Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Volume 3 Ebasco Technical Appendix
u) O > LTI � m O® (il oU) 0;-_—_ c o 0-. m C) m 0 co Lo r- VOLUME, 3 TECHNICAL APPENDIX EBASCO &UaLSKA U.S. 'DEPT. .1p NOV 1 4 1985 CL GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS for the Alaska Power Authority m Ebasco Services Incorporated Bellevue, Washington January, 1984 1984 Alaska Power Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS TECHNICAL APPENDIX Part I GEOTECHNICAL DATA II BATHYMETRIC AND PROJECT AREA MAPPING III DETAILED ECONOMIC ANALYSES IV FORECASTED PRICE OF NATURAL GAS IN COOK INLET REGION V TRANSMISSION LINE STUDIES VI FIELD STUDY CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA VII RESERVOIR AREA -CAPACITY, FLOOD HYDROLOGY, AND OUTLET RATING DATA VIII AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE IX AQUATIC SURVEYS METHODOLOGY X FISHERIES MITIGATION PLAN DOCUMENTS XI ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES REPORTS I. I I I t j II I I ............. .. I t 1 t.i 1 i I I I III II `, I 1,1 III, I' I,_flll Ills Ilii III III II III�II t II' II I .i I I I I II'IIIIII •I,II.III II 1t i:I I ' ii: I t f,I:II IIII iI ,III' III IIII bill.. � 1 I tI I I I I II IIi I� :.. � I Itt 1 I I 1 ''i 11 I I f Ii:II IIIiIIliliilQ,ili jl' II IIIIIIli�ll'llllll lllllll�I I r I � 1 1 1 t 11 ly I I I I ' 1 I; :Itl tI I III I 1 � IISIt I III II I Itll 'iIiJIIII, I' I I I i III I II IL � IIII Iil141 I:, �I (I ��I I 1lIII i III TECHNICAL APPENDIX PART I GEOTECHNICAL DATA TABLE OF CONTENTS l Results of Ge0t8Chnicdl Field Investigations Conducted During 1982 for the Preferred Alternative 2 Results of GeOtechniCal Field Investigations Conducted During 1981 for Project Alternatives SECTION 1 RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED DURING 1982 FOR THE PREFERRED'ALTERNATIVE _....i _._.. _._. _. _.. _..... I _.._... SECTION 1 RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED DURING 1982 FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Included in this section are the results of the boring program conducted during 1982 in the vicinity of the project features. These borings, in conjunction with the surface mapping, geographical surveys, and the detailed literature search, formed the basis of the geotechnical conclusions presented in Volume I of the feasibility report and ultimately the general project layout. 1 Key to Rock Core Log* 1. Description of Strata --------------- ------ The- --rocks-- are -described- by- lithologic' '(r6ck) t V06, color, bed thickness, grain size, and accessory minerals present. Each core run, is described separately. 2. Discontinuities Critical bedding planes, fractures, foliations and shear zones are measured from the perpendicular to the core axis. For partings and joints, the distinction can be made between rough versus smooth surfaces. The latter will most often be much more severe from an engineering point of view than a rough discontinuity. Joints and other parting surfaces can be characterized by the following descriptive terms (modified after Bieniawsky, 1979): (a) Rough - Ridge and side -angle steps are evident; asperities are clearly visible, and discontinuity surface feels very abrasive. From: 1) Geologic Logging and Sampling of Rock Core for Engineering Purposes, R&M Consultants, Inc., 1980. 2) Tunnel Design by Rock Mass Classifications, Bieniawski, Z.T., 1979, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report GL 79-19. -2- (b) Moderately 'rough - Asperities on the discontinuity surfaces are visually distinguishable and can be felt. (c) Moderately smooth Surface appears smooth; few asperities can be felt. (d) Smooth - Surface appears smooth and feels so to the - touch. (e) Slickensided - Visual evidence of polishing exists. The general geometric configuration of discontinuities can be described by the following terms which may be used singly or in combination: (a) Planar - Profile of the discontinuity is linear. (b) Curving - Profile of the discontinuity is arcuate. (c) Undulatory - Profile of the discontinuity is sinuous. (d) Irregular - Near vertical steps and ridges characterize thediscontinuity profile. Discontinuity fillings are just as important - often more important - than the size and orientation of the discontinuities. One must distinguish between 7 major types of coating and/or filling materials: (a) Joints, seams and sometimes even minor faults may be healed through precipitation of quartz or calcite from solutions. In this instance, the discontinuity may be "welded" together. Such discontinuities may, however, -3- have broken up again, forming new surfaces. Also, it should be emphasized that quartz and calcite may well be ..- present in a discontinuity without healing it. (b) Clean discontinuities, i.e., without fillings or coatings. Many of the rough joints or partings have this favorable character. At shallow depths, however, one should not --------------confuse--clean—discontinuities with-- -Il.empt-y-!'--discontinuities---------- where-- filling --material- has- -been leached and-- washed -away-- due to surface weathering. W Calcite fillings may, particularly when they are porous or flaky, dissolve during the Lifetime of an underground opening. Their contribution to the strength of the rock mass will then, of course, disappear. This is a long time stability (and sometimes fluid flow) problem that can easily be overlooked during design and. construction. Gypsum fillings may behave the same way. (d) Coatings or fillings of chlorite, talc and graphite give very slippery, i.e., low strength, joint, seams or faults, in particular when wet. (e) Clay material in seams and faults represents very weak material that may be squeezed or be washed out. (f) Swelling clay may cause serious problems through free swell and consequent loss of strength, or through con- siderable swelling pressure when confined. (g) Material that has been altered to a more cohesionless material (sand -like) may run or flow into the tunnel immediately following excavation. -4-' it should be emphasized again that the character of the discon- tinuities is at least as important as frequency from an engineering point of view. Thus, joint frequency per se is not a sufficient basis for evaluating the behavior of a jointed rock mass. 3' Joint and Fracture Spacing The fo|kzoving classification explains the codes found under "Fractures" on the log. F~1 Wide: fracture spacing greater than three feet. F-2 Moderately dose: fracture spacing eight inches to three feet. F-3 Close: fracture spacing four inches to eight inches. F-4 Very close: fracture spacing two inches to four inches. F-5 Extremely close: fracture spacing less than two inches. Joint spacing refers to the distance normal to the plane of the joints of a single system or set*of joints that are parallel to each other or nearly so. The angle of fractures and joints are measured from the perpen- dicular to the core axis for plotting on geologic cross -sections so that their engineering significance can be determined. 4. Weathering The following weathering classification is used in the "Weathering" column on the log: -5- U Fresh: no visible sign of weathering; FW Faintly weathered: weathering limited to the surface of major discontinuities; SW Slightly weathered: penetrative weathering developed on open discontinuity surfa.ces..b.ut.-on.1y.-..-----.-.--- _.slight weathering -of rockmaterial- MW Moderately weathered: weathering extends throughout the rock mass but the rock material is not friable; ---HW-------Hi-gh"ly—w-aatht-re—d-i--rock—i-§--wli-o-l-l-y— decomposed and in a friable condition but the rock texture and structure.are preserved; RS - Residual soil: a soil material with the original texture, structure and mineralogy of the rock completely destroyed (includes fault gouge). 5. Hardness The following hardness classification is used: very hard (VH) - Can.not be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows of geologist's pick. f" hard (H) Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand specimen. moderately hard (M) Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to la inch deep can be excavated by hard blow of point of a geo- logist's pick. Hand specimens can be detached by moderate blow. soft (S) Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be broken with finger pressure. very soft (VS) - Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces 1 inch or more in . thickness can be broken with finger pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail. 6. Core Recovery During the drilling process, the bit cuttings are removed by fluid circulation. The sample which passes up into the core barrel may be classified into five categories: M (a) - Solid core greater than 0.1 m in length; (b) Solid core less than 0.1 m in length; (c) Fragmental material not recovered as core; Additional material which may have been lost from the when the barrel was pulled or material dropped from the core barrel during its withdraw) from the hole or cut- tings which have settled when circulation of drilling fluid was stopped. In addition, core may have been lost by: (e) Erosion of soft or friable material, resulting in a reduction in diameter or length of the core or both. This eroded material may be entirely removed by the drilling fluid. The material which is placed in the core box consists of items (a), (b), (c), and (d) above and (omitting (e) from the subsequent discussion) is strictly defined as the total core recovery. If no material falls into class (e), then the total core recovery is 100 percent in that there is no loss of sample. The material which is recovered as solid core pieces at full diameter (a) and (b) above is strictly defined as the solid core recovery. It must be stressed .that the total and solid core recoveries are only equivalent when no fragmental material is recovered. This arises either when the rock is solid or loss of sample is represented wholly by material carried away by the drilling fluid. It should be noted that core recovery is expressed as a percentage of the total run length. M 7. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) The 'Rock Quality Designation method of determining rock quality is as follows: Count only those pieces of core which are four inches (10 cm) in length or longer and which are hard and sound/ sum up the total length of core recovered in each run. The sum is then represented as a percentage over the entire length of the run' If the core is broken by handling or by the drilling process, the fresh broken pieces are fitted together and counted as one piece provided that they form the requisite length of four inches (10 cm). QualityRelation of RQD and_Rock Descriptionof RQD Rock Quality O - 25 Very Poor 25 - 50 Poor 50 - 75 Fair 75 - SQ Good SO - 100 Excellent NOTE: ROCcan only be used on NX core or larger. The ROD ` ---- should always be; shown on the ozra log as a percentage. The diagnostic description is 'intendod primarily for evaluating problems with tunnels orexcavations in rock' Surface Elev. Hole Depth , Drill Hole No. Car�i�lLocation . /3 Hole ion otion Project No. client 50 P-eologist �So/1/ Sheets of �- Location 0wE40-#0US,E COVE Casing J. Surface Description: _ Drilling Co. Ri q/(,. Used - Core Siae ak Sampling Method Q,( FAG S%`'IeKc E 7V � DrilIar �,� Drill to6 SP/2(aCE 7c7 30� Location Dlogroan Rock ouality- -ROUND . WATER TALE Special O PH /-fF2 Parameters Depth in Ft. O, 04 Testing C ® a� IL C D d0 co e e 6 N C 31 r-sa 41► &t4mF- �tT °� ® � P. Date i `-' : OaJEOti S t= W.D./A.B. L 0 o DESCRIPTION OF STRATA ® (aDISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA c, 's -v n 6 0K r y ,' 4 So nss/ 5 G 4 n 5 —a.// y M // / rn •¢ b aGKc?Gr o 27 47 G/ 9 / _ I C. S /�! C o /o G 2- .•o 3 v.o- t • � SS Q /",oCover�,o( 2 c,.6 nc t r n o! I 0 6 6 /e 4 o; .s= (i Jam/ rq i Q r 0 ti D/. 7 . •' o Ski. N� D f Q S Qi �'@ ®�dO O �� /..p {/ .. •. ... ..' `III GP B co a S jo = s .s- s Set, .77 D DWK CMG C== D.H. N•0. 2.4A� - .. /,9 Crco. R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.wo �'EVTEGyii/!G'+�L- SHEET / OF.Z GATE. ^f /� �� auuaawa oao�o®4®ro ®LANawa aunvawona N . r „' •:.Ya,' PR0J. N0./5!/B/ SCALE ' , Xi(/�E.ST/�'�i%�I J i .y /N=i�"i ... nuua an Surface Elev. Hole De th Drill Hole No. r Grl� Zoc tlo�nz/. /3"Hole en@anon Project No. /Ak-i O/1/ Sheet %a- of '�••- Ctien4� SCU CaRPGeologist Location blE�'./�iOfIS+E COVE. Casing V Use d Surface Descrip4ion: Drilling Co. ,E RiVCAJ& 4 4R ?F Core Sizg Som ling Method Driller C(,� ��,E� Drill Zto' d Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Spacial Testing Parameters 0epthinEt.6,0 1 .. • sue• c 'rime Q;oo u®, o e v � - - UP w c r. Date (9 3 2 .� N C q.;;,. e0® m W.D./A.S. • u.DESCRIPTION OF STRATA m v`� a cy a: DISCONTINUITIES ��tATER DATA o MOEN ■MENMEMO D■ ■eM11111■ . oil ---- ,. . . . . . . _ 1 13111 1gull r+s DwK L o o /� L��E✓ 0,4AI7-CK !�6'.� R&M CONSULTANTSINC. DATE. JZ $Z ■......A® 000�.0®1®TO PL6NN0100 OijPiVtVOPiY s • . ,x ?.e.'_ ' • of -At 0 /d� •••? • . .- ... - . w ..... �+• ! �°tl -. -. _. `ASP• •.�'�Y. D.H. NO./ 8-6 SHEET OFoZ PROD. N0./-,'//& DWG. NO.' •-P-�6— = _ __ •.. _ _. surf®c Elw. Am Hale Depth 6 Drill Hole No. Grid Location , • Hole Oriantation Y Project No. Aient SGO Geologist { .ocotlon Casing Surface Description: .. i )rillingCo. Rig yr " ,eG15!«� Irillor Ciu �� Drii to. Core Size 1$ Sampling Method MO C-Ine 'SOOR-LcGp. ,o 60.1 Location Diagram N Rock qu GROUND WATER TABLE Special aality Parameters ra ooth In 1 .51 nq ® ® .. •. .r o c Time C Gi 6 TMtiAmr/,yq�,�..Tn �• o-1��Cv L DatO s C o a W.D./A.B.GCL oDESCRIPTION LL OF STRATA 4 U. � Co DISCONTINUITIES & WATER DATA 2 o •! ta s e .eoe { .64erS , st po �,� a 0-7 C0,9Of 3 d S r o 1F �o • U i a a 1 GS 8 g J I NIF y ? N F . r • � Yb4 � d 4. OiPr - 3 a r or r Y` e• c �.S 6.Z S�e•Y' 1I" e► eP, ,-,' A * r air g 7S— " S� r. co s ri a 'A41r ,be o!°oi+pof ' r�s T E' D.H. NO. A 8� CKD. OATS. IAVS - R&M CONSULTANTS INC. nao�m aaowo wLallou®w® ®�,wvevowa ,Pj9�V _ w.�y+ ► �YB��,�j�� �• SHEET r i /z B.2 r. , . ; Y, PROJ. NO. /SN8! Surface Elev. Hole Depth Drill Hole No. ' -dQ7 d 7® 3 / L7ff -2-b"2 Grid Hole Location , rientation Project No. ' ?•/C q4 �s/1 Client 14SGD Geologist I -AR -SO _ Sheets of Location Caging Used Surface Description: DriilingCo. , RigL0 3 Driller u f� Drill to' Core Size a S mpling klethod� Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special : ; _ Parameters Depth in Ft. x T®sting ® P4 �. a Time C Gi s ri, `, . - b$ Ob C ` Date ® M o .. ... C 'v a e o W. D. /A. B.06 a o c - ® N Ga Cw DESCRIPTION OF STRATA DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA U. ;LJ 700 Q IL /•'�' /t_ �Q. CO Mn O r02 2 o • . S — � S/i'�/s.,. s: e m„• tic � . // f K i ,.�• 0 i S 00. l star Ssn®e 5 .. g r e r 'j�, Vet' o �%�.. w S %i S• Ga � c.i T a 'w ♦ 1' 4 Ls e eo ', ®o irr a` 9/i' iota ease PO 1 49 Ac, 9 +Pv A F w 4. A .S r' o • e O � `a i•• M ci w•R.S y q 4 iINIM MIN 1�000, ■■o■■■ ■■■■EM DW G' /`fL o --- tio,g.�J T ; :4 41eE" `t /96•� �# D.H. N.o..a—d.� CK0. •+ .., .f. . ls�®SIVI C®NBUL'TAQiI'B'S�pINC -- �r SHEET OF ® �EdT"JlC�%� fix.;.. �.: DATE. 7 /Z j3z ; . ,•,. '� PROJ.NO./f7/a/ SCALE /_ 1A141,�714Wr/®V .DWG. NO. SurfaceElov. HoleDepth KCn �': • �T c sr. III ' • . • ` %Surface C • •. Ck Quality GROUND WATER TABLE - rameters �VP DESCRIPTION OF STRATA DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA & If MMMMMm_ MEN! ■■NNE■ ■■■MM■ ■■■■EI■ MMEMME ,iNEEMERNME ■■NNEN E3E ."O FAT ME ■®■,MUMMER MENNEN AMP, M ■ iii■i �II�1111�1�1 Surface E lev. Hole Depth Surface Description- seeld Location Diagram Rock Quality IGROUND WATER TABLE Parameters DESCRIPTION OF STRATA DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA WMAM V. ME Mlllnllrllll MINIM MMEW in il oil ilia Oil III R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. HEET?— OF/0 JNVE ° ■ 'Hole Depth , f w ' Description- /I CoreSurface ampling , _. Diagram• . WATER Parameters L_® DESCRIPTION OF O:., WATER DATA nnnnINNA FA WY MIME-* Le II[JEJUJ1111 a e194711111111 ■ �E .:._ _..__ .__ .:. I� �1�11�t1 i1[�I1[lii1� 1111111/�111 ` �11�111�1�11 ■ . ..� _ _ . _ ;. nn11n Fqw-OW . .. �IGi:rLi.7 i _ • • Hole Depth ._ __ _ ._ _.. _ Drill -Hole No, Surface -.El V. e,61, S C S. ' - — 1 GzNd. Location , .C'.CC :.Ga G.� Hole Orientation Project No. 15rC 4.• ^.lient Sip Geologist 11 bRT/C�1_ At Sh®et -� of_Q. Location Casing �� Used Surface Description - DrillingCo. Rig Cora Size & Sampling Method )riller G' u Drill6 t06 _ CeV Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special � Parameters Depth in Ft. T®sting F i Time .: l m _ c e s 06 _� _ ® s1. Dote _ ® "` A. .' a e o p W.D. /A.B. I 06 a c it DESCRIPTION OF STRATA ® Z-t in DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA ut }I o 1IF&F A0 921 ,, _-. - - -`-� - - 3- - - 2 -. D/e I LL R1rE Z7 �(, t i boo Y0 r �as.•�rR��+s�ia�.�[�r[4z-ztz•�R=i'r/WMw®®Ni �SL�r+7Ts. I. - ■1■'■1■1■111 IMPA- ■■an■rc - In I ■■n■�■■�■�■ _ . ,. WA.: - Q . Surface Elev. Hole Depths BrilHole No. -Cu"REGrV 0 / Hole Orientation Project No. . pration Client SGl� Geologist Sh®et off Location G` "r Casing A/� Used �Y Surface Description: Drilling Co. RigLY 3 Core Size Q amplin� Method,. Griller G�,� Drily 7 to Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special a Parameters Depth in Et. Testing C l Time 1a. C o v M c 'a = CIE 0 0o c :s Date c w� e o 0 W. D. /A. B. c a DESCRIPTION OF STRATA ® m a: w DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA t o i ¢ �C r G� p T�C, a cGl& / 2 A / 3 rr/s/41�E.,rrn�r berms QLI' f%i,r.lr 4—E . 1 I 2:6�'k A"eclea i J Ca i l 1 }LQa T i; a Ve &._ `+ ra 1 a r� - l � Ord G 0 t(1 r/i CAr� t /4 r 6oef I IT • r r / Ile- � t 1 (9 - l IS 1 la O 0 ite fs ,14 Tat I'1°i�.�.:,� t♦ Co` o¢� wor- sk.00 art,. t tz s •Cat 77/ le M Q ✓. _ HA Y N CNZ- ��- Dw a,e,4N7-' L,gi e45' D. H. N•D. -T-8 ZcKa ,/B ULTANTS, INC. Cj�07'�"Ce�/tllC/�iL- SHEET OF/0 ONOIN001E0 090LOO/OTO PLYNNOPIO SURVEY=MR PROD. N0./5/!�''/' DATE. % / �� SCALE. DWG. N0. ":_ Hole Depth rf ace Elev. r - -. Surface Descriptiont Rock Quality WATER TABLE Parameters _ DISCONTINUITIES _ DATA . ; . - I III • • ��. ..._. lipmr-p- Mill FA MIN ,._rAMWjjjjjxjNjxj§ noon®�� �>9��ti`iiSiiF�Y�'7:T9.� • , c �F:P.3�Q�A'S�'f�1t' n ,n�®� , 11111111 ON min 1111-111111"A IN. Mini „91,,,,,,,, illillsimil oil n11n1in ... - : t :. a. 1N®I111li[cS Rom �-Iffl in DWN L'/�1L C� /I �%��,RJ%^ D.H. N.D. 3—E9 CKa R&M C®NSULTAN`T'I�, • INC. /� SHEET OFJ rNO/N®OAO OHOL0010Y6 OLANN®rl® 0Y60VHYOAB- , DATE. � ! �, � � ' "PROJ. N0./61/J SCALE DWG. NO. Client ASS Location CrrGk fake er -P Drilling Co. E"r Rig DrillerDrill to' Location Diagram c a IL C lb. ® w a 2 b e a _ d ® 10 u. c9 c DESCRIPTION OF STRATA460 Surface Elev. Hole Depth Drill Hole No. 550! / e5, .a. - z- G�rvid Loc�-at7l se.007I Holt Orientations Project No. r / //'?/ Geologist 1409H, Sheet ot�[� Casing �W Surface Description: Used Core Size & Sampling Method Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special Parameters De0thinFt. Testing ®' e Time `t S d Date a W.D./A.S. ® 5 cc cc I DISCONTINUITIES II WATER DATA . �.!�l.�' / � - 1 �!1'1lh�l��l�!l41l�l�il.J������.'L'�,� • • �• �: ,►�ca���i� .11 aMEN % ".w6J-Zll5*1i dyfad • IMMEN FA A � ,. •��� rII•r L�:7 /,:. u:•. 5.. ..r• . t���Il /. if[(/L'.E.7::�(!%�;1f� �//%�„�,�,.,,,, DW K ®NMA R&M COEflBBtJ6.T.Ifl1NTS/ INC. QNDINHORO OYOLOOI®TO PLANN®A® ®URVQTO.IO :# ' ;.< K /i!' /'���/�/�[.// !.�'EOT�"Gyit/"IC�G - +'. J /A�`%STle � 7/©AJ. D. H. N.D. 5- z . CKQ L SHEET OF/0 DATE. 7 ! L PROJ. NO. !S! 181 SCALE. /!!_ r DWG. NO. Client Gr'B/}SCD Location 7ia"� lake galm - Lima e/.4/46& Drilling Co. =Te-Z J Rig Driller emfv wI Uwe- Drill6lil to Location Diagram o a {6. p N' e U e Ic a v p O 06 U. 0 o c DESCRIPTION OF STRATA 40 -- I I I I I Surface Elev. , Hole Depth Drill Hole No. es. 2 Grid Location g7/ Hole Orientation Project No. Geologist Sheet /O of �_ Casing Surface Description, Used NW Core Size & Sampling Method Rock Ouality GROUND WATER TA®LE Special Parameters Depth in Et. Testing ® Ti me e Q o� e t ` Date e b s o o W. D. /A. S. ® U. ,n w a: DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA "Pi aim Raw DWR o ��i9RJT. L�%�� D.H. N0. '-� CKD.[',yL� �!� R&M Ct�NSULTANTS, INC. //^►••q J� / SHEET/D OF/0 ONOINR®A® OHOLO[.1®T® PLANNUMN Gunv®VONO 1C"V ( �l ��� DATE. j PROJ. NO. !s//S �. SCALE. /I/ — - /A/A�E.STI P.4rleR1 DWG. NO. ---- Hole Depth DriII Hale No. ! _ ROCK CORE LOG Surface EIev� G d Locot'a r Hole Orientation Project No. !L ►1-1 lent iaS [ O Geologist: AA 50 Sheet_— of-1-7, .ocation C—RdMT 4,41LE CasUseing Surface Description: lrillin Co. g / Rig L `' ��•-s�°°`""reiC 1 ,ri l l er C, 2RIER Dri II o Core Size EkSampling Method 6y Location ram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special c N _ . _-(,% D -y -82 _ ::.. ® Parameters Depth in Ft. ar✓ ,e a -'Test ing . I. • c n _ w f _ Ti me ow �. Date 7 7 i►+prs� 9 ®® o G W.D./A.8- $ I i 1 o i` DESCRIPTION OF STRATA ® H a: DISCONTINUITIES Ik WATER DATA 1 �r ---- -- _ _ 1 �1 1 tom•.. • w � 47 ;- CK0. & C®I\ SULTAfll`IsE DATE. /llriC. SHEET OF/.Z lL �Z mamNe®W® o®o�om�ers atwwaaam ®ue+vavow® r' ;' PROD. NO./S7/d/ Client ASGo Location OIRAO- DrillingCo. / Rig 3 Driller Drill to Location Diagram _�� P 0 e t� c ® N � a � c c DESCRIPTION OF STRATA 0 Surface Elev. Hole Depth Drill Hole No. 776. / .ZaS1.3 - Gr�Location AHole Orientation Project No. � �,C9 9. �FJY i V45R Ti c.d}L Geologist S.0 At Sheets of Casing Surface Description; Used /Vf.J Core Size 13 Sampling Method SEE P'4& / Q Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special m Parameters Depth in Ff. Testing Q' Ti me qM �+ Date co a c s c ' C. c O W.D./A.B. ® DISCONTINUITIES >3<WATER DATA U. .� MEMNON ■ENNEN NEENNE MENN EN MEMENE MENEEM MENNEN ■EMNON *MENEM IEEE No MEMO iiiii� OMMEME MIN MEMEEMI ME 111110 �����■ ■MENEM ■����■ ■����■ - ni CONSULTANTS, _C. Sur =Surface r �®Depth 3 Description- , , : 11 L • Driller , r Location Diagram _ock Quality —GROUND ,_.: , Parameters Cam® DISCONTINUITIES INWATER DATA ION ■ENEE■ MENNEN ON WIN MENE 11111111101 ■ONES■ 'IN MMENNEN EN, MEMO ■ ■ENNEN MEN TAIN i ..111011 � .. 11�/I�I�I�i■ FWAMMI1111111 R1N1 1II1�1�1�1� VAR 11111113101 - oil NIM1��1/I�Ii1 J ^ r CU42"RE LOX03" Client JESASCO Location GIPA-oyr ,LAfr-t� DriilingCo. /F/ Rig4Y Driller Ch Drilil7 to Location Diagram c d y k®. p %..' c c2 c " c a CL o DESCRIPTION OF STRATA 4- 5_ e�. 7- 13- 9- 0_ 2 4 5 6 T Surface Elev. Hole Depth Drill Hole No. A&, / 22 S. 3 Grid location Hole Orientation Project No. Geologist gp Sheets of Casing /,%� Used Surface Description: Core Size�Sampiipg Method &P Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special Parameters Depth in Ft. Testing c Time ° C _ �, Date — � ` s o 1t1. D. /A. i3. ® a DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA U. NINE malb& min I loll - ♦111111 :.. _— _ism Mw 1101111 monism - -J- MINIMUM,ENNININIRSIMN IMF B u ei 901 Z r ' 3.& S 0/7� a �Ce0 r—1 /'13 r d a r••• `.� c Am L. G ..a O 691 • r ry Ga C • S E JAI O M� �-�••• VB%TALI - •...-. 1` C4�Cr Ij Q.. _ .�..: Fir ti.•.= . Z11 � / / 7� DWN o. �;�--?ap3; D.H. No. 4-�� CKo. R&M C®lill3t.t8._`T'ANtS, tNd. CAT• �C SHEET g OFM DATE �2 Iz BN0INIQOAO OBOl00/BTO "LANN®RB BUWVB VOOi� �:w�, z /{�+®-,-L-- _ r ': • -: •' � � . N ' ,,�'• s- �, ;.:. ; � � / scA�E DWG.N0.. • .. ,. ; ace G t • Surface Description - A: Location Diagram �-Rock Quality WATER TABLE _GROUND Parameters ��� III • ! • ��� _Elm, DISCONTINUITIES ., _ DATA • ®®'.III/!LL/=7/ -. MINIM ► .. t�//III.*=���{���.:�G1r.��Ir��Yi'/L7.1 :' ._.. .Lr .. _ 1■1■■■�n .- a IMMUNE .. - .. ., , nn■■c�n _� , _ - _, SOME", MINIMUM . �M - !�l�1■1■1■■■■■1■ aar.� nWAWA ........®� i _ . 1. WORM IFINIMINI unnunnow. �. CA . y c Client T-$ASGO LOCotionC—M)/THc 11-011t/ II ?"'A" Drilling Co. :] V Rig , Driller G yr;er Owlc.. Drill Location Diagram DESCRIPTION OF STRATA Surface Elev. , Hole De th Drill Hole No. 6,/6 a2?3' - - IrZ Grid Location , Hole Orientatign Pro'ect No. N i �i.22L�g. rf (/orf,e4l .-/�C % Geologist q�ynar /� r Sheet of !!- Casing Nhl Surface Description: -Used Core Size & Sampling Method Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special Depth in Ft. Parameters Testing 0 Time c► c Co tP c s :, ` _z Date W.D./A.B. — c ® ® > <'. c a o O DISCONTINUITIES Ek WATER DATA to coWIM PAN Ell Cam..■. ��� IFAI maw Ili lJi� " ' • � ' MAMA ni 1�1 KIM ....��/� 1� u MM C01NISULTANTS. z lu D.H. N 0.4-6z SHEET 6 OF/,? - PROD. N O.is-/1(9/ /RlAS5-77 °s4%^1OA% DWG. NO. Drill Hole No, 14- ' . CORE G _Surface E10 -- .� �, Hal Depth .-..22 ,ROCK Grid zLoco4i�� ��, , -05,3 Holarien� q9/ Project No. Client £e'4sea Geologist g /Y%gI1� r � � Sheet-2— of 12• 2— Location r4k1 1w-21 °Pr® - me, 4G vr ��®d g ��/ Surface Description: Drilling Co. Rig I-CW4 driller eulrn¢r, 5)qAL Drill Core Size 8 Sampling Method �t Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special 4.. ® Parameters Depth in Ft. Testing ® ® ® c CP e Time o N CL ` c .. ` Date _ - ® L _ 1-1 r ® CP m w W.D./A.S. o a DESCRIPTION OF STRATA n �i $ m DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA D 2 e n' U D'- / e '( , 9' w c < 5'/p D I o Co-.•_ ev Iles 07 s e@i SST ° 'oini5 e/ ee, i•. • 4,ke. ' / siBgAll ��•f��' - a 9 ! CAI.!- r` iYt ibt4! diis s c OD 3 ° • , 53 , 7'-1.2 7, e .. T , .. S•>' � ' � vas � /!% s o O° Z. n owe /� �r!`V %' •�e�E' i D.H. N.0.4-CZ CK RtG llR�t� C®618sLJt_�'AIV'f's3, INC. °NOINHOA® 0°OlOml®T0 PLANNUO46 ®uwvarowm U®Tc�-C�d//C�QLy SHEET OF! DATE. . �T. _ y±'j' - .J...�` AN� _ PROJ. N O. /..�/I� j SCALE i!/—�/ ,'�• sA )i/Gc7,1 -1 47.1,E Surface', / I�a :, • es SurfaceLocation �� ' F.2 H Diagram Rock Quality '�GROUND WATEi TABLE Parameters DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA �i IIEIIi1/11/1 r = �BIMINI mini� ,MlJ��iIS�llil���s/.11�������� BIMINI Is I�I�JIII�1�1� _i . 111�1�111111l:� ,,�11 �aa a�uuu IN 011ymffj M11 MINIBOOM Firm 1 BIMINI. • ; IN innin CONSULTANTS, s Client %I3ASG0 Location (1 rahtL l ake l��tri►� -luN� DriilingCo. a7G7— R1gL Driller �/ Drill Location Diagram 0 0 p N' e v c ® o a c a t °r 0 o j DESCRIPTION OF STRATA G Surface Elev. Hole Depth Drill Hole No. 7(6. /G 22S,3 W- 4 -pa.. Grid LocationHole 445f ientation Project No. z�re 6-//YI Geologist Sheet1n off Casing v /Vw Surface Description: — Used Corq gize a Sampling Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special Parameters 0sot hin Et. Tasting 0 c Time Date e o o W.D./A.B. m. ,. w p DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA ICI MrZri I Bill Ml ------------ �- inME smog In Nunn Ill INN MA 50 Million milingiiiii HIM I ..........����� .Ill r SM CONSULTANTS, Imply r , on Diagram Rock Quali Parameters IN DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA Full I�E�I�I�I�I�G�i e�. 1 -� :: •era �_. , � � ; ,- � _- �e����l�������zr� - WOMAN 1,�111�1�1� s����■MEN ■ENEM sMENEM MENNEN MEMMEM , :. DWK o R�) �y��/(%� � � D.H. ND.4-8Z cKa .. q�,M C®i!l1�1.��T'�8P9i`i'�B INC. ©T ����►�f�, SHEET OF/ DATE. WNOANa®wW OOD{DOIOTO PIANNOW6 WNWVOYOMO PROD NO.IS118f SCALE �IYCL7,R IAIVE�5714 %©� DWG.NO, Surf ace-Elev. i ly .: Location16 .;:.fir � _ ock • . C, Parameters - 0+00' o_ Lck-- DESCRIPTION O, STRATA DISCONTINUITIES &WATER DATA NOMINEE ME EM■■®■ ■■■■■■ MENNEN MIMMMIMMMIMMM ■ENNEN l ■MEMO■ - N: _.. �. _ IN -_ _ 11111111�11/ spin MR 111■111�1�11 _--�- —' -- - � - - . 1191n1■ MOM awe IME ., 1111111111w �. J_ PR" 0 C 2K -L";'O R E LO (30' Oa Client tC GCS Location G DriilingCo. 1,54 Rig G 3 Oriller�!Drills g o72 Location Diagram SEEo c a,. e v C tf O a DESCRIPTION OF STRATA CL c c 0 I 2 -Ld slal - ec � Cal ` ' c 4' Z f 4 �Or �V OICV. 7tl //J��/(hR VI Surface �leq� 9I Hole epth Drill Hole No. Grid Lacat�on _ o� �� ..� Hole Orientation Project No. , ^ Geologist 4ARCAAJ Sheet—; of f Used Caging Surface Description: LJ Core Size lf, Sampling Method r2l. NO —Cot Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE_ Special Depth in Ft. /. 0 ' (L k ,4e�ai Parameters Testing o C Time 8; 00 Am — C :, ` a �c Date 7 q z W.D./A.B. c c I o ® in w G w DISCONTINUITIES Ih WATER DATA U. /.3 "ffA, /Qy x 0 tl mA KC.- S4Qr TF C,41/4M rQt hONa�+T2: he /N® WAX . Illlllll��Il�I NMI - , t r CKQ cJ RE'n.M C®tilSULTAN'T% INC. T'--_'.lJii�st//C'�� DATE. ■m Ntva®wo OQOLOOtOTO PLANN-wO ®tJAV®T0w0 7-'.r SCALE. f D.H. NO. S" SHEET OF PROD. NO. 4S IVI DWG. NO. ---= Surface Description - Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Parameters ffr • lilillilliil eases®®®®®m® i Vt /1I ■1/1/MM /,,,,,,,,, M. - ►. � l�Z��r�����I�Li��I`II4: W4a A- 1 9 D DWK L'NlL crca Lj OATS.I—/2 SCALE y_' CONSULTAINITII!,u MC. I— a �nl.; SECTION 2 RESULTS OF GE0TECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED DURING 1981 FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Item TITLE I Regional Geologic Map Of Grant Lake (Figure 1\ 2 Cross 38CtiOD and Regional Map, Unit D85Cr1ptiOOS Of Grant Lake (Figure 2\ 3 Ph«SiOgrDphiC Divisions Within the Grant Lake Study Area (Figure 3) 4 Grant Lake Avalanche Prone Areas (Figure 4\ 5 Test Hole Logs (Drawing NOS. A01 Through A13\ 5 Field Logs - Rock Core Drilling (Summary and Sheets I Through 4\ 7 Terrain Unit Map /3h88t l\ 8 Reconnaissance 88OlOgiC Map (Sheet 2\ 9 Geologic Map Of the Saddle Dam and Penstock Corridor /3hp8t 3\ 10 Geologic Map of the Main Dam Site (Sheet 4\ r DWN F9 � C:; Fi'jure 1 CKD B.V I Re,7ional 1'eolooic Mar, MD R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.] , I I .--I ..... ... rrant Lake PROJ N01 DATE Jan -1 1 '3 2) in N 0 0 r. z m m0 4) ;r .1 . 1 .... . - I tX_ __. - -_ . 6 - - 14 rj 0 ,2 0 rj L'i Ai 0 rj W u u C, t., :-. —_ r- 03 u to m 3 05 --c a) tj .0 w " w w 0 " 2) E W .0 M 1 0 S u u o o c m y co 0 mCL 4 rU cu M. Z OJ 0 w 0 c w ' c w 0 14 W C a —, c u 0 to u a m E 2t :2 AJ W 4) .q E a > 2 a ca 0 -tr wi cr CZ I U '00) 7 ; _-4 a 0) ul m L. > 0 cc w m r. 0 Nd to >, E 'a L; -4 w da w — = 0 0 rj (b 41 0 0 _ 2 cu fe .0 O'U LO 0 -a E r. c LiNj m m E cs 0 w 0 W r: I- 00 — to 83AIH SOVld Ld tn v 14 tr r. S� r .0 u N I— u 0 6 u 0 m co 0 W 0 14 W 0 1 En w E 0 In 'u 0 W z a Q 0 0 W 0 0 cu 6 &n U -7- m -0 cm w W W 44 Z, T a ki "0 uc 0 M aa) �Z in S. aj u C) to c w C. 0 2: 0 cu z a tr m 0 >1 0 w LW C�S E_ e— LO 0 M -; :, = — 7:: L) Z fo cr Z Adapted from Tvsdal and Case (1979) DIW h ric-.ure 2 Fe CKO R&M coNsULTANTS, INC. Cross-qection and Reaional GRID. DATA -Tan 'L91�- dftG~jaOD GaDLOOMTO oL^ftft808 Mar) Unit DescriDticns PROJNO SCALE Grant Lake DWG NO r 35 31 zz 33 -32 31 '.0 4 tj to -V 0 Zl�- it ;!I j*;!)"'. LIZ-` V! Z7 LAY 7 x� &,k V I-%t Mountain19\ 21 014 25- -'N 17 3D. 29 21 Mr .. Lff. 2 32 ji Ir •,S l r r - ' r "7"'_i"\ t Y �. � :�'-: �\ `� fit:-._. �- \� iJ�'; (.!"���" .. i � 36 4, q'-AR f 4 15. a -7 1 ' salars �'w 12 0- !2.'q.: VqF is ,-oml X f C, t; 30 25 29: 30 1_0A za 3:2 33 t 33 34 N A c -iaure 3 FB DWK CKD B.H R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. P-.Ysiographic Divisions GRID mu-4,0.0 W4 thin Grant Lake PROJ NO 151181 DATE,Ian Studv z`rea nwG NO UPPER TRAIL LAKE w w GRANT CREEK vocT LAKE Lf�WER TRAIL LAKE .f LAKE SCALE 1163360 EXPLANATION ' AL �PEAK =-AND - RIDGES AREAS SUBJECTED TO REPEATED AVALANCHE ACTIVITY GRANT LAKE DW R dt F-1 CXD BH r2a..46.0&M CONSULTAf!YTS IfYC. DATE JAM I� aaa10010*m wur..m®m mu®vm.00m Fig -are 4 F13. Grant Teske Avalanche GRID. Prone Fleas _ _. SOILS CLASSIFICATION, AND SYMBOLS CLASSIFICATION: Identification and classification of the soil is accomplished in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Normally, the grain size distribution determines classification of the soil. The soil is defined according to major and minor constituents with the minor elements serving as modifiers of the major elements. For cohesive soils, the clay becomes the principal noun with the other major soil constituents used as modifier; i.e. silty clay, when the clay particles are such that the clay dominates soil properties. Minor soil constituents may be - added to the classification breakdown in accordance with the particle size proportion listed below; i.e. sandy silt w/some gravel, trace clay. no call - 0 - 3% trace - 3 - 12% some - 13 - 30% SOIL CONSISTENCY - CRITERIA: Soil consistency as defined below and determined by normal field and laboratory methods applies only to non -frozen material. For these materials, the influence of such factors as soil structure, i.e, fissure systems, shrink -age cracks, slickensides, etc. , must be taken into consideration in making any correlation with the consistency values listed below. In permafrost zones, the consistency and strength of frozqn soils may vary significantly and unexplainably with ice content, thermal regie and soil type. Cohesionless Cohesive N4,(blows/f t) Relative Density T - (tsf) Loose 0- 10 0 to 4 r1lo Very Soft 0 - 0.25 Medium Dense 10 - 30 40 to 70%* Soft 0.25 - 0.5 .Dense 30 - 60 70 to 90% Stiff 0.5 - 1.0 Very Dense - 60 90 to 100% Firm 1.0 - 2.0 *Standard Penetration 'IN": Blows per foot of Very Firm 2.0 - 4.0 a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a Hard - 4.0 2-inch OD split -spoon except where noted. DRILLING SYNTBOLS WO: Wash Out WD: While Drilling WL: Water Level B CR: Before Casing Removal WCI: Wet Cave In ACR: After Casing Removal DCI: Dry Cave In AD: After Boring WS: While Sampling TD: Total_ De:Dth Ncte: Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the . boring at the times indicated. In pervious unfrozen soils, the indicated elevations are considered to represent actual ground water conditions. In L-npervious and frozen soils, accurate determinations of ground water elevations cannot be obtained within a ';--.ited period of observation and other evidence on grour.3 water elevations and. conditions are required. DWR Fs N/A CKD. GRID. �I/A R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. GENERAL NOTES ...... ......... DATE Feb. 19-1ZIS PROJ.NO Genera DWG.NO A-01 SCALE None EXPLANATION OF SELECTED SYMBOLS STANDARD SYMBOLS ORGANIC MATERIAL COBBLES BBOULDERS A IGNEOUS Onry SANDY SILT LItnZIti, LdCLAY j�/J SILT x --SAND 0GRAVEL --7-1 b=pjcV CONGLOMERATE METAMORPHIC ROCK •SANDY SILT GRADING TO SILT SANDSTONE I-CE.-MASSIVE To SANDY GRAVEL, SCATTERED COBBLES (ROCK FRAGMENTS) MUDSTONE ICE - SILT INTERLAYERED SAND a SANDY GRAVEL LIMESTONE ORGANIC SILT 1.4. E.� SILTY CLAY w/TR. SAND PLER TYPE SYMBOLS St . .--. - ---JI . 4 -" SPLIT---SPOON WITH - -47 #--HAMMER -- -- - - - Ss... 1.4" SPLIT SPOON WITH 140 # HAMMER SI 2.5" SPLIT SPOON WITH 140 # HAMMER Sh 2.5" SPLIT SPOON WITH 340# HAMMER Sx 2.0" SPLIT SPOON WITH 140# HAMMER Sz 1.4" SPLIT SPOON WITH 340# HAMMER Sp .... 25" SPLIT SPOON, PUSHED Hs 1.4" SPLIT SPOON DRIVEN WITH AIR HAMMER HI 2.5' SPLIT SPOON DRIVEN WITH AIR HAMMER NOTE--.--S-A-M-PLER--TY-PES—A-RE—E-ITHeR--NOTED—ABOVE---THE'- SAMPLE DEPTH. Tm.... MODIFIED SHELBY TUBE Pb . . . . PITCHER BARREL CS .... CORE BARREL WITH SINGLE TUBE Cd CORE BARREL WITH DOUBLE TUBE Bs .... BULK SAMPLE A... AUGER SAMPLE G.. . GRAB SAMPLE TYPICAL BOR11'1G LOG BORING NUAf8tR_.,,TH. 30-15 0'4rZ. DRI"ED"10-21-80 SAMPLER rrPE-,,. . Ss WATER TABLE 9 - _V IF-4r Elev. 274.6 �' aE '4TION IN F All Samples ss_*_sAuPLER TYPE ORGANIC MATERIAL isid. Visible lee 0"_7ICET—ML ICE -SILT imate 65% Visible Ice 90,56.2% STRATA CHANGE _7 SANDY SILT _A.PPR0)r1!fAi7 STRATA CHANGE 0 0. Little IoNoVisibie Ice 13-30' Vx —ICE" DESCRIPTION a CLASSIFICA77ON Ss :0 2 72,571%,85.9pcf, 281, GP (COROS OF ENGINEERS ME7`HCD) CLAS.51FICArIDN DRY DE'A15,7Y GROUND----- 0�0 W47�:-R CONTENT 0600. N\ -,QiL;^ 111.15, IF0 0 r 00 Q" 5,411PLE N41MSER 000-1 boo-1 01 SANDY GRAVEL 26' Cd 3 95 SCHIST --w— GENERALIZED SOIL ORROCK DESCRIP770,11 30'—oRILL DEPTH W D. - WHILE DRILLING, AS -AFTER BORING R&M CONSULTANTS, INC CALE NONE TH- 1 10-23-81 0.01 ORrA.NIIC MATERIAL WITH 2. O'W. DSOME SILT, TRACE SA14D 2. 3' IV � E.- AND GRAVEL W.D. Biack TH- 3 10-27-31 1. 0 "1. D.m OR(-,A!.-C MATERIAL PEAT WITH TR.ZCE SILT. AND SAND Black _—Z I TH-2 lo-'111-pi r, - F1 I OPf",rUNIC MATEERTAL —0. 5 .0 SANDY SILT ',:`9 SO!,T GRAVEL Gray -Brown 4. 9'T. AT TH-4 SURFACE 10 8 "3 1 -2 4 _7 0.01 .01 W- ly Iv N PEAT On ::an_-4 ana -Iravei. D"• CX0 i R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. i GATE SCALE 1"=21 Now F8 GRID PROJ.NO JSI-l^j DWG No * 7� TH-5 10-31-81 0.0' N ORGANIC MATERIAL O.0 ... -- - - _._.. ------ --- ® ® SILTY SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL AND ORGANICS 2.3'W.D. mg Dark Gray •pr-r. Auger Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. i TH-6 10-28-81 0.0' 0.. N N .V' N N ^" ^' ORGANIC t-lATERIAL N N •• k 2.0'T.D Probe Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. I Water Table Not Encountered. DwN P.T. CkD B.H. R&M CONSIJI_TANTS, INC. DATE 11-17-81 OND w�0A4 4l O�04t01■ L.l�Nwa00 ivaV®r000 TEST E?O,..E LOGS Fe. -� GRID rR_A,.r"i LAKE HYDRD PROD NO 1;12R? TH-7 AT TH- 8 AT RF AC 10-23-61 SU su-.RFACII 1.9-48-81 0.01 ORGANIC MATERIAL o ^ ORGANIC MATERIAL PEAT WITH TRACE PEAT WITH TRACE T 3RAV'F AND SAND GRAVEL AND SAND I IV 0%01 Creates t -Penetration Greatest Possible _"-e_net-rat_;cn by Probe DwN P.T.B .• TEST HOLE L01-,S CK0. B. H R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.1 GRID rPANT '�AKE_ HYD70 PROD NO 7 - AT TH-9 AT TH-10 . j.......... SURFACE V 10-28-51 SURFACIV 0.01 0.01 ORGANIC MATERIAL PEAT Probe Refusal on Gravel. ORGANIC IMATERIAL Ii AT TH-11 PEAT SURFACE_V 10-28-81 0.01 ORG 3A.NIC MATERIAL PEAT Ind N AI IY 0— ew N Al ew PV IV IV N Sw 12.9'T.D Greatest Possible Penetration By Prc!:�e. R- ORGANIC MATERIAL WITH 11TH-12 -3-81- n ni TRACE GRAVEL 12. 9 ' T . D. greatest Possible Penetration By Probe. CRGANIC MATERIAL -LT 'KITH SOME SAND rtNZ) GP.AVE:T, 7-ray Brown Water Table Not Encountered. Auger F .-fusal on Cobbles and Boulders. .9'T.D. DWN P. T. CKD TEST HOLE LO'-,S FS i!R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. GRID i LE!�' T- GRANT L'.Y—;7' HYDRO PRO1240 1',1101 DATE 11-17-811 "'N"'ne TH-13 10-31-81 0.01 ORG-kNIC MATERIAL --0.51 SILTY SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL 2.0'A. Gray Brown DWk P.T. CKO B. H. DA7E SCALE W Auger Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. TH-15 10-31-81 0.01 ORG 1IC MATERIAL — —0.4' SANDY GRAVEL IlITH SO'1E SILT, TRACE CLAY Grav Brown 5,7.9!2 3. 0' W. D.m 3. 5'T. D. Water Table Not Encountered. Auaer Refusal on Cobbles and Boulders. TH-14 11-3-81 0.01 MATERIAL 3' -7SILT WITH SOIIE SAND AND o -RAVEL, TRACE CLAY AND tops SCATTERED COBBLES 2. 5'T. D Water Table Not Encountered. TH-16 10-31-Sl 0.01 j'-'R(- C ANIC MATERIAL SANDY SILT WITH TRACE CLAY -rav Brown Auaer :.efu-sal or. -Eedrock or Boulder=. 6. 2T. D. I CS --I N " 1A 6�; . /I FB. TES 11OLE R&M CONSULTANTS, INC GRID. PROJ.NO 1511%•l r)wr kin r TH-17 TH-18 11-3-81 0.0' 10-31-8.1 0.0' O.W.— ORGANIC MATERIALORGANIC_ _MATERIAL- n ® ORGANICS WITH SOME ', o SA14D AND GRAVEL, I •✓ NUMEROUS COBBLES ' ^- ^� Blackish Brown ^�}^ o • '�. - .- -- SANDY_. SILT WITH -._TRACE- ------- - --- __ _ • • o GRAVEL AND CLAY Gray Brown J Auger Refusal on Cobbles and 4.3'W.D o Boulders. 0 TH-19 ' 10-31-81 N 0.0' ° ,..... ORGANIC *'IAT::RIAL 1. 0' W. .,... _. � 1.01 o i 7.5'T.D Auger Refusal on Cobbles and Boulders. SILTY SAND WITH TH-20 SO?1E GRAVEL10-31-81 0.0' • r .,+ �, ,.,, ORGANIC `•LATERIAL i WITH TRACE GRAVEL " ~ Blackish Brown Q.4 ^'�^' 2.0'T.0 Water Table Not Encountered. ® Auger Refusal on Cobbles and �,• Boulders. Auger Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. DWN. P.T. o �/� TEST HOLD. LOGS • - ._ F 8 CKD. B.H• R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. GRID. •NO�N!!•O 0664401YT0 Ot�NNlO• 04AVOT000 DATE. 11-17-81 ! R-_}s:T LAKE HYDRO PRO.INO 1ST1^1 ORGANIC MATERIAL WITH A TRACE GRAVEL 0_, Blackish Brown Water Table Not Encountered. Auger Refusal on Cobbles and Boulders. TH-22 0.0' 0.01 ORGANIC MATERIAL 41TH SOME GRAVEL Blackish Brown 01T.D. 4.21T.D Water Table Not Encountered. Auger Refusal on Cobbles and Boulders. TH-23 11-3-81 0.01 0.01 F �Z ORGANIC 'L�ATERIAL MATERIAL ORGANIC 2.3-W.QZ_' 3.2'W.Dff- ORGANIC MATERIAL WITH ORGANIC MATERIAL WITH TRACE SAND 2�N D -P-kVEL SOME SAND AND SILT Black Blackish Brown 7.7'TI.D. Auaer Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. `!A--7-F.IPL WITH T?%CE AND Black neatest Possible able --v Aliaer Drill. v o TEST HOLE L0--'S C KD 6. H. R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. GRID DATE 11-C7-81 GPANT LAKE HYDR') PROD NO! =11 181 Ca crAl DWG No A-r)q TH-25 _ TH-26_ 11-�-Sl 0, 11-I-81 0.01 N h - ORGANIC *-LATERIAL ^' ORGANIC MATERIAL WITH i k ORGANIC F1lATERIAL NUM-XROUS COBBLES AND � N w BOULDERS i nV •L -Water-- Table- -Not---Encounter-ed-. _. ._._. ---- ----�-- �. 3.0' 3.2'W.D "'- Auger Refusal on Cobbles and Boulders. - - N w i+Onr .,... ORGANICS WITH TRACE ' ^'Q^" GRAVEL I ... �. Black iv r. 0 ~. - - ... ... ... . .__ -. .. .. -.. r �+ N .'V H I.V Ir N /V I► h ry h h IV h I'►Oh /V N z-o"" 11. 0' T. D. :reazest Possible Depth Drillable by Auger Drill Im _ 1 Dww P.T. o o� FIT _l TEST HOLE LO':S CKD --- B.H. lq&6Mo GONSULTeD►NT5 9 GRID DATE 11-17- �� T LAKE HYDRO PRoJ:No 1511?1 TH-27 11-2-81 0.01 ORGANIC ?'MATERIAL 0.5, ;�-�,—SA-10 WITHSOME 'GP -AV —EL- AND SILT Dark Brown 4A. 5'T. D. I -later Table Not Encountered Auger Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. TH-29 11-2-81 M7=RIAL SILTY SAIM WITH SOME GRA7VEL Dark Brown 2. WT. D. Water Table Not Encountered. Auger Refusal cn Bedrock or Boulders. TH-28 11-2-81 0.01 `7 ORGANIC "MATERIAL 0 SANDY SILT WITH SOVE a. GRAVEL AND ORGANIC MATERIAL, SCATTERED COBBLES Black 3.0'T.D Wtaer Table Not Encountered Auger Refusal on Cobbles and Boulders. TH-30 11-2-81 D. 0 1 ORGA1111C !.*-'%TERIAL r) SAND WITH SOVE' GRAVEL LT AND SIT Dark Brown 4.0'T.D. 1,1ater Table Not Encountered. Auger Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. F, DWN C=) FR. HOLE LOBS CKD &M CONSULTANTS, INC.11 GRID DATE ........ 'RA".HYDRO T LAKE HYPROJNO 151-19*' 5. 3 1, ra. D. TH- 31 TH- 3 11-1-31 0.01 0.01 ORGANIC MATERIAL ORGANIC >TERTAL .4' IA.3' SILT WITH SOME SAND AND GF-;VEL, TRACE GRA VELLY SAND WITH Fr a ORGANICS TRACE SILT V-11 4.0'T.D. Water Table Not Encountered. Auger Refusal on Cobbles and - ------ - -- Boulders. 7. 5T. D. Auger Refusal on Cobbles and TH-33 TH-34 11-2-81 010, 11-2-21 1~w ORGa�!TC 11ATERIAL 1.21 1. 0 1 W.D.. _1. 01 .7. D ORGANIC MATERIAL .01 U . - --•t I nVrY"Tf- *AMVMTMT "TMTJ , — — -- -- 2.51 S0-'4E SAND AND GRAVEL ORGANIC MATERIAL WITH ---O-*-IE SAND AND GRAVEr Blackish Brown Zo wi 7-07' Auger refusal on Cobbles and Auger Re-fusal on Bedrock or Boulders. Boulders. 5'T. D. OWN P.T. 1 -7Fa TEST HOLE LOGS CKD 8.h. R&M CCPJSULTAPTS, IiOaC. GRI D. DATE TlI RA'T 1-7.KE HYDRO PROJ.N, I t" 1 r I TH-35 TH- 36 11=11-81 0.01 11-2-81 0.31 _RG�IC MATERIAL -0.3 ORGANIC KNTERIAL' pN GRAVELLY SAND WITH ' TRACE SILT AND ORGANIC RAVEL, SAND WITH SOME G 'MATERIAL WITH SCATTERED SILT AND SCATTERED COBBLES COBBLES Dark Brown Gray Brown Water Table Not Encountered. Auger Refusal on Bedrock or Boulders. Water Table Not Encountered Auger Refusal on Cobbles and Boulders. MAMA T 7v . �DT.P T. N A owk P-TEST [!OLE LOGS FS ii R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. GRID 'T LAiT -,iYDP.0 PROJ NC' 131 SCALE DWG NG. ......... 11M R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. . 'r—f e -S Geo'0.1111 — ' " 'LOVE. n FIELD LOG ROCK DRILLING WENT EBAS.CO...... JOB NO. 151181 HOLE NO. BH-1 SHEET NO. 1 OF 4 PROJECT Grant Lake HYdroele-ctric WEATHER— q,nw ---JNSPECTOR Heinzen,J.R. SITE Left abutment Grant Lake Outlet TEMP. 32 F STARTED 9: 00 A.M. 10- 2 7 . _ 19 81 LOCATION BEARING NZA DIP 90 FINISHED 4-00 p.M._La-al (LATITUDE) (DEPARTURE), O CONTRACTOR Interstate Exploration, r4t on, Inc.ELEVATIONS: DATUM --- METHOD —SOIL 3-1/8" Tricone CASING DIAM. N (2 3/a")- DRILL PLATFORM OF NO Diamond GROUND SURFACE 710ft. BORING: ROCI,___� CORE DIANI. NO-2 (I 3/4.%VATER LEVELS 5.51 IDESCRIPTION; COLORTEXTURE ELEV. ROCK CORE NOTES: SORING,TESTING,AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES; LOG IF &LIATION.jOINTIN6,FRAcTur, WATER LOSS AND GAIN i HOLE . CAVING; LOST CORE; IN. G , ALT E RATI 0 N EPTH� RUN RIJN I REC'D I -ROD I CEMENTING: ETC. I�AULTINq,HARDNESS, CEMENTING, ETC. NO LENGTH I Organic matt (0 7') _ Soil: silt with or—q a n—i c s 7'- 3-OL)____ 2 IV .01 0' rlWd_- _-n (3._2L-j8') __ ti)CRboulders, rubble and A alluvium 6 Pu n 1 (9 . 6 12. 1') GRWY.E, fine to medaraiax_gray• beddina 400. Joints 600, ve-, close spacing; Fe,Ca slight wthrd folds on beddLng Dianes; c;LATF M - , r Run. 2 (,'2.1'-17.2) GRVIKE f :_7 as above: SLATE 1a,.,ersl/T' --hick. joints 400-500, sm-:h & pinr, trc chi., Ca, 14 Fe Sta4_n- Rehl�2 atz-Ca .-I—r1ine fractures very sing advanced to 10ft. Nurierous repealed qtz-CaCO3 hair-. line fractures to 1/16" thick. Sri break alona bedding planes. i 2.3 2.3 100% 2.3 100% urn-100%, ra,Y. _.2ijZq2_atjon Re=n 90 L — Re_ breaks sharp & angular alcnq _h_edd__a_cT p1qres- 2 5.11 5.11 4.5 Drill breaks along beddinc.: glares, 100% 88% close, med. sham & angular. lose,Hard & Mod. compt. R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. — .+[fo5 GfOORiC.c A[Yfrw.P®t YtJmvPvnoR BH-1 Page- 2 of 4 Run 2 cont. GRWKE fine to 2 5.1 100% 88% FRACTURE: 15.8 open with Ca fill,_ med. train crrav with l0% 1 I-" thick xtls • 's i 'j SLATE interbedded — — St e Run 3 (17.21-21.81) GRWKE -------- 17.2 - _ Casing advanced -to--l5ft. , -% ' as above. Joints very 1 3 4.6 4.6 2.7 '---------- •i r. close, 300-400P pinr & —__--- _ 100% 59% Circulation Return 907100%, gray — -- — smth, irreg. & rgh. , qtz- — — —'— Drill Rate 18.4 hr. %f rP chl-Ca fill 1/32"-1/811 Drill breaks sharp & angular along thick. Mod, hard, mod, 20 bedding planes. comp t S1h — «-- --- -- - ---- --- into rock at -Ion, rots & bed HIGHLY FRACTURED in SLATE zones 211- dincplanes. Less comfit. 3" thick, oor� comet. 20.6'-21.8' — i than above. 21.8 I .,.,Run 4 (21.8-27.1') GRWKE 4 5.3 5.3 3.9 Circulatior�R_sr 90-1009k,— t with _3.0% SLATE. _Joints S 100% 74% Drill Rate 20 hr. smth & pinr, chl-Ca fill, Drill Breaks along beddincZp,lanes 1/32"-1/8" thick-. : S-l.1-g t--24 - -- - — increasing in SLATE zones mod: ' thrirg at joints. Beddingsham & ann ular. — — — lane 400-50°. Rehld qtz- 'J;- a fractures: hairline to -- — j%1/8" thick; irreg. Joints/26 ,• , drill breaks vet close. -- — ard, mod. comet. 27. Run 5L27.1-31_9'L GRWKE 5 4.8 4.8 4.0 Circulation Return 90-100 %, arav ;•fine to med. grain, rav, 28 100% 83% Drilling Rate decreasing: 14'/hr. SLATE interbedded Y' _ — — — — — — rill Breaks alonebedding Planes & Joints 200-30°, rgh & SLATE zones, sharp & angular. j lnr, slight wthrd, Fe,Ca Soft sed. Slip bed- 30 — — — — — — — — ing 4" Comet. increasing /Numerous atz-Ca rehld hair. ('r ine fractures,_irrea`Har /� _ comet.— — — 1.9' � !;Run 6 (31.9'-36.91) GRWKE 6 5.0 5.0 4 .8 irculation Return 90-100-, arav f o_ 5 0 s above. Joints 40 �0 100 % 96 rill Rate 15'/hr. — J. f,- 'gh & pinr; smth &_p1nr;Fe Drill Breaks mostly in SLATE zones o /1%,.Z Pv fill; Slightly wthrd 4 long bedding planes & reh13. ard & compt, ractures. �� 36 R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. 36 Eun 6 cont. GM+» with 6 0' SLATE interbedded 36.9 Run 7 (36.9'-41.81) GR14KE 7 grain, gray,- ,-fine to med. 3C— ith 30% SLATE interbedd— ,,-.ed. Joints 300-400 , mod. close, rgh E_pinr; Ca fill Decrease in r ehld qtz-Ca 1. 'hairline fractures. Hard 41.6 8 Run 8 (A1.8'-46.7') GRWKE a s above. Joints alon bedding planes 400-500, mod. close, smth & pinr, 44 X,.;,,Ca fill. Hard; compt mod. comet.-__ L1O- 46— -7 1 r- 1 A i i tDTqv7'd46. 7 un 30% SLATE interbedded rpoints & bedding planes 4448— tz-Ca-Pv fill, smth & 'Pln.'. • ery close, Slicks ,trc- ara te rc Sjjg4SDcp -soft & friable, incompt. 50- 47.2-49.6' SLATE with RW 10' G TKE. 51. un 10 (5l.4'-:56-4')GR`VME 52 fine to 0 SLATE, crav, jo4ntS ed. arain & bed smth ing planes 40' u 0 e td -r2 smth J_na planes P & z�jnr some qtz-Ca-Py 54- L 0 .Mpt fill. Mod. hard, mod comet o in cc rn- t . BH-1 Paste 3 of 4 5.01 100q 96%1- 4.9 4.7 3.5 circulation Return 90-100%,_qrzkv 96% 71% Drill Rate 20'/hr. Drill Breaks mostly in SLATE Zones � n1ona bedding Manes. 4.9 4.9 3.0 100% 61% Circulation Return 9-0-1,00%, grav Drill Rate 20'/hr. Drill Breaks along bedding _pLar�es & SLATE zones, smth.& nlnr, sharr, & angala:E, close spaciag. 9 4.7 4.7 0.5 100% 11% irculation Return 90-100%,__2ray Lri3ill Rate 13.31/hr. Drill Breaks along bedding olanes, "nostiv in SLATE Zones; smth & olnr, friable. IPSLKINTSD : 47.6',48.1',49.0' HEAR ZONE: Rehld with, trc SLY-NSDS, 10 5.0 5.0 2.3 100% 46% 2-irculation Return 90-1'00%, aray— Drill Rate 12'/hr. Drill Breaks along beadina Lla,ne!j, smth & Dlnr. 3RECcIA ZO,ITE: 51.41-52.0' Rehld, Droken by drilling, trc clav, inc,��- t. Some SHEARING along SL;=1z. lavez.- I RECCIA ZONE: 55.5'-56.0'. 56.4 6' ) GRINTKE un 111 11 15.2 110-0%1231 R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. ...�,�..o, �.o�o�•,., .,.��.., ,,,o,..o., BH-1 Pa e 4 of 4 Run 11 cant. GR4+KE with 11 5.2 5.2 1.2 ,SLATE,.gray-black. Joints 8 100% 23% Circulation Return 90-100%, ray' & bedding_2lanes 50a-60°, Drill Rate10.4'/hr. rsmth & pinr, trc SLKNSDS Drill Breaks very close along bed- trc clPZfill_ dinq planes. - - , ,• _ • '� very close Friable & incomSo SHEAR ZONE: 59.9'-60.3', rehld, t. Rehld atz-Ca fractures friable, thin latey fragments, ..- to V. .,..,-,hairline trc SLKNSDS. — / Run 12 (61.6'-66.6')GRWKE 51.61 — • • ,• 12 5.0 5.0 2.3 40% SLATE,3rij�black, �- -___ _- 100$ .6% Circulation Return . fine to medgrain. Joints _ _ _ -._-- ---__--.. _---- _ rill Rate 10' _ _ . - - ..�� f 450-500, smth & lnr.�Ca, _ — — ".t.rc clay, trc qraDhite. 4 CTURE ZONE: 64.4'-64.8', 66.1'- Mod. hard, mod. compt. to 6, , SLATE thin _& softs �l6"_ r- 7• incom t. SLATE 63:6' - ers, cla_, SLKNSDS & SLICKS,ver;�'64.8' able ,SHEARS in SLATE zones. [66 Run 13 (66.6'-71.61) GRWKE 6.6' Circulation Return 90-100% rav 13 5..0 5.0 4.1 SLATE as above. Qtz- Drill Rates 6_.71ZIr_ .40% 100% 82% •'Ca rehld fractures, hair- 8 to -Y'; soft sed. -slip SLKNSDS: .70.01, trc Py, mirror-like ' 'line -beds 1/8". ,joints 300-400, finish. smth & pinr. , rgh & pinr. , — — -- ---_ — �; %-!-close; _ qtz-Ca fill, trc 0 rill breaks along SLATE bedding Mod.hard & mod.comp lanes`------i-- %clay. Run 14 (71.6'-76.6'T.D_) ' • GFt`rKE with 3098 SLATE,71.61 14 5.0 5.0 5.0 fine to medJrrain`Bedd- lOG-• 100% -ireslation Return 90-100;•,�grav :' inc 400, with so -me Ca - -r' rill Rate: l:r. seams to 1/8". Joints 300- 400, smth & pinr, Ca fill; 4 rill Breaks alone bedding :Manes. hard & comet. '- _76- 6.6' Total Depth 76.6' as above..— — T.D +Bx JA) Terrain Unit Bx Symbol Terrain Unit Bedrock Names \ i C Ct Cg Co Ffg Fp Fpt Fd St . Gs 0 C + Bx 6X + Bx Colluvial Pock Calluvial Alluvial Fan Flood Stream Fluvial Glacial Bnov organic Colluvium over Glacial Till Colluyium BadroC1 and v Bedrock and Talus Glacier Avalanche (Granular) plain Terrace Delta Till Fields Deposits Bedrock Exposures Bedrock Exposures N AO Fd SCALE 1- )000' IBM 500 0 I000 2000 3000 SCALE IN FEET F pt dm a Za W a 2a W aZ Z Fa j a :3m z0 ®0 a W U 0 a �m 0 �z IW �I 3000 _3 GRAYWACKE _ �62 f sG- ��— ss .. Q000 -..... ��.. SLATE 37 GRAYCl WAC 6 K!!. .::Q /rG AYWA4` 1 $J Sq Y SLATE '`-•�"'��J, �'Jt�� SOO. SATE s RA WACKE EXPLANATION $ ( 42 62 \ \ UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS CONTACTS SURFIGICAL DEPOSITS, GE14ERALLY 5 FEET OR MURF IN THICKNESS T DA;I1 C'-J �'I'•ERE INFEIt Ri'D SLATE ••" • • - ~' fi SLATE' q.� F —�— SURFTHAN 5FEET DEPOSITS, GENERALLY LESS VERTICAL FAULT' rc � THAN 5 FEET IN THICKNESS � s/' i / I O _ FA IB STRIKE AND PLUNGE OF FOLD AXIS i I � SLAT .-.� �^ BEDROCK / �,,� � THRUST FAULT 4 2' •�-�'�.I ❑ GRAYWACKE. LIGHT TO DARK GRAY IN 43 .�._,L. ..f ..r. __ti •. r' ...., __ .-.......:'_: r COLOR, FINE- TO MEDIUM -GRAINED, HARD �t G AND MASSIVE, CONTAINS MINOR AMOUNTS -- • -- - — • — • — - LINEAMENT OF SLATE AND SANDY SLATE --( � SLATE DARK GRAY TO BLACK, THINLY w BEDDING FOLIATION AND JOINTING S BEDDED AND SLAB By SLATE. CONTAINS U rr `? • �-� �� \ MINOR AMOUNTS OF GRAYWACKE AND SANDY I - Pp IT SLATE \ V \ STRIKE AND DIP OF FOLIATION" SANDY SLATE GRADATIONAL IN COMPOST- \ �23 STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING* s+S TION BETWEEN GRAYWACKE AND SLATE, OR INTERBEDDED UNITS OF SLATE AND p83 \ GRAYWACKE \ `p STRIK9 AND DIP OF JOINT SET AREAS CONTAINING NUMEROUS QUARTZ \ STRIKE AND DIP OF HORIZON AI VEINS J JOINT SET Q tFAULTS ` MAY BE OVERTURNED �' N• i \ \•\ 1 FAULT; DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE AND • on CABIN DOTTED WHERE PROJECTED BENEATH WATER OR UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS. DIP OF l_ ,...._•-_ -- } FAULT SHOWN �•- •--•- -- TRAIL SOIL SCALE Q COREHOLE ® BOREHOLES 1000 300 0 IODD 2000 5000 — SCALE IN FEET n 63 W �i d• H Z> OI' • F' • 2` • az z Fj J° h 20 E)e r I _ tI I. u o mw 0,0 I e ,. — l a ' .� /t ,� r i S' / / z- VCREX1 LA4AT OId /' m '" J c � ,,� �,' / � 1 ��-. \\�,__�_� t. I u.-,.,.,,oLHJATr.D DEPOSITS CONTACTS OQ11F.PoSirs, GENERALLY 5 FEEI DA311r.0 WHERE INFERRED OR MORE. IN THICKNESS < SURFICIAL OEPOSIIS, GENERALLY LESS VERTICAL FAULT IIAN 5 rEEl 114 THICK14ES5 < cy I FA 18 STRiME AND PLL114GE OF FOLD AXIS BEDROCK (j THRUST FAULT a■ GRAVIIACK1, LIGHT '10 DARK GRAY IN t4.1oy 2> A AND t.iASSIVL, CONTAINS MINOR E AMOUNTS — - — - — - LINEAMENT ff >;,7 If I OF SLATE AND SANDY SLATE dJ BLACK, THINLY BEDDING FOLIATION AND JOINTING a U D ANOSLABBY51. -0 TAINS 2 ELR� T R IS 1 """AMOUNTS SLATE DARK GRAY TO GRAYWACKE AND SANDY 2 K 51_�,TE STRIKE AND DIP OF FOLIATION- u SANDY SLA'IE. :,RADATIONAL IN 23 STRIKE AND DIP OF BEODINC' ' l '', /�S7c \ `\ ` �/ I ) i� ' \ " I '' / I / 1 I ` \ \ )' !J 1' "I ION BETWEEN GRAYWACKE AND SLATE,OR I LOWER OR AND \i` 3 STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINT SET GRANT 265 OR �'Y"%VACKE ! j ', V ' I. \ \ ` \ \\ APIAS VNIII.I.. NUMEROUS QUARTZ 5TRIKE AND DIP Or HORIZONTAI END VEINS U114T SET LAKE 00 TO FAULTS MAY BE OVERTURNED CABIN FAULT; DASHED 'HERE APPROXIMATE AND 0 2 V. DOTTED WHERE ?AOJECTLD Rr.NEATH WATER m UNC F TRAIL FAULT SHO%,N k � ' ' / \� \ ®COREHOLE SOIL OLES UPPER TRAIL LAKE SCALE 1 200' VAI 00 Im 0 200 400 60) SCALE IN FM MASSIVE GRAYWACKE A j ! / ' i'I �....-�� 1 1 % N S GRAYWACKE 2 9 %ANDY90� GRAYWACKE Z�5-' LATE TO 3= 195 Q e34 C' TI19.," iH74 � 15 1-9 GRAYWACKE V 9 76 79 5-QUARTZ -CARBONATE VEINS / �, 1 '`,\ '1 / _ _ mM 0TH12 OPEN TO I- TH14 I C SANDY '§LATE,.-,:..._/! �ql .��1 \ '•t \ i i`j� �•?6n/,_�. ''' ..\N.. / i • 4! . Ty I GG 7.4f42 SLATE % WO . 6,4\ k51 .40 SANDY LATE, 8 SLATE' 'L S DY LATE RAY—* 17 SANDY SLATE 6 C 64 TIH311 T • 90 QUARTZ VEINS, 90 4 61 40 54 GRAYWACKE SANDY s",.,.•-•'---. i SLATE 44 90 VERY WELL DEVELOPED VERTICAL JOINT SETS ATE 0 GRAYWACKE W/20" y7t) I SADDLE DAM -53 SLATE SEAM 51 VERY WELL DEVELOPED JOINT'SET PILE FROM MOTES ON •0� t.) WITWMYLAR GRAYWACKE AERIA PH Pwl (I . 0 RING 62 V L Y AN Nulto 0 SKETCHE5,-OPEN TO 2" w IF I C NOT YET SURVEYED. QUARTZ VEINS F :.MZ VE14 �t]R 46j;?eRTZ VEIN FILLED 2"TO 12" WIDE w (ID z ' \/1 \7 '�1 \\-`- �\(('''�j ED C2 0 0 to W, > ON 0 WO -q NJC-1 w <w "4 z z w N ou, R M w W-- W- 0 0 10 tr) 0. 0 W w =1 0 Iz z z z x 0:0 -j z �7 UZ- ,It OD uF to c m F- Z) � Lo .� --" � � ` N � � ._ " _ �'�' Fn co Low gn < CE cn sno3:3V.L28:) ?Add.n 2 a f \ �` �"' � ,'w....—. -.19 � .I `� __ tp \ d' .y. ,W ZDVI }fin} .¢O N ®■ Zw0 u a ><z 0 0 01, 0 OZL X.0 0 uc a LI C) 10' �U' mmoz , L5 < zz 0 = � M 0 U> Fol, P ------------ - Y1 ---------- j11 .. I ! II l !'j' j't I1111 1'I l�h'IfI I iffl,1 l,i l!ihll Ill,i I, I pl I IIIIII' ' Il�ll I I I . ;.:. - :,. .. :.: . - . . _. __ _, 1 : ' 1 ! pl I, .I' IIIIIII Irii �I!:I! II!! IIII 1111I(I!, II'!I!' II I!I'L!II fI, �l (l! I!, .. ..__ .. ..i,'.: „ ., I , :,,. , .,.,,.,.:L.:,,,,,,. !' �. II �,..ryrf 'IIL..,, !�,.� r,,Ilyll - I'7! I IIII I!pi I jIJ 1 . :: , ... _._..,...: I h�� Inl III I,I!pll'I�II(ill'llgl�lu I) l,ll •• 't : ( I,_.t IIII IIIII ''Ilt ldlll LlIII,Iry1l LlliL�ll Tilt ltl.L1:. ,.l 'II x Itl M i - .. _ .;. t.: -! :1' �r t 1 ] t!ih hl IfM I f f tf 1 II ' ',. 1 I .r !,,,;.': I,i I' I!I:I 114!�!':II.,.'il'',!i{IIU�IiI'IIrIui!li!!'II!41i1rrlllh�!Illl�C!hlilil(lllill�lll'�, i;!, , .,ia 1 :;III il, '!'1; Ilpl! 11' 'ILII,!!' I II!11 F•;14III;!InI II ;llllp IIIII1;Jle lll�'jl!I f'J!I� II'1!IIIIIjQI dIlhu.. l "I: !. � I ! l4l l 1, a! I nl,. IIi , ' �' IIIII I I) 1 Y I I Il I t�ll I I r! ,t ... `.:• 1 '., II 1 !, ( l I!I1 �I I I II I lj !, 1 IIII 111• I I'L�ILial.i!III!I I IIIII ;, �..I I 1 ! II I' Ih :,II lf!"' , I p' I I! II!' 1I I IJiI 11 11 pI I,I ' , I ! I ' iIIL I,il'. . ' I !,,� , !Itt IIIII l I l , t , , I d' I I, i 1 I I + Iill!, I) 1t III 'l Lal l IIII I�I il, 1 - ' i. :,:, .:IIIIII I' Ir,'y II'Itl !IIIII !I, tI'hl!,II�I1'III('�IIIIIIIIII IIII I}Ih"''!��!I lhil!1'i� I!I:I I bl G'! II!!IIII! nlll' nl IIIL'7µ1 I!�l!I{I:; . . " r Iltl 1'I II r ITr . '!- II I 1 I Yry ^tl II I , :i,.. : ,: ,::, , ,i ,1 I::'I ! ! ,IrI,. I ' III ll,j !,-.I !I i ,IJ I!' ll I !l!.' ! i�l )IIIIII L�.7!Ilr, ,, ! .Ir tfll I .u. +l,t 'I 4 'ry {! I,llrl Ls! , 1 :. I.!! yl Ill Ili L,,I IIII .1 li it ll,.:n!II'!I II !I !!,'i !Iq !''!i q,hit, !IIII! I.Ii1 ,J !Illi1 i )IF rc 7lt i�':f2 .. 11 r, I1 I,!, I ! I -4 ! 1 Ilh,illl! Itl�l !I I `I IIII I�I II 1111'I!Illilj �!hl �rl'%'!11 h 7tl,III III9�Lh!1!!YII' a A!I (, •� I f r.. Illljlyr ill °jtq, I ,! !IIIII n,.jj11lf �1 'II!(J ,'I,h I II ll �I 11t U!f, K •.r I' ! iitl I!ll IIU .; I I) ,II f•li,t 111114h! III I Ir!I{rfi!'i!!II'ih!III,uI '1'!'4I!I'' �' .... 1 iii ul,; I!1 III I!:rl Ili 11'II2,III 1!ll.rl,!1111.II II,If)I!IIIIjI11d.!1. I'Ii!I�I ,�, _. ! !I I IIII Ii Ijlll' I II,II!� ° jl Il 'I'111 �I '!!, I, !' IJ" 1 II 1,� I ,,!1 1 ,j, ',nl , 1 'i II 1, ,,.., ! ;!I I aI„!I I, JII � �Ir llllj hil .ltl I�II!I Ir Il if IIII !,.. f !:„Il I�il I Lf 1 .I I ! L . IIIIII :Ill !'!, I 1 i Illi III 1 !,!I,pl;;lll II !!I IIi �,i ;'! I III, IujR7, IJ,'llliI, If IIII ,I'f II !III III I' �' IIII! �':' ! ! ui ! fl 11I1'I ('ii!!I,II!I' Illtr! l' I allll 1itlrIII ..__ .. + II I: --.3 ! . _i_I! I _.�,1 ! ;' ,I11 Li ,i,;.,!I I III'-^ak!i,'.iia.�I'lljllll!IIII�'�iut'`'flf `Ii��I L1j,nlur,fyll!�IiS'"-:�I?' ..... _ : ,-: of u, ! I, ! IC nl t to, „•` . I ! lI Y'.Iili'It, II rlil {liiP hl:{!!L I; I IIII?',I6 ,1 4a.P,!tn ..,.. 1 ..! III :':rII ,IIII I!!I ,;,!! 'IJ {.!t l:l f:fl:;l, III i.,I I:;I III IIi I,t,!14(lhl!IIIII III!IIi!!111l IIII. III I�.Ifrlli„..I iI!�,!�: ,I III ,1,I",1 'u:l. .(�I' I1 '!.1 ' I!ill'; t I�:. I: !IIIIII Ia''I'If'1Y'+!.{.. ,, I',;Ur1N, Itl{;Ill„II'sI'vi .I'I,;:;.I ��,Ih hll 1, �, !: III!uI I���!hr�Jn, -:I'r ...: 1 :.:III ! '..I IIII ,L",i I I I,!!I411I!I:.t,,',ILii!IIrI ,:v;j,;.l ,III(,:i,1,ll,lllILIwIi7!!;IL1!'{,il!.,Ih'ht IIItGI! _. ' E � ryry 7 .. ,',:. ,,:,. ,: ..: i:.., 'i' ...... :::.,:Ill,l !1'..!i 11 I 1;!: !! ll_' j.i.'I)! e,,il ,il !I ..Li:'i�jW�I�I I IJ�L�I(1't l '!IIII11d �.1.... , I.1 ,!. I I .... , ru I ,.:. .I. ;: .i:„ll l! it nt l..:. Ill I III!; I I!, �Ill�i lwl ll,.l ,;: 1 'I;IIp1111lt1! ",' a1 q l l 11'l,l,l) III ilu r' II I I l l! III! j IIII I i IIIIII n!� l ul IIII I .: , I' I I L I Il9,ll1 c I( I I!II,III I „ ....; ,:. - ,:: ;r ,! 1 f II t I -I. It) II t p'!Illll Ii, IIff11ii : I I I I I�' I !i I ,llpl�6 is ., ., ; 1!Ir�pi I I,I !..,,, _::,,.;,u 1 Il.'. fti l9if I d,1: 1:111.!'1'h,. I!'11 ,1 II II) I�p, li. :'I!I,I I'lll 4•c' u..,�1 - !, .,, ,y! ... _. :G.I ,. :., : I .f: a :,,::,:,,:,! I I. 1,'1:1, i,ll Il tln(:1.:.1 ( 4 a:. I II : J I!111 _, I! �, Ip :I Il lltllll I,' 1111 I , ,I li I'„ ILu,�! ! t "I I ILI , -!.�.-' 1 I 1 1. ,I- ,!11., 1.1!.,, (.i!!.; t::III .I11 r Lr , .I G 11, .I,I ! ill I� ll .III IIII,, I 1�I 1 I' I, I:: I, :!, II,: 1 ,1,;.1, II IL, :III. IIII!, 1111II1 I, 111'{1!!J I, 111 , ILI , I .I) ., :.,:.,. L,:, :::ai a .,1 (I III :.,. is ! I.' ..,,:,. .�,.. nn :I. x ftIi.I.:_ ,,,,,:,l 4. I,I':I. ! I. 1L.111:'IJIII,Iidi41l•tp,ll 1 II !,III(:I,!I!,aq �.. I;I•I"' ..., L.. . ,,..,. ., l;. ,. !;,. ,! , .yl':!. It i. ,!p II :, ,I !:.:;'.1 h.. II r, .. Ir., !!., Jl II, -I, I!,, I.i !Lh,..: .1, I( 1 '! :� IlIi I� ! l,:l:: II! III, 1 ! I,d!!: I hL :,,,, !,! I I!::rl! I!,, 'I u' .1:.'�!IDLI�II '! Il�llilll'I 1I!,I!I,�!I�I f l' I I I:,, I .:,,,1 r „I,I I IIII !,I,;, I 1� Lflrl6 I .!:: w it Il Ii i+� ., l I I I!','I IllQal l l' 11 II. i,llh! . l �I I IIII !11 L�f`II, I I IIII,,, >:... .., .I:, ...... ! ,I '!;,:,! :,, Fd._! ' II .I 1 ',;nll II 'riI ,L,I �' Ll ,II`,I II IIII ' irc4t :Il!1I!I!t!I! I:, .IIIII I 141• IIII,IIL Id �I I Ill II + I .: 1 :I. n(: r 1. IIII 1, IIIII 1 !.-!t i l ll `, . p.i. l [ III I li,^1 d;, .. .:S .: II , G:._: ;! .IIII•' ;'lllpl I ,:IIII , !IIIII 1 Ipl,,,l. f i.. ,: ! -a,.il p IIII . ! 11 L• III; I II. i!Ir ,I IV, :,,. ! �: IIILIII IIII, !Ili 61I I 1:1, III,IIit il,Id I,,,,, 'lI rl!. :Il� IIIII'• (!Il,ll„ 7 ..1: 0,:, ,.. _ i. 1 I) 1, I,. I ..L.II IIIIII I IIII 7, 1. II, ,.IIII III IIIIIIIII Ii IIII ll i�:�Ilnla 1,{Ill t III L�nl:. If�II� IIIIII I! :::._ ,:.':• : ,.., I :,'"',: 1' ....: , , ';:4'f it I',,:. n. l I 1 a: II: ,I:I:I 111 I IL' lt, l' : I 1 :1 , I II 'hiP ! I! ti' I it �. �I .Ili :Ill IppII I�„ ,G I:,, ., P I I' t�l', .:; ,. i,, : '.:I::, i". i , _:I i'.II!I I.IIIIIl!ii•I, I •, IIII tal!I;I j ,, Ipll!�,ia �L LLI:II OJ !1:✓ ,�l.,i: ,.!III, II �I h41��I I!It �!Ilrp , .,.1 :,-<,�'ll; !..: L,!J; ' (.11'11 i , ;I; rj.l; n f III (:IIII j11 il.. It II IL, !al l:!!III I) !I IIII pa ltl ll, fl �, II II fI If IK L,, I,,,.I 11 !., 11.11.1�-d,ttl' Ir „1 I'1, : i. r'.I ..41;: :..,IIII, I ' �:':; ,::,,. ;'I"I;;I 1,,',,,,I I .1.,11;1,1II.IlI''i';II;LI:.,I!II..:.p:,I11111611.,..:.�,l,,lil; IC ly.. �,: ::. , ., : ,: :; ':I'.I I : 11" , .u. 11 I ,.: 1, ill1 1 ! ��!F7'I I :I ."N= I1, 1. ,: Ir-. .II , I. .: „!,., III !1, 11:4?, I(II.:11f1!I4111Il II h ,: i!II!Lf l II: I(i ilLtl' II !I,yi ll� .SC „I,.. :., ;.:.:.... . .. :L,I:,x, ,:__:, 1, L,, 1r,h; .!J I I'''! ,IIII dll:I ,III:I ,!,„ I( �...�.I. I�lhlllll, Li:. 11 Illl,� ,Il�lv.tl IIII, ;'r ::..:.,..,. ,::,,n '.::•.,. LL..,... "...,1 1 L:.: �:, ! nf:41l,,,u: n,.IJ,u,ICIl .1,1,11L' ) !.11. 116 IIIIII, ,! {I(,(i�t!..,yl LII. III_����>I'�I:�IIfI,�, ,L.. i. : :::.: : .rvn: 1 1 I. 1 I IIII 1 „'! { y ., I ,1 I. I, III I '' Ii.'.I ('IIII I11 11. l,t!iI IIII) I IIII!'0; 'I !.: I. IIIIII! I',' ! "::: ,� I: I - _I t (II::,:.,I_i,: � l.l.u' �� {,�I �I N�II� �, IIiIIYLt� pP!i, Iti�I�II:IMil ._:. ,;,r, t _.,L,,, Li.l ,.n, ..1 . r ..>, 11 I i,• i : I, I I�� „y �i p.� ! :.. , :, •. . ':1:, i;,:' ....::I. !I,.;Ln,.:,•. I' I; ,:!t.1„. III I:vb,.V Il ,,:l-,l IIII'" .,:Le11 1.1.. 11:,.,1 III !!�L�1, t Illlf!� I!11.11(It •II ' � I' ° '!I, IIII. 6,,. I ,I „I„illhul 111,1;�III�III I,II1�1 Ihllll,ll, I II„ l,bl1!In II n! r l,l.. 1 I I1(• ! I ! 11.1'L uy ai xl IIIIII 11 . I , , �._. 1 ,,:1 !I.t IIIr' it .1!!n,IIIiIIII,L 611I!}'1 ill I 1 ,I 1. 11 I I ;I,IWI','Np. ''I II f 1:11; uln!c,llul !1 niu'l;l- 1a.,1 1,:7nal:'lll,:i l!I lilLllll �I; I!� I ,'. I IIi l I 1.. I, I � ,,., +r. :: `i _.,.. ..::." ___._ "._i- ,...,.:. I Ail' :-n-. ! ,:,,.:` ," ii,lii'! .!t...'ti':I I,, !!,. Ill:,i.,ttl� 'I i I,,{ry!11!', II; x I!II!I'I! IIl,lll', IIJN Pa ',: 1!�, Iipl +sF "n 1,1 ,6 , .... I: I :, :..I ,. I ..IIII I r,., Y t ! !. III ! II ! nn„II II :H.II. Il Ir qqrI !' ! III . .... :. , •.1, ;,..: ,. ,, ,,. ,: 'ii' 1. I. ,'(. ., ::: I !I IIII: t 1 ,I, .1.I'I I: I'll „•III+11 I.i !! :, 1.. ;.- , :: 1 la.l ii r ....I I:. II . A nl1 t) II I. La1J:. II Ina;;>,I,I ' I .;h I t I .,.. !.I „L!IIiLI I II I,q. I I, III !?, ll, I. II,';: � j ' .. ..::. ... 1 .,...":, :: •. .,.,.,1, :.,. 1. :.IIi, LL. III 1., ,':: d, I!�', I LI.! .III CIS ,1.II! ;L. A ll Itq If IIII!, III i�•Ildl, IICI i�•„ IIII,: , " I .i I) 1j, I. fl ,, u,.l �I,L :,,.1,I�L, II, ,. r,� :,il: .;,: !I.'::::.' ,I4i 11ll,!;IIi IIIII I_,f,ll I I !II,,,,I,'!It a ,tl:; ((! ;'�l!I!1! 1'I Il. ,,:,,I II I IUIIIPII IIIIIIIIIIII:;p ,I: III :I11.,. 11 I! I • „_ ..,:.,, , ! 1 ... c','�1 f u ': t:; !,:;;! l ILI;J„�7II I�. !1., .IIII,J611III,.I�ll,l•,;!T! !',!,IIILItI!�. II ,;II I II ., �IIIII.I• III„I �7 t,I Ilk l.11 l lll,l�f'11 ��. '- ,,.::. c•;! r;: :: .,. 1 ,...I,-1 .L,.; 1,.,,: , ,a,. III :, ,I -IL. ,Irl ! I.:::l., l!I� ill.,.' I,, IIII i`•v r. .. !.: ,:... ... , !, . !, .,.. ,, :.;II II, IIa III ', ::r!; , ...I ,l1!nl,! I:tl! r! I ,!Irc! :I.''I! III III IIIII! I'!II )�I! I:: 11; Ilhn'I, II' ill; IIII I, OIu. .III Ill (I ; 1 ' , 1 ;I I (l i' .!I:I... .. ., .,.,., ,.,:, .:!.: .I :...�. '.:.I:::b , ,, ...::. ;p i'::. ' .. ::,.,II. (I �,!: I II-..,II�I!LIII hlll IIII i !�I,II,!!IL :: ::. .... .. .. .,... ,: ...:::,1.... ..... ..... ';IIII„! :I:., : II:,!'11I 14Ii '; L!'Illl .i. (' :J.. 61„ :'.I, ,IIII I�91 I, ':I.. _I : ,'•:. `: ,: r,•.:. ,,,: ,:.. •,: :, :,,;... .'I, ::, r,.:..y,. II .:.:;4 (,.. .,,,.I I I. ..:IIIIII I:4: I I I II.d LI II ..II I,:.!: L::,I n,:: - II, JL.I III,i,I. 1!„. G ' IIL;'." I :..:, ,,.I; , "I., 1' I ..,. IL I L. :! I,1 i,,II!yI Ili 1,Ir I!;I,.I IIII IIII 111t I II''Ii,rlla.!!i!I IIIII II IIIIIIL!IIII IrcI ald't� Ih119.1 II II 'I ��I ,1„11. lih �I III n6i.. I1.,,.. I._,.. (1 I.,.,;:, 11 ..,I.I:: IL.,...I,I{{!. ,1,1.;6,, I !,•� :,, .I I I, ,,,IIl,illa I, - I dl..' '..:!.1' 1, :!.p;l 111i. „11. III :In III, IIIIIII ,i il, ! ''I 'i k" !: 4! I� !'I IIIIhI:I,. 1:;:Ir 1, '!ail• �I 1''il!1'.I: ,.:d !,ialll: !: �II1 (,11I'.r=!,I!I't j�illl,l �!I is I lri! Il, lil I": !. I >,I 1. :I,';;; I,., .I(' , f:,jl,:,I .,I; ! IIII tJ4 .I,, :I �•:I III �.I l 1 IIII,.' tall 1, ! 11 ,r:_'r:,, I _ 1a,, 1::1 II. .IIb,:I, (,..I, II. •!::, ,I I1„illt, I:: IIII Ill L,.a ,I I IL'I:Ir:I',I ILI+l I ...� ! I4 h �� ,� I!''; i ..,..:L „: ....L.1 1 1.,:..:.,!, JJ Iv,:!. :, 1. ,v„ I..,.I;I,,;I .!!.It.,i_II I. I. III ,II�I,IIIIL LI. L, r 11. - :., : I I'IC nI '::' IIII .: ::, I .,...,;1, „: : 1v,111.. I11141IJ!U I.h! 1h1,1.,1 f11 l,, •II n it Ii, I, ILL 1yl I .I I 1 :L, 1!I�I 1 in!I ll.: ;, t. ,,.,4 ,:71:.. I.;,-: .,•.,:I I II I't:,:. t,. ll-:, ,II .. i, ..II ::Itlll. i. I! ,,,IIII II!!I'I 1.111 !I IIII Ix,I !f4, II,! :.II:IIIi! I"I,I:I, aI,,, III{ �!�„1IF. ,.. .. _ I,..,I ('; ,,..li lI! L u!.,.!I ILI II.,.L_,lu ,I _;IIIII II�..I... e, r `.., !::Irr11, .:;;!i 11.R, :I:;I II <.:,, ..i I.,, „ .1. I,•wi ,o Il,II:.I. 1,1 L!.u,brc ',:I:I Lr. I.1 lu If. �'1 , ',, ,.:.:.il I.. .,I. 1... 11 .,, ,,..! !I .';c'.. _, I. ,...I, �I; I" I' P.I .I pl,u u111!111111,1!Ililll ll IIi I' ' „,1 ,:,.:•.I ' tl !.1 r::!!,I: Il , , .. iJ 1:,,:1110 IIII IIII ,,IPlul ..l. l IIIIII (IIII' ,. :I:!r:!I !. ,.L.. ILI:'I, !, I:,,L11 ,.6, 11. I:,1F:LI, I, IIIIII! Ilv ;II' :III 11 ,II111(� !i j, i!,1lll�l l� ) (I. II - },. t I r I .n. I !,- !I ;I (I t;, ," IIII I �4!I,I: I �11 71 I! ;11 I I•:? n :.:I Id ;f,,Iri: f11:, •:I ,, II-L' I ,I, 11 I I: ( ! I I�� I , :r. 1 1 ,, I, ii 11 ll" 11. :. .I I rl I; 1I• 1: I, II N :. 1 6 .II 1 L I ,i,Pl I ,I ! IJ .IIi i i 1: 4111,tiI1:U, !IL,11,1 ,Id ,i III II•ll IIII I,I�II IIII. NI:III :I!II'II II .I II III ( 11 ,I 7, I ! II 1 �.I':r.,:rl., ,II,,I,LII :!, I„II •!�, I: I, .�,I ,IIII IIII IIIIh!1: 1 ' I I.1 ,I I ' ' :I:' tail , "I" , I tl 1I i .I' I If Ill: p �I I ILI,,. „l,'.I'r 1 I lil L1 !' ;i,,- IIII III, II, �:I!, I ..I 'i. r'!Ii aaelt"11 h„I, 1,1 a 1 �Ir,lu ,.I: Ii ,1 IL I'� a I, r4J �,, I,. I.. IIIII �!n,l l �. .IIII ,..�. .I !, 11 . ;, ,1.: .. ., " I I I L, ,. II 1 , L,:I a.• L'� t' i III= it I I i'i. 1-I Inu;:r 1,"I,' I ,C:!,.Iln II ,I 1 1) .� I, tyul IIII .:�' I J�: ! �l - .i ._III , I ! , 1 : I ' I ...,:'... , ... :. I I1::: !.: I :I :I_... 111 .,.: !. I II!Ir.tllllll. LI..,. i.:II; (I all(a. ILI I .. . , IIJI,y . 'III (I 1'.' I I � ' � al �� ��� ilin�61111�ll1 f::. ...,+.. I I;'„@' ,.h.:A! „ ,, :, Ilu ,:,! L:, 1 .a.u, ,hl_. .!.'In,l.- •. ,,, , ! L l „rill �• L!i II II (!.II,II!l t t il.'. �!t. ,.: .: : ... .:. _. :.. .I i i,, t.'C,I I :.,; y,:, 111 .l.I. ,.I I ...: ,.,.. I ...nitl, !, .4,,, ,( III. I Ill!: IIII !I IIIIII ,'I.I „LII n II I' 11.�, FI IIII 1 I': .,: ! I. -1„ .:u !� ,f 1. , ,) I !I .� 61.1 'I I,Jh I: f I ,L,III IIII 1 IIIIII 11 y; :. ..: y6::, :,.. :Y.::. :} r.' •"! 1:. ..;1,, ,:�„t ll • i:lnll -,.(i IJ•L,IL.. , „ I rIII I. IIII ,I'', II I, „I : .,y, .,:;,:,, .:!:. ,, I , I.. ;::' 1 11 .Ix„!III II L. I!'I I, L,'- ILI , I ,I ! II IIi hl,l I, tl !..!:.,;. - 'r.. '. I ,1::; II ! :.., 'I .. , i„ !.i 1:1 ,41 ;III ! I I�IJ�I IIIIII • I (,_I ,!, . ,, �„ i:l 11 I' Ill:. l 1 :1 Ii I11 !.I i l L.III,I Jit IIIIII II _,.,.:1.:.: u1 .:.,., 1 II i, ;, .t.i ,IIi, �,,;1.11 .,.�, . II! III IIIIII ILIi!'� I. I I: I . .. ...:. •, :•., : I.. ;,..:;", ,311u: .t I IIII.!.. .1 r I ,, 11, b:h 11 II : - III I. f,l II {, !II I :r,l. y 'i �. .,.: _. _, .,•! I, .:'. .t,..,Ili , 11.,` I1 '.III I ,.II ''' Il;I-I I �Ii,. III If!4II11 ,, IIII, I, II i III, IIIIII ,,II ,i , �,,. ,l I I 'h, I I L I. P III t l) �) I' 16I . I (,. ';I: . .I ,. ,;,!:.y i �.,, I ,I I, !-:I.IIt iI, 1: ILI IIIP,I'I' i(� 'riI Y �i I'. :` : 1' Ili -: I:.; :J il' .,t ,.IIII,, u;,., I1'. .(,.. IIII ! I .�, ,:,I.... ._.:1: :::.! ....:+ , 1„ I ,. t:,:-.. I: I., I. au. Il„ ., ., Ip,.I I In !''I:y 't ,IIII,{:, I!,r 'llt{ 11. I t ,, ,II II :I In'L.,.:I L.!.I p,,,11t IILII,.I,:Itl1J11!I II,J„Illtllt!hl:ll ll 111:111II!: IIIIIi11.Ill;lhill!Illlip 1114I�1.1:16f!�h,,III {il''uI,I:L!111 �fu II III"11 ��14r. :-: ,: II I 1 . ,_::..: _ _ :. .... ,.,, .. ,.. :.r 1 I I : L,. . I •rrl : I r17:1' Y'!' ll'�II'"I! I ''i (•: i'! 1' ..1 ,: ..II II.I.,I r,:q L.1 I:ii::. ul ..,,.L:. 1:IIII .::i �.!,:, „ I 1 ', ill ,: , I "I „IIn11,1, IIIII 1 1.I,IIhu ! Ir,l!i, lfl! ,IrL,I I 11 t I I! (I I�:II III IIII I ;'; „'�LI I t'.,r,, , I IIIII "<II1lI I! Iiftul,.i!Ili la, JVI� ll .....:. .;., t , I p;,, .;:;: r,!I Iq!1,.:, l,'. III. iI. t,.l,l ,,. F tIll I! hIh I !I. ,al I!1I F'11I, IIP' (,I ( L,'.�.�, I, II. !I IIII IIIII'! 1 �,, ILI '! ..,,;.I- IIII:: , f 6, €I:' 1 , , wy.! , , I u .III I , ! J. A' Ir III 1 IJ. I �. 'l l: I !:.I ,. I !'. II.1"III I, �,I i.II I! !, �I. : 1"II II IIII �I II,I'III III IIIII..!III I ,( :. ;l ,.:.;,, I , ,„t i', ::. .1, .!.:.:;, L. IIII •„I ! IIII ,..I !, 1 ill!l.ill ,.I, h.I lI, n ":, A' I r ,� i �: p I ,,. +I 1�,1. :>;', .: r . :..., „ ".n r,:,v .:, . 1 ! I r ::PI:!!I liir69'"I' II III, •,•!l, l.t!!r 1! ILI ,I I 1 ,! I II : U! I!!:, L;L(I ;I1. r�Ill I fl I! I.:,,I I l _, ;11 !!II !I,'Ith.i,�ll'II�I ,lIu1,1 !1,,,III!;I Llt!�ILI!I I (IIII tl t q, :. „., I'.ja, .L,,: b I. I III a IIII I I ! !1!LIII 1 1 I III If ..,t - :.,, Ih , .,... ,,: :,: I :. Jt 1 I ,.: .. , .IIIJ�IIIII +I CI III II. ! II !! !" ! r�i If, .. . .'.. ,.'hs.: p= , d,;,,n li,.l.l:: IIIh.I f1 II n U. ;f:41I!, J! . (p, IIII �I t , _.. r, + ,..:I: ,! ,,:,1, L,i (,Lu;u I, I,IL.:II I hI' ;wl hl t,e,l I:�'I�,II'! ,. II 1u,11, ! LI III dlllll!IIII,'G!', !I LI.!ILI:.,HI.I Irl,.,l L d� .:pJC :;,;.:;.j.: a .,, d., ,..: 1'.l!;,:: 11. .b;i,:,n I.'+d:I,,:;I:V.LLI Pl;.l:lll;l til, rI!II!".T, II11 I,IIIn111u,i :II ( I? �II II',.1.11 pp .. .,,.:. ,:., .6... ... .... ,.. .... .. : ... 1 :. I.•iiill.i I I ,Ill IIa.., I I' IIIII �rll L, , 4la:l .Ili ,I;I, I,:,,_ ;i1. L ,,, .!IIII .1, ,. 1 I. II I IIII ILII!,IIIII I' l 1:1 . 1 ;,,„•. I !,,,II! L I :.al"IIIIII I!1111!!Illif;! 111) t ! I ,. 'Llhl' ,Il,l,.l ,, t , I � I II IIII ;:; '..,,, : , ..: ',;.... ., .t,a, f :,;'.,. ,,I, I 1, { I':•1 I. t ,.: ,. Ir ! . , I {LII I. I i l: I.1! I: II I L IIII 11,• ..,,. ,, ,, :• :,...,, ,:. L,:"I I ,•'. ,:;;I: ra:, I...n .1. 'I: ILI! II;I u: IL I I ,I IIIII :..p ILI !, .1I !,., , , ,,.,. ::, ;'. L1 ;d,,.n II :.•r.11.:1.,! II I.,l;ila•I!I Il.,�i:II", !!4. 1 ,e 11 :II it ;. I,u y� !L,II III!1u,IIl i II�VI II !d !; !Il,:,ll ,I uIl Ill IIII LI „IIII,. �Il,lu!.II) I.IrI,III IIII,!'1 „t I11, I:II!I ,!�111.I1I:,(IIIL ,..... ,, .0 :... I....1. :.,:... ..! : ,, ::. ,. !:; :.,..:: ,.1 , .h . ,I .I Il,l ! Y •,, I ,I, , I!Irib:n. t l.• l II,.:I , . ..:....: :, !, j ,. ,. _. ,I., IIII' I..,, :- ,.. ;. , , I .tl ..! :I. I. r111. .r! II II Ili. I ,I !, 1 : ! „I{ :11 ,: ., II' : L! :lu I!,I IIII il.l .,.,I .. ,.,.'. '-::i, 1 I.d,:,:,,a, t.!.,:Ihllrl •,:0,!I1'!OIhJI„II.I'II1.1�I,L•�II�Iiii,I iI.!�ha1! IIII !II!rlll I ' '!'.,,,.11t1' fl ,Ih`Ill11 ;.:..,, . ,: I., ':.,;; ' .:._I I. ':! a t'.!J Il , '!i'LII!11: I!.I !. ,IIII ( !I :lhl I ( f!II iI I II III I III� II!gi I,' IIIIIII r IIU t�..l_II ;. .,. . _. .... ,:::: I t!':; - .. , 1 : I '.. .:.I h ! u'': r I r, r,.n III, ..l 1 a1.1 L, ,.I I . � I„1 . !.. ... !:, ..,;,;.. ,!!... 11,n I! ! i'I .IIII-t L. !!A:; !! ! :I ,II III !.: ;! III „I I�. ':I IIIII J, !!:r. (:II,: lIl .. :. ..... .n, „il ...:..•,, ....r .IIII,. IIII.III III Ii-'It ,ji,fll ( III!!,,:I,1 n, IIifJI Il U71 ItI4 II'L; 1,1 '!I IIIIIIIIh61P'! 1 FII•, II ,IIII 'q::;:.. :' ? '.. I... ..: f ::..', ., ..;, ,,.!. 11 rl!.!ni:l f 1 ul:. i '! (I I iri) I• II. L riI, , JII �r II : ,I I,,,I :,_ .,..a,.:__. ... _._::. . ...u:.. '!i , .:.IIII .. ,.,..,_a 1 1 :II.�.,., r,,.11i .I:,!; r, I. I I III 1.1'. I.I I . J ' t f i y L• . I .I : rI>: ... ':. ..,.1 ...L. .,11 ,, :.,,. ias en.,l.dl U r}.I:IIn, a"II I vl(!,I!I I 1 IhIIII ! .,�((4 !:. Illlll!I l IIII ,I,; ,: .:,.!I I ,.II:,..... I I I;y, ll.l,ll 1!I,111,1t,L,1 1:1.II, :IIIIII! :I„6IIl::I, ,Llll,l. h,,.11. !, ::.';t':! i�l:' II I:r1„r,.,t I:.,.:11111 ,I IIII,: u,lU'. ,I;, 111.!1,h q. ,!I IIIIII ! I 11 I,, III. llp ;,Ll, I;, ..)II II lI r I, ,.IIII .: i,...L. u., r::L J, I II �!:. t�!! ,,:,:. ;: li'. f lI(I,.,II, I,II!illi 9,i,!yIIV II ,u!11,I1!li� I!�I! .ItII;I!!!Iu�I I I! I'll!I!,I IIIn I'' ;i; - : :. .-. IIII.; ! :.,I; ..,,, ,..,.., '.. :C!I I. p.Jq: I, lLJ nl u' !hl IIII' III I!Ilallr'"I�(IIlII 11 III, ., i,: I'll!!1Y: ul. I, 1 1 'I ,.!. '..I'' „, :..,,; I'11.,1.1„!,, I 1 I,.,, I,l.,.!! IIII'l!I'LI!,�•fll!u:!Illrlll111l,{;II,In!I,II,!I1.!II :. ,: :. ': , 'r!-. .i 11. 1 ;.,.:,'; ..IIa IL'l IIIIII, L1 !I I!.!1 III, II 'II nll !1 !I,;, IIII I ,!� III I L + I. II I I :.'... .: _. .. __.1 -1 t , fl 'n. IllI III iI III, IIn ,I1.!!lull LNI'lillt :ILIIII I,.II II::II':I1t!'ll r, �I fall II IIII!. :7�III h4h: ?; „I! ...!1, .Lic' I Ihl Iw III '!,'I ' ,,..,'.I „...a, L,,,n, I .I. ',:,Iu(:I "I.I,y'.h'�!".7u1 �1 f!+'.IIII �I II. Ii'-„(I I I, !. ,:"!a411 L111 .r', (`j l,'F 'T: ,;,'.,! .:.: , 1 Jj, :,:,III '':.: h' i II. I 1 !i 1 IAj I -: I, QII 1 I III, :. .: ... :,:_ :..,..I...,, ., J:':..I,I '.�':Jd:C , ,,•, LT;,1!,j 1,,.I , li ;!IIIII Ilr IIII 'I IAlt r, I 'Illb, !I 111f., II I11'' IJ III"�I: !r �l�' v:: ,. r ... , I II i.-I IIII . ,,. !1 II .IIII j.11ll L.I! Ilba !,I, ! . ;I Ihl .il I:I,'y 41!Ill lil. (II 1,1I,I I �,. f :., :rr', ! , I I,, , ,.,„!I II, :.:1 II, I e;:L h'lU.l!!,!P .I�I!61!I, VII ,:,LII! IIII'! II. III IaIIIIII' 'to-. 14IIGIII III !I ,. I .,I, II 1 jI{�11 r., q,,, •. �11.1,1, !III ;, ,I IL I, (. IIII'!(I !I.11 !! tiI :l ,- . : .. T. ,,a:,,I . , ! 1J t 1 IIi„i; l l l I ,I,::!, , f ,. , ! 1 ! ! .: ',, ,:jl, : !II ,! 161, loll I '.h a ,! ,I� :IIIII' ! I' .+Ill 1 11 I I:., , t, 1t i:h. !!.IIII ,LII I,. III LI III f.l ! III IIII II Il;illl II IIII IIIIII r .., ., ,. ..::.: ..I , I .. .,.,I. ,IIII 1:.r! ,I r.;': ,t ..,:, 1 : ,,al ! .:!::III: IIIt,i!It!I:r I II, I.:IIIh11I11 I,l.l. 111:111Il . I:I' I III' •,I I. t IIII 1J:. .. ,: ::: 'I IIII:. y ,; ,:: ,, I I I•,. ,, 1.'j:l Il. ,pp. r' 'IIi II !!�II '!I i i' .., ., .. :..,..: ,. ,, '.c:!: :E:.• ,.:-: n I I,.I t 1 ',.,,, 1 I'b.., .,., I II ,., 11 -III, ,,1:.1 I: '1 fl I t! ., ),IIII„! I'1lh Itit"Iy 1 IIII !,! I I ' ... 1,_!..'., :.. .f.. „. Illll III"1411,,.1,IIIII1,I,III!!IIII.I,111111111,IIILI,! ! I: (IIL uI1,II:Ih,{j!�. !. !IIIII al�ll;61111II ! .f:l!II:L .I, .� .. -, .: r .... : !.., • " ;m; .;.IIII., I cu. 1 :1:-1 :!lyl .I; 1, I, 1. ! h t. , ,,,u , : ! ,I, „ I!,11 . ,: 'I: I LI� ! I II'p!*". r. fir,:.:. I ;, ., '..d" :I : 1-;Ll..i:! IIi ':. !{.'i 1. I'IPr ;!:I .I I!II'I :Ih :!i!l,.! v ;i :I PII hI IIII II,I;.1 III III ll IIII rll IIIII; III,-' (lrl I ! t n,..', I ! I. „., s+11 1. i.I I:,.I1,, II I.,,,It,I: ,,I, I nl (!',:. 1. I. ,It 1c!II IIII'''rI IIIII IIr I!IiI I!9!III ;I;jai; , ia;, i :I!:iI, I Y:;d t, �! .,.I...':r, :I.i� '':'.I q:5.11 h' IIII ,II :;.Iltl;.r!_ nll 1'pll I.. .I ': I. ,� :.., ,,; ,. ,,.. ,; I, ., ,, '.', : .:. .' .. „: !. ! ! 1 I yl;.'i 1:,,all I :I II" 1: ,; IIII !I'1 'I:II (11:';I II. I :I I!4'I IIV!I�' !P11, 'l) (114II! h "I II IIII It�,!.II!11'li.. . 1 ., ; ,.: ,;: !l! I! I',I:IIIL,iI! ! I!: ' „I ,!;IIIIII al !!, it !, ! I IIII,,:I� (tl �a, 1icy,1 v : :",u :' .'.I:! ,; :',.1 ,. l' I .: ;IIII 1: :,.: ,,' :., I II . , +I 1 ::.:.,., . ! ; !II h' •, ,' ! '.I II III - . Illy • IIII I L I i i f (Iliil'NI '. ... !. 1 . , : :.,,;,, I. 1 1: I .,::I I .., r I , 1 .!IIII 1 1 II .. I,..,,t IIII ! !N,! �II1. I. II!', I I IIII IIIII I I,.'I' I 1 rc rI If I: I!, . . r.. - ::.. , ..,..:. ... - ; .:,,., .;,IIII. , I J:.,,: :.,:.',. , ,.,. I .., :: 1". i !a :l.l l I IIIIII, ,'!, : i 1 IIII ,,II,1I!!I' 1111 I I I 1. �I: III IIII I .NII!111111'I! I' L. ..: .. ..I. ,f... ,,, .. .., -.::.. I ;.:..,.,.!_ '.t'..or;!,' d. ,.,d. , :;n, ,,, 1 v.,,r,,t lr,: !,jj;, .11,.!"!IIIII IVl" ,:?': �1i It hI III!13�11'1If,!tl,lh i1r�,;;I'i' 1,1 tl Ilx jl ll'•i I•ic . :, :.I f !1Y. 1.,i 1. ,nll!'I IIII l;:nli !IL, I1t:.i:IIa.i'!iiil!Itli'1I!fiix iF!I llp(!I!iIIII II'!11!�III 1:!'III IIII; II::_ ::'.: ':., .,. i:' , 1 ,. I ri IIL.:; igll !t III 'IIII ;,:!I IIII ,IIIIII In 4111,! ! ILI ,I!L!II:I,.; ILI ILI , , I I , I l;i t I !I j!I 1 a ,; i I I ,IIII,i,,, ., I y'rtIII ! II{ 'IIL ' �;:. ., .. a .:., '�" ,,,;: I .,; ,_.,, a ".! 10I lly!II I i Ijl Hill ill 1 III f'IIIj911I I J�I'. II ,. :.,.' ., !„' „ ?': I .a ::' I •::!111 it!, tl I i rll l,I 'I;IIIII iIa't l!I•'!II (II IYhI ,I; ,I. ::; . ..> 11,,, I I :: 11t1 !:I;;l I !!-Itlo,4!.� 'LI,II!'''iIIIIIII ,,:r IIII , :,',I;l,!u Il, l!I IIIIII I�nrI I 1:"I' II' Il ,l{!itIll III 111 .L. I I11:1'I, i, IIII!: IIII {. lylll) !1 Ilij I!'lil ll rl. I j1,:I;!I!I' �l I!il' ! I. ,I- I t 1:'tSI!I 111 ,L..111, !:II ,,it L,. II!:II II,: ,I. ,,.! ! 1 . ,III II II III. .IILII I. III I II 1,n(. II , I•:. : .::' I,1 , ::.:;i III II' : IhIIII, I ,, ,all, '�II: IIIIII„1!1:III IIII f!^}.{!,II I,'(IL I !!: I, 1. 111 I II Il;l,.11l l(IIII�I I: j IIII;: L.. I:I!1 l I ! IIII; II!4 t I,Illill�l4!I hP!II III I .II + L 111,y1i4,1p ! t !Il ; !lei II r IL I LI::,Ig .,!!IIII! l o , Ill' l yl:'d I x;I Il!-'II'i!'I ! :'iLll'IiF II''!IIII f11 IIIIIII Il :. IIII tldlr' 4!', !: !is !, I!:' l III:! �il ;l'. -.,II ,'I' II III !` +dif8ll IIh'llli!Il,lUlh I ! f,!1.1 II,,I ,:Jl,ili:, I I I !i!Jl" „I' 1 '.i;! .,,4 I' ,.,yll,.11 !.I: 11,I!.I I:,:L.;I, I ! I,!I!,, ,,, :.Iff,.-,!!.,,!,•,11+I: IIIII P.;:, l i I! ! nl 1, ,I,I''!I I I' IIIIII Illllh, lI I1hll�1! I IILf lll!!il Il „I lh I� Ilua� ,II It.I" q I ir. ;r; '41"' ., .IIII I II l l ::I, .h,:Il., II;i I!1;. !inll 111',II:I,hI' I, ,,I . •„ II l !' ,, 4!, 1 ;nl. �i ..1: li.,!,t I llllt !:. II I :I,.11! it '. n„ I I1 ill !'ill! LIL,I ,!I ,IIi '!I.1 I,Iv 1:1 I: ! I; 1 i:l .I hl 1 u L, I !, a1I I,ItII I,! III IIII III.(I!:'I IIIIh. Il ll, VII; �,; 1,1111!) ! �51:rtltl!, hl hl!Ih 4,IL(III, !11 ;IIII!,, II:.: :: ,, 1 :�I ,. _'1 ::,l!!i I „y.::l p,a9it(", I!pl,r!II'I 11'I11'. }++ 1' .. ... ,, , I ;:FI' I 'I" 11 ,,dig t' :tii; II a I., ,:!4.,!I!!,l1!;.I!'1111,1!IIII III'LI;�:D.1.1�11111!uu�Iw1411II1,!tI7rIL� I�hIII!III!IIII'IIs11'll'III IIIII III-II!IIIhI (}I, . `; ...: I .;, II '.L'; ,.. i. r., t! I. ..I lil I. Il Ili I1 T.-I .,.p..171' F '`''..,- .L!:,.,al l!� I,�. rl Ill . ' :, :, t I.. ! :,,!III'' IIV:I IIII. ILI 1!r:ll'I 111_ll�I II, I1�!:I'!II I !I°I 1' p11I!I 111' 1, II : II'IIII. IIIIII !�! llll'., ;:; C .III',, , I , fflI . h I, ,11 L,111, i116111 j 111 l II I j.- i, 1 1 ii !IP. R" II' 111.1,r";''r. .na. ., �I tllil!i Ir II qI,! �If'7; Ir I I. It;'N'!„I. IIII:--:1.1.101,111,„! m111. „IIII„VIiIIIi I„II1`I J:,!II1'I!III!,il II'gl III .I. i,, If !II. I tjtl t , "'' '..I:.:1: IIII'„I 1,1 ;:1 t,' I,i1i; :,)111;!, 141111:,11 �I llilill G!IIJ IIIIISI;Iii:l!II'l'I !„IiVYII1 I.117 'i I, !!al l'`'lil i�l'rl:l, LI:i. : I',' '.'!1 ,l,l .I Lil:,. I, :tl:!',1 Ill, ! :1 1 ,.la III, { .II ,=IIII; �I II .,I I11,, I11.,, Ir.I III I , J.. L •':.. : ; :j tl I "i'l,..t j(:. !"il:.! IIII' ".;!; .,!"" I"ll ItiI ,J661. III I, ,III II ' I:!I'I'I IIII II! , ' „II �.; I i I .I. III 1 .II, I. I , ,I ,I. If ,:. A :' 1 I II .. II , I. ,:1 n:ll ur,,.l ! : rc, I, ., ,, I , IIn:!, n ! i I1.'I !: J:I I III I ! 1', I lyt II I, hl f !I, I I . L,, 11 V;1: 1 ,. ..'..1 IIII ! :. ! 'II 1 11. 1 III. 1 i .II, Jl I, 1 _,_.I ..I.IIII,) :. ! !IIII II I, , 4I 111 r :II . .-II -�,I J.l,. .:l'ii: I I, I IIi':i .I ,1':�.,, Il I, :hl:'., !, , It I :! I a � , :III : rl, ! tt ! i ,h �..,I, "!;' I I t-n,L,,: :! I!1 LLItI1rIIIIu!'IrII,III II jII ,; I,: L.. 11 ,;,r':,,1 1,1t':'.I 71111!I.I ,IIII I, p: III. III I !. I ! I Ll,nt tl !,I.I IIII'; I!': ,Iq, 11, I III. LII,: 1 IIII L.!II II 'I•' !1,11!II 'III; '' I I :fail ,,,.1 ! , !a!t p4!: I. IIII , I1!,! Il, .!� ILI I I, d! III (.. h1„ t L 111 III I! ,IIIIII, ,I IIIII'l1_ .� , �I! ;::, , 1 ..I l :Ail'! 1. :N. I, I1 ! hII .I. ! I IIII ,, IIII ,1 I!.: Ir ! ,':, ! I ( ,! , Ilr, t:l 1 III IIII L!I, 1 I , II.; IJ,!II.I I IIII, ;II!Ilx I'.PII ",1i1't hill 1 I, I' { ;IIIIII, IIL .I, I .I I �' p t f 1 III ,, , :mill 11 :r f 'I'll l .I , l!,! : III .. li!. I! I'll ..!Ila!i l' 1-III II I l !, ;11;:1 r,. IIII_ 11llu!:r,I L(ILI;I,yI l:l LI, I �, lll,h, ,t I, I 1 ,!'I 11 It •:t.',.. I:' q ,II ,. !il lr :' 1 i I ,,, :1.I :Lpili; 'j!I I, '. .tl i ill ll, '', I�IIi I I I r, :' 9 11 :-,, I, L,i., J,I".I !,., I . I 1,n,.I I, l.li ,.I (I ,!. + I l L I III I I !.1!g 1F :L,. , I l.'I:,', Il till (:1'1,:11 ,; I!!Id;411tIIIP I,!!:,I4 !; IIIII L'i !I11icl!I,q{I I, II I:I�: �Illl !Ilil',"III�_IL.; T" :.III h i 1 !.,,, : (.1 IL 1 I. ,1 JI. .,..1 I„ :7111 L II!,1 1. II �,, I .. t : • I u';., ! I II ,., ,"I II, l,;l'+ U1 lyilull t7 t 1^:!; ,I, I<' 1 tI; I,,.`. ,.,' ,:i ':!'il. 1 1 I!!.I ,11. 11 !. ,, !;'tl!11;afl�l! lull ,u,,ItI1V11!!1,111!,I+III.'II�Illllll!IIII;III!!�111!r!I III'll�;l!ri, r, : ,,..: .....::: ._1.:. :I1.. ,,:•<:. , .;:!:.,: ! !. '! Ir, III IIIII.!!: i.l II I.II I I .„' �, :,j, �f . 1.. .: :� :r,.. II I In II ! 'p1i., l!I'ItIIII ICI III:'hnlll, !.) I!,;!III! 1, Ju t11;!Ii hI iIIILI, Illt!I!I!,f i.Ill,,' III :; ::' .: 1 : .. i, ..,, , ;:::! ,:,';I 1 1 I', , 1,i. 1 ! , q 1 r IIII I '.I thl:! t 11 ,,'I' 1 I ' l I , •, '! I I ,;,;, ,'>: . :I!:, ;, t ! ' I lI;!, I' V j!!i,r:'i' ! ! ,116 n (! I!J1llll':' r!i ll hIi lill�l jfljt l l! II iC+.I,Ij, �I' ,. _.. 1 r ,.,....':,, ...,.:.; :,,h ' ,L-.;1!, IIII t. IIIIryII I,ILIIIIII �, .:I,.!I„IIIIII J.ti ll,,l!I IIII II JI. ,!!!.;1: LIIIII) II 1,4f;n :n F: :, ,.I ',,.,, ,' ,':.. ;... r,�1::.:. ^J. :':r,l :: 1;;, f 1 rL,i IIIIII !itr -i a:l! !'IIi: !,1 ,,;, ,1 ..,1 1 -uI li .II .. 1 I.,..,: p,. d'!li 14 it I;'1 III 'I I Iu,II II I IIII 111 1'I IIIIII I t ,,.i 1 I ::, !;,.'.'.I .:,,,.: ,.:. IIII:: 1'1 .. :,.:. I , .-: II In :; ,,,.11! !.IIIII ''!IIII !'Il lh'!II!I ;r 'I,t (jl,F'hl!II IIIIII, 11!1,,!�II fl!1 lhlL 'I '!i It �1'I::. IIII Ir-:t.ilI 1 !,.Jl ll,lpll! IIII ( .!IIIIII IIIII I till111 .Lltllll!!, !IIIII II f91'Ilj 'IIIIII rh' l'.hi.Ij l.,ll'll!!I�IIII:l.,!I III !I ,i' a,u, L a!g!AI!IIL,�iIll,,hp,,!alal!ylj ;Ilrl'!;lallh ''i , . I'„ '!, i I:''i'I i 1 Ii {. i 11i1:n:, if.1. t !l!,,,,:Il,a, I n(I, . L;x I! III �p!, ull'1,IC I ..II I1,;; "ll l.�r III:b IIIII '''! a ,; lii! II?!I !Ili III! LI:I,, II (Ill, ,t I c ,III rlli !.! l 1,:n !,) IU,: II,; ,.. IIII .,.. 1 iI ..;.p•aI,I I.:l:Ill IIL,..I..I,.,IIt,1,,1,LL,!ul ILr.iII1Il?IILII IIII! I'III,'k I n, i�;!' I 111 '' 1 ! 'i. ;h' ! .I,i,k,::.1: •, 1.1'1u. If..I l I,-::e .11 IIII ,;11 II. 1,;..111, , I11Lll!, ``IIII, 1,!'' 1 ,.' I -,II, 1 L,. I ,a, it . I'I:,I,I I a ,'G �71 I I ny 1 I I ,l" I I I l ar !,'! 1 .,,rl'1i , 1, IIII!:!I III ' fl,:!1I I,�i!I:.I,. IIi .I t Y1,!I!,I aG! II If ! G ,Ji!I p,� II,,, 11 (I! :Ii,lxl:l.Iln: I'1(I,1111,,,!�I,I:(I�Illj�tll,lL,al4I IItI�I, Ea. I ,,,.., I ! -'L:, I;,;Ih Ii rLr �il!III II!111111Ir t rl 1, 1 ill! 111 I I 1! „rl .I': !;y"III !y� , LJ�,i "' ,. i'! 1 ..:1.n: ',:.:,,:: , 'li!::1 I, I„ilt,n' ra !'.I ,I, `.,.!.,,i ', illr,l lih ,;I I!i!I II.11!x�il!II )I h,ly �l!,,'1151 !.4+1„'��n. _:'. _. , ,.i.:.. ., .1 ..IIII ,::'.:t.:,, .I I: ,:, !::.I,... I! :i!I,I;.,.1 :, , tt I„l Il tlIIIIL, IILII'.111111!Illhlr l J' ,.6 :iI Lt.II l 1, hl,t,.5 �1. I;,. .:, -; .: !' ''" I, rl:Irll '.;.Ih,;, i! ,!.:: ! 4 1F.!, I; ,.I I,I11,,!„L I 11 II ,.:II"1!I!,!.II'1 Iti I .Ih ;l,l) llll''4 �":I I, I! !' ,.,, ,! In A.,, -t. -1:, ll t :: n,!I, I'!I' !: �I!I mP lll'y111I1! II':'I. i, I: IIII �! I �!' :: c:..: -: ,. ::.,. , .I , 1`t.I', ,,:'; ",,,;I:; ::I'll ,.:,,::: 1,!,I :IIII I t.l!,i. I,r d!Ill i!'I!d,!;6:�11!I. rcvl IIIII. !1,:!IIIIII; IIIIII IIL 1�!:.�1,!, 111i.1. ,. :. ;,., :,: _..:,. ,..:..I, ,: '.,. .. ::: 1. �.;:.;. _1,.:::1'i 1 I :.,,.: :..: I II--1.i' a !.�.:I -IIII r. ,IIII , :, I „I.I L. . �_.14.�;. J,-{, IIII IIII I'-rl.. r .it,,, . ... „ ,;d`: : r ';; I I 1 ;,!(:!;IIn I(1,r.%lrll IIII ll ,III. (L II -!' 1 , �Lli'l t 1 : .... , ,.:: '.:I _: :r r ,:'.I:. :.. .., ,... .,,I. ,, ql f!I. pl-, h. �,1111 ,' ,� Ll I I , �u,ll �Ihl III �; I'l.11n h�, Il llhr, l: . :.,,., .IIII-,.,. L,. „::;. I .. ,. .. ,.,!, I I. . I .. ,._., .._ ,.I.) .. -,., 1 .,.. 11 n,.... ,,, i1.,: I : ,!;!;:.:.. : ,.::.,;, ( I ';1;,o-' p l xi.I1Ji'ill a -.: ; r I I,Ii..'I' ;1,' IY.riI :�. I,a.�:..,: �• l,.l.il!,�; � , ,' a:a:: !t Le.:ul J Iu I!1,,. ,u! I11 ,I :, IIII .h,lll, !,! II,V1, IIuI I,Ia II!IbIIII�I..l ll Ll u•. l!! Inl IhIIII lu,l!II l I. ,1 har, : l! n. IIII LIII; II .!i 1, Id: :I ::II LI. LI !, ,L..I �I I,.!,l',: I!' III I' 'i I. -I; 'I ,:I 1, 1 I: 1.. LI, !I '!((,� .t l:, L I :I I' ,a 1 , ! �' ';.1 f 'I�'!:% ,.Vri I t. II I:. I I�I,�1! IP' I ll. I .I .I�I r: f: li: ,1t I. ( I (J„ IIIIG it1, l 71 :n. 1; '.L'I_..;..,,i I ".:: tl I„.. I..I, 11::!t.41I,!I',IL:It!,I,IIII,:.1IIII!tllllrlll!41sIdIlll!I 1gg,IIII�LIi,IIll4ll.11d !l I I, 1. p,III„h! ,,;I ,I,.. r '' ! ! I .:i. jl III:. ! II.V„ I I Jn �tt' ,711 IIII Il. 1 f I: I, I'll,,;. 1.: d'r al, l ( ,:,I LII L, 1 I a!,,. t -. IIII `I'; �, I I ;III �,{ II. ,i (il ii,! I! t 1 I :I ! 1 I. II I. III; I.. I. ..1 1 ' f,,l: h. t I '!':I I.. , I I,. !.,: II ,I ! :ryj:.. !!I. ':!I.,,.I,11 I '11;I. 1 ! III. j ,; ,,.:' ,..; � �'i:; -r,.,1 .. . ,... .. � t, '.i.I ,, _; ,.,u l- I ll I IIII M.III:IIIII,II11'I�. nIJIII :II,'IllIi Ill rl Ilhill llli!IIII!III IIII!,II!;II'!!IIIIIfLV hL,IL .I C{ !IIL qJ;h, l! .. .IIII :1., �,, aau I inllt... rc-hl I �t:.,,, U,,' a ;,!III !!!:ii' T?j'I 1!,r� �mr!��n IIInI,ill,I L1j!1,;,I,i'il I+i�I Iil,Ihd „sI,. .IIII:,: ! I:I. 1 i!I 'I I: IIIIII:) I. Il 111 II'itc1'111:11! 11 III,tt �. I' I IFI 1, I I ml' I Y.I 11 II �I:1 lull 1..11II lil. h,I,ul tov,I�It ,!!- �I,III,T^�L,� 1:7„�''u,�el: .,..,,-. _ . .. .:::. ,_ .. ;..:; ... -: ... ._I I i,�.:' „ ,, , , --1 , _.-._ .I ,,•1- ILIIr it h• I „ „p.... ,. I' 4 .:,:, . ,.t , , : .,,.:: .,!,. .,.., a., n { is ,i.l I 1 •:'f , 1 .:IIi; Ili ll I11 IIII, I.Il1-i i!; 1.!1.'.�II lu'II ! 'II II l�r .IIli1I,, .. ... 1.... 1 .IIII I ... f1 i I . I. ,III :.1 1 -;,. , „A r:i I!1,•:l. I'll IIII II ( 11 IIi ,1 , I II , j I.1 1 s .I I I I :IIII .:,..,: .::;,; t.-n., ..... 16:.. I'.. .. !!.1 1!. !-,I !.,.il.!,.1,Ir.,1 II li ,�a� Pi,,,l cl n. v.,�:!�.I, :!. !', IIL.IJ ,LII ,.,o., ::,..,; , 1,.. ,_ 1 1 „ I.u,;:. ,,., ! "; I:{ I,, .;, ut: ' •.i'9 t, 'I'1NII IIr 11{I'l,l:ili!Illl yn.,IL,., lit ilhll l h'; :IF 1: I,rI,I� I f L, ..;':r :I!'!, III;!' ! i .. I ",,, ,L II IIII i Ill„ l IIL 1' I!J. ;n 'I ,I � ,.:, '. b.,. ,:.I I II::; I ., r:;'I 'II:' 1 ' f! IL ,.L;111�i.1:!I 11,! ' �! I ,!I, 1,. ,. ! ,., I I L :. I I I III !,n!,: IL.!.I m,ll, .I', II, "'!,;r!I,I!,Ii I I, II. I,Illl::lr I IlHtIi"lrcl III IIII III IIIIr .I!1:6 x,1 P I I�,ItI,"' 11 IL� I•mit ll:. Ili Dart ,.., n. 1 1 �,:, a •:.LII I1-, I JII IIIII:III 1L.-11!d PlfIll ISII 411II) a Ir I II II', 9i ill!' II III II! ..I I!'11IILII hi ll ., ....:: .:.:.: ..:.: .. _. , . ,..... i I IIi,: :: r. • IIII - - __ 1 4 �! �4 i u��l ! ! LL G. I,!W!,.u.� L. ! !. u , !., : ,... .,;'; 1.,,::, ,1 t' ,I, A :L ',I" •;.I ,...,;,. -•:i:J ,. ,IIII' 'IIII' ''1 i`I. 11"! t 'I:!IIII nl!'l^ ulr'rm lr 'jj'j': il:.. L,,., _..,.1 ,!..... 111 I,.:; L,:, I„IIIIII 1;11.1 ,, 1 I . 1, :I .II ,, , h!tl I.., . L, trll' „L. ,. , .., : r., n:, ._.1 ! ...:::I :,..,!:!,: , I !:I•!f';, ..L+i ,. 1 :..'.I: :.,IIII,,! !I ; .I"Lhl lril!I!.6, I!!! 'n {I'+ .111!jIf. lift 'I .I I!.. ILI !I', ,IIIII, IIII, I'!(i: ! it I II,il!;P i1,:.. .. :.: :..: ,I ., � 1;i.::. !'.: ;I::.. I .!, .. ;A.. I ,: ,ally l; .,III., .. Il,�l. ,II IL IIIII ((',4ll l III !I,I,1.. 1! , ! p,, r, IIII I, ...: .. ::.L.,; :•:.:;.i F ,: ,.. .,._ul,l .L,.. ..III.. - I..:'„ ...L..,L;. ,I:!1.,,;1..II I!:rl',Fu.,lu .!4.., 11:1, �I i II,!Li ,,. IIII, I I'I1!::li�,_ r;III: :,:,, ..,I. ...,p...!.I ,..:,!,,,; !, 1l ".1. 1! t,.., -it- 1 '-I- . 1. , 1.th,:,, ,.,d;, 111 .l,lnn li �ul II IIbI''.IS,! aI,;I II �! !..I :1 6 11!I'11, I!, IIIII Ill Il v I l!' .I .,. ;.� !,.11;'1t I !1:.. ,,,. I. l Iul,. 1. 1 , ,.III, II�I C;t IIII L. I;"!!1.1!,I I! IIII. I!ILI �I IIII I',!11 II I IIII! y.11� IIII G,Il.i!!Ijl L . , 1,?'. i1 •1 I,:�>: , ,.:1.,:'Ir ! eh!, 1: ,n..l ',tt I., 1, I „II::_n I. L,,,,.I,. LI1I'l. ill' ...:L,..I,. Jx IlJ1111„»!Ijt,li ll ll!111 r..L:..LI�.,il illi,,,IL.Llt..I101uh!L.,]iI!tl(W�1((,I1-:11�L�,,,.W1��.�ll.�l �I�I�..L I�.�,Y1 LAI' 4D . . . ........... Ilk 3 t b� ro k ad' is IX M; ROWE R-' :Z1 17 . . ..... ... tit 60 S E A!: POWER T U N,11E- L 6 \% N --A 4.0 i3ki "Act, 3: -J, / ......IX ... . ..... ...... .. . . . '4. 44 ....... . ..... 4-.; 4 GLACIERS GAGING � jNI G RAN,� CMEJ E tai Am Ix ........... )f"v G\01 - L . . . ....... . - NN 7(;2 .... .. .... , 1:1q. X- 7; i IQ N4 18 4 . ......... 11-1 .......... S ... ..... .. . .... ... ..... .... . ... if i, . . ..... I quo.... ...... GAGING TnT, (19 l' 4 12 �A TECHNICAL APPENDIX KEY MAP SCALE 1"=3000# + 0000993 + 0009V93 + 0009tb93 - I-- OOOVV93 0 0 0 0 OD (O d N (D (0 (0 w ro to m K) N N N N .Z Z Z Z + 000ZV93 —�— —4— —I- T- T cl Z ui IL CL Q J et U_ Z U ui F- +N2372000 +N2370000 441 N2368000 + N2366000 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 LM It to w w ui +N2364000 + 0 0 0 (0 rif) co LLJ TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-2 SCALE 10=1000' " - 0 M�-L g w �.:\\ �` \ l� + 0 0 5,- 0 0 0 0 0 c*j VO co w w CO +N2362000 1 P I + N2374000 +1 + N2372000 + N2370000 + N2368000 + N2366000 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD 0 0 N It co W cq c4i w (D (D + N2364000 + -r -t- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D (M OD C-i 0 0 (M (9) (D K) w co w w w + + + TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-3 SCALE 1'=1000' 0 0 0 ti CM z N +E622000 E620000 f-E618000 +E616000 ]-E614000 TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-4 0 0 SCALE 1'=1000' 622000 E621000 E620000 4 E619000 ' E61T000 >t E6150O0 E614000 __ _ �• ��� " \ O 0 0 0 Q 0 M In U7 to N to N N N N N z� E613000 z z� zl E623000+ E622000 f E621000 — y - •O , -� era---- ------------- --""�^•... E620000+ E619000 I \ \ E618000 r r ^ �• _f _ E617000 E616000 + \ \ E615000 t } E614000 I �— 0 M 0 to M 0 0 0 o 0 m E613000 z1 Z� gI g) _ =; ZI w cc LL O 0 L @" w IL w a v J C) U w 622000 621000 - .7z E620000 619000 �E618000 +.E617000 616000 v _E615000 -614000 O 0 Q to roM rr) C-i C-i z 613000 -4- 6A m +E629000 + --- F"28000 + ---[--"27000 + E626000 + -4--E625000 + AE624000 + +E623000 + +E622000 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 to It to to z Z z E621000 -4i + + ge MOMP Co w cc D 0 IJL O 0 0 C) it Z UJ CL CL Uj Cl) fl) W 2 I 4 i -I ti3 4 4.2 } r - S� too y 1 � i R I 1 i 1 rP A T III Y i1) 1 F 1'IL I C ANALYSIS 1 k }^ t x . 1.101 shoal ., ,g,ygI too r 1 S � 1 L i� J �r 1 off t, t r 4 F 13 igown o WI } I v 1 f t'. ••µ'u[. u S$ 1 ,,, I 1,! , I1 IliI1d;II -. - _J i!t I l 1 t.. tl I 11 Ill I Ii ., ... 1 'II 11 Ill fl r I .1 ii .. .. 'lI 1 Ili, uIt411I11II"'LIII r 1 Ili . 1 1 10. I,q ' I I 1'ii'II ,.I.1llll,li'r IIIIII 6'Iij.'I1:r I: ��, 1 I t li' Ili 1 (lillr IIr r'R f f I I I , . - ' , I I; I ,!!,,,I II ;'ill h 111 !iI r IIL" I' WillII 1 I U (lii I I 1:!I, it I I 1 I''� III tl u. IIII 1t, i.ti, I ill Illilllhl llll�,II II 1�I1hI�L�III�III d�I I�IIIIi �IIIIi�If Ili �� • i I utl' I ' I II I t''.i v I ,III IIII I!�I IIIII Iflllu�hll�l ��"III I l l ' t l I I,. nl it i. i t llllll"FIIII jt',I) Ill,.;l ,; n u III Il10-.I , I'i j I I I ;�I i III If IIII' I II IIIII " , j I,II it ' IIIdII I 111,II, III '' I I II tl I, Ill II II i I l l l II tylll I l,l hI� ll'tIIN 11l l i'IIf IIIIIII ': .. i , rII I i 1 il, 141 I , I ' vlli,jL I I I�411;:1(IiI 1LI . ,. .�Ii: ''' I�ii II i! II I'i I11 (III (I II IIIIII IIII 111 IIIIII IIIILthlllllrl ll i :I �_ I 1 1 I l it lI I l l 17IIII(1 III III'lllIIII IIIII Il II I II 41 f I IIi II 1' L I I nIul� t, I II .. i ;I:.., I ii i, I I I ' 1,1,' iI1111' , I'j,l I4 IIIIII 1f11 ICI 1.r 1 .III ,"!' l II'f� lliIIIJI,III IIL III III II(�IIIIIY111f11IIIII�II i III' Ill ,' I i l IIII �' rrl IIII tfIII ( l ii 1.', lliiilll 1f11, 11 lil I .Ill i1,1'!�I IhLIy1I91PII�I I f.: I t, I I -I I I't Ilt� II III I, rII I I �' III IIIII III I IIIII �� '' I I 11 I lq''IIII IIII IIIIII II I�illili ll) IalTll�I III t III (Il"I. r11 I ) I ' :� IIII i� lfl I Ii I Ill iill'III III IIIII IIt1.'I iI I I11i IIlI'I I' 1111"jI� IIIII I'ill[I lil I �' I ' l:i I t i III :I'I I I I I I I : III , w nl I1h41 I LII : 4�ItIIIIIIIIir III �I�Iililll ' 1 II I'' I id It I IPlli I I tl I' 11 I It, I pI1II f 111111. I'j I t , 1 II t.,i , ' 1 I'.: I Ill IIII III IIIIII III jj IIIIII IIIII II I IIII I .I I I I I Ill I�I,II.�IIII �illti 111 11'l �OI;I I, 1 I i; 1111 ill. I ly r"lin IiH,I II II i IIII ,I III ill It II..iIlljiill t l', ilI'III111iIIIII;I,I ll' t , I t I I it II 1 I' i I f. 1 II 111 'll'I"; I I' I 11111I1t' Ii II 11 IIIIII .I )I IIUI I "" t l'. ll lq I II III III ll Ill Ili II III t 1 III III I I ii I IIIIII Ills IIIIIII u l IIIIII l Iq'II IJ' Iir I ,, fI� � -- - - I 1,`:I (1 F IIIIIII II'tin' Illtllnlll`I,IIIIIIII(�!�I�I�II��I�IIIIII'I1�III�1' G. I i If I is it II'I "i I I III j1Ifjl I! III I'll I ��i rII (ll, �j LII II i. Illl II IIII '.(� Ii: Ill l I I,I l l , 1 1 I I Iltll MINI IIIII li if 1 : ' I ,III 1 i i iti. I, 1 1I 1 I. ,' I f 111 ij'i i ll l 111 i 1 1 � II IIIIIII IIIII, IIIIII I G I I',I I. I it I I" I,-..,. i I ( 1 ,.. 1 I' "'' IIf II, Ii I II 11 �,I. Ullvl) lil: , II III I I f' I,i 11 �� 11I I IIII Illl1 �lrl �r.�'IIII': I.11 , ,.tlI 1, 1 I I a I, N it II .I I I iii II ',,iPllll 1 i Ii Inn ,I.f�l I' ,r114.lIIl IIIl�Illlll (gilllll!Illlllllilli �I i, �i. ,'I I I I r r, I III I. 11 Il'i y III III "tt II III f1 ' rIIlI , IIII'llifll !IiiIIrII�IIII. Ili'llill IpI�IIt! ,IIIII I III IIIIIIuIiIIIIIIiIi i,iIIIII1IIc,IIIIII it , II I, ,I ,y 1, , rI -tI 4n 'I lllr 'III I'I IIIIII I :'i I I j.,,l II " ,. (.I il' III ,IIII In11nI "I'll It I il'i tl I I "-' II ,.;i lilil4 I,h I i.i� Il it I'ji fl I111'I'111 IIIIIIII"11 t,I IIII f'IIII�IIIIII`II(IIIIItIII III It IIGIIIIV I I t Ili yl' I fill Illllluil II II, III LIIIIIilll7�i (IIIIIIII IUU111IVIIII 1 'I I I' i l - I it tl 11 '1' i III I�, ) I II,IlI.11itl I I' 1 I.it:; I I r, i I I.II [IIII 1l'iII1 II u I :IIII' IIII IiI,.Iltli,irl,IL IPIhIPTI5i61uI ' II ! it 1 Iril i i ", :II IIII I :'.I I I t II It "al 1 1 I III y Ili i hli I' 111'�l I III l I'. 'Il' i 1 I `. fl 'II ,I fh II 111 i11"I I) tl'1j t IIIIIII ul rl (llllll l�III�II ti�IIIIIP iIu II 1 ' .I ; I . I ( III I,I I IIIII1IIIuli 1, ul .Ill I, , n�"III :''I 1 I' 1,1 ' 11 1, Ii II, " ,I[ 1 II tr�.III1tI IdII,IIIIIIIIIII'IIII" I ':, II. , II I II I : Ii II I I' ,LI, _ I I ( IIII I Ill 1 '.I U IIII ql :III' I,I• I I II I(,fn I it i I 1 II, I I III lil t tiII11T I rlliJ' ' II I11, p'il llllll I, 111�UIIIII.It III IIIhI li i( I i, it 1 l I II i' i t I , 1 nI L (I III 111 11 II n tlI fI'.I IIIII I I �I: j.It11 I IIII IIIIII fI11 'I i I1 ( 1I I III .�lliI II , IIII IIIIIII.I�l Il111111 P�IY IiI.�IIII�'II I'lll _ _ - _ _ - - , I If 1 , It 1 .i I t IIIIIfi,IIII IIIII IIII Ii� lrllLllllii4"Ilplitl'llj tIIfil II�! :I.! . 1....11 Ill,,ll 1 11" , 1':, III 1111 ,I IIIIIII II II III I11 IIIIII Ill't1III l" t 1 IIIII I t I l III II IIIII II '' , ! I I I,tI 'I I "�II,I I III I III( lr l l I I i I I III II it AIt111I I 1!Ii I 1 II I' I I ''I .,tlI '1 fl II:i1U IIIIIII IIIII I:. IIII Il II I. I I II n1111 L I�If 11I 11 III I I I Jfl f IIII, III III I I I ,IIIIII 11111111111i ! I I' Ili h In Ii;lI I I I I 1 III III (IIII I 1 f 11AI IIi { III II I 1 1 : I I .I I I Ji III I I I II ,. ' ''1 t is:' , I I I1 III I,J IIIIIII Ilidill llllllnlll l,Il IIII Ili, Il„IIIIII 1 1 ' It qII I I III I llllll III LI(' III II,: 1 ,li i,i IIIIII I I 1 I�I I 1. IIII II it II IIIIIII. IIIl1(ll IIII111 l JIt It I III �II IIII I) i� f I I 1,11I Ii II 11,I ltl.,l IIIIII II,I III,inIII IJIIIIII IIIIII It I� IIIII i 1 I t; I,. t ' i I, if I, 1 iI II Ill f.11 I, Ir ,I,IIIi i' I IIIII ...,II i .. , I 1 r''' ,„,i I i 'IIIIIIii ,IIIIIII111111111 IIII IIilllllll hl,l II, �116 I. I I IIi:"i il'Inj}.L hill nillbil ' I �: I III I i 1 , 1.;1 It Il Itllit i'111I III'IIIIII'IpIII11IlIlir''li'IIi",li I, i IIII , f I I I i II I 1 (I. I i l l u l l IIII , III 1 L l i ,i II 111IIIIIiII II�III�IIII;III�gdl,i,�Ii,IIIIq. ,I , It 11- III :If III°II 'II IIII IIII,' IIII I.II I lit Ill I III IIIIII III , II 1 I 1 I I'. II 1 I1 I: I i l . I IIII "II I llllll' II I' t'Il ill hh I I I, . - 1 I 1 i II I 1 ,.: 'I,t i fl 1161I(I I IIllIIII ', , inn I I nil t 14p. Illy ll,p li IIII h4II Ill I i 1 I ,i , ,I 1 -.,I , I '.I I IIIIII lilt,," Ip111 II , l IIilih liI , Ith:��i I I i I ..'I I f I .it ,'I tlI �jj I I,l i",; .,! hill I l tl �l'�i'I, iiW IIIIjiIIIrIaI,:Ili Illi�l II IIlIl1. IIII l it 1 IIII f,i Ii III t II t .�1 I I n II ! I i I IIi III IIIIIIIiIIIIIIII ilhl'I IF'II II� Ijll t i Ih i ,. 1 1 I "d i ( it L , I III II t,.IIIi I Ili " III�tliIIIII l �lll ll 1 I IIi j III i III.11 IIIfIIIi{II I{l�� IIIIIIII, III IIj'�I ., I I' :I I" ; t 1 I. Dis , 1 I 1I f "IIII l l Ill .. '�. .i' i 1 '.I Ill , I f I�I i'. II III ll :I.I III 1 II 'III IIII 1111 (' I 1 i ti , 11 i 1 .ill 1' 'I".lt Ill it11 IT ill III III I"III111jjUl y�IU III IIIII III. it IIII I I, I 'II. . I.I I ll:, , ..,IIIII I 1J1 V ,'I.11111 III�i II�II�Iil11N, 1'IIIIIII1 it 'I 1 1 1 i I II l I'll t IIII I I! III II II,I IIIII Ill -III . 11 IN I l! .h r , I I "II11 II,I 11 tl 1I0I1'F III IIIIII iI I (I'Illlli',I111.1IIIlI 'I, ij , ' t f I11 , j I ' J I It il1(IIII I I I II IUI 11 11. It 't I : I l III , :1 t , 1 I) Ii III I IIII II ( I i IIII I L 11 II l III I I',II (I,II I1�IhI) f 11 It i lu i, I�i t �, i i 11 } i I 11 I LI I n 1, 1, I.. , 1 I.' I I III 11111.1I1I I'16'rl i�'I 1{I �Iif IIIII!IIIIII!1,,�11 f i, I Il I : dI I I1,1 iI liIlIIIIII' IIntIIt Illllrll'III"I1111 i Ipil II lI ,III Ills IIII ( IIII t Ill IIII i Ill 1 ,11 l If :i I, I 1. fI I I i IIII I !, I t 1 t -UII i, li 'II III �Ifll 11 it ill I "1 I d I II I (_,,I I'll t I i •'I III, Ii,t,;t I I IIIIII iI...11IIIIIII'IIIII•IpIIIIIIIIIIIIfIIll7lil!I Mil l'II'IIIIIIIlIIIIII 1 a Il. I,:. ',Ief 'i I;I�I,Ii,,iIII uV 1111 III ( II it, II t i l l i , II ,; ' , 1 II ,I fil�, IIIIII III , Ll ,I 1 '1 .1 ' i�'t ,1 j IIIfV l i11 '.I II II II Ii 1, I,f Illt: III i '': 1 , i , 'i II, IIi III LIiI Ij111i IIIIItiII,jI IIII ( II Ill 1 1. I 1 U I I_I III 1' f II I it II IIY I I I'. i I I f n I' I I I iiIII,I I IIIIIIIpIiII� 1IdIai)11' - l , 1 f,I IIIIIII IiilI11141 tI i I i , .. I p I.. U , , �: 1,14 I, a I II I I III ll I7 "IIIIIII II I ll IIIII I; I III I i-, IIIIII YIIt ! IIII ill �I IIIII I. it ( t l r i { Il fill II IIIIII Ili 11 I It ' ilia I ills Iltl i Ij lIn I1 IIIII ,I I , 'I III 1 ' nil III (, ,ITj1!l III II I III I �IIILIIII iI IIIIIIII q' ' : I I I l ll i 'ii'f 111' IIIIII, Ilgl,lh III III 11, III,I Ilili� Ili II II II 1 i' i , , , 11 II t i 'al I , I IIII ll IIII f.i: I I L; t l tl ( l i II I f li ills rill I I i li 'III III I„ t' I I I 1 l Il IIIII l l it IIIII IIII I I IF IIIIIII fypyyy i 1 -" II ,I I 11 III �I 1)II11 I'll il..I'I II i11.11I,1 it 1.111 I I t.l , I I II IIII, IIIllilllll, II IIII IIII l i."11I1110 I II 1 i:' 11 III 1 IIII f'I f l I I III i l i , f' llllll lll,t, II III II 6.11 I to II , III IJr u_II i I�I IIII' I �Il f; F I i I I Il it t II ..II I Iun61 ,11.11; f1 II Il Bill"III III il1l17I1 II aI Illoll IIII, , II1 IP'1 I i I:I t 1 I I III h,: i71 Qilll' IIIIII I f I. i 1 'Ill fl, ;I I IIIII Il III I j1, I (Il f; Itl�i i' II Ill,1 l l i II III II II I r II Illlblfl lill p Il 11 II i " i., f II - I I1 11, t n9 IIIIII : n I h1 , I, "III [II• 1 1 i i... III 'I'II I'i' 11 Ir i i l iii III IIIfIII,IIII iii Ili ll'I, II"IIIII II III IIII LIIIfI1PI VIII Illhlli,llll 1 t , Iltil IJ i Ii aI ill 1. 1.rt If III11h II till II 11 I IIjI" ICI11ryIi I I hlllll I.i "I" ' ii:I I ,1 I it I IIII dI741 L'l a�!�r'Lllilall i n I� lI I I I11I (f I 1 I 7 1, I i7. lI l , : I , , t, . l Illi II IIIIrIiiIIIII I�I i"II I I ll ' 1 ".I I :IIIII IIII it IIIIII IIi .I, II'� ! i Al II If I�I II ll III III 'III IIII,IIilI I' _q. i , t,11, I i ll t l l 7 ..IIi 11JI (IItL t�l , ILLLlIttJLf , Fil+l-t' i f I' 1 i F , ti tlIIiN IIPI f III I 1 ill it rfll II Ill yl Intl l'lIi t I I li I III: I I Ills I II,I,I IIII IIIIIII Ili, Iyl I hl L I1. 1.11 , I , it li t 1; it I I I I 1 11I,I III 111 III 1, �� ., 1 . , .. I. 'i d I'I It , '..11'. ('::I:., t Il,t I ii'.IIi�„ill '. � IIIIIIII) IIh11',.IIt11,II Il Il111�IlIIFI_.I�I�i1l�a II�I'mili,�l Technical Appendix Part III Detailed Economic Analyses Table of Contents List of Tables Table Number Title III-1 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-2 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-3 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-2: 90 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-4 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-3: 135 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-5 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-4: SUSTINA PROJECT AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-6 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-7 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION I 5398B Table Number Title III-8 -BASE CASE PLAN I: (GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL -� ' GAS PRICE AT SCESCALATION II1-9 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-10 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH III-ll ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-l: GRANT LAKE AND 8&S WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION 1II-12 RASE CASE PLAN I: GAD WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT 8C ESCALATION III-13 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-l: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-14 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAD WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION 111-15 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION |` III -lb BASE -CASE PLAN II; COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 3C ESCALATION 111-17 ALTERNATIVE PLAN II-1: GRANT LAKE 111-18 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11-2: PORTION OF 90 MW BRADLEY LAKE 5398B Table Number List of Tables Title III-19 ALTERNATIVE PLAN II-3: PORTION OF 135 MW BRADLEY LAKE III-20 ALTERNATIVE PLAN II-4: SUSITNA WITH GAS TILL 1992 WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-21 BASE CASE PLAN II: COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION III-22 BASE CASE PLAN II: COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-23 BASE CASE PLAN II: COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION III-24 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSITNA ENERGY PRICE FOR ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-4 III-25 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1: GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1990 AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-26 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1: GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1993 AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-27 ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1: GRANT LAKE ONLINE 199E AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION III-28 POWER PRODUCTION STUDY, FINAL RESULT, 7 MW GRANT LAKE 5398E :w — ;zi !Z — — - - - - - rz Lr; 1; rz 14 zu C; Lr; LLJ :m cn cc uj —i u 4- LL) CL LAJ V) V) 4J CD 0) Q) LU c.; rz Lr0. ; 1-4 c; 14 174 ca ZE #_4 CD C; C; 1; 14 cz Z;;;z 2 CD -Z 4 rz .4 — =m m 9 ca tE Egg ;ik Tw 9 m -6 m Y :Z Ed M z e � ma Z M o H J V n' I 0Ld ui m a N N P. 2w n. F- N G7 N y m C7 o G m N Z S M J C W R y ct o r � mT m � Z w '• .. Cal ��_1�� FE d J C .Q. u J a i S M J � Q S m y V C ^o m< v v s'i •� Q 9 9 9 W G ppp G G Gb�ma o 0 0 0 o G N Vi YG'i 0 o m t� P o Il'f t6�s p a. o rZ mr p �. v G ti N P W. ^ .-. o o p y ' o d G 03 p o m p G mo on o uG-. u, u-. G G G a�G a ." .NO. o V) v a V. v o p ry rV G G o 0 h d ry N o o G o o G o h C h o p n _ h o O h a CL Q ^ m o N G Vf o a o 0 �i o m o � r• *O N� 0 0 � r' — ram. o - o c u o ..7 v,� P c h rt Q Q F- Cl) __"_' omv: Novu'rb o o v oom o W H C.Q.) r-- o0 omu-. oTo o 0 0 oop H H 3 W i-) — P o m Q v a(Di _ _ p o GOGp w CD Q Z Q _ mm.oa�o W mo a o 0 m 0o p Goo aoo Gmr Iz hr a�G o mr. p mz4 ._aoe ._...._.- - c. aGop T .7r.r CD a m_ p ma ^p ^• .�._.�-s popoGo aln w g WE aw a co 1 w �i rri .� Vi N Va ... .. M -_qq r r G O '"ILL N �_ S P G V n w b Q ..o u'->u �v G"-s Ea ea- c'a.,u W1..i aw ._ W... (, 00 p O o 0 [mn N 1!1 0 0 n 1r •po M p o% Q li'. v Y'a a m m m @ O o 0 in m� o po m me"v irro o�pm p_GpG0a0tr; �uo-ai mme�pm+a 9 o- psmn p... �_. --EpovNa p•nmo pM_M @9 mva� mopm--Egg oppo—__@ .Gry pea�n N�N, �G .-. N o p N� a� a M1� o m m N p G 0 - O �•. F. p u0'. .p p � N D. • 1••1 ce _. a. ..... P _ a IP m o N _ m O .. _ m _ N h tr m 1�.1,-. � e q G o .n •>No^ eNom oua __a -: e+.NN p m •o , 03 ►y try Cl ^ s o p@G crvvNNm o cN.ti a c�..p ov cow n oo a ""o p p-,21 N Z 1--1 M o vi u-+�c n, n.N N o ^ev�p�olri �a <vr op N H a� J _ O o @•" LLl S V Na�l:.l"r,m000�a N N p a o G c@p @ poG.•cop - „r. (y H{/ W 3 G O o • o tin m o@ p c O p 4 m M1 a G p G o0 O o m m;r m H Ln N l^ o N N a a v o p@ N o o •? m pp p p o o m ti m O O P N N mps, W Iv P p N N • ly • • @ N P N fn O m N o p G 0 G. O N O •O _ p Q LLI bd pogo p o000 op o00 oymyo �1,-._ p oo p m op •�+ J o ooppopo p N p rmM1�p NNN ry m m 'L. p rv'• o m p c o 0 0 o p N o _@ o n o NNN p o w _ (,1 pcpp ocoGoo p p p o p p v. v, '-. o cpoGoop p N o ui s-. N__ mop NNN '�L' � '• it w� ropo� �L3+.- izzt7-J m d s s rJ a J aQ ¢ W H m M G� c+ W� •pw �_ .@Z-. J _m J 6 tr' m G, U ~o W • [m.+ tz f LLI"- ' k as 1 r a ui Ln CD 2 2 -j < ¢ O. ;F" ra ui Cl) uj 4J (D !a, IM 2 m P. P 14� ll�; uj CD24 fz; f� 9, ;E,l P� -J in LLI he oz CD BE Ui IT O o ro h O p 0 n R n b O O N rt H 11'f M C@'i .O.• V 4 a O o o lnl P m N NN li'lNn.@.. �vtl'! Vm'041fi � gl .�•.Nvm r w r w w r 0 •1'11 b Yrti w NN �^00 e^n P a o O •O @ 1 fi o yy�� p OI!'J bo�[O•i oOm M1.Oofw Irt11 AY] h� N .r.. w .m.. O c4 a*, O N E^ w@ o .Pn � N N O o O; o P o_ p o 9^ m o 0 N- Im n N w N 2 O 0 in m N C N m m m: a, = N N a w U'Y Ili @ h a r O o V' NC P+000 .Oo .o.. 0 0 !^'1 m N N w 2 p o [7 m � .O V P O• m P r r r tlm'J O p O_ O 0 0 9^ P c O S A A R N a O O r r p o p 0 m g p m Irt11 m ONf"f20 mM1Po mC@'ONmOCP •-. m O o -. _._.Q...-o-m-v-N-P--H9-VJ-4- • rt N v N Ifa m N N w ua w Y'a ^^ rt •.. .p..m m. b__.____. p O o o_ O_ o a� 0 ---a OOC^l _.__N-N-p-o.o-O_M1 ___•O_p____.-.___ - Q P 0 0 0- O a� P N o o% N •^.. P m .m.. N N P •O O p o% O O_ O p Q o m: V Ifs n% P •-• O^ Q O N O O •mp YV]'i m m N va p m rp p p ppo p p m%pm O N N •O�• '• m O m p vn it pp O Z' O o m N P w w N N a r w w w w •-. w t(') Ill Ili . p p mw p--op w O m C O N b O O ro Ymi N tl •^-..�+ N N P m o m a p p p p ppv vinwin v@i w _ pry e1''.Io vu'iNunwi + ^'y"rym N N w w O o m N O^ O p m v oP. ppoems `„ p_oen m m OD m ua 1;1-1; Q vmm, N o n i� ou'. ma mwmm o!' w` cpv in uan a -v a ••mp oa^n ma Q O w^ m N b O Ym0'f Ifl IrtM .^..�.. N N m p N N ^.ono 0 n @ N C.� Q N pmr p inwomum-. pc�iimom.rtil op.u^.cmv$ v mnarppv ,oQa wppo ap r.m G7 W r r u-;OmN olrinaro. .o : owN� •o a44e000 l:m N 0 L' mNp rr Z N p�mpin In p_p p p uapmu. oi. . . + v. In m.oa �gaw o: r000a^n fh Q W Q M vi ui. �a nien : �`�NePv is .-. •.. ... `•'n��Nvva .rti ar e.i eo m r4.n H J Y O. Lli O m o om� oc�a�oe : ov mnapv nNm ... po@m mNr`v4om.: Gov w om o N om V a a m Iy 41 _. M _W CL _ _..}a @_. p ' "'.I u"p+. o Iv'n•_. • m e: p.. ro @ o. N ": ..^ m�•- J C/ •' a o. ^. W. ua m ^.v'. v..rt ,.. N.n r �. m o n N IrtM o O �'^ O O o o N P o N M1 m W m J 3 Q N Q.o w w w r n omrp va r mn m Invpoo,wpcv rt N a p o p ^ O CD Cl Q w r w v v c mowuaNcom�ooa W rlTa ua um-. upa. o 0 0 O_ r o� inm w mam p m mm p m14p Z Oppp o 0 0 0 0 p O m m O ...� mm pmmm pp pp cn .omm 292 9-mg pp O olct O �n H m p Pmua�v pap .ona @ mop mon•-. a^ww q, m pvmon Oop p tlpa am•,N m m \ lA o u N a rt e rt r c 6Rz v ¢C O P Y m Oml O N W s¢Y� �Er-is is _ �""' iri ts A WW a����tv �r. a �@ ggg�i Iz Iz 14 -Z Z Z Z _Z Ilz R.; m V __;4 N> h 9 Iz Iz 1-4 -Z Z -Z z c; 4 c,; Iz b N.1; o Iz 4 4 c;.; o P. n c4 . O. . . . . Ya 1; v; C; c� C; -Z c; r4 c4 m Iz c; 2 X N p M tz �2 S a !Z� P4 n MR zl- c; t�l, < 1; o7 o: C; C; 14 cz 1; c; Iz c; C; tQ (D Lu M!-- �_ A p Z cm.m Iz m rz C.". 1r; c; Lu < — — 9— cl: C; �Z.:; C; �z - — — — — - — — _j Uj U 0 — — — — — - . . . z ro Wpop tQ P 1— ;7 Lli UJ CL 4-) C; - - — — - — -NNN - 1: C� C; 0: C� r�NNNC4 � C; LIJ co :;C;C;C;C;C;C; rz C; C� C:) 01) CD o o C; .2 o o C; C; p N C; rz 14- C; ua G M 19 c; C; 1; 1; C; 1; C; p; C; 1; C; C; C; C; 1; C; C; C4 C; C; C� C; NNN LA r; C� 1; Iz �z p C; GGG C; m E m F. gai gg Ed is E is w 3 W z o 0 0 N = o lei NCI 4J •o Cf t+a 1. a ¢Q N� v 3 v .. Q... On J ci o o e en r; 1; Itl I� C0.' .-. cm Lw i� I-r Z N m en Q H LLJ Q W m� mf No aaa^v Q N rL J N N N amV N N N N N N N U H H >- CY J M 4-3 YQi` o J Q! v w m Ohm O a M �"'. C9 t N tni N m Z o .Z. -' o �3J as rNNN� r�mle�vaml r --• zr= LLI m F- a Q .G Zig Q cm C1 G' w LL j 2 P O P P o at P O P P w w QQ ^� Z� svcz-_ wN U g d H W co Q 1^ p mp o ^mm roop o_ ryubf�umf gym, oe O b p o p o ro ^ N U 4 0 N N p O p W W P N Il'J � ^ e N m p W v p p p O O m o e p p N N P n s ^ .+ a rn N 4 ULr; u; < W N N T _o NM1 oo ootl o O p oe a b 4 O e p O p e ry ^ rh v p O .. o p v o W ESP - !t. V4 W pN d O O d Uf rz O. m op O v o O o P N4 c� i 4 YW'f 1� o e _ b o e W N .-. W .'.�. N N a .-.. �..� 2 :2 !2 iff Itlh � O m ..n UV N d p P o 0 0 0 0^ e o W Om o m O O Iff O 4 ..n o b 4 r` .b-n N N P o o p O_ ^- W p rz W; N N O! ^- N N m ee po pep en -. : e4-. o n n o o p o 0 0 w 4 O v l�f e N O_ O p o Ne O p O e o O p O . v e v p O N [.f o d N o o r w n e 4 o p O m o p N eo e9 922 W m r_ W ►r Q- e Nb e�mf�o mb r:�rvN W _W 4 �. opm prhl h W N Q Q V - o omS oo�:`�om p W p - emp p . .NNW o p p w M1 p o p p 4 o epmpeN hW fh (' W e m o p e p e e Z Q Lc! F- Q M m o -ems Wp w�:oo �%;zN oo cim c.i Nr+v v.+i : eo ee oe000a� v po c.N r h . a. -� U.neo o o W� H LLJ H C r 4J o o m . p o c[ � cf N N p Wv'u:po mp po ao p rvo e W m CD J Q 3 Q - m _ooi rv��eo-: lrioe4 - aa+ai^ - op : m m p oo.00 e000pN o29 mn UY r¢ o n m o muf p p^ a o m- o0 0 0 o p e e p m o o O p- h h. o pc min=poi � e ou. + m o 0 o e.'+.io op p v oo aiNop"'lnoo -mmrn ep p n 3 W wn CW. oo oin m mo ... WW-Wmm...... ..� _.__r4 0 o0o pC; C; hN 4u•. W o uS p o o Q. Q a p n e C A zz l p U; m 6 �� ry m y O ZZ - j W 22 zeR' M o 33 W J J O Y W_ p J W L a �Rz = o W 5 Iea- mcis. a d a o O J Q G O W d Tom. tt7n V W p^ C W s s 1- J¢ t3 iS Yp¢ rs�rcu' O G 4 Q¢ u vi vs J s��ow a $�wr¢u � u W r�c�r-zvpi l�ii �.'t: Z c: o b Iff 4 U'i U9 n N Y �YwN,' 11'! h. Iliw b 0 Y'l R' m a 4 N Ym'i o m o p op o o aN 0 0 0 0 0 1M. N VN' VN• YM'i I� m ME- 4 m� P N� O- •O --Ogg 1IMY N 0 ono mini �M1 ! aa".IO hro M1 m p o 0 a 14 ^ tV Q to p % N o ;V im.! tt P m h P --Egg P P p 1! Mt;V 9-O^4 OR pp a m i a .p O m h M 0 M N O tpf M1O N M p z M Ifl E� O M w O w peo Pm rya w o ooM pg:7 inm Am o 00 00 o a s M M P M o . m h . M . . eo N ... - - U C7 N W M � U F•1 � N Y ¢ M RE J U W . W >. 1•H _..1y+ W d N 43.CD cf) 33 cm M . S M 3 o N N m m a h M C; - O b O N N N p p O o M m P M1 P REM o m a h M M N o M p m wo0o �i M-w ---P -ooto o m�o Men o op o mmmri aiNNo a�i�p O o O o a m a.. v m h- o- po - h M1 h o O o O N� .. Plnroo oop p ova �m o_p opo 0 00 - p O o p o 0 o p O N O O O O o p o 0 o O n o 0 0 o p o 0 0 o p o p _ ^ p g o o O O p O o 0 0 p N o a J 41 �, cm w V) _ Z 1-- d Q W < M H G V 4- O W. H JCL y J V) coV W 't Z LLi H M C9 w r 3 L �+ in a A --4 N r G M 53 L m n R W O c G O m N b m� YY `O l+a of v w N '~"�'iro •v u-. �..Nv Q rim o 6 n S w r rv$Nrry rNrrH .� fz - M 3 �tt w Z y a .... nmz ove tiov -o ~ �• = iJ' QJ tom. � �. � � `� s a � arc a � s s a s c� e- • r- � „_, V O� Ym9 G �_ Vf rmi •_• c .4 N N P N O h o 0 0 0 o In h P m G o w cv o G O 0 C.r c I. G y N ,Q W a �rl':mNm _. oOr_•.o� _ GoomGa 04. .-.NNm mo LO NNm a„x H a- V V 4- F-I. _W W M t� m .. .. W y C C 0- 41 o. „o..;;o: im_tG.•. _ Go G o GGGOGG R I Ln NR ~ z CDLLJ �GmGG J J H z GG - o 00 -- N tf.• �� tf! IOfi ' n O G O O G m—R GGmo1; nr 3 _ - — m a G G m G G I a Y J ' c G inn I�. L'6w u� �` Ll �c �•'G LO LLJ m Q, lw 1 9 < ui ... ... ... ;� CD u . m cn ;i! 11; �11 T < LLJ 1� 1� 9V to CD < Ls A* A n F- Y / . � �LLJ R 1 CL u w o — ��R /2E n LLJ in 4J \cm LLI w cn2 k \ . a\ CE m ° ) iv # k96 O__. m m mo m m 0 o m .� ... . 0 0 o Cm o 0 0 0 0 o p^ P o �W. o 0 0 0 0 o m o o N^ o _ o 0 o rvO o o m R M1 ... �i o •o o..._ o �+, v mmom�rom o m 11F R `0 rn r7 m _ n. _ 0 0 0 o N N R 0 0 0 0 wrl_ o n M1 n 'C f�, r•� ni . c •_ `• o Q .-. r: c, R o M1 Y', v, ry ry IL J oo^ N,o o -- _ F M1 o u; w� m c H cn � N o o v o c o z Zw ry — oui�o ® N of � Fr. ^ry o m mm m u•, m n. Y, NNN u O < th o o o r; r: m o o _. _. .-, GJ. O W O — m Q, o '� 0 .omo N 3 oC„ oo o P. o N ._ mmo m w14 C-)LLJ = Q v — a omm4 0ooN - m3 - -, J Q m o oo^boo 0 0 0 00000 0 0 N Q _ o m M1cm m mm o 000000� "~ m _ mrv000:v.o C.D t9 v,�noo— o0 0 0 0 00 00 -- — o o m ^o mr000 ^_04-oFmm�„� mm ry .- o 0000000 _. _ Z^ mm_o mmoo—oo4 c4 R r _' mm mmoo inoom Y�tz 17. N N7 o000 oo C; ^mm cn m u C tw C 0. v�itj is ig ~ ` v�Wi v W mF v Q Q' y. M ��..� J5o�-� ~ 1- v W LL u = w �_' o w a u w a M c may wawaYs�"b�'`t3 Wo emu 11 w::?sG??. w W a G'7 G'� .� .- . _ r u• a a ", �. �. , — --- ------- LAJ CD L.) z 5 Q < 8 2 e LLI u LLJ Uj 4-3 U; t; ry iJ :t co 3 _j S;Z!� m R tn C; r4 CD In m c; 4 � CC OR -- -- 1.7!I- m 9 m t7l 9 uj C:) F— Cl) <C3 < CL 0 LLI ui :Ec m CL 41 V) LLJ = < !1- CD tm CD ■ p bM1 _^Np G p G m N m .. ._ .. m p mP ... _.N N.IY.� W11'�.. •O.m 'N..� m1�'004..... t\..,0..11') - N O ... O N"M1 N o m •O !•) p -• M1 w +O N In N m p 4 N 4 In fn o N P ...rya UY .� � m M1 O ...• � •p {n - •.. w U9 o w O m o 6 ^ 47 0 w a o p 99 N Ifi � �^ N m m h � •.• 4 h tl N o .� m ^ O �. _� N m p N O� P4 0 0�' IM1 .o.. •^.. Q M1 w N �4 o p p _ m po h o o p 0 0 0� 0• p O f• f o P N .+ o O O a p M1 •o.• _ 4 M1 N N O o •� _ _ _ _ I�ii Y9 W _ ... 0 4 N o o p o O O o 0 O o W •O .o o -O o, ^ o 0 o r'i N f7 p� ^ o P .-• m N ^ _ �• li9 It _ ..• o No eo 000 o Gm Nino �o _ O O N .p O o O tr In Yi h h P o h o w m _GN o� � o o N O o o l4 e4 1'z h 1� ^ m 1z -Z N N p r7 4 m OF.1 ..• _. _. _ w _ to YNy o .• •.. �• ~ O m b o o fP.J m o •m-� yi N o o 0 0 ^ o m o In 4 0 0 J � N b m .p Mai M1 M1 P M1 o _ w O 11'f o 4 p o •� ..• Q o h ff Pf � tN » rn O N _ o G• m� 0 0 IloY M o a O Y'+ a p PO If• o m � • • [V m •o W N M1 Y9 O m N o m M1 P ... P h P7 G h O N H 3 H p m pomu"'-., oo uup. f'�.. M1p.p p p oinao4. GJ r M '"' oG Gmm e'nin �vNQGn' r;r;p.�..-. h NNp m •..o u,4 G _... HM_j 4i C m o oomv�i poinn.'»'oo» pNo om ov:ao- o p N W.~ w ew 4_pmd o�'' _^N r,f. mo. Iz �.+.4 c; g s Q w cri� p min000uv'>,wcp.,oi: p imp Dina o 0 0 J O. G7 •' p v N m pGo Nvi u'.Nm ---- < , --- C; 00 m N Itrn O o •4.. � p o P »h.• m h jn ti c» •O h m o o p O m o m 14 N N 4 Z! M1 tr +t? o m h o Ua In N o o h �•f O o h rt o p. N m p LtJ .Q. ___..-a p mtr.p mus4 p O P•o o m m u-: o 0 o G m upi• ' � Z ^ m pmmm Go _vio nim + vnmv�� ppGo o_ � J p mo�"vu'aroomwo oo:» pGoo 0 _ mp c4,;c".4» oM1 m N pppG� pp m o pom ^oov » _ 000Gp p ppi _�"°Nm eno ^Dom .o p m m �up'�vtr',,mmu. . . . in�oo pp m o opo op '" mmT mmmp _pGeh•,�. : r;mN ppppG . 1�o a N n" ror3 otx Wm W O- O 33 = U Q L C W V um�l "•Ga=yr`m'$go8 ��^waq � aq ,.. b _�w ��q�g ��- z G� �w It a¢¢c`Jg'd'�''"�cJ'9, a��` =� ��9pp4.W�WCF• �s c; 14 Iz .4 -4 O o 0 0 0 4 a c; C; 1; C; 14, 4 Iz z oIz .1; P c; c; —9; il.;4 vo 9 2 99 OQx. c; 14 4 pop ee Cl o --gm c; [z 4 9 9 9 9 9o gm c� A 94 :3;z NNy^.pm C;�m .4.; —992 c� k"K-W M-9 900 . . . . . . . . . . . ";z — — — c4 4 o4 6CD W CM c; C;.:;.; C; CZ Zc U c; 1; C; C; C; C4 c; =— O C:) V) LLJ n C> C-) M 4— o0 oop o0 0 -- = . . . . . . . . . . . c-4 uj 0 3U C%j Z:z 4.4 4-- I., :c ct: CL 4J a) C; < CD WC; cn < (1) m cn 0; 14 U; 4 =CD < < W -i z O o 0 C; a C; o C; C; C; < -i I-- � < g--Qgg-- a pappaap o N a mrz C; 14e 14 !E: A— ILD < cz C; C; Iz C4 2!�! — — - - — - fz cl; .4 It E E ir3— irs a= ::J 2 m a;� maw W!4 r. Ri tz r. E u W , 1. 9 W 99 t7. 6 a g j i 1 i 3 O O FI Q J G V Q V) n uj fr 3 N CD H J Fes. Q O LLJ H > 3 H M W a' 4-3 F N u0 CD Q Q W Z Q C9 J � Z C, Z Q o O O p O o ^ N N Q ^ Pf N • � o 'Q!JQ JQ[ O O •m 'i v • � 'Z U'f o 0 o m 0 0 0 oD o Q' v N to c m Opp m O00 O N m p O o If'f p N _ V lU; - p O O m J o b O p O N 1� O O O P P mm YY m G P vNr�c mr`n m^ � ^ o Z o J o o e p O O o O e o o N w uJi 9 8 2} C f- r em- �i is — §Y ;Rap Fc, �y m�aom• o mp mN m o =Q m m m �• O s f w �!! .i. -gag!! _ g.. o Npo L.;is Npp pen ~ CSs '' iss ea ca % u s s ca 5 si ~ nnr-Gu i u u B- I' is r_ r re- Q co J Z Z O H � Q Z < J J = V c 3 w CCD vLaj CD vi V) O Q J uj m CD C4 S H N d N3 K C!3 ap G o a o m M1 o a rov m ••O ^ • m O T N O O p O o 0 0 .�.� —a •� O — _— __ IF, m a— W IY>�-. o O o 0 o P o O— ..• _ ... .� .�.. v. N b p o nu; P 11; .-. p= m p N O c h _ o 0 0 ... p �,Qa N Y Q m o P. IIm7 0 o O m —N -P o N N N fir, m M N N n> O o o p _. .. [z w o O N N •Oa o r. �• R o -- c In 4 In o O m _. ... a paaG _ p a ry o- m o P � a V> F �� p •o T -o a t. o •O Imf, m p� T N+ o o O p o G N N n n o O -- - If v v Ir+ a +s o M m r•> Y> o -o •o N m N r o_ in T o Y> O 1!> O o 0 p T 9m N u; o _ o o p O o O r4 O u; NLr; 021 op o o G o G _- r� — G • [-> N v-. N O- •o m '- .F.. n +. r. .n N a ra 4- pp '��ou•:N a pm,U"i".pp�pr,u:va' _ _ ov; p p pcZ aaapap — - ai p ap pa�-om a a amp ap p _ p p p_ p -a a Q a a N rvv • c p p p O o a p p p- _ _• r_. o p o p _ p pa q�v> p - p^=aa pav�+vJp Nam^ Iz o po w p tv v o o n a 9-9 RAm� ¢ [5 '" O G c=n cn n G 3J r zO fn 1[=i-> ` -_Zq i p' V 1es C~> u tT. �Y in o —!a 4y 07 O •r• •� F: J i� w u. ! f4i _ tY o t`�'a ~ �. :^ a W a w^�• 1�• u', .�J '�•',Q W Q =.w aaw, `• t LL `.I •r•� to J V• 4. W Y v] j _s a Y u r c`W? W r •n F .i.. W Q. CL t� W f �� ,. y j. �_ �r, •� 1 2sa .. _ 3 J 1- J+ia n •34s x W 2 ¢ Cy� .• 6 2 h J H¢ C>J Q W' C• aQat:z«.'.no�mww '•[u r-zl�r+ wr J'CJ G'J ,:,-c�G'7 C'a Ca, _ o. aG'.-r c; u; c; 1; 4 rz rz --- — ------- k, V A W�2;Z;W — —Egg 9 9pQ CD A Zmm < fz W �z CD F4 co Cc 4- LLJ LLJ C) C%i ui V) = c. cm u V) 4-) 9 = V 9 -1 C! 9 9� _- co -i LLJ a CD ce_ CL WWI -Z • CDv'P gw 2 2 7 z fZ4 9 E 6 F3 § E* "f \\\\\ w 2 P \ \ \ \\- \ ƒ ) iri W 9: Z3 is 8 tz z -w a 5 F�1 W j m Q f'- .. 4 u; m N lM1�i !M1n b . G V j [s N O N YO'y o 14 [17 p N 4 j m [on 1 ^ m-. G oN wv"'',-4. emv 11; n. '" c M1 .p tV 4 p p14 o 0 M1 V y N N o a M1- N N O o o ^"rN G.11 m m a^ m o G o o 0 o G VJ a a G N 4 P G N P o •O f7 O — • YY tff 4 11', Y9 Ya 4 � m � by VS G o G o oG o P p rtrt o N O .-. o o .4 �� a m» N P. _ m ro N o a p N V O G f�', Ymi m N N ns G O G G G O O m 2 o- 9 ^ O o 0 o G G G 114 � . o O M1 �O IP, 4 N -O m p 2 4 p o O O M1 O oa - 4o G_ O M1 .O N N O o N p O_ a P o G a m .- G P O [? �� ^ ^ ^ N Yt ^ ^ ^ ��" � ^ am m o G -40 4Iz m a m ... �.... N o o ..2 gym.. N piv N N ate, m^ N W b I N N N [mn !mn M1 o N N G G „z G G G o N N p h ,8 N N o OCD ^ ^ .� .. a r O o G o oa O G fr7f �o 1� n m"' NN,n U; G H � G o ^—ow�ri o m> o va» "Gmvary Dina oaoa CD _ Q G�.�ov'�iN .-) � O m G omv: Gov�'a Y`Dt4o G oinTP sa.+po LLJ W �•• o o O m N O �`= N N [7 — N M1 N N o G c7 o aim' ry p m ymY G r1 M1 N cm', .fJ taTl o I�h 4 P o ^ C= H G o' pau in in cv ' G o pow '4 '�N� : jamN oo aGm yamo ^a".� W Lm ryom�o NNN _ G 0000�mom Gm ..I W Z - m ammNmG Ga�im» NNN Gmaa m w ^.., J Q — Gm mmc o a. �.. . ems. ui anZE Q m G G o m 11. ..... o om . M = o b o o G o 6 o a o O m o If, Ih C9 m ul o 0 0� ry0 O p o p o 0 0 0 o G r ,gg aav v " oc� a o iA v� O 3 0 � � � m � i� LLo a GZ7 7�` G •- 1�-- U. k, gas w . g 0.�W¢P'U?5$3 ��r"��7�i» a��c��,i �` •,��3'a�'r�.� ia,CY 14 r4 ohm o 1; c; or M 9 a z p W4 =;z 9 m MML!R99ziQn Q:�; 9 �g 3� A tp Z9 S4 �7 c; .7 fz 1; ri_maaGw !�Xr. pom I.: c; m m ;2 WP@ f:l 11. 1; iQ --992 rl —992 n C:: 9 .1; z X, -1 97 97 Iz r, 2 A 9 0 UJ 9 gp� lu;l CD " < L— < Cl) 4— c; 1-4 LLI U "Cr cli r. r,: vZ CD (n w m CD 9 < UJ cl� c; Nd J < c4 o = rwl < Ile I— < cz to can Iz It » P 9 tf T �i — 17 F n TOE -F, t RL FE i-S L4 I -I • LI! Z Q N J a _ .. N N 111 f7 N [his mi iV N • ¢ � M {`jam m[� = IVm .N.� P N o •mo N � N -4 I_ 1�... ^ BF 4 N _ bi/ = y H C= W H O s oo"r. inw NNN�r nn o 1 H V W M t7u 41 r NNrvNN N - J CO ~ �- N c~mma Z (D Q N G j d f ma m mo a _ J tY •a QUJ N S o v T z ¢ TW W M ¢� y J �' o � � .Z•. Y ... N _. lu �' ''` 0 3 3 a Z J tma J .. � � C t++ Q' Q•�ii M � = C L h 4 .O •O o h 4 v+ w P d_ .�`-. ITi. g� 3 1- ~ a s Q �', n � O mopa �- -- - ao. �� rvo- m_m o0 0 0 ... ..c o__moo oo- mom o mo_. oo� mmmG�:m m -m �_ o m - _ os o_o - - 00000 _ o mmm w�4 .., _=.vr.r.r n r..,.... m - o m 14 mU; G 14_ ma — 97 H I--- e mom pm m- my m oom _ '_. a rcv ,.,m mm — o o m G. H O _ .., �...: d' m LLJ d r.. _• m o V'o 0 o m m m o o _ - Q v �¢ '� m o - _ vr. r--m m m m v W fn J V o o c m - - .� �. u-r c� o o m r� u c� _, r-• _. _ DOH cD m m o .. Y. . ,+. m » _ m omva�lr oo^_ —o m m _o on Joccs c.m Gomm F~,y o o m m mom' ��mo o m oom_ o V' o+ _m m ooGmm_ 4a..Y C'_ 6bmm��� moo Q. . zY�» Jq� rG b !'53 �. =�`i C• Q.r�r'y�� q'o u, _ .w it __�W m .� v~i m U m c� �. = w WC <Ya u CS � G M awiifJ'• a' 3 •3 1`j. 11`-.... 4+ o' � I �' i rJ 1Fo w 2 �W W w •- a= 0 1- 2 '..'C�'i. v r�r, � a . pp pG pp p ppp mr o p o p G p p m p N N •O N N' Ps --Esp. a W N a I!Y � M1 V P C'f • Y's N � +O mP G p ^ W ^ O o M1 •CN N m O o l'�! O W N�ao ^•O^ oo_Opo M1m M1 •o N N G^ to ^ O o cs M1 m n N N h P o 0 0 0 p M m O o W M1 d N N w .-r a N o •-r o o l'7 N 119 M1 m p O o 0 0 o a •_(V_ _P `C_N_ N M1 VQ 0 o b o o m fq P W fM1•l N n W .. t+f G a m _ • h W N M1 N p .o O G o p M1 m o N Q N pM1M1... •o py N poopo mp `vv '_j .�:.p.......... m _j Q Ina pW p Nh [ml� wmv� o pN p W^p .-r Q.GN �, p P•o� - p p o e c W i(a Ras o o N ^: Ifs n oo r,o Inm era a UJ 1 J H p0000 ua u7� C hti m el". 1pnc mn P A r-I W O. o f7 N N p Y N ^' V) •..o "" --Egg 0o O m m m N m v ..• I!� W o [h N N o m m t*s N aC w .0 ^_Qrv�,4-a ;aq G aaa. �. ... ...Q. _pp M1 V o •+ ..n Cs N .-r M1 m m N N CD 0 PmM1a u. -ram pou'i W - for InNen o c�c`"nN m �• N Im 0 0 0 0 o b N � m a G C[ m o o m CDn o a m s� a o ^ TT 9 E a .. 1� W!5 a�•mG$+ ota MLTS p2 •W a o m 1- ¢ i-L o U t o ~� o w� o a/y g E2 5= \ — < LLJ ® H ® G§ q u< � § co k co g- $2E\ ® \ / � � ( } ( \ ■ * § we �- \ /� � g g 2 W!s p 2 a m m M!•!� 2 -!9 a 9 2 2 2: x -!2 =:7 A T 2 4 4 c4 — - - A-4— c; L!!2 - — M:z : m — 9--929 22-2-,-9-2 gngpm kl— C;C4 w Iz o: •-Z n"SLr; c; — — - - — :;.4 •Iz u! mm O L9 U; C;,; C4 ;5 cn uj bQ CD 2m LLJ LLI uj C. a V) - cc CD LLJ j CD CD F- 3 l y 4- O N 4J a a N aGa papom a a _Iz �z Iz Iz�p _a_ miA cw m m m N n4 m a •O a h. o p r^ N tQ ��� QG�N _14 N m o 0 0 0 e a G vczp p p p o t+> a v o a000000 a N o p GOGoapG a N o pppp a pp a G aaaaa a _I.: P " m n b a e4 N N o_ UP n p I tiNN _m^� NNW ama pa G N- N p p c p a m u'a a ' .0 �U - ° p a o r•F. _"��-� Vic',-. a � .-.._dp 5 i N If. m Pi m N A ¢ ,r.mm N 9 M m mom. P P O.P m v 19 LAJ 1 N � eaS �; " • - H Q O r- CD G cc M 1 y,_ r� m n� a ¢ 2N uma �~ N W W Cl) t-u LLJCL > X co1— '¢d N N 1 1— Z c¢7 tzrvrvN ry -_ i2 ry G J G..• o m s o �: . 1 CD cz aQ - - - - N - Lz m9 ANJ . . . . . . — — - — — -- —gig_ m P c; 4 [4 . . . . . . . Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c; rZ -Z 14 g; w 9 o 9� 9 Pp;z 9 .14, m Mn-mg w 2... 2 "2n!2N G-1w . . . . . . . . 19w . . . . — C4 4 N o . . . . o. . . . m !_1 Z -Z 4 — — — — — — �z — - - rz W, — — - — — —;2 w — — — — m w pi 1Q g 4,4 W 4 4 'a' LIJ Z rz Lr; rzmo+ 5: E: o: rZ 000 14 11; r4 1; rz C� 14 P4 C; 4 Z9 w 2 z 9� ;z Pz 9 P 14 �z U; -4 r; — — — — — — — ui p V)O < LLI u 4-3 < U . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 — uj V) ui no . 6 a c; c:; pop -W w W Z W W. W cz K; to 61 tt is 2e W, ta tH 2; w t5 W. A: 9 _3 m Zw 7a3 A n LLJ U < 1�1t; CL m C; Fl: oll 1; CL . . . . . ui uj LLJ 41 cm LLI V) _j OL, L ;4 tP: r. 2 Z - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 W!Z K me e o m 2 o POW f�l n !61 9 P; 10 2 2 M 222 ig in zz 2i 9 E 9 �ag 9 F ie 2i ig -Es-i -2-6 =.msU5_ -r.- 01 _6 a --aw IT a! ;zi M 9 \\\\\ \\\\) � � \\\ [22�, 2��.; � , � � ` - - � cli (D Cl) w LLJ < 4 0) t= w G -2 uj C3 tn 0) 22 Q M p! LLJ -i LLJ F4 T \ \ \ \ \\ nc gs ( cz &EEEE y } wa E C.0 Fs e \ \ ( M §(to - it � - - - - - - - El 9 9 per, ma am 29 w 14 c; 14 1" L&Jr m - - - X -J (10 Z H (j Cl) I J LLJ �10 0 uj CD uj m 4- = a, .:z LLJ I= LLJ U h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . uj Nd :c ix -i _j 0-o. V)ammo ;a < 47 9 * CD 9. -. CD -Z cz -Z �4 c; - m 2� c4 -Z c� 14 A t§ is ts 22 Fnd� EH p 9 -2-9 6 E; e!!� g 17 gg. n 9 g � g c9 Q ts t t• t (' ( � ! ( ! N c P. I _ •� 0 QJ O c e� Va m •C a o m Y c o~ o .W r o 1 r�3o .- _- M Z H V M � c• i H Y1 N H Q U O �� rvNNN NNNNN ry 4 Z W 1- IY W U L v o m o , o �i NNrvNN NNNN gr w H¢^� 3 i 3 Q F- to ti � � m o m m �• a i CD t9 3 `• C c..a a O o a a -4 4. � � � � � W � � F. > z � `]' r 1- ali _ -' 1� Y(� I 0 o mmm mmm o r�,�m� o 000 ��,m o - m o oo arm o oommmo mR K, ors _ m 0 omm�m m mmmo mh,� Ti 2411; r4om14 tl��_�zm Iz .4 . m ommo m .v7: oo_mm- o o�� m m om�o o v; z Pill, _ d Z d M mc.7m ov---..,m mm Q - _. _. 1--, O o v v _ �.•+CLQ - m14 m oor�,00 o mm _ u H FiJ CD ,. Q '-- _ ^ o w ... _ .., ,., m m m m ,., r. <., o. .. W Qcz e= �, m m m m o m a �• o J C-) W C.) N• '_ o- o m m w m_ C m m14 Q W W .0 o os oo- . o o m o F- N � m Q - o- m m=ooNmm _ _ Co 000c CCD mommmm�om�_lw o0 o^mm^ r.r. m - mra o^�' oc. oc.00 c. m is o o a ig'�._o S w. RI` g �� C �Q�¢ �' �: � �z S� cN4s. a ,.. v��i eel � � of-wc SL?•r �s t qS9 b¢�G,m�' bar bwae�¢n gowa z�a ,-Sr m d it=-,_ ,„ } u,' ' -11. 2Y tea : LLD w ? � 3'm a a Si.=k gaS•?., o :.' iu. 3 a � �i-' z v�i tT] G', : a 3 Ifu ai '6 � r`„ �„ a t k. - ¢ ��.. n " "' T u ,� :Z• i� a G'7 ¢ . _ _ o m�N . ---- - --- ----- 9 F4 R 9 w 9 ni a --Egg _9z go —43 !o c;.4 4 c; c4 P m VS xznl�G 99% --Ogg 499 00292 :2 ;z �P e 0 gxg="-0F.;3 12 o LAJ CL CD C4 V) Q _j 4-3 L) 14 LAJ me m Oe eases :2c Ln < c4 CD Iz: pnee o o o 1= 9 ;9 vim E Pt a iW 9 9 229 9 E < LLJ — — — - - - — - - — C) Cl < CD LLJ cm _j mV) < LL, < U 4-) Cl) Uj v) LLJ Ld Co - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAJ omm . . . . . . . . Gm_mNro 9 2 R A 9 M A%!P 9 9 9 2 9 Ln :m C, . . . . . . . z Z.; 1; 4 Im. CD 4- LLJ LLJ he LLJ 4-) 2!9! Ljj -i CIOo < -J " zz . . . . . . - --- - - - - - - - 2E z L4 cm . . . . . . . . . . w lw .1 E3 Iz 19 5 s 2; 1 Zw iR 6 H a 999-- 999999 999 :w Qg 9 2 !2 9: c!: --992 �9%x 9 ------ . . . . . . . . . . . t2 c; ----- --- Lr! rIt Qi v a !9 9 m rz 9 2 16 G fz: CD CL . . . . . . c! crom000 < CY) 4- 4- - - - - - - - - m 91 L.j LLI C-) V) cli -J LJ 4J (Dv 4.; cl LLJ % V) — CD < c; 4.; 1: p� 9; 9 9 cl: Z3 - t�9EH9rTE ---&- 9 �- r5 .ter,- c 9 cb ME E- -2!n w f� is 3k 4 Vu� ui I od CD Ln rL m 1 NE< a Cc Lrj 4- < UJ LAJ tn U LaJ CV) LLJ H < LLI _j 4-3 m < < 2 La CD -i < :2C W NST 9 9 %0 r 00 �v,lm 4 r. o � ^ o a In N W¢ .-. o m o r, r a•. N m .-, o -- Z-J — FI o0 Pi P c o- H W Z r•-a H a r oLn V2_ o ' J y 4- CL = coH W O mm V= 0 QCDa {I r ar,N g4 W N N U < C'J 'Q V .�N.. W H - or✓o s� Z G7 IS m ry o = .- er a a .. H ^ gc_ r. 3 0o m o m o 00 crmc. o - Q,o- o mmQ. m r d m o P'moo O5 El3 _ ca _.. -.. 0 4 w FS 0_�,• Q A Q� � t .. 3 0 C� ~ M •- - •_. M 3 _.r � � � cyQS 2 - 1 � n= t chi oM ^'' � •� n a G `s ��Kh mCO <- ow� M ^3 s J`-�- ` �•F _ _ w w— a W c ¢ � S Y1 `+ G `u:�-. a �i � ~ _ �z 6 n- s •'Q-' = r %3 7� r. r. a i ,, Il I (i'• r pi w r �_ �- v G 3 > > tQ u ^• Z d I_ w G, LL g o cr~• a .z'_i' ¢ t, r r . oIn p _ Nn M1 0 0 0 o m -O 11; V' o 14 T N v o N N r+ -G o 0 LZ N rZ -p u' 4 0 0 0 p Io o N p o- p Ili 'e o- 0 0 0 o JD M1 o M1 In oz -Z .-• N -4 N N o p o N 2p a p 11'J v 9 p o N N N o N I p �1 G p M1 II'l NP2 M1 b p o I N r� 1"1 Q xW o p N N o p N 6-4 ty u LLJ M Z 4J o p o o ry N M1 om �.' Q = )Z. NN v Fi o p p p m G o oop o-^ -• oGpGJp-,pomNN ry I m N � . J, p ai p J W T� W .�-. m � •G S r-•�- dpp� !sa 3 � 3 d Vr � cWi - ig�= � vl 17 N t 6 2 .y'-.• C C Q a U Ll I -Z -Z 4 Iz 4 -Z �z rz 4 1; cl; rz 14 Iz -Z 1z; rz 4P9 9 gg! c:; C; tr; 1; c; CIra 14 w o ir i5 65 R 6 5 : 1 / • ' ; P N 1 N N o o P O p� 00 N pp oN N 4 0 w I 0 O N 1�! N d• i •O ^ P N I N . N O O P p n N } N N P N 1 h o O p�0 ON Y'1N ••• N N O P n N •+ o P. N I N N O O P o 0. N I a — • • h O N 11 ••• t+l N Y9 f h ^ a ^ H M o P 0 0^ •1 N ^ o P N T N u'! ^ P 0 4 ••• o o N N � o O N I^ ••• N N P • h N •O V O •• V 4 4 0 o O o uN,l m m N 4 — .•• 0 0 o N P [•l O N O �, +-• I I P rz ^ N N e o a o O h N N v PQ. _ o o � h t•'� a N 1 ho- 0 oNOON 1 1 �• N N P O iw N I ` O d N I h o o • 0 0 P •+ LLJ Y 97 O o tv 00 CON Q ^ o P •• •h NNN O fy o off. ooeypo `r li`i P o N µ - o . N i N N o o a o ; M1 1. N o rn 1!i Z J o m O c; 4 i rz4 p o- 0o — N FI a. O W M m p N •n •-• P a m m o 4 m ^ NNN •p.P h N... m �M oo--o-ma sz I r ^ o c:;c; e� ��� N s o ^ Who � o Inm0000 v va cprM I J�2+- I(] N o00000 000o b11"'o0 Q m 0 " — 0 o r Q w o 0 0 0 0 0 o poo ua y N N a n cMv •N.. N N H o in In N 0 (l m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h b N ¢¢ t3 V~ m o 0 0 o O O_ b Ln o_ 0 0 0 •O ��" � m C Y 'L •vim O •O n ' QI o N c .¢ N .•-• _ J o •Qrr C m ^ _ a AIM (D � ? � 2• o P' 1 � � ¢4 �• ¢ O la. �`—� W M ¢ N � � � � � A � T .•. � Q ¢ J 6Q¢¢. [•l iiss 2 Z o •Z.• o C V O E [.}a 00 t o 0 1 _ f=b A.d G. W 6. fl WO r. O o .� T p 3226»> J W ` Q 6 g 1 gym¢ C f ; C m �. b iq iq z a a j I c m 5 •-. cis. •-.I�u.•.��.-. 1 O N 1 H H w J z 0 F- Q J N V d Oft W 1 r N Q F— Q 4- O W C9 N r ) Z 3 CD N 0:: Q W N z Q Q Ln r�r N G 3 o�. . . as o�. b u vi vi ri ui ri ri vi vi ri r+ n vi 1; ui ri N N N � '" ^�e�.. per'. r�'.� ev'.���>�. nev'.. �rv'�. •. �� ���� u' � �. u ^�v+ ry � ti ��SLL- a mmm e�N e e�� = •O � e e 0 G o H�� o o o �^ v ♦0 �Op I♦pO •O O O O pOp p�p V o �O 'O ppO ppO O -O +P +O < O O o •O W •O ppO O O {v � H N N N fV - N N N N n1 N N N N N N r N N saV [av N N N N N N N N N N ♦•� v N N S .m.mm.me�ommmmomoo_000^�__oo v ♦„ ... �.�..•--�. N -• •� NNNNNN N N N NN N N NNN--a----NN Q tea. 1L W S .N.. t♦s /P'f N b d � .� �� O N• a ro O_- - --- •- ZZW-3a 6 EB S LL� .. G {]O`• t �y Npy •y m�� � Ny m awn N M .N.♦ p� V O �'- TZ LL • ® N � 11'f t� 1fN'f n 1 P may' .¢! yN� O @ ^ Imo. 3 �+ a Si C^= FEE a_>r- S!-!M Ro V &iW2 Z! _Istt ci . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - --- P- - - ®N - - - - - - EEE - - E . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . . . . G - G G G - gas= 0 0 0 0 --zzzzz X Z - z - X X O o 0 o 0 2 2 9 9 2: Q� 21 ww - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - — . . . . . . . . . . . c4c4c4c4czr4 ---------- ....... cli u cn (n (n LAJ _j cn -i ;4'_ n = - 0 O r. _— % .9 . . . . ... Kf - 0 A A A A A A A A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 . . . Iz Iz hz -Z -Z -Z -Z _Z - - - - - 44 - II IAJ CD "I= tz cli - la Ira In - - - wiw! . . . . . . . . . . CL 4-3 0) — — — — - - - — - — — — - - — - - — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — V) 3c < 4) I LLJ L4 - - - - - - - CC . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - 4 1.9 9! 9! 9! 9! ";z ;:L CD 4n -;z a 1 a a a a a - - - - - - - - - - - - - P;;z . . . . . . . . . . -Zz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nc to r. S•. . -'t qt 't c.! 'I . . . ... N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . V = n % "_ z i -2 __;V V T !R-PERHIM ci ci ci ► w, - - - - - - - - - - - z 444 I . . . A= .. . . x. A. 9. x. x. x. '.M. . . . . A. n XX MMMMAZZMAMMAX-AXXXXXXXXXX XX A x. !SZE - 00 b- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p M 2: 9 R ;I �l P: pi ;I -_ -wl ;z % 9; ;� s u; qqqq�z-��_- -mmr.-PIN - g - - s . 99 .99999999 .9999999999912� . . . . . . . . . 000aom000000000mo ti 4 c4 �Z..: -Z c;.; ;;i E-gr a U% p 5 s i E m. AAA —A-9 _ ------- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - — — - — — — — - — - XXXNNtP N r~i LU J m i�- ,. _t 2 ^ ^ �' •a Ifr IG o ui J Z — m o-• �, = Ln = ui L]. m C.W.) O LU V W ai t-- n Lt7 US —J `Z u G7 L v ` o - G m - w. , co Hce -S�l 12. G000o aG oG Ys ig 98 71 3�3 c« r r �r M 1_ C. � Lam'• •Jt. r - F a ��•.r ra �. � off:. �� m^ ` o � _- c A ..,- w¢�: M- M uQ ^�•a xc��r� GI o4 u� E o«� - N � ui i cy «Y'p b' 7 y.S G,''x' �' v'r'•'U �,r i4-• 3 47 �c�wr=.c- r_j F- 3 �u' u j ¢>• � t '.,. Q I^�- `� � •., � �� '�. �� F J �' �. � C _, ¢ u. w u � � ,,. ��' w t- Ir , n n r .. . :-. f: .._ c, .._ F- -^ u. S C/ 4 3 LL� 4 ='• �' P3 k_ • 00 0No v,M1�v�a""n ov�oo o_r. r'� o O or. ••c •ovo� �' o� =!�''� N M1 M1 a N N ^ pp o 0 0 op - b-- N- 4 N m N o O a M1 M1 N `O .O N v o ... •+ � M1 r N .n M1 M1 P �_..._•p._1+'�_h-NCO-?_cn-m_m o_o_o_� I _____.__-_.______.______p____o=o-o b ____.._-. Op O op o N^ ,•0 Yv'-i Y r�9 � h q o G li'S a h ^ M1 h •O •O o4 N N ^ •p Vi .� o o O M1 M1 h •O C N N o� 1n'i mo o^ ^ a^ u M1 N ^6 •o V O N ^ p. a N M1- o m m o m p_o_o �_b_1[�') C. _ _O• Y M1�_a_IPaO_�_R_. r 1 ..... .___ H . -. o o a r. M1 eN.. tl v N cam• 1 0 -N. pp 4: ... o q oh h •oae"v ee.1p� ^. o 0 W.r a a •�roQNN -- - � ��M a a N in Kc r ^ 0 M H C• co W o o N49 P 11'i m N... in To -o h _ v 4 v o m h �•n •� W W M ¢ Cam.) V d' r - q h h N N ^ mrNo`r.vm o ¢ J M �.� J W o0 o__wuu'a 00 '.. u (7 .-. o Q sT G o o g o o q a O P pM m Q 6w oo o0 000aopogoao W � o c 0 oa r G� r�-t l S o g q m a q q o q m rn c f••� 3 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O q o 0 o a o 0000amoo o o _ q a rb a qqa aq q a uoa q qqq � o Q G r B T;p 0 4 N _ ~ 0 3y ¢ [J �.QSuv.w..� o4o-ZoM_ G o%•3 Ell ig aS �zn3=r�`r�aa[nasuu ww-E, r t S M F'• N � J � � ✓� 6 m F1 iil _ i- E LAJ \ @ < / uj Q§§ RCL \G U, \LUE /\/ �c8 q S 2 k \ / S \ k ff/ , `- Ka«2a2V-A»§®JzeEi9ƒ E $ [g/\(}\/((([(Er(y d:yp E�\ 35, \\( § ) } §© E7 } k � ) § w = \ = 2 Lli = NE R ;7- % ; ; ; ; 9; ; ; ; a LAJ i F.LLJ Q TO ;.! 9 r. - 12-4 is - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------------ odo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. �yan . . a. O. . . . . . . ----------- . . . . . . . . . . - - — — - - - — - - ------------ ------ --------------- rz LLJ W 6 2z - tz L.0 U.J < cli < 4- Z7, F- -4 Od I J. F- to < 4J U- w Lu F- F- -J = < uj X: = CL O C) Ll- LL cz o M;z GG 9 c:! 9 c! 9 c:! � 9 9 9 9 � 9nu i*,! 9 9 9 9 9 cr� 9 c . . . . . . . . .. b.. . . . . . Y.. . If.. Yb.. Yes. ift. - - - - - - - - - - - Its - - - - - % g! q g - — — — — — g R - g ;z g -- a " -!-, 4 NN 14 -; �4 W, 14 14 c4 Iz 4 Iz lwl 14 4 - - - - cz �4 c4 �4 �4 �z Ez �� -- P� �� �3 �4 �z �z �z -- N N;z� ---------------------------- -ct -2: --1 -7 G. 4 cz m 9 — 9;9 - - n A%T 'irr. g3 P2 Q� K VY A m r 2 m n ;7 jZj '� 1s L'I 7-- . :w MMo 9 ;;; p - - 14 2 a a 2 2 2 a 2 2 !-, E ?t at a v z o!2 -- 9 9 w Wz!!W!9!W!w -- W - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;;; ;; P: - PP�i E4 - vi P� ;j - - - - - - - - - - - I - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �4 "Z O m 4 4,4 r4 z -Z 4 . Iv.. . ----------------- 2 9 2 9 9 2 2 9 2 9 9 9 2 0 2 19 - 2 9 2 9 a W & -- a a & &;g ;9 9 m & & 9 ZE �-, x a a -- x & & � �s 9.1; & &;., X . . aa222212n --Lr; -�-; -----L--W; ---1; -�; -; -r; -�; -U-; --U-; U-; L-I; U-; W-; L-I; �-: -114 - , X _ ._ p O m.m3 N =-s-am. on d f.f 1 0 M1 M1 _ .• 00 O O a {0•. N m •O 4 •O m .� o m' d h� O V r 4 tA.. M1' •O ti N • O o 0 N n m a e n O.O M My� M o= 1 ;� IIA ®JCS o f9 v a O O o m m 1 N � COV ^.O 1A aP•) C^� M •O• m 0+ N _ _.._.__. - _ ____ _.. _ _ ._ NaPP_ fiOw .NNN tO O0aa Mn0ON-•.pOA�o—� Opu'i yyRNV•� O^Nv yn�M1va'•l�sf•o-n'� N••OnNm0m�1`l P- 'ti m°°• •w�y�i N="-y•Nvn� ®oPra M1M1M1•�Y�re'''�i yYfN��")f N =A-0-mOaCM1®®dry®n® •NNf0O 0OOON�oe 0p0 ae MM®m -YC_w p0aOO99MOdoM®9M p 0POO- N 1M1fi� -Y'a. 1.1 N ^. If! Iff '„ ^' N _ .. _.. __ � o_ .!1_•_ _ _ _ __ _-�._-. _____ _. _. _ ___ _. _ _ -. ___ _______ _ ._. O— o 3 o e o o aM1•a o v®® s'- -_� w �{n�{yy poi p Si yT� a o 0 0 0 o M1 Iff .M1w!'O S --NN Yw M1a N e•. a®N M1 M1 .� .P.• - N•M r ® ® p OOm o m b 00^OO QO� 3 4 Ci n'VP O'IA•ft f 00 Cp N ? O > • . • ? - • ='j �y y�� M1 .p Y; 4 O O NON ro N ... �. N•V o- ;a.- �T Vas � 0 0- 0 m>O % O b to o t, n 9 i n M O O n! 9 i O 0 0 0 0 0 m y N{A� �MyM i aa O O-4 ..�Cei tp�M1 Qmpp-m N'yP® t�•O NNO a NON e OON.-O mO 00^O®1(l Om m.�r �Yni N OHMf! 0000 o N f� P O d. O yy - O•� •y� O � mt9 ni OHO d0 •01ANN •f � w..b. NNO M1.� N NO 00 .O O -.. ... --. � •^. --. MOSS ..• m h � gymm. m pp • N -O P N OO •OY AO'Ty� YOf If! WO IA OM R P O OO o Om Op+O0 O . p� - o- - -- aP.l O N •NO N O_Np N M1 s.'l MAi N N m M1 N N O O N O Nip `O P `G N 11 Y m a- • --N-19_-olf. P d '- m N N d N („) - oO�m N O 0 M1.mN--. �O a � i .�.�.. n/ M1 •O Oa <b - OM`m0OmN 00-ArlOm P;;N a OSQa OoN 4V 0 0 0 m O m P. P •O N N m M1 N l+V O a s .p .p r ... ym� On•.�.�p.N�1ff v e pp �y ... v ^� Ym' i o m Y f O O V09 t w P O Y' J i 1!! Y' f m �• O P ^ 1 f f� P O p O o o P .+ Z ooem m r nI �eNvv vM1ai i z.o W M n eov aKv -o Nr o p N in o t1y — — — 4•' m OaN•. a G.Z HJ Pe_ ^om�ri'oOviv�en'i •"o �Oo Oa.m.--ss neov 000eo�m�"`ooimn �m�mn r �-' y o y o�&IamtRQ 2 O���m $�am� 2002nmOpm ate. a= (n N OIt� Y! P 4 OM1 �e PmN 00 O 000 d N W -p NM1 mN 001Am M1 N 19 .0 • db O O00 M1-m , J Z a — o ra N: ®O M1 P1 o e o v om•a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o am ¢' Oi9 PomY9 'r OP O �' . • 0 =� mO.=OO'•OOy^O�`e �z��A 00 -00000 M1n ®A m O� Wfb®i0 -a`�v NOft �i W@yA Y1��0 O o0000 p Iff t? 2. Q [ C C My R n I ..' ryq ®®f O - appmdd� O O O O O O p O Om .M-•a n •O m10 Ymf -% Omp O oo O y Op o 0 000 0 ' 4 d 4 <Vl0.0 m 0Z.:;.;Y N --m•�� 00000 M1n � if � wn P �► � pG O�vammr�i•e0 on+oo mo0 ooOoc vin mm •4i O m 0! V O �^ 0 A w ?^� oN. • R 0 6 0 0 0 0 m tt•7� - O l9 •� �yy R Q s ' e t W O a T Y I-M IS 0 0 . ..0 A� Lli ui 2m -j c) CD < u cn W LAJ LLJ CD Im 0 C c 0 0 cj c .6 c; m c; o c� cl; V; a; 1; cm; cz; 1; C4 t oo L4m c; rz c;.; o a: A.; C; C6 C� C; --992 oa: 44 n 14 o 14 99 s _c;rz —992 �114!!2 C; 4 C; 0 O N O pN I.; .; C; C; N r" 12 !9 M z e -_:z A P; 02 M 9 o C; C; 1; 00; C; 044 4; C.; C; 4.; 14 M;4 XV22Q NAN C; C; is 61 ngt is n tE 6 g6. M H ami Mffi a3 5 is CD U) CQ L" Fr W O CD 2c tv NIS 9 -log Z; rs W) 4- 0 4J I f c g%%gt2!R . .N'�mrvan. . . . . wpe . . . . o' 9 w!-z n Sic; c; ;.4 —!32 TV z -Z 9:0 at A 2 9 Q ll T T s A rz Z.4 Z — — — Maxon eo ON 9i HrOO r, RE a a a a, a a a g a Iz O 0 0Mz Z rz z z r_Z 6 Z rz rz - - - - - - Piz Mz A S! .t..: - - - fnwR...tQ Pt mensoao�a7 9 Z.; M _M—M --ago p;z Z 4 M T Z99 9%8z�zn 4! :2 ic;4 a a 2 ,It 4 C; 12 g c; .4 p M uj 999=P- 2a tz,ffl A;; 9 W!Z . . cli CD cl . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 . a a 2 - - - I a S! —gG ar uj cm LU cn w 4J . . . . . . . . . . cz co < t-. T A --s fz 2 t- ga c; emcee 9 9 9-0= zc;.= CD 9 gags 9 =—a—M M 0 S:T% __999 c; ;.; — ; ; c; 4 ; 4 ; n !.;Z! M -; 4 'p; % a a 2 c;0; C; a---- . 9329222 a^ o vM M;z A TZ: 9 A VO 2 29: c; o00o; c; ig %a 2 S. m; tT A2 A ei 145 A 1 o 0 o a4 a = o �a 0 S U M O� o M1� o ua •o to m c 7 .� �— F•1 CL m N O ,p j�•1, [V M e Xf 6¢ o_ O j N M1 o ! 1(•f N m o N rn r CD O� M to N Z J W ¢ Q 4- ►r O. aZi J Z J Z O o 00000 N NNNNN ov000 0 NNNNN N H W _. C9 U O d. V) M ¢� r W -1 H W Q W 4J cm fd- d � ,Q � F=- c/f v r �^ = J g � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r ^, • NNNN w H F- o o NNNNN _ J d d CD c' v r oc "ujCD � m 0 o s i3 � 3 G G O: G � tit n - 0 .4 c; ;z _M 9 nn 4.; c; . . . . . .... RX ZSM%Vs Pi c 3999*22: 2 2=Rsm% a a 9 2-!!mm% sassmxCom 9z 9 N cz 4 -Z m gagoggogm 2% gz%%T2t!: 9 z.4 4.:; M1 b ;,t; A.;.: s!Z22% aac-M22: MW!-'N= sasaggag- 9 g9 qf . .9'. . .. z -Z zagsm% z8%t9Q_ ~ S;;gMwl 82000000 229923- ON -9%nmt.,9: 9_2 uj v Z.2; c;.=; 0:,z C.; rz• ,4 22SM9922- Z7, 2%%Qos gsvA&;aM: OD g.;.; ; �4 OR 6 �; -: Z -6 Z -Z Ch K cn c; .2; mm uj 2 ^2 4— 2 0 4 cz c;,4 ;.4 Z.4 .4 c; C; C; C, CD m w 4J cr c; .4 Z 4 41 cc (D LLJ 3 aam =. . . . . . . . . . . CD --z =:! 4 4 c; c; c; c; c; om 22 —mr BIG R, -e �?:Ejip R afrEgg- a 0 ® a c I . . . . . . . %gag: nwa -Z -Z 14 X.; N ^ p N 14 p.; 14 - !I- c; a: qR: ;3 2 uj 9 u; - cz �z 34 2 c; 4 m ck: za a a co crw -=gap m of s 61 9! CD CD Z Iz M 2 LLJ cr) -1 0 C UJ < CM U cli = tn ui ui < Lli 4J �4.:; C; 1; 4 �4 o: c4 14 fl, R -i b4 M: w ---- co t:c C-7 < _j 9;4 Z F- ce- C=; LLI -4o gaggn2a a R-g- CD CD C; C4 C; C; C; C; :3 p! R C; C; C; c;,c; C; '4 cm 2 2 Q C4.; t w Vf IA ma -;z a Q,v am sum IME 'a MG1.6 tm .. . . .... M, I • �o m �a • 4T3 U ~ o O N .p LLJ M H W > S C7 C) - _ H eL WIN gW mry+nm mon@ ± cwi uj ix CD O • {py� R _ r ® Y ® � � fii•��• � g f � @ 4 ! O l+l m ! ! O Ct 5 C w � W 9 a Him 7 ..mod.. 0 TABLE III - 28 GRANT LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY POWER PRODUCTION STUDY RATED CAPACITY 7 MW FRICTION FACTOR (K) 0.0000376 DESIGN DISCHARGE 439 CFS DESIGN HEAD, 216 FT TIME PERIOD 1948 - 1980 (See Following Pages) EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED M,DWHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1948 MONTHlN-` - ' SPILL EOM EOM AUE,NET TOTAL --- TARGET GEC, DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFFPEAKING ` FLOW FLOW BOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY E14ERGY ENERGY PK.CAP^PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY OCT 262. 262. U, 77288. 691, 220. 3.17 .66 2.52 0.00 5.75 461. 120. 7.33 0. | NOV 200. 200. 0. 77288, 691. 221, 2,36 1.98 .37 0,80 6.32 461. 13. 7.33 U. MAR 16, 104. 0. -48783. 673. 199. 1.12 M2 0.00 0.00 5.95 250. O. 3.77 O. APR 27, 363. 8, 28786. 660. 193, 3.66 13,12 8.00 9.47 5,23 461, 293. 6,50 8. MAY 244. 244. 0. 28786. 60. 190, 2.49 3.97 0.00 1.48 4,63 461. 89. 6.27 D. / JUNE 493, 178, 0. 47506. 672. 191. 1.77 1.77 0"00 0.00 4.40 428, 0. 6.85 8. JULY 556, 143. 0. 72907. 688. 205, 1.57 1.57 0.00 - 0.00-- 4.33 343, 0, 5.27 O. AUG 385, 314. 0. 77288. 691. 218, 3.76 1.48 2.28 0.00 4.47 461. 208. 7.29 O. / � ANNUAL 211. 211. V. 60738. 681. 207. 27.96 32.81 6,0 10.95 5.52 420, 62. 6.38 | | ' FOR WATER YEAR 1949 MONTI H 1 N P.H. SPILL EOM EOM AYEJNET TOTAL - TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW 'FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY 94ERGY ENERGY PK.CAP.PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 259. 259, O. 77288. 691, 220. 3.14 .66 2.48 8.80 5.75 461. 114. 7.33 U. NOV 90, 178. 0. 72843. 680. 214. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.80 6.32 428, 0. 6.78 U. DEC 26. 182. 0. 62452. 682. 209, 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 437. 0. 6.77 8. JAN 15. 189. U. 51739. 675. 203. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 454, 0. 6.88 0. FEB 12. 214. O. 40542. 668, 196. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 ` 461. 37, 6.66 8, MAR 15. 109. 0, 34769. 664. 190. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95�, 261. 0. 3.77 0. APR 17. 118, U. 28786. 60. 193. 1,18 13.12 0.00 11,94 5,23 282, O. 3.98 0. MAY 137. 137, O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.41 3.97 0.08 2.56 4.63 329. 8. 4,57 0. JUNE 409. 180. O, 42414, 669, 189. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 432. O. 6.05 0. JULY 474. 146, 8. 62562. 682, 200. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 351. / 0. 5.26 0. AUG 325. /3\. U. 74519, 689. 210. 1.48 1,48 0.00 0.00 4.47 313, 0. 4.95 U. SEPT 446. 399. 0. 77288. 691. 216. 4.59 .98 3.61 0.00 5.02 461. 355. 7.30 0. ANNUAL 186, 186, 0. 54539. 6/7. 203. 24.48 32,81 6.09 14.50 5.52 389, 42, 5.84 BBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MON-MLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE F.fDRO PROJECT FOR WAUR YEAR 1950 MONTH IN P.H. SPILL EOM AVEMET TOTAL -TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 0-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP,P.LOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (13WH.) (MW} (CFS) (CFS} (MW} OCT 194. 194. 0. 77288. 691. 221. 2.36 .66 1.71 0.00 5.75 46l, 3. 7.33 0. NOV 197. 197, O. 77288. 691. 221. 2.32 1.98 .34 U.00 6,32 461, 8. 7.33 0. DEC 71, 178, U. 7068 . 0687. 214. 2.05 2.05 ' 0.00 0.00 7.00 428. 0. 6.78 0. JAN 37. 184. U. 61640. 681, 209, 2.07 2.07 *0.00 010 6.71 442, 0. 6.82 0, FEB 21. 207. 0. 51335. 675. 203, 2.03 2.03 0.08 0.00 6,54 461. 24, 6.89 0. MAR 18, 05, 0. 45990, 671. 198. 1.12 1.12 0.00 8.80 5,95 252. 8, 3.77 D. APR 26, 315. 0. 28786. 660. 194. 3.18 13.12 0.00 9.94 5.23 461, 211, 6.47 D. MAY 117. 117, 0, 28786. 60, 191, 1.20 3.97 0.08 2.77 4.63 281. O. 3.92 O, JUNE 447. 179. 0. 44717. 670. 190. 1.77 1.77 0.80 0.00 4.40 430. 0, 6.05 U. JULY 521. 145. O. 67860. 685. 202. 1.57 1.57 0.00 8.00 4.33 347, 8. 5.26 0. AUG 481. 328. O. 77288. 691. 216. 3.89 1.48 2.42 0.00 4.47 461, 232. 7.23 0. SEPT 338, 338. 0. 77288, 691. 219. 3.93 .98 2.95 0.00 5.02 46i. 250, 7.33 O. ANNUAL 207, 207. 0. 59165. 680, 207. 27.51 32.0 7.41 12.71 5.52 412. 60. 6.25 ` MONT H IN P.H. SPILL EOM E 011 AVEMET TOTAL - TARGET SEC, ' DEFICIT TARGET 0-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY -- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP.P.LU.41 PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (8WH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWN) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (NW) OCT 101. 101. U. 77288. 81, 223. 2.24 .66 .58 0.00 5.75 242. 0. 3.95 0. NOV 33. 179, D. 685Y7. 686. 20. 1.98 1.98 0.08 0.00 6.32 430. 0, 6.78 0, DEC 21. 184, 0, 58576, 679, 207. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 442. 0. 6.76 O. JAN 19. 192. 0. 47969, 673. 201. 2.07 2.07 U.W 0.00 6.71 460. 8. 6.79 0. FEB 15. 216. 8. 36787, 665. 194. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.08 6.54 461, 41, 6.58 O. MAR 14, 10. D. 30862. 661. 188. 1.12 M2 0.80 0.00 5.95 265, 0. 3.77 0. APR 27. 62, 0, 28786, 660, 192. .62 13.12 0.00 12.50 5.23 149. 8. 2.11 0, MAY 124. 124, 0. 28786, 660, 191, 1.28 3,97 0.00 2.69 4,63 298. 0. 4.15 U. JUNE 325. 182. 0. 37320, 666, 187, 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 436. U. 6.04 0. JpLY 50, 148. 0. 60062. 680. 198. 1.57 1.57 0.80 0.00 4.33 356. 0. 5.26 0. AUG 37�. �3l. U. ��34. � 0. 218. 1.48 1,48 0.00 0.00 4.47 314. U. 4.95 0. SEPT . 461. 7; 77288, 891. 214. 5.26 .98 4.28 8.00 5.82 9-61. 461. 7.31 0. ANNUAL 174. 173. 1. 52488. 675, 202. 22.47 32.81 4.86 15.20 5.52 358. 41. 5.36 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLY OPERATION STU0YF0 GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1952 MUNTH-__TN �-H. SP}LL -_E0M' --EOM AVEME[ TOTAL ---TARGET -SEC. DEFICIT TARGET� 10-HOUR OFF -PEAKING _ FLOW ROW |FLOW -STORAGE UEVIEL -HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK^CAP. PK.FLOA PEAK CAPACITY / (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) ' (FT) (GWH) (61N) (GWH) (GWH 01W) (CFS) (CFS) 01W> { OCT 88. 88. O. 77288, 691, 223, 1.88 .66 .42 0.00 5.75 211. 8, 3.45 | 0. ! 'NOV 51. 179. U. �69685. 686. 213. 1.98 1.98 0.00 8,80 6,32 429. O. 6.78 O. ANNUAL 163. 163, O. 54075. 676. 203. 21.42 32.0 4.20 . 15.59 5.52 359. 23. 5.41 \ � FOR WATER YEAR 1953 MG41 H IM P.H, SPILL EOMEONAVEMET TOTAL - TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET10-HOUR OFFPEAKiING. FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD E0ERGY ---BNER0' 81ERR/ 91ERGY PK.CAP, PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (M OCT 337. %B. 8. 77288. 691. 219. 4.05 .66 3.40 0.00 5.75 461. 248. 7.33 0. N0V 263, 2621. O. 77288. 691. 20. 3.08 1.98 1.10 0.00 6.32 461.` 121, 7.33 0. DEC 124, 178. 0. 73791, 689. 215. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 426. - O. 6'78 0, JAN 58. 182. 0, 66375. 684. 211. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 436. U. 6.82 0. FEB 44, 203. 0. 57542, 679, 206. 2.03 2.03 0,00 0.00 6.54 ' 461. 18. 7.01 0. MAR 30. 03, 0. 53074, 676. 202. 1.12 1.12 0.08 0.00 5.95 246. 0. 3.77 0. APR 61. 461. U, 29244. �@. 193. 4.63 13.12 0,8U U.08` 5.23 ��, � 1, 6,55 U. MAY �U. 288. U. 28786. . 660. 189. 2.93 3.97 0.00 1.84 4.63 461, 165.' 8.28 U. JUNE 928' 171, U. 73834 689. 199. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 41O. U, 6.07 U. JULY 7U, 61, 193. 77288, 691, 214. 5.43 1.57 3.85 8.00 4.33 4&. 461. 7.30 0. AUG 513. 461, 52. 77288. 691. 215. 5.45 1.48 3.98 0,00 4.4/ 461, 461. 7.33 8. SEPT 294. 2?4. O, 77288. 81. 220' 3.44 .98 2.45 0.00 5.02 461. 174. 7.33 0. ANNUAL 305, 284, 21. 64158. 683. 209. 38.05 32.81 14.78 1.84 5.52 434. 177. 6.65 E8ASCU SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLA' OPERATIM S71UDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATI ER YEAR 1954 MOINTH _ 1,14 P.H. SPILL E0,11 EOM AVEMET TOTAL - TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLC9A FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK'CAP'PK^FLOQ PEAK CAPACITY (CFS} (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT} (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWK) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 257. 257. 0. 77288. 691, 220. 3.12 .66 2.46 8.00 5.75 461. 111. 7.33 0. NOV 69. 178, D, 70772. 687. 214, 1.98 1.98 0,00 0.00 6.32 428, 8, 6.78 O. DEC 40. 182. D. 62013, 682. 209, 2.05 2,05 0.00 0.00 7.00 438. 0. 6.77 U. JAN 32. 189, O. 52349, 675. 203. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.80 6.71 454, U. 6.80 0, FEB 33. 213. U. 42365, 669. 197\ 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 35, 6.69 0. MAR 28. 108, U. 37443, 666. 192. 1.12 1.12 0,00 0.00 5.95 259. O. 3.77 0, APR 30, 175. U. 28786. 60. 194. 1.77 13.12 0.00 11.35 5.23 421. 0. 5.86 0. MAY 173. 173, 0, 28786. 660. 191. 1.78 3.97 0.00 2.19 4.63 05. D. 5.69 8, JUNE 409. l80. O. 412414, 669, 189. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00' 4.40 432. 0. 6.05 U. JULY 420. 147. 0, 59194. 680, 199, 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 353, U. 5.26 U, AUG 384, 131. U. 74742, 689. 289, 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 315, 0. 4.95 0. SEPT 201, M. 0. 77288, 691. 221. 1.86 .98 .88 0,00 5.02 380. U. 6,88 0, ANNUAL 174. 174. 0, 54549. 677, 203. 22.60 32.0 3.34 13.55 5.52 401. 12. 5.99 FOR t4ATER YEAR 1955 Mlff H IN P.H. SPILL EOVI EOM AQEJNET TOTAL - TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING F L 010 FLOW F L 01.4 STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY -- 94ERUY ENERGY ENERGY PK.DAP, PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) ' OCT 168. 168. 0, 77288. 691. 222. 2.05 .66 1.39 0.00 5.75 403, D. 6.46 0. NOV 145. 177. U. 75365. 690. M. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 426, U. 6.78 0, DEC 51. i80. O. 67445, 685, M. 2.05 2.05 0.80 0.00 7,00 432. D, 6.77 8, JAN 42, 186, 0. 58606. 680. 207. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 446. 0. 6.81 U, FEB 24, 209. O. 48359. �3. 201. 2.03 2.03 0.08 0.00 6.5A` 461, 28, 6.82 U. MAR 18. 06. 0. 42948. 669. 196. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 254, 0. 3.77 0, APR 18, 256, 0, 28786. 660. 194, 2.59 13.12 0,00 10.54 5.23 461. 109. 6.43 U. MAY 72, 72. U. 28786, 60. 192. .74 3.97 0.00 3.23 4.63 173. 0. 2.44 0. JUNE 291, M. O. 35258. 664, 187, 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.08 4.40 437./ 0. 6.04 U, JULY 643, 147. 0. 65735. 684, 199. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 354. 0. 5.26 D. AUG 407. 219. 0. 77288. 691, 218, 2.62 1.48 1.15 0,00 4.47 461. 46. 7.21 8. SEPT 273. 273. 0. 77288, 691. 220. 3.20 .98 2.21 0.00 5.02 461. 130. 7.33 U. ANNUAL 181, 181. 0. 57030. 678. 205, 23,80 32.81 4.75 13.76 5.52 396. 26. 6.80 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLY OPERATIOIN STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE RYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1956 IN 1P.H, SPILL EOM EOM AVE.NB.TOTAL --- TARGET �_BEC" DEFICIT _fAR OFF - PEAKING ' FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY -- 81ERGY ENERGY ENERGY PKJCAP. PKiFL0W PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (W) (CFS) (CFS) (MW> { OCT 81. 0. U. ' 77288, 691. 223. .99 .66 .34 . 0.00 5.75 194. 0, 3.0 0. | � NOV 42. 179, 0. 69141, 686. 213. 1,98 1.98 0.00 0.08 6.32 429. O. 6.78 O. ANNUAL 147. 147. 0. 51798. 675. 202. 18.82 32.81 1.0 15.08 5.52 349. 3. 5.20 . ( ' FOR WATER YEAR 1957 MONTH IN P.H.' SPILL EON EOM AVEJNET TOTAL - TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING � FLOW FLOW -FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK'CAP^PK'FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (OWN) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (t�) � OCT 65, 65, O. 77288. 691, 223. .80 ,66 .14 0.00 5.75 156. U. 2.56 U. NOV 56. 179. 0. 69988, 687. 213, 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429. U. 6.78 0. DEC 52. 183. U. 61953. 682. 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 438. U. 6.77 0. JAN 22. 189, U. 51660. 675. 203 2.07 2.07 0,00 0.00 6.71 455. 0. 6.88 0. FEB 19, 214. 0. 40855, 668. 196. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54.1,' 461, 36. 6.66 0. MAR 20. j09. 0. 35400. 664. 191. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.09 5.95 261. U. 3.77 0. , APR 29. 140. 8, 28786, 60. 193. 1.41 13.12 8.00 11.71 5.23 336. U. 4.72 0. MAY 166. 166, U. 28786, 660. 191. 1.70 3.97 0.00 2.27 4.63 398. 0. 5.48 0. JUNE 449. 179. U. 44837. � 0, 190. 1.77 1,77 0,00 0.00 4.40 430. U. 6.05 0. JULY 359, 147. 0. 57883. 679. 199. 1.57 1.57 8.00 0.00 4,33 352. O. 5.26 O. AUG 370. 132. 0. 72527. 688. 208, 1.40 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 316, U. 4.95 0. SEPT 565. 461. 24^ 77288. 691. 213, 5.24 .98 4.26 8.00 5.02 461, 461, 7.28 0. ANNUAL 181. 179. 2. 54031, 676. 203. 23.23 32.81 4.40 13.98 5,52 373. 41. _ 5.57 u EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTIHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR !WATER YEAR 1958 MONTH IN P.H. SPILL EOM . E01"I AVEMET T071AL--- TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HO'LIR 0F PEAKING ROW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP.PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 287. 207. D. 77288. 691, 221. 2.52 .66 1.86 0.00 5.75 461. 25. 7.33 U. NOV 16\. 177, 0. 76331, 890. 215. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 425, U. 6.78 8. DEC 56, 179. U. 68755, 686. 213, 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 430. U. 6.77 0. JAN 44, 185, 8. 60088. 680, 208. 2.07 2.07 0,00 0.80 6.71 444. U. 6.81 O. FEB 29. - 207. 8. 50179. �4. �2. 2.03 2.03 0.00 8.80 6.54 461. 26. 6.86 0. MAR ' 25. 105. 0. 45244. 671, 197. 1.12 1.12 0.00 8.00 5.95 253, 0. 3.77 8. APR 66. 343. D. 28786, 660. 193. 3.44 13.12 0.80 9.68 5.23 461. 258. 6.46 U. MAY 170. 170. U. 28786. 60. 191. 1.74 3.97 0.00 2.22 4.63 408. O. 5.60 0, JUNE 535, 178. O. 50050. 674. 192. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 426. 8. 6.05 U, JULY 449, 143. O, 68855. 686, 205, 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.08 4.33 344. 0. 5.27 0. AUG 418. 281. U. 77288. 69i. 217. 3.36 1.48 1.88 0.00 /4.47 461. 152. 7.24 0. SEPT 155. 155. U. 77288. 691. 222. 1.83 .98 .85 0.80 5.02 372. 0. 5.99 0, ANNUAL 194, 194. O. 59162. 680. 206. 25.49 32.81 4.59 12.91 5.52 412. 38. 6.24 ' FOR WATER YEAR 1959 MICINTIH IN P.H.- SPILL E&11 Efff! AVEJNET1 TOTAL_ -TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 0-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW BOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP.PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (SWH} (GWH) (MW} (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 193, M. 8. 77288. 691. 221, 2.35 .66 1.70 0.80 5,75 461. 1. 7.33 0, NOV 61. 179. 8. 70290. 687. 213. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429. 0. 6.78 D. DEC 39. 183, 0, 61453, 6B8, 209, 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 439. 0. 6.76 O. JAN 29, 190, 0. 51581. 675. 03. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.80 01 455. U. 6.80 0. FEB� 17. 214. U. 40660. 668. 196, 2.03 2.03 0.80 0.80 6.54 461. 37. 6.66 U. MAR is, 109. 8. 35076, 664. 191. 1.12 2.12 0.00 0.00 595 261. 0. 3.77 U. APR 31. 137, D. 28786. 660. 193. 1.38 13.12 0.00 11.75 5.23 328. U. 4.61 O. MAY 190. 190. U. 28786. 660. 191. 1.95 3.97 0.00 2.02 4.63 456. U. 6.21 0. JUN[ 780. 173, 0, 64883. 683, 196. 1.77 1.77 0.80 0,80 4.48 416, O. 6.06 0. JULY 399. '197. 0. 77288. 891. 218. 2.36 1.57 .79 8.00 4.33 461. 9. 7.20 0. AUG 290, 290, 0. 77288. 81. 220, 3.51 1.48 2.03 0.80 4.47 461. 168. 7.33 U. SEPT 121, 121. U. 77288. 891. 222. 1.43 .98 .45 0.08 5.02 290. 0. 4.72 0. ANNUAL 181, 01, U. 57664. 679, 206. 24.00 32.82 4.96 13.77 5.52 410. 18. 6.19 4f EBASC0 SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTIHLY UPERATlDN STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1960 M0YTH UIN P.H._ _SPILL --HIM _E04_ AVE@ET TOTAL -- TARGET_GEC. DEFICIT �TARGET j8-H0UR..OFF PEAKING_ -- FLOW BOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY -- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP, PK.FLr(4 PEAK CAPACITY | (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH). .(MW) (CFS) (CFS) Offd) | ` OCT ill. 111. O. 77288. 691. 222. l.36 .66 .70 8.00 5.75 266. 8. 4.34 O. i NOV 95, 178. 0. 72344. 688. 214. 1.98 1.98 0.80 0.00 6,32. 427. U. 6.78 0. MAR 26, 107. D. 40500. 668. 194. 1.22 1.12 0.08 0.00 5.95 257, U. 3.77 U. 'APR 28, 225. 0, 28786. 660. 194, 2.27 13.12 0.00 10,85 5.23 461. 56. 6.40 0. MAY 289. 289. ' 8. ,28786. �@. �H9. 3.93 3,97 O.8O 1.84 4,63 � 1. 166, 6.27. ^U, ( JUNE 494, 178. 8. 47565. 672. 191. 1.77 1.77 0.80 0.00 4.40 428. U. 6.05 U. JULY' � 534. 143.' U.' 71598,- 688. 205. 1.57 1,57 0,00 0`00 4,33 344^ 0. 5.27 0. AUG 378. 285. U. 77288, 891. 218, 3.42 1.48 1.95 0.00 4.47 461. 160. 7.27 8. | ANNUAL 197. 197. 0. 57333. 678. 205. 25.72 32.81 4.0 11.89 5,52 409. 45. 6.14 FOR WATER YEAR 1961 ` �� IN_P.H.` SPILL EOM ��J� ��-�� SEC, DEFICIT TARGET1�� OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW _� STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP,PK,FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 168. 168, 0, 77288. 691. 222. 2.05 .66 1.39 0.00 5.75 403. U. 6.46 0, NOV 103. 178, 8. 72829. 688. 2N. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 427. 0. 6.78 O. DEC 101. lB8. 0. 67950. 685. 211, 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 433. 8. 6.77 U. JAN 1U4. 184. U. 63006" 682. 208. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6'71 443. U. 6.81 O. FEB 104, 204, O. 57448 679. 205. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 28. 6.97 U. MAR 64` 182. _ O. 55089. 677, 203, 1.12 1J2 0.00 0.00 5.95 246. U. 3,77 0. APR 51. 461. O. 30664, 661, 194, 4.66 0.12' 0.80 0.00 5.23 461. 461. 6.59 0. MAY 273. 304. U. 28786. 660' 189. 3.09 3.97 0.80 .88 4.63 461. 191, 6.29 8. JUNE 497. 178, 0, 47747. 672. 191. 1.77 1,77 0.00 0.00 4.40 428. ` 0, 6105 U. JULY 587. 142. U. 75087. 690. 206. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 342. 8. 5.27 0. AUG 434, 398. 0. 77288. 691. 216. 4.74 1.48 3.26 0.00 4.47 461, 353. 7.31 0, SEPT 342. 342, O. 77288. 891. 219^ 3.98 .98 2.99 0.00 5.02 461. 257. 7.33 U. ANNUAL 237, 237. 0. 60942, 688, 207. 31.0 32.0 7.65 .88 5,52 418. 107. 6.36 E8ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHL:Y OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1962 MONTH IN ' P.H.SPILL EGM EOM AVEMET TOTAL - TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HCIUR OFF PEAKING FLOW BOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP.PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY <CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (11W) OCT 225, 225. O. 77288. 691. 221. 2.73 .66 2.08 0.00 5.75 461. 56, 7.33 0. NOV 77, 178. 0, 71257. 687. 214. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 428` 0' 6.78 0. DEC 34. 182. 0. 62139. 682, 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 8.08 7.00 437. D. 6.77 O. JAN 32. 189. U. 52480, 675. 203. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 454. 0. 6.80 0. FEB 34. 213. 0. 42558, 669. 197. 2.03 2.03 0.88 0.00 6.54 461. 35, 6.69 0. MAR 18. i08. O. 37018, 665, 192. 1.12 M2 0.80 0.00 5.95 259. 0. 3.77 0. APR 33, 171. 8, 28786. 660. 193. 1.73 13.12 0.00 11.40 5.23 411. 0, 5.72 U. MAY 123. 123. 0. 28786. 660. 191, 1.27 3.97 0.00 2.70 4,63 295, 0, 4.12 0, JUNE 403. 180. U. 42050. 669. 189. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4,40 432. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 548, 145, 8. 66800. 685. 201. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 349. 0. 5.26 0. AUG 335. 164. U. 77288. 691. 219. 1.98 1.48 .50 0.00 4.47 395. 0. 6.24 0. SEPT 175. 175. 0. 77288, 891. 222. 2.07 .98 1.08 0.00 5.82 420, 0. 6.72 U. ANNUAL 171, 171. 0, 55421. 677. 204. 22.37 32.81 3.66 14.18 5,52 400. 7. 6.01 FOR WATER YEAR 1963 MONTH IN 'P.H. SPILL BM EOM AVEMET TOTAL - TARGET SEC, DEFICIT TARGET 0-HOUR' OFF PEAKING F L COM FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD F34ERUY--- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP.PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) MW) OCT 65. 65. 0. 77288. 691. 223. .80 .66 ,14 0.80 5.75 156, 0, 2.56 0. NOV 120. 178, 0, 73855. 689. 215. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 426. U. 6.78 0. DEC 47. 10. O. 65636. 684, 211. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 434, 0, 6.77 U. JAN 48. 187, 0. 5709. 679. 206. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 448. 0. 6.81 0. FEB 40. ��. 0. 477U9. � 2. 200. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.09 6.54� . 461. 29, 6.88 0. MAR 37, 106. U. 43466, 670, 196. 1.12 1.112 0.00 0.00 5.95 254. 0. 3.77 0. APR 36, 280, 0. 28786. 660. 194, 2.85 13.12 0.00 10.27 5,23 461. 155. 6.44 0. MAY 132. 132. O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.36 3.97 0.08 2.61 4.63 317. U. 4.41 0. JUNE 338. 181. 0. 38108. 666. 188. 1.77 11.77 0.00 0.08 4.40 435, / U. 6,04 8. JULY 533. 148. O. 61810C 60. 198. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 354. 8, 5.26 0. AUG 417. 165, 0. 77288. 691. 217. 1.97 1.48 .50 0.00 4.47 397, U. 6.22 0. SEPT 293, 293, 0. 77288. 691, 220. 3.43 .98 2.44 0.00 5.02 461. 173, 7.33 0. ANNUAL 176. 176. O. 56520. 678. 205, 23.00 32.81 3.08 12.88 5.52 382. 29. 5.75 EBASC0 SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1964 MONTH_ --D1P. `'' SPILL ---BM ----E0M -A/ MEI�TOTAL TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET _10~HOUR_OFF _PEAKING__ FLOW FLOW 'FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY BVERGY ENERGY pK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY -(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FD (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) 01W) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 123, 123. 0. 77288. 691. 222. 1.50 .66 ;85 0.08 5.75 295. 8. 4.79 0. | 69927 686 213 1.98 1 98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429 0 6.78 U ANNUAL 200. 200. 0. 56543. 678. 204. 26.27 32.0 6.12 12.65 5.52 412, 49. 6.17 � ' - ' FOR WATER YEAR 1965 ' | / MONTH IN PA SPILL EOM OMI NVEMET TOTAL-7- TARGET SEC. 0BO7 TARGET 0-HOUR OFF PEAKING | FLOW FLOW FLOW SIORAGE LEVEL HEAD 94ERGY--- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP.PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT} (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (M) (CFS) (CFS) M-1) OCT. 192. 192. U. 77288. 691, 222. 2.34 .66 1.68 0.00 5.75 461, U. 7.32 / O. NOV 85. 178. 0, 71741, 688. 214. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 428, U, 6.78 0. DEC 58, 182. 0. 64140. 683. 210. 2,05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 436. 0, 6.77 0. � JAN 48. 108. 0. 55557. 678. 205. 2.07 2.07 0.00 8.00 6.71 �0. O. 6�1 U. FEB 35. 210, 0. 458 4. 671. 199, 2.03 2.03 U,08 0.00 6,54 .461. 31. 6.76 0. MAR 33. 187. 0. 41�0, 668. 194. 1.12 1.12 0.80 0.00 . 5.95 *256. U. 3.77 O. | APR 73. 283. 0. 28786, 660, 193. 2.84 13.12- 0.00 10.28 5.23 461, 155, 6.41 8. ' MAY 146, 146, U. 28786. 60. 191. 1.58 3.97 0.08 2.47 4.63 350. 8. 4.85 0. JUNE 295. 182. 0. 35499. 664. 187. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 437. A. 6.04 O. | JULY 430. 158. 0. 52691. 676. 195. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 361. 0. 5.26 O. � AUG 375. 134, 0. 67514. 685, 205. 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 321. 0. 4.95 U. SEPT 390. 226" U. 77288. 691. 218. 2.62 .98 1.64 0.00 5.02 4611, 57, 7.23 0. ( ANNUAL 181. 181. 8. 53937, 676. 203. 23.38 32.81 3.32 12.75 5.52 406. 20. 6.07 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MON HLY OPERATI94 STUDY FOR GRA14T LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1966 MONTH IN P.H. SPILL EM EOM AVE.NET TOTAL --- TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET IC -HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GUH) (GUH) (GWH) MAD (CFS) (CFS) M OCT 139. 139, 0. 77288. 69i. 222. 1.70 .66 i.04 0.00 5.75 334. 0. 5.39 0. tM 35, 179, D, 68718. 686. 213, 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 430. 0, 6.78 0. DEC 33. 184. 0. 59452. 680, 208. 2,05 '2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 441, 0, 6.76 0. JAN 46. 190. 0. 50571. 674. 202, 2.07 2.07 0.00 ' 0.00 6.71 457, 0. 6.80 0. FEB 27, 214. 0. 40176, 667. 195. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461, 38. 6.64 0. MAR 23, 109, 0. 34891, 664. 190, 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 261. 0, 3.77 0. APR 40. M . 0. 28786. 660, 193, 1.43 13.12 0,00 11.69 5.23 342. 0. 4.79 0. h'AY 115, 115. 0. 28786, 660. 191. 1.18 3.97 0.00 2.79 4.63 276. 0. 3.86 0. JUNE 418. i80, 0. 42959, 669. 189. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0,00 4.40 432. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 430, 147, 0, 60379, 681, 200, 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 352. 0. 5.26 0. AUG 411, 136. 0. 77288. 691. 217, 1,62 1.48 .15 0.00 4.47 326. 0. 5,16 0. SEPT 518, 461, 57. 77288. 691. 215. 5.28 .98 4.29 0.00 . 5.02 461. 461. 7.33 0, ANNUAL 187, 182, 5. 53988. 676. 203. 23,82 32.81 5.48 14.47 5.52 380. 41. 5.70 FOR WATER YEAR 1967 MON H IN P.H. SPILL EaM EOM Ai?E.NEf TOTAL --- TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOO FLOW FLOG1 STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP, PK.FLCW. PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (M) ,CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 325, 325. 0. 77288. 691. 219, 3.91 .66 3.26 0.00 5.75 461. 228, 7.33 0, NO} 109, 178, 0, 73190. 688, 214. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0,00 6.32 427. 0. 6.78 0.. DEC 39. i8i, 0. 64448. 683, 210. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 435. 0, 6.77 0. JA'4 32, i88. 0. 54875. 677. 205. 2,07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 450, 0. 6.81 0. FEB 39, 211. 0. 45331. 671, 199. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6,54 461, 32, 6,75 0. MAR 29, 107. 0. 40538. 668, 194. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 257. 0. 3.77 0, APR 28, 225. 0. 28786. 660, 194, 2.28 13.12 0,01, 10.85 5.23 461, 57. 6.40 0. MY i42. 142, 0. 28786. 660, 191, 1.46 3,97 0.00 2.51 4,63 341. 0. 4,72 0. JUNE 455, 179. 0. 45201. 671, 190. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 430. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 422, 146. 0. 62186. 682, 201, 1.57 1,57 0,00 0,00 4.33 350, 0, 5.26 0. AUG .442, 196, 0, 77288, 691. 217, 2.34 1.48 .87 0.00 4.47 461, 7. 7.17 0. SEPT 666. 461., 205. 77288. 691, 215. 5.28 .98 4.29 0.00 5.02 461. 41, 7.33 0. k4NUAL 228, 211. 17. 56359, 678, 204, 27.87 32.81 8,42 13,36 5.52 416, 65, 6.25 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1968 MONTH ---IN- P.H.- SPILL EOM EOii- AVE.NET-_TOTAL ---_TARGET SEC. DEFICIT .TARGET AO -HOUR -OFF PEAKING_- - FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY 4CFS) (CFS) (CFS) -(AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) QWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CPS) 4CFS) 010 OCT 184. 184. 0. 0. 77288. 71197. 691. _ 687. 222, 214. - 2.24 1.98 - .66 -- 1.98 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 6.32 442. 428. 0. 0, 7.04 6.78 0. j 0. _ DEC- 182 0 AM. 683 210 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 437, 0. 6,77 0 - - JAN --_59. 60, 188 0 55792 678 205 0 2 7 1.07 0.00 FEB 39. 210. 0. 46285, 671. 199, 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 31. 6.77 0. MAR 44. 106. 0. 42446, 669. 195. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 . 5.95 255, 0. 3,77 0. -APR 29. 259. 0. 28786. 660. 194, 2.61 13.12 0.00 10.51 5.23 461. 114, 6.43 0. MAY 208. 208. 0. 28786. 660. 190. 2.13 3.97 0.00 1.84 4.63 461. 27, 6.27 0. JUNE 358. 181. 0. 39322, 667. 188. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 434. 0. 6.04 0. JULY 420. 149. 0. 56008. 678. 197. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 357. 0. 5.26 0. AUG 373. 133, 0. 70791. 687, 207, 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 318. 0. 4.95 0, --SEPT = 2i 0101. 077288.-b9i , 22-1--1-18 ----98.20-0.005.0.2242. __ 0.3.-4I-0-. ANNUAL 173. 173, 0. 54890. 677, 203. 22.24 32.81 1.79 12.35 5.52 395. 14, 5.89 FOR DATER YEAR 1969 MONTH IN P.H. SPILL EM EOM AVE MET TOTAL --- TARGET SEC, DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY F14ERGY 94ERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFO) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) BMW) (CFS) (CFS) (VM) OCT 100. 100, 0. 77288. 691. 223, 1.22 .66 .57 0.00 5.75 240. 0. 3.92 0. NOV 51. 179, 0. 69685, 686. 213. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429, 0. 6.78 0. DEC 26, 183, 0. 60014. 680. 208. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 440, 0. 6.76 0, JAN i0. 191. 0. 48897. 673. 201. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 458. 0. 6.80 0. FEB 15. 216, 0. 37754. 666, 194. 2,03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 40, 6.60 0. MAR 17. 110. 0. 32040. 662. 189. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 264. 0. 3.77 0. APR 30. 85. 0. 28786. 660. 193. .85 13.12 0.00 12.27 5.23 203. 0. 2,88 0. MAY 184. 184. 0. 28786. 660. 191. 1.89 3.97 0.00 2.08 4.63 442. 0. 6.03 0, JUNE 585. 177. 0. 53081. 676. 193. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 424. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 479. 141. 0. 73837. 689. 207. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4,33 339. 0. 5.27 0. AUG 280. 224, 0. 77288• 691. 220, 2.71 1.48 1.23 0.00 4.47 461, 54. 7.30 0. SEPT 201. 201, 0. 77288. 691. 221. 2.37 .98 1.38 0.00 5.02 461. 15, 7.33 0. ANNUAL 165, 165. 0, 55520. 677. 204. 21.63 32.81 3.18 14.36 5.52 385. 9. 5,78 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1970 MONTH IN F.H. SPILL EItl EOM AVE.NET TOTAL --TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 400. 400. 0, 77288. 691, 217. 4.77 ,66 4,12 0.00 5.75 461. 356, 7.33 0, NOV 173. 177. 0, 77956. 691, 216, 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.0.0 6.32 425. 0. 6.78 0. DEC 156. 177. 0. 75751. 690, 215. 2.05 2.05 0,00 0.00 7,00 425. 0. 6.78 0. JAN 65. 181. 0, 68628. 686. 213, 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 434. 0. 6,82 0, FEB 63. 201. 0. 60946, 681, 208. '2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 16, 7.07 0. MAR 40. 101, 0. 57167. 679. 204. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 243. 0, 3.77 0. APR 56. 461. 0. 33040. 663. 195, 4.69 13.12 0.00 0.00 5.23 461, 461. 6.64 0. MAY 187. 256. 0, . 28786. 660. 191. 2.63 3.97 0.00 1.34 4.63 461, 110. 6.32 0. JUNE 510. 178. 0. 48536. 673. 191. 1.77 1.77 0,00 0.00 4.40 427. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 500, 143. 0. 70477. 687, 205, 1.57 1,57 0.00 0.00 4.33 344. 0. 5.27 0. AUG 446. 335, 0. 77288. 691. 217. 3.99 1.48 2.52 0.00 4.47 461. 245. 7.26 0. SEPT 195. 195. 0. 77288. 691. 221. 2.30 .98 1.31 0.00 5.02 461, 5. 7,33 0. ANNUAL 234. 234. 0. 62742. 682. 208. 30.98 32.81 7.95 1.34 5.52 422, M . 6.44 FOR WATER YEAR 1971 MONTH IN P.H. SPILL EOM EOM AVE.NET TOTAL --- TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW •FL94 FLC� STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK,CAP, PK,FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH). (GWH) M) (CFS) (CFS) 41M) OCT 94, 94, 0. 77288. 691, 223. 1.15 .66 .49 0.00 5.75 226. 0. 3.69 0. NOY i88. 188. 0. 77288. 691. 222. 2.22 1.98 .23 0.00 6.32 '451. 0. 7,18 0. DEC 54. 179, 0. 69619. 686. 213. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0,00 7.00 429. 0. 6.77 0, JA.N 34, 185. 0. 60355, 681. 208, 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 443. 0. 6.81 0. FEB 38, 207. 0. 50965, 675. 202. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461, 25, 6.87 0. MAR 26. 105. 0. 46109. 671. 198, 1.12 1.12. 0.00 0.00 5.M, 252. 0. 3.77 0. APR 22, 313. 0. 28786, 660. 194. 3.16 13.12 0,00 9.96 5.23 461. 207. 6.47 0, PLAY 96. 96. 0. 28786, 660, 192. .99 3.97 0.00 2.98 4.63 230. 0. 3.23 0. JUNE 441. 179. 0. 44353. 670. 190. 1,77 i.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 431. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 729. M . 0. 77288. 691. 2ii, 2.24 1.57 ,67 0.00 4.33 461. 2. 6.98 0. AUG 590, 461. 119, 77288, 691. 215, 5.45 1.48 3.98 0.00 4.47 461. 461, 7.33 0. SEPT 322. 322. 0. 77288. 691. 219. ' 3.75 .98 2.77 0.00 5.02 461, 222. 7,33 0. ANNUAL 220. 210, 10, 59718. 680, 207, 28.01 32.81 8.15 12.94 5.52, 396. 77. 6.03 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTIHLY OPERA-11ON STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1972 MONTH IN - P.H,�- SPILL- ' EOM -^-EOM -AVEMET'TUTAL DEFICIT -TARGET 10_UOUR--UFF FLOW -FLOW"FLOW MRAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - �� �� �� �.�. �.�� �� CAPACITY | �| (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) 01W} ` OCT 188. 188. 0. 77288. 891. 222. 213 2.29 1.98 .66 1.98 1.64 0.00 0.00 DUU 5.75 6.32 451. 429 8. U 7.18 6.78 0. | 0 ANNUAL 157. 157. 0. 52441. 675. 202. 20.38 32,0 3.02 15.44 5.52 371. 4, 5.57 FOR WATER YEAR 1973 MONTH DW P.H. 'SPILL EOM E01 AVEME7 TOTAL --TARGET SEC DEFICIT TARGET 10-H0UR ' OFF PEAKNG FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PH.CAP. PK,FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MA) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 150. 150. 0. 77288. 691. 222. 1,83 .66 1.0 0.00 5.75 360. 0, 5.80 U. NOV 63. 179. 0. 70411. 687. 214. 1.98 1,98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429. 8. 6.78 0. DEC ' 34. 183, 0. 61265. 681. 209. 2.85 2.85 0.00 0.00 7.00 439, U. 6./6 D. JAN 22. 190, ' 0. 50949 674. 202, 2.07 2.87 0.00 0.00 6.71 455. 0. 6.88 0. FEB 23, 214. 0. 40342. 668. 196. 2.83 2,03 8.00 0.00 6.54 461. 37, 6.65 0. VAR 20, 109, 0, 34875, 664, 190, 1.12 1.12 0.08 0,00 5.95 0. 3.77 U. APR 26. 128, U. 28786. 660, 193. 1,29 13.12 0.08 11.83 5�3 �-,261. 308. U. 4.33 O. MAY 121, 121. 0, 28786. 660. 191. 1.25 3.97 0.00 2.72 4.63 290, U. 4.05 0. JUNE 295. 182. U. 35499. 664, 187. 1.77 11.77 8.00 0.00 4.40 437. O. 6.04 8, JULY 395. 151. O. 50504. 674. 194. 1.57 1.57 0.08 0.00 4.33 362. /0. 5.26 U. AUG 274. 136. U. 58982. 680. 202. 1.48 1.48 0.00 8.80 4,47 327. 0. 4.95 U. SEPT 237, 91. 8. 67650. 685. 207. .98 .98 0.00 0.00 5,02 219. U. 3.44 0. ANNUAL 139. 152. 0. 50526. 674. 281. 19,43 32.81 1.18 14.56 5.52 362. 3. 5.38 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRMT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1974 MONTH IN P.H, SPILL EDIM EOM AVE.NET TOTAL --- TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) 46WH) (GWH) (GWH) (0.4H) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 76. 58. 0. 68752. 686. 210. .66 .66 0.00 0.00 5.75 139. 0. 2.23 0. NOV 43. 183. 0. 60394. 681. 208. 1.98 1.98 0,00 0.00 6.32 440, 0, 6.76 0, DEC 28. 189. 0. 50515, 674. 202, 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.90 453. 0. 6.75 0. JAN 33, 196, 0. 40463, 668, 196. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0,00 6,71 461, 7. 6.65 0. FEB 14, 222. 0. 28904. 660. 188. 2.03 2,03 .0,00 0.00 6.54 461. 51, 6.41 0. MAR 16. i8, 0. 28786. 660, 192. .19 1,12 0.00 .93 5.95 43. 0. .61 0, APR 26. 26. 0. 28786, 660. 192. .26 13.12 0.00 12.86 5.23 62, 0. .88 G. MAY 166. 166. 0. 28786. 660. 191. 1.70 3.97 0.00 2.27 4.63 398, 0. 5.48 0. JUKE 383, 100. 0. 40836. 668, 189, 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 433, 0. 6,05 0. JULY 432, 148, 0. 58317. 679, 198, 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4,33 354, 0. 5,26 0. AUG 335. 132. 0. 70794, 687, 208. 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 317, 0. 4.95 O. SEPT 374. 265. 0. 77288, 691. 218, 3.08 .98 2.09 0.00 5.02 461. 124, 7.26 0, ANNUAL 161. 148. 0. 48677, 673, 199. 18.84 32.81 2.09 16.06 5.52 334, 15. 4.93 FOR WATER YEAR 1975 MONTH IN P.H. SPILL EOM EOM AVE.NET TOTAL --- TARGET SEC, DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) 4AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) ((MH) (Gl,IH) (414) (CFS) (CFS) (IM) OCT 230, 23D. NOV 106, 178, DEC 61. 181. JAN 37, 187. FEB 25. 210, VAR 30. 107. APR 29, 242. MAY 214, 214. JUNE 374, 181. JULY 501. 147. AUG 365, 130. SEPT 278. 265. "UAL 189, 189. 0. 77288, 691, 221. 2.79 .66 2.14 0.00 5.75 461. 65, 7.33 0. 0. 73009. 688, 214. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 427. 0. 6.78 0. 0. 65638, 684. 211. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 434. 0. 6.77 0. 0, 56420, 678, 206. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.7i 449, 0. 6,8i 0, 0, 46145. 671. 199. 2.03 2.03 0,00 0.00 6.54 461. 30, 6.78 0. 0. 41432, 668. 194, 1,12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5,95 256, 0. 3.77 0. 0, 28786. 660. 194. 2,44 13.12 0.00 10.69 5.23 461, 84, 6,41 0, 0. 28786, 660. 190. 2.19 3.97 0.00 1'.78 4.63 461, 37, 6.27 0. 0. 40291, 668. 188. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 434. 0. 6,05 0. 0. 62061, 682. 199. 1.57 1.57 0,00 0.00 4.33 353, 0. 5.26 0. 0. 76494, 691. 211. 1.48 1.48 0,00 0,00 4.47 313, 0. 4.95 0, 0. 77288, 691. 220. 3,10 .98 2.12 0.00 5.02 461, i24, 7.32 0. 0. 56233, 678. 204. 24.59 32.81 4.25 12.47 5.52 414, 28, 6.20 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MONTHLY OPERATIiN STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WI ER YEAR 1976 MONTH_ IN_ P.H. SPILL EOM EOM AVE.NET TOTAL --- TARGET _SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 1-0-HOUR OFF PEAKING__ _ FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (T) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) 4GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (M) OCT 258. 258. 0. 77288. 691. 220. 3.13 .66 2.47 0.00 5.75 461. 113. 7.33 0. NOV 72. 178. 0. 70955. 687. 214. 1.98 138 9.00 0.00 6.32 428. 0. 6.78 0. DEC 31. 0. I 681. 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 438. 0.. 6.77 O -- JAN-- 18. - - 190: -- Q, -5f086. - 675. 243 -- -2.07 --- 207 _.._O:OO...-Q:dO -- b:71 --455 .-. 0.-_- 6�-80 0� - --- FEB 23. 214. 0. 40485. 668. '196. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 37. 6.65 0. MAR 18. 109. 0. 34896. 664, 190, 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 261. 0. 3.77 0. APR 29. %26. 0. 28786. 660, 193. 1.26 13.12 0.00 11.86 5.23 302. 0. 4.25 0. MAY 133. 133. 0. 28786. 660, 191. 1.37 3.97 0.00 2.60 4.63 319. D. 4.44 ' 0. JUNE 397. 180. 0. 41686. 668. 189. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 432. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 420. 147. 0. 58444. 679, 199, 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 _ 4.33 354. 0. 5.26 0. AUG 395. 131. 0. 74658. 689. . 209. 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 315, 0. 4.95 0. ffiNUAL 191. 191, 0. 53934. 676. 202. 25.03 32.81 6.69 14.46 5.52 9 3.0. - 50, 5.85 FOR WATER YEAR 1977 MONTH IN P.H.-'-SPILL -EOM EOM AVE.NET TOTAL --- TARGET SEC, DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY E14ERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FL14 PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) . (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 222. 222. 0. 77288. 691. 221. 2.70 .66 2.04 .0.00 5.75 461. 51, 7.33 0. NOV 222. 222. 0. 77288, 691. 221. 2.61 1.98 .63 0.00 6.32 461. 51, 7.33 0. DEC 151. 177. 0. 75677. 690. 215. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 425, 0. 6.78 0. JAN 42. 181. 0. 67116. 685. 212. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 435. 0. 6.82 0. FEB 78. 202. 0. 60229. 681. 207. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 17. 7.05. 0. MAR 43. 102. 0. 56622, 678. 204. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 244. 0. 3.77 0. 1 APR 51.. 461. 0. 32197. 662. 195. 4.68 13.12 0.00 0.00 5.23 461. 461. 6.62 0. MAY 195. 250. . 0. 28786. 660. i91. 2.57 3.97 0.00 1.40 4.63 461, 100, 6.31 0. JUNE 698. 175. 0. 59924. 680. 195. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.49 419. 0. 6.06 0. JULY 595. 313. 0. 77288. 691. 214. 3.68 1.57 2.10 0.00 4.33 461. 206. 7.15 0. AUG 602, 461. 141. 77288. 691, 215. 5.45 1.48 3.98 0.00 4.47 46i. 461, 7.33 0, SEPT 272, 272. 0. 77288. 691, 220. 3.19 .98 2,20 0.00 5.02 461. 137, 7.33 0. ANNUAL 265. 253, 12. 63971. 683. 209, 33.92 32.81 10.95 1.40 5.52 434. 124. 6.65 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MR,!THL:Y OPERATION STUDY FOR OR94-1 LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1978 MONT H IN P.H; SPILL EOM E OM, AVE,NET TOTAL --TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET10-HOUR OFF PEAKING F L OW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY E14ERGY PK.CAP.PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW} (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 228. 228. O. 77288, 691. 221. 2.77 .66 2.11 0.00 5.75 461, . 61. 7.33 U. NOV 114. 178. 0. 73491. 699. 214. 1.98 1.98 8.00 0,00 6.32 427. 0. 6,78 D. DEC 38. i0. 0. 64699. 683, 2U. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.08 7.00 434. 8, 6.77 0. JAN 53, 187, 0. 56451, 678. 205. 2.07 2.07 8.00 0.00 6.71 449. 0. 6.81 8. FEB 46. 210, 0. 47365, 672. 200, 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 30. 6.79 0, MAR 41. 06. U. 43362. 670, 195. 1.12 1.12 0.00 8.80 5.95 255^ 8. 3.77 0. APR 36. 281. 0. 28786, 660. 194, 2.83 13.12 0.08 0.29 5.23 461. 152. 6.44 U. MAY 197. 197. O. 28786. � 0, 190. 2.02 3.97 0.00 1.95 4.63 461. 8. 6"27 0. JUNE 440. 179. 0, 44292, 670. 190. 1.77 1,77 0.80 8.00 4.40 431. O. 6.05 U. JULY 445, l46. 0. 62686. 682. 201. 1.57 1.57 0.00 8.00 4.33 350. D. 5,26 U. AUG 415. 178. 0. 77288. 691, 217. 2.12 1.48 .64 0.00 4.47 426. 0. 6.66 0, SEPT 468, 461, 7. 77288. 691. 215. 5.28 .98 4.29 U.UU 5.02 461. 461. 7.33 0. ANNUAL 211. 210. 1. 56902. 678, 204. 27.62 32.81 7.05 12.24 5,52 423. '^ 59. 6.35 FOR WATER YEAR 1979 M RIff H IN .P.H. SPILL E&I EOM AVEMET TOTAL - TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET ' 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY - ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK,CAP. PK.BOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 296. 296. 0. 77288. 891. 220. 3.58 .66 2.92 0.00 5.75 461. 178. 7.33 O. NOV 131. 178, 0, 74517, 689. 215. 1.98 1.98 U.UD 8.00 6.32 426, 0. 6.78 D. DEC 58. 180. 0. 67011. 685. 212, 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.80 432, U. 6.77 8. JAN 68. 186. U. 59784. 680. 207. 2.07 2.07 8.00 0.00 6.71 445. 0. 6.81 0. FE8 21. 208. 0. 49412. 673. 202. 2.03 2.03 0,00 8.80 6.54 '461. 27, 6.85 O. MAR 21, 06. 0. 44212. 670, 196. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.08 5.95 � 253. U. 3.77 0. APR 48, 307. U. 28786. 60. 193, 3.09 0.12 0.08 10.03 5,23 461. 197, 6.45 0. U. 28786. �Q. 198. 25 3.97 0.08 1.82 4,63 461. 30. 6.27 D.A JUNE 399, 180. 0. 41807. 669, 189. 1.77 1.77 0.80 0.80 4.40 432, 0. 6,05 0. JU[Y 557. 145, 8, 67112. 685. 201. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 349, 0. 5.26 U. AUG 480, 315, U. 77288, 891, 216. 3.74 1.48 2.26 0.80 4.47 461, 210, 7.22 U. SEPT 373. 373, U. 77288. 691. 218. 4.32 .98 3.34 0.00 5.02 461. 30. 7.33 0. ANNUAL 223. 223. 0. 57867, 679. 205. 29.47 32.81 8.52 11.85 5.52 425, 79. 6.40 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED P4G,Fi',HLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT FOR WATER YEAR 1980 MONTH_ IN- P.H. _SPILL EOM _ __EOM__. AVE.NET _ TOTAL --- TARGET SEC._- DEFICIT TARGET I0-HOUR -OFF PEAKING.___._.--__ FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD 94ERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP, PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT) (FT) (UH) (GWH) (GWH) (9-4H) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) *(MW) OCT 234, 234. 0. 77288. 691. 221. 2.84 .66 2.19 0.00 5.75 461, 72. 7.33 0. NOV 137. M . 0. 74881. 690. 215, 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 426, 0. 6.78 0. DEC 49, 180. 0 66820 685 212 2.05 2,[►5.uD-00 7-Od �#32. 0 - ��77-0. -- - JAPE i2S. I$5,- --0 63243 - -602 - .208 _..2.07 207 0:00 _0�0d b:7i 443. - 0_,_...b.81 0: - - FEB 1d7, 204. 0. . ,7830. 679. 205. 2:03 2.03 0,00 0.00 6.54 461. 20. 6.98 0. MR 65. 102, 0. 55542. 677. 203. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 245. 0. 3.77 0. APR 34. 461. 0. 30105. 661, 194, 4.66 13.12 0.00 0.00 5.23 461. 461. 6.59 0. MAY 283, 304, 0. 28786. 660. 189. 3.09 3.97 0.00 .88 4.63 461. .192. 6.29 0. JUNE 445. i79. 0. 44596, 670. 190. 1-.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 430. 0. 6.05 0. JULY 598, 144. 0. 72535. 688, 204, 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 345. 0. 5.27 0, AUG 564. 461. 25. 77288. 691. 213. 5.42 1.48 3.94 0.00 4.47 461, 461. 7.28 0, 0,11UAL 251. 249. 2. 60578, 680. 206. 32.78 32.81 9.32 .88 5.52 424. 125. 6.43 SMRY --- FOR WATER YEARS FROM 1948 TO 1980 MONTH -IN P.H. SPILL EOM EOM_ AVE.NET TOTAL --- TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY --- ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC -FT) (FT} (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW) OCT 188, 1BB. 0. 77029. 691. 221, 2.28 .66 1.62 0.00 5.75 375, 55. 5.99 NOV 106. 184. 0. 72376, 688. 215. 2.07 1.98 .08 0.00 6.32 433, 6. 6.86 DEC 56. 181. 0. 64657, 683, 210. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 435. 0. 6.77 JAN 41. 187. 0. 55638. 678, 205, 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 450. 6.80 FEB 34. 211. 0, 45848, 6711. 199. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461, 31. 6.76 MR 27. 104, 0. 41113. 668. 194. 1.09 1.12 0.00 .03 5.95 250. 0. 3.67 APR 35. 237. 0. 29129, 660, 193, 2.39 13.12 0.00 9.46 5.23 y 379. 135. 5.33 MAY 168. 173. 0. 28786. 660. 191. 1.78 3.97 0.00 2.19 4.63 369. 34. 5.07 JUNE 447. 179. 0. 44707, 670, 190. 1.77 11.77 0.00 0,00 4.40 430, D.- 6.05 JULY 504, .164, 6. 65249. 684. 202. 1.80 1.57 . .22 0.00 4.33 364. :21. 5.49 AUG 414, 240, 10. 75298, 690. 2113. 2,82 1.48 1.35 0.00 4.47 400. 126, 6.28 SEPT 319. 281. 9. 76996. 691. 219. 3.26 .98 2.28 0.00 5.02 430. i75. 6.84 ANNUAL 196. 194. 2. 56495, 678. 204, 25.40 32.81 5.55 11.68 5.52 397. 48, 5.98 ALTERNATIVE 0 iFIrtJA.` RUM7 rM, K OF 0,0900376 660, 6 33 1948 1 0 1 640, 650. 660. 680, 690. 696. 000000, 014162. 028786. 059366. 075659. 085434, 977288.0028786. 691. 660. 77288.0691, 0.0000376 0.822 0,903 1.000 0,958 0,934 0.850 0.747 0,661 0,629 0.618 0,638 0.717 0.0209 .0605 .0625 .0630 .062 .034 .400 0.121 0,054 0.048 .045 .030 7000. 0.0 468.1 0.8,937760,535 10, 1.0 879, 0. 0,87318 1*0. 0. 0. 1.05 0.35 i,18 1, 1. 1. 1, 1. 1. 1,246 1.285 1,297 1.238 1.205 0 400. 262, 200. 116. 32. 24. 16. 27, 244, 493. 556, 385, 162. 259, 90, 26. 15. 12. 15, 17, 137, 409. 474, 325, 446. 194. 197. 71. 37. 21, 18, 26. 117. 447, 521. 481, 338, 101. 33. 21, 19. 15. 14, 27, 124. 325. 518. 376. 505. 88.. 51. 30. 18, 16, 16, 14. 66. 375. 572, 434, 268. 337. 263. 124. 58. 44. 30. 61. 281. 928. 711, 513. 294, 257. 69, 40. 32. 33. 28, 30. 173. 409. 420, 384. 201. 168, 145. 51, 42. 24. 18. 18. 72, 291. 643. 407. 273, 81, 42, 25, 20. 17. 15. 22. 121. 269, 471, 453, 215, 65, 56. 52. 22, 19, 20. 29, 166, 449. 359. 370, 565. 207, 161, 56. 44, 29, 25, 66. 170. 535. 449. 418, 155. 193. 61, 39. 29, 17., 18, 31, 190. 780, 399, 290. 121, 111, 95. 50. 46. 29. 26, 28. 289, 494. 534, 378. 268. 168, 103. 101, 104. 104, 64, 51, 273, 497. 567. 434, 342. 225, 77. 34. 32. 34. IS. 33, 123. 403. 548. 335, 175. 65. 120. 47. 48. 40. 37. 36. 132, 338. 533. 417. 293. 123. 55, 54. 38. 44, 31, 80, 192. 519, 515, 493. 249. 192. 85. 58. 48, 35. 33. 73. 146. 295, 430. 375. 390, 139. 35. 33. 46. 27. 23. 40. 115, 418. 430, 411, .518, 325. 109. 39. 32, 39, 29. 28, 142. 455, 422, 442, 666, 184, 76. 59, 60. 39. 44, 29. 208. 358. 420. 373. 210. 100, 51. 26, 10, 15. 17, 30, 184, 585. 479, 280. 201. 400. 173. 156, 65. 63. 40. 56. 187. 510, 500, 446, 195. 94, 188. 54. 34, 38. 26, 22, 96. 441. 729, 580. 322, 188, 61, 30. 17. 15, 15. 17. 69, 293. 458, 425. 286. 150. 63. 34. 22. 23. 20. 26. 121. 295. 395, 274, 237. 76. 43. 28. 33. 14. 16, 26, 166, 383, 432, 335. 374. 230. 106. 61. 37. 25, 30. 29. 214. 374, 501, 365. 278, 258, 72. 31. 18, 23. 18. 23, 133. 397. 420. 395, 500. 222. 222, 151. 42. 78. 43. 51. 195, 698. 595, 602. 272, 228, 114, 38, 53. 46. 41. 36. 197. 440. 445. 415, 468, 296, 131, 59. 68. 21. 21, 48. 210, 399. 557. 480, 373. 234. 137. 49, 126. 107, 65. 34. 283, 445. 598. 564. 360, FOR A RATED CAPACITY OF 7000. KW: AN ESTIMATED RATED DISCARGE = 460. CFS AN ESTIMATED RATED HEAD = 206. FEET MAXIMUM POWER POOL LEVEL = 691.0 MINIMUM POWER POOL LEVEL = 660.0 AVERAGE TAILWATER LEVEL = 468.1 -----------SY-STEM-LOSS-COEFF-ICIENT = -.0000376-- - -- - --ANNUAL-LOAD--FACTOR =---.54. , --- - --- AVERAGE 94NLIAL PLANT FACTOR = .41 f, __ ,.21 !._ .I!,_4,wZ..l.., _. .. _ _._ _.___..._.., . _....... _... I, Ii tI - _ _ .� 111 11 i, y p. .:.... - . - - _ 1-�- .. - I 1 1 I' ' I It a i I ' 1 III' 1 III Ili, �II ffr I ..: I : ,i I 1 'I III -,1 I I'1! 'Il 1' �i 11 �11 i 1 1i'i, I. _ _.",.I_I , i �, I I'' i��YII� I l�''I'In.,�a ' II ICI 11.1� t J: I,it, .. I III I I 1 t II , ... '! W l I C Y i �II t� I II �,� rl I _ i Ii I ali ly ^� III, IIII r Ih I( I I' t 1 I' i I IIIIh, 1 : 1 J'I f" III Il 1 1it r , i I� 1, lllllll I. 'I 1 Iil 1 Ii ' ' I l tl; j o1i 11 ...I I i '�' ' III 1 I I 1 1.r II If PII �. �.._.: I tl�l`Ila itlll'III� .. .... . ::::. ._ `: :_ �..: iI -r l lily lilI ' 1_ -.il :I , n t f�ly nn 1 ,II ' ,� 1� � i i ill - Iti I 1'Im k I :It,4� ..._ .. _ 1 p ' 1111 I 1 I r U 4J u T . I I I i t II Nili I I II (( 19d -; I' Il t 1'11 1 ��' ill III, II IIti1 I I lilt I'll iS lj�ril 111 �:!'U1ti, IY: I II 111 �r II �� 1 al { (711 )'11. 1i I I1 I ".� II� 111!1 II I j .It1',II ,fEla ICI1I' I I,I�I i 11 I ,I I t 1 f 11 I i� II:i _ 1 1 Ittl i t l 4'II I Ii I ." 11 111Ir. l 4 11 I �, I I F I I I I i I ) It .i I.i `11p I 1 ili I�I,t I I `I I Ili i l `� ; 1 11' II'IJ IIII I'[ I 14 F I1t. i I. -' I ;II I 1 ,"Ili I^ 1j711I," iFt `I i1. 1 lii .IIII.lIlijyl t I II III I I is II Ill I I I11 III111I li .- __... _.____. ...—.. _. - _. --._.—_ -----. .... __ _2. - _ _ u I i r I 1 .: I I I: II (l tl Iloi;i Ilr., 1 1, —... _ 1) II i I,:, it 11R1II y114 r!'I:. t 1 f I'it I,I1a 1II I:. Jdl�l1l 1 i,i l t" ',i 1ti lI I`I II i - r I 1 11 ' '' Ii If 1 1� ,i 11 I c {,I II 1 i. : ' it i"rl 't III I v it I 1 J Ir I,I IIIIIIlJ1j:IIlIIfiII -. i'Ij I (; (,I II 1 ii I' I ill dill 1 ' I 11� i1l1 11 I.' 1. I t' I IIII 1' I t I it I, 1 l i "� I: �,� ; i 1 li,.� i I ItiiJI' -' i III !1 I 1 !� tII''f II l IT ___. ] r j ' I r I3 i gg I I I lyl l 1 I 1 i I i; I I i, 1 Iil ill I I I'I (Y II ' {1j1 tIl lI'. q it I I I' Ili III i ,1� tl1! !I 1i1�1 Il,i ilt! 6 hl Il IIl IJ'l' it IIJ6',h:�,v lIt __. _— , 1L... ( �I -1 III II � 1 � 6! I I II f I I, I� 4II Il i i I i il!: 1 1-IJ i� ,_ :i '' I T. II I.' 1 I I 'I'It 1 I IIII - .. I L „I Il i I14,1 I LI II I I L-vl Uij , ir:.'. II 11 1111111 III' II�It :It 11 I .. II 1j l Ills II ,�:Gi �I ,'i I iI II 11 I II I :I 1 I, 1 IY11 iI111, i 1, I 1 �., f 11j 1 P I! IU 11 I'I LI 11 ; , I I I :I 1 I I t i l AY i li, I I� 1 �1 " I I I,J :111' 1 1 I "II 1 l tl.ryr�lii li till(, IIi 111;. t 1 1 1 III �i I I{I. I i �Ijl 11 I i I �1' i,�,1 iI'4 I' I I. i11,.'I ?, " IIi I III f III j11 iI:I III jj;:j) I- i I I I 11 I I.. JI 1 li� Ilil�ylt Y� li 111 lip ( II II 11,'� I 1 11 I ,, j i �' 1 I I it I I iit ill a It i 1 1 Il L: t fir! II: JI!I,, i1,' 1471 'I' I Ii,Iai'� Il 1;` I I I 1, Ii' Ill I I Il I 111 1 j I Ili I I I I I ', I I ,Iil I I1 V r,1 I Y I i' ll 1 ;.., 1 I I a 1I' I riiii t 1I 1 1 c !I 1 1 1 I' I.I1.II I: I II`i I llll ,I Ia' -mi I I �� 11,i. II, IIII �:li II ,1 Iir �I I�i�II t111: II i tl li 1 I, 111 1 i.IJI i' ii 11, �: ..1. 7 I Mil i�fi r�I'ti ,1_,. I I i 1i 1 11 111 i IIII ll 11 �11, I.',i 1'I t I',"1 lliEl�plll�l Ij i if ii '1. _ I ._� 1 : 1 I,IIh' l l tI,,I,$ rl�I I I I,,11��iII r��p ��� 1 I 1ill 1t i IIII: - ..:. - : ' "'1. IIII I I 1 1' bl,I I III I r I I I I I, t !'.IIII l I I !,I 111. ' I, I i If �1I-,, ilJll ��pppill(19��1., 1 I TtjIIII CIII 1 I I� '� ' 1 i I,ri'�I ti ll;II i' G, II I I II'� III I I i',�I 11 F'Ii) IG I'IJ �. I I I I I'lii il', I �- I'l111 11i d�,lijj m1 J II'I I 1 Ift f I11I JI tl�1 ,, 1, ' 1 III III I I'j 1 1 1 t t' Ill111II 1fit 1i3 L'i', i I' , it 1 i I II I , I 1.I It {.i i iVi ! II I Ii1 I' I i III 1• , I1 I II II if i, i i I i I': wi 1J'l 11 rtil I 1 Ili' !!!IIII i1j Yil llllf L't it 1:1 1 I� I�, I� I. ,II .1 ' I :I 'll Bill I'1 �11 1i I11I I51 ' ', 1, .., :. Ijlt III141 Iaii ;I I { I Y I (I I I I I J 14 i.i 1. 1 i 1-I 1 I I I r I G'I r d .i J i I i II 4-i. I� ( I�Iitil lit 'III :. .. ," i1_1 �r'u i I,I 14 1� (,I f 1 II I�''I ���I I111 I' 1 I i (IIII I":III III �mJ4in I j I'I i4fill ... I : t I' I iti 1 it I I� I 1) i I i It�� a� rl l�l��� r Ii �� I,,. FF _ .: L.. .. ...(. .. .:: l 11 a .i I, I iii A,I CII il!'I'tl rll 1 I I IYi. Il i fb. u I l I :C IL�CjI I , 1 11 ,1' I I IIII I ( jI i III ' I i III ',III .Il i 111q�11 -IIII I I��i I! I' f. .:1 I 14 I 11 n I. }I i,� I _ ' I' r c I . .nlru 1 Eu' � 1t_,:., .. _ t'. I,::. IL_!..I {v I J�:,T .e.,1 � 4w0i:LL�KCl w_,a� l phone (907) 276-6001 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) January 11, 1984 Mr. Donald K. Smith Ebasco Services, Inc. 400 112th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 A Subject: Gas Prices in the Cook Inlet Area Dear Mr. Smith: I wanted to confirm our phone conversations of the last month and a hall with this correspondence. The basis for estimating future gas prices for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project has been revised to be consistent with the gas price escalation utilized by the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The data on gas price escalation submitted to the Federal Energy Regu latory Commission (FERC) in July 1983 represents the best tirnate for attached the cost of Cook Inlet gas for electrical generation. Theecomponents "', extract of the Susitna FERC license application details the of the future prices for new purchases of uncommitted and undi scovere- Cook Inlet Gas. (See Attachment #1). recent ENSTAR It is important to note that the wellhead price of gas Similarly, the contracts will escalate in relation to the price of oil. the Susitna method for estimating the future price of natural gas for 1• The FERC license application is tied to the world price of oi t*was adopted scenario for estimating the future world price of oil the, which was for the Susitna project was the No Supply Description case developed by Sherman H. Clark Associates. For the Grant Lake project the marginal price of gas at Zero percent escalation and the marginal price of gas utilizing the Sherman Clark price escalation will be used to test the sensitivity of the project economics. The marginal price of gas is utilized because ol(,er con- tracts will expire or be completely used for heating and power gen- eration in existing powerplants. Attached is a series of tables that provide the marginal price of gas E'a for the zero escalation and Sherman Clark cases. Tables 13 andC D, nd F develop develop the zero percent escalation case while tablesi igh-ted average the Sherman Clark case. Table A provides an estimated we* ;1. The AGAS price of gas for the Alaska Gas and Service Company (AGAE , - c-e and the weighted average price combines the Kenai/North Fork gas pri non -royalty supplemental gas price. 1495/123 TABLE F MELDED GAS PRICE - COOK INLET REGION (SHERMAN CLARK NO SUPPLY DISRUPTION CASE) ML&P (@ 493,531 MWH) CEA (@ 1,364,372 MWH) MELDED PRICE 27% 73% YEAR $/MCFj/ $/MCF3/ $/MCF 7980 0.842/ 1981 0.89j/ 0.37 0.50 7 982 -- - --- - - 0: 89 - 0 -39 - - ------- - -- 0-. 53---- ---------- - 7 9 83. Q._3-8 --- -------- • 5 2 --_ -_. _ . 1►984 1.39 0.44 0.65 985 1.53 0.47 0.72 986 1.87 0.51 0.79 ;187 2.08 0.61 0.95 088 2.28 0.70 1.07 89 2.55 0.80 1.20 90 . 2.83 0.90 1.38 317 3_.-1-4-- 1.02 1.51 2 . - - 3.22 -1®21 --- 1: 7 3 3 3.31 1.29 1.81 3.40 1.45 1.95 3.49 1.58 2.07 3.59 1.69 2.18 3.69 3.34 3.41 3.79 3.44 3.51 3.89 3.54 3.61 4.00 3.64 3.71 4.11 3.75 3.82 4.23 3.86 3.93 3. 98 4.05 -t �' ? 'e D. "Weighted Average Price to AGAS." A=> V-°' 9 c es. 7 E. "Weighted Average Gas to CEA.'° -*1995 to 1996 is due to Beluga' gas termination- *Ai •N ' en am i•1 {js V V 01 U Z m .•+ N O eea N •..t -en M to CD pp m Ai tG %n &n P°� 0 •P .� \ •.+ ..e .r •.o e•+t e• 1 w to A Ot N O � N Q7 L. �C G. • •.t • er • e.s e•t • e.l eet • ••A e n1 • e•b N M P'1 • M •tt • @ �' •ttr • �' N . CA m �• N •N•t U V V •P• P U W U W% c" A Ln M t0 •9t to -4 qr 4w ®o Ot m pp !!• in 4w Qp qr ND Ln N +' t— .4 N t''1 A @� •.+ tG1 A O Ot W OI 4w A td Go CD 0► qr ..a w M 01 Q' A tCf t0 0; tG ap W) N -W�p A 01 0 CL 'O On in M tr1 M t" Rf m m m ar qr IQ' ow eT ta;f t0 Lin u'1 In c Ln Z7 O N to � L td 41 2ftC:9 tl.. qT N 0 IJt Ln tG W1 M tV N •w ••+ t" P7 t0 P Q! t0 +i U 1 1 i I 1 I yr w M m •r Id! 0 A co 01 O tr N M 1V N r r r 1 1 1 1 r 1 . . . . . d 1.1 Iv 4- M to C4 f4 A C4 f4 f4 f4 f4 C4 � � � � � � m c:i Ccu ® G to40 to O O "' %" O Nf9 .� W to W w Qp ®r t0 u! N t39 N �• 1" O COt to Ch N! A Cl 'Bf' •mot r91 A t0 It9 Ln A Ch d.1 U er Q 4A A CD ..e td7 w.l t+f Q tL` ® O N a; t0 C� C 0f•0 N Ca rm e••t er e' w Qw to u9 iAj IA td'j O C C (A co m "a alr4 Uto O O Q QL7 L w w wr eT 4e 4w !Y qr qrqr mT qrr S. t0 t0 t0 t® to tC1 tCt IO tt9 t0 %C 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Q 1 1 r O N W 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 i CL N. to C Z. I yC Ch C{J b 40 G L qT N A O •fl av1 0 1-Ca Ln M •L e= N O fe A to t1 U w. ••• a O L Q7 ,^ v N 4� m Ln Am UM ow CO �v •a tt7 — M 40 •r Q qr %Q ••�t c3 A m Ot O N M O A of N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C= O O O c1 c N N N M M M M N N N N ti M t0 N O O CT 4J 44.t .c 4-1 � v ,.-i tv o c07i o u W A tLLO,I l'+'f t1'1 - N CPI to M N ® L Qi Cl tUS. Q7 In tC! %M tG h m (57 Cn 0 4r pr 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Q 1 1 tT L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q 1 I fu O N N tV N N N N N M M M t�tr `� to C O V tLo Q7 CV o .-• CL A d O U O L L t W J ^ m y L ta7 M 'C T tii to O E�w� ►— 0 u Cl. m N O to C O oo O ®o O ® S OO oo O O O O O G O O d= N L L C y+ CL•-- L f'17 fX1 Cn f� t� CD to O m CO tT 01 Ct M m M m M Cam+ CM 0 O <T tT tSt Qt m Ot m m C' m Ch m O CT m 0% m ON ty-t CT OON R7 U :0-..+ ..+ .r e� — — e� .�. e•+ •>•1 P •.e r+ r+ P — — — r• N ... ...... 2.24 TABLE 2.8. Estimated Natural Gas Acquisition Cost for Chugach Electric l Association Without Pacific Alaska LNG Plant, 1982 Vs, 0% Inflation Beluga Alaska has and Service Su�leaaental Gas Weighted _ Average -Gas Year llzfc r 3c r Bcf/Yr S/Mcf(a) Bcf 1980 17.76 0.27 3*95 (3.98)(b) 1.34 (1.04) - 21.71 0.46 1981 18.66 0.26 4.15 (4.65) 1.32 (1.20) -- 22.81 0.45 1982 19.60 0.27 4.35 1.33 -- -- 23.95 0.46 25.14 0.46 1984 21.63 0.27 4 80 -1:32 -- -- 26.43 6.46 i 1985 21.90 0.27 5.04 1.33 26.94 0.51 1986 .21.90 0.28 5.17 1.62 0.41 1.62(a) 27.48 0.54 1987 21.90 0.28 S.31 1.84 1.01 1.84(a� 28.22 0.56 1988 21.90_- 0.30 5.45 1.95 1.62 1.95(a) 28.97 0.70 1989 21,90 0.30 5.60 2.16 2.25 2.16(a) 29.75 0.78 1991 21.90 0.32 6.04 4.01 4.84 4.01 32.78 1.53 1992 21.90 0.34 6.35 4.10 5.20 4.10 33.45 1.66 1993 21.90 0.34 6.67 4.18 7.63 4.18 36.20 1.87 1994 21.00 0.36 7.01 4.27 9.13 4.27 38.04 2.00 1995 21.90 0.36 7.36 4.37 10.71 4.37 39.97 2.17 1996 0 -- 7.48 4.46 34.09 4.46 41.57 4.46 1997 0 -- 7.58 4.56 35.65 4.56 43.23 4.56 1998 0 - 7.69 4.68 37.27 4.68 44.96 4.68 1999 0 -- 7.79 4.79 38.97 4.78 46.76 4.78 2000 0 -- 7.88 4.91 40.75 4.91 48.63 4.91`" (a) The minimum price available from AGAS or Beluga Field producers, assumed to be about equal. (b) Items in parentheses are actual percent and quantities for 1980 and 1981. 2.26 i 11 WIN - \ / PART. it ii LI l' 1 twww tw J , 4 1° r t t i r I t .. (j r I II,ij 11r li r 111 I �I I I � I,y 'I llli t1'I'II II1 1 II,I �I r yy I I I 1 !I III � hi ' I n I I jililf :I I 11 Ij, I I III 'i I .: .. i 11,1 , n I :, II III rl tililll IIIIII j 1 11t'pl I Jr -- -- — — I I I 111 , ..__ I , • :� [1 III ', I I I I 1 1� I� I III I, � I I �� I If I I'WI IIIII II Itil s 1111 rl+IUtl II I I'IjiII II`) :111 (lilli41;'III. 11'I', 1 i ; I t It I 111 I jIIIIiI IIII IItlJIII ' III II I lil'! I II11'�I all{p1'I I�I j l I.:I'Ilrll �,1,�i11'il nf'If IIII'l ll llll �l 11�'ltll� �,llfl d l 1 1 Ifg1�. i1 II III I� t , t I L,,,, lilt,l I I'III:JIII�,IIIII II ILIillflll'tii II��I: t rr r 11 III III II III I I .It lllil l'li I11, III, 11.6 II IIII IIII' III ' iu1 I II II/il II a, III II' VI I I IIIIII+it L.I L. L 1 Li I I I ,I 'I j I Illrirll Illtllj!Illlil I�IIIiiIIIIIpI�l�ll I i i I I�nl � ! I ' .,Iillll III I Illfi'lll'i Iluj 1 ICI I I I I d 111 ' i �l:- rf I I I I i I;j I 11 I .I It ��' I j til1F Ijl i', iy I In I II� i' I 1 i'II'llill I'� '�I''I11! j i 1- II I I I I1 .. _... ' JlI I I i II a II 7 .,hd �I �I FI I ' I ( 1 111117" Illl,ry! I ,IIjtI1 rd1'17 f ii I i I , I II I I It i 111 I I I .: I I I I I I I '' IFI II �,Iili I I I' I I IIIi I t f I I f pl 1 1 �1 (11 III I llll II ill III III 1 I11..1' ( II IIIi ifl IIIrII III I � I I I I',,ii Ilrl l �.I it II I �I �1 jll II �I II III I',I I U I I � II Ili Intl Ii0 t it1 ' I (III 11."ai I 41 � III Ilii i j1 I Ij iLl. It: II� `�•i I I ' II 11'.' III I 1: ,l yl lli I11-.. 11 � � ' i I I it il� I ly il'I IitG I I 17 tit � I 7I II 11 It Il I I I INi1 I I I ilj ., lu` 'I III I f I 1 I u I II 11 I) III °II I,I I'I_� I 1 I �"III' I I' IIIIIIIIIIi l:� I I ILI i II 1 1 I �I,II' 1111 111�1.1 • ' I 41 I �, I'Ilh III: ' - � d I I ' I I�I IIIijII�jIhlllll I-, I I hall I, It ,r'" i Ir I•. r rll IIII'111��r' I�I IL jn �11 I It �I i J. I I , Ii--el Y— r i LI I tl fltii ill 111( III, iP: it I' I ', hI 1 119 11t11t11�1 ' 11 _ 11 TECHNICAL APPENDIX PART V TRANSMISSION LINE STUDIES TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM Page 115 kV System Flow . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 69 kV System Load Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12.47/24.9 kV System Load Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 115 kV System Short Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 115 kV Sag and Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 115 kV Clearance Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 EPRI Compact Line Design Information . . . . . . . . . . 52 Corridor Condition Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 24.9 kV Voltage Drop and Power Loss . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Summary of Previous Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 :5r LL C:) I U.j LL- CC C V) M CL >- c:x = (or) CD C: O Ln V. Lr) L!) LL LLJ LL ry L.) C: > O L; I,/ U-1 L/. Ltd 0- cz CC ry 3: C\i O 1 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR R+ 0.297 ohm/mile 2/ x . + 0.719 ohm/mile x 0 Xcap + Surge impedance 3.11 ohm/mi 1 eA/ -0.17 M ohm/mile -0.364 M ohm/mile 349.5 ohm Equivalent delta spacing 114.2 inches At 450C conductor temperature Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 1 TO 2)l/ 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION (13 MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit R+ 3.9 0.029 X+ 9.3 0.070 Ro 7.58 0.057 X0 40.46 0.306 Xcap + -0.013 x 106 -98.9 Xcap o -0.028 x 106 -211.7 Line charging Base power Base voltage Surge impedance Surge impedance load 1.0 MVAR, at 115 kV 100 MVA 115 kV 349.6 ohm 37.8 MW l/ Based on data presented on Page 2 ' 3 LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 3)i./ 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (27 MILES) f. _ Ohm/phase Per Unit l R+ 8.0 0.06 I X+ 19.4 0.147 -- - _ Ro._-- -15 7 - .119 Xo 4.0 0.635 Xcap + -0.0063 x 106 -47.6 1 Xcap o -0.0134 x 106 -101.9 Li-ne-cha-r-gi-ng— -2-.-0-MVAR-o-at-11-5-k-V— Base power 100 MVA Base voltage 115 kV Surge impedance 349.6 ohm Surge impedance load 37.B MW 1/ Based on data presented on Page 2 4 LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 8 l/ - 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 338 ACSR CONDUCTOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION TO POWER HOUSE SUBSTATION (1.2 MILES) H+ X+ Ro Xo XcaP + Xcap o Line charging Base power Base Voltage Surge impedance Surge impedance load 0.36 0.86 0.699 3'73 -0.142 X 106 —0.0303 X 108 O'l MVAR, at 115 kV lOO MVA 115 kV 349'0 ohm 37-8 MW I/ Based on data presented on Page 2 5 0.003 O'OOb 0.0053 0.0282 -lO7l,3 -2293.2 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR R+ 0.297 ohm/mile 2/ f R 0 0.58 ohm/mile/ X0. 3.19 ohm/mile 3/ X--- -0.161 M ohm/mile Xcap o -0.383 M ohm/mile Surge impedance 330.5 ohm Equivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches At 450C conductor temperature Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter I LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 4 TO 8)1/ 89 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 338 ACSR CONDUCTOR 3EWARD TO MARINE -INDUSTRIAL PARK (b MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit R+ ' 1.78 0'037 X+ 4,1 0.088 Ro 3,48 0,0735 X u 19.1 ' O 4O2 ' Kcap + -0.0258 X lDh -562.2 X, �^ap o -O O838 x lO b ' -l339 9 ` Line charging Base power Base voltage Surge impedance Surge impedance load 0'18 MVAR° at 89 kV lOO MVA 69 kV 330'5 ohm 14.4 MW l/ Based on data presented on Page 6 7 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION *130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. v,I AND Z IN P.U. ON H 100 MVA BASE. ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR | (TRIANGULAR oECOnPoazTzoN) ( CASE 20mWoo 02/15/83 *L*SxA POWER AUTHORITY | ANCHORAGE 0106-8:30825 aswwno TRANSMISSION LINE; 115 KV: GRANT LAKE OFF; DIESEL OFF TOTAL MISMATCH - .010 Mw OR MVAR / INPUT DATA BuoA ouaB R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U. x 2 ~ O320o ^ 06600 - o1O ^ ` | 2 4 .07000 .23700 - .020 4 7 04000 86000 000 t -1 1.000.00 .o00 .o00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 5 1 .970 -25.00 10.000 4.200 .000 .o^o .000 .000 .0oo 7 1 .950 -25.00 10.000 4.800 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00o , oEN BUS R X 1 .01200 .30000 cowvsRoED IN 8 ITERATIONS P-Mw O.-MVAR z-P,U. V-P.u. ANGLE -DEG ---------------------------------------------------------- ' * BUS 1 * (SWING) 1.000 .0O0 ` TO BUS 2 20.6315 9.9510 .2291 osNsnoTs 20.6315 9.9510 .2291 - * euo 2 * .987 -.597 | To aon 1 -20.4604 -10.5846 -.2335 � To BUS * 20,4591 10.5827 .2335 MISMATCH -.00124 -.00188 * BUS 4 * .945 -3.080 / To aoa 2 _20.0620 -11.1049 .2426 TO BUS 5 9.99*9 4.9681 .1181 To ouo 7 10.0624 6.1373 .1247 mzanATcH .00024 .00044 [ ` * BUS 5 * .918 -6.714 cONST LOAD 10.0000 4,2000 .1181 To BUS 4 -9.9999 -4.2005 .1181 � / MISMATCH .00011 -.00045 / * ooa 7 * .890 -8.819 oowaT LOAD 10.0000 *.a000 .1247 / To oua 4 -10.0002 -4.7999 .1247 ) MISMATCH -.00017 .00005 |\uxv S,u/En Luxu rLuw WITH SYSTEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE TOT LOAD 20.0000 9.0000 OFF, CITY DIESELS OFF, 336 TOT oEN 20.6315 9.9510 KCM 8CSR CONDUCTOR, 20 MN / LnSa+MM .6315 .9510 LOAD } TOT MM -.0011 -.0018 f | TOT ABS MM .0018 .000e MACHINE ImTsnmwL CONDITIONS oEN VOLTS ANGLE 1 1.03*1 3.3651 � � A GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION *130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE. ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOAD_' IN MW AND MVAR (TRIANGULAR DECOMPOSITION) CASE 20MW 02/ 14/8:3 ALA KA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE 0214830900 SEWARD TRANSMI=SION LINE; 115 KV; GRANT LAKE ON; DIESEL OFF TOTAL MISMATCH - .010 MW OR MVAR INPUT DATA BUSA BISB R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO) LINE CHARGING-P.U. 1 2 .03200 .06600 - .010 2 4 .0700o .23700 - .020 4 5 , OQ )Oo . 550oO 1. 00000 - 4 7 .04000 .86000 - .000 9 .. , 00300 1.27600 - . 000 BUS USE V-P.I_I. ANGLE PC:ON_;T OCON:_T P-CONZ Q-C:ONZ PGEN QMAX QMIN 1 -1 1. 000 .00) , OC IO .000 . 000 , 000 .000 , 000 , 00o 5 1 .920 -6. 00 10. 000 4.200 .OUC) . 000 . C )C )0 , i. 0o . CK)C) 7 1 .90C.) - , CIO 10. 000 4.'SOO .000 .000 .00C) 000 , 000 9 2 1. 000 1 C ), OC) , C )OU . 000 .000 . OOC) 8. 500 3.000 .500 i ;EN BUS R X 1 , 012C)o .30000 STEP 5 TOTAL MM, P+JQ .15969 + .17607 CONVERGED IN 7 ITERATIONS P-MW Q-MVAR I-P.U. ----------------------------------------------------- V-P.u. ANGLE -DEG # BI_S i # (SWING) TO BUS 2 12.0396 9. *-392: GENERATE 12.0396 9.3923 Fi i_ S 2 # TO BUS 1-11.96.19-10.2217 TO BUS 4 20.4547 10.5443 TO BUS 9-8.497ct -. 31/-6 MISMATCH -. 00498 . C)0603 # BU:', 4 # TO BUS 2 -20. 0607 -11. O )94 TC) BUS 5 10. 0003 4.9615 TO BUS 7 10.0615 6.1267 MISMATCH .00114-.00120 # BUS 5 # CONST LOAD 10-OOOC) 4.2000 Ti i BUS 4 -10. 0003 -4. 1995 MISMATCH -.O )035 .00045 # BUS 7 # Ci iNST LOAD 10. 0000 4.8000 Ti i BUS 4 -9. 99' -4. s3000 MISMATCH . 00020 .00001 * BUS 9 # TO BUS 2 8. 5000 1.2587 =.7 )_ EN 8.5000 1.2595 MISMATCH -, 000 02 -, Ocm..E3 TOT LOAD 20. 00C O 9.0000 000 TOT GEN 20.5396 10.6518 LO: S+MM 5396 1.6518 TOT MM -.0040 .0045 TOT ABS MM .0067 )067 .0085 .1527 .1527 .990 -.277 .1590 .2_'5 , 0.'359 .948 -2. 744 .2417 .1177 .1242 .921 -6. 35:2 .1t77 .1177 .441 124'2 .1242 1.000 6. C )1:_ 0859 , 0859 115KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM -VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE ON, CITY DIESELS OFF, 336 KCM ACSR CONDUCTOR, 20 MW LOAD MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS ) BEN VOLTS ANGLE 1 1.0302 1.9464 0 GENERAL --ELECTRIC --COMPANY INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, OPERATION #130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE. ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOAD} IN MW AND MVAR I (TRIANGULAR DECOMPOSITION) IJ CASE IOMW 02/14/83 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 0900 ANCHORAGE 0214830900 SEWARD TRANSMI=SION LINE; 115 KV; GRANT LAKE ON; DIESEL OFF TOTAL MI=:MATC:H - .010 MW OR MVAR INPUT IT DATA BUSA BUSB R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.I_i• 1 2 .03200 .06.600 _ .010 L 2 4 .07000 .23700 - 4 5 .00000 .55000 t00 - 1.00000 4 7 .04000 _.86000 - .000 9 2 ,00300 1.27600 - .000 BU_, USE V-P.U. ANGLE PC:CtNf:'•T raCONST P-CONZ P-CONZ PGEN QMAX OMIN ') t0- . 000--040-- . 00 t---.- 1t tit---.-i ti.t0___--• ft00----- ---- -- - 5 1 .920 -6 00 5. 000 2.100 .000 .000 .000 .000 .0i ti.) _�.Oit�i :'..400 7 1 .:i00 -10 00 5 ---- 00Ci-._-� f.�0tt --- � �titc.t .OifCi -- � Ott s._ 9 2 1.000 10. i_t0 .000 , 000 .000 .000 8.500 3. 000 t0 .500 tEN BUS R X 1 .01200 .30000 sTF_P 5 TOTAL MM, P+JQ .04077 + .16652 - CONVERGED IN 8 ITERATIONS � 1 P-MW Gj.-MVAR I-P. U. V-P. i i. ANGLE -DEG # BUS 1 # (SWING) 1.000 .000 Ti i BUS 2 1.6044 2.5888 .0305 GENERATE 1.6044 2.5888 .0305 # BUS 2 .# TO BUS 1 -1. 6i )i t5 =3. 578 .0393 TO BITS 4 10.0980 3.2727 .1065 TO BUS a -'_ . 49.1: i t 2839 .0852 MISMATtH -.00046 -.00168 # BUS 4 # Ti � BUS 2 -10. 01 =t:= -4. ri621 .1140 TO i BUS 5 4.9999 2.2728 .0560 1*0 BUS 7 5.0135 2.6897 .0510 MISMATCH .00007 07 0037 .00037 # BUS 5 # CONST LOAD 5.0000 2.1000 .0560 TO BUS 4 -4. 9 99 -2. 1002 .0560 MISMATCH .00008 -.00020 # BUS 7 # CONST LOAD 5.0000 2.4000 .0580 TO BUS 4 -5.0000 -2.4001 .0580 MISMATCH .00000 -, 00006 .997 -. 004 .980 -1. 231 .R68 -2.891 .956 -3.802 # BUS 9 # 1.000 TO BUS 2 8.5002 .6434 .0852 GEN 8.5000 .6434 .0852 MISMATCH .00017 -.60001 TOT LOAD 10.0000 4.5000 TOT GEN 10.1044 :3.2322 LO S+MM .1044 -1.2678 TOT MM -.0001 -.0016 TOT ABS MM .00Ct8 .0023 6.238 115KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE ON, CITY DIESELS OFF, 336 KCM ACSR CONDUCTOR)10 MW LOAD MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS GEN VOLTS ANGLE 0 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION #1_:o BLS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE. ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOW!:-:; AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR (TRIANGULAR DECOMPOSITION) CASE 30MW 102/ 15/'83 ALA KA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE 0214830900 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE; 115 KV; GRANT LAKE ON; DIESEL OFF TOTAL MISMATCH - .010 MW OR MVAR INPUT DATA BUSA BUSB R-P. U. X-P. i i. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U. 1 2 .03200 ,i)f,/-00 - .010 2 4 .07i)00 .23700 - .o20 4 5 .00000 .55000 1. 00000 - 4 7 .04000 , t6oC-)o - .000 9 2 , 00300 1.27600 - .000 BITS USE V-P.U. ANGLE PCONST QCONST P-CONZ Q-CONZ POEN QMAX QMIN 1 -1 1 .000 . 00 .000 .000 , 000 .000 .000 x: 0 , 000 .000 5 1 , ;720 -6. 00 15. 000 6. 300 , 000 , 000 . 000 . i )i )c.) )i ) , 000 7 1 .900 -10. 00 15. 000 7.200 , i. 0o . 00C) .000 , (:)oO , 000 -� 2 1.000 10.00 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 8.500 3. 000 .500 GEN BUS R X 1 .01'200 , 30oo ) STEP 5 TOTAL MM, P+.J .65844 + .49109 STEP 10 TOTAL MM, P+_Q .00294 + .00404 CONVERGED IN 10 ITERATIONS P-MW is-MVAR I-P.U. ---------------------------------------------------------- V-P.U. ANGLE -DEG # BUS 1 # (:=WIN+) 1.000 .0oo TO BUS 2 " _ . 027 ; 19.4633 GENERATE 23. 027:3 19.4633 # BUS 2 # TO BUS 1 -22. 7 _:01-19.:: 00 TO BUS 4 31.2297 20.9142 9142 TO BITS 9-8.4978-1.0u82 ) MISMATCH .00188 .00221 # BUS 4 # TO BUS 2-30.1691-19.10:37 TO BUS 5 14.;i/96 8.263:3 r0 BUS_; 7 15.1691 10.8399 MISMATCH -, 00u:36 -, 00047 # BUS 5 # CONST LOAD 15.0000 )0i 0 6. 3000 TO BUS 4-14.9996-6.2993 MISMATCH . Oo )44 00070 • BUS 7. # CONST LOAD 15. 0000 7.2000 Ti I BUS : 4 -14. 9998 -7. 1999 MI:=MATCH .00016 .00012 # BUS 9 # TO BUS _, 2 8.5001 2.0579 GEN 8.50i.)0 2.0585 MISMATCH . 00009 -. 00053 TOT LOAD :30. 0000 13. 5000 TOT GEN 31.527= 21.5218 LO _:S+MM 1. 5273 8.0218 TOT MM . 0022 .0i )20 TOT ABS MM .0029 . i ii )4i ) =015 .3015 . ' 79 -. 515 . _,i)_0 .=:37 . 0875 .906 -4.307 . _3940 .1890 .2057 .861 -10.:377 .1890 . 1890 .809-14.216 .2057 .2057 1. 000 5.839 0i=75 . o875 115KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE ON, CITY DIESELS OFF, 336 KCM ACSR CONDUCTORS, 30 MW LOAD MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITION:_ GEN VOLTS ANGLE 11 C) -j r-I LL- M: C) C) Lr% LLJ -j F- C:) = C:) T� T� S L/) LL-zt LO S- ; __fCi _ �__.. C) 5c V) ai Ol C) r- Ln k.0 d a) C\j L/1) L15 U + V) (/) < m CV C) V) LLJ —;�VqO < u Ln C:) cr- = C) L.Lj Ln CL m --- -------- ------------- (A -14 00 > a) C:) C) LM u C) CD I a) N U-) co TN r C� C l + c� COoo + -2- 0) 0) C) flo CO O S- E sv 4- >< 4-w) = ai S- E 4- >< L-VAVV\I— -VIVV\V— Ch 4- L—C 0) C\j no 1 12 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER -UNIT LEN8THL��/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 556 ACSR CONDUCTOR K. 0.182 0hm/mfle2V� X. 0.619 ohm/mile R 0.468 ohm/mile / X 3.16 ohm/milp�/ X l:�p f 0.154 . � ohm/mile ._ X_ cap o 0.376 M ohm/mile _— Surge impedance 317.6 ohm l/ -_ Equivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches 2/ _' At 45" C conductor temperature J/Ground.resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter 13 LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 12 TO 2)1/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 556 ACSR CONDUCTOR i DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION (13 MILES) 1 Ohm/phase Per Unit. R+ 2.3 0.048 i ----x+ --- --- - -__ B. 05 - - 0.169----- -- ------ --- - ------ -- _. - -------- --- R 6.09 0.128 0 X 41.1 0.864 0 XcaP +-0.0118 x 106 -248.7 XcaP o _.0289 x 106 -607.7 Line charging 0.5 MVAR, at 69 kV Base power 100 MVA Base voltage 69 kV Surge impedance 317.6 ohm Surge impedance load 15.0 MW Based on data presented on Page 13 14 LIl/ NE PARAMETERS (8U3 2 TO 4\— 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 558 ACSN CONDUCTOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (27 MILES) Line charging Base power Base Voltage Surge impedanca Surge impedance load ohm/phase Per Unit 4.92 0.103 16.7 0.351 12.6 0.265 85.4 1.79 -0.0057 x lv-n6 -ll9'8 0,8 MVAR, at 59 kV lOO MVA 69 kV 317.6 ohm 15.0 MW I/ Based on data presented on Page 13 15 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR R+ 0.297 ohm/mile/ X+ 0.68 ohm/mile X0 3.19 ohm/mile3/ Xcap + -0.161 M ohm/mile X--- -0.383 M ohm/mile Surge impedance 330.5 ohm 71 Equivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches 2/ At 450C conductor temperature 3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter In LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 4 TO 6)i/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR SEWARD TO MARINE -INDUSTRIAL PARK (6 MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit R+ 1.78 0.037 X+ 4.1 0.086 Ro 3.5 0.0735 X0 19.7 0.402 Xcap + -0.0268 x 106 -562.2 Xcap o -0.0638 x 106 -1339 Line charging Base power Base voltage Surge impedance Surge impedance load 0.2 MVAR, at 69 I(V 100 MVA 69 kV 330.5 ohm 14.4 MW Based on data presented on Page 16 17 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH l/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR CONDUCTOR R+ 0.563 ohm/mile—'/ X+ 0.788 ohm/mile n n 0.4n - 1—f— 11 -2/ X0 3.29 ohm/mi I e3/ Xcap + -0.169 M ohm/mile X--- - -0.391 M ohm/mile Surge impedance 364.6 ohm Equivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches 2/ At 45°C conductor temperature 3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter NEV LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 12 TO 2)�/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR CONDUCTOR DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION (13 MILES) R+ X+ Ro X0 Xcap + Xcap o Line charging Base power Base voltage Surge impedance Surge impedance load Ohm/phase 7.3 10.2 11.0 42.9 -0.013 x 106 -0.03 x 106 0.5 MVAR, at 69 kV 100 MVA 69 kV 364.6 ohm. 13.1 MW 1/ Based on data presented on Page 18 Per Unit 0.153 0.215 0.232 0.900 -272.6 -631.6 IIM LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 4)i/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR CONDUCTOR GRANT LAKE SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (27 MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit _ L R+ 15.2 0.32 X+ 21.28 0.447 Xo 89.0 1.87 Xcap + 0.0062 x 106 -131.3 Xcap o 0.0145 x 106 -304.1 I Line charging_ 0.9 MVAR, at 69 kV 4 Base power 100 MVA Base voltage 69 kV Surge impedance 364.6 ohm Surge impedance load 13.1 MW r l/ Based on data presented on Page 18 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH-1� R- 0.086 ohm/mile-,/ X 0.593 ohm/mile R 0.353 ohm/mfle—Y XO 3.lD2 3 nhm/mile�/' ' X,:ap + -D.l38 _,_ M ohm/mile Xl:ap O -U.3b7 M ohm/mile ' Surge impedance 287.1 ohm l/ -' EqWfVa7gnt delta spacing 83.2 inches 2/ " -- At 46C conductor temperature 3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 12 TO 2)i/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 1590 ACSR CONDUCTOR DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE SWITCHING STATION (13 MILES) _ Ohm/phase - Per Unit R+ 0.866 0.018 X+ 7.72 0.162 Xo 40.33 0.0847 Xcap + -0.0106 x 106 -224.3 Xcap o -0.0278 x 106 -583.2 Line charging 0.4 MVAR, at 69 kV ! Base power 100 MVA Base voltage 69 kV Surge impedance 287.0 ohm Surge impedance load 16.6 MW Based on data presented on Page 21 "' 22 LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 4)l/ 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 1590 ACSR CONDUCTOR GRANT LAKE SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (27 MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit R+ 1.80 0.037 X+ 1.60 0.34 Ro 9.53 0.20 Xo 83.7 1.759 Xcap + -0.0051 x 106 -108.0 Xcap o -0.0134 x 106 -280.8 Line charging 0.8 MVAR, at 69 kV Base power 100 MVA Base voltage 69 kV Surge impedance 287.0 ohm' Surge impedance load 16.6 MW 1/ Based on data presented on Page 21 23 � ! oswsmAL-ELsuTexo compowv-- �----------- --'----�----' ------ -' INDUSTRIAL POWER powsn evorsmS swazwssnzwo opsno/Iuw � ~°^ BUS .�= �" "�"=� " "�"^= , , ," '^~_ ~~ ^... ocr/vc AND xsAorzvc pousn OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN mw AND mvon 'oouaa aezoEL msr*ou) ooas IB 01/18/83 oLAoxA powEn ourouesry owoxonAuE ouoauopoo ' SEWARD TRNSmLN" 69 KV" GRANrLK OFF; DIESEL OFF; 4/000ND voLrooE roLEoowcs - .00100 pu :ocsLsnArzom Focron - 1'6 DAT A ro | -- -- -- -' -- - � - -- - - - - | ouao oOga n-p.w. X-P.u. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U. � � 1 12 .0000n .10000 1.00000 -- - - - - 12 �2 .15300 .21500 - --- .000 - u o .32000 .44700 - .00v 4 a .uoroo .08600 - .002 | 6 r .00000 .00000 1.00000 - ' 4 5 .000*o .55000 1.00000 - nua USE v-p.u. owoLs Poownr ocowur P-cowz o-ouwz pocw umAx omzw 1 -x 1.0*0 .00 .000 .*oo ,000 .onu .000 .noo .00^ | 5 1 .000 -10.00 10.0*0 *.200 ,000 ,uoo ,000 ,ovo ,000 / 7 1 .osu -10.00 10.000 4.800 .owo .ouo .uon '000 .uvo usw oom n x . 1 .01200 .00000 zrEn 10 a -.004e100 r .0015200 CONVERGED IN 19 ITERATIONS p-nw o-mvon z-p,u. v-p.u. ANGLE -DEG - * oua I ° (awzwo) 1.000 ,000 To BUS 12 24.65*6 18,8562 .o,o* mswsnAnE 24.6546 18'8562 '3104 * auo u ° .*oo -3'074 TO aua « 23.2371 16.2839 .3139 _ TO auo 12 -23.1265 -16.1e81 .31e1 m/amorcx .l1056 .12578 uua 4 ° TO 000 2 -20.0350 -12.4466 TO oua s 10.0062 5.5716 .1545 TO ouo a 10.2462 7.5230 '1715 mzsmwTco ,21744 .6480� ' -- * auo 5 * .70* -13.452 ouwar L000 10.0000 4.e000 ,15+1 TO BUS 4 -10.0062 -*.2592 -1545 mzamArco -.00620 -,05*/7 ^ oue 6 * .728 -o.onr TO ouo 4 -10.13*9 -7,3768 .1723 TO auo 7 10.0054 7-1116 .1687 mzemorox -.13149 -.26516 - * yua 7 * .659 -17,654 cuwur L000 10.0000 4.8000 .1604 - TO auu a -10.0054 -4.8342 .1687 mzomArox -'00543 -.03419 * oua 12 * .981 -/.^oy TO euo 1 -24.6546 -17.e928 .3104 TO oua u 24.6050 17.8085 .3095 wIsmArcw -.04956 -.08430 Tor L000 20.0000 9.0000 ror ssw 24'6546 18.8562 rormm ./353 .3310 --' SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM TOT LOSS 4,5192 9.5252 | VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE OFT CITY ) MACHINEzwrEnwoL oowozrIowa mEN VOLTS ANGLE USED 71.08 UNITS 24 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION *130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE. ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN MW,AND MVAR (GAUSS SEIDEL METHOD) CASE IA 01/13/83 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE 0112831500 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE; 69 KV; GRANT LAKE OFF; DIESEL OFF VOLTAGE TOLERANCE - .00100 PU ACCELERATION FACTOR - 1.6• INPUT DATA BUSA BUSE! R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U. 1 12 .00000 .10000 1.00000 - 12 2 .04800 .16900 - 004 2 4 .10300 .35100 Oos 4 6 .03700 .08600 - .002 6 7 .00000 .80000 1.00000 - 4 5 .00000 .55000 1.00000 BUS USE V-P.U. ANGLE PCONST QCONST P-CONZ Q-CONZ POEN QMAX QMIN 1 -1 1.000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 5 1 .850 -10.00 10.000 4.200 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 7 1 .850 -10.00 10.000 4.800 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 GEN BUS R x 1 .01200 .30000 ITER 10 7 00 13600 7 0014600 CONVERGED IN 1-1 ITERATIONS P-MW Q-MVAR I-P.U. V-P.U. ANGLE -DEG BUS I * (SWING) TO BUS 12 21.0833 14.4437 GENERATE 21.0833 14.4437 # BUS 2 * TO BUS 4 20.8786 13.1004 TO BUS 12 -20.8636 -13.0169 MISMATCH .01498 .08356 # BUS 4 * TO BUS 2 -20.1772 .-11.3840 TO BUS 5 9.9537 5.1806 TO BUS 6 9.8568 6.1584 • BUS 5 * c6NST LOAD 10.0000 4.2000 TO BUS 4 -9.9537 -4.2904 MISMATCH .04629 -.09027 • BUS 6 * TO BUS 4 -9.7921 -6.1618 TO BUS 7 10.0418 6.2861 MISMATCH .24970 .12428 # BUS 7 * CONST LOAD 10.0000 4.8000 TO BUS 6 -10.0418 -4.8088 MISMATCH -.04179 -.00884 # BUS 12 * TO BUS 1 -21.0833 -13.7906 TO BUS 2 21.1812 13.7409 MISMATCH .09790 -.04969 TOT LOAD 20.0000 9.0000 TOT GEN 21.0833 14.4437 TOT MM .0004 .0139 TOT LOSS 1.0829 5.4298 TOT ABS MM .8173 .4018 MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS GEN VOLTS ANGLE 1 1.0477 3.3662 1.000 .000 .2556 .2556 .952 -3. 003 2589 2583 .882 -7.060 .2627 .1272 C MISMATCH -.36668 -.04503 .852 -11.238 .1273 .1272 .872 -7.520 .1327 .1359 .819 -13.977 135-4 .1359 .986 -1.226 .2556 .2561 69KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE OFF, CITY DIESELS OFF, 556 KCM ACSR, 20 MW LOAD USED 64.86 UNITS 25 °""^`.,^_` ."_^`~.~^^..'`~~_-`~~_-==_=,,',=_. �1oo BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 NVA BASE.ACTIVE - AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS �N MW AwD MvAw --'------� ------------------- \ 'rRzAN�m-An nEConPVaITI0«> CASE 20nW 02/15/8o \ pLASKA POWER AUTHORITY ` *wCHowwEe 0118830930 Scw*RD TRwam LN; aY Kv: GRANT LK m=Fv DIESEL OFF; 1590 AcSR TOTAL MISMATCH - .010 Mw OR mvAR ' | INPUT DATA auSA BUSo R_P.V~ ' ' ` TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U. ----'---------- oo000 tV�V0 1 /� ^ - 1'VVoVV �-- ~ ` 12 2 .01:300 .16000 - .004 2 4 .03700 .34000 ' - .ovu 4 6 .03700 .08600 - ' .002 6 7 .00000 .80*00 1.00000 - \ 4 5 .00000 .55000 1.00000 - BUS USE v-P.o. ANGLE PCowsr QCoNmT P-coNZ Q-oOwz PGsN QMAX omzw 1 -1 1.000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .noo .000 .000 | 5 1 .850 -10.00 10.000 4.200 .000 .000 .000 .000 .ono aTcp 5 TOTAL MM, P+uQ .34968 + .36849'^ ` oomvsxoEo IN 9 zTsRoTIowa P-nA m-MvAR I-P.U. V-P.o. ANGLE -DEG _______-_________________-___---_____-______--__-___-__-__ * oUS 1 * (SW zNO) To BUS 12 20.4049 13.8166 GENERATE 20.4049 13.8166 * BUS- 2 * To 000 4 20.2951 12.6095 TO BUS 12 -20,2938 -12.6071 MISMATCH .o0/33 .00e43 * BUS 4 * To Boa 2 -20.0628 -11.1758 To BUS 5 9.9999 5.0319 To BUS 6 10.0624 6.1432 n/anATcm -.Voo45 -.00071 *sme 5* oomST LOAD 10.0000 4.2000 To BUS * -9.9999 -4.1999 MISMATCH .00007 .00010 * BUS 6 * To euo 4 -9.9998 -6.1617 To BUS 7 9.9998 6.1617 MISMATCH .00000 .00000 * poo 7 * oowaT 10.0000 4.8000 �oAD To BUS 6 -9.9998 -4.7998 MISMATCH .00015 .00022 * BUS 12 * To BUS 1 -20.4049 -13.2094 To BUS 2 20.4040 1*.2076 MISMATCH -.00091 -.00179 TOT L000 20.0000 9.0000 TOT Gsw 20.4049 13.8166 LoSa+nM .4049 4.8166 TOT mM .0002 .0002 ^2464 .2464 .24a5 .2485 .1230 .123n .1oo5 .1305 .13o5 .1305 .24a4 _2«6.4 .961 -3.012 .gau -11.149 .900 -7.66* 69KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE OFF, CITY moo*zNe INTERNAL CONDITIONS � CEA Loads Seward Load Seward Load ( G 0.012 + 0.3i Xfmr -- Daves Creek tU f 0.86 Line 3.1 + 3.4'-0.00233 City of Seward City G Diesel Generators /3\ 24'9KY/12-47KV EMER. TRANS. SYSTEM IMPEDANCE DIAGRAM -LOAD FLOW 27 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH l/ 24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR IN CHUGACH'S.SYSTEM (EXISTING) R+ 0.6 ohm/mile/ X+ 0.68 ohm/mile - -o Xo 3.52 ohm/milel/ Xcap + -0.142 M ohm/mile -0.409 M ohm/mile Surge impedance 310.1 ohm Equivalent delta spacing 33.6 inches At 450C conductor temperature 3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter LINE PARAMETERS (PART OF BUS ll TO 14) l/ - 24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 4CSR - CHUGACH UKV[3 CREEK TO LNWIN8 (16 MILES) R+ X+ R V K O Xcap + Xcap O Line charging Base power Base voltage Surge impedance Surge impedance load qt1iR/phase Per Unit 9'4 l-53 10.9 l'75 13.44 2.14 56'32 8'Q -0.0089 x 100 -1429.9 -0.025 X 106 -4118,9 ,025 MVAR, at 24,9 kV lOU MVA 24,9 kV 310 ohm l/ Based on data presented on Page 28 29 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH 24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR EXISTING 169 KV SEWARD CONSTRUCTION R+ 0.6 o hm/mi 1 &Y X+ 0.79 ohm/mile Ro 0.84 ---------- - ------- -- ohm/mi 1 et X0 3.3 ohm/mi 1 e3/ Xcap + -0.168 M ohm/mil - e Xcap o -0.39 M ohm/mile Surge impedance 364.4 ohm Y Equivalent delta spacing 82.8 inches At 45°C conductor temperature Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter I LINE PARAMETERS (PART OF BUS ll TO 14)— l/ 24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR SEWARO LAWING TO MILE POST 21 (4 MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit R+ 2.3 0.38 X^ 3.16 0,51 Ko 3.39 0.547 XV 13'2 2.13 Xcap + -0.042 % 108 -6804 Xcap o -0.098 x 106 -15762 Line charging 0.015 MVAR, at 24,9 kV Base power lOO MVA Base voltage 24.9 kV Surge impedance 364,4 ohm Surge impedance load 1.7 MW l�Based on data presented on Page 30 `v 31 LINE PARAMETERS (PART OF BUS 11 TO 14)i/ 24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR i SEWARD MILE POST 18 TO 9 (9 MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit R- 5.4 0.86 X+ 6.12 0.98 Xo 29.7 4.70 Xcap +-0.0189 x 106 -18750 Xcap o -0.030 x 106 -7005 Line charging 0.005 MVAR, at 24.9 kV Base power 100 MVA Base voltage -24.9 kV Surge impedance 364.4 ohm Surge impedance load 1.7 MW 1/ Based on data presented on Page 30 32 LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH 24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, #1/0 AL. UNDERGROUND CABLE R+ X+ Xcap + Surge impedance 0.6 ohm/mile'/ 0.24 ohm/mile -0.009 M ohm/mile 46.4 ohm I/ At 80°C conductor temperature 33 LINE PARAMETERS (PART OF BUS 11 TO 14)i/ 24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, #1/0 AL., U.G. MILE POST 21 to 18 (3 MILES) Ohm/phase Per Unit_ { R+ 1.8 0.29 -- - - - ----- -- ---X+ - - -- --Q. 7 2 ----- - - --- 0.12 ---- --- ------ ---- ------ - Xcap + -0.003 x 10 0.002 Line charging .052 MVAR, at 24.9 kV Base power 100 MVA Base voltage 24.9 kV Base impedance 6.2 ohm Surge impedance 46.4 ohm Surge impedance load 13.3 MW Based on data presented on Page 33 34 l� LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH-' 72.47 KV DISTRIBUTION LINE, #2 AC3R - EXISTING SEWARD CONSTRUCTION Q^ 1~6 ohm/mil-K/ �� .`+ 0.76 ohm/mile Q. 1.89 ohm/mile-2/ X0 3.59 � ohm/milc��U X-ap f -0.158 Mohm/mile X- �a� n O 425 ~ M ohm/mile Surge impedance 347 oh0 Equivalent delta spacing 33.8 inches V At 450C conductor temperature Y Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter 35 I. LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 5 TO 10)- 1/ 12.47 KV DIST. LINE, ##2 ACSR, EXISTING - SEWARD MILE POST 9 TO SEWARD SUB. (8 MILES) I R+ X+ Xo Xcap + Xcap o Line charging Base power Base voltage Base impedance Surge impedance Surge impedance load Ohm/phase Per Unit 13.9 8.9 6.08 4.22 28.8 18.5 -0.0198 x 106 -12750 -0.0537 x 106 -34193 0.008 MVAR, at 12.5 kV 100 MVA 12.47 kV 1.44 ohm 347 ohm 0.5 MW 1/ Based on data presented on Page 35 36 ` � GENERAL ELECTRIC oomp4wv zwooSTnzoL POWER avaTsma ENGINEERING opsRoTzoN *130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. v,l AND I IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE. ooTzvE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND L000e IN MW AND mvwn <owUae oEIoeL meTomo> Cw5e E1B 01/19/83 ' ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE 0114831600 aEwoeD TRwom Lm: emEmoEwov mpER: 24.9r12.5 wvv oIsasL OFF VOLTAGE TOLERANCE - .00/00 pu ACCELERATION FACTOR - 1.6 INPUT DATA BUSA ouSa n-P.u. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U. 1 14 .01000 .86000 1.00000 - 11 14 3.10000 3.40000 - .002 10 11 .00000 2.00000 1.00000 - 5 10 8.90000 4.22000 - .000 BUS USE v-P.U. ANGLE PCONST QCONST P-CONZ a-oONZ P8sN uMAX QMTN 1 -1 1.000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 5 1 .000 -4.00 1.000 .500 .00O .000 ,000 .00^ .000 ITER 10 5 -.0027900 10 -.0003700 cowvEnGeo IN 11 zTenoTIomS P-MW W-mVAR * BUS 1 * (SWING) ',^ TO BUS 14 1.2272 `�� .5059 oewenoTs .5059 * 000 5 * coNSf LOAD 1.0000 .5000 To BUS 10 -.9931 -.4886 MISMATCH .00686 .01138 * BUS 10 * To swa 5 1.1702 .5726 To BUS 11 -1.2035 -.5826 MISMATCH -.03332 -.01007 * BUS 11 * TO BUS 10 1.2035 .6246 To 000 14 -1.1894 -'6309 MISMATCH .01406 -.00637 * 000 14 * To oua 1 -1.2270 -.4908 To oma 11 /.2494 .4818 MISMATCH .02238 -.00900 TOT LOAD 1.0000 .5000 TOT oew /'2272 .5059 TOT wm .0100 -.0141 TOT LOSS .2172 .0200 TOT ABS nM .0766 .V3*8 z-p.u. v-p.u. ANGLE -DEG -------------------------- 1^000 .000 .o1oo .o133 .785 -3.549 ^»1«2 .o141 .924 -3'.674 .o141 .0145 '(! .937 -2,080 ^»145 .o144 .v96 -.604 .o1o3 .n1ou 24.9KV/12.47KV LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM VOLTAGES, DIESELS OFF, 37 eEuARD TRNanLN: EMERGENCY opEn: 24.9/12.5xv; DIESEL ON . ------voLTAoE TOLERANCE -°O1o0upu ACCELERATION Focron - 1.2 INPUT DATA auao guoe m-p'u. x-P.u. TAP RATIO LINE cmAnozwo-p.u. ` 1 14 .00000 .86000 1.00000 - 11 14 3.10000 3.40000 - .002 10 11 .00000 2.00000 1.00000 - | 5 10 8.90000 4.2e000 - .000 ) 5 13 .0000O 2.00000 1.00000 - guo USE v-p.u. ANGLE PCowaT ocoNST P-cowz o-onNz pocN omAx umzN � -�1_1 1~000 ~00 00 .000 "880 ---"V00 ~080 .000 5 1 .950 -4.00 4.000 2.666 .000 ~000 .000 14 1 1.000 -2.00 .500 ^200 .000 ^000 .000 - _,()00�' ~000 11 1 .900 -2.00 .500 .200 .000 .000 .000 .o00 .000 13 2 1.000 10.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 5.000 2.000 | osw ooa R x ^ 1 .01200 .mooVnCONVERGED | N 7 ITERATIONS r P-mw o_Mvon l .u. v-p.U. * BUS 1 * (SWING) To nua 14 .4215 1.1439 .0122 GemsnoTE .4215 1.1439 .0122 * BUS 5 * oUNST LOAD 4.0000 2.0000 .0460 TO BUS 10 .8219 -.8139 .0119 ---------TO-BuS-13--~ .'0466 31 nISMATCH -.22477 .09117 * BUS 10 * TO BUS 5 -.6959 .8737 .0119 To BUS 11 .5712 -.8788 .0112 MISMATCH -.12462 -.00517 * BUS 11 * CONST LOAD .5000 .2000 .0056 TO BUS 10 -.5712 .9038 .0112 TO BUS 14 .1033 -1.1027 .0116 MISMATCH .03205 .00105 * eoa 13 * TO BUS 5 5.0466 1.6594 .0531 GEN 5.0000 1.6541 .0527 MISMATCH .04665 .00529 * BUS 14 * CUNST LOAD .5000 .2000 .0054 To ouo z -.4215 -1.1311 .0122 TO BUS 11 -.0693 .921e .009s MISMATCH .00917 -.00924 | TOT uJoD 5.0000 2.4000 Tor osm 5.4215 2.7979 TOT mM -.2615 .0e31 i TOT LooG .6830 .3148 TOT ABS Mm .4373 .1119 MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS GEN VOLTS ANGLE 1 1.0035 .0644 USED 60.82 UNITS ANGLE -DEG .Ooo .972 *.o4u .93v 2'60o .957 1.871 .p90 -.210 38[�2YS EM VOL AGE EL ON SYSTEM VOLTAGES, DIESEL ON, 4.9TKV /12.47KV LOAD FLOW Wi'TH 4-) 4-) V) V) u V) O >1 O 4-) C >) > fo 4-) C) CD u CY) C; + ? C\i CTC C\j C) (Cc) + r- + O > C� > �D -j > �:z V- C> �:z C) E LO Lc) . . LO C:) 4- C) >< ---/V\A— cl� C) C) + rc7,) C:) C) IMW > � S. 110 LO E — 4- 4-) c a) ro -1.4 S. ra C. -j rY w F- C) V) n, CL o >- C) = to = C) -j Ln U U'% E a) 1 2-- C:) 5:- 4- >< S-. V) CD uj > > u m > S/ V) CD 2--CY m W LU Cl- to =U V) CQ . -j �-- C\j <c CO > = u zL�.4 u'-j ma: -v,:,_) � M: m W I Ln L 222d: >1 -0 4--) rO 0 S- C) -j >1 ro T4 4-) 3: C\j — 4- 0) u 0 Ln + > > iz CV �t m Cl QD lD C\i Li + E M 4- >< co � 9 ro 4>," LO cu m + S.- CD 4JI C Ln O S- -0 S- ro S= ro O > co s- -0 ro ro C: C t.0 + S- E C) 00 39 PAGE- 1 - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO~ - INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS THREE PHASE SHORT CIRCUIT PROGRAM INTERRUPTING CAiC. FOR-BKR DUTIES PER ANSI C37.010-1979,C37.5-1979 01/12/83 100 MVA BASE 60 HERTZ ALASKA POWER AU|MUHl|Y ' SEWARD CASE: 1 SHORT-CIRCUIT; WORST -CASE; 115 KV TRANSMISSION DATA SET 0112831027 INPUT DATA BUS TO BUS R P.U. X P.U. CODE 0 - 1 .01200 .30000 1 0 ~ ^9 "10000 3.70000 2 ' 0 13 .23000 6.60000 2 1 2 "02900 "07000 ' 0 2 3 .06000 .14700 0 3 4 .00100 .10000 0 4 6 .03700 .08600 0 6 7 ,00800 "80000 0 2 8 .00300 .00600 0 8 9 .01270 1.27000 0 5 13 .02000 2.00000 0 *BUS 1 E/Ze= 1.823 KA( 363.14MVA)AT 87.74DE0.,X/R= 25.357115.000 KV Ze= .010855 +j .275161 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT,SYM ' 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL 2.04 11.98 2.18 2.00 MULT. FACTOR 1.120 1.087 1.196 1.094 CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TO BUS MAG AN8 .BUS TO BUS MAG ANG REMOTE 1 1.672 87.709 2 1 .151 88.040 SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 1.67 1.67 .000 9 GEN .10 .00 .10 .272 13 GEN .05 .00 .05 .313 REMOTE/TOTAL= .917 SUM .15 1.67 1.82 *BUS 2 E/Ze= 1.506 KA( 299.97MVA)AT 85.25DEG.7X/R= 12.027115.000 KV 115KV SYSTEM SHORT CIRCUIT WORST CAST 335 KCM ASCR CONDUCTOR, ALL CITY 40 | GENERATORS RUNNING r'. CASE: 1 PAGE- 2 - Ze= .027630 *J .332217 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT,SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL 1.51 1.51 1.56 1.51 MULT. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.038 1.000 CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TO BUS MAG ANG BUS TO BUS MAG ANG 1 2 1.349 83.677 3 2 .053 88.071 8 2 .101 88.668 SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS l REMOTE .00 1.35 1.35 .194 9 GEN .10 .00 .10 .257 13 GEN .05 .00 .05 .298 REMOTE/TOTAL= .896 SUM .15 1.35 1.50 *BUS 3 E/Ze= p' 1.065 KA( 212.15MVA)AT 81.86DEG.,X/R= 6.99,115.000 k Ze= .066773 +j .466604 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT7SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL 1.07 1~07 1.07 1~07 MULT. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 | [xONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TO BUS MAG ANG BUS TO BUS MAG ANG 2 3 1.005 79.590 A. 3 .054 88.412 SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 .93 .93 .446 9 GEN .07 .00 .07 .479 ' 13 GEN .05 .00 .05 .287 REMOTE/TOTAL= .870 SUM .12 .93 1.05 *BUS 8 E/Ze= 1.482 KA( 295.28MVA)AT 85.06DES.,X/R= 11.587 ,115.000 K Ze= .029138 +j .337409 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT7SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3!-=.YM MAX DUTY LEVEL 1.48 1.48 1.53 1.48 MULT. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.033 1.000 CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TO BUS MA8 ANG BUS TO BUS MAG ANG 2 8 1"379 83.804 9 8 .101 88.701 / 41 CASE: 1 PAGE- 3 - | SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN ` BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 1.33 1.33 .208 ( � | 9 GEN .10 .00 .10 .256 ' 13 -GEN .05 .00 .05 .310 REMOTE/TOTAL= .894 SUM .15 1.38 1.48 ~ � -*BUS 4 --- E/Ze=^-1.495-KA( 178,72MVA)AT 83.10DEG."X/R= -8.26i 69.000 KV Ze= .067249 +j .555489 � ! CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT,SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 MULT~ FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.005 1.000 � BUS TO BUS 3 4 1.398 81.227` 5 4 .091 88.401 6 4 .000 .000 . SOURCE.TYPE CONTRI PUT IONS AT FA0LTBU8 P.U. GEN BUS - SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 1.29 1.29 .537 REMOTE/TOTAL= .864. SUM .19 1.29 1.48 *BUS 6 E/Ze= 1.287 KA( 153.87MVA)AT 80.77DEG.,X/R= 6.15, 69.000 KV Ze= .104249 +J .641489 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT,SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 MULT. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TO BUS MAS ANS BUS TO BUS MAG ANG 4 6 1.287 80.770 7 6 .000 .00O SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 1.10 1.10 .604 9 GEN .08 .01 .08 .626 13 GEN .08 .00 .08 .376 REMOTE/TOTAL= .861 SUM .16 1.11 1.27 *BUS 7 E/Ze= 3.195 KA( 69.16MVA)AT 85.55DEG.,X/R= 12.84, 12.500 KV Ze= .112249 +/ 1.441489 42 CASE: 1 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE MAX DUTY LEVEL MULT. FACTOR CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TOBUS MAG 6 7 3.195 8TOT,SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM 3.19 3.19 3"35 3.19 1.000 1.000 1°048 1.000 ANG BUS TO BUS MAG ANG 85.547 SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 2.78 2.78 .819 9 GEN .09 .12 .21 .833 13 GEN .14 .06 .19 .722 REMOTE/TOTAL= .927 SUM .22 2.96 3.18 *BUS 5 E/Ze= 4"573 KA( 99.00MVA)AT 86.04DE6.,X/R= 14.44, 12.500 k le= ,069766 +j 1.007656 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT,SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL ` 4.57 4.57 4.86 4.57 MULT. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.063 1.000 CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TO BUS MAG � ANS BUS TO BUS MAG ANG 4 5 41032 85.154 13 5 .537 88.335 | SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TO7AL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 3.75 3.75 .757 9 GEN .16 .12 .28 .776 13 GEN .54 .00 .54 .233 REMOTE/TOTAL= .846 SUM .69 3.87 4.56 *BUS 9 E/Ze= 12.250 KA( 88.26MVA)AT 88.27DEG.,X/R= 33.10, 4.160 K' Ze= .034210 +j 1.132475 CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8TOT,SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL 14.12 13.79 15.17 13.90 MULT. FACTOR 1.153 1.126 1.238 1.135 CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA BUS TO BUS MAG ANG BUS TO BUS MAG ANG ' GEN 9 3.750 88.452 8 9 8.500 88.175 { SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE .00 8.18 8.18 .823 43 . . � � CASE: 1 PAGE- 5 - 9 GEN 3.75 .00 3.75 .000 13 GEN .12 .20 .32 .847 REMOTE/TOTAL= 684 SUM 3.87 8.38 12.25 i ~ / *BUS13 _ _ 11.295 KA( 46.95MVA)AT 87~92DEG~�,X/R= 27.48,_ 2~400_ ` Ze= .077450+j�--2.128360 - - ! �� CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE 8T8T,SYM 5SYM 5TOT 3SYM MAX DUTY LEVEL' 12.51 12.21 13.43 12.37 | MULT. FACTOR 1.107 1.081 1.189 1.095 CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA | BUS TO BUS MAG ANG BUS TO BUS MAG ANS � -------GE _-_________[__ SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS 1 REMOTE ` ` .00 7.12 7~12 .911 } '9 GEN .11 .42 .53 .918 ' - - 13 GEN - 3.64 .00 3.64 .000 REMOTE/TOTAL= .668 SUM 3.75 7.54 11.29 | 44 ' -EsAmoa aEnvzosa INC - awo AND rewazom W/STnsSo-STRAIN 01,20/83 asw*nD TnAmomIsazow LINE, 115 Kv CABLE: 336. ACSR NEW CONDUCTOR DIAMETER: 0.7410 IN eonE WEIGHT: 0.5270 LB/FT AREA: 0.3260 ouzw RATED eTnewoT*: 17300 Le LzmzTzmo ooNozTzoNS A> 4o25 La (2) FINAL AT 40 F 0.00 IN ICE, 0.00 pSF WIND, K=.00 o> 8650 LB (u) UNDER ANY LOADING RoLzmo on oeAo-swo SPAN =J,400.00 FTJ oIFr IN ELEv = 0.0 FT INITIAL FINAL No. Tenp ICE WIND K SAG TENSION(2) SAG TENSION(2) oEG.F IN PnF FT LB FT LB x o 0.50 4.00 0.30 4.70 7335 4.97 6941 2 o 1.00 4.00 0.00 6.85 e318 6.85 8312 o 40 0.00 31.00 0.00 5.76 6905 6.25 6363 4 _25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 7044 1.62 6498 5 32 1.00 0.00 0.00 6.97 7741 7.22 7465 6 «o 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 5547 2.44 4325* 7 60 0~00 0.00 0.00 2.09 5055 2.*3 3722 a 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.94 3590 4.56 2314 <1/ HORIZONTAL TENSION *CONDITION A/ IS GOVERNING (2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE Tswozow EFFECT OF CREEP IwoLooso <3> UPPER SUPPORT TENSION (4) TANGENT aAo Mom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o INITL FINAL Tswazom(l) LB LB 7332 6938 8312 8305 6901 6359 7043 6498 7735 7459 5547 4324 5055 3721 3589 2313 Imzn- FINAL TENSION(3) LB LB 7340 6947 8331 8325 6913 6371 7044 6498 7754 7478 5548 4326 5056 3723 3591 231.5' moT�nzAL sTnena INITIAL OUTER CORE CABLE (2) (2) (o) 52.85 31.49 42.43 57.69 37.02 48.16 48.32 30.48 39.96 52.72 29.10 40.72 53.24 34.72 44.82 40.34 23.60 32.07 35.89 22.02 29.22 21.69 17.85 20.76 <% RATED STRENGTH) FINAL OUTER CURE CABLE (2) (2) (3) 48.13 30.90 40.16 59.01 36.20 48.12 40.11 �30.66 36.83 46.74 27.94 37.56 49.55 3*.52 *o.23 23.93 22.79 25.00 17.*3 21.46 21.52 1.12 19.00 13.38 RuLzwo on oEAo-swo apAw = ozq= IN ELEv = 0.0 FT INITIAL No. TEMP ICE WIND K SAo TENSION(2) oEs.F IN PeF FT LB z o 0.50 4.00. 0.30 7.32 7361 2 o 1.00 4.00 0.00 10.29 8650* 3 40 0.00 31.00 0.00 8.75 7096 4 -25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 6620 5 32 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.40 8103 * 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.21 5139 7 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.53 4669 8 zuo 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.92 3352 <1> HORIZONTAL TENSION (2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION <3> UPPER SUPPORT TENSION (4) TANGENT SAG NO. INITL FINAL rEmSz0w(l) La LB 1 7356 7105 2 8640 8640 3 7090 6.729 4 6620 6050 5 8094 8014 6 5138 4037 7 4668 3515 INITL FINAL TENSION(3) Le LB 7369 711m 8670 8670 7107 6748 6621 6051 8122 8043 5140 4039 4670 a5/8 FINAL sws TENSION(2) FT LB 7.58 7109 10.29 8650 9.22 6735 2.72 6051 10.51 8024 4.08 4038 *.69 3516 6.96 2367 *CONDITION B) IS GOVERNING EFFECT OF CREEP INCLUDED MATERIAL STRESS INITIAL OUTER CORE CABLE (2) (2) (3) 52.98 31.63 42.59 59.29 38.91 50.11 49.37 31.49 41.08 50.51 26.79 38.27 55.11 36.71 46.95 37.75 21.64 29'71 33.3n 20.23 26.99 19.98 16.82 19.38 (% RATED STRENGTH) FINAL ourEn CORE CABLE (2) (2) (3) 49.*7 31.31 41.14 59.29 38.91 50.11 43.48 31.87 39.00 *3.60 25.98 34.98 54.40 36.45 46.49 22.06 21.44 23.o5 16.20 20.42 20.83 1.95 18.97 13.70 -~--- ll5KV SAG & TENSION, 330 KCM ASCR CONDUCTOR /30/7\ |VARIOUS SPANS & CONDITIONS 45 | /""" r� " SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE, 115 KV CABLE: 336 ACSR NEW CONDUCTOR D 11 IAMETER: 0.7416 IN BARE WEIGHT: _6.52'6 lgilrf AREA: 0.3260 SLAIN RATED STRENGTH: 17300 LB LIMITING CONDITIONS A) 4325 LB (2) FINAL AT 40 F 0.00 IN ICE, 0.00 PSF WIND, K=.00 B) 8650 LB (2) UNDER ANY LOADING RULING OR DEAD-END SPAN = 1200.0O �FT DIFF IN ELEV = 0.0 FT INITIAL FINAL NO. TEMP ICE WIND K SAG TENSION(2) SAG TENSION(2) DEO.F__._ IN __ PSF__ FT LIBI - _. - - - - FT . __'_LP 1 -0 0.50 4.00 0.30 1.26 6812 1.39 6176 2 -0 1.00.4.00 0 ' -00 1.97 7208 2.10 6781 3 40 0.00- 31.00 0-.00 1.-64 6047 1.93 5150 4 -25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 7120 0.40 6649 5 32 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 6531 2.31 5838 6 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 5584 0.61 4325* 7 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 5066 0.73 3632 8 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 3450 1.34 1969 (1) HORIZONTAL TENSION *CONDITION A) IS GOVERNING ---(-:,-)---EFFEC-T-I-VE--AVERAGE-T-ENSION -EFFECT-OF -CREEP.-INCLUDED-- (3) UPPER SUPPORT TENSION (4) TANGENT SAG-- MATERIAL STRESS (% RATED STRENGTH) NO. INITL FINAL ,INITL FINAL INITIAL FINAL TENSION(l) TENSION(3) OUTER CORE CABLE OUTER CORE CABLE . LB LB LB LB (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) 1 6811 6175 6813 6177 50.12 28.64 39.38 42.22 27.85 35.71 2 7206 6779 7211 6785 52.20 30.79 41.68 47.02 30.19 39.22 - _52 _67 3 3 6046 5149 6056 51 4:3. 39 26.. 34.97 30.65 2 5 . 'S 8 29.78 4 7120 6647, 7120 6649 53.10 29.52 41.16 48.11 28.43 38.43 5 6529 5836 6534 5842 46.69 28.25 37.77 36.80 28.14 33.77 7 5066 3632 5066 3632 35.96 22.07 29.29 16.89 21.01 20.99 8 3450 19/58 3450 1969 20.69 17.24 19.94 0.00 16.73 11.38 RULING OR DEAD-END SPAN DIFF IN ELEV = 0.0 FT INITIAL .,. _ FINAL NO. TEMP ICE WIND K SAG TENSION(2) SAO TENSION(2) DEG.F IN PSF FT LB FT LB 1 0 0.60 4.00 0.30 2.75 7055 2.96 6543 2 0 1.00 4.00 0.00 4.13 7758 4.24 7551 3 40 0.00 31-00 0.00 3.46 6464 3.88 5765 4 -25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 7090 0.90 6585 5 32 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.25 7136 4.54 6673 6 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 5570 1.37 4325* 7 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 5063 1.61 3673 8 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69 3515 2.81 2113 (1) HORIZONTAL TENSION (2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION (3) UPPER SUPPORT TENSION (4) TANGENT SAG NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 INITL FINAL TENSION(l) LB LB 7053 6542 7754 7547 6462 5763 7089 6584 7133 6669 5570 4325 5063 ?673 3515 2113 INITL FINAL TENSION(3) LB LB 7058 6547 7765 7559 6469 5770 7090 6585 7144 6681 5571 4325 5064 3674 3516 2114 *CONDITION A) IS GOVERNING EFFECT OF CREEP INCLUDED MATERIAL STRESS (% RATED STRENGTH) INITIAL FINAL OUTER CORE CABLE OUTER CORE CABLE (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) 51.41 29.96 40.80 45.06 29.31 37.84 54.97 33.85 44.89 53.06 33.21 43.69 45.83 28.19 37.39 35.46 28.30 33.35 52..95 29.35 40.98 47.52 28.23 38.06 50.05 31.44 41.29 43.35 31.41 38.62 40.48 23.71 32.20 24.02 22.74 25.00 35.94 22.06 29.27 17.14 21.21 21.24 21.16 17.53 20.32 0.00 17.96 12.22 (200 Ft. & 300 Ft. Spans) 46 SsWARD TRANSMISSION LINE, 115 Kv CABLE: 336 AoSR NEW CONDUCTOR DIAMETER: 0.7410 IN Bmns wszonTr 0.5270 LB/FT AREA: 0.3260 SoIN RATED STRENGTH: 17300 LB LIMITING CONDITIONS A> 4325 LB (2) FINAL AT 40 F 0.00 IN lcE. 0.00 PSr WIND, K=.00 B) 8650 LB (u) UNDER ANY LOADING euLrwe on DEAD-END ap4w =600.00 FT),ozFF IN eLEv = 0.0 FT INITIAL pzwoL NO. TEMP zcs wzNo K eoG TENSION(2) aoe Tswezow(2) oeo.F IN PaF FT La FT Le 1 u 0.50 4.00 0.30 11.13 6972 11.28 6882 2 o 1.00 4.00 0.00 14.83 8650* 14.83 8650 o 40 0.00 31.00 o.Vu 12.96 6905 13.26 6750 4 -25 0.00 0.00 o.00 4.32 5*87 4.80 4943 5 32 1.00 0.00 o.00 14.97 8116 14.97 8116 a 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.79 4101 7.13 3328 7 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.40 370e 8.01 2962 o 120 0.00 0.00 o~oo 8.65 2745 10.79 2200 (1) HORIZONTAL TENSION *CONDITION B> IS GOVERNING (2) sFFscTzvs oveRwes TsNazow EFFECT OF CREEP zmcLuoso (3) oPpER SUPPORT TENSION (4) TANGENT eoo No. zNITL FINAL TENSION(l) LB LB 1 6965 6875 2 8636 8636 3 6897 6741 4 5486 4943 5 8103 8103 6 4099 3327 7 3707 2961 a 2743 2198 INITL FINAL TENSION(3) La LB 6985 6895 8678 8678 6923 6767 5488 *945 8143 8143 4103 3331 3710 2965 2748 2204 MATERIAL STRESS INITIAL OUTER CORE CABLE (2) <2> (o) 50.97 29.50 40.37 59.29 38.91 50.16 48.32 30.49 40.01 44.06 20.91 31.72 55.17 36.78 47.07 30.81 16.87 23.71 26.69 15.93 21.45 15.58 14,23 15.88 (% RATED STRENGTH) FINAL OUTER CORE cooLc (2) (2) <3> 49.64 29.52 39.85 59.29 08.91 50.16 45.17 31.00 39.12 36.3e 20.78 28.58 55.17 3*.78 47.07 18.00 17.78 19.25 13.38 17.36 17.14 2.20 17.41 12.74 STRESS -STRAIN CHART: THE ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION TEST TEMP: 70 DEG F CREEP cHK AT: 60 DEG F HA=0.81000 COEFFICIENTS OUTER STR onmE STR conP.onsep Ao= -216.7 -166.7 -1800.0 Ax= 42137.6 57216.9 131999.8 A2= 59722.1 -154444.6 -823330.6 A3= -329629.0 814815.6 3999986.9 A4= 333332.4 -1333334.4 -6666645.0 OUTER STR CORE STR CABLE FINAL MODULUa<%LB/SQIN> = 61840 51580 113420 RATED aTReNoTH(LB/SuIN) = 26000 190000 53067 TEMP CnEFF OF EXP ( /F) = 0.0000128 0.000006* 0.0000099 UNIT CABLE LOADS WV WH WR No. LB/FT LB/FT LB/FT 1 1.2989 0.5803 1.7227 2 2.6928 0.9137 2.8436 3 0.5270 1.9143 1.9855 4 0.5270 0.0000 0.5270 5 2.6928 0.0000 2.6928 6 0.5270 0,0000 0.5270 7 0.5270 0.0000 0.5270 a 0.5270 0.0000 0.5270 #ez=11'e pT=6'5 zo=1.0 LOCATION OF LOW POINT UNSTR.L INITIAL FINAL zNzTzm- HoRI7 VERT HoRIZ vsRT FT FT FT FT FT 300.00 11./3 300.00 11.28 599.07 300.00 14.83 300.00 14.83 599,07 300.00 12.96 300.00 13.26 599.30 300.00 4.32 300.00 4.80 598.92 300.00 14.97 300.00 14.97 599.26 300.00 5.79 300.00 7.13 599.30 300,00 6.40 300.00 8.01 599.42 300.00 8.65 300.00 10.79 599.78 47 1 /600 Ft. Span) � | EBASCO_SER�VICES i�INC _ SAG-& TENSION -W/FIXED_MODULUS__________--___-_| 01/20/83 CABLE: 4/0 ACSR EXISTING CONDUCTOR DIAMETER: 0.5630 IN i WEIGHT: 0.2910 LB/FT, AREA: 0.19400 SQIN RTS: 8350 LB MOD.OF ELAST: 12700000 PSI, TEMP.COEFF: 0.0000107 /DEG.F | SPAN= 455.00 FT DIFF. IN ELEV.= 0.00 FT (Average) LIMITING CONDITlON(S): - - ' -- -- ---------- --- A) 2100 - LB-(�2) AT--40 DEG.Fi 0.00IN ICE� 0�O0 PSF_WfND.-K=0~00 | ' R) _ 4200 LB_(?') AT-- �b DEG--- 0. x} IN ICE,- 0.00 FSF-WIND, K=0.00 - - NO. TEMP~ ICE WIND K SAG TENSIONS(LB) % RTS / F IN PSF FT HORIZ AVG UP.SUP (3) 1 0 0.50 4.00 .30 7.73 4640 4644 4651 55.70 2 0 1.00 4.00 .00 10.23 6059 6067 6083 ~ 72.86 | | 3 40 0.00 31.00 00 9.01 4263 4 (1) HORIZONTAL TENSION *LIMIT A) IS GOVERNING (2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION (3) UPPER SUPPORT TENSION NO, WV WH WR LDW POINT(FT) ADD.L UNSTR.L LB/FT LB/FT LB/FT HORIZ. VERT. FT FT 1 0.9022 0.5210 1.3854 227.50 7.73 0.00 454.49 2 2.2354 0.8543 2.3931 227.50 10.23 0.00 454.49 3 0.2910 1.4544 1_.4832 227,50 901 0.00 454.69 4 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 227.50 2.12 0.00 454.37 5 2.2354 0.0000 2.2354 227.50 10.60 0.00 454.65 6 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 227.50 3.59 0.00 454.69 7 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 227.50 4.30 0.00 454.79 8 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 227.50 6.90 0.00 455.08 175Ky SAG AND TENSION EXISTING 4/0 AWG CONDUCTOR VARIOUS SPANS AND CONDITIONS /455 Pt. Span) om . EBASCO SERVICES INC - SAG & TENSION W/FIXED MODULUS SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE, 115 KV 01/20/83 CABLE: 4/0 ACSR EXISTING CONDUCTOR DIAMETER: 0.5630 IN WEIGHT: 0.2910 LB/FT, AREA: 0.19400 SUN RTS: 8350 LB MOD.OF ELAST: 12700000 PSI, TEMP.COEFF: 0.0000107 /DEG.F SPAN= 650.00 FT DIFF. IN ELEV.= 0.00 FT (Normal Longest). LIMITING CONDITION(S): A) 2100 LB (2) AT 40 DEG.F, 0.00 IN ICE, 0.00 PSF WIND, K=0.00 B) 4200 LB (2) AT 60 DEG.F, 0.00 IN ICE" 0.00 PSF WIND, K=0.00 NO. TEMP. ICE WIND K SAG TENSIONS(LB) % RTS F IN PSF FT HORIZ AVG UP.SUP (3) 1 0 0.50 4.00 .30 13"84 5292 5298 5311 63.60 2 0 1.00 4.00 .00 17.67 7160 7174 7202 86.25 3 40 0.00 31.00 .00 15.58 5031 5039 5055 .60.53 4 -25 0.00 0.00 .00 4.64 3315 3316 3316 39.72 5 32 1.00 0.00 .00 18.07 6539 6552 6579 78.79 6 40 0.00 0.00 .00 7.32 2099 2100* 2101 25.17 7 60 0.00 0.00 .00 8.39 1832 1833 1835 21.97 8 120 0.00 0.00 .00 11.76 1307 1308 1311 15.69 (1) HORIZONTAL TENSION *LIMIT A) IS GOVERNING (2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION (3) UPPER SUPPORT TENSION (4) TANGENT SAG NO. WV WH WR LOW POINT(FT) ADD.L nNSTR.L LB/FT LB/FT LB/FT HORIZ. VERT. FT FT 1 0~9522 0.5210 1.3854 325.00 13.84 0.00 649.39 2 2,2354 0.8543 2.3931 325.00 17.67 0.00 649.39 3 0.2910 1.4544 1.4832 325.00 15.58 0.00 649.67 4 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 325.00 4.64 0.00 649.21 5 2.2354 0.0000 2.2354 325.00 18.07 0.00 649.61 6 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 325.00 7.32 0.00 649.67 7 0"2910 0.0000 0.2910 325.00 8.39 0.00 649.81 8 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910_ 325.00 11.76 0.00 650.22 #ET=4.4 PT=1.2 I0=0.5 49 /650 Ft. Span) - -- EBASCO SERVICES INC - SAG& TENSION W/FIXED MODULUS CABLE: 4/0 ACSR EXISTING CONDUCTOR DIAMETER: 0.5630 IN ( WEIGHT: 0.2910 LB/FT, AREA: 0.19400 SQIN RTS: 8350 LB MOD.OF ELAST: 12700000 PSI, TEMP.COEFF: 0.0000107 /DES.F SPAN= 200.00 FT 1DIFF. IN ELEV.= 0.00 FT / (Shortest) LIMITING CONDITION(S): A)- 2100J-03(2) AT 40-DEG;F, 0.004NTILE, 0.00PSF WIND,-K=0;007-� B) � 4200LB(2)-AT 6O�DEG,F, 0.00��N � ICE, 0.00�PSF WIND,' K=0.00-- � � NO. TEMP" ICE WIND K SAG TENSIONS(LB) % RTS � F IN PSF FT HORIZ AVG UP.SUP (3) ' 1 0 0.50 4.00 .30 1,89 3664 3664 3666 43,91 2 0 1.00 4.00 .00 2.76 4330 4332 4337 51.94 | 3 40 0.00 31.00 .00 2.46 3015 3016 3018 36~15 | ' o.uo'-. oo ---0/ 3: 3761 6 40 0.00 0.00 .00 0.69 2100 2100* 2100 25.15 i 7 60 0.00 0.00 .00 0.90 1625 1625 1626 19.47 8 120 O.00 D.00 .00 2~15 675 676 676 8.10 / (1) HORIZONTAL TENSION *LIMIT A) IS GOVERNING (2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION � (3) UPPER SUPPORT TENSION (4) TANGENT SAG NO. WV WH WR LOW POINT(FT) ADD.L UNSTR.L | / LB/FT LB/FT LB/FT HORIZ. VERT. FT FT 1 0.9522 0.5210 1.3854 100.00 1.89 0.00 199.75 2 2.2354 0.8543 2.3931 100.00 2.76 0.00 199.75 �~ 3 0.2910 1.4544 1.4832 100.00 2.46 0.00 199.84 , 4 0.2910 0.0000� -0.2910- 100L00- 0.39' 0.00- 199.70 - 5 2.2354 0.0000 2.2354 100.00 3.01 0.00 199.82 \ 6 0.2910 0.0000 0,2910 100.00 0.69 0.00 199.84 / 7 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 100.00 0.90 0.00 199.88 8 0.2910 0.0000 0.2910 100.00 2.15 0.00 200.01 | 50 /200 Ft. Span) 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE VERTICAL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS (APPROXIMATE) 115kV To Railroad 115kV To Roadway 115kV to Driveway 115kV To Pedestrian Ways 115kV to Water areas not suitable for sailboats 115kV to 24.9kV 115kV to 12.5ky 115kV to Communication Wires 24.9kV To Communication Wires 12.5kV to Communication Wires 51 3l/ 23' 23/ l8/ l8/ 7/ 7/ 7/ 5/ 5/ TRANSMISSION LINE REFERENCE BOOK 115-138 KV COMPACT LINE DESIGN Table 8.9 SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR UNSHIELDED CONFIGURATIONS Minimum Cost Alternative per Configuration (SI M0 Pole -Top Configuration Description - - -Table Total' - Assembly -Pole - Cond. Simple H-frame 8.12 45,475 11,262- 13.612- 20,601 Cross-bracedH-frame 8.14 45,773 13,932 11,240 20,601 Horizontal compact single crossarm, Lapp 55953 8.16 47,647 18,065 9,221 20,360 Span Limited Pole Avg Byb 50-2 550 A 50-3 550 A 45-H3 631 P porcelain vertical post insulator (1800 lb working cantilever strength) Horizontal compact single crossarm, Lapp 54794 8.18 41,894 12,312 9,221 20,360 45-H3 631 P porcelain vertical post insulator (1160 lb working Horizontal compact double crossarm, Lapp 55953 _8.20 _ 48,895._ 19,314, 9,221 _ 20,360, 45-H3_____631_ porcelain vertical post insulator Horizontal compact double crossarm, Lapp 54794 8.22 43,142 13,561 9,221 20,360 45-H3 631 P porcelain vertical post insulator Vertical delta compact, Lapp 70147 porcelain horizontal 8.24 52,676 20,050 10,686 21,940 45-2 321 1 post insulator (1120 lb working cantilever strength) Vertical delta compact, Lapp 70149 porcelain horizontal 8.27 56,310 23,683 10,686 21,940 45-2 321 1 post insulator (1120 lb working cantilever strength) - Vertical delta compact, OB 232106 Hi* Lite horizontal 8.29 40,095 8,473 10,714 20,908 50-Hl 473 1 i post insulator (1650 lb working cantilever strength) Vertical delta compact, OB 232107 Hi°Lite horizontal 8.31 42,878 10,613 10,967 21,298 50-1 401 1 post insulator (1400 lb working cantilever strength) Vertical delta compact, OB 232108 Hi=Lite horizontal 8.33 48,065 15,186 10,881 21,999 45-2 315 1 post insulator (1100 lb working cantilever strength) Vertical delta compact, OB 232111 Hi* Lite horizontal 8.35 42,361 11,232 10,840 20,289 55-H3 660 S post insulator (3800 lb working cantilever strength) Vertical delta compact, OB 232112 Hi°Lite horizontal 8.37 43,143 12,014 10,840 20,289 55-H3 660 S post insulator (3000 lb working cantilever strength) 'Prices do not include right-ot-way costs; their inclusion would show increased cost penalties for the H-frame in comparison with single -pole structures. bSpan limiting factors: I = insulator strength A = crossarm strength P = pole strength S = sag clearance limit EPRI COMPACT LINE DESIGN COSTS Based on EPRI Research Project 260 Efficient use of transmission rights -of -way with minimal environmental impact has become one of the primary objec- tives of transmission system planners in virtually all in- dustrialized countries. The EPRI project on compaction of high -voltage transmission lines, including an experimental line at Saratoga, New York, directly addressed this objective. The Saratoga compact line project emphasized 115- and 138-kV—class lines. The compaction techniques developed and documented in the project illustrate the viability of reducing phase -to -phase spacings in this voltage range from the con- ventional 10- to 14-foot range to as little as 3 feet. However, most of the concepts and procedures developed are applicable at lower system voltages, and many are applicable at least through 230 kV. The compaction project is reported in this design manual for 115- to 138-kV compact lines, drawing on experimental results from the Saratoga compact line project, on supplementary calculations made as a part of this project, and on a summary of previously published information germane to compact line design. It is directed to line design engineers who have a general understanding of line design methods. The Appendix gives the detailed results of the, experimental work undertaken at Saratoga and is intended to serve as a further technical reference to users of the manual. The Appendix provides permanent documentation of the experi- mental work on the Saratoga compact line project to aid researchers who may wish, to expand on this effort. i'' kVff Compact ) ; EPRI Research Project 260 r,I Approximately 85 percent (208,000 miles) of transmission lines � 1 1 in service in the United States at the end of 1974 were in the 0 o range of 115 to 230 kV.* Although new construction in that v 010 range is forecast to be only 55 percent of the total construction a a _ _ miles, a large portion of which will be 'installed in or near W °' residential areas and urban centers that are increasingly sensi- tive to environmental impact. Yet, in 1973, very little of the a. o s world's research attention was directed to this voltage class. ao a 7 The content and purpose of the Saratoga compact line project o U. can be understood more clearly by first reviewing briefly the _ _ is 6 o history of transmission research. < Since the beginning of the electric power industry, transmis- 5 138 230 345 500 765 -- — - Sion research has been predominantly directed to the develop- LINE VOLTAGE -kV ment of increasingly higher transmission voltages. Today's a roaches to transmission research were first established in 1950 with the initiation of the TIDD project, cooperatively Figure 1. Phase spacing ratio vs. line voltage. undertaken by the American Electric Power Company and Westinghouse Electric Company. Using a highly instrumented prototype line section, the TIDD project developed design parameters for the first 345-kV lines. Since then, a number of (flashover) values. This is illustrated in Figure 1. But reducing concentrated test projects have been built in anticipation of clearances added to the electrical gradient problem on con - new system voltage requirements. Project EHV, originated ductors (the laws of conductor economics had themselves by General Electric Company, was the industry's major made gradients much higher for EHV). This, in turn, in - development tool for 500- and 765-kV systems. Restructured tensified research into the understanding and prediction of as Project UHV and now sponsored by EPRI, it is the primary corona phenomena. It also led to new preventive measures, resource for design information on still higher voltages. such as conductor bundling, in an attempt to limit corona Concentration of research on higher voltages can certainly while still enjoying the economic benefits of reduced spacing be justified in retrospect. Each major program began with and clearances. While attention was directed to development recognition of the need for a new and higher voltage level. of EHV, voltages in the 115- to 230-kV class saw very little Application of that voltage has immediately followed (and change in design practice from the precedents set more than often overlapped), with the project serving as an informa- 26 years before. In the 1960s, however, this voltage class was tion source. Whether this pattern will continue at UHV re- the source of two important developments. mains to be seen. First, it was natural that increased attention to the appear - The industry's focus on new voltage frontiers has had one ance of overhead lines should initially produce results at very predictable result: technology developed for new voltage voltage levels where new structure concepts were most readily levels has not been very much applied to those voltages for implemented. Prefabricated steel poles, laminated structures, which precedents and standards were already well established. and armless structures are a few of the innovations first intro - In an effort to bring each new EHV voltage level to economic duced at 115 and 138 kV. These ideas were then extended viability, for example, increasingly sophisticated analyses of upward in voltage to dimensions at which applications were insulator and clearance requirements were made. There was increasingly difficult.* While these structural innovations were success in reducing clearances closer and closer to their limiting extremely significant, they were made without much modifica- *Fifth Biennial Survey of Power Equipment Requirements of the U.S. *This pattern of innovation may be an important precedent for future Electric Utility Industry, 1975-84. Power Equipment Division, NEMA. transmission developments. 155 East 44th Street, New York, NY 10017. 54 xiii INTRODUCTION Figure 2. Compact 138-kV line at Saratoga. lion of the basic clearance precedents inherent in 115- to 138-kV wood pole H-frame construction. Second-, the same environmental pressures that prompted innovation in appearance also made new rights -of -way in- creasingly difficult to acquire and led a number of utilities to uprate circuits from 69 to 138 kV, 138 to 230 kV, etc. This con- version, in most cases, imposed dimensional constraints which, while quite reasonable by EHV standards, were unprecedented in the 115- to 230-kV range. Thus, uprating studies gave the first concrete evidence of direct applicability of EHV technology to lower -voltage circuits. In the 1970s it became apparent that a more concerted effort was warranted to bring EHV design technology to bear on intermediate -voltage circuits. In 1973, Power Technologies, Inc., proposed to an agency of the State of New York the con- struction of a one -half -mile compact 138-kV transmission line at Saratoga, New York. The wood pole line used vertical post insulators and 3-foot phase -to -phase spacing. The line, illustrated in Figure 2, traversed both wooded and open areas and is perhaps as similar in appearance to a distribution line as to a transmission line. The initial program concentrated mainly on mechanical motion of conductors, acknowledging this to be the primary test of feasibility. Early measurements were encouraging and led to construction of a small substation to allow continuous energization of a line. In 1974, it was apparent that compact 138-kV construction was practical and that a more extensive program was warranted to expand on measurements already made and to interpret test results in a form useful for utility design engineers. For insulation and clearance requirements the new program continued to place primary experimental emphasis on mechanical motion, in thp belief that existing technology regarding electrical strength of air gaps and insulators was, for the most part, quite adequate for performance prediction once the conductor position was determined. Motions caused by wind, ice shedding from conductors, and fault currents were the subject of specific experiments. However, it was also neces- sary to develop a detailed simulation of the mechanical system, comprising conductors, insulators, crossarms, poles, and footings, to ensure the correctness of measured results and to allow their extension to span lengths, conductors, and pole configurations besides those that were the subject of specific tests. The results of mechanical portions of the Saratoga compact line project agreed with previous experimental results where there was overlap and extended previous work into new areas of particular concern for compact line designs. While there is still much to be learned about wind -induced motion of con- ductors, it appears that a high degree of compaction can be achieved without sacrificing performance due to conductor motion. Switching surge and lightning responses were not the subject of specific experimentation in the project. Both of these design criteria were examined analytically. It is apparent that neither criterion poses a serious problem to compaction, but both' require greater engineering attention than would normally be required for a 138-kV line. On very compact lines some ap- plications may require a measure of switching surge control on the system. Most will not. Lightning performance will not differ greatly from normal 138-kV construction. Radio noise, audible noise, and other manifestations of corona are, for most compact line and conductor dimensions of practical interest, well below levels normally deemed acceptable at EHV. Special attention must be given to line hardware, since most 138-kV hardware is not designed to operate at electric field gradients comparable to those of EHV lines. Construction costs, line constants, methods for maintenance, and many other special aspects of compaction were explored during the Saratoga compact line project and are discussed in this volume. Several provisions of the National Electrical Safety Code are directly applicable to 138-kV compact lines, particularly in the areas of phase -to -phase spacing and maintenance clearances. The effect of the Code and changes in it as a result of recent revision activity are discussed. Compact lines, because of reduced design margins, require more rigorous analysis of insulation and mechanical param- eters to ensure adequate reliability than is required for con- ventional lines. While there is no single best procedure for the design of a compact line, Figure 3 suggests at least one sequence found useful by the authors. 55 GRANT LAKE OFS 6476.021 CORRIDOR CONDITION SUMMARY reward—Daves Creek -Transmission-Li ne DATE: 11/18/82 1 PREPARED BY: T.M. Jones & P.R. Cole Section M.P. 27 to P.H. From: Grant Lake Powerhouse To: Seward -Anchorage Highway (1) Length: 1.2 miles (2) Elevation: 500 feet (3) Terrain:_ Forrest _ Relatively _level Grades: to 5% X 5-3(X 30-559,,' _55% up Deep water sedimentary sequence of gray wacke, silt stone, slate, sandstone', and (4) Geol ogy : con g 1 ome rate interbedded with volcanic basal ts and detritus, miIdy Glacial till over Bedrock and metamorphose Soil: Bedrock Exposures Resistivity: __.__ uegetati_on_:-__Coastal_weste.r_n_.Heml_ock-Sitka sp-r_uce_f_o-r_e.st_.- Fauna: Dall sheep, moose, mountain goat - l (5) Temperature range: -20OF to 95 °F ,,Hunidity:,_ 50 to 80 % Max. snow on ground-75 changing rapidly w/e ev. Snow: Max. snow fall-100" (changing rapoily_w/elev.) Icing: (3' on Grant Lake, 2' of upper Trail Lake) �uuu 1 4 uuz_ imy uCy( CC uay-,/ yN--UI Wind: To 110 mph (9-12-82) Dust/c ontami nation: Isokeraunic level: l__' TD/yr _ Seismic conditions: Approx. 0.49 - very severe - (6) Crossings: Bridge on channel between upper and Tower Trail Lake Joggings: - Transpositions: - Irregularities/1 imitations: (7) Interference/coupl i ng: Corrosion: Should be low (some salt air?) (8) Notes: . GRANT LAKE OFS 6476.021 DATE: 'December 21, 1982 CORRIDOR CONDITION SUMMARY Seward-Daygs Creek Transmission Line From: Seward Length: 24 miles PREPARED BY: L,,R. Cole Section - - M.P. 1 to 25 To: Lawing (2) Elevation: 0 - 500 feet (3) Terrain: Gently sloping glacial valle Grades: to 5% X 5-30% 30-55% 55% q Deepwater sedimen ary sequence of yrdy wacl;7e, siltstune, slate, s ndSIL'une, dnd (4) Geology: conglomerates, interbedded with volcanic basalts and detritus, mildly Well drained strongly acid soils with very dark subsolis, metamorrosed. Soil: very gravelly, medium erosion potential. Resistivity: %getation: Coastal western Hemlock-Sitka spruce forest. Fauna: Dall sheep, moose, mountain goat .(5) Temperature range: -20 to 25 OF Hunidity: 50 to 85 Max. snow on grounG-75" tchanging rapidly w7elev.) Snow: Max. snow fall-100" (changing rapidly W/elev.) Ic.i ng 2000 freezing degree days /year Wind: 110 mph (9-12-82); 200 mph preceding avalanche. Dust/contami nation: Isokeraunic level: I TD/yr Seismic conditions: very severe (6) Crossings: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4 Joggings: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4 Transpositions: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4 Irregularities/limitations: (7) Interference/coupling: Corrosion: Should be low (some salt air?) (8) Notes: WA .GRANT LAKE OFS 6476.021 DATE: December 21, 1982 CORRIDOR CONDITION SUMMARY __ PREPARED BY: P.R. Cole �e��ard_Daves_Creek_Transmissior� Line Section M.P. 25 to 40 From: Lawing To: Daves Creek Crossing. I (1) Length: 16 miles (2) Elevation: 400 - 800 feet (3) Terrain: -Gently sl opi ng- q1 ac al -val-1 e _ --- Grades: to 5% X 5-3(M 30-557. 55% up ( _ (4) Geology: Well sorted flood plain and terrace deposits. Well—rainedWell-arained strongly acid sol s wifn very darK subsoils. - Soil: very gravelly, medium erosion potential Resistivity: ---l%getati-on:--Coastal-western-Heml-ock=S-i-tk-a-spruce forest- ------------ r -- - - -- ---- - __ __. ----- --------- Fauna: _ Dall sheep, moose, mountain goat (5) Tenperature range: -20 to 95 °F Hunidity: 50 to 85 % Max, snow on ground-75" (changing rapidly w/e evi Snow: Max. snow .fall-100" (changi`nq rapidly w/elev.) Icing: 2000 freezing degree days/ year ind-. 1 - -- — - -- ---- - • 1=0 mph ($-12-82);:200 mph accompanying avala-nche, Dust/contamination: Isokeraunic level1 : TD/yr Seismic conditions: Very severe (6) Crossings: _See Figure 111-2 Sheet 1 to 4 Joggings: See Figure III-2, Sheet 1 to 4 Transpositions: See Figure III-2, Sheet 1 to 4 Irregul ari ti es/l irritations: (7) Interference/coupl i ng: Corrosion: (8) Notes: 58 EXHIBIT B13 25 KV BUS VOLTAGE AT CITY OF SEWARD 24.9/12.5 KV SUBSTATION AS FUNCTION OF MW DEMAND AS MEASURED AT LAWING ASSUMING UNITY POWER FACTOR LOAD AT SEWARD REEK ASSUMED CONSTANT 1.05 PU ASS US AT SEWARD SUBSTATION T-'i--i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MW DEMAND AT LAWING METERING POINT MW RECEIVED AT. SEWARD AND LOSSES AS A FUNCTION OF MW DEMAND AS MEASURED AT LAWING ASSUMING UNITY POWER FACTOR LOAD AT SEWARD 7 6 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MW DEMAND AT LAWING METERING POINT (� 59 I MW LOSSES ON 25 KV CIRCUIT FROM LAWING METERING POINT TO SEWARD SUBSTATION IVED AT SUBSTATION SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS 1. R. W. Beck, June 1982. Kenai Peninsula Power Supply and Transmission Study.. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. 2. Dwane Legg Associates. October 1982.--- Analysis of Voltage Drop and Energy Loses. Prepared for the City of Seward. 3. CH2 M/Hill. August 1979. City of Seward Electrical System Planning Study. Prepared for the City of Seward. CH-M/Hi-1-1-.---,M-a—r--c-K---l-979--.--------Ci-ty ---of--Sew&rd Li-ght--and --- Power— 2 Division Plant Inventory. Prepared for the City of Seward. 5. CH2 M/Hill.. February 1979. City of Seward Electric System (Plan Drawings). Prepared for the City of Seward. 6. Commonwealth Associates, Inc. October 1982. Anchorage Area Reliability Study (Draft Report). Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. 7. R.W. Beck and Associates. May 1976. Electric System Study. Prepared for the City of Seward. 8. R.W. Beck and Associates. January 1975. Report on Feasibility of Operation of the Electric Utiity System of the City of Seward by Homer Electric. Prepared for City of Seard and Homer Electric Association, Inc. 9. City of Seward. 1982. Forecast Electric Demand to 1984. Prepared by City of Seward. 10. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Trans. Line drawings for Daves Creek to Lawing, #61-M-838 to 846. 11. Alaska Department of Transportation, Seward and Sterling Highway Drawings. RIO] 12.0 CH2M/Hill, March 1982, Drawings for 69kV transmission line - 4th of July Creek, Drawing No.'$ K15775.A1 sheets 2 to 9. Prepared for the City of Seward. 61 r1/y1 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FIELD DATA COLLECTION Prepared for: EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 400 112th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Prepared by: R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. 5024 Cordova Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Telephone: (907) 561-1733 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FIELD DATA COLLECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 2. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED 2-1 3. 1982 FIELD DATA 3-1 3-1—Grant Cr-e—ek-S-tre—amfl-d-w— Data --3-1- 3.2 Falls Creek Streamflow Data 3-16 3.3 Grant Lake Climatic Data 3-26 3.4 Ice Thickness Measurements at Grant Lake 3-41 .3.5 Snow,Survey Data 3-41 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 3'1'1 Grant Creek near Moose Pass, Mean Daily Discharge, 3-3 Water Year October 1982 to September 1982 3'1,2 Daily Gage Height and Discharge ofGrant Creek near 3-5 Moose Pass for the period ending November 30, 1982. 3.1'3 Rating Table for Grant Creek 3-8 3.1'4 Water Temperature Grant Creek near Gaging Stations 3-7 3'2'1 Falls Creek near Crown Point, Mean Daily Discharge, 3-77 May* 1982 to October 1982 3'2,2 Rating Table for Falls Creek near Crown Point 3-18 3.3'1 Grant Lake Climatological Data: Monthly Summaries 3-28 December 1981 through November 1982. rl-/y4- LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 3.1.1 Stage Recorder Charts, Grant Creek near Moose Pass 3-8 3.1.2 Stage- Discha rge. Rating Curve Grant Creek near Moose 3-15 3.2.1 Stage Recorder Charts, Falls Creek near Crown Point 3-19 3.2.2 Stage -Discharge Rating Curve Falls Creek near Crown 3-25 Point rl/y5 1 - INTRODUCTION The objective of Hydrologic Field Data Collection was to supplement existing atreamf|ovv and climate data in the area of the proposed hydroelectric project. Collection and reduction of the field data was performed by R&M Consultants. This report presents the data collected during 1981-1982 and a description of the field work undertaken relative to each of the hydrologic parameters. � 2- SUMMARY [` Grant -Creek Grant Creek S,��Geo|ookca|-�-��� -[ �_betyvaen._3aPtember... and -September-]S5-..--|n- /\ph| 1982 this gage was reestablished and became operational after � breakup in late May. In August 1982, a' continuous recording' temperature probe was installed at the gaging site. | additional streamf|ovv to the project through a diversion to Grant Lake. | There are no historical streamf|ovv records for Falls Creek, although a crest stage recorder existed to measure peak flows. The Falls Creek basin | is very steep' At the location of the proposed diversion dam, there is no site that is suitable for strnamf|ovv gaging. Ba|ovv the steep area, there is | ! -----u/r.acm,v /ng nsnao�- thio mining claim. An undetermined effect on straamf|ovv at the gage was caused bythe miner's use ofwater for sluicing operations. | |� Grant Lake Climatic Data. In the original plan of study, a dam at the |� outlet of GrantLake and -a saddle dam" in the vicinity of the - portage trail - �. were proposed. Wind data for design of these dams was needed; thus, a mechanical recording weather station was established near the site of the larger dam' Besides windspeed and direction, the station also recordstemperature and rainfall. � r Grant Lake Ice Thickness Measurements. These measurements were made monthly through the winter of 1981 and 1982. They are supplemented by additional measurements made by personnel from the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AE|DC). Snow Surveys. Determination of monthly snow/ depth and density were made at a site near the outlet of Grant Lake. A single end -of -season measurement was also made in the upper Grant Lake basin at 1550 feet. 2-1 r1/y7 3.1 GRANT CREEK 3TREAMFLOWDATA Location - Lat. 60027'25", long. 149o21'15", on left bank (},3 mile upstream from mouth, 0.8 mile downstream from Grant Lake, and 2.3 miles south of Moose Paso' Establishment - August 26, 1847 by U'S.G'3. Reestablished April 1, 1982 by R&M Consu|tants- Drainage Area - 44.2 square miles. Gage - Stevens F-1 recorder, ratio 1:5, in timber house and well, Recorder is referenced to inside staff gage. Well is connected to stream by two 2^ galvanized intake pipes' Bottom of well G.H. 0.1 ft Lower intake 0.3 Upper intake 1.8 Floor of House G.H. 7.0 ft Instrument shelf 10.1 History - Prior to July l, 1952 vertical staff gage at site 500 ft downstream at datum 7.23 ft lower. Continuous recorder September 1947 to September 1958. Channel and Control - The channel is composed of sand, gravel and rock, and will shift at high stages. Banks are relatively high, covered with vegetation, and will not overflow except at extreme high stages. Channel is straight for several hundred feet above and below the gage. Flow is turbulent and fast. 3-1 The extreme !ow water control is a riffle just below the gage. The control | for higher f|nvvs is a series of riffles. During most winters the control } -- will remain open exceptfor shore kce,�'������������������- - Dischargea-Meaaurenmentm = Wading and ice measurements are made in the | vicinity of the gage, with medium and high stage measurements made- from. the cableway located just below the gage. Weights and reel mount are left t the The b| is a 3/4" G x 7 wired b ' -____-A=frameo-.—Ancho.rafJe-are-timber-doa6men.--The-oabla-is-equippa6--with~yi�'------------ dovvn cable car. Length of span, 65 ft. Fair measurements can be made. I Point of Zero Flow - -0.5 ft to 0.1 ft, shifting. Winter Flow - l-hara will be some ice effect during the winter period and i | / Regulation and Diversion - No artificial regulation or diversion but discharge will be affected by natural storage in Grant Lake 0'7 mile upstream and by a few glaciers and snow/ field at head of Grant Creek � Basin. - � ` Accuracy - Fair records can be obtained. Reference and Bench Marks - F{K4-1 is top of head of spike driven horizontally in 12" cottonwood trae' Tree is on left bank 20 ft upstream from gaga vve||. Spike is 2 ft above ground line and on downstream face of tree. G.H. 6.81 ft. RP-1 is point on instrument shelf at float tape gage. G.H. 10.11 ft. 3-2 rl/yal TABLE 3.1.1 GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) Water Year October 1981 to September 1982 Oct. 1981 Nov. 1981 Dec. 1981 Jan. 1982 Feb. 1982 Mar. 1982 GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs 1 2 3 4 30 5 6 7 8 9 43 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 121 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 22 31 Tot Avg Max Min 3-3 rl/ya2 TABLE 3.1.1 (cont.) I GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) - Water-- Year_ October 1981 to September _1982 _. la Apr. 1982 May 1982 June 1982 July 1982 Aug. 1982 Sep. 1982 GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft - cfs 1 26 1.59 196 2.84 468 2.92 490 2.03 284 --- - � --- _ -__-- - ----- - ----- --- ---L._6.6..----210---? •-7 5- ---44 6--2-•-8 6-- -/+7-2-1-. 9-2--- --26 2 ____----- 3 __-_- _1.74 _ 223 2_,-56____232__--------------_ 4 1.79 234 2.40 365 2.80 449 1.97 261 5 1.81 238 2.40 365 2.69 434 1.72 219 6 1.84 244 2.36 354 2.67 427 2.60 412 7 1.92 262 2.38 361 2.67 427 2.78 454 8 1.98 274 2.58 408 2.71 438 2.77 451 9 2.09 298 2.73 442 2.73 442 2.74 446 10 2.30 342 2.90 488 2.69 434 2.65 424 11 2.53 394 2.89 486 2.63 419 2.58 407 ---2-4-5-- 37-5-2 : 86 47 2- 2-5 7 40-5-2-48 385 - 13 2.33 348 2.83 466 2.52 393 2.53 394 14 2.17 314 2.86 472 2.50 400 2.68 433 15 2.05 290 2.87. 474 2.50 400 2.79 457 16 1.98 274 2.87 474 2.49 398 3.34 602 17 1.93 304 2.86 472 2.44 374 3.30 590 18 1.93 304 2.83 466 2.37 358 3.15 552 19 1.98 274 2._80_ __460 2.28 338 3.12 545 20 2.02 282 2.82 464 2.18 316 3.06 532 21 97 2.02 282 2.86 472 2.14 305 2.98 514 22 - 2.00 278 2.88 476 2.05 289 2.95 504 23 - 1.99 276 2.87 474 2.08 296 2.88 482 24 1.33 150 2.05 288 2.89 486 2.15 307 2.78 454 25 1.38 155 2.13 306 2.89 486 2.18 316 2.68 433 26 1.42 166 2.28 338 2.87 474 2.13 303 2.58 407 27 1.44 170 2.50 388 2.86 472 2.07 294 2.48 383 28 1.42 166 2.80 460 2.87 474 1.98 274 2.32 347 29 1.42 166 2.87 482 2.92 490 2.01 280 2.06 290 30• 1.44 170 2.84 468 2.98 514 2.09 298 .(e) 260 31 1.50 180 2.95 505 .(e) 292 Tot 9246 14075 11211 12372 Mean - 308 454 371 412 Max 180 482 514 490 602 Min - 196 354 274 212 Usm - 6.97 10.27 8.41 9.33 Runoff in inches - 7.78 11.85 9.70 10.41 3-4 rl/ya3 TABLE 3.1.2 GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) Water Year October 1982 to January 1983 Oct. 1982 Nov 1982 Dec. 1982 Jan. 1983 GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs 1 - 1.03 103 0.98 94 2 - 1.04 104 0.97 92 3 - 1.02 101 0.98 94 4 - 1.05 105 1.00 97 5 - 1.05 105 1.07 108 6 - 1.03 103 1.13 120 7 - 1.02 101 1.12 118 8 - 1.02 101 1.09 111 9 - 1.01 99 1.07 108 10 - 1.00 97 1.07 108 11 - 0.98 94 1.04 104 12 - 0.97 92 1.02 101 13 - 0.97 92 0.99� 96 14 - 0.96 91 0.97 92 15 - 0.95 90 0.95 90 16 - 0.94 89 0.94 89 17 - 0.93 87 0.99 96 18 - 0.92 86 1.04 104 19 - 0.91 84 1.08 110 20 - 0.91 84 1.07 108 21 - 0.87 77 1.06 106 46 22 - 0.87 77 1.04 104 23 - 0.86 76 1.03 103 24 - 0.86 76 1.02 .101 25 - 0.88 80 1.00 97 26 - 0.94 89 (e)96 27 - 1.02 101 2.50 (e)95 28 1.05 105 1.02 101 2.80 (e)94 29 1.04 104 1.01 99 2.87 (e)93 30 1.03 103 0.99 96 2.84 (e)92 31 1.02 101 (e)91 Tot 2780 (e)3112 Mean 93 (e) 100 Max 105 120 Min 77 90 CFsm 2.09 2.27 Runoff in inches 2.34 2.62 gm N Oo I ' (x f ' Q 1Q O o � Z m e ja cri s N 10 CY1 , ; 1 1 1 1 1 , I , 1 ,yi 1 ' U ; H 1 1 ' t , _r 1 a i rO 1+1 ' I YI 1 t H [n ; ' N ; z P. W O a ; W ; H C� ; ; ; I 1 ; '•V col 1 •. A 1 1 1 1 1 I t I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 t t ur fw O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IV rn `It to r C) O L „ W n' E O t0 U a .c, � I / O en 'P O N Q O � OC•= u .•.. {y r V a0 L1 • woi ' �; ' ; , ------ -CN-, — ` � 1 1 I / 1 / , ; 1 1 ; 1 1 1 • co ' tj ; ; 1 1 � / 1 1 1 I 1 1 O ": N '� r; t W -. � M m y ? O� O N Ir1 V' r+ f Cn G) ' u m tj I � C V 1 I 1 1 { 1 I t i t t 1 ; t 1 1 1 1 i N •T./ d , I •� O N M V ton h a0 L\ O fOV• 11� 7 V" N O� ' V; 1 Y V V. N_ (1); ; ; _ 1 J ; i co ro 1 ; YM i'• ; ; ; ' i ' i i i i ; ; i i i O •c Y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �? N .n v r n m C� 1 i C ; u N' O; N; M; M; d,; d ; d ; 00' CN; O' Lni Ln c C~i N; N; N; N; N' N; (N; N; N M; Ni N1 N1 CO, O' O; N; u) co: N; l0; O; 00; O; O; Ln; O; O; [ I`; O' Ni11; "Oi OO' r-I; M; lfl; CO' N; "V "D' d>; N� N; Mi Mt M; M; Mi "Zv; d'; d'i d; Ln: Ln, Ln; Ln, l loCL Y puq'C S cOV eon v, r V' r cq � S N eon O 7 O n O O n O o� O G� .O V ,a GO V' O .= N N CN N' N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M `" u co: O' -I; N; N; d' T '.0 Ln' r ' (-; co N; N; r1' N; O; c r1; r-'1 ; '-1 ; rl ; r♦ ; r-•i ' rl ; IA ; r- I ; r-1 ; rl . -I ; rI N ; CN: N I ' ' �/1 �; d' � Ifl� I (\1 1 M1 1 MI t`I MI OD t111 NI 1 Ot G71 LnI lO; CO •y 1 _ N ; M i CM ; lfl lD i ; O\ ; rl ; N ; d' ; lD ; 07 ; 0) ; rl ; M ; Ln ; rl ; r-i ; rl ; r-i ; r-I ; ' H { N ; N ; CN ' WA: O O O O O O O O Nri o 0 O O O O O O O O O O i r-• - rn1 A A rl A A �0 3-6 f rl/y9 TABLE3.1.4 WATER TEMPERATURE GRANT CREEK NEAR GAGING 8lFA7-|ON K4E/\N DAILY TBNPERAlFUREoC Day Sept Oct Nov l 11'5 7.8 3.2 2 11.0 7.8 3'5 3 11.0 7'6 3.3 4 11'5 7.5 3.1 5 11.2 7.3 3.2 G 11.0 7.0 3.1 7 10.8 6.8 2.9 8 10.6 6.5 2'8 B 10'3 6.4 3.1 10 10'4 6.5 3.0 11 10'3 6.3 3.0 12 9.8 6.5 3'0 13 9.5 6.3 3.1 14 9'6 G'| 3.3 15 9'1 6.0' 3.1 16 9.2 5.9 3.0 lJ 9-1 5.9 2.4 18 8.0 5.0 1.9 lS 9.0 5.6 l'l 20 9.0 5.4 1-1 21 9.0 4.9 1.8 22 9.0 4.7 1'8 23 8.7 4.6 1.8 24 8.6 4.4 1.8 25 8.3 4.2 26 8.2 3.8 27 8.2 3.4 28 8.1 3.1 29 8.0 ` 3.3 30 7.9 3.2 31 - 3.1 3-7 L CGRITHMIC 46 7323 2 3 4 �7- 7 . . ..... ... .7 :7 T7 7= 4. 1* =::r 1; T [T 1;q •4d _4 TI. 7. ;t—�y1It1-y^jI' : 1 ; i1. Lila' L;, n „�i, � ii -a- .•�� ���(• kl; I• i!':•tp�r�• .,I ', . '!.• j!i -.1 .0 ;: ! li'! i;I_�' i : I_I r I!l'il i;i i�+'l 'j` Lr'iii a iq `i�! I N 9. 7 I �•'-ri-F:I �=J7: q 6. 5 T.- I 4 zi -F j ; '3 % __lt• �: 11_ i :.) {.: -.1-L! T.I jI .lj:{�;r!it['t!:'i _ :i�Ia�it.� :b.. • HJ ! tin' !;!I:!;. t7 2 ;1v li- i;i; :i:i I L. ill -I J11-ti If+ 0. 1.0 2 3 4 s e i a 9 ;oo 4 5 6 7 3 9 'loot DISCHARGE c.fs. UL.1- . RFB LZDp j - - FIGURE —1-2 DWG NO CKD: JHC &M r-ONSULTANT STAGE DISCHARGE RATING CURVE SCALE CWN ..... ... ...... CKD: GRANT CREEK DATE: ! PF?0J NO- 151182 APPD NEAR MOOSE PASS � 3.2 DESCRIPTION (}FGAGING STATION ON FALLS CREEK NEAR CROWN | POINT, ALASKA Location - Lat. 60o25'50", long 148o22'10" at mile 25 on Seward -Anchorage } Highway, on right bank 200 feet downstream from highway bridge, 300 feet upstream from confluence of Falls Creek with Trail River. Altitude � 450 feat from topographic map. Establishment - April 30, 1982 - Drainage '` Area -1l..8 square miles. Gage - Stevens F-1 recorder, ratio 1:5, in shelter mounted on stilling ( History - Creststage recorders at bridge in 1913, 1863 to 1970, and 1976. Peak flow of record 693 c.f.s. on September 15, 1966. Refere -I 'ce - _FlM_-1 isheadof|orge-s pike -ihl2"'birch tree. --Tree is on right bank 20 feet upstream of stilling well and 15 feat shoreward. Spike is 2 feet above ground on upstream face of tree. Arbitrary elevation is 10.00 feet. Channel - The channel is composed of gravel and rock and is straight for 100 feat above and 200 feet below the gage. The stream is broad here compared to the rest of Falls Creek and stage change with discharge is small. The banks will not overflow except atvery high stages. Discharge Measurements - Wading measurements are made approximately 50 feet upstream of the gage. TABLE 3.2,1 FALLS CREEK NEAR CROWN POINT MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) May 1982 to October 1982 May 1982 June 1982 July 1982 Sep. 1982 Oct' 1982 GB D g8 Q QB D GB O GH O G8 O Day ft ctn ft cfe £t cfo ft c£o ft cfs tt c±a l 5,I1 41 (u)I25 5.48 l05 5.13 43 5-06 56 2 5.19 52 (o)100 5.42 92 5.09 39 5.04 34 3 5.24 60 (e) 95 5.36 79 5.04 34 5'03 32 4 5,I8 49 (e) 90 5.36 79 5,01 31 5,01 20 5 5.10 40 (a) 85 5.36 79 5.42 92 5.00 29 6 5.11 41 5.39 OS 5.36 79 5.77 l&O 4.99 28 7 5.23 58 5.57 127 5.42 92 5.48 105 4.97 26 8 5.22 56 5,07 155 5.43 95 5.33 74 4.96 25 9 5.25 61 5.67 lSS 5.39 85 5.23 58 4'96 25 lO 5-52 114 5.64 146 5.33 74 5,18 49 4.94 23 11 5.53 116 5.56 124 5.27 64 5.16 46 4.87 19 12 (a)70 5,54 119 5.26 62 5.12 42 4.94 23 13 (e)70 5.54 119 5,29 66 5.47 102 4.94 23 14 (a)70 5.57 127 5.34 77 5.44 37 *Ica 15 (e)70 5,56 124 5.36 79 5.74 178 Effects 16 (e)70 5.54 119 5.32 72 5.93 246 17 5.44 (a)70 5.51 1I2 5.27 64 5.54 1.19 ^ 18 (e)70 5,44 97 5.23 58 5.39 85 x 19 (e)70 5.47 102 5.I9 51 5.41 89 , 20 (e)70 5.59 132 5,18 49 5'29 66 n 21 (e)70 5.64 146 5.23 58 5'25 60 22 (e)70 5.59 132 5.24 60 5.21 S] « 23 (e)70 5.58 129 5.27 64 5,09 39 « 24 5.51 III 5.63 143 5.31 70 4.99 29 x 25 4.94 26 5.59 132 5.60 124 5.27 64 4.91 22 26 4.99 29 5.64 148 5.57 127 5.2I 55 4.83 17 27 4.97 28 5'74 178 5.56 124 5.19 51 4.75 13 " 28 4.97 28 5,99 271 5'62 I40 5.17 48 4.69 IO » 29 4.99 29 (e)280 5.64 146 5.21 55 5.09 39 » 30 5.07 37 (e)200 5.59 132 5.24 60 5.87 27 o 31 5.11 41 5.54 119 5.18e (e)49 x (e) Estimated Freeze-up: no flow at gaginl- site. Tot Mean (o) 95 122.9 68.87 70.13 Max - 280 155 105 246 Min - 41 85 48 IO CFmm 8.22 10.42 5.84 5.94 Runoff in inches 8.99 12.01 6.72 6.63 3-l7 CN co CN �. OI ; ;- 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 , I 1 1 : 1 I 1 1 1 ' t }�' u •C y O O O O •n O O O O O a r � n W O�l o c n O m It : : ep•C O O N Ivf V r V^• r O {T •p r C� O N M V OR I 1 IE t 1 1 1 r CO 1 G O: u ,m v In • r m c; o • N rn a r: �? r m � V V ' �!f 1 1 , , 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , t , Y t I • t 1 1 U 1 1 1 I ' : ' " • ; t I N ; 1 • 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 t 1 Y , I • � 1 I 1 1 r 1 ; t 1 1 1 1 ; 1 ll1 �, ; ; bo: 1 ; oo rn ? r m rn u 1-1 q 1 0 1 1 1 1 I .• 1 . 1 . / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 H Ln F•1 H' H . of � 1• : 1 : : : } : : : t ? t : � •= • . h4' � ,`. O N e11 V� v� W'• r m O� 8 N In V' v1 V"- O: I � �. W Ln 1 El): I 1 1 a 4 u,= 8 O O O O O O O O O 8 .0 m ._ 0 1"' GT 1: i .uC l0 w l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 L,0 "0., : 1-i : M : Ln : 01 : N : Ln : O i : N': : 1 r-I: H N; N: M; M; M: d: O r1: ml, O} M: O: I`: 0): q: d': 00: M: Y } : r-I: N} N: 'V, Lfl; kD: 00; O; M W: M; M: y 1 � �• ' I 1 I 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 I 1 t ; � 1 ; 1 l,�• �Cy� e1 e p LL o �1' �M• n C}� v d'• v I:M• 0 0 • d' 0 r Z:r 0 w IV 0 0 � 0 O' LC7 0' LC7 0 tSl 0 UT 0 0 O' o o p r t M. 40 MIMI mum mom ON No MWEE - -- � 3.3 GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA _ Sec. -G, of Grant Lake. Altitude G1Ofeet from USG3 topographic map Seward (B-7). | ` ` Establishment - December 8, 1881 by ��&M Consultants, Inc.' ` � u...... nc-_--mucnun/ca/-nvaatner-Staoo Paramnetars measured are temperature, rainfall, windopeed and wind � _- `.- ' ' 6ireotion' Instruments are located 70 feet above the ground' , Data Notes ' -- � | or -6te—rmi-ffe—d-u—nrel-i-615le. - ' \ � 2' Blank entries in rainfall tables' indicate zero rainfall. 3' A day begins and ands at24OO hours. . 4' Maximum and minimum temperatures are the highest and lowest read` s for the day. Average temperature is the average of the maximum and minimum. S' Precipitation data for Lavving at Crown Point, a U3PS fire weather data station located a few miles from Grant Lake, is also available. 3'3'1 - GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA Periods of Record for each parameter asof November 24, 1982. 3-2S rl/yl2 Temperature January'29, 1982 to Present. Rainfall April 30, 1982 to May 31, 1982. July 5, 1982 to August 31, 1982. September 29, 1982 to October 21, 1982 Windspeed and Direction December 8, 1982 to Present � r1/s1 TABLE 3.3.1 l GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (DECEMBER 1981) Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed- Direction , Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec. Degrees I 8 - - - 0.7 105 - - -------- - - - - -- ---._ - --- 11 - - - 2.8 90 12 - - - 6.9 25 I 13 - - - 11.1 30 14 - - - 8.3 50 15 - - - 8.3 40 16 - - - 9.7 40 17 - - - 8.3 30 18 - - - 5.6 240 19 - - - 4.2 70 20 - - - 1.4 280 21 - - - 1.4 10 22 - - - 11.1 50 23 - - - 8.3 - 40 24 - - - 4.2 60 j 25 - - - 1.4 80 26 - - - 9.7 80 27 - - - 5.6 50 28 - - - 1.4 250 29 - - - 1.4 50 30 - - - 2.8 30 31 - - - 2.8 240 Monthly Max. - Monthly Min. Monthly Avg. Rm rl/o2 TABLE 3.3.1(oont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY [ /\NUAR\~ 1982l Temperature vC 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - G - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 8 - - - lO - - - ll - - - 12 - - - 13 - - - 14 - - - 15 - - - 16 17 - - - 18 _ _ _ 19 - - - 20 - - - 21 - - - 22 - - - 23 _ _ _ 24 - - - 25 - - - 26 _ _ _ 27 - - - 28 - - - 29 - - - 30 -2 -11 -6.5 31 2 -4 -l'O Monthly Max. - Monthly Min. - Monthly Avg. - Rainfall nnm Inches Wind Max. Speed Direction 4.2 40 1.4 105 0.9 240 � 2.8 80 ll'1 75' 9.7 80 1.4 240 - 2.8 - 90 2.8 240 2.1 230 2.1 lO5 2.8 270 5.6 GO 8.3 20 2.8 GO 6.9 90 5.6 75� 5.6 75 2.8 60 8.3 70 5.6 SO 1.4 240 1.4 250 1.4 250 0.7 120 8.3 50 8.3 30 1.4 250 2.1 255 5.6 80 r1/s3 TABLE 3.3.1 GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (FEBRUARY 1982) _ Wind _ Temperature °C Rainfall.. Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec. Degrees. 1 3.0 -2.0 0.5 8.3 80 I - --2- - - --- - -----8-0- =3-0 -- - -1 .5 - ---- ---- - ----8�--- ---- -90 - ----- - -- 4 2.0 -4.0 -1.0 2.8 1.05 5 -2.0 -5.0 -3.5 2.1 45 6 -2.0 -6.0 -4.0 1.4 50 7 - -3.0 -7.5 -5.2 2.1 75 8 4.0 -8.0 -2.0 8.3 70 9 4.0 -2.5 0.8 5.6 20 10 -2.0 -9.0 -5.5 5.6 90 11 -9.0 -17.0 -13.0 6.9 75 12 -7-0 =20-0 5-- -- -- - 2.8 40 13 -10.0 -21.0 -15.5 2.8 45 14 -12.5 -22.0 -16.2 5.6 90 I 15 -22.0 -25.0 -23.5 5.6 75 16 -21.0 -26.0 -23.5 4.9 60 17 -18.0 -25.0 -21.5 3.5 90 18 -17.0 -25.0 -21.0 8.3 100 I 19 -18.0 -24.0 -21.0 8.3 90 20 -14.0 -20.0 -19.0 8.3 80 21 -15.0 -18.0 -16.5 8.3 75 22 -16.0 -25.0 -20.5 8.3 80 23 -14.0 -25.0 -19.5 4.2 60 24 -12.0 -25.0 -18.5 8.3 75 25 -10.0 -23.0 -16.5 5.6 80 26 -10.0 -23.0 -16.5 4.9 30 27 -6.0 -20.0 -13.0 1.4 50 28 -8.0 -20.0 -14.0 0.7 45 Monthly Max. 6.0 11.1 80 Monthly Min. -26.0 Monthly Avg. -12.09 3-30 TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (MARCH 1982) Wind Temperature "C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max..Min. Axo' mm Inches Deg rees 2 - - - - - 3 4 - - - - - 5 2-0 -9.0 -5'5 2.1 255 G 0'0 -5'0 -2.5 1.4 230 7. 2'5 -G'O -1.8 1.4 240 8 O'O -10.0 -5'0 4.2 75 8 O'O -9'0 -4'5 5.6 70 10 l'O -16.0 -7'5 5.8 60 11 0'0 -lG.O -8.0 4.2 75 12 -4'0 -12.0 -8.0 5.6 80 13 -4.0 -15'0 -9.5 5.6 80 14 -2'0 -15.0 -8'5 8.3 SO 15 5'0 -5.0 0'0 2.8 40 76 ' 0'0 -5.0 -2.5 2.7 20 .17 2'0 -3.0 -0.5 5'6 100 18 4'0 -5.O -0.5 8.3 60 19 4'0 -4.0 0.0 5.6 45 20 3.0 -2.5 0.2 4.2 250 21 2'5 -3.0 -0.2 2.8 240 22 5.0 -3'0 1'0 2.8 250 23 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 2.8 20 24 l.O -5.0 -2.0 5.6 80 25 -1'0 -7.0 -4.0 4.9 70 26 -1'0 -13.0 -7.0 5.6 75 27 2.0 -1..0 -4.5 3.5 240 28 -1'0-11.0 -S.O 5.6 75 29 -2.0 -15.0 -8.5 4.2 90 30 -l.O -12.0 -6.5 4.2 75 31 -2'5 -17.0 -9.8 5.6 75 Monthly Max. 5.0 8.3 SO Monthly Min. -17.0 Monthly Avg. -4.23 3-3l r1 /s5 TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.) 'GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (APRIL 1982) _ 'Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg• mm Inches m/sec. Degrees 1 -5.0 -15.0 -10.0 6.9 80 2 -5.0 -15.0 -10.0 8.0 80 1-5 .-- 5 7.0 -12.0 -2.5 2.1 90 I 6 9.0 -8.0 .0.5 2.8 250 7 8.0 -4.0 2.0 2.8 60 8 _ 4.0 -4.0 0.0 - 5.6 75 9 3.0 -6.0 -1.5 4.2 70 10 1.0- -7.0 -3.0 4.2. 40 11 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 5.6 80 12 1.0 -7.0 -3.0 8.3 75 1- 0 0- =8-0 - _ 4-0---- - --- g 3- 80 14 3.0 -7.0 -2.0 2.8 80 ; 15 2.0 -4.0 -1.0 8.3 75 16 4.0 -5.0 -0.5 6.9 90 17 1.0 -5.0 -2.0 2.8 70 18 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 4.2 30 19 1.0 -5.0 -2.0 8.3 40 20 1-0- -2.5 -0.8 _ 8.3 80 21 2.0 -7.0 -2.5 8.3 90 22 5.0 -9.0 -2.0 2.8 255 23 2.0 -8.0 -3.0 1.4 105 24 2.0 -2.5 -0.2 11.1 60 25 5.0 -6.0 -0.5 5.6 50 26 3.0 -6.0 -1.5 3.5 45 27 3.0 -2.0 0.5 6.9 20 28 2.5 -4.0 -0.8 8.3 10 29 2.0 -4.0 -1.0 5.6 20 30 2.5 -5.0 -1.8 5.6 45 Monthly Max. 9.0 11.1 60 Monthly Min. -18.0 Monthly Avg. -2.47 3 -32 rl/sG l 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 lB 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Monthly Max. Monthly Min. Monthly Avg. . TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.) . GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (K4/\Y 1982) Wind Temperature o C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches Degrees 5.0 -S'U -0.5 8.3 80 6.0 -8.0 -1.0 4.2 75 7.0 -7'5 -0.2 5'6 75 2.0 -5.0 -1.5 6.9 70 5.0 -l.O 2.0 0.2 .Ol 8.3 SO 8'0 0.0 4.0 0.4 .02 6.9 80 7.0 -3.0 2.0 1.5 .UG 1'4 2GO' 7'5 -3.0 2.2 2.4 .OS 2'1 240 8.0 -2.0 2.0 1.0 .04 8.3 SD 7'0 -l'O 3.0 6.8 .26 1.4 30 5'0 -2'5 1.2 1.0 .04 2.1 10 6.8 -3.0 1.5 4.0 .lG 2.8 30 5.0 -5.0 0.0 0.2 .01 2'8 250 7,8 -5.0 1.0 2.8 lN] 5'0 -2.0 1.5* 0.2 .01 ' 2'8 255 lO'O -3.0 3.5 3.5 80 9.0 -6.0 1.5 5.6 80 6.0 -5.0 0.5 6.9 90 7.0 0.0 3.5 0.6 .02 5.6 60 5.0 -2.0 1.5 1.2 .05 8.3 45 7'5 -3.0 2.2 5.6 75 12.0 -5.0 3.5 5.8 80 5.0 0.0 2.5 5.6 .22 8.3 lO 9.0 0.0 4.5 0.2 .Ol 4.2 30 12.0 -4.0 4.0 4.2 240 5.0 1.0 3.0 5.6 50 6.0 0.0 3.0 1.4 .06 8.3 50 10.0 -2.0 4.0 0.2 .01 4.2 250 13.0 -4.0 4.5 2.8 240 12.5 - 2.5 - 7.5 - - - 4.2 - 45 - 13.0 26.7 |.l 8.3 70 -8.O 2.21 r1/s7 I TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (JUNE 1982) I _ Wind 1 Temperature °C Rainfall Max_. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec. Degrees • - - - - - _ --- - 4 ---- ---- -- -- - - - -:- ---- --- --- -- -- -- -- - -I -- 5- 6 - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - 8 - - - - - - - 9 - - - - - - - _10 _ - 11 12.-0 - ----- - _ 6-9----- 40 - 13 12.0 3.0 7.5 - - 2.1 240 14 13.0 3.0 8.0 - - 2.8 230 15 14.0 4.0 9.0 - - 2.8 250 16 13.0 5.0 9.0 - - 2.8 15 17 16.0 5.0 10.5 - - 4.2 30 4 18 12.0 6.0 9.0 - - 5.6 10 y 19 _ _ _ 15.0 5.0 -__ 10.0 - _ ._ - - 4.2 90 20 12.0 4.0 8.0 - - 4.2 255 .21 10.5 4.0 7.2 - - - 2.1 240 22 13.0 5.0 9.0 - - 5.6 45 23 19.0 5.0 12.0 - - 2.8 255 24 23.0 3.0 13.0 - - 2.8 255 { 25 20.0 4.0 12.0 - - 3.5 255 1 26 23.0 5.0 14.0 - - 3.5 15 27 15.0 8.0 11.5 - - 8.3 50 28 11.0 7.0 9.0 - - 2.8 240 29 13.0 2.0 7.5 - - 11.1 75 30 13.0 5.0 9.0 - - 8.3 40 Monthly Max. 23.0 - - 11.1 75 + Monthly Min. 2.0 Monthly Avg. 9.59 I 3-34 Date 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 S lO ll 12 13 74 75 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Monthly Max. Monthly Min. Monthly Avg. TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY Wind Temperature oC Rainfall Max. Min. Avg. -mm Inches m/sec. Degrees 10.5 4.0 7.2 - - 8.3' 45 12.0 3.0 7.5 - - 8.3 60 12'0 5.0 9.0 - - 9.7 70 13.0 3.0 8.0 - - 6.9 45 14'0 3.0 8.5 5.6 75 15.0 3.0 9.0 8.3 58 25'0 6.0 15.5 2.8 250 18,0 8.0 13.0 0.8 .03 5.6 60 22.0 8.0 15.0 5.8 50 12.0 7.0 14.5 6.0 .24 0.8 240 8.0 11.0 1.4 .06 15'0 0.0 11.5 0'4 .02 21.0 8.0 14.5 19.0 5.0 12.0 11'0 7.0 9.0 1.0 .04 13'0 5.0 9.0 3'4 '73 17'0 2.5 9.5 0.8 .03 15'0 6'0 10.5 0.2 .Ol 25.0 8.0 16.5 24.0 6.0 15.0 15'0 8.0 11.5 17.0 7.0 12.0 13.0 8.0 10.5 6.6 .26 18.0 8.0 13.0 0.2 '87 16.0 8.0 12.0 2.2 .OS lO'O 7.0 12.5 22.0 8.0 75.0 17.0 8.0 12.5 0.2 .O? 11.0 8.0 9.5 21.8 .86 77.0 8.0 12.5 0.2 .01 20.0 6.0 13.0 25.0 45.2 1.78 9.7 70 2.5 11.6 3-35 TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (AUGUST 1982) Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec. Degrees i 1 21.0 7.0 14.0 2.8 70 2 23.0 7.0 15.0 2.8 75 3 23.0 6.0 14.5 4.2 255 _ _---4 -- -- -- - 20.0------g , 0 - - -14 -0 --- - --- 2-8- ----- --- 260 ---- - 5 -- --- - -- -2-2-: 0----8.0 - 15 0 - - - - - 2 1- - - -----2-70- - - - 6 .18.0 10.0 14.0 0.4 .02 5.6 30 7 15.0 10.0 12.5 0.8 .03 6.9 30 8 14.0 9.0 11.5 5.4 .21 4.2 45 i 9 18.0 7.0 12.5 2.8 270 10 12.0 5.0 8.5 3.6 .14 1.4 240 11 - 1-4.0 8.0 11.0 8.4 .33 4.2 90 12 23.0 5.0 14.0 2.1 100 �. 13 24.0 7.0 15.5 2.8 255 ___ 14 ---1-6.-0"-8:-0 ' 1-6-0---0: 2- -Ol _ 2 : 8- -- 2 - 15 13.0' 8.0 14.5 4.4 .12 4:2 90 16 17.0 5.0 11.0 2.8 80 17 18.0 5.0 11.5 1.4 270 18 19.0 6.0 12.5 1.4 255 19 22.0 7.0 14.5 2.1 255 20 22.0 6.0 14.0 3.5 255 21 20.0 8.0 14.0 _ _ _: -- -2 -1 30 22 17.0 7.0 12.0 2.1 255 23 17.0 11.0 14.0 0.6 .02 2.8 30 24 15.0 10.0 12.5 0.8 .03 2.8 270 25 14.0 8.0 11.0 2.1 270 26 20.0 7.0 13.5 2.8 75 I 27 20.0 5.0 12.5 0.6 .02 2.8 30 28 16.0 8.0 12.0 2.1 260 29 15.0 9.0 12.0 6.6 .26 1.4 75 30 13.0 7.0 10.0 4.6 .18 1.4 260 ! I 31 14.0 8.0 11.0 1.8 .07 2.8 40 Monthly Max. 24.0 Monthly Min. Monthly Avg. 38.2 1.50 6.9 12.92 30 3-36 r1/m1O TABLE 3'3.1 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (SEPTEK4BEFl 1982) Wind Temperature p Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec. Deg rees 1 18.0 6.0 12.0 - - 2.7 240 2 18.0 4.0 ll'O - - 2.1 240 3 14.0 6.0 10'0 - - 2.1 270 4 16.0 3.0 9'5 - - 2.1 285 5 13.0 8.0 10.5 - - 8.3 45 G 9.0 7.0 8'0 - - 4.2 O 7 14.0 6.0 10.0 - - 4.2 60 8 17.0 ' � 0 ' ll 0 ' - - 4.2 280 9 12'0 8.0 10'0 - - 1.4 110 10 11'0 7.0 9.0 - - 4.2 40 11 13'0 4.0 8'5 - - 2.8 50 12 12'0 1.0 6.5 - - 2.8 60 lD 13'0 8.0 10,5 - - 8.3 60 14 lO'O 8.0 9'0 - - 1.4 210 15 17'0 10.0 8'5 - - 5.8 260 18 14.0 7'0 70'5 - - 2.7 240 77 10'0 7'0 8.5 - - 4.2 75 18 12.0 8.0 10.0 - - 5.6 45 18 10.0 8'0 9.0 - - 2.1 260 20 10.0 7.0 8.5 - - 2.1 40 21 10.0 7.0 8.5 - - 2.8 290 22 11.0 6.0 8.5 - - 4.2 100 23 . lO O . 2 0 G O ' - - 4.2 80 24 13.0 0.0, 6.5 - - 2.1 270 25 10.0 1.0 5'5 - - 2.1 250 26 10.0 4.0 7.0 - - 2.8 75 27 14.0 1.0 7.5 - - 2.1 90 28 10.0 2.0 6.0 - - 8.3 75 28 10.0 6.0 8.0 - - 8.3 80 Monthly Max. lO'U - - 8.3 45 Monthly Min. 0.0 Monthly Avg. 8.76 r1/s11 TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY 1 (OCTOBER 1982) Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg• mm Inches m/sec. Degrees 1 10.0 1.0 5.5 2.8 I 90 - --2 - --- -- -8.0 ---- 2.0 --5-.-0-- - . 6 - -- . 02- ---1-: 4 - - ------90---- -- ----- - --3 - ---- - - _7.0 1_.0-- 4 7.0 -1.0 3.0 2.8 0 5 5.0 -2.0 1.5 4.2 90 6 3.0 1.0 2.0 5.6 90 7 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 .04 1.4 180 8 4.0 -2.0 1.0 2.6 .10 4.2 0 9 3.0 1.0 2.0 6.2 .24 2.1 90 10 4.0 -1.0 1.5 0.2 .01 4.2 90 11 6.0 -2.0' 2.0 1.8 .07 8.3 0 350 - 13 4.0 2.0 3.0 7.8 .31 4.2 80 14 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.4 .13 0.6 220 15 3.0 -2.0 0.5 •0.8 . .03 5.6 90 16 3.0 -1.0 1.0 7.0 .28 2.1 110 17 5.0 2.0 3.5 7.0 .28 8.3 110 18 5.0 -2.0 1.5 2.8 45 _19 4.0 2.0 3.0 6.4 _ _ .25 __. 5.6 80 20 3.0 0.0 1.5 4.2 60 21 - 0.0 -4.0 -2.0 5.6 105 22 -2.0 -5.0 -3.5 4.2 80 23 -3.0 -8.0 -5.5 4.2 45 24 -3.0 -10.0 -6.5 2.8 310 25 -1.0 -10.0 -5.5 4.2 60 ` 26 -5.0 -7.0 -6.0 8.3 100 27 -5.0 -10.0 -7.5 8.3 100 28 -2.0 -8.0 -5.0 2.1 300 29 -1.0 -4.0 -1.5 4.2 100 30 -3.0 -13.0 -8.0 5.6 90 31 4.0 -14.0 -5.0 5.6 100 Monthly Max. 10.0 51.0 2.01 8.3 100 Monthly Min. -14.0 Monthly Avg. -0.2 j 3-38 rl/o12 l 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 8 lO 71 12 13 14 15 16 . 17 18 1B-24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Monthly Max. Monthly Min. Monthly Avg. TABLE 3'3.1 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY Wind Temperature oC Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec. Deg rees 4 O 2'0 '8 '03 8 GO 2 -4 -1'0 l 135 O -5 -2.5 - - l O 0.5 - - 4 l 2.5 l 330 2 -2 0.0 - - -2 -lO -G'O - - 2 -3. -0'5 1 220 3 -5 -l'O G 80 2 -8 -3'0 1 220 4 -1 -1'5 l 30 G 1 3'5 33.6 1'32 4 330 5 2 3'5 5'6 0'22 1 250 4 ? 2'5 2 240 3 -1 1.0 2 50 -1 -7 -4.0 l GO -8 -14 -11.0 - - -10 -lG -13'0 - - 7 0 3'5 - - 4 7 5'5 2'2 0.09 G 360 G 3 4'5 2'8 0.11 lO GO 5 -3 1'0 l 240 -7 -4 -2'5 l 240 0 -4 -2'0 1 90 -1 -G -5.0 7 SO 7 45.0 1.77 70 GO -lG -0.� r1/y13 TABLE 3.3.2 RAINFALL DATA: LAWING NR. CROWN POINT U.S.F.S. FIRE WEATHER DATA STATION RAINFALL (INCHES) Day Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov 1 - 0.7 2 - 1.3 5 - 0.4 - 6 2.0 - 7 1.1 - 0.5 - 8 - 0.1 - 9 - 0.4 - 10 - 0.1 - 11 0.2 0.2 - 12 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 - ---1-3 - - - ---- - 0-5 - 14 2.0 0.1 - 15 0.6 0.1 - 16 0.1 0.2 0.2 - 17 0.4 - 18 0.3 1.2 - } 19 0.9 - 0.7 - I' 20 0.2 - 0.3 0.2 - 21 - 22 - . 23 0.1 - 0.1 - 24 - - 25 - - 26 - 0.2 - 27 - - 28 0.3 - 0.1 -- 29 - 0.1 0.3 - 30 - 0.2 0.2 - 31 - 0.2 TOTAL 2.8 - - 8.8 2.6 - Notes: 1) Data is for 24 hour period ending at 0700 on date shown. 2) - No record. Data not recorded or determined unreliable. 3) Blank entries indicate zero rainfall. 3-40 rl/Yl4 3'4 ICE THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS ATGRANT LAKE Measured on lower Grant Lake. l-2S-82 3-3-d2 3-2G-82 4-1-82 4-3O-O2 3.5 SNOW SURVEY DATA Thickness (inches) 25 34 (measured by ABDC) 36 (measured by ABDC) 39 Not measured but melting of ice evident Snow depth and water content are measured at a site about � mile from the outlet of Grant Lake. A single end -of -season measurement of snovvpack was made at elevation 1550 feet, in an area which seemed representative of the upper Grant Lake basin. Date Depth (inches) l-2S-82 27 3-4-82 23 4-1-82 24.5 4-30-82 55'0 Water Content (inches) 7.7 7.7 8.1 24.0 (Upper Grant Lake basin) 3-4l --- - ------�--rl/fl---------- --��-- ----- ----- - _ AL4SKA POWER AUTHORITY GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ' HYDROLOGIC FIELD DATA COLLECT|ON WATER YEAR 1983 Prepared for: Bellevue, Washington 98004 400-112th Avenue, N.E. . prepared by: R&M CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED 5024Cordova Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 561-1733 ' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Data con -ined in this report were collected, analyzed, and reduced f,n R&M Consultants under contract to �bauoo Services, _ Inc.,nc.as part of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility 3tddy conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. Assistance provided by the individuals and organizations noted bo|ovv is gratefully acknowledged. The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AE|C)C) provided field data on lake temperature and ice thickness and cooperation 'on field logistics. The. Dni| Conservation Service (8C3) provided advice on snow course locations. Field work was accomplished by Steve 8redthauar, Bob 8utera, Jeff Coffin, Lisa Fotharb)r, Carol Larson, and Carl Schoch of the R&M hydrology staff. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY GRANT LAKE. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT HYDROLOGIC -FIELD -DATA COLLECTION r TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE l ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A. LIST OF FIGURES iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 I 2. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED _ _ _._ _ _ 2-1._ 3. 1983 FIELD DATA 3-1 3.1 Grant Creek Streamflow Data 3-1 3.2. Notes on Falls Creek Winter Streamflow 3-18 3.3 Grant Lake Climatological Data 3-19 3.4 Ice Thickness Measurements at Grant Lake 3-36 3.5 Snow Survey Data 3-37 3.6 Lake Elevation Data 3-38 I LIST OF TABLES Title Page 3.1.1 Grant Creek near Moose Pass, Mean Daily Discharge, October 1982to December 1983 3-3 3.1.2 WaterTemperatures- Grant Creak near Moose Pass 3-6 3.3'1 Grant Lake Climatological Data: Data Summary, December 1981 to November 1983 3-21 3.3'2 Grant Lake Climatological Data: Monthly Summaries, r1/f5 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 1.1 Location and Vicinity Map 1-2 Reco_rder__Ch.a_rts._, G.r-ant_C.r_eek.-n.ear_Moo.s_e_P_ass__..__.__3.-7_—_._ 3.1.2 Stage -Discharge Rating Curve, Grant Creek near Moose Pass 3-17 3.6.1 Grant Creek Discharge vs. Grant Lake Elevation 3-39 IN r1/yG The objective of Hydrologic Field Data Collection is to supplement existing sreamf|ow/ and climate data in the area of the proposed Grant Lake Hydro- electric Project. Collection and reduction of the field data have been performed by R&M Consultants. Figure 1.1 shows the project vicinity and identifies the data collection sites. This report presents the data collected during 1982-1983 and a description of the field work undertaken relative to each of the hydrologic parameters. Previous hydrologic data (1881-1882) were presented in the report "Field Data Collection" by R&M Consultants, dated December 1982. 2- SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED Grant Creek 3treamfow. Grant Creek was gaged by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) between September 1947 and September 1958' :In April 1982, this gage was reestablished by R&M Consultants, and it became operational after breakup in late May. Temperature measurements have been made at the gaging station on a monthly or bimonthly basis through the year. A continuous recording Ryan thermograph was installed between November 1982 and May 1983, but the quality of data it produced was not judged accurate enough for publication. Falls Creek Stnsamf|ovv. Falls Creek was under consideration for providing additional stroamf|ovv to the project through a diversion to Grant Lake. ' -[here are no historical stnaanrf|ow/ records for Falls Creek, although a crest stage recorder existed at the highway to measure peak flows. The Falls Creek Basin is very steep and, at the location of the pro -posed diversion dam there i� no site that is suitable for streamf|ovv i , gaging. Below the steep areA there is an active placer mining operation; the gaging site was established below this mining claim. An undetermined effect on otreamf|ovv at the gage was caused by the miner's use of water for sluicing operations' The Falls Creek recorder was discontinued in the winter of 1982-83. All recorded data (May 1982 - October 1982) are contained in the December 1982 data report by R&M. Some additional information obtained from local sources pertaining to ntreamf|ow/ characteristics is summarized in Section Grant Lake Climatological Data. In the original plan of study, a dam at the outlet of Grant Lake and a saddle dam in the vicinity of the portage trail were proposed. Wind data for design of these dame was needed; thus, a mechanical recording weather station was established near the site of the larger dam. Besides wind speed and direction, the station also records temperature and rainfall. 2-1 Grant Lake Ice Thickness Measurements. Measurements were made monthly / through the winter of 1881-82 and periodically during the winter of |� l y_-__are_- s7.uppkamented: by� additiUnai�n{easuicenleotsc�nrade .--by 1 --paroonne|—from- -the --Arctic--Environmental_ -Information -`and-Data_Center [/\E|DC). `} Snow Surveys. Determination of monthly snow depth and density were made at a site| north-northwest from the outlet of G Lake Elevation. Measurements of lake level fluctuations both at Grant Lake and Trail Lake were made on a monthly basis during- maintenance' trips � _throughout the --year, Lake. beve] at -Trail Lake was measured on a staff Ba8a at the railroad bridge between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes and is } � � vation at this point is provided by a section of the lake appropriately named "The Narrows", which is located at the mouth of Grant Creak' ' Lake level at Grant Lake was measured near the outlet of the lake. It is referenced to a temporary benchmark that was assigned an arbitrary elevation of 10.00 feet' Hydraulic control for Grant Lake elevation is provided by a bedrock "spillway" into Grant Creek and is largely dependent on the amount of debris stacked up at this point. Figure 3.6'1 shows a fairly godd correlation between Grant Lake stage and Grant Creek f low. 2-2 rl/yS 3.lGRANT CREEK 8TREAMFLDWDATA Location - Lat. 60027'25", long. 149021'15", on left bank 0.3 mile upstream from/ mouth, 0.8 mile downstream from Grant Lake, and 2.3 miles south of k4uosa Pass. Establishment - August 26, 1947 by U.S.G.S. Reestablished April l, 1982 by R;�M Consultants for the Alaska Power Authority. Drainage Area - 44.2 square miles. Gage - Stevens F-1 recorder, ratio 1:5, in timber house and well. Recorder in referenced to inside staff gage. Well is connected to stream by two 2" _galvanized intake pipes. Bottom of well G.H' D.l ft Lower intake 0.3 Upper intake 1.8 Floor of House 0.H. 7.0 ft Instrument shelf 10.1 Elevation of gage zero is approximately 484'0 feet, mean sea level, from U8G3map "Grant Lake Dam Site". ^ . History - Prior to July l, 1952 vertical staff gage at site 500 ft down- stream at datum 7.23 ft lower. Continuous recorder September 1347 to September 1958, operated by U5G3. ` Channel and Control - The channel is composed of sand, Qnsve| and rook and will shift on high stages. Banks are relatively high and covered with vegetation and will not overflow except at extreme high stages. Channel is straight for several hundred feet above and below the gage' Flow is turbulent and fast. 3-1 The extreme |ovv water control is a riffle just below the gage, and the | control for higher flows is a series of riffles. During most winters the control will remain open except for shoreice. / Discharge Measurements - Wading and ice measurements are made in the � vicinity of the gage, medium and high stage measurements are made from the oa6|avvay located just below the gage. Weights and reel mount are left at the gage. The 6| is a 3/4" G x 7 wire ' adm down cable oar. Length of span, 65 ft. Fair measurements can be made. 1� Point of Zero 8ovv - -0.5 fttoO.1 ft, shifting. Winter Flow - There will be some ice affect during the winter period, and Regulation and Diversion - No artificial regulation or diversion, but dis- charge will be affected by natural storage in Grant Lake 0.8 mile upstream and by a few glaciers and snow field at head of Grant Creek Basin. Accuracy - Fair records can be obtained. Reference and Bench Marks - R[N-1 is top of head of spike driven hori- zontally in 12" cottonwood tree. Tree is on left bank 20 ft upstream from gage vve||. Spike is 2 ft above ground line and on downstream face of RP-1 is point on instrument shelf at float tape gage. G.H. 10.11 ft' U 3-2 TABLE 3.I.1 GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) Water Year October 1982 to September 1983 Oct. 1982 Nov' 1982 Dec. I982 Jan. 1983 Feb. 1983 Mar. 1983 _ GB O GB O GD U GH D CB D Day ft cfa f t cfo ft cfo f t cfe tt cfn f t cfo I e+ 260 1.03 103 0.98 94 2 - 1.04 104 0,97 92 3 - I.02 I01 0,98 94 4 - 1.65 lDS I.00 97 S ~ 1.05 105 1.07 108 6 - 1.03 103 1.13 120 7 - 1.02 lOI I.12 I18 8 - 1.82 101 1.09 ill 9 - 1.01 99 I.07 108 IO - 1.00 97 I.07 108 11 - 0.98 94 1.04 104 12 - 0.97 92 1.02 101 13 - 0.97 92 0.99 96 14 - 0.96 91 0.97 92 IS - 0.95 90 0.95 90 16 - 0.94 89 0.94 89 17 - 0.93 87 0,99 96 18 - 0.92 86 1.04 104 19 - 0.91 84 1.08 1I0 20 - 0.9I 84 1.07 108 21 - 0.87 77 1.06 ++ 106 46 22 - 0.87 77 1.04 104 23 - 0.86 76 1.03 ' ** 103 IO 24 - 0,86 76 1.02 lUI 25 - 0.88 80 1.00 97 26 - 0.94 89 e+ 96 27 - 1,02 101 a* 95 28 1.05 I05 1.02 I01 e* 94 29 I'04 I04 1.0I 99 e* 93 30 1.03 I03 0,99 96 e+ 92 31 I.02 101 e+ 91 Tot - 2780 3112 Avg - 93 I00 Max - 105 120 Min - 77 90 *o = estimated. No gage records. ** = Discharge measurement made this date. 3-3 _ TABLE 3.1.1 (Cont.) _ GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) Water Year October 1982 to September 1983 Apr. 1983 May 1983 June 1983 July 1983, Aug. 1983. Sep. 1983 GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs 1 1.03 96 3.05. 512""3.14 535 2.69"--` 422 2.17 303 2 1.10 107 3.07 517 3.13 533 2.70 424 2.14 297 3 1.15 114 2.99 496 3.07 517 2.72 429 2.07 282 4 1.18 119 2.87 466 3.03 507 2.80 449 1.97 261 5 1.18 119 2.73 432 3.04 509' 2.83 456 1.81 229 6 1.19 120 2.65 412 3.02 504 2.91 476 1.67 203 7 1.17 117 2.65 412 2.00 499 2.91 476 1.56 182 ---- -g-- -- ----- -- -1 18- 119 -2.68- 419---2-:9-8 ---- 494 2..9-6------489 - ---9---------- - _._------1. -21- -12-3 2- 69 -- 42-2- ----- 3.09 -5 22---2-: 9 8"----- 10 1.24 128 2.76 439 3.12 530 2.93 481 1.43 160 11 1.25 130 2.76 439 3.07 517 2.85 461 1.41 156 12 1.27 133 2.72 429 3.01 501 2.78 444 1.37 149 13 1.30 138 2.70 424 2.97 491 2.71 427 1.35 146 I 14 1.35 146 2.72 429 2.96 489 2.62 405 1.36 165 15 1.41 156 2.75 436 -2.95 486 2.52 382 1.36 148 16 1.47 166 2.73 432 2.94 484 2.46 368 1.33 143 17 1.52 175 2.73 432 2.95 486 2.40 354 1.30 138 18 1.57 184 274 434 2.95 486 2.36 345 1.27 133 19 1.57 184 2.80 449 2.92 479 2.32 336 1.29 136 20 1.56 182 2.84 459 2.88 469 2.28 327 1.34 144 21 1.57 184 2.83 456 2.84 459 2.26 323 1.40 154 22 1.62 193 2.84 459 2.80 449 2.28 327 1.44 161 23 1.65 199 2.87 466 2.74 434 2.27 325 1.42 158 24 1.64 197 2.91 476 2.70 424 2.26 323 1.39 153 25 1.63 195 2.96 489 -2.67 417 2.24 318 1.35 146 26 0.80 65 1.63 195 3.03 507 2.63 407 2.25 320 1.33 143 27 0.84 70 1.63 195 3.08 519 2.64 410 2.26 323 1.30 138 28 0.88 80 1.63 195 3.10 525 2.68 419 2.26 323 1.28 135 29 0.93 87 1.70 208 3.10 525 2.73 432 2.25 320 1.29 136 30 0.97 92 2.10 288 3.12 530 2.74 434 2.24 318 1.30 138 31 2.70 424 2.72 429 2.20 310 Tot 5229 13842 14752 11975 5178 Avg 169 461 476 386 173 Max 288 530 535 494 303 Min 96 412 407 310 135 i 3-4 TABLE 3.1.1 (cont.) GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) Water Year October 1983 to September 1984 Oct. 1983 Nov. 1983 Dec. 1983 Jan. 1984 Feb. 1984 Mar. 1984 GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs 1 1.29 136 1.12 110 1.30 138 2 1.28 135 1.14 113 1.32 141 3 1.27 133 1.17 117 1.31 140 4 1.25 130 1.15 114 1.27 133 5 1.23 127 1.14 113 1.24 128 6 1.20 122 1.13 111 1.20 122 7 1.17 117 1.13 111 1.16 116 8 1.15 114 1.14 113 9 1.14 113 1.14 113 10 1.17 117 1.21 124 11 1.26 131 1.24 128 12 1.31 139. 1.24 128 13 1.31 139 1.21 124 14 1.29 136 1.18 119 15 1.27 133 1.17 117 16 1.25 130 1.14 113 17 1.23 127 1.13 111 18 1.24 128 1.09 105 19 1.24 128 1.07 102 20 1.21 123 1.04 98 21 1.23 127 1.02 95 22 1.27 133 1.01 94 23 1.28 135 1.00 92 24 1.27 133 0.98 89 25 1.24 128 0.97 88 26 1.21 123 0.96 87 27 1.19 120 0.94 84 28 1.20 122 0.97 88 29 1.18 119 1.03 96 30 1.16 116 1.24 128 31 1.14 113 Tot 3806 3235 Avg 123 108 Max 139 128 Min 113 84 3-5 - r1/y TABLE 3.1.2 WATER TEMPERATURES - AT GAGING STATION GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS Date Temperature (°C) 11-24-82 1.9 01-21-83 1.8 03-23-83 2.7 05-17-83 5.5 06-16-83 8.7 —07=08=83—------- -- 12-5 08-05-83 13.5 09-01-83 11.5 10-03-83 7.0 11-04-83 4.4 12-07-83 3.0 on Ell t7 77 1 it 7i M7,17 -.1 --771 It I 11; 11 1 1: 1! H I MI, 1HLl I It F- HHHHH - tl -T GOA1J. C(ZCL= . . ....... 7 J-- 7 tj t 0 C1.6 an. bES1 CMD I , FIGURE 3-1-1 1 DWG, NO. CKD: CONSULTA SCALE: OWN. M.- --aTs, INC. STAGE RECORDER CHA-RTS,, CK D: GRANT CREEK DATE: PROJ. NO 151182 APPEIr NEAR MOOSE PASS PRID• FILE NEWSWIRE I REMOVE --- ■ME MMMMM mmn/=■nam ERNE ■ ERNE UNEVEN ME n//nm ■MEN MEN MINIMENNI imm MEMBER WHEN Mill MEN ■nlRBREMEN lip 11 im KENN EVER MEMBER ------ on�//mmm 111111111111111011 SEEM NNW immam�� ]MENNEN Oxon REMEMBER AmmummoMmmommmmm MENNEN WERE no Ill mossumomm mossm MMME Ed MEMMEN m ii NINE! DES: CD -C \A .r FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) _DWG.. NO. CKD: R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,- SCALE: DWN: ...... ........ ... DATE: GRANT CREEK CKD PROJ NO, 161182 ,APPD: NEAR MOOSE PASS GRID: FILE. ME own ME ME I milli Will MEN on so now NORMINOWN EMS NEVER mw WOMMINEM MOMIN ROOM EXIMMIRM MENUMMY 9 SOMEONE! NOWW. !MBMFA M HIM MOVIRMS sommus somnnm INHERE! HE so anou"EMEMORMEM ■MENEM Imm■■non ME "Mmussumm 0 ME —onsminnoom Noun I on so a MROM ME HMO "MENNEN BONHOM Ell HOWIE! DES �I I FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) I WNO.- CKO: R&M CONSULTANTS, . INCSTAGE RECORDER CHARTS, SCALE: OWN: DATE: CK D: GRANT CREEK, PROJ. NO. 151182 APPD: NEAR MOOSE PASS JGRID: FILE: ID-1 I VIEW Von mom ME- so ME MOVIES MEMERM mannammms■MW MOM nm'� ■ mom MOM SOMEONE Sol on 001 in MMMMISMI onnumom sums SOMEMMIR ■M lassm m mom in MOMME BE smoson�mm mamm moms= 0 MOROSE SIMMERS MMl OEM SOMME" 0 aRN 0 mom _ ` ■■ N■ ■ MIMES so MISS! ME■ONSIMEW moomm son momIll umm 0 mosommumn mom on a MEMO= MMMIJIM---■ iaR■■H#aaa 1211 ME mom 0 M 5 MOM ME OSIMBEEMS ME sma■mm MWOMMM mom SOME IWOMMOMI ■ ME DES: FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) DWG NO. CKD: R&M CONSULTANTS, INt STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,' SCALE: DWN. ..... ... DATE: CKD: GRANT CREEK PROJ.NO. 151182 APPD: HEAR MOOSE PASS GRID: FILE; N��■■nrs■mn■■a ■i n ■ m t ■ /■■■n■■n■■■t■m aurr■u■u■■■■o■ m nn■■n■■n■■■n■n nn■■nnnr no n■■■■u ■m■r■u■■■t■nMMEX rtrw■ ■irtt n■waw■t trr■r■wtsU■w tn■nr■■■n !/i■■■■■■■N/■t■ttt/■■■■Ni /■ti■■t■■N tr■ti■i■Ntn■■■■■/inr trit///■r■tn■rttNt■rt!■Nrt !n■unu■r■■n■n■■n■n■■ ■n■■nn■■ Ems �■ ■■■�i!■ m ■�oo■rrn■ ww■m��■s aw■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEwmit�■■■!■u■t■ nn■■ ■N■uram a�annn ■■ ■■ ■n■n■ nn■■■■■n■■■no ■nn■■n■n■■■a■n■■n■■s■■ ■n■n■n■■■n■■!n■■n a tn■w■n n ee■e �n n■■nuwr■■un■■nan■ a■■t®■■■sn■n■n ■■■M ■ ®Nrir■■tr twr■■u■�iintn■i■�iA '■� ■■■n■nn■■nnn ■n■ r■■■■■ lWlm ■iit�tit■■■■Nnti■■Qtr■ ■ i■■a■■■■ �n■■u■Nw Ni ■ �■t■u■■■■■■/■■■tr■■■m■n tt■■u!■■w nnnnnn ■■ons■0111011111121 -. - ■u■■woirn w■■■ii■i�■■■■u■■■■n■■nu■ ■■■ ■n nn■� t/■'t ■ ■■ms R■t■/t ■ ■n nn■■■■■w■ i■ ■ ■■ a ■irii i ■nn■ a a■uaatuan■■■■r■g t 'a■■■a �fau■w CONSULTANT FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) RECORDERMW MUM MOOSENEAR ,. , ui mom ■ MI Mill MR I ""a 1111111111110011111 MEMBER MMMMOMM'" III IM Mill --MMM Houma MENE„mns MMM■ HMMMMI as a ff �-- ■ MIME Will DES: o o FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) DWG. NO. CK D: R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,- SCALE: OWN: ......... .......... ....... DATE: CKDt GRANT CREEK PROJ.NO. 151182 APPD: NEAR MOOSE PASS GRID; FILE: 'DES . r, pi is 'KD: TSC OWN CKO aPCID CM= -FIGURE 3-1-2 . DWG NO !!aM CONSULTANTS,.. INC. STAGE -DISCHARGE RATING CURVE SCALE: .... ......... . __ ... . DATE: /2-23- GRANT CREEK PROJ NO 151182 NEAR MOOSE PASS GRID E �5 | 3.2 NOTES ON FALLS CREEK WINTER 3TREAMFLOW 1 In late January some research was performed--- charac- teristics - - - --- -- - - teristiuy of winter f|ovva in Falls Creek. Sincenowinter gaging hasbeen � done on this creek, data were limited to observations made by local resi- dents. Their comments are as follows, with the dates of contact noted: ' rea /cum-a_s-ma.U_amou.o-t_a -----------------bpidge,---Sinoe'-'mininQ--diversion�--no—vvint*sr--f|nvv--obs,srVed--at----------�-- / bridge. Looked at upstream part of Creek in January or February of 1982. Thera was a small trickle of water under the ~ � ice at the mouth of the canyon, but this disappeared into the � mining gravels." - bridge, looking for water, in March 1982. No f|ovv' Flew' upper basin. Do not recall any f|bw, although once yavv a pool of open ' ' water up above the fal|o." 1-28-83 Tim Pf|um, Seward City cn'g/nee- r, resident f area: "Estimated 10-12 cfo at bridge after recent heavy rainfall. Has been flow- ing pretty much all winter but at a very much reduced level." Mote: The period preceding this observation was unseasonably � ( warm' | |. 1-28-83 Ron 0uiUam, local resident: "Recalls that one of neighbors, who has since moved away, made use of water from creek and com- plained last year when mining activities dried up the creek / downstream of the mine." 2-1-83 Emy Merritt, 40-year resident of area: "Most of her neighbors and she herself recall winter flow in Creek but very little and | | only when it in warm or raining. Hna chief looks at once in a while for use in fire fighting. He has determined that winter - | f|ovvy are not usable." ' 3-18 � � rl/y 3.3 GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA Location - SEA, Section G, T4N, KlE, Seward Meridian. At south end of Grant Lake' Altitude 810feet from U.3.G.S. topographic map Seward (B-7)' Establishment - December 8, 1981 by R&M Consultants, Inc. for Alaska Power Authority. Type of Station' - Meteorology Research, Inc. Mechanical Weather Station. Parameters measured are temperature, rainfall, wind speed and wind direction. Instruments are located 10 feet above the ground on a peninsu- la projecting into the lake which is about lOfeet above the lake surface. Data Notes ' 1 No record. Data not rec6rded or determined unreliable. 2' Blank entries in rainfall tables indicate zero rainfall (except as noted in winter months, where there are no data at all). 3. & day begins and ends at24OO hours' 4' Temperature is reported to nearest loC' Maximum and minimum temperatures are the highest and lowest readings for the day. Daily average temperature is the average of the maximum and minimum. K4nnth|y average is the mean of all the daily averages. 5' Rainfall is reported to nearest 0.2 mm [and converted to nearest 0.1 inches]. G' Wind speed is reported to nearest 1 nm/soo (except October 1982, which is to 0.1 m/sec). The duration for the reported daily maximum generally exceeded 1-2 hours. 3-lQ rl/y 7. Wind direction is related to true north. Direction is reported to nearest 30 degrees, except that water year 1982 values were estimated - to the nearest 10 or 15 degrees. A plus (+) -sign -after -monthly Value - - -denotes that -the. monthly ma-ximum speed- was -recorded -from- more than one direction. 8. Precipitation data for Lawing at Crown Point, a U.S.F.S. fire weather data station. located a few miles from Grant Lake,_are also available.______________ --- ----- . _ ------- ..... - ------ .. _-_---- - _.---- _. .-_ _- ..__._.. - ------ _ _-.__. ----- —' -- `---------- 3-20 rl/fl8 TABLE3.3.l GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA DATA SUMMARY December 1981 to November 1983 Wind Temperature, 'C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Month Max.Min. �- � Avq. =-�_^� _!��L !�!�Z�� m/sen De �� 1grees Dec. 1981 - - - - - ll 30+ Jan. 1982 - - - - - ll 75 Feb. 1982 8 -26 -12.1 - - ll 80 Mar. 1982 5M ' -l7 M � -4.2 - - K4 [y K8 GO Apr. 1982 9 -18 -2.5 - - 11 GD May 1982 13 M -8' � 2.2 M K4 �G.T l . l M � 8' 70+ M June 1982 � �3 K8 2^ � 9.(f - - K8 1l 75' K4 July 1982 25 2 11.G 45.2K4 1.78 M ^ l� -~ K4 Aug. 1882 24 5 12.8 38.2 1.50 7 30 Dep. 1982 18 O 8.8 - - 8 45 Oct. 1382 lO -14 -0.2 .51.0 2.01 8 100+ Nov. 1982 7 M -lS K4 -l.1 M45.O 1.77 10 60 Dec. 1982 G -20 -1.5 121.4 4.78 ll 30+ Jan. 1983 7 -25 -5'3 - - ll 60+ Feb. 1983 8 M -4 K4 2.4 M - - 14 90 Mar. 1983 � 9 -l3 � � 0.6 - . - K4 ll K8 80 Apr. 1983 16 -9 3.1 1.0 M 0.04 M 8 30+ May 1983 20 -2 7.2 58.8 2.32 lO 60+ June 1983 25 2 11.4 108.8 4.29 11 SO July 1983 28 5 13.9 33.8 1.33 8 SO+ Aug. 1983 27 3 12.6 45.4 1.79 8 SO Sep. 1883 18 -4 7.5 39.4 1.55 11 30 Oct. 1983 ll -5 2.4 81.0 3.19 8 90+ Nov. 1983 O -1 1,7 73,0 3.11 14 M bU JN Period of Record Maximum 28 14 80-30 Minimum -26 NOTE: "K4" after a value indicates a portion of the monthly record was 3-21 r1/f19 TABLE 3.3.2 GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (OCTOBER 1982) _ Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction -----Min-. -Avg_,-----mm--l-nches------m/-sec.- D.eg-r-ees----------- 1 10.0 1.0 5.5 2.8 90 ! 2 8.0 2.0 5.0 .6 .02 1.4 90 - 3 7.0 1.0 4.0 .2 .01 4.2 90 4 7.0 -1.0 3.0 2.8, 0 5 5.0 -2.0 1.5 4.2 90 6 3.0 1.0 2.0 5.6 90 7 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 .04 1.4 180 9 3.0 1.0 2.0 6.2 .24 2.1 90 10 4.0 -1.0 1.5 0.2 .01 4.2 90 ` 11 6.0 -2.0 2.0 .1.8 .07 8.3 0 12 8.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 .24 2.1 350 13 4.0 2.0 3.0 7.8 .31 4.2 80 14 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.4 .13 0.6 220 15 _ 3.0- -2.0 0.5 0.8 _03 _ 5.6- 90 16 3.0 "-1.0 1.0 7.0 .28 2.1 110 17 5.0 2.0 3.5 7.0 .28 8.3 110 18 5.0 -2.0 1.5 2.8 45 19 4.0 2.0 3.0 6.4' .25 5.6 80 20 3.0 0.0 1.5 4.2 60 i 21 0.0 -4.0 -2.0 5.6 105 22 -2.0 -5.0 -3.5 4.2 80 23 -3.0 -8.0 -5.5 4.2 45 24 -3.0 -10.0 -6.5 2.8 310 25 -1.0 -10.0 -5.5 4.2 60 .26 -5.0 -7.0 -6.0 8.3 100 27 -5.0 -10.0 -7.5 8.3- 100 28 -2.0 -8.0 -5.0 2.1 300 29 1.0 -4.0 -1.5 4.2 100 30 -3.0 -13.0 -8.0 5.6 90 31 4.0 -14.0 -5.0 5.6 100 Monthly Max. 10.0 51.0 2.01 8.3 100+ Monthly Min. -14.0 Monthly Avg. -0.2 3-22 TABLE3.3.2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (NOVEK88ER 1982) Temperature ^C Date Rainfall mm Inches Wind Max. Speed Direction m/sec. Degrees l 4 U 2.0 .8 .03 8 60 2 2 -4 -l'O 1 135 3 O -5 -2.5 - - 4 1 0 0.5 - 5 4 1 2.5 l 330 G 2 -2 0.0 - - 7 -2 -10 -G.O - - 8 2 -2 -0.5 l 220 8 3 -5 -l.O G 80 10 2 -8 -3.0 l 220 ll 4 -1 -1,5 l 30 12 G l 3.5 33.8 1.32 4 330 13 5 2 3.5 5.6 0.22 1 250 14 4 l 2.5 2 240 15 3 -1 1.0 2 50 lG -1 -7 -4.0 l 60 17 -8 -14 -11.0 - - 18 -70 -lS -13.0 - - 19-24 7 O - � - - 25 4 7 5.5 2.2 0.09 S 360 26 G 3 4.5 2.8 0,11 lO GO 27 5 -3 1.0 l 240 28 -1 -4 -2.5 l 240 29 O -4 -2.0 l 90 30 -1 -9 -5.0 7 90 Monthly Max. 7 45.0 1.77 10 GO Monthly Min. -lG Monthly Avg. -1 . l � Recorder chart did not advance properly between 11/19 and l l/24. The maximum and minimum temperatures for the 6-day period were 7oC and 0oC, respectively. _. _r1/f21 TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY _ (DECEMBER 1982) _ Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. _Min . Av_g_ mm___I_n.c.h.es_.- -m/-sec-.-- Deg -gees --- --- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _8____ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 -10 -13 -12 -14 -14 -20 2 -19 4 2 5 0 1 0 -1-1- 0 -1 6 -1 6 2 5 0 3 0 4 0 5 1 5* 1 1 -2 -2 -4 3 -2 3 0 3 -9 -7 -9 -6- -9 -4 -6 -4 -7 4 -4 4 1 6 2 5 0 -3 0 5 -2 Monthly Maximum 6 Monthly Minimum -20 Monthly Average -11.5 6 90 -14.0 6 90 -17.0 1 240 -8.5 8 60 3.0 5.0 0.20 8 60 2.5 13.2 0.52 11 30 0.5 11.8 0.46 11 30 - 1 .. 0- 8-8 0.35 - j- -- 21-0- -0.5 0 2.5 3.4 0.13 11 60 4.0 .1.8 0.07 8 60 2.5 1.2 0.05 6 30 1.5 6 30 2.0 9.0 0.35 2 30 3.0 31.0 1.22 4 360 3.0 4.6 0.18 8 30 -0.5 1 240 -3.0 1 240 0.5 8 30 1.5 0.4 0.02 6 60 -3.0 6 60 -8.0 1 240 -7.5 1 240 -5.0 1 240 -5.5 1 240 0.0 3.4 0.13 8 60 2.5 13.8 0.54 8 60 4.0 3.0 0.12 11 30 2.5 11.0 0.43 6 360 -1.5 1 210 1.5 4- 60 121.4 4.78 11 30+ -1.5 3-24 TABLED.3'2 [conLj GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLYSUMMARY (JANUAR`/ 1983) Wind Temperature vC Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avq' mm� |n�h��m/sec. Degrees l G 2 4.0 No winter 8 80 2 5 1 3.0 Data 4 330 3 3 -3 0.0 3 80 4 . -4 -12 -8.0 G 60 5 -12 -17 -14.5 l 210 G -14 -lG -15.0 G 80 7 -14 -17 -15.5 8 90 8 -17 -20 -18.5 8 90 S -19 -24 -21.5 8 GO lO -17 -25 -21.0 8 90 ll -12 -22 -17.0 6 90 12 -14 -15 -74.5 O SO 13 -12 -15 -13.5 1 240 14 -7 -15 -ll.O l 240 15 5 -7 -1.0 11 60 lG l -2 0.5 l 240 17 -1 -2 -1.5 0 - 18 5 -1 2.0 ll 80 lS O O 0.0 ' l 240 20 2 0 1.0 8 60 21 4 -3 0'5 8 30 22 4 -14 -5.0 0 240 23 -5 -15 -lO.O l 240 24 3 -8 -2.5 8 60 25 7 -2 2.5 ll 30 26 5 2 3.5 8 30 27 5 0 2.5 G 30 28 3 O 1.5 l 240 29 0 -1 -0.5 D 240 30 5 -1 2.0 ll GO 31 5 l 3.0 Monthly Maximum 7 ll 60+ Monthly Minimum -25 Monthly Average -5.3 TABLE3.3.2 (cont.) ) � GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA —M[)N7-HL>/cS-QKUK4/\RY�-�-- - - - --(FEBRi/A,R\'l883) � ) Win | d Date Temperature 'C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Max. Min. —Avg.— mm Inches m/--s-ec, ---P-eq.r-ees— 1 5 l 3.0 No winter G 30 \ 2 4 2 3'0 Data l 240 3 4 l 2.5' G 30 1 4 5 2 3.5 ^ 30 5 2 O 1.0 ! 30 / G ��- = - - 3 740 7 - - - l | 270 | ( Monthly K4auinnuno O 14 90 | � Monthly Minimum -4 � Monthly /\varaQa 2'4* / > � No data from 2/6-2/17. Temperature sensor iced up' Temperature |eyo / than O"C' Monthly average computed from available data. 3-2G TABLE3.3'2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (MARCH 1983) Temperature oC Rainfall Max. Speed Data Max. --- Min.Avg.nilm --' | --- -------- --~- 9O l 2 -G -2.0 No winter 2 60 270 2 -2 -lO -8 Q Data ' 8 740 D 1 -13 -G' Q l �'- 30 4 4 -G -1 0 ' l 7�O 5 5 -4 0.5 1 �'- 90 G G -7 -D � ' 2 �4O 7 3 -lO -3' 5 1 �'- 740 Q 4 -11 -3' 5 l �'- 7�0 9 3 -12 -4' 5 l �'- 740 lO ' 4 -8 -2 � ' l ��- GO ll 7 -5 1.0 l 30 12 D 0 4.0 11 90 13' 9 3 6.0 S - 14 S O 4'5 7 - 15 - - - - lG 17 - 18 _ 19 ~ 20 - - - - - 21 - - - - 22 - - - - -' 270 23 G 0 3.0 - ' ] 30 24 G -1 2.5 - � . 2 go 25 4 -2 1.0 - 8 �M `~ - 28 7 7 4.5 - . 8 6�) 27 G 2 - 4.0 8 30 28 5 0 2.5 - G 90 29 7 - 2 - ' 2 5 G 2-JO 30 S -4 2.5 - 7 31 8 -1 3.5 - 4 GO Monthly Maximum 9m - 11 Monthly Minimum -13w Monthly Average O.G* � Computed from available data. 3-27 r1 /f25 _ TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ; MONTHLY SUMMARY (A-P R I L 1983 ) Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg. __ mm _ Inches_ Deg_r_ee.s________________ 1 7 -3 2.0 - - 6 I 60 2 11 -5 3.0 - - 1 0 3 6 -4 1.0 - - 8 30 4 6 1 3.5 - - 1 270 I 5 7 -3 2.0 - - 1 240 6 12 -5 3.5 - - 1 90 7 7 -8 -0.5 - - 3 90 _. 8 8 -4 2-.-0 - ___ - _ 3._- 90 9 5 -3 1.0 - - 6 90 10 6 -8 -1.0 - - 4 90 11 7 -9 -1.0 - - 8 90 12 6 -1 2.5 - - 1 300 13 5 -2 1.5 - - 1 240 14 7 -2 2.5 - - 3 240 I 15 5 0 2.5 - - 6 16 7 0 3.5 - - 1 _60 240 ' 17 7 -2 2.5 - - 3 240 18 5 -1 2.0 - - 7 30 19 6 -3 1.5 - - 2 90 20 9 -2 3.5 - - 6 90 21 6 2 4.0 - - 6 30 22 9 1 5.0 - - 2 330 23 10 -1 4.5 - - 1 240 ( 24 15 -3 6.0 - - 6 90 1 25 16 -1 7.5 - - 4 240 -26 13 -2 5.5 - - 4 90. 27 14 -2 6.0 4 90 28 11 -1 5.0 0.2 0.01 1 120 29 8 2 5.0 0.8 0.03 4 90 30 13 0 6.5 6 90 Monthly Maximum 16 1.0 0.04 8 30+ Monthly Minimum -9 Monthly Average 3.1 ow rl/f2G TABLE3'3.2 [cont.Y GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (MAY 1983) Temperature oC RainfallDirection Date Max. Min. A«o' n�n� Inches Deg rees 1 14 -2 8.0 3.2 0.13 3 240 2 7 O 3.5 17'0 0.67 l 90 3 8 -2 3.0 15.0 0.59 4 90 4 8 l 4.5 3 240 5 7 2 4'5 4 30 G 8 -1 3.5 G GO 7 15 -2 6.5 3 GU 8 15 0 7'5 0.2 0'01 l 60 9 ll O 5'5 G SU lO 9 2 5'5 8 SO 11 g 4 6'5 M GO 12 ll 4 7.5 8 90 13 ' 14 3 8'5 8 90 14 14 4 9.0 3 270 15 12 5 8'5 10 SO 16 S G 7'5 0.2 0.01 lO 30 17 ll 3 7.0 l 270 18 8 0 4.0 0.6 0.02 G 30 19 18 -2 8.0 ' 2 30 20 20 O 10.0 3 270 21 10 4 7.0 3.8 0.15 l 240 22 20 3 7.0 l'S 0.06 l 270 23 8 3 6.0 8 30 24 7 4 6.0 0.8 0.03 7 30 25 14 3 9.0 0.6 0.02 2 240 26 11 4 8.0 0.2 0.01 G 60 27 8 G 7.0 0.4 0.02 4 30 28 14 7 11,0 1.0 0.04 7 90 29 16 8 12.0 1.0 0.04 7 GO 30 17 7 12.0 10'8 0.42 lO 80 / 31 12 7 10.0 2.4 0.09 G 30 Monthly Maximum 20 Monthly Minimum -2 Monthly Average 7.2 58.8 2.32 W11 SE _r1/f27 TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY _ (JUNE 1983) _ Wind , Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date _ Max;., Min. A.....vg._ mm Inches m/sec. _ Degrees _ 1 12 3 7.5 0.4 0.02 3 240 2 15 2 8.5 1 240 3 12 5 8.5 3 240 4 15 4 9.5 2 240 5 20 4 12.0 4 90 6 21 4 12.5 2 60 7 18 3 10.5 3 270 - 8 _-2-2 3 1-2-.-5 -- -- 3 2-7-0 9 17 3 10.0 96.0 3.78 4 90 10 16 4 10.0 3 270 11 13 3 8.0 6 60 12 12 7 9.5 0.2 0.01 8 60 13 15 7 11.0 6 90 a 14 14 6 10.0 0.2 0.01 6 60 15 16 6 11.0 1.6 0.06 2 240 16 18 5 11.5 1 30 17 23 5 14.0 2 360 18 25 5 15.0 3 210 .19 18 7 12.5 2 240 20 15 6 10.5 6 60 t, 21 19 8 13.5 4 60 22 22 6 14.0 3 210 23 16 7 11.5 2 240 24 20 8 14.0 11 90 25 - 19 5 12.0 0.4 0.02 3 240 26 14 9 11.5 3.0 0.12 4 30 27 16 9 12.5 4 60 28 15 10 12.5 2.0 0.08 8 30 29 13 11 12.0 4.8 0.19 6 30 30 20 9 14.5 0.2 0.01 3 30 Monthly Maximum 25 108.8 4.29 11 90 Monthly Minimum 2 Monthly Average 11.4 j 3-30 TABLE 3.3.2 [contJ GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY Wind Temperature oC Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min.4vo. mnn Inches- Deg l 18 11 14.5 2 240 2 22 8 15.0 3 240 3 28 G 17.0 3 240 4 19 7 13.0 3 240 5 20 8 14'0 2 360 G 15 8 11.5 1 210 7 20 lO 15.0 2 240 8 lG 8 12.0 9.6 0.38 O GO 8 20 6 13'0 3.2 0.13 8 30 10 18 8 12.0 4 30 ll lD 8 9.0 ' 11.8 0.46 l 240 12 18 8 13'0 0.8 0.02 l 240 13 lG G 11'0 4.0 0.16 3 240 14 24 10 17.0 0.2 0.01 3 270 15 25 7 16.0 3 270 16 25 13 19.0 4 90 17 20 10 15.0 G 80 18 18 8 13.0 0.2 0.01 3 90 18 19 10 14.5 1.2' 0.05 2 240 20 20 8 14.0 1 210 21 20 8 14.0 2 270 22 23 5 14.0 3 270 23 15 ll 13.0 3.0 0.12 l 30 24 20 G 13.0 3 210 25 20 G 13.0 l 240 26 22 G 14.0 1 240 27 24 7 15.5 4 90 28 20 8 14'0 6 BO 29 18 13 15.5 G 60 30 lO 18 14.0 6 60 31 18 S 12.0 2 90 Monthly Maximum 38 33.8 1.33 8 .60+ Monthly Minimum 5 Monthly Average 13.9 3-31 r1 /f29 _. TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA _ MONTHLY SUMMARY _ (AUGUST 1.9.83) I Wind Temperature °C Rainfall Max. -Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec. Degrees 1 20 10 15 0.2 0.01 1 240 2 20 12 16 4 90 3 27 8 17 3 90 4 15 11 13 2.0 - 0.08 1 210 I 5 15 10 12.5 4 360 6 18 10 14 0.8 0.03 1 270 7 16 10 13 6.6 0.26 1 240 I 8 14 10 12 3.0 0.12 1 240 9 17 7 12 1.4 0.06 1 240 10 20 6 13 1 240 11 21 6 13.5 .1.0 0.04 3 240 12 19 7 13 3 240 13 15 7 11.5 2.4 0.09 2 360 14 15 5 10 4.0 0.16 4 360 15 18 4 11 2.8 0.11 4 60 16 19 3 11 0.2 0.01 1 240 _ 17 15 3 9 4.4 0.17 6 90 18 20 6 13 3 90 19 23 5 14 3 270 20 16 6 11 3 240 21 11 8 9.5 15.0 0.59 1 270 22 17 9 13 0.2 0.01 1 240 23 16 10 13 1.4 0.06 1 240 24 17 7 12 2 90 25 10 7 13.5 4 90 26 15 7 11 8 90 27 20 6 13 4 90 28 20 6 13 1 270 29 17 11 14 1 270 30 16 6 11 1 270 31 19 5 12 1 270 Monthly Maximum 27 45.4 1.79 8 90 Monthly Minimum 3 i Monthly Average 12.6 3-32 l-ABLE3.3.2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (SEPl[EK4BER 1983) Temperature nC RainfallWind ion -'---- Date Max.Speed �� �� ����- --�� ��EI�� Deg rees l 13 8 10.5 2 17 5 11 0.2 0.01 3 60 3 12 G S 0.6 0.02 4 60 4 14 8 17 0.2 0.01 G 90 5 15 G 15.5 4 90 8 15 1 8 S 90 7 18 0 S 2 SO G 12 2 7 0.6 0'02 1 240 8 76 8 12 2 SU 10 lG 5 10.5 2 SO ll ll 5 8 2 SO 12 15 5 lO l 240 13 13 8 10.5 3.8 0.15 8 60 14 10 2 S 9.6 0.38 G SO 15 12 0 G l 240 lG 14 -2 G 3 90 17 18 -2 7 0.2 0'01 l 240 18 10 0 5 4.0 0.16 7 30 19 10 7 8.5 2.2' 0.09 ll 30 20 10 7 8.5 3.0 U.72 2 GO 21 10 5 7.5 6.0 0'24 G 300 22 14 5 9.5 4.2 0.16 S 90 23 5 0 2.5 G SO 24 O -2 -1 4 30 25 4 -3 0.5 G 90 26 8 -4 2 G 80 l/ 7 -3 2 4 60 28 10 4 7 l 240 29 14 4 g 3.8 0.15 8 60 30 12 2 7 1.0 0.04 1 180 Monthly Maximum 18 38.4 1.55 ll 30 Monthly Minimum -4 Monthly Average 7.5 r1/f31 TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.) i GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA _ MONTHLY SUMMARY _ (OCTOBER 1983) j, Wind t Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed Direction Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches_ m/sec. Degrees 1 8 0 4 1.2 0.05 6 60 I 2 10 7 8.5 8 30 3 8 5 6.5 6 60 4 10 5 7.5 6 60 5 10 -2 4 6 60 6 11 -2 4.5 0.4 0.02 2 210 7 7 3 5 4 60 (' 8 _ 5 2 3- 5 -- --6- 60 9 5 -3 1 7 90 10 0 -1 -0.5 4.8 0.19 1 210 j 11 5 1 3 36.0 1.42 1 210 12 3 0 1.5 9.2 0.36 3 210 13 5 0 2.5 0.2 0.01 1 240 14 5 -3 1 0.2 0.01 1 60 15 4 -5 -0.5 0.2 0.01 1 240 16 6 0 3 8 90 17 5 0 2.5 8 60 1 18 8 4 6 3.2 0.13 6 260 19 8 -2 3 0.4- 0.02 3 360 20 4 -3 0.5 1 60 21 5 0 2.5 2.6 0.10 1 240 (' 22 5 3 4 15.4 0.61 6 360 23 5 -1 2 4.0 0.16 6 60 24 3 0 1.5 1.2 0.05 3 150 25 0 0 0 6 90 26 0 -2 -1 6 90 27 0 -5 -2.5 4 90 28 0 0 0 2.0 0.08 8 90 29 2 0 1 6 60 30 3 0 1.5 1 240 31, 3 -3 0 1 240 Monthly Maximum 11 81.0 3.19 8 90+ Monthly Minimum -5 Monthly Average 2.4 3-34 rl/f32 TABLE3.3.2 (cont.) GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA MONTHLY SUMMARY (N[A/EMBER 1983) Temperature 'C Rainfall � Date Max. Min. Avq. mm |nchos ��� 1 O -1 0.5 2 O -1 2.5 3 5 0 2.5 4 5 O 2'5 5 0 O 0.0 6 0 -1 -0'5 7 O 5 2'5 3.2 0.13 8 G 2 4.0 3'0 0.12 8 7 2 4'5 7'0 0.28 lO 5 2 3.5 9.6 0.38 11 5 0 2'5 12 l -1 O'O 0.2 0.01 13 0 O 0'0 14 0 O 0.0 15 5 -7 2.0 3.0 0.12 16* 0 -1 -0.5 17 U O 0.0 18 O O 0.0 18 0 -1 -0.5 ' 20 4 -1 1.5 3.2 0.13 21 3 l 2.0 10.8 0.42 22 2 U 1.0 1'6 0.06 23 l O 0.5 0.2 0.01 24 2 1 1.5 25 3 O 1.5 26 l 0 0.5 27 5 O 2.5 28 8 2 5 7.2 0.28 29 8 4 6 10.6 0.42 30 5 2 3.5 19.4 0.78 Monthly Maximum 8 79.0 3.11 Monthly Minimum -1 Monthly Average 1.7 Wind Max. Speed Direction l 240 2 360 2 360 4 90 4 GO l 270 7 SO 8 SO 8 60 8 30 1 240 1 240 l 240 l 240 4 230 l 150 _ 8 - 30 8 60 l 270 4 SO G 90 8 GO l 270 7 60 14 60 14 60 ll 30 3-35 3.4 ICE THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS AT GRANT LAKE Measured on lower Grant Lake. i Date Thickness (inches) 1-27-83 12 (measured by AEIDC) 3-23-83 22 r 4-16-83 Lower Lake completely open _ I i 3-36 3.5 SNOW SURVEY DATA Snow depth and water content are measured at a site about 4-mile north- northwest from the outlet of Grant Lake. Average Date Depth (inches) 1-21-83 23.6 3-23-83 25.5 Average Water Content (inches) 7.1 9.8 3-37 � 3.8 LAKE ELEVATION DATA Mean Daily Discharge Grant Lake Elevation Trail Lake / Grant Creek (faet, (feet, Elevation [Date __arb.xdatum l 2 3 - / -- 00-26-81 - ��-- ���� .4 - '- -6gG'U _ - - - <' 01-09-89 43 5.0 691.7 \ - . 01-30-82 22 4.0 691'3 - ( 03-04-82 30 4.8 691.5 - / 07-05-82 365 6.8 693.5 - 07-13-82 466 - - 466.87 7 0/-30-82 514 7.2 893,9 467.23 � 08-01-82 284 - - 465.99 10-28-82 105 - - ' 483'73 | 72-21-82 lOS - 892.3~ - 03-23-83 18 4.0 G90.7 4G2.94 ' 04-26-83 85 4.7 691.4 ^ 463.79 05-17-83 175 - - 485.39 > OG-l6-83 432 S.G 633.3 � | 466.66 ' 07-08-83 494 7.4 694.1 467.27 O8-O5-83 456 7.0 693.7 467.12 / 09-01-83 303 - - 465.84- 10-03-83 133 5.5 692.2 484.48 ! ' 11-04-83 114 5.3 692.0 464.00 12-07-83 llG 5.4 692.1 463.70 \ . (l) Stage is related to T8K4 'Rock', top of rock point at north end of peninsula on which weather station is located. Assumed elevation is 10.00 feet. / (2) Computed from relationship between Grant Lake stage and Grant / Creek discharge on 12-21-82, date of lake survey. (3) Trail Lake elevations observed on staff gage on railroad bridge ( located at Moose Pass (between Upper Trail Lake and Lower Trail ! Lake. (4) Elevation determined photogrammetrica||y. (�) Elevation ` obtained by R�� survey crew near proposed power tunnel | outlet, approximately 2 miles |^` down lake from RR bridge. (6) Elevation obtained by R&M survey crew during lake outlet survey' Site is closer to outlet than other observation site. i � 3-38 i \ r —........ _... _...__.. cr .. m Ln O tl jigtl .. _.. __...... .._.._...... 4 u 00 n � . .... ,T 2 -- :..._. _... _..---- ..—.__..... ° _. - _—.._� ... __ _... ..__.._ -• t!1 :'. _' ..: Ill i Y- ' r1 t tY x C4 a tJ a N t"1 p o) QO h 1.0 to FIGURE 3-6-1 DWG NO CKD: J"C A&M CONSULTANTS, NC. SCALE: C4 PPD' KD •�•�•.•. •..................,.a„ GRANT CREEK DISCHARGE'vs DATE: 12-23-83 Ko GRANT LAKE STAGE PRDJ NO 181182 ' GRID: FILE. 1!- 41 *.'.'�:'.:' LEGEND ...... .... -ACCESS ROAD Z7 PIPELINE SCALE Il-1000 -------- TUNNEL j DATUM MSL —-TRANSMISSION LINE SEWARD- ANCHORAGE HIGHWAY a REEK ON NOTES TOPOGRAPHY PREPARED BY NORTH PACIFIC AERIAL SURVEYS, INC., NOVEMBER 1981. 1000 0 1000 SCALE Cl . ! "'!if / 11 1 f 1 11 1 FALLS CREEK DIVERSION DAM LOCATED 1.9 Mi. TO THE SOUTH OF GRANT LAKE PART VII RESERVOIR AREA -CAPACITY$ FLOOD HYDROLOGY, AND.*OUTLET RATING DATA TECHNICAL APPENDIX PART VII RESERVOIR AREA - CAPACITY, FLOOD HYDROLOGY AND OUTLET RATING DATA LIST'OF*TABLES Table No. 'Title VII - 1 RESERVOIR AREA - CAPACITY CURVE DATA VIII - 2 OUTLET RATING DATA VII - 3 FLOOD HYDROLOGY DATA TABLE VII -1 RESERVOIR AREA - CAPACITY CURVE DATA Reservoir Elevation Reservoir Area Reservoir Volume (Acres) (Acre -Ft) 640 1,390 164,000 7-7 �000 660 1,480 192,000 670 1,530 206,000 680 ..1,570 222,000 690 1,640 240,000 700 1,710 254,000 710 1,800 272,000 720 1,880 286,000 Note: Data obtained from Figure IV-14 of Volume I TABLE VII - 2 OUTLET RATING DATA. Water Surface ' Natural Outlet Discharge Elevation 690 O 692 250 694 850 696 1,700 698 3,000 70] 5,000 702 8»7OO 704 13,000 706 18,000 a « a W NO` me, rtMID •Od HF.>•C N-0In-Oi Na• -0MO 0-0M No a a Q a• m mmn-0-0.D .O .a In tortrt MMNNHH 00 oT aa 4 F O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O C• O oO al a%M a, a• T a a H rrrrrFhFnrrrrrhrrFrrnrhr.D.a.a-0.D�D a « p w • d 4 p W rtOM PNNM H M xO�OMd MU1 P Hd M G..-/.00 OQ•.�.-10 .D a 4 Q lao PI` •• P.{7-0D`Or.roC S-0to O -0mF mlan-0Pd.Onr P M P K mM C`a+mW In U)M MM•+rt H O C U)mr HO MO n 0, In NM o a • O m11Gh Ga SMGIn D••MtClrtT a, rC o tnr+FM PIrN T-0 « ._. 4 0-.....O 'D o o P tC. n-F--�a .D 11 an P P..M..M..M-N N .•.._ «... N __la _.D _.D.•O lO _ta -0 d o..0 1a .a .tl u7 .a IIt In_in. u'I.Uf In Ii'1 tO In Ufti'f.It1. Ina'1 U)_ a_____.. • N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N • i • a. 7o —s.r •• • e u• la aa, NF« o o• rt• h• • NensN4rm ae n•-In• • • • M• In -a -a- • J N.•NU)mh OOM MNO.aHNF H HO P Sa.O m OP4 -0 4r a • LL ra`ina;HInht(' O NMSH:nC -0 �DFOF, FH\aN C.h d No m. a } H h 01."1 oa,a wWF.a U'IM HO C.Dm F.a J]U7 :n UfT o-d dM a 4 O N NNNNN HH.-1 HHH HHH- « P O a i a � • O -M m Slfl •OF m a•O HNM d 11'I-0 r a• V. O.•NM P Owt.- W MM w « a woola000 a.anhFhhhFhhFtt xmmm mmmaGmm a o p w O = O O G O O O O7 O O O O O O O G O O O G O O O O a O O G 0 0 tl r cc NM T n.v l-r, 1 O.�.VMOH NM P Ino ha: a�0.•+NM a = •••Hr. iH HHH N N NNO G O tJ O ZI HHHHHHHH w a 2 a r O p • a Q M M M M M M M M M M M M P d rt S d rt S S P Q d d d P d d S d • a a O P p 4 ■ P • p a} a p} p■ tl♦ w w p P p Y p w b• p• w a P P w w p p« a• i « ■ 4 a ♦ w W W) In OMn HNM IC.F H S UI .Cn CN.O C NICHa -0M Cr- HS H p • a LC • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a } a Q hh 1"x a`m T a1 a a• a, 0o c• O<•O HH ••I NNM z SIt''Il7h x P w a p H o a• a, a` a' o a a• o O` o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a p m .D.D.D.D.n.r.oa.D.a.DFrrrFrFhFhhhhFhFrFn r w a • a, w q N a « 4 ♦ W mMcO� U1HM •'•-0M S`nMFN �: C.D Ino S -0'D SMfor o'", N a Q.' • O • a: • YM p « O } w 0 2 V' OIA'1 Sr SF « } -4 -0•DHOh SM•m-0 P T Hx a M r S tJ H h N NrL•L'�T ICO.+ 10 1 (D w w K U1N4 C HIn-010M••H O.L+N.+M ccc N S.Dr mm a M HSa Ir a om • S o..1 OT Q Z a a O OS F Hh S c Mto a Nx M S.D a H.0 NF Nm a,s cHMNa- a w or r T 00• • • N O c ♦') .+ N M M M M d S If u) :n In .D s F F a tC a. •' N M P S a' m ` U) C` N O` •D /"i } • Ul U) in In U'1 i!'1 in U) In to in N 11'i :n U•i •P e) Ut U) U) to In In In -0 o D -0 o .a -0 •" r 2 • N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cV N N N N N N N N N N N N N p m m a M � = w o ♦ _. p h 4 O In tnHG M.•�H TF NmF-0 W -INO SOa 0x HIn OI!')C, SC P a '� • Q a J r-0 CC yl N en U) S.T o S" F C H V I,ma.P L'7a 0In C`MMN p W �i } /- • IL aD F C a+ N h ••+ M S -0 a` M c[ C CI P r Ml Cr S G a N -0 v, ••• a: G' M `G P �'.) U) -0 Q :L I I• -`I O tl Jl 6 h NNN :J Mi M, S S S S 1'1 ..:1 �' F I -a x C` G tV S .. F In F t p c x. 0 • 4 7• ^- .L F F--I J F--q } 4 O HHHH HNNN p N 0 O C Z•tc Q 7M a H O tl J I h 0 �D 0 1 C. I.-1 O� a Q p « U. N S • M 1- CJ a U Cv H �"�" • = w O H NM SIn ot.=P oHNM d U:.Ch W c IN Ma In lG r.W C O • li C% N V:hIn t h U-1 cmcy- a o. w C In M M In P. M M'. In on S rt P S S aP rt S d X, to In in U`In In L')II: In p I= W N Iz �J I ► W } Q • O 4 V e; co= ( b . w 4 : If �.f� a t� p Z 0 0 f. 0 0` O 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G O G G O O C C c+ O W w L' . .� W 4. O O O O O G. O O O f 1 O C Y O!] a• G O f' 0 0 0 G• 0 0 !'9 a-O a .? W F- Q=. a c a Y J. hm C.OH NM S Is o-m a c'I HNMc. �NF Sr oi- cc• ? a CD 4. G a S MCI. G H H H H H H- H r• - IV N cJ N O. O G O I' V C G O •-• .•• ♦ Y i 0 • u a+ a s } T. r • =2S.c 11 2.C' 2.2 •� Q(.i..•. � i Hon `. 1 F - i . } S } IS p U-17% ♦ IS z' P�• •v = a•F x c J a a Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N) M M M M M M M M W, M M x N Q « a o « 2- 'A W C •+Mtnr ^J MLI m.-tS.:, of OH S ra•.+N o2 a,HNSI— o w M• • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • + + • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ S. O • 5 ♦ Y ^� « i Q H•+HH HNN NN NMM MIn S S S S S U) U` Un In In In r• p =FO -0 ... C; 1• 1- a1a a•ama%a O•a•a a•ma.C•Ca Ma1a`a a•a.a•TCa,a CTO\ b 1 NOU) 1 a, 1 p a VI o d ICtC 10 0 Z Z .L IC-0 Z15 o J: 0 %,) tG +a IL D W ID 4 D N: -0 o o .D w J) C • a .c x .a C �' a p w J': N a• r a w I • C. 'a • tun, U N =o.Dn Sr P.D oU7 M •r a•C•.GO ar PFH�.� Nh1/+r...4 p ■ hl Q G NO.O In 10s w)H W a`IV a•Mn .0 NOD r: P alai a Ln c"3 SM r a Y C o Na FHIn U)NG W Glnd a M a` N a+Fa a, o PH 04 -0a HO p •*� } O O N S I•. H :1'1 a NSF H ,1) C .• S •� 0 4 at c N 0 P.nl .D 'a .-• S L In p N V 1- « M 1- O �. O.••H HN c•f.MMM PS SU+U". Lim 40 'r h t_c : a • W i. LL ■ tl N S rt rt S rt S S P S d Q S P S P P d S S P J d rt S P rt S P S S w U S I a m N N N N N N N N N N N N N c u rj N N N t V N N N N N N N N N N r •• V U _ P 4 M 2 V p • -J OMmC Ia Hr m D•.al.-. NIzC'MF S M a.d S M HttF h mH a a J: -0M..•..IM U)N a�F FOHmS N HdInU)•'IOtC mT.•C C P p w S W H N M P Uf d .0 r m I'• H H h 1'I S ;IT v] F F T 4: a G H N N Y'• U) a p •p H H H H H •-, H r H H •+ .-. NNN Ch N fV « a • o.i � i~ w • i I k HtYO M 20 �a O 4 p O HNM rttn .On mO• o•rNM PU:-0F mC r_ HNM 4- U).Or S C• O w HHH•'• •'•H H H HHNN NNN NNN N NM « .D I r• } O p I • • Z' O G O M O G J Q Q 0 Oct O G G O O O C, •- O O O.C: O f... O O C p a I` a } O O IN n 0 0 G O M a 0 0 0 G O 0 0 W G O O O c O O O O O O « V 0 { } } C G HNMSin V)h a•a O•••NM P U) 'C F tT C n HNMc HCJM St1'/ w :a a th r } y C C 0 0 0 c• o G tJ H •+ •.• H H, H ••I H H •• N N N N C c C C n C ♦ O 1- • I ^ ++ a a I I p J •+N C H-0 V, Ls 1•- + B' } S• tl X t. F U C• Y IL O cli a b +L H H H- H•• r H H H H H H H H H H H H HHH •• 1 H H N h N N N N tl W • : m O, Q ++ N W I • CL W CL 4 4. ..PART Vlll �Ef.Y C RESP 1, 1 t a � s:. I 1 - TECHNICAL APPENDIX PART VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS Group Contents 1. ADF&G letter of comment on April 1980 Feasibility Assessment 2. Special Use Permit Application, October 1981 3. Distribution of Interim Report 4. Special Use Permit, 1982 5. Special Use Permit for Cultural Resources, 1982 6. Correspondence Relating to Application for Special Cultural Resource Use Permit 7. Distribution of Field Study Plan and Request for Comment 8. Agency Comments on Field Study Plan and Interim Report 9. Letter Report of June 8, 1982 Meeting with USFS 10. Distribution of July 9 Meeting Minutes and Request for Comments 11. Agency Comments on July 9 Meeting Minutes 12. Distribution of August 17 Meeting Report and Request for Next Meeting 13. Distribution of August 17 Meeting Minutes 14. Distribution of November 10 Meeting Minutes 15. Distribution of Draft Feasibility Study Report 16. Agency Comments on Draft Report GROUP 1 ADF&G LETTER OF COMMENT OF APRIL-1980 FEASBILITY ASSESSMENT E O r L SN A r s. immivw, GovicRfifoR DEPAIMMENT OF FISH A IND G,%.VUE 333 RASPBERRY ROAD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 September 3, 1981 Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Ave., Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Attention: Robert Mohn, Director of Engineering Gentlemen: Re: Grant Lake Hydropower Feasibility Assessment . April, 1980 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Grant Lake Feasibility Assessment and submits the following comments. Page 3-4, para 7 The statement that Falls Creek is to cold to support salmon rearing is contradicted later in the report (page 6-7, para 3). Reference is made to a Fish and Wildlife Service fry survey in which king salmon fry were captured in I the lower 200 yards of Falls Creek. In addition, apparent lack of spawning use in a stream reach does not imply that it is unsuitable for rearing. We are also of the opinion that lack of salmon spawning in Falls Creek has not been definitely established. With respect to the statement that diversion of Falls Creek waters is not expected to cause a great problem does not consider that relatively small (1-2°C) changes in stream thermal regimes may significantly affect incubation rates of salmonids causing early or late fry emergence with increased mortalities. Even though diversion water will mix or sink, we expect there will be a net decrease in Grant Creek water temperatures. 11-K7LH -2- 9/3/81 6-6, para 2 We support further investigations with respect to changes in thermal regimes and the feasibility of reducing the magnitude of these changes if it appears that related impacts will be significant. :age 6-7, para 8 We support the concept of additional detailed studies of anadromous and resident fisheries resources of Grant and Falls Creeks. In addition, the Department supports the concept ofonsite-rfiiti-gat-fidn rather than OfTS1te Page 6-8, Table 6-4, Grant Creek Stream Surveys Department staff has ascertained that salmonid spawning is not limited to the lower 1/4 mile of.Grant Creek but occurs throughout the lower 3/4 mile. A 1976 Alaska Department of Fish and Game survey enumerated 70 king salmon distributed within the lower 3/4 miles. Page 6-10, para 1, 2, and 3 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is not formally involved in a'five year cooperative study with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study habitat enhancement burns. With respect to mitigation, our greatest concern is in what manner inundated moose winter range can be compensated for. The winter range to be affected is probably one of the limiting factors for moose that inhabit the area. Mitigation must address replacement of this loss. Page A-4, para 1 Inundation of moose winter range could eliminate or severely depress moose populations in the project area. Page A-6, para I The Anadromous Fish Act (AS 16.05.870) is a State statute and requires authorization from Alaska Department of Fish and Game only. The Department is concerned that the preferred alternative (Grant Lake -Falls Creek) may severely impact fisheries and wildlife resources within the project area and suggests that further investigation be conducted to determine means and methods to best maintain existing resources. a R. Mohn -3- 9/3/81 F1 If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact US. Sincerely, Carl M. Yanagawa Regional Superv_izcLr BY: ThbT�Js J.Arfbinski Regional Lands Specialist ,Habitat Division (907) 344-0541 cc: S. Eide A. Kingsbury R. Redick D. Daisy D. Watsjold T. McHenry T. Spraker S. Logan EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 10800 NE 8th Street, Bellevue, WA 98004, (206) 453-6060 October 15, 1981 ENW-GRANT-L-81-002 Alaska Power Authority 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Attn: Mr. Eric Marchegiani SUBJECT: 'GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Dear Eric: Slill�_,Slcc) Transmitted herewith is a draft letter from the Power Authority to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game which responds to their letter dated September 3, 1981. Please send us a copy of the letter sent to the Department of Fish and Game on the Power Authority's letter- head for our files. If you have any questions or comments, please give me or Wayne Pietz a call. Very truly yours, EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED Don K. Smith Project Manager DKS: jm attachment I bcc: J.''Straubergs Lawley 5.0. Simmons J.A. Franco DRAFT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY LETTERHEAD Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa,.Regional Supervisor Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99502 SUBJECT: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Dear Mr. Yanagawa: This letter is in response to your letter of September 3, 1981 in which you provided comments on the Grant Lake Hydropower Feasibility Assessment Report, dated April, 1980, which was prepared for the City of Seward. The Power Authority is currently conducting a detailed feasibility analysis of the proposed Grant Lake Project. This study will include the field and office investigations required to assess the engineering, environmental and economic feasibility of the project. The results of the study will provide the basis for a decision on whether an application will be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to construct and operate the project. The feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in December, 1982. We have provided a copy of your letter to our contractor for this study, Ebasco Services Incorporated. Ebasco is currently developing a detailed study plan for assessing the fish and wildlife resources in the project area and the impact of the proposed project on the resources. This fall, Ebasco and the Power Authority will meet with ADF&G to describe the proposed study plan, respond to the comments in your September 3 letter, and to solicit further comments and recommendations on the proposed study plan. We will be in contact with you in the next several weeks to arrange for meeting with you. -2- The Power Authority appreciates your interest in the Grant Lake Project and looks forward to working with you during the feasibility study. Should you have any questions, please contact us. The project manager on our staff for the Grant Lake Project is Eric Marchegiani who can be reached at 276-0001. Very truly yours, SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, OCTOBER 1981 r L UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska. 99508 Alaska Power Authority Attn: Eric Yould 334 West Fifth Avenue - Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: I have received your application for a special use permit to conduct engineering studies near Grant Lake for a power project. By virtue of this letter, you are authorized to conduct those investigations as specified in your application and attachment A, Figures I and 2. A copy of those attachments is enclosed. This authority will end at the conclusion of this field season. Prior to the 1982 field season, please contact Ranger Geof Wilson at Seward to develop an operating plan for that season's activities. Please be guided by the follo'wing stipulations: 1. Remove photo control panel, if used, at conclusion of 1981 operations. 2. Lop and scatter brush to less than 241, high during clearing for helipads or grid lines. 3. All refuse generated by your operation should be packed out currently and deposited in an approved sanitary landfill. I understand your contractor on this project will be EBASCO Services, Incorporated. The Forest Service Liaison Officer will be Ron Quilliam of the Seward Ranger District. Please notify us of your field representative's name, address and phone number. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Y G. BEAL Forest Supervisor cc: Seward R.D. w/enc. Ron Quilliam Form Approved OMB No. 40—R3495 United States Department of Agriculture 0. Record no. (1.2) b. Region (3.4) C. Forest (5.6) Forest Service SPECIAL USE APPLICATION AND REPORT 0 u.i 7 0 — (Reference FSM 2712) n uj d. District (7-8) a. User number (9-12) F. Kind of use (13-15) uj This report is authorized by the Organic Act of June 4, 189 7 for the purpose of evaluating the proposed use and no permit '51d- nless this form is completed or the informs. 1 W 9' State (16.17) It. County (1.8-20) It. Card No. (21) " tion it require- has been -node a part of the record in some other manner. PART I - APPLICATION (To be completed by applicant) Application is hereby made for a permit to use National Forest land as *indicated below: 1. Description of land: (Attach YAP or PLAT) Rl-E-,----T4N-,-- Sec..1 Iq RlE, 175N, Sec. 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 if ZE RAI, 6,7 2. Purpose of use. The purpose of the'use of Forest Service lands is -to performcertainfield investiga- tions in 1981 for the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. These investigations will 'assess' the viability of constructing the proposed project. Field investigations are also anticipated in 1982; however, application for permission to perform these investigations will be made in 1982. The activities proposed for 1981 include surveying, geotechnical investigations, hydrological data collection, and environmental sampling. A dbtailed description of each of these activities is provided on Attachment l__ "A", and shown on Figures 1 and 2.. 3. Land Area applied for (For Rights -of -Way show length and width and convert to acres, for other uses show acres) (Miles) or Length in: X Width (Feet) (Feet) (Acres) require or the proposed investigations 4. Improvement, tures requ include a gage a. Description house near the outlet of Falls Creek and a shelter for the climatological station at the outlet of Grant Lake. The approximate location of these structures is shown on Figure 1. The gage house -will be a standpipe structure (constructed of corrugated metal pipe, which will be located on the bank and a second pipe will be placed in the streambed of Falls Creek. The climatological station at the outlet area will consist of a small metal shelter mounted on a post. These structures shall be constructed to resist wind and snow loads experienced in the area. It is anticipated that both structures will remain in place through 1981. b. Plans attached My as � No. If "NO." show date plans will be furnished c. Estimated cost d. Construction will begin within (Months a. Construction will be completed within (Months) Date of Application Applicants name and signature Applicant's address 334 West Fifth Avenue ldl7loal Eric Yould Anchorage, Alaska Alaska Power Authority 99501 (ZIP Code) Previous edition of this form is obsolete (OVER) FS-7700.3 (11,181 Attachment A 1 . Surveying and Mapping Surveying and mapping activities will include performance of ground control surveys and possible temporary placement of photo control panels. The ground control surveys will required minor brushing to facilitate surveying the location of existing features. Ground control surveys will also include placement of a staked grid at the outlet of Grant Lake. This grid will consits of stakes placed 200 feet apart over an approximate area of 1,000 by 1,000-feet. Brushing and cutting of trees will be required to provide lines of sight between the stakes. Temporary placement of approximately 15 photo control panels may be required, depending on the weather experienced during the remainder 1981. The panels would be approximately 2411 x 361 and would be located as shown of Figure 1. If required, the panels would be placed during October 1981 and removed by the end of 1981. No roads will be required for placement of the panels. Only minimal brushing activities are anticipated at the location of the panels. 2. Hydrologic Data Collection Streamflow gages will be installed on Grant Creek and Falls Creek in October 1981. The locations of these gages are shown on Figure 2. The gage on Grant Creek will be installed in the existing gage house which originally housed a USGS streamgage. The gage on , Falls Creek will be placed in a new gage house located within k mile upstream of the mouth. A weather station (precipitation and windspeed) will also be installed at. the outlet of Grant Lake. r27/hl L. t The new structures required are discussed in Section 4 of the Permit Application. 3. Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical field investigations planed for 1981 include geologic mapping, core drilling and augering. Geologic mapping requires only walkover activities with no ground disturbance. Core drilling, to be performed near the -proposes! dam and spillway sites at the south end of Grant Lake, will utilize a helicopter transportable drill rig on a hydraulically leveling base. Two core holes are planned for the 1981 investigations. To provide helicopter access to each drill site it will be necessary to clear an area approximately 150 feet in diameter, sufficient to allow adequate clearance for the helicopter and safe conditions for the ground crew. .___.Auger. drlling_activities in the proposed Saddle Dam, penstock and powerhouse areas will be initiated with hand transportable equip- ment resulting in minimal ground disturbance. If subsurface conditions necessitate more extensive exploration, a larger drill rig will be placed at each drill site by a helicopter. This option requires clearing at each site as described above. Auger hole locations are shown on Figure 1. Absorbent pads will be available on the drill rigs at all times for use in controling minor fuel and oil leaks. All waste products generated by the drill site activities will be cleared from the sites at the completion of drilling. r27/h2 4. Environmental Studies Studies will be conducted as needed to identify and describe the fisheries, wildlife, and water quality of the project area. These studies will be performed by.. boat, airplane, helicopter, and on foot at Grant Lake, Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and . Vagt Creek. Field sampling will involve the use of gill nets, minnow traps, beach seines, electroshockers, hook and line, Ekman dredges, and Surber samplers. Sampling will be done during October, November and December of 1981. In order to conduct the field studies, investigators will be flown to sampling sites. Since these studies will be primarily on Grant Lake, flight patterns will be as shown in the attached map, (Figure 1) and those flights between Grant Lake and Lower Trail Lake, will cross the land mass separtating the two lakes. Timing of flights and flight patternswill be arranged to avoid wildlife concentration or high -use areas. r27/h3 ,� ''� I � �I a � � � .,� , �a W � - U �a C i� >� �L V � �Sy �i w v Ar, � \ 11` �i _� � � L � y, � Q�� .. i � rymj o Ilr1 Q ''9, . h ,�. , ... , � .� � : r 'i • 1 C i 1 •i• i March 15, 1982 Fir. John Katz Commissioner Department of Natural Resources Pouch P. Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Com—nissiorer Katz-. EFASCO Services, Inc., has been ennaced by the Alaska Po:-rer Authority to complete a feasibility enalysis of the Crant Lalr Hydroelectric Proi, ct. In conjunction with our contract requirerxmnts they have completed an interim report (2. volumes). This report was intended as an internal document which would he used for reaching an early decision on proiPct arrengement; therrfort, only a limited rurber of copies have bpen published. Please rote that this report is not a feasibility report. This spring, sum r, and fa11 Will be utilized to collect additional envirnnr:ental, goolonic, hydrologic, and other engineering, data. This information will he incorporated into the draft feasibility report which is projer•ted to be distributed in November 152.2, for review. I will forward a copy of this report (2 velurFs) to your staff for. their use. cc: Mr. Don Srith, EBA.SCO Mr. Reed Stoops, Div. of Research & Development w/enclosure Sircerrly, Eric P. Yould Executive Director ` DISTRIBUTION OF LETTER Mr. John Katz Commissioner Department Of Natural Resources Pouch N Juneau, Alaska 99811 CC: Mr. Don Smith, E8A3CO Mr. Reed Stoops, Div. Of Research & D9Ygp/t, w/8ttCh, Mr, Robert McVey Director Alaska Region National Marine and Fisheries P.O. Box 1558 Juneau, Alaska 99802 C[: Don Smith, EBA3CO Brad Smith, Nat'l Marine and Fisheries, AnCh. Mr' Keith Schreiner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 10I Anchorage, Alaska 99501 C[: Don Smith,E8ASC0 MS. Mary Lynn Nation, U.3. Fish & Wildlife Service, w/2n[lU3ur2 The Honorable Ernst Mueller Commissioner Department Of Environmental CnnYervotion Pouch O JVne.au, Alaska 9981I Cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBA3CO Mr. Bob Martin, Dept, Of Environmental Conservation, N'2nC]OsUr2 Mr. [lay G. Beal Forest Supervisor U.S. Department Of Agriculture Forest Service 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 CC: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. GeDf Wilson, District Ranger, w/encic5urp Mr. Clarence E. Johnson City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Tom Small, City of Seward, Light & Power Division, w/enclosure _ Mr. Thomas Kolaninski General Manager Chugach Electric Association, Inc. P.O. Box 3518 An-cho-ra-ge-,--_A1_a.ska ___-995-0-1_- -_ __.------- _-----------_-._ ________---- ___._-------_--- _------- cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Larry Markely, Chugach El. Assoc., w/enclosure The Honorable Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish & Game S u b p o-rt— Bu-i 1-d i-n g---------- - -- --- — --- Juneau, Alaska 99801 cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Thomas J. Arminski, AK Dept. of Fish & Game March 15, 198? Air. Kurt Dzinich Hydro Developmnt Specialist Alaska Senate Research Agency Pouch V Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Per. Dzinich: EPASCC� Services, Inc_,, has beer. ennaced h'; the P1,askA Powr Authority to cor;plete a feasibility ar.alvsis of th:, Grent La!:e Hydroelectric Project. In con unction v ith our contract, they have completed 8n interim report. (2 volures). This report was infi€nded as an internal docu,:Pnt whic;j ! nt;ld be used for reaching an early decision on proicct arre_ngerien*, s fhAr:---C'or-, On v a limited nur^her of copies have been publ il*--d. Plea!;- not:: +h,, ` this report is not a feasibility report. This sprino, surr,,!�r, F-r! f,11 will bo utilizes' too collect o.editinnt�l envircrr-2n.tal, geolnoic, hvdrolocic, and other enoinenrinn data. This infe-,;!tinn will he incorporated into the draft feEsil,ility report which is pro?ecier Tn h.: distributed in Novena r•r 1082, for rLOFw. Sincerrl1 , Eric P. Yould Fxrcutivo rirr--ctor Attachment: As nrted. cc: Don Smith, EPASCO DISTRIBUTION! OF LETTER Mr. Kurt Dzinich Hydro Development Specialist Alaska Senate Research Agency Pouch V Juneau, -Alaska 99811 Mr. Cliff Judkins Crown Point Lodge Mosse Pass, Alaska 99631 The Honorable Stan Thompson Mayor of Kenai Peninsula Borough - -- --P_. 0.--Box-8-5-0 ------ -- Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Mr. Robert Cross Administrator Department -of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 3518 Anchorage, Alaska 99802 _------- --Mr : T-homas-_Mea-rs--------------- — Cook Inlet Aquaculture P.O. Box 850 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 GROUP 4 SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 1982 �. J I A SKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 March 31, 1982 Mr. Clay G. Beal, Forest Supervisor U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Chugach National Forest 2221 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 SUBJECT: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FIELD INVESTIGATIONS FOR GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Dear Mr. Beal: The Alaska Power Authority desires to perform certain field investigations in 1982 on Forest Service land at and around Grant Lake on the Kenai Peninsula. These field investigations are part of a study being conducted by the Power Authority which will assess the feasibility of constructing and operating the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. Enclosed please find the Special Use Permit Application which describes the field investigations planned for 1982. The field work planned for. 1982 is similar in scope to the work which was successfully performed in the fall of 1981 for the same study. The 1981 investigations were authorized by the Forest Service after a Special Use Permit -Application was submitted by the Power Authority in October, 1981. Our contractor for the execution of the planned investigations is Ebasco Services Incorporated. We will provide you with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals who will be directly responsible for the work prior to commencing field activities. Any questions regarding the attached material should be directed toward Eric Marchegiani, the Project Manager of the Grant Lake Study, of my staff. As indicated in the Application, our schedule calls for commencing work in May, 1982. We, therefore, respectfully request your timely review and processing of the Application. We thank you and all of the Forest Service staff who have assisted the Power Authority and Fbasco in the performance of the Grant Lake Feasibility Study to date, and we look forward to a continuation of this relationship. I Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director Attachments: as stated cc: Geof Wilson (w/attachments) Farm Approved OMS No. 40—it3493 United States Department of Acriculture y, 0. Record no. (1.2) b. Region (3-4) c. Forest (5-6) Forest Somas SPECIAL USE APPLICATION AND REPORT 7 0 (Reference FSM 2772) U, 4. District (7-8) a. User number (9-12) 1. Kind of use (13.15) V u0i - - - - I I This repo" is authorized by the Organic Act of June 4. 1897 For the purpose of evaluating the proposed use and no it W1 9. State (16-17) h. County (18-20) It. Card No. may 69 issued unless this form is completed or the informs. t; tion it requires has been made a part of the record in some UJ CA other manner. PART I - APPLICATION (To be completed by applicant) Application is hereby made for a permit to use National Forest land as indicated below. 1. Description of land: (Attach MAP or PLAT) RlW, T4N, Sec. 1, 12, 13 RlE, T4N, Sec. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19 RIE, T5N, Sec. 27,, 28,---2-9-,,--31-,---32-,--3-3-,--3-4-,-3-5-,--3-6- ----- --- --------- - ----- - - 2. Purpose of use. The purpose of the use of Forest Service lands.is*to perform certain field investigations in 1982 for the study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. These investigations are part of a feasibility study being conducted by the Alaska Power -Authority -which will as- sess the viability of constructing the proposed project. Similar field investigations were performed in the fall and winter of 1981, which were authorized by a Special Use Permit is- s-U-6-d--to----t-hePower Authority i'-from the —Forest Service on October. 8, 1981. The —activities pro- posed for 1982 include surveying, geotechnical investigations, hydrological data collection, and environmental sampling. A description of each of these activities is provided on At- tachment "A" and shown on Figure 1. 3. Land Area applied for (For Rights -of -Way show length and width and convert to acres; for other uses show acres) (:siss) or Length in: X Width -( (Feat) (Feed (Acres) 4. Improvements The only new structure required Tor'the proposed invMigations-is a st=m gage a. Description house near the outlet of Falls Creek. A stream gage will also be installed on Grant Creek and the existing USGS gage house on Grant Creek will be used for this purpose. The approximate location of these structures is shown on Figure 1. The gage house on Falls Creek will be a standpipe structure (constructed of corrugated metal pipe) which will be located on the bank of the stream, with a second pipe placed in the - streambed. The structure will be e constructed to resist wind and snow loads experienced in the area. It is anticipated that the gages on both Grant and Falls Creek will remain in place throuqh 1982. No access road construction will be required for any of the investigations. 6. Plans attached MYss No. If "NO" show date piano will be furnished c. Estimated cost 5 d. Construction will begin within to of Application I Applicants name and signature Eric Yould Alaska Power Authority (Months) 0- Construction will be completed within (Months) Applicant's address 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 (ZIP Code) Proviout edition of this Form is obsolat; (OVER) FS-2700.3 (11/78) ATTACHMENT A 1. Surveying and Mapping Surveying and mapping activities will include performance of miscellaneous ground surveys in the Project area and hydrographic (underwater soundings) surveys of Grant Lake. The ground -surveys will be performed by survey crews on foot and may require minor brushing to facilitate surveying activities. The principal activities will incude surveying the location of drill holes and seismic refraction lines. The hydrographic surveys will be conducted using boats. 2. Hydrologic Data Collection Continuous recording streamflow gages will be installed on Grant Creek and Falls Creek in May 1982. The location of these gages are shown on Figure 1. The gage on Grant Creek will be installed in the existing gage house which originally housed a USGS streamgage. The gage on Falls Creek will be placed in a new gage house located within one mile upstream of the mouth. The new structures required are described in Section 4 of the Permit Application. 3. Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical field investigations planned for 1982 are scheduled for May, June and July, and include geologic mapping, seismic refraction surveys, and core drilling. Geologic mapping requires only walkover activities with no disturbance to the existing terrain or vegetation. The seismic refraction surveys are performed to determine the depths to various subsurface velocity layers and specifically to the top of bedrock. The seismic survey lines are planned along the tunnel alignment and at the location of the proposed powerhouse and Falls Creek diversion dam. The seismic survey field crew consists of two or three persons, and the equipment is portable and can be packed into the site on foot. This equipment consists of electromagnetic geophones spaced at intervals along a geophone cable. This cable is coupled to a recording oscillograph which produces a photographic record of the seismic signals. Seismic energy is produced by the detonation of small, gelatin -based explosive charges. The charges are normally placed.at:both ends of each seismic line. The explosives are detonated one at a time using electrical blasting caps. Since the charge is very small, the danger and noise is minimal; however, care is taken to be sure the area is ---c-l-ea-r-of -peop-l-e-or—wi-l-d-1-i -f-e-pr-i-o-r--t-o-de-tona-t-i-on-.----Ve-r-y-mi-n-i-ma-1--,-one--to.---------- foot- -di-aaeter---l--oc-ai-1--,5Votbrus4i-ng-m-ay--be--re-qui-red to--pl-ace- some ----- ------- the geophones along the seismic lines. However, line -of -sight brushing is generally not required along the lines. Approximately 1200 feet of seismic survey work is planned for 1982. Core drilling of the proposed powerhouse site and along the proposed tunnel alignment will utilize a helicopter transportable drill rig on a hydraulically leveling base. I Four core holes are planned for the 1982 investigations. To provide access to each drill site ft will be necessary to clear an area approximately 50 feet in diameter, sufficient to allow adequate clearance for the helicopter and safe working conditions for the ground crew. Absorbent pads will be available on the drill rigs at all times for use in controlling minor fuel and oil leaks. All waste,products generated by the drill site activities will be cleared from the sites at the completion of drilling. No access road construction willbe required for the investigations. 4. Environmental Studies Studies will be conducted as needed to identify and describe the fisheries, wildlife, and water quality of the project area. These studies will be performed by boat, airplane, helicopter*, and on foot in Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek watersheds.. Fie.ld-.,samp ling 2 0600B will involve the use of gill nets, minnow traps, beach seines, electroshockers, hook and line, Ekman dredges, and Surber samplers. Sampling will be performed one or more times per month from May through August. Limited subsuf ace excavations, performed by hand, are planned for the investigation of archaeological resources in 1982. These investigations will be the subject of a separate permit application to the Forest Service (Antiquities Permit for Cultural Resources). 3 Fa L \ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE \J FOREST SERVICE Chugach N.F. Seward RD P.O. Box 275 Seward, AK 99664 Alaska Power Authority Attn: Eric Yould 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: ARCRIVED JQ04OB,% ALASKA Pows, AMOA" 2720 June 1, 1982 go I have received your application for a special use permit to conduct engineering studies near Grant Lake for a power project. By virtue of this letter, you are authorized to conduct those investigations as specified in your application and attachment A and figure 1. A copy of those attachments is enclosed. This authority will end at the conclusion of this field season. Prior to the 1983 field season, please contact us if additional field work will be required. Please be guided by the following stipulations: 1. Lop and scatter brush to less than 24" high during any clearing. 2. All refuse generated by your operation should be packed out currently and deposited in an approved sanitary landfill. 3. Notify us just prior to the beginning of the seismic and core drilling work. 4. Provide space available air transportation to the site for field inspections of your work. The pilot and aircraft needs to be Forest --Service approved. we understand you will be using Trail Lake Flying Service which is Forest Service approved. I understand your contractor on this project will be EBASCO Services, Incorporated. The Forest Service Liaison officer will be Ron Quillia-m of the Seward Ranger District. Please.notify us of your field rep- resentative's name, address and phone number. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, GE ILSON District Ranger Enclosure 6200-11 (1169) GROUP 5 SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES, 1982 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 May 5, 1982 Mr. Clay G. Beal Forest Supervisor Chugach National Forest 2221 East Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska, 99504 Dear Mr. Beal: Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 - The Alaska Power Authority wishes to apply for a permit to conduct an archaeological survey on National Forest land in the vicinity of Grant Lake on the Kenai Peninsula... The survey, which will include limited subsurface testing, will be conducted during the summer of 1982 as part of a feasibility study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have already submitted a separate Special Use Permit Application (by letter to you dated March 31, 1982) for the other required field work in 1982 for the Grant Lake Project studies. Enclosed please find: 1) Completed Form FS-2700-3, Special Use Application and Report; 2) Completed Form 4-2700-3, Application for Permit to Conduct Archaeological or Paleontological Explorations or Excavations upon Lands of the United States; 3) A vita of Katherine Arndt, the archaeologist who will be conducting the survey. We request your comments on the suitability of the methodology and scope of the proposed survey for identifying cultural resources which may be affected by the hydroelectric project. We understand that your staff will need to meet our archaeologist for this study prior to granting final approval of the permit. We request that your staff contact our archaeologist, Ms. Katherine Arndt, directly to arrange a meeting time and place. She can be reached at (907) 474-7050. Any questions regarding the attached material should be directed toward Eric Marchegiani, the Project Manager of the Grant Lake Study, of my staff. Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director cc: Don Smith Ebasco Services Incorporated (w/o enclosure) Form Approved OMB No. 40—R3495 United States Department of Agriculture a. Record no. (1-2) b. Region (3.4) e. Forest (5.6 Forest Service SPECIAL USE APPLICATION AND REPORT gl 7 — — — — — (Reference FSM 2712) 9 d. District (7-8) — — a. User number (9-12) — — — — f. Kind of use (13.15) — — — This report is authorised by the Organic Act of June 4, 1897 for the purpose of evaluating the proposed use and no permit may be Issued unless this form Is completed or the informo- g State {16-17) h. County (18.20) k. Cord No, (21) fion it requires has been made a part of the record in some other manner. , PART I APPLICATION (To be completed by applicant) Application is hereby mode for a permit to use National Forest land as indicated below: 1. Description of land: (Attach MAP or PLAT) R1W, T4N, Sec. 1, 12, 13 R1E, T4N, Sec. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19 R1E, 175N, Sec-' 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Survey area map is attached to survey plan included herewith. 2. Purpose of use. The purpose of the use of Forest Service and s i s to per or- m cuI tura i-- resources investigations in 1'982 for the study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. These investigations are part of a feasibility study and Federal Energy Regula- tory_Comm. license appl-ication being prepared by the Alaska Power Auth. which will assess the viability of constructing the proposed project. A preliminary survey of proposed drilling sites was conducted in Oct. 1981 under Forest Service special use permit 5560.01.� ---The-activi-ti-e-s--propo-sed-for 1-982-i-n-cl-ude-su-rveyi-ng-a-nd-a-ss-es-si-ng--a-r-chaeol-og-i-ca-1-- - -=- & historic resources, including field location & documentation of resources identified through literature search which may be impacted by project construction and archaeological I surface survey for previously unknown sites in areas to be affected by -project construe. A descrip. of these activities is provided in three attachments_ Completed Form 4-2700-3; 3. Land Area applied for (For Rights.o(-[Lay show length and width and convert to acres; for other uses show acres) _. (Miles) or . _. -._.. Length in: X Width (FeJ) (Feet) 4. Improvements a. Description None b. Plans attached D Yes L--] No. If "NO" show date plans will be furnished (Acres) c. Estimated cost d. Construction will begin within e. Construction will be completed within 5 (Months) (Months) Date of Application Applicants name and signature Applicant's address Eric Yould 334 West 5th Avenue Alaska Power Authority Anchoraqe, Alaska 99501 I (ZIP Code_) Previous edition of this form is obsolete (OVER) FS-2700-3 (11/78) UNITED STATES'DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE, CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR PALEONTOLOGICAL EXPLORATIONS OR EXCAVATIONS UPON LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES The Alaska Power Authority of 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 hereby applies for a permit under the provisions or June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431, 432, 433), Rules and Regulations of the Secretaries of Interior, War, approved December 28, 1906: e act approved and the Uniform Agriculture, and 1. To conduct preliminary archaeological or paleontological explorations upon lands of the United States within the boundaries of the Chugach National Forest. Please see attached task statement and survey plan. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 2. To excavate and make intensive studies of the specific site or area described in detail as: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Area and as shown on the sketch, Mn or map attached hereto and made a part of this application. 3. The aims and purposes and exact character of the work to be done under the permit herein applied for will be as follows: to intensively survev. research, and report on the presence or absence In support of this application the following facts are submitted: a. Nature and status of applicant organization. Alaska State agency operating under laws, rules, and funds provided by State of Alaska. b. Scientific affiliations. Staff members maintain affiliations with numerous professional or anizations. C. General scope and character of applicant organization's activities and objectives. Assess and develop alternative energy sources for State of Alaska. d. Amount of money available for field work on project covered by this application exclusive of regular staff salaries $ 5,500.00 3 4-2700-3 (7/81) e. Provision has been made for publication of results of work to be done under permit herein applied for as follows: to be incor2orated into Exhibit E of Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project license application to tfie Fpeipral FnArav Rpoulatory Commission. f. Name, address, and official status of person to be in general charge of project. Eric A. Marchegiani Dv-nii=r+ Mnnnnor Al;;czk;; Pnwpr Authority. 334 West 5th 9. MM�— Name, address, and qualifications of person to be in actual direct c ' harge of excavation work. Katherina I- Arndt- Rox 81369. Fairbanks. Alaska 99708 __Name__andlocation of the public museum in which material collected under permit herein applied for will be permanently preserved. We solicit your suggestions. i. Will the.material be adequately and permanently safeguarded and will -it be readily available for scientific study and public observation in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Uniform Rules and Regulations approved December 28, 1906? Yes j. If permit is granted, work will -begin not later than June 7, 1982 and will be actively prosecuted during an ensuing period of 2 months. k. In the event the permit herein applied for is issued, the applicant agrees to submit the reports required by section.10 of the Uniform Rules and Regulations within thirty (30) days after the comp,letion of field work each year, and abide by and observe all the provisions of the Uniform RulesandRegulations, su2ra Date o? Application Alaska Lai: Authority Name of Institution By: Eric Yould Executive Director Title GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CULTURAL RESOURCES TASK STATEMENT AND SURVEY PLAN TASK STATEMENT This phase of the study will identify and assess the significance of the historic and archeological resources of the project area. Sampling Plan The assessment of cultural resources (archeological and historical) will consist of a literature search, consultation with agency Personnel, an interpretation of aerial photography, and field survey. Each contributes to the objective of identifying and mitigating significant direct adverse effects of project development on property listed, or eligible for listing, fn the National Register of Historic Places. Methods Consultations will be conducted with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service to identify agency concerns with project development. Consultation will be documented by appending a letter from each agency indicating the nature, extent, and results of the consultation to the f inal report. A literature search of known and reported sites in the vicinity of project facilities will be made. This information helps determine whether project construction will adversely affect any known or recorded cultural resources. Stereoscopic air photo interpretation of the transmission line route and power plant site will also be made to aid in identifying additional areas suggesting human use, occupancy, or potential prehistoric sites. -1- The field survey will focus on (1) locating all known and recorded sites directly affected by construction of the transmission line, power plant, dams, penstock, conduits, access roads, and (2) surveying on foot for previously unknown or unrecorded sites at project construction ` sites and all points where the transmission line crosses a land -water i interface. - Subsurface 'probing, undertaken only in areas appearing archeologically sensitive, will be based on 'ground survey results. All probes will be backfilled. Field collection of artifacts will be limited to significant materials which, if not recovered at the time, are likely f to be lost or destroyed. Upon completion of analysis, these materials -wii-l-'tie de -livered -to th.e responsible agency-.- ----- Appropriate '`information will be recorded for any site eligible for nomination'to the National Register of Historic Places. A site survey I form will be completed for any site found in the project area, regardless of eligibility for the register, and will be appended to the The following guidelines for studying cultural resources in the project area will be followed: 1. A descriptive inventory of the cultural resources affected by the proposed action. 2. Maps showing. the location, density, and distribution of the resources in relation to relevant natural and environmental factors; and delineation of the areas of potential environmental impact. 3. Evaluation of the historic, scientific, and social significance of the resources, including identification of resources in, pending nomination to, or considered eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. I IM 4. The predictable adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed action on the resources. 5. A recommended program for lessening the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse effects on the resources. 6.. Description and.evaluation of unavoidable adverse effects. Results Results of the surveys will be presented in a final report describing the methodology employed (e.g. surveys, inventories, subsurface testing, etc.) and, if applicable, the results of any surveys and inventories of subsurface testing recommended by state and federal agencies. Any historic or archeological sites known to exist or discovered in the project area will also be identifed, along with a summary of their historic significance, project impacts, and possible mitigation measures. -3- _ SURVEY .PLAPI As outlined in the task statement, the archeological survey will consist of: 1)- field .location and documentation of historical and archeological resources identified through the literature search which may be affected by project 2) archeological surface survey, with some subsurface testing, for previously unknown sites in areas to be affected by project construction. Because none of the construction sites or routes of access roads, transmission lines, and pipelines will be marked on the gr_o_und _at .the time -_of. the survey, ar_cheologi cal examination ,of most areas of project impact will be confined to reconnaissance- level survey. This will entail a low -altitude flight over the general routes of roads, `transmission 'lines, and underground and I surface pipelines. Any archeologically promising areas spotted from the air, such as prominent knolls, stream crossings, and ---ar. eas--of-d-isturb-erd-vegetat-ion,—wil-l--either-be--ch-e-c-k-ed--on-the-ground-- or noted on a map for more intensive examination should the final I route affect them. The general locations of several construction sites will be more easily identifiable on the ground because of their proximity to natural and man-made landmarks, Such areas will be examined by means of a surface survey combined with subsurface testing in areas which appear to be high in archeological potential. For project. alternatives D and F, in which the level of Grant Lake will not be raised, the areas include: 1) the juncture of a proposed access road with the Anchorage -Seward highway in the vicinity of Trail Creek Station and the Stevenson cabin (sites SEW 021 and N on attached map); 2) the proposed site of the Falls Creek diversion dam; 3) the shoreline and adjacent areas of lbw relief around the south end of Grant Lake and the head of Grant Creek, including the Solars Sawmill site I (site G on attached map); 4) the proposed bridge site at the narrows between -4- Upper and Lower Trail lakes; 5) the east shore of Upper Trail Lake from the proposed bridge site to the proposed powerhouse site in NW4 SW41 Section 6, T. 4 N.9 R. 1 E., Seward Meridian; 6) portions of the east shore of Lower Trail Lake along the pr oposed alternative route of an access .road; 7) the proposed site of the powerhouse, substation and tailrace, Yd'4 SWI Section 6, T. 4 N.p R. 1 E., 4 Seward Meridian. This will include the west end of an old trail between Upper Trail Lake and Solars Sawmill (feature H on attached map). If this trail can still be traced, it will be followed all the way to Grant. Lake. A proposed access road crosses it in several places; 8) the island and adjacent shore between the upper and lower portions of Grant Lake, an area which may be dredged to increase flow. If archeological studies are expanded twinclude areas which would be affected by project alternatives A, B, C, and Ev surface survey will also be conducted at the proposed sites of the saddle' dam in SElk Section 31, T. 5 N., R. 1 E. and the alternate powerhouse in SWI SWI- Section 31 T. 5 N.t R. 1 E., Seward Meridian and in 4 4 portions of the inundation area around Grant Lake, especially around the head of the lake and at the sites of structures which Would be flooded if the lake level were raised (D and I on attached map). Raising of the lake level under these project alternatives will raise, the local water table and thus may raise the level of nearby ponds. The margins of such ponds will also be surveyed for cultural.tesources if initial aerial reconnaissance reveals them to be archeologically promising. The sources of any fill or surfacing material which may be needed for road construction have not been identified at this time and therefore cannot be incorporated into the survey.' -5- . t Ion/ i 1.\\ `\ `\`.. '.. ���.i rq� _ W LL ods-i_.-.!�:^�r.�`, \ �`' •,\ �, \ .`.�� It I' , t,5: \ ,'li lti' b t- O i g a1 "a: -_�. ,1.'t+tr %J ! .� �iJ %-•�j ��-r.11j lj.' ��'t t 0 = J i•• �t V��� ` I 1 S ryycr }'(I N !••'�^b•� it :01 it1111i), 0I',: rl�( �! 1'0 :, �+= Q ¢ a {p{ f° O (n Co U , i...—._�}}i:� OI�y O t J Vml,jo' ;�'f -g((,(( )!r, /1 i� I { a t`t- �a O Q C9 u `. ;Yp+l25 ifII ''�y't-y0/:r` ';/' it l� �,'Zi` ( :;��1;1; ON ai 3 Cc I:'i''!i ,,' �(,;;, �,,:�;;,.:.;trr �� .�� 1 i:!ltii+'.• 't`_ Im Q J e(�0CL tr) _... . :I ,r .: ,:7.t:: ::j: lll� l li' !r, ; /• r f '/ LO !%1•/:'.•�.•'~.--t;' "Gr;'J 8 �G_ Q rr "`:•:�, m'i Ifll '(':';.ri �i Jij' /I/�//r % \,_,) ''n'�/ii 1:,�'::.;S��:c.'•; M W OK C9 / I 1,1 � � !/ j / (Ir:; t/r!jt1`-��'!, �li,�,'.•ji�° s/� t/rr � � � i oo � ;rz oN/�- ._ .� "j:`.y% ' '(�';�rr !!: fil /ii% /• ('� ° /' 1°i r!'''n��.% l�. �,r t o,. ,r<¢ ,: �� 'V�• .�: i`j} i ji }j r i% j i 1 f,1li 9 { 1�ii //' I l t�� a J t7. ))1 ):�t :1 ��,r:� }l} :'l�! t:'li 1 �i ;r•:t�`� 57��^;?/�����.1....: •-: ii' q , .y� i'l. �!//�I f I/r r ' �' �J^', i'L• Lh '.4" ,/ .j.•` 1 ru� ih�����:,•.,J.��I�))r',,rr��;'•'i;,%i'%jl %'1!I/ o` /'t I S`1 i,�%1,+,: �,,� r'd���..,•o��,l.; .,:1''(" � ;;`L\•,',.,,,�. ';;�ro�:; /r,�!!,!1!ip°ilrr,;!l /po ��,, ;,�,,irD'rlf,�ir�•'� �lt��//%.r .i{rt�ij..' \ h`1;r�;4ypo ;'-�. J±'�i}`/!11J(�ji�,.,:�%;i(j��rj�°�f1:'f%•Jll� ` ! i';'y0"�'j�''ry'�.y"f%f>/'lj�j��__'y-•y;•�.I l;•..,+' / �1` rl /'lo r� (,/!,,/'yr'/, /!�r� . � � ._.f. ., •,t,% �!7 �!�-�/'''�:-'r�-••''�^ • rr � • li (•,/(^^• '. (.^:.�r / ___-- t / �, rJ�J(/���l l(j )�Or�f, —� ---- - -- /I !:�+�tr �` r-!=---•��,— Ot�Y�_//` 1 41 'i -40 77 ' /3� �I �f 1/ )}� 1 �j i! ' � � J '" -•-_ "r-'.-% ••",.; "+" / Jl f,/I,jJ-...,;.. � � Y .-.._- ,'!:� , i f i �,-...:/ r 1 / '�/ d // 1 1 1/ � %".--% err-•. '/ _...,_ \ ; :•�, ' ' � , `• �' �••• 1, , ?11 r /.' / p,� ; , / j.•'• ;,' ! --.: -,J:.0 =..,- �•% , ,-::.:..... -i � ,::' /;; � .: '-� i ,r.,-i ((' ._/,%' b !d .� ), � /J ' � 11 �i'--/o° f' �`c-•"' �?,'00� j i;io�:� �� ,�,'� ii 5' ti J. ; f //. :nj 't�•' ' i'.:J " ,c4:` . ," -/' j f ^may ' /', � � r I i--' '.,_,••.1 `�, tj/ �' /�("ti-•:^/. �:�1:';�t;ri i ;tlL _ , � t: ';`'•City � y �.rJ1ir��/��Ji.:---_ /' � 1' ��,.' - :1%'I/ t '�J � g.: f _._ -il Ul .ry } I.T. _.. _ I_.. �_./�/ 1,,�.r J' r \ ., 04-�`• �� ,:.1f7-- - _ /!-- -(-'r --- -- (.,. .4',•S!� !� f �,) t m / 4r ' t Ill r.,11(r,h r, , �, r _ o;\� ,/ ..fir. � ! + ') � c' (i(,fftt;,i ,�:i.} tt {l;./ SIf,� l' ,m.•'r;l .: .. apo�.•i.:: t..;i/t .:,, 1 ,,-,. :1 j v 1r � I I t ` 1 tP�iit i I •'' i.'. •',.')I�� ''/ �, al i `I!rl 1 ! a. ... av .' �i�_ . ,..5 :/ r •', • �' F:•,•i`Zc` •:,tom : ``} j 1 � �j'. II •�a 'i! 1/.'ri '!� •:1'r' 't � I{ i'V 4 _ 4;I'd1,p 1r •,�i�'' \l �• .• �•� �i: p°° � �• �'' ,r' �%i i �' r �i11 ,,•^`l.' rVrl /:' �;;'�'j�lJ ! �:.-}�f 1 ���444 fi \�y � f v i�il il1 ��( ,j��jj/j o) 'j,7�•,,�j .:: p! �`���1'.' , _ `1 }i'i,'•� '�.:'; / �1 .'+"�";,is•'�' f�"1 J. r! r 1. ....�{{{{j//� � ; . 1 %rj ir! {li,�ifl( � r' �•.11 _ !<.,'i ,,r;,A''. ` �1' i / i �' r .p ;'V " � ' /'� !/.' � � � !%'• �'- fi„'., :', e...':�• \ ,tP. ; roc = ;' o r - ���,'I.i _ �. ,'.tot;; :,:. ' i n'.. : !,yt .�li:r:: i,•� .a! �,: •pi '! 1 • �'.' .•l: �J :�� - ,. "f: r ! /.G - 'h%F3 • /' 11 -`- 1 ry1•r i T t �✓I\ 1 i t w ':�'' ~' '• - - i5/.7_, ;. �• i ,�' 4i'�: = 1 1 `' -- r:.]. h I may' k O ==fir-..�•�,tA _ � •.. Q j` �.ry � ..`'`.._ _ \ram:;. � • .. _ �'�_000� ' /� A: "v � . \-/ •. � Y 1 V � --" _ "j.�• ."'Dosr _ - _ _ ,'f'14,.'�;i <"1r:� ,o .:�, ' ,:, -:. I } jjjj ir;' J Oti'�.� • 1�` , jam, ... _� � •� _i �L _ -+a �•( �: , t Il CQ V7 Cl- uj Upper Z'it1{ oo H `m Hu 7 W. _._.•.:- —^'•_� ,! �A.--tfj^. (V, e`Y-- ....�'.-, (; --"_2. .N•r_... ""_'4 ..0._ (>D'.-�._ ��.rC..'_•�"'_••�"r_' �y Katherine L. Arndt Box 81369 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 S. S. Number: 395-56-2088 Message Phone: (907) 474-7050 Education PhD. Candidate State University of New York at Binghamton Major: Anthropology Proposed dissertation title: Strategies and Strategems: Native Alaskans and the Middle Yukon Fur Trade, 1833-1867. M.-A. 1977 University of Alaska -Fairbanks Major: Anthropology (Archeology) Thesis title: The Structure of Cache Pits at GUL 077, a Late Prehistoric Archeological Site near Gulkanat Alaska. B.*A. 1974 University of Wisconsin -;.Madison Double major: Russian (honors) and Anthropology Archeological Field Experience 9-16-81 to 9-22'-81 Consultant archeologist. Dames and Moore, Anchorage. Performed preconstruction archeological surveys'in NW and SW Alaska. Short-term contract. 7-14-81 to 7-17-81 Consultant archeologist* Elizabeth Andrews, Fairbanks. Vlrote'cultural resource management plan for Tyee Lake hydroelectric project. Temporary. 6-12-80 to 7-17-80 Archeological technician. University Museum, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Assisted in preconstruction archeological surveys in NW Alaska and in report preparation. Temporary. 10-23-77 to 8-17-79 Stikine Area archeologist (GS-9)0 USDA -Forest Service, PeteF-sb-u ATaska�eR�esponsible for identification and pro- tection of cultural resources on*Forest lands. Supervised 1 CCETA employee, summer 1979. Resigned to return to school for doctorate. 6-1-77 to 8-31-77 Lab foreman. Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Supervised operation of laboratory of archeolog- ical field school near Healyp Alaska. Temporary. 5-15-76 to 6-7-76 Archeologist (foreman). Alaska Methodist University, Anchorage. Supervised 2 to 3 archeologists in excavation project near Gulkanat Alaska. Temporary. 7-1-75 to 9-1-75 Archeologist technician. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, iversity of AlasRa'—,Fairbanks. Assisted in excavation of archeological site on Seward Peninsula. Temporary. 5-15-75 to 6-15-75 Archeologist. Alaska Methodist University, Anchorage. Ts-sisted in archeological excavation near Gulkana, Alaska. Temporary. 6-7173 to 8-73 _(8 weeks)--- -- - FieldBlair, :lab assistant. Dana College, 9 Nebraska. Super1 vised operation of laboratory at archeological field school near Bismarck, North Dakota® Temporary. Other Experience --8-1-2-81 --to-pre-sent Editorial assistant..Cooperative Park Studies Unit, sity of Alaska, Fairbanks. Edit anthropological manuscrip s for publication under direction of Editor. Part-time. 1980/81 and 1979/80 school years (3 semesters) Teaching assistant in anthropology, State University of New orb k at BinghamtoTi. 1974/74p 1975/76, and 1976/77 school years (51 semesters) - - I - _ _ L 1 A-.L'L aUL'jt:CLJ-A;LI C100-LOUGLIlu --- -- - __ - Unl—versity museum, and Cooperative Park Studies Unit, respectively, University of'Alaskat Fairbanks. Publication 1977 Annotated bibliography. Appendix 2 in: Assessment of the known cultural resources in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaskat by W. S. Schneider and P. M. Bowers. Occasional Paper 3. Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Pp. 74-119. References Dr. Gerald H. Clark Regional Archeologist USDA -Forest Service Box 1628 Juneau, Alaska 99802 (907) 586-7529 Dr. Anne D. Shinkwin Antliropology Program University of*Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) 474-7288 Dr. Albert A. Dekin Department of Anthropology State University of New York -Binghamton Binghamton, New York.13901 (607) 798-2737 Untied States Deportment of Agriculture a. Re card no. (1.2) b. Region (3.4) c. Forest (5-6) Forest Service 70 -- Alaska I.& Chugach A4 SPECIAL USE PERMIT it. District - e. User number (9-12) f. K nd of us (13.15) Cuitura� Act of June 4, 2897 Seward 03 1016.01 Resource 611 This permit is revocable and nontransferable (Ref. FSM 2710) p, State (16-17) Alaska 02 h. County (18.20) 863 It. Card no. (21) 1 Permission is hereby granted to Alaska Power Authori of 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 hereinafter called the pelmittee, to use subjectto the conditions set out below, the following described lands orimprovements: portions of the Chugach National Forest in the following lands: Sections 1, 12, 13, T4N, R1W Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, T4N, R1E Sections 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 T5N, R1E Seward Meridian as shown on the attached survey area map of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. This it covers permit the Grant Lake H dr electric Project p XX1X1= — j�exand is issued for the purpose of: Authorizing consulting services involving cultural resource investigation of a non -disturbing .nature. 1. Construction or occupancy and use under this permit shall begin within.__ 1 months. and construction, if any, shall be completed within._ na months, from the date of ihr ),orelit This use shall be actually exercised at least 60 days each year, unless otherwise authorized in writing. 2. In consideration for this use, the permittee shall pay- to the Forest Service, U.S. DPpartmNnt of Agriculture, the sum of see clause 18 Doll ars(S ) for the [wriod from --- _-_-.___ 19 , to _— _ , 19 __— , and thereafter 'annur.11y on Doll ars (S --- - — --- — — — - 1'rurtided, however, Charges for this use may he made or readjusted whenever necessar.• to place thrr charges on a basis commensurate with the value of use authorized by this permit. 3. This permit is accepted subject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions 30 attached hereto and made a part of this permit. NAME OF PERMITTEE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SI TUR AUTHORIZED OFFICER DATE PERMITTEE \'� Z q rnal 3 7_ TITLE NAME AN RE TITLE DATE ISSOFFUING iCER orest Supervisor ��.� �7 a ea I 1 (CONTINUED ON REVERSE) 2700.4 1 7 4 De\elopn)ent plans; layout plans: construction, reconstruction. or alteration of improvements; or reyi�,ion of lavout or construction plans for this area 'rust he approved in advanre- and in writing by thr t,)rPa .ul)! ryi�or. Trees or shrubbery on the permitted area may he removed or dcrlrc.%ed on?y after the „i .-t officer in charge has approved, and has marked or otherwise designated that whiclt may hP removed or !hFtm+ed Timber cut or destroyed will be paid for by the permittee as follows: Merchantable timber at :tt)t�r:ti ;,,d --al iv; young -growth timber below merchantable size at current damage appraisal v Out; prnvided that the Forest Service reserves the right to dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the per- miuee cat no stumpage cost to the permittee. Trees, shrubs, and other plants may h,- planted in such -manner at d in such places about the premises as may he approved by the forest officer in rhar^e i The permittee shall maintain the improvi"ments and premises to standards of repair orde_rline.s. noatness. sanitation, andsafety acceptable to the forest officr>r in ch.ir_= 6. This hermit is subject to all valid claims. I The permittee, in exercising the privileges granted by this permit. shall comply with the reaulati )ns if alit Department of agriculture and all Federal, State, count,,, and municipal law.,;. nrdinunres, or regula ti ins which are applicable to the area or operations covered h\ this permit - _ -- - - - - — 8. The pPrmittPe shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent and suppress fnrest firPF .'o ma i aerial shall he disposed of by hurnina in open fires during the closed se6S6n established h} I,)+c hr-regula- tion without a written permit from the forest officer in charge or his authorized agent y. The permittee shall exercise diligence in protecting from damage the land and pi, 1),'t t`- of the United States covered by and used in connection with this permit, and Shall pay the United States for any damage resulting from negligence or from the violation of the terms of this permit or of anv Iaw or regulation appli- I c dile too the 'National Forests by the permittee, or by any agents or employees of the permittee acting ++idiin the scope of their agency or employment. - -- ---10:—T-he-permit-tee shal-l-full-y-rt--pair-all-damag_e-,_-other than ordinar\ wear and tear, to national forest roads and trails caused by the permittee in the exercise of the privilege grant!`d h\this permit 11. No Member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall he admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to anv benefit that may arise herefrom unless it is male e%Ith a cnrlx)ration fat' its _eneral benefit 7 12. ('t+nn abandonment, termination, revocation. or cancellation of this permit.ilvt,,,t.)�iiite-hall r!-m,,\e \+ithin a reasonable time all structures and improvements except those n\tnPd b\ th` niltd States, and Shall restore the site, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing or in this permit If ill, ,!!`rmittee fails to 1 remove all such structures or improvements within a r'ea�,Unahl,' l�!'I'I!)!I. Ill(•\ sh,Jl 1), ' '"t' Ili!• pr1!O('r1\ of, the Vnited States, but that will not relieve the permittee of liability for the cost of Ih• it r!`m!)\aI and restoration of. the site. 13. This permit is not transferable If the permitteP thrnu^h yoluntar\ ,ale )r or thrnugh Pnforcemnnt of contract, foreclosure. tax sale, or other valid legal prnceedin_= shill - t; e ti) he the, owner of the ph\sical improvements other than those owned by the t.nit!•d States situate 1'!n the bold "rscrihP!f in this permit and is unable to furnish adequate proof of ability to redo,-ni or other\\ise n.,t,rhlish title to said improvements. this permit shall be subject to cancellation 13.t1 i(" the person t(! \\ nnm title to said improvPmPnts shall have been transferred in Pither manner pro\idf-d qualified as a t) i-iiitt•e and is willing that his future occupanr\ of the premises shall he subject to ,.uuh ne\c cnn(liii0)as .lnd stipulatinn� as existing or prospective circumstances may warrant, his continued ,!'cupanc\ ma\ Ili, authorized by permit to him if, in the opinion of the issuing officer or his sucressor. is.u.,n � a t errrit is desirable and in the public interest. 14. In case of change of address. the permittee shall immedial,11\ n!)tif\ the forest .up! ryi�or 15. The temporary use and occupancy of the premises and improvements herein described ma\ he suhltl by the pPrmittPP to third parties only with the prior written approval of the forest coperyisnr but the i�` r InittPP shall continue to be responsible for compliance with all condition, of this 1)1,i it h� persnn� t" ++hnm such premises may be sublet. In This permit may be terminated upon hi-Pach of an\ of the ! onditi-in�_ horrin nr .11 tilt rii-•'rPiion if IhP regional forester or the Chief, Forest SeryirP 17. In the eyrni of any conflict between any of the pre!•!'11ing 1,rinitdt'I,111<e� any of the fall!)\vina clauses or anv provisions thereof. the following -,wr !I GPO 41=-r73 18. Fee Clause. The minimum annual fee for this use, which'is due in advance and is not subject to refund, will be twenty-five dollars ($25.00). Provided, however, that each year's minimum fee will be applied to partially off -set the fee for any future approved project during that year. Future projects undertaken under this permit will require a fee as follows: Fees for each separate project will be paid to the appropriate Forest Supervisor in advance of each project. The amount will be based on the estimated field days times $2 per field day. Field days are obtained by multiplying the number of days in the field times the number of trained professionals in the field on the particular project. (Do not include unskilled assistants such as cooks, drivers, packers, laborers, and students receiving training.) A field day is defined as any day or part of a day for each professional while working on National Forest lands. Partial days will be counted as full field days, but 11nonworkdays" such as time moving in and setting up camp are not counted. If the original estimate of field days proves incorrect, the permittee will provide new estimates in time for a supplemental billing to be issued. 19. Service Charge. (A-13) A late payment charge in addition to the regular fees shall be made for failure to meet the fee payment due date or any of the dates specified. for submission of statements required for fee calculation. The late payment charge shall be $15, or an amount calculated by applying the current rate prescribed by treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins to the overdue amount for each 30-day period or fraction thereof that the payment is overdue, whichever is greater. If the due date falls.on a nonworkday, the late payment charge will not apply until the end of the next workday. 20. Nondiscrimination, Services. (B-2) During the performance of this permit, the permittee agrees: a. In connection with the performance of work under this permit including construction, maintenance, and operation of the facility, the permittee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. b. The permittee and his employees shall not discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by curtailing or refusing to furnish accomodations, facilities, services, or use privileges offered to the public generally. c. The permittee shall include and require compliance with the above nondiscrimination provisions in any subcontract made with respect to the operations under this permit. d. Signs setting forth this policy of nondiscrimination to be furnished by the Forest Service will be conspicuously displayed at the public entrance to the premises, and at other exterior or interior locations as directed by the Forest Service. 21. Indemnification of United States. (B-8), shall---i-ndemn-ify the -Uni-ted---States.again.s.t- any ------- liability for damage to life or property arising from the occupancy or use of National Forest lands under this permit. 22. Nonexclusive Use. (X-49) This permit shall not be exclusive. The Forest Service re the the 'right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any such use does not interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized. 23. Application, Part of Permit. (X-95) The permittee agrees to comply with all commitments made in the application dated May 5, 1982 Plans of work for specific projects will be considered as --part of the original application once they are approved by the Forest Service. 24. 1906 Uniform Rules and Regualtaions. (X-96) The permittee agrees to abide by and observe the provisions of the Uniform Rules and Regulations of the Secretaries of Interior, - Agriculture, and War, approved December 28, 1906, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. 25. Academic Work Not Authorized. (X-98) Academic research projects shall not be conducted under this permit. Such work may be done only under the terms of a separate permit which authorizes specific research. 26. Submit Reports. (X-100) The permittee shall Provide the Regional Forester and appropriate Forest Supervisor with a copy of all reports and publications resulting from the project including theses, dissertations, articles; monographs, etc. 0 27. Advise Forest Supervisor. (X-101) Before actively initiating work under this permit, the permittee's field leader shall advise the Forest Supervisor of the date upon which active field work will be initiated.. The approval shall list local restrictions pertaining to fire hazard, off -road vehicles, camp locations, etc. 28. Disposition of Specimens. (X-102) All specimens or material of scientific interest shall be de'posited in a repository agreed to by the Forest Supervisor, and thereafter be subject to the provisions of Section 17 of the Uniform Rules and Regulations or such additional provisions as are provided herein. 29. Services To Be Carried Out in Two Phases. (X-106) Consulting services shall be carrie.d.out in two phases consisting of: a. Preliminary Survey. During this, sites, artifacts, and 'cultural resource features shall be located, inventoried, and reported. Surface disturbing activities are not authorized in this phase and surface collections may not be made without written authorization by the Forest Service. Limited testing, as applied for in this application, is authorized in this phase. b. Mitigation. Authorization to proceed with needed - excavation shall be granted by the Forest Supervisor only after the survey report with its recommendations and plan of work are accepted by the Forest Service. 30. Survey Report Required. (X-108) A written survey report shall be prepared for each examination conducted under this permit. Reports shall provide: a. A description of examination methods including the type of work, the names and work titles of individuals employed in actual field work, and the dates of field work (if any). b. An assessment of the significance of the identified resources and their potential for contributing information about the cultural heritage of the project area including, when appropriate, descriptions and maps showing their relationship to the site of the proposed project. Resources which may merit listing on the National Register of Historic Places should also be identified. C. A recommended program of measures to realistically mitigate adverse effects which may result from the project, including research designs. d. Identification of the cultural resources permit under which all actions resulting in the excavation of sites or the gathering of objects of antiquity are to be performed. e. Inventory forms resulting from.any surveys (such forms should be included with the report but should not be bound with it). The report shall be furnished to the Forest Service for review. The permittee shall be notified in writing if the report is acceptable or if there are any deficiencies which must be corrected. Any deficiencies noted Shall be -corrected promptly. a Ulited States Forest Chugach 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. Department of Service National Suite 238 Agriculture Forest Anchorage, AK 99508 IN r Mr. Eric Marchegiani Project Manager, Grant Lake Study Alaska Power Authority 334 West Sth Avenue L Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Marchegiani, Reply to: 2720 Date: J U N 11EC'EIV ED i N 0. 2 1010 a2 A,:ASVA poxhER AUTHORITY Enclosed is an amendment to the recently executed cultural resource permit issued to the Alaska Power Authority. A termination clause was inadvertently omitted. Please have the authorized officer sign and date all three copies, retain the original for your records and return the other two copies to this office in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Warren or Beulah Bowers of my staff at 279-5541. FRED M. HARNISCH Lands Staff Officer Enc. FS-6200-11b (7,81) _ ..__ . _ _.-_ _ Visited SCetea D— ®rtm`ent of Agriculture ""' o. 'Record no:"(1=2) _- - -b: Region-(3-4j -'-�-- C. Forest Foract Service 70 Alaska 10_ Chugach 04 AMENDMENT #1 d. District (7-9) e. User number (9-12) f. Kind ci use (13-15) Cul tural FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT Seward 1016.0.1__- E Ref: FSM 2714 Resource THIS AMENDMENT IS ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART g. State (16-17) h. County (18-20) 4. Cord no. (21) OF THE Alaska Qz. 3.53 ? TERM �i ANNUAL PERMIT For Cultural resource investigations - - - issued to (KIND OF PERMIT) Alaska Power Authority on 5/24/82 (NAME OF PERMITTEE) (DATE OF PERMIT) which is hereby amended as follows: ermination c iau Permit Termination. (E-4) Unless sooner terminated or revoked by the Regional Forester, in C accordance with the provisions of the permit, this permit shall expire and become void on 12/31/83, but a. new. permit to occupy anc use the same National Forest land may be granted provided the _and r e_g u 1 a t i o n_s governing the occupancy and use of National Forest lands and shall have notified the Forest Supervisor not less than tnree (3) montns prior to said date that such new permit is desired. I a j 1 I This Amendment is accepted subject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions -- — tached hereto and made a part of this Amendment. N OF PERMIT SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZE OFFICER OATE PERMITTEE __.-�.> Alaska Power Autho i ty TITLE Executive Director ISSUING ^No 1 'N T E ZEav TITLE Forest Supervisor/ GATE / OFFICER G. Beal GPO"929-2a2 v CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL CULTURAL RESOURCE USE PERMIT 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 May 5, 1982 Mr. John E. Cook Regional Director Alaska Region National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Cook: The Alaska Power Authority is conducting a detailed study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, located in the Chugach National Forest approximately 20 Seward. The data and results of the study will be used application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission construct and operate the project. Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 feasibility which would be miles north of to prepare an for a license to In order to prepare the Environmental' Report for the application, we will be conducting a survey of cultural resources in the project area, following the attached task statement and survey plan. We are requesting you comments on the survey plan, particularly your views concerning the plan's suitability for developing the information needed in the Environmental Report. During the course of the survey, we may occasionally discover cultural artifacts which will have to be properly preserved. We, therefore, also solicit your suggestions on.a suitable repository for any such artifacts. Any questionsregarding the attached material should be directed toward Eric Marcheciani of my staff, the Project Manager for the Grant Lake Study. Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director Enclosure as stated cc: Don Smith. E6asco Services Incorporated (w/o enclosure) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 May 5, 1982 Mr. Ty L. Dilliplane State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Parks Department of Natural Resources 619 Warehouse Drive - Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 { - --__Dea-rMr-. -D-i 11 i-pl-ane:- --- The Alaska Power Authority is conducting a detailed feasibility study of the pruposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, which would be located in the Chugach National Forest approximately 20 miles north of Seward. The data and results of -the study will -_be_used to prepare an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to construct and operate the project. - - In order to prepare the Environmental Report for the application, i we will be conducting a survey of cultural resources in the project — area, following the attached task statement and survey plan. We are requesting your comments on the survey plan, particularly your views concerning the plan's suitability for developing the information needed in the Environmental Report: t During the course of the survey, we may occasionally discover cultural artifacts which will have to be properly preserved. We, therefore, also solicit your suggestions on a suitable repository for any such artifacts. Any questions regarding the attached material should be directed toward Eric Marchegiani of my staff, the. Project Manager.for the Grant Lake Study. Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director Enclosure as stated cc: Don Smith Ebasco Services Incorporated (w/o enclosure) I, Al Carson, Dept, Natural Resources (w/o enclosure) 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Ty Dilliplane State -Historic Preservation Officer Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 September 14, 1982 Subject; Grant Lake Hydroelectric.Project Area Moose Pass, Alaska - Archeological Reconnaissance Dear Mr. Dilliplane: I have enclosed a copy of Ms. Arndt's Archeological Report as you requested. I would have sent it sooner but there was an extension of the completion date due to added work and it arrived in my office while I was out of town. This report contains an orcheologic evaluation of the Grant Lake, Hydroelectric Project with the expected project features. There will be some additional archeologicalevaluationprior to construction as stated in.Ms. Arndt's conclusions but*ii is envisioned*that this report will be utilized to fulfill the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing requirements. Please review and comment on it such that those comments can be incorporated into future work.. Sincerely, FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Eric A. Marchegiani Project Manager Attachments: as stated am cc: Mr. Reed Stoops, Director, Division of Research & Development, DNR Mr. Kenneth Plumb, Secretary, FERC Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Services, Inc.. Clay G. Beal Forest Supervisor Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Dear Mr. Beal: V. Box 81369 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 July 14, 1982 7a- _/_7 - el""27 On 12__.June._.__1_98.2____1 compl eted_ a reconnaissance -level archeolog- ical survey for the Grant hake Hydroelectric Project under Forest Service special use permit 2700-4 issued to the Alaska, Power Authority. on 24 May 1982. Paragraph K of the permit appli- cation specified that, a final report should be submitted to the Forest Service within 30 days of the completion of field work.. i.e., by 13 July. A brief summary of the work completed is enclosed. I am still, however, trying to obtain local information about oneof-the sites examined (Solars Sawmill). I therefore request an extension of the report deadline to the end of August, when my final I report to the Alaska Power Authority (through AEIDC and Ebasco Services Inc.) is due. I have discussed this matter over the telephone with John Mattson, the Forest Archeolo- gist. He could think of no major objections to an.extension but, as the final decision lies with the Forest Supervisort he suggested 0 that I submit a formal written request to you. Please notify me of your decision. cc: J. Mattson W. Hutchinson D. Trudgen Sincerely, Katherine L. Arndt i Q ��'Y!! 7A, L. A .-7a/ I Preliminary Report: Archeological Reconnaissance, Grant lake 'Hydro Project prepared by K. L. Arndt Archeologist July 14, 1982 Katherine Arndt, archeologist, and Maggie Floyd, field companion and ecologist, carried out a reconnaissance -level archeological survey within the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project area, near Moose Pass, Alaska, on 7 through 12 June 1982. The. survey consisted of a brief aerial reconnaissance of the project area followed by an examination on foot of'the ground's surface and any exposures, such as uprooted.trees and road cuts, in areas to be affected by project construction.. Because none of the construction sites or routes had yet been marked on the ground, survey was confined to proposed construction locations which were easily identifiable due to their proximity to natural or man-made landmarks. A limited number of small test pits were dug in areas without natural exposures which appeared to be relatively high in archeological potential; all tests were backfilled. No artifacts were collected in the course of the survey. The areas examined and survey results are briefly described below. 1) North bank of Falls Creek, between the Alaska Railroad and the proposed site of a diversion dam in Section 17, T. 4 N.1 R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: We walked upstream along the north bank of Falls Creek and returned via a mining road which in places coincided with our upstream route. The farthest point 2 reached upstream was slightly beyond the intersection of the NE corner of the Marathon 3 with the NW corner of the Four Jokers placer claims, which we believed to be in the vicinity of the proposed dam site. Material of potential historical interest, which we noted included debris in the forest near the railroad crossing; a small tributary stream with a sluice, a historic -age campsite, and the remains of the C. M. Brosius cabin (ca. 1936-40), i. --all---in--Section 1-8; and -the remains of a -.-log .-structure along --the road in Section 179 near the end of our route. All appear to be associated with twentieth-century mining in the area. None appear to be directly endangered by the construction of the proposed dam, diversion pipeline, of access road, though it must be reiterated that precise construction sit-e-s--and -source-s--o-f- - construction material have not yet.,been marked on the ground. We could not locate the Baggs cabin, identified in the literature search, but this, too, is outside the proposed area of direct impact., 2).Area between Vagt Lake Trail and existing access road in Section 13, TA 4 N.9 R. 1 W., Seward Meridian: A pipeline access road is proposed through this area. We covered the area in a series of 12 N-S transects. We also walked along a portion of the Vagt Iake Trail to a point just beyond its right-angle turn in Section 18, T. 4 IT., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian, because the proposed road route lies close to the trail here. The only material of potential historical interest found consisted of a cabin foundation, overgrown with willows, and associated debris near the beginning of the trail and historic -age debris scattered eet in the forest along the first N-S transectv within 50 to 100 f 3 (15 to 30 m) of the railroad track. Two historic sites have been reported in this area: the.Stevenson cabin and Trail Creek Station (SEW 021). The cabin foundation may represent the former; the latter was not located. The proposed access road passes well south of the area of historic debris. The route does, however, pass through an area of high archeological potential, and we did not locate its proposed intersection with the highway. 3) Island between upper and lower Grant Lake and adjacent points of land: The lake is very shallow here and may be dredged to increase water flow. We walked completely around the island and along the shore of both adjacent points of land where dredging equipment might be based. *Aside from old signs of small-scale logging on.the north point and a recent survey marker on the south point, we noted no evidence of human activity. 4) Proposed pipeline outlet,, south end of Grant Lake: We walked five transects between a grove of alders on the east and a patch of beaver -felled birch and the forest on the west, zigzagging upslope. No cultural evidence was found in this grassy area or in an area of slope wash uphill to the east. This appears to be an old slide area. 5) Solars sawmill overland to the proposed powerhouse site in Section 6, T. 4N.,, R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: We examined the sawmill site, then set out along a trail which we believed to be the one leading to Upper trail Lake, shown on USGS maps in the 1950s. The trail, however, had been quite recently brushed in places, marked with flagging tape,, and turned decidedly north. We took a fainter western branch but lost it and simply continued 4 on to the proposed powerhouse site. The sawmill site is in ex- tremely `poor 'condition but contains a few large artifacts which may be worth salvaging. We are continuing attempts to obtain I' local-informati-on about this site, which may be affected by is project constructiono No cultural material was seen along the trail. We walked completely around the bay which contains the powerhouse site but located only a recent campfire. Several - - --small -test---pi-ts -on--the-bett-er-d-r- ained -a-r- eas yielded -no cultural --- -- - -- evidence. 6) The shoreline of Upper Trail Rake from the powerhouse site to , the mouth of Grant Creek:. Arndt walked south along this proposed ` access route and back again. No cultural material, other than occasionaI debris -washed up on the beach, was founda JA�small --- island which splits the mouth of.Grant Creek, the east end of a proposed bridge crossing, was also examined. No cultural material was found® The only identified site which may be directly affected by project construction is that of Solars Sawmill. We are still trying to obtain information about its history. Structures of historical interest on Falls Creek may be indirectly affected by increased ease of access to the area --the existing road in ! places requires a 4-wheel-drive vehicle with a winch. The ! Iditarod Trail, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, I will be intersected by two of the proposed access roads. The trail route at these points, however, corresponds roughly with the route of the Alaska Railroad and it is possible that the access roads will be viewed as a minimal impact. The appropriate j agencies must be consulted. Areas which appear to warrant subsurface archeological test- ing once proposed*construction areas have been marked on the ground are: 1) the access road which parallels part of Vagt Lake Trail, 2) the access road between Grant Lake and the powerhouse site, 3) the pipeline route between the diversion dam and the intersection with the access road which parallels Vagt Lake Trail, and 4) the access road between the powerhouse and the highway. The remainder of the pipeline route passes over what appears to be a slide area. While it may warrant a walk -over and examination of any natural exposures,any cultural material is likely quite deeply buried. Maps, photographs, and site descriptions will be included in the final report. I cn LJ WC co Z V . I �'/%.: •cG:a';a `•: `. '•,••("(iC'�i ri ./ir�f� i/y.�+{1: ��./c�: .r; '�j•� �,. 1-1 •h�•. Ci•'y-•��. !P it�•l.:/i ,j/''4 O' t: '•�'1(,Ci ••' a,���7�%��%nq �: `1 f.�-•' :�c�. ./ �� + r vil to 1 _ l - - / _w_� f��,::•%•'" o i:.�•",•:' i!(: 1 0 �i ' ::���;'_—. .;•••,.3__,,,. /'•yam �� _ . !,`i.•%.-•,f/ j � ''•i•:er� �C7-•,i'.•i C'• '•s•�••� '•i a i - C / %• '� ' -• '� %'r:,, !, •"!�' . b�'' ..cam,. r, i--- _. •-�•' �� ♦ '� /: ✓, •,-_ ..iy: !, °l G1i % _�R � //� I :.'.•/, `;1',' ".-—„`�'„-••:"ter /� �' •;`�Z'.�a. �-"-� .j' CV 16 •.,'=:: :•✓ .": .� i '/,•/i.'r�.. 70�'..� .•t •� �:•' ►G_./ y_{fit• •,., ,1 i^'.ii �•�; it% / f . "' I _�,:��'%!, ":I'•.A-;•,--,'.-+''�..:'1 • t%��`-; `-l:: ^•"'% '' :J�?.� ' =__:L_L � i 1 ;'r _..1:.•. � � 8 .10_ ll kd ,_,_ ( ,— ":/.; •C{ �� , ., �� tiL-.mac/_••�•'': �,.• !- ��, ,_ .,,,1 , IF G?per ,,• Traiy��_'('oo� _ ` �� /ty�„ _ _ I �\•. - �'�'N j �' t7-�C�OU.y•��' •-+`•__•...----.__.... '. = _ '�. 'p' _j.-_O._1 . �'=_ i:,. .1•I i?�'•h'c1. ' 6 O U U JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR DEPARMENT OF NAWURAL FUSSOURCES 619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210 ANCHORAGE, AL.ASKA 99501 DIVISION OF PARKS PHONE: 274-4676 October 13, 1982 Re: 1130-13 Eric Marchegiani Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Subject: Grant Lake Hydro Archaeological Reconnaissance Report Dear Mr. Marchegiani: We have received the Archaeological Reconnaissance Report for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project for review. We concur with the inclusions and recom- mendations in the report, but would like to remind the APA that a Section 106 process should be enjoined for the Iditarod Trail under Alternative F of the project. We look forward to working with the APA on other aspects of this project as access roads, construction sites, and other routes are defined and surveyed for cultural resources. Sincerely, Judith E. Marquez Director Dilliplane By: to Historic Preservation Officer cc: Don Smith Clay Beal Kenneth Plumb DR: clk JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NAXURAL RESOURCES 619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 2;0 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 DIVISION OF PARK$ PHONE: 274.4676 H 6 1 V t L) May 24, 1982 !o09 File No. 1130-13 ALAc SKA We have reviewed the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Task Statement and Survey Planandhave spoken to Kathy Arndt and Eric __-_M�rchegi ani concerni ng some —ques-ti-ows -regard-i-n-g---th-e--P-1-a:n.—:---A-&---tKe—l-uca7ti-Grvs----- of many construction sites, routes and access roads, transmission lines, and pipelines are not yet known, the archaeological survey may best be done in two phases. The first phase, as outlined in the Plan by Kathy Arndt would involve the low-altitute flight over the general routes of roads, transmission lines, and.undergroUnd and surface pipeline's (promising areas would be spotted and checked or mapped for later examination)* I - Examination of several of the construction sites is possible due to their proximity to natural and man-made landmarks and Ms. Arndt proposes to survey and test them. The areas listed by Ms. Arndt (1-8, page 45) to be surveyed in Project alternatives D and F would also be accomplished in the first phase of activity. The second phase, if necessary, would be initiated after the locations of all construction sites, routes of access roads, transmission lines, and pipelines are known, as well as the proposed sources of fill or surfacing i. material. Those areas not previously surveyed and/or tested would at this time be surveyed. Eric Marchegiani has informed this office that Project alternatives D and F are those that are most viable at this time. However, if alternatives A, B, C, or E are to be considered at -some future date, we would like the opportunity to review those projects, as they will probably need to be surveyed for cultural resources. In answer to your question concerning a suitable repository for any artifacts located as a result of this survey, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum is the best such repository. The Curator of the I 0-A I LH Letter, Eric P. Yould Re: 1130-13 May 24, 1982 Page 2 archaeological section of the UAF Museum is Dr. James Dixon. I You should contact Dr. Dixon about the museum requirements for accepting archaeological collections. i Thank you for allowing us to comment on the plan. We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to working with you on other projects. Sincerel \ IX iy L. D* liplane State Historic Preservation Officer' cc: Kathy Arndt GROUP 7 DISTRIBUTION OF FIELD STUDY PLAN AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 April 29, 1982 Mr. John.Katz Commissioner Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 SUBJECT: Environmental Field Study Plan for Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project: Request for Agency Review and Comment Dear Commissioner Katz: Enclosed is a copy of the subject plan for which the Alaska Power Authority would appreciate your review and comments. The plan mainly details the scope of the project's environmental field data acquisition phase. The proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project consists of diverting Grant Lake's inflow through a tunnel to -a powerhouse on Upper Trail Lake. Grant Lake!s natural outlet (Grant Creek) would be dewatered, as would the adjacent Falls Creek, should its flow be divertedtoGrant Lake to augment power production. A good perception of how the data will be used in the environmental assessment can be gained by reviewing the project's February 1982 interim environmental report (Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982a). The latter was organized and patterned after FERC guidelines for an Exhibit E environmental -report, although it by no means attempted to constitute a complete assessment. Copies of the interim environmental report and the interim engineering feasibility report (Ebasco Services, Incorporated 10182b) were provided in March 1982. If possible, we would appreciate discussing your agency's comments by telephone after you have had time to review the plan. On our behalf, Dr. Rick Cardwell of Ebasco Services Incorporated will be calling the week of May 17 to answer any questions and discuss the nature of your comments prior to their being formally transmitted. If you have any questions before then, please feel free to call Dr. Cardwell directly at (206) 451-4600. Your official comments should be sent to -the Power Authority, with a copy to Ebasco Services, Incorporated by May 31, 1982. Their address is 400 = 112th Avenue, M.E., Bellevue, Washington 98004. Commissioner John Katz April 29, 1982 Page 2 We wish to invite your staff to participate in the field sampling ' ,anytime it is convenient. Approximate dates for the field trips are given in the study plan. As the sampling dates approach, your staff should contact Dr. Cardwell to learn specific dates and details- concerning coordination. Thank you for your help in guiding the environmental study effort. Sincerely, l You l d- -- ---- Executive Director Enclosure: As stated. cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO .-" Mr. Reed Stoops Dept. of Nat' Res*' Div--of Research Development - - - Mr. Ty L. Dilliplane __---Dept-.—o_f—Nat-._Re.s-._,—Dv._o-f—P_a:r_ks. REFERENCES Ebasco Services, Incorporated. 1982a. Grant Lake hydroelectric project interim environmental assessment for the Alaska Power Authority. �^ Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Ebasco Services, Incorporated. 1982b. Grant Lake hydroelectric project m report for Alaska Power Authority. Ebasco Services, interim po y Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. ADDRESSES OF FIRMS LETTER SENT TO Mr. Joh n Katz Commiss ioner Department of Natural -Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Reed Stoops Dept. of Nat. Res., Div. of Research Mr. Ty L. Dilliplane Dept. of Nat. Res., Divison of'Parks Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 cc: Don Smith, EBASCO and Development Brad Smith, Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage Mr. Keith Schreiner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Don Smith, EBASCO Ms. Mary Lynn Nation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Honorable Ernst Mueller Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Ju neau, Al ask a 9 9811 cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Bill Wilkerson, Dept. of Env. Conser. Mr. Clay G. Beal Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Geof Wilson, District Ranger U.S. Forest Service,* Seward The Honorable Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner Alska Department of Fish and Game Subport Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Thomas J. Arminski AK Dept. of Fish and Game ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 April 28, 1982 Mr. John E. Cook Regional Director National Park Service Alaska Region 540 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Subject: Environmental Field Study Plan for Grant Lake Hydroelectric --P-roj-ec-t-:-----Reques--t----far--Agency---Review--and--Comment --- ----_ _-_---____ Dear Mr. Cook: Enclosed is a copy of the subject plan for which the Alaska Power Authority would appreciate your review and comments. The plan mainly details the scope of the project'-s-environmental field data acquisition phase. The proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project consists of diverting Grant Lake's inflow through a tunnel to a powerhouse on Upper Trail Lake. Grant Lake's natural outlet (Grant Creek) would be dewatered, as would the adjacent Falls Creek, should its flow be diverted to Grant Lake to augment power production. A good perception of how the data that will be used in the environmental assessment can be gained by reviewing the project's February 1982 interim environmental report (Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982a) and the interim engineering feasibility report (Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982b) both of which are enclosed. You will note that the former was organized and patterned after Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) guidelines for an Exhibit E environmental report. 'If possible, we would appreciate discussing your agency's comments by telephone after you have had time to review the plan. 6n our behalf, Dr. Rick Cardwell of Ebasco Services Incorporated will be calling the week of 17 May to answer any questions and discuss the nature of your comments prior to their being formally transmitted. If you have any questions before then, please feel free to call Dr. Cardwell directly at (206)451-4600. Your official comments should be sent to the Authority, with a copy to Ebasco Services Incorporated by May 31, 1982. Their address i-s 400 - 112th Avenue N.E., Bellevue, Washington 98004. Mr. John E. Cook Regional.Director April 28, 1982 Page 2 We wish to invite your staff to participate in the field sampling anytime it is convenient. Approximate dates for the field trips are given in the study plan. As the sampling dates approach, your staff should contact Dr. Cardwell to learn specific dates and details concerning coordination. Thank you for your help in guiding the environmental. study effort. Sincerely Eric P. Youid Executive Director Enclosures: As stated cc: Don Smith, EBASCO,— ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5TH AVENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 ABSTRACT This plan describes the scope of the environmental field studies for the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, located near Moose Pass on the Kenai Peninsula. The field studies focus on collecting data on -water resources, water quality, fish and other aquatic l ife, terrestrial wildlife, botanical' resources, and archaeological and : cultural resources. Water bodies to be studied include Grant Lake, its outlet Gant Creek, and nearby Falls Creek'. The data obtained from these field studies will be combined with existing literature, analyzed, and compiled into an environmental assessment that will become t.he--.b-as-is--of -t.he---e-nvir--onmental--exh-i-bit --i-n a--l-icense-appl-i-cation ----------- - for theprojectfrom-the-federal -Energy Regulatory Commission. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION -Grant Lake, lying approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska just east of Moose Pass on the Seward -Anchorage Highway (Figure 1), is the site for a proposed hydroelectric project. The proposed project arrangement consists of a lake tap intake at Grant Lake, a tunnel and penstock leading to a Powerhouse on the east shore of Upper Trail Lake, access roads, a short transmission line, and a diversion dam and pipeline to convey water from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. This arrangement does not propose construction of any dams on Grant Lake nor raising of the existing lake level. In operation, the project would fluctuate the lake from its current level of approximately 700 feet to an approximate elevation of 660 feet, and would dewater Grant Creek for most of the year. Figure 2 shows the proposed project facilities. Diversion of flow from nearby Falls Creek would be accomplished via a•pipe extending northward to Grant Lake from a diversion dam on Falls Creek located at elevation 1100 feet. Falls Creek would be dewatered downstream of the dam from May through October. Envisioned project facilities are described more completely in the interim project report on engineering feasibility (Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982a) . Because the draft f inal report (i e. , Exhibit E ) for the environmental studies is due in October 1982, the first of four seasonal field trips was completed in October 1981, soon after Ebasco Services Inc. received notice to proceed with the work from the Alaska Power Authority, but before a detailed field study plan could be Prepared, developed, and circulated for review to the concerned resource agencies. A draft plan was later circulated for informal comment to the following agencies: Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. This Plan considers the comments obtained for the agencies in this informal review. It addresses the 2 BARROW reow , �P �\1 p F S I �V °BETHEL SAGE s w ,ECT A nr PACIFIC pc£a RAILROAD SEWARD- ANCHORiRCE _.. __ HIGHWAY ivvr _ Gron1 Lake PROJECT Kenai SITE Lake � ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRI( PSQJECT !U PROJECT LOCATION MAP �?1. FIGURE I data that will be collected in the field on water use and quality, aquatic life, terrestrial life, botanical resources, and archaeological and cultural resources of the study area. Ebasco's approach to studying these elements is structured according to the organization defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory C6mmission for Exhibit E -reports (Federal Register 46:21,10165, Feb. 2, 1981), and it is, in our opinion, responsive to the data requirements of the FERC. Most studies remain to be completed. Studies and assessments of environmental impacts and potential mitigative avenues performed up through January 1982 are discussed in the interim engineering feasibility report (Ebasco. Services Incorporated 1982a) and the companion interim environmental assessment (Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982b) . STUDY ELEMENTS AND APPROACH WATER USE AND QUALITY Sample Collection and Analysis The water quality parameters listed in Table 1 will be measured according to methods specified as acceptable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc;-/. The "significant ions", which consist mainly of heavy metals, will be sampled with metal -free sampling devices, placed into specially -cleaned, metal -free containers supplied by Amtest Laboratories, Seattle, Washington, and shipped by air to Antest's laboratory for analysis. Samples will be collected in autumn 1981, winter 1982, and spring 1982. Metals (parameters 16 through 28 inclusive) will not be measured in summer 1982 because the data obtained to date indicates their concentrations are far below those believed to be acutely or chronically toxic to aquatic life. Concentrations should fall even lower during summer due to the diluting effect of snow melt. 11 40 C.F. R. Part 136, 136.3 (July 1, 1980 edition) . 61 Table 1. Water quality parameters to be measured in Grant Lake environmental studies. �No. Parameter No. Parameter I Water temperature "Significant Ions" 2 Dissolved Oxygen 3 Conductivity 16 Total silver 4-- Seic—ch-i—d-fsctransparency--- ---17 Total 5 PH 18 Total calcium 6 Nitrate 19 Total c adn i um Y 7 Orthophosphate 20 Total chromiumb/ 8 Total hardness —a/ 21 Total copper Y 9 Alkalinity 22 Total iron 10 Total dissolved solids 23 Total m erc u ry__.E/ 11 Suspended solids 24 Total potassium 12 Coliform bacteria 25 Total magnesium 13 Turbidity 26 Sodium 14 Sulfate 27 Total leadb/ 15 Chloride 28 Total zinc r. 2j Calculated from calcium and magnesium concentrations (American Public Health Association, 1981, page 195) . .Y Measured with graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry. E/ Measured by cold vapor technique. 0 Samples will be collected from the stations and at the times specified in Figure 3 and Table 2. Water quality sampling will be concurrent with the aquatic life studies. AQUATIC LIFE .r As required by FERC, aquatic life surveys in Grant Lake and project streams will determine species composition, spatial and temporal distribution, relative abundance, and habitat preferences of resident and anadromous fish. In addition, the species composition and relative abundance of primary aknd secondary food chain organisms (e.g., phytoplankton, insects) will also be described. Sampling Plan Information on aquatic organisms inhabiting project area waters will be obtained by literature review and field survey. The latter will identify resident ' and anadromous fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and zooplankton, describe seasonal variability in populations, and identify habitats used. Field surveys will be undertaken during fall, winter, spring, and summer. Field data necessary for completion of this task will be collected during all seasons at Grant Lake, Grant Lake tributaries, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek. Methods Field studies will identify resident and anadromous fish and invertebrate species, their relative abundance, and habitat use characteristics. The presence of fish in these waters will be determined by one or more of the following methods: (1) 125 foot variable mesh gill net containing five 25 ft panels varying in size from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inch bar measurements; (2) minnow traps; (3) beach seine; (4) backpack electroshocker; (5) angling, and (6) visual observation. Spawning areas in Grant Lake and tributary systems, Grant N Table 2.- Water quality sampling locations and dates Sampling Dates Sampling Autumn, Winter, Spring, Sumner, Location Nov. 81 Jan. 82 May 82 Sept. 8 2V Grant Lake CA/ CA CA CA — Upper Basin Pb/ P P P — Surface LS/ L L L — Bottom L L L L - --------_------- - - - -Lower B-a5-in- _P _P_ _P P Surface L L L L Bottom L L L L Grant Creek A A A Falls Creek A A A A a/ CA = Composite analyses for all 28 parameters. Composited samples collected at the surface and 2 meters above the bottom with metal —free samples from station 1 (lower basin) and station 2 (upper basin). bl P = profile. Define changes in water temperature and dissolved oxygen with water depth from surface to the bottom.- C/ L = limited analysis. Measure only the first five water quality parameters specified in Table 1. d/ A = all. Measure all water quality parameters specified in Table 1. e/ Heavy metals will not be measured. I Creek, and Falls Creek will be identified with foot, aerial, and boat surveys. Rearing habitat will be identified through minnow trapping, electrofishin'g, seining, angling, and visual observation. Estimates of the number of fish per unit arts will be. made in Grant and Falls Creeks using mark recapture '(Ricker 1975)* or Zippin's (1956) removal method, :providing fish densities are Sufficient to produce reliable estimates. Sampling frequency, locations, parameters, and methods are identified in Table 3 and Figures 4 and 5. The foregoing surveys will serve to define the species composition, distribution, and relative abundance of fish other than adult salmon, trout, and char. Estimates of the degree to which adult salmonids may theoretically utilize Grant Creek for spawning will be made indirectly. Grant Creek is simply too large, fast flowing, and turbid to permit reliable direct enumeration of adults without the use of wiers, which are too Costly for consideration here. Grant Creek will be surveyed in late summer 1982 to estimate theoretical spawning Populations of adult salmonids. The estimates will be based on the morphology, depth, velocity, and substrate Composition of Grant Creek. Literature values concerning Preferences of the different salmonid species for these paramters Plus each species' redd size will be used in the estimating process. Ebasco will sample benthic macroinveriebrates in Grant Lake and Grant and Falls Creeks. A'six—inch Ekman dredge will be used in Grant Lake while a 12—inch Surber sampler will be used for the streams. Bottom samples will be screened, washed, and Preserved in 70 percent alcohol for laboratory analysis. Captured specimens will be keyed to the lowest Possible taxon. Samples will be taken during the fall, winter, spring, and late summer, and reported by taxonomic group as the number per unit area. . — --- — --.,-. . ..;is. . .,,;I I t.. . i- .�.,. - ,- .)I)..1] .. " - ) 1:Y�-1�1 . ..:....i::..,.*-...I- -.,: ..\:-�.,:,I: I. :;-,,,-r- . 7 — .,--.. -;— , �.- .* —.."I - 1". -/ -177 7 -...-, -- Z Q1--:�-. .....,�'.� . ,.-. -..,� . .. :� ' ,...:.�.- i ..:..t .' .* , , , -,-, ...1 : ,- �.� --- --., -.' - . \. ,--,, t. � -,-...—�- :,- - .,.--.- -.- ,- ..,�- :-.:--..-.- .-.,L. -" : --� —.-. - - — : : . -.I I , .- ---, - ..: ., .: .. I... - /;- - -:-,� ... *. -"-.- -...'�. tj. . -I .- .-)-.:..,. .- ; - I I- ,. .--- i .. , ""...--/ , "I'-�,� /p�\�-� _�- , .1, ......�-.-. .:f .*1. -..... ..1.... i ,. � .. ./:'f..IkV`,. ..-1 1 / .?;I. 1' - -! ,.: ! `.. � .-- 1.� - I..:�-. :- " ... 'i) , 1,/ * , i! , oo ' I / , Q, --.�- --�: ....., - /, 'tj q, "-L1 ` ; �, /t - _ .I? , !I- . 1 .-1. i� .I.- I� � . . ), /,0 `.. -/ - - N*.. j1 I , J- ...., i- I._ I, / , ,/��/ / , , -,=,,,*::--��::... -, -.-. .--= 1 �1� �� Y - - -f, N\ � I -- - _ I / -," t "''� I -, / .� I \ - ; N I . ? ':7I i. _; ,-- I . /--", "." . �� . x6�. ,;,o- /-. : : ����--�\>.--�I .I- i �.'. . " � , "....".� :.�,�:-....,." - ..-.-......-.-- , `--- --:-.- ,*,.,��—.�•--;�.;�.:�;-;i�.... ki -." .... , I ,1�..-J ,, ,',\ / ,* I \ ",�,, % N -� ,�-\ �I ��- /- -�N, -11i-. j-I II , t. I .ti. ,-X,'" X ; I-tI� s 71.,\ A ,. : ,.. t%t.; 3 34 ,,,--,I�H�, ..i : . \--, Z/.1I 1 \�-� ,I, 1 / . I t -,- ---,:,ce. I`:I: cpI �'; ..-:1) �'I'-I\ . . * /I % � 1, I . ,- O.. 1 / ,- \-Z1e,. � - ---, * .1 -.-- .I 1 - - I )r:0s) I / i v -,, I I /i. d: /T"if ,- I/. f.� .. ;-N� i ? -: .-*....-'--- , 6a . I N\ -I\- 1 " I: f1I �" L'�,.:?- #�" /4.;-. � k .,. I �; r; "�,",.Ias:�. Sawrnl. \��� 11....�II/ �II1. I�/oi b � : � I kJ II I \ , )! i, / �—f ;, S I - -.�...� ,- ji� -/ ; /� - m ,.. �� /" ." ., /I", '-"i I!I j�I, A ,I II \,)1i " .$ ,, �,*�, i . \ � �i jI --)" -v/-'I i ::,1I. ., . ; "- " * tt-� ', �t I s', ,,.,,:-.:: :-� /I / : j 'f' ")- /; t ;! , :, �-. 81j,:i --... - �.�: "-' V N,' I! ",, \ ; I ;, � / 3 tN N/.i * 4� fI: j " .1a ..-� ) , -e : : —611%I1 m.j �1,;� k��F�aIfi �,, if 0-,Ij" \1- Ct W. iP . \-1- ` * 1-1 ,. is i 1.&., I: I 14 ,. ��," 1'2/ 1 - I ! ! 11N !1t 5iI \\ *** \ ,- il/ Nf ,\,); , i : i '- I 'i /. ?, �o �"i. �- -1 , I1`1�"; I(1, /�/,. i "1. / �`, 1 �1� � r ( \ :I ,I /iI f5 �:, I �: ; � ;I ". I -, �, DA- T,.UM-MSI iL vY r- ,�I � ! •\ u.; 0 \ - I " I ,-; 3oodi. I, 0� I , V300! ., -11 -\ I,"; -o.", f. , ' ,\ ,;- "�,, '- , .!" ,," t"N k -- /,'fi..i::., NOTE o OPOGAP �1,�HIC DATA FROM USG.S. MA/J �.� ,I ": �- . iI11"�.," B1WARD �SE, .. �6B . -7 /,I1- ' ,. g., e-'-LEGEND I �I'I, ! -* // j I. �.��.. : I 1 ,) . . - GRANT LAKE SAMPLING LOCATIONS... 4- -1. 1 / � 1/, 1../ \ -,1 b,. " -COSTREAM :.�i I SAMPLING e ; : t r .• MPOSITE 1 ,I 1,/. i , . LOCATIONS N"�,� 5- ! 1 U- -i,'- \ .5\ ----. I 000�-\ - ,I '<I �\ , - - ,\' f :/ j , �od ,,\ \ ,.. -��j�,�, ,- . .I!1.. I: 1 *. t : . I - \- :,N , .�-: .. ,i - 5� -� -- - 1 .- . �- 4l--�- 1: :: .� 1 �- .- --,.-� I*- �. . .: , I / f7r;, , ..� •- \% , moo ,\,, ..� . :. :- �-. - ...., .-. I 1 r-it II -�\ I . �:..�,"i1.:;.I ..-;IA., . .. . I I i - i RITY i- -- �, GRANT LAKE HN ECTRIC I I PROJECT I-- -- - I I I , - WATER QUALITY SAMPLING ': I I � LOCATIONS I i I - -i 4- cr v ro i O 4- _a 'o a C v N E ro y .p a U- rn a .0 V9 UJ t- Q L) J Cl N Ny Na x N v:a s a N N N t/f S 3 3 N U- W U- U_ U- S a r a W N O y) 0) Cl s r NI O a a I a O EQ o L.s s s a Ls s a a In x x ^� N 0 a u ro VI O �E d G) 4 J in a S i). a C V1 4.1 In fn a = w; to 4; +1 E ++ N p C y V ••' 'C •r 8 faaM .. IM 'O ta 41 v+ a Ya 41 a cc a.- ac 0E V)ro>v m% cotoa a rdY a� oa 0 .- a s A 41 a s C pfro4J a In M 4-A a 41 E ro a of a w++ 4) L. in Ow 41 01r r O y COLC. L d L- C to L d CL C G Q CO C.0 O UJ w 0 - M '-j U-'7 0 m S 0� C C C . O O ev ev C tn 0 O L O ro a o d "- O t t _ C &n W O y� C C Ln Ul " C "' •c r .0 r r O i- gn N U. U. N CL +a co N U- lL U- m U- U- U- MMM -4 mmI' Ln 1OhwM0 NNNy .-i 0 Y � L b b o a f" ro J J r- LL Lro L ro 1- C� t9 U. L a t.) .'1 i W O Y i>' V C O r • O a b D d 41 a +L+ d u Ln a R W 4- .-. Y /n a ooto c�aa�- p t7Y L -. r r U ro r vcao$ w a l Y) •'� is 4a 10 Y a 14 r a u to to 4- x id- co fa 41 IV (n u C a a y a Y L LA vcac$•W'o wov jrCL ec In o ?. ap GO41 a.0 L' �Ln ro c a a c o� to w v toL L C i4 0 a )n awEInU a C � a L. 41 4j LI UI O C a ro 41 Ln— 41 C 0 C ro m z o c O V g ._ Ui Y41 4A aii C Y L Ul to 9 p C +� to CL .41 r 0 -.0 ,9 W a .- .0 a +� V1 II _ EN IA-rr U•A U-4 aO1$ O N cm OCayro90 Ol C M r Q1� a 0 i C r �O a.. LC Ln ro C 40 L. U to r- p _ '- a o „- Z^ to , t Wu 4- vi ="w m L y a- M t w c'E- U 4J� E d 9 #nE UUL-Wwom 41 C I iCd4- 4- to C ro lV a�Lro�LY 00aL $ rn '• �; v.5- x)Tiu CO.�-C C. rooE4jesm II s N' a zoo r C r U Y V +� V d4J i C M .- C i a im J . rorN 'ctn ro c a r- 9• .-1 .-1 .-/ ty CO N y U r- r � U. L ro U- fa QCO C;UJU-f9S�+^9 II to to moo) uI OF 9- c,i zw Ii- —J cr R CM 0 z w cn< cr- WX u It cc 0 >- U (D x z x it R 0 (n U- > w CD a: to cc ul I IC 0 z z 0 bi Z < 4 FX- 4 D C3, LU W w I m w LU (f) Ir- w z LL- 0 z 0 I<- z CL x w Zooplankton samples will be collected from Grant Lake by making replicate, depth -integrated vertical tows using 30 cm diameter, 153 micron Nitex plankton net. Zooplankton will be identified to the lowest possible taxon and enumerated. Samples will be taken during fall, winter, spring, and summer, and reported as number by taxonomic group per volume sieved. .Phytoplankton from Grant -Lake -and periphyton from the creeks will be collected to define taxonomic composition and relative density. Samples will be taken during fall, winter, spring, and summer. BOTANICAL RESOURCES The vegetation studies will describe and map major botanical resources within the study region (Figure 6) , including aquatic macrophytes and any rare, threatened, or endangered species. Possible project -related alterations in the flora and the implications of these changes will be discussed. Sampling Plan Although a thorough literature review will be conducted, the apparently scant published information on the area will require special emphasis on unpublished data as well as interviews with knowledgeable individuals. The literature review and intial vegetation mapping will be accomplished during the fall and winter of 1981-82. Field work and refinement of the vegetation map will be completed during the summer of 1982. Field work for evaluating natural regeneration and ground truthing the vegetation maps, which will be prepared by analyzing aerial photos, will require several trips during spring or early summer of 1982. Timing of the field survey(s) will depend on regional phenology and climatic conditions. 14 Methods Vegetation associations will be mapped through standard photo - interpretation techniques using low altitude, natural color aerial photography, and/or high altitude, color infrared aerial photography. vegetation associations will be mapped throughout the study area (Grant Creek/Lake drainage, --Va-gt--Creek-/-Lake drainage, and--Falls-Creek - __ . drai nag e) at a scale --of 1:24,000. Vegetation associations will be classified and mapped following the hierarchical system of Viereck, Dyrness, and Batten (1981). The level of detail will be greatest at elevations below approximately 1000 f t ...-----------.--.-----.-an-d--near--proj-ect-structure-s-.-----Othe-r—factor--s--dete-mi-ni-ng---the leve-l. -at -------------------- which associations are mapped include relative complexity of the associations, degree and quality of photo coverage, and the amount and availability of other existing information. Are -as above 1000 f t will be described at Level 1 and those below 100-0 f t wi I I be described -at a minimum of Level 2 detail. The vicinity of the Falls Creek diversion, Currently there are no plant species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered that are indigenous to Al aska. However, there are 31 species currently under review (Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 242, Monday, December 15, 1980). Although only one of these species has been noted to occur on the Kenai Peninsula, they will be sought out during all field investigations. Special emphasis will be palced on areas that will be inundated. These and other sites will be surveyed in late 'spring or early summer of 1982. Because it is often possible to describe vegetation in greater detail that it can be mapped using aerial photographs, two or more related associations may be grouped into a single mapping unit. Each unit will be fully described as to its components. . 16 During the initial mapping phase, specific areas will be field checked. These will include areas representing each association type, those that are questionable or uncertain, and those of special interest, such as proposed roads, transmission lines, and potentially affected waterways. Field checking primarily will be limited to areas _below 1000 ft and the vicinity of the Falls Creek diversion. Qualitative transects, surveys, and other techniques will be used, as .:needed, to describe each association accurately. Although no quantitative data will be gathered, a systematic means of rating plant density will be employed. Vegetation associations will be described in terms of dominant over— and understory species. Areas or previous disturbance, natural or man -induced, will be visited as they may yield information concerning successional trends. Data Reduction and Results A map will be prepared displaying the distribution of major vegetation associations in the project area. Accompanying this map will be a narrative covering: I. A description of each mapping unit and its vegetation association(s). 2. A description of the vegetation occupying sites of particular interest (e.g., project structures, transmission lines, inundated areas) . 3- Rare, threatened, or endangered species. 4. Successional trends. 5. A list of identified plant species. 6. An estimate of the amount of each vegetation type and percentage of each type likely to be lost or severly altered due to project development. 7. A value estimate of timber to be lost. 17 TERRESTRIAL BIOTA Sampling Plan comprehensive I iterature review will assemble current and historical Information-onwildlife and habitat conditions nd-itio-n-s--within-the Gran't Lak e -.Region. Considering the paucity of published material, investigators will have to review unpublished file reports and records maintained by the Alaska -De-partment--o-,O-F-i-s-h---a-nd-Game, —the-U--.-S-�-Forest-S-ervi-ce-i--a-nd--t-he-U-�-SeF-i-sh---------------- and Wi dlife Service, which have compiled considerable -information on ------ bird and mammal types of the Kenai Pensinula. Interviews with agency personnel assigned to the Kenai -Seward districts and knowledgeable residents, such as local trappers, hunters, and sport fishermen will supplement the data base. Interviews With other agency personnel and privateindividualswill be summarized on a standard form. The interim and final reports will include a master list of all contacts. Methods Lists of amphibians, birds, and mammals known or likely to occur within the study area will be compiled. These lists, based on the literature review, will be augmented by field observations. Data collected through field and I iterature surveys wil I be analyzed to describe wildlife and habitat types in a regional perspective. Supplemental information on unique or otherwise important habitats will be acquired through aerial and foot surveys. Any actual or potential use of the project area by endangered or threatened species will be determined by the combined use of literature reviews, personal interviews, and field study. ir-O As appropriate, seasonal distribution of big game and other important species will be mapped using information collectively obtained by field survey, habitat and vegetation mapping, personal interviews, and literature reviews. As information allows, qualitative Population estimates of resident species will be made. These estimates will be based on the field survey data as well as on records and findings of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Emphasis will be placed on species of special interest, (e.g., moose, bears, raptors). General estimates of abundance will be produced for all big game, furbearers, raptors, upland game birds, and waterfowl species in the study area. The proportions of these populations occupying areas that may be inundated or excavated by project facilities will be estimated. Following a reconnaissance, replicate aerial and ground surveys systematically covering specific habitat types will be conducted seasonally to evaluate changes in wildlife abundance and distribution. Aerial surveys will commence in late winter when the range of most species of wildlife is restricted. Ground surveys using snowmaChines, skis, and snowshoes will provide detailed data and serve to "truth" results of the aerial effort. A second series of replicate surveys is scheduled for late spring to provide insight on the location of special use areas, such as bear denning and those used for spring feeding. A helicopter may be employed for these surveys as it is very effective for observing the denning activity of bears, goat kidding, and the shifting of animals between feeding ranges. A third series of replicate surveys will be conducted late in the summer to complete the data base on the composition and distribution of resident wildlife, but the actual timing of the surveys and the degree of effort expended on each will ultimately depend on phenology. Aerial surveys of mountain goat and Dal I s sheep were conducted in winter 1982 but will not be undertaken in spring and summer because the project is not expected to kE affect their habitats. At a minimum these surveys will provide a basis for estimating (1) the seasonal distribution of big game, raptors, and other important species; (2) the utilization of the project area for breeding by upland game birds, waterfowl, and other birds; and (3) the numbers of big game, furbearers, raptors, upland game birds, and waterfowl inhabiting the study area. -Data Reduction and Results The results of the literature review, field surveys, and personal interviews with knowledgeable individuals will be synthesized into a report that describes local faunal assemblages and discuss es the r endangered species. The distribution and relative abundance of a given species or species group will be correlated with the vegetation map, providing a concise summation of the relative importance of project affected areas to the local fauna. ---A li-sti,ng--of -v-ertebra-t-es---e-i-t-her—k-nown---o-r--be-l-i-eved--t,o-.-oc-c-ur--i-n—the—stud-y-- area will be provided. I As a consequence of marked seasonal changes in avian diversity and abundance, bird lists will include year —around residents, migratory species, and species known to be occasional or accidental visitors. In all cases, species observed during the current study will be highlighted. Where possible, subjective estimates of wildlife populations will be iVw provided. To estimate bovid abundance, population data on mountain goats and Dall sheep collected by the Alaska Department of of Fish and Game will be pooled with that gathered during the field study. Population estimates for moose and the two bear species will be made by combining data from individual observers and that previously reported by the U.S. Forest Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Where attempted, population estimates for other species and M species groups will be based solely on the field survey data. As appropriate, maps will be Prepared depicting specialized habitats such as denning, birthing, and rearing areas. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES -This phase of the study will identify and assess the significance of the historic and archeological resources of the project area. Sampling Plan The assessment of cultural resources (archeological and historical) will consist of a literature search, consultation with agency personnel, an interpretation of aerial photography, and field survey. Each contributes to the objective of identifying and mitigating significant direct adverse effects of project development on property listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic PI aces. Methods Consultations will be conducted with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service to identify agency concerns with project development. Consultation will be documented by appending a letter from each agency indicating the nature, extent, and results of the consultation to the final report. A literature search of known and reported sites in the vicinity of project facilities will be made. This information helps determine whether project construction will adversely affect any known or recorded cultural resources. Stereoscopic air photo interpretation of the transmission line route and power plant site will also be made to aid in identifying additional areas suggesting human use, occupancy, or potential prehistoric sites. 21 The field survey will focus on (1) locating all known and recorded sites directly affected by construction of the transmission line, power plant, dams, penstock, conduits, access roads, and (2) surveying on foot for previously unknown or unrecorded sites at project construction sites and all points where the transmission I ine crosses a land -water --:interface.- - __.___ y *Subsurface probing, undertaken only in ar eas appearing archeologically sensitive, will be based on ground survey results. All probes will be backfilled. Field collection of artifacts will be limited to significant materials which, if not recovered at the time are likely ------------- c-ompletion-of materials will be delivered to the responsible agency. Appropriate information will be recorded for any site eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. A site survey form will be completed for any site found in the project area, ___reg-a:rdl-es-s-of -e-l-i-gi-bi-l-it-y-fo-r-th-e--reg-i-ste-r. -an-d--wi-1-1--b-e-appended-tothe final report. The following guidelines for studying cultural resources in the project area will be followed: 1. A descriptive inventory of the cultural resources affected by the proposed action. 2. Maps showing the location, density, and distribution of the resources in relation to relevant natural and environmental factors; and delineation of the areas of potential environmental impact. 3. Evaluation of the historic, scientific, and social significance of the resources, including identification of resources in, pending nomination to, or considered eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 22 4. The predictable adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed action on the resources. 5. A recommended program for lessening -the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse effects on the resources. �6- Description and evaluation of unavoidable adverse effects. •-Results Results of the surveys will be presented in a final report describing the methodology employed (e.g. surveys, inventories, subsurface testing, etc.) and, if applicable, the results of any surveys and inventories of subsurface testing recommended by state and federal agencies. Any historic or archeological sites known to exist or discovered in the project area will also be identifed, along with a summary of their historic significance, project impacts, and possible mitigation measures. PROJECT SCHEDULE The following activities have been scheduled for the environmental assessment of the project area. 23 DATE ACTIVITY October 1981 Special Use Permit for preliminary field work obtained from U.S. Forest Service. October 1981 Preliminary archeological assessment of project area Prerequisite to exploratory drilling. October 1981 Completion of autumn survey of aquatic and terrestrial life in project area. -1982 -------- ----Interim report on environment -a] stud-i-e-s-submitt-ed---------------------- , _ to Alaska, Power Authority. I March 1982 Completion of winter survey of aquatic and terrestrial life in project area. April 1982 Obtain Special Use Permit for 1982 field work from the U.S. Forest Service. May -June 1982 Completion of spring survey of biological and archeological resources of project area. tt July -September 1982 Completion of summer survey of physical, biological, and archeological resources of project area. October 1982 Draft FERC Exhibit E environmental report submitted to Alaska Power Authority February 1983 Alaska Power Authority applies for license from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 24 REFERENCES American Public Health Association. 1980. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Fifteenth Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. -Ebasco Services Incorporated. 1982a. Interim report for Alaska Power Authority. Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Ebasco Services Incorporated. 1982b. Interim environmental assessment for Alaska Power Authority. Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 191. Ottawa, Canada. Viereck, L.A. and C.T. Dyrness. 1980. A preliminary classification system for vegetation of Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-106. 38 pp. Vi ereck, L.A., C. T. Dyr ness, and A. R. Batten. 1981. Revision . of preliminary classification system for vegetation of Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Institute of Northern Forestry, Fairbanks, Alaska. 64 pp. Zippin, C. 1956. An evaluation of the removal method of estimating animal populations. Biometrics 12:163-189. 25 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIELD STUDY PLAN AND INTERIM REPORT June , 1982 Mr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmaspheric Administration National Alarine Fisheries Sar;ica P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 1-i EC, i. - -.: , LJ We have received your letter of April 29, 1982, presenting the Environ- mental Field Study Plan for the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. After reviewing this document and the interim report of February 1982, we have several comments for your consideration. The Interim Report states that "Min:Lmum downstream flow, requiremc-n-ts were considered to be zero for all six (project) alternatives.11 it goes on to state that this assumption was based on a preliminar,,7 assess- ment that the fishery in Grant Creek is "probably minor enough" to justify removing all flow. We do not feel the attempt to write off this fishery and mitigate the loss in some other manner constitutes are adequate consideration of the resource. While the rracp-ii tude or Liportance- of Une' fish populations here may be shown to be r,,Linor, av4J able data do not allow for any conclusions to he node. These repc).tr' point out that Grant Creek contains known spawning populations of king and sockeye salmon, may support spawning by coho salmon, Dolly Vardc-n and rainbow trout and is utilized by all of these species for rearing. Numbers are only presented for adult chinook and sockeye and the re -port. allows that actual numbers are probably higher. We recommend that additional information be gathered to describr-, the fisheries resources of the project area. We believe the need fC--- this fisheries data is critical to a thorough assessment of project impac�ts, and that the study plan should reflect this importance. Study emphasis on such elements as water quality, phytoplankton, zooplankton, insects (benthic mcroinvertebrates), periphyton, and botanical resources should be re-evaluated to produce study results more closely allied with re:,,.' concerns. The following comments are specific to the Environmental Field Study Plan: Page 7, paragraph 5. Spawning areas are to be identified with foot, aerial and boat surveys. Which species will be evaluated? Mh- t criteria will be used in identifying an area as spawning habitat? Will other mans be utilized? 0 2 Page 9, paragraphs 2 and 3. The first sentence here conflicts with the first sentence of paragraph 2 on page 7, which says these surveys will determine species composition, spatial and temporal distribution, relative abundance, and habitat preferences of resident and anadrornas fish. - The. indirect means of estimating salmon spawning should_ be I explained We are concerned that indirect estimations may rely upon species preference curves developed outside of Alaska and may result in an underestimate of habitat values. The assertion that Grant Creek would be too costly or swift flowing to survey may not be the case. - Additional literature review or discussions with resource agencies may identify a direct means of addressing this use. Finally, because we xael some fishery related water releases to Grant Creek cannot be ruled out at this time, some effort should be made towards quantifying the relative i.npacts to fish habitat. Vle are not. recomiiending an intensive 1:nstream- -flow -study, ---- -a-a er-a---se-r-ies--of------ ------------------- _- profiles or other data which would permit -a --preliminary,. analysis -.. to, _be- made. We appreciate this opportunity to ccmTent and anticipate accc npanying the study team on site this sum-rer. Please contact Mr. Brad Smith in our Anchorage office at 271-5006 to discuss any concerns you may have regarding these comments. Ld Robert W . McVey Director, Alaska Region United States Department of the Interior RECEIVr::D IN REPLY REFER TO: WAES Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage., Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD. - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 . J ALASKA P01^'ER ALIJ,4081-ry 8 JUN 1982 Re: Environmental Field Study Plan and Interim Environmental Assessment for Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project We have reviewed Ebasco's Field Study Plan and Interim Environmental Assessment for'the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. Our main concerns are (1) the limited fisheries data available for Grant and Falls Creeks, and (2) the premature decision that "the fishery resource which would be lost as a result of dewatering G.rant Creek for power production purposes is probably minor enough to justify mitigation by some means other than minimum downstream flow releases." (p. 6-3, Interim Report) The Fish and Wildlife Service's mitigation policy has established miti- gation goals to aid in project planning; the fisheries resources to be affected in Grant Creek fall into Resource Category 3, with abundant habitat that is of high to medium value for the fish. Our correspond- ing Mitigation Planning Goal is no net loss of habitat value, while minimizing loss of in -kind habitat value. We feel that additional effort to quantify adult salmonid use of Grant Creek will be appropriate in early study phases. These data can then be .the basis for devising acceptable mitigation measures. One such mitigation measure that should be studied is a set of releases to sustain natural runs of salmon in Grant Creek. Top p'rilority should be given to preserving natural runs of salmon in known anadromous streams; artificial production or replacement of fish should be used as a miti- gation measure only after unavoidable losses are documented. - Page 9, paragraph 3 of the Field Study Plan states "estimates of theoret- ical spawning populations of adult salmonids will be based on morphology, depth, velocity, and substrate composition of Grant Creek. Literature values for preferences of the salmonid species for these parameters plus each species' redd size will be used in the estimating process." While Erit P. Yould el this method would help quantify the amount of optimal, habitat in Grant Creek, efforts should be expended to enumerate actual numbers of each species using the creek. To reflect real inst6e—amconditions, pri6terence curves should be derived for a given study stream based on actual fish ) use. To this end, Grant Creek adult salmonid use should be quantified in these initial study stages. During early project coordination., the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has apprised us that they plan to release sockeye salmon fry into Grant Lake in early 1983. Project planning should take into account the need for smolt outmigration and prevention of impingement and entrainment. Our specific comments on the 2 volumes of the Interim Environmental Assessment (IEA) and Interim Report follow. 'Interim -Envi-ronmental---Assessment - p. 2-13, para. 4: Studies of changes in erosion and sediment deposition in Grant Mreek would be a necessary part of studies to determine minimum release requirements for Grant Creek fisheries. p. 2-18, para. 4: Project planning should address possible releases to maintain G-rant Creek fisheries. p. 3-35, para. 4: The assumption "the project's impacts on aquatic resources in Grant Lake would be minimal" is premature; Grant Lake productivity and littoral zone impacts are not yet quantified. p. 3-38, para. 1-: When sockeye salmon fry are released into Grant Lale, mitigation measures for lake resources will need to be devised. p. 8-38, -para. '2-: We would like to see instream flow regimes for maintainiFg—existing Grant Creek fisheries resources studied and addressed in later reports. p. 9-1, para. 1: Informal communication with Ebasco personnel indicate that releases into Grant Creek may seriously affect project viabil- ity, based on current power production and cost analyses. Interim Report Sections 6.0 and 8.0: We request that power analysis and cost estimates be one for an a ternative which provides minimum releases to main- tain Grant Creek fisheries resources. Sincerely, Ac"� Reg ronal Director Assistant DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEMORANDUM State of Alaska 437 "E" Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 TO, Eric Yould DATE- June 9, 1982 H E C 1z I V!z Lj Alaska Power Authority• FILE' NO. TELEPHONE NO- 274-253Y-1-4S;,,A FROM SUBJECT: Bob Martin Grant Lake Hydro Regional Martin Project After reviewing the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Interim Feasibility Report and Environmental Field Programs we find the proposal generally identifies potential project impacts. Although we do not favor extensive dewatering of Falls and Granite Creeks as * proposed, we defer in this regard to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game as the primary. authority for anadromous systems. The major water quality impacts associated with the preferred alternatives that we forsee at this time involve both potential temperature changes and turbidity increases from the lake tap discharge below the tailrace. These concerns should be carefully addressed in terms of the planned environmental field program. We have no further comments at this time pending reviewing the results of the field program. BM/DW/ccs MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES State of. Alaska I DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT I To: Eric Yould DATE: May 26, 1982 Executive Director Alaska Power Authority FILE NO: RECEIVED. TELEPHONE NO: 276-2653 SUN 1982 FROM: Ree 0ps SUBJECT: DNR -CommeAUSKA POWER AUTHOR17y crr Dir '__ Grant Lake The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the Environmental Field Study Plan for Grant Lake Hydroelectric and has the following comments. We understand that this document is not intended as a feasibility study; we look forward to the opportunity to review the Grant Lake feasibility sr-uay. The Division of Land and Water Management, Water Management Section, reminds APA and Ebasco that the division issues both a permit to construct or modify a dam (11 AAC 93.160) and a water rights permit (AS 46.15.080). A review of DLWM files indicates an ex I isting water use permit (200478) in the area of the proposed diversion at Falls Creek. This permit allows for the appropriation of 1.0 c_fsfrom Falls Creek 122 days- per year. As work on the proposed project continues, please consider pro- i-ect--imp-a:ct-s-on-t-h-is-wa-t-e-r-usepermit --i--- The Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey indicates that the pipeline for the proposed Falls Creek diversion (alternatives E and F) is located at the base of a slope prone to avalanching. cc: Dr. Rick Cardwell Ebasco Services, Inc. 400 112th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Leila Wise, DRD 1 GU V1 L1SK 1jArs. mAwxow DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA ME OFRCE OF 771E BOX 3-2000 11 May 20, 1982 Ktutovtu MAY 2 41982 Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue ALASKA MAZER AUTHORITY Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: Re: Interim Environmental Assessment, Interim Report and Environmental Field Study Plan for the Proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Environmental Field Study Plan for the proposed Grant Lake project per your April 29, 1982 request and submits the following comments. In addition, we have also reviewed both- the Interim Environmental Assessment and Interim Report for the same project and have taken the liberty of submitting comments on those documents at this time. As a general comment, we are concerned that apparently no consideration has been given to preserving existing Grant Creek fisheries nor mitigating its loss. Albeit the Grant Creek fishery is comparatively small relative to the regional resource, we find it unacceptable that this resource has been summarily dismissed as not worth maintaining. In addition, we have been led to believe that APA's policy regarding fish and wildlife resources was to insure that there be no net losses resulting from its projects. In light of what we understand to be your policy, we would appreciate your explanation as to why scenarios to maintain minimum flows for fisheries have not been considered. We believe there may be the opportunity to provide these flows without destroying the feasibility of the project. For example, the following statement found on page 6-2, para. 2 of the Interim Report regarding reduction of energy available proportionate to reduced storage seems to indicate (if current storage estimates are accurate) that there may be 'opportunity to release waters for fisheries without significantly impacting energy production. °A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess what effect on power output from Alternative D and F would occur if the actual amount of storage below the existing lake level is less than that which was used in the power studies. To do this, the estimated storage between E1.696 and E1.650 was reduced by 25 percent and by 50 percent with all other parameters held the same. The resulting values of average annual energy from Alternative D and F were reduced by less than 2 percent in the case of 25 percent reduction in Gentlemen -2- May 20, 1982 storage, and by less than 5 percent in the case of a"'50 percent reduction in storage. These very minor reductions indicate that even in the event of a significant overestimation of available storage below the existing lake level, the energy of Alternatives D and F will not be significantly reduced. The estimates of volume below the existing lake level which Were used in these studies are therefore considered to bel adequate for purposes of comparing the power output potential of 'the various alternatives investigated." We request that upcoming studies determine what minimum flow regime would be required to maintain the existing fishe in ____ Grant Cree k One - add-iti-6hAl _tK& -Department- _i_s_that - related to our , Tra--f-1- - _Lakes__,____, hatchery program. We plan to release sockeye salmon fry in Grant Lake during the spring of 1983. The purpose of the release is to enhance fisheries and ascertain the suitability of Grant Lake to provide rearing habitat for the fish. Depending on the suitability of the habitat and on the parent stocks; these fish will migrate out of the lake during 1984 or 1985 or both. If this -program proves to be successful and is likely to be continued, we wish to coordinate with APA regarding means of providing fish —w-i-t-h-sa-f-e-eg-r-es-s—f-rom-Grant—L-a-ke. Comments specific to each of the subject documents are enclosed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. . Sincerely, onald 0. Skoog Commissioner Enclosure cc: Richard Logan Carl Yanagawa Grant Lake Interim Environmental Assessment FORWARD Page i, para. 2 F.IVED JUN O 1 M2 We believe that loss of Grant Creek fisheries resources is a significant adverse impact of the project and has been dismissed without due consideration to mitigation. 2.0 REPORT ON WATER USE AND QUALITY Page 2-4, para. 2 Trail Lakes are not -proposed for use as rearing habitat for sockeye salmon fry produced at the Trail Lakes hatchery. Several area lakes, Grant Lake included, are proposed fdr rearing. Page 2-13, para. 4 If at some time subsequent to this report, a fisheries maintenance flow is guaranteed for Grant Creek, it may be necessary to devote further effort to determining the erosional and sediment depositional characteri sti cs,9- a� G,,n Gwe e. k- rtvf .1,a.. UA2w4L4- Page 2-17 , para. 1 Drawdown may make shoreline access from the lake difficult if not impossible in some areas. Page 2-17, para. 2&3 Fluctuation of the reservoir pool may introduce troduce sediments into the systems when recruitment from glaciers is typically low (in winter) and adversely affect downstream biota. In addition, bottom sediments -exposed---te --wave --- act-i-on--and-ra-i-n--by --drawdown-cou-1-d.--subs-t-anti'a-1-1-y---------- - ---------------- - -- increase sedimentation downstream in Grant Creek (if a minimum flow is guaranteed) or at the powerhouse discharge area. In addition, we understand that the constriction between Upper Grant Lake and Lower _—Gra nt-La ke__w_i_1_1_ha_v e-to-b.e-dee pen ed-a nd-w-i-den.ed-to-en.s.u-r-e-th&t sufficient contribution is available from the upper lake. Will this modification substantially reduce water quality in the lower lake by enhancing exchange of more turbid Upper lake waters with less turbid lower lake water. If so, we expect that productivity of the lower lake will suffer. Page 2-17, para. 3 Will investigations into Upper Trail Lake level fluctuations also Txaz Z':V zre address impact on sockeye spawning in up(ir lake tributaries? Page 2-18, para. 5 Alaska Department of Fish and Game believes that a project'alternative which guarantees a'minimum flow for Grant Creek fisheries must be considered. 3.0 REPORT ON FISH, WILDLIFE, AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES Page 3-3, para. 2 Report fails to list commercial harvest data for salmon species other than king salmon. Page 3-14, para. 1 What impact will deepening and widening of the constriction (to facilitate drawdown) have on water quality and, subsequently, primary production. Page 3-23, para. I Sockeye fry will be released into Grant Lake in 1983. Page 3725, Table 3-8 The following numbers of king salmon have been counted in Grant Creek by Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel (Mr. Ted McHenry) and should be used to revise Table 3-8: V Yea r 1969 1970 1976 Number of King Salmon Counted Page 3-35, para. 4 and page 3-36, para. 1 'We- beli66 "there- is no basis for thestatementthat "impact of the project alternatives to aquatic resources of Grant Lake would be minimal.." Water quality degradation in the lower lake (resultant from removing the constriction) coupled with degradation of littoral habitat may significantly reduce productivity of the lower lake. Page-3-37, para. 2 This statement conflicts with -that made on page*3-33 indicating at least king salmon juveniles utilize the lower 200 yards of Falls Creek for rearing. Page 3-38, para. 1 Grant Lake is proposed for sockeye fry stocking in 1983. Mitigation related to Grant Lake should address maintenance of productivity and providing safe egress for sockeye smolts. Page 3-38, para. 2 F This section fails to discuss mitigation of Grant Creek fisheries impacts by providing a minimum flow and ignores the Department of Fish and Game's desire to fulfill its mandate to maintain and/or enhance fish and wildlife resources and APA's policy to insure no net loss of fish and wildlife resultant of its projects. Ix ��, The proposal to mitigate total loss of the Grant Creek fisheries by more frequently stocking Vagt Lake ignores the fact that this approach V f does nothing with respect to mitigating king, coho or sockeye salmon FCC i " �f losses or that Vdgt Lake may already be stocked to its carrying. capacity. 6.0 REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Page 6-4, para. 2 More frequent stocking of Vagt Lake'may result fn a decline in fish quality rather enhancement of the sport fishery. 9.0 EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Page 9-1, para. 1 We feel that loss of Grant Creek fisheries and possible detrimental impacts to the Department's Grant Lake sockeye stocking program are significant. Interim Report 6.0 POWER OPERATION STUDIES Page 6-3, para. 3 We believe it is necessary that reservation of a minimum flow for*Grant Creek be investigated. From the discussion of reservoir capacity on e 6-2.-it appears that _may_. ------ --- - -------- water ---- --- - - --- I- . substantially impacting energy production. 7.0 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ARRANGEMENT Page 7-15, para. 3 Same comment as Interim Environmental Report page 2-17, para. 2 & 3 with respecttowater quality impacts. 8.0 COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULE Page 8-2, para. 4 We believe, to accurately assess this project, a cost estimate which includes provisions to release water for Grant Creek fisheries must be performed. 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Page 9-1, para.'2 The Department of Fish and Game has repeatedly expressed concern to EBASCO personnel that no study efforts have been directed towards determining the minimum flow required to maintain Grant Creek fisheries. Page 9-4, para. 1&2* Same comment as for Interim Environmental 322—Ort, page 2-17, para. 2& . 3 respective to Grant Lake water quality. Page 9-6, para. 3 Same comment as for Interim Environmental Report, page 3-38, para. 2 10.0 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE FOR FURTHER' STUDY Page 10.1, para. 3 The Department believes that alternatives D and F, modified to provide a minimum release for Grant Creek fisheries, mu . st be evaluated. .ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATER USEANDQUALITY Page 5. para. 3 Metals may actually increase in the summer rather than decrease if their origin is glacial flour. ... ... ... . - ------ ----- Page 6, Table 1 With respect to hardness, iron is a significant contributor in glacial ----systems-.---.- Page 8, Table 2 ------We--sugges-t—that the --l-i-mi-t-ed--(-L—)—s-amp-l-i-ng—e-f-f-e-r-t-s--proposed—f-o-r—Gra-n-t — Lake be expanded to include at least turbidity and suspended solids to help determine if water quality degradation respective to.these parameters can be expected to occur resultant from removal of the constriction. Page 10, Figure 3 What is the rationale of choosing the two sampling sites depicted? Would it be more advantageous.to use additional sites to give results that are representative of the entire system? AQUATIC LIFE ' General Comment V Once spawning and.rea'ring areas have been identified, the minimum flow required to"maintain these areas should be determined. We expect that this type of . effort will require establishment of several transects and measurement of discharges for predictive analysis. LETTER REPORT OF JUNE 8, 1982 MEETING WITH USFS .1� Flo I ;P41- 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 July 13, 1982 Mr. Geof Wilson District Ranger Seward Ranger District U.S.- Forest Service P.O. Box 275 Seward, Alaska 99664 SUBJECT: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Dear Mr. Wilson: Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in coming to Crown Point Lodge on June 8, 1982 to be briefed on the elements of the Grant Lake Project and share your views. I would like to summarize'my notes from the meeting to make sure they accurately reflect the Forest Service's sentiments concerning the Environmental Study Plan. Also included are notes from a conversation between Dr. Rick Cardwell of E sco, our engineering consultant, and Regional Forest Service fish btlogist Ken Robertson, at your request. I would appreciate your reviewing these notes for completeness and accuracy. If you are in concurrence with the content of this letter, I request that.you please indicate so in a letter to the Power Authority. NOTES FROM CONSULTATION WITH U.S. FOREST SERVICE ON GRANT LAKE Ken Thompson suggested that neither the environmental study plan nor the interim project feasibility reports treated fish and wildlife mitigation measures adequately. Based on discussions between Mr. Thompson and Rick Cardwell of Ebasco, it was agreed that mitigation measures will be resolved in consultation with the appropriate agencies this summer and the proposed mitigation plan will appear in the final project feasibility report. Impacts associated with access appear to be the predominant concern with respect to aesthetics and recreation. The following points were made: 1) The Forest Service recommends considering use of the Falls Creek pipeline road as the primary access road to Grant Lake. Use of the Falls Creek pipeline road might eliminate the need for a road from the powerhouse to the lake tap and gate shaft area. The latter road and its numerous switchbacks would be visible from the scenic Seward -Anchorage highway, detracting aesthetically. Mr. 6eof Wilson July 13, 1982 Page 2 2) The Forest Service also recommends that we consider moving the access road that runs from the bridge to the powerhouse proposed for Alternatives D and F back from the shoreline of Upper Trail Lake This will minimize its visual impact from the Seward -Anchorage highway. _ I_ 3) Because there is need for more off -road access in the area of the project, the Forest service recommends keeping the Falls Creek pipeline access road open to the public as a means of gaining. access to Grant Lake. Consideration should be given to providing a parking lot and a boat ramp at the lake. Sincerely - - - ----I- FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Eric A. Marchegiani Project Manager EAM:mw DISTRIBUTION OF JULY 9 MINUTES AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 July 15, 1982 Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P. 0. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. McVey: Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority met with your staff and other agencies on July 9, 1982 to discuss the letter report "Evaluation of Instream Flows for the Grant Lake Project and Identification of Potential Mitigation Alternatives," prepared by Ebasco Services, Inc. A summary of this meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for the Power Authority is enclosed. Ebasco Services conducted a simplified instream flow assessment of Grant Creek which is discussed on pages I to 7 of the report. Table 3 presents the cost of power associated with providing several levels of instream flows. Based on this analysis, the minimum flow required to maintain a "good" level of spawning habitat (as defined by Tennant) and provide for incubation and emergence in Grant Creek would result in a power cost increase in the range of 25 to 30 percent. This increase in the cost of power would make this project economically unsound. We have come to the conclusion that the project would be unable to provide sufficient instream flow in Grant Creek to maintain an acceptable amount of fish habitat. Since we are unable to provide sufficient streamflow in Grant Creek, we believe that application of the USFWS incremental method of instream flow assessment is not appropriate for Grant Creek. This method is better suited for quantifying effects of altered streamflows and providing the basis for a negotiated settlement of downstream releases. In view of this, some alternative form of mitigation would be required. We believe that the project may be able to incur a 10% increase in the cost of power and provide an instream flow of 15 cfs. We recognize that this amount of water may not be sufficient to provide habitat for fishery resources and may not be desired as channel modification would probably be required to create useable habitat at this low level. If an artificial channel is required, we believe it would be more advantageous to construct this channel as part of the tailrace. More water would be available to provide for a greater amount of habitat with no loss of power to the project and a minimal increase in project cost (3.5%). Mr. Robert McVey July 15, 1982 Page 2 We would like to meet with you and your staff in cooperation with your agency to discuss potential mitigation options and other issues to facilitate successful completion of the detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have scheduled a -meeting at - 9:00 am on August 17, 1982 in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife. Service's office located at 1011 E. Tudor Road to discuss this project with State and Federal agencies and other interested parties. The purpose of this meeting is to identify and prioritize potential mitigative measures associated with the loss of habitat in Grant Creek. i In addition, we understand that ADF&G is considering Grant Lake as a location for a sockeye salmon_r_e.a_ri-ng_f_a_ci_1 itY_. __We _woul-d- 1-i-ke to ------- -- ----- -- _ _ Y 9 Y _ possible:_ __ _ pass_n _ juv_enile_socke a _sal:mon__fr_om__Grant_. _______ Lakeuto th6-TaI Lakesos stem. In addition to these items, we would like to discuss the conceptual approach of a recreation plan as required in the FERC license application.. We would appreciate your comments on the letter report and the summary of the July 9, 1982 meeting prior to the August 17, 1982 meeting, if `possible. This will enable us to follow a logical sequence to developing a mitigation plan for the project. We look forward to seeing you or your staff at the August 17, 1982 meeting. If you have any questions regarding the analysis or the meeting agenda, please call Mr. Marchegiani. Sincerely Eric P. Yould Executive Director Attachment: as stated cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward Don Smith, EBASCO ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT MEETING WITH AGENCIES July 9, 1982 A. The meeting was attended by the following: Tom Arminski .............Alaska Department of Fish and Game Don Beyer ................Ebasco Services Incorporated Ralph Browning ........... U.S. Forest Service, Seward Ken Thompson .............U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage Rick Cardwell ............ Ebasco Services Incorporated Mary Lynn Nation ......... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wayne Pietz ..............Ebasco Services Incorporated Eric Marchegiani ......... Alaska,Power Authority Brad Smith ................ National Marine Fisheries Service Don Smith ................Ebasco Services Incorporated Jim Thiele ...............Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center David Trudgen ............ Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center Bill Wilson ..............Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center B. Opening Statements by Eric Marchegiani and Don Smith. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Agency comments on the Environmental Study Plan specifically with respect to evaluation of alternative project arrangements.that would provide a flow in Grant Creek, methods for estimating the number of fish in Grant Creek, pro- viding for the safe egress of sockeye salmon smolts from Grant Lake and other potential mitigation measures. C. Discussion of Project Alternative Arrangements by Wayne Pietz 1. Mr. Pietz described, point -by -point, the contents of the letter report (attached), which presented the results of analysis the alternative project arrangements suggested by the Agencies. 2. The cost of energy (power) estimates generated by Ebasco in the letter request are the best that Ebasco can derive at this time. 3. For comparison, Mr. Pietz indicated that the cost of power esti- mated in the Railbelt Report from a variety of power generation plants was approximately 55 - 60 mills per kilowatt hour in the near future. 4. The cost of power estimates the agencies will see in the final feasibility report for the Grant Lake project will probably be higher than shown in the letter report, due to use of a more extensive methodology for estimating cost of power. He stated that the relative differences in power costs between the different alternatives in the letter report would remain the same. 5. Mr. Arminski asked why it cost $3 million more for Alternative "G11. Mr. Pietz responded that this alternative required a longer tunnel (about 500 feet) and required more rock bolts and supports in the tunnel because of the orientation of the tunnel with respect to the bedding of the rock in the area of Grant Creek. 6. Mr. Arminski asked whether it would be possible to allow a mini- mum.streamflow in Grant Creek, on the basis that the cost of the power in the long-term would be lower -because -of the -greater utili- zation" of the -power--from-the Project.— - It -was explained that the cost of power would not decrease with time because it would be fully utilized from the on-line date. 7. There was considerable discussion of the cost of power for Grant Creek relative to other sources. 8 -The - c o s t -of - -powe r --- associ-a-ted--with A1-ternative- "F"-,,- t.he-- pro po ------ arrangement, and a spawning channel in the tailrace was provided in the letter report for illustration of the comparative cost of a typical mitigative measure compared to the provision of an instream flow: 9. Mr. Pietz indicated that the instream flow estimates were sufficient to determine the comparative costs of the project alternatives. 10. In response to a question, it was noted that the project is still viable without Falls Creek diversion water. The study is proceeding with the inclusion of Falls Creek diversion because the Power Authority will be able to obtain more power at a cost of power that is comparable to the Alternative without the Falls Creek diversion. 11. The City of Seward and the local area will be able to absorb all of the power and will have a more dependable energy source with the Grant Lake project than with the current condition. 12. Question: If Susitna came on-line,wouild Grant Lake still be used? Also, could a minimum streamflow in Grant Creek be maintained until Susitna came on-line? The answer to the first question was yes; to the second question: no, the project probably would not be viable economically and would probably not be built if it could not be shown to be viable in time and cost to the alternatives available. 13. After considerable discussion of the alternatives and costs asso- ciated with them, it was generally agreed by those in attendance that the range of flows studied in the evaluation of the alternatives was adequate for consideration of an instream flow. 14. The result of a discussion of the provision of an instream flow suitable for maintenance of afisher habitat in Grant Creek was that the project would probably not be'economical. Efforts should there- fore be directed to mitigative measures other than the continuation of instream flow studies. -3- [a E . 15. Bill Wilson commented that he considered the minimum streamflow analysis performed in the letter report plus .AEIDC's observations on Grant Creek at different flows to provide a good preliminary assessment of the economic conse- quences of various streamflow regimes. There was general agreement that enough minimum streamflow study had been done for now. Counting Spawning Salmon in Grant Creek 1. AEIDC described their proposal for counting spawning salmon in Grant Creek this summer. They will continue with foot sur- veys, similar to that used in the past by ADf&G from which the number of fish can be estimated. There was agreement that AEIDC's approach would provide suitable data. Theoretical estimates of spawners based on habitat were not considered reliable and were discarded. Alternative Fish Mitigation Measures 1. Brad Smith recommended that APA shouldn't dismiss minimum streamflow as a potentially viable mitigative measure until the feasibility of all the other mitigative measures have been evaluated. He was comfortable with the minimum streamflow calculations and results, but still uncomfortable with the idea of dewatering Grant Creek. He asked APA to consider mitigation alternatives in the creek associated with a release of 15 cfs. 2. Tom Arminski is comfortable with the assessment in the letter report. Although he is uncomfortable with drying up Grant Creek, he noted that the fish resources are relatively small; perhaps mitigation monies could be better spent el.sewhere. Arminski would like APA to make a statement that it does not believe instream flow releases are viable economically and is prepared to explore as many alternative mitigation measures as possible. Then, the ADF&G can decide whether this position is acceptable. 3. Ken Thompson suggested that the decision -makers on this project will required a full evaluation of alternatives in the feasibility report. Thus, the impacts on the cost of power associated with different mitigation measures will be estima- ted. 4. The resource agency representatives recommended tha APA prioritize all alternative mitigation measures .in its evalu- ation. However, none should be eliminated from the analysis. The Cook Inlet Regional Salmon Enhancement Plan should be consulted in developing mitigation approaches. 5. Scheduling of Forthcoming Meetings of Mitigation: Mr. Arminski thought that our schedule for accomplishing the fish mitigation planning was a little ambitious. He recommended that APA meet with the Fishery Research and Enhancement Division (FRED) and probably the Cook Inlet AquacultUre Association to learn their preferences concerning off -site mitigation. They probably will have information on costs of some enhancement projects that may be considered for -4- 6. The resource agencies recommended that APA consider what it could do, in terms of mitigation, with the money it would save from not provid- ing a streamflow in Grant Creek. F. Migration of Sockeye Salmon Smolts From Grant Lake 1. Don Beyer and Don Smith discussed the two potential fish removal systems that presently appear--to--be- the most -p-romi si.ng --in providing safe egress of sockeye salmon smolts from the lake. Beyer discussed'the Baker Lake Gulper", a device that i-s-in operation on-Vashington's Baker Lake to bypass sockeye around a dam. The Gulper relies upon establishing a downstream -oriented attractant flow that gradually increases to the point where the smolts cannot swim out of the artificial, floating channel. The scheme illustrated by Smith uses an inclined screen in the tunnel to divert smolts'into the gate shaft well, where they can be removed for -t-r-a-ns-po-r-t---t-o-Tra-i-1--La-k-e-.-------------- 2. Brad Smith asked how sockeye juveniles could be kept from entering the turbine. Ebasco and AEIDC staff were of the opinion that juveniles would not leave the lake unless lake carrying capacity was exceeded or a stock was used that naturally migrated down toanother lake as part of its normal rearing history. 3. Tom Arminski, in echoing Brad's concern that fry may be entrained by the tunnel,_asked whether we could lower the depth of the tunnel inlet so that it would be below the zone of fry occurrence -in —the—lake. —This would adversely impact project costs and possibly add to the problem of migration of the smolts. 4. 'Eric Marchegiani suggested considering the option of stocking the lake so that the number of fish surviving passage through the turbines would equal the production goals of ADF&G's FRED. Tom Arminski noted this proposal would have to be discussed with FRED..- G. Turbidity in Grant Lake and Effects on Production 1. Rick Cardwell described plan for responding to agency comments on this issue. AEIDC discussed how their data will respond to this concern. The issues were discussed. H. Recreation 1. Eric Marchegiani asked the participating agencies to think about their views concerning recreation on Grant Lake. I. Future Meetings 1. The next meeting was tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, August 5, 1982 at the Fish and Wildlife Conference room on Tudor Road. All parti- cipants agreed to consult their schedules on this date. 2. The subject of the meeting would be the alternative mitigative options These would be evaluated preliminarily and discussed with the agencies. 3. All those attending this meeting plus representatives from the Cook Inlet Association should plan to attend the next meeting. GRANT LAKE DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service Post Office Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward Don Smith, EBASCO Mr. Keith Schreiner U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 30: Us. Mary Lynn Nation, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Gary Stackhouse, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward Don Smith, EBASCO Ux. Clay Beal, Forest Supervisor, U. S. Forest Service 2221'E. Northern Lights, Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 cc: Mr. Geof Wilson, District Ranger, U. S. Forest Service, Seward Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward Don Smith, EBASCO The Honorable Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Subport Building . Juneau, Alaska 99801 00: Mr. Thomas Arminski, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Lyman Nichols, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Ted McHenry, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Carl Yanagawa, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward Don Smith, EBASCO AGENCY COMMENTS ON'OUL.Y 9 MEETING MINUTES r t I jA r s. x4mmomo, GOVERNOR L SM DEPART -WENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 3-2000 (71 Z / JUNF54Q, ALASKA 99802 PHONE: 465-4100 August 6, 1982 Alaska Power Autho 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska LU ty 99501 Attention: Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director 6 Gentlemen: RECEIVED AUG 91982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Re: Grant Lake Hydroproject Letter of July 14, 1982 and Instream Flow Evaluation Letter Report. Thank you for your recent letter and the opportunity to comment. We understand, on the basis of the information you have provided us, that there is no practicable means of maintaining a fishery in Grant Creek if the proposed hydropower project is constructed. As you may already know, the Department's policy regarding mitigation of project impacts embodies a hierarchic approach and is described as follows in order of implementation: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action or its implementation. 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing substitute resources or environments. It appears that, at least during the real life of the project, the only suitable means of mitigation of fisheries losses is (5), compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. We understand that you are currently developing mitigation options along these lines and will be pleased to meet with you to discuss them. Eric P. Yould ' -2- August 6, 1982 However, due to the probable complexity of issues involved, we will be unable to prioritize options without a more lengthy review period. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions or comments regarding these matters. e.. Sincerely, i Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner Uj UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT U1- UUMIVILMUC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NationaZ Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AZaska 99802 fi E C E I Li August 11, 1982 7 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have received your letter of July 15, 1982, concerning the matter of instream flow studies for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric project feasi- bility study. As requested, this letter is intended to provide our comments regarding the Letter Report of July 2, 1982, and the meeting of July 9, 1982. The Letter Report shows that a s ' ubstantial increase in cost of energy would follow if fishery releases were provided to Grant Creek of sufficient volume to maintain existing habitat values. Based on these figures, we realize that project construction and operation would not be compatible with maintenance of the existing fishery. Thus, it would seem that in-depth analysis of fisheries flows to Grant Creek are not warranted at this time, and we concur with the recommendation against running an IFG-4 analysis.* However, fisheries studies within Grant Creek must continue. Indeed, with the loss of in -stream flow releases it becomes necessary that the magnitude of the fishery resource be fully understood. This will allow us to evaluate the impact of the project and explore measures which will effectively mitigate any loss.' According to your letter, the Letter Report.of July 2, and discussions with EBASCO, the Grant Lake project could incur a 10 percent increase in cost of power and remain economically feasible. This margin, and the water flow it represents, may become an important aspect in the overall feasibility of the proposal. We do not agree with your assertion that such flows would be more appropriately released to a constructed trail - race channel than to the existing channel of Grant Creek. *We believe some description of flow vs habitat will be necessary in reviewing mitigative measures (page 2). 2 Construction of a spawning channel utilizing trailrace water would exist as a mitigation option regardless of the fisheries release to Grant Creek, and should not be seen as an "either-or" alternative. It may turn Gut that the combination of spawning channels and limited flow release to Grant Creek would have the least impact to the resource. The fisheries studies should include some description of the habitat values in Grant Creek with these releases, and identify any modifications which might increase this value. This effort may require a__fl_ow_v_s hai-b-it-at analysis. Regarding mitigative measures other than f1low releases to Grant Creek, we are doubtful that any alternative exists which would not result in an overall reduction in the fishery resource. Spawning channels con- structed within the powerhouse trailrace have been suggested. Water temperatures will present a substantial problem here, as release tem- peratures -occurring spawning temperatures, quality, sedimentation, substrate size and available rearing habitat present additional areas of concern. Other mitigative measures may exist, but are likely to be less desirable and/or effective. At this time it would be valuable to' have a mitigation policy statement from your office regarding the Grant Lake project. While both our agencies give -priority -to avoidance of -impact, it appears that we may have dissimilar views on secondary priorities. We feel it is important to ------ma-i-nta-i-n-,-o-r--a-t-t-emp-t---to---ma-i-n-t-a-i-n-i-e-x-i-s-t--i-ng---gene-t-i-c-a-1--i--comme-rc-i-a-l—a-nd recreational fisheries ' values. Replacing poundage of fish lost to the ,commercial fishery by increasing hatchery production of pink salmon would be very low on our list (example). Finally, we should acknowledge that very little is known about the fishery resources of this system. The king salmon which spawn in Grant Creek are of the early run -within the Kenai River, a distinct group that characteristically separates into relatively small spawning runs in headwater drainages. Thus, the value of the Grant Creek run goes beyond the number of returning adults. Sockeye salmon also spawn in Grant Creek. Large numbers of this species may spawn within.Trail Lake at the Grant Creek confluence. Flows to Grant Creek may be critical to maintaining spawning here. Other species also occur, although this usage is poorly understood. Considering the value of this system and the present level of resource knowledge, we do not believe any decisions should be made at this time which would cause a given alternative or study element to be dropped from further consideration. We feel the level of coordination and involvement between the resource agencies and APA have been very beneficial in proper project planning to date, and we look forward to the upcoming meeting on mitigation. Sincerely, Robert W. McVey P/t'rector, Alaska Region United States Department of the Interior IN REPLY REFER TO: WAES Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD.�, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 ALASKA POWER UTyp�� 16 AUG 1982 Re: Grant Lake Project Instream Flows The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed Ebasco's July 6,•1982 report concerning instream flows and the summary of the ensuing interagency meeting of July 9, 1982. These comments are submitted to convey our suggestions on topics discussed at that meeting. Our mitigation goals for the resources affected by the Grant Lake project are two -fold: (1) avoidance or lessening of impacts to the greatest extent possible; and (2) for unavoidable losses, quantification and in kind replacement of resource value. In, light of these goals and the apparent lack of water for optimal mitigation flows, we feel that a combination of small releases and some kind of tailrace facility (such as a spawning channel) would meet both objectives for fisheries resources. Our largest concern with the project relates to dewatering Grant Creek. We .have no problem with the use of Tennant's "Montana method" for the purpose of a preliminary analysis of instream releases and the cost thereof. However, we are concerned that all release scenarios have been summarily eliminated at this early stage in project planning. We recommend that lower percentages (10% to 20%) of average'annual flows be analyzed to facilitate a more comprehensive evaluation of mitigation alternatives. While flows in lower ranges may not provide optimum habitat, natural runs of salmon could still utilize Grant Creek and egress for Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) hatchery sockeye smolts could be provided. At the same time, power costs could be kept at a level that makes the project economically feasible. We agreed at the July 9 meeting that development of alternative mitigation measures and prioritization of those measures in terms of cost effectiveness is appropriate at this time. However, it should be noted that such analyses cannot be complete until sufficient biological data exists to identify all project impacts and a full array'of mitigation alternatives have been identified. One point that may have bearing on cost effectiveness of any given replacement mitigation scheme is consideration of life -of -project costs associated with time intensive, manpower intensive mitigation alternatives, such as "gulpers" and spawning channels. Mitigation costs should include not only construction of facilities, but all costs of operating and maintaining those facilities. Cost allowances should also be made for monitoring a mitigation measure's effectiveness and altering methods, if necessary. Elimination of any mitigation alternative would be premature at this time because baseline fisheries data are not yet available. Numbers of presently using the creek, the amounts of aquatic habitat -to -be -lost, and numbers of fish to be lost need to be analyzed to effectively choose a replacement mitigation alternative. Project planning schedules may need to be adjusted if additional data and review are warranted. Aside from mitigation issues, one topic touched upon in the meeting was -determination -of --f easibility-f-ox—bjo�th -a 5 MW -and- --6--MW--.-ca.paci-t-y-.--I.n--up-c.oming feasibilitv reports,we would like to see an analysis of need for the Project relative to: (1) Seward's present and projected local power market; (2) this project's feasibility and environmental impacts compared with other proposed projects affecting the Southcentral Alaska power markets, such as the Bradley Lake Project. We would like to establish which of the many proposed hydropower projects efficiently meet power demands, while incurring the fewest fish and wildlife resource impacts. We recommend that decisions on appropriate mitigation alternatives be deferred until review of this —year's fisheries -&-a—ta s complete and full array o mitigation alternatives is developed by the project sponsor. We feel these suggestions are consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) licensing requirements. We look forward to our August 17 meeting and continuing participation in Grant Lake project's planning. Sincerely, &Ctius Anistant Regional Director cc: FWS-ROES, WAES ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, OCM, Juneau ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage FERC, WDC GROUP 12 DISTRIBUTION OF AUGUST 17 MEETING REPORT AND REQUEST FOR NEXT MEETING 4 f 334 WEST 5th AVENUE- ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 The Honorable Ronald Commissioner Alaska Department of Subport Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Skoog: 0. Skoog Fish and Game October 21, 1982 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with your'staff and other agencies on August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and alternatives for mitigation impacts of the subject project on fish in Grant Creek and on a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant lake. A summary of that meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed. The Arctic Environmental information and Data Center (AEIDC) has been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the Grant Lake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to d ' evelop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the detailed feasibility analysis for the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project. As result of your August 6, 1982, letter and the fish mitigation planning meeting of August 17, 1982, 1 have requested Ebasco to prepare another report (Planning Document No. 3). This document will illustrate the relative differences in cost of power between the different mitigation options discussed at the August 17 meeting. The document will* be sent to your agency's representative, Mr. Don McKay, for review prior to the next major fi.sh mitigation planning meeting, scheduled for October 29. By costing the different mitigation options and evaluations cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the most reasonable mitigation option. At various times it has been proposed that both an instream flow release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other mitigation facilities, the provision of both likely will increase the cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting, approaches were identified that we fully expect will go beyond sustenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Grant Creek. Therefore, we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation nations considered will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources.' Nevertheless, we must await the results of the next stage of biological, r October 21, 1982 Page 2 engineering, and cost assessment (i.e., Planning Document 3) before f making a decision. We would like to meet --with you or -your representatives to discuss I - Planning Document No. 3 and facilitate successful completion of the detailed feasibility study of the Grant.Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on-October_29, 1982, in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this project with State agencies, Federal agencies, and other interested parties. -- -------------------We-1-ook—forwa-rd--to--seei-ng you —or you-r--staff—at -the--Oc-tobe-r -29---------- ---- -- — --- meeti-ng: ---If you-have--any---question-s-rega-rdi-ng---the---enc-l-osures—o-r—th_e-------- proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani. Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director Attachments: 1. Summary of August 17, 1982, meeting 2. AEIDC Draft Report 3. Planning Document No. 3 4. Summary of September 15, 1982, meeting cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage Mr. Ronald A. Garzini, City Manager, Seward Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO .4 . VJi7 �Z- 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 October 21, 1982 Mr. Keith Shreiner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Shreiner Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907i 276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with your staff and other agencies on August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and alternatives for mitigation impacts of the subject project on fish in Grant Creek and on a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant lake. A summary of that meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed. The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the Grant Lake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to develop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the detailed feasibility analysis for the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project. As result of your August 16, 1982, letter and the fish mitigation planning meeting of August 17, 1982, 1 have requested Ebasco to prepare another report (Planning Document No. 3). This document will illustrate the relative differences in cost of power between the different mitigation options discussed at the August 17 meeting. The document will be sent to your agency's representative, Ms. Mary Lynn Nation, for review prior to the next major fish mitigation planning meeting, scheduled for October 29. By costing the different:*mitigation options and evaluations cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the most reasonable mitigation option. At various times it has been proposed that both an instream flow release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other mitigation facilities, the provision of both likely will increase the cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting, approaches were identified that we fully expect will go beyond sustenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Grant Creek. Therefore, we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation options considered will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources. Nevertheless, we must await the results of the next stage of biological, engineering, and cost assessment (i.e., Planning Document 3) before making a decision. October 21, 1982 Page 2 We would like to meet with you or your representatives to discuss Planning Document No. 3 and facilitate successful completion of the detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on October 29- 1982, in the U.S. i FishandWildlife Service's office, 1`O11 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this project with State agencies, Federal agencies, and other interested parties. We look forward to seeing you or your staff at the October 29 meeting. If.you have any questions regarding the enclosures or the proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani. Eric P. Youl d Executive Director Attachments: 1. Summary of_August 17, 1982, meeting 1 2. AEIDC Draft Report 3. Planning Document No. 3 4. Summary of September 15, 1982, meeting cc: Ms. Mary Lynn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service i Mr. Gary Stackhouse, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Ronald A. Garzini, City Manager, Seward Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 October 21, 1982 Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. McVey: % Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with your staff and other agencies on August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and alternatives for mitigation impacts of the subject project on fish in Grant Creek and on a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant lake. A summary of that meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed. The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the Grant Lake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to develop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the detailed feasibility analysis for the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project. As result of your August 11, 1982, letter and the fish mitigation planning meeting of August 17, 1982, 1 have requested Ebasco to prepare another report (Planning Document No. 3). This document will illustrate the relative differences in cost of power between the different mitigation options discussed at the August 17 meeting. The document will be sent to your agency's representative, Mr. Brad Smith, for review prior to the next major fish mitigation planning meeting, scheduled for October 29. By costing the different mitigation options and evaluations cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the 'most reasonable mitigation option. At various times it has been proposed that both an instream flow release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other mitigation facilities, the provision of both likely will increase the cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting, approaches were identified that we fully expect will go beyond sustenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Grant Creek. Therefore, we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation options considered will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources. Nevertheless, we must await the results of the next stage of biological, r . October 21, 1982 Page 2 engineering, and cost assessment (i.e., Planning Document 3) before i making a decision. We would like to meet with you or your representatives to discuss Planning Document No. 3 and facilitatesuccessfulcompletion of the detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on October 29, 1982, in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this project with State agencies, Federal agencies, and other interested parties, f _We 1-ook forward-to--s-eei-ng you--oryouur-staff---at- the ---October_29 __ _--------__----_ ----_meet.Ing _If--you--have--any---questions---rega-rd-i-ng---the-encl-os-ures-or-the---- -------- ------ proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani. Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director Attachments: 1. Summary of August 17, 1982, meeting 2. AEIDC Draft Report 3. Planning Document No. 3 4. Summary of September 15, 1982, meeting cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage Mr. Ronald A. Garzini, City Manager, Seward Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO 3 t 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 October 22, 1982 Mr. Clay Beal, Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service 2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Dear Mr. Beal: Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with various agencies on August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and alternatives for mitigating impacts of the subject project on fish in Grant Creek and on a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant Lake. A summary of that' meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed. The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the Grant l.ake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to develop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the detailed feasibility analysis for the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project. As result of the fish mitigation planning meeting of August 17, 1982, 1 have requested Ebasco to prepare another report (Planning Document No. 3). This document will illustrate the relative differences in cost of power between the different mitigation options discussed at the August 17 meeting. By costing the different mitigation options and evaluation cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the most reasonable mitigation option. At various times it has been proposed that both an instream flow release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other mitigation facilities, the provision of both, likely will increase the cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting, approaches were identified that we fully expect will go beyond sustenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Grant Creek. Therefore, we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation options considered will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources. Never- theless, we must await the results of the next stage of biological, engineering, and cost assessment (i.e., Planning Document 31 before making a decision. Vle would like to meet with you or your representatives to discuss Plannina Document No. 3 and facilitate successful completion of the October 22, 1982 Page 2 detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on October 29, 1982, in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this project with State agencies, Federal agencies, and other interested parties. We look forward to seeing you or your,staff at the October 29 meeting. If you have any questions regarding the enclosures of the proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani. Sincerely, ------------ - - -- FOR —THE EX.EC.UTI-VE-.. D-I-RE.CTO.R--.-,-. Eric A. Marchegiani Project Manager Attachments: 1. Summary of August 17, 1982, meeting L AEIDC Draft Report 3. Planning -Document No. 3 4—.Summary of—S-6—pte—mb—er 15—,1982—meeting EAM:cb cc: Mr. Geof Wilson, District, U.S. Forest Service, Seward Mr. Ken Thompson, U.S. Forest Service Mr. Ronald A. Garzini, City, Seward Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO I DISTRIBUTION OF GRANT LAKE LETTER OCTOBER 21, 1982 Mr. Clay Beal Mr. John Cook, Director Forest Supervisor National Park Service U.S. Forest Service 540 W. 5th Avenue 2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 - CC: Mr. Larry Wright CC: Mr. Ken Thompson National Park Service U.S. Forest Service 540 W. 5th Avenue 2221 E. Northern Lights Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Mr. Tom Small, Utility Manager Mr. Geof Wilson Citv of Seward U.S. Forest Service P.O. Box 337 P.O. Box 275 Seward, Alaska 99664 Seward, Alaska 99664 CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini Mr. Don Smith City Manager Ebasco Services P.O. Box 337 400 - 112th Ave., N.E. Seward, Alaska 99664 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. Richard Sumner, EPA Mr. Ronald A. Garzini Room E-556 City Manager Federal Building P.O. Box 337 701 "C" Street Seward, Alaska 99664 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Ms. Judy Marquez, Director CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini Director of Parks City Manager 619 Warehouse Drive P.O. Box 337 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Seward, Alaska 99664 CC: Mr. Reed Stoops, Director The Honorable Stan Thompson Department of Natural Resources Mayor Kenai Peninsula Borough Division of Research and P.O. Box 850 Development Soldotna, Alaska 99669 555 Cordova Street Pouch 7-005 CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini Anchorage, Alaska 99501 City Manager P.O. Box 337 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini Seward, Alaska 99664 City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska- 99501 1 Mr. Keith Shreiner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1001 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 The Honorable Ronald 0. Skogq Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish & Game Subport Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 CC: Ms. Mary Lynn Nation .__ U.S. Fish &--Wil-dlife Services CC: Mr. Don McKay - 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite G-81 Habitat Division Anchorage, - Alaska - - , 99501 Department . - _. ofFish& Game 333 Raspberry Road Mr. Gary Stackhouse Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Carl M. Yanaaawa Regional Supervisor --Mr-.---Ronal-6 A:Ga-rz-i-ni- --333 --Raspberry: -Road-- City Manaaer Anchorage, Alaska 99503 P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 999664 Mr. Loren Flagg Department of Fish & Game Mr. Don Smith P.O. Box 3150 Ebasco Services Soldotna, Alaska 019669 400 - 112th Avenue, N.E. ----B-e-Ll-eitu-e-,-Ra-stj—ngton 98004 Mr. Sidnev Loaan Cook Inlet Aq-uaculture Ass. Mr. Robert McVey P.O. Box 3819 Director, Alaska Region Soldotna, Alaska 99669 National Marine Fisheries Services P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 CC: Mr. -Brad Smith National Marine Fisheries Services 701 "C" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco Services 400 - 112th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. Tom Walker Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team P.O. Box 3819 Soldotna, Alaska 99508 Mr. Jeff Hartman Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, chorace, Alaska 99503 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don .Smith Ebasco Services 400 - 112th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 i 4 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 October 28, 1982 Mr. Clay Beal Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service 2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Subject: Grant Lake Hydroelectric . Project - Mitigation Meeting Dear Mr. Beal: Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 I regret any inconvenience, but the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project mitigation plan meeting, originally scheduled for October 29, 1982, has been postponed until 9:00 A.M. November 10, 1982, in order to allow all participants sufficient time to review the documents. The meeting will be held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office, 1011 East Tudor Road at 9:00 A.M. on November 10, 1982. Sincerely, FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Eric A. Marchegiani Project Manager EAM/i rk Cc: Don Smith, EBASCO a DISTRIBUTION OF AUGUST 17 MEETING MINUTES __ i ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 August 27, 1982 Mr. Tom Walker Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team P.O. Box 3819 Soldotna, AK 99669 Subject: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project August 17, 1982, Meeting Dear Mr. Walker: I requested that EBASCO Services provide a summary of the meeting minutes of the August 17, 1982 meeting. I have enclosed a copy of that summary for your information. If there are any corrections or additions please send them to me so I can incorporate them into our records. Sincerely, FOR THE EXECUTIVE -DIRECTOR Eric A. Marchegiani Project Manager EAM/ s e cc: Don Smith, EBASCO Attachment: As noted. Grant Lake Participants Mr. Tom Walker Mr. Ron Burraychalk Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team U.S. Forest Service P.O. Box 3819 2221 E. Northern Lights Solldotna, AK 99669 Anchorage, AK 99508 Ms. Mary Lynn, Nation Mr.. Geof Wilson .- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' U.S. Forest Service 605 W. 4th Ave. P.O. Box 275 Suite G-81 Seward, AK 99664 Anchorage, AK 99501 Gary Stackhouse Mr. Larry M. Wright -Mr. U_.S7._F_ff `ia—nd--W-i-l-dl-i-f6�--S-6r—vi't-e-- ____N_a_ti_o_n_al__ Park --S .. ervice Tudor Road --540--W. 5-th-Ave Anchorage, AK 99507- Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Tom Arminski Mr. Richard Sumner Alaska Department of Fish and Game EPA 333 Raspberry Road Room E-556 Anchorage, AK 99502 Federal Building 701 "C" Street Mr. Loren Flagg Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3150 Soldotna, AK 99669- Mr. Bill Hause Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99502 Mr. Ken Florey Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99502 Mr. Ken Thompson U.S. Forest Service 2221 E.- Nothern Lights Anchorage, AK 99504 Mr. Bill Wilson AEIDC 707 A Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Dave Trudgen AEIDC 707 A Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Jim Thiele AEIDC 707 A Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Tom Small City of Seward P.O. Box 167 Seward, AK 99664 MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING 17 AUGUST 1982 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the meeting was to generate and discuss ideas for mitigating the potential effects of the proposed project on salmon stocks of Grant Creek. In addition, options for mitigating potential project effects on the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) Grant Lake salmon enhancement project were also discussed. There was limited discussion of a recreation plan for the project. The meeting was requested by Eric Maechegiani, project manager for the Alas'ka Power Authority.(APA), and was attended by APA's consulting engineer, Ebasco Services Incorporated and representatives of state and federal resource agencies. Participants are listed below: Name Affiliation Tom Walker Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team Mary Lynn Nation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Gary Stackhouse U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ron Burraychalk U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Ken Thompson U.S. Forest Service Geoff Wilson U.S. Forest Service Bill Hauser ADF&G Loren Flagg ADF&G Tom Arminski ADF&G Ken Florey ADF&G Tom Small City of Seward Eric Marc.hegiani APA David Trudgen AEIDC Bill Wilson AEIDC Jim Thiele AEIDC Don Smith Ebasco Rick Cardwell Ebasco Larry Wright National Park Service 2622A FISH MITIGATION Ebasco biologist, Rick Cardwell, reviewed the contents of a report prepared for APA (Planning Document No. 2) that made a preliminary assessment, for discussion purposes, of several mitigation.options. This report, copies of some of the most important references cited in the report, and copies of the 2 July 1982 letter report, entitled "Evaluation of Instream Flows for the Grant Lake Project - An Identification of Potential Mitigation Alternatives," were distributed to attendees. ---Th-e---fo-1l-ow i-n g -m-i-n ute s- -d o---n ot di-s-c u s-s --- t-he el-ement-s -of -Ca-rdwel1_'_s_ presentation, which are contained in Planning -Document No. 2-----Ttie----- --- - minutes identify issues, comments, and questions raised during discussion at the meeting. The USFWS asked about arrangements for monitoring (and paying for) the efficacyofmitigation efforts. The Power Authority responded that no cost estimates have been made to date. It needs input from the agencies concerning the elements and costs of these programs. There was considerable discussion of the value of Grant Creek for rearing chinook sa-lmon.- Rick Cardwell -suggested that chinook did not appear to be very abundant in the stream and possibly many leave the stream to rear in the Trail River or Kenai Lake. One ADF&G biologist suggested it wouldn't require a large number of juveniles to represent 40 pairs of chinook using the following as criteria: 0 40 pairs of adults with fecundity of 8,000 eggs/female = 320,000 eggs 0 20% egg to fry survival = 64,000 fey 0 20% fry to smolt survival = 12,800 smolts 0 3% smolt to adult survival = 384 adults 0 60:40 catch to escapement ratio = 576 adults 2622A K The point was that some rearing in Grant Creek may produce good dividends. Providing better rearing, either at Trail Lake Hatchery or using a rearing pond, will produce even greater dividends. An ADF&G biologist asked about the temperature differential between Grant Creek and that expected in the powerhouse tailrace. A subnormal water temperature in the tailrace would delay hatching and emergence timing and even prove lethal to salmon embryos. Cardwell indicated the Power Authority had taken temperature profiles in Grant Lake quarterly since the autumn of 1981 and was making weekly measurements in Grant Lake during August and September 1982 to obtain better data on water temperatures during the critical period of initial development of the salmon embryos. The discussion returned to ADF&G staff reaction to the options being discussed for mitigating project effects on Grant Creek salmon stocks. The ADF&G agreed to determine whether they can allocate a module at the Trail Lake Hatchery for stock from Grant Creek. Tom Arminski asked the FRED division biologists whether utilizing eggs from the Grant Creek stock at the hatchery was compatible with Department objectives. FRED division will evaluate compatibility. Rick Cardwell agreed to write and request ADF&G to designate a fry emergence period (window) during which fry emergence would have to be programmed for any on -site mitigation (e.g., spawning channel, egg boxes). ADF&G suggested that the Power Authority consider an extended rearing facility (i.e., pond). This pond would use eggs from Grant Creek stock and allow fry to be reared to smolts, dramatically increasing the Chance of their surviving to adults. Many options were discussed for mitigating Grant Creek salmon stocks. The group of options to which ADF&G appeared to lean most heavily is depicted schematically below. 2622A 3 The number of salmon using Grant Creek represents the escapement portion of the total run (catch plus escapement). ADF&G biologists suggested that the Power Authority could assume a 60:40 ratio between catch and escapement. This is the ratio they believe applies to early run Kenai chinook and Kenai sockeye. The Grant Creek chinook run is regarded as part - of the "middle --run" Mary Lynn Nation expressed the Fish & Wildlife Service's concern that insufficient consideration had been accorded instream flow releases as a mitigation option. She advocated further consideration of this option before commencing more extensive evaluations of other options1/. After the meeting Rick Cardwell met with Gary Stackhouse of the USFWS to discuss the Service's concerns further. Mr. Stackhouse asked that the instream flow releases, which had been discussed at the 9 July 1982 planning meeting and subsequently, be costed in units directly equatable to costs being developed for the other mitigation options. Cardwell agreed to use directly comparable monetary values in discussing the mitigation options as part of the next (i.e., No. 3) fish mitigation planning document for the project. 2622A 4 The USFWS also suggested the Power Authority consider the total productivity potential of Grant Creek. Productivity was defined in terms of the potential number of spawners that the creek could support. Numbers of adults recorded via spawning ground surveys doesn't indicate the potential of the system. The Power Authority should consider mitigating for the stream's potential production. They also suggested the desirability of the Power Authority developing a cost -benefit ratio for projects like Grant Creek similar to that used by the Corps of Engineers. In this analysis fishery enhancement is considered a benefit that offsetts part of the project's cost. The USFWS reiterated that the Power Authority had not exhausted options for providing instream flow (see footnote 1) and suggested that FERC may look very hard at the first hydro proposal coming out of Alaska that does not incorporate a minimum streamflow. Tom Small, City of Seward, advocated developing improved fish habitat as a mitigation objective. He cited Spring Creek as an example, where an expenditure of $1 million resulted in the return of 2,000 pairs of adults this spring, far better than the wild run. Tom Small also indicated that the City of Seward desperately needs the .power from Grant Creek. Paradoxically, this power will be used mainly .to assist expansion of the fishing industry at Seward. The National Park Service asked whether the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric project was an alternative to that proposed for Grant Lake. The Power Authority said no; the alternative with respect to the City of Seward With loss of Grant Creek would be the use of fossil fuels in turbines or diesel engines. The meeting's focus then turned to discussion of methods for preventing entrainment of juvenile salmon and for providing safe egress of smolts from Grant Lake. This mitigation appears necessary if ADF&G's Grant Lake salmon rearing project proves viable. Cardwell presented information in Planning Document 2, then asked for discussion. 2622A 5 ADF&G asked whether the Power Authority would use the "Gulper" if the bypass doesn't work. The Authority responded that it would be obligated to provide a facility that satisfactorily mitigated the entrainment -bypass problem. ADF&G asked whether the passive screen bypass would be designed for both large and small fish, and the Authority said yes. Loren Flagg discussed the program he anticipates for evaluating the Grant Lake salmon stocking program. ADF&G proposed to the legislature 000 per -year --ev-a-l-u-a:ti-on—progr-am.--Eric —M-a-rc--heg-i-an-i—as-k-ed—Lo-ren---t-o ---- supply h - i I m - with I a - n outline of the program, - - - a-h-d- - said - _hb - Wb -u 1 d investigate the possibility of having the Power Authority support it. Tom Arminski asked whether Loren's program would be sufficient to answer questions posed by the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Project, and Loren replied no, citing studies on the fish's vertical and spatial distribution in the lake as being needed. Mary Lynn Nation of the USFWS asked what other monitoring programs the Power Authority had in mind for evaluating the success of the mitigation options. The answer: none yet; they will be developed after the most viable mitigation -options -are identified— Ken.Florey suggested that APA and ADF&G meet to put together a study plan for such an evaluation. There was considerable discussion of how the harvest of salmon -from the Trail Lake Hatchery would affect the wild stocks of Grant Creek. Gary Stackhouse felt that pre -project studies were critical. The USFWS believed that the Power Authority should provide ADF&G with more than a letter of support; they would have to actually "push" for funding. 2622A M. RECREATION Views of the agencies represented at the meeting were solicited concerning a recreation plan for the project. Rick Cardwell summarized the nature of agency consultation to date, which has included contact with the Forest Service, Dept. of Natural Resources, ADF&G big game biologists, and the Kenai Borough. The Forest Service reiterated its interest in having open road access to Grant Lake, which would include sanitary facilities, and "some way to get a boat into the lake". The National Park Service had no specific recommendations. Larry Wright stressed that the views of Moose Pass residents, the State Dept. of Parks, and the Forest Service need to be considered. The USFWS and National Park Service asked whether ADF&G will have an interpretive.center at the Trail Lake Hatchery that references their ennancement project at Grant Lake. ADF&G suggested that a center at Grant lake might be useful. 'Eric Marchegiani suggested that siting an interpretive center at the Hatchery may be more appropriate because vandalism would be less of a problem. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF FISH MITIGATION Gary'Stackhouse continued to express his concern that abandonment of instream flow as a mitigation technique was premature. He said that habitat information is needed to go along with the analysis of flows. He wondered whether instream flow would be more effective over the life of the project than the alternative mitigation methods. One of the unknowns is the value of Grant Creek as rearing habitat. Gary asked whether an IFG study would give us data on the rearing potential of Grant Creek. Cardwell summarized prior discussions with the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and ADF&G concerning the wide 2622A 7 disparity between instream flows economically feasible (i.e., less than 15 cfs) and those providing aquatic habitats of different quality. For example, a "good" habitat according to Tennant's instream flow analysis method averages approximately 42 cfs over the year. Also discussed was whether an IFG study would provide the planning group with a -significantly different result (i.e., Tower streamflow) than that provided by the instream flow analyses performed to date. Cardwell stated that IFG does not necessarily result in lower acceptable flows. Ken Thompson said that in his experience there was no substantive difference in results. When asked about the value of an ___I_FG --ana-1-y-si-s for Grant -Creek, -Bill-W-il-son stated that -the___method__d_i_d______ useful--results-butwasn't willing to say whether-itwould -- provide a different result. For example, IFG-2 would provide data on flow,- depth, and substrate, which could be equated to habitat requirements for rearing of juvenile salmon. It was suggested that a representative of ADF&G sport fish division be present at the next meeting because of the occurrence of Dolly Varden and coho salmon juveniles in Grant Creek. Tom Arminski indicated he has been keeping the sport fish division informed. Eric Marchegiani summarized the meeting. The next planning meeting was tentatively set for 28 September 1982. The Power Authority will meet with ADF&G in the interim to further explore their ideas concerning use of Trail Lake Hatchery, etc. in the mitigation. 2622A R millmitl DISTRIBUTION OF NOVEMBER 10. MEETING MINUTES \ Phone: G0Dq277-7641 December 3, 1982 The Honorable Ronald O. 3hODg Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish & Game SUbpOrt Building Juneau, Alaska 9980I SUBJECT: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project November 10, 1982, Meeting Dear Honorable Skoog: l requested that Ebasco Services provide a summary of the meeting minutes of the November lO, 1982, meeting. I have enclosed a copy Of that summary for your information. If there are any corrections Or additions please Send them to me so l can incorporate them into our records. ' Sincerely, FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Eric A. MarChegidni Project Manager BM:cd cc: Mr. DUD McKay, Habitat Division, Department Of Fish & Game Mr. Carl M. YanagaWa, Regional Supervisor, Department Of F & G Mr. Phil Byrna, Department Of Fish & Game ' Mr. Don Smith, EbasC0 Mr. Ronald GOpZini, City Manager, Seward Enclosure as stated, � � | ` � AUTHORITYALASKA POWER U}U7)277��41' 334tNE8T5thAVENUE ' ANCHORAGE, ALA8K4S95D1 Phone: DISTRIBUTION OF � GRANT LAKE����� November IO, 1-082, Meeting Mr. Clay Beal Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service | / 2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238 CC: Mr. Ken Thompson U.S. Forest Service 2221 E. Northern Lights Anchorage, Alaska | - — ' Mr. 'G8nfNilSOn- U.S. Forest Service -PO Box / ( 275 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. 8OX337 Seward, Alaska 99664 i � Mr. DonSmith---'—- Ebd3cO ) i 400-112th Avenue, NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Ms. Judy Marquez, Director Director of Parks ' 619 Warehouse Drive Anchorage, Alaska 9950I � | CC: Mr. Reed Stoops, Director Department of Natural Resources Division Of Research and | Development 555 Cordova Street Pouch 7-005 | Anchorage, Alaska 90501 Mr. Ronald A. GdrZini | | City Manager . P.O. 8OX 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don Smith EbdSCO 400-112th Avenue, NE \ ( Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. John Cook, Director National Park Service 540 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 CC: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service 540 West 5th Avenue � Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Ronald A. Gdrzini City Manager P.D. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99654 Mr. Don Smith EbaSco 400-II2th Avenue, NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 CC: Utility Manager City of Seward PO Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99654 Mr. Don Smith EbDsco 400-II2th Avenue', NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. Richard Sumner, EPA Room E-55b Federal Building 70I nC" Street Anchorage, A7dSkd 99501 CC: Mr. Ronald A. Gdrzin1 City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99564 Mr. Don Smith EbaDC0 400-I12th Avenue, NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 The Honorable Stan Thompson Mayor Kenai Peninsula Borough PO Box.850 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 ___ _ CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don Smith 400-112th Avenue, NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. Keith Shreiner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage; Alaska 99503 CC: Ms. Mary Lynn Nation -- U—S—F-i-s-h-&-W i 1-d-1 i-fe Se-r-v i-ce s 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite G-81 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Gary Stackhouse U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 1011 East Tudor Road �. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini - City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400-112th Avenue, NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Services P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 CC: Mr. Brad Smith National Marine Fisheries Services 701 "C" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400-112th Avenue, N£ Bellevue, Washington 98004 Mr. Tom Walker Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team P.O. Box 3819 Soldotna, Alaska 99508 CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400-112th Avenue, NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 The Honorable Ronald O. Skoog \ Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish & Game - -Subport Buildi-ng- - ----- '-_ - - | Juneau, Alaska 99801 CC: Mr. Don MC | ��` ( Habitat Division Department Of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | Carl M Yanaaawa Regional Supervisor Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Phil Byrna Department Of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road nc-ho-ra-ge-i-A-1-a-s-k-a-9-9--503— Mr. Bill Wilson AEIDC ' 707 x8" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 CC: David TrxHoen AEIDC 707 »A» Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99864 Mr. Don Smith LDaScV 400-112th Avenue, NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING OF 10 NOVEMBER 1982 GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT MINUTES OF MEETINGY The purpose of the meeting was to review and gain agency comments and opinions concerning Fish Mitigation Planning Document No. 3, an assessment of the biological, engineering, and cost feasibility of 22 fish mitigation options. The meeting was attended by the individuals listed in the Table. Eric Marchegiani of the Alaska Power Authority began the meeting by summarizing tne proceedings of the three previous fish mitigation planning meetings for the proposed project. Agency comments were then solicited. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Phil Brna led the Department's presentation of its views. The losses they wish to see mitigated include: 0 Losses of physical habitat in Grant Creek and some (i.e., littoral habitat) in Grant Lake. 0 Losses to commercial and sport fishing opportunities. 0 Losses of potential enhancement potential and value. Until ADF&G received the addendum to Planning Document No. 3 concerning existing and projected water temperature regimes in Grant Lake and the tailrace, the Department believed all potential for salmon rearing in Grant Lake would be lost because of unfavorably cold water temperatures post -operationally. 11 Prepared by Rick Cardwell, Ebasco Services Incorporated. 2949A TABLE 10 NOVEMBER 1982 FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LIST OF ATTENDEES Name Affiliation Address/Telephone` --- I Rick Cardwell EBASCO 406-112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA (206) 451-4619 Wayne Pietz EBASCO 400-112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA ---------- Don Smith EBASCO Gary Lawley EBASCO Dave Daisy ADF&G, FRED 400-112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 1227 W 9tn, Anchorage (907) 277-1561 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage (907) 267-2165 Ken Florey ADF&G, Comm, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage Fish (907) 267-2125 Eric MarChegiani APA (907) 276-0001 Ken Thompson USFS 2221 E North. Lts., Anchorage Eric Myers NAEC 833 Gambell Suite 3 99501 Gary StaCkhouse USFWS 1011 E. Tudor, Anchorage 263-3475 Mary Lynn Nation USFWS 605 W 4th Avenue, Anchorage 271-4575 Phil Brna ADF&G, Habitat 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage (709) 344-0541 Jim Thiele AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage (709) 279-452� Dave Trudgen AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage Bill Wilson AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage Dave Nelson ADF&G, Sport 3150, Soldotna, 262-9369 Fish 2949A 2 The Department wished to mitigate.for Chinook, other anadromous species (e.g., coho), and resident species: At the time the Department assumed loss of lake rearing die to cold water temperatures, they were favoring a Chinook smolt program in the Trail Lakes hatchery or in a facility at the tailrace. They agreed to use the hatchery because on their previous commitment to do so for up to 10 years post -operationally. The Department decided that no further instream flow work would be needed and that a rainbow trout sport fishery, including appropriate access, would be needed to replace the lost sport fishing opportunity in Grant Creek. For sport fishing mitigation, either fry or catchable-size rainbow trout could be planted into Grant Lake, depending upon whether the lake proves suitable for rearing small salmonids. It was later disclosed that it may not be absolutely necessary to plant the trout into Grant Lake if there were competing uses (e.g., sockeye rearing). The trout could be planted into another lake considered suitable. ADF&G is cool to the idea of planting Chinook fry into Grant Lake due to uncertainties regarding how well the Chinook will do because of fears about insufficient food production for Chinook in the lake's littoral region. However, they are interested in planting the lake With sockeye and rainbow trout, which they believe will perform better. Maintaining the genetic integrity of the Grant Creek stock is a formal goal of the Department. This will be accomplished by preventing the interminglement of Grant Creek Chinook eggs and juveniles with those from other streams in the hatchery. Initially ADF&G was willing to trade off the use of Grant Lake for sockeye rearing for a chinook smolt program at Trail Lakes hatchery (Mitigation Option 10) Hatchery and planting Grant Lake with catchable- 2949A 3 size rainbow trout. If Grant Lake was unsuitable for juvenile salmon r. rearing, the trout and sockeye could be planted into another lake(s) (e.g., Ptarmigan Lake). Ken Florey asked how well the Grant Lake smolt bypass (Option 21) would Rick -Cardwell -indicated -that, -although--a-new -concept,-, . At was working .wel I..at the Wi.11amette Falls, Oregon -(O'Sullivan Da I m), where clogging was a much greater problem than,at Grant Lake. He also noted several studies that Showed salmon smolts, including sockeye, could find submarine outlets up to 60 feet deep. Cardwell stated _hjs --- coicern _aoout�_rainbow Ar.out _pr.edatin_g,_._sock_eye._ Chinook) from the standpoint of determining how well juvenile salmon survive and grow in Grant Lake before and after Project operation. If predation was interjected as another factor it would not be possible to determine conclusively the effect of project operation on smolt production in the lake. ADF&G asked Whether APA would perform a cost -benefit evaluation for the project. Eric Marchegiani stated that a cost benefit analysis with respect to the power generated and alternatives would be a part of the feasibility study. In summary, ADF&G supported the following options: Grant Lake Unsuitable for Rearing Salmon 0 Option 10: Producing Chinook smolts at Trail Lakes Hatchery. o Planting Grant Lake or another lake With catchable-size rainbow trout. 0 Planting another lake with sockeye fry. 2949A 4 Grant Lake Suitable for Rearing Salmon o Option 13: Producing chinook fry at Trail Lakes Hatchery, then planting them into Grant Lake. o Planting Grant Lake or another lake with rainbow trout fry. o Planting Grant Lake with sockeye fry. 0 Providing safe egress for salmon smolts from Grant Lake (Option 21 or 22). Mary Lynn Nation indicated the Fish and Wildlife Service opposes off -site mitigation when an agency already plans to undertake an enhancement effort there; such cases would not be mitigation. Ken Florey wanted the Power Authority to agree to mitigate for the project Whatever the success of the mitigation efforts specified. Eric Marchegiani said that the APA could not guarantee mitigation, for they are a state agency Subject to thesamelegislatively-imposed budget restrictions as ADF&G. However, it was noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does review project licenses periodically, and changes to the license concerning mitigation can be made if deemed necessary. Gary Stacknouse of the USFWS suggested that the agencies insist on statements in the license concerning contingencies, should any mitigation measure prove unsuccessful, and the need for post -operational monitoring of mitigation efficacy. Eric Marchegiani agreed that a statement would be contained in the license application that provides for changes in mitigation plans and facilities that fail to perform. Mary Lynn Nation suggested that a lot of assumptions concerning mitigation were being made based on very little data. She suggested that the analysis of water temperature regimes has not been really 2949A 5 extensive. The USFWS plans to look more closely at the information i presented and will communicate their judgement later. The USFWS would like to see more information on lake temperatures; a water temperature i model was mentioned as one possibility. Gary Stackhouse said that the USFWSandADF&G hoped to develop a unified response concerning fish mitigation. The meeting then adjourned. 2949A 6 GROUP 15 DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT _`;1C VU11141 -J)" 0 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 March 17, 1983 Mr. Dalton DuLac Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service 2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Dear Mr. DuLac: Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 I have attached a copy of the draft feasibility study of the Grant Lake Project for your review. -In order to finalize the feasibility study I will need your comments by April 18, 1983. If there are any questions you may contact me or Mr. Marchegiani of my staff. Si cerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director Attachment as stated cc: Mr. Ken Thompson U.S. Forest Service 2221 E: Northern Lights Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Mr. Geof Wilson U.S. Forest Service P.O. Box 275 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400 - 112th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Distribution of I GRANT LAKE Draft Report. , Mr. Dalton DuLac Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service 2221 E. Northern' -"Lights, Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 cc: Mr. Ken Thompson U:S. Forest Service 2221 E. Northern Lights Anchorage, Alaska 99508 I -- ------ ---- - _ - --- ter .. -Geof -W i �-son -_--- - - _ - - _----------- ----- - -- ------ __U_S_.__Forest--_- P.O. Box 275 Seward, Alaska 99664 Mr: Don Smith Ebasco _ 400 - 112th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 The Honorable Esther Wunnicke Commissioner Dept. of Natural Resources .Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 cc: Ms. Judy Marquez, Director Director of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Roland Shanks, Director Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Research & Development 555 Cordova Street Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Ty L. Dilliplane, Chief - State Historic Preservation Office Div. of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210 i Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400 - 112th,Ave., N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 1 The Honorable Stan Thompson Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough P.O.- Box 850 Soldotna, AK 59669 cc: Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400 - 112th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Keith Shreiner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anch., AK 99501 cc: Ms. Mary Lynn Nation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 605 W. Fourth Ave., Suite G-81 Afthorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Gary Stackhouse U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99507 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400 - 112th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, -WA 98004 Director National Park Service 540 W. Fifth Ave. Anch., AK 99501 cc: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Se;rvice 540-W. Fifth Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400 - 112th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Ronald A. Garzini City Manager P.O. Box 337 Seward, AK 99664 cc: Utility Manager City of Seward P.O. Box 337 Seward, -AK 99664 Mr. Don Smith Ebasco 400 - 112th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Robert McVey, Director Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service - - --- P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 I cc: Mr. Ronald Morris, Director National Marine Fisheries Service 701 "C" St. I Anch., AK 99513 Mr Brad Smith - ---- - - - --- National Marine Fisheries Service - 701 "C" St. Anch., AK 99513 The Honorable Donald W. Collinsworth Commissioner Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game P.O—Box 3-2000 -- --- Juneau, AK 99811 cc. Mr. Don McKay Habitat Division Dept. of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anch., AK 99503 t Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa i Regional Supervisor Dept. of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anch., AK 99503 The Honorable Richard Neve' �. Commissioner Dept. of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811 A A cc: Mr. Robert Martin Regional Supervisor Dept. of Environmental Conservation 437 "Ell St. Anch., AK 99501. The Honorable Mark Lewis Commissioner Dept. of Community & Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, AK 99811 cc: Mr. Mark Stephens Dept. of Community & Regional Affairs 225 Cordova, Bldg. B Anch., AK 99502 The Honorable Bette Cato Representative State Capitol Pouch V Juneau, AK 99811 The Honorable Jalmar M. Kerttula Senator State Capitol Pouch V Juneau, AK 99811 The Honorable Daniel A. Casey Commissioner Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities Pouch Z Juneau, AK 99811 The Honorable Richard A. Lyon Commissioner Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development Pouch D Juneau, AK 99811 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 27 (907) 276--0001 0001 I Me rch 17, 1983 Mr. Robert J. Cross Administrator Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.Q. Box 50 ------ -----Juneau , Al a s k a —99802 ---- Dear Mr. Cross: I have attached a copy of the draft feasibility study of the Grant Lake Project for your review. In order to finalize the feasibility study I will need your comments by April 18, 1983. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at j Sincerely, FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Eric A. Marchegiani I Project Manager EAM : j k Attachment as stated Distribution of Grant Lake Draft Report Mr. Robert J. Cross Administrator Dept. of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Thomas S. Kolasinski, Chairman General Manager Chugach Electric Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 3518 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Thomas E. Mears Cook Inlet Aquaculture Assoc., P.O. Box-3819 Soldotna, AK 99669-3819 cc: Mr. Tom Walker Mr. Lou Riggs REA Field Representative P.O. Box 7237 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Ms. Wendy Wolf State Federal Coordinator Division of Governmental Coordination Office Budget and Management Pouch AW Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Jack Werner P.O. box 156 Seward, AK 99664 Mr. Kurt Dzinich Hydro Development Specialist Alaska Senate Research Agency Pouch V Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Jim Calvin Regional Forester P.O. Box 1628 Juneau, AK 99802 Revised 3/17/83 Document Name: Dis. list DISK: DANN Page 2 I U.S. Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management 4700 E. 72nd Street Anch., AK 99507 _. Lt._Steve Reynolds Officer M. Roscorius - - Dept. of Public Safety Fish & Wildlife Protection I Box 3730 Soldotna, AK 99669 Mr. Edward Eboch, Director, Development Pouch D - Juneau, Alaska 998.11 Colonel Neil Sailing f District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pouch 898 Anch., AK 99506 Mr. Richard Sumner EPA - Alaska.Region Federal Building, Room E-556 701 "C" Street Anch., AK 99501 Mr. Edward Newbury Director Division of Emergency Services Box 2267 Palmer, AK 99645 ; Attn: Mark Walker Mr. Curtis McVey U.S. Dept. of the Interior U.S. Bureau of Land Management 701 "C" Street Anc.h:, AK 99513 I AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT April 18, 1983 Mr. Eric Yould Alaska Power Authority 344 West Sth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMME;+. 7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrar Isof NationaZ Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AZaska 99802 10 40p, V %. A We have received the Draft Detailed Feasibility Analysis of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NM) would normally review this document in depth while striving to meet the established omment deadline of April 18, 1983. However, due to reduced staffing levels and the completion of several other APA planning or licensing documents (e.g. the Susitna Project FERC License Application, the Silver Lake Project Draft Mwiromrental Field Study Plan and the Chakachamna Project Interim Feasibility Report (April 1983)), we are unable to fully review this document within the allotted tirreframe. Coordination between the Power Authority, its contractors, and the MFS has been very good to date. Through nuwxous meetings, conversations, and correspondence our views on this proposal are - generally known. We believe that develoEumt of an effective mitigation plan, capable of meeting the APA goal Of no net losses of fishery resources,, is the most significant issue with regard. to project environmental feasibility. The AEIDC studies and the Draft Detailed Feasibility Analysis show Grant Creek to support levels of fishery resources which we consider significant. Past salmon counts for Grant -Creek are not necessarily reliable, as the Report indicates. These were peak spawning counts, and may not reflect actual use of these waters by salmon. High flows and poor visibility further reduce confidence in these counts. The Report allows that actual numbers of spmmers may be double the 1982 counts. Potential annual losses will Likely be nuch higher than the 100 chixx:)ok and 500 sockeye stated in the Report. These fish contribute to conrercial,and sport fisheries and, using catch to escapement ratios to reflect the true contribution, these estimates would be much higher. Chinook salmon occur within the Kenai 'River drainage in two distinct runs. Little or no, interbreeding occurs between these runs (USFWS, 1982) and early run fish may be genetically different from late run chinook. rearingThe proposed alternative would de -water Grant creek, causing the loss of spawning and _ . Present ., concept involvingan adult 1 .1 collectian/holding facilitythe powerhouse tailrace, construction of an additional module at the Trail Lakeooks, . _ .. - fry into Grant - - construction of a passive screen swolt by-pass at the power tunnel intake, and. intrabcticn of sockeye fry and rainbow trout into, Grant The of Grant., salmonids is not known. Additionally, the Alaska Depn-tment of Fish and - Gme (ADFG) has yet to fizialize their plan for Grant Lake fishery enhancement. At this time it is doubtful that ADFG would introduce either sockeye or dii� into Grant Lake. The NMFS feelsrl .. •: of fisheryresource losses can most --od fectively.-be- achieved- --througgh -maintenance-of --in-rstream.-f low- releases — the fish species. -and life history.- stages within Grant Creek. we are aware that such releases appear to be ux=patible with an viable project. AddIticnallyi, the proposed mitigation, plan is poorly developed, largely dependent on the AMG,, and we believe not sufficient for aJ'C licensing purposes. Should • project be advanced further we will aqpect to work closely with the resource agencies and the Power Authority in developing a satisfactory mitigation package. I - - I - .1 __ 111 __ _111-- I We look forward to the .•ntinu_ • coordination between our agencies - on the Grant Lake Hydroelectric • - • •p - - cmrmts will- —assist in your • of project Sincerely, Robert/ W. M61* i birec tor, Alaska Region. r / USF'WS, 1982. Salmon Investigations in the Kenai River, Alaska 1979-1981. if DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPIVIENT DIWSIOIVOF ENERGY& FOMR DEVELOPMENT April 19, 1983 BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR 3501 "C" STREET Tth FL FRONTIER BLDG. SUITE 722 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 9M3 (907) 561-4201 RECEIVED APR 21 1983 Alaska Power Authority ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Attn: Mr. Eric Marchegiani 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Subject: Review of Grant Lake Project Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Marchegiani: We have reviewed the subject study and offer the following comments: We concur that a Kenai Peftinsula Source (Pool) appears to be Seward's cheapest power supply; therefore, the Daves Creek - Seward transmission line probably should be upgraded as delineated in the study. Realistically, we think the largest single contingency would be the loss of the transmission line between any generation considered in the study that would be located north of Seward and the town itself. This means that reserves adequate to meet anticipated peak demands must be maintained in Seward. We think Seward's problem then becomes simply to determine what is the cheapest energy from the Kenai Penin- sula Power Supply that can be delivered to the community. Grant Lake's feasibility then is determined by whether it can deliver power to the supply pool cheaper than any other source. We realize that there are ownership and contractual problems to be resolved with a pooling arrangement, but if the Power Authority is involved it can make commitments to Seward. If Grant Lake is strictly a Seward project a different analysis is in order. Mr. Eric Marchegian _ Alaska Power Authority April'19, 1983 Page Two Figure I-1 would indicate that Grant Lake power delivered to a Kenai Peninsula Power Supply pool is not the cheapest source. It is likewise, not the cheapest source- delive-r.ed--- to Seward- until 1999 and then only if fuel (natural gas) costs escalate at the rate projected. Only by levelizing the cost over the study period is Grant Lake the cheapest power source and then only by a very narrow margin. Since the economics are only justified by events yet to occur, we - question the wisdom of investing 24 million dollars in the project when for less than 5 million the same capacity in --- -- - combined- cycle --combustion turbine--generation-could-be-added ------------- If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Edward W. Eboch Director EWE/DWR/jh/4/167 cc: Richard A. Lyon, Commissioner F ' United States Department ®f the Interior 0 ►,. �° FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLYM R To: 1011 E. OR RD. ANCHORAGE, ADLLASKA 99503 (907) 276-3500 18 APR 1988 Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority RECEIVED 344 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 APR 191983 Dear Mr. Yould: NAM POWER AUninly We have reviewed the draft report entitled "Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis." The following comments are based upon the report, our participation in previous interagency meetings, coordination since our last meeting on 10 November 1982, and the attached Resource Category Determination, which describes the basis for our mitigation planning goal. General Comments Planning for the Grant Lake project has proceeded with a high degree of resource agency input. The project manager and consultants have regularly solicited our views and suggestions; however, despite repeated discussions and correspondence, our concerns have not been fully addressed in the report. General deficiencies which we perceive are discussed below. The most abundant fish species occurring in Graant Creek are chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon, Dolly Yarden, and rainbow trout. Fish populations and habitat for Grant Creek have not been quantified, therefore reported popula- tion estimates could be conservative. The timing of past surveys and the difficulty of observing fish with the glacial, high velocity flow conditions of the creek lowers the confidence of existing data. Baseline population, distribution, phenology, and habitat parameter data for the above species should be generated for inclusion in the final feasibility report. The report reflects the consultant's planning assumption that impacts on terrestrial species would be relatively minor and, to a large extent, unavoid- able. Though this assumption may be valid, qualitative terrestrial data presented in the report should be supported by quantitative wildlife popula- tion, distribution, and habitat data wherever possible. The report's Potential Impact section is descriptive and written in general terms; additional quantification of impacts, including changes in various habitat areas and values over time, should be made. Estimates of aquatic and terrestrial species to be directly displaced by project construction and operation should be presented in the final feasibility report. Additional studies may be necessary to provide these estimates. The consultant's mitigation plan targets hatchery replacement of Grant Creek chinook salmon thus failing to recognize the value of this early run stock and the fact that it would be genetically altered. Also, mitigation for loss of other naturally occurring aquatic resources in Grant Creek is not discussed in the report. Terrestrial mitigation measures are not included in the report. Alternative siting, construction methodologies, timing, erosion control and hazardous materials handling plans, relative to comparative impacts and mitigation of i losses to terrestrial habitat should be discussed. Updated plans by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) Fisheries ( Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division (FRED) for Grant Lake include planting of 620,000 coho fry in the lake. This effort necessitates project provision of some means for egress of smolts. The suitability of the bypass screen ; previously proposed for sockeye enhancement plans must be reassessed for coho smolts. I The final--report--should---be--expanded--to-address the--above-defici-enc-ies--i-n--the-- --- ----f- - mitigation plan. After all practicable mitigation measures have been docu- mented to minimize in -kind terrestrial and aquatic habitat losses, means should be explored to offset unavoidable losses, through out -of -kind mitiga- tion. ` Specific Comments ow releases in lower Grant Creek, t ere will be a net loss to fisheries resources. The proposed mitigation measures 1) do not preserve the genetic integrity of the eariy run chinook stock, and 2) do not address the direct loss of,Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, sockeye and coho salmon. Vol. I, Section 2, p. 6: The State grain terminal's future is undecided at t is_pointn . _Peak loads_ at Seward. _should be_readjusted by the 1.0 MW attri- buted to the terminal. Also, there is no mention of the new 1.0 MW mini -hydro —that powers the Seward hospital. The table should be revised to reflect these recent changes in the Seward power market. Vol. I, Section 4, p. 1616: An erosion control plan for clearing and construc- tion activities shouldbeformulated, then reviewed and approved by appro- priate resource agencies. Vol. I, Section 4, p. 17: Mitigation plans as presented in the report would not prevent significant net loss of fish and their habitat, as well as some loss of wildlife resources. Vol. I, Section 4,_�_ �19: Although the report finds the Grant Lake project easy e, as a ower-Authority's 1982 Year End Report states that the Grant 'Lake project will not be studied further at this time. This apparent inconsistency should be clarified. Vol. I, Section 6: In the entire Cooper Lake hydropower project section, ere is no discussion of why the project presently functions as a base load facility supplying Cooper Landing. Although increasing its capacity would necessitate repair of the dam which was damaged in the 1964 earthquake, this alternative power source should be more fully evaluated. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC. GAMBELL AT EIGHTH o P.o. Box 35a • LAo6ohage. LAPaRka 90501 - M40NE: 907 276-3500 TELEX: Chugach AHG POO) 25 265 April 14, 1983 RECEIVED APR I c; 1983 Alaska Power Authority ALASKA POW 334 West 5th Avenue ER AUNORITy Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani Subject: Review of Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis Dear Mr. Marchegiani: After review of the above -mentioned study, Chugach offers the following comments. 1. The cost/benefit ratio for the Grant Lake Project is essentially 1.0, indicating, at best, marginal economic fehsibility. The thermal alternative and the Grant Lake Project are approximately at a break-even point, in view of the fact that the largest difference between the plans is only 4 percent based on the assumption con- tained in the study. Using any of the assumptions for lower gas prices, the thermal alternative is more eco- nomical than the Grant Lake Project. This illustrates the sensitivity of the ' economics of the Grant Lake Proj- ect to the assumptions made for the price of natural gas. My recommendation, therefore, is to delay any design or construction on the Grant Lake Project until such time, in the future, the Project can demonstrate an acceptable cost/benefit ratio. 2. Chugach does agree with the studies' recommendation con- cerning the necessity of upgrading the existing 25-kV line serving Seward to a higher voltage level. The studies' findings as to the routing of such a line along the Seward Highway as being the only possible alternative is unsupported and Chugach cannot support this conclusion. Eric P. Yould March 29, 1983 Page 2 - LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRAM Recreational potential of the land being used for the transmission right-of-way - should be carefully evaluated, with the least destructive route being selected. Sincerely, ' Direck DR:clk ALASKA STATE PARKS -- Let's Put Them on the Map! BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR 619 WAREHOUSE AVE.. SUITE �+ F N RESOURCES ANCHORAGE. ALAS A 99 01 2iD PHONE: (907) 276.2653 01V)S/ON OF PARKS March 29, 1983 Re: 1130-13 Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. Sth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Project Detailed Feasibility Project and and would like to offer the following comments: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER We look forward to reviewing the results of the final archaeological survey and to cooperating with the Alaska Power Authority and the Forest Service on mitigation for this project, should it proceed. The direct impacts to sites SEW-029 and SEW-148 need to be more adequately documented. For example, the location of direct impact could be described as well as the type of impact.. This, of course, can be done during final archae- ological survey when the facilities are more precisely located. We look forward to consulting on determinations of eligibility and effect for cultural properties should APA proceed�w3rk�ii-c�e_aPPl�ion. Ty V.)Dilliplane State Historic Presei i Officer STATE PARK PLANNING Concerning the transmission corridor selection we strongly oppose the reloca- tion of the overhead transmission lines to locations where they would be visible from the highway or railroad. The material scenery along these travel routes contribute significantly to the enjoyment of Alaska's travelling resi- dents and visitors. Eric Marchegiani March 29, 1983 Page 2 The Grant Lake Proj_ect_is_a_rather_small_scale hydro project with very limited fisheries impacts. It is frustrating -that the mitigation portion--of-the fisheriessectionofthefeasibility report is so very general, even vague, in regards to what could actually be done to replace 500 sockeye and 200 chinook salmon. If CIAA can be of any further help in this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Thomas E. Mears Executive Director TEMzsa EMW-GRANT-IC-83401 d COOK INLET P.O. BOX 3819 SOLDOTNA, AK 99669.3819 (907) 262.9419 March 29, 1983 Mr. Eric Marchegianit Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue' Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Marchegiani: Thank you for the opportunity to review the "Draft Feasibility Study of the Grant Lake Project". Because CIAA had but peripheral involvement in the fisheries mitigation -planning process some of the -following comments may arise as a result of our lack of certain information or a lack of understanding concerning the mitigation process. 1. As I underst#nd it the fisheries mitigation plan (Vol. 21 3- 47 and 3-48) involves the stocking of rainbow trout (size unspec- ified), chinook salmon fry and sockeye salmon fry into Grant Lake. *The lake water intake would also be equiped with a passive screen smolt bypass for the anadromous species. ADF&G has recently abandoned any plans for stocking sockeye salmon into Grant Lake. Thus, there is no current plan for mitigation of the 500 sockeye salmon spawners. 2. Under currently assumed exploitation rates the 200 chinook spawners support a sport fishing harvest of 133 fish. The run strength of chinook salmon to be lost in absence of adequate mitigation would be approximately 333 fish. 3. Under current exploitation rates the 500 sockeye salmon spawners support an annual harvest of 1150 fish. The run strength of sockeye salmon to be lost in absence of adequate mitigation would be approximately 1650 fish. 4. Annual operations and maintenance costs in addition to any construction costs for fisheries mitigation efforts should be funded by the power producer. (If this principle is stated in the document I did not find it.) r United States Department ®ithe Inter°i®r NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENW-GRANT-IC-83-002 Alaska Regional Office 540 West Fifth Avenue IN REPLY REFER TO: Anchorage, Alaska 99501 L3031 (ARO-P)�.;-*,L Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West Fifth Ave Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Grant Lake Project draft feasibility study. Recreation and cultural resource issues have been appropriately and - adequately addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. S»cerely, 51L Lel,, -'e' ( tk'6 L'k Associate Regional Director Planning, Recreation & Cultural Resources DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION E-f Estate of Alaska 437 "E" Street/Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 995o1 R9CEIVED O� T DATE 15 Y Eric P. Yould, APA :April 20, 1982' - Attention Eric Marchegiani FILENO: APR 2 01983 TELEPHONE NO: 274-2533 ALASKA POWER AUTHMRY FROM:Bob Mar E. SUBJECT: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Regional ASupe visor Feasibility Study February ]983 In reviewing the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study February. 1983, it would appear that - the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation comments of June 9, 1982, have for the most part, been resolved. It would appear that turbidity/bed scour and temperature changes are within control limits. However, we still defer to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game regarding both temperature changes and dewatering of Grant Creek. Assuming the project proceeds to licensing and construction, activities associated with construction, are subject to DEC permitting stipulations to meet statutory and regulatory require- ments. The attached list represents.a brief summary of affected activities and relevant requirements. A permitting strategy should be established to minimize problems and expedite field coordination review. The type and degree of information re- quired for the respective permits/certifications can.be agreed upon prior to project construction. It may be possible to handle some classes of activity under a consolidated project approval. Compliance with the Alaska Water Quality Criteria will be the most difficult to achieve, requiring that an erosion - sedimentation control plan be developed early on. It may be necessary to obtain a short-term variance for certain construction phases, which cause the water quality to be exceeded. Other areas of concern are spoil and solid waste disposal,domestic wastewater disposal, water supply, food services, open burning, dust control, equipment fueling/fuel storage, and air emissions - wastewater discharge from material processing. If questions arise, you may contact Bob Cannone, Kenai District Engineer, Soldotna or myself. We would anticipate very careful coordination at such time as the project proceeds to a construction stage. DW/BM/j f r Attachment cc: Commissioner Richard A. Nev&, ADEC Lance Trasky, Fish & Game Bob Cannone, ADEC/Kenai Alaska Power Authority -2- .April 14, 1983 If we assume the Grant LakeProjectis not constructed, the recommended 'plan for providing improved electric service to Seward, as outlined in the 1982 Chugach System 1.Planning Study, is to construct a 69-kV transmission line -- from Cooper.Lake.to Seward. A portion of this line would make use of the existing 69-kV line which is presently being operated at 25 W. This alternative is substan- tially less expensive (although more environmentally - sensitive) than the 115-kV line proposed in the Grant Lake Study. -----_ - This ----- al - ternative should, —however; -he nciuded--in-the-Grant - - -._- --.._ Lake --Feasibility -Study- -to--provide---an-addit-Tonal--basis-- for-- - -- comparison of the.economi.c_feasibility of the Grant Lake Project. Thank you for the°opportunity to comment on the Study. Very truly yours, CHUGACH__ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. G Ted hellmanl P.E. Director of -Engineering and Operations FB/kmn 11 ADEC REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY Discharge of domestic wastewater Water supply Dewatering operations Hydrostatic test discharge Silty water discharges Gravel washing operations Aggregate drier Settling ponds or lagoons Food services Operation of solid waste disposal facility: landfill, transfer station, recycling facility Spoil and overburden disposal Surface oiling Stream and wetland crossings Placement of dredge or fill in wetlands Operation of incinerator greater than 1,000 #/hr. 'Open burning resulting in black smoke DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT Plan approval prior to construction and waste disposal -permit Plan approval prior to construction and certificate to operate Waste disposal permit or certificate of reasonable assurance, short-term variance Waste disposal permit Air permit to operate Plan approval and waste disposal permit Food service permit, plan approval of new facilities Solid waste management permit Solid waste management permit Surface oiling permit Short-term variance, certificate of reasonable assurance Short-term variance, certificate of reasonable assurance Air permit to operate Written approval United States Forest Chugach is Department of Service National Agriculture Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. Suite 238 Anchorage, AK 99508 (907) 279-5541 Reply to:277O Date:May� 13, 1983 r Mr. Eric Marchegiani Alaska Power Authoritya'Y ? 198� 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 At POWER AU►hpR�?-�, Dear Mr. Marchegiani, Enclosed are some concerns expressed by the District Ranger at Seward regarding the Grant Lake Project. I share those concerns and pass them along to you for consideration in the pending report. You may include" thememofrom Ranger Wilson in the report if you wish. - The Chugach is in support of the concept of developing power resources for the communities on the Kenat peninsula. We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of your agency and will remain involved in the continuing studies for the Grant Lake project.. Sincerely, A �o ✓' DALTON Du LAC Forest Supervisor Enclosure US j F5-620o 11(e-80) EOF L SM BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR DEPART.WENT OF FISH AND GA- P.O.BOX 3-2000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 WN lumn PHONE. 0071 465-4100 O;Wff OF Tff CONNISSIONAT April 13, 1983 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: I t . A % I 'D 0 18' 123 %0J 3 WSKA POWER AUTHORITY TO FILES: project [3 General EJ No. Vol. Filer InIts. Date Entered Re: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project - Detailed Feasibility Analysis The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Draft Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility.Analysis. Construction of the recommended project alternative would preclude flow releases into Grant Creek and result in the loss of the natural populations of coho, chinook and sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden and rainbow trout presently occurring in the creek. Numbers of salmon spawning in Grant Creek have been estimated to be 100 chinook and 500 sockeye. No estimates of the numbers of coho and other species are available. As discussed in prior interagency meetings, the ADF&G will be conducting an experimental enhancement project in Grant Lake. However, the implant species has changed from sockeye to coho. This spring, approximately 0.5 million coho salmon fry will be stocked in the lake to determine if the lake provides suitable habitat for rearing fry to smolts. If coho can be successfully reared, chinook fry will be stocked in the lake in the future. Therefore, our concerns with this project are with mitigating the loss of the natural populations of salmon and resident Dolly Varden and rainbow trout of Grant Creek and with the loss of enhancement opportunities in Grant Lake. Mitigation to offset impacts of the project to fishery resources and sport fishing opportunities identified in the draft feasibility report include: 1. Rearing chinook fry in a new module at the ADF&G's Trail Lakes Hatchery and stocking them in Grant Lake and installing passive screen smolt bypass facility at Grant Lake; 2. stocking Grant Lake trout and constructing a boat launch suitable for 14 to 18 foot craft; and Attachment 1 Grant Lake Resource Category Determination and Mitigation Planning Goal As part of the mitigation planning process, the fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) establishes fish and wildlife habitat loss mitigation goals -within the context of the FWS Mitigation Policy. This is done by choosing several key evaluation species and determining the value of their habitat to be impacted by the project and relative habitat abundance for those species from the _ ecoregion or national basis. ' For application of our Policy to the Grant Lake Project, we've chosen chinook and sockeye salmon and rainbow trout for aquatic impact evaluation. Grant Creek chinook salmon represent early run stock with particularly high value to the Kenai River sport fishery. Sockeye salmon were picked because of their -- -- --high--values--to---commercial s sports -and subsistence flisheries -in'-Cook Inlet and ---the -Kena-i--River. -Rainbow-- trout - -were chosen ---because they -are -a -`sought-after!--__ sport fish within the Grant Creek system. Moose and beaver were selected for terrestrial impact evaluation. Moose were chosen for their high sport hunting values as a big game species and the subject of recreational observation and photography. Beaver were picked because they -are responsive to aquatic -and riparian habitat alterations; beaver also have high recreational trapping value. Although the relative habitat abundance for the evaluation species chosen varies from abundant.to becoming.scarce from the national perspective,the value of the habitat to be impacted -by the Grant Lake hydropower project is of medium value for all evaluation species, thereby placing them all in Resource Category three. The corresponding mitigation planning goal is "no net loss of habitat value, while minimizing loss of in -kind habitat value." Vol. I, Section 13, 20: At the November 10, 1982,meeting, Alternative F witfi—the F— alls ree,Aversion was the consultant's preferred plan. A change to plan D, without the diversion, avoids impacting Dolly Varden and the chinook salmon reported to use the mouth of Falls Creek; plan D also avoids terrestrial disturbance of constructing a diversion conduit from the Falls Creek drainage to the Grant Creek drainage. We consider plan D preferable to plan F, as it confines project impacts to one drainage. Vol. IV, Foreword, p ii: During early project planning, this project was to ave a SMW capac� y w��Tiout the Falls Creek diversion, and 6 MW if Falls Creel: waters were diverted into Grant Lake. This report finds a 7 MW project feasible without the Falls Creek diversion as a feature of the selected plan. This discrepancy should be clarified. Increased storage capacity should be reanalyzed relative to feasibility of providing mitigative instream flows. Vol. II, Section 2, p. 38: A feature -specific erosion control plan should be T—ormulated as part of project mitigation. Vol. II, Section 3, 22: ADF&G's enhancement plans have recently changed. They tentatively p an to introduce approximately 620,000 coho fry into Grant Lake instead of sockeye. These plans are experimental, as Grant Lake's suitability for salmonid rearing habitat is unknown. Vol. II, Section 3, p 24. Additional salmonid population estimates and habitat values should be obtained to adequately mitigate fishery losses. Vol. II, Section 3, 48: The proposed mitigation plan is inadequate, in that it couldnot eemented independent of ADF&G and their monitoring efforts. An acceptable mitigation plan should identify 1) mitigation measures to satisfy established mitigation goals, 2) a monitoring study to assure the performance of those measures, 3) contingency plans if the chosen mitigation plan does not work, and 4) the costs of each. All mitigation costs should be borne by the project. y Vol. II, Section 3, 100: Mitigation measures for terrestrial impacts uring construction a —Ad operation should be described. In addition, a plan for oil and hazardous materials handling, erosion control, and construction methodologies and timing, etc.,should be formulated and reviewed by all interested agencies as a part of the project's mitigation plan. Summary Continents The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) believes that the proposed mitigation plan represented in this report is inadequate for attainment of our mitigation goal of "no net loss of habitat value, while minimizing loss of in -kind habitat value." An acceptable mitigation plan can only be achieved based upon a more detailed data base and analyses of the project's impacts upon fish and wild- life resources. Review.and comments by the FWS on the adequacy of any future documents relating to the Federal regulatory process will be based upon the degree to which proposed mitigation satisfies the above stated mitigation goal. We hope to continue to work with you to make the Grant Lake Hydroelectric P t �entall acre table and a reciate this o ortunity to provide rojec environ�� y p pp pp comments on the draft report evaluating the project's feasibility. Sincerely, Regional Director Attachment cc: FWS ROES:WAES ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, DPDP, USFS, Juneau _ADF-&G_,_EP_A., r Mr. Eric P. Yould -2- April 13, 1983 3. should the ADF&G enhancement. experiment in Grant Lake be successful, conduct a post -operational study of salmon smolts to address survival and condition. - Other mitigation alternatives have been rejected in the feasibility study because they would make the project economically infeasible. Of all of the mitigation options considered during development of the draft feasibility study, no specific mitigation plan has been agreed to by the ADF&G. Basically, they are options that have been subject to discussion. The options to mitigate the loss of the fishery resources of Grant Creek that have highest probability of success include option 10: rearing Grant Creek chinook to smolt at the Trail Lakes hatchery, and maintaining instream flows in Grant Creek. The anticipated success of those options that include offsetting the loss of natural production of Grant Creek by stocking fry in Grant Lake cannot be fully evaluated until the ADF&G's experimental rearing program is initiated and results are in; approximately 2 years from this spring. If the rearing experiment proves successful, stocking Grant creek chinook fry in the lake will be acceptable mitigation for the loss of natural habitat. However, until the suitability of Grant Lake for rearing salmon fry to smolt is proven, we believe that the Alaska Power Authority should plan to produce artificially Grant Creek chinook smolt for release in the tailrace. Further, there are insufficient data *in the draft feasibility study to allow an objective evaluation of the fish bypass facility. Additional information regarding the design and function of this facility during project operation is required. Based on our review of the draft feasibility study, we do not believe that the plans for mitigating losses of Grant Creek fishery resources or the enhancement potential of Grant Lake have been sufficiently developed. The ADF&G wi'll continue to work with the.Alaska Power Authority to develop a plan to mitigate those losses successfully. Specific comments on Volume 2 (Environmental Report) are provided for your, information. Page 2-38, paragraph 4 - The locations of borrow sources and disposal sites should be identified and sediment control plans should be provided. Page 3-16, table 3-6 - Accepted common names of Oncorhynchuss tshawytscha and 0. kisutch are chinook and coho respectively. Page 3-21, table 3-7 - Average weight of adult chinook in the Kenai River system are 37 lbs. for late run and 30 lbs. for early run fish. Page 3-20, paragraph 1 - Juvenile chinook salmon spend from 2 to 3 months in the gravel prior to emergence as free-swimming fry. ............ Mr. Eric P. Yould -3- April 13, 1983 There are no data to substantiate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's estimate of 50,000 spawning chinook in the Kenai River System. - Page 3-20, paragraph-2 The _first run of sockeye .salmon _arrive__i.n .1-ate _. May and continue through late. June. The second run arrives in mid -July and continues through mid -August. Page 3-22, paragraph 2 - An experimental introduction of approximately 0.5 million coho fry is scheduled for release 'in 'Grant Lake in June 1983. Introduction of sockeye fry is no longer planned. i United States Forest Chugach National Seward Ranger Department of Service Forest District Agriculture loryto: 2750 Easements Date: April 4, 1983 r ubject: Grant Vake Feasibility Analysis To• Forest Supervisor r Chugach National Forest I've reviewed the Grant Lake Feasibility Analysis and agree with the conclusion that "The environmental impacts associated with the development of the Grant Lake Project are generally insignificant." There are aspects of the proposal that will impact National Forest land. They include: Transmission Line Upgrading: The proposal is to upgrade the transmission line to 115 KV and relocate portions to the highway right-of-way. My concern is that considerable care from a visual standpoint went into the original location. I believe these concerns are still valid and any relocation proposals be reviewed with visuals as a primary concern. Upgrading the line within the existing transmission corridor is the more acceptable alternative. There may be a misunderstanding in.the Alaska Power Authorities assumptions! dealing with relocation of the transmission line. I infer from their discussion that they believe relocation to within the highway right-of-way only requires state D.O.T. approval. On National Forest land the state has an easement only for highway purposes. Any other land uses located within the easement area must have Forest Service approval. This should be clarified for Alaska Power Authorities. Mitigation: There are provisions for mitigation of the loss of fish habitat. Our position has been to support that of the ADF&G. I believe the proposal is consistent with their concerns though a double check would be appropriate. The boat access and small day use recreation area proposed at the south end of Grant Lake was our proposal. I agree with the concept and recommend that the deed to that site remain open for public use at all times. One element that would greatly enhance the acceptability of this project would be the development of sportfishing. The report mentions the possibility of introducing Rainbow Trout into Grant Lake. I support that concept. Access: The view towards Grant Lake from the Seward Highway is beautiful. Great care should be taken to minimize the impact of the transmission corridor and road access on this view. Forest Supervisor - Chugach National Forest 2 Stetson Creek: While the Stetson Creek diversion to Cooper Lake appears feasi a it is not part of the current proposal. Should this'. situation change -then more information in terms of access and stream de\atering impacts - is needed to properly evaluate the proposal. EOF ILSON District Ranger CITY OF SEWARD Eric Yould Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. P.O. BOX 167 SEWARD, ALASKA 99664 & � C-,LF i Vet? A47A V 0 5 ALASKA 1983 POWER AUTyO CRy Manager 224-5214 City Clerk 224-5213 Finance 224-5216 Police 224-5201 Harbor 224-3420 Utility/information 224-5215 April 29, 1983 My Staff and I have reviewed a copy of the draft feasibility study of the Grant Lake Project..and wish to commend those involved in this project for their excellent presentation. The City of Seward endorses the concept of developing hydroelectric projects on the Kenai Peninsula insofar as the initial costs for power are in line with prices for power generated by gas. Therefore the com- munity is desirous of decisions being -reached with regard to Grant Lake and Bradley Lake projects as soon as possible. The uncertainty of power availability in the Seward region remains the major impediment to the area's opportunity for balanced economic development. I hasten' to add, that the question of power availability to.the Seward area is not solely one of relatively inexpensive power generation, but is also currently one of inadequate transmission capacity. At the present time the City is providing power to approximately 2400 area residents and the existing Daves Creek -Seward transmission is inadequate for existing -loads. Therefore, we endorse your recommendation that "a new 115KV transmission line generally routed along the Seward -Anchorage Highway be -constructed as soon as possible...". I would also like to apprise you of our perception that the growth rates suggested for Seward and its environs appear to be inadequate with current activities underway at the present time. The State of Alaska and the City will have invested approximately $40 million in the Marine Industrial Park by the end of this year and anticipate industrial activity to commence in the summer of '84. In addition, industrial interests related to our port's role in mineral development will require substantial power if the coal export proposal by SunEel is to take place in a timely manner. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your fine report. Sincerely, Ronald A. Garzini City Manager cc:Eric Marchegiani Department Of Energy f Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, .Alaska 99802 May 6, 1983 M' Eric Marchegiani 'MY 9 Project Manager A[Agf(A POW 198,E Alaska Authority 5th Avenue 334WestAU7710RI11, I Anchorage, AK 99501 i _- We apologize for being late with our comments on the Grant Lake feasibil- ity report. Our review of the report did not result in any significant comments. The report appears to be comprehensive and we agree with the �. conclusions. One suggestion for future consideration is an economic conductor size I study in addition to the technical one presented. Since system losses -- -are fairly significant; a cost of -losses versus: cost of very r-may- very well result in the requirement for a larger size conductor. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.* Sincerely, r 41ZRobert J. Cross � Administrator WEMORANDU KE M., ToEric Yould, Executive Director DATE: May 6, 1983 Alaska Power Authority 231 1- '.-0 THRU: .`Gordon Harrison, Associate Director Ye Division of Strategic Planning TELEPHeOO' 465-3573 FRom:George Matzo,111s-enior Analyst SUBJECT: Grant Lake Project �Gl*019 J Office of Management and Budget Feasibility Study Division of Strategic Planning Thank you for providing the office of Management and Budget, Division of Strategic Planning with an opportunity to comment on the draft version of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. The purpose of this memo is to provide preliminary comments on the economic and finance sections of the feasibility study, ' A formal review, as required by AS.44.83.183, will be initiated when the feasibility study is finalized and the Alaska Power Authority (APA) completes a letter of findings and recommendations.. The load forecast (Table 2-3) includes only two years of historical data. it would be useful to include at least five years of historicaldataso that the load forecast can be compared to recent trends. Also, the low, medium, and high growth rates should be included with Table 2-3. Since the energy generated by the Grant Lake Project is expected to be fully utilized when it becomes operational, the load forecast is not a sensitive parameter in the economic analysis. The'feasibility study evaluated three alternatives for providing Seward with electric power. Each of these options. inciludes a 115 kV transmission line from Daves Creek to Seward.. The options are: 1. Base Case Plan. With this alternative, Seward continues to purchase electric power from Chugach Electric. Gas -fired combustion turbines are used for electric generation with combined -cycle units being installed when new capacity is needed. 2. Grant Lake Project. The 7 MW Grant Lake Project is used as the principal source of energy and capacity for Seward. Gas -fired turbines (Chugach Electric) are used to meet that portion of the load which exceeds the energy and capacity of the Grant Lake Project. I Eric Yould 2 May 6, 1983 3-. Grant Lake Project and Bradley Lake Project. This alternative is similar to alternative #2 except that the Bradley Lake Project -provides 10,460 MWh of energy and 4 MW of capacity to meet that portion of the load which exceeds the energy and capacity of the Grant Lake Project. Seward's allocation of the Bradley Lake Project '.--.,is based -on- is proportionate- -share' of the- Anchorage area and Kenai Peninsula load. The feasibility study does not directly compare the economic feasibility of the Grant Lake Project to. proposed regional projects such as the Bradley Lake Project or the Susitna Project. This comparison is necessary because the economic justification for a local project such as Grant Lake may be supplanted by the development--o regional project:-- A" d"irect coiiiparson-may be -" difficult since the design of both the Bradley Lake and Susitna Projects are in a state of flux, but some reasonable assumptions can be made. For example, Grant Lake Project could be compared to: 1. A 60 - MW'Version of the Br6:d1dy -Lake Project which provides electric energy to only. the Kenai Peninsula —Nea-r-1-y--a-1-1--o-f—Sewa-r-d--!-s-e-l-ec--t-r-i-c—ene-r-g-y-wou-1-d---be-p-r-o-v-ided - by the Bradley Lake Project. 2. A 135 MW version of- the Bradley Lake Project which provides electric energy to the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage area. Since the Bradley Lake Project is not large enough to meet, by itself, all of the Kenai/Anchorage demand, generation by gas -fired combustion ---turbines _is also needed. The economic analysis of this alternative should be based on Seward's portion -of overall system costs (i.e., Bradley Lake Project and combustion turbines) rather than just the Bradley Lake Project. 3. A 1620 MW version of the Susitna Project which provides nearly all of the energy and capacity required by Seward. The feasibility study states (p. 3-4) that "in all three plans, reserve requirements are met by simple cycle units from 1983 through 1987 and from 1988 on, reserves are met with new combined cycle units." It is not clear why simple cycle or combined cycle gas turbines are being used for reserve capacity. The gas turbines are some distance from Seward and provide no reserve during transmission line failure. It may be more reasonable to use Seward's existing diesel generators for reserve capacity. The use of either gas turbines or diesel generators for reserve capacity will not affect the economic analysis since reserve costs are applied equally to each alternative. CSPLAN / GM231 / 5-3-83 / 2 Eric Yould I - 3 - May 6, 1983 The feasibility study applies a 5 percent capacity value adjustment "to the at -market cost of capacity from the combustion ..-turbine facility." Xederal agencies apply a capacity value 4djustment factor to their economic analysis of power projects but the State of Alaska procedures do not. Should this factor be included in the final version of the feasibility study? If so, explain why. The feasibility study states (p. 19-1) that "interest during construction (IDC) has not been included since current Power Authority procedures call. for inclusion o * f IDC only in the nominal cost of the project which is utilized in the plan of finance." This statement. is not consistent 'with. the statutes (AS 44.83.181(b) (2)) or previous APA feasibility studies. Real interest during construction should be included in the economic analysis of the Grant Lake Project. Another factor which was not considered in the economic analysis was the real escalation rate for capital costs. Material previously presented by the APA indicates that capital costs are now increasing at arate less than general inflation. This could have a ' favorable impact on the economics of the Grant Lake Project and should be included in the analysis. The natural gas base price was calculated two ways: 1) a marginal price and 2) a melded price. Preference is given to the -marginal piice in the economic analysis. The marginal price assumes that the price of natural gas used.by Chugach Electric to provide -power to Seward is ecruivalent to the price of new Cook Inlet natural gas contracts (i.e., Enstar). This approach does not include any natural gas at older contract prices which are considerably less but of limited availability. The melded price combines the older contract prices with the recent Enstar contract price using the cheaper ga-s first to the extent of its availability. If Seward represented a new demand on Cook Inlet natural gas, there would be some rationale for using a marginal price in the economic analysis. However, Seward is an existing demand. Therefore, the melded price seems to be appropriate for use in the economic analysis. Apparently, Chugach Electric provides power to Seward on an interruptable rather than firm basis. The possibility of interruption has been mentioned as a reason for using the marginal price approach. However, this seems to be a separate issue. If Seward's power can be interrupted, wouldn't it be more accurate to determine its price for electricity based on the use of.diesel generators rather than a different contract price for natural gas? CSPLAN / GM231 / 5-3-83 / 3 Eric Yould 4 May 6, 1983 Although there is some basis for using the recent Enstar contract price as the price that Chugach Electric will pay for additional ..-supplies of natural gas, it appears as if Chugach Electric expects ljo -pay_ a.--lower--price. How_: much_..l.ower..,.is__ difficult to_ forecast at__ this tiin7e--b-ut--th-6--possibility presents- ag-oo-d -reason to analyze the sensitivity of the base price. .The...Division.of Strategic Planning has attempted to evaluate the impact of'the recent Enstar.contract on thd price of Cook Inlet .natural gas that is used for electric generation (see attachment). The approach used is similar to Appendix I-1 but there appears to minor differences. ' -It may be beneficial to reconcile these differences before finalizing the feasibility study. The feasibility study caldula,te.s the levelized cost of power. While this presents a useful cross check of the economic analysis,. it may be more useful -.to provide the annual wholesale cost of power in nominal t e'= s. 'The value of.this exercise is to assess whether.-or.not there may. be a significant difference in gnific � Lake -- P.j_1 the annual who.le sale ",bos t`bf. : powet between the --Grant Lake Project and the base case during the. initial years of the. analysis. A of finance.. The feasibility s . tuay, gives detailed consideration to the environmentalimpacts of the-_.Griant LakeProject, the mitigation plans, and, -the cost of'rhitigation. It appears as if environmental dis-economies are internalized. -The response to these mitigation pla . ns by resource agenci.6-S wi 11be of interest in the formal review. Generally speaking, the feasibility study provides a comprehensive analysis of the Grant L&ke-.Ptcj0ct. *Although the, procedures used in the economic analysi.s*dbviate"*"dlightly from the procedures which have been established,- it should not be difficult to make corrections. Some corrections Will reduce the economic feasibility of Grant Lake Project whileother.corrections should enhance its feasibility. These corrections !...'are relatively minor but, considering the marginal economic'. . ',.feasibility of the project, it could make a significant Offeren&e in the final analysis. Once again, thank yoti,-for theopportunityto comment on the draft version of.the feasibility analysis. cfq Attachments cc: Peter B. McDowell, -.Director OMB Associate Dir*ector's Kevin Bruce, Governor's Special Assistant Eric Marhegiani, Alaska Power.Authority I' U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Ja`tEpS, REGION X ATF `r 1200 SIXTH AVENUE 2� YV UJ SEATTLE,. WASH INGTON 96 10 1 O < O L PRO, REPL TO ATTN F. M/S 443 / * ' f983 n:.. S Eric A. Marchegiani, Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE: Draft Feasibility Study Grant Lake -Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Marchegiani: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed your Feasibility and Environmental Analysis. The water quality issues of concern to EPA have been adequately addressed in the report. We look forward to re- viewing the License Application when it is completed. Thank you for providing us with -the opportunity to review the report. Sincerely, Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief Environmental Evaluation Branch E F" PART- IX AQUATIC SURVEYS METHODOLOGY PART IX: AQUATIC SURVEYS METHODOLOGY Figure IX-1 and IX-2 show 1981-1982 aquatic sampling station locations in the study area, while Table IX-1 summarizes the sampling schedules followed in the aquatic resources field program (AEIDC 1982). AQUATIC MACROPHYTES Aquatic macrophytes (attached aquatic plants) were collected incidentally during other studies in the summer of 1982 from selected areas along the Grant Lake shoreline. The samples were identified to the lowest taxonomic level. PHYTOFLANKTON AND PERIPHYTON Phytoplankton algae (suspended in the water column) from each of Grant Lake's basins were collected at one surface location by grab sample and at one 50 meter (m) (164 ft) depth in each basin with a 1.2-liter Kemmerer bottle. The 1-liter.samples were composited and mixed from both basins and depths. A 1-liter aliquot was removed from the composite of all samples and preserved in 10 percent ethyl alcohol. Samples were then fixed with Lugol's solution and allowed to settle 48 hours; samples were then concentrated to 1.5 ml. This volume was agitated and at least one subsample taken for each wet mount and dry mount. Wet mount counts were made at 320x with all cells counted and identified to genus except diatoms. A dry mount count was made at 1000x to count and identify only diatoms to genus. At least 300 cells were counted in both wet and dry mounts. The results were reported as number of algal cells per liter. Periphyton (attached algae) were not collected in October 1981, but were collected from Grant Creek in 1982 by scrubbing stream bottom surfaces (logs, cobbles, etc.) into bottles and preserving in 10 percent ethyl alcohol. Periphyton samples were vigorously mixed and at least one subsample taken for wet mount and one for dry mount counts. 4611A IX-1 F— Z W w Y. Y W _ _ W Q Q < CJ u 2 i Zcr y �. W 0 '(( W 4' CU9 Rm Z W Q to Q Y OZ Z 0 Q a' J Qto ;';`:'�;?i�`'r±`ice {:�:„<:• LUWLJ uj C� >: W W ir) � Q O ::•'•'•r,:•it:::tiii�i�• OD CD ww i`�ii'iii):Yili::• ': r:}�:i'f,,lf>''.L,'+i<iYnv.�^:�f:?:�X•S. J ir in 'JlE�.,•r:r W 0 f�'r i(%f'r'�" : r N < Oct< ,,ffr;,�...f;.,r :i!f;.;: ,,,�i:;•><'.��"?'�•U �;�Lfy!$'6•• {ti'�'X.''.�"�; X ,'Y'Zy, `<j:.•..f:'iii`�:��> i.: :i,'$$%'' i ii WIN '3•.•�{,.:<�f,;.'$}��i�n� .!?,•: •.5 is v j<: '> 5;' J,i s: i?' ':r>lr. a.•..i: y S•.'•:'• q, •.hii,?;,:.. .i5„,::1•" .<:. .,+,�rririrlU',:f:°Fri•::! ;:!': i:,':�lt}J,>f+fry;'•�'^�.:Y.'l•.'i'.i'•��.:<�:0',1,.,'n{,:':'•'�.•, i •Y'<'+:r•$iC :y$f::.�ffr, '•!« •Y.<+!J.:•ii..{�2.: {;<;'�'•,ilf/ Y.T:n f •ANT :/y:N. �d,,,,,•: L V j.:.:1:''F:?i: ;C •.N• r9''•��rlL: 4'�%I,•�R4• 1—i ./:;•?'r,+::•irlh• .t.r•: •r. .:..;. '..y�.`.X•'. �/ q.,wjr: n, x'• •$,<' W ;U',•;•r�,r•!i�r:7!• . `!,.':' ;nr,�ri�Y!••. t;,`¢",$; q Sr..• ,:; GkS,;. !i1,.:w .f ^ii •:il{CR • i3�S A� f Ri .a if W +ni r' fN• ' f Y •iY'i,:!}iY� ii'r,: •'r. .�, ,'I,,:::>,:5',.•l:v+:Ht:! 'V. + {i+f,+$•if �{F•��eyyT f �•; [ S:a'ngii.<:7... (D $v.•;l••}{$flii ,:!ry,::i.;,fY::4i�ivi.. OC J N:< ' 4 Y IrJW W <s Q -i CLCr CL Tx-2 W cQ Q gc O �jZ= IX-3 X J H M4V h L ia•1 E ro n c O • ro h IS m 4. 3 c N N N N N N N N N U N N n d n n 0- dN n d 6 n n all! I. N N N N N Ci N U! N v1 N N3CS 3c S33CI3Z3C U. W wWU. U. C1.w w3 C.L CL W aaa L LOi O L LL L L z.Li m 0)y N E, E w O O Ia/I o o tta Ca// o N r r ur ur r.-.-r rrr 3 C a O V Y � m L y y 41 a 411 c E O N O) tm U a c a U y m C \ 4. y r y 41 a 41 v y 4' a c a r L v y O Inm a U i•1 y y tm-a 4.1 c a 41 3 C O C r E a 044 •;Wg cuaia�Eao a��E a1=� .q E�a1.0 aOa 4/ 4- 41 4.) a s M y 4Ja ro y N Edr O C"01 m••- yO yOCT •L O . y V icn L Y 01•.�- 'r- y L •41 a Tc. L da'O a,-IG O a••- C a a V1 S. L a y L > G>> C O L Ic6 E C> 0 7 C> O O O 0 ^+ C1 C9 2 In .510 V V7 a = ¢ m wm W -j WOW— ILZm c c io 41 C 4a•1 O 41 Gr y C y mood L o .c o .0 L L d4>0.1,4= Y.c.c •ed- r 441LL y U. U-U-N dm 'I- a ALl. (Ld a a^ 'r mLL U. M r r ro nj N Matp CO Cam 010 r� 40-1 a a aaaaa dYiYiw Yia'YiaYi Lm roAAAro Li Li J ro J JJJJJ U V VCR ta..LL [.7Ut..1 244 41 4Y 41 4J4J4J4+ 41 4J 41 y y 0 ao L L. b L cm0000 L L L L L cccc L L L L rr i0 ep q F-o 0 007000 C90007 U. U. C1. y L a c O U L a O Y N .C. m E L a N ro i a Im 4- V m O N N 1 x. � d T L y O O d a Y j O y U a •y y H O U A y O L L)m L R a E y y y a O/ c C c m c O O O. O Ca_ 'O a V 0 0 a) � L. J m E o a. a ro O y 0 a 0 41 a L E m u=i � 0 Z E m I=i1 > v a 0 'O 01*' •C E it O 41 (D ow u c O N a ro a m L .LC C. 4J 0 y y a Y E a o c o m 4; vc- v umi 4- 4J O m= CNO O1 m ; > L 4� 4L1 GY = W c4.1 y a 4J m y C y C ow 44 0 'U 'Oou Sc ++S c c v ro -V L y401) ro c y n E a C i0 !-- o-- E N L rd L dr E 0 44 m III 4S. G y y L r0 C aY O N9 N N llu o M r O1r i s c v 44 .c4.1 > t0 rn r O L ro L O tj N 41 X a L v a 9 a azra V� YiE N L U 4.1 i Ca41ro LUaOa a m 1xi Lrr C a O Vi L 0 roEnroraav_ Y La a c _c 3 a fl c CA C•cYW m amp= yi•lmdro u 11 a 4J aE o m� y o 3 n a X E rocrina a> a .• b y r-.. L YY y 3 N •• a4y V L x N V O)'•- 4! 001 4- y L 0 E Y d'.c-O n O a 0)m d EEE G ••� U V Y dZ7 G. 07 r r b I 0 r L CI. 4> •r tM tt7 fCO :3. NCOO¢US m 4- a E m y of L w ¢ m V O w C1. tI S ••+ -j l U- C ¢ O { IX-4 At least 300 cells were counted for both wet and dry mount counts. Counts and identifications were made in the same manner as phytoplankton and results reported are relative abundance of each genus. ZOOPLANKTON Zooplankton (small water animals) were collected from each lake basin by making duplicate vertical tows from a 50 m depth (164 ft) to the, surface using a 153 micrometer (um) (.060 in) nylon net 30 centimeters (cm) (I ft) in dimater and 1 m long. Zooplankton were preserved in 70 percent _ethy_l -al-coho-1. ----Organ-i-sms -were- -counted -us i-ng- a Sedgewi-ck-Ra-f-ter--------.------ cGunt-ing--cffl-1 and id-enti-fied--to---l-owest---taxonomi-c I-evel -'(t-axon) --and -- ------ counts reported as number of organisms in each taxon per.cubic meter. Benthic macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects, worms, clams, etc.) inhabiting Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek were sampled with a 6 in (15 cm) Ekman grab (Grant Lake) and a 12 in (30 cm) Surber sampler (creeks). Lake and stream samples were sieved through a screen having a mesh size of 30 openings per inch (12 openings/cm). Organisms were preserved in 70 percent alcohol, labelled and stored in bottles, identified to the lowest possible taxon, and reported by taxonomic group as numbers per square meter. am Sampling of fish in Grant Lake was conducted using the following methods. Two gill nets (each 125 ft [38 m] long, variable mesh, containing five 25 ft [7.5 m] panels varying in size from 0.5 in [1.3 cm] to 2.5 in [6.4 cm] bar measurement), one floating at the surface and one anchored on the bottom, were set overnight at each station (one station per 4611 A IX-5 season) (Table IX-1, Figure IX-1). In addition, minnow traps baited with salmon eggs (12-traps per season) were set overnight at the station shown in Figure IX-1 with some anchored in the littoral area and others floated under buoys in the pelagic zone. Rearing and spawning habitat of fish in Grant and Falls creeks were also studied. Minnow traps, baited with salmon eggs, were placed overnight at various locations in the streams (Figures IX-1 and IX-2) and sampled during each season (Table IX-1). In conjunction, angling surveys and visual observations of habitat quality were made during these surveys in each creek. Spawning surveys were conducted during October 1981 and in August -September 1982 in these creeks. A block and removal methodology (Zippin 1958) using a backpack electroshocker was used to attempt a quantitative assessment of the fish populations in Grant Creek in May 1982. This methodology was not used in Falls Creek due to high water conditions and the lower numbers of fish observed using other methods. 4611 A IX-6 4, %I) - z% wl FISHERIES MITIGATION PLAN ia_ i DOCUMENTS APPENDIX FISHERIES MITIGATION PLAN DOCUMENTS 1. LETTER REPORT, EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS FOR THE GRANT LAKE PROJECT AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 2. ADDENDUM TO LETTER REPORT (1 ABOVE) APPROACHES TO MITIGATING POTENTIAL FISH LOSSES IN GRANT CREEK 3. MINUTES OF ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY MEETING ON THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 9 JULY 1982 4. PLANNING DOCUMENT NO. 2: FISHERIES MITIGATION FOR PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 17 AUGUST 1982 5. MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATON PLANNING MEETING 17 AUGUST 1982 6. MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING 15 SEPTEMBER 1982 7. PLANNING DOCUMENT NO. 3: FISHERIES MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES, GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8. MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING 10 NOVEMBER 1982 9. MEMO - R. CARDWELL DISCUSSION WTH PHIL P. BRNA, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, 3 DECEMBER 1982 LETTER REPORT EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS FOR THE GRANT LAKE PROJECT AN IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES PREPARED BY EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED FOR THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY JULY 2, 1982 EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS FOR THE GRANT LAKE PROJECT AN IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES INTRUDUCTION This report addresses the effect on the cost of power from the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project from -implementation of various alternatives - for the preservation and/or enhancement of fishery resources at the project site. This report has been prepared in response to specific comments provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. The evaluation assumed that the most desirable alternative is to maintain and possibly enhance existing fishery resources in Grant Creek. Reliance upon other mitigative measures (e.g., spawning channel) to sustain Grant Creek salmon stocks was considered less desirable from the resource management standpoint. On this basis, the tprincipal--options-considered-inoare Option 1) Maintenance of salmon stocks by providing a sufficient volume of flow in Grant Creek to meet instream flow requirements using Project configuration Alternative F. Option 2) Maintenance of salmon stocks by shifting the powerhouse location to Grant Creek, with powerhouse discharges being scheduled such that the released water would maintain at least instream flow requirements in Grant Creek. Other mitigative measures considered were spawning channels and artificial propagation. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has indicated its intention to plant sockeye fry into Grant Lake to appraise its potential as a fish rearing facility. Measures potentially providing safe egress to sockeye smolts were also identified. The analyses presented herein are intended to serve as a basis for discussion with the concerned agencies in an attempt to arrive at a cost effective and environmentally sound solution to the problem of project impacts on the existing fishery resource. DERIVATION OF ESTIMATED INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS To estimate instream flow requirements for Grant Creek to be used for the analyses discussed herein, the method described by Tennant (1976) was used. This method, commonly referred to as the "Montana Method," is based on average stream flows developed from U.S.G.S. records. To estimate instream flow needs for a given habitat, the average flow during a certain period of the year is multiplied by a percentage that depends on the habitat.classification. Table 1 presents the habitat classifications and the percentage of average flow for each classification. Tennant's method divides the year into low and high water periods and applies the percentages as shown. For estimating stream flow requirements for Grant Creek, a'habitat classification of "good" was used. Streamflow records that were used to generate average flows were those presented by Ebasco (1982) in the Interim Report (Table 5-1 in Interim Report)for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (Table 2). These values were based on U.S.G.S. records and the HEC-4 monthly streamflow simulation model. The high and low flow periods were modified from those suggested by Tennant to account for the specific high and low flow patterns of Grant Creek. Therefore, the periods of application for Grant Creek were November through April (low flow) and May through October (high flow). The calculations for stream flow requirements were as follows: 2 High Flow Period Low Flow Period Ave. Flow / Ave. Flow May 168cfs November 706 CfS ( June 447 December 58 July 504 ` - _ JanVary-__ _ 41 August 41* February 34 September 196 March 27 \ October 188 April 35 ' --'` Total 1917 Total 299 / Frequently, an Overall percentage is applied to average annual flow. At 30 percent, described by Tennant as good survival habitat, the value for streamfl0w requirements would be: — - - --- Ave. Annual Flow x .3 = InStream Flow Requirement or 184.7 Cfs x .3 = 55.4 cfs This, then, would be the Value needed to sustain good habitat throughout the year on an overall average flow basis. It is recognized that Tenndnt/s method i� ���Offi�� technique that provides only an ^ ' r - approximationVf instream flow requirements; however, the results obtained by this method are considered adequate for the purposes Of this study. 3 EFFECT OF PROVIDING MINIMUM STREAMFLOW REQUIREMENTS ON COST OF ENERGY (OPTION 1) The computer program described in Chapter 6'of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Report (Ebasco 1982), which models project operation on a monthly basis, was used to analyze power production from two operational schemes to maintain a range of instream flows. A range of minimum flows between 0 and 100.cfs was examined to bracket those flows identified above as reasonable estimates of instream flow requirements. Alternative F, the lake tap alternative including diversion of Falls Creek, was selected for this analysis because it appears to represent the best use of the water resource, regardless of whether minimum streamflow releases are part of project operation. Since the elevation of the Grant Lake outlet is higher than the water surface elevation for Alternative F, the instream flow releases must be either pumped over the outlet. The first operation scheme (Option 1A) would release the amount of streamflow, defined using Tennant's (1976) method, while at the same time operating the reservoir for Alternative F as described in the Interim Report (i.e, reservoir flucturates between E1 690 and E1 660). During those months when the reservoir is drawn down to the minimum level of E1 660, it was assumed that only the natural inflow into Grant Lake (below the specified streamflow release) would be available for instream flow releases. Consequently, instream flows could fall as low as the historical lows (Table 2). Once natural inflow again equalled or exceeded the designated instream flow, the designated instream flow would resume. Use of the natural inflow greater than the instream flow requirements would then be resumed for power production. The surplus flow beyond that required to produce the energy demand would refill the reservoir. 4 Thesecondoperation scheme (Option 1B) differs from Option 1A in that the designated minimum streamflow is almost always provided, regardless of the reservoir level or the magnitude of natural inflow. This is accomplished by drawing the reservoir down below El 660 during dry years. As soon as the previous month's end of the month reservoir surface elevation falls below El 660, no further power generation is permitted. The water between reservoir surface elevation-andelevation 650 feet, measured at the end of the month, is used to provide winter and early spring instream flows. For the 33 years of monthly inflow data this operating strategy satisfies all instream flow levels investigated except for the 100 cfs level during the very dry years wh e n t. h e. ._reservoir ., ts drawn - all ..-t.h e - -w-ay- dow n. . t o. - e I e v at. i o n.-.- 650 0 f e et.. At that point the system behaves like Option 1A except at a lower level. However, the 100 cfs level of instream flow represents an extreme upper limit and is not considered a viable alternative. Both operation schemes, of course, reduce the potential average annual fromt-ITe --projett, - with--the-second- -scheme---reFdu-ci-ttg--it-slightly further than the first. Determination of the effect on project economics is a fairly simple procedure once the power operation studies have been completed. The annual cost in dollars is obtained from the Interim Report for Alternative F, the base case in this analysis. The cost of pumping is added to the annual cost of the base case. this sum is then divided by the reduced average annual energy generation resulting from the provison of instream flows to yield the annual cost in mills per kilowatt-hour. Table 3 summarizes the results of -this analysis. These alternatives result in increasing the project costs over a range of 9.5 to 108 percent. Figure 1 shows the cost of energy plotted against the minimum streamflow for Option IB. In commenting on the Interim Report, ADF&G noted that a sensitivity analysis on the effect of a change in storage had little effect on the energy production. This analysis (Pg. 6-2) showed that reductions of 5 25 and 50 percent of the storage volume resulted in reduction of 2 and 5 percent respectively in energy output. ADF&G inferred from this analysis that water may be available to provide flows for maintenance of the fishery resource in Grant Creek. This possibility is a misconception since all water flowing into the Grant Lake basin was utilized in the model for production of power except for the infrequent occurrence of inflows in excess of the turbine hydraulic capacity at those times when the reservoir is full. Such flows (in excess of turbine capacity) would be spilled down the existing Grant Creek cnannel. The analysis to which ADF&G referred showed only the effect on energy production of a change in storage capacity as that change in storage affected the amount of water spilled and therefore unavailable for power generation. The result was a very minor change (2 to 5 percent) in the amount of water spilled. The appropriate conclusion to be drawn from the quoted analysis is that the proposed lake level fluctuation (i.e., storage volume) on which the power studies were based are sufficient to generate essentially all of the energy available from the inflow to the Grant Lake basin. 'The power production analysis in the Interim Report utilized all of the inflow to Grant Lake for energy production except that which is unavoidably spilled down the existing Grant Creek channel. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHIFTING POWERHOUSE LOCATION TO GRANT CREEK ( OPT IUN 2) A study was performed of the feasibility of locating the powerhouse at a site on Grant Creek such that the releases from the powerhouse would maintain the stretch of Grant Creek which was judged to contain the most valuable fishery habitat. Based on field observations made to date, it was estimated that locating the powerhouse approximately 1900 feet upstream of Grant Creek's outlet would result in preservation of the most productive reach of the stream. 1.1 Siting the powerhouse at this location on Grant Creek reduces the available gross head by 30 feet because the tailwater elevation is at approximately El 500 (versus El 470 if the powerhouse is located on Upper Trail Lake). Two alternatives for location of the powerhouse at this site were studied. Both alternatives include the Falls Creek diversion. The first is a modified version of Alternative F and is referred to herein as Alternative G. Approximately 1,000 feet from the lake tap along the existing alignment of alternative D the tunnel alignment would shift to a southwesterly course and terminate 2,600 feet downstream of the tunnel bend. An 1,100 foot steel penstock would -carry the water to the powerhouse. The second alternative is a modification of Alternative C and referred herein as Alternative H. The power conduit for this alternative would follow the alignment of Alternative C to -the surge tank. At that point the alignment would become more southerly and proceed 1,400 feet to a powerhouse located at El 500 on Grant Creek. The costs shown in Table 4 were estimated using unit costs developed in the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Report. Alternative F is, included in the table for comparison purposes. As shown in Table 4, the cost of energy increases IN in the case of Alternative G and 34% in the case of Alternative H. I i 7 ALTERNATIVES FOR FISHERY MITIGATION Several alternatives were identified for sustaining production of salmon that would be unable to spawn in Grant Creek should it be dewatered. These are listed as follows: o Construction of spawning channel in tailrace area of Alternative F. o Construction of egg incubation channel in tailrace of Alternative F. o Construction of egg incubation boxes. o Hatchery with egg taking and limited rearing (similar to ADF&G Trail Lake hatchery). o Hatchery with egg taking and extended rearing. o Provision and maintenance of fishery habitat on another stream. Getting sockeye smolts out of.Grant Lake will prove to be a major problem toward insuring that this ADF&G enhancement project.is successful. Even with minimum streamflow releases to Grant Creek, the smolts may go through the turbine because smolts (and adults) migrate along or in areas of greatest current. Many of the potential methods will need testing and likely modification because none work well consistently. Because design and installation of screening or diversion systems will be extremely expensive and dependent upon the unique behavior of the actual stock living in the lake, studies need to be performed beforehand that define fry to smolt survival, timing of seaward migration, and vertical and spatial lake distribution. Potential methods of allowing safe egress of sockeye smolts from Grant Lake include: 0 Minimum streamflow release via Grant Creek 0 Screening Intake - Inclined Screen 0 Screening Intake - Traveling Screen 0 Artificial attractant flows To provide an indication of the magnitude of cost associated with a potential mitigative measure,_a conceptual -level cost estimate was developed for the spawning channel below the powerhouse for Alternative F. The dimensions and characteristics of the spawning channel were ------estimated-f rom-e-xi-st-i-ng—l-i-teyature-.—Th-physical-dimensions, __tfi_own on Table 5, were estimated conservatively (generously) in an attempt to represent the upper range of cost that would be associated with the mitigative measure. The conceptual -level construction cost estimate for this spawning channel is aproximately $700,000. The resulting Affect on the cost of energy from I the project with the spawning channel included is shown on Table 6. Although the spawning channel may not be the most acceptable mitigation alternative,it was presented here to illustrate the effect to the cost.of power due to a mitigation. effort. It should be noted that the increase in cost of power resulting from inclusion of a spawning channel (less than 4 percent) is substantially less than that associated with providing the estimated instream flow requirements in Grant Creek. Summary Table 7 summarizes the impacts on the cost of power for the viable alternatives studied herein. It w1l be noted that instream flows of a reasonable magnitude as defined by the criteria on which this study was Z based resulted in an increase in the cost of power from the project of more than 30 percent with minor variations depending on the operating parameters. The relocation of the powerhouse on Grant Creek results in an increase in the cost of power of 33 to 34 percent which is the same order of magnitude as occurred with the instream flow releases. In comparison with these impacts the effect of the cost of a spawning channel is approximately 3.5 percent or one tenth that of any of the other alternatives studied. It is our opinion that the increases to the cost of power associated with providing instream flow releases in Grant Creek are significant enough to merit utilization of some alternative means of mitigation. IM TABLE 1 INSTREAM FLOW REGIMENS FOR FISH, WILDLIFE, RECREATION, AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Recommended Base Flow Regimens - Habitat Classifications Oct. -Mar. Apr. -Sept - Op timum Range g __60%-100%_of_the_aver_ag.e___F]_ow _--.- ------.------------ Outs_tandi-ng. _ 40% 60%__ Excellent 30% 50% Good 20% 40% Fair or Degrading 10% 30% I Poor or Minimum 10% 10% Severe Degradation 10% of average flow to zero flow c o ' r-i t0 ^ d' M Ln 'CY r-1 1\ r-1 Mt r-I h t-. r-1 tO O ri 11, CO M id) d' O ^ 0) r1 M r-r Ln rr M r-I •r to •N ,-IwC> \to OP-OOd-COMMMM1,-11,OOOON�toM"MMtoMMMr-iNU) Ol t0 N r-i N r-i r-1 M r-i r-i ri r-I r-r r-i r-1 N ri ri N ri —4 N —1 r q CV N .- �q r-i r-I r••1 N N N N ri r- O E Nto W MM-, r•i MI.nId)M-100Ntt)M0A0001OOr4 LC)Nt01-,Cy'NONCOMO C71 N tod MOto0)Or-,r-itoLoNtod'f,,0)Rd- mritOriOMNOMr--I�Oh tor -,to rid'MLnNNNNCV LO-IrINM-4NNMLOkONNriMNNMNLnNd'MM M O 4-- E ro MLnritoRd, Md r.M00000ORd" Mrl-mmr-iNMOtOOLnC:J-mmmNLt)Oct d N w"mrO Mri000Ln1-rIMrl�mmr-i mP*lrid'1"0mdm C\j r-I m tD mCDr-4mUD ri 5- MMd'Md•Lt)Md CYMd NMd'Md'd•Mct d MNd'Lnd-NMMMtOd•d•Ln d 4-J N %1 r- to d-r-lOpNrlO Mr-i01M M ,t n MM Ln00 NOOIOO m LnNri0mmr-.O d d-) Mr*-Nrif*-riN%*r* l)d"MMm :tm nMMNNP, 0C\jM MMCDCJM "tM0) O C m ItLOLOLnrl-d-tod Md'MLOLnLC) Lo Lnd'd'Ghd'd'Lni-.d-MCtU7d'Lnd L)Ln U) O d' M01r� LnMwmr10 mmCDd I�M0p011.f)OOL.0 mmCDrimmm ztr--mCD m m h t> 010 d'Nr�N001tod'M W mmCD +•)r-iM-1MLnNrld' mmwr-.mmd Old' d- LU d d d m m m It NNd Lord d'd'MLnNd d• MLnLnd NNMMMtod-Md- d S d I�hd'LOri.MNr-I to00001MMNNtoLnN00d'I�toMr-rtOd•MMPt C)M 00 C r d M ri N to W. r� n N to t\ O1 m r� N M M d .-1 It' CD M M M 10 N tO r-1 MM M --100 tO rN N r-i r- l e-i N r-i r-1 r-4 r-i e-i N N r-1 r-i ri .--i rl r-1 N ri ri 14 r-1 N ri rl rl N N ra r\f\ lor�d'r1000NQ1tor1cori Mto OM000010 LO N1� to tommr-I tOCOd' N NriNNrltOMriNNIoMNU)MMOOf�d•NNMU)Nr4NNNNU7Md•M Ln r M t/) a) t 4-3 C toLn00d'toCD0000V)CDmOOtOd 001�r1MMmd r� CD tD m C> tD C)wmr-trim r� rirlririrlMNr-irlNNriN lorlCIO MMN Nd rid Nri NriMrid' d'Nto N t a7 L d Ne-ILntod'Md"r-Imc11*.01d'd'Od'LOrl-m01LnMNLO Md U)MNtorir" d' N Nr-i Na-irA %*-M NrlriNe-iNOMd' d'MNMMrI LO Mr -I NriNNr�l d'NO M 3 N e-1 O r- 4- NLnr"0)co 00NNONd Oltod"N000OCOtONOOLnIt- I-.NMrh00N MC0tO rr a) M ri Mri ri Ln M d'N Nd" Nd'O Md'M d- d'Mto r-I to Mr-INMMr-i It Ln ION d' ..0 O LO l0 .--r e-I O d- Cl r-4 U) N to 0) O r-r d' r�.d 00 co Ol Ol to t0 d' O d- 00 r-1 r-1 r-I 00 00 m t0 r r d -1 N r\ N M N d- Ln N Ln Ln M Ln O M d' Ln M m M Ln N Ln Ln t'M M N 1.0 M Ln M Lo d- Ln rl r-1 ri r-i r-1 N 3 O OOr\CMr-i M01LnNtorirlLnMhOLnLOLOMtOr-IMOOri MMtoNNd-r-ir" to r 00101MLntOIOd, Z'LOtoto010nNUn00mC)r" nr�00tOtOd'OI�Nr4MM O 4- N ri N r-i r-1 rl rl r-i r-I rl r-i N r! -4 .-i rl a1 O U N014:3'rI00r-Ir`••00r4Lnrr.Mr400LnLnMN011nd OOd'000d 000Ntotod 00 a) toLOMC)MMMLo00to00rrtONtpN01MNMMCD MOOLnil.MLnNNOIM 00 tY N N r i r- r M N —4 N r I r i r I N r-4 e- i —4 M r I r-4 d• r I r-4 N N N N N N r i a) Cl) rO r I� it k K k k k k b W -a mm(Dr-INMd Lntorl_mmC)riNMd-Letorl_oornOr-iNMd Lnlo1�.00010 Si > O d'd LnLnLoLoLnLoLnLnMLntoLOtotototol0tOl0LOr--r\�r.r-�hnr\r\r\00 (1) d 01Ol010101O10) 01010101mmm0)O1010101O1Ch0101O10101O101010101O101 > ri r-i r-i r-4 r-1 r-4 r-i r-4 r-r r-i r-1 r-4 ri r-1 r- e 4 e- .-i e A ri r-i .- ri r-r —4 r1 r-i e-1 r-I .-i rl 1 '-a d �c TABLE 3 l COMPARISON OF INSTREAM FLOW ALTERNATIVES - Percent Percent Total Decrease Increase Annual Average _ in Energy Cost of in Cost of I Instream Project Annual From Ener 9Y Energy Over _ Flow Cost Energy Alter-- . (M�1ls/ Alter-_ Alternative (cfs) ($1,000s)h/ (GWH)?/ native F kWh)!/ native F Fa/ 0 1,465 27.58 -- 53.12 -- Option lAb/ ----- - -25.- 92- -- -- -60"._ _ . _. _..-------- 58e 1-4------ F2e/ 55.4 1,603 22.06 20.0 72.67 36.8 F3f/ f/ 1584 22.88 17.0 69.23 30.3 F41/- 100 1,691 18.41 33.2 91-.85 72-9 Option Z/ F5d/ 15 1,507 25.58 7.3 58.91 10.9 F6e/ 55.4 1,623 21.15 23.3 76.74 44.5 F7f/ f/ 1,586 22.68 17.8 69.93 31.6 F81/ -_ . 100 _ 1$745 _ . , _ 15.80 42.7_ 110.44 108.0 a/ Cost and energy values for Alternative F obtained from Interim Report ( February 1982) . b/ Instream flow release provided in Grant Creek as indicated except when natural inflows are lower, in which case the flow release is set equal to the natural inflow. c/ Instream flow release always provided regardless of amount of natural inflow. d/ This is approximately the annual minimum streamflow in Grant Creek. See Table 2. e/ This is the mean annual instream flow estimated for "good" habitat based on Tennant's (1976) method. f/ A flow of 20 cfs provided from November to April and 64 cfs from May to October, based on Tennant's (1976) method. I/ Maximum instream flow release considered in Figure 1. h/ Includes annual cost of generating plant plus annual cost of pumping plant plus annual cost of power to pump. i/ "GWH" means Gigawatt hours, which equals kilowatt hours times 1,000,000. T/ 1 mill = $.001, or one -tenth of one cent. TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.F, G, AND H Alternative F.S/ G-2/ Vc Installed Capacity (MW) 6 5 6 Estimated Total Construction Cost ($1,000s) 33,700 36,643 51,055 Debt Service ($1,000s) 1,310 1,424 1,985 Operation and Maintenance ($1,000s) 155 140 155 Average Annual Cost ($1,000s) 1,465. 1,564 2,140 Average Annual Energy (GWH) 27.6 22.1 30.0 Total Cost of Energy (Mills/kWh) 53.1 70.8 71.4 Increase in Cost of Energy Over Alternative F (percent) -- 33.3 34.4 Same values as shown for Alternative F in Interim Report. Lake Tap'scheme with powerhouse located on Grant Creek. Raised lake scheme with powerhouse on Grant Creek. JABLE 5 CONCEPTUAL --LEVEL CRITERIA FOR SPAWNING CHANNEL FOR GRANT LAKE PROJECT Species Design Sockeye al Chinook Channel Width 201 Water Depth 1.51 Channel Length b/ 6201 Discharge 50 cf s. Slope 0.00044 Gravel Depth 18. U Gravel Size 1/411-4a 80 percent 1/2"-2" Underbed 411 concrete or PVC. Side Slope 1-1.5 (with side cobble)' Settling Basin 100' x 100' W deep Distance Between Drop Structure 2501-3001 Drop Structure Area 20'wide x 20'long x 6'deep !/Channel will accomodate a minimum of 100 female chinook and 250 female sockeye plus sufficient males. k/Exclusive drop structure and rest area will add 20 feet in length to each of the two structures. TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE F WITH AND WITHOUT SPAWNING CHANNEL Alternative F (w/o Spawning) F (with Spawning Channel) Channel) Installed Capacity (MW) 6 6 Estimated Total Construction Cost ($1,000s) 33,700 34,400 Debt Service ($1,000s) 1,310 1,337 Operation and Maintenance ($1,000s) 155 180 Total Annual Cost ($1,000s) 1,465 1,517 Total Cost of Energy (GWH) 27.6 27.6 Total Cost of Energy (Mills/kWh) 53.1 55.0 Increase in Cost of Energy Over Alternative F (percent) -- 3.5 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Percent ' Increase in Cost I Cost of of Energy Over - Energy for Alternative F Project or Operational Alternatives (mills/kWh) (Percent) Alternative F as defined in Interim Report 53.1 -_ -__._ Alternative_F2_.- Instream_Flow _-- Release of 55.4 cfs (Option IA) 72.7 36.8 Alternative F3 - Instream Flow Release of 20 cfs Nov. -April a-nd 64 cfs May -Oct (Option IA) 69.2 30.3 Alternative F6 - Instream Flow Release 55.4 cfs (Option 1B) 76.7 44.5 Alternative F7 -Instream Flow Release of 20 cfs Nov. -April and 64 cfs May -Oct (Option 1B) 69.9 31.6 Alternative G - Lake Tap Scheme. Wit h Powerhouse Located on Grant Creek 70.8 33.3 Alternative H - Raised Lake With Powerhouse Located on Grant Creek 71.4 34.4 Alternative F with Spawning Channel 55.5 3.5 "t xtl 70- U. 60. 94 0 20. 40 60 so 100 INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENT IN CFS NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL 20 cfs, MAY THROUGH OCTOBER 64 cfs. Tig; Z SEEM m7w ADDENDUM TO LETTER REPORT 2 JULY 1982 APPROACHES TO MITIGATING POTENTIAL FISH LOSSES IN GRANT CREEK MAINTENANCE OF AN INSTREAM FLOW As part of the instream flow analyses, questions have been raised about maintaining flows of 15 cfs in Grant Creek. This amount of water would result in an increased cost to the project of about,l0 percent which might be the upper limit to the feasibility of this project. Higher flows are not feasible. To maintain an instream flow in Grant Creek would require continuous pumping from Grant Lake to Grant Creek. The questions raised are: --What- are- the biolog-ica-l- impl-ications -of-: A. maintaining a constant 15 cfs flow in Grant Creek? B. maintaining a constant 15 cfs flow from mid -October to mid -July with a constant 40 cfs from mid -July through 2. What effect would channel modification (i.e., habitat modification) in Grant Creek have with flow regimes similar to those in IA and 1B? In addressing these questions, both short and long term changes must be considered. The short term can generally be defined as the existing stream channel with a reduced flow. The long term would be after the streamside vegetation and channel characteristics have adjusted to the new flow regime. Any long term changes may take many years to occur. During a previous instream flow analysis for Grant Creek (see letter report distributed 9 July 1982), the relationship between instream flows and fish habitat were analyzed according to the Tennant Method (Tennant 1976). The reader is referred to that letter for a full description of the analysis. However, to understand that analysis and its relation to the most recent questions that have been raised, a portion of that report is repeated as follows: 14 93B 1 DERIVATION OF ESTIMATED INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS To estimate instream flow requirements for Grant Creek to be used for the analyses discussed herein, the method described by Tennant (1976) was used. This method, commonly referred to as the "Montana Method," is based on average stream flows developed from`U.S.G.S. records. To estimate instream flow needs for a given habitat, the average flow during a certain period of the year is multiplied by a percentage that depends on the habitat classification. Habitat classifications and the percentage of average flow for each classification are summarized in Table 1. Tennant's method divides the year into low and high water periods and applies the percentages as shown. For estimating stream flow requirements for Grant Creek, a habitat classification of "good" was used. Streamflow records that were used to generate average flows were those presented by Ebasco (1982; Table 5-1) in the Interim Report for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (Table 2). These values were based on U.S.G.S. records and a HEC-4 monthly streamflow simulation model. The high and low flow periods were modified from those suggested by Tennant to account for the specific high and low flow patterns of Grant Creek. Therefore, the periods of application for Grant Creek were November through April (low flow) and May through October (high flow). The calculations for stream flow requirements were as follows: High Flow Period Low Flow Period Ave. Flow Ave. Flow May 168 cfs November 106 cfs June 447 December 56 July 504 January 41 August 414 February 34 September 196 March 27 October 188 April 35 Total 1917 Total 299 Overall Ave 319.5 Overall Ave 49.8 Flow Requirement (20% of (40% of overall = 64 cfs overall = 20 cfs average) average) Frequently, an overall percentage is applied to average annual flow. At 30 percent, described by Tennant as good survival habitat, the value for streamflow requirements would be: Ave. Annual Flow x .3 = Instream Flow Requirement or 184.7cfs x .3=55.4cfs 1493B 2 This, then, would be the value needed to maintain good habitat throughout the year on an overall average flow basis. It is recognized that Tennant's method is an office technique that only approximates instream flow requirements; however, the results obtained by this method are considered adequate for the purposes of this study. The results of this analysis showed that a flow of about 64 cfs d--u-r,ing-h-i-g--h,-fl-ow--p-eriods (May through October) and 20 cfs during low flow periods (November through April) would be needed to maintain "good habitat" in'Grant Creek. With Tennent's method in mind, a further examination of flows, particularly 15 cfs can be made. In reference to -question IA, a constant flow f 15'---f ------- - ow 0 cfs in the short term would leave Grant Creek with approximately 5 percent (15 cf . s/319.5 cfs = .05) of the average flow during high flow and approximately 30 percent (15 cfs/49.8 cfs = .30) during low flow. If this flow is calculated as a percentage of the average annual flow, the result would be: 15 cfs/184.7 cfs = .08 or 8 percent In Tennant's stream classification system, the following would be applied to these percentages. Flow Period High Flow Low Flow Period Annual -Percentage of Flow 5% 30% 8% Stream Classification Severe Degradation Fair or Degraded Severe Degradation Just from Tennant's general classifications, it is apparent that, at least in the short term, 15 cfs is not biologically acceptable. Increased potential for predation, increased ice formation, and changes in bedload transport are among the factors that may tend to further degrade the habitat. It is not certain that adults would enter Grant Creek when it has 15 cfs or 40 cfs (as discussed below). Some or many 14 93B 3 fish may tend to swim upstream to the main source of water to which they were imprinted, the tailrace. Whether adults could navigate all riffles at 15 cfs is uncertain. Over the long term, the streamside vegetation and stream bed would be expected to adjust to an average annual flow of 15 cfs. The time period needed by the stream to adjust to the new flow regime is uncertain, but would probably take many years. In reference to question IB, enhancing the flow to 40 cfs during the spawning season (high flow) would probably help attract spawners and improve upstream passage. During the 3 months of 40 cfs flow, the habitat classification would improve from severe degradation to poor (Tennant 1976), which is still cons.idered unacceptable. In the long term, the release of higher flow would improve the habitat over a constant 15 cfs year around because the 40 cfs would probably help attract fish to the stream, improve spawning flows, and flush the stream of accumulated detritus and fines. It still remains uncertain whether existing fish runs could remain viable for the 5 - 15 years (or more) required for the stream to readjust to the lower flow regime. Likely the species and run strengths using the stream will change. Chinook are known as major tributary - big river spawners. They probably would be eliminated. Sockeye may remain, but it is more likely that the stream would be most acceptable for coho, which are currently very uncommon, and trout and char. In reference to question 2, an improvement of the existing stream channel is an alternative that can be considered. With the flow regimes examined for question 1, channel improvement could be used to maximize streambed characteristics (i.e., flows, gravel size and depth) for spawning, passage, and rearing. In effect, Grant Creek would be modified into a spawning channel. Although, in theory, this could be accomplished, the success of this alternative is very risky and largely impractical compared to providing a spawning channel at a location, for example, near the powerhouse tailrace. One of the major reasons is that the success of this alternate relies heavily on the continuous pumping of water into Grant Lake. Pumps can be extremely reliable, but even with a back-up pump, equipment failure or power outages would 1493E 4 result in stoppage of flows to Grant Creek. In this event, the fish resource would be subject to complete loss, depending on the length of time of system failure. This problem would also apply to scenarios considered for questions lA and 18. It would be much safer to have a spawning channel at the powerhouse that would rely on a gravity fed water supply system that would be much more reliable. Also, the spawning channel at the powerhouse would possess much more ideal conditions, in terms of flow, depth, substrate, size, and susceptibility to icing than one on Grant Creek. 14 93B 5 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT MEETING WITH AGENCIES July 9, 1982 A. The meeting was attended by the following: Tom Arminski .............Alaska Department of Fish and Game Don Beyer ................Ebasco Services Incorporated Ralph Browning ........... U.S. Forest Service, Seward Ken Thompson .............U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage Rick Cardwell ............ Ebasco Services Incorporated Mary Lynn Nation ......... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wayne Pietz ..............Ebasco Services Incorporated Eric Marchegiani ......... Alaska Power Authority Brad Smith ...............National Marine Fisheries Service Don Smith ................Ebasco Services Incorporated Jim Thiele ...............Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center David Trudgen ............ Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center Bill Wilson ..............Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center B. Opening Statements by Eric Marchegiani and Don Smith The purpose of the meeting is to review the Agency comments on the Environmental Study Plan specifically with respect to evaluation of alternative project arrangements that would provide a flow in Grant Creek, methods for estimating the number of fish in Grant Creek, pro- viding for the safe egress of sockeye salmon smolts from Grant Lake .and other potential mitigation measures. C. Discussion of Project Alternative Arrangements by Wayne Pietz 1. Mr. Pietz described, poiht-by-point, the contents of the letter report (attached), which presented the results of analysis the alternative project arrangements suggested by the Agencies. 2. The cost of energy (power) estimates generated by Ebasco in the letter request are the best that Ebasco can derive at this time. 3. For comparison, Mr. Pietz indicated that the cost of power esti- mated in the Railbelt Report from a variety of power generation plants was approximately 55 - 60 mills per kilowatt hour in the near future. 4. The cost of power estimates the agencies will see in the final feasibility report for the Grant Lake project will probably be higher than shown in the letter report, due to use of a more extensive methodology for estimating cost of power. He stated that the relative differences in power costs between the different alternatives in the letter report would remain the same. 5. Mr. Arminski asked why it cost $3 million more for Alternative 11G11. Mr. Pietz responded that this alternative required.a longer tunnel (about 500 feet) and required more rock bolts and supports in the tunnel because of the orientation of the tunnel with respect to the bedding of the rock in the area of Grant Creek. 6. Mr. Arminski asked whether it would be possible to allow a mini- mum streamflow in Grant Creek, on the basis that the cost of the power in the long-term would be lower because of the greater utili- zation of the power from the.Project., It was explained that the cost of power would not decrease with time -because it would be fully, utilized from the on-line date. 7. There was considerable discussion of the cost of power for Grant Creek relative to other sources. 8. The cost of power associated with Alternative "P, the proposed .-arrangement,.. and- a_spawn_i_ng__channel----i-n the-ta-i-l-race -was --prov_i-ded--- in the letter-_repq_rt.,_..,.fo.r._-ijl-u,s-t.rat.i-o.n-..o-f --the.-c.o.mparative -cost ------ a__iypical mitigative measure compared to the provision of an instream flow. 9. Mr. Pietz indicated that the instream flow estimates were sufficient to determine the comparative costs of the project alternatives. 10. In response to a question, it was noted that the project is still viable without Falls Creek diversion water. The study,is proceeding cl-u s-i-on- -of-F-a-11-s -Greek---d i-ve rsi-on--b-eca:u-s7e-th-e-Power-A-uth-ari-ty— will be able to obtain more power at a cost of power that is comparable to the Alternative without the Falls Creek diversion. 11. The City of Seward and the local area will be able to absorb all of the power and will have a more dependable energy source with the Grant Lake project than with the current condition. 12. Question: If Susitna came on-line, would Grant Lake still be used? Also, could a minimum streamflow in Grant Creek be maintained until Susitna came on-line? The answer to the first question was yes; to the second question: no, the project probably would not be viable economically and would probably not be built if it*could not be shown to be viable in time and cost to the alternatives available. 13. After considerable discussion of the alternatives and costs asso- ciated with them, it was generally agreed by those in attendance that the range of flows studied in the evaluation of the alternatives was adequate for consideration of an instream flow. 14. The result of a discussion of the provision of an instream flow suitable for maintenance of afisheryhabitat in Grant Creek was that the project would probably not be economical. Efforts should there- fore be directed to mitigative measures other than the continuation of instream flow studies. 9 15. Bill Wilson commented that he considered the minumum streamflow analysis performed in the letter report plus AEIDC's extensive observations on Grant Creek at different flows to be a satis- factory appraisal of minimum streamflow requirements for this project. There was general agreement that enough minimum stream - flow study had been done for now. D. Counting Spawning Salmon in Grant Creek 1. AEIDC described their proposal for counting spawning salmon in Grant Creek this summer. They ey will continue with foot surveys, similiar to that used in the past by AN & G from which the number of fish can be estimated. There was agreement that AEIDC's approach would provide suitable data. Theoretical estimates of spawners based on habitat were not considered reliable and were discarded. E. Alternative Fish Mitigation Measures 1. Brad Smith recommended that APA shouldn't dismiss minimum stream - flow as a potentially viable mitigative measure until the feasi- bility of all the other mitigative measures have been evaluated. He was comfortable with the minimum streamflow calculations and results, but still is uncomfortable with the idea of dewatering Grant Creek. He asked APA to consider mitigation alternatives in the creek associated with a release of 15 cfs. 2. Tom Arminski is comfortable with the assessment in the letter report. Although he is uncomfortable with drying up Grant Creek, he noted that the fish resources are relatively small; perhaps mitigation monies could be better spent elsewhere. Arminski would like APA to make a statement that it does not believe instream flow releases are viable economically and is prepared to explore as many alternative mitigation measures as possible. Then, the ADF&G can decide whether this position is acceptable. 3. Ken Thompson suggested that the decision -makers on this project will require a full evaluation of alternatives in the feasibility report. .Thus, the impacts on the cost of power associated with different minigation measures will be estimated. 4. The resource agency representatives recommended that APA prioritize all alternative mitigation measures in its evaluation. However, none should be eliminated from the analysis. The Cook Inlet Regional Sal- mon Enhancement Plan should be consulted in developing mitigation approaches. 5. Scheduling of Forthcoming Meetings of Mitigation: Mr. Arminski thought that our schedule for accomplishing the fish mitigation plan- ning was a little ambitious. He recommended that APA meet with the Fishery Research and Enhancement Division (FRED) and probably the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association to learn their preferences concerning off -site mitigation. They probably will have information on costs of some enhancement projects that may be considered for mitigation of Grant Creek. 3 6. The resource agencies recommended that APA consider what it could do, - in terms of mitigation, with the money it would save from not provid- ing a streamflow, in Grant Creek. F. Migration of Sockeye Salmon Smolts From Grant Lake I. Don Beyer and Don Smith discussed the two potential fish removal systems that presently appear to be the most promising in providing safe egress of sockeye salmon smolts from the lake. Beyer discussed the "Baker Lake Gulper", a device that is in operation on Washington's Baker Lake to bypass sockeye -around a dam. -The Gulperrelies upon establishing a downstream -oriented attractant flowthatgradually, increases to --the point where the smolts cannot swim out of the artificial, floating channel. The scheme illustrated by Smith uses an inclined screen in the tunnel to divert smolts into the gate shaft well, where they can be removed for transport to Trail Lake. — ------ 2-..- -Brad -Smith -asked -how sockeye ju-ven-i-l-es -coul-d -be--kept from enteri-rrg--th-6----- -EbASCO and .AE.IDC -staff were of the opin-ion--that would not leave the lake unless lake carrying capacity was exceeded or a stock was used that naturally migrated down to another lake as part of its normal rearing history. 3. Tom Arminski, in echoing Brad's concern that fry may be entrained by the tunnel, asked whether we could lower the depth of the tunnel inlet so that it would be below the zone of fry occurrence in the lake. This would adversely impact project costs and possibly add to the problem of 4. Eric Marchegiani suggested considering the option of stocking the lake so that the number of fish surviving passage through the turbines would equal the production goals of ADF&G's FRED. Tom Arminski noted this proposal would have to be discussed with FRED. ,G. Turbidity in Grant Lake and Effects on Production 1. Rick Cardwell described plan for responding to agency comments on this issue. AEIDC discussed how their data will respond to this concern. The issues were discussed. H. Recreation 1. Eric Marchegiani asked the participating agencies to think about their views concerning recreation on Grant Lake. I. Future Meetings 1. The next meeting was tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, August 5, 1982 at the Fish and Wildlife Conference room on Tudor Road. All parti- cipants agreed to consult their schedules on'this date. 2. The subject of the meeting would be the alternative mitigative options These would be evaluated preliminarily and discussed with the agencies. 3. All those attending this meeting plus representatives from the Cook Inlet Association should plan to attend the next meeting. PLANNING DOCUMENT NO. 2: FISHERIES MITIGATION FOR PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY AUGUST 17, 1982 INTRODUCTION The proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project, located near Moose Pass on the Kenai Peninsula, will adversely affect existing stocks of salmonids in Grant Creek and the salmon enhancement project in Grant Lake unless there is sufficient mitigation planning. The purpose of this document is to assist this planning process by setting forth for discussion candidate options for mitigating project -related effects on salmon in Grant Lake and Grant Creek. These options have been developed through meetings and discussions between the Alaska Power Authority and the various agencies concerned with the fish resources of Grant Creek. The objective of this document is to promote discussion of these and any other viable options. Concern will focus mainly on salmon, specifically sockeye and chinook, because they are the dominant species in Grant Creek and are the species considered for rearing in Grant Lake under Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) Grant Lake experimental enhancement program (Daisy 1982). The list of mitigation options considered below is based upon a meeting with state and federal fish agency representatives, held 9 July 1982, and subsequent telephone conversations with staff of the ADF&G, Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team (CIRPT), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S. Forest Service. The 9 July meeting was held to discuss the need to perform extensive instream flow studies in Grant Creek. During that meeting it was determined that further instream flow studies would not be necessary because flows available during feasible operation of the project would be too small to maintain adequate habitat. Therefore, this meeting was called to consider other mitigation options. 2581A The policy of the project's sponsor, the Alaska Power Authority, concerning fish mitigation is to ensure that there is no net loss of fish resources, in this case, sockeye and chinook salmon. Adult salmon run strengths to Grant Creek are unknown, but spawning ground surveys conducted from 1952 to 1980 have resulted in counts of up to 70 chinook and 324 sockeye for single -day surveys. More spawning ground surveys - are planned under the Grant Lake environmental assessment to compare_ results in 1982 with those in previous years. At this juncture, mitigating for 200 adult chinook and 500 adult sockeye appears to be a reasonable objective. _-g.ene_r_a1.._.m_iti_gat_i-o.n__._a1_t.er..n.at_i-ve__concer_ns._enhanceme.n_t___o_f___fi.s.h.__s.toc.k_s__ in other streams or at other fish enhancement facilities within the Kenai River systeml/, in lieu of on -site mitigation for existing stocks. The question immediately raised is "how much money does the Power Authority have available for both capital construction and annual operation and maintenance of the mitigation facilities?" This question - -------can --o n-ly -be---a n swe red ---by --con s-i-de ring-the--cost---of-the—mi-ti-gati-on- - — — ----- facilities required for the project. The three issues that need to be addressed in planning mitigation are as follows: 1) Maintaining stocks of sockeye and chinook salmon native to Grant Creek 2) Preventing entrainment of salmon juveniles and smolts in Grant Lake by the submarine tunnel leading to the power house. 3) Providing safe egress of salmon smolts from Grant Lake to Upper Trail Lake. Enhancement will probably have to be confined to the Kenai River system according to Tom Walker, CIRPT. 2581A 2 The point was that some rearing in Grant Creek may produce good or dividends. Providing better 'rearing, either at Trail Lake Hatchery using a rearing pond, will produce even greater dividends. tween An ADF&G biologist asked about the temperature differential be ub"O al Grant Creek and that expected in the powerhouse tailrace. A 5 erIce water temperature in the tailrace would delay hatching and erner a e the timing and even prove lethal to salmon embryos. Cardwell indic arterly Power Authority had taken temperature profiles in Grant L3 Ice QU Gr ant since the autumn of 1981 and was making weekly measurement ater Lake during August and September 1982 to obtain better data nt0f the temperatures during the critical period of initial develoP salmon embryos. Deing ns The discussion returned to ADF&G staff reaction to the opt 'Ostocks. discussed for mitigating project MO effects on Grant Creek SaLlmdu l at the e_ The ADF&G agreed to determine whether they can allocate as 5 ked the Trail Lake Hatchery for stock from Grant Creek. Tom Armifisant Greek FRED division biologists whether utilizing eggs from the Gr 5' FRED stock at the hatchery was compatible with Department objec-ti4e division will evaluate compatibility. OL fry Rick Cardwell agreed to write and request ADF&G to desigr"ldt 'fe to be emergence period (window) during which f . ry emergence woul e egg programmed for any on -site mitigation (e.g., spawning chOL"Tl boxes). rearing ADF&G suggested that the Power Authority consider an exte" to Greek stock facility (i.e., pond). This pond would use eggs from GrOLr' the and allow fry to be reared to smolts, dramatically incrL-- Chance of their surviving to adults. stocks• Many options were discussed for mitigating Grant Creek 55- '1" L',avilY is The group of options to which ADF&G appeared to lean mo55- Z depicted schematically below. 2622A 3 4) reducing flows to 15 cfs would probably increase the potential for freezing of the stream, increase predation, decrease the ease of upstream passage, and fail to attract all spawners into the stream. For these reasons, it would appear that any flow releases to Grant Creek would be largely impractical and entails greater risk to existing �salmon resources than the mitigation facilities discussed below. ON -SITE MITIGATION - Before discussin otent�all viable on site m�ti an ono bons, reasons for why certain options were rejected at the outset will be discussed. An egg incubation channel was rejected because it is much more costly to operate than spawning cha,nnels and egg incubation boxes and offers no major advantages. A'hatchery was rejected because one hatchery, the recently constructed AN&G Trail Lake Hatchery, is enough for the area. An extended rearing .facil.ity would not be redundant because the hatchery will only use limited rearing, but it would raise doubts about whether the fish being reared will retain the genetic integrity of a wild stock. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Trail Lake Hatchery stresses maintenance of the genetic integrity of I enhanced stocks. According to the Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team (1981) a fishway proposed for the Ptarmigan Lake enhancement project was considered, but the Power Authority deleted it from further consideration when it was learned that the enhancement strategy for the lake will use eggs from Trail Lake Hatchery rather than from spawners entering the lake via a new fishway. Thus, a fishway is no longer being seriously considered by the agencies interested in the project (Thompson 1982). Options for mitigating salmon stocks of Grant Creek include egg incubation boxes, spawning channel, lake fertilization, and monetary replacement. 2581 A 4 Egg Incubation Boxes Egg incubation boxes (Figure 1) are simple wooden boxes filled with alternating layers of gravel and salmon eggs. They are receiving considerable use in Washington State (Allen and Cowan 1977). In Alaska they have been used successfully for the past two years to incubate sockeye, even stocks carrying the viral disease IHN (Daisy 1982). Their chief advantages are their low cost of construction and operation, suitability for enhancing wild stocks, and ability to produce high (70-85% survival is common) survival of fry. Potential disadvantages include insufficent experience incubating Chinook, tendency to become clogged with sediments, and susceptibility to freezing. Trials with Chinook prior to project start would solve questions of which gravel size and water flows to use. These trials would solve the question of clogging, which isn't expected to be a major problem because Grant Lake acts as a sediment trap, and only fine particles having very slow settling velocities are expected in the tailrace water. Freezing is not expected to be a problem because the temperature of the tailrace water should go no lower than 2.5-4°C in the winter. The boxes probably should be set within buildings kept at the same temperatures as the influent water to preclude the possibility of ice buildup in the boxes and their outlets. The egg boxes would be sited next to the tailrace. There would have to be an adult egg -taking facility (i.e., pond) where they would be held until they were ready to spawn. The entire facility would cost less than $75,000 and is considered highly feasible. Spawning Channel The feasibility of a spawning Channel is considered good, but less than that of the egg boxes. There appears to be a general concern that spawning channels sound better on paper than they perform. The 2581A 5 1.1 majority of spawning channels throughout the Pacific Northwest and Canada have not produced as well as expected, although the Canadians have had fairly good success with sockeye (Cooper 1977). Experience in Alaska is limited. One of the main problems in Washington with using spawning channels for chinook is the need to hold the fish for an extended period before they spawn. Disease, with resulting spawner mortality, is a major problem. This is not an inherent problem with channel design, only environmental conditions (e.g., temperature). A specific evaluation for stocks returning to Grant Creek should be made to determine whether conditions exist that are conducive to prespawning mortality. The spawning channel envisioned would conform approximately to the criteria in Table 1. The channel would be a segregated section of the tailrace having separate sections for chinook and sockeye to prevent superimposition of new redds on old redds and provide species -specific flows, depths, and substrate sizes for spawning. Substrate water velocities could be controlled by manipulating rock size below the 18 inch bed of spawning gravel. Silting should be a much lesser problem in this spawning channel than in many places elsewhere, due to Grant Lake's behavior as a•major sediment trap. Annual gravel cleaning should suffice to remove accumulated fines. The spawning channel defined in Table 1 would cost approximately $700,000 to construct and up to $50,000 per year to operate. Lake Fertilization Lake fertilization is a promising technique for increasing the carrying capacity of lakes for fish. Much work has been done on lake fertilization in Canada, and this approach is mentioned frequently in the Cook Inlet Reqional Salmon Enhancement Plan (CIRPT 1982) for augmenting salmon production. Because Grant Lake may be suitable for rearing both chinook and sockeye, lake fertilization may prove a useful technique for increasing the number of fish that can be reared. 2581A 7 TABLE 1 BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SPAWNING CHANNEL: GRANT LAKE PROJECT Species Design i Sockeye - 250 females (maximum) Chinook - 100 females (maximum) Channel Width 20 feet (ft.) Water Depth 1.5 ft. I Water Velocity 1.5 ft./sec. Channel Length'/ 620 ft. -Discharge 33.8 cfs Slope .001 Gravel Depth 18 inches Gravel Size 1/4 - 4 inches 80 percent 1/2 - 2 inches ` I ----- --- -- _-4—i-nch__.concrete------ ------------- Side Slope 1:1.5 (with side cobble) Settling Basin 100 ft. x 100 ft. I. >3 ft. deep !. Distance Between Drop Structure 250 - 300 ft. Drop Structure Area 20 ft. wide x 20 ft. long x 6 ft. deep 1/Exclusive drop structure and rest area which will add 20 ft. in length for each of two structures. 0 As a mitigative measure for Grant Creek stocks, only eggs from those stocks could be used to seed Grant Lake. Due to the small size of the stocks, additional.years of run -building may be required to attain the lake's rearing capacity. An adult holding pond, similar to that necessary for the egg box Option, would also be required. Eggs could be incubated either at Trail Lake Hatchery or in lakeside egg incubation boxes. Before the lake fertilization program could be seriously considered, a three -stage limnological study woul.d be required, as per ADF&G1s Policy and Guidelines for Lake Fertilization. This study could last at least 3 years. The overall feasibility of this option is considered only fair, owing to the uncertainties over whether it will work. The capital cost of the project would likely be less than $75,000. Monetary Replacement Monetary replacement of lost salmon resources is one of the least favored options according to ADF&G's Statement of Policy on Mitigation ,of Fish and Game Habitat Disruptions, but it appears to be one of the few remaining options available if there is insufficient confidence that the other mitigation options will achieve the results desired. If so, then it is more practical to allocate the available monies to projects having a better chance of success. i The amount of money available for capital construction and O&M would depend upon costs for the most feasible mitigation option. 2581A 9 APPROACHES TO MITIGATING POTENTIAL FISH LOSSES AT GRANT LAKE PREVENTING ENTRAINMENT OF JUVENILE SALMON AT INTAKE The idea of using Grant Lake to rear sockeye or chinook or both using eggs from Trail Lake Hatchery fails to mention either Grant Lake or Grant Creek as a source of eggs or fry (Trail Lake Hatchery EIS). Flagg (1982) indicates that ADF&G Wi-11 be conducting a series of trial plantingA, beginning in the -sprin . g 1-993 to determine -Whether the lake will be a good rearing facility. Given the experimental nature of the enhancement project, agreed -upon options for preventing entrainment and providing safe egress of smolts will have to be contingent upon data demonstrating -the-enh-ancemen-t---projec-t—.----Fu-rt-he-rmore-i----------------- ------ - ------ ADF&G--ftfa-st Lake for rearing salmon for___ the life of the hydroelectric project once mitigation are installed. PREVENTING ENTRAINMENT OF SALMON JUVENILES AT INTAKE Due to the design characteristics of the hydro project, unacceptably high mortality of salmon juveniles and smolts is expected if the fish pass through the Francis turbine. Therefore a device is needed to prevent their entrainment as juveniles or voluntary passage as smolts. Experience elsewhere indicates that salmonid smolt§, including sockeye and chinook, will find the submarine outlet (Bentley and Raymond 1968). The best option for preventing entrainment or egress is to screen the tunnel (Figure 2). Installing louvers or screens at the tunnel entrance, as is done at some dams (e.g., Baker Lake; Wayne 1961), is impractical in deepwater and if the lake cannot be drained to the required installation level. The facility proposed is based upon successful work at other projects. A passive screen has been used successfully to divert salmonid smolts on Oregon's Willamette River (Eicher 1981), which carries a debris load far greater than that of Grant Creek. This screen can be rotated on an axle for backflushing (Figure 3). A vertical traveling screen, though much more costly, 2581A 10* NOIIVA313 0 C 0 0 cn >) CD m 4� rJ 4- cu -P 0 4- L- Ln 0 a) 0 4-) to r_ CL) U 4 4-) > th — in (z Q) ru = 0- S- 4-3 o ro =3 ro Q) 4.) U C 0 C: 4- r— = C) 4 C) 4-) -0 a) 4-J 10 U = 4-) C) >1 0 s- -0 In- C: cu O cli r_ Ql L- S- CL = U -r cm (A CL LL- 11 j, I 12 could be used instead if studies currently being performed suggest clogging cannot be controlled. However, based on previous experience with the rotatable passive screen, the possibility of clogging is considered very remote. A screen will be much more effective than louvers, which are used in some situations because of the need to pass much larger volumes of water than exist for this project. The screen would divert the juvenile salmon into a pipe attached to the tunnel's topside. This pipe would probably be 12 inches in diameter and carry 11 cfs of water. The pipe would bypass the turbine and discharge to the tailrace. Because of frictional drag developed within the pipe, water velocities at the tailrace end of the pipe would be less than 15 feet per second (fps), far less than the 40 fps velocity at which Shear action in the pipe starts physically damaging the salmon (Wayne 1961; Bell 1974). When the fish enter the tailrace, the deceleration they experience will also be substantially less than that (50 fps). causing "little ill effect" in smolts (Bell 1974). Based on past experience (Eicher 1981) velocities through the screen will be low enough to prevent impingement, yet velocities in the tunnel will be above those the fish can swim against in a sustained manner (Brett 1964). This rotatable screen -bypass facility is considered highly feasible from an engineering viewpoint and appears to offer an excellent chance of passing smolts past the turbine with minimum damage. The cost of the facility is estimated at less than $500,000. The fish bypass may use 11 cfs of water (assuming a 12-inch pipe) that cannot be used to generate power. This flow would have to be subtracted from the 15 cfs potentially available for instream flow to Grant Creek. A lesser flow (7 cfs) and velocity could be obtained using a 10-inch pipe as a bypass, but a 10-inch pipe may be less appropriate for large size smolts. 2581A 13 Assuring Safe Egress of Smolts Out of Grant Lake The most feasible option. forallowingsalmon smolts emigrate from Grant Lake is to use the rotatable screen -bypass described in the preceding section. Because there will be no natural streamflow,to Grant Creek with the project's most feasible engineering alternatives (Alternatives D and F described by Ebasco Services Incorporiated 1982), the only other way to prov-ide egress-for-smolts is to attract and -concentrate -them. A facility called a fish collection barge and known locally as the "Gulper" has been in use for many years on Baker Lake, a tributary of the Skagit River in Washington, to attract, collect, and bypass primarily sockeye over a highhead dam possessing - many f-eatures --s-imi+ar----- - to those at the proposed Grant Lake project. The Gulper, which has been described by Wayne (1961), consists of the device shown in Figure 4. The barge is located in shallow water alongshore, where the sockeye smolts congregate. Large pumps on the barge set up a flow that attracts the smolts because it is the only flow in the reservoir .-----------.--.—r-e.s-emb-lj-ng.--an—o-u-t-l-e-t—.s.t-re-am_. Proceed i ngfrom the entrance channel to the trap,. the water velocity increases from the attraction flow of 1.5 fps to one exceeding the burst swimming speed of the smolts. Once trapped the smolts are immediately passed into a 10-inch pipe that grades into a 12-inch and subsequently an 18-inch pipe, which passes over the dam and drops 185 feet to the tailrace (Fi-gure 5). At Grant Lake the Gulper would be used, but the bypass would differ from that at Baker Lake. At Grant Lake the fish would have to be trucked to Upper Trail Lake rather than piped because a pipeline.would be too expensive. Smolts captured by the Gulper would be trucked at a frequency and at densities mutually acceptable to ADF&G and the Power Authority. The system is feasible from an engineering viewpoint, but its efficiency in capturing both chinook and sockeye remains somewhat questionable, despite its proven performance at Baker Lake. The cost of a new Gulper has been estimated by one utility biologist to be approximately 1 million dollars; the price may reach 2 million dollars in Alaska. 2581A 14 4J u O 15 C O L z Ern e- •r 0 i N � p _J o 4-) C O U. V _ Qj (. LLB `^ VJ < � •r Y W m O Q. N •r N N ro 1 r6 O.4- --_..._..____a 0 ro 4-3 U C •r 'p Sr OJ d a- N Y � ro U J t r d-) C V O to r C.i �J p 0O ro O •CJ .0 A C _ � 3 ,C ro N I to .O J O 4-3 t L to S- CL= Y co O 1 ® •fl �G C GJ U •r N �— � L a +•> n. N •r to N CL 1 C d ro r6 >1 J .a L71 i-j C G1 C •r •r i r _ p 4-3 7 M- i N H •r p C •r d l.L_lu J • 4- W Ln � p G1 — 4.J 0-0 =Eo ii LITERATURE CITED Allen, R.L. and L.R. Cowan. 1978. Salmon egg incubation box program 1977-1978 season. Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Progress Report 73. 24 pages. Bell, M.C. 1974. Fish passage through turbines, conduits, and spillway gates. Pages 251-261. In: L.D. Jensen (editor) Entrainment and Intake Screening. Proceedings of the Second Entrainment and Intake Screening Workshop. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. Bentley, W.W. and H.L. Raymond. 1968. Collection of juvenile salmonids from turbine intake gatewells of major dams in the Columbia River System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 97(2): 124-126. Brett, J.R. 1964. The respiratory metabolism and swimming performance of young sockeye salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 21(5): 1183-1226. Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team. 1981. Cook Inlet regional salmon enhancement plan 1981-2000. Soldotna, Alaska. 72 pages plus appendices. Cooper, A.C. 1977. Evaluation of the production of sockeye and pink salmon at spawning and incubation channels in the Fraser River System. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Progress Report 36, 80 pages. Daisy, D. 1982. Personal communication. F.R.E.D. Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Eicher, G. 1981. Turbine screen protects fish at PG&E hydroelectric plant.. Electric Light and Power, August 1981. Pages 47-48. 2581A 17 Flagg, L. 1982. Personal communication. F.R.E.D. Division, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Soldotna, Alaska. Tennant, D.L. 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation, and related environmental resources. 'Pages-359 to 373 In: Instream Flow Needs, American Fisheries Society. 1 __-Thompson; K.--1982.-_.Person-a-l-communication. US. -Forest -Service, Regional Headquarters, Anchorage, Alaska. Wayne, W.W. 1961. Fish handling facilities for Baker River project. - , --Jour-nal -of the -Power _Divi.si_on, Proceedings -__of the American Society of_Civi-1 -En g-ineers.- 87; No---P03- --pages 23-54. _ _ i 2581A t 18 MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING 17 AUGUST 1982 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the meeting was to generate and discuss ideas for mitigating the potential effects of the proposed project on salmon stocks of Grant Creek. TO addition, Options for mitigating potential project effects OA the Alaska Department of Fish & GDme^s /ADF&G\ Grant Lake salmon enhancement project were also discussed. There was limited discussion of a recreation plan for the project. The meeting was requested by Eric Marchegidnf, project manager for the Alaska Power Authority /APA\* and was attended by APA's consulting engineer, Eb85cO Services Incorporated and representatives of state and federal resource agencies. Participants are listed below: Name Affiliation Tom Walker Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team Mary Lynn Nation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service /U3FNS\ Gary Stdckhqu38 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ron BVrrdychdlk U.S. Forest Service (U3FS) Ken Thompson U.S. Forest Service Geoff Wilson U.S. Forest Service Bill Hauser ADF&G Loren Flagg ADF&8 Tom Arminski AOF&G Ken FlOrey ADF&8 Tom Small City of Seward Eric Marchegiani APA David TrudgeO AEIDC Bill Wilson AEIDC Jim Thiele AEIDC Don Smith EbascV Rick Cardwell Ebdsco Larry Wright National Park Service 2O22A FISH MITIGATION Ebasco biologist, Rick Cardwell, reviewed the contents of a report prepared for APA (Planning Document No. 2) that made a preliminary assessment, for discussion purposes, of several mitigation options. This report, copies of some of the most important references cited in the report, and copies of the 2 July 1982 letter report, entitled "Evaluation of ' Instream Flows for the Grant Lake Project - An Identification of Potential Mitigation Alternatives," were distributed to attendees. The followin-q,minutes do not discuss the elements of Cardwell's-____-, -- presentation,- which -are -contained _in Planni-ng.-.Documen.t.-.-,NQ..,---��,_The ------ minutes identify issues, comments, and questions raised during discussion at the meeting. The USFWS asked about arrangements for monitoring (and paying for) the efficacy of mitigation efforts. The Power Authority responded that no - 6-t-6 date—. --l-t---n-e-e-d-s7-i-nRut--fr�om-the--- co estimates have n ma agencies concerning the elements and costs of these programs. There was considerable discussion of the value. of Grant Creek for rearing chinook salmon. Rick Cardwell suggested that chinook did not appear to be very abund0t in the stream and possibly many leave the stream to rear in the Trail River or Kenai Lake. One ADF&G biologist I. suggested it wouldn't require a large number of juveniles to represent 40 pairs of chinook using the following as criteria: 0 40 pairs of adults with fecundity of 8,000 eggs/female = 320,000 eggs 0 20% egg to fry survival = 64,000 fry 0 20% fry to smolt survival = 12,800 smolts 0 3% smolt to adult survival= 384 adults 0 60:40 catch to escapement ratio = 576 adults 2622A 2 The point was that some rearing in Grant Creek may produce good dividends. Providing better rearing, either at Trail Lake Hatchery or using a rearing pond, will produce even greater dividends. An ADF&G biologist asked about the temperature differential between Grant Creek and that expected in the powerhouse tailrace. A subnormal water temperature in the tailrace would delay hatching and emergence timing and even prove lethal to salmon embryos. Cardwell indicated the Power Authority had taken temperature profiles in Grant Lake quarterly since the autumn of 1981 and was making weekly measurements in Grant Lake during August and September 1982 to obtain better data on water temperatures during the critical period of initial development of the salmon embryos. The discussion returned to ADF&G staff reaction to the options being discussed for mitigating project effects on Grant Creek salmon stocks. The ADF&G agreed to determine whether they can allocate a module at the Trail Lake Hatchery for stock from Grant Creek. Tom Arminski asked the FRED division biologists whether utilizing eggs from the Grant Creek stock at the hatchery was compatible with Department objectives. FRED division will evaluate compatibility. Rick Cardwell agreed to write and request ADF&G to designate a fry emergence period (window) during which fry emergence would have to be programmed, for any on -site mitigation igation (e.g., spawning channel, egg boxes). ADF&G suggested that the Power Authority consider an extended rearing facility (i.e., pond). This pond would use eggs from Grant Creek stock and allow fry to be reared to smolts, dramatically increasing the Chance of their surviving to adults. Many options were discussed for mitigating Grant Creek salmon stocks. The group of options to which ADF&G appeared to lean most heavily is depicted schematically below. 2622A 3 r Grant Creek Quartz Creek Stock Stock IEggs 99s Eggs GRANT EXTENDED KLARINb LAKE FACILITY _(POND) mol S Smolts -�Smolts N OCEAN The number of salmon using Grant Creek represents the escapement n o —( us escapement) portio f he total run -d-a-t—cnp] Api6m—e—nt)-- F&GbJ-ol-oFg-i-s-ts— suggested that the Power Authority could assume a 60:40 ratio between catch and escapement. This is the ratio they believe applies to early run Kenai chinook and Kenai sockeye. The Grant Creek chinook run is regarded as part of the "middle run". Mary Lynn Nat I ion expressed the Fish & Wildlife Service's concern that insufficient consideration had been accorded instream flow releases as a mitigation option. She advocated further consideration of this option before commencing more extensive evaluations of other options-1/. 1/ After the meeting Rick Cardwell met with Gary Stackhouse of the USFWS to discuss the Service's concerns further. Mr. Stackhouse asked that the instream flow releases, which had been discussed at the 9 July 1982 planning meeting and subsequently, be costed in units directly equatable to costs being developed for the other mitigation options. Cardwell agreed to use directly comparable monetary values in discussing the mitigation options as part of the next (i.e., No. 3) fish mitigation planning document for the project. 2622A 4 The USFWS also suggested the Power Authority consider the total productivity potential of Grant Creek. Productivity was defined in terms of the potential number of spawners that the creek could support. Numbers of adults recorded via spawning ground surveys doesn't indicate the potential of the system. The Power Authority .,should consider mitigating for the stream's potential production. They also suggested the desirability of the Power Authority developing a cost -benefit ratio for projects like Grant Creek similar to that used by the Corps of Engineers. In this analysis fishery enhancement is considered a benefit that offsetts part of the project's cost. The USFWS reiterated that the Power Authority had not exhausted options for providing instream flow (see footnote 1) and suggested that FERC may look very hard at the first hydro proposal coming out of Alaska that does not incorporate a minimum streamflow. Tom Small, City of Seward, advocated developing improved fish habitat as a mitigation objective. He cited Spring Creek as an example, where an expenditure of $1 million resulted in the return of 2,000 pairs of adults this spring, far better than the wild run. Tom Small also indicated that the City of Seward desperately needs the power from Grant Creek. --Paradoxically, this power will be used mainly to assist expansion of the fishing industry at Seward. The National Park Service asked whether the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric project was an alternative to that proposed for Grant Lake. The Power Authority said no; the alternative with respect to the City of Seward With loss of Grant Creek would be the use of fossil fuels in turbines or diesel engines. The meeting's focus then turned to discussion of methods for preventing entrainment of juvenile salmon and for providing safe egress of smolts from Grant Lake. This mitigation appears necessary if ADF&G's Grant Lake salmon rearing project proves viable. Cardwell presented information in Planning Document 2, then asked for discussion. 2622A 5 ADF&G asked whether the Power Authority would use the "Gulper" if the bypass doesn't work. The Authority responded that it would be obligated to provide a facility that satisfactorily mitigated the entrainment -bypass problem. ADF&G__asked_ whether the_ passive. screen_ bypass would,be designed for _ both_ _large anl_-sma11._f.ish,_and the Authority said._yes. _ i Loren Flagg discussed the program he anticipates for evaluating the Grant Lake salmon stocking program. ADF&G proposed to the legislature a $50,000 per year evaluation program: Eric Marchegiani asked Loren to supPly_h_im_with _an___outl-i.ne ,of_tge__pr_ogr_am,. investigate the possibility of having the Power Authority support it. Tom Arminski asked whether Loren's program would be sufficient to answer questions posed by the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Project, and Loren replied.no,_citing studies_on the fish's,ver,tical and spatial ' distribution in the lake as being needed. Mary Lynn Nation of the USFWS asked what other monitoring programs the Power Authority had in mind for evaluating the success of the mitigation options. The answer: none yet; they will be developed after the most viable mitigation options are identified. Ken Florey suggested that APA and ADF&G meet to put together a study plan for such an evaluation. There was considerable discussion of how the harvest of salmon from the Trail Lake Hatchery would affect the wild stocks of Grant Creek. Gary Stackhouse felt that pre -project studies were critical. The USFWS believed that the Power Authority should provide ADF&G with more than a letter of support; they would have to actually "push" for funding. 2622A RFrP FAT Tr)N Views of the agencies represented at the meeting were solicited concerning a recreation plan for the project. Rick Cardwell summarized the nature of agency consultation to date, which has included contact with the Forest Service, Dept. of Natural Resources, ADF&G big game biologists, and the Kenai Borough. The Forest Service reiterated its interest in having open road access to Grant Lake, which would include sanitary facilities, and "some way to get a boat into the lake". The National Park Service had no specific recommendations. Larry Wright stressed that the views of Moose Pass residents, the State Dept. of Parks, and the Forest Service need to be considered. The USFWS and National Park Service asked whether ADF&G will have an interpretive center at the Trail Lake Hatchery that references their ennancement project at Grant Lake. ADF&G suggested that a center,at Grant lake might be useful. Eric Marchegiani suggested that siting an interpretive center at the Hatchery may be more appropriate because vandalism would be less of a problem. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF FISH MITIGATION Gary Stackhouse continued to express his concern that abandonment of instream flow as a mitigation technique was premature. He said that habitat information is needed to go along with the analysis of flows. He wondered whether instream flow would be more effective over the life of the project than the alternative mitigation methods. One of the unknowns is the value of Grant Creek as rearing habitat. Gary asked whether an IFG study would give us data on the rearing potential of Grant Creek. Cardwell summarized prior discussions with the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and ADF&G concerning the wide 2622A 7 disparity between instream flows economically feasible (i.e., less than 15 cfs) and those providing aquatic habitats of different quality. For example, a "good" habitat according to Tennant's instream flow analysis method averages approximately 42 cfs over the year. Also discussed was whether an IFG study would provide the planning group with a significantly different result (i.e., lower streamflow). than that provided by the instream flow analyses performed to date. Cardwell stated that IFG does not necessarily result in lower acceptable flows. Ken Thompson said that in his experience there was no substantive difference in results. When asked about the value of an IFG analysis -for --Grant Cree-ki -8-i-1 1- -W-i I son stated that- --the-method- did supply - - useful - results, but wasn't willing to-'sa-y 'whether- -it -W-Iodld- provide a different result. For example, IFG-2 would provide data on flow, depth, and substrate, which could be equated to habitat requirements for rearing of juvenile salmon. It was suggested that a representative of ADF&G sport fish division be present at the next meeting because of the occurrence of Dolly Varden and coho salmon juveniles in Grant Creek. Tom Arminski indicated he has been keeping the sport fish division informed. Eric Marchegiani summarized the meeting. The next planning meeting was tentatively set for 28 September 1982. The Power Authority will meet with ADF&G in the interim to further explore their ideas concerning use of Trail Lake Hatchery, etc. in the mitigation. 2622A PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATION PLANNING: MINUTES OF MEETING WITH ADF&G OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1982 SUMMARY A meeting between the Alaska Power Authority (APA) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) was held 15 September 1982 to define and gather data concerning ADF&G1s preferences for mitigating potential project effects on Grant Creek salmon stocks. A variety of options were defined (Figure 1) that will be evaluated for feasibility with all other mitigation options in Fish Mitigation Planning Report No. 3. DETAILS OF MINUTES The individuals attending the meeting are listed in Table 1. The meeting was requested by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) so it could better understand ADF&G1s position regarding prospective fish mitigation options for Grant Creek. Eric Marchegiani of APA summarized meeting objectives: to gather data, criteria, and cost information for ADF&G's preferred alternatives. ADF&G agreed that they could commit one of the four modules at the Trail Lake Hatchery for rearing Grant Creek chinook. Later in the meeting ADF&G stated that they would be willing to dedicate this module to Grant Creek for 10 years after commencement of operation of the Grant Lake hydro project. If after that time, it was evident that the numbers of returning adults could not be built up to the level needed to fully utilize the capacity of the module, then ADF&G, at its option, could discontinue culturing Grant Creek chinook at the Trail Lake Hatchery. This would obligate APA to maintain the run with other means. The main options included adding a module to the Trail Lake hatchery, building a mini -hatchery at the project's tailrace, or 2705A o-m r O o 4J 10 i-f; M CL r C rn � a no 1_ rn.n x an 0J W O O 4J t% co 2C tm W Li +- t _ � V +� L O LL- Ip L L ar G. CD ►-r f 4-1 C to O aJ � 4J W L V 4 W 4- 41 4 a O C 41 f1 t Y r Iv tm p C S V Ln 41 i W C N o CD m u C CJ r b. a) rtl C a 41 J O 4J Q r CyJ i.c M "a N CT Q UY rT tv L In f a > i ti +' �- C 4J to �c C >, tm L I) 0) u = N Q > .4j 10 {a to IV C C71 In O L. .x C s- . C! /0 r 4J J d-) c U. x 10 W L B— TABLE 1 ATTENDANCE LIST FOR FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING WITH ADF&G (15 SEPTEMBER 1982) Affiliation and Name Mailing Address Telephone No. Mary Lynn Nation USFWS 605 W 4th Ave Rm G-81 271-4575 Anchorage, Alaska Brad Smith NMFS 701 C Street Box 43 271-5006 Anchorage, Alaska Michael D. Kelly AEIDC 707 A Street 279-4523 Anchorage, Alaska Dave Trudgen AEIDC 707 A Street 279-4523 Anchorage, Alaska Jim Thiele AEIDC 707 A Street 279-4523 Anchorage, Alaska Tom Arminski ADF&G 333 Raspberry Road 344-0541 Anchorage, Alaska Dave Daisy ADF&G 333 Raspberry Road 344-0541 Anchorage, Alaska Loren Flagg ADF&G Soldotna 262-9368 Soldotna, Alaska Sid Logan SF-ADF&G Soldotna 262-9360 Soldotna, Alaska Rick Cardwell Ebasco 400 112th Avenue N.E. 451-4619 Bellevue, Washington Don Smith Ebasco 400 112th Avenue N.E. 451-4588 Bellevue, Washington Eric Marchegiani APA 334 W. 4th Avenue 276-0001 Anchorage, Alaska 2705A 3 installing egg incubation boxes (egg boxes) at the tailrace. Use of the latter would have to be preceeded by trials demonstrating their efficacy in producing chinook fry of satisfactory quality at the Grant Lake site. The discussion focused on egg boxes. Dave Daisy said that ADF&G would want the fry buttoned up by late April -early May (the period Loren Flagg estimated emergence would occur) if egg boxes were used. He said ADF&G would not want the fry emerging early f they would immediately enter a � n - atural w I ater body (e.g., Gr , ant Lake or Trail - L - ake).- An early emergence, stemming from incubation at warmer than normal (i.e., ambient for Grant Creek) water temperature might be acceptable if the fry entered a rearing facility where they could be fed. However, Daisy -Q--ue—s-t-1-6-n—ed-whet—her----the—fr.y—i4-o—ul-d-f-6e—d i-fthe ---w-ater--tempFer-ature-w-as—l-ow------- 4*C). In summary egg boxes discharging fry into Grant La a or Upper Trail Lake would be unacceptable unless it could be demonstrated that the thermal rearing regime under which they are incubated would not alter their timing of emergence(because their thermal regime cannot be.forecast reliably, this option can be discarded). The discussion turned to use of an Extended Rearing Facility to produce smolts.''Daisy said that residualism of chinook may be a problem; the smolt s may lose their interest in migrating to sea. He said the best solution may be to rear fry at the hatchery and put the fry into Grant Lake. Loren Flagg suggested that the question of residualism and the rearing behavior of Grant Creek chinook could be discerned by putting roughly half the fry in Grant Creek and half into Grant Lake, then monitoring smolt production. (This evaluation appears necessary if an 4 Extended Rearing Facility is ultimately selected as a mitigation option). If a significant fraction of the fry planted into Grant Creek emigrate from the stream prior to smolting, the importance of the stream for rearing is indexed. The rearing facility's fry and smolt production would be commensurate with the production of the Creek.) 1 2705A 4 It was agreed that an adult Holding Pond would be needed at the tailrace for any of the mitigation options. If Trail lake Hatchery was used to rear fry, at'a minimum, they would have.to be imprinted in a pond using water from Grant Lake. This pond could also function as the adult holding pond. Jim Thiele asked about provisions for rearing other species: Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and coho. No explicit mitigation provisions for these species will be made. Tom Arminski asked whether it would be possible to take eggs from Grant Creek chinook and rear them' -at Trail Lake Hatchery. The fry conceivably could be placed back into Grant Creek to rear. Grant Creek could then possibly possess a very low streamflow yet serve an important function: rearing of juvenile salmonids'. Ebasco agreed to assess the feasibility of this option. Ensuing discussion focused on the potential feasibility of this option. Daisy asked whether Ebasco could tap the surface waters of Grant Lake and run the water to a rearing pond. This would provide a free source of heat, reducing concerns that sub -surface lake temperatures would be too cold to facilitate acceptable juvenile salmon growth. It was evident from the discussion that it is very important to determine how reservoir operation will affect the thermal profile of Grant Lake. Loren Flagg provided some preliminary estimates of the cost of rearing chinook fry to smolts at Trail Lake Hatchery for one year,(actually 8 months of rearing). For this effort the cost of heating the water alone from 38°F to 46°F would be $98,640. This assumes that the Trail Lake boiler uses 16 gallons of fuel per hour; the fuel costs $1.07 per gallon, and only enough water would be used to heat one raceway and produce 50,000 smolts. This would produce smolts in one year rather than the two years required naturally. 2705A Rick Cardwell asked Loren Flagg if ADF&G could supply the following information: ` o Cost of smolting chinook after 1 and 2 years of rearing o Waterflow rates for each pond of fish o Complete feeding schedule o Size of raceway o Size of pond o Flow''rates for incubators, adult holding ponds, raceways ADF&G's commitment to allocate a module at the Trail Lake Hatchery beyond the first 10`years of project operation was contingent upon the success of the propagation effort. If the number of returning adults-1/--increases in response to the propagation, then the module will continue to be reserved for the Grant Lake chinook'stock. However, the run is ultimately expected to•fully utilize the module's capacity. ADF&G and the Power Authority will need to define the acceptable rate of increase for the run. Sid Logan said the mitigation options he foresees we either letting the j fry rear in downstream lakes or rearing the fry or smolts. Mr. Logan was questioned on effects of the project on sport fishing in Grant Creek. He was not really too concerned about effects on sport fishing because Grant Creek has a limited fishery (If Upper Trail Lakes The number of returning adults (i.e., escapement to the egg taking facility) will depend upon the magnitude of prior harvest. It is assumed that the future rate of prior harvest will remain at the average rate for the period 1978 to 1982 (i.e., current level), assuring that adult'returns will not have to be proportionately greater to achieve the same level of escapement. Otherwise forecasts of adult returns will have to be adjusted downward. 2705A 6 are bridged, as proposed by the project, then sport fishing on Grant Creek will increase). He suggested that it may be possible to plant Grant Lake with rainbow trout. Discussion returned to mitigating Grant Creek salmon. Tom Arminski mentioned that the Power Authority should consider building a mini -hatchery at the tailrace. Mary Lynn Nation asked about mitigation for other species. Loren Flagg said that they may take Coho from either Grant Creek or Quartz Creek, depending on egg requirements, and plant them in Grant Lake. Flagg said ADF&G plans to take sockeye eggs from Quartz Creek and plant them in Grant Lake next spring. Cardwell indicated that, in his opinion, planting sockeye into Grant Lake that had been obtained from a stream other than Grant Creek would rule out any special mitigation from Grant Creek sockeye because of genetic (or "wild stock") considerations. ADF&G replied that this conclusion was correct; Grant Creek sockeye were not sufficiently unique to warrant special management. The discussion shifted to a pre- vs. post -operational production of sockeye in Grant Lake. Although Loren Flagg suggested that year-to-year variation may be substantial, making it difficult to compare Grant Lake sockeye production before and after project operation, major changes in.production associated with post -operational declines in water temperature, fish growth, food abundance, etc. might be evident. Eric Marchegiani commented on some apparent problems with APA's building a hatchery at the tailrace. He mentioned that the powerhouse would be remotely operated, so staff to feed and maintain the stock would not be immediately available. He said it would be better to operate a "new" facility at the Trail Lake Hatchery. Loren Flagg said that space was available for adding to the hatchery. 2705A 7 Mary Lynn Nation asked whether we would cost Tom Arminskils suggestion to use Grant Creek as a rearing facility and incubate eggs at Trail Lake Hatchery. Cardwell agreed to perform a feasibility analysis. The only practical way to evaluate this is to dry up the stream and see What happens, according to Arminski. Only then will it be evident whether the stream will freeze in the winter and whether groundwater infiltration is extensive. Brad Smith asked Loren Flagg whether the hatchery option had a good chance of maintaining or even enhancing the stock. Loren said that he had a lot more confidence in the hatchery than in the egg boxes in terms of safety of performance.,- There _Was _-greater assurance that ADF&G to u-1-d- -produce--f ry -at--the-hatchery.- - ------ ----- ------ Brad Smith asked the Power Authority to address the following contingency: if all mitigation options fail, the Power Authority will assist the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association in an,enhancem.ent project mutually agreed upon. This would be the final assurance of the no net lass alternative. Eric March,661—an-i f1s�h--- agree mitigation options fail to live up to expectations, then APA will sit down with all the participating agencies and work out another mitigation alternative. Loren Flagg asked how much money would be available for mitigation. Don Smith said that for the Round Butte project in Oregon it was 2.5%, whereas at Well's Dam on the Columbia it was 25%. Eric Marchegiani said that fish mitigation is a line item in the project's budget. It will also be included in the project's contingency. 2705A 8 PLAN14ING DOCUMENT NO. 3 FISHERIES MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY OCTOBER 28, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 1 CONCLUSIONS 12 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GRANT CREEK 14 Provisions of An Instream Flow 14 Adult Holding Facility 1_6 Rearing__ - e -. a_ring___Fa_d_1_l_ity_ I-- Juvenile -1-8 Hatchery Produced Smolts 20 Hatchery Plus Grant Creek Rearing 21 Hatchery Plus Rearing Facility 22 Hatchery Plus Grant Lake Rearing 23 Egg Boxes Plus Grant Lake Rearing 24 Egg Box Plus Pond Rearing 28 Spawning Channel 29 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GRANT LAKE 31 Preventing Entrainment at Tunnel.Intake 31 Passive Screen Bypass 32 Fish Collection Barge 37 POST -OPERATIONAL MONITORING OF MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS 39 Efficacy of Grant Creek Mitigation 39 Efficacy of Grant Lake Mitigation 40 LITERATURE CITED 41 APPENDIX 45 PLANNING DOCUMENT NO. 3 FISHERIES 11ITIGATION ALTERNATIVES GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY OCTOBER 15, 1982 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY This is the third planning document issued by the Power Authority to assess potential alternatives to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Grant Lake ltdroelectric Project on the fish resources of Grant Creek and on the proposed salmon enhancement project for Grant Lake. Coordination of the evaluation of potential impacts and the alternative mitigation plans with all concerned Federal, State and local agencies is an integral part of the Power Authority's process in evaluating a proposed project's feasibility. Furthermore, it is a requirement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that coordination with all concerned agencies be conducted to insure that all impacts are fully mitigated and ensure no net loss of the affected resource. In accordance with these mandates, numerous informal discussions with agency personnel were held which culminated in a meeting with all agencies on July 9, 1982 to assess the provision of an instrean flow to preserve the existing fish resources in Grant Creek (APA 1982a, 1982b). A number of flow regimes were evaluated, using the method described by Tennant (1976). The flow regimes ranged from 15 cfs to 100 cfs, which cover the range of habitats classified from severely degraded to excellent by Tennant (1976). After considerable discussion of the alternative flow regimes and the economic in -pacts associated with them, it was generally agreed that the range of flows studied was adequate for consideration of an instream flow and that the provision of an instream flow suitable for I 1824B maintenance of adquate fish habitat in Grant Creek would probably not be economical. It was further agreed that efforts should therefore be directed to mitigative measures other than the continuation of instream flow studies. Consequently, a second meeting__was held on August 17, 1982 to define alternative mitigation measures other than an instream flow to mitigate 'project impacts (APA 1982c, 1982d). A number of alternatives were considered, including spawning channels, egg incubation boxes, use of Trail Lakes hatchery, monetary replacement, fish collection barges .-..("gu-l-p.e.r-s'-'-)-,--by-pa.s-s--p-i.pe-s-,--and.- sc-re.e-ns-... -Th-e--rte-e-ti-Rg--cp_qcluded with an agreement -that--&--m eetfng-would---be -hel d---viith---ADF&G- -o-n September -1-5-, 1982, after they had an opportunity to discuss the proposed mitigation options. The latter meeting with ADF&G sought to further define the mitigation options being considered and provide some of the data - I necessary to ful-ly evaluate the capital and operating costs of these options for comparison with costs of the instream flow options. The mitigation options developed in the meeting consisted of-A-n—ad-ul holding and spawning facility adjacent to the tailrace at the powerhouse and a variety of alternatives for producing enough fry or snolts to produce 250 adult chinook (includes both catch plus escapement) (APA 1 982e) . The mitigation options are listed in Table 1 and shown on Figure I. Discussions of the existing fish resource in the meetings concluded that mitigation efforts should focus on the chinook salmon in Grant Creek and the ADF&G plan to rear sockeye salmon fry in Grant Lake. For planning purposes, the adult chinook salmon return to Grant Creek was assumed, based on spawning ground surveys to date, to number 100. The number of harvestable, adults (i.e., catch plus escapement) is 250, and the nis.iber of smolts required to produce 250 adults is 16,700, assuming a 1.5 percent survival of smolt to adult. The sockeye salmon in Grant Creek were of lesser concern because the rearing of sockeye (and -possibly other) salmon in Grant Lake would enhance the run returning to Grant Creek and irreversibly alter the genetic integrity of the creek's wild stock. K 1824B TABLE 1 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION OPTIONS Option No. Description 1. Instream flow release of 15 cfs year round. 2. Instrean flow release of 5 cfs Nov -Apr and 32 cfs May-Oc t. ( Avg 18.5 c fs. ) 3. Instrean flow of 15 cfs Oct 15-Jul 15 and 40 cfs July 15-Oct 15. (Avg 21.25 cfs.) 4. Instrean flow of 15 cfs Nov -Apr and 32 cfs May -Oct. (Avg 23.5 cfs. ) S. Instrean flow of 20 cfs Nov -Apr and 64 cfs flay -Oct. (Avg 42.0 cfs. ) 6. Instrean floe of 55.4 cfs year round 7. Instrean flow of 25 cfs Nov -Apr and 96 cfs May -Oct. (Avg 60.5 cfs. ) 8. Instrean flow of 30 cfs Nov --Apr and 128 cfs tiay-Oct. (Avg 79 cfs. ) 9. Instrean flow of 100 cfs year round. 10. Rear smolts for one year at existing Trail Lakes Hatchery. Release smolts from adult holding facility at Grant Lake Project powerhouse. 11. Rear 2 month old fry at existing Trail Lakes Hatchery. Release fry into Grant Creek which would have an instream flow of 15 cfs. 12. Rear 2 month old fry at existing Trail Lakes Hatchery. Rear-smolts (2 yr program) at rearing facility at powerhouse. 13. Rear 2 month old fry at existing Trail Lakes Hatchery. Release fry to Grant Lake for rearing to smolts. 14. Sane as Option 10 except provide additional module at Trail Lakes Hatchery. 15. Sane as Option 11 except provide additional module at Trail Lakes Hatchery. 3 18248 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION OPTIONS Option No. Description 16. Sane as Option 12- except -provide additional moduleat- Trai 1 Lakes Hatchery. 17. Sane as Option 13 except provide additional nodule at Trail Lakes Hatchery. 18. Provide egg incubation boxes at powerhouse. Plant fry into Grant Lake. _ 19. Provide egg incubation boxes at Grant Lake powerhouse. Plant fry into rearing facility at tailrace. 20. Sparrni ng channel. f 21. Rotatable -screen and bypass pipe for egress of salmon smolts from Grant Lake. I _ _---___-_22.—_ -F_i_sh-c.ol_1_ec-ti_o-n_-b.a_r-g-e__f_o-r e_g.r_e.ss__of_-s_almon_snolts from Grant Lake. 0 1824B • 4J Im S- L- "m W CIC M. u 4J u x E 4 r_ CD V) co s- fa Jh' LAJ r— LL. - Sro racmw.. bz Lu LLJ LLJ cr C-) I 4-) a) c CL) U'D 'r- '-- C: 4-1 0 tD L L- "D c: LL IU c CC 0) 0 a-- cr- CL u to 0 4-) -bC EA _j .r >-) C 41 U-) S- to CL) U LL. S- S- Lo CD L) S- Oct 4-) 0 E to 4J to -Ne so r- LL- S- ro CD -j >1 LL- CA 4J a) 0 C = C6 u 41 J.-I fA C Q) 4- to a) u IP &- S- Ln CD U r Ln 41 0 E Ln S- f-) 0 0 4J u a) 4- Ln 4- 4j u S- 4-3 C. 4J go m 0 E O 0 u Ln LL 4-) u 7:) (a w 4- 4-3 (A 0) C =) . 3: to CL Ln E Ln a) — > m CT -r Ln C: 4J _ie s- 0 4-J 4J C::r u • O - 41 0) U- A number of other mitigation options were considered in addition to those shown in Table 1 that were discarded for a variety of reasons, including cost, technical feasibility, biological feasibility, and compatibility with existing programs. Among the options discarded we re i lake fertilization, a mini -hatchery at the powerhouse, and off -site mitigation measures. _Table 2 summarizes the increase in the cost of power from the project for the various mitigation measures. Because any usable mitigation plan must include both mitigation for the chinook salmon in Grant Creek and provide for egress of salmon smolts reared in Grant Lake, the - 1-owest-cost alternati-vefor egre-ss has been added to -the cost -of each -- ---- - - mi ti gati on option to show the lowest total cost of mitigation for both fish resources. Cost data reflect both the estimated power cost ($Awh) and the percent increase in cost over the base cost (no, mitigation plan) for Alternative F given in the project's interim engineering report (Ebasco Services Inc. 1982). Table 2 is based upon the data in Tables 3 and 4, which show the derivation of each option's annual cost to the project, including cap.i tal, operating and maintenance costs, the average annual energy produced, and the increase in power cost associated with different instrean flow and artificial propagation options, respectively. Capital and operating costs for providing egress of salmon smolts from Gra nt La ke a re s hown i n Ta bl a 5. The facilities required and the capital and operating costs relating to spawning, hatching and rearing salmon fry or smolts were obtained from ADF&G (J. Hartman 1982). All costs obtained from ADF&G for these operations are included except for the allowance for a "foregone opportunity cost." It was assumed that ADF&G's commitment to rear Grant Creek chinook at Trail Lakes hatchery signified the Department's intent to forego full utilization of module capacity until the Grant Creek stock had been enhanced to the module capacity. Mitigation options not utilizing existing facilities at the hatchery would maintain rather than enhance the stock (i.e., no net loss). W! %n W! Al ID 04 Lu ij 44 0 em 9v am dy W Ff C4 Ab. sac L.j kn %a ob 40 9%1 co PQ 0 Go w ow P, 4" CD mr cc C. -W I- w 94 in ty in 4N in cm am fu C-i CU ew -CC laa c L'i Ln Ars to ry m P.. w MA tn Ch co wpNp w f" in 11, In to gn w An I -C 40 so R 0 0 -j U. "C Ct Ct Q Ci 61 =-0 0 W; m %n 40 tN Y0 W; 40 An 40 40 to %0 S CU-C L.j 8v , 10 C w w t wC; o a; =093uj C C; 0 C;%C O ac a, co .1 C3 C� Ci Co C►� O w wo to 4c eq ccAcw eQ w ka gg ILI; 11 00 J 0 11 = N ;i :9 J .4 lik ► Cc u w O1� NZ %n m 40. gi 00 at 0. L) ► �2 w 6, Y. w tj In tj tj w rl ry qr r4 C %no c: 0 a I L « S. , F as" ,-.e . L, t1c t-28 re .j A bv- 30. " Ra No sa m A w 01 qr 40 Wiy. it; 0 Yam�++4. ® ^ w 0 ryV IN► N p� O L to 4W to N W Oi ID W O+ in �"i 40 O 10 A N 1D 49 0'•i %n N in YU% W W go w mm - cc O CC) O O co 10 OP Y J Y O O O - O N N N N N N N ow N C y pe O ccN ^d Y N z w �n �° �° u v v+ N �Lff W - o _�-� P-. ._ 10 �D 10 �0 a,W -1 Z 0 J f e f f Q f f f f J m► � d W d G � Q � � � O O O O O •- W �p O �O i0 �0 t0 = O =co o n n �o•+ 6j ',<vWW nw in C/�r N ✓ 1-1 c r'S pw pu 8 8 g 8 8 ,-� H 1-4 J U. J t co a i N �° o Hf " o a n n T � �`� v`+ C2 O•+ vi O f to a c n ✓ I � •-mCUS M � � O U- «L u O '^ •. w S g � Il g g o u + as !Ji m t- •_ N O A N' 61 i. V C_ o p I{ W L•J J W w W S CS u u N as e f 4n f N N y q o p Q 8 p Q S N Q Y9 A O� O A q O N N q✓ u W O u m Ln m �D f C �D �n m �+ :'. 9 ✓ W A •� .� C r J S J pp +� S Z J S Sp. J • "9• s i:i S � tY L' O � L" �! to J 0' V uu ,,,{{{CCCy��� L(u! L� ✓ co , m NJL Nt �N+�•�u pN ,YpO oNJ Yq N Tq MJq G'= � 4i wgVq1 � VQp pCp q ✓� p= xY. va:2 T � G11- �ee 8✓S 82 6 NJ 8J 4 OJ 8J 8l6 q^ C ® = 0 Y 0 Fv— g- gb g'cb c 8 F- Lp,1�p� Op 0���°. Op ^ Qp B O r 'Op N Op Q N L) J J C GGC O� O S _0 S C S O S IL 2 u C~ S N = N ✓ L N ✓ N ✓ i. L� ✓ ✓t�.t ✓TV Y M ✓ ✓ Lm S = pO7 q ... vzv yOy 44'J q 99�^+�p�p '9�pp�p9p O� s� q O+ 8 O 6 C W i W S 6 •[•[ t2 6 Q G 4` 2 W 4 s W � G�pp iG' un L G O (n W H Q W F- J J O J LL fM w ui H UCD - UI O f o O N @ @' r'1 C/ f son A o N jT OWi O OMi Chi 1� rrw Zr m m C+ Of rD O+ N cs V7 U9 V1 Ip {O ID A A 01 _ A A m n Uf Uf A r C; N N m f N N N N N N N N NP c rOtr ^ UNi ewer umi w b � Y L L 9uu O O 9 4 v+ 'Cupd r e c +L- pop Ku +pNp+ 6 Val C7 [7 W O N In �p �nn �pp epppyy: e Q Y M U, Q Y S Y Cy I' ,1{I rr �LR{.? �� �� w �ZR a •+ N C C N N N N N N r0 u W w♦ • U. ♦ ru Y W Y. • c N �+ C V Y Y V Y V Y Y C Y Y V N O NN ^O �N Oe O mw ON O Z 8 m Pf N10 Y NP A— ii O in N M O "! Ur O O in r4 N a ran W P O A O w� : y� W ^, N � @ M r0 A m Of' gCn c a o .- u M � n 4 � L w n E C- e O Y _C Y N N 7 .-c a�do O t G r+ S W W C)¢i IC Eu nwN M CC O C C L Y +Y E O M M Q ✓ D O N 6 Cit 91 no u i- c ti.= u a ✓�ur�.�it wtic C Oi v L YO.L^y AtD P4 Dr C y�Y! NM4� D q rq w. N N O re L PK prO4OO__ L Q L N c c c M i7 O a + c O C a N W V C 7 M O 'O ���+CN_ y• c_N�eOu{�E_ •+NE d d=GS+ N K M N u E uCg�.�.- A n V) W w� Fi Q Z W H J F-1 Q uj E— J ►- 0-4 Ca CD LL- C) J �- scoo come Cos. coo mopps coo Coo 0000s 0000 moos o0s 0000 0000 EEO o BOB ap AOh moons 00��'` h 1(. n o p /�. CNO go h►Q�h hPe�o h �D OWN h PiD h►O�06'1 h1D A h �o �D O. h10I C (.l Q Wh W @! NN f @!1m f H'fc Q Np r1D @�'1 NO f f l•fN NW@m f 1'YG !VQ%o f Pf 1� N►en @v P9N ! iC►O h M ri..3 N W01 N►Q CI NOD►O (V rQ M %D P1N Nf@r -0 47 x at a O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O D O O pp 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o 0000 O O 0000 000 000 Comm O W O O O O ► G - f 5000 Q O 0+ O O o ► h 0: �D O ► C 0+ r . . . w • . • �� hrAID • . AY]Nf • hln hYiN . . . . ArC�H'�O htn Nf h�►^ �.►N.. Am4Y h�CA ^ 1Dh �f 1D "{ff-- ►N �Dr O rQ�D r DW.� O M N p p O O o O pp O O. O coo G pp O O O O G O c p S pO O C C O po 0 O O Op O O'O 8 Q 8,02 N x O O O 0 rf @ �'f cOp O 16 .- h C O �D o .- tD �o .- h % n @ G .- G . . 4W 1.. h AO to h A A hW AA 'A hGhf hl�Iff A@N hmf A m ^ ► N ► ► ► Nf rN Q r Nlfl ►Nf ► N ^ 088ms go88 Is `g' snaoo gos gQoQ`og os' so 8 8808 990 =co 809 0so Soso o c r� 00 a 0 Soso o8o usogo 0 0000 imt Y'1 ► fr Q 4 ii1 tf1 Q Q Lff M O QN {o H1 Y! f @ Q �► Qh w f A@ Q _ .. ► r ► } J O V J My J 9 O M -.g. u yN vq..0 �Nj J Mp _ �Np Vp N O N J a _..._.. 1; ✓l p rp �e +YS CSli Ce 4•JS C.S �p 0l 8Y'O > 8p�9p N Gp�S pq� Spp��Y� 2 Gpp..S�pp,.J CSCC:2 CJ G G'O� CJ _F-H —: CH15 /� � 1� _O F bi C r N 9� C► 'O � G N C 177 F� N C8 CH p C ^ C r p O1 S O S KO S !mac O C Sr S�+G SC SCGT �O aCO G N C N YYYN. M+Y► YYr YO.� M^Or w d u ,. w. u.:+ �. r " T N A u N► Y T ,L u ._ ... u w o —_ m �o4s0+ a�=u3 Q�C4t.(Y �.Ei¢N 6W �fo" 6W«° 4 a+ S O N r� IN r TABLE 5 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS FOR PROVIDING SAFE EGRESS FOR SOCKEYE SALMON AMORTIZED OPERATION TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION AND ANNUAL ALTERNATIVE COST COST MAINTENANCE COST Passive $ 275,000 $10,600 $20,000 $ 30,600 Screen Bypass Fish 1,5U0,000 58,300 Coll ection Barge (GuIper) 83,000 141,300 CONCLUSIONS The five options that satisfy biological, engineering, and cost criteria for feasibility are listed below, beginning with the option most preferred by the Power Authority. o-- Option 13 - Fry reared at existing Trail Lakes hatchery and planted into Grant Lake - L_ o Option 17 Fry reared in new module at Trail Lakes hatchery and planted into Grant Lake o Option 10 Chinook reared to smolts at existing Trail Lakes hatchery _ ___o _Op-ti-on-18 Fry -produced by egg _boxes and- planted into La ke o Option 20 Spawni ng channel All the other options were eliminated because they possessed liabilities biologically, were unfeasible economically, or both. Rearing fry at the existing Trail Lakes hatchery and planting them into Grant Lake (Option 13) for reari ng' to smol is is highly effective and has a high probability of success. Fry incubated and reared for 2 months at the hatchery will experience high survival and growth. They should do well in Grant Lake, which already hosts a good population of threespine stickleback and is slated for enhancement of salmon, including possibly chi nook. Entrainment and egress are assumed to be minor and mitigatible, respectively. Post -operational monitoring should answer these questions. Option 17, which is identical to Option 13 except for construction of a new module at the hatchery, is less desirable only because it is more expensive than Option 13. Producing smol is at the existing Trail Lakes hatchery ( Option 10) is probably the most failsafe way to mitigate project impacts, but the high cost makes it marginally economical. 1824B 12 Producing fry in egg boxes and planting the u. --Z nto grant Lake (Option 18) is considered quite feasible. ver, the need to deteimine the optimum 'incubation conditions. o=:mr chi nook in egg boxes and the possibility of system failure in are aA mr attended tended facility* despite backup provisions, lessen its relalt-- -'K promise. There appears to be no reason why a channe"I -=-Knnot be built and maintained so that it accorciodates both a I-& *n I evel of spawning and fry survival. The major deficiency of a Sp3. wing channel (Option 20) concerns lack of sufficient rearing for fr!oo- -W in the channel, necessitating their colonizing lakes and st:- inms elsewhere to complete their freshwater residence. Relative to tl-u aforementioned mitigation options, mortality after dispersal probably- be much higher, especially if rearing habitat is limiting. 1824E 13 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR aDAMT CREEK (VISION OF AN INSTREAM FLOW logical Feasibility trean, flows for Grant Creek were evaluated in the first and second ining documents (APA . . 1982b). These documents indicated that ,an flows required to protect the existing fish resource 1. would be ;tantially greater than 15 cfs, the average annual streamflow above :h it is believed the project will be unfeasible be . cause cheaper te-s- -of el-ec.-tri-cal -power wf-11 For example. ,idi-ng the-- "g oord"' hab`itdt__d6_ffneid by Tennant (1976)_ would require an age flow of 64 cfs during the high flow period o - f ' May through �ber and 20 cfs during the 10" flow period of November through 1. A flow of 15 cfs corresponds to habitat classifications over year that range from severe ..degradation to fair, according to ant's (1976) nethodology__.Al_t_h_o.ug.h—Te-nnant'—s-n.e-t-hod—i-s—s-i-mpl-i-sti-c-, as been shown to produce results that are comparable to more Isive methods (Horton and Cochnauer 1980; Orth and Maughan 1982). ,-iety of other flows have been considered (see Table 1), and even ? considered remotely feasible, such as the 40-20 cfs regime )sed by AEIDC, exceed the aforementioned 15 cfs limit. Currently, ntly, impossible to evaluate the biological feasibility Of flows like atter regimen. The consequences of no flushing flows, which rid Creek of settled sediment, and the susceptibility of the stream eezing (even partially), due to its altered hydrology, cannot be red until after the project is constructed. recognized that an optimur,1 streamflow in Grant Creek would in the stream's existing fish stocksand ecology. In fact, iining Optimun streamflows (now estimated to be greater than flows ile for this Project) might even enhance fish populations because ! stability imparted through augnenta'tion Of low flows and 14 declines in high flows. A major disadvantage of all instream flow options is that they must be achieved by pumping water from Grant Lake. Pumping water always carries with it the possibility of equipment and/or power failure and a resulting interruption in the Stream flow. Any interruption could devastate the year classes of salmonids rearing in the Stream. - Engineering Feasibility It is technically feasible to maintain instream flows in Grant Creek. Since the elevation of the natural Grant Lake outlet is higher than the reservoir water surface elevation for Alternative F (see Ebasco Services Inc. 1982 for description of project alternatives), all instream flow releases would have to be pumped over the outlet. Instream flows would be provided through a pumping system capable of lifting water from the reservoir through a pipe rising over the outlet to discharge into the Grant Creek streanbed. Back up pumps and an emergency power supply would probably be required. The pump intake would have to be screened to prevent entrainment of fish and periodically maintained. Cost Provisions for an instream flow reduce the average annual energy from the project and consume power to pump the instream flow. In computing the effect of the instream flow releases on project power output, it was assumed that the designated flow would be provided at.the times indicated. Since all instream flows must be pumped to Grant Creek, a means of providing egress for sockeye smolts must be provided in addition to the flow release. Table 2 therefore provides for the cost of the lowest priced egress option (costs for egress options are described later in this document) to obtain the total cost of the mitigation option. Table 2 shows the effect on the cost of power from the project for each of the instream flow options. Table 3 shows the derivation of these costs in terms of capital costs, operating costs and reductions in project power output associated with each release. 1824B 15 The various i nstream flow alternatives result in increasing the project power costs over a range of 13 to III percent. Figure 2 shows the cost of energy plotted against minimum-streamflow for estimating the cost of any i nstream flow. ADULT HOLDING FACILITY Biological Feasibility Several artificial propogation options (Table 1) were identified during the September 15, 1982 meeting with ADF&G (APA 1982e). All of these --- -options i-nel-ude-con5truc-ti-on--of -two--raceways--adjacent---to the_ tail-ra-c-a----------------------- for fiolding-and spawning the --adult Chinook returni-ng-to--Gra-nt Creek. The raceways have have been sized by ADF&G to accornodate a minimum of 100 Chinook and 700 sockeye adults --the expected maximum natural escapement to Grant Creek. Water would be diverted from the tailrace channel into the raceways by gravity flow through a pipe or small canal. The upstream end of the raceways would be screened to prevent fish from entering the water supply canal. Ingress to the raceway for the fish would be provided by a small canal located in the tailrace downstream of the water supply canal. The canals would be lined with concrete to minimize spawning activity and erosion of material into the facility. There may be a potential problem concerning the carrying capacity of the adult holding facility. If ADF&G's Grant Lake enhancement project proves successful, then return of far more adults than the facility can accommodate is possible. Because the current runs of sockeye and Chinook into ",rant Creek are poorly separated temporally, it may be difficult to harvest the sockeye at the desired rate without impacting the Chinook. Therefore, ADF&G may have to consider enlarging the facility should its Grant Lake enhancement project prove successful. 16 1824E 120 E N 110 E R y 100 0 s go -T M Be 1 7 L L s 70 k 4 W 2 h 60 F 1 3 so 0 to 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 AVERAGE INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENT IN CFS SEE TABLE I FOR DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES F AND 1-9. AVERAGE INSTREAM FLOW VERSUS COST FIGURE 1 Fish would have to be prevented from swimming upstream into Grant Creek and the powerhouse discharge. Barriers would be provided at the mouth of Grant Creek and just upstream of the confluence of the canal leading to the adult holding pond and the tailrace. Each would consist of a concrete weir topped by aluminum pickets spaced to prevent upstream migration. Maintenance, removal, and installation of the pickets would be facilitated by a wooden platform, that would span the tailrace .channel. Engineering Feasibility There are no 6-tli-ffe—e�-ri-rfg-considerations --that --woul-d -a-dve-rsely impact - construction of the adult holding raceways defined by ADF&G. A suitable site exists adjacent to the tailrace, downstream of the powerhouse. Ample precedent for construction of this type of facility exists and construction of the facility involves no unproven technology. A conceptual -level cost estimate was developed for the adult facility. The total annual cost including both capital and operation and maintenance cost of the facility is included in the total annual cost for each option as shown on Table 4. The effect of these costs on the cost of power from the project is included in the cost of each option requiring an adult holding facility in Table 2. JUVENILE REARING FACILITY Biological Feasibility Two juvenile rearing raceways adjacent to the adult holding ponds also are coction to several of the options. Each raceway will contain 225 f t 3 of water and be supplied with water at a rate of 0.2 cfs, the ..rate suggested by ADF&G to produce 16,700 chinook smolts. Two raceways 1824B 18 are required because the prevailing low water temperatures will necessitate rearing the juveniles for 2 years until they smolt.1/ Each raceway would accommodate a different year class. The rearing ponds represent a vulnerable link to the success of any option requiring their use. Despite the provision of an emergency pump to provide backup to the primary gravity flow system, two years of -rearing increases the possibility of a water supply failure, an epizootic, weather -related catastrophe, etc. Engineering Feasibility Suitable locations for installing the juvenile rearing raceways exist downstream of the powerhouse. Extension of the gravity flow system providing water to the adult holding facility would provide water for the juvenile rearing ponds from the powerhouse tailrace. Backup water supply pumped from Upper Trail Lake would be provided as an emergency water source. Ingress and egress from the raceways would be controlled by suitable screens. Ample precedent for construction of this type of facility exists. Co st An estimate was prepared for the cost of the juvenile rearing facility using cost parameters provided by ADF&G. Operating and maintenance costs, including food costs and labor, were also provided by ADF&G. The capital, operating and maintenance costs are shown on Table 3 for those options incorporating this facility. The effect of these costs on the cost of power from the project is included in the costs for those options requiring this facility in Table 2. Water used to cool the generator windings may be available to augment raceway temperatures. Although the amount of heated water available is proportional to the electrical load placed on the generator, and would be interrupted when the project is shut down, up to 0.5 cfs heated 6°F (3.3*c) water is projected. 1824E 19 HATCHERY -PRODUCED SMOLTS Biological Feasibility Under these options chinook eggs taken at the tailrace adult facility i -would be-tran-sferred -to--the Trail Lakes -hatchery where--they-would be reared to`snolts, either in an ... existing module (Option 10) or in a new module (Option 14). By heating the water in the hatchery to 50.9°F (10.50C), snolts would be released in June of the year following their spawning rather than the two years required to rear snol is in the I raceways at the tailrace. Smolts would be transferred to the adult _raceways for imprintingover a_.peri_od of two weeks prior to release. This option has the greatest probability of success because of the more consistent care the fish will receive in the hatchery and the far better survival rates of snolts'conpared to fingerlings once released. Engineering Feasibility Technology for achieving this option is proven. All of the rearing will be performed at Trail Lake hatchery except for a short stay in the adult holding facility described earlier, for imprinting the smol is to j Grant Creek water. Appropriate screening will be installed at the inlet and outlet of the raceways to prevent premature escape. I - Cost Estimated capital and operating costs for these options are shown in Table 4. The total annual cost and the increase in cost of power from the project caused by these options is shown on Table 2. 1824B 20 HATCHERY PLUS GRANT CREEK REARING Biological Feasibility. This option consists of rearing Chinook eggs 'to 2 month old fry at the Trai 1 Lakes hatchery i n an exi sti ng modul a (Option I I ) or new modul e (Option 15), then planting them into Grant Creek, which would possess a year -around instream flow of 15 cfs, as described earlier. The eggs would be taken at the adult holding facility. The success of this option depends on how the Chinook fry fare in Grant Creek. Because of uncertainties regarding their fate, this option is not regarded very highly. If freezing, predation, and sedimentation fail to be limiting factors, then the stable stream flow might augment benthic (i.e., food) production and consequently the quality of the stream environment for Chinook production. The capacity of Grant Creek, whose flow in most months would be only a remnant of its natural flow, to produce as many Chinook smolts as it did naturally is improbable, especially considering that other fish species would inhabit the stream and compete for available food. To maintain the status quo, the stream's food production would have to be more concentrated than it was naturally because of the reduced stream flow. Because living space in the stream is less, carrying capacity for fish will likely be less. Sedimentation probably will be a bigger problem because of the absence of flushing flows. Grant Creek's watershed below the lake outlet will consequently have to receive greater protection from all sediment sources, for the stream will be more vulnerable to sedimentation. . Increased sedimentation could reduce fish carrying capacity. Finally, continuous operation of the pumps to provide an instream flow cannot be guaranteed, even with backup emergency pumps. Vandalism and mechanical failure are possible; the impact of loss of flow on the resource could be catastrophic and affect one or more year classes of juveniles. 1824E 21 Engineering Feasibility Engineering considerations have been discussed previously under instream flow options, adult and juvenile rearing facilities. No engineering concerns exist relative to construction and operation of the facilities required for these options. Cost A conceptual lever cost estimate was prepared -for each of these options using cost data provided by ADF&G. No additional capital cost is --- - requ-i-r-e-d--for-the- exi_stf-rig-module_at__T_r_a-i_1—La_ke_s—Hatchery-_because_ADF&G would -al'i-ovate -the-nodal a --for -reari ng-Grant -Creek--chi-nook:----The capi-tal--- --- - --- - - costs for the remaining facilities and the operation and maintenance costs for all components of this option are shown on Table 4. Table 2 shows the impact of this option on the cost of power from the project. The capital cost of the new module required for Option 15 is also shown, along with its associated operation and maintenance cos s on Table 4. Table 2 shows the impact of costs of this option on the cost of power from the project. HATCHERY PLUS REARING FACILITY Biological Feasibility This alternative consists of rearing Grant Creek chinook eggs to 2-month old fry within an existing module at the Trail Lakes hatchery ( Option 12) or with a new nodule (Option 16) and transferring them to rearing ponds near the project powerhouse. The eggs would be taken at the adult holding facility° The fry would be reared over a 2-year period in raceways designed to accommodate at least 16,700 snolts, the estimated snolt production necessary to produce 250 adult chinook. Because of low water temperatures, two years would be required to rear the fry to smolts> Consequently, two raceways would be built to accommodate the two year classes of juveniles being reared 1824E 22 concomitantly. To facilitate planning of this option, water temperatures were projected to average about 4.50C over the year. The fish would be fed by ADF&G personnel with food and rations prescribed by ADF&G. This option has a good chance of attaining the mitigation objectives because the fish would be under regular care of ADF&G salmon cut turi sts. Engineering Feasibility As previously indicated ample precedent for construction of this type of facility exists and hence no unproven technology is involved. Co st A conceptual -level cost estimate was prepared for each of these options. As previously indicated, no additional capital cost is required for Option 12 since under this option, ADF&G would allocate a module at the existing hatchery for rearing chinook from Grant Creek. The cost of the new module is the same as estimated previously. The capital cost of the juvenile rearing facilities and the operation and maintenance cost is shoran on Table 4 for each of these options. The resulting impact on cost of each option on the cost of power from the project is shown on Table 2. HATCHERY PLUS GRANT LAKE REARING Biological Feasibility With one exception options 13 and 17 are identical to Options 11 and 15, where 2-month old fry, incubated in the Trail Lakes hatchery, were planted into Grant Creek. The exception is that under options 13 and 17 the fry would be planted into Grant Lake. The juveniles should fare better in the lake than in Grant Creek because the lake's food supply should be greater than that in Grant Creek and there should be fewer (currently there are none) predatory fish. In addition, concerns about ' 1824B sedimentation, freezing, and pump failure should be less or non-existent in conpari son with the use of Grant Creek with a 15 cfs flow as a rearing facility. The major caveats concerning this option's success relate to degree of entrairnent of juveniles prior to smolting and to performiance of the smolt bypass. Both issues are discussed in a later section. - Engineering Feasibility As previously indicated, the facilities required for these options have ample precendent and hence no unproven technology is included. The estimated costs of constructing and maintaining the facilities required for these alternatives have been previously developed and are shown in Table 4. The resulting effect on the cost of po►rer from the project is given in Table 2. - --- --------- EGG BOXES PLUS GRANT LAKE REARING Biological Feasibility For this option (Option 18) two egg boxes holding up to approximately 500,000 chinook eggs each would be situated adjacent to the two raceways at the powerhouse. The boxes would be patterned after those in use in Alaska and Washington. They would be housed in a small heated building to prevent ice fom.ation in the boxes and water outlets. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen sensors would be installed in each box to monitor and record these parameters. Fry would leave the boxes volitionally and be directed via a flume to a holding tank, which would be checked daily by ADF&G hatchery staff. They would then be planted into Grant Lake. 1824B 24 Egg incubation boxes (Figure. 3) are simple wooden boxes filled with alternating layers of gravel and salmon eggs. They are receiving considerable use in Washington State (Allen and Cowan 1978; Allen et al. 1981a, 1981b). In Alaska they have been used successfully for the past two years to incubate sockeye, even stocks carrying the viral disease IHN (Daisy 1982). The main species that would be utilized for the egg box program at Grant Lake would be chinook salmon. Although high survival rates (70-80%) for coho, chum, and pink salmon fry are common using the egg boxes (Al Ien et al. 1981 a, 1981 b), experience i ncubati ng chi nook eggs is limited. The advantage to egg boxes over natural incubation in Grant Creek is the higher survival rate (Allen et al. 1981 a). The reason for this is that the boxes are less susceptible to freezing, sedimentation, and bedload changes because they maintain a clean gravel source and constant flow. The fry produced from the boxes are equivalent in quality to wild fry (Allen et al. 19814). Some difficulties have occurred with egg boxes in Alaska but these problems can be resolved. For example, Holder (1982) had initial low survival rates (as low as 4M) in egg boxes (for sockeye) at the Gul kana incubation facility. The reason for this was rough handling. In the last two years, survival at this facility has ranged fron 70 to 90%. In Washington, incubators have been susceptible to sedimentation and eggs to fungus growth (Allen 1981 a). However, fungus can be controlled by treatment. Also, sedimentation is not expected to be a problem because the source of the water for the boxes will be Grant Lake, which by acting as a large settling basin eliminates a major portion of settleable materials. If necessary, the water also could be filtered prior to use. 25 1824B 26 Overall, the feasibility of egg boxes appears very good and is enhanced by their enclosure in a heated building that will prevent freezing of the box or water connections. Nevertheless, they have not been used extensively for incubating chinook. A box should be tested on Grant Creek with chinook eggs prior to project construction to confirm their performance with this species. The chinook eggs should cone from another stream to avoid impacting the already small Grant Creek stock, and the fry should be killed to prevent their coning back to Grant Creek and intermixing genetically. Engineering Feasibility Field studies indicate an egg box building could be sited near the adult facility. Water would be provided from the tailrace channel. The two egg boxes would be recessed into the ground to allow gravity flow under normal operating conditions. The egg box building would be a concrete structure with an aluminum roof. A workbench and storage area would be provided to facilitate maintenance operations. 1824B 27 Each egg box would measure 8 feet long by 4 feet wide by 4 feet deep i and would be constructed from moisture sealed, marine quality plywood. An aluminum grating raised slightly above the floor of the box would direct water via baffles from the water supply line through a sheet of perforated "Vexar" plastic, up through a 2 foot layer of round and washed drain gravel, and around the eggs. After the eggs hatch, the alevins gradually migrate to the top of the } box. They do not emerge until buttoning -up unless there is some stress like low dissolved oxygen. When the fry emerge, they will be } _-_._- automati_cal-ly_carri-ed in -a flume to_ a -screened--adul-t -raceway. _ From-- - there ADF&G staff would truck --them to Grant -Lake.-- Should the power plant be shut down for any reason and the water fall below a preset level in the discharge canal from either the egg box building or holding pond system, an emergency pump, which draws water directly from groundwater or Upper Trail Lake, would be activated. This pump would fully provide the water needs of the system. Co st The construction and operation and maintenance costs for this option are shown on Table 4. The effect on the cost of power of implementation of this option is shown on Table 2. EGG BOX PLUS POND REARING Biological Feasibility This option (Option 19) differs from the preceding egg box option only in that fry will be diverted via a flume into one of the rearing raceways when they emerge from the egg box. There they will be reared over a 2-year period to smolts and then released to the tailrace, as previously described. The option has a good chance of success. However, the performance of egg boxes in producing good quality chinook fry with acceptable survival needs to be determined in advance, as indicated earlier. ++ i 18248 28 Engineering Feasibility All the elements have been engineered successfully before and are feasible. Cost The construction and operation and maintenance costs for this option are shown in Table 4. Table 2 shows the *effect on the cost of power from this option.. SPAWNING CHANNEL Biological Feasibility A general concern among the agencies participating in this fish mitigation planning is that spawning channels (Option 20) sound better on paper than they perform. The majority of spawning channels throughout the Pacific Northwest and Canada have not produced as well as expected, although the Canadians have had fairly good success with sockeye (Cooper 1977). Experience in Alaska is limited. In Washington one of the main problems with spawning channels for chi nook concerns holding the fish for an extended period before spawning. Disease, with resulting pre -spawner mortality, is a major problem. This is not an inherent problem with channel design, only environmental conditions (high water temperatures). At Grant Lake there is no reason to believe that elevated water temperature, gas supersaturation, low dissolved oxygen, or any other inimical water quality condition will be present in waters coming from the powerhouse that would impose a significant stress on adult chi nook. The spawning channel envisioned would conform approximately to the criteria described in the Appendix. The channel would be a segregated section of the tailrace having separate sections for chi nook and sockeye to prevent superimposition of new redds on old redds and provide species -specific flows, depths, and substrate sizes for 1824B 29 spawning. Substrate water velocities could be partly controlled by manipulating rock size below the 18 inch bed of spawning gravel. Silting should be a lesser problem in this spawning channel than in channels elsewhere because Grant Lake acts as a large settling basin. Annual gravel cleaning should suffice to remove any accumulated fines. Engineering Feasibility Onsite investigations have deteniined that a suitable location for a spawning channel meeting the criteria defined in the Appendix exists downstream of the powerhouse and north of the tailrace channel. --------_-- Foundati-an -n-ateri-al- appea-r-s- a-dequate for excavating the channel .--- ____________ Water for the spawning channel would be diverted from the tailrace channel. The upstream end of the spawning channel would be screened to prevent the fish from re-entering the tailrace channel. Adult salmon would enter the spawning channel just upstream from the tail race confluence with Upper Trail lake. They would be prevented from swimming up the tailrace channel by a barrier located just upstream of the spawning channel entrance. This barrier would consist of a concrete weir topped by closely spaced aluminum pickets to prevent upstream passage of adults. Maintenance, removal, and installation of the pickets would be performed from a wooden platform spanning the tailrace channel over the weir. Ample precedent for construction of this type of facility exists and no unproven technology is involved. Cost The cost estimate for the spawning channel was developed for an earlier meeting (APA 1982a). Dimensions and characteristics of the channel were estimated from existing literature and are shown in the Appendix. _The conceptual -level construction cost estimate for this spawning channel and the annual operation and maintenance cost is shown in Table 4. The resulting effect on cost of energy from the project is shown on Table 2. 1824B 30 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GRANT LAKE PREVENTING ENTRAINMENT AT TUNNEL INTAKE There is a possibility that juvenile salmon rearing in Grant Lake could be entrained by the submarine powerhouse tunnel and transported to Upper Trail Lake, passing through the turbine in the process. Two questions are raised: how significant will entrainment be during rearing and how can turbine -induced injury be minimized or prevented. Small salm oni d s (i.e., less than 100 mn) might experience some entrainment unless they are able to detect and avoid the intake. Their burst swimming speeds are simply not enough (approximately 0.9 feet per second or fps for a 50 mm fish) to counteract the velocity of water in the tunnel (3-4 fps). Fish larger than 230 mm should not be subject to entrainment because their burst swimming speed should exceed water velocity in the tunnel (Brett 1964). Fortunately, approach velocities to the tunnel gradually increase from 0 to 3-4 fps, so salmon fry should be able to avoid the tunnel if they can detect the current. Because of sensitive organs along their lateral line, fish can detect minute currents, which are expressed as pressure waves (Alexander 1967). At the intake currents will not be the only cue; the coarse grating placed across the intake to exclude large objects will create pre'ssure gradients (turbulence) in the flow that should be detectable by the fry. Although entrainment should not be a significant problem, it should be possible to assess its importance and, during the smolt emigration period, bypass fish safely to Upper Trail Lake should it occur. The post -operational monitoring program, discussed below, is expected to provide quantitative data on fish emigration when coupled with a fyke netting program. 1824B 31 PROVIDING SAFE EGRESS OF GRANT LAKE SALMON SHOLTS PASSIVE SCREEN BYPASS Biological Feasibility The passive screen and -bypass at the intake was described in Planning Document No. 2. Basically it involves placement of a rotatable passive screen in the intake tunnel downstream of the intake gate (Figures 4 and 5). Fish seeking an outlet will be attracted into the tunnel, diverted along the screen to a pipe, pass down the, pipe, and diverted i - past the turbine � nto Upper Trail Lake. A semi l a r i n-1 i ne systen has — ------- been used at the T.W. Sullivan hydroelectric plant on the Willamette River in Oregon (Eicher '1981) The screen and bypass pipe would be operated only during the out -migration period to avoid the high cost of ' the water consumed. i The nateri al for the rotatable screen consists of stainless steel wedge -wire screen appropriately sized bars and bar spacing. Debris and fish are easily passed over the screen, even during periods of high i leaf fall (Eicher 1981) . Cleaning is accomplished by rotating the screen, thus back -flushing materials off it. Eicher (1981) reports that virtually all fish that he introduced into the penstock ahead of the turbine at the Sullivan plant bypassed the turbine and survived. Use of the screened intake requires that the fish find the intake facility and enter the tunnel. At maximum pool elevation, the intake will be at a depth of approximately 47 feet. During the period of outmigration (spring through early surmer) the pool will be drawn down to minimum elevations because water for power generation through the winter months will have been used and pool refilling will not begin - until snowlelt. Therefore the outmigrants may only have to sound 15 to 1824B 32 m J m g bill a J � dL W ® O g � lic < g � ~ ID q —AD 499W 1W _ r � Q 000 1- Q to oa W m Z ►` W M rc N ao i ► 1 O !N i 1 f 1 AlZ Qfr LL ees O _ (' 1'S'PY) Ial - N011`dA313 C N L Ln .G � Q! r i •� H C O } O 4 •n 4- ra Ln H fv U_ f6 LT C N v, fo .0 O •a► O 4— L. N O W > � O •r a= Cl. }1 •r rfl C Iv C •r .0 L V •4 d-) > N r N isfvm = a S_4..) 4— C r C C fL C •{-� r 4J V C 4- O O .4 O 4-3 .0 O O Z7 •►•> E r- C m O -v •r y-. •r r N r0 N C to •r 4-N fO c) a .v � �•r •n � N S_ a C b O N C $ L L C. O V •r MN n .r 33 a� c 3 � r to W / 4-) C I -- I / r � / 3>) r u 0 • .0 .CL •� ' N to0 .. / 4-) U •-) IN u S- •r- / / / — r � N (0 .0 / 4--. RS 0 � •� L 0.• N 0 i / o r M 4- rn 4- i •� L 34 I 20 f t to f i nd the i ntake tunnel. Studies at dams on the El wha Ri ver i n Washington have shown that chi nook salmon outmi grants will go to a tunnel outlet of 65 ft (Schoeneman and Junge 1954). At Baker Lake Dam in Washington sockeye smolts entered a tunnel at a depth of 85 to 107 ft; however, they preferred a'surface outmigration over a spillway if available (Andrew, et al. 1955). Also, if an attraction flow of 1.5 fps suffices for operation of a "gulper" (see next section), it seems reasonable to assume that the 3-4 fps at the Grant Lake intake tunnel will be sufficient to attract fish. However, actual entry into the tunnel may be resisted by sockeye (Andrew, et al. 1955). Although the behavior of salmon outmi gra nts will need to be determined, it is reasonable to assume that the flow at the intake will attract outmigrants. It also is reasonable to assume that these fish can egress safely to Upper Trail Lake. This assumption is made based on Eicher's studies at the T.W. Sullivan Project and the fact that the exit velocity from the pipe into Upper Trail Lake will be approximately 15 fps, well below the limit of 40 fps at which Bell (1974) and Wayne (1964) state that shear action in a pipe starts physically damaging fish. A key factor that makes the screen attractive biologically is that the system requires no handling of the fish and the fish will be able to directly eiaigrate from Grant Lake without the need for delays due to trapping and transporting. In addition, due to the simplicity of the rotatable screen's operation, equipment failure should be relatively minor compared to other means of egress. Eng i neeri ng Feasibility The passive screen bypass will consist of a rotatable screen at the upstream end of the power tunnel and a turbine bypass pipe. Preliminary analyses have determined that a 10 inch diameter pipe would provide the appropriate range of flows and velocities for transport of the fish from Grant Lake to Upper Trail Lake. Details of the facility are provided in the Appendix. 1824B 35 The bypass pipe would be installed at the top of the power tunnel, just below the gate valve, and extend from the intake to the tunnel portal. The pipe would emerge at the tunnel portal and be routed around the powerhouse and turbine. The pipe, once outside of the tunnel, would be buried and discharge into the tailrace channel downstream of the fish barrier, Nelocities in the -bypass -pipe- would range -between 12 and 14 fps, depending on the level of Grant Lake at the time of operation. -Flows would be on the order of 7 cfs. • The screening system shown in Figure 4, would have to be rotated periodically on an axle for backflushing and cleaning. This would occur during the smolt emigration period; during the remainder of the year, the screen would be stored in the horizontal position. Access to the screen for routine maintenance would be provided by closing the intake gate and dewatering the tunnel. The rotatable screen -bypass facility is considered feasible fron an -----e-ng-i-neer-i-ng--v-i-e-wpo-i-n-t-a-nd--appea-r-s-t-o---o-f-f-e-r---a-n-exc-e-l-l.e-nt---c-ha-nc-e-o-f— passing smolts past the turbine without injury. The passive screen technology is proven, having been used on Oregon's Willamette River, which carries a debris load far greater than that of Grant Creek. Because sediment in Grant Lake's lower basin are very fine, suspended solids clogging of the screen should be negligible. Cost' A conceptual -level cost estimate was developed for the passive screen - bypass and is shown in Table 4. The resulting effect on the cost of energy from the project is shown on Table 2. I 36 1824B FISH COLLECTION BARGE Biological Feasibility The fish collection barge ' , com.only referred to as the "gulper," was designed by the Washington Department of Fisheries for use as an artificial outlet in reservoirs to collect downstream migrants. It has been used at various hydroelectric project sites throughout the Pacific Northwest (Eicher 1964; Wayne 1961 ; Al len 1964). Fi gure 6 shows the basic components of the gulper. In general, large pumps are used to establish an artificial current which attracts fish into a collection facility. From there, the fish are either transported or pumped downstream. In addition to the main components of the gulper, a series of lead nets may be needed to guide the fish to the intake. These nets are placed so that fish moving along the shoreline will swim to the attraction current. The basic components and operating principals of the gulper are similar at the various sites where it has been used, but each has been modified to the specific site conditions. The gulper has been shown to remove at least 65% of the fish in a system (Allen 1964). Tests are being conducted at other hydro sites to evaluate the . effectiveness of the gulper. At.Grant Lake, a gulper probably should be situated near both the intake and the shoreline. This would take advantage of the tendency for outnigrants to follow the shoreline seeking an outflow fron the lake (Andrew, et al. 1955). Fish not attracted to the gulper may seek the subsurface intake. The effectiveness of the gulper at Grant Lake would need to be thoroughly tested during early stages of operation to determine optimum lead net and barge configuration, fishing location, efficiency of capture, and general operation. There is a possibility that the behavior of fish at Grant Lake will not be conducive to their capture - by this means. Therefore, the system should be regarded as experimental at this time for this location and its effectiveness as uncertai n. 37 1824B v M m +-) v v N cr.. _ L W Q. D ® O r Q3 C7 Q� G L � r0 f}3 f� 3 v C C O O •4J +� cm C7 •r— r .0 r-• to O Rt t� 3 s N L LL ? e � '�• L i� � rt m 70 In addition to considerations for capturing the fish in the gulper, handling stress will also be placed on the fish during transport. The ramifications of this stress would need to be evaluated . The gulper is mechanically operated and subject to potential equipment failure (Allen 1964). The probability of system failure cannot be predicted. Operation of the gulper is labor intensive compared to the passive screen bypass. Engineering Feasibility Construction of the fish collection barge involves no unproven technology. There is no engineering problem to constructing of the facility. A technical problem does exist in maintaining the integrity of the structure with the heavy icing conditions on the lake. Moving the barge out of the lake each fall poses significant problems because of the need for heavy equipment and lack of a suitable storage site. Co st .A conceptual level construction cost for the barge has been obtained from utilities using similar facilities in Washington. The Washington cost basis has been appropriately modified for Alaska conditions. The operating and maintenance cost has also been estimated based on labor and power costs in the area. These costs are shown on Table 4 and the resulting effect on cost of power from the project is shown on Table 2. POST -OPERATIONAL MONITORING OF MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS EFFICACY OF GRANT CREEK MITIGATION The percentage of adults returning to the adult facility relative to the number of sn-olts released can be compared to estimated natural .-escapments to judge the efficacy of the selected mitigation measure. 1824B 39 EFFICACY OF GRANT LACE 14I TIGATION To monitor the degree of entrain+aent and the survival of fish passim - through the bypass, a combination of hydroacoustic monitoring and Tyke netting is proposed for a 1-year period post -operationally. It is known that salmon smolts can be datected and enumerated very precisely - using hydroacoustic .gear, iri gate wells of daps (Carlson et al. 1981., Carlson 1982). Consequently, the same gear will work in the power conduit. Two transducers will scan the conduit for targets in the size range of juvenile. salmon. The echoes will be monitored on -site with a magnetic tape. Sampling will occur at randomly -selected intervals. - - s ata Will Tndacate the nw- er of -f' s- usin the_ower tunnel and -the time of dayp period, etc. they Migrate. 18248 40 I I LITERATURE CITED. Alaska Power Authority. 1982a. Evaluation of instream flows for the Grant Lake project and identification of potential mitigation alternatives. Letter report prepared by Ebasco Services Incorporated for Alaska Power Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage, Alaska. 18 pages. Alaska Power Authority. 1982b. Grant Lake hydroelectric project [ninutes of] meeting with agencies, July 9, 1982. Alaska Power Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage, Alaska. 4 pages. Alaska Power Authority. 1982c . Planning document No. 2: Fisheries mitigation for proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project. August 17, 1982. Alaska Power Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage Alaska. 18 pages. Alaska Power Authority. 1982d. Minutes of Grant Lake hydroectri c project fish mitigation planning meeting, 17 August 1982. Alaska Power Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage Alaska. 8 pages. Alaska Power Authority. 1982e. Proposed Grant Lake hydroectric project fish mitigation planning: minutes of meeting with ADF&G of 15 September 1982. Alaska Power Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage Alaska. 8 pages. Alexander, R. McN. 1967. Functional design in fishes. Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., London. 160 pages. Allen, R. 1964. Lake Mer►,in juvenile fish collector. Washington Dept. Fish Progress Report, 34 pages. 41 1824E Allen, R.L. and L.R. Cowan. 1978. Salmon egg incubation box program 1977-1978 season. Washington Dept. of Fishieres, Progress Report 73. 24 pages. Allen, R.L. and K.L. Bauersfeld, L.R. Cowan, S.P. Jenks, D.D. King, J.E. Seeb, A.R. Bergh, T.J. Burns, and D.I. Stuckey. 1981a..-.. Salmon natural production enhancement program, 1979-1980 season. Washington Dept. Fish. Progress Report No. 136, 67 pages. Allen, R.L., K.L. Bauersfeld. T.J. Turns, L.R. Cowan, S.P. Jens, D.D. King, J.E. Seeb, A.R. Bergh, and D.I. Stuckey. 1981b. Salmon ...natural_pro-ducti-on-e.nhancement program. --Washi-ngton,Dept.---F-i-sh.-------- Progress Report No. 149, 33 pages. Andrew, F.J. , L. R. Kersey, and P.C. Johnson. 1955. An i nvestigation .of the.. problem of guiding downstream -migrant salmon at dams. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Bull. VIII. Bell, M.C. 1974. Fish passage through turbines, conduits, and spillway gates. Pages 251-261. In: L.D. Jensen (editor) Entrainment and Intake Screeining. Proceedings of the Second Entrairment and Intake Screening Workshop. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. Brett, J.R. 1964. The respiratory metabolism and swimming performance of young sockeye salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 21 (5): 1183-1226. Carlson, T.J., W.C. Acker, and D.M. Gaudet. 1981. Hydroacoustic assessment of downstream migrant salmon and steelhead at Priest Rapids dam in 1980. Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Rep. No. APL-UW 8016. 1824B 42 Carlson, T.J. 1982. Fixed aspect hydroacoustic techniques for estimating the abundance and distribution of downstream migrating juvenile salmon and steel head at Columbia River hydropower dams. Biosonics, Inc. Seattle, Washington. Zl pages. Cooper, A.C. 1977. Evalaation of the production of sockeye and pink salmon at spawning and incubation channels in the Fraser River System. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Progress Report 36, 80 pages. Daisy, D. 1982. Personal cocnuni cati n. F. R. E. D. Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Came, Anchorage. Ebasco Services Incorprated. 1982. Grant Lake hydroelectric project interim report. Alaska Fbwer Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage, Alaska. Eicher. G. J. 1964. Round Butte dam fish -handling costs 2.5% of total project outlay. Electric World (February 10, 1964). Eicher, G. 1981. Turbine screen protects fish at PG&E hydroelectric plant. Electric Light and Power, August 1981. Pages 47-48. Hartman, J. 1982. Personal communication. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. Holder, R. 1982. Personal communication. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, F.R.E.D. Division, Glennallen, Alaska. Horton, W.D. and T. Cochnauer. 1980. Instream flow methodology evaluation, biological criteria determination, and water quality needs for selected Idaho streams. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. 101 pages. 18246 43 Orth, D.J. and O.E. P9aughan. 1982. Evaluation of the incremental methodology for reconmendi ng instream flows for fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111CO: 413-445. Schoenen -an, D.E. and C.O. Junge, Jr. 1954. Investigations of mortalities to downstreammigrantsalmon of two dares on the Elwha River. Washingotn Dept. Fisheries Res. Bull. No. 3, 51 pages. Tennant, D.L. 1976. Instream floe regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation, and related envirormental resources. In: Proc. Instream Flow Needs, Mercian Fisheries Society. Pges 359-373. Wayne, W.W. 1961. Fish handling facilities for Baker River project. Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the Anerica.n Society of Ci vi 1 Engineers. 87, No. P03, pages 23-54. 1 1824E 44 APPENDIX ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FISH MITIGATON OPTIONS Appendix Table No. Ti tl e 1 Assumptions Concerning Design of the Adult Holding/Spawning Facility 2. Assumptions Concerning Rearing of Snolts at the Trail Lakes Hatchery with and without Construction of an Additional Module 3. Assumptions Concerning Rearing of Chinook Salmon from Eggs to 2-Month Old Fry at Existing Trail Lakes Hatchery 4. Assumptions Concerning Rearing of Chinook Salmon from 2-Month Old Fry to Smolts in Raceways Located at Tailrace 5. Conceptual Engineering Criteria For On -Site Egg Incubation Facility 6. Conceptual Design Criteria for Spawning Channel 7. Conceptual Engineering Criteria for Tunnel Bypass and Fish Collection Barge 1824B 45 Appendix Table 1. Assumptions Concerning Design of the Adult Holding/Spawning Facility i I. Species: Chinook (100 individuals averaging 25 pounds each) and sockeye (700 individuals averaging 6 pounds). _ _ 1 2. Water Fl ow One 0 ) cfs of f1 ow requi red per 5 pounds Requirements of Fish of fish (i.e., 1340 gpm or 3 cfs 3. Raceways: alur.iinun, (n=2) (50 ft x 5 ft x 4 ft) 4. Fish ladder or channel from tailrace to raceways. 5. Fish separator to separate salmon by species and ripeness. 6. Spawning shed: 5 ft x 10 ft 7. Fence, security 46 1824B Appendix Table 2. Assumptions Concerning Rearing of Smolts at the Trail Lakes Hatchery with and without Construction of an Additional Module 1. Eggs are taken at an adult holding and spawning facility located adjacent to the tailrace. 2. Egg Incubation a. For an existing hatchery another 16-tray Heath incubator would be required. b. For a new nodule, the same inclubator would be contained in a 15 ft x 60 ft (900 f t 2 ) building. Cost of the facility was assumed to average $344/ft 2 plus 20% for mobilization. The life expectancy was estimated at 25 years and $80,000 was allocated for repairs between years 25 and 50. C. Labor associated with loading, monitoring, shocking and reseeding was estimated to be 31 man days at $120/day for each facility. d. Water would be heated from to 3. Rearing of Fry to Sn-olts a. The fry would be reared within the building in a 50 ft x 4 ft x 3 ft deep raceway supplied with 300 gpm of water that had been heated from 3* to 10.5°C. b. Freezer with capacity for 4200 pounds of food. c.Fi sh food (4 200 1 b @ $O. 60) d. Feeding labor (6'months @ I hr/day @ $120/day). e. Transfer of snolts from hatchery to screened adult ponds for imprinting of smolts over a 2-week period. f. Food and feeding labor during 2-week imprinting period. 1824B 47 f Appendix Table 3. Assumptions Concerning Rearing of Chinook Salmon from Eggs to 2-Month Old Fry at Existing Trail Lakes Hatchery , i I. Additional Heath_' ncubator... 2. Food: 500 pounds @ $0.60 i 3. Feeding labor: 1 /h r/day x 60 days 4. Heated freshwater 5. Transportation of fingerlings to si Pto 1 1824B 48 I Appendix Table 4. Assumptions Concerning Rearing of Chinook Salmon from 2-Month Old Fry to Smolts in Raceways Located at TaiIrace 1. Building to house raceways: 12 ft x 30 ft @ $120/ft 2 1 asti ng 25 years 2. Lights, toilet, sink 3. Building repair (@ 30-40% of original construction cost) 4. Freezer (4,000 pound food capacity) 5. �Raceway, aluminum (n=2) (3 ft x 25 ft x 4 ft deep) 6. Screening for rearing plus adult raceways 7. Food (4,000 pounds @ $0.60) 8. Feeding labor (I person full-time on site year -around; 365 days @ $120 /day) 9. El ec: tri city 10. Rental of state truck (annual) 11. Supplies (e.g., nets) 12. Water supply providing 150-200 gpm (0.3-0.4 cfs) of high quality aquacultural water meeting ADF&G F.R.E.D. Division water quality standard 1824E 49 Appendix Table 4. Assumptions Concerning Rearing of Chinook Salmon from 2-Month Old Fry to Snolts in Raceways Located at Tailrace (continued) _ 13. Road to mi-ti_gation facilitykeptopen -to- -vehicular-----tr-af-f-ic-daily - year -around 14. Emergency alam system installed to alert Trail. Lake hatchery of malfunction in water flow, water temperature,_ and dissolved oxygen -- _ - - - - _ :. _ - - ---- - t I 1824B 50 Appendix Table 5. Conceptual Engineering Criteria For On -Site Egg Incubation Facility Number of Boxes Location Primary Box Material Liner Shape Sideslope Length Wi dth Wet Depth Wet Volume (Including Gravel) Inflow Heat Source Winter Inflow Turnover Time Dry Depth Flow Delivery Bui 1 di ng Width Length Height Roof Comments 2 Downstream of Pbwerhouse Plywood (11a ri ne Grade) 2 Foot Gravel (3/4-1.5 In Round and. Washed) Rectangular. Vertical 8 Feet 4 Feet 3 Feet 96 Cubic Feet 0.11 Cfs Generator Cooling Water Approximately 6 Minutes 4 Feet Through Al umi num Grating Via Baffles and Thence Through Vexas Plastic into Gravel Cast in Place Concrete 20 Feet 20 Feet 10 Feet Al umi num Insulated, Electrically Wired, Includes Refrigerator, Storage Area, and Workbench 1824B 51 Appendix Table 6. Conceptual Design Criteria for Spawning Channel Species Design Sockeye - 250 females (maximum) Chinook - 100 females (maximum) Channel Width 200 feet (ft.) Water Depth 1.5 ft. Water Velocity 1.5 ft./sec Channel Lengt4l/ 620 ft. Discharge 33.8 cfs --Slop—e- Gravel Depth -- --------- 18 inches Gravel Size 1 /4 - 4 inches 80 percent 1/2 2 inches Underbed 4 inch concrete Side Slope 1:1.5 (with side cobble) greater than 3 ft. deep Distance Between Drop Structure 250 - 300 ft. Drop Structure Area 20 ft. wide x 20 ft. long x 6 ft. deep a/ Exclusive drop structure and rest area which will add 20 ft. in length for each of two structures. 1824B .52 Appendix Table 7. Conceptual Engineering Criteria for Tunnel Bypass and Fish Collection Barge Tunnel Bypass Location Screen Material Screen Width Screen Length Bypass Pi pe 14a teri al Bypass Pipe Diameter Bypass Pi pe Length Bypass Pipe Discharge Location Fish Collection Barge Location Width Length Ai r Blower Number of Turbine Pumps Rimp Flow Each Secondary Pump Mode of Transport to Trail Lakes Below Gate Shaft in Tunnel Stainless Steel 9 Feet 28 Feet Steel 10 Inches 3400 Feet Upper Trail Lake Grant Lake 36 Feet 70 Feet 40 HP 2 34,000 GPM 5,400 GPM. Vi a Truck 1824E 53 ,. i FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING OF 10 NOVEMBER 1982 . GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT MINUTES OF MEETING11 The purpose of the meeting was to review and gain agency comments and opinions concerning Fish Mitigation Planning Document No. 3, an assessment of the biological, engineering, and cost feasibility of 22 fish mitigation options. The meeting was attended by the individuals listed in the Table. Eric MarChegiani of the Alaska Power Authority began the meeting by summarizing the proceedings of the three previous fish mitigation planning meetings for tne proposed project. Agency comments were then solicited. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Phil Brna led the Department's presentation of its views. The losses they Wish to see mitigated include: 0 Losses of physical habitat in Grant Creek and some (i.e., littoral habitat) in Grant Lake. 0 Losses to commercial and sport fishing opportunities. 0 Losses of potential enhancement potential and value. Until ADF&G received the addendum to Planning Document No. 3 concerning existing and projected water temperature regimes in Grant Lake and the tailrace, the Department believed all potential for salmon rearing in Grant Lake would be lost because of unfavorably cold water temperatures post -operationally. 11 Prepared by Rick Cardwell, Ebasco Services Incorporated. 2949A TABLE 10 NOVEMBER 1982 FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LIST OF ATTENDEES Name' - Address/Telephone - Affiliation Rick Cardwell EBASCO I 400-112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA (206) 451-4619 1 Wayne Pietz EBASCO 400-112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA Don Smith EBASCO 400-112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA Gary Lawley EBASCO 1227 W 9th, Anchorage - (907) 277-1561 Dave Daisy ADF&G, FRED 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage (907) 267-2165 __ ------ Ken orey - ADF�,G-Comm, — -Fish __.-- 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage (907) 267-2125 j Eric Marchegiani APA (907) 276-0001 Ken Thompson USFS 2221 E North. Lts., Anchorage Eric Myers NAEC 833 Gambell Suite 3 99501 Gary Stackhouse USFWS 1011 E. Tudor, Anchorage 263-3475 Mary Lynn Nation USFWS 605 W 4th Avenue, Anchorage j 271-4575 Phil Brna ADF&G, Habitat 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage j (709) 344-0541 ' Jim Thiele AEIDC 707 "A" Street,, Anchorage (70 9) 279-4523 Dave Trudgen AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage I Bill Wilson AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage Dave Nelson ADF&G, Sport 3150, Soldotna, 262-9369 Fish 2949A 2 I The Department wished to mitigate for Chinook, other anadromous species (e.g., coho), and resident species. At the time the Department assumed loss of lake rearing due to cold water temperatures, they were favoring a Chinook smolt program in the Trail Lakes hatchery or in a facility at the tailrace. They agreed to use the hatchery because on their previous commitment to do so for up to 10 years post -operationally. The Department decided that no further instream flow work would be needed and that a rainbow trout sport fishery, including appropriate access, would be needed to replace the lost sport fishing opportunity in Grant Creek. For sport fishing mitigation, either fry or catchable-size rainbow trout could be planted into Grant Lake, depending upon whether the lake proves suitable for rearing small salmonids. It was later disclosed that it may not be absolutely necessary to plant the trout into Grant Lake if there were competing uses (e.g., sockeye rearing). The trout could be planted into another lake considered suitable. ADF&G is cool to the idea of planting Chinook fry into Grant Lake due to uncertainties regarding how well the Chinook will do because of fears about insufficient food production for Chinook in the lake's littoral region. However, they are interested in planting the iaKe with sockeye and rainbow trout, which they believe will perform better. Maintaining the genetic integrity of the Grant Creek stock is a formal goal of tne Department. This will be accomplished by preventing the interminglement of Grant Creek Chinook eggs and juveniles with those from other streams in the hatchery. Initially ADF&G was willing to trade off the use of Grant Lake for sockeye rearing for a Chinook smolt program at Trail Lakes hatchery (Mitigation Option 10) Hatchery and planting Grant Lake with catChable- 2949A 3 size rainbow trout. If Grant Lake was unsuitable for juvenile salmon rearing, the trout and sockeye could be planted into another lake(s) (e.g., Ptarmigan Lake). Ken Florey asked how well the Grant Lake smolt bypass (Option 21) would --work Rick -Cardwell -indicated -that -;-although a new -concept, it was working well at - t I he Willamet I te. Falls, Oregon (0-1-Sullivan Dam), Where clogging was a much greater problem than at Grant Lake. He also noted several studies that Showed salmon smolts, including sockeye, could find submarine outlets up to 60 feet deep. Cardwell .-stated h-is. concern about- rainb-ow.tro.ut.-pred.ati-n.q--.soc-k.eye (or Chinook) from the standpoint of determining how well juvenile salmon survive an I d grow in Grant Lake before and after Project operation. If predation was interjected as anotner factor it would not be'poSSible to determine conclusively the effect of project operation on smolt production in the lake. ADF&G asked Whether APA would perform a cost -benefit evaluation for the project. Eric Marchegiani stated that a cost benefit analysis with respect to the power generated and alternatives would be a part of the feasibility study. In summary, ADF&G supported the following options: Grant Lake Unsuitable for Rearing Salmon 0 option 10: Producing cninook smolts at Trail Lakes Hatchery. o Planting Grant Lake or another lake with catChable-size rainbow trout. 0 Planting another lake with sockeye fry. 2 94 9A 4- Grant Lake Suitable forRearingSalmon 0 Option 13: Producing chinook fry at Trail Lakes Hatchery, then planting them into Grant Lake. o Planting Grant Lake or another lake with rainbow trout fry. 0 Planting Grant Lake with s6cKeye fry. 0 Providing safe egress for salmon smolts from Grant Lake (Option 21 or 22). Mary Lynn Nation indicated the Fish and Wildlife Service opposes off -site mitigation when an agency already plans to undertake an enhancement effort there; such cases would not be mitigation. Ken Florey wanted the Power Authority to agree to mitigate for the project whatever the success of the mitigation efforts specified. Eric Marchegiani said that the APA ' could not guarantee mitigation, for they are a state agency subject to the same legislatively -imposed budget restrictions as ADF&G. However, it was noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does review project licenses periodically, and changes to the license concerning mitigation can be made if deemed necessary. Gary Stacknouse of the USFWS suggested that the agencies insist on statements in the license concerning contingencies, should any mitigation measure prove unsuccessful, and the need for post -operational monitoring of mitigation efficacy. Eric Marchegiani agreed that a statement would be contained in the license application that provides for changes in mitigation plans and facilities that fail to' perform. Mary Lynn Nation suggested that a lot of assumptions concerning mitigation were being made based on very little data. She suggested that the analysis of water temperature regimes has not been really 2949A i extensive. The USFWS plans to look more closely at the information i presented and will communicate their judgement later. The USFWS would like to see more information on lake temperatures; a water temperature model was mentioned as one possibility. l Gary-Stackhouse said that the USFWS and ADF&G hoped to develop a unified response concerning fish mitigation. The meeting then adjourned. f 2949A 6 DATE-12/3/82 ENW-GRANT-82-199 TO 1 e NAME/VILE rr. M. -3 1 CLIENT/PROJECT APAIGRANT-LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUBJECT CHARGE: DEPT. NO. 942 CLIENT SYMBOL APA OFS NO 6476.009. DISCUSSION WITH Phil Brna, ADF&G, Habitat Division, Anchorage Brna reviewed the letter on Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Fish Mitigation the Department is preparing to send to the Power Authority. Brna emphasized that the statements made below are provisional, pending signature of the Department's Commissioner. The letter lists the project impacts on fish and wildlife the Department foresees. The Department will state its preference for reliance upon a minimum instream flow to mitigate project effects on Grant Creek fish, but will admit that other mitigation avenues appear necessary because of project economics. ADF&G believes replacement will be the best mitigation option. Until a complete economic analysis is done, however, the Departmentwillreserve final comment on the instream flow question. Other elements of the Department's position are highlighted below. Details are not provided because this information is covered in previous communications. 0 "Foregone Resource Use" costs: the Department will expect compensation. I believe this is equivalent to "Foregone Opportunity." 0 Chinook Salmon - ADF&G does not consider use of an existing module to be mitigation. They want an additional raceway constructed. - They apparently want Option 14, rearing smolts at Trail Lakes hatchery in a new module 0 Sockeye Salmon - Mitigate with bypass (Option 21 or 22) 0 Recreational Fishing - Plant Grant Lake or other lake specified by ADF&G with a sport species (e.g., rainbow trout, chinook salmon also do well) - Plant Fry if Grant Lake will support rearing, otherwise, plant adults for a "put and take" type fishing. By C NAME TITLE DEPT. NO. ENW-GRANT-82-199 Page 2 1' Need an access road and boat launching ramp. Brna later spoke with Dave Nelson, ADF&G sport fish biologist concerning whether a launching site for car top boats would be acceptable. Nelson said that car top boats are not used on the Kenai peninsula. - A boat ramp should be designed for trailers. Boats are normally - 14-18 feet long. o Post -Operational monitoring of efficacy of mitigation. ADF&G would want a plan spelled out: RDC:ld cc: D. Smith W. Pietz J. Knutzen B. Hutchinson i Archeological Survey of Proposed Drilling Sites, 0 Grant Lake, Alaska by Michael R. Yarborough Submitted 'to Envirosphere October 23, 1981 Cultural Resource Consultants Anchorage, Alaska Introduction On October 20, 1981, a brief archeological survey of two proposed drilling sites at the outlet of Grant Lake was conducted by Michael R. Yarborough of Cultural Resource Consultants. This work was donefor Envirosphere under U.S. Forest Service special use permit number 5560.01. Setting Grant Lake is 16-68:te-d in the centralpartof - the -Kenai - --P-enin-suIa-,V -- -- ------ 1.5 miles due east of Moose Pass and 27 miles northeast of Seward. The mountains surrounding the lake rise to 5,000 and 6,000 feet above sea level. This area has in the past been heavily glaciated. The lake is approximately seven miles long, and IILII shaped 11 1 ___(_P_Ia f—k-e-r- __ T-95 5:---- 3'_,__1 2-; _0 r —th (figure I the lake trends just east of north. Grant Lake is drained by Grant Creek, a one mile long stream which flows into the creek connecting Upper and Lower Trail Lakes. From lake level at an altitude of 700 feet, this creek drops almost 230 feet through a narrow canyon (Plafker 1955:12). The two proposed drilling sites lie on the north and south sides of the lake outlet (figure 2). The southern site lies just above the level of the lake, in an area between two points of land. Large rock rubble covers much of this area. The proposed northern site is on the lake shore in an area which would be covered during periods of high water. This site is just adja- cent to the site of Solars sawmill. -2- Solars Sawmill Orth (1967:896) lists "Solars sawmill'? simply as a "local name of a former sawmill". This site existed at least as early as the mid-19501s, as the two buildings at the site are depicted on Plafker's maps. His statement that the outlet of Grant Lake was accessible via an unused lumber trail suggests that the site dates much earlier and was already abandonned by the time of his visit (Plafker 1955:12). The remains of the sawmill occupy the point above the falls separating Grant Lake and Creek. On the tip of the point are three devices each consisting of two metal wheels connected by a metal axle. In the center of the axlee are large wooden "flywheels". These were apparently mounted upright between large wooden timbers and likely guided the cables which powered the sawmill. On the slope along the western edge of the point are two can and bottle dumps and the remains of what probably was an outhouse. To the eastern side of the point, on the bench just above the shore, and the location of the northern drill site, is a collapsed wooden structure. Because of its condition, this building's size and nature could not be determined. The debris from it, however, covers an area approximately seven meters square. Between this structure and the "wheels" on the point is a scatter of two wooden benches, a wooden cupboard, two items that look like the axles and wheels from a mining car and segments of metal cable. 3- About 10 meters west of this structure on the second terrace above the lake is a cabin of milled lumber. This cabin is approximately 6 meters by 4 meters, and has a 2 meter by 4 meter shed attached to the north wall. The cabin's main entrance is in the 'south wall, And a second door leads from the cabin into the shed. The roof and west wall of this building have collapsed, while the other walls are leaning at various angles. Many metal artifacts, including buckets, tin cans, a shovel, and stove parts, are --scattered by ---the. f-ron-t.-door. - --In --the-- northwest corn-er---of-- -the cabin is a set of bunk beds with a galvanized sink resting on the lower.bunk. Pages.of magazines were used between the plank walls as insulation. On one of these was found the date January 13, 1958. Survey Methods and Results Visual reconnaissance was made for surface features. Subsurface testing by shovel was conducted in areas deemed appropriate. No prehistoric or historic cultural material was found in the southern drill site. At the northern site, there are a few historic items from the sawmill scattered on the beach. A metal "wheel" and a metal drum were noted. The northern drill site contains no prehistoric material. Testing of two other areas during the survey revealed a layer of char6bal bearing -soil which may be cultural. On the point south of the falls, four tests on the second terrace from the stream showed this layer at approximately 30 cm. below the surface of MEAZ the ground. Overlying this layer is 8 to 10 cm. of light to dark brown, fine grained soil and 20 cm. of moss. The charcoal is just above a fine grained, white soil. Because this area was outside the drilling site, it was not extensively tested. However, the charcoal layer extends at least 20 meters, but not as far as 40 meters back from the falls. A similar layer was found on a small bedrock mound, just back from the beach, approx- imately 15 meters north of the sawmill. Stratigraphy here was similar to that in the tests on the south side of the falls. No artifacts were found in any of the tests. Conclusions/Recommendations Drilling activities in the southern site will have no affect on known cultural resources. Given careful placement of the drill rig on the beach at the northern site, work there could be con- ducted without impacting the sawmill. The few artifacts on the beach are no longer "in situ", and could be removed by qualified personnel without loss of important archeological CD information. The two areas containing the charcoal bearing layer will not be affected by drilling. They should, however, be tested further in the future so that a determination of their exact nature can be made. Additional background literature research should be conducted into the age and possible significance of Solars Sawmill. It must be understood that an archeological survey is only a -5- sampling of a given area. If, during the course of con struc- tion,-any-previously undiscovered cultural material is detected, it is recommended that any activities harmful to it be stopped, and the Chugach Forest archeologist and the State Historic Preservation Officer be notified immediately. i M Bibliography Orth, D.J. 1967 Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 567. U.S; Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Plafker, George 1955 Geological Investigations of Proposed Power Sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan and Crescent Lakes, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A. U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. -7- 1 Jp sg ` Water surface 700.2 ft July 24, 1950 ! w ` fn ✓ 4 y 62� 42• 61 pt w _ 54i Qal Q; L Water surface , t 't� �J5 ) 504 L\ 1 472.2 ft s ( � ` ul July 8. 19501 �1 1 \ ;, xjs; GRANT LAKE 9) s6 �ss I. \• Soo DAM SITE fl s s� �.. 0 r-% 9V\ 4� 5 45 t g B �� H 47,1L:- q'I s "R g GIN sB /o I 48 s o V 50 ti 1 B 1 Qal t _ `:� \8s•�S ar a Predominarl C r � I Sea level- True 0 h Water surface 468.4 It July 1. 1950 - Figure 1: Location of proposed Grant Lake project area. M i GRANT -x LAKE ,north 696 site c areas of charcoal 200 0 600 Feet Contour interval 10 feet Datum is mean sea level A# 2000' A --150(Y -500 000' ' iTrue dip of bedding ranges from 40' 3 55* Sea level -Sea level Figure 2: Proposed drilling site locations, and locations of Historic buildings and, charcoal deposits. Archeological Reconnaissance.' Grant Iake Hydroelectric Project Area, Moose Pass, Alaska Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Katherine L. Arndt, Archeologist Fairbanks, Alaska August 24, 1982 To be submitted to the Forest Supervisor, Chugach National Forest in fulfillment of Special Use Permit 2700-4 for Cultural Resource Investigations Archeological Reconnaissanc e, Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Area, Moose Pass, Alaska Katherine Arndt, archeologist, and Maggie Floyd, field companion and ecologist, carried out a reconnaissance -level archeological survey within the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project area, near Moose Pass, Alaska, on 7 through 12 June 1982. The field work focused upon areas which may be -affected by construction and operation. of ahterriative F of the Grant Zake--Hydroelectric-Project This alternative consists of a small d6Lm on Falls Creek and a pipeline which will divert water from the creek to Grant Lake, an underground lake tap between Grant Lake and a powerhouse on —.—U-p-p-e-r-Trail .-Lake-,--and--as.s-o-c.iat-e-d-ac-c-e.ss-r-oad.s-an-d-t-ransmi-ssi-on-.---- line corridors. The work was conducted under USDA -Forest Service special use permit (2700-4) issued to the Alaska Power Authority for cultural resource investigation. Survey Methods The survey consisted of a brief aerial reconnaissance of the project area followed by an examination on foot of the ground's surface and any exposures, such as uprooted trees and road cuts, in areas to be affected by project construction. Because none of the construction sites or routes had yet been marked on the ground, survey was confined to proposed construction locations which were easily identifiable due to their proximity to natural or man-made landmarks. A limited number of small test pits were dug in areas without natural exposures which appeared to be relatively high in archeological potential; all tests were backfilled. No artifacts were collected in the course of the survey. la Approximate locations of project construction,, alternative F. c(11 SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE ALASKA IRD C-7) 26 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 'Ile 2-9 R. I E i 630 OOD FEET t 149*15' 60'30( 625 Case 27 7�, 30 B1 28 V0 4f Moq§ k 0 /C k 34 %35. t 1 34♦ z I R dio r 3 4 IS t 3 Pr V N .6 T d 1, 5 —4 Sola 5 ea a n y Motiwtairff' 0—, BM •4d `7 12 VABK,-Solar's '4712-C" Mou tj 0 8 aCrown!Point _Mine) 0 s,t4XF/r 00 Vag - La 1. rA 7.: 14, 13 Y8 Fails Creek -17 16 15 Mibe 0 Gaging'SW A J k. ed J0 - ?2 — Crown oint '219 4 20 .01 2! st np 27 26 30 / ?°Radio 8 -.-27 . q"zggh A ff l Lawn Tower 411 Laic Black Point 0o 36 .-33 -.34 ack ` l� i J ;E VA1314 T 22H \M 7untain T i 2 6 1z V;'—' i IJ 1 4 3. 10 C1 fain BM 0 N A L tF 0 :R T1 2 370 000 TET N -N 1b Areas covered in survey. G�6 SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE �P�o ALASK-A I 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) tR0 C-Tl_ 25' t .:. QO' A t E 630000 FEET I149°i5' i �. - 60°30 - y j5ao000 Case Mine 27 _ —�6 \ 25 - \,28 ��V 27 , 1�0�� Pis_.., 4 _ L V Ray -- 2370 ' / \ �} ( - I �\ 'Peek -:` 1 I tI 1 :'7 A 1` FEET 34, \' - \ N, ;35' �, �' 36 3? t 3 - i `:. \ i Radio flower � - �.`�_-� ♦ \ 1 t-_.-\ 1 i I � --- Ire, R -- - -' i / � _` _.•„�.— _ � �� T. a V --- -- --_.. l I r t so : , 1 . r' 6- 5 . t Sob,, .115 Madscin-1 •� Y _ 1 M 9^.Hub' - 9M�'r - ' % (j• Solars ouritatri• ° e \ - vas%r - 10 ` 11� f♦ �. i ° 47x2�cp n- Moul4tai-A 1 i % I 12- : t i 7 e i 8 Crown Point Mine• 1 ' r� Yagt IN �15 yt 1 13 yY y Falls Creek 1 1 1�J 18 r6 -'Mipe 15. _ it !{•''_./ Gaging Sta � 01 -A• ' 'i • Ih J l bin/500..\ `� \\ -.-.- 17.0 ^.._- -•• i Croton oint _ =_22�24 19 +J- -r .AA.. 20 =�� 21� tit �• 7 - -, 29 t ,/damp rau 1 landing \ `----� M468 rStnP-, .( \ �^ 27 • �; fC3h• ground % •'' J =;a '\ �t f�CQ �_ L A k oRaillo Tower Cawing..•.�2.94h Lqx. jr,�- e` cn:c 1 Black P 36t 31 32 5's : 33 - _ 3.4 r Y 1 t ''Black L - t'a f 22r3 - IT an \MountainIt.3� 2 1 1z 5? 5 �. �S 4 - 3- ca air) SM Q "55 I.F 0 R 2 Survey methods for specific project segments are described below. 1) Area between Vagt Lake Trail and an existing access road in Section 13, T. 4 N.9 R. 1 W., Seward Meridian: A pipeline access road will pass through this area. We covered the area from the Alaska Railroad track to the point where the 500-foot contour crosses the trail in a series of.12 north -south transects. The first transect ran parallel to and approximately 15 m east of the railroad track. The second transect ran roughly parallel to and approximately 10 m. east of the first. The remaining transects were spaced at intervals of approximately 30 to 35 m. The area is forested but fairly clear of underbrush except for a stand of low willows near the west end of the trail. We also walked along the Vagt Lake Trail.from its beginning to a point just beyond its right-angle turn in Section 18-, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian. The proposed route approaches the portion of the trail which lies between the 500-foot contour and the bend. 2) North bank of Falls Creek between the Alaska Railroad track and the proposed site of a diversion dam in Section 17, T. 4 N.9 R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: The area north of the creek between the railroad track and approximately the 530-foot contour, where an existing access road comes down to a placer claim on the creek, is relatively level with open forest. We covered a swath 20 to 25 m wide along this portion of the creek. Crossing the access road, we continued along the creek bank for a short distance until its increasing steepness forced us to climb back up to the road. The existing road runs parallel to but well above the creek bed nearly to the point where the 600-foot contour crosses the creek. Here the road veers north around a small knoll; we 3 continued east through heavy brush, staying as close to the bank as possible. We crossed the access road again at a point where the creek forces its way past.a resistant rock promontory. The creek elevation here is a-p-proximate,ly-895.. feet.,. We....continued east through open, old -.growth forest .along --a trail_brushed.--for the north boundary of the Marathon 1 placer claim, parallel to the creek but well above it. Beyond Marathon 1, we proceeded parallel to the creek through heavy brush along the flagged northern boundaries of--the---Marathon 2--and 3 --claims The- farthest Point,---: reached upstream was slightly beyond the intersection of the NE corner of the Marathon 3 with the. NW corner of the Four Jokers 1 placer claims, where the existing access road again approaches the_ creek. , We believed this--t-o--.b-e----in—th-e—v-i-c-in-i-t-y—of--the—pr-o--P.o-s.e-d-- dam site. We returned to the Alaska Railroad track via the exist- ing access road. 3) Proposed pipeline outlet, south end of Grant Lake: The archeologist walked five trans,ects.between a grove of alders on the east and a patch of beaver -felled birch and the forest on the west, zigzagging upslope. A broad band of slope wash on the east was also examined; it appears to be fairly recent for it lies in a thin layer atop the thick grasses which cover the area. The shaley beach between the alder grove and the birch stand was also examined. 4) Solars Sawmill overland to the proposed powerhouse site in Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: We examined the sawmill site, then set out along a trail which we believed to be that leading to Upper Trail Lake shown on the 1953 USGS map. The trail, however, had been quite recently brushed in places, marked occasionally with flagging tape, and turned decidedly north. We took a fainter western branch but lost,it on the edge of a muskeg and simply continued on to the powerhouse site. We walked com- pletely around the cove on which the powerhouse site is located, both on the beach and inland as far as the steep hill which rises to the east of the site. The higher ground here is covered with an open growth of scrub spruce while the lower areas are marshy. The upper part of the. small stream which flows into the bay here is lined with alders. 5) The shoreline of Upper Trail Lake from the powerhouse site to the east end of the proposed bridge site at the mouth of Grant Creek: This is the proposed I route of an access road. *The archeol- ogist walked south along the shore of Upper Trail Lake from the proposed powerhouse site, staying generally on the first terrace above the lake. The shore is.covered with open forest except for an'area of thick brush and scrub spruce near the narrows between the upper and lower lake. The small elongate island which splits the mouth of Grant Creek was also examined. This is the east end of a proposed bridge. site. The archeologist walked around the knoll on the north side of Grant Creek before returning along the same route. 6) Island between upper and lower Grant Lake and adjacent points of land: The lake is very shallow here and may be dredged to increase water flow. We walked completely around the island and along the shore of both adjacent points of land where dredging equipment might be based. The island is steep and rocky and mountain hemlock obscures the ground in places. There were, however, a number of natural exposures among the moss and reindeer 5 lichens. The adjacent point of land to the north, covered with open forest, offered a more extensive area of relatively level ground backed by steep rock outcrops. The extreme south point was steeper,_with sparser vegetation. Survey Results 1) Area between Vagt lake Trail and an existing access road: We located an overgrown cabin foundation associated with historic- e debris and several pits near the beginning of Vagt Lake Trail. It is described in the Appendix. Other historic debris was found scattered through the forest along the first north -south transect through this survey area, but we located no other structures. Diffuse charcoal was noted in the existing road cut, but this may -pa st-,.fore-st _fir_e_s___in the area. A small _t,e,,s_t__Di_t__dua_________ atop the rocky knoll where the Vagt Lake Trail makes a right-angle turn yielded 21 cm of culturally sterile soil over bedrock. A literature search identified two historic sites within this area, ea,'Cro-wn Point/Trail Creek Station (.SEW021)-and the.Stev6nson cabin.. The cabin foundation located may be the latter, dating to around 1910, as it does not fit the description of Crown Point/ Trail Creek Station. No other structural remains were found here, however. This area is also adjacent to the Alaska Northern Railway (SEW029) and the Iditarod Trail (SEW148 and National Register of Historic Places), the routes of which roughly coincide with the present route of the Alaska Railroad. 2) North bank of Falls Creek to proposed diversion dam: A literature search identified one site, the Baggs cabin, on lower Falls Creek. Although it lay on our route to the diversion dam site, we could not locate it. It dates to approximately A.D. 1910 s 5a —_ �v R I E 630 000 FEET 25"' 1 7 07.1 00' se line 26 ------- Bf 30 Z§ 28 27-- oY L.\; Ray .34 r ke .351 Radio, Tower 0 3? z ;5 32 \-_34 w > 1z ?a 60v 3 W it z I M ads8rt- I VABM 5269-' an' Motin t I f 11 .-i (�r C4 BM a 12 Zc '7 t Crown Point10 R X-1 k .64 f5• o. it. - N 14 "_J 13 18 N Falls 16 mine Creek 15 Gaging Sia all 6ek '22 23-J j Crown '24 onit bin 19 C, 3,-ov ..7 7, f -2 mpj lou ii uie,ng Sb" _7 27 26 68 30 Wound 'J 27 L A ff 1 'Radio o'er Lawing Ad Ts. Black Point 36 "31 3 .34 "black T. \M untain 0 .- "' rerk. ." ::-. T. No� , 3 6 vru;�; ...... 4 3. co Or, BM Jz A L 0 �`R 'S io r 12 F 0' i , ( E T V. . _ 'b � - - _,�- - --. - .1 Locations of sites in or adjacent to project area. C�1;1 SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE ALASKA IRD C- 1 25 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) '15' 60"M ? 370 000 TET .1 4 N. 3 N 8 6) Island between upper and lower Grant Lake and adjacent points of land: Aside from old signs of small-scale logging on the north adjacent point and a recent survey marker on the south adjacent point.,- we noted no evidence of human activity. Ste_ -Significance and Potential Project Impacts The -prehistoric and early historic periods are poorly docu- mented in the project area. No sites relating to these periods -wer-e- id-entif:Led-in -either- the. lit-erature-search -or—t-he reconnaissance, , though it is quite possible that sites of this age do exist within the area. Written references to the area deal primarily with the development of gold mining and the Alaska Railroad in the.period after 1900. All of the historic sites ------ —i-deirt-i-f-ied—i-n—t-he-a-rcheo-l-og-i-ca-l— suT-vey---po-s-t--d-a-t-e---l-900--a-nd-mo-s-t--- relate either directly or indirectly to the mining industry. The Iditarod Trail (SEW148 and National Register of Historic Places) and the Alaska Northern Railway (SEW029) routes roughly coincide with the present route of the Alaska Railroad through the project area. The Iditarod Trail was blazed in 1908 by the Alaska Road Commission as a winter route between the port of Seward and the gold fields of Nome and the interior. Its importance dwindled with the decline in gold production in the interior and with the advent of airmail service in the 1920s. (BLM 1981:19-31). It has recently been designated a National Historic Trail and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The first spike of the Alaska Central Railroad was driven in Seward in 1904 and by 1905 fifty miles of track had been constructed. The Alaska Central went into receivership in 1907, but in.1909 the Alaska Northern Railway was formed. It constructed an additional 21 miles of I track before going bankrupt in 1911. The tracks were still used, however, by a gas car which regularly transported mining supplies from Seward to the wagon road at Moose Pass (Barry 1973:114-116). When construction of the Alaska Railroad from Seward to Fairbanks commenced in 1915, this section of track was improved and the old right-of-way is still used by the present-day railroad (Barry 1973:144-147). Two proposed access roads will cross the routes of the trail and railroad. They are already crossed by a number of access roads, however, and it does not appear that this will be a significant impact. The State Historic Preservation Officer, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service should be consulted in the assessment of Project impact upon the Iditarod Trail. The Solars Sawmill was, by local accountsp never a commercially viable mill and apparently had little effect upon the economic development of the regi on.(see Appendix). Reported to have operated sporadically in the period 1927 or 1930 through 1941, the mill is presently in very poor condition. There are, however, a few artifacts at the site 'which the Forest Service or a local historical group might wish to salvage for display. The site may be directly affected by the Proposed project. In one project alternative a bridge joining two access roads will occupy par . t of the site. In other project alternatives an access road will pass to the north of the site and thus not directly affect it. Such a road could, however, open the site to vandalism or collectors, and if anything were to be salvaged, it would have to be removed during the road construction phase. 10 The trail between the saw -mill and Upper Trail Lake is neither an elaborate nor a well-preserved trail. It reportedly was used by dog teams hauling processed lumber from the sawmill to market in Moose Pass. No historic artiXacts.were.found,along.the.portion we were able to follow, and the Forest Service in. Seward has no record of!construction or maintenance work on the trail. It will be crossed or followed in places by an access road if the project -----i:s---c-onstruct-ed-i - The Crown Point Mountain Trail (SEW140), Crown Point Mine (SEW192) and associated structures at localities A, B, and C have played an important role in the history of gold mining in the area, and may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Fl—ade-s-. -- -Tlie--Bla-ck--But-te-v-o7in--at--t-lie7-Cr-own--Point in 1906, making it one of the earliest important discoveries on Falls Creek. The mine and associated structures were developed primarily in the periods 1910-1916 by the Kenai -Alaska Gold Co. and 1935-1940 by the Crown Point Mining Co., C. Brosius and Associates of Seward, but was worked on a small scale into the 1960s. All lie northand east of the project area and will not be directly affected by project construction or operation. All are presently accessible from the highway by a mining road, but beyond approximately one-half mile a four -wheel -drive vehicle with a winch is needed. Construction of an access road along the pipeline route to the proposed diversion dam may improve access to these sites somewhat and may increase the risk of vandalism. Vandals still, however, would have to travel quite a way down the pipeline road and then take the steep mining road to the structures. The most likely to be affected would be structures 11 at locality A. The remains of a log structure, in very poor condition, lie on the Crown Point Mine.road above the proposed dam site and thus outside the area of direct impact. The structure probably dates to about 1940 and may be associated with the later development of the Crown Point Mine. Like the other structures associated with the mine, construction of the pipeline access road may slightly improve access to it. It is in such poor condition, however, that little could be done to damage it further. The Brosius cabin, sluice, and camp all appear to be asso- ciated with mining in the area around 1940. All lie west of the project area. Construction of the diversion dam would dewater Falls Creek and thus slightly change the settings of sites located at the edge of the canyon above the creek, but is not expected to increase erosion or otherwise affect these sites. The Baggs cabin, which we did not locate, relates to the period around 1910. It, too, lies well to the west of the project area and would be affected in the same way. Crown Point/Trail Creek Station (SEW021 ) and the Stevenson cabin are associated with early mining and the early days of the railroad in this area. Both lie near a Forest Service recreation trail and the existing access road which leads eventually to the Crown Point Mine. Both lie north of a proposed access road and are not expected to be affected by project construction or operation. Conclusions This archeological survey has identified four sites which will be directly affected by construction of alternative F of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric project: the Alaska Northern Railway 12 (SEW029). the Iditarod Trail (SEW148 and National Register of Historic Places), Solars Sawmill, and the trail between the saw- mill and Upper Trail Lake. While it does not appear that any sites included on or eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places will be significantly affected by the project, such preliminary determination can be made only by the State Historic Preservation Officer in consultation with the interested parties. This was a reconnaissance -level- survey -of -the -pro-ject---arba-, -- ---------- --- As specific construction sites and routes had not yet been identi- fied on the ground, these could not be intensively examined; previously unrecorded cultural resources may yet be found there. The survey did, however, identify areas of -high to moderate archeological potential which appear to warrant subsurface arche- ological testing before construction begins. These areas are: 1) the route of the access road which parallels part of Vagt lake Trail,. 2). the route of the access road between Grant Lake and the powerhouse site, 3) the route of the access road between the powerhouse and the highway, and the pipeline route between the diversion dam and its intersection with the access road which parallels Vagt Lake Tra ii. The remainder of the pipeline route passes over what appears to be a slide area* While it may warrant a walk -over and examination of any natural exposures, any cultural material is likely quite deeply buried there.. 13 References Cited Barry, Mary J. 1973 A history of mining on the Kenai Peninsula. Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing. Iditarod National Historic Trail Project Office, BLMI 1981 The Iditarod National Historic Trail, Seward to Nome route. Volume 1: A.comprehe*nsive management plan. Anchorage: Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District Office. Plafker, George 1955 Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan and Crescent lakes, Alaska. USGS Bull. 1031-A. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Yarborough, Michael R. 1981 Archeological survey of proposed drilling sites, Grant Lake, Alaska. Anchorage: Cultural Resource Consultants. 1 Photo Log: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982 Roll 1 8 June 1982 Frame I Subject 1 "Sluice" site. Corrugated sheet metal trough. 2 it Corrugated sheet metal trough. 3 it Sluice, pipe, and cobble deposit which divides stream into two forks, looking N upstream. 4 "Sluice" site. Debris associated with sluice, looking E across stream. 5 "Sluice" site. Debris associated with sluice. 6 11 11 Wire cable associated with sluice, looking W across stream, near mouth. 7 "Sluice" site. Wooden trough on E bank next to sluice. Possibly replaced with the corrugated sheet metal. 8 "Sluice" site. Debris associated with sluice, looking across stream. 9 "Sluice" site. Wooden trough associated with sluice. 10 lif 11 Pipe and corrugated sheet metal trough through which water flows, looking E. 11 "Sluice" site. Same as frame 10. 12 Camp site. N side of Falls Creek, looking E. Pack in foreground and Maggie Floyd at center provide scale. 13 Camp site. Same as frame 12. 14 11 11 Sherwin-Williams packing crate on S edge of site. Planks visible on ground behind it. 15 Camp site. Pile of lumber on ground between trees with boards nailed to them horizontally ca. 3 m above ground, looking W. Possibly remains C) of raised cache. 16 Camp site. Wooden wheels with metal rims, looking E. A metal door with a plastic potato bag lies between them. 17 Camp site. Closeup of cache box with screened top, looking N. Shovel provides scale. 18 Camp site. Cache box and table nailed to spruce and scattered camp debris, looking N. Shovel provides scale. 19 Camp site. Closer view of wooden wheels.' Photo Log: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982 Roll 1 8 June 1982 (cont.) Frame 'Subject 20 Camp site. Ladder of unpeeled saplings and board _nailed, -ho,ri,zontally to spruce ca. 3 m above ground, looking W. Cache box and table nailed -to tree are -visible at left. 21 Camp site. View of perforated sheet metal rims on wooden wheels, looking E. 22 Camp site. Same as frame 21. 23 Frozen waterfall, S bank of Falls Creek opposite 24 - _Brosius cabin.-, -,- - Wwall o - f - -structure -, - - - - -"_ built ''-into hillside S of cabin, looking E. 25 Brosius cabin. Structure built into hillside S of cabin, looking N from road cut. 26 Brosius cabin. Same as frame 25. 27 Same as frame 25. __2.8-- ----Br-os-i-u-s—ca-bi-n--�----V-i-ew --- o-f—wa-t-e-r.-f-a;-1-1—in—Fa-l-l-s—Cr-e7e-k----- from road cut below Brosius cabin, looking E. 29 Brosius cabin., W wall of cabin, looking E. 30 it if Collapsed portion of W wall and collapsed S wall, looking SE. N side of door jamb is visible at left. 31 Brosius cabin. Trash, looking E toward SE corner. 32 It 11 Collapsed shed N of cabin, looking E. 33 Brosius cabin. Same as frame 32. 34 if if Detail of construction of NW corner, looking S. 35 Brosius cabin. Interior view of E wall, looking E. Note bed frame at right. 36 Brosius cabin. Interior view of SE corner, looking S8. 3 Photo Loa: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982 0 Roll 2 8-11 June 1982 Frame Subject 1 Blank. 2 Brosius cabin. Roofing preserved in NE corner, looking NE. 3 Bro'sius cabin. One charred and one uncharred roof beam inside cabin near NW corner, looking W. Note moss chinking between logs and laths nailed over cracks. 4 Brosius cabin. Trash inside cabin near SW corner looking S. Note heavy concentration of charcoal at center left.. 5 Brosius cabin. Trash. 6 Brosius cabin. Corrugated metal roofing outside cabin near SW corner, looking NE. 7 Brosius cabin. Roof of structure built into hillside south of cabin, looking S and down from cabin. 8 Brosius cabin. Fragment of oilcloth. 9 if Auto hood SE of cabin. 10 It Sign inside cabin near door: 11C. M. Brosius--Seward." 11 Log structure. View of SW corner, looking S. 12 It 11 View S along 101 wall. Stumps in foreground are remnants of W wall, still wedged between logs of N wall which has fallen outward. 13 Log structure. Closer view of W wall stumps. 14 View W across remains of structure. 15 N half, looking NW. W wall stump visible in center. 16 Log structure, looking NW. 17 11 if Same as frame 16, Maggie Floyd provides scale. 18 Log structure. Outhouse or cache depression E of structure, looking SE diagonally across it. 19 Log structure. Detail of SW corner, looking N. 20 11 It Boiler lying across road to N of structure. 21 Log structure. Looking S from road. 4 Photo Iog: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982 Roll 2 8-11 June 1982 (cont.) Frame Subject 22 Cabin foundation. Heap of large cans or buckets of cabin foundation, looking S. 23 Cabin -SE corner o n foundation. f foundation with some of vegetation cle . ared away, looking I.I. 24 Cabin foundation. E side of foundation, looking W. 25 Looking along one side of foundation. -26 ----Cabin- -foundat-ion-i —Met-a-1--band-s-to—Y of --- f-oundat-iorr9-- - - lo oking -N. 27 Cabin foundation. Metal strip in willow N of foundation. 28 'Cabin foundation. SE corner, looking E. 29 Cabin foundation. 30 Solars sawmill. Cable pulleys. 32 it it View of Grant Creek rapids, looking S from.site of pulleys. 33 Solars sawmill. Closeup of pulley shown in frame 31. 34 Solars sawmill. Timbers leading down to Grant Creek just E of pulleys. 35 Solars sawmill. Mining -cart wheels west of collapsed structure. 36 Solars sawmill. Another pair of mining -cart wheels near first pair. Photo Log: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982 Roll 3 11 June 1982 Frame Subject 1 Advancing film. 2 Solars sawmill. Collapsed structure, looking roughly NE. 3 Solars sawmill. Collapsed structure, looking roughly S. 4 Solars sawmill. Outside view of S wall of standing cabin, looking roughly N. Door lies in foreground. 5 Solars sawmill. Collapsed roof of standing cabin, looking roughly N. 6 Solars sawmill. Inside view of S wall of standing cabin, looking SE. 7 Solars sawmill. Standing cabin, detail of con- struction of W wall, looking roughly E. 8 Solars sawmill. Collapsing shed attached to N wall of standing cabin, looking roughly E. 9 Solars sawmill. Galvanized sink in NW corner of standing -cabin. 10 Solars sawmill. Outhouse, looking roughly S. 11. it it . Timber framework leading down into Grant Creek W of pulleys, looking roughly E, upstream. 12. Solars sawmill. Wire cable at framework leading down into Grant Creek W of pulleys. 13 Solars sawmill. Timber framework leading down into Grant Creek W of pulleys. 14 Solars sawmill. Looking S across Grant Creek rapids from timber framework W of pulleys. 15-36 Blank. Appendix: Site Reports Site name: Cabin foundation Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1910 Location: SWa NW SE4 Section 13, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., Seward I Meridian _ Description: The foundation lies in_a level clearing now vegetated with grass and willows 5 m south of the beginning of the Chugach National Forest's Vagt Lake Trail, which parallels the south shore of Lower Trail Lake, and approximately 20 m east of the Alaska I Railroad track. The closest source of water is Lower Trail Lake. - g with moss, grass, and willows, measures approximately 5 m NS by 4.4 m EW. Though the poor condition of the wood prevented an accurate count, it appears that only one or two tiers of logs remain in place in each wall. At least two grass -covered logs lie outside the foundation, parallel to the east wall, from which they may have fallen. Associated features include a dump of large rusted cans or li buckets to the south and a smallm square depression to the north- east.. The latter measures approximately 1.05 m NS by 0.9 m EW. A shovel test 30 cm deep in its center revealed an organic layer, varying from 2 cm thick on the north to 1.8 cm thick on the south, underlain by cultural material and gray clayey soil mottled with sand and gravel. The cultural material consisted of a few frag- ments of rusted cans, a few small pieces of glass, and a carpal or tarsal bone of a large herbivore. This material was not collected. The test pit hit water at 25 cm below surface and was abandoned and backfilled at a depth of 30 cm below surface. The ! depression may represent an outhouse hole or trash pit which was later filled in. Other trash, including rusted metal bands, cans, a piece of pipe, a rubber overshoe, and half of a light blue glass insulator which bears the inscription BROOKFIE_, lies scattered around the foundation. Other features which may be of more recent vintage are a square pit filled with water right at the south edge of the Vagt Lake Trail; a large rectangular hole, just inland from the float - plane dock, which contains a boiler, a metal rod, and a machine part; and a pair of railroad -car wheels and a large machine part immediately east and a recent round pit east and slightly south ' of the rectangular hole. Significance: Crown Point/Trail Creek Station (SEW 021) and a structure known as the Stevenson cabin are both reported to have been located at approximately this location. The Stevenson cabin, shown on.a map compiled by D. H. Sleem in 1910, may have been associated with the Stephenson or Stevenson brothers, who discovered gold at what was later to become the Crown Point Mine. Trail Creek Station, in approximately the same ' location, was a stop at Mile 26 on the Alaska Northern Railway at a slightly later date. In 1915 the Kenai -Alaska Gold Co., which had taken over the Stevenson mining claims in 1910, had a large log house with an office and warehouse at this same milepost (Martin et al. 1915: 157-159; Barry 1973:145). The poor state of preservation of the cabin foundation which we located here suggests that the structure could indeed date to early in the twentieth century. The foundation does not appear to be that of a "large log house," but we found no other structural remains in the area. If Crown Point/Trail Creek Station and the Stevenson cabin are in fact separate sites, the foundation discovered more likely represents the latter. Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other than that due to natural weathering. References: Barry, Mary J. 1973 A history of mining on the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Northwest Publishing, Anchorage. Martin, G. C., B. L. Johnson, and U. S. Grant 1915 Geology and mineral resources of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. USGS Bull. 587. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Sleem, D. H. 1910 Map of Kenai mining district and Moose Pass regions, Kenai precinct, Alaska. Information from this map provided by Forest Archeologist, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. Owner of Property: Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Location of cabin foundation. o SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE p99 ALASKA 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) �5 RD C-71 25' y _ 1^rr.: I tN. is:e.^t+vo,,,c�:%:r :v 29 R.IE. 630000FEET 143'15' _75�-� `•�.•\ /� C„` 2 olr _ r�/gip .S° �``h ..;•=.v/, - � `''te r✓ �:.-� ! 25'� a! \ \2 :�- _ •-..30 1S .y � '. .,'•-• - I r r � - K ! t t � ("�- , ^c. Q k �� �{ 2 JJ4:''Yi FEET 34 L V 1 ` ,:v ' i '•1.� ` \`� I `Radi ower `c,a'`}t 7.5N. ' ' �=. .. .moo � ` \ � ' � �a• � ;, �; �, �. V. solars Sawmill: c ' _ '(+- ---_. •.. I� (Ili j �2 9J�H i-^ - / !, / ( •hull { / ( ;� ..4RM�'1�.olar ~' - .._rIt IA. i�o jrj t ,i;, t 1, , o. L( i r •i 4T�2t;G�onrr _;.." -r._ .' 11 F1 1G1 i / ° , : 1! i `1 1 12� .,� � �. , •-� ;o '�.,r C wni -Mine . _. �.•- aUi 0. ,�/ ice•-\\\ Lr ,+ .of r i i � J _ f! r%i1' tt `\" , / /•'''//� f l�r• �' l: t•' ( a `''• i,y :+ / ( r �./� •'�Opo "'�: :'o•19;E'ebk- • i`y17 �'' C;'•i. 'ti /^.{�'i� f / ,Gagu,g stagy Ro _- fir" Sfl° �� / r � � i t' O ' •� ^ ( � /300 , � r .. 3000,E .,22'�/ roti:n �in r :._� �: '`,` t••\O , ' i�l 14_� _ :+ \ \ ice. i �� \�:` _:;' :: 11 6 `-- m roo Qi ,i .! L. ding L A °Ra 7o r fqr \ Lawing :. cnK ...r .Black Point- :` `�• `-•-- i3 a IT.4N. 2213 ✓) i 'i ( 'i.. - s �"'� �' 1. 3 N 3 `\' ``b\ _21 Al,14 ' ' oM \ -_q Tr.4.r Nolte 0 1M zM r �� M¢ta( bands and 1'�ieefm¢fa/ (: M ¢ f-a l \ Trgj4 C0.b, n c�3 Foundafion To aa;/rot�l and Nyb�a_y Sketch map, cabin foundation site, � o9s e anS or bac4efs Site name: Solars Sawmill Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1924-1941 Location: NW4 SE4 SE! Section 6, T. 4 N.v R. 1 E., Seward Meridian Description: The sawmill is located on a peninsula on the north side of the rapids -at the outlet of Grant Lake. The peninsula is steep, with several small, relatively level benches or terraces upon which the structural remains are found. The area around the site supports a mature spruce forest in which a few sawn stumps m-rin -triQi'h1tn n-nrl -nn-r+. nf +'hp czi+P nrnirnipQ n 1ir%1iez-n_nr)-Krc37-Pr1 -rnnlr outcrop---wh-ich- overl-ooks---the---rapid-s-. - ----- - -- The sawmill site consists of a collapsed wooden structure, a standing cabin with an attached woodshed, an outhouse, three large pulleys, two timber frameworks leading down into Grant Creek, and assorted historic debris. The site was visited in 1981 by M. Yarborough, who measured and briefly described the structures. In 1982 we recorded additional details of construction and obtained some local information on the history of the site. The collapsed wooden structure is located on the lowest bench on the east side of the peninsula, just east of the rapids. It was built of milled lumber, but its form and size are indiscernible in its present condition. Its debris covers an area of approxi- mately 7 m2 (Yarborough 1981:2). Two pairs of mining -car wheels. lie under some young spruce between this structure and the rock outcrop upon which the remains of the mill itself are located. The standing cabin, constructed of milled lumber, is located in the forest on a small bench above and about 10 m west of the collapsed structure. It measures approximately 6 m NS by 4 m EW (Yarborough 1981:3). It is in very poor condition, as the roof and west wall have collapsed and the south and east walls lean outward at precarious angles. The gable roof consisted of tar paper sandwiched between two layers of vertical planks. The walls were insulated with newspaper and magazines sandwiched between a layer of horizontal planks on the inside and vertical planks on the outside. Yarborough (1981:3) found a date of 13 January 1958 on one of the magazines. Slats nailed vertically over chinks between the outside planks further reduced cold drafts. The cabin had two windows, a small one in the center of the west wall and one twice as wide in the center of the east wall. It also had two doors, one in the north wall which led into an attached shed and one in the south wall. A wooden door missing most of its panels lies just south of the cabin. Among the debris inside the cabin are a bed in the northwest corner with a. large galvanized sink resting upon it, a set of shelves lying on the floor near the east windows, and fragments of window glass. The stove was probably located in the southwest corner. A col- lapsing shed, built of milled lumber and measuring about 2 m NS by 4 m EW, is attached to the north wall of the cabin,(Yarborough 1981:3). It had a shed -type roof which sloped down toward the north and is filled with scrap lumber. It apparently served as a woodshed. Trash scattered outside the cabin included a bucket, stove parts, and rusted cans. Two "Preferred Stock" coffee cans and a large "Schilling" black pepper can still bear identifiable labels. A trail leads from the standing cabin west to an outhouse which has tumbled part way down a steep slope. Two small piles of rusted cans lie just north of the outhouse. Three large pulleys mounted on heavy timbers lie on a rock outcrop overlooking the rapids, southeast of the outhouse and west of the collapsed structure. A framework of timbers leads down into Grant Creek on each side of the rock outcrop. The pulleys, frameworks, and associated wire cable constitute the remains of the mill itself. The 1953 USGS map shows a trail between Upper Trail Lake and the mill site. Signs of logging and a few traces of wooden treads bridging short muddy stretches were visible along the portion of the trail we were able to follow, but we lost the trail in the vicinity of the divide between Upper Trail and Grant lakes. Significance: A report compiled by the USDA -Forest Service in 1924 mentions that an area at the head of Grant Lake had been cut over for a sawmill at the foot of the lake, but maps which accom- pany.the report do not show the mill site (Holbrook 1924; R. Quill'4m, USDA-FS Seward, personal communication). A local resident very knowledgeable about the history of the area provided more information. He believes that the mill first operated around 1927 or 1930. It was never a viable mill, but was run from time to time by Al Solars, its owner, until his death around 1941. The _ processed.. lumber -was . hauled out over a . trail - by dog team, alittle being, sold -to the railroad. and -some -being sold locally, but the mill never produced much. This -account agrees with what little published information is available. When Plafker visited the area for the TJSGS in 1952, the mill was abandoned and the trail had fallen into disuse (Plafker 1955:2. 12). Given the date of January 1958 found on one of the magazines used as insulation in the standing cabin, it is quite possible that this cabin was periodically occupied and modified by hunters or trappers after the mill itself was abandoned. Danger of destruction: The structures at the -site are in poor condition and the winter snows could' cause the last one to presently The site is pr -y collapse within a few years. protected from vandals by its difficult access, but if access were improved a few of the artifacts remaining*at the site, such as the galvan- ized sink and mining -car wheels, might prove attractive to collectors. References: Holbrook, Wellman 1924 Land classification report on the Kenai Peninsula division of the Chugach National Forest, Alaska. On file at Seward District Office, Chugach National Forest, Seward, Alaska. Plafker, George 1955 Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan and Crescent lakes, Alaska. USGS Bull. 1031-A, Washington, D. C.:, U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office. Yarborough, Michael 1981 Archeological survey of proposed drilling sites, Grant Lake, Alaska. Anchorage: Cultural Resource Consultants. Owner of property: Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Location of Solars Sawmill. RD C-7) or SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE - ALASKA e 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 630 ODO FEET 1 149*16 60*3(Y r:ao 2 25-1, . . . 4E -�3 r . . . . . . . . ass ic e 35 36 3? Raqi? Me"r*.. Z 2 116 3DO V -,j V 50. �65 5� 468 r NT so 26P� !if J n t- In- 180 12• /wn-xa 7--: 2 SOW's tan 0- L P Y/ 11464 5' -14 v V L I oo 1 Ai J 40 rode J r f V ell• lo \. 27 26 ;;Gum if u Q r 30- Q gmr fid L A Lawin 9 e res Black Point - 36 34 U; I Bla T M oun in 2, 4 3. T, 0 C '. tj BM ---------- T 2 370 000 rEET r. 5 N. F. 4 N. 5- 4 N. 3 N d d r d v r9b03 ;p4b J -,J 0 ® � i e S V p f ' N d r N _Y V Y Q. • CCU'' H rr�^^ v� ^w lU U N . C1� x Site name: Sluice Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1940 Location: SWI NE1 SE-1- Section 18, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward - Meridian Description: The "sluice" is located on the north bank of the Falls Creek canyon, on the first small tributary stream to Falls Creek above the Alaska Railroad. The creek is bridged by a plank. We found no cultural material upstream from the plank. Slightly below the plank the stream forks around a deposit of large, loose cobbles. On the east fork the stream is directed through a piece of stovepipe, below which the stream bed is lined with pieces of corrugated sheet metal bent into a trough. The metal trough extends to the edge of the canyon and the stream drops straight down to Falls Creek, about 50 feet below. Scattered along the sides of the east stream fork are pieces of lumber, pieces of a wooden trough which may have been replaced by the sheet metal, and wire cable. The remains of a campsite and a ruined cabin dating to approx- imately 1935-1940 lie within a few hundred feet to the east. Significance: The "sluice" is probably associated with gold prospecting on Falls Creek. The area has been prospected from the first decade of the twentieth century to the present' Recently staked placer claims are located approximately 500 feet up Falls Creek from this site and an active placer claim is located near the mouth of Falls Creek. The small stream could also have served as a water source for the nearby camp and cabin, as Falls Creek flows at the bottom of a deep canyon here. Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other than that due to natural weathering. References: None. Owner of property: Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Location. of sluice. _ G 6\ SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE pro ALASKA 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) \5 RDC-7) 25 I� r ..^r. "aicv• I 1 sic: QQ' R. 1 630000FEET 149°15' Cz :30Ell "rr -r _ i I e 2370000 1/' FEET 35 31 Radi ower C.:\_^-_�.�,``� \. , •r 11 .0� T 5 N. `•` r .,; !,. .1• ; . i Dd lc, ...,1` �I�' /.. Q,•c _±•1 \�`,'�";. 1.4 N. + -pr %j I x r.wl - ! ae Sol rs sawrQ. , \`�•^.�_- � , ; 1 �� ,` �"� Win-\.. _ -_ `•J m 9pij%.�'' _ :% . 1. 'ti ' ( f 4 1 • 1.. 1 •:1 ' ° , ��, l 'ter -. a`+ �•OI (�14 S _ 1'6��Ylni� rJe / � \, \�a ! , ^\s :y '�4��2�• _ �-_ _ �\ .� �6ii�11� 12 \. p / • r wn ipe' Min Vagt •° �t ;rlo i �..:a o C //� ` ' •9, rl i f J Il � 1 IiQ%Ci /� t 10 ., \.....'._/•' . A5. l' ` •_ i 1�`\�,:-\, yl: 7- /. ! ,,' �.t:. ya6a r✓ i\r '} .13 V Jri8r ` 17 _ `'� -,Mi @C= \15 �— J/' � .,7 11 �y- �• "'---'�= Dj. / '! Q@piS,ab'1 1..\ - _ ram`` r reek /i.ry '., r• --ice :, • + It rnn 19, 26 ',� i � f � -.. 2 � � �• o {%' ID � . +''i f brn' /Sao.., _ 3DDo--._ �-.t�^..."'sc�.., . • •i:.a a>r:1 : r �^ ' \.-"'/•y _ r. `: ;, ;'•' '�� ���� 'tea _ �., �. _i^' �' m rounds V ding _ •" fl. I �. "��:.. ..—✓�. •i -, '_5,T19 .-✓ � v--, .-I �.g�468 . p Sln r� q� '6t'�,. // i ..i ,', _, ' � :•. ^` -•� , �� •�`a�. 27 26 \�,S�:�Y' -� _ \\'�=::\1'( �:.g;: •`�- 7 1 � Quad..moo , L A - DRailvTo 10 Law in t \ a . °o i. `r : ,__...tee•. 81ack POinh - ; 031 3 43 . 3 . _- 'w -3436 \l .li:("\\\'•$' ` 2213 1I . . (.1: 'i` I .' `'_ T.3N 4 3- •i+Tb:•--- -� \ � ,•'�.\\ /: '� � � `�� .. ',. ice. Scc, /• `• Site name: Camp - Pertinent dates: some time in the period A.D. 1940-1960 Location: SW' NE' SE14 Section 18, T. 4 N.v R. 1 E., Seward 4 4 Meridian Description: The camp is located on the north bank of the Falls Creek canyon approximately 100 m west-of,the northwest corner of the Marathon 1 placer claim and an equal distance downstream from the waterfall where the 895-foot contour crosses Falls Creek. It lies in a small clearing surrounded by a very dense growth of young spruce with trunks approximately 1 to 2 inches in diameter. The nearest sources of water are a small stream with a sluice a short distance to the west and Falls Creek which flows through the canyon about 50 feet below. The camp area measures approxiamtely 3.6 m NS by 6.5 m EW. Along the south edge lie some planks and corrugated metal roofing. A cache box, with quarter -inch wire mesh covering the top, is nailed to the south side of a large spruce above a table which is also nailed to the tree. Leaning against the north side of the same tree is a ladder, made of unpeeled saplings, which leads up to a board nailed to the spruce about 3 m above the ground. Boards are nailed at about 3 m and 4 m above the ground on another spruce a short distance to the north. Some lumber lies between the two trees, which may have supported some type of cache. Other material scattered about the site includes a Borden's Evaporated Milk crate, a Sherwin-Wil.liams-Paint.crate a large square can with a wire handle, pieces of pipe, a small metal door, a plastic potato bag which says "Alaska Nuggets --Palmer, Alaska," a large bent piece of rusted sheet metal, approximately one -eighth inch thick, with regular perforations, and two wooden wheels with rims of galvanized sheet metal with regular perforations. Some cans and other trash also lie in a heap southwest of the clearing. A road cut which extends from the Crown Point Mine road down toward Falls Creek lies immediately east of the camp and the Brosius cabin, probably occupied in the period 1935-1940, lies slightly to the north on the opposite side of the road. Significance: The camp is very likely associated with gold pros- pecting on Falls Creek. The area has been prospected from the first decade of the twentieth century to the present. Judging from the size of the young spruce around the clearing, the camp is at least 20 years old and may be older. It may be associated with the nearby Brosius cabin, which probably dates to the, period 1935-1940. I Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other than that due to natural weathering. Ref erences: one. Owner of property: Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 RD C-7) Location of camp. 25 L>O' R I E Oro SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE Pao ALASKA 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 630 000 FEET 149*15' 60*3U 25 Ott... 3 o ine 0 8 'Bf 4E 'Co 1A X.. e '4 34 z - IN Radio ower , ZA 00-1. Ile Ij r sro 6 f 5- 46e solars sa-kill, Z K '01 Vp_dspo. gs it a of nt 12 7 n Mine .4 d6fs —M(?0ntajn Vogt w 14 1 31Y -4 . jp' o8it ' .:.:Obk j17 too/ 0 bin Wn 00.J. :4 27 mvj 6 round] Ultdi it Joec, - A Uwing a 101T6 i Ce Black Point36 - .31 x436•0 j'! P. N\ N 3 ZZIS i I I ; Moun ini '1 z I - . . t;tp. , I i '0 , - I 4 k-- T 3 Al 0(" C am R -T- tA K A t 01 3-1 2 370 ODD FEET T 5 N. T. 4 N M19 3 N � 1 U -1� N x C!� Site name: Brosius Cabin Pertinent dates: A.D. 1935-1940 Location: SW4 NEl SEa Section 18, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian Description: The structure is located on the north side of Falls Creek canyon on a small bench some 50 to 75 feet above the creek. The northwest corner of the Marathon 1 placer claim lies about 30 m uphill to the northeast, and a waterfall where the 895-foot contour crosses Falls Creek is located an eaual distance upstream. Immediately to the west of the cabin is a steep road spur which leads from the Crown Point Mine road down toward Falls Creek. The cabin ruins stand in a clearing, but young spruce grow near it and mature spruce forest grows to the east and north. The nearest sources of water are Falls Creek and a small stream with a sluice some 100 m to the west. The cabin measures 5.1 m NS by 6.3 m EW. It was built of unpeeled double -notched logs chinked with moss. On the inside of the north wall laths were nailed over the chinking, presumably to reduce drafts. The north wall and the west wall between the northwest corner and the door jamb still stand eight logs high. The east wall stands eight logs high at the north end and five or six logs high at the south end. The remaining walls have collapsed. The east wall has a central window frame without glass and, as mentioned, there was a door in the west wall. Nails pounded into the north wall probably served as hooks on which to hang things. No flooring was noted, but may be present. The structure appears to have had a shed roof which slanted down toward the south. A small fragment of the roof preserved in the northeast corner consisted of several layers of a coarse fabric resembling burlap covered with a sparkling sandy material, possibly decayed shingles, sandwiched between corrugated sheet metal on the inside and tar paper on the outside. A charred beam leaning against the wall near the northwest corner suggests that the roof burned. I did not note any charring of the standing walls, but a dense scatter of charcoal fragments extends from the southwest corner half way along the collapsed south wall. A shed measuring 2.95 m NS by 4.4 m EW was attached to the cabin's north wall. It has completely collapsed, but machine parts and pieces of metal roofing lie among the ruins. A great deal of trash is associated with the cabin. One metal bed frame stands in the southeast corner and'an6ther lips nearby, outside the cabin. A stove may once have stood in -the southwest corner where there is a concentration of charcoal. A piece of stovepipe lies nearby, outside the doorway. Inside the cabin, the heaviest concentration of.trash lies in the southwest a u ar t e r and included boots, .shoes, . a can machine parts. A wooden sign lying just inside the door bears faint lettering which reads 11C. M. Brosius--Seward." Outside the cabin are pieces of metal roofing and rusted cans. The existing road appears to have cut through a trash heap; as rusted cans are also found in the berm on the opposite side of the road. ----------Ea-s-t—o-f--t-h-e—c-a-b-i-n—i-s—t-h-e -h-o-od--o-f--a—car- -or- truck—. been nailed to a tree at the edge of the cliff east of the cabin, forming a little walkway. An associated structure is dug into the hillside below and southwest of the cabin. As it has been undermined by the road cut and erosion, I did not descent -to measure or examine it closely. It appears to be built of milled lumber and has a roof of corrugated sheet metal. It appears too large to have been an outhouse. Significance: This cabin is most likely related to gold mining in the area. The Crown Point Mine, which lies north of Falls Creek near the summit of a nearby mountain, was operated by the Crown. -Point Mining Companyt.C-. Brosius and Associates, Seward, in the period 1935-1940 (Stewart 1937:48, 1939:399 1941:74). Danger of destruction: There is little danger of destruction other than that due to natural weathering. The associated structure dug into the hillside may soon be lost to erosion. Although a mining road passes right by the cabin, it is impassible without a four -wheel -drive vehicle. Most "colle,ctables" appear alreadt to have been salvaged by the former owner or removed by later visitors. References: Stewart, B. D. 1937 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for the biennium ended December 31, 1936. (Juneau?): Territory of Alaska. 1939 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for the biennium ended December 31, 1938. (Juneau?): Territory of Alaska. 1941 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for the biennium ended December 31, 1940. (Juneau?): Territory of Alaska. Owner of Property: Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 11 i Location_ of Brosius cabin® G6 SE WARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE Pao ALASK A 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) �5 5' �a ii lr Asff�L. r: �, .. n�•.cr ^r nv 20'R.tE 630000 FEET 149°35' RD C-71 ? 60°3t7 -.._"�./ter"•••-"�� ',' C� $ O � .ram' .,,,. .. .`:.`•:�QQO,..../ "� �\ i . .d OO i t •4 l 1 - y , t , , � • 2370000 .� 1 gy :,r `jam ' r •,,�- ET .... s I .� L FEET (l36 _ A�'t 3?/i '� - 34 Rabic}, over o1: c L. r' q6 aooa ^=`.��. 'ii•.p$'�;'1l' �,41}j'+ %ol t `' '`�1 S`lJ)t• / f' ,/: _ - _ - T.5N. 1 is o tN v' .;:r^-;':,<_;,, •��`: T.4 N. _ „ ` r -ram. .� �- - ` -...� , �•.` °°- Vi SoWrs ��_-; �- ` �° ' t ' I; i •� o ` • � + m t� � i .��e �S' l � ( `• Wit""\� ?'�'�`-�'� t� / ` / 2 9ili - •rl t ,�: •1 F° BM •j,� 0 , ' .�•. �-•�. .;_: -_. ,�.:�d59'J �J 01 FS M9 trl s 12 a / l7 ' 'o r ::r wn '-i Mn j•f, �.�', '(�• ,11'. �'0(1 I\� + V •1 Vag1 n i ( ;i!oo •`'�'' Lake / •�i:N i YA j.• -� /!t �';L`\ `�,1 ::^ ii/,/ `( (' /, +,p d •-'-''%' / j '� try r °30, - Fay Vebk :13181 ' :'17 `' : -�t,Mi .._ --- + � ,fir `(` ', . t _ .�..•� ti ging Star': i.� . /:�`.: . �'-^�,�• •..i rEP .. .._ 10 �OD i �-•"' 1 \7' J .9000.-. 1�_•� `�3-� �- � � ' � ,u`� •� ro,\�n oint _•_ •flg 0 . - ��.' 2 ' °o::' 1 -`"'- - ;.mil '`, (; \ ;• �r i`,'r14 i 25, /� \.._ •�; / ���✓,r-" Gm rouidl � ��l : L.natog - :,�;9Gj�i r J - t. �, .--'�,...� .•�.-✓"_ - - '\ _ _ t `'-'5Tj2..--"..•.-'`-•" �`•BM'�d68 nStr�.-1 f .�a<' � t .:_...`.` :`. _."_..,`'\ (,':\` ^'S _ -_� .• -• ii, •.I }a. ;Gravel it r / _.r�, �:.:'•:. �.r -• ,t°° 27 26�5 F f �' =-=- �.` 'i 'ate � ;�,,�`..,\,-•: A� ��- ,• 1. A ff \ � wnd �. ,; .r/• rl '°Ra�lo To r : \ �\ Qr�� •\ `_,_-� -'• ••.' Lawin • '?':. •,r/r� • r r` \ .\`�� Qh . ' i°po.� f'o! r_-s La ke Black Point- 3J o3e ~ i\ s _ \ ..34 03. j 1.. 36 �``.�/ i % / i .:. �:� -` � ��• ; \c,_' , �... `'off'' _ VIM A 2213 T.3N M un to 4 \3� Boa ;2!/J 1!'! 1 /'' 2 4' i y �,.' :< ./,•r//3�l Al 1 o o-FP roX i ma te. X.- /c t � Gollapsad I t s I� and I t i t i , Road Sketch map, Brosius cabin. S+rutfu ro- du, into k;11 sr✓,J- iCA Yo o ' �I I o Falls Cra-k Site name: Log structure Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1940 Location: N'WTI SW4 Section 17, T. 4 N.9 R. 1 E., Seward Meridian Description: This collapsed structure lies approximately 75 m north of the edge of Falls Creek canyon in a large, fairly level, grassy clearing dotted with cow parsnip just below treeline. The Crown Point Mine road passes immediately north of it and the juncture of the NE corner of the Marathon 3 placer claim with the NW corner of the Four Jokers 1 placer claim lies a short distance t.o. ..the..----so-uth......-.--..The --near-e-st --- -s-ourc-e- .-.- of -water-whi-ch is Falls Creek, but several small mountain streams cross the road to the west and may cross it to the east as well. The structure was built of unpeeled logs which have been flattened on the inside surface. Only the southwest corner is still relatively intact, and that stands , -only a few t - iers high. -------The—structure-l-s--d-imens-:Lons—were—approximate-1-y-3-i-6--m—N-S—by-4—.85—m-- EW, but accurate measurement is difficult because the east and north walls appear to have fallen outward. The north wall was at least five logs high when it collapsed. No windows are evident, but the doorway appears to have been in the west wall. Under the grass inside the structure is a plank floor which runs EW and cor- rugated metal roofing lies under the grass around the outside. Recent and old cans were found in and on the grass inside the structure. Associated material includes a small rusted boiler on the opposite side of the road and a small, square depression which lies 4.4 m east and slightly south of the structure. The latter measures approximately 1.2 m by 1.2 m and may have served as an outhouse or cache hole. A bulldozed clearing and a recent camp- site in the trees south of the structure are most likely associated with the recent staking of the Marathon and Four Jokers placer claims. Significance: This structure is most likely associated with gold mining in the area, possibly with the Crown Point Mine which lies near the summit of the mountain rising to the north. The gold vein at the Crown Point Mine was discovered in 1906 by J. W. and C. E. Stephenson or Stevenson and developed in earnest by the Kenai -Alaska Gold Co. in the period 1910-1916 (Martin et al. 1915:157-159; Johnson 1919:175). It was opened again in the period 1935-1940 by the Crown Point Mining Co., C. Brosius and Associates, of Seward, and operated by others from 1955 until at least 1960 (Stewart 1937:48; 1939:39; 1941:74). The logs of the structure appear to be too sound to date to the 1910s. The struc- ture bears some resemblance to the Brosius cabin located further downstream in that it was built of unpeeled, double -notched logs with a roof of corrugated sheet metal, and may date to approximately the same period (1935-1940). The maps posted at the corners of the Marathon placer claims identify the structure as an "old barn." It may have served as a waystation on the road up to the Crown Point Mine. Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other than that due to natural weathering. References: Johnson, B. L. 1919 Mining in central and northern Kenai Peninsula. In: Mineral resources of Alaska: report on progress of investigations in 1917, by G. C. Martin et al., pp. 175-176. USGS Bull. 692. Washington, D. C.: Govern- ment Printing Office. Martin, G. C., B. L. Johnson, and U. S. Grant 1915 Geology and mineral resources of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. USGS Bull. 587. Washington, D. C.: Govern- ment Printing Office. Stewart, B. D. 1937 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for the biennium ended Dec. 31, 1936. (Juneau?): Territory of Alaska. 1939 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for the biennium ended Dec. 31, 1938. (Juneau?): Territory of Alaska. 1941 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for the biennium ended Dec. 31, 1940. (Juneau?): Territory of Alaska. Owner of property: Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 RD C-7) Location of log structure. A SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE ALASKA 1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 630000FEEr 149*15' 60*3(Y 6 25). St 4E —71 4 1 3 O� ine e 35 3� 3? Ra 00 N.. t !it 5- �6561X Liati sa�m;l; it J; y6, zs, 1 S.olais t !Z '7� 477,24L C 1,4 C Poi Mine \10 Va I 9 _!,7 VL A. x 13 18 eo, A. 0 10 -Z z C10 oint bin - In -2 19 j —25 ob. rwhd P11 G 27 26 8 °Rai Tovmr w 745 Black Point 0831 36 �34 ac VAR! 4 N. 2213 1,v T 3 N M un in it 0 1> 3 2 4 3 Ir 0 CIO -7 LU Hp V 2 370 000 FEET r• 5N -- 4 N e N F-i U �i bL O P Q !T{