HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Supply Creek Feasibility Study FINAL (003)
Feasibility Study
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Hoonah, Alaska
December 9, 2019
Prepared for:
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering
Anchorage, Alaska
This page intentionally left blank.
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
i | December 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Project Arrangement ........................................................................................................... 3
4. Energy Generation .............................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Results ........................................................................................................................... 5
5. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Indirect Construction Costs ............................................................................................ 6
5.2 Contingencies ................................................................................................................ 6
5.3 Results ........................................................................................................................... 6
5.3.1 System Integration Costs ...................................................................................... 7
6. Development Considerations ............................................................................................. 7
6.1 Environmental Issues ..................................................................................................... 7
6.2 Regulatory/Permitting Issues ......................................................................................... 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Water Supply Creek Flow Duration Curve ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Water Supply Creek Average Monthly Flow .................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Water Supply Creek Average Monthly Generation ........................................................ 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Water Supply Creek Project Parameters ........................................................................ 4
Table 2. Energy Summary ............................................................................................................ 5
Table 3. Cost Estimate Summary ................................................................................................. 6
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Supporting Documentation
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
ii | December 2019
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
CDR Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design
Report
cfs Cubic feet per second
HDPE High-density Polyethylene
HEP Hydroelectric Evaluation Program
IPEC Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
kV Kilovolt
kW Kilowatt
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
1 | December 2019
1. Introduction
HDR was retained by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) to perform additional
evaluation of a potential small hydroelectric project on Water Supply Creek near Hoonah, AK.
The project is located about 5 miles south of Hoonah as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
The project has been investigated at a reconnaissance level several times in the past with the
most recent work being associated with Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric
Projects Conceptual Design Report (CDR) prepared for Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
(IPEC) dated February 2011. In this report two alternatives, both with powerhouses
downstream of the existing water supply intake, were evaluated. This report looks at a
powerhouse upstream of the existing water supply intake which would have no impacts to the
City’s water supply. Additionally, since the time of the CDR, the nearby Gartina Falls
hydroelectric project has been constructed. The effect of this is to lower the costs of
transmission and communication associated with a Water Supply Creek project.
This work has been performed at a conceptual level with the intent of making a refined estimate
of the energy potential of the basin and the cost to develop the project. The work included a field
visit to the site by team members; a review of available project documentation and related
information; development of a refined project layout; a review of existing hydraulic and
hydrologic parameters; an estimation of energy production and new facility costs; and
preparation of this summary report. A limited survey effort was also performed to establish
benchmarks and verify key elevations. This work did not include a geotechnical investigation.
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
2 | December 2019
2. Hydrology
Water Supply Creek is located on NE Chichagof Island, a large (over 2000 square-mile) island
in the Alexander Archipelago. The stream is near the town of Hoonah, and 40 miles west of the
Juneau. Climate is maritime, with major storm activity in late fall (October and November),
snow accumulation at higher elevations in the winter, and cool, rainy summers. Stream runoff
on the island tends to be flashy, with very little basin storage other than high elevation
snowpack.
Ideally, a historical record of stream flow of 30 years or more is desirable to analyze a stream of
interest. However, long-term stream flow records are not usually available for small or remote
streams and synthesized data is often created. The CDR referenced above concluded that the
historical data from the USGS gage 15106920 located on the Kadashan River above Hook
Creek were representative of the flows to be expected in Gartina Creek. Using this data a
synthesized flow record for Gartina Creek was developed for the entire period of record for the
gage (WY 1969 – WY 2007). As a tributary to Gartina Creek, Water Supply Creek would be
expected to have similar characteristics. For this study flows for Water Supply Creek were
derived by scaling the Gartina Falls data by the ratios of drainage basins at the point of
diversion (1.5mi2/10.3mi2). The results are presented below.
Figure 2. Water Supply Creek Flow Duration Curve
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 102030405060708090100Flow, cfsProbability of Exceedance
Water Supply Creek Flow Duration Curve
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
3 | December 2019
Figure 3. Water Supply Creek Average Monthly Flow
3. Project Arrangement
The Water Supply Creek hydroelectric project will be a medium head small hydroelectric project
located on Water Supply Creek, approximately 5 miles from Hoonah. There does not appear to
be a technically suitable way to create a meaningful amount of storage since the basin is narrow
and incised. Therefore, the project would operate in a run-of-river mode.
The following are the proposed project features:
A diversion structure located on Water Supply Creek at elevation 760 that will raise the
water surface approximately 10 feet. The diversion structure will consist of a concrete
core wall with grouted riprap embankments.
A concrete intake structure and sluiceway on the right abutment of the diversion
structure. The flow diverted to the power plant will first enter the sluiceway, and then be
drawn through a trackrack into a bellmouth pipe entrance.
A combination steel and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) penstock will convey water
from the intake structure to the powerhouse. The initial 560 feet of penstock will be 18”
diameter steel pipe and will be located on a bench cut into the hillside or supported on
concrete piers in an alignment roughly parallel to the stream and at a slight down
gradient from the intake. At approximately sta. 5+60 the penstock will transition to 20”
diameter HDPE pipe and will be buried to the powerhouse. The majority of the HDPE
pipeline will be buried next to the existing access road.
A low-level outlet to release environmental flows into the bypass reach of Water Supply
Creek.
A powerhouse approximately 24 feet by 40 feet and 15 feet high.
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPFlow, cfsWater Supply Creek
Average Monthly flow
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
4 | December 2019
A horizontal axis 2-jet Pelton turbine and synchronous generator having a rated capacity
of 300 kW. Centerline elevation was set at 388.0 so flow will return to the pool upstream
of the existing water supply intake. Returning flow upstream of the water supply intake
is desired so that the City’s water intake is unaffected by the hydroelectric project.
A 12.5 kV transmission line to transmit the power from the powerhouse approximately
3,400 feet to an interconnection point near the Gartina Falls hydroelectric project access
road.
Clearing and refurbishment of the existing timber harvest road and approximately 600
feet of new access road to connect to the intake structure.
Approximately 130 feet of new access road to connect to the powerhouse. A necessary
crossing of Water Supply Creek will be done using an open-bottomed arch culvert. The
culvert would be designed to pass flood flows and construction related traffic.
Table 1. Water Supply Creek Project Parameters
Headwater, ft 770
Tailwater, ft 380
Penstock length, ft 4676
Access road, mi 0.15
Transmission line, mi 0.65
Turbine Centerline, ft 388
Net Head, ft 342
Design Flow, cfs 12
Capacity, kW 300
Avg. Inflow, cfs 10
Active Storage, AF 0
Project layout drawings and detailed project information is presented in Appendix A.
4. Energy Generation
The energy generation for the projects was estimated using HDR’s proprietary software
“Hydroelectric Evaluation Program” (HEP). HEP has been specifically designed to model run-
of-river operations. HEP uses tabulated daily flows, turbine and generator efficiencies, friction
coefficients and physical parameters to simulate energy production through a period of record.
Turbine and generator efficiencies are determined from tables. Output from HEP consists of
effective capacity rating of the unit(s), simulated production in MWh, percent operating time and
overall plant factor.
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
5 | December 2019
4.1 Assumptions
The following are the key assumptions used in modeling energy production:
An environmental flow release of 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) into the bypass reach
between the intake and the tailrace.
Turbine efficiencies as presented in a proposal from Voith/Kossler specifically for this
project.
Generator efficiencies based upon submittals from other similar projects.
The penstock size was assumed to 18” dia. x 0.375” steel and 20” dia. SDR 13.5 HDPE.
These sizes were selected to limit head loss to 10% during maximum diversion which is
typical for projects like this.
Losses totaling 3% for station service, transformer losses, transmission losses and
scheduled downtime.
4.2 Results
Using these assumptions and the project configuration described above, the average annual
energy generation for the project is shown below in Table 2 and Figure 4. The complete
simulation is included in Appendix A.
Table 2. Energy Summary
Avg. Annual Energy, MWh 1325
Capacity, kW 300
Plant factor .51
Days shutdown due to low water 21
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
6 | December 2019
Figure 4. Water Supply Creek Average Monthly Generation
5. Cost Estimates
An opinion of probable construction cost was derived for the project presented above. The
approach used was to develop base work units and unit prices and then apply these units and
prices consistently to the various project features. Vendor quotes and costs from recent
relevant projects was used to derive unit prices. It was assumed that in-water construction
would be performed during the low flow months in the summer.
5.1 Indirect Construction Costs
Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, construction management, licensing,
permitting and the Owner’s internal costs were added to the direct construction cost estimate as
either percentages or lump sum amounts.
5.2 Contingencies
A contingency of 25% was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs to
reflect the uncertainty of the layout and design that won’t be resolved until later in the
development process.
5.3 Results
The results are shown in Table 3 below. A detailed estimate is included in Appendix A.
Table 3. Cost Estimate Summary
Direct Construction Costs $3,850,000
Contingency $950,000
Engineering, Licensing & Permitting $350,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPMWhWater Supply Creek
Average Monthly Generation
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
7 | December 2019
Owners Administration $100,000
Construction Management $150,000
Total Project Costs $5,400,000
5.3.1 System Integration Costs
Hoonah is an isolated electrical grid with power supplied by diesel generation supplemented by
hydroelectric generation from the Gartina Falls hydroelectric project. With the construction of
the Water Supply project there would likely be times when the demand could be met solely with
hydroelectric generation which would be a driving factor for developing this project. An
unintended consequence of this is that additional utility infrastructure might be required to
address issues such as frequency control or power factor. These costs, which are not included
in the above estimate, might be in the order of $500k-$750k and may need to be considered as
part of project development.
6. Development Considerations
6.1 Environmental Issues
Environmental issues for hydropower projects typically center on fisheries issues. The fisheries
issue likely to have the greatest impact on project economics is the environmental flow that
must be maintained in the bypass reach. For Water Supply Creek, there is a significant bypass
reach and a small resident Dolly Varden fish population resides in this area. Therefore, a
nominal 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) environmental release has been assumed. This value is
subject to change as discussions with resource agencies commence.
6.2 Regulatory/Permitting Issues
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has previously made a determination that
the Water Supply Creek project is not under their jurisdiction. The project will need to obtain a
State of Alaska water rights permit through the DNR and a 404 permit from the USCOE.
Due to the low height of the dam, the small impoundment and the low risk potential, it is not
expected that this project would be jurisdictional under the State of Alaska’s Dam Safety
division.
Since the project will be in the watershed of the City of Hoonah’s water supply additional
requirements may be placed on the project such as compliance with NFS/ANSI 61.
Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibiity Study
December 2019
Appendix A
Supporting Documentation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Water Supply Creek POWER GENERATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DATA FILE USED: WATERSUP.QCHMODEL DESCRIPTION-----------------PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES 1 560 18 .01 1 2 4116 17 .01 1 HEADWATER ELEV: 770 TAILWATER ELEV: 388 GROSS HEAD: 382 NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 333.2NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 295.4 @ 1 POWER FACTORSTATION SERVICE LOSS: 1 TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1 SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 0 TURBINE SELECTED: 1 - PELTON 2-JET - VOITHGENERATOR SELECTED: GENERATOR MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1969 159.3 134.9 23.9 0.0 0.0 33.5 183.4 213.2 136.1 103.8 91.5 84.5 1164.1 1970 84.4 150.5 136.4 34.4 128.2 141.8 125.5 190.6 160.3 123.9 89.3 133.8 1499.1 1971 182.1 100.9 113.2 74.5 43.7 33.3 98.7 210.2 202.2 102.1 88.2 140.1 1389.2 1972 165.4 116.2 26.3 32.7 19.2 54.4 60.9 207.6 206.3 134.9 120.3 97.0 1241.1 1973 164.1 114.0 45.2 37.0 47.1 36.1 178.0 213.2 200.6 83.8 107.2 119.3 1345.5 1974 181.8 30.3 62.7 2.5 81.5 4.4 128.7 213.2 174.0 80.8 34.1 96.7 1090.7 1975 210.0 190.5 141.9 59.7 12.1 7.0 71.7 207.0 199.3 132.7 49.2 116.6 1397.6 1976 148.8 67.7 99.2 93.0 62.6 110.4 120.8 211.6 204.3 141.5 46.6 127.4 1433.8 1977 178.1 177.1 167.9 136.8 171.3 94.3 163.9 154.0 152.4 42.2 5.3 77.6 1521.0 1978 153.2 75.3 3.8 17.5 36.2 62.1 153.9 202.6 97.7 38.8 11.0 55.5 907.7 1981 177.5 168.9 56.5 173.4 72.0 103.4 71.8 104.4 45.2 47.4 70.1 140.2 1230.8 1982 148.1 171.6 114.1 72.2 8.1 28.7 92.4 208.9 142.2 44.1 34.6 84.7 1149.8 1983 186.9 93.5 61.1 138.7 86.5 71.9 152.2 185.2 51.2 21.2 120.5 123.3 1292.1 1984 184.5 67.3 7.9 127.5 156.0 181.2 98.2 130.7 111.1 71.3 77.2 78.0 1290.8 1985 125.7 86.0 94.7 196.2 123.6 77.3 126.9 209.1 200.9 132.0 62.4 77.3 1512.1 1986 158.3 43.4 118.4 139.7 71.4 173.8 128.6 205.0 179.5 46.9 73.0 27.0 1364.8 1987 180.7 98.1 180.1 153.5 127.2 53.3 162.4 201.9 172.2 49.6 8.6 138.9 1526.5 1988 206.8 196.8 165.4 61.6 109.9 148.8 140.3 199.4 144.4 57.3 62.1 115.8 1608.7 1989 200.6 177.3 81.3 59.1 27.1 15.7 152.6 201.4 76.8 1.3 11.6 87.2 1091.9 1990 168.7 146.5 189.5 89.0 65.1 138.9 186.1 181.8 66.5 44.9 60.7 128.4 1466.0
1991 180.7 93.9 101.6 81.8 117.6 52.1 167.7 212.4 150.0 51.3 96.0 185.1 1490.3 1992 188.4 192.3 171.4 189.8 113.1 135.7 130.7 167.1 140.4 37.4 62.7 158.8 1687.8 1993 146.6 160.1 122.3 63.7 110.4 140.3 194.9 186.3 47.1 6.3 8.2 73.3 1259.4 1994 128.0 181.2 164.7 91.3 30.4 185.9 201.4 191.9 93.9 38.7 27.4 142.2 1477.0 1995 213.2 149.3 73.6 50.2 107.7 53.3 192.3 191.4 80.4 33.6 54.5 62.3 1261.7 1996 165.8 112.4 77.8 24.7 25.5 82.7 141.1 139.6 90.6 30.5 76.4 137.6 1104.8 1997 155.2 97.5 69.8 12.8 140.1 64.8 154.4 184.3 56.4 66.0 57.2 93.6 1152.2 1998 143.2 131.7 188.7 69.1 115.8 59.9 110.5 117.9 32.7 45.5 95.0 111.8 1221.9 1999 148.3 138.7 131.2 106.1 18.1 69.0 159.1 208.5 197.4 94.7 88.2 153.2 1512.4 2000 201.9 168.0 145.1 72.8 47.0 136.4 151.1 188.0 150.3 82.6 75.5 144.6 1563.4 2001 166.8 153.4 101.5 155.7 69.7 85.1 82.7 172.2 131.3 60.6 34.1 159.4 1372.6 2002 184.1 140.9 84.8 80.8 75.5 28.6 42.8 176.8 115.8 39.8 124.5 131.9 1226.3 2003 168.3 107.0 124.9 123.1 70.8 60.9 106.9 91.1 58.1 16.5 20.5 162.5 1110.6 2004 125.4 106.4 122.5 90.8 134.5 117.7 176.3 188.7 49.1 5.6 1.3 104.7 1223.0 2005 136.3 172.4 167.3 40.8 90.6 133.4 141.9 105.8 23.4 71.5 71.3 141.5 1296.0 2006 160.4 145.2 158.9 82.3 59.0 39.2 63.3 170.2 73.9 24.5 46.2 150.7 1173.8 2007 175.2 29.8 120.0 114.4 47.5 44.4 160.9 211.5 201.3 127.6 18.4 137.5 1388.3AVERAGE 166.3 126.7 108.5 85.1 76.3 82.7 134.5 182.6 124.7 63.1 58.9 116.2 1325.5AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.51AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 21 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ---------------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 73.7 90.0 66.3 20 86.0 94.0 80.8 30 88.4 95.5 84.4 40 88.8 96.5 85.7 50 88.8 97.0 86.1 60 89.2 97.3 86.8 70 89.7 97.4 87.3 80 89.8 97.4 87.5 90 89.8 97.5 87.6 100 89.6 97.4 87.3
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Amount
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights - Generation Plant LS -$
.2 Royalty on materials 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
.3 Construction Surveying 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1 POWERHOUSE
.1 Excavation 1400 CY 50$ 70,000$
.2 Concrete (structural) 70 CY 2,000$ 140,000$
.3 Concrete (mass)CY -$
.4 Building 1 LS 140,000$ 140,000$
.5 Misc. Metals 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
.6 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$
.7 Grounding Grid 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
.8 Fire Protection LS -$
.9 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1 SITE WORK
.1 Clearing 1 ACRE 5,000$ 5,000$
.2 Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
.2 DAM AND SPILLWAY
.1 Excavation 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
.3 Backfill CY -$
.4 Concrete (structural) 30 CY 2,000$ 60,000$
.5 Concrete (mass) 80 CY 600$ 48,000$
.6 Riprap 80 CY 75$ 6,000$
.3 INTAKE
.1 Excavation 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
.3 Trash screens 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
.4 Shutoff valve w/operator 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$
.5 Concrete (structural) 40 CY 2,000$ 80,000$
.6 Concrete (mass)CY -$
.7 Misc. Metals 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
.8 Misc. electrical & mechanical 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$
.9 MIF Valve House Building 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$
.10 MIF valve, piping & operator 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
.4 SLUICEWAY
.1 Excavation 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
.2 Concrete (structural) 30 CY 2,000$ 60,000$
.3 Gate w/operator 1 LS 70,000$ 70,000$
.4 Misc. Metals LS -$
.5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK
.a Clearing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
.b Benching 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$
.c Slope stabilization/armor 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$
.d Penstock
Material
18"x0.375" steel 560 LF 200$ 112,000$
20" SDR 13.5 HDPE 4200 LF 50$ 210,000$
Shipping 14 EA 4,000.00$ 56,000$
Couplings/special fabrications 1 LS 10,000$ 300,000$
Installation
Steel 560 LF 25$ 14,000$
HDPE 4200 LF 35$ 147,000$
.e Thrust blocks 8 CY 2,000$ 16,000$
.f Pier supports 100 CY 2,000$ 200,000$
333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply 1 LS 600,000$ 600,000$
.2 Shut-off valve 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$
.3 Initial Installation & transport 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$
.4 Final Installation 2 DAYS 3,000$ 6,000$
.5 Startup & testing 5 DAYS 4,000$ 20,000$
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Switchgear 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$
.2 PLC Controls, Panel, Generator Wiring 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$
335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1 Access roads 1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$
.2 Arch culvert 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land rights - transmission line 0 LS -$
352
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
(TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1 Substation foundations LS -$
.2 Oil spill containment LS -$
.3 Grounding grid LS -$
353 STATION EQUIPMENT
.1 Generator Step-up Transformer- 500 kVA 1 LS 12,500$ 12,500$
.2 Disconnects 3 LS 10,000$ 30,000$
.3 Surge Arrestors 3 LS 2,000$ 6,000$
356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 Overhead Transmission Line 0.75 MI 250,000$ 187,500$
.2 Buried Transmission Line MI -$
.3 ROW Clearing 1.00 MI 10,000$ 10,000$
397 Communication and Control Equipment
.1 Fiber optic cable 1.0 LS 90,000$ 90,000$
.2 Interfaces 2.0 EA 7,500$ 15,000$
Total Direct Construction Costs 3,835,500$
Contingency 25% 958,875$
Engineering 300,000$
Licensing & permitting compliance 50,000$
Owner's General Administration & overhead 100,000$
Construction Management 150,000$
Subtotal 5,394,375$
Interest During Construction 0% 12 months -$
Total 5,394,000$
WATER SUPPLY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST