HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrant Lake-Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Mar 2009 - REF Grant 2195333Grant Lake
Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Prepared for:
Kenai Hydro, LLC
Prepared by:
4m
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
March 2009
Grant Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
-
Table of Contents
ProjectArea ......................................................................................................... ................ 2
GrantCreek Fish Resources ................................................................................................. 4
Falls Creek Fish Resources .................................................................................................. 5
Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................. .................... ........................ 7
Aoth/o Storage ._--------''----.-----._--,--.-----_--._—.l2
Alternative l:Ruul-od-0ivec Project ............................... ................................................ |3
Alternative 2: Impoundment —'---------.------'.,—.,...'..----.l]
Alternative 3:{ +0rovvdnvvu..................................................................... l3
Alternative 4: Ehuuco`slAQ4Preferred Project ..---_,.------------.--]3
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Summary of Alternatives.. ............................................................................................14
TurbineSizing................................................................................. ......14
Other Alternatives Evaluated...........................................................................................15
EnergyGeneration.......................................................................................................................15
Assumptions... ............................................................................................... .................... 15
ObjectiveFunction.............................................................................................................16
Results............................................................................................. ...........16
.....................
CostEstimates..............................................................................................................................16
Results.................................................................................................................................18
Economic Evaluation and Alternative Ranking.......................................................................18
Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................18
References.....................................................................................................................................20
Tables.............................................................................22
Figures...........................................................................................................................................31
Appendix A - Land Status Information....................................................................................46
Appendix B - Energy Calculations............................................................................................53
Appendix C - Cost Information.................................................................................................59
Appendix D - Project Photographs............................................................................................73
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
List of Tables
Table 1. Falls Creek scale factors (determined by APA 1984) used to simulate flow
of Falls Creek from stream flow data collected at Grant Creek ........................23
Table 2.
Temperature comparisons for Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek.
Adapted from Table 2-8 in APA (1984) . ..........................................................
24
Table 3.
2008 instantaneous flow measurements collected by HDR staff, October to
December2008 . ................................................................................................
24
Table 4.
USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula . .....................................................
25
Table 5.
USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula .................................................25
Table 6.
Parameters for all five alternatives considered. Elevations of maximum
headwater (HW), minimum HW, tailwater elevation and net head (in feet)
are given for each alternative. Design flow (cfs), capacity (MW), average
inflow (cfs), and active storage are detailed for each project . ...... ...................
26
Table 7.
Seasonal energy valuation for hydroelectric projects. Seasonal variations in
energy value are shown for an average water year* (after Table 17-1 of
APA1984) . ....................................................................................................... 27
Table 8. Energy generation estimate summary for the alternatives considered.
Capacity (MW) and annual energy production (GWh) are shown for each
alternative. The modeled plant factor and seasonal benefit are also given
for each alternative. For details of energy calculations, see Appendix B........28
'Fable 9. Reconnaissance -level cost estimates for all alternatives. Rated capacity
(MW) and estimated project cost are presented fore each alterative in
millions of dollars (For details of cost estimates, see Appendix C ...................29
Table 10. Estimated energy cost ($/KWh), economic rank and environmental rank of
all alternatives considered . ................................................................................ 30
iii
Grant Lake -- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
List of Figures
Figure 1. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Grant Lake on the
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska . .................................................................................. 32
Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Grant Creek (section of stream in which
anadromous fish are documented by the AWC; Johnson and Daigneault
2008) . ................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 3. The anadromous reach of Falls Creek . .............................................................. 34
Figure 4. Average monthly flow data at Grant Creek. Average annual flow (for
period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5246000) is shown as a
solid horizontal line (193 cfs) . ........ ................................................................. 35
Figure 5. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek . .............................................. ................ 35
Figure 6. Mean monthly discharge of Falls Creek, modeled using data from USGS
gage 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios
developed by Ebasco (APA 1984; using one open water season of flow
data. at Falls Creek) ........................................................................................... 36
Figure 7. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the
x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on the y-axis .......... 37
Figure 8. Grant Creek discharge data . .............................................................................. 38
Figure 9. Falls Creek modeled discharge based on data from USGS gauge 15246000
(1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by
Ebasco (APA 1984) using one open water season of current flow data . .......... 39
Figure 10. Private Parcels near Grant Lake . ..................................................................... 40
Figure 12. Private parcels of Falls Creek area . ................................................................. 41
Figure 13. Water rights and mineral claims in the Grant Lake area .................................42
Figure 14. Water rights and mineral claims in the Grant Lake area .................................43
Figure 15. Alternative I for propos project at Grant Lake . .............................................. 44
Figure 16. Maximum energy analysis for Alternative 3 (impoundment and
drawdown) during an average water year . ........................................................ 45
iv
Grant Lake -- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADF&G
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AEIDC
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (University of Alaska)
AHRS
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
APA
Alaska Power Authority
AWC
Anadromous Waters Catalog
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
°C
Degrees Celsius
cfs
Cubic feet per second
cm
centimeter
OF
Degrees Fahrenheit
DNR
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
fps
feet per second
ft
feet
G&A
general and administrative
GWh
Gigawatt-hours
HEP
Hydroelectric Evaluation Program
in
inch
KPB
Kenai Peninsula Borough
kWh
kilowatt-hours
LLC
Limited liability company
mi
mile
mm
millimeter
MSL
Mean sea level
MW
Megawatt
MWh
Megawatt -hours
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
O&M
Operations & maintenance
RVDs
Recreation visitor days
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFS
U.S. Forest Service
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USES
U.S. Geological Survey
N
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Introduction
Kenai Hydro LLC contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to evaluate the feasibility of small-scale
hydroelectric projects at Crescent Lake, Ptarmigan Lake, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake near
Moose Pass, Alaska (Figure 1).
This reconnaissance report examines the viability of several alternatives for small-scale
hydroelectric energy generation at Grant Creek that would minimize environmental and other
impacts. A team consisting of engineers and environmental scientists made reconnaissance —
level site visits and analyzed existing information in order to determine if further feasibility
analyses were appropriate based on potential constructability, cost effectiveness, and potential
environmental impacts.
The scope of work defined for this assignment included;
• Field reconnaissance by team members;
• Review of available project documentation and related information;
• Development of conceptual alternatives;
• Review of existing hydraulic and hydrologic parameters;
• Estimation of energy production and new facility costs;
• Preparation of this reconnaissance report.
This report should be considered a high-level overview intended to identify projects which
demonstrate a basic measure of feasibility and to eliminate projects that have evident fatal flaws
from an engineering and/or economic perspective.
Previous Studies
The hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake (Figure 1) has been evaluated several times as a
potential power source for the Seward/Kenai Peninsula area. In 1954, R.W. Beck and Associates
(cited by APA 1984) prepared a preliminary investigation and concluded that a project was
feasible. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic investigations of proposed
power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). In
1980 C142M Hill (cited by APA, 1984) prepared a pre -feasibility study for a Grant Lake project
and concluded that a project developed at the site would be feasible. The Grant Lake Project was
referenced in the 1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Hydroelectric Power
Resources Study (USACE 1981). The most extensive study was performed by Ebasco Services,
Inc. in 1984 for the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority; APA 1984). Two
of the alternatives evaluated by Ebasco included the diversion of adjacent Falls Creek into Grant
Lake to provide additional water for power generation. This report relies on the Ebasco report
for the basis of the current technical conclusions with regard to hydrology, geotechnical, and
environmental considerations.
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
The Ebasco report evaluated six project alternatives and concluded that the preferred alternative
was a 7 megawatt (MW) hydroelectric project (Alternative D from APA 1984) that consisted of
a lake -tap intake on the west shore of Grant Lake connected by a tunnel to a powerhouse located
at the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes. The project would make use of
approximately 48,000 acre-feet (AF) of storage during operations between pool elevations of
691-660 feet (ft). Average annual energy from the project was estimated at 25 gigawatt-hours
(GWh). The estimated capital cost was $24.7 million in 1983 dollars. The benefit -cost ratio was
1.2.
The Alaska Power Authority (APA) and Ebasco conducted detailed environmental studies of
water use and quality; aquatic, botanical and wildlife resources; historical and archaeological
resources; socioeconomic impacts; geological and soil resources; recreational resources;
aesthetic resources; and land use. The primary environmental impact of Ebasco's preferred
project would have been the complete dewatering and subsequent loss of all fish habitat in Grant
Creek (natural outflow from Grant Lake; APA 1984). Under this alternative, Grant Creek would
have been completely dewatered except for localized run-off and high flow events resulting in
spill from the reservoir (APA 1984).
Project Area
The project is located near the town of Moose Pass, Alaska (pop. 206), approximately 25 miles
north of Seward, Alaska (pop. 3,016), just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9); this
highway connects Anchorage (pop. 279,671) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the route
of the Seward Highway, and is also adjacent to the project area. The town of Cooper Landing is
Iocated 24 miles to the northwest and is accessible via the Sterling Highway (State Route 1)
which connects to the Seward Highway approximately 10 miles northwest of Moose Pass.
Grant Lake is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast from Moose Pass. It is located at an
elevation of approximately 696 ft above mean sea level (MSL), with a maximum depth of nearly
300 ft and surface area of 2.6 square miles (APA 1984). Grant Lake's total drainage area is
approximately 44 square miles. Tributaries include Inlet Creek at the headwaters and other
glacial -fed streams in the watershed. Grant Lake consists of an upper and lower portion
separated by a natural constriction and island near the midpoint. The lake is ringed by mountains
of the Kenai Mountain Range to the east, north, and south, with elevations ranging from 4, 500
to 5,500 ft.
Grant Lake supports resident populations of sculpin (Cottidae) and threespine stickleback
(Gasterosteus aculeatus), but salmon were not caught in Grant Lake or any of its tributaries
during environmental assessments (USFWS 1961; AEIDC 1982; APA 1984); it is not included
in the Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) published by Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G; Johnson and Daigneault 2008).
Grant Lake's only outlet, Grant Creek, runs west approximately 1 mile from the south end of
Grant Lake to drain into the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lake. Trail River drains
Lower Trail Lake, and then flows into Kenai Lake. Kenai Lake drains to the Kenai River at its
west end near Cooper Landing (APA 1984). Grant Creek has a mean annual flow of 193 cubic
feet per second (efs; see Hydrology and Water Quality below), is 5,180 ft long, with an average
gradient of 207 ft/mi; its substrate includes cobble and boulder alluvial deposits and gravel
2
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
shoals (APA 1984). The stream is 25 ft wide on average. In its upper half, the stream passes
through a rocky gorge with three substantial waterfalls; in its lower half, the stream becomes less
turbulent as it passes over gravel shoals and diminishing boulder substrate (APA 1984). Grant
Creek is included in the AWC due to the presence of spawning Chinook, sockeye and coho
salmon and rearing coho salmon (Johnson and Daigneault 2008).
Falls Creek is located approximately 2 miles south of the south end of Grant Lake; it flows into
Trail River just downstream of Lower Trail Lake (approximately 1.8 miles downstream of Grant
Creek). The Falls Creek watershed drains steep terrain between the Grant Lake and Ptarmigan
Lake watersheds, is 11.9 square miles in area, contains no lakes, and has no major tributaries.
Estimated mean annual flow of Falls Creek is 38 cfs; stream flow during the winter is minimal.
Falls Creek is 42,240 ft (approx. 8 miles) long, average stream gradient is 418 ft/mi and stream
width averages 15 ft wide. The Falls Creek substrate includes cobble, boulder deposits, few
gravel bars and a thin layer of fine silt near the mouth; the lower one mile of stream has been
extensively channelized and modified by placer mining (APA 1984), Three to four acres
adjacent to the active channel in the lower 0.5 miles are covered with tailings and 100 yards of
the streambed in this area has been relocated (AEIDC 1982).
The lower 2,300 ft of Falls Creek is classified as anadromous in the AWC (Chinook present;
Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Anadromous species (juvenile Chinook and juvenile Dolly
Varden) have been found in its lower half; a series of waterfalls prevents fish passage above that
point (Johnson and Daigneault 2008; AFIDC 1982).
Environmental Considerations
The following presents a general overview of potential expected environmental considerations
for a hydroelectric project at Grant Lake. This section describes fish resources, wetlands,
hydrology and water quality, recreation, subsistence, and cultural resources of the project area.
The area is managed using several specific management plans, including the Chugach National
Forest Plan (Meade 2006), Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (DNR 1998), and
Kenai Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Another search for all relevant land
management plans would be required as part of FERC licensing and by other required permitting
processes.
Ebasco (APA 1984) compiled a detailed feasibility report on the Grant Lake hydroelectric
project, including environmental issues. The Arctic Environmental Data Center (AIEDC 1982)
and USFWS (1961) conducted environmental baseline studies in the project area. For the
purposes of this feasibility report, HDR Alaska did not conduct any environmental work beyond
initial reconnaissance visits and a few instantaneous flow measurements (see Hydrology and
Water Quality below).
Project Area Fish Resources
Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek support different assemblages of fish species and
possess varying quality and quantity of fish habitat. Only non-anadromous fish have been found
in Grant Lake (AIEDC 1982, USFWS 1961, Johnson and Daigneault 2008), whereas
3
Grant Lake -- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
anadromous fish are present in Grant and Falls Creeks (Figure 2). The following sections
provide information on fish resources for each water body.
Grant Lake Fish Resources
Grant Lake is divided into upper and lower basins by a narrow shallow area, preventing effective
mixing between the basins (Figure 1). Limited mixing results in the upper basin being more
sediment -laden than the lower basin. The shoreline of Grant Lake is made up of slopes of steep
bedrock with isolated small gravel deposits formed by runoff(APA 1984).
A 1981-1982 sampling program found no fish in any of the tributaries of Grant Lake (AEIDC
1982). Sculpin and threespine stickleback were the only fish found to inhabit Grant Lake. A
series of impassable fallst near Grant Lake's outlet prevents colonization of the lake by
salmonids via Grant Creek (APA 1984).
Grant Lake supports a "small" population of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and a "dense"
population of threespine stickleback (USFWS 1961). Density of threespine stickleback was ten
times higher in the lower basin than the upper basin of Grant Lake (AEIDC 1982).
Grant Creek Fish Resources
Both anadromous and resident fish are present in Grant Creek, including salmon, trout and other
Fish. Spawning Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawyacha), sockeye (Oneorhynchus nerka), and coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), as well as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Dolly
Varden are found in the lower reaches of Grant Creek (APA 1984; Johnson and Daigneault
2008). Rearing Chinook, coho and rainbow trout are also present (APA 1984, Johnson and
Daigneault 2008). Round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus
arcticus) were caught during angling surveys, but not assumed to spawn in Grant Creek (APA
1984).
Upper Grant Creek is impassable to salmon one half (APA 1984) to one mile (Johnson and
Daigneault 2008) upstream of the mouth; fish habitat is most likely concentrated within the
lower portion of stream. Habitat for juvenile fish exists mainly in stream margins, eddies, deep
pools and side channels offering reduced velocities (APA 1984). Substrate material is coarse
throughout the entire length of the creek due to high water velocity, which tends to wash away
smaller gravels. Isolated areas of suitable spawning gravels occur in the lower half of the stream
(APA 1984).
Periodic minnow trapping on Grant Creek from July 1959 through January 1961 captured
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden and sculpin (extent of sampling area unknown;
USFWS 1961). Minnow trapping and electrofishing in lower reaches of Grant Creek for week-
long periods in October 1981 and March, May, June, and August 1982 yielded higher catches of
trout, salmon and Dolly Varden in the fall and summer than in winter and spring (AEIDC 1982
in APA 1984; AIEDC 1983). Catches of Dolly Varden were generally most abundant in minnow
12007 ADFG Stream survey referenced in Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08- 153,
http://www.sfadfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FisbDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Revort
traps, followed by juvenile Chinook, juvenile rainbow trout, and juvenile coho. Juvenile
Chinook were the most commonly caught fish during electrofishing surveys (APA 1984).
Fish may delay one to two months between entry into the Kenai River and arrival at Grant Creek,
previous studies have concentrated efforts of spawning surveys from mid August and early
September (APA 1984).
APA (1984) estimated that Grant Creek supported 250 Chinook spawners and 1,650 sockeye
spawners (APA 1984). These estimates were likely biased low due to visual counting methods.
