HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis Volume 3 Technical Appendix 1984Alaska Power Authority LIBRARY COpy
GRANT LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
VOLUME 3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
EBtfCO
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
January 1984
I '
i I
i i i ' I I
I
I.....--_ALASIiA POWER AUTHORITY_-----J
GRANT LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
for the
Alaska Power Authority
by
Ebasco Services Incorporated
Bellevue, Washington
January, 1984
c 1984 Alaska Power Authority
Part
I GEOTECHNICAL DATA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
II BATHYMETRIC AND PROJECT AREA MAPPING
III DETAILED ECONOMIC ANALYSES
IV FORECASTED PRICE OF NATURAL GAS IN COOK INLET REGION
V TRANSMISSION LINE STUDIES
VI FIELD STUDY CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
VII RESERVOIR AREA-CAPACITY, FLOOD HYDROLOGY, AND OUTLET
RATING DATA
VIII AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
IX AQUATIC SURVEYS METHODOLOGY
X FISHERIES MITIGATION PLAN DOCUMENTS
XI ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES REPORTS
Section
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
PART I
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Results of Geotechnical Field Investigations Conducted During
1982 for the Preferred Alternative
2 Results of Geotechnical Field Investigations Conducted During
1981 for Project Alternatives
SECTION 1
RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED DURING
1982 FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 1
RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
CONDUCTED DURING 1982 FOR THE PREFERRED AL1ERNATIVE
Included in this section are the results of the boring program
conducted during 1982 in the vicinity of the project features. These
borings, in conjunction with the surface mapping, geographical surveys,
and the detailed literature search, formed the basis of the
geotechnical conclusions presented in Volume I of the feasibility
report and ultimately the general project layout.
1
Key to Rock Core Log*
. 1. Description of Strata
The rocks are described by lithologic (rock) type, color, bed
thickness, grain size, and accessory minerals present. Each core
run is described separately.
2. Discontinuities
Critical bedding planes, fractures, foliations and shear zones are
measured from the perpendicular to the core axis.
For partings and joints, the distinction can be made between rough
versus smooth surfaces. The latter will most often be much more
severe from an engineering point of view than a rough
discontinuity. Joints and other parting surfaces can be
characterized by the following descriptive terms (modified after
Bieniawsky, 1979):
(a) Rough Ridge and side-angle steps are evident;
asperities are clearly visible, and discontinuity surface
feels very abrasive.
* From: 1) Geologic Logging and Sampling of Rock Core for
Engineering Purposes, R&M Consultants, Inc., 1980. 2) Tunnel
Design by Rock Mass Classifications, Bieniawski, Z.T., 1979,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report GL 79-19.
-2-
-
...
....
.~,
....
(b) Moderately rough Asperities on the discontinuity
surfaces are visually distinguishable and can be felt.
(c) Moderately smooth
asperities can be felt.
Surface appears smooth; few
(d) Smooth -Surface appears smooth and feels so to the
touch.
(e) Slickensided -Visual evidence of polishing exists.
The general geometric configuration of discontinuities can be
described by the following terms which may be used singly or in
combination:
(a) Planar -Profile of the discontinuity is linear.
(b) Curving -Profile of the discontinuity is arcuate.
(c) Undulatory -Profile of the discontinuity is sinuous.
(d) Irregular -Near vertical steps and ridges characterize
the discontinuity profile.
Discontinuity fillings are just as important -often more important -
than the size and orientation of the discontinuities. One must
distinguish between 7 major types of coating and/or filling
materials:
(a) Joints, seams and sometimes even minor faults may be
healed through precipitation of quartz or calcite from
solutions. In this instance, the discontinuity may be
"welded" together. Such discontinuities may, however,
-3-
have broken up again, forming new surfaces. Also, it
should be emphasized that quartz and calcite may well be
present in a discontinuity without healing it.
(b) Clean discontinuities, i.e., without fillings or coatings.
Many of the rough joints or partings have this favorable
character . At shallow depths, however, one shou Id not
confuse clean discontinuities with "empty" discontinuities
where filling material has been leached and washed away
due to surface weathering.
(c) Calcite fillings may, particularly when they are porous
or flaky, dissolve during the lifetime of an underground
opening. Their contribution to the strength of the rock
mass will then, of course, disappear. This is a long
time stability (and sometimes fluid flow) problem that can
easily be overlooked during design and construction.
Gypsum fillings may behave the same way.
(d) Coatings or fillings of chlorite, talc and graphite give
very slippery, i.e., low strength, joint, seams or faults,
in particular when wet.
(e) Clay material in seams and faults represents very weak
material that may be squeezed or be washed out.
(f) Swelling clay may cause serious problems through free
swell and consequent loss of strength, or through con-
siderable swelling pressure when confined.
(g) Material that has been altered to a more cohesion less
material (sand-like) may run or flow into the tunnel
immediately following excavation.
-4-
..
...
...
...
..
-
It should be emphasized again that the character of the discon-
tinuities is at least as important as frequency from an engineering
point of view. Thus, joint frequency per se is not a sufficient
basis for evaluating the behavior of a jointed rock mass.
3. Joint and Fracture Spacing
The following classification explains the codes found under
"Fractures" on the log.
F-1 Wide: fracture spacing greater than three feet.
F-2 Moderately close: fracture spacing eight inches to
three feet.
F-3 Close: fracture spacing four inches to eight inches.
F-4
F-S
Very close:
inches.
fracture spacing two inches to four
Extremely close:
inches.
fracture spacing less than two
Joint spacing refers to the distance normal to the plane of the
joints of a single system or set of joints that are parallel to each
other or nearly so.
The angle of fractures and joints are measured from the perpen-
dicular to the core axis for plotting on geologic cross-sections so
that their engineering significance can be determined.
4. Weathering
The following weathering classification is used in the "Weathering"
column on the log:
-5-
u Fresh: no visible sign of weathering;
FW Faintly weathered: weathering limited to the
surface of major discontinuities;
SW Slightly weathered: penetrative weathering
developed on open discontinuity surfaces but only
slight weathering of rock material;
MW
HW
Moderately weathered: weathering extends
throughout the rock mass but the rock material is
not friable;
Highly weathered: rock is wholly decomposed
and in a friable condition but the rock texture
and structure .are preserved i
RS Residual soil: a soil material with the original
texture, structure and mineralogy of the rock
completely destroyed (includes fault gouge).
5. Hardness
The following hardness classification is used:
very hard (VH)
-6-
Cannot be scratched with knife
or sharp pick. Breaking of
hand specimens requires several
hard blows of geologist's pick.
...
.'
..
WI'
hard (H)
moderately hard (M)
soft (S)
very soft (VS)
6. Core Recovery
Can be scratched with knife or
pick only with difficulty.
Hard blow of hammer required
to detach hand specimen.
Can be scratched with knife or
pick. Gouges or grooves to ".
inch deep can be excavated by
hard blow of point of a geo-
logist's pick. Hand specimens
can be detached by moderate
blow.
Can be gouged or grooved
readily with knife or pick
point. Can be excavated in
chips to pieces several inches
in size by moderate blows of a
pick point. Small thin pieces
can be broken with finger
pressure.
Can be carved with knife.
Can be excavated readily with
point of pick. Pieces 1 inch or
more in thickness can be
broken with finger pressure.
Can be scratched readily by
fingernail.
During the drilling process, the bit cuttings are removed by fluid
circulation. The sample which passes up into the core barrel may
be classified into five categories:
-7-
(a) Solid core greater than 0.1 m in length;
(b) Solid core less than 0.1 m in length;
(c) Fragmental material not recovered as core;
(d) Additional material which may have been lost from the
previous core run. This may be the core stump left
when the barrel was pulled or material dropped from the
core barrel during its withdrawl from the hole or cut-
tings which have settled when circulation of drilling fluid
was stopped.
I n addition, core may have been lost by:
(e) Erosion of soft or friable material, resulting in a
reduction in diameter or length of the core or both.
This eroded material may be entirely removed by
the drilling fluid.
The material which is placed in the core box consists of items (a) I
(b), (c), and (d) above and (omitting (e) from the subsequent
discussion) is strictly defined as the total ~ recovery. If no
material falls into class (e), then the total core recovery is 100
percent in that there is no loss of sample. The material which is
recovered as solid core pieces at full diameter (a) and (b) above
is strictly defined as the solid ~ recovery. It must be stressed
that the total and solid core recoveries are only equivalent when
no fragmental material is recovered. This arises either when the
rock is solid or loss of sample is represented wholly by material
carried away by the drilling fluid. It should be noted that core
recovery is expressed as a percentage of the total run length.
-8-
'c
....
III·
...
....
",.
..
..
7. Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
The Rock Quality Designation method of determining rock quality
is as follows:
Count only those pieces of core which are four inches (10 cm)
in length or longer and which are hard and sound, sum up
the total length of core recovered in each run. The sum is
then represented as a percentage over the entire length of
the run. If the core is broken by handling or by the
drilling process, the fresh broken pieces are fitted together
and counted as one piece provided that they form the
requisite length of four inches (10 cm).
Relation of RQD and Rock Quality
Description of
RQD (%) Rock Quality
0 -25 Very Poor
25 -50 Poor
50 -75 Fair
75 -90 Good
90 -100 Excellent
NOTE: RQD can only be used on NX core or larger. The RQD
should always be shown on the core log as a percentage.
The diagnostic description is intended primarily for
evaluating problems with tunnels or excavations in rock.
-9-
SlIr~Elev. I --Hole Depth , ~;tl HOlkNO• · ,ROCK CORE ~PG 456 3'1.«/ -/-~
GrlJi l-;;;¥:n {~ HOI.~atlon Project g~
.;.'i ~~ .&:~~ ;' 'Eenc,LJL lSI I I
Client Se f}Srs.O C!LJRP
....,
Geologi.t /....E1~soN . She.t-L of .....2:.-
..
Location PO£.JEi2. f/()US E CoVE. ' calin g }/ I, Surfac. D .. criptlon: U.ed t.I ' ,
Drilling Co, IE I R i!M.P"'rr'rEA-~ .3~ 11 (,t ~ Jr'E t;,.. 0
co#~ze_a~Pllng ... thod . .B'J..1"~ S?.f!!.t-(c.£ Ttl 4c Drill.r~ AeRJEe. Dril~~hto6/~ lJ),. S',P~tA.C ~ 72> .lor
/
Location Dla,ra", I ,RoCk Qualitr GROUND WATER TABLE Special
N CD PH /-tr2.. Parameters DePth in ft. 0.0 11-()Tl:SII9/i T .. tln.1 • t .... "0'
. . .! • c • • at n",. ii' Od ~ M • • Tt.1JA/E L c
I&. C I/o' 1 .. at 0 : • C .. Oat • '~~/'b. c u c .c J I 1" so ItL I (J,N M£~ T at • '': ~ .. • • a. c .. • ,
.c Of PO(.j~ If Ho,,-~ E-C£)vE. 11111!~H ~ • at ~ W.D./A-B • 2 0 G "G s: c Q -.. --0 a. .. \!J "G U G • U 0 • ~ I&. • a • .. • DESCRI PTION OF STRATA -DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA Q 0 / III .. ~ (I) II: II: I&.
0 -........ '""" /6p /' "_d ... 'f. _6..-r-.1 ~ ........ '-'"'
~-a",(1( Jdt:c~ -/-" h..-,. JtJ-e4.,i" /vD . I .. ~'':'" 1--f( J (0.0-~.OJ --i~?J /)/?ILI-ER NO IE S Ct..A~ I
.
2--A-/1A~' . I --?8. /l1/~(vl"-""" ,'s~... s,'),Iv 3-~ . . Sa .... cI·c: 'G ... ~ 'f-I' ,."'''', V. ..f. ..... r-. .. I 75,' 1-0 _~..1 c~, 's • ."." .s"k a"'9 I
4-'. . ~ fo SfA.b".,.,r(' /-J.." q v/ of "" ~l"g I {J/'f bIDC,it!d off' ar-s' ~;zo r-
0, s_ ~ I
--f?' £:J..Js-.O-IO.Q) S,~,'/a~ 1-0 ·"CLt;fJR. Mu/)" il't 'd "" 'I//"tl
1-o J..,.. e.. -SQ. ",III.., '5/ It-t> ~ ./-' J L "Dl. ", -~/:Lb Sa",Dt' t.//~,.. I ", ~. '. -:\.:....'~
~ !: kh ,,,of 9 vI . c:<:., I , 1-~ .% :"/ ': }: ,'.
r-
.-~ !'/. -" (. ;..', . r ,
I
I-~ 8-~ '"
, Cit t;./II/ ~ To 1£1' ~~.kJ.P.2... ~
'0_ . 0/. " I
r--' , ~' , IR 3. {/().O-I!/' S) A/ ,
~ ;& /kGU-'" s/",,;/c..~ H q J:,."e., --II--.J --11/55 letleA' -reU>vf! ...... o.l. I
, , S .... ~,."'cJ .k ,..,,0( 9/// It (2 _
~ ~'~ J:.ob b Ie. s. .. -. lI' 6
I
~3 -r--.' I I .-() ":. .
(4-r--0 d
-:: I -/~ ~!5-r---~ .~ LR.~ (L'I,S--1'15) . . :' I . " $, ',.,." 'Ie.... 1'tJ Q .h ,lIVe.. • " ~ 1-/6--°0 " 1Je.,/': ... to ~ S 1'Mu.c./... $ //1" ~,... -~ O~ , 11_ SQ. '" cI "t>",::t Q. S I:. o,.,:!-.,,-e • " r r--~d Pro ~ sevv..d. ~ ,.. v..A . . -, .... : ' r-l.J,-~ Sec. f!t..".,e,cI CDhb. S '8-r--'Dk .S~ sOH -r-I
19-' I r--//;f 'Rst 19.5-2.I.S) 5 a "",,. ~ ~s.
70 ctI __ oy ct. ' . . ~ .... ' .. :-,-, I ,-....
....
IJII',
;
• 'k ... ..
,.. ..
• .,
•
.
0
OWN. eMI-~ t:~A.lJr L.AKe' ',1,/& -D.H. NO. 1-8Z
CKD. JII4& R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. 4e-O TE"c#A/~~AL--0 .: .-,,, SHEET I OFcl..
DATE, 7/1z/ez .NCI'N.... ..al.a •.• T. ~ANN... au_v. va •• , .. -... :.'
PROJ. NO./.5'1/8/ T;';vES774,4nbiJ .
,,., jO' -.
SCALE, I"~' . \ ., _·~i·,.-:::;, .;:' --""~ ./~ ',', DWG.NO. -
..
....
:;.e,. ......... -~~
Surf48 ;;~5s' Hole De~ttl I Crm Hole No. · ROCK CORE ~OG 3 .~ ~H / i" J..
GrltLPlt~lon HOle~';6~CA<:.. Project No. I .'~ £2: ~lr;J:'4?z /S// g'1
C lI.nt&1 &Its co CoRp ...,
',ologiat MR...5 oN"" Sht.t.....:3:::. of ~
Loccrtio~ PoLJEleH(Jl,( S € Cove.._ Cosing Alv .' ! Sur'ace D .. criptlon~ . , Used _:::
Drilling CO. IE/ Ri~PA/a..ycA.(. If corivs~._ a~lino M.tho~ . seJE i'/TGr.E.. 1.
Drill.r Cut:I<./£1!?. Dril~:Vi.l°
• Loeatloft Dlagrom Rock Quolitr GROUND WATER TABLE Special -Poram.t,r. Oejjth in Ft. O.() It£.n ! '>IA ,/ T.stlnl , .. ~ -c • • . SEE.. P4G-E .t .,. Tim • V:I>~ AM • .. c
"" c ~. C 0 , .,. Dot. (,h:S/i2. .! u , 1: • C ... . c .. 'i-,,'. .,. • .;: .Jt: .. • • c .. -• .. .. 0. • .,. W.D./A.B • ... .. !! CJ Z .Jt:
,.
Q. 0 ... .., .. c 0 Q ... I!I .., u ., • u 0 • :::l:! IL. • ., • ~ • Q 0 / DESCRIPTION OF STRATA III .. :t: (/) II: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA IL.
~ .-.
C/'a. I i-
. ' ~I-'. 0 I. ' . ... r-. () ',() Kfn (;(f.S--:<' 5J ~ r-'Ii' '.
~2-r--~ £t;u.o I,/f!!.JIII' v-n-o J,.tA 6k I
Sdt. ""oI,.i ' $, L-t ' ,
I-r .. .-1% I -I ~4--
~--Z; r--I
;I},..h.3'CS_ fj(Jf.) k 1 C4,S,;" ... I-0 Dr,,! Ie,... ;,~1-e. ~ C!r::..v c."t t:!. 'f-..'t'~_ 'f-t1+ ",!S ' f2"1' ~./.:JJ ./Y;;a. ;tJS-r--.......... "7' . . ~ • J "r-' ,. / .
IU-r-1<.7 ( ::2., . s--~? $) AI" I
r-t;'tlc.ov'e.f'Y-PrtJ/, .... J.1 ~/23/K'~ D,.;II"",,~
t.4-~. ('jo..+,., , '-1....1/0 CO..r--i.-.. ,.."" ... " .rio :--· . · . IR g-(2Z.t;--.<s-O.ff)8J'-(I?Jc 6() S lu M Vi It: 13 9~ f-dO'rJ--~ b::.-Jt rli " ~ ~ .... · : '" ). ... tL i-...... ~1f. (') , Co leei ... e..t:lec.S If L}.$L'lE -(: c .s.. ec( 1-0 .:J...S' .~-r--~ .. : .. ; .. l3-nr, Jtu".IcQ. -q __ . +, ..... ..J..t, ! :To;,,, Is.. 80· A JI c.t.!ll,' ~ '-',\ . ~ ,. . '" ""'r:;1oi' .c ~ tL : .... If .. c. Ie ... ~ I,,, II , ~ ,I , So ,... ... 'I;( .D J t2 ... t!.li:' l ~ o_ r--;. .. ~ : , .,'" i .sub ",,,"'" ,S/c.,l.'e, 1,·f!I,.(' cl.~t~ L<'S' i.f I,ti H i&;3 12) 9.<""" ~,' ..... c.. I¢.,';t.e. rLk~L ~ \ ... ~ " .
J ,-r--1#\./1': . S/tJl-.o.. I.e .......... -kt.:1 I (I' /,..,..~<;;, Ie..,. I ..
I-Rt2r~/k I /},/,'OI."..(Tic I-a .. ;e,,// .. bOo ,.,/ .. :'e.. .. _ad ,....,.',c Lc.lu ....
~c(.q·cI. / / -t.//-.:.lr'.n. J , ,~,o ~/<::t .. c_ /kIt:!. 1"'6 ... .-;L. ~~/c,'/t 2_ i--
R ?I30. 0-3";>.7S).s Q""", q..5 Ii , If ' . s~C': '.C' -4::-"-%," f-Cl.4.Ck'~ 'In. ..... J 0, S' ti.. ..... R9 ' Ol",Jr -. i~ ''7F1L''',.. 3-r--5/0. i~ -J.1.ek.· S()""~<.J1.4"f "'I !S" . !M 1~7 1/3 6r c./.<:. -k tit:.. ~ Ie, 'it:. J" r-
4-.. /;.u;'l ... -Jt' ,.;. J.df."'" -.. c/,Q .... < ... I If S .4'C. "''' oJ, J.,.. , -.ot I"'D ... ;J... r-I"'" . c../UV6U!. .!J/,'(../c i. po/.~J.,,,JI":'IJ... I~ SSG e t.raVll\u. I';... t./t:tM.. -'$1:<:..1<. · .' -'.~: '.: I &0.(32. t.s--3 s. 7S) !;..t.s.if!..~.s... At '0 0 """ei s"" •• t-L ~ 5--" ~ .. '" t:: e../~ .... .......... ~ cI_" fI'. .J... "\. ~"." S~ ft,: '" I R. If) I),.,. II >-t.1-L ., +;./~,.. --· . '" . ..... :r ,,,; c: ... , ...,~. ; .... .:t.e .. kt"" ... .J ~ .-... L-... .30 00 ,,-,,0( I"'O",-<:;).L v/~"-6--' " ,... ~ ,.. .. : .. :.s --""/14>" .Jo o..},,,"""'-. ~ / l':; ? l:J U 1M rs 0 ,,,. i,. ... ol .Ie.. ... _w:J... c.;:...(t:.,'k., --" ~
SM. I b I. ~'" u "'* .3.t1.' IJ, S'oo ""-Il:t. S-".<1 ~ e.:c..{c'k-pl"~it;, l1_ ' .. -'.. . ..
-~
, .. -.... Jl 11 (JS. 7~-:'3~. '-I ) 6...1c.e."..o....s: ;:> 1(/1 Dr/II d<./-a. It .fj!L' J., r-
'. ' . ' ~..-.:< v ("IQ,-K-e.. $.;.... .. , ...... +0 ~bl1vtl'!. :T;,.,is iP 0 "". It. s-'HfL ec./e."'~ 8-~ · .
-. KIA-' ... t;.\ t!4./e.;J..... v .. ,' ... J....s ........ I' ~J L-V ,~ p/c.. ..... t:.".. I ~ ~l J 1/ .r., //'e.. + ittrrr ' r~ £".,. .. ,,,,It,,, .. r-o...~ t. C.ii(t:.,·~ 9-~ rD., ';0° p/o,,-C,. $;....,..{-I-. u!e.,·"k, . .,..,
L
-I-3&''I 1.0; 0 JfJ l ....... c.. ,. I'I\.o(i ~Tn. r:,/~ 0
c . "Wt'~ ~. _1. _.'.
.. ~-;. , ,
., . , .. '
DWN. (1/d1-~ t;.iAAlr "AK€ NS-t:, D.H. NO. /-8~
eKO. v~~ R&M CDNSULTANTS INC • tJea:'~CH~<".4L .~< ;':"~.; SHEET ..:e OfDG
DATE. 7/tz/8<., • "'.,"'.... .aQ\,.oCl •• T. fIJ",ANN._ .t.v.yo .... PROJ. NO,I5'I/8/
~. ~ ,'f:~~{'r ~~" :;.:, ~ , • .:. ' ~ • -~ ~. >; . .;i~(·;,~
SCALE. 'N: I .. /A/,/c:s77'l$',{ncN' ~ ~ •.. ":;;i. ~ DWG.NO. -
,
. '
Location Gr1!ANT:' LHJ:E ' '.' r Casing A" '., . Surface Descrrptlon~ .. ~~~~~I!.L:.1.£,.;~=-,L..Q,."""'-"""';'-----'tI--I U .. d " kI ~ U1K~ ,. _
Drilling Co. I E I Ri9i.ONe-'(MIi!.. :IlL n 4::._
II • .L L Cor! ~~_e a ~a~pling y. ethod S~R.uCE. '}'O (; 0' ! Dr i lie r C"u. R.1!. ' E.Je. Dr i I fa,Q..-/i ~to' IV ~' l-Q'
-• -C • -
Location Dla,ram -" N Rock QualitJ GROUND WATER TAILE
/.' CI ,,~ Time IV~DoA'"
Special
Tntln"
• II. ~ co.'
·fbl.JU.~~ C.D~ . ., ';,~~".·t _. Parameter. DepthinFt, I.g'
•. DH·2.t.:a. ~ ...
~ " -'0' -4 . " C at
_--:-~_--=..1~~:-- - -... ' 'it, -at • C ~ Date 6/~R.l
' ... ' .,
C) c .c
• :: A. T .. ~ .. ~( A(,,.. ... ~T ~r '-: ~ 1 ~ : 0 W.D./A.I. ~1:_l1 :! .! 0 f
: 0'::: t!I
1--------.....;....-----'""'"1",,-.3 1--__ --L~~~L..---........ -----:4
o ~ / DESCRI PTION OF STRATA "'-"
.a:.::.o
CD It ~ CI) II: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
0 .-
1-----
2-r--
I-
3-r--
I-
4-I----~---1_ r---
-,-
7-r--
l-
I-:--
-~
1-r--
--JO--.--
11-r---
I-
A 5d ,d, s"H ~ 5~ I"A S4~ ;I'~·~~~"~T~~~S~~I"~~rl.~~v~~~U~~h~~.~~:,k~~~~--+-+-+-+-4-4-4------------,-----~
'/ ec .... cI JukJde.,..s +..-Q f'/ Top 0+ c..o.s,. .... ~ ..... 4."" OI",·,,· .... J , • 0 ~~~-~~~~,-~~ww~_+_+_+_4~~~~~_r~-~~+--~~-~~_;
'Q .' r-________ ' ___ / ____ +-+-+_~~~~=s~~~~~~,t~~~.~j:L-~~~r~o~~~-~~~, ______ ~
/0' . .(;I----------+--+-t-+-+--+-+-----r..-----..,...-----=-~_+I---I
.' '/ O-C.S/~~ +. 2' I
V~ :~; 1--------------1~-+-+--+-4---l------------.._...t .
. I .-
o ·)I.'~-------·--------------'------+-+_~4_~~_+~~~~~~--~~----------1
',:' .~/I---.;..-----.....;;::". ......... ----+-+--+--+--I---I--I---------------I ,D.
j, "'''''C:~ {~aI h~'T ,
,
I ' "
.. -, .. '
I,' . , .if. {l i : :..", - '
-, 0\, L.sf-cu,. ... '~ .~ I~,"",' -1... .... ~:~~------------------------_+_+_+_4~r-~HP~~~.~~~~~~~~ •• --~~~~~:~r-MJ~~~~~~'~~~.~.~. --~
No 'f; Ie-old.
I ~ •
I
,. 12-I--
,"', . /. r ~-. .. ~
~~· ___ ·---------------------___ ------HH~~++++~------------------------_;J-------___1 I-
13 -I----14----
I~-r---
-l-
II----17 _ --
/8-,..-
-'-
19 --
-I-
'0 ...
/' ,r-----------------------rH~H+++~------------------'~~ P< R.2. (/1..8'-jfn.S-) ~-'. ~
? Nf (=! MI17 If)
. ,"
~ E.3( 1r,.~--/g.7S' Gr-a.., ... 1 I't... ,~ ,~ V 'If If I,v
I 0, ILPeH,... LJ.r hi-~-J-,.. , ... /!/.~ It-
o I~ ~J.~k h~rJ .... ~ 1d "" '11.~SI
',,1", J..I~~ +t.: XI' Q,..,.v, 'f1~-L
It. k~ b.cI~ C.a Fe. ·":'-+'ikd ',/ .. -11 !'/.3 S' .U 1M NlJ IN1)
.. , R_'f.Ui. 7S'-21. ~ )("'~ ("II '"....p-
" ", ru,", ~ 1",# .t;-.;;..' r...s.,tI,'",1'
17 -f'-r / h ...
I
J
, /2..S./ iJ.. S"l4 ... 1" IS J,;F+
t../a. fe.~ ~ t /. 0 ~ I~ tJQo'e.
I I D,.: I J ~ 1.f2.. . 17 '+1' /.~ .... '
1 ' • J '.~ • , . I~" .J ~ - ' ",' -,;.-".-.,..,
OWN. t!.ML
eKe. c/M$
DATE, 7Pz/Bz
~~----~-' ----~
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
.NGIN.... ..O\.O.,.Te ~ANN._ eURV.VD ••
t:;,e'ANT LAKE /g~Z
4er)~~#A//~"'L> .~.".,{
. ~:'J~~~,-,-~-AJf.,.,J2A1-· . -.~~.~'\.r
D,H, NO,'2-8<"
SHEET J OF~
PROJ. NO. 15'1'8/
".
"
:; ,
"'"
" ..
.. ..
~
'\ ..
.. ... .. ..
1<
"'" ... ..
~----------------------------------~~--~--------.--------------.~~~~-----. sur~,EIIV"7' Hole Depth Drill Hole No.
· .ROCK COR E kOG Grid Lo~j;1~7~:' HOI
3
.'ri;";t:tlon pro'?':;;~~~J.
1::4-'¥-.z'i"?7AJ:83~ . r-:v:..!e..=::.Il~T!~C:.:..A:'::'-=+ __ ,,!,,/S!o!....!J/::!::J~ XI __ -=---l
Client E:.!?45CO .... Geologist LA-laSo/V Sh .. t~ of ::L
.. .. c • • • ..
~ c
0
c U
• ~ ~ -Q. • ::e Q 0
~ 0
I-
·ILJ -f--
~
'~2 -f--
I-
.~3-I--
I-
,.,4-f--
+
.. 5_ f--
~
1'-8_ I--
-~
'1-7-I--
+-
·~~I-!--
~
'~9-f--
~ . -0_ I--
~
~ I-f--..
-I-
J 2_ ---
3 3----
3 4_ --
3 5----
3 6--
-I-
"1 7_ f--
I-
J 8-I--
I-
:3 9-I--
~
i 0
"". c • ..
0
~ ~
)
Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special
__ :. :'. i~ P a ram ete r. Testl ng
.If;' .. ,~U . P/l~ '.2.. '. '., jl--.--aty----,"---r~:.:.:.:..::....--+---+------4
~ "1 -.~. CII :.!: ~ ~
:-~ .~. .. ~.. c ~ .i "at :
.. .. " .. _ c 0 Q 1-____ ----1. ______ "--___ ...L... ______ ~
~ " U g _~ ~ 0
"", DESCRIPTION OF STRATA , :: ~ .; en II: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
•.•.. "::. :SJc./~ 's /ocr...I/" v, +1,:"/,, Ir. .... ;'" • .+crcl'
,., ".' ~ !;~+, I.~ 1/'; ", ......... C(.t ct:c./c,'~
I-os:-I-ec,..e. ;'" £/f1.~1A ,'",-J.,,,.I,;Gls
J;,fs; I
... ~ . -. .... ~
'<."
.' •.• [R~ (2..(,.. ~-<I, .3 ) TJ,,~ -k r
,.:": . .'. Tee.r. .... ~tJ.If, fI!J"'.cI<~~cI //rl..,/"./c.
. .. BatE' .. JAv.f':,'kO II .j;/,(...J./"......~ S~
TD
o fI-. w ./~ Ii t..K1 • t CCt I r../-Ie.
, ~ ,
1,1/ It 1,1/ 1/ 1/ II Dy-Nl ra f~ ~ ft /J. w. ~.
S
I~
L\Il . \if
)1t> ..t.GY:..~ ,it: -/".".LC} /Q
,~o~e,,/...4..'" d~'I/ ;'(1", .1lI~
Co , .. .:t ,. . 1/ •. d1: , .. 0/ I
".
r -I .
I '"
I ., .. 1 , I ~f.3'1---------------------4-~-+-r~+---~----------+---~
7'''' 3/.3' :
, I
I
..
1
" .,
.. 1,", , I
/. , ." I .......
.. ... ."
.~ 'f i
.~ " .. ~J: ,·t~ .. , ~ "
OWN. {!ML
CKD. ,/M,8
DATE. 7/IZ7eZ
SCALE. J 11.:3'
.. •
..
Surface Ele.., Hole Depth I
ROCK CORE I lOG ~~/.5'o 1,9.!l-.:1..
-~ Grid LocatLolL ~L"J"7 Hole o.rlent,tl~,. A PrOj~lc~!!o; , ~Zt?~~~·o~. ~ . y~'~ /S//M/
I-C -I i.-n-t-~-::-:·:B=-~'f-:'~-~-·"--:-. 'b.-:-------(~-GeoloOi s t ~£, /L ~,.,~~ Shee'..L of ......L.L
Location ~,o,.,.;I-I..£" . . Casino HuJ Surface D .. criptlon~
DrillinoCo.:re:z RiO t'l.3. U.ed ~AM41 ~ ,,~O;
,If • ~ J.. ' J_ Co!,,,.Siz~aSamplino "ethod ....... -_"/1& el;"'6
Driller r.AJ7/Jljfl..., DrilltJLl to' 6r:J ... 9 "Q' -Cd .,--
; --c: • • • -II. c:
0
c: c.J
• .c ~ Q. • ~ 0 0
0 -
I-f--
-~
2-f--
I-
3-r--
~
4---~--
~ 6_ r----
7--._-
1--
--
9---/0----II-r--
~
,;-, .. -.,:
Location Dlaoram • Rock QualitJ GROUND WATER TABLE Special
~ • Parameter. Depthinft.13.o' #I.(L' Teltlng
i TIme]
C • r ~ Date filA-Ii:;. 7 h~/g~
< • , r.·o:: ~ = I------+-.<....:..:....:L..:...:=-t~"'-'¥-~
t'o. '" c: ..
• .c .. Q, '. :i.= gI ~ W.O. lA-B. t1l /}/3 t-----------------l1:c;~~~1---------L.....!-=--&...........;:...L.::~....L..----'""-4
DESCRIPTION OF STRATA CD .t ; CIJ II: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
0 .,
~ ..
IL " J
--..,... ...... /Jr-. ·.r~_ -'"74--r t!7' 1b F'
::::~5I""_fI!'--.d w/s:t'~ -,,/¢
. / . ~'-_./ ~dVI'!'S. I'
J
'J.$/if~ Z Yg" ~.~..c. '
U
X' .'! !-----------l----f--+--+--+--+-+--------....,,!--------l
,~
... /./~----------------~~~_I___~------------------_'""_4 . G ~
• I
~ o~ (.I-----------+--+--I--+---l-'""-4--l----------t
I ~~·,~----------------~4-~~_I___~------------------1 I
.. ·f
V:al----------------~~~4-~--------------~
; 7~-------------+-+-~~-4-+------------~~ i(~;A---'------------~-+-+-+-4--~~-----------~-~
I
I -.
J
I ..
..... .! ~ • •
)~ ... I
I
/ ~.
" . ./ ' I
I 18-1-
-r-
19-~
'.' • , ". I ".' .. r--------------------------~44~HH~~+4+_------------------~.--~ .. ~~
.' .' :." ~ l----------------_+ .... '1::-H-+:IH.H-++#------------------I
~-L~~:~"::~>~:~·.~·~~&-~~U~~,~~-~~~:~h~~.J~------~~~3~~~~~~~h~ft~a~I:~~-----------~.-----.~---~
-~ ~ . , .-_. _;!. 'c-<';c. I,'.
OWN. CI'fL-7l!
CKe. r/,#!/f
DATE. 7PZHZ-
SCALE. jq.:.5 '
O~~I\V.ll' .", ... "'... 1/"-8),' ~VL' 4M-NrLAI'\("'~' D.H.NO.3-~-
R&M CONSULTANTS INC. -. -'L -~.' SHEET I OF//)
.NGIN •••••• en.aa.eT ....... NN •••• f..v.yo.. A" ~I~-~~~ ~ ~.,~.~
.,e <.:feO '.~"'.''''''' -':'" PROJ. NO . .5//8/
~ .. c"-jlf/vtSST1<1A77O'J : '-:,/ ... DWG.NO.·~
....
•
• .. .. ..
-'!oj, -
i\<:,-
...
• t·
...,
Iii!'
""-
",I
...
t'
-
... --,
r if '.
--~ ~--------------~---r-"--------'-------------,-------~-"--
R OC K CO R E LOG surfa~~7~-;01 Hole Dept;iS.A ' D1)~~0.!i ~~2
. G~ ~ocotl~'k""" ~~ Hole o.dentatlon P~~/~tJ'lo.{ I--C-I'le-n-t-=~---:-" A ,~.-~ .. --------ti~ -,i:-'i:'r ~ ~~';l(' ~", VE..RT,t..AL / ~ " / ~ t,... ~.;.J(.. to' -G e 0 logi s t(i...li.,.,il / Q~ .~_ ~ ••• ~ :",.,-, 1L!:::::~:"=';:=""l---sL.hlO!e:...!.et..L2-:;"'-o-f-I"-Q~
Surface Description:
Locotlon Ologrom
--c • • • -II. C \'0' 0
c c.J C A: • • Q. N A: ~ 0 G -.. Q. ... • ~ II. ~
0 0 J OESCRI PTiON OF STRATA
Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Speclol
Parometer. Depth in Ft. Testln, ~ ~~~~----~--~ o Time :I--.r=~'-~~'-~D~a~te~-+----I------~
o •. -~ ... c~=a.:
"' .... ~ CoO t-----------------I-:::,;~ol-------'----.L.-.--....L...----~
CD .t ~ en II: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
W.O. lA-B.
°-r-'~77~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-&~-~----~~~ ,,\ .. 'Ir~ (I'j,fI -cr.")~ ,..;a~ tJfj ~ 1H..'MJn-:IP,; 2....5 -30 0 -;', .. "kr:,qe. ~"',..b.//4/ ?b ~
ilJ-r-or-
~-r--~3--...
'4-~
'r-
2!5-r--
r-
~6-r----
il'-~ or-
18-'--
-~
tJ-r--.
-
-IMI ~:'n .siu:k J',,1e.-Jd~.~.·J.~ ~j y, ' ((,) $101.,.., 7i1.b,.,t, ~ • D/O __ ·10
, lA..~ss"';'e..L..L'.,f '<'''1~.:t/ . .2' ~ ~I~ /,:,...~,.J". .. n . .f.·slre.DI ,I ... ,,>I.-dl
: .,: " ,',. .. .c 100 ~ I," J"A ~,. .... 'lI'p,,/ Q,.~J,. ~ rt..' f .. , F. _ 0_ I
,~ : ·:·:.::/o.k , .... ~s ~ s..l't-.se.~ ';~.{;,.,. ... t:i,',,-1 ~/IJ '/J." oJ I
· •. ' '. _},,",o,, h /, oI's;s" .... ~ .. -I."" Q;;L-a..Io, I!. '7
': .-':. t./"/..,,, .... r d ~:I,. ',a. O" SD ... " oiL I
· :. cQ.le,'k .:--1-,. ',COhO' ~,'" /... /} '/"t'.i,'A, I · ~ ... . . .... ... .
"'~-------------------------+~4~~~~~~---------------------------4
· ... -b-:--r---,--,=---=---"'1"7"-'r------:-t:~:j:±t:::~~-_:::-r:--:----....:__+_-___l :',':->,' J!~31?9.e -3~.1 J .4f_~.,.~,hlqo.3 Wet. S'l/rr'JlJI ::"0· ?7:::: /a,. ".,,,,,f ! .... "i
· .' ' t-L~';" ""au ', ___ ...L . ././.: j r~tJ.I__ i.e/, I '" Is-,~I$·~ 5/ c.J ..... !:\,I .. "
. :, ~'. : ~ I:A~_ 5>¢',,'/,/A.e...v.v ' .lS:O-~('"''''; ~ $! .(1/1" "'/0,,'" ,'I'''.~ 1'4... I,... t1f' f'"",QL
" -' " ' iU1'I.1 j, ... ..(/~ l..'tJ"'.~.a' (10,. /,~. \ rcj~'; /,.J .. ~ , '''/.,. S I
, , kCJ. ~~: "at -/'.,. -to L.le. .. /,;,...... ~.
• :. 11', ,: ... -'" -I~ .' ... { : .... '.f. ....• .ff~.<
',·',-.:Iv+~' ..I •.• ~ .. ..!. .... , ... ~ I. .,. 7.i!' /~
:: \ .'-'sb-k. ,.,I,s~~ .. · .~, i~cI' ,S't. I. / / .f;/,,, 1.1...
,
. :.':. r-I. ._ .#it __ 7" Pt... ...
I
I
~O __ ", ,
-" -"}!II rt r M. / -.3s;'f) L ... J_ ~O FUIM "j
/
I
I
.. -, -
......... _ .....
OWN. CJHL-~
CKO. JMI5
DATE. 7/rz/82.
SCALE.!/I.:::3'
~~----------
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
.NGIN.... a_o",aa •• T. ~"'ANN... euav.VQ ••
..
,
t
"
.. to· t ~ 1£ ,-------------------------
4.eAI!T'LAK'£'
4 £.0 reCl-1 All C'AL ,'~
~J.N VEST/~A r/C>A/.~,.~?',}
'.' '. ..... !.
D.H, NO. 3-8z
SHEET 1-OF 10
PROJ, NO.J.S/ IS(
DWG, NO. -.;..;.:.
I.
Surface Elev. I Hole Depth
~~l SO IftS'::1..'
Drill Hale No. 7;)H·~-e~ ,ROCK CORE LOG Gr~ .oc;.ajlP..!l "f!:J" Hole Drlen.to_tlqn._ Ii A.? ,f~~~~' ~ ,~~
Client ~A:Sto Geologist GA,/tilth ~~s"ys)1 Sheet -3L of ~
---...
~
6: -A -0
Location DiagraM . ' Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special -'.-, c , .... ---. c "" . .. , 0 . ,
0
(,) C 6: -. , , --". ' , .. -; ': ... ' .. . -, -Of A , " ~ a -0 .. ~ <!t
./ .. --;:..".
ParaMet." Depth in Ft. Tewlng
" -1-----+---;------1 .. TIme ?I--.~:~~~~~D-a-te--+----r--~ • ,
at _.~ ~ ~_~'
.! ~ J CIt. W.D./A.B. '.'~ I--____________ ~:~-~~0l-------L---.L...---...L....---__I
'-.,
, .
~ ...
0 j DESCRIPTION OF STRATA .a:::_o RD
:fIj ..t ~ (I) II:: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATE ATA
OW N. ~ jiU: -Tl:.
eKe. t/Pg
DATE. 7~~~
SCALE. ''1'.=..'
~~----'-----'~'
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
.NDIN..... ..DL.DD'.Y. ~ANN._ aU_V.YD ••
.' ;:~
C·,H. No.3-~Z
SHEET.3 OF .to
PROJ.NO.~/~/
DO ....... '
.,
-
"
...
... '
---.-------~.--------
R,OCK CORE LOG
SIIrfac:.e,Elev., Hole Depth D~U)iOle No.
bfa/.SO IflS;:J..' J.)H-c3-82
Location ", ~a_.L / l,. J/_ -J rf') Casing I 'Y SlIrface Descriptlon~
1--____ ---'a7..<..<.;~=.-n..<IOI/~I'-fC.-=-"-----',~~"""'"""""""--------___,....__--_I U .. d A'tV
Drilling CO, U"l U Rig L Y .18 t----.....;.;:....;;..;------------I I
Driller r,.OA .,,"-Dril16A7 to~h9 CO#~Z!2Jampling Method ~t;I!. I'
.. • • ~
c
..: ..
A-• 0
.. c • .. c
° to)
• ~
~ 0
Location Dla,rom Rock QualitJ GROUND WATER TABLE Special
Paramete" Depth in fl. Testing ~ ~~~-+---4----~ !1 __ r=r-.-,-~r.~lm=e~ __ +-____ ~ ____ ~
.: >-Date
at •. -I!: ... C ~ ... ~ •
, ,
"',
c ..: I • A-I .. ': at:. W.O. lA-B . I--____________________ ~v .... :o0I--____ --1. _____ L.-___ ..L...-______ -I
-:~:!:~o
., 0 ~ ...
IL. I!I
J DESCRI PTION OF STRATA ID ~ :c CI) II: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
,. \
,:,'. ' p-j{){~. ~ -r;.I, Y) )
..... ..
· :.': 1", Co.n (U'_J.iIL fJ /$14 -k.. ~_ ~
· ' ....... ~ ~ S/4k.. ,';...J. ,/A~"'''. ,. .J....
, •.. '''or CA/CQ ... ~ .... r: /!. .. _ ... ~, Ca ,;. .. 1 ..
, .... ',,: ±qt, i~,.~., sf .. ;",c~ ... .!. -4 V't, .... ~
.:', ,~.,., :,1_ ,P. f,.~ J-,,; /; ..f:II.' ,t ~ £.
.~ .• , 34.'" Lf>a>II ... v<!,',~ ;ft.!Li •. ,J
~ I ,II 'oJ
) 3 HM 1/",,17/
': .. : '. R..J;<f t. t. 9-7/. g) n.. 4,., ""eJ ~a -5 1.;VJ19~ 1.,<
. ':<', be( Or4"1..''''-~. ~/,-'/G_ Ia .1. .. _ J, 1+-.83 ....
· . ' .. \ k ... fo ... ·... 11..-1_+1 J~ot oI ... I'o ... -.£+, __
'.:; :', 1:I,..~s .... .::t:', )..,,<:.. .. 11, 4...... ,,.,..1, ..
~.~.-".~ ·to ... C4./c"'-ufoS e."': .. .:t-. ~"_,,,t-
.-' .. b .... u.kc .. ~ II .f:01,'Q,'';'ift..,..., ..... '
,.
... '.. J. aI q,.-a v tJ.ek.e. l.. /.,. f.o
. ,', ,", J 1/ :-... h .. l .. ,t! ... ~ _~ ... ~oI. sl",~
::.:.:. ~ ~ ..s k.1.aJ -fa 7't, J.I' !3'e./_ :~
. -. ,,.,,e.t:;/ ItJ 1:I.."Jc-i.cI 4,...., ... ~.ft."
':.'.', Iw/~/"",k.. I"lQ~+ .... ~t ~d ,'Ak .. /t:., • .-!J
~, '.', "I +0 /". 'L.o/e,'h. oI'SIe_ ,'" -,
" ::' :.J .. ,.~ •• "e. .. II't ...... ; ;'11.,'_1,', • .c---=.-l. ...
~, :. ,; ,1'/'-11: ,d t .o-t ... lle.! -t;, /'-0.+,'_
H. ,.,. ~ .1.. • ..:t' IIV 1111
I •
.T .... ts; "IS"0 10/'0 I.",... p/~_e.,
S:-'4::iZ .Jo .<!J"/,'3t..fL~ 'I CA Ic;" ... -I...
_("0 ,.,1 ... .., ~. .J/ -1-,. c.4.le;k I-
-;'" ii'oId 1
. I
I
I
DPIlL 2Arp::-:lot) /'f /1. ..
.7 ... ok. • ~"o .j:. I.'a J: d k ... ~ _
J.J("O L"J/", ..... .). _"J ... ,u • .:A. Allie/ie.
.".,0 ~/~ ...... _ 5_t1Q~ ('.1; .. ",
I
... ';
DRILL 'IU1U~ Jt; Ff/A ,I
:r.. -j.j,' IJI'\" .flO 1,'0. -I, '..... 1-::' 10 ",0.-
$io.. ... ~ .IrJ ..... 1 'si..~J . c4/e.,'~
e./.", A ~_ Sk/,fl, 'eI # ~
J'" .,!t.kL>_ _,.et S"""--LJIff.... I*, CD I.'sl... ... 7., *' ~-I-,-i c.Ah .. k
1 ,
I
DRIL.L ~rc .2.3 f+/t~
I. _;
.10· nl ...... _ A ... d s"" .. -fJ.. (!..!tLOt __ ,r;
~ o· #/0 ..... _ ,..,"'/ I'll"", t I 9 f%.. +C4/' • r.
.-. ,.h" II J.e_/eo( (v~, .. j..;.L .LI1'1 ~
'no ",ltI",'h .s ...... t-L ~ CA/e,'1-t.,
OWN. 13M L -rc,
CKe. /h.8
OATE'7h/§~
SCALE / " = 3 I
~~~
~
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC •
• NDIN.... a.aLOOla? .... "'NN... eu_v.ya ••
-;,'; ,
4,Rt4,vr., LAKe; ,:0
t;ECJrEd.;~lCAL ,,;,,; <-
./;; v£S77ti A.ritJII ':~
O. H, NO, ~ -8Z
SHEET tj OF /0
PROJ, NO,15118/
OWG.NO. -
,
'1
Surfac. EI.v, . I Hol.O.pth Drill Hoi. No.
ROCK -CORE LOG t>fcl, s-o 15!S:;), , /)}/-7-J? ;.
Grlca, LocotUtn ~"b ' Hole Orientation Project No. ~ ~ ~r ~£-~~:~~ , ~V£ 12. T/C'-AL ISII21
Client E./34Sc.c Geologist J.../lPS OAf V!H Sh •• t....s:: of .-1J2...
Location GRA/1/r LAjn~ Casing Nt..) Surface O •• criptlon~
Drilling Co. J E. I Rig J...t,.; 3~
U.ed
Cor. Size a Sampling M.thod SeE.. P.1&£. :J Drill.r CU~R/F R Dril16A7 to~b9 . },fa-Cd
Loeatlon Diagram Rock Qualit, GROUND WATER TABLE Sp.clal .. Param.t.r, D.pthin Ft, Testing .. c ~ . • • D Tim. • .. , c
~ c C'o' C D 0 Oat. .! u c : • c »-
.&: D • '': .. .. • • '" c .. • -• W.O,/A-B. A N :I '" »0 ~ 0 G .., .t= C 0 -~ .. -0
'" .. I!)
.., U G • U 0 • ~ IL. .. G • .. • OESCRI PTiON OF STRATA -DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA 0 0 J CD .. ~ (/) II: II: ~
0
, ' . . , .fOLd /~~_4... 't:. I~''''':'''' ,,. .i-f) ;t r /lillie o IR ~ -~ , ..
le/u " ~ d,' , .. J," Q r-I .......... _C. • .J~ .. :k l, • ~ I-
. '. k@. -...... .. ....... 101'<':5(0 ..... .,1.':. r t. W ..... J ~... +r. +z: 1/ .3 .. .... ... . --
!' 2 -
; ...... "'Z ..... \ ~ ,~ '.-,
I -' .' .. .. .... RJS"fR I. fJ.-~(,., 3) G_VJ .... J .. tl.f 35' 3 IR. MJ DI<.I LL. RIiTE .2..7 It/'/..". -" .. : -.. '. 00 8'0
-.. 0 lGLb • .,~ +0 1l~.7'· V. t-/',' I .. :,..'11""--'.~ ." ;r;. +s 3~ ~/Q .. "" s~oDt-b /. AI& LiS ~. 3--'" ..... -. ............ Jo \/t. "'f!" S Ie. k. i. Q __ 'C.~4 "" 's t,F..or:../u .... ~ ~ .. ,{,."'.~.l c.a}e .. " .. AI /,." .. . _ ... RI/.:J. I PJerX h iI. I'dr-Jul. 9,. .... 1r .. ..l"~ ,:,/4 .... oS_ooi-1.. 10 1'11, /,'ll..01 e I :.~-r-.. -.... -,.. b t."r/ II t po ,.... S+........· ........... , S'. 0 /Q .. C.~ -',. .,. Ie., ~ .. .." .. " .,.. otJI s ...•• 'I-/.... -0/, .... .. . , "'It. ... ;+L ,; C.4/e.i-/-e.-J..,«J • .t 2. c../ed ..... C4/e1-9.. of, -bIt I
,
~-I--
....... .. ...... ' .. P""et .. ~_!o ' JJ,.I_ ~~~I \/. I',,~ ./. ... 1 C,/e../H ---., ... '15. 0 /~J ...... 0..,. 5_00;1.. . , '
l+r, +." I
6-... . .. .. -0 . .' ..... -.' I --' . , "
!R I" (gb. '3 -.9 L S-) G-,.", tu,k IlL ~ ( J,o (J ~ fi~IE. .17 '£+/.J. ~ ~ 7-
... , ........ ~ 1/00 :J~ f)IeILL -.... .. ....
-..... '" a~ .. , ,*' ~ f}7./' .. /~/e.'J& .... ' .. ...5 S ..).2 1J.'i :r.. +s . ~tJ' (.f.I,~I-..... ) l'!J/t1",c_.J_
~ "" '. I It. .. ~" "~t:!. s k.J .. '~ V".-/i ... /L oJ, If ....:I" !. ~( t:ul -h-Sf. It. "" .. .1 . 1--........... .............
ba-k .. .lffl.IJ. ~ ... .1 :I"IJI: ... ' ~/a...J..... 'iD no. It;: " eo. 1e.;lto .. .. .... 3 .//l " ..I~./6 .. _ 0$ ...... --......
, .. 29./' .5/d;" l.. /fI..' 0 .. JJ .. S .sst' .D J. ... ~ , ,~"C' I(/< ~ 9--............ A. ,.e!.$. ." ~ ........... -. ';..~,.hch -I-n 9/.S' S ... .J..f.'dfl'.J: ~ 4fu
, --_ ...... f-,.
~
-l-I 0_ ~ .\v -'-
~ 1-r-3 I
/ -~ ,t-.l ,. I , I-
R lZ (9/.S-9~,~) S/c.1-e lOS a/'.,,~ :) 5:-DRILL RATE. :I~ f~~ 2_ ~ 00 ::2 .. .. .....
In 9L5' rA,'~ J.u -L>S$ / ... e. .!,~ ~? ~ti :r;. is.· :!.{"'o (1'0 I. ... -/,),.. j t:I I d ALl ~ _......: " -. ..... .3 fI.. -:.:' :: ; I QI'"!N' Ir-.... 14:. e."cI ,i .......... J..D e.G II. ~\ '1-0 ~"J,'S I... .. c/ +~ s'",,/.j!,·eI • .5. r"Il ~ 3-.... ---"'. . . , W/~/CA"-"" C C~t..~"t 11-.... "'. Ie.'... 9" ~ I'" '." 10._ -.... 91.... c.4k[~': b Ir
" ~-
.-• ! • ~(c.~%.of, ", ... : ... ' "'---J-a ~l hoL" ~ . ' .
±" , .-
7S"" &J 10 c • ,. .. ,Col.. J.1lI. .I,..-.L' ... · . -.2-011 e. -, · ... . " J.. ..... I .. eI
v
'i 5-1--. , ,
--• -0 St>-,o!r. .... c..-.... ~ ~"" .. ,j-j.{ A.,.,',. I,' , •
" . -'
c.../" :-1-... -t..~ 1_,., ~ 6-
o _
\ , -..... , J c. .... it '.U. -' -'. ~S'0 .,IQ",Q.. ",dfi "", , .. t... --...
8...1ff(9!l.."I-J/J/.~) rJ..' {." R ~() f),eiLL ~4Ic ~/) fiA J. .. ~ 7_ ......... _-... _t:I IS .s-rM 10 I--• -_ .... I
l-t ....... j..,~ <> .... 1> '''''~_ /rJ. . .::/ ... k. '\1.3 .,s :r:.+£. 3.s-l'!J/ ..• a ~ ..• +J..... -Iw pol.~l.. ~
~ 8-.. ~" ok.t!'"' i ~ .... II!.. ~.t:lL s/t1.-t.e.. I. Sn ..... sl/"" If"!. rQ ..... _~ ...... 0 ....... ~. I--, . ...... ~ l .. H_!"'~ .. oM ,'I Go .... £ £0<» r') Jo .... Q~ ,tid. ~. ,x IQi~-A ... fu 1 ~ · ~ 9-.. ... ,'s J.' L /, '.t-"".J... ~._"-o E':.a",1r.. _.~ I./(J0 r. , ...... ',,~ ... _J... ..... {'u..J~·il ~ , .
-l-I ... ,.. ... J! .. "j" ..... ", ... ", .. I'L J. .. " I~ " .. 111 f-.'.I..+-l.:t IJ /~fc.J.e.t:I. LJ,. .. I: Ie.
pO · .. .. , . 1<1. J. ",j~,t ~ " .... +L :!:: ~Jc. 'N~ "lJ Iv 'I ~ 1'1 boO. ... J ......... _ .. ali .... MIll.. ~1e,·1c. ..J,.. C; fc , ,
Fe ( •• " .,~
.. . , '
OWN. C.ML ~ (} /-1/\1 T L...fKE .. ' .' ' . D.H, NO . .3-8 2!. 1~' . " . ' ... ' ~,' eKD. JA18 R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
,.
SHEET $' OF /0 4€orec ,:iA.J/c1'-" .;. ' DATE. 7~z/B< • "QtHe ••• .aOL.QQt." • ~ANNa'" au"va..,a". PROJ. NO.lS'11iJ( : ~:; _ --l' " " " / " ~~ " 1.-
r---Surface Eln. Hole Depth Drill Hole No.
ROCK -CORE LOG ~0i. SCI I-Is-. l. ' DH-3-?':l
G~ ~~aJ~~~: cc;{ Hole Orientation Project No.
'4~ '= ,-;''7 • .; . 1'J8 I ~~ ... YERTtCFIt-1.5"1/8' I
Client EBASC a ~ GeologistJ../l/2.SolJ V Sheet..b.... of~
Location C,RANT Uik'E Casing
Used Nu Surface Description:
Drilling Co. / EE I Rig Lf' 32
Drj Iler G fA R. R IE-I!. Ori II "b7 to (;/:z..q Core ~jz~~sam~ Method seE-P,L}GE 2-
--e • • • -~ e
0
e 0
• .II: ~ a. • ~ 0 0
I ( 0
I ~ 1---I-
I 2-r--
r-
1113-t--
to-
1~4-I---
'( S_ ;-I
I
'1-
6_ ;-
~
I f( 7-t--
-I-
I "-!----
I ~9--
~
I O-r--
-'-
/ f 1--
-I-
lf2 -I--
-I-
1t3 -t--
-I-
l!4-t--
-
C'o'
C .II: • Go .. cr 0 ,.. .. c.!I ~
/
, : , ' ·
" ' ..
, .... . '-'-..
.. ~ .. . .. . ,
~ .
" \ .
.'
'-. . . · . .. .
\ .. , ..... '-, :.
~ .
'.. ': ...... o· ., .......
.. " "", .. I . ---
· .,' -....
· . ... .. . .
" "-.. "" .-..
.. to. ....
Location Diagram
5Ec, P/JG-£ I
OESCRI PTiON OF STRATA
TA,-", C<t .. -I '.~. Ot:J~ (L ... c.c.. _ .-.
t" Ie.. -I,&...... ~ ... '" .-" ..c ... ~~..f.. _ ~
~,+-SSt>-r:.~ •
~RJ9 (fO{.8-/O&,.'?) TJ.;" .j.,., ~ .... I
kctclu'/ ''d,.".+ " q>"<l ,/. O-~ke.
oJ! .slak.. -.',.,-k~ J...el5 :2." # .. ,lr -h
/a~.~' jj.,.-I'J, h~,,(dl!d (!C.fU""48'~
-~-.l!I • .J, .. _ +,., 101. t,' Shtl,
sfe. i~ IrJ /Dr./}' ro le.k "'''''f''S .. " ...... ,. '~ft Oo.{.h~ t.,,:~1. , , ,
v"I .... ~
1<.;;"0 t IO~, 'l-III. 'i?) S/a...f.c.., oIko_
w /--17(.' '" .fLJ 0 ..... , .... J. •.
' . -I-.~ J... ,,/<: c,. , c '4 0<5>
.. r ..... Q /,-. J."<se. ' "",.+.'~ _~ c! 11',,; c
00 . '" ~ ...... fie-I hl.'t;..f.,--" ~/(> .J-.e.,
lfa J.Ir.. II
bl (JI/.Cj-IIS.7J $/~J~-ctk
0. "'<:--J/-/7f(' ~ ............. c k.
f7. .... Iv-J... e. ()/ s " ,
Co,. ... oarl /, .... .~
Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special
P a ramet", Depth in Ft. Testing
.!
GO Time c
C GO Date : • e ~
GO .. -.II: ...
e .. ... -•
:J •
GO > W.O./A.B. 'V -~ c 0 0
'V U -• u • cr cr ... • 0 .. . -DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA CD ~ ~ (I) II: II:
~ i~M ISlo I ),,0 .:'>/tl~6" _ A'" s;; __ u+-A r-.,. k. ~
/ I
)
I} /; [,
1
I~'o .~ I~ 1M 19.1 32 /JRII.. '-~ArE. IZ .j.·YI.,.!
5 'U, t; J: i.· J.t". (.I.. /,.::1./;0 ) D/,_o .,. .tt...
I(~ --:t:: ~ I." L .,J .... ... Fe.. , 0 c. ... Je,'! ... t~
11'1° ~/n",. ".I $ _0 +J" '1 .. r.. ('..(').
II 'Cin fJ ,',,,,,,.. __ of /...,., ,.,..I .... ~ Cc...C.O-h
~
1
I ,
II I
.r; / I" ~ DR JI.-L RATE 17 ifL. I
[30 .3 '1M I9t: ~ J:-IS! .,?", • .,./".,,_ .<;,.,.,o.tJ,. -h /'~/...cI
I~.R :2. e-/04 _ (' ... (.t). h h 'I ~ fl.: 9 ...
J, ~ f,. c. I Co'''' ~ -; (.c., ;:-1. ~ ')
S 7n D o/o.a._ ~_".-ft.. J..t!I' 1.',lL C"C~-
l 90° ,' ... "...-", ,.. aL Ao ,.. b.. Cc.. Co. :1
4
, I ..
J,
.~ L -.. ,
J, It" I,v 11
30 Ip" Ij 1M kt. ') flP ILL ~.4T~ HIS LArrcl-l
l:u. f' __ •• L_""j "'r., ,d ~
'10 0 (lIft""" .. ~ .• :It.. c/~o"
9..," o/(;_ .. ~ ...... t. ,,.f:a .. L44 (e.,,-f.-... 1:-'/
",. I
~ ..
u..
IL
"
JIS-t--NEW RJ7 ""+ 115:17'(/""1'",-9"" .... -. . , -r-f)PU_I.-I2ATE. PI f+/J. [l6-.. ....... i , ~ U/" 1h'9 171 r--IRl.2. (/IS. 7-I).. O. 2. ~ & ...... ""...J ..... I~.o 13.2 ;;;'+s:~no(..(:,,/. ... -I.'. 'Q& .......... s-od--t-.. . ~ ~ ..
I (7 -
...... ; .. TJ, .. ~ M tt..;t..k -bd. (.;J/,s /".{. e. f'4 ftJ IOt!I 1.'<.4 .. 01' ,.0. ...... ~tz sjJ~fJ'oI~ ·C r--....... :
,.J?.j". IJ~.J.l .. ,. ... ~ .. (r._ 1,.0 ~ /,..,..e 14 .. +tJ .PAt .... : · ... ", ... 4.' ".5, :... .. J ,s"" II -r-:. 'c.c. e; -k!. t:. Q 1<."'-.. +z. "I tJr-e..",J, :1. (? ;' .. /e. '1. ~ ..Jr", " 1/8 -
\ ve.;" .~ 0 I~ Vf! ......
r--" '. .... , .. J,~ .. v,
--,
i-· .-L .. , • -'-
119-.. .. . . .
f---· . -I-..... ' . .-..3 1PJ> (, v [,
OWN. eNL-~ 4£ANT LAK¢E' D.H. NO. $-8Z
CKe. vN8 ~~ .
SHEET '-OF 10 R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. t:;eorECI-/AlICAL
DATE. 7/;2./ B~ • NClIN •••• O.OL.OO,.T. ..... ANN ••• .u."."'o •• PROJ. NO.IS"/ fer
SCALE. /'1-3' /N VESTlq ArlcYI -DWG.NO. -
Surface Elev. I Hole Depth r Drill Hole No.
ROCK -CORE LOG l>~/. 5'0 18$"·2 !'JJ.I-3-R'l.
Grbl}-,,9,catl~ I Hole Orientation Project No.
Ta ,c:" i'i ~~·'ffl'.~°a"8' ~VERnC,qL lSI/ ~I
Client F€EASc,o I "'" Geologist '--ARSON ~ Sheet Z of~
,....
Location GrRANT LAk F"'" Casing #lJ Surface Description ~
lE..I Rigt.i-' .:1g
Used
Drilling Co.
Cor. s~CJa Sampling Method SeE.. fl9G£ 1-Ori lIer Ct..(RI!E..R Dr ill 'h7 to '/:J.. 'I . -CD/.
Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special .. Parameter. Depthin ft . Testln.1 .. c: ..! • • Sa F/fG-e. ..t. ~ Time • .. c:
~ c: "". C ." 0 ~ Date e <.J e = • c: :..
A: ~ .. -.6: .. • • Go c: .. .. -• W.O./A.B. A: 2 N D ~ ~ ~ • .. 0 ~ "a .... c: 0 Q Go ~ "a U D • U • ~ ~ " .. D "
.. • 0 DESCRI PTION OF STRATA -DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA Q 0 J CD .t~ CI) IE: II:
I
: 0 . . .. f( .23 ( /:1..0.2..-12./. 3 ),~O~d, S/c.-k D~/L£ RATE II. .Jt-/J.~ j .. -I<t!I ".~. +. I:.';" . ~ Jo< '/Ot:J
M", o_ s .... .1 "'_a ·II:I-tl.. • t.4 Ca. I 1.1 11"1a..Qr s ...... .;.t... c..CfJ. s I. 'c. J,,'t
I
Foi-l--
I .,* ,.... /I' .1'..1.-.:: t . ." .... _ .. 4-'11 -L.'M ..
I-
":2."1 (1:2.l.3 -1l.3 "l.S S/ol-... Q...fII( ~S !"" M ~, ID~/LL (lATE. II It/J..,.. x,4< • "SOD {. 1.-.. +. '., U 0 2-,....--
SfUotri" S Ie. It ,.,uj -Ie J Y ._ ~/o ,6 ~"" .-tI-. g.lis ~1t.<I e/ __ ~.. ~ s~/.f.'tI.
"'"
1.7 I<:
1f-.3-I--'·,.1.1, t.-.-I. fti. /1 .t;..lA f, (,..,.. 'SO "/0 .. 0,, S;....,tl.. ~ I,'c.k_l;c/,.S
-L~ Cf.'llu "".. ~A .. -I:,.. I
Ip2..s(I.2.~ :i-/~S:3) S ..... ·/eo..-1-0 ... ~..e.I~ I~ .lIM 8' 0 PRILL RArE.. i I-+/J. I
4-1-h/,~,J..· .... ~" .. .f'e.r...... Dol .. ""r.· ,L/JI x.ts: "IS''' £, I,·c..f,·tfh ,.,Je. .. "", "-.oJ! /.7 I~
iDo/ .. d.,1 fliol.. &I,.c;';;' +I. ...... Ce..co. ,.,.I.'s/" .. '{ Cc.c.o '. 5_ II--I",e.i",~ d""'I.2.l ,'-.I!«'" .. "r-eer..;c.. II I~ ,II IJ ~~ jrY'U. ...... (If)( , :.. 0 dJ,. c.e! S /,'t.ks I~ .. , , .
" .. ". I R ;u .. ( 12S'. '!-J'?,. (1. "" "rJ.' . J. ',4-. J. r/ Iso S' 11 '1 19~ IllyIll fJRlL.L RAT'£.. a 1!L.A ... ...
~ 6_ If--· .....
. c/",..{. D .. t:JI Q_" .. ".J#.' k I~.,.~I J:.+s· s()o ItI,'r..j.,& ~/CI .... rI ,....d s"" .. +t. .. ... .. -5:2 :2. -I~ .. -....
M.oI bill c ...... J""~J. .. /s/c.-/..tL I ~.I,·s "-ul loc .. / "' ...... _L!"""~ ,c 1,,1'."'-<: 7-\ . ' ... I--~ . . ' ~a~+.· ,p" :t ,:-1-.,. It: ~rl .... H.~' ·C .. c...a. -fr> ~" -I-\ ..... , 'lao I
I fh.'ek ~ to_a! at I'll" }I •• J as-~/tI. -",,,, .s_IJ~+1.. +.,.. Ie .. r'rJ. I I-L..-". ~ : ' · " I Q Iz.-Qe,/e.,'-I-e ~ ,'", '~ ; s/,d~ .r I oJ -~ ... : .. :.
I' ""-I.2.S.lo I
,
9-f--, .
I
I
I
I -~ . 1 • 1-· . I 0_ 0-. .' • . , f--.. . . ,,"
-" ...... :. I
-~ ~.. .. .'
R :2. 7 ( J 3 0, fc -135". 3) r L . DRILL RAT!:.. }J H/I.~ HI--l-t. ,.d so "IF ''1 Ifl J.3
• i-I'",/. ,'l.,o/.Jpol ~/",I. t2 ~ ....... .~. J, ~I 0,1. So ~ L/tdL~"~ J:>1t:. ..... _1 __ •• +1...
,,'",. " Loc.e. '( 'I ..... ""/, :f,c.. !:1,eJr~_s,"cI. ~ 3 (,.\ oft Po/"st...u( q,.. .. ..oA:oN. Ceo Co +r-I. 2 _
f--\ .. "_ ...... ~ ,
-"'" . ~ . .:.'. ' .. ". '.' ....... I.'!"e.,. ~,."-' . Ra,.~ Ceo co.. 1/ 'I S" 1~"rJ~!.. Q",II Fe a. ... ,..a J: /.'~Jro'!.
~ I;Q+,it., .J.,., .of;." 1=". l'-fL +,. .. :r j. -I
I ~3-I--.-......
J..~·L-t ~,..tJN\" _ ~"t ... ,..f.. .. "-ot ;"
-~ ........
~,. -" k",.,., I 4_ ~ ..... --. I , -
05-,.....-~,~ .... " .... .
• ~J
-~ .. ~ ". ""
R.l g /13S:?-1110.4) TJ...' -/or; ,...el1l ~ {)2JJ,.L I2ATE. • liD DATA IU-'. . ~S' U M 100 3.1 I--~ (-
--.... ~" ... .-'· ... J~rt..r':lJ_d .~/o ~ '" J 0""" ..,c....k .. J, ~/ II. ~ :r;, H.' "I,s4 (.fo /~.... ) :1/0 ... 0,.
1~7 _ . , , • · ..... i/~". Ie Q to. va. . lJ.,. "1311.'1 s: " $ _.~ fo ... I.'s, 1..111 I/,,~I ,.--
.2,S",,, .•• ~ .t/ ......... J,. sJ-,-~ Coed. +J...,'. &0 ~ ....... oS 1/ 'p~J.,~ 10
I ~8-' , !./"e.+,'fJo. CU / s 1,'"Ir... rt.·... ... of La. II 10· ~/."..,,. s_,~-;:I"I"sl.~cI ei:41A r--. F .. ,-r.l..l .. soh ~/ ... H.. .... ~.1 ;I!JJe ,#I.. ~ (JA'1 ~ S I"~s ) I .... ... .. ~ .
I-L'1· ... 9-..
1~9-. , ,,~ , ,II Tit 'c..4 I ---I--.........
""'"
-I-
.......... 1\1;-
1"10 ~",.'::: .: .. ;" 1,1t II II , It • . ,
:'. !
OWN. eML ~ 4~ANr.,L.A£~ ;"~f O.H. NO . .3-e~
CKD. Jug R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. 4EarBJfN/C-1L .. :,,-T
SHEET '1 oF/a
DATE. .., /tz./ lIZ. • NDIN •••• DaaLDDI.T. _",.,NN... au_v. va ••
PROJ. NO.IISII8/
SCALE'; ~~ .:: Sl 1~t/f:sr-/j;AntVJ ~ .. :-,.~ DWG.NO. -.. ' l1li>,
ROCK CORE LOG surfaC~2i.501 HoleOepth liS" • .l.' or~~ole;o',h_
-Grid ~at~~ .,' Hole Orientation Project No.
1--___________________ ---( .t~1l ~ ~~g ~~ .. ~~, .:., ..... V<..:~e:.:.~rf;.J....:.lIi:~::::::'.A/:L....+_....J/r......, 5"..:....:..,il>.-!' ~:!....:../ ____ -I
Client £fJA5CC> "<W GeoloQist ft{tlIfH''''4 \;~; Sheet.§.. of...L1l.-
--c • • • -II. C
0 c U
• Ai ~ -Go • ~ 0 0
I ~O
l~"""S-~
-~
6-r--.-
-f-1 ___
--
8---
-
9---
Surface Description:
Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special
• Parameters Depth in ft. Testing
r-~---+-----4----~ ~ Time ~-.~~~.-~-r-rD~a~t.~--+-----4-----~
~ ~.~ = ~ ~-----+-----4----~
:2 ~ ~ ~ 0 W.D./A.B • t------------------------i; ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
J
C'o'
C Ai • .. Go
II 0 .. ~ ... ~
.; ~ ; en ex: a: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA j -'
DESCRI PTION OF STRATA
-
I
',.,~ JvjtP,~.jf'Rk:ru~i'If"'J_Irl."lJ~ -J1!~1' I /
':', :'. 'I. i'.(f!l..w.Q 1.54.7' , V / I'
• ~ .~ ~ -..J \
1
~:: ~~ l ~:h------:,...-.,,~7T'"-:--:----\;~...,._....,.-:-::__~~*+=F=t==F=i___=_--'T__:~~.,.-___=__:__:_____:;~___=_--~ :, ':'. R. 3.3 (ISt, . .tf'-/"'.3') f.,.RUKf £oJ! ~ 3 f) M IIf. /.7 f7,'r{II~~~ ~&IJ ftJ-Ivr,J.'X. ~
-:: ,,': /'5'/.~Lj}1f:'.t, ,I. :'uJ, IJ,J~/~'", ~;;:,q ,r, ~/II"IV.. 6-& /4' //'t'" I
,. ~ "SO' I ". ~l I •
, " • ' . ." h:4~ ~ b,."J,y,n. :,J f"'" .... ~ •. h". { ~{fh .t;M-Ih r. II/flY -M-c Sl,~!d, '-Fhl se./'/'bJ
~':.: IWI;'~-{;, tlz,,1f -Ib~k. bNCu'},'//j!, 'I .. '.
I ,,0 --L....-......L..JL....:....;:;..:~~ • ...J.l. (~.lh!~00:I~.4:u;{(4U~Jd!'fl_'.~....tol<~ • .L..k.,J....lt,,~{ ~u~ '.r.c-Affuo.....JII~oII::Ja.IJoV~_..L'.lIt. ,~...J...1.~!I""-: ¥-J,,-*-L-¥JI..X.J~ _______ '_. --+--1_' "-" ---t
ROCK -CORE I,..pG
Client r.J]A-SCf) ~
Location G-r~Hf J...ob I/cul~ -"Tu".,,~ I .A/,J,~,...-}
Drilling Co. -:J;&I. V Rig L 't -~~
Location Dla,ra", '. --c • • :,--c ~. 0
c U c .c .-
Surfac. Eln. Hal. D'pth / Drill Hal. No.
~~/, so' Ii'S": :l /)fI-3 -82-
Gn d Loc!11~~. 7' Hoi. 0" rle"tatloft Project No. ~ 2~j'~}J2!:~~t5' .;'-":l. VERnC,JJL 15'1181 Geologi.t.Mt1JU'''!.~ k' :{ She,tL of ~
Rock Qualit, GROUND WATER TABLE
~ Para""t,r. OepthiftFt. 1.5'
• Ti"" Q;3D"w, ~1--.r:-r-r-~~+D~a~t~e---4~~h~~~1~~'~~~---~
Special
Tlltlftl
• • a. • .c ~ .. G -0 .. a. ...
IL \II
• .''::: :f :.
1---------------........ .: .e! : : 0 w.D./A.B. 1,5/~ ..,uG~~ol-----"---.,;;...~--'------''-------I • ~ 0 0 J DESCRI PTION OF STRATA -.; ~ .; CI) a: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
(,0 \,., .... . ~ £ U-IM I[tJl~
'. ' .. ' UfiAJK'i ull'51'" SLA-7t l'ft-fh~L J ,I.
.
I-t--
I-
2---
3----
4-I--
~
~ 5_ r-
-I-
6_ I----
7-----
1-'--
-I-
9-r-
-
( ~o_ ----
I----2_ r--
~
3-I--
~
4_ r---
, 75---
-~
6-I--
~
7_ ---
8---
~ --
9-'--
IrO
f-
~ •• ;.:, II
I
I
, " ' :' ~.Jj' (lhl,3'-/~.s" GRlcJ K£. I.JI 5'0 S " M 33 0 C,'rck~~'" fp(-L~ 10)% tNL...
.) .. '-fIr,_ StA"f<;: ) . .1-...1. ... 7.1,...1 1< /~\. ,"I ~/' I ~lS:~ YJrUI,'1V.tJ ~ .. ~ 1()~1w-VI ',~ ': ':lJuIHnlJUr,. Ctd.IJ'1 f,dIYJ/ALfly'$l.fU~~-'" ~Y:.: O,A! I
, '.' '. Sh!. '1;)0 It4rJ~"~r lA .. .,.J. .. ,.,:-S PU#6.J AUI'/I hWJl~S ttl.,. 1, ( ,'r,.
. "', ,"f(W4~:!.u; Car~.. l..hI .. DD!f,'b" .,'sltrAt.r 7).tfJ J.Jl. ~+. X
.~, 'r~ ': I 'EI!AJ, ~ fJltJtle $ " ... ~J. d/ra~If4"I, JurtL I
, ~. , ..• ~~~~ I I I Ch,'n-rs ~O' smf"31l//W,'ifn
• .. Ih;'r;J., J.. A-1J,fllW"r~, :"'t',k .... C't!l~. .c;h'r/(<; -hr :0, .lL'-'-i I
: .; : . 1f,f)1I, /,~:'1t,3A' .. ~. ,~.~. r_l .... t.I".lf6l1,,' CdR'l t:4" I.~/ I-IM,S~ 1'-3.if') 1Ji~
•• .' • -rAtfllH ~ ~ \ \ \ ~ 1 ,~ II ~ /r«cfu.d.j 6Je'i, h.., ~'l1l1lY .
, . '. 'IV3S"11"".5'_/7/.(,'1&R~b!{ wI IO~-3.s'1 U M 15,~ 1,1 ~ ",;t
:,. '. " ' 15% $J../t1(.. f~.f,'(',L .IJ. , hl!j;l,',..., Is ,. 51 f'JII. ,I,,-f:~ 1((Jft-, 1/JtJ"/n
.. ' : 1J1.f'/~ ~t>_ 3St/lUffl'Y61f-.l drJCI~L I'MI "Ft'l ,'vr,'lI/nA ~f, /~ '/ Iw' J
I
.' .'. ' r~kJKf' 1..1/ -hrL:.. .:fL~"T'-1-' J%'l "w"" It Ul~ 51J'DjJ,,'/II'~ ~A~ 9'/ It.,.. ..., ,
" ' :: 172.&,' -1"Jt.~' \. ' I I'
\ .:." "B tl'/"'~~ nLi1t~llu ",/,~'J"..J.1A ( "' ,,,/lrS 3"" <;""Itt(. "JJW', J..J/ IrL
: ... :' £) 3t:/!.I{O~ I ' I ~ ~ -frlt.. T~/t,y ,~' I I
.: : •• ~ Al, ,II"UC .,..,J,"A/"'.1 ;',/",/,'-_ S-.., I
.. ~.. krA vic ~b) ... .tN/,~· 1$~3~·
:.:. " I/J • .1.,,<, 1'n~';:'..ir/lI'IA I
.. _'.... / ',I
, ..
: ~ :.-4 :."-~:~':' ..
I ,
II "
" liI.9 2, J
lift> g;, r'~'i .Iu1.~M .. I(#-f.;,.,M lod~' GMt...
Iq~ ,"~/.t)d /1/Y1.A J1J+~ 1'1/ Iw' '
/ 1 r
;JA .'11.f, .30(1 hlJ" IHDtI/", j,~.,w.
1.<\'/.614 /' .k~Ju,;J~ <fJ+t-H, 1-/ /J}"., I
I I
':",
D. H. NO. 3...ez-
SHEET S OFJO
PROJ, NO./o I181
SCALE. J '1.:_ ~I
t;,f.,4AJr' LA~
4eo"Tl!:0I A//c,/L'
/A/vesr,d:ATlt:JlJ·· :.:. nwl.! ",1'\
...
-
...
.... -'
i ..
Surface EIIV. I Hole Depth Drill Hoi. No.
ROCK CORE LOG 60/,5'0 I~S. 2 I A)H-~-e2-
Grid Location , Hole Orientation Project No.
",.,';.. '¥ 2i""~i~~~~8~' . .' Ve:~n~c... j~lIal \~~ , .. Client f.e!}jCO Geologist,U",. _.' ~ 1(_ . Sheet...Le.. of ~
Location (;.fA",f LAke !llIJ ... --ruJ11111 .At~"'*h." Casing ';tN 0/ Surface Description: Used Drilling Co. .J-£I. J Rig J
Driller Cu 'in 1/1'(" \ 'Ut1Q.... Drill~/~1 to~/~, C&~~3 a Sampling Method
Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TA8LE Special
~ Parameter. Depth in Ft. Testing
~ e .! • • a-TIme • ~ e ... e C'o' C 0 a-Dot' e 0 c : .. e >-..: a-• '': .c ~ • • a. e .. -• ..: ~ N a ::I • a-~ W.D./A.B. 0 .c -~ .., ... -e 0 a a. ~ .., u • U II. I.!t a ~ 0 • :::.e OESCRI PTION OF STRATA It a • -• DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA a 0 J CD .. ~ (/) ex: ex: II.
0 -1< 37 f/7b,h'-///I b /) (,Oll'.f.. (J-Rlurf.. 3l:1 Jf [J M '1E~ l.wl I ... / , .to, , I I I
1-r--
\ ' .. · . . J, \~ .It IJ. ~ , I, -. ,....
,
4 (1J~/l4/A-f,;l1f }("r;-,..-H 1tm'A. I 2--.. . . f< .J~, ( 111. ~ '-/S5. 2') r;-RL,)I(f, Ifo ;t [J lid I.'f JiJt/lf,,,.,. 'K .. ~g 'I A,.. I . .' M -· , .
3-· ' .. wI <,~ SJ..,tr1~ /rIM'" IJ/.ft,'-If2,~' .j, j.b / -... '-" .. rretJJ(£ .,!,S(L'Y,. l'L A-7f--ir7J1YI 'II 532 lrMf<. ~O·-30oJ Oh-fih 'lrlJlhr -. . ....... I~').-,a'-d20' I'rRfd(i. lJj 10% ~ 1/
4-r--' .. ' ... ' . Sl.,{;n; Jrp"" Il3,(}'-lis' 2/ ~ RlWd.~ ,klAAllL ,~ SlA--rf'.. 7-11117 ... -~ . . .
/~5_ • 110.' , 'B {' I tAl'YI n/ 4NU ()t1Y"'1,! flu J 1,1; It I f'A'k-.1 jlp JJ '-h 'I z, It ../I" 'ck I -'" • • ... I LlJilYI1AiiJ ~O-~lJl>~ -tYt'. k/,'A/';", , I --r. D. '~" ~t;.J 45D
/ 1-r.:D. liS: 2/ 6_ -I'I~Z. ' , I
I -I 7_ t--
~
1-~ I ,
I-
9-I--
l-I
, flO-t--
I
--
I--I --
2 -----I
I
3----
4--I -
5-r--
-l-I
6-\
t--
-~
I 7_ I--• --
8--
I -I --
9-I--
I-
0
OWN. /..( M ~ a~I'JAJr L4K~ D.H. NO.,3-62
CKO. C~L-..LJ,{J8 R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. (JEt:> r€Ol vlc"f-L SHEET 10 OF/()
DATE 7/1Z1tz. • Nat"..... a.a",oa.WTW .'-.. NN.... wU"'''wvo •• ." PROJ. NO.I57/g/ ,. iAi ve-srl tlA T/~A..! SCALE II' ==3 I DWG.NO. -
-Surfac. Elev. I Hoi. D.pth , Drill Hoi. No.
R OC K CO R E LOG 778 ·/b :2.25"·1 1))./-'1-~.2"
, GOd Local!.9!l, , Hoi. Orl.ntatlon Proj.ct No. ~. ~ z---t.'" 'i2l:~~f, ..... /.IE:Jt.Tli!AL /6>11 d-)
CIi.nt EIJA5 CO"" Geologist tAR-SON '9 Sh •• t....L. of-1.l::....
Location &N ANT J....,If}/('E ~~:i:9 Nw Sur'ace o •• criPtIO~~
Drilling Co. / IE. I Rig i.Y 3 S' 111.Ui:w? ~ ..... ~ .s ....... "'-c..(
D ·11 r .• ..,.///,. ,/_~. Core,~i~a_SJIII~lin9M.thod hv ~"""Lt.. .J.o S"O". ,. .r '-lA.R.R!IE~ 0,,11// //9iO 7///11; 'I <¥ utx r ,
-•
.. c: • ..
LoeationJlllli.rClIft Rock Qualit, GROUND WATER TABLE Special
• ~ g ~. ~ ~ :' Tim. iF.iDW 7/::<p/ll;
N ,. 0~-"'. -81. .! Param.t.,. D.pth in Ft.liov "Evl~L. AATES ~tstlng
.c I ~+g -: : .r .c ~ Oat. 7/7/92. 7/1I/~~ (.) C
£ ~ .... ~L. ;: j : ~ 0 W.D./A-B. AB AB • • ~ u S
Go ...
• :::I! '" o 0 J (!) DESCRIPTION OF STRATA ! ~ ! ~ : : DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
~
I-I--
-~
2---
3--...
'-""'-
~r--------------------------------+-+-;-~_r_+_+-------------------------------~
----"'r------------------------------+-+-;-~_r_+_+----------------------------------~
4-_ '--"
I-
~-I--
-
1---....
7-~ -
.-~
I-
9-~
"I-
10_1--
-I-
II-~
-I-
(2 _~
-
13----
14-~
--
(6--
--
17 -r--
I-
~r_--------------------------------r-+-;-~_r_+_+--------------------------------------~
'-"'-
""'-r--------------------------------+-+-;-~_r_+_+--------------------------------~~
'-""--
~r_---------------------------+-+-+_+_1--r_r_------------------~------~
\/'-
~~------------------------------+-+-~~-r-+-+-------------------------------------~
~r----------------------------+-+-1_~_r_+_+------------------------------------~
~
'---~------------------------_r-+-+-+_1~~r_-------------------------~
V"'-
~1-------------------------------+-+_1_~_+_+_+------------------------------------~
~r------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+-----------------r------;
(8 -I--t-.
I -I-
19-1--~r------------------------------~~+-~~_+------------------------.-I---------~
'----
~O~~~~t--~~----------------------------L-~~~-L~~-----------------------~I----~
OWN. t!HL
CKD. vAle
DATE. '1 .hz./~Z
SCALE. It.=-I
------r.---------------~. ,------------~-----------------~ ,-----.--------__ ~L..-------_ 4"A-...Jr L.~~KC ,.' D.H.NO.-I-eZ.
~.!~. ~~~ .. !~L!~~..!l!e.t~E~ 4E1:JTt:CHA/IcAl '~".": .. ~._.' SHEET I OF/Z. .-.. , PROJ, NO.lS718!
·11 , .... ~
.IV V. -:::. ~'
...
...
••
...
".
...
1fII""
...
,-.
.; .~ -
~-------------------------------------~----~--------.---~~--------~------------~ Surfac. Elev, Hoi. Depth Drill Hoi. No.
ROCK COR E LOG 778.lb ~2S.3 J2l.L-l,'-R"2..
, "".'.~" ..... ,' Grl1 L;~~atlo,~, 4M .. ' HOI.or,i,.ntatlon Proj.ct No. ·2~ G.:z ~~~~~~, ,~~.( ':'. V.e.e 7"1C.141..-I !J-'I ~ I
Client E..BA5GO G.oloaist LAR-SON \2'1 . Sh •• t....2..... of ~
Location r"7'ICAtJT lAkE Casing N' J SlIrfac.D.scriptlon: U,.d LoJ'
DrillinaCo. )&1 Rial. 1" 3rt
-• • IL
~
.c .. a. • Q
.. c • -c
0 u
• ~
~ 0
~,
c .c • a. N cr 0 .. ..
IL ~
J
I
Location Diagram I Rock Qllality GROUND WATER TABLE Sp.clal
P aram.t.r. D.pth in ft. T.stlng
'. .!
P/lG£
0 seE 1. c
c(
= 0 c
"a
"a • DESCRI PTION OF STRATA CD
o • c .. -.. .. ~ .: -.. u cr cr •
~ ~
>-.c .. -. o >
~~--~------r-----, Tim.
Date
c 0 Q ~~ol---------'------""""'---'--------I
w.D./A.B.
DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA (/) II: II:
; 0-r-.,----r------------------------.-.-~_r~~~r_------------------------~
r-~ .l
I
',I-r-~~r--------------------+-+-4-~-+-+-4----------------------~
~ '-"-
I
I ~ 2-~ ~~l--~--~------~~---.---+-+-+-+-+-+-+------------------,r----~ " B~t,...lclf'ro; :2 :~"-.s-Ol
I
~~_~ ~/' w/c/av Mof ... :y .-::-7', "". (d,.:/J(a,i"'~ al .... S~ ..f..... .....
.. 4--0 « 01 ... '/ j, ... o vc..~,.. .. ~"I-~ __ ~ ~, .~.~)
I
I
~ . _ !I:6 /Vr, c ':'CIA le< (, ~ -~ t? CI.JI/"'9S
~_5-r--I ,I ~ . ···/I-----------f-+~_+_+__+_+-----------I
"~I-r-' . ' .. ~--------------------+-+_4_~_r_+~--------------------~
L
I .. ~ -==-',1 !.1-------------------,-+_-I-~_t__+~--+------------------------__I
~ Q .• -~---------------------+-+-4-~_r_+~-------------------~--~
! r
I ~ r-' ---II~' ",,' 1------------------------+--+--+--+--+--+-+-------------------+-------1 -
I
I
I
~9-~ ~ ',0
: o~~ ~~------------------------+-1--r-r-+~--+--------------------------~
~ I~:-V .. ~i·+-----------------------+-4--+--+--+-4-f--------------------f I
r
I
3 2 -r-.• ',' ~----------------------+__+_~-r-+_+~---------------------~
-~ 1.~/·~---------------~+4~~-r------------r---~ ~ 3 -~ -~' .. -I---------------------+-+--I-~-r_+-+-------------------------4 '" .' " -r-/,"0-J 4-~
-, 'fJ/'
3 5--I?"'\ . --N J 6-r-
f-
:3 7_ r---,0 .
~': ~
) 8-r-• 0
f-/ 3 9-~
~
~ ~:/. 0
OWN. CML
CKo. vlt11!
DATE. 7/rz./,tL
SCALE. /11:: 3'
•
4LA,vt LAKE'
4€6rez:1I Al(ei4L
/AJ Pes 71 c:~r(tJiI ':','
I
I
I
I
I .~ -
D.H. No.4-8:L
SHEET';; OFf r<.
PROJ. NO./S'/18/
DWG.NO. -
surfo'7 Eln'
le
I Holl Dlplh Drill Hall No.
ROCK -CORE LOG 78. (?, 2.2$.3 I flH-lj-g'2..
Grid l,Qcat~n #.4' Hall Orllnlatlon Project No.
,.;:.a. ~ 2.~~~~.69i' ~V~"""U9L }S:-I/~I
Clilnt EA/tsco 'd Glologist 1 LJP" t? /1/ JIt,;, Sh .. t~of~
Locallon GRA'I/T J..Ak~ Casing
/VlJ Slirfaci DllIcriptlon~ Used
Drilling CO. J.E/ Rig L Y .lC
Cor I W~ :a~~g Mllhod . SEE. P/J~·E .t Dri Illr CURRIER Drill? /; to 7.17AJ
Loco I I on 010 gram Rock Qualit, GROUND WATER TABLE SPlclal .. Paramltlrs Dlpth in ft . Tlltlnl .. c SeE p/?G-£ .1. ~ • • ~ Timl • .. c a. c "". C 0 ~ Dal. c <.J c : • C ~
0.: ~ • .;: 6: .. • • IlL C .. -• • w.D./AoB • 0.: ~ N ., :I ~ ~ • a. 0 .. 'V --c 0 0 ..
(!t 'V U ., • u a • ~ ~ • ., .. • DESCRI PTION OF STRATA • -DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA 0 0 J CD .. :. U) II: II: ....
l 0 • I --'(/~~ .
(/1--D --I'~ ~2--I
Ii I -V3--
I-if; I
I
j 4-r--Sn-.r../ L Q-.h"t.. .. f 1-/..0 -re..1t. .... ;-.. ~ D kQ( of-I ........ ~I ~.I5_ -1:1 I -lIl_ -j) ~ 7r/c.one.. -fo S.4' I
('f7_ • ""-
(A ~},c: sc:f -ItJ ..s-:l. I -... ' e:-
~/._~ 87 10
,
I
r tis ,;'t; 1M ..... !!! QAt!.,t«oI !h:f -
~ 9-f--~ /,., t, +1., w'>eel ed fJH-3-d'.<.. v.":y. I
,~I-O _
r-?#ss [J. eI. ".oJ J .so' D,... 'I/" Jet: fe. ~O-r.,./J. .... .... r---.
..
...
--· . -
~ 1---: .... : L
R J (S/. 8 -5"7..2) T)';", -In ;"'P,,:/ ~..r 4' J 1M 7f1 ls.3 M&s-f ~ ....... ck~ t:1-.~ -,5-2 -\ , In i-",.. j,.!,! "'/to"'! 4,.. "', ... ~_J,I:' ~-I,ll 5:3 2..~ +"/.'o/,'m. ..... ,.J.~o ~)I!I ......... +... -· ..
:'l ... :,~' ~/~""e (I' ~_e/~ S 4/-e. 1 i It:l'J sl.~i.t/.. '· ... "'.9 .sMI". # -k -.5 3-~
....... _ I Lbd'U'O "'''''' .. ". )-r"' d'kc.-<:. r.J,,/r'sJ.et! ~ d;~ss Co I I .. J.J;'d~s -. . .s I~~, t..~t:.;LJ.. sir> -i~ I"#. J .. f,'"", 1-0 ..... 'LA C.O. l-· . · .
5 4_ · ~ d++ "fJ. ' .. I )0 I.~ Ir "'. -r--...... I C~.('(J .. d'r i.~~ W'I'i'l~ 'i-,,,.,~ , h(,.' I · ' . -. '
-
~ !5--· . v..,.,'''''s // I:, h'a.L'~· /?'s J -,
.: . . .'~ "/l'I>..C S /e i .. ,!" /.rJ,., .... 'V · 9.~" ~ e I -I-A~:r'5"2 "I .
E I-f--· .' I~ ,. ' ..
.? · " ". ~ --~
•• ', .f .. R:J...(S7.:1..-'/.d1) 5,',....·/tlt.--hi I ~ 7_ r--. '. I) I " 1 · ~..
oJ.,." fI'. L tJ Cif 1/, ...,.1 ~ d,'<<t:I! __ f),.. . I I ~,I,p ",.... h .!.....]~ f-~ ...........
~ --. -.. ~lA / +,'eI'IIt ~ ,
k'o / L M 198' 0 ~" /,'0. -/,._ ".,eJII;I,l.. .. ~ '1<'-~Q. 5 8-
...... '
;--. -ws a1.o '40" I
~ -~ -· -.tu ..... . /~tI n/ ..... r:. c. c.. ,. ".C/ . ~~~o-~ 5 9--I--· . ~ .s .... ;t'. .. JI/I.~ s/,-ch --rG~
h 0
~ . . , I, , I l~ -.. \ \ r-
....
... . "
OWN. C ML ~ 4~AA)r LAK€ D.H. No.-I-8 Z.
CKo. \JNiB .. "
SHEET.3 OF/Z-R&M CONSULTANTS INC • d EO lEi:! 1-1 A./ I cl1 L _', >.<
O.ATE. 7pz/RZ. . N.'N..... ..a\.o.,.Ta .\........... .eRY.YO ... PROJ. NO,/-.Clfl! ..... . • .10..... ';. ;, _ '"' .. ",
"'"SCALE-' ¥.~. I .+ ; . .~/ /A./V6STI4'A7l; -~'."I' ,'; .. \. DWG.NO. -
•
Client EBASCO
.. .. c: • • • .. ... c: ", . 0 c u c • • .. .c ~ 0 Go .. • ~ ...
0 0 J
.c
"-IS ..
I.!t
Surface Ducription~
Location Dla\1ralll
, .
Rock Qual it, GROUND WATER TABLE Special
P Q ram ete ra I-o-e-p-th-in-n-'. ---.,......----1 Testing
~
5EE. F/JG£ .t ~ Time ~1--.r-~T-,-~~-rD-Q-te~--~-----+----~
' . ~ ~ "r= !: •
" ~ ~ :' ~ 0 W.O./A.B • I--------------~" t; i; • Cot 0
: ~ ~ ; :. a:: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA DESCRI PTION OF STRATA
~o-.r~-,',~.,~_~'~"'r.IR~~-c-~------~-------------T.I~~C~~~i~(~~~~7=TO~--~~"n-"d---~~·-,,-,~.--~~r~1~.'~----,------~
l
pl-r--~;~.~,~:~'.~------------------------~~~~+++i~-------------------------~
-t-
~2---~3--
.
" . . . ~
. -. -
'. -.. ' R3 {61.2-Gt.J )"~.; SJ,,-k" 1'1
" .. ' ~ f~ ;., L j .. -I~r /4/f ~ ..... tY
.9 L"" ~ Q., :.,,( 0 .... '" (..J .: c.-k #z S Ie I4l
.--.' S h\q~ ~/" ._.-:r-. lb.'"
J.' ..... ~ ./ c../e.//... J(";; /,"a.-h.,......
f{()~~.'" It, /0. .,...$ ,,~ .;., -k: //
",b"",e' ~o () D I_c..-t S ...... f;lO'l<.
" brJ/.s.J....oI ;()I"P Ce..t.o ~
S 54 /./\~ ~ s .;J
s----, ' .. Srit 'S~o(. ~f'/,·,.-r...;.-. tn-SOc) ~/ ..... o._<:;.~,+1.. ,,/,e-klL .<;;".:1.
; 6-fo---..• 51 .. ;......0 .4c:""",. stilt! ';,~ 0..'1 "'II 1I WI,V Il '
I-
/ 1-fo---
I-
8-r--
l-
I 9-~
S 0
l-
, ""-~ ~' O/<-,'a. • ..J.Q..o( -.. Sb • -30 tJ. M 1/00!69
~. :-:-":,.o..6l /.." J. ,,/' II~ ... I"-·
~ ':. I .... a (Q.... ce..lc. 'H. i. t.fz.
, '.' ~ d.'S! .. _ ·" • ..J..'tn..f t. v~;" ',~.
(', ~,.:'-. Tit·" .J... '/::I /,/~ ~i, C Co Lh,.~ ..
I~ .. "";" 0...."" 7;. 3 ~ 7(': 'f I .. '
OWN. CML
CKe. JI'f18
DATE. 7/1Z./Y2.
~CAL~/(=3~
7t:LD~/a_, Nil. J... c:.A Ie' I.e.. stM..
'<..?~", a'i"c.·r;I~.5 I
/"
Surt~ce Elev. I Hole Depth , Drl~ ~~Ie No.
_/78. /6 .2::lS~3 lH'L-'-/-B':2.
Grlcl~l;:c~tJ.cyt9 4h4-' Hole O. rle~!~!.'!n Project No.
'-----------------1 ..... ~ ~.zz";>~iitx;.: iJ4j, ~ VL!!PTlUIt-i SII r; 1
... Client EBASC 0 ' .. "" Geologist J..A~.50N w:;,' i!-L=oL..L.==-t-S-h..Lee~t~.s=~!....o.!..t----:-IA2-----'
.ROCK CORE LOG
Location GL?Altff J...Ak ~ Casing A h I Surface Description: ~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~-~~U~S!e!cI_~/~VI~~ ___ --J I Drilling Co, I E.l Rig J. yo 3 i
Core ~i'Ala~me~ Methocl
--c • • • -~ c
0 c u
• JC ~ -Q, • ~ 0 0
~O
~ 1--
~
r2 -r--
t-
~ 3-t--
~ b-4 _ -
/~-~
r--
.~ 1 I_ I----r-
(1-r--
Loeation Diagram Rock Qualit, GROUND WATER TABLE
Depth in Ft. f-O. ~ {Z .. :!.
Time ~:3()AM -,
SpeCial
Testlnl
.! Parameters
'.
S.EE-PAG£ .i'Y D c
C'o' C
c 1,:'
.. : • JC D
Q, C N IS 0 .. 'V ... 'V '" ~
DESCRI PTION OF STRATA • J CD
• • ...
:I ...
Col
1:11
~
~
•. -,-,"".,. ... 1",_ "'e' ... · ... ''.. ,;"",,".,~ oS
Ic;",~ ... '< L. .... M -/i..'" (A.s(.(J.e.: /',.
:: :: 11""'. '.. ~ I-wtt_ ~4"-I..... ",,.t ..
~.,;\ ,'.~ (!:.It:-I~ ~ C.-c ,to t:~r. A,'olk \,",: . .t-_,.Iz. ~ • .t) ,', / /
~. \ " :1< r;-(R ,. ~-91. 7 ) 6,.. ".t. , ... "-1.. 3D S'
. ~ •• _4e .......... II. H.·~t-.~ _1!.3~.·~.e..
D c
'': • .I: -1:11 • ~
~
.I: ... -• D » C 0 • Col ~ • -en II:
0
0
II:
W.D./A.B. s~"_0
DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
I
:r;::j~ I
/lJ O ~It, .... o ... _,.eI $;,.. ... "1-1.. e..lc,-y ....
".5 /,.,,_Ir... ~ 'J._f :1-" s .... /~'c/ .. .s
't" 0 D/., ...... _ ....... tII ~_"D.J.b.. e .. Jc. '-/iI<
~;.)O ::;1/"." _t'IlJ ".l.o~t.. cQ/c..'/e..
g!,?o ",Jct,,~_ ~t? .. o.L ~e..4/c.J~~
. II .('" 0 " ... /.... ..~ ......... --:/ t.. S)I 'c:.l:-.' rr
J../ ~,.-I./,'-'.~ ...J-.~~,., ..........• 1
'I .'lJ ~11 I ( c.. /.../0,,·-1 .... ., 'ii!.7 I
AI) 19~ 72 /h,'/I ,..",.7. 71:4 Y,A ..
Is:/j,~ ':2,,0 r-ol ..... ", __ .fJI ~.ddJ.. f_hL~ c.j'k!.
...
-~
1 1-'---I,.' '. 2,,_ f-~,~.J._ • .f..;. ~ •. :... /l! .10/1 ";-10 .. 4 .. -.,1 J_,JltiJ., f,.j~ /t~ h/~ iii'!
t ,:" 6t lAI\. 1' .... ! .f.. ~ '-~ ",' fl{'"~ ,\.. ... " I~.. ~k.Qt..1 tlf~ -J.. ol.D/ --
9---~O_ -
.\' 0.""", /." st. .. I-t c..k~/j;,~ .. I. ... i: II '" r
" ",' Q; ..... ~c. II. "Lli"~ /? '" <!..
, .' "i ·I,·", ... ~ ~ • 0+'7 4-c.rc.··~
-~I-I---
~ ··2_ r--
-t-Ct! _ r--
, ' • ....~ ' .. c:. rQ ,. • • .f:..._ ill' /, . 0
• ',.'..J.u.:) f... J."i; 1/ E it,./ ~ 1..,fff 7 /;J.Afj' :2.
:"'-". K9(9/.7-'17./J ~ .Aot!.~ ....... ~ '1
.. , . ~,.k ..u. , ,,-,k ,,~ / #0 .... 0,..' I f ".I'!J ..J.J I r. + 't / h ....
. • .sk k .."." ... ..,t. L,e ~ -I-r, ,' .. "".or'" J. • ..I~ ~. ,~ aiM 19", In I..h -I .. _ or f........ ,., + C4t S I~Q
--.~ / II #. .~ '9.3..:z. -''3 ..3 ~ .... ~J. I.L .L Is. I l'f . ., + O.~' ~f-$Ir:,~f "...J-IS/' '+'1-
-~
c 4-r--
'~~-I--
-t-
(~I-t--..
-I-
~t 1_ r--
~
;8-~
"':".1 .--.......
~ ~9-~
I
, I &--1/ ......
~
I ~O
-
OWN. t:!ML
CKe. vA-l.d
DATE. 7//Z/S;L
SCALE. 1/ _ '1
~~----------------
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
............ a.aLaG .• T. ~LA"".". .u .. v.va ...
«. : ~-~." -
4 JtAAJT" LA k'e:-
Ceo reCLIA./~C4L. .. ~
" ! ~
INVESII~ArIO .. ;.l'
D.H. No.4-t!!J,t,
SHEETSOF/~
PROJ. NO./~J 18/
....
....
II1II'
Surface~lev. I Hole O?,th" Drill Hole No.
ROCK -CORE kOG 7 C3j(;, ~Z ,3 .DH-5-"62
Grid 7'fcatl an .fj'f.' Hole Orlentatl9n pr1ect No. ~:l ~~~(;.~fJ. • r,"~ VIr;, e4/ 5"" Client £EA5UJ Geologist.Af<'1"m~ f(' ~ Sh .. tLof~
LocationGr1lilfLk ft,ml)e/ At~I~';'" Casing Nit' / ! Surface DISc ription ~
Drilling Co. --:;::.£-:r:. V Rig I-dIl4 V"" ..... 38'
UUd
Driller Cufr,'~~ ;UA/~ Ori 117~h:L t07hJ2.l. C/0Vl:P:!) a Sampling Method .
Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special .. Parameter. Depth in Ft . Testing • -c • • go Ti me • -c: . ~ c: C'o' ... 0 go Date u c : • c: :.. .c go .. -I: ~ .-• ~ ~ -• • CL c: W.O./A.B. .c u .. fI , ~ go > --0 .. ~ --c: 0 0
CL ~ ~ u • U I&. tl' fI ~ 0 • ~ DESCRI PTION OF STRATA • fI .. • DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA 0 ° / ~ ~ ~ II) II: II: I&.
~ 0
r-~ / L I '/ / /, /
L / / II I / / I / 1-r-~ / L / I / / / -t-I
2--ll: / L / / / I L I L
V / / / V / / 'L -L L / / L L / 3--~ / / / '/ / / { r-~ ~ / L I / L / jI / 4-r--~ "'-/ / V i I / I ~ ~ L / / / V / / / 5_ I r-~ ~ L / / / / I / or-/ / / V / / / 6_ -0~ --/ / f J / I. J /
~7--L I L 'l L L 'L ... ... .. --. RID liJ,l '-/(}/. 71o-R{'JKf L1/ <J~"~ ~l~ M [4; 3,; 0r( .. (,h.A,.j-'~.-Jt. laJ~ ~ · --...... LZ.:o,?
SUt-7~,\"frA'IHr~J'. Iif~/ Ad,;',:.! 1& '{t. fJn'/6~ t(ttPe. //1 '/ ,,,, 1-'--..... '-' 111-:25
~ ........ ~ ... f.(~I!AIC.".£.. ""'5 1-,)/(/8..("1. ~" ~~ S·-"'-'" . I -r-... :-... ." ," .... .. -i'",'1 -t1u1-J. ~i> r) 6t? ' ~dm" O/#(I!t 7""',,.f.<'tItf ~tJ Jld' sml'h ( ~JAY 9-t--· ..... · . ))1/. J",/~~ A-AL~~ .rt>-~" J) Car /) ~ :'oM';~ ~ ..f;~/,/-( .... '-.. ...'
~ .... I J I ;2. , JruaK~ "',." ",1mA' <&lA-7t.. ~rtP~ t~O-r--· . · -. lat'<L .5M-fI?< JJLI'1Y', /01 Cli.1,fj/(f.. ro'u;ot.. ~ -~ · . · ~ . I,ll ,:...c-"'A. ./ ..I
1-r--· -. .
· ::. ,'J vtol I .. ; , .... 1/ I ~ -. '. ' RII/I/K,7'-I07.tJ'") {;-KIJKf. wI 2 _ r--· .. oS · ..
< I~ SLA-7c -fit'''/14 ,'nJr,/;Rtfktl W'b .3 l./ [M 5,l-,t,,} ("rrlf IF,r,!JtI(.p!z.rY,,-'Zo -ldJ X .. ' .. ' . ' .
fz, Yr' -lIP;' It . / g 5,": /)( II/,'tu, ;2,,-ft!! ~t:>' / h-I
3--· . ...... ...
("..de, !b. im.r. f'fM.-t4$ hAIY;'~ -fn '1~" g~ ~I ./ I . · ,
4_ r--SO~ ,tJ' IlJ-f?J ~ell//W £A-/A//)t 0i,'n.f~ 9" I ~t1. 5P17-fJ, 'I-~/"r · .' " J ..11/ r~~J,( "/)1Y-~t. IAbJ.,~'.~nettt!L., -. . -!-!'alii / 'v ./ .
~-r--· '. · .' . V I -~ · -..
6-. . .. II -'.
~ . " ... t ;(. --· . -. , r L I ~7_ .. /"I -· ..... ... R.J').II~?,()'_III,¥' l.&RWJf wi ~to r5 u lot 'hI1. f?,'rl" .. /~.,t,;)o f(-"f;,~1t '10-/tAJ ~ -... ' .. 11)Yt..S1-I17£ Irllt..L j.l",J '{ 40'1 /f,lt .Dr:/f,k Btl; ~I '/ Ar /'.2.'-8--... ." · '. /11. Z'-/II,if , 5't..A'Tt wi /5% (rf(4JKC 1~~ 4i ~ ./ . I .. .. .. " ' .. -.. ... .... IrMJ,.,t bt'tI!~ -t-~ ~ ,"'Is !f()(} ~I> yO". S7h..fl, ('.oW 9--· . . • o. -Pf1Jt~-!?tR1..~AJ(' jOf, I" -lbJ..1' ~Jr ~ II Iw-r. (~CUt J. '/1 " -• .. 6, flo · .. .. .... -. M.~ 4 hALfl1'rY l--.; ~ I/o .... .. ~.. .
I
OWN. I<' M ~ t;,eAAJr L...AKe' , D.H. NO.4,sz
CKD6IIL -.,IJfI.6 R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. a€l:J7C!t:W A/K'A L SHEET h OF/2
DATE. "7 )/~/8'3... .NaIN.... aaOLQUlaTa .. L............. .u ... .., .... o ....
PROJ. NO,"57/c91
SCALE.1"=.,3 ; /~J/e5T7~ATION DWG.NO. -
Slirfac..t~ev. , Hole Depth / Drill HOleJNO.
OG / /6J~ -"'225".3 nH-Il-2
"
;:,. Grld,~_c!tIQJtg ~.¢.' Hole Orlent,tl 99 I Project No. ROCK CORE
',m ~<r'i'A~~J' t..~, c~ V~,~ /SII" /
Client [SASco ~ Geologist A1~IJ,,~J...,1 K ~~,,--'-----+-S-h-.,Le.=::t ~7~,LOf-'~~~
.. • • IL
.. c • .. i COo'
SurfaCi Oelcriptlon~
Locatian Diagram • Roc" Quality GROUND WATER TABLE SpecIal
Param.t.r. D.pth in Ft. Testing ~ ~~--~-----+----~
CIt Time
u c .c
• • Q,
c
~1--r=Cltr-~'-~D~a~te~-~---~---~
-CIt : ,c .. _ .c ~
c -• ~ u ~ cr
Q, .. ~
'': :' >0 0 W.O./AoB. ~------------------~~ ~ ~ ~----~----~~----~-----~ l:;:~:o • ~ IL. ~ 00/ DESCRI PTION OF STRATA as &L ~ C/) II: II: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
1-"""-
~
2 -I'--
roo
3----
4'
.~
5_1--
r-6 __
-
7 -':'"-
-
1----
r-
9-1--
r-
I ... O-t--
-~
1----
2 -r-
!5--
-~
8-~
-~
7-_
--
8--
r-
9-~
f-
1 " ' .. SLA-'lf,', h.,,,J.'-. 461~gS-' ~/I7Y '-ty&.. L'..,J~Y.i J
~ ':.,: CtI(I'.k ~;:"/~~{.fIt,.w~ "/9 Ylu/Lt.. ~ '~s","goD Y~h ~ /)~Ylr" e1.~'! COlt""~~
,': .~ ... y.(" ~ V;"~~~ , .I l.:t 'so ~1~~ ,.~ ,..' .. 1... -ill "'~l.l.l
: '.FRl+c'(ld<" ;J.dN( : 1/3,(' '-II¥,6'Sl/r1L +~ 9>ou~ -u .. ~~( .... c,lo~:L,
..... "-. "L~~ ,./"'J.~"'Alts4!'k4&,,(4J;'II'II-l-l I, ~ 5j1:MJ.c.«cl F,.u..~y~,. II/~'-IIS'
, ' ns' 7$-' .• , .... -I~ wfl H .1.L i .... ~,. ... *c.. G'rn.t,..,t;JYf ~-f ........ 9(J-ln~' ~
:,.~'.:: I<W/II~7"-I;J.7"1GRtJl(( LJ</~ .3a ~Iu /'II ~, l.if)/.'/hrr-~.,(,. 2.o'/J,;, :<: ": --sLJ4>f~: /11llH'ft7Itfi,,~-fl!lInAJ~' ~/CS,~ r I J
:: .::: l'I1..d-au ,~~L. I~ % ir I
:: : ': '" fc:I.I-/.M/,ul c.fir,!f/ .. .iYiwmHtt'J«.1 ::!;,:"f.s /,f;t,c~~ .2'O"lt1'
. ~,'. :. d~~IS"L. 21)0 { I IVlfh ( £11,.,. d~j~1:.. ;'y,.,4, -fJ.~~
:-" : :. j,lIvli')tOffi I J.J.I. , ... ~.~ .. ~,,~ r IV { /., if v
~~ . : " I ./ ./ 3
...... ... .. ~
", " . .... . .. } ... ;.' /
I
I
D,H,NO.4~
SHEET '7 OF/.l
PROJ, NO.I!!r.l1S
SCALE. H-= I
t;etf:/-,-e-C#MC-'lL '" i.. ~,
1~;;eS":':A' TloAi :l~,; ~/ o ,.., ....
"'.
-.
I
--~ • • • -~ ~
0
c c.J
• .I: ~ -a. • ~ 0 0
~ 0
~
1-;--
-I-
2-~ -
3-r---
4-r--
~
5_ ~
-I-
6_ ---
7---
1--
-I-
9-~
-
Drill Hole No.
1)/-1-4 -~-z
Project No.
/S-//Y/
Sheet_8_ of~
Surface Description:
Location Ololram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special
Parameter. Depth in Ft. Testing ~ r--~---+-----4----~ ~ Time
C'o' ~1-.-r~~-r~-'-+D~O=t.~--+-----~----~
~ .I: • a. .. CJ 0
~ ..
~ ~
J DESCRI PTION OF STRATA
ell .... = ~
; ~ ~ ~. ~ o~W_.D_._/A_._B_.~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~ 1--------------------------1"0 u - u ,---
• CJ : !: • a
CD .:: ~ VJ II: II: DISCONTI NUITIES a WATER DATA
1
I
: .• ' .' '/ ,0 'X V, tr~I~,,( S'''lf~'d~ j .3
,.".. .' P.I? r /3/. ·Z· #-/j7,D~ MwK{, _-t L/~(I!!"'~~1'f ~f~ ro-l~
:~.'. :.J.L!.-vS%St4-7C' .I'I1I!~4)d/~· l~tI.:i. utI-.5.l3.~ J)y''!I,~fd-r~ 2<f'/J... I
..' S:lif-f~ ,11l-iN Wtl5 ' 'If!' -iM'dt I " $ . .< I.p /
, ..... I~
1~t.O _ -,\. '. ) 1-a~IA!JI, .1i~i1~ Ii /. , --, .
I--" .......
-~ .... ." .
2 ---..
3---4_ --
, 5-r--
· -f-
6-I---
-~
7_ t--
-l-
e-I--
~
9-I---
-I-
/l"O ''''
DWN. k'fi1
CKD'~NL -v~~
DATE. MZ.jez_
SCALE./H=-,5'
I v I (/ J
~IJ IL L 1 L~l/ I
U Ms .• 5,1 (>,'Ycu(,h~~ ReI..1"ft. V% -/~,{
5,15,1 7lr,'/l'tv..r~ /)5"/ AY' I
llJOi.t)~ / •
1'\ / #f{} /;;Vlfll'$ "y mrt"J.",.."s . n,,..,
'-W-f ~ d)U. IJJ~c.e. ) I
G; If A AJ r" LA-£' £'
4E~ reCh/A//c4L
IAJ vesT/t:3AT/l) ~
I .,.,
I
D.H. NO. 4.;;.,sZ,
SHEETS OF/Z
PROJ. NO./S"//81
PWG.NO.
/.
Drill Hole No.
DI-I-4-~d-.
Cli.nt £l3ASco ~ Geologist A4AJlJII':"" ~
Project No.
iSII¥/
S h •• t -1-of ..J..l:::....
-• -c • -
Location Diagram Roell Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Sp.elal
_ • Param.t.r. I-D_ • .;....~t_h_in_F_t.+-__ +-__ -t Testing
.. Tim. • ~ ~ ",. ~I-.-rr=r--r"-~~+D~a~t~.-~---r--~
~ u c .c
• • Q, ClIO ~ .;: ~ :.
.c -CI ~ D
.t W t-i
.!: -• ClIO ~ W 0 IA.B r--------------\ v £ ~ CoO •• • lD:~¥ol------'------'------'---~ Q, • 0
Va
1---
2--
I-
3-r-
-I-
4--
-:5 __
~
6_1--
I-
7-r-
-I-
1-'----
9--
.-
DESCRI PTiON OF STRATA CD .t :. (I) II: 0:: DISCONTI NUITIE S a WATER DATA
" .
, .. , K'J.b ('" ... '-/ ( li(,,t!'-I ~ I. J " GN({. ?~I t.1 1M IP iI~ I .~._. ~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~I~~~~~----------,-,--r-I--~
: . ~ ., I I I I . ,.·r---------------++++4+~44_H~----------------~ , " ''; . J,.I, .L -: -: _ 1----------~~!::t:!m_-------:--___1
I
.... :", ~2.' (IS,,~/-157.o') G-IfWI((J1Jd. io'l.S'.~ tt 11 [5.2.5,,,
~ .-:', tll'A(~" ,-,1'11. 5.1-5.. . -v f7;M//-,t (\f.i"~/''/ .£ ~f2_.~)" ~dP ,~
t-dft fu.w ~ j()u·;06 yqJ ¢ "14£#.
-/;bA-I-wI skLn';' tflNJI .. y ~~ • '~
v f , I I '
I I
I
~, v ~ I
l-st,r 'I.~ C-/1"" trhlll1 f'(dwl7'.i'~-/.aI~ ImA.
I~I¥'J j)f,'!b~ ~~ p'/ b J • ., ../
l~Z .&3./ --I
IC~-r-
~tfJlK.5 J~ "10'" Y4IJ)l /Jlh,
-libAI -fr~ &ti:J-2 V -/1 #
;'",", 960" .<m+lr ~ /)~." +rc. I~ ('o"J
--
1--
CKe. 6f1L-.JIII~
DATE, 7//zk..t.
SCALE, ,,-
,
~ '.
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
.NO'H.... ..OL.aat.T. ",ANN__ eu • ...,.yo ••
" ~ ~~." :!'.: ~':.1f, .. \~t.. "',';: ,
...
...
... '
""
...
...
'"",
...
...
-
..
,/
I
t
.. .. c ---..
~ c
0
c 0 -~ ~ D. -~ 0 0
70 -
1---
2-r--
-I-
3-r--
I-
4-~ -5_ ---6_ ~
-r-
7-r--
I-
8-!--
-
9--
P'O_ l-
roo-...
1--
-I-
2-r-
-I-
3-I--
-I-
4_ I---
5----
6-----
7_ --
8--
I-
9--
r-~O
('00'
c -~
Q. ..
Hole Depth I
t.2S. ;3
Drill Hole No.
1)H-4-f'J..
Project ~o.
15"1/11
S h I It....l£... of ...1.1::....
Loeation Diagram Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special
Parameter. De~th in Ft. Testing
~ ~~--r-----+----~
aa Time ~I-'.~~~-.-~r-+D-a-t-e---+----~r--~
aa _.-~ ..
c .. "--• a 0 .. ~
~ c.!I
DESCR' PT'ON OF STRATA
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 W.O./A.B .
1-------------------------1 ~ ~ '0 ! :: a ~-----~--------'-------'------.......,
.: ~ ; en II! II! DISCONTINUITIES Ii WATER DATA /
., " .' R:¥rl'J1~ Ut:-7.o-/7/.I'.!) (,,.R~j.K~ 30.3 i1 M +:bI3,3
~ ':-::':, S I "f,fl/ti
I
I
... " II;}-" _ It. /tJ~~ R~% 17!j / (I
:': -:-:~. !3edl/tI.A ()/II~~ ~O--3~ fdl:-'.f.J ~ I, J"J"'I<;'~d'~s· 'loa ~o" s~ 11J/n.,.-
: ; ". ~ ...
..... " .
~ ....
J ./ l,S-A1~rI t:I~ =-t,,/J:';' .r,M /)~Ak5" ~~_
1'1 fJArl/", Yluiu 1./ II", A~/I~~ lJ1tdS-l
.•••••. 1/[, [\ 't' lit I
:~ '.:.<' f( 2k:? f 1?7.0'-179/I') G-R/Jlt( ;{ ~ '1 M ::;. . .., :t./ C/re/lldf;~~ fJf'II1¥J1. ?()-/~_%
I
......
OWN. k'M
CKO'C'...4L-J!1d
OATE, 7-1 z.~
SCALE III-=~/
~~--------'~'
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
.fiIIIGIN...... a_OLOQ •• Ta ~LANN... au.v.vo ••
4 ~"A.I~.~LAe£
t:/€t:J rezJl,1(/ eAL ..• ,: '
;fJ !/c:.-sTlc;A Tiod..,
i-'
.-
'~ 0
~
I-I----
2. I--
or-
3-I--
r-
4-t--
0-
5_ -
~ a_ -
-i-
7-I--
~
I-I--.. --
9---.-~C~-r-
-r-.-I--
-I-
2. ~
or-
3-t--
01-
4-I---
5-1--
-l-
e-r--
-I-
7_ r--
-~
8-~
I-
9-~
I-
t...Q
Location DlaQra", R 0 cll Qual it, ~G;.;.;R~O..;;.U;.;.N;;;.D ..;,;W.;,.;AT.;,.;E:.;,R;,..T;,;.A,;;;;8.:-,LE=--_........./ S pac 10'
Para",ata,. Dapth in ft. Tastln .•
.!
at Tima ~1--.~:~~~~~DQ~t=a--~-----~-~
at •• >: ~ :;
.: ~ ~ :' ~ Q .... W_._D._I_A._8_ • .l-____ ....L.... ___ ....1... ____ -..1 1------------------------1" " G :! ~ 0
DESCRIPTION OF STRATA .: ~ ~ en IE: IE: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
.. : .. '.': R29111IJo-I'IS~/') G-R1.JKf llS' 1..Iu ,I-II~I~.I I
:'. _. :'In!'~;'rA,''' h'1I«/:..o ~L • A:;./J/.... 1:;',I!t. (J,hu~-h:1A ~fldN'l.o 90-/dJ~ ~/'JL
:'. '. n/oHJ-1 oa:llu cI/~cI!KIuMt-P:'1fP3S·./ IIDdlll~ 7'Jr,"/'1'VJ PJi; 12.'/£.,. v'
... ,.': :. 'l'AdY',/yv'tr " .L .. -·"hA "4" 7 I .~: ",:' : AJ.. u_"" ~ ~Jt.~/",;I ~/t",~~ _ '1:v>1 • ..I: ./ .... L ~I)b 1I'»j, ( "fl\~ -f",.
:;:' ,: ".{-, ~,{-.-,,< 30-· "'I"ll 17A./ ... .t!~ (,,,,1'11 ... ~~A.4.rn-Y )/~~/ .. Y _~Jt+
:.' :: _v+" / 'I';" -fj.,/,./~ S'!J.I)I'~II /~ Ju / 7 '-II I t/
'." :. . Ilv" d1'-Sflf5 ' I
~ '.. .' .. ,----------------------++++~~~~~H_------------------------~ . . .
',".::,:'~'; ha/d/NI -lif''lJ;'1 (~LA-~C ..t.t S t:~AC.,gP<,UN£ 119..'1~:1t>o.2.'
::;:. :.: Ih( r.lIt~,t.. I ~ J.f.J,. x .1!ArIt._ '< ), nbJlJ " .. "~,'j/,!,;
i"I • .-; : J Ji-uk ~ ~.y'4! ;;1011/.1 ~ 'i£1f7f! /" ~.:
':.:; ,: ;<.... ~ I, 1~~all,,1J l ..... _.1 ... "" -'I;~J..j, / J
.•.. ~:. ::', R.:51 r:ioo.S/~ 1.P5.b') (ff(wK£ 14)//,t;'/., 13~'~ ~ M .;,13.4 '17 -, V
:: : : " SLf1''f£ -fI"~/,,, b~/J'uI,~ I/fr'!;; 1,~"I~wWl ~116:1 Ul-14IA~'; K'ef~ tPo-9p%
, ....... "
.......... 0
.. ::: ':1<K3Z (1-65.&,'-2{o.s')G!lWK! ""/-tt)% t..;
: ., -.' SJ.,~ ,'ttfM'jdll!L,'" '/#"-Ib /,/J" 1& • .#'(1
..........
CJ I • .P· J/ A:...h. <fO-"d~ .'
. (j)rl'Ii,'-~ ~~ I./J.' / ~,... •
/ 7'1
v, c~~ Ii -;J;;._~ .""~ ,'" -sLli1<' &(0.,
Vlfl/~~~ I
J:LJcrI4RfS ~.~: ~.t::".~t;H1 YU1{
7VJ~ swrfh'" /J/rw L ,)-n" !Jh~J::r
...
",.
....
...
...
.,.
... '
-
.. • • IL
c
.c -Go • C
.. c • .. c
0 u
• ~
~ 0
!5-1--
-,,",
6--
--
7-_
~
8-~
I-
9-1--
co.,
c • ..
0 ..
IL
J
Surface Descriptlon~
Loeation Diagram • Rock Qualit, GROUND WATER TABLE Special
. . • Parameter, Deplh in Ft.~ .... IJ,..-Id,' "" F/ru Testing
~ Time 12.'00 .. ,
.c
Q. cr ..
" DESCRI PTION OF STRATA
:. : .~ ..c t' Dol. 1/1/gl..
c ~ ~ -;.: W.O. lA-B. As ~---------------4:: ~.. c 0 c ~ __ -..L..~~---1. __ ------L ___ ---1 .cr:!¥o
ID .t ~ CI) II:: II:: DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
.. . . ,
L
-r. [), .2. 2.5, '3 '
.
L .
7/11 /~"J... r ~-
O~~~_~ __ '_' _________________ ~~~~~~~ ______________ ~ ___ ~
DW~ ~~ ~~ ____________ ~
CKo.t!.;HL-J",~ R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
DATE. ~_/~~ .ND'N.... aaOL.Qa .• T. ~"NN... .u_v.va ••
SCALE. / H:,3 I
a~4,(}~~
4eo r e::HH IC-;1L '.-
/A/vesn4~TtoA./
D.H. No.4-B~
SHEET /~ OF /2..
PROJ. NO.ISI/l!/
DWG.NO, -
~ Surface Eln. I Hole Depth Drill Hole No.
,ROCK CORE !r-.OG h~,4.2 75:+' DJ.J -s-8~
GJ)dzl!.catl~ ~!l,' Hole Orientation Project No. ~:l 2~~~2: ' \¥em~L-JS-L181
Client ,::... f'>ASc..O .. Geologiat LA/!.50ll Sh .. t.....L. of~
...
Location C'r12 hAlT Mia=.. . . Casing Surface D+,caPtlon:
Drilling Co. J;;/ RigJ,. V 3g Uaed NU Ed,.... .. .... t I.~Jr.j 0"
Cor. ~ilwalllPling "ethod tQ./..s (,.osr CLS). S/.pe. .2.0-lo
Driller C, '.JR..RI,~ Dr i 117 M~ to-7/~~'" -Ccl . I!as+ • S"'''d~ e B/ .. c.I.. -fe ~I
Location Dlagralll Rock Qualit, GROUND WATER TABLE Special .. V ... f.-u( I Gc.-k.. S/....c.H fIoJ.c., Parallleter. Depth in ft. IMk€. i.l.£'VEI-. Tntln,1 • .. c ~ a. • • Ni Tillie • .. b-rG.,;t c
II. c to· o+os( t C aI 17/,9/P'..l. 7h~ 0 Date c to) c "": _. LG<*«-: • C ~
~ aI :! 'i: ~ .. • • Q. ' -8' J)H-S-Q .!: .= ; • w.D./AoB. Al!. ~ ~ N It ~ > .. 0 .. " -.. c 0 0 0. .. I!t " u CII • U 0 • ~ ... • CII • .. • DESCRI PTION OF STRATA -DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA 0 0 / III .. ~ en It: It: ...
0
~ 0-q 0 /Ike. ./0...-b" .... 1 ()(4," SEr CAS/Nt;.. /0 9' I
1--(.,0 I/,. ",.:' _ /),., Jlp 01 0-9' tJ/cl .. , ......
~Aoe. C,h4 ... ~ ~et' -1--.. 'Na -"..~d t ,i.,..., _ec ,,-c:.. -t.oI j,,+ 1':.+ 2--# 8.5' I --
3---~ J
I
4--~ -5_ -I
0-
1-~
1:-~,_ "_
-f-~ I
7-r--NrJTE. ! 5~.-I 'I' e;"cI-, ... f,-,J. o/".t.. e!.,
~ ..,~, ...... "Q , ,h.k ~-I,~
1-!--~~ C'f<Ct.c.L,q,( fOAl E.R2R7,C. ! R I (g.S -II. ~) ll>,n "I" $1 .... -1/ I ~:s-',(}// ID~ .~~ D~J.L RATt=.. }~ T+/J...'! i
-~ ,
9-~ G-r-G. ~e.~~ k:_ -kJ ~.#d .2 % . :r iJ-~ • I=V I. .. ~, ___ "IrO .DIlL ... 6 s .... ,,. 'f-/... '. . ../::;~ t. / sle.-4 ;'", -h .... kLlJ c., ~1..7_" I.D -h M.I.:s~~o( c:./f'Q ... .""" s,,//',-J • .s.
I .--..... -. .~.~~ t u/e;-k, __ 1...,0 .:>/.; ........ .... ,/ J... -f-1-94"" -'-.. TI..· 1.:0 0 I{~ ~, Ie' 0_ -'0,' ,t .,:,.. ....... /tJ.S-, R6~&. sJ-t. '.Ja -n. 1/ --, ........ ;~~f .. sA.e..I4. , .... u_ 'A~~~ , )"/,,'S."'f> .JIN# ... +,:". <: // ~J,'c.. -I,~ ( 1--~ ~ ... -... "~:. s/e.. ~. ~IA. C." GO~' J.e." .. / .... c
,
.~ · .' -. .f,.....~ -h..v .. +"II,'''''-t: ~ II II C,IRe. 4L..4 '110M E /Uli'J. r, c.. '2_ ~... ... ..... r--R.. 2f1I.e· 1(,. f ) /", ff ... fA .""u/ J,~ I ,. '3 8 lJelLL RATE 1"1 -I"'L~d-. .
...
...
" · -..... -.e..ekL e Skk 1-0 :2.7 • "1 J:. 1\ . ;:;, I.'L h'_ 'I~ AJa_ .. _ (3 --. . ~ ~ ..... ~.'
, " ...... ~ ",., ... ~ . fl.,' ... /, 1 .I..J. J J..fJU/I., r S4.-... f{ iw WIJ/L"5~ c../., Q A+"'4 •• A· du --
(4-........... A",,._' ,,, .t s:..t-t rt'cI /'ff~{"Iot,·'r.. -~ -o/.,.f.t,~.-1'.-1, '/1 ~ L .. u//" ;.,(+ 1., ... /'. /"Ill"" ~~/t...,..~ '\ t!>l"ol,.' (J(v,'/I b ... ~ , ~ Ir,.," -!-vt:.~1... . .-,oJ J)t:.M'" c~/II! J'iL~. ,/" ... ;c . ~th..L. _... o(.'~" (J t-s" ~ It> f'.~ (., (5-
. ... ..
~
, . · .. Cd e. '4-<!. V~ ~ ... ~ ~ St,..' ... c~ ... s. rJ.. bS'!-c.d "'..... d ~ .... .J.o .Ido c.Ir.',. 0 ~ -l-. .. . · . -h '/1 II .
~ ~8-' .. ' . \ ILb II IJ II -iR. ~ (/t.J ·2.I,/~ r~,' -h. _od )D 'I (A I~ IJM 17, C,. ... CIA.!c_:l-t'-. QMd '1(1-/~7:. --, . ... ; ,-".,-/p,. lui Q;./tIA. lIelr ... ~ S/.../4. .3 ~.., " l3.9 DRILL ~AT£' /0 r'fA~ 17 --,. "'. .
.j.j Ii if I 10 t'",,.I 0; I"u", ,J, II: I=" I. 'D of, ......... ~. ~t-. .. _. $_~H.. ~ ",.'" .... : : ,
-~
O,.4tv,..,(,t.k4 I.J/u.",~ J.j "d: r 1.&" c..l.t:t .... ~. 4 -"-0'& C4.G ~ 8-f--~c.' ~ ...
-~ , ........... -.. 4 '/I1!1 r..t>b:< s-l,.. ·A".II ,~" k. I
('.1-.. l;'j,YL+"ft,' $A",a~~.s I, ... . ' ----(9-\, ..... -. .. ~'It.Cil!. r--
\ ~ \~" .. ' 11It"4<J\. 1'. ,. '.J,.",,-f.,__ +-1..,,--f!.IjJL;~ Ib of-
~ ,': '~, .. ~. III .r;,'/,~-I-,'Ik 17.9-/f./'· :J ~ j, /, ~ " I " ..
-
. ' ' . .. J " -..,-;
, . ."-.. ' .. . --OWN. CMl-~ 4~LJf"t;' D. H. NO. s:..B~ t, ..
CKD. t/N/5 R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. 4 €fj Ti3:J.IlJ {C IfL' .;,< SHEET r oF4-
DATE. 7-(Z~Z .NO....... ..or..OG.eT. . .... ANNII... .u_vaYQ •• PROJ. NO.I.$1/f/ '. ~ ,> "'~'" . ~. \. " . " ,.,.,;," ," ~ f.~1o. -~ SCALE.f-''=~ , '~' !; ... ;4, IIJ Vesr",~,'A-""lfJU :. DWG.NO. -; .. ,.. .. ~-'-
---.. --.-
Surface Ele v4l , Hoi. D'~h Drill Hoi. No.
ROCK -CORE LOG ~0~ . 7:-I DIf-S"'-:R) :>' .
Grid Loca1Jon -() -r/ Hoi. Orientation Proj.ct No.
~'O., ~ ~i~ ,...I};.~ .. :!. ~ I '~ V££!-,CLL<-j~11 ~ I
Client E BAsco '1 Geologist LI1I?~/I.I \,~j Sheet~of~
Location GRANT LAkE Casing NI..J I Surface Description: Used
Drilling CO. LE/ Ri9Ly l~
Core SiA; g ~c~ng Method
~££. ~,&Jc,.£ I
Driller ~,uR£, EJe. DriIl7/Q/cl° 7~/8'2
Loeatlon Diagram
,
Rock Quality GROUND WATER TABLE Special
Parameters Depth in Ft. /'O'(L ~k.., .L • ...J) Testing -• -c SEe fJltG,..E. ~ • • 0 Time i:ouAM -c • c ~ 0 ~. c 0 Dole 7/t;/n ... c u C : • C ~
~ 0 • &: .. • • CL c .. .~ -• ~fn ... + ~I.i!r .. • 0 > w.D./A.B • ~ 2 0 0 ~ J:. C 0 Go .. 'V --0 .. 'V U • U ~ t!J go .. 0 • ~ OESCRI PTION OF STRATA If go • • DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA 0 0 / CD .. ::c II) II: II: IL
,-0 . , , ~ SU J .J ,,~ 7~ .1 · · JJ 41 L II ,~ J. [)PJLL RATE L3 -H Lt.._ ,-1--r, , '.
-~ '. , • 1141 (l.' I -2(,.2. ) Mt'ei ItJ ~ .. ck ':'''' .< /1)0 18 Glee. fA. 1..147 /(LN L~(J ~
· ~ : kd ~ ... c.'''''' ~e.k~ f, ~3.7·' V: ~I II, l ..r:. /,,~ (,' .... '1S i '?/co-~_ IS"".,,;-'-t. ... 2 -r--· '. ~ 11..' 'I, ,'.".-/-f r J:Hcle>lf'",~k k e. c-~/,'t;.Lt:.d loe.c.I i, ec.ldh.. I<SV c.. .. ~, roo · . . +, e .... cI .. f ......... too Q/c. .... eo 0-5;':"co'l-l.. ~/. t:._ -1-,.. $. I ~-r-4.-C-l.. eck~
.' /-Ite. v Ce. (~: 1-~ IJ~ , . ,. II +~ /,'G l ... II ~ f..o Q i,.. ... t.c:.. rtJ .... ~( 'i.fZJ -t.,,! !,.d .f.,. roo · -. Cl+-2l1r "7' ~ M 75.-0 ~ /a .. " .. ", ,c. t.. ' '11'011.1 -oID~j. ~4---'-" -. · , -. c __ l:>k4/.. w..l--.. . .. .. . c" ......
....... -.....
f-5--· .. · . I
, · Et1LD S/-I; ~T 7/1i/~ ..... . -.. .... ,-6_ r-' . ....... ' ....
f( S(~(, .2-3/.l.J} Yl.d. /"'J /)RILl... RATF Ib {f/A.-
-I-
..... .: I"'~~ ') I) I JM ql
~-· ,. , ' G-.-c. V~ Ge. k e.. e ~ /t<"~ Ie ;J.g. I I L l5':3 'f..g ~-fJ' .~. hl ..... G_ ~I,..o( .... ~
I--" : ...... : ~ f3d~ SG ... d, Ql"o:JliHi. ci tr ~, -'.J."' .... I-',:. ""CSS,'vl!.
I-~ .... ,. ..... ,. : .... : ~c .. l, t>I~...,. fol.A-i,~I.4. V y,;:-O (.r;, /.' ... t"".... ,.,Ia.. ... e.... ;':"~d
f!.... ~ J.r::..,'.,./.',. (',., ('a ... Vo!".' c; 2. S_IID'ft... -ft, "'''' I,. s J... ~c:1 -1-~ s...Ji . -r-/I f., 1,071 ~ ... ,
'r-9 -f--" .
l-· 1
0_ I
f--· .. . ~ ..
-roo · .
1-~ l · .... '£ 1/ , I \ C/ec.(.(t.ATJI'JN /"0 ~ -r-· -. IRk (3/." -3 (,,7_) Th~ -fh ..... J () )/J .~~ .. l1J ~J?JL. L. RArt! N. ff /A... ~ 2 _ r--..... : ...... :. It 2-
........... -' • -1 .. .,./ .. ,~ ..... d Q ...... , I!. " k ... l. 6 .... ' I '1.~ F'o I. '",-/., 't>-.30-Y'SO .0"= ... .: S_ .. H -roo . .. -. .c./n..& lY k 7S'Y.. .s/<t""~ ~'~l If k ... , I:<:L ~d r:.../.Q I
f>3 -r--r-()I'L~'\~ L's __ I. .s f!..I2., •. ,..... -/,--. -roo 01.. ~ Ve"" .{... t1. roo i 4-I--: ... :'.: ....
J.,,,, . _ /,'",,/!'.. ... I
-. Vt'. '"",~
too ........... I
5--1\11 · . .. ~.' 1 -l-.-..... : ~ ~6-\
I--· . C 1€.C,k LA TII!Jtt.L 100 -/0 · . , -
-I-............ lOt k1 ["?f ... 7-41,8 1 'th' +-..t _Qa< DR.../LL R/i TE. Ilff/Arr ',7_ , · ~?-j ., '4 --,. .....
1-,,,,( ~c¥"'-J/~Lo..u ~.D 'i2 as-..~o· ( .r. I ...... .,J,-.....) nIL .... ~ .s:""OtJ+4.. s J; · Q.-G. --. . . ~~~/, ~ .. c. ok ./11, $,-,. -k:J 1(7 kCO , ,
8--· · . -. A /.,." Ole. ('_~ Lo_ I"c..o.h· c.~.u .-h..kotL ~Oll D/~~ s;..u-H-.. C4.~c:+...-t.. ... /f
ks
-. '. ",. II +nl'~f,' .. ,., ~i Ci.<;c",~ / sl,'des It ~ "'II'",@O ~ l41... CQ.(e.l-k. -t;:~e. U1.. Ii 9--· , . ' . m... f.,. J. '-Do..'h '".,. I-k '". /.' .. ~ tw..dv. .. e. 3 I
-. -. .
~O · ........ f'J \.~{ ~ ;,..,..-t4 fi;~st.W\~/Vl.f.~"...,<. V I J, \ / It .
eo.ca,!t , ..
OWN. C!,UL ~ 4/A~ .£ARe;-D.H. NO. 5'-8:t..
CKo. v~ R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. 48"0 rez:!# ,(/1 C'I# L SHEET':< OF¢
7-1;-~Z. .NGIN •••• a.OLo •• eTe ....... NN ••• au_v.vo •• PROJ. NO. ISlltl DATE.
/-1/ ve-.sr14~ T7 ()Ai "
SCALE. /11::.3" "" ..
DWG.NO. -'
Locatloll Diagram ' Rock QuolitJ ~G;.;.;R;.;,0~U;.;.ND~W.;.:.AT.:..:E:.:..R:....T:.;.A;::;8.:;;LE=--_---1 SpecIal
• Parameter. De~th ill ft, Teltlng
Go Time ~I--.~rr-~~'-~D~a~te~--~----~----~
r e '0::: ~ ~
" :.! :. : 0 LW_,_D,_I_A._B_, ...L-____ ....J.... ____ --1. ____ ---1 ~-------------__I" u -u ,.... : ~ ; ; = ~ DISCONTINUITIES a WATER DATA
.. .. c • .. • .. ... c too' 0
~ c,) c .c • • Do .c ~ N ., -0 ~ Do ~ • ::::e ... " 0 0 ) DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
j~O~~~~~------------------------~r=~~~r.=~r-------------------------~ " I MI~~19' I
, " , .
I-~ t,.~.~.~.1-----------------------~~~~~++~+------------------------~~
to-
2---
3--
I-
4_1--
.~
~ ~-~
• to-
6_1--
--'
7--
~
I--
to-
9-~
~ "'0 __
--
1--
-to-
2 _I--
'I-
3 -!--
-t-
4-t--
:, .. ' ~···IR~ ("II,g-II'. r; \ TA.',.. .fa ft.,:.]; IJ 1/ \ l! C/,eC-V.Lt:lT1()N loo%. -R4'!"'''~'''-
.... :: :~. ~t:I tJrt\" (..;Ill. J..~ t.J/ stW.J, S!.L-Ie ·1.5' ~ ~ JIM 9.2 i'3 t.K:.+er C,.1J!,r.",I ....... ,,-I..·_ul
$.-•• -I-i... I.. -.I·J i..fu/l Fe .... "-.. ....c. leo ....
Lfs" ""/~ .... L __ .... H s/c.-K,-+o--
---":';0.
~o DIQ,,;::' _ ,',.,.'12 ~4Jt.. 5",//"01-
" ct>C.-/-,\ ... Lt
· ...... \ 1./ ~O 0 p/q .... A~ .:. ... ~_ .. ,..J.l, sl,'4~-I/" 6. s-.
:>:::,·::kIR"""~:-(""'lIr----'I.,,~-._--t:)I.-=g',...........)-r-G-...,,--,.c-:L-k,-. .t'!~~'l~,,·~~~=t=/!:"D:t=~O!::ot-n-R-'L-L-:-~R=-~A-T-~E---n..-~;"'·''tr-'.~''''''J...-_------1'
,:,.',: ..tIi'f'.k ,,",nI '~J/ /' i,.k,j.d "I.' I.f J~O ""'/,.. A 'u ."n ... 1.~1.·~k~ t c~
: • ,'. , $_ rlt: I~ ~"c.. .. Coo. I, -Ir--:----:r /I I
_ ,-:: e-. ..... <,·..J. ...... _ <.....J.. /I "":/,,/')&..'1.,-I"" ~('J. nle_.----A."~ "'.,c.L f". l' .. C~
-'0':' 10..55.,,-"i.t/s/.'c,.,k',.. .. t:,'J~. ~._+;'.... It ..... 9;o~/ct .. o .. ,-a,..eof'-~+~+C .. c.tt I.J
. . ..
• -.:.' . -:' )0---------:-.-. --------++-I+-H-H-+lf-+++---------.-. ----,,;.....-----11
., :' -I ... ~---------~-------+~~~I~\Hvf-+r.v~--------------------~
~~~~-+~--~---F~~~~~-----:------~--~~ ... ~ 1£110 (S(.t-;~~.d (_,...t: e.~--'-Lt.'1) Iu 91 '1, CIRC(.d_Arll'JlI/'/~}:.. I
:' • ." ~e.t-: ·v~ 4...0. ..... _"" J., • 13.1~, D'())LL 12A"~ J'l' +-r/'J.,~
." ..J..n C ...... #! Q,J,. ·LJ/.d~"''''H.'''. I/'J..T ~"III nld-t> SA:-'-"f!..
• ." v . .!-,L> ,,_~·'II~ ••... I,. .~.r ('~r.tJ. 5./;ek5.
: ," II';" I ..... .t...... " ,
1.1 It II IJ
C""/i<CuLA TIll'" /(}O %
f)p I L..t.. f) AT r:: It "+1/ /.., ~
1=.1,'0 f,'f>t,...· .1('"' ... ~. O/Q ... 110 s .... " ~
fo ..... J .. ~J.~ (I Lt!J. tQ"z "'J: It..i" .. ~
8-~ -,'.:: Z'~"' .. t..'t!l/. J, ... Ju",-~Jo+fI. u/ ~ : :: 5-.... e.",~.e... ot2. -CLIc.I-~
• 1:1 ... ,... sl."l.,..l-.. ';''-~
DWN. C!.ML
C K D. J.J 1k.8
DATE, 7-1.2-8 ;{
SCALE./N~'~I
~~--'---~------
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. ."'........ ..Q\.DD'.Te .-. ......... _ eu",,_vo ••
--.'.-~ -,-' ·':·-:··:.-~:::~.·:: .. ,-_~f~1.'".· .. -. ... ,.~.' !
4,lAAJI.LA-KF t'-.~,
4Gf)r~A.lIC4L-. ':~;, "~"'>'
/~Yve:srlc1 A 7i(Jf-/ .. ·7:', ~i ::
.. I --
D.H, NO. S'£,z,
SHEET.3 OF 4-
PROJ. NO,iS1N/
DWG, NO. -
...
""
..
Surfac. Eln. , Hoi. Depth' I Drill Hoi. No.
ROCK -CORE LOG " b 9to ,4,z 75:0/ DH-S-re.·~
G~d Location ,!f:J; Hal. Orientation Praj.ct No. ; ... e--.:zl~ ~~~:~ I ' ..... V£i~nCJlL ISI(is',
Client EBAsco G.ologist LIlPS()N \;;~ . Sh •• t~ of-L
Locatian &~NT L/tk~ Casing NW' I Surfac. DlScriptlon~ Us.d
Dri II i ng Co. lIE. I Rig LY ?H' Core Size Ii Sampling M.thod Se~ l~~r.,..E. I
Drill.r CC.Oue IER.. Dri II? /gih!0 7/j'Al2 . Jlc;;:......&
Location Diagram Rock Quality GROUND 'MATER TABLE Sp.clal -Param.t.rt o.pth in ft. IA .. fe s/t.-, F"/~ T.stlng -c ?'I&E I .!!
d-• • S€£ c. Tim. rot • -c "' .. II. C f'o. c( 0 c. Oat. 7/5/?2 c (.) c = • c ~ • ~ c. • .;: ~ .. • Q. C .. -• ~ ~ N D ~ • c. :. W.o./A.B • AB 0 " ~ c Q -.. .... -0
Q. .. " u • u II. UI D .. 0 • ~ oESCRI PTION OF STRATA • D • -• DISCONTINUITIES Ii WATER DATA Q 0 / ~ .. ~ U) II: a:: ...
'1>0 -.A ,2. U .. O. r -(,,4~') (.-...... '. .. c.kc.. DRIL.L PArr: IS +r r/t..-· -~" 'f/! I'll
.' 0
h1~SS"/'~ w/v .;/,.' t:. .• ,:)lotuoJ 'I.l 1~.Cl :T,,;fs ~ hl,'d __ 30-3.5-0 p/~ 1'7'" --" . ~
~ , '. 14 ~ .. ~ 11.(.,,/. .. -1 .... h 1..]..0' I', 's ...... ".H.. -I-rJ /:5 L .. t:J( e./ .. ~ --51c..k • 11! ... i. .. cI ~ '.3.(;,' 1,,° D14 ... 0 /¥\ IIfCI :J,.,.. f>ll f'--' .-. c ........ ,,/.D( 2-~ ... ".-,
.Il.e,-q_ .... c~t. H~· .. 1.· .... ~/,-ck~ • --· .... " \v t.-
o • C .. (O ' ,~ .. ,''''~ £ oI.·.ss.~_ ~ ... M 3-r-.. -"' .... :
1';, J.s! o +-"' .. :... r-I...L) Dt',. I
4-
....... -... 1
r--"' •• I -, . V II It C"R.Cu L ATI 011/ 100 % . . 1/ ~ r-........ '
G s_ -, . . .. Rn(("I./. 'f-'2. ~ ) TJ.· ... ~ _ .. d 1.I.j~ 2.( ,u ~()O ico DRILL RATF 1'2 -h/l_
.. . ....
I .... ~_l:.d. 'l..-ov e.d<e ~ slt:..H:-I~I J{.1 T ... "t,S • I -...
6_ · . -. Lot. ... I S"rf' 3~CX /'kdM,'L I~ 30-'10· h 1. ___ 1,'_ n!Q.,,~... ~ .... ,.±J..... f ---..
ole-fa ,....-.+-.'"".. ~() /,·'l.ll!.Df -c.fec. ... ( ........... Ct:C.a..l -r-~ .. ,. , ... j
7-r--... -........ ~ • .,. .. 11, +~'IIJ Cc. Co. v«, ...... J: .~I')" olc. .......... • _LOt. ...... cJ!.. (jl.o. .... -
r-~ ... t ... '. ' E 01.'" s~ ... ,'''' .. f,....,~ s//c...k ~
I-· \. ~ .. i I ~ ........... , , .1 II / ,/ -r-RiC( ((,g.s--~_O) 51G.-k. I.. / 1.,$ J ".(1 t ~7 ~, D~/LlRAT£ ~ ++/t,.,. 9---'" ... -... -+I.: 4,.0 J .,.,.c.k-e. f ... k...keJts 1.3 .7 Fo!/c'-/,._ Jy~o ~/~ ~_tYrL. c..I ... o",-... . . , I ,II I I\~ .J., 1(,) )(~o ',.. ..... c. .... ' ... /... ~ 'c..~'i... 70 -b-1/ 0_ -· .. ~ -. 1<1."'( 70.0 -7S.11 ) I'1w I'M. +.t.,. J."..t . ,l,'O foI? i9b Iso Jl,)",~~/'-c. ,..,.J.{.._, C-l..fL ..... b;+ --
I-....... -S/-'l/ ... It t;~v ".,..1, ..... h ~y::l.,r:, I-.S 14(3 (I,.,..Q,..eo "Cl. i~o() I ~ ... -.. ~
--l1G..s~'·Ir~" a":":, ,,..J. +-0 ~~ ~3) h I. '':'1.'_ 'L.2..:SfJ 0 J~4...,41._ s~ ...............
(I +-".,;.. ... ' S+;'''A~ C~ (.0. iv '-'If 1:5~01 '1-;' sr...II,..,~.1 2 •. ,-~ .. -.-. ..
Ve' '.r' /I -h I,.r:-I 'LA ~;,O / (,1:0 ~/ ... o.~ "",6f l'kLJtHl... ~/ .. ch. -'-...... , 70. 'I.' I /J,ef01.. • ,..eo"eo C-c. Co. • 3-~ .... : ',.
..... I '!. II f!,",'t:...J-,;,., / ... ....
f)R ILL RATE. /(, f+/f,., ¥'
-~ ~ ..
I.JG....k4, fn~ 4-, . -. Mc:.~~ ',_ .. ~I r--· . .. , I . ' .
' .. -.
7 s-,-, '-I . . . ' iI I 'I I,
-~
6-Tl) , ,
r--TD 7S: If , SmQ./1 vcr !k;",.e. ( ... / _9p ...... ) -r-lS·'1
7_ r--Ar-hsl.A .t'ltrL ;'}~ r.D. • --.
8--
I -• ~--
9--'-.,
r-g 0
~ -''''.:. .. '.
OWN. CA1L ~ 4,R4A1r~ :4 D.H, NO . .5-:'8~
,! '
CKD. \ /bf.-L3 SHEET 4. OF4-R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. .~'
4e'O'Tt!EC#.{)/ C-+L,
11-••
DATE. 7-'Z-8~ .NII.H...... ca.OLOClI.T. ~ANN... aUlllv.yo •• '! .: .. -....-:~:..'
PROJ. NO./S7IVI
~N'ye"':srI4 A-n OJ) .~ ' .. ~ '-:
SCALE. /"-~/ ....... DWG.NO. -" ,;
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SECTION 2
RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED DURING
1981 FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
TITLE
Regional Geologic Map of Grant Lake (Figure 1)
Cross Section and Regional Map, Unit Descriptions of
Grant Lake (Figure 2)
Physiographic Divisions ~Jithin the Grant Lake Study Area
(Figure 3)
Grant Lake Avalanche Prone Areas (Figure 4)
Test Hole Logs (Drawing Nos. AOI Through A13)
Field Logs -Rock Core Drilling (Summary and Sheets 1 Through 4)
Terrain Unit Map (Sheet 1)
Reconnaissance Geologic Map (Sheet 2)
Geologic Map of the Saddle Dam and Penstock Corridor (Sheet 3)
Geologic Map of the Main Dam Site (Sheet 4)
N
OWN
C~_B .R.:...
OAll .7a:; ~ Cl::',1
... ,.. J •• "
I
5
E"""""? t=+?
5 =
SCALE 1.250 COO
0 5 ==-
= 0 ~
=
CONTOUR INTE>(V~L 200 FEET
DATV~ IS MEAN SEA LE'IE_
10
10
KllOMETE:;S
Adaote:: ':::-0::1 -:'''sd.31 anc
Case i~::-'-?~
FB ~--Jr\'01
, R &M C C'-N-S-U-·-L,;-:T-A-N-T-S-.-,-N-c ...... l
1, ... 0'...... Q.O_OO'". _A_a. .uav .. o •• ,
Pir:ure
Re c ; ior;a l';eo 10(1 i c
r,ra:-it Lake
UI 0 0 .. ,. ~ r ,., , ..
.~
C' :,
~.
"')
Itt)
3: G) QJ
t1 '0
'" ~l c:
rt :J ....
~ rt
:V f? ,D
VI
0
'1 ....
"0
rt ....
0
~
[J)
0 " :IE ;U
c;'l 0 <-z z 0 0
~
III
~
~
J) _.
01° jII;,~ UI;7'
tt'
:.c .
()
t1
0
VI
VI
t
Jl m
0
rt ". ~, ....
0 '.)
:J ~
t1
QJ m ::s p. N
~ r.>
.:l ....
0 ::s
QJ
f-'
en '"' ::III aJ
15
0\1
~.,
n-
O
1\1
U1
(11
A
1111
8000 .-Kv
[ ~J
A'
M£TfRS
I(vs Kv t 2000
1000
SEA L£V[
1000
NO VERTICAL lXAGGERATION NO ICE OR UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIALS SHOWN
SCALE 1 :250 000
o 5 10 ~~~~==~~==iC'================E===========~==3] MILES
KILOMETERS
UNCONSOLII.lATEn SURFICIAL OF-POSITS (lIoLocene)--Undifferentiated boulders. cobbles, gr.wel,
s,II,d. silt. and clay of pres.mt streams; anJolul:H clasts of talus and. locally, land-
"II"" ""I,,)~IIH; ,.trlltlfll.-d s,.nd. Hilt •• 1nd cJay of :a1lllvl;d fan and flood-pL1ln
.10-1',)'111 'I; well-,."rtt'd !llrntlfll.,t1 fllln" lind grllv,·l of gL.cl"fluvlal orl~ln. IncludIng
.Il-Ir.d.' d"t)u,,!ts; IInsortl'd "li'll'r/,Il of "IOrOlln.11 deposits; glil"lal-Iakl' silt, clay, and
Inllsk-'K d",H,slts; ,."" IO"illlv Intc.-slrallfled beach gravel, sand. and clay
VAI.IlEZ CI(O!JI' (Upper Cretaceous)--lnc ludes:
1
St-:llIMENTARY ROCKS, UNDIVTOm--DlIrk-gray thln-to thIck-bedded sandstone, siltstone, and
mlld!!t"",. flysch; sandstone is fine to coarse grained ami mainly is composed of plagio-
clase. qllartz. and igneous rock fragments, the third ranging from a few percent to as
milch as 40 percent of rock; conglomeratic sandstone with clasts of sedimentary rocks
arc widely distributed, occurring at base of sume sandstone beds; conglomerate composed
of well-rounded pl'hbles and cobbles of felsic porphyry was observed in a few pJarrs;
dense limestone concretions occur locally; unit is metamorphosed largely to chlorite
zone of greenschist fa~ies
SCIlIST--:;.-Itlsl""e, Interh"Ilded slltslone, gr.,ywack,', ;lnd less ,.oullrlant tuff, lllff,"·",,,.s
s;II,dsl'''''' •• 111d o'isalt (pillow o;l,,,Jll'!); ip,nr"",, rocks ;Ire typlt'ally d<lrk gre(·n. "1('(.1-
slllsllIlI" is shiny "te(>1 gray. <111(1 "I('t;ls;II,dstone is da,'k ~ray; mcr;lm .... rpIHlSl'd chiefly til
hillllll' 70111' nf )~r('('n8('ld!;L lacies, hul IClc:lIly 1(1 chlorllp zone; typical met;unnrphh'-
min.'ral i\~i~·H·mhl;lgf's of Illnt Jle ,,\lilt" arl' hf(lt 1t.('-mllscovilt·-t·lIlurlte-'lllilrtz-epldole-
,.,t1"it,'-alhllc'; ;..-IIIlOLJll' Is pr"sl'nt In :;ollle ",,,tilvoICilnlc .·orks; chlprlle Z(lIW
ilSSL·lIIbl.,g,·~; are sllllllar bill lack blolite
,
,---" ,
" .,::
"-...}
OW" -------1
CI(O t:. :;
~~-
OATE;a!1 1982
SCAL,( 1: ;~.:: ,4'j
?'io'.lre 3
P:-.j'siographic Divisions
"
\ ),
--'
N A
Fa
~--------------GAID
SeALE !'~360
t.""'·-···"·"'·~""·:··:'::':'-~ --------.------~ ---.--
OWN. dt
eKO BH R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
DATE jAN-I982, .... 0' ..... •• o.cn.OQ ...... ."'A .. ,.. •• ."".'11".""0 __
•
EXPLANATION
AREAS SUBJECTED TO
REPEATED AVALANCHE
ACTIVITY
Fig·..i.Ie 4 Fa
Grant Lak.e A'lalanc:'e GRID
Prone !-.rEo as
PROJ NO
...
