, or were, located within the Ward Creek Basin. The stations which will be used in the analysis are shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Stream Gaging Stations in the Vicinity of Connell Lake Stream Gage Drainage Years of Average Runoff per Area (mi. sq.) Record Runoff (cfs) | Sq. Mi. (cfs) Ward Creek at Connell Dam Site 12.4 Sept. 1948- 142 qans) Sept 1951 Ward Creek nr. Wacker 14.0 Oct. 1948- 100* Wide Oct-1958 Perseverance Creek near Wacker 2.81 Oct. 1931- 37.2 13.3 Sept.1939; Oct. 1946- Oct. 1969 * After September 1953, flows were diverted to Ketchikan Pulp Company mill. Prior to diversion, average runoff was 133 cfs. After diversion, average flow was 64 cfs. Difference in flows is 69 cfs which is approximately equal to average diversion to pulp mill of 70 cfs (45 mgd). REPRESENTATIVE TIME PERIOD FOR HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS For purposes of hydrologic analysis and the computation of power production, it is desirable to identify a period of time that is representative of the long-term runoff, has both high and low runoff years, and is short enough to simplify the computational analysis. The Perseverance Creek gage, with approximately 31 years of record and a major tributary of Ward Creek, was reviewed with the objective of identifying about a 10 year time period that was representative of the entire 31 years. The period between 1948 and 1958 was found to have an average runoff of 36.6 cfs whereas the long term average was 37.2, or 98.4 percent of the long term average. This time period included the two highest runoff years (1949 and 1955) and the second lowest low flow year (1957). In addition, this time period also includes the time period when flows were recorded at the dam site (1948 to 1951) and the time period when flows were collected on Ward Creek downstream of the damsite before the dam began to fill (1952 and 1953). Consequently, the 10 year time period between October 1948 and September 1958 was selected as a representative period to use in the power analysis. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 2-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW VALUES October 1948 to September 1951 - A gaging station was established at the proposed site of the Connell Lake Dam in September 1948 and continued until September 1951. These flows, therefore, are exact representations of the inflow into Connell Lake and will be used unaltered. October 1951 to September 1953 - The gaging station on Ward Creek downstream of Connell Lake existed during the same time period that the gage at the dam site was being maintained as well as for several years later. Therefore, a regression analysis was performed on the two gaging station records for the overlapping period (1948 to 1951) on a monthly and annual basis. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 2-2. The analysis shows an excellent correlation as the coefficient of correlation R was equal to 0.99 for the annual values. Table 2-2 Correlation of Ward Creek Flows to Connell Dam Flows (Connell Dam Flow = X coefficient times Ward Creek Flow plus Y) Month X Coefficient Y: October 0.964 +12 November 1.057 -11 December 0.935 January 0.984 February 0.944 March 1.056 April 0.878 May 1.663 June 1.065 July 0.982 August 0.941 September 1.076 Annual 1.062 October 1953 to September 1958 - Since the Ward Creek gage after September 1953 does not include flows diverted to the pulp mill, it cannot be used as a source of natural flow data for inflow to Connell Lake and the Perseverance Creek gage must be used. This gage, Perseverance Creek, was analyzed using a regression analysis against the Ward Creek gage for the period between 1948 and 1953. This analysis also produced excellent results as the correlation coefficient R equals 0.923 on the annual flow values. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2-3. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 2-2 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 2-3 Correlation of Perseverance Creek Flows to Connell Dam Flows (Connell Dam Flows = X coefficient times Perseverance Creek Flow plus Y) Month X Coefficient October 3.44 November 3.00 December 5.57 January 4.34 February 5.30 March 3.10 April 3.61 May 0.376 June 2.60 July 2.42 August 3.19 September 3.59 Annual 2.86 AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS - CONNELL LAKE Inflow into Connell Lake has been computed following the methodology described in the previous paragraphs. Consequently, 1948 to 1951 flows are based upon flows recorded at the dam site, 1952 and 1953 flows are based upon a correlation with Ward Creek near Wacker, and 1954 to 1958 flows are based upon a correlation with Perseverance Creek near Wacker. (Wacker is now called Ward Cove). These flows are presented in Table 2-4. The average annual flow is 143 cfs, or 11.5 cfs per square mile. This represents a total annual volume of approximately 103,000 acre- feet per year. DIVERTABLE FLOWS FROM WHITE RIVER There are no gaging stations in the White River drainage upon which to estimate runoff. However, since the White River lies just east of the Ward Creek drainage, it is reasonable to estimate its runoff based upon flows in Ward Creek. The upper reach of the White River has a slightly higher average elevation than Ward Creek above Connell Lake (1320 feet vs. 1033) and a smaller drainage area (2.0 square miles versus 12.4 square miles). Consequently, it is reasonable to estimate runoff at the diversion site as being approximately 21 percent of the runoff into Connell Lake. However, not all of the runoff at the diversion site can be diverted since some flows should remain for fish and aesthetic purposes. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that 33 percent of the average annual runoff will be left in the stream. Since the average annual runoff into Connell Lake is 143 cfs, the estimated average annual runoff in the White River at the diversion site is 30 cfs and the minimum stream flow below the diversion site is 10 cfs. Consequently, the divertable flows are estimated to Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 2-3 Feasibility Study August 1998 be 21 percent of the Ward Creek flow into Connell Lake (Table 2-4) minus 10 cfs. The divertable flows are shown in Table 2-5. FLOW-DURATION CURVE DATA Data which relates streamflow to frequency of occurrence is used in hydropower investigations in selecting the sizes for turbines and generators and in estimating minimum streamflow below the points of diversion. Since only a couple years of streamflow data is available from Ward Creek prior to the construction of Connell Dam, long term flow data from Perseverance Creek has been used to develop flow- duration data and curves for the Connell Lake Project. The 33-years of flow data on Perseverance Creek was arranged in ascending order, by month, and multiplied by 3.92 (the approximate ratio of the flows in Perseverance Creek and Ward Creek at the Connell dam site). The flows for various exceedence frequencies are shown in Table 2-6. Table 2-4 Ward Creek at Connell Dam Site (cfs) Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Ave 295 195 69 97 66 113 289 208 202 94 117 192 350 248 57 9 9 58 137 209 166 121 145 250 158 101 215 89 50 66 131 230 214 42 46 79 172. 122 133 129 120 72 221 #197 168 76 79 #171 213 135 = 134 64 180 125 126 214 67 62 39 128 315 194 287 73 468 44 130 217 158 68 17 81 277) 251-3388) 177 123 60 159 214 158 54 176 117 305 122 37 21 60 26 206 225 179 51 176 60 205 227 326 34 17 32 181 213 96 66 23 63 184 206 120 259 97 50 195 212 36 22. 199 106 247 180 177 95 119 65 178 214 145 66 102 125 Table 2-5 Divertable Flows From White River (cfs) Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun 1948-49 5 11 4 15 53 35 34 = Oo 49-50 2 ) 0 50-51 37 9 1 51-52 19 18 16 52-53 19 4 29 53-54 52 6 92 54-55 74 28 Li 55-56 0 0 3 56-57 61 0 0 57-58 16 46 11 20 35 26 18 40 37 38 33 27 17 36 5 18 37 24 25 36 24 35 39 29 29 36 11 32 36 0 = oa WM-OOWONDAW arokAnNnNOWAO 10-yr avg 29 12 17 29 36 22 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 2-4 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 2-6 Flow-Duration Data for Ward Creek at Connell Lake Dam (Flows in cfs) Percent Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul Aug | Sep Exceedence 100 7 3 8 4 iL 5 5 29 2.9 2:5) 2 Gler/ 90 42 34 21 11 14 19| 38 76 31 16 | 7 19 80 75 55 38 23 26 28 55] 93 55 27 15 30 70 113 76 51 36 34 37 72 | 114 80 36 21 38 60 147 97 67 46 38 46 84] 135 97 46 32 59 50 | 193 | 126] 93 55 51 55| 105| 156| 114 59 42 84 40 244] 168] 126 84 63 72 | 131] 185] 131 76 63} 126 30 =| SO 2a edie eee 97 97} 152] 211] 160} 105] 110] 177 20 412 | 299} 253} 202] 160] 147] 190} 253] 211] 143] 168] 257 10 564 | 459] 408] 312] 278] 240] 295] 328] 299] 244] 328] 366 0 2012 | 1423 | 1410 | 1793 | 1735 | 1979 | 1415 | 1086 | 1398 | 1162 | 1415 | 1372 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 2-5 Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 3 Energy Generation Analysis SECTION 3 ENERGY GENERATION ANALYSIS PLANT OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS The project configuration and operation for this study were developed based on maximizing average annual energy generation at the least cost. In order to achieve this goal it was assumed that reservoir level sensors will be installed to provide real- time control over reservoir releases for hydropower, fishery and other uses. It was further assumed that plant operation will have dispatch priority over all other KPU- owned generating resources. METHODOLOGY An energy generation model was developed to estimate average monthly and annual energy generation for the two project alternatives. The model takes into consideration natural inflow to Connell Lake, diversion flows from the adjacent White River, assumed minimum instream releases below the dam, excess spill, conveyance losses, turbine and generator efficiencies, and assumed reservoir operating criteria. Energy for station service use and transmission losses are also accounted for, resulting in average annual net energy delivered to customers. Inflow used in the energy generation model was based on the 10 years of monthly streamflow data presented in the previous section, which we consider a representative hydrologic period of record. Use of average monthly flow data in any energy generation analysis tends to overestimate the amount of energy any given plant can generate. This occurs, particularly where minimal reservoir storage is available, because using average monthly flows does not account for the daily fluctuation of streamflow. For example, assume the average monthly flow in one month was 110 cfs, but the maximum recorded daily flow in that month was 240 cfs. Also, assume the project’s maximum turbine hydraulic capacity is 130 cfs. Calculating the energy generated in that month using only the average monthly flow would assume the entire 110 cfs would be discharged through the turbine. This would disregard the fact that on some days during the month inflow would exceed the turbine capacity of 130 cfs, and that this excess inflow is spilled at the dam if there is insufficient reservoir storage. The energy generation model used in this study takes into account the fact that daily flows actually fluctuate above and below the monthly average flow, and that a certain percentage of the monthly flow will exceed the hydraulic capacity of the turbine. This excess flow was determined for each month based on analysis of daily flow records at the Ward Creek gage and other stream gages in the immediate area during the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 3-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 selected period of energy generation analysis. As a result, the energy generation analysis approximates a daily flow analysis using monthly flow data. AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY Results of the energy generation analysis for Project Alternative A is presented in Table 3-1. Project Alternative A will generate an average of 11,643 MWH annually after subtracting out station service use and transmission losses. Station service energy requirements were assumed to be similar to current use at existing KPU hydroelectric facilities, or about 0.75% of total plant generation. Transmission losses were assumed to average 2 percent. Based on the same analytical program, results showed that Alternative B will annually generate an average of 11,960 MWH. The shorter length of penstock required for Alternative B results in slightly higher energy production than the Alternative A project configuration. The annual amount of energy generated from a hydroelectric project is dependent on the amount of annual precipitation that falls in the project drainage basin. Wet years result in above average amounts of generation and dry years result in lower than average expectations. In order to get a feel for the degree of variance in annual generation from the Connell Lake Project, a probability curve was developed based on the 10 year period of analysis. An Annual Energy Probability Curve for Alternative A was developed and is shown on Fig. 3-1. The curve was developed from a relatively small data base, but provides a good indication of the variance in generation that can be expected from year to year. Based on the 10 years of analysis for Alternative A, the lowest energy production year was 9,350 MWH, which is 80 percent of the ten-year average. The highest single year was 14,548 MWH, or 125 percent above the average. A summary of average monthly energy generation for Project Alternative A is shown below. Average Monthly Energy Generation, MWH Project Alternative A Jan 783 INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE Developing the hydroelectric project will require negotiations with state and federal agencies responsible for managing the state’s water resources and activities related to these resources. Since completion of the existing dam in the early 1950’s, the minimum required release from the dam has been about 4 cfs when such flow has been physically available. During the licensing phase of development, studies of Ward Creek will be needed to determine an acceptable balance of competing interests for the water resource. The main competing interest will be the fishery within the creek. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 3-2 Feasibility Study August 1998 Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Spt | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual 739 | 1,103 | 1.068 | 1,224 | 977 | 1,068 | 597 902 | 1,117 | 1,093 |} 971 11,643 In order to determine average annual energy generation from the project, an estimate of instream flow releases is required. Determining instream flow releases normally requires rigorous field work in cooperation with the responsible resource agencies. Because such studies will not be accomplished until the licensing phase of work, it was necessary to develop instream flows based on a less rigorous methodology. For this study the USGS Toe-Width method was used, and based on this method the following monthly instream flows were assumed. Assumed Monthly Instream Flows, cfs Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun Jul | Aug | Spt | Oct | Nov | Dec 15 15 15 40 50 50 30 30 30 60 60 10 DIVERSION FOR INDUSTRIAL USE The hydroelectric project can be designed to allow a small amount of water to be diverted for industrial use at the pulp mill site. Such water would bypasss the turbine resulting in a loss of potential generation capability. Assuming diversion of 100,000 gallons per day for industrial purposes, the hydroelectric project would generate about 20,000 kWh less per year, or less than 0.2 percent of the average annual generation. PLANT FACTOR Based on an installed capacity of 1.9 MW, the project will operate at a 70 percent plant factor. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING GENERATION RESOURCES Below is a comparison of average annual generation and plant factor of the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project to other hydro plants in the KPU system during calendar years 1992 through 1996. Comparison with KPU Hydroelectric Resources Average Annual Estimated Avg. Generation, 1992-96 Annual Energy Plant Capacity Resource MWH 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 .37 Connell Lake - 11,643 1.9 70 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 3-3 Feasibility Study August 1998 TABLE 3-1 KPU HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY ANNUAL ENERGY GENERATION ANALYSIS Connell Lake Project Alternative A - Powerhouse at Mill Site ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Physical and Operating Statistics: Target EOM| Instream Month Res. El._| Flow, cfs AVERAGE ANNUAL GENERATION = 11,643 MWH Unit 1 Rated Capacity = 1900 kW Jan 252 15 Unit 1 Rated Head = 195 feet Feb ~ 251 15 AVERAGE SPILL = 48.3 cfs Unit 1 Design Discharge = 130 cfs Mar | 230 15 AVG. EOM RES. EL. = 243.8 ft New Penstock Diameter = 48 inches Apr | 231 40 AVG. NET HEAD = 199.3 ft Penstock Length = 600 feet May | 254 50 AVG. ANNUAL PLANT FACTOR = 0.70 Spillway Crest El. = 254 Jun | 254 50 Minimum Oper. Res. El. = 210 Jul | 232 30 Average Tailwater El. = 18 Aug 242 30 Spt | 232 30 “Oct 250 60 Nov 249 60 Dec 254 10 Excess instream Flow Average Calculated | Storage | Average | Flow in| Above | Available Monthly | Average] Total Total Target | Calculated] Target Eom | surplus or | Monthly | Excess | Turbine | Turbine Turbine | Spillway | Net | Monthly | Annual EOM EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, | of Spill, | Capacity, Flow, Discharge, | Discharge} Head, | Generation| Generation Month| Year | Res.El.| Res. El. | Storage af af cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs feet MWH MWH Spt 232.0 4042 0 LJ TT Oct 250.0 7470 -3428 00] 2125 151.1 130.0 182.7 | 1,241 Nov 249.0 7268 202 00] 111.0 134.5 130.0 191.2 | 1,257 Dec 254.0 8370 -1102 68) 21.2 46.1 46.0| 32 | 2285 487 Jan 252.0 7920 450 0.0) 22.4 93.0] 92.0| 224 | 2148 | 1,056 Feb 251.0 7695 225 105 126 70.1 7oo| 45 | 2218 700 Mar 230.0 3690 4005 oo} 380] 204.1 130.0 1822 | 1,238 Apr 231.0 3868 3866 176 | oo] 1335 266.2 130.0 1722 | 1,132, May 254.0 | 8370 | 8370 -4504 39] 1193) 118.8 118.0] 191.3 | 1,220 Jun 254.0 8370 CE fj oo] 757 136.3 130.0| 195.7 | 1,287 Jul 2320 | 4042 | 4042 4328 206] 9.4 149.4 130.0} 1847 | 1,255 Aug 242.0 5854 | 5854 “1812 300] 295] 89.5 890| 00 | 2001 941 Spt 232.0 4042 4042 1812 0.0] 105.5 191.2 130.0] 632 | 1787 | 1,175 | 12,987 Connell Lake Project Excess Instream Flow Average Calculated Storage Average | Flow in Above Available Monthly | Average Total Total Target | Calculated} Target EOM surplus or | Monthly | Excess | Turbine Turbine Turbine Spillway Net Monthly Annual EOM EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, of Spill, | Capacity, Flow, Discharge, Discharge] Head, | Generation | Generation Month} Year | Res. El. | Res. El. Storage a-f af cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs feet MWH MWH Oct [1949 | 250 | 2600 | zaro | 7470 [save [ at60o[ 0.0] 2533] t77.al_ 300] 1830 | tea7 | 1.241 Nov | 1949 | 249 249.0 | 7268 7268 202 of 0.0] 142.8 167.7 430.0] 127.7 | 191.2 1949 | 254 | 25 8370 | -1102 ; too] 16.9] 31.4 31.0| 00 | 2312 | 7920 so | et — 43f tf 235.0 Lu 7587 233.2 | 3690 193, 3866 z 8370 1,175 11,133 719 | 10,312 1,175 12,964 Page 2 of 4 Connell Lake Project Instream Average Calculated Storage Average | Flow in Available Monthly | Average Total Total Target | Calculated Target EOM surplus or | Monthly | Excess Turbine Turbine Spillway Net Monthly Annual EOM EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, of Spill, Flow, Discharge, Discharge] Head, | Generation} Generation Res. El. Storage a-f af cfs feet MWH MWH 2500 | 7470 | 7470 | -3428 0.0 1936 [1.174 249.0 7268 7268 0.0 209.1 | 1,049 _ 205.2 1,227 226.4 661 193.2 1,185 182.2 1,238 188.7 987 | 186.7 1,243 234.8 232 1907 | 1.140 215.5 o- 178.3 1,140 11,275 eee a |e 191.2 | 1,287 193.2 1,312 223.6 770 193.2 1,185 201.4 1,012 | 186.2 1,034 11,956 14,548 Page 3 of 4 Connell Lake Project Excess Instream Flow Average Calculated Storage Average | Flow in Above Available Monthly | Average Total Total Target | Calculated Target EOM surplus or | Monthly | Excess | Turbine Turbine Turbine Spillway Net Monthly Annual EOM EOM EOM Storage shortage Inflow, of Spill, | Capacity, Flow, Discharge, Discharge} Head, | Generation} Generation Month} Year | Res. El. | Res. El. Storage a-f a-f cfs feet MWH MWH “Oct | 1955| 250 | 250.0 | 7470 7470 3428 | 0.0 i as . 182.7 | 1,241 — 7268 | 7268 202 4390| 72 82. 215.5 8370 8370 -1102 __ 7920 7920 450 7695 7695 3690 3690 3866 3866 8370 8370 8370 8370 4042 4042 Aug | 1956 220 | sas | sesa Spt 1956 232 232.0 4042 ; 4042 10,188 Oct | 1956 | 250 | 250.0 7470 | 7470 9,350 11,715 Page 4 of 4 Average Annual Energy (MWH) 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 10 Figure 3-1 Annual Energy Probability Curve Project Alternative A 20 SOMA OOM COMMMAOMM SONS OMT OO Probability of Annual Generation Exceeding Y-axis Value Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project SECTION 4 Project Cost Estimates SECTION 4 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present a summary of the estimated cost of constructing a hydroelectric project at Alternative site A, including the cost for the addition of the diversion from the White River. The costs are presented for 1.9 MW units with turbine/generator costs derived from quotes received from 5 equipment vendors. The costs used were the average of quotes received. All other costs were based upon recent project experience, vendor quotes, and represent January 1998 cost levels for construction in Ketchikan. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 present similar cost data for Alternative B, the project at the upper end of Ward Cove. The cost estimates shown are for turbine/generator units with a peak capacity of 1.9 MW. Studies show that this is the optimum size unit given the assumed head, flow and operating conditions. Tables 4-2 and 4-4 show that the cost of construction, including contingencies, is slightly lower for Alternative A, the pulp mill site ($4,126,000 versus $4,386,000). The total investment cost per installed kW is also slightly lower at $3,220 versus $3,381. However, as discussed in Section 3, Alternative A also generates slightly less energy on average due to marginally lower head on the unit caused by the lengthier pipeline. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 4-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 4-1 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE "A" - Powerhouse at Mill Site FERC FERC ACCT. ACCT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL 330 Land and Land Rights New Penstock and Powerhouse LS $10,000 Diversion Check Dam and Pipeline LS $15,000 : Total Acct. 330 $25,000 331 Structures and Improvements Care of Water LS $20,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $4,000 Excavation Powerhouse 600 CY 40 $24,000 Tailrace 150 CY 25 $3,750 Backfill 120 CY 18 $2,160 Gravel Surfacing 60 CY 20 $1,200 Landscaping and Revegetation LS $3,000 Riprap 140 CY 75 $10,500 Concrete Substructure 240 CY 450 $108,000 Tailrace 140 CY 450 $63,000 Insulated Metal Building Superstructure 2400 SF 60 $144,000 Miscellaneous Metals LS $25,000 Grounding Grid and Connections LS $8,000 Fire Protection eS) $12,000 Drainage System LS $8,000 Office Equipment LS $10,000 Construction Surveying - General Cont. LS $40,000 Mob/Demob - General Contract LS $250,000 Total Acct. 331 $736,610 Continued next page Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 1 of 3 August 1998 Table 4-1 (continued) Alternative A FERC ACCT NO. Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways DESCRIPTION QUANTITY FERC ACCT. TOTAL Care of Water LS $10,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $6,000 Penstock Excavation 100} CY 25) $ 2,500 Backfill 50 CY 18) $ 900 48-inch Diameter Steel Pipe Bare Pipe, 3/16" wall thickness 700 LF 77| $ 53,900 Shipping LS $ 11,000 Installation LS $ 65,000 Pipe Supports 15 EA 3,500} $ 52,500 Pipe Anchors 2 EA 4,500] $ 9,000 Expansion Joints LS $ 2,500 Outlet Valves to Wood-Stave Connection 77.5 LF 550} $ 42,625 Wood-Stave Pipe Additional Banding 3800 LF 110} $ 418,000 Diversion Facility Diversion and Care of Water LS $ 5,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $ 10,000 Excavation 50} CY 80] $ 4,000 Backfill (at check dam) 120 CY 35) $ 4,200 Concrete Check Dam 5 CY 1,100] $ 5,500 Pipe supports/anchors 55 EA 350] $ 19,250 Gates/Miscellaneous Metal LS $ 4,500 24" Dia. HDPE Pipe 5200 LF 30] $ 156,000 Pipe Installation LS $ 124,800 Revegetation LS $ 12,000 Total Acct. 332 $1,019,175 333 Turbines and Generators 1900 kW Turbine/Generator Unit LS $ 520,000 Generator Cooling System LS $ 45,000 42" Turbine Inlet Butterfly Valve LS $ 26,000 18" Synchronous Bypass Valve, Piping LS $ 80,000 Equipment Installation LS $ 60,000 Units Testing and Startup LS $ 15,000 Construction Surveying - Equip. Cont. LS $ 14,000 Mob/Demob - Equipment Contract LS $ 94,000 Total Acct. 333 | $ 854,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment Control and Protection System LS $ 275,000 4.16 kV Metal-Clad Switchgear LS $ 75,000 Station Service Power System LS $ 90,000 DC Power System LS $ 32,000 Cables, Conduits, Trays, Accessories LS $ 60,000 Reservoir Level Measurement System LS $ 20,000 Lighting LS $ 18,000 Unit Heaters LS $ 4,000 Total Acct. 334 | $ 574,000 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 2 of 3 Continued next page August 1998 Table 4-1 (continued) Alternative A FERC ACCT NO. DESCRIPTION Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment QUANTITY FERC ACCT. TOTAL 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 Gravel Surface Powerhouse Access Road LS $ 2,000 Total Acct. 336 | $ 2,000 353 | Switchyard Grading and Gravel Surfacing LS $ 3,000 Concrete Equipment Pads LS $ 6,000 Transformer, Circuit Breakers, Disconnects LS $ 235,000 Grounding Grid and Connections LS $ 15,000 Fencing, Gate LS $ 4,000 Lighting LS $ 8,000 Total Acct. 353 | $ 271,000 355 Poles and Fixtures LS $ 35,000 Total Acct. 355 | $ 35,000 356 Overhead Conductors and Devices LS $ 5,000 Total Acct. 356 | $ 5,000 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 3 of 3 Total Direct Construction Cost $3,556,785 August 1998 Table 4-2 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE "A" - Powerhouse at Mill Site PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FERC TOTAL ACCT DESCRIPTION COST COSTS 330 Land and Land Rights $25,000 331 Structures and Improvements $737,000 332 Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways $1,019,000 333. Turbines and Generators $854,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $574,000 335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment $35,000 336 Roads, Railroads and Bridges $2,000 353 Switchyard $271,000 355 _—_— Poles and Fixtures $35,000 356 Overhead Conductors and Devices $5,000 Direct Construction Cost $3,557,000 Contingency (Accounts 333,334), 10% $143,000 Contingency (All other Accounts), 20% $426,000 Direct Construction Cost Plus Contingencies $4,126,000 Owner Administration $90,000 Engineering and Licensing: FERC Licensing and Other Permits $210,000 Final Design and Field Studies $450,000 Construction Management $230,000 Total Construction Cost $5,106,000 Interest During Construction (6%/yr) $290,000 Total Investment Cost (bid Jan 98, on-line Spt 99) $5,396,000 Escalation to Proposed Bid Date (3.0%/yr) $722,000 Total Investment Cost (bid Apr 02, on-line Dec 03) $6,118,000 Total Investment Cost per Installed kW $3,220 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 4-3 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE "B" - Powerhouse at Upper End of Ward Cove FERC FERC ACCT. ACCT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL 330 Land and Land Rights New Penstock and Powerhouse LS $25,000 Diversion Check Dam and Pipeline LS $15,000 Total Acct. 330 $40,000 331 Structures and Improvements Care of Water LS $20,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $15,000 Excavation Powerhouse 600 CY 40 $24,000 Tailrace 100 CY 25 $2,500 Backfill 80 CY 18 $1,440 Gravel Surfacing 60 CY 20 $1,200 Landscaping and Revegetation LS $6,000 Riprap 140 CY 75 $10,500 Concrete Substructure 240 CY 450 $108,000 Tailrace 120 CY 450 $54,000 Insulated Metal Building Superstructure 2400 SF 60 $144,000 Miscellaneous Metals LS $25,000 Grounding Grid and Connections LS $8,000 Fire Protection LS $12,000 Drainage System LS $8,000 Office Equipment LS $10,000 Construction Surveying - General Cont. LS $40,000 Mob/Demob - General Contract LS $250,000 Total Acct. 331 $739,640 Continued next page Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 1 of 3 August 1998 Table 4-3 (continued) Alternative B FERC 7 FERC ACCT. ACCT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways Care of Water LS $15,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $35,000 Penstock Excavation 380 CY 25/$ 9,500 Backfill 150 CY 18) $ 2,700 48-inch Diameter Steel Pipe Bare Pipe, 3/16" wall thickness 1820 LF 77| $ 140,140 Shipping LS $ 28,000 Installation LS $ 168,000 Pipe Supports 40 EA 3,500} $ 140,000 Pipe Anchors 6 EA 4,500] $ 27,000 Expansion Joints LS $ 6,000 Outlet Valves to Wood-Stave Connection 775 LF 550] $ 42,625 Wood-Stave Pipe Additional Banding 2000 LF 110] $ 220,000 Diversion Facility Diversion and Care of Water LS $ 5,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $ 10,000 Excavation 50 CY 80) $ 4,000 Backfill (at check dam) 120 CY 35] $ 4,200 Concrete Check Dam 5 CY 1,100} $ 5,500 Pipe supports/anchors 55 CY 350} $ 19,250 Gates/Miscellaneous Metal LS $ 4,500 24" Dia. HDPE Pipe 5200 LF 30] $ 156,000 Pipe Installation LS $ 124,800 Revegetation LS $ 12,000 Total Acct. 332 $1,179,215 333 Turbines and Generators 1,900 kW Turbine/Generator Unit LS $ 520,000 Generator Cooling System LS $ 45,000 42" Turbine Inlet Butterfly Valve LS $ 26,000 18" Synchronous Bypass Valve, Piping LS $ 80,000 Equipment Installation LS $ 60,000 Units Testing and Startup LS $ 15,000 Construction Surveying - Equip. Cont. LS $ 14,000 Mob/Demob - Equipment Contract LS $ 94,000 Total Acct. 333 | $ 854,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment Control and Protection System LS $ 275,000 4.16 kV Metal-Clad Switchgear LS $ 75,000 Station Service Power System LS $ 90,000 DC Power System Ls $ 32,000 Cables, Conduits, Trays, Accessories LS $ 60,000 Reservoir Level Measurement System LS $ 20,000 Lighting Ls $ 18,000 Unit Heaters LS $ 4,000 Total Acct. 334 | $ 574,000 Continued next page Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 2 of 3 August 1998 Table 4-3 (continued) Alternative B FERC FERC ACCT. ACCT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL 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 Gravel Surface Powerhouse Access Road LS $ 6,000 Total Acct. 336 | $ 6,000 353 Switchyard Grading and Gravel Surfacing LS $ 3,000 Concrete Equipment Pads LS $ 6,000 Transformer, Circuit Breakers, Disconnects Ls $ 235,000 Grounding Grid and Connections LS $ 15,000 Fencing, Gate LS $ 4,000 Lighting LS $ 8,000 Total Acct. 353 | $ 271,000 355 Poles and Fixtures LS $ 60,000 Total Acct. 355 | $ 60,000 356 Overhead Conductors and Devices LS $ 15,000 Total Acct. 356 | $ 15,000 Total Direct Construction Cost $3,773,855 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Page 3 of 3 August 1998 Table 4-4 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE "B" - Powerhouse at Upper End of Ward Cove PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FERC TOTAL ACCT DESCRIPTION COST COSTS 330 Land and Land Rights $40,000 331 Structures and Improvements $740,000 332 Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways $1,179,000 333 Turbines and Generators $854,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $574,000 335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment $35,000 336 Roads, Railroads and Bridges $6,000 353 Switchyard $271,000 355 Poles and Fixtures $60,000 356 Overhead Conductors and Devices $15,000 Direct Construction Cost $3,774,000 Contingency (Accounts 333,334), 10% $143,000 Contingency (All other Accounts), 20% $469,000 Direct Construction Cost Plus Contingencies $4,386,000 Owner Administration $90,000 Engineering and Licensing: FERC Licensing and Other Permits $210,000 Final Design and Field Studies $450,000 Construction Management $230,000 Total Construction Cost $5,366,000 Interest During Construction (6%/yr) $300,000 Total Investment Cost (bid Jan 98, on-line Spt 99) $5,666,000 Escalation to Proposed Bid Date (3.0%/yr) $758,000 Total Investment Cost (bid Apr 02, on-line Dec 03) $6,424,000 Total Investment Cost per Installed kW $3,381 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study August 1998 SECTION 5 Cost of Energy Analysis SECTION 5 COST OF PROJECT ENERGY FIRST YEAR COST OF ENERGY The first year cost of energy was estimated for project alternatives A and B. Results of the analyses are presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-1, respectively. 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 Alternative A, the recommended project, Total Capital Requirements are estimated to be $6,953,000, and the first year annual cost is $764,000 based on selling bonds and beginning constructiion in April 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 11,643,000 kWh, the first year cost of energy is 6.6 cents per kWh. This is significantly below the present cost of diesel generation. Average annual energy generated from project alternative B is 11,961,000 kWh. Total Capital Requirements, based on a 2002 bid date, is $7,297,000. The first year annual cost is $793,000, which also results in a first year cost of energy of 6.6 cents per kWh. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 5-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 5-1 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE "A" - Powerhouse at Mill Site 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) $6,118,000 $174,000 $606,000 $55,000 $606,000 $40,000 $110,000 $25,000 $8,000 $30,000 $25,000 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 11,643 MWH Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study $6,953,000 $566,000 $198,000 $764,000 6.6 August 1998 Table 5-2 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE "B" - Powerhouse at Upper End of Ward Cove ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS CAPITAL COSTS Total Investment Cost $6,424,000 Financing Expenses $182,000 Bond Reserve $636,000 Working Capital Reserve $55,000 TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS $7,297,000 ANNUAL COSTS Fixed Costs Debt Service $636,000 Less Earnings on Reserves $41,000 Total Fixed Costs $595,000 Variable Costs Operation and Maintenance $110,000 Administrative and General Expenses $25,000 FERC Compliance $8,000 Interim Replacements $30,000 Insurance $25,000 Total Variable Costs $198,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (First Year) $793,000 FIRST YEAR COST OF ENERGY (cents/kWh) 6.6 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 11,961 MWH Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study 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, we estimate it would take until June 2000 to file the license application with FERC. Once the application is filed with FERC it has typically taken 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 by December 2003. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 6-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 FIGURE 6-1 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 2002 | 2003 | | 1998 1999 2000 ACTIVITY [J FMAMJJASOND|JFMAMJ JASOND|JFMAMJJASOND|JFMAMJJASOND|JFMAMJJASOND|JFMAMJJASOND SS... SS jt i thet nel | eee lane Mande FERC LICENSING itt tf thy 7 1 jt | {| | FeRCé-mo.Reports | | TTT ETT TT a TT Te ale Ty | FERC Preliminary Permit Expires | | | ||| | | | | | | i: duly 4 COC License Application Preparation | | | | | | | Ee | STL TTT +E i: __ License Application Processing _ oan TT [ a t LE TO | FiNALDESIGN = | | | oS) TTT Ty | LE LET __Turbine/GeneratorP&@S | | | | | | | | | TOC eT [TT li _Penstock Supp P&S | | | | | | | ans [CACC PE TTT ls PTT PEE TTT Ty CONSTRUCTION JET Ty EEE ine aie : TO Turbine/Generator Supply | i nialel 8: ee a + Ht ao A nastlasol + — adil =e = Spd Zae | Penstock Supply | | | | | | | | ty lala CC TUT TT TT eee i a daeas —— jj} 7 = po. i. Saini | ea! +} fj General Construction ; a | F | Unit Testing and Startup || ||| “TPT CELL COO Hh tte T im 7 —+—t hd t jj | | 7 SECTION 7 Environmental and Regulatory Issues SECTION 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Existing Information The Ward Creek drainage consists of Ward Creek and four lakes which interconnect: 1) Perseverance Lake, the highest of the four, which drains into Connell Lake via Perseverance Creek; 2) Talbot Lake, which drains into the north end of Connell Lake via upper Ward Creek; 3) Connell Lake, the location of the existing Ketchikan Pulp Company dam and diversion structure; and 4) Ward Lake, situated downstream of Connell Lake and upstream of Ward Cove. Ward Creek drains Connell Lake and flows through Ward Lake before emptying into Ward Cove. Existing water quality information for Connell Lake indicates that conditions are good. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) conducted limited studies in Connell Lake in 1989 to evaluate fishery resources and results of this study are listed below on Table 7-1. These data are similar to data collected from seven other lakes in the Ketchikan area as part of those studies. Table 7-1 Water Quality Data for Connell Lake (Source: Hubartt, 1990) LAKE DATE | TEMP | DISSOLVED | CONDUCTIVITY | ALKALINITY | pH OXYGEN (°C) (mg/l) (umhos) (mg/l) Connell; 9/20/89 Surface 14.0 8.47 20 23 6.5 Middle 9.5 20 6.5 Bottom 5.5 10.02 23 23 6.5 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. Currently, Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) holds a water right for 45 MGD (approximately 70 cfs) for pulp processing. This right could be transferred to KPU, or Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-1 Feasibility Study August 1998 alternatively KPU could apply separately for its own water right. To this end, KPU has recently applied to the State for a water right to all water above Connell Lake Dam less an amount deemed necessary to maintain the fishery resource below the dam. During its operation, KPC provided a minimum instream flow release of 4 cfs. In late 1989, the ADFG submitted an application for flow reservation to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). The requested flows vary from 56 cfs up to 141 cfs. The application is pending. Refer to “Fisheries, Instream Flow Requirements”, section for further discussion regarding the ADFG instream flow application. Median monthly (50% exceedence) flows range from a low of 42 cfs in August to a high of 193 cfs in October. Water supply available for diversion in the low flow summer months may be greatly reduced or not available. Effluent discharges by KPC into Ward Cove have been subject to an NPDES permit. Such a permit is not normally needed to operate a hydroelectric plant unless domestic wastewater is planned to be discharged from the plant. No such facilities are planned. In addition, should KPU secure land rights to a portion of the existing pulp mill site it would not inherit or otherwise be subject to discharge restrictions of the permit as long as KPU can demonstrate that the powerhouse facility is a non-polluting source. 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 Connell Lake Project will not likely to have long-term impact 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. Water quantity concerns are related to instream flows released at the dam to improve and enhance Ward Creek fisheries resources. Additional Studies A request from USEPA is on record (USEPA, 1997) for a 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 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-2 Feasibility Study August 1998 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. The existing water rights will also need to be revised and additional water rights will need to be obtained from Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). Instream flow studies may be required (see discussion under “Fisheries” section). Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures 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. FISHERIES Existing Information Information summarized below was primarily gleaned from a meeting held with the agencies at KPU headquarters on October 8, 1997, agency comment letters, and data published in prior reports. The four major resident sports fish found in the drainage include spring spawners (rainbow and cutthroat trout) and fall spawners (Dolly Varden and eastern brook trout). Perseverance Lake and Creek: Perseverance Lake currently has populations of rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Dames and Moore, 1990; Denton, 1997). Both of these species are believed to spawn in Perseverance Creek, the lake outlet (Hoffman 1990 as cited in Dames and Moore, 1990; Denton, 1997). Brook trout were planted in the 1950's (Dames and Moore, 1990); the origin of the rainbow trout is not Known. Surveys conducted by ADFG in 1989 indicate the presence of only brook trout in the lake (Hubartt, 1990). Rainbow trout are thought to spawn from mid-April to late June in the spring while brook trout spawn from the late summer through the fall (August through December) (Dames and Moore, 1990). Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-3 Feasibility Study August 1998 Talbot Lake: Hubartt (1990) sampled Talbot Lake and found resident cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in 1989 during June, July, and August. Spawning timing for cutthroat trout is considered to be from April through mid-May. Dolly Varden are thought to spawn from late August through November. Connell Lake: A dam at the outlet to Connell Lake prevents upstream migration of anadromous fish from Ward Creek, approximately 5 miles north of Ketchikan (Hubartt, 1990). As a result, only resident fish are found in Connell Lake and upstream. Cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden (Denton, 1997; Hubartt and Bingham, 1990), as well as rainbow and eastern brook trout (Dames and Moore, 1990) are found in Connell Lake. Sculpins (Cottus sp.) and stickleback (Gasterostus sp.) also inhabit the lake (Dames and Moore, 1990). Spawning timing for cutthroat trout is considered to be from April through mid- May. Dolly Varden are thought to spawn from late August through November. Rainbow and eastern brook trout spawning is thought to be the same as for Perseverance Lake (Dames and Moore, 1990). Ward Lake: Ward Lake is accessible to anadromous salmonids moving upstream from Ward Cove. The lake supports anadromous runs of steelhead trout (O. mykiss), as well as sockeye (O. nerka), coho (O. kisutch), chum (O. keta) and pink salmon (O. gorbusha). Examination of existing data does not explicitly indicate the presence of resident salmonids, but it is assumed that the four species mentioned above (i.e., cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and Dolly Varden) inhabit Ward Lake as well. Ward Creek: Ward Creek below Connell Lake is accessible to anadromous salmonids moving upstream from Ward Cove. The creek supports anadromous runs of steelhead trout (spring and summer runs), as well as sockeye, coho (Summer and fall runs), chum and pink salmon. Steelhead of hatchery origin have been planted in Ward Creek since 1981 both as mitigation and enhancement to provide for angler harvest while reducing pressure on wild stocks. Several stocks of steelhead have been planted in Ward Creek; however, those hatchery fish originating from Klawock River were comprised of both fall-run and spring-run steelhead. Some of these steelhead plants have been known to residualize (i.e., remain in the system and not migrate out to sea) (Freeman, 1995). Examination of existing data does not explicitly indicate the presence of resident salmonids, but it is assumed that the four species mentioned above (i.e., cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and Dolly Varden) inhabit Ward Creek as well. The agencies stated at the informal meeting held Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-4 Feasibility Study August 1998 at KPU’s office on October 8 that Ward Creek has all the anadromous and resident fish, has a high fisheries value, and has great potential for improvement and enhancement. Fisheries Issues and Agency Concerns As mentioned above, Ward Creek has a highly valuable fisheries that has an active enhancement program. KPC has a water right for approximately 70 cfs, and volitionally released a minimum flow of 4 cfs at the dam into Ward Creek. ADFG has a pending instream flow request for Ward Creek; however, it has not yet been adjudicated by the ADNR. The instream flows requested by ADFG are: Month/Day to Month/Day Requested Instream Flow 01/01 03/31 56 cfs 04/01 04/30 129 cfs 05/01 06/30 141 cfs 07/01 08/31 71 cfs 09/01 11/30 141 cfs 12/01 12/31 85 cfs The agencies have stated that the existing 4 cfs instream flow is not adequate and that any diversion of additional flow (in excess of the 70 cfs water right currently possessed by KPC) would require an instream flow study (i.e., IFIM). The ADNR indicated that requests for water rights on Ward Creek will require the adjudication of ADFG’s instream flow request and resolution of instream flows. Another concern expressed by the agencies was the diversion of water from the White River into the Connell Lake drainage. The White River supports an important anadromous fishery. Although the potential diversion is situated above an anadromous barrier, streamflow from the proposed tributaries contribute to the waters available for anadromous fish in the White River. In addition, the drainages proposed for diversion are in what is referred to as the “Brown Mountain Recreation Area.” This area is heavily used by recreational fishermen for resident fish. Instream Flow Requirements The most widely used and accepted instream flow assessment tool is the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) developed by the USFWS. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology is designed to quantify potential physical habitat available for each life stage of interest for a target fish species at various levels of stream discharge. Major components of the IFIM methodology include: (1) study site and transect selection; (2) transect weighting; (3) field collection of hydraulic data; (4) development or verification of habitat suitability criteria; (5) hydraulic simulation to determine the spatial distribution of combinations of depths and velocities with respect to substrate and cover under a variety of discharges, and (6) habitat simulation, using habitat suitability criteria, to generate an index of change in habitat relative to change Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-5 Feasibility Study August 1998 in discharge. The product of the habitat simulation is expressed as Weighted Usable Area (WUA) for a range of simulated stream discharges. An instream flow study has not been conducted on Ward Creek; without that study, it is not possible to accurately assess a desired instream flow for Ward Creek. In an effort to estimate a range of flows, Cascades Environmental Services (CES) utilized the USGS toe-width method as an initial means of estimating instream flow requirements. The Toe-Width methodology examines criteria for spawning and rearing which include: 1) stream discharges that provide water that covers the greatest areas of the streambeds of both the depths and velocities preferred by spawning salmonids; 2) discharges that provide water that covers selectively reduced streambed areas at both depths and velocities preferred by spawning salmonids: 3) discharges that provide water that covers the greatest streambed areas at velocities preferred by spawning salmonids; 4) rearing discharges that provide water that covers the streambed but not the banks of the channel; and 5) average wetted perimeters of the channels at water stages corresponding to the rearing discharges (Swift, 1976). The criteria for the preferred rearing discharge is based on the assumption that the survival and growth rate of young salmon is proportional to food production in the stream and that food production, in turn, is proportional to the wetted perimeter of water in the stream (Swift, 1979). Table 7-2 shows the results of the Toe-width methodology, as applied to Ward Creek. In CES’ experience, toe width results have always estimate higher instream flows, particularly for the spawning life stage, than been indicated by results using IFIM. We have observed that the correlation between rearing flows using the Toe-width method and the IFIM is mixed; it some instances, IFIM curves indicate a lower flow than the toe-width, and in other instances, a higher instream flow. It is important to note that this method and the resulting equations were developed from Washington streams and their applicability to Alaskan streams is unknown. It is the opinion of CES that the spawning flows indicated by the model may be overestimated by a factor of up to 2 or 3 from final, negotiated flows, and that the flow indicated for chinook, pink, and chum spawning salmon is very high. The range of flows that KPU could expect for spawning would range from 25 to 60 cfs, and for rearing, from 8 cfs to 20 cfs. It must also be noted that these estimates are for the amount of water required in the reach; due to inflow from the drainage below Connell Lake, releases from the dam would be less. It needs to be stressed that instream flow models, including the IFIM, are only a tool, and final instream flows are based upon a number of variables, including: 1) identified target species and their importance; 2) the flow at which maximum habitat is found for the identified target species and life stage; and 3) how the recommended flow correlates to the site-specific hydrology. A final instream flow is also subject to negotiation; final instream flows are not only affected by these factors mentioned above, but also by the potential of enhancement or mitigation measures to result in reduced instream flows. It must be noted that an accurate estimate of instream flows can only be made after completion of an instream flow study. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-6 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 7-2 Estimates of instream flow for Ward Creek, based on the USGS Toe Width method, based upon a 30-ft toe width Range of Flows (cfs) Life Stage Lower SE] Mean |Upper SE Chinook, pink and chum 55 92 129 spawning Sockeye and coho spawning 25 L 47 70 Steelhead spawning (pref) 58 80 103 Steelhead spawning 35 52 68 (sustaining) Salmon rearing 8 19 29 Steelhead rearing 9 21 32 Additional Studies If this project is pursued with an intended diversion of more than 70 cfs (the existing water right of KPC), the agencies will require an instream flow study using the USFWS Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Fish population surveys may be required, although this system may already be an index area for ADFG. Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures An instream flow study will be required by the agencies if KPU wishes to operate the project with more than 70 cfs. It does not appear that ADFG would require screening of the intake or outflow from the penstocks, based upon previous comments on the Beaver Falls and Mahoney Lakes projects. BOTANICAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions 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. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-7 Feasibility Study August 1998 Intermediate plant communities that combine elements of forest and bog habitat grow near the forest edge and along the shorelines of Connell 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 to due to construction activities associated with building the powerhouse. 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 7-3 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 powerhouse and access road, inundation of shoreline and riparian areas, and clearing of any 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. 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 the project development can not 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 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-8 Feasibility Study August 1998 Table 7-3 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) 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 lewisii) 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) Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-9 Feasibility Study August 1998 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: Birds: 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). 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 in 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. 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 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-10 Feasibility Study August 1998 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 /upus ligoni) is a high profile species known and/or suspected to occur in the vicinity of the project area (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), respectively. Studies of wolf populations and range are 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. 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 Connell Lake and Ward Creek system have been identified as having a high fisheries value. Ward Creek contain anadromous fish runs throughout the year and the area in general receives a great deal of recreational use from residents and visitors alike. The USFS is planning trail, campground, and parking improvements around the lake, which may in turn lead to increased pressure on area wildlife. Right-of-way land Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-11 Feasibility Study August 1998 clearing and construction of the powerhouse may also effect wildlife through possible loss of habitat. The agencies are concerned about the project’s aerial transmission lines and their impacts on birds. Powerline designs that minimize the chance of bird collision and/or electrocution should be developed using current state of the art practices (Avian Powerline Interaction Committee, 1992). The status of threatened and endangered species is a concern for the natural resource agencies and most likely will need to be addressed if these projects are considered for licensing. Additional Studies For project licensing wildlife and habitat field studies would likely include of the following: Qualitative surveys of wildlife habitats and plant communities 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). 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 richness within the project area. New transmission line construction should be built using state of the art practices to avoid and minimize avian collisions with powerlines as well as providing nesting platforms, territorial boundaries, and hunting perches for raptors. Proper designing of roads 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 limited within the project area due to a lack of forage and refuge cover at certain times of the year. Nevertheless, the project 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 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-12 Feasibility Study August 1998 (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 Connell Lake, the dam, and the upper portion of the existing wood stave pipeline are on lands owned by the USFS. The lower portion of the existing pipeline and the Alternative B powerhouse site are located on lands recently patented by the Borough. The Borough has indicated they would consider leasing or selling any lands required for project facilities. The Alternative A powerhouse site is on industrial lands owned by Ketchikan Pulp Company. The Connell Lake Project area has been designated as a Special Interest Area by the USFS. The primary goal of the Special Interest Area is to preserve areas with unique archaeological, historical, scenic, geologic, botanical, or zoological values (USFS, 1997b). Only facilities and recreation developments that contribute to the interpretation of natural features or provide for compatible public uses and that blend with the natural setting are allowed. Special Interest Areas are characterized by generally unmodified environments, and remain largely undisturbed by human uses or activities, except for localized interpretive purposes and recreation developments. Recreation is the dominant land use in the project area, consisting of developed and dispersed recreation. The existing 440-acre Ward Lake Recreation Area, that includes only the immediate area surrounding Ward Lake, is recommended for expansion to 7,535 acres in the USFS Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1997b). The expansion would include all National Forest lands that drain into the Ward Creek/Ward Lake watershed. The Ward Lake Recreation Area currently does not include any of the project features (dam, pipeline, powerhouse). The dam and upper portion of the existing pipeline would be included in the Ward Lake Recreation Area with the expansion. 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. Alternative A is located in an area zoned as heavy industrial. This zone is reserved for industrial development; hydroelectric development should be a permitted use within this zoning designation. The EPA is currently reviewing water quality, clean-up and restoration issues associated with the mill closure in 1997. It is not known at this time whether KPU could be made liable for any of the clean up if it constructs hydropower facilities on the mill site. The Ward Lake area has been designated as an environmentally sensitive area in the Ketchikan District Coastal Management Program (Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 1983). According to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, the Ward Lake area Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-13 Feasibility Study August 1998 consists of Ward Lake and Ward Creek, downstream of Ward Lake, to Ward Cove. The Ward Lake area is considered an environmentally sensitive area because the entire Ward Creek/Lake system offers salmon spawning habitat, and because Ward Lake is a popular sportfishing and picnicking area with developed recreation facilities. Development is not precluded in environmentally sensitive areas. However, special consideration must be given to the identified concerns. No National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, National Trails Systems or Wilderness Areas are currently located within the Connell Lake Project area. Ward Creek, including Ward Lake was reviewed, however, by the USFS for inclusion as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (USFS, 1997b). Land Use Issues and Agency Concerns The extent of environmental clean up of the pulp mill site has not been determined yet, but such action casts significant uncertainty over what KPU'’s liability could be if it pursues development of the Alternative A powerhouse site. No major concerns regarding land use are anticipated for Alternative B. Temporary disturbance to recreation activities may occur during construction activities. 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 Special Use Permit would likely be required from the USFS. Costs would be minor. Potential Mitigation/Enhancement Measures No mitigation or enhancement measures are expected. RECREATIONAL 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. Dispersed recreation activities including hiking, hunting, fishing, and canoeing/kayaking occur throughout the project area. The area has several developed campgrounds, picnic areas, and hiking trails and is a very popular recreation destination for locals and visitors. Connell Lake is used for boating, fishing, hiking and firewood gathering. Connell Lake Trail, which starts at the parking area near Connell Lake Dam, is a 2 mile trail that skirts the north edge of the Lake. Last Chance Campground is located less than a mile down Ward Lake Road from the Connell Lake Dam. It has 19 camp sites. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-14 Feasibility Study August 1998 Within the Ward Lake Recreation Area, located less than 3 miles down Ward Lake Road from the dam, there are 2 campgrounds (Signal Creek with 24 campsites, and Three C’s with 4 campsites). The Ward Lake Group Day Use Area and Grassy Point Picnic Area are also located within the Ward Lake Recreation Area. Ward Lake Nature Trail is a 1.3 mile trail around Ward Lake that connects all of the facilities around the Lake including the campgrounds, picnic areas, and fishing sites. The trail starts at the Ward Lake Day Use parking area. It is a heavily used trail with signs interpreting old-growth forests. Perseverance Trail is a 2.3 mile trail to Perseverance Lake. The Perseverance Trail starts near the entrance to the Three C’s Campground. An old trail built during the CCC era extends from the Perseverance Trail to Connell Lake. The .4 mile CCC Trail has fallen into disrepair and has low use. The Ward Creek Recreation Area provides one of only a few opportunities for recreation in the area that is accessible by car. It is the primary recreation area for the community of Ketchikan. Ward Creek provides some of the best stream fishing in the Ketchikan area. The USFS is planning to upgrade the Connell Lake trail and parking lot at the dam. They are also pursuing public access along the wood stave pipeline route and are looking at building a ramp into Connell Lake and cleaning up the Lake by removing the tree stumps (USFS, pers. comm. 1997c). The Ketchikan Trails Plan has also identified several projects for the area. Development of a new paved multiple use (biking/walking) trail parallel to the new Ward Lake Bypass from Ward Cove to Last Chance Campground was identified during the Ketchikan Trails Coalition planning process as one of the “Top Ten” actions. Improvements to Ward Lake Nature Trail to make it “barrier-free” was also identified as a top ten action in the Ketchikan Trails Plan. Development of a new Ward Creek fishing access trail off of the Perseverance trailhead is listed as a “Second Ten Actions” item in the Plan (Ketchikan Trails Coalition, 1995). The USFS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) designation around Connell Lake is Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM), and Roaded Natural (RN) downstream of Connell Lake. 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 RN designation, alterations to the landscape are subordinate, all methods of access and travel may occur when compatible with intended activities, recreation structures and facilities are allowed for site protection and user convenience, and interactions with others may be moderate to high. Recreation Issues and Agency Concerns Since the existing dam and pipe would be used for the proposed hydroelectric project, no significant impacts to recreation activities in the area are expected. Construction activities at the dam and pipeline may temporarily disrupt recreation visitors for short periods of time. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-15 Feasibility Study August 1998 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 The USFS may request upgrades to the recreation opportunities in the area, as part of project licensing, such as construction of an outhouse at the Connell Lake trailhead. VISUAL RESOURCES Existing Information Connell Lake is composed of hemlock-spruce forest which extends to the edge of the water. The dam is located on the western side of the lake and there is a parking lot near the dam. During times when water is drawn down from the lake, tree stumps usually inundated by the reservoir are exposed. In the driest months of the year the level of the lake may lower by as much as 20 to 30 feet. During the rainy season, when the water level is high, the tree stumps are not exposed. Ward Creek is a gently meandering creek that passes several campgrounds and picnic areas, and can be seen from Ward Lake Road at several locations. The existing wood stave pipe traverses gently sloping terrain surrounded by forests. The upper portion of the pipeline is near Ward Lake Road. The USFS has assigned the Visual Quality Objective of Retention to the project area, except in the developed recreation facilities around Ward Lake. In the Ward Lake area, the Visual Quality Objective of Modification in the foreground and Partial Retention in the middleground and background is applied. Under the Retention designation, design activities should not be visually evident to the casual observer. Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments may be made on a case by case basis. Developments must use designs and materials that are compatible with forms, colors, and textures found in the characteristic landscape. Under the Modification designation, activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but will borrow from existing form, line, color and texture. Alterations appear to be natural when viewed as foreground or middleground. Under the Partial Retention designation, activities may be evident, but will remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape (USFS, 1997b). Visual Issues and Agency Concerns The proposed project would use the existing dam and pipe, therefore, impacts to the visual resources would be minimal. The new powerhouse for both alternatives would be visible. The alternative A powerhouse site may be visible from the new highway. The alternative B powerhouse site may be visible from Tongass Avenue and from Ward Cove. Additional draw downs to Connell Lake would change the appearance of Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-16 Feasibility Study August 1998 the Lake during those periods. Changes to instream flows in Ward Creek would change the appearance of Ward Creek and Ward Lake. Additional Studies No major studies are anticipated for the license application visual resources. 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 three historic sites associated with the National Recreation Area. Since the project features are outside of the National Recreation Area boundary, it is not expected that the proposed project would impact the reported historic sites. 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. 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 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-17 Feasibility Study August 1998 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. FERC LICENSING ALTERNATIVES There are three strategies to licensing the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project; 1) the conventional approach, 2) the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) approach as adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 1997, and 3) filing a Small Conduit Exemption from Licensing. The main difference in the first two approaches is the entity preparing the environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA and related statutes. Under the conventional approach, FERC performs the environmental review. With the APEA approach, the applicant (KPU) is responsible for preparing the NEPA environmental assessment. Under the APEA process, there is more intensive consultation with resource agencies, tribes and non-governmental organizations. The main advantage of the APEA approach is that agencies become more involved early on during preparation of the license application and NEPA document, which results in better certainty about what terms and conditions FERC will impose when it issues the license. The third approach, filing a conduit exemption, was used by applicant’s many years ago for projects that involved utilizing an existing conduit. The original intent of the conduit exemption application was to streamline the FERC review process for projects that appeared to have a minimal amount of construction impact. In practice, resource agencies are given “mandatory conditioning” power, which takes FERC out of any potential mediating role. Consequently, when an applicant files for an exemption from licensing, the applicant must accept any terms and conditions mandated by agencies. Because of this lopsided negotiating leverage, applications for exemption from licensing are rarely, if at all, ever filed with FERC anymore. The new licensing procedures adopted by FERC in 1997 appear to be an improvement over past procedures, and significantly reduces the amount of uncertainty about the terms and conditions FERC will impose when it issues the license. For these reasons, and the reasons stated above, it is recommended that KPU proceed with development in accordance with the APEA process. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7-18 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 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project, the following conclusions can be made: 1. The Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project is technically and economically feasible and does not appear to present any significant adverse environmental or social impacts. 2. The resource agencies have been contacted during the course of this study and have shown interest in the proposed development. It is expected they will continue to pursue the interests of their respective agencies, particularly as it may relate to minimum flows below Connell Dam. 3. The recommended project configuration includes using the existing Connell Dam and water supply conduit, constructing a diversion from the adjacent White River to increase the available water supply, and constructing a new penstock between the conduit and a powerhouse that would be constructed at the mill site on Ward Cove. A 400 foot long transmission line would deliver the generated power to an existing KPU line. 4. Assuming that the suggested instream flows are accepted by the resource agencies, the project should generate approximately 11,643,000 kilowatt-hours of energy on an average annual basis. 5. The total investment cost for the project, including construction, contingencies, engineering, and escalation to a bid date in 2002 is $6,118,000. 6. The cost of power during the first year of operation is approximately 6.6 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is significantly less than the alternative cost of diesel generation. 7. Unless major problems are encountered during licensing, it is expected that the project can be placed in service by December 2003. The findings from this report indicate an economic hydropower project can be constructed by utilizing the existing dam and conduit and assuming resource agencies will be reasonable in their assessment of their concerns. It is therefore recommended that KPU continue to pursue development of the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project. Connell 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 Bete acer eal ed tae sated + Sete eat oe tat Het seied Pele A Pola etd a Welle etaled tel atel ate fa ei 1 RPO Bre seta tet eee tt ert aap erat ett tet t eet taf cette etfs atte 1 SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Haisaictay stepirect niet staid bela et etaie oop le tdalala lalate at ad eteltuals 1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY aes ifes blabla lope total fell toloadat foley ttectclafal oo) sad” datal Math lefdotdel d tied tlepstod feloatedat dite al 2 AREA BEDROCK GEOLOGY ()j ct )e bola Sd slat isls blob d alert lolol ate a satis] «tele stave lala sll ails a 2 GEACTATION eel Rie A Ter letal talalan Utell Fectatat al telelal Y Valeted tea tral waslel dt telon ateh elated ttl 2 SEFSMICTIY 1 sles! stake 4 lolelie lehstalels lalate Gotel stole srele/-auokal + eifaea-ledelal teil arate) s-pleiedstae loll alee 2 SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 00.20... ee 3 BRE eee eee Et AHes a tee telat tleabdeld ct lel select etree tebere ale lel eeelace foaaelelecidtety 3 CARICA ASAE agate cece ete ae gota cter le dott alto ate tet ea tate aeaete artat 5 COIN NEE eae ee atten etchant fleet eet oon tte tit 6 CTLOS RB sre os lt bitte 4 oa staf als tape totic tertn ts dent ops y stab-ly ety otalee tela) al ft tte lat otal 8 SELECTED REPERENGED (alco stele clebttletallelel data lala ody falaalel dies cha telat olan felt dalelaaeh dotatalde elalatetala 9 DOE VST terete eters etch ade tt ated atetece tala ital seal a eee ere tle ta taratolota lads tle MAPS EV TS TON rata alact st elt athaaarta Etcetera tcl at ata PHOTOGRAPHS 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. REM 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. 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. 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. ayS™M 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. RSM 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. 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 road 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. BS™M 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. . a t oo wwe \% ETERS od WA? PROFESSION” All Mul Mae Ralph Swedell Malcolm A. Menzies, P.E. Engineering Geologist Civil Engineer Ysh Se SELECTED REFERENCES 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 Hazards 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. C:\WP61\REPORTS(972116.REP R & M ENGINEERING, INC. CARLANNA LAKE SITE PIPE “7 SCALE IN MILES LOCATION MAP KPU HYDROELECTRIC 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY DATE “CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. DRAWING-WO- L 11-24-97 RS. | 972116 1 OF 10 J 972116/KET—GEO.DWG/1:1 LEGEND; TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHIC TERRAINE -| GRAVINA—NUTZOTIN BELT ALEXANDER TERRAINE CRAIGSUBTERRAINE ANNETTE SUBTERRAINE TAKU TERRAINE TRACEY ARM TERRAINE STIKINE TERRAINE of Wales BASED ON 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, FIGURE 16-2 SCALE IN MILES So 75 100 R eee HIGH-ANGLE FAULT ee THRUST FAULT —7— —2— UNDEFINED BOUNDARY OF TERRAINE & M ENGINEERING, INC. Ketchika i SAXMAN Vi VA) YAN) i GEOLOGIC TERRAINE UNITS KPU HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ SCALE CHECKED BY R.S. PROJECT NO. 972116 DRAWING NO: 2 OF 10 L R & M ENGINEERING, INC. CONNELL LAKE SITE GRAVINA ISLAND LEGEND — eKpgs| PLAGICLASE—PORBHYRITIC GRANODIORITE AND N \ QUARTZ DIORITE (CRETACEOUS) 'Kpg-| GABBRO (TERTIARY) METAVOLCANIC ROCKS SCALE IN MILES GEOLOGIC MAP KPU HYDROELECTRIC 7.5 FEASIBILITY STUDY DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. ~ DRAWING NO. 11-24-97 K.P. RS. 972116 3 OF 10 ) Petersburg Ketchikan SCALE IN MILES _—_ ee 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 FIGURE 3 MAP SHOWING SURFACE ELEVATION OF PLEISTOCENE GLACIATION IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA (AFTER COULTER, 1962) DATE SCALE DRAWN BY x ( 11-21-97 NOTED | K.P. LS. 972116 9721167 52—cLAC.DWG/FIT -NOTE; BASED ON 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, FIGURE 16-2 SCALE IN MILES 0 25 $0 75 100 125 150 FIGURE 6 SOUTHEAST ALASKA SEISMIC ZONE MAP DATE SCALE PROJECT NO. ( 11-20-97 NOTED LP. 5. 972116 972116/SE-EARTH.OWG/FIT \ \957@) 949 was? raat 8° \36° | EARTHQUAKE _EPICENTERS- TH | THIS MAP INCLUDES EPICENTERS OCCURING WITHIN THE AREA LeeEND BOMDED BN SBO AND GLO N LATITUDE, 130.0 AND 40.0 RICHTER MAGNITUDE 2. EPICENTER LOCATION AND MAGNITUDE DATA COMPILED e@e<50 FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, A_FILE,AMO UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, @ so toss GEOPHYSICAL INSTITUTE, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH REPORT WO. 8, AVTARLE OF MLASKAN EbRTHQUUKES _(7e9-lpel, wast 1962, @ >5* SCALE IN MILES 134° ! a KPU HYDROELECTRIC * FEASIBILITY STUDY DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. DRAWING HO. 11-24-97 | R.S. 972116 6 oF 10 LEGEND WELL-DEFINED INFERRED ethene abe THRUST FAULT MAP OF SOUTHEASTERN SCALE IN MILES ALASKA AND ADJACENT CANADA SHOWING 25 50 MAJOR FAULTS ( 11-24-97 -P. 5. 972116 7 OF 10 > 8 2 2 = S J 4 u z z 9 S ° N Ns a . ~ DIVERSION 4 PIPELINE; DAM = } LAKE S&S EXIST. DAM a CONNELL. LAKE SITE KPU HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY STEEL PENSTOCKS c \ \ ALT, 1 POWERHOUSE l 12/19/97 SCALE 1” = 3000’ DRAWN BY CHECKED BY KP. | RS. PROJECT NO. 972116 APPENDIX B Turbine Vendor Cost Data BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. [3 4 [> 3 Spruce Road « Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355 HYDRO TURBINES Telephone: (610) 889-9900 « Fax: (610) 889-9901 &R EQUIPMENT November 5, 1997 WESCORP 18021 15th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 Seattle, WA 98155 Attention: Mr. D. Thompson Subject: Lake Connell 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 for each alternative set of conditions, one horizontal Francis type turbine including synchronous generator and hydraulic pressure unit for operation of the wicket gates. Also included is a controls/switchgear package. The turbine configuration proposed has the turbine runner mounted directly onto the generator shaft resulting in a compact arrangement. The following data is submitted: Alternative 1 Turbine Type - Horizontal Francis Runner Diameter - 670 mm Speed = 900 rpm Max. Turbine Output (@ 195 feet Net Head) - 1890 KW (130 cfs) Runner Centerline Setting to Tailwater - 4.5 ft above Tailwater Intake Type - Spiral Case Draft Tube Type - Elbow Runner Material - Stainless Steel Mr. D. Thompson Alternative 1 (continued) November 5, Turbine Performance at 195 feet Net Head: Output (KW) Efficiency (%) 1890 88.0 1787 91.0 1647 92.4 1396 90.0 1093 86.0 825 82.0 644 78.0 Generator Type Generator Rating Speed Voltage Temperature Rise Power Factor Excitation Our budgetary price for the above equipment is as follows: Turbine, Generator, HPU and controls/switchgear Alternative 2 Turbine Type Runner Diameter Speed Max. Turbine Output (@ 205 feet Net Head) Runner Centerline Setting to Tailwater Flow (cfs 130 LTS, 108 94 77 61 50 Horizontal Synchronous 1800 KW (Nominal) 900 rpm 4160 V 80°C over 40°C Ambient 0.90 Brushless = USS 833,000 Horizontal Francis 600 mm 900 rpm 1537 KW (100 cfs) 6 ft above Tailwater 1997 Mr. D. Thompson Si November 5, 1997 Alternative 2 (continued) Intake Type - Spiral Case Draft Tube Type - Elbow Runner Material - Stainless Steel Turbine Performance at 205 feet Net Head: Output (KW) Efficiency (%) Flow (cfs) 1537: 88.5 100.0 1477 91.0 O3ie 5) 1339 93-0 82.9 1218 93-0) 75.4 1005 90.0 64.3 818 86.0 54.8 644 82.0 45.2 Generator Type - Horizontal Synchronous Generator Rating - 1500 KW (Nominal) Speed - 900 rpm Voltage - 4160 V Temperature Rise - 80°C over 40°C Ambient Power Factor al 0.90 Excitation - Brushless Our budgetary price for the above equipment is as follows: Turbine, Generator, HPU and controls/switchgear = US$ 778,000 Prices are F.O.B. Ketchikan, Alaska and include any applicable import duties. Delivery for the proposed equipment is approximately 11 months after contract award. The controls/switchgear will have full manual and automatic operation capability. Station service equipment and main power transformer are not included. Mr. D. Thompson November 5, 1997 Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. Mark S. Barandy enc. cc Mr. W. Benning; BHP Date To From 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 hornzontal 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 ul U2 U3 ul v2 Net head (ft) | 330 350 320 195 205 450 Discharge 150 55 75 130 100 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 i Turbine 3926 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 iii 4200 1900 1500 1300 Speed (rpm) 900 Ee 900 900 900 720 Budget Price |$ 762,850.- fi 463,600.- $ 762,850.- $ 496,500.- $ 474,200.- 7 oar; lau. 11/18/97 sch GILKES Fax Message Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd. : Canal Iron Works To : WESCORP Reet Attention of © MM: Don Thompson laa LA9 7BZ Bax: 01839 732110 From : lan Porter els: 01539 720028 Fax Number : 00 i 281 $34 6577 (Internationa) +44 1539) Date : 25 November, 1997 E-mail: chris@gilkes.com ~ ite: ii Pikecu-aet. Sheet 1 of : 3 web site: hitp//www.pilkesu-aet.com Telefax FO/ SUBJECT : Request for Budgetary Price Qusutions for KPU Ketchikan, Alaska Dear Don, We are pleased to supply che following budgein ys -res 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 al! three projects for your consideration. In general the Turgo Imoulse Turbine equipment prices are higher than the Francis prices. The price ditference varies on each site option due to differences in turbine p:ices for the turbines required. To compensate for the higher turbine cost the Turge cffers ether important technical and financial advantages aver Francis turbines on project civu sost* and running costs. The other important technucai and financial advantages offered by the Turgo Impulse turbine are - a) The Turgo does not require a surce to er incorporating in the penstock pipeline design te accommodate turbine pressurs surges. Boing an Impulse type turbine the Turgo does not preduce sufficient surg: Pressures to necessitate this feature. bd} The Turgo ts more capable in snalutzi .3 slectrical supply frequency stability dunng load changes than a Francs because fas speed gaverning is possible by regulation of the jet deJector mechanism withovi prcducing any oresgure surge in the penstock ¢} The Turgo does no: have close ronni.y surfaces round :he runner periphery as a Francis dees so is able to handle abrasive water without undue wear taking place a) The Turgo is a rugged machine specitically designed to provide reliable trouble Tee Operation withour the need of Feaien: maimenance on projects which cperate with abrasive watcr es Being an Impulse Turbine desig”. the Turgo Lmpulse turbine do not suffer from cavitation wear as a Francis turbiny do2s NOW-25-97 241 Ar GILKES INC. 2e1ss46sT7 P.as etcNe S87 14i23 0 PROM GILBEPT 4ilint= 2 TRIN TG BILKES INC: =P. 23-06 NIP'T3522.3 & 4 p2ze 2 21 November 1997 f) Turgo Impulse turbines de net ha-e 2 limit on the minimum opcrable flow rate asa Francis Turbine does If these turbine yenerator sets are required to cperc.: with speed governing to assist in mainiaining electrical supply frequency aud are sequired iv ¢ > yer a wide How range then the Turgo Impulse turbine has much co offer If the suppty ware) veoctalas abrasives then they offer considerable advartages over Francis Turbines The scope of equipment we have included in the following package prices is :- Francis and Turgo Impulse Turdir = Optic ns. Main Intet Valves with Fail-sate to close operators. Electronic Speed Govermng Equipment. Hydraulic Control Module Systems 4.16kV Synchronous Generators Lubricating Oil Systems Electrical Control & Swzch-gear Pa els. Expon Packing USA Import Duty Sea-freigh: to USA intermatiora! » cap. + The electrical terminztion point of the above pevkage is at the outgoing terminals of the Swizchboards, please note we have not inciuded $2, Transformers oc any other outgoing clectncal items. We submit the foliowing Turbine Generavor 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 700G 190 Francis Turbire, 3650 kW Syachronous Generator Packages = 2,090,0)0.00 USD 2 Gilkes 38HCTIT/J Turgo Turbine, 3360 kW S.chronous Generator Packages 2,890,000.C0 USD Whitman Lake Unit 2 Number of Units 1 1 Gilkes $00G150 Francis Turbine, 1400 kW Synchrcnous Generator Package 640,000.60 USD a —-- —_——— 1 Gilkes 2SHCTIT/J Turgo Turbine, 1285 kW Syrcbrencus Generator Package 765,000.09 USD Whitman Lake Alternative to Unit | Numbes of Units 2 each for 125 cfs = 250 cfs total. 2 Gilkes 790G190 Francis Turbine. 308C KW Sync*ranous Generator Packages 2,010,000.00 USD 2 Gilxes 78HCTIT’) Turgo Turbine, 2790 kW Synch uncus Generator Packages 2,828,000.09 USD NOY—-25-97T 69:82 AM GILKES Inc. Plad SPIE 987 Lat. FROM ea P0404 NIP’T3522,3&4 Pezc 2. November 1997 Lake Connell Gilk: Hauke SPs} Lake Connell Unit | Number of Units 1 1 Gilkes 675G270 Francis Turbine, 1870 KW S; ach orcus Generator Package 805,0CC.00 USD 1 Gilkes 43HCTIT/S Turgo Turbine, 1710 kW Synchronous Generatur Package = 1,5 10,000.00 USD Lake Connell Alternative Alternative Unit 1 Number of Units 1 : Gilkes 625G276 Francis Turbine, 1520 KW Syncnry ious Generator Package 726,590.00 USD 1 Gikkes 38HCTIT,J Turgo Turbine, 1410 kW Synchronous Generator Packaze =i, 105,000.C0 USD Calanna Lake i 3824 Calanna Lake Unit 1 Number of Units 1 1 Gilkes 45¢Gi30 Francis Turbine, 1310 kW S$: nciu onus Generator Package 657,000.00 LSD 1 Gilkes 22 SHUUILS Lurgo Turbine, 1216 kW Synchroncus Generatui Package 706,000.00 USD - For Whitman Lake we hope that we have iniernisied your requirements cuiecily as in your enquiry the number of units stated is 2 with a design max discharge as 150 cfs. We have offered two umits each capable of passing 150 cfs for Unit i and 2 two units each capable of passing 125 cfs for Alternative to Unit | We hope that the above prices provide everythiny you require but if you require any clarification or modification please contact us Best Regards, hn Tan Porter, Hydro & Power Systems Division. Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Lid TOTAL P. ae VOITH HYDRO Voth io, POWER GENERATION Telephone: 509 255 6398 Teletax: 509 255 6399 Voith Hydro, inc., 203 N. Kelsea Court, Liberty Lake, Washington 99012 Email: pymegrath@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 inlet 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 #8, 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: $700,000.00 The above prices are exclusive of any applicable taxes or duties, are FOB Ketchikan, and do not include installation/commissioning. VOITH GROUP OF COMPANIES Kvaerner Hydro Power November 5, 1997 Mr. Don Thompson Wescorp 18021 15" Ave. NE, Suite 101 Shoreline, WA 98155 Subject: Whitman Lake Project Lake Connell Project Carianna Lake Project Dear Mr. Thompson: Please find below our reply to your telefax dated 29-Oct-97. Due to our current workload, the information is very limited and preliminary, however should the project go ahead we would be very interested to have the opportunity to put together a firm proposal. The following is for a water-to-wire equipment package, based on the head and flow given in your fax. The water-to-wire package includes supply of turbine, turbine shut-off valve, hydraulic power unit, generator, and switchgear/controls: Whitman Lake Project Unit 1: horizontal Francis; 3.9 MW; 720 rpm Unit 2: horizontal Francis; 1.5 MW; 1200 rpm Unit 3: horizontal Francis; 4.4 MW; 720 rpm Preliminary budget price = USD$ 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. . KVAERNER Kvaerner Hydro Power Inc Tet -1 39 Stevenson Street Fax <1 Suite 1075 San Francisco, CA 94105 USA