The stream was also estimated to support 209 8-inch "trout" (including Dolly Varden and
rainbow trout; APA 1984). Spawning coho were not surveyed (APA 1984), but have been
recorded as being present at unknown levels in the stream by the AWC (Johnson and Daigneault
2008). Maximum counts from intermittent stream surveys by ADFG were 76 Chinook (1963)
and 324 (1952) sockeye salmon.2
In 1984, less than 500 angler -days of fishing were estimated for rainbow trout, Dolly Varden and
whitefish (APA 1984). Current 2009 sport fishing regulations allow sport fishing on Grant
Creek June I 1 — May 1. Grant Creek is closed to all salmon fishing. Rainbow trout are limited
to one fish less than 16 inches long per day. Dolly Varden are limited to one fish less than 16
inches long per day.3 Current sport fishing effort is unknown.
Chinook salmon
Typically, Chinook returning to Grant Creek were part of the early season salmon run (May
through late June; APA 1984) which is characterized by salmon that tend to spawn in tributaries
(Boggs et al. 1997). Chinook juveniles were observed most often in the lower part of the creek,
but during October (1981) were distributed throughout the creek from the mouth of the gorge to
the stream mouth at Trail Lake. Fish caught in March, May and June were greater than 65 mm
(2.6 in), suggesting they would probably smolt in June (APA 1984). Juvenile Chinook were the
second -most abundant fish after Dolly Varden in minnow trap catches (APA 1984). Juvenile
Chinook were present year-round in minnow trap surveys, but in low numbers in March, May,
and June, suggesting they were either very inactive during these months or had left the system to
rear elsewhere prior to downstream migration (APA 1984); these fish may have reared in Trail
River or Kenai Lake. hearing in Trail Lakes is assumed unlikely due to the high turbidity of the
lakes (Dudiak 1980). Natural emergence may have been later than June because no young of the
year were captured in minnow traps until August, but this could have been caused by gear bias;
young of the year were caught during electrofishing surveys in May, though they may have been
stimulated out of the gravel by electrofishing (APA 1984).
2Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream Nomination #08-153,
http://www.s f adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm
3 http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/regulations/southcentral/SCkenai.pdf
Grant Lake -- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Coho salmon
Surveys found juvenile coho to use Grant Creek for rearing, but that they were present in small
numbers (APA 1984). Coho were caught nearly exclusively in the lower part of the stream, but
were low in abundance. Length (40 mm [1.6 in]), of several fish caught in August 1982
suggested that coho spawn in Grant Creek, since juvenile coho do not generally venture far from
their natal areas, and flow at the mouth of Grant Creek is very rapid (APA 1984). Older, larger
coho were thought to be recruited into Grant Creek from the turbid waters of Trail Lake since
fish up to 103 mm (4.2 in) were caught (APA 1984).
Sockeye salmon
Peak counts averaged 61 sockeye salmon for the years 1952-1981, but these counts were
probably underestimates due to infrequency of spawning surveys (e.g. foot surveys) and poor
visibility due to high turbidity and high discharge rates (APA 1984). No juvenile sockeye were
caught in minnow trapping or electrofishing efforts (APA 1984).
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout were evenly distributed in the lower reaches of Grant Creek and ranged from 43
to 106 mm in length (1.8 to 4.2 inches). Catches were greatest in October (including many
young of the year), suggesting spring spawning may occur in Grant Creek. Many of these young
of the year may have moved upstream from the Trail Lakes area to rear and are generally
inactive during the winter months (APA 1984).
Dolly Varden
Dolly Varden were more abundant near the mouth of Grant Creek, except in August, when they
were distributed throughout the lower creek. No spawning Dolly Varden were observed. It is
possible that the high abundance of fish in August may be a result of fish moving into Grant
Creek to feed and avoid high turbidity (APA 1984). A variety of size classes of Dolly Varden
were caught (55mm to 30cm [2.2 to 11.8 in]; APA 1984).
Falls Creek Fish Resources
Anadromous fish are present in Falls Creek (Figure 3). The most information on fish is available
for Grant Creek, the only water body in the area possessing documented runs of spawning
anadromous fish. Current 2009 sport fishing regulations allow sport fishing on Falls Creek June
1 I — May 1. Falls Creek is closed to all salmon fishing. Rainbow trout are limited to one fish
less than 16 inches long per day. Dolly Varden are limited to one fish less than 16 inches long
per days. Current sport fishing effort is unknown.
The following provides information on fish resources of Falls Creek. Previous investigators
suggested that Falls Creek may have limited salmon spawning potential in the lower mile of
Falls Creek due to low water temperatures that may limiting its production; this was supported
4 http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/regulations/southeentral/SCkenai.pdf
T
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
by a lack of observations of spawning salmon during week-long field visits in October 1981 and
March, May, June, and August 1982 (AEIDC 1982 and 1983). Instrearn cover available to
juvenile fish consists of debris jams and a few cutbank meanders (AEIDC 1982). In 1960
minnow trapping, juvenile Chinook were only caught in the lower 200 yards of the stream,
though traps were set from the mouth to one mile upstream (months sampled: June -November;
USFWS 1961).
Wetlands
Most bogs in the project area exist on the ridge separating Lower Trail Lake from Grant Lake.
Others exist in areas of low relief in mixed and coniferous forests (APA 1984). These wet
meadow range from extremely wet, floating mats to firm, treed bogs with many shrubs. Many of
the bogs have a wet spot or small pond in the center (APA 1984). No information exists in
historical reports for the Falls Creek area regarding wetlands. No additional investigation of
wetlands was performed for the purposes of this feasibility report. Data regarding wetlands
resources in the project area are available from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping
system, this type of detailed assessment was outside the scope of this reconnaissance -level
report.
Hydrology and Water Quality
In 1947, the USGS installed a stream gage (#15246000) approximately 0.3 miles upstream of the
mouth of Grant Creek. This gage recorded continuously for I I years between 1947 and 1958
(average annual flow was 193 cfs; drainage area at gage site is 44.2 square miles; Figure 4).
Flow was generally lower in the winter months (December through April, <50 cfs; Figure 4).
During the ice -free seasons (June through September) flow exceeded 300 cfs (Figure 4). Peak
flow occurred during the month of July, with an average of 518 cfs (Figure 4). Grant Creek's
flows rarely exceeded 600 cfs or dropped below 50 cfs (Figure 5).
To estimate the hydrology of Falls Creek, the daily flows of gage #15246000 at Grant Creek
were scaled by factors determined by Ebasco (APA 1984; Table 1) to create a simulated daily
flow file. In estimating the hydrology for hydropower generation, it was assumed that the Falls
Creek basin will be snowbound and frozen during the months of November through April and
therefore generation is not possible (and therefore was not estimated). Using this assumption, for
this period of record the average flow (May -Oct) was estimated to be 56 cfs (Figure 6). During
ice -free months, Falls Creek's flow was modeled to be lowest during break-up and freeze-up in
May (8 cfs) and October (I I cfs), and highest in mid summer (approximately 110 cfs). The flow
simulation rarely exceeded 200 cfs or dropped below 70 cfs (Figure 7).
Historical water quality data were limited to a few studies between 1959 and 1981 (USFWS
1961, ADF&G 1981 cited by APA 1984, Quilliam 1982 cited by APA 1984 and USGS 1981
cited by APA 1984). A year -long water quality monitoring program was also carried out at
Grant Lake and Grant Creek from 1981 to 1982 (AEIDC 1982). Water quality in the study area
was generally good and met all applicable water quality standards, except certain trace metal
concentrations occasionally exceeded 24-hr average Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
criteria for freshwater aquatic life. Waters in the study area were found to be slightly acidic to
0
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
neutral in pH, soft and low in suspended and dissolved solids. Grant Lake was found to be
oligotrophic (low in nutrients), typical of similar lakes in southcentral Alaska (APA 1984).
Grant Lake was thermally stratified in August and September, although a sharply defined
thermocline was not observed. Summer temperatures ranged from 14 °C (57°F) at the surface to
5°C (41OF) at 98 ft deep. Fall overturn commenced in mid -September 1982 and October 1981.
In March 1982, an inverted thermocline was present, with temperatures ranging from 20C at the
ice/water line to VC (39°F) at 9.8 ft deep. Spring overturn was complete by June, with an
isothermal profile at approximately 6°C (43°F; APA 1984).
Historical Grant Creek temperatures ranged from 13 to 0°C (55 to 32°F), with temperature
closely related to Grant Lake surface temperatures (maximum difference was less than 1.1°C;
Table 2). Falls Creek was generally colder than Grant Creek, ranging from 7.0°C (12.6°F)
colder in July, 1959, to 2.5°C (4.5°F) colder in October 1981 (APA 1984; Table 2). Water
quality of Falls Creek was typical of low -productivity Kenai Peninsula area streams (AE1DC
1982).
HDR Alaska gathered instantaneous discharge data at Grant Creek on October 4, October 23,
and December 3, 2008. Stream discharge measurements were taken just downstream of the
original site of the USGS stream gauge, at a site that allowed safe fording of the stream, using
standard USGS gauging protocols (Buchanan and Somers 1969; 3). Measurements from 2008
were compiled with historical discharge data from USGS Gage 15246000 (1947-1958; Figure 8).
Wetted stream width ranged from 35.0 (October 4, 2008) to 38.9 ft (December 3, 2008; Table 3).
Stream flow and stream widths were measured at Falls Creek on October 5 and October 24, 2008
(Table 2). Measurements were taken at a site approximately 100 ft downstream of the Seward
Highway Bridge. Falls Creek modeled discharge data were compiled with field measurements
from 2008; data were generated from USGS gauge 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek and
adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984) using one open water season of
current flow data from Falls Creek (Figure 9).
Recreation
Lands in the project area are predominantly undeveloped, with high scenic and recreational
value. The Kenai Peninsula supports significant tourism from residents of the region, of
Anchorage, of Alaska and from outside of Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal
Management Plan (KPB 2008) includes Grant Creek/Grant I..ake as a designated recreation use
area.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administers Chugach National Forest, which surrounds most of
the project area; Grant Lake is located within the Seward ranger district. Peak use of area
campgrounds (Table 4) coincides with salmon runs (APA 1984). Total recreational use in the
campgrounds in 1981 was estimated at 442,400 recreation visitor days (RVDs), representing
40% of l .l million total RVDs for the entire Chugach National Forest (APA 1984).
8
Grant Fake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
The project area currently is not developed for recreation, with the exception of a few of trails
developed by users but not maintained by USFS. These informal trails consist of trails from both
Upper and Lower Trail Lakes to Grant Lake, snow machine trails to Grant Lake and a primitive
road to mining claims on Falls Creek. Only the Vagt Lake trail is maintained as part of the
USFS trail system; Vagt Lake is stocked with rainbow trout for recreational fishing (APA 1984).
Other USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula are shown in Table 5.
More detailed information assessing recreational use of the project and adjacent areas is needed
in order to comply with requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
license application. Detailed user data are available upon request from the USFS, but inclusion
and analysis of these data were outside the scope of this reconnaissance -level report.
The project area received limited recreational use such as fishing, hunting, hiking, backpacking
and camping, mostly in spring and summer. Hunters occasionally canoe on Grant Lake.
Snowmobiles also utilize the area in winter (APA 1984). The project lies within the
Ptarmigan/Grant Lake subunit of Chugach National Forest for backcountry motorized winter use,
and receives very little use from any winter user group (motorized or non -motorized; Meade
2006). Helicopter skiing is permitted in the Ptarmigan/Grant Lake subunit (Meade 2006).
Principle recreation attractions are hunting, fishing, and opportunity for experiencing the
backcountry (APA 1984). Game animals present in the area were: mountain goat, black bear,
brown bear, Dail sheep, and moose (APA 1984). Float plane and foot travel were the only
means of access to hunting areas such as the east end of Grant Lake (APA 1984). Recreational
fishing for Dolly Varden and rainbow trout was limited to the lower portion of Grant Creek and
is also limited by difficult access, either by boat via Trail Lakes or by hiking several miles from
the highway (APA 1984).
Estimates of recreational use within the project area or in the project vicinity are limited to USFS
statistics on use of Vagt Lake Trail (a two-hour round trip hike), which received an estimated
500 RVDs in 1981 (unpublished data, Chugach National Forest cited by APA 1984). In 1981, a
hiking trail paralleled Vagt Creek to lower Trail Lake and appeared to be well used (AEIDC
1982). AEIDC (1981) reported sport fishing in the creek to be poor due to its small size and
placement of barriers to prevent fish outmigration from Vagt Lake.
Backpackers were observed camping at Grant Lake in the 1980s, mostly at the northern end of
the lower basin, but the USFS had not estimated use during the I980s (APA 1984; it is not
known whether the USFS currently tracks usage of Grant Lake). APA (1984) estimated 72
RVDs per year for Grant Lake based on two backpacking parties per month, an average party
size of three people, a four month backpacking season, and an average stay of 36 hours (APA
1984).
Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources
Subsistence
Grant Creek, Grant Lake, and the surrounding areas are not designated a subsistence use area by
the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Qualified residents of
Cooper Landing may harvest moose in game units 7, 15A and 15B on the Kenai Peninsula under
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Federal subsistence regulations5 (Grant Lake is located in game unit 7.) Federally -qualified
subsistence users of Cooper Landing are also allowed to take salmon through a dip net/rod-and-
reel fishery, and lake trout, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout in the Kenai River through a rod -
and -reel fishery 6 . A more detailed analysis of subsistence uses of the project area will be
required by FERC licensing and other permitting processes.
Cultural and historic resources
Based on a preliminary investigation of Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) data at the
State Office of History and Archaeology, 65 cultural resource sites have been documented in the
general vicinity of Grant Lake, Falls Creek, and Ptarmigan Lake. Several of the sites are listed
on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Most cultural resource sites are
located along Upper and Lower Trail lakes and Trail River. Several mining -related sites are
located in the area between Falls Creek and Grant Lake. A more detailed review of cultural and
historic resources of the project area will be necessary to comply with requirements of the FERC
license application process.
Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights
HDR real estate specialists researched public land, private holdings (Figures 10 and 11), mineral
claims and water rights (Figures 12 and 13) of the Grant Lake and Falls Creek areas using
information from Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land status maps? and case
file abstracts8, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)9, the State Recorder's Officelo and Kenai
Peninsula Borough". A detailed investigation of private landholdings, mining claims and water
rights will be integral in identifying stakeholders in the permitting process.
All lands on which project facilities would be located are under either State or Federal ownership
(Figures 10 and 11). No private lands are known to overlap with project facility footprints.
Private property (33 parcels; Figure 11) is located along the Seward Highway and the lower
portion of the Falls Creek access road.
HDR real estate specialists investigated both State and Federal mining claims (Figures 12 and
13). It will be necessary to work closely with State/Federal agencies and the claim holders.
Ideally, recreational mining claims would be extinguished by paying a negotiated amount;
however it is conceivable that the price for a claim could depend on provable grade and quantity
5 http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/newsrel/r05O2O8.html
6 http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/newsrel/rO5llO7.htmi
7 http://mapper.landrecords.info/
' http://dnr,alaska.gov/projects/las/iasmenu.cfm
9 http://sdms.ak.bim.gov/sdms/
10 http://dnralaska.gov/ssd/recoff/search.cfm
http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/assessingdept/
10
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
of the locatable mineral. A records search found four mining claims to the north of Grant Lake
(Figure 12; see Appendix A for more information).
As of 1984, Falls Creek was used extensively for placer mining during summer months. Land
adjacent to Falls Creek is almost continuously claimed for placer mining from 1,300 ft elevation
to the mouth for the creek. Mining claims (Figure 13) are located both along Falls Creek and on
hillsides of the drainage (15 federal mining claims and four state mining claims within the
project area). Several of these claims were seen during site visits and are located in the vicinity
of the preferred intake site (Figure 13; see Appendix A for more information).
Neither Grant Creek nor Grant Lake is currently used for domestic water supply. In the 1980s, a
seasonal mining operation existed on the north shore of Grant Lake's lower basin. Water from
streams feeding the lake is used for placer mining; a small amount of this water is presumably
used for domestic purposes (APA 1984). APA (1984) reported that this mining operation holds a
permit for use of 0.36 cfs to be taken from Grant Lake and an unnamed stream flowing into
Grant Lake. No domestic use of water from Grant Creek occurs, though the lower half mile is
recreationally fished (APA 1984). FOR's search of official records yielded no documented
water rights within the Grant Lake drainage (Figure 12; see Appendix A for detailed information
on water rights); more detailed research into water rights is warranted.