...
....
·1
SOILS
CLASSIFICATION, CONSISTENCY AND SYMBOLS
S:LASSIF~CATION: Identification and classification of the soil is accomplished in
accordance with the L.:nified Soil Classification System. Normally, the grain size
distribution determines classification of the soil. The soil is defined according to
major and minor constituents with the minor elements serving as modifiers of the
major elements. For cohesive soils, the clay becomes the principal noun with the
other major soil constituents used as modifier; i. e. silty clay, when the clay particles
are such that the clay dominates soil properties. Minor soil constituents may be
added to the classIfication breakdown in accordance with the particle size proportic:1
listed below; i.e. sandy silt w/some gravel, trace clay,
no call -0 -3% trace - 3 -12% some -13 -30%
SOIL CONSISTENCY -CRITERIA: Soil consistency as define': below and determined
by normal field and laboratory methods applies only to non-frozen material. For
theS€ materials, the influence of such factors as soil structure, i.e. fissure
systems, shrinkage cracks, slickensides, etc., must be taken into consideration
in making any correlation with the consistency values listed below. In permafrost
zones, the consistency and strength of froz~n soils may va.y ' signi5icantly and
unexplainably with ice content, thermal regi~e and soil type.
Cohesionless Cohesi'.e
N~·(blo\\.'s/ft) Relative Der:sity T-(tsf)
Loose 0 -10 0 to 40% Very 5of~ 0 -O. 2S
Medium Dense 10 -30 40 to 70% Soft 0.2S -O. S
Dense 30 -60 70 to 90% Sti££ O. S -1. 0
Very Dense -60 90 to 100% Firm 1.0 -2.0
*Standar~ Penetration liN": Blows per foot of Very Fir:n 2.0 -4.0
a 140-pou:-,d hammer falling 30 inches on a Hare -4.0
2-i.nch 08 split-spoon except where noted.
DRILLING sy:YmOLS
WO: Wash Out WD: While Dr~Ui'-lg
WT . ....... Water Level BCR: Before Casir.g Remo\'al
we!: Wet Cave In ACR: P,rter Casing Removal
DeI: Dry Cave In AB: After Boring
we:· • ..J. .... .rh ile 5.o:mplir.g TD: Total De::;:h
~C:2. Wc:~r levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured :r'. the
bcr~!"g .:;t :he ti .. nes indicated, In pervious unfrozen soils, the in2icated elevations
are consi::e!"ec to represent actual ground water conditions. In L""":""pervious and
frC'zen 5C:':S, .accurate determinations of grour.d water de'.a:ions cannot be obtained
withir. a li..'"'!'.lte:l period of ob:"ervatio:L and other evidence en gro~j water ele';ations
ana conc:'::'o!1S are required. l ~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL NOTES
FB N/r. -----
GRID :.1 I j:..
PROJ. NO C:;ene!'" ~ 1 t DWG NO A-()l--~
l
g ----"" ORGANIC MATERIAL ........ "'"
~ CLAY
~ SilT
tlliill] SAND
GRAVEL
St ••• -1.4" SPLIT _SPOON
Ss • , ••• 1.4" SPLIT SPOON
51 .•••. 2.5" SPLIT SPOON
Sh ••••• 2.5" SPLIT SPOON
SII ••••• 2.0" SPLIT SPOON
Sz ••••• 1.4" SPLIT SPOON
Sp ••• , • 2.5" SPLIT SPOON,
EXPLANATION OF SELECTED SYMBOLS
STANDARQ SYMBOLS
~ COBBLES a BOULDERS
i;t.:'~ CONGLOMERATE
.. __ .. ~ SANDSTONE
a MUDSTONE
00 LIMESTONE
SAMPLER
WITH 47# HAMMER
WITH 140# HAMMER
WITH 140# HAMMER
WITH 340# HAMMER
WITH 140# HAMMER
WITH 340# HAMMER
PUSHED
t~~1 IGNEOUS ROCI< ~ . '.: . SANDY SILT
fIJ METAMORPHIC ROCK ~ SILT GRADING TO
SANDY SILT
rI1 ~ SANDY GRAVEL,
ICE, MASSIVE Vo SCATTERED COBBLES ~o (ROCK FRAGMENTS)
~ ~ INTERLAYERED SAND ICE -SILT .~~. a SANDY GRAVEL
~ ORGANIC SILT ~ SILTY CLAY w/TR. SAND
TYPE SYM BOlS
Ts •••• SHELBY TUBE
Tm •••• MODIFIED SHELBY TUBE
Pb •••• PITCHER BARREL
Cs •••• CORE BARREL WITH SINGLE TuBE
Cd •••• CORE BARREL WITH DOUBLE TUSE
Bs •••• BULK SAMPLE
A ••••. AUGER SAMPLE
Hs ••••• 1.4" SPLIT SPOON DRIVEN WITH AIR HAMMER
HI ••••• 2.5" SPLIT SPOON DRIVEN WITH AIR HAMMER
G ••••• GRAB SAMPLE
NOTE: SAMPLER TYPES ARE EITHER NOTED ABOVE THE BORING LOG OR ADJACENT TO IT AT THE RESPECTIVE
SC.t.LE
SAM PLE DEPTH.
TYPICAL BORING LOG
BORING NUMS!R __ T. H. 30-15
DATE ORILLEO--10_21'80
Elev. 274.6 _ELEV':TION IN FECT
All Samples Ss.--SAM,PLER TYPE
ORGANIC MATERIAL 0,
Con sid VislDle Ice 0-7 ICE+ML I
ICE-SILT
Estimate 65°/0 V,s,ble Ice
90,56.2 % STRATA CHANGE
7'
SANDY SI LT
/APPROXJ'A~I-E STRAT-4 CHANGE
------~-----12
Little loNoVisio:e Ice 13~30' VI -ICE, OESCRIPTION 8 CLASSIFiCATiON
Ss \72'S7.1%'95.9:l:~' 28~GP (copas OFE/,;GINEERS MEiHC:J)
\\
' ,,"'UN'F7ED ap F':'~ ::LASSIFICATION
" T£/·yfP£.~~T!..tP.E, of
\. DRY !)D.'$, ~y
W~7"':'; ::ONT£NT
8L.:;~~S//C"~)T
SAMPLE NUMbER
SANOY GRAVEL
Cd
30' -CR/LL OEPTH
* W 0 -WHILE DRILLING, A 8-':FT£R BORING
CJ~~----------------------------------------------------~--
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
........... "o.OQ .• T. .Loa,........ • .... v ... o ••
DWG NO A-~ ~
-
...
...
-
..
.,
...
.....
TH-l TH-2
~~~~--------------------_____ 0.0' .. l~Q_-_~.;..'_ ,"" ... __ 0_, =l _________ ~ _____ r' "
TH-3
10-27-31
~;:c:
,.-' ""'I
_,..."
I' ~;., I
: -.-1 '_~I
;, .-v i
#w. :;-1
"""tIf"oI#,l
'--I
t'~,!
,.., ,... I ,:., -I
CRr;Al<IC ~lATERIP..L IU'I'H
SO'{E SILT, T:R..l\CE SAND
A..~D GRAVEL
Blacic
:IR"'~'NTr "'~-_T'T l. ,'./"U.~~ ;';,r\.::'rC,rIL 0 5' ...... ~;..;;..-I---------.
r,RAVEL
2.3'
Gray-Brown
5.0'T.D. .1 at f!"'I ~',
~~~-----------------------"~ -'~
AT
C:"p~"""cW 1 0-:: 5 -~: 1 (',J. 'J-,
" L:. -" I"'~..!:.x.-r--..:.,..------------____ _ 0.0' -=-_'"'-
,... ..... ---.....
-
,..,-
l~~ I
j ......... I
1-'" !
1"""-1--
1== I 1-,-I ,--, L--I
?r:;.T
-
...
TH-S TH-6
10-31-81 0.0' 10-28-81 0.0' -.... -,., .... -ORGA..'JIC ?1ATERIAL --,., .., -,.., --1.0' ,.-ORG~..NIC HATE RIAL -------~~ -..., --%f. SILTY SAND \iITH SOME ,., ..,
~ GRAVEL AND ORGANICS --2.0"!:'.D
2.3'W.Dy .' .;i. Dark Gray Probe Refusal on Bedrock or .jt'::~ . Boulders. ~ ~ Water Table Not Encountered.
~ .. :".: ...
~ ••• 4.2'T.D . . ': ;4 ....
..,.
Auger Refusal on Bedrock or .-
Boulders. ..
...
..
-
-
Ow,", P.T. TEST P.CL.E LCYiS F8. J
CKO B.H. GRID ..
~ATE 11-17-81 PROJ HO 151131 i
AT TH-8 'l'H-7
AT
S:"'?T Ac.Y..-.;:.1;.,;;Q;,..-..;:1:...;8;.-_".:.1=-______ ,_____ SU RF .r\C~ 1 ()-:2 8 -81 o . 0 I -=-r-Q"'..;...--,.;---:..-..:..:=--------______ _
~"..,
• 0
'-.; .... . ~--.;.
'..:..,"--."
;....,..."...,
'~ .;.,
. ~ 0'"
~~
~-y
;...,-o· . ,..., """' :.~~
-:.-'0'
.",.." -.." · .. . :-0'"':"1
I·:': · o··j I'·:: ,~~'
'" -' .;..., . ...;
.;..., ... .;;
~I
?~11
"'-, .£.: .: ... ,:1 · .• ·1
.':"'.0 ...... 1
."'" . ..-.v.!
,.., ...... 1
·~O~ii ,:",.~
."fIi">J -."
, .. ,
~ -., \
:2' ....;1 ;"'0 ~.
";.., ·......;l
.:..,,0 ,;..\
·"""·.~I ';'" _.j ;....,.. Nt
·~.O.';"'j
• -'" ..., I
·.£·~i ... , .. :0 ":' j
.~ ·-:1 . ....,-
· • 0 ..
"'" "'"
ORGANIC !-~TERVI,.L
PEAT WITH TRACE
GRAVEL AND SAND
:i:~!'
;..;,Q........, l:? , :<' --~---~---------------------~ ~reatE~:": :·;Ci~si:~le :-Je~:etrati.s:_:
b-.: Frc,:-..!p.
""="""~ ...., ,..,
. 0
':V".:"
-"'.-"'" .
.-... r'"
,." ....,
.'~ ~
.":'''~.
~o
.~,..,.
"'" '" I·~~.
.;.., 0"-
0-"" '7"
',:",~
~O'"
• -..;' ":"Y"
:'" ,-
,.". ,..,
() .
,..., IV , ,
"f -.,'
',:",,0..-
..... ·H ,...
"'" <'" .~ ':""
~.
~~\ . (). .
............. \
...". ':""'
"! :-V.
"-"'o~ -v:. ~ .. . -"'~ --. . 0
~.~
~ ~"t
:':;'1'
'O""~"
£:'1
--:--.'2.-
1
'
"'" ""
,-;""1
"-.J -~:"".ri
PEAT !'lITH T::~r..CE
GRAVEL AND S.lum
~'i:iJ
.'--.,,' ::-: .. ··_·L ___________ ____ --.:. ':.9','.::
AT TH-9 AT TH-IO
SCRF"AC~ ,..:1~1),--..::2;.;8;:,..-....;~....;' 1,:;..-___________ S URF.!l.CE" ,.:1;..;,'"',;.... -,..;:2;;.;C',.,,_-_P,;.:!. __________ .....;O. 0'
0.0' -=-_,.., --..., ----,.., ---....,-
,..., '""
ORGA.:HC MATERIAL
PEAT
L...:,-.,:...:,-:..-L-______________ 2 • 0' T. D.
?robe Refusal on Gravel.
AT TH-ll
SURFACE" ~1~~~-~~~8r-~8~1----------------__ ---O.O' -----------,... -----------, ,.. -I _-I --' -,.., ---,.., ----,.., ,.., ,.., --------....,--.... --_ ..... -----,.., -,.., --
,... ,...
..., --,..
':::2 ------..t.,..,
,... ,.. --""r ,-.... --
ORGA.."HC HATERIAL
PEAT
-----------
ORr;;..:ac ~1ATERIAL HITH
TRAC: GR.~VEL
8.6'
~-1 L..;.-_.:..-;"..,J._______________ 2. 9 'T . J.
~reatest Foss1ble Penetratlcn
B'l Probe.
..., ,.., ,.., ...,
,.."...;--... ,..,---....,---,..,. ----
--....,...,. -----------.... ----_ ..... --'V _ -..... ---,..., -.... -..., --,... -..., -
..., -
,.., -,.., -..., .."
---....
,.., ..., --,.., -----,.." ,.. -,., -.... --,." ...,
ORGANIC :1.ATERIAL
PEAT
L...ao.._..L... _______________ -'-l 2.9' T . D
Greatest Possible Penetration
Bv Pro!::,e.
TH-12
11-3-21 ('.0' ~~~--~,------------------------,..,,... '~?S.~::IC .'~.'TEF..I~~ L \-.."..-.1 -----___ ____ _
V' ~ t@ -:!'ay Brown
_'1.4'
I~ I~ l~? ~ 9' ... 1 ;./g;/......;;;;..:;;Y"....:..L.. _____________ -• T. D.
~ater ~able ~ot ~noountered.
AU'1er ::e!'usal or: Cobbles and
Boul~e!:'s.
FB
TEST HOLE :jy~S
GRIQ
PROJNQ lSll~l
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
SCALE
TH-13 TH-l-1
~1~0~-~3~1~-~~~1 _____________________ 0.0' ~1~1~-~3~-~8~1~ ____________________ O.0' --ORG.:;'~IC !-4.ATERIAL ___ 0. 5'
SILTY SAND tUTH TPACE
GRAVEL
Gray Brown
~~~ ________________________ 4.2'T.D.
Auger Refusal on Bedrock or
Boulders.
TH-IS
~1~O~-~1~lr-~8~1~ ___________________ 0.O'
ORG.:;':lIC ~1ATERIAL 0.4 ' m;,.,...""'--------
SANDY GRAVEL ("lITH SO~:E
SILT, TRACE CLAY
Gray Brown
3. 0'
W.D~
~~~ _____________________ 3.S'T.D.
Water Table Not Encountered.
Auger Refusal on Cobbles and
Boulders.
, II ~, J II •. =L _, ~'-_______________ -'
CR9.NIC ~~TERIl-.L 0.3 ' --------
SILT tVITH SO'1E SAND AND
r;'?AVEL, TPACE CLAY AND
SCATTERED COBBLES
~~a-____________________ 2.S'T.DI
I~ater ~=tble Not E:r..coun'tered.
TH-16
lO-3l-?1 0.0' ~--~------------------~ --,., ,., Otz(~A!';IC ~;l.TE:R.IAL
...,.~~-------------~.S'
SA:JDY SIL-:-:-1ITH
"I'RACE CU-.'!
"";rav Bro·..,-n
"'.2'T.D. ~~~--~~----~~~-----A~~er :.~~~3al O~ ~edrock or
BC'c.ll,2e:-" .
Fa
G 1111 0,
I
F'ROJ. NO 1 5 11 c' 11
... ..-...
TH-17
11-3-81 0.0' ~~~~---------------------_ ....
,..,---S!"':" ;:tt:.
.• 0 1>::.
;"'i=( .e"",,' :;..; ;..,'
~. --
ORGANIC MATERIAL
. 1. a I -------
OR~~NICS WITH SOME
SAND A..~D GRAVEL,
NUUEROUS COBBLES
Blackish Brown
3.6 'N. Q1.t±C~
-=-':"'e::r--CI
OWN
CleO
DATE
P. T.
B.n.
Auqer Refusal on Cobbles and
Boulders.
TH-19
~1~0~-~3~1_-~8~1--.. __________________ 0.01 ..... ------ORGA.'HC !1A'I':P.IAL
S !LTY SAND toJI TH
smtE GR.~ VEL
L.~~ ____________________________ 7.2'T.~.
Auqer Refusal or. Bedrock or
Boulders.
I=I&M CONSULTANTS, INC •
11-17-81 .... '...... 0 ..... 0 ••• .,. ~.......... elr.ol."".-•••
TH-18
10-31-81 0.0' ~~~~-----------------------ORGANIC ~TERIAL --------
SANDY SILT ~vITH TRACE
GRA v'"EL A..""'O CLAY
Gray Bro-..'1l
1. O·
~~~ _________________________ 7.5'T.D
Au~er ~efusal on Cobbles and
Boulders.
TH-20
10-31-81 0.0' ~~~~---------------{!;'----,.. "..~ -,... -,... :st.-,... ,..
ORGANIC ~ATERIAL
ii'ITH TR,:'CE r;p.AV'EL
B1ackist Brown
"'"
=0: 2 • 0 t T . :' p-, ~~-------------------Water Table ~ot Encoun~ered.
Auger ?efusal C:1. Cot.:::lles and
Boulders. ""
f t--::-lo----~1 :
\ "!'OJ.NO 1511:: 11
TE::T HOU:: Lcr;s
TII-21
~1~O_-~2~1~-_~~-~1 ________________________ O.O'
..... -~,.., ,.., ,...,
,..,A-,.., ,..,
_0 ......
,..., ,.."
""0"'"
ORGA:-JIC '·1ATERIAL (nTH
TRACE GR.ll,.VEL
Blackish Brown
l.....-__ ,... ....... _________________ ......... ") • 0' T. D.
Water Table Not Encountered.
Auger Refusal on Coobles and
Boulci.ers.
TH-23
... 1,,;..:;--,.:;3 .. -
r
8_1 ______________ 0. (1 ,
ORGll.:l'::C r·1ATERIAL
____ 2.0'
TH-2::!
I ~~n--~3~1~-T8~~~1--------------------__ 0.0'
,.., -0,...,_
o 0 _ ....
,..., ,..,.
:,.,.., -~-,.. o ,...-,..,,,,,
D,.. -0
..., -,-,...
,... ,.,0
ORC,l>.NIC '!ATSRIAL ':lITH
SO!-lE GRAVEL
Blackish Brov;n
~a-___ o_-~~ ___________________________ 4.2'T.D
Water Table Not Encountered.
Auger Refusal on Cobbles and
Boulders.
TH-24
ll-l-~l ~ ~, r--~""",;;;",-------------___ '.J. v
-...
,... ,.. .... ,.. ..., ..., --3 (':, • u
3. 2 ' !'l • D~ :--: ':-
-=== ·::·:i,.1
ORC;'.NIC ~1ATERIAL HITH
SOi'lE SAND I\ND SILT
Blacki.3:~ Brov.'T1
7.7'T.D.
~~~--------------------Auger Ref~sa: on Bedrock or
Boulders.
~O-~_~ ____ P-.-T_-.----~ ~~~~~ __________________ ~
CItD d.lI. R&M CONSUl..TANTS, INC:. I--------.~-__l ............ o.o~oo'... .,......... • .... ~.~o ••
DATE 11-17-:n.
~CALE 1"= 2'
.9---.-' , "
,oJ ..-....., -: . :.....-." . . --,..;.~ . or-
~~.
· . --• .,..., k..!.
'0 ...... ...... --· ,.:, ,..., o . .....-, ·
Black
........... ---i -------------
· -: .... 0
~;;-· ~,... ,y';" .
,.., ~
o~.:"';
.' . --• ,.."o~ -.-. -..., . .,..., -. , .
'T'-'" --'T""" ... ~-'-,-\ ...... ~ ':;:i..~-,
· :: :0 1 1. • r) I
(;rea~est :-0ss:blc =,,;~,~;. ~r:..='::"--·:""' ..
able cv Au~e~ Dr:::.
TEST H'":LE L")';S Fa
GRID
PROJNO~::ll81 ,.....
OWG NO .:;-'}9 1
TH-25
l~l~-~}-~P~l _______________________ ~n.o'
3.2'W.£.L
-::;::::-
OWN P.T.
eKD B.H.
...... P ,,,_,,
--...; ,..., ---,." ------
,. ---,... "'" ----,.., -o ,... ,.,
--o ----~ .., --" ---,... ----" ----,.., ,...
o --,.., --.--,...,.9
0''''' ,., -----,...,.e --,... ,.. -ll-..... ,...
ORGANIC :1ATERIAL
OR-;ANICS WITH TRACE
GRz\VEL
Black
~r~~~est ?os3ible Deptn
~ri:labl~ by Auger Drill
---,.0'
r. ~~~L-______________ ~ :~M CONSUL.TANTS. INC,) (1........... 0_0 ... 001.". ~\............. .~".yo-.'
I II i j
TH-26
~1~1_-~1~-8~1~ ___________________ O.O' -...,
i:' ORGANIC ··1..l\TERIAL 0.2 '
~ ORG~C ~T;;I~l'1ITH -,
Nu~ROUS COBBLES AND
'i!f:""",O BOULDERS
~~ __ ~~~ _____________________ 2.5'T.D.
Water Table Not Encountered.
Auger Refusal on Cobbles and
Boulders.
FB
TEE=T HOLL L:~3
GRID
PRO~ NO
J _ ••• _ •• _
l51l~.1
"...1,'
...
,..,
-
...
ow,. ?T. -----eKe, -., -' .....
~ ..
, ,
TI!-27
~1~1~-~:~-,...;8~~1~ ____________________ O.O' .... _-
-,... ORGAIHC :1ATERIAL Io-:fi~:;...t-___________ 0.5·
SAN;) ~VITP. SO:1E GP}WEL
AND SILT
Dark BrO\-'D
~""''''''''--______ , ________ ~ . 5 t T. 0.
Ilater Tabl", ~Jc,t :::ncountered.
AUGer Refus31 on Bedrock or
B<:)ulders.
TH-29
11-2-81
r----r----------------------~ ,., ....
0.0'
" : '.'. " ow-;;..:n:c ~,I.;.TE?IAL O. 3 '
.-..... ----------------
.'" '. SILTY 9,,~:=-!'7ITH SU·1E
r:;p.J::::::r..
DarK Brc·,.71
Water Table Not :::n=ountered.
Auger Refusa~ C~ Bedrock or
Bouldf~rs .
2.D'T.D.
TH-28
rl~1:..-_2::..-rS-=1 ____________ 0.0' --,.... ,...
,.. IV
,..,.... ORr;ANT.C 'V .. TE?IAL
,.., -
SANDY SILT ::ITE S01'£
GRAv"EL AND ORGANIC
~·IATE?I;'.L, SCATTERED
COBBLES
Black
Wtaer Table Nat Encountered
AUGer Refusal o~ Cobbles and
Boulders.
THo·30
3.0'T.D
rl~l::..-~2~-~8~,1~ ____ . ___________ ~Q.O'
AND SII..T
",: c;' : '
':::' .
.i.O'T.D.
ff1]::. ':,',: ',' ~.:: .. :
~~~------------------------Water Table Not ?nccunt~r~i.
Auqer TCefus31 on Bedrock or
BO'-Jlders.
Fe
GRID
PRO .. NC
OWN P.T.
TH-3l
rl_l_-_l_-~8_1 ______________________ 0.0·
,.. -)RG;..mc :>lATERIAL
M;""";";:::;oo1 ---------
SILT li:::TH SOHE SAND
AND GR.;;VEL, T;{ACE
ORGANICS
TH-32
rl~l~-~1~-~8~1~------__ ------------O.O·
ORGANIC :-!ATr:RIAL
r;r<AVELLY Sl:".ND NITH
TRACE SILT
L.~~~ ____________________ 4.0·T.D.
tvater Table Not Encountered.
Auger Refusal on Cobbles and
Boulders.
""""_....:;;../.-_____________ ...;7.5' T. D.
Auger Refusal on Cobbles and
Boulders.
TH-33
rll~-~-~'-~;T~l~--__ ------------------O,O'
,..." ...
OEr;...,~::c ~'lA'!'ER!AL
1. [).
ORG.::'.:::::C ytATERIF.L IHTH
SO>1E S;>,iJD AND r,P.AVEL
(~~------------~ I f!:!':'!· c:.~~.~!:'':.: ~~.r~~~':'!:;
I
1. 2' ., D ':'1
TH-34
:1-2-21 A =-___________ ....,;~.J. r; •
,----"...,,-,... ,.", --------,.., -----. """"" . ......,.
q,;.':';
.. -,..; ";,,/ -.... '
. ....,-. ~ ., .,.., --• ...;...,4..;.:
. -:---0 --? __ -J
;,.....; -...,-
,;"",0.:.,-
-=.:$. ---'0 ... #!IfVI'~ -.; •
·7""'c~." . ..." .-: ,..,.-. ~ . .
~()~ ~
';{. :-&' --...
ORGANIC ~·1.ATERIAL
__ :::! .. S'
r)Rr;A~nc ~1ATERIAL \':ITH
SC'E SAtJD ,:'I.nJ GR2\\':::"
2.} ac:kish Brown
-:: t"'f'l ;-, 1:-..... _.;.1... _______________ • .; ., -'.
Au~e~ Ref~sal on Bedrock or
Bo~l=c·!"s .
GRIO
PRtlJNO :..:: :"l": 1
...
..
.. ..
...
OWN. P.T.
SCA,,[
TH-35
~l~l~-_·~l~l-~B=l _____________________ O.O' --,'.Ct', ,DRGANIC ~~~'T~A~ __ 0.3'
GRA'.7ELLY SAND \vITH
TRACE SILT AND ORGANIC
:'1i>.TERIlI.L vliTH SCATTERED
COBBES
Dark Brow;1
~~~ ______________________ 2.5'T.D.
Water Table Not EncOu11tered.
Auger Refusal on Bedrock or
Boulders.
r=~~~ ______________________ 0,8'
~~,lI.'iERIAL ~ " ------~ ....
SAND ~nTH Sm:E GRA\'~L,
S3:LT A:18 SC.z\TTE?"'::D
C::lEBLES
Gray Brown
tA.o~:-J _____ • __________ :::; • ,:: "r' • D
Water Table Not Encounte~ed
Auger Refusal on Cobbles an~
Boulde!'"s.
TEST EOLS LOGS FB
GRID
r,E..'\::T L;>.!I ;;YDP:J J PROJ !ole' c' ~ :, 1 '--_________________ l O.G ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.j
DE""
(1fT.)
~----------------------------.......
RCCKCCRE SUMMARY'
GRANT LAKE HYDRDELECTRIC PRD~ECT
HOLE NO. BH-l DATE 11-30-81
LOCATION Left abutment, Grant Lake OUtlet
II.Q.D. ·1. ItOCIC TT,.f It fII.AItICS
"+-+-I-+-+-+......r.-------FRACTURE ZONE
H-+-+-r-r-~GRWKE with
10% -30%
~~~~~-r~SLATE
SLATE with H-H--+--+--+--+-+-+-+-i !'Q L _g~~__ FRACTURE ZONE
GRliKE with FRACTtJRE ZONE
30% -40%
SLATE FRP.CTURE ZONE
FPACTURE ZONE
FRACTURE ZONE
~&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
............ ..o ... OOlaTa ~........... .u .... ,.,.o ••
.. ,
-
,.""
.'
.,.
.' ..
..
-
-,
...
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC .
..... n· .... 't:a. Gt:O ... OG.,,. .... IDol ..... "V"'.'" "l..aV"",na~
FJELD LOG
ROCK DRILLING
CLiENT _--==E~B£!A~S-""C~O ____________ _
PROJECT Grant Lake Hydroelect~r=-=i~c=---___ . __
SITE Left abutment Grant Lake Outlet
LOCATiON ----BEARING N/A
(L.lTITUDEJ (DEPA~TURE).
CONTRACTOR Interstate Explorat~on, Inc.
METHOD -SOIL 3 -1/8" Tricone OF -~~~~~~~-----------
BORIN G: ROCK._N:.:.-E.Q......:::D~i.:::ar:.:m:.:o:.:..n:.:d=--_________ ._
=
JOB NO. _ 151181 HOLE NO. BH-l SHEET NO._l_0F....±..
WEATHER-Snow INSPECTOR Heinzen,J .R.
TEMP.--..lL°F STARTED 9:00 A.M. 10-27. __ 19 81
FINISHED 4: 00 P.M. 1 0-1 J 19 -.E.2..
ELEVATIONS: CATUM __ -=--=--=-~ ___ _
CASING ClAM. N (2 3/8") DRILL PLATFORM ____ _
__________ GROUND SURFACE 710:t.
CORE DIAt.I. NQ-21l '/.1~'rNATER LEVELS 5.5'
DESCRIPTION: COLCR,TE)(TURE, ELEV .!-_-;.R;.;O::.C.::.;.:KT=C~O:.:R..:.E~ __ ~::N:::O;-;T::E:=-S:=::-: BORING,TES"rlNG, AND SAMPLI~ G PROCEDURES,
LOG lFOLIATION, oOINTIIIoG,FRACT1JF;ING ,ALTERATIO", hoi "U RUN R WATER LOSS AND SAIN, HOLE CAVING; LOST CORE;
: _'~AULl.ING .• "'ARDNESS,CEMENTlNG, ETC ",EPTn NO i..E~~ REe'DRae CEMENTING; £"TC. ,
,'1.-~~ Organic matt (0'_.7')
........ -----------~ S . 1 . 1 .. h -~ . ~ o~: 5::' t W1.:' or·-ian1.CS, ~ 17'-3 0" ~w.-'--'~---------
~~-'1------------------I 2 _
-
,/~~
~~/ '---' -------------~,{... -
-/P~VJll~'Jr~-.U.. oJ '-~.~_ -Q,~ bO'Jlders, rubble and 11 __ . c -. ).. ,=....;...:.;.~--;......------------l
:O~: alluvium ::?----------
o _______ _
'~.; ~ ()
-
-
-
O·f--------------I 6 -
/'.;/'1---- ----------
'/-.,
? .... /::; f----------------t ~~ ~~!l.-1~.:~ -]2· D SR~:.E-!..
'rJ'/,' :::l~.e to :T.ed. ar-al:1 arav'
" , ~..::..; .,.....' .... 4;-·,-:1 J ' ..... -:;:,n o I p_e __ .... _ . .J._ .•• i.._.J_. _0_1. ~ _"_'" .!..........
~ .. ;>·I ve~.~ cl:)se S;JaCln.~; Fe/Ca.
I,f"; ·:oat:.incs, sli~ht ·~thrd .. ;
~.f----=:"'---~----
1-_+':.!~,""2.~::,,,,::..~; 3.~;':: c:::-:--.:::.-...... _. ~,i ::r0.-
-
-
8-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
2.3
5.1
") ., _.J
r---------------,-
r---------------
1--------------------
1---------------
~-------------
1---- - ------------
Cac'~cr adva~ced to 10ft.
~------------------
Pure 1 (cor:t.'
Nur;e!:CllS rehs.iled qtz-Caco" ha.ir-
~-------------.-
lin"" frac'C'Jr-c's to 1/16" t:;i::~:. J""il
brea~ alo:1c bedding ?lanes.
1-=-=------- ------
r----------.-
12~03~c~i.G.U:=.ti0;-;o.s:.ur~90-12c..!.....3ra·/ ~
~ri:l ~rea~3 ~;-arc & a~sular 51c~~
5.1 4.5 b d1 1 ~r;ll breaks alon~ .. e ~ln= ?~ane5, lJO~ 88';, ~ ---------------------. .;...
~125e. med. s~aro & an~~l~r.
f-----------------------
'':-"rl :; (es:". "': . ) _
~----------~:'S)SE: ,,;-{arc .& Mod. co;npt.
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
..... r; ..... ' .... G.OLOC"".· .... OO; -............ , .. u."" ..... ,.,.,
I-----~. ~~n...1 cont. GR\'1KE finLt.Q... _ i; med. crain. arav with 10% 16-
... -'. SLATE interb~dded .,/'1-----------:-' ,
2
BH-1 Pa~e 2 of 4
5.1 100% 88% ~QLURE-l.li·8', open with CUill_
1,;" thtck xtls' s~i.Q..h+J.y wthrd, Fe
~Ule~ __________ _
/ .. .r;I---------------i . .....".. ~·r;.;,Run 3 (17.2'-21.8') GRWKE 17.2r---t---+--+----+casing advanced to 15ft.
"~:'t'I------------3 4.6 4.6 2.7 r------------
. ".:' as above. Joints verv l~ ~,,)t close, 300 -400 , p1nr & '/-' .1------------
~. :.; smth, irreg. & rgh., qtz-
,'.I" -',;"'.r:. chl-Ca fill 1/32"-1/8" ,/.'.'0-----------(2, thick. Mod. hard, mod, 20_
I/~~ ~mpt=--..?light wthrin~'~ _
. '.~ into rock at ioints & bed-
I~, -
, ~~ J.li.n a nlanes. Less comot._ _
100% 59%~-------------------------1
Circulation Return 90-100%, orav
I----------~----
Drill Rate lS.4'/hr.
Drill breaks sharp & angular along f-o-------------"'-
bedding planes.
1--------------------
HIGHLY FRACTURED in SLATE zones ?"-
~ thich,.EQQr.1Y....££rnot.-20.6' -21!.~_ v;~r-~.-------
~~ than above. 2l.~.~8~--t_--_t---t---1~-----------------------~
~~~ £l~'-27..:2:'LGRWKE_" _ 4 5.3 5.3 3.9 l£iFQl.lillo.lLRtl:.l=n-90-l00L.....9.1.:.PL_ ~With 30% SLATE. Joints 5& _ 100% 74\ Drill Rate 20'.Lhr.
~ ~t~& -E,lnr, chl-C0il1..!-_ ~_1l_ B_r_ea_k_s __ a_lo~ b_e_dd_~_' n_~l_a_n_es __ Wl/32 "-1/Sfl thick. Slight 24_ increasil1Ct in SLATE zones mod:
t;;-j. Iwthrir.g at joints. Seddinc; _ ~E£. ~a~ular_. ___________ __
?:~;:~O:-5~-;:~-;z~ _
~):a fract~s~hairlin~t.2.. _
~ 1/8" thick; irreg. Joints/26 _
1------------------
1--------------~~ill br~~~ clo~._ _
~~~ard, mod. cornot. ,~----+--4---~---r------~--------------------~~ ~:-: 27..J.. ;.,)~~~.!-5_(22.:....l·-3U:..LGRW~ _ 5 4.8 4.8 4.0 8:.rculation Return20-1~,~~_
':';-.' fine to med. arain, crrav, "8 100% 83% pri11ing Rate decreasing: 14' Inr.
". ~ '---
~~ ~9a_SLATE interbedde~!: _ ~i_1_1 _Br_e_a_ks21_o_n~b_e_dd_i_ng2l_a_ne_s_~
~-~'" Joints 200 -30°, rgh & _ SLATE zones, shar!-, & ancular.
I~Plnr_'_Slig~wthr~F~C~ _
v.-;~ £.111. Soft sed. SIlO oed-30_
,~ding ..... Comot. increasinc
~-------------V;;:: Numerous o,:z-Ca Tenld hair
('). ~ ne f r_a c t 'JoE.::.. s..!--i EE.,e:r:.. H arc -=
-----------_.-
1-------------------
1-------------/£' hl 9'
(;/>: "" compt. P' 1--:--t:--:-1-:-""":"'T-::-1----------------------I ~r.:;~lln.2. (31..:.2.'.:.l6.9'_)_G?'W~_ -_ 6 5.0 150'0°", 4.8 ~irculation Return 90-1ClO~, era.'! _ V./..I.r-.-" 96% f------------------0~s above. Joints 40°-50°, prill Rate lS'/hr.
~.....:E ~plr.~ ~~& pl!1r;Fe -= ~~-·l-l-B-re-a-ks-mo-s-tl-y-i-n-SLA-'-TE-z-on-e-~~ v.:: __ ,f-..) DV ~ill' Sli~r"lv '.01+-:-l"'"dh blo nc beddincr olanes & re::ld. r.-; , .... , ':1 ,c.. ~-.. l~4 _ po
11. .• / u 1~f1ard & compt. ~ra~tures. ~--------_.--~-----------
~ -
·I-~r.~---------
/:,/ 36 1-------------
..
-
"'-'
""
-
•
..
-
C~~Vt r-~\,. ..
I=I&M CONSUL.TANTS, INC. BH-l Paqe 3 of 4 ... n ...... ~ c.o\..oc.·~·~ ., .......... ~ "'u • ..., •• ".~
{!; 36
~~ £,£nh gW!:2., with __ -6 5.0 100% 96% ------------;r.-
",/, ';,i'c SUTE ir.terbedded 36.9 ./ ' -~~ ~un.2 £6.:2,' :.il~· LGRWKE_ 7 4.9 4.7 3.5 ~cula tioLRetu~90-100h... ~L_ I.(/r: -V,--> fine to med. grain, gray, 3E'_ 96% 71% !Drill Rate 20'/hr. ',..,-'" ,
,. .. " l&.~ t~3.£:!.~....!!: interbed~' -lli-h,LBreaks !!lQ,slli in SL~ ~~ ~~d. Joints 30°-40°, mod. -& alonq beddinq olanes.
~:)-: .1 0lclose, r~ Dlnr; Ca fil -1------.--------g~------I' • 0becrease in rehld crtz-Ca 40--
k~.rline fractures. Hard_ _ r------------V:" -------
~& co_m~t. _ .' _ -
t6~-.-----------r--------------'{~ 41.8 .-. -8 4.9 4.9 3.0 ~ I&n.Jl if l.,.!l.' ~6.:.2.' LG!:!!.KE_ _ 100!l; 61\ ~irculation Return 90-100\, crrav ~----------.-.-
~ as above. Join~s alonq IDrill Rate 20'/hr. -;~~edding planes 40°-50°, ~ll Breaks alo~bedcinulanes~ ~ '1---- ------ -~n-'Od. close, smth & pl~r, 44_ ~LATE zones smth & "21nr. sha~ &
~~ fill:..:...~d: c...2!!).E!....to._ -~ng"Ular, close spacincr.
~ImOd. comot.
~---------------~ , .1------------r-------------~ ~ .. :", 46-
~ ~:r.---.----------r-------------fiilRun 9 (46.7' -51. 4') GRWJ<E, 46.:.2. 9 4.7 4.7 0.5
. 30\ SLATE interoedded 100\ 11\ ~irc~lation Return 90-100\, ~rav ~---------r--- - - - - -------
... ~oints & beddi:-,c planes 4~ 48 iD!:"ill Rate 13.3' /hr. ifj ~
' .. ~~:~C:-::-fill' ~~7th..L~' _
P~~ll Breaks alono becc~~c olanes, r----------------"--------fi!}; V€_, ~l,,_, _._cks t. c j ~ostl\~ in SI.JI_TE zones; S::1t~ &. ~:'r:=,
~."-;'" ~ ~e tr'" -. Kl~"'DC i£!:"iable. . ..~.~_..........=.~ .::>Mi4. __ ---------------,-
/. .c-~. /::. ~,..; """ . r_ ~U.:.'\S:lS : 47.6' ,48.2-• ,49.:)' ~'SO __ ao ___ aD.J.._, l.nc:.Jm...,t. 50
·~I'P.2'-49.6' Su"TE with §.H'="A~ "'ONE· P-h'd w"-'-t ... ,.. C::T7"C::~,c:: .. _ .. .K '-.J. • _t=:...i.. .... _a... __ __ --' J..... ... __ ..... ~_, .!..... / .. Y;---------------------~ lO~ '-:-;; .. ;;''F 4J.'J'-49.6' . .....".~, .. --.. -
'--. -" . , '.' _________ ----5.L.4-! 10 5.0 S.O ") "'l -----------------~~"R.Un 10 (S1.4'-:':.4')GRvlKE
.... -'
52..-t:. rC"..lla tiN! ?etu!:":1 ::.n_1 '-no ~~a'/ 1.00 96 46,. ~'... .. --' ..> ,
;/~ti8~ SLA-:=:, C!":;"!, fine to ~-i! 1 Ra~e 1.,'1 .... ,.. ~
>;;-:F-----------r-!--=-= ---....::...../.....:.=.. ____ -
/.~·J:led . -::r~l.~. Jc:~':s & bed-~,.....; ., , Breaks aler::: .... -'-be":::'::-: ': I . -~ -iJ-:'r: d,' . ,"':;-=1]:' c~ar:es, sm~h & olr:r. _ '.-l.ne D ... anes 't'_ -' , smth -./-""--~------'-"-------------'/.... -, -.,.. ~Ol,H= -:-Z-""2,-p·/ 54-,~-;,<;' .-•.. _,
/'y, : i ' , "0"; h -,..-= !!lC~ comet ~--"''''TA ... """" <::1 4' =-. 0' 0,:.;"'" ~ , !--..L.. .... .1 _ .. ~ ... a. __ , ....... -.. ~.:=.._ ....... ~U~'_:.J. --J"_ ... _ ..... 'J.L--~~-------""'-~---------" ,-. ~ ---...... --. .... 1-¥': ~ ~.:. 1· .. .,... -"... 1 :::J"" ~ """ --,--,.,./ It", ... __ .. ,t. -"'-._ a._e.\ bv __ ~l_lr.C. ______ , ..... ___ .
""-L 1 .:l"t:-~l ::f_ -" .......... -~~I --------
... ::0!'le SEEAP~I~!G 5:....::.7:: 0. ... .J.",,-......... -., -..::....:.._--------------..,
I ~~ pP':'"C:IA Z~!·rE : 55,5'-56.0', !
·4 56-:-4 -l ~ .. ;:t---------r------------
/ •. / ;...>,~~ : ... (:"C "'_:'" ,~t \, .... -·,~T}:E l.l ~ -.. '" 'i ~ i . " ...... ... _ .... ~ _ ~ ....... ..., i ,J.t'(""~ -, . ...:. , ' --~ --I
R&M CCNSU~TANTSt INC.
.... O' ..... ~ o.o .. ac·'·. ., .......... .U.""."O'._
0~_1.1-sont.~R~~ith _ ~S~;TE. cray-black. Joints
-~"~ ~bedding...El.!!2eL5~60o !-.. r:
ll~srnth & olnr, tr~ SLKNSDS __
~ ~c....£l~,....9!2:L!ill.L-_ _
v.~ verv close Friable & incorn~O_
~~~~!Lcr.ll:~~~r~ __
;.} hairline to loa". _
-.
5.2 5.2
100\
BH-l Pacre 4 of 4
1.21--__________ ._
23\ Circulation Return 90-100%. arav
~ill ~tel:2..4' /hr. _____ _
Drill Breaks verv close aloncr bed-
~nu~~ ____ -__ _
SHEAR ZONE: 59.9'-60.3', rehld,
!F-iabl!:.!.. thi1l....P.lat~ fragments2-__ •
trc SLKNSDS.
~ ~~2 (6-;: 67:6-;: 6~G;;;;: bl. 6--:-,1-
1
-
2
-+--+--.1---.,.----------- ------- -.
I~ -5.0 5.0 2.3 I------------------i /'2-:.. 110\ SLATE, aray-black, _ ~f!----""" ---
~~ fine to med. grain. Joints _
~~O-50~ .§!!!tlL.&...£l~.~C~
~ trc clay, trc araohi te.
~~~ hard.!-mod.~mpt-=--to_
~Nf.'1 incompt. SLATE 63.6' -~~64.8' ;?,:'::" ~ - - ---------
--
-
\hlr:. -
100\ 46\ ~rculatiQ!l.. Ret~n20..::100\ ,-SW' __
lorill Rate 10 'Jhr.
i------------.-
FRACTURE ZONE: 64.4'-64.8', 66.1'-
~~ ~LA~ Wu ~~ .Jjl§:' __
wafers, clay, SLKNSDS & SLICY..s. ver:
,f!:..i~~~A.Ba...in.. ~1!.n:L~e..§..:.. -:-1
'1-':':7 ~ ---- - - - --r.--:-+::--;:+~:-+-:-~I-------- - - - - -~:Run 13 (66.6'-71.6') GRWKE p6~ 13 5 .• 0 5.0 4.1 Circulation Return 90-100 9; an.V
~~_s~~a~aboV~ Qtz.:... __ 100\ 82\ m:i..u..£a.~.h7~L...... ____ _ r;:r: ~ca rehld fractures, hair-8_
...
...
7.: ~~i~ ~ Jail; ~ft s~'.211£ __ ~bedS l/S". Joints 300 -400 , _
/btsw~~ & plnr., rgh & plnr.,
SLKNSDS: 70.0', trc Pv, mirror-like r-.--------"---------.,
finish.
~----------;~;close; qtz-Ca fill, trc r.O_
~,£!a~ Mod.h.a~~o~com~ _
---------------
brill breaks alona SLATE ceddi~g
~~s-.-----------._ § -/~~ 14 (71·£..-Zh6..:.!"D. )------------------1 ~. ,'. Gr.i'l!:E wi t~ 3J>6 S:ATE 71. 61t-1-4-t--+--t-s-.-o-t \
/;/; -5 . 0 5 . 0 , ---J
'·,··-"'i-"0 '"'e-("Or'-Bedd r;rc"la~ion ~et-ur" Q("-l'·(")o,. r-rr~'! ~:F-=':S...."'---!!'-9~~':''''':':''' --=--10G;~ lOO~. ~--,",-----... -'--~ -'-' -.;;..... -.. _. -'",,--,,-,:::-, 0-, i:;.~ 40°, with sene Ca prill Rate: -: ·/~r. I
::::;-, -
'~r; sea::lS to 1/8". ';~':":1ts 300 -~r;;~ -;;t.~&-;i~;.~afili: 74-=
7-:-ha"d So"" ... ~ r" -~om ... ·_.
/. ~~--------.--
~ r~~:~-----------------------~ -
~, .~ X:·~-_______ _
;!;; ~6_ ,f,y v;::;
------------
Drill Breaks ~lo~= beddinc nlanes.
f-------------
f------------i ~
..... '-.r----------- ----'--+--;--+--11----------------- - - -r---. ________________ ~~.6~T.D. ~otal Deeth 76.6' as above.
~---------~----------j~
,...----
/ .-,
I
Of' ~
~~J !Q
Bedrock ColluYlcl,m
Names
Colluvial
Talus
Rock
(,lac1-cr
Colluvial
Avalanche
Alluvial Fan
(Granular)
Fp
Flood
I-'Llln
Fpt
Stream }'lUVlal
Delta
c;lacl.al
Tl.ll FiE'lds
Organic
DepoSl t.s
1000 500 0
i
~~I ~
~!~I
'1 ~ .
~
U
W
W , Do
0 (
~ IE ~ « Do ~ u
.J U -)( -Z D IE J z
I-~ z • U a. Z W -a. « ... ( C
W IE
II IE 0
19 IE W
D ~
> I
0
!I :if !I ~I -'1
c ~ ~
I"; 1000'
2000 :5000
__ .2S
SCALE IN FEET
/'
30
/
i~
j,/
/. -:7 _______
-/1-.P~
/'
/'
/' 3?"
SEE GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE
SADDLE DAM 8 PENSTOCK/
PIPELINE c'ORRIDOR (1:2,400) ~'
. ~-----' /"': '
__ 'BOO~.
I
-!/
/', ')/' D~
I /
/~j ,-( \ ,~J !
./'" ! I GEOL~GIC MAP ~ T1tJ\-
MAIN DAM SITE (1:2,400) llR'IJY'o\'A~I\EI
" Splars SJw'mtfl
(Site'
',INCONSvLif)ATED [)t:POSITS
SUR,FII='ICAL DEr2'SI rs, GEr~EHAlI.Y
OR MURE 'N THICK~E5S 5 FeET} ~
S\Jr~FICtAL L:>EPCSITS, GENERAllY LESS ~
1HAN 5 rEEl IN THICKNESS <:{ =' a
GRAYWACKE liGHT TO DARK GRAY IN
COLOR, F:NI -TO MEDIUM-GRAINED, HARD
AND MASSIVl, CONTAINS MINOR AMOUNTS
OF SLATE AND SANDY SI ATE
SLAl £ DARK GRAY TO ALACK, THINLY
W DDFD A"'[1 SLiIE~BY SL.ATE. CONTAINS
MINOR AMOUNTS OF GRA'r'WACKE AND SANDY
SL/'. TE
SANDY SLATE ;,RADr,TI(JNAL IN COMPOSI-
liON BETWEEN GRAYWACKE AND SLATE, OR
INTi:qBEDDED UNITS OF SLATE AND
GRAVW;'CKE
AREAS c.:ONTAI~rNG NUMEROUS QUARTZ
VEINS
to FAUL TS ---'-------------
FAUL T; DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE AND
DOTTED WHERE PROJECTED 13ENEATH WATER
('R UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS. DIP OF
FAULT SHOWN
SCALE
I"· 1000'
DI\'fH,-l·,·'~:..:rl INF-EI,iHD
VERTICAL FAL'L 1
ST~IKE o,ND PLUNGE or: FOLD AXIS
V THRUST FAULT
--, ------, --• LINEAMENT
BEDDING. FOLIATION AND JOINTING
\17 \
\23 \2' \ J STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING·
~B3 \.83
\ ~ STRII\~ AND DIP OF JOINT SET
+ STRIKE AND DIP OF HORIZON I
JOINT SET
• MAY BE OVERTURNED --_._-._-. __ ._-
Q CORE HOLE
.2..QlL e BOREHOLES
1000 !IOO
tOOO ""'" .000
SC;ALE IN fEET
.~~ ..
!; ..
~
Or
2! ->
UJ1
1--2;
~~ :J&
J: UJ!
2 8 DB U·
~!
ra!
IU
.. U • ., • WD UIL ~IE Zc ell ci D ... 2 • .. ~ .U Ie --ii ce 2 U ZD z • e~ z" IL
IL
IE· D,D c u· I!I~ .e
a IE
> J:
> · · · ~
UPPER TRAIL
LAKE
,llNDY S::.LA~T..::E _____ ...........
-4---65
': II I /:1 II, ";)51 r:~. GENL!~ALLY 5 rL' 1
.~;t' '11, ..... '":! I/,<I ~:i,CI\"~E~,.s
S~I:\rl, 1 L ,),-PO::-.tlS, G~r"f:RALLY U::SS
111_~.~1 ~'-[l 110.1 1~IICKNES5
GI;:J\'r~vl\l KI IIGHl 10 OARK GRAY IN
C(llO!', r I'li -T0 MrIJIUM-GR,\INEO, ~lil.RD
I\N[) MA-SSIIfI_, CONTAINS MINOR AMOUNTS
OF SLAfE MW S/\'o.jDY SL.ATE
,,:~/\JE !;!-'>.f(': \~R,\\ 1\; ~~LHCh, l~IINl\(
[~. :J!...:~U Poi''!) SL("~\BY :'I.I\TE. C_otlTAINS
'\'1!,H,I< h~)l)N-L{' or GI·U~Y\""ACKE AND SAND'"
:,1_ ".Tt.
,S,"ii)Y su\:r ,1~I\()ilrl(JI~I\L IN COMPOJI·
li.:'!'1 [If rl'wEtN Gr:/'YWACI,E AND SLATE, OR
i:~ T ~I;p.r ~Dl[) LlN.ITS OF SLATE:. AND
l;:t{,Y\ .... ,\(;I,f.
1\1111\:; V.':.'J.I:"'IINZ; WJM[ROUS QUARTl
V[I""S
70
t
FMIL r' DASI'Hl V:!IER: APPRO'(llvlA'r E ANLJ
L"Jr-j[D Wllrp[ "?C\IECff:) l'rNEATfi WAlt.r<
('j.\ UNc..U;J:"r'i :.)f\ 1 tD DtPuSI rs. DIP OF
FA:JL T SHO\\I~
SCALE
I" ~ 200'
400
,I ;1
/
~.
- . - . - . - . - . h!l!I~\~·'1J~.tiI
\'7 \
,\3 \23
\3 ~3
---+-
~ COREHOLE
STRII\E AND Drr uF /)LDDIN(;-
STP.I,d: AND DIP UF .JUlhr S£T
:::'T I, r I"; [ AND [liP or H\.JHIION r.
JUlin 5ET
1\1,\', OF OVCR TURN[D
-___ , ________ . THill
r 54 GRAYWACKE
NO
LOWER
GRANT
LAKE
_____ ~.,..+----~~,-_____ 141 76
r~ GRAYWACKE
5-QUARTl -CARBONATE VEINS
OPEN TO I-
44 ~~VERY WELL DEVELOPED
111",'___ ,/ VERTICAL JOINT SETS
GRAYWACKE wi 20"
53 SLATE SEAM
, 51 VERY WELL DEVELOPEO JOINT'SET
--./ GRAYWACKE
ttt-...c...jollY, '~62 QUARTZ VEINS-OPEN TO 2"
~~~~~~ ~72
,1i!t~RTZ VE!N FILLED 2" TO 12' WIDE
42 ~8!10 GRAYWACKE
lQUART:
2
VEIN FILLED 5' TO 40" WIDE
8 50' MAlL LENGTH PODS
'"
~
U II II :E IE ., ~OO Wo ILZe ~IE
c:r:D. OCIE
D.1 1E CJ .Jg ccH )(
... : lo~ a z zu UIIU • c:r:~ a. -..10 a. l!Io~ II( It II 0011 ClO ~cz IE
0 .. 1111
> I!I D.
:E
"
BRANT LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PRO.lEC,.
GEOLOGIC MAP OF
THE MAIN DAM alTE
'TO FAL,L1S t _____ .....
. "HE.O WHERE APPRQXIIV1A1E ANO ~~;~~~D ~~I~R[' ?~U_.'~CTl~ P,~[~EATHD~:T~~
OR UNCUhlS(!llDJ,TtD D[pO~ITS.
FM,l T .sHOW~~
'?\. ___ -f5G~AYWACKE
81
59
LOWER
GRANT
LAKE
'---h GRAYwACKE OvER
-........... SLAT E , PART OF
57 ~~~~~L~g~~E
QuARTZ
-_0-J..l.I...!.IA\fEr.r
BEODII~G, FOLIATIOI~ I\N!-L_~\JINTING
\17 \' STr;I~<E. A."W DIP OF FOllATI")N"
\3 \23 JTRIKE AND Dlr uF B[DDING.
\3 'f3 STr.It\E. AND L)IP 0, JClr~T SET
+ STP.iJ{[ AND UIP OF HORllONTAl
JOINT SET
* MAY BE OVERTURNE.D
----'--'----'--" !...l.i!l.L~
L------jl
.§.QlJ..
~ BOREHOLES
DArE' JAN. 1982
R8MNO.~
SHEEf
4 OF 4
J
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
lif I;
PART II
BATHYMETRIC AND PROJECT
AREA MAPPING
, i iii +
TECHNICAL APPENDIX -KEY MAP
SCALE 1-=3000'
~~;~~atGiAit;~~~ ...... .
·s
I
+N2368000 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 (\J ~ ~ ~ CD CD
W W
N
+N2366000
+N2364000
+N2362000 +
+
0
8 ~
CD
W
+
TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-1
SCALE 1-=1000'
+ 0
0
0
CD
~
CD
W
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
It)
CD w
+
+
+
.... m
(")
::I:
Z
(")
>
(JJ r
(") >
:> "0
I' "0 m m
...a, Z
1111 C
...a, -o X
0
o " C>
C
lJ m
I
I\)
+E640000
2
N
()I
m
N o o o
+E642000
+E644000
+E630000 + 2 2 N N ()I ()I m m ~ m 0 8 0 0 0 + E632000 + +E634000 +
+E636000 +
+E638000
+
+
+ +
---"z + + + 2 2 2 N N N ()I ()I ()I m -.,j -.,j CD 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 8 o -4//////"""" 0 + 1 / / + J'~II I' f, 1,1I/IIII,JIIIId 6 I
AIfIIIj/j ~) + I~)I~)J~ +
+ +
7
•
+ +-
+ + +
+ + +
N
+ N2374000
+ N2372000
+ N2370000
+ N2368000
+ N2366000
o o o
CD
<0
I.LI + N2364000
+
+
t
+
+
o o o o
N
<0
I.LI +
+
+
\'-, , ,--<" ,.., \/f'
+
o o
~
N
<0
I.LI +
-+-+
+ +
0 0
0 0
0 0
<0 CD
N N
<0 <0
I.LI I.LI + +
TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-3
SCALE 1-:1000'
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N
If') If')
<0 <0
I.LI I.LI + +
o o o
N ;; N .. tt'~ __ _
.\1 z
+E622000
t-E620000
+-E618000
1-E616000
t-E614000
o o o o
I'-
~
(\I z
-L
o o o
CD
~
(\I z -1_
o
8 co
~
(\I
Z
I
+
TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-4
SCALE 1-= 1 000'
0
§
co
0
0
0 ~
."
8
0 co
10
."
(\I
Z
-j.-
i
+
+
+
N
1:2358000 t --t ~ GI ~
<II ~ (II
0 0 § 0 0 0 0
~2357000 +
+
~2355000 +
,
/1
Ii,
~2354000 /1+ +
+ +
t --t; +m
~ GI GI
en :::i CD
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
+ + +
TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-5
SCALE 1-=1000'
-t
GI
~
0
0
0
+
t 1; t en en en
N N N
0 N
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
+
+
+
+
+ + +
N 111
CII 111 111 111
(;j CII CII !!! ~ iii CII 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
T2354000 + + +
+~2353000 1+ +
i!lli :~' II
--f!!2352000 ~; +
I "12350000
I + +
+ + +
111 111 111
CII CII CII
::;j CD 8 8 0
0 0 0 0 0 + + +
+ + +
+ + +
TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-6
SCALE 1-=1000'
f1I
CII
I\)
0
0
0
0 +
+
+
f1I 111 111 CII CII CII I\) I\) I\)
(5 I\) (01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + -f
+ +
+
+
+
+ + +
N
+~2351000 + -4; 1m
(I) <II '" ;:;; :;;; ij;
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
_i~2350000
+
+ 1-
t~ I I I
~-y-T~ ~-
'111 I'l
'" 0) ~ 0)
0; ::;j ;0 Q)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
+-, -L I
TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-7
SCALE 1-=1000'
-+~--+-~ * '111 C!) (I) '" r\l f\l r\l
0 0 !I'I
0 0
8 0 0 0 0
+
+-
-f-
N
-t:N2355000
111 en
I\)
o o o
+N2348000
-t en
I\)
I\)
8 o
+
t en
II)
III o o o
+
+
t en
II)
~
0
0
0
+
+
* + 111 en en
I\) I\)
(II en
0 0
0 0
0 0
+ +
+
+ +
TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE 11-8
SCALE 1-=1000'
-t -t -+;
en en en
II) I\) I\)
-oj Q) cD
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
+ + +
+ + +
+
+
+
+ + +
Technical Appendix
Part III
Detailed Economic Analyses
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table
Number Title
111-1 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-2 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS
PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-3 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-2: 90 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL
GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-4 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-3: 135 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL
GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-5 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-4: SUSTINA PROJECT AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS
PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-6 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL GAS
PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-7 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
5398B
List of Tables
Table
Number
111-8 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL
GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-9 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-10 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
111-11 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS
PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
111-12 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
III-13 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
III-14 BASE CASE PLAN I: GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
111-15 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1 : GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE
AT 0% ESCALATION
111-16 BASE CASE PLAN II: COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH
MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
III-17 AL TERNATIVE PLAN II-1 : GRANT LAKE
III-18 AL TERNATIVE PLAN 11-2 : PORTION OF 90 MW BRADLEY LAKE
5398B
-
-
....
....
•
... ..
0"
....
.. ~;
.. ,
List of Tables
Table
Number Title
111-19 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11-3: PORTION OF 135 MW BRADLEY LAKE
111-20 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11-4: SUSITNA WITH GAS TILL 1992 WITH
MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-21 BASE CASE PLAN II: COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH
MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
111-22 BASE CASE PLAN II: COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH
MELDED GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-23 BASE CASE PLAN II: COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES WITH
MELDED GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
111-24 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSITNA tNERGY PRICE FOR ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-4
111-25 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1990 AND GAS WITH
MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-26 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1993 AND GAS WITH
MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-21 ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1: GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1998 AND GAS WITH
MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
111-28 POWER PRODUCTION STUDY, FINAL RESULT, 1 MW GRANT LAKE
5398B
12!1/83
CAL EN[\<\R 'EAR
KENAI PENI~SULA LOADS ~O RESOURCES
PEAK O~O (H,j\
REQUIRED CAPACITY (itj) LOSS= 5.20::
REDO CAP. INeL. RESERVES Of 2B.09 Itj
RETlREl1ENT5 (H,j)
CI.I1ULATIVE RETlREl1ENTS (~\
WSTING KENAI RESOURCES 1982 -91.40 Itj
~CHORAGE/FAIR8ANKS CAPACITY USED Iltjl
CAP4CITY ADDITIONS (ltjl
CI.I1ULATIvE CAPACITY ADDITIONS (Itj\
TOTAL CAPACITY (Itj\
NET TOTAL CAPACITY (ItjHOSS 5.20%
SURPLUS (Itj)
ENERGY SALES (li/H)
ENER6Y GENERATION (li/HHOSS 3.45'1.
TABLE IIl-l
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
1983 19R4 198~ 1986 1987 1988 1980 1990 1991 1992 19'13 1994 1995 1996 19'7 1998 19.. 2000 2001 2002
B2.00 84.00 8.,00 89.00 91.00 94.00 97,00 100.00 102.00 104.00 10 •. 00 108.00 110.00 111.00 112.00 114.00 115.00 11 •. 00 119.00 122.00
BUD BB,.I 90,'2 9J.8B 97.05 99.16102.32 105.49 107.59 109.70 III.BI 113.92116.03117.00 IIB.14 120.25 121.31122,3.125.53 12B.69
114.5911;./0 118,BI 1?J.97 125.14 12i.25 IlO.41 133.58 m .• B 137.79 139,90142.01144.12145.18146.23148.34 149.40 150,45 153.62 156.78
8.B5 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30
8,B5 8.85 B.85 B.85 B.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 9.85 2/.80 27.80 27.90 27.80 27.80 27.BO 52.10 52.10 52.10 52.10 76.40
82.5, B2.S5 82.55 82,~5 82.55 B2.55 82.S5 82.55 82.55 63.60 63.60 63.10 63.60 63..0 63.60 39.30 39.30 39.30 39.30 15.00
32,04 34.15 36.26 39,42 42.5' 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 50.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.78
0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 50.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 141.78
114.59116.70 IIB.BI 121.97125.14 13l.55 132.55 157.55 157.55 13B.60 163 .• 0163.60 1.3.60 163 •• 0 1.3.60 1.4.]0 164.]0 164.30 1.4.30 15 •• 78
IOB.63 110.63 112 .• 3 115 •• 3 118 •• 3 125.66 125.66 149.3. 149.36 131.39 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.7. 155.76 155.7. 155.7. 148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.30 1.1~ 23.97 11.87 O.BI 23.70 21.59 19.48 18.42 17.37 15.9. 14.90 13.85 10,.8 0.00
397.00408.00419.00433.00447.00461.00 476.00 490.00 499.00 508.00 517.00 526.00 535.00 542.00 549.00 m.oo 562.00 568.00 581.00 594.00
411.19421.58433.91448.474.2.97478.51493.01507.51516.83 52 •• 15 535.47 544.80 554.12 561.37 5.8.61 574.B3 582.08 588.30 .01.76 615.23
IffffffffflflfU .. UlfflllffUff"I"fllfflfHfIlUllllllllnuu,un'UIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlflUIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,.nnnU'II'IlItltllttllltttllttllltl"ItI'""IItull ..... n" ... ".
GENERAT I ON PL~ FOR CiTl OF SEUARO
PEAK OENANO lri,jl 9.60 1J.80 14.10 14.60 15.10 15.60 \6.00 16.50 16.90 17.10 17.50 ]) .80 18.20 18.40 18.60 18.90 19.00 19.21) 19.70 20.20
:( OF KENAI PENINSULA PEA!( 16.46Y. 11.71 1 •• 43 lUI 1 •• 40 I •. 41 IUD 16.49 16.50 16.57 1 •• 54 16.51 1 •. 48 1 •• 55 16.58 16.61 16.49 16.52 16.55 16.55 16.56
OEI'MO INCL. NET RESERVES Of 4.38 Itj 13.9B 18.18 18.59 18,98 19.4B 19.98 20.38 20.88 11.28 11.58 21.B8 21.18 22.58 21.78 22.9B 23.IB 23.39 23.58 14.08 24.58
CAP. INCL. SHARE OF NET SURPLUS (ri,j\ 13.98 18.18 18.58 18.98 19.48 20.81 20.71 24.61 24.69 11. 71 25.58 25.55 25.62 25 •• 5 25.69 25 •• 7 25.70 25.74 25.75 24.58
ENERG~ SALES (~H\ 48.70 70 •• 0 72 .50 74. BO 77.20 79.70 82.20 B4.90 86.40 B8.00 89.50 91.20 92.80 93.90 95.00 96.20 97.30 98.50 100.BO 103.10
ENERGl DEliVERIES FR!J4 GAS (IllHI 4B.70 70 .• 0 72.50 74.80 77.20 79,70 82.20 84.90 86.40 88.00 B9.50 91.20 92.80 93.90 95.00 96.20 97.30 98.50 100.BO 103.10
ENEPG' GENERATI ON -GAS (li/H I LOSS= 5.00% 51.26 74.31 76.32 78.74 81.2. 83,B9 86.53 8U7 90.95 92.63 94.21 96.00 97.68 98.84100.00101.26102.42103.68106.11 108.53
C!J4PONENT II
NEW C!J48INEO CYCLE GAS TURBINES
,~RD SHARE OF rJ>PMIT't 4DOITIONS (Itj) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 •• 15
CAPJTAL COST (tODD, .77~ 0 0 0 0 5573 0 2'8. 0 0 278. 0 0 0 0 278. 0 0 0 41.5 0
]I/TEREST OURltlG CONSTRUCTION '1000' 8,7.~ 0 0 0 0 72 0 3, 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 3. 0 0 0 54 0
TP'I¥<S1ISSION CAPIT4L COST (1000) 621.'IiI 0 0 0 0 510. 0 2553 0 0 2553 0 0 0 0 2553 0 0 0 381. 0
Itl"EREST ['UP,jllG ClJjSTRUCTlON (1000) B.03.'IiI 0 0 0 0 6. 0 J3 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 49 0
CI.I1ULATIVE CAPACITY ,ri,jl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 B.23 12.34 11.34 11.34 1 •. 4. 16.4. 1 •• 46 16.46 1 •• 46 20.57 20.57 20.57 20.57 2 •. 72
ItlSTALLEO CAPACITY (Itj\ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 8,23 12.34 12.34 11.34 16.4. 16.46 1 •• 4. 16.46 1 •• 4. 20.57 20.57 20.57 20.57 2 •• 72
TOAlI"'ISSION IJ.!.!1 (tOOC,!!i.I-YP,1 10.20 0.00 o .OC 0.00 0.00 0.00 B3.02 83,92115.99 m.89 11\.89 167.85 167.85 167.85 167.85 167.B5 209.81 209.81 209.81 109.81 272.54
NET INSTALLED CAPACnl (Itj I '(LOSS ~ 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.57 7,57 11.35 11.35 11.35 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 18.92 18.92 18.92 18.92 24.58
PO'EHTIAl EllE~'T GENERATlttl II<lH) o ,{lu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 .78 22.78 49.81 49.BI 49.81 76.84 76.84 7 •• 84 76.84 7 •• 84 103.87 103.87 103.87 103.87 144.27
ACi~L ENERGY GENERATION (li/H' 0.00 0.00 0.00 o .O~ UO 2UB 22.78 49.81 ~9 .BI 4' .BI 7 •• B4 76.84 7 •• B4 76.84 76.84 98.93 99.77 tOO.6' 102.20 108.53
£NERo' DELIVERIES i~H) 0.00 P. 00 O. GO 0.00 0.00 21.64 21.64 47,32 47.32 47.32 73.00 73.00 73.00 73.00 73.00 93.9B 94.78 95 .• 6 97.09103.10
ACT~L CAPACITY ~ACTOR C!J4P(llENT II 0.7, 0.15 0.75 0.75 US 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.56
')(4P]A8lE 0M'l C(!ST r'0~O) 4. 2~/~H {I, DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.50 9'.50 2]3,18213,18213.18328.66 m.86 328.B6 318.86 328.B6 423.42 427.01 430.95 437.42 464.49
I1Et),"1' I<ATE ~~TIJ,<~~I 8710
>LIe PR! [E 'li't18TU\ 2. "1'7 : .66 2.11 1,90 2,00 2. '0 2.97 3.n5 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.40 3.59 ).69 3.79 3.89 4.0C 4.11 4.23
~ljt~ ::~,:, •. tOC~\ I C. 0 0 0 5:5 589 1322 1361 1395 2213 1273 233) 2400 24,7 3262 3377 3504 3654 3994
~i...'~'A(;E ,'~~:JE ,'-lP:;(!; ,],110 ~l • GO 0.00 r . n~ fr ,r.'~ ~ .CO ~ '1('> '-1 • ~,r, ILOO O. '3D UO 0.00 (!. ~n 0.00 O. ro (" no 0.00 0,00 Q.0C 0.00
.~";.. .. ,~~,~-(~~Aw:.i:[i il; '"~!:)D I (I C j C'8l:-:5,~ ,~J78 ; ~.:-: ~ '0C, 7143 2709 2770 2930 2897 ·9372 :18':?5 48 j 3 41':5 1138' 473:
, • ., , 'I f I , f ,
[[I1P[t~OO .2
rmT:'~G SII4PLE CYCLE I>\S TUR8H~ES
IN5T~LLEO CAPACITY (11,11
r~8" INSTALLED CAPACITi (11,1, :: LOSS: 8.00
ENERGI DELIVERlES (WH)
Ei~E~G' 6ENEAATI~ ',~HI
,joPoCIT, FACTOR Ctt1PIJIElIl 11
'JARIABLE ()\11 COST .tOOOI 4,92iWH
HEAT RATE '~BTU/WHI mDO
FUEL PRICE 't/lt18TU'1
FUEL COST (tOO~)
TQTAL COST CQI4PIJ'lElil t2 'tODD)
COl4P[t~ElIl t3
O<>'JE5 C~, -S~O TR~S!il 55 I IJ'l LINE
CAP I,AL COST (tODD I
IlITEREST OURItl6 [1J~STRUnllJ'l (tODD)
(J.\I1 COST (tOOO I
SAL'IAGE 'JALUE 'tODD I
7CTAL COS"! COI4PIJ'lElIT 13 (tODD)
TOTAL COST "tOOO'1
PQE300 .. OI!TM IN 'tODD) -
C'.~L\LATIVE P, i..i. l~c (tOO(l) -
TABLE 111-1
BASE CASE PLAN
GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
15.20 19,76 20.20 20.63 11,1' 14.39 14.29 14.42
13.98 IB.1B 18.58 IB,98 19.48 11.24 13.14 13.17
48. iO 10.60 72.50 74,80 77.20 5B.06 60.56 37.58
51.21 74.32 76.31 78.74 81,16 61.11 63.75 39.56
o . 3~ 0.4) 0,43 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.51 D.ll
m.12 365.18 m.63 38'.54 399.,. m.ol 313.76 194.'1
1.77 2.66 2.55 2.90
1704 1m 2335 1140
195,6 1738 2'11 1118
494 11(137
2.90 1,10 1.97
1818 1117 1171
mB 1428 2580
3.05
144B
1~J3
14,50 !: .15 1 \.14
13.34 10.35 10.44
39.08 40.6B 16,50
41.14 42.82 17.37
0.32 0.43 0.17
m.48 m.?7 85.5\
3.14
1550
;",J
3.11 3.31
! 655 690
1865 776
11.31 1 !.)9
10.41 10.48
18.10 19.30
19.16 10.85
0.19 0.11
94.31 101.61
3.40
781
87~
3.49
B73
'1'6
11.43
10,51
20.90
21.00
0.12
108.31
3.59
948
1056
3.40 146.'9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11.47
IUS
21.00
23.16
0.23
114.01
3.69
1016
1140
7.33 ",37 1.41 7.41 0.00
6.74 6.18 6.81 6.B2 0.00
2.11 1.51 2,84 3,71 0.00
2.33 2.65 2.99 3.91 0.00
0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.00
11.48 13.05 14.14 19.21 0.00
3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4,23
106123.75 143.71 192,61 0.00
liB 136.80 158.46211.83 0.00
0.00 0.00250.00250.110250.00250.00150.00 15UO 250.00 250.00 250.00 250,00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 250.00 150.00 250.00 250.00
o ,OD 0.00 o.oe 0.00 0.0(1 0.00 0,00 0.[,0 UO [1.00 0.00 I) .00 0.00 0,00 e .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
49; ! IIB1 250 250 2SO 250 150 150 25,0 150 150 150 250 150 150 150 150 250 150 250
2454 13911 2961 3378 14195 3434 9014 3553 3701 91SB 3735 3896 4055 4203 9761 4263 4400 4553 12848 4981
2454 13451 2764 3046 11457 28'1 i333 1793 2812 ,,793 164B 1668 1684 1687 6030 1544 2538 1537 691) 2591
2454 15904 :B~6e 11'15 34172 n63 44396 4'189 5D['['0 ,e,] 59441 62109 64793 67481 71511 76055 18513 81110 8B047 9063B
, . , ,
TABLE III-l
BASE CASE PLAN
GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
C~ULA,r'JE PRESENT IJCQTH TO 2002 <tcoal
ClI1ULATIVE PRESEIIT ~ORTH ~R(Ji 2003 TO 2037
C(Jip~EIIT II C~BINED m~E GAS TURBINES
VARIABLE O&M COSTS \tO~~ I
TQANSNISSI~ LINE IlM1 COSTS ($0001
FUEL COSTS ($000)
C(JiP~ENT 12 SIMPLE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
C(JiP~EIIT 13 Il4JES CREEK TJWjSNISSI~ LINE
TRANSNISSI~ LINE IlM1 COSTS ($000)
SUBTOTAL ($000)
SALVAGE VALUE om~I~TI~ AND REPLACEMENT COST
l~JT INSTALLED INSTALLATI~ REPLACEMENT
CAPACITt YEAR lEAR
i.ttll
rcc' .1 B,13 I<;R8 10lB
CCCT 11 4, II 1990 1010
cec, 11 4,11 1993 2011
CCCTI4 4, II 1198 2e2e
:.c'-"" tI~ 6.1 : 2':'~2 2~ 32
TRAN II 8,23 1988 2028
.Qptl 11 4,11 1990 20)0
TRAIl 11 4.11 1003 2QJJ
PAtJ tI4 4.'i ; : :.~ :'-:8
TIM~~ tI~ 6.15 !',01
[)AUES CPEEK TR"IIS, 1985 :015
T9TAL
"':;':';.'
• • f • I
RETIREMENT
tEAR
2048
1050
2053
2(15B
2'1·~2
1068
2070
2073
2078
204;
2D45
10638
4832
lB35
41550
2601
141457
CAPJTAL IDe
COST COST
REPLACE11BIT
COST IN 1983
(tO~~ I (tODD) 'tODD I
5571 72.10 1 ~S3
1780 36.05 BI8
2786 36.05 738
2786 36.05 621
4115 5J .8Q 809
5106 66.05 113B
1553 33,03 5]]
1553 n.03 479
2~~3 j],I)J 403
3E'lc '::,3'7
!! c:,4~ :4~ .61 4027
4622) 1131'~
SALVAGE SALVAGE
VALUE IN 2037 VALUE IN 1983
,tOOC) moo',
1858 190
1115 174
1393 117
IBSB 190
3332 520
381 9 59B
,0'2 31'
2234 )40
2:,~3 'j;y8
l8i 60
26QS 420
moo 3634
r .. ,
:ALEIlMR 'E~R
~El<Ai PEIlINSUL~ LMOI ",,0 ';'I"jPCE\
oEM c'El'I'ii[, "./'
'E,~::oE: (APA(lfi il'l/I LOS", ',In
'EQ[, 'AP. I'Kl. RESE11\!E' 0' 18,;"'"
PEiI REHElITS (1'1/1
C~lILATIVE o[TI'EHENTS at.!)
E,ISTPlG ~ElI'\I RESOURCES i962 01,4[, 'tI
"-'i~C40QA!3'E/F~1';l~~S (AP4CIT( lJ~·e[l I~\
[AP"',:111 ~[!~'r-lO)'~~ .-)t,,)
Clt"JL~TlVE [AP,o( Iff 4DO n Jl}iS (1'1/'
TQIAL (APeCI1\ ,1'1/,
rlE'101Al CAPAC\T1' (1'I/1-L055 5,20:'.
SlIPPLlJS ,1'1/,
ENE"r,\' IALES (!)JH)
EliERGf GENEI!<ITICN (Il/H)-LOSS 3,45",
TABLE III-2
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
!1':.M ?4,!1n 0:6.fl:' ~~,nn
86.58 ~8.~1 ;;,r,,""~ 'i~.2S
!~4.'3'l i·~.7~! 1!8,9! 12~.,j~
B.8~ Q.OO UO 0.00
U5 a.8J 8.85 B.85
82.S~ B[.~·~ B~.~~ 82,~5
::,~~ .?II.:~ ~~.2-~ ?·~.42
(Sheet 1 of 3)
~z.:'r 14.00 77,(1~ ~~" "T. ·-;2.IJr 104.;~~: ;(\:.,')n -~.fl(! !~),n~ ~:l.,~~
'-.'Y: :n.l~ 1~12,'j: Int;.~; ::'-.:.'1 ::.: .~: !.':': !~.~i? Jli/)C
]2:,,4 :27,2~' I:';',J\ :-:3.'58 13'5.~a ~-17.",:,j ~3·' .. :Q 1 ~.·:i1 JJ,1214'i.15
11.00 (1.00 p,On :'.:'V [:.00 :,.9, ',,c'l' 0.00 O.uO [>,01)
g.8~ ~.85 8,e:~ 2.8: 8.85 r,,go 27.80 27,8D 27.8~ }7,gn
82.55 BI.55 82" e2 .55 92.55 ,3.l0 iJ,60 63.10 63. ~n n60
:2.'~1I ';4.'~~ '~,O(l 1.~>OO 119,~(1 22.QO
',:'.::i i'}:.2~ 21.3l 2[,36 11~,53 28,6Q
4~,2? l<.!:~.34 49,40 ~(I.4':i iSJ.~2 56.79
0.00 2'.30 0.00 0.('0 ".00 /4.30
2'.80 52.10 52.10 52,10 52.10 76.40
63.60 ,9.30 39.30 3c .30 39.30 15.00
0.0[1 H.il c.oe D.OG ~UO UO 25.00 U[! 0.0025.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 25.00 0.00 0,00 C.OO J6.78
;'."; r'.:)e' 0.00 ".00 0.,111 5[1.00 SUO i5M 71." ,~ .. O, ',~r,.'J[' 100.00 100.on 100.00100.00 m.oo 125.00 \21.00 125.00 14]'7B
114.59 IJ6.'0 I1S.81 12],97125.14132.55 132.IS 157.55 157.51 138.60 163.60 loUO 103.60 163.60163.6016'.30164.30164.30164.30156.78
1(18.03110.63112.63115.62118.6) 125.66 115.66 149.36 149.36111.39 :55,09 !55.0 9 m.09 155.0 9 1~I.09 1SS.76 155.76 155.76 155.76 148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.or 5.30 2.1' '2]." 21,87 °,8; 23.7,) 11.59 19.'~ 18.42 17.37 15.96 14.90 13.85 10.68 0,00
19'.'0 40B.O~, '19.00 '11.00 44'.00 4.l2.00 476.'~ 49'," '99.0~ <'0."'' 51'.0' '2'.00 53,.00 542.00 541.00 555.00 562.00 ,~U~ 581.00 594.00
'11.1' ')2,,8 413.97 4'8.4' 'I2Y 4'8.51 491.QI 50;.51 Sll.S] :21.15 535.4 7 5'4.8~ 55~,12 5.1.3 7 561.0) ;.14.93 5B2.0B 5B8.30 601.76 615,23
'" U •• H' If III til 111111 In .. ". f H •• " f. f f' U f" i"" f I' HI" HI UH U UtI'"'' n" H"I tlIIIU If" U n uu,,' IIIIU ** I .. , .. f U"" I" I If' iliff IfUH f41i IH U, H."" n, .. lIt.n UI' H lifi Itl II "U'
IlEllERAIICN PIJfi FOR CIT' OF 'EI"~[,
PEAK D~D (1'1/)
", Q' ~ElI'\I PEl'iI~SULA PEA~ 16.46%
Ofl'l!flO IN(L. liE' QESEP<JES OF 4.38 /11
C ... p. 1NGl. SI.lAPE I)~ NE"" ~:.I~;:~llS I,t'{,;,
EHEP[" SALES i ~H\
C~P'MN1 II
""om LA', \lYORQELECTR! C
lNS"t!l.L;D CAPACli" (~\
P~PE'J,).lB~E CAPf.,·:;-'-'/i,I) = 6.6D ~0~:=
"'.!f'OI'E :lt41~L GENER.'ICt< (WHI
<\"[1"'"£ OII'\JI<L DEL"HIE5 •. [l,I" LOSS:
r4i:l:"AL CnST (lODU)
:NTERES' uliRiNG C~jSTlUC1I()l 'iOW'
c.V" ~0,T (10~(i
10-;-':' :CS"'I C'J4P[t~8iT 11 l1.noo,
:NEPGI ~EUI)1.:R1E" ~R~ (~S (~~,
ft~EP2: GP~E~A~JIJJ -r.c.s :[~IJ' ;.~,?,~,=
1.80
9.60 11.BO 14.20 14.60 IUD 15.,0 16.00 16.50 16.90 17.20 17.50
II.'i \5.'1 16,11 1/.40 16.41 16.60 16.49 16.50 16.57 16.54 1/.51
').98 13.18 18.58 IB.98 !','8 19.'8 20.38 2n.88 21.18 21.58 21.88
13.~~ :8,;8 18.5·5 !B.Q8 JQ.48 ?~,81 2G 71 2" t: 24.,~? L\.'1 2),58
48.70
0, no
G.Gr:
0,90
U ,or
0.90
C..Oil
'2.50 '4.80
UO 0.00
~ .or O.Oc.
0.00 G ,O~·
0.00 0.00
1~8' 11584
" 304
-r,2f
O,Oti
0.00
0,00
0.00
e2 7'
, . ~O '.00
6.55 e,5~
2540 25,.(
24.9' 2' . \4
0.00 0.00
UO (,OC
2~ ,Jf
98.00 89.50
'.00 1.no
25,40 2~.4(
24, Q4 24,9':
o ,nO 0.00
0.00 C .0:'
., .nn
24. 'i4
0.00
17.80
16.4B
22.18
25.15
91.20
18.20 IB.40 18.60 IB,BO 19,00
IUS 16.5B 11.11 16.49 11.S2
22.58 22.78 22.98 23.18 23.38
25.62 25.65 25,,9 25.,7 25.70
91.80 93,90 "5,00 96.20 07.30
7.00
6.55
25 .• r
24.94
UO
0.00
7,on
US
25.40
24.94
0.00
0.00
7.00 7.00
~.55 6,~:'
25.'0 25.40
24.74 14.94
UO 0.00
0.00 0.00
19,20
16.55
n.S8
25. -4
7.00
6.S5
25.40
24,04
0.00
0.00
IUD
16,55
24.08
25.75
7.00
6.55
25,40
24.94
0.00
0.00
20.20
16.56
24.58
24,58
7.00
6,55
25,40
14,94
0.00
0.00
~.~r rL.(tO O.OD n.01J I~I.'P }1'2,110 ~(l2.0~ 392.:~O ~1')2,11O 1~2.lln 3n2.00 31)2.0~ 302,90 J02.DO 3rl2,OO ~nl.~O 302""G Jf12.0r .302.~O 102.00
r, 3084 JI888 B~':'.~, 3~2 302 3,~'~ 302 ?C2 302 3(:2 ~O 3IT2 ~02 })2 392 y.? Jr.? 302
72.50 74,80 7'.20 54.76 '7.2, ,9.'; ,,1.4, 12,0, b',5~ M.2! 1'.96 6B." 70.06 71.l6 72.36 '3.50 75.86 7a.16
-,.11 '8.:4 8 •. 26 5;.6~ 10.2' <',:: \\4.19 ;;.18 6:.75 ,c." 'i.'3 72,59 71.74 7'.01 76.ti 77.43 79.85 B2.27
\
,
C~.(t~EtIT 12
NE\I CiJ181NED CYCLE ,.AS TURBWES
S8.lARD S~RE C~ C.lF~C1W ~[\OjTl::t4S ,~)
CAPITAL COST 'IOOV! 6'i·'lt.j
ItITE~ES" ['URJUG (~STqUCT! IJI \'0001 B. '6.'11.l
T~~S!1ISSI(tj CAPITAL COST "000 1 611·'lt.j
itITEREST DURING ((t~STRLI('TI(t~ ,tODD' B.03."IJ
(lIIl'LAT WE CAPAC ITj (ttl,
It~STALLEO CAPACITY 'rt/)
TIW4S!1ISSI(tJ {)&Ii moo:1t/-YP.l 10.20
NET INSTALLED CAPACm (rt/i ~~LOSS = 8.00
POTENTIAL ENlOW GENERATlIJI (GWH)
oCTli\L ENERGY GENERATI(t~ 'GWHI
ENERGj DEliVERIES (GWW)
ACTli\l CAPAC ,T, ,ACTOR C~PIJIErIT 12
'Jj\RIABLE {)&Ii COST (tOOO', 4.28iGWH
"EAT RATE 'ttt9Tl'iIJ.jH) B700
'UEL PRICE (t/>l18TU)
,UEL COS. moo)
SALVAGE VALUE (tODD 1
TOTAL COST C~P(tjElIT 12 (toDD)
CiJ1P(t~ENT 13
ExiSTING SIMPLE CYCLE GAS TUR81NES
INSTALLED CAPAcm ,rt/)
I*, INSTALLED CAPAcm (rt/\ 'I. L~SS= 8.M
ENERG! DELIVERIES 'GWHl
EIlERG) GEIlERATI(tj 'GWHI
[AP~(lTY ,ACTOR [il'\P(tjENT 13
VARIABLE O!<N COST :1000' 4.9Z11J1H
HERT RAT, ·.ttt8TUiGWH' 11000
HI" 'RlLE '.tI1f4BTU'
'LiEl COST moo'
jurAL COST C!J1P(t~ENT 13 (SO 00 ,
:~Prt~EtI' 14
:IAVES C •. -S~RD TIW4S!1ISSIIJ1 l:lJE
cAPITAL COST W'i
!!I'EPEST DUPlIJG ClllSTPI.lCTIIJI (to(,[,'
IJ&f'I COST :10[;0:
SIIl'·IAGE 'IA[,IE (tOOO'
TC-~~ ~,a~-:=~P:)JP~~ W4 !&OOO'l
TOTAL CO<;T ,. IC'OC'
P.E~ENT 'jOR'~ ::J '1000, -
CI.'~i~ ~··T)E. c, w. ;~~ ','GOO) -
TABLE II 1-2
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
0.10
o
o ,QO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
uo
0.00
0.00
2. ))
o
0.00
o
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
~ ,~~,
0.00
1.66
o
0.0.0
o
0.00 0.00
D 0
o
o
·1 C
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.55 2.90
o r
0.00 0.00
o 0
(Sheet 2 of 3)
O.UO U6
3114 0
41
2954
)9
0.00 4.16
0.00 4.76
UO 49.55
f,.OO 4.38
0.00 C .00
0.00 0.00
~ .00 0 .00
0.00
0.00 0.00
2.90 UO
o
0.00 0.00
6258 49
o. on
312
4
295
4
4.76
4.76
49.55
4.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
o
o
s.n
5.11
53.24
4.g0
3.01
3.02
1.8'
O. 7~
12.92
3.05
80
0.00
146
0.00
o
o
o
o
5.11
5.22
53.14
4.80
3.02
3.01
2.87
0.75
12.91
3.14
82
0.00
149
).00 4.:1 0.00 O.uO 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.15
27B1 0 Co 0 2786 0 0 0 4165 0
36 0 0 36 ~ 0 0 ~ 0
2553 0 0 2553 0 0 0 3816 0
)) 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 49 0
s.n 9.33 9.33 9.33 9.33 9.33 11.45 11.45 13.45 13.45 19.60
s.n 7.33 <.33 9.33 9.33 9.33 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 19.60
51.24 95.11 95.21 95.21 95.21 95.21137.17 137.17 137.17 137.17 199.70
UO 8.59 B.59 8.59 8059 8.59 12.37 12.37 12.37 12.37 lU3
3.01 30.05 30.05 30.05 30.05 30.05 57.08 57.08 57.08 57.08 97.48
3.02 30.'5 30.05 30.05 30.05 30.05 57.08 57.08 57.08 57.08 82.27
1.8' 28.54 ; •• 54 28.54 2U4 28.54 54.22 54.22 54.22 54.22 78.16
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.63
12.91 128.60 12B.60 128.60 128.60 128.60 244.28 244.28 244.28 244.28 352.12
3.22 3.31
B5 865
0.00 0.00
5559 1089
3.40
999
0.00
1113
3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.89
911 938 965 1882 1932
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1136 1162 6597 2263 2313
4.00 4.11
1986 2041
0.00 0.00
2368 10507
4.23
3028
0.00
3580
15.10 19.76 10.20 10.63 11.17 10.74 10.64 14.42 14.50 11.26 11.35 11.32 11.40 11.43 11.47
13.98 18.18 18.58 18.99 19.48 9.88 9.79 \3.17 13.34 10.36 10.44 10.41 10.48 10.52 10.55
4B.70 70.60 71.50 7UO 77.20 54.76 57.26 57.09 58.59 60.19 ".01 37.71 39.31 40.41 41.51
51.16 74.32 '6.32 78.'4 81.26 57.64 60.27 60.09 61.67 63.36 37.91 39.70 41.38 42.54 43,70
C.3' 0.43 0.43 t.44 0.44 0.61 0.65 0.4S 0.49 0.64 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43
7.34
6.75
17.04
17.93
0.28
88.26
7.38 7.41 7.42
6.79 6.82 6.83
IB.14 19.34 21.64
19.09 20.35 22.77
0.30 0.31 0.35
93.96100.18112.0 9
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 lS2.11 36j,J8 375.63 3B'.54 399.9B 293.70 296.65 295.79 303.56 311.85 IB6.58 195.3 9 203.68 209.38 215.08
2.77 2.!6
1'04 1372
1956 173B
2.5~ 2.90
1335 2740
1711 3128
, .90
2006
1190
2.97 3.05 3.14 J.22
2148 1199 2324 2448
1445 24"<5 1617 2760
3.31
1506
1691
3.40
1620
IBIS
3.49 3.59 3069
1)3J 1833 1935
1937 2042 2150
3.79
B16
904
3.89 4.00 4.11
891 977 1123
985 1077 1235
4.23
0.00
0.00
494 110)7 0
3.40 141.09 Don e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00250.00250.00250,.00250.00250.00250.00250.00 250.00 150.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250,00
~.n(r 0.00 0.00 ~.Or:' fI.OO C.CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.~O UO 0.00 U" UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
497 ::.~) 250 150 150 150 250 250 ,50 1\0 150 150 250 250 150 250 m 250 250 250
1454 IJ921
14<4 I )4~1
2454 : :~~u
6045 15,66 IQ691 1990 1650 3193 332~ 8971 3)33 3480 3625
5641 13769 161BB 1433 19,7 2510 1527 ,509 1363 1lB3 2399
2\548 35317 51'~'5 5403B 5'008 S7,c\8 61045 6~554 ml' 7J30~ 7569~
I
3'56 9299 3'l9 3BSO 3997 12295 4132
2402 5745 2220 2220 2217 6619 21 49
7BIOI 83846 86066 B9iS6 90513 9'132 99281
TABLE 111-2
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Cl.I1ULATIVE PRESENT ~ORTW TO 2002 ,:mo)
SI"L'LATIVE PRESENT ~ORT~ ~R['14 20Dl TO 2037
W1 COSTS (tOOO)
CiJ'P~ENT.2 C(t4BINEo CYCLE GAS TURBINES
TRI'N~ISSI~ LINE W1 COSTS ,tOOO)
l<\RIABLE W1 COSTS 'lOOO'
FUEL COSTS \t000)
CiJ'P~ENT 13 SIMPLE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
TRI'NS'1ISSI~ LINE W1 COSTS (1000)
SUBTOTAL 11000)
SAL'IAOE ''''LUE OETERHIt<lT1!l'1 ~lo REPL"'C~ENT COST
3141
lOBO
3663
314'8
2601
LNi" INSTALLE~ Itl\T"c~AT!!l'1 REPLACP1ENT RETlR~ENT CAPITAL 10C REPLACP1EtH
~APAC\TY ' ~1l1;I 'EA' lEAR [CST COST COST IN I 'B3
,M<' ilOO~ ) (4G00') '. '~DD 1
~CC"T II 4.76 1988 10lB 204B 322 4 4\,71 1014
neT 12 c ,46 ! Q~O 2C2U mo 312 q) 'j
~C(T I) 4, II ~ Q03 10: ) 2~~3 .2~B6 ~ ~,."5 ')q
~((. 14 4, II 1'9B 2m 2e~E 1'86 3~, ~5 62 !
[CC~ IS 6. !~, 2~'J2 2".32 20 ,~~ 4h5 ~3.~9 .~,-\ ~
TPIlN .' I! . .,~ : ')38 2'28 1068 ,'54 38.21 65Q
"I'RAt~ ., 0,4, ~ ~ ;'~ 2': ]n 20"'10 2S~ 3 "~ 0 59
TI(A"t 'J 4,: l 1'7 ] 20JJ 20 ~j 2~~3 ~? J? .p~
TQAo'i .4 J.; : 1 ,)~~ '!? 21: ~; ~~'i3 ~ ~. ~n ':03
':'Q..:/; .' 6,15 ?~ l~2 2D J2 3BI6 ~I, 3'
"""'E, I~R~EY' -o~~). . ~'~'i -",It: J::" :! ~ol; 'J';,61 .l1-12""'
"I'.::;:..~ )0'&4 BIOi:;
", 0-:-' :~~';t:~ :-, ,-,~ "'
, ", '" ~~ 1
• o!~34J
SALVAGE SALVAGE
VALUE IN 2037 '<\LUE IN ! 983
'toDD, " ~OOO'
I ni~ 168
125 19
1 3q ~ 217
I~SB ,90
3332 520
21:' ~46
~ ':' ]6
??~ol 3;l~
2:~3 ~,) ...
382 ,r
2 ~-~ t: ':2 11
18il:~~ 2q23
11/16/83
CAlENDAR YEAR
K8¥ll PENINSULA LOADS ~D RESOURCES
PEAK DElWiO !ItoII
REQUIRED rAPACIT'I (ItoI) LOSS= 5.20;(
REQ'O rAP. INCL. RESEINES OF 28.09 ItoI
RETI ReiENTS (ItoI)
CI.I!ULATIVE RETlREHMS (ItoI)
EXISTIH6 K~I RESOURCES 1982 -91.40 ItoI
I'KHOMGElFAIRMiKS rAPACIT'I USED (ItoI)
rAPACIT'I AODITIIJjS (PII)
CI.I!ULATIVE rAPACIT'I ADDITIIJjS (PII)
TOTAL rAPACIT'I (PII)
NET TOTAl CAPACIT'I (PII) -LOSS 5.20"1.
SURPLUS (ItoI)
ENERSI' SALES (IMI)
ENERSI' G9IE~TIIJj (IIII)-LOSS 3.4S:!
TABLE 111-3
AL TERNATI VE PLAN 1-2
90 MW BRADLE Y LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
1983 1984 \985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19 94 1995 1996 1997 1998 \999 2000 2001 2002
82.00 84.00 86.00 89.00 92.00 94.00 97.00100.00102.00104.00 106.00 108.00 110.00 111.00 112.00 114.00 115.00 116.00 119.00122.00
86.50 88.61 90.72 93.88 97.05 99.16102.32105.49107.59109.70 111.81 113.92116.03117.09118.14120.25121.31 122,36125,53128.69
114.59116.70 118.81 121.97 125.14 127.2~ 130.41 133.58 135.68 137.79 \39.90 142.01 IU.12 145,18 146.23 148.34 149.40 150.45 153.62 156.78
8.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30
8.85 B.B5 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 27.80 27.80 27.80 27.80 27.80 27.80 52.10 52.10 52.10 52,10 76.40
82.S5 82.55 82.55 8U5 82.55 82.55 8U5 82.55 82.S5 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 39.30 39.30 39.30 39.30 15.00
32.04 34.15 36.26 39.42 42.59 0.00
0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.78
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.00100.00 100.00 125.00 I~.OO I~.OO 125.00 141.78
114.59116.70118.81 121.97125.14132.55132.55157.55 \57.55 138.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 164.30 164030 164.30 164.30 156.78
108.63110.63112.63115.63 118.63125.66125.66149.36 149.36 131.39 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.09155.09155.76155.76155.16155.76148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.30 2.14 23.97 21.87 0.81 23.70 21.59 19.48 18,42 17.37 15.96 IUD 13.85 10.68 0.00
397.00408.00419.00433.00447.00462.00476.00490.00 499.00 508.00 517.00 526.00 535.00 542.00 549.00 555.00 562.00 568.00 581.00 594.00
411.19 422.58 433.97 448.47 462.97 478.51 493.01507.51 516.83526.15535.47544.80554.12561.37568.62574.83 582.08 588.30601.76615.23
'"1111111111'"1111111111""1,,'11111111""11111111111111111111"1111111111111111'"111111111 •• 1111."1 •• 1 .... 1.,1 •••• ' •• '." ••• """"'"1111'"11'''''''.11111111,","'"1""""""
IlENE~TI IJj PUfI FOR CIT'I OF SEWD
PEAK DEl'IM (PII) 9.60 13.88 14.20 14.60 15.10 15.60 16.00 16.50 16.90 17.20 17.50 17.80 18.20 18.40 18.60 18.80 19.00 19.20 19.10 20.211
X Of K~I PENINSULA PEAK 16.46)( 11.71 16.43 16.51 16.40 16.41 16.60 16.49 16.50 16.57 16.54 16.51 16.48 16.55 16.58 16.61 16.49 16.52 16.55 16.55 16.56
OEM«> INCL. NET RESERV£S Of 4.38 PII 13.98 \8.18 18.58 18.98 19.48 19.98 20.38 20.88 21.28 21.58 21.88 22.18 22.58 22.78 22.98 23.18 23.38 23.58 24.08 24.58
CAP. INCL. SIWIE Of NET SURPLUS (PII) 13.98 18.18 18.58 18.98 19.48 20.81 20.71 24.62 24.69 21.71 25.58 25.55 25.62 25.65 25.69 25.67 25.70 25.74 25,~ 24.58
ENERSI' SALES (9IH) 48.70 70.60 72.50 74.80 77.20 79.70 82.20 84.90 86.40 8B.OO 8nO 91.20 92.80 93.90 95.00 96.20 97.30 98.50 100.80 103.10
CIljpIJj9IT 1\
90 PII 8RAOI.EY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
INSTALLED rAPACIT'I (PII) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68
DEPEN0A8LE CAPACIT'I (PII) • 2.68 LOSS= 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47
AVERAGE IM«MIL GENERATIIJj 19011() 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99
AlJE~6E iWWIL DELIVERIES (IMI) LOS&-8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.11
rAPITAL COST ('000) 64.45237.42 1911 2263 2406 1314 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80
INTEREST DURING CIJjSTRUCTJIJj <tODD) 0.82 5.33 35.47 108.15 192.99 269.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0lII COST ('000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 31.04 37.64 37.04 31.04 37.04 37.04
TOTAL COST C(J1PIJj9IT II ('0001 65 243 1946 2371 2599 1621 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
ENERSI' DELIVERI ES FR(J1 GAS (IMI) 48.70 70.60 72.50 74.80 77.20 69.59 72.09 74.79 76.29 77.89 79.39 81.09 82.69 83.79 84.89 86.09 87.19 88.39 90.69 92.99
ENERGY GENERATlIJj -GAS (IJoIH) LOSS= 5.00"1. 51.26 74.32 76.32 78.74 81.26 73.25 75.88 78.72 80.30 81.98 83.56 85.35 87.04 8B.20 89.35 90.62 91.77 93.04 95.46 97.88
, J
TABLE III-3
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-2
90 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
( Shee t 2 of 3)
C(}1PIJlENT 12
NEIl CIJiBINED CYCLE GAS TURBINES
SEllARD SHARE OF CAP<lCITY ADOITIIJlS (HI) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20 0.00 O. ~I 0.00 0.00 UI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.15
CAPITAL COST ('000) 6171H1 0 0 0 0 6229 0 312 r 0 27B6 0 0 0 0 27B6 0 0 0 4165 0
INTEREST DURING CIJlSTRUCTIIJl <.000' B.16/HI 0 0 0 0 BI 0 4 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 54 0
TRAN9iISSI!tl CAPITAL COST ('000) 621/HI 0 0 0 0 5707 0 2B5 0 0 2553 0 0 0 0 2553 0 0 0 3BI6 0
INTEREST DlIfHNG CIJlSTRUCTI!t~ (.0001 B.031H/ 0 0 0 0 74 0 4 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 49 0
CltiULATIVE CAPACITY (HI) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20 9.20 9.6. 9.66 9.66 .13.77 13.77 13.77 13.77 13.77 17.BB 17.BB I7.BB 17.8B 24.03
INSTALLED CAPAC)T'( (HI) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.20 9.20 9.66 9.60 9.66 13.77 13.77 13.77 13.77 13.77 17.88 17.BB 17.B8 17.8B 24.03
TIWi9iISSIIJl IJ&/1 ('OOOM-VAl 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.S0 93.BO 9B.50 98.50 98.50140.46140.46 140.46 140.46 140.46 IB2.42 182.42 182.42 IB2.42 245.15
'lE'! INSTALLED CAPAC)T'( (HI' :I.LOSS = B.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.46 B.46 B.BB 8.88 8.88 12.67 12.67 12.67 12.67 12.67 16.45 16.45 16.45 16.45 22.11
POTENTIAL ENERGY GENERAT I(ll (IJIH I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.14 29.14 32.17 32.17 32.17 59.19 59.19 59.19 59.19 59.19 86.22 86.22 86.22 86.22 126.63
ACTII<\L ENERGY GENERATIIJl «(lIH) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.14 29.14 32.17 32.17 32.17 59.19 59.19 59.19 59.19 59.19 86.22 86.22 86.22 86.22 97.88
ENERG~ DELIVERIES (W~) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.69 27.69 30.56 30.56 30.56 56.23 56.23 56.23 56.23 56.23 81.9\ 8\.9\ 8\.91 8\.91 92.99
ACTII<\L CAPAC)T'( FACTOR C(}1PIJlENT .2 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5B
VARIABLE IJ!,N COST ('000) 4.2B/~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.i4 124.74 137.67 137.67 137.67 253.35 253.35 153.35 253.35 253.35 369.04 369.04369.04369.04418.92
HEAT RATE (~U/WH) B700
FUEL PRICE (tI,t1IJTU) 2.77 2.66 2.55 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.B9 4.00 4.11 4.23
FUEL COST <.000) 0 0 0 0 0 735 753 854 B79 901 1705 )751 1797 IB49 1900 2B43 291B 3001 30B3 3602
SALVAGE VALUE ('000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST CIJIPHHT 12 ('000) 0 0 0 0 12090 954 1576 1090 1115 6546 209B 2145 2191 2243 7703 3394 3470 3552 11720 4266
C(}1PHHT 13
El<I STING SIMPLE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
INSTAlLED CAPAC)T'( ("" 15.20 19.76 20.20 20.63 21.17 10.74 10.64 14.42 14.50 11.26 11.35 11.32 11.40 11.43 11.47 7.34 7.38 7.41 7.42 0.00
HE'! INSTALLED CAPACITY ("', 1. LOSS= 8.00 13.9B lB.IB lUB lB.98 19.4B UB 9.79 13.27 13.34 10.36 10.44 10.41 10.4B 1D.S2 10.55 6.75 6.79 6.82 6.83 0.00
ENERGY DELIVERIES (~I 48.70 70.60 72.50 7UO 77 .20 ~1.90 44.40 44.23 ~5. 73 47.33 23.15 2U5 26.45 27.55 2B.65 4.17 5.27 6.47 B.77 0.00
ENERGY GENERATI(}I (iJI\(l 5l.26 7U2 76.32 7B.74 BI.26 4UO 46,74 46.56 4B.13 49.B2 24,37 26.16 27.84 29.00 30.16 4.39 5.55 6.81 9.24 0.00
CAPAC)T'( FACTOR C!t1PIJlENT .3 0.39 0.43 o .~3 o .~4 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.37 0.38 0.51 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.00
VARIA8LE 11&11 COST (.0001 4.92iWH 152.32365.78375.63 3B7.54 399.98 217.08 230.03229.15230.92 m.21 119.94 12B.75 137.04 142.74148.44 21.62 27.32 33.54 45.46 0.00
HEAT RATE (HHIJTU/IJIHl 12000
FUEL PRICE (.IHHIJTU' 2.77 2.66 2.55 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
FUEL COST ('000) 1704 2372 2335 2740 2828 1535 1666 1704 lBI4 1925 96B 1067 1166 1249 1335 200 2S9 327 455 0.00
TOTAL COST CIJiPIJlEN'T .3 '000) 1956 2738 2711 3128 322B 1752 1896 1933 2HSl 2170 IOB8 1196 1303 1392 1484 221 286 361 501 0.00
C(}1P(}IENT 14
IlAIJES CR. -SEllARO TIWi,'ISSIIJl LINE
CAPITAL COST ('000) 49~ 11037 0
INTEREST ~URI"G CIJlSTRUl l(}l (tODD) 3.40 j4U9 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ COST (tODD i 0.00 0.00250.00250.00250.00250.00250,00 250.00 2~0.OO 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00250.00250.00250.00
SALVAGE VALUE mOO) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST C(}1P(}IENT 14 10001 497 11183 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
TOTAL COST (.o~o 1 2519 14164 ~907 5749 18167 4577 3759 3310 3453 9003 3m 3628 3781 3922 9473 3903 4043 4200 12508 4553
PRESENT YOI!TH IN (.oao' 1993 2519 13685 4561 51B5 15B31 385~ 3058 2601 2622 6606 1462 24B5 2502 2SOB 5B53 2330 2332 2340 6734 236B
Cl1ilJLATjVE ". ~. IN <ton 198] 2519 16204 2Dms 25970 41801 45655 ~8713 51314 53')6 60542 13004 65499 67991 70499 76351 7B681 81013 83m 900B6 92455
TABLE I II-3
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-2
90 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
CItlllATIVE PRESENT WOIITH TO 2002 (tODD) 92455
Clt1ULATIVE PRESENT WOIITH FRtI1 2003 TO 2037
CtI1PIMNT II BRADLEY LAKE HYDROEL ECTR I C (90 ~)
0U1 COSTS (tODD) 385
CtI1PIMHT 12 CtI181NED CYCLE GAS TURBINES
TlWI9IlSSltI1 LINE 0U1 COSTS (tOOO) 2550
VARIA8LE 0U1 COSTS (fOOOl 4358
FUEL COSTS (tODD) 37474
CtI1I'IMNT 13 SIIt'LE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
CtI1I'IMNT 14 DIMS C1IEElC T~I SSI tI1 LINE
~ISSIIlf LINE 0U1 COSTS ("00) 2601
SUBTOTAL (toDD) 139824
SALVAGE VALUE D£TEllllttlTlllflHl REPlACe1ENT COST
!NIT INSTALLED INSTALLATI IIf REPLACEIIENT RElI REI1ENT CAPITAL IDC REPLACEI1ENT
CAMCITl' Y£AR YEAR YEAR COST COST COST IN 1983
(~) (fOOOl (fOOO) (fOOOl
CCCT " 9.20 1988 2018 2048 6229 80.59 1959
[CCT 12 0.46 1990 2020 2050 312 4.03 91
[CCT 13 4.11 1993 2023 2053 2786 36.05 738
CCCT 14 4.11 1998 2028 2058 2786 36.05 621
CCCT IS 6.15 2002 2032 2062 4165 53.89 809
T~ II 9.20 1988 2028 2068 5707 73.83 1272
TIWI 12 0.46 1990 2030 2070 285 3.69 59
TIWj 13 4.11 1993 2033 2073 2553 33.03 479
TIWj 14 4.11 1998 2038 2078 2553 33.03 403
T~ IS 6.15 2002 2042 3816 49.37
DAVES CREEK T~S. 1985 2015 2045 11549149.61 4027
TOT~L 42742 10460
Clt1ULATlVE PRESOO WOIITH OF ALT. PlAN I (fOOO)
CCCT, CtI181NED tlCLE CtI18USTI~ TURBINE
T!w;, TRA'~SI<ISSI~ LINE ASSOCIATED WiT~ DELI'JERING [CCT POWER
, 1 , ,
SALVAGE SALVAGE
VALUE IN 2037 VALUE IN 1983
(fOOO) (fOOO)
2076 324
125 19
1393 217
1858 290
3332 520
4280 668
228 36
2234 349
2553 398
382 60
2695 420
21156 3301
, f , • ·•
TABLE 111-4
12116/83 AL TERNAT I VE PLAN 1-3
135 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
( Sheet 1 of 3)
CAlENMR lEAR 1981 1984 1985 1m 198/ 1989 1989 1990 199! 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
KENAI P~INSULA LMDS ~D RESOURCES
P £A,\ DEIWlD (/tJ' 82.00 84.00 86.00 89.00 92.00 94.00 97.00100.00102.00 IM.OO 106.00 108.00 110.00 111.00 112.00 114.00 115.00 116.00 11 9.00 122.00
REQUIRED {)\PACITY (/tJ) LOSS= 5. 29;~ 86.50 88.61 90.71 93.88 97.05 99.16102.32105.49107.59109.70111.81113.92116.03117.09 118.14 120.25 121.31122.36125.53128.69
~un W. INCL. ~[stlmS IJT lB.~P ItI U~.5P 11 •• ,'0 ,','8.8,' n'.p( /25,14 ,'2(,25 130.41 133.58 /35,~8 IJ?,?P I?P,PO 142,01144.12145.18 w,n 148,34149.40150.45153,62156.78
RET1~E"ENTS (/tJ) 8.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30 0.00 0.00 0,00 24.30
CLtiUlATIVE R£7IREMENTS (/tI) 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 21.80 27.80 21.80 27,80 27.eo 21.80 52,10 52,10 52.10 52.10 76.40
f)(ISTlNG KENAI RESOURCES 1982 -91.40 ItO 81.55 81.55 B1.55 BUS 81.55 82.55 82.55 81.55 81,55 63.60 63,60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 39.30 39,30 39.30 39.30 15.00
I¥iCHOAAGE/FAIR~kS CAPACITY USED (ltOi 32.04 34.15 36.26 39.42 41.59 0.00
CAP!\CITY ADDITIONS (,.., 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 25.00 0-.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 16.78
C\IIUlATlVE WACm ADDITIONS (till 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 125.00 115.00 115.00141.78
TOTAL CAPACITY (til) 114.59116.10118.81 121.'7125.14132,55132.55151.5515'.55 13B.60 163.60163.60163.60163.60163.60164.30164.30 164.30164.30156.78
NET TOTAL CAP!\CITY (/tJHOSS 5.10'1, 108.63 110.63112.63115.63118.63 125.66125.66 149.36 149.36 131.39 155.0 9 155.09 155.09155.09155.09155.76155.76155.76155.76148.63
SURPLUS (til) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.30 2.14 23,9 7 21.87 0.81 23.70 21. 59 19.48 18.42 J7 .37 15.96 14.90 13.85 10.68 0.00
ENERGY SALES (~) 397.00 408.00419.00433.00 447.00 462.00 476.00 490.00 499.00 508.00 517.00 526.00 535.00 542.00 549.00 555.00 562.00 568.00 581.00 594.08
ENERGY 6MRATION (~HOSS 3.45Y. 411.1 9 411.58413.97 4Q8.q7 461.'7 m.51 493,01 507.51 516.83526.15535.47544.80554.12561.37568.62574.83 582.08 588.30 601.76 615.23
111"."'"."""." ... " ......... '"11111' ... " ...... "'"1'"" ... " .. ""." .... ""."' .. " .. lfflll""'''''U."""""" ...... '''' ....... nll''.''''' ......... " .... ",,, ... ,,,fI,"1
GENERATI ON PL~ FOR CITY OF SEYAAD
PEAK DEIWlD (~) 9.60 13.80 14.20 14.60 15.10 15,60 16.00 16.50 16,90 17 .20 17.50 !7 .80 18.20 18.40 18.60 18,80 19.00 19.20 19.70 20.20
% OF KENAI PENINSULA PEAK 16.46% II. 71 16,43 lUI 16.40 16.41 16.60 16,Q' 16.50 16.57 16.54 16.51 16. Qe 16.55 16,58 lUI 16,49 16.52 16.55 16.55 16.56
O~O INCL. NET RESERVES OF 4.38/tJ 13.98 18.18 18.58 I8.9B 19 .48 19.98 20.38 20.8e 21.28 11. 58 21.88 22 .18 22.58 12.78 22.98 23.18 23.38 23.58 24.08 24.58
CAP. INCL. SI'ARE OF NET SURPLUS (~\ 13.98 18.18 18.5B IB.98 19.48 20,81 10.71 24.62 14,69 11.71 25.58 25.55 25.62 25,65 25.69 25.67 25.70 25.74 25.15 24.58
ENERGY SALES (~H) 48.70 70.60 71.50 74.80 77 .20 79.70 82.10 8UO 86.40 88.00 8UO 91./0 92.80 93.90 95.00 96.20 97.30 98.50 100.80 103.10
C!)1PONOO .1
135 ItO 8RADLEY LAKE IIYDROELECTRI C
WSTAllED CAPilCITY (ItO) 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4,02 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02
DfPE1IM8LE CAP4C)TI (~) = uz lOSS= S.OO 0,00 v,op P.OO 0,00 o,ov 3.10 3.10 3.7D 3.70 3,10 3.n 3.70 3.70 3,70 3,70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3,70
A'JERAGE ~UAL GEljERATI~ (~H' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.62 10,62 10.61 10.62 I fi.62 10,62 10,62 10.62 10,62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62
A'JERAGE ~I1UAL DELIVERIES (~H) lDSS= 8,00 0.00 O. O~ 0.00 0.00 0,00 9.77 '.77 9.77 9,77 9.77 9.71 9.77 9,77 9,77 9,77 9.17 9.77 9.17 9.77 9.77
CAPITAL COST moo) 64 240 1933 2289 1433 1329 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
IN>ERfSl DURING Ci)ISTRU[TI[N (.000, 0.83 5,39 35.89 109,40 195,22 172,94 0.00 o .PO 0.00 uo 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~.oo 0.00 0.00 0,00
0&/1 COST (tODD \ C .00 D .00 D .00 0.00 0.00 31.04 3: ,04 J7.04 ]1.04 37,04 37,04 37.04 31,OQ 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04
TRqIS. CAl'JTAL COST ISOOO.' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2115 0,00 0.00 o .JO 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 o .O? 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
TR/¥iS. jt/TEREST DURI~G C[NSTPUCTlttl (tODD·' 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2B .14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T~S, OM< C%1 '1000' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G .00 17.90 27.90 21.90 2i,90 21,90 27.90 27,90 27.90 17,90 27.90 27.90 27.90 27.90 27,90 27.90
TOTAL COST C~P~ElfT WI imo' 65 2Q6 196; 2399 4831 1667 ,5 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
ENERGY DEll'JEPlES ,R()j BAS "~H. 48.70 '0.60 72.56 14.80 77.10 6'.n 71.43 75.13 76.63 78,23 79,73 81 .4) 83.03 84,13 85.23 86.43 87.53 88.73 91.03 93.33
EN[IiG'!' Gft~€P/.lTIiJ~ -&Qg ,j)JHI LOSS:: 5. O/j:~ <1.1, IU1 7'.3l 78.14 81.16 73.0: 7~ .Z4 79,08 80.16 62.l5 B3. '3 85.72 87.40 88.56 89 ,72 90.98 92.14 93,40 95,82 98.24
TABLE 111-4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-3
135 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
C(J4PINENT 12
NEW CIJ191NED CYCLE GAS TU~9INES
SEWARD SHARE OF CAPACITI IIDDITJINS (!til 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.96 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.15
CAf'ITAL COST (SOOO) 6""'" 0 0 0 0 5311 0 312 0 0 1796 0 0 0 0 2796 0 0 0 4165 0
INTEREST DURING CINSTRUCTlIJ1 moo) 9.76M1 0 0 0 0 69 0 4 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 54 0
TIWj9iISSIIN CAmAL COST (SOOO) 621.1K1 0 0 0 0 4875 0 29S 0 0 2553 0 0 0 0 2553 0 0 0 3816 0
INTEREST DURItlG CINSTRUCTlIN (SOOO) 8.03Jltl 0 0 0 0 63 0 4 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 49 0
C1J1ULA1JVE CAPACITY (!tI) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.86 7.86 8.31 9.32 8.31 12.43 12.43 12.43 12.43 12.43 16.54 16.54 16.54 16.54 22.69
INSTALLED CAPACITY (!tI) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.96 7.86 9.31 8.32 8.31 12.43 11.43 11.43 12.43 12.43 16.54 16.54 16.54 16.54 22.69
TIWl9iISSIIN l1li1 (SOODAtH!!) 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.14 90.14 84.93 94.83 94.93 116.19 116.79 126.79 126.79 126.79 168.75 168.75 169.75 168." 231.49
t-IET INSTALLED CAPACITY (!tI) 7.LOSS = 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.23 7.13 7.65 7.65 7.65 11.44 11.44 11.44 11.44 11.44 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 20.98
POTENTIAL ENERSY 6INE~TIIN «(JIlt) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.34 20.34 23.36 23.36 23.36 50.39 50.39 50.39 50.39 SO.39 77.41 77 .42 77.42 77.42 117 .B2
ACTUAL BlERSY GENE~TIIN (QjM) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.34 20.34 13.36 23.36 23.36 50.39 50.39 50.39 50.39 SO.39 77.42 77.42 77.42 77.42 98.24
ENERGY DELIVERIES (SWII) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.32 19.32 22.19 22.19 12.19 47.97 47.97 47.97 47.87 47.87 73.55 73.55 73.~ 73.~ 93.33
ACTUAL CAPAC ITY FACTOR CfJIPINEKT 12 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0." 0." 0.63
UAIIIABLE l1li1 COST (SOOO) 4.181111N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.06 87.06 99.99 99.99 99.99 215.67 215.67 215.67 215.67 215.&7 331.36 331.36 331.36 331.36 421.4B
HEAT ~TE (IMTU/BWII) 8700
FUEL P!!lCE (SI!t18TU) 2.77 2.66 2.55 2.90 2.90 2.911 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.12 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
FUEL COST (SOOO) 0 0 0 0 0 513 526 620 639 654 1451 1491 1530 1574 161B 2553 2620 2694 2769 3615
SAL\IIGE \llLUE (SOOO) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
TOTAL COST CII1PINEHT 12 (SOOO) 0 0 0 0 10329 680 1297 80S 923 6249 1794 1m 1872 1916 7369 3053 3120 3194 1I~3 4267
CIJ1f'INOO 13
EXISTING Slr11'LE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
INSTALLED CAPACITY (!til 15.20 19.76 20.20 20.63 21.17 10.74 \0.64 14.41 14.50 11.26 11.35 11.32 11.48 11.43 11.47 7.34 7.39 7.41 7.42 0.00
NET INSTALLED CAPACITY (!tI) 'l. LOSS= 8.00 13.99 19.19 19.59 19.99 lU9 9.99 9.79 13.27 13.34 10.36 10.44 10.41 10.49 lo.s2 10.55 6.75 6.79 6.92 6.83 0.00
ENERSY DELIVERIES «(JjH) 49.70 70.60 71.50 74.90 77.10 50.61 53.11 51.94 54.44 56.04 31.96 33.56 35.16 36.16 37.36 12.99 13.99 15.19 17.49 0.00
ENERil GENEAATIIN «(JjH) 51.16 74.31 76.31 7B.74 91.26 53.27 55.90 55.72 57.30 59.99 33.54 35.33 37,01 38.17 39.33 13.56 14.72 15.98 19.40 0.00
CAPACITY FACTOR CIJ1PINENT 13 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.57 0.60 0.44 0.45 0.60 0,34 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.00
VARIA9LE l1li1 COST (SOOO) 4.921111N 151,31 365,79 375.63 387.54 39U9 262.10 275.15274.27291.04 190.33 165.06 173.97 181.16 197.86 193.56 66.74 72.44 78.66 90.59 0.00
HEAT RATE (It48TU/(JjH) 11000
FUEL PRICE (SI!t18TUl 1.77 2.66 1.55 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.12 ) ,31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
fUEL COST (SOOO) 1704 2371 1335 2740 2929 1954 1992 2039 1159 2179 1332 1441 1550 1644 1741 617 697 767 908 0.00
TOTAL COST CIJ1PINENT 13 (SOUO) 1956 1739 1711 3129 3219 1116 2169 2314 1441 2570 149 1 1615 1732 1931 1935 683 759 846 998 0.00
CIJ1PINENT .4
IlA'JES CR. -SEWARD T~9iISSIIN LINE
CAPITAL COST (SOOO) 494 11037 0
INTEREST DURING CINSTRUCTI[tj (SOOOI 3,40 146.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IJ&I! COST 'SOOO) 0.00 0.00250,00250.00250.00150.00150.00 150,DO 150.00 150.00 150.00 250.00 150.00250.00250.00 150.00250.00250.00250.00250.00
SAl'..\\GE \IIlUE 'SOOO) 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 (..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST C(l4~(t;ENT .4 iSOOOI 417 11193 250 150 lS0 150 150 250 150 lS0 150 150 lS0 150 150 150 150 150 150 m
TOTAL COST (sQOO I 151' 1416' d0 3(t 5"776 1803B 4714 3880 3413 3579 9131 3606 3763 3910 4063 9619 4051 4195 4355 11667 4581
PRESEP;r ~ORTH IN i,OOO) -1993 251 , 1369B 4102 5110 16241 3'69 3156 1,99 2718 6nl 2556 1578 1594 1599 5941 2419 1419 2417 6819 2394
ClI1UlAi!'.JE p, W, 1~ (SOOC--1993 1~1 , 1620 7 1~901 2;019 41261 46130 49396 51085 54802 ~15(13 64059 66637 69111 71819 77771 B0199 8U09 95035 91854 Q4137
, ,
TABLE III-4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-3
135 MW BRADLEY LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
ClJ1ULATlVE PRESENT WORT~ TO 1001 "0001
ClJ1ULATlVE PRESENT WORTH ~~!J4 1003 TO 1037
CIJ1PIlIENT II BRAOLtY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC (90 /fJ)
0M1 COSTS <tOOO)
INTERTIE IllI1 COSTS (tOOO)
CI}!P{!,lENT 11 CIJ1BINED CYCLE liAS TURBINES
T~91ISSIIll LINE IllI1 COSTS (tOOO)
UARIABLE IllI1 COSTS (toOO)
FUEL COSTS ,tOOO)
CIJ1PIlIENT .3 SIHFLE CYCLE liAS TURBINES
CIJ1PI}!ENT 14 ~S CREEK T~91ISSII}! LINE
T~91ISSIIlI LINE IllI1 COSTS (tOOO)
SUBTIJTAL (tOOO)
SALVAGE VALUE D£TEIt!I~TI III 1M REPLACEHOO COST
LNIT INSTALLED INSTAlLATlIlI REPLACEMENT
CAPACITY YEAR YEAP
(~)
11./5 INTERTIE 1988 1018
cm .1 7.86 1988 1018
cm 11 0.46 1990 1010
cm 13 4.11 1"3 1m
(CCT 14 4.11 1998 202B
cm 15 6.15 1001 m2
TlWl II 7.96 1088 1018
TRitl 11 0.46 1990 2030
TlWll3 4.11 1903 2033
TR~ 14 4.11 1'99 1m
HAIl 15 6.15 2002
IlIWES CREE~ TRAIlS. 1985 2015
T~TAL
(IJ1ULATIVE PRESENT uapT~ OF AU. PLltl 1 (SOOO)
(eeT: ~[t'e.l·~ED OCLE ~~8IJST1(tj i~!R8t~4E
RETlREl1ENT
YEAR
1048
2048
1050
1053
2059
2062
1068
2m
2073
20'8
2042
204'
Tj;~i: 7;;'::""';'·:';~·:/~ i.i~1t ,,::.:r : ..... ~0 )~iij..O DE~IIJE~JllG rep ~J~'E~
9~13'
385
190
140B
4374
37613
1601
CAPITAL IDC REPLACEl1ENT
COST COST COST IN 1983
itOOO) (tOOO) 'tOOO)
1175 18.14 6B4
5311 68.85 1674
311 4.03 91
1786 36.05 7J8
1786 36.05 611
4165 53.89 B09
4875 63.07 1087
285 3.69 59
2553 ".03 470
2553 33.0J 40)
3816 49.37
11,40 149.61 4027
4J!7B 10m
149m
SALVAGE SALVAGE
VALLIE IN 1037 VALUE J~ 1983
<tOOO) (tOCO!
ns 113
1774 277
:15 19
1393 117
I B58 290
3331 510
3656 571
228 36
2!J4 34-~
2553 J96
392 ;(
2;95 m
~O954 32'0
I
~..:ILtt~~'-4? 'iE~Q
GPiER.HH}' put. ,OQ un 0, SEUARp,
? E~j( ~t!'Wi(' -~J I
'. ,',;: "-P~! ~8.H~;LILA PEAl( 16,4f ...
-,;'''') 'NrL, NET 'E$E""E; 0, 4.39 '"
~Li:, )'.;,' '-' ;~~E c:= :~E· ~UI:I?Li)5 nYI
Et~Ec~" ;..'lLE:: ~~)
[[I1P[I,EII1' .1
«3; I no. ol,OIOELEC'gIC
INSTALLED (,lPACITy -."'1
L·~Dr ;[w~BLE {Apt.[ P'~ I,.,;. = l)j)RJE,
"IJE1AGE ~tl~L &ENERAT\l'Il (W~I
IIlJEPJlGE /\/"li'IL OELlVEPJEi ';C·dn
Fp,; :E OF tt'ERG\ '. 'CO,] I
!~ GS'" r" 8J€I1G" ':'OOGI
-C:7~\.. (')'~i C(j<~IllElfi ,\ (1666'
E)'ERG' D€LIUE~lfS ,.,. ColiS '9'~\
9~EP~~ S:NERA'l'iCt4 -I~:; " .. HI LOSS:
,
LOSS:
~ .00'·;
~ , ,~(!
i:. "I
11.99
IP8
48. '0
0.00
o .~D O. QQ
O. no
UO
O. CIB
C .rn
~
4B. '0
51.;:6
TABlE III-5
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-4
SUSTINA PROJECT AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
t], q~\ 14.20 l' .60 l~. [0 : I .~(I 1; .O~ :6,5Q !.~. Q~ ! -:" ,20 11,10
16,J, ),~ . ~I I, .40 16,Jj 16.60 16 ,4~ 1o, ~O 1 ~,:"' 1 ~. ~J I •. II
18.18 IU~ l.:l, ;8 I ~,w9 1".'8 !'I.J~ 10. _9 II.lS II . ~B 21.88
I g .18 11.5& j ~ , :: ; ,48 Jr, ,di zr. -71 24.6t I' .i' 'I ," I 2: .88
70.6[-71.50 ;4.ar. ":.20 ~~ • 70 S2.19 9d, ¥(I 96.J!~ 8'; .c1~1 :~o. ~.(I
0.00 0.00 0.00 " .00 n .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IS .15
0. ". [1.00 O. O'~ 0,01) 0.00 I; .00 (1.00 C • 0~ UD 17.50
0, :I~I (I .~(i 0.0' ~ ,~10 (I. ~O IJ .00 'j .00 o .on r, .00 '17.29
o . O~ "-00 (1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,11[1 Be.5(·
uri (1,00 ~ .00 o .VO D, :)0 L~I. ~i~ 'J.Dfi (U1 r.% ~2. :~
[1.00 0.00 (, O~ ~ .on 0. "0 OJ( C' , ::~ :1 n.3n [: .OC' ~0528
5010
"'7e ,~o "2. ~~ '4 .8~ "' .10 ". '0 82.1D ~I! l' ., 86.'Q 88 .O~ 0.00
"'4.32 7~. 32 :~. ~4 :'I.'i. 93. ~~ -:-:-.:-;' 8~ .3/ " " c~. ;>! o ,M
,
1'.90 [·9. ](: :',. '0 13.60 1 B .eo 1 ~ .00 19.10 19.10 20.20
16.49 1 ~.:~ J.~, ~09 16.61 16.49 16.51 16.55 16.55 16.56
21.IS 22.58 22, -:'3 22. QS lJ.IB 23.38 13. S8 14.0. IUB
2l.19 21.59 1<.78 ?i, ?3 2 ~. t j 13.3E 13.58 IUS 14.58
~ 1 .20 '2.BO 11.90 15.00 96.20 97.30 9B.50 10UO 1 Oj,l 0
IS.46 IS.SS 19.09 19.19 19.50 19.71 19.92 20.44 2U5
)7.aD 1B.10 18.40 18.60 18.S0 IUO 19.20 19.70 20.20
99.13 100.8' i12.D7 103.16 104.57 105.7. 10' .Oi 109.57 112.07
\ 1.10 '2.80 93,90 ~S.OO ' •. 20 97.30 98. ~o 10, .80 103.10
·$2.70 ~UO 61. 'e ;1.61 61.1' 61.1 , 60.9. .0.42 '4.45
~"18 5'~" ,BOO 585l S8B' 5948 6008 6090 7676
:~~~ 5753 5aO~ o.~1 ~aa4 5.4~ .008 .O·C '676
Uo uo C ,00 Q,OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO
0.00 0.00 t) ,co (I • ~O 0,00 0.00 » .00 0.00 0.00
I ,
,t~ .. "I!o'p::.~:-: ,-_: .-.... ': -:.:i~:~J~=
:~'<M;i :~PE .. ,;: :":'F.::.r;-· "'L·:·;-'-~j-; .~~JI
J ~ -~ .,
·,,:-.. ,-~tT,~AP .. ~:-''I.'';.
-Oel ,: ... ~:~ .... : I"" •• ~ '1~r:'\ "'~" _':QI
""' -...... ~. . '~'J'" ,:.. .~,:; =
:-. -;:-'.~ ~ h ::F.,E;:---'''·" CtJLi
~C: ... 'AL E~~~~,:' G8~E"PATl C"~ . GI..IIJ I
E1.E 0\: [IE~ : iEj; I E~ r~..;", ,
... (-.... ~ ~':'PA(:TI J:'~C:CI( C(t1~Ct;~'(' 1i2
~Cl: ... P' ~ ':,!:' ~:~.~ ... S"M'
",~ .... -:,. -::: <--4tl8-'.: ;,,,-l
;:-'.:i. o~·:~ E s, .• ';:-
:uEL. CO~T 'i(t!]~
~L'~GE "~LLIE 'U00;
-C-:-""!L ~C;-::~P(";~fr -2 't(il~O'
=:-tlC''J~PH M3
~ ;:-:',~ '::~1PLE -''CLE (~S TURBI~~ES
~l:"" ... L_:~J (APACli": '!'t..I1
-~....:. : ... ,:-:-:~~ ~.p~J.Er;;-1i3
.... ;;;: ... ~,.r: !).~I-I .. ~,::-r ~~">:
I:"
" "
: I
TABLE 111-5
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-4
SUSTINA PROJECT AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
,"1 . .:: '.",,:, ~, ,.::n ~I P '.'.' .: , .
I)
r,,~:-~,~c il .... c ',-~ .),~C d ....... .!.~'" ':.-'J ~,-:::. 4."~ 4,"'0 4,'6 4.76
,-. ,::,-~. -:.~ ....-&1.-. _ .... oI, ~ ,,:.1~ "," ".7~ 4,7~ &1.'~ &1,'6 &1.7~
,~c . ':: r: e'} , "1 ~ ~ . -.. .l~ C:~ J: c:~ &10 ~c; JO:.~c; 4~.~~ ~~.1:;5 4e.55
.:,:.: '",~2 J,'7 '", ~.;~ <1,~a &1.3.9 4.}8
'.," ,. , ~,r '~' • 0 ~ C • D~
I) ,I' (I :~ , :"~ .) JIO i~' •. ~,[i 0.00 0, O'J (i. ell) O.DO
'-',-:;: .~ ,~(I
.nr, '-",.-,1) I' f,'-,
d.:! 4.23
.J' ., ,.le! iL0~ ('I 't, '.'. :,:1 0 .. :~ "1 "." •• , ,~In (I. 'r, "I ':'.00 0.fI(! G.00 0,80 D.on 0.00
II ~~"c 4; :~? ?~ .~ ,,,., -424 <1: <1; 4'~ 4Q 4J 4? 4Q
IS.zr P. ~~ 2fi ,2(' 2G ,~3
N 12; ~ ! ~ % ! ~,~':l
1 "~ •
. j.
-,.3; .43 1 ... .;-
2~: l") :.~:.~: r~.~?
. ~"
'_.J.!
1.. •• ~~ , ,7 ;8, &12
jr:.~A I; ~~ l.:-.~~'
.. 4 :; t2
:: .. , : r:.._
.,',
',' .. '.;
.. ~,~
~.-r: '
0.00 uo
'i,,,.
,::j
.,'(]
-, .,~'J il. r.r: 4. f 1 4.23
-,:::,,-,
o 0, (I ~
11.30
, ,
TABLE III-5
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-4
SUSTINA PROJECT AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
W'VLATlVE PPE&El1T WOPT~ TO 2002 (1000)
'lI1ULATIVE PRESENT WOPT~ ~RIJ'I 2003 TO 2037
EllERGV CO,T5 (1000)
fIJ'lP(JIENT'2 CIJ'IBINED CYCLE GAS TURBINES
T~SHISSI(JI LINE O&H COSTS (1000)
VARiABLE 0&11 com (1000)
~UEL COSTS (1000)
CIJ'lf'(JjEI/T .3 SIMPLE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
C(J1P(JIEI/T'4 llAIJES CREEk T~SHISSI(JI LINE
TIWiSHISSI(JI LINE IlII4 COSTS (1000)
5U8T(lTAL (1000)
5I>L'JAGE ''AL'!E OtrEI!I1I~TllJl ""0 RE"LACEI1ENT CO"
11m INSTALLED WSTALLATl(JI REPLACEI1ENT
CAPACm YEAR fEAR
(HWi
CCCT II: 4.76 1988 2' 18
~··C1 -2 2.41 19>0
~,~C-Il 0,1)0 199J 2021
ccer '4 0.00 1998 2028
':C·:' '5 0.00 2002 2032
'TP4N tit 4.76 1985 2('28
,ROIl '2 1.41 1990 n
TlWl" 0.00 1991 2013
TRAN M4 0,00 1998 2038
TR()t, .~ 0,0[1 2002
~E\ c,PEE' • POI,S . J .~~~ 2r.: 5
TOTAL
.~_:.~I_I~;'''':rI~ o~~':;pjj !Jnc"':.J :'t" o~ ~, ;:lLQI'J I ' 10 1"11'1,
,
RtrI REI18IT
YEAR
2~4~
191)
285 ~
20SS
2062
2'joB
1193
2072
2078
2042
1N;
505
C
o
2601
151434
CAPITAL
COST
(IOOOi
122d
2954
! I ~4?
17716
: ~~ 2~~
wc RE"LACrn8IT
COST COST IN 1983
(1000) (IO~'O'
dl .71 I 0 ~ d
0.00 e
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.2i 6~9
o ,(ID 0
0.00 0
0,00
0,00
:d' ,.,: 4cr
5699
SALVAGE 5Al,,;t.'~E
VALUE IN 2037 VALLIE IN 1983
(1000) 11000 I
10 7 5 loS
0
221: 346
0
0
0
C
26?~ 4:n
5985 934
1
cAlEN(l;.Rl'AR
'PlA) PEN)t'SUl~ LOADS 4'W PESDV-cE,
'EA'. WW,D "It;,
REOUIRED CAPACITY '~i lOSS= 5.20',
REOD CAP. INCL. RESER'JE> OF 2U9 ~
m I REI1HITS (~i
=i.~\.ILp'Jt!E 0EiIPEHENTS 'tt.I.l
E':<'ING V~l RESOURCES 1982 91.40 '1J
(t'CHORAGEi '" I -~KS CAPAClT'f USED 01.1
CAPOCITy ADDiTlCNS !'1J\
ClI<UlATIVE CAPACITY AODJTICNS (~\
TOTAL CAPACITY (Iii I
NET TOTAL CAPA(JT; (~i-lOSS 5.20'1,
SURPLUS (Iii \
ENERGY SALES (~H\
ENE-'i; G[1'ERATI!J" IQ.iHi-lOSS 3.4~~
TABLE III-6
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
82.00 84.00 8ue BUD 92.00 94.00 97.00100.00101.00104.00106.00 10B.OO 110.00 111.00112.00114.00115.00116.00119.00111.00
86.50 88./1 9~.7Z 91.88 qUS ol.il 102.32 IC5.49 10'.59 109.'0 111.81 Ill.l; 116.03 117.09 118.14120.25121.31 112.36 12~.53 128.69
114.5~ 116.;0 118.BI 121." 125.14 127.25130.41133.58 m.68 iF." 13'.90 142.Q1 144.1/ 145.IB 146.23 148.14149.40110.4515).62156.78
8.B5 0.00 O.NI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO IB.95 O.OC 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 24.30 0.00 UO 0.00 1~.30
8.85 B.85 US B.B5 8.85 ~.35 B.85 8.B< ?85 27.80 27.80 27.80 17.80 2:.80 27.BO 51.10 52.10 52.10 51.10 76.40
82.55 82.,5 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 8i.55 63.60 63.6~ 63.;~ 63.60 6'.60 63.60 39.30 39.30 39.30 3'.30 15.00
32.04 34.15 36.26 39.42 42.5 9 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUO 0.00 15.00 UO 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.78
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 75,00 75.00 '5.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 141.78
114.5' 116.7U 118.81 121.17115.14132.55132.55 157.55 157.55 138.60 163.60 163.60163.60163.60163.;.0164.30 1'4.30 164.30 164.30 156.78
:OB.63 110.61 i12.63 115.63 1IS.63 125.66 115.66 149.16 149.36 131.3 9 151.09 151.09 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.76 155.76 155.76 155.76 148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.30 1.14 13.97 21.8 7 0.81 23.7e 21.59 )9.48 18.42 17.37 15.'6 14,90 13.85 10.68 0.00
397.00408.00419.00433.00447.00462.00476.004'0.00 499.00 508.00 517.00 526.00 535.00 542.00549.00 )55.00 562.00 568.00 581.00 594.00
411.1' 422.58433.97 448.47462.97 47B.51 493.01 5D7.;1 S16.B3 526.15 535.47 544.90 55 4.12 561.)7 569.62 57'.8j 582.08 588.30 601.76 615.23
""''''''''''1'1111111111111111'11111''111'1'111111111.,II,I., •• I'tnl,III""flf".I"III"I'I",f"IIIII'I, .... 4".1" •••••• ,., ••••••• ,"' •••• '1' •••• '''.11.1'1 •• 1'1'"llln"IIIIIIIII"nll
GENERATICN PlA/, FOR em OF SEWARD
PEAK DEHA'IO '. >tJ 1
:'. Q> KEtf\1 PBIiNSULA PEAK 7.m.
"~4"D IN[l. IIET RESERVES OF I .9i HI
CAP. INCL. SHA~E OF NET SU~PlLlS ':~4)
e>'EqS', SALES ! ~H)
ENE',' ~uvEP1ES F~IJ'! GAS (1lI~:
,HE?G" "[1'ERATl!J" -GAS (l<IH I lOSS= 5. OO·.~
:[l<PCN~1T .1
r<EW r~Bnmi n:lE GAS TLlPBINES
'[1,0", SflARE 0> CAPACIT' ADOlTIlNS IHII
:_~OIJ1Ai.. ec's! ;'OD(:, 6-::7"t,i
iW£w~S1 ~,'::~:~~G CiJ~5T~UCTJCN (IOOG \ 8. 76/ti.J
~ij4t~~~~%liJ,j (AP1TAl COST <"000; 621,/'1,.\
:tHEijt";-:-DI]lllNG CCt~q~lIC-T!(N (IOODI 8,['3/~~
,:-L .... ~-~;. .... ;'}E c~PQcr;·i il-t,;;
i~(s:~L~Er: (t.~~C:7y I~j
T~ANStj:::,I(t~ :~~t-4 1-1C'~f.l.'!'t...l-"~~ In,2C
f'iE"! SS .... "U.t[1 '~APi.l(!~l 1,rt..iJ :';L05S = 8.00
P(I"'"P,ffI'1;,. 8~EPlj,-Gtt,jERA:E't, C4.J~
t:("",.iAL €~JEcG' :ENE~4T! (tl (~K
: _ ;:: ~~ s .~~ .... ;:,
:, ~ _ --:-,1-' -.... ,
:,.:.. ;:: -,~ ~. __ : ll'or·)
-·~t~;;~.t,~.-.1 ,r'~"'~I'
5.~O 6,00 6.20 6.40 6.60 6.BO 7.00 7.2' 7.40
!.25
'1.32
1~ .Bl
j),60
7.50
'.21
Q .42
, .47
~e., 20
7.70 '.80 7.90 8.00 B.IO B.20 8.30
7.22
10.22
11.24
42.30
8.40 8.60
7.247.23
10.32 10.51
11./7 11.25
42.80 43.80
B.80
7.21
10.71
10.72
44.80
7.20 7.14 7.21 7.19 '.Ii 7.23 7.22 7.10 7.21 7.22 7.18 7.21 7.21 7.19
;.3~ i.n e,12 8.32 8.52 B.72 B,Ii? Q.:2 q.62 9.72 9.82 9.92 10.0, 10.12
7.82 7.92 8.12 B.12 8.52 9.0B 9.0 7 l'l.'1 11.24 11.2' 11.15 ILlS 11.21 11.21
38.90 JUo 40.30 40.80 41.30 41. :)0 2UG 30.70 3UG 32.50 B.60 34.60 ]~.80 36.11)
IU~ 3G.7n JUO 12.'0 13.6D 34.60 35.BO lU:) LiD 18.2': 38.10 39.60 4L?Q 4UU 41.30 4U, ".]0 42.80 43.80 44.80
31.47 32.32 33.16 14.21 35.37 36.42 17.68 38.B4 3'.58 40.21 ,n." '1.68 42.'2 42.95 43.47 44.00 44.53 45.05 46.11 47.16
SHEET 2 OF 3
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
o 0 0
o 0
o
~
o ,0~ ~ .0(, 0, DO 0 .00
ue 0.01 un 0.00
1l.OG (' .(ir, 0.0[, e ,00
n,~D ;:I.:}r 0,00 O.D~
n.'!"") 0.0[: [1,00 [I.r'o
o ,I~Q ~ • Q(: 0 ,11(1 0 • CO
0.fl(1 D,OO O.G~ s.on
0.00 3.61 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.64
2445 C 121, r 0 1219 0 0 C D 12/9 0 0 0 li8S 0
32 ° 16 O!; 0 II 0 0 0 23 0
1240 1117 0 III' 0 1117 1638 0
2' 14 14 0 14 21 0
0.00 3.61 3.61 S.4i 5.4: 5.41 '.2\ '.21 7./1 7.21 7.21 9.01 '.01 '.01 '.01 Il.6S
0.00 3.61 3.61 5.41 5.41 5.41 7.21 7.21 7.21 7.21 7.21 9.01 9.01 9.01 9.01 11.65
·~.cr )0.81 36.82 55.18 <5.18 5<.18 73.54 '1.54 73.54 7:.14 7).54 9i,QO 'L90 '1.00 91.90118.83
o,r); 3.32 3.12 4 .• 8 '.'8 4.'8 6.;] I.,] 6.63 , .. '1 6.61 8.21 8.29 8.29 8.19 10.'2
0.00 10.0: 10.01 21."' ;'U4 21.8' 33.66 33.66 !l.66 33.66 13.6/ 45.49 45.'9 45.49 45.49 62.83
0.00 1.98 ,.,.) 21.'3 21.') 21.0] 31.66 )).66 23.66 33.6. 33.61 ·4].04 43.41 41.77 44.4; 47.16
0.00 1?,4e 9,43 2r.-~,j 2'::,7.1 lC,~ol 31.98 31.98 3: ,Qe JI.Q8 jJ.Q8 4n.80 41.24 41.59 42.24 44.80
0.-'5 I] ,-,IS 0 . 75 (i • 7~ J . '5 0 . 75 (! • 75 ~I • ~5 G ,75 0 . :~ 0,71 0 . 72 G .72 0 .71 0 .56
I!i .... l 1!2,~: Ql.<lJ j;.JJ ::"'d ~J~ '-; ·(hl.::-: \a.:,r .... ~Jd.['~ ~J.!,O~ ~Bd.?2 i~5,?~' ~8".n lQ8.31~, l~j.84
,7Q 3.8 0 4.:)0 ~.\1 11.23
ol\~ lJ~,v ~~:? 15';'-\'~~
-'n -.,
,
I;I)4PIJIElIT .2
EXISTING 'jlMPLE C'ClE C .. S TURBI~ES
INSTALLED CAPACll! ',~'
NET I~STALLED CAPAC 17,' (/toll ;: LOSS: 8.00
~EiGY DELIVERIES (g,jH)
ENEPG, GENERAT I ttl (ru~)
'APAC;n FACTOR C!l'1P~NT .2
JI\,l,BLE ~ COS' 'm~' 4.nru"
~EAT RATE (pt48TIJ/ruH I IlOno
FUEL PRICE (Si'~8TUI
FUEL COST ($000)
TIlTAL COST C!l'1PiJIOO .2 ($000)
C!l'1PIJIElIT .3
\)jiIJES CR, -SEWMO TIWI9IISSl~ LItlE
CAPITAL COST ($000)
INTEREST DURING C~STRUCTJ~ ($000'
0!0t4 COST ($000)
SALVAGE VALUE ($000)
,OTAL lOST C!l'1PIJIENT 13 (f080)
TOTAL COS; '.$000'
OPE SENT ~OIfT" TN mODI -1983
Cl~ULATI'JE P. y, TN ($000) -1983
, 1
TABlE I II-6
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
8. ~o 8 .~I 8,8' 9. ~4 9.26 6.26 6.2, .,. ~~ US J.~~ 5,00 4,96 4.91 4. OJ 4.97 3.18 3,21 3.24 3.22 0.00
, .82 !. Q2 B.12 8,31 U2 5. )6 S.75 5.7 8 'S.Bw 4.50 4 .6~ 4.51 4.52 4,54 4.5' 2.91 2. Q5 2,98 2.96 G.OO
29,90 30,70 31.50 32.50 33.60 25.12 26.31 1,.1 ; 16.86 I) .46 I. 'II i .,1 8.31 o.BI 9.31 0.91 1.06 1.21 1.56 0.00
31.4) 31.31 33.16 34,21 ?~. j:l' 26,44 27.11 !: .OJ 17. i5 18.38 -" 8,01 8.75 Q .2' 9.80 0.96 1.11 1.28 1.64 0.00 I,J..
0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 U4 0.48 0.51 0.31 0,)2 0.43 0.1) 0,18 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.03 0.04 ~. 05 n.o6 0.00
154.91 \:,U6 16UO 16UB 17~.~B m.15 \lUi 83.)) 8' ,35 9~:. 4,~ 3~.S~ 3<;. :'3 43,05 45.65 48,24 4.)1 5,49 6.31 9.08 UO
2.77 2.66 2. S5 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.9 7 3,05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3,40 3.49 3,5 9 3.69 J.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4,13
1046 Ion 1015 1191 1231 '20 98' m 66 9 '10 289 31' 366 400 434 44 52 62 81 0.00
i 10 I 1191 1178 1159 1405 1050 1124 J0,~ )56 901 325 366 409 44~ 482 48 58 68 89 0,00
494 11037
3.4C 146.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 250,00250.00250.00250.00250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 25(1,00 250.00 250,00250.00250.00250.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 UO O.DO 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
497 III B3 250 250 25n 250 150 2~n 2~O 150 150 250 250 250 250 150 150 m 250 250
1698 11374 1428 1609 6401 \632 401B \694 175\ 4Jl7 1762 1930 1899 19.4 4397 1994 2054 2120 5682 2306
1m :1 956 1333 1451 5579 1374 33:' 1324 1330 3065 1249 1253 1257 1256 2716 1190 1185 1181 3059 1200
1m 13654 1498) 16m 12016 23390 26707 290l! 29]6D 32425 33674 3492 7 36184 37440 40156 41346 42531 43712 46771 47971
1 l
TABLE II 1-6
BASE CASE PLAN
GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
CLI1'JlATI'.!E PRESENT ~ORT~ FRI)< 100) TO 2~3"
':I)<PIJ~ENT II GRANT LA~E ~'DROELECTRIC
II&" COSTS (tODD)
':'J'Pil~E'{l'2 CCI1BINED CYCLE GAS TllRBi~ES
TR~~ISSI~ LItlE IJ!.I1 COSTS "O~OI
VARIABLE O&M COSTS ':'OOOi
FUEL COSTS (tOOO)
CI)<P~ENT '1 SI~PLE CYCLE GIIS TURBINES
CI)<PIJ~ENT'~ ()AUES CREEK TIW~!l11 SS 1!tI LINE
T~!l1ISSI{Jl LINE IW1 COSTS ,.000>
SUBTOTAL (t000)
SALVAGE VALUE DfTERMI~TICN AND REPLACEl'IENT COST
LtnT INSTALLED INSTALLATI ~ REPLACEl'IENT RET I REl1ENT
eeeT '1
eccT '2
:crr '3
L_Ui
r:r"T
iR"~
"RAN
-;(~.~
"': '1,;;0 ~
TPo.i,
-reT,,'
~' .......
"' liS
II
M2
Ii~
.~
If~
CAPACiTY
(totJj
3,61
I.BO
I. BO
I. 80
2 ,6~
j ,6 1
I.BO
1 ,8'~
I,,,
~ • ",J
YEAR YEAR' EAR
1988
1990
1993
1998
2[102
: .. '.-~ .. ::;:.:
201 B
2020
2013
2"28
2(·3/
2028
2030
2tJ!
2039
20. I ~
20~8
2r50
2053
2~58
20;1
2068
2"(:7(1
2~ ~':i
2C79
2042
2(14:
1236
2100
I B055
2601
'1963
CAPITAL IDC
COST COST
('000) (10001
W5 31.63
121.9 15,77
1219 15,77
121' 15,77
1788 23,1J
2240 28.98
11: 7 I ~ .45
II l' 14.4,
111' 14.45
1;38 21.19
11549 149,6i
RE'LACEl'IENT
COST IN 198)
('000'
76 9
35B
323
m
347
~99
232
210
4027
SALVI>GE SALUAGE
lAALUE IN 1037 ',\.\LJE 1I~ 19B3
('000', (tooo'
815 127
4B8 76
610 95
813 12'
1430 m
16BO 26i
894 139
~77 153
1\ !7 1 '4
164 "
26 0 ) m
: 1 ~82 ~ ~.! j
CALENOf\P lEAR
KEI~I PENI~SULA LOf\D5 ~D RESOURCES
PEAK O~D .:rtll
REOUIRED CAPACITY (til) LOSS= 5.20%
REQ'D CAP. INLL. RESE~JES OF 28.09 til
RETIREl1ENTS (til)
C~ULATIUE RETlREl1ENTS !tili
EXISTING K~I RESOURCES 1982 -91.40 til
~CHORAGE5AIR~KS CAPACITY IJSED (til)
CAPACITY ADDITliJ<5 (til)
C~ULATJUE CAPACITY ADDITlIJlS (til)
TllTAL CAI'j\ClTY (til)
'lET TOTAL CAPACITY (tiI)-LOSS 5.20%
SURPLUS (til)
ENERGY SALES (IJIH)
ENERGY GEllERATJIJl (IJIHHOSS 3.45"1.
TABLE III-7
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
1983 1984 1985 19B6 1987 1'88 1989 1990 19~1 1m 199J 1994 199 5 199, 1997 199B 1999 2000 2001 2002
82.00 84.00 8,.00 89.00 92.00 94.00 97.00100.00102.00104.00106.00108.00110.00111.00112.00 114.00 115.00 116.00 119.00 122.90
86.50 88.61 90.72 93.88 97.05 99.16102.32 105.49 107.59 109.70 111.81 113.92 116.03117.09118.14110.15111.)1 111.36125.53118.69
114.59116.70118.81111.97125.14 w.n 130.41 m.~8 DU8 13?79 119.90 142.01 144.1114~.18 146.23148.34 149.40150.45153.61156.78
B.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.no 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.~~ 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30
8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 us 8.85 9.85 17.80 17.S0 17.80 17.80 17.80 27.80 52.10 51.10 51.10 51.10 16.40
81.55 81.5\ S2.S5 81.55 82.55 81.55 82.55 82.55 81.55 63.61) 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 39.30 39.30 39.30 39.30 15.00
31.04 34.15 3U6 39.41 42.59 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0;00 25.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.78
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 75.00100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00100.00 m.oo 125.00 125.00125.00 141.78
114.59116.70 IIB.81 121.97115.14132.55131.55157.55157.55138.601,3.60 163.60 163.60 163.60163.60164.30164.30164.30164.30156.78
108.63 110.63 112.63 lIS.63 !I8.63 115.66 m.66 149.36 149.36 131.39 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.76 155.76 155.76 155.76 148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oe 5.30 1.14 23.97 11.87 0.81 23.70 11.59 19.48 18.41 17.37 15.96 14.90 13.85 10068 0.00
397.00 408.00 419.00 433.00 447.00 461.00 476.00 490.00 499.00 50UO 517.00 516.00535.00542.00549.00555.00562.00568.00581.00594.00
411.19 411.58433.97 448.47 461.97 478.51 493.01 507.51 51 •. 83 516.15535.47 544.80 554.11 561.37 568.62 57U3 582.08 588.30 601.76 m.23
IfllflfllflltllllllfltfIlIIlIlIlIHIlIIlIIlIlIlItIIlIIIlJl'IIHlllllllllln'UIIIIIIII111111""1""1111'""'111""11111111'"1"""111111""""11111111"'"'1111''''''1''1 .......... .
GENE~AT I ~N PL~ FOR CITY OF 5E1M1~D
PEAK O~D (~) 5.90 6.00 6.20 6.40 6.60 6.80 7.00 7.20 7.40 7.50 7.70 7.80 7.90 8.00 8.10 8.20 B.30 8.40 8.60 8.80
:, Of KENAI PENINSULA PEAK 7.21% 7.10 ' .14 7.21 7.19 7.17 7.23 7.11 7.20 ) .25 7.11 ' .16 7.12 7.IB 7,11 7.23 7.19 7.12 7.24 7.23 7.21
O~D INCL. NET RESEIlVES OF 1.92 til 7.82 ) .92 B.12 8. J2 8.S2 8.71 8.92 9.12 9.32 9.41 9.61 9.71 9.82 9.91 10.01 10.12 10.22 10.31 10.52 10.72
CAP. INCL. SIfIRE OF NET SlIRPL'.1S !tW 7.92 7.91 8.12 8.31 8.51 9.08 9.07 10.76 10.81 9.4 7 11.24 11.20 11.15 11.18 11.21 11.11 11.24 11.27 11.25 10.71
ENERGY 5I>LE5 (~Ii) 29. '0 lUO 31. SO n.50 33,60 34.60 35.BO 36.9Q " .10 '9.20 38.90 39 .• 0 40.30 40.eO 41.30 41.80 42.30 41.80 43.80 44.80
CC/1P~ENT II
(.RiWT LA~E ~lDROELECTRIC
INSTALLED CAPAC]T' 'till 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
DEPEN0f\8LE CAPACITY (til) = 6.60 LOSS: 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 US 6.55 6.55 0.55 6.SS 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55
AlCE~A6E ~lt.\L GENERATlIJl (I)/HI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 15.40 25.40 25.40 15.40 25.40 25.40 15.40 25.40
A'JE~AGE AWl"'~ OELlVE~IES !WHI LOSS: I .80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.94 14.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 14.94 24,94 24.94 24.94 14.94 14.94 14.94
CAPlT AL COST (.000) UO 0.00 3084 115S. 8m 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ImEREST OURH1G ClJl5TRI.ICT)!JJ ItOoO I 104.15 Pa.11
W COST moo, 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 302.00 301.00 302.00 301,00 301.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 301.00 301.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 301.00 301.00
'OTAL COST CC/1PIJlENT II (fOOD I 0 0 3084 11888 B956 301 302 302 302 301 301 3Q2 301 302 301 302 301 301 302 302
ENE~G'i DELlUEP I ES FRCI1 GAS ! [;JWI )9 .• 0 30.70 31.50 32.50 33. ,0 9.66 10.B6 11.96 12.66 13.26 13.9, 14.66 15.36 15.8, 16.36 16.8, 17.36 17.8. 18.86 19.86
ENERGY GE'lERAT]!J' -5<\5 ![~H" LOSS: < .oc:! ?I.·P )2.31 33.16 3'.21 35.37 10.17 11.43 12 .~9 I! ,32 13.95 14.69 15.43 1 •. 17 16.69 P .12 17.74 18.17 18.80 IUS 20.90
•• 1 J 1 • I
TABLE III -7
AL TERNA T I VE PLAN I-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH
AND MARG INAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
CI)IPIJ'Bff 12
NEIl C!I1BINED CYCLE GAS TURBINES
SEWAI!D SHARE OF CAPAC ITY AOD ITI ~S (rtI) 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 3.IB
CAl'ITAL COST (SOOO) 6'711t1 0 0 0 0 1416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2154 0
INTEREST DURING C~STRUCTI~ (tOOO) B.7611t1 0 0 IB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2B 0
'~SI1ISSI(). CAPITAL COS, (tOOO) 62111t1 0 0 0 12~7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1973 0
INTEREST DURING C~STRUCIIIl< itOOO> B ,03/til 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0
ClI1ULATlVE CAPACITY (til) 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 2.09 2.09 2.09 2,09 2.09 2,09 2.09 2,09 2.09 2.09 2,09 2.09 2.09 2.09 5,27
INSTAllED CAPACITY (til) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,09 2,09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2,09 2.09 2,09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2,09 2,09 5.27
T~SI1ISSI~ Il!II (SOOOIltHR) 10,20 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 21.32 21.31 21.32 21,32 21. 32 21.32 21.32 21.32 21.32 21.32 21.32 21,32 21.32 21.32 53.75
NET INSTALLED CAPACITY (rtI> ~LOSS • B,OO 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 I. 92 i.92 1.92 1.92 I. 92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 4.85
PUTENTIAL ENERGY GENERATI~ (IIIH) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.92
ACTIIIL ENERGY GENERATI~ (IJ,IH) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.90
ENERGY DELIVERIES (IJ,IH) 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 19.B6
ACTIIIL CAPACITY FACTOR CIJf'~ENT 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.75
VARIABLE 0lI1 COST (SOOO) 4. 281901H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.46
HEAT RATE (IttnlV9oIH) B700
FUEL PRICE (S!It1UTU) 2.77 2.U 2.55 2.90 2.90 2.90 • 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 1.69 3.79 3,89 4.00 4.11 4.23
FUEL COST (SOOOl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 769
SALVAGE VALUE (SOOO) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ii.oo 0,00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
laTAi. COST CII1PIMHT 12 (S080 l 0 0 0 0 274B 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 4202 912
C!I1P1MNT 13
EXISTING SIMPLE CYCLE Iil\S TUII81NES
INSTALLED CAPACITY (1Ij) B.50 8.61 B.83 9.04 9.26 1.54 1.74 2.49 2.55 2.12 3.01 2.96 2.91 2.94 2.98 2.98 3.01 3.04 3.02 0.00
NET INSTALLED CAPACITY (rtI) 7. LOSS-B.OO 7.82 7.92 8.12 B.32 B.52 1.42 1.60 2.29 2.34 I. 95 2.77 2.73 2.15lI 2.71 2.74 2.74 2.77 2.80 2.711 0.00
ENERGY OElIVERI ES (iloIH) 29.90 30.70 31.50 32,50 33.60 9.66 10.86 11.96 12.66 13.26 13.96 14.66 15.36 15.Bd 16.36 16.86 17.36 17.B6 18.Bd 0.00
ENERGY 6ENERATIIJ' (111M) 31,47 32.32 33.16 34,21 35.37 10.17 11 ,43 12.59 13.33 13.96 14.69 15.43 16,17 16.69 17.22 17.75 IB.27 IB.80 19.85 0.00
CAPACITY FACTOR C!I1P~ENT. 13 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0,44 U5 0.75 0.58 0,60 0.75 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.65 0,66 0,6B 0.69 0.71 0.75 0.00
I.iIRIABLE 0M1 em (SOOO) 4.921WH 154.91 159.06163.20 16B.3B I74.0B 50.05 56.27 61.97 6~.~9 6B,70 72.33 75.95 79.5B B2.17 84.76 B7.35 B9.94 92.53 97.71 0.00
HEAT RATE iHH8TU/tJlH) 12000
fUEL mCE (\lItInUl 2.77 2.66 US 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3,5, 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
FUEL COST (SOOO) 1046 1032 1015 1191 1231 354 407 461 502 539 5B4 630 677 719 763 807 B53 902 979 0.00
TUTAL COST C!I1P(JiENT 13 SOOO) 1201 1191 117B 1359 1405 404 464 523 568 60B 656 706 757 BOI 847 895 943 995 1077 0.00
C!I1!'IJ'ENT 14
IJIIJES CR. -SE'oIARO TIWl, ISSI~ LItlE
CAPITAL COST (SOOO) 494 11037
INTEREST DURING C(JisnU( ill< (sOOOl 3.40 146,09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116M COS, (tODD) 0.00 0,00250.00250.00250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00250.00
SALVt>r,E '»cUE mOQ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I~ .00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
,UlAL COST C!I1P~E11i .4 10001 49' III BJ 250 m m m m m 250 250 2SO 250 m 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
TUTAl COS, (SOOO' WB 12374 4512 13497 1335B 977 1037 1096 1141 1181 1229 1279 1330 1375 1421 146B 1516 156B 5831 1464
PRESENI YORTH IN (1000) 1ge3 1698 119~6 4212 12174 11641 B23 944 B61 867 B67 871 876 BBO B79 B7B B76 874 874 3139 762
ClI1UIJ'TJ'JE p. W. IN 'lor 1183 1698 13154 17966 30040 416BI 42504 4314' 4420' 45075 45942 46BI3 47689 49570 49449 50326 51202 52077 52951 56090 56B51
TABLE III-7
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH LOW LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
:4lENr.op 'EM
IiE'~' PEN!NSULA L~V5 AND RESOUP,E,
PEIL:P£~ [APA[rrv \!1.;1 L05~ ~.2e·~
~~~ C' ~AP, "1::~' :ff-;EP.'JE3 ~F t8,~'; t<1J
:..:: ... ·;,)PlE"ffS ;l4',,:
E,,: ;~:'j':, hPl<4: .E'~UP(E5 1182 91,40 Hi
.:...v .. r~~Gf ':,j:~8A'"~i'_: :':'PAC1 T',! USED ,· ... Ii
')\:O:A~;~' -:::',:-::~.; '~I
:i~~::~r4:!~'E (APil{;n ,:,~(Jil1(l'~S (H,./I
10TAl ",PA(i"' (iii'
'~t :~~~l :AP':'CiTi n4JJ-lOSS S,20~1,
SLlk"P:.~I'; it{.;)
pjE.,j~ 'il'lE, (Bo/H)
ElH,1 GE'jEAA;!'" lBo/H,-lOSS 3.45"1.
TABLE III-8
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL GAS
PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
8dO gU') gUO lQ,J[ ?,.~O 94.00 ?7.'" 100,00 :02,nn 104.00 ;0;.00 IOUO m,ro 111.~O 11.00 14.00 15,0" lun 119,00 121,OD
;l{-,5~ :~.!": QU,i? 01.89 ,~'5 00,t6 ~~2.32 l',t;,.J>? 1:~'-: :'~ 10~,-:~: 111.91 l!3.9? ::t)? IP.~? 18,14 20.25 21.31 22,36125.53129.6 9
114,:c-lH.":':; liS,8! ~2Lf"' 12:,;<1 ~~~,~~ ~Jl1,41 t13,~8 :~;"'8 !37,'O 139,90 1112,~!: 144,12 \4S.i8 46,21 48,34 41,4f~ 50.45153.62 ;56.78
L,' UU B.D'1 D.00 un o.eo ,,00 UO UG :a.?' O,PO UO [1,00 0.00 iUO 0.00 0,00 24.JO
~,B~ :;,Q~ 8,95 U~ U'\ ~.~5',85 8,85 8.B~ 2:,~~' 27.8n 17,80 2',,0 l',~ry 2),80 Sl.IO 52,JO 51,10 52,10 ;6.40
81,55 a,,55 82.55 ns, nss 8US 81.55 S2-5S 82.55 ~',60 ,;1,,50 61,.', ;;.60 6l.60 '3.6C 39,30 J~.30 J',3Q 39,30 15.00
n,24 34.\5 16,26 3~.42 42.~9 r,.~D
UB ~,oo U[ O,OC :","0 0.00 15,~" O.Ol 0.": 25.5'; o,~o 0,00 0,00 UO 25.00 0.00 0,00 D,OO 16.78
UQ V,;)O o,~o 0,00 SUO jO,f)O 75,00 75.~O '5.'~ ;00.'0 :ou,o 100.00 100,00 10UO m.OD !25,00 11~."" 125,00 141.'8
114.5< 11'.70 118.BI 111.91 125.14 132.55131.55 157.55 1~7.'5 136,<0, ~63,e[' 16),61 163.00 163,60 163,60 164.30 164.JC 164.30 164.30 156,78
118,;) W:.6) !IU, 1]5,63118.63 \25,6.125,66 14U6 149.36 j,! ,)1 :~5-,]9 155,01 155,09 1S5,09 m,09 155.76 1'i5,76 155.7~ 155,'6 148,63
~.OO O,OD 0.00 UO 0,00 5.30 1.14 23.97 lUi O,S! 23.70 11.59 IQ,4' 18,41 17.37 15.96 14.90 13,85 10,68 0,00
397,'~ 40UQ 4j9.0Q 433.00 447.00 462,00 476,~O 490,00 419,00 ~OB,:O 5J7,~O :1HO 53~.OO S4l,flO 549.09 555,00 561.00568.00581.00594,00
411,11411".433,07448,47462,.' 41Ul 413,0\ 507.51 510.8351 •. 155'<,4' 544,9(' 554.11 56!.37 568.61 574.83 582,08 58e,30 601.76615,13
' .... Uf'.' ..... uuuHunfUU'Utfl'UHfuuuf.*nn ... ***uuf*tJiUUfn ....... HHfU,IHUHHfn",U,fHUUI"""""UHfUUflllln.t'UfttUUHtfIUJU'"ffHnlllunn,nu
GENERA; I [Jj Pl~ FOP cm 0< SBIARO
PEAi [)E'WtO ,~)
'1. Df ~PjQ] PENlNSllLA PEAi 25 ,Un~!
D~O INC" 'lET PE~E""!'S OF 6.65 IfIj
Ct.P, INCl, S""PE Of NE; SURPLUS ,'liIi
ENEQIJi SALES' WH:
ENERGY DEll'JER]ES FRI)< !lAS LBo/HI
EIlERS, 'f';ERATII)' -r"" ,WHl lOSS. 5,00i.
cI)<P[tiE'H .1
;~EW :?lBi'~ED ('felE GCoS TU~BJt~ES
:,,1I>P,1 ,!lAPE OF c;.1'4[1"', ~[)[)ITI(J'IS (lill
~Aoi-:~l ~CSi ''Ir,0i'' 677/1'\.1
;rfrfOE:T OUP!!i~ ['].{~,"PilCT!!l~ ''1000) S,'6Mt1
-PANS"13S)1, [4Pj"4l C05T ·:i~n0\ W,1iI
:t~~::OE;T ~U':;'K' C'lFro~:~T~Ct4 '.iOUO'l 9.03,'t1"J
S~t-\i':~~:j;Jt ~APr:.[PY ':rt.l.l
;·tSTALLE[' CAPACii ' \'tJ)
'PAN;'1ISSlrtl (\~" (.1~0.'!1;~'.' IU~
'4ET H~:,"'AU .. ED CAPAC[;'I . ..,.,.~ :~L']SS::: ~.;:r
?orpiTiAL El<ER8V GPlERATIl'li 1i>J~i
~~-~i.. €NEPIj" GE1~EQQ::(tf ~.a~IJ,1
~1tW~i [iLJ,iEPI:; . ~)wo.l
rlCT ~l Ct.P:.( j1" ::A;:"'~~' C~Pi}4EW tI:~
14/:i'~BlE ~~f,~ [['C1" • t!~'8' 4.25:/:JJ~
"Et.T ~""t ;~~i'.!.<~vY' ~-~'1
~IJL :;;1~E 'l!"+Cg .... ··
;:'\ <,E ':"'l5 -lOUL
TOTI4L ~~:;-=~,"";Ff;nr.-.:;C
IUD 2UO 21.60 lUG 23.00 23.70 24.40 2S.10 15.?0 26,10 ,un (1,10 )7,70 28.0D 28.30 2UO 29.90 29.10 30.00 30,90
1).19 15.00 15.12 25.0. 25.00 25,21 15,15 25,10 25.10 15,;0 15,0; 25.09 25.18 25.23 25.17 25,09 2'.i.13 25,11 15.11 15.25
17,95 1',6' 28.1' 2B.95 21.65 )ry,): 3L05 3US 32.35 32,15 33.15 33,15 34.35 34,65 34,95 35.15 35.55 35.85 36,65 37.45
1','6 i7.6i 28.2, lB,Q5 29.66 31.61 31.56 ]:,54 37.54 )'.;5 39,87 39.B' 39.9 7 JUi 31.07 39,04 31 ,0 9 J9,14 39.19 37.45
57.30101,50110,40113.'0117.60121.30115,10121.20111.;0 ;.33,'0 DUO 139,80 141.l0 143.nO 144,10 146.40 14B.20 150.00 153,40 156,10
57.30107.50110,4,113.90111,60 12l.30 115./0 129.20 ]31.60 m,9o 136,3(: m,sr, 141,lO 143,00 144.70 146,40 149.20 150.00 153.40 156,90
.0.31113.11 116.21 119,89123.1' 117.,e 131,11 136,00 118,53 140.'= 143,47 146,11 149.14150,53 152.31 154.11 156.00157,89 161,47165.16
O-UQ 0.00 UO 12.50 0,00 6.25 0.00 0.00 ;.15 UO o,ao ~,OO 0,00 6.25 0,00 0,00 0.00 9,46
o 9467 ° 4134 0 0 4234 0 0 0 [I 4134 ° 0 ° 6407 °
110 0 55 0 0 55 ° ° 0 55 0 0 0 83 0
"58 0 3979 0 0 387' ° 0 ° 387' 0 ° 0 5870 °
u ;00 0 50 0 ° 50 0 0 0 5D 0 0 0 76 0
0,00 0.00 0.,,1 UO '.CO 11,50 11.50 18,75 18.15 18.75 25.00 15,00 25,OQ 15.00 25.00 31.25 31.25 31.25 31.15 40.71
0.00 UO [;,-1<1 0.00 12,~0 11.50 18,15 1$.75 18.75 25.00 25,00 25,00 2S,On 15.00 3L15 3L15 3L25 31.15 40.71
0,00 0.0r, o,on 0,00 LOO !l7,51 12'.51 I,) ,1' 111.27 IOU) 255,Dl155,01155,01155.02 255,02318,78319.78318.78318,'8415,27
0,'10 0,00 0,00 0,0': lLGO IUD !1,50 \7,15 ;1,25 1',25 13,00 23,00 13.00 23.00 13,00 28.15 28,75 28.75 28.75 1'.46
L~') un O,O! O-D~ un 34.61 34,61 7U8 15,68 15.68116,7411'.7411,.74 W.74 116,74157,81 157.BI 157.81 157,81 219.96
o.,V} r.Q(: ':,C-Q ~4 .. q ?4.~1 ~5.~e 7:,,~8 7~,68 1;6.74 116.74 :16.74 116,'4 ~1.~,74 !~O.52 151.93 1~3.31 ~5S,44 165,16
~.f:~ O.~~I O.OG Jl.@~ 32,29 .. 90 ::.811 'Lev 113,9(' 11Q.QO l!f.?(' 11;),110 110.90 142,?~ 144.33 145.601 14',67 156,9D
O,7~ 0.75 (1,75 ~,:S i],~~ O.7~ 0,:: 0,;5 0,75 0.75 G.72 0.72 0.13 0.74 ~.~e
r,,(,c, ';,('0 O,~[f 148 148,2),89 32J.!' n3.S' 49',,5 490,65 4".65 490.65 4QO,65 644.23 650,26 ,56,17 <65.18 7M.8S
~,~1 2,.~6 2,S~ l,~f\ 2_~O 2.90 2,'1) 3.05 3.14 3.22 ],,3! 3,40 3.4g J.S9 3.69 3.70 3.89 4.00 4.11 4,23
r:"'l? a:4 2"'r 2L22 ~3f? !4~,3 :~4'5 .3646 r.l9 ~~t,3 '5!42 ~n~ ~~SB 60'S
-. :1: ,'';"'1 ~:,'1 I))G I).rl(~ Il,~'!f< ",,",! 1,00 G,O,~' r,oo V/IQ :),90 D.OCt ~,oo
;6':?:' !;4'; :.~:-252$ ):::;.:" :[..?:;~ <!:18 42(;B 42¥'; J40i 12?20 S926 6111 1210 18i;":'~ "!2Gl
Cttlf'ruM 12
ExISTING SIMPLE CYCLE GAS TURBItlES
INSTALLED CAPACT, (r\ll
ItET ItlSTALLED CAP4Cm (r\ll '1. LOSS: U~
ENERGt DELIVERIES (I).iHJ
ENERr,' GENEI1ATI{N ((>.IH)
WACl', FACTOR C~P(];EN1 12
WlPlABlE 0I.t! rOST .: 10UV) 4. 92l!JIH
~EAT RATE 'ItI8TU/!JIH 1 12060
FUEL PRICE (t·fflBTUl
>UEC COST (1000 \
TOTAL COST Cl'I'IPruENT 12 (tOVO)
CttIf'ruENT Il
MVES (R •• SEWARD T~!I1ISSI(ft UNE
CAPITAL COST (tODD)
It(fE~EST DURING CImTPUCTI(ft (tOOO)
0I.t! COST (1000\
SALIMIG£ IMIlUE ($0001
TOTAL COST CIJ1~ENT 13 (tOOOl
TOTAL COST moo)
PRESENT WOI1TH IN itOOO) .
CUNUL'HivE P. W. IN (tODD)
T
1983
1983
TABLE III-8
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL GAS
PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
19.52 J0'06 30.71 11.47 32.23 21.96 21.BI 22.05 n.05 17.0. IUS
17.9. 27 ... 29.26 29.'5 2>.6/ 2II.1I 20.06 20.29 20.29 15.69 15.87
57.,0107.50 110.40 113.~0 117.60 ~.42 92.31 57.31 59,71 .2.01 2S.40
17.25
15.87
27,90
6U, 1!3,16 116.11119,89123,79 93.08 ".18 60,32 62.B5 65.27 26,73 2Q.3'
0.35 0.43 0,43 0.43 0.44 C. 49 O.Sl 0.11 0.33 0.44 0.18 0.19
17.3. 17.41 Ii .47
15.97 IU2 IU7
30.40 32,10 33.BO
32.00 33.78 35.57
0.21 0.22 0.23
296,87550.96571.99590.12609.29458.12478.32 296.92 309,35 321,27 131.57 144,53 157.4B 166.29 175.10
2.77 2,66 2.55 2.90 2.90 2,90 2.97 3,05 3,14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69
2005 3612 3556 4l?2 4308 3239 3464 2208 2368 2522 1062 1I9B 1340 1455 1575
23112 4169 4128 4762 4917 3697 3942 2505 2.78 2843 1194 1343 1497 1m 1750
494 11037 0
11.18 11.23 11.29 11.34 0.00
10.28 10.33 10.lB 10.43 0.00
3.41 3.87 4.36 5.73 0.00
3.59 4.07 4.58 •• 03 0.00
0,04 0.04 0.05 U6 UO
1'.65 20,OJ 22,57 29.70 0.00
3.79 3.89 4.00 4.1l 4.23
163 189,99 2211.07 297.58 0.00
IBI 210.02242.63327.28 0,00
3.40 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0,00 0,00250,00 250,00 250.00 250,00 250.00 250,00 250.00 250,00 250,00 250,00 256,00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250,00 250.00 250.00
0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
497 11183 256 256 256 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 258
2799 15352 4378 5012 21602 5696 13579 5278 5510 13946 5561 5800 6047 62'3 14720 6357 6571 6803 19556 7450
2799 14B33 4087 4521 18825 4291 11047 4148 4184 10m 3942 3973 4002 4011 9094 3794 3789 3791 1052B 3875
2799 pm 21719 26240 45065 49356 60402 04551 68i3S 7P96 7 82910 sm3 90BB4 94B95 IOl989 107783 IllSn 115363 125891 129767
, t I
TABLE III-8
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH AND MARGINAL GAS
PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
\J4PI4BLE O!o~ CDSTS '.m:
TIWI~ISSI~ ,iNE ~ COSTS "000)
r .H. ~OSTS ( .. 000 1
TPANSllISSllJI Ll!IE ~ COSTS ',fOOD'
(Sheet 3 of 3)
;'54
mo
63132
SALUAOE 'Ji>LUE DETEI<!11t¥;T1~ ANO QEPLAC81M COST
'''IT INSTAtLEO lNSTAlLATI~ REPLAC81M PETlQEl1EtIT CAPiTAL IDe REPLAC81tNT SALUAGE
CAPAC~""i y EAR 'EAR 'EAR fDj" reST ':1:3T Pl ; c91 'vlAlUE 1~~ 2037 '}AlUE !N iQ 0 3
'1j, 'HO'l, '100[1' "coo' -ICOOl ' tr·~!)'J
eel' _I 12,50 20lS 1049 SW IOU5 2663 1822 .40
CCCT .1 6.15 2010 mo 42)4 54,77 1243 1/9] 114
':C[T IJ 6./0 2013 2m 4214 5';.77 I! 21 21P m
U ~, 2~ :':8 !r'5::! 42 1': 5J, :''7 '4' ::~?1 44i
:::' -5 Q,4.:o LI :"-Zf,~l ,,4(-;-'3;: , ~f: ~ 24:· ~, . 2 ~
'RAN -I 11,50 1998 202B 1068 7159 100.]1 173~ 5B18 Qoa
clli>I' I( 6,/5 1~C:·fl 10,0 2~ "'~ ,~70 50, '9 90' ,)0, 484
T;:;.~~ -, ,,?~ \ ~?) ~~3~ 2t'3 1 ~"'1 ;;r. ,;q '!? 2-J~4 !]V
.. ~ ..... ~ •• ~, 2r:: : ;-0', mB :: '9 ;:): ~,; _' 8 0: 3 1871 :OR:)Q .. ~. i~ ; ,4~ 2)~2 '5 _ 9. 58' 91
c\A',iES ,~EEK TRANS_ 1985 2(115 2045 ! 154~ 'J/ ,61 4017 26'15 410
TDTAL 3df\1t £pjiJQ
CAlEN~~ YEAR
~EW>1 PENItlS!JlA LOADS N'lD RESO'Jo,ES
?fjlv Oa<otlO (Mi I
-EOVIREO CAPACiTi <ttl) LOSS: ur,
PEg D CAP. INCL. RESEI1VES OF 2a.o1 H.i
'F)oEl'lEtIT~ '1'1,1
cLI1ULAT IUE RETIREMENTS (ttl)
mSTIN!J KEl¥\1 RES~ljoCES 1992· 91.40 Mi
~HOIb'IGE/FAIR8N'lKS CAAACIW USED (1t41
C .... ll~ AOOnllllS 'Mi)
-ll'UL4T'VE CAPACITY AODlTlltlS ·:Mi;
iOT~~ :uJ)A~Jn ~M,.j\
IIET TOTAL CAPACITY (MiH0SS 5.20'1,
SURPLUS (Mil
£NERVi SALES (9/H'
ENERG'I GENEIb'ITlltl iQlH\·LOSS ).45"1,
TABLE III-9
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
82.00 e4.00 ~6.00 99.00 ¢2.00 94.(10 0-.00 100.00 102.00 10'.00 106.00 IOUO 110.00 111.00 112.00 114.00 115.00 116.00 119.00 122.00
go,50 BlU! 90.72 93.98 97.05 99,1" 101,32105.49 10'.59 100.70 IIUI 113.'lll/.03 m,o. I1B.14 120.25 121.31122.36125.53129.69
1;4,59116.70118.81121.97125.1412'25 130.41 133.~B 11UB 137 .7. 131.90142.011'4.12 ]'5.1B 14<1.23 14e.J4 149.40 150.45153.62156.78
3.95 U~ U~ Q.OU 0.00 0.00 0.00 ry.ro ~,OU 1~.05 U.~O 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 24.30 U1 0.00 0.00 24.30
US 9.85 US 9.85 9.~5 US 8.95 ij.8S B.~5 27.80 2',30 27.90 2'.90 27.80 27.80 52.10 52.10 52.10 52.10 76.40
82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 SUS 92.55 81,~~ 82.55 e2.55 ~3.6~ ~3.60 ~l.6~ 63.60 63.60 63.60 ,9.l0 39.,0 39.30 39.30 15.00
32.04 34.IS16.U 'jO.42 42.59 0.00
0.00 0,00 ~.~o 0,00 0.00 sO.no un 25,00 0.00 UO 25.00 0.00 0.00 O.OU 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 !6.7l!
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 O.O~ ~o.oo SO.OU 75.00 75.00 75.00 !oo.oo 100.00100.00 WO.OO 100.00125.00125.00125.00 125.00 141.79
114.59116.'0 !l9.8112l.97 125.14 132,55 m.ss 15 7 .55 ISi.55 13e.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 164.30 164.30 164.30 164.30 156.78
108,63 110.63 111.63 lIS,63 118.63 m.66 125,,,6 14 0 .16 149.36 131.39 155.09 155.0 0 155.~0 155.09 155.09 155.76 155.76 \55.76 155.76 149.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,000.00 5.30 2.14 23.97 21.9 7 0.81 23.70 21.59 19.48 18.42 17.37 15.96 14.90 13.85 10,68 0.00
397.60409,00419.00433.00447.00462,00476.00 490.00 499.~~ ~oa.oo 517.00 526.00 535.00 5'2.00 549.00 555.00 562.00 568.00 581.00 594.00
'11.19422.58433.97448.47462.97 47UI 49).01 50'.51 Slb,e, 526.15 535.47 544.80 554.12 561.3? 568.62 514.83 5Bl.0B 588.30 601.76 615.23
."u .. , ...... ' •• ""f'UlU.'u .... n ••• uun ... 'uu .... , .. , ... ", •• u ...... , ...... , •• , ............... ,U .............. , ...... U'f'U .... '."nf"'n' ..... "ln'Hflf"''''I'''' .. ''"''''
GEIlEIb'ITlltl PlN'l FOP CITY o~ SEWAAD
PEA~ OENN'lO (Mi.'
'.( OF ~El¥\1 PENINSULA PfAI( 25.00%
0fMAI1O INCL. NET P,ESEI1VES OF 6.65 Mi
CAP. I~CL. <;HA~E OF NET SIJIIPLUS 'Mil
E!lE~G' SALES 'QlH)
C(J4PfMtIT .1
GII4'lT lA~E IIYDQOELECTPIC
INSTALLED CAPAOTY ''U)
~EPE!l!)l\8LE CAPACIT1 (ttl' : 6.60 LOSS: 0,80
OIJEPAl'E .\twol GENERATIltl (9/H)
AlIEPoGE tYtRIAL DELj\}E~IES IQI"' lOSS: 1.80
[Apn~l COST ·100')'
1.,1EoEST Pljol% C[JISTRUCTlIJI ('000 I
~.\'1 COST !lOOO)
Tr1Al (1ST t(l"Pi)ifljT I! 1$0001
ENEPG'f ~IELi~:E~iE; rR(t! C-AS ,:(;..1,"0
E!'EPF' GENEPATI[J, . GAS (~"I lOSS: 5.00~:
,
11.30 21.00 21.60 22.30 23.00 2).70 24.40 25.20 25.'0 26.10 26.60 27.10 27.70 28.00 28.30 28.60 28.90 29.20 30.00 :Ill.aD
13.79 25.00 25.12 25.06 25.00 2S.21 25.15 25.20 25.20 25.10 2S.09 25,09 25.IS 25.23 25.2' 25.0 9 25.13 25.17 25.21 25.25
17,95 27.65 29.25 28.95 29.65 30.35 3\.05 3!.85 32.15 32.'5 33.25 33.75 34,35 34.65 34.95 35.25 35.55 35.85 36.65 37.45
P,95 2'.65 2US 29.95 29.65 31.61 31.56 37.53 3'.~; n.94 38.B' 3B.8' 38.97 39.02 39',07 3°.03 39.08 39.13 30 .18 37.45
57.30 JD7.~0 110.40 m,oD !lUO !21.30 125.20119.20 131.,r; !)PO 136.00 138.80 141.30 143.00 144.70146.'0149.20150.00153.40156.90
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 '.00 7.00 '.00 , .~o 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.011
0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6,55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55
0,00 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.40 15.40 25.4U 25.40 25,40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 15.40 25.40 2S.40 25.40 25.40
0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 24.94 2'.~4 24.94 24.°4 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24,94 24.94 14.94 24.94 24.94
0.00 0.00 30~4 11584 am 0.00 o ,Dt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
~ .00 0.00 0 304 678 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 uo 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.Dll
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00302060302,00302.00302.00302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 301.00 302.00 301.00 302.00 302.00 302.00
~ 0 3094 !l888 SOS6 302 3D? m J~2 )OJ 302 102 302 3&2 302 302 J02 302 302 302
57.30107.50110.40113.10117,60 96,36100.16104.26106.66 10B.96 111.96 113,86 116,36 118.06 l19.76 121.46 123.26 125.06 128.46 131.96
60.32 113.j, 116.21119.99 m.79 101.43 105.53 109.74 112.17 114.69 !17.95 119.85 122.48 124.27 126.06 121.85129.74131.64135.12139.90
.. 1 , I( •
~'t<0(ljE'jT "
ltiJ ;:Or'~;'~'E~ C"":LE G&:; """::'5?j~:
:E"~w~ '=~~E '~r ~~~ilC;Tt '"~[:;-:JJS '!..1JJ
).:;:~.:\L (~~, >-l,'IlD I f':i I"';
;t~iE:;£;; ~,t':;'i\G C~~}-R:!~;;CN ''l~OCj '6.""'1J
n~9'i13S\(t.I \'APfTAL ~1)Si ,-,~~[,. oll 'H"
;r-.f'"~PEjT !Jl!P1NC, CC'JsrrJiJC11Cti 't!}f:ijl ~.:3 '}~j
P,-!iJlA'7iUE CAf.'~I:ITY {!'ti,
:N;-"':'LLED CAPtl[jT't' "J1.fl
TQ"I'~IS,I(N ,"I" ,to"C/lij-{~) 1".2n
~.jEi INSTAlLE[I CAPAC 1 "!", ·M../I ':LCS, = ~,,~I{i
'OTt'fTIAL ENER" OOIEQATi~. 'r"~)
... ~-:j4l 9~EPS; GENEliAl1 Cf~ ~k'
ENERGY OElI')ERIES (!iI<~'
"l~'!"L [AP~[IT"A(T"R (~P(JjE'f1 *2
'J<\QIASlE (l!.I1 (~ST (mOl 4.2ei~j~
"EAT !!ATE ''f1!!TlI/SlHl 8'('"
"VEL PRlrE 111'f1BiU)
Fl'E, CO;1 ,lCOU'
SIIL'JAGE VALUE (~OCO)
TOTAL COST C\JiPr:llE!'f[ 12 (~~o~)
: )'PtNENT *3
8I15TING SI~~LE CYCLE c~s TURSINES
IjET INSTALL EO CAPAC]"~; 'Ii' ',L['35" 8.QO
ENEoGY OEL['.'E oIES '.!iI<I<)
'NEoo" GEllEPATl!Ii '~~I
~AOACT. :"r-,'p ~~P(ljEljT '3
; .... O:i.BLE C~J'I CQS" '1:~);
'M£;.i-ilATE . ,'t4BT1j/GWH'
";El "ICE Iti'i~~TIJl
.: ;)~pjl>~Etr: u
4.'f;ur~~
; ,Q1~
« ••• :.;:~ :~, ,. ~:I4A;:?C T'tt~~1;;5~C!J U~~E
'=APi:-~L (1:5" fiQ:;iq f
iNTEPEST N!PIUf: ((tfST;;lJe:l~~.j 'iOCill
,W< '1,' I:' ':
-~,:a_ :~;~-I: ~;'j
:'~~::::'f;' p~ ·'tr;fp'
0, co
[,11
TABLE III-9
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
0,00
2,66
o
0,00
o
[,00
u .00
2.55
o ,co
o
], yO
o
0.00
(Sheet 2 of 3)
o.er. 7,21
G ,:)0 7,23
0,00 73, '3
o /10 6.~5
0,00 un
Ij,GO O.uC
t .CO O,OJ
C .00
O,GO o.e~
l. '0 1.'10
o
0,00 uo
?sn 74
~,Ol) 4,40 ~.(lO O.~D 6.2~ 0.00 O.oc, ~.~!a 0.:;0 6.l5 (I,no 0.00 0.00 9.46
2e9t> '2:4 (l e 42?4 e t.4Ci
,; 0 0 55 33
2'30 )~7y 0 0 3879 5870
3~ SO (: 5'J (I "?~
'.2) I;.';, 11.,3 IUl 1'.35 P.S8 1',8~ IUS 1'.38 24.13 24,13 2d.13 24.13 335'
,2) :L·') 11.63 lL6J 1'.3& 17.B8 17,98 17,88 I'.B& 14,1) 24,13 24.11 24.13 33.5'
'3." IIS.<1 IIUI lIB.~1 182,H 182.36 182,36 182.3, 182.36 W,12 246,12 24'.12 246,12 342,61
6,,~ IO,'~ lD.;'! I~,'Q 16,45 16,45 1,.45 16.45 16.45 11,20 1l.10 21.10 22,20 30,90
0.00 2B.91 2B,91 18,'1 69.97 6'.,7 69.97 6'''[ 69.97111.04111.04 Ill.04 111.04 113.19
0,00 lB," 2&.'i ,3,'1 09,17 ,?,'1 69,11 69,97 69 ,97111.04111.04111.04111.04138.90
(1.011 2~.d> 2',4, )C,4, 66,47 66.47 </,4' 66,47 66.47105.49105,49105.49105,49 13L96
9.DI1 US ~.'5 0,75 0.75 0.7S 0,75 U5 9.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0,75 UO
a.au 121,-2 :13.'1123.72 299,49 199.49 199,48 199.48 2'9,49 4'5,25 475.15 4'5,25 4'5.2~ 594.50
2." J,05
(I 'I'
MO UO sese lon,
3,14
un
1032
3.22 3,31
8-1£: 2015
1),:)0 0.00
92t9 140)
3.40 3,49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3,89 UO 4,11 4,23
mo 1l2~ 2185 1140 H61 3758 3864 3'n 5112
0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 O.no 0,00
1551 2606 260 10945 43e3 4479 4586 17119 604'
I'.~I iU6 3r,.71 31..7 32.13 1~,01 11.9.\ 21.0~ 22.05 17.06 17.1S 17.25 17,36 11,41 17.47 11.19 11.23 11.29 11.34
1',95 2~,65 28.l5 2~,'5 29,65 18,41 l8.?e 2C.n 20,)' 15,7, 15,01 lUI 15,9' lUi 16.07 10,2' 10.34 10.3' 10.44
57,30107,5011040 !lUO II',;" QUo Ino.1~ 7UO 79,20 91.50 45.49 47.1~ 49,B9 S!.S9 SUS 15,97 11.'7 1',57 22.97
60,32113.16 llUI 11'.81123,79101.41 1U5,53 BO.B4 SU6 65,7; 47,98 49,sa 52.51 54.30 56.0' lUI 18.7! 20.60 24,19
,,~:: 1'\.4,3 f..~? r,<!:<: ~,44 C,:~ ry,~CI ,~2 0.4: [:.~7 O,'32 (!.33 0.35 0.36 0,37 ,:,L" ~,l~ 0.21 n.24
un
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o ,QC 27 •. 9' "6,9. 5"1." 5.r'.12 6CO"O 4".1) <',4~ 3".9? 41",)2 422,242.3<,65245,50259.4526),/6 2'6.06 82.14 92.0 7 101 ,d9 11'.01
2.77 2.66 2.55 ),10 2,'0 2.;n 1,1 7 3,05 3.i~ 3.22 3.31
:'05 ,'.11 1556 41'2 4]DB 2~]~ T6 ' 1141)1 31 4 1 3315 1902
23 1)t 4!oQ ~'Z8 4762 4~i7 4(12v 42el 335' JS52 .'F.P 21l'!
,!OI1 1 HI3 i 0
1,40
2035
L23~
3.49 3.5' 3,69
2199 m9 2494
2459 2606 2760
?:.4C' 14~.09 0 J ~ n
3,S9 4.00
8:) Q99
765 10'0
4.! 1
UQ3
1112
4.23
0,00
0.00
',1~ ~.Ofi 250.~O 250'::'0 150,00 '50.UO 259.5':' /511,')0 250.00 250,,0 2jUO 250.00 250,~0 2jD,JD m,DO 25UO 250,00 250.00 m,QO m,oo
~',i'D '.9~ :~.r~' e,~o O.OD C,QO O,~l' ~,OO 0,00 ~,OO ~.oe o.el!
J?" ; ~ ~ ij? 2~n 2'5(-250 2SU 255 2:;0 2:'~\ :5'1 2':'fi 1~~ ::50 250 250 250 250 250 259 250
1~40 ~?~2 ':'463 j6Q~~ 2362'3 4~::5 lVt~j 4Ql~ ~1 !~. : ?:S? 5)86 5384 5616 5826 142~: 5782 5QQ~ 6228 18QQ2 6601
2'o;..~ ~~33 ,~.?~~ ;~2u4 2~~~? ;1>11 8,,<;, ~8":'5 P~I(\ ~'4~ .~~~-: ~68B ~'17 3"2S ~S~~ 34~1 34'58 34'~ ")224 3433
,
TABLE III-9
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH HIGH LOAD GROWTH
AND MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
ilWl!J1ISS111l UHE 0&!1 COSTS ,$",Q'
\'\:\PIABlE 0&!1 cos's . tOM '
~UEl COSTS (tO~OI
C'I1PONOO .3 SllIPlE CYCLE GAS TUR81NES
TIIIfI!J11SSI0N liNE 0&!1 COSiS ($0001
SUBTOTAL <$000 1
'Jm INSTALLED INSTALLATION REPLACEI>!9I1'
CAPACITY vEAP YEAR
(~I
cep .1 7.13 1988 2018
Celi 12 4.40 1~90 mo
W'T 13 •• 25 1993 2023
cceT a4 6.2~ 199B me
ece' I~ 9.4. 2002 2m
TI14'I I: 1.23 1988 me
Tl14'l 11 4.40 1990 2030
'llA'l IJ 6.25 19 03 2033
'POIl 14 6.25 !098 m~
TPt'.t~ .~ '? ,o!~ nn
:..uC5 c'EE¥ TP~S. :ge~ 2et~
TQiAL
:~~:: C~8rtiED C,{(:~£ C!)'lBUS'TH)~ ""JRprNE
RETI!lt!iENT
'E~P
2048
2050
205J
2058
2062
2068
2~70
2f'7 3
20'8
2042
led~
~ .. "", "7~4'r~": ~.:. _:t;~ ~ ;;,~t"-' ",r:) ,~~-... r'L' E!; ;~10 .:( ~~ ;~~,JE~
139411
3142
3564
6195
53180
2601
20'OB3
CAPITAL IDC
COST COST
PEPLACEffim
COS; It, 19B~
'$000) (tOM) (SODO)
4896 63.34 1540
1980 38.S. 810
4234 54.77 1121
4234 54,)1 944
.407 82.90 1245
4485 58.03 1006
2730 35.32 568
39 '9 SU .19 118
,9?? 50.19 m
~tt"'Q '"It ?.:
11~4' 149.61 40i.i
50142 12611
2152Y
SAl\,\:\GE SAl\,\:\GE
'JALUE IN 2037 V<\I.UE IN t 983
($000' (l0001
1612 m
11 91 1~6
ll17 m
2822 44U
m6 800
3364 525
2184 341
3194 530
3970 605
5~' 02
~5:;1 d20
28992 4524
,
:':'Lt'Nf-AP 'EAP
KEt¥>J PEl<lNSULA LOADS "",0 PESeUnS
PEQUlliIED f}<PAtl-,( (~"f! LOSS= 5.20',~
oE, 0 ClIP. INCL. mEIlIiES no 2!.r'I'i,j
PE~ i RE'<ENTS ,"',
:,iJi!Jl~'IUE Rt'l'f~ENTS .:trt!l
EX1ST]NS KfttOl RESOUQCES 19S2 '1.40 'ti
"",(HQRAr,Eif~IR!W~~S ClIPACITY ~SEO ',~)
ClIPA(jTy ADDITI(J;S (~j
c'.tlUl4T]I}E (ArACITY ADO]TI(J;S (~)
"lJTAl CAP4(i"'l''I' {ttl I
'lET TOTAL ClIPACIT't (~)-LOSS 5,20',
SU~PLUS (~"
""EPr,,' ""LES (!),1M)
ElfERS' GENERAT]!:!. '~H'-lOSS ),45"':
TABLE III-10
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
11,'f, 9'.00 301.06 gUr noo ".~a 17.00 IM.OO 102.D0 104.00 1'0.')0 1',e.00 :" "e 111.00 !ll,Qn !14.~0 115,,3 11 •. 00 I!UO 122,00
Bt.50 BE,61 9r.:£ n.se O""e5 ~Q.i6 1~'2.311C~,49 t~~,=:; !G';.7D 1:1.811::32 li6,Q 11"'1.~·~ 1l~,!4 12L2S 12i.31 122.·3'; 12~,53 129.69
114.5.116.'0 lIS,SI i21.;' 125.:4 J):,2; ]';1:.41 m.ss 135.68 :3 7.'9 1'9.9014,.0: 144.11 j4S.lg 146.23 !4B.34 149.40 150.4; 153.62 156.78
3.95 VO 0.00 c.OD 0.00 G.O~ 1.~' UC 0.00 :e,~~ O.rr :,va 0.00 u t, ~.OO 24.30 0.00 de 0.00 24.39
US ~."5 e.~5 B.85 S.65 \1,85 S.PS 8.91 203, ::.BO ,':,0 1'.lO 27.80 2',SO 27,80 51,10 02.10 51.10 51,10 76,40
81.55 81.55 Bl.55 BUS B2.05 82.55 81.5< 82.55 81.55 <1 •• " 6),6(' 63.60 63.60 6UC 61.60 3Ut 39.30 ~9.30 3UO 15.~O
31,~4 ".15 ),.26 39.42 41.59 0.00
0.00 [.00 UO Q,OO 0.00 50.00 0.00 lUO UO 0.00 15,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.78
Q.OO 0.00 0.')0 UC 0.,)0 50.00 50.00 71.00 75.00 '5.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 lOUD 125.00 125.00 m.oo m.oo 141.78
114,59 !ie,'O llUI i?!.¥7 115.14 m.55 132.55 157.55 !S'.S' 138.601,3.10 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 164.33 164.30 164.30 164.30 !56.78
1~~,lJ 110.6) 112,,11l5.6~ m.B 115.66111 .• ,149.1'14'.36 ill.l"' 155,0 9 :55.0? 155.1,9 ISH' 105,0' 155.'1155.76155.75155,76148.63
D.OO UP UP un UP 5.30 2.14 n17 l!o8' 0,81 13."0 11.<. 19.4~ 18.42 1'.3' 15.96 14.90 13.85 10.68 0,00
397.00 40UD 419:)8 433.J~ 44?~~ 462.00 4'6.00 490.00 m.nD 508.00 517.00 526,00 m,oo 542.00 ,49.00 m.oo 562.00 56S.00 S8l.00 594.00
411.19412.58433." 448.47 461,<7 418,5! 493.01 5,',5: 516.8; 52 •• 15 535.4' 544.80 054.11 561.37 56B.62 5'4.83 582.0B 5B8.30 60!.76 6l5.[J
.'*".tl" ........... '*"IH.U* .. Ht ....... * •• Ht ..... nttu.tu.uu ..... , ............ UII' .... IIU ••• " ...... II • ..,II ....... 'III.UlU.II ....... IU ........... 'n ...... *IUI ...... 'I ..... 'I"' .. III.
~ENEr.lAT1(t( PLttJ ~o~ 2:-{ ~t: SF~Rli
P~A~ CEMtliD '.1'44;
:, C' ~El¥>1 PENINSULA PE~~ :6.46;,
Ofl'W;[) 14CL. NET QESE!lVES OF 4 .1~ ~
)'tP, iNn. ,!.;ARE IJ!: N8 SlJRPU!S ~l
E~~Pi5~ SALES \'~Ii)
2~tIiG! fltL:'JEP1ES I=IUJ"I GAS 'l~H t
t'-IE~\J'i GtNERAT:.14 C~S' illH' "~~S~ ~ .l'J~'.
; [t1P:llEli T 11
'",;I t'J'E;'jE, rnE :>15 1i,1QSiNEI
;E\JAPO S~~E ~~ C4P~C\7, .:.~ ~< .. : '1; . "1.ll
; t·n·~~EST :\JRj~,jG ~~t'ifi~IJCT[iJi 'i~~~) 2. 76/~
T~.:ti9"!:S~:iJl (Ar:!:AL ~~ST tt~~,~· 62! 'loti
~ W~w:·;-:\'~n~G ~ rt1STQijf 71 (l~ 'tOO[I) tt, rV'iJ
~\J1~'~~""I'.}t C4PACIT-'l ,"'.1 1
!N::; ..... ~_E0 (APc'(lT, '~di
TQ.:J·:~'S:::::~. '1!i~ ,'l!.if!j---~-yt: :C.20
'IE"'" ?~-:;'T ... _.~:: :~PA:;"'I', ,/1", ·.~':SS::: 8,"~
fl':~p.Tl"'. t'~F-"l GB,ERAT:il;
~c; .... t.. ~'~E:;(" ';?El:ij-:'J. ,~ .. !
E'iEP':! N: .. ;'·}EQJE; ').4'"
t"
;":-tI' t~··
~"Q 13.80 )4.20 14.60 IS.:O 15,60 16.00 \6.50 I.,go 1'.20 17.50 17.30 18,20 18,40 rue 19.80 rUo 19 .20 19.70 2UO
11.", 16.4' 16.51 16,40 IHI 16.60 16,49 k.<C 16.5" 1;.54 16.51 16.48 IUS IU8 16.61 16.49 16,51 !6.5~ 16.~5 16.56
P.98 IB.18 ,8.58 18,9B 1'.43 19.98 20.38 2~,q9 I:.2Q 21.58 ,La8 22.18 22,58 22.7B 22,'8 23.IB lJ.38 23,58 IUS IUS
11.98 lB.18 :e,5, 18.<8 '<.4! 20,81 1~.71 24.62 24.6' 2:.'1 15.sa 25,55 15,62 25,65 25 .• 9 15.67 25.70 25.'4 15.75 24.58
4S.'" '0.0' 72.SU '4.B~ 17.20 :'.'0 81,20 94,9~ 'h.4C 38::0 3',50 91.20 92,)0 93.10 '5.00 96.20 ,',!O 'B.SO 100.eO 103.10
4PO )~.60 -2,59 '4.q~ ".2n ",70 Bur 84.'( B6.4Q ~B,00 8'.50 91.20 'UO 93.90 95.00 96.10 97.30 98.50 lOr.eO 103.10
51.,. "4,J2 '",!2 18.74 ".16 ne' ·".51 :lo,T '0,15'2.<1 '4.21 10.00 07,69 '8,B4 100.00 IOUi !02.42 103.68 106.11 108.53
il, ~0 J .QO 0.1] ,
r
" c o.or 0.00 UG ~,"O
~l.~Q r',~C C,~0 i1,'~il
tl,C~ ~.~'~r ~.Q~
~ J;l)
;;, ~9 0, on ~,'(
'UO 8.23 4.11 O.~O 0,30 4,11 U,: 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,11 n.~o UO 0.00 6.!5
S~7) 0 no 0 1'96 0 1'9/ 0 0 0 4165 0
-2 36 0 3, 0 36 0 54 0
5106 2553 0 2553 0 0 2m 0 3816 °
" J' ~ 33 0), 0 49 0
S.23 8.23 1l.J4 12.34 11.34 11,40 16.46 16.46 16.46 1;,46 lU7 10.S' 10.S" 2U7 26.'2
~,Jf' 2,~3 '~,2? 12.14 12,34 ;2,)4 i~,4~ 1~.4~ !e.,4~ 16.4~ ;6,4! Z!}S'" 20,~" 2~,5~ 2~,57 26.72
8.3,1~ B3,';2 !L~.B9 j25,~-:' l25.9~ ;6'.B, l&-.S~ )6~.85 16.".95 16",85 2C;;,81 20:'.91 20Q,8! 209,Bl 272.~4
:.5:' ",5:' ~;,,~5 1;,1~ ;!,~~-!~_~:! ·~.:4 :~,14 15.14 15,j4 i~,'11 19.~2 ~~,)~ :9.12 24.5~
r'G n.lS ,2.'$ 4<.81 ,~.~, 4'.'" '".;4 "t.B< :6.~4 76.84 76.84 103.87 ~01.a~ !~J.9' ICJ.S7 144.17
22. 22,'7·~ .11.11 4;,81 4Q,Bi "'~.~4 "~.'4 ~~.S4 :~.84 7.S.S4 Q~,n ¢".:: ~JO,yi :}2,2C ~1B,5~
21,~4 ?:,~4 c,n 4;;; 4'.32 "'I~.'!~ "'3.~!) j3.~~ "J,~~ Qj,:]8 ~4,:B Q~.~~ q",'Jq !ry1.111
r., 1~ -. "=' 0.":; '~,"l; ",..,t; e,"'s 1"1,"5 r,'i r:."",? D,n 1'1,"4 ry,t:::6
=:'~.,?~ ::;:',:;. :2?,~~ ~2? ~~ j~~.::~ .:::? 42 ':]7,J~ 4~'~,';~, ~T.42 464,4~
3.12 3. \ 2
1"14 21246
,
C~ENl 112
~(JSTING SIHPlf CYCLE GAS TURBINES
INSTALLEO CAPACITY (tt;,
NET INST4LlED CAPACITY (tt;l :: lOSS: 8.~~
~E~t:' DELIVERIES' ruM>
ENERGi GENERAillJ1 itJ,/ll>
CAP~UTY "~(TOR CrI'PONENl 12
\,lARIA8lE 0ItI1 COSi (tOOO) 4.9Z/ru~
OlEA' AA1E IIt4BTU/ruH> 12000
FUEL POI[E ($/>t1!JTlj'
FUEl [m ($000'
TOTAL COST C(J1PONENl '2 (tODD)
Ctf1P(J1EN1' n
tvtJES CR. -SE\IA~O T~SI'ISS!(tj LINE
CAPITAL COST (SOOO)
INTE~m OU~ING CIJiSTRUCT!1Ji (tOOOl
0ItI1 COST (tODD)
SALVAGE Iil<lUE (tOOOl
TOTAL COST C(J1P(tjENl .3 (SOOO)
TOT4L COST (SOOO)
PRESENT YOPTH IN moo) -198,
C~IJ!ATI'JE p. W. IN (SOOO) -1983
TABLE III-10
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT O~ ESCALATION
( Shee t 2 of 3)
15.20 19.16 20,10 19,63 21.1 I 14.39 14.29 14.42 14.50 11.25 11.34 11.31 11.39 11.43 11.41 7.33 1.31 7.41 7.42 0.00
13.98 18.IS 18.58 19.98 19.48 13.24 13.14 13.27 13.34 10.35 10.44 10.41 10.48 10.51 H.55 6.14 6.18 6,82 6.82 0.00
48.70 10,60 72.St1 '4.80 71.20 59.06 60.56 31.S~ 39.08 40.68 16.50 18,10 19.80 10.90 22.00 2.22 2.52 2.84 3.71 0.00
51.26 74.32 '6.32 7~.)4 91.26 61.11 63.75 39.50 41.14 42.82 Jl.3? 19,16 20.85 22.00 23.16 2.33 2.65 2.99 3.91 0.00
0.39 0.43 0.43 0.44 0,44 0.48 0.51 0.31 0.32 0,43 0,11 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.23 0,04 0.04 U5 0.06 0.00
252.32365,79375.63387.54399.98300.81 313.16194.71 202.49210.17 85.51 94.32 102.61 108.31 114.01 11.48 13.05 14.74 19.22 0.00
2,n 2.71 2.71 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 ),12 3.12 3,12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3,12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3,12
1794 2470 2537 2949 3042 22Bg 2381 1481 1540 1603 m 717 781 82 4 867 87 99.26 112.10 146.21 0.00
1956 2936 2m 3335 3442 2589 21&0 1676 1143 IBI4 736 B12 BB3 932 981 99 112.30 126.84 165.43 0.00
494 11037
3 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0,00 0,00250.00 250.00250.00250.00250.00250.00250.00250.00250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00250.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C .00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.10
m IlI83 250 150 250 2S0 250 250 250 250 250 2S0 250 250 2S0 2S0 2S0 250 250 250
2454 14019 3162 3585 14509 3639 9m 3617 3684 9164 3568 3644 3716 3765 9222 3667 3707 3751 11922 3933
2454 13545 2m ll'l4 12644 3064 7450 2943 27.~ 6724 mo 24 96 2459 2401 5691 2189 2138 20\'8 641B 2046
2454 15999 18951 mas 34929 37B93 45343 481B. 50994 51107 60237 6m3 65192 67599 13296 75485 71623 79713 ami 88m
, ,
TABLE III-l0
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT O~ ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
CLI1ULA11VE PQESEm ~ORTH 10 2QOl '100Q!
VARIABLE Q&M COSTS (1m I
r~SKISSI(U UNE W (OSTS (1000 I
,UEl cnm (t0001
Cll'iP~OO 13 I)I\IJES CREEK 1~~ISSIIl< LINE
SALVAGE VALUE DE1EIIHItIATIIl< ttl!) REPLACB1Em COST
4831
lB30
30647
2001
lIllT INSTALLED 1NSTALLf\11~ REPlACB100 RE1lREl1fIIl CAPPAl IDC REPLACB100 SALVAGE SALVAGE
l'AP4cm Cry,T CD,' :"3" P' I '83 VALUE 1'. '137 \li>lUE IN :'81
'."'...11
CCCT JI 8.23
em ~1 4, I I
C(C~ tJ , .11
~.: .t.::
(( C-'5 ,. .,,, ,
1"RAN I: 8.23
T!><tl _I <t.f!
TRAt'J .! " I
rp~l U , ,
T;AU 1I~ 6.1 ?
(lAUES (P~EI( 1'R~~,
:~~..:.:
1988
1990
1993
1988
!?9A
77J
199~
t~n
I?es
1m
mo
20ll
2~' ?S
~O32
me
(n~
n?
2~' ~6
2ClS
1048
1m
1053
q
li!,1
1068
10"
r;?
21}78
2n4,
lQ'5
!1000! (10001 ,:10001 'Iour, '100[1
5m )(,10 )7~3 1858 190
2786 3US 818 1I1S 174
r!~,~ JUS m 1391 117
J 9~B 2i{'
! ( ~,: 5),S; 8J)? 1.312 510
m, 66,05 1138 3829 598
155~ 11,1}3 531 2042 31 ..
,~:~,? Jl.n? ,7, 123' 349
2:'53 j3,fij 41\'; ~~5j 1Q8
1,11 d:;. Ji 382 '1
!! 549 141; .61 40r '2695 420
':622' 11?! S m'n 3634
IV6/83
CALENDAR YW
kEt¥lI PENINSUlA lDAOS ~D RESOURCES
PEAK llEIWID (It.!)
QE8UlREO CAPACITY (It.!) LOSS= 5.211'-
REO' 0 CAP, lNet. RESEI!VES Of 28.09 It.!
RET] REMEHTS (It.!)
CII4UlATlVE RETlP!!IIffS <It.!)
EXISTING KENAI RESOURCES 1982 -91.48 It.!
(fiCHORAGEIFA I RSHS CAMCITY USED (It.!)
CAPACITY ADD JTI!)jS (!toi i
CIJIUlATlVE CAPACITY IIODllIfJoIS (!toi)
TO"lAL CAI'I1CITY (!toil
Nfl TIlTAl CAMCITY (!toi)-lOSS ~.21r1.
SURPLUS (!toil
ENERGY SAlES (911!)
ENER6V IitNERATl!)j HIIHHOSS 3.4~
TABLE III-11
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
Sheet 1 of 3)
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
82.00 84.00 8UO 89.00 92.00 94.00 97.00100.00 102.00 104.00 106.00 10B.00 110.00 111.00 112.00 114.00 115.00 Jl6.00 119.00 122.00
86.50 88.61 90.72 93.88 97.05 99.16102.32 105.49 107.59109.70 IIL81 113.92 116.03 117.09 118,14 120.25 121.31 122.36125.53128,69
114.59 116.70 lIB.Bl 121.97 125.14 127.25 130.41 133.58 135.68 137.79 139.90 142.01 144.12 145.IB 146.23 148.34 149.40 150.45 153.62 156.78
8.85 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30
8.85 8.85 9.85 8,85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 27.80 27.80 27.80 27.80 27.80 27.BO 52.10 52.10 52.10 52.10 16.40
82.55 82.55 82,55 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 39.30 39.30 39.30 39.30 15.00
32.04 34.15 36.26 39.42 42.59 UO
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 25.00 .0.00 0.00 25.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 16.78
0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 8.00 50.00 50.00 75,00 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 108.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.80 141.71
ll4.59 ll6.70 118.91 121.97125.14132.55132.55157.55157,55138.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163,60 163.60 164.30 164,30 164.38 164.30 156.78
108.63110.63112.63115.63118.63125.66125.66149.36149.36 131.39 155.09 ISS.09 155.09 ISS.09 155.09 ISS.76 155.76 155.76 155.76 148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 5.30 2.14 23.97 21.87 0.81 23.70 2L59 19.48 18,42 17.37 15.96 14.90 13,85 10.68 0.00
397.00408.00419.00433.00447,00462.00476.00490.00499.00 508.00 517.00 526.00 535.00542.00549.00555.00562.00568.00581.00594.00
411.19422,58433.97448.47462.97478.51493.01507.51516.83 526,15 535.47 544.80 554.12561.37568.62574.83582.08588.30601.76615.23
1I**** .... II ..... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfIlIIIlU .. llllllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllllffl"I"IIIIItIIIlIIlII*lIlIlIlIllIllIllfllllllltIIIlIIl1811101l1l1l1**IIUI4I1I1",*,HIIII"1111111111
GENERATJ ~ P~ FOR CITY Of SE\lf\RD
PfAIC llEIWID (!toi)
'< Of KEt¥l1 PENINSUlA PEAK 16.46?
O~D INCL. Nfl RESEI!VES Of 4.38 It.!
CAP, lNeL. S,"RE Of Nfl SURPLUS 'til)
ENERGY SAlES (QjH)
CittI'fJoIEHT II
GII/V/T LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
lNsr~LlED CAPACITY (!toil
DEPENGA8LE CAPACITY (till 6.60 LOSS= 0,80
I¥.IERAGE ~L GENERATI!)j (QjH)
I¥.IERliGE IffilllL DELIVERIES (~H) LOSS= 1.80
Cl\PIT~L COST ($000)
INTEREST DURING C!)jSTRUCTI!)j ($000)
O&M COST ($QOO i
TIlTAL COST CittI'!)jENT 11 ($000 l
ENERGY DEllI/ERIES FRIJ1 I>\S (~H)
v ENERGY GENERATJ!)j -1>\5 (~HI LOSS-5,00:(
i r"
9.60
11.71
13.98
13.98
48.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
48,70
51.26
13.80 14.20 14.60
16.43 16,51 16.40
IU8 18.58 18,98
18.18 18.58 19.98
70,60 72.50 74.80
0.00 0.00 0.08
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 UO 0,00
0,00 0.00 0.00
0.00 3084 !I 584
0.00 0 304
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 3084 11888
70.60 71,50 74.80
74.32 76.32 78.74
'-.'
15.10 15.60 16.00 16,50 16.90 17.20 17.50 17.80 18.20 18,40 18.60 18.80 19.00 19.20 19.70 20.20
16.41 16.60 16.49 16.50 16,57 16.54 16.51 16.48 16.55 16.58 16.61 16.49 16.52 16.55 16.55 16.56
19.48 19.98 20.38 20.88 21.28 21.58 2L88 22,18 22.58 22.78 22.98 23.18 23.38 23.58 24.08 24.58
19.48 20.81 20,71 24.62 24.69 21.71 25.58 25.55 25.62 25.65 25.69 25.67 25.70 25.14 25.75 24.58
77.20 79.70 82.20 84.90 86.40 88.00 89.50 91.20 92.80 93.90 95.00 96.20 97.30 98.50 10D.80 103.10
0,00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7,00 7,00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
0.00 6,55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6,55 6.55 6,55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.SS 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55
0.00 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25,40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40
0.00 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24,94 2M4
8277 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
678 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00302.00302.00302.00302.00302.00 302.00302.00302.00302.00302.00302.00302.00302.00 302.00 302.00
8956 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302
71.20 54,76 57.26 59.96 61.46 63,06 64.56 66.26 67.86 68.96 70.06 71. 26 72.36 73.56 75.86 78.16
81.26 57.64 60.27 63.11 64.69 66.38 67,95 69.74 71.43 72,59 73.74 75,01 76.17 77.43 79.85 82.27
,
-
C~P~BIT 12
-, NELl CIJ1BlNED cy(lE GAS TUPBINE5
SElJARD S'"'PE QI' CAPACi;' "uDI'fClIS " •• ,
[APlTAl (OST 1'000 I ,T"',
:'ITEREST OURItlG C(tJSTPUCICtI IIOll~, ,.76JI!;
TlWiSM1SmN CAPiTAL CO,T 11101' ;,:!t{/
i~ntt:fST vL',PING ((.liS"'fQl!C"";\Ji tiljO· 9,~1?: 'iJ
[!.J11.!Ll-liNE CAPACITy ',tt.li!
lNSTAlLET) C~F"~(JTy 1"',1.
TPl'll9'!ISS![11 IJ&M ItOOOi'"HP' 10.,0
Nt' :NSTALlEO CAPA(IT) (",,', '!'lOSS: 8.~~
POTEtI'"I"l ENERGY GENEPATif'; : ",H I
~cT:.", ENERll' BENEPAT;ltl (~HI
ENEPG' DElI'JEP I ES ,~H
<lCT'JAl CAPAC IT> fACTQR C(}1P(tJBIT *2
'JARIABlE IJ&M COST "000\ 4.29J~H
~EA' RATE (I'MBTU!~H\ 87M
FUEL PRICE Wlt1BTU,
"JEt (OST ('MO I
,..,. ilAlVAGEJALVE 1.10001
TOTAL COST C(}1P(tJE/IT 12 ('000)
C~P(tJENT 13
E'l:ISilNG SI~PLE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
INSTALLED CAPACITY ,H,j)
'IE' mSTALlEO CAPA[.lT, 1H,j\ ',j lOSS: 8.00
fllEPS; :>ElIVI'R!ES '~H)
ENEPG' GENERAT](t1 I ~HI
,'A'''C T, 'A(IOP Cr:I<P(lIENT 11
·"".;.9LE D~ [~ST flOOD'
"~ .• ' OATE'1'18TU1I;i.IHl
-:I]E:.. ;:;PiCE '1;1+IBTl!')
J=:;H CCST (,oo~ I
":,TAL ':DS~ CfHP!:tII'tIT IJ ItOOO'
c~p(J+pn W4
4.9ir1;i.lH
moo
';>": C.'. ' srl.Jll~~, ,!lANSMlsn!:tl :.iN'
CAP"A, (OST ,1000'
:r~;FEST ;:~~Ol~JG i~,)tS''!'P'~ll''"~C;~ ,1:000'\
,~:~s; IQ·'O'
:1·~'"' ... :;E -)Q:JiE rt~lorp
T~:r"'l I:-~'~"t ~"'Df)~gIT U 'UOO'
TnA, rO,T 'm,·
~QE3£"fi ~O~T.I Itt it090 I
:'jO·-.; .. J ..... :·;E ;:. :..:. p; tl0r~l;
TABLE III-ll
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
0.00 o .O~
o .O~
o .co
U,QQ
un
un
0.00
0.00
o .O~
uo
2.77 2.17 {,77
o 0
0.00 0,00 UO
o
(Sheet 2 of 3)
uo
0.00
~ .on
UJ
n. iO
O.M
0.00
o .or
!1.0fl
32t4
42
2954
3B
3.12 3.12
o
0.00 0.00
D 62:2
],12
o
0.00
49
(t, ~O ~ ,lit. ~ .00
312
4
28S
u
4,:1 5.12 5.22
4.76 5,21 5.22
48.55 53.24 ~?,2o!
4.38 4.80 4.80
(.00 U, 3.C2
0.00 1.02 J.(11
1U0 2.8' 2.S7
0.00 0.7S n.7S
O,~O 12.92_ 12,.1
J .11
o
UO
653
3,12
82
0.00
148
3,12
1.00 '.11 0.00 0,80 u.oO 0,00 4.11 UO 0.00 o.e~ 6.:S
no ° 0 0 2m 0 0 0 4165 0
36 0 0 36 0 0 0 54 0
2553 0 2553 0 0 0 3816 0
33 0 33 0 0 4~
5.22 ?3J 9.35 I.lj 9.32 9.33 13.45 13.45 13.45 !3,45 19.60
5,22 '.B ',J) 9.33 9,]3 9.33 13.45 13.dS 13.45 13.45 19.60
,).24 9~.21 95.21 '5.21 95.21 95.21137.17 m.p 137.17 137.1' ;9UO
4.80 e.5' B.59 8.59 8.5' 8,59 12.37 12.37 12.37 12,37 la.~3
3.02 JUS 30.05 30,05 30.05 30,05 57.08 57.08 57.08 5'.08 97.48
'.02 ,0,05 10.05 'us 30.05 30.0S 57.08 57.0B 57 .08 51,08 !2.27
2,87 lU4 2e.54 2B.5 4 2U4 18.54 54.21 54.22 54.22 54.22 78,16
0.15 0.'< 0.75 0.75 0.75 O.7j 0.'5 0.75 0,75 US 0.63
12.12128.60 128.60 128,&0 118.iO 128.60244.28244,28 144.2B 244.18 152.12
3.1i
82
0.00
5556
3.12
816
0.00
1039
3.12
816
0.00
1039
3,12
816
0.00
1039
3.12
916
0,00
1039
3.12 3.12
816 1549
0.00 0,00
6448 1931
1.12
154,
0.00
1931
3,12 ],11
1549 1549
0.00 0.00
1931 I OOI~
3,12
2233
0.00
2785
15.20 19,16 20.20 20.63 21.!7 10.74 10.64 14.42 14.50 11.16 11.35 11.32 11.40 11.43 11,47 7.34 1,38 7,41 7.41 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
UO
0.00
13.98 IB.IB IB.58 IB.98 19 ,48 9.88 9,79 13.27 13.34 10.36 10,44 10,41 10.49 10.52 10.55 6.75
43.7~ 'U~ 71.50 74.80 77.10 54.76 5;,26 5).09 59.:9 6C,ll it.OI 37.11 lU! 40.41 4t.51 17.04
51.26 74,32 16.32 7B.74 91.26 57.64 60,17 6C'.09 &t.67 63.36 37.91 )9.70 41.38 42.54 43.70 17.93
0.39 D.43 0.43 n.44 0.44 0." G.60 0.48 0,4' Q,64 0,38 0.40 3.41 0.42 0.43 0.29
251.31115.79375.6339'.54 391.'B 293,7, 2'U5 1':.19 30J.56 m.BS 186.59 195.39 103.68 10Ua 215.0e 88.26
2.77 2.77 2.77 3.12 3.lt 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 l.ll 3,12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12
I '~4 1470 1531 1948 3042 21'S 2157 1250 23'" 23'2 1419 1486 154' 15'11 1636 671
! Y5~ 2a3" 2912 3335 3442 2442 25:53 2546 26! ~ U34 160. :682 1f5l 1801 1851 760
4',d : i037
3,4~ J46.PQ ~ (! (! 0
6.79 6.82 6.83
18.14 19.34 1l.64
19.09 20,35 22.17
0.30 0,31 •. 35
'3.'6100.18112.09
3.12
7lS
909
3.12 3,11 3.11
762 853 0.00
861 '65 0,00
}.~P UO :~O.CO 250,00 2~0.~) ;:~.G" ,<u.OO '''O.DO 2~O.OO 1~".20 m.oo 250.00 150,00 2SUO 2~0.OO 250.00250.00250.00250.00250.00
S,~(i ,-, "f, ~,[!F ~.~f\ ~.Q~I [,Of! 0.00 r,Of; (r,O[! 1).(10 Co.PO O.O~ 0.00 0.00
4'1; 1 q83 ~;;. ~'j~ 2t;(l 2~Q 2:n 2S0 250 250 25D 2Sn 2SQ 251) ,SD 250 250 2~O 250 250
2d~4 j4!i1'~
24~4 1354e:
6,4"'1 !~diJ lq9!1~ 304 L 3"'158 32.16 ]3L~ S"Q2
5B1t t3~J6 ; ,j;F~ 2:t2 J058 25:; 2~:" ~4?1
3~78'7 ~2~~2 5482': ~-3S: ~:'43? 62~118 ~!t!¥~
31;7 3273 ,3344 33~3 8851 3242 329\ 334'5 U533 133 1
2267 2242 221.3 21"0 5468 lC?: :-9v'; lB·~4 6299 1736
"t,,~~ 7?';;;B "'I6j 2. ~':L~~l S?"i:v EPj~?4 8759l 9Q4St 95665 /174(11
-. ,
c
TABLE II I-11
ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
""
(Sheet 3 of 3
001 COSTS ($000 I
CIJ1P(tlEllT 12 C{tlSINED OClE GAS TliRBINES
TlII'fiiJiISSII); LINE 001 :05:$ ,tO~O)
i.'AR14SLE 001 cOSTS (SOOO I
FUEL COSTS ('000)
COIP(J;EllT 13 SI"PlE CYCLE GAS TU~8INES
Tltf!HiJilSSl1Jl LINt OIl! CDSTS (.om
SIJITOTAL (mo)
LtHT INSTALLED INSTALLATION ~EPlAC£l1EllT
CAPACITY ;EAR 'EAR
(li41
cceT .1 4.76 I~BB me
CCCT ., 0.46 !~'t;) m' em ., 4.11 1993 1m
[CrT U 4.11 1995 mB
eeer IS 6.15 1002 2Q32
1'ffiti til 4.'6 19BB r<8
TRAN 11 0,46 1990 mo
Tlfrlti .j 4.11 10 93 len
1IA/4*4 4,! 1 1998 2038
n~ Ii~· 6. ~ ~ 2"1
t:-,.;.t;C: ::?tt;( "':Ut15 , 19-?5 2~; :;
'OTAl
RETlI1ENEllT
'EAR
l~"a mo
1m
10SB
1061
l~oB
1070
2(1 73
2~-:8
1'41
l'4S
w :,:'~": ~'~~~~:';~~ ; "~B'.~ST1·~" -·~9~·iE
-~~'~: -<;c.:r;""!:-:(' ...... ; '.~ 4~:fv: ... ~::-,'"".I .': ... : .E~: :''"., c:-~(i,lE;i
3! 41
1001
13111 9
rAPITAL lOe REPLAC£l1EllT
COST COST COST IN i 983
"000) ,tODD' ~ tf!~O I
nt· 41. 71 1014
312 d.n3 91
2786 JUS m
1786 lUS ,,11
416~ 51,89 BO·
,954 1UI 659
18S 3.6 11 59
l~S, 3j.~J 471
2~,3 33,0.3 403
391. 4f,:P
:!:4i :49.~1 4017
SALVAGE SAlVAGE
l/AlliE IN 2037 '<'4lUE IN I.S.
(tOOO I ('OOC)
1m 168
m 19
D·1 217
lBS8 m
ml m
2215 346
m 36
1234 34Q
2551 398
lal 60
26'~~ 42~
le~9Q 1m c
J
,
-
CALENOAP YEAP
KENAI PENINSULA L\)ADS t.110 ~E'OIJ'm
PEA' DE>W;u (11,)
~EQUIRE~ [APA[IW (iii) LOSS: 5.20%
PEG 0 CAP, IN(.l, RESERVES OF 2B.09 If.j
RfTlRENElITS (If.j)
Ct!<Ul;\Tj'JE RfT1RENEtlTI (/44)
E,ISTING KEl4!\! RESOURCES 1982 -91.40 If.j
':';J("r~AGE.'FA!RBANKS (;APACfH USED (If.j',
[APAn T, ADOITll)JS (ttJ)
cll1lJLA T lVE (APACm ADOITlIJIS (/44)
SURPLUS '14
ENE';" SALE S ,~H)
ElJEm GENERATILrJ ([lIH'-LOSS 3.45"1,
TABLE III-12
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH r-ELDED GAS PRI CE AT SC
ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
noo 94.',0 BUO 99.00 '2.,)QI4.00 ';'.00 10n.00 :02.00 104.00 106.00 10~.QO
86,5D B8,:-1 Q~,72 n.B8 97,D~ ~~,1~ :~z.n ;05.4 9 101,,}9 ;0 9 ,70 I1L8l IP.lii
114.~9 116.70 119.81 m.l' 12'.14 111.25 130.41133.58135.68 m.79 IlY.?( 142.01
8.85 0.0[1 0,00 11.',1 O.DO 0.00 0.00 U, Ufi 18,95 UD 0.00
B,FS 8,135 B,85 B,8~ ~,B1 9,BS 9,gs 8.8: ~,i?C; :-,j.! 2"',8(1 2"',80
82,55 92.SS Bi.S5 82.S5 82.55 81.55 81,55 81.55 82.55 63.60 63.6U 63 •• '
ll.~4 14,," 36,26 W.41 12.09 ~.oo
10. QO !, .03
44.ll
uo
17.90
£3.60
: LDO HI,DO [14.00 llS.or 11~,ij~ 119.00122.00
17 ,~, : 18.14 120.25121.31 I12.J6 i25.S1 m.69
45.,B 140.23 142.34 149.40 150.45 :5l.62 156.78
0.00 UO 14.30 0.00 Q .D~' un 24.30
27.BO 27 .90 '2. :0 52. I~ 52.10 52.:0 7 •• 40
63.60 63.60 39.30 39.3(! 39.30 39.30 15.0.
O.M UO 0.0" 0.00 U,O[ 'G.PP UO 25.00 0.00 0.00 25,00 0.00 un 0,00 o.on l5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.7 8
0.,;0 0.00 '.00 0.00 0.00 50,no 50.00 7~.O[! 75.00 7~.OO 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 115.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 141.78
114.59 IIUD IIUI 11:'~7 115.14 m.S5 nus !5 7.55 151.55 m.60 163.6j 16).60 16J.6~ 163.60 163.60 164.30 164.30 164.30 164.30 156.7 8
108.63 110.6J 11/.63 115.63118.63 m.66 125.66 149.36 149.36 13l.39 155.09 I5U9 155.09 155.09 155.09 155.76 155.76155.76155.76148.63
0.00 0,00 UO 0.00 UO 5.30 1.14 13.97 1l.97 0.81 23.70 21.59 19.49 IV2 17.37 15.96 14.90 13.85 10.68 0.00
397.00408.0041'.00433,00 447.0C 462.00 476.00 490.00 490.00 508.00517.00 S2UO 535.00 542.00 54UO 555.00 562,00 568.00 591.00 594.00
411.19422.58433.97 448.47462.17 478.51 493.01 507.51 516.83 526.15 535.41 544.eo 554.12 56:.31 56S.62 574.83 5B2.08 5S8.30 601.76 615.23 , ... '* ..... HI*I.UfIUllf •• lfHIIUfllllifll .. UlfIJlIUtillflfllftlll111111t1 •• IIIHIIIHHII.HII .. U' ........ IIIIUllfUIiIUfllfllltJJfllll1t'llulfln .......... "UI' ..... fU' ..... 'fIUf
GE"E~-'! iJ'I PLotJ <OR cm Of SNARO
PEAk JE!W~O '11.1'1 9.60 13.80 14.20 14.60 15.10 15.60 16,00 16.50 16090 17.20 P =:;1 17.80 18.20 18.40 18.60 18.80 19.00 19.20 19.70 26.20
'l, OF KENAi PENINSULA PEAK 16.461. II. 71 16.43 16.51 1 •. 40 16.41 16.60 16.49 16.50 16.5) 16.54 16.:;! 16.46 16.55 16.58 16.61 16.49 16.52 16.55 16.55 16.56
~lWtlfi NL. NET RESERVES OF 4.'li! ttJ 13.98 18.18 18.58 18.98 19.48 19.98 20.39 20,88 21.28 21.59 21.88 21.18 22.58 22.19 22.911 23.19 23.38 23.59 24.08 24.58
CAP. lNCL. SHARE Of NET SURPLUS (~, 13.99 18.18 19,58 18.98 19.48 20.81 20.71 14.62 24.69 21.71 25.58 25,55 25.62 25.65 25.69 25.67 25.70 25.74 25.75 24.58
ElIERGY SALE, (~HJ 48.70 10.60 n,so 74.80 7J .20 79.70 82.20 8PO 86.40 88.00 89.50 91.20 92.90 93,90 95.00 96.20 97,30 98.50100.80 103,10
EIlERS; DELIVERIES FRIJ1 GAS (~Hl 48.70 70.lG 72.50 74.80 71.20 79,70 82.20 84.90 86.40 98.00 8UO 91.20 92.80 93.90 95,00 96.20 97.30 98.50 100.80 101.10
ENHGi GENERATlIJI -GAS ([lI~) LOSS: 5.00~; ;1.26 14.32 7 •• 31 78.14 81.26 83.89 86.53 89.37 90.95 92.63 94.11 96.00 9) .68 98.84 100.00 101.26 102.42 103.69 106.11 108.53
CItlP(t;EJJ1 .1
N8.l Cl1SINtD CYCLE GAS TURBINES
S£1,I;\RD SfO'IRE ~F (APACl" 4DD IT 11J1S (1t4) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.23 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 ~ .00 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.15
(APITAL CGST 'tOOO' 677'ttJ 0 0 0 0 5'173 0 2786 0 0 2786 0 0 0 0 2786 0 0 0 4165 0
INlERE>r OU~!NG !:IJISTRUCTlIJI (tOOOI 8.76!l11 0 9 0 0 72 0 3. 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 54 0
TP"JSHISSI1l'4 CAPITOL CO,T (tOOQ' ~i~ ,"1; 0 0 0 0 5106 0 2553 0 0 2553 0 0 0 0 1m 0 0 0 3816 0
INTEllE;' DURING c(t;STRUfTllJI mool 8.01·1'lJ 0 0 0 0 66 0 jJ 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 49 0
Cl~'L<1T~~·'t CAPACI1"t (~t{1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 g.23 12.34 12.34 12.34 16.46 16.46 16,46 16.46 16.46 20.57 20.57 20.57 20.57 26.72
itlS'oLlEIi [",PACIT! ,''.' :) ,')0 e.vo UO 9.00 UO 8.23 B.23 12.34 12.34 Il.14 16.46 16.4. ! 6. 46 10.46 16.46 20.57 20.57 20.57 20.57 16.72
iPCfiSWI"!l)i IJI.I1 ,tOOCiHHRI 10.20 f, ,un ~l .OD 0.00 (1.00 o .no BPi 83.92125.99 m.B? 120.~' 167.85 1P.~5 167.85 167.85 167.85 209,81109,81209.81209.81172.54
.p l'lSTI!LLEO (;APAClT' !'tii :,LOSS = B.OO 0.00 0.00 o .GO 0.00 0.90 7.57 7.57 11.35 II. 35 11.35 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.:4 15.14 18.92 19.91 18.92 18.92 14.59
POTENTIAL ENERGY GENERATlltl I~~. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.79 22.79 49.91 49.81 49.91 76.84 76.84 76.94 16.84 76.84 103.87 103.87 103.87 103.S7 144,27
Am~L E'<ERGY BENE"",T1(t; '~Hi 0.00 uo uo UO 0.00 2V9 n.7B 49.81 49.BI 49.BI 76.84 76.84 76.B4 76.94 76.84 98,93 99.77 100.69 102.20 108.53
ENERf:i OELI'.JERIES \~H) 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 21.64 11,64 4'.32 47.32 47.32 7UO noo 73.00 noo noD 93,98 94,78 95.66 Q7.fl9103,10
A(Tl"L [,lPoflTf 'AfTOR CItlPCt~ENT II D. '5 !J.75 0.75 0.75 o .7S 0.7~ O.7S O. 7~ 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.72 U3 0.74 0.56
'''''~Io9LE 00< (OST ',1000 j 4 .2e/~H 0.00 o .O~ o .OC n ,Of :' .DO \7.50 97.50 20.18 213.18 m.IB ne.86 32U6 m.B6 328.86 32B,86 423.42 427.02 410.95 437.42 464.49
HEAT "",1E (!fiBTUi~HI 8700
~i!EL PR I CE (*ilf'lB'lO 0.65 0.72 0.79 0.95 1.07 1.20 1.l5 1,;1 1.11 1.91 1.95 l.07 2.la 3.41 3.51 3.61 3.71 3.82 3.93 4.05
'UEL [05T (100e) 0 0 0 0 0 2lB m 654 750 794 13flll 1304 145' neD m. 3107 3220 3346 3494 3824
:.1LVIlGEJALUE (tOOO) ~ ,ro [I.GO Q .0,0 0.00 0.00 o .co uo (1.00 0.00 0.00 f! .00 0,00 0.00 Q ,')0 , .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '(IT., [[IS; C~Pl)lElJ1 .! 'lOQ~ j (I n 0 10817 419 585' 9''f} 1 (;'?9 6m I~O~ loan )954 l776 02S1 3740 3057 1997 12227 4561
...
...
CCWttlOO 12
€XlSTlNG SIMPLE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
"'" INSTALLED CAPAClTi' (f'Ij)
NET INSTALLED CAPAClTi' (f'Ij) r. LOSS: S.OO
El/ERl)Y DELIVERIES (QjM)
El'IEQG' GENERATlttl (QjM)
CAPAClTi' FACTOR C(t4PQiOO 12
l\:IP,IA81E 0M1 COST (1000) 4.9VI1JH
~AT RATE (It1BTlIIQjM, 12000
FUEL PRICE <IIIt1BTLI)
FUEL COST (mo)
TOTAL COST C(t4PttlOO 12 (1000)
C(t4Ptt400 .3
[)AUES CR. SB.i\RD T~ISSlttl UNE
CAPITAL COST (lOCO)
It/fEIlEST DURING CttlSTRlJCTlttl (1000)
0M1 COST (1000)
SALVASE VAlUE (1000)
TOTAL COST C(t4PttlENT 13 <tOOO)
TOTAL COST moo)
PRESENT WllIITH IN (1000) • 1993
ClflULATIVE P. W. IN (1000) -1983
TABLE II 1-12
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT SC
ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
15.20 19.76 20.20 20.63 21.17 14.39 14.29 14.42 14.50 11.25
1~.9S 18.18 la.58 IUS 19.48 13.24 1~.14 13.27 13.34 10.35
48.70 70.60 72.50 74.30 71.20 58.06 60.56 37.58 39 .OS 40.68
51.26 74.32 76.32 7B.74 81.26 61.11 63.75 39.56 41.14 42.92
0.39 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.51 0.31 0.32 0.43
252.32 365.79 375.63387.54 399.98 300.91 313.76 194.11 202.48 m.77
0.65 0.72 U9 0.95 1.07 1.20 1.35 1.51 1.73 I.SI
400 642 m 998 1043 980 1033 717 854 930
652 1008 1099 1295 1443 1191 1346 912 1057 1141
494 11037
11.34 11.31 11.39 11.43 11.47
10.44 10.41 10.4B lUI 10.55
16.50 IUD 19.90 20.90 22.00
17.37 19.16 20.95 22.00 23,16
0.17 0,19 UI 0.22 0.23
85.51 94.32102.61 IM.31 114.01
1.95 2.07 2.19 3.41 3.51
407 416 545 900 976
492 570 649 1009 1090
7.33 7.37 7.41 7.42 0,00
6.74 6.79 6.92 6.92 0.00
2.22 2.52 2.94 3.71 0.00
2.33 2.65 2,99 3.91 0.00
0.04 D.04 0.05 0.06 0.00
11.49 13.05 14.74 19.22 0.00
3.61 3.71 3.82 3.93 4.05
101 118.02 m.25 184.17 0.00
113 131.07 151.99203,39 0.00
3.40 146.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
497 11193 25!1 250 250 250 250 250 250' 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
1150 12191 1349 1535 12510 1850 1454 2155 2395 7923 2542 2701 2852 4035 9591 4103 4239 4389 12680 4811
1150 1m' m9 1385 10902 1558 6064 1694 1819 5813 1802 1850 1887 2580 5925 2449 2444 2446 6826 2502
1150 12929 14189 15573 26474 2S032 34096 35m 37609 43422 45224 47074 48961 51541 57466 59915 62360 64805 71632 74134
, 1 1
t*"<
'"'
-..
O!
e
o
r ,
TABlE I II -12
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH foELDED GAS PRICE AT SC
ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3
CIJlUlllTIVE P~ESEHT YORTH TO 2002 moo' 14134
!JjlT
!JA~;ABl, O!.H (O,T, (~nOQ)
'~"I~"'I~,I(tI tINE ~ COSTS ctnoo',
J:1JEl cn~Tt; ! tOMll
de31
1835
J9-:~1
21GI
INSTAlLED INSTAl[ATI'li REPLACEH€N1 RfTIRE11£1ff CAPITAL loe REPlAC£liOO Stll!JAGE StlL!JAGE
':4PACITv ':.ST cn,1 COST iN 1'~1 \~lUE IN 2037 '}OlUF I'j '.93
,!tI.,
etCT I, 8.13
eeer .1 4,11
C[C' 13 4.11
ere'14 4. i I
~~~.., If~ 6,! 5
'RAN .\ s.n
~/WJ -2 4.11
TP/.\I' 11 4.11
"R~J f4 4. "
'R"I' '5 6.1 ~
[ .... ·'E, CPEEX Tl!ttl5.
T~"~L
1988
1090
1993
1008
2m
1988
10 0 0
:9??
~ OQ8
1m
lOSS
1018
1020
2m
202B
2032
me
1030
2m
2m
201S
Cl!1UlAT j'JE PPESENl UORTH OF BASE PLitl \ 1000 !
1048
1050
2053
2(\~'f
1062
me
2010
2:r'l1
:(i~~
2041
2CII!~
(!O~C' '.1000' 'IO~f' 11000> "oor,)
SS1] 72.10 1753 1859 190
2786 36.05 BI8 1115 \74
1786 c6.05 '18 1373 11'
n6 l'.OS m IQS8 290
J 1 ~5 :.], ~Q aD? 3332 SID
5106 16.0S 1138 3819 SOB
2S~,3 33.03 531 1042 3\9
2~~3 1). o~ 4:'Q 2134 )49
2~~J " ,03 403 2553 '"8
3B!6 49.3:' 39l 60
1 : ~4Q 149.t\! 4017 1695 410
.t~22j 1 :3!R 1)19Q 3634
v C
, CALENOAR ~EM
K~: PENINSULA LOADS AIlu RESOURCES
PEAK DElW'/o (11/.
PEO~l~ED (APACm (Iii. LOSS: 5.20Y.
REQ'D CAP, Hlel. RESERVES OF 28.091t1
RE":! REl'IEtr'S (;.tn
StliUlAllVE '£7; ~El'IEtfTS '.rili
EXISTING Kf*1 RESOURCES 1992 -91.40 riI
~CHORAr,Ei'A1R[w"'i CAPACITY USED (rili
'AP4Cih AO01TJ~S (ltil
ClI'Il!lATJVE CAl'Afm AOOITlltlS (ltil
TOTAL CAPACITi 'lti'
, NFl TOTAL rAPACITy (rilJ-lOSS 5.20~(
,URPlUS ,rill
ENERGY SALES (Q.j~'
("" ENERGV GENE!!ATI~ iQ.jHHOSS 3.45'/.
TABLE III-13
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH fE LDED
GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
92.00 84.00 BUO 89.00 92000 94.00 97.00100.00102.00104.00106.00109.00 1I0.00 111.00 111.00114.00115.00116.00119.00122.00
86.50 88.61 90.72 93.88 QU5 99.16102.32 105.4" 10'.59 109.70 111.81 113.92 116.0~ m.09 118.14 120.25121.31 122.36125.53128.69
114.59 116.70 1I~,SI 121.97125,14127.25130,41 m.ss 135.68 137.79 139.90142.01 144,J2 145.18 146.23 14B.34 ]49.40150.45153.62 156.7B
8.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOO 0.00 0.00 lB.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 24.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30
US 9.B5 B.BS 8.B5 US 8.85 US 8,85 8.85 27.80 27.80 21.80 27.80 27.80 21.80 52.10 52.10 52.10 52.10 76.40
82.55 82.55 82.55 92.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 8U5 82.55 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 39.30 39.30 39.30 39.30 15.00
32.04 34.15 36.26 39.42 42.59 ~.O~
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 25.00 UO 0.00 0.00 16.78
O.O~ O.OC 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 15.00100.00 JOO.OO 100.00 100.00 100.M 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 141.78
flU9 It6.70 118.8t 121.97125.14132.55132.55157.55157.55138.60163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 J64.30 164.30 164.30 164.30 156.7B
108.63110 •• 3112.63 1IS.63 118.63 125.66 125.66 149.36 149.36 131.39 155.09155.09 155.0 9 155.09 155.09 155.76 155.76 155.76 155.76 148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oe 5.30 2.14 23.97 21.87 0.81 23.70 21.59 19.48 18.42 17.37 15.96 14.90 13.85 10.68 0.00
397.00408.00419.004)3.00447.00462.00476.00493.00 49UO 509.00 W.OO 516.00 535.00 542.00 549.00 555.00 562.00 56B.OO 581.00594.00
411.19422.58433.97448.47462.97478.51 493.01 507.51 516.83526.15535.47544.80554.12561.31 56B.61 574.83 5B2.08 58B.30 601.'6 615.23
n.'UIII.I4IlIunIlU"fl4tIlUUntllfl,Utu.nt'UUU"'Ufl .. tll"JI,InfU""',,,IUU'ff""'fIIfU'.UttUfIfUt,tff'ff"H'"ttt'Ilfffl",*fll'I"ttltl"III'lfftltttt'IIIlffltt.
GEl'lE~ATI"l PLN'l ,OR cm OF SEUAP,O
PEAK O~jD (11/1 9.60 13.B0 14.20 14.60 15.10 15.60 IUO 16.50 16.90 17.20 1'50 17.90 18.20 18.40 18.60 IB.80 19.00 19.20 19.70 20.20
~ 0' ~ENAI PENINSULA PEAl( 16.46Y. 11.71 16.43 16.51 16.40 16.41 16.60 16.49 16.50 16.57 16.54 16.51 16.48 16.55 16.58 16.61 16.49 16.52 16.55 16.55 16.56
OEllo'Nl) INCl. NFl RESERVES OF 4.3911/ 13.98 18.18 IB.58 19.98 !9.48 19.98 20.38 20.8B 21.28 21.58 21.88 22.IB 22.59 22.78 22.99 13.18 23.38 23.58 24.08 24.58
rAP. l~jCl. S~RE 0, ~Fl SURPLUS (riI) 13.98 IS.IB 18.58 IB.9B 19.4e 20.81 20.71 24.62 24.69 21. 71 25.5B 25.55 25.62 25.65 25.69 25.67 25.70 25.74 25.75 24.58
9IE~GY S4lES (~HI 48.70 ,~.OO 12.50 '4.80 n.20 79,:'0 82.20 84.90 86.40 8B.OO B9.50 ~1.20 92,BO 93.90 QUO 96.20 97.30 9B.50 100.80 103.10
C!J1PttiEtfT II
"1lIll{" LA~E IIYOROElECTRIC
INSTALLED CAPAW/ il1/' 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 ;.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
OEPEtlOABlE (AOACm 'rill: 6.60 lOSS: 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55
>\\IER<lGE IffllJAl [.p'ERAT I!JI (Q.j~' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.40 15.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40
A\JEQAGE A't1'JAl DEllI.IERIES 'IJ.HI lOSS: UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 24.94 14.94 24.94 14.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24,94 24.N 24.Q4 24.94 24.94 14.94 24.94
O'PlT~l CDST li~:YlJ 0.00 o .Ofl 3084 115114 sm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HlTfREST D~R!HG ~~STRUcTI~ (tOOO) 0.00 0.00 0 304 678 0.00 e .00 un 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
,)\11 COST (tOOO' c,ao Q .00 0.00 0.00 0.00302.00302.00302.00 302.00 302.00 3O?~O 302.00 30aO 302.00 302.00 301.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00
TOT~l COST S!J1P~EtIT II (tOM) 0 0 3084 llijB8 B956 302 302 J02 302 m 302 302 301 302 301 302 302 302 302 302
ENE ~GY ~EL: I}ER! ES ~~ C<lS '~H l 48.7r 70.<10 72 .~~ 74.eo 77.20 54.76 ~7 .26 59.96 61.46 63.06 64.56 66.26 61.S6 6B.96 70.06 '1.25 12.36 73.56 15.B6 ;9.1<1
Ell£ROY OEl'l£11AT I!J. -O.oS II)U" lOSS: ~,M~~ 51.26 74.'32 '6.32 7~.74 81.26 57.;4 60.27 63.11 64.69 66.36 67.95 69.14 71.43 72.59 '3,74 75.01 76.17 77 .43 79.85 92.2'
-, '-~ I I 1 , • f , , • , I ,
38.JA"P') S~RE J)~ (AP,.(ji'i l.ID()17H.ftS (~)
,..... ipPITAl ~(lS: ,'10{>~ 1 {i"t?/>tJ
:trgEST ~~tiwlt4G cCtisnllC1'lCtf ,'tQ(I~," 8. 7~ll1~
1PA"-J;1f~5:::,!,,, ~~P1TQl.. ersT (,o~n) ,;i: ~1'
Hf'E9EST t}l:qiNG-C(l4jTRLI[.1![ti 'SD'1~) B.C2"~~
Ctt!~ltAT1VE (APACi;~ \~ I
:t~ST4llE(i :;.<;tACj 1 1 ,'11~ f
rRAtI~";SSI"'" f\\M '.OOO,'Ii<-i'~1 1~,2C
NE'" :.G'4UE[l (APA(["!''f' {~I :~lOSS::: B,O(l
'QT;:tITIAl ft<ERGY GENE~Arl!ll 'I);H\
,:,,"'''', ... ~ 8';:RS: GENEPAlr!J'~ \~).I!
"IE~" DE,IJEPIES (W~I
~(1'\iAl (,.PAC I';v fALTOR C{J1PIJIENT I,
ClAPIABLE O&H COST (.0~GI 4,18!IJIH
HEAT PAT, IIt'BTl'!I);HI $700
"IJEl PRICE ilIltiBTIJ\
fUEl COST (1000'
'IItt,IAGE \lAlUE aOOO)
TO,Al CeST c{J1P(}I€NT 12 ('0001
CIJ1PIJ1EtiT 13
EXjSTi~c SI~PlE CmE !)AS TURBINES
ItiSiAlLEO CAPAClTY (1'1.<1
IjET lIlS1AllEP CAPAUTY 'tt.I) :: lOSS= 8.00
<:NEoG! DElI')E? I ES I, IJIHI
£>lER," G£>lEPATI[l1 (WHI
;:APACiTy ;:ACTOQ ~cttP(NOO _3
CJ<\PIASlE O&H reST 110001 4,92,'(MH
~~A: ~ATE d"Ael"_:,"~H-' 12J;H'~
FIJfL C!:S7 aooo)
~'TAl COS' ccnP1}IENT I, ,tOOOl
r{J1''JlE'IT 14
:""JES CR, • SElIARD T~SH1SSI1}j llNE
~l'jAGf 'JA .. IJE .lOOO')
T~:'L :0" '[I1P'JINr 14 ItOCO'
T~TAl (O,r ,lOOO'
~PESENT !JI"jP'TH :.~ (to!)(/) -
I"'LN!.'lt.~!\,1E P, Y. ]~~ \'OO~'1
T ABLE II I -13
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH MELDED
GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
o .oc
0,79
o
a ,DC
0,00
0.00
~.30
0,00
0.00
0.00
Uti
0.95
o
0.00
o
(Sheet 2 of 3)
:9
0,00 4.'6
O.oJ 4,'6
~,O~, 48",
0.00 4,3S
0,00 0.00
uo un
un r,10
0.00
0,00 0,00
1.07 1.20
o
0,00 HG
6259 41
3,O~ G • .16 n.~r 4,,' ".,-:(; ~'0 G.'~(i it.nD 4.11 fl,Or !),~O ,i.nO 6.15
312 2"'tlt 2't~t 4165
,4 j6 30 54
2B5 25'52 2<03 3916
}? ?J 4Q
4.76 ~," 5,{2 0,22 9,]J 9,)3 9,33 1.33 9.33 13.45 !3.45 13,45 13,45 19,60
4.7'; S.22 5.22 5.22 1,33 1.33 9,33 9.33 v.33 iJ,;!r; lJ,4~ 13,45 13.4~ 11.60
4~.::, ~3,2'; 53.24 53.24 95.2! 9~,2; 15.21 95.2l ':.21137,]7 :3'.P lr=.!113:.P 19 Q .9C
us UO ',Br 4,?O "" S.,9 a,59 S"l ij.59 12,37 12,37 12,37 11.3' 18.0,1
O,no J,n 3.02 1.02 )US )U' 3US ",05 30.05 57.0B SUS 57,OB 57.0B 97,48
O,~01.01 3,02 L02 )0.05 30.»5 3US ,US 30.05 S?,CB 57.08 :7,OS 57.0S 82.27
j,OO 2,87 U' 1,97 28,54 28,54 2B,54 le,54 18,54 54.22 54.12 54,22 54,21 79.16
0.00 Q.:''5 C.:"S 1),/1) c.:': ~,75 0.:5 Q.lS ~.!S Q.'t~ ~.'~ 0.75 0.75 0.63
0,00 12,92 11,Q2 12,92 12Vr 12B,.~ :29,60 12UO 128.60144.29244,28244.28244,28 m,12
1.35 1.51
40
r J'r 0.00
m 106
I. 73
o .en
III
1,81 1,'15 1,07 1,18 3,41 3.51
42 51') 541 5'0 891 918
Q,CG 0.00 UO 0.00 0,00 0,00
<m 734 765 794 1115 6,50
3.61 3.11
17.) 1841
0,00 0.00
1174 2224
),Bl 3,93 4,05
lB97 1951 2899
0.00 0,00 0,00
ms 1041S 3451
:5.20 IU6 10,10 20,.3 21.17 10,74 10,64 lUi 14,50 lUI 11.35 11.31 11.40 11.43 11.47 7,)4 1.38 7,41 7.42 0,00
13"S IS.IS lB,59 IS,9S IUS 9,BS 9,n 13,2' 13.34 I"" 10.44 10,41 10,48 IU1 IUS 6,75 6,79 6.82 6,B3 0,00
48,70 70,60 72,~,O '4,g~ 77,20 54,'6 ",26 5',09 58,59 ,l~,11 ,6.'11 37,'1 39,)1 40,41 '1.51 1',~4 IS,14 19,34 21.64 O,QO
51.16 74,31 76.31 78,74 9i.26 51,04 60,27 60.~9 <1.67 ",36 l7,11 lUO 41.3S 42,54 43,70 I:.;) 19.0' 10.35 22.77 0,00
,.,)1 ",4, j,4) 0.44 Q,44 0,61 0,65 0,48 0,41 p,;4 P,lS ,40 0.41 0,42 0,4) 0,18 ),30 0,31 0,35 0,00
252,32 )1',78 3'S.63 m.54 399.98 291,70296,65 29SJ' lj),56 311.B5 186.'" 195,3' 203,68109,38 m,OB 88,26 93,96 100,IS 112.09 0,00
0.;<. 1,'2 0,79 0,95 1,07 1.20 1.35 1.51 1.71 1.31 :'15 2.07 /,IS J,41 3,51 3,11 3,71 3,81 3,1) 4.05
4~O ,41 m BIS 104) BlO 971 1089 1m 13'~ sa) 'e! 1083 [741 1841 )77 BSO 933 1074 0 ,O~
~52 loeB 109 0 !2eS 1~43 1!14 lzn IJB5 !"S4 I.S8 10'4 lIB I 1186 \150 2[56 865 944 1033 !lB6 0.00
4'14 :1037 0
3,4[1 146, P' 0 0 0 j 0 ° 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.30 o.JO 150,00 250.00 150,00 ;5UJ 150,00 250.00 15UU .~uo 150,00 250,00 150,00 250,00 200.00 250,00 250,00 250,00 150.00 250.00
0,eo ,., 1"\1\ ~.co 0.00 ,OD o.(;~ c.or ~!,~l) 0.00 O.O~ ~,~o ~,D{l Q.on Q.C~: 0.JO 0.00 0.00 fi,QO
41' '11 BJ I'" 150 m 2'" '" 25~ ,~o 150 250 15C 2S0 250 250 1St lSI] m 1~0 250
lSll 12;91 4d3!l o9e' 1:14
15'" '! "'""19 41:9 4733 '443
poe 45351
2n 2041 1247 7761 23~' 149B 1631 361] 'IS' 359: r2~
2~;6 !6~5 !",p ),~¢~ 16~2 1'11 j7J2 23:3 5657 214"3 ::14S
473f·: ~8'r3 se6'Q 56375 5SfC 59'5B 6iSj(: ~3g13 694"'2 71$1~ "3'~~
3B63 12151 4003
11'3 6544 2m
75'1 i .2451 8453S
,
TABLE 111-13
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS WITH foE LOED
GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
C,"UlATJ'JE pqESEIlT WORTH TO ,~02 (fCQ~;
CIJ1P~EIlT 12 CIJ181NEO CYCLE GAS TURBINES
ll!ANSI1ISSllJI liNE !lUi COSTS (fOO~ I
VtiRI;\8L~ !lUi COSTS (tom
~UEt COSTS (fOOO)
CIJ1PI.'tlEIlT 14 [lAUES CREEK T"'tlSl1I S51 ~ LINE
TI!AN91ISS1lJl UHE !lUi COSTS (iOm
SUBTOTAl (fnOO'
!JIlT INSTALLED INSTALlATllJl REPLACEMENT RETIREMENT
CAPACITY YEAR rEAR fEA~
3142
2080
3663
30158
2601
I261BI
CAPITAL IDe
':05T COST
REPlACEMENT
COST ltI 19S3
(1111 (fOOO I (fOOD I (fOOD 1
eCCT II 4.7~ 2018 2048 nt· 4t. 7! 1014
reeT *'2 ~ ,46 mo leso 112 4.[:3 91
eeCl ., 4, \I 2m 2053 2786 36.05 738
[[[T 14 4, I! 2028 me 2786 31.0S 621
C~CT .5 6, l~ 2032 2061 4i65 53,99 S09
~IW, II 4,76 1988 2028 206a 2954 39.21 659
'Pttl I, 0.46 1990 1n30 20'0 m 3,69 59
;G<>t, 13 4, II 1993 2013 2~;3 1553 33.03 419
T~1»'4 "4 4, II 1998 me 10i9 1553 33,~3 403
'TI;!AN -5 6,IS :~~2 2~42 )A16 49.31
~~,'E3 :Ot'Ili 'f~.jS" 19S" ms 20 45 :!549149,6J 4027
l~iAL HQe~ 9901
,~~c ... : ~: ... ejl.i:t; '~J(Lf ~!)oIB\!S"'~'t~ ~U;l?i';E
-;/.J"~l -~':"i:.rA;S::_ii}"j _ ";e: .... s-,Ol:~A!ID hlr:~ JtU'·P;:~iG ::c .. ~fJ,.iE~
"
SALVtiGE SALVtiGE
VtiLUE 1N 2037 \'4lV, II< 1983
; '0001 ;$0091
1075 16~
125 19
1393 217
ISSS 290
3332 520
2215 346
m 36
2234 349
2553 m
392 60
2,9' 42C
ISOB9 IS23
I I • , I III
:2·: q
-Ac ?~r>AQ 'EA~
'ENAI PE'H~,VLA L'}1:', N.O PES·JUiSES
PEM [)E"N'D ,""',
0EQUPED CAPAlin ,""', L055= 5.20,
PEg j W. INCL. PESE'1\!ES OF 2".'9 t1,j >,', Pf"ElIT, (11oi'
~~,"-.:,,-: .. 't qE'rREMPITS 'l1oil
t'''I~I, KENAi RESOuPCES 1992 91.40 Ii/
<t'[~DP.GEi<AI PI1tt'K, cAPAC ITY USED (l1oil
'A'ArI T, AOOPICt., (til)
".r<IJLATIVE CAPACITY AOOtTl~S (til'
T~TilL [APAtHY i"MJ)
~ET TOTAL CAPAClr~ (I14HOSS 5,20((
S~RPlLlS 'til'
ENERGY Sl'lES (9JHl
P'ERGI GENERATl~ (9JH1-lOSS 3.4S'1.
TABLE I II-14
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT 0%
ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of3)
82.00 ~4.00 51.,'" 8°.00 92.UO 94.ao 9;.00100.00 102.00 104,~r 10~,O~ 109.00 I~.O~ 11:_~O 11,00114,00 IIS,OO 116.00 llUO m.oo
965C 8B.61 ~O.72 JT'3.S8 91,05 'N,l6 ln2.32 105.49 1~7,59 JOo,'U 1I1.9i 1l3.o2 16.D31t7.0? J9.14 12~.25 121.31122.36 125.53 ~2e.6q
114.5911<.'0111,9112:'97125.14127.15 :30.'1133.58 m./8 137.79 I1 Q,90 142.01 44.12 145.18 46,23148.)4149.40150,45153.61 151';8
g,e5 fl,OO e,00 o.oe n.n~ 0.00 ~.'O),rc IS,;, 9.00 G,Ou 0.00 D.OO 0,00 14030 0.00 0.00 0,00 14.30
B.85 S.35 U5 8.$5 ~.o< 8.85 B.S5 S,85 US 27.80 27.80 )7,80 r,8" 2;.80 2/,eo 52.10 51.10 51,10 51.10 76.40
91.S5 BUS S2.55 81.55 82.55 81,55 81.5~ BUS 82.55 ;J.6r 6un 63.M' 63.60 6UO 63,60 39.30 39.30 39.30 )9,30 15,00
32,0 4 ,4,15 36.16 3'.42 42.59 0.00
0.00 UO v.OO 0.00 UO 50.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0,00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 16.79
0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 50.00 50.00 75.00 75.1)<) 75.00 10".or 'OUO 100.00 100.00 100.00125,00 m,oo 125.00 125,00 141,)8
114.59116.70 11a.81 ,21.97125.14 132.S5 132.5515'.55157.55 :38.6U W./C 16UU !63.60 163.60 163./.0 1/0.30 164,30 164.30 164.30 156.79
IOB./3 110,63 112.63 115,63 IIU3 m,~6 115,66 149.3/ 149.36 131.39 ISS,09 1:5.0' 155.0~ 155.09 155.09 155.76155.76155.76155.76148,63
0.00 UO 1.00 0,00 0,00 '.10 2.14 23.97 21.8' O.BI 13.70 21.5' 19.48 18.41 1'.31 15.96 14.90 13.85 10./8 0,00
3'7.CO 408.00 410.00433.00 441.00 462,0~ 471.00 4>0,00 49'.00 SOUO 517.00 516.00 535,00 541,00 549.00 555.00 5.2.M 568.00 591.00 594,00
41l.19 422.58 4n,9' 448,47 462.97 47B.51 493.01 507.51 516.8352,,15535.47544.80554.11561.37568.61 574.B3 581.08 5B8,30 60!.76 615.13
n •• uunIUHIIIUI.nUfuuuuunnl*JlIfUJnlffllff****uu**nunnll ... "dlfUIf"IJIIHfn .... n .. I****nf'*lf~nnu' .. lffllf'fu*'n ... fH'unHIHlnllJ .. fnlutnttu .. I"
G8IERATIll" Pc",", FOR O'i\ Of SE1lAR~
PfA~ OEMNlD (til'
:1 Of ~BlAl PENINSULA PEA~ 16.4&
DElWiO I~CL. Nfl RESERVES Of 4.38 t1,j
(A,. mel, SHARE OF NE1 SURPLUS il10il
ENER5Y SALES i9JH'
fNEPGj OEli'JEPIES fR[J1 GAS '~ii)
£NERG' GEl'ERATION -"", 'ClIH' lOSS: 5.004
([l4PONElIT II
N~. CCI1SINEV C'CLE 1>'\9 TtiRBIIlES
;E1..Ji::1Qn S~PE (It CAPAC!Ti tlnOfTllJ'S (t1.n
;.£\Pli'::t co~'! ~C~(\l 677/rtJ
It.f'E'ES' CURING fJ.STRUCTlili ·tOOO' 8,76!l4J
1Rft'SMISSlfJl (APITAl COS' (tODD' 621/'11
'NT!'PEST ['UPI~S ':ll'lSTPUUICtl 'tOOO' B.C),%l
:'.NULATI'JE CA""UT, ,'1,1'
:~iS'tAt:.fD CAPA(p'Y ',r1.I 1
rll;¥''l'1ISSl(l'l[W< ,ta~,'IiHP' I~.'C
NtT i'lqA~LfD [~PA(!;~ .t'4JI '·<LC:SS 8.il~1
PQT£NT!Al ENERGY SENERA;;(fl ~J.'
OCT':AL ,NERo'· SE'IE"A'l'Ji :JJ~'
9.60
11.71
13.98
13,99
4B,70
11.S0
1i.43
IS.19
18.19
70.60
14,20
16.51
IS.58
IS.58
71,50
14.00 15.10 15./0 I~.OO 16.50 16.90 17.20
1,,40 16.41 10 .• 0 1/,49 16.50 16,57 16.54
18.9B 19_48 19.98 20.38 '10,8e 21.18 21.5B
IB.9S !9,48 10.9: 20.71 24,62 24.6 9 lUI
M.M 77,~ n.~ ~.m H." 86, ••• n
!7 .5[1
10.51
11.88
25.58
89.50
17.ao
1,,48
11,18
18.20 18.40 18.60 18.80
16.55 16,58 1/.61 16,49
21,58 22.78 22.9S 13.1B
15.62 25.65 15.09 25.67
'2.ao 91.90 95.00 QUO
19.00
16.52
23,38
25.70
97.30
19.20 19.70 20,10
16,55 16,55 16,56
23.58 14.08 2UB
25.74 25,75 14.5B
98,50 100.80 103.10
4B.70 70.69 71.:.0 '4,80 7',10 79.70 82.20 84.90 86.40 S".OO B9,50 91.10 92.S0 93,90 95.00 91.20 97.10 99.50100,80103,10
~1.26 74.31 16.31 78.76 81.26 ll,80 86.53 89,)' 90.95 92.63 94.11 '!.OO 17.6S 98.84 10UO 101.1.102.42103,68106.11 108.53
0,00 O,QO UO O.O~
o 0 0
o
o
o 0
0.00 0.00 o.~o 0.00
uo 0,'0 c.~o 0.00
n ,:tij 0.00 f; .C~ (, .~~l
,:I,[fe 0/'Q I), 'JO
0.00 0,00 o.oe C.OO
~,0r. ~.n3 0.00 (I,'JO
';,~~ ~.O(; (L~e
O.no 8.23 0,00 4.11 UO UP 4.l1 0,00 O.~O 0,00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.15
55'3 0 17B6 C 0 1796 0 0 0 2786 0 0 0 4165 0
n 36 0 OJI 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 54
5106 0 1553 0 0 1553 0 0 0 2553 0 0 0 3816
66 0 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 40
UO S.23 8,13 12.34 1/,34 12.)4 16.4~ 1,.46 16.46 16,46 1/.41 10.57 20.57 20.57 20.57 26.72
0.00 ~,23 8.23 11.14 11,~4 12,14 16.4/ 16.46 16.46 16.41 1/.46 20.57 20.57 10.57 10,57 26,n
O.?l ".92 ,),97 11~,8~ 125.8 9 115.&9 ICSS \6',8'; 10:.85 W.B5 16'.8520'.81 m.BI 209.01 20.,BI 271.54
Q,O~ 7.57 ?,5 7 11,]5 J:, lL!5 t~,14 15.14 15,;;1 15.14 ~5.14 IS.n IB.Q2 ~B.Q2 ~B.Q2 24,59
0.00 22.19 12,~S 49.S1 41.S1 ".91 'I.B4 76.84 '6.~4 16.94 7"S4 103.87 103.87 103.87 IJ3.87 144.2~
0,(", 21,78 22.-B 4",81 49.31 4",1 76.84 '6.B4 ';,S4 '6.84 '6.B4 98.93 99,n 100,69 102.20 108."
L00 11.64 21.,4 4',32 4'.12 4'.32 n~e ".00 'J.OO 7J.eo 73.0e 9j,9B 04,'8 v5.M ;'7.G9IOJ.10
o . 7~ ~ . ,~ fl , ':11; ~ , .,~ ~ • .,~ ~ . "C\ ~ , "~ 0 , "I~ 0 , 75 O. 75 ~ . 71 0 . ;2 ~ ."3 0 . "'4 0 . ~,~
'4 2,14 t.o. 2,94
253~ 25:[ 2:.7~, 2~lQ
I; , ll! ~! , • ;1 •
Ci)iPfNEW 12
EtlSTl~G SIHPLE emE GAS TURBINES
WSTALLE~ CAPACITi (If.j)
Nfl I'ISTALLED tAPACIlY (If.j) :~ lOSS> 8,00
EtjEIi[,V DEllliERlES (Mi'
ElfEP6Y BEttEIlATlfN (1llW)
(;lPAC I' J F.l'~~ c[t<PltlElIT 12
'JAPIA9LE IJI,I< COST Ji~OO' 4.92/QJH
HEAT IlATE (PtiBTU/QJHi 12000
FUEL P~ICE ItIlfll1TU)
F'JEt COST (1000)
TOTAL COST COHP(fflNT 12 (1000)
. COHPIJjENT 13
__ If L-:
()oII!ES CR. S~ TlWlSI1lSSlfN UNE
CAPITAl COST (1000)
IIfTEPEST DIJ'RI"G CfNSTRUCTlfN (1000)
IJlIt COST (1000)
SALVilGE VilLUE "10001
TOTAL COST COHPfNEN'T 13 (1000)
TOTAL COST (1000)
P~ESEW ~ORT~ IN (1000) • 1993
,iJ'IULATIVE p. W. Itl (1000)' 19B3
15.20 19,76
13,98 la.IB
dB,70 70.60
51.2. 14,32
0.J1 0.43
TABLE 111-14
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH r.£LDED GAS PRICE AT 0%
ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
20,20 20.63 2J.17 14,39 14.29 14,42 14.50 11.25
19.58 18.98 IU9 13.24 13,14 13,27 13.34 10,35
72.50 74,30 )7,20 58.06 6o.s6 J7 ,5~ JUS 4~ ,68
76.32 78,74 81.2. .1.11 .3.75 39.56 41.14 42.92
0.43 0,44 o.~~ 0.49 0.51 0.31 0.32 0,43
252,3[ 365.78 375.63 391.54 3~9.99 JOO.SI JIJ.76 194,:1202.48210,71
0.65 9.74 0.92 J.90 1.13 1.27 1.41 1.54 1.73 1.75
400 660 751 ~45 1102 931 1079 731 854 899
652 1026 1127 1332 1502 1232 1392 926 1057 !l10
11 ,34 11.31 11.39 11.43 11.47
10.44 lUI U.48 10.51 I~ .55
16.50 19.20 19.80 lUO 22.00
17.37 19.16 20.85 22.00 23.16
0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.23
85.51 ~4,J2 102.61 10B.31 114.01
1.84 L91 1.96 2.94 2.94
384 439 490 776 917
469 534 593 995 931
494 11037 0
7.33 7.37 7.41 7.42 0.00
6,74 6.79 6.B2 6,92 0.00
2.22 2.52 2.94 3.71 0.00
2.33 2.65 2.99 3.91 0.00
0.04 o .O~ 0.05 0.06 0.00
11.~8 13.05 14.74 19.22 0.00
2.94 2.94 2.94 2,94 2.94
82 93.53 105.64 137.78 0.00
94 106.59 120.37 157.00 0.00
3.40 146.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 259.00 250.00 250.00 250,00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 256.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 256.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
497 11183 250 256 250 256 250 250 m 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 256 250
1150 12209 1377 IS82 12569 1915 7512 2182 2395 7966 2446 2557 2656 3597 9052 3507 3545 3587 11753 3763
115011796 12B5 142710953 1613 6111 !7l5 1819 5771 1734 1751 1754 2300 5592 2094 2045 1998 6328 1957
!ISO 12946 14231 I S6S9 26611 29224 34334 3604 9 3796B 43640 45374 47125 49919 51179 56770 58864 60909 62907 69235 71192
I I I ,
T ABL E I II -14
BASE CASE PLAN I
GAS WITH MELDED GAS PRI CE AT 0%
ESCALAT ION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
CItlPL.)TIVE P~ESOO WOIlT~ TO Ion) 'iOOOl
(~ULA1lUE P~ESENT WORTH FRIJ' 2603 TO 2037
'APiAaLE ,)&I< [051"S (iMO)
TII<WiSr<1;SI\Ji LINE O&H COSTS ,iOOO'
FUEL ,OSTS ,lOOO'
CIJ"[tIENT.1 ~!MPLE CYCLE GAS TURBINES
TRitlSl1ISS\LN LINE O&H COSTS (l0001
GALVAGE VALUE OETERH1NAT)CN ftlO ~EPlACEMOO COST
III IT INSTALLED INSTALlATl(Jl REPLACEMENT
(AP4(1h iEAQ VEAR
t!4,1i
-I 8.23 I~Ba 2018
~C[l 11 4,11 1990 mo
(((1 .3 4.11 1993 1023
[[(T •• 4.11 1998 lOla
[CO 15 6.15 2001 2m
TIW' II e,23 198B 202S
;R~ 11 4.11 19 90 1030
TI!f<II 13 4.11 1993 2['33
I'PtlN ~4 d,11 199B 2f1l8
7;-'/1 .5 (1.:'5 2(:Q2
DllJES L"EEk il!f<l.'. jQ9S 2015
TOTAL
'wi .:rCT: C')~~!N~[l :((l~ =~t:; IS"':lJ. T:j'fP,I';t
RP1REMOO
lEAR
2049
lOSO
2053
1~5$
lW
106B
10'0
2073
1079
2042
294S
Ti'~.J~ "'~.;.:,rJe~·;S;'J~ '.:',~ ... ;S(;(lt.1't:"~, ,'-"i f)t~~'.J~w:NI-; P(f~~<;
4832
1935
2SS79
16n)
11~,3Q
(APPAL I DC·
mr C~51
'lOVO' "~Ml
5~,"I1 72.10
1736 3US
17B6 36.05
17B6 36.05
4J6:, '3.89
5106 66.05
255) 33.03
1551 n03
2551 33.03
331 ! 49. J?
11549 W.61
462r
REPLACEMENT
CDST 1N • 9SJ
(t:~~!fI '
;:"53
BIS
71B
621
809
1138
531
479
403
.027
1131,
SAL'JAGE SALVAGE
VALUE IN lnl? VALUE IN 1983
."~~Ol (lQOO •
:m 29Q
1115 174
I lv] 217
195~ 290
]]32 520
3829 598
2141 ll9
2234 349
2)53 )9S
182 61.1
2695 m
2329Q 3614
,"
CAlENlIf\Q YEAR
~ENAI PENINSUlA LlIf\DS AND RESOUPCES
"EA> OElW'P It'lJ)
REUUIRE~ CAPACIT'i (till LOSS: 5.20%
'EQ D CAP. INCL RESEI(UES OF 29.09 ttl
PF: PE"'EN'!S ;l'iil
[ll1~L~'; '.JE RET! R91ENTS (It/l
E':S!l'(~ KENAI RESOUliCES 1982 -9!.40 til
ANCHQRAGE/F~IREWl~, CAPACITY USED (It/l
CAPA(iT, ADOlTl(JIS (It/.
Cll1ULATJ'JE CAPAW-: AOOlTJtJiS (1iJ)
'DTAl CAPACITI (11/.
NET ~OTAl CAMc;r! (It/l-LOSS 5.10%
SURPLUS (1iJ1
ENERG'r SALES (QjH)
ENERGY GENEIiATltJi (QjHl-LOSS 3.45'1,
TABLE 111':'15
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1'
GRANT LAKE AND GAS
WITH fiELDED GAS PRI CE
AT Ot ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
82.00 84.00 ~ •. oo 89.00 92.00 94.00 97.00 100.00 102.00 104.00 106.00 109.00 m.oo 111.00 112.00 114.00 115.06 \16.00 119.00 122.00
86.50 96.61 90.72 nBB 97,05 99.16102.32105.4910'.59109.70 1I1.81 113.92116.03117.09 118.14 120.15 12l.31 122.16125.53 m.69
114.59116.70 I1B.81 12J.97 115.14127.1500.41 m.S8 135.68 137.79 139.90 142.01 144.11145.IB 146.23 148.34149.40150.45153.62156.78
B.B5 0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ua 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.30
8,85 8.95 8.as B.as 8.85 8.as S.S! 8.85 US 27.80 27.80 27.80 17.80 27.80 27.S0 ~2.IO 52.10 52.10 52.10 76.40
8MS 82.55 82.55 eMS 81.S5 82.55 82.55 81.55 Bl.~S 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 39.30 )9.30 39.30 , •• 30 15.00
32.04 34.15 36.26 39.42 42.59 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.78
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUO 50.00 75.00 75.00 75.00100.00100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 125.00115.00 125.00 141.78
114.59116.70 118.81 111.9] l25.14 131.55 132.55 157.55 151.55 138.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 163.60 164.30 16UO 164.30 164.30 156.78
108.63 110.63112.63115.63118.63125.66 125.66149.36 14U6 131.39 155.09 IS5.09 m.09 155.09 155.09 155.76 155.76 155.76 ISS.76 148.63
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.30 2.14 13.97 21.87 0.81 23.70 11.59 19.48 18.42 17.37 15.96 14.90 13.85 18.68 0.00
397 .00 408.00 419.00 433.00 447.00 462.00 476 .00 490.00 499.00 508:00 517 .00 516.00 535.00 542.00 549.00 555.00 562.00 56e.n0 581.00 594.00
411.19422.58433.97448.47462.97479.51 493.01 507.51 516.83526.15 535.47 54U~ 554.12 561.37 568.62 574.S3 582.08 588.30 601.76 615.13
".' .. 'I'nlllllllll' •• II ••••• IIII ..... II"IIIII.I ............ IIII ... 111 ........ ".111111111 ... 111 ........ 1111 ........ 1111 ........... " ........ 1I1f111l11l •• IIIIIIIIIII ... IIIIII ............ ..
GENERATIll< PLItl FOR em OF SSWID
PEAK IlEI'<IIjD (til) 9.60 13.80 14.20 14.60 15.10 15.60 16.00 16.50 16.90 17.10 17.50 17.80 19.20 18.40 18.60 18.80 19.00 19.20 19.70 20.20
% OF KENAI PENINSUlA PEAK 16.46% lUI 16.43 16.51 16.40 16.41 16.60 16.49 16.50 16.57 16.54 16.51 16.48 16.55 16.58 16.61 16.49 16.52 16.55 16.55 16.56
D~ ItiCL. NET RESEMS Of 4038 ttl 13.98 19.18 18.58 18.98 /9.48 19.98 20.38 20.S8 21.28 21.58 21.88 22.IB 22.59 22.78 22.98 23.18 23.39 13.59 24.08 24.58
CAP. INCL. SI¥IRE OF NET SURPLUS (lioll 13.99 18.1S 18.58 18.98 19.48 10.81 20.71 24.62 24.69 21.71 25.58 25.55 25.62 25.65 25.69 25.67 25.70 25.74 25.75 24.58
ENERG' SALES (~Hl 48.70 70.60 72.50 74.30 77 .20 79.70 82.20 84.90 86.40 8Ur. BUD 91.20 92.80 93.90 95.00 96.20 97.30 98.50 100.80 103.10
CIJiPtJiENT II
f,R<m \AKE HYDROELECTRIC
ltISTALLEv CAPACI:y '11/. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
"ep£lj0A8lE CAPACITY ("Ii) : 6.60 LOSS: 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55
OVeQAGE ANNl"L GENERATltJi (~H' 0.00 3.QO 0.00 0.00 UO 25.40 25.40 25.40 15.40 15.40 15.40 25,40 15.40 15.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 15.40
OVE~"GE ;l/IlUAL ~ElJ'.'E~IES (~HI LOSS: I. SO 0.00 I~ .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.94 24.94 14.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 14.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 14.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94
:API'AL CDST ISOOO) 0.00 0.00 3084 11584 sm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
IN''E"EST Dl'P1NB Cft<STRUCTltJi \tODD) 0.00 0.00 0 304 678 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
iJM'I [~IT ,1000 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00301.00302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 3')2.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 301.00
TQlliL CQST CIJ\P[t~EI/T ~1 i tODD' 0 9 )084 11998 S056 l02 302 302 302 301 302 Ji!2 3fr? 302 l02 302 302 302 302 302
ENER,' DELluEPJES FPiJ'! GAS {CiJ~·' 48 .7~ in .60 '2.50 'd .30 " .20 S4.76 Si .26 59.9. ~1.46 63.06 6U6 66.26 P.86 69.96 70.06 71.16 71.36 73.56 75.86 79.16
".,PH GENEPilTl~1 GA> i ~~I LDSS: 5.00:: 51.26 '4.32 76.32 18.74 81.26 5'.64 60.27 63.11 64.6' 66.38 P.9S 69.14 'I.Q' 71.59 73.74 71.01 76.1' 77.43 79.85 82.27
1 I I , ,
CI)1PlI'<OO 12
NEll (I)1SINED CYCcE flAB TtlP8!NES
.;E\iIIRO SHAPE OF CAPAC:TY ~DOJTllI'<S (~)
rAPjTpL ('SO i 1005 j 6" '11,
ItiTEREST DUQ1~r, C(J,STRUCTHJI moo!
~~;t<mllJl r.APIT4l coS'! ($oon'
1I<1,;£$T :'UQING CIlljTRUCTI::t1 :lflOO)
8.76/~
021 i'fJ
8.0V'ti
;1l$TALLE~ [AP4CITI ;'fJ,
TRtt'8HiSSlll' 0&t1 iigno"'IJ-'p) 10.20
'iF IN,~"LLED fAP4CF' ,~, !(lOSS' 9.no
POTENTIAL EliERGI r,ENEI1t\!jlJi «JlH!
4(1UAl EtlERG' GENERATllJi .~~i
PiERf:f :'t ... ;uERJ£S t~HI
"CTU.! CAP4(·c. ,eUO, CI)1PI}IEtff M1
I)AR!4QLE ~L·I~ :CS~ ~40C~j I 4.2B/9.lH
~EAT 'lA:E (It1BTUiQ,lk) S7~O
~tlEl ?~i(E 'ij~91IJt
FdEl COST liOOO I
SAt...;GE VALUE : iOOO)
'DTAl cCST C:)iPlI'<OO 12 (fOOD)
[!l'PlliEtIT '3
E'i~Tl~5 SIMPLE cytlE GilS TURamES
INSTALLED CAP~CITI (~)
NF If,STALLED CAPAC:;' (/t.I) 'l. LOSS: B.OO
ENERO! DELl'JEPIES ((ljHl
ENERGy GEIIERATIl'I' (91H'
jl?ACi'" <A[TOR [(t'"!J,EtIT .3
l~iirA8LE i)&t-f COST 't,MO)
' .. ~~-Q~lt ,~g:~I/~H~
'IJEL "RICE I $f't!llTll I
::'~'E~ C~S" 'SOOf ~
·O'Al (OST C(J1Pll'ENT U (fOOO l
(1)10"'£'<' '4
~.wE' [~. -SE>ilRD T~ISl1rSgIl}IlINE
;r ... rtP~~T (I\JPIN6 [~STRIJP'llJ, {t(!O~ I
(!&I'I CC5T\OG~'
:.tI~'.:4St ~.JALIJE !.~q~ I
"TAL :DS' ::;'OlJlEllT 14 "~OOI
'CTAL ie,T 1000 I
;:'wESENT '"IJlr'l.l !~" ,'te0(1'
':lM'JL"TI'JE P. J. IN 'l~OOI -
D.OO
l! .80
0,08
(I.i!:)
0.00
0.00
3
0.00
t ,00
U .00
0.30
0.00
0.00
j .00
0.00
0.65 0.74
o 0
UO O.DO
o
TABLE III':'15
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS
WITH MELDED GAS PRICE
AT 0% ESCALATION
o. or
o
o
[, .00
UO
UO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D. 'J~
~ .00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o .OQ
D .00
0.00
0.S2 1.00
o 0
0.00 0.00
o 0
(Sheet 2 of 3)
~.~~ 4.:~ m,
42
2954
39
0.00 4,7~
~"O(i 4.76
C.O~ 48.55
4.18
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
UO
0.00 n.OO
U,) 0.4. 0,00 0.00 4.11
J,2 0 2'8t
4 36
28S 2553
C.:10 ~.OC j.~~ li.~C -l.11
o r 27~6
) " 2S53
UQ 0.00 0.00 6.15
416:,
54
3ei6
o 33 31 49
4.70 5.21 5.22 Ul Ul '.31 ".33 9.33 1.33 13.45 13.45 13.45 )).45 19.60
4.'t './2 ,.12 5.22 '.J! 9:33 9.33 ~.J3 ?33 11.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 11.60
4B.55 53.24 5U4 51.14 15.11 15·.21 95.21 95.21 95.21137.17137.1' 117.1-12'.17 199,90
4.38 4.80 4,81) 4,8n ',.5' 8,59 B.59 8.59 U' !2.r 12.37 !U7 12.37 18.03
0.00 3.01 3.02 J.Ol 3US 30.05 30.05 30,~5 30.05 :;7.0B 57.08 57.09 57.0817.4B
0.09 3.n 3.02 H2 JUS JU5 30,05 10.05 JUS 57.08 57.08 57.08 57.08 82.27
0,00 2.87 1.B7 2.B' 28,54 J8.54 28.54 2B.S4 18.54 54.22 54.22 54.22 54.22 '8.16
UO 0.7 5 OJ: 'U5 0.75 0.'5 0.'5 0,'5 0.75 0.'5 0.'5 0.'5 0.1 5 0.63
0.00 11.12 12 •• , 11.92 12B.60 128.60 1l9,6fl 128.60 12B.60 144.28244.18244.28 244JB 352.12
1.13
o
0.00
6258
1.27 1.41 1,54
40
0.00
10)
1.73
45
0.00
1!1
!.B4 1.91 2,94 1.94 2.94
2104
0.00
2656
o 0 481 1460 1460
0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 0,00
49. 653 1841 99le
15.20 1'1.76 20.20 20.63 11.17 10.74 10.64 14.41 14.~O 11.11 It.35 IU2 11.40 11.43 11.47
D.gs 18.19 IS.S8 18,98 19.48 9.89 9.79 13,27 13.)4 10.36 10.44 10.4\ 10.48 10.52 10.55
49.:\ 70.60 72.50 74.90 p"n 54.1, 57.26 57.Q' OS.5 1 60.19 j6.~1 37.71 39.31 40.41 41.51
51.26 7Ul 76.31 'B.74 al.26 ,'.14 60.27 6U9 61.67 !3.36 3;,91 39,70 4Ua 42.54 43.70
0.,9 H) 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.61 1),65 0.48 P'49 0 .• 4 r.l9 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.43
7.34 7.3B 7.41 7.42
6.75 6.79 6,82 6,83
17.04 lB.14 19.34 21.64
p,93 19.09 2U.35 22,7)
0.28 0.10 0.31 0.35
99,26 Q3,q~ 100.18 l:2,~'
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 m.32 365.79 37U' 18"54 39'.98 293.70 296.65 295.'9 303.5/ 311.85 196.5B 105." 2n,~ 19 •. <8 115.08
0,65 0.74 0.B2 1.00 1.13 1.27 1.41 1.S4 1.73 1 7" I.B4 1.0 j 1.96 2.'14 2.94
40f' 660 751 945 1101 8'S 1020 III1 11S0 Illl B37 91r 971 IS'! 1541
652 1016 1127 1332 1502 11.1 1316 1406 1584 1641 1014 1105 un 1710 1757
4'4 1I03?
2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94
m n 71B S03
721 W ela 916
1.94
0.00
0.00
3.40 14b.0~ 0 "0 n vee 0 0 0 0 0 r. U U g
D.ao un 2:0.00250.00250.00150.00250.00250,00 250.00 l~.Q.OO 15(:.00250.00250.00250.00 m.oo 250.00 250.00 250.00 150,00 250.00
un uo ~.oo C.ilO ~.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 un urc un c.oo, 0.00 ~,co 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
40' 111'1 m m loc 251\ m 1,0 ,5(' 251} 250 m 250 250 250 m 100 m 250 150
1150 Im9 4461 11471 16965 :'63 2"21 2065 124~ 7'15 2280 2380 1465 3m n9 3il4 3161 3212 11394 3208
i15~ i~:96 I2t64 121~e l4"B~ 1484 2Q'Sj 16n !:(11 5661 1.~;7 '630 ~eJI 2CSl om 1859 1m 17ij9 6134 1669
:,5, 1214., 1'110 2<160 .. ,,44 45~2a 4;58' 401n 5Cm 565'0 5BI9' 598P 61449 6353C 6B9!O 70769 72502 74381 S0515 821S4
'~
f .-
TABLE III':'15
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE AND GAS
WITH foE WED GAS PRI CE
AT Ot ESCALATION
Sheet 3 of 3)
"''''i~'';I~ Ll',E 0&1+ COSTS l.ft~Ol
Ai; .. KE 0!11 COSTS ',.000'
FUEL COSTS (tODD I
[~P(JIEtIT .3 SIMPLE C~ClE GAS TURBINES
C~P~EtIT 14 OAVES CREE~ TPANSMISSlttI lI~E
T~ISSlttI LINE 0&1+ COSTS mODI
SUBTOTAL (tODD)
SAL'JAGE '!ALLIE Om~I~TlttI /flO REPLACEMW CO<;T
2601
115562
il~lT IIjSTALLEO INSTAlLATI ttl REPLACEMEtIT RET I REtlM CAPJTAL IOC
CAPAC In·-YEAR YEAR lEAR COST COST
REPlAC~
COST IN 1983
'~l 'S~OO; 'to,11 {t010'
(cn Itt ~,7. 19se 1018 2048 3224 41.71 1014
~f..~"t 11 ~.46 1990 201" 2050 J\2 1l.~3 '!
[CiT .3 4,11 1993 2m 20S) 2'9. 30,05 738
,[Cl 14 4.11 1'98 2029 1058 218. 36,05 621
~~CT .5 0.15 2002 lOll 20., 4165 Sl.B' BO'
"AI. I: 4.:6 19S8 2e/, 2~6a 2054 3UI 65"
~iWI I, 0.4. 1990 mo 2Q"0 m 3.69 50
.. ;;~t. ii3 '.Il 1093 2033 2:"3 2553 33.03 4'0
',AN .~ ~, II 19?~ 2038 20'B 2553 n.n) 40;1
";Qlii tl':: ~, 15 2r~2 t'42 ,"16 49,31
~,,;l:ES C,cEE" "'~iS, PB, 1~: , 204:' 1~:4'; i.n,61 4vi M
:f):AL 16984 8QO:
M· "
.. :'1J~SPi'T ',"\C-',J ,-.r: "L"', 1"'" ~ ",
':c':-: C~,uF;',E:, t :~?','S-"Il'. }PE ; '~E
-PAt4: "f:' .... L:w.;;·;:U:tl i..!*'JE AS30!~:J!,~~~ .• : ... ~ ~lt~j"E~"IS :~~-~.~ ,E~::
.~ , , • ~ I f
SALVAGE GALVAGE
'.x\LUE ]tl 2Q31 \~LUE IN !~S3
(SOOO I moo,
I07~ 168
125 I'
1393 {Ii
lass m
3132 m
2m 346
128 36
2m 3J'
:~5? 1"9
3~2 ,.
,6'5 ,?~
laos' 2R?J V
~ * " 1 t , ! l ! I • , ,
C()iPll'ltl" • 1
NEW c()i9lNED CYCLE GAS TURBINES
~.EWARD S~RE OF CAP~rl"'" ~DOITlIJjS (/t01
LAPnAL COlT ·tr.'~ I P','H;I
l'r:Q~;"" -~,;fii:~i~ .:,~~~T:i·'<!]i ',IOO~; 8,"~:~
Tp~r";".~~;[t, ; .... r.:l-.::.~ {-,}~" .,'f:~~, c2~Pf.t
;.,-~~:3-i+j!jG ~~1~':T~!,'~;LN 'C~10J 8,"!V>'4..!
~US-~l'.tD CAPAC IT)' (~l
~Q;.I:~:~SI~i ~ ('O~CJM,j-¥Ql 1f..tO
''IE"'" i: .... _ ...r:; ~'::';i:;C7' .... .J' :-,1 .... 083::: &,!}i)
~:~E:;~: ... , ~f~EQ(,~ SfNE~A:;{J~ '_Wkl
fNft1r.y :'hPJERIES ',Wtfl
~CHl'\l C~p4cm ,AnOR C:J<?IJjEl'1T *1
,"':.\Bct ~ COST m"o' 4.2B·W"
~E~~ 'ATE '~ti8"T!J.'-!):I-l· 3:~O
c:.~~~ CoO!::£" 'tfWS1'~:l
r;!E~ C('ST ,,10~~ I
T9TAL [%".0'0'
PPE:;ElI' YORT" I" 'I~'J(' I -1993
(',1"·._O·I'.'E P. ~. iii ,1000i· 19p)
(iJlPIJjE'iT.1 CiJlBINEO CYCLE C'I1S TURBINES
\1I\R1ABLE ~ COSTS (.OO~,
:" '
::(7., ".11 1019
T~:olL
TABLE II I:' 16
BASE CASE PLAN II
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 1)
9.00 0,00 O.O~ 0.00 O.O~ .:2 uo C'.[IO O.flU 0,(10 0.00 a.·10 un UO 0.0 01 0."0 0.00 ~.oo 0.00 un
o C u 4Bn 0 roo '0 0 0 0 0 0 0
", ,"If ~ ,:~ ~! ,I}Q
[, ':J! ;:.
;i,oe 57 J.~!I: ~I,~:[i ~,oo ~.(1r ,},:l~ o.~e C,JO r),';(, ~.10
0.00 G.QO G.QO 0.00 un ,12 7.12 ".12 7.12 ),:, '.12 ".12 ',:2 '.12 7.12 7.12 7.12 7.12 7.:2 7.12
0.00 L~,j 0.10 O,OU :.i2 ",:2 'l,12 -:,;2 ,!2 7.12 ,:2 7.12 ",12 ),12 i.l2 ~,;2 :,!2 7.12 7,12
0.00 C,O~ 0.0[0 r.00 0.0" '2.62 72." '1.62 72.62 (2,,2 '2,62 '2.12 '2.62 '2.': 72.62 '2.62 71.62 72.62 '2.62 72.,2
',v: "t,,-',Y ~,~~ ~,~~ t.~.~ s,~: ",~~r h.): ",::, .... ~~ _,ee _~.e~ ~,:~ ,),5'5 ~,~~-5.5'5. 6,55
(:.';0 G.O: ~,nJ .l~,.-:9 46,78 46,~B .t1."~ 4t,-:? 4,;,7'3 40,~g 4.5,-:e 46.78 4t,,'8 46.78 4~.-'g 46.:~ 4~,7e 4r.i.
':',i![1 O.':~ I).f'~ 2~.2: 2~,25 ~;.f5 ~-c,2~t 26.25 2-t<,2~ :.:,,25 2c,,~5 26.25 to.2: 26.25 2~,25 26.25 26.25 U.25
LOO 0.00 0.00 e.oo UO 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24,94 24,94 24,94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94
0.42 8.42 0.42 O.~2 0.42 g.42 0.42 0,4; 0,42 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
0.00 LOU 9.0, 0,00 UO 112.35 112.35 m.ll 1:2.35 Ili.3' 112.~5 112.35 112.35 m.ll 112.35 112.3~ m.ll 112.l5 112.35 112.35
2.77 2,':'6 2.55 2,'r l,~~ 2,.;9 [,97 3,05 3.~4 3.22 3,:~ 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.<19 l,i' 3.S' 4.10 4.11 4.n
[i n 6/2 n 697 71' 71' '5. 776 ;.7 920 B4l 860 Bsa ' 14 931 966
0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 D.ro 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
n 0 0 0 9360 847 Sol Sal 902 920 941 961 ,82 1005 1028 1051 1073 1098 1124 1151
;'36~ ?d7 963 982 9"1 'i?~ '441 '=~l Q82 1~~5 ~~2~ 1051 10:1 1~~8 1124 IISI
B15-711 702 11J ,~5 675 .\;l' 65' 641 oll on 619 611 OO~ 599
31'5:-: 88"0 9)'3 I02t'S lQ Q50 116' :22?3 12Q51 14/44 148'9 15506 16125 107,7 17342 17940
17940
4821 61.39 : 517 2Si
'-
12II/B3
~~P('tffi(f II
.;!lAtfT lA~E flYOPOElECTRIC
'NS'4LLED C/lPAc;n (1'\4,
~FC~i)ol~lE CAPACIT'j ~"""-;: 6.6~ lO<;S::, 0.90 O,~,::
'l\!ERA[iE otflllAL GEIJEPATlI); ',(l;~) ~. C 1
A"!EI!A;;E A'fll./iil OElIumES (94Hl lOSS: ; ,80 ",OU
':APlTAl COST (tom 0.00
!IfTEREST DI'~IN[i C(lISTRUCTlrt< (tOOij) 0.00
iJ6tt (OS~ (1000 I 0.00
'OT4l (OST CI)1°I);EN1 II (tODD I 0
PRESENT YOI!TH IN (IO~O) -! 0B3
CltlUlJ'TIIJE p, Y. IN (tO~~, -1983
[LI'UlilTiVE PRESENT WOI!T~ TO 2002 'tODD)
iJ&I'! COSTS (tODO)
0.00
O. ~?
0.00
0.00
0.00
c! .O~
n
o .~o
1.00
0.00
un
3fiB4
TABlE III~17
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11-1
GRANT LAKE,
(Sheet 1 of 1)
n.OO UG , .00 '7 .n~ , .00 : .00
~, ~o e ,('~' 6.55 6.5' ~.::' 6.55
ij .~O 0.00 25.40 15.40 15.40 25.40
0,00 0.00 24.94 14.94 14.94 24.Y4
115B4 8177 O.O~ un 0.00 0.00
0.00 ~04.15 pg.11 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00
7.00
6. ~'5
15.40
24.94
0.00
0.00
un 1.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
.~. C;5 US 6.S5 US t..~~ !.~S •• 55 1.55 6.55 6.55
2~ ,4~ 15.40 15,40 15.40 25.40 1~ ,40 15.40 15.40 25.40 25.40
24.14 14.94 14.94 14.04 14.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o .O~ O.M 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 uo 0.00 0.00 0.09 un 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 ~ .00 0.00302.00302.00 30UO m.oo 302.00 301.00 302.00 302.00 302.00302.00302.003112.00302.00302.00302.00
lna4 Il~88 8951 lOI m 301 302 301 30i 3G; 302 JG2 lOI 301 302 302 302 302
2S"Q WI) 'SD4 154 246 23) 119 m 2: 4 m 200 193 187 180 174 16B l6J 157
2B'9 11601 2140. 21661 21906 21144 1m3 12514 mO Q 13015 ml5 23408 23595 2PS l3949 2411B 242BO 24437
2043'
3142
, , , ,
CALENMR YEAR 1983 1984
CIl'WIllOO II
90 tij SMOLEY LAKE HYDflOELECTRIC
lNS1ALLED CAPAnTY '>tI) 0.00 B ,00
OEPBl~BLE CAPAC ITY (ttl) = 6,61 LOSS: • a .00 0.00 0,00
SU~PLUS NfT CAPACIT! (ftj) GRIM = 6.~5 >tI 0.00 .00
I.i\LUE (II' SURPLUS CAPACIT'I moo) -14.06 PER tij 0,00 0.00
4IIEIIA4lE M<UAL GENERATJII4 (IJIH) 0.00 0.00
4IIEIIA4lE ~~ OEllVERIES (IJIH) LOSS: 8.00 0.00 0.00
cAPITAL C~gl ($000) IS7 sas
lInREST Ou?INO CIJISTRUCT11JI ($000) 1.83 \3,14
Il&I< COST ($000) 0.00 0,00
TOIA!. caST CIl'WII4S'fT .1 (tODD) 159 599
PRESOO \IOl!TH IN (tODD 1 -1983 m 578
Ci.l1ULATlVE p, II, IN ($000) -1983 159 738
Ci.I1ULATlliE PRESOO ~OIlTH TO 2002 ($000)
CIJIUl!!TM PllEIIENf 10m! Fml 20B3 TO 2037
CIl'WII4EN'l II 90 tij IlRAIltEY LAkE
il!I1 COS'lS ($000)
IMlIJE Of SURI'lUS MMCIT'I (tODD 1
C\I1ULATIVE PRESENT UOIIT" OF ALT. P[JflII-3 ($000)
TABLE 111':'18
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11-2
PORT ION OF 90 MW BRAOLEY LAKE
(Sheet 1 of 1)
19B~ j98. 1087 1188 1989 1990 1'9\ \'91
0.00 0,00 o ,PO 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6,61
0,00 o,oe 0,00 6.08 6.08 6.08 6.08 6.0a
0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47
0.00 0.00 0.00 34.58 3M8 3M8 34.58 3M8
0.00 0.00 0.00 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 21.11
0.00 0.00 0.00 24,94 24,94 24.94 2U4 24,94
4712 SS81 5932 3241 UO Q ,00 0,00 0,00
S7,49 166,', 475,92 665,38 0.00 0.00 o ,co 0,00
0.00 0.00 0.00 91.34 91.34 9t.34 91.J4 91.34
4799 5848 6408 4032 126 116 116 126
4480 5174 5584 3395 102 99 96 92
5m 10m 16076 19471 19514 19673 1~768 19861
20m
950
360
21939
1QQ] j994 1 ';05 19'6 \997 Ilia 1999 2000 2001 2002
6.61 >.61 6.61 6.61 6,61 6,61 6.61 6.61 6,61 6.61
6.08 6.08 6.08 6.08 6.08 6.08 ua 6.08 6.08 6.08
-0,4: -0.47 -0.47 -0.41 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47 -0,47 -0.41
34.58 34.58 34.58 34.58 34.58 34.58 34.58 34.58 34.58 34.58
27.11 27.11 27,11 27.11 27.11 27.11 21.11 27.1I 27.1t 27.11
24.14 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94
uo 0,00 UO uo 0.60 0,00 uo 0.00 0.00 3.00
0.00 0,00 0.00 v.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00
9] ,34 9].34 91.l4 91.34 91.34 91.34 9\.34 91.34 91.34 91.34
126 126 126 116 126 116 126 126 12. 126
99 86 83 81 78 75 73 70 68 45
19950 20036 20120 20200 20278 20353 20426 20496 20564 20629
'""-"_ .. ----------------------
1-
CGtPlMIiT II
1351'1/ BMOlE'l lA«E HVDf!O£LEmiC
INSTALLED CApjlCm (1'1/)
DEPEHllABlE CAPACITY (I'I/l = 10.26 lOS9= un
SURPLUS NET CAPACITY (ttl) GI!I1HT. 6.55 1'1/
IJAlUE jJf SURPLUS CAMCITY (tOOO) -74.06 PER 1'1/
AliEN ~ GENERATION IQ,IH)
AUEI!A6E IlHIUAl IltllVERIES ({MIl lOSSo g.oo
CAPITAL COST (IO~O)
INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION <.000'
IlIH OIST aGOO)
IV4CHQM6t-SDlDOTMtt INIUTIE WITAl OIST (tooo>
INTEREST DIIRING cumflUCTlON (tiOO)
IlIH CIIST (1080)
SAlVlltlE (tOOO)
TIJTAl COST CIIII'III9IT II (tODD)
PliESSfl WORTH III (tiGD) -1983
CIttWIl'I'IE P. W. IN I ... " -1983
CIttUlATIIIE PIlUeIT WORTH TO 21112 'tlOOl
CII!UlATIVE PRESOO WOR'TM FRm 2003 TO 2IIl7
CM'OH8fI " 135 ttl IMIIlE'l lAKE
!11K COSTS (1000)
TRIV4S. !11K COSTS moo)
VIIlUE OF SURPLUS CAPACITY (tOOO)
SUBTIJTAl (fOOO I
SAlVIIGE VAlUE OETERHI~TlON ~D ~EPLACEMEtIT COST
I TABLE r II':' 19
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11-3
PORTION OF 135 MW BRADLEY LAKE
(Sheet 1 of 1)
19B3 1984 1995 1m 1987 1988 1989 1990 19?1 1992 1"3 1994 1995 199, 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 un 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26 10.26
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
UO 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 2.90 2.98 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214 -214
0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 0.0027.112 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 27.11 21.11 27.11
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24,94 24.94 24.94 24.94
165 613 4935 5845 6213 3394 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.ll 13.77 91.62279.33498.44696.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0,00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34 91.34
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5'553 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 o.oe UO 0."
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D •• O 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 8.00
0.00 0.00 D.OO 0,00 0.0871.22 71.2271.2271.2271.2271.2271.2271.2271.2271.2271.2271.22 71.2271.2271.22
167 627 5827 6124 12337 4039 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 "52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52
167 6U 46'2 SS24 10751 3401 -42 -41 -39 -38 -37 -36 -34 -33, -32 -3.1 -:Ill -29 -28 -27
167 m 5465 10989 21m 25140 25098 25057 25018 249110 24943 24908 24873 24848 2.8 'l!fm 24747 24718 'l!f49t MU3
24"3
741
-2231
24124
OllT INSTAllEJ) INSTALlATION REPLACEMENT RETIR9fEHT CAPITAl IOC REPLACEMENT SAlVIIGE SAlIJAGf
CAPAClT'I YEAR yEAR YEAR COST COST COST IN 19IIl VIILUE IN 2037 VALUE IN 1983
(1'1/) (tODD) moo) (tODD) (tOOO\ (tODD)
TIWtS. 2018 2048 5553 71.85 1746 1851 28e.84
CltMATiVE I'AESENT U()J!1'H OF ALT. PLIV4 I H (tODD) 2'5582
TIWtS: ~CHORAGE-SOLountl lNTERTI~
1 ,
c
1 I ,
TABLE I JI-20
ALTERNATIVE PLAN II -4
SUSITNA WITH GAS TILL 1992
rt .. _(lHT~"tt ~; ,)l': ": ... ;..;. £"T :C :t~MfI WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
'N nllllll;S Of 19d) DOlUlAS
DlstGIIfI lATE U .. " CAPitAl RWMRY fACTDR .Hum (Sheet 1 of 2)
lilT'" II'1D11l1ElECTIIC HOJ£tT DEVIL CiVlillj Ii'IDROHEClRI( PROJECT
, YW rM'1l111. ."2 AIt«J\T'f \lmRESl 1992 loe OP£AAllttl T01Al tllPITAI. 2061 IHlUITI INTEREST ?flO I 111£ OPEIOlT III; TOlA!
~ FlIT .. lASED .. 1111 fllTUIIE Alt«JITI' • MINT. IftiN. fllTUilE IlASE~ 1lUR1fl6 fllTUilE NtlUlTt • MIHl. iHlUAl
CJ) taT. III 'H2 tIIIST. QT. f1lllllH2 COSl WOIITH ttl 2811 CItlST. WOIITN filii 2011 COST
F. W. If f. II. Of f. w. Of f. II. OF
... !S.n 531.11 I17U8 2 ..... 2
un
198.
ItIS 333.21 423.'. 4.31 ' •• 8
I'" 289.83 "'.21 IU. If.1l
Itl1 •.. ,. "'.11 24.41 n."
I,. '14.1' 432.21 •. 14 4Uf
.,If 44U3 4,.." :14.32 ".n .". '.'.11 .... 34 14 .• If.''
IHI '2'.41 643.21 H." 11".1
IH2 4)1.94 431.'. 122.11 122.11
,ttl ''''.41 1".12 In.'' ".11 ".11 22.64 I ... ' lI'.4I
I," n.2'S ".2'S In.fI I.M 22.6. 11.1' 216.41
It" 112.9\ 22.'4 ,1.1, 216.41 2 ... " 3J1l.Bl 3.41 4.18
"" 112.9\ 22.64 ,1.1, lI4.4I 111.11 1l9." 11.11 13.15
1997 m.fl 22.64 11.1' 216.41 2".51 235.12 16.11 It.18
Iftl 11UI 22.64 11.1' 2".41 297.89 3J1l.21 25.48 21.47
1m 17UI 22.'4 11.1' lI .... 2".:14 .5." 34." 1'.41
2m In.'' 12.44 ,1.1, 2".41 • 24U4 255.18 41 .6] 4UG
U.I 112.91 22.64 lI.n 2".41 • 159,2, 15'.2' 54.81 56."
261l m.91 22.64 lI.n lI'.4I 18.12 17.51 15.01 31.23 JIl.17 10.27 5.11 91.94
1113 In.,, 22." 11.1' lI'.4I 75,'7 11.21 $.II 91.94
1114 In.t! n.64 11.1' 21'.41 n." It,21 5.11 fU4
2IH In.t! 22.'4 11.1' 21'.41 n • ., 11.27 UI ".f4
*' In.t! 22.64 11.1' 21'.41 n.67 ".21 "'I ".f4
2111 112.91 22." 1'.85 216.41 15 •• ' 11.27 5.11 96.94
lI •• 172.'1 22." lI.n 21 .... 15.67 10.27 5.11 ".94
lI" 17U' 22." I'.n lI •• 4I 75." 11.27 5.01 96.94
1111 m.fl 22,'4 II." 21 •• 41 15.'1 11.21 UI te.94
lIli tn.'1 12.44 II." lI •• 4I 15.67 11.21 5.11 ... t4
lIl2 tn.'1 22.'4 II." lI'.4I 75.61 '1.27 5.11 ".94
2113 172 .9\ 22,64 11.15 2".4' 75 .• 7 11.27 5.01 H.t4
2.14 m.fl 22.64 11.85 206.4' 75.67 '1.21 Ul 90,94
2115 172.91 22." I'." 216.41 n." 11.27 5.1, 'U4
281. 172.91 22.64 ".85 2".41 75.'1 11.21 5.11 ".9.
2111 l12.tl 22.'4 '1.15 216.41 15.61 11.27 5.11 H.9.
lilt 172.~1 22.64 I'.n 216.4. n.'1 ".21 5.11 ".t4
2819 172.91 22.64 11.15 286.46 75.67 19.21 5.'1 90.94
2m 112.91 22.64 ".85 2".4' 15.61 10.21 5.11 90.9.
2121 112.91 22." IU5 206.~0 15 .• 7 1'.27 5.11 H.P4
2022 \12.91 22.64 1'.15 216.41 15.67 11.27 5.1' 96.94
2m 112.91 22.64 11.15 206.46 75 .• 7 n.21 5.01 91.94
2124 172.91 22." 11.85 2".41 75.61 IUl 5.11 H.9.
2615 172.91 n .• 4 10.15 206.40 7Ul IO.n 5.01 90.94
2016 172.91 22.44 10,85 106.40 75 .• ' 10.1) 5.ul ••. 94
1021 171.91 22 .... 10.95 116.40 :r~ . ~;' I~. ,~ ~."I YO.94
2618 1'2.91 11.64 10.85 10 •. 40 11.,.0 1 HI.!~ ~.(q 90.94
2019 111.9J 12 .• 4 IU5 206.40 7~ .• 7 10, :7 ~.61 911.44
2Q1I 172.91 22 .•• 10.85 266.40 )~. ,I 10.P ~.~I 90.94
lOll IlUI n .• • 10.8~ 204.40 n"w" 10.1' ~.Ol 9(1,94 v 1m 1l2.91 n.44 lu.a~ iO •. 40 .,~.o ' 1I.?~ HI 9(, .94
20ll I l:,'\ li .• ~ j~ ,~!-,o •. 4u !~ .ol 10.1' 5.<11 "1I, ~.
2034 1'1.91 22,64 lpe~ ]0 •. 40 :~.o" 1t .) <; ~ .tlt ~t .94
10)5 Pi.91 22 .• 4 1O.6~ 206.48 "~.31 IO.P UI 90. ~4
lI). 1'1.91 n.'4 10.~ ?lil-.48 "5.0 1 HI,!:' Ul 90.·.
2011 m.vl 11 .• 4 IUS 21)6."0 J,),,, ~ ;:l.r ~.lJt y •. v.
TABlE III-20
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 11-4
SUSITNA WITH GAS TILL 1992
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
SUSllNA H'l'DIlOElECl'IC PROJECT ' (Sheet 2 of 2)
~fjII I'I'HtIMl IDC III'£IIATlI1ITOlM. HRKTAlllE COST PER 6IWfI COif Of PllESilfl CIII. P.W. Ilt:PEHM8lE N£T N£T (APACII'I' 9JERWACII'I WACITI PRES8fI (III. P .W. CIII. PllESENT (III.
-IIHtUII'I IIIHITI~ • IIIIIIT. _ SUUlNA II1II lAKE 6MII WORTH EQUIV. tAl'AClI'I CAlW:II'I (/til 6MII LAKE 91.1 (/tI) flIDJUSlIIDIf WOItTH fI'P • WOItTH 1'1(500
COif III'II6Y III'R6't lAKE Elil/IV. ENER6't SUSllNA lOSSES ARE ItltIIElAllE 6MII I.AKE • ·.174155 fI'P. flIDJUSf. (1M11liO WOIfIl
(lUll EIil/IV. EtItIIV. ME (/til 3.60:HU2 SUSllMiI ENER6'I '.55/t1 I'P/tl I\I)JUST. ~m 00111(
1II'.6~ 1983 4."S 2003 111 (/til 1983 TUIIIllliS PIAN
1983 .... .... I." .... TIIIIII ,"2
1914 •••• . ... .... . ...
If. I." .... .... • ••• 1984 .... .... . ... . ...
1 .. , .... .... . ... . ... '.a. ....
1988 .... I." I." .... 1.11 '.81
19" .... 8.11 . ... 1.11 "" t.51
Ittl 1.01 .... .... • ••• 1'.21 1'.21
1"1 1.11 .... .... .... IUS II."
1m .... I." 1.11 .... S." "' .
If" 11UI 22.64 11.15 284.41 ma ....• """ 2...,4 1.143421 l.mM' 1.n5t4' 193." 141.15 7.21 '.72 ·'.IS ·.13184' •• 13784' 5." 7.17
1994 172.91 22.44 11.15 216.41 2951." .1.,..1f 24,94 1.741171 J.1f253, 2.4214.7 893." .... 15 7.2. '.71 ·f.15 •. 'UI" •. l1me S." U1
I'" HUt 22.64 11.115 214.4' 3015." .1614871 24.94 I. 71325' J.lllII6 ).562293 '93 ... ....15 7.15 '.41 • ••• 4 -.129114 •• IIlIU UI '.44
I'" 172.91 22.64 ".15 214.41 3IIU' .168l414 24,94 1.7IUI4 J..N315 4.45267. "3.11 841.15 1.11 '.56 ..... -.124129 -.129171 5." 1M'
1991 112.91 22." ,US .... 3121." .... Im 24.94 1.71114$ I.Hl3I1 5.7131" "3.1, 141.15 7.If '.54 • ••• 4 -.124161 -.154532 I." 11.12
If .. In.'' 22 .... I ... ' .... 3IH." .1615621 24." 1 •• If ... 15191 '.1IIfSI "3.1, 141.15 7.11 1.4. .. •• 4 -.121112 ·.I756IS 5." 12.51
I"' 11UI ft .... • ••• ".41 3157 .... 1675184 24." 1.614111 .nUl" 1 .... 1 .. "3." 141.15 7.12 '.41 ".14 -.121242 -.1"927 S.,. II."
21 .. 172.91 22.64 1 ... 5 216.41 3164.11 .1673443 24,94 I .... 26' • fl62521 '.616442 "3." .... 15 7.11 1.46 ".U -.1I1I9S '.214122 S.,. 14 •• ,
HI' 172.'1 22." 11.15 21'.41 3115.11.'4147" 24." 1.4*82 ."24167 MI,.., "3.11 141.15 6.92 1.31 -1.13 ,.114561 -.229_ 5." IU6
2IU 241 •• ... 31 15.16 3".15 4555.11 •• 196161 24.94 1.984379 1.133221 1'.54232 1272.1. 1211.51 6.4, • ••• .... 11 -.103251 -.2m46 S ... .. ...29 III. 141.:11 ,..,. ..... MUS 4m." .'176157 24." l.m464 .fn"M II.SI4I2 1272." 1211.51 4.47 ..... ' •• 1 ... mu -.229m i.,. . ";r-, ;"17.111
"" 1114 241.51 '1.11 ..... MUS 4716." .115mI 24." I."'" .f17f74a U.4239t 1272." 1211 •• 6.31 ... 24 '.12 .1114741 -.Dlm UI 'II.It
IllS 241 •• ".at II." au.15 .,.1." •• nms 24.'4 I •• " ."'"35 11.2",4 1212." 1211 •• 6.14 ... " 1.1, .1133111 -.217161 .s.,., ", ' .• ~ _ .'.17
2116 248 •• ".'1 1'.84 362.15 5Ii4." •• 1I6ln 24.94-1.716722 ."""2 14.lIm 1272." 1211.51 5.97 '1.51 1.14 .11'5441 -.111314 S ... If."
HI7 2 .... ... 31 15.16 362.15 S224." .16'4312 24.94 'I .13"" • 75854at 14.1'837 1272.1. 1211.51 5.71 ".n 1.16 .1241136 -. "3541 S ... 21.61
21 •• 241.51 '..,1 1S.16 362.15 5314." .1613147 24.941 .... '27 .1111111 ".57'41 1272." 1211 •• 5.il ..." 1.17 •• 293616 -.IMI3I , ... 21.42
II .. 2 ••• ".'1 n ... "'.15 11M." .1654313 24." I.W27 .U12MI 1'.28472 1m." 1211 •• S.45 -1.11 • .... 1332132 -• 111M S.,. .' "D.11
2111 241 •• ".'1 I .... "2.15 "' ..... 1635,., 24.94 ..,84241 .6111517J 16.11331 1212." UII •• S.3I ~1.21 ..... 'N62II-.164244 s.,. 11.71
2111 241 •• ".11 11.1, 362.15 :1842." .161 .... 24.94 1.5434f1 .... _, 17.4623' 1272." 1211.. 5.16 -I." 1.11 •• 394111 -.124126 I." 12.41
2m 24M. 98.31 1$.1, 362.15 6823." .14I22il 2U4 1.5112234 .5539462 11.11633 1272." 1211.51 M2 -1.53 1.11 •• 411487 .1171229 , ... 24.11
201l 248.58 ".31 15.84 162.15 "41.0' • .,"122 24,94 1.47"91 .5243311 11.5406i 1272." 1211.. 4.92 -1.63 '.12 •• 431251 •• 411479 S." 24.:11
2014 24'.58 91.31 IS." 362.15 ill7." .1574231 24.94 1.43231' .4931476 If.lml 1212.00 1211 •• 4.18 -I.n '.Il .'4.1" .1I'I41D 5." 2'.1.12
21" 241 •• ".U 15.84 Nl.15 ... , .... IWW 24.94 1.413112 .44U2l9 It •• m U12." 1211.,. 4." -I." '.14 .,45ft14 .1111154 I." . 2'.1."
21 .. 24'.51 ".31 IS." 162.15 4116." .1541215 24.94 1.367'587 .4394.142 It .'3981 1272." 1211.51 4.51 -I." I.IS .'4711" .1 .. 2 .. 2 ,.,. lUI
2117 2.8 .• ".31 IS." 362.15 671 ..... 15417,$ 24.94 l.l4IIlI .418ml 21.~ 1212." 1211.58 4051 -2.14 '.IS •• 4711.. .2452622 S." 24.:11
2118 241.58 98,31 15.16 162.15 6141.1D .1536606 24.941.33845' .4115156 20."'" 1272.10 1211.58 4.47 ·U8 •• 15 .14i1941 .2t14.1 "'. 21.1'
2119 248.51 ".31 lUi 362.15 6875.1 •. D527ill 24.94 1.316867 .3114392 21.14152 1272.10 1211 .• 4040 -2." I.a. •• 441 •• 331"" 5." 21."
lUI 248.58 98.31 15.16 362.15 mUI .1523141 24.94 1.314141 .165 .. 44 21.,..93 1272.10 1211.58 4.16 -2.If I." •• 454501 .3I314n 5." 21.87
H21 241 •• ".31 IS." 362.75 "24." .1121141 24." 1.314161 .353147721.15'" 1272.1' 1211.. 4.36 -2.If '.14 .1439131 .4271615 , ... •• If
2tU 241.51 91.l1 1$.84 362.15 "24.11 .1523141 24,94 1.31416 •• MII'" 22.21111 1272.tl 1211.58 4.36 -2." .... .1424281 ... '.,.1 S ... 21."
2123 241.51 fI.31 IS.86 162.15 "24.11 .152314' 24.94 1.314161 .32957. 22.53066 1272.80 1211.. 4.16 -2.If I." •• 4Ift41 .5114843 S ... 29.12
2024 248.58 9 •. 31 IU6 362.15 6934.11 .DS23140 24 .94 l. 314868 .3184211 22. ,,989 1212.10 1211.58 4.36 -2.1' I." •• 396117 .$5111921 S ... 29.31
...J 2125 248.58 98.31 15.16 3'2.15 6934.11 .152mo 24.94 l.lI4868 .3116401 23.15415 1212." 1211.58 U6 -2.If '.16 .1382683 .5813614 5." 29.72 I.
I ~ ~ H2O 241.58 ".31 15." 162.15 691UI .1523140 24.94 I. Jl4N1 .2912567 23.45411 1272.'. 1211.51 •• 36 '2.19 1.16 .l3m42 •• 253247 UI 31.16 . ,,'J', t 2127 241.51 ".31 ., ... 362.75 "'4." .1$2314' 24.94 1.304840 .217214621.74121 1212." 121 .. 58 4.36 -2.If ..... '351239 .4111:184 S.,. .. ••• ':
'wi 2121 24..,. fI.31 15.1' 162.15 .m." .1523141 24,94 1.314'61 .2716913 24.11871 1272." 1211.51 4.16 -2.1t 1.16 .'2451" .'"5744 S ... 31." " ,j,!~ 2129 241 •• ".31 15.84 362.15 6934.1' .152314' 24.94 1.314161 .2ml85 24.18611 1212.'1 1211.51 4.36 -2.1' 1.16 .1333417 .72"231 S ... 3I.ft ~
2130 241,58 98.31 lUi 362.15 i934.o8 .0523140 24.94 1.3841&8 .2590421 24.54585 1212.00 III 1.58 Ui -2.19 0.16 .1322209 .WI448 5." 31.21
U 2031 248.58 98.31 15.8i 362.15 6934.01 .8523141 24,94 I. 304868 .2502822 24.1 9 611 1272.0' iii 1.58 4.36 -2.19 I.li .1311313 .7922:'53 5." 31.56 )
lOll 241.58 9'.ll lUi 162.75 0934.00 .0523'4' 24.94 1.3.486 •• 241818$ 25.D3795 1212.0' 1211.5' U6 '2.19 1.16 .1310784 .822n39 5." 31.14
2133 241.58 98.31 15.84 3iU' '934.18 .1523141 24.94 I.lI4 .. 8 .233i411 25,27159 1272." 1211.51 4.16 -2.19 1.16 .12""4 .1514153 S." 12.11
" 2134 241.58 98.31 15.86 362.15 muD .0523140 2 •• 94 1.314868 .2257412 25 •• 9133 1272.00 1211.58 •• 16 -2.19 O.li .1280787 .8794941 5." 32.35 -I
lin 241.58 98,31 15.86 362.75 6934.1 •• 1513148 24.94 !.lO.8iB .2181065 25.71544 1m." 1211.58 4.36 -2.19 0.1i .1271292 .""232 5.98 32.'"
2016 24U9 'S.31 1~.86 36/.15 6.3UO .0523140 14.94 1.304S6S .2107*9 25.92617 1112.00 1211.5~ 4.1. '2.19 0.1. ,~U2'" .932SW ~.'p 31.94
2{IP :4 •. 5~ 98,)1 I~.S~ )6).75 61>4.00 ,Qmi4o ,4. _4 l.l0~Q69 .20'6!47 U, 12979 muo 121l.S8 4.1 • -~.IQ 0,i6 .025j'~4 .~~Sl.:-OJ ~. qs )),j6
. "--.
• , 1 'I 1 a ~ , 1 • 1 ! •
C:~""PfJJSt .. it;
-;E',; "","
'~;"'~~'~'~: ~':,'Q:~~G ,:~t~S"'Q1w( ;'Ji ,.~t'"
"':'C.-':::·'''::<·-~, :~~:-h, ::,~-t~:.,·
~·.:';~l~ C':tiS'":'~I.'i~·(ff ;tll::~'
:r1 ;'7klLED (A;:A(I"r', ;114]
7~tW5~;ml.lj I)!<~ "OOO.'~·IQ, 10.10
~~F.":" :li5-:-QL.E~! CPPACi T;" 'MJ'_ ~':l~SS = g,en
>"!Pi.lAL 8~E!(r:· ~PJER4"'T~. ~~..:,
,'I[,G' ~E~ ;vEE::' ,~",
An~L iflPAr 1':'1' ~A(TOR C~PC~~"T Ij
,i<\Q1ABLE IW< (o,r ,tOM I 4.l8/~1'
4E~r RATE ;~"'9'T!JlC4Jf.'1 87::(1
~TE;. ~or'~E :l '~S""'."
~iJF.L C%,. 'fOO[\1
'iI<L'jAGE ';Al','E i IOO~ I
TOT/;l COST c~p('lmIT '1 ItOVO 1
TOTAL COST (IOO'l'
PQESf'rr tF!~n; It. :'Sc~~\ -
Ci,U: ... ~":',_t p. '4. IN ifQ~~'
. ; ~
TABLE III':'21
BASE CASE PLAN II
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES
WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 1)
.... 12 G ,O~
, ,
L " j~ .~1(1 C!.':8 "I~ ,l!') 0.00
'.,f. ",)2 --,:i 12 ,\L ~,12 7.12 7,12 :,12 ",12
~,C~ i,12 (.It ~.J2 ";.12 ":'.:1 7,12 7,;2 ":' ,-".~2 7,~2 ",~2 7.!2 :.12 :.12 7,12
r.~r, C ,~,., {'.or '12.02 72.62 :2.62 "':,62 .~i 12,62 n.Ot ~2.6~ '2,62 72.62 72.62 72.62 72,.,2 "2,62 ~2,62
~.j9 ~,~(! [oJ:!] :o.:~ 6,55 0.5: ",:5 5.~~ ,~.~~ 6.'i~, t.5: 6.:5 6.5S 6.55 6,55 ~.55 6,55 6,55
O,(,r. :if Jt·,~8 4!>.-e ~:, J~,,:8 4~,;~ 4~.';8 d,,:,78 4~.:8 ~t.'8 46.78 46.19 4~,fa 4;,."'!S 46.i~ 4~,";B
"','\~' ::,:0 :',~,~: ~·~.25 ~~,2: ;;>~.~': ..:~,.:: :,:-,i~ 2~.25 L,:.,2~ 2,;.2~ 26.25 26.25 2~.25 ~6t2~ 2e.25 26.25
~.C', ':',~0 f:J:f :,:10 (,~::, 24,;;;4 24.'~4 l4,G4 2J,94 24,y4 2",Cd ~";,;;il 21154 24,v4 24.94 24,94 24,14 ]4,94 24,t4 2d,~4
C.-2 i.d' -".42 '.4, (.d2 ',42 ~.42 ~.d2 C.O~ 0,42 0,42 HI 0.41 ~.42 ~.42
o.oi a.OD 0.00 UO i!U~ ~12.3: lI2.'S l11.15 111.3~ 112.J~ 1[,.)< 112.35 jlU5 112.35 112.35 112.3~ Iii,]! 112.35112.35
O/!~ O,(:~ ~!.rIO
o 9360
'OB B9S
~3~ : ~ :,
II :)20 1232: !2i3v
4418
},:2 :,:2 3,12
oj? '13 713
G.OO 0.eU 0.00
e98 998 89B
898 899
5" 554
!.:!~: j46,;2
3,12 3.! 2
7ll 713
O.~~ Q.OO
B9B S9B
3.12
-Il
0.00
89B
3, t2
713
o.aO
S9B
ByS a,B B9S 998
536 519 m 4B?
:5197 15715 !62!5 1.~,~oS
) .11
111
0.00
89a
S98
467
17165
-11/I/B~
CIJ1P(tIENT II
NEil CIJ18INED CYCLE GAS TURBINES
SEIJARD SIlARE 0' CAPAClr, ADDITIIJiS (ltl"
':API~lll C01T (tOOO, 677J101j
INTEREST OURING mlSTRUCl1Ji (tODD' 8.76/'"
TRlt1SM1551[l1 CAPIToL COST 'tODD, 611/'"
lII'rEREST [lURING Ult;"ll(IIJI ·:1000' 8,0)/'"
[lJ'(lILA1"VE CAPAC!Tl lti.j)
INSTALLED CAPACITY (till)
TR~S'IIS51[l4 lW' (tOOO!!iII-YR) 10,10
'ItT INSTALlEu (APACITY dill) %LOSS = B.OO
POTENTI~l ENEPG' GENERIITIIJi (WH)
ACTlI<IL ENERGY GENERATIIJi (WH)
ENERGY OELlVEP.IES (WH)
_CTtI<lL CAP.Cm ,ACTOR CIJ1PIJiENT II
UARIABLE 0&11 COST (tODD', 4.18/WH
HEAT illiTE 'fflBTUlWH> 8700
,UEL PPICE 't .. ~8TU'
'VEL COST 'tOOO'
SALUAGE UALUE (1000)
TOTAL COST CIJ1PIJIENT II (tODD)
TOTAL COST (tODD)
PRESElIT ~ORTH IN mOO) -1983
rlt<,ILIlT]t'E P. W. IN (tODD' -1983
(lNUW J\JE PPESENT WORTH TO 1001 (tODD)
CLI1ULIlTIVE PRESENT WORTH FRIJ1 1003 TO 1037
CIJ1Pry4E'n II CIJ181NED CYCLE GAS TURBINES
VARIA8LE 0&11 COSTS (tODD)
;,ltlS'1ISSml LINE 0&11 COlTS (tODD)
I=:.IH. C8ST5 (tOOOI
'iAL'I<\GE ll<\LIJE OETEI1HItIATIIJi "lID REPLACEI1ENT COST
Lt'lT WSTALLED IHSTALLATI CIl ~EPLACEI1ENT
(t.P~ClT' iE~R rEAP
·MJ'
CCCT II 7.12 : oge 1018
7PIlN II ;,12 1 ?89 1028
7~-Il,
""'1'" .. -. e !j~C:'=1f'" Jr,g"T~ N' Pt.:'; :-.:J~ tJ' ~ r:
1983
0.00
0
0.00
0
0,['0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.65
0
0.00
0
PETlREI1ENT
tEAP
1048
2~;a
TABLE I II -22
BASE CASE PLAN II
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES
WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 1)
19B4 19B5 1986 198' 1988 1989 199~ 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 21181 1001
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0(' 0.00 0.00
0 0 0 4812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0(1 0.00 D.PC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 0 4418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.On 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.12 7.11 7.12 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11
0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.61 71.61 71.61 71.61 71.61 71.61 71.61 71.61 71.62 71.61 71.61 71.62 71.61 71.61 71.61
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.SS 6.SS 6.SS 6.5S 6.SS 6.SS 6.SS 6.SS 6.SS 6.S5 6.S5 6.SS 6.5S 6.SS 6.SS
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78 46.78
0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 16.1S 16.2S 16.2S 16.25 26.2S 16.2S 16.1S 16.2S 16.2S 26.1S 16.1S 16.2S 26.1S 16.1S 16.1S
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.94 24.94 14.94 24.94 14.94 14.94 14.94 14.94 14.94 24.94 14.94 14.94 24.04 14.04 14.94
0.41 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 II1.3S 112.35 112.35 II1.3S II1.1S'111.3S II1.3S I12.3S II1.3S II1.3S II1.3S II1.3S II1.3S II1.3S I12.3S
0.71
0
0.00
0
0.79
0
0.00
0
IS763
1169
756
9622
0.9S
0
0.00
0
1.07 1.20
0 174
0.00 0.00
9360 4S9
9360 459
81S7 386
8157 8543
1.3S 1.51 1.73
308 34S 395
0.00 0.00 0.00
493 S30 S80
493 S30 S80
401 416 441
894S 9361 9801
CAPITAL IDC QEPLIlCEI1ENT SALVAGE SALVAGE
1.81
413
0.00
598
S98
4)9
10241
C05T COST COS' IN 1983 VALUE IN 1037 V~LVE IN 1983
··J~0CJ "tr['~II'JOOD) llOOO"> (to('o)
4812 ~2 .39 1517 160' 1~1
4418 :,7,i6 '185 3314 51'
~2J, 21-'.:
1
1.95 1.07 1.IB 3.41 3.SI 3.61 3.71 3.81 3.93 4.OS
44S 473 498 779 801 814 847 871 898 91S
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
630 6S8 683 964 987 1009 1031 IOS7 1082 1110
630 658 683 964 987 1009 1031 IOS7 1081 1110
44' 450 4S2 616 609 603 S9S SB9 S83 S77
10688 11138 1IS90 12106 1/816 13418 14013 14603 ISIBS IS763
,
,
I
i
1 ,
C~Pcr.j?1-lij
"EW ,[J!BINED CielE r .. s 1URBIN,S
';EllAQ(, S~IE Of CAP4em HDDI';,,,,, 11tJ,
'fiS:ALHI f'APAC,TY M./'
~, 1~!!iJ
r::: -~tJ
"Qo'J~SH:~_SH'i Q~ 'S[,~< /!iJ~'f'in tc .iG
\~~~ CAPa r :... ,"4,1 ~:'~ f)SS ~
:::C-E;;'T'; ... ;. ttiEQ-,. G~it".''7'"·~~~ ,~.!I";
0,_ ::-:CjJl~" ~~:4E:;4 ': -Ji 'J~H '
~NEPr:' l't:.LEIi:L; -,jJ.Jl1i
~r; ."l ,At"'.. :OCGR C(J1PIliElv _I
'(lt~.·e1..f ::,~~ ~,)S~ *~(DD I 4.2~/!).4~
"'E~T RA"fF -!-tIIP!l/1]J1ot1 ipnQ
> :'!.:' 1 .. ~8'_
:G';-'IQ~3'
:",,\..Jt4GE '.JAllJE \-5000!
"T,:,c ::°57 C(J1P()~ENT .1 ,tOOO)
TOiAl c.J~"':' '"nllO'
P~~:E',:"T ~9P"'" ;~J ',,,"009: -1983
C:_~VL~'1T)E p. IJ. :~i '.10001 -1~~3
-';;TAllEO
~A;iAC~Yi ",
P,S,OllA'II1, QEPlACEfiENT
:EA-lEAR
2C~8
2062
TABLE II 1':'23
BASE CASE PLAN II
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES
WITH MELDED GAS PRICE AT 0% ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 1)
0.,0 0.00 un Q ,co G,l)O ~,~O D,OO 0,00 O,nr 0,00 U~ O.M UQ
0.00
14999
4P22
7.12 :.1 L
n.PO ;?,~? ~2.6L
f'I. rjj ", ~~
" ..-.-.1", 4~_.--:~
J,e(: L4,~~ 201.;4
C .42 (,.41
r.oc U2,35 1!2.35
1,: j ;.2' ! .41
riG 122
0.00 0.00 0.00
9360 475 507
(:.'1[1
7.11
'2.62
().11'1 ro,
'L~i) r,
:,12 7,l2 ~.t2 ',12
~.:2 ',12 7.:2 -.~?
:.!$ -;~,6i ~2,6= "'2,62 ~:At
(I o 0
O. ')0
r .no ~ ."0 ').1'
-:.!L i,lL 7.12 7.12 i.12 7.1i
7,\2 7,)2 7,12 ',!2 7.11 7.11
-2.62 ~?61 72.62 -2,cl 72.01 '1.1l2
~,~t; ~,';5 ~,t;r ~.~~ ~,~Ij .,,~~ ;<,,1::1:, ~.55 "!.:5 ~,Sc. ),5~ ~,5~ ".~,:
4,~ d.i.~S fJ~,~,::: .;. -: '::,".::1 4,.. 4;,"'3 4t,,~~ ~~, ~t.~j: 4~.~B 46.~~
~!,2r, 2·~.25 26,;'1: :,~,~5 2:.,2~ 2~,2~ 2:-.~~ 2~,2~ 26.2: 2·L2S 26,25 2~.25 26.25
{4." Z~.'4 24.,4 iA.'4 14.~4 24.'4 24.>, ,4.'4 14.94 14.94 24.94 24,94 24.94
C,4; U.42 1.4) ".41 0.41 ,.41 l'.OO ".41 0.41 0.42 (1,41 0,41 0.42
112.!~ 112.:5 112.2" 111.35 11,,35 1'2.?< HUe ;:2.35 112.35 lIU5 112.35111.35112.35
1.:4 \,"3 ! '";<:::
1S£ 3?5 41' -,
0.00 0.0(1 0.00
<:11 ')80 SBS
LS4 ;'';1
all JJ,
UO 0.00
605 621
! .• ,
d4~
0.00
in
2.~4 2.~4
~:: PI
G .UO (, .·)0
S5, ~56
2.14
671
0.00
856
0.00
856
2,Q4 2.94 2."
p; 67~ 6/1
0.00 0.00 0.00
S56 856 856
'3,0 415 507 51' SBn 585 605 12! m 856 85, 856 ~5, ~56 BS6 ~5i
~:~., 40(' 412 422 4011 ':1'; 42~ ~t5 .1;~ '54,:; 5!~ 511 4a 4:-:) 461445
BC ::-gl:\~::' :;C$1 9P: ~8n 1~26i i06-?O :!:l:: ;,]4 110BI 12610 11121 13615 14093 14554 14999
CAPITAL IDC PEP~"(EfitW
[~O:; ~~s-~,~,;: p~ : 013.3 '!~:.'.~f ;rj 2(1)'7 ~lQLUE Jt~ !'i93
Pf!'; , *('~~l~ .
4822 02.3' :5P 25i
TABLE II 1-24
DEVELOPMENT OF SUSITNA ENERGY PRICE
FOR ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-4
.... :..{~T;lN.:F '~i..;:'_"~f"I ;)' .• F T ~L ~ t "'''0
IN "ILlI();s Of 1983 OOllJlllS
DlstOOO MTE 3.50% CAPITAl. II£CMQY F>1l:TOtI .,426337 (Sheet 1 of 2)
IMT. IIYDIIIIlECTRI C PIIOJEtT DEVil tNIll1l IIYOROfl[[TRI( PROJECT
i ,-
YfM CAPITAl. 1"2 tfMJlTY INT£1IEST 1992 IDC OPEIlATlIll TOTAl CAPITAl 2001 fH;UIII INTEREST fonl 1&[ Of>£AATIII. TOTAL
F~ IllSED DIll I .. FUTIJIE tfMJlTY 6 HAINT. IVHJIII, fUTUII£ BASE& DURING fUlUI/£ ""UI!I • HAINT. (H;UAl
Cl) II1II'. .. 1m CItISI. IIIII'M FRalI"2 COST iIOfITM lit 2001 elltSI. WOllIN FiIlJ1 2001 COST
F.II. OF F. II. OF F. II. Of F. W. OF
.!I.~ 53L11 1174.78 248 .82
Ifn
1984
ItIS 333.21 4n." 4.31 5.41
I-•• 13 351&.2. IS." 1f.13
IfI1 .I.~ •••• 21.41 31.35 I. "'.71 432.21 31.1. 4U'
IfIt 441.53 "6.11 54.32 61.23
1m .... 71 6'U4 74.31 n.iII
1"1 621.41 643.n ".16 112.63
1"2 437." 437." 122.11 122.11
1m 156.41 111.12 1n.'1 ,UI 44." 22.6. II.IS 284.41
1m ~.25 "'.25 17MI 1.0. 22.6. II." 216.41
1995 172.91 22.6. 11.85 216.41 269.16 330.87 3.48 4,28
I"" 1n.'1 22.64 11.85 2".41 117.71 IJ9 .eo 11.D7 13.15
.,97 In.'' 22.6. II." 216.41 285.50 m.82 1iI.71 19.18
1m 17",1 22.64 11.85 21 .... 297.89 330.28 25.iII 21\.47
1m In." 22.64 IUS 21 •• 41 285.54 385.88 36.85 39.47
2111 172.91 n.64 11.85 216.41 • 246.74 255.38 .7.63 .9.:10
2111 m.'1 22.64 11.85 216.41 • IS9.26 159.26 SUD SUO
2112 172.91 22.6. 11.85 216.4' 18.12 lUI 75.67 31.23 30.17 10.27 5.11 91.94
2111 In.tl 22.64 11.85 2Ii .• 75.67 18.27 5.81 91.94
21" 173.91 22.64 II." 216.41 75.H 11.21 5.11 91.9.
2m In.'' 22.64 II." 216 •• 75.67 11.27 S.II 91.9.
2116 flUI n.6. 11.85 < 2IU. 75.67 11.27 5.11 91.9.
2111 172.91 22.64 11.85 .216.41 75.67 1'.27 5.01 to.94 m. 172.91 22.64 II." 216.41 ~.67 10.27 5.01 9D.94
2I1t 17MI 22.64 II." 21 •• 41 75.47 10.27 5.81 90.94
2111 172.'1 22.6. n." 216.41 7U7 11.27 5.01 91.9.
2111 tn.'1 22.64 IUS 21 •• 41 75." 11.27 5.11 91.'.
2112 tn.t! 22.6. II." 216.41 ~ •• 17 11.27 5.11 91.94
2113 172.91 22.64 11.85 216.41 75.61 11.27 5.01 90.94
2114 172.91 22.64 18.85 206.4D 75.67 11.27 5.11 90.94
2DI5 17MI 22.,4 II." 2" •• 1 75.61 ID.21 5.11 90.94
2DI6 17UI 22.6. 11.85 21'.41 75." 11.27 5.DI 91.94
2117 17UI 22.64 11.85 2".41 75.67 11.27 UI 91.9.
2018 172.91 22 ••• 11.85 216.41 75.61 11.27 5.11 911.9.
201' 172.91 22.64 11.85 206." 75.67 lUI 5.81 to.9.
2828 172.91 22.6. 10.85 216." 75.67 18.27 5.11 90.94
2121 172.91 22.6. 11.85 206.41 75.'7 10.27 5.01 to.94
2022 172.91 22 ••• 11.85 286.40 75.67 11.27 5,01 ".9.
2023 172.91 22.64 18.85 206.41 75.67 10.21 5.11 98.94
2024 172.91 22.64 11.85 216 •• ' 75.61 ID.27 5.81 98.94
1015 172.9' 22.64 10.85 206 •• 0 7S.61 10.27 UI 90.94
2&16 112.9: 22.64 10.85 206.40 75.6' 18.27 5.01 90.~4
1027 172.9 12.64 IUS 116.4Q :~ .~, 10. ,) ~ .• I 'iO,04
2028 1'2.91 2?64 10.85 )04.40 '~ .. ' It ,l' S,[IJ 96.94
2029 172.9' 22.64 10.85 204.40 75 •• 1 10,:7 5,UI 90.9.
2038 171.9' 22.64 18.85 206.40 '5,.7 HI,P 5,01 ~O.~.
2031 172.9 22.04 10.85 m.40 1'~'.G' 10.1' 5,01 90.'4 '-' 20]2 112.9, 11..14 IUS iO • .40 '5,67 9( .. 94 10.27 U!
lOll 17:.1 ii. ,4 I' .• 5 101.40 7S .• 1 10,21 5,01 :;~. ~4
2n. P2.~ 22 •• 4 lo,es }~.,40 !S .6 1 Ie.!' ~,.lJ1 9(, .94
2035 l'i ,9 12.64 10,85 206.40 )S .• 7 10. :1 5.01 90,94
2036 1'2.91 12.64 IUS 21) •.• 0 '5,0' H ,r' u\ 90.·4
20J7 In.?! n.,4 10,85 iO • .40 '5 .• 7 I ~ ,:' ~.I;!I 9O,"
, I !l' 1 J I , I ! • , t J 41 , , , J , ,
TABLE III-24
DEVELOPMENT OF SUSITNA ENERGY PRICE
FOR ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-4
( Sheet 2 of 2)
SUSI1lOI II'ID~QELfCT~]C "Q,IHT
YEAR PRINC]PAl ICC OPERAT](N TOTAL HRI(1ABlE COST PER SEWARD COST OF PRESENT Cl~. P ,lI, OEFEN"'B~E '~ET fiP (APAf.!TY. NET ~JEQcAPAC; " CAPACITY PRESew. Cll1, p,W. Clf1. TI)lAL COST
iffiUm IffiIJT n & HAW!, IffiIJAL SUt;rn.Jij Q<~ ENERG' S8lAP~ 'JOR1" EI'Jl;r,"' . CAPASIT·/ rAPACIT", '>t.j' SEWAP[' 9lEPr.,'· [;"ACI~i '~d' Arl~!US1l1fJ,"'T WORTH CAP. 0, W, em PER
CO';T ENERGI SALES tt--IEPG, ~EWARO tl,,% ,I," :n.o; L')SSE, APE ~~~E""Ae\..E PEOD Hl -. 0740 ~~. CAP. ADJUST , SUSTJ~ PER YEAR IJI~
((l.!4 EO.: " ; ,.r'.-in', S'.-31T1 ... E!iE;;'G ,H,l'" FEP >'II Al:,J;JS: , FOP mlTI"" S!J'snl'-4A
.!, 7~ 2D03 :14 '1, ,>t.i' 1983 SEWARD ENERGy EliERr.)'
1983 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
198. 0.00 0.00 0.0f< &.00
: 98 7 0.00 0,00 PonO 0.00
1988 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00
1989 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
1990 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1991 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00
1992 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1993 P2,'~: 22.64 18.85 20~,40 2953.00 .0698965 89.50 ., 25~736 4,434809 4.414909 893.00 86~ .8~ 16.09 17.50 8.59 -0,64 -.451009 -.451009 3.98 5.62 .0027882
1994 P2.'~:1 /2,64 IUS 2~6, 40 2957.00 .0698019 91.20 6.36593' 4,360321 8.)95130 893.00 s.o .85 26.55 17.80 8.75 -0.05 -,443854 -.8948.3 7.90 5.72 .0.20965
1995 172 .91 22.64 10.85 20 •• 40 3005.00 .0.86B70 92,eo 6,374150 4.218306 13.01344 893,00 860,85 26,5B 18.10 8.38 -0,.1 -.410920 -1.30579 1l.71 5.75 .0.19959
1996 172.91 22.64 19.85 20. ,40 3!l19.00 .0683684 93.906.419797 4.104845 17.11828 893.00 860.85 1.,78 18.40 8.39 -0 •• 2 -.396568 -1.10235 15.42 5.116 .0617634
1997 172.91 22,64 10.85 206.40 3828.00 .0681652 95.00 6.475.i97 4.000569 21.IlB85 893.00 860.85 17,01 18.60 8.41 -0.62 -.384674 -2.DB1fl2 19.01 5.85 ,0616108
1998 172.91 22.64 10.9' 20 •• 40 3855.00 .0675628 96.206.499541 3.879515 24.9993. 993.00 8.0.85 27,11 18.80 9,31 -0.62 -.367221 -2.45425 22.54 5.98 .0611675
19" 172,91 22 ,.4 10.85 206,40 305' ,00 ,06 1518. 9i.)0 6,56 955 9 3, '88i03 28,78707 893.00 860 ,8~ 27.40 19.00 8,40 -0.62 -.358133 -2,81298 25,97 5.95 .061125.
2000 l72.91 21 ,64 10.85 206.40 3064,00 .0673643 98.50 6.63539: 3 .• 97263 31.48433 893.00 860,95 l' .67 19.20 8.47 -0,63 -,349678 -3.1.266 29.32 6.01 .0609932
2001 172.91 22 •• 4 IU5 206,40 3105,00 .0664748 100,80.,'00661,,60 73'636.09171 893.00 e.o .as 17.95 19,70 8.25 -0,61 -.328773 -3,49143 32,60 •• 09 .0.04164
2002 248.58 99.31 15.86 362.75 4555.00 .0796361 103.108.2105494.11076440,3.247 1272,00 1211.58 2? .42 20.20 7.22 -0.53 -.218248 -3.16948 U.5t 7.48 .0144493
2003 249.58 99.31 15.8. 362.75 4.70.00 ,0776757 103.10 8.008362 4.024729 44,38729 1271,00 1211.58 1.,75 20.20 6.55 -0.48 -.243705 -4,01338 40.37 1,S2 .0129723
2004 248.58 98.31 15.86 362.75 4186,00 ,om9lO 103.107.914260 3.794377 48.18158 1272.00 1111.58 26.10 20.20 5,'/11 -0.44 -.212152 -4.22554 43.96 1.38 ,0715553
2005 248.58 98.31 15.8. 3.2.75 4902,00 ,073'995 103.10 ; .62'345 3.517312 5J.160B9 1211.00 ;'1 L58 25.48 20.20 S.28 -0.39 -.183520 -4.40 906 47.35 7.24 .0702053
2006 248.58 99,31 15.86 3.2.75 5064.00 .0' 1 ,322 103.10 7.3852783.347.40 55,10853 1271.00 1111.58 24.67 20,20 4.47 -0.33 -.149949 -4.55'1110 50.55 7.05 .068423.
200' 248.58 98.31 15.86 3.2,75 5224.00 .0694382 103.10 7.1S9~83 3.13537158.24390 1272.00 1111.58 13.91 20.20 3.71 -0.27 -,120376 -4.67938 53.56 U8 .0667713
2008 248.58 98.31 15.9. 362,75 5394.00 .0.73747 103,10 6.946331 2.93931961.19322 1212.00 1211.58 23.20 20,20 3.&0 -0.22 -.094038 -4,77342 54.41 &.72 .0652192
2009 HU8 98.31 15.8. 362.75 5544,00 .0.54303 103.106.7459602,757962.3.94118 1272.00 1211.58 21.53 20,20 2.33 -0.17 -.070585 -4.84490 59.11 6.51 .063m7
2010 248.58 9B.31 15.86 362.75 5704.00 .0.35949 103.106,55.635 2,589951 66,53113 1272.00 1211.58 21.90 20.20 1.70 -0.13 -.049710 -4.89371 .1 •• 4 •• 43 .0623743
ml 148. ~8 98,3) 15,9. 361,75 58,2,00 .0mSOB I03.1~ 1.379;13 2,43"2' ,8,;6605 ! 272 ,00 1111.58 2 ~ ,31 2U~ 1.11 -a.GB -.031347 -4.92506 .4.04 6.30 .0610842
2012 24B, SF 99.31 15.B6 362.75 .013,00 .om26? 103.10 6.209372 1.289.9;; 71,25575 1272 ,00 121U8 2Q.74 20,10 0.54 -0,04 -.014732 -4.93979 66.32 6.17 .0598392
2G IJ 248,58 9B.31 15.86 362,75 6148.00 .0590022 103.106.083124 1.1mB6 73.42303 I272.0U 111 i.59 20.32 2UO 0.12 -a .01 -.003108 -4.94190 .8,48 6.07 ,058917.
2014 248.58 9B,31 15.8. 361,75 631 i ,00 • 0574237 103.10 5,920381 2.03797575,46101 1212.00 1211.58 19.77 20.20 -0.43 0.03 .0108533 -4.932tr.1 71.5'3 5.95 ,osm~
1015 248,58 98.31 15.8. 3.2.75 6449.00 .0561483 103,10 5,799201 1.928755 71 .39976 1212.00 1211.58 19.37 20.20 -0.83 Q.96 .0204551 -4.91159 72.48 5.96 ,0549448
2016 248.58 98.31 15.86 361,15 6616.00 ,0548295 103.10 5.6518191.81.491 79.20.16 1212.00 1211.58 IS ,B8 20,20 -1.32 0.10 .0313982 -4.88919 14.33 5.75 .0557161
lW 248.58 ge.31 IU6 362.75 6709.00 .0~40)65 103,105.5752'0 1.7J0994 80.93725 1172.00 ! 211.58 lUI 20.20 -1.59 0.12 .0362902 -4.94390 76.09 5 •• 9 .0552102
mB 248,5B 9UI 15,31 362,75 .7.0.00 . 053660. 101.n 5.5324041.65959382.59684 1172 .00 1211.58 18.48 10 .1e -1.72 0.13 .0392451 -4.805 •• 71,79 5 ,66 .0548972
2019 248.58 9UI 15.86 3.2.15 .875.00 ,0517630 103,:0 5.439861 1.576650 M.17349 1272 .00 121LSS 18.]1 20,20 -U3 0.15 .04358.0 -4.7.207 79.41 5.59 .0542216
2020 248,59 98.31 15.86 362.75 6934.00 .0523140 103.10 5,393575 1.51OJ1l 85.6B386 1212.00 1211.58 19.01 20.20 -2.19 0.16 .9453181 -4,11675 811.91 5.56 .0539817
2921 248.58 98.31 15.86 3.2.75 6934.00 .0523140 193,105,3935751.45929.97,1431. 1212.00 1111.58 18.01 20.20 -2.19 0.16 .0437856 -4,67297 82.47 5.54 .0539931
1022 248.58 98.31 15.86 362,75 6934.00 .0513140 103,105.3935751.409948 S9.55311 1272.00 1211.58 18.01 20.20 -2.IQ 0,16 .0423050 -4 •• 30.6 83.92 5.56 .0538837
2023 ,48. ~S 9B.31 15,86 362.15 "914.0~ ,0513140 101.105.3935'5 l.J622.9 80 ,91538 :172,00 : 211.58 18.0: 20,10 -1.19 0.16 .0408744 -4.58979 85.33 5,~ •• 0538837
2024 249.58 9UI 15.8. l.? .75 6934,00 .0523140 !OJ.19 ~.JQ35'5 1.316201 91.13158 muo 121 !.S8 18.01 20, l' -2,19 0,1 •. 0394921 -4.55030 8 ••• 8 5,56 .0538837
2025 24B.58 98.31 :1.96 3.2.75 69)'.00 ,0513140 10),10 5.)915'5 1.27169292.50317 1272 ,00 1211.59 IB.OI 20.20 -2.19 0.1 •• 0381566 -M1214 87.99 5 . 56 ,0539837
202. 249.58 98.31 15.86 362.75 ,93UO ,0523140 103.105,393575 1.229.B8 93,'3196 1272,00 121f.58 18.01 20.20 -2,19 0,16 .0369663 -4,47521 89.2& 5,56 .1r.I38837
r 2027 249.58 98.31 IS.86 361.75 muD ,(1513140 103,10 5.393515 1.18?138 94.91910 1171,00 1111.58 lUI 20,20 -2.19 0.1. .035.19. -4.439.5 90.48 5.54 ,0'381131
2028 248.59 99,31 15.86 3.1.75 ,934.00 ,OSll140 103.10 5.393~'5 1.14.9949 •. 06609 1271.00 121 U8 18.01 20,20 -2.19 0,!6 .0344151 -4.40524 91 ••• 5.56 .0538831
2019 24U9 9~. 31 !5. S6 3,2.7S 6l]UO ,,'2JI40 !03.'·{! 5.J93~!~ l.\~aL~~ 1)":,['430 1:72 ,~~: !2IU~ 1 S, ~ ~ l~, if': -1,19 Q,16 ,U3n~t3 ~4.3"!~q 9MO 5,56 .0538m
1030 24g,~~ 98.31 IS.RA 362, is 6QJUO ,0523140 ;~:.!~ 5.3~3~"S 1,°'0 7 31 ?8,24~('3 j 272 .0Q 121 i.58 1 q.~ 1 20.20 -I,! 0 0.16 .J311209 -4,33986 93.91 5,56 .0538837
2031 148.58 99,31 t 5. 8-~ 3.;2,:) ;9]4,10 ,0<23140 :03,:0 5.~;nC:7~ I.OJ4Sn i~,27~:S :271 ,00 12;;,~8 18, Q! 20, 2~ -2,19 C. 16 .1110405 -4.J0B81 94.97 5.5. ,0538~37
2032 248,58 98.31 ! \ .96 361.75 6~3UO .P';13140 10),105.3935'5 .99953Bo 10O.l7QI 1212,00 1211.58 lB.~ 1 10.10 -1,19 0.16 .0299908 -4.27883 96,00 M. ,0538937
1033 248.58 98,31 Is.a~ J61. " \9)4,00 ,0511140 :n!O c.19 )5'< .Q6~T3 "1.1448 1272,CO iIi 1.S8 lB.Cl 20" 1~ -2.19 0,16 ,02B916~ -4.24985 ; •. 99 5.56 ,0538B37
1034 14", :1 Qe .31 I~,B. 31,2. 7~ 6q~.'1~ .:S23l4~, l~~.:n 5,~'1,1~-~ 5no~10 !02.P~Q 1211.7>:' l~.~ ; 20.2' -2, l~ n; I ~ .lJ17Q9,:-"" -4,22!Se Q:' ,Q6 ~.5 •• ~538e37
:;1' ~c :'J.,?, ~9 -;~ it ;.'" ~A 2 -= .. ' ... -:::;:'':-r"i. \ c, :, 1'i?=~:;" . :-·:::U.-i '1"13.:',""':;': ;;"1 , ~ .. -~ . ; '; ~{;.~~~,-, _d.: ';:48: ?" -~p to_. ~6 , ~~~Q03"J
':4.j, ~~ ~~ , :: '. L • ~ •
" . ;= ,,:,',".j" "Ie r !:: ; ~' . , .. .. e,I:;,_ ."It; ':q~:-
,=,:. j' ~e
o
. , ... ~
1215183
--.. 1'III8IIIA ~ .. IIUIiIltU
• D8IN 0111 ,:," ,., ••
1£111110 twClTY 011)..... '.WI.
•• '0 fill. INCl.. 1DfIIl/lf 2 ... ' III an IIINHTI (III)
C1N1ATJIIE IETIIIIIINIl (III)
E1Uff lN8 _I I£SIIIIIID 'l,9a -fI.4' III
Nallilllf/fAI .... rNiIClft ... otII ....
rMtJ1Y IIDOITIIM (III)
CllWlTlIIE QWeITY .ITItIII (III)
TOTiIl rMACJ1Y (III) 1£1' TOTiIl I'IINtITY __ 1..
IIUIPlUS (III) ..
IN(R&Y IiM.EI (,,"L " ...-.~
96&Y i91EMTI .. (1IIIl-IJIII 1.411
TABLE 111-25
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1990
AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
1911 ItIM !til 19810 1'87 1918 198' 1m U91 1992 1993 1994 1m 199' 1997 1998 1999 2000 2101 2002
82." 84.11 IN.I. 99.11 92.00 94.00 91.00100 .•• 112.00104.00106.011.8.0.110.00 1I1 •• 0 IIz.o. IIUO liMO 116.00 119.0' 122.10
16.50 ".01 ".n 93." 97.05 9'.16 102.32 105.49 \07.59 109.78 111.81 113.92116.03117.19118.14 12D.25 121.31 122.36 125,53128.69
IIM9116.7II1UI 121.97125.14121.25138.41 \33.59135.0' 137.79 139.91142.11 144.12145.18146.23148.34 149.40 150.45153.6215 •• 18
'.85 o.DO 1.11 ... 0 0.00 0.01 0.10 UI 1.01 18.95 1.80 1.11 0.00 I.eo '.01 24.30 8.10 0.10 UO 24.38
8.85 8.85 US 1.85 8.85 8.85 8.115 8.115 8.85 27.81 27.81 27.81 27.118 27.81 21.80 52.\0 52.10 52.10 52.10 76.40
12.55 12.55 12 •• 12.55 82.55 82.55 82.5~ 12.55 82.55 63.68 63.61 63.11 ~.60 63.68 61.68 39.38 39.38 :It.38 39.38 15.08
3l.14 H.I~ i6.IiI, 39.42 42.59 0.00
'.01 '.00 .... ...0 0.11 5UO 0.00 25.10 0.00 a.oo 25.00 0.0. 1.88 0:0.' '.'1 25.00 a.oO O.U 0.00 16.71
.... ...0 .... ..01 UI 50.00 50.00 75.0' 75.00 75.00 100." 1 .... 0 l.a.oO 100.0. 101.10 125.'0 125.00 125.00 125.00 141.71
114059110.78 11"'1 121.97 i25.14 \32.55 132.55 157.55 157.55 138.68 103." 163." IOU. 103.60 161.60 UUO 104.311 164.30 164.31 156,78
1".62 III." In • .a IIS.6I1l8.o3 125 ... 125.66 149.36 149.36 131.39 155.19 155.09 155.09 155.09 131.19 155.76 155.76 ISS.76 155.74 141,,",
'.00 0." .... 1.1. •..• 5.31 2.14 23097 21.17 0.81 23.70 21.59 19.41 18.42 17.37 15.96 lUI 13.95 II." 0."
397,01 .... 10 4\1 ... 4~.0I 447.00 402." 476.98 4911.1. 499,80 508:01 517.'1 52f,O' $n.01 542." tt9.ao "'.DD 502.GI 561.00 591." ;94,1.
411.19422.59 431.t7 441.47 402.91 471,51 493.11 58MI 516.93526.15535.41:144.81 554.12 501.37 561.02574.83 582.18 •• 31 681.76 615.23
....................................................................... ,IIII.IItII' ..... ItIIIt.lt' •• ".HltItHttttHlllt.II •• U.tHltttHttIHHHt .... UtlHU.ItIl.tttHt ............ HH
"TI .. PI,MI", ~I,!!."
M~'III) :'.
XOfK8ll\II'IIII.aA. .If.~
D8WID INQ.. I(IIIUE.IJU' Jd"Pt II' w
fill. 111:1.. fINE /If 1£1' III'UII (III)
IN(R&Y W.EI (JIll)
ClM'INBfT '1
fM(I tAU IIIllIGEUmlC
IIIffIll.LED twClTY (111)
O£P9!IlAIII.E rMAClTY 'III) '. '.11 losto 1.81
MlIIlGE ~ &8OITIIli ' .. 0
IlJEIlAGE ~ O£I.IIOIEI '''0 lOSS-1.80
fIIIlTlII. CI)ff ' .... )
INTElEff PIIIlN8 atCTIII:TI .. 'tlOI)
l1li COST 'til' I SIIlIJAllE IMlUf <tOO.) .,' -' .•
TOTIII. COST ctI1PIII8/T .1 , .... )
HII6Y DELIVERIES Alit 11\& '1/11)
_ GiNEIlATlIII -1M (1/11) lOtl$o 5.01T1.
9." 13.18
11.11 Ii.43
13.98 11.1'
13.91 II.a
41.70 '1'1."
'.1' 1.1.
O.GI '.ot
•••• 1.00 '.01 0.00
'.00 ... 0 .... 0."
0." ... G
0.00 0.0'
0 0
48.7' 10.6&
51.26 74.32
I
14.211 14.68 15,18 15 ...
1..,1 16.40 1&.41 10.60 \, .. II." 19.41' 19.98
It •• i •. 98 19.48 20.81 n .. 14.81 77.20 19.70
.M 1.00 0.00 '.00
I.M •••• 1.0' 0.00
' •• 0 '.00 0.00 o .OG .... 1.1. 0.00 0.00 .... .... 31104 11584 .. " D.OI 0.00 304 .... 0.08 8.10 e.oO .... '.00 '.00 u.
0 0 lOU 11898
12.50 14.80 77.20 19.70
76032 78.74 81.20 8U9
10,00 16.50 IU8 17.2' 11.50 11.81 18.20 11.41 11.6' 18.80 19.00 19.10 1'.11 21.21
16.49 16.50 10.57 16.54 16.51 16 •• 16.55 16.» If.61 16.49 1 •• 52 16.5' " .. 1605.
21.3& 20.88 2i .28 21.58 21.18 22.1, 22.58 22.71 )~." 23.18 n." 2U. 24.11 2M'
20.71 24.4.2 24.69 21.71 25.» 25.55 25." 25 •• 5 25." 25.67 25.'1'1 25.14 25;" 24.M
12.20 04." 86.40 ..... 89.50 91.21 92.81 91." '1.11 96.21 97.31 " •• "'.81 113.1.
0.'0 7.'0 1.0' 7.00 7.10 1." 7.00 1.00 1.00 7.'0 7." 7.11 1." 7.0'
UO 0.55 0.55 "'5 •• 55 '.55 6.55 6.;' 6.55 6.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
UO 25.40 25.40 25.40 25,40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25 •• 25.40 ZS'41 25.4' 25.41 25.40
U. 24,94 24.94 24.94 24,94 24,94 24.94 24.94 24,94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.f4
8277 '.01 0." e.o8 0 •• 1 0.00 .... 0." 1.01 0.00 ' •• 0 0.00 0." . ...
678 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 0.88 0." '.00 0.10 ... 1 1.01 0.00 0.08
0.003112.00 :1112.00 302.08 302.00 3112.80 302.08 3112.01 312.10 302.00 302.00 382.00 302.10 302.01
0.00 .... 0.00 0.00 •. 00 '.00 ... 0 0.11 ' "'0 0.00 .... 0.00 uo 0.00
8950 302 302 302 382 302 382 302 302 302 302 382 302 312
8UO 59.96 61.46 43.06 64.50 ... 26 67.86 68.96 70.06 71.26 1l.U 7.1.5. 75.16 78.10
86.53 03.11 04.09 66.38 .7.95 6'.74 71.43 72.59 73.74 75.01 76,17 77.43 7U5 82.27
,
•
•
o
,)
V
.. -
0
V
'-'
'-'
1
~ --+~"-,---------+------
TABLE II 1-25 ~
() ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1 lilt
0 ; GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1990
AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
@ AT SC ESCALATION 1:.1 '.,
"-
? ,
, ' (Sheet 2 of 3) r Q I ' : i CIIftefr 12
", N&I tillite CYCLE WlllltlihES
" SIIMIII SHAlE If rAMClT'I AIlOIlIIllS (It/) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 0,00 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0,00 0.00 6.15 n ,
CAPITAl COST ,teOI) 6771K1 0 0 e 0 5573 0 752 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2786 0 0 0 4165 0
IIfmI£ST IM.IIII6 tlllmUCTllJi <.OtOl 8.741K1 0 e • 0 72 0 10 0 0 0 0 a • 36 0 a 0 54 0
lMlt1ISSl1Ji Clll'ITAl COST (teOOI .211K1 0 0 • 0 510t 0 689 0 0 0 8 0 0 2553 0 0 0 3816 0 0 IHlEIlEST 1M.I1N8 tJJISTIlOCrlllj (t008) 8.0:llKl • 0 D 0 .. 0 9 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 49 0
CIJIlATM rMlClT'I Mil D.OO 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 8.13 9,34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9,34 13.45 13.4~ 13,45 1l.45 19,.0
INSTALLED t'.AMC11"I' (ItII 0.10 0,00 1.88 0.00 0.00 8.23 S.23 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 19 .• 0
TMltIISSIIIj II1II (tIIIMhYIII 10.20 0,00 0.00 '.00 0.00 0.00 83.92 83.92 95.25 95.25 95.25 95.25 95.25 95,25 95.25 95.25 137.21 137.21 137.21 137.21 199.94
lET INSTAlLED rMlCl1"I' (ItI) XlDS8 • 8.ot 0,01 UO .... o.oe 0.01 7.57 7.57 8.59 8.59 8.59 8.59 8.59 8.59 8.59 9.59 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.38 18.03
POlINI'IAl SEI6Y 1i9UI1I1Ji (M' 0.00 UO ... 0 6.80 0.00 22.78 22.78 30.07 30.87 30.07 30.07 30.07 30.07 30.07 30.07 57.10 57.10 57.10 57.10 97.51 .)
ACTlIII. iHER6'I Ii9UITlIJi 1M) 0.00 8.00 US 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 30.07 30.07 30.07 lI)'07 30.07 30.07 30.07 38.07 '1.10 57.10 51.10 57.10 92.27
HIt'! IlELIUERIU (N!) t.OO 8 •• 8 I." 1 •• 1 0.10 1.00 0.80 28.57 28.57 28.57 28.57 28.57 28.57 28.57 11.57 54.25 :14.25 'U5 54.25 79.16
ACTlIII. r.wt1TY fACT. CGfIJiINI' 12 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.1'5 0.1'5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0 .• 3 '" 1oIAII1A8I.E II1II COST ( .... ) 4.2811114 0.00 I.DO ... 1 0.80 O.DO 0.00 0.00 128.71 128.71 128.71 128.71 128.71 128.71 128.71 1211.71 244.39244.39 244.39 244.39 352.12
II&\T IlAlE O'.I1IIM) t7It
FUEL PRice <tI!NTU) 2.71 2." 2.M 2.91 2.90 2.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 3,22 3.31 3.41 3.49 M9 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
FUEL COST < .... ) 8 0 • 0 0 0 0 798 822 842 86. 890 913 "' 965 1883 1m 1987 2842 3128
.\MIIE '_UE ..... , t.ot t.ot t.tII .... a." 0.00 0.0' 0.00 UI 0.00 0.00 0.111 '.00 ... 1 '.00 1.&0 1.10 0.00 0.00 UO
lOlA!. COlT CIIIIItIHJ 12 ( .... ) f 0 0 a !O817 84 1543 1022 1045 10 •• 1090 1114 1137 1163 6598 2264 2314 23., 11508 3W
CIJiPtHlfT 83
EXISlINl SM'U e'YCl! l1li 'fIIIlIII '
INS'TALLED rMlClTY <ItI) 15.20 19.76 2UI 20.'3 21.17 14.39 14.29 10.31 lUll 7.14 11.35 11.31 11.39 11.43 11.47 7.33 1.37 7.41 7.42 0.00
lET INSTAlLED rAMClTY (ItII X L_ UI IU8 18.U 18.58 IU8 19.48 13.24 13.1~ 9.48 U5 c.S 1 10.44 10.41 10.48 10.52 10.55 •• 75 6.78 •• 82 6.82 0.00
SER6'I O£UV£RIES lIMO 48.70 70.68 12.50 74.80 77.20 79.70 82.20 31.J9 32.89 34.49 35.99 37 •• 9 3U9 40.39 41.49 17.01 lB. II 19.31 21.61 0.00
iHEAGY 68EllAlllJi lUi) 51.26 74.32 7 •• 32 78.74 81.26 83.89 8 •• 53 33.04 34,62 36.30 37.S8 39.'7 41.3. 42.51 43 •• 7 17.91 19.116 20.3J 22.75 0.00
CAPACITY FACT. CIMNHT 13 0.39 0.43 1,43 0.44 0.44 0 .• 7 0.6' 0.37 US 0.58 0.38 0.48 ft,41 1.42 1,43 1.28 0.30 0.31 1.35 0.00
1.IAII1A8I.E II1II COST ( ..... 4.9211114 252,32 J.l5.78 31'5.63 387.54 399." 412.9J 425.88 162.'2 m.41 178.68 186.4' 195.26 283.5528",5 21UI 88.13 93.83 111.05 111.97 UO
HfAT AIIlE (tttlTUlIlWIII \200.
FUEL PIIICE (tJIMTU) i.n 2.66 2.55 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 U? 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.2J
FUEL COS'! (lOOO) 1704 2372 2335 2740 282S 2n0 3084 1209 130. 1403 1505 1619 1732 18JI 19J4 814 890 976 1122 0.00
ll1TAI. COST CIJIPIJI9IT 13 (lOOO) 1956 2738 2711 ms ms 3332 3510 1372 1475 1581 1.91 1814 193. 2041 2149 903 984 1076 1234 0.00
ClJiPIMNT 14
SAVES CM •• SOND llWi!l1ISSI~ LINE
CAPITAl COST (lOOO) 494 11031 0
IIfIEIlES'T DURING CIJiSTAIJClIIJi ( .. Oil 3,40 146.09 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0
0lIl COSl (tO~~) 0.00 0.00250.00250.00150.00250.00250.00 m.DO 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00250.,0 2SUO 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 ?5U.00 ~) '-SAI.\NIGt VALUE ilOOO) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 uo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c.oo 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 e .00 0.00 0,00
tOTAL COS'! ClJlPIMNT 14 (tOODI m 1118J 2541 250 250 250 250 150 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 m 250 250 250 250 "
v TOTAl COST (lOOO 1 2454 IJ911 29.1 JJJa 17379 15555 14m 194, 3072 mo 3333 3479 3.25 3756 919S 3719 3850 399. 12294 ~!32 ','
PlIESIN!' ~ORTH IN (1000 I • 1983 2454 13451 17.~ 304. 15145 13097 11599 1315 1lJ] il48 23.3 1393 2)99 2~02 57~4 1220 [220 2227 .619 1149
CII1IltATlIJE P. W. IN \l000 \ • 19i3 2454 15904 186Cl! 21715 3.S.0 4995. 61555 .3871 00104 ,8m 70915 73199 75697 7B098 83843 S6061 S81B3 90510 9'128 99277
! '-v
'-V
TABLE 111-25
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
1
"""
GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1990
I AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
I AT SC ESCALATION I (')
1. J 0
(Sheet 3 of 3) ""' .....
I
t1IU.ATI\.I PII08fT IIIlITTM 10 2012 ('081) 99211
t1IU.AlIV£ Pll£SEMT IIOATH FRII! 2803 TO 2837
CItI'!NHT II IlIW/T U!l(E HYOilOElECTRIC
IIIfI corrs (til.) 3142
CGI'GIlII' 12 CMINElI CYCLE GAS 11111HES
11WjillllSlII! LlHE 0111 corrs ('000) 20_
I.WIIAillE 0111 COSTS (1008) 3643
F1IB. com ( .... ) 21491
CIII'III!J .3 tlllU CYtI.E III TlftIHES
tlM'1J8'l'4 IWIES tIlER 11111H111SSI1J1 LlHE
..... 11111 llllE IIIfIIJIn I ... ) 2.1 .
r 14U~ , .
..raw. I .... )
\.. !IM!_ WIlE OETE1II11tl11[Jj 1ft) IlEP!AC819IT COST
ItIlT IIISTI1U.ED IIISTIII.UlTlIII RII'UICIJIIfT I(f I RIIIIfT QllPITIil. IDC IEPIJICI'IIOO 9Al1.WIE SALIIfI6£
0 rMlCm YI'M 'IW YfM COST COST COST IN 1913 IIfILIIE I" 2037 IIfILIIE IN 1'183
(III) (tI") (tllIl mil) (Hill (HOO)
GiWfT 1.00 199. 2040 23571 993.11 1571 245
em II '.23 1188 2118 2048 551. n.1I 1153 1858 290
'"' CCCT 12 1.11 1'91 2020 2050 152 9.73 221 301 47
em .3 .... 1 >93 2023 2m 8 8.00 0 0 0
ectl 14 4.11 P98 2028 2058 2184 36.15 621 1858 290
4# cm 15 6.15 2 :02 2032 2062 4165 53.89 809 3332 520
( 11W111 8.23 1'88 2028 2048 5114 ".as 1138 3829 598
T~ 12 1.11 1'90 2830 201G 689 8.91 143 551 8.
T~ .3 0.00 1'93 2033 2013 0 0.00 0 0 0
T~ .4 4.11 P98 2038 2078 2553 33.03 403 2553 19B '-' T~ ., 6.15 ; ;02 2042 381. 49.37 382 ~O •
V MlES CREEK TImS. P85 2015 2045 11549 149.61 4027 2495 m 0 "
TIlTAt 6~560 911~ 18029 29<4 !.
• 0
CttllJLAlIVE PRESENT WORTH ;If All. PI.m I ('000' 148424 (
! • l.' f
ecc r , CIl<8:NfD (;TIE c",ijlJm~ T'jPSINE
V IRA',: ':'RQ,::H3SF" ··.E ~:. ::. " •• :'-:,L ·iGn.~ ('C"~ F:",,-c-
~--~ ---_ .... ,-,.
Ji I 1 , 1 J , t t , J , r , , , 1 , , if • • , ,
o
o
" f(9
::;! I
~~ r 1 0 ;-I j.
,i !
IV~83
~YEAI
IItMI PIIIIttIMIA LCIiIOS #It) RESOURCES
l'IO!I( DIIIIIIII CIII)
,II£IIIIIII£D rNIICl'IV UIIl LD un
AWO rAP. INCl. II£SEMS OF 28.09 III
IEiIREMEIITS (Kj)
CII1UIATlIIE RETIII9ifNTS (Kji
EXISTING KItMI II£SAlIIt£S 11'82' 91.411111
IIfICHIlIIAWfAlRMI!S rNIICJTf 11&0 (1111
tMlCllY ADell UII8 l1li1
CIt!UlATIVE CAMCIlY ADem .. (Kj)
TlITlII. tMlC1lY (Kj)
NET TOTIII. CAMCm (1II1-:UlSS '.lOX
SURPLUS (1111
HASV SIIlES (III)
, SElBY 8ElCEMTlIJI (1ID.u.s I.e
TABLE III-26
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1993
AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
1993 1984 19i5 1986 19&7 198B 1989 mo 1991 1992 1993 1994 ,995 1994 1991 1998 1999 2m 2001 ,bu2
82.00 84.00 ".ID 89.00 92.00 94.00 97.G0 lOUD 102.00 'DUO 10 •• 00 108.00 110.00 111.00112.00 114.00 115.00 110.60 119.00 122.00
".58 88.61 9I.n fl.88 97.05 99.16 102.32 105.49 1Q7.59 109.71 111.81 11M2 116.03 117.89 118.14 120.25 12LlI 122.36 125.53 128.69
114.59 116.70 U8.81 121.97 m.14 127.25 130.41 133.59 m.69 137.79 119.90 142.01 144.12145.18146.23148.34 149.40 150.45153.62156.78
US 0.00 a.oO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o,ao 24.l0 0.00 0,00 O.Ou 24.30
8.85 8.65 ... , 8.85 8.&5 US 8.85 8.85 8.85 V,aD 17.80 i7.&0 27.&U 27.80 27.80 52.10 52.10 52,10 52.10 74.40
82.55 82.5' 81.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.15 82.55 63 .• 0 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 63.60 39.30 39.30 39.30 39.3& 15.00
ll.04 :14.1' U.26 39.42 42.59 0.00
.... .... .... '.0' '.01 50.00 UO 25." 0.10 Q.6. 25." 0.00 0.00 .... .... 2UO 0.00 0.80 0." 16.71
0.00 0.00 0... 8.00 UO SUO 50.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 12UO 125.00 125.00 125.00 141.78
114.59116.7. 111.81 12t.91 125.14 1ll.55 132.55 157.55 157.55 138.60 163.00 163.60 163.40 163 •• 0103.60 164.30 164.30 164.30 164.30 156.79
108.63 IIUl lIi.t3 1IS.63 118 •• 3 125 ••• 125 .•• 149.36 149.36 IlL39 155.09 155.09 155.09155.0915$.09155.7.155.76 155.76 155.76 148.63
1.08 0.01 '.ID '.01 0.0' 5.30 2.14 23.97 21.87 0.91 23.78 21.59 19.48 18.42 17.37 15.96 14.90 13.85 1t.68 G.OO
397." 408.80419 ... 43UO 447.00 442.00 470.00 491.00 499.00 50B.00 517.08 526.00 53UG 542.G0 549.11 555.10 562.00 568.0.581." '9 ....
411.19 42UI 433.97441.474620'7478.51493.11 507.51 516.83526.15 '35.47 544.111 5$4.12 561.37 iWI.62 574.83512.08 •• 31 AI.76 615.211
ttttttt .......... HH ...... H.H ...... ttlt ••• ttt.ttttlIUtttllttt •• ItIIU ..... UIt.tttt •• ttt ..... tt ... tf .... tt .......................... ltIU .. tltt.,tltt ..... tltttfU ... ttttt.ltlt .. U .... u
_lIAml! PUIN Fill CITY OF SBMIIO
PiAK OMO (Ki) 9.60 13.80 14.20 l4.6a 15.10 15 •• 0 1 •• 00 h.SG 16.90 17.20 17.56 17.811 18.20 18.40 18.60 li.iII 19.0w 19,20 19.10 .0.28
~ OF .1 PIIIIIfiIlA PW 14.46:( 11.11 10.43 lUI 16.40 16.41 IUD 10.49 16.50 16.57 16.54 16.51 16.48 1 •• 55 1 •• 51 lUI 16.49 1 •• 52 16.55 14.55 1 •• 54
D9WCO INC\.. NET t£lE ... 1 OF 4.am III IU8 18.11 11.58 IU8 19.48 19.98 20.38 20.88 21.28 21.58 21.88 22.18 22.58 22.71 22.98 23.18 23.38 23.51 24.1i 24.58
CAI'. IHCI.. _ OF lit IIMJIIIII) 1l.9I 18.11 I. .... lUll 19.48 2UI 20.71 24 •• 2 24.69 21.71 25.51 25.5$ 25.62 25 •• ' 25.69 25.61 25.78 25.74 n." 2UI
ENERSV SIIlES (MIl 48.70 70.61 72.58 74.811 71.20 79.70 82.20 84.90 86.40 86.00 89,511 91.20 92.80 93.90 95.00 96.20 97.30 98.511 100.80 Ill.IO
CI)!PI)olENl II
QIWjT lAkE IfYIMI~LECTRIC
INSTALLED CAMCITY lllll •• 01 o.cl 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o ,J}d 0.00 7.110 7.00 7.00 7.80 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
~PENOA8lE CAMCIlY (111) • .... Lu..-I,. UD 0.01 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.55 •• 55 6.55 4.55 6.55 •• 55 •• 55 4.55 •• 55 ..55
MIlAGE ~ GHIlATlIII (MI) 8.60 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 froOO 0.00 15 .• 0 25.~0 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.010
AVEAAliE ItflLllL OELIVU1ES (MI) LOSSo 1.80 0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.94 24.94 2U4 24.94 24.94 2U4 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94
f.Al>lTAl COST \tOD~ I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 U .00 0.00 lOS~ 11584 am 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO o .uo 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO
INTEREST DIJIIIN6 CIliSTAUCTIIII (.aID) 0.00 I.oe 1.80 '.00 0.40 Q.OO 0.00 0.00 30. m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
IJIII COST ($000) •• 00 &.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 uo 0.00 ;02.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 302.00 381.00 302.00382.00
SAlI.tI6f \lALUE ('000) .... o.oe t .• o 0.80 0.0/1 D.QO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
lDTAl COST Ci)!P1)olENl II (1000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308~ 11888 8956 302 302 302 302 m 302 JO, 301 302 302
E!iE~GY DEllVERJES FR~ GAS (Qjlfl 48.70 70.60 72.50 7 •. ;;, fi ,2a 1';. ,& 82.20 84.9. ba ,40 iliI.JU .4.5. co.Le Oi .0':-Od.lj~ 70.00 71.':0 II.). 13,~o 75.Bo IB.I.
ENERIi'I IlENEIlATlIII • GAS (MIl LOSSo 5.00. 5Ll6 74.32 76.32 78.14 81.26 aU9 86.53 89.37 90.95 91.43 .7.95 69.74 71.<13 72.59 73.74 75.01 76.17 n.43 79.85 82.27
•• I
: I
TABLE III-26
' ..... ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1 0
GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1993
AND GAS WITH MARGINAl GAS PRICE n
AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 2 of 3)
I:lIt'IHM 12 0
l1li aJIIlNED CYa.£ tAl TIIIIHES
S8MR1) IIIWIE If r.wc1T'f .ITIM (till) UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.23 0 •• 0 4.11 0.00 0.00 loll UO 0.00 UO '.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.15 ,.,
CAPITAL cm 1 •• 1" mlltl 0 0 0 0 55)) 0 218. 0 0 1S2 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 4105 0
JIITElEST l1li111& tlJiSI'lIICI'llH 1.001) 8.7611t1 0 0 0 a n 0 36 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0
TIWIiIISSIIH WltAL COST <tOGO) 62111t1 0 0 • 0 5106 0 2553 0 0 689 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 3816 0 .....
IIITElEST l1li1118 cats'lU'TUIl I .... ) 8.03IItI 0 0 0 0 .. 0 33 0 0 9 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 49 • ClIIIlATlIJE r.wcm uti) 0.00 ... 8 1.1. 0.00 0.00 8.2 • 8.23 12.34 12.34 12.34 Il.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 D.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 19.60
lNSlALW fMlC1T'f ItIII) 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.10 •• 00 9.23 9.23 12.34 1t.34 12.34 13.45 13.45 IM5 13.45 13.45 Il.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 19.60
TIWIiIISSIIil 0lIl uGllIItI-m 18.20 0 •• 0 0.00 0.00 0,01 0.00 93.92 93.92 125.8'1 125.89 115.89 m.21 137.21 Il7.21 131.21 137.21 137.21 13UI 131.21 137.21 19'1.94
NET INSTALLED r.wcm utll' Y.lDSS • 8.DO 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.51 1.57 11.35 11.35 1l.35 12.39 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.39 12.38 19.03
JItlTINTIAL NR8'/ &DIEMTUII llyn 0.00 '.00 u. 0.80 8.00 22.18 22.18 49.81 4Ul 49.81 57.10 57.10 51.10 51.10 57.10 57.10 51.10 57.10 57.10 97.51
AtTIW. 9ER&Y &DIEMTlIH (Ull 0.00 0.00 •• 00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.08 49.81 49.81 49.81 51.10 57.11 51.10 57.10 51.10 57.10 51.10 51.10 57.10 B2.27
8£88'/ DElIlJElUU (UI) 0.10 '.00 ..... 1.01 &.IIll 0.00 8.00 47.32 47.32 47.32 54.25 5U5 54.25 54.25 114.25 54.25 54.25 54.25 54.25 78.16
AtTIW. fMlClT'f FllCTGI CCININT 12 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.75 8.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.03
IMIIII\8lE 0lIl COST ( .. 881 4.2I1M 0.00 0.00 1.81 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08213.18 21l.18 213.18 244.39 244.39244.39244,39244.39244.39 244.39 244.39 244.39 352.12
HEAT "'TE (1ttBTIIIUI) .... ,
FIlL PIlla (tJIttIIU) 2.n 2.6.1 U5 ..,8 2.90 2.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
fUEL cm (MOl) 0 • I 0 0 0 0 1322 1361 1395 1644 1689 1734 1783 1833 1883 1932 1987 2842 302 •
MLIM8E \MUll ( .... ) 0.10 G.6. I.U D.U 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 ... 0 0.00 0.88 0." 1.00 0.40 UI 0.8.
llRAL COST CIIfIIII)fI 12 , .... ) • a I 0 10811 84 5492 lUI 1708 3194 2026 2171 2115 2165 2.215 2264 2314 23.19 IOS88 3.
CIJtPfMNl Q
~1511118 SIIl'U CYClE ".T"'IIIS
INSTALLED r.wclT'f 010 15.20 19.7.1 21.21 20.63 21.17 14.39 14.29 14.42 14.50 11.25 7.23 7.20 7.28 7.32 7.35 1.33 7.37 7.41 1.42 0.00
NET INSTALLED r.wclT'f Itlill x L~ 8.00 IU8 IB.18 11.58 18.98 19.48 n.24 13.14 13.27 13.34 10.35 6.65 6.62 '.70 6.n 6.77 6.75 6.78 6.82 6.82 ... 0
111£1161 OElIlJEllES (11410 48.70 70.60 72.50 74.80 77.20 79.70 82.20 37.58 3'.08 49.68 10.31 12.11 lUI 14.71 15.81 17.01 18.11 19.31 21.61 8.00
NAGY &lll£MTlIll (M) 51.26 74.32 7t.:U 78.74 81.26 83.89 86.53 39.56 41.14 42.82 10.B5 12.64 14.33 15.49 ".64 17.91 19.06 28.33 22.15 0.80
1'IIMClT'f FACTOI CIJtPfMNl 03 0.39 0.43 1.43 0.44 0.44 8.67 0.69 0.31 0.32 0.43 0.17 •• 20 D.22 0.24 8.26 1.2 • 0 •• 0.31 .. ~ 0.00
IMIIIA8lE 0lIl COST (t081) M2IUI 252.32365.18375.63 387.54 399.98 412.93 425.88 194.71 202.48 218.77 53.42 62.23 70.52 76.22 81.'2 88.13 93.83 188.15 111.97 '.00
HEAT "'TE (1t!8TUlMI 121 ..
FUEL PIIICE (tllttlTUI 2.17 2.66 2.55 2.90 2.'0 2.90 2.97 J.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
FUEL COST (.0001 1704 2372 2335 2740 2828 2920 lC/84 1448 1550 1655 431 516 6DO 6.17 m 814 890 976 1122 0.00
lOlAL COST CIII'(IIOO' .3 (tOm 1956 2738 2111 3128 3228 3332 ~IO 1643 1753 1865 485 518 671 743 819 903 m 1076 1234 0.00
Cl)1P(MHT .4
IWiES CA. -Sa.l/ID TAAHtilSSl1il LINE
rAPllAL COST !tOOO) 494 11037
IIITEIlESt DUA IN. CIJjSlRUClI (J; (tO~~ I 3.40 1 ..... 09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0
0lIl COST (.000 l 0.00 0.00250.00 150.ao 250.00 m.DO 250.00 25o.aO 25UO i50.foO 15UO 250.00 250.00 250.00 m.oo 250.0f! m.oo 250.00 250.00250.00 i SAI.\IAGl: \M\LUE (.000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ",00 0.00 0.0& 0.00 0.00 0.0& O. ,0 Uo 0.00 0.00 I
TOTAL COST CIJ1PIIIENT 14 (10001 497 11183 250 250 150 250 250 250 250 /50 150 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 150
TOTAL COST (.000' 1454 13921 29.1 3378 141'5 3006 v252 .638 1119 i 1.;0,5 J".1 3101 i:~t 3460 358. PI ~ 1B:u j1'YQ. );)94 4111
PRESEt.T WORTH IN (tO~~) 1993 2454 Il451 1764 304. IH~,? 3UG! '52. 5217 I :B.~ I ijl.,o ~ I :' ~ 1191 tt(11 WJ 221 ~ ~2~l' ~~.;lJ ~u" ,.19 214'~
CIIWLATIVE P. Y. IIi (1000) • 1983 2454 1590~ 18068 21115 34m ms~ WilS 50nOi .1041 'lJui 7H80 76.12 18B.) 81093 8m9 6552B Q7)49 8997~ '6594 9.74)
, II I f I
a
0
:
f, Q
'-£ ' c ,
!
TABLE III-26
ALTERNATIVE PLAN I-1
GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1993
AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
ClllUTlV£ I'IU8IT arM TO 2112 (11.0)
WlULATlII£ Pll£S8IT WOIITH FRill 2003 TO 2037
ClIII'IH!NT II IIIIIT!.ME II\'IlII00LECTRl C
WI C8S1'1 , .... )
C(J1PHNT 12 CfNlN£l) CYClE 6I\S TUlI8JNES
TliANtIlSSllllllNE QUI COSTS (fOOl I
IIAIUNlLE QUI CIISTS ( .... )
fta COSTI ,til,)
ClIII'IIIBfl 13 SIItPU CYCLE 6I\S MBlNES
_1 .. 11It Uti fill COSTa '1D0Il
SlIIIllJlAl. (11981
SAlIIA6E \MI.1i OETEfIIlNITlIII ANI R£1'lACEIfHi COST
118113
3142
2881
3U3
11--
.~l
141m
IIIIT IHSlAlLED IHSTAU,IITlIJi IlEPIACIJ8IT AElIA9I9IT fAl'JT~ JDC REPIACEIiENl
WAcm VEAl! YEAR VEAl! COST COST COST IN J 983
Uti) (Som itOOO) itOOO)
GIIAKT 1.00 1993 2043 0 8.00
CCCT 11 B.n 1988 2018 2049 5573 72.10 11~3
CCCT 12 4.11 1990 2020 2050 278. 36.05 SIS
cerr 13 1.11 1993 2023 20S3 752 9.73 191 em 14 0.00 19 98 2029 2058 0 0.00 0
CCCT " 4.n 2002 2032 2062 4165 53.89 809
TIW< II 9.23 1988 2628 mil SIOo 66.05 1138
TIWi 12 4.11 1990 mo 2070 2553 33.03 5;1
T!WI 13 1.11 1993 1033 2071 699 8.91 119
TtW; 14 uo 199B 2039 2079 0 0.00 0
TIW< 15 6.1S 2002 2042 3916 49.37
~ES CRm TJWjS. 1985 2015 2045 11549149.61 4021
TOTAl 3.989 NuS
CII1ULATlII£ PRESENT WORTH Of All. PiJ/j I (tOOO, 148600
erc: ;31811<£0 (,ecE [:}1BLSII,N l""e.;.'
.. -. ..
'.~
5AlIIAGE SALVAGE
IJAlUf IN 2037 VALUE IN 1983
unOOI (t000)
1859 m
1115 114
m 50
u ~
3332 520
361, 598
1041 Jlq
<>c3 94
0 0
lQ2 .0
2.95 m
lo!;! ~:,; 3
V
,
CAlIMI '/W
mMl flljlltflllUl LIMOS MID RESOURCES
PEM. oawc (IV>
REIlUIIIO fAMtllY 1 .... 1 I.IIDo S.2tX
RED'. tAP. INC\.. I£SEMS If 28.19 ~
IlETIIHNTS l1li1 . .•
CII1tI.A T1UE 1lET119IHT8 l1li1
EXISTING KIl'lAI IESlllllaS 1182 -91.441 ~
~I_I fAMtllY lIED (~)
fAMtllY /!IIOITI. (Il0l)
ClttIIATlUE CAMCllY /!IIOITI" ( .... ,
TOTAl. CAMCITY CJII)
Nfl' lOTAI. fAllilltllY 11111-1.. 1.2IIX
SURPLUS ( .... )
MRf'I MLES (UI)
MRf'I _MTlII (III)-\.. 1.4.
TABLE 111-27
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1998
AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 1 of 3)
1983 1984 1m 1986 1987 1998 1909 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
82.00 84.10 86.8. 89.00 92.00 94.10 97.00100.00102.00 104.00106.00 lOUD 110.00 111.'0 112.00 114.00 115.00 IIUO 119.00 122.00
116.58 88.61 90.72 93.88 91.05 99.16102.32 105.49 107.59 109.10 111.81 113.92 II ... J 117.'9 118.14 120.25 121.31 122.36 12'.53 128.69
114,59116.10 111.81 121.91 125.14 127.25 llO.41 133.50 135.68 131.79 139.90 142.01 144.12145.18140.23148.34149.40158.45153.6215 •• 78
8.85 0.00 .... 0.'0 O.DO 0.00 e.oO 0.00 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0." 0.00 24.31 0.00 0.00 1.'1 24.31
8.15 8.85 8.85 U5 8.85 8.85 8.85 a.85 8.85 27.80 21.80 27.80 27.80 21." 27.80 52.18 52.10 52.10 52.10 76.40
aU5 82.55 8MS 82.55 82.55 82.55 82.55 92.55 82.55 63.611 63.611 63.611 '3.60 63.6' 63.111 39.30 39.30 3U8 39.30 15.00
32.14 34.15 U.26 39.42 4M9 0.00
0.00 uo e.l, 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.08 0." D.OO 25.00 0.00 0.00 o.aO 16.78
0.'0 ... 0 0.01 UO 8.n 58.80 5e.oO 75.08 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.01 108." 100.10 125.0' 125.00 125.00 125.00 14J.78
114.59 11'.711 111.11 121.97 125.14 132.55 132.55 157.55 157.55 138.60 16UO 163.60 163." 163." 143.111 164.31 164.30 lOU. 10\04.31 156.71
108.63 118.63 112.6' 115.63 118.63 125.66 125.66 149.36 149.36 131.39 155.09 155.09 m.09 155.09 155 •• 9 /55.76 155.76155.76 155.76 148.63
0.00 0.01 0.'0 0.0. ..00 5.30 2.14 23.97 21.87 0.81 23.70 21.59 19.48 18.42 11.37 15.96 IUD 13.85 10.68 0.00
391 ••• 408.10 419." 433.80 447.10 462.00 476.00 490.00 499.00 5lI8.00 517.00 52 .... 535.80 542.11 549.00 555.08 562.00 56 .... 581.01 594.01
411.19 422.58 433.97 '48.41 462.97 478.51 493.01 581.51 516.83526.15535.47544.80554.12561.31 W.62 514.83 582.08 588.38 601.1' '15.23
H.H ... ltHH ........... HI ..... HI •• tIHI •••• HItIIIII •• '"lItlU .. "'.IHIHIII •• ttllllIfltI.lllllilltlllll.ltltttt .......... 'U .. HHIH.UIIU ..... tIIIHII •• HHtfHltI"'HtlHtH'''1
_Mlllf,,* ... em 11'''''
PEM. DBM ( .... ) 9.60 13.8. 14.21 14.61 15.10 15.60 16.10 16.50 16.90 17.20 17.50 17.80 18.20 18.41 18 ••• 18.80 19.00 19.20 19.70 20.21
7. OF ~9M1 flljlltfillA I'8lIf 14.46'l: 11.71 16.43 16.51 14.441 16.41 14.60 16.49 16.58 16.51 16.54 I6.S1 16.48 16.55 IU8 16.61 16.49 16.52 16.55 16.:15 16.56
DBM IICI... N(l' RUEMI If 4.mt '" 13.98 18.18 18." 11.9. ',9.48 19.90 21.38 20.88 21.28 21.50 21.88 22.18 22.50 22.18 22.98 23.18 23.38 2UI 24.18 24.58
tAP. INCl. ... If IIE1' ..... 0111 1309. 18.11 18." 18." 19.48 20.81 21.71 24.62 24.69 21.11 25.58 25.55 25.62 25." 25.49 25.61 25.10 25.74 25.75 24.58
MRf'I MLES (III) 48.10 ".60 n.M 14.11 11.21 19.10 82.20 84." 116.40 88.00 89.58 91.21 92.11 93." " ... ".:It 91 •• ".51 101." 111.11
CItIPHNl II
&MKr lAI(( IIrDllOELEC11IC
IHSlALLE8 CAMClT'I ( .... ) uo a.e0 0.0' 0.10 8.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G.08 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7." 7.00
DEPENIWIlE CAMClT'I (~I • •• 60 LOSS-D.II1l 0.00 0.00 I.ot '.00 &.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0." 0.10 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55
AIIE_ MU!L 68tEIIIITlIII Uuf) 0.00 •• 8& '.08 0.00 '.00 0.80 0.00 D.OI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.&0 0.00 .... •• U 25.41 25.41 25.41 25.41 25.4.
AIIE_ MU!L DEl.II8IH (III) LfIlIIIor I." 0.00 .... t.lt •• 00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.'0 '.00 I.M ... 0 24.94 24.94 aU4 2409. 24.94
CAPITAl. COST (.01.) 0.00 o.n 0." 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.08 0.00 0.00 •. 00 3084 11584 8m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
IlfTuEST DURIHIi CIJIfI'IOCTIIII (1000) 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 304 678 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0lIl COST '10.8) 8.00 0.0' D.OO 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.80 302.00 302.01 302.00 302.86 302.00
SAlWIGE \/AllIE (ta.O) 0.00 1.88 .... 8.DO 0.00 8.00 0.&0 a .• e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08
TOTAl. COST CII!I'I1IHr II (1000) 8 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3884 11888 8956 302 302 3.2 302 382
EH£R6'I DELlUERIES FRill lIAS (WIll 48.70 70.60 12.58 74.80 77.20 79.70 82.26 84.90 8 •• 40 88.00 89.50 91.20 92.80 93.90 95.00 71.26 12.36 73.56 15.8. 78.1.
ENEIi6Y _l1li11111 -GAS '1IoiII) lOSS-5.00'1. 51.26 74.32 76.32 18.74 81.2. 83.89 86.53 89,37 90.95 12 .• 3 94.21 96.00 97.68 98.84 100.00 75.01 16.I7 17.43 79.85 &2.27
, f , , , 1
•
•
o
•
0
, '1 ..
TABLE III-27
a AL TERNA TI VE PLAN 1-1 •
• GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1998 • AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
• AT SC ESCALATION • .
. i
'i-•
(Sheet 2 of 3) ~ij : 0 CIIftIEKI 12
I. ,., CNltO CYCLE lIAS TUll8INE5
0 SIIMII& SIWIE If CllMCI'IY oIj)OITlI»IS (110/) 0.00 0.00 0." 0.00 0.00 8.23 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 4.l1 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.14 ('J
WIlAl COST ( .... 1 671,.,.. 0 0 • 0 5573 0 278. 0 0 m. 8 a 0 • 0 0 0 0 2127 0
IHfEJ£Sf ., .. altSTlUCTll»I (tOOU 8.76/111 0 0 • 0 72 0 36 0 0 3. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0
(. 'fIIIIHIIIS51111 rMlTAl con (tllll 621,.,.. 0 0 a a 5116 0 2553 0 0 2553 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 1949 0 • INTEJ£ST UI .. ClJ4STIUCTIIli ( .... ) 8.0lMl a 0 0 0 66 0 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 25 0
ClIIIJIATlI,l£ OIMCI'IY (110/) • ,-' 0.01 0.00 -6.01 0.00 0.01 9.23 8.23 12.34 12.34 12.34 10.46 10.46 16.4. 16.46 16.46 16.46 16.46 16.46 16.4. 19.60
INSTAlLED CllMCI'IY (110/) 0.01 ..00 1.01 1.00 0.00 8.23 8.23 12.34 12.34 12.34 16.4. 16.4. 1 •• 4. 16.46 1 •• 4. 1 •• 46 10.4. 16.4. 16.46 19 •• 0 • TIIfM1ISSII1i 0lIl (tlllIIIi-'1) lUI 0.00 0.00 0.0, 0.00 0.00 83.92 83.92 m.89 125.89 125.89 167.85 167.85 141.85 167.15 167.85 167.85 107.85 167.85 167.85 199.88
NET INSTAlLED CllMCITY (110/) XlOSS • 8.01 0.00 D.GO .... 0.0. Q.OO 7,57 1.51 1l.35 II. 35 11.35 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 18.03
PIlTBITIAl ENER6'I IIBOiITlIli (III> 1.10 0.00 0.01 UI 0.00 22.18 22.18 49.81 49.81 49.81 7 •• 84 10.&4 16.84 76.14 lU4 76.84 7 •• 84 76.94 7 •• 84 97.47 " ACTUAl. BERG'I' GlHEIIIITlIli liMO 1.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.81 49.81 49.81 76.84 1 •• 84 76.84 76.84 16.84 75.01 76.17 76.84 76.84 82.27
HII8\' DELlI,l£RI n (IIIIN) .... U. Uf' . 0.0. 0.10 0.00 0.00 41.32 47.32 41.32 13.80 13.00 n.oo 13.80 n." 11.2. 72.3. n.oo 13.00 18.16
ACTUAl. CllMCITY FACTDI tIIf'OINT 12 0.00 &.00 0.15 0.75 0.75 0.15 0.75 0.75 0.1'.\ 0.75 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.7:1 1.63
\Io\IIIAIlE 0lIl COST ( .... ) 4.ltIlil 0.00 o •• e I." .... 8.00 0.00 0.00 213.18 213.18 m.le 328.86 328.a. 328.86 328.8. m." 321.03 325.99 328.8' 328.8. 352.\2
II&\T illiTE (ItIITUlMII II'tt
fUEL NICE (tllMTU) 2.77 2.104 MI 2098 2.90 2.90 2.91 3.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3." 3.69 3.79 3.89 4.DO 4.1I 4.23 ,..:
FUEL COST (lieu 0 • • I 0 0 0 1322 1361 13~ 2213 2273 2333 2410 2461 2413 2578 2.74 2741 3128
"'8111.1IIl6E IMli. ,tIIU -.... uo •• tt .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 ua 1.10 0.00 0.00 '.00 .... ..01
TOTIll. COST tIIf'OINT n , ..... • 0 • • 11817 84 5492 1104\ POD 1143 2109 2710 2838 2891 2f63 29.2 3012 3111 7372 3588
CIIIPIIiEHT '3
EXIST!" 5111'1.E cta.f .. '18m
IHSTIILLEO I'Al'l'lCITY (110/) 15.20 19.76 21.21 20 •• 3 21.17 14.39 14.29 14.42 IUD 11.25 11.34 1l.31 11.39 11.43 11.47 4.33 4.37 4.41 4.41 0.00
N£I INSTAlLED I'Al'l'lCITY 1*1 % lD$1lo 8." 13.98 18.18 11.58 18.98 19.48 !J.24 13.14 13.21 13.34 10.35 10.44 10.41 10.48 10.51 10.55 3.98 4.02 4.05 4.16 0.00
BERG'I' DELIVERIES (Slltl 48.70 10.60 72.50 74.9. 11.28 79.70 82.28 37.58 39.08 40.68 16.50 18.28 19.86 20.98 2Ull D.110 0.00 0.5. 2.114 '.01
fHERSY IlfHEMTII»I (SlIt) 51.26 74.32 76.32 78.74 81.26 .3.89 86.53 39.56 41.14 4U2 17.37 19.16 20.85 22.00 23.1. 0.00 0.00 0.59 3.01 0.00
CAMtITY FACTOR CIIIPIMHT 13 '.39 D.43 1.43 0.44 0.44 0.67 D.69 0.31 0.31 0.43 0.17 0.19 0.21 1.22 0.23 0.01 •• 00 0.02 0.08 0.00
IMtlh\8LE 0lIl COST (tOOIl U2I11i11 252.32 36!1.18 31'.\." 381.54 399.98 412.93 425.88 194.11 202.48211.77 85.51 94.32 112.61 leUI llMI 1.10 '.11 1.'1 14.13 D.II
HEAT MTE (tt18TUlIIHI 12111
FUEL PRICE (tIlf1i1'U) 2.17 2.66 2.55 2.90 2.90 1.90 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.22 3.31 3.40 3.49 3.59 3 •• 9 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.11 4.23
FutL COST <tOI8) 1704 2372 2331 2740 2828 2920 3084 1448 )550 1655 698 782 an 948 1826 0 0 28 149 8.00
TOTAl. COST ClJt'lJj8(f 13 (tlIO) 11'56 2138 2711 3128 m8 3332 3510 1643 1753 1865 716 876 976 105. 1140 0 0 JI 103 8.00
CIl1PlliiltfT 14
DAVeS CR. -SElotliID TIWj!i11ISSII»1 LINE
CAPITAL COST (teOll 494 11037
INTEREST DURIIi6 CINTIiUCl'IOH !tODD) 3.40 146.09 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fi 0 0
I.~ 0lIl COST (fOOl) 0.00 0.00250.00250.00 25v.uO 250.00 150.00 250.00 250.00 ,50.00 150.00 250.00 250.00 250.00250.00250.00150.00150.00250.00250.00
SALVAGt VALUE I,m, 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 un
TOTAl. COST CIIIPI»IBfr 14 (teOOi 497 11183 250 250 258 150 m m 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 150 250 250 258 250
TOTAL COST ('008) 1454 13921 19,1 3378 14195 j~¢co :; ~5~ m3 llOi 9,Sti JlJ5 3,1, 7140 1.091 mOi ]514 3014 ;'54 0088 41 it "" PR£SENT WORTH IN !tOOO) 19&3 1454 13451 27.4 304. 1,457 It,o7 7~to ~193 . ~dL:: j~"j c,·48 ~60a 4115 10289 am 2\P~ i~'fU lIlYI 4154 ,,4<
CLIIUlJlTlVE P. U. IN muD, • 1983 2454 15904 18668 21m 34171 3'?'j; 44765 4!5?e 50390 5 /183 jlajL 0,499 6m4 '75)3 85m 81m BQltt: 92iJi:' 9.367 9~~i' V '-
~ '-
"
\ o
I, ~
:t~ I {, I
'i ,;':
" I
... ~.,
, '-I
TABLE 111-27
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 1-1
GRANT LAKE ONLINE 1998
AND GAS WITH MARGINAL GAS PRICE
AT SC ESCALATION
(Sheet 3 of 3)
CNllTlVE I'IIESBfI' ... 10 2IU ( .. til "'11
atlUTM ..... .,. filii .3 Til 2137
CIt'II9IT II 1M« lAG 1'fDIIIII.ECTRIC
.. com ( .... , 3142
CIt'II9IT 12 _IIID cnu .. _illS
'nIMI11S11I UNl .. CIIS!'S ( .... , 2I7t
_Ial .. tIlTS ItI.1I JUt
Fill. com ( ..... ~ 314ft
CII'IIIIIT II .DIU L"l'D..E .. _INlI • CItfIIINr" \IMI au. TMIIIISSIII LIlI
TMIIIISSIII LIlI .. t8III'l ( .... , 2 .. 1
.....,..,.1 ... ' . 141 • . " .. ..
• IMGE •• ' brfdMlMTlllliil1IUuiaIINt em
.. IT IH5lH.LED IIIJ'fH.lATIII IEPl.AC9IHT IETIIIgefT CAPiTAl IDC REPlACEItBIT
t:IiIIW:m' ' ,. -YfM CIISI' . tllS!' ellS!' III i983
II1II 'I .... f ( .... , ( .... ) -7." '1991 2141 ....
etC'!' II 8.23 1911 2018 2048 "13 72.10 1153
CCCT 12 4.11 I," 212. 2151 2114 34.15 818
CCCT 83 4.11 .,n 2123 215. 2114 3"'5 131
CCCT It .... If" 2128 -• .... • CCCTIS 3.14 2812 2132 2142 2127 21.52 413
TIIIiH II 1.23 1911 2828 2168 5116 64.05 1138
TIIIiH 12 4.11 1990 2030 2111 2353 33.01 531
TIIIiH t3 4.11 1"3 2033 2lI71 2353 13.83 419
TIIIiH ,. 0.00 It'" 2018 20)8 I 0.0' 8
TIIIiH 15 1.14 2102 20.2 1149 25.21
ilMJES ClEEk TIIIiHS. 1985 2015 2045 11549 149.61 402)
TITH. )'''1 989)
CIJIUlATIVE PIlI:SOO WOIITH Ilf AlL PiJ'Il ) ,1000' 148735
em: C(t<8HIEO nm CIJIIiU;TIIJ/ TUABIUE
lA,'f" T~Ig,IS~HJ' ll~£ AssoelATfO wlT~ 9h I'JERI'IG [((T ",uEM
1 • , , , ,
:1
,....
o
o
SALVAGE SAlINlIiE
INILIJE III 21l11N1L1JE IN 1983
I .... ) (tlOO)
1858 29lJ
1115 114
1393 211 • • 1101 2.5
382'1 598
2042 m
223. 3.9 • 0
195 30
2695 420
17062 2662
., , , -" 'I , , ,
TABLE II I -28
GRANT LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY
POWER PRODUCTION STUDY
RATED CAPACITY
FRICTION FACTOR (K)
DESIGN DISCHARGE
DESIGN HEAD
TIME PERIOD
7 MW
0.0000376
439 CFS
216 FT
1948 -1980
(See Following Pages)
.. '
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
HOl\i1HLY OPERATI (ll STUDY FOR GIWIT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR 1948
HctITH IN P.H. SPILL EI11 £111 AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIi TARGET IO-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLW FLCM FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD aiERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FL[(.I PEAK CAPACIT'f
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) 1FT) (FT) ( Gl.4H) ( GVlH) (GUH) (GWH) (11)i) (CFS) (CFS) (tf.,J)
OCT 262. 262. O. 7728B. 691. 220. 3.17 .66 2.52 0.00 5.75 461, 120. 7.33 O.
NO\} 200. 200. O. 772BB. 691. 221. 2.36 1.9B .37 0.00 6.32 461. 13. 7.33 O.
OEC 116. 178. O. 73491. 689. 214. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 427. O. 6.78 O.
J~ 32. 183. O. 64212. 683. 210. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 438. O. 6.B2 O.
FEB 24. 205. O. 54191. 677. 204. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. '" 6.95 o . /.l •
MAR 16. 104. O. 487B3. 673. 199. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 250. O. 3.77 O.
APR 27. 363. O. 28786. 660. 193. 3.66 13.12 0.00 9.47 5.23 461. 293. 6.50 O.
HAY 244. 244. O. 28786. 660. 190. 2.49 3.97 0.00 1.48 4.63 46i. B9. 6.27 O.
J~E 493. 178. O. 47506. 672. 191. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 428. O. 6.05 O.
JULY 556. 143. O. 72907. 688. 205. 1.57 l.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 343. O. 5.27 O.
AUG 385. 314. O. 77288. 691. 21B. 3.76 1.48 2.2B 0.00 4.47 461, 20B. 7.29 O.
SEPT 162. 162. O. 772BB. 691. 222. 1. 91 .98 .93 0.00 5.02 389. O. 6.24 O.
."',
AANUAL 211. 211. O. 60738. 681. 207. 27.96 32.S1 6.10 10.95 5.52 420. 62. 6.38
FOR WATER YEAR 1949
MIl'HH IN P.H. SPILL EOM EOM AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFIcn TARGET IO-HOliR OFF PEAKING "",
FLW . FLW FlW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY EiiERG), ENERGY Pi{.r.AP. Pl<.FLW PEAl< CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (tf.,J:r (CFS) ICFS) (I'W)
OCT 259. 259. O. 77288. 691. 220. 3.14 .66 2.48 0.00 5.75 461. i 14. 7.33 O.
NOV 90. 178. O. 72043. 688. 214. 1.98 1.9B 0.00 0.00 6.32 428. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 26. IB2. O. 62452. 682. 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 437. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 15. 199. O. 51739. 675. 203. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 454. O. 6.S!) O.
FEB 12. 214. O. 40542. 668. 196. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 46i. 37. 6.66 O.
MAR 15. 109. O. 34769. 664. 190. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5. 95~" 261. O. 3.77 O.
APR 17. 118. O. 28786. 660. 193. LIB 13.12 0.00 11.94 5.23 282. O. 3.98 O.
HAY 137. 137. O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.41 3.97 0.00 2.56 4.63 329. O. 4.57 O.
JIJ4E 409. 180. O. 42414. 669. 189. L7i 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 432. O. 6.05 (I.
JULY 474. 146. O. 62562. 682. 200. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 351. O. 5.26 O.
AUG 325. 131, O. 74519. 689. 210. 1.49 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.4i 313, O. 4.95 O.
SEPT 446. 399. O. 77288. 691. 216. 4.59 .98 3.61 0.00 5.02 461. 355. 7.30 O.
AtfiUAL IB6. IB6. O. 54539. 677. 203. 24.40 32.81 6.09 14.50 5.52 389. 42. 5.84
EBASCO SERtJICES iNCORPORATED
MONTHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GRAN1 LAKE HYDRO PRuc1ECT
FOR WATER YEAR 1950
I'1CMH IN P.H. SPILL Ect1, EOM AVLNET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFl CIT TARGET 10-HOLlR OFF PEAKING
FLOW FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL
<AC-FT) 1FT)
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY Pi( .CAP. Pi{ • FU)l.4 PEAK CAPACITY
(ers) (eFS) (eFS) (FT) (G!4H) {@..JfD (GWH, (@..JH) (r1\t)) (CFS) (CFS) W'J\ll'i
OCT
NOV
DEe
JAN
FEB
HAR
APR
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
194. 194.
197. 197.
71. 178.
37. 184.
21. 207.
18. 105.
26. 315.
117., 117.
447. 179.
521. 145.
4Bl. 328.
33B. 33B.
At1'iLIAL 207. 207.
t100H IN P ,M.
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
HAR
APR
HAY
JltlE
JllLY
AUG
SEPT
FLOW FLC\tI
(CPS) (CFS}
101.
33.
21.
! 9.
15.
14.
'li .. , .
124.
325.
518.
376.
505.
lOt.
179.
184.
192.
216.
110.
62.
124.
182.
14B.
131.
461.
At~iUAL 174. 173.
O. 77288. 691.
O. 77288. 691.
0. 70681. 687.
O. 61640. 6Bl.
O. 51335. 675.
O. 45990. 671.
O. 28786. 660.
o. 28786. 660,
O. 44717. 670.
O. 67B60. 685.
O. 7728B. 691.
O. 77288. 691.
221.
22L
214.
209.
203.
198.
194.
191.
190.
202.
216.
219.
2.36
2.32
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
3.18
1.20
1.77
1.57
3.89
3.93
0.59165.680. 207.27.51
.66 1.71 0.00
1 .98 .34 0.00
2.05 . 0.00 0.00
2.07 0.00 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 9.94
3.97 0.00 2.77
1.77 0.00 0.00
1.57 0.00 0.00
i.4& 2.42 0.00
. 98 2.95 0.00
5.75 461.
6.32 461.
7.00 428.
6.71 442.
6.54 461.
5.95 252.
5.23 461.
4163 2S1,
4.40 430.
4.33 347.
4.47 461.
5,u2 46i,
32.81 7.41 12.71 5.52 412.
FOR WATER YEAR 1951
3.
S.
o.
o.
24,
o.
2i 1.
D.
O.
G.
232 .
250.
7.33 O.
7.33 O.
0.73 O.
6.82 O.
6.89 O.
3.77 O.
6.47 O.
O.
6.05 O.
5.26 O.
7.23 O.
7.33 U.
60. 6.25
SPILL ECtl EOM AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFIClT TARGET iv-HOUR DFF PEAKIN.3
FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PiLFL0i4 PEAK CAPACitY
(CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (CMH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (~.J) (CPS) (CPS) (MW)
o.
o.
O.
O.
o.
O.
O.
O.
O.
77288.
68597.
58576.
47969.
36787.
30862.
28786.
2&7S6.
37320,
O. 60062.
O. 75134.
7; 7728B.
691.
686.
679.
673.
665.
661.
660.
660.
666.
6S0.
690.
691.
223.
213.
207.
201.
194.
IS8.
192.
191.
187.
198.
210.
214.
1.24
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
• 62
1.28
l.i7
1.57
1.48
5.26
1. 52408. 675. 202. 22,47
.66
1.99
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
13.12
3.97
1.77
1.57
1.48
.98
.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C.OO
4.28
0.00
0.(10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.50
2.09
0.00
D.OO
0.00
0.00
5.75
6.32
7.0[1
6.71
6.54
5.95
5.23
4.63
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.02
242.
430.
442.
460.
461.
265.
149.
29B.
436.
314.
461.
32.81 4.B6 15.20 5.52 358.
" li.
D.
o.
O.
41.
o.
O •
0,
o.
o.
461.
3.95 O.
6.78 O.
6.76 O.
6,79 O.
6.58 O.
3.77 O.
2.11 O •
4.15 G.
6.04 O.
5.26 D,
4.95 O.
7.31 O.
41. 5.36
JIll"
EBASCO SERVICES lNCORPORATED
MCNTHLY OPER4TII)~ STUDY FOR GRAN1 LAKE HiORO PROJECT I'"
FOR WATER 'rEAR 1952
M()NTH IN P.H. SPILL Ectl EOM Ai.IE.~iET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLllI FLW FWA STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.C.AP. PK.FL().,J PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) m,,JH) ( !l4H) ( GiAH; ( G1;H) . (tiA) (CFS) (CFS) (HI..J)
OCT BB. 8B. O. 77288. 691. 223. LOB .66 .42 0.00 5.75 211. O. 3.45 0.
NOV 51. 179. O. 696B5. 6B6. 213. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 30. 183. O. 60265. 681. 208. 2.05 2.05 0.00 ' 0.00 7.00 440. O. 6.76 O.
JAN 18. 190. O. 49661. 674. 202. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 457. O. 6.BO O.
FEB 16. 215. 01 38605. 666. 195. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 39. 6.62 O.
'MAR 16. 110. O. 32848. 663. 189. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 263. O. 3.77 O.
APR 14. 82. O. 28786. 660. 193. .83 13.12 0.00 12.30 5.23 197. O. 2.80 .... 0,
MAY 66. 66. O. 28786. 660, 192. .68 3.97 0.00 3.29 4.63 158, O. 2.24 O.
JlNE 375. 181. 0, 40352. 6613. H18. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 434. O. 6.04 [I,
JUL'~' 572. 146. O. 66550. 684. 201. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.60 4.33 350. O. 5.26 O. II!'
AUG 434. 259. O. 77288. 691. 217. 3.10 1.43 1.62 0.00 4.47 461. 115. 7.22 O.
SEPT 268. 26B. O. 77288. 691. 220. 3.14 .98 2.16 0.00 5.02 461. 130. 7.33 O.
,..
AIfoIliAL 163. 163. D. 54075. 676. 203. 21.42 32.81 4.20 15.59 5.52 359. 23. 5.41
FOR WATER YEAR 1953
MCNTH IN P.H. SPILL Eil'! Ectl AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEL DEFICIT iARGET IO-HOUR OFF PEAI<iNG
FL0!4 FUM FllX4 STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENER[t ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PI(. CAP. PI(. FLOI,,j PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (eFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (WH) (SWH) (WH) (WH) (!14) (CFS) (CFS) (1'tJ) ...
OCT 337. 337. O. 77288. 691. 219. 4.05 .66 3.40 0.00 5.75 461. 248, 7.33 O.
NOV 263. 263. O. 772813. 691. 220. 3.08 1. 98 1.10 0.00 6.32 461-121. 7.33 O. "" DEC 124. 178, 0, 73991 , 689, 215. 2.05 2.0S 0.00 0.00 7.00 4U .• O. 6.78 O.
JAN 58. lB2. a, 66375. 684. 2!1. 2.G? 2.07 0,00 0.00 6,71 436. O. 6.S2 O.
FEB 44. 203. D. 57542. 679. 206. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. lB. 7.0! O.
MAR 30. 103. O. 53074. 676. 202. L12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 246. O. 3.77 D. ID
APR 61. 461. 0, 29244. 660. 193. 4.63 13.12 0.00 0.00 5.23 461. 461. 6.55 O.
MAY 2S!. 288. O. 28786. 660. IS9, 2.93 3.97 0.00 1.04 4.63 461. 165. 6.28 O.
JlNE 928. 171. 0, 73834. 689. 199. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0,00 4.40 410, O. 6.07 O. "'" JULY 711. 461. 193. 77288. 691. 214. 5.43 1.57 3.85 0.00 4.33 461. 461. 7.30 o •
AUG 513, 461. 52. 77288, 691. 215. 5.45 1.48 3.98 0.00 4.47 461. 461. 7.33 O.
SEPT 294. 294. O. 7728B. 691. 220. 3.44 ,98 2.45 0.00 5.02 461. 174. 7.33 O.
Atf.lUAL 305, 284. 21, 64158. 683. 209. 38.05 32.B1 14.78 1.04 5.52 434. 177, 6.65
,,",'
MCNTH
OCT
NOV
DEC
JA~
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN
FlCdA
(eFS)
P.H.
FL[t,.J
':CFS)
257. 257.
69. 17B.
40. 182.
32. 189.
33. 213.
28. lOS.
30. 175.
173. i73.
409, i801
420. 147.
384. 131.
201. i58.
Al'fiUAL 174. 174.
MC'tITH
OCT
N(~J
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
1.1lNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN P.Ii.
FW~ FLOW
(eFS) (CFS)
16B.
145.
51 J
42.
24.
lB.
lB.
72.
291.
643.
407.
273.
i6S.
177 .
180.
186.
2fl'f •
106.
256.
72,
182,
147.
2i9.
273.
Aj·f.lUAL 181. 181.
EBASCO SERVICES iNCORPORATED
MONTHLY OPER~TIGN STUDY FOR GRANT L&!KE HYDRO PROjECT
SPILL EOM EOM
FLOW STORAGE LEVEL
(CFS) (AC-F1) (FT)
G. 77288. 691.
O. 70772. 687.
O. 62013. 682.
O. 52349. 675.
O. 42365. 669.
O. 37443. 666.
D. 28786. 660.
0, 29786. 660.
0. 42414. 669.
0. 59194. 680.
0. 74742. 689.
O. 77288. 691.
FOR 1.4ATER YEAR 1954
A'.JE .NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFi crr TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FlOW PEAK CAPACITY
(FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GiAH) (GiAH) (MW) (eFS) (eFS) (t1.)
220.
214.
209.
203.
197.
192.
194.
i 91.
189.
199.
209.
22L
3.12
i,98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
1.77
1.73
1.77
1.57
1.4B
1. S6
.66 2.46 0.00
1.98 0.00 0.00
2.05 0.00 0.00
2.07 0.00 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 11.35
3.97 0.00 2.19
1.77 0.00 0.00
1.57 0.00 0.00
1.48 0.00 0.00
• 98 .BS 0.00
5.75 461.
6.32 428.
7.00 438.
6.71 454.
6.54 461.
5.95 259.
5.23 421.
4.63 415.
4.40 432.
4.33 353.
4.47 315.
5.02 3BO.
111.
O.
o.
O.
35.
O.
O.
O.
o.
o.
o.
o.
7.33 O.
6.78 O.
6.77 O.
6.80 O.
6.69 O.
3.77 O.
5.86 O.
5.69 O.
6.05 O.
5.26 O.
4.95 O •
6.08 O.
0.54549.677. 203.22.60 32.81 3.34 13.55 5.52 40i. 12. 5.99
SPILL EOM EOM
FLOiIi S10RAGE LEVEL
(CFS) (AC-FT) (FT)
o.
o.
o.
o.
u.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
7728B.
75365.
67445.
53606.
48359.
42948.
28786.
28786.
35258.
65735.
77288.
7728B.
691.
690.
685.
680.
673.
669.
660.
660.
664.
684.
691.
691.
FOR WATER YEAk 1955
AVLNET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGy ENERGY ENERGY Pi<.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY
(fT) (Gi.~H) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (I'M) (CFS) (eFS) (t-M)
222.
215.
2i2.
207.
20L
i96.
194.
192.
187.
199.
218.
220.
2.05
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
2.59
.74
1.77
1.57
2.62
3.20
, , .co
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1. 12
i 3.12
3.97
1.77
1.57
1.48
• 98
1.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.15
2.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.54
3.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.75
6.32
7.00
6.71
6.~
5.95
5.23
4.63
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.02
403. O.
426. O.
432. O.
446. O.
461. 28.
254. O.
461. 109.
173. O.
437 t / 0,
354. O.
461. 46.
461. 136 •
6.46 O.
6.78 O.
6.77 O.
6.81 O.
6.82 O.
3.77 O.
6.43 O.
2.44 O.
6.04 O.
5.26 O.
7.21 O.
7.33 O.
O. 57030. 678. 205. 23.80 32.S1 4.75 13.76 5.52 396. 26. 6.00
..
.., ..
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
MONTHLY OPERATI ON STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR 1956 .of
MONTH IN P.H. SPILL Eft! Eft! AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICiT TARGET IO-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FL()..j FUM FUX.j STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP. PI{. FLfM PE.AK CAPACITY .~
(eFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) ( GlAH) (CiWi-D (~H) <fi4) (CFS) (eFS) (Ii,oj)
OCT 81. 81. O. 77288. 691. 223. .99 .66 .34 0.00 5.75 194. O. 3.18 (I.
NOV 42. 179. O. 69141. 686. 213. 1.98 1.98 0.00 D.OO 6.32 429. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 25. 184. O. 59390. 680. 208. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 441. O. 6.76 O.
JAN 20. 191. O. 48877. 673. 201. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 458. O. 6.80 O.
FEB 17. 216. O. 37845. 666. 194. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 40. 6.60 O.
MAR 15. 110. o. :32008. 662. 189. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 264. O. 3.77 O.
APR 22. 76. D. 28786. 660. 193. • 76 13. j 2 0.00 12.36 5.23 183 . O. 2.59 O.
MAY 121. 121 t O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.25 3.97 0.00 2.72 4.63 290. O. 4.05 O.
JIl~E 269. 183. O. 33922. 663. 186. loti 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 438. O. 6.04 O.
JULY 471. 151. O. 53624. 676. 194. 1.57 1.57 o .(to 0.00 4.33 361. O. 5.26 O. jOI!
AUG 453. 133. O. 73327. 689. 207. 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 31B. O. 4.95 O.
SEPT 215. 148. O. 77288. 69i. 221. 1.75 • 98 .76 0.00 5.02 356 .. O. 5.71 O •
...
At~iJ.\L 147. 147. O. 5179B. 675. 202. lB.82 32.S1 1.10 15.08 5.52 349. 3. 5.20
...
FOR WATER YEAR 1957
MIlITH IN . P.H. SPILL E(}1 E(}1 AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. ElEFICIT TARGET ID-HOUR OFF PEAKING ."
FLOW FLOO FLru STORAGE LEVEl HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLW PEAK CAPACITY "" (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (Win (GWH) (GWH) (114) (CFS) (CFS) (~)
1111'"
OCT 65. 65. O. 77288. 691. 223. .80 .66 .14 0.00 5.75 156. O. 2.56 O.
NOV 56. 179. O. 6998B. 687. 213. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429. O. 6.7B O. ..
DEC 52. 183. O. 61953. 682. 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 43B. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 22. 189. O. 51660. 675. 203. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 455. O. 6.80 O.
FEB 19. 214. O. 40855. 66B. 196. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54:", 461-36. 6.66 O.
~R 20. 109. O. 35400. 664. 19i. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 261. O. 3.77 O. ....
APR 29. 140. O. 2B786. 660. 193. 1.41 13.12 0.00 11.71 5.23 336. O. 4.72 O.
MAY 166. 166. O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.70 3.97 0.00 2.27 4.63 39B. O. 5.48 O.
c1lliE 449. 179. O. 44B37. 670. 190. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 430. O. 6.05 O. .....
c1ULY 359. 147. O. 578B3. 679. 199. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 352. n 5.26 O. II.
AUG 370. 132. O. 72527. 688. 208. 1.48 1.48 0.00 n.oo 4.47 316. O. 4.95 O.
SEPT 565. 461. 24. 77288. 691. 213. 5.24 .99 4.26 0.00 5.02 461. 461. 7.28 O. ..
AtiiiJ.\L 181. 179. 2. 54031. 676. 203. 23.23 32.Bl 4.40 13.98 5.52 373. 41. 5.5i
EMseo SERVICES INCORPORATED
MCNTHLY OPERATi ON STlIDY FOR GRfm LAKE H'YDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR 195B
MONTH IN P.H. SPill Eft! EOM AVE .NET iOTAL ---iARGEi SEC. !JEFI cn TARGET 1 u-HOJR OFF PEAKiNG
OCT
NQ;j
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JL~~E
JULY
AUG
SEPT
FLih! FLOW FLIJA STORAGE LEvEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK • CAP • PK .FLW PEAK CAPACITY
(CFB) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) ~OOH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (M\4) (CFS) (CFS) (M\~)
207.
16L
56.
44.
29.
25.
66.
17n.
535.
449.
418.
155.
207.
177.
179.
185.
207.
105.
343.
170.
PB.
143.
281.
ISS.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
(I.
O.
O.
(I.
(I,
o.
77288.
76331 .
68755.
60088.
50179.
45244.
28786.
287B6.
50050.
68B55.
77288.
77288.
691.
690.
686.
680.
674.
671.
660.
660.
674.
686.
69i.
691.
221.
215.
213.
208.
202.
197.
193.
191.
192.
205.
217.
222.
2.52
1. 98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
3.44
1. 74
1.77
1.57
3.36
1.83
. 66 I.B6 0.00
1.98 0.00 .0.00
2.05 0.00 0.00
2.07 0.00 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 9.68
3.97 0.00 2.22
1.77 0.00 0.00
1.57 0.00 0.00
1.48 1.88 0.00
.98 .85 0.00
5.75
6.32
7.00
6.71
6.54
5.95
5.23
4.63
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.02
461.
425.
430 r
444.
461.
253.
461.
408.
426.
344.
461.
372.
25.
o.
o.
O.
26.
O.
25B.
0.
o.
O.
152.
O.
7.33 O .
6.7S O.
6.77
6.81
o.
o.
6.86 O.
3.77 0.
6.46 O.
o.
o.
5.60
6.05
5.27 O.
7.24 O.
5.99 O.
Atfi~L 194. i94. O. 59162. 680. 206. 25.49 32.81 4.59 11.91 5.52 412. 38. 6.24
O '~,. t . ..!
NCN
DEC
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JLtJE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN
FUM
(CFS)
193.
61.
39,
29.
17.
18.
31.
190.
780.
399.
290.
121.
P.H. SPill EON EOM
FLih! FL!1i STORAGE LEvEL
(CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT)
193.
179.
193.
190.
214.
109.
137.
190.
173.
197.
290.
; 'ji
J. "-.I J
O. 77288.
O. 70290.
O. 61453.
O. 515BL
(I. 40660.
(I. 35076.
ii. 28786.
O. 28786.
(I. 64883.
D. 772B8.
O. 77288.
(I. 77288.
691.
687.
681.
675.
66S.
664.
660.
660.
683.
691.
691.
691.
FOR WATER YEAR 1959
AVLNET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFIcn TARGET iO-HOUR OFF PEAKING
HEAD ENERGY ---8'~ERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP. PI(. FLOW PEAK CAPACITY
(FT) (GWH) WAH) (GWH) (GWH) ("'Ii) (GFS) (CFS) (1i4)
221.
213.
209.
203.
196.
191 .
193.
i9!.
196.
21B.
220.
222.
2.35
1. 98
2.05
2.u7
2.03
1. i2
1.38
1.95
1.77
2.36
3.51
1.43
.66 l. 70
1.98 0.00
2.05 0.00
2.07 0.00
2.03 0.00
1.12 0.00
13.12 0.00
3.97 0.00
1.77 0.00
1.57 .79
1.46 2.03
.98 .45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
~.OO
11 .75
2.02
0.00
0.(10
0.00
a.co
5.75
6.32
7.00
,s.7i
6.54
5.95
5.23
4.63
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.02
461.
429.
439.
455.
461.
261.
328.
456.
416.
461.
46i.
290.
1.
O.
o.
o.
37.
o.
o.
o.
o.
Y.
168.
O.
/.33 O.
6.78 (I.
6.76 O.
6.80 O.
6.66 O.
3.77 O.
4.61 O.
6.2! O.
6.D6 O.
7.20 O.
7.33 O.
4.72 0.
tWWAl 181. 181. O. 57664. 679. 206. 24.00 32.81 4.96 13.77 5.52 410. 18. 6.19
EBASeO SERVICES !NCORPORATED
MllliHLY OPERATI(}I STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PRO·JECT
FOR WAIER YEAR 1960
MfJ'41H IN P.H. SPILL EON Ell'! AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLW FLOW t=LCM STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY e~ERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLill PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) {CFS) (CFS) (AC-Ff) (FT) (Ff) (I}.IH) (GWH) (C,wH) (GUH) iMW) (CFS) (eFS) (MW)
OCT 111. 11 L
NO'J 95 . 178.
DEC 50. 181.
JAN 46. 188.
FEB 29. 211.
MAR 26.107.
APR 28. 225.
MAY 289 . 289.
JUNE 494. 17S.
JULY 534. 143.
AUG 378. 285.
SEPT 268. 268.
~UAL 197. 197.
NONTH
Oi'T ,-,I
NQlJ
DEC
JAN
FEB
t~R
APR
MAY
JLtlE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN
FUM
(CFS)
P.Ii.
FLOW
(CFB)
i68. 168.
103. 17B.
101. ISO.
iD4. 184.
Ul4. 204.
64. i 02.
51. 461.
273. 304.
497 I 178.
587.142.
434. 398.
342. 342.
ANNUAL 237. 237.
D. 77288. 691.
O. 72344. 68a.
O. 64264. 683.
O. 55561. 678.
O. 45477. 671.
O. 40500. 668.
U. 28786. 660.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 47565. 672.
O. 71598. 688.
O. 77288. 691.
O. 77288. 691.
222.
214.
210.
205.
199.
194.
194.
189.
191.
205.
21B.
220.
1.36
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
2.27
2.93
1.77
1.57
3.42
3.14
. 66 .70 0.00
1.98 0.00 0.00
2.05 0.00 0.00
2.07 0.00' 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 10.85
3.97 0.00 1.04
1.77 0.00 0.00
j .57 0.00 0.00
1.48 1.95 0.00
• 9fi 2.16 0.00
5.75 266.
6.32 427.
7.00 435.
6.71 450.
6.54 461,
5.95 257.
5.23 461.
4.63 461.
4.40 428.
4.33 344.
4.47 461.
5.02 461.
o.
o.
o.
O.
31.
O.
56.
166.
O.
O.
160.
130 .
4.34 O •
6.78 O.
6.77 O.
6.91 O.
6.76 O.
3.77 O.
6.40 O.
6.27 O.
6.05 O.
5.27 O.
7.27 O.
7.33 O.
O. 57333. 678. 205. 25.72 32.81 4.81 11.89 5.52 409. 45. 6.14
SPILL EEtI ECtI
FLOW STORAGE LEVEL
(CFSJ (AC-H) (Fi)
O. 7728S. 691.
O. 72829. 688.
0.67950.685.
O. 63006. 682.
O. 57448. 679.
O. 55089. 677 .
O. 30664. 661.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 47747. 672.
O. 75087. 690.
O. 77288. 691.
O. 77288. 691.
FOR WATER YEAR 196i
AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET IO-HOUR OFF PEAKING
HEAD ENERGY ---8jERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLtM PE.AK CAPACITY
(FT) (I1,.JH) (GWH) (I1,.JH) (GWH) (t-J.4) (CFS) (CFS) (MW)
222.
214.
211.
208.
205.
203.
194.
189.
191.
206.
216.
219.
2.05
1. 98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
4.66
3.09
1.77
1.57
4.74
3.98
.66 1. 39 0 .00
1.98 0.00 0.00
2.05 0.00 0.00
2.07 0.00 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 0.00
3.97 0.00 .88
1.77 0.00 0.00
1.57 0.00 0.00
1.48 3.26 0.00
.98 2.99 0.00
5.75 403.
6.32 427.
7.0n 433.
6.71 443.
6.54 461.
5.95 246.
5.23 461.
4.63 461,
4.40 428.
4.33 342.
4.47 461.
5.02 461.
o •
o.
o.
o.
20.
o.
461.
191.
o.
o.
353.
257.
6.46 O.
6.78 O.
6.7i O.
6.81 O.
6.97 O.
3.77 O.
6.59 O.
6.29 O.
6.05 O.
5.27 O.
7.31 O.
7.33 O.
O. 60942. 681. 207. 31.iO 32.81 7.65 .a8 5.52 418. 107. 6.36
-
'"
"",
EBASeD SERVI rES INCORPORATED
MONTHLY OPERATI!J4 STUDY FOR GRfI-lT LAKE IWORO PROJECT
FOR WATER ''IEAR 1962
MONTH IN P.H. SPILL ECt1 EDM AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLW FLW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERBY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLet.l PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) ( r..wH) (GWH) (GWH) ( Gl4H) t,fofi.,J) (CFS) (CFS) (MW)
OCT 225. 225, " 772B8. 691. 221. 2.73 .66 2.08 u,no 5.75 461. 56. 7.33 O. Ii.
NOV 77. i7S. O. 71257. 687. 214. L98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 428. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 34. 182. O. 62139. 6S2. 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 437. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 32. 189. D. 52480. 675. 203. 2.07 2.ii7 0.00 0.00 6.71 454. O. 6.80 O.
FEB 34. 213. O. 42558. 669. 197. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 35. 6.69 O.
l"AR 18. 108. o • 370Hi. 665. 192. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 259. O. 3.77 O.
APR 33. 171. n 28786. 660. 193. 1.73 v. 13.12 0.00 11.40 5.23 411. O. 5.72 O.
NAY 123. 123. O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.27 3.97 0.00 2.70 4.63 295. O. 4.12 O.
JliNE 403. 180. O. 42050. 669. 189. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 432. O. 6.05 O.
JULY 548. 145. O. 66800. 685. 201. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 349. O. 5.26 Ii .
AUG 335. 164. O. 772SS. 691. 219. 1.98 1.48 .50 0.00 4.47 395. O. 6.24 O.
SEPT 175. 17S. O. 77288. 69!. :m. 2.07 .98 1.08 0.00 5.02 420. O. 6.72 iL
AtoH-.JUAL 171. 171. O. 55421. 677. 204. 22.37 32.81 3.66 14.10 5.52 400. 7. 6.01
FOR WATER YEAR 1963
t10NTH IN . P.H. SPILL ECtl Ect1 AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLCi;! FLOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLet.l PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS} (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) ( !NIH) ( !NIH) (GWH) ( &rIH) (tioi) (CFS) (CFS) (~)
OCT 65. 65. O. 77288. 69!. 223. .80 .66 .14 0.00 5.75 156, O. 2.56 O.
NOV 120. 178. D I 73855. 689. 215. 1.98 1. 98 0.00 0.00 6.32 426. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 47. 181. O. 65636. 684. 211. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 434. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 4B. 187. O. 57109. 679. 206. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 448. O. 6.81 O.
FEB 40. 209. O. 47709. 672. 203. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 'J 461. 29. 6.80 O.
t¥!R 37. 106. O. 43466. 670. 196. i,12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 254. O. 3.77 O.
APR 36. 283. O. 28786. 66(1. 194. 2.85 13.12 0.00 iD.2? 5.23 461. 155. 6.44 O.
t¥!y 132. 132. O. 28786. 660. i91. L36 3.97 0.00 2.61 4.63 317. O. 4.41 O.
JLNE 338. IS!. O. 381DS. 666. 188. i,n 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 435. O. 6.04 O.
JULY 533. 14B. i,
,-" 61SiO. 6B1. 198. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 354. O. 5.26 O.
AUG 417. 165. ,. 7728B. 691. 217. 1.97 1.48 .50 0.00 4.47 397. O. 6.22 O. " ~ .
SEPT 293. 293. O. 7728B. 691. 220t 3.43 .98 2.44 0.00 5.02 461. 173. 7.33 O.
AttiUAL ';""f:
i/O. 176. o . 56520. 678. 205. 23.00 32.91 3.08 12.98 5.52 382. 29. 5.75
EBASCD SERVICES INCORPORATED
MIlHHLY OPERATION STUDY FOR GR~T LAKE HYDRO PROJECT "".
FOR WATER YEAR 1964
M[~1H IN P.H. SPILL Ect\ Ect\ AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLW FLW FUM STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ttiERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP. PK. FUll PEAK CAPACITY .,..
(CFS) (CFS) «(FS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (IJ,lH) (SWH) ( GWH) (GWH) (/i4) (CFS) (CFS) (/i4)
OCT 123. 123. O. 77288. 691. 222. 1.50 .66 .85 0.00 5.75 295. O. 4.79 O.
NOV 55. 179. O. 69927. 686. 213. 1.98 1.98 0.00 il.OO 6.32 429. O. 6.78 O.
flEC 54. 183. O. 62014. 682. 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 438. O. 6.77 OJ "'" JAN 3S. 189. O. 52726. 676. 203. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 454. O. 6.80 O.
FEB 44. 212. O. 43382. 670. 197. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 34. 6.70 O.
MAR 31. ID8. O. 38669. 666. 193. i. 12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 258. O. 3.77 O.
APR 80. 246. O. 28786. 660. 193. 2.47 13.12 0.00 10.65 5.23 461. 92. 6.38 O. '"'
MAY 192. 192. O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.97 3.97 0.00 2.00 4.63 461. O. 6.27 O.
JUNE 519. 178. O. 49080. 673. 191. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 427. O. 6.05 O.
JULY 515. 143. O. 71970. 688. 205. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 343. O. 5.27 O. lilt!
AUG 493. 407. O. 77288. 691. 215. 4.81 1.48 3.33 0.00 4.47 461. 367. 7.28 O.
SEPT 249. 249. O. 77288. 691. 221. 2.92 .98 1.94 0.00 5.02 461. 97. 7.33 O.
-"
AltiUAL 200. 200. O. 56543. 678. 204. 26.27 32.81 6.12 i2.65 5.52 412. 49. 6.17
....
FOR WATER YEAR 1965
II'!.
M(tnH IN P.H. SPILL EOH Ern AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FUM FU11 FLru .STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY Pk.CAP. PK.FLW PEAK CAPACITY .. ,
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) 1FT) (WH) (WH) (GWH) (GWH) (t{.j) (CFS) (CFS) (~) iii'
OCT i92. 192. O. 772BB. 691, 222. 2.34 .66 1.68 0.00 5.75 461. O. 7.32 O.
NG'V 85. 178. O. 71741. 68B. 214. 1.98 1. 98 0.00 0.00 6.32 428. O. 6.78 O. -
DEC 58. 182. O. 64140. 683. 210. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 436. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 48. 188. O. 55557. 678. 205. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 450. O. 6.81 O.
FEB 35. 210. O. 45814. 671. 199. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 31. 6.76 O. .' MAR 33. 107. O. 41280. 668. 194. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 ·~256. O. 3.77 O.
APR 73. 283. O. 28786. 660. 193. 2.84 13.12 0.00 10.28 5.23 461. 155. 6.41 O.
MAY i46. 146. O. 2B786. 660. 191, l.50 3.97 0.00 2.47 4.63 350. O. 4.85 O.
J!J..IE 295. 182. O. 35499. 664. 187. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 437. II> ,0. 6.04 O.
,IUlY 430. 150. O. 5269i. 676. 195. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 361. O. 5.26 O.
AUG 375. 134. O. 67514. 685. 205. 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 32L O. 4.95 O.
SEPT 390. 226. O. 77288. 691. 218. 2.62 .98 1.64 0.00 5.02 461. 57. 7.23 O. tJfli_'
At~UAL 181. 181. O. 53937. 676. 203. 23.38 32.81 3.32 12.75 5.52 406. 20. 6.07 ~,
MllnH IN tl.H.
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JL~~E
JULY
AUG
SEPT
Flw FLC\.i
(CFS) (eFS)
139. 139.
35. 179.
33. 184.
46. 190,
27. 214.
23. iUY.
40. i 43.
115. lIS.
418. 180.
430. 147.
411. 136.
5i8. 461.
Aff-lUAL 187. 182.
'JCT
NiJ'J
DEC
J~
FEB
f'lAR
APR
MAY
JIJNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN
\=, ;11' ,I..UW
(CFS)
325.
iC9.
39.
32.
39.
29.
28.
142.
455.
422.
442,
666.
P .N.
FLw
(CFS)
325.
178.
18L
188.
211.
107.
225.
142.
179.
146.
196.
461.
4.'~\iUAL 228. 211 •
EBASeO SERVICES INCORPORATED
MI1.ITHLY OPERATll1.4 STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR )966
SPI LL EOM ElIM AVE .NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC, OEF! CIT TARGET 1 C -HOUR OFF PEAKING
FL\1J STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY aiERGY ENERGY PK.C.AP. PK .FLw PEAK CAPACIT'f
(CFB) (AC-Fi) (Fi) (Fi) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (Gl.4H) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (fi,))
O. 77288, 69i.
O. 68718. 686.
O. 59452. 680.
O. 50571. 674.
D. 40176. 667.
O. 34B91. 664.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 42959. 669.
U. 60379. 6Bl.
O. 7728B. 691.
57. 77288. 691.
222.
213.
209.
202.
195.
190 •
193,
191.
189.
20G.
217.
1. 70
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
1.43
LIB
1.77
l.57
i,62
5.28
. 66 1.04 0.00
L9B 0.00 0.00
2.05 0.00 0.00
2.07 0.00' 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 11.69
3.97 0.00 2.79
1.77 0.00 0.00
1.57 0.00 0.00
1. 48 .15 0 .00
. 98 4,29 0.00
5.75 334.
6.32 430.
7.00 441.
6.71 457.
6.54 461.
5.95 261.
5.23 342.
4.63 276.
4.40 432.
4.33 352.
4.47 326.
5.02 461.
o.
o.
O.
38.
O.
o.
D.
O.
O.
O.
461.
5.39 O •
6.78 O.
6.76 O.
6.BO O.
6.64 O.
3.77 O.
4.79 O.
3.86 O.
6.05 O.
5126 O.
5. i6 D.
7.33 O •
5. 53988. 676. 203. 23.B2 32.BI 5.48 14.47 5.52 380. 41. 5.70
SPILL EOM EON
FLOW STORAGE LEVEL
(CFS) (AC-FT) (FT)
o.
O.
G.
O.
G.
o.
ii.
n '.',
o.
O.
G.
205.
77288.
73190.
6444B.
54875.
45331.
40538.
28786.
2B7B6.
45201.
62186.
77288.
7728B.
691.
688.
683.
677.
671.
668.
660.
660.
671.
682.
691,
691.
FOR WATER YEAR j 967
AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET lO-HOUR OFF PEAKING
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP. PK. FUM PEAK CAPACITY
(FT) (GWH) (WH) (GWH) (GWH) U'M) (CFS) (CFS) (t14)
219.
214.
210.
205.
199.
194.
194.
191.
190.
20i.
217.
215.
3.91
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
2.28
1.46
1.77
1.57
2.34
5.28
.66 3.26
1.98 0.00
2.05 0.00
2.07 0.00
2.03 0.00
1.12 (1.00
13.12 0.00
3.97 0.00
1.77 0.00
1.57 0.00
1.48 .87
.98 4.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.85
2.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.75
6.32
7.00
6.71
6.54
5.95
5.23
4.63
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.D2
461.
427.
435.
450.
461.
257.
461.
341.
430.
350.
461.
461.
228.
O.
o.
0,
32.
O.
57.
O.
o.
O.
7.
461.
i.33 0,
6.7B O.
6.77 O.
6.81 O.
3.77 O.
6.40 O.
4.72 O.
6.05 O.
5.26 O.
;7 .17 O.
7,33 O.
17. 56359, 678. 204. 27.87 32.81 8.42 i3.36 5.52 416. 65. 6.25
EBASeD SERVI CES INCORPOP.ATED
MCfHHLY OPERATlON STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR i 968
MON1H iN P.H. SPILL EOM EC~ AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HGUR OFF PEAKING
FLru FL[I..J FLOA STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK, CAP, Pi(. FLCl.cJ PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) ':GWH) (Ii,j) (CFS) (CFS) (Ml4)
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
'APR
MAY
JtJ.IE
,IULY
AUG
SEPT
184. i 84.
76. 178.
59. 182.
60. 188.
39. 210.
44. 106.
29. 259.
208. 208.
358. 181.
420. 149.
373. 133.
210. 101.
O. 77288. 691.
O. 71197. 687.
O. 63640. 683.
O. 55792. 678.
O. 46285. 671.
O. 42446. 669.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 39322. 667.
O. 56008. 678.
O. 70791. 687.
O. 77288. 691.
222.
214.
210.
205.
199.
195.
194.
190.
188.
197.
207.
221.
2.24
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
2.61
2.13
1.77
1.57
1.48
1.18
.66 1.59
1.98 0.00
2.05
2.07
2.03
, .? 1 • J ..
13.12
3.97
1.77
1.57
1.48
.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.5i
i .84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.75
6.32
7.00
6.7i
6.54
5.95
5.23
4.63
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.02
442.
428.
437.
450.
461.
255.
46i.
461.
434.
357.
318.
242.
o.
o.
31.
D.
i 14.
27.
r, li.
O.
01
Dr
7.04 (I I
6.78 O.
6.77 O.
6.81 O.
3.77 0 I
6.43 O.
6.27 O.
6,04 O.
5126 (\ I
4 r 95 [t,
3.91 U.
Atf~UAL 173. 173. O. 54880. 677. 203. 22.24 32.81 I. 79 12.35 5.52 395. 14. 5.89
FOR WATER YEAR 1969
t1CfITH IN P .H. SPILL EOM E111 AVE .NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFI cn TARGET 1 V-HOUR OFF
FLW FL(d..I FL(d..I STORAGE LPJEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP. Pi(. FL(»,.j PEAK
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GVJH) (GWH) (GWH) 'JW (CFS) (CFS)
OCT 100. 100.
NOV 51. 179.
DEC 26. 183.
JAN 10. 191.
FEB 15. 216.
MAR 17. 110.
APR 30. 85.
HAY 184. 184.
J~E 585. 177 .
,IULY 479. 141.
AUG 280. 224.
SEPT 201. 201.
O. 77288. 691. 223. 1.22
O. 69685. 686. 213. 1.98
O. 60014. 680. 208. 2.05
O. 48897. 673. 201. 2.07
O. 37754. 666. 194. 2.03
O. 32040. 662. 189. 1.12
O. 28786. 660. 193. .85
o . 28786. 660 . 191. I. 89
O. 53081. 676. 193. 1.77
O. 73837. 689. 207. 1.57
O. 77288. 691. 220. 2.71
0.77288.691. 221. 2.37
. 66 .57 0.00 5.75 240.
1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 429.
2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 440.
2,07 0.00 0.00 6.71 458.
2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461.
i.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 264.
13.12 0.00 12.27 5.23 203.
3.97 0.00 2.08 4.63 442.
1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 424.
1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 339.
1.48 1.23 0.00 4.47 461.
.98 1.38 0.00 5.02 461.
0,
O.
o.
o.
40.
o.
O.
(I.
O.
0,
54.
15.
PEAKIN'G
CAPACITY
(l1,.j)
3.92 D .
6.78 O.
6.76 0,
6.80 O.
6.60 0 I
3.77 O.
2.88 O.
6,03 0.
6.05 O.
5.27 O.
7.30 O.
7.33 (I.
~UAL 165. 165. O. 55520. 677. 204. 21.63 32.81 3.18 14.36 5.52 385. 9. 5.78
...
...
.'
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
Mm.rrHLY OPERATICt~ STUDY FOR GR,:y..jT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR 1970
MOOH IN P.H. SPILL ECtl EOM AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FUll FLIloI FUll STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLIloI PEAK CAPACiTY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (i'fi,J) (CFS) (CFS) (i'fi,J)
OCT 400. 400. O. 77288. 691. 217. 4.77 .66 4.12 0.00 5.75 461. 356. 7.33 O.
NlN 173. 177 • O. 77056. 691. 216. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 425. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 156. 177 . O. 75751. 690. 215. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 425. O. 6.78 O.
JAN 65. 181. O. 6862B. 686. 213. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 434. O. 6.B2 O.
FEB 63. 201. O. 60946. 681. 208. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 ~61. 16. 7.07 O.
MAR 40. 101. O. 57167. 679. 204. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 243. O. 3.77 O.
APR 56. 461. O. 33040. 663. 195. 4.69 13.12 0.00 0.00 5.23 461. 461. 6.64 O.
MAY 187. 256. O. 287B6. 660. 191. 2.63 3.97 0.00 1.34 4.63 461. 110. 6.32 O.
JUNE 510. 173. O. 4B536. 673. 191. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 427. O. 6.05 O.
JULY 500. 143. O. 70477 . 6B7. 205. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 344. O. 5.27 O.
AUG 446. 335. O. 772BB. 691. 217. 3.99 1.4B 2.52 0.00 4.47 461. 245. 7.26 O.
SEPT 195. 195. O. 77238. 69i. 221. 2.30 .98 1.31 0.00 5.02 461. 5. 7.33 O.
At"~UAL 234. 234. o • 62742. 682. 208. 30.98 32.81 7.95 1.34 5.52 422. 100. 6.44
FOR WATER YEAR 1971
HOOH IN P.H. SPILL EOM Ect! AVE .NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET to-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FUli FLo\~ FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLW PEAK CAPACITi
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) ':FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (ra./) (CFS) (CFS) (1'14)
OCT 94. 94. O. 77288. 691. 223. 1.15 .66 .49 0.00 5.75 226. O. 3.69 O.
NOV iBB. 18B. O. 7728B. 691. 222. 2.22 L9B .23 0.00 6.32 ·451. O. 7.1B O.
DEC 54. 179. O. 69619. 6B6. 213. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 429. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 34. lB5. O. 60355. 6B1. 20B. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 443. O. 6.Bl O.
FEB 3S. 207. O. 50965. 675. 202. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 25. 6.87 O.
MAR 26. 105. O. 46109. 671. i9S. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95." 252. O. 3.77 O.
APR 22. 313. O. 28786. 660. 194. 3.16 13.12 0.00 9.96 5.23 461. 207. 6.47 O.
t¥iY 96. 96. O. 287B6. 660. 192 . .99 3.97 0.00 2.98 4.63 230. O. 3.23 O.
JltiE 441. 179. O. 44353. 670. 190. 1.77 1.77 ii.OO 0.00 4.40 43i. O. 6.05 O.
JULY 729. 193. O. 7728S. 691. 2i i. 2.24 1.57 .67 0.00 4.33 461. 2. 6.98 O.
AUG 5S0. 461. 119. 7i2S8. 691. 215. 5.45 1.48 3.98 0.00 4.47 461. 461. 7.33 O.
SEPT 322. 322. O. 7728B. 691. 219. 3.75 .98 2.77 0.00 5.02 461. 222. 7.33 O.
Atf~UAL 220. 210. to. 59718. 680. 207. 28.01 32.81 B.15 12.94 5.52 396. 77. 6.03
MONTH IN P.H.
flW FLW
(CFS) (CFS)
OCT 18B . i 88 .
tW,,i 61 • 1i9.
DEC 30. 183.
LlAN l7 • ! 90 •
FEB 15. 215.
MAR 15. 109.
APR 17. 94.
MAY 69. 69.
JUNE 293 . 182 .
JULY 45&. 150.
AUG 425, 133.
SEPT 286. 202.
Al'i4LiAL 157. 157.
aCT
NOV
DEC
LIAt~
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JI.NE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN
FLOW
(CFS)
150.
63.
34.
23.
20.
26.
121.
295.
395.
274.
237.
P.H.
FI:.(j!.~
(CFS)
150.
179.
183.
190.
214.
109.
128.
12L
182.
151.
136.
91.
AfiiUAL 139. i 52.
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
MCtITHlY OPERATI I}l STUDY FOR GRAtH LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR ~TER YEAR 1972
SPILL EOM EON ~JE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFlCIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FWA STORAGE LEvEL HEAD ENERGY ---. ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP. PK .FLOW PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (Gl.4H) (GUH) (GWhi ,:ruH) (t14) (CFS) (CFS) (N\4)
O. 77288. 69i.
O. 70290. 6B7.
O. 60B90. 6Bl.
O. 50245. 674.
O. 39157. 667.
O. 33351. 663.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 287B6. 660.
O. 35379. 664.
O. 54314. 677.
O. 72292. 68B.
O. 7728&. 691.
222.
213.
20B.
202.
195.
190.
193.
192 .
187.
195.
207.
220.
2.29
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
. 94
.71
1.77
1.57
1.48
2.36
. 66 1.64 0.00
1.98 0.00 0.00
2.05 0.00 0.00
2.07 0.00 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 12.18
3.97 0.00 3.26
1.77 0.00 0.00
1.57 0.00 0.00
1.48 0.00 0.00
• 98 1.38 0.00
5.75 451.
6.32 429.
7.00 439.
6.71 456.
6.54 461.
5.95 263.
5.23 225.
4.63 166.
4.40 437.
4.33 360.
4.47 318.
5.02 461.
o •
o.
o.
o.
38.
o.
o .
O.
o.
o.
O.
17 •
7.18 O.
6.78 O.
6.76 0.
6.80 O.
6.63 O.
3.77 O.
3.18 O.
2.34 O.
6.04 O.
5.26 O.
4.95 O.
7.28 O.
O. 52441. 675. 202. 20.38 32.81 3.02 15.44 5.52 371. 4. 5.57
SPILL EOM EOM
FLOW STORAGE LEVEL
(CFS) (AC-FT) (FT)
o.
o.
o.
o.
O.
O.
O.
o.
o.
O.
O.
o.
77288.
70411.
61265.
50949.
40342.
34875.
28786.
287B6.
35499.
50504.
58982.
67650.
691.
687.
681.
674.
668.
664.
660.
660.
664.
674.
680.
685.
FOR WATER YEAR 1973
AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC, DEFICIT TARGET to-HOUR OFF PEAKING
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPAC1TY
1FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) \t'W (CFS) (CFS) (fi,J)
222.
214.
209.
202.
196.
190.
193.
191.
i87.
194.
202.
207.
1.83
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
1.29
1.25
1.77
1.57
1.48
.98
.66 1.18
1.98 0.00
2.05 0.00
2.07 0.00
2.03 0.00
1.12 0.00
13.12 0.00
3.97 0.00
1.770.00
1.57 0.00
1.48 0.00
.98 0.00
a.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.B3
2.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.75
6.32
7.00
6.71
6.54
5.95
5.23
4 • .53
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.u2
360.
429.
439.
455.
461.
• 261.
" 30B.
290..
437.
362.
327.
219.
o.
o.
o.
O.
37.
0. •
O.
o.
o.
·0.
o.
o.
5.80 O.
6.78 O.
6.76 O.
0.80 Dr
6.65 O.
3,77 u,
4.33 0,
4.05 0 I
6.04 O.
5.26 O.
4.95 O.
3.44 O.
O. 50526. 674. 201. 19.43 32.81 1.1B 14.56 5.52 362. 31 5,38
EBASeO SERVICES INCORPORATED
MONTHLY OPERAT I ON STUDY FOR GRAI'H LAKE HYDRQ PROJECT
H[tfTH IN P .t!.
ROO FLOW
< CFB) (CFS)
OCT 76. 58.
NOV 43. 183.
DEC 2B. 189.
JAN 33. 196.
FEB 14. 222.
MAR 16. 18.
APR 26. 26.
MAY 166. 166.
JUNE 383 . ! 80 .
JULY 432. 148.
AUG 335. 132.
SEPT 374. 265.
SPILL EOM E[~
FLOW STORAGE LEVEL
(CFB) (AC-FD (FT)
O. 68752. 686.
O. 60394. 681.
O. 50515. 674.
O. 40463. 668.
O. 28904. 660.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 40836. 668.
O. 58317. 679.
O. 70794. 687.
O. 772BS. 691.
FOR l4ATER YEAR 1974
AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET U)-HOUR OFF PEAKING
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY 8'lERGY 8'lERGY PK. CAP. Pi(. FUlJ PEAK CAPACITY
(FT) (GI.4H) (GWH) (G\JH) (GWH) (M\4) «(FB) «(FBi (MW)
210. .66 .66 0.00 0.00 5.75 139.
20B. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 440.
202. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 453.
196. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 461.
ISB. 2.03 2.03 a.oo 0.00 6.54 461.
192. .19 1.12 0.00 .93 5.95 43.
192. .26 13.12 0.00 12.86 5.23 62.
19i. 1.70 3.97 0.00 2.27 4.63 398.
189. 1. 77 1,77 0.00 0.00 4.40 433,
198. 1. 57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 354.
208. 1.48 1.48 0.00 0,00 4.47 317,
21B. 3.08 .9B 2.09 0.00 5.02 461.
o.
o.
o.
7.
51.
o.
0.
o.
u.
o.
Or
124.
2.23 0 I
6.76 O.
6.75 O.
6.65 O.
6.41 O.
.61 O.
~8g G;
5.48 O.
6.05 O.
5.26 O.
4.95 O.
7.26 0,
Al'iillAL 161 • 148. O. 48677. 673. 199. 18.84 32.81 2.09 16.06 5.52 334. 15. 4.93
MII'HH
OCT
NOV
[lEe
JAI'~
FEB
~R
APR
MAY
JLtlE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN P.H. SPILL EON EOM
FLW FL!lrJ FLOW STORAGE l[IJEL
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT)
230. 230.
106. 17B.
61. 181.
37. 187.
25. 210.
30. i07.
29. 242.
214. 214.
374. i 81.
501. 147.
365. 130.
278. 265.
O. 77238. 691.
O. 73009. 68B.
O. 65638. 684.
O. 56420. 678.
O. 46145. 671.
0. 41432, 668,
O. 28786. 660.
O. 28786. 660 .
o • 40291 • 668 .
O. 62061. 682.
O. 76494. 69i .
O. 7728B. 691.
FOR WATER YEAR 1975
~JE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. OEFICiT TARGET lO-HOUR OFF
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PIC CAP. PK .FLOW PEAK
221,
214.
211.
2116.
199.
194.
194.
i 90.
188.
199.
211.
22iL
2.79
1. 98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1. 12
2.44
2.19
1.77
1.57
1.48
3.10
.66 2.14 O.DG
l.9S 0,00 0,00
2.05 0.00 O.OG
2.07 0,00 0.00
2.03 0.00 O.OU
i .12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 10,69
3.97 0.00 1.78
1.77 O.uO 0.00
1.S7 0.00 0.00
1.48 0.00 G.OO
• 96 2,12 0.00
5.75 461.
6.32 427.
? .00 q34.
6,71 449.
6.54 461.
5 t'15 256 f
5.23 461.
4.63 461.
4.40 434.
4.33 353.
5.02 461 .
65.
o.
a.
3D.
O.
84.
37.
D.
O.
o.
124,
PEAKING
CAPArlT'(
(1iAl)
7.33 0,
6.76 O.
6.77 0,
6«8i 0:
6.78 n.
3,77 O.
6.4i O.
6.27 0 I
6.05 Of
5.26 O.
4.95 O.
7.32 O.
AtflllAL 189. 189. O. 56233. 678. 204. 24.59 32.81 4,25 12.47 5.52 414. 28. 6.20
~
EBASCO SERV I CES INCORPORATED
MONTHLY OPERATI cti STUDY FOR GR~ LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR 1976
HOOH IN P.H. SPILL ECtI ECtI AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET IO-HOLlR OFF PEAKING
FLW FLW FLW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FL!lJ PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) «(j,JH) WAH) (Gi.4H) (GWH) (ti4) (CFS) (CFS) (rt.!)
OCT 258. 258. O. 77288. 691. 220. 3.13 .66 2.47 0.00 5.75 461. 113. 7.33 O.
NOV 72. 178. O. 70955. 687. 214. 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 428. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 31. 182. O. 61640. 681. 209. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 438. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 18. 190. O. 51086. 675. 203. 2.07 2.07 0.00 . 0.00 6.71 455. O. 6.80 O.
FEB 23. 214. O. 40485. 668. 196. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 37. 6.65 O.
~R 18. 109. O. 34896. 664. 190. 1.12 1.12 11.00 0.00 5.95 261. O. 3.77 O.
APR 23. 126. O. 28786. 660. 193. 1.26 13.12 0.00 11.86 5.23 302. O. 4.25 O.
~y 133. 133. O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.37 3.97 0.00 2.60 4.63 319. O. 4.44 . 0,
JUNE 397. 180. O. 41686. 668. 199. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0,00 4.40 432. O. 6.05 O.
JULY 420. 147. O. 58444. 679. 199. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 354. O. 5.26 O. "" AUG 395. 131. O. 74658. 699. 209. 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.47 315. O. 4.95 O.
SEPT 500. 456. D. 77288. 691. 214. 5.20 .98 4.21 0.00 5.02 461. 452. 7.30 G.
AtJ4UAL 191. 191. 0. 53934. 676. 202. 25.03 32.81 6.69 14.46 5.52 390. 50. 5.85
~!I'jo-'
FOR WATER YEAR 1977
'''' MOOH IN P.Ii. SPIll Eltl ECtI A\,tE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET IO-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FlW FLW FLW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK • CAP • PK. FLOw PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (G/.rIH) (wH) (G/.rIH) (wH) (tt.J) (CFS) (CFS) (1t.4) ,.,
OCT 222. 222. O. 77288. 691. 221. 2.7l) .66 2.04 0.00 5.75 461. Si. 7.33 0.
NOV 222. 222. O. 77288. 691. 221. 2.61 1.98 . 63 0.00 6.32 461. 51. 7.33 O •
DEC 151. 177. O. 75677 • 690. 215. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 425. O. 6.78 O.
JAt4 42. 181. O. 67116. 695. 2i2. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 435. O. 6.82 O.
FEB 78. 202. O. 60229. 681. 207. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 17. 7.05 O. .~
~R 43. 102. O. 56622. 678. 204. 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.95 244. O. 3.77 O.
APR 51. 461. D. 32197. 662. 195. 4.68 13.12 0.00 0.00 5.23 461. 46i. 6.62 O.
~Y 195. 250. O. 28786. 660. 191. 2.57 3.97 0.00 1.40 4.63 461. 100. 6.31 0.
Jlt1E 698. 175. O. 59924. 680. 195. 1.77 i,77 0.00 0.00 4.40 419. O. 6.06 O.
JULY 595. 313. O. 77288. 691. 214. 3.68 1.57 2.10 G.OO 4.33 461. 2n6. 7.15 O.
AUG 602. 461. 141. 77288. 691. 215. 5.45 1.48 3.98 0.00 4.47 46L 461. 7.33 O.
SEPT 272. 272. r. 77288. 691. 220. 3.19 .98 2.20 0.00 5.02 461. 137. 7.33 O. v.
~UAL 265. 253. 12. 63971. 683. 209. 33.92 32.81 10.95 1.40 5.52 434. 124. 6.65
OCT
NOV
[lEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
IN .. P.Ii.
FLilIi FWA
(eFS) (CFS)
228.
114.
38.
53.
46.
41.
36.
197.
440.
445.
415.
468.
228.
P8,
i81.
IB7.
210.
106.
2B!.
197.
179.
146.
178.
461.
ANNUAL 211. 210.
t1Cf.iTH IN P.H.
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
I"'AR
APR
I'lAY
JLNE
JULY
AUG
FLOW FLOW
(CFS) (CFS)
296. 296.
131. 178.
58. IBO.
68. 186.
21. 20B.
2!. 106.
4B. 307.
210. 210.
399. 180.
557, 145.
480. 315.
373. 373,
ANNUAL 223. 223.
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
MC~'HHLY GPERAT10N STUDY FOR GRPiIT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR 1978
SPILL
FL[3,.j
(CFS)
EI1'I EOM AlJE ,NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFI CIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
STORAGE LE"I)EL
(AC-FT) (FT)
HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP. ?K. FLCi,.} PEAK CAPACITY
(FT) (GWH) (&~H) (GWH) (GWH) (MW) (CFS) (CFS) (MW)
O. 77288, 691 •
U. 73491. 689.
O. 64699. 683.
(I. 56451. 678.
O. 47365. 672.
(I. 43362. 670.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 28786. 660.
O. 44292. 670.
O. 62686. 682.
O. 7728B. 691.
7. 77288. 691.
2'jj .. ,
214.
211-
205.
200.
195.
194.
190.
190.
201.
217.
215.
2.77
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.12
2.83
2.02
1.77
1.57
2.12
5.2B
1. 56902. 678. 204. 27.62
.66 2.11
1.98 0.00
2.05 0.00
2.07
2.03
13.12
3,97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.77 0.00
LS7 0.00
1.48 .64
.98 4.29
0,:]0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.29
1.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.75
6.32
7.00
6.71
6.54
5.95
5.23
4.63
4.40
4.33
4.47
5.02
461.
427.
434.
449.
461.
255.
461.
461.
431.
350.
426,
46L
32.81 7.05 12.24 5.52 423.
FOR WATER YEAR 1979
61.
O.
o.
O.
30.
O.
152.
8.
O.
o.
O.
461.
7.33 O.
6.78 O.
6.77 O.
6.81 O.
6.79 O.
3.77 O.
6.44 O.
6.27 O.
6.05 O.
5.26 O.
6.66 O.
7.33 O.
59. 6.35
SPILL EOt1 E111 AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFiCIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FUN STORAGE LE'viEL HEAD 8'4ERGY ---8'~ERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK. CAP, PK. FL!lol PEAK CAPACIT'l'
(CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (CMH) (GWH) (GWH) (i'l4) (CFS) < CFS) (11,.)
O. 77288. 691.
O. 74519, 689,
D. 67011. 6B5.
O. 59784. 680,
0, 49412. 673.
0, 44212. 670.
O. 28786. 660.
D. 28786. 660.
D. 41807. 669.
O. 671i2. 685.
O. 7728B. 691.
O. 772BB. 691.
220.
215.
212.
207.
202.
196.
193.
190.
189.
201.
216.
21B.
