HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarlson Creek Appendices
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity
2. Corporate Resolution
3. Project Maps
4. Site Visit Report
5. Schedule
6. Resume’s
7. Cost Worksheet
8. Grant Budget Form
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY
CORPORATE RESOLUTION
PROJECT MAPS
SITE VISIT REPORT
1
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368-0922
FAX (360) 385-7538
Telephone: (360) 385-1733 Ext. 155
1-800-982-0136 Ext. 155
E-mail address: larry.c@aptalaska.com
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TO: Bob Grimm
Eric Hannan
Vern Neitzer
FROM: Larry Coupe
DATE: November 7, 2009
No. of PAGES: 5
RE: Carlson Creek
MESSAGE:
On September 24, 2009, I visited the Carlson Creek site near Slana with Dan Burfoot
from the Tok Office. We first rode ATVs from a trailhead just south of the Carlson
Creek bridge over the Tok Cutoff highway to the outlet of Carlson Lake. The trail is in
good condition, and the lake is easily accessible. Following the inspection of the lake
outlet area, we rode back towards the trailhead and headed upstream on Carlson Creek.
We were only able to follow an old trail for a few hundred feet before having to dismount
and follow foot and game trails upstream. We first went to an area about 75 feet in
elevation above the lake level, which would be a possible site for a diversion over to
Carlson Lake. We then went several hundred feet further upstream to see if we could
reach the toe of a large landslide that is apparent in Google Earth images. We were able
to view the slide toe from a distance, but judged it too distant to be worth the continued
hike. We then proceeded downstream to the ATVs, rode to the trailhead, loaded up,
viewed the creek from the highway crossing, and returned to Tok. The total trip was
from about 8:30 AM to 2:30 PM.
MEMO
2
Prior to the site inspection, I had looked at USGS topographic maps and Google Earth
images, and had measured drainages areas and potential head. Based on that information,
I had conceived of a project arrangement that included a diversion from Carlson Creek to
Carlson Lake and a penstock from Carlson Lake to a powerhouse near the Tok Cutoff
highway. Carlson Lake would be used for storing excess flow in the summer for use in
the winter. The following are my first impressions of the potential for hydro
development at the site, particularly with regard to this perceived concept.
CARLSON LAKE
Carlson Lake has a drainage area of about 4.3 square miles and a surface area of about
103 acres. Depth is unknown, but judging from the steepness of the shorelines it may be
relatively deep. The large surface area would allow for a significant amount of storage
with a modest drawdown.
The lake outlet area is relatively level, with a park-like setting. It is obviously used
occasionally for recreation. Dan indicated there used to be a cabin on the lake that was a
permanent residence, accessible by a trail around the shoreline. Dan is not sure if the
resident is still alive and/or if the cabin is still being used.
The lake level is currently controlled by a beaver dam about 5 feet high at the northeast
end of the lake. Only a small amount of flow was observed in the outlet stream below the
beaver dam (<1 cfs).
There is a small creek running towards the lake from the northwest. As it approaches the
lake, it percolates into the ground. During our inspection, the flow never reached the
lake, but during high flow periods it would. The fact that this stream disappears into the
ground indicates a pretty high porosity for the material damming the outlet end of the
lake. My supposition is that the material is unconsolidated glacial drift, possibly a lateral
or terminal moraine. This is rather problematic for using the lake in a hydro
development, as it is likely that a considerable portion of the lake inflow leaves the lake
as subsurface flow. We would need to install some sort of a cutoff (such as a grout
curtain) if we want to use the natural or diverted lake inflow for generation. Bedrock is
probably quite deep, so a grout curtain could be quite expensive. If we want to consider
use of the lake further, we should plan on some seismic refraction studies of the lake
outlet, and possibly a test boring and pumping tests.
CARLSON CREEK
Carlson Creek appears to be a typical high-gradient stream, with a drainage area of about
4.5 square miles at the diversion site. The streambed is primarily gravel and cobbles.
The floodplain is perhaps 100 feet wide near the lower end, but tends to narrow and
become somewhat steeper as you move upstream. Much of the floodplain is overgrown
with brush and small trees, leaving only a primary channel about 15-20 feet wide.
During our visit (a recession flow period) the stream was about 8 feet wide and less than
a foot deep, with an estimated flow of perhaps 4-5 cfs.
No bedrock was apparent anywhere in the stream channel or on the banks. The stream
appears to be cutting though glacial till and/or debris flows. Any intake structure will
need to consider both the seepage potential of the substrate and the likelihood of
substantial bedload during high flows. A smaller version of whatever we use at Yerrick
Creek might be appropriate.
3
When I first looked at this site on Google Earth a couple of years ago, the image quality
was poor. When I looked at it this year, newer photography was available with much
higher resolution, and a large landslide is clearly visible in the basin above the likely
diversion site. It is so large that I would have noticed it in the earlier photography, which
leads me to believe the slide is quite recent (maybe triggered by the 7.9M 2004
earthquake on the nearby Denali fault?). The slide debris will probably continue to move
downstream during high flows.
The north side of the creek would provide the best access to the diversion area, and
would be the preferred route for the penstock if the flow is not diverted over to the lake.
If the flow is diverted to the lake, there appears to be a reasonable sidehill route; the
sidehill slopes to not appear to be too steep, although we did not make a thorough
inspection of the area.
POWERHOUSE SITE
The gradient of Carlson Creek appears to be significantly less near the highway than at
the diversion area. Carlson Creek eventually flows into the Slana River about 3,000 feet
below the highway. There is a native allotment encompassing the highway and Carlson
Creek; depending on the cooperativeness of the allotment owners, it may be necessary to
locate the powerhouse above the allotment, which would provide a gross head of about
300 feet. However, that location would only work with a project that does not operate in
the winter, since a winter discharge could create an ice dam above the allotment that
would not be acceptable. If we want to operate in the winter, we should probably plan on
running the penstock all the way to the Slana River and discharge there to prevent ice
formation; that would provide a gross head of about 450 feet.
FLOW MEASUREMENT
If we choose to install a stream gage on Carlson Creek, my recommendation would be as
follows:
• Locate the gage in the lower portion of the creek where it is more accessible;
there appeared to be a reasonable site where the ATV trail first crosses the creek.
This is well below the diversion site, but the channel is probably more stable
further down.
• When flow measurements are made to develop the stage-discharge curve for the
gage, on the same day measure flow at the diversion site and at one or two more
locations between the diversion and the gage. This would allow us to determine
how the flow varies along the creek during high, medium, and low flows so the
flows at the diversion site could be derived to the gage flows. Measurement of
flow in the outlet stream of the lake near Carlson Creek might also be valuable if
that channel can be found.
4
Carlson Lake looking south from near outlet (outlet to left of photo)
Carlson Creek near diversion; flow estimated at 4-5 cfs
5
Carlson Creek above diversion; landslide debris visible in the distance
SCHEDULE
PHASE I: Reconnaissance
Install stream gages
Site inspection
Re-evaluate conceptual design
Reconnaissance report
PHASE II: Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design
Topographic mapping
Geotechnical investigations
Revise conceptual design
Environmental surveys
Feasibility report
PHASE III: Final Design and Permitting
Permit application preparation
Permit application processing
Final design
PHASE IV: Construction
Mobilization
Access road
Intake
Penstock
Generating equipment procurement
Powerhouse
Transmission line
Testing and start-up
CARLSON CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
2013
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q1Q2Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4
2009 2010 2011 2012
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q3Q4
RESUME’S
COST WORKSHEET
Renewable Energy Fund Round 3
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 10-7-09
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. 1,200 MWh hydroelectric output
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1
i. Number of generators/boilers/other
grid, leave this section blank)
5 diesel generators (3-Slana; 2-Chistochina)
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 565 kW combined
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 5 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 12.7 kWh/gal average, both plants
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $69,000 (2008)
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $4,000 (2008, excluding fuel)
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 750 MWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 59,000
Other
iii. Peak Load 130 kW
iv. Average Load 88 kW
v. Minimum Load 40 kW
vi. Efficiency 12.7 kWh/gal average, both plants
vii. Future trends Modest growth
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 3
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 10-7-09
3. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kWh or MMBtu/hr]
300 kW
b) Proposed Annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 1,200,000 kWh
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed Annual fuel Usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
iv. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $5,650,000 (est. cost of Phase IV)
b) Development cost $650,000 (est. cost of Phases I, II, and III)
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $50,000 (2008 est.)
d) Annual fuel cost No fuel cost
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 56,000 gal/yr
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $3.00/gal (2009), 3.75% escalation for 20 years
c) Other economic benefits $10,000/yr O&M savings
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits Reduced PCE ($9,900,000), reduced diesel emissions
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale N/A; AP&T is the public utility for these communities
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 2.9
Payback Not calculated
GRANT BUDGET FORM
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09
Milestone or Task
Phase II – Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual
Design
Anticipated
Completion Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-kind/Federal
Grants/Other State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
Topographic mapping $ 36,000 $ 9,000 Cash $ 45,000
Geotechnical investigations $ 28,000 $ 7,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 35,000
Hydrology studies $ 8,000 $ 2,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 10,000
Power output studies $ 8,000 $ 2,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 10,000
Conceptual design and cost estimate $ 28,000 $ 7,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 35,000
Economic analysis $ 8,000 $ 2,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 10,000
Fish surveys and analysis $ 24,000 $ 6,000 Cash $ 30,000
Wildlife surveys $ 12,000 $ 3,000 Cash $ 15,000
Botanical surveys $ 20,000 $ 5,000 Cash $ 25,000
Wetlands surveys $ 28,000 $ 7,000 Cash $ 35,000
Archaeological survey $ 24,000 $ 6,000 Cash $ 30,000
Water quality testing $ 8,000 $ 2,000 Cash $ 10,000
Feasibility report $ 8,000 $ 2,000 Cash $ 10,000
TOTALS $ 240,000 $ 60,000 $ 300,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 56,000 $ 14,000 Direct labor & benefits $ 70,000
Travel & Per Diem $ 4,000 $ 1,000 Cash $ 5,000
Equipment $ $ $
Materials & Supplies $ $ $
Contractual Services $ 180,000 $ 45,000 Cash $ 225,000
Construction Services $ $ $
Other $ $ $
TOTALS $ 240,000 $ 60,000 $ 300,000
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09
Milestone or Task
(Phase III Permitting and Final Design)
Anticipated
Completion Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-kind/Federal
Grants/Other State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
Permit applications and processing $ 40,000 $ 10,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 50,000
Final design $ 200,000 $ 50,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 250,000
TOTALS $ 240,000 $ 60,000 $ 300,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 232,000 $ 58,000 Direct labor & benefits $ 290,000
Travel & Per Diem $ 7,200 $ 1,800 Cash $ 9,000
Equipment $ 800 $ 200 Cash $ 1,000
Materials & Supplies $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Contractual Services $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Construction Services $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Other $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
TOTALS $ 240,000 $ 60,000 $ 300,000
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09
Project Milestones that should be addressed in Budget Proposal
Reconnaissance Feasibility Design and Permitting Construction
1. Project scoping and
contractor solicitation.
2. Resource identification
and analysis
3. Land use, permitting, and
environmental analysis
5. Preliminary design
analysis and cost
4. Cost of energy and
market analysis
5. Simple economic analysis
6. Final report and
recommendations
1. Project scoping and
contractor solicitation.
2. Detailed energy resource
analysis
3. Identification of land and
regulatory issues,
4. Permitting and
environmental analysis
5. Detailed analysis of
existing and future energy
costs and markets
6. Assessment of
alternatives
7. Conceptual design
analysis and cost estimate
8. Detailed economic and
financial analysis
9, Conceptual business and
operations plans
10. Final report and
recommendations
1. Project scoping and
contractor solicitation for
planning and design
2. Permit applications (as
needed)
3. Final environmental
assessment and
mitigation plans (as
needed)
4. Resolution of land use,
right of way issues
5. Permit approvals
6. Final system design
7. Engineers cost estimate
8. Updated economic and
financial analysis
9. Negotiated power sales
agreements with
approved rates
10. Final business and
operational plan
1. Confirmation that all
design and feasibility
requirements are
complete.
2. Completion of bid
documents
3. Contractor/vendor
selection and award
4. Construction Phases –
Each project will have unique
construction phases,
limitations, and schedule
constraints which should be
identified by the grantee
5. Integration and testing
6. Decommissioning old
systems
7. Final Acceptance,
Commissioning and Start-
up
8. Operations Reporting