A search of official records found that the Falls Creek project area contains one subsurface water
right at its far west end (Figure 13). APA (1984) noted that several cabins were located within 2
miles of the mouth of Falls Creek and operated under USFS special use permits; water was likely
carried in from outside the project vicinity. A water right of I cfs was reported (for placer
mining on Falls Creek at 1200 ft elevation; APA 1984). As with the Grant Lake area, more
detailed research of water right in the Falls Creek area is warranted.
Alternative Project Arrangements
In the past, several different alternatives were proposed to produce hydroelectric power at Grant
Lake. This section of the report revisits the preferred alternative from 1984 (APA 1984) and
presents additional new configurations. The following alternatives were considered:
• Alternative I — Run -of -river
• Alternative 2 — Low head intake structure
• Alternative 3 — Low head intake structure and drawdown
• Alternative 4 — Lake tap, tunnel and powerhouse located on Trail Lake (1984 preferred
alternative)
• Alternative 5 — Low head intake structure, drawdown, and diversion of Falls Creek
All new alternatives assumed that a powerhouse would be located on Grant Creek at elevation
530 ft (which is to be verified with better topography is located near the boundary of high and
low quality fish habitat; Figure 2). Each new alternative has a different amount of active storage.
Grant Lake -- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Powerhouse location and active storage are discussed below. Our assumption was that any
project would require a low-level outlet at the natural outlet to Grant Lake to release flows into
Grant Creek in times of plant outages. Each alternative considered is discussed below.
Powerhouse Location
In 1984, Ebasco (APA 1984) completed a detailed feasibility analysis and concluded that the
powerhouse should be located approximately V2 mile north of the point where Grant Creek enters
the Trail Lake system (Figure 1). With this configuration, flow would have been completely
diverted from Grant Creek. To offset negative impacts to Grant Creek fish, the APA (1984)
study proposed off -site mitigation at a location other than Grant Creek.
In the last 25 years, the regulatory climate has changed dramatically. In particular for
hydroelectric projects, fish resources have become one of the major issues for proposed projects
to address. The resource agencies almost always require diverted flows to be returned to the
original source as close as possible to the anadromous barrier (if one exists). In the case of
storage projects, instrearn flow requirements are almost always required for fish.
It is extremely unlikely that the preferred alternative from APA (1984) would be viable today
due to the flow restrictions that would be placed on operations. Preliminary estimates are that
energy generation of this alternative could be reduced by 40-70% from what has been previously
assumed due to these requirements.
This study assumes that any new powerhouse would be located on or near Grant Creek so all
diverted flows are returned back to Grant Creek. A detailed fisheries assessment is beyond the
scope of reconnaissance -level study but for the purposes of defining alternatives, the anadromous
fish barrier and subsequently the tailwater elevation was assumed to be at elevation 530 ft
(Figure 2). This elevation will be confirmed with more detailed topographic mapping when
available.
Active Storage
With any hydroelectric project, energy generation will increase and operational concerns will
ease if storage of water is possible in comparison to the same project operating in a run -of -river
mode. The initial amount of storage to capture this benefit is usually small in comparison to the
annual yield of the basin. This operational storage may only be equivalent to a few minutes,
hours or days of operation.
Active storage in excess of operational storage would allow the ability to seasonally shift
generation by capturing high flows (that might otherwise have passed as spill) and release this
water later in the year (to supplement low natural flows). Thus, the cost of providing storage
above the operational requirement needs to be offset by the increase in generating revenue that
comes from seasonally shifting the generation.
The seasonal benefit of generation is much easier to define in isolated power grids where often
the new hydroelectric project is the prime generator. In the case of Grant Lake, the project
would be a small component of a complex integrated system. Determination of the seasonal
12
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Resort
characteristics of the market, and thus the benefits, can be a significant task and is beyond the
scope of this study. However, in this evaluation we did assume that a seasonal benefit would
exist in some form to allow comparison of alternatives with storage and without.
For a Grant Lake project, active storage could be accomplished with a siphon or lake tap intake
that allows for drawdown, a structure which provides impoundment or a combination of the two.
Alternative l: Run -of -River Project
Alternative I is considered the base case and would be comprised of a simple diversion structure
or intake located at the natural outlet to Grant Lake (Figure 14). A sluiceway capable of
releasing incremental flows (should the plant be taken offline) and a spillway would be located
next to the intake. An above -ground steel penstock supported on saddles would convey water to
the powerhouse (Figure 14). Water velocity was limited to 12 feet per second (fps) in
determining the size of the penstock. A surge tank was assumed to be needed, and would be
located near the top of the slope. A concrete -reinforced powerhouse structure would contain a
single Francis -type turbine, synchronous generator and associated switchgear and controls
(Figure 14). A new route beginning at the downstream end of Lower Trail Lake and continuing
around the east side of Vagt Lake would split to provide access to the powerhouse and the intake
sites (Figure 14). An overhead transmission line would connect directly to the existing
transmission line along the Seward Highway. Detailed parameters for Alternative 1 are shown in
Table S.
Alternative 2: Impoundment
This alternative would provide active storage (see Active Storage, above) by creating a small
impoundment of Grant Lake. Key features would include a 9-foot-high concrete gravity
structure located at the outlet of Grant Lake. An intake and sluiceway would be constructed
integral to the structure. The remaining project features would be the same as in Alternative 1
(for detailed parameters, see Table 5).
Alternative 3: Impoundment + Drawdown
Alternative 3 would enhance Alternative 2 by providing additional active storage through
drawdown of Grant Lake below its naturally occurring minimum elevation. Drawdown would
be made possible by extending a pipeline into the lake and installing vacuum pump equipment.
At low lake levels the intake would act as a siphon allowing the lake to be drawn down to an
elevation of 675 ft. Detailed parameters for Alternative 3 are shown in Table 5.
Alternative 4: Ebasco's 1984 Preferred Project
Alternative 4 was the preferred project identified by Ebasco (APA 1984; Alternative D), and
would consist of a lake tap in Grant Lake, a tunnel from Grant Lake to the powerhouse on Upper
Trail Lake and a powerhouse located on Upper Trail Lake. Detailed parameters for Alternative 4
are shown in Table 5.
13
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Alternative 5: Impoundment + Drawdown + Falls Creek
Earlier evaluations identified the possibility of increasing flows in Grant Creek by diverting
nearby Falls Creek. Alternative 4 would combine the features of Alternative 3 with the diversion
of Falls Creek in order to augment flows available for hydroelectric generation. Detailed
parameters for Alternative 5 are shown in Table 5.
Summary of Alternatives
Table 6 summarizes the key parameters of alternatives that were evaluated. Maximum
headwater for alternatives that would not include storage would be lower for Alternatives I and 4
(691 ft, natural elevation of Grant Lake). For alternatives that would feature storage, the
maximum headwater would be located at an elevation of 700 ft. Minimum headwater would be
lower in alternatives that would feature drawdown (Alternatives 3 and 5, both 675 ft) or a lake
tap (Alternative 4, 660 ft). Projects including no drawdown would have a minimum headwater
at 691 ft, Grant Lake's natural elevation. All alternatives would include a tailwater elevation of
530 ft (powerhouse located alongside Grant Creek), except the alternative that would employ a
lake tap and powerhouse on Trail Lake (470 ft). Alternative 4, with a powerhouse at Trail Lake,
would utilize the greatest net head (206 ft); net head for alternatives with a powerhouse along
Grant Creek would range from 145 ft (Alternative 1) to 154 ft (Alternatives 2, 3 and 5; Table 6),
depending on drawdown and storage.
Design flow was 430 efs (see Turbine Sizing, below) for all alternatives except Alternative 4
(lake tap to Trail Lake), designed for 460 cfs (Table 6). It follows that all alternatives would
have a capacity of 4.7 MW, except Alternative 4 which could generate 7.0 MW because of its
higher head and flows. All alternatives would use an average inflow of 193 cfs, except for
Alternative 5, which would utilize an average inflow for 222 cfs (with addition of flows from
Falls Creek). Alternative 1 provides no storage, as would operate in run -of -the -river mode.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 include 38,500 AF of active storage. Alternative 4 provides the most
storage, at 48,000 AF (Table 6).
Turbine Sizing
For Alternative 1, the rated flow of the turbine was sized at 15% on the flow duration curve, or
430 cfs. A sensitivity analysis indicated that design flows within 10% of this assumption yield
near identical energy generation estimates 12. This assumption is appropriate for reconnaissance -
level study. Alternatives utilizing storage (Alternatives 2 through 5) produced similar results; in
order to simplify evaluation of competing alternatives; the design flow was kept constant.
12 For comparison purposes, APA (1984) concluded that the energy from their preferred alternative was nearly
constant over flows ranging from 390-531 cfs (Ref, Table 17-3 of APA 1984).
14
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Other Alternatives Evaluated
An alternative that would have made use of a siphon intake in conjunction with a pipeline to
convey water to a powerhouse on Upper Trail Lake was given a brief evaluation. This
alternative would be similar in energy potential and cost to Alternative 4 (lake tap).
In addition to the environmental concerns listed for Alternative 4, a siphon alternative would
likely require a low level outlet to provide flow for fish and would still require excavation in the
lake. Additionally, with a siphon it is more difficult to provide a multilevel intake (compared to a
traditional intake) to utilize the warmer surface water for fish in the tailrace.
The siphon option would require energy for operation and constant attention by an operator.
Also, with the large diameter penstock piping maintaining a vacuum for the siphon may be
problematic.
The siphon option was dismissed for continued evaluation because of potential operational
issues, added environmental concerns, and ongoing energy costs to maintain the vacuum in the
penstock.
Energy Generation
Energy generation estimates for Alternative 1 were made using HLR's proprietary software
"Hydroelectric Evaluation Program" (HEP). HEP has been specifically designed to model run -
of -river operations. HEP uses tabulated daily flows, turbine and generator efficiencies, friction
coefficients and physical parameters to simulate energy production through a period of record.
Turbine and generator efficiencies are determined from tables. HEP outputs were: effective
capacity rating of the unit(s), simulated production in megawatt -hours (MWh), percent operating
time, and overall plant factor.
Energy generation estimates for alternatives with storage were made using a spreadsheet -based
optimization model. The model uses average monthly flow data and stage/storage characteristics
to optimize dispatch using inflows and storage to maximize energy generation. Outputs from the
model include estimated monthly generation and pool elevations.
Assumptions
The following were key assumptions used in modeling energy production:
* The reservoir was assumed to start full in October and was constrained to return to the
starting elevation at the end of September to maintain year-to-year continuity.
For the alternatives with storage, a water -to -wire efficiency was assumed at 85%. For the
generating equipment likely to be used at this project, turbine efficiencies can vary
greatly depending on the flow. However, at this level of study a constant level of
efficiency was considered appropriate because the storage would allow for optimized
dispatch within the monthly time step, i.e. 30 days of discharge at 200 cfs could be re -
regulated as 15 days of discharge at 400 cfs.
• Tailwater elevation was assumed to remain constant over all flows. In practice, it would
likely vary slightly; however, not enough data were available to refine this assumption.
15
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
• For daily simulations, head loss was calculated using the daily flow. For monthly
simulations, the project was assumed to operate at the best gate position, corresponding
to a 7.5% head loss.
All available flow was used for energy production. No minimum instream flow was
released in the bypass reach of Grant Creek. The tailwater of the powerhouse was placed
at 530 ft elevation to reintroduce water into Grant Creek above the most productive fish
habitat.
Objective Function
When the prices for energy (or other benefits of generation) are not constant throughout the year
due to seasonal variations, it may be desirable to dispatch the project to maximize revenue
instead of energy. To model this situation, seasonal variations in energy values were weighted as
shown in Table 7.
In this reconnaissance -level report, the effect of maximizing energy based upon seasonal
incentive is referred to as the "seasonal benefit" (See Energy Calculations, Appendix B, for more
detail). Figure 15 illustrates this concept for Alternative 3 (impoundment and drawdown) during
an average water year. In this instance weighting the months shifts the generation to the high
value months of December and January. Overall energy generation actually decreased by 1.7%
due to lower headwater elevations but total revenue increased by 6.1% (Figure 15) by generating
more in more valuable months.
Results
Table 8 presents the results of the reconnaissance level energy generation estimates for the
various alternatives. Alternatives featuring storage (Alternatives 2 through 5) would produce
more energy annually (19.0-25.4 GWh) than a run -of -the -river project (Alternative 1; 13.7
GWh). Plant factor, the ratio of average power load to its rated capacity, was lower for the run -
of -the -river project (Alternative 1; 0.33) than for projects featuring storage (Alternatives 2
through 5; 0.42-0.51), due to the tower rated capacity of the run -of -the -river project. Seasonal
benefit ranged from 2.7-6.I % for alternatives with storage, owing to the fact that stored water
could be used to produce energy in winter. A run -of -the -river project would not take advantage
of storage and thus would have no associated seasonal benefit (Table 8).
Cost Estimates
Opinions of probable construction costs were derived for each of the alternatives presented
above. Cost information detail is included in Appendix C. We assumed most alternatives would
make use of many of the same construction features. At this level of study, variances in
alternative project costs can be directly attributed to the type of intake and impoundment.
The approach used was to develop base work units and unit prices and then apply these units and
prices consistently to the various alternatives. This approach allowed a common platform from
which to quickly establish priority amongst the alternatives, although slight differences do exist.
It should also be noted that the project sizes for the various alternatives may not be the true
16
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
optimum. For example, future refinement may determine that the design flow for the turbine
should be slightly greater or smaller than what was assumed. A sensitivity analysis performed as
part of the energy generation estimating process indicated assumed values were appropriate.
Although future refinement of the estimated unit costs or generation estimates may affect the
final benefit/cost evaluation, it should not affect the ranking of the alternatives amongst
themselves.
The following assumptions were used in the cost estimate:
• Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, construction management,
licensing, permitting and the owner's internal costs were added to the direct construction
cost estimate as either percentages or lump sum amounts.
• Design engineering was assumed to be 10% of the total direct construction costs.
• A lump sum value of $1,000,000 was assumed to provide environmental baseline studies
in support of the FERC licensing application. As well as preparation for the FERC
licensing application.
• The Owner's General Administration and Overhead of the design and construction was
assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs.
• Construction management was assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs.
• A contingency of 30% was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs
to reflect uncertainties of layout and design that wouldn't be resolved until later in the
development process.
• Interest accrued during a 3-year construction period was assumed to be 7% and was
added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs.
• The estimate assumed first -year operations and maintenance (O&M) expense were
comprised of the following three expenses
o Total tabor, expenses and owner's general and administrative (G&A) expenses
were estimated at $300,0001yr1.
o A repair and replacement fund of $50,000 was also included.
o General liability and business interruption insurance was estimated at $1.00 per
$100.00 of asset.
" The estimated G&A expense could be reduced if several of the sites investigated are
constructed which would allow some economies to be realized between the similar
operations of the hydroelectric projects.
17
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Cost estimates assumed that the project would be designed for un-manned operations and
would be part of a larger organization; thereby the project would experience lower
administrative expenses. On -site O&M labor would be limited to periodic inspections
and seasonal maintenance.
Results
Table 9 presents the results of the reconnaissance level cost estimates for the five alternatives
considered. It should be noted that the costs in Table 9 are relative and not absolute. A run -of -
the -river project (Alternative 1) would have the lowest estimated project cost of $24.0 M.
Estimated project cost of Alternatives 2 and 3 was similar at $25.3 and $26.3 M, respectively.
Alternatives I through 3 would all provide the same 4.7 MW capacity for energy generation.
Estimated project cost for Alternative 4 ($52.2M) was more than twice that of Alternatives I
through 3, but this project would have a greater capacity of 7.0 MW. Alternative 5 would have
the same capacity as Alternatives I through 3, but this project would have a greater estimated
project cost of $39.8 M (Table 9).
For comparison, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, consumer prices have risen
217% since 1983. Using this statistic, the preferred alternative identified in the APA (1984;
Alternative 4 in this report) would have a current price of approximately $55M.
Economic Evaluation and Alternative Ranking
A detailed economic evaluation was not included in the scope of this work. However, in order to
provide a conceptual view of the economics and to provide a means of ranking the alternatives,
we have made some generic financial assumptions. We have chosen to present the results as
estimated annual cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2008 dollars. In deriving these costs, we
assumed that the project could be financed through the issuance of bonds. Our assumption was
that 100% of the debt would be financed at 6% for 30 years.
Results of the economic evaluation and alternative ranking analysis are shown in Table 10. A
sensitivity analysis of the key assumptions showed the relative ranking of the alternatives
unchanged by reasonable variation in unit prices and quantities, providing verification of the
estimating approach outlined above. It should be noted that the costs in Table 10 are relative and
not absolute.
A complete analysis of cost of each of the alternatives requires not only consideration of the
financial parameters but also an integration of environmental and licensing considerations.
These latter concerns are not nearly as tangible as estimating costs and energy, so their impact on
cost is subjective at this point. Based upon past experience, we have integrated them as fairly as
possible into the ranking (Table 10).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based upon the results of this reconnaissance level study, development of a project at the outlet
to Grant Lake with storage between 10,000-40,000 acre-feet appears to be the most feasible.
Storage levels below this minimum reduce the ability to capture and release high flows. Storage
18
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
levels above this maximum must bear the cost of deepening the channel at mid lake without a
commensurate increase in energy production. The main benefit of increased storage within this
target range is the ability to potentially shift generation to higher valued months.
It is recommended that Alternatives 2 (impoundment) and 3 (impoundment and drawdown), be
studied at a feasibility level in order to better identify project features and costs.
19
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
References
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1998, Kenai River Comprehensive
Management Plan. Rep. from Division of Land and Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and
Restoration Division, and Kenai Peninsula Borough. Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility
Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report, Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated,
Bellevue, Washington.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1982. Preliminary summary oj*
environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area.
Interim report submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of
Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1983 Summary of environmental
knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area. Final Report
submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of Alaska,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Boggs, K., J. C. Davis, A.A. Milner. January 1997. Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources of the
Kenai River Watershed: A Synthesis of Publications. Alaska Natural Heritage Program
for the Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, EPA 91 O/R-97-00 1.
Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P. 1969. Discharge measurements at gauging stations. In
Chapter A8, Book 3, Techniques of water resources investigations of the United States
Geological Survey.
CH2M Hill. 1980. Feasibility assessment — hydropower development at Grant Lake. City of
Seward, AK,
Dudiak, N. 1980. Environmental assessment, Trail Lakes Hatchery, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.
Submitted to U.S. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest by Alaska Dept of Fish and
Game, Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development Division, Anchorage,
Alaska. 1980
Johnson, J. and M. Daigneault. 2008. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or
migration of anadromousfishes — Southcentral Region, Effective June 2, 2008. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 08-05, Anchorage, Alaska.
Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2008. Coastal management plan. Effective June 2008.
Meade, J. 2006. Draft environmental impact statement: Kenai winter access. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest.
Anchorage, Alaska
FT,
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Plafker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan,
and Crescent Lakes, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Quilliam, R. 1982. Personal communication. 1982. Resource Assistant, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Seward, AK.
R. W. Beck and Associates. 1982. Kenai Peninsula power supply and transmission study
supplement.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. National Hydroelectric Power Study, Regional
Report. Regional Report: Volume XXX — Alaska. USACE North Pacific Division,
Portland, Oregon and Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 19b1. Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek,
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, progress report on the fish and wildlife resources. Department
of the Interior. Juneau, Alaska.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1981. Surface water quality records, Soutlicentral Alaska,
1949-1974. Unpublished computer printout.
21
Tables
22
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Tables
Table 1. Falls Creek scale factors
(determined by APA 1984) used to
simulate flow of Falls Creek from
stream flow data collected at Grant
Creek.
Month Scale factor
October 6.2%
November 0
December
0
January
0
February
0
March
0
April
0
Mav
5.2%
Julie
24.2%
JUIV
21.2%
August
14.6%
September 13.4%
23
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Tables
Table 2. Temperature comparisons for Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Falls Creek. Adapted
from Table 2-8 in APA (1984).
Values for Grant Lake were surface temperatures.
Date
Source
Grant
Lake (°F)
Grant
Cr. (°F)
Falls
Cr.
(°F)
Temperature
Difference
between
Grant Lake
and Grant Cr
(OF)
Temperature
difference
between
Grant Cr.
and Falls Cr.
11/3/1959
USFWS (1961)
-
39.9
32.5
-
-
6/8/ 1960
-
46.0
41.0
-
-
6/ 17/ 1960
"
-
53.1
-
-
-
7/20/1960
'"
53.1
52.0
41.0
1.1
11.0
8/8/1960
"
55.0
52.0
-
3.1
-
8/13/1960
52.0
51.1
44.1
0.9
7.0
9/ 1/ 1960
"
-
50.0
42.1
-
-
9/14/1960
-
48.9
41.0
-
-
10/16/1930
44.1
411
36.0
2.0
6.1
10/13/1981
AIEDC (1982)
45.0
42.8
38.3
2.2
4.5
3/2/1982
" "
35.6
33.8
-
1.8
-
6/9/1982
43.9
43.7
39.2
0.2
4.5
8/3/1982
57.2
54.5
41.9
2.7
12.6
Average Temperature
Difference
(OF)
-
-
-
1.7
7.6
Table 3. 2008 instantaneous flow measurements collected by 14DR staff, October to
December 2008.
Site Date Instantaneous Stream Width (ft)
Discharge (cfs)
Grant Creek 10/4/2008 126.0 35.0
10/23/2008 108.3 38.9
12/3/2008 47.3 36.8
Falls Creek 10/5/2008 22.1 19.1
10/24/2008 13.9 16.7
24
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Tables
Table 4. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula.
Location
Number of sites
Cooper Creek
26
Crescent Creek
9
Porcupine Creek
24
Primrose Creek
10
Ptarmigan Creek
16
Quartz Creek
45
Russian River
84
Table 5. USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula.
Location Length (mi)
Carter Lake
3.5
Crescent Creek
6.4
Devil's Pass
10
Grayling Lake
1.5
Gull Rock
5.1
Hope Point
2.5
Johnson Pass
23
Lost Lake
7.5
Primrose
7.5
Ptarmigan Creek
7.1
Rainbow Lake
0.24
M
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Tables
Table 6. Parameters for all five alternatives considered. Elevations of maximum headwater
(HW), minimum HW, tailwater elevation and net head (in feet) are given for each alternative.
Design flow (cfs), capacity (MW), average inflow (cfs), and active storage are detailed for
each project.
Alternative
Description
1
R ver-
River
2
Low Head
Intake
Structure
3
Low Head
Intake
Structure &
Drawdown
4
Lake Tap,
Tunnel &
powerhouse
5
Low Head
Intake
Structure ,
Drawdown &
Falls Creek
Max. Head
691
700
700
691
700
Water (HW), ft
Min. HW, ft
691
691
675
660
675
Tailwater, ft
530
530
530
470
530
Net Head, ft
145
154
154
206
154
Design Flow, cfs
430
430
430
460
430
Capacity, MW
4.7
4.7
4.7
7.0
4.7
Avg. Inflow, cfs
193
193
193
193
222
Active Storage,
0
13,800
38,200
48,000
38,200
AF
26
Grant Lake -- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Tables
Table 7. Seasonal energy valuation for
hydroelectric projects. Seasonal
variations in energy value are shown for
an average water year* (after Table 17-1
of APA 1984).
Month Enerav valuation
October
1.22
November
1.39
December
1.58
January
1.52
February
1.37
March
1.37
April
1.19
May
1.10
June
1.00
July
1.01
August
1.04
September
1. I 0
*Flydrologic water year is defined by the
USGS as the 12-month period from
October through September. The water
year is designated by the calendar year in
which it ends and which includes 9 of the
12 months.
(http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html).
27
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Tables
Table 8. Energy generation estimate summary for the alternatives considered. Capacity (MW)
and annual energy production (GWh) are shown for each alternative. The modeled plant
factor and seasonal benefit are also given for each alternative. For details of energy
calculations, see Appendix B.
Alternative
Description
Capacity
(MW)
Annual
Energy
(GWh)
Plant
Factor*
Seasonal
Benefit
I
Run -of -River
4.7
13.7
0.33
0
2
Impoundment
4.7
19.1
0.47
+2.7%
3
Impoundment &
4.7
19.0
0.46
+6.1%
Drawdown
4
Lake tap, Tunnel,
7.0
25.4
0.42
+4.7%
& Powerhouse
Impoundment,
5
Drawdown, &
4.7
21.1
0.51
+5.2%
Falls Creek
*Plant factor is defined as the ration of power load to rated capacity of a power plant.
28
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Renort - Tables
Table 9. Reconnaissance -level cost estimates for all alternatives. Rated
capacity (MW) and estimated project cost are presented fore each
alterative in millions of dollars (For details of cost estimates, see
Appendix C.
Alternative Description Capacity Est. Project
(MW)
I Run -of -River 4.7
2 Impoundment
3 Impoundment &
Drawdown
4 Lake Tap, Tunnel,
& Powerhouse
Impoundment,
5 Drawdown, &
Falls Creek
29
4.7
4.7
7.0
4.7
Cost
$24.OM
$25.3M
$26.3M
$52.2M
$39.8M
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Tables
Table 10. Estimated energy cost ($/KWh), economic rank and environmental rank of all
alternatives considered.
Alternative
Description
1
Run -of -River
2
Impoundment
3
Impoundment &
Drawdown
4
Lake Tap, Tunnel,
& Powerhouse
5
Impoundment,
Drawdown, &
Falls Creek
Energy Cost Economic Rank Environmental Rank
$/k W h
$0.164 3 1
$0.123 1 2
$0.127 2 3
$0.174 4 5
$0.166 5 4
30
Figures
31
N
M
w
v°
Q`
�i
r
1
O1
d
V
r
s �
J v.
O
ti
r
A
dV
n�Y�..
l l �a�tl7 JaM07f
S
�,i ( §
r
for gj=
c
o
_
anon
it
o
E 2 r
_�
m 'p U
N 0 N
wIL
O
N
O
Upper
-k
CQ
O
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Figures
600 T Grant Creek Mean Monthly Flows
518
M
400
U)
16
3 300
0
w
200
W,
C
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Figure 4. Average monthly flow data at Grant Creek. Average annual flow (for period of record
1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5246000) is shown as a solid horizontal line (193 cfs).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Exceedance
Figure 5. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek.
Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on
the y-axis. This curve was generated using data from the period 1947-1958, from USGS gauge
#5246000.
35
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Figures
120 T Falls Creek Mean Monthly Flows 108 110
100
80
U
3 60
0
U-
40
20
0
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Figure 6. Mean monthly discharge of Falls Creek, modeled using data from USES gage
15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA
1984; using one open water season of flow data. at Falls Creek).
Average annual flow (for period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5246000) is shown as
a solid horizontal line (56 cfs).
36
WE
M
—W 300
0
FL 200
WS
9
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Revort - Fizures
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70. 80 90 100
% Exceedance
Figure 7. Flow duration curve for Grant Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis, is
the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on the y-axis.
This curve was generated using modeled data from USGS gage 15246000 (1947-1958) at Grant
Creek, adjusted by monthly ratios developed by Ebasco (APA 1984; using one open water
season of flow data. at Falls Creek).
37
Ja0r
r9.'
�
o�
r
♦
•
s
Boas
1%j,
U
a�
,D
'
S
T
V
U
� 1
U N
V
70
X
W
x
W
o c 00
CD
o
o �o
a
y
O O
O O
O O
O
O
co
O
O
rl-
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O
C0 L M N
Q 00
0
G N
00
O
N b V
O
o
b
cn
U a
N Cis
� 3 "
0 8
o
Cd
0
o,
U
cn Cc
0 � a
N
Cd
aFA
FA
:� -d
a cd
Cd a�
-b
U O
cC U
00 4]
kn U cl
X
. ; CC
•--' a3
O Q ClS
� � b
O �
N
'O co
to x
C*
U C�n
cn'm
"0 5bA � z
�E E� cb Cd
O ' O 20
U
Cd r�.
'O Q C
cd
~ O as
N Cd -0 �1
w xd vx
00
M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 00 to Itt 04 0 00 CD rt 04
CNTl- Tl- T— V— It—
(SIO) 96JIMPSIG
73
E
0
o 0
o
rn
tn Q
C4-
CA ca
cz
t4
"a tj 0
00
0
u 00
0
e �F
Q
fn
3
0
w
O
et
i.i
:r
U
y
R3
w
0
a�
U
�,
ate+
CCi
.�
a
�:
�o
w
� E Lrn
c a LL V) m
MZ'z
N
d
co)
61 / A OYS.
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Figures
DHAINAGE AREA 1
at. 32u
ce`
Iy `mot �•. �`�.:„�
1' r; ; -•�;,� f// 4 fir`'+
1 ' J "1#llt+ti�stein `
17
To' A
do
ti1 NCH - 4,000 FEET '4W
If L
h "OR
HDR Alaska, Inc.
KHL SITE EVALUATION
PROJECT OPTION DESCRIPTIONS
GRANT LAKE
Date
Dec 2008
ri
Figure 14. Alternative 1 for propos project at Grant Lake.
Alternative 1 showing location of intake at the natural outlet of Grant Lake, possible penstock
route, powerhouse location and proposed access routes.
44
4000
3500
3000
L
2500
�, 2000
c 1500
w
1000
500
0
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Figures
■ UnAWghted
■ Weighted
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Figure 15. Maximum energy analysis for Alternative 3 (impoundment and drawdown) during an
average water year.
A hydrologic water year is defined by the USGS as the 12-month period from October through
September. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which
includes 9 of the 12 months (http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html). In this analysis, months
were weighted using seasonal variations in energy values from Table 7.
45
Appendix A - Land Status Information
46
a
w
r
w
r
w
w
>
¢
>
W
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
w
r
S r
r
w
z
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
w
r
r
y
r
y
r
y
r
y
r
y
r
y
y�
J
N
ppa
CD
f
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
$
R
op
M
o
m
O
R
O
O
O
Ili
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
0
00
m
O
o
O
MN
N
O^f
O
O
N
O
�yy
fp'1
O
V
a�
O
N
tmD
a
a
�
o
0
o
N
o
o
R
n
m
J
12
N
m
0
�o
coi
in
o
w
O
po
N
po
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
pp
m
O
N
H
Orni
W
T
W
OOi
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
¢
Y
¢
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
¢
Y
a
Y
a
Y
¢
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
ax
Y
a
Ui
ui
ui
ui
Ui
u
U�
ui
ui
Li
�OUU
ui
Li
ui
<
w
uiui
O
�9
0
Li
0
ui
0
ui
O
ui
uxi
O(9
0
o
OU
O
o
0
o
O
O
o
O
Oo
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
z
z
U
0
U
z
U
z
U
z
U
z
U
z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
Z
a
Z
a
Z
a
z
a
z
a
z
¢
z
a
z
¢
z
Z
a
z
a
¢
a
O
m
W
m
W
O
W
w
>
w
>
O
m
W
O
m
W
Om
m
W
N
m
W
N
m
W
O
w
W
m
W
O
m
W
O
m
W
O
m
W
N
m
W
H
m
W
N
m
W
N
m
W
r
m
>
r
CO)
>
r
(0z
o
w
>
>
r
y
>
r
y
r
In
>
r
coy
>
r
>
r
y
>
r
m
>
W
r
m
r
y
>
r
m
>
r
y
>
r
m
>
r
In
>
r
In
>
a
x
a
x
a
x
N
r
o
N
N
a
x
¢
x
a
x
a
x
a
x
¢
x
¢
m
N
r
a
x
a
x
a
x
a
x
a
x
a
x
a
x
n
3
n
3
n
3
y
0
p
X
°m
n
3
n
3
n
3
n
3
n
3
n
3
n
3
y
U
3
n
3
n
3
3
3
n
3
n
3
it
z
❑
¢
z
❑
w
z
❑
w
m
U r
W W
Z z
W S
30
K
z
❑
K
z
❑
¢
z
❑
K
z
❑
K
z
❑
K
z
❑
r
K
z
O
K
z
❑
K
z
❑
K
z
❑
z
0
K
z
❑
K
z
❑
K
z
0
¢
¢
a
y
w
°s
wS
ma ¢
a
a
¢
¢
¢
a
¢
y
W
a
a
¢
a
¢
a
a
N
N
N
K
K r
W Y r W
In
y
y
y
y
N
N
08
N
N
y
y
y
N
y
O Q
Q
Q
N
m
a w 2' Y H
¢
¢
Q
6
a
¢
6
7 N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
6
6
O
O
OJ
z
3 y
z LL U' j
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
5
5
5
°R
0
0
03r
UZJoX
r
r
r>>>
5
0
t7
0
(7
0
C�
crimz,aw
W Y
g
o
(�
C�
W
�w
ou,o
(� m
C7
awzw
p Z
y 3
w ¢W_
W. o LL W. r
>>>
O
C9
O
C9
O
O
o
O
0
O
0
C�
0
C�
3
y
3
y
3
y
y�j g
3 m y
3
m
3
y
3
y
3
CO
3a
3m3
gN
W
< J
:5
3�or�
0
3
3
3
y
y
y
y
a
a
¢
JXX
a
a
a
a
y �_
i
y
3
y
Q N
00
K NJ
O x ap
Qa 0 Z N
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
0
❑
z 2 W C7
Q U' � U_ W
Kip
❑
0
0
0
¢
a N
3
w o
¢U
W
�U
^ 0 0 .6 W
a N
O�
¢
O_
¢
❑
Q
❑_
Q
❑_
Q
❑_
2
❑_
K
w
K
W
¢
W
❑oaty W
�ONa1a
W
w
w
K
W
¢�
W
K W
K�
W
W W
W
a'N W Unq
W xapW
X3
2
W=� O a° b
i
'm
G
G
G
W
� m
W
i y
W
2
y CO)
¢ V%
m j m m Z r
W _N
W
w
w
w
g
w
w
z
3
1
3
pofpy0y
ma�wo_°oZ
3
it
3
Df
3
af
3
¢?
¢W
¢w��M�
azawm�
W�
y
oa'zaOF�pwpz❑
a xyooa`N°a�¢
.
a
.
a
m
a
W a r J O
W z
W S
W
N N
in �
W N 7 O y 0
3
W
3 W
z
3
W
W
W
W
m
tml
fp
N
y
wtp
l7
a'
U U
y2 W aI�1U[' W
m
S
y
N
y
m
y
m
t+f
y
O��
y y
Mm
y >^
�13
m
A�
m$
t�+l W
y H LL
Om�2O(Qr�
0
W w
mN
W
hN
W
m
y
y
y
CO)
U
W
y
U
W
y
U
W
y
U O LL m� LL
WOOw
YAy
U O
W M
U)
W m
W N
y)-
U
W
CO
U
W
y
U to
W�
yro
U
w0
y=
U m
Wm
ym
U�
W 0
yU
U Z
W g
y
O' H 2
LU �y_m
mC7 .6
U>
wm
y
U�
w W
yep
U
W
W.
U
W
W.
U
W
y
U
W
y
U
W
y
3
3
3
W 2 y
zg z
W
3>
W
3>3
3
wN
wrwNwW
W
wz
�o�
w�Za¢�w�w^w
3
3
3
3
K
K
K
¢ mO�
K a
="p
¢_ p X a p
K
K
¢
K
z
�y in
r m
z
my
r
z
v>o
r
2°6KQa�na'
aap �p
r m a c7 m a
Zy
om
r 0
Zy
oy
r 0
r
z
�'+
r m
Nr�
03
r J y
�r
O
r J
zr
O
r J
��^U
wo
r m
row
r v y
zrUJaBZ
mowaom
r m¢ N n
zx
ar
r
zx
or
r
z
vN
r
z
a
r
z
a
r v
z
a
r m
z
aN
r
m
m
m
m
N
n
O
G
<
O
O
m
QW
W
m
n
U
a
>
_
>
_
>
_
>
-
U
-
U
_
>
_
>
_
>
_
>
-
>
ME
>
_
>
-
>
'a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
tY7i�l[ d
K
m
K
m
K
K
K
w
w
a
w
a
m
m
w
a
a
a
w
v
w
a
a
w
U
z
a
z
w
w
U
z
¢
z
w
w
U
z
a
z
w
w
U
za
z
w
w
U
z
¢
w
w
U
z
a
w
w
U
z
a
w
w
U
z
a
w
w
U
z
a
w
w
U
z
a
w
w
U
z
I
w
w
U
z
I
w
w
U
z
I
w
w
U
z
a
w
w
U
z
I
w
w
U
z
I
w
w
U
z
I
w
w
U
Z¢
z
w
w
U
Zd
z
w
w
U
za
z
-w
w
U
z
w
r
z
i
r
z
r
z
r
z
r
z_
r
z
r
z
r
z
r
z
r
z
r
z
r
z
r
z_
r
z
r
z_
r
z_
r
z_
r
z
r
z
Z
r
z
i
r
z
E
oa
g
¢
¢
¢
a
a
a
❑a
°¢
¢
¢
¢
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
0
�
0
S
0
0
0
S
0
S
0
S
0
0:w
0
0
�
0
S
0
0:w
0
0
m
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
m
m
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
�o
m
a
Y
m
m
a
Y
co
m
a
Y
io
m
a
Y
io
m
a
Y
io
m
a
Y
io
m
a
Y
m
a
Y
io
m
a
Y
io
m
a
Y
so
O �p
W o
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
G N
N
N
N
N
h
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
lO_NV
h
tO_tVV
m
m
N
V
N
h
fOV
N
(NV
N
) \
J
J
\
)
§ `
K
■
■ (
k �
k
| )
}
)
§
k )
(
\
\
\
\
\1.
MO
2
)
]
-
k \
\
\zz
(\
(
\
D
\
\
\
\tx
\
\
\2
\1\
\
\
j\
)ƒ\
(
)[j
)
�
;
)
)
)
\
) of
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
k �
§ (
(
\
}
d
0
4
U
.i
V
O1
d
O
��
CI
5
O
O
0.
0
N
Q
I
g
u a
r
y
a
r
m
a
r
yp
a
r
mo
❑
w
w
Q
r
d
a
a
a
r
mp
a
a
x
a
a
r
a
E
❑
w
LL
❑
w
w
❑
w
w
a
r
cn
a
r
cn
(9
M
W
pmp
f9
0
o
f9
S
0
om
d3
i9
J
N
f
Y
W fp
0 00
W
OD
N
O
f0
n
'W
O
C4
f9
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
{y
i9
O
O
P
�
H
O
t0
^
M
O_
O
M
OOi
�
n
W
R
O
O
N
pp
i9
_
M
J
Q
o
o�
0
0
M
p0
CG
00
00
O
0
M
o
O�
o
o
Q
25
o
N
�Np
N
_
f9
0
10
�
0
O
0
m
0
m
_
0
o
m
a
n
o
M
rn
0
n
0
N
0
m
IQ
O
N
m
N
a
N
rn
H
m
H
N
O1
N
ami
N
m
N
rn
N
rn
H
m
m
m
N
m
m
h
rn
y
Q
w
Y
Q
ui
yy
Q
LT
yy
6
Y
Q
ui
Y
Q
Ld
o
n
yy
6
ui
Y
Q
ui
Y
¢
m
Y
Q
ui
Y
a
y
yy
a
ui
Y
Q
ui
Y
Q
ui
Y
a
ui
Y
a
Ld
Y
a
ui
Y
Q
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
G
O
O
<
f7
O
0
O
0
O
(7
O
x
U
x
U
x
U
x
U
x
U
x
C.)z
O
❑
x
C.)U
x
w
m
8
x
U
w
w
8
2
U
x
U
O
2
U
2
U
S
U
2
U
2
U
z
Z
a
Z
a
Z
a
z
a
z
a
z
a
w
m
z
a
z
a
z
¢
z
a
z
a
z
a
z
a
z
a
z
Q
a
w
m
w
m
N
Q
3
W
1
m
c
M
a
M
a
M
a
w
w
w
w
w
w
S
¢
r
F
w
r
O
O
O
Cl)
>
CO
>
CO
>
y
y
>
m
3
z0
Cl)
>
r
_
m
>
m
m
>
m
>
vri
>
o
S
Q 6
2
Q
2
Q
2
Q
2
y
r
Q
2
❑
z
y
¢
2
e
r
¢
2
¢
2
¢
2
¢
2
¢
2
n
0
n
0
y
n
a
❑
�
X
M
x
n
�
�
�
�
x
x
O
O
O
O
O
0
p
a
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
0
a
O
0
r
r
0
a
0
a
x
x
j
x
w
Ifw
w
C7
x
x
E
O
O
z
❑
z
❑
z
o
z
❑
y
z
❑
g
y
m
z
❑
i
a
p
z
❑
z
❑
y
y
y
1
O
❑a
O
y
r
o
rNxN
3
w
¢w
o
H
HO
x
x
N
yfr
N
N
coO
aY
�nH
U)o
wn
Q
a
uq��
Q
yq�
Z
a
Z
f
>
j
¢
¢
a
a
¢
a
m
_
z
a
0
z
a
0
z
a
5
z
a
5
m z
z� R
axFz as w5❑
YW"
z
Q
z
a
50
z
Q
5❑
z
a
5❑
z
¢
5❑
z
¢
o❑
z
a
5❑
z
a
50
z
a
o7❑.g000Qoo
z N
z
a—aM
z
F U
Z�
a
w
w
i
w
2
w
m
��p]
w0awwmY7�w
wg
wg
�w
wg
�w
wg
�w
w
iW
w
iw
w�
�w
w
X.
w]^it
2w"���i�i`�8¢mow
wJwJ❑"
wo
�z
Q
Q
Q
Q
x OMgR
�rt� W Z
pr
1Q-
�N
pr
CCF
pr
xF
pr
xF
❑r
xF
❑r
xF
❑r
x�
❑r
xF
❑��
xFQ
'w:s
m❑m
❑.
3>a
❑O
W Zy
m Z
¢ WaOOm�
W
¢M
WQQ
QN
WQ
Qm
WQQ
¢m
W O
¢m
WQ
Qy
W
am
WQQ
W Qm
aw
Wx
aw
y>Q
Qx
W
t�
W
t0
W
M
W
m
3eM aed—O
W N U
QQ
Ym
fn r
O
�
Y�
fq r
m O
Ym
y r
m O
Yn
(p r
'
M O
�'
(q r
a) O
0g�
Ym
tq r
u1 O
QQN
Y'
m r
u� O
0g�
Y'
fq r
y O
Og.
N Yr
U
�
W x
m 7
m
m 7
ti
0y0N
W x
fp 7
NxZ
N
ap a
N
Wa
w r m
w0
m
w0
w0
w0
MMtO�aNQN
wixywna"
�
waR
g�
waR
gin
w ro
�aJ
w m
w¢A
C)
waR
waR
wa^
wQr
�D
UO
wO
w
wO
w3�
w�U
w
3 53:
yw
3
yw
3:
3
m�
3:
3
`n0(9 Oz NC9y
�F nzZ3o�3m$3o"3oa03o°D30
yo
yo
>�m>�m>��>
m oio
yom
Noio
No
>�m>�m>��
Doi
30
Nod
30
NOa�mo
3o
me
wo3�3Ow�
ym
ym
NMU'
z
Za5
CO) it
3n¢
xc7
xc�xQU
xc�
UDUr So�m>
xwwZr�F
xo>
x�>
��>
x�>
xo>
xo>
xo>
xo>
xo>
xg
xo
xo
x5�
x�w
z
e3
z
e3
z
a2
ze 2
z m UUxz
v? wgawm0
xz
e30
xz
e30
ix
e30
xz
e3❑
xz
e3❑
xz
e3❑
xz
e30
xz
e3❑
xz
v30
e3
z
e3
z
e3
zz-Mz
e W
a
e3m
r n
rfn
r
r
r R0 a
r�nrn
rmm
rm�n
rmm
rmm
rmm
rm�n
rfn�n
rmm
rm
rm
rm
ri'u5ro
rm¢
C7
O
m
o
V
Y
w
>
d
x
0
>
v
x
0
>
x
0
E
x
_
E
>_
0
>
0
>
0
_j
>>_
d
0
`w
0
1.
0
1.
o
v
0
0
>
0
>
E
>_
o
w
QZ
Z
W
r
w
QZ
Z
W
r
w
QZ
Z
W
r
w
UZQ
Z
W
r
w
QZ
Z
W
r
w
Z
Z
w
r
w
Z
2
w
r
w
z
Z
w
r
w
Z
Z
w
r
w
az
Z
W
r
w
z
Z
W
r
w
QZ
Z
w
r
w
Z
Z
w
r
w
ZU
Z
W
r
W
ZQ
Z
W
r
w
¢Z
Z
W
r
w
Z
Z
w
r
w
QZ
Z
W
r
w
QZQ
Z
W
r
Z
z_
z_
z
z
z_
z
z
z
_z
z_
z_
z_
z
z_
z
❑
a
r o
x
m
a
Y
n
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
n
m
❑
Q
0
x
m
a
Y
r
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
n
to
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
m
❑
¢
0
x
m
a
Y
m
❑
¢
0
x
m
a
Y
r
m
❑
a
0
x
m
m
Y
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
n
m
❑
Q
0
x
m
a
Y
n
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
n
�o
❑
Q
0
x
m
a
Y
n
m
❑
Q
0
x
m
a
Y
n
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
so
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
r
m
❑
a
0
x
m
a
Y
n
ro
C
in
N
h
h
h
tG
N
�p
N
N
iA
m
N
m
�
�O
N
tp
t0
N
tp
tp
N
tp
N
1p
N
e
N
a
a
a
a
a
a
N
d
N
N
N
N
N
N
�QxW'j 00
N
4
H
o
O
N
o
H
O
O
O
a6
l9
O
O�
❑ o
w
N
0
0
1p
0
NJ
0
000
tC
0
0
a
N
N
O
cli
s
«�
oo
O
o
Z
g
N
w
N
a
a
¢
�n
O
MR
m
a
rn
W
m
m
O11
m
Im
)�
~ 0
Q
O
<
Q
QQ
C
Q6
C
aQ
K
¢Q
K
aQ
K
QQ
K
<Q
K
QQ
K
U ¢
W
N
O
Q
w
W
N
O
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
m
o
N
a
a
p
z
¢
z
¢
z
Q
z
¢
z
Q
z
z
a
z
as
pp
N
N 2
x
❑
J
Q
t0
W
N
❑
N
10
w
N
t0
W
N
10
H
N
t0
F
N
10
H
N
t0
F
N
LL'
° a
a
w
¢
z
a
¢
a
¢
a
¢
N
X
O
N
m
aa
uv'i
6
Z
w
7
O
Z
j
W
lz
W
°6
QKQ
3
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
W'
z
z
z
>
❑
r
a
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
a
a
o
o
fe
w
r
r
r
r
<
a
o
oo
N
w
Z
QF
Q
Q
Q
Q
gN
gN
f
>
m
Y
Q
U
Q
Q
7
N
a s
O
= a -zy
z
=
z
=
Z
=
z
=
Z N
Q N
Z
Q
Z
Q W
Q W
p
❑�
❑7
CO
❑7 aZa
KOQ _ mm
❑❑
-w,z
00
Z
0❑
Z
❑O
-w,Z
pOQ
Za
p0
-w,Z
Qy�
pN
❑o
w
❑O
w
aYK
w�
i'UHw~x,w
aH
ig
H
f
H
��
H
ig
H
��U
H
H
W W
W
W
pep
2w N
�u�x
N
Uy
❑Y..
cwM
a w
O Y-20~
cw��wLLw
Q w O f w o
Opp H
°tea
¢ r
❑
�a
a r
O
.a
¢ r
°tea
¢ r
❑ X
xaw
¢¢
❑
�a
¢ r
pep
❑r
d
��
�<
❑
N7J O
�N
yN-+
J x
N NN Zw �U' w
3qQN
N Y F
3a_
NY
3QQa
NYF
3aa
N Y
3QQ�
NYU
3QQ
yYf
a�
32
3�
W 2 a
3�
W 2
w
NQ J
H
N z m
d zs
mNp
Np
Np
N p
�gJ
mNm
Np
�gJ
o
oa�
oow<w
70 wQ>x
oawUa�
❑a'�
W
w3N
N N�
w o1
N O
o N
w
w
N m W f ?� Y F
mN W'
w N m
N
w
N N
w
N N
w
N N
w<I
w
N N
Om
w
N
Om
O v
N
W 0
NJ W
W O
NJ
O
3z>
3
3 zZEwW_¢c9
Soy
30}
3oy
30�
30}
30}
W53
*5 ;
�5
5
OU
K0
z C N
C g>
Z >
d' owFHU H KO
z m K 0 7 H J
z K
z K
Z K
Ko j
Z K
K o>
z K
K o>
z R
Kos
Z
K � a
Z
KOU'
z
OWN
H� 7
a 37
H NN
o
v�o OORD
HNx dZ dN o6
<>i 7
f NN
v>iJ
H NN
a �s 7
H NN
<>i 7
f NN
<�s7 �
H NNm
a>i 7
I-NN
<� W
HN z
H 12
FN 3
N
O
Q
W
K
U
Q
w-
Q
-
-
7
-
U
-
U
>
-
U
>
>
>
>
>
>
w
QU
Z
W
QU
Z
W
QU
Z
w
QU
Z
w
QU
Z
w
QU
Z
w
QUQ
Z
w
U
z
Z
w
U
z
Z
W
U
_
Z
W
aU
Z
W
aU
Z
W
Uaa
Z
Q Z
Z
Z
2
z
2
z
z
FW
2
FWF
2
FWF
2
r
Z
r
Z
W
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
¢
O
m
m
a
Y
¢
O
co
m
a
Y
Q
O
C
m
a
Y
Q
O
m
m
a
Y
o
C
m
a
Y
o
w
m
a
Y
¢
O
m
m
a
Y
¢
O
m
m
a
Y
Q
O
m m
a
Y
¢
O
K
m
a
Y
a
O
K
m
a
Y
¢
O
K
m
a
Y
6
O
K
m
a
Y
�n
G
p
co
io
'
N
10
N
m
N
m
N
N
N
N
N
a
w
J
m
r
W
N
N
W
N
N
Q
Q
a
J
O
z
g
W
a
U)
}
I.-
C.)
N
N
w
C'
0
0
Q
2'
w
z
3
0
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
www�ww��ww��w
wzzzzwzooff
zcn(n
�Jn
N m
m m
m
Jww�wwww�wwwwwww
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
W
N N
N
N
N N
V
N
N N
N N
N N
N
a
w
U
a
w
c7
a
w
w
r
J
u�cnOocno
v>c�oo��n
`r'�n
�n
W
�n
�n�
V
w
aY
QQQo
Q
QQ0 aQa0
Q Q
QQ0 QQ0
Q Q
aQ0 QQ0
Q Q
QQ0 aQ0
Q Q
aQa0 aQ0
Q Q
QQ0 QQQ0
Q Q
QQ0 QQO
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Appendix B - Energy Calculations
53
2
s
2
11)
.
)
$
®
o
r
_
�
a
�
\
/
�
/
\
- §
) z
@
\
7
Ln
m
00
to
00
a,
Q.
cr,
In
"I
In
oo
a,
wi
00
00
In
Ol
oo
00
W)
00
rq
In
m
m
It
00
m
eq
'Ln
00
a,
C14
In
a,
w N
C4
m
en
W)
M
rq
�t
eq
0
cq
"D
O
vt
In
fn
eq
M
en
O.
N
a,
m
M
w
"n
a,
ll�
N
en
M
M
O
QQ
CAN
m
W
In
In
Io
Cq
a00
,
00
C4
Cq
ol
--! C>
C4 ON
h m
m
CV
m
ce
LM
z
Lo
z
<
0
z
0
cc
cq
C,
C,
9
00
C>
0
C,
C>
C>
CD
0
C>
O
O
C9
0
r-
CI6
Io
C4
t-
W)
00
In
C)
00
06
O
C>
C,
C�
C>
C>
'D
C> ID
O CD
C>
13N
'V`�
'WO)
Imn
0
N
0
a r- w 00 a
0
00 a
0 0 0 Cl 0 o v o n o
o 6 61� 0O0 .00 000o a,rn a rn
N � t " 10 rO 0000 a,,
110
to
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
v 'uopw13
0 O O r O �
N N �
m
U1
Wp wa &
�! $ (
LLI
acn
ai»a�
Q
tf
X. X G C
99:9f:)
zU
t�nU)
1--2W
CJ
N N N
r y P!
� C
j W
7� NOl w Nr-r.-mOO �O
lV cl N W) ch V? 7 - O O
Q r .- .-- — .-- — — r — — — —
J W
LL
M 40
M t���pyj n
Q N� V N Ono
WCL
C`JO (gyp NOD cO M�A�N WtO�
QcC�N^ V NMNMM
Y
OO1A 77O9 c-1,10 00
aw$omw�r-r-r mC
-- S cD to to to to to A r.
O 0 Of 11,P,
N O O O M O Op p O Op
cISS9OOS
W $
tl
O O co co co
C MO47�� et M GO MMM
W N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
OO tppp O Or �{ CO OO
41 C14 V 00 LLi V
N N
.0
(n U
Q3O(h w O� VO M
�. CO cM N M M r O!
Q! N c7
W O 4s V AN A 21e'-� A D O a
3 V �17
c
fh M M N M M M
Q
Q
io �LLM- II II•�(I
V'�
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix B - Energy Calculations
Seasonal Benefits based upon weighted objective function
Max Energy
Plant
Max Revenue
Seasonal
Alt capacity
Predicted
Weighted
Factor
Predicted
Weighted
Benefit
2
4.7
19,129
21,488
46. %
19,037
22,068
2.7%
3
4.7
19,027
21,886
46.2%
18,707
23,225
6.1%
4
7
25,422
30,371
41.5%
24,926
31,795
4.7%
5
4.7
21,114
24,543
51.3%
21,118
25,807
5.2%
MAXIMIZED REVENUE
MAXIMIZED ENERGY
Alt.2
Alt.3
Alt.4
Alt.5
Alt.2
Alt.3
Alt.4
Alt.5
POWER
FLOW
Oct
188
188
188
200
188
188
188
326
Nov
106
106
106
106
163
107
147
154
Dec
279
430
460
430
1
112
121
0
Jan
41
283
304
288
46
75
150
161
Feb
22
39
148
0
89
123
149
154
Mar
38
27
25
58
96
T7
153
165
Apr
35
35
38
35
97
130
154
164
May
167
36
146
177
139
88
153
94
Jun
294
19
159
147
363
284
196
317
Jul
430
430
194
430
430
430
225
362
Aug
414
414
255
430
414
430
460
430
Sep
310
310
310
352
310
293
239
350
POOL
ELEVATION
Oct
700.0
700.0
691.0
700.0
700.0
700.0
691.0
697.5
Nov
700.0
700.0
691.0
700.0
698.9
700.0
690.2
694.0
Dec
695.5
692.5
682.9
692.5
698.9
698.8
688.1
694.2
Jan
691.0
680.1
669.4
680.0
699.9
697.0
684.6
692.9
Feb
691.2
675.1
662.1
675.6
698.8
694.7
680.3
688.2
Mar
691.2
675.0
660.0
675.6
696.4
692.1
675.7
683.3
Apr
691.0
675.0
660.0
675.0
693.8
689.2
670.8
678.0
May
691.0
677.7
660.4
675.0
693.2
689.0
668.8
677.1
Jun
694.0
688.7
666.5
683.0
695.4
693.8
674.0
683.5
Jul
698.5
698.5
678.4
694.6
698.5
698.5
684.5
693.1
Aug
700.0
700.0
687.8
699.1
700.0
699.6
689.2
699.0
Sep
700.0
700.0
691.0
700.0
700.0
699.7
689.6
700.0
ENERGY
Oct
1583
1583
2151
1681
1583
1583
2148
2705
Nov
864
864
1174
864
1317
871
1619
1212
Dec
2290
3460
5078
3460
9
936
1367
0
Jan
327
2101
3152
2136
389
623
1671
1302
Feb
160
256
1335
0
669
907
1469
1091
Mar
301
194
243
416
794
614
1630
1249
Apr
270
243
360
243
763
991
1557
1165
May
1331
264
1454
1268
1127
690
1586
685
Jun
2310
141
1569
10T7
2876
2232
2013
2330
Jul
3589
3589
2095
3505
3589
3588
2503
2922
Aug
3486
3486
2883
3602
3486
3613
5222
3600
Sep
2526
2526
3432
2865
2526
2379
2635
2852
19037
18707
24926
21118
19129
19027
25422
21114
58
Appendix C - Cost Information
w
Grant Lake --- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
GRANT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 1 - Run of river
Item
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Amount
330
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights • Generation Plant
1
LS
$
50,000
$
50,000
.2 Special use permits
1
LS
$
50,000
$
50,000
.3 Surveying
1
LS
$
100,000
$
100,000
331
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1
POWERHOUSE
$
-
.1 Excavation
19M
CY
$
150
$
285,000
.2 Concrete (Ind. reinforcement)
280
CY
$
1,200
5
336,000
.3 Metal building
2500
SF
$
350
$
875.000
.4 Misc. Metals
i
LS
$
50,000
$
50,000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical
1
LS
$
50,000
$
60,000
.6 Grounding Grid
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25,000
.7 Fire Protection
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25,000
332
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
1
SITE WORK
S
-
A ClearingiDrainagelErosion Control
1
LS
$
50,000
S
50,000
.2
DAM AND SPILLWAY
$
.1 Excavation
CY
$
150
$
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
LS
$
100,000
S
.3Concrete (stnudural)
CY
$
1,200
S
.4 Concrete (mass)
CY
$
1,000
$
.3
INTAKE
$
-
.1 Excavation
376
CY
$
150
$
56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100,000
$
100,000
.3 Trash racks
1
LS
$
50,000
$
50,000
.4 Control GatewValve wloperator
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150,000
.5 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
$
1,200
S
120.000
.6 Concrete (mass)
CY
$
1,000
$
.7 Misc. Metals
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25.000
.8 Siphon pipe (mat'I & installation)
LF
$
750
$
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical
LS
$
100,000
$
A
SLUICEWAY
$
.1 Excavation
300
CY
$
150
$
45.000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
i
LS
$
100'000
$
100,000
.3 Sluice Gate wloperator
1
LS
$
100,000
$
100,000
.4 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
$
1,000
$
100,000
.5
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK
$
.a Clearing
4
ACRE
$
25,000
S
100,000
.b Steel penstock material
3000
LF
$
370
$
1,110.000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
800
CY
$
1,000
$
800,000
A Penstock installation
3000
LF
$
150
$
450,000
.e Slope stabilization
1
MI
$
260,000
$
125,000
,f Surge tank
1
LS
$
100,000
5
100,000
.2 TUNNEL
.a Excavation
LF
$
.b Tunnel Support
LF
$
.c Lining
LF
$
-
.3 TAILRACE
.a Excavation
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25,000
.b Support and lining
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25.000
333
WATERWHEELS, TUR13INES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply
1
LS
$
2.115,000
$
2,115,000
.2 Install
1
LS
$
500,000
$
500,000
334
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Switchgear
1
LS
$
150,000
5
150.000
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
GRANT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 1 - Run of river
Item
Quantity
Unit
I
Unit Cost
Amount
.2
Station Service
1
LS
$
150,000
$ 150,000
.3
Control Panel
1
LS
$
250,000
$ 250,000
.4
Conduit/wires/cables
1
LS
$
150,000
S 150,000
.5
Power to intake
1
LS
$
75,000
S 75,000
335
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1
Cooling Water System
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
.2
Powerhouse crane
1
LS
$
250,000
S 250,000
336
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1
Highway to Powerhouse (upgrade mining road 1 mi)
3
MI
$
300,000
S 750,000
.2
Powerhouse to intake
0.5
MI
$
250,000
S 125,000
.3
Bridge (possible bridge over Grant Creek to PH)
1
LS
$
200,000
S 200,000
.4
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100,000
350
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1
Land rights - transmission line
1
LS
$
10,000
S 10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352
(TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1
Substation foundations
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.2
Oil spill containment
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
.3
Grounding grid
1
LS
$
10,000
$ 10,000
353
STATION EQUIPMENT
.1
Main transformer
1
LS
$
100,000
$ 100,000
.2
Accessory switchgear equipment
1
LS
$
350,000
S 350,000
356
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1
New pole line
1
MI
$
750.000
S 750,000
Total Direct Construction Costs
$
11,700,000
Design Engineering
10%
S
1,170,000
FERC and other licensing
S
1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead
5%
$
585,000
Construction Management
5%
S
585.000
Subtotal
S
15,040,000
Contingency
30%
S
4,512,000
Interest during construction
7%
S
4.401,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost
S
23,960,000
Annual Energy, MWh
13,700
Debt Service
$
1,740,668
08M
$
500.400
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh
61
S 0.164
330
331
.1
332
.1
.2
Cl
.4
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
GRANT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 2 - Low Storage
Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights - Generation Plant
1
LS
$
50,000 S
.2 Special use permits
1
LS
S
50.000 S
.3 Surveying
1
LS
S
100,000 $
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
POWERHOUSE
$
.1 Excavation
1900
CY
$
150 S
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement)
280
CY
$
1,200 S
.3 Metal Building
2500
SF
$
350 S
.4 Misc. Metals
1
LS
$
50.000 S
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical
1
LS
S
50,000 S
.6 Grounding Grid
1
LS
$
25,000 S
.7 Fire Protection
1
LS
$
25.000 S
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
SITE WORK
$
A Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
S
50,000 S
DAM AND SPILLWAY
S
.1 Excavation
500
CY
S
150 S
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
S
100.000 S
.3 Concrete (structural)
CY
$
1,200 S
.4 Concrete (mass)
400
CY
$
1,000 S
INTAKE
S
.1 Excavation
375
CY
$
150 S
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100,000 $
.3 Trash racks
1
LS
S
50,000 S
.4 Control GatesNalve wloperator
1
LS
S
150,000 S
.5 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
S
1.200 S
.6 Concrete (mass)
CY
$
700 S
.7 Misc. Metals
1
LS
S
25.000 S
.8 Siphon pipe (mat'I & installation)
LF
$
750 S
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical
LS
S
100,000 $
SLUICEWAY
$
.1 Excavation
300
CY
$
150 S
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100.000 $
.3 Sluice Gate wloperator
1
LS
S
100,000 $
.4 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
S
1.200 S
.5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK
.a Clearing
.b Steel penstock material
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
A Penstock installation
.e Slope stabilization
.f Surge tank
.2 TUNNEL
.a Excavation
.b Tunnel Support
.c Lining
.3 TAILRACE
.a Excavation
.b Support and lining
62
Amount
50,000
50.000
100,000
285,000
336,000
875,000
50,000
50,000
25,000
25,000
50,000
75,000
100.000
400,000
56,250
100,000
50,000
150,000
120.000
25.000
45,000
100.000
100,000
120.000
4
ACRE
S
25,000
S 100.000
3000
LF
$
370
S 1A10,000
800
CY
$
1,200
S 960,000
3000
LF
S
150
$ 450,000
1
MI
$
250,000
$ 125,000
1
LS
$
100.000
S 100.000
LF
S
LF
$
LF
$ -
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
Grant Lake -- Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
333
WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1
Supply
1
LS
$
2,115,000
S
2,115,000
.2
Install
1
LS
$
500,000
S
500,000
334
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1
Switchgear
1
LS
$
150,000
S
150,000
.2
Station Service
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150.000
.3
Control Panel
1
LS
$
250,000
S
250,000
.4
Conduittwirestcables
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150,000
.5
Power to intake
1
LS
$
75.000
S
75,000
335
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1
Cooling Water System
1
LS
$
25.000
S
25.000
2
Powerhouse crane
1
LS
$
250,000
$
250.000
336
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1
Highway to Powerhouse
3
MI
$
300,000
$
750,000
.2
Powerhouse to intake
0.5
MI
$
250,000
S
125.000
.3
Bridge
1
LS
$
200,000
S
200.000
.4
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$
100,000
$
100.000
350
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
1
Land rights - transmission line
1
LS
$
10,000
S
10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352
{TRANSMISSION FACILITY}
1
Substation foundations
1
LS
$
50,000
$
50,000
.2
Oil spill containment
1
LS
$
25,000
S
25.000
.3
Grounding grid
1
LS
$
10,000
S
10,000
353
STATION EQUIPMENT
A
Main transformer
1
LS
$
100,000
S
100,000
.2
Accessory switchgear equipment
1
LS
$
350,000
S
350.000
356
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1
New pole line
1
MI
$
750,000
S
750,000
Total Direct Construction Costs
S
12,400,000
Design Engineering
10%
S
1,240,000
FERC and other licensing
S
1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead
5%
S
620,000
Construction Management
5%
$
620,000
Subtotal
S
15,880,000
Contingency
30%
S
4.764.000
Interest during construction
7%
S
4,646,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost
$
25,290,000
Annual Energy, MWh
19,100
Debt Service
S
1,837,291
O&M
S
508,800
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh
$
0.123
63
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
GRANT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 3 - Enhanced Storage
Rem
Quantity I
Unit
I
Unit Cost
Amount
330
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights - Generation Plant
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.2 Special use permits
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.3 Surveying
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100,000
331
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1
POWERHOUSE
S -
.1 Excavation
1900
CY
$
150
$ 285,000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement)
280
CY
$
1,200
S 336,000
.3 Metal Building
2500
SF
$
350
S 875,000
.4 Misc. Metals
1
LS
$
50,000
S 50,000
.5 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical
1
LS
$
50,000
S 50.000
.6 Grounding Grid
I
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
.7 Fire Protection
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
332
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1
SITE WORK
$ -
.1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$
50.000
S 50.000
.2
DAM AND SPILLWAY
S -
, I Excavation
500
CY
$
150
$ 75,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100.000
.3 Concrete (structural)
CY
S
1,000
S -
.4 Concrete (mass)
400
CY
$
1,000
$ 400,000
3
INTAKE
S
.1 Excavation
375
CY
$
150
$ 56.250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100,000
.3 Trash racks
1
LS
$
50,000
S 50.000
.4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator
1
LS
$
150,000
S 150,000
.5 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
$
1,200
$ 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass)
CY
$
1,000
$ -
.7 Misc. Metals
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25.000
.8 Siphon pipe (mat'l & installation)
500
LF
$
750
$ 375,000
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100,000
.4
SLUICEWAY
S -
.1 Excavation
300
CY
$
150
S 45,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100.000
S 100,000
.3 Sluice Gate w/operator
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
$
1,200
S 120.000
.5
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK
.a Clearing
4
ACRE
$
25,000
$ 100,000
,b Steel penstock material
3000
LF
$
370
S 1,110,000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
800
CY
$
1,200
S 960,000
A Penstock installation
3000
LF
$
150
S 450,000
,e Slope stabilization
1
MI
$
250,000
S 125,000
.f Surge tank
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100,000
,2 TUNNEL
.a Excavation
LF
S -
.b Tunnel Support
LF
$
.c Lining
LF
S -
.3 TAILRACE
.a Excavation
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
,b Support and lining
1
LS
$
25.000
$ 25,000
z
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
333
WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
A
Supply
1
LS
$
2.115,000
S 2,115,000
.2
Install
1
LS
$
500,000
S 500.000
334
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1
Switchgear
1
LS
S
150,000
S 150,000
.2
Station Service
1
LS
$
150,000
$ 150,000
.3
Control Panel
1
LS
$
250,000
S 250,000
.4
Conduit/wires/cables
1
LS
$
150,000
S 150,000
.5
Power to intake
1
LS
$
75,000
$ 75,000
335
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1
Cooling Water System
1
LS
$
25.000
S 25,000
.2
Powerhouse crane
1
LS
$
250.000
S 250,000
336
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
A
Highway to Powerhouse
3
MI
$
300,000
S 750,000
.2
Powerhouse to intake
0.5
MI
$
250,000
S 125,000
.3
Bridge
1
LS
$
200.000
S 200.000
.4
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
S
100.000
S 100.000
350
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1
Land rights - transmission line
1
LS
$
10.000
S 10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352
(TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1
Substation foundations
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.2
Oil spill containment
1
LS
$
25,000
$ 25,000
3
Grounding grid
1
LS
$
10,000
S 10,000
353
STATION EQUIPMENT
1
Main transformer
1
LS
$
100,000
S 100,000
.2
Accessory switchgear equipment
1
LS
$
350,000
$ 350.000
356
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1
New pole line
1
MI
$
750,000
S 750,000
Total Direct Construction Costs
S
12,900,000
Design Engineering
10%
S
1.290.000
FERC and other licensing
S
1,000.000
Owner's General Administration & overhead
5°%
S
645,000
Construction Management
5%
S
645,000
Subtotal
S
16.480,000
Contingency
30%
S
4,944,000
Interest during construction
7%
S
4.822,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost
S
26250,000
Annual Energy, MWh
19.000
Debt Service
$
1.907,034
O&M
S
514,800
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh
S
0.127
M
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
GRANT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 4 - Ebasco Preferred Alternative (Aft. D)
Item
Quantity
Unit
I
Unit Cost
Amount
330
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
A Land Rights - Generation Plant
1
LS
$
50,000
S 50,000
.2 Special use permits
1
LS
S
50,000
S 50,000
.3 Surveying
1
LS
$
100,000
$ 100,000
331
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1
POWERHOUSE
$
.1 Excavation
5000
CY
$
150
S 750.000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement)
1150
CY
$
1,200
$ 1,380,000
.3 Metal Building
2500
SF
$
350
$ 875,000
.4 Misc. Metals
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.8 Grounding Grid
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25.000
.7 Fire Protection
1
LS
$
25,000
S 25,000
332
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
1
SITE WORK
S -
.1 ClearinglDrainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$
50,000
S 50,000
.2
DAM AND SPILLWAY
S -
.1 Excavation
CY
$
150
S
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
LS
$
100,000
$
.3 Concrete (structural)
CY
$
1,200
S
.4 Concrete (mass)
CY
$
1.000
$
.3
INTAKE
$
.1 Excavation
CY
$
75
S
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
LS
$
100,000
S -
.3 Trash racks
1
LS
$
50,000
S 50,000
.4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator
LS
$
150,000
S -
.5 Concrete (structural)
CY
$
1,200
S
.8 Concrete (mass)
CY
$
1,000
S
.7 Misc. Metals
LS
$
25,000
S
.8 Siphon pipe (mafI & installation)
LF
$
750
S
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical
LS
$
100,000
$
.4
SLUICEWAY
$
.1 Excavation
CY
$
75
$
.2 Care of WaterlDiversion
LS
$
100,000
$ -
.3 Sluice Gate w/operator
LS
$
100,000
$
.4 Concrete (structural)
CY
$
1,200
S
.5
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
A PENSTOCK
$ -
.a Clearing
ACRE
S
25,000
$
.b Steel penstock material
LF
$
370
S
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
CY
$
1.200
S
A Penstock installation
LF
$
150
$ -
.e Slope stabilization
MI
$
250,000
S
.f Surge tank
LS
$
100,000
$
.2 TUNNEL
.a Excavation
3200
LF
$
2,500
$ 8.000,000
.b Tunnel Support
2300
LF
$
500
$ 1,150,000
.c Lining
800
LF
$
1,000
$ 800,000
A Gateshaft excavation
300
LF
$
1,000
$ 300,000
.e Shaft support and lining
300
LF
$
500
$ 150,000
.f Gates
1
LS
$
500.000
S 500,000
.g Lake tap
1
LS
$
1.000,000
$ 1.000,000
••
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
.3
TAILRACE
.a Excavation
20000
CY
$
35
S
700,000
.b Support and lining
1
LS
$
75,000
S
75,000
.6
MID LAKE CHANNEL
1 Excavation
60000
CY
S
50
$
3,000,000
333
WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
1
Supply
1
LS
$
3,150,000
S
3.150,000
.2
Install
1
LS
$
500.000
$
500,000
334
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1
Switchgear
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150,000
.2
Station Service
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150,000
.3
Control Panel
1
LS
$
250,000
S
250,000
A
Conduit/wires/cables
1
LS
$
150,000
S
150,000
.5
Power to intake
1
LS
$
75,000
S
75,000
335
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1
Cooling Water System
1
LS
$
25,000
S
25,000
2
Powerhouse crane
1
LS
$
250,000
S
250,000
336
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1
Highway to Powerhouse
3
MI
$
300,000
S
750,000
,2
Powerhouse to intake
0.5
MI
$
250,000
S
125,000
3
Bridge
1
LS
$
200,000
S
200,000
.4
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$
100,000
S
100,000
350
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1
Land rights - transmission line
1
LS
$
10,000
S
10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352
(TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1
Substation foundations
1
LS
$
50,000
S
50,000
.2
Oil spill containment
1
LS
$
25,000
S
25,000
.3
Grounding grid
1
LS
$
10.000
$
10,000
353
STATION EQUIPMENT
A
Main transformer
1
LS
$
120.000
S
120.000
.2
Accessory switchgear equipment
1
LS
$
350,000
S
350,000
356
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1
New pole line
1.2
MI
$
750,000
S
900,000
Total Direct Construction Costs
$
26.500,000
Design Engineering
10%
S
2.650,000
FERC and other licensing
S
1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead
5%
S
1,325,000
Construction Management
5%
$
1,325.000
Subtotal
$
32,800,000
Contingency
30%
$
9,840,000
Interest during construction
7%
S
9,596,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost
S
52.240,000
Annual Energy, MWh
25,700
Debt Service
S
3,795,179
O&M
S
678,000
2008 Cost of Energy, S/kWh
S
0,174
RE
Grant Labe - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
GRANT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 5 - Enhanced Storage + Falls Creek
Item
I
I Quantity
Unit
I
Unit Cost I
Amount
330
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
1 Land Rights - Generation Plant
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.2 Special use permits
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.3 Surveying
1
LS
$
100,000
$ 100.000
331
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1
POWERHOUSE
$ -
.1 Excavation
19W
CY
$
150
S 285,000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement)
280
CY
$
1,200
$ 336,000
.3 Metal Building
2500
SF
$
350
$ 875,000
.4 Misc. Metals
1
LS
$
50.000
$ 50,000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.6 Grounding Grid
1
LS
$
25,000
$ 25.000
.7 Fire Protection
1
LS
$
25,000
$ 25,000
332
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
1
SITE WORK
$ -
.1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.2
DAM AND SPILLWAY
$ -
.1 Excavation
500
CY
$
150
S 75,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100,000
$ 100,000
.3 Concrete (structural)
CY
$
1,200
$ -
.4 Concrete (mass)
400
CY
$
1,000
$ 400,000
.3
INTAKE
$ -
.1 Excavation
375
CY
$
150
$ 56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
1D0,000
$ 100,000
.3 Trash racks
1
LS
$
50,000
$ 50,000
.4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator
1
LS
$
150,000
$ 150,000
.5 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
$
1,200
$ 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass)
CY
$
1,000
$ -
.7 Misc. Metals
1
LS
$
25,000
$ 25,000
.8 Siphon pipe (mat'I & installation)
500
LF
$
750
$ 375,000
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical
1
LS
$
100,000
$ 100.000
.4
SLUICEWAY
$ -
.1 Excavation
300
CY
$
150
$ 45,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$
100.000
$ 100,000
.3 Sluice Gate w/operator
1
LS
$
100,000
$ 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural)
100
CY
$
1.200
$ 120,000
.5
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK
$ -
.a Clearing
4
ACRE
$
25.000
$ 100.000
.b Steel penstock material
3000
LF
$
370
$ 1.110,000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
800
CY
$
1,200
$ 960,000
A Penstock installation
3000
LF
$
150
$ 450,000
.e Slope stabilization
1
MI
$
250,000
$ 125,000
.f Surge tank
1
LS
$
100,000
$ 100.000
68
Grant Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - appendix C - Cost Information
.2
FALLS CREEK DIVERSION
.a
Diversion dam
2000
CY
$
1,000
$
2,000,000
.b
Steel penstock material
12800
LF
$
125
$
1.600,000
.c
Penstock installation
12800
LF
$
250
$
3,200,000
.3
TAILRACE
.a
Excavation
1
LS
$
25.000
$
25,000
.b
Support and lining
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25,000
333
WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
1
Supply
1
LS
$
2,115,000
$
2,115,000
.2
Install
1
LS
$
500,000
$
500,000
334
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1
Switchgear
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150,000
.2
Station Service
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150.000
3
Control Panel
1
LS
$
250,000
$
250.000
.4
Conduit/wires/cables
1
LS
$
150,000
$
150,000
.5
Power to intake
1
LS
$
75,000
$
75,000
335
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1
Cooling Water System
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25,000
2
Powerhouse crane
1
LS
$
250.000
$
250.000
336
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1
Highway to Powerhouse
3
MI
$
300,000
$
900,000
.2
Powerhouse to intake
0.5
MI
$
250,000
$
125,000
3
Highway to Falls Creek Diversion
0.5
MI
$
250,000
$
125,000
.4
Bridge
1
LS
$
200,000
$
200.000
.5
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$
100,000
$
100,000
350
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
1
Land rights - transmission line
1
LS
$
10,000
$
10.000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352
(TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1
Substation foundations
1
LS
$
50,000
$
50,000
.2
Oil spill containment
1
LS
$
25,000
$
25,000
.3
Grounding grid
1
LS
$
10,000
$
10,000
353
STATION EQUIPMENT
1
Main transformer
1
LS
$
100,000
$
100,000
.2
Accessory switchgear equipment
1
LS
$
350,000
$
350,000
356
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
1
New pole line
1
MI
$
760,000
$
750.000
Total Direct Construction Costs
$
20,000,000
Design Engineering
10%
$
2,000,000
FERC and other licensing
$
1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead
5%
$
1.000.000
Construction Management
5%
$
1,000,000
Subtotal
$
25,000,000
Contingency
30%
$
7.500,000
Interest during construction
7%
$
7,314.000
2008 Estimated Project Cost
$
39,820.000
Annual Energy, MWh
21,100
Debt Service
$
2,892,880
O&M
$
600,000
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh
$
0.166
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C — Cost Information
=9k
Type Simple concrete gravity
Crest Length 250 ft
Max height 9 ft
Crest width 1.5
Section
length
height
area, sf Vol, cy
A
50%
100%
54 250
B
30%
80%
37 102
C
20%
50%
17 31
Excavation
Width 27
Depth 2
Volume 500 cy
Box Intake
Length 30
Width 15
Height 15
Thickness, avg 1.5
Concrete volumes
Floor 25 cy
Walls 75
Total 100 cy
Excavation 375 cy
Sluiceway
Length 30
Width 10
Height 18
Thickness, avg 2
Concrete volumes
Floor 17 cy
Walls 70
87
Excavation 300 cy
01
Grant Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
PENSTOCK
FALLS CREEK DIVERSION
Head
200 ft
Head 100 ft
Flow
430 cfs
Flaw 110 cfs
Vel, max
12 fps
Vel, max 12 fps
Dia, req
81.1 inches
Dia, req 41.0 inches
t, req
0.1952
t, req 0.0494
t, handling
0.2527
t, handling 0.1525
t, min
0.2527
t, ndn 0.1525
wt, ft
201.1 lbs
wt, ft 61.4 Ibs
area
21.2
area 10.7
Cost
Cost
Material
$ 1.50 lb
$ 301.70
Material $ 1.50 Ib
Lining
$ 1.50 sf
$ 31.84
Lining $ 1.50 sf
Coating
$ 1.50 sf
$ 31.84
Coating $ 1.50 sf
$ 365.37
Supports
Supports
Span
60 ft
Span 60 ft
Length
Length
#
50
# 0
Width, 2d
13.512595
Width, 2d 6.834408
Depth, .5d
3.3781488
Depth, .5 1.708602
Height, .5d
3.3781488
Height,.! 1.708602
Vol
285.56342
Vol 0
Thrust Blocks
Thrust Blocks
#
5.0
# 0.0
Width, 2d
13.512595
Width, 2d 13.5126
Depth,2d
13.512595
Depth,2d 13.5126
Height, 2d
13.512595
Height, 2- 13.5126
Vol
456.90147
Vol 0
Total
742.46489
Total 0
71
$ 92.10
$ 16.10
$ 16.10
$ 124.31
Grant bake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information
'as:11FA: IV0 CollM
Powerhouse structure
Prefab metal building ($/sf) 350
Length 50
Width 50
Thickness 2
Draft tube chamber
Length 15
Width 15
Depth 10
Thickness, avg 4
Concrete Volumes
Foundation 88.9
Floor 185.2
274.0741
Prefab Building 875000
72
Excavation
1900
Appendix D - Project Photographs
73
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix D — Project Photographs
Grant Lake looking south towards natural outlet. Proposed intake at the
natural outlet.
z
Grant Lake drainage basin.
74
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix D — Project Photographs
Grant Lake looking north with natural outlet in foreground.
75
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix D — Project Photographs
Looking upstream at one of potential intake sites at
Falls Creek.
76
Grant Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report - Appendix D — Project Photographs
Second potential intake at Falls Creek. Proposed penstock would
exit on the left hand side of this photograph.
Aerial view of Falls Creek area.
77
Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report Update
The Grant Lake Falls Creek Hydroelectric project was first reviewed in the 1980's as a potential source of
hydroelectric power. More recently, in 2008, a reconnaissance study aimed at identifying new
alternatives for hydropower at Grant Lake was completed by Kenai Hydro LLC with a grant from the
Alaska Energy Authority. Kenai Hydro LLC is a renewable energy partnership between Homer Electric
Association and Wind Energy Alaska.
This update is intended to document changes to the project layout and features associated with the Grant
Lake/Falls Creek hydroelectric project development since the completion of the Reconnaissance Report in
March 2009. These changes in the project are as a result of many different factors including;
• More accurate environmental data gathered through one full field season of project impact
studies;
• Several reconnaissance field trips to walk potential pipeline and road alignments;
• A ground survey of the lake outlet and the potential power house location;
• Acquisition of Lidar geographic data provided by the Kenai Watershed Forum;
• Additional feedback from agency representatives on information gathered in the field;
• Consultation with Homer Electric operations personnel on how this project would be integrated
into the existing system.
This new information has necessitated the modification of many aspects of the preferred layout identified
in the March reconnaissance report. These changes are significant and will affect the construction,
environmental impact, operation, and cost of the proposed facility.
The changes are summarized below.
1. Replacement of penstock with tunnel. This major change was a result of several field visits to
the site to stake out a potential penstock alignment as shown in several of the early studies of the
project. The site walks and new Lidar data made available showed that there was not a cost
effective means of conveying the water from the intake to the powerhouse with a penstock. A
route along the edge of the canyon proved to be too steep and unstable to allow excavating a
bench for the pipe. An overland route along the north side of Grant Creek had an unfavorable
profile which would preclude gravity flow. Low saddles along the lake were also reviewed using
the Lidar data and none proved low enough for a penstock alignment.
After determining that an above ground penstock would not be feasible, focus shifted to a tunnel
to bring the water from a low level in the lake directly to the powerhouse. Preliminary work now
calls for a 2800-1f 10 ft diameter tunnel on the south side of the creek exiting the hillside directly
above the powerhouse where the water conveyance system transitions to an above ground
penstock for the remaining distance to the powerhouse.
Intake configuration modifications. The switch to a tunnel and penstock necessitated several
changes to the layout of the intake. Initially it was thought that a low head diversion structure
with an intake and low level outlet integral to this structure was the preferred configuration. With
a tunnel being used for conveyance, the intake structure was moved to the south east of the
natural outlet and impoundment, into deeper water. It is currently configured as a tower type
intake structure, with multiple level intakes to provide for temperature regulation in response to
environmental concerns. The tunnel configuration now allows for a direct intake thus improving
the reliability and operation of the system. A diversion with a crest elevation of 706.0 is still
required at the outlet of Grant Lake.
The requirement of a low level outlet to release bypass flows into the canyon has not yet been
determined. Such a requirement becomes very problematic at levels below the natural lake level,
Technical Memo #1 October 2009
Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
as the topography below the natural outlet does not allow for an easy way to get water into the
creek without significant excavation or pumping requirements.
Unit size and configuration. After energy optimization studies and discussions with Homer
Electric operations staff and fisheries biologists, the preliminary arrangement of the turbines and
how they will be operated was decided. It was initially hoped that the project could be used to
balance wind power production that Homer Electric has plans on developing. This type of
operation would result in potentially large fluctuations in downstream flow levels in Grant Creek
as load is either added or taken away from the turbines.
Discussions with fish biologists have indicated that this type of operation could be harmful to
resident fish. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the generating units would have enough capacity
and response times to counter fluctuations in wind generation. With this information, it was
decided that the plant would be designed to provide firm capacity in the winter and optimized
energy production year round.
The preferred selection has the plant equipped with two units. One smaller unit will be optimized
for winter flows and an additional larger flow unit will be available for higher spring/summer
flows. These units are 1.2MW and 3.3 MW Francis units. This unit selection is based upon
preliminary studies and may be revised as additional operational constraints become known.
4. Surge tank requirement. With the length of the water conveyance system and the use of reaction
turbines, it is expected that some form of surge protection will be required to absorb water
hammer effects and transients as load on the turbine changes. The current configuration uses an
above ground surge tank located at the transition from tunnel to the penstock above the
powerhouse. The final configuration will be determined once equipment selection and
operational considerations are finalized. Other configurations that may be considered in final
design to address surge include synchronous bypass valves in the powerhouse, a surge shaft in the
tunnel, an inclined surge tank, and a partially buried surge tank excavated back into the hillside.
5. Falls Creek intake location. The location described and depicted in the 1980's era studies for the
Falls Creek Diversion was not in a suitable location. Site visits and Lidar data indicate that the
diversion/intake should be located at approximately elevation 800. The exact location will be
detailed upon further survey.
These are the changes that have been made to the project since the original March 2009 HDR
Reconnaissance report. These changes are the basis of the project description that was included in the
Preliminary Application Document that was submitted to the FERC this fall. The project layout is still
preliminary in nature, and will likely undergo changes in order to accommodate agency requirements.
Items which still need further research include the intake configuration, surge tank configuration and
location, and the exact location of the Falls Creek intake and pipeline. Work will be done to continue to
refine the project as the FERC process evolves.
An inclusion of modifications to the reconnaissance level cost estimate to reflect the above changes in
project configuration is attached. Contingency levels and interest rates have been changed based upon
KHL input. The revised estimate is included in the following pages.
Technical Memo #1 October 2009
Grant Lake and Falls Creek
GRANT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 5 - Enhanced Storage + Falls Creek
0/0
Item
Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost I
Amount
I Contingency
I Contingency
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights - Generation Plant
1 LS $50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.2 Special use permits
1 LS $50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.3 Surveying
1 LS $100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
331
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1
POWERHOUSE
.1
Excavation
700
CY
$150
$105,000
0.2
$21,000
.2
Concrete (incl. reinforcement)
390
CY
$1,200
$468,000
0.2
$93,600
.3
Metal Building
2700
SF
$350
$945,000
0.2
$189,000
.4
Misc. Metals
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.5
HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.6
Grounding Grid
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$7,500
.7
Fire Protection
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$7,500
332
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1
SITE WORK
.1
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.2
DAM AND SPILLWAY
.1
Excavation
330
CY
$150
$49,500
0.3
$14,850
.2
Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
.3
Concrete (structural)
0
CY
$1,200
$-
0.3
$-
.4
Concrete (mass)
250
CY
$1,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
.3
INTAKE
$-
.1
Excavation
375
CY
$150
$56,250
0.3
$16,875
.2
Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
.3
Trash racks
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.4
Control Gate w/operator
2
LS
$100,000
$200,000
0.3
$60,000
.5
Shutoff Gate w/operator
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
0.3
$45,000
.6
Concrete (structural)
225
CY
$1,500
$337,500
0.3
$101,250
.7
Concrete (mass)
0
CY
$1,000
$-
0.3
$-
.8
Misc. Metals
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$7,500
.9
Misc. electrical & mechanical
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
0.10
Access Bridge
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
0.3
$60,000
.4
LOW LEVEL OUTLET
.1
Excavation
300
CY
$150
$45,000
0.3
$13,500
.2
Concrete (structural)
90
CY
$1,200
$108,000
0.3
$32,400
.3
Valve w/operator
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
.4
Misc. Metals
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
Technical Memo #1 October 2009
333
334
335
Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
5
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1
PENSTOCK
.a
Clearing
0.7
.b
Steel penstock material
650
.c
Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
150
A
Penstock installation
650
.e
Slope stabilization
0.1
.f
Surge tank
1
.2
TUNNEL
.a
Excavation
2800
.b
Tunnel Support
1400
.c
Lining
1400
A
Portals
2
.3
TAILRACE
.a
Excavation
1
.b
Support and lining
1
.4
FALLS CREEK PIPELINE
.a
Clearing
20.0
.b
Steel pipeline material
13000
.c
Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
620
A
Pipeline installation
13000
.e
Slope stabilization
2.5
.6
FALLS CREEK DIVERSION
.1
Excavation
200
.2
Care of Water/Diversion
1
.3
Concrete (structural)
50
.4
Concrete (mass)
100
.5
Valve w/operator
1
.6
Sluice gate w/operator
1.0
.7
Misc. metals
1.0
WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1
Supply
1
.2
Install
1
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1
Switchgear
1
.2
Station Service
1
.3
Control Panel
1
.4
Conduit/wires/cables
1
.5
Power and controls to intake
1
Power and controls to Falls Creek
.6
Diversion
1
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
Technical Memo #1
ACRE
$25,000
$18,652
0.3
$5,596
LF
$370
$240,500
0.2
$48,100
CY
$1,200
$180,000
0.3
$54,000
LF
$250
$162,500
0.2
$32,500
MI
$250,000
$30,000
0.3
$9,000
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
LF
$1,500
$4,200,000
0.3
$1,260,000
LF
$1,000
$1,400,000
0.3
$420,000
LF
$500
$700,000
0.3
$210,000
EA
$250,000
$500,000
0.3
$150,000
LS
$75,000
$75,000
0.3
$22,500
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$7,500
ACRE
$25,000
$500,000
0.3
$150,000
LF
$130
$1,690,000
0.2
$338,000
CY
$1,200
$744,000
0.3
$223,200
LF
$100
$1,300,000
0.2
$260,000
MI
$250,000
$625,000
0.3
$187,500
CY
$150
$30,000
0.3
$9,000
LS
$150,000
$150,000
0.3
$45,000
CY
$1,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
CY
$1,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
LS
$75,000
$75,000
0.3
$22,500
LS
$75,000
$75,000
0.3
$22,500
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
LS
$2,025,000
$2,025,000
0.3
$607,500
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
LS
$300,000
$300,000
0.3
$90,000
LS
$150,000
$150,000
0.3
$45,000
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
LS
$200,000
$200,000
0.3
$60,000
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
October 2009
336
350
352
353
356
Grant Lake and Falls Creek
.1 Cooling Water System
1
LS
$25,000
.2 Powerhouse crane
1
LS
$300,000
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1 Upgrade Existing Road
1.2
MI
$50,000
.2 New Road to Intake and Powerhouse
3.0
MI
$250,000
.3 New Road to Falls Creek Diversion
0.4
MI
$250,000
.4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$100,000
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land rights - transmission line
1
LS
$10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1 Substation foundations
1
LS
$50,000
.2 Oil spill containment
1
LS
$25,000
.3 Grounding grid
2
LS
$10,000
STATION EQUIPMENT
.1 Main transformer
1
LS
$157,500
.2 Accessory switchgear equipment
1
LS
$350,000
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 New pole line
0.8
MI
$750,000
Total Direct Construction Costs
Design Engineering
10%
FERC and other licensing
Owner's General Administration &
overhead
5%
Construction Management
5%
Subtotal
$25,000
0.3
$7,500
$300,000
0.3
$90,000
$60,000
0.2
$12,000
$750,000
0.2
$150,000
$100,000
1.2
$120,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
$10,000
0.3
$3,000
0.3
$-
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
$25,000
0.3
$7,500
$20,000
0.3
$6,000
$157,500
0.3
$47,250
$350,000
0.3
$105,000
$600,000
0.2
$120,000
23,300,000
$6,427,621
$2,330,000
0.2
$466,000
$1,000,000
0.2
$200,000
$1,165,000
0.2
$233,000
$1,165,000
0.2
$233,000
$28,960,000
$7,559,621
Interest during construction 8.0% $6,162,000
2009 Estimated Project Cost $42,690,000
Annual Energy, MWh 23,400
Debt Service 8.0% $3,792,043
O&M $639,600
2009 Cost of Energy, $/kWh $0.189
Assumptions:
1 Financing and interest rates have been assumed at 8% per KHL guidance.
2 The cost of energy is only a representative indicator to evaluate similar alternatives. The actual
cost of energy will largely be a function of the financing ultimately arranged for the project.
3 The effect of grant funding is not reflected in the cost of energy.
Technical Memo #1
GRANTLAKE
October 2009
Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 3 - Enhanced Storage
0/0
Item
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Amount
Contingency
Contingency
330
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1
Land Rights - Generation Plant
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.2
Special use permits
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.3
Surveying
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
331
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1
POWERHOUSE
.1
Excavation
700
CY
$150
$105,000
0.2
$21,000
.2
Concrete (incl. reinforcement)
390
CY
$1,200
$468,000
0.2
$93,600
.3
Metal Building
2700
SF
$350
$945,000
0.2
$189,000
.4
Misc. Metals
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.5
HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.6
Grounding Grid
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$ 7,500
.7
Fire Protection
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$ 7,500
332
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1
SITE WORK
.1
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.2
DAM AND SPILLWAY
.1
Excavation
330
CY
$150
$49,500
0.3
$14,850
.2
Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
.3
Concrete (structural)
0
CY
$1,200
$ -
0.3
$ -
.4
Concrete (mass)
250
CY
$1,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
.3
INTAKE
$ -
.1
Excavation
375
CY
$150
$56,250
0.3
$16,875
.2
Care of Water/Diversion
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
.3
Trash racks
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.4
Control Gate w/operator
2
LS
$100,000
$200,000
0.3
$60,000
.5
Shutoff Gate w/operator
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
0.3
$45,000
.6
Concrete (structural)
225
CY
$1,500
$337,500
0.3
$101,250
.7
Concrete (mass)
0
CY
$1,000
$ -
0.3
$ -
.8
Misc. Metals
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$ 7,500
.9
Misc. electrical & mechanical
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
0.10
Access Bridge
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
0.3
$60,000
.4
LOW LEVEL OUTLET
.1
Excavation
300
CY
$150
$45,000
0.3
$13,500
.2
Concrete (structural)
90
LS
$1,200
$108,000
0.3
$32,400
.3
Valve w/operator
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
.4
Misc. Metals
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.5
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
Technical Memo #1
October 2009
Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric
.1
PENSTOCK
.a
Clearing
0.7
ACRE
$25,000
$18,652
0.3
$ 5,596
.b
Steel penstock material
650
LF
$370
$240,500
0.2
$48,100
.c
Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)
150
CY
$1,200
$180,000
0.3
$54,000
A
Penstock installation
650
LF
$250
$162,500
0.2
$32,500
.e
Slope stabilization
0.1
MI
$250,000
$30,000
0.3
$ 9,000
.f
Surge tank
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
.2
TUNNEL
.a
Excavation
2800
LF
$1,500
4,200,000
0.3
$1,260,000
.b
Tunnel Support
1400
LF
$1,000
1,400,000
0.3
$420,000
.c
Lining
1400
LF
$500
$700,000
0.3
$210,000
A
Portals
2
EA
$250,000
$500,000
0.3
$150,000
.3
TAILRACE
.a
Excavation
1
LS
$75,000
$75,000
0.3
$22,500
.b
Support and lining
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$ 7,500
0.3
$ -
333
WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1
Supply
1
LS
$2,025,000
2,025,000
0.3
$607,500
.2
Install
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
334
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1
Switchgear
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
0.3
$90,000
.2
Station Service
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
0.3
$45,000
.3
Control Panel
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
.4
Conduit/wires/cables
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
0.3
$60,000
.5
Power and controls to intake
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
0.3
$75,000
335
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1
Cooling Water System
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$ 7,500
.2
Powerhouse crane
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
0.3
$90,000
336
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1
Upgrade Existing Road
1.2
MI
$50,000
$60,000
0.2
$12,000
.2
New Road to Intake and Powerhouse
3.0
MI
$250,000
$750,000
0.2
$150,000
.3
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
0.3
$30,000
350
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1
Land rights - transmission line
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
0.3
$ 3,000
0.3
$ -
352
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS(TRANSMISSION
FACILITY)
.1
Substation foundations
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
0.3
$15,000
.2
Oil spill containment
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
0.3
$ 7,500
.3
Grounding grid
2
LS
$10,000
$20,000
0.3
$ 6,000
353
STATION EQUIPMENT
.1
Main transformer
1
LS
$157,500
$157,500
0.3
$47,250
Technical Memo #1
October 2009
Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
.2 Accessory awhohgaarequipment 1
LS $350000 $350.800
0.3
$105.000
356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS &DEV|CES
.1 New pole line 0.8
k8| $750.000 *600.000
0.2
*120.080
Total Direct Construction Costs
$17700,000
$4.959.921
Design Engineering 10%
$ 1.770.000
02
$354.000
FERCand other licensing
o 1.000.000
0.2
%200.000
Owner's General Administration &
overhead 5%
$885.000
0.2
%177.000
Construction Management 5%
$885'000
0.2
$177.000
Subtotal
$22^240.000
$5.807.921
Interest during construction 80% $ 4.742,000
2OO9Estimated Project Cost $32.850.000
Annual Energy, MVVh 19.000
Debt Service 8.0% $ 2.017.981
O&M $572.400
2009Coa ofEnergy, $/kVvh $0.184
Assumptions:
1 Financing and interest rates have been assumed od8%per KHLguidance.
The cost of energy is only a representative indicator to evaluate similar alternatives. The actual cost of energy will largely be
2 afunction ofthe financing ultimately arranged for the project.
@ The effect ofgrant funding iunot reflected inthe cost ofenergy.
Technical Memo #1 October 2009