3.58
1.98
2.05
2.07
2,03
1.12
3,09
2.15
1.77
1.57
3.74
4.32
O. 57867. 679. 205. 29.47
.66 2.92 0.00
1.98 0.00 0.00
2.05 0.00 0.00
2,07 0.00 0.00
2.03 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.00 0.00
13.12 0.00 10.03
3.97 0.00 1.82
1.77 0.00 0.00
1.57 0.00 0.00
1.48 2.26 0.00
.98 3.34 0.00
5.75 461.
6.32 426.
7.00 432.
6.71 445.
6.54 . 461.
5.95" 253.
5.23 461.
4.63 461.
4.40 432.
4,33 349.
4.47 461.
5.02 461.
32.8! B.52 11.85 5.52 425.
178.
O.
o.
O.
27.
O.
197.
30.
o.
O.
210.
310.
7.33 0,
6.7S 0,
6.77 D.
6.S1 O.
6.85 O.
3.77 O.
6.45 O.
6.27 0.
6.05 O.
5.26 O.
7.22 O.
7.33 O.
79. 6.40
EBASeD SERVICES INCORPORATED
HrtnHLY OPER.t,TION STUDY FOR GRANT LAKE HYDRO PROJECT
FOR WATER YEAR 1980
MOOH IN P.H. SPILL EIl'1 EIl'1 AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET 10-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLru FLCM FLOW STORAGE LEvEL HEAD ENERGY ---ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLW PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FD (BWH) ( WH) ( WID (GWH) (tisj) (CFS) (CFS) (tf.,J)
OCT 234. 234. O. 77288. 691. 221. 2.S4 • 66 2.19 0.00 5.75 461. 72. 7.33 O •
NOV 137. 177. O. 74881. 690. 215. 1.9S 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.32 426. O. 6.78 O.
DEC 49. IBO. O. 66820. 685. 212. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 432. O. 6.77 O.
JAN 126. 195. O. 63213. 682. 20S. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 443. O. 6.81 O.
FEB 107. 204. O. 57830. 679. 205. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 20. 6.99 O.
MAR 65. 102. D. 55542. 677. 203. 1.12 1.12 Q.OO 0.00 5.95 245. O. 3.77 D.
APR 34. 461. O. 301 05. 661. 194. 4.66 13.12 0.00 0.0[1 5.23 461. 461. 6.59 O.
MAY 283. 304. O. 28786. 660. 199. 3.09 3.97 0.00 .99 4.63 461. 192. 6.29 O.
JUNE 445. 179. O. 44596. 670. 190. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 430. O. 6.05 O.
c1ULY 59B. 144. O. 72535. 69S. 204. 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 4.33 345. O. 5.27 O. fOI~o
AUG 564. 461. 25. 772S9. 691. 213. 5.42 1.4B 3.94 0.00 4.47 461. 461. 7.28 O.
SEPT 360. 360. O. 77298. 69!. 218. 4.18 .98 3.19 0.00 5.02 461. 28B. 7.33 O.
~UAL 25i. 249. 2. 60578. 680. 206. 32.78 32.Bl 9.32 .S8 5.52 424. 125. 6.43
SUMMARY ---FOR WATER YEARS FR~1 1949 TO 1980
NiMH IN PIn. SPILL EON EOM AVE.NET TOTAL ---TARGET SEC. DEFICIT TARGET IO-HOUR OFF PEAKING
FLOA F.LOW FLOW STORAGE LEVEL HEAD ENERuY ---~~ERGY ENERGY ENERGY PK.CAP. PK.FLOW PEAK CAPACITY
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (I'U) (CFS) (CFS) (11.rJ)
OCT lee. 18e. o. 77029. 691. 221. 2.2e .66 1.62 0.00 5.75 375. 55. 5.99
NOV 106. 184. O. 72376. 6B8. 215. 2.07 1. 98 .08 0.00 6.32 433. 6. 6.86
DEC 56. 181. O. 64657. 6S3. 210. 2.05 2.05 0.00 0.00 7.00 435. O. 6.77
JAN 41. IB7. D. 55638. 67B. 205. 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 6.71 450. 6.S0
FEB 34. 211. O. 45848. 671. 199. 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 6.54 461. 31. 6.76
I"V!R 27. 104. o . 41113. 668. 194. 1.09 1.12 0.00 .03 5.95 .250. O. 3.67
APR 35. 237. D. 29129. 660. 193. 2.39 13.12 0.00 9,46 5.23 .~ 379. 135. 5.33
I"V!Y 168. 173. O. 28786. 660. 191. 1.78 3.97 0.00 2.19 4.63 369. 34. 5.07
J~E 447. 179. O. 44707. 670. 190. 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 4.40 430. O. 6.05
JULY 504. 164. 6. 65249. 684. 202. l.80 1.57 .22 0.00 4.33 364. .21. 5.49
AUG 414. 240. 10. 75298. 690. 213. 2.82 1.48 1.35 0.00 4.47 400. 126. 6.29
SEPT 319. 281. 9. 76996. 691. 219. 3.26 .99 2.28 0.00 5.02 430. 175. 6.B4
ANN~L 196. 194. 2. 56495. 679. 204. 25.40 32.91 5.55 11.68 5.52 397. 48. 5.98
ALTERNATIVE D (FINP.~ RLW? fill. K OF 0.0000376
660.
6 33 1948 1 0
640. 65O. 660. 680. 690. 696.
000000. 014162. 02B786. 059366. 075659. 085434.
077288.0028786. 691. 660. 77288,0691.
O.aOOO376
0.B22 0.903 i .000 0.958 0.934 0.850 0.747 0.661 0.629 0.618 0.638 0.717
0.0200 .0605 .0625 .0630 .062 .034 .400 0.121 0.054 0.048 .045 .030
7000. 0.0 468.1 0.8537760.535 10. 1.0
879. O. 0.87318 10. O. O. 1.05 0.35
Li8 1. • I. L 1. 1. 1.246 1.285 1.297 1.238 1.205 I •
0
400.
262. 200. 116. 32. 24. i 6. 27. 244. 493. 556. 385. 162.
259. 90. 26. 15. i2. 15. 17. 137. 409. 474. 325. 446.
194. 197. 71. 37. 2!. 18. 26. 117. 447. 521. 481. 338.
101. 33. 21. 19. 15. 14. 27. 124. 325. 518. 376. 505.
8a.-5!. 30. 18. 16. 16. 14. 66. 375. 572. 434. 268.
337. 263. 124. 58. 44. 30. 61. 28i. 928. 71!. 513. 294.
257. 69. 40. 32. 33. 2B. 30. 173. 409. 420. 384. 201.
16B. 145. 51. 42. 24. lB. 18. 72. 291. 643. 407. 273.
8!. 42. 25. 20. 17. 15. 22. i2L 269. 471-453. 2i5.
65. 56. 52. 22. 19. 20. 29. 166. 449. 359. 370. 565.
207. 161. 56. 44. 29. 25. 66. 170. 535. 449. 418. 155.
193. 61. 39. 29. .'" 1 ( , lB. 31. 190. lao. 399. 290. 121.
111. 95. 50. 46. 29. 26. 2S. 289. 494. 534. 378. 26B.
16S. in'7( ~ .. -\,( I 101. 104. 104. 64. 51. 273. 497. 587. 434. 342i
225. 77. 34. 32. 34. lB. 33. 123. 403. 548. 335. 175.
65. 120. 47. 48. 40. 37. 36. 132. 338. 533. 417. 293.
123. 55. 54. 38. 44. 31. BO. 192. 519. 515. 493. 249.
192 . 85. 5B. 4B. 35. 33. 73. 146. 295. 430. 375. 390.
139. 35. 33. 46. 27. 23. 40. 115. 411L 430. 411. 51S.
325. 109. 39. 32. 39. 29. 28. 142. 455. 422. 442. 666.
184. 76. 59. 60. 39. 44. 29. 208. 358, 420. 373. 210.
100. S1. 26. to. 15. 17. 30. 184. S85. 479. 2BO. 201.
400. 173. 156. 65. 63. 40. 56. 187. 510. 500. 446. 195.
94. lB8. 54. 34. 38. 26. 22. 96. 441. 729. 5BO. 322.
IBB. 6!. 30. 17. 15. 15. 17. 69. 293. 458. 425. 286.
150. 63. 34. 22. 23. 20. 26. 121. 295. 395. 274. 237.
76. 43. 28. 33. 14. 16. 26. 166. 383. 432. 335. 374.
230. 106. 61. 37. 25. 30. 29. 214. 374. SOL 365. 27B.
25B. 72. 31. 1 S. 23. lB. 23. 133. 397. 420. 395. 500.
222. 222. 151. 42. 7B. 43. 51. 195. 698. 595. 602. 272.
228. 114. 38. 53. 46. 41. 36. 197. 440. 445. 415. 46B.
296. 131. 58. 6B. 21. 21. 48. 210. 399. 557. 480. 373.
234. 137. 49. 126. 107. 65. 34. 283. 445. 598. 564. 360.
FOR A RATED CAPACITY OF 7000. KW:
AN ESTIMATED RATED DISCARGE = 460. CFS
AN ESTIMATED RATED HEAD = 206. FEET
HA.XIMlt1 PCUER POOL LEVEL = 691.0
MINIMUM POWER POOL LEVEL = 660.0
AVERAGE TAILWATER LEVEL = 468.1
SYSTEM LOSS COEFFICIENT = .0000376
AttiUAL LOAD FACTOR = .54
Ai,'ERAGE Atf~UAL PUM' FACTOR = .41
.,.
1',"", "I'"'' "I'" 'II
•
PART IV
: ':
FORECASTED PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
IN COOK INLET REGION
,
I ,
: I '
, 'i
•
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
January 11, 1984
Mr. Donald K. Smith
Ebasco Services, Inc.
400 112th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Subject: Gas Prices in the Cook Inlet Area
Dea r Mr. Smith:
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
I wanted to confirm our phone conversations of the last month and a half
with this correspondence. The basis for estimating future gas prices
for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project has been revised to be
consistent with the gas price escalation utilized by the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
The data on gas price escalation submitted to the Federal Energy Regu-
latory Commission (FERC) in July 1983 represents the best estimate for
the cost of Cook Inlet gas for electrical generation. The attached
extract of the Susitna FERC license application details the components
of the future prices for new purchases of uncommitted and undiscovered
Cook Inlet Gas. (See Attachment #1).
It is important to note that the wel"'head price of gas in recent ENSTAR
contracts will escalate in relation to the price of oil. Similarly. the
method for estimating the future price of natural gas for the Susitna
FERC license application is tied to the world price of oil. The
scenario for estimating the future world price of oil that was adopted
for the Susitna project was the No Supply Description case which was
developed by Sherman H. Clark Associates.
For the Grant Lake project the marginal price of gas at zero percent
escalation and the marginal price of gas utilizing the Sherman Clark
price escalation will be used to test the sensitivity of the project
economics. The marginal price of gas is utilized because older con-
tracts will expire or be completely used for heating and power gen-
eration in existing powerplants.
Attached is a series of tables that provide the marginal price of gas
for the zero escalation and Sherman Clark cases. Tables A, B, and C
develop the zero percent escalation case while tables D, E and F develop
the Sherman Clark case. Table A provides an estimated weighted average
price of gas for the Alaska Gas and Service Company (AGAS). The AGAS
weighted average price combines the Kenai/North Fork gas price and the
non-royalty supplemental gas price.
1495/123
Mr. Donald K. Smith
January 11, 1984
Page 2
Table B provides an estimated weighted average price of gas for the
Chugach Electric Association (CEA). The CEA weighted average price
combines the Beluga price, the AGAS supplied price and the non-royalty
supplemental gas price. Table C melds the AGAS and CEA weighted average
prices into a single regional price estimate at zero percent escalation.
Similarly, Table 0 and Table E provide weighted average prices for AGAS
and CEA, respectively, for the Sherman Clark escalation. Table F melds
the AGAS and CEA weighted average prices into a single regional price
estimate for the Sherman Clark escalation.
Request that you incorporate the foregoing information into the final
feasibility report.
Sincerely,
/~
Paul E. Selge
Project Manager
Attachments:
1. Extract of the Susitna FERC Application w/Table
2. Table A, AGAS Price at Zero Escalation
3. Table B, CEA Price at Zero Escalation
4. Table C, Melded Regional Price at Zero Escalation
5. Table D, AGAS Price at Sherman Clark Escalation
6. Table E, CEA Price at Sherman Clark Escalation
7. Table F, Melded Regional Price at Sherman Clark Escalation
PES/ald
cc: Patti DeJong, Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage
George Matz, Office of Planning & Budget, Anchorage
1495/123
-
-
...
-
Attachment #1
Extract of Susitna FERC
license Application*
"The wellhead price agreed on in the Enstar
contracts was $2.32/MCF with an additional demand
charge of $O.35/MCF beginning in 1986. The demand
charge of $0.35/MCF in the Enstar/Marathon con-
tract applies to all gas taken under the contract
from January 1, 1986, to contract expiration.
Under the Enstar/Shel1 contract, the demand charge
of $0.35/MCF applies only if daily gas take is in
excess of a designated maximum take. Enstar
expects they will incur the demand charge because
of electric utility requirements that increase the
dai 1y take. Estimated severance taxes of $O.15mCF
and a fixed pipeline charge of $0.30 for pipeline
delivery from Beluga to Anchorage are additional
costs. Future prices (January 1, 1984 and on) are
to be determined by escalating the wellhead price
plus the demand charge based on the price of No. 2
fuel oil in the year of escalation versus the
price on January 1, 1983. If it were assumed that
the generating units were located at the source of
gas, the pipeline charge would be eliminated
giving a January 1, 1983, price of $2.47/MCF.
(See Table 0-1.5)".
* See Paragraph 1, page Dl-12. Appendix 0-1,
Exhibit O. Susitna FERC license Application.
1495/123
Table 0-1.5
ESTIMATED BASE PRICES FOR NEW
PURCHASES OF UNCOMMITTED AND UNDISCOVERED
COO< I NLET GAS·
Without LNG Export Opportunities
1983-1986
Wellhead Price S2.321Mcf
Additional demand charge(l) 0.0
Severance tax(2) 0.15 .
Total (unescalated)(3) S2.47/Mcf
T;ansmission charge(4) 0.30
Delivered to Anchorage S2.77/Mcf
1986-1997
S2.321Mcf
0.35
0.15
S2.821Mcf
0.30
S3.121Mcf
(I)Demand charge of SO.35/MCF on Enstar/Marathon contract applies
from January 1. 1986 on while demand of SO.35 on Enstar/Shell contract
applies only if daily gas take is in excess of a designated maximum
take.
(2)Severance taxes are the greater of SO.064/MCFor 10% of the
wellhead cost adjusted by the "Economic Limn Factor." The economic
limit factor is based on actual monthly production versus the wells
production rate at the economic limit. See Alaska Statutes. Chapter 55.
Section 43.55.013 and 43.55.016. The tax of SO.15/MCF was estimated
based on conversations with Enstar Natural Gas Co.
(3)Prices are escalated based on the price of No.2 fuel oil at the
Tesoro Refinery, Nikiski. Alaska beginning Jan. 1, 1984.
(4)Estimated transmission charges would be about SO.30/MCF. Per
telephone conversation with Mr. Harold Schmidt. VP Enstar.
',,""
'"
..
-
~
~ ~ ~
" ~
""'" ~
tv
' ....
TABLE A
ALASKA GAS AND SERVICE GAS PRICE
(iERO PERCENT ESCALATION CASE)
KENAI PlUS NORTH FORK GAS NON-ROYALTY SUPPLEMENTAL GAS
*IlUNT BASE TRANSMISSION mTAL J¥ltOUNT ESCALATION
PRICE CHARGE CHARGE
YEAR BCF/YEAR S/MCF!I S/MCF~I S/MCF BCF/YEAR!I (PERCENT)
198~V 29.44 0.58 0.21 0.79
198LI 30.85 0.63 0.21 0.84
1982 33.63 0.64 0.21 0.85
1983 27.87 0.64 0.21 0.85 6.97
1984 25.28 0.64 0.21 0.85 10.83 0.00
1985 22.46 0.64 0.21 0.85 14.98 0.00
1986 19.50 0.64 0.21 0.85 19.50 0.00
1987 15.84 0.64 0.21 0.85 23.75 0.00
1988 11.23 0.64 0.21 0.85 26.20 0.00
1989 7.72 0.64 0.21 0.85 30.88 0.00
1990 3.98 0.64 0.21 0.85 35.86 0.00
1991 41.45 0.00
1992 43. 14 0.00
1993 44.90 0.00
1994 46.74 0.00
1995 48.66 0.00
SEVERANCE DEMAND TRANSM ISS ION
TAX CHARGE CHARGE
S/MCFY S/MCFY S/MCFlI
0.15 0.00 0.30
0.15 0.00 0.30
0.15 0.00 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
0.15 0.35 0.30
BASE DELI VERED
PRICE PRICE
S/MCF.!!.! S/MCF,.!!I
2.32 2.77
2.32 2.77
2.32 2.77
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
2.32 3.12
TOTAL
AGAS
32.12
31.88
33.63
34.84
36.11
37.44
39.00
39.59
37.43
38.60
39.84
41.45
43.14
44.90
46.74
48.66
WEIGHTED
AYG. PRICE
mAGAS
0.84191 0.89~1 0.8~1
1.2l1Il
1.43
1.62
1.99
2.21
2.44
2.67
1996 50.55 0.00 . 0.15 0.35 0.30 2.32 3.12 50.55
~. 89
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
!I
!I
Y
~I
§.I
52.52 0.00
54.58 0.00
56.72 0.00
58.94 0.00
0.00
0.00
All values for 1980 and 1981 are actual values.
Base price taken from Raflbelt Electrfc Power Alternatives Study:
Fossil Fuel Avaflabilfty and Prfce Forecasts, Vol. VII March 1982
Tabl e 2.7
Transmfssion charge based on Raflbelt Electrfc Power Alternatfves
Study: Fossfl Fuel Avaflability and Price Forecasts, Vol. VII
March 1982, Table 2.8
61
!J
81
Based upon Mr. Mohn's conversatfon with Mr. Teel, ENSTAR. ft was
assumed the proportfon of non-royalty supplemental gas would make ,.!!I
up the following proportion of gas: 1983-20\, 1984-30\, 1985-40\ ••.
1990-90\. 1991-100\ lEI
The FERC Lfcense Application dated February, 1983, for the l.lI
Susftna Hydroelectrfc Project, Volume 1, Exhibit D. Appendfx 0-1.
Table 0-1.5, states, "Severance taxes are the greater of SO.064/MCF
or lOS of the wellhead cost adjusted by the "EconomiC Lfmit Factor.·
The economic 11ml t factor 1 s based on actual monthly production
versus the wells production rate at the economic limit. See Alaska
Statutes, Chapter 55, Section 4J.55.013 and 43.55.016. The tax of
SO.15/MCF was estimated based on conversations with Enstar Natural
Gas Company.«
0.15 0.35 0.30 2.32 3.12 52.52
0.15 0.35 0.30 2.32 3.12 54.58
0.15 0.35 0.30 2.32 3.12 56.72
0.15 0.35 0.:'0 2.32 3.12 58.94
0.15 0.3!1 0.30 2.32 3.12
0.15 0.35 0.30 2.32 3.12
Referencfng Susftna ~droelectric Project, Volume 1, Exhfbft D.
Table 0-1.5. Demand charge of SO.35/MCF on Enstar/Marathon contract
applfes from Januar,y 1, 1986.
Referencing Susftna ~droelectric Project, Volume 1. Exhibit D.
Table 0-1.5. Estfmated transmfssfon charges would be about S030/~CF. Per
telephone conversation with Mr. Harold Schmfdt. VP Enstar.
ReferenCing Susitna ~droelectric Project. Volume 1. Exhibft 0,
Table 0-1.5. Base price is the wellhead price.
Marginal price of gas
This prfce includes North Cook Royalty gas as illustrated by Battelle
There is no SO. 24/MCF deliver,y charge fn the 1983-2002 values as in
Battelle's computations of Table 2.7. This was conffrmed by communicatfon
wfth Tom Seacrest of Battelle and Dave Teel of Enstar.
~ ~
('
~" ~
" "' .,
';...
'lI
I-u
TABLE B
COST or GAS TO CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
(ZERO PERCENT ESCALATION CASE)
BELUGA
BCF/YEM.'!/
ALASKA GAS AND SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL GAS WEIGHTED AVERAGE GAS
!I
!/
1/
~/
§.!
y
YEAR
1980].1
198111
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 " 1999
2000
2001
2002
17.76
, 18.66
19.60
20.57
21.63
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
21.90
$IMCF!/
0.27
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.36
BCF /YEI<PJ/
3.98
4.65
4.35
4.57
4.80
5.04
5.17
S.31
5.45
5.60
5.75
6.04
6.35
6.67
7.01
7.36
7.48
7.58
7.69
7.79
7.8861 7.971;1 8.0~
$IMCF1/ BCr/YEAR2! $IMCr!1
0.84
0.8~/ 0.8
1.23
1.43
1.62
1.99 0.41 2.82
2.21 1.01 2.84:
2.44 1.62 2.82
2.67 2.4::5 2.82
2.89 2.89 2.82
3.12 4.84 2.82
3.12 5.20 2.B2
3.12 7.63 2.82
3.12 9.13 2.82
3.12 10.71 2.82
3.12 . 34.09 2.82
3.12 35.65 2.82
3.12 37.27 2.82
3.12 38.97 2.82
3.12 40.75 2.82
3.12 42. 61~~ 2.82
3.12 44.5~ 2.82
Alaska Gas and Service Values are actual values for 1980 and 1981 with Beluga projected values.
BCF/YEAR
21.74
23.31
23.95
2b.14
26.43
26.94
27.48
28.22
28.97
2!1.7b
30.54
32.78
33.45
36.~0
38.04
39.97
41.57
43.23
44.96
46.76
48.63
50.58
52.61
Values from Railbelt Electrfc Power Alternatfves Study: Fossfl Fuel Avaf1abflfty and Price forecasts, Yo1. VII,
March 1982, Table 2.8
from Table A, ·Wefghted Average Prfce to AGAS.-
The actual cost for 1982 is assumed to be the same as 1981.
From Table A, -Non Royalty Supplemental Gas, Delivered Price M less $0.30 transmission charge since main sources
of generatfon are located at Beluga and Bernfce Lake near gas ffelds.
The same rate of increase fn BCF/year was assumed to contfnue fnto 2001 and 2002.
00485
S/MCr
0.37
0.39
0.38
0.44
0.48
0.52
0.ti4
0.73
0.84
0.94
1.04
1.21
1.25
1.37
1.46
1.53
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.87
,.
"
.Y
~/
1/
4/
TMLE C
MELDED GAS PRICE -COOk INLET REGION
(ZERO PERCENT ESCALATION CASE)
ML&P CEA
(@ 493,5~1. MWH) .(@ 1,364,372.MWH).
27t 73t
YEAR $/MCEY $/MCF .. Y
1980 0.842/ 0.37
1981 0.892/ 0.39
1982 0.89 0.38
1983 1.23 0.44
1984 1.43 0.48
1985 '1.62 0.52
1986 1.99 0.64
1987 2.21 0.73
1988 2.44 0.84
1989 2.67 0.94
1990 2.89 1.04
1991 3.12 1.21
1992 3.12 1. 25
1993 3.12 1. 37
1994 3.12 1.46
1995 3.12 1. 534/
1996 3.12 2.8L
1997 3.12 2.87
1998 3.12 2.87
1999 3.12 2.87
2000 3. 12 2.87
2001 3.12 2.87
2002 3.12 2.87
From Table A, "Weighted Average Price to AGAS.II
ktual prices.
From Table Bt "Weighted Average Gas to CEA. II
The jump in 1995 to 1996 ;s due to Beluga gas termination.
0048S
MElDED
PRICE
$/MCF
0.50
0.53
0.52
0.65
0.74
0.82
1.00
1.13
1.27
1. 41
1.54
1. 73
1. 75
1.84
1. 91
1. 96
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
IAtiLt u
ALASKA GAS AND SERYICE GAS PRICE
(SHERMAN CLARK NO SUPPLY DISRUPTION CASE)
KENAI PLUS NORTH FORK GAS NON-ROYALTY SUPPLEMENTAL GAS
WEIGHTED
MOUNT BASE TRANSMISSION TOTAL NlOUNT ESCALATION SEVERANCE· DEMAHD TRANSMISSION BASE DElIYERED TOTAL AYG. PRICE
PRICE CHARGE CHARGE TAX PRICE PRICE CHMG~ CHARGI AGAS TO AGAS
YEAR BCF/YEM SIMa.!! slMal l SIMCF BCF/YE~/ (PERCENT)!I SIMa!/ S/MCF-' SIMCF-' SIMCF!I SlMtF 101
198N-1 29.44 0.58 0.21 0.79
1981 I 30.85 0.63 0.21 0.84
1982 33.63 0.64 0.21 0.85
1983 27.87 0.64 0.21 0.85 6.97
1984 25.28 0.64 0.21 0.85 10.83 -4.60
1985 22.46 0.64 0.21 0.85 14.98 -4.70
1986 19.50 0.64 0.21 0.85 19.50 0.00
1987 15.84 0.64 0.21 0.85 23.75 0.00
1988 11.23 0.64 0.21 0.85 26.20 0.00
1989 7.72 0.64 0.21 0.85 30.88 3.00
1990 3.98 0.64 0.21 0.85 35.86 3.00
1991 41.45 3.00
1992 43.14 3.00
1993 44.90 3.00
1994 46.74 3.00
1995 48.66 3.00
1996 50.55 3.00
1997 52.52 3.00
1998 54.58 3.00
1999 56.72 3.00
2000 58.94 3.00
2001 3.00
2002 3.00
!! All values for 1980 and 1981 are actual values.
!/ Base prfce taken from Raflbelt Electrfc Power Alternatfves Study:
Fossfl Fuel Availabflfty and Price Forecasts. Yo1. YII March 1982
Table 2.7
11 Trans_fssion charge based on Railbelt Electric Power Alternatfves
Study: Fossil Fuel Avaflabi1fty and Price Forecasts. Vol. YII
March 1982. Table 2.8
~/ Based upon Mr. Mohn's conversation wfth Mr. Teel, ENSTAR. it was
assumed the proportfon of non-royalty supplemental gas would make
up the follOWing proportion of gas: 1983-201. 1984-301. 1985-401 •••
199[)'9OS, 1991-10OS
!/ Yariable escalation only calculated on Non-Royalty Supplemental
Gas and only on the Base Price. Demand Charge and Severance Tax.
!/ The FERC License Applfcatfon dated February 1983 for the Susftna
~droelectric Project. Volume 1. Exhibft D. Table 0-1.5. states.
"Severance taxes are the.greater of SO.064/MCF or 101 of the
wellhead cost adjusted by the "Economfc Limft Factor.· The
economfc lfmit factor is based on actual monthly production versus
(\n.40(" , 1 • , , , I
]j
!/
32.12 0.8~ 31.88 0.8*, 33.63 0.89-r! 0.15 0.00 0.30 2.32 2.77 34.84 1.21.!t/
0.14 0.00 0.30 2.21 2.66 36.11 1.39
0.14 0.00 0.30 2.11 2.55 37.44 1.53
0.14 0.35 0.30 2.11 2.90 39.00 1.87
0.14 0.35 0.30 2.11 2.90 39.59 2.08
0.14 0.35 0.30 2.11 2.90 37.43 2.28
0.14 0.36 0.30 2.17 2.97 38.60 2.55
0.14 0.37 0.30 2.24 3.05 39.84 2.83
0.15 0.38 0.30 2.30 3.14 41.45 3.14
0.15 0.39 0.30 2.37 3.22 43.14 3.22
0.16 0.41 0.30 2.45 3.31 44.90 3.31
0.16 0.42 0.30 2.52 3.40 46.74 3.40
0.17 0.43 0.30 2.59 3.49 48.66 3.49
0.17 0.44 0.30 2.67 3.59 50.55 3.59
. 0.18 0.46 0.30 2.75 3.69 52.52 3.69
0.18 0.47 0.30 2.83 3.79 54.58 3.79
0.19 0.48 0.30 2.92 3.89 56.72 3.89
0.19 0.50 0.30 3.01 4.00 58.94 4.00
0.20 0.51 0.30 3.10 4.11 4.11
0.21 0.53 0.30 3.19 4.23 4.23
Footnote 6 contfnued
the wells productfon rate at the economfc limft. See Alaska Statutes,
Chapter 55. Sectfon 43.55.013 and 43.55.016. The tax of SO.15/MCF
was estfmated based on conversatfons wfth Enstar Natural Gas Company.·
Referencfng Susitna ~droelectrfc Project, Yolume 1. Exhfbit 0,
Table D-l.b. Demand charge of SO.35/MCF on Enstar/Marathon contract
applfes from January 1. 1986.
Referencfng Susftna ~droelectrfc Project, Yolume 1, Exhfbit 0,
Table D-l.S. Estimated transmission charges would be about SO.30IMa.
Per telephone conversation wfth Mr. Harold Schmfdt, YP Enstar.
Referencing Susitna ~droelectric Project, Yolume 1, Exhibit D,
Table 0-1.5. Base price is the wellhead price.
~ Marginal prfce of gas
111 Thfs price fncludes North Cook Royalty gas as fllustrated by Battelle
J!I There fs no SO.24/MCF delivery charge fn the 1983-2002 values as in
Battelle's computatfons of Table 2.7. This was conffrmed by communfcation
wfth Tom Seacrest of Battelle and Dave Teel of Enstar.
!I
y
}/
il
BELUGA
TABLE E
COST OF GAS TO CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
(SHERMAN CLARK NO SUPPLY DISRUPTION CASE)
ALASKA GAS AND SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL GAS
YEM BCF IYEAAJ./ SIMCFE/ BCF IYEARE/ S/MCF,Y BCF IYf.AR't.I S/MeFlY
198?t1 17.76 0.27 3.98 0.84
198LI 18.66 0.26 4.65 0.89
1982 19.60 0.27 4.35 0.89Y
1983 20.57 0.27 4.57 1. 23
1984 21.63 0.27 4.80 1. 39
1985 21.90 0.27 5.04 1. 53
1986 21.90 0.28 5.17 1.87 0.41 2.60
1987 21.90 0.28 5.31 2.08 1.01 2.60
1988 21.90 0.30 5.45 2.28 1.62 2.60
1989 21.90 0.30 5.60 2.55 2.25 2.67
1990 21.90 0.32 5.75 2.83 2.89 2.75
1991 21.90 0.32 6.04 3.14 4.84 2.84
1992 21.90 0.34 6.35 ~.22 5.20 2.92
1993 21.90 0.34 6.67 3.31 7.63 3.01
1994 21.90 0.36 7.01 3.40 9.13 3.10
1995 21.90 0.36 7.36 3.49 10.71 J.19
1996 7.48 3.59 34.09 3.29
1997 7.58 3.69 35.65 3.39
1998 7.69 3.79 37.27 3.49
1999 7.7':1 3.1;9 38.97 3.59
2000 7.88 4.00 40.75 3.70
2001 7. 97!3.1 4.11 42.b1f 3.81
2002 8.0~1 4.23 44. 55~/ 3.93
Alaska Gas and Service Values are actual values for 1~80 and 1981 with Beluga projected values.
Values from Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study: Fossil Fuel Availability and Price Forecasts.
March 1982. Table 2.8
From Table D. ·Weighted Average Price to AGAS."
The actual cost for 1982 is assumed to be the same as 1981.
WEIGHTEU AVERAGE GAS
BCF IYEAR SlMeF
l1. 74 0.37
23.31 0.39
23.95 0.38
25.14 0.44
l6.43 0.47
26.94 0.51
27.48 0.61
28.£2 0.70
28.97 0.80
29.75 0.90
30.54 1.02
32.78 1. 21
33.45 1. 29
36.20 1.45
38.04 1.58
39.97 1.1>9
41. 57 3.34
43.23 3.44
44.96 3.54
46.76 3.64
48.b3 3.75
50.58 ~.86
52.61 3.98
Vo 1. V II.
if From Table D, "Non Royalty Supplemental Gas, DeHvered Price" less $0.30 transmission charge since main sources
of generation are located at Beluga and Bernice Lake near gas fieldS.
§.! The same rate of increase in BCF/year was assumed to continue into 2001 and 2002.
00485
1/
2/
3/
4/
TABLE F
MELDED GAS PRICE -COOK INLET REGION
(SHERMAN CLARK NO SUPPLY DISRUPTION CASE)
ML&P CEA
(@ 493,531 MWH) (@ 1,364,372 MWH)
27~ 73~
YEAR $/MCF1/ $/MCF.Y
1980 0.8~~/ 0.37
1981 0.8~/ 0.39
1982 0.89 0.38
1983 1.23 0.44
1984 1. 39 0.47
1985 1.53 0.51
1986 1.87 0.61
1987 2.08 0.70
1988 2.28 0.80
1989 2.55 0.90
1990 2.83 1.02
1991 3.14 1.21
1992 3.22 1. 29
1993 3.31 1.45
1994 3.40 1.58
1995 3.49 1.69
1996 3.59 3.34
1997 3.69 3.44
1998 3.79 3.54
1999 3.89 3.64
2000 4.00 3.75
2001 4.11 3.86
2002 4.23 3.98
From Table 0, "Weighted Average Price to AGAS."
.Actual prices.
From Tab1 e E, "Wei ghted Average Gas to CEA. II
The jump in 1995 to 1996 is due to Beluga gas termination.
0048S
...
MELDED
PRICE
$/MCF
~F'
0.50
0.53
0.52
0.65
0.72
0.79
0.95
1.07
1.20
1.35
1. 51
1. 73
1.81 .' 1.95
2.07
2.18
3.41 ""'
3.51 ~,
3.61
3.71 ,,",,'.
3.82
3.93
4.05 "'"
-
-
....
1M
TABLE 2.7. Estimated Gas Price -Purchases by Alaska Gas and Service Company
Without Pacific Alaska LNG, 1982 S's, 0% Inflation
Non-Roya lty
kenai Plus SuppleMental Gas Weighted Ave.
North Cook Ro~altI North Fork
S/Mef(a)
Total AGAS Prtce tC)AGAS Year Bcf /Yr IJMcf BcflVr 17Ref BcflYr 'Dc"ZVr S/Mef
1980 4.00 (2.68) f cl 2.50 (1.18) 27.35 (29.44) 0.64 (0.58) 0 31.35 (32.12) I. 13 (0.63)
1981 4.00 n.03) 2.56 (2.10) 28.57 (30.85) 0.64 (0.63) 0 32.57 (31.88 I.ll (0.68)
1982 4.00 2.63 29.63 0.64 0 33.63 1.12
1983 4.00 2.68 30.84 0.64 0 34.84 1.10
1984 4.00 2.75 32. tt 0.64 . 0 36.11 1.11
1985 4.00 2.82 33.44 0.64 0 37.44 1.12
1986 4.00 2.89 30.40 0.64 4.60 3.14 39.00 1.41
1981 4.00 2.96 27.64 0.64 7.95 3.22 39.59 1.63
lq88 4.00 3.03 25.12 0.64 8.ll 3.30 31.41 1.73
1989 4.00 3.12 22.84 0.64 11.76 3.39 38.60 1.95
N 1990 4.00 3.18 20.76 0.64 15~08 3.45 39.84, 2.20 .
N
.f:>. 1991 0 0 41.45 3.56 41.45 3.80
1992 0 0 43.14 3.65 43.14 3.89
1993 0 0 44.90 3.7l 44.90 3.97
1994 0 0 46.74 3.82 46.74 ~.06
1995 0 0 48.66 3.92 48.66 4.16
1996 0 0 SO.55 4.01 SO.55 4.25
1991 0 0 52.52 4.11 52.52 4.35
1998 0 0 54.58 4.23 54.58 4.47
199fJ 0 0 56.72 4.33 56.72 4.57
2000 0 0 58.94 4.46 58.94 4.70
fal Price assumed comparable to North Cook Royalty gas plus productIon tax at wellhead and Pacific RI. gas
prfce set by world otl prtce CIF.
fb) Includes delivery charge to Anchorage for assurtny delivery durtng cold weather.
(c) Items tn parentheses are actual quanttttes and pr ces for 1980 and 1981.
TABLE 2.8. Estimated Natural Gas Acquisition Cost for Chugach Electric
Association Without Pacific Alaska LNG Plant, 1982 $'s,
01 Inflation -,
Alaska Sueelemental Gas Weighted
Seluga Sas and Service S/Mcf{a)
Avera9! Sas
!!!!: 1a'7'r s/MCf 1a'7Vr . S/MCf Bcf/Yr Bct SlMct
1980 17.16 0.21 3.95 (3.98){b) 1.34 (l.04) 21.71 0.46
1981 18.66 0.26 4.15 (4.65) 1.32 (l.20) 22.81 0.45 -
1982 19.60 0.27 4.35 1.33 23.95 0.46
1983 20.57 0.21 4.57 1.31 25.14 0.46 A!'<'
1984 21.63 0.21 4.80 1.32 26.43 0.46
1985 21.90 0.21 5.04 1.33 26.94 0.51
1986 21.90 0.28 5.17 1.62 0.41 1.62( a) 27.48 0.54 ,."
1987 21.90 0.28 5.31 1.84 1.01 1.84 (a) 28.22 0.66
1988 21.90 0.30 5.45 1.95 1.62 1. gs( a) 28.97 0.70
2.16(a)
..
1989 21.90 0.30 5.60 2.16 2.25 29.75 0.78
1990 21.90 0.32 5.75 2.41 2.41 (a) '" 2.89 30.54 0.90
1991 21.90 0.32 6.04 4.01 4.84 4.01 32.78 1.53 ..
1992 21.90 0.34 6.35 4.10 5.20 4.10 33.45 1.66 ...
1993 21.90 0.34 6.67 4.18 1.63 4.18 36.20 1.S7 ..
1994 21.ClO 0.36 7.01 4.21 9.13 4.27 38.04 2.00
1q95 21.90 0.36 7.36 4.37 10.71 4.37 39.97 2.17 ...
1996 0 7.48 4.46 34.09 4.46 41.57 4.46 •
1997 0 7.58 4.56 35.65 4.56 43.23 4.56 "',
1998 0 7.69 4.68 37.27 4.68 44.96 4.68
1999 0 7.79 4.79 38.97 4.78 46.76 4.78 .'
2000 0 7.88 4.91 . 40.75 4.91 48.63 4.91 -(a) The minimum price available from AGAS or Beluga Field producers~ assumed to be about
@qua 1.
(bl Items in parentheses are actual percent and quantities for 1980 and 1981. ..
2.26
ITEM
115 kV System Flow ..
69 kV System Load Flow
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
PART V
TRANSMISSION LINE STUDIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12.47/24.9 kV System Load Flow
115 kV System Short Circuit
115 kV Sag and Tension ...
115 kV Clearance Requirement
EPRI Compact Line Design Information
Corridor Condition Summary ..
24.9 kV Voltage Drop and Power Loss
Summary of Previous Reports
1
12
27
39
45
51
52
56
59
60
Base Power: lO~ MVA
1l5K,.:..v_--+ ____ ~ Daves Creek
1. Line
T. Line
l15Kv
0.003 + 0.006j
-O.OOlj
115Kv 8 ~..;..;;..;.;---+--T. Line
Xfmr
4.l6Kv
T. Line
o + 1.27j
Grant
Lake
0.037 + 0.086j
-0.02j
6 t--6:;:.,;9:..:.:K:.:.,v_---I __
X fmr, 0 + O. 8j
l2.47Kv
10MW
4.8MVAR
Marine
Industrial
Park
Ma r:-I nd.
Load
Xfmr
+ 0.07j-0.017j
0.06 + 0.147j-0.034j
115Kv
0.0 + O.lj
69Kv
0.0 City
of
Seward l2.47Kv ~----------------~~
City
Load
10MW
4.2MVAR
Line
12.47Kv
Xfmr M.P.9
24.9Kv
115Kv TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
IMPEDANCE DiAGRAM-LOAD FLOW
EBASCO SERVICES lNCORPORATED
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH !/ ""
115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR -
R+ 0.297 ohm/mile?! ~'
X+ 0.719 ohm/mile -
Ro 0.583 ohm/mi 1 e?:-/ ... ~
Xo 3.11 ohm/mi1e~
\ap + -0.17 M ohm/mile
>",
X cap 0 -0.364 M ohm/mile
at-
Surge impedance 349.5 ohm <"
...
"',
1/ EQuivalent delta spacing 114.2 incnes -
2/ At 45°C conductor temperature
3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter ""',.
2 -
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 1 TO 2)JI
115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR
DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING SlATION (13 MILES)
Ro
Xo
Xcap +
Xcap 0
Line charging
Base power
Base voltage
Surge impedance
Surge impedance load
9Bm/pha~~ p~!--.Mnit
3.9 0.029
9.3 0.070
"'.58 0.057
40.46 0.306
-0.013 x 10 6 -98.9
-0.028 x 10 6 -211 .7
1.0 MVAR, at 115 kV
100 MVA
115 kV
349.6 ohm
37.8 MW
11 Based on data presented on Page 2
3
1/
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 3)1/
115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR
GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (27 MILES)
Ohm/phase Per Unit
R+ 8.0 0.06
X+ 19.4 0.147
Ro 15.7 0.119
Xo 4.0 0.635
Xcap + -0.0063 x 10 6 -47.6
Xcap 0 -0.0134 x 10 6 -101.9
Line chargi ng 2.0 MVAR, at 115 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 115 kV
Surge impedance 349.6 ohm
Surge impedance load 37.8 MW
Based on data presented on Page 2
4
..
...
...
'IIH'~
...
".
J\'Ij
'"
III~
.,.-
IIPW
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 8)11
115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE. 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR
GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION TO POWER HOUSE SUBSTATION
(1.2 MILES)
Ohmlphase Per Unit
R+ 0.36 0.003
X+ 0.86 0.006
Ro 0.699 0.0053
Xo 3.73 0.0282
Xcap + -0.142 x 10 6 -1071.3
Xcap 0 -0.0303 x 10 6 -2293.2
Line charging 0.1 MVAR. at 115 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 115 kV
Surge impedance 349.6 ohm
Surge impedance load 37.8 MW
II Based on data presented on Page 2
5
1/
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGT~/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR
R+ 0.297 ohm/mi 1 e~/
X+ 0.68 ohm/mi le
Ro 0.58 ohm/mi 1;!:./
Xo 3.19 ohm/mi 1el/
Xcap + -0.161 M otln/mi1e
Xcap 0 -0.383 M otln/mi 1 e
Surge impedance 330.5 ohm
EQuivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches
2/ At 45°C conductor temperature
3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 otln meter
6
II"
."
....
.... '
II'
p~c
,",'
.'
.',
...
"'.
",
LINE PARAMETERS {BUS 4 TO 6)1/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR
SEWARD TO MARINE-INDUSTRIAL PARK (6 MILES)
Xcap +
Xcap 0
Line charging
Base power
Base voltage
Surge impedance
Surge impedance load
Ohm/phase Per Unit
1. 78 0.037
4.1 0.086
3.49 0.0735
19.1 0.402
-0.0268 x 10 6 -562.2
-0.0638 x 10 6 -1339.9
0.18 MVAR, at 69 kV
100 MVA
69 kV
330.5 ohm
14.4 MW
}/ Based on data presented on Page 6
7
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION
*1:30 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V. I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE.
ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR
(TRIANGULAR DECOMPOSITION)
CASE 20MWOO 02/15/83
ALAS~~A POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE I) 1 (6831)825
:;:;EWARD TRANSMISSION LINE; 115 KV; GRANT LAKE OFF; DIESEL OFF
TOTAL MISMATCH -.01(1 MW OR MVAR
INPUT DATA
BUSA BUSB
1 . .,. ... R-P.U.
.0:3200
X-P.U.
.06600
.23700
.55()00
.86000
TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
.010
", "'-
4
4
BUS LISE
1 -1
5 1
7 1
OEN BUS
1
4 .07000
5 .00000
7 .04000
V-P.U. ANGLE
1.000 .00
.97(1 -25.00
.950 -:25.00
R
.01200
PCI)NST
.00(1
10.000
10.000
X
.30000
1.00000
QCONST P-CONZ Q-CONZ
.000 .000 .000
4.200 .000 .000
4.800 .000 .000
PGEN
.000
.000
.000
STEP 5 TOTAL MM. P+ .. IQ .63473 + .15030
CONVERC;ED IN S ITERATIONS
P-MW Q-MVAR I-P.LI. V-P.U. ANGLE-DEG
*' BUS 1 * <SWING) 1.000 .000
TI) BUS .', 20.6315 9.9510 .2291 ...
GENERATE 20.6315 'j). ';'510 .:2291
* BUS 2 * .987 -.597
TO BUS 1 -20.4604 -10.5846 .23:35
TO BUS 4 20.4591 10.5827 .2335
MI,=;f'1ATCH -.00124 -.00188
* BU:3 4 * .';>45 -3.080
TO BUS 2 -:20.0620 -11. 1049 .2426
TO BUS 5 ';'.9';>99 4. ';r681 .1181
TO BUS 7 10.0624 6.1373 .1247
MISMATCH .00024 .00044
* BLiS "5 * .918 -6.714
CCiNST LOAD 10.0000 4.200«) • 1181
TO BUS 4 -9.9999 -4.2005 .1181
MISMATCH • 00011 -.00045
* BUS 7 *' .890 -8.819
CON,=;T LOAD 10.0000 4.8000 .1247
TO BUS 4 -10.0002 -4.799';' .1247
.020
.000
QMAX
.000
.000
.000
QMIN
,000
.000
.000
M I :;:;MATCH
TOT LOAD
TOT OEN
LOS:3+MM
-.(10017
20.0000
20.6315
.6315
.00005
9.0000
9. ';'510
• ';'510
115KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH
SYSTEM VOLTAGES. GRANT LAKE
OFF, CITY DIESELS OFF, 336
KCM ACSR CONDUCTOR, 20 MW
LOAD
TCtT MM -.0011 -.0018
TOT ASS MM .0018 .0028
MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
OEN VOLTS ANGLE
1 1.0341 3.3(:.51
.. '
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INDU::;TRIAL POWER :3YSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION
*130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V, I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BA:::;E.
ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR
(TRIANGlLAR DECOMF~SITION)
CASE 20MW 02! 14/::;::3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORA(iE ()'? 14:::~:0900
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE; 115 KV; GRANT LAVE ON; DIESEL OFF
TOTAL MISMATCH -.010 MW OR MVAR
[NPIJT DATA
BU~::;A BUSB R-P.U.
1 2 .03200
X-P.U. TAP
.06600
RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
.010
2 4 .07000 .2::::700
4 " .. .00000 ..55000 1.00000 '-' 4 7 .0400n . ::=:/::,000
';' 2 .00::::00 1.27600
8U:", I.I:::;E v-P.U. ANGLE PCON::;T OCON:,H P-CONZ O-CONZ PGEN
.000
.000
.000
1 1
5 1
7 t
'-;J -,
'"
(,EN 8US
1
1
j
000 . 00
.';:'20 -(.".00 . 900 -::;: ~ Oi)
000 10.00
R
.01200
.000
10.000
10.000
.000
X
.30000
.000 .000
4. 200 .000
4 . 800 .000
000 .000
STEP 5 TOTAL MM, P~JQ .15969 + .17607
CONVERGED IN 7 ITERATIONS
P-MW
* BUS 1 * (SWING)
fl) 8U:::; 2 12.03'::/6
GENERATE 12.0396
It flllS::: ~,
O-MVAR
'). :392:3
9.:392:3
fO BUS 1 -11.9619 -10.2217
TO 8US 4 20.4547 10.5443
TO BUS 9 -8.4978 .3166
MISMATCH -.00498 .00603
* BU~::; 4 *
*
*
*
TO BUS 2 -20.0607
TO ~!U:::;
TO BUS
MISMATCH
131.1:,', 5
7
* CONST LOAD
TO BUS 4
MISt-lATCH
BUS 7 * CONST LOAD
TO BUS 4
M I :::.t1ATCH
BUS 9 * TO BUS 2
GEN
MISMATCH
TOT LOAD
10.000:?
10.0615
• 00114
10.0000
-10.000';:
-.000::;:5
10.0000
-9. ';;'998
00020
8.5000
:3. 5000
-. 00002
20.0000
11 .0::::';/4
4. 1~/.~.t 5
6.1267
-.00120
4.2000
-4. 1995
.00045
4.8000
-4.:3000
.00001
1 .2587
1 2595
-.000::::";
9.0000
I-P.U. V-P.u.
1 · 000
· 15'27
· 1527
· 990
15'-:'/0
· :2'~:25
0::::59
· 948
2417
1 177
· 1242
· '::'21
1 177
1 1 77
· 8'~J3
· 1242
1242
1 · 000
· 0::159
0:359
.000
.000
.000
000 8.500
ANGLE-DEG
.000
-.277
-2.744
-/:..352
-8.441
6.01:3
.020
.000
.000
OMAX
.000
.000
.000
:::.000
OMIN
.000
• (100
.. 000
.500
TOT GEN
LO:::;;::+MM
TOT MM
TOT ABS MM
20.5:396-. 5:3'?6
-.0040
.0067
1(1.651 :::
1 .651:3
.0045
.00:::5
11SKV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH
SYSTEM-VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE
ON, CITY DIESELS OFF, 336
KCM ACSR CONDUCTOR, 20 MW
LOAD
MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
GEN VOLTS ANGLE
1 1.0';:02 1.9464 9
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INDU~3TRIAL POWER SY~:nEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION
*130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V.I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE.
ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWE.R OF FLOW~:; AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR
(TRIANGULAR DECOMPOSITION)
02/14/:33
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE 02 t 4:3:30'700
:=.:EWARD TRAN:;:;MISSION LINE; 115 KV; GRANT LAKE ON; DIESEL OFF
TOTAL MISMATCH .010 MW OR MVAR
INPUT DATA
BUS A BUSB
1 -c.
"-
R-P.U.
.03200
.07000
.00000
.04000
.00300
X-P.U.
.06600
.23700
.55000
.86000
TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
.010
:2
4
4
.~"
BU~=; USE
1 -1
'" .. ' 1
-; 1
9 .-. £.
,'iF-I\! BUS
1
4
5
7
2
V-P.U. ANGLE
1.000 .00
• ·.;1::?0 -6.00
.900 -10.00
1.000 10.00
R
.01200
1.27600
PCONST
.000
5.000
!:I.OOO
.000
X
.30000
OCONST
.000
2. 100
2.400
.000
1.00(01)
P-CONZ P-CONZ PGEN
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 8.500
~~;TEP ~ TOTAL MM, p+.jQ .04077 + .16652
CONVERGED IN :3 ITERATIONS
P-MW
* BUS 1 * (SWING)
T(I BU::: 2 1. ;.;.044
GENERATE 1.6044
~. BIJS 2 *
TO BUS 1
TO BUS 4
TO BIY:; ':;"J
MI:3MATCH
* 8US 4 *
TO BU:=': 2
TO BUS 5
In ElY:; 7
MISMATCH
* BUS ... ~, * C:ON:3T LOAD
Tn BUS 4
MI~:;MATCH
* BU~3 7 * CONST LOAD
TO BUS 4
MISMATCH
* BUS 9 * TO BUS 2
OEN
MISMATCH
-1.6005
10.09BO
-8.4980
-.O(H)46
10.01:::::3
4.9999
.00007
~" (1)00
-4.99';'9
.00008
5.0000
-5.0000
• 00000
8.5002
8.5000
.00017
O-MVAR
-:3 .. 578:3
-4. >;'1'.:.21
2 .. 272B
2.6897
.000:37
2.1000
-2.1002
-.00020
2.4000
-2.4001
-.0000;'; .
.t:0434
.64:34
-.00001
I-P.U. V-P.U. ANGLE-DEG
1.000 .000
.0:305
.0305
.997 -. (H)4
• O~!~J:3
10(:'S
.0:352
.980 1.231 . 1140
• 0560
.0580
• '7C.:3 -2.891
.0560
.0560
.956 -3.802
.0580
.0580
1.000 6.238
.0852
• ()852
.020
.000
.000
GlMAX
.000
.000
.000
3.000
(tMIN
.000
.000
.000
.500
TOT LOAD
TOT OEN
LO!C;.!::+MM
TOT MM
TOT ABS MM
10.0000
10.1044
.1044
.0001
.0008
4.5000
3. 2~322
-1.267:3
-.0016
.0023
115KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH
SYSTEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE ON,
CITY DIESELS OFF, 336 KCM ACSR
CONDUCTOR}lO MW LOAD
MACHTNE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
GEN VOLTS ANGLE
'OR) 10
-
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION
*130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V.I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE.
ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR
(TRIANGULAR DECOMPOSITION)
CASE ::;:OMW 02/15/8:3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE 0214:330900
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE; 115 KV; GRANT LAKE ON; DIESEL OFF
TOTAL MISMATCH -.010 MW OR MVAR
INPUT DATA
BUSA BUSB R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
I 2 .0:::200 .0":,600 .010
2 4 .07000 • 2:3700 .020
4 5 .00000 .55000 1.00000
4 7 .04000 .:3!.:-000 .000 -;, '2 .00:300 1.27(:,(H) .000
BUS U~=;E V-P.U. ANGLE PCONST OCON::;;;T P-CONZ O-CONZ PGEN OMAX
-1
~ 1 .,,1
7 1
,~ 2
GEN BU:::;
1
1.000 .00
,,920 -6.00
• ',100 -10.00
1 . 1)00 10.00
R
.01200
.000
15.000
15.000
.000
X
.30000
.000
Co. :3(u)
7.200
.000
STEP 5 TOTAL MM. P+dQ .65844 +
STEP 10 TOTAL MM. P+dQ .00294 +
CONVERGED IN 10 ITERATIONS
.000
.000
.000
.000
.4';!109
.00404
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
8.500 :3.000
P-MW Q-MVAR I-P.U. V-P.U. ANGLE-DEO
* BU";; 1 * C',;WI NCi)
TO BIJS 2 2:;: .. 0273
GENERATE 2::;:.027:3
* BUS ,-, 'I!-L
TO BUS -22.7::::01
TO BUS 4 :31. 2297
TO BUS 9 -:::: .. 4';178
t1ISMATCH .001:38
* 8U~;; 4 * TO BI-",,; :2 -::::0. 1.1:.91
TO 8U:::; ;:;;;' 14.999/:, '-'
TO BUS 7 15. 1691
M I ::;I'1A TCH -. OOO:?l~
,I!-BIJ~; 5 *
CONST LOAD 15.0000
TO BUS 4 -14.9996
MISMATCH .00044
I!-BUb 7. *
CaNST LOAD 15.0000
TO BUS 4 -14.9998
MISMATCH .00016
* BUS 'y *
TO BU:::; 2
CiEN
MI~:;MATCH
TOT LOAD
8. ~IOOl
::l" 5000
.00009
30.0000
TOT GEN 31.5273
U):=;~=;+t1M 1.527:3
TOT MM .0022
TOT ABS MM .0029
I':) 4633
19. 46:33
-19. ::noo
20.9142
1. 0:320
.00221
-19. 1037
::: . 26:3:3
10. 8:~:99
-00047
6.:3000
.00070
7.2000
-7. 19',1':;1
.00012
2.0579
2.0585
-.00053
1:3.5000
21.5218
:3.0218
.0020
.0040
MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
OEN VOLT:; ANOLE
.3015
.:3015
.:3080
.3::::::::7
" 0:'::75
. :3';140
.1::::90
.2057
.1:390
.1::;::90
.2057
.2057
.. 0875
.0:375
1.000 .000
.979 -.515
• ',!06 -4.307
.B61 10. :;;77
.:309 -14.216
1.000
115KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH
SYSTEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE ON,
CITY DIESELS OFF, 336 KCM ACSR
CONDUCTORS, 30 MW LOAD
OMIN
.000
.. 000
.000
.500
N
•
69kV
T. Line
69kV
12.47kV
Grant
Lake
Xfmr
T. Line
T. Line
0.037 + 0.086j-0.002j
10MW
o + 0.8j, Xfmr
Mar.-Ind.
Park
4.8 MVAR
j
Daves
Creek
Base: 100 MVA
0.103 + 0.351j-0.008j
69kV
Xfmr o + 0.55j
12.47kV
Seward
10MW. 4.2 MVAR
69kV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
IMPEDANCE DIAGRAr1 FOR LOAD FLOvl
EBASCO S.ERVI. CES. IN.r.oRfORllTFn , 't I & 't" , i •
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGT~/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 556 ACSR CONDUCTOR
R+ 0.182 ohm/milJ/
X+ 0.619 ohm/mi le
Ro 0.468 ohm/mi 1ef/
Xo 3.16 ohm/mi1~
X cap + 0.154 M ohm/mile
\ap 0 0.376 M ohm/mile
Surge impedance 317.6 ohm
1/ Equivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches
2/ At 45°C conductor temperature
J/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter
13
LINE PARAMETERS {BUS 12 TO 2)1/
&9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 556 ACSR CONDUCTOR
DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION (13 MILES) ..
Ohm/phase Per Unit .. ,"
R+ 2.3 0.048 -
X+ 8.05 0.169
R 0 6.09 0.128
....
X
0
41.1 0.864
Xcap + -0.0118 x 10 6 -248.7
Xcap 0 .0289 x 10 6 -607.7
.,.
Line charging 0.5 MVAR, at 69 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 69 kV
Surge impedance 317.6 ohm
"",.
Surge impedance load 15.0 MW
....
1/ Based on data presented on Page 13
....
14
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 4)11
09 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 550 ACSR CONDUCTOR
GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (27 MILES)
Ohmlphase Per Unit
R+ 4.92 0.103
X+ 10.7 0.351
Ro 12.0 0.205
Xo 85.4 1. 79
Xcap + -0.0057 x 10 0 -119.8
Xcap 0 -0.0139 x 10 0 -292.0
Line charging 0.8 MVAR. at 09 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 09 kV
Surge impedance 317.0 ohm
Surge impedance load 15.0 MW
11 Based on data presented on Page 13
15
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTHl/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR
R+ 0.297 ohm/mi 1 e?:../
X+ 0.68 ohm/mile
Ro 0.58 ohm/mi1e'Y
Xo 3.19 ohm/mil~
Xcap + -0.161 M ohm/mile
\ap 0 -0.383 M ohm/mile
Surge impedance 330.5 ohm
1/
2/
3/
EQuivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches
At 45°C conductor temperature
Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter
16
.. 't
...
... '
.. ,
""
.. '
...
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 4 TO 6)1/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 336 ACSR CONDUCTOR
SEWARD TO MARINE-INDUSTRIAL PARK (6 MILES)
Ohm/phase Per Unit
R+ 1. 78 0.037
X+ 4.1 0.08&
Ro 3.5 0.0735
Xo 19.7 0.402
Xcap -I--0.02&8 x 10& -5&2.2
Xcap 0 -0.0638 x 10& -1339
Line charging -0.2 MVAR, at 69 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 69 kV
Surge impedance 330.5 ohm
Surge impedance load 14.4 MW
1/ Based on data presented on Page 16
17
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH !/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR CONDUCTOR
R+ 0.563 o hm/mi 1 e?:-/
X+ 0.788 ohm/mile
Ro 0.849 o hm/mi 1 e?:-/
Xo 3.29 ohm/mi1el!
Xcap + -0.169 M ohTI/mi 1e
Xcap 0 -0.391 Mom/mile
Surge impedance 364.6 ohm
1/
2/
3/
EQuivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches
At 4SoC conductor temperature
Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter
18
""
•
""" ..
"'"
j;c, ..
.. ..
-
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 12 TO 2}1/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR CONDUCTOR
DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE HYDRO SWITCHING STATION (13 MILES)
Xcap +
Xcap 0
Line charging
Base power
Base voltage
Surge impedance
Surge impedance load
Ohm/phase
1.3
10.2
11 .0
42.9
-0.013 x 10 6
-0.03 x 10 6
0.5 MVAR, at 69 kV
100 MVA
69 kV
364.6 ohm
13.1 MW
1/ Based on data presented on Page 18
19
,eer Unit
0.153
0.215
0.232
0.900
-212.6
-631.6
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 4)1/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR CONDUCTOR
GRANT LAKE SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (27 MILES)
Ohm/phase Per Unit
R+ 15.2 0.32
X+ 21 .28 0.447
Ro 22.9 0.482
Xo 89.0 1.87
Xcap + -0.0062 x 10 6 -131 .3
Xcap 0 -0.0145 x 10 6 -304.1
Line charging 0.9 MVAR, at 69 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 69 kV
Surge impedance 364.6 ohm
Surge impedance load 13.1 MW
1/ Based on data presented on Page 18
20
."
li""
,",,'
"'
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH I/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 1590 ACSR CONDUCTOR
R+ 0.066 ohm/mi 1 e?:-/
X+ 0.593 ohm/mile
Ro 0.353 ohrn/mi 1 e!:.-/
Xo 3.102 o hm/mi 1 e~./
\ap + -0.138 M ohm/mile
Xcap 0 -0.361 M ohm/mil e
Surge impedance 2H7.1 ohm
1/ Equivalent delta spacing 83.2 inches
2/ At 45°C conductor temperature
3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter
1)1
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 12 TO 2)1/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 1590 ACSR CONDUCTOR
DAVES CREEK TO GRANT LAKE SWITCHING STATION (13 MILES)
Ohm/phase Per Unit
R+ 0.866 0.018
X+ 1.12 0.162
Ro 4.59 0.0963
Xo 40.33 0.0841
Xcap + -0.0106 x 10 6 -224.3
Xcap 0 -0.0218 x 10 6 -583.2
Line charging 0.4 MVAR, at 69 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 69 kV
Surge impedance 281.0 ohm
Surge impedance load 16.6 MW
1/ Based on data presented on Page 21
22
Ill'
-
-
--
-
...
-
....
-
-
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 2 TO 4)1/
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 1590 ACSR CONDUCTOR
GRANT LAKE SWITCHING STATION TO SEWARD (21 MILES)
Ohm/phase Per Unit
R+ 1.80 0.031
X+ 1.60 0.34
Ro 9.53 0.20
Xo 83.1 1 .159
Xcap t -0.0051 x 10 6 -108.0
Xcap 0 -0.0134 x 10 6 -280.8
Line charging 0.8 MVAR. at 69 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 69 kV
Surge impedance 281.0 ohm
Surge impedance load 16.6 MW
1/ Based on data presented on Page 21
23
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION
*130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V, I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE.
ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS ANO LOADS IN I'IW AND I'IVAR
(GAUSS SEIDEL METHOD)
CASE IB 01/18/83
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE 0118830900
SEWARD TRNSM LN; 69 KV; GRANT LK OFF; DIESEL OFF; 4/0 COND
VOLTAGE TOLERANCE .00100 PU
ACCELERATION FACTOR -1. 6
INPUT DATA
BUSA Buse R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARC,ING-F·. U.
1
lZ
2
4
6
4
BUS USE
1 -1
5 1
7 1
(;EN BUS
1
12 .00000
2' .15300
4 .32000
6 .0370(1
7 .00000
5 .00000
V-P.U. ANGLE
1.000 .00
.850 -10.00
.850 -10.00
R
.01200
.100(10
.21500
.44700
.0ElbOO
.80000
.55000
peONST
.000
10.000
10.000
X
.30000
GlCONST
.000
4.200
4.800
1.00000
1.000(10
1.00000
P-C:ONZ Gl-CONZ
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
PGEN
.000
.000
.000
.005
.009
.002
QMAX
.000
.000
.000
ITER 10 6 -.0048100 7 .0015200
CONVERGED IN 19 ITERATIONS
P-MW Q-I'IVAR I-P.U. V-P.U. ANGLE-DEG
* BUS 1 " (SWING) 1.000 .000
TO BUS 12 24.6546 18. 85c.:2 .3104
GENERATE 24.6546 18.8562 .3104
" BUS 2 " .904 -3.074
TO BUS 4 23.2371 16.2839 .3139
TO BUS 12 -23.1265 -16.1581 .3121
MISMATCH .11056 .12578
" BUS 4 " TO BUS .2 -20.0350 -12.4466 .3181
TO BUS 5 10.0062 5.!:'.71b • 1 ~545
TO BLiS 6 10.2462 7.5230 .1715
MISMATCH .21744 .64805
* BUS 5 " .704 -13.452
CONST LOAD 10.0UOO 4.2000 .1541
TO \jUS 4 -10.0062 -4.2592 .lS.q5
MISMATCH -.00620 -.05917
* BUS 6 " .728 -8 .. 037
TO BUS 4 -10.1369 -7.3768 .1723
TO BUS 7 10.0054 7.1116 .1667
MISMATCH -.13149 -.26516
* BUS 7 * .659 -17.654
CONST LOAD 10.0000 4.8000 .1<:.84
TO BUS 6 -10.0054 -4.8342 .1687
I'1ISI'IATCH -.00543 -.03419
* BUS 12 * .981 -1.439
TO BUS 1 -24.t.546 -17.89:2S .3104
TO BUS 2 24.6050 17.8085 .3095
MISMATCH -.04956 -.08430
TOT LOAD 20.0000 9.0000
TOT (lEN 24.6546 lB .. 8562 69KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM TOT MI'I .1353 .3310
TOT LOSS 4.5192 9.5252 VOLTAGES. GRANT LAKE OFF. CITY
TOl ASS 1'11'1 .5207 1.2167 DIESELS OFF, 4/0 AWG ACSR
CONDUCTOR 20 ~ LOAD
MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
OEN VOLTS ANGLE
1 1.0620 3.8715
USED 71. 08 UNITS
24
QMIN
.000
.000
• <)00
-
GENERAl. EL.ECTR I C COMPANY
INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION
*130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE.
ACfIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOAl)~; IN MW AND MVAR
(GAUSS SEIDEL METHOD)
CASE lA 01/13/83
Al.ASI'A POWER AUTHOR ITY
ANCHORAGE 0112831500
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE; 6') KV; GRANT LAKE OFF; DIESEL OFF
VOL TAGE TOLERANCE .001 (H) PU
ACCELERATION FACTOR 1. 6
INPUT DATA
BUSA BliSe R-P.U. X-P.LI. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
1
12
-:
4
6
4
BUS U1:;,E
1 -1
5 1
7 1
GEN BLIS
1
12 .00000
2 .04E.WO
4 .10300
6 .03700
7 .00000
5 .00000
V-P.lI. ANGLE
1.000 .00
.850 -10.00
.850 -10.00
R
.01200
.10000 1.00000
.16')00
.35100
.08600
.80000 1.00000
.55000 1.00(,00
peON,,;:T CKONST P-CONZ Q-COtll PGEN
.<'.100 .000 .000 .000 .000
10. (It") 4.200 .000 .000 .000
10.000 4.800 .000 .000 .000
x
• ·30000
ITER 10 7 .001:3600 7 .0014600
CONVERGED IN 11 ITERATIONS
I-P.LI. V-P.LI. ANGLE-DEG
.. BLIS 1 .. (SWING) 1.000 .00(.
TO BUS 12 21.0833 14.4437 .2556
GENERATE 21.0833 14.4437 .. 2556
.. BU~; :2 .. .95L -3.0(1:3
TO BUS 4 20.8786 13.1004 .. 2589
TO BUS 12 -20.:3636 -13.0169 .2583
MISMATCH .01498 .08356
.. BU~, 4 .. .892 -7.060
TO BUS 2 -20.1772 -11.3840 .Z627
TO BLIS 5 9.9537 5. 1 S06 .1272
TO BllS 6 9.8568 6.1584 C
.004
.OOS
.002
QMAX
.000
.000
.O(H)
MISMATCH -.3t,668 -.04503
" BUS 5 .. .. 852 -11. 238
CONST LOAD 10.0000 4.2')00 • 127:<
TO BUS 4 -9.9537 -4.2904 .1272
MISMATCH .04629 -.09031
.. BUS 6 .. .. 872 -7.520
TO BUS 4 -9.7921 -6.1618 • 1327
TO BUS 7 Ill. 0418 6.2861 · 1 :359
MISMATCH .24970 .12428
" BUS 7 .. .81 __ -13.977
CONST LOAD 10.0000 4.8000 .1354
TO BUS b -10.0418 -4.8088 .135'."
MISMATCH -.04179 -.00884
.. BliS 12 " .986 --1.226
TO BU~; --21.0':::::3 -13.79';6 .25~.c,
TO BUS 2 21 .. 1812 13.740') .. 2'561
MISMATCH • (61]':;'0 -.049.':·','
TOT LOAD 20.0000 9.0000
TOT GEN 21.0l':f.3:3 14.4437
TOT MM .0004 .0139
QMIN
.000
.000
• Or)O
TOT l.OSS 1.0829 5.4298 ._-----------, TOT ASS MM .8173 .4018
MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
GEN VOLTS ANGLE
1 1.0477 ·3 • .3662
USED 64. :::~, UNITS
69KV SYSTEM LOAD flOI'l WITH
S,(STEM VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE OFF,
CITY DIESELS Off, 556 KCM ACSR,
20 MW LOAD
25
_ '''4LI'-.''_1 I I'\.L M1-I 1_'''''1-1'\ '_' I '_' , '-I 1"_' '-I "._ ... , ..................... _. ,_", _",', __ .••
*130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE.
ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR
(TRIANGULAR DECOMPOSITION)
02/15/:33
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE 011:3830930
SEWARD TRNSM LN; 69 VV; GRANT LK OFF; DIESEL OFF; 1590 ACSR
TOTAL MISMATCH -.010 MW OR MVAR
INPUT DATA
BUSA BU~,':B R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
1
12
2
4
I:,
4
BIY:; U'::;E
1 -1
'" ._' 1
7 1
I~;EN BU~::;
1
12 .00000
2 .01800
4 .0:3700
6 .03700
7 .00000
"' '-' .00000
V-P.U. ANGLE
1.000 .00
• :=:50 -10.00
• :350 -10.00
R
.01:200
. 10000
16000
.34000
.08600
. :~:0000
.55000
PCONST OCONST
.000
10.000
10.000
X
.30000
.000
4.200
4.800
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
P-CONZ O-CONZ PGEN
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
STEP 5 TOTAL MM, P+JO .34968 + .36849
CONVERGED IN 9 ITERATIONS
P-MW
~. BIY::; 1 * (~:;W I NO )
TO BUS 12
C,ENERATE
* BUS 2 *
TO BUS 4
TO BUS 12
MI~=;MATCH
* BU:=';
TO BIY,;
TO BlY,;
4 *
TO BUS 6
MI:::;MATCH
* BUS 5 *
CON~:;T LOAD
TO BUS 4
MISMATCH
* BU:::; /:.. *
TO BUS 4
TO BUS 7
1"'11 :::;MATCH
* BUS 7 *
CONST LOAD
TO BUS 6
MI~::;MATCH
* BUS 12 *
TO BUS
20.4049
20.4049
-20.29::::8
-20.062:3
9.9999
10.0624
-.00045
10.0000
-9.9999
.00007
-9.999:3
9.999:3
.00000
10.0000
-9.9',,""8
.00015
(.I-MVAR
13.8166
1::3.:3166
12.6095
-12.6071
.0024:3
-11.175:3
5.0319
6.14:32
-.00071
4.2000
-4.1999
.00010
-6.1617
6.1617
.00000
4.8000
-4.7998
.00022
I-P.U. V-P.U. ANGLE-DEG
1.000 .000
.:2464
.2464
.961 -3.012
• 2485
.24:::5
.910 -7.220
.252:3
.1230
1·;,q~
.882 -11.149
.1230
.1230
.900 -7.664
.1::::05
.1305
.850 -13.664
.1:305
.1::::05
.986 -1.1:35
.2464
.2464
.004
.008
.002
(.1M A X
.000
.000
.000
TO BUS 2
MI:::;MATCH
-20.4049
20.4040
-.00091
-13.2094
1:3.2076
-.00179 69KV SYSTEM LOAD FLOW WITH SYSTEM
VOLTAGES, GRANT LAKE OFF, CITY
OMIN
.000
.000
.000
TOT LOAD 20.0000 9.0000
TOT GEN 20.4049 13.8166 DIESEL OFF, 1590 KCM ASCR CONDUCTO~
LOSS+MM .4049 4.8166 20 ~ LOAD
TOT MM .0002 .0002
TOT AB::; MM .002'" .0052
MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
GEN VOLTS ANGLE
,? 'jL C:''j 'lC
...
0"-
.....
....
-.
Xfmr
CEA Loads Line
~1.P.9
Seward Load Xfmr
Line
Seward Load Xfmr
?
Base Power: 100 MVA
0.012 + 0.3j
115Kv Daves Creek
24.9Kv
3.1 + 3.4j-0.0023j
24.9Kv
12.47Kv
8.9 + 4.22J
12.47Kv City of Seward
o + 2.0j
2.4Kv
City
Diesel
Generators (3)
24.9Kv/12.47Kv EMER. TRANS. SYSTEM
IMPEDANCE DIAGRAM-LOAD FLOW
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH l/
24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINEs 4/0 ACSR IN CHUGACH'S SYSTEM (EXISTING)
R+ 0.6 o hm/mi 1 e?:../
X+ 0.68 ohm/mile
Ro 0.84 2/ o hm/mi 1 e.:::
Xo 3.52 ohm/mile'}..!
Xcap + -0.142 M ohm/mi le
Xcap 0 -0.409 ~~ ohm/mile
Surge impedance 310. 1 ohm
1/ EQuivalent delta spacing 33.6 inches
2/ At 45°C conductor temperature
3/ Ground resi stivi ty estimated at 600 ohm meter
28
....
,."
,,-p
"".
...
."
LINE PARAME1~RS (PARl OF BUS 11 TO 14)11
24.9 KV lRANSMISSION LINE. 4/0 ACSR CHUGACH
DAVES CRE~K TO LAWING (16 MILES)
~ '0
Xcap +
Xcap 0
!!hJ!1Ll2b .<;!~.~
9.4
10.9
13.411
!)b.32
0.0089
-0.025 x
P~L _Ul1JJ,
1. 53
1 .75
2.14
8,g
x 106 ·1429.9
10 6 -11118.9
Line charging .025 MVAR, at 24.9 kV
Base power
Base vo ltdge
Surge impedance
Surge impedance load
100 MVA
24.9 Ir..'J
310 ohm
2 MW
11 Based on data presented on Page ?8
29
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH !/
24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE,
4/0 ACSR EXISTING 69 KV SEWARD CONSTRUCTION
R+ 0.6 ohm/mileY
X+ 0.79 ohm/mi le
Ro 0.84 ohm/mi 1 e'!:./
Xo 3.3 ohm/mi l;i/
Xcap + -0.168 M ohm/mil e
Xcap 0 -0.39 Mom/mile
Su rge impedance 364.4 ohm
1/ EQuivalent delta spacing 82.8 inches
2/ At 45°C conductor temperature
3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter
30
.~J
."
~c'
LINE PARAMETERS (PART OF BUS 11 TO 14)11
24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, 4/0 ACSR
SEWARD LAWING TO MILE POST 21 (4 MILES)
Ohm/~hase Per Unit
R+ 2.3 0.38
X+ 3.16 0.51
Ro 3.39 0.547
Xo 13.2 2.13
Xcap + -0.042 x 10 6 -6804
Xcap 0 -0.098 x 10 6 -15762
Line charging 0.015 MVAR, at 24.9 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 24.9 kV
Surge impedance 364.4 ohm
Surge impedance load 1. 7 MW
11 Based on data presented on Page 30
31
LINE PARAMETERS (PART OF BUS 11 TO 14)1/
24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE. 4/0 ACSR
SEWARD MILE POST 18 TO 9 (9 MILES)
Ohm/phase Per Unit
R+ 5.4 0.86
X+ 6.12 0.98
Ro 7.64 1.2
Xo 29.7 4.78
Xcap + -0.0189 x 10 6 -18750
Xcap 0 -0.030 x 10 6 -7005
Line charging 0.005 MVAR. at 24.9 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage '24.9 kV
Surge impedance 364.4 ohm
Surge impedance load 1. 7 MW
1/ Based on data presented on Page 30
32
....
"",
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH
24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, #1/0 AL. UNDERGROUND CABLE
R+ 0.6 ohm/mi le!/
X+ 0.24 ohm/mile
\ap + -0.009 M Ohm/mile
Su rg e impedance 46.4 ohm
1/ At ao°c conductor temperature
33
LINE PARAMETERS (PART OF BUS 11 TO 14)11
24.9 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, ,1/0 AL., U.G.
MILE POST 21 to 18 (3 MILES)
Xcap +
Line charging
8ase power
Base voltage
Base impedance
Surge impedance
Surge impedance load
Ohmlphase Per Unit
1.8 0.29
0.72 0.12
-0.003 x 10 6 -0.002
.052 MVAR, at 24.9 kV
100 MVA
24.9 kV
6.2 ohm
46.4 ohm
13.3 MW
11 Based on data presented on Page 33
34
-
-
-
-
-
LINE PARAMETERS PER PHASE AND PER UNIT LENGTH !/
12.47 KV DISTRIBUTION LINE, #2 ACSR -
EXISTING SEWARD CONSTRUCTION
R+ 1.6 ohm/mi 1 eY
X+ 0.76 ohm/mi 1 e
Ro 1.89 ohm/mi 1 eY
Xo 3.59 ohm/mileY
Xcap + -0.158 M ohm/mi le
Xcap 0 0.425 M ohm/mile
Surge impedance 347 ohm
1/ Equivalent delta spacing 33.8 inches
2/ At 45°C conductor temperature
3/ Ground resistivity estimated at 600 ohm meter
35
LINE PARAMETERS (BUS 5 TO 10)1/
12.47 KV DIST. LINE, #2 ACSR, EXISTING -SEWARD
MILE POST 9 TO SEWARD SUB. (8 MILES)
Ohm/phase Per Un; t
R+ 13.9 8.9
X+ 6.08 4.22
Ro 15.08 9.7
Xo 28.8 18.5
Xcap + -0.0198 x 10 6 -12750
Xcap 0 -0.0537 x 10 6 -34193
Line' charging 0.008 MVAR, at 12.5 kV
Base power 100 MVA
Base voltage 12.47 kV
Base impedance 1.44 ohm
Surge impedance 347 ohm
Surge impedance load 0.5 MW
1/ Based on data presented on Page 35
36
-
-
...
-
'O.
(
{.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OPERATION
*130 BUS LOAD FLOW PROGRAM. V,I AND Z IN P.U. ON A 100 MVA BASE.
ACTIVE AND REACTIVE POWER OF FLOWS AND LOADS IN MW AND MVAR
(GAUSS SEIDEL METHOD)
CASE EIB 01119/83
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE 0114831600
SEWARD TRNSM LN; EMERGENCY OPER; 24.9/12.5 KV; DIESEL OFF
VOLTAGE TOLERANCE -.00100 PU
ACCELERATION FACTOR -1.6
INPUT DATA
BUSA BUSS R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
1 14 .01000
11 14 3.10000
10 11 .00000
5 10 8.90000
BUS USE V-P.U. ANGLE
1 -1 1.000 .00
5 1 .800 -4.00
.86000 1.00000
3.40000
2.00000 1.00000
4.22000
PCONST QCONST P-CONZ O-CONZ
.000 .000 .000 .000
1 • 000 • 500 . 000 • 000
PGEN
.000
.000
ITER 10 5 -.0027900 10 -.0003700
CONVERGED IN 11 ITERATIONS
P-MW Q-MVAR I-P.U. V-P.U. ANGLE-DEG
* BllS 1 * (SWING) 1.000 .000
TO BUS 14 1.2272 .5059 .0133
GENERATE 1.2272 .5059 .0133
* BUS 5 * .785 -3.549
CONST LOAD 1.0000 .5000 .0142
TO BUS 10 -. ':;'931 -.4886 .0141
MISMATCH .00686 .011 ::::8
* BlIS 10 * .924 -3.674
TO BUS 5 1.1702 .5726 .0141
TO BUS 11 -1. 2035 -.5826 .0145
MISMATCH -.03332 -.01007
* BUS 11 * .937 -2.080
TO BUS 10 1.2035 .6246 .0145
TO BUS 14 -1.1894 -.6309 .0144
MISMATCH .01406 -.00637
* BUS 14 * .996 -.604
TO BUS 1 -1. 2270 -.4908 .0133
TO BUS 11 1.2494 .4818 .0134
.0«)2
.000
QMAX
.000
.000
OMIN
.000
.000
MISMATCH .02238
TOT LOAD 1.0000
TOT GEN 1.2272
-.00900
.5000
.5059
24.9KV/12.47KV LOAD FLOW WITH
SYSTEM VOLTAGES, DIESELS OFF,
1 t4W LOAD
TOT MM .0100 -.0141
TOT LOSS .2172 .0200
TOT ABS MM .0766 .0368
37
:3EWARD TRNSM LNI EMERGENCY CIPERI 24.9/12.5 KV; DIESEL LIN
VOLTAGE TOLERANCE -.01000 PU
ACCELERATION FACTOR -1.2
INPUT DATA
BUSA BUSB R-P.U. X-P.U. TAP RATIO LINE CHARGING-P.U.
1 14 .00000 .86000 1.00000
11 14 3.10000 3.40000 .002
10 11 .00000 2.00000 1.00000
5 10 8.90000 4.22000 .000
5 13 .00000 2.00000 1.00000
BUS LISE V-P.lI. ANGLE PCONST QCONST P-CONZ Q-CONZ PGEN QMAX
1 1 1.000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
5 1 .950 -4.00 4.000 2.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
14 1 1.000 -2.00 .500 .200 .000 .000 .000 .000
11 1 .900 -2.00 .500 .200 .000 .000 .000 .000
13 2 1.000 10.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 5.000 2.000
GEN BUS R X
1 .01200 .30000
CONVERGED IN 7 ITERATIONS
P-MW Q-MVAR I-P.U. V-P.lI. ANGLE-DEG
* BUS 1 * (SWING) 1.000 .000
TO BUS 14 .4215 1.1439 .0122
GENERATE .4215 L 1439 .0122
* BUS 5 * .972 9.342
CONST LOAD 4.0000 2.0000 .046.0
TO BUS 10 .8219 -.8139 .0119
TO BUS 13 -5.0466 -1.0949 .0531
MISMATCH -.22477 .09117
* BUS 10 * • ~)39 2.600
TO BUS 5 -.1.:.959 .8737 .0119
TO BUS 11 .5712 -.8788 .0112
MI:3MATCH -.1241.:.2 -.00517
.u-BUS 11 * • 957 1.871
CONST LOAD .5000 .2000 .0056
TO BliS 10 -.5712 .9038 .0112
TO BUS 14 .1033 -1.1027 .0116
MISMATCH .0:3205 .00105
* BlIS 13 * 1.000 15.302
TO BUS 5 5.0466 1.6594 .0531
OEN 5.0000 1. 6541 • 0527
MISMATCH .04665 .00529
* BUS 14 * .990 .210
CONST LOAD .5000 .2000 .0054
TO BUS 1 -.4215 -1. 1311 .0122
TO BUS 11 -.069:3 .9218 .00'?3
MISMATCH .00917 -.00924
TOT LOAD 5.0000 2.4000
TOT GEN 5.4215 2.7979
TOT MM -.2615 .0831
TOT LOSS .6830 .3148
TOT ABS MM .4373 .1119
MACHINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
OEN VOLTS ANGLE
1 1.0035 .0644
USED 60.82 UNITS
QMIN
.000
.000
.000
.000
.200
24.9KV /12.47KV LOAD FLOW WITH
SYSTEM VOLTAGES, DIESEL ON,
38 5 MW LOAD
-
-
"",
...
-
"", .
--
--
T. Line
Grant
Lake
115Kv
Xfmr
4.16Kv
T. Line
Xfmr
12.47Kv
Mar.
Ind.
Load
1 Ot~w
T. Line
.003 + .006j
.0127 + 1.27j
0.1 + 3.7j
.037 + .086j
Marine
Industrial
Park
City
Diesels
(3)
0.012 + 0.3j
0.029
0.06 + 0.147 j
T. Line
.001 + .lj
Xfmr
69Kv
City
of
Seward
.02 + 2.0j
2.4Kv
City 9 5 Load . MW
0.23 + 6.6j
Base Power: 100· '\
Daves Creek
Grant Lake Hydro Switching Station
City of Seward
.0055 +
Xfmr
12.47Kv
Line
12.47Kv
M.P.9 Xfmr
24.9Kv
0.5 Lawing Area Load
MW
115Kv TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
IMPEDANCE DIAGRAM-SHORT CIRCUIT
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
CASE: 1 PAGE-1
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. -INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS
THREE PHASE SHORT CIRCUIT PROGRAM
"-....... _. , --"
INTERRUPTING CALC. FOR BKR DUTIES PER ANSI C37.010-1979,(:37.5-1979
01/12/83 100 MVA BASE 60 HERTZ
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
!:;;EWARD
CA!:;E: l.
SHORT-CIRCUIT; WORST-CASE; 115 KV TRANSMISSION
DATA SET 0112831027
INPUT DATA
BUS Tel BU!:; R P. U. x P.U.
0 1 .01200 .30000
0 1':,1 . 10000 ::;::.70000
0 10:;' 0_' . 2::::000 /:. .. 60000
1 2 .02900 .07000 .-, ..::. :3 .06000 · 14700
:3 4 .00100 · 10000
4 5 .00550 .55000
4 /.:.. .0::::700 .0:3600
/.:.. 7 • 00800 • :30000.
'",:. ::: ""-.00:300 .-006(10
.:' ..... '~I .01270 1.27000
5 1:3 .02000 2.00000
CODE
1
~ .. :, .....
~:
(I
(I
(I
0
(I
0
0
0
(I
-.
-
....
* BU::;; 1 E/Ze= 1.823 KA( 363. 14MVA)AT 87.740EG .• X/R= 25.35.115.000 KV -
Ze= .010::;:55 +oj .275161
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA
BUS TO BUS MAG
REMOTE 1 1.1:..72
::::10T. SYM
2.04
1.120
ANG
87.709
SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS
BUS SOURCE LOCAL
1 REMOTE .00
''"9 GEN .10 1 0:;' 0_' GEN .05
REMOTE/TOTAL= .917 SUM .15
5SYM 5TOT
2.1:=:
1.0:::7 1.196
BUS TO BU!:;
2 1
MAG
:3!;WM
2.00
1.094
• 151
ANG
88.040
AT FAULT BUS P. U. GEN
REMOTE TOTAL. VOL T!:;
1.67 1.67 .000
.00 .10 ~ :272
.00 .05 • :31 ::;:
1. 67 1 0 0-:, • '_'.J-
E/Ze= 1.506 KA( 299.97MVA)AT 85.25DEG.,X/R= 12.02,115.000 KV
40
115KV SYSTEM SHORT CIRCUIT
WORST CASt
336 KCM ASCR
CONDUCTOR, ALL CITY
GENERATORS RUNNING
-
-'
CASE: 1 PAGE-2
Ze= • (1276:30 +J .332217
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBLITrONS IN KA
8TOT,SYM
1.51
1.000
5SYM
1. ~51
1.000
5TOT
1.5/.:.
3SYM
1. 51
1.000
BUS TO BUS MAG ANG BU::; TO BU:::;; MAG
.053
ANG
1 2 1 • :~:4S'J
':-'-' 2 • 101
:::::3. ()"'1
SOURCE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.u. GEN
VCILn:;
.1.94
BUS SOURCE
1 REMOTE
9 GEN
1:3 GEN
REMOTE/TOTAL= .896 !:;UM
LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL
.00
• 10
.05
.15
1 • ::::5
.00
.00
1. ~35
1 • :3~i
• 10
.OS
1. SO
*BUS :3 E/Ze= 1.0/.:.5 KA( 212. 15MVA)AT 81.8/':'DEO.,X/R= 6.99,115.000 KV
Ze= .06(:, 77::': +J .466604
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
MUL T. FAC:TOR
CONTRIB~rIONS IN KA
BU:::; TO BU::; MAG
1.005
(HOT, SYl'l
1.07
1.000
ANG
79. 5~JO
5SYM
1.07
1.000
BUS
4-
TO
!::;iTOT
1.07
1.000
3SYM
1.07
1.000
I"I~~G
.054
f~NG
::;:3.412
SOURCE
BUS
TYPE
::;OURCE
REMOTE
CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN
LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS
1 · 00
GEN .07
1:3 GEN · 05
REMOTE/TOTAL= .870 SUM · 1""' .:..
'';;J"-:'' .. ' .~,..
.00
.00 . '~J::::
.9::;:: ,.446
.07 • l17';:;'
.05
1.05
E/Ze= 1.482 KA( 295.28MVA)AT 85.06DEG •• X/R= 11.58,115.000 KV
Ze= .029138 +J .337409
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL.
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA
BUS TO BU:::: .-, .... 8
MAC,
1. :379
8TOT ,!:WM
1.4:::
1.000
ANG
41
5:;:;YM
1.48
1.000
TO
5TOT
1.5:;:
1 ,,():~::;:
1"1AG
:;:::WM
1.4::::
1.000
ANG
• lOl
C:ASE: 1 PAGE-:;:
SOURCE
BU~3
TYPE
SOURCE
REMOTE
CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN
1
''i! GEN
1~: GEN
REMOTE/TOTAL= .894 SUM
LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS
.00
· 10
.05
· 15
1 'J'=' • ,._f._t
.00
.00
1. :33
1. :3:3 .208
• 10
.05
1.4:3
.256
• :::: 1 0
*BUS 4 E/Ze= 1.495 KAl 178.72MVAIAT 8:;:.10DEG.,X/R= 8.26. 69.000 KV
Z'2= .067249 +.j
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA
BUS TO BUS MAG
3 4 1.398
6 4 .000
::::TOT, ;:WM
1.50
1.000
ANG
.000
5SYM
1.50
1.000
BUS TO BU:::
~I 4
5TOT
1.50
1.005
:3SYM
1..50
1.000
MAG
.091
ANO
8::::.401
:;:;OURCE
BU~:
TYPE
:;:::OURCE
REMOTE
CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS
LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL
P.U. GEN
VOLT::::
1 · 00
';:1 GEN · 10
1:3 GEN .O'i
REMOTE/TOTAL= .864 · I'::;' .'
1 · · · 1 ·
;~I?
00
00
'~:I~I
1 • 21~'
.10
.09
1.4:3
.5:37
· ~i67
.27'-:;1
E/Ze= 1.287 KAC 153.87MVA)AT 80.77DEG .• X/R= 6.15, 69.000 KV
• 104249 +.j .641489
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
8TCIT. SYM
1.2t"iJ
MULT. FACTOR 1.000 1.000
CONTRIBUTIONS IN VA
BUS TO BUS MAG ANG BUS TO BUS
4 6 1.287 7 6
5TCIT
1.29
1.000
3:::;YM
1.000
MAG
.000
ANG
.000
SOURCE TYPE CONTR I BUT ION:::: AT FAULT BUS P.U. IJEN
BUS SOURCE LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLr:::
1 REMOTE · ()() 1. 10 1. 10 · {':·O4
9 GEN • ():3 .01 • (l:3 .. !:.1:21
{:,
13 GEN .0:3 .00 • ()8 • ::::76
REMOTE/TOTAL= .861 SUM .16 1. 11 1. 27
E/Z'2= 3.195 KA( 69. 16MVAIAT 85.55DEG .• X/R= 12.84. 12.500 KV
Ze= .112249 +J 1. 4414~:9
42
ft
-
-
. .,
....
"'''
CASE: 1 PACiE-4
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA
BUS TO BUS MACi
1;.1 7 :3.1';J5
ann, SYM
1.000
ANG
5SYM 5TOT
1.000 1.04:3 1.000
BUS TO BUS 1'1ACi ANCi
SOURCE
BUS
TYPE
SOURCE
REMOTE
CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN
1
-:;. CiEN
13 GEN
REMOTE/TOTAL= .927 SUM
LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS
.00
.09
· 14 .,.-,
• ..:...,t..
:2. 7::: . 12
• 06
2.96
.21
.19
E/Ze= 4.573 KA( 99.00MVA)AT 86.04DECi .• X/R= 14.44, 12.500 KV
Ze= .069766 +.j 1.007(:/56
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA
BUS TO BUS MAG
4 5 4. O:~:2
:::::10T, SYM
4.57
1.000
ANO
:35.154
~5SYM
4.57
1.000
5TOT
4.86
1.0(:<.:::
MAG
.537
4.57
1.000
ANG
SOURCE
BUS
TYPE
SOURCE
REMOTE
CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN
LOCAL REMOTE T01AL VOLTS
1 .00 3.7!'::i :;:" ~7~5 • 75'"
GEN · 16 . 12 • 2:~: • "; 7/:'
1:3 GEN .54 .00 .54
REMOTE/TOTAL= .846 SUM · 6':.' :3. :=:7 4.56
E/Ze= 12.250 KA( 88.26MVA)AT 88.27DEG.,X/R= 33.10. 4.160 KV
Ze= .034210 +j 1.132475
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY LEVEL
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA
BUS TO BUS MAG
GEN 9 3.750
::::T01. SYM
14.12
1. 15:3
ANG
88.452
5SYM
1 • 1 :2l:.
BU:::; TO BUS
CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS
5TOT
1~i.17
3::Wtl
MAG
::::. 5()()
1 ~3. 90
1.135
ANG
P.U. GEl\! SOURCE
BUS
TYPE
SOURCE
REMOTE
LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS
1 .00
43
CASE: 1 PAGE-5 -
GEN 3.75 .00 ~~. 75 .000
13 OEN 12 .2() .-:,.~-:. .847 . II '_'.;I... --REMOTE/TOTAL= .684 SUM 3.87 .~ ·")tJ '_'. ,_1'_' 12.25
*BUS 1::::: E/Ze= 11.295 t<A( 46.'~5MVA)AT :::7. 92DEO •• X/R= 27.48. 2.400 1<"-
Ze= .077450 +j 2.128360
CIRCUIT BREAKER TYPE
MAX DUTY L.EVEL
MULT. FACTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN KA
BUS TO BUS MAG
GEN
STOT.SYM
12.51
1.107
ANG
5SYM
12.21
1.081
BU!;:; TO BU!:;
5 1:;:
5TOT
1:3.4:~:
1.189
MAG
:3SYM
12.37
1 • 09~i
7. 65:~:
ANG
:~:7. :;:01
SOURCE
BUS
TYPE
~;OURCE
REMOTE
CONTRIBUTIONS AT FAULT BUS P.U. GEN
1
'7 GEN
1:3 OEN
REMOTE/TOTAL= .668 SUM
LOCAL REMOTE TOTAL VOLTS
• 00 . 1 1
3.64
:3.75
44
7 • i" L
4'-' • L
.00
7.54
7.12 .':;'ll
:3.64
11.29
• I::> 1 :~:
.000
....
-
-.
-
~CO SERVICES INC -SAG AND TENSION W/STRESS-STRAIN 01/20/83
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE. 115 KV
CABLE: 336 ACSR NEW CONDUCTOR
DIAMETER: 0.7410 IN BARE WEIGHT: 0.5270 LB/FT
AREA: 0.3260 SQIN RATED STRENGTH: 17300 LB
LIMITING CONDITIONS
A) 4325 LB (2) FINAL AT 40 F 0.00 IN ICE. 0.00 PSF WIND. K=.OO
Bl 8650 LB (2) UNDER ANY LOADING
RUL I NG OR DEAD-END SPAN ::: ! 400. 00 FT t DIFF IN ELEV '" 0.0 FT
INITIAL FINAL
NO. TEMP ICE WIND K SAG TENSION(2) SAG TENSION(2)
OEG.F IN PSF FT LB FT LB
6941 0 0.50 4.00 0.30 4.70 7335 4.97
2 0 1.00 4.00 0.00 6.85 8318 6.85 8312
3 40 0.00 31.00 0.00 5.76 6905 6.25 6363
4 -25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 7044 1.62 6498
5 32 1.00 0.00 0.00 6.97 7741 7.22 7465
(;, 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 5547 2.44 4325*
7 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 5055 2.83 3722
8 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.94 3590 4.56 2314
(1) HORIZONTAL TENSION *CONDITION A) IS GOVERNING
(2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION EFFECT OF CREEP INCLUDED
(3 ) UPPER SUPPORT TENSION
(4) TANGENT SAG
MATERIAL STRESS (% RATED STRENGTH)
NO. INITL FINAL INITL FINAL INITIAL FINAL
TENSION(l) TENSION(3) OUTER CORE CABLE OUTER CORE CABLE
LB LB LB LB (2 ) (2) (3) (2 ) (2) (3 )
1 7332 6938 7340 6947 52.85 31.49 42.43 48.13 30.90 40.16
2 8312 8305 8331 8325 57.69 37.02 48.16 59.01 36.20 48.12
? 6901 6359 6913 6371 48.32 30.48 39.96 40.11 30.66 36.83
~,
4 7043 6498 7044 6498 52.72 29.10 40.72 46.74 27.94 37.56
5 7735 7459 7754 7478 53.24 34.72 44.82 49.55 34.52 43.23
6 5547 4324 5548 4326 40.34 23.60 32.07 23.93 22.79 25.00
7 5055 3721 5056 3723 35.89 22.02 29.22 17.43 21.46 21.52
8 3589 2313 3591 2315 21.69 17.85 20.76 1.12 19.00 1::-~. 38
RULING OR DEAD-END SPAN '" 1500.00 FTI DIFF IN ELEV '" 0.0 FT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(1)
(2)
(::~ )
(4)
NO.
1
2
3
4
C' • ..J
6
7
,:;. '.'
INITIAL FINAL
TEMP ICE WIND K SAG TENSION(2 ) SAG TENSION(2)
DEG.F IN PSF FT LB FT LB
0 0.50 4.00 0.30 7.32 7361 7.58 7109
0 1.00 4.00 0.00 10.29 8e,50* 10.29 8650
40 0.00 :31.00 0.00 8.75 7096 9.22 6735
-25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 6620 2.72 6051
32 1.00 (1.00 0.00 10.40 8103 to.51 8024
40 0.00 0.00 0.00
60 0.00 0.00 0.00
120 0.00 0.00 0.00
HORIZONTAL TENSION
EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION
UPPER SUPPORT TENSION
TANGENT SAG
INITL FINAL INITL FINAL
TENSION(1) TENSION(3 )
LB LB LB LB
7356 7105 7369 7118
8640 8640 867() 8670
7090 6729 7107 6748
6620 6050 /.:.621 6051
8094 8014 8122 8043
5138 4037 5140 4039
4668 3515 4670 3518
3351 2366 3353 2370
45
3.21 5139 4.08 4038
3.53 4669 4.69 3516
4.92 3352 6.96 2367
*CONDITION B) IS GOVERNING
EFFECT OF CREEP INCLUDED
MATERIAL STRESS ({. RATED STRENGTH)
INITIAL FINAL
OUTER CORE CABLE OUTER CORE CABLE
(2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3)
52.98 31.63 42.59 49.87 31.31 41.14
59.29 :38.91 50.11 5'?I.29 38.91 50.11
49.37 31.49 41.08 43.48 31.87 39.00
50.51 21.: .• 79 38.27 43.60 25.98 34.98
55.11 36.71 46.95 54.40 36.45 46.49
37.75 21.64 29.71 22.06 21.44 23.35
32:.33 20.23 26.9';1 16.20 20.42 20.33
19.98 16.82 19.38 1.95 18.97 13.70
115KV SAG & TENSION, 336 KCM ASCR CONDUCTOR (30/7)
VARIOUS SPANS & CONDITIONS
(400 Ft. & 500 Ft. Spans)
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE. 115 KV
CABLE: 336 ACSR NEW CONDUCTOR
DIAMETER: 0.7410 IN BARE WEIGHT: 0.5270 LB/FT
AREA: O. :3260 SQIN RATED STRENGTH: 17300 LB
LI M I TI NG COND IT IONS
Al 4325 LB (2) FINAL AT 40 F 0.00 IN ICE. 0.00 PSF WIND, K=.OO
B} 8650 LB (2) UNDER ANY LOADING
RUL I NG OR DEAD-END SF'AN = 1 200. 00 FT 1 DIFF IN ELEV :::: 0.0 FT
INITIAL FINAL
NO. TEMP ICE WIND K SAG TENSlON(2} SAG TENSION(2}
DEG.F IN PSF FT LB FT LB
0 0.50 4.00 0.30 1.26 6812 1.39 6176 .-, ... 0 1. 00 4.00 0.00 1.97 7208 2.10 6781
3 40 0.00 31.00 0.00 1.64 6047 1.93 5150
4 -25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 7120 0.40 6649
5 :"'1-, -"-1.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 6531 2.31 5838
6 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 5584 0.61 4325*
7 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 5066 0.73 3632
8 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 3450 1.34 1969
<I} HORIZONTAL TENSION *CONDITION A) Ie' .... GOVERNING
( 2) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION EFFECT OF CREEP INCLUDED
(3) UPPER SUPPORT TENSION
(4) TANGENT SAG
MATERIAL STRESS (X RATED STRENGTH)
NO. INITL FINAL INITL FINAL INITIAL FINAL
TENSION(1) TENSION(3) OUTER CORE CABLE OUTER CORE CABLE
LB LB LB LB (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3)
1 6:=:11 6175 6.813 6177 50.12 28.64 :39 .. 38 42.22 27.85 35.71
2 7206 6779 7211 6785 52.20 30.79 41.68 47.02 30.19 39.22
3 6046 5149 6050 5152 43.39 26.07 34.97 30.65 25.88 29.78
4 7120 6649 7120 6649 53.10 29.52 41.16 48.11 28.43 38.43
5 6529 5836 6534 5842 46.6·Y 28.25 :37.77 36.80 28.14 33.77
I;.. 5584 4 '":I'-Je' ._ ..... '-, 5584 4325 40.57 23.78 32.28 24.10 22.69 25.00
7 5066 36:32 5066 3632 35.96 22.07 29.29 16.89 21. 01 20.99
l:: :3450 1968 8450 1969 20.69 17.24 19.94 0.00 16 .• 73 11.38
RULING OR DEAD-END SPAN == [ 300.00 FT] DIFF IN ELEV :::: 0.0 FT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 ....
(1)
( 2)
(3)
(4 )
NO.
1
2
::~
4
5
(;.
7
8
INITIAL FINAL
TEMP ICE WIND K SAG TENSION(2) SAG TENSION(2)
DEG.F IN PSF
0 0.50 4.00 0.30
0 1.00 4.00 0.00
40 0.00 31. 00 0.00
-25 0.00 0.00 0.00
:"'I'" -"-1. 00 0.00 0.00
40 0.00 0.00 0.00
60 0.00 0.00 0.00
120 0.00 0.00 0.00
HORIZONTAL TENSION
EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION
UPPER SUPPORT TENSION
TANGENT SAG
FT
2.75
4.13
3.46
0.84
4.25
1.06
1. 17
1.69
LB FT LB
7055 2.96 6543
7758 4.24 7551
6464 3.88 5765
7090 0.90 6585
7136. 4.54 6673
5570 1. 37 4325*
5063 1.61 3673
3515 2.81 2113
*COND I TI ON A) I S GOVERN I NG
EFFECT OF CREEP INCLUDED
MATERIAL STRESS (X RATED STRENGTH)
INITL FINAL INITL FINAL INITIAL FINAL
TENSION ( 1) TENSION(3} OUTER CORE CABLE OUTER CORE CABLE
LB LB LB LB (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3)
7053 6542 7058 6547 51. 41 29.96 40.80 45.06 29.31 37.84
7754 7547 7765 7559 54.97 33.85 44.89 53.06 33.21 43.69
e.462 5763 6469 5770 45.83 28.19 37.39 35.46 28.30 33.35
70:=:9 6584 700;10 6585 52.95 29.35 40.98 47.52 28.23 38.06
7133 6669 7144 6681 50.05 31.44 41.29 43.35 31.41 38.62
5570 4,:··-,0:-,-... --1 5571 4325 40.48 23.71 32 .. 20 24.02 22.74 25.00
5063 3672: 5064 3674 35.94 22.06 29.27 17.14 21.21 21.24
3515 2113 :3516 2114 21.16 17.5:3 20.32 0.00 17.96 12.22
(200 Ft. & 300 Ft. Spans)
46
-
~,
-
-
-
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE. 11S KV
CABLE: 336 ACSR NEW CONDUCTOR
DIAMETER: 0.7410 IN BARE WEIGHT: 0.5270 LB/FT
AREA: 0.3260 SQIN RATED STRENGTH: 17300 LB
LIMITING CONDITIONS
A) 4325 LB (2) FINAL AT 40 F 0.00 IN ICE. 0.00 PSF WIND, K=.OO
EO 8650 LB (2) UNDER ANY LOADI NG
RUL I NG OR DEAD-END SPAN = I 600. 00 FT I DIFF IN ELEV = 0.0 FT
NO.
2
:3
4
C" ,J
6
7
8
(1)
( 2)
(3 )
(4 )
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
NO.
1
2
3
4
C" ,-'
I;..
7
8
INITIAL FINAL
TEMP ICE WIND K SAG TENSION (2) SAG TENSION(2)
DEG.F IN PSF FT LB FT LB
(I 0.50 4.00 0.30 11.13 6972 11.28 6882
0 1.00 4.00 0.00 14.83 8650* 14.83 8650
40 0.00 31.00 0.00 12.96 6905 13.26 6750
-25 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.32 5487 4.80 4943
32 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.97 8116 14.97 8116
40 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.79 4101 7.13 3328
60 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.40 3708 8.01 2962
120 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.65 2745 10.79 2200
HORIZONTAL TENSION
EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION
*CONDITION B) IS GOVERNING
EFFECT OF CREEP INCLUDED
UPPER SUPPORT TENSION
TANGENT SAG
MATERIAL STRESS ('l. RATED STRENGTH)
INITL FINAL INITL FINAL INITIAL FINAL
TENSION( 1)
LB LB
6965 6.875
TENSION(3)
LB LB
6985 6895
OUTER CORE CABLE OUTER CORE CABLE
(2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3)
50.97 29.50 40.37 49.64 29.52 39.85
8636 ~::636 8678 8678 5':7'.29 38.91 50.16 59.29
6897 6.741 6923 (;.767 48.32 30.49 40.01 45.17
5486 4943 5488 4945 44.06 20.91 31. 72 36.38
8103 810:3 8143 814:3 55.17 36.78 47.07 55.17
4099 3327 4103 3331 30.81 16.87 23.71 18.00
3707 2961 3710 2965 26.69 15.93 21.45 13.38
2743 2198 2748 2204 15.58 14.23 15.88 2.20
STRESS-STRAIN CHART: THE ALUMINUM ASSOC I A TI ON
TEST TEMP: 70 DEO F CREEP CHK AT: 60 DEG F
AO=
A1=
A2=
A:3=
A4=
OUTER STR
-216.7
42137.6
59722.1
-329629.0
333332.4
COEFFICIENTS
CORE STR COMP.CREEP
-166.7 -1800.0
57216.9 131999.8
-154444.6 -823330.6
814815.6 3999986.9
-1333334.4 -6666645.0
FINAL MODULUS(%LB/SQIN)
RATED STRENGTH(LB/SQIN) =
TEMP COEFF OF EXP ( IF) ::
OliTER eTR
61840
26000
0.0000128
CORE STR
51580
190000
0.0000064
UNIT CABLE LOADS LOCATIO,,! OF LOW POINT
38.91 50.16
31.00 39.12
20.78 28.58
36.78 47.07
17.78 19.25
17.36 17.14
17.41 12.74
HA=0.81000
CABLE
113420
53067
0.0000099
UNSTR.L
INITIAL FINAL INITIAL
WV WH WR HORIZ VERT HORIZ VERT
LB/FT LB/FT LB/FT FT FT FT FT FT
1.2989 0.5803 1.7227 300.00 11. 1:3 :300.00 11.28 599.07
2.6928 0.9137 2.8436 300.00 14.83 300.00 14.83 599.07
0.5270 1. 9143 1.9855 300.00 12.96 300.00 13.26 599.30
0.5270 0.0000 0.5270 300.00 4.32 300.00 4.80 598.92
2.6':'28 0.0000 2.6928 300.00 14. ~'7 300.00 14.97 59)".26
0.5270 0.0000 0.5270 300.00 5.79 300.00 7.13 599.30
0.5270 0.0000 0.5270 300.00 6.40 300.00 8.01 599.42
0.5270 0.0000 0.5270 300.00 8.65 300.00 10.79 599.78
#ET::l1.S PT=6.5 10=1.0
47 (600 Ft. Span)
EBASCO SERVICES INC SAG & TENSION W/FIXED MODULUS
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE, 115 KV 01/20/:3:3
CABLE: 4/0 ACSR EXISTING CON[~CTOR DIAMETER: 0.5630 IN
WEIC'HT: 0.2910 tB/FT, AREA: 0.19400 :::';(UN RTS: 8:;:50 LB
MOD.OF ELAST: 12700000 PSI. TEMP.COEFF: 0.0000107 /DEG.F
~PAN= 4~5.00 FT
(Average)
LIMITING CONDITIONIS):
A) 2100 LB (2) AT 40 DEG.F.
8) 4200 lB (2) AT 60 CEG.F.
1',10. TElvIP. ICE ~~ 1 NO V ".
F ] N P!::F
1 0 O. ~i(i 4. 00 , ::':0
,""1 0 1 00 4.no 00 ':., , · :3 40 0, 00 :31 . 00 · 00
-4 -':2~; O. 00 0. 00 .00
~~5 :3::;:~ 1 . (lj') CI • 00 · 00
t;· 40 O. 00 n.OO · 00
7 60 O. 00 i).OO · 00
:::! 120 O. 00 ti.OO · 00
( 1 ) HORI Z(JNTPIL TENSION
( 2) EFFECTIVE AVEHAGE TEN!::lON
( :3 ) UPPE:R ::;UPPC!RT TEN::: JON
(4 ) THNGENT ~:AG
NO. WV I.-JH WR
LBlFT LBlFT LB/FT
1 ()" 9!522 O. 5210 1 · :3854
--, .a::. 2. ~2::::54 O. :354:3 2" :::;1;/::: 1
:::: O. 2910 1 . 4544 1 · 4'~·-·"':1 ':,J·;tk
4 O. 2':;'10 O. 0000 O. 2910
c ~2" 2354 O. 0000 2.2:354 --'
6, O.2'~;10 O.OOO(l O.2~"}10
7 O. 2910 0.0000 0.2';:'10
1:;,) o. 2910 0.0000 O. 2910 .. ,.'
[tIFF. IN ELEV.:: 0.00 FT
O.no IN ICE, 0.00 PSF WIND, K=O.OO
0.00 IN ICE. 0.00 PSF WIND, K=O.OO
:3f~G TENS I 01'1:::; ( L B ) 'l. RT::=;
FT HORIZ AVe; UP. SUP ( :::: )
7. '''''-'::. I ' .. ,I 4 t::.4 0 4l::.44 4651 55. 70
10. ::?:::: (:'O!:;'? (:,067 !:.J()8:::: 72. :::6
9.01 4~!1:..:3 421.:·7 4276 51 . 21
.",,:,
,0:.. • 12 ::::541~' ::::55() :~:5~tC) 4::::~ u ~5:2
10.60 ~i4(:'O ei 4 1:..::: 5484 /.:.~i. /.:.8
:::: . 51::} 2100 2100* 2101 '-.e:' ..::. ••• .1 • 16
4. :30 1 7~.:i 1 17~H 1 -, r;:-j , ,_t.(,. :20.99
/::... 90 1\)':.'2 109~3 1094 1 ::.:::. 10
*LIMIT A) IS GOVERNING
L.O.W POINT<FT) ADD.L UN:3TR. L
HeiR I z. VERT. FT FT
;~-;'~7 " ~:.() 7. TO;" ._' O. 00 454. 49
2:2:7. 50 10. :;~:3 O. 00 454. 49
227. 50 9. 01 O. 00 454.69
2:;:::7.50 ~: " 1--' ,.;:, O. 00 454. :;:7
227. 50 10.60 0.00 -454.1::.5
~~*~~-, . 5() ,.:-
~, . 5'i 0.00 454.69
227.50 4. ::::0 0.00 454.79
227. 50 6.90 O. 00 45~i. ()::::
115KV SAG AND TENSION
-
-
-
""'.
-
...
"I'
-
-
••
EXISTING 4/0 AWG CONDUCTOR
VARIOUS SPANS AND CONDITIONS _
(455 Ft. Span)
48
EBAseo SERVICES INC SAG & TENSION W/FIXED MODULUS
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE, 115 KV 01/20/83
CABLE: 410 ACSR EXISTING CONDUCTOR DIAMETER: 0.5630 IN
WEIGHT: 0.2910 LB/FT, AREA: 0.19400 SQIN RTS: 8350 LB
MOD.OF ELAST: 12700000 PSI, TEMP.COEFF: 0.0000107 IDEG.F
SPAN= 650.00 FT DIFF. IN ELEV.= 0.00 FT
(Normal Longest)
LIMITING CONDITION(S):
A) 2100 LB (2) AT 40 DEG.F, 0.00 IN ICE, 0.00 PSF WIND, K=O.OO
B) 4200 LB (2) AT 60 CEG.F, 0.00 IN ICE, 0.00 PSF WIND, K=O.OO
NO. TEMP. ICE WIND ~", ",
F IN F'SF
1 0 0.50 4.00 • :3()
',":. 0 1.00 4.00 .00 .<..
''':J '._' 40 0.00 31.00 .00
4 -:2~; 0.00 0.00 .00
~i .... ,.-'
,,),'::' 1.00 0.00 .00
(~, 40 0.00 0.00 .00
7 60 0.00 0.00 .00
:::: 120 0.00 0.00 .00
( 1 ) HORIZONTAL TEN~::;ION
<:2 ) EFFECTIVE AVERAGE TENSION
(::.: ) UPPER !;:;UPPORT TEN~::;ION
( 4) TANGENT !;:;AG
NO. WV WH WR
LB/FT LB/FT LB/FT
1 0 .. ';/522 0.5210 1 .3854
,-, ..::. '-. ..::... 2~:54 O. 854:::: ,"':,
..:... :3'~/:31
'J '-' O. 2910 1 .4544 1 . 4:::32
4 O. 2910 0.0000 0.2910
"" '-' 2.2354 O. 0000 . -:. ..:... 2:3~i4
6 O. 2910 O. 0000 O. 2910
7 O. 2910 0.0000 O. 2910
:::: O. :2910 O. 0000 O. 2910
#ET=4. 4 F'T=l ,OR,! 10=0. C' . ..:.. '-'
!;:;AG
FT
1 :3. :34
17.67
15.5::::
4.64
18.07
7. :-:::2
:3. :31~1
11. 76
TENSIONS(LB) % RTS
HORIZ AVO UP. SUP (3)
7160
5031
:3:~:15
{'::'5:~::r~1
1:::::':2
1::::07
7174
(-:t~i52
2100*
1 ::::3::::
!'.:i:::: 11 6:,~:. 60
7202 :::6.25
5()5!:i IS(). 5:~:
:::101 2~i. 17
1 :;:::3~i 21 . '~'7
1::::11 15.1.:"'~1
*LIMIT A) I :::; GOVERN I NG
LOW POINT(FT) ADD. L UN:;:;TR. L
HORIZ. VERT. FT F'T
'-"-)C" .': • ..:..._1 " 00 1 ::::. :34 0.00 649. :3'~'
:3:25. 00 17. 67 0.00 649. ::::9
:325.00 15. c:.::-,_1._, 0.00 649. l;,7
''j.-)C'
'_'",,"0_1. 00 4.64 O. 00 649. 21
:325. 00 18. 07 o . 00 64'?' . 61
325.00 7. '-::1'-:' '-' .. :.-0.00 649. 67
::::2~,. 00 -=, ...' . ::::1;1 o. 00 649. ::::1
:325. 00 1 1 . 76 0.00 (:.5(). ::~~2
49
(650 Ft. Span)
EBASCO SERVICES INC SAG & TENSION W/FIXED MODULUS
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE, 115 KV o 1/20/E::=:
CABLE: 4/0 ACSR EXISTING CONDUCTOR DIAMETER: 0.5630 IN
WEIGHT: 0.2910 L8/FT, AREA: 0.19400 SQIN RTS: 8350 LB
MOD.OF ELAST: 12700000 PSI, TEMP.COEFF: 0.0000107 IDEG.F
'-;,()(') ()() FT
fSh·o·rtest)
LIMITING CONDITION(S):
·OIFF. IN EL.EV.= 0.00 FT
A) 2100 LB (2) AT 40 CEG.F. 0.00 IN ICE, 0.00 PSF WIND, K=O.OO
B) 4200 L8 (2) AT 60 DEG.F. 0.00 IN ICE, 0.00 PSF WIND, K=O.OO
Net, TEMP. ICE WIND V '"
F IN P::;F
1 (I o. 50 4. (1) · 30
." , 0 1 00 4.00 00 .::. . · • .. .:t
'-' 40 0.00 :31 .00 · 00
4 ·· .. 'L:~~ 0.00 O. 00 · 00
!:s ,.'\.",
,:') ,I::' 1 . 00 0.00 · (10
I.:', 4·(1 O. 00 o. 00 · 00
7 (:,0 O. 00 o. 00 .00
.::. '_.-120 O. 00 O. 00 · 00
( 1 ) HORIZONTAL TEN::: I CIN
(2 ) EFFECTIVE AVER?)GE TEN:::; ION
( :3 ) UPPER ::aJPPORT TEN:::; I ON
( 4) TANGENl ::::;.)0
NU. WV l· .. II·'1
LB/FT
0.5210
WR
LB/FT
1
4
<= -'
I., '-'
."'{
I
LBlFT
0.2910
0.2910
2.2354
o. '2'::'10
0.29tO
0.2910
() " :=:54:~:
1.4:::;44
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
!).oooo
0.0000
1 " 4::::3;~
0,2'';) 1 0
0.2910
0.2';'10
:3ACi TENSIONS(lB) % RTS
FT HORIZ AVG UP. SUP (3)
1 . :::''.:;, ::664
~:: .. "/6 4:::::::0
2.41::.-3015
O. :::;';' :3761
:3. 01 37 17
0.69 2100
o. '::'0 1625 .-, ...:., . 1 <:;' '-' I. "7<= I,,,' I .~,t
3664
4::3:~:2
301 6
:~:761
~37 19
2100*
11.-:1:;::5
676
36(:-6
4:3:37
::::() 1 :=:
:-:':7 t:,1
3724
2100
1626
676
4:3.91
51. '::"4
::::t: .• 15
45.04
44.59
25.15
19.47
:;::. 1 (I
*LIMIT A) IS GOVERNING
LOW POINT(FT)
HORIZ. VERT.
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
50
2.76
2.46
O. ::;::9
:3.01
O. I."/~,
O. ge.
:2. 15
ADD.L
FT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
UN::nR. L
FT
19':;'.75
19'). 7~:;
199.70
200.01
(200 Ft. Span)
-
..."
.. -
-
-
,.,.
"",
-
,1ft
-
ITEM #43
l15KV TRANSMISSION LINE
VERTICAL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS
(APPROXIMATE)
l15kV To Railroad
l15kV To Roadway
l15kV to Driveway
115kV To Pedestrian Ways
l15kV to Water areas not suitable
for sailboats
115kV to 24.9kV
1l5kV to 12.5kV
115kV to Communication Wires
24.9kV To Communication Wires
l2.5kV to Communication Wires
51
31 1
23 1
23 I
18 1
18 1
7 1
7 1
7 1
51
51
TRANSMISSION LINE RHERI;;-;n BOOK 115-138 KV COMPACT LINE DE~IGN
Table 8.9
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR UNSHIELDED CONFIGURATIONS
Minimum Cost Alternative per Configuration
(tIm!)
Pole-Top
Configuration Description Table Total" Assembly Pole Cond,
Simple H-frame 8,12 45.475 11,262 13.612 20,601
Cross-braced H-frame 8,14 45,773 13,932 11,240 20,601
HOrizontal compact single crossarm, Lapp 55953 8,16 47,647 18,065 9,221 20,360
porcelam vertical post insulator (1800 Ib working
cantilever strength)
Horizontal compact single crossarm, Lapp 54794 8,18 41,894 12,312 9,221 20,360
porcelain vertical post insulator (1160 Ib working
cantilever strength)
Horizontal compact double crossarm, Lapp 55953 8,20 48,895 19,314 9,221 20,360
porcelain vertical post insulator
Horizontal compact double crossarm, Lapp 54794 8,22 43,142 13,561 9,221 20,360
porcelain vertical post insulator
Vertical delta compact, Lapp 70147 porcelain horizontal 8,24 52,676 20,050 10,686 21,940
post insulator (1120 Ib working cantilever strength)
Vertical delta compact. Lapp 70149 porcelain horizontal 8.27 56,310 23,683 10,686 21,940
post insulator (1120 Ib worKing cantilever strength)
1-Vertical delta compact, 08232106 Hi"Lite horizontal 8.29 40,095 8.473 10,714 20,908
I post insulator (16501b worKing cantilever strength)
Vertical delta compact, 08232107 Hi" Lite horizontal 8,31 42.878 10,613 10,967 21,298
post insulator (1400 Ib worKing cantilever strength)
Vertical delta compact, 08 232108 HI'Lite horizontal 8,33 48,065 15,186 10,881 21,999
post insulator (1100 Ib worKing cantilever strength)
Vertical delta compact, OB 232111 Hi·Lite horizontal 8,35 42,361 11,232 10,840 20,289
post insulator (3800 Ib wor1<:ing cantilever strength)
Vertical delta compact, OB 232112 Hi"Lite horizontal 8,37 43,143 12,014 10,840 20.289
post insulator (3000 Ib working cantilever strength)
·Prices do not Include right"f-way costs; their inclusion would show increased cost """allIeS tor Ine H-lrame in comparlSQtl With single-pole structures,
bSpan limning tadOrs:
I = InsulatQ( strength
A = crossarm strength
P pole strength
S :: sag/clearance limit
Transmission Line
Reference Book
115-138 kV Compact Line Design
Based on
EPRI Research Project 260
Span
Limiled
Pole Avg BY"
50-2 550 A
50-3 550 A
45-H3 631 P
45-H3 631 P
45-H3 631 P
45-H3 631 P
45-2 321
45-2 321
50-HI 473
50-1 401
45-2 315
55-H3 660 S
55-H3 660 S
EPRI COMPACT LINE
DESIGN COSTS
"",'
-~
-
.'
,""
.... '
.... A
"".
....
-
-
Preface
Efficient use of transmiSSIOn rights-of-way with minimal
environmental impact has become one of the primary objec-
tives of transmission system planners in virtually all in-
dustrialized countries. The EPRI project on compaction of
high-voltage transmission lines, including an experimental
line at Saratoga. New York, directly addressed this objective.
The Saratoga compact line project emphasized 115-and
138-k V -class lines. The compaction techniques developed and
documented in the project illustrate the viability of reducing
phase-to-phase spacings in this voltage range from the con-
ventional 10-to 14-foot range to as little as 3 feet. However,
most of the concepts and procedures developed are applicable
at lower system voltages, and many are applicable at least
through 230 kV.
Transmission Line
Reference Book
The compaction project is reported in this design manual for
115-to 138-kV compact lines, drawing on experimental results
from the Saratoga compact line project, on supplementary
calculations made as a part of this project, and on a summary of
previously published information germane to compact line
design. It is directed to line design engineers who have a
general understanding of line design methods.
The Appendix gives the detailed results of the experimental
work undertaken at Saratoga and is intended to serve as a
further technical reference to users of the manual. The
Appendix provides permanent documentation of the experi-
mental work on the Saratoga compact line project to aid
researchers who may wish, to expand on this effort.
115-138 kV Compact Line Design
Based on
EPRI Research Project 260
xi
Introduction
Approximately 85 percent (208.000 miles) of transmission lines
in service in the United States at the end of 1974 were in the
range of 115 to 230 kV.* Although new construction in that
range is forecast to be only 55 percent of the total construction
during the next decade. that is still more than 50.000 circuit
miles. a large portion of which will be installed in or near
residential areas and urban centers that are increasingly sensi-
tive to environmental impact. Yet. in 1973, very little of the
world's research attention was directed to this voltage class.
The content and purpose of the Saratoga compact line project
can be understood more clearly by first reviewing briefly the
history of transmission research.
Since the beginning of the electric power industry, transmis-
sion research has been predominantly directed to the develop-
ment of increasingly higher transmission voltages. Today's
approaches to transmission research were first established in
1950 with the initiation of the TlDD project, cooperatively
undertaken by the American Electric Power Company and
Westinghouse Electric Company. Using a highly instrumented
prototype line section. the TIDD project developed design
parameters for the first 345-kV lines. Since then, a number of
concentrated test projects have been built in anticipation of
new system voltage requirements. Project EHV, originated
by General Electric Company, was the industry's major
development tool for 500-and 765-kV systems. Restructured
as Project UHV and now sponsored by EPRI, it is the primary
resource for design information on still higher voltages.
Concentration of research on higher voltages can certainly
be justified in retrospect. Each major program began with
recognition of the need for a new and higher voltage level.
Application of that voltage has immediately followed (and
often overlapped), with the project serving as an informa-
tion source. Whether this pattern will continue at UHV re-
mains to be seen.
The industry's focus on new voltage frontiers has had one
very predictable result: technology developed for new voltage
levels has not been very much applied to those voltages for
which precedents and standards were already well established.
In an effort to bring each new EHV voltage level to economic
viability, for example, increasingly sophisticated analyses of
insulator and clearance requirements were made. There was
success in reducing clearances closer and closer to their limiting
'Fifth Biennial Survey of Power EqUipment ReqUirements of the U.S,
Electric Utility Industry, 1975-84. Power Equipment Division, NEMA.
155 East 44th Street, New York, NY 10017.
" II
<.!)
~<.!) 10
Uz <t-Q,u
1Il~ 9
Will
III 0::
<tw 8 :z:> Q,o :z: 7 u..1Il
o<t
0...J a _u.. 6 I-
<I;
0:: 5
138 230 345 500 765
LINE VOLTAGE -k V
Figure 1, Phase spacing ratio VS, line voltage.
(flashover) values. This is illustrated in Figure I. But reducing
clearances added to the electrical gradient problem on con-
ductors (the laws of conductor economics had themselves
made gradients much higher for EHV). This, in turn, in-
tensified research into the understanding and prediction of
corona phenomena. It also led to new preventive measures,
such as conductor bundling, in an attempt to limit corona
while still enjoying the economic benefits of reduced spacing
and clearances. While attention was directed to development
of EHV, voltages in the 115-to 230-kV class saw very little
change in design practice from the precedents set more than
26 years before. In the I 960s, however, this voltage class was
the source of two important developments.
First, it was natural that increased attention to the appear-
ance of overhead lines should initially produce results at
voltage levels where new structure concepts were most readily
implemented. Prefabricated steel poles, laminated structures,
and armless structures are a few of the innovations first intro-
duced at 115 and 138 kV. These ideas were then extended
upward in voltage to dimensions at which applications were
increasingly difficult.· While these structural innovations were
extremely significant, they were made without much modifica-
54
'This pattern of innovation may be an important precedent for future
transmission developments.
xiii
-
-
-
-
...
-
I
i ...
...
INTRODUCTION
Figure 2. Compact 138-kV line at Saratoga.
tion of the basic clearance precedents inherent in 115-to
138-kV wood pole H-frame construction.
Second·, the same environmental pressures that prompted
innovation in appearance also made new rights-of-way in-
creasingly difficult to acquire and led a number of utilities to
uprate circuits from 69 to 138 kV, 138 to 230 kV, etc. This con·
version, in most cases, imposed dimensional constraints which,
while quite reasonable by EHV standards, were unprecedented
in the 115~ to 230·kV range. Thus, uprating studies gave the
fusr concrete evidence of direct applicability of EHV
technology to lower-voltage circuits.
In the 19705 it became apparent that a more concerted
effort was warranted to bring EHV design technology to bear
on intermediate-voltage circuits. In 1973, Power Technologies,
Inc., proposed to an agency of the State of New York the con-
struction of a one-half-mile compact 138-kV transmission
line at Saratoga, New York. The wood pole line used vertical
post insulators and 3-foot phase-to-phase spacing. The line,
illustrated in Figure 2, traversed both wooded and open areas
and is perhaps as similar in appearance to a distribution line
as to a transmission line.
The initial program concentrated mainly on mechanical
motion of conductors, acknowledging this to be the primary
test of feasibility. Early measurements were encouraging and
led to construction of a small substation to allow continuous
energization of a line. In 1974, it was apparent that compact
l38-kV construction was practical and that a more extensive
program was warranted to expand on measurements already
made and to interpret test results in a form useful for utility
design engineers.
55
xiv
For insulation and clearance requirements the new program
continued to place primary experimental emphasis on
mechanical motiop, in th~ belief that existing technology
regarding electrictU strength of air gaps and insulators was,
for the most part, quite adequil-te for performance prediction
once the conductor position w~ determined. Motions caused
by wind, ice shedding from conductors, and fault currents were
the subject of specific experiments. However, it was also neces·
sary to develop a detailed simulation of the mechanical
system. comprising conductors, insulators, crossarms, poles,
and footings, to ensure the correctness of measured results
and to allow their extension to span lengths. conductors, and
pole configurations besides those that were the subject of
specific tests.
The results of mechanical portions of the Saratoga compact
line project agreed with previous experimental results where
there was overlap and extended previous work into new areas
of particular concern for compact line designs. While there is
still much to be learned about wind-induced motion of con-
ductors, it appears that a high degree of compaction can be
achieved without sacrificing performance due to conductor
motion.
Switching surge and lightning responses were not the subject
of specific experimentation in the project. Both of these design
criteria were examined analytically. It is apparent that neither
criterion poses a serious problem to compaction, but both
require greater engineering attention than would normally be
required for a 138-kV line. On very compact lines some ap-
plications may require a measure of switching surge control on
the system. Most will not. Lightning performance will not
differ grt:atly from normal l38-kV construction .
. Radio noise, audible noise, and other manifestations of
corona are, for most compact line and conductor dimensions
of practical interest, well below levels normally deemed
acceptable at EHV. Special attention must be given to line
hardware, since most 138-kV hardware is not designed to
operate at electric field gradients comparable to those of EHV
lines. >;
Construction costs, line constants, methods for maintenance,
and many other special aspects of compaction were explored
during the Saratoga compact line project and are discussed in
this volume.
Several provisions ofthe National Electrical Safety Code are
directly applicable to 138-kV compact lines, particularly in the
areas of phase-to-phase spacing and maintenance clearances.
The effect of the Code and changes in it as a result of recent
revision activity are discussed.
Compact lines, because of reduced design margins, require
more rigorous analysis of insulation and mechanical param-
eters to ensure adequate reliability than is required for con-
ventional lines. While there is no single best procedure for the
design of a compact line, Figure 3 suggests at least one
sequence found useful by the authors.
GRANT LAKE OFS 6476.021 DATE: 11/18/82
PREPARED BY: T.M. Jones & P.R. Cole
CORRIDOR CONDITION SUMMARY
~\!~!:C!:.~~~!_~!:~~~""r~~F1.¥llt~!~~F1._~~F1.~ Section M.P. 27 to P.H.
From: Grant Lake Powerhouse To: Seward-Anchorage Highway
(1) length: --=...1.::.,:;.2=---_____ mil es (2) El evati on: 500 feet
(3) Terrai n: Forrest -Relatively level
Grades: to 5% X 5-3ox, 30-55% 55% up
-
-
Deep water sedimentary sequence of gray wacke, silt stone, slate-,---sa-n-d-st-o-ne, and
(4) Geo10gy:conglomerate interbedded with volcanic basalts and detritus, mildy ~.
Glacial till over Bedrock and metamorphosec
Soil: Bedrock Exposures Resistivity: ______ __
~getation: Coastal western Hemlock-Sitka spruce forest.
Fa una: Dall sheep, moose, mountain goat
(5) Ter.lperature range: -20°F to 95 of Huoidity: 50 to 80
Max. snow on ground-75" (changing rapidly w/eoi""le-v"".)~------
Snow: Max. snow fa 11 -100 II (chang; ng :.-ra::Jpc:..:d:...:i~l:!-y_w:.:.!/:....::e:..:l..:;:.e..:..v~.)~ ______ _
Icing: (3' on Grant Lake, 2' of upper Trail Lake)
2000 freezing degree days/year
Wind: To 110 mph (9-12-82)
Dust/contamination:
Isokeraunic level: _________ TD/yr
Sei smi c cand; ti ons : Approx. 0.49 -very severe
(6) Crossings: Bridge on channel between upper and lower Trail Lake
Jaggings:
Transpositions:
I rregul a ri ti es/l ir.litati ans:
(7) Interference/coupling:
Carras; on: Should be low (some salt air?)
(8) Nates:
...
...
...
-
-------------------------------------~================---------
GRANT LAKE OFS 6476.021 DATE: December 21 t 1982
CORRIDOR CONDITION SUMMARY PREPARED BY: P.R. Cole
Se~'1a t:i:.Q.tve ~ Ctt«t~ .• :!.~~ ns.ll!"Llii 2,." ..hi.'l~ Section M. P. 1 to 25
From: Seward To: Lawing
(1) Length: 24 miles (2) El evati Qn: a -500 feet
(3) Terrai n: Gent]~ sloeing gla~ja] ~9]1~~
Grades: to 5t X 5-3(& 30-~5'.t· 5St up Deepwater sedimentary sequence of gray waclte, sll tstone, slate, s(1""i1dr+.s~t~o'"i1""e-, ...."a ....... ild
(4) Geology: conglomerates, interbedded with volcanic basalts and detritus, mildly·
Well drained strongly acid soils w1th very dark SUbS01Is, metamorpMosed.
5011: very gravelly, medium erosion potential. Resistivity: ----
~getation: Coastal western Hemlock-Sitka spruce forest.
Fauna: Dall sheep, moose, mountain goat
(5) Tel':1perature range: -20 to ~ of HUl':1idity: 50 to 85 %
Max. snow on ground-7~ i (changing rapidly w/""e~,':;e~v:..c.)~.;;;.-.----·
Snow: Max. snow fall-lOa" (changing rapidly w/e1ev.)
.. Icing: 2000 freezing degree days Iyear
Wind: __ 110 mph (9-12-82); 200 mph preceding avalanche.
Du st/c ontami na t ion:
Isokeraunic level: ____ 1 _____ TD/yr
Seismic conditions: very severe
(6) Crossings: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4
Joggings: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4
Transpositions: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4
I rregul a ri ti es/1 i r.litati ons:
(7) Interference/coupl i n9:
Corrosi on: Should be low (some salt air?)
(8) Notes:
57
GRANT LAKE OFS 6476.021 DATE: December 21, 1982
CORRIDOR CONDITION SlIMfv1ARY PREPARED BY: P.R. Cole
~~!.i!..~~:.~~~!_~~~~-=-r~~f!~~tt!~~f!_'=-iJ!~ Section M.P. 25 to 40
Froril: Lawing To: Daves Creek Crossing
(1) Length: 16 miles (2) Elevation: 400 -800 feet
(3) Terrain: Gentll;: sloging glacial vallet
Grades: to 5% X 5-3Ot 30-55% 55% up
(4) Geology: Well sorted flood plain and terrace deposits.
Well drained strongly aCld soils w1th very dark sUoso"s,
Soil: very gravelly, medium erosion potential Resistivity:
\egetation: Coastal western Hemlock-Sitka spruce forest.
Fauna: Da1l sheep, moose, mountain goat
(5) Ter.lperature range: -20 to 95 of HUr:1idity: 50 to 85
Max. snow on ground-75" (changing rapidly wjelev.)
Snow: Max. snQW fall-lOO" (changing rapidly wjelev:)
Icing: 2000 freezing degree daysj year
Wi nd: 110 mgh (9-12-82); 200 mph accompanying avalanche.
Dust/conta~ination:
Isokeraunic level: ___ 1 ______ TD/yr
Seismic conditions: Very severe
(6) Crossings: See Fjgure lII-2, Sheet 1 to 4
Joggi ngs: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4
Transpositions: See Figure 111-2, Sheet 1 to 4
I rregul a ri ti es/l ir.li tati ons:
(7) Interf ere nc e/c oup 1i ng:
Corrosion:
(8) Notes:
58
----
...
... -
-
..
-
...
....
-
-
....
...
EXHIBIT B13
25 KV BUS VOLTAGE AT CITY OF SEWARD 24.9/12.5 KV SUBSTATION
AS FUNCTION OF MW DEMAND AS MEASURED AT LAWING
ASSUMING UNITY POWER FACTOR LOAD AT SEWARD
1.1
1.0
/AVES CREEK ASSUMED CONSTAIIT 1.05 PU
~::==::::::::-~""----
CIiI::::I
. ,
::::III.
CDW
>0 ac~ .8
." ... IN~
.7
.6
r
I I I I 'i
1 Z , • 5 6 7
MW DEMAIO AT
LlWING METERING POINT
MW RECEIVED AT. SEWARD AND LOSSES AS A FUNCTION
OF MW DEMAND AS MEASURED AT LAWING
ASSUMING UNITY POWER FACTOR LOAD AT SEWARD
7
6
• ... 0 c;::: 5
e C w'" >:: w::::l • UClil
we •• C ~ ~ ,
CIiI
z
1
1
MW LOSSES ON 25 KV CIRCUIT
FROM LlWING METERING POINT
TO SEWARD SUBSTATION
"":'--MW RE C EI YED AT
SEWARD SUBSTATION
2 , • 5 6 7
MW DEMAN D AT
LAWING METERING POINT
59
SUMt'1ARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS
1. R. W. Beck, June 1982. Kenai Peninsula Power Supply and
Transmission Study. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
2. Dwane Legg Associates. October 1982. Analysis of Voltage
Drop and Energy Loses. Prepared for the City of Seward.
3. CH 2M/Hill. August 1979. City of Seward Electrical System
Planning Study. Prepared for the City of Seward.
4. CH 2M/Hill. March 1979. City of Seward Light and Power
Division Plant Inventory. Prepared for the City of Seward.
5. CH 2M/Hill. February 1979. City of Seward Electric System (Plan
Drawings). Prepared for the City of Seward.
6. Commonwealth Associates, Inc. October 1982. Anchorage Area
Re 1 i abi 1 i ty Study (Draft Report). Prepared for Al aska Power
Authority.
7. R.W. Beck and Associates. May 1976. Electric System Study.
Prepared for the City of Seward.
8. R.W. Beck and Associates. January 1975. Report on Feasibility
of Operation of the Electric Utiity System of the City of
Seward by Homer Electric. Prepared for City of Seard and
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
9. City of Seward. 1982. Forecast Electric Demand to 1984. Prepared
by Ci ty of Seward.
10. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Trans. Line drawings for Daves
Creek to Lawing, #61-M-838 to 846.
11. Alaska Department of Transportation, Seward and Sterling Highway
Drawi ngs.
60
-
.."
....'
12.0 CH2~H;11, March 1982, Drawings for 69kV transmission line -4th of
July Creek, Drawing NO.I~ K15775.Al sheets 2 to 9. Prepared for the
City of Seward.
61
'1'''''1 ii/hililul"i f4i4MI'1'II,;;Y¥'i4t«Pi" qql ti2$\ USi4 liP I HI I ill I. 111:1,4144 i$4:Wii lll:lmii l UN I Ii iii!";::; ,;;1: 1;:;;4: 11\ 'HHWI'JI I: ILF\M'I'$MF'Hi" iHMj¥i%ii l i ;::,H
PART VI
FIELD STUDY
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
r1/y1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FIELD DATA COLLECTION
DECEMBER 1982
Prepared for:
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
400 112th Avenue, N. E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Prepared by:
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
5024 Cordova
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 561-1733
••
r1/y2
''II
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
II!\I
FIELD DATA COLLECTION -
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
LIST OF TABLES Ii
LIST OF FIGURES iii ",.
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 ...
2. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED 2-1
3. 1982 FIELD DATA 3-1 ....'
3.1 G rant Creek Streamflow Data 3-1
3.2 Falls Creek Streamflow Data 3-16 ..",
3.3 G rant Lake Climatic Data 3-26
3.4 Ice Thickness Measurements at Grant Lake 3-41
3.5 Snow Survey Data 3-41 ... '
-
-
-
r1/y3
No.
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.3.1
3.3.2
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Grant Creek near Moose Pass, Mean Daily Discharge,
Water Year October 1982 to September 1982
Daily Gage Height and Discharge of Grant Creek near
Moose Pass for the period ending November 30, 1982.
Rating Table for Grant Creek
Water Temperature Grant Creek near Gaging Stations
Falls Creek near Crown Point, Mean Daily Discharge,
May 1982 to October 1982
Rating Table for Falls Creek near Crown Point
Grant Lake Climatological Data: Monthly Summaries
December 1981 th rough November 1982.
Rainfall Data Lawing nea r Crown Point
ii
Page
3-3
3-5
3-6
3 7
3-17
3-18
3-28
3-40
r1ly4
No.
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
LIST OF FIGURES
Title Page
Stage Recorder Charts, Grant Creek near Moose Pass 3-8
Stage-Discharge Rating Curve Grant Creek near Moose 3-15
Pass
Stage Recorder Charts, Falls Creek near Crown Point
Stage-Discharge Rating Curve Falls Creek near Crown
Point
iii
3-19
3-25
-
-
-
-
-
...,
-
-
-
..
r1/y5
1 -INTRODUCTION
The objective of Hydrologic Field Data Collection was to supplement
existi ng streamflow and climate data in the area of the proposed
hydroelectric project. Collection and reduction of the field data was
performed by R&M Consultants.
This report presents the data collected during 1981-1982 and a description
of the field work undertaken relative to each of the hydrologic parameters.
1-1
r1/y6
2 -SUMMARY
Grant Creek Streamflow. Grant Creek was gaged by the U. S. Geological
Survey (U.S.G.S.) between September 1947 and September 1958. In
April 1982 this gage was reestablished and became operational after
breakup in late May. In August 1982, a continuous recording temperature
probe was installed at the gaging site.
Fall Creek Streamflow. Falls Creek is under consideration for providing
additional streamflow to the project through a diversion to Grant Lake.
There are no historical streamflow records for Falls Creek, although a
crest stage recorder existed to measure peak flows. The Falls Creek basin
is very steep. At the location of the proposed diversion dam, there is no
site t~at is suitable for streamflow gaging. Below the steep area, there is
an active placer mining operation; the gaging site was established below
this mining claim. An undetermined effect on streamflow at the gage was
caused by the miner's use of water for sluicing operations.
Grant Lake Climatic Data. In the original plan of study, a dam at the
outlet of Grant Lake and a saddle dam in the vicinity of the portage trail
were proposed. Wind data for design of these dams was needed; th us, a
mechanical recording weather station was established near the site of the
larger dam. Besides windspeed and direction, the station also records
temperatu re and rainfall.
Grant Lake Ice Thickness Measurements. These measurements were made
monthly through the winter of 1981 and 1982. They are supplemented by
additional measurements made by personnel from the Arctic Environmental
I nformation and Data Center (AEIDC).
Snow Surveys. Determination of monthly snow depth and density were
made at a site near the outlet of G rant Lake. A single end-of-season
measurement was also made in the upper Grant Lake basin at 1550 feet.
2-1
-
....
..
...
....
-
-
-
rl/y7
3 -1982 FIELD DATA
3.1 GRANT CREEK STREAMFLOW DATA
Location -Lat. 60°27'25", long. 149°21'15", on left bank 0.3 mile upstream
from mouth, 0.8 mile downstream from Grant Lake, and 2.3 miles south of
Moose Pass.
Establishment -August 26, 1947 by U.S.G.S. Reestablished April 1, 1982
by R&M Consultants.
Drainage Area -44.2 square miles.
Gage Stevens F-1 recorder, ratio 1 :5, in timber house and well,
Recorder is referenced to inside staff gage. Well is connected to stream
by two 2" galvanized intake pipes.
Bottom of well
Lower intake
Upper intake
Floor of House
G.H. 0.1 ft
0.3
1.8
7.0 ft G.H.
I nstrument shelf
History Prior to July 1, 1952
downstream at datum 7.23 ft lower.
to September 1958.
10.1
vertical staff gage at site 500 ft
Continuous recorder September 1947
Channel and Control -The channel is composed of sand, gravel and rock,
and will shift at high stages. Banks are relatively high, covered with
vegetation, and will not overflow except at extreme high stages. Channel
is straight for several hundred feet above and below the gage. Flow is
turbulent and fast.
3-1
rl/y8
The extreme low water control is a riffle just below the gage. The control
for higher flows is a series of riffles. During most winters the control
will remain open except for shore ice.
Discharge Measurements -Wading and ice measurements are made in the
vicinify of the gage, with medium and high stage measurements made from
the cableway located just below the gage. Weights and reel mount are left
at the gage. The cable is a 3/4" 6 x 7 wire rope, supported by timber
A-frames. Anchorage a re timber deadmen. The cable is equipped with sit
down cable car. Length of span, 65 ft. Fair measurements can be made.
Point of Zero Flow --0.5 ft to 0.1 ft, shifting.
Winter Flow -There will be some ice effect during the winter period and
the winter flow will be low.
Regulation and Diversion No artificial regulation or diversion but
discharge will be affected by natural storage In Grant Lake 0.7 mile
upstream and by a few glaciers and snow field at head of G rant Creek
Basin.
Accuracy -Fai r records can be obtained.
Reference and Bench Marks RM-1 is top of head of spi ke driven
horizontally in 12" cottonwood tree. Tree is on left bank 20 ft upstream
from gage well. Spike is 2 ft above ground line and on downstream face
of tree. G . H. 6 . 81 ft .
RP 1 is point on instrument shelf at float tape gage. G.H. 10.11 ft.
3-2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r1/ya1
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Tot
Avg
Max
Min
Oct. 1981
GH Q
ft cfs
121
TABLE 3.1.1
GRANT CREEK NEAR HOOSE PASS
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.)
Water Year October 1981 to September 1982
Nov. 1981 Dec. 1981 Jan. 1982
GH Q GH Q GH Q
ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs
43
22
3-3
Feb. 82 Mar. 1982
GH Q GH Q
ft cfs ft cfs
30
-rl/ya2 .... -
~t!'"
-
TABLE 3.1.1 (cant.)
GRANT CREEK NEAR NOOSE PASS
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.)
Water Year October 1981 to September 1982
AEr. 1982 May 1982 June 1982 July 1982 ~. 1982 SeE· 1982
GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q
Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs
1 26 1. 59 196 2.84 468 2.92 490 2.03 284
2 1.66 210 2.75 446 2.86 472 1. 92 262
3 1. 74 223 2.56 400 2.79 460 1. 78 232 -4 1. 79 234 2.40 365 2.80 449 1. 97 261
5 1. 81 238 2.40 365 2.69 434 1.72 219
6 1. 84 244 2.36 354 2.67 427 2.60 412 "", 7 1. 92 262 2.38 361 2.67 427 2.78 454
8 1. 98 274 2.58 408 2.71 438 2.77 451
9 2.09 298 2.73 442 2.73 442 2.74 446
10 2.30 342 2.90 488 2.69 434 2.65 424 -11 2.53 394 2.89 486 2.63 419 2.58 407
12 2.45 375 2.86 472 2.57 405 2.48 385
13 2.33 348 2.83 466 2.52 393 2.53 394 -14 2.17 314 2.86 472 2.50 400 2.68 433
15 2.05 290 2.87 474 2.50 400 2.79 457
16 1. 98 274 2.87 474 2.49 398 3.34 602
17 1. 93 304 2.86 472 2.44 374 3.30 590 ...
18 1. 93 304 2.83 466 2.37 358 3.15 552
19 1. 98 274 2.80 460 2.28 338 3.12 545
20 2.02 282 2.82 464 2.18 316 3.06 532 -21 97 2.02 282 2.86 472 2.14 305 2.98 514
22 2.00 278 2.88 476 2.05 289 2.95 504
,"",
23 1. 99 276 2.87 474 2.08 296 2.88 482 !IF
24 1. 33 150 2.05 288 2.89 486 2 .15 307 2.78 454
25 1.38 155 2.13 306 2.89 486 2.18 316 2.68 433
26 1.42 166 2.28 338 2.87 474 2 .13 303 2.58 407
27 1.44 170 2.50 388 2.86 472 2.07 294 2.48 383 -
28 1.42 166 2.80 460 2.87 474 1. 98 274 2.32 347
29 1.42 166 2.87 482 2.92 490 2.01 280 2.06 290
30 ' 1.44 170 2.84 468 2.98 514 2.09 298 . (e) 260 ... '
31 1.50 180 2.95 505 .(e) 292
Tot 9246 14075 11211 12372
Nean 308 454 371 412
Max 180 482 514 490 602
Min 196 354 274 212
CFsm 6.97 10.27 8.41 9.33 ...
Runoff in inches 7.78 11.85 9.70 10.41
....
3-4
r1jya3
TABLE 3.1. 2
GRANT CREEK NEAR ~!OOSE PASS
~!EAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C. F. S. )
Water Year October 1982 to January 1983
Oct. 1982 1982 Dec. 1982 Jan. 1983
GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q
Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs
1 1. 03 103 0.98 94
2 1.04 104 0.97 92
3 1. 02 101 0.98 94
4 1. 05 105 1. 00 97
5 1. 05 105 1. 07 108
6 1. 03 103 1.13 120
7 1. 02 101 1.12 118
8 1. 02 101 1.09 111
9 1. 01 99 1. 07 108
10 1.00 97 1. 07 108
11 0.98 94 1.04 104
12 0.97 92 1. 02 101
13 0.97 92 0.99 96
14 0.96 91 0.97 92
15 0.95 90 0.95 90
16 0.94 89 0.94 89
17 0.93 87 0.99 96
18 0.92 86 1.04 104
19 0.91 84 1. 08 110
20 0.91 84 1. 07 108
21 0.87 77 1. 06 106 46
22 0.87 77 1.04 104
23 0.86 76 1. 03 103
24 0.86 76 1. 02 101
25 0.88 80 1.00 97
26 0.94 89 (e)96
27 1. 02 101 2.50 (e)95
28 1. 05 lOS 1. 02 101 2.80 (e)94
29 1.04 104 1. 01 99 2.87 (e)93
30 1. 03 103 0.99 96 2.84 (e)92
31 1. 02 101 (e)91
Tot 2780 (e)3112
Mean 93 (e) 100
Max 105 120
Min 77 90
CFsm 2.09 2.27
Runoff in inches 2.34 2.62
3-5
W
I
0'\
3.1. 3 Sta. No.
RATING TABLE FOR GRANT CREEK Table No.
Begin
YR. MO. D. HR. Rating table for ............... ~~~ .. ::'~~~ .. ~~:: .. ~??~~ .. :.~.~~ ............................................................................... .
from ........................ _ to ............................... , from ......................... to ............................... ,·from .... to •.....................................
Discharge Differ·
encc Gage Discharge Differ· Gage Discharge Gage Discharge Discharge Differ· Gage Discharge Discharge D~ Gage
height ence II height height ence height e height __ ~~----~----~l----4_------~----~--~------~----~----+-------+-----*----+-------+-----*----+-------t------4-------4------
Fttl cft eft Fur eft cft Fw eft c/J Fur Cft C/J Fut CfJ Cfs Fm CfJ Cft Fur cft Cfs
Differ·
ence
Differ·
ence
Gage
height
Differ·
ence
Gage
height
0.00
0.\0
0.20
0.30
'0,40
0,60
0.70
0.80
0.90
'1,00
]..10
120
130
140
170
Iso
190
6
24
34
45
57
69
83
97
113
128
145
162
180
198
215
... d:~.
10
11
12
12
14
14
16
15
17
17
18
18
17
2 .00 •••. n?. .. .
2 .10 •••• ~Q9 ... .
2 .20 .•• J .. ~Q .. .
2 .30
2 .40
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
300
3 .10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.70
3 ,so
3.90
342
365 .... -_ ......... -........
388
412
436
460
488
520
540
565
590
620
22
20
22
23
23
24
24
24
-..... --' .... -
28
32
20 i
25
25
•.. 30.
.00 .00
.10 .10
.20 .20
.30 .30
.40 .40
.60 .60
.70 .70
.so .so
.90 .90
.00 .00
.10 .10
.20 .20
.30 .30
.40 .40
.60 .60
.70 .70
.80 .80
.90 .90
.00 .00 .00
.10 .10 .10
.20 .20 .20
.30 .30 .30
.40 .40 .40
.~o
.60 .•••••••••••• .60 .60
.70 .70 .70
.80 .80 .SO
.90 .90 .90
.00 .00 .00
.10 .10 .10
,20 .20 .20
.30 .30 .30
AO .40 .40
.60 .60 .60
.70 .70 .70
.80 .so .80
.90 .90 ,90
Th ' hi' I' bl r hi' . . d 8 : 1981-82 IS ta e IS app Ica e lor open·c anne conditions. It IS base on discharge measurements made during ••••.••••.••.•..•..•••.••••••.••••
••••••..••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.•••.••••.•••••. _ ••••••• _ and is •. r:!I.<?~~~~ ~.<;.~Y-._ well defined between .• }g ........ cfs and •..• ?J.t? ..... cf~. Compo by .~~_ dale •• ~::.J..4.-82
.... ..... ~------..... _-......... -_ ..... _ ................... --_ .. -... _---_ ...................... ---_ .. _ ... _ .... ----.. --......... -_ ....... -_ ... _--_ .... --_ ............................ -........ __ ............ -................................ -_ .. -_ ........ -..... -_ .. '"' ...... -_ ..... -............. .
Ckd. by •••••••• _ date ••••••••••
.......... ... --...... --_ .. __ ........... -...................... --............. '"' ... _ ............................ _-_ .......................... -..... ""' ..... -......... __ ........ -......... --_ .. -_ .. -..... -_ .......... -.................................. -_ ........ -......... -....... --_ ..... "' ...... _ ...................... ---_ ....... ..
".,f.
','
1 , . , ,
rl/y9
TABLE 3.1.4
WATER TEMPERATURE GRANT CREEK NEAR GAGING STATION
MEAN DA I L Y TEMPERATU RE °C
Day Sept Oct Nov
1 11.5 7.8 3.2
2 11.0 7.8 3.5
3 11.0 7.6 3.3
4 11.5 7.5 3.1
5 11.2 7.3 3.2
6 11.0 7.0 3.1
7 10.9 6.8 2.9
8 10.6 6.5 2.8
9 10.3 6.4 3.1
10 10.4 6.5 3.0
11 10.3 6.3 3.0
12 9.8 6.5 3.0
13 9.5 6.3 3.1
14 9.6 6.1 3.3
15 9.1 6.0 3. 1
16 9.2 5.9 3.0
17 9.1 5.9 2.4
18 9.0 5.8 1.9
19 9.0 5.6 1.1
20 9.0 5.4 1.1
21 9.0 4.9 1.8
22 9.0 4.7 1.8
23 8.7 4.6 1.8
24 8.6 4.4 1.8
25 8.3 4.2
26 8.2 3.8
27 8.2 3.4
28 8.1 3.1
29 8.0 3.3
30 7.9 3.2
31 3.1
3-7
, i
, I
i'
, I
, I
, ,
I'
, ,
I:
; I
t I , ,
It
I,
I I
I I
I I
'S" 'lJ -\l-l,. C'; 'O'j
11 j , I
\ W t-\~ ~ .. .,.
I I
. \
I I
I,
, I
t I
I'
I I I I
, I
I I
I' I , ,
I,
I I I I
I I
, I
'iZ'F I
, I
I
1: l, 11 ;,. ;,.
nA'r
OES' RFB c::::~£j, ~'C::>~
CKO; JHC R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
OWN • __ .... ..Qtr,.o ••• T. ."",,.,..allll. ... .... _v. "'0-.
CKO-
I I
, I
I I
! I
I!
, I ,
0, J,cL, 'j • ,'l'!. < +'r
-=-.
/'
J=IGURE 3-1-1
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS
~RANT CREEK
NEAR MOOSE PASS
, I
: !
.,.,
I'
.'"
1; 1
t, I
....
, I
-'---.
OWG, NO
DATE:
I; , ,
I! '
, I , . , , I : I ! I'
I, ! ! , I
; I 1 :
I' , I
, ' ' , , ,
I' , I
I I , , I
i, , , j ! 1 , ,
, I
, I
, I I I ~ ! I 1 I, , J
I! ! I I
, , '
I I l j
, I
, , l
• I I,
, I
ol
0 I'll
C ;:. ; , ... ..
~ ., • ! 11
~ ! ! I I
.::
\
st
'" = f '" ,
if.
• I I'
~
't:
"" 2~
~ ... ;'..:;:>
I I ! I , I
I! I , I
"1
I I ,.(tt:===========::t:::=============
~~~==:~==========~==========~=================== -------.-~--_._---_._------
i----.--,-------.. ----~~ .-------. ----. ------.----
~--~--------~~~------~n_------------.
"
n. '1 1'1' :r It. ,.,
•
[)(S; ... f!f'9 g~~ FIGURE 3-1-:t (CONT.) OwG NO.
'CliO' JtIC
,....---. ~
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS SCALE' !=I&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
OWN' ..... _ •• fIIIa •• CM.O....... _t..ANN." .wAva ""Dflil.
GRANT CREEK O~T£'
ICKO PROJ NO 151182
App{)· NEAR MOOSE PASS ;,·/:;:0 ~ lL£
i 1
; ,
I .
: I
I'
i •
. , ~
I'
, ,
, ,
. , . ,
I I I I
, !
DES: . RFB
CKO' JH(;
OWN
CI<D
~WO
I I
, ,
! '
...
i I! ,
, I
"
I I
I'
, I
, ,
I ,
, I
. , , , , ,
; I I I
. '
! '
, I
11 I f
I' , ,
, .
: I
" j I
I'
_+ I • I
, ! '
• I , I
. , j ~ !
•• I
I·
I, , I ! I
r-.
I I 1 ':.+
: ,
I I
, , , , ,
I'
.-~------,._-_ .. _----------
l ~ FIGURE 3-1-:1 (CONT.)·
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
*"... __ ."'. ..O""O_I.T. ....A .. "".~. .y. v. YO ••
GRANT CREEK
j NEAR MOOSE PASS
....
. -~
I,
• I , ,
Ii
" , , , ' ,
, '
--;; ;::
:-'
~
~
8
"
-! I ~ , I " , , ;:;
3 , I "-, I c:
" ~
'" 3"
I , -10
I ...
I
h ..... • .
>
~
t
(0
;
'-... '
OWG.1II0 .
SCALE
DATE' l1li'
PPOJ 1110 151182
;;.R:o· e ,!... £
ql
,-,:-:--, -,---,----,:-+1 ----.-----~.,., -",-'-------.------
, I
I: I i I I I , , , I
, I
I I
I , I I , I I
I'
I '
I,
-I ---~------~--------.•. ------.-~ .. --.. --~ --, -.---:-~ ~
·1-1"--,..-·~-iI'-;""~---~.---. .,-i-i---;--1 ~--.....,.-'-l:-+-~-i-'--H
, I I
, I
I ,
I,
'LT'-,~,r, -,~~,--~--~~--~,-,~~!~'~~~~~
I
! I .. 1
I I 11 , , ,
, I I
I ,
, \ j : I: I ! j ( \
~t~~~~Eii,~:~tt~~~t:t!~i~~t,~,i:~~~~~:tl~j~'~I}l2~,j+t~t,lj2~;:+lt4t:122~Fj:~~-~'~~;=+4~~It+,~:=~,~~~:Jlj ,,~:ttij~tt,t:j:=~t:=:~:~:!:~j:=tti:t~-:~: ~IT+,"-H
-... --_ .. --.
." 7 , "
-----------,
DES' , RFB g~§::l FIGURE 3-1-:1 (CO NT.) eNG. NO.
r---' ~
CKO' ...c STAGE RECORDER CHARTS SCAlE'
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
OW~· ..... ""' ....... 0000o.-'.Ta ~"A"IIIif ••• au .. ..,.,.,o •• DATE:
0<0'
GRANT CREEK PROJ. NO. 151182
APPO: NEAR MOOSE PASS ~IO' C' 'l_~
3-11
";"'~"'-'--! iii ii" , !
t· , ' , ,
! ; ;
.--,----:-,..-'-:--~---.-..-,----,-----_+_r_+_:__rt__===: I
' I ,r-r+-rh-ln-:.J
--, ,
I,
! ,
• I
I I
IL
I,
I I t I
"
" I'
1 Ii; I j I
, ,
; I
, • I
, I
i'
I'
I I
, I
• I I J i
I'
. ,
......
~~'.~~·~:~~~~rr++~:~'
I j ! ,
I' J
, t
i, I ,
-----.----------------
!-...-:--------------------,----.~----------------,--------'----------,-----'----~----'----'
-i----
, , , ?
" " " " I
----.............
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. ........... ..""'0. .• '. ... __ ....... "'. .", • ..,,,'1'0 ••
J=IGURE 3-1-:1 (CONT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS
GRANT CREEK
NEAR MOOSE PASS
; , I
m "' St
mt$
, I
, !
/1',
:'.r:/
, : t
'.y
-
1;_;5
.~ , .)~
.Z:
·r
_ .
. ,
, t
-I
----..... -·-..-1l, 0
.i
, l
-'
DWG, NO,
DATE
P"OJ NO 161182
-
, ..
-
.. "
am,
"",
...
"'"
"' ..
-
-,
...
-
)(5'
:KO'
)WN
:1<0'
~F'PO'
1rt1-t+4-~4-r+4-~4-~'~'~~~~-~~~'~'N+~~~~~ , : j :Lrt! I I
I I . + ~~l+ . , ;
I,
I I I I .:l..LL!....!
, I • I
• I , I I I
I
I'
, I
I I
I'
-..:
~~~~~-------~--~~~,-~--------------
1-;--------
',--
), i' I, " I J 1'1 I J')' I~
I'
, ,
, I
! I
, RF8 FIGURE 3-1-1
, I
, ,
! I
I I
I I ; ,
' I
! I
l ~ ...c ,I STAGE RECORDER CHARTS R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. l GRANT CREEK .,.41""' •••••• en .. o.t • .,. _ ............ ". _"",..v.yea-,.
NEAR MOOSE PAS'S
3-13
, I
, I
, I
' I
IfL· I I ; I
! i -
,
Ii
, ,
/ 'j ( l.
lowe NO
iSCALE'
DA1E:
PROJ, NO, 1! 1182
.. GRID' F'lE
~.~'.! ~·'~·~··~-~·::·E=·=·========~=========~~~:~=~~-====~~===--~~-,'---::"-::"~---'------.-----.--.-.~.---------~---.::::::---.--k. -.---:---------.-----.--.. --.. --~----
I, It 1 ',--i~': ·1-t+H+H ..... ~1 ""...,...I-,-'-i-i+-H-l--h-+-+-<+""'--"--+·"1'++-:-r+>-+";"'Y-'--r'-;"'~+"""'''''~+-H-~4 .... '-t..L+-i-'''''';+-WI-+-o-;.-'-t-.-:'''''''''++i-7...-H+H+-HH
• I
, I
I I , I
" 1
I,
"
'/
• I
~.--"";"----.-------~------.. ---.-
!=I&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
.,.._ ...... ""4 •.• ,,. ,. ... ,.,. •••• "''''''' .... 0 ••
CI<O·
I'
, I 1
I I l
I \ I I , I
, I I' I I , ,
. -------1--
_._-----------------_.-. __ .•... _--------
'J
FIGURE:3-1-1 (CONT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS
GRANT CREEK
NEAR MOOSE PASS
Ii :;
Dwe> NO
DAT£~' ________________ _
-
-
""",
-.
...
,...
-
""".
-
DES· RF8
CWN R& M CONSULTANTS, INC.
__ n •••••• O.ClLOIIII,.T .................• ~-.... vo ••
eKO
':'PPD
DISCHARGE c.I.a.
FIGURE 3-1-2
STAGE DISCHARGE RATNG CmVE
GRANT CREEK
NEAR MOOSE PASS
3-15
DwG NO
SCALE
DATE
PFlOJ NO 151182
r1/y10
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF GAGING STATION ON FALLS CREEK NEAR CROWN
POINT, ALASKA
Location -Lat. 60°25'50", long 149°22'10" at mile 25 on Seward-Anchorage
Highway, on right ban k 200 feet down stream from highway bridge, 300 feet
upstream from confluence of Falls Creek with Trail River. Altitude
450 feet from topographic map.
Establishment -April 30, 1982
Drainage Area -11.8 square miles.
Gage -Stevens F-l recorder, ratio 1 :5, in shelter mounted on stilling
well. Recorder is referenced to outside staff gage.
History -Crest stage recorders at bridge in 1913, 1963 to 1970, and 1976.
Peak flow of record 693 c.f.s. on September 15, 1966.
Reference Marks -RM-1 is head of large spike in 12" birch tree. Tree is
on right bank 20 feet upstream of stilling well and 15 feet shoreward.
Spike is 2 feet above ground on upstream face of tree. Arbitrary
elevation is 10.00 feet.
Channel -The channel is composed of gravel and rock and is straight for
100 feet above and 200 feet below the gage. The stream IS broad here
compared to the rest of Falls Creek and stage change with discharge is
small. The banks will not overflow except at very high stages.
Discharge Measurements Wading measurements are made approximately
50 feet upstream of the gage.
3-16
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 3.2.1
FALLS CREEK NEAR CROWN POINT
HEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F. S.)
May 1982 to October 1982
May 1982 June 1982 July 1982 ~ Aug. 1982 ~p. 1982 Oct. 1982
GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q
Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs
1 5.11 41 (e)125 5.48 105 5.13 43 5.06 36
2 5.19 52 (e)100 5.42 92 5.09 39 5.04 34
3 5.24 60 (e) 95 5.36 79 5.04 34 5.03 32
4 5.18 49 (e) 90 5.36 79 5.01 31 5.01 30
5 5.10 40 (e) 85 5.36 79 5.42 92 5.00 29
6 5.11 41 5.39 85 5.36 79 5.77 188 4.99 28
7 5.23 58 5.57 127 5.42 92 5.48 105 4.97 26
8 5.22 56 5.07 155 5.43 95 5.33 74 4.96 25
9 5.25 61 5.67 155 5.39 85 5.23 58 4.96 25
10 5.52 114 5.64 146 5.33 74 5.18 49 4.94 23
11 5.53 116 5.56 124 5.27 64 5.16 46 4.87 19
12 (e)70 5.54 119 5.26 62 5.12 42 4.94 23
13 (e)70 5.54 119 5.29 66 5.47 102 4.94 23
14 (e)70 5.57 127 5.34 77 5.44 97 ,': Ice
15 (e)70 5.56 124 5.36 79 5.74 178 Effects
16 (e)70 5.54 119 5.32 72 5.93 246
17 5.44 (e)70 5.51 112 5.27 64 5.54 119 II
18 (e)70 5.44 97 5.23 58 5.39 85 II
19 (e)70 5.47 102 5.19 51 5.41 89 "
20 (e)70 5.59 132 5.18 49 5.29 66 II
21 (e)70 5.64 146 5.23 58 5.25 60 "
22 (e)70 5.59 132 5.24 60 5.21 55 "
23 (e)70 5.58 129 5.27 64 5.09 39 II
24 5.51 111 5.63 143 5.31 70 4.99 29 "
25 4.94 26 5.59 132 5.60 134 5.27 64 4.91 22 "
26 4.99 29 5.64 148 5.57 127 5.21 55 4.83 17 "
27 4.97 28 5.74 178 5.56 124 5.19 51 4.75 13 fI
28 4.97 28 5.99 271 5.62 140 5.17 48 4.69 10 II
29 4.99 29 (e)280 5.64 146 5.21 55 5.09 39 "
30 5.07 37 (e)200 5.59 132 5.24 60 5.07 37 "
31 5.11 41 5.54 119 5.18e (e)49 "
(e) Estimated
.. }: Freeze-up: no flow at gaging site.
Tot
Mean (e) 95 122.9 68.87 70.13
Max 280 155 105 246
Min 41 85 48 10
CFsm 8.22 10.42 5.84 5.94
Runoff in inches 8.99 12.01 6.73 6.63
3-17
w
I
I-'
0:>
TABLEf 3.2.3
RATING TABLE FOR FALLS CREEK
Sta. No. _
Table No.
-------
Begin --------ya. MO. D. II ••
Differ·
ence
Ditrer·
ence Gage O' h
Rating table for ______ .R~J;.§_.~~]:JS __ ~}}.l~ .. ~E9!:lN __ P..QmX __ • __ • ___ • __ ._ .•• -00.--..... -... -•... ·.----·--·---····--·-··········· ....••••. -..... -.
fr01n ... _____ .. _ .. _ ... _ ..... __ to _ .. ____ . __ . __ ... _ ...... _ .. _._ .. , fr01n .. _ .. _._ .... __ . ___ . __ . ___ to _. ____ . ___ ...... _ .. __ ......... _ ,. from ... --..... -.. -.--.-.... --to ----------------.-...... -... -... -.... .
Gage Discharge
height
Fltt cft
4.00
410
410
480 _____ 1.~ __ _
490 . _____ ~L_
500 _____ ~~ __
510 _____ AQ __
520 ______ ~;L
5 .40
5 .~o
5.60
5.10
5.80
5.90
68 --_ ..... -_ .... --
87
____ tQ~L_
134 -_ .. -........... _-
___ J.~~ __
Differ·
ence
cft
..... '_ ..... "' ..
6
8
11
13
15
19
22
25
30
34
Gage Discharge
height
Fttt
6·00
6.10
6·20
6.40
6.60
6.10
6.80
6.90
cft
275
00 • ____ ._ •• ___
.10
.20
.30
.40
.~o
.10
.80
.90
Ditkr·
ence
cft
Gage D' h height ISC arge
Fttt cft
.00
.10
.20
.40
.60
.70
.80
.90
.00
.10
.20
.30
AO
.60
.70
.80
.90
Ditrer·
ence
cft
age
'gh!
Pttt
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.~o
.60
.70
.80
.90
.00
.10
.20
• 30
040
.60
.70
.80
.90
Discharge
cft
Differ·
ence
cft
........... -.....
Gage . height DIScharge
Ntt cft
.00
.10
.20
.30
.'10
.~O
.ro
.70
.80
.90
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.~o
.60
.70
.80
.90
Ditrer·
ence
cft
Gage height Discharge
Fltt Cft
.00
.10
.20
.40
.~o
.60
.70
.80
.90
.00
.10
.20 L.. _________ _
.30 __________ ••
040
.~O
.60
.70
.80
.90
This table is applicable for open·channel conditions. It is based on 5; discharge measurements made during ---~~~?.----.. -.--.. ---.. --.-----
._ ••••.••• ____ ••• ___ .. __ .. ____ .• ____________ .. ____ • ________ ... ____ • ____ and is ._:::9..?_~.:~ t:~_~X __ well defined between . __ ~9 ________ cfs and ______ !:~_9~ ____ c($.
......... -_ ........................... --_ ...... --_ ....................... "' .... --........ -"" ........................... -_ .................. -........... ---_ ................. -... --................. _ ........................... ---_ .. --_ ............................ -........................ _ .... _ ..... -......................... -.... .
...... ---_ ...... ---_ ....... _-_ .. _ .. -_ ..................... _ .... "' ....... -_ ....... -_ ................................... '"' .. .., ............ -_ .. -............. --_ ....... _ ........... __ .... ---........ _-_ ... ---.... -_ ... ----_ ...... --_ ........ _ ........ -_ .................... _ ..................... -................... ..
height ISC argo
cft Fltt cft cft
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.~o
.60
.70
.80
.90
.00
.10
.20
.30
AD
.60
.70
.80
.90
RFB 10-27-82 Compo by ..... __ date .•• ___ ._ ..
Ckd. by _. ____ • __ date ____ • __ •••
1
, I
i I
I
, I
! 1 I , I , i '~
._t , ,
, 1 , I
I! ,
I I
, , , , ,
I'
11' 1 • I , ,
, , , , :
I! I I :F", I
(;::. , 1
, , , , , ,
, I
" ,r I
I, ! \:
" ,
, ,
, I I f , ,
I I ---1' ., ... 2 , .. ,<
I'
'7
_ ~~ H-H+H-+-,_ " .~~~~~++++~~O"~~i4-·~~~;~~,~~~~~~~
H
++++-HH:-l-+-J.+f+.!'d"-,,,,:, ~ ,H-V' i _' I ""l'"~ ..s ,.~f-"
, ,
0.0 • ..;...:..-,-,-.;.'..;'-1-";'..;'-1--¥--1-";'...:..' .;....;~......;~-'-'-'7 ."'.' , I· ' ,
r ~ ~
I I
i--
, I
I,
, !
, I
"
I i ! ! i i
l' ; I
, , ! , , , ,
,
I.; S-o
r--~L-____________________ ~I
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. ........... ..cn.C_J.". _ ......... "'''''.TD ••
1-19
, , , , i , I , ,
I
I , , , , , , I I
, ,
, ,
7 If f ,. Ii
FIGURE 3-2-1
STAGE RECORDER-CHARTS -----
FALLS CREEK
NEAR CROWN POINT
I I I I
, ,
! I , ,
, ,
TT $E$R:
, I , I I ' , I , ,
,
SCALE'
OAT!':'
PROJ NO 1111182
I,
"
I I
.( I I
; ~~rr~~rr~~~+i~~~~~~
I, ~ ! 1 'I I, • , !.
! 1 ~
.!; ~ .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~+---~~~
! ~~;-. H+-H++-I-++-I-+~H+H+H+H+++
, ,
:=R=m
I I !
; ,
, I
Ii , ,
DES; ~ RFB
, .
Ii. , ,
! 1
I I
I!
~
' I
I I
, 11
, '
I'
I; I
, I
• I ,
, , '
CKO; .!He R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
OWN ........... .aOLD4I'." ....... ,.. •••• u.v .... o ••
Cl(O·
APPQ.
, I , ;
; I l
, I , ;
I I , ' I,
I,
! I
, ,
I I
I I , ,
FIGURE 3-2-1 (CONT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS
FALLS CREEK
NEAR CROWN POINT'
3-20
.,
,;~ -~ -
II I I I
; ! I
i, ,
! ,
I ,
I
I
I 111 I
I 1 I "
DWG. NO.
SCALE·
DATE;
PROJ. NO. 151182
GRID' FILE
-
-
-
....
-
-
~,
i
.., il , 10 I, It' " 10 11 , . I :
I i
< <-
;O=ES='='=R=FB~==~~~~~====~C~~J§j~~~~========~==~~====F=I=G~U=R=E==3=-=2=-=1==(C=O==N=T~.)====~=OW=G=~=O==========~!
CKO' JHO R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. STAGE RECORDER CHARTS SCALE'
OWN: .... ""' •••••• ~O ••• .,. •.. "'A .......... tooI.V.TO.. FALLS CREEK DATE~
CK 0' }-P.;.R",O",J:c.< -,-00=< --,'",5-=.1-=.1",8",2,--_<_
API'O' NEAR CROWN POINT GRID
3-21
-,
I j' '~~·-· .. ---~-----~·~--~~--~~~~--~~~--l .
,-'·1~--~-·""------:---'-----
.=
1 '
, .... ;;---_." ••• ,.; .. ;: I iI' : I !
-,':o;i I ,
.... .l.~'" I 1 I 1 • I
P~II __ "---"MIll" __ ~~ . , ! , I
~\ I l
I' I I
, '
, I
I'
.
1 ,
I I
, I
I
, I
"I 1-------;.......--.----------·---·---·-f--------~-------.:--~--.....;...;...-_+_l
-!...
1-+-~~ ____ .,-__ __I---4___~~_'_. __ -------
" 11 If /(, I} /. n ,; " !.r " .' , .. " " ,-
1 ')g t
~ ... ---".-
~~--------------------~
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
OWl«' ........... "' ••• ':,.,.O.'."'a "' ............. ..., .. '11' .... 0_.
3-22
FIGURE 3-2-:1 (CONT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS
FALLS CREEK
NEAR CROWN POINT
OWG, NO.
SCALE
.OATE-
PROJ, NO 115 1182
GRID' ~ILE
-
-
...
--
-
I ~.
OWN
.. ,
J I
JUT'
'1 r
,~.-. . ;
'1
] I " " " ,r " "
~
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. ___ •. ". ..eM. aa ,. y. .. ..... """"... *..,_..,. YD ••
I
. ~~.---f-'-';""""-""""""'->--~~'<-; ---:: :
, I
/' ,. to t, It 'J
,y ."
FIGURE 3-2-1 (CONT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS
FALLS CREEK
NEAR CROWN POINT
.• 0'
" >, II H
owe; NO.
SCALE'
PROJ. NO. 151182
, ,
I','
, '
I' i I
, ,
, I I
I I I 1
" , ,
, , ,
11 Jo 2
.,
, .
" '
I!
I,
.'
, ,
I'
, I
I,
, ,
, ,., ,--,
,<:I
, ! ,
,
I
!
; I ! I , , I
, ,
; ,
I'
I!
I! I
, '
: I
I,
,
, "
, I , I
, I , ,
ill , , I,
,
I I
, ,
'.,-~
---
I,
I'
i: , I
I, , '
--1--,.---.-.. --------~~----
IJ ,.., If II J' 1l. l J " II"
~~----------~i
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC •
• __ ..... _acK.O ••• Ta .... AN ... "' •• ""_ .... 0 ••
FIGURE 3-2--:1 (CONT.)
ST AGE RECORDER CHARTS
FALLS CREEK
NEAR CROWN POINT
SCALE·
PROJ "0. 1151182
,...
"
"'"
....
"
....
,...
-
-.l
I
V
)1
I> ("\
il '" 0 9
G' 0
:r) :u
6 0
<-
Z
0 -." '" ,-::::
'" ...
i z
<:J ...
-<
r<1
n l'l " 0. t;'
,
~ !
V> 0
() ;:;
1> Cl ,-
r<1 Z
0
1
l--~-.rrTTrn+MTnTm;m'
9 __ H-I--H-H--H-f-f-I
4
3 _
6
L
" '
467323
7 8 1000 2 3
DISCHARGE (C.F.S.)
r1/yll
3.3 GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
Location -SE-!-, Sec. 6, T4N, R1E, Seward Meridian. At south end of
Grant Lake. Altitude 610 feet from USGS topographic map Seward (B-7).
Establishment -December 8, 1981 by R&M Consultants, Inc.
Type of Station -Meteorology Resea rch, Inc. Mechanical Weather Station.
Parameters measured are temperature, rainfall, windspeed and wind
direction. Instruments are located 10 feet above the ground.
Data Notes
1. (-) No record. Data not recorded or determined unreliable.
2. Blank entries in rainfall tables indicate zero rainfall.
3. A day begins and ends at 2400 hours.
4. Maximum and minimum temperatures are the highest and lowest
readings for the day. Average temperatu re is the average of the
maximum and minimum.
5.
6.
Oi rection of wind is related to true north.
Precipitation data for Lawing at Crown Point, a USFS fire weather
data station located a few miles from Grant La ke, is also available.
3.3.1 -GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
Periods of Record for each parameter as of November 24, 1982.
3-26
-
-
...
-
...'
-
r1/y12
Temperature
January 29, 1982 to Present.
Rainfall
April 30, 1982 to May 31, 1982.
July 5, 1982 to August 31, 1982.
September 29, 1982 to October 21, 1982
Windspeed and Direction
December 8, 1982 to Present
3-27
r1/s1
Date
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(DECEMBER 1981)
Wind
Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed
Max. Min. Avg. Inches m/sec.
0.7
1.4
0.7
2.8
6.9
11 . 1
8.3
8.3
9.7
8.3
5.6
4.2
1.4
1.4
11 . 1
8.3
4.2
1.4
9.7
5.6
1.4
1.4
2.8
2.8
11. 1
3-28
...
-
-
,~"~
Direction
Degrees
105
25
100 "' ..
90
25
30
50 .... -
40
40 -30
240
70
280
10 -.",.
50
40 .... -
60
80 -80
50
250 ... '
50
30 .. '
240 -
..."
-
rlls2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Date
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TAB L E 3. 3. 1 (co n t. )
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(JANUARY 1982)
Wind
T emperatu re °C
Max. Min. Avg.
Rainfall
mm Inches
Max. Speed
m/sec.
4.2
1.4
0.9
2.8
11.1
9.7
1.4
2.8
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.8
5.6
8.3
2.8
6.9
5.6
5.6
2.8
8.3
5.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.7
8.3
8.3
1.4
-2 -11 -6.5 2.1
2 -4 -1.0 5.6
11. 1
3-29
Direction
Degrees
40
105
240
80
75
80
240
90
240
230
105
270
60
20
60
90
75
75
60
70
60
240
250
250
120
50
30
250
255
60
75
r1/s3
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Monthly Max.
Month Iy Mi n .
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(FEBRUARY 1982)
Temperature °C Rainfall
Max. Min. ~ mm Inches
3.0 -2.0 0.5
6.0 -3.0 1.5
6.0 -1.0 2.5
2.0 -4.0 -1.0
-2.0 -5.0 -3.5
-2.0 -6.0 -4.0
-3.0 -7.5 -5.2
4.0 -8.0 -2.0
4.0 -2.5 0.8
-2.0 -9.0 -5.5
-9.0 -17.0 -13.0
-7.0 -20.0 -13.5
-10.0 -21.0 -15.5
-12.5 -22.0 -16.2
-22.0 -25.0 -23.5
-21.0 -26.0 -23.5
-18.0 -25.0 -21.5
-17.0 -25.0 -21.0
-18.0 -24.0 -21.0
-14.0 -20.0 -19.0
-15.0 -18.0 -16.5
-16.0 -25.0 -20.5
-14.0 -25.0 -19.5
-12.0 -25.0 -18.5
-10.0 -23.0 -16.5
-10.0 -23.0 -16.5
-6.0 -20.0 -13.0
-8.0 -20.0 -14.0
6.0
-26.0
-12.09
3-30 .
...
.....
.... -
Wind .. ~
Max. Speed Di rection
m/sec. Degrees
8.3 80
8.3 90
11. 1 80 ,..
2.8 105
2.1 45
1.4 50 ri·· 2.1 75
8.3 70
5.6 20
5.6 90 ",~
6.9 75
2.8 40
2.8 45 "",If·
5.6 90
5.6 75
4.9 60
3.5 90 .~t,
8.3 100
8.3 90
8.3 80 "I"
8.3 75
8.3 80 ""
4.2 60
II'" 8.3 75
5.6 80
4.9 30
1.4 50 .' 0.7 45
11 .1 80 """
....
....
.,..
rl/s4
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(MARCH 1982)
Temperature °C Rainfall
Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches
2.0 -9.0 -5.5
0.0 -5.0 -2.5
2.5 -6.0 -1.8
0.0 -10.0 -5.0
0.0 -9.0 -4.5
1.0 -16.0 -7.5
0.0 -16.0 -8.0
-4.0 -12.0 -8.0
-4.0 -15.0 -9.5
-2.0 -15.0 -8.5
5.0 -5.0 0.0
0.0 -5.0 -2.5
2.0 -3.0 -0.5
4.0 -5.0 -0.5
4.0 -4.0 0.0
3.0 -2.5 0.2
2.5 -3.0 -0.2
5.0 -3.0 1.0
0.0 -5.0 -2.5
1.0 -5.0 -2.0
-1.0 -7.0 -4.0
1.0 -13.0 -7.0
2.0 -1. .0 -4.5
-1.0 -11.0 -6.0
-2.0 -15.0 -8.5
-1.0 -12.0 -6.5
-2.5 -17.0 -9.8
5.0
-17 .0
-4.23
3-31
Wind
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec. Degrees
2.1 255
1.4 230
1.4 240
4.2 75
5.6 70
5.6 60
4.2 75
5.6 80
5.6 80
8.3 60
2.8 40
2. 1 20
5.6 100
8.3 60
5.6 45
4.2 250
2.8 240
2.8 250
2.8 20
5.6 80
4.9 70
5.6 75
3.5 240
5.6 75
4.2 90
4.2 75
5.6 75
8.3 60
rlls5
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Month Iy A vg.
TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(A P R I L 1982)
Temperature °C Rainfall
Max. Min. ~ mm Inches
-5.0 -15.0 -10.0
-5.0 -15.0 -10.0
-3.0 -18.0 -10.5
5.0 -17.0 -6.0
7.0 -12.0 -2.5
9.0 -8.0 0.5
8.0 -4.0 2.0
4.0 -4.0 0.0
3.0 -6.0 1.5
1.0 -7.0 -3.0
0.0 -5.0 -2.5
1.0 -7.0 -3.0
0.0 -8.0 -4.0
3.0 -7.0 -2.0
2.0 -4.0 -1. 0
4.0 -5.0 -0.5
1.0 -5.0 -2.0
0.0 -8.0 -4.0
1.0 -5.0 -2.0
1.0 -2.5 -0.8
2.0 -7.0 -2.5
5.0 -9.0 -2.0
2.0 -8.0 -3.0
2.0 -2.5 -0.2
5.0 -6.0 -0.5
3.0 -6.0 -1. 5
3.0 -2.0 0.5
2.5 -4.0 -0.8
2.0 -4.0 -1. 0
2.5 -5.0 -1. 8
9.0
-18.0
-2.47
3-32
-
Wind ...
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec.
6.9 80 -
8.0 80
2.8 60
2.1 15 -2.1 90
2.8 250
2.8 60 """ 5.6 75
4.2 70 ~"',
4.2 40
5.6 80 ,...'
8.3 75
8.3 80
2.8 80 -8.3 75
6.9 90
2.8 70
4.2 30 "'"'
8.3 40
8.3 80
8.3 90 ... '
2.8 255
1.4 105
11. 1 60 """ 5.6 50
3.5 45
6.9 20
8.3 10 ,-
5.6 20
5.6 45 ,-
11 . 1 60
1-
,.
rlls6
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Month Iy Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(MAY 1982)
Temperature °C Rainfall
Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches
5.0 -6.0 -0.5
6.0 -8.0 -1.0
7.0 -7.5 -0.2
2.0 -5.0 -1. 5
5.0 -1.0 2.0 0.2 .01
8.0 0.0 4.0 0.4 .02
7.0 -3.0 2.0 1.5 .06
7.5 -3.0 2.2 2.4 .09
6.0 -2.0 2.0 1.0 .04
7.0 -1.0 3.0 6.6 .26
5.0 -2.5 1.2 1.0 .04
6.0 -3.0 1.5 4.0 .16
5.0 -5.0 0.0 0.2 .01
7.0 -5.0 1.0
5.0 -2.0 1.5 0.2 .01
10.0 -3.0 3.5
9.0 -6.0 1.5
6.0 -5.0 0.5
7.0 0.0 3.5 0.6 .02
5.0 -2.0 1.5 1.2 .05
7.5 -3.0 2.2
12.0 -5.0 3.5
5.0 0.0 2.5 5.6 .22
9.0 0.0 4.5 0.2 .01
12.0 -4.0 4.0
5.0 1.0 3.0
6.0 0.0 3.0 1.4 .06
10.0 -2.0 4.0 0.2 .01
13.0 -4.0 4.5
12.5 2.5 7.5
13.0 26.7 1.1
-8.0
2.21
3-33
Wind
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec. Degrees
8.3 80
4.2 75
5.6 75
6.9 70
8.3 90
6.9 60
1.4 260
2. 1 240
8.3 90
1.4 30
2.1 10
2.8 30
2.8 250
2.8 100
2.8 255
3.5 80
5.6 80
6.9 90
5.6 60
8.3 45
5.6 75
5.6 80
8.3 10
4.2 30
4.2 240
5.6 50
8.3 50
4.2 250
2.8 240
4.2 45
8.3 70
rl/s7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(JU NE 1982)
Temperature °C Rainfall
Max. Min. Avg. Inches
10.0 4.0 7.0
12.0 3.0 7.5
13.0 3.0 8.0
14.0 4.0 9.0
13.0 5.0 9.0
16.0 5.0 10.5
12.0 6.0 9.0
15.0 5.0 10.0
12.0 4.0 B.O
10.5 4.0 7.2
13.0 5.0 9.0
19.0 5.0 12.0
23.0 3.0 13.0
20.0 4.0 12.0
23.0 5.0 14.0
15.0 8.0 11.5
11.0 7.0 9.0
13.0 2.0 7.5
13.0 5.0 9.0
23.0
2.0
9.59
3-34
...
Wind BO.,
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec.
..'
III'
.". -
*~,
-." 6.9 40
2.1 240 -2.8 230
2.8 250
2.8 15
4.2 30 ... '
5.6 10
4.2 90
4.2 255 iii!'
2.1 240
5.6 45 ""
2.8 255
2.8 -255
3.5 255
3.5 15
8.3 50 ..,..
2.B 240
11. 1 75
8.3 40 -
11 .1 75 -
""
f'l~-
...
-
r1/s8
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Month Iy Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TAB L E 3. 3. 1 ( co n t. )
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(JULY 1982)
Temperatu re °C Rainfall
Max. Min. ~ mm Inches
10.5 4.0 7.2
12.0 3.0 7.5
12.0 5.0 9.0
13.0 3.0 8.0
14.0 3.0 8.5
15.0 3.0 9.0
25.0 6.0 15.5
18.0 8.0 13.0 0.8 .03
22.0 8.0 15.0
12.0 7.0 14.5 6.0 .24
14.0 8.0 11.0 l.4 .06
15.0 8.0 11.5 0.4 .02
2l.0 8.0 14.5
19.0 5.0 12.0
11.0 7.0 9.0 . l.0 .04
13.0 5.0 9.0 3.4 .13
17.0 2.5 9.5 0.8 .03
15.0 6.0 10.5 0.2 .01
25.0 8.0 16.5
24.0 6.0 15.0
15.0 8.0 11.5
17.0 7.0 12.0
13.0 8.0 10.5 6.6 .26
18.0 8.0 13.0 0.2 .01
16.0 8.0 12.0 2.2 .09
18.0 7.0 12.5
22.0 8.0 15.0
17.0 8.0 12.5 0.2 .01
11.0 8.0 9.5 21.8 .86
17.0 8.0 12.5 0.2 .01
20.0 6.0 13.0
25.0 45.2 l. 78
2.5
11.6
3-35
Wind
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec. Degrees
8.3 45
8.3 60
9.7 70
6.9 45
5.6 75
8.3 50
2.8 250
5.6 60
5.6 50
0.8 240
9.7 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TAB L E 3. 3. 1 ( co n t. )
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(AUGUST 1982)
Tempe ratu re °C Rai nfall
Max. Min. ~ mm Inches
21.0 7.0 14.0
23.0 7.0 15.0
23.0 6.0 14.5
20.0 8.0 14.0
22.0 8.0 15.0
18.0 10.0 14.0 0.4 .02
15.0 10.0 12.5 0.8 .03
14.0 9.0 11.5 5.4 .21
18.0 7.0 12.5
12.0 5.0 8.5 3.6 .14
14.0 8.0 11.0 8.4 .33
23.0 5.0 14.0
24.0 7.0 15.5
16.0 8.0 16.0 0.2 .01
13.0 8.0 14.5 4.4 . 12
17.0 5.0 " .0 18.0 5.0 11.5
19.0 6.0 12.5
22.0 7.0 14.5
22.0 6.0 14.0
20.0 8.0 14.0
17.0 7.0 12.0
17.0 11.0 14.0 0.6 .02
15.0 10.0 12.5 0.8 .03
14.0 8.0 11.0
20.0 7.0 13.5
20.0 5.0 12.5 0.6 .02
16.0 8.0 12.0
15.0 9.0 12.0 6.6 .26
13.0 7.0 10.0 4.6 .18
14.0 8.0 11.0 1.8 .07
24.0 38.2 1.50
5.0
12.92
3-36
---
-
••
Wind
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec. Degrees
2.8 70 -2.8 75
4.2 255
2.8 260
2.1 270 .. '
5.6 30 jJtl-'I'
6.9 30
4.2 45 ...,
2.8 270
1.4 240
4.2 90
2.1 100 -
2.8 255 ~.,,-
2.8 270
4.2 90 -2.8 80
1.4 270
1.4 255 -2. 1 255
3.5 255
2.1 30
2.1 255
2.8 30
2.8 270
2.1 270 -2.8 75
2.8 30
2.1 260
1.4 75 -1.4 260
2.8 40 -6.9 30
"".
-
rl/s10
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(SEPTEMBER 1982)
Temeeratu re °C Rainfall
Max. Min. Avg. mm ' Inches
18.0 6.0 12.0
18.0 4.0 11.0
14.0 6.0 10.0
16.0 3.0 9.5
13.0 8.0 10.5
9.0 7.0 8.0
14.0 6.0 10.0
17.0 5.0 11.0
12.0 8.0 10.0
11.0 7.0 9.0
13.0 4.0 8.5
12.0 1.0 6.5
13.0 8.0 10.5
10.0 8.0 9.0
17.0 10.0 8.5
14.0 7.0 10.5
10.0 7.0 8.5
12.0 8.0 10.0
10.0 8.0 9.0
10.0 7.0 8.5
10.0 7.0 8.5
11.0 6.0 8.5
10.0 2.0 6.0
13.0 0.0 6.5
10.0 1.0 5.5
10.0 4.0 7.0
14.0 1.0 7.5
10.0 2.0 6.0
10.0 6.0 8.0
18.0
0.0
8.76
3-37
Wind
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec. Degrees
2. 1 240
2. 1 240
2.1 270
2.1 285
8.3 45
4.2 0
4.2 60
4.2 260
1.4 110
4.2 40
2.8 50
2.8 60
8.3 60
1.4 210
5.6 260
2.1 240
4.2 75
5.6 45
2.1 260
2. 1 40
2.8 290
4.2 100
4.2 80
2. 1 270
2. 1 250
2.8 75
2.1 90
8.3 75
8.3 80
8.3 45
r1/s11
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(OCTOBER 1982)
Tempe ratu re °C Rainfall
Max. Min. ~ mm Inches
10.0 1.0 5.5
8.0 2.0 5.0 .6 .02
7.0 1.0 4.0 .2 .01
7.0 -1. 0 3.0
5.0 -2.0 1.5
3.0 1.0 2.0
3.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 .04
4.0 -2.0 1.0 2.6 .10
3.0 1.0 2.0 6.2 .24
4.0 -1.0 1.5 0.2 .01
6.0 -2.0 2.0 1.8 .07
8.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 .24
4.0 2.0 3.0 7.8 .31
3.0 1.0 2.0 3.4 .13
3.0 -2.0 0.5 . 0.8 .03
3.0 -1.0 1.0 7.0 .28
5.0 2.0 3.5 7.0 .28
5.0 -2.0 1.5
4.0 2.0 3.0 6.4 .25
3.0 0.0 1.5
0.0 -4.0 -2.0
-2.0 -5.0 -3.5
-3.0 -8.0 -5.5
-3.0 -10.0 -6.5
1.0 -10.0 5.5
-5.0 -7.0 -6.0
-5.0 -10.0 -7.5
-2.0 -8.0 -5.0
1.0 -4.0 -1. 5
-3.0 -13.0 -8.0
4.0 -14.0 -5.0
10.0 51.0 2.01
-14.0
-0.2
3-38
-
-
-
-
Wind ."
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec. _~e9rees -
2.8 90
1.4 90
4.2 90 ~"'f
2.8 0
4.2 90
5.6 90 I""" 1.4 180
4.2 0
2.1 90
4.2 90 I,..,
8.3 0
2.1 350
4.2 80 ,.
0.6 220
5.6 90
2.1 110
8.3 110 ,.
2.8 45
5.6 80
4.2 60 1lI!i!'
5.6 105
4.2 80
4.2 45 , ...
2.8 310
4.2 60
8.3 100
8.3 100 ,tlllt.-'
2.1 300
4.2 100
5.6 90 0lil.
5.6 100
8.3 100 .""
,.....,
r1/s12
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19-24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Month Iy Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.1 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(NOVEMBER 1982)
Tem~erature °C Rai
Max. Min. Avg. mm
4 0 2.0 .8 .03
2 -4 -1.0
0 -s -2.5
1 0 O.S
4 1 2.5
2 -2 0.0
-2 -10 -6.0
2 -3 -0.5
3 -5 -1.0
2 -8 -3.0
4 -1 -1.5
6 1 3.5 33.6 1.32
5 2 3.5 5.6 0.22
4 1 2.5
3 -1 1.0 .
-1 7 -4.0
-8 -14 -11.0
-10 -16 -13.0
7 0 3.5
4 7 5.5 2.2 0.09
6 3 4.5 2.8 O. 11
5 -3 1.0
-1 -4 -2.5
0 -4 -2.0
-1 -9 -5.0
7 45.0 1.77
-16
-0.8
3-39
Wind
Max. Speed Direction
m/sec. Degrees
8 60
1 135
1 330
1 220
6 80
1 220
1 30
4 330
1 2S0
2 240
2 50
1 60
6 360
10 60
1 240
1 240
1 90
7 90
10 60
r1/y13
il!l!r
TABLE 3.3.2
RAINFALL DATA: LAWING NR. CROWN POINT
U.S.F.S. FIRE WEATHER DATA STATION -
RAINFALL (INCHES)
.-
Day Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
1 0.7
,...
2 1.3
3
4 0.1 0.7 "'" 5 0.4
6 2.0
7 1.1 0.5 ..
8 0.1
9 0.4 i}',
10 O. 1
11 0.2 0.2 IN'
12 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 "";;
13 0.5
14 2.0 0.1 -15 0.6 0.1
16 0.1 0.2 0.2
17 0.4
18 0.3 1.2 ...
19 0.9 0.7
20 0.2 0.3 0.2
21 If>'
22
23 0.1 0.1
24 ..
25
26 0.2
27
28 0.3 0.1 -29 0.1 0.3
30 0.2 0.2
31 0.2 1IIf'
TOTAL 2.8 8.8 2.6 -
Notes:
1) Data is for 24 hour period ending at 0700 on date shown. IJIII'
2) -No record. Data not recorded or determined unreliable.
3) Blan k entries indicate zero rainfall.
il"J{'
3-40
rl/y14
3.4 ICE THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS AT GRANT LAKE
Measu red on lower G rant Lake.
Date
1-29-82
3-3 82
3-26-82
4-1-82
4-30-82
3.5 SNOW SURVEY DATA
Thickness (inches)
25
34 (measured by AEIDC)
36 (measured by AEIDC)
39
Not measured but melting
of ice evident
Snow depth and water content are measured at a site about i mile from the
outlet of Grant Lake.
A single end-of-season measurement of snowpack was made at
elevation 1550 feet, in an area which seemed representative of the upper
Grant Lake basin.
Date
1-29-82
3-4-82
4-1-82
4-30-82
Depth (inches)
27
23
24.5
55.0
3-41
Water Content (inches)
7.7
7.7
8.1
24.0 (Upper Grant Lake
basin)
r1/f1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
. \
HYDROLOGIC FIELD DATA COLLECTION
WATER YEAR 1983
DECEMBER 1983
Prepared for:
EBASCO SERVICES, INCORPORATED
400-112th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Prepared by:
R&M CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
5024 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-1733
-
-
-
-
rl/f2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Data conta'ined in this report were collected, analyzed, and reduced by
\
R&M Consultants under contract to Ebasco Services, Inc., as part of the
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study conducted for the
Alaska Power Authority. Assistance provided by the individuals and
organ izations noted below is gratefully acknowledged.
The Arctic Envi ronmental I nformation and Data Center (AE I DC) provided
field data on lake temperatu re and ice thickness and cooperation on field
logistics. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) provided advice on snow
cou rse locations. Field work was accomplished by Steve Bredthauer, Bob
Butera, Jeff Coffin, Lisa Fotherby, Carol Larson, and Carl Schoch of the
R&M hydrology staff.
r1/f3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
HYDROLOGIC FIELD DATA COLLECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED
3. 1983 FIELD DATA
3.1 Grant Creek Streamflow Data
3.2 Notes on Falls Creek Winter Streamflow
3.3 Grant Lake Climatological Data
3.4 Ice Thickness Measu rements at G rant Lake
3.5 Snow Survey Data
3.6 Lake Elevation Data
ii
PAGE
iii
iv
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-18
3 19
3-36
3-37
3-38
---
-
-
,..,
-
-.
-
..
r1/f4
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title
3.1.1 Grant Creek near Moose Pass, Mean Daily Discharge,
October 1982 to December 1983
3.1.2 Water Temperatures -Grant Creek near Moose Pass
3.3.1 Grant Lake Climatological Data: Data Summary,
December 1981 to November 1983
3.3.2 G rant Lake Climatological Data: Monthly Summaries,
October 1982 through November 1983
iii
Page
3-3
3-6
3-21
3-22
rl/f5
No.
1.1
3.1. 1
3.1.2
3.6.1
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Location and Vicinity Map
Stage Recorder Charts, G rant Creek near Moose Pass
Stage-Discharge Rating Curve,
G rant Creek near Moose Pass
G rant Creek Discharge vs. G rant Lake Elevation
iv
.. --
-
-Page
-
1-2
3 7
3-17 ..
3-39
-
--
..
-
r1/yG
1 -INTRODUCTION
The objective of Hydrologic Field Data Collection is to supplement existing
streamflow and climate data in the area of the proposed Grant Lake Hydro-
electric Project. Collection and reduction of the field data have been
performed by R&M Consultants. Figure 1.1 shows the project vicinity and
identifies the data collection sites.
This report presents the data collected during 1982-1983 and a description
of the field work underta ken relative to each of the hydrologic parameters.
Previous hydrologic data (1981-1982) were presented in the report "Field
Data Collection" by R&M Consultants, dated December 1982.
1-1
OWN.
CKD.
KEY TO DATA COLLECTION SITES
<t> ,.~L~
," (3)
!J
JHC
Grant Creek Streamgage
Falls Creek Streamgage (Discontinued)'
Grant Lake Climatological Station .
Grant Lake Snow Course
Trail L.ake Staff Gage (at RR Bridge)
R&M CONSULTANTS. INC.
DATE, 12/23/83 aNO,NEaR. OECU.CDtaT. PLAN""a". au"v.yo".
FIGURE 1.1
Hydrology Data Colectlon
SCALE: 1:63.360 VICINITY MAP
, : :-'r":" ~ .
" ;,. .f'
J. ,
Fe.
GRID,
PROJ.NQ 151182i DWG.NQ i
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r1/y7
2 -SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED
Grant Creek Streamflow. G rant Creek was gaged by the U. S. Geological
Survey (USGS) between September 1947 and September 1958. In April
1982, this gage was reestablished by R&M Consultants, and it became
operational after breakup in late May. Temperature measu rements have
been made at the gaging station on a monthly or bimonthly basis through
the year. A continuous recording Ryan thermograph was installed between
November 1982 and May 1983, but the quality of data it produced was not
judged accu rate enough for publication.
Falls Creek Streamflow. Falls Creek was under consideration for providing
additional streamflow to the project through a diversion to Grant Lake.
There are no historical streamflow records for Falls Creek, although a
crest stage recorder existed at the highway to measu re peak flows. The
Falls Creek Basin is very steep and, at the location of the proposed
diversion dam, there is no site that is suitable for streamflow gaging.
Below the steep aret;l there is an active placer mining operation; the gaging
site was established below this mining claim. An undetermined effect on
streamflow at the gage was caused by the miner's use of water for sluicing
operations.
The Falls Creek recorder was discontinued in the winter of 1982-83. All
recorded data (May 1982 -October 1982) are contained in the December
1982 data report by R&M. Some additional information obtained from local
sources pertaining to streamflow characteristics is summarized in Section
3.2.
Grant Lake Climatological Data. I n the original plan of study, a dam at
the outlet of Grant Lake and a saddle dam in the vicinity of the portage
trail were proposed. Wind data for design of these dams was needed;
thus, a mechanical recording weather station was established near the site
of the larger dam. Besides wind speed and direction, the station also
records temperature and rainfall.
2-1
r1/y8
Grant Lake Ice Thickness Measurements. Measurements were made monthly
through the winter of 1981-82 and periodically during the winter of
1982-83. They are supplemented by additional measurements made by
personnel from the Arctic Envi ronmental I nformation and Data Center
(AEIDC) .
Snow Surveys. Determination of monthly snow depth and density were
made at a site one quarter-mile north northwest from the outlet of Grant
Lake.
Lake Elevation. Measurements of lake level fluctuations both at Grant Lake
and Trail Lake were made on a monthly basis during maintenance trips
throughout the year. Lake level at Trail Lake was measured on a staff
gage at the railroad bridge between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes and is
referenced to mean sea level datum. Hydraulic control for the lake ele-
vation at this point is provided by a section of the lake appropriately
named "The Na rrows If, which is located at the mouth of G rant Creek.
Lake level at Grant Lake was measured near the outlet of the lake. It is
referenced to a temporary benchmark that was assigned an arbitrary
elevation of 10.00 feet. Hydraulic control for Grant Lake elevation is
provided by a bedrock "spillway" into Grant Creek and is largely
dependent on the amount of debris stacked up at this point. Figure 3.6.1
shows a fai rly good correlation between G rant Lake stage and G rant Creek
flow.
2-2
-
...
....
-
-
-
....
....
-
-
...
r1/y9
3 -1983 FIELD DATA
3.1 GRANT CREEK STREAMFLOW DATA
Location -Lat. 60°27'25", long. 149°21'15", on left bank 0.3 mile upstream
from mouth, 0.8 mile downstream from Grant Lake, and 2.3 miles south of
Moose Pass.
Establishment -August 26, 1947 by U.S.G.S. Reestablished April 1, 1982
by R&M Consultants for the Alaska Power Authority.
Drainage Area -44.2 squa re miles.
Gage -Stevens F -1 recorder f ratio 1: 5, in timber house and well.
Recorder is referenced to inside staff gage. Well is connected to stream
by two 2" galvanized intake pipes.
Bottom of well
Lower intake
Upper inta ke
Floor of House
I nstrument shelf
G.H.
G.H.
0.1 ft
0.3
1.8
7.0 ft
10.1
Elevation of gage zero is approximately 484.0 feet, mean sea level, from
USGS map "G rant La ke Dam Site" .
History -Prior to July 1, 1952 vertical staff gage at site 500 ft down-
stream at datum 7.23 ft lower. Continuous recorder September 1947 to
September 1958, operated by USGS.
Channel and Control -The channel is composed of sand, gravel and rock
and will shift on high stages. Banks are relatively high and covered with
vegetation and will not overflow except at extreme high stages. Channel
is straight for several hundred feet above and below the gage. Flow is
tu rbulent and fast.
3-1
rl/yl0
The extreme low water control is a riffle just below the gage, and the
control for higher flows is a series of riffles. During most winters the
control will remain open except for shore ice.
Discharge Measurements -Wading and ice measurements are made in the
vicinity of the gage, medium and high stage measurements are made from
the cableway located just below the gage. Weights and reel mount are left
at the gage. The cable is a 3/4" 6 x 7 wire rope, supported by timber
A-frames. Anchorage are timber deadmen. The cable is equipped with sit
down cable car. Length of span, 65 ft. Fair measurements can be made.
Point of Zero Flow --0.5 ft to 0.1 ft, shifting.
Winter Flow -There will be some ice effect during the winter period, and
the winter flow will be low.
Regulation and Diversion -No artificial regulation or diversion, but dis-
charge will be affected by natural storage in Grant Lake 0.8 mile upstream
and by a few glaciers and snow field at head of G rant Creek Basin.
Accuracy -Fair records can be obtained.
Reference and Bench Marks -RM-1 is top of head of spi ke driven hori-
zontally in 12" cottonwood tree. Tree is on left bank 20 ft upstream from
gage well. Spike is 2 ft above ground line and on downstream face of
tree. G.H. 6.81 ft.
RP-l is point on instrument shelf at float tape gage. G. H. 10.11 ft.
3-2
-
-
-
-
"""
TABLE 3.1.1
GRANT CREEK NEAR HOOSE PASS
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.)
Water Year October 1982 to September 1983
Oct. 1982 Nov. 1982 Dec. 1982 Jan. 1983 Feb. 1983 r. 1983
GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q
Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs
1 e"';': 260 1. 03 103 0.98 94
2 1. 04 104 0.97 92
3 1. 02 101 0.98 94
4 1. 65 105 1. 00 97
5 1. 05 105 1.07 108
6 1.03 103 1.13 120
7 1. 02 101 1. 12 118
8 1. 02 101 1.09 111
9 1. 01 99 1. 07 108
10 1. 00 97 1. 07 108
11 0.98 94 1.04 104
12 0.97 92 1. 02 101
13 0.97 92 0.99 96
14 0.96 91 0.97 92
15 0.95 90 0.95 90
16 0.94 89 0.94 89
17 0.93 87 0.99 96
18 0.92 86 1.04 104
19 0.91 84 1.08 110
20 0.91 84 1. 07 108
'l(,,;':
21 0.87 77 1. 06 106 46
22 0.87 77 1. 04 104
-:;'n':
23 0.86 76 1. 03 103 18
24 0.86 76 1.02 101
25 0.88 80 1.00 97
26 0.94 89 e'" 96
27 1. 02 101 e'" 95
28 1.05 105 1. 02 101 e"#'r 94
29 1. 04 104 1. 01 99 e": 93
30 1. 03 103 0.99 96 e';': 92
31 1. 02 101 e'"k 91
Tot 2780 3112
Avg 93 100
Max 105 120
Min 77 90
'ke estimated. No gage records.
,,#fr-/r: Discharge measurement made this date.
3-3
-TABLE 3.1.1 (cant.) .,
GRANT CREEK NEAR HOOSE PASS
~IEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) ..
Water Year October 1982 to September 1983
-
AEr. 1983 _May 1983 June 1983 July_1983· Aug. 1983 SeQ. 1983 """<,";
GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q GH Q
Day ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs -
1 1. 03 96 3.05 512 3.14 535 2.69 422 2.17 303
2 1.10 107 3.07 517 3.13 533 2.70 424 2.14 297 -3 1.15 114 2.99 496 3.07 517 2.72 429 2.07 282
4 1.18 119 2.87 466 3.03 507 2.80 449 1. 97 261
5 1.18 119 2.73 432 3.04 509 2.83 456 1. 81 229
6 1.19 120 2.65 412 3.02 504 2.91 476 1. 67 203
7 1.17 117 2.65 412 2.00 499 2.91 476 1. 56 182
8 1.18 119 2.68 419 2.98 494 2.96 489 1. 51 174
9 1.21 123 2.69 422 3.09 522 2.98 494 1. 47 167 ,....!V
10 1. 24 128 2.76 439 3.12 530 2.93 481 1. 43 160
11 1. 25 130 2.76 439 3.07 517 2.85 461 1. 41 156
12 1. 27 133 2.72 429 3.01 501 2.78 444 1. 37 149
13 1. 30 138 2.70 424 2.97 491 2.71 427 1. 35 146
14 1. 35 146 2.72 429 2.96 489 2.62 405 1. 36 165
15 1.41 156 2.75 436 2.95 486 2.52 382 1. 36 148
16 1. 47 166 2.73 432 2.94 484 2.46 368 1. 33 143 -
17 1.52 175 2.73 432 2.95 486 2.40 354 1. 30 138
18 1.57 184 2.74 434 2.95 486 2.36 345 1. 27 133
19 1.57 184 2.80 449 2.92 479 2.32 336 1. 29 136
20 1.56 182 2.84 459 2.8f\ 469 2.28 327 1. 34 144
21 1. 57 184 2.83 456 2.84 459 2.26 323 1.40 154
22 1. 62 193 2.84 459 2.80 449 2.28 327 1.44 161
23 1. 65 199 2.87 466 2.74 434 2.27 325 1.42 158
24 1.64 197 2.91 476 2.70 424 2.26 323 1. 39 153
25 1.63 195 2.96 489 2.67 417 2.24 318 1. 35 146
26 0.80 65 1. 63 195 3.03 507 2.63 407 2.25 320 1. 33 143 /IIlf"
27 0.84 70 1. 63 195 3.08 519 2.64 410 2.26 323 1. 30 138
28 0.88 80 1. 63 195 3.10 525 2.68 419 2.26 323 1. 28 135
29 0.93 87 1. 70 208 3.10 525 2.73 432 2.25 320 1. 29 136 "'" 30 0.97 92 2.10 288 3.12 530 2.74 434 2.24 318 1. 30 138
31 2.70 424 2.72 429 2.20 310
Tot 5229 13842 14752 11975 5178 .,.'"' ,
Avg 169 461 476 386 173
Max 288 530 535 494 303
Min 96 412 407 310 135 ....
p.
-
3-4
Oct. 1983
GH Q
Day ft cfs
1 1. 29 136
2 1. 28 135
3 1. 27 133
4 1. 25 130
5 1. 23 127
6 1. 20 122
7 1. 17 117
8 1. 15 114
9 1.14 113
10 1. 17 117
11 1. 26 131
12 1. 31 139
13 1. 31 139
14 1. 29 136
15 1. 27 133
16 1. 25 130
17 1. 23 127
18 1. 24 128
19 1. 24 128
20 1. 21 123
21 1. 23 127
22 1. 27 133
23 1. 28 135
24 1. 27 133
25 1. 24 128
26 1. 21 123
27 1. 19 120
28 1. 20 122
29 1. 18 119
30 1. 16 116
31 1.14 113
Tot 3806
Avg 123
Max 139
Min 113
TABLE 3.1.1 (cant.)
GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (C.F.S.)
Water Year October 1983 to September 1984
Nov. 1983 Dec. 1983 Jan. 1984 Feb.
GH Q GH Q GH Q GH
ft cfs ft cfs ft cfs ft
1. 12 110 1. 30 138
1.14 113 1. 32 141
1. 17 117 1. 31 140
1. 15 114 1. 27 133
1. 14 113 1. 24 128
1.13 111 1. 20 122
1.13 111 1. 16 116
1. 14 113
1.14 113
1. 21 124
1. 24 128
1. 24 128
1. 21 124
1.18 119
1. 17 117
1. 14 113
1.13 111
1. 09 105
1. 07 102
1.04 98
1. 02 95
1. 01 94
1. 00 92
0.98 89
0.97 88
0.96 87
0.94 84
0.97 88
1. 03 96
1. 24 128
3235
108
128
84
3-5
1984 i'1ar. 1984
Q GH Q
cfs ft cfs
r1/y
TABLE 3.1.2
WATER TEMPERATURES -AT GAGING STATION
GRANT CREEK NEAR MOOSE PASS
Date Temperature
11-24-82 1.9
01-21-83 1.8
03-23-83 2.7
05-17-83 5.5
06-16-83 8.7
07-08-83 12.5
08-05-83 13.5
09-01-83 11.5
10-03-83 7.0
11-04-83 4.4
12-07-83 3.0
3-6
...
-
"'"
...
~~
(OC)
"".
"".
"""
....
-
-
....
--.. __ .•. _---.--------_._------
r-l-t-l-t-r-:--~1-+--.-:-,..__----... --.. _---.... -. -.----.--
__ ~_ •• __ .... _. ___ .• t.~·. _~_. ___ _
.~ . c. ~
~ .. Co ~ ~ =~;.~-~~-'--'-I
-r,-:--"-'-" -r---r-----... ..
r-r : ,
.. , •... __ ._------. -------
-'-_ ....... ---'--_ .................. _-.... _-----_ .. . .• ------'---------_ ...... _---
-!--
,---,---..,--
-,-~-.
I-'-....... ..;.... ...... -;...;...-+~-...,...-,......-. --.. ----+----.. . ----.
. ,
,--~---~,.
2 III If J l "J I J'1 I "J. 14
o ('!.'t0 IUltt. J"it 2.
I-0_I':S_. ______ -I ~ FIGURE 3-1-1 iOWGNO
eKO I~CAL:...E.-------~ R&M CONSULTANTS. INC. ST AGE RECORDER CHARTS •.
OWN .... 1",.... crao\.ae'.T. "' ... NN ....• "'~"'.vo ••
CKO GRANT CREEK '40 Hi1182
~A~~~D~. __________ -J~==========================&~-----N--E~A-R--M-O~O~S-E--P~A~S~S~ __ __JllxG~R~!O _____ .~'L~E ______ J
'7
...
,
l ,
~ ..
l
, I
, , I , ,
I' i I
. _" '" '" <l <i ""
, , ,
I' , ,
, , j 1
<l
-..;
, I
, ,
I,
) f i
-~-
, ,
,._ ...
'-----' --
lU:I:1~.:t:t:t+, ,~: ,:t:llt, :~tt44:n+t-~t--rt--::;::l:!:t~_~ 00' ~5_ EBi--'-'-t-'1 Ei,~ ~~ E-L-3'-+-,-+' ~g~" ~Im@~¥!E' 'II
~~~~ __ ~-+~ __ ~~ __ ~'~~ __ ~-r~~+-________ +T_~~ _____ . _____ +,r.~:~~~7~CA~~~ ~."I< ~n.f'r ~.~lk~
" '
NOiV': =-~Ke-~TRAC £'.D~I=E()/Y1-___ 1--
-==-B4Dt. '1-~-'SM,~~t;'D'__=
--~~~14!4:--_;___~R~i3-~,-M, ,-t-
I ~------------------~~~----~~----~~----~---------------------------------------";~~h tr U " U 1. 1. '-I ~ ., ~, 10 II I, 11 I, Ir " 11 I; " " ~ ; IV U-
<I
DES, ~ FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) OWG. NO.
CKO, STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,: SCALE,
OWN
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
............ Ol,.O.laT .... ANN."' •• "'"".TD"'. DATE,
eKO GRANT CREEK J"'10 J NO 151182
APf'O, NEAR MOOSE PASS GRID' FILE
... -
-
-
-
-,
i¥'
Jfi'i"
..
I
1
'" .. , ..
~'! ,
OWN,
CKD
, j
'-'-,-;-.
, :
"
i : i
.: f
---;
f ,
,.... I
~
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. .... ..,..... ..IK.O.I.T. ...L.AN"'... ."'."" ...... 0 ••
-----.-,~-.--.------_ .... -. ----' ~
I! I' ,
--
FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.)
ST AGE RECORDER CHARTS,
GRANT CREEK
NEAR MOOSE PASS
I I I I
DWG. NO
SCALE'
PROJ NO 11111112
i'
, .
"
,
,,\
.,. t
.......
'iii
,!:!-. , .
h~, , I
, I , ,
; . .1
,~
,(,
;, I
;; ,"",,",'
~ .;~ ,
i r
1 i
r
DES'
tKO'
OW III
CI<O'
AWO'
i
i
~~+l~~~~~h-~+~_~+4~.~' ___ '~'_~ .. ~.~~
,-;.... .. ----'-.. ~ . ~i
n ,
,f
, : I I
I , i ,
, '
-.-!.--._-_.<+ ... -+-'--.
~ FIGURE 3-1-1 (CaNT.) OWG.IIIO
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,: SCALE'
........... tNICJI.d."Ta ..... AfIIHIIt._ .u.".va-c OATE' GRANT CREEK, PROJ 1110 151182
NEAR MOOSE PASS GRID' FILE·
.. .
....
.....
·.
CKO:
OWN
h======--=-==----.-... ~.-.. ---.. ---"""-·"··."r'----·-----,,-·---·-----.---
'~ .. --------
Iii .~ t:=~~:~::~~::.---t;-----------"_, ___ .-.,-_+--,,~_~ .•..... _~. -:+------.-------t-'.-~--r---"t-.-.-
~++++++:~ 3L~~--~~----r-+~~++~~~~--~---
"
~i'~~[~i~~,~_~~~ ~!EDS==E3====~~:±E:==~2i=t~~Si±rB
; ."\. ~-~:.. ; !
• 1 I, ; . 1 '
11\11( , !
H+~~~~~~-~~~~-~~~~~±-~~~---~~~'~':~~. ~_~""~ .. i __ ~~~t-.~~~+
i------~-...,..--.-.--.---,,..;...-.-----'--.-~---
------_.-----......;---_ ... -
----~.~!.
'--
._ .. __ ":.L
It, :::::::':::"=l:I, =~=,t, == :, =:=== .. = ,::.::::t. ,:::::.~,:::.~-:, :"=1= ... _---':"-.---;:;::...--"'.': .. ~====:,.,~.:':':':"::..:"""--.:~~=--===-----:
~~----------~I
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. ..... _._ _ .... 0.'."'_ ........ NN •••• lJtav •• o ••
FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,
GRANT CREEK.
NEAR MOOSE PASS
I~_·_NO_. ___ --__ ~
I~LE
PROJ. NO 151182
GRID: "'LE·
I , ,
",: .... I I' 'I I
. I . I, • !, . , '
'I\-,: Y:. , f I
: ,
I'
! I l!
!
-~--~ .. ---.. ---.---.. ~---
I
;
~==========~r===~~r.=============~r=====================~~============(~
t-0E_S_' -------i ~'---------.. ," FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) OWG NO
CKO' SCALE'
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. ST AGE RECORDER CHARTS, OWN ...... HIIt •••••• Ot..O.,.'1" ...... N ...... u.y .... o.. DATE;
CKD GRANT CREEK PROJ. NO 1111182
\,;;A:.:...;PPO...::.....' _____ -" ,,-====-= ...... -====-""""'===_===:1) '---_ NEAR MOOSE PASS GRID F'ILE
"
I
J
!~'--~'---'-.--......
:-+-
(
," 'I .""
"U I
~ i! j j
" . I '
I! '
c----~~~·----·--
1. __ L..-.:......_-!_ .. __
.-'~-,
H4I::;::::;==+=+~:-r,.-+-;:~-;--+-I-!-i-++++-4+-H---I ~ j±::' ±t:ttt:::±::=-=:;==::i:tj::tj.
.... ~ ..... ·····f'·-·
... -~~~: . -.... _-----, ,
.1
S ( 1 " 1 I' F/ ., 1';
FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) J-D_WG_NO_. -------1
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,: !-,S,-,-CA...:;.l:...:.E_· -------1
DATE'
GRANT CREEK ,,--._...;:N..:.;E:;.A:...:.;;,.:R;...M:..:.:...:O::...O=-S.::..;:;:E_P;~A...:S...:S;....._-.../ ~:~OJ NO ':,'l:82
r-------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
-~---------------_.-----------------. -----.-.~~--
. ; \
""
DES ~ FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.) DWG NO
tKO' STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,: SCALE
DWN
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
............ CI.Ol.DOI.T. ~"'.NN •••.... "" .... 0 •• DATE'
tKO-GRANT CREEK PROJ_ NO 161182
APPO-NEAR MOOSE PASS GRID-FILE
,~~.~,~. ~~I'~~-~~~'~\~-~~~~~---"--~~-~-~ ... -_.
I'
\ !'
DES'
CKO'
OWN
CKO-
; I j I
1 ! . , ,
I I
, t
! , I: I , ,
, ~,~.~~~_~-L~
~~~~~~'-,-!~ ~T~----~--,·-_-L,,--r--L~~----~H,
3-15
t ---.. _ ... -.--
, ____ L ... -':"-=:-::-
~G Z3 'l!~ ~r; (;(J, 27 Z8 Z'I
FIGURE 3-1-1 (CONT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS,.:
GRANT CREEK
NEAR MOOSE PASS
.,--Li.-L
DWG NO
161182
/'
.. .
"..-------_.-._---
, , , ,
;4~~444444+4+4~++++++++++~*++--++~' ! I ! 14!4!4'~+-'41~~++~'~'++++++++++++++++~
, "'-~i---~~~~~---'-"--'-~---"~-~~I~!r-~
::; -....
~
~
'" 5:
~
f
--'-, -1-------, ~-:_:__i_:·
I I
r-------'-------------------.. -
..,;
-=-
I,
: I , I
~! !:': i : ': i r0:=-~~ -,--~-. ~~~.--"-.. =~. :E[ .
~! 5' b '1 ~ 't J \... .. ...
t' ')>1(: ... .r &~ «:F t 'l
OWN
R&M CDNSULTANTS. INC.
........... ..en.OOla"'. '-LAN ... " .UJlllv."O ....
CKO-
FIGURE 3-1-1 (CO NT.)
STAGE RECORDER CHARTS.
GRANT CREEK
NEAR MOOSE PASS
I
""J. -__ . __ •. -~ -I
1-;
V"-~
DWG NO
SCALE
DATE'
PROJ, NO
GRID'
'1 .S
1'1&l-3
151182
FILE;
b
I
I
_I
-,j
~I
·1
Ill""
...
....
-
""
..,
-
..'
Ii"
<. " 0 () 0
'0 ,. ~ " '" 1l <:> Z 0 If'
'J
4 :n
1: ... ,.. 9
0
C
::0 <
,~ ) " 0 '" 0
;u "' 1> () :E
6 0 -< J> C>
'-'" r-
'" z z 0
0 ;:;
10
9
8
7
G
5
4
3
1.0
.9
?
;.7
T
~.6
L
~.,s
r:p
,,..-.4
01
" Ll
'-:3
UJ
\!)
<t
h.
\/).2
0.1
10 20
! I
5-2 1 -li'2'
'/,-H-'ill '\ '.':r.
\
p,
~.~ ;.-" i .
\\
\j
3D 4() SC> GO 7 8 9 100
D't.{ \~H «r. ': (<."'~)
I
I'
J
,
I
I'
20C
i !
I
r1/y
3.2 NOTES ON FALLS CREEK WINTER STREAMFLOW
In late January 1983, some research was performed to determine charac-
teristics of winter flows in Falls Creek. Since no winter gaging has been
done on this creek, data were limited to observations made by local resi-
dents. Their comments are as follows, with the dates of contact noted:
1-28-83
1-28-83
1-28-83
1-28-83
2-1-83
Phil at USFS in Seward: "Stream used to flow a small amount at
bridge. Since mining diversion, no winter flow observed at
bridge. Looked at upstream part of Creek in January or
February of 1982. There was a small trickle of water under the
ice at the mouth of the canyon, but this disappeared into the
mining gravels."
Dave Trudgeon, Biologist at AEIDC: "Drilled in Falls Creek at
bridge, looking for water, in March 1982. No flow. Flew upper
basin. Do not recall any flow, although once saw a pool of open
water up above the falls."
Tim Pflum, Seward City Engineer, resident of area: "Estimated
10-12 cfs at bridge after recent heavy rainfall. Has been flow-
ing pretty much all winter but at a very much reduced level."
Note: The period preceding this observation was unseasonably
warm.
Ron Quillam, local resident: "Recalls that one of neighbors, who
has since moved away, made use of water from creek and com-
plained last year when mining activities dried up the creek
downstream of the mine."
Emy Merritt, 40-year resident of area: "Most of her neighbors
and she herself recall winter flow in Creek but very little and
only when it IS warm or raining. Fire chief looks at once in a
whi Ie for use in fi re fighting. He has determined that winter
flows are not usable."
3 18
.' -
....
...
-
r1/y
3.3 GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
Location -SE~, Section 6, T4N, R1E, Seward Meridian. At south end of
Grant Lake. Altitude 610 feet from U.S.G.S. topographic map Seward
(B-7) .
Establishment -December 8, 1981 by R&M Consultants, Inc. for Alaska
Power Authority.
Type of Station -Meteorology Resea rch, I nco Mechanical Weather Station.
Parameters measured are temperature, rainfall, wind speed and wind
direction. Instruments are located 10 feet above the ground on a peninsu-
la projecting into the lake which is about 10 feet above the lake surface.
Data Notes
1. (.) No record. Data not recorded or determined unreliable.
2. Blank entries in rainfall tables indicate zero rainfall (except as noted
in winter months, where there are no data at all).
3. A day begins and ends at 2400 hours.
4. Temperature is reported to nearest 1°C. Maximum and minimum
temperatu res are the highest and lowest readi ngs for the day. Daily
average temperature is the average of the maximum and minimum.
Monthly average is the mean of all the daily averages.
5. Rainfall is reported to nearest 0.2 mm (and converted to nearest 0.1
inches) .
6. Wind speed is reported to nearest 1 m/sec (except October 1982,
which is to 0.1 m/sec). The duration for the reported daily maximum
generally exceeded 1-2 hours.
3-19
r1/y
7. Wind direction is related to true north. Direction is reported to
nearest 30 degrees, except that water year 1982 values were estimated
to the nearest 10 or 15 degrees. A plus (+) sign after monthly value
denotes that the monthly maximum speed was recorded from more than
one di rection.
8. Precipitation data for Lawing at Crown Point, a U.S.F.S. fire weather
data station located a few miles from Grant Lake, are also available.
3-20
.... '
...
....
'",
r1/f18
TABLE 3.3.1
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
DATA SUMMARY
December 1981 to November 1983
Wind
Temperature, °C Max. Speed Direction
Month Max. Min. ~ mm sec Degrees
Dec. 1981 11 30+
Jan. 1982 11 75
Feb. 1982 6 -26 12. 1 11 80
Mar. 1982 5 M -17 M -4.2M 8 M 60 M
Apr. 1982 9 -18 -2.5 11 60
May 1982 13 M _8 M 2.2 M 26.7 M 1.1M 8 M 70+M
June 1982 23 M 2M 9.6M 11M 75 M
July 1982 25 2 11.6 45.2M 1.78M 10 M 70 M
Aug. 1982 24 5 12.9 38.2 1. 50 7 30
Sep. 1982 18 0 8.8 8 45
Oct. 1982 10 14 -0.2 51.0 2.01 8 100+
Nov. 1982 7M -16 M -1.1 M 45.0 1.77 10 60
Dec. 1982 6 -20 1.5 121.4 4.78 11 30+
Jan. 1983 7 -25 5.3 11 60+
Feb. 1983 8 M _4 M 2.4M 14 90
Mar. 1983 9 M -13 M 0.6M 11M 60M
Apr. 1983 16 -9 3.1 1. OM 0.04M 8 30+
May 1983 20 7.2 58.8 2.32 10 60+
June 1983 25 2 11.4 108.8 4.29 11 90
July 1983 28 5 13.9 33.8 1.33 8 60+
Aug. 1983 27 3 12.6 45.4 1. 79 8 90
Sep. 1983 18 -4 7.5 39.4 1. 55 11 30
Oct. 1983 11 -5 2.4 81.0 3.19 8 90+
Nov. 1983 8 1 1.7 79.0 3. 11 14M 60 M
Period of Record
Maximum 28 14 60-90
Minimum -26
NOTE: "M" after a value indicates a portion of the monthly record was
missing.
3-21
r1/f19
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
" 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly Max.
Monthly Min.
Monthly Avg.
TABLE 3.3.2
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(OCTOBER 1982)
Wind
Temperature °C Rai nfall Max. Speed
Max. Min. ~ mm Inches m/sec.
10.0 1.0 5.5 2.8
8.0 2.0 5.0 .6 .02 1.4
7.0 1.0 4.0 .2 .01 4.2
7.0 -1.0 3.0 2.8
5.0 -2.0 1.5 4.2
3.0 1.0 2.0 5.6
3.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 .04 1.4
4.0 -2.0 1.0 2.6 .10 4.2
3.0 1.0 2.0 6.2 .24 2.1
4.0 -1.0 1.5 0.2 .01 4.2
6.0 -2.0 2.0 1.8 .07 8.3
8.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 .24 2.1
4.0 2.0 3.0 7.8 .31 4.2
3.0 1.0 2.0 3.4 . 13 0.6
3.0 -2.0 0.5 0.8 .03 5.6
3.0 ' -1.0 1.0 7.0 .28 2.1
5.0 2.0 3.5 7.0 .28 8.3
5.0 -2.0 1.5 2.8
4.0 2.0 3.0 6.4 .25 5.6
3.0 0.0 1.5 4.2
0.0 -4.0 -2.0 5.6
-2.0 -5.0 -3.5 4.2
-3.0 -8.0 -5.5 4.2
-3.0 -10.0 -6.5 2.8
-1.0 -10.0 -5.5 4.2
-5.0 -7.0 -6.0 8.3
-5.0 -10.0 -7.5 8.3
-2.0 -8.0 -5.0 2.1
1.0 -4.0 -1. 5 4.2
-3.0 -13.0 -8.0 5.6
4.0 -14.0 -5.0 5.6
10.0 51.0 2.01 8.3
-14.0
-0.2
3-22
-
-
~
Di rection
Degrees ..
90
90
90 ..
0
90
90 ... '
180
0
90
90 ft'
0
350
80
220
90
110 -,
110
45
80
60 ...
105
80
45 -310
60
100
100
300
100
90 ....
100
100+ ....
11'''
r1/f20
TAB L E 3. 3 . 2 (co n t. )
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(NOVEMBER 1982)
Wind
T emperatu re °c Rainfall Max. Speed
Max. Min. ~ mm n es m/sec.
4 0 2.0 .8 .03 8
2 2 -4 -1. 0 1
3 0 5 -2.5
4 1 0 0.5
5 4 1 2.5
6 2 -2 0.0
7 -2 10 -6.0
8 2 -3 -0.5 1
9 3 -5 -1.0 6
10 2 -8 -3.0 1
11 4 -1 -1.5 1
12 6 1 3.5 33.6 1.32 4
13 5 2 3.5 5.6 0.22 1
14 4 1 2.5 2
15 3 -1 1.0 2
16 -1 -7 -4.0 1
17 -8 -14 -11.0
18 10 -16 -13.0
* * 19-24 7 0
25 4 7 5.5 2.2 0.09 6
26 6 3 4.5 2.8 O. 11 10
27 5 -3 1.0 1
28 -1 -4 -2.5 1
29 0 -4 -2.0 1
30 1 -9 -5.0 7
Monthly Max. 7 45.0 1.77 10
Monthly Min. 16
Monthly Avg. -1. 1
* Recorder cha rt did not advance properly between 11/19 and 11124.
Di rection
Degrees
60
135
330
220
80
220
30
330
250
240
50
60
360
60
240
240
90
90
60
The
maximum and minimum temperatures for the 6-day period were 7°C and
OoC, respectively.
3-23
r1/f21
TAB L E 3.3. 2 (co n t . )
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(DECEMBER 1982)
Wind
T emeeratu re °C Rainfall Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm Inches m/sec.
1 10 -13 11.5 6
2 -12 -14 -14.0 6
3 -14 -20 -17 .0 1
4 2 -19 -8.5 8
5 4 2 3.0 5.0 0.20 8
6 5 0 2.5 13.2 0.52 11
7 1 0 0.5 11.8 0.46 11
8 1 1 1.0 8.8 0.35 1
9 0 -1 -0.5 0
10 6 -1 2.5 3.4 0.13 11
11 6 2 4.0 1.8 0.07 8
12 5 0 2.5 1.2 0.05 6
13 3 0 1.5 6
14 4 0 2.0 9.0 0.35 2
15 5 1 3.0 31.0 1.22 4
16 5 1 3.0 4.6 0.18 8
17 1 -2 -0.5 1
18 -2 -4 -3.0 1
19 3 -2 0.5 8
20 3 0 1.5 0.4 0.02 6
21 3 -9 -3.0 6
22 -7 -9 -8.0 1
23 -6 -9 -7.5 1
24 -4 -6 -5.0 1
25 -4 -7 -5.5 1
·26 4 -4 0.0 3.4 0.13 8
27 4 1 2.5 13.8 0.54 8
28 6 2 4.0 3.0 0.12 11
29 5 0 2.5 11.0 0.43 6
30 -3 0 -1.5 1
31 5 -2 1.5 4
Monthly Maximum 6 121.4 4.78 11
Monthly Minimum -20
Monthly Average -1.5
3-24
-
...
, ..
Direction
Degrees
90
90
240
...
60
60
30 -30
210
60
60
30
30
30
360
30 ...
240
240
30
60
60
240
240
240
240
60 """ 60
30
360
210 ....
60
II>"
30+
....
r1/f22
TAB L E 3. 3 . 2 (co n t . )
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(JANUARY 1983)
Wind
Temperature °C Rainfall Max . . Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm Inches m/sec.
1 6 2 4.0 No winter 8
2 5 1 3.0 Data 4
3 3 -3 0.0 3
4 -4 -12 -8.0 6
5 -12 -17 -14.5 1
6 -14 -16 -15.0 6
7 -14 -17 -15.5 8
8 -17 -20 -18.5 8
9 -19 -24 -21.5 8
10 -17 -25 -21.0 8
11 -12 -22 -17.0 6
12 -14 -15 -14.5 8
13 -12 -15 -13.5 1
14 -7 -15 -11.0 1
15 5 -7 -1. 0 11
16 1 -2 0.5 1
17 -1 -2 -1.5 0
18 5 -1 2.0 11
19 0 0 0.0 1
20 2 0 1.0 8
21 4 -3 0.5 8
22 4 -14 -5.0 0
23 -5 -15 -10.0 1
24 3 -8 -2.5 8
25 7 -2 2.5 11
26 5 2 3.5 8
27 5 0 2.5 6
28 3 0 1.5 1
29 0 -1 -0.5 0
30 5 -1 2.0 11
31 5 1 3.0
Monthly Maximum 7 11
Monthly Minimum -25
Monthly Average -5.3
3-25
Di rection
Degrees
60
330
60
60
210
90
90
90
60
90
90
90
240
240
60
240
60
240
60
30
240
240
60
30
30
30
240
240
60
60+
r1/f23
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(FEBRUARY 1983)
Wind
Temperature °c Rainfall Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm Inches m/sec.
1 5 1 3.0 No winter 6
2 4 2 3.0 Data 1
3 4 1 2.5 6
4 5 2 3.5 6
5 2 0 1.0 8
6 -* 3
7 1
8 1
9 4
10 1
11 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 2 0 1 .0 1
19 4 -2 1.0 6
20 5 1 3.0 8
21 7 0 3.5 8
22 7 1 4.0 8
23 8 3 5.5 14
24 6 -1 2.5 8
25 5 -4 0.5 6
26 4 0 2.0 6
27 5 0 2.5 1
28 5 -4 0.5 1
Monthly Maximum 8 14
Monthly Minimum -4
Monthly Average 2.4*
Direction
Degrees
30
240
30
30
30
240
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
240
30
30
30
60
90
60
60
30
270
240
90
* No data from 2/6-2/17 . Temperature sensor iced up. Temperatu re less
than OoC. Monthly average computed from available data.
3-26
",",'
/1M
...
"'"
"""
/Plv
-
....
...
""
r1/f24
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.}
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(MARCH 1983)
Wind
Temperature °C Rainfall -Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec.
1 2 -6 -2.0 No winter 2
2 -2 -10 -6.0 Data 3
3 1 -13 -6.0 1
4 4 -6 -1.0 1
5 5 -4 0.5 1
6 6 -7 -0.5 2
7 3 -10 -3.5 1
8 4 -11 -3.5 1
9 3 -12 -4.5 1
10 4 -8 -2.0 1
11 7 -5 1.0 1
12 8 0 4.0 11
13 9 3 6.0 6
14 9 0 4.5 7
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 6 0 3.0 1
24 6 -1 2.5 2
25 4 -2 1.0 8
26 7 2 4.5 8
27 6 2 4.0 8
28 5 0 2.5 6
29 7 -2 2.5 6
30 9 -4 2.5 7
31 8 -1 3.5 4
Monthly Maximum 9* 11
Monthly Minimum -13*
Monthly Average 0.6*
* Computed from available data.
3-27
Direction
Degrees
90
60
270
240
30
270
90
240
240
270
240
60
30
90
240
270
30
90
30
60
30
90
270
60
r1/f25
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
( APR I L 1983)
Wind
Temperature °C Rainfall Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm Inches m/sec.
~"--
1 7 -3 2.0 6
2 11 -5 3.0 1
3 6 -4 1.0 8
4 6 1 3.5 1
5 7 -3 2.0 1
6 12 -5 3.5 1
7 7 -8 -0.5 3
8 8 -4 2.0 3
9 5 -3 1.0 6
10 6 -8 -1.0 4
11 7 -9 -1.0 8
12 6 -1 2.5 1
13 5 -2 1.5 1
14 7 -2 2.5 3
15 5 0 2.5 6
16 7 0 3.5 1
17 7 -2 2.5 3
18 5 -1 2.0 7
19 6 -3 1.5 2
20 9 -2 3.5 6
21 6 2 4.0 6
22 9 1 5.0 2
23 10 -1 4.5 1
24 15 -3 6.0 6
25 16 1 7.5 4
26 13 -2 5.5 4
27 14 -2 6.0 4
28 11 -1 5.0 0.2 0.01 1
29 8 2 5.0 0.8 0.03 4
30 13 0 6.5 6
Monthly Maximum 16 1.0 0.04 8
Monthly Minimum -9
Monthly Average 3.1
3-28
....
-
-
... '
Direction
Degrees
1liii'
60
0
30 ..
270
240
90 ......
90
90
90 ..
90
90
300
240 -240
60
240 -240
30
90
90 11M.
30
330
240 -90
240
90
90 ....
120
90
90 "'"
30+
III"
rl/f26
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(MAY 1983)
Wind
Temeerature °C Rainfall Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm Inches m/sec.
1 14 -2 6.0 3.2 0.13 3
2 7 0 3.5 17.0 0.67 1
3 8 -2 3.0 15.0 0.59 4
4 8 1 4.5 3
5 7 2 4.5 4
6 8 -1 3.5 6
7 15 -2 6.5 3
8 15 0 7.5 0.2 0.01 1
9 11 0 5.5 6
10 9 2 5.5 8
11 9 4 6.5 8
12 11 4 7.5 8
13 14 3 8.5 8
14 14 4 9.0 3
15 12 5 8.5 10
16 9 6 7.5 0.2 0.01 10
17 11 3 7.0 1
18 8 0 4.0 0.6 0.02 6
19 18 -2 8.0 2
20 20 0 10.0 3
21 10 4 7.0 3.8 0.15 1
22 20 3 7.0 1.6 0.06 1
23 8 3 6.0 8
24 7 4 6.0 0.8 0.03 7
25 14 3 9.0 0.6 0.02 2
26 11 4 8.0 0.2 0.01 6
27 8 6 7.0 0.4 0.02 4
28 14 7 11.0 1.0 0.04 7
29 16 8 12.0 1.0 0.04 7
30 17 7 12.0 10.8 0.42 10
31 12 7 10.0 2.4 0.09 6
Monthly Maximum 20 58.8 2.32 10
Monthly Minimum -2
Monthly Average 7.2
3-29
Direction
Degrees
240
90
90
240
30
60
60
60
90
90
60
90
90
270
90
30
270
30
30
270
240
270
30
30
240
60
30
90
60
60
30
60+
r1/f27
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTH L Y SUMMARY
(JUNE 1983)
Wind
Temperature °C Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ es m/sec.
1 12 3 7.5 0.4 0.02 3
2 15 2 8.5 1
3 12 5 8.5 3
4 15 4 9.5 2
5 20 4 12.0 4
6 21 4 12.5 2
7 18 3 10.5 3
8 22 . 3 12.5 3
9 17 3 10.0 96.0 3.78 4
10 16 4 10.0 3
11 13 3 8.0 6
12 12 7 9.5 0.2 0.01 8
13 15 7 11.0 6
14 14 6 10.0 0.2 0.01 6
15 16 6 11.0 1.6 0.06 2
16 18 5 11.5 1
17 23 5 14.0 2
18 25 5 15.0 3
19 18 7 12.5 2
20 15 6 10.5 6
21 19 8 13.5 4
22 22 6 14.0 3
23 16 7 11.5 2
24 20 8 14.0 " 25 19 5 12.0 0.4 0.02 3
26 14 9 11.5 3.0 0.12 4
27 16 9 12.5 4
28 15 10 12.5 2.0 0.08 8
29 13 " 12.0 4.8 0.19 6
30 20 9 14.5 0.2 0.01 3
Monthly Maximum 25 108.8 4.29 1 1
Monthly Minimum 2
Monthly Average 11.4
3-30
...
-
,""
"'"
Direction
... '
240
240
240 "'"
240
90
60 -270
270
90
270 .... '
60
60
90 /III'
60
240
30 ".,~
360
210
240
60 "."
60
210
240 ... '
90
240
30
60 .....
30
30
30 ......
90 ..
....
rl/f28
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(JULY 1983)
Wind
T emperatu re °C Rainfall Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. Avg. mm Inches m/sec.
1 18 11 14.5 2
2 22 8 15.0 3
3 28 6 17.0 3
4 19 7 13.0 3
5 20 8 14.0 2
6 15 8 11.5 1
7 20 10 15.0 2
8 16 8 12.0 9.6 0.38 8
9 20 6 13.0 3.2 0.13 8
10 18 6 12.0 4
11 10 8 9.0 11.8 0.46 1
12 18 8 13.0 0.6 0.02 1
13 16 6 11.0 4.0 0.16 3
14 24 10 17 .0 0.2 0.01 3
15 25 7 16.0 3
16 25 13 19.0 4
17 20 10 15.0 6
18 18 8 13.0 0.2 0.01 3
19 19 10 14.5 1.2 ' 0.05 2
20 20 8 14.0 1
21 20 8 14.0 2
22 23 5 14.0 3
23 15 11 13.0 3.0 0.12 1
24 20 6 13.0 3
25 20 6 13.0 1
26 22 6 14.0 1
27 24 7 15.5 4
28 20 8 14.0 6
29 18 13 15.5 6
30 10 18 14.0 6
31 18 6 12.0 2
Monthly Maximum 28 33.8 1.33 8
Monthly Minimum 5
Monthly Average 13.9
3-31
Direction
Degrees
240
240
240
240
360
210
240
60
30
30
240
240
240
270
270
90
60
90
240
210
270
270
30
210
240
240
90
90
60
60
90
60+
r1/f29
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(AUGUST 1983)
Temperature °c Rai nfall Max.
Date Ma-x. Min. ~ mm Inches
1 20 10 15 0.2 0.01 1
2 20 12 16 4
3 27 8 17 3
4 15 11 13 2.0 0.08 1
5 15 10 12.5 4
6 18 10 14 0.8 0.03 1
7 16 10 13 6.6 0.26 1
8 14 10 12 3.0 0.12 1
9 17 7 12 1.4 0.06 1
10 20 6 13 1
11 21 6 13.5 1.0 0.04 3
12 19 7 13 3
13 15 7 11. 5 2.4 0.09 2 14 15 5 10 4.0 0.16 4
15 18 4 11 2.8 0.11 4
16 19 3 11 0.2 0.01 1
17 15 3 9 4.4 0.17 6
18 20 6 13 3
19 23 5 14 3
20 16 6 11 3
21 11 8 9.5 15.0 0.59 1
22 17 9 13 0.2 0.01 1
23 16 10 13 1.4 0.06 1
24 17 7 12 2
25 10 7 13.5 4 26 15 7 11 8
27 20 6 13 4
28 20 6 13 1
29 17 11 14 1
30 16 6 11 1
31 19 5 12 1
Monthly Maximum 27 45.4 1 . 79 8
Monthly Minimum 3
Monthly Average 12.6
3-32
-
-
-
...
Wind '"'" Speed Direction
De9rees
•
240
90
90 II!>"
210
360
270
240
240
240
240 ,...
240
240
360 III'"
360
60
240
90 -' 90
270
240 ",..
270
240
240 -90
90
90
90 -270
270
270 -270
90 ....
I!!"
rl/f30
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(SEPTEMBER 1983)
Wind
Temperature °c Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm m/sec.
1 13 8 10.5
2 17 5 11 0.2 0.01 3
3 12 6 9 0.6 0.02 4
4 14 8 11 0.2 0.01 6
5 15 6 15.5 4
6 15 1 8 6
7 18 0 9 2
8 12 2 7 0.6 0.02 1
9 16 8 12 2
10 16 5 10.5 2
11 11 5 8 2
12 15 5 10 1
13 13 8 10.5 3.8 0.15 8
14 10 2 6 9.6 0.38 6
15 12 0 6 1
16 14 -2 6 3
17 16 -2 7 0.2 0.01 1
18 10 0 5 4.0 0.16 7
19 10 7 8.5 2.2' 0.09 11
20 10 7 8.5 3.0 0.12 2
21 10 5 7.5 6.0 0.24 6
22 14 5 9.5 4.2 0.16 6
23 5 0 2.5 6
24 0 -2 -1 4
25 4 -3 0.5 6
26 8 -4 2 6
27 7 -3 2 4
28 10 4 7 1
29 14 4 9 3.8 0.15 8
30 12 2 7 1.0 0.04 1
Monthly Maximum 18 39.4 1.55 11
Monthly Minimum -4
Month Iy Average 7.5
3-33
Direction
Degrees
60
60
90
90
90
60
240
90
90
60
240
60
90
240
90
240
30
30
60
300
90
90
30
90
60
60
240
60
180
30
r1/f31
TABLE 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(OCTOBER 1983)
Wind
T emperatu re °C Rainfall Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm Inches m/sec.
~--
1 8 0 4 1.2 0.05 6
2 10 7 8.5 8
3 8 5 6.5 6
4 10 5 7.5 6
5 10 -2 4 6
6 11 -2 4.5 0.4 0.02 2
7 7 3 5 4
8 5 2 3.5 6
9 5 -3 1 7
10 0 -1 -0.5 4.8 0.19 1
11 5 1 3 36.0 1.42 1
12 3 0 1.5 9.2 0.36 3
13 5 0 2.5 0.2 0.01 1
14 5 -3 1 0.2 0.01 1
15 4 -5 -0.5 0.2 0.01 1
16 6 0 3 8
17 5 0 2.5 8
18 8 4 6 3.2 0.13 6
19 8 -2 3 0.4 0.02 3
20 4 -3 0.5 1
21 5 0 2.5 2.6 0.10 1
22 5 3 4 15.4 0.61 6
23 5 -1 2 4.0 0.16 6
24 3 0 1.5 1.2 0.05 3
25 0 0 0 6
26 0 -2 -1 6
27 0 -5 -2.5 4
28 0 0 0 2.0 0.08 8
29 2 0 1 6
30 3 0 1.5 1
31 3 -3 0 1
Monthly Maximum 11 81.0 3.19 8
Monthly Minimum -5
Monthly Average 2.4
3-34
..
-
-
-
-
Direction
Degrees -
60
30
60 11""
60
60
210 -60
60
90 -210
210
210
240 .'
60
240
90 .,.
60
260 <,
360
60 ..
240 ...
360
60 .-
150 Ill" 90
90 ..
90
90
60
240 -240
90+ -
...
r1/f32
TAB 3.3.2 (cont.)
GRANT LAKE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
MONTHLY SUMMARY
(NOVEMBER 1983)
Wind
Temperatu re °C Max. Speed
Date Max. Min. ~ mm m/sec.
1 0 -1 0.5 1
2 0 -1 2.5 2
3 5 0 2.5 2
4 5 0 2.5 4
5 0 0 0.0 4
6 0 -1 -0.5 1
7 0 5 2.5 3.2 0.13 7
8 6 2 4.0 3.0 0.12 8
9 7 2 4.5 7.0 0.28 8
10 5 2 3.5 9.6 0.38 8
11 5 0 2.5 1
12 1 -1 0.0 0.2 0.01 1
13 0 0 0.0 1
14 0 0 0.0 1
15 5 -1 2.0 3.0 0.12 4
16 0 -1 -0.5 1
17 0 0 0.0
18 0 0 0.0
19 0 -1 -0.5
20 4 -1 1.5 3.2 0.13 8
21 3 1 2.0 10.8 0.42 8
22 2 0 1.0 1.6 0.06 1
23 1 0 0.5 0.2 0.01 4
24 2 1 1.5 6
25 3 0 1.5 8
26 1 0 0.5 1
27 5 0 2.5 7
28 8 2 5 7.2 0.28 14
29 8 4 6 10.6 0.42 14
30 5 2 3.5 19.4 0.76 11
Monthly Maximum 8 79.0 3.11 14
Monthly Minimum -1
Monthly Average 1 .7
3-35
Direction
Degrees
240
360
360
90
60
270
60
60
60
30
240
240
240
240
230
150
30
60
270
90
90
60
270
60
60
60
30
60
3.4 ICE THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS AT GRANT LAKE
Measured on lower Grant Lake.
Date
1-27-83
3-23-83
4-16-83
Thickness
12 (measured by AEIDC)
22
Lower Lake completely open
3-36
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
3.5 SNOW SURVEY DATA
Snow depth and water content are measured at a site about ~-mile north-
northwest from the outlet of Grant Lake.
Date
1-21 83
3 23-83
Average
Depth (inches)
23.6
25.5
3-37
Average
Water Content (inches)
7.1
9.8
3.6 LAKE ELEVATION DATA
Date
09-26-81
01-09-82
01-30-82
03-04-82
04-01-82
06-15-82
07-05-82
07-13-82
07-30-82
09-01-82
10-28-82
12 21-82
03-23-83
04-26-83
05-17 -83
06-16-83
07-08-83
08-05-83
09-01-83
10-03-83
11-04-83
Mean Daily Discharge Grant Lake Elevation
Grant C,'eek (feet, (feet,
43
22
30
26
290
365
466
514
284
105
106
18
65
175
432
494
456
303
133
114
arb. datum 1 ) msl 2 )
5.0
4.6
4.8
4.5
6.8
7.2
4.0
4.7
6.6
7.4
7.0
5.5
5.3
696.04
691.7
691.3
691.5
691.2
693.5
693.9
692.3 6
690.7
691.4
693.3
694.1
693.7
692.2
692.0
Trail Lake
Elevation
3 feet msl
466.87
467.29
465.99
463.73
462.94
463.79
465.39
466.66
467.27
467.12
465.84
464.49
464.00
12-07-83 116 5.4 692.1 463.70
(1) Stage is related to TBM 'Rock', top of rock point at north end of
peninsula on which weather station is located. Assumed elevation is
10.00 feet.
(2) Computed from relationship between Grant Lake stage and Grant
Creek discharge on 12-21-82, date of lake survey.
(3) Trail Lake elevations observed on staff gage on railroad bridge
located at Moose Pass (between Upper Trail Lake and Lower Trail
Lake.
(4) Elevation determi ned photogrammetrically.
(5) Elevation obtained by R&M survey crew near proposed power tunnel
outlet, approximately 2 miles down lake from RR bridge.
(6) Elevation obtained by R&M sur'vey crew during lake outlet survey.
Site is closer to outlet than other observation site.
3 38
-
....
-
""
....
-
-
t> n 0 n
." -" :Ii: :x
." 0 <I' 0
0
~
<> '" If'
;0
"1\
III
10
--.....9
i. Q
.r-
-.--7
" ~ (,
'J
~ 5 '-
10
J~ Ju -ls 1.-
I
I.
I f-
;
I
I
, ,
\
\ ..-\ /Q I ~~_:-~J b'l.,-i' J
'1-1-1(2-
I
]-Z3-g'.l
1 -' • j
I ! . !
10 40 So 200 300 ~M S IS '1 11 ~ 1000
P:t~C.4AR6eJGA"''''' C.":t.E!" IV!'.""· HtXiS(. PrU!. (CJ:5)
'--1-...l.-L----L....''--_--==--....:...... ___ ~ ____ ......:.:...=__==_.;. '===--=-=-=-:';"';'::-:::::========:::::====~---=--=--=====-=----------
--. I ; iii Ii 14/ "Ii ili;:Ii~;"''''''I';q~;''M~::4i_ Ul elUi biqM' 'P llii " 1,1· Hi "I IIi! 'i!i'l'F4i'"ii\'""HHI "r'1III#i ll 'iiliii¢4ii+II!IIW :; I,::,
PART VII
RESERVOIR AREA-CAPACITY,
FLOOD HYDROLOGY,
AND OUTLET RATING DATA
I
Table No.
VII -1
VIII -2
VII - 3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
PART VII
RESERVOIR AREA -CAPACITY~ FLOOD HYDROLOGY
AND OUTLET RATING DATA
LIST OF TABLES
Title
RESERVOIR AREA -CAPACITY CURVE DATA
OUTLET RATING DATA
FLOOD HYDROLOGY DATA
'''''
TABLE VII -1 ''''
RESERVOIR AREA -CAPACITY CURVE DATA
,~j4.
Reservoir Elevation Reservoir Area Reservoir Volume
(Acres) (Acre-Ft) ,,..
640 1,390 164,000
650 1,430 177 ,000 ....
660 1 ,480 192,000
'''''
670 1 ,530 206,000
680 1 ,570 222,000 ,.
690 1 ,640 240,000
700 1 ,710 254,000 ....
710 1,800 272,000
jill'
720 1 ,880 286,000
I.
'*'"
Note: Data obtained from Figure IV-14 of Volume I
to,
, ..
Water Surface
El ion
690
692
694
696
698
700
702
704
706
708
TABLE VII - 2
OUTLET RATING DATA
Natural Outlet Discharge
( cfs)
o
250
850
1,700
3,000
5,000
8,700
13 ,000
18,000
24,000
TABLE VII 3
FLOOD HYDROLOGY DATA
PMF RESERVOIR ROUTING
•••••••• *.* •••• *.** ••• ~*.* •• *.*.* •••••• *.* •• * •• *.*.** ••• a ••••• ,. •••••••••••••• _ •••••••••••••••••••••• _ ••••••• *a •••••••••••••••••••••
HY!1ROtRAPH AT !>TATION SP
•• * ••••••••• * * * •• * 1. "''-iF_ ( ", ••• t" :"",J...; _ * • *. * W'" •••••••• ***t •• * •••• *.** •••• ** •• ** ••• * ••••• **.* •••• *** •••• e •.... _.a_*_. __ •• _ .•••••• __ •••.••
0'\ "ON ~IR"H ORO OUTfL"W STORAGE STHE · OA liON HRIIN ORO OUTFLOW STORAGE STAGE • OA "ON HRMN DAD OUTFLOW STOIlAG[ STAGE
!
1 ~1l00 1 O. 2~aOOll.C 691 • ~ · 2 flf,OO 31 ?675. 250056.8 697.3 · 3 1200 61 27722. 269856.~ 709.2
I 1)100 2 63. 2~·,222 .2 6q 1.1 · 2 0700 :'12 :>765. 25n~26.3 6'17.5 • 3 130Q 62 2£.<117. 269~30.0 70R.9
1 02tO 3 138. 24 -.. car IJI f' ('91 .3 * 2 "'H""~ 33 :;>1l!:>1. 25~7"'1., 697.7 * 3 1'1~ 0 63 25526. 26~69~.3 71)R.5
I 0300 II 21". 2'1017.:..0 b'll.o * 2 ('900 3,. 2q~O. 251lQO.a 6'111.0 • 3 1:)09 6" 23e50. 26779?~ 7~8.~
1 £ill 00 5 314. 2~1t15.f. 691.7 · 2 IPOO :'~ :'223. 251717.':1 c,ClIi.3 • 3 1<,00 65 22190. 2661181.2 707 ...
1 !l50n 6 ~3~ • 2_15">6.~ (,92 • .1 · ;> 11011 3f, ~731. :?52~54.5 (,98.7 • 3 1700 66 2057 ... 26!iQ9~.2 706.9
1 '6et 7 551. 2~lq5fio.~ 1>"2.3 • ;> !2110 :'17 4151. 25.'~':' '.1 6Q'J.l • :3 l.~OD 67 197V5. 26';"9b.3 766.6
1 11700 a 627. 2~222t.7 ;:'';2.5 · 2 13" II 38 .'4~. 2<;334::.(, 6"9.7 • 3 lQufl bA 1"0;06. 265366.1 706.6
1 01'\00 9 1,99. 2~;".nl.4 (,92.7 • ;> 1400 39 ~~';7. 25356~.1 69".3 • 3 2UOO 6'1 19039. 265059.3 70o.~
I c"oa 10 779. 24?76£. .f. ""2.8 · 2 150~ ~O 4t6f 2. 25~R33.6 699.5 · 3 7106 10 11'232. 264530.R 106.1
1 1000 11 R7b. 245109.~ 6,}3.1 · 7 I f,0 0 -I .. ')"e. 2">4218.3 699.7 • 3 22CII 71 17321. 263";'1.9 705.7
1 11 ~~ 12 I • 0 I. 2~3552.5 I'd ~ .4 · 2 ! 1 = J ~2 53 f,". 2'541\ lb ... 70!!.1 • :5 2300 72 16400. 263331.0 705.4
1 1200 13 llU. 2~3·H7.CI 693.l. • ;> 11\ C ~ ~3 !OII'&. 2~53a~ • .s 700.~ * ~ 0000 n IS16J. 2~25In.3 704.9
I 1300 H llA 3. 2ul"9.:!1 ('''3.8 · ;> 1°~0 ~~ b n 6''10 25">""".~ 70~.5 * " ~IOO 7~ U51~. 261~~~.4 70~.2
1 1'+ (1 ~ 15 li'_q" 24~":53.1 ,,94.e · :> 2~OO 45 /',? 16. 25:'1>21.7 70!)." • -0200 75 llq27. 260'116.:5 70~.6 ..
1 1500 16 1!2,S. 2",.,,'11.9 1.",+.1 • 2 <'lao 46 t. ~.! 7. ;>55~I!I.2 711~.7 • ~ C~ Oil 76 106H. 259505.5 7P3d
1 11s00 17 1417. 24,028.'1 ~'H.q * ... ~2QO ~7 f, 710 • 256131\.(. 700.'1 * " "'~OO 77 '1612. 258 .. '10. " 702.5
1 1700 18 l~H. 2~~~1j2.~ 694.1 · ;> 23QO ~e 7~5'+. 25"61'~.'I 7~1.2 • ~ O!'OO 7A &71 7. 257<156.1 702.0
1 lQOO 1" 16!>t.. 2~5~76.0 69Q.CI · :3 &~OQ ... 7qp~. 251267.6 701.6 • ~ ~600 79 8002. 257288.4 701.6
I ;,C)(1;--2r , 71'1, ,,,';,,",Q:~.P /',°5.1 · 3 ' 1 i r. ~I !' P 4 '11 • 251744.5 1~! • q • ~ r11'O flO 7~4 7. 2561>7703 701.2
1 2~OO 21 1159. 2"6:?1l".7 b"'j .2 • 3 0200 ">1 <)(15«). 25q26~.O 702 .... • ~ 111'011 III 6HB. 256118. • 7"0.9
1 210(; 22 I'IH. 2"650·!.1 6C1",~ * ~ ~'OO 5::> "A~A. 2">~IHl.~ 702.6 • ~ 0900 82 61'1". '55606.1 700.&
J 2200 23 1r.t1_. 211 f, 79':1.5 6.9!l .~ · :3 o~oo 53 10911. 25"6117.& 70J.l • ~ H!)~ 113 56" 7. 255137.6 700.3
1 2:3 n ~~ 2~ 1 'IS!>: 2~7~1'j.r, &Q'j.7 • 3 :5r::-1" .,~ 12&6:>, 26'''9~.1! 703.'1 · ~ 11 00 A~ !>2aS. 25~ 706." 700.0
2 0000 25 2081. 247&0'1.2 b'l5.9 · :5 C600 55 14'015. 2('20q<:.~ 10~.1> • " l;>no 85 5~O7. 25"3?~.8 699.8
7 "'lot 26 ? 14A. 24131<5.7 f.96.1 · :3 C7 00 5~ If 115. 2,,3137.5 70".:'1 * ~ DOll 'l6 474S. 2·B'J2~." 699.6
2 !)201J 21 ?;"17. 2~n.:.!',o; &"6.? · 3 (lRJI) !>7 11~96. 26~31r. • .:. 705.<1 • ~ HOD 87 .. ~qR. 253566.1 699.3
2 ~300 2~. ? :>'17. 2~o""7.7 (,'16." · ~ o"nu 0;'1 21 r 3 ~. 2&"2~ ... 6 707.1 · ~ l!\CO till ~2&~. 253227.1 699.2
~ J~ 60 2'1 <' 3"8. 2"""11~.1 69 .... 7 · 3 I "~ 1 5'1 25 ~ 3 n. 26"C,Q:.? 7 O~. 4 · ~ !&IIO 111:1 .. o~ 3. 257907.0 6'19.D
2 0500 :!Ie 2541. 2~"503.P &91.0 · 3 1l0!) 60 27f,2~. 263~O".2 70'1.1 • 'I 1700 '10 3935. 252&0~.& 698.11
......•............•.....•.. _ .............................................. -........... -..•..•....•....................... _*. __ ._.-
PEAl< FLO\! TIME: '1A x '"till AVfRAGi: FUlW
I rF 'II IriRI 6-~~ ;>q-HR 72-Hil 89.0D-HR
21722. 60.!!/) I C" S I 2~'J27 • 1~41~. 9412. 7a~..,.
I INCH;"'" .OOG .000 • 0 O~ .1l00
(AC-FT\ I?ASt. 37"1'>, 56360. 57~15,
PfU STORA6' TIME "AXlr~ll!l • Vf RAG f STORAuf
( AC-FTI ItllU f..-'jR :,q-HIl 7;>-"!~ 89.CO-HR
2c9856. &0.00 ?ol ~99. 2(,471'1. 2'j~n'.Hs. 2~H07.
P£H ST.A':,r TI Mr "'AXl""'" ~\I~~~G'" <TV,~
IfrETI (fjlO b ... ;'I'<. :' .... I-i~ 7~->ik '1'J.OO-HR
70<i.lb 60.0n 1(Hl.6c 7~,~.tq 701.37 ,,99. n
..
!
i )1'1
PART VIII
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
PART VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Group Contents
1. ADF&G letter of comment on April 1980 Feasibility Assessment
2. Special Use Permit Application~ October 1981
3. Distribution of Interim Report
4. Special Use Permit~ 1982
5. Special Use Permit for Cultural Resources~ 1982
6. Correspondence Relating to Application for Special
Cultural Resource Use Permit
7. Distribution of Field Study Plan and Request for Comment
8. Agency Comments on Field Study Plan and Interim Report
9. Letter Report of June 8~ 1982 Meeting with USFS
10. Distribution of July 9 Meeting Minutes and Request for
Comments
11. Agency Comments on July 9 Meeting Minutes
12. Distribution of August 17 Meeting Report and Request for
Next Meeting
13. Distribution of August 17 Meeting Minutes
14. Distribution of November 10 Meeting Minutes
15. Distribution of Draft Feasibility Study Report
16. Agency Comments on Draft Report
GROUP 1
ADF&G LETTER OF COMMENT OF APRIL 1980 FEASBILITY ASSESSMENT
, '.
I·K 7LH
DEPAUTMENT 0.' "'ISII/~ND 6,\ :l1l"~
September 3, 1981
Alaska Power Authority
333 W. 4th Ave., Suite 31
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Attention: Robert Mohn, Director of Engineering
Gentlemen:
Re: Grant Lake Hydropo'tler Feas i bi 1 ity Assessment
April, 1980
~ ;1,( 1
,JA Y S. HAMMONO. GOVERNOR
333 RASPBERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502
•• -,j v'"
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Grant Lake
Feas i bi 1 i ty Assessment and submi ts the foll o\,/i ng comments.
Page 3-4, para 7
The statement that Falls Creek is to cold to support salmon rearing
is contradicted later in the report (page 6-7, para 3).
Reference is made to a Fish and l4ildlife Service fry survey in
which king salmon fry were captured in the lower 200 yards of Falls
Creek. I
In addition, apparent lack of spawning use in a stream reach does
not imply that it ;s unsuitable for rearing. We are also of the
opinion that lack of salmon spawning in Falls Creek has not been
definitely established.
With respect to the statement that diversion of Falls Creek waters
is not expected to cause a great problem does not consider that
relatively small (1-2°C) changes in stream thermal regimes may
significantly affect ,incubation rates of salmonids causing early or
late fry emergence with increased mortalities. Even though diversion
water will mix or sink, we expect there will be a net decrease in
Grant Creek water temperatures.
-2-9/3/81
;2 6-6, para 2
We support further investigations with respect to changes in
thermal regimes and the feasibility of reducing the magnitude of
these changes if it appears that related impacts will be significant.
'.lge 6-7, para 8
We support the concept of additional detailed studies of anadromous
and resident fisheries resources of Grant and Falls Creeks.
In addition, the Department supports the concept of ons;te mitigation
rather than offsite enhancement.
Page 6-8, Table 6-4, Grant Creek Stream Surveys
Department staff has ascertained that sa1monid spawning is not
limited to the lower 1/4 mile of Grant Creek but occurs throughout
the lower 3/4 mile. A 1976 Alaska Department of Fish and Game survey
enumerated 70 king salmon distributed within the lower 3/4 miles.
Page 5-10, para 1, 2, and 3
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is not formally involved in
a five year cooperative study with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
study habitat enhancement burns.
With respect to mitigation, our greatest concern is in what manner
inundated moose winter range can be compensated for. The winter
range to be affected ;s probably one of the limiting factors for
moose that inhabit the area. Mitigation must address replacement
of thi sloss.
Page A-4. para 1
Inunda~ion of moose winter range could eliminate or severely depress
moose populations in the project area.
Page A-6. para 1
The Anadromous Fish Act (AS 16.05.870) is a State statute and
requires authorization from Alaska Department of Fish and Game only.
The Department is concerned that the preferred alternative (Grant
Lake-Falls Creek) may severely impact fisheries and wildlife resources
within the project area and suggests that further investigation be
conducted to determine means and methods to best maintain existing
resources.
...
...
to"
..
..
..
"" ..
...
•
tL Mohn -3-9/3/81
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
Sincerely,
Carl M. Yanagawa
Regional Superv'
BY: Th m J. inski
Regional lands Specialist
Habitat Division
'(907) 344-0541
cc: S. Eide
A. Kingsbury
R. Redick
D. Daisy
D. Watsjold
T. t~cHenry
T. Spraker
S. Logan
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
10800 NE 8th S1 reel, Bellevue, WA 98004. (206) 453-6060
Alaska Power Authority
334 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Attn: Mr. Eric Marchegiani
October 15, 1981
ENW-GRANT-L-81-002
SUBJECT: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Dear Eric:
Transmitted herewith is a draft letter from the Power Authority to
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game which responds to their letter
dated September 3,1981. Please send us a copy of the letter sent
to the Department of Fish and Game on the Power Authority's letter-
head for our files.
If you have any questi ons or comments, pl ease give me or toJayne Pi etz
a call.
DKS:jm
attachment
bcc: J. Straubergs
G.G. Lawley
S.O. Simmons
J.A. Franco
Very truly yours,'
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
c7'U/,v/!4
Don K. Smith-!
Project Manager
DRAFT
ALASKA POHER AUTHORITY LETTERHEAD
Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa, Regional Supervisor
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
SUBJECT: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Dear Mr. Yanagawa:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 3, 1981 in
which you provided comments on the Grant Lake Hydropower Feasibility
Assessment Report, dated April, 1980, which was prepared for the City
of Seward. The Power Authority is currently conducting a detailed
feasibility analysis of the proposed Grant Lake Project. This study
will include the field and office investigations required to assess
the engineering, environmental and economic feasibility of the project.
The results of the study will provide the basis for a decision on whether
an application will be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for a license to construct and operate the project. The
feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in December, 1982.
We have provided a copy of your letter to our contractor for this study,
Ebasco Services Incorporated. Ebasco is currently developing a detailed
study plan for assessing the fish and wildlife resources in the project
area and the impact of the proposed project on the resources. This fall,
Ebasco and the Power Authority will meet with ADF&G to describe the
proposed study plan, respond to the comments in your September 3 letter,
and to solicit further comments and recommendations on the proposed
study plan. We will be in contact with you in the next several weeks
to arrange for meeting with you.
-2-
The Power Authority appreciates your interest in the Grant Lake
Project and looks forward to working with you during the feasibility
study. Should you have any questions, please contact us. The project
manager on our staff for the Grant Lake Project is Eric Marchegiani
who can be reached at 276-0001.
Very truly yours,
....
..
-
.. .,
.,
..
..
..
-
GROUP 2
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, OCTOBER 1981
r
L
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Alaska Power Authority
Attn: Eric Yould
334 West Fifth Avenue .
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
2720 OCtOG1i81
I have received your application for a special use permit to conduct
engineering studies near Grant Lake for a power project. By virtue
of this letter, you are authorized to conduct those investigations
as specified in your application and attachment A, Figures 1 and 2.
A copy of those attachments is enclosed. This authority will end at
the conclusion of this field season. Prior to the 1982 field
season, please contact Ranger Geof Wilson at Seward to develop an
operating plan for that season's activities.
Please be guided by the following stipulations:
1. Remove photo control panel, if used, at conclusion of 1981
operations.
2. Lop and scatter brush to less than 24 " high during clearing
for helipads or grid lines.
3. All refuse generated by your operation should be packed out
currently and deposited in an approved sanitary landfill.
I understand your contractor on this project will be EBASCO
Services, Incorporated. The Forest Service Liaison Officer will be
Ron Quilliam of the Seward Ranger District. Please notify us of
your field representative's name, address and phone number.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
cc: Seward R.D. w/enc.
Ron Quill i am
(II.')
United Stat('1 D.par~"nent of Agricultu.re ,..
Fo .... t Service ~
0
SPECIAL USE APPLICATION AND REPORT III
a. Record no. (1·2) : b. R.,;ion (3-4)
7 QI
Font> Approved
OMB No. <lO-RJ495
--
I" Fo,o" ,,~,
--
(Reference FSM 2712) :::I
d. Dillrict (708) e. User n ... mber (9.1 2) I. Kind of us. (13·15) w ~
This report is a ... thariud by the O'ganic Act of June 4,1897 01:
III ---------lor the purpose of evaluating Ihe proposed uSe and na pe,mil t;; g. Stale (16.17) h. Co ... nty (18.20) k. Card No. (21) may be issued unles. this fo,m i. completed or the informa. W tion it r.quire. has b •• n :node CI port of the record in 10m. I>: 1 other manner. 0 ... -----
PART I • APPLICATION (To be completed by applicant)
Application is he,eby mode fa, a permit 10 use Notional Forest land os indicated below:
I. Oescriplion of lond: (Aftac" .UAP or PLAT)
R1W, T4N~ Sec. 1 ~ 12, 13
R1E~ T4N~ Sec. 1, 2, 6~ 7, 18,IQ
R1E, T5N~ Sec. 27~ 28, 29, 31~ 32~ 33, 35,36
Rz~ !4IJ J ~ bJ 7
2. Purpole 01 ,,"e.
-
-
The purpose of the use of Forest Service lands is to perform certain field investiga-~
tions in 1981 for the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. These investigations.
are part of a feasibility study being conducted by the Al13ska Power Authority which
will asse$S the viability of constructing the proposed project. Field investigations •
are also anticipated in 1982; however~ application for permission to perform these
investigations will be made in 1982. The activities proposed for 1981 include
surveying, geotechnical investigations, hydrological data cdllection~ and environmental
sampling. A detailed description of each of these activities is provided on Attachment-
itA", and shown on Figures 1 and 2. ."
3. Land A,ea applied for (For Ri,hts·of·Way show length and width " .. d co ... ·"rr to acres; for or"." uu," show ac,e.)
(Miles) or
Length in: x Width
(F •• t) (Acres)
4. Improvements New structures requl red tor the proposed 1 nvest; gations ; ncl ude a gage
a.Oueription house near the outlet of Falls Creek and a shelter for the climatological
station at the outlet of Grant Lake. The approximate location of these structures is •
shown on Figure 1.
The gage house will be a standpipe structure (constructed of corrugated metal pipe1'
which will be located on the bank and a second pipe will be placed in the streambed of
Falls Creek. The climatological station at the outlet area will consist of a small •
metal shelter mounted on a post. These structures shall be constructed to resist wind ...
and snow loads experienced in the area. It is anticipated that both structures will
remain in place through 1981. ..
b. Plans ottached 0 Y.I [J No. If "NO" show dale plona will be fu,ni.hed
<:. Estimated cos, d. Construction wi II be;in within
$----------
O .. Ie of ..\pplie/llion Applicants nome and signature
Eric Yould
Alaska Power Authority
Previotls edil.on of this fa,,,, " obsolete (OVE III
eo Construetion will be compl.ted within
(Montns)
Applican", addre ..
334 \~es t Fi fth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska
99501
(ZIP Code)
FS.2700.3 (11'78\
-
..
Attachment A
1. Surveying and Mapping
Surveying and mapping activities will include performance of
ground control surveys and possible temporary placement of photo
control panels. The ground control surveys will required minor
brushing to facilitate surveying the location of existing features.
Ground control surveys will also include placement of a staked grid
at the outlet of Grant Lake. This grid will consits of stakes
placed 200 feet apart over an approximate area of 1, 000 by
1,OOO-feet. Brushing and cutting of trees will be required to
provide lines of sight between the stakes.
Temporary placement of approximately 15 photo control panels may
be required, depending on the weather experienced during the
remainder 1981. The panels would be approximately 2411 x 36 1 and
would be located as shown of Figure 1. If required, the panels
would be placed during October 1981 and removed by the end of
1981. No roads will be required for placement of the panels.
Only minimal brushing activities are anticipated at the location of
the panels.
2. Hydrologic Data Collection
Streamflow gages will be installed on Grant Creek and Falls Creek
in October 1981. The locations of these gages are shown on
Figure 2. The gage on Grant Creek will be installed in the
existing gage house which originally housed a USGS streamgage.
The gage on Falls Creek will be placed in a new gage house
located within ~ mile upstream of the mouth. A weather station
(precipitation and windspeed) will also be installed at the outlet of
Grant Lake.
r27/h1
The new structures required are discussed in Section 4 of the
Permit Application.
3. Geotechnical Investigations
Geotechnical field investigations planed for 1981 include geologic
mapping, core drilling and augering. Geologic mapping requires
only walkover activities with no ground disturbance.
Core drilling, to be performed near the proposed dam and spillway
sites at the south end of Grant Lake, will utilize a helicopter
transportable drill rig on a hydraulically leveling base. Two core
holes are planned for the 1981 investigations.
To provide helicopter access to each drill site it will be necessary
to clear an area approximately 150 feet in diameter, sufficient to
allow adequate clearance for the helicopter and safe conditions for
the g round crew.
Auger drilling activities in the proposed Saddle Dam, penstock and
powerhouse areas will be initiated with hand transportable equip-
ment resulting in minimal ground disturbance. If subsurface
conditions necessitate more extensive exploration I a larger drill rig
will be placed at each drill site by a helicopter. This option
requires clearing at each site as described above. Auger hole
locations are shown on Figure 1.
Absorbent pads will be available on the drill rigs at all times for
use in controling minor fuel and oil leaks. All waste products
generated by the drill site activities will be cleared from the sites
at the completion of drilling.
r27/h2
..
-
-."
•
..
...
..
...
4. Environmental Studies
Studies will be conducted as needed to identify and describe the
fisheries, wildlife, and water quality of the project area. These
studies will be performed by boat, airplane, helicopter, and on
foot at Grant Lake, Gra!1t Creek, Falls Creek, and Vagt Creek.
Field sampling will involve the use of gill nets, minnow traps,
beach seines, e/ectroshockers, hook and line, Ekman dredges, and
Surber samplers. Sampling will be done during October, November
and December of 1981.
In order to conduct the field studies, investigators will be flown to
sampling sites. Since these studies will be primarily on Grant
Lake, flight patterns will be as shown in the attached map,
(Figure 1) and those flights between Grant Lake and Lower Trail
Lake, will cross the land mass separtating the two lakes. Timing
of flights and flight patterns will be arranged to avoid wlldlife
concentration or high-use areas.
r27/h3
:s-
29/
J2
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
fiGUlft I
F;'(jhf Rtflt
a .> fvir f, /t:!i fDr Env/rMmr:/l/"/ fl/t>1'/.:
.... f/'Dlo ('M~.71 /?;/?;.«J
SCAlf! b!lhlJ
~'~T .~~.-,~~ =>~-"'<~""""-"''''''d'''''''~==
U:NI.'l' .... l~<lff·c";;l ~:)('; rtLT
foI .. Tt01<AI ("100f11C v(IIIIUl (\AtuM ()/o \1i,i<9
(;llNTOUR INtERVAL 100 feET
hiAt()fW, G£OO(lIC: V(RTO(. QUUM 01 1m
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
;:IGilI?(ff 2
...
..
..
~-
GROUP 3
DISTRIBUTION OF INTERIM REPORT
Kr. John Katz
COrr.r.lissioner
Department of tlatura 1 Rcsourc:es
Pouch R
Jun~au. Alaska 99811
Oe~r Comnissioner K~t7:
"'arch 15. 1982
[BASCO Services. Inc •• h~s bepn pngaC!ed by the I\lC'!:h' Po':!er
Authority to cOIl'!pletp p. ff'as1b111t.y ~T\i!'.vsis of the Crant L~!::('
Hydroelectric Projf~ct. In conjunction with our contract requirct'!1f";lt!:
they h~ve completed an intE-rim n:oport (? volur."cs).
This report WlI$ intend~d as an intf!lrnal docur.1!'nt \,lhich ""('Iuld bt:>
used ft"r fl'c.r.hir:9 iln t'srly drefsfon ort pro,1 p ct Ilrri'n9f'!".(Int~ th!"ff'fc-r{;.,
only a 11~1ted numbrr of cop1~s havp bpen runl1shcd. P'e~~~ not~ thlt
this report is not a f~I1:sHd11ty rE'port. This ~pr1ng, 5u~r, u:d f~l1
wil' ~e ut11i7('d to collect 8ddftionel env1ror:M~nt81, oro1orir..
hydrologic, and oth~r eng1neerin~ d~t~. This 1nfo~~tion ~il1 be
incorporated into the draft feasibility report t-/hirn is 'Pro,~~rter to be
distributed in riovt:r.'"lbcr ]9~2, for rev1ew.
r will forward a copy of this r€'p(\rt {2 \'(\lur.€s! to your st('ff fm-
th£'ir USP..
cc: Mr. Don SMith, fBI'.sCO
r.r. Reed Stoops, Oiv. of
Resp.arr.h & DeveloDMPnt
w/enclosure .
Eric P. YouU
rX(~cut;vt:' IJircctt'!"
;
~1r. John Katz
Commissioner
DISTRIBUTION OF LETTER
Department of Natural Resources
Pouch ~1
Juneau, Alaska 99811
cc: Mr. Don Smith, EGASCO
Mr. Reed Stoops, Div. of
Research & Devep't, w/attch.
~r. Robert McVey
Director Alaska' Region
National ~arine and Fisheries
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
cc: Don SMith, EBASCO
Brad Smith, Nat'l Marine
and Fisheries, Anch.
Mr. Keith Schreiner
U.S. Fish & ~!ildlife
733 West 4th Avenue,
Anchorage, Alaska
Servi ce
Suite 101
99501
cc: Don Smi th, EBASCO
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation,
lI. S,. F ish & vi i1 d 1 i S e rv ice,
\t~ len c los u re
The Hor.ora~le Ernst Mueller
Commi s 5 i onel'
Department of Environmental Convervation
Pouch 0
JureilU. Alaska 99811
cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
~'lr. Bob ~'artin,
Dept. of Environmental Conservation,
\-J/enclosure
~~r. Clay G. Beal
rest Supervi sor
lI. S. DepartMent of Agriculture
Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
cc: Mr. Don Smith, ERASCO
Mr. Geof Wilson, District Ranger, w/enclosu
Mr. Clarence E. Johnson
Ci ty Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
Mr. Tom Small, City of Seward,
Light & Power Division, w/enclosure
Mr. Thomas Kolaninski
General Manager
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 3518
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
Mr. Larry Markely,
Chugach El. Assoc., w/enclosure
The Honorable Ronald O. Skoog
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Subport Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
~lr. Thomas J. Arminski,
AK Dept. of Fish & Game
....
"
,.., .
....
Mr. Kurt Dz1r.1ch
Hydro OeveloPMe~t Spcc1~11st
Alaska Senate R,s~erch Agpncy
Pouch V
Juneau, Alcsk~ 99811
O~~r ~r. Dz1nich:
~':arch 15, 1982
EPASCO S~rv1ces, Ir.c., has b('~r erl]l'(jN~ hy trC' rie!;y..'I Pm"",r
P,uthcrity tC' cor.rl~t~ A fflilSibil ity ~r.Jlyt.;i s cf th0 Gr?nt L?h-·
Bydrof'lr-ctric Pro;lcct. In conjunction \'lith r.ur r:of1tn~c~ r('lauirl''''~::i.t::
they hav~ ccrpleted ~n int~rim r~r0rt (2 v~lur.r~).
This report was 1F't~ndr:d (IS ar· ir.ternal cocu'-r-r:t which \.·rIJ1~ bn
used for rp~ c h 1 ng (In I?£' r 1 y dec is i nr or; p l"c'.~ ("ct a rrr: r.~j(':fl .. r t '; t hf\r:-:,[,
only a liMited nurhcr of cop1e~ h~vp b~e~ puhli~~~~. Ple~~n rot:, th~
this report 1$ Mt ('! fp(lsibl11ty r('pr:.rt. This ~rrir;o, su~~('rt :"';-< '('
will b~ utilized to collect ~~dit1nn~1 pnvirG"r~rt~l, qrnlncif,
hvc!rolo91c, and oHI('r F'pqincflri"r! d2t?. This 1nfoIT):>t1 n n hill !-;(>
ircorporCltE'd intI') the drCl~t f('[Sibil1f:v r(>r')rt vhir.h is pro,irctfc trr II:
distributpd in NoveM~0r 19B?, for r0v1fw.
cc: non Sniths EB~scr
Erir P. You'rl
Fxr:u t iV0 r1r~~t0r
DISTRIBUTION OF LETTER
Mr. Kurt Dzinich
Hydro Development Specialist
Alaska Senate Research Agency
Pouch V
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Mr. Cliff Judkins
Crown Point Lodge
Mosse Pass, Alaska 99631
The Honorable Stan Thompson
Mayor of Kenai Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 850
SoldotnR, Alaska 99669
Mr. Robert Cross
Administrator
Department of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 3518
Anchornge, Alaska 99802
Mr. Thomas Mears
Cook Inlet Aquaculture
P.O. Box 850
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
•
II'
GROUP 4
SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 1982
,. ..
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276·0001
March 31, 1982
Mr. Clay G. Beal, Forest Supervisor
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Chugach National Forest
2221 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
SUBJECT: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS FOR GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Dea r Mr. Bea 1 :
The Alaska Power Authority desires to perform certain field
investigations in 1982 on Forest Service land at and around Grant Lake
on the Kenai Peninsula. These field investigations are part of a study
being conducted by the Power Authority which will assess the feasibility
of constructing and operating the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project. Enclosed please find the Special Use Permit Application which
describes the field investigations planned for 1982. .
The field work planned for. 1982 is similar in scope to the work
which was successfully performed in the fall of 1981 for the same study.
The 1981 investigations were authorized by the Forest Service after a
Special Use Permit Application was submitted by the Power Authority in
October, 1981.
Our contractor for the execution of the planned investigations is
Ebasco Servi ces Incorporated. We will provi de you wi th the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of individuals who will be directly
responsible for the work prior to commencing field activities. Any
questions regarding the attached material should be directed toward
Eric Marchegiani, the Project Manager of the Grant Lake Study, of my
staff.
As indicated in the Application, our schedule calls for commencing
work in May, 1982. We, therefore, respectfully request your timely
review and processing of the Application. We thank you and all of the
Forest Service staff who have assisted the Power Authority and fbasco in
the performance of the Grant Lake Feasibility Study to date, and we look
forward to a continuation of this relationship.
Attachments: as stated
cc: Geof Wilson (w/attachments)
Sincerely, -.....
'\ \ \.J. \.. '-'-~\ ,
Eric P. Yould \
Executive Director
United Stal". O.partm_, oe ACricultw'<t >-Q. Roco,d n •• (1·2)
1'"0 ... ' S • ..".c. .
"" 5 7 a SPECIAL USE APPllCA TlON AND REPORT ~
(RMftrfltlcft FSM 27721 :;:)
d. Oianict (7-8) ~ This ,."ort i ... uth .. ,;I.d by tho O"""ie Aef of Jun • .c. 1897 \&j --for "'. purp ••• of ."oluotin, fl.. p,opo •• d u •• <and no p ...... it '"
.... 0)' b. is .... ed unl ••• thia 10, ... i. c .... pl.ted 0' tho info, ..... !:;; (I. 5 tot. (16.17)
\&j tion it r.qui,." h ... b .... mad. ° part 0' th. r.eo,d ift '0 .... ex
o.h., .... nn_. 0 u. --
PART I • APPLICATION (To be completed by applicant)
I b. R..,i_ (3-"
P' 0"", A "" .... 'N'd
OMS No. 40-aJ4!J5
c. Fo, .. t (5.0)
----
•• u .. , _* (9.12) f. Kind of u •• (13.15)
-------
h. County (lS..lO) k. Cord No. (21)
1 ----
Applic:otjon is horob-, made fill, a pormit to USo NOfioftal Foro.t land a. indic:ated below;
1. Onc,iption.f I.ftd. (AUGen .\lAP Of: PLAT)
RHJ, T4N, Sec. 1, 12, 13
R1E, T4N, Sec. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7. 18, 19
R1E, T5N, Sec. 27, 28, 29., 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
2. p·..I'PO". of u •••
The purpose of the use of Forest Service lands is" to perform certain field investigations
in 1982 for the study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. These investigations
are part of a feasibil ity study being conducted by the Alaska Power Authority which vlill as-m
sess the viability of constructing the proposed project. Similar field investigations were
performed in the fall and winter of 1981, which were authorized by a Special Use Permit is-
sued to the Power Authority from the Forest Service on October 8,1981. The activities pro-.
posed for 1982 include surveying, geotechnical investigations, hydrological data collection,
and environ~enta1 sampling. A description of each of these activities is provided on At-
tachment "A" and shown on Figure 1.
."
Length in:
.c. 1"'11'."_"". The only new structure requlred for the proposed 1nvesbgatlOns 1S a stream gage ..
a.C .. cri""o .. house near the outlet of Falls Creek. A strear.1 gage vJill also be installed on
Grant Creek and the existing USGS gage house on Grant Creek will be used for this purpose. lilt
The approximate location of these structures is shown on Figure 1.
The gage house on Falls Creek will be a standpipe structure (constructed of corrugated •
metal pipe) which will be located on the bank of the stream, with a second pipe placed in
the strea~bed. The structure will be constructed to resist wind and snow loads experienced
in the area. It is anticipated that the gages on both Grant and Falls Creek will remain in •
place throuqh 1982.
No access road construction will be required for any of the investigations. -
c. Eatimo,ed c:o.' d. C"n.truction will IM9in within •• C"n"true,ion will M compl.,ed wi"'lft
$ ---------------------
Applica"ts "."0 aftd si9ftCltu~. Applican,' •• dd, •• "
Eric Yould 334 West Fifth Avenue
Alaska Power Authority Anchorage, AK 99501
(ZIP Codltl
P'ltviov(. edilion 01 th", 10 ..... i. oo"olet. (OVeR)
ATTACHMENT A
1. Surveying and Mapping
Surveying and mapping activities will include performance of
miscellaneous ground surveys in the project area and hydrographic
(underwater soundings) surveys of Grant lake. The ground surveys will
be performed by survey crews on foot and may require minor brushing to
facilitate surveying activities. The principal activities will incude
surveying the location of drill holes and seismic refraction lines.
The hydrographic surveys will be conducted using boats.
2. Hydrologic Data Collection
Continuous recording streamflow gages will be installed on Grant Creek
and Falls Creek in May 1982. The location of these gages are shown on
Figure 1. The gage on Grant Creek will be installed in the existing
gage house which originally housed a USGS streamgage. The gage on
Falls Creek will be placed in a new gage house located within one mile
upstream of the mouth. The new structures required are described in
Section 4 of the Permit Application.
3. Geotechnical Investigations
Geotechnical field investigations planned for 1982 are scheduled for
May, June and July, and include geologic mapping, seismic refraction
surveys, and core drilling. Geologic mapping requires only walkover
activities with no disturbance to the existing terrain or vegetation.
The seismic refraction surveys are performed to determine the depths to
various subsurface velocity layers and specifically to the top of
bedrock. The seismic survey lines are planned along the tunnel
alignment and at the location of the proposed powerhouse and Falls
Creek diversion dam. The seismic survey field crew consists of two or
three persons, and the equipment is portable and can be packed into the
1
OroOB
site on foot. This equipment consists of electromagnetic geophones
spaced at intervals along a geophone cable. This cable is coupled to a
recording oscillograph which produces a photographic record of the
seismic signals.
Seismic energy is produced by the detonation of small, gelatin-based
explosive charges. The charges are normally placed at both ends of
each seismic line. The explosives are detonated one at a time using
electrical blasting caps. Since the charge is very small, the danger
and noise is minimal; however, care is taken to be sure the area is
clear of people or wildlife prior to detonation. Very minimal, one to
two foot diameter local spotbrushing may be required to place some of
the geophones along the seismic lines. However, line-of-sight brushing
is generally not required along the lines. Approximately 1200 feet of
seismic survey work is planned for 1982.
Core drilling of the proposed powerhouse site and along the proposed
tunnel alignment will utilize a helicopter transportable drill rig on a
hydraulically leveling base. Four core holes are planned for the 1982
investigations.
To provide access to each drill site it will be necessary to clear an
area approximately 50 feet in diameter, sufficient to allow adequate
clearance for the helicopter and safe working conditions for the ground
crew. Absorbent pads will be available on the drill rigs at all times
for use in controlling minor fuel and oil leaks. All waste products
generated by the drill site activities will be cleared from the sites
at the completion of drilling. No access road construction will be
required for the investigations.
4. Environmental Studies
Studies will be conducted as needed to identify and describe the
fisheries, wildlife, and water quality of the project area. These
studies will be performed by boat, airplane, helicopter, and on foot in
Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek watersheds. Field sampling
2
06008
"...
-
"".
.... '
will involve the use of gill nets, minnow traps, beach seines,
e1ectroshockers, hook and line, Ekman dredges, and Surber samplers.
Sampling will be performed one or more times per month from May through
August.
Limited subsuface excavations, performed by hand, are planned for the
investigation of archaeological resources in 1982. These
investigations will be the subject of a separate permit application to
the Forest Service (Antiquities Permit for Cultural Resources).
3
0600B
LEGEND
AREAS WHERE WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING AND FISHERY RESOURCE
STUDIES WILL BE PERFORMED
LOCATIONS (F PLANNED
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
FOR 1982
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
r
L
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Chugach N.F. Seward RD
P.O. Box 275
Seward, AK 99664 2720
June 1, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
Attn: Eric Yould
334 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
I have received your application for a special use permit to conduct
engineering studies near Grant Lake for a power project. By virtue
of this letter, you are authorized to conduct those investigations
as specified in your application and attachment A and figure 1. A
copy of those attachments is enclosed. This authority will end at
the conclusion of this field season. Prior to the 1983 field season,
please contact us if additional field work will be required.
Please be guided by the following stipulations:
1. Lop and scatter brush to less than 24" high during any clearing.
2. All refuse generated by your operation should be packed out
currently and deposited in an approved sanitary landfill.
3. Notify us just prior to the beginning of the seismic and core
drilling work.
4. Provide space available air transportation to the site for
field inspections of your work. The pilot and aircraft needs
to be Forest Service approved. We understand you will be using
Trail Lake Flying Service which is Forest Service approved.
I understand your contractor on this project will be EBASCO Services,
Incorporated. The Forest Service Liaison Officer will be Ron Quillia~
of the Seward Ranger District. Please notify us of your field rep-
resentative's name, address and phone number.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Since.rely,
(), )-'i V-:L,,.
;J; tYILSON
District Ranger
Enclosure
520D-'I (1169)
GROUP 5
SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES, 1982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
2221 East Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Mr. Seal:
May 5, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
The Alaska Power Authority wishes to apply for a permit to conduct
an archaeological survey on National Forest land in the Vicinity of
Grant Lake on the Kenai Peninsula. The survey, which will include
limited subsurface testing, will be conducted during the summer of 1982 •
as part of a feasibility study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project. We have already submitted a separate Special Use Permit
Application (by letter to you dated March 31, 1982) for the other
required field work in 1982 for the Grant Lake Project studies.
Enclosed please find:
1) Completed Form FS-2700-3, Special Use Application and Report;
2) Completed Form 4-2700-3, Application for Permit to Conduct
Archaeological or Paleontological Explorations or Excavations
upon Lands of the United States;
3) A vita of Katherine Arndt, the archaeologist who will be
conducting the survey.
We request your comments on the suitability of the methodology and
scope of the proposed survey for identifying cultural resources which
may be affected by the hydroelectric project. We understand that your
staff will need to meet our archaeologist for this study prior to
granting final approval of the permit. We request that your staff
contact our archaeologist, Ms. Katherine Arndt, directly to arrange a
meeting time and place. She can be reached at (907) 474-7050. Any
questions regarding the attached material should be directed toward Eric
Marchegiani, the Project Manager of the Grant Lake Study, of my staff.
~";2~~~for~
cc: Don Smith
Ebasco Services Incorporated
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
United Statu nep"rtment oC A,rlculture ,.. a. Raco,d no. (1·2)
Forest Service ~ 7 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION AND REPORT ~
b. R.II'an (3-4)
0
F 1.1"" Approved
OMS No. 40-R3495 I c. Fa, .. t (506)
----
(R.I.renee FSM 2712) i d. Diltrict (7-8) •• U •• r numb •• (9.12) f. Kind of un (13.1 S)
Thil r.port i. authoriud by th. Organic Act of Jun. 4, 1897 ~ ---------lor th. purpo •• of ."aluoting th. propo •• d u •• ond no p.rmit t; g. Stat. (16.17) h. County (18.20) k. Card No. (21) inDy b. llau.d unl ••• thi' form i, compl.t.d or th. informo.
1 I tlcn it roqvi, •• hos b •• n mad. a part of th. r.cord in 11.>11'1. ~
oth.r monn.r. f -.-----I
PART I • APPLICATION (To be completed,'·...<.)r_a-4p~p-::h~·c_a_nt..:-)-:--:--_--:-___ ---:-____________ _
Applic:otion is hereby mode for a permit to uSO Notional Forest land 05 indicated below:
1. Description 01 lond: (Attach MAP or PLAT)
R1W, T4N, Sec. 1, 12, 13
R1E, T4N, Sec. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19
R1E, T5N, Sec. 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
Survey area map is attached to survey plan included herewith.
2. Purpose 01 ule. The purpose of the use of Forest Servi ce 1 anas is to perTorm cul [GrIT--
resources investigations in 1982 for the study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project. These investigations are part of a feasibility study and Federal Energy Regula-
tory Comm. license application being prepared by the Alaska Power Jl.uth. which will assess
the viability of constructing the proposed project. A preliminary survey of proposed
drilling sites was conducted in Oct. 1981 under Forest Service special use permit 5560.01 .•
The activities proposed for 1982 include surveying and assessing archaeological
..
& historic resources, including field location & documentation of resources identified
through literature search which may be impacted by project construction and archaeological
surface survey for previously unknown sites in areas to be affected by project construc.
A descrip. of these activities is provided in three attachments: Completed Form 4-2700-3;
task statement 8 survey pl an;--B.1lil vita of archaeol ogi st who will perform SIlLv.~ __
3. land A'eo applied lor (For Rights.of·'l.uy show length and width and conl'nt !o acres; lor olher uses shnu., acres)
4. Improvements
o. Delcription
None
b. Planl attoched
c. E.timat.d COil
Length in: x Width
-------~---------
No. II "NO" show dat. plans will b. furnished
d. Construclion will b.~in within
$ ------------------(Montha)
Dot" 01 Application Appliconts name and lil/notur.
Authority
P,."ious edition althi. lorm is obsolete (OVER)
( Acres)
•. Construction will b. complet.d within
Applicant'. add, ...
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchoraqe, Alaska 99501
(liP Cod.)
FS-2700-3 (11/78)
..
...
-
..
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE, CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR PALEONTOLOGICAL EXPLORATIONS
OR EXCAVATIONS UPON LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
The Ala ska Power Authori ty
of 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Al aska 99501
hereoy applies for a permlt under the prOV1Slons OT the act aoproved
June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431, 432, 433), and the Uniform
Rules and Regulations of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and
War, approved December 28, 1906:
1. To conduct preliminary archaeological or paleontological
explorations upon lands of the United States within the
boundaries of the Chugach National Forest. Please see attached task statement and survey plan.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
2. To excavate and make intensive studies of the specific site or
area described in detail as: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Area
and as shown on the sketCh, plan or map attached nereto and maae
a part of this application.
3. The aims and purposes and exact character of the work to be done
under the permit herein applied for will De as follows: ~to=-__
intensjyely syrvey. research. and report on the presence or absence
·and condit jon of cultyral resources within the project area.
In support of this application the following facts are submitted:
a. Nature and status of applicant organization. Alaska
State agency operating under laws. rules. and funds
provided by State of Alaska.
o. Scientific affiliations. Staff members maintain
affiliations with numerous professional organizations.
c. General scope and character of applicant
organization's activities and objectives. Assess and
develop alternative energy sources for State of A1aska.
d. Amount of money available for field work on project
covered by this application exclusive of regular staff
sa 1 ar; es $....;;5;..3, • .;::.;50::..::0:...:. . .;::.;00:..-_. ____ _
4-2700-3 (7/81)
e.
f.
g.
h.
j.
1<.
Provision nas been made for publication of results of
work to be done under permit herein applieo for as
follows: to be incorporated into Exhibit E of Grant
Lake Hydroelectric Project license application to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Name, address, and official status of person to be in
general charge of project. Eric A. Marchegiani
Project Manager, Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th
Ayenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Name, address, and qualifications of person to be in
actual direct charge of excavation work.
Katherine L. Arndt. Box 81369. Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
(See attached vita)
~ame and location of the public
material collected under permit
'Hi 11 be permanent 1 y preserved.
suggestions.
museum in whiCh
herein aoplied for
We sol icit your
Will the material be adequately and permanently
safeguarded and will it be readily avai1aole for.
scientific study and public observation in accordance
with the provisions of section 17 of the Uniform Rules
and Regulations approved December 28, 1906?
Yes
rf permit is granted, '-'lark will begin not later than
June 7,1982 and will be actively
prosecuted during an ensuing period of ~2=--_____ _
months.
in the event tne permit herein aop1ied fer is issued,
the applicant agrees to submit the reports required by
section 10 of.the Uniform Rules and Regulations ",ithin
thirty (30) days after tne completion of field ",arK
each year, and abide Dy and observe all tne provisions
of the Uniform Rules and Regulations, supra
Date of Applicatlon Alaska Power Authority
Name of Institution
By: Eric Yould
Executive Director
-
...
...
lit
..
..
..
...
I."
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CULTURAL RESOURCES TASK STATEMENT AND SURVEY PLAN
TASK STATEMENT
This phase of the study will identify and assess the significance of
the historic and archeological resources of the project area.
Sampling Plan
The assessment of cultural resources (archeological and historical)
will consist of a literature search, consultation with agency
personnel, an interpretation of aerial photography, and field survey.
Each contributes to the Objective of identifying and mitigating
significant direct adverse effects of prOject development on property
listed, or eligible for 11 sting, fn the Hationa 1 Register of Historl c
Pl aces.
Methods
Consultations will b~ conducted with the State Historic Preservation
Officer. the Hationa 1 Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service to
identify agency concerns with project development. Consultation will
be documented by appending a letter from each agency indicating the
nature, extent, and results of the consultation to the final report.
A literature s~a rch of known and reported si tes in the vicinity of
project facilities will be made. This infonnation helps detennine
whether project construction will adversely affect any known or
recorded cultural resources. Stereoscopic air photo interPretation of
the transmission line route and power plant si te will also be made to
aid in identifying additional areas suggesting human use, occupancy, or
potential prehistoric sites.
-1-
The field survey will focus on (1) locating all known and recorded
sites directly affected by construction of the transmission line, power
plant, dams, penstock, conduits, access roads, and (2) surveying on
foot for previously unknown or unrecorded sites at project construction
sites and all points where the transmission line crosses a land-water
i nterf ace.
Su bsurf ace probing, undertaken 0 nly in areas appeari ng archeologica lly
sensitive, will be based on ground survey results. All probes will be
backfilled. Field collection of artifacts will be limited to
significant materials which, if not recovered at the time, are likely
to be lost or destro¥ed. Upon canpletion of analysis, these materials
will be delivered to the responsible agency.
Appropriate infonnation will be recorded for any site eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. A site survey
fonn will be completed for any site found in the project area,
regardless of eligibility for the register, and will be appended to the
final report.
The following guidelines for studying cultural resources in the project
a re a wi 1 1 be f 011 owe d :
1. A descriptive inventory of the cultural resources affected by the
proposed action.
2. Maps showing the location, density, and distribution of the
resources in relat ion to relevant natura 1 and environmenta 1
factors; and delineation of the areas of potential enviromental
impact.
3. Evaluation of the historic, scientific, and social significance of
the resources, including ident-ification of resources in, pending
nomination to, or considered eligible for, inclusion in the
Nationa 1 Register of Historic Places. •
-2-
...
...
4. The predictable adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed
action on the resources.
5. A recommended program for lessening the direct, indirect, and
clJDulative adverse effects on the resources.
6. Description and evaluation of unavoidable adverse effects.
, Results
Results of the surveys will be presented in a final report describing
the methodology employed (e.g. surveys, inventories, subsurface
testing, etc.) and, if applicable, the results of any surveys and
inventories of subsurface testing recocrmended by state and federa 1
agencies. PIIy historic or archeological sites known to exist or
discovered in the project area wil 1 also be identifed, along with a
sumary of their historic significance, project impacts, and. possible
mitigation measures.
-3-
SURVEY PLAN
As outlined in the task statement, the archeological survey
will consist of:
1) field location and documentation of historical and
archeological resources identified through the
literature search which may be affected by project
construction;
2) archeological surface survey, with some subsurface
testing, for previously unknown sites in areas to
be affected by project construction.
Because none of the construction sites or routes of access
roads, transmission lines, and pipelines will be marked on the
ground at the time of the survey, archeological examination of
most areas of project impact will be confined to reconnaissance-
level survey. This will entail a low-altitude flight over the ...
general routes of roads, transmission lines, and underground and
surface pipelines. Any archeologically promising areas spotted
from the air, such as prominent knolls, stream crossings, and
ereas of disturbed vegetation, will either be checked on the ground
or noted on a map for more intensive examination should the final
route affect them.
The general locations of several construction sites will be
more easily identifiable on the ground because of their proximity
to natural and man-made landmarks. Such areas will be examined by.,
means of a surface survey combined with subsurface testing in areas
which appear to be high in archeological potential. For project
alternatives D and F, in which the level of Grant Lake will not
be raised, the areas include:
1) the juncture of a proposed access road with the
Anchorage-Seward highway in the vicinity of Trail
Creek Station and the Stevenson cabin (sites SEW 021
and N on attached map);
2) the proposed site of the Falls Creek diversion dam;
3) the shoreline and adjacent areas of low relief
around the south end of Grant Lake and the head of
Grant Creek, including the Solars Sawmill site
(site G on attached map);
4) the proposed bridge site at the narrows between
-4-
...
.. '
Upper and Lower Trail lakes;
5) the east shore of Upper Trail Lake from the proposed
bridge site to the proposed powerhouse site in
NWi swi Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian;
6) portions of the east shore of ~ower Trail Lake
along the proposed alternative route of an access
.road;
7) the proposed site of the powerhouse, substation and
tailrace, Wit SW! Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 1 E.,
Seward Meridian. This will include the west end of
an old trail between Upper Trail Lake and Solars
Sawmill (feature H on attached map). If this trail
can still be traced, it will be followed all the
way to Grant. Lake. A proposed access road crosses
it in several plac~s;
8) the island and adjacent shore between the upper and
lower portions of Grant Lake, an area which may be
dredged to increase flow.
If archeological studies are expanded to' include areas which
would be affected by project alternatives A, B, C, and E, surface
surv.ey will also be conducted at the proposed sites of the saddle
dam in SEi Section 31, T. 5 N., R. 1 E. and the alternate powerhouse
in S'll! SWt Section 31 T. 5 N., R. 1 E., Seward f.feridian and in
portions of the inundation area around Grant Lake, especially
around the head of the lake and at the sites of structures which
would be flooded if the lake level were raised (D and I on attached
map). Raising of the lake level under these project alternatives
will raise the local water table and thus may raise the level of
nearby ponds. The margins of such ponds will also be surveyed
for cultural resources if initial aerial reconnaissance reveals
them to be archeologically promising.
The sources of any fill or surfacing material which may be
needed for road construction have not been identified at this
time and therefore cannot be incorporated into the survey •.
-5-
, , , 1 , • ,
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
LOCATIONS OF SITES OF
POTENTIAL HISTORIC AND
ARCHAEOLDGICAL SIGNIACANCE
Katherine L. Arndt
Box 81369
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
S. S. Number: 395-56-2088 Message Phone: (907) 474-7050
Education
PhD. Candidate
state University of New York at Binghamton
Major: Anthropology
Proposed dissertation title: strategies and Strategems:
Native Alaskans and the Middle Yukon Fur Trade, 1833-1867.
M.A. 1977
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
Major: Anthropology (Archeology)
Thesis title: The Structure of Cache Pits at GUL 077, a
Late Prehistoric Archeological Site near Gulkana, Alaska.
B. A. 1974
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Double major: Russian (honors) and Anthropology
Archeological Field Experience
'9-16-81 to 9-22-81
Consultant archeologist. Dames and Moore, Anchorage. Performed
preconstruction archeological surveys in NW and SW Alaska.
Short-term contract.
7-14-81 to 7-17-81
Consultant archeologist. Elizabeth Andrews, Fairbanks.
Wrote cultural resource management plan for Tyee Lake
hydroelectric project. Temporary.
6-12-80 to 7-17-80
Archeological technician. University Museum, University of
. Alaska, Fairbanks. Assisted in preconstruction archeological
surveys in NW Alaska and in report preparation. Temporary.
10-23-77 to 8-17-79
St1kine Area archeoloffist (GS-f). USDA-Forest Service,
~etersburg, Alaska.esponsib e for identification and pro-
tection of cultural resources on Forest lands. Supervised 1
CETA employee, summer 1979. Resigned to return to school
for doctorate.
6-1-77 to 8-31-77
Lab foreman. Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. Supervised operation of laboratory of archeolog-
ical field school near Healy, Alaska. Temporary.
5-15-76 to 6-7-76
Archeologist (foreman). Alaska Methodist University,
Anchorage. Supervised 2 to 3 archeologists in excavation
project near Gulkana, Alaska. Temporary.
7-1-75 to 9-1-75
Archeolo~ist technician. Cooperative Park Studies Unit,
Universi-':y of Alaska, Fairbanks. Assisted in excavation of
archeological site on Seward Peninsula. Temporary.
5-15-75 to 6-15-75
Archeologist. Alaska Methodist University, Anchorage.
Assisted in archeological excavation near Gulkana, Alaska.
Temporary.
6-73 to 8-73 (8 weeks)
Field lab assistant. Dana College, Blair, Nebraska. Super-
vised operation of laboratory at archeological field school
near Bismarck, North Dakota. Temporary.
Other Experience
8-12-81 to present
Editorial assistant. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Univer-~.
sity of Alaska, Fairbanks. Edit anthropological manuscripts
for publication under direction of Editor. Part-time • ....
1980/81 and 1979/80 school years (3 semesters)
Teaching assistant in anthropology, State University of New
York at Binghamton.
1974/74, 1975/76, and 1976/77 school years (5! semesters)
Research assistant (half-time) for Department of Anthropology,
University fvluseum, and Cooperative Park Studies Unit,
respectively, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Publication
1977 Annotated bibliography. Appendix 2 in: Assessment of the
known cultural resources in the National Petroleum Reserve
in Alaska, by W. S. Schneider and P. M. Bowers. Occasional
Paper 3, Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative
Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. pp. 74-119. ,.,.-
References
Dr. Gerald H. Clark
Regional Archeologist
USDA-Forest Service
Box 1628
Juneau, Alaska 99802
(907) 586-7529
Dr. Anne D. Shinkwin
Ant~ropology Program
University of· Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 474-7288
Dr. Albert A. Dekin
Department of Anthropology
State University of New York-Binghamton
Binghamton, New York 13901
(607) 798-2737
....
U"U.d Ital •• Depart •• ft' o( A •• lewt" ... 0. Reco,e! fto. n·2) I.. ROllon (3-4) I c. 'o'OIt (5·6)
F .... , I ••• '".
70 Alaska H} Chugach 114 --SPECIAL USE PERMIT la. UI,I,lct "·1) •. u •• , n"",t.., (9·12) f. K~nJ 01 '''1 (13·15) Cu tura
Act of June 4. 1897 Seward O}_ 1016 ... Jtt Resource 611 ---
Thi. prrmit i. rrvocablr and nontransferable .----
I· 510te (16.17) h. Co"nly (18.20) It. Co,cI no. (21)
(R.I. F5M 271 0)
Alaska 02 863 1 ------
Permi ssi on is hereby granted to ___ A...;;.'_a ___ s_k_a_P_o...;;.w_e_r_A...;;.u...;;.t_h ___ o_r_i-"-"-_______________ _
of 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
hereinafter callf'd Ihe pennittee, to use subject to the conditions set out below, the following described lanrls
or improvements: Portions of the Chugach National Forest in the following lands:
Sections 1, 12, 13, T4N, RIW
Sections 1,2,5,6,7, 18, 19, T4N, RIE
Sections 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 T5N, RIE Seward Meridian
as shown on the attached survey area map of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project.
Thl'S parml't cova.rs the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project]. d" d f h f
, L ___ K~:GX~XX __ xr)b:~-'< an IS Issue or I f' purposp () :
Authorizing consulting services involving cultural resource
investigation of a non-disturbing nature.
I. Construction or occupancy and use under this pr'm,it shall bf'gin within. mont h.", and
rOnl'lru(,II(Hl, if any, shall be completed wlthin __ ~ months, from Ihp rialf' of IiI!" ["'mit I"
lise shall be actually exercised at least clays each year, unlpss otherwise authnrizP(:
in II'ritinlZ.
:::. In consicleration for this us€', Ihe pprmillf'P s!Jall pay to the Foresl Servi('p, r.S. Df>partmf-Or:t or
,\griculture, thf' sum of see clause 18 Dollars(S ) for thf' v'rior1
fmm______ 19 __ , to _____ . and [herp,iftPr
annur.Jh· on -------------_._------"-----..... _.-
______ . Dollars ($ _ .. _____ _ ______ .... ____ ... ___ ) :
I>rot'ided, however, Charges for this USf' may he made or rf'adjustf'rl whenf'vPr npcessar:. to place t i.r.
charl<es on a basis commf'nsuratf' with the value of use authorized by this permit.
3. This J1f'rmit is accepted suhject to the conditions set fonil hf'rein. and \() conditions 18
30 attached hereto and made a part of this permit.
PERMITTEE
ISSUING
OFFICER
"'AME OF PERMITTEE
ALAS KA POWER AUTHOR TTY
-~t-~:..::.::..::...Superv i sor
(CO/l'TI/I'UED ON REVERSE)
DATE
I DAT E
: ~O 91--
7700·'
~ !1p\plopn1I>nl plans; layout plans: ronSlrurtion. rl"ronstrurlion or ahpralion of improvpmpnls: or
rF'\·j ... jnn of la\out or construction plan;;:;. for this a""u'1\lst hI" appn:J\t'n in arhanr" and in writin!? h\ tlw
!"rp";l ""p"n i:--or. Tn:'es or shruhhf'ry on the permitlf'n arE>a ma\ lIP rf'mc;vPt1 or d,·,..lft \pri t.n\· aftpr th!"'
; .. 1 ·1 offlrt'r in char~e has appro\,pd. ann has markNI or othE>rwise designated thai whirl, may hp rpmO\f'n
·)r df"qro\ed Timber cut or nestroyen will be pain for by the permittee as follows: \h'rrhanlahlp lindler at
:'Pl·r:li ";I,d '"al.H'; young-growth timber below merchantable siZE> at currf'nt damage appr:li"al v .lUI; pr()dded
thai till' Forest ServiCE> resPn.'es the right to disposp of the mprrhanlablf" limhpr 10 otl,f"r~ than II", pPr-
mltlp" .. t 110 stumpa~e cost to the permittee_ Trees. shruhs. ann othpr plants may hI> rlanlpn in such
manner Oil d in such places about the premi5Ps as may he approvpn h\ Illp forest offirpr ii, rhar!!p
i The permittee shall maintain tllf' imprr)\f'ments :lI1d prpmis p <; til stannards of re-p.ur orn"rlifll' . ..,"
n"alnp~::;. ~[lilitation, andsafE>ty accl"plahle 10 IhE> forpsl offirpr in (h.)r:!p
6. ThIS pprmil is subject to all valin rl!lims.
-: TIl(' pprrnittee, in pxprcising the priviieg-es ::rrantpd hy this permil. shall romrly wilh the re!!ulaliqns
'1111(' f)ppnrtment of :\gricultul'f' and all Fpnf'I'al, Stall". (,(Hlllt' , anJ mUlliripal la\b. ornill"nl·f·~. or rp!2'Uld-
Ii 1O~ \\hirh arp applicahlp to thf' arpa or oppratioll.'l roverpd h\ thi,,;; pPrmit
8 Tllp pprmiltf'e shall takp all rE>a~onahle prpcaution" to prf'yent and sllpprp;-;s forpst firp:. \0 rna-
INial shall hp dispospd of hy burning in open firE>s during thf' dospn spa"on pSlahli,hf'd h\ 1.1\1 or regula-
ti"n withollt a wnttpn pprmit from Ihp forpst offirN in charge or his autliorizpd agPIlI
4. Thp pprmittPe shall E>XNdsp rliligenrE> in protPcling-from namal!P tllf' I;'lnn nnn pI' p'>1 1\ of diP L:llitpn
Statf's ("lwPrf'd hv ann uspd in connpction with this pE>rmil, and shall pa~ I hI" l'nitpd ~LIlf'S for ;-111\ damagr>
rp<;lIlting from negli!!pncf' or from thf' violation of IhE> tf'rms of this pNmil or of an\' la\\ or r .. gulation aprli-
(' tid" 10 Ihl' ~ational Forests by the permittee. or by any agents or employees of the pe>rmlttPt' acting
\\ Ithin the ,,('ope of their a,zency or employment.
10. Thr> pprmittf'e shall fully rppair all namae:e, othpr than ordinan wl"ar and tf'ar. 10 n<lli:1nal forpst roads
and trails rallSPH h\ the permittf'f' in the PXPrcisp of thE> privilp,"p granl.·d 1)\ tillS pNmil
11 "io \Ipmh..r of or DelegatE> to Cong-rpss or ResidE>nt Comrr:issionpr shall Ill' (jdmitlf'd to any sharp 'lr
pdrt of this agrr>pmpnt or to any bf'nefit that may arisp hprpfrom unlpss il it:; rna"" 'Iith .1 corporation for il"
:!pnr-rai hpn .. fi I
I~. l'pon ahn[]nonmpnt. tprmin;ltinn. rf'\·oration. or canrpllation (If thi:-; pPrmit.tl", 1,1'11,,11"" ~h.Jll ff'[1l',I('
",thin a rpasonablp time all "trurturp;;:;. and impro\'pmpnts P'lC['ppt tho . .;;f' 'l\\ned h\" Ih·· I 1111,.,1 'i1.dPS. and
shall rpt:;torp the sitp. unlf'ss olhPrwisp agrppd IIpon in writing or in this l"lPrmil II !II, i"'rmill"'p fnil;;; tn
p'mO\I' all surh slrtlrlun~" or impro\'pmpnls wilhin a n>d~;mdLI,· p,·ritld. ,IH'\ . ..,h" I , 1" li,/ ~'r"p"rI\ ()(
thl' I nitf'd Statps. bUI that \\ill not relip\p Ihp pprmitlE'!' of liilbilill ror Illf' ('osl 1)1 I Ii !I I":!!"\ .11 .Hld
rl'~toral ion of thp sitt'.
13. Thi~ p..rmil is not transf..rilblp If Ihp pprmittP p throu!!h volnntctf\ ~<111' "1' tr.ll'"r,·, ,11' Ihrnll£"h
pnforrf'mf'nl of ['ontract, forpclosurf'. tax salp. or othpr yalid II'g-al prncpp,jifl!! "h,dl "'u"'P In 1)(" till' t)\\npr
of Ihp rhi'ic31 Improvpmenls othPr th3n lhosp ()\\nl'n hv thp l nil",j 'it;JlpS ."ltUill",j "II thl' l.iIl,1 .1""'Tihp,j
if] tltis pprmil anr! is unahlf' to furnish nnpquate proof 1)1' ;ll,ilit\ 10 IP,i""'nI 01 nlllPrlll..;r> r,.,."t,tldi"h liilp tn
,...aid imprmempnls. this pf'rmil shall bp subjPct If) rane,·lbli1ln 1),,1 if thp p..rSOIl III ,\110m til]p til "alr1
imrrnH'mpnts shall havp bf'E>n transfPrrprl in pitlH'r mLlnnpr prill j,jp,j . .;; 'lll.liifil'd a..; :1 I" :"\,11,'" ,:lOd I. ...
IIi/ling that his future orrupanf'\ of the prpmisps shall hf> subJPrl {" ... ll( II np\1 cotllli!i""" . ifill -"'Iipulalilln~
as ('xistin!! <)1 prospecrivp circumstanrps ma\ \Iarrallt. hi;;:;. ronlinllP.j ,., I'llpan('\.f Ih·, I,r"mi..;,'';; m,,\ I If"
authorizf'n hy permit to him if. in Ihf' opinion rtf Ihp is,,,uin!! offi""r IIr III."; ";UI',,·:-::--nr 1";,...11.111" .,t" .11,nn·jl
is npsir.lble and in the publir intPrf'st
I~ In "~I<;r> fit' rh3ngf' of anrlrpi's thf' pPrmiltl'f' shall immf·dl<1r.,h IIl)lif\ thp forp ... 1 "'lIrl'l\i"nf
13. The temporary use ann occupancy of thp prpmisf''s anrl improw>mpnl<; hNPin dp.;;nil,p,1 mal !W sill>!'-1
h\ Ihl' p..rmittf'P to thirn partips onh with tllP prior wriltpn apf,rnYal of Ih" fl)rpsl ';;lIp"ni..;nr hUI t ;1' r
mittpp ",hGII continup 10 hf' rf'sponsiblf" for "I)mpliancp \Iilh nil ['f)n:1iliflll'" 'If thii-P"I:I~lr 1,\ r\l'l ... (,n~ I"
"hom slirh pn'mi<;p.<; may hp suhlf't
It) This pf'rmit may bf' IPrminnlPrl upon hrp<1rh of nnl ,,[ Ih .. ,olldili )n" h.>p,ill III' .r lilt· .-jl' TPlintl ,d Ih",
;pgional forf'slpr or thp C:hipf. FnrpsI Spnicp
....
-
-
-
-
P'
II,
-
-
-... -
..
..
1-: In Ihp .... \..-nl of any ("onfli('1 bCIWf'f'n Gny of Ihf' [In,,',·,lin!! I'rinlr',J, 1.1""",...·1',,· I";"" "'~!f"'I.,q("1I.1 ..
any of llip fnll",\\lnll e]ausps or anY' pro\'ision~ tll!·ff'of. th(' f()llmnne:, \.011 ... 0"'; l,i.1 '>1,11.] -
..
18. Fee Clause.
The minimum annual fee for this use, which is due in advance and is
not subject to refund, will be twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
Provided, however, that each year's minimum fee will be applied to
partially off-set the fee for any future approved project during
that year.
Future projects undertaken under this permit will require a fee as
follows:
Fees for each separate project will be paid to the appropriate
Forest Supervisor in advance of each project. The amount will
be based on the estimated field days times $2 per field day.
Field days are obtained by multiplying the number of days in the
field times the number of trained professionals in the field on
the particular project. (Do not include unskilled assistants
such as cooks, drivers, packers, laborers, and students
receiving training.) A field day is defined as any day or part
of a day for each professional while working on National Forest
lands. Partial days will be counted as full field days, but
"nonworkdays" such as time moving in and setting up camp are not
counted.
If the original estimate of field days proves incorrect, the
permittee will provide new estimates in time for a supplemental
billing to be issued.
19. Service Charge. (A-13)
A late payment charge in addition to the regular fees shall be made
for failure to meet the fee payment due date or any of the dates
specified for submission of statements required for fee
calculation. The late payment charge shall be $15~ or an amount
calculated by applying the current rate prescribed by Treasury
Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins to the overdue amount for each
3~-day period or fraction thereof that the payment is overdue,
whichever is greater. If the due date falls on a nonworkday, the
late payment charge will not apply until the end of the next workday.
20. Nondiscrimination, Services. (B-2)
During the performance of this permit, the permittee agrees:
a. In connection with the performance of work under this
permit including construction, maintenance, and operation
of the facility, the permittee shall not discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
b. The permittee and his employees shall not discriminate
by segregation or otherwise against any person on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by
curtailing or refusing to furnish accomodations,
facilities, services, or use privileges offered to the
public generally.
c. The permittee shall include and require compliance with
the above nondiscrimination provisions in any subcontract
made with respect to the operations under this permit.
d. Signs setting forth this policy of nondiscrimination to
be furnished by the Forest Service will be conspicuously
displayed at the public entrance to the premises, and at
other exterior or interior locations as directed by the
Forest Servi ce. -
21. Indemnification of United States. (8-8),
The permittee shall indemnify the United States against any
liability for damage to life or property arising from the occupancy
or use of National Forest lands under this permit.
22. Nonexclusive Use. (X-49)
This permit shall not be exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the
right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area
for any purpose, provided such use does not interfere with the
rights and privileges hereby authorized.
23. Application, Part of Permit. (X-95)
The permittee agrees to comply with all commitments made in the
application dated May 5. 1982
Plans of work for specific projects will be considered as part of
the original application once they are approved by the Forest
Service.
24. 1906 Uniform Rules and Regualtaions. (X-96)
The permittee agrees to abide by and observe the provisions of the
Uniform Rules and Regulations of the Secretaries of Interior,
Agriculture, and War, approved December 28, 1906, which are attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
25. Academic Work Not Authorized. (X-98)
Academic research projects shall not be conducted under this
permit. Such work may be done only under the terms of a separate
permit which authorizes specific research.
26. Submit Reports. (X-100)
The permittee shall provide the Regional Forester and appropriate
Forest Supervisor with a copy of all reports and publications
resulting from the project including theses, dissertations,
articles, monographs, etc.
.....
-
-
•. '
..
..
..
..
-..
27. Advise Forest Supervisor. (X-10l)
Before actively initiating work under this permit, the permittee's
field leader shall advise the Forest Supervisor of the date upon
which active field work will be initiated. The approval shall list
local restrictions pertaining to fire hazard, off-road vehicles,
camp locations, etc.
2S. Disposition of Specimens. (X-102)
All specimens or material of scientific interest shall be deposited
in a repository agreed to by the Forest Supervisor, and thereafter
be subject to the provisions of Section 17 of the Uniform Rules and
Regulations or such additional provisions as are provided herein.
29. Services To Be Carried Out in Two Phases. (X-106)
Consulting services shall be carried out in two phases consisting of:
a. Preliminary Survey. During this, sites, artifacts, and
cultural resource features shall be located, inventoried,
and reported. Surface disturbing activities are not
authorized in this phase and surface collections may not be
made without written authorization by the Forest Service.
Limited testing, as applied for in this application, is
authorized in this phase.
b. Mitigation. Authorization to proceed with needed
excavation shall be granted by the Forest Supervisor only
after the survey report with its recommendations and plan
of work are accepted by the Forest Service.
30. Survey Report ReqUired. (X-lOS)
A written survey report shall be prepared for each examination
conducted under this permit. Reports shall provide:
a. A description of examination methods including the type of
work, the names and work titles of individuals employed in
actual field work, and the dates of field work (if any).
b. An assessment of the significance of the identified
resources and their potential for contributing information
about the cultural heritage of the project area including,
when appropriate, descriptions and maps showing their
relationship to the site of the proposed project.
Resources which may merit listing on the National Register
of Historic Places should also be identified.
c. A recommended program of measures to realistically mitigate
adverse effects which may result from the project,
including research designs.
d. Identification of the cultural resources permit under which
all actions resulting in the excavation of sites or the
gathering of objects of antiquity are to be performed.
e. Inventory forms resulting from any surveys (such forms
should be included with the report but should not be bound
with it).
The report shall be furnished to the Forest Service for review. The
permittee shall be notified in writing if the report is acceptable
or if there are any deficiencies which must be corrected. Any
deficiencies noted shall be-corrected promptly.
"",
-
....
,~
••
r
'¢t
L
-".,
Forest
Service
Chugach
National
Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 238
Anchorage, AK 99508
Reply to 2720 "'-J
Date: JUN J. 1982
Mr. Eric Marchegiani
Project Manager, Grant Lake
Alaska Power Authority
Study
flECE1VEO
JUN 0 2 lSa1
'ArAS'AA POWER AUTHORITY
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Marchegiani,
Enclosed is an amendment to the recently executed cultural
resource permit issued to the Alaska Power Authority. A
termination clause was inadvertently omitted. Please have the
authorized officer sign and date all three copies, retain the
original for your records and return the other two copies to this
office in the enclosed envelope.
If you have any questions, please contact Richard Warren or Beu"lah
Bowers of my staff at 279-5541.
FRED M. HARNI SCH
Lands Staff Officer
Enc.
----fw
,.~.------.---~--
!
L----
I
I"
---"-~----
I
FS-6200-11b (7 811
Uau.d S'al •• D.,.." ...... I of ACrlclOl.lure e. Rocord _. (l·2l ... Rovion (3,,(; c. Fo, .. , (5'6) . FO .... IS ..... 'c •
70 Alaska 1.C'-Chugach Q1 AMENDMENT #1 --
FOR d. Oi .'ric. (7-91 •. u •• , nu",b., (9·12) I. Ki, .. 1 of Vie (l3·15)
SPECIAL USE PERMIT Seward ru 1016.0l __ Cultural 61 R.f: FSM 2714 Resource ..
THIS AMENDMENT IS ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART II. Stala (16-17) h. County (l8-20) Ir.. Co,d no. (21)
OF THE Alaska Q.2. .8.63 1 o TERM GJ ANNUAl. PERMIT -
...
For ______ ~C~u~l~t~u~r~a~l~r~e~so~u~rc~e~l~·n~v~e~s~t~i~g~a~t~i~o~n~s~ ______________________________ issued to ______ ___
IKIND 0 .. "'E'-.. ITI
Alaska Power Authority ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~_~ ___________________________________ , on ~~~~~ ________ _
tN ..... £ 0" PS:.-oo' TTS:EI iOATE OF PERMI"':")
which is hereby amended as follows:
Add termination clause:
Permit Termination. (E-4)
Unless sooner terminated or revoked by the Regional Forester, in
accordance with the provi s ions of the permi t, thi sperm; t sha 11
expire and become void on 12/31/83, but a new permit to occupy ailG
use the same National Forest land may be granted provided ~he
permittee will comply with the then-existing laws and regulations
governing the occupancy and use of National Forest lands and shall
have notified the Forest Supervisor not less than tnree (3) montns
prior to said date that such new permlt is desired.
~.
-
-
-
This Amendment is accepted subject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions ___________ tc..,
--tache hereto and made a part of this Amendment.
PERMITiEE
ISSUING
OFFICER
SIGN'TURE OF' AUTI10RIZEO OF'FICER
TITLE Executive Director
TlTI.E
Forest Supervisor
OAT E
i OATE
I~
GROUP 6
CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO APPLICATION FOR
SPECIAL CULTURAL RESOURCE USE PERMIT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
~r. John E. Cook
Regional Director
Alaska Region
National Park Service
540 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dea r ~4r. Cook:
May 5, 1982
The Alaska Power Authority is conducting a detailed feasibility
study of the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, which would be
located in the Chugach National Forest approximately 20 miles north of
Seward. The data and results of the study will be used to prepare an
application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to
construct and operate the project.
In order to prepare the Environmental Report for the application,
we will be conducting a survey of cultural resources in the project
area, following the attached task statement and survey plan. We are
requesting you comments on the survey plan, particularly your views
concerning the plan's suitability for developing the information needed
in the Environmental Report.
During the course of the survey, we may occasionally discover
cultural artifacts which will have to be properly preserved. We,
therefore, also solicit your suggestions on a suitable repository for
any such artifacts. Any questions regarding the attached material
should be directed toward Eric Marchegiani of my staff, the Project
Manager for the Grant Lake Study.
...
;;;;;;/~afo~~~
Enclosure as stated
cc: Don Smith
Ebasco Services Incorporated
(wlo enclosure)
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Ty L. Dilliplane
State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources
619 Warehouse Drive -Suite 210
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Dilliplane:
May 5, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
The Alaska Power Authority is conducting a detailed feasibility
study of the pr'uposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, which would be
located in the Chugach National Forest approximately 20 miles north of
Seward. The data and results of the study will be used to prepare an
application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to
construct and operate the project.
In order to prepare the Environmental Report for the application,
we will be conducting a survey of cultural resources in the project
area, following the attached task statement and survey plene ~Je are
requesting your comments on the survey plan, particularly your views
concerning the plan's suitability for developing the information needed
in the Environmental Report.
During the course of the survey, we may occasionally discover
cultural artifacts which will have to be properly preserved. We,
thereTore, also solicit your suggestions on a suitable repository for
any such artifacts. Any questions regarding the attached material
should be directed toward Eric Marcheg;ani of my staff, the Project
Manager for the Grant Lake Study.
Enclosure as stated
cc: Don Smith
Ebasco Services Incorporated
(w/o enclosure)
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Al Carson, Dept, Natural Resources
(w/o enclosure'
...
-
....
•
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
'd334 weST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Ty Dilliplane
State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Parks
619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276'()()01
September 14, 1982
Subject: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Area
Moose Pass, Alaska -Archeological Reconnaissance
Dear Mr. Dilliplane:
I have enclosed a copy of Ms. Arndt's Archeological Report as you
requested. I would have sent it sooner but there was an extension of
the completion date due to added work and it arrived in my office while
I was out of town.
This report contains an archeologic evaluation of the Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project with the expected project features. There will be
some additional archeological evaluation prior to construction as stated
in Ms. Arndt's conclusions but it is envisioned'that this report will be
utilized to fulfill the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
licensing requirements. Please review and comment on it such that those
comments can be incorporated into future work.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Attachments: as stated
'EAM:mb
Sincerely,
Eric A. Marchegiani
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Reed Stoops, Director, Division of Research & Development, DNR
Mr. Kenneth Plumb, Secretary, FERC
Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO Services, Inc.
---/
Box 81369
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
July 14, 1982
-
.
Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
fZC;;-/fI2e-t//J f/CJ L 0 ?--/CA-C _
5'~.~ 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Dear Mr. Beal:
On 12 June 1982 I completed a reconnaissance-level archeolog-
ical survey for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project under
Forest Service special use permit 2700-4 issued to the Alaska
Power Authority on 24 May 1982. Paragraph K of the permit appli-
cation specified tha~ a final report should be submitted to the
Forest Service within 30 days of the completion of field work,
i.e., by 13 July. A brief summary of the work co~pleted is
enclosed. I am still, however, trying to obtain local information
about one of the sites examined (Solars Sawmill). I therefcre
request an extension of th~ report deadline to the end of August,
I when my final report to the Alaska Power Authority (through
AEIDC and Ebasco Services Inc.) is due. I have discussed this
'\ ..
matter over the telephone with John Mattson, the Forest Archeolo-
gist. He could think of no major objections to an extension but,
as the final decision lies with the Forest Supervisor, he suggested
that I submit a formal written request to you. Please notify
me of your decision.
cc: J. Mattson
W. Hutchinson
D. Trudgen
Sincerely, /? ~~ /~~/~
Katherine L. Arndt
-.
-
....
•
..
...
-
Preliminary Report:
Archeological Reconnaissance, Grant Lake Hydro Project
prepared by K. L. Arndt
Archeologist
July 14, 1982
Katherine Arndt, archeo~ogist, and Maggie Floyd, field
companion and ecologist, carried out a reconnaissance-level
archeological survey within the Gr.ant Lake Hydroelectric Froj ect
area, near Moose Pass, Alaska, on 7 through 12 June 1982. The
survey consisted of a brief aerial reconnaissance of the project
area followed by an examination on foot of the ground's surface
and any exposures, such as uprooted trees and road cuts, in
areas to be affected by project construction •. Because none of
..
1
the construction sites or routes had yet been marked on the ground,
survey was confined to proposed construction locations which
were easily identifiable due to their proximity to natural or
man-made landmarks. A limited number of small test pits were
dug in areas without natural exposures which appeared to be .
relatively high in archeological potential; all tests were
backfilled. No artifacts were collected in the course of the
survey. "
The areas examined and survey results are briefly described
below.
1) North bank of Falls Creek, between the Alaska Railroad and
the proposed site of a diversion dam in Section 17, T. 4 N.,
R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: We walked upstream along the north
bank of Falls Creek and returned via a mining road which in
places coincided with our upstream route. The farthest pOint
reached upstream was slightly beyond the intersection of the NE
corner of the Marathon 3 with the NW corner of the Four Jokers
placer claims, which we believed to be in the vicinity of the
proposed dam site. Material of potential historical interest
which we noted included debris in the forest near the railroad
2
crossing; a small tributary stream with a sluice, a historic-age
campsite, and the remains of the C. M. Brosius cabin (ca. 1936-40),
all in Section 18; and the remains of a log structure along the
road in Section 17, near the end of our route. All appear to be
associated with twentieth-century mining in the area. None appear
to be directly endangered by the construction of the proposed
dam, diversion pipeline, or access road, though it must be
•
reiterated that precise construction sites and sources of
,
construction material have not yet been marked on the ground.
could not locate the Baggs cabin, identified in the literature
search, but this, too, is outside the proposed area of direct
impact.
2) Area between Vagt Lake Trail and existing access road in ,.. ... -
We
Section 13, T~ 4 ~., R. 1 W., Seward Meridian: A pipeline access
road is proposed through this area. We covered the area in a
series of 12 N-S transects. We also walked along a portion of '.
the Vagt Lake Trail to a point just beyond its right-angle turn
in Section 18, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian, because the
proposed road route lies close to the trail here. The only
material of potential historical interest found consisted of a
cabin foundation, overgrown with Willows, and associated debris
near the beginning of the trail and historic-age debris scattered
in the forest along the first N-S transect, within 50 to 100 feet
-
-
-
•
-
..
-
....
."
-
3
(15 to 30 m) of the railroad track. Two historic sites have been
reported in this area: the Stevenson cabin and Trail Creek
Station (SEW 021). The cabin foundation may represent the
former; the latter was not located. The proposed access road
passes well south of the area of historic debris. The route
does, however, pass through an area of high. archeological
potential, and we did not locate its proposed intersection with
the highway.
3) Island between upper and lower Grant Lake and adjacent points
of land: The lake is very shallow here and may be dredged to
increase water flow. We walked completely around the island and
along the shore of both adjacent pOints of land where dredging
equipment might be Qpsed. Aside from old signs of small-scale
logging on.the north point and a recent survey marker on the
south point, we noted no evidence of human activity.
4) Proposed pipeline outlet, south end of Grant La~e: We walked
five transects between a grove of alders on the east and a patch
of beaver-felled birch and the forest on the west, zigzagging
\
upslope. No cultural evidence was found in this grassy area or
in an area of slope wash uphill to the east. This appears to be
an old slide area.
5} Solars sawmill overland to the proposed powerhouse site in
Section 6, T. 4N.~ R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: We examined the
sawmill site, then set out along a trail which we believed to be
the one leading to Upper Trail Lake, shown on USGS maps in the
1950s. The trail, however, had been quite recently brushed in
places, marked with flagging tape, and turned decidedly north.
We took a fainter western branch but lost it and simply continued
on to the proposed powerhouse site. The sawmill site is in ex-
tremely poor condition but contains a few large artifacts which
may be worth salvaging. We are continuing attempts to obtain
local information about this site, which may be affected by
project construction. No cultural material was seen along the
trail. We walked completely around the bay which contains the
powerhouse site but located only a recent campfire. Several
small test pits on the better-drained areas yielded no cultural
evidence.
4
6) The shoreline of Upper Trail Lake from the powerhouse site to
the mouth of Grant Creek: Arndt walked south along this proposed
access route and back again. No cultural material, other than
occasional debris washed up on the beach, was found. A small •
island which splits the mouth of Grant Creek, the east end of a
proposed bridge crossing, was also examined. No cultural material
was found.
The only identified ~ite which may be directly affected by
project const~uction is that of Solars Sawmill. We are still
trying to obtain information about its history. Structures of ,
" ~ historical interest on Falls Creek may be indirectly affected
by increased ease of access to the area--the existing road in
places requires a 4-wheel-drive vehicle with a winch. The
Iditarod Trail, listed in the National Register of Historic Places,
will be intersected by two of the proposed access roads. The
trail route at these points, however, corresponds roughly with
the route of the Alaska Railroad and it is possible that the
access roads will be viewed as a minimal impact. The appropriate
-
-
ai'
...
-
5
agencies must be consulted.
Areas which appear to warrant subsurface archeological test-
ing once proposed 'construction areas have been marked on the
ground are: 1) the access road which parallels part of Vagt Lake
Trail, 2) the access road between Grant Lake and the powerhouse
site, 3) the pipeline route between the diversion dam and the
intersection with the access road which parallels Vagt Lake Trail,
and 4) the access road between the powerhouse and the highway.
The remainder of the pipeline route passes over what appears to
be a slide area. While it may warrant a walk-over and examination
of any natural exposures, any cultural material is likely quite
deeply buried.
Maps, photographs, and site descriptions will be included ,
in the final report.
\ .
, , t • 'f , ,
A\..J\SKJ\ POWER AUTHORITY
RANT LAKE ItYDHOELE TRI
PROJECT
LOCATIONS OF SITES OF
POTENllAl.. HISTOflIC AND
MCIIAEOLDGICAL SIGUIFICANCE
{]l:: 5 ..... ..:.t A ..... '"
F,GVm:; 1-1
[BASCO URVlcn INCORPQRAT£D
DEPARDIElft' OF N&rIJRAL RESOIJRCES
DIVISION O~ I'AlflC'
October 13, 1982
Re: 1130-13
Eric Marchegiani
Project Manager
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
JAY S. HAMMOND. GOVERNOR
(J,' WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE :UO
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
t¥IONE: 214461B
Subject: Grant Lake Hydro Archaeological Reconnaissance Report
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
We have received the Archaeological Reconnaissance Report for the Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project for review. We concur with the inclusions and recom-
mendations in the report, but would like to remind the APA that a Section 106
process should be enjoined for the Iditarod Trail under Alternative F of the
project. We look forward to working with the APA on other aspects of this
project as access roads, construction sites, and other routes are defined and
surveyed for cultural resources.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Marquez
Director
By:
-g-----
Dilliplane ~ ---
Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Don Smi th
Clay Beal
Kenneth Plumb
DR:clk
" .
/
D£~!~!!OF~~~~~~ / JAY S. HAMMOND. GOVERNOR
6111 WAREHOUSE OR .. SUiTE ;;.,
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
10.J11 LH
DIVISION OF PAIIKS / PHONE: 274-4676
May 24, 1982
File No. 1130-13
A , , •
1', C'," .) ,', 'On~ "_ r ; ..... )
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Aiaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
.. ~ J \",. :..
We have reviewed the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources
Task Statement and Survey Plan and have spoken to Kathy Arndt and Eric
Marchegiani concerning some questions regarding the Plan. As the locations
of many construction sites, routes and access roads, transmission lines,
and pipelines are not yet known, the archaeological survey may best be
done in two phases. The first phase, as outlined in the Plan by Kathy
Arndt would involve the low-altitute flight over the general routes of
roads, transmission lines, and underground and surface pipelines
(promising areas would be spotted and checked or mapped for later
examination). Examination of several of the construction sites is
possible due to their proximity to natural and man-made landmarks
and Ms. Arndt proposes to survey and test them. The areas listed by
Ms. Arndt (1-8, page 45) to be surveyed in Project alternatives D and F
would also be accomplished in the first phase of activity. The second
phase, if necessary, would be initiated after the locations of all
construction sites, routes of access roads, transmission lines, and
pipelines are known, as well as the proposed sources of fill or surfacing
material. Those areas not previously surveyed and/or tested would at
this time be surveyed.
Eric Marchegiani has informed this office that Project alternatives
D and F are those that are most viable at this time. However, if
alternatives A, 8, C, or E are to be considered at some future date,
we would like the opportunity to review those projects, as they will
probably need to be surveyed for cultural resources.
In answer to your question concerning a suitable repository for any
artifacts located as a result of this survey, the University of Alaska
Fairbanks Museum is the best such repository. The Curator of the
..
-
-
....
.. '
Letter, Eric P. Yould
Re: 1130-13
May 24. 1982
Page 2
archaeological section of the UAF Museum is Dr. James Dixon. You
should contact Dr. Dixon about the museum requirements for accepting
archaeological collections.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the plan. We appreciate your
cooperation and look forward to working with you on other projects .
..
Sincerel r::-:::::::--:-? /7 ~
~i-L,,'Ddl;P~~--------
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Kathy Arndt
DR/jdg
GROUP 7
DISTRIBUTION OF FI ELD STUDY PLAN AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. John Katz
Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Pouch M
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
April 29, 1982
SUBJECT: Environmental Field Study Plan for Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project: Request for Agency Review and Comment
Dear Commissioner Katz:
Enclosed is a copy of the subject plan for which the Alaska Power
Authority would appreciate your review and comments.
The plan mainly details the scope of the project's environmental field
data acquisition phase. The proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
consists of diverting Grant Lake's inflow through a tunnel toa
powerhouse on Upper Trail Lake. Grant Lake's natural outlet (Grant
Creek) would be dewatered, as would the adjacent Falls Creek, should its
flow be diverted to Grant Lake to augment power production.
A good perception of how the data will be used in the environmental
assessment can be gained by reviewing the project's February 1982
interim environmental report (Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982a). The
latter was organized and patterned after FERC guidelines for an
Exhibit E environmental report, although it by no means attempted to
constitute a complete assessment. Copies of the interim environmental
report and the interim engineering feasibility report (Ebasco Services,
Incorporated 1982b) were provided in r·1arch 1982.
If possible, we would appreciate discussing your agency's comments by
telephone after you have had time to review the plan. On our behalf,
Dr. Rick Cardwell of Ebasco Services Incorporated will be calling the
week of May 17 to answer any questions and discuss the nature of your
comments prior to their being formally transmitted. If you have any
questions before then, please feel free to call Dr. Cardwell directly at
(206) 451-4600. Your official comments should be sent to-the Power
Authority, with a copy to Ebasco Services, Incorporated by May 31, 1982.
Their address is 400 -112th Avenue, M.E., Bellevue, Washington 98004.
.'
Commissioner John Katz
Apri 1 29, 1982
Page 2
We wish to invite your staff to participate in the field sampling
anytime it is convenient. Approximate dates for the field trips are
given in the study plan. As the sampling dates approach, your staff
should contact Dr. Cardwell to learn specific dates and details
concerning coordination.
Thank you for your help in guiding the environmental study effort.
Enclosure: As stated.
cc: Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO""""
Mr. Reed Stoops
Sincerely,
:So ':"d~ JJ
Executive Director
Dept. of Nat. Res., Div. of Research Development
Mr. Ty L. Dilliplane
Dept. of Nat. Res., Div. of Parks
REFERENCES
Ebasco Services, Incorporated. 1982a. Grant Lake hydroelectric project
interim environmental assessment for the Alaska Power Authority.
Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington.
Ebasco Services, Incorporated. 1982b. Grant Lake hydroelectric project
interim report for Alaska Power Authority. Ebasco Services,
-
-
Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. 1"'"
Mr. J:)hn Katz
COlMliss loner
ADDRESSES OF FIRMS lETIER SENT TO
Department of Natural Resources
Pouch M
Ju neau, Alaska 99811
cc: Mr. [bn Smith, EBASCO
Mr. Re ed Stoops
Dept. of Nat. Res., Di v. of Research and Development
Mr. Ty l. Dilliplane
Dept. of Nat. Res., Divison of Parks
Mr. Robe rt McVey
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
P. O. Box 1668
J.meau, Alask a 99802
cc: Oon Smith, EBASCO
Brad Smith, Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage
Mr. Keith Schreiner .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
733 Wes t 4th Aven ue, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska '99501
cc: [bn Smith, EBASCO
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The ij:)nora bl e Erns t Mue ller
COlMliSSlOner .
Department of Environmental Conservation
. Pouch 0
Ju neau, A 1 ask a 99811
cc: Mr. Oon Smith, EBASCO
Mr. Bill Wilkerson, Dept. of Env. Conser.
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
U. S. Fores t Service
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Al ask a 99508
c c: Mr. Do n Sm i th, EBASCO
Mr. Geof Wilson, District Ranger
U.S. Forest Service, Seward
The ij:)norab1e Ronald O. Skoog
CommiSs loner
A1ska Department of Fish and Game
Subport Building
Juneau, Al aska 99801
cc: Mr. [bn Smith, EBASCO
Mr. Thomas J. Arminski
AK [):pt. of Fi sh and Game
/
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
Mr. John E. Cook
Regional Director
National Park Service
Alaska Region
540 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
April 28, 1982
Subject: Environmental Field Study Plan for Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project: Request for Agency Review and Comment
Dear Mr. Cook:
Enclosed is a copy of the subject plan for which the Alaska Power
Authority would appreciate your review and comments.
The plan mainly details the scope of the project's environmental
field data acquisition phase. The proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project consists of diverting Grant Lake's inflow through a tunnel to a
powerhouse on Upper Trail Lake. Grant Lake's natural outlet (Grant
Creek) would be dewatered, as would the adjacent Falls Creek, should its
flow be diverted to Grant Lake to augment power production.
A good perception of how the data that will be used in the
environmental assessment can be gained by reviewing the project's
February 1982 interim environmental report (Ebasco Services Incorporated
1982a) and the interim engineering feasibility report (Ebasco Services
Incorporated 1982b) both of which are enclosed. You will note that the
former was organized and patterned after Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) guidelines for an Exhibit E environmental report.
If possible, we would appreciate discussing your agency's comments
by telephone after you have had time to review the plan. On our behalf,
Dr. Rick Cardwell of Ebasco Services Incorporated will be calling the
week of 17 May to answer any questions and discuss the nature of your
comments prior to their being formally transmitted. If you have any
questions before then, please feel free to call Dr. Cardwell directly at
(206)451-4600. Your official comments should be sent to the Authority,
with a copy to Ebasco Services Incorporated by May 31, 1982. Their
address is 400 -112th Avenue N.E., Bellevue, Washington 98004.
-
--
...
Mr. John E. Cook
Regional Director
April 28, 1982
Page 2
We wish to invite your staff to participate in the field sampling
anytime it is convenient. Approximate dates for the field trips are
given in the study plan. As the sampling dates approach, your staff
should contact Dr. Cardwell to learn specific dates and details
concerning coordination.
Thank you for your help in guiding the environmental study effort.
Enclosures: As stated
cc: Don Smi th, EBASCO.-
LY. JA
Er1c P. YOUld~
Executive Director
ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY PLAN
FOR THE
mOPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC ffiOJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHOR! TV
334 WEST 5TH AVENUE
ANC~R.AGEt ALASKA 99501
ABSTRACT
This plan describes the scope of the environmental field studies for
the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, located near Moose Pass
on the Kenai Peninsula. The field studies focus on collecting data on
:water resources, water Quality, fish and other aquatic 1 ife,
terrestrial wildlife, botanical resources, and archaeological ana
. cultural resources. Water bodies to be studied include Grant Lake, its
outlet G"ant Creek, and nearby Falls Creek. The data obtained from
these field studies will be combinea with existing 1 iterature,
analyzed, and compiled into an environmenta 1 assessment that will
become the basis of the environmental exhibit in a license application
for the project from the Federa 1 Energy Regulatory Commission.
\
1
....
-
...
UN IRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY PLAN FOR THE
PR(FOSED GRANT LAKE H YDROELECTRI C PRn.lECT
BACK~OUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
:Grant Lake, lying approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska just
east of Moose Pass on the Seward-Anchorage Highway (Figure 1), is the
<site for a proposed hydroelectric project.
The proposed project arrangement consists of a lake tap intake at Grant
Lake, a tunnel and penstock leading to a powerhouse on the east shore
of Upper Trail Lake, access roads, a short transmission line, and a
diversion dam and pipeline to convey water from Falls Creek into Grant .;..'
Lake. Thi s arrangement does not propose construction of any dams on
Grant Lake nor raising of the existing lake level. In operation, the
project woul d fluctuate the lake from its current leve 1 of
approximately 700 feet to an approximate elevation of 6fD feet, and
would dewater (j--ant Creek for most of the year. Figure 2 shows the
proposed project f acil it ies. Di vers ion of f low from nearby Fa lls Creek
would be accomplished via apipe extending northward to 9"ant Lake from
a diversion dam on Falls Creek located at elsvation 1100 feet. Falls
Creek wou ld be dewatered downstream of the dam from May through
October. Envisioned project facilities are described more completely
in the interim project report on engineering feasibility (Ebasco
Services IncoJ1)orated 1982a).
Because the draft final report (i.e., Exhibit E) for the environmental
studies is due in October 1982, the first of four seasona 1 fiel d trips
was completed in October 1981, soon after Ebasco Services Inc. received
notice to proceed with the work from the Alaska Power Authority, but
before a detailed field study plan could be prepared, developed, and
circulated for review to the concerned resource agencies. A draft plan
was later circulated for informal comment to the following agencies:
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Dept. of Fish and
Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S.
Nationa 1 Marine Fisheries Service. Thi s plan considers the comments
Obtained for the agencies in this informal review. It addresses the
2
-
-
-
....
-
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FIGIJ1E I
UAICO SERVICES INCONIORATED ...
/ .. : .... )
'/ j-
.1 / ,
I : ; 1 ·
SCALE I'::: KX)()'
DATUM -MSL
MI.
LEGEND
-ACCESS ROAD
---PIPELINE
--------TUNNEL
_._.-TRANSMISSION LINE
NOTES
TOPOGRAPHY PREPARED BY NORTH
PACIFIC AERIAL SURVEYS. INC.,
NOVEMBER 1981.
1000 o 1000
SCALE
ALASKA PONER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
EI..:o SERVICES INCORPORATED
-..
-
-.. -..
-.. -..
-..
-..
-.. -------..
-• -.. -
• -..
-..
--
data that will be collected in the field on water use and quality,
aquatic life. terrestrial life, bOtanical resources, and archaeological
and cultural resources of the study area. Ebasco's approach to
studying these elements is structured according to the organization
defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission for Exhibit E
!,eports (Federa 1 Register 46:21.10165, Feb. 2, 1981). and it is, in our
opinion, responsive to the data requirements of the FERC.
Most studies remai n to be completed. Studies and assessments of
environmental impacts and potential mitigative avenues performed up
through January 1982 are discussed in the interim engineering
feas ibi lity report (Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982a) and the
companion interim environmental assessment (Ebasco Services
Incorporated 1982b).
STUDY ELEMENTS AND APmOACH
WATER USE AND QUALITY
Sample Co llection and AnalYSis
The water Qual ity parameters 1 isted in Table 1 w ill be measured
according to methods specified as acceptable by the U.S. Environmenta 1
Protection Agenc;.!. The "significant ions", wMch consist mainly of
heavy metals, will be sampled with metal-free sampling devices, placed
into specially-cleaned, metal-free containers supplied by Amtest
Laboratories, Seattle, Washington, and Shipped by air to Jmtest's
laboratory for analysis. Samples will be collected in autumn 1981,
winter 1982, and spring 1982. Metals (parameters 16 through 28
inclusive) will not be measured in summer 1982 because the data
obtained to date indicates their concentrations are far below those
believed to be acutely or chronically toxic to aquatic life.
Concentrations should fall even lower during summer due to the diluting
effect of s now melt.
1.1 40 C.F.R. Part 136, 136.3 (July 1, 1900 edition) •
5
4 'if JI i "'n
Table 1. Water Quality parameters to be measured in Grant Lake
environmenta 1 studies.
"Ho. Parameter No. Pa rameter
1 Water temperature "Significant Ions"
2 Oi sso 1 ve d Oxygen
3 Conductivity 16 Tota 1 s i 1 ver ,£1
4 Secch i dis c transparency 17 Total aluminum
5 pH 18 Total calcillTl
6 Ni trate 19 Total c adn ium 52.1
7 Ort h oph os ph ate 20 To ta 1 chromi u~1
8 Total hardness!1 21 To ta 1 c opp er ,£1
9 Alkalinity 22 Tota 1 iron
10 Total dissolved solids 23 Total mercury £1
11 Suspended so 1 ids 24 Total potassium
12 Co 1 iform bacteri a 25 Total magnesium
13 Turbidity 26 Sodium
14 Sulfate 27 Total lea&1
15 Ollori de 28 Tota 1 zinc
al Calculated from calcium and magnesium concentrations (Anerican
F\,Ibli c Health Associ ation, 1981, page 195).
bl Measured with graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
cl Measured by cold vapor techniQue.
6
----.. -
• -.. -.. -
• ---
• •
• •
• .. --..
.. -
•
..
.. -
• ..
• •
-• -• -,..
---•
• --
• -------
• ---
• ---
• -• ----
Samples will be collected from the stations and at the times specified
in Figure 3 and Table 2. Water Quality sampling will be concurrent
with the aquatic life studies.
AQUATIC LIFE
As required by FERC, aquatic life surveys in Grant Lake and prOject
.' streams will determine species composition, spatial and temporal
distribution, relative abundance, and habitat preferences of resident
and anadromous fish. In addition, the species composition and relative
abundance of primary ~nd secondary food chain organisms (e. g.,
phytoplankton, insects) will also be described.
Sampling Plan
Informat 10n on aquatic org anisms 1 nhabiting project area waters wi 11 be
obtained by literature review and field survey. The latter will
identify resident and anadromous fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and
zooplankton, describe seasonal variability in populations, and identify
habitats used. Field surveys will be undertaken during fall, winter,
spring, and sunmer.
Field data necessary for completion of this task will be collected
during all seasons at Grant Lake, Grant Lake tributaries, Grant Creek,
and Fa 11 s Creek.
Methods
Field studies will identify resident and anadromous fish and
invertebrate speCies, their relative abundance, and habitat use
characteristics. The presence of fish in these waters will be
determined by one or more of the following methods: (1) 125 foot
variable mesh gill net containing five 25 ft panels varying in size
from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inch bar measurements; (2) minnow traps; (3) beach
seine; (4) backpack electroshocker; (5) angling, and (6) visual
observation. Spawning areas in Grant Lake and tributary systems, Grant
7
Table 2. Water Quality sampling locations and dates
Sanp 1 i ng
Location
Grant Lake
-Upper Basin
-Surf ace
-Bottom
-Lower Basin
-Su rface
-Bottom
Grant Creek
Fa 11 s Creek
PLItLlTln,
No v. 81
Cre.!
pbl
L£i
L
P
L
L
PE.J
A
Samp 1 i ng Oa tes
Wi nter,
Jan. 82
CA
p
L
L
P
L
L
A
A
Spring,
May 82
CA
P
L
L
P
L
L
A
A
SUl11Tler,
Sept. 81J./
CA
P
L
L
P
L
L
A
A
al CA = Composite analyses for all 28 parameters. Composited samples
co llected at the su rfac e and 2 meters above the bottom with
metal-free samples from station 1 (lower basin) and station 2
(upper basin).
bl P = profile. Define changes in water temperature and dissolved
oxygen with water depth from surface to the bottom.
cf. L = limited analysis. Measure only the first five water qua lity
parameters specified in Table 1.
E.! A = all. Measure all water Quality parameters specified in Table
1.
!.I Heavy metals will not be measured.
8
,. ----.. -----.. ..
• ..
• .,
• .. --
• ---.. --., --
•
•
• ..
-
III ,-
III -
III -
III
-.. -
III
---
III
-..
--
---..
..
---..
-
III
-
III
-
III
--
~
Creek, and Falls Creek will be identified with foot, aerial, and boat
surveys. Rearing habitat will be identified through minnow trapping,
electrofishing, seining, angling, and visual observation. Estimates of
the number of fish per unit art!Cl will bemade in Grant and Falls Creeks
using mark recapture (Ricker 1975) or Zippin's (1956) removal method,
.:providing fish densities are sufficient to produce reliable estimates.
Sampling freQuency, locations, parameters, and methods are identified
in Table 3 and Figures 4 and 5.
The foregoing surveys will serve to define the species composition,
distribution, and relative abundance of fish other than adult salmon,
trout, and char. Estimates of the deqree to which adult salmonids may
theoretically utilize Grant Creek for spawning will be made
indirectly. Grant Creek is simply too large, fast flowing, and turbid
to permit reliable direct enumeration of adults without the use of
wiers, which are too costly for consideration here.
Grant Creek will be surveyed ; n 1 ate summer 1982 to estimate
theoretical spawning populations of adult sa1monids. The estimates
will be based on the morphology, depth, velocity, and substrate
composition of Grant Creek. Literature values concerning preferences
of the different salmonid species for these paramters plus each
species' redd size will be used in the estimating process.
Ebasco wi 11 samp1 e benthi c macroinvertebrates ; n Grant Lake and Grant
and Falls Creeks. A six-inch Ekman dredge will be used in Grant Lake
while a 12-inch Surber sampler will be used for the streans. Bottom
sanp1es will be screened, washed, and preserved in 70 percent alcohol
for laboratory analysis. Captured specimens will be keyed to the
lowest possible taxon. Samples will be taken during the fall, winter,
spring, and late summer, and reported by taxonomic group as the number
per unit area.
9
\
; : i
Iii
/
! j ! (
;: :\' f
i ' ./1
NOTE
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM
SEWARD 86-87
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
WATER BODY
Trt butary to
Grant lake
Grant lake •
•
•
•
Q-an t ()-ee k • • •
Fa lIs Creek • •
•
•
...... ......
Table 3 Field Sampling Schedule for Aquatic Ufe
STATION PARMETER GEAR TECHNI(JJE REPLICATES SAMPLING
SEASONS
2!! Fish B. rl!! • , F.S.S.E.i
1 Fi sh A Floating a sinking. overnight set 1 series F.S.S.
2 Fish B OVerni ght ba ited set • F.S.S.
3 Zooplankton C Inte(J" ated vert ica 1 Um/sec) bottom to surf ace tow 2X composite F.W.S.S.
4 Phytoplan k-0 compOSite (bottom. mid. top) 1 series •
ton
5 Benthos· E Grab sample 2X composite •
6 Benthos F Surber Sample 1 series F.W.S.S.
7 Fish G ins itu s amp 11 ng • •
8 Fish 1 "ETectroshock unit area • •
9 Fi sh B Overnight baited set • •
10 Periphyton J Composite sample (3 sites) • •
11.12.13 Benthos F Surber sample 1 series F.W.S.S.
11.12.13 Periphyton J Composite sample (3 sites) • •
11.12.13 Fish G in situ samol1ng • •
14 Fish B OVernite baited set • •
15 Fish H Z1ppin removal method • W.S.S.
!/See Figures 2 and 3 for sampling locations
~ Gear types:
A. Variable mesh g111 net
B. Minnow trap
C. 153 micron mesh. Nitex. 30 cm plankton net.
O. 1 l1teOr aliquots placed in 12-liter container and subsampled.
E. 16 cm X 16 cm Ekman dredge; samples washed throultt 500 micron mesh seive
F. 25-cm Surber Sampler (multiple locations sampled that encompass cross section of stream).
G. Backpack electroshocker. ang11ng. Visual observation (combination of techniques)
H. Section of stream isolated with block seines and repeatedly worked with backpack electroshocker
I. Section of stream electroshocked and number of fish by species related to area sampled
J. Composite sample from three Sites; substrates (sutnerged stoves. sticks) will be scrubbed into I-liter
containers.
slF .. Fall; W '" winter; S '" spring; S = sllllller
.-........ GRANT CREEK
NOTE: FOR EXPLANATION OF NUMERALS SEE TABLE '3
, f. , , 1 I ! 11
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AQUATIC RESOORCES SAMPLING
STATIONS FOR GRANT LAKE
AND GRANT CREEK
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
,
SEWARD
ANCHORAGE
HIGHWAY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED
FALLS CREEK DIVERSION
NOTE: FOR EXPLANATION OF NUMERALS SEE
TABLE :3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AQUATIC RESOORCES SAMPLING
STATIONS FOR VAGT CREEK
AND FALLS CREEK
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
Zooplankton samples will be collected from Grant Lake by making
rep 1 icate, depth-i ntegrated vert ica 1 tows usi ng 30 cm diameter, 153
micron Nitex plankton net. Zooplankton will be identified to the
lowest possible taxon and enumerated. Samples will be taken during
fall, winter, spring, and summer, and reported as number by taxonomic
group per volume sieved.
Phytoplankton from Grant Lake and periphyton from the creeks will be
collected to define taxonomic composition and relative density.
Samples will be taken during fall, winter, spring, and summer.
BOTANICAL RESOURCES
The vegetation studies wi 11 describe and map major botanical resources
withi n the study region (Figure 6), including aquatic macrophytes and
any rare, threatened, or endangered species. Poss ible project-re lated
alterations in the flora and the implications of these changes will be
discussed.
Samp 1 i ng Pl a n
Although a thorough literature review will be conducted, the apparently
scant published information on the area will require special emphasis
on unpublished data as well as interviews with knowledgeable
individuals. The literature review and intial vegetation mapping will
be accomplished during the fall and winter of 1981-82. Field work and
refinement of the vegetation map will be completed during the summer of
1982. Field work for evaluating natural regeneration and ground
truthing the vegetation maps, which will be prepared by analyzing
aerial photos, will require several trips during spring or early summer
of 1982. Timing of the field survey{s) will depend on regional
phenology and climatic conditions.
14
"'"
-
-
..
-
..
..
..
..
VEGETATION MAP BOUNDRIES FIGURE 6
Methods
Vegetation associations will be mapped through standard photo-
interpretation techniQues using low altitude, natural color aerial
photography, and/or high altitude, color infrared aerial photography.
Yegetation associations will be mapped throughout the study area (Grant
-
Creek/ Lake drainage, Vagt Creek/ Lake drainage, and Fa lls Creek
drainage) at a scale of 1:24,000.
Vegetation associations will be classified and mapped following the
hierarchica 1 system of Viereck, Dyrness, and Batten (1981). The leve 1
of detail will be greatest at elevations below approximately 1000 ft
and near project structures. Other factors determining the level at
which associations are mapped include relative complexity of the
associations, degree and Quality of photo coverage, and the amount and
availability of other existing information. Areas above 1000 ft will
be described at Leve 1 1 and those below 1000 ft will be described at a
minimum of Level 2 detail. The vicinity of the Falls Creek diversion,
including pipeline, will be mapped at Level 2.
Currently there are no plant species listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered that are indigenous to
Alaska. However, there are 31 species currently under review (Federal
Register, Vol. 45, No. 242, Monday, !:ecember IS, 1900). Although only
one of these species has been noted to occur on the Kenai Peninsula,
they will be sought out during all field investigations. Special
emphasis will be palced on areas that will be inundated. These and
other sites will be surveyed in late spring or early summer of 1982.
Because it is often possible to describe vegetation in greater detail
that it can be mapped using aerial photographs, two or more related
associations may be grouped into a single mapping unit. Each unit will
be fully described as to its components.
16
-
-
.--
.-
...
.-
!IIi
During the initial mapping phase, specific areas will be field
checked. These will include areas representing each association type,
those that are Questionable or uncertain, and those of special
interest, such as proposed roads, transmission 1 ines, and potentially
affected waterways. Field checking primarily will be limited to areas
_below 1000 ft and the vicinity of the Falls Creek diversion.
Qualitative transects, surveys, and other techniQues will be used, as
... needed, to describe each association accurately. Although no
Quantitative data will be gathered, a systematic means of rating plant
density will be employed. Vegetation associations will be described in
tenns of dominant over-and understory species. Areas or previous
disturbance, natural or man-induced, will be visited as they may yield
infonnation concerning successional trends.
Data Reduction and Results
A map wi 11 be prepared displaying the distribution of major vegetation
associations in the project area. Accompanying this map will be a
narrative coveri ng:
1. A description of each mapping unit and its vegetation
association(s) •
2. A description of the vegetation occupying sites of particular
". interest (e.g., project structures, transmission lines, inundated
areas) •
3. Rare, threatened, or endangered species.
4. Successional trends.
5. A list of identified plant species.
6. An estimate of the amount of each vegetation type and percentage of
each type likely to be lost or severly altered due to project
deve 1 opmen t.
7. A value estimate of timber to be lost.
17
T ERRESTR1 AL BIOTA
Sal'l1) 1 i ng Pl an
A comprehensive 1 iterature review will assemble current and historical
information on wildlife and habitat conditions within the Ci'ant Lake
Re g;on.
Considering the paucity of published material, investigators will have
to review unpublished file reports and records maintained by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, which have cOl'l1)iled considerable information on
bird and mammal types of the Kenai Pensinu1a. Interviews with agency
personne 1 ass igne d to the Kena i-Seward distri ct sand k now1edgeab 1 e
residents, such as local trappers, hunters, and sport fishermen will
supplement the data base. Interviews with other agency personne 1 and
private individuals will be summarized on a standard form. The interim
and final reports will include a master list of all contacts.
Methods
Lists of amphibians, birds, and mammals known or likely to occur within
the study area wi 11 be compiled. These lists, based on the literature
review, will be augmented by field observations. Data collected
through fie1 d and 1 iterature surveys will be analyzed to describe
wi 1dlife and habitat types ina regional perspective. Supplemental
information on unique or otherwise important habitats will be acquired
through aerial and foot surveys. Any actual or potential use of the
project area by endangered or threatened species wi 11 be determined by
the combined use of literature reviews, personal interviews, and field
study.
18
-
...
-
-
-
..
As appropriate, seasona 1 distribution of bi g game and other important
species will be mapped using information collectively obtained by field
survey, habitat and vegetation mapping, personal interviews, and
literature reviews. As information allows, Qualitative population
est imate s 0 f res i den t spec ie swill be made. Thes e est imate s will be
based on the field survey data as well as on records and findings of
the A1ask a [Epartment of Fis h and Game. Bnphas is wi 11 be placed on
species of special interest, (e.g., moose, bears, raptors). General
estimates of abundance will be produced for all big game, furbearers,
raptors, upland game birds, and waterfowl species in the study area.
The proportions of these populations occupying areas that may be
inundated or excavated by project facilities wi 11 be estimated.
Following a reconnaissance, replicate aerial and ground surveys
systematically covering specific habitat types will be conducted
seasonally to evaluate changes in wildlife abundance and distribution.
Aerial surveys will commence in late winter when the range of most
species of wildlife is restricted. Q-ound surveys using snowmachines,
skis, and snowshoes will provide detailed data and serve to IItruthll
result s of the aeria 1 effort. A second series of rep licate surveys is
scheduled for late spring to provide insight on the location of
specia 1 use areas, such as bear denning and those used for spri ng
feeding. A helicopter may be employed for these surveys as it is very
effective for Observing the denning activity of bears, goat kidding,
and the shifting of anima 1s between feeding ranges. A third series of
replicate surveys will be conducted late in the sunmer to canplete the
data base on the composition and distribution of resident wildlife, out
the actua 1 timi ng of the surveys and the degree of effort expended on
each will ultimately depend on phenology. Aerial surveys of mountain
goat and Dal1s sheep were conducted in winter 1982 but will not be
undertaken in spring and summer because the project is not expected to
19
affec t thei r habitats. At a mi nimum these surveys wi 11 provide a bas is
for estimating (1) the seasonal distribution of big gMle, raptors, and
other important species; (2) the utilization of the project area for
breeding by upland game birds, waterfowl, and other birds; and (3) the
numbers of big game, furbearers, raptors, upland game birds, and
waterfowl inhabiting the study area.
Data Reduction and Results
The results of the literature review, field surveys, and personal
interviews with knowledgeable individuals will be synthesized into a
report that descri bes local faunal assemb1 ages and discusses the
presence or absence of threatened or endangered spec ies. The
distribution and relative abundance of a given species or species group
will be correlated with the vegetation map, providing a concise
summation of the relative importance of project affected areas to the
loca 1 fauna.
A 1 isting of vertebrates either known or believed to occur in the study
are a wi 11 be provided.
As a consequence of marked seasonal changes in avian diversity and
abundance, bird lists will include year-around residents, migratory
species, and species known to be occasional or accidental visitors. In
all cases, species observed during the current study will be
highlighted.
Where possible, subjective estimates of wildl ife populations will be
provided. To estimate bovid abundance, population data on mountain
goats and Da 11 sheep collected by the Al aska Department of of Fi sh and
Game will be pooled with that gathered during the field study.
Population estimates for moose and the two bear species will be made
by combining data from individual observers and that previously
reported by the U. S. Fores t Service and Al aska Department of Fi sh and
Game. Where attempted, population estimates for other species and
20
... '
...
-
-
",.
... '
-
species groups will be based solely on the field survey data. As
appropri ate, maps w 111 be prepared depicting special ized habi tats suCh
as denning, birthing, and rearing areas.
H ISTORI CAL AND ARC HEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
--Thi s phase of the study will ident if y and asses s the significance of
the historic and archeological resources of the project area.
Sampling Plan
The assessment of cultural resources (archeological and historical)
will consist of a literature search, consultation with agency
personnel, an interpretation of aerial photography, and field survey.
Each contributes to the objective of identifying and mitigating
significant direct adverse effects of project development on property
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic
P1 aces.
Methods
Consultations will be conducted with the State Historic Preservation
Officer, the Nationa 1 Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service to
identify agency concerns with project deve lopment. Consultation wi 11
be documented by appending a letter from each agency indicating the
nature, extent, and results of the consultation to the final report.
A literature search of known and reported sites in the vicinity of
project facilities will be made. This infonnation helps detennine
whether project construction will adversely affect any known or
recorded c ultura 1 resources. Stereoscopic a ir photo i nterpretat ion of
the transmission line route and power plant site will also be made to
aid in identifying additional areas suggesting human use, occupancy, or
potential prehistoric sites.
21
The field survey will focus on (1) locating all known and recorded
sites directly affected by construction of the transmission line, power
plant, dams, penstock, conduits, access roads, and (2) surveying on
foot for previously unknown or unrecorded sites at project construction
sites and a 11 points where the transmiss ion 1 ine crosses a 1 and-water
~nte rface •
. Subsurf ace prob; ng, undertaken only in areas appearing archeologically
sensiti ve, wi 11 be based on ground survey results. All prObes wi 11 be
baCkfilled. Field collection of artifacts will be limited to
significant materials which, if not recovered at the time, are likely
to be lost or destroyed. Upon conpletion of the survey, these
materials will be delivered to the responsible agency.
Appropriate information will be recorded for any site eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. A site survey
form will be completed for any site found in the project area,
regardless of eligibil ity for the register, and will be appended to the
final report.
The following guidelines for studying cultural resources in the project
are a wi 11 be fo 11 owed :
1. A descriptive inventory of the cultural resources affected by the
proposed action.
2. Maps showing the location, density, and distribution of the
resources in relation to relevant natural and environmental
factors; and delineation of the areas of potential environmental
impact.
3. Evaluation of the historic, SCientifiC, and social Significance of
the resources, including identification of resources in, pending
nomination to, or considered eligible for, inclusion in the
Nationa 1 Register of Histori c Places.
22
...
...
"".
-
-
..
...
4. The predictable adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed
act i on 0 n the resourc es.
5. A recommended program for lessening ·the direct, indirect, and
cumulative adverse effects on the resources.
~. Description and evaluation of unavoidable adverse effects.
Resu lts
Results of the surveys will be presented in a final report describing
the methodology employed (e.g. surveys, inventories, subsurface
testing, etc.) and, if appl icable, the results of any surveys and
inventories of subsurface testing recommended by state and federa 1
agencies. Any historic or archeo logical sites known to exist or
discovered in the project area will also be identifed, along with a
summary of their historic significance, project impacts, and possible
mitigation measures.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following activities have been scheduled for the environmental
assessment of the project area.
23
DATE
October 1981
October 1981
October 1981
Februa ry 1982
Ma rch 1982
Apri 1 1982
May-June 1982
ACTIVITY
Special Use Pennit for preliminary field work
obtained from U.S. Forest Service.
Preliminary archeological assessment of project
area prerequisite to exploratory drilling.
Completion of autumn survey of aquatic and
terrestrial life in project area.
Interim report 0 n envi ronmenta 1 studies submitted
to Al aska Power Authority.
Completion of winter survey of aquatic and
terrestrial life in project area.
Obtain Special Use Pennit for 1982 field work from
the U.S. Forest Service.
Completion of spring survey of biological and
archeologica 1 resources of project area.
July-September 1982 Completion of sUlIJIler survey of physical~
biological~ and archeological resources of project
area.
Oc tober 1982
Fe bruary 1983
Dr aft F ERC Exh i bit E e nvi ronmenta 1 report
submitted to Alaska Power PLlthority
Alaska Power Authority applies for license from
Federal Energy Regulatory Ccmnission.
24
-
-
...
-
REFERENCES
Jlrnerican Public Health Association. 1900. Standard methods for the
exami nation of water and wastewater. Fifteenth Edition, Anerica n
Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
:Ebasco Services Incorporated. 1982a. Interim report for Alaska Power
Authority. Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington.
Ebasco Services Incorporated. 1982b. Interim environmental assessment
for Al aska Power Authority. Ebasco Servi ces Incorporated,
Bellevue, Washing~on.
Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological
statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Bulletin 191. Ottawa, Canada.
Viereck, L.A. and C.T. Dyrness. 1980. A preliminary classification
system for vegetation of Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific
I't>rthwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical
Report PNW-106. 38 pP. ,
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, and A.R. Batten. 1981. Revision of
preliminary classification system for vegetation of Alaska. U.S.
Forest Servi ce, Institute of Northern Forestry, Fa irbanks, Alaska.
64 pp.
Zippin, C. 1956. An evaluation of the removal method of estimating
animal populations. Biometrics 12:163-189.
25
GROUP 8
AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIELD STUDY PLAN AND INTERIM REPORT
June , 1982
Mr. Eric Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear r1r. Yould:
, I, !, /
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atm;:)spheric Administration
Na tiona l Marine Fisherie;; S6Y'...:ic:<::
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau .. Alaska 99802
",l ,"
We have received your letter of April 29, 1982, presenting L~e Environ-
rrental Field study Plan for the Proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project. After reviewing this dOCUI'rent and the interim re?Jrt 0:::
February 1982, we have several comments for your consideration.
The Interim RepJrt states that "YJinirm.Im dONn stream flow requirer;L:,. .... ts
were considered to be zero for all six (project) alterr,atives. II '1'11<2n
goes OIl to state that this assurrption was based on a prelirninarl' aSS'?Sf;-
rrent that the fishery in Grant Creek is "probably minor enough" to
justify removing all flow. We do not feel the attempt to write off thi~
fishery and mitigate the loss in scree other rnan.,'1er consti tuteE: W:
adequate consideration of the resource. While the rragni tude or
importance or the frsh populations here may be shC\l7l1 to be r.Lin.or, a']c,il-
able data do not allo...; for any conclusions to ~ nEck:. Thc'se n::jyxt::.
point out that Grant Creek contains kno.vn spawnins fX>pulatiol1s of kir:.g
and sockeye saJ..rron, may support spawning by coho salImn, Delly Van;(:::,.
and rai.nl:x:J..v trout and is utilized by all of these species for reari:lg.
Numbers are only prese.l1ted for adult chinook and sockeye ana thE: rcpo::-:
allo...,s that actual numbers are probably higher.
We rec~ld that additional information be gathered to acscribrc t~c
fisheries resources of the project area. vJe believe the need fer elis
fisheries data is critical to a thorough assessrrent of project irnpacc.s I
and that the study plan should reflect this intp::)l'i:ance. Study emphasis
on such elerre:nts as water quality, phytoplankton, zooplaJll-~ton I Ll1sccb'
(benthic macroinvertebrates) I periphyton, and ootanical resources shoule
be re-evaluated to produce study results rrore closely alliec'i \~-i th re::-,::'
concerns.
The following ccmrents are specific to the Envirol1rrental Field StuCi~'
Plan:
Page 7, paragraph 5. Spawning areas ?.re to be identified ".'i th foot,
aerial and boat surveys. Which s}?ecies will be evaluated? Vl:k:t
criteria will be used in identifying an area as spawning habit:E..t? L'ill
other rreans be utilized?
2
Page 9, paragraphs 2 and 3. The first sentence here conflicts with the
first sentence of paragraph 2 on page 7, which says these surveys \-Jill
detennine species ccnposi tion , spatial and t:.errp:>ral distr ibutio:1,
relative abundance, and habitat preferences of reside.."1t and anadra:Dus
fish. The indirect rreans of est.ilrating salrron spawning should be
explained We are concerned that indirect est.ilrations may rely upon
species preference curves developed outside of Alaska and may result hl
an underest.ilrate of habitat values. The assertion that Grant Creek
would be too costly or sv.rift flONing to survey ooy not be the caSE:.
Additional literature review or discussions with resource agencies ffi.3.}'
identify a di~~t ID2cmS of addressing this use.
Finally, because we L12el serre fishery related water releases to Grant
Creek cannot be ruled out at this tirre, sane effort should be ffi.3.Ce
toNards quantifying the relative impacts to fish habitat. vIe are not
reccrnrending an intensive instream flON study, railier a series of
profiles or other data which would permit a preliminary analysis to be
made.
We appreciate this opportunity to corment and anticipate accarpanying
the study team on site this sumrer. Please contact Mr. Brad Smith in
our Anchorage office at 271-5006 to discuss any concerns you l.B.y have
regarding these caments.
-
...
..
"1 ,'.' I .-iL .' f
United States Department of the Interior A E eEl V ED
IN REPL Y REFER TO:
WAES
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear t4r. Youl d:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
ALASM POWER AUTHORITY
8J.u.N 1982
Re: Environmental Field Study Plan
and Interim Environmental
Assessment for Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project
We have reviewed Ebasco's Field Study Plan and Interim Environmental
Assessment for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. Our main concerns
are (l) the limited fisheries data available for Grant and Falls Creeks,
and (2) the premature decision that "the fishery resource which would be
lost as a result of dewatering Grant Creek for power production purposes
is probably minor enough to justify mitigation by some means other than
minimum downstream flow releases." (p. 6-3, Interim Report)
The Fish and Wildlife Service's mitigation policy has established miti-
gation goals to aid in project planning; the fisheries resources to be
affected in Grant Creek fall into Resource Category 3, with abundant
habitat that is of high to medium value for the fish. Our correspond-
ing Mitigation Planning Goal is no net loss of habitat value, while
minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value.
We feel that additional effort to quantify adult salmonid use of Grant
Creek will be appropriate in early study phases. These data can then be
the basis for devising acceptable mitigation measures.
One such mitigation measure that should be studied is a set of releases
to sustain natural runs of salmon in Grant Creek. Top pnlority should be
given to preserving natural runs of salmon in known anadromous streams;
artificial production or replacement of fish should be used as a miti-
gation measure only after unavoidable losses are documented.
Page 9, paragraph 3 of the Field Study Plan states lIestimates of theoret-
ical spawning populations of adult salmonids will be based on morphology,
depth. velocity, and substrate composition of Grant Creek. Literature
values for preferences of the salmonid species for these parameters plus
each species' redd size will be used in the estimating process." While
/ . '"
Eric P. Yould -2-
this method would help quantify the amount of optimal, habitat in Grant
Creek, efforts should be expended to enumerate actual numbers of each
sDe~les using the creek. To reflect real instream conditions, pr~terence
cu~ves should be derived for a given study stream based on actual fish )
use. To this end, Grant Creek adult salmonid use should be quantified in
these initial study stages.
During early project coordination, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
has apprised us that they plan to release sockeye salmon fry into Grant
Lake in early 1983. Project planning should take into account the need
for smolt outmigration and prevention of impingement and entrainment.
Our specific comments on the 2 volumes of the Interim Environmental
Assessment (lEA) and Interim Report follow.
Interim Environmental Assessment
p. 2-13, para. 4: Studies of changes in erosion and sediment deposition
in Grant Creek would be a necessary part of studies to determine
minimum release requirements for Grant Creek fisheries.
p. 2-18, para. 4: Project planning should address possible releases to
maintain Grant Creek fisheries.
p. 3-35, para. 4: The assumption lithe project's impacts on aquatic
resources in Grant Lake would be minimal II is premature; Grant Lake
productivity and littoral zone impacts are not yet quantiLed.
p. 3-38, para. 1: When sockeye salmon fry are released into Grant Lake,
mitigation measures for lake resources will need to be devised.
p. 3-38, para. 2: We would like to see instream flow regimes for
maintaining existing Grant Creek fisheries resources studied and
addressed in later reports.
p. 9-1, para. 1: Informal communication with Ebasco personnel indicate
that releases into Grant Creek may seriously affect project viabil-
ity,_ based on current power production and cost analyses.
Interim Report
Sections 6.0 and 8.0: We request that power analysis and cost estimates
be done for an alternative which provides minimum releases to main-
tain Grant Creek fisheries resources.
-
....
...
"'
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
/ f (i
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
TO
FROM
437 "E" Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Eric Yould DATE June 9, 1982 HEC I::lVI.:.LJ
Alaska Power Authority
FILE NO I! r' J , ': '(\ ~ '")
"'" "" .. .. ... ""-.
TELEPHONE NO ../it /lCI/A f'" 274-253j'-'W'~\ ,.. :'V'::-:::T!!Y /")//7
Bob Marti n;~/!
Regional SUpervtsor
!
SUBJEC T Grant Lake Hydro
Project
After reviewing the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Interim Feasibility
Report and Environmental Field Programs we find the proposal
generally identifies potenti al project impacts. Al though we do
not favor extensive dewatering of Falls and Granite Creeks as
proposed, we defer in thi s regard to the Al aska Department of
Fish & Game as the primary authority for anadromous systems.
The major water quality impacts associated with the preferred
alternatives that we forsee at this time involve both potential
temperature changes and turbidity increases from the lake tap
discharge below the tailrace. These concerns should be carefully
addressed in terms of the planned environmental field program.
We have no further comments at thi s time pendi ng rev; ewi n9 the
results of the field program.
BM/DW/ccs
MEMORANDUM
DEP ARntENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TO: Eric Yould
FROM.
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
/
Ree~ Dirlc~oPf
State of Alaska
DIVISION OF RESEARCH £. DEVELOPHENT
DATE: May 26, 1982
FILE NO: RECEIVED.
TELEPHONE NO 276-2653 JUN 0 1 1982
SUBJECT: DNR Commell£ASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Grant Lake
The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the Environmental Field
Study Plan for Grant Lake Hydroelectric and has the following comments.
We understand that this document is not intended as a feasibility study;
we look forward to the opportunity to review the Grant Lake feasibility
study.
The Division of Land and Water Management, Water Management Section,
reminds APA and Ebasco that the division issues both a permit to construct
or modify a dam (11 AAC 93.160) and a water rights permit (AS 46.15.080).
A review of DLWM files indicates an existing water use permit (200478)
in the area of the proposed diversion at Falls Creek. This permit
allows for the appropriation of 1.0 cfs from Falls Creek 122 days per
year. As work on the proposed project continues, please consider pro-
ject impacts on this water use permit.
The Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey indicates that the
pipeline for the proposed Falls Creek diversion (alternatives E and F)
is located at the base of a slope prone to avalanching.
cc: Dr. Rick Cardwell
Ebasco Services, Inc.
400 l12th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Leila Wise, DRD
... ,
-
....
....
...
"
...
...
DEP~RT"E~T OF FISH .4ND Gt\lIE
OFRCE OF THE COMMISSIONER
May 20. 1982
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
Attention: Mr. Eric P. You1d. Executive Director
Gentlemen:
1'.0. BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU. ALASKA 99802
PHONE: 465-4100
MAY 2 41982
JJ.ASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Re: Interim Environmental Assessment, Interim Report and Environmental
Field Study Plan for the Proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Environmental Field
Study Pl an for the proposed Grant Lake project per your Apri 1 29, 1982
request and submits the following coments. In addition, we have also
reviewed both the Interim Environmental Assessment and Interim Report for
the same project and have taken the liberty of submitting comments on those
documents at this time.
As a general comment, we are concerned that apparently no consideratiQn has
been given to preserving existing Grant Creek fisheries nor mitigating its
loss. Albeit the Grant Creek fishery is comparatively small relative to the
regional resource, we find it unacceptable that this resource has been
summarily dismissed as not worth maintaining. In addition, we have been
led to believe that APA's policy regarding fish and wildlife resources was
to insure that there be no net losses resulting from its projects. In light
of what we understand to be your policy, we would appreCiate your
explanation as to why scenarios to maintain minimum flows for fisheries have
not been considered. We bel ieve there may be the opportunity to provide
these flows without destroying the feasibility of the project. For example,
the following statement found on page 6-2, para. 2 of the Interim Report
regarding reduction of energy available proportionate to reduced storage
seems to indicate (if current storage estimates are accurate) that there may
be opportunity to release waters for fisheries without significantly
impacting energy production.
MA sensitivity analysis was performed to assess what effect on power output
from Alternative D and F would occur if the actual amount of storage below
the existing lake level is less than that which was used in the power
studies. To do this, the estimated storage between El.696 and E1.650 was
reduced by 25 percent and by 50 percent with all other parameters held the
same. The resulting values of average annual energy from Alternative D and
F were reduced by less than 2 percent in the case of 25 percent reduction in
Gentlemen -2-May 20, 1982
storage, and by less than 5 percent in the case of a 50 percent reduction in
storage. These very minor reductions indicate that even in the event of a
significant overestimation of available storage below the existing lake
level, the energy of Alternatives D and F will not be significantly reduced.
The estimates of volume below the eXisting lake level which were used in
these studies are therefore consi dered to be adequate for purposes of
comparing the power output potential of the various alternatives
investigated."
We request that upcoming studies determine what minimum flow regime would be
required to maintain the existing fishery in Grant Creek.
One additional concern of the Department is that related to our Trail Lakes
hatchery program. We plan to release sockeye salmon fry in Grant Lake
during the spring of 1983. The purpose of the release is to enhance
fisheries and ascertain the suitability of Grant Lake to provide rearing
habitat for the fish. Depending on the suitability of the habitat and on
the parent stocks, these fish will migrate out of the lake during 1984 or
1985 or both. If this program proves to be successful and is likely to be
continued, we wish to coordinate with APA regarding means of providing fish
with safe egress from Grant Lake.
Conments specific to each of the subJect documents are enclosed. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~k009 I Conmissioner
Enclosure
cc: Richard Logan
Carl Yanagawa
-
-
-
....
-
-
-
-
... '
Grant Lake Interim Environmental Assessment
FORWARD
Page i, para. 2
~Eg~IVED
JUNO 1 \182
It8A POWER AUTHQf\lTV
We believe that loss of Grant Creek fisheries res.ources is a
significant adverse impact of the project and has been dismissed
without d~e consideration to mitigation.
2.0 REPORT ON WATER USE AND QUALITY
Page 2-4, para. 2
Trail Lakes are ~ proposed for use as rearing habitat for sockeye
salmon fry produced at the Trail Lakes hatchery. Several area lakes,
Grant Lake included, are proposed for rearing. .
Page 2-13, para. 4
If at some time subsequent to this report, a fisheries maintenance flow
is guaranteed for Grant Creek, it may be necessary to devote further
effort to determining the erosional and sediment depositional
characteristiCsjZ-~ ~ we e. ~ jtv~ .ttA.. \A~w ~
~\...,.,.'l.,
Page 2-17, para. 1
, .
Drawdown may make shoreline access from the lake difficult if not
impossible in some areas.
Page 2-17, para. 2&3
Fluctuation of the reservoir pool may introduce sediments into the
...,
... ,
systems when recruitment from glaciers is typically low (in winter) and -,
adversely affect downstream biota. In addition, bottom sediments
exposed tG wave action and rain by drawdown could substantfally
increase sedimentation downstream in Grant Creek (if a minimum f.1ow is
guaranteed) or at the powerhouse discharge area. In addition, we
understand that the constriction between Upper Grant Lake and Lower
Grant Lake will have to be deepened and widened to ensure that
sufficient contribution is available from the upper lake. Will this
modification substantially reduce water quality in the lower lake by
enhancing exchange of more turbid upper lake waters with less turbid
lower lake water. If so, we expect that productivity of the lower lake
wi 11 suffer.
Page 2-17, para. 3
Will investigations into Upper Trail Lake level fluctuations also ~U~e
address impact on sockeye spawning in uppe A lake tributaries?
Page 2-18, para. 5
•
...
-
,."
-
..
Alaska Department of Fish and Game believes that a project' alternative
which guarantees a minimum flow for Grant Creek fisheries must be
considered.
3.0 REPORT ON FISH, WILDLIFE, AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES
Page 3-3, para. 2
Report fails to list commercial harvest data for salmon species other
than king salmon.
Page 3-14, para. 1
What impact will deepening and widening of the constriction (to
facilitate drawdown) have on water quality and, subsequently, primary
production.
Page 3-23, para. 1
Sockeye fry will be released into Grant Lake in 1983.
Page 3-25, Table 3-8
The following numbers of king salmon have been counted in Grant Creek
by Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel (Mr. Ted McHenry) and
should be used to revise Table 3-8:
Year -
1969
1970
1976
Page 3-35, para. 4 and page 3-36, para. 1
1
21
70
We believe there is no basis for the statement that "impact of the
project alternatives to aquatic resources of Grant Lake would be.
minimal." Water quality degradation in the lower lake (resultant from
removing the constriction) coupled with degradation of littoral habitat
may significantly reduce productivity of the lower lake.
Page 3-37, para. 2
This statement conflicts with-that made on page ·3-33 indicating at
least king salmon juveniles utilize the lower 200 yards of Falls Creek
for rearing.
Page 3-38, para. 1
Grant Lake is proposed for sockeye fry stocking in 1983. Mitigation
related to Grant Lake should address maintenance of productivity and
providing safe egress for sockeye smolts.
Page 3-38, para. 2 '.
-
-
...
, ..
· .
This section fails to discuss mitigation of Grant Creek fisheries
impacts by providing a minimum flow and ignores the Department of Fish
and Game's desire to fulfill its mandate to maintain and/or enhance
fish and wildlife resources and APA's policy to insure no net loss of
fish and wildlife resultant of its projects.
The proposal to mitigate total loss of the Grant Creek fisheries by
more frequently stocking Vagt Lake ignores the fact that this approach
does nothing with respect to mitigating king, coho or sockeye salmon
losses or that Vagt Lake may already be stocked to its carrying.
capacity.
6.0 REPORT ON RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Page 6-4, para. 2
More frequent stocking of Vagt Lake 'may result fn a decline in fish
quality rather enhancement of the sport fishery.
9.0 EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Page 9-1, para. 1
We feel that loss of Grant Creek fisheries and possible detrimental
impacts to the Department's Grant Lake sockeye stocking program are
significant.
Interim Report
6.0 POWER OPERATION STUDIES
Page 6-3, para. 3
We believe it is necessary that reservation of a minimum flow for' Grant
Creek be investigated. From the discussion of reservoir capacity on
page 6-2,·it appears that water may be available for fisheries without
substantially impacting energy production.
7.0 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
Page 7-15, para. 3
Same comment as Interim Environmental Report page 2-17, para. 2 & 3
with respect to water quality impacts.
8.0 COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULE
Page 8-2, para. 4
We believe, to accurately assess this project, a cost estimate which
includes provisions to release water for Grant Creek fisheries must be
performed.
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
-
..
...
.....
...
...
....
..
· .
Page 9-1, para. 2
The Department of Fish and Game has repeatedly expressed concern to
EBASCO personnel that no study efforts have been directed towards
determining the minimum flow required to maintain Grant Creek
fisheries.
Page 9-4, para. 1&2
Same comment as for Interim Environmental Report, page 2-17, par~. 2&3
respective to Grant Lake water quality.
Page 9-6, para. 3
Same comment as for Interim Environmental Report, page 3-38, para. 2
10.0 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE FOR FURTHER STUDY
Page 10.1, para. 3
The Department believes that alternatives D and F, modified to provide
a minimum release for Grant Creek fisheries, must be evaluated.
ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD STUDY PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
WATER USE AND QUALITY
· .
-.'
Page 5, para. 3
Metals may actually increase in the summer rather than decrease if
their origin is glacial flour.
Page 6, Table ~
With respect to hardness, iron is a significant contributor in glacial
systems. .
Page 8, Table 2
We suggest that the limited (L) sampling efforts proposed for Grant
Lake be expanded to include at least turbidity and suspended solids to
help detennine if water quality degradation respective to these
/ parameters can be expected to occur resultant from removal of the
constrictio"n.
Page 10, Figure 3
What is the rationale of choosing the two sampling sites depicted?
Would it be more advantageous to use additional sites to give results
that are representative of the entire system?
AQUATIC LIFE
General Comment
-
-
• • , ..
• 4' .'
Once spawning and rearing areas have been identified, the minimum flow
required to' maintain these areas should be determined. We expect that
this type of effort will require establishment of several transects and
measurement of discharges for predictive analysis.
'.
GROUP 9
LETTER REPORT OF JUNE 8, 1982 MEETING WITH USFS
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
.~ 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501
_________ -July 13, 1982
Mr. Geof Wilson
District Ranger
Seward Ranger District
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 275
Seward, Alaska 99664
SUBJECT: GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in coming to Crown
Point Lodge on June 8, 1982 to be briefed on the elements of the Grant
Lake Project and share your views.
I would like to summarize my notes from the meeting to make sure
they accurately reflect the Fo~st Service's sentiments concerning the
Environmental Study Plan. Als. included are notes from a conversation
between Dr. Rick Cardwell of E~asco, our engineering consultant, and
Regional Forest Service fish b~logist Ken Robertson, at your request.
I would appreciate your reviewing these notes for completeness and
accuracy. If you are in concurrence with the content of this letter, I
request that you please indicate so in a letter to the Power Authority.
NOTES FROM CONSULTATION WITH U.S. FOREST SERVICE ON GRANT LAKE
Ken Thompson suggested that neither the environmental study plan
nor the interim project feasibility reports treated fish and wildlife
mitigation measures adequately. Based on discussions between Mr.
Thompson and Rick Cardwell of Ebasco, it was agreed that mitigation
measures will be resolved in consultation with the appropriate agencies
this summer and the proposed mitigation plan will appear in the final
project feasibility report.
Impacts associated with access appear to be the predominant concern
with respect to aesthetics and recreation. The following points were
made:
1) The Forest Service recommends considering use of the Falls Creek
pipeline road as the primary access road to Grant Lake. Use of the
Falls Creek pipeline road might eliminate the need for a road from
the powerhouse to the lake tap and gate shaft area. The latter
road and its numerous switchbacks would be visible from the scenic
Seward-Anchorage highway, detracting aesthetically.
Mr. Geof Wilson
July 13, 1982
Page 2
2) The Forest Service also recommends that we consider moving the
access road that runs from the bridge to the powerhouse proposed
for Alternatives D and F back from the shoreline of Upper Trail
lake. This will minimize its visual impact from the
Seward-Anchorage highway.
3) Because there is need for more off-road access in the area of the
project, the Forest service recommends keeping the Falls Creek
pipeline access road open to the public as a means of gaining
access to Grant lake. Consideration should be given to providing a
parking lot and a boat ramp at the lake.
Sincerely,
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~E . -At(M" h .. rlC . arc eglanl
Project Manager
EAM:mw
~: Don Smith
~. , ,
-
....
-
-
-
....
-
... "
GROUP 10
DISTRIBUTION OF JULY 9 MINUTES AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
,,,.
q,,"
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Robert McVey
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
P. O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. McVey:
July 15, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276·0001
The Alaska Power Authority met with your staff and other agencies
on July 9, 1982 to discuss the letter report "Evaluation of Instream
Flows for the Grant Lake Project and Identification of Potential
Mitigation Alternatives," prepared by Ebasco Services, Inc. A summary
of this meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for the Power Authority is
enclosed.
Ebasco Services conducted a simplified instream flow assessment of
Grant Creek which is discussed on pages 1 to 7 of the report. Table 3
presents the cost of power associated with providing several levels of
instream flows. Based on this analysis, the minimum flow required to
maintain a "good" level of spawning habitat (as defined by Tennant) and
provide for incubation and emergence in Grant Creek would result in a
power cost increase in the range of 25 to 30 percent. This increase in
the cost of power would make this project economically unsound.
We have come to the conclusion that the project would be unable to
provide sufficient instream flow in Grant Creek to maintain an
acceptable amount of fish habitat. Since we are unable to provide
sufficient streamflow in Grant Creek, we believe that application of the
USFWS incremental method of instream flow assessment is not appropriate
for Grant Creek. This method is better suited for quantifying effects
of altered streamflows and providing the basis for a negotiated
settlement of downstream releases. In view of this, some alternative
form of mitigation would be required.
We believe that the project may be able to incur a 10% increase in
the cost of power and provide an instream flow of 15 cfs. We recognize
that this amount of water may not be sufficient to provide habitat for
fishery resources and may not be desired as channel modification would
probably be required to create useable habitat at this low level. If an
artificial channel is required, we believe it would be more advantageous
to construct this channel as part of the tailrace. More water would be
available to provide for a greater amount of habitat with no loss of
power to the project and a minimal increase in project cost (3.5%).
Mr. Robert McVey
July 15, 1982
Page 2
We would like to meet with you and your staff in cooperation with
your agency to discuss potential mitigation options and other issues to
facilitate successful completion of the detailed feasibility study of
the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have scheduled a meeting at
9:00 am on August 17, 1982 in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
office located at 1011 E. Tudor Road to discuss this project with State
and Federal agencies and other interested parties.
The purpose of this meeting is to identify and prioritize potential
mitigative measures associated with the loss of habitat in Grant Creek.
In addition, we u~derstand that ADF&G is considering Grant Lake as a
location for a sockeye salmon rearing facility. We would like to
discuss possible means of passing juvenile sockeye salmon from Grant
Lake to the Trail Lakes system. In addition to these items, we would
like to discuss the conceptual approach of a recreation plan as required
in the FERC license application.
We would appreciate your comments on the letter report and the
summary of the July 9, 1982 meeting prior to the August 17, 1982
meeting, if possible. This will enable us to follow a logical sequence
to developing a mitigation plan for the project.
We look forward to seeing you or your staff at the August 17, 1982
meeting. If you have any questions regarding the analysis or the
meeting agenda, please call Mr. Marchegiani.
Attachment: as stated
f:e:el~,? ~
E ri c P. You 1 d ~
Executive Director
cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage
Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward
Don Smith, EBASCO
-
••
. .,
It.'
. ...
.... '
-
-
-
-
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
MEETING WITH AGENCIES
,,.. Ju 1 y 9, 1982
,"'"
,~~
A. The meeting was attended by the following:
B.
Tom Arminski ............. Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Don Beyer ...•...........• Ebasco Services Incorporated
Ralph Browning •..•....... U.S. Forest Service, Seward
Ken Thompson ............. U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage
Rick Cardwell .....•...... Ebasco Services Incorporated
Mary Lynn Nation ..•...... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wayne Pietz ....•..••..... Ebasco Services Incorporated
Eric Marchegiani ..•..•... Alaska Power Authority
Brad Smith ..•.•.....•...• National Marine Fisheries Service
Don Smith .............•.• Ebasco Services Incorporated
Jim Thiele ........••..... Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center
David Trudgen .....•...... Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center
Bill Wi1son .••....•....•. Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center
Opening Statements by Eric Marchegiani and Don Smith·
The purpose of the meeting is to review the Agency comments on the
Environmental Study Plan specifically with respect to evaluation of
alternative project arrangements that would provide a flow in Grant
Creek, methods for estimating the number of fish in Grant Creek, pro-
vi'ding for the safe egress of sockeye salmon smo1ts from Grant Lake
and other potential mitigation measures.
C. Discussion of Project Alternative Arrangements by Wayne Pietz
1 .
2.
3.
Mr. Pietz described, pOint-by-point, the contents of the letter
report (attached), which presented the results of analysis the
alternative project arrangements suggested by the Agencies.
The cost of energy (power) estimates generated by Ebasco in the
letter request are the best that Ebasco can derive at this time.
For comparison, Mr. Pietz indicated that the cost of power esti-
mated in the Railbelt Report from a variety of power generation
plants was approximately 55 -60 mills per kilowatt hour in the
near future.
4. The cost of power estimates the agencies will see in the final
feasibility report for the Grant Lake project will probably be
higher than shown in the letter report, due to use of a more
extensive methodology for estimating cost of power. He stated
that the relative differences in power costs between the different
alternatives in the letter report would remain the same.
J
-2-
5. Mr. Arminski asked why it cost $3 million more for Alternative "Gil.
Mr. Pietz responded that this alternative required a longer tunnel
(about 500 feet) and required more rock bolts and supports in the
tunnel because of the orientation of the tunnel with respect to the
bedding of the rock in the area of Grant Creek.
6. Mr. Arminski asked whether it would be possible to allow a mini-
mum streamflow in Grant Creek, on the basis that the cost of the
power in the long-term would be lower because of the greater utili-
zation of the power from the Project. It was explained that the
cost of power would not decrease with time because it would be fully
utilized from the on-line date.
7. There was considerable discussion of the cost of power for Grant
Creek relative to other sources.
8. The cost of power associated with Alternative lip, the proposed
arrangement, and a spawning channel in the tailrace was provided
in the letter report for illustration of the comparative cost of
a typical mitigative measure compared to the provision of an
instream flow.·
9. Mr. Pietz indicated that the instream flow estimates were sufficient
to determine the comparative costs of the project alternatives.
10. In response to a question, it was noted that the project is still
viable without Falls Creek diversion water. The study is proceeding
with the inclusion of Falls Creek diversion because the Power Authority
will be able to obtain more power at a cost of power that is comparable
to the Alternative without the Falls Creek diversion.
11. The City of Seward and the local area will be able to absorb all of the
power and will have a more dependable energy source with the Grant
Lake project than with the current condition.
12. Question: If Sus;tna came on-line, would Grant Lake still be used?
Also, could a minimum streamflow in Grant Creek be maintained until
Susitna came on-line? The answer to the first question was yes; to
the second question: no, the project probably would not be viable
economically and would probably not be built if it could not be shown
to be viable in time and cost to the alternatives available.
13. After considerable discussion of the alternatives and costs asso-
ciated with them, it was generally agreed by those in attendance
14.
that the range of flows studied in the evaluation of the alternatives
was adequate for consideration of an instream flow.
The result of a discussion of the provision of an instream flow
suitable for maintenance of af;sher~habitat in Grant Creek was that
the project would probably not be economical. Efforts should there-
fore be directed to mitigative measures other than the continuation
of instream flow studies.
"'"'
..
-3-
15. Bill Wilson commented that he considered the minimum
streamflow analysis performed in the letter report plus
AEIDC's observations on Grant Creek at diff~rent flows to
provide a good preliminary assessment of the economic conse-
quences of various streamflow regimes. There was general
agreement that enough minimum streamflow study had been done
for now.
D. Counting Spawning Salmon in Grant Creek
1. AEIDC described their proposal for counting spawning salmon in
Grant Creek this summer. They will continue with foot sur-
veys, similar to that used in the past by ADf&G from which the
number of fish can be estimated. There was agreement that
AEIDC's approach would provide suitable data. Theoretical
estimates of spawners based on habitat were not considered
reliable and were discarded.
E. Alternative Fish Mitigation Measures
1. Brad Smith recommended that APA shouldn't dismiss m1n1mum
streamflow as a potentially viable mitigative measure until
the feasibility of all the other mitigative measures have been
evaluated. He was comfortable with the minimum streamflow
calculations and results, but still uncomfortable with the
idea of dewatering Grant Creek. He asked APA to consider
mitigation alternatives in the creek associated with a release
of 15 cfs.
2. Tom Arminski is comfortable with the assessment in the letter
report. Although he is uncomfortable with drying up Grant
Creek, he noted that the fish resources are relatively small;
perhaps mitigation monies could be better spent elsewhere.
Arminski would like APA to make a statement that it does not
believe instream flow releases are viable economically and is
prepared to explore as many alternative mitigation measures as
possible. Then, the ADF&G can decide whether this position is
acceptable.
3. Ken Thompson suggested that the decision-makers on this
project will required a full evaluation of alternatives in the
feasibility report. Thus, the impacts on the cost of power
associated with different mitigation measures will be estima-
ted.
4. The resource agency representatives recommended tha APA
prioritize all alternative mitigation measures in its evalu-
ation. However, none should be eliminated from the analysis.
The Cook Inlet Regional Salmon Enhancement Plan should be
consulted in developing mitigation approaches.
5. Scheduling of Forthcoming Meetings of Mitigation: Mr.
Arminski thought that our schedule for accomplishing the fish
mitigation planning was a little ambitious. He recommended
that Il.PA meet with the Fishery Research and Enhancement
Division (FRED) and probably the Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association to learn their preferences concerning off-site
mitigation. They probably will have information on costs of
some enhancement rojects that ma be considered for
-4-
6. The resource agencies recommended that APA consider what it could do,
in terms of mitigation, with the money it would save from not provid-
ing a streamflow in Grant Creek.
F. Migration of Sockeye Salmon Smolts From Grant Lake
1. Don Beyer and Don Smith discussed the two potential fish removal systems
that presently appear to be the most promising in providing safe egress
of sockeye salmon smolts from the lake. Beyer discussed the "Baker
Lake Gulper ll
, a device that is in operation on Washington's Baker Lake
to bypass sockeye around a dam. The Gulper relies upon establishing a
downstream-oriented attractant flow that gradually increases to the
point where the smolts cannot swim out of the artificial, floating
channel. The scheme illustrated by Smith uses an inclined screen in
the tunnel to divert smolts into the gate shaft well, where they can be
removed for transport to Trail Lake.
2. Brad Smith asked how sockeye juveniles could be kept from entering the
turbine. Ebasco and AEIDC staff were of the opinion that juveni.les
-
-
-
... '
. .. "
would not leave the lake unless lake carrying capacity was exceeded or -
a stock was used that naturally migrated down to another lake as part of
its normal rearing history.
3'. Tom Arrninski, in echoing Brad's concern that fry may be entrained by the
tunnel, asked whether we could lower the depth of the tunnel inlet so
that it would be below the zone of fry occurrence in the lake. This
would adversely impact project costs and possibly add to the problem of
migration of the smolts.
4. Eric Marchegiani suggested considering the option of stocking the lake
so that the number of fish surviving passage through the turbines would
equal the production goals of ADF&G's FRED. Tom Arminski noted this
proposal would have to be discussed with FRED.
G. Turbidity in Grant Lake and Effects on Production
1. Rick Cardwell described plan for responding to agency comments on this
issue. AEIDC discussed how their data will respond to this concern.
The issues were discussed.
H. Recreation
1. Eric Marchegiani asked the participating agencies to think about their
11111"
-
-
-
views concerning recreation on Grant Lake. -
I. Future Meetings
1. The next meeting was tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, August 5,
1982 at the Fish and Wildlife Conference room on Tudor Road. All parti--
cipants agreed to consult their schedules on this date.
2. The subject of the meeting would be the alternative mitigative options
These would be evaluated preliminarily and discussed with the agencies.
3. All those attending this meeting plus representatives from the Cook Inlet
Association should plan to attend the next meeting.
..
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Mr. Robert McVey
Director, Alaska Region
GRANT LAKE
DISTRIBUTION LIST
National Marine Fisheries Service
Post Office Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage
Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward
Don Smith, EBASCO
Mr. Keith Schreiner
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
cc: Ms. Mary Lynn Nation, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Gary Stackhouse, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward
Don Smith, ERASCO
"" Mr. Clay Beal, Forest Supervisor,
U. S. Forest Service
2221E. Northern Lights, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
cc: Mr. Geof Wilson, District Ranger, U. S. Forest Service, Seward
Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward
Don 8mi th, EBASCO
The Honorable Ronald O. Skoog
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Subport Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
cc: Mr. Thomas Arminski, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Lyman Nichols, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Ted McHenry, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Carl Yanagawa, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Mr. Clarence E. Johnson, City Manager, Seward
Don Smith, EBASCO
GROUP 11
AGENCY COMMENTS ON JULY 9 MEETING MINUTES
'.
..
...
DEP:\RT"E~T 0.' FISH .-\ ~D GA liE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
August 6, 1982
Alaska Power Author ty
334 W. 5th Avenue _---------
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attention: Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Gentlemen:
JA r s. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802
PHONE: 465-4100
RECEIVED
AUG 91982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Re: Grant Lake Hydroproject Letter of July 14, 1982 and Instream Flow
Evaluation Letter Report.
Thank you for your recent letter and the opportunity to comment. We
understand, on the basis of the information you have provided us, that
there is no practicable means of maintaining a fishery in Grant Creek if
the proposed hydropower project is constructed .
. As you may already know, the Department's policy regarding mitigation of
project impacts embodies a hierarchic approach and is described as
follows in order of implementation:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action
or parts of an action .
2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action or its implementation.
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment.
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing substitute resources or
environments.
It appears that, at least during the real life of the project, the only
suitable means of mitigation of fisheries losses is (5), compensating
for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
We understand that you are currently developing mitigation options along
these lines and will be pleased to meet with you to discuss them.
Eric P. Yould I. -2-August 6, 1982
However t due to the probable complexity of issues involved, we will be
unable to prioritize options without a more lengthy review period.
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions or comments
regarding these matters.
Sincerely,
~~&;~-
Ronald O. Skoog
Commissioner
•
....
..
.-
-
....
•
.!:...-
Augus t 11, 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMt:N r U~ \,;UIVIIVIt:Hl..C
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.o. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
We have received your letter of July 15, 1982, concerning the matter of
instream flow studies for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric project feasi-
bility study. As requested, this letter is intended to provide our
comments regarding the Letter Report of July 2, 1982, and the meeting of
J u 1 y 9, 1982.
The Letter Report shows that a substantial increase in cost of energy
wou 1 d fo 11 ow if fi shery releases were provi ded to Grant Creek of
sufficient volume to maintain existing habitat values. Based on these
figures, we realize that project construction and operation would not be
compatible with maintenance of the existing fishery. Thus, it would
seem that in-depth analysis of fisheries flows to Grant Creek are not
warranted at this time, and we concur with the recommendation against
running an IFG-4 analysis.* However, fisheries studies within Grant
Creek must continue. Indeed, with the loss of in-stream flow releases
it becomes necessary that the magnitude of the fishery resource be fully
understood. This wil I allow us to evaluate the impact of the project
and explore measures which will effectively mitigate any loss.
According to your letter, the Letter Report of July 2, and discussions
with EBASCO, the Grant Lake project could incur a 10 percent increase in
cost of power and remain economically feasible. This margin, and the
water flow it represents, may become an important aspect in the overall
feasibility of the proposal. We do not agree with your assertion that
such flows would be more appropriately released to a constructed trail-
race channel than to the existing channel of Grant Creek.
*We believe some description of flow vs habitat will be necessary in
reviewing mitigative measures (page 2).
2
Construction of a spawning channel utilizing trailrace water would exist
as a mitigation option regardless of the fisheries release to Grant
Creek, and should not be seen as an "either-or" alternative. It may
turn out that the combination of spawning channels and limited flow
release to Grant Creek would have the least impact to the resource. The
fisheries studies should include some description of the habitat values
in Grant Creek with these releases, and identify any modifications which
might increase this value. This effort may require a flow vs habitat
analysis.
Regarding mitigative measures other than flow releases to Grant Creek,
we are doubtful that any alternative exists which would not result in an
overall reduction in the fishery resource. Spawning channels con-
structed wi thi n the powerhouse tra i1 race have been suggested. Water
temperatures will present a substantial problem here, as release tem-
peratures may fall well below naturally occurring spawning temperatures,
and well above natural incubation and rearing temperatures. Water
quality, sedimentation, substrate size and available rearing habitat
present additi ona 1 areas of concern. Other mi t i gati ve measures may
exist, but are likely to be less desirable and/or effective. At this
time it would be valuable to have a mitigation policy statement from
your office regarding the Grant Lake project. While both our agencies
give priority to avoidance of impact, it appears that we may have
dissimilar views on secondary priorities. We feel it is important to
maintain, or attempt to maintain, existing genetical, commercial and
recreational fisheries values. Replacing poundage of fish lost to the
commercial fishery by increasing hatchery production of pink salmon
would be very low on our list (example).
Finally, we should acknowledge that very little is known about the
fishery resources of this system. The king salmon which spawn in Grant
Creek are of the early run within the Kenai River, a distinct group that
characteristically separates into relatively small spawning runs in
headwater drainages. Thus, the value of the Grant Creek run goes beyond
the number of returning adults. Sockeye salmon also spawn in Grant
Creek. Large numbers of this species may spawn within Trail Lake at the
Grant Creek confluence. Flows to Grant Creek may be critical to
maintaining spawning here. Other species also occur, although this
usage is poorly understood. Considering the value of this system and
the present level of resource knowledge, we do not believe any decisions
should be made at this time which would cause a given alternative or
study element to be dropped from further consideration.
We feel the level of coordination and involvement between the resource
agencies and APA have been very beneficial in proper project planning to
date, and we look forward to the upcoming meeting on mitigation.
Sincerely, ,...,
,). :#~"?'L /~ ~ r J .~'-,.14~ .::. . I
f
Ro~rt W. McVey
f" ?frector, Alaska Region
../'
...
-
...
-
,"
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
WAES
Eric P. yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
Re: Grant Lake Project
Instream Flows
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed Ebasco's July 6, 1982 report
concerning instream flows and the summary of the ensuing interagency meeting
of July 9, 1982. These comments are submitted to convey our suggestions on
topics discussed at that meeting.
Our mitigation goals for the resources affected by the Grant Lake project are
two-fold: (1) avoidance or lessening of impacts to the greatest extent
possible; and (2) for unavoidable losses, quantification and in kind
replacement of resource value. In light of these goals and the apparent lack
of water for optimal mitigation flows, we feel that a combination of small
releases and some kind of tailrace facility (such as a spawning channel) would
meet both objectives for fisheries resources.
Our largest concern with the project relates to dewatering Grant Creek. We
have no problem with the use of Tennant's "Montana method" for the purpose of
a preliminary analysis of instream releases and the cost thereof. However, we
are concerned that all release scenarios have been summarily eliminated at
this early stage in project planning. We recommend that lower percentages
(10% to 20%) of average annual flows be analyzed to facilitate a more
comprehensive evaluation of mitigation alternatives.
While flows in lower ranges may not provide optimum habitat, natural runs of
salmon could still utilize Grant Creek and egress for Alaska Department of
Fish and Game's (ADF&G) hatchery sockeye smolts could be provided. At the
same time, power costs could be kept at a level that makes the project
economically feasible.
We agreed at the July 9 meeting that development of alternative mitigation
measures and prioritization of those measures in terms of cost effectiveness
is appropriate at this time. However, it should be noted that such analyses
cannot be complete until sufficient biological data exists to identify all
project impacts and a full array of mitigation alternatives have been
identified.
One point that may have bearing on cost effectiveness of any given replacement
m~tigation scheme is consideration of life-of-project costs associated with
time intensive, manpower intensive mitigation alternatives, such as "gulpers"
and spawning channels. Mitigation costs should include not only construction
of facilities, but all costs of operating and maintaining those facilities.
Cost allowances should also be made for monitoring a mitigation measure's
effectiveness and altering methods, if necessary.
Elimination of any mitigation alternative would be premature at this time
because baseline fisheries data are not yet available. Numbers of fish
presently using the creek, the amounts of aquatic habitat to be lost, and
numbers of fish to be lost need to be analyzed to effectively choose a
replacement mitigation alternative. Project planning schedules may need to be
adjusted if additional data and review are warranted.
Aside from mitigation issues, one topic touched upon in the meeting was
determination of feasibility for both a 5 MW and 6 MW capacity. In upcoming
feasibility reports, we would like to see an analysis of need for the project
relative to: (I} Seward's present and projected local power market; (2) this
project's feasibility and environmental impacts compared with other proposed
projects affecting the Southcentral Alaska power markets, such as the Bradley
Lake Project. We would like to establish which of the many proposed
hydropower projects efficiently meet power demands, while incurring the fewest
fish and wildlife resource impacts.
We recommend that decisions on appropriate mitigation alternatives be deferred
until review of this year's fisheries data is complete and a full array of
mitigation alternatives is developed by the project sponsor. We feel these
suggestions are consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(FERC) licensing requirements.
We look forward to our August 17 meeting and continuing participation in Grant
Lake project's planning.
Juristant Regional Director
cc: FWS-ROES, WAES
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, OCM, Juneau
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage
FERC, WDC
-
-
..
GROUP 12
DISTRIBUTION OF AUGUST 17 MEETING REPORT AND REQUEST FOR NEXT MEETING
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
The Honorable Ronald O. Skoog
Corrrnissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Subport Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Dear Mr. Skoog:
October 21, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
The Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with your' staff and other
agencies on August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and
alternatives for mitigation impacts of the subject project on fish in
Grant Creek and on a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant lake. A
summary of that meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed.
The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has
been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the
Grant Lake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report
and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to
develop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the
detailed feasibility analysis for the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project.
As result of your August 6, 1982, letter and the fish mitigation
planning meeting of August 17, 1982, I have requested Ebasco to prepare
another report (Planning Document No.3). This document will illustrate
the relative differences in cost of power between the different
mitigation options discussed at the August 17 meeting. The document
will be sent to your agency's representative, Mr. Don McKay, for review
prior to the next major fi.sh mitigation planning meeting, scheduled for
October 29. By costing the different mitigation options and evaluations
cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the most reasonable
mitigation option. '
At various times it has been proposed that both an instream flow
release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be
implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA
does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other
mitigation facilities, the provision of both likely will increase the
cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based
upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting,
approaches were identified that we fully expect will go beyond
sustenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Grant Creek. Therefore,
we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation ootions
considered will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources.
Nevertheless, we must await the results o~ the next stage of biological,
October 21. 1982
Page 2
engineering. and cost assessment (i.e., Planning Document 3) before
making a decision.
We would like to meet with you or your representatives to discuss
Planning Document No.3 and facilitate successful completion of the
detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We
have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on October 29, 1982, in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service1s office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this
project with State agencies: Federal agencies, and other interested
parties.
We look forward to seeing you or your staff at the October 29
meeting. If you have any questions regarding the enclosures or the
proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani.
Sincerely, br·yJ}
Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Summary of August 17, 1ge2, meeting
2. AEIDC Draft Report
3. Planning Document No.3
4. Summary of September 15, 1982, meeting
cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini, City Manager, Seward
Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
...
-
-
-
l1li'.
l!OI' ..
..
...
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276'()()01
Mr. Keith Shreiner
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dear Mr. Shreiner
October 21, 1982
~he Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with your staff and other
agencies on August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and
alternatives for mitigation impacts of the subject project on fish in
Grant Creek and on a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant lake. A
summary of that meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed.
The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has
been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the
Grant Lake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report
and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to
develop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the
detailed feasibility analysis for the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project.
As result of your August 16, 1982, letter and the fish mitigation
planning meeting of August 17, 1982, I have requested Ebasco to prepare
another report (Planning Document No.3). This document will illustrate
the relative differences in cost of power between the different
mitigation options discussed at the August 17 meeting. The document
will be sent to your agency's representative, Ms. Mary Lynn Nation, for
review prior to the next major fish mitigation planning meeting,
sc;heduled for October 29. By costing the dHferent:mitigation options
and evaluations cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the most
reasonable mitigation option.
At various times it has been proposed that both an instream flow
release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be
implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA
does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other
mitigation facilities, the provision of both likely will increase the
cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based
upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting,
approaches were identified that we fully expect will go beyond
sustenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Grant Creek. Therefore,
we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation options
considered will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources.
Nevertheless, we must await the results of the next stage of biological,
engineering, and cost assessment (i.e., Planning Document 3) before
making a decision.
October 21, 1982
Page 2
We would like to meet with you or your r~presentatives to discuss
Planning Document No.3 and facilitate successful completion of the
detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We
have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on October 29, 1982, in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service1s office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this
project with State agencies, Federal agencies, and other interested
parties.
We look forward to seeing you or your staff at the October 29
meeting. If.you have any questions regarding the enclosures or the
proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani.
~e~elY' ::?, ~ \ ~
Eric P. Yould '\
Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Summary of August 17, 1982, meeting
2. AEIDC Draft Report
3. Planning Document No. 3
4. Summary of September 15, 1982, meeting
cc: Ms. Mary Lynn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Gary Stackhouse, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Ronald A. Garz;ni, City Manager, Seward
Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
-
-
-
•
-
... '
-
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Robert McVey
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries S~rvice
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear ~1r. McVey:
October 21, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
The Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with your staff and other
agencies on August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and
alternatives for mitigation impacts of the subject project on fish in
Grant Creek and on a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant lake. A
summary of that meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed.
The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has
been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the
Grant Lake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report
and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to
develop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the
detailed feasibility analysis for the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project.
As result of your August 11, 1982, letter and the fish mitigation
planning meeting of August 17, 1982, I have requested Ebasco to prepare
another report (Planning Document No.3). This document will illustrate
the relative differences in cost of power between the different
mitigation options discussed at the August 17 meeting. The document
wi 11 be sent to your agency I s representative, Mr. Brad Smi th, for review
prior to the next major fish mitigation planning meeting, scheduled for
October 29. By costing the different mitigation options and evaluations
cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the most reasonable
mitigation option.
At various times it has been proposed that both an instream flow
release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be
implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA
does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other
mitigation facilities, the provision of both likely will increase the
cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based
upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting,
approaches were identified that we fully expect will go beyond
sU5tenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Gr~nt Creek. Therefore,
we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation options
considered will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources.
Nevertheless, we must await the results of the next stage of biological,
October 21, 1982
Page 2
engineering, and cost assessment (i.e., Planning Document 3) before
making a decision.
We would like to meet with you or your representatives to discuss
Planning Document No.3 and facilitate successful completion of the
detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We
have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on October 29, 1982, in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this
project with State agencies; Federal agencies, and other interested
parties.
We look forward to seeing you or your staff at the October 29
meeting. If you have any questions regarding the enclosures or the
proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani.
Sincerely,
ht·~~
Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Summary of August 17, 1982, meeting
2. AEIDC Draft Report
3. Planning Document No. 3
4. Summary of September 15, 1982, meeting
cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service/Anchorage
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini, City Manager, Seward
Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
-
...
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Clay 8eal, Forest Supervisor,
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Dear Mr. Seal:
Phone: (907) 277-7641
. (907) 276-0001
October 22, 1982
The Alaska Power Authority (APA) met with various agencies on
August 17, 1982, to discuss a recreation plan and alternatives for
mitigating impacts of the subject project on fish in Grant Creek and on
a proposed salmon rearing program for Grant Lake. A summary of that
meeting prepared by Ebasco Services for APA is enclosed.
The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has
been collecting information on the fish and wildlife resources in the
Grant lake area. This information has been summarized in a draft report
and is enclosed for your information. This report will be utilized to
develop the environmental assessment which will be a part of the
detailed feasibility analysis' for the Grant lake Hydroelectric ProjPct.
As result of the fish mitigation planning meeting of August 17,
1982, I have requested Ebasco to prepare another report (Planning
Document No.3). This document will illustrate the relative differences
in cost of power between the different mitigation options discussed at
the August 17 meeting. By costing the different mitigation options and
evaluation cost, we believe a decision can be reached on the most
reasonable mitigation option.
At various times it has been proposed that both an instrea~ flow
release and another form of mitigation (e.g., salmon rearing pond) be
implemented to effect the least impact to the resource. Although APA
does not object to providing both a minimum stream flow and other
mitigation facilities, the provision of both, likely will increase the
cost of power to the point where the project would be unfeasible. Based
upon discussions at the August 17 fish mitigation planning meeting,
approaches were identified that we fully ~xpect will go beyond
sustenance of the chinook and sockeye stocks of Grant Creek. Therefore,
we have reason to believe that one or more of the mitigation options
consider~d will fully mitigate the impact on salmon resources. Never-
theless, we must await the results of the next stftge of biological,
engineering, and cost assessment (i_e. ~ Planning Document 3' before
making a decision.
We would like to meet with you or ycur represe~tatives to discuss
Plannina Document No.3 and facilitate successful completion of the
I
October 22, 1982
Page 2
detailed feasibility study of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project. We
have scheduled a meeting for 9:00 a.m. on October 29, 1982, in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's office, 1011 E. Tudor Road, to discuss this
project with State agencies, Federal agencies, and other interested
parties.
We look forward to seeing you or your staff at the October 29
meeting. If you have any questions regarding the enclosures of the
proposed meeting, please call Mr. Eric Marchegiani.
Sincerely,
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR £:..:C7-~
Eric A. Marchegiani
Project Manager
Attachments: 1. Summary of August 17, 1982, meeting
2. AEIDC Draft Report
3. Planning Document No.3
4. Summary of September 15, 1982 meeting
EAM:cb
cc: ~'r. Geof Wilson, District, U.S. Forest Service, Seward
Mr. Ken Thompson, U.S. Forest Service
t-~r. Ronald A. Garz;n;, City, Seward
Mr. Don Smith, EBASCO
....
....
""
DISTRIBUTION OF
GRANT LAKE LETIER
OCTOBER 21, 1982
Mr. Clay Beal
Forest Supervisor
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508 -
CC: Mr. Ken Thompson
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Mr. Geof Wilson
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 275
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco Services
400 -112th Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
~1s. Judy Marquez, Director
Director of Parks
619 Warehouse Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
CC: Mr. Reed Steops, Director
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Research and
Development
555 Cordova Street
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99501
1
Mr. John Cook, Director
National Park Service
540 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
CC: Mr. Larry Wright
National Park Service
540 W. 5th Avenue
AnchoraQe, Alaska 99501
Mr. Tom Small, Utility Manager
Citv of Seward
P.o"~ Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzin;
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Richard Sumner, EPA
Room E-556
Federal Building
701 "C" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzin;
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
The Honorable Stan Thompson
Mayor Kenai Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 850
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Keith Shreiner
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1001 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
CC: Ms. Mary Lynn Nation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite G-81
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Gary Stackhouse _
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 999664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco Services
400 -112th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Mr. Robert McVey
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Services
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
CC: Mr. Brad Smith
National Marine Fisheries Services
701 "c" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Mr. Ronald A. Garz;ni
Ci ty ~1anager
P.O. Box 337
Seward~ Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco Services
400 -112th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, Washinaton 98004
Mr. Tom Wa Her
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team
P.O. Box 3819
Soldotna, Alaska 99508
2
The Honorable Ronald O. Skogq
Cormnissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Subport Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
CC: Mr. Don McKay
Habitat Division
Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa
Regional Supervisor
Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Loren Fl agg
Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 3150
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Mr. Sidney Logan
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Ass.
P.O. Box 3819
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Mr. Jeff Hartman
Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspnerry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Ronald A. Garz;n;
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don ,Smi th
Ebasco Services
400 -112th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
-
.,.'
.. '
...
l1li',
-
...
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Clay Beal
Forest Supervisor
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
October 28, 1982
Subject: Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project -Mitigation Meeting
Dear Mr. Beal:
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
I regret any inconvenience, but the Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project mitigation plan meeting, originally scheduled for
October 29, 1982, has been postponed until 9:00 A.M. November 10, 1982,
in order to allow all participants sufficient time to review the
documents. The meeting will be held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service office, 1011 East Tudor Road at 9:00 A.M. on November 10, 1982.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EAM/jrk
cc: Don Smith, EBASCO
Sincerely,
~q.
Eric A. Marchegiani
Project Manager
GROUP 13
DISTRIBUTION OF AUGUST 17 MEETING MINUTES
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
~·1r. Tom Walker
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team
P.O. Box 3819
Soldotna, AK 99669
August 27, 1982
Subject: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
August 17, 1982, Meeting
Dear r-lr. Walker:
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
I requested that EBASCO Services provide a summary of the meeting
minutes of the August 17, 1982 meeting. I have enclosed a copy of that
summary for your information. If there are any corrections or additions
please send them to me so I can incorporate them into our records.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIPECTOR
EAM/se
cc: Don Smith, EBASCO
Attachment: As noted.
Sincerely,
~(I.~
Eric A. Marchegiani
Project Manager
"
Grant Lake Participants
Mr. Tom Walker
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team
P.O. Box 3819
Soldotna, AK 99669
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 W. 4th Ave.
Suite G-81
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Gary Stackhouse
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Mr. Tom Arminski
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Mr. Loren Fl agg
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 3150
Soldotna, AK 99669
Nr. Bill Hause
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Mr. Ken Florey
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Mr. Ken Thompson
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Nothern Lights
Anchorage, AK 99504
Mr. Ron Burraychalk
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, AK 99508
Mr. Geof Wil son
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 275
Seward. AK 99664
Mr. Larry M. Wright
National Park Service
540 Iv. 5th Ave
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Richard Sumner
EPA
Room E-556
Federal Buildino
701 "C II St reet -
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Bill Wilson
AEIDC
707 A Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Dave Trudgen
AEIDC
707 A Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Jim Thiele
AEIDC
707 A Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Tom Small
City of Seward
P.O. Box 167
Seward, AK 99664
....
-
MINUTES OF
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING
17 AUGUST 1982
INTRODUCT ION
The purpose of the meeting was to generate and discuss ideas for
mitigating the potential effects of the proposed project on salmon
stocks of Grant Creek. In addition, options for mitigating potential
project effects on the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) Grant
Lake salmon enhancement project were also discussed. There was limited
discussion of a recreation plan for the project.
The meeting was requested by Eric Marchegiani, project manager for the
Alaska Power Authority (APA), and was attended by APA's consulting
engineer, Ebasco Services Incorporated and representatives of state and
federal resource agencies. Participants are listed below:
Name
Tom Wa lker
Mary Lynn Nation
Gary Stackhouse
Ron Burraychalk
Ken Thompson
Geoff Wilson
Bi 11 Hauser
Loren Flagg
Tom Anni nsk;
Ken Florey
Tom Small
Eric Marchegiani
David Trudgen
Bill Wilson
Jim Thiele
Don Smith
R ; c k Ca rdwe 11
Larry Wright
2622A
Affil iation
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service
AOF&G
AOF&G
AOF&G
ADF&G
Ci ty of Sewa rd
APA
AEIDC
AEIOC
AE IOC
Ebasco
Ebasco
National Park Service
FISH MITIGATION
Ebasco biologist, Rick Cardwell, reviewed the contents of a report
prepared for APA (Planning Document No.2) that made a preliminary
assessment, for discussion purposes, of several mitigation options.
This report, copies of some of the most important references cited in
the report, and copies of the 2 July 1982 letter report, entitled
"Evaluation of Instream Flows for the Grant Lake Project -An
Identification of Potential Mitigation Alternatives," were distributed
to attendees.
The following minutes do not discuss the elements of Cardwell's
presentation, which are contained in Planning Document No.2. The
minutes identify issues, comments, and Questions raised during
discussion at the meeting.
The USFWS asked about arrangements for monitoring (and paying for) the
efficacy of mitigation efforts. The Power Authority responded that no
cost estimates have been made to date. It needs input from the
agencies concerning the elements and costs of these programs.
There was considerable discussion of the value of Grant Creek for
rearing chinOOK salmon. Rick Cardwell suggested that chinook did not
appear to be very abundant in the stream and possibly many leave the
stream to rear in the Trail River or Kenai Lake. One ADF&G biologist
suggested it wouldn't reQuire a large number of juveniles to represent
40 pairs of chinook using the following as criteria:
o 40 pairs of adults with fecundity of 8,000 eggs/female = 320,000
eggs
o 20% egg to fry survival = 64,000 fry
o 20% fry to smo1t survival = 12,800 smolts
o 3% smolt to adult survival = 384 adults
o 60:40 catch to escapement ratio = 576 adults
2622A
2
...,
-
The point was that some rearing in Grant Creek may produce good
dividends. Providing better rearing, either at Trail Lake Hatchery or
using a rearing pond, will produce even greater dividends.
An ADF&G biologist asked about the temperature differentia] between
Grant Creek and that expected in the powerhouse tailrace. A subnormal
water temperature in the tailrace would delay hatching and emergence
timing and even prove lethal to salmon embryos. Cardwell indicated the
Power Authority had taken temperature profiles in Grant Lake Quarterly
since the autumn of 1981 and was making weekly measurements in Grant
Lake during August and September 1982 to obtain better data on water
temperatures during the critical period of initial development of the
salmon embryos.
The discussion returned to ADF&G staff reaction to the options being
discussed for mitigating project effects on Grant Creek salmon stocks.
The ADF&G agreed to determine whether they can allocate a module at the
Trail Lake Hatchery for stock from Grant Creek. Tom Arminski asked the
FRED division biologists whether utilizing eggs from the Grant Creek
stock at the hatchery was compatible with Department objectives. FRED
division will evaluate compatibility.
Rick Cardwell agreed to write and request ADF&G to designate a fry
emergence period (window) during which fry emergence would have to be
programmed for anyon-site mitigation (e.g., spawning channel, egg
boxes).
ADF&G suggested that the Power Authority consider an extended rearing
facility (i.e., pond). This pond would use eggs from Grant Creek stock
and allow fry to be reared to smo1ts, dramatically increasing the
cnance of their surviving to adults.
Many options were discussed for mitigating Grant Creek salmon stocks.
The group of options to which ADF&G appeared to lean most heavily ;s
depicted schematically below.
2622A
3
Grant Creek
Stock
Eggs
Qua rtz Cree k
Stock
Eggs
EGG TRAIL LAKE
Fry
EXTENDED REARING
FACILITY (POND)
The number of salmon USing Grant Creek represents the escapement
portion of tne total run (catcn plus escapement). ADF&G biologists
suggested that the Power Authority could assume a 60:40 ratio between
catch and escapement. This is the ratio they believe applies to early
run Kenai chinook and Kenai sockeye. The Grant Creek chinook run is
regarded as part of the "middle run".
Mary Lynn Nation expressed the Fish & Wildlife Service's concern that
insufficient consideration had been accorded instream flow releases as
a mitigation option. She advocated further consideration of this
option before commencing more extensive evaluations of other
optionsY •
17
2622A
After the meeting Rick Cardwell met with Gary Stackhouse of the
USFWS to discuss the Service's concerns further. Mr. Stackhouse
asked that the instream flow releases, which had been discussed
at the 9 July 1982 planning meeting and subsequently, be costed
in units directly eQuatable to costs being developed for the
other mitigation options. Cardwell agreed to use directly
comparable monetary values jn discussing the mitigation options
as part of the next (i.e., No.3) fish mitigation planning
document for the project.
4
-
"',:
...
...
The USFWS also suggested the Power Authority consider the total
productivity potential of Grant Creek. Productivity was defined in
tenns of tne potential number of spawners that the creek could
support. Numbers of adults recorded via spawning ground surveys
doesn't indicate the potential of the system. The Power Authority
should consider mitigating for the stream's potential production. They
also suggested the desirability of the Power Authority developing a
cost-benefit ratio for projects like Grant Creek similar to that used
by the Corps of Engineers. In this analysis fishery enhancement is
considered a benefit that offsetts part of the project's cost.
The USFWS reiterated that the Power Authority had not exhausted options
for providing instream flow (see footnote 1) and suggested that FERC
may look very hard at the first hydro proposal coming out of Alaska
that does not incorporate a minimum streamflow.
Tom Small, City of Seward, advocated developing improved fish haoitat
as a mitigation objective. He cited Spring Creek as an example, where
an expenditure of $1 million resulted in the return of 2~OOO pairs of
adults this spring~ far better than the wild run.
Tom Small also indicated that the City of Seward desperately needs the
.power from Grant Creek. Paradoxica1ly~ this power will be used mainly
to assist expansion of the fishing industry at Seward.
The National Park Service asked whether the proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric project was an alternative to that proposed for Grant
Lake. The Power Authority said no; the alternative with respect to the
City of Seward with loss of Grant Creek would be the use of fossil
fuels in turbines or diesel engines.
The meeting's focus then turned to discussion of methods for preventing
entrainment of juvenile salmon and for providing safe egress of smolts
from Grant Lake. This mitigation appears necessary if ADF&G's Grant
Lake salmon rearing project proves viable. Cardwell presented
infonnation in Planning Document 2, then asked for discussion.
2622A
5
ADF&G asked whether the Power Authority would use the "Gulper" if the
oypass doesn't work. The Authority responded that it would be
obligated to provide a facility that satisfactorily mitigated the
entrainment-bypass problem.
ADF&G aSked whether the passive screen bypass would be designed for
both large and small fish, and the Autnority said yes.
Loren Flagg discussed the program he anticipates for evaluating the
Grant Lake salmon stocking program. ADF&G proposed to the legislature
a $50,000 per year evaluation program. Eric Marchegiani asked Loren to
supply him with an outline of the program, and said he would
investigate the possibility of having the Power Authority support it.
Tom ArminsKi asked whether Loren's program would be sufficient to
answer Questions posed by the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Project, and
Loren replied no, citing studies on the fish'S vertical and spatial
distribution in the lake as being needed.
Mary Lynn Nation of the USFWS asked what other monitoring programs the
Power Authority had in mind for evaluating the success of the
mitigation options. The answer: none yet; they will be developed
after the most viable mitigation options~are identified. Ken Florey
suggested that APA and ADF&G meet to put together a study plan for such
an evaluation.
There was considerable discussion of how the harvest of salmon "from the
Trail Lake Hatchery would affect the wild stocks of Grant Creek.
Gary Stackhouse felt that pre-project studies were critical. The USFWS
believed that the Power Authority should provide ADF&G with more than a
letter of support; they would have to actually "push" for funding.
2622A
6
-
-
...
RECREATION
Views of the agencies represented at the meeting were solicited
concerning a recreation plan for the project. Rick Cardwell summarized
the nature of agency consultation to date, which has included contact
with the Forest Service, Dept. of Natural Resources, ADF&G big game
biologists, and the Kenai Borough.
The Forest Service reiterated its interest in having open road access
to Grant Lake, which would include sanitary facilities, and "some way
to get a boat into the lake".
The National Park Service had no specific recommendations. Larry
Wright stressed that tne views of Moose Pass residents, the State Dept.
of Parks, and the Forest Service need to be considered.
The USfWS and National Park Service asked whether ADF&G will have an
interpretive center at the Trail Lake Hatchery that references their
ennancement project at Grant Lake. ADF&G suggested that a center at
Grant lake might be useful. Eric Marchegiani suggested that siting an
interpretive center at the Hatchery may be more appropriate because
vandalism would be less of a problem.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF FISH MITIGATION
Gary Stackhouse continued to express his concern that abandonment of
instream flow as a mitigation technique was premature. He said that
habitat information is needed to go along with the analysis of flows.
He wondered whether instream flow would be more effective over the life
of the project than the alternative mitigation methods. One of the
unknowns is the value of Grant Creek as rearing habitat. Gary asked
whether an IFG study would give us data on the rearing potential of
Grant Creek. Cardwell summarized prior discussions with the USFWS,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and ADF&G concerning the wide
2622A
7
· .
disparity between instream flows economically feasible (i.e., less than
15 cfs) and those providing aquatic habitats of different Quality. For
example, a "good" habitat according to Tennant's instream flow analysis
method averages approximately 42 cfs over the year.
Also discussed was whether an IFG study would provide the planning
group with a significantly different result (i.e., lower streamflow)
than that provided by the instream flow analyses performed to date.
Cardwell stated that IFG does not necessarily result in lower
acceptable flows. Ken Thompson said that in his experience there was
no substantive difference in results. When asked about the value of an
IFG analysis for Grant Creek, Bill Wilson stated that the method did
supply useful results, but wasn't willing to say whether it would
provide a different result. For example, IFG-2 would provide data on
flow, depth, and substrate, which could be equated to habitat
requirements for rearing of juvenile salmon.
It was suggested that a representative of ADF&G sport fish division be
present at the next meeting because of the occurrence of Dolly Varden
and coho salmon juveniles in Grant Creek. Tom Arminski indicated he
has been keeping the sport fish division informed.
Eric Marchegiani summarized the meeting.
The next planning meeting was tentatively set for 28 September 1982.
The Power Authority will meet with ADF&G in the interim to further
explore their ideas concerning use of Trail Lake Hatchery, etc. in the
mitigation.
2622A
8
-
-
GROUP 14
DISTRIBUTION OF NOVEMBER 10 MEETING MINUTES
'.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276"()OOl
\
The Honorable Ronald O. SkoOQ
Commissioner -
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Subport Building
Juneau. Alaska 99801
December 3, 1982
SUB~lECT: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
November 10. 1982, Meeting
Dear Honorable Skoog:
I requested that Ebasco Services provide a summary of the meeting
minutes of the November 10, 1982. meeting. I have enclosed a copy of
that summary for your information. If there are any corrections or
additions please send them to me so I can incorporate them into our
records.
Sincerely.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~!I
EM:cd
Eric A. Marchegiani
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Don McKay. Habitat Division, Department of Fish & Game
Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa. Regional Supervisor, Department of F & G
Mr. Phil Byrna, Department of Fish & Game
Mr. Don Smith, Ebasco
Mr. Ronald Garzini. City Manager, Seward
Enclosure as stated.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
DISTRIBUTION OF
GRANT LAKE
November 10, 19B?, Meeting
Mr. Clay Beal
Forest Supervisor
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
CC: Mr. Ken Thompson
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Geof Wilson
U.S. Forest Service
PO Box 275
Seward, ~laska 99664
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue. NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Ms. Judy Marquez, Director
Director of Parks
619 Warehouse Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
CC: Mr. Reed Stoops, Director
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Research and
Development
555 Cordova Street
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276"()()()1 -
...
-
Mr. John Cook, Director
National Park Service
540 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
CC: Nr. La rry Hri ght
National Park Service
540 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
Ci ty Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
CC: Utility Manager
City of Seward
PO Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Mr. Richard Sumner, EPA
Room E-556
Federal Building
701 "C" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
The Honorable Stan Thompson
Mayor Kenai Peninsula Borough
PO Box 850
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
~1r. Don Smi th
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Mr. Keith Shreiner
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
CC: Ms. Mary Lynn Nation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite G-81
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Gary Stackhouse
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smi th
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
; -
-
..
t~r. Robert McVey
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Services
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
CC: Mr. Brad Smith
National Marine Fisheries Services
701 "c" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
r~r. Tom ~la 1 ker
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team
P.O. Box 3819
Soldotna, Alaska 99508
CC: Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400-112th Avenue, NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
-
-
TABLE
I • -I
\ 10 NOVEMBER 1982 FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -LIST OF ATTENDEES
-
Name Affiliation Addres siTe 1 e phone -Ricl< Cardwell EBASCO 400-1 12th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA
(206) 451-4619 -wayne Pietz EBASCO 400-1 12th Ave. N. E. Bellevue, WA
(206) 451-4500
Don Smith EBASCO 400-1 12th Ave. N. E. Be 11 evue, WA -
Gary Lawley EBASCO 1227 W 9tn, Anchorage
( 90 7) 277-15 61 -
Dave Daisy ADF&G, FRED 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage
(907) 267-2165 -
Ken Florey ADF&G, Comm, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage
Fish (907) 267-2125
Eric Marchegiani APA (907) 276-0001 -
Ken Thompson USFS 2221 E North. Lts., AnChorage
Eric Myers NAEC 833 Gambell Suite 3 99501 -
Gary StaCkhouse USFWS 1011 E. Tudor, Anchorage
263-3475 -
Mary Lynn Na tion USFWS 605 W 4tn Avenue, Ancnorage
271-4575 -
Phil Brna ADF&G, Habitat 333 Raspoerry Road, AnChorage
(709) 344-0541 -Jim Thiele A£ IDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage
(709) 279-4523
Dave Trudgen AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage -
6111 Wilson AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage -Dave Nelson ADF&G, Sport 3150, Soldotna, 262-9369
Fisn -
2949A
2 -
The Department wished to mitigate for chinook, other anadromous species
(e.g., COhO), and resident species.
At the time the Department assumed loss of lake rearing d~e to cold
water temperatures, they were favoring a Chinook smolt program in the
Trail Lakes hatchery or in a facility at the tailrace. They agreed to
use the hatchery because on their previous commitment to do so for up
to 10 years post-operationally.
The Department decided that no further instream flow work would be
needed and that a rainbow trout sport fiShery, including appropriate
access, would be needed to replace the lost sport fiShing opportunity
in Grant CreeK. For sport fiShing mitigation, either fry or
catchable-size rainbow trout could be planted into Grant Lake,
depending upon whether the lake proves suitable for rearing small
salmon ids. It was later disclosed that it may not be absolutely
necessary to plant the trout into Grant Lake if there were competing
uses (e.g., sockeye rearing). The trout could be planted into another
laKe considered suitable.
ADF&G is cool to the idea of planting Chinook fry into Grant Lake due
to uncertainties regarding how well the Chinook will do because of
fears about insufficient food production for ChinooK in the lake's
littoral region. However, they are interested in planting the lake
with SOCkeye and rainbow trout, which they believe will perform better.
Maintaining the genetic integrity of the Grant Creek stock is a formal
goal of the Department. This will be accomplished by preventing the
interminglement of Grant Creek chinook eggs and juveniles with those
from other streams in the hatchery.
Initially ADF&G was willing to trade off the use of Grant Lake for
SOCkeye rearing for a chinook smolt program at Trail Lakes hatchery
(Mitigation Option 10) Hatchery and planting Grant Lake with catcnable-
2949A
3
(
"
size rainbow trout. If Grant Lake was unsuitable for juvenile salmon
rearing, the trout and sockeye could be planted into another lake(s)
(e.g., Ptarmigan Lake).
Ken Florey aSked how well the Grant Lake smolt bypass (Option 21) would
work. Rick Cardwell indicated that, although a new concept, it was
working well at the Willamette Falls, Oregon (O'Sullivan Dam), where
clogging was a mUCh greater problem than at Grant Lake. He also noted
several studies that showed salmon smolts, including sockeye, could
find submarine outlets up to 60 feet deep.
Cardwell stated his concern aoout rainbow trout predating sockeye (or
chinook) from the standpoint of determining how well juvenile salmon
survive and grow in Grant LaKe before and after Project operation. If
predation was interjected as anotner factor it would not be possible to
determine conclusively the effect of project operation on smolt
production in the lake.
ADF&G asked whether APA would perform a cost-benefit evaluation for the
project. Eric Marchegiani stated that a cost benefit analysis with
respect to the power generated and alternatives would be a part of the
feasibility study.
In summary, ADF&G supported the following options:
Grant Lake Unsuitable for Rearing Salmon
o Option 10: Producing cninook smolts at Trail LaKes Hatchery.
o Planting Grant Lake or another lake with catchable-size rainbow
trout.
o Planting another lake with SOCKeye fry.
2949A
4
-
-
-
..
..
..
-
•
Grant Lake Suitable for Rearing Salmon
o Option 13: Producing chinook fry at Trail Lakes Hatchery, then
planting them into Grant Lake.
o Planting Grant Lake or another lake witn rainbow trout fry.
o Planting Grant Lake with sockeye fry.
o Providing safe egress for salmon smolts from Grant Lake (Option 21
or 22).
Mary Lynn Nation indicated tne Fish and Wildlife Service opposes
off-site mitigation when an agency already plans to undertake an
enhancement effort there; sucn cases would not be mitigation.
Ken Florey wanted the Power Authority to agree to mitigate for the
project wnatever the success of tne mitigation efforts specified. Eric
Marchegiani said that the APA could not guarantee mitigation, for they
are a state agency SUbject to the same legislatively-imposed budget
restrictions as ADF&G. However, it was noted that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission does review project licenses periodically, and
cnanges to the license concerning mitigation can be made if deemed
necessary. Gary Stacknouse of the USFWS suggested that tne agencies
insist on statements in the license concerning contingencies, should
any mitigation measure prove unsuccessful~ and the need for
post-operational monitoring of mitigation efficacy. Eric Marchegiani
agreed that a statement would be contained in the license application
that provides for changes in mitigation plans and facilities that fail
to perform.
Mary Lynn Nation suggested that a lot of assumptions concerning
mitigation were being made based on very little data. She suggested
that tne analysis of water temperature regimes has not been really
2949A
5
extensive. The USF~S plans to look more closely at the information
presented and will communicate their judgement later. The USF~S would
like to see more information on laKe temperatures; a water temperature
model was mentioned as one possibility.
Gary StaCkhouse said that the USFWS and ADF&G hoped to develop a
unified response concerning fish mitigation.
The meeting then adjourned.
2949A
6
...
"'"
lIP
....
• -...
~,. ..
""'"
GROUP 15
DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Dalton DuLac
Forest Supervisor
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Dear Mr. DuLac:
t1a rc h 17, 1983
Phone: (907) 2n· 7641
(907) 276-0001
I have attached a copy of the draft feasibility study of the Grant
Lake Project for your review. -In order to finalize the feasibility
study I will need your comments by April 18, 1983.
If there are any questions you may contact me or Mr. Marchegiani of
my staff.
Attachment as stated
cc: Mr. Ken Thompson
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Mr. Geof Wilson
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 275
Seward, Alaska 99664
fir. Don Smi th
Ebasco
400 -112th Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
L::y ~
Eric P. Yould ~
Executive Director
Mr. Dalton DuLac
Forest Supervisor
U.S. Forest Service
Distribution of
GRANT LAKE
Draft Report
2221 E. Northern Lights, Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
cc: Mr. Ken Thompson
U.S. Forest Service
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
r~r. Geof Wi 1 son
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 275
Seward, Alaska 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400 -112th Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
The Honorable Esther Wunnicke
Commissioner
Dept. of Natural Resources
Pouch ~1
Juneau, Alaska 99811
cc: Ms. Judy Marquez, Director
Director of Parks
619 Warehouse Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Roland Shanks, Director
Dept. of Natural Resources
Div. of Research & Development
555 Cordova Street
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Ty L. Dilliplane, Chief
State Historic Preservation Office
Div. of Parks
619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210
Ancborage, Alaska 99510
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400 -112th·Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
~:
."
....
-
"",
The Honorable Stan Thompson
Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 850
Soldotna, AK 99669
cc: Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400 -112th Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Mr. Keith Shreiner
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1011 E. Tudor Rd.
Anch., AK 99501
cc: Ms. Mary Lynn Nation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
605 W. Fourth Ave., Suite G-81
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
r4r. Gary Stackhouse
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
1011 E. Tudor Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99507
f4r. Don Smi th
Ebasco
400 -112th Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Director
National Park Service
540 W. Fifth Ave.
Anch., AK 99501
cc: Mr. Larry ~lright
National Park Service
540 W. Fifth Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400 -112th Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Mr. Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
P.O. Box 337
Seward, AK 99664
cc: Utility Manager
City of Seward
P.O. Box 337
Seward,·AK 99664
Mr. Don Smith
Ebasco
400 -112th Ave., N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Mr. Robert McVey, Director
Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, AK 99802
cc: Mr. Ronald Morris, Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
701 "C II St.
Anch., AK 99513
Mr. Brad Smith
National Marine Fisheries Service
701 "C" St.
Anch .• AK 99513
The Honorable Donald W. Collinsworth
Commissioner
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, AK 99811
cc: Mr. Don McKay
Habitat Division
Dept. of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Rd.
Anch., AK 99503
Mr. Carl M. Yanagawa
Regional Supervisor
Dept. of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Rd.
Anch., AK 99503
The Honorable Richard Nevel
Commissioner
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811
-'
-
...
IJO'
-
1111'"
.... '
'iIJ'
cc: Mr. Robert Martin
Regional Supervisor
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
437 "E" St.
Anch., AK 99501
The Honorable Mark Lewis
Corrmissioner
Dept. of Community & Regional Affairs
Pouch B
Juneau, AK 99811
cc: Mr. Mark Stephens
Dept. of Community & Regional
Affairs
225 Cordova, Bldg. B
Anch., AK 99502
The Honorable Bette Cato
Representative
State Capitol
Pouch V
Juneau, AK 99811
The Honorable Jalmar M. Kerttula
Senator
State Capitol
Pouch V
Juneau, AK 99811
The Honorable Daniel A. Casey
Commissioner
Dept. of Transportation &
Public Facilities
Pouch Z
Juneau, AK 99811
The Honorable Richard A. Lyon
Commissioner
Dept. of Commerce & Economic
Development
Pouch D
Juneau, AK 99811
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 ... "'
Mr. Robert J. Cross
Administrator
Department of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. Cross:
(907) 276-0001
nerch 17, 19£.3
I have attached a copy of the draft feasibility study of the Grant
Lake Project for your review. In order to finalize the feasibility
study I will need your comments by April 18, 1983.
If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at
276-0001.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EA~l: j k
Attachment as stated
Sincerely,
Eric A. archegiani
Project Manager
----,)
-
-
.. ,
•
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY·
Mr. Robert J. Cross
Admi ni strator
Dept. of Energy
Distribution of Grant Lake
Draft Report
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau, AK 99802
Mr. Thomas S. Kolasinski, Chairman
General Manager
Chugach Electric Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 3518
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Thomas E. Mears
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Assoc.,
P.O. Box 3819
Soldotna, AK 99669-3819
cc: Mr. Tom Walker
~1r. Lou Ri ggs
REA Field Representative
P.O. Box 7237
Bellevue, Washington 98007
Ms. Wendy Wolf
State Federal Coordinator
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office Budget and Management
Pouch AW
Juneau, AK 99811
Mr. Jack Werner
P.O. box 156
Seward, AK 99664
~lr. Kurt Dzi n; ch
Hydro Development Specialist
Alaska Senate Research Agency
Pouch V
Juneau, AK 99811
Mr. Jim Calvin
Regional Forester
P.O. Box 1628
Juneau, AK 99802
Revised 3/17/83
Document Name: Dis. list
DISK: DANN
U.S. Dept. of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
4700 E. 72nd Street
Anch., AK 99507
Lt. Steve Reynolds
Officer M. Roscorius
Dept. of Public Safety
Fish & Wildlife Protection
Box 3730
Soldotna, AK 99669
Mr. Edward Eboch, Director
Division of Energy & Power
Development
Pouch D
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Colonel Neil Sailing
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anch., AK 99506
Mr. Richard Sumner
EPA -Alaska Region
Federal Building, Room E-556
701 lie' Street
Anch., AK 99501
Mr. Edward Newbury
Director
Division of Emergency Services
Box 2267
Palmer, AK 99645
Attn: Mark Walker
Mr. Curtis McVey
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
701 IIC" Street
Anch., AK 99513
Page 2
-
-
-
GROUP 16
AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT
April 18, 1983
Mr. Eric Yould
Alaska Power Authority
344 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Youl.d:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMME~.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrat
NationaZ Marine Fisheries Serviae
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
We have received the Draft Detailed Feasibility Analysis of the Grant
lake Hydroelectric Project. 'nle Natialal Marine Fisheries Service
(mFS) ';Q.1J.d oonnally review this dccutent in depth while striving to
meet the established CUtllent deadline of April 18, 1983. ii.:Mever, due
to reduced staffing levels and the c:arpletion of several other APA
pl.anning or licensing docunent.s (e.g. the SUsitna Project FER: License
AWlicatian, the Silver Iake Project Draft EnviroImental Field Study
Plan and the Chakacharma Project Interim Feasibility Report (April
1983) ), we are unable to fully review this decurrent within the allotted
t.i.D:efran:e •
Coordination . between the Power Authority, its cx:mtractors, and the NMFS
has been very gcod to date. 'ftu::a.lgh m..merous n:eetings, conversaticns,
and correspaldenoe our views en this proposal are generally known. we
believe that develq;rrent of an effective mitigation plan, capable of
neeting the APA goal of no net losses of fishery resources, is the nost
significant issue with regard: to project enviromental feasibility.
'nle AEIOC stu:ti.es and the Draft Detailed Feasibility Analysis show Grant
Creek to support levels of fishery resources which we consider
significant. Past sal.trcn counts for Grant Creek are not necessarily
reliable, as the Report indicates. 'Ihese were peak spawning counts, and
may not reflect actual use of these waters by saln:on. High flCMS and
poor visibility further reduce confidence in these counts. The Report
allCMS that actual rn:D:Ttlers of spawners may be double the 1982 counts.
Potential annual losses will likely be nuch higher than the 100 chinook
and 500 sockeye stated in the Report. These fish contribute to
c:x:mrercial and sport fisheries and, using catch to escaperent ratios to
reflect the true contribution, these estimates would be nuch higher.
Chinook sal.trcn occur wi. thin the Kenai River drainage in two distinct
nms. Little or no interbreeding occurs beb.1een tbese nms (USFWS,
1982) and early nm fish may be genetically different fran late nm
chinook.
•
The prop::>sed alternative ~d de-water Grant Creek, causing the loss of
spawning arrl rearing habitat. Present plans call for a m.i tigation
coocept involving an adult saltrcn oollect.ionlb:>ld:ing facility off the
powerllruse tailrace, CXlnStructi.on of an addit.imal nofule at the Trail
lakes Hatchery for ch.:i.Ixxlks, planting chinc:x:»t fry into Grant lake,
cx:nst:ructial of a passive screen SDDlt by-pass at the pclIIer tunnel
intake, and introduct.ial of sockeye fry and ra:inbow t:1"OOt into Grant
I.ake. The suitability of Grant Lake far sal.J:talids is not known.
Additionally, the Alaska Deparbtent of Fish and Galle (ADFG) has yet to
finalize their plan far Grant Lake fishery erihanoeIlent. At this time it
is doobtful that ADFG wtW.d introduce either sockeye or clU.rx:xlk into
Grant Lake.
The lH'S feels that mitigatial of fishery :tesoura! losses can mst
effectively be ach:i..eved t:h.ralgh Il'II!lint.ena.nce of in-stream flow releases
suitable to the fish species and. life hi.st:ory stages within Grant creek.
We are awaz:e that such releases cg&Ir to be inc:axpatible with an
ecananically viable project. Addit.ialally, the pr:oposed mitigation plan
is poorly developed, largely deperdent em the ADFG, and. we believe not
sufficient for FEEC licensing p.u:poses. Should this project be advanced
further we will expect to work closely with the resource agencies and
the ~ Autb:>rity in developing a satisfactory mitigation package.
We lcx:lk forward to the cxntinued ccx:n:dina.tion between our agencies on
the Grant lake Hydroelectric Project and l'¥::Jpe these coments will assist
in yoo.r evaluatiem of project feasibility.
USFWS, 1982. Sa1.rron Investigations in the Kenai River, Alaska
1979-1981.
-
"
..
D£PARTME~T OF CO!'t!'-tERCE -"
ECO~OMIC DE\'ELOP!'-IENT
DIVISION OF ENERGY & POIIIER DEVELOPMENT
.
!
81LL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
31101 "C" STREET
7th FL FRONTIER BLDG
SUITE 722
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503
('1107) 58'-4201
April 19, 1983
RECEIVED
Alaska Power Authority
Attn: Mr. Eric Marchegiani
334 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
APR 21 1983
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Subject: Review of Grant Lake Project Feasibility Study
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
We have reviewed the subject study and offer the following
comments:
We concur that a Kenai Peninsula Source (Pool) appears to be
Seward's cheapest power supply: therefore, the Daves Creek-
Seward transmission line probably should be upgraded as
delineated in the study.
Realistically, we think the largest single contingency would
be the loss of the transmission line between any generation
considered in the study that would be located north of
Seward and the town itself. This means that reserves
adequate to meet anticipated peak demands must be maintained
in Seward. We think Seward's problem then becomes simply to
determine what is the cheapest energy from the Kenai Penin-
sula Power Supply that can be delivered to the community.
Grant Lake IS feasibility then is determined by whether it
can deliver power to the supply pool cheaper than any other
source. We realize that there are ownership and contractual
problems to be resolved with a pooling arrangement, but if
the Power Authority is involved it can make commitments to
Seward. If Grant Lake is strictly a Seward project a
different analysis is in order.
"
. Hr. Eric Marchegiani
Alaska Power Authority
Ap r ill 9, 1 98 3
Page Two
Figure I-I would indicate that Grant Lake power delivered to
a Kenai Peninsula Power Supply pool is not the cheapest
source. It is likewise, not the cheapest source delivered
to Seward until 1999 and then only if fuel (natural gas)
costs escalate at the rate projected. Only by levelizing
the cost over the study period is Grant Lake the cheapest
power source and then only by a very narrow margin. Since
the economics are only justified by events yet to occur, we
question the wisdom of investing 24 million dollars in the
project when for less than 5 million the same capacity in
combined cycle combustion turbine generation could be added
to the Kenai Peninsula pool.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
~uJ.~
Edward W. Eboch
Director
ElvE/DWRI j hi 4 I 167
cc: Richard A. Lyon,
Commissioner
_.
-
-
-
-
-
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY \'JAfSR TO:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
r
I
1 -..
Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
344 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
RECEIVED
APR 191983
Jl,ASKA POWEll AlI11fORny
18 APR 1983
We have reviewed the draft report entitled -Grant lake Hydroelectric Project
Detailed Feasibility Analysis.-The following comments are based upon the
report, our participation in previous interagency meetings, coordination since
our last meeting on 10 November 1982, and the attached Resource Category
Determination, which describes the basis for our mitigation planning goal.
General Comments
Planning for the Grant lake project has proceeded with a high degree of
resource agency input. The project manager and consultants have regularly
solicited our views and suggestions; however, despite repeated discussions and
__ correspondence, our concerns have not been fully addressed in the report.
General deficiencies \1hich we perceive are discussed below.
The most abundant fish species occurring in Gr~nt Creek are chinook, sockeye,
and coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout. Fish populations and
habitat for Grant Creek have not been quantified, therefore reported popula-
tion estimates could be conservative. The timing of past surveys and the
difficulty of observing fish with the glacial, high velocity flow conditions
of the creek lowers the confidence of existing data. Baseline population,
distribution, phenology, and habitat parameter data for the above species
should be generated for inclusion in the final feasibility report.
The report reflects the consultant's planning assumption that impacts on
terrestrial species would be relatively minor and, to a large extent, unavoid-
able. Though this assumption may be valid, qualitative terrestrial data ~ \ presented in the report should be supported by quantitative wildlife popula-
,tion, distribution, and habitat data wherever possible.
The report's Potential Impact section is descriptive and written in general
terms; additional quantification of impacts, including changes in various
habitat areas and values over time, should be made. Estimates of aquatic and
terrestrial species to be directly displaced by project construction and
operation should be presented in the final feasibility report. Additional
studies may be necessary to provide these estimates.
The consultant's mitigation plan targets hatchery replacement of Grant Creek
chinook salmon thus failing to recognize the value of this early run stock and
the fact that it would be genetically altered. Also, mitigation for loss of
other naturally occurring aquatic resources in Grant Creek is not discussed in
the report.
Terrestrial mitigation measures are not included in the report. Alternative
siting, construction methodologies, timing, erosion control and hazardous
materials handling plans, relative to comparative impacts and mitigation of
losses to terrestrial habitat should be discussed.
Updated plans by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) Fisheries
Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division (FRED) for Grant lake include planting
of 620,000 coho fry in the lake. This effort necessitates project provision
of some means for egress of smolts. The suitability of the bypass screen
previously proposed for sockeye enhancement plans must be reassessed for coho
smolts.
The final report should be expanded to address the above defidendes in the
mitigation plan. After all practicable mitigation measures have been docu-
mented to minimize in-kind terrestrial and aquatic habitat losses, means
should be explored to offset unavoidable losses, through out-of-kind mitiga-
tion.
Specific Comments
Vol. 1, Executive Summ., .8, Statement #9: Without provision for instream
ow re eases 1n ower Grant ree, t ere will be a net loss to fisheries
resources. The proposed mitigation measures 1) do not preserve the genetic
integrity of the early run chinook stock, and 2) do not address the direct
loss of Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, sockeye and coho salmon.
Vol. 1, Section 2, p. 6: The State grain terminal's future is undecided at
this point. Peak loads at Seward should be readjusted by the 1.0 MW attri-
'.'. buted to the terminal. Also, there is no mention of the new 1.0 MW mini-hydro
---that powers the Seward hospital. The table should be revised to reflect these
recent changes in the Seward power market.
Vol. I, Section 4, p. 16: An erosion control plan for clearing and construc-
tion activities should be formulated, then reviewed and approved by appro-
priate resource agencies.
Vol. It Section 4, p. 17: Mitigation plans as presented in the report would
not prevent significant net loss of fish and their habitat, as well as some
loss of wildlife resources.
. Vol. I, Section 4, p. 19: Although the report finds the Grant lake project
! feasible, Alaska Power Authority's 1982 Year End Report states that the Grant
. lake project will not be studied further at this time. This apparent
inconSistency should be clarified.
Vol. I, Section 6: In the entire Cooper lake hydropower project section,
there 1S no discussion of why the project presently functions as a base load
facility supplying Cooper landing. Although increasing its capacity would
necessitate repair of the dam which was damaged in the 1964 earthquake, this
alternative power source should be more fully evaluated.
-
-
...
-
-
Vol. I, Section 13, p. 20: At the November 10, 198Z,rneeting, Alternative r
wi~thc Falls Creek diversion was the consultant's preferred ~lan. A change
to plan D, without the diversion, avoids impacting Dolly Varden and the
chinook salr.10n reported to use the mouth of Falls Creek; plan 0 also avoids
terrestrial disturbance of constructing a diversion conduit from the Falls
Creek drainage to the Grant Creek drainage. We consider plan D preferable to
plan F. as it confines project impacts to one drainage. .
Vol. II, Fore\/ord, p. H: During carly project planning, this project \Ias to
have a SJU4 capacity without the Falls Creek diversion, and 6 HW if Falls Creek
waters were diverted into Grant Lake. This report finds a 7 MW project
feasible without the Falls Creek diversion as a feature of the selected plan.
This discrepancy should be clarified. Increased storage capacity should be
reanalyzed relative to feasibility of providing mitigative instream flows.
Vol. II, Section 2. ¥. 38: A feature-specific erosion control plan should be
formulated as part 0 project mitigation.
Vol. II, Section 3, p. 22: ADF&G's enhancement plans have recently changed.
They tentat;vely plan to introduce approximately 620,000 coho fry into Grant
Lake instead of sockeye. These plans are experimental, as Grant Lake's
suitability for salmonid rearing habitat is unknown.
Vol. II, Section 3, a' 24: Additional salmonid population estimates and
hab;tat values shoul be obtained to adequately mitigate fishery losses.
Vol. II, Section 3, p. 48: The proposed mitigation plan is inadequate, in
that it coula not be ;mplemented independent of ADF&G and their monitoring
efforts. An acceptable mitigation plan should identify 1) mitigation measures
to satisfy established mitigation goals, 2) a monitoring study to assure the
performance of those measures, 3) contingency plans if the chosen mitigation
plan does not work, and 4) the costs of each. All mitigation costs should be
borne by the project.
Vol. II, Section 3, p. 100: Mitigation measures for terrestrial impacts
during construction and operation should be described.
In addition, a plan for oil and hazardous materials handling, erosion control,
and construction methodologies and timing, etc., should be formulated and
reviewed by all interested agencies as a part of the project1s mitigation plan.
Summary Comments
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) believes that the proposed mitigation plan
represented in this report is inadequate for attainment of our mitigation goal
of -no net loss of habitat value, while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat
value.-An acceptable mitigation plan can only be achieved based upon a more
detailed data base and analyses of the project1s impacts upon fish and wild-
life resou.rces.
Review and comments by the FWS on the adequacy of any future documents
relating to the Federal regulatory process will be based upon the degree to
which proposed mitigation satisfies the above stated mitigation goal.
.,
We hope to continue to work \'lith you to make the Grant lake Hydroelectric
Project environn~ntally acceptable and appreciate this opportunity to provide
comments on the draft report evaluating the project's feasibility .
. Si~~~~~
Regional Director
Attachment
cc: FUS ROES:WAES
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, DPDP, USFS, Juneau
ADF&G, EPA, NMFS, ADEC, Anchorage
...
_.
-
...,
..
· .
Attachment 1
Grant Lake
Resource Category Determination and Mitigation Planning Goal
As part of the mitigation planning process, the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) establishes fish and wildlife habitat loss mitigation goals within the
context of the FWS Mitigation Policy. This is done by choosing several key
evaluation species and determining the value of their habitat to be impacted
by the project and relative habitat abundance for those species from the
ecoregion or national basis. .
For application of our Policy to the Grant Lake Project, we've chosen chinook
and sockeye salmon and rainbow trout for aquatic impact evaluation. Grant
Creek chinook salmon represent early run stock with particularly high value to
the Kenai River sport fishery. Sockeye salmon were picked because of their
high values to commercial, sports and subsistence fisheries in Cook Inlet and
the Kenai River. Rainbow trout were chosen because they are a sought-after
sport fish within the Grant Creek system.
Moose and beaver were selected for terrestrial impact evaluation. Moose were
chosen for their high sport hunting values as a big game species and the
subject of recreational observation and photography. Beaver were picked
because they are responsive to aquatic and riparian habitat alterations;
beaver also have high recreational trapping value.
Although the relative habitat abundance for the evaluation species chosen
varies from abundant to becoming scarce from the national perspective, the
value of the habitat to be impacted -by the Grant Lake hydropower project is of
medi,um value for all evaluation species, thereby placing them all in Resource
Category three. The corresponding mitigation planning goal is -no net loss of
habitat value, while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value.-
DEP"RTm~T Of fiSH ."~D G,\JiE
fJFFICE OF THE CO •• ,SSIOIIER
April 13, 1983
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
7U:ASKA POWER AUTIfORfTY
BILL SHEFFIEW, GOVERNOR
P.O.BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802
PHONE: {S07} 465-4100
TO FILES:
Oroject 0 General 0
"'Jo. Vol. ___ _
Filer Inits. _______ _
Date Entered ______ _
Re: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project -Detailed Feasibility Analysis
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Draft Grant
Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Construction of
the recommended project alternative would preclude flow releases into Grant
Creek and result in the loss of the natural populations of coho, chinook and
sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden and rainbow trout presently occurring in the
creek. Numbers of salmon spawning in Grant Creek have been estimated to be
100 chinook and 500 sockeye. No estimates of the numbers of coho and other
species are available.
As discussed in prior interagency meetings, the ADF&G will be conducting an
experimental enhancement project in Grant Lake. However, the implant
species has changed from sockeye to coho. This spring, approximately 0.5
million coho salmon fry will be stocked in the lake to determine if the lake
provides suitable habitat for rearing fry to smolts. If coho can be
successfully reared, chinook fry will be stocked in the lake in the future.
Therefore, our concerns with this project are with mitigating the loss of
the natural populations of salmon and resident Dolly Varden and rainbow
trout of Grant Creek and with the loss of enhancement opportunities in Grant
Lake.
Mitigation to offset impacts of the project to fishery resources and sport
fishing opportunities identified in the draft feasibility report include:
1. Rearing chinook fry in a new module at the ADF&G's Trail Lakes
Hatchery and stocking them in Grant Lake and installing passive
screen smolt bypass facility at Grant Lake;
2. stocking Grant Lake trout and constructing a boat launch suitable
for 14 to 18 foot craft; and
...
L
Mr. Eric P. Yould -2-Apr; 1 13, 1983
3. should the AOF&G enhancement experiment in Grant Lake be
successful, conduct a post-operational study of salmon smolts to
address survival and condition.-
Other mitigation alternatives have been rejected in the feasibility study
because they would make the project economically infeasible.
Of all of the mitigation options considered during development of the draft
feasibility study, no specific mitigation plan has been agreed to by the
AOF&G. Basically, they are options that have been subject to discussion.
The options to mitigate the loss of the fishery resources of Grant Creek
that have highest probability of success include option 10: rearing Grant
Creek chinook to smolt at the Trail Lakes hatchery, and maintaining instream
flows in Grant Creek. The anticipated success of those options that include
offsetting the loss of natural production of Grant Creek by stocking fry in
Grant Lake cannot be fully evaluated until the ADF&G's experimental rearing
program is initiated and results are in; apprOXimately 2 years from this
spring. If the rearing experiment proves successful, stocking Grant creek
chinook fry in the lake will be acceptable mitigation for the loss of
natural habitat. However, until the suitability of Grant Lake for rearing
salmon fry to smolt is proven, we believe that the Alaska Power Authority
should plan to produce artificially Grant Creek chinook smolt for release in
the tailrace.
Further, there are insufficient data 'in the draft feasibility study to allow
an objective evaluation of the fish bypass facility. Additional information
regarding the design and function of this facility during project operation
is required.
Based on our review of the draft feasibility study, we do not believe that
the plans for mitigating losses of Grant Creek fishery resources or the
enhancement potential of Grant lake have been sufficiently developed. The
AOF&G wi'll continue to work with the Alaska Power Authority to develop a
plan to mitigate those losses successfully.
Specific comments on Volume 2 (Environmental Report) are provided for your,
information.
Page 2-38, paragraph 4 -The locations of borrow sources and disposal
sites should be identified and sediment control plans should be
provided.
Page 3-16, table 3-6 -Accepted common names of Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha and Q. kisutch are chinook and coho respectively.
Page 3-21, table 3-7 -Average weight of adult chinook in the Kenai
River system are 37 lbs. for late run and 30 lbs. for early run fish.
Page 3-20, paragraph 1 -Juvenile chinook salmon spend from 2 to 3
months in the gravel prior to emergence as free-swimming fry.
Mr. Eric P. Yould -3-April 13. 1983
There are no data to substantiate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
estimate of 50,000 spawning chinook in the Kenai River System.
Page 3-20, paragraph 2 -The first run of sockeye salmon arrive in late
May and continue through late June. The second run arrives in mid-July
and continues through mid-August.
Page 3-22, paragraph 2 -An experimental introduction of approximately
0.5 million coho fry is scheduled for release in Grant Lqke in June
1983. Introduction of sockeye fry is no longer planned.
-------/' ", ~ ge~An1:""-"s'-DIfLII'.~e~~-
Acting Deputy Commissioner
...
...
". United States Department of the Interior
IN UPL Y una TO:
l3031 {ARO-P}
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West Fifth Ave
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Alaska Regional Office
540 West Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
ltl:C '. F::'I'r-."' .,. c: D . -,
ENW-GRANT-IC-83-002
We have reviewed the Grant lake Project draft feasibility study.
Recreation and cultural resource issues have been appropriately and
adequately addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
SJ1lcerely, .\, ..... ~,'
t>-'" -:)L,/. R. l d,A~tt "I
Associate Regional Director
Planning, Recreation & Cultural Resources
March 29, 1983
Mr. Eric Marchegiani, Project Manager
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
ENW-GRANT - I C-83-001
COOK INLET
AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 3819
SOLDOTNA, AK 99669·3819
(907) 262·9419
Thank you for the opportunity to review the -Draft Feasibility
Study of the Grant Lake Project-. Because ClAA had but
peripheral involvement in the fisheries mitigation planning
process some of the following comments may arise as a result of
our lack of certain information or a lack of understanding
concerning the mitigation process.
1. As I underst,nd it the fisheries mitigation plan (Vol. 2, 3-
47 and 3-48) involves the stocking of rainbow trout (size unspec-
ified), chinook salmon fry and sockeye salmon fry into Grant
Lake.' The lake water intake would also be equiped with a passive
screen smolt bypass for the anadromous species. ADF&G has
recently abandoned any plans for stocking sockeye salmon into
Grant Lake. Thus, there is no current plan for mitigation of the
500 sockeye salmon spawners. L.. """fY'"ct.
2. Under currently assumed exploitation rates the 200
spawners support a sport fishing harvest of 133 fish.
strength of chinook salmon to be lost in absence of
mitigation would be approximately 333 fish.
chinook
The run
adequate
3. Under current exploitation rates the 500 sockeye salmon
spawners support an annual harvest of 1150 fish. The run
strength of sockeye salmon to be lost in absence of adequate
mitigation would be approximately 1650 fish.
4. Annual operations and maintenance costs in addition to any
construction costs for fisheries mitigation efforts should be
funded by the power producer. (If this principle is stated in
the document I did not find it.)
...
....
-
...
• A
# . .
Eric Marchegiani
March 29, 1983
Page 2
The Grant Lake Project is a rather small scale hydro project with
very limited fisheries impacts. It is frustrating that the
mitigation portion of the fisheries section of the feasibility
report is so very general, even vague, in regards to what could
actually be done to replace 500 sockeye and 200 chinook salmon.
If CIAA can be of any further help in this matter, please contact
me.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Mears
Executive Director
TEM:sa
i
DEPARTMENr OF lVArURAL RESOURCES
Harch 29, 1983
Re: 1130-13
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Hr. Yould:
DIVISION Of I'''"I<S
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
619 WAREHOUSE AVE. SUiTE 210
ANCHORAGE. A ... A5KA gq~01
PHONE. (907) 276-2653
We have reviewed the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Project Detailed Feasibility
Project and and would like to offer the following comments:
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
We look forward to reviewing the results of the final archaeological survey
and to cooperating with the Alaska Power Authority and the Forest Service on
mitigation for this project, should it proceed.
The direct impacts to sites SEW-029 and SEW-148 need to be more adequately
documented. For example, the location of direct impact could be described as
well as the type of impact. This, of course, can be done during final archae-
ological survey when the facilities are more precisely located.
We look forward to consulting on determinations of eligibility and effect for
cuI tural properties should APA proceed li~e.... aP0~on.
~---. :.-----------
Officer
STATE PARK PLANNING
Concerning the transmission corridor selection we strongly oppose the reloca-
tion of th~ overhead transmission lines to locations where they would be
visible from the highway or railroad. The material scenery along these travel
routes contribute significantly to the enjoyment of Alaska's travelling resi-
dents and visitors.
-
....
....
...
Eric P. Yould
Harch 29, 1983
Page 2 -
LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRAM
Recreational potential of the land being used for the transmission right-of-way
should be carefully evaluated, with the least destructive route being selected.
Sincerely, •
~a-e,--------__ _
ALASKA STATE PARKS
Letts Put Them on the Hap!
:
/l
ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC.
April 14, 1983
RECEIVED
APR 1 :; 1983
1.L.1.SKA POWER AUT HORrry
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99S01
Attention: Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani
Subject: Review of Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed
Feasibility Analysis
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
After review of the above-mentioned study, Chugach offers the
following comments.
1. The cost/benefit ratio for the Grant Lake Project is
essentially 1.0, indicating, at best, marginal economic
feasibility. The thermal alternative and the Grant
Lake Project are approximately at a break-even point,
in view of the fact that the largest difference between
the plans is only 4 percent based on the assumption con-
tained in the study. Using any of the assumptions for
lower gas prices, the thermal alternative is more eco-
nomical than the Grant Lake Project. This illustrates
the sensitivity of the economics of the Grant Lake Proj-
ect to the assumptions made for the price of natural
gas.
-I
..
",
-
My recommendation, therefore, is to delay any design or .'
2.
construc·tion on the Grant Lake Project until such time,
in the future, the Project can demonstrate an acceptable
cost/benefit ratio.
Chugach does agree with the studies' recommendation con-
cerning the necessity of upgrading the existing 2S-kV
line serving Seward to a higher voltage level .
. The studies' findings as to the routing of such a line
along the Seward Highway as being the only possible
alternative is unsupported and Chugach cannot support
this conclusion.
-
I .
,
Alaska Power Authority -2-April 14, 1983
If we assume the Grant Lake Project is not constructed,
the recommended plan for providing improved electric
service to Seward, as outlined in the 1982 Chugach System
Planning Study, is to construct a 69-kV transmission line
from Cooper Lake to Seward. A portion of this line would
make use of the existing 69-kV line which is presently
being operated at 2S kV. This alternative is substan-
tially less expensive (although more environmentally
. ,-sensitive) than the llS-kV line proposed in the Grant
Lake Study.
This alternative should, however, be included in the Grant
Lake Feasibility Study to provide an additional basis for
comparison of the economic feasibility of the Grant Lake
Project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Study.
Very truly yours,
~t .
Ted-l!llman, P.E.
Director of Engineering
and Operations
FB/kmn
INC.
. .. ...
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Er
MEMORANDUM
437 WE" Street/Suite 200
TO. Er ic P. Yould, APA
Attention Eric Marchegiani
Fl'''''' Bob Mar arv1 E. RegiOna~~p~visor
State of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska 99SUl
A~CEIVED
DATE: Apr i 1 20, 1 9 82' ~ ~
APR 201983 FILE NO:
TELEPHONE NO: 274-2533 ALASKA POWER AUTftORITY
SU~ECT:Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Feasibility Study
February ]983
In reviewing the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
February 1983, it would appear that the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation comments of June 9, 1982, have for
the most part, been resolved. It would appear that turbidity/bed
scour and temperature changes are within control limits. However,
we still defer to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game regarding
both temperature csanges and dewatering of Grant Creek.
Assuming the project proceeds to licensing and construction,
activities associated with construction, are subject to DEC
permitting stipulations to meet statutory and regulatory require-
ments. The attached list represents a brief summary of affected
activities and relevant requirements. A permitting strategy
should be established to minimize problems and expedite field
coordination review. The type and degree of information re-
quired for the respective permits/certifications can be agreed
upon prior to project construction. It may be possible to
handle some classes of act±vity under a consolidated project
approval. Compliance with the Alaska Water Quality Criteria will
be the most difficult to achieve, requiring that an erosion-
sedimentation control plan be developed early on. It may be
necessary to obtain a short-term variance for certain construction
phases, which cause the water quality to be exceeded.
Other areas of concern are spoil and solid waste disposal,domestic
wastewater disposal, water supply, food services, open burning,
dust control, equipment fueling/fuel storage, and air emissions-
wastewater discharge from material processing. If questions
arise, you may contact Bob Cannone, Kenai District Engineer,
Soldotna or myself. We would anticipate very careful coordination
at such time as the project proceeds to a construction stage.
DW/BM/jfr
Attachment
cc: Commissioner Richard A. Nev~, ADEC
Lance Trasky, Fish & Game
Bob Cannone, ADEC/Kenai
-
-
-
-
-
'.'
ADEC REQUIREMENTS FO~ VARIOUS TYPES OF
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY
Discharge of domestic wastewater
Water supply
Dewatering operations
Hydrostatic test discharge
Silty water discharges
Gravel washing operations
Aggregate drier
Settling ponds or lagoons
Food services
Operation of solid waste disposal
facility: landfill, transfer station,
recycling facility
Spoil and overburden disposal
Surface oiling
Stream and wetland crossings
Placement of dredge or fill in
wetlands
Operation of incinerator greater
than 1,000 II/hr.
'Open burning resulting in black
srnoi<e
.'
DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT
Plan approval prior to construction and
waste disposal. permit
Plan approval prior to construction and
certificate to operate ...
Waste disposal permit or certificate of
reasonable assurance, ahort-term variance
Waste disposal permit
Air permit to oper~te
Plan approval and waste disposal permit
Food service permit, plan approval of
new facilities
Solid waste management permit
Solid waste management permit
Surface oiling permit
Short-term variance, certificate of
reasonable assurance
Short-term variance, certificate of
reasonable assurance
Air permit to operate
Written approval
· G Un"ed S'a,e, 'J Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Chugach
National
Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 238
Anchorage, AK 99508 (907) 279-5541
r
L
Mr. Eric Marchegiani
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Marchegiani,
ReeE/VEQ
M,4Y 111983
AlAsKA POWE.R AUTHORIT't
Aep4y 102770
OateMa/ 13, 1983
Enclosed are some concerns expressed by the District Ranger at Seward
regarding the Grant Lake Project. I share those concerns and pass them
along to you for consideration in the pending report. You may include
the memo from Ranger Wilson in the report if you wish.
The Chugach is in support of the concept of developing power resources
for the communities on the Kenai, peninsula. We appreciate the courtesy
and cooperation of your agency and will remain involved in the continuing
studies for the Grant Lake project.
Sincerely,
fp I DALTON Du LAC
Forest Supervisor
Enclosure
.,
1
~1118-M1
,.
.,
..,.
....
in
.,
", ..
II!!
.,
",'
.,
JDIy 10 2750 Easements
Forest
Service
u!>,eel Grant "ake Feasibility Analysis
Chugach National
Forest
I· I,
TO Forest Supervisor ':'" Chugach National Forest
'-C~>e,iQ rd '~Lv
Seward Ranger
District
Dale April 4, 1983
I've reviewed the Grant Lake Feasibility Analysis and agree with the conclusion
that "The environmental impacts associated with the development of the Grant
Lake Project are generally insignificant."
There are aspects of the proposal that will impact National Forest land. They
include:
Transmission Line Upgrading: The proposal is to upgrade the transmission line
to 115 KV and relocate portions to the highway right-of-way. My concern is
that considerable care from a visual standpoint went into the original location.
I believe these concerns are still valid and any relocation proposals be
reviewed with visuals as a primary concern. Upgrading the line within the
existing transmission corridor is the more acceptable alternative.
There may be a misunderstanding in the Alaska Power Authorities assumptionsi
dealing with relocation of the 'transmission line. I infer from their
discussion that they believe relocation to within the highway right-of-way
only requires state D.O.T. approval. On National Forest land the state
has an easement only for highway purposes. Any other land uses located within
the easament area must have Forest Service approval. This should be clarified
for Alaska Power Authorities.
Mitigation: There are provisions for mitigation of the loss of fish habitat.
Our position has been to support that of the ADF&G. I believe the proposal
is consistent with their concerns though a double check would be appropriate.
The boat access and small day use recreation area proposed at the south end
of Grant Lake was our proposal. I agree with the concept and recommend that
the deed to that site remain open for public use at all times.
One element that would greatly enhance the acceptability of this project
would be the development of sportfishing. The report mentions the possibility
of introducing Rainbow Trout into Grant Lake. I support that concept.
Access: The view towards Grant Lake from the Seward Highway is beautiful.
Great care should be taken to minimize the impact of the transmission corridor
and road access on this view.
Forest Supervisor -Chugach National Forest 2
Stetson Creek: While the Steteson Creek diversion to Cooper Lake appears
feasi~e it is not part of the current proposal. Should this~situation
change then more information in terms of access and stream d~tering impacts
is needed to properly evaluate the proposal.
Q~'vl{t.,~~ ~EOF GILSON
District Ranger
-•
...
-
WI
",,-..
CITY OF SEWARD
Eric Yould
~.".! V
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. ~
PO BOX 167
SEWARD. ALASKA 99664
Cit)· Manager
City Clerk
Finance
Police
Harbor
Utility/Information
April 29, 1983
224-5214
224-5213
224-5216
224-5201
224-3420
224-5215
My Staff and I have reviewed a copy of the draft feasibility study of
the Grant Lake Project and wish to commend those involved in this project
for their excellent presentation.
The City of Seward endorses the concept of developing hydroelectric
projects on the Kenai Peninsula insofar as the initial costs for power
are in line with prices for power generated by gas. Therefore the com-
munity is desirous of decisions being reached with regard to Grant Lake
and Bradley Lake projects as soon as possible. The uncertainty of power
availability in the Seward region remains the major impediment to the
area's opportunity for balanced economic development.
I hasten to add, that the question of power availability to the Seward
area is not solely one of relatively inexpensive power generation, but
is also currently one of inadequate transmission capacity. At the present
time the City is providing power to approximately 2400 area residents
and the existing Daves Creek-Seward transmission is inadequate for
existing loads. Therefore, we endorse your recommendation that "a new
-11SKV transmission line generally routed along the Seward-Anchorage
Highway be-constructed as soon as possible ••• ".
I would also like to apprise you of our perception that the growth rates
suggested for Seward and its environs appear to be inadequate with current
acti vi ties underway at the present time. The State of Alaska and the
City will have invested approximately $40 million in the Marine Industrial
Park by the end of this year and anticipate industrial activity to
commence in the summer of '84. In addition, industrial interests related
to our port's role in mineral development will require substantial power
if the coal export proposal by SunEel is to take place in a timely manner.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your fine report.
S~lY'
Ronald A. Garzini
City Manager
cc:Eric Marchegiani
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau. Alaska 99802
MI'. Eric Marche9iani
Project Manager
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
May 6, 1983
We apologize for being late with our comments on the Grant Lake feasibil-
ity report. Our review of the report did not result in any significant
comments. The report appears to be comprehensive and we agree with the
conclusions.
One suggestion for future consideration is an economic conductor size
study in addition to the technical one presented. Since system losses
are fairly significant, a cost of losses versus cost of conductor may
very well result in the requirement for a larger size conductor.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
g~/d
~Robert J. Cross I Administrator
-
-
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
To:Eric Y9uld, Executive Director DATE: Hay 6, 1983 -9I2O f:
Alaska Power Authority'., I v
THRU: ,~. 231 44 "4rQ ~o
-.Gordon Harrison, Associate Director -,..,s ~ ~'ti -I
Ilivision of Strategic Planning TELEPHO 0: 465-3573 -.POJ~~ '~8J
,.......... -1(;'4;-
FRoM:George Mat~Senior Analyst SUBJECT: Grant Lake Project VJ9/~
Office of Management and Budget Feasibility Study
Division of Strategic Planning
Thank you for providing the Office of Management and Budget,
Division of Strategic Planning with an opportunity to comment on
the draft version of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed
Feasibility Analysis.
The purpose of this memo is to provide preliminary comments on the
economic and finance sections of the feasibility study. A formal
review, as required by AS.44.83.l83, will be initiated when the
feasibility study is finalized and the Alaska Power Authority
(APA) completes a letter of findings and recommendations.
The load forecast (Table 2-3) includes only two years of historical
data. It would be useful to include at least five years of
historical -data so that the load forecast can be compared to recent
trends. Also, the low, medium, and high growth rat~s should be
included with Table 2-3. Since the energy generated by the Grant
Lake Project is expected to be fully utilized when it becomes
operational, the load forecast is not a sensitive parameter in the
economic analysis.
The feasibility study evaluated three alternatives for providing
Seward with electric power. Each of these options iucludE.3 a
115 kV transmission line from Daves Creek to Seward. The options
are:
1. Base Case Plan. With this alternative, Seward continues
to purchase electric power from Chugach Electric.
Gas-fired combustion turbines are used for electric
generation with combined-cycle units being installed
when new capacity is needed.
2. Grant Lake Project. The 7 MW Grant Lake project is
used as the principal source of energy and capacity for
Seward. Gas-fired turbines (Chugach Electric) are used
to meet that portion of the load which exceeds the energy
and capacity of the Grant Lake Project.
/
Eric Yould - 2 -May 6, 1983
Grant Lake Project and Bradley Lake Project. This
alternative is similar to alternative #2 e~cept that the
Bradley Lake Project .provides 10,460 MWh of energy and
4 MW of capacity to meet that portion of the load which
exceeds the energy and capacity of the Grant Lake
Project. Seward's allocation of the Bradley Lake Project
is based on its proportionate share of the Anchorage area
and Kenai Peninsula load.
The feasibility study does not directly compare the economic
feasibili ty of the Grant Lake Project to. proposed regional
projects such as the Bradley Lake Project or the Susitna Project.
This comparison is necessary because the economic justification
for a local project such as Grant Lake may be supplanted by the
development of a regional project. A direct comparison may be
difficult since the design of both the Bradley Lake and Susitna
Projects are in a state of flux, but some reasonable assumptions
can be made. For example, Grant Lake Project could be compared
to:
1.
2.
A 60 MW version of the Bradley Lake Project which
provides electric energy to only the Kenai Peninsula.
Nearly all of Seward's electric energy would be provided
by the Bradley Lake Project.
A 135 MW version of the Bradley Lake Project which
provides electric energy to the Kenai Peninsula and the
Anchorage area. Since the Bradley Lake Project is not
-
....
large enough to meet, by itself, all of the Kenai/Anchorage .. ,
demand, generation by gas-fired combustion turbines is
3.
also needed. The economic analysis of this alternative
should be based on Seward's portion ~f overall system
costs (i.e., Bradley Lake Project and combustion
turbines) rather than just the Bradley Lake Project.
A 1620 MW version of the Susitna Project which provides
nearly all of the energy and capacity required by
Seward.
The feasibility study states (p. 3-4) that "in all three plans,
reserve requirements are met by simple cycle units from 1983
through 1987 and from 1988 on, reserves are met with new combined
cycle units." It is not clear why simple cycle or combined cycle
gas turbines are being used for reserve capacity. The gas turbines.
are some distance from Seward and provide no reserve during
transmission line failure. It may be more reasonable to use
Seward's existing diesel generators for reserve capacity. The use
of either gas turbines or diesel generators for reserve capacity
will not affect the economic analysis since reserve costs are
applied equally to each alternative.
CSPLAN / GM231 / 5-3-83 / 2
-
Eric Yould - 3 -Hay 6, 1983
The feasibility study applies a 5 percent capacity value
adjustment lito the at-market cost of capacity from the combustion
_turbine facility. II .Federal agencies apply a capac~ty value
4djustment factor to their economic analysis of power projects
but the State of Alaska procedures do not. Should this factor be
included in the final version of the feasibility study? If so,
explain why.
The feasibility study states (p. 19-1) that "interest during
construction (IDC) has not been included since current Power
Authority procedures call for inclusion of IDC only in the
nominal cost of the project which is utilized in the plan of
finance. " This sta-tement is not consistent wi th the statutes
(AS 44.83.181(b) (2» or previous APA feasibility studies. Real
interest during construction should be included in the economic
analysis of the Grant Lake Project.
Another factor which was not considered in the economic analysis
was the real escalation rate for capital costs. Material
previously presented by the APA indicates that capital costs are
now increasing at a rate less than general inflation. This could
have a favorable impact on the economics of the Grant Lake Project
and should be included in the analysis.
The natural gas base price was calculated two ways: 1) a marginal
price and 2) a melded price. Preference is given to the marginal
price in the economic analysis. The marginal price assumes that
the price of natural gas used by Chugach Electric to provide power
to Seward is equivalent to the price of new Cook Inlet natural gas
contracts (i.e., Enstar). This approach do~s not include any
natural gas at older contract prices which are considerably less
but of limited availability. Tpe melded price combines the older
contract prices with the recent Enstar contract price using the
cheaper gas first to the extent of its availability. .
If Seward represented a new demand on Cook Inlet natural gas,
there would be some rationale for using a marginal price in the
economic analysis. However, Seward is an existing demand.
Therefore, the melded price seems to be appropriate for use in
the economic analysis.
Apparently, Chugach Electric provides power to Seward on an
interruptable rather than firm basis. The possibility of
interruption has been mentioned as a reason for using the marginal
price approach. However, this seems to be a separate issue. If
Seward's power can be interrupted, wouldn't it be more accurate
to determine its price for electricity based on the use of diesel
generators rather than a different contract price for natural gas?
2 --8 3
Eric Yould - 4 -May 6, 1983
-Although there is some basis for using the recent Enstar contract
price as the price that Chugach Electric Will pay for additional
~upplies of natural gas, it appears as if Chugach Electric expects
~ pay a lower price. How much lower is difficult to forecast at
this time but the possibility presents a good reason to analyze
the sensitivity of the base price.
The Division of Strategic Planning has attempted to evaluate the
impact of the recent Enstar contract on the price of Cook Inlet
natural gas that is used for electric gener~tion (see attachment>.
The approach used is similar to Appendix I-I but there appears to
be some minor differences. It may be beneficial to reconcile
these differences before finalizing the feasibility study.
The feasibility study calculates the levelized cost of power.
While this presents a useful cross check of the economic
analysis, it may be more useful to provide the annual wholesale
cost of power in nominal terms. The value of this exercise is to
assess whether or not there may be a significant difference in
the annual wholesale cost of power between the Grant Lake project
and the base case during the initial years of the analysis. A
significant difference could alter the load forecast and the plan
of finance.
The feasibility study gives detailed consideration to the
environmental impacts of the Grant Lake Project, the mitigation
plans, and the cost of mitigation. It appears as if environmental
dis-economies are internalized. The response to these mitigation
plans by resource agencies will be of interest in the formal
review.
G~nerally speaking, the feasibility study provides a comprehensive
analysis of the Grant Lake Project. Although the procedures used
in the economic analysis deviate slightly from the procedures which
have been established, it should not be difficult to make
corrections. Some corrections will reduce the economic feasibility
of Grant Lake Project while other corrections should enhance its
feasibility. These corrections are relatively minor but,
considering the marginal economic feasibility of the project, it
could make a significant difference in the final analysis.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft
version of the feasibility analysis.
cfc
Attachments
cc: Peter B. McDowell, Director
OHB Associate Director's
Kevin Bruce, Governor's Special Assistant
Eric Marhegiani, Alaska Power Authority
...
...
-
J
l1li" I
J
J
J
]
U. S. E N V I RON MEN TAL PRO TEe T , 0 NAG ENe Y
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
aEl'l..t.ro
ATTN'I)F: MIS 443
MA':' 8 1983
Eric A. Marchegiani. Project Manager
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
RE: Draft Feasibility Study
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
.. )
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed your Feasibility
and Environmental Analysis. The water quality issues of concern to EPA
have been adequately addressed in the report. We look forward to re-
viewing the License Application when it ;s completed.
Thank you for providing us with -the opportunity to review the report.
Sincerely,
r2 fc: \O"L'~~--~
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Evaluation Branch
PART IX: AQUATIC SURVEYS METHODOLOGY
Figure IX-1 and IX-2 show 1981-1982 aquatic sampling station locations
in the study area, while Table IX-1 summarizes the sampling schedules
followed in the aquatic resources field program (AEIDC 1982).
AQUATIC MACROPHYTES
Aquatic macrophytes (attached aquatic plants) were collected
incidentally during other studies in the summer of 1982 from selected
areas along the Grant Lake shoreline. The samples were identified to
the lowest taxonomic level.
PHYTOPLANKTON AND PERIPHYTON
Phytoplankton algae (suspended in the water column) from each of Grant
Lake's basins were collected at one surface location by grab sample and
at one 50 meter (m) (164 ft) depth in each basin with a 1.2-1iter
Kemmerer bottle. The 1-litersamp1es were composited and mixed from
both basins and depths. A 1-liter aliquot was removed from the
composite of all samples and preserved in 10 percent ethyl alcohol.
Samples were then fixed with Lugo1's solution and allowed to settle 48
hours; samples were then concentrated to 1.5 ml. This volume was
agitated and at least one subsamp1e taken for each wet mount and dry
mount. Wet mount counts were made at 320x with all cells counted and
identified to genus except diatoms. A dry mount count was made at
1000x to count and identify only diatoms to genus. At least 300 cells
were counted in both wet and dry mounts. The results were reported as
number of algal cells per liter.
Periphyton (attached algae) were not collected in October 1981, but
were collected from Grant Creek in 1982 by scrubbing stream bottom
surfaces (logs, cobbles, etc.) into bottles and preserving in 10
percent ethyl alcohol. Periphyton samples were vigorously mixed and at
least one subsample taken for wet mount and one for dry mount counts.
46llA
IX-l
.....
><
I
'"
LOWER
TRAIL
LAKE
GORGE
NOTE: FOR EXPLANATION OF NUMERALS SEE
TABLE lX-I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AQUATIC RES()JRCES SAMPLING
STATIONS FOR GRANT LAKE
AN 0 GRANT CR E EK
,11: I
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
P-<
><
I
W
SEWARD
ANCHORAGE
HIGHWAY
PLACER MINE AREAS
NOTE: FOR EXPLANATION OF NUMERALS SEE
TABLE IX-I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AQUATIC RE SOURCES SAMPLING
STATIONS FOR FALLS CREEK
E8ASeO SERVICEIINCORPORATED
........
><
I
+::>
TABLE IX-1
AQUATIC RESOURCES FIELD SAMPLING SCHEDULE fAEIDC 1982)
Water Body
Tributary to
Grant Lake
Grant Lake
Station
'l!,/
Parameter
Fish
Fish
Fish
Gear Technique
BW Overnight baited set
A One floating and one sinking gill net/s tati on,
overnight set
B Overnight baited set Grant Lake
Grant Lake
Grant Lake
Grant Lake
Grant Lake
2
3
4
5
6
Zooplank ton C Integrated vertical (1 m/sec) 50 m to surface tow
Grant Creek
Grant Creek
Grant Creek
Grant Creek
Falls Creek
Fall s Creek
fall s Creek
7
8
9
10
11
11,12,13
14
Phytoplankton
Benthos
MacrOPhYte
Benthos
Fish
Fish
Periphyton
Benthos
Fish
fish
0
E
J
F
G,H
B
I
F
H
B
!I See Figures IX-1 and IX-2 for sampling locations •
~/ Gear types:
A. Variable mesh gill net.
Composite (midwater, surface)
Grab sample
Hand collection
Surber sample
In situ samp1 i ng
n¥ernfght baited set
Composite sample (3 sitesl
Surber samp1 e
In situ sampling
n¥ernfght baited set
B. Minnow trap, anchored in littoral and stram areas, floated under a buoy in pelagic areas.
C. 153 micron mesh, Mitex, 30 em plankton net.
O. 1 liter a1iquots placed in 12 liter container and subsampled.
E. 15 em x 15 em Ekman dredge; samples washed through 500 micron mesh sieve.
f. 25 em Surber sampler (multiple locations sampled that encompass cross section of stream).
G. Backpack e1ectroshocker.
H. Angling, visual observation (combination of techniques).
I. Composite sample from three sites; substrates (submerged stones, sticks) were scrubbed into 1 liter containers.
J. Hand picked, also observed in areas not shown on map.
£/ F = fall 1981, W = winter 1982, Sp = spring 1982; S summer 1982.
!!I A number of samples were collected from each water body as per Figures IX-1 and IX-2.
!/ Two samples were taken at closely spaced intervals at each station and composited.
4611 A
Samp1 ing Sampling
Intensity Seasons
F.Sp.S£/
1 series!!/ f.Sp.S.
1 series!!! f.Sp.S composite~/ F.W.Sp.S
1 series F.W.Sp.S composit~ F.W.Sp.S
1 series S
serie~f F.W.Sp.S
serfe~ f.W.Sp.S
serie!i f.W.Sp.S
series:d W.Sp.S
series F.W.Sp.S
series F.W.Sp.S
series F.W.Sp.S
At least 300 cells were counted for both wet and dry mount counts.
Counts and identifications were made in the same manner as
phytoplankton and results reported are relative abundance of each genus.
ZOOPLANKTON
Zooplankton (small water animals) were collected from each lake basin
by making duplicate vertical tows from a 50 m depth (164 ft) to the
surface using a 153 micrometer (urn) (.060 in) nylon net 30 centimeters
(cm) (1 ft) in dimater and 1 m long. Zooplankton were preserved in 70
percent ethyl alcohol. Organisms were counted using a Sedgewick-Rafter
counting cell and identified to lowest taxonomic level {taxon) and
counts reported as number of organisms in each taxon per cubic meter.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
Benthic macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects, worms, clams, etc.)
inhabiting Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek were sampled with a
6 in (15 cm) Ekman grab (Grant Lake) and a 12 in (30 cm) Surber sampler
(creeks). Lake and stream samples were sieved through a screen having
a mesh size of 30 openings per inch (12 openings/cm). Organisms were
preserved in 70 percent alcohol, labelled and stored in bottles,
identified to the lowest possible taxon, and reported by taxonomic
group as numbers per square meter.
FISH
Sampling of fish in Grant Lake was conducted using the following
methods.
Two gill nets (each 125 ft [38 m] long, variable mesh, containing five
25 ft [7.5 mJ panels varying in size from 0.5 in [1.3 cm] to 2.5 in
[6.4 cm] bar measurement), one floating at the surface and one anchored
on the bottom, were set overnight at each station (one station per
46l1A
IX-5
-
-
-
•
-
season) (Table IX-1, Figure IX-1). In addition, minnow traps baited
with salmon eggs (12 traps per season) were set overnight at the
station shown in Figure IX-1 with some anchored in the littoral area
and others floated under buoys in the pelagiC zone.
Rearing and spawning habitat of fish in Grant and Falls creeks were
also studied. Minnow traps, baited with salmon eggs, were placed
overnight at various locations in the streams (Figures IX-l and IX-2)
and sampled during each season (Table IX-l). In conjunction, angling
surveys and visual observations of habitat quality were made during
these surveys in each creek. Spawning surveys were conducted during
October 1981 and in August-September 1982 in these creeks. A block and
removal methodology (Zippin 1958) using a backpack electroshocker was
used to attempt a quantitative assessment of the fish populations in
Grant Creek in May 1982. This methodology was not used in Falls Creek
due to high water conditions and the lower numbers of fish observed
using other methods.
4611A
IX-6
; I
PART X
FISHERIES MITIGATION
PLAN DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX
FISHERIES MITIGATION PLAN DOCUMENTS
1. LETTER REPORT, EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS FOR THE GRANT LAKE
PROJECT AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
2. ADDENDUM TO LETTER REPORT (1 ABOVE) APPROACHES TO MITIGATING
POTENTIAL FISH LOSSES IN GRANT CREEK
3. MINUTES OF ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY MEETING ON THE GRANT LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 9 JULY 1982
4. PLANNING DOCUMENT NO.2: FISHERIES MITIGATION FOR PROPOSED GRANT.
LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 17 AUGUST 1982
5. MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATON
PLANNING MEETING 17 AUGUST 1982
6. MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATION
PLANNING MEETING 15 SEPTEMBER 1982
7. PLANNING DOCUMENT NO.3: FISHERIES MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES. GRANT
LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
8. MINUTES OF GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH MITIGATION
PLANNING MEETING 10 NOVEMBER 1982
9. MEMO -R. CARDWELL DISCUSSION WTH PHIL P. BRNA t ALASKA DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAMEt 3 DECEMBER 1982
LETTER REPORT
EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS FOR THE GRANT LAKE PROJECT
AN IOENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
PREPARED BY
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
FOR
THE ALASKA POwER AUTHORITY
JULY 2, 1982
EVALUATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS FOR THE GRANT LAKE PROJECT
AN IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
INTRUDUCT ION
This report addresses the effect on the cost of power from the Grant
Lake ~droelectric Project from implementation of various alternatives
for the preservation and/or enhancement of fishery resources at the
project site. This report has been prepared in response to specific
comments provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service.
The evaluation assumed that the most desirable alternative is to
maintain and possibly enhance existing fishery resources in Grant
Creek. Reliance upon other mitigative measures (e.g., spawning
channel) to sustain Grant Creek salmon stocks was considered less
desirable from the resource management standpoint. On this basis, the
two principal options considered in the report are:
Option l} Maintenance of salmon stocks by providing a sufficient
volume of flow in Grant Creek to meet instream flow
requirements using Project configuration Alternative F.
Option 2) Maintenance of salmon stocks by shifting the powerhouse
location to Grant Creek, with powerhouse discharges being
scheduled such that the released water would maintain at
least instream flow requirements in Grant Creek.
Other mitigative measures considered were spawning channels and
artificial propagation. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has
indicated its intention to plant sockeye fry into Grant Lake to
appraise its potential as a fish rearing facility. Measures
potentially providing safe egress to sockeye smolts were also
identified.
1
-
-
The analyses presented herein are intended to serve as a basis for
discussion with the concerned agencies in an attempt to arrive at a
cost effective and environmentally sound solution to the problem of
project impacts on the existing fishery resource.
DERIVATION OF ESTIMATED INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS
To estimate instream flow requirements for Grant Creek to be used for
the analyses discussed herein, the method described by Tennant (1976)
was used. This method, commonly referred to as the "Montana Method,"
is based on average stream flows developed from U.S.G.S. records. To
estimate instream flow needs for a given habitat, the average flow
during a certain period of the year is multiplied by a percentage that
depends on the habitat classification. Table 1 presents the habitat
classifications and the percentage of average flow for each
classification.
Tennant's method divides the year into low and high water periods and
applies the percentages as shown. For estimating stream flow
requirements for Grant Creek, a habitat classification of "good" was
used. Streamflow records that were used to generate average flows were
those presented by Ebasco (1982) in the Interim Report (Table 5-1 in
Interim Report)for the Grant Lake MYdroe1ectric Project (Table 2).
These values were based on U.S.G.S. records and the HEC-4 monthly
streamflow simulation model. The high and low flow periods were
modified from those suggested by Tennant to account for the specific
high and low flow patterns of Grant Creek. Therefore, the periods of
application for Grant Creek were November through April (low flow) and
May through October (high flow). The calculations for stream flow
requirements were as follows:
2
High Flow Period Low Flow Period
May
June
July
August
September
October
Total
Overa 11 Ave
Flow Requirement
(2m; of
overall
average)
Ave. Flow
168 cfs
447
504
414
196
188
1917
319.5
= 64 cfs
November
December
January
February
March
Apri 1
Tota 1
Overa 11
(4m; of
overa 11
average)
Ave.
Ave. Flow
106 cfs
56
41
34
27
35
299
49.8
= 20 cfs
Frequently, an overall percentage is applied to average annual flow.
At 30 percent, described by Tennant as good survival habitat, the value
for streamflow requirements would be:
Ave. Annual Flow x .3 = Instream Flow Requirement
or
184.7 cfs x .3 = 55.4 cfs
This, then, would be the value needed to sustain good habitat
throughout the year on an overall average flow basis. It is recognized
that Tennant's method is an office technique that provides only an
approximation of instream flow requirements; however, the results
obtained by this method are considered adequate for the purposes of
this stuay.
3
..
•
EFFECT OF PROVIDING MINIMUM STREAMFLOW REQUIREMENTS ON COST OF ENERGY
(OPTION l)
The computer program described in Chapter 6 of the Grant Lake
~droelectric Project Interim Report (Ebasco 1982), which models
project operation on a monthly basis, was used to analyze power
production from two operational schemes to maintain a range of instream
flows. A range of minimum flows between 0 and 100 cfs was examined to
bracket those flows identified above as reasonable estimates of
instream flow requirements. Alternative F, the lake tap alternative
including diversion of Falls Creek, was selected for this analysis
because it appears to represent the best use of the water resource,
regardless of whether minimum streamflow releases are part of project
operation. Since the elevation of the Grant Lake outlet is higher than
the water surface elevation for Alternative F, the instream flow
releases must be either pumped over the outlet.
The first operation scheme (Option lA) would release the amount of
streamflow, defined using Tennant's (1976) method, while at the same
time operating the reservoir for Alternative F as described in the
Interim Report (i.e, reservoir flucturates between El 690 and El 660).
During those months when the reservoir is drawn down to the minimum
level of El 660, it was assumed that only the natural inflow into Grant
Lake (below the specified streamflow release) would be available for
instream flow releases. Consequently, instream flows could fall as low
as the historical lows (Table 2). Once natural inflow again equalled
or exceeded the designated instream flow, the designated instream flow
would resume. Use of the natural inflow greater than the instream flow
requirements would then be resumed for power production. The surplus
flow beyond that required to produce the energy demand would refill the
reservoir.
4
The .second operation scheme (Option lB) differs from Option lA in that
the designated minimum streamflow is almost always provided, regardless
of the reservoir level or the magnitude of natural inflow. This is
accomplished by drawing the reservoir down below El 660 during dry
years. As soon as the previous month's end of the month reservoir
surface elevation falls below El 660, no further power generation is
permitted. The water between reservoir surface elevation and elevation
650 feet, measured at the end of the month, is used to provide winter
and early spring instream flows. For the 33 years of monthly inflow
data this operating strategy satisfies all instream flow levels
investigated except for the 100 cfs level during the very dry years
when the reservoir is drawn all the way down to elevation 650 feet. At
that point the system behaves like Option 1A except at a lower level.
However, the 100 cfs level of instream flow represents an extreme upper
limit and is not considered a viable alternative.
Both operation schemes, of course, reduce the potential average annual
energy from the project, with the second scheme reducing it slightly
further than the first. Determination of the effect on project
economics is a fairly simple procedure once the power operation studies
have been completed. The annual cost in dollars is obtained from the
Interim Report for Alternative F, the base case in this analysis. The
cost of pumping is added to the annual cost of the base case. This sum
is then divided by the reduced average annual energy generation
resulting from the provison of instream flows to yield the annual cost
in mills per kilowatt-hour. Table 3 summarizes the results of this
analysis.
These alternatives result in increasing the project costs over a range
of 9.5 to 108 percent. Figure 1 shows the cost of energy plotted
against the minimum streamflow for Option lB.
In commenting on the Interim Report, ADF&G noted that a sensitivity
analysis on the effect of a change in storage had little effect on the
energy production. This analysis (Pg. 6-2) showed that reductions of
5
-
25 and 50 percent of the storage volume resulted in reduction of 2 and
5 percent respectively in energy output. ADF&G inferred from this
analysis that water may be available to provide flows for maintenance
of the fishery resource in Grant Creek. This possibility is a
misconception since all water flowing into the Grant Lake basin was
utilized in the model for production of power except for the infrequent
occurrence of inflows in excess of the turbine hydraulic capacity at
those times when the reservoir is full. Such flows (in excess of
turbine capacity) would be spilled down the existing Grant Creek
cnanne 1.
The analysis to which ADF&G referred showed only the effect on energy
production of a change in storage capacity as that change in storage
affected the amount of water spilled and therefore unavailable for
power generation. The result was a very minor change (2 to 5 percent)
in the amount of water spilled. The appropriate conclusion to be drawn
from the quoted analysis is that the proposed lake level fluctuation
(i.e., storage volume) on which the power studies were based are
sufficient to generate essentially all of the energy available from the
inflow to the Grant Lake basin. The power production analysis in the
Interim Report utilized all of the inflow to Grant Lake for energy
production except that which is unavoidably spilled down the existing
Grant Creek channel.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHIFTING POWERHOUSE LOCATION TO GRANT CREEK
(OPTlUN 2)
A study was performed of the feasibility of locating the powerhouse at
a site on Grant Creek such that the releases from the powerhouse would
maintain the stretch of Grant Creek which was judged to contain the
most valuable fishery habitat. Based on field observations made to
date, it was estimated that locating the powerhouse approximately
1900 feet upstream of Grant Creek1s outlet would result in preservation
of the most productive reach of the stream.
6
Siting the powerhouse at this location on Grant Creek reduces the
available gross head by 30 feet because the tailwater elevation is at
approximately El 500 (versus El 470 if the powerhouse is located on
Upper Trail Lake). Two alternatives for location of the powerhouse at
this site were studied. Both alternatives include the Falls Creek
diversion. The first is a modified version of Alternative F and is
referred to herein as Alternative G. Approximately 1,000 feet from the
lake tap along the existing alignment of alternative 0 the tunnel
alignment would shift to a southwesterly course and terminate 2,600
feet downstream of the tunnel bend. An 1,100 foot steel penstock would
carry the water to the powerhouse.
The second alternative is a modification of Alternative C and referred
herein as Alternative H. The power conduit for this alternative would
follow the alignment of Alternative C to the surge tank. At that point
the alignment would become more southerly and proceed 1,400 feet to a
powerhouse located at E1 500 on Grant Creek.
The costs shown in Table 4 were estimated using unit costs developed in
the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Report. Alternative F is
included in the table for comparison purposes. As shown in Table 4,
the cost of energy increases 33% in the case of Alternative G and 34%
in the case of Alternative H.
7
-
-
.'
-
.,
"" -...
ALTERNATIVES FOR FISHERY MITIGATION
Several alternatives were identified for sustaining production of
salmon that would be unable to spawn in Grant Creek should it be
dewatered.
These are listed as follows:
o Construction of spawning channel in tailrace area of
Alternative F.
o Construction of egg incubation channel in tailrace of
Alternative F.
o Construction of egg inCUbation boxes.
o Hatchery with egg taking and limited rearing (similar to ADF&G
Tra i 1 Lake hatchery).
o Hatchery with egg taki"ng and extended reari ng.
o Provision and maintenance of fishery habitat on another stream.
Getting SOCkeye smolts out of Grant Lake will prove to be a major
problem toward insuring that this ADF&G enhancement project is
successful. Even with minimum streamflow releases to Grant Creek, the
smolts may go through the turbine because smolts (and adults) migrate
along or in areas of greatest current. Many of the potential methods
will need testing and likely modification because none work well
conSistently. Because deSign and installation of screening or
diversion systems will be extremely expensive and dependent upon the
unique behavior of the actual stock living in the lake, studies need to
be performed beforehand that define fry to smolt survival, timing of
seaward migration, and vertical and spatial lake distribution.
8
Potential methods of allowing safe egress of sockeye smolts from Grant
Lake include:
o Minimum streamflow release via Grant Creek
o Screening Intake -Inclined Screen
o Screening Intake -Traveling Screen
o Artificial attractant flows
o Louvers
To provide an indication of the magnitude of cost associated with a
potential mitigative measure, a conceptual-level cost estimate was
developed for the spawning channel below the powerhouse for Alternative
F. The dimensions and characteristics of the spawning channel were
estimated from existing literature. The physical dimensions, shown on
Table 5, were estimated conservatively (generously) in an attempt to
represent the upper range of cost that would be associated with the
mitigative measure. The conceptual-level construction cost estimate
for this spawning channel is aproximately $700,000. The resulting
affect on the cost of energy from the project with the spawning channel
included is shown on Table 6. Although the spawning channel may not be
the most acceptable mitigation alternative,it was presented here to
illustrate the effect to the cost of power due to a mitigation effort.
It should be noted that the increase in cost of power resulting from
inclusion of a spawning channel (less than 4 percent) is substantially
less than that associated with providing the estimated instream flow
requirements in Grant Creek.
Summary
Table 7 summarizes the impacts on the cost of power for the viable
alternatives studied herein. It wll be noted that instream flows of a
reasonable magnitude as defined by the criteria on which this study was
9
-
-
-
-
flo
-
..
based resulted in an increase in the cost of power from the project of
more than 30 percent with minor variations depending on the operating
parameters. The relocation of the powerhouse on Grant Creek results in
an increase in the cost of power of 33 to 34 percent which is the same
order of magnitude as occurred with the instream flow releases. In
comparison with these impacts the effect of the cost of a spawning
channel is approximately 3.5 percent or one tenth that of any of the
other alternatives studied. It is our opinion that the increases to
the cost of power associated with providing instream flow releases in
Grant Creek are significant enough to merit utilization of some
alternative means of mitigation.
10
TABLE 1
INSTREAM FLOW REGIMENS FOR FISH, WILDLIFE,
RECREATION, AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Habitat Classifications
Optimum Range
Outstanding
Exce llent
Good
Fair or Degrading
Poor or Minimum
Severe Degradation
Recommended Base Flow Regimens
Oct.-Mar. Apr.-Sept.
60%-100% of the average Flow
40% 60%
30% 50%
20%
10%
10%
40%
30%
10%
10% of average flow to zero flow
-
''l.''
TA! 2
MONTHLY INFLOWS FOR GRANT LAKE (cfs)
Water
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Average
1948* 262 200 116 32 24 16 27 244 493 556 385 162 211
1949* 259 90 26 15 12 15 17 137 409 474 325 446 186
1950* 194 197 71 37 21 18 26 117 447 521 481 338 207
1951* 101 33 21 19 15 14 27 124 325 518 376 505 174
1952* 88 51 30 18 16 16 14 66 375 572 434 268 163
1953* 337 263 124 58 44 30 61 281 928 711 513 294 305
1954* 257 69 40 32 33 28 30 173 409 420 384 201 174
1955* 168 145 51 42 24 18 18 72 291 643 407 273 181
1956* 81 42 25 20 17 15 22 121 269 471 453 215 147
1957* 65 56 52 22 19 20 29 166 449 359 370 565 181
1958* 207 161 56 44 29 25 66 178 535 449 418 155 194
1959 183 61 39 29 17 18 31 190 780 399 290 121 181
1960 111 95 50 46 29 26 28 289 494 534 378 268 197
1961 168 103 101 104 204 64 51 273 497 587 434 342 237
1962 225 77 34 32 34 18 33 123 403 548 335 175 171
1963 65 120 47 48 40 37 36 132 338 533 417 293 176
1964 123 55 54 38 44 31 80 192 519 595 493 249 200
1965 192 85 58 48 35 33 73 146 295 430 375 390 181
1966 139 35 33 46 27 23 40 115 418 430 411 518 187
1967 325 109 39 32 39 29 28 142 455 422 442 666 228
1968 184 76 59 60 39 44 29 208 358 420 373 210 173
1969 180 51 26 10 15 17 30 184 585 479 280 201 165
1970 400 173 156 65 63 40 56 187 510 500 446 195 234
1971 94 188 54 34 38 26 22 96 441 729 580 322 220
1972 188 61 30 17 15 15 17 69 293 485 425 286 157
1973 150 63 34 22 23 20 26 121 295 395 274 237 139
1974 74 43 28 33 14 16 26 166 383 432 335 374 161
1975 230 106 61 37 25 30 29 214 374 501 365 278 189
1976 258 72 31 18 23 18 23 133 397 420 395 500 191
1977 222 222 151 42 78 43 51 195 698 595 602 272 235
1978 226 114 38 53 46 41 36 197 440 445 415 468 211
1979 296 131 58 68 21 21 48 210 399 557 480 373 223
1980 234 137 49 126 107 65 34 283 445 598 564 360 251
Average 188 106 56 41 34 27 35 168 447 504 414 319 196
* Average Recorded flows -All other flows are synthesized using HEC-4 Monthly Streamflow Simulation
Mode 1.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF INSTREAM FLOW ALTERNATIVES
Percent Percent
Tota 1 Decrease Increase
Annual Average in Energy Cost of in Cost of
Instream Project Annua 1 From Energy Energy Over
Flow Cost Energy Alter-(Millsl Alter-
A lternat i ve (cfs) ($1 , ODDs )b.1 ( GWH).J'/ native F kWh)1.1 native F
FE/ 0 1,465 27.58 53. 12
Option lA!?1
F1E.I 15 1 ,507 25.92 6.0 58. 14 9.5
F~I 55.4 1,603 22.06 20.0 72.67 36.8
F3.!/ !) 1,584 22.88 17.0 69.23 30.3
F4.9/ 100 1,691 18.41 33.2 91.85 72.9
Opt ion 25:..1
F5E.I 15 1,507 25.58 7.3 58.91 10.9
F~I 55.4 1,623 21.15 23.3 76.74 44.5
F711 11 1,586 22.68 17.8 69.93 31.6
F8.9.1 100 1,745 15.80 42.7 110.44 108.0
~I Cost and energy values for Alternative F obtained from Interim Report
(February 1982). £I Instream flow release provided in Grant Creek as indicated except
when natural inflows are lower, in which case the flow release is set
equal to the natural inflow.
£1 Instream flow release always provided regardless of amount of natural
inflow.
E! This is approximately the annual minimum streamflow in Grant Creek.
See Table 2. y This is the mean annual instream flow estimated for IIgood ll habitat
based on Tennant1s (1976) method.
fl A flow of 20 cfs provided from November to Apri 1 and 64 cfs from
May to October, based on Tennant1s (1976) method.
Sl Maximum instream flow release considered in Figure 1.
b.1 Includes annual cost of generating plant plus annual cost of
pumping plant plus annual cost of power to pump.
il "GWHII means Gigawatt hours, which equals kilowatt hours times 1,000,000. II 1 mill = $.001, or one-tenth of one cent.
.',+
11"11"
...
""
"'~
.... '
.... '
.. '
1\1
...
.'
.'
...
••
TABLE 4
COMPAKISON OF ALTERNATIVES F, G, AND H
Alternative
F!7 ~7
Installed Capacity (MW) 6 5
Estimated Total
Construction Cost ($l,OOOs) 33,700 36,643
Debt Service ($l,OOOs) 1,310 1,424
Operation and Maintenance ($l,OOOs) 155 140
Average Annua 1 Cost ($l,OOOs) 1,465 1,564
Average Annual Energy (GWH) 27.6 22.1
Total Cost of Energy (Mills/kWh) 53.1 70.8
Increase in Cost of Energy Over
Alternative F (percent) 33.3
~/ Same values as shown for Alternative F in Interim Report.
~/ Lake Tap Scheme with powerhouse located on Grant Creek.
£/ Raised lake scheme with powerhouse on Grant Creek.
~1
6
51,055
1,985
155
2, 140
30.0
71.4
34.4
...
. TABLE 5
CONCEPTUAL--LEVEL CRITERIA FOR SPAWNING CHANNEL FOR GRANT LAKE PROJECT .~
Species Design
Channe 1 Wi dt h
Water Depth
Water Velocity
Channe 1 Le ngth PJ
Dfscharge
Slope
Gravel Depth
Gravel Sf ze
Underbed
Side Slope
Settling Basin
Distance Between Drop Structure
Drop Structure Area
a/ Sockeye-
Chinook
20'
1.5'
1.5'/sec
620'
50 cfs
0.00044
IS-
1/4--4-
80 percent 1/2--2-
4-concrete or PVC
1-1.5 (with side cobble)
100' x 100'
>3' deep
250 '-300'
2O'wide x 20'lon9 x 6'deep
!/Channe1 will accomodate a minimum of 100 female chinook and
250 female sockeye plus sufficient males.
PJExclusive drop structure and rest area will add 20 feet in
length to each of the two structures.
-
-
II"
-
••
-
-...
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE F WITH AND WITHOUT SPAWNING CHANNEL
A lternat i ve
F (w/o Spawning) F (with Spawning
Channe 1 ) Channe 1 )
Installed Capacity (MW) 6 6
Es t imated To ta 1
Construction Cost ($l,OOOs) 33,700 34,400
Debt Service ($l,OOOs) 1,310 1,337
Operation and Maintenance ($l,OOOs) 155 180
Total Annual Cost ($l,OOOs) 1,465 1,517
Total Cost of Energy (GWH) 27.6 27.6
Total Cost of Energy (Mills/kWh) 53.1 55.0
Increase in Cost of Energy Over
Alternative F (percent) 3.5
TABLE 7
SUt1t1ARY OF ALTERNATIVES
.. ~, Percent
Increase in Cost
Cost of of Energy Over
Energy for Alternative F "'" Project or Operational Alternatives (mills/kWh) (Percent)
....
Alternative F as defined in
Interim Report 53.1
Alternative F2 -Instream Flow 1119'
Release of 55.4 cfs (Option lA) 72.7 36.8
Alternative F3 -Instream Flow ".,
Release of 20 cfs Nov.-April
and 64 cfs May-Oct (Option 1A) 69.2 30.3
" .. Alternative F6 -Instream Flow
Release 55.4 cfs (Option lB) 76.7 44.5
Alternative F7 -Instream Flow ." Release of 20 cfs Nov.-April
and 64 cfs May-Oct (Option 1B) 69.9 31.6 ...
Alternative G -Lake Tap Scheme
witn Powerhouse Located on Grant
Creek 70.8 33.3
"""
Alternative H -Raised Lake
with Powerhouse Located on
Grant Creek 71.4 34.4 .,~
Alternative F with Spawni ng
Channe 1 55.5 3.5
110-
/ 100-V .t:: / ~ 90-~
/ a::
LIJ
Q.
~ 80-d ;/ ::£
~
>-(!') 70-a:: ~/r LIJ z
LIJ
L&..
0 /"
I-60 V" ~ !
0 ~ 50-
1 I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENT IN CFS
I NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL 20 cfs, MAY THROUGH OCTOBER 64 cfs.
INSTREAM STREAMFLOW VERSUS COST FOR OPTION IB FIGURE I
ADDENDUM TO LETTER
REPORT 2 JULY 1982
APPROACHES TO MITIGATING POTENTIAL FISH LOSSES IN GRANT CREEK
MAINTENANCE OF AN INSTREAM FLOW
As part of the instream flow analyses, questions have been raised about
maintaining flows of 15 cfs in Grant Creek. Tnis amount of water would
result in an increased cost to the project of about 10 percent which
might be the upper limit to the feasibility of this project. Higher
f1uws arp. not feasible. To maintain an instream flow in Grant Creek
would require continuous pumping from Grant Lake to Grant Creek. The
questions raised are:
1. What are the biological implications of:
A. maintaining a constant 15 cfs flow in Grant Creek?
B. maintaining a constant 15 cfs flow from mid-October to
mid-July with a constant 40 cfs from mid-July through
mid-October?
2. What effect would channel modification (i.e., habitat
.. '
modification) in Grant Creek have with flow regimes similar to ~
those in lA and 1B1
In addressing these Questions. both short and long term changes must be
considered. The short term can generally be defined as the existing
stream channel with a reduced flow. The long term would be after the
streamside vegetation and channel characteristics have adjusted to the
new flow regime. Any long term changes may take many years to occur.
During a previous instream flow analysis for Grant Creek (see letter
report distributed 9 July 1982), the relationship between instream
flows and fish habitat were analyzed according to the Tennant Method
(Tennant 1976). The reader is referred to that letter fora full
description of the analysis. However, to understand that analysis and
its relation to the most recent questions that have been raised, a
portion of that report is repeated as follows:
1493B
1
.,'"
DERIVATION OF ESTIMATED INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS
To estimate instream flow requirements for Grant Creek to be used
for the analyses discussed herein, the method described by Tennant
(1976) was used. This method, commonly referred to as the IIMontana
Method,· is based on average stream flows developed from U.S.G.S.
records. To estimate instream flow needs for a given habitat, the
average flow during a certain period of the year is multiplied by a
percentage that depends on the habitat classification. Habitat
classifications and the percentage of average flow for each
classification are summarized in Table 1.
Tennant's method divides the year into low and high water periods
and applies the percentages as shown. For estimating stream flow
requirements for Grant Creek, a habitat classification of tlgood ll
was used. Streamflow records that were used to generate average
flows were those presented by Ebasco (1982; Table 5-1) in the
Interim Report for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (Table 2).
These values were based on U.S.G.S. records and a HEC-4 monthly
streamflow simulation model. The high and low flow periods were
modified from those suggested by Tennant to account for the
specific high and low flow patterns of Grant Creek. Therefore, the
periods of application for Grant Creek were November througn April
(low flow) and May through October (high flow). The calculations
for stream flow requirements were as follows:
High Flow Period Low Flow Period
Ave. Flow Ave. Flow
May 16B cfs November 106 cfs
June 447 December 56
July 504 January 41
August 414 February 34
September 196 March 27
October lBB Apri 1 35
Total 1917 Total 299
Overa 11 Ave 319.5 Overa 11 Ave 49.B
Flow Requirement
(20% of (40% of
overa 11 = 64 cfs overall = 20 cfs
average) average)
Frequently, an overall percentage is applied to average
annual flow. At 30 percent, described by Tennant as good
survival habitat, the value for streamflow requirements would
be:
1493B
Ave. Annual Flow x .3 = Instream Flow Requirement
or
1B4.7 cfs x .3 = 55.4 cfs
2
This, then, would be the value needed to maintain good
habitat throughout the year on an overall average flow
basis. It is recognized that Tennant's method is an office
technique that only approximates instream flow requirements;
however, the results obtained by this method are considered
adequate for the purposes of this study.
Tne results of this analysis snowed that a flow of about 64 cfs
during high flow periods (May through October) and 20 cfs during
low flow periods (November through April) would be needed to
maintain "good habitat" in Grant Creek. With Tennent's method in
mind, a further examination of flows, particularly 15 cfs can be
made.
In reference to question lA, a constant flow of 15 cfs in the
short term would leave Grant Creek with approximately 5 percent
(15 cfs/319.5 cfs = .05) of the average flow during high flow and
approximately 30 percent (15 cfs/49.8 cfs = .30) during low
flow. If this flow is calculated as a percentage of the average
annual flow, the result would be:
15 cfs/184.7 cfs = .08 or 8 percent
In Tennant's stream classification system, the following would be
applied to these percentages.
Flow Period Percentage of Flow Stream Classification
Hign Flow 5% Severe Degradation
Low Flow Period 30% Fair or Degraded
Annual 8% Severe Degradation
Just from Tennant's general classifications, it ;s apparent that, at
least in the short term, 15 cfs is not biologically acceptable.
Increased potential for predation, increased ice formation, and changes
in bedload transport are among the factors that may tend to further
degrade the habitat. It is not certain that adults would enter Grant
Creek when it has 15 cfs or 40 cfs (as discussed below). Some or many
14938
3
.'
-
-
.. '
.'
fish may tend to swim upstream to the main source of water to which
they were imprinted, the tailrace. Whether adults could navigate all
riffles at 15 cfs is uncertain. Over the long term~ the streamside
vegetation and stream bed would be expected to adjust to an average
annual flow of 15 cfs. The time period needed by the stream to adjust
to the new flow regime is uncertain, but would probably take many years.
In reference to question lB, enhancing the flow to 40 cfs during the
spawning season (high flow) would probably help attract spawners and
improve upstream passage. During the 3 months of 40 cfs flow, the
habitat classification would improve from severe degradation to poor
(Tennant 1976), which is still considered unacceptable. In the long
term, the release of higher flow would improve the habitat over a
constant 15 cfs year around because the 40 cfs would probably help
attract fish to the stream, improve spawning flows, and flush the
stream of accumulated detritus and fines. It still remains uncertain
whether existing fish runs could remain viable for the 5 -15 years (or
more) required for the stream to readjust to the lower flow regime.
Likely the species and run strengths using the stream will change.
Chinook are known as major tributary -big river spawners. They
probably would be eliminated. Sockeye may remain, but it is more
likely that the stream would be most acceptable for coho, which are
currently very uncommon, and trout and char.
In reference to question 2, an improvement of the existing stream
channel is an alternative that can be considered. With the flow
regimes examined for question 1, channel improvement could be used to
maximize streambed characteristics (i.e., flows, gravel size and depth)
for spawning, passage, and rearing. In effect, Grant Creek would be
modified into a spawning channel. Although, in theory, this could be
accomplished, the success of this alternative is very risky and largely
impractical compared to providing a spawning channel at a location, for
example, near the powerhouse tailrace. One of the major reasons is
that the success of this alternate relies heavily on the continuous
pumping of water into Grant Lake. Pumps can be extremely reliable, but
even with a back-up pump, equipment failure or power outages would
14936
4
result in stoppage of flows to Grant Creek. In this event, the fish
resource would be subject to complete loss, depending on the length of
time of system failure. This problem would also apply to scenarios
considered for Questions lA and lB. It would be much safer to have a
spawning channel at the powerhouse that would rely on a gravity fed
water supply system that would be much more reliable. Also, the
spqwning channel at the powerhouse would possess much more ideal
conditions, in terms of flow, depth, substrate, size, and
susceptibility to icing than one on Grant Creek.
1493B
5
-
-
-
-
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
MEETING WITH AGENCIES
July 9, 1982
A. The meeting was attended by the following:
Tom Arminski •••••.•••••.. Alaska Oepartment of Fish and Game
Don Beyer .•••••••••.•••.• Ebasco Services Incorporated
Ralph Browning .•••••••••• U.S. Forest Service, Seward
Ken Thompson •.••.•••••••. U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage
Rick Cardwell •••••••••••• Ebasco Services Incorporated
Mary Lynn Nation ••.•.••.• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wayne Pietz •••••••.•..... Ebasco Services Incorporated
Eric Marchegiani .•..••... Alaska Power Authority
Brad Smith .•••••••.•.•••• National Marine Fisheries Service
Don Smith ••••...••.•••••. Ebasco Services Incorporated
Jim Thiele ••••..•••••••.• Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center
David Trudgen •••••••••..• Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center
Bill Wilson .••..•....•.•. Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center
B. Opening Statements by Eric Marchegiani and Don Smith
The purpose of the meeting is to review the Agency comments on the
Environmental Study Plan specifically with respect to evaluation of
alternative project arrangements that would provide a flow in Grant
Creek, methods for estimating the number of fish in Grant Creek, pro-
viding for the safe egress of sockeye salmon smolts from Grant Lake
and other potential mitigation measures.
C. Discussion of Project Alternative Arrangements by Wayne Pietz
1. Mr. Pietz described, point-by-point, the contents of the letter
report (attached), which presented the results of analysis the
alternative project arrangements suggested by the Agencies.
2. The cost of energy (power) estimates generated by Ebasco in the
letter request are the best that Ebasco can derive at this time.
3. For comparison, Mr. Pietz indicated that the cost of power esti-
mated in the Railbelt Report from a variety of power generation
plants was approximately 55 -60 mills per kilowatt hour in the
near future.
4. The cost of power estimates the agencies will see in the final
feasibility report for the Grant Lake project will probably be
higher than shown in the letter report, due to use of a more
extensive methodology for estimating cost of power. He stated
that the relative differences in power costs between the different
alternatives in the letter report would remain the same.
5. Mr. Arminski asked why it cost $3 million more for Alternative "G".
Mr. Pietz responded that this alternative required a longer tunnel
(about 500 feet) and required more rock bolts and supports in the
tunnel because of the orientation of the tunnel with respect to the
bedding of the rock in the area of Grant Creek.
6. Mr. Arminski asked whether it would be possible to allow a mini-
mum streamflow in Grant Creek, on the basis that the cost of the
power in the long-term would be lower because of the greater utili-
zation of the power from the Project. It was explained that the
cost of power would not decrease with time because it would be fully
utilized from the on-line date.
7. There was considerable discussion of the cost of power for Grant
Creek relative to other sources.
8. The cost of power associated with Alternative IIFII, the proposed
arrangement, and a spawning channel in the tailrace was provided
in the letter report for illustration of the comparative cost of
a typical mitigative measure compared to the provision of an
instream flow.
9. Mr. Pietz indicated that the instream flow estimates were sufficient
to determine the comparative costs of the project alternatives.
10. In response to a question, it was noted that the project is still
viable without Falls Creek diversion water. The study is proceeding
with the inclusion of Falls Creek diversion because the Power Authority
will be able to obtain more power at a cost of power that is comparable
to the Alternative without the Falls Creek diversion.
11. The City of Seward and the local area will be able to absorb all of the
power and will have a more dependable energy source with the Grant
Lake project than with the current condition.
12. Question: If Susitna came on-line, would Grant Lake still be used?
Also, could a minimum streamflow in Grant Creek be maintained until
Susitna came on-line? The answer to the first question was yes; to
the second question: no. the project probably would not be viable
economically and would probably not be built if it could not be shown
to be viable in time and cost to the alternatives available.
13. After considerable discussion of the alternatives and costs asso-
ciated with them, it was generally agreed by those in attendance
that the range of flows studied in the evaluation of the alternatives
was adequate for consideration of an instream flow.
14. The result of a discussion of the provision of an instream flow
suitable for maintenance of a fisheryhabitat in Grant Creek was that
the project would probably not be economical. Efforts should there-
fore be directed to mitigative measures other than the continuation
of instream flow studies.
2
...
">'
...
...
.'
'"', ..
...
15. Bill Wilson commented that he considered the minumum streamflow
analysis performed in the letter report plus AEIDC's extensive
observations on Grant Creek at different flows to be a satis-
factory appraisal of minimum streamflow requirements for this
project. There was general agreement that enough minimum stream-
flow study had been done for now.
D. Counting Spawning Salmon in Grant Creek
1. AEIDC described their proposal for counting spawning salmon in
Grant Creek this summer. They will continue with foot surveys,
simi1iar to that used in the past by ADF & G from which the number
of fish can be estimated. There was agreement that AEIDC's approach
would provide suitable data. Theoretical estimates of spawners
based on habitat were not considered reliable and were discarded.
E. Alternative Fish Mitigation Measures
1. Brad Smith recommended that APA shouldn't dismiss minimum stream-
flow as a potentially viable mitigative measure until the feasi-
bility of all the other mitigative measures have been evaluated.
He was comfortable with the minimum streamflow calculations and
results, but still is uncomfortable with the idea of dewatering
Grant Creek. He asked APA to consider mitigation alternatives in
the creek associated with a release of 15 cfs.
2. Tom Arminski is comfortable with the assessment in the letter report.
Although he is uncomfortable with drying up Grant Creek, he noted
that the fish resources are relatively small; perhaps mitigation
monies could be better spent elsewhere. Arminski would like APA to
make a statement that it does not believe instream flow releases are
viable economically and is prepared to explore as many alternative
mitigation measures as possible. Then, the ADF&G can decide whether
this position is acceptable.
3. Ken Thompson suggested that the decision-makers on this project will
require a full evaluation of alternatives in the feasibility report.
Thus, the impacts on the cost of power associated with different
minigation measures will be estimated.
4. The resource agency representatives recommended that APA prioritize
all alternative mitigation measures in its evaluation. However, none
should be eliminated from the analysis. The Cook Inlet Regional Sal-
mon Enhancement Plan should be consulted in developing mitigation
approaches.
5. Scheduling of Forthcoming Meetings of Mitigation: Mr. Arminski
thought that our schedule for accomplishing the fish mitigation plan-
ning was a little ambitious. He recommended that APA meet with the
Fishery Research and Enhancement Division (FRED) and probably the Cook
Inlet Aquaculture Association to learn their preferences concerning
off-site mitigation. They probably will have information on costs of
some enhancement projects that may be considered for mitigation of
Grant Creek.
3
6. The resource agencies recommended that APA consider what it could do,
in terms of mitigation, with the money it would save from not provid-
ing a streamflow in Grant Creek.
F. Migration of Sockeye Salmon Smolts From Grant Lake
1. Don Beyer and Don Smith discussed the two potential fish removal systems
that presently appear to be the most promising in providing safe egress
of sockeye salmon smolts from the lake. Beyer discussed the "Baker
Lake Gulper", a device that is in operation on Washington's Baker Lake
to bypass sockeye around a dam. The Gulper relies upon establishing a
downstream-oriented attractant flow that gradually increases to the
point where the smolts cannot swim out of the artificial, floating
channel. The scheme illustrated by Smith uses an inclined screen in
the tunnel to divert smolts into the gate shaft well, where they can be
removed for transport to Trail Lake.
2. Brad Smith asked how sockeye juveniles could be kept from entering the
turbine. Ebasco and AEIDC staff were of the opinion that juveniles
would not leave the lake unless lake carrying capacity was exceeded or
a stock was used that naturally migrated down to another lake as part of
its normal rearing history.
3. Tom Arminski, in echoing Brad's concern that fry may be entrained by the
tunnel, asked whether we could lower the depth of the tunnel inlet so
that it would be below the zone of fry occurrence in the lake. This
would adversely impact project costs and possibly add to the problem of
migration of the smolts.
4. Eric Marchegiani suggested considering the option of stocking the lake
so that the number of fish surviving passage through the turbines would
equal the production goals of ADF&G's FRED. Tom Arminski noted this
proposal would have to be discussed with FRED .
. ~ G. Turbidity in Grant Lake and Effects on Production
1. Rick Cardwell described plan for responding to agency comments on this
issue. AEIDC discussed how their data will respond to this concern.
The issues were discussed.
H. Recreation
1. Eric Marchegiani asked the participating agencies to think about their
views concerning recreation on Grant Lake.
I. Future Meetings
1. The next meeting was tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, August 5,
1982 at the Fish and Wildlife Conference room on Tudor Road. All parti-
cipants agreed to consult their schedules on this date.
2. The subject of the meeting would be the alternative mitigative options
These would be evaluated preliminarily and discussed with the agencies.
3. All those attending this meeting plus representatives from the Cook Inlet
Association should plan to attend the next meeting.
..
...
...
IR'
l1li"
..
...
PLANNING DOCUMENT NO.2: FISHERIES
MI TIGATION FOR PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRI C PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AUGUST 17, 1982
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project, located near Moose Pass
on the Kenai Peninsula, will adversely affect existing stocks of
sa1monids in Grant Creek and the salmon enhancement project in Grant
Lake unless there is sufficient mitigation planning. The purpose of
this document is to assist this planning process by setting forth for
discussion candidate options for mitigating project-related effects on
salmon in Grant Lake and Grant Creek. These options have been
developed through meetings and discussions between the Alaska Power
Authority and the various agencies concerned with the fish resources of
Grant Creek. The objective of this document is to promote discussion
of these and any other viable options.
Concern will focus mainly on salmon, specifically sockeye and chinook,
because they are the dominant species in Grant Creek and are the ,
species considered for rearing in Grant Lake under Alaska Department of
Fish and Game1s (ADF&G) Grant Lake experimental enhancement program
(Daisy 1982).
The list of mitigation options considered below is based upon a meeting
with state and federal fish agency representatives, held 9 July 1982,
and subseQuent telephone conversations with staff of the ADF&G, Cook
Inlet Regional Planning Team (CIRPT), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and the U.S. Forest Service. Tne 9 July meeting was held to
discuss the need to perform extensive instream flow studies in Grant
Creek. During that meeting it was determined that further instream
flow studies would not be necessary because flows available during
feasible operation of the project would be too small to maintain
adeQuate habitat. Therefore, this meeting was called to consider other
mitigation options.
258lA
1
The policy of the project's sponsor. the Alaska Power Authority,
concerning fish mitigation is to ensure that there is no net loss of
fish resources, in this case, sockeye and chinook salmon. Adult salmon
run strengths to Grant Creek are unknown, but spawning ground surveys
conducted from 1952 to 1980 have resulted in counts of up to 70 chinook
and 324 sockeye for single day surveys. More spawning ground surveys
are planned under the Grant Lake environmental assessment to compare
results in 1982 with those in previous years. At this juncture
mitigating for 200 adult chinook and 500 adult sockeye appears to be a
reasonable objective.
One general mitigation alternative concerns enhancement of fish stocks
in other streams or at other fish enhancement facilities within the
Kenai River systeml!, in lieu of on-site mitigation for existing
stocks. The Question immediately raised is "how much money does the
Power Authority have available for both capital construction and annual
operation and maintenance of the mitigation facilities?" This Question
can only be answered by considering the cost of the mitigation
facilities reQuired for the project.
The three issues that need to be addressed in planning mitigation are
as follows:
1) Maintaining stocks of sockeye and chinook salmon native to
Grant Creek
2) Preventing entrainment of salmon juveniles and smolts in Grant
Lake by the submarine tunnel leading to the power house.
3) Providing safe egress of salmon smolts from Grant Lake to
Upper Trail Lake.
11 Enhancement will probably have to be confined to the Kenai River
system according to Tom Walker, CIRPT.
2581A
2
...
...
..
In evaluating these issues. discussion will center mainly upon the
biological and engineering aspects of feasibility and to a lesser
extent on costs. which can be estimated only very approximately at this
stage. The intent here is not to perform a comprehensive evaluation.
but to describe the options in sufficient detail to judge their
relative feasibility .and value. The evaluations made in this report
concerning feasibility are intended to promote understanding and
discussion of the options. They are not endorsements. One objective
is to explore in greater detail agency preferences for these and any
other identified options. The Power Authority's objective is to narrow
the list to one or at most two candidates for resolving each issue
after learning and understanding the views of the fisheries agencies.
APPROACHES TO MITIGATING POTENTIAL FISH LOSSES IN GRANT CREEK
MAINTENANCE OF AN INSTREAM FLOW
As part of the 9 July meeting. Questions were raised about maintaining
flows of 15 cfs in the existing Grant Creek channel or in a charinel
that has been modified to better accommodate spawning and rearing.
This amount of water would result in an increased cost to the project
of about 10 percent which might be the upper limit to the feasibility
of this project. This mitigative option is probably not viable because:
1) a 15 cfs flow would result in potential severe degradation and
loss of fish habitat
2) the flow would be provided by pumping water from Grant Lake to
Grant Creek and, as such, the risks to the fisheries resources
are much higher (due to power or pump failures) than for a
gravity-fed spawning channel located at the powerhouse
3) chinook are generally known as major tributar¥ -big river
spawners. Under a reduced flow regime, they would probably be
eliminated
2581A
3
4) reducing flows to 15 cfs would probably increase the potential
for freezing of the stream, increase predation, decrease the
ease of upstream passage, and fail to attract all spawners
into the stream.
For these reasons, it would appear that any flow releases to Grant
Creek would be largely impractical and entails a greater risk to
existing salmon resources than the mitigation facilities discussed ,
below.
ON-SITE MITIGATION
Before discussing potentially viable on-site mitigation options,
reasons for why certain options were rejected at the outset will be
discussed. An egg incubation channel was rejected because it is much
more costly to operate than spawning channels and egg incubation boxes
and offers no major advantages. A hatchery was rejected because one
hatchery, the recently constructed ADF&G Trail Lake Hatchery, is enough
for the area. An extended rearing facility would not be redundant
because the hatchery will only use limited rearing, but it would raise
doubts about whether the fish being reared will retain the genetic
integrity of a wild stock. The Environmental Impact Statement for the
Trail Lake Hatchery stresses maintenance of the genetic integrity of
enhanced stocks.
According to the Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team (1981) a fishway
proposed for the Ptarmigan Lake enhancement project was considered, but
the Power Authority deleted it from further consideration when it was
learned that the enhancement strategy for the lake will use eggs from
Trail lake Hatchery rather than from spawners entering the lake via a
new fishway. Thus, a fishway is no longer being seriously considered
by the agencies interested in the project (Thompson 1982).
Options for mitigating salmon stocks of Grant Creek include egg
incubation boxes, spawning channel, lake fertilization, and monetary
replacement.
2581A
4
.. '
"..
...
....
. .....
-
Egg Incubation Boxes
Egg incubation boxes (Figure 1) are simple wooden boxes filled with
alternating layers of gravel and salmon eggs. They are receiving
considerable use in Washington State (Allen and Cowan 1977). In Alaska
they have been used successfully for the past two years to incubate
sockeye, even stocks carrying the viral disease IHN (Daisy 19B2).
Their Chief advantages are their low cost of construction and
operation, suitability for enhancing wild stocks, and ability to
produce high (70-85% survival is common) survival of fry. Potential
disadvantages include insufficent experience incubating chinook,
tendency to become clogged with sediments, and susceptibility to
freezing. Trials with chinook prior to project start would solve
questions of which gravel size and water flows to use. These trials
would solve the question of clogging, which isn't expected to be a
major problem because Grant Lake acts as a sediment trap, and only fine
particles having very slow settling velocities are expected in the
tailrace water. Freezing is not expected to be a problem because the
temperature of the tailrace water should go no lower than 2.S-4°C in
the winter. The boxes probably should be set within buildings kept at
the same temperatures as the influent water to preclude the possibility
of ice buildup in the boxes and their outlets.
The egg boxes would be sited next to the tailrace. There would have to
be an adult egg-taking facility (i.e., pond) where they would be held
until they were ready to spawn.
The entire facility would cost less than $75,000 and is considered
highly feasible.
Spawning Channel
The feasibility of a spawning channel is considered good, but less than
that of the egg boxes. There appears to be a general concern that
spawning channels sound better on paper than they perform. The
2581A
5
FLOW DIAGRAM
ALUMINUM GRATING
t
I. -~i:_--d=L==-=ld=
Figure 1. Basic design of egg incubation box.
, . I
majority of spawning channels throughout the Pacific Northwest and
Canada have not produced as well as expected, although the Canadians
have had fairly good success with sockeye (Cooper 1977). Experience in
Alaska is limited. One of the main problems in Washington with using
spawning channels for chinook is the need to hold the fish for an
extended period before they spawn. Disease, with resulting spawner
mortality, is a major problem. This is not an inherent problem with
channel design, only environmental conditions (e.g., temperature). A
specific evaluation for stocks returning to Grant Creek should be made
to determine whether conditions exist that are conducive to prespawning
mortality.
The spawning channel envisioned would conform approximately to the
criteria in Table 1. The channel would be a segregated section of the
tailrace having separate sections for chinook and sockeye to prevent
superimposition of new redds on old redds and provide species-specific
flows, depths, and substrate sizes for spawning. Substrate water
velocities could be controlled by manipulating rock size below the
18 inch bed of spawning gravel. Silting should be a much lesser
problem in this spawning channel than in many places elsewhere, due to
Grant Lake's behavior as a major sediment trap. Annual gravel cleaning
should suffice to remove accumulated fines.
The spawning channel defined in Table 1 would cost approximately
$700,000 to construct and up to $50,000 per year to operate.
Lake Fertilization
Lake fertilization is a promls1ng technique for increasing the carrying
capacity of lakes for fish. Much work has been done on lake
fertilization in Canada, and this approach is mentioned freQuently in
the Cook Inlet Regional Salmon Enhancement Plan (CIRPT 1982) for
augmenting salmon production. Because Grant Lake may be suitable for
rearing both chinoOk and sockeye, lake fertilization may prove a useful
teChnique for increasing the number of fish that can be reared.
2581A
7
TABLE 1
BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SPAWNING CHANNEL: GRANT LAKE PROJECT
Species Design
Channel Width
Water Depth
Water Velocity
Channel Lengt~
Discharge
Slope
Gravel Depth
Gravel Size
Underbed
Side Slope
Settl ing Basin
Distance Between Drop
Structure
Drop Structure Area
Sockeye -250 females (maximum)
Chinook -100 females (maximum)
20 feet (ft.)
1.5 ft.
1.5 ft./sec.
620 ft.
33.8 cfs
.001
18 inches
1/4 - 4 inches
80 percent 1/2 - 2 inches
4 inch concrete
1:1.5 (with side cobble)
100 ft. x 100 ft.
>3 ft. deep
250 -300 ft.
20 ft. wide x 20 ft. long x 6 ft. deep
lIExclusive drop structure and rest area which will add 20 ft. in
length for each of two structures.
8
....
..
",.
"",
...
-
-
-
As a mitigative measure for Grant Creek stoCks, only eggs from those
stocks could be used to seed Grant Lake. Due to the small size of the
stoCkS, additional years of run-building may be required to attain the
lake's rearing capacity. An adult holding pond, similar to that
necessary for the egg box option, would also be required. Eggs could
be incubated either at Trail Lake Hatchery or in lakeside egg
incubation boxes. Before the lake fertilization program could be
seriously considered, a three-stage limnological study would be
required, as per ADF&G's Policy and Guidelines for Lake Fertilization.
This study could last at least 3 years.
The overall feasibility of this option is considered only fair, owing
to the uncertainties over whether it will work. The capital cost of
the project would likely be less than $75,000.
Monetary Replacement
Monetary replacement of lost salmon resources is one of the least
favored options according to ADF&G's Statement of Policy on Mitigation
of Fish and Game Habitat Disruptions, but it appears to be one of the
few remaining options available if there is insufficient confidence
that the other mitigation options will achieve the results desired. If
so, then it is more practical to allocate the available monies to
projects having a better chance of success.
The amount of money available for capital construction and O&M would
depend upon costs for the most feasible mitigation option.
2581A
9
APPROACHES TO MITIGATING POTENTIAL FISH LOSSES AT GRANT LAKE
PREVENTING ENTRAINMENT OF JUVENILE SALMON AT INTAKE
The idea of using Grant Lake to rear sockeye or chinook or both using
eggs from Trail Lake Hatchery fails to mention either Grant Lake or
Grant Creek as a source of eggs or fry (Trail Lake Hatchery EIS).
Flagg (1982) indicates that ADF&G will be conducting a series of trial
plantings, beginning in the spring 1983, to determine whether the lake
will be a good rearing facility. Given the experimental nature of the
enhancement project, agreed-upon options for preventing entrainment and
providing safe egress of smolts will have to be contingent upon data
demonstrating the viability of the enhancement project. Furthermore,
ADF&G must commit to continue to use Grant Lake for rearing salmon for
the life of the hydroelectric project once mitigation are installed.
PREVENTING ENTRAINMENT OF SALMON JUVENILES AT INTAKE
Due to the deSign characteristics of the hydro project, unacceptably
high mortality of salmon juveniles and smolts is expected if the fish
pass through the Francis turbine. Therefore a device is needed to
prevent their entrainment as juveniles or voluntary passage as smolts.
Experience elsewhere indicates that salmonid smolts, including sockeye
and chinook, will find the submarine outlet (Bentley and Raymond 1968).
The best option for preventing entrainment or egress is to screen the
tunnel (Figure 2). Installing louvers or screens at the tunnel
entrance, as is done at some dams (e.g., Baker Lake; Wayne 1961), is
impractical in deepwater and if the lake cannot be drained to the
required installation level. The facility proposed is based upon
successful work at other projects. A passive screen has been used
successfully to divert salmonid smo1ts on Oregon's Wi11amette River
(Eicher 1981), which carries a debris load far greater than that of
Grant Creek. This screen can be rotated on an axle for backf1ushing
(Figure 3). A vertical traveling screen, though much more costly,
2581A
10
-
..... .....
..-
-i
cri
2
500 o 500 e • . . .
SCALE
toO--------~------~--------~------~--~----~~----,,--~·-,~'~·41~------~toO
I \
" ~ .. " , , \ / .. ~--/ ',' , -----... ,.--.... , 800~------4-------~--------+,~'------~~~~~~'~----~------~~T---~800
I , ,
I
I
,. , ,
~ 100~------t-------i--t/~---t-------i--------t-------~-------t--~~~~~ ____ ~~~:::
I ,,,,/
Z o
i= ~
11""!I1or-L......r,t---t1NTAICE IL.141
~ 600~------4-----~-+--------+-------~------,rl~~~~~~----~------~600
Figure 2. Project alignment of tunnel for alternatives 0 and F. The juvenile salmon
screen and bypass would be located in the vicinity of the gate shaft. The bypass
pipe would sit inside the tunnel and bypass the powerhouse.
, I
--'
N
".................. v~ ...... ...... ...... ..... ........... -V ..... ..... . ..... ..... ..................
...................... ~ .......... 'f--/' ~ ............................. ......
..... ...... -~ ..... .
............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ ............ ........... ..... ...... ...... ..... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... .....
Figure 3. Close-up view of rotatable screen and bypass pipe. Fish would be travelling with the
flow from left to right and be directed to the bypass in basically the manner shown.
!,
.......... ...,
'I
could be used instead if studies currently being performed suggest
clogging cannot be controlled. However, based on previous experience
with the rotatable passive screen, the possibility of clogging is
considered very remote. A screen will be much more effective than
louvers, which are used in some situations because of the need to pass
much larger volumes of water than exist for this project.
The screen would divert the juvenile salmon into a pipe attached to the
tunnel's topside. This pipe would probably be 12 inches in diameter
and carry 11 cfs of water. The pipe would bypass the turbine and
discharge to the tailrace. Because of frictional drag developed within
the pipe, water velocities at the tailrace end of the pipe would be
less than 15 feet per second (fps), far less than the 40 fps velocity
at which shear action in the pipe starts physically damaging the salmon
(Wayne 1961; Bell 1974). When the fish enter the tailrace, the
deceleration they experience will also be substantially less than that
(50 fps) causing "little ill effect" in smolts (Bell 1974). Based on
past experience (Eicher 1981) velocities through the screen will be low
enough to prevent impingement, yet velocities in the tunnel will be
above those the fish can swim against in a sustained manner (Brett
1964).
This rotatable screen-bypass facility is considered highly feasible
from an engineering viewpOint and appears to offer an excellent chance
of passing smo1ts past the turbine with minimum damage. The cost of
the facility is estimated at less than ~500,000.
The fish bypass may use 11 cfs of water (assuming a l2-inch pipe) that
cannot be used to generate power. This flow would have to be
subtracted from the 15 cfs potentially available for instream flow to
Grant Creek. A lesser flow (7 cfs) and velocity could be obtained
using a 10-inch pipe as a bypass, but a 10-inch pipe may be less
appropriate for large size smolts.
2581 A
13
Assuring Safe Egress of Smo1ts Out of Grant Lake
The most feasible option for allowing salmon smo1ts emigrate from Grant
Lake is to use the rotatable screen-bypass described in the preceding
section. Because there will be no natural streamflow to Grant Creek
with the project's most feasible engineering alternatives (Alternatives
o and F described by Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982), the only other
way to provide egress for smo1ts is to attract and concentrate them.
A facility called a fish collection barge and known locally as the
"Gulper" has been in use for many years on Baker Lake, a tributary of
the Skagit River in Washingt~n, to attract, collect, and bypass
primarily sockeye over a highhead dam possessing many features similar
to those at the proposed Grant Lake project. The Gulper, which has
been described by Wayne (1961), consists of the device shown in Figure
4. The barge is located in shallow water alongshore, where the sockeye
smolts congregate. Large pumps on the barge set up a flow that
attracts the smolts because it is the only flow in the reservoir
resembling an outlet stream. Proceeding from the entrance channel to
the trap, the water velocity increases from the attraction flow of 1.5
fps to one exceeding the burst swimming speed of the smolts. Once
trapped the smolts are immediately passed into a la-inch pipe that
grades into a 12-inch and subsequently an la-inch pipe, which passes
over the dam and drops 185 feet to the tailrace (Figure 5).
At Grant Lake the Gulper would be used, but the bypass would differ
from that at Baker Lake. At Grant Lake the fish would have to be
trucked to Upper Trail Lake rather than piped because a pipeline would
be too expensive. Smolts captured by the Gulper would be trucked at a
frequency and at densities mutually acceptable to ADF&G and the Power
Authority.
The system is feasible from an engineering viewpoint, but its
efficiency in capturing both chinook and sockeye remains somewhat
Questionable, despite its proven performance at Baker Lake. The cost
of a new Gu1per has been estimated by one utility biologist to be
approximately 1 million dollars; the price may reach 2 million dollars
in Alaska.
2581A
14
.. '
lI'!"
-
-
..
-
•
" ,~--------------------------~
ENTRANCE
FLOW ..
FISH
"'----....L...---______ -IC-I COLLECTING
__ ----~!F-L-U-M--E~~--~ HOPPER CHANNEL
......
U1
HOPPER
•
Figure 4. Fish collection barge or "Gulper" used at Baker Lake hydroelectric project.
Baker River. Washington(Wayne 1961).
.....
0'1
FISH COLLECTION
BARGE
... ...
DAM
Figure 5. Pipeline bypass used at Baker Lake Hydroelectric Project to bypass sockeye and other salmon
smolts. For Grant Lake trucks would probably have to be used instead of a pipeline due to the high
cost of installing a pipeline like that shown on Grant Lake.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, R.L. and L.R. Cowan. 1978. Salmon egg incutation box program
1977-1978 season. Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Progress Report
73. 24 pages.
Bell, M.C. 1974. Fish passage through turbines, conduits, and spillway
gates. Pages 251-261. In: L.D. Jensen (editor) Entrainment and
Intake Screening. Proceedings of the Second Entrainment and Intake
Screening Workshop. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
California.
Bentley, W.W. and H.L. Raymond. 1968. Collection of juvenile salmonids
from turbine intake gatewells of major dams in the Columbia River
System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 97(2):
124-126.
Brett, J.R. 1964. The respiratory metabolism and swimming performance
of young sockeye salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. 21(5): 1183-1226.
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team. 1981. Cook Inlet regional salmon
enhancement plan 1981-2000. Soldotna, Alaska. 72 pages plus
appendices.
Cooper, A.C. 1977. Evaluation of the production of sockeye and pink
salmon at spawning and incubation channels in the Fraser River
System. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission,
Progress Report 36, 80 pages.
Daisy, D. 1982. Personal communication. F.R.E.D. Division, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Eicher, G. 1981. Turbine screen protects fish at PG&E hydroelectric
plant •. Electric Light and Power, August 1981. Pages 47-48.
2581A
17
Flagg, L. 1982. Personal communication. F.R.E.D. Division, Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, Soldotna. Alaska.
Tennant. D.L. 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish. wildlife,
recreation, and related environmental resources. Pages 359 to 373
In: Instream Flow Needs, American Fisheries Society.
Thompson, K. 1982. Personal communication. U.S. Forest Service,
Regional Headquarters, Anchorage, Alaska.
Wayne, W.W. 1961. Fish handling facilities for Baker River project.
Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers. 87, No. P03, pages 23-54.
258lA
18
....
-
..
-
111
MINUTES OF
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING
17 AUGUST 1982
I NTROD UCT 10 N
The purpose of the meeting was to generate and discuss ideas for
mitigating the potential effects of the proposed project on salmon
stocks of Grant Creek. In addition, options for mitigating potential
project effects on the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) Grant
Lake salmon enhancement project were also discussed. There was limited
discussion of a recreation plan for the project.
The meeting was requested by Eric Marchegiani, project manager for the
Alaska Power Authority (APA), and was attended by APA's consulting
engineer, Ebasco Services Incorporated and representatives of state and
federal resource agencies. Participants are listed below:
Name
Tom Walker
Mary Lynn Nation
Gary StaCkhouse
Ron Burraychalk
Ken Thompson
Geoff Wilson
Bill Hauser
Loren Fl agg
Tom Arminski
Ken Florey
Tom Small
Eric Marchegiani
David Trudgen
Bill Wilson
Jim Thiele
Don Smith
Rick Cardwell
Larry Wri ght
2622A
Affn i at ion
COOk Inlet Regional Planning Team
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service
ADF&G
ADF&G
ADF&G
ADF&G
City of Seward
APA
AEIDC
AEIDC
AEIDC
Ebasco
Ebasco
National Park Service
FISH MITIGATION
Ebasco biologist, Rick Cardwell, reviewed the contents of a report
prepared for APA (Planning Document No.2) that made a preliminary
assessment, for discussion purposes, of several mitigation options.
This report, copies of some of the most important references cited in
the report, and copies of the 2 July 1982 letter report, entitled
uEvaluation of Instream Flows for the Grant Lake Project -An
Identification of Potential Mitigation Alternatives," were distributed
to attendees.
The following minutes do not discuss the elements of Cardwell's
presentation, which are contained in Planning Document No.2. The
minutes identify issues, comments, and questions raised during
discussion at the meeting.
The USFWS asked about arrangements for monitoring (and paying for) the
efficacy of mitigation efforts. The Power Authority responded that no
cost estimates have been made to date. It needs input from the
agencies concerning the elements and costs of these programs.
There was considerable discussion of the value of Grant Creek for
rearing chinoOk salmon. Rick Cardwell suggested that chinook did not
appear to be ve~ abundant in the stream and possibly many leave the
stream to rear in the Trail River or Kenai lake. One ADf&G biologist
suggested it wouldn't require a large number of juveniles to represent
40 pairs of chinook using the following as criteria:
o 40 pairs of adults with fecundity of 8,000 eggs/female = 320,000
eggs
o 20% egg to fry survival = 64,000 fry
o 20% fry to smo1t survival = 12,800 smo1ts
o 3% smo1t to adult survival = 384 adults
o 60:40 catch to escapement ratio = 576 adults
2622A
2
•
•
The point was that some rearing in Grant Creek may produce good
dividends. Providing better rearing, either at Trail Lake Hatchery or
uSing a rearing pond, will produce even greater dividends.
An ADF&G biologist asked about the temperature differential between
Grant Creek and that expected in the powerhouse tailrace. A subnormal
water temperature in the tailrace would delay hatching and emergence
timing and even prove lethal to salmon embryos. Cardwell indicated the
Power Authority had taken temperature profiles in Grant Lake Quarterly
since the autumn of 1981 and was making weekly measurements in Grant
Lake during August and September 1982 to obtain better data on water
temperatures during the critical period of initial development of the
salmon embryos.
The discussion returned to ADF&G staff reaction to the options being
discussed for mitigating project effects on Grant Creek salmon stocks.
The ADF&G agreed to determine whether they can allocate a module at the
Trail Lake Hatchery for stock from Grant Creek. Tom Arminski asked the
FRED division biologists whether utilizing eggs from the Grant Creek
stock at the hatchery was compatible with Department objectives. FRED
division will evaluate compatibility.
Rick Cardwell agreed to write and request ADF&G to designate a fry
emergence period (window) during which fry emergence would have to be
programmed for anyon-site mitigation (e.g., spawning channel, egg
boxes).
ADF&G suggested that the Power Authority consider an extended rearing
facility (i.e., pond). This pond would use eggs from Grant Creek stock
and allow fry to be reared to smo1ts, dramatically increasing the
cnance of their surviving to adults.
Many options were discussed for mitigating Grant Creek salmon stocks.
The group of options to which ADF&G appeared to lean most heavily is
depicted schematically below.
2622A
3
I
Grant Creek
Stock
Eggs
Quartz Creek
Stock
Eggs
EGG TRAIL LAKE
I NCUBATION BOX ES HATCHERY
Fry
EXTENDED REARING
FACILITY (POND)
The number of salmon using Grant Creek represents the escapement
portion of the total run (catCh plus escapement). ADF&G biologists
suggested that the Power Authority could assume a 60:40 ratio between
catch and escapement. This is the ratio they believe applies to early
run Kenai chinook and Kenai sockeye. The Grant Creek chinook run is
regarded as part of the '~iddle run".
Mary Lynn Nation expressed the Fish & Wildlife Service's concern that
insufficient consideration had been accorded instream flow releases as
a mitigation option. She advocated further consideration of this
option before commencing more extensive evaluations of other
opt i onJ.! •
17
2622A
After the meeting Rick Cardwell met with Gary Stackhouse of the
USFWS to discuss the Service's concerns further. Mr. Stackhouse
asked that the instream flow releases, which had been discussed
at the 9 July 1982 planning meeting and subsequently, be costed
in units directly equatable to costs being developed for the
other mitigation options. Cardwell agreed to use directly
comparable monetary values in discussing the mitigation options
as part of the next (i.e., No.3) fish mitigation planning
document for the project.
4
.. '
,,~
.. '
'"
•
-
The USFWS also suggested the Power Authority consider the total
productivity potential of Grant Creek. Productivity was defined in
terms of tne potential number of spawners tnat the creek could
support. Numbers of adults recorded via spawning ground surveys
doesn't indicate tne potential of the system. The Power Authority
'Should consider mitigating for the stream's potential production. They
also suggested the desirability of the Power Authority developing a
cost-benefit ratio for projects like Grant Creek similar to that used
by the Corps of Engineers. In this analysis fishery enhancement is
considered a benefit that offsetts part of the project's cost.
The USFWS reiterated that the Power Authority had not exhausted options
for providing instream flow (see footnote 1) and suggested that FERC
may look very nard at the first hydro proposal coming out of Alaska
that does not incorporate a minimum streamflow.
Tom Small, City of Seward, advocated developing improved fish haDitat
as a mitigation objective. He cited Spring Creek as an example, where
an expenditure of $1 million resulted in the return of 2,000 pairs of
adults this spring, far better than the wild run.
Tom Small also indicated that the City of Seward desperately needs the
power from Grant Creek. -'Paradoxically, this power will be used mainly
to assist expansion of the fishing industry at Seward.
The National Park Service asked whether the proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric project was an alternative to that proposed for Grant
Lake. The Power Authority said no; the alternative with respect to the
City of Seward witn loss of Grant Creek would be the use of fossil
fuels in turbines or diesel engines.
The meeting's focus then turned to discussion of methods for preventing
entrainment of juvenile salmon and for providing safe egress of smolts
from Grant Lake. This mitigation appears necessary if ADF&G's Grant
Lake salmon rearing project proves viable. Cardwell presented
information in Planning Document 2, then asked for discussion.
2622A
5
ADF&G asked whether the Power Authority would use the "Gulper" if the
bypass doesn't work. The Authority responded that it would be
obligated to provide a facility that satisfactorily mitigated the
entrainment-bypass problem.
ADF&G asked whether the passive screen bypass would be designed for
both large and small fish, and the Authority said yes.
Loren Flagg discussed the program he anticipates for evaluating the
Grant Lake salmon stocking program. ADF&G proposed to the legislature
a $50,000 per year evaluation program. Eric Marchegiani asked Loren to
supply him with an outline of the program, and said he would
investigate the possibility of having the Power Authority support it.
Tom Arminski asked whether Loren's program would be sufficient to
answer Questions posed by the proposed Grant Lake Hydro Project, and
Loren replied no, citing studies on the fish's vertical and spatial
distribution in the lake as being needed.
Mary Lynn Nation of the USFWS asked what other monitoring programs the
Power Authority had in mind for evaluating the success of the
mitigation options. The answer: none yet; they will be developed
after the most viable mitigation options are identified. Ken Florey
suggested that APA and AOF&G meet to put together a study plan for such
an evaluation.
There was considerable discussion of how the harvest of salmon from the
Trail Lake Hatchery would affect the wild stockS of Grant Creek.
Gary Stackhouse felt that pre-project studies were critical. The USFWS
believed that the Power Authority should provide ADF&G with more than a
letter of support; they would have to actually "push" for funding.
2622A
6
"".
ISI'-'
-
....
RECREATION
Views of the agencies represented at the meeting were solicited
concerning a recreation plan for the project. Rick Cardwell summarized
the nature of agency consultation to date, which has included contact
with the Forest Service, Dept. of Natural Resources, ADF&G big game
biologists, and the Kenai Borough.
The Forest Service reiterated its interest in having open road access
to Grant Lake, which would include sanitary facilities, and "some way
to get a boat into the lake".
The National Park Service had no specific recommendations. Larry
Wright stressed that the views of Moose Pass residents, the State Dept.
of Parks, and the Forest Service need to be considered.
The USfwS and National Park Service asked whether ADF&G will have an
interpretive center at the Trail Lake Hatchery that references their
ennancement project at Grant Lake. ADF&G suggested that a center at
Grant lake might be useful. Eric Marchegiani suggested that siting an
interpretive center at the Hatchery may be more appropriate because
vandalism would be less of a problem.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF FISH MITIGATION
Gary Stackhouse continued to express his concern that abandonment of
instream flow as a mitigation technique was premature. He said that
habitat information is needed to go along with the analysis of flows.
He wondered whether instream flow would be more effective over the life
of the project than the alternative mitigation methods. One of the
unknowns is the value of Grant Creek as rearing habitat. Gary asked
whether an IFG study would give us data on the rearing potential of
Grant Creek. Cardwell summarized prior discussions with the USFWS,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and ADF&G concerning the wide
2622A
7
, disparity between instream flows economically feasible (i.e., less than
15 cfs) and those providing aquatic habitats of different quality. For
example, a "good" habitat according to Tennant's instream flow analysis
method averages approximately 42 cfs over the year.
Also discussed was whether an IFG study would provide the planning
group with a significantly different result (i.e., lower streamflow)
than that provided by the instream flow analyses performed to date.
Cardwell stated that IFG does not necessarily result in lower
acceptable flows. Ken Thompson said that in his experience there was
no sUbstantive difference in results. When asked about the value of an
IFG analysis for Grant Creek, Bill Wilson stated that the method did
supply useful results, but wasn't willing to say whether it would
provide a different result. For example, IFG-2 would provide data on
flow, depth, and substrate, which could be equated to habitat
requirements for rearing of juvenile salmon.
It was suggested that a representative of ADF&G sport fish division be
present at the next meeting because of the occurrence of Dolly Varden
and coho salmon juveniles in Grant Creek. Tom Arminski indicated he
has been keeping the sport fish division informed.
Eric Marchegiani summarized the meeting.
The next planning meeting was tentatively set for 28 September 1982.
Tne Power Authority will meet with ADF&G in the interim to further
explore their ideas concerning use of Trail Lake Hatchery, etc. in the
mitigation.
2622A
8
...
-
..
PROPOSED GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FISH MITIGATION PLANNING: MINUTES OF MEETING
WITH ADF&G OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1982
SUMMARY
A meeting between the Alaska Power Authority (APA) and the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) was held 15 September 1982 to
define and gather data concerning ADF&G's preferences for mitigating
potential project effects on Grant Creek salmon stocks. A variety of
options were defined (Figure 1) that will be evaluated for feasibility
with all other mitigation options in Fish Mitigation Planning Report
No.3.
DETAILS OF MINUTES
The individuals attending the meeting are listed in Table 1. The
meeting was reQuested by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) so it could
better understand ADF&G's position regarding prospective fish
mitigation options for Grant Creek.
Eric Marchegiani of APA summarized meeting objectives: to gather data.
criteria, and cost information for ADF&G's preferred alternatives.
ADF&G agreed that they could commit one of the four modules at the
Trail Lake Hatchery for rearing Grant Creek chinook. Later in the
meeting ADF&G stated that they would be willing to dedicate this module
to Grant Creek for 10 years after commencement of operation of the
Grant Lake hydro project. If after that time, it was evident that the
numbers of returning adults could not be built up to the level needed
to fully utilize the capacity of the module, then ADF&G, at its option.
could discontinue culturing Grant Creek chinook at the Trail Lake
Hatchery. This would obligate APA to maintain the run with other
means. The main options included adding a module to the Tra~l Lake
hatchery, building a mini-hatchery at the project's tailrace. or
2705A
1
, . 'I
Al ternative I
Tra 11 La ke Ha tchery
Existing Module
A lterna t i ve II
Trail Lake Hatchery
Additional Module
Rearing Pond/Channel
Al ternative I II
~tini-hatchery at Project
Tailrace
, Eggs
e"
A Herna t ive IV
Egg
Incubation
Boxe~
Figure 1. Alternatives suggested by ADF&G fOr mitigating project effects on Grant Creek chinook salmon.
TABLE 1
ATTENDANCE LIST FOR FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING
WITH ADF&G (15 SEPTEMBER 1982)
Aff i1 i at ion and
Name Mail ing Address Telephone No.
Mary Lynn Nation USFWS 605 W 4th Ave Rm G-81 271-4575
AnChorage, Alaska
Brad Smith NMFS 701 C Street Box 43 271-5006
Anchorage, Alaska
Micnael D. Kelly AEIDC 707 A Street 279-4523
Anchorage, Alaska
Dave Trudgen AEIDC 707 A Street 279-4523
Anchorage, Alaska
Jim Thiel e AEIOC 707 A Street 279-4523
Anchorage, Alaska
Tom Anni nsk i ADF&G 333 Raspberry Road 344-0541
Anchorage, Alaska
Dave Daisy ADF&G 333 Raspberry Road 344-0541
Anchorage, Alaska
Loren Flagg ADF&G Soldotna 262-9368
Soldotna, Alaska
Sid Logan SF-ADF&G Soldotna 262-9360
Soldotna, Alaska
Ric K Ca rdwe 1 1 Ebasco 400 112th Avenue N.E. 451-4619
Bellevue, Washington
Don Smith Ebasco 400 l12th Avenue N.E. 451-4588
Bellevue, Washington
Eric Marchegiani APA 334 W. 4th Avenue 276-0001
Anchorage, AlaSKa
2705A
3
installing egg incubation boxes (egg boxes) at the tailrace. Use of
the latter would have to be preceeded by trials demonstrating their
efficacy in producing chinook fry of satisfactory Quality at the Grant
Lake site.
The discussion focused on egg boxes. Dave Daisy said that ADF&G would
want the fry buttoned up by late April-early May (the period Loren
Flagg estimated emergence would occur) if egg boxes were used. He said
ADF&G would not want the fry emerging early if they would immediately
enter a natural water body (e.g., Grant Lake or Trail Lake). An early
emergence, stemming from incubation at warmer than normal (i.e.,
ambient for Grant Creek) water temperature might be acceptable if the
fry entered a rearing facility where they could be fed. However, Daisy
Questioned whether the fry would feed if the water temperature was low
(e.g.,4°C). In summary egg boxes discharging fry into Grant Lake or
Upper Trail Lake would be unacceptable unless it could be demonstrated
that the thermal rearing regime under which they are incubated would
not alter their timing of emergence (because their thermal regime
cannot be forecast reliably, this option can be discarded).
The discussion turned to use of an Extended Rearing Facility to produce
smolts. Daisy said that residualism of chinook may be a problem; the
smolts may lose their interest in migrating to sea. He said the best
solution may be to rear fry at the hatchery and put the fry into Grant
Lake. Loren Flagg suggested that the Question of residual ism and the
rearing behavior of Grant Creek chinook could be discerned by putting
roughly half the fry in Grant Creek and half into Grant Lake 9 then
monitoring smolt production. (This evaluation appears necessary if an
Extended Rearing Facility is ultimately selected as a mitigation
option). If a significant fraction of the fry planted into Grant Creek
emigrate from the stream prior to smolting, the importance of the
stream for rearing is indexed. The rearing facility's fry and smolt
production would be commensurate with the production of the Creek.)
270SA
4
...
...
--
It was agreed that an adult Holding Pond would be needed at the
tailrace for any of the mitigation options. If Trail lake Hatchery was
used to rear fry, at a minimum, they would have to be imprinted in a
pond using water from Grant Lake. This pond could also function as the
adult holding pond.
Jim Thiele asked about provisions for rearing other species: Dolly
Varden, rainbow trout, and coho. No explicit mitigation provisions for
these species will be made.
Tom Arminski asked whether it would be possible to take eggs from Grant
Creek chinook and rear them at Trai 1 Lake Hatchery. The fry
conceivably could be placed back into Grant Creek to rear. Grant Creek
could then possibly possess a very low streamflow yet serve an
important function: rearing of juvenile salmonids. Ebasco agreed to
assess the feasibility of this option. Ensuing discussion focused on
the potential feasibility of this option.
Daisy asked whether Ebasco could tap the surface waters of Grant Lake
and run the water to a rearin~ pond. This would provide a free source
of heat, reducing concerns that sub-surface lake temperatures would be
too cold to facilitate acceptable juvenile salmon growth.
It was evident from the discussion that it is very important to
determine how reservoir operation will affect the thermal profile of
Grant Lake.
Loren Flagg provided some preliminary estimates of the cost of rearing
chinook fry to smolts at Trail Lake Hatchery for one year (actually 8
months of rearing). For this effort the cost of heating the water
alone from 38°F to 46°F would be $98,640. This assumes that the Trail
Lake boiler uses 16 gallons of fuel per hour; the fuel costs $1.07 per
gallon, and only enough water would be used to heat one raceway and
produce 50,000 smolts. This would produce smolts in one year rather
than the two years required naturally.
2705A
5
Rick Cardwell asked Loren Flagg if ADF&G could supply the following
infonnation:
o
o
o
o
o
Cost of smolting chinook after 1 and 2 years of rearing
Waterflow rates for each pond of fish
Complete feeding SChedule
Size of raceway
Size of pond
o Flow rates for incubators, adult holding ponds, raceways
ADF&G's commitment to allocate a module at the Trail Lake Hatchery
beyond the first 10 years of project operation was contingent upon the
success of the propagation effort. If the number of returning
adultJ! increases in response to the propagation, then the module
will continue to be reserved for the Grant Lake chinook stock.
However, the run is ultimately expected to fully utilize the module'S
capacity. ADF&G and the Power Authority will need to define the
acceptable rate of increase for the run.
Sid Logan said the mitigation options he foresees we either letting the
fry rear in downstream lakes or rearing the fry or smolts.
Mr. Logan was Questioned on effects of the project on sport fishing in
Grant Creek. He was not really too concerned about effects on sport
fishing because Grant Creek has a limited fishery (If Upper Trail Lakes
11 The number of returning adults (i.e., escapement to the egg
taking facility) will depend upon the magnitude of prior harvest.
It is assumed that the future rate of prior harvest will remain at
the average rate for the period 1978 to 1982 (i.e., current level),
assuring that adult returns will not have to be proportionately
greater to achieve the same level of escapement. Otherwise
forecasts of adult returns will have to be adjusted downward.
270SA
6
....
....
are bridged, as proposed by the project, then sport fishing on Grant
Creek will increase). He suggested that it may be possible to plant
Grant Lake with rainbow trout.
Discussion returned to mitigating Grant Creek salmon. Tom Arminski
_ mentioned that the Power Authority should consider building a
mini-hatchery at the tailrace.
Mary Lynn Nation asked about mitigation for other species. Loren Flagg
said that they may take coho from either Grant Creek or Quartz Creek,
depending on egg requirements, and plant them in Grant Lake. Flagg
said ADF&G plans to take sockeye eggs from Quartz Creek and plant them
in Grant Lake next spring. Cardwell indicated that, in his opinion,
planting sockeye into Grant Lake that had been obtained from a stream
other than Grant Creek would rule out any special mitigation from Grant
Creek sockeye because of genetic (or "wild stock") considerations.
ADF&G replied that this conclusion was correct; Grant Creek sockeye
were not sufficiently unique to warrant special management.
The discussion shifted to a pre-vs. post-operational production of
sockeye in Grant Lake. Although Loren Flagg suggested that
year-to-year variation may be substantial, making it difficult to
compare Grant Lake sockeye production before and after project
operation, major changes in production associated with post-operational
declines in water temperature, fish growth, food abundance, etc. might
be evident.
Eric Marchegiani commented on some apparent problems with APA's
building a hatchery at the tailrace. He mentioned that the powerhouse
would be remotely operated, so staff to feed and maintain the stock
would not be immediately available. He said it would be better to
operate a "new" facility at the Trail Lake Hatchery. Loren Flagg said
that space was available for adding to the hatchery.
2705A
7
Mary Lynn Nation asked whether we would cost Tom Arminski's suggestion
to use Grant Creek as a rearing facility and incubate eggs at Trail
Lake Hatchery. Cardwell agreed to perform a feasibility analysis.
only practical way to evaluate this is to dry up the stream and see
The
what happens. according to Arminski. Only then will it be evident
whether the stream will freeze in the winter and whether groundwater
infiltration is extensive.
Brad Smith asked Loren Flagg whether the hatchery option had a good
chance of maintaining or even enhancing the stock. Loren said that he
had a lot more confidence in the hatchery than in the egg boxes in
terms of safety of performance. There was greater assurance that ADF&G
could produce fry at the hatchery.
Brad Smith asked the Power Authority to address the following
contingency: if all mitigation options fail. the Power Authority will
assist the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association in an enhancement project
mutually agreed upon. This would be the final assurance of the no net
loss alternative. Eric Marchegiani agreed that if all the fish
mitigation options fail to live up to expectations. then APA will sit
down with all the participating agencies and work out another
mitigation alternative.
Loren Flagg asked how much money would be available for mitigation.
Don Smith said that for the Round Butte project in Oregon it was 2.5%,
whereas at Well's Dam on the Columbia it was 25%. Eric Marchegiani
said that fish mitigation is a line item in the project's budget. It
will also be included in the project's contingency.
2705A
8
..
~,
.,
...
•
"" ..
.,.
.'
IIit.
•
ie""
PLANIUNG DOCU~'ENT NO. 3
FISHERIES MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRI C PRnJECT
ALASKA FUWER AUTI()RITY
OCTOBER 28, 1982
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GRANT CREEK
Provisions of An Instream Flow
Adult Holding Facility
Juvenile Rearing Facility
Hatchery Produced Smolts
Hatchery Plus Grant Creek Rearing
Hatchery Plus Rearing Facility
Hatchery Plus Grant Lake Rearing
Egg Boxes Plus Grant Lake Rearing
Egg Box Plus Pond Rearing
Spawning Channel
MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GRANT LAKE
Preventing Entrainment at Tunnel Intake
Passive Screen Bypass
Fish Collection Barge
Page
1
12
14
14
16
18
20
21
22
23
24
28
29
31
31
32
37
POST-OPERATIONAL MONITORING OF MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS 39
Efficacy of Grant Creek Mitigation
Efficacy of Grant Lake Mitigation
LITERATURE CITED
APPENDIX
39
40
41
45
..
•
PLANtHNG DOCur~ENT NO. 3
FISHERI ES rn TIGATIOtJ ALTERtJATI YES
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC FROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
OCTOBER 15, 1982
BACKGROUND AND SLMMARY
Thi sis the thi rd pl anni ng docur.Jent issued by the Power Authority to
assess potential alternatives to ~itigate the impacts of the proposed
Grant Lake ~droe1ectric Project on the fish resources of Grant Creek
and on the proposed sa1~on enhance~ent project for Grant Lake.
Coordination of the evaluation of potential impacts and the alternative
mitigation plans with all concerned Federal, State and local agencies
is an integral part of the Power Authority's process in evaluating a
proposed project's feasibility. Furthernore, it is a require~ent of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Cor.1i1ission that coordination with all
concerned agencies be conducted to insure that all ir.'l>acts are fully
mitigated and ensure no net loss of the affected resource.
In accordance \lith these ~andates, nu~erous i nforna1 di scussi ons I'lith
agency personnel were held which culminated in a meeting with all
agencies on July 9,1982 to assess the provision of an instrear.l f10\., to
preserve the existing fish resources in Grant Creek (APA 1982a,
1982b). A nu~ber of f1 Oil regi~es I'lere eva1 uated, usi ng the r.tethod
described by Tennant (1976). The flow regi~es ranged from 15 cfs to
100 cfs, which cover the range of habitats classified fror.l severely
degraded to excellent by Tennant (1976).
After considerable discussion of the alternative flow regir.tes and the
economic i~pacts associated with them, it was generally agreed that the
ra nge of flows studi ed ''las adequate for consi derati on of ani nstrear.J
-flow and that the provision of an instrea~ flow suitable for
1
18248
mal ntenance of adquate fi sh habitat in Grant Creek would probably not
be economical. It was further agreed that efforts should therefore be
directed to ~itigative ~easures other than the continuation of 1nstream
flow studies.
Consequently. a second ~eeting was held on August 17.1982 to define
alternative mitigation li1easures other than an instrea~ flO\,1 to mitigate
project i~pacts (APA 1982c. 1982d). A nUr:lber of alternatives were
considered. including spawning channels. egg incubation boxes. use of
Trail lakes hatchery. r:lonetary replacement, fish collection barges
("gulpers"), bypass pipes, and screens. The meeting concluded with an
agreer:lent that a r:leeting \/ould be held \Iith ADF&G on Septer:lber 15.
1982. after they had an opportunity to di scuss the proposed r:litigation
options. The latter meeting with ADF&G sought to further define the
~itigation options being considered and provide sane of the data
necessary to fully evaluate the capital and operating costs of these
options for co~parison with costs of the instream flow options. The
mitigation options developed in the meeting consisted of an adult
holding and spawning facility adjacent to the tailrace at the
powerhouse and a variety of alternatives for producing enough fry or
sr:lol ts to produc e 250 adul t chi nook (i ncl udes both catch pl us
escapement)(APA 1982e). The mitigation options are listed in Table 1
and shown 0 n Figure 1.
Discussions of the existing fish resource in the meetings concluded
that mitigation efforts should focus on the chinook salr:lon in Grant
Creek and the ADF&G plan to rear sockeye salmon fry in Grant Lake. For
planni ng purposes. the adul t chi nook salr:lon return to Grant Creek was
assur:led, based on spalming ground surveys to date. to nuober 100. The
nLr.1ber of harvestable adults (i.e., catch plus escaper:lent) is 250. and
the nur.lber of sool ts re qui red to produce 250 a dul ts is 1 6.700. a ssur:li ng
a 1.5 percent survival of ~ol t to adul t. The sockeye salr:lon in Grant
Creek were of 1 esser concern because the rea ri ng of sockeye (a nd
-possibly other) salmon in Grant lake would enharce the run returning to
Grant Creek and irreversibly alter the genetic integrity of the creek's
wil d stock.
2
1824B
-
.. '
Option No.
1.
2.
3.
TABLE 1
ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION OPTIONS
Description
Instreat:1 flow release of 15 cfs year round.
Instrear.l flow release of 5 cfs flov-Apr and 32 cfs
May-Oct. (Avg 18.5 cfs. )
Instrear.l flo\f of 15 cfs Oct 15-Jul 15 and 40 cfs July
15-0ct 15. (Avg 21.25 cfs.)
4. Instrear.l flow of 15 cfs Nov-Apr and 32 cfs May-Oct. (Avg
23.5cfs.)
5. Instrear.1 flo\# of 20 cfs Nov-Apr and 64 cfs !·1ay-Oct. (Avg
42.0 cfs.)
6. Instrear.l flo\l of 55.4 cfs year round
7. Instrear.l flow of 25 cfs Nov-Apr and 96 cfs May-Oct. (Avg
60.5cfs.)
8. Instrear.l flow of 30 cfs Nov-,6;:>r and 128 cfs f1ay-Oct.
(Avg 79 cfso )
9. Instrear.l flo\1 of 100 cfs year round.
10. Rear smolts for one year at existing Trail Lakes
Hatchery. Release smolts fror.l adult holding facility at
Grant Lake Project powerhouse.
11. Rear 2 r.lonth old fry at existing Trail Lakes Hatchery.
Release fry into Grant Creek which would have an instream
flo\'1 of 15 cfs.
12. Rear 2 t:1onth old fry at existing Trail Lakes Hatchery.
Rear sr.101ts (2 yr program) at rearing facility at
powerhouse.
13. Rear 2 month old fry at existing Trail Lakes Hatchery.
Release fry to Grant Lake for rean ng to smolts.
14. Sar.le as Option 10 except provide additional module at
Trail Lakes Hatchery.
15. Sar.le as Opti on 11 except provi de additional module at
TraH Lakes Hatchery.
3
18248
Option No.
16.
17.
18.
TABLE 1
ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION OPTIONS
De seri pt; on
Sar.le as Option 12 except provide additional r.1odule at
Tra; 1 Lakes Hatchery.
Sane as Option 13 except provide additional nodule at
Trail Lake s Hatchery.
Provi de egg i ncubati on boxes at powerhouse. Pl ant fry
into Grant Lake.
19. Provide egg incubation boxes at Grant Lake pouerhouse.
Plant fry into rearing facility at tailrace.
20. Spa un; ng channel.
21. Rotatable screen and bypass pipe for egress of salmon
22.
18248
SI.10ltS fror.1 Grant Lake.
Fish collection barge for egress of salnon snolts fror.1
Grant Lake.
4
.,
Eggs
Trail Lake Hatchery
Existing Module
10 11
Smo1 ts Fry
12
Fry
13
Fry
Grant Rearing Grant
Creek Pond/ Lake
15cfs Channel
Smolts
GRANT CREEK CHINOOK SALMON
l
Eggs
Trail Lake Hatchery
Additional Module
14 15
Smolts Fry
16
Fry
17
Fry
Gr nt Rearing Gr nt
Creek Pondl lake
15cfs Channel
Smolts
Note: Adult holding-spawning facility is common to all alternatives.
Egg Incubation
Boxes
18
Fry
19
Fry
Grant Rearing'
lake Pondl
Channel
Smolts
Figure 1. Alternatives suggested by AOF&G for mitigating project effects on Grant Creek
chinook salmon.
A nu~ber of other mitigation options were considered in addition to
those shown in Table 1 that were discarded for a variety of reasons.
i ncl udi ng cost. technical feasibi 1 ity, bi 01 ogical feasi bi1ity t and
compatibility with existing programs. klong the options discarded were
lake fertilization. a ~ini-hatchery at the pO\'lerhouse. and off-site
mitigation measures.
Table 2 sUrnr:lanzes the increase in the cost of pO\ler from the project
for the various mitigation ~easures. Because any usable mitigation
plan nust include both mitigation for the chinook sal~on in Grant Creek
and provide for egress of sal~on s~olts reared in Grant Lake. the
lowest cost alternative for egress has been added to the cost of each
~itigation option to show the lowest total cost of mitigation for both
fish resources. Cost data reflect both the esti~ated po\'rer cost
($/kwh) and the percent increase in cost over the base cost (no
~itigation plan) for Alternative F given in the project's interirn
engineering report (Ebasco Services Inc. 1982).
Table 2 is based upon the data in Tables 3 and 4. which show the
derivation of each option's annual cost to the project. including
capital, operating and mai ntenance costs. the average annual energy
produced, and the increase in power cost associ ated with different
instream flow and artifichl propagation options, respectively.
Capital and operating costs for providing egress of salmon smolts from
Gra nt La Ice are shm/n in Tabl e 5.
The facilities required and the capital and operating costs relating to
spawning, hatching and rearing salmon fry or smo1ts were obtained from
ADF&G (J. Ha rtman 1982). All costs obtai ned fron ADF&G for these
operations are included except for the allowance for a "foregone
opportunity cost." It was assLniled that ADF&G's comitr:Jent to rear
Grant Creek chi nook a t Trail lakes hatchery si gnified the Depa rtrnent' s
intent to forego full utilization of module capacity until the Grant
,Creek. stock had been enhan:::ed to the module capacity. Mitigation
options not utilizing existing facilities at the hatchery would
maintain rather than enhance the stock. (i.e •• no net loss).
6
1824B
...
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
TOTAL AMAI. lUTAI. POT£IITlAl I IIItRUS(
IIfIIRT. ANNUAL COST AIIIIUAl AIlfllJAI. AKRAGE III COST Of' "IT. COIIST.Y CONST. OPrR. I COST rOR rOR SArE COST or PROJECT AIlllUAI. COST or EIIE1IGYOm
aT. nEllEliTS Of' AlTOtIlATiE COST COST MAIlIT. MITJG. EGRESS ALT. F COST ENERGY [IIERG' AlT. F
... e.. Al c. F. 110 '"~ tt"tll", $1,465,000 17.511 53.t:!
IlISt ..... "ow $ ",000 $30,_ '1,465,000 1,537,_ 1S.511 10.10 13.14
Yur-latmd 15 Cis
f I nl\f'l!" FI_ 54,000 30,_ 1,465.000 1,549,_ n.3f l1.ro 15.:rt
lin-apr 5 Cfs
MI,-lII:t 3f Cfs
J Inlt"". "_ 6f,OOO 30._ 1,465,000 1,557,_ n.OJ It.ff 17.13
III:t 15 ... 1, 15 15 Cfs
.lull 15-OI::t 40 Cfs
4 Inst"" .. Flow 68,000 30,600 1,465,000 1,563,600 14.73 l3.ff ".01 IIoY-Apr IS Cfs
141,-01:: t 3f ct.
I Inst"" .. Flow 1f1,OOO 30,600 1,465,000 1,116,_ ff.H n.f7 34.11
1Io,-Apr lO Ctl
Mly-OI:: t 64 Cfs
• Inu"" .. Flow 1511.000 30,600 1,465,000 1,653,600 :rt .15 711.111 47.17
'4!,r-r"IIIflld 55.4 Cfs
7 Inlt"" .. f'low 17f,OOO 30.600 1,465,000 1,667,_ lO.54 111.111 5f.llf
1Io,-Apr 25 tfs
MoIy-OI:: t t6 ttl
II In,tF'4!" f'low '26,000 30,600 1,465,000 1,7:rt ,600 111.33 93.ft 7'.110
1Io,-Apr 30 Cis
Mly-OI:: t 1211 tts , InUr'I!lr.I Flow '80,000 30._ 1,465,000 1.775,_ 15.80 I1f.l1 111.53
Y"''''-r"IIIflld 100 th
10 Adult Holdf/IIJ flblld" '471.000 '18.300 76.400 '94.700 30._ 1.465,000 1.590,300 f7.08 58.7f 10.55
II.prtntf ng flbnet It G.L.
A",.,.f /IIJ Saol ts u T .l. IIUdl"'I"J
11 Adult Holdl/IIJ flblllf, It G.l. 455.000 11.100 64,900 82,600 . 30,600 1,465,000 1,578.200 IS.12 61.U 17.U
hfsU ng T.l. ItItcMI"J Mod.
15 tfs Instr'l!oICI now
TABLE 2 (can't)
SUMMARY OF ECONO~llC EFFECTS OF f1ITIGATION AL TERUATIVES
TOTAL ANNUAl TOTAL I'OTrNTlAl " INCItEAS( MORT. ANNUAL COST ANNUAL ANNUAl AlI:lIAG[ III COST or
MIT. COIIST.!! COIl'iT. OPER. I \:oST fOR fOR SAfE [OSf or ""WEeT ANNUAl COST or £OGYOW[l
lILT. £UMEIITS or AlT[RIilAnw: [oST [oST 14I\11IIT. "ITIG. [GRESS ALT. f COST [IIERG' EIIEIIG' AlT. F
1l Adult HoldIng I'Ul'ds at G.l. , 606.000 '''6.6011 , 78,600 '105 ... 00 SlO,6OO '1.465.000 '1,600.1100 27.011 5t.n n.n
Rparl ng RInd It G.t.
hht"" T .l. Hltcllto,., 1Iod.
13 Adult HoldIng I'Ul'ds It G.t. 455.000 11,700 ..... 900 40,600 30.600 1.465.000 1,536.200 27.011 56.73 6.7t
bhtlng T .t. Hotellto,., Hod.
14 Adult Holdl ng I'Ul'dsl 1,181.Il00 46.100 00.400 126.500 30.600 1.465.000 1.6 ..... 100 21.011 59. to 1:t.7'
,,"prhltlng RlI'd U G.l.
Ih! .. rlng SoJoTts et T.t. IIItcllto,.,
Addltlolllll T.l. HIIte ... ,., Hod.
IS Adult HoldIng I'Ul'dsl 1.169.000 .5.400 68.900 110,300 30.600 1.465,000 1,605.too 2S.U n .• 2 It. 40
AddltloNI T .t. HIIte ... ,., Hod.
IS efs h"t~ .. F1 ow
1. Adul t Holdl ng I'Unds It G.l. 1.400.000 54.300 78.600 Ill,900 30,600 1,465,000 1.6111.500 27.011 60.14 13.ft
RUMng RlI'd It G.l.
Addltlo,..1 T.t. Hlte ... ,., Hod.
17 Adult HoI dl ng I'Undsl 1.169.000 45.400 "2,900 60.300 30.600 1.465,000 1,563.too 27.08 57.75 '.7:t Add It 10 ... I T.l. Hotc ... ,., Hod.
III Adult HoldIng I'Ul'dsl 513.000 ..... 200 15.500 )7.700 30.600 1.465,000 1.533.300 27.011 56.62 '.5'
[99 80 •• 5 , Bld9 •• t G.t.
19 Adult HoldIng 1'U1'd5 It G.l. 804.000 31,100 71."00 102.300 30.600 1.465.000 1.597.900 27." 59.111 II.ot
Rurl"') RInd U G.t.
[99 80 •• s , 8ldg •• t G.t.
20 SpewIng ell._1 522.1100 20.200 17.000 37.200 30.600 1.465.000 1,532,800 27.58 55.51 4. til
""uhtlons: G.l • .. Gr.nt lit.
T .t • .. Tr.tl l.lt>
HOO • .. Hodul ..
II lnelud .. s 1.51 tlUltlpll~r which tneludl'~ .1100 .... nel's for lndl .... ct construction costs. contlng"ney. I'ng, .... l'rlll9. COIIstrvctlOIl a'1III98II'nt Ind _r
..... 9_nt. and Int" ... st durlnIJ construction.
11978
:~ , , ,
.0
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF INSTREAM FLm~ ALTERNATIVES
TotAl '[IItUT P'CIICtin
MIIIIAl ANNUAL AYfIlAG£ OECREASE COST Of tM;lI[AS[ III
AVERAGE IIISTlIUM PRIlIEtT AIINIIAL III EIIERGT [NERGT COST Of tIlE""
III5TIIE'" FUJII "A8ITAT COST EN[RGT FRIJII ilL TEIlIIA-("ILLSI OYEII AmllA-
ATt_Tlft: FUJII (trs, C!I1MENTS QUAlITY !/ ISI,DOOs'Y (GIIHlil lifE F lint I!!! TIft F
.1
iiI
(I al
il
!t
!~
FII ° IIoI11! 1,465 l7.58 53.n
1111 15.0 COli' gilt '''''''-l''Ound 1,507 n.58 7.3 58." 1O.'
! 18.5 5 tfl lIoy.-,. ... Poo .. 0 .. 1,519 n.3l 8.l 59.98 n.' 32 tfl /llay..4)c t. .1111-
lY ll.Z5 15 efs Oct. ,5...,." 15 1,!il7 Z5.03 9.2 61.01 14.'
40 tfS Jul, IS-Oct. 15
4 n.5 15 eft lIoy. -~ ... F.t" 0" 1,533 Z4.73 10.3 61.98 11.7
32 efs Mly..4)ct. dl",. ... d
5 U.O lO efs lIDy. -~,.. Good 1,!i86 U.68 17.8 69.93 31.'
fi4 efs Mly..4)ct.
• 55.4 COIIStlllt y"'Ir-l"OUnd Good 1,6n 21.15 Zl.3 76.74 44.5
7 60.5 Z5 efs lIoy,-,.". [.t'" 11 "'lit 1,637 ZO.54 n.s 79." so. 0
96 efs Mly-Oct.
8 79.0 30 cfs 1Io,.-~r. Outst.nd'ng 1,691 18.33 33.5 92.25 73,4
128 efs ... ,-Oct •
~I 100.0 to"st.nt Y"""'l'Ound 1,745 15.80 42.7 110.44 108.0
COst alld "'''",'',y nilit's for AI te,.n.tt.,,,, F obtallll!d 'I"0Il Inte"l. Rl!Port (F",b.v.,., 1982 ••
nIls Is ,pp",,"i...,tI'Iy the annual .. Inl_ stre_flow In Gr.nt ("et, .IId Is the IOWI'st 'nst"", .. flow "",I",,,,,, tOlls'dl'"",d.
"nl_ Inst,.", ... flow relene consldef'l!d.
AI tp.,.natl.,,,, sU9'l",stf!'d by AEIOC.
BI$f!'d 011 T!,lIn.nt's 119161 Ml!thod.
Includf!'l annu.I cost of 9"'ftI!,..tlng phnt plus ._.1 cost of PUtWPlng plant plus .IIIN.I cost of p_" to PUtWP (PUtWP''''
Is requl""'d to 11ft wat",,. fl"Oll I,t", O'li!" nltu,.,1 outlet Into Gr.nt Creek ch._1l.
"GIIH" lIII!.ns GIgawltt hou,.s, whIch equ.1s tllow.tt hou,.s tlOII!S I.OIIO.I.lOO.
1 .111 • $.001. 0" oM-tenth of Olll! c"'nt.
179711
TABLE 4
DEVELOPMENT OF ~lIGITATION AL TERNATI VES
"Ill GAlIOII COltS TRucr lOftY MIll/AI. OP£RATlOIIS I TOTAL AllllllAl
Al TEllIIAn.: [lElI[ IITS Of AI. l£RIIA TI V[ COST COST I4A IIITENAII:[ COST
10 Adult Mold! '" Jl\)nds S 453,000 '17,600 • 1,100 • ~4.100
IIlIII .. fntt", Pond III G.l. 8.000 300 1.000 2,100
RUM", ~Its at T.l. IIIItCM.." 10,000 400 61,500 61,900
Totll 41l,OOO 18,lOO 16,400 94,100 :i
11 Adult Moldl", Jl\)nds at 'G.l. 453,000 11,600 1,100 24,700 '. :
ExisUng T.l. HeteM.." llad. 2,000 100 15,1100 15,900
15 Cfs I"st~a .. Flo" 42,000 42,000
Total 455,000 17,100 64,900 82,600 ,
1Z Mult Hold'", Jl\)nds at G.l, 453,000 17,600 1,100 24,700 I Rl' ... 1 ng Pond at G.l. ;>31 ,OUO 8,"00 55,100 64,600
uhtf ng T .l. IIiItCM.." fIod. 2,000 100 15,ROO 15,'lOO
Total 696,000 26,600 18,600 105.200
13 Adul t Mold! '" Jl\)ndS at G.l. 453.000 17,600 1,HIO 24,1110
Exhttng T,l. HeteM.." Mod. 2,000 100 15.1100 15,'100
Total 455,000 17,100 21,900 40,600
1. Adult Hold!", Jl\)ndsf 453,000 17,600 7,100 24,100
ImpM IItt '" Pond It G.l. 8,000 300 1,1100 2,100
1I .... Mng Smolts at T.L. HeteM.." ",000 400 '?,500 61,900
Additional T.l. IIiIteM.." Mod. 1l6,OOO 27,000 15,1100 31,1100
Total 1,119,000 46,100 80,400 126,500
15 Adul t IIDI d' '" Pondsf 453,000 11,600 1,100 24,700
Adlltt'onal T.l. HeteM.." lIod. 1l6,OOO '11,800 lS,800 43,600
15 (fa Inst~ ... Flo" 42,000 42,000
-' Total 1,169,000 45,400 64,900 110,300
a
1fi Adult Hold' '" I'I>nd, at G.t. 453.000 11,600 1,100 14,700
Re .. dng Pond at G.l. 231,000 8,"00 55,100 64.600
MdtttONl T.l. HeteM.." fIod. 116,000 21,800 15,000 43,600
Total 1,400,000 54,300 18,600 1l2,9OO
11 Adult IIDldl", Pondsf 453,000 11,600 7,100 24,700
Mt1ltlonal T.l. HeteM.." Mod. 116,000 17,800 15,800 43,600
Total 1,169,000 45,400 22,900 68,300
18 AII!llt Holdl", ""nd~f 453,000 11,600 1,100 14,100
Egg eoXl'S • B1 dg. at G.t. 120,000 4,Ii00 8,400 13,000
Total 513,000 22,;>00 15,500 ]1,100
19 Adult Holdl", I'I>nds at G.L 453,000 11,IiOO 1,100 14,700
Rpa .. t..., ""no1 at G.l. 231,000 11, 'llJO 55,100 64,600
[')'1 1I0.l'5 & 81 dg. at G.l. 170.000 4,~00 8,400 13.000
Total 804.000 31.100 11 .200 102,300
20 Spawn'", Ch.nnp I 5;>2,000 20,:>00 11,000 31,100
11 Satll! n flbl ~ 2
, , , , I , , 1 I
TABLE 5
DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS FOR PROVIDING SAFE EGRESS FOR SOCKEYE SALMON
AMORTIZED OPERATION TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION AND ANNUAL
ALTERNATIVE COST COST MAINTENANCE COST
. Passi ve $ 275.000 $10.600 $20.000 $ 30,600
Screen
Bypass
Fi sh 1.5UO,OOO 58,300 83,000 141 ,300
Collection
Barge
(GJlper)
'1
CONCLUSIONS
The five options that satisfy biological, engineering, and cost
cdteria for feasibility are listed below, beginning with the option
most preferred by the POwer Authority.
o Option 13
o Opti on 17
o Option 10
o Option18
o Option 20
Fry reared at existing Trail lakes hatchery and
planted into Grant lake
Fry reared in new module at Trail lakes hatchery
and pl anted into Grant lake
Chinook. reared to sr.lolts at existing Trail lakes
hatchery
Fry produced by egg boxes and planted into Grant
Lake
Spawni ng channel
All the other options were eli~inated because they possessed
liabilities biologically, were unfeasible economically, or both.
Rearing fry at the existing Trail lakes hatchery and planting theIJ into
Grant Lake (Option 13) for rearing to sr.lolts is highly effective and
has a high probability of success. Fry incubated and reared for 2
months at the hatchery will experience hi gh survival and growth. They
should do \'1ell in Grant lake, which already hosts a good population of
threespine stickleback and is slated for enhancer.lent of sal~on,
including possibly chinook. Entraiment and egress are assu~ed to be
mi nor and mi ti gati bl e, re spect ively. POst-operati ona 1 ~oni tori ng
should answer these questions.
Option 17, which is identical to Option 13 except for construction of a
new ~odul e at the hatchery, is 1 ess desi rabl e only because it is more
expensive than Option 13.
Producing s~olts at the existing Trail lakes hatchery (Option 10) is
probably the ~ost failsafe way to mitigate project impacts, but the
high cost makes it oarginally economical.
18248 12
Producing fry in egg boxes and planting ther.l into Grant Lake
(Option 18) is considered quite feasible. However. the need to
deterTiline the optimur.l 1 ncubation conditions for chi nook in egg boxes
and the possibility of system failure in an unattended facility.
despite backup provisions. lessen its relative pror.lise.
There appears to be no reason whY a channel cannot be built and
_ mai ntai ned so that it accor.nodates both a hi gh 1 evel of spawni ng and
fry survival. The r.lajor deficiency of a spa\ming channel (Option 20)
concerns 1 ack of sufficient rear; ng for fry in the channel.
necessitating their colonizing lakes and streams elsewhere to complete
their fresh\'Iater residence. Relative to the aforer.lentioned mitigation
options. r.lortality after dispersal probably will be r.luch higher.
especially if rear; ng habitat is 1 ir.liti ng.
18248 13
MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GRANT CREEK
PROVISION OF AN INSTREAM FLOW
Biological Feasibility
Instream flo\ls for Grant Creek were evaluated in the first and second
-planning docuT.1ents (APA 1982a, 1982b). These docur.lents indicated that
strear.lf10\"ls requi red to protect the exi sti ng fi sh resource woul d be
substantially greater than 15 cfs, the average annual strear.lflowabove
which it is believed the project will be unfeasible because cheaper
sources of electrical pO'ier will be available elsewhere. For example,
providing the "good" habitat defined by Tennant (1976) would require an
average flow of 64 cfs duri ng the hi gh flow peri od of r~ay through
October and 20 cfs during the 10H flO\'I period of Nover.1ber through
April. A flow of 15 cfs corresponds to habitat classifications over
the year that range fror.l severe degradation to fair, according to
Tennant's (1976) methodology. Although Tennant's r.lethod is simplistic.
it has been shown to produce results that are cooparab1e to r.lore
extensive r.lethod s (l-brton and Cochnauer 1980; Orth and Maugha n 1982).
A variety of other flows have been considered (see Table 1), and even
those considered remotely feasible, such as the 40-20 cfs regime
proposed by AEIDC, exceed the aforer.lentioned 15 cfs 1 ir.lit. Currently,
it is ir.lpossible to evaluate the biological feasibility of flows like
the 1 atter regir.len. The consequences of no fl ushi ng flollS, \-1 hi ch ri d
Grant Creek of settled sediment, and the susceptibility of the strear.l
to freezing (even partially), due to its altered hydrology, cannot be
answered until after the project is constructed.
It is recognized that an optir.lUl,' strear.lflow in Grant Creek would
sustain the stream's existing fish stocks and ecology. In fact,
maintaining optir.lUT,l streamflows (now estimated to be greater than flo\'is
feasible for this project) might even enhance fish populations because
·of the stabi1 ity imparted through augoentation of low flows and
18248 14
-
declines in high flows. A major disadvantage of all instrea~ flow
'options is that they must be achieved by pu~ping water fro~ Grant
lake. Pur.lping water always carries with it the possibility of
equipment and/or pO\ler failure and a resulting interruption fn the
stre~ flow. Any interruption could devastate the year classes of
salmonids rean ng in the strear.a.
Eng i neeri ng Feasi bi 1 i ty
It is technically feasible to maintain instrear.a flows in Grant Creek.
Since the elevation of the natural Grant lake outlet is higher than the
reservoir water surface elevation for Alternative F (see Ebasco
Services Inc. 1982 for description of project alternatives), all
instream flow releases would have to be pumped over the outlet.
Instream flows would be provided through a pur.aping system capable of
lifting water fror.l the reservoir through a pipe rising over the outlet
to discharge into the Grant Creek streanbed. Back up pumps and an
er.lergency power supply would probably be required. The pu~p intake
would have to be screened to prevent entrainment of fish and
periodically maintained.
Cost
Provisions for an instream flo,., reduce the average annual energy fror:l
the project and cons~e power to pump the instrear.l flow. In computing
the effect of the instream flow releases on project power output, it
was assUr:led that the designated flow would be provided at the times
. indicated. Since all instream flows must be pUr:lped to Grant Creek. a
means of providing egress for sockeye smolts must be provided in
addition to the flow release. Table 2 therefore provides for the cost
of the lowest priced egress option (costs for egress options are
described later in this doclr.lent) to obtain the total cost of the
mitigation option. Tabl e 2 shows the effect on the cost of power from
'. the project for each of the i nstream flow options. Table 3 shows the
derivati on of these costs in tenns of capital costs, operati n9 costs
and reductions in project power output associated with each release.
18248 15
The various instrealil flow alternatives result in increasing the project
power costs over a range of l3to 111 percent. Figure 2 shows the cost
of energy plotted against oinimum streamflow for estimating the cost of
any i nstream flow.
ADULT HOLDING FACILITY
. Biological Feasibility
Several artificial propagation options (Table l) were; dentified duri ng
the Septer.lber 15, 1982 meeti ng wi th AD F&G (APA 198 2e) • All of these
options i ncl ude construction of two race\-Iays adjacent to the tail race
for holding and spawning the adult chinook returning to Grant Creek.
The raceways have have been sized by ADF&G to acco~odate a Iilinimum of
100 chinook and 700 sockeye adults--the expected maximum natural
escapement to Gra nt Creek.
Water would be diverted froo the tailrace channel into the raceways by
gravity flow through a pipe or small canal. The upstrealil end of the
raCe\iays woul d be screened to prevent t; sh frolil enteri ng the water
supply canal. Ingress to the raceway for the fish would be provided by
a soall canal located in the tailrace downstream of the water supply
cana 1. The canal s waul d be 1 i ned wi th concrete to mi nirnf ze spawni ng
activity and erosion of material into the facility.
There may be a potential problem concerning the carrying capacity of
the adult holding facility. If ADF&G's Grant Lake enhancement project
proves successful, then return of far more adults than the facility can
accQmr.lodate is possible. Because the current runs of sockeye and
chinook into ~rant Creek are poorly separated temporally. it may be
difficult to harvest the sockeye at the desired rate without ililpacting
the chinook. Therefore, ADF&G may have to consider enlargi ng the
facility should its Grant Lake enhancement project prove successful.
18248 16
-
120
E 9 N 1 t 0
E V R
G
Y 100 /
V C 8 0 / s 90
'T V
/ M S0
I / 7 L
L / 6
S 70
I ./
....
k / 5
W 2 ... 60
/ ~ 3
I
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
AVERAGE INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENT IN CFS
SEE TABLE 1 FOR DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES F AND 1-9.
AVERAGE INSTREAM FLOW VERSUS COST FIGURE 1
17
Fish would have to be prevented fro~ swi~ing upstream into Grant Creek
and the powerhouse discharge. Barriers would be provided at the mouth
of Grant Creek and just upstream of the confluence of the canal leading
to the adult holding pond and the tailrace. Each would consist of a
concrete weir topped by a1u~inum pickets spaced to prevent upstream
migration. "'aintenance, re~ova1, and installation of the pickets would
be facilitated by a wooden p1atfo~ that would span the tailrace
-channel.
Eng i neeri ng Fe asi bi 1 i ty
There a re no e ngi neeri ng consi derati ons that wou1 d adversely impact
construction of the adult holdi ng raceways defined by ADF&G. A
suitable site exists adjacent to the tailrace. downstrea~ of the
powerhouse. ~ple precedent for construction of this type of facility
exists and construction of the facility involves no unproven technology.
Cost
A conceptual-level cost esti~ate was developed for the adult facility.
The total annual cost inc1udi ng both capital and operation and
maintenance cost of the facility is included in the total annual cost
for each option as shmln on Tab1 e 4. The effect of these costs on the
cost of power fro~ the project is i nc1 uded in the cost of each opti on
requiring an adult holding facility in Table 2.
JUVENILE REARING FACILITY
Biological Feasibility
Two juvenile rearing raceways adjacent to the adult holding ponds also
are COCT.lon to several of the options. Each raceway will contain
225 ft 3 of water and be supp1 ied with water at a rate of 0.2 cfs, the
rate suggested by ADF&G to produce 16,700 chi nook smolts. Two raceways
18248 18
..
are required because the prevailing low water teraperatures will
necessitate reari ng the juveniles for 2 years until they smol t.ll
Each race\/ay \lould accClr.r.lodate a different year class.
The reari og ponds represent a vul nerable link to the success of al"lY
option requiring their use. Despite the provision of an emergency pump
to provide backup to the primary gravity flow systera. two years of
rearing increases the possibility of a water supply failure. an
epizootic. weather-related catastrophe. etc.
Eng i neeri ng Fe asi bil f ty
Suitable locations for instalHng the juvenile rearing raceways exist
downstream of the powerhouse. Extension of the gravity flow systera
providing \later to the adult holding facility would provide water for
the juvenil e reari ng ponds from the powerhouse tail race. Backup water
supply pumped from Upper Trail Lake would be provided as an eraergency
water soun::e. Ingress and egress from the raceways woul d be controll ed
by suitable screens. Ample precedent for construction of this type of
facility exists.
Cost
An estimate was prepared for the cost of the juvenile rearing facility
using cost parameters provided by ADF&G. Operating and maintenance
costs. including food costs and labor. were also provided by ADF&G.
The capital. operati ng and mai ntenance costs are shown on Tab' e 3 for
those options incorporating this facility. The effect of these costs
on the cost of power from the project is i ncl uded in the costs for
those options requiring this facility in Table 2.
-11 Water used to cool the generator windings may be available to
augment raceway temperatures. Although the amount of heated water
available is proportional to the electrical load placed on the
generator, and would be interrupted when the project is shut down,
up to 0.5 cfs heated 6°F (3.3°c) water is projected.
18248 19
HATCHERY-PRODUCED SMOLTS
Biological Feasibility
Under these options chinoo~ eggs ta~en at the tailrace adult facility
would be transferred to the Trail La~es hatchery where they would be
reared to sr.lolts, either in an existing module (Option 10) or in a new
modul e (Option 14). By heati ng the water in the hatchery to 50.9·F
(lO.S·C), sr.lOlts would be released in June of the year following their
spawning rather than the two years required to rear Sr.lolts in the
raceways at the tailrace. Srnolts would be transfer~d to the adult
raceways for impri nti ng over a period of t,'IO wee~s pri or to rel ease.
This option has the greatest probability of success because of the more
consistent care the fish will receive in the hatchery and the far
better survival rates of sr.lolts coopared to fingerlings once released.
Engi neeri ng Feasi bil ity
Technology for achieving this option is proven. All of the rearing
will be perfomed at Trail La~e hatchery except for a short stay in the
adult holding facility described earlier, for ililprinting the slilolts to
Grant Cree~ water. ""propriate screening will be installed at the
inlet and outlet of the raceways to prevent premature escape.
Cost
Estimated capital and operating costs for these options are shown; n
Tabl e 4. The total annual cost and the increase; n cost of power from
the project caused by these options is shown on Table 2.
18248 20
....
...
-
-
....'
..
..
HATCHERY PLUS GRANT CREEK REARING
Biological Feasibility
This option consists of rearing chinook eggs to 2 month old fry at the
Trail Lakes hatchery in an existing module (Option 11) or new module
(Option 15), then planting them into Grant Creek, which would possess a
year-around instrearn flow of 15 cfs, as described earlier. The eggs
would be taken at the adult holding facility. The success of this
option depends on how the chi nook fry fa re in Grant Creek. Because of
uncertainties regarding their fate. this option is not regarded very
highly. If freezi ng, predation, and sedimentation fail to be limiti ng
factors. then the stable stream flow might augment benthic (i.e., food)
production and consequently the quality of the stream environment for
chinook production. The capacity of Grant Creek. whose flow in nost
months would be only a remnant of its natural flow. to produce as martY
chinook sl:1olts as it did naturally is improbable, especially
considering that other fish species would inhabit the stream and
cOr.1pete for available food. To maintain the status quo, the stream's
food production would have to be more concentrated than it was
naturally because of the reduced stream flow. Because living space in
the stream is less, carrying capacity for fish will likely be less.
Sedimentation probably will be a bigger problem because of the absence
of flushing flows. Grant Creek's watershed below the lake outlet will
consequently have to receive greater protection from all sediment
sources, for the strear.l will be more vulnerable to sedimentation.
Increased sedimentation could reduce fish carrying capacity. Fi nally.
continuous operation of the Plr.lPS to provide an instream flow cannot be
guaranteed, even \lith backup emergency pumps. Vandalism and mechanical
failure are possibl e; the impact of loss of flow on the resource could
be catastrophic and affect one or more year classes of juveniles.
18248 21
Eng i neeri ng Feasi bi 1 ity
Engineeri ng considerations have been discussed previously under
instream flow options, adult and juvenile rearing facilities. No
engineeri ng concerns exist relative to construction and operation of
the facilities required for these options.
'Cost
A conceptual level cost estimate was prepared for each of these options
using cost data provided by ADF&G. No additional capital cost is
required for the existing r.lOdu1e at Trail Lakes Hatchery because ADF&G
would allocate the module for rearing Grant Creek chinook. The capital
costs for the remaining facilities and the operation and maintenance
costs for all components of this option are shO\·m on Table 4. Table 2
shows the impact of this option on the cost of pO\'l"er fror:l the project.
The capital cost of the new module required for Option 15 is also
shown, along with its associated operation and r.laintenance costs on
Tab1 e 4. Tabl e 2 shows the ir.lpact of costs of thi s opti on on the cost
of power frol:! the project.
HATCHERY PLUS REARING FACILITY
Biological Feasibility
Thi s alternative consists of rearing Grant Creek chinook eggs to
2-month old fr,r within an existing module at the Trail Lakes hatchery
(Option 12) or with a new r.1odu1e (Option 16) and transferring them to
rea ri ng ponds nea r the project powerhouse. The eggs wou1 d be taken at
the adul t hol di ng facil i ty. The fry woul d be reared over a 2-year
period in raceways designed to accomr:lodate at least 16,700 Sr:lolts, the
estimated sr:lolt production necessary to produce 250 adult chinook.
"Because of low water temperatures, two years would be required to rear
the fr,r to sr.I01ts. Consequently, two raceways would be built to
accQl:ll";lodate the two year classes of juveniles be; ng reared
1824B 22
....
-
conc~itantly. To facilitate planning of this option, water
telilperatures were projected to average about 4.S·C over the yea r. The
fish would be fed by AOF&G personnel with food and rations prescribed
by ADF&G. This option has a good chance of attaining the mitigation
objectives because the fish would be under regular care of AOF&G salmon
cul tun sts •
. Eng i neeri ng Fe asi bi 11 ty
As previously indicated ample precedent for construction of this type
of facility exists and hence no unproven technology is involved.
Cost
A conceptual-level cost estililate was prepared for each of these
options. As previously indicated, no additional ~apital cost is
required for Option 12 since under this option, AOF&G would allocate a
r.lodul e at the exi sti ng hatchery for reari ng chi nook fror.l Grant Creek.
The cost of the new r.lodule is the sar.le as estimated previously. The
capital cost of the juvenile rearing facilities and the operation and
maintenance cost is shoun on Table 4 for each of these options. The
resulting impact on cost of each option on the cost of power from the
project is shown on Table ~.
HATCHERY PLUS GRANT LAKE REARING
Bi olog1cal Feasi bil ity
With one exception options 13 and 17 are identical to Options 11 and
15. where 2-r.aonth 01 d fry, incubated in the Trail Lakes hatchery J were
planted into Grant Creek. The exception is that under options 13 and
17 the fry would be planted into Grant Lake. The juveniles should fare
better in the lake than in Grant Creek because the lake's food supply
. should be greater than that in Grant Creek and there should be fewer
(currently there are none) predatory fish. In addition, concerns about
, 18248
sedimentation. freezing, and pu~ failure should be less or
non-exi stent 1 n COTJpa ri son wi th the use of Grant Creek with a 15 cfs
flow as a rearing facility. The r.lajor caveats coocerning this option's
success relate to degree of entraiment of juveniles prior to smo1ti ng
and to perforTilance of the sr.lo1t bypass. Both issues are discussed in a
later section.
Engineering Feasibility
As previously indicated, the facilities required for these options have
ample precendent and hence no unproven technology is ioc1uded.
Cost
The estimated costs of constructing and maintaining the facilities
required for these alternatives have been previously developed and are
shown in Table 4. The resulting effect on the cost of pO\'ler fron the
project is given in Table 2.
EGG BOXES PLUS GRAIn LAKE REARING
Biological Feasibility
For this option (Option 18) two egg boxes holding up to approximately
500,000 chinook eggs each would be situated adjacent to the two
raceways at the powerhouse. The boxes would be patterned after those
in use in Alaska and Washington. They would be housed 1n a small
heated building to prevent ice formation in the boxes and water
outlets. Water ter.lperature and dissolved oxygen sensors would be
installed in each box to r.lonitor and record these pararaeters. Fry
would leave the boxes volitiona11y and be directed via a flume to a
holding tank, which liould be checked daily by ADF&G hatchery staff.
They would then be planted into Grant Lake.
1824B 24
..
-..
..
..
...
,.
M> ..
..,
., ..
Egg incubation boxes (Figure 3) are si~ple wooden boxes filled with
alternati ng layers of gravel and sal~on eggs. They are receivi ng
considerable use in Washington State (Allen and Cowan 1978; Allen et
al. 1981a, 1981b). In Alaska they have been used successfully for the
past two years to incubate sockeye, even stocks carrying the viral
disease IHt~ (Daisy 1982).
The ~ain species that would be utilized for the egg box program at
Grant lake woul d be chi nook salmon. Al though hi gh survival rates
(70-8C1) for coho, chu~, and pink salmon fry are Cor.T.1on using the egg
boxes (Allen et al. 1981a, 1981 b). experience incubating chinook eggs
is 1 i~ited. The advantage to egg boxes over natural incubation in
Grant Creek is the higher survival rate (Allen et al. 1981a). The
reason for this is that the boxes are less susceptible to freezing,
sedir.\entation, and bedload changes because they maintain a clean gravel
source and constant flo,~. The fry produced fro~ the boxes are
equivalent in quality to wild fry (Allen et al. 1981a).
Some difficulties have occurred with egg boxes in Alaska but these
probleras can be resolved. For example, tblder (1982) had initial low
survival rates (as 10\1 as 4(1) in egg boxes (for sockeye) at the
Gulkana incubation facility. The reason for this was rough handling.
In the last two years, survival at this facility has ranged froD 70 to
901. In Washi ngton, incubators have been suscepti bl e to sedimentation
a nd eggs to fungus gro\lth (All en 1981 a) • However, fungus can be
controlled by treatment. Also, sedimentation is not expected to be a
problera because the source of the water for the boxes wil' be Grant
lake. which by acting as a large settling basin eliminates a major
portion of settