Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWrangell Sunrise Lake Hydro App Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 13 9/2/2008 Application Forms and Instructions The following forms and instructions are provided for preparing your application for a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and the forms are available online at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html The following application forms are required to be submitted for a grant recommendation: Grant Application Form GrantApp.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of information required to submit a complete application. Applicants should use the form to assure all information is provided and attach additional information as required. Application Cost Worksheet Costworksheet.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by applicants in preparing their application. Grant Budget Form GrantBudget.xls A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of costs by task and a summary of funds available and requested to complete the work for which funds are being requested. Grant Budget Form Instructions GrantBudgetInstr.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form. • If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. • Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide a plan and grant budget for completion of each phase. • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. • If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. REMINDER: • Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act, AS 40.25 and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. • All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 13 9/3/2008 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) City and Borough of Wrangell    Type of Entity: Local Municipal Government  Mailing Address City and Borough of Wrangell  P.O. Box 531  Wrangell, Alaska  99929  Physical Address City and Borough of Wrangell  205 Brueger Street  Wrangell, Alaska  99929 Telephone (907) 874‐2381  Fax (907) 874‐8952  Email cmgwrg@aptalaska.net  1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT Name Steve Henson  Title Electrical Superintendent  Mailing Address Wrangell Municipal Light & Power  P.O.  Box 531  Wrangell, Alaska 99929  Telephone (907) 874‐3602  Fax (907) 874‐3614  Email linedept@gci.net  1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer, or X A local government, or  A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes    1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Attachment A) Yes    1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement. Yes    1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 13 9/3/2008 SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY Provide a brief 1-2 page overview of your project. 2.1 PROJECT TYPE Describe the type of project you are proposing, (Reconnaissance; Resource Assessment/ Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design; Final Design and Permitting; and/or Construction) as well as the kind of renewable energy you intend to use. Refer to Section 1.5 of RFA. Update the Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design and perform engineering  design, FERC permitting and construction of the Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project in Wrangell, Alaska.   The renewable energy to be used is Hydroelectric power.  2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a one paragraph description of your project. At a minimum include the project location, communities to be served, and who will be involved in the grant project. The City and Borough of Wrangell (City) has a need for an economical alternative power source during  the annual maintenance shutdown of the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric facility and as an alternative power  source in the event of a catastrophic failure similar to the one experienced in Juneau in the summer of  2008.  An additional need is another source of water for the City reservoir, which periodically runs very  low on water and has an eminent risk of running out of water for the City’s use.  Since there is a  pertinent need for the additional water source that Sunrise Lake can provide, it is economical and  feasible that the two projects be constructed simultaneously.   Hence, by utilizing the outflow from the  hydroelectric project turbines, the City will have an additional water source.  These two projects are  mutually exclusive to each other.  In 1997, The Bentley Company performed a reconnaissance study to  determine the feasibility of developing hydroelectric power at Sunrise Lake.  Sunrise Lake is a 70 acre,  100 foot deep, perched lake on Woronkofski Island, an uninhabited island approximately five miles from  the City of Wrangell.  The Sunrise Lake Project can be interfaced easily into the Tyee Transmission Line,  thus allowing the potential of supplying power to the City of Wrangell.  This power can be used as a  back‐up in the case of catastrophic failure and during the annual shut‐down of the Tyee Hydroelectric  facility for maintenance.  This power can be used to offset power from the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric  facility and from diesel generators, thus improving the reliability of the power system.  The community  served by this project is Wrangell, Alaska.  Directly involved in this project is the City and Borough of  Wrangell and Wrangell Municipal Light and Power (WMLP).  2.3 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. Include a project cost summary that includes an estimated total cost through construction.   A reconnaissance study was conducted in 1997 for this project (See Attachment B).   In general,  construction costs have increased by 48% in the last 10 years.  The following is a summary of the costs  for construction of the Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric project in 2008 dollars.  Although a 15% contingency is  normal in feasibility studies, a 20% contingency is used here because of the significant cost variations  which could be encountered for the penstock.      Task Cost  Estimate  Intake $      47,400 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 13 9/3/2008 Penstock 1,248,200 Powerhouse 1,809,100 Transmission Interconnection 363,400 Mobilization and Demobilization 31,600 Subtotal $3,499,700      Contingencies (20%) 699,940      Engineering and Design (8%) 279,976      Construction Management 158,000   TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,637,616   To date, WMLP has spent $30,000 of its own funds for the completion of the reconnaissance study for  this project (See Attachment B).    2.4 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial benefits that will result from this project, including an estimate of economic benefits (such as reduced fuel costs) and a description of other benefits to the Alaskan public.   A benefit of this project is to reduce the cost of energy during maintenance of the Tyee Hydroelectric  facility and provide a back‐up energy source in the event of catastrophic failure of the Tyee  Hydroelectric facility.  The financial benefit of not utilizing diesel generated energy during the scheduled  maintenance two week period is currently $260,000 based upon the current cost of $.44 per kW for  diesel generated energy.     An in‐kind benefit of this project to the residents of Wrangell includes the parallel project of Sunrise  Lake providing an additional water source for the City’s reservoir.  The problem of the City reservoirs  coming close to running out of water at various times of the year can be rectified by utilizing the outflow  from the hydroelectric facility turbines as an additional source of water for the City’s reservoirs.      An in‐kind benefit of this project is the parallel project the City is undertaking at a cost of $2,500,000.   This project is to supplement the water supply of the City and Borough of Wrangell water reservoir,  which at times is extremely low and at varying times in jeopardy of running out of water.  The water that  is displaced by the turbine from the Sunrise Hydroelectric project will be provided to the City reservoirs  via an undersea water main connected to the City water supply.  2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY Include a summary of your project’s total costs and benefits below. 2.5.1 Total Project Cost (Including estimates through construction.) $4,637,616 2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $4,637,616 2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $-0- 2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $4,637,616 2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) this is per year $260,000 2.5.6 Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in your application.) $5,200,000 (Over 20 year period) The public benefit would be to eliminate the fuel surcharge that is assessed to Wrangell residents when  energy is generated by diesel power.    Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 13 9/3/2008 SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application. 3.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management Support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.   Upon receiving funding for this project, the City will initially issue a request for proposal (RFP) for  performing project management services.    3.2 Project Schedule Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)   After receiving the notice of the available grant funds, the City will issue a request for proposal for the  project management, FERC permitting and engineering design.  After completion of the permitting and  engineering, an invitation to bid for construction and equipment will be issued.  The following is the  proposed timeline for the remaining phases of this project:    Description Schedule  Phase I – Licensing and Feasibility 6/1/2009 – 4/1/2012  Phase 2 – Final Design 7/1/2012– 7/1/2013  Phase 3 – Construction and Start‐up 1/1/2014–1/1/2015       3.3 Project Milestones Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. Key project milestones for this project include the following:    Date Project Milestone  2009 2nd Quarter Conduct pre‐feasibility study.  Prepare application for preliminary permit.  2009 3rd Quarter  File application for preliminary permit with FERC.  Prepare preliminary draft document to begin consultations with agencies.  Begin consultations with Federal and State resource agencies and other interested  participants.  2009 4th Quarter  Receive order issuing preliminary permit.  Meet with FERC and State/Federal agencies to discuss project and identify studies. Design field and office studies in consultation with agencies and other interested  participants.  2010 1st Quarter Begin first year field and office studies.  2010 2nd Quarter  Continue first year studies and prepare summary reports.  Prepare scope of work for second year field studies.  Prepare Preliminary Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent to File  Application for License (NOI).  2010 3rd Quarter File PAD, SD‐1 and NOI with FERC and provide to participants.  Prepare and issue public notices for scoping meetings.  Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 13 9/3/2008 2010 4th Quarter  Hold public scoping meetings in Wrangell and Juneau.  File record of meetings  with FERC.  Begin work on draft application for license.  2011 1st Quarter Conduct second year field and office studies program.  2011 2nd Quarter Provide final study reports to agencies and participants.  Conduct teleconference meetings with Agencies and participants.  2011 3rd Quarter  Complete and submit Draft Application for License for pre‐filing review and  comment.  Require recommendations for license terms and conditions.  2011 4th Quarter  Begin final feasibility study.  Receive comments on draft application.  Conduct consultations with agencies to discuss comments on the draft and  recommended terms and conditions.  2012 1st Quarter Complete final feasibility study and prepare support design report.  2012 2nd Quarter Prepare and file final application for license with FERC and provide to agencies  and other participants.  2012 3rd Quarter Final FERC license received.  2012 3rd Quarter Start final design.  2013 3rd Quarter Design complete.  2013 4th Quarter Invitation to Bid issued for construction and equipment.  2014 1st Quarter  Begin construction of project.  2015 1st Quarter Construction and commissioning of project complete.    The schedule for completion is shown in Section 3.2.  3.4 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.   City and Borough of Wrangell charter dictates that all projects must go through a formal request for  proposal (RFP) or bid process for award.  For this project, we anticipate issuing a RFP for performing  project management, FERC permitting and engineering design.  Currently, we do not have any existing  contracts with consultants to perform this work.  It is anticipated that Hatch Energy or D. Hittle and  Associates would be possible consultants to perform this project.  Until the successful consultant is  chosen, the key personnel for this project are unknown.    3.5  Project Communications  Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.    Throughout the life of the project, the Project Manager will provide written monthly updates to AEA  which will include at a minimum:  - Expenditures to date;  - Percent complete; and  - Narrative on progress including any schedule changes.  In addition to the monthly progress reports, communication on project status will also be provided  Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 13 9/3/2008 verbally with the AEA Project/Program Manager on an informal basis through emails and phone  conversations.    3.6 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.   There is little to no potential risk associated with this project.  The standard project risk of the possibility  of cost overruns is mitigated on this project by providing a 20% contingency cost in our projected project  cost.  Cost overruns will also be mitigated by effectively managing the project.  SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS • Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA. The level of information will vary according to phase of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant budget for completion of each phase. • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. The anticipated total annual production of the Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric facility is estimated to be  11,600,000 kWH.  The kW production ranges from 400 kW to 1,800 kW depending upon the time of year  and rainfall.    There are no other economically feasible alternatives for this project.  Sunrise Lake is the most feasible  lake for this project due to its location, lack of fish, and flow rate calculations for Sunrise Creek.   Additionally, the Sunrise Lake Project can be interfaced easily into the Tyee Transmission Line, thus  allowing the potential of supplying power to the City and Borough of Wrangell.  This power can be used  to offset power from the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project and from diesel generators, thus improving the  reliability of the power system.   Another benefit of this project is the in‐kind benefit of providing water  to the Wrangell population.  If the hydroelectric project is not performed, the water line project will not  be economically feasible and Wrangell is in dire need of additional sources of water.    One disadvantage of this project is that it will not produce electricity on a year‐round basis.  This is not an  issue due to the Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric project being utilized as a backup energy producer to the  Tyee Hydroelectric facilities.  4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 13 9/3/2008 The Tyee Hydroelectric facility was put into operation in 1984.  Tyee produces 20 MW of electricity and is  highly efficient.  4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. The Tyee Hydroelectric facility is the main source of power for Wrangell.    The impact of this project will provide an alternative source of power for Wrangell in the event of a  catastrophic failure of the Tyee Hydroelectric Facility.  This power can be used to offset power from the  Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project and from diesel generators, thus improving the reliability of the power  system.     Additionally, this project will serve to supplement the City and Borough of Wrangell water reservoir  which at times is extremely low and at varying times in jeopardy of running out of water.  This parallel  project will utilize the water that is displaced by the turbine by constructing an undersea water main  which will provide water to the Wrangell reservoir.  4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. The following is a breakdown of the existing energy market for WMLP:    Client 2007 Usage in kWH 2008 Usage in kWH  (8 months)  Residential 8,857,269 6,112,171  Small Commercial 6,016,820 3,780,430  Large Commercial 3,715,595 2,089,654  8 Cent Commercial 53,760 181,680  Industrial 51,261 36,120  City Usage 3,341,871 2,230,921  Light and Line Usage 534,269 440,070  TOTAL 22,570,845 14,871,046    This project will directly impact the citizens of Wrangell by reducing or eliminating the fuel surcharge  assessed on rate payers during periods of diesel generation during shutdowns and extended outages.    The in‐kind benefit of this project to the residents of the City and Borough of Wrangell includes the  benefit of utilizing the water generated by the turbines to provide water via an undersea water main to  Wrangell’s reservoirs. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 13 9/3/2008 4.3 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.3.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: • A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location • Optimum installed capacity • Anticipated capacity factor • Anticipated annual generation • Anticipated barriers • Basic integration concept • Delivery methods The renewable energy technology used for this project is hydroelectric.      The optimum installed capacity is a plant peak generation capacity of 1,900 kW and an annual average  output of over 1,300 kW with total annual energy of 11,600,000 kWH.   This will be produced by the  installation of a 2,000 kW turbine, operating at 1,750 feet of gross head and a maximum flow of 15 cfs.     The anticipated barriers to this project include the fact that there are times of the year where the lake is  frozen and hydroelectric energy cannot be produced.    The basic integration concept of this project is to interface into the Tyee Transmission Line and the  delivery method of the power will be through the existing infrastructure.  4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. The land is owned by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and this project will be subject to land use permits  issued by the USFS.  This project will also necessitate negotiating with the Four Dam Pool Power Agency  (FDPPA) for the connection to their transmission line.    4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. • List of applicable permits • Anticipated permitting timeline • Identify and discussion of potential barriers The main permit required for this project is the FERC permit.  The timeline to receive this permit is  approximately five years.  4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed: • Threatened or Endangered species • Habitat issues • Wetlands and other protected areas • Archaeological and historical resources Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 13 9/3/2008 • Land development constraints • Telecommunications interference • Aviation considerations • Visual, aesthetics impacts • Identify and discuss other potential barriers The only possible environmental issues include the possibility of wetland issues, forest service land  development constraints, and telecommunication interference (microwave).  The only potential barrier  to this project is U.S. Forest Service permitting.    4.4 Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following: • Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase • Requested grant funding • Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind • Identification of other funding sources • Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system • Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system Total Anticipated Project Cost:  The total anticipated cost of the complete project is $4,637,616.      Requested Grant Funding:  $4,637,616.    Matching Funds: In terms of matching funds, the City paid $30,000 for a reconnaissance study for this project.     4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. • Total anticipated project cost for this phase • Requested grant funding In 1997, the operations and maintenance costs were estimated by The Bentley Company to be  approximately $88,000 annually.  In 2007 dollars, the operating and maintenance costs are anticipated to  be approximately $130,240 annually.      The operations and maintenance costs will be funded from the revenues generated by the project.  4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 13 9/3/2008 The potential power buyer(s)/customers include members of the City and Borough of Wrangell.    The City buys power at $.068 cents and charges $.08 ‐ $.114 cents.      The proposed rate of return from this grant‐funded project is 20 years.  4.4.4 Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. The cost worksheet is provided as Attachment C.  4.4.5 Business Plan Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. The proposed Sunrise Hydroelectric Facility will be operated by Wrangell Municipal Light and Power.  The  proposed facility will be operated remotely and monitored at the City Power Plant.  The facility will be  maintained by City personnel.    4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your recommendation for additional project development work. The feasibility of this project is more of an in‐kind contribution to the community than a quantifiable  economic benefit.   The City and Borough of Wrangell needs additional sources of water due to the lack  of water at times in their reservoirs.  This project will provide the needed water source by utilizing the  water dispelled by the turbines of the hydroelectric facility.     There will be no additional project development work on this project once it is completed.  SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following: • Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project • Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or avoided cost of ownership) • Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits) • Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) • Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project   The non‐economic public benefits to Alaskans because of this project include a decrease in the cost of  government for the City.  This may make it possible for the City to enhance public facilities and programs  that will benefit members of the community.  Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 13 9/3/2008   The public benefit would be to eliminate the fuel surcharge that is assessed to Wrangell residents when  diesel generated power is used.  SECTION 6 – GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much your total project costs. Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. Include an estimate of budget costs by tasks using the form - GrantBudget.xls The total cost of this project is $4,637,616.  The City is requesting the total amount for funding.    The investment in this project made by the City to date includes a Reconnaissance Level Study which  was performed by The Bentley Company at a cost of $30,000.  The City paid for this study.    The City is committed to this project due to its benefits to the community of Wrangell and the need for  the project to commence so the outflow of water from the turbine can be utilized to provide additional  water to the City’s reservoirs.    Additional investments the City will make as an applicant is $2,500,000 for the water phase of this  project.    The Grant Budget Form is located in Attachment D.  I Renewable Energy Fund 'I ALASKA . ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application SECTION 7 -ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A. Resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4 B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4 C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6. D. An electronic version of the entire application per RFA Section 1.6 E. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4 Enclose a copy of the resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management that: authorizes this application for project funding at the match amounts indicated in . the application authorizes the individual named as point of contact to represent the applicant for. purposes of this application states the applioant is in compliance with all federal state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. Print Name Bob Prunella ( Jeff: JClb ~SGA) Signature Y~~L~~'_// -~ Title V Manager, City and Borough of Wrangell (A cll/J (;. CI Ty JI1J4.AJ/f~~ Date November 7,2008 AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 13 9/3/2008 Attachment A -Endorsement from City and Borough of Wrangell Assembly Meeting October 27,2008 Alaska Energy Authority AEA-09-004-Renewable Energy Grant Application 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: Governing Body Resolution for Alaska Energy Authority Grant Application The City and Borough of Wrangell (City) Assembly authorizes this application for project funding. The following is the excerpt from the 10/28/08 Borough Assembly Regular Meeting which authorizes this grant application: 13d Sunrise Application to AEA for Possible Discussion and Action Moved by Christian, seconded by Stough, to direct staff to submit an application for Sunrise Hydroelectric and Water Project to AEA by November 81h • Motion approved unanimously by polled vote. I The City authorizes Steve Henson as the point of contact to represent the applicant for the purposes of this application. The City is in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. Sincerely, CI}7 AND B?ROUGH OF WRANGELL-tlrlf JI1.~ Bob Prunella City and Borough Manager Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study ] J Prepared for The City of Wrangell, Alaska by THE BENTLEY COMPANY Plarming·Engineering·Management June 1997 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 2 Background Appendix 3 project Description 3 Site Issues Assessment 4 Hydraulic PotentiaV 6 Power Potential 8 Power and Energy Output Assessment 10 Physical Works Identification 11 Alternatives and Comparative Costs 15 Summary of Power Potential and Costs 16 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plans 3. US Forest Service Fish Habitat Survey 4. USGS Water Data 1978-80 5. Existing Interconnected System One-Line The Bentley Company Page I 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared by The Bentley Company for the purposes of determining the feasibility of developing hydroelectric power at Sunrise Lake. The report was authorized by the City of Wrangell, Alaska, which has been granted a preliminary permit for the proposed Sunrise Lake Water and Hydroelectric Power Project. Services provided by Bentley included a site reconnaissance visit and preparation of this report. Assistance in this effort has been provided by representatives of the City of Wrangell, Alaska and the law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, which prepared the FERC application for preliminary permit. Sunrise Lake is a 70 acre, 100 foot deep, perched lake on Woronkofski Island, an uninhabited island approximately five miles from the City of Wrangell, Alaska in Southeast Alaska. There are no fish in Sunrise Lake, and Sunrise Creek, which drains the lake, is not considered suitable for anadromous fish. The limited amount of streamflow information available for the discharge from Sunrise Lake indicates an average discharge of 11.6 Cubic feet per second (cfs), although there are extreme variations ranging from less than 1 cfs to over 300 cfs. By using a siphon type discharge and drawing the lake down to provide 400 acre-feet of active storage, 90% of the available water can be utilized for the production of power. Several areas associated with streamflow require further investigation. First, better rainfall data for the City of Wrangell is needed, especially data which coincides with the dates of the streamflow data for the Sunrise Lake discharge, as this directly affects generating potential. Secondly, lake discharge freezing may be affecting recorded discharge data. Finally, the lake capacity must be better defined. The Sunrise Lake Project can be interfaced easily into the Tyee Transmission Line, thus allowing the potential of supplying power to the City of Wrangell, Alaska. This power can be used to offset power from the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project and from diesel generators, thus improving the reliability of the power system. Installation of a 2,000 kilowatt (kW) turbine, operating at 1750 feet of gross head and a maximum flow of 15 cfs, would produce a plant peak generation capacity of 1,900 kW. The plant would provide an annual average output of over 1,300 kW and a total annual energy of 11,500,000 kilowatt-hours. Costs for the project, including intake structure, penstock, powerhouse and transmISSIOn interconnection, would be $2,935,000. An alternative powerhouse location near the mouth of Sunrise Creek would cost $3,610,000. This results in a production cost of29.5 mills/kWh for The Bentley Company Page 2 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska the preferred alternative. The cost of adding an underwater pipeline to supply water from the project to the City of Wrangell would cost an additional $lAM to $1.7M. I' 1279-001 The Bentley Company Page 3 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska BACKGROUND On September 11, 1996, The Bentley Company (Bentley) was authorized by the City of Wrangell, Alaska (City) to conduct a reconnaissance-level feasibility study for developing the hydroelectric potential of Sunrise Lake. The City applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a preliminary pennit for the proposed Sunrise Lake Water and Hydroelectric Power Project on August 20, 1996. This application was made in order that the City may secure and maintain priority of application for a license for the project under Part I of the Federal Power Act. FERC issued a Preliminary Pennit on January 13, 1997. This study will detennine the feasibility of the project and support an application for a license. Bentley's scope of work consists of the following study elements: • Site Issues Assessments • Hydrological Data • Hydraulic Potential • Power Potential • Power and Energy Output Assessment • Physical Works Identification • Estimate project costs for two alternative sites In accordance with the FERC Application for Preliminary Pennit. Bentley conducted a site reconnaissance on September 24, 1996. Donald L. Evans, P.E., electrical engineer, and Paul E. Kluvers, P.E., civil engineer, conducted the site visit. Access to the island was made by a chartered helicopter from Wrangell Airport. The proposed sites were reviewed by air, and portions of the existing stream were observed from the ground. The potential penstock and intake locations were evaluated. In addition to the potential hydroelectric facility locations, the interconnection with the existing high volta.~e transmission line crossing Woronkofski Island were also reviewed. The potential impacts to the submarine cable tenninals were also investigated. PROJECT DESCIUPTION The proposed project is located on Woronkofski Island, located approximately five miles southwest of the City of Wrangell, across Zimovia Strait see Appendix 1). The island is uninhabited, and is approximately 15 square miles in area. Sunrise Lake is a perched lake The Bentley Company Page 4 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska with a drainage basin of approximately 1.2 square miles, that drains into a stream flowing to the north and then to the west. Woronkofski Island and Sunrise Lake are part of the Tongass National Forest and are managed by the U.S. Forest Service. SITE ISSUES ASSESSMENT Several issues were identified during the site reconnaissance and through subsequent discussions and research. These are as follows: • Verification of presence of anadromous fish • Adequate rainfall data • Site top~graphy Anadromous Fish Sunrise Creek drains from Sunrise Lake and travels approximately 2 miles to discharge into Stikine Strait, west of Woronkofski Island (see Appendix 2). Although the Stikine Strait is a productive salmon fishing area, no evidence of salmon were observed at the time of the site reconnaissance. Discussions with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service in Wrangell indicated that the Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife (ADF&W) does not consider Sunrise Creek as an "ADF&W-rated stream", which means it is not an important stream in the agency's salmon preservation activities. A survey was conducted by fisheries biologists with the Forest Service in 1981. In summary, no anadromous fish were found, and they determined that Sunrise Lake would not be a suitable habitat due to natural barriers and unsuitable substrate for spawning in the lower reaches of the creek. A copy of the memorandum dated November 26, 1996 is attached in Appendix 3. The lack of anadiomous fish and unsuitable habitat indicate that this issue should not affect this project. Adequate Rainfall Data Rainfall data was made available to Bentley by representatives of the City of Wrangell. The data consists of discharge measurements at the Sunrise Lake outlet, taken with a "water stage 1279-001The Bentley Company Page 5 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska recorder" by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the water years 1978, 1979 and 1980 (see Appendix 4). A "water year" runs from October through September. Although the data provided for Sunrise Lake was based on discharges at the lake outlet, rainfall estimates were made by calculation, using the drainage basin area of 1.17 square miles. The outlet discharge was provided in cubic feet per second (cfs) as well as acre-feet (ac-ft). An average yearly discharge over the three year period was 8,423 ac-ft, which corresponds to an average annual rainfall of approximately 135 inches. Rainfall data for . other periods for Sunrise Lake were not available. Discussions with City of Wrangell staff indicate the annual rainfall at Wrangell was thought to be approximatcly 80 inches. This is significantly lower than the nearby community of Petersburg (120 inches) which lies 35 miles to the northwest of the City. The Wrangell data may be unreliable, as it was recorded by observation only by a local business under a cooperative arrangement with the National Weather Service. The Petersburg data may be more reliable. The difference between the Sunrise Lake data and the Wrangell data causes concern over the actual amount of water available. Bentley has attempted to obtain Wrangell rainfall data over the past 20 years, including the three water years recorded for Sunrise Lake, to verifY that the difference is appropriate and if there has been any variation over the 20 year period. To date, this data has not been obtained. The accuracy of the rainfall assumptions and any potential shifts in the regional rainfall data will affect the potential output of the proposed hydroelectric project. Site Topography The lake is nestled between several mountain peaks, with elevations up to 3,250 feet. The lake level is at approximately 2,000 feet above mean sea level. Sunrise Creek falls approximately 1,600 feet in the first 0.4 miles, then gradually lessens its grade until it discharges into S'tikine Strait. The volume of discharge varies greatly throughout the water year, with rates as high as 312 cfs during the heavy rainfall periods in the fall. The high rate of discharge has removed much of the vegetative cover, exposing the rock substrate. Other parts of the island are also high in elevation, with peaks over 3,000 feet high. The island is heavily covered with conifer forests, with steep terrain throughout. On the level areas of the island, the ground is covered by muskeg, a common material consisting of several feet of moss and decayed vegetation heavily laden with moisture. During the site 1279-001The Bentley Company Page 6 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska reconnaissance, passage was difficult unless animal trails could be found through the thick vegetation. HYDRAULIC POTENTIAL Reservoir The lake discharge is approximately situated at elevation 1,950 feet above mean sea level (MSL). A proposed power plant could be located at one of two potential locations (see Appendix 2), each;fit an elevation of approximately 200 feet MSL, giving a gross head of 1,750 feet. There is no other outlet for Sumise Lake, so virtually all the drainage basin is available for power generation. The average annual yield for the discharge is approximately 8,400 ac-ft, based upon the 1978-80 stream-flow data, but it should be noted that the variation throughout the year is dramatic. The highest monthly discharge is over 300 cfs in November, and minimum flows are as low as 3 cfs in the same month. The variation may be the result of seasonal storms and lack of short term storage, or changes in the discharge configuration due to freezing over of the discharge creek. The lake outlet configuration allows for high flows, with poor weir characteristics. Maximum rainfall occurs during the months of October and November, with a second peak during May and June. The rainfall and current discharge rates drop dramatically during the other periods of the year. The average discharge rates are plotted on a graph to determine trends (see Figure 1). 1279-001The Bentley Company Page 7 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Sunrise Lake Water Data Vi'- ~ Q) ~ =ctJ u III Cl c:: ctJ Q) ~ 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 _. ---. _._----_.­ • / .. • • Ira 1'1.1111 ,I 111,.1 ,. II . .... .... co co co co co co <J"l <J"l <J"l <J"l <J"l <J"l 0 0 0 0 .... r-;- r-;- .... r-;-.... .... r-;- r-;- .... r-;-.... .... r-;-"'? co "'? co v v vt ., -0 ~ c: .:"t ., -0 ~ c: .:" t ., -0 ~ c: .:"., 0-::J ., 0-::J ., 0-::J0 0 u. ..: -=: ..: 0 0 u. ..: -=: ..: 0 0 u. ..: -=: ..: Figure 1 Based on the graph, it appears that the peaks in October-November occur before the lake discharge freezes, creating a "dam" and artificially raising the lake leveL The dam probably melts in April, causing the lake to discharge its surplus and return to its normal spring and summer leveL The regularity of this pattern appears to suggest that this is the cause of the high fluctuations of flow. No other information was available to verify this phenomenon, and further study is recommended. A comparison should be made between the recorded discharge data and rainfall data for the City of Wrangell for the same dates. The 1981 Forest Service fisheries survey (Appendix 3) included data on the lake bottom profile and total volume indicating that the lake has a maximum depth of 100 feet and covers 70 acres. An analysis of the limited depth data indicates a total volume of the lake of between 500 and 1,000 ac-ft. Additional lake profile data will be needed in order to better determine the volume of the lake. Hydraulic Data A summary of hydraulic data, based upon the 1978-80 USGS water survey data and the 1981 Forest Service survey, is as follows: The Bentley Company Page 8 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Total gross head available: 1,750 feet Total lake volume: 500-1,000 ac-ft Annual volume discharge: 8,400 ac-ft Average discharge: 11.6 cfs The average annual discharge of 8,400 ac-ft equals 700 ac-ft per month. This average monthly discharge corresponds to the average flow rate of 11.6 cfs. A conservative assumption of 600 ac-ft of total lake capacity is made for purposes of further analysis in this .study. Based this assumption, the lake would draw down completely if 700 ac-ft average discharge were continued during the periods of low rainfall. Unless it can be verified that. the lake artificially increases it's storage capacity by freezing at the discharge, the lake will be drained within two months. This will result in two to three months out of the year when reduced power output would be needed to prevent excessive draw-down. This period occurs during the months of February, March and April. There is another period of reservoir drawdown during August and September, which possibly corresponds to the "dry" season. There are other months during the year (May, June and October) when average flows are well in excess of the flow capacity of a hydraulic turbine sized to a reasonable amount larger than the average flow. During these months, the reservoir will overfill and some water will be lost due to discharge into Sunrise Creek. In order to optimize water usage, it is anticipated that the reservoir will be drawn-down so as to provide approximately 400 ac-ft of active storage. The reservoir would be regulated between a minimum volume of 100 ac-ft and a maximum of 500 ac-ft, thus attempting to keep the level below the point where normal discharge into Sunrise Creek would occur. The turbine would be sized to a maximum flow of around 15 cfs and operate efficiently at flows down to 5 cfs. An analysis of this reservoir operating regime based upon the discharge data for 1978-80 indicates that 7,700 ac-ft of average annual discharge volume would be utilized for power production, or more than 91 % of the available discharge volume, with an average discharge for power of 10.6 cfs. The projected regulation for this period is illustrated in Figure 2. 1279-001The Bentley Company Page 9 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Projected Reservoir Operation 600 500 ~ I U E ~ 400 Q) m ~ 300 ~ "'0 +-' ~ 200~ '0 ~ Q) 100 VI Q) a: 0 ..... ..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 en en en en en en 0 0 0 0 ..... r-;-r-;-..... r-;-r-;-..... r-;-..... ..... r-;- r-;- ..... r-;-"? 00 "? 00 u ..c .!. c: C'l u ..0. c: C'l t u ..c ~ c: Cnt c.. t ~ c..:::J :::J :::J0 .=! 0 <C .=! 0 .=!Cl'" u.. <C <C Cl'" u.. <C Cl'" u..'" <C <C '" '" Figure 2 POWER POTENTIAL The City of Wrangell is nonnally served by the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project, locate 45 miles southeast of the City. This project has two 12.5 MVA generators. The average power output of the Tyee Lake Project over the period of 1986 through 1995 was 3.78 MW. Peak output during 1996 was 9.80 MW, with July and August being the peak months, averaging 6.86 MW. The City of Wrangell peak load during this same period was 3.84 MW, with an average load of 2.15 MW. The other load on the line is the City of Petersburg, located 35 miles northwest of the City of Wrangell. The City of Wrangell has six diesel powered generators, with a combined output of 7,400 kW. These generators provide power during times of both planned maintenance and emergency outages of the Tyee Lake line. One of the generators, rated at 2,100 kW, was installed within the past few years, and operates very reliably. Four generators are rated 1,250 kW each and one is rated 500 kW. All five of these generators are older, have lower reliability, are expensive to operate and require considerable maintenance. -r-----­-­I I' .... -.. I' -r-" -T ~ -~f --]if ],1 1 II I The Bentley Company Page 10 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Power from Tyee Lake is transmitted over the Tyee Lake Project Transmission Line to the City of Wrangell and the City of Petersburg. This line is rated at 138 kV, although operated at 69 kV, and has 70.5 miles of overhead line and 11.4 miles of submarine cable with four underwater crossings. The line travels overhead for 3.2 miles along the northeastern shoreline of Woronkofski Island, where the proposed Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project is located. A 3.1 mile submarine cable crossing connects Woronkofski Island to the Wrangell Switchyard, about 4 miles south of the City of Wrangell. A 7.5 MegaVAR reactor is installed in the Wrangell Switchyard to compensate for the high capacitance of the four submarine cables. It has been determined above that Sunrise Lake has potential to provide electrical power. The close proximity of the Tyee Lake Transmission Line provides a means of interfacing this power into the existing transmission system serving the City of Wrangell. This would enable Sunrise Lake to provide power to the City, offsetting diesel powered generators, when the line between Tyee Lake and Wrangell Switchyard is out of service. One significant consideration in delivering power to the City with the Tyee Lake -Wrangell Switchyard section of the line out of service, referred to as isolated operation, is compensating for the capacitance of the submarine cable between Woronkofski Island and Wrangell. The existing reactor at Wrangell Switchyard, which is sized to compensate for four submarine cables, would over-compensate for single submarine cable in isolated operation. Compensation could be provided by installing a capacitor bank at the interconnection between the hydro generator and the line on Woronkofski Island. Alternatively, a new smaller reactor could be installed and the existing reactor removed from service during isolated operation, although this would be more expensive. The Sunrise Lake generator would be too small to provide this compensation while delivering power. If other uses for the Tyee Lake power can be found, such as a discussed new transmission line to Ketchikan, the Sunrise Lake has the potential to supply power on a continuous basis to the City, subject to the seasonal variation discussed above. Additionally, the Sunrise Lake Project has the potential to send power to the City of Petersburg when the Tyee Lake -Wrangell line is out of service. Again, this would require proper compensation for the submarine cables. POWER AND ENERGY OUTPUT ASSESSMENT Power Capacity Final selection of a turbine size is made by an analysis of operation over the range of expected flows and heads, annual energy production and equipment costs for various sizes. As noted The Bentley Company Page 11 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska above, even though average discharge for power is expected to be 10.6 cfs, sizing a unit for a higher maximum discharge would result in better reservoir regulation and more water captured for power production. A turbine sized for a maximum discharge of 15 cfs would provide efficient operation over a range of 5 to 15 cfs. Based upon a turbine sized to 15 cfs, the capacity of the turbine is calculated as follows: QE,Hg (1/11.8) = (15 cfs)(0.90)(1,750 ft)(1/11.8) = 2,000 kW Where Q = Discharge Et = Turbine Efficiency I Hg = Gross Head. The efficiency of the balance of the plant, including generator, transformer, and station service, is typically 95%. This would result in a plant capacity of 1,900 kW. Note that this would be the maximum plant output and would only be obtained during periods when flows in excess of the average flow are available. A verage Annual Energy Using the average annual discharge volume of 7,700 ac-ft available for power, the average turbine flow would be 10.6 cfs. It is assumed that the average reservoir draw-down would be 25 ft, reducing the average gross head to 1,725 ft. The corresponding average turbine output is calculated as: (10.6 cfs)(0.90)(1,725 ft)(1/11.8) = 1,395 kW Again, using an average efficiency of 95% for the balance of the plant, the average power output would be 1,325 kW. The resulting available energy from the plant would be 11,600,000 kWh. " Based upon the 1978-80 water flow data, the anticipated unit output is illustrated in Figure 3. The Bentley Company Page 12 /279-00/ Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska ..-.. ;: ~-r:: 0 '.0:; ." '­ if eu r::I eu \.!:J eu en ." '­eu >c:s: 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 .... .... -t 0 Projected Plant Output - --­ I ,III .... 00 00 00 00 00 00 en en en en en en 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 00 00r-;-r-;-"? "?'2 .;, ~ <:: 0.. '2 .;, <:: 0.. -t '2 .;, <:: C>... ... c.. ::::J -t ... ... :5-::::J ... ... :5-::::J~ 0 ~ 0 ~Cl u.. <C Cl u.. <C <C Cl u.. <C <C<C Figure 3 PHYSICAL WORKS IDENTIFICATION In conjunction with the development of the hydroelectric potential of Sunrise Lake, the physical features are identified for the purpose of estimating the capital costs of the project. It should be noted that no formal design has been provided. The City is considering two alternative penstock routes and powerhouse location. The costs noted below are for Option A (see Appendix 2). Major features are described, and an "order of magnitude" cost is provided for each feature. The costs are based on the 1997 edition of the Means Estimating Guide, past experience with similar facilities, and budget estimates obtained from equipment and material vendors. These estimated costs are considered conservative. Lake Intake Structure A siphon system is proposed for collecting lake water into the penstock. The intake can be mounted on a floating platform and tethered from "deadmen" anchors on the shore, or on a rigid frame with the intake pipe below the lowest projected lake level. For cost purposes, the submerged intake alternate is considered. This is the more conservative approach from a The Bentley Company Page 13 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska pncmg perspective. Also, further study would be required to determine any potential problems with operation of a floating platform if the lake were to freeze over. The intake structure is comprised of a steel frame ballasted with locally obtained boulders or precast concrete anchors. Cost breakdown is as follows: Steel frame fabrication & shipping: (2,100 lb x $5.00/lb) = $10,500 Installation 2,500 Installing Ballast 1,000 Piping (200 LF of 8-inch HDPE x $60/LF) 12,000 Intake Screen Structure 4,000 Total Intake Cost: $30,000 Penstock The lake discharge is carried through two potential routes (see Appendix 2). Due to the relatively low average discharge, an 8-inch diameter penstock was determined to be adequate. This includes provision for output flexibility and expansion of the hydroelectric plant. A total length of 8,000 lineal feet of penstock is estimated for Option A. Additional costs for Option B are set forth below. A series of anchors are required to secure the pipe along it's descent from the lake, and along the length of the pipe to the powerhouse. Due to the terrain and presence of rock near the surface at several locations, it appears to be impractical to bury the pipeline. However, due to the total head of the penstock near the powerhouse, the pipe will be subject to relatively high stresses and resultant forces at pipe bends. Anchorage will be a major cost item. Pipe: (8,000 LF of 8-inch HDPE x $60/LF) $480,000 Control and protection valves: 120,000 Anchorage ~.t 50-foot intervals (160 x $1,200) 190,000 Total Penstock Cost: $790,000 Penstock Losses: The penstock profile for Option A is comprised of three segments, according to the topography changes. The losses through the penstock are estimated by segment, based on the following parameters: 1279-001The Bentley Company Page 14 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Segment A: From the lake discharge to the top of the hillside. Total Horizontal Length (L): 2,100 ft Change in gross head (~H): o Pipe Length: 2,100 ft Pipe Slope: 0% Flow (Q): 11.6 cfs Head Loss (H L): (Negligible -less than 1 foot) Segment B: From the top of the hillside to the bottom of hillside. Total Horizontal Length (L): 1,500 ft Change in gross head (~H): 1,000 Pipe Length: 2,100 ft Pipe Slope: 67% Flow (Q): 11.6 cfs Head Loss (H L): (Less than 1 foot) Segment C: From the bottom of the hillside to the powerhouse. Total Horizontal Length (L): 4,000 ft Change in gross head (~H): 800 Pipe Length: 4,100 ft Pipe Slope: 20% Flow (Q): 11.6 cfs Head Loss (H L): (Less than 1 foot) Powerhouse A two-jet "Pelton" type impulse turbine is recommended. Pelton turbines are especially well suited for very high head low flow applications. They are simple, economical and require only a small space, keeping powerhouse costs to a minimum. The two-jet design allows the use of higher speed, thus reducing generator costs, and operates over a wide output range. The turbine would be rated at 15 cfs, 1,750 feet head, 2,680 hp, 2,000 kW and would likely have a speed of 1,200 rpm and a runner diameter of 780 millimeters. This turbine would operate efficiently at flows down to 5 cfs when only one jet is used. The turbine would be 1279-001The Bentley Company Page 15 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska horizontally mounted with a direct-connected generator. The generator would be a synchronous type rated at 2,500 kV A, 0.8 p.f., 3-phase 60 Hz, 4,160 volt. A bus-fed static excitation system would be provided. The generator breaker would be a metal-enclosed draw­ out type. A complete complement of generator protective relays, start-up and shut-down controls, and other associated devices would be provided in the switchgear line-up. The equipment would be enclosed in a pre-fabricated metal shelter, with heaters and controls. A standby generator would be provided to protect the system components and provide power for penstock siphon pumps to initiate the penstock flow. The use of a discharge pipe, discharging into the Sound, is assumed below, as it is more economical, however a tailrace channel could be excavated instead. Installed costs of major powerhouse components are: Turbine, governor, main shut-off valve $ 600,000 Generator, controls, switchgear 400,000 Powerhouse enclosure 40,000 Powerhouse foundation 20,000 Standby generator 25,000 Siphon pump 10,000 Surge protection 20,000 Discharge piping 30,000 Total Powerhouse Cost $1,145,000 Transmission Line Interconnection The interconnection with the transmiSSIOn line is relatively simple, since the proposed powerhouse location is adjacent to the existing Tyee Lake Transmission Line. Switchyard equipment will consist of a 2,500 kVA 4.l6kV:691l38kV generator step-up transformer, a 138 kV circuit switcher, a 3,000 kVAR capacitor bank, a 138 kV disconnect switch, and necessary protectio'n and controls. The capacitor bank is required to compensate for a 7,500 kVAR reactor at the Wrangell Switchyard during the times when Sunrise Lake would be supplying power to the City of Wrangell and the line between Tyee Lake and Wrangell is out of service. Transformer $125,000 Circuit switcher & disconnect switch 50,000 The Bentley Company Page 16 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Capacitor bank 15,000 Structures & foundations 20,000 Conduit & grounding 10,000 Controls & relaying 10,000 $230,000 Cost Summary .The following is a summary of costs for construction of the Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project. Although a 15% contingency is normal in feasibility studies, a 20% contingency is used here because of the significant costs variations which could be encountered for the penstock. I Intake $ 30,000 Penstock 790,000 Powerhouse 1,145,000 Transmission interconnection 230,000 Mobilization & demobilization 20,000 Subtotal $2,215,000 Contingencies (20%) 445,000 Engineering & design (8%) 175,000 Construction management 100,000 Total project construction cost $2,935,000 The contingency results in a range of construction costs $2.49M and $2.935M ALTERNATIVES AND COMPARATIVE COSTS As stated earlier, t~o alternates are presented. The primary difference in the two locations is the cost of the penstock and transmission line (see Appendix 2). Option A shows the powerhouse located northeast of Sunrise Lake, near the existing Tyee Lake transmission line. The estimated quantities and costs identified above are based on this alternative. Option B has the powerhouse located near the mouth of Sunrise Creek, on the west shore of the island. The penstock route closely follows the creek after coming down the steep hillside. The penstock line is approximately 3,500 feet longer than Option A. Due to the distance of The Bentley Company Page 17 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska this location from the existing transmission line, a new transmission approximately 6,500 feet long would be required to intercormect the powerhouse with the existing line. Additional cost for Alternate B would be as follow: Penstock $300,000 Transmission Line 225,000 $525,000 A comparison of the total costs, including contingencies and engineering, are as follows: Option A:· / $2,935,000 Option B: $3,610,000 Additional Cost Considerations It is understood that other considerations for this project include the potential for use as an alternate water source for the City of Wrangell. This consideration would be significantly affected by the alternative selection, based on the difference in water supply line length. Although no detailed costs have been estimated for this consideration, it is estimated that cost for Option A would be in the range of $1.4M to $1.7M, based upon the use of 8-inch HDPE pipe, necessary ballast and a pumping station. The cost for Option B would be about 40% higher. SUMMARY OF POWER POTENTIAL AND COSTS A complete economic analysis of the proposed power installation at Sunrise Lake, including assessment of benefits, marketability of power, and benefit-to-cost ratios, is beyond the scope of this study. Annual costs and production costs are determined so that future studies of the economic value of the project can be made. The expected life ofthe powerplant equipment is 50 years, so this will be used as the period of analysis. Interest and amortization is computed at 7 percent. Operation and maintenance costs are derived from the Corps of Engineers' Hydropower Cost Estimating Manual and from The Bentley Company /279-00/ Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska Bureau of Reclamation operating experience. This has been adjusted to reflect anticipated operation of the Sunrise Lake Project, and assumes that the plant will be remotely operated by City staff who presently operate the City's diesel generators. The costs, assuming Option A, are summarized below: Construction Cost $2,935,000 Interest and amortized cost (7% at 50 years) 213,000 Operation and Maintenance 88,000 Total Annual. Cost $ 301,000 Production Cost (Total Annual Cost/11,600,000 kWh) 29.5 mills/kWh The range of production cost is between 23.2 mills/kWh and 29.5 mills/kWh due to the 20% estimating contingency in project construction cost. - The Bentley Company 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska APPENDIX 1 VICINITY MAP ,;' The Bentley Company 1279-001 Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska APPENDIX 2 SITE PLANS I The Bentley Company 1279-001 ~b :TAIL) / / / ,/ //' / / ,/ / / W /edge.Pt i /~'12 / / ':. . . V , .! .....~ ---­\~~~56(56 0 25' _i ATES 'HE INTERIOR SURVEY )UADRANGLE \~ G Ij T T p p N P F 1320 30' 29° Ito 1 2 3r-. E3E3E3E3E3! I ! I __-­, ~ ) ~(}(Y) o 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000 FE TYEE LAKE H.P. J."JJf-Jf- Jf- TRANSMISSION LINE // ugfi / j ,/ ./ . GENERATION/ • INTEGRATION liNE ~ WATER PIPE "\ , 18 EXHIBIT 4c OPTION B (DETAIL) UN ITED STATES lRTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ~SBURG (B-2) QUADRANGLE ALASKA 1320 30' 1 t 0 1-··_···??·~···· I"="l ~ :::F=i ~ I J 2 3 12000 150003000 a 3000 6000 900Gr A I Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska APPENDIX 3 U.S. FOREST SERVICE FISH HABITAT SURVEY I The Bentley Company 1279-001 uc...1....... ~c.. '.::'0 ~'.::'. t::.J..:lHI'1 nc...LLc...r"\. c...nr"\.I'IHI' JlU..:l-C ...... J..-t::J:JJt:..J .' NOV 27 '96 12;23 9078743952 CITY OF ~ ~ongao8 National Forest t>eptU'bD.ent of Sarv1.C6 Wran«~l1 Ranger Dutri.ct Agriculture P.O. Sox 51 Wr!Pge11, ~ 29222 Ul1iced States Jro~.t File code: 2600 Date: November 26, 1996 Scott seabury, City Manager 'City of wrangell P.O. Box 531 wrangell, AX 99929 Dear Mr. seabury: Enclosed is a fi6h habitat survey from O~r Forest Service files that is pertinen~ to the City's proposal for a hydropower project at Sunrise Lake. we alao have elides and additional de~ailed iniormation. , If in~ereated in this information or if you have any queBtiona, please contact Dennis Reed/or Julianne Thompson at 814-2323. Sincerely, g~~y District Ranger cc; P.McCoy (..J ...... , .. ' ,._"-__,,, "---' ......... ' ..J~...J '---........ p.3/8".~~~-~96~;2:;; 9078743952 CITY of ~ Sunrise Creek Stream Invemory. Woronkofski Island USDA forest Service M Wrangell Ranger District Fisheries biologists surveyed Sunrise Creek in 198 J. The following infonnatinn summarizes their find­ Ings. The imertidal area contains limited salmon spawning babiUlr due to lack of suitable substrate (mostly bedrock and boulders). The lower reach (about 1/4 mile) meanders through a shallow bedrock canyon with evidence of active erosion. Cutthroat trout up to 7" in length were found in this reach. A 25' wm.erfall--locatt:d approximately as shown On the attach~d map-creates a naturaJ barrier to migrating fish. A ~erics of shorter falls further limits habitat for a reach of about 1/4 mile upstre.1m of the water­ fall. The surveyors found good to high quality spawning and rearing habitat (and more cutthroa[ trout) upstream of this ceach. The upper limit of this habitat was not ptceis~Jy noted but can be estimated from the attached map. The outlet from Sunrise Lake downstream is steep; bedrock, boulders, and fulls limit habiw and migratiiln. An attached report describes a survey of Sunrise Lake and its tributaries. No fish were found in any of these lakes allhat time. .. In summary, Sunrise Creok contains very limited anadromous fish habitat due to natural barriers and un y suitable substrate in its lower reaches. No salmon use has been documented and enhancement appears economicOJlly infeasible. However, pool& formed by debris jams and gravel-bedded riffles appear to support abundant cutthroat 1rout wough the law gradient ponions of Sunris~ Creek above the barrier falls. We. have photog~ph5 (slides) in OW' files as well as some additional detailed infomltltion. Julianne Thompson 13 Nov 1996 ., . , .­ '0 ... . , , . ~.' . )ti~.iJ-> 2U/$d>' ,,;~jj:} 7 ,.r}·· ~:~: .. •r~i~· . ,,' ....... ", 1 ~ <t r IV --.: C -r ~ l ,...c 1\ l;~ ~~ ",J a= /::);:;i;l;ii\\~ "' ~!i. rf-C -c . ,,-. ", ....,:'~'" ' .. ..... ..... ~~ ''''''';~­Sunrise ~~ -:-,-;~ ... " ~~ [::):>:j Ciearcut C .." .~ .' .. .. Lakes ,l C .: ......;,.....;.. .. .... StreamsN Fish likely "; ~. N Fish likely". ,;, IV Rsh UnUkely'0 Shoreline '. ", II Sunrise Watershed contours "" .~~:+ ..... :'\' 100ft contours "J' .•..• ' ,. N ' "-'.. 1: f: 'E (. ~­-.J s' ForeST Service Wrange 11 RD 2630 Hab; tat e-NOvember 17. 1981 ~ Grayling Habitat in Sunrise-Lake and Vicinity T~ Fisheries Biologist Lynn Palmer, wildlife technician~ and I examined Sunrise lake and vicinity. August 25-27. 1981. to examine the suitability of this area for grayling habitat. Sunrise Lake is locat~d in an alpine area~ about 2.000 feet elevation. on WoronKofski Island. upstream from Sunr;se lake there are two l~kes (see figure l)~ Grouse lake and Oeer lake_ Hemlock~ vacc1n;um. small cedar, Cassiope and assorted grasses surround the lakes. ~itFl lots of "open W (noo~fo.,.ested) area. Most of the shorelines were composed of rock (1-3 foot diameter boulders). while the remaining shorelines are composed of sand. No fish were observed in any of the lakes or streams. All these lakes contained Trichoptera larvae. Fallowing are descriptions of the three lakes and their feeder s.treams- I SUNRISE LAKE Sunrise Lake is the largest af the three lakes. We measured a maximum depth of 100 feet (See,figure 2). The west, north, and east shores are mostly armored with rock. while the south share is composed of sand. The surface temperature was 56°F at 9~OO p.m. on August 26. The pH was 7.0_ There;s little overhanging cover along the shore, but there is some log debris underwater along the west shore. The creek exiting Sunrise Lak~ (Sunrise Crsek) is composed mostly of bedrock and boulders 1-6 feet in diameter. Fifty yards dOWflstream fram tne lake, there is a serie$ of 3-4 foot fans. Two hundred yards downstream. the creek becomes a serie~ of very steep fa11s. The discharge was estimated 3 c~f.s. The average width of the stream was approximately 12 feet on August 25. The channel is very stable. The outlet of the lake contained about 10 sauare yards of spawning gravel, which would be usab1e by grayling at higher flows. The creek connecting Grouse Lake w;th~Suorise Lake is composed mostly of falls 5-6 feet high. There is little or no spawning g~avel in this creek or in the lake at the inlet. The inlet area contains mast1y sand. .1 do not bel ieve that fish could migrate from Sunr1se Lake to Grouse Lake. GROUSE LAKE Grou~e Lake and its tributades contained the best spawning grave' r saw on the trip. The lake has three major feeder stre~s. The east side (E) tributary and the south side (S) tributary both contain good spawning gravel. The lake surface temperature at 3:00 p.rn was 600F. The pH was 7.0. Th~ maximum depth we measured was 25 feet. Tributary E'5 temperature was 500F. tri~utary SiS was 540F and the west side (w) tributary (fram Deer Lake) was 62 oF. " J ~y P.6/8­ , .. Fishe~;es Biologist page 2 T~ibutary W~ which d~ains oee~ Lake~ contains little usable spawning 9~ave'. We faund some 3-4 foot falls and one 5 foot falls between G~ouse and Deer Lake. Tributary ~ is primarily composed of rock 6 inches - 2 feet in diamete~. and silt. I belfeve that fish may be able to migrate between these two lakes. Fish can utilize only 100 yards of tributary S before they are blocked by a series of steep falls and velocity chutes. We found good spawning gravel in the first 20 yards of stream (apprQX~ 80 percent A.S.A_l. The stream is about 2S feet w1de and 4 lnches deep at this paint. Fish can move up 125 yards on tributary E before they encounter a 200 foot falls. This CYeek contains some goad spawning grave1 in sma11 pockets (A.S.A. 10 percent). This creek averages 6 feet wide and 6 inches deep. All three streams had sandy lake bottoms at their O'lMets. The north shore is com~osed of rock i and the remai~;ng shores we~e mostly sand and vegetat 1on. There is a s 1ide on the southeast shore. DEER LAKE This lake and its tr-ibutaries contained litt1e spaWning gravel. The banks are steep and consist of rocKs 9 inches to three feet in diameter. A small creek enters and contains a ~ma11 amount of spawning gravel (A.S.A. 5 percent). A 10 foot falls 15 yards upstream blocks fish passage. The creek tempe~ature at 10:30 a.m.~ August 27 was 520F~ while the lake temperature was 560F. Lake surface pH was 7.0_ The littoral zone is sandy and s;lty~ and the depth drops off falrly Quickly. No depth soundings were taken. SUMMARY I believe that these three lakes should make suitable habitat for grayling. Grayling would have access to the most spawning gravel in Grouse Lake, but due to the grayling'S ability to use sand as a spawning site all three lakes would have sufficient spawning areas. I believe that these lakes do not freeze solid enough to cause winter kill. The lakes are fair1y hard to get to (3-6 hour hike) sa angling pressu~e would be light. This area is currently used by deer hunters. Deer sign was nume~ous_ A g~ouse was also spotted. camping sit~s are available an all three lakes and the area is very scenic. A trail up·to the lake should be cOllsidered~ but heavier use by deer hunters and their effect on the deer population shOUld be considered. ERIC STRECXER Biological Techo;c;an Enclosures P.7/8' P I ~ C~~ 00 LC!J SUi\rise .. ~ FA\l~ ,." /Sf-\~""'''\~ A~ JfuR~ -ailO-+"t. h~~ h E ~~ l-.\r~ .: eaed 5pli.wt\n,~ Aff>A/ f'J }~ fi..l\~ .~h .. ~ or v_Hcyroo'f' ..... I5pettPftl"J S ; £.\u~a,t . IY\ +J..''!10 Cl"U. UC-\- t:.JL.. ...)U t:.J...)' t:.Junl I IILLLLI' Ll It" Inll Jt:.JJ L---t..i.. (,..J-JJ(,..J NOV 27 '96 12;25 9078743'352 CITY (£ ~ P.8/8 F'\()CN~ 00\6 02\~O q13 S v""-Q"s-L L~ ke ~'Ad.V\r..\Y\\\"y 0e~1h o.'ftJ. ~u~ ~C ArLCAS ~ \-t> tveCW"e~-\ y2-~~-r' .SV'i\ £\5e. ~ 7 0 o..c.:,t.~ 5ta.+,~-Gep~ ~~ ')~/? m A) ~~M ~) '\ &) 30 ~) f~ .. cJ l~ '1-) \'a 0) '5~ l~ '") ,\ 7} 71J~ 0-1'9 u l\t..l.#.\<c.. a~ 0.'-'l"e'Sa s ...+..... ~p1tl ~~~ Qe,rb. \) \ M A) t M . ~) '5 .'. fS)5 ~) 5' Y2. C.) L+ IJ\.. '.'... 't) b'l>... D) If ..' 5) :, \/~ 1:\ 4­ . "b) r;,t/2-.. FJ II/;.. A~ 1) 1 ~) 5 ~) ~ Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska APPENDIX 4 USGS WATER DATA 1978-80 The Bentley Company 1279-001 r. c./ l~ CITY of WRANGELI~, ALASKA INCOFlPORATEOJUNE 15, 1903 BOX 631, 99929 (907) 874-2381 FAX: (907) 874·:3952 AOOPTI:D AUCIUST 1172 ··;;i: AUgust 7, 1996 :':0 iq C)'-'-.:-::..1 .' i ":"1 lTl .... _" ~. I. ~ :-2'--." .: .. ;.~..Attn: Eric Redman . :'. ~ Heller, Ehrman, White & M. 6100 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue .'. Seattle, WA 98104-7098 Dear Mr. Redman: The following taxed seven (7) pages are the Water Rsources Data Report tor Alaska1 the Sunrise Lake Water Data for 1978, 1979, and 1980. Thank you. scott Sea~ury city Manager I.I I . . . Water Resources Data for Alaska ./ U·S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-DA TA REPORT AK-8o-1 WATER YEAR 1-980 Prepared In cooperation with the State of Alaska and W1th other agencies ---I i ••• HU<.:J ~( ::>0 ~C:: • .L OoTI Mt...LLt.J' t...Mt'cI' IHI ~ UG 07 196 11: 15 9078743952 CITY OF ~L P.3/8 SOUTHEAST A~SXA 150B6i60 SUNRISE LAIE OUTLSr ~ W~GBLL LOCATION .••Lae S6·2~14"·. long 13~·2g·30", 1n NE~W\ Ile.l?, T.63 5., l.sS D., Hy4rolosicUnit 19060000. on WoronJot I51and, in Tonga55 Naelonal PorBI~, OA lef~ b~nk of l&k. outllt and 5.0 111 (8.0 ~) $Ou~wes~ of Wraniell. w~tEi·DlSCHAlGE R~CORDS ~-;;BI"IUOD Of ItECORD. --S.p,te/lber 15117 to 5cpullbn lelO (libeont1nuod). GAGti.··W&toT-$tai~ recorder. Altit~dc of cag' i. 1"iSO ft (S04 ~), from topo,~aphic map. ~~~,MARXS.--R.eords good. SateLlite telemeClr at station. ~xtRENES FOR PiHUOD OF RECORD.--)l&z.ill\la dheharu, 474 ft'/. (13.~ fAIls) OCt., !I, 1975l. ,age' ho1Jht. 4.60 ft (1.402 ' from T&~ift, CurVe Ixtended above 10 ttJ/s (0.57 R~/I): miAimufl. daily. 0.P3 tt /. (O~026 .3/t} Feb. 2&-1&, 1979.' XTRaMES rOR CUQRE~TY£AR.·-M.xl.ulI ~l.char&., 474 tt /, (13.4 ~)/J) Oct. 9, gare heirnt. 4.60 f~ (1.402 m); m1nimu' daily, 1.8 ft)/s (0.OS1 m~/I) Nov. 11. B lSCHARGr;. IN CUBIC rfET PER seCONO, ltATt~ Y(AR OCTOBER 197~ TO S£PT£MBE~ 19ijO -.faN VALuES 'OCT NOli ote; / .JAN F'tS "AI:l APR MA'/' JUN JUL AUG SEP • I ~5 6,,3 J.7 11 1.7 1!5 6.7 .:::J 26 9.3 36 13 a 1" !l"l 3.3 10 &.5 11 6.l 3<. 15 13 31 9.9 J Z8 4,.1 3.2 9.CiI 10 11.40 5.9 15 1'9 11 110 7.7 zs J.S 3.C 8.6 8.8 6.~ 5.7 10 zr 9.5 n 10" 5 4J J.l 17 7." 7.2 ~.5 5.7 10 39 9.1 !l.la 9.9. 6 IS 2.1 ZZ 7.1 10 5.1 6.1 11 36 1.8 6.3 8.6 1 6.10 ~.Io 10 ••5 14 6-.5 q.o 25 3Z 6.8 5.1 6.6 e 7.6 i.] e.7 5.9 14 4.~ 7.5 2~ 32 6., "'.3 23 ,9 i!5:) t.1 7.6 5.4 'il.ll 3.7 ••to 20 29 6.Z 4.0 402 10 !II 2.1 6.0 5.4 a.z 3.5 J." 19 l3 6.:) 3.5 1<­ 11 20 1.'i 5.7 (,.8 7.4 3.3 S.C ZO 25 5.8 J.2 6.7 II 31 1.8 4.5 ".9 6.(, 3.1 6.7 ZO 2$ 5.5 i!.9 6.5 13 15 12 4.0 5.C, 5.S Z." 6.7 ~3 S" 6.5 ~.6 ':>.Z . 110 9.6 312 J.7 1.0 5.3 2.5 6.3 19 la3 12 ~.1 Io.S 16 6.8 21 3.2 8.7 4.9 2.4 10 18 JZ 9.S 7.5 3.9 16 5.4 11 8.9 9.l "'.8 Io.ft lZ ~o Zio 7.1 20 3.6 11 5.8 U 8.4 8.6 ".6 7.0 10 29 20 601 26 3.lt 111 4.9 6.0 10 7.1-'-.J 8.3 9.7 26 15 5.4 11 1".3 lQ "'.1 8.8 27 8.0 ".0 S.l 11 at, 14 12 7.6 11 20 J.S n Z6 ••1 J.8 11.3 9.1 1'lJ 13 33 1'0.9 13 II 3.6 55 23 a.l 3.7 12 }J 13 IS 5.Q 8.6 12 3.3 SO 15 15 3.6 13 l4 11 16 16 (,.7 1~ ~3 3.6 l~ 12 JS 3.5 9.l) Zi! 11 1~ 19 s.~ 9.6 24 4.0 8.9 9.7 ZS 3.2 6.2 13 13 16 140 6.7 7.6 ~5 3.6 8.9 17 3.5 6.1 i.l 1'1 IS 13 6.0 1211 '. Z6 3.5 7.3 14 12 io.a 6.1 1\ 2C Ui 12 7.0 10 21 6.S 5.1 23 9.3 1.li S.'i 1<-23 13 8.~ S.9. 11 ~.s 3,'9 ]S 1.6 9.0 ?Il }to 21 10 7.1 to.7 15~" 29 IZ 3.' U 3.\1 11 7.1, 12 17 8.1 13 6.9 33 30 11 3.3 16 10.7 7.2 1" 18 1.6 22 7.J 19 31 7.6 12 ".J 1.7 ?8 --'-3 6.2 tOTAl. &15.3 611.1 3840.6 292.2 199.0 20.,.10 Z91o.2 6ae. 6 7 0.3 311.2 2113.40 356.e HUN ll.8 !~.!5 lZ.4 9.IoJ .6.86 6.119 9.81 20.Z 2l.3 12.0 9.14-1l.~ MU 2Q5 U 35 35 14 1~ Z4 "'3 5C, ..3 36 42 MIN 3.3 1.8 J.o :5 .... 3.2 Z.1. J.lt 10 6.6 S.1o 2.6 )., cr$!4 18.6 17.S 10.6 8.06 S.16 S.U d.39 17.3 19.1 10.3 7.81 10.;IN. a 1.40S 19.510 li.n 9.26 ':..12 6.4<1 o.~s 19.89 al.~9 11.'79 9.00 11.3: IC-'T 13400 1220 763 580 )95 Itce; sa,. 1240 IJJO 736 562 701 CAL T~ 1979 TOUL "-309.10' ME ..... 11.6 MAx 312 MIN .qJ C1'511 10.1 IN 136.90 AC-FT 8S50 .,T" VR lliao TOTAL 4912.10 Mta.N 1).6 ~AX 3\2 MI~ 1.1\ C"SI4 11.0 [N lf7.~1 AC-FT 9860 HUl,J \0( , .• :J/ llCl AUG 07 '96 11:16 9078743952 CITY OF WRANGELL SOUTHEAST ALASKA 15016960 SUNRISE LAKE OUTLET NEAR WAANGELL-·Continu~d WATER·qUAlITY ~CORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--Water years 1978 and 1980. WA·f(M QUALITY DATA. WATfR YtA~ OCT08ER 19.79 TO S!PTE~£R 1980 SPE­ e!fIC H~RO· STREAM-CON-HARD-NESS. CALCIUH fLOII', DUCT.-OxYGtN. NEsS NOHCAR-OIS- INSTAN-lNeE PH 015-CMGI'L SONAT! SDlVEO n~E T~OU5 ("'ICAO .. rlELD SOL,.VED AS (NGIL (MOIL DATt: (~S) NMOS) eu~lT!) ("'G/U ClCO]) CAC03) AS' CAl ~AN ZS .... Ul5 13.0 6 1 I' SCt.IDS. MAG"l-POT AS .. C~L.e-fLUO-SIL.ICA. SUM OF' SIUMw SODIUM-SlUM. 81eAR .. ·SULFATE IHot. ~tD~. OU· CONSTI­ OIS-01$-olS-80NATE' OIS..· I)U· QIS-SOLVED TUfNTS, SOLvfO SOt..VED SOLVED ("Gil so..,vEO SOLV[O SOl.vEO (HO/L OlS­ (MG/L (lUifL ("GIL ..S (HG/L (HG/L' ("GIL. AS so ..v~o .-)1 OATE AS "'G) AS HA) AS '0 H(03) AS ~O4) lS CL) AS f') 5102) ("G/l.l .3 .9 .2 6 .J 1.2 .0 1.0 9 NITRQ..,. HITRO-' NITRO .. NITRO-SEOt- G£N. GEN. GEN. GEN,~I'4 .. NITRO-PHOS-ttfNT N02·...o3 ~lA ORGA.UC "ONIA • GENa PHORUS, $(DI-, 0($­ ilS-DIS-' DIS-ORGANIC 01S", OIS.. M£NT, CHARGE. SO\,vil1 SQ(.vt;o ~V£D O%i. SOLVED SOt.,vfO Sus-sus- eNG/I.:. CMG.lL UtG/L (~/L (I4G/L fHOI'l.. PENDED PENOED DATE AS ,.) AS Hl 1.5 N) U N) 4S Nl AS p, et1G/L,) (T/OA.Y) \:IAN 2•••• .01 .030 .26 .Z9 .31 .030 1 .01 '.I " I I I r , ~. b/ l~ ~, Water Resources Data for Alaska, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER,-DA TA REPORT AK-79-1 WATER YEAR 1979' Prepared in cooperatfon with the state of Alaska and with other agencies HU\:> l:J ( ::>0 l:Jc. • .l 011'1 Mt..LLt..K t..MKI'IHI ~ I. (/.llQ . t-'. b/l:)AUG 07 '96 11:17 9078743952 CITY OF WRANGELL ,SOUTHEAsT AJ.i.SXA 150&6960 SUNRISE LAlE OUTL~T N~AR WRANGELL LOCATION.--Lat 56·14'44", lon: 13Z·Zg'30", 1n Nr:1cNw" ,~~.17, T.n '5., R.B3 t., Iiyrirologic Unit 19060000, on \lIoTonko IUlund, in Ton~.$S H.t1onal FOTc~t, on 11ft b.nk of l~kc outlet and 5.0 ~i (8.0 kb) ,ollehwc~t of Wrangell. PHRIOD OF RECORD.--Scpte~beT 1917 to current yeAl". CACS.--Water-StASc rocorder. Alt1~tld. of ~_"••$ 1,~50 ft (594 m). fro! topographic ~ap. REMARKS.--RccOTds ;ood. S&tel11te tell.e~er ~t stMt1on. £XTR!NI!S POll PEUOI> 017 RECORD.·-Maxi1lUII d1"1l"rJ~, Z37 ftl/:s (6.71 Ill'/s) Oct. :no 1978. gage height, 4.17 ft (1.30~ min1l1u~ d&11y. 0.93 ft l " (0.026 .)'s) ~eb. Z.-ZS, 1979. fiX"~;~~~.Fg~9iu~,~ -a~~i6-:!7~)u;e~~1l~~~H~' 2" .ft J ,. (6.11 .1/.) OCt. 31. JlJ~C h~ight. 4.27 it (1.301 11); min1l DISCJ04lilGF:. I~ CUBIC F(fT P€~ S(C~Ntl, vlTF:A fElA OCTO£l(~ 197. TO SEQT~~~EP lq79 M'.:''4 \"llJrS ::W DAY OC1 NOV DEC JAN 'Elil I4llt APR MAY JUN ..lUI. AUG Sl!:P 1 S.3 55 6.0 2.1 Z.D .96 4.6 lfo 4' 17 18 2.4 ? J c. .. ~9 101 ~ll \.Il ~... 10 9 .. 8 10 U 11.0 6.2, / ~.O 2.01.'I.e 1.9 1.' , 2.8 3.0 1.t l.9 2.~ 4.l 4.5 {,.6 4.8 6.0 34 J$' 32 22 "1 27z, 27 1'6 19 It 17 IS 10 7.0S." 3.C! l.7 J.J ~.8 " 7 R q It1 34 54 il 20 2E1 j4 16 10 7.~6." 5.4 7.5 II 110 a.1I 1.8 1.1 1.8 107 1.(" 1.4 ?.8 2.6 Z.O1.' ~.~ 8.1 6.4".J10.0 6."7.4'.66.6 6.3 \8 I~ 17 IS 13 24 1" l!l 1~ III P .16 16 18 19 4.~ 4.13." 3.2 2.8 2.6 l.Z 2.1 \.'\ 2.0 11 12 13 21 49 7? 7.7 6.0 5 .. 1 (h3 7.3 11 ' 1.4 1.4 1.4 1., 1.61 1.10 4.6 40.7 It.l 5.'75."5.5 13 11 10 110 11 IZ \? IS 13 z.S 2.10 2.3 1.2 11 64 110 30 5.1 8.1 1.5 1.4 1.~ 5.5 1.9 16 11 2.1 21 1!\ 13 7.1 Ii... 1.7 ,1.~ :'.6 IIj.S 7.3 ~7 11 2.1 24 ,~ 16 11 L8 19 6.1 37 68 Z'I 5.tS-.5 3.1) 3.5 4o.Q 10.0 10.2 6.8' 2.5 ~.q 3.9 3.Z 1.2 1.2 1.2l.a l.1l 3.7 10.0 3.~ 5.5 S.5 i.S !i.e 6.' 11 U 12 19 17 U 19 9.3 11 ,12 17 l.q,I." 1.7 1.6 19 24 11 7.J 2n 10 3.3 6.0 2.7 1•1 (,.1 6.0 11, 1" 24 l.fi 'S.3 21 22 2:1 ~" 11 n J4 11 3.1 3.0 3.2 'r ... 5.2"..4.9 ...3 2.6 i.9 2.4 J.O 1.1 1.0.ca. .93 ".'4.." lo.~ 4 •• 6 ..6 7.3 lJ.S"-10­ ID 1to 53 31 IS 11 17 16 JJ 311 lO 13 1.6 1 ..$ 1.4 1.4 _.to".6 5~9 12 ('tj 41 5.7 3.4 3.1 .93 4.9 U J8 15 12 \ .3 U 26 18 16 3.2 J.tS .9J 4.8 13 . 103 15 6.1 l.~ 11 l7 211 13 10 63 27 2.1· ' 2.5 l.9 2.5 .93 .cn ••8 4r.CJ 1~ 20 17 12 16 16 5.:1 lo .. 6 1.;? 1~1 110 13. i!'t 10 1.8 10f 11 7.1 2.3 .2.2 2.l 2 .. 1 4 ..9 4~' 31 33 11 II 25 Z5 2.0 4.4 1.. 11 .98 A.~ 32 31 133 l.l 2.0 4.5 t7 7.5 I.? TOnI.. Il4!lN U01.2 32.3 3CJ'..9 13.3 I'Cl.6 6.1S 70.1 2.26 44.lt4 1.60 136....6 4.'" 271.· t.os JC)7.0 19.3 6~~ lO.R 4$0.2 14 .5 101.68 3.to7 331.7 11.1 leU MIt.! e"C;N IN. Ae""" t33 'S.3 11.6 31.11 lQ90 63 3 ..0 11 .. 4 lZ..67 191 14 2.1 '5.Z6 fI.O. 311 3.'1 1.4 1.932.n 139 J.II .. 9::\ 1.37 1.42 1IC) &.1 .9" 3.77 4.34 271 33".S 7.'4 8.~2 1IJ~ 1$3 6.8' 16.5 18.97 \l&0 61 1~ 11.8 1'''~'' ' 124(1 3] Z.G 12." 1~.30 S93 \. .98 !.97 3.42n40 6' 1.7 q.,,<; 10.54 65£ =-ell' yf? 1cn, TOTAL J984.90 ",tAN 11).9 HAJL 131 IfJN ~. ) C"SI4 9.32 IN 126 .. sq AC.J"T 7QOO vTA YQ 1979 TOUl. "125.18 ...(aN 11.6 NU pJ MIN .93 cr1i14 q.9Z IN J3••l2 AC·,-y 1'13"0 .' Water Resources Data for Alaska U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-DATA REPORT AK ..78-1 WATER YEAR 1978 Prepared In cooperation with the State of Alaska and with other agencies HUG lj( ':lb ~c:: ; C::~r'I'1 Ht..LLt..t-<: t..Ht-<:f'IHI'i SOUTHEAST ALAS~ lSo.6~60 ~UNltSr. LAkE OUTLET N~~R WRAN~LL LOCATION.·-l..lIt soeZ4'u", 10"~ 1S2"2g'30", 1n NI'a;Nt{\I ~.c:.11. T.63 S., It.'! n., Hydrolol1c: Unit U060000, 01\ WordnkofAkt IJl.nd. in Ton¥a~1 H.tiOnal Furest, OR 1.'t bank at l~~. outl.~ adt S.O .t (8.0 kft) louthwc't 01 Wran;cll. WATEA·DISCHARC£ ~~conos P~RIOO OF ~CORD"-S~~tc~bar 1077 to current ye.l. GAG~.··WQtcT·Sta~c recorder. A1t1tu~. of ~Q~~ l' 1;950 tt (S9' *l, fTOm toporr.ph1~ ~IP. RE~R~S.··kccord' rQ~r. Satellite tcl.motcr ~t .titi~n. EXTlWMfS FOR CIJRREN'f. PER10D •• , Sep [elllber 1977; ~Bxi.~ di.c:II&J'(lc durin, lIloflt:h. 37 it 1/:. (1. 05 11 Sl:s) S"pt. 22, f.:Ie., heicht. 3.51 ft (1..070 JI). JlI1nl11U. cicilY dhl;/lU'lJC, J.S {tl/s (0.071 lI'/~) Sept. 3·£. WAter ye.r 197~: M~xia~ dl$ehlr~G. lV7 fe'll (S.~D .)/$) Oct. 11. r.~Cc height, 4.21 ft (1.2~3 q); J11ni.u~ d~ily di.~h~r!., Z.O ftl/S (0.057 aIlS) Nov, Z'. U!SCH"aCt:. IN eUllH: I'l:i1' HR SIiCOND, SEPTf;l'Ille7l l!iH MEAN VALUSS DAY SfP UAY Sl\P DAY Sf!> DAY SEP DAY Sl!P n....y St;!' 1 ~.Z 6 6.1 II 7,) 16 S.l %l e,7 1.6 0.0 ~ £.8 7 5.1 l! S., 17 4.$ Zl a 1.1 ,. ! 3 2,) 8 a.o 13 10 III 3.8 2J 17 ~8 •• 5• 2.5 S S.3 U 7.5 U ~.3 Z4 10 B s.~ S ~. 5 10 6 .• 1~ 6.1 20 7.~ 25 7.S 3u 11 SP.P1'EMIlr.~ TOT Io.L • US.! ME}lt1 • '.:SO MAX ' 20 NIN • 2.5 CIISlI( . n.H fN. . O.iQ "C'FT -1:\5 OISc"'ltG£ • Itt CvBle nET prR 5£CONO. ~~TE~ T(AR ocToeER 1917 TO St::PT(M8[A Uil1a MCAN VALUES OAY OCT NOV O[C JAN rEG 11JA ,t,ClII ~A't .J1JN JUl. ...~G sEll 1 9.S 9.0 7.0 J.t! J.lo 2.1 20 19l.b 7.S 3.10 12~ l! 7.Q '7.7 ~.l J.e J.J 2.6 2.1 21 310 7.3 3.~ ,.~ 3 S.6 7.1 5.3 3.11 3.0 i.~ 2.1 14 35 13 J.l 7.0 ~ S.J 7.1 5.1 3.7 3.1 ~.S 2.1 10 J~ 13 2.7 1.95 5.0 7.3 4.6 3.7 3.i 2.'5 Z.e! 9.Z zs 10 J.l <'.8 6 4 ••, 8.i '-.<-3.7 (,.0 2.6 2.6 11.0 25 8.10 6.6 ".J5.3 6.11 ~.I 3. 'f 3.7 2.7 2.7 9.2 ~6 7.3 11 ".08 8.9 6.1 3.8 ).8 4.0 ).0 3.0 I" 2~ 6.3 26 ).4 ~ 1\.5 S.J 3.7 3.9 3." 1.6 J.:I 14 Z6 6.0 1'-3.Z10 l' 5.1 ).6 10.0 J.a i!!.S '-.0 1" 20 5~6 13 3.1 11 lSI I .. ..0 4.1 3d l." 3.6 17 5.3 9.5 3.11l2 66 l" <..3 ".Z 2.' l ... 3.3 l'19 IT 6.9 8.0 J.lU 48 11 10.7 '-.il 2.9 2 ... ).Z 21 17 9.1 11.0 3.61<0 '9 ~. , S.O 4.1 2.9 :I ... 3.1 20 18 7.3 15 7.e I~ ~) 6.1» 3.'1 2.3 -... a.' 3.1 20 16 o.e? 13 ~l 16 ~ S.l ••4 3.6 z.a ~.J J.l ~J l5 II 9.2 16IT 46 -.z ".J J.O 2.a i:.3 J.2 26 21 9.1 ••2 4.218 n 3 •• 4.3 3 •• l.' z.) 3.) 25 If> 7.1 7.11U 16 i.9 10.2 3.& J.o z.) 3.J 610 13 S.9 11 8.9 1520 9.6 2.6 4.a 3 •• ·.ll 2.3 J.t,. n 13 5.0 6.6 15 21 11 2.10 ~.2 3.11 3.6 a.:! 22 I .. ••S1_ J.' 5.0 IJ22 a.l 4.1. 3.9 J.IJ 2.l 5.0 19 llo 3 •• 5.9 13i3 UI 2.1 •• 1 ".2 ).6 2.2 6.0 20 12 3el 5.9 9.(!l" 1\ 2.0 .:4.0 J.J 2.6 8.a 21 10 4.0 7.S...- ".9 ~ 14 l.~ ·... 0 7.0 J.O 3.0 11 2' 8.7 3.8 10." 6.1 26 19 ".6 ".0 5.6 l.9 z.1 ~o 29 12 -.0 4.) s.)27 Zll 4.) ).9 li.u 2.11 2J 29Z." Hi ".0 4..3 6.3ze 26 5.7 J.9 to.(j 2." Z.J 1'7 27 17t lo.l .... l 8.329 21 6.' 3.9 ".0 1.2 lZ 2<-9.1 1t~3 10.0 15JO 17 6.1 3.9 3.a 2.2 12 20 7.6 fo.3 '-.J 13I 21 12 3.a 3.7 a.1 21. :1.4 6.1 rOTAl 'J!.I HlI.S I:J~.) UT.6 90." 75.7 176.6 66l ... 556.4-~OJ.7 244.6 ~5".oI "t"IlI 26.9 6.05 10.36 4.12 3.23 2 ..... '.0<1 21 ... 18 •• 6.S7 '.89"a& 151 I" l.O 7.G ".0 l.lI 23 6")S 13 26 lI.'" 21tllN 40.4 l.O ~ .. 3.7 2.7 2.1 2.1 8.0 7.6 3.8 l.7 J.OI cr,.. 23.0 i.n ~.73 :l.,;~ ~. 76 2.09 5.D2 111.3 1'6 ... 5.6Z 7.26b.?"J~. l6.53 ~.n 40.)0 't. OS 2.47 2 ••ft ~1.o .. 17.7' 6.107 'T.77 &.09lC.fT HI6lS 360 170 '.'"JSO IJIO Io8SZU l~a 150 1110 ,"0" 1i05 r ..rQ YII l'iU rOTAL ;1:;106.1 -EIlN 9.72 111 ..IN Z.O <:"" ~.:Jl IN 11!~6" IIc-n 7030"".1 I MU\J ~ ( ::'0 t::JC-• c.. 1. r ,., n~LL~" ~n"l· IMI ., SOUTH~ST A1~S~ Uol\t'l96,) SUNRtS! ~KZi OUTLU NU.R WRANljE.LL--r,nnti.nued WATr.R-QUALITY R~COROS PERIOD or R~cono. ··W.t~r Y~QT \91R. ST~U"'- flOW. PH T["PER.t"STIN­ TIME: T..",,(OUS aTuQE out: cets) IU'lI'tSI cOfG Cl ,"P. la ••• 16Z1 J.3 6.~ .5 ./' .",-, Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Level Study City of Wrangell, Alaska APPENDIX 5 EXISTING INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM ONE-LINE I The Bentley Company /279-00/ ----~--- .: ~'?,' ':":-~ 1"-/A :~~.,ol/ ~ ~V ::;.~ ~;-. t-'----:01"<-.. ,r-1:> _~';J ____('.=-"c.."-_,--=-2-. _ il.;'~/;'? MV;". ~ ... C '.~:; :'''t;C K..'./ -::::':'-., r-';.." I U, ,ZI t o il../--.J bCd'::) K,V Q t-.A. -! TYE~ LAKE POWERHOUSE AND SWITCHYARD I i I -II I 0i i ALAsKA POWEI1 AUTHOtllTY AMCHOR~G~,ALASKA  Renewable Energy Fund   Attachment C - Application Cost Worksheet Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project phases. 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. 100% (Hydropower) 11,660 MWH Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel) 2. Existing Energy Generation a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other 4 ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 8.5 MW iii. Generator/boilers/other type 1 EMD 20, 3 EMD 16 iv. Age of generators/boilers/other v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other .8 Power Factor b) Annual O&M cost i. Annual O&M cost for labor 20,000 ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor 5,000 c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 635,181 KWH ii. Fuel usage (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank Diesel [gal] 51,606 (FY 07’-08’) Other iii. Peak Load 3.5 MW iv. Average Load 2.2 MW v. Minimum Load 1.2MW vi. Efficiency vii. Future trends 1% to 2% annual load 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   RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1  Renewable Energy Fund   RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 3. Proposed System Design a) Installed capacity 2 MW b) Annual renewable electricity generation i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] ii. Electricity [kWh] 11,600,000 KWH (11,600 MWH) iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other 4. Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system $4,637,616.00 b) Development cost c) Annual O&M cost of new system $130,240.00 d) Annual fuel cost Hydro 5. Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity 52,000 gallons diesel ii. Heat iii. Transportation b) Price of displaced fuel $4.56/gallon c) Other economic benefits d) Amount of Alaska public benefits 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale $.068 purchase $.07 sale 7. Project Analysis a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio Payback 20 years Attachment DAlaska Energy Authority ‐ Renewable Energy FundRFA AEA09‐004 Budget FormRFA AEA09‐004 Budget FormBUDGET INFORMATIONBUDGET SUMMARY:Milestone or TaskFederal Funds State FundsLocal FundsMatch  (Cash)LocFunal Match ds (In‐Kind)Other FundsTOTALS1 Utilities Study$30,000.00$30,000.002 Conceptual Design$80,000.00$80,000.003 Grant Administration$158,000.00$158,000.004 Construction Management$279,976.00$279,976.005 Engineering Design & Project Mgmt.$3,499,700.00$3,499,700.006 Materials and Construction $0.00Milestone # or Task #BUDGET CATAGORIES:123456TOTALSDirect Labor and Benefits$30,000.00$80,000.00Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$0.00Equipment$0.00Supplies$0.00Contractual Services  $0.00Construction Services$158,000.00$279,976.00$437,976.00Other Direct Costs$3,499,700.00$3,499,700.00TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES$0.00 $30,000.00$80,000.00$158,000.00$3,779,676.00$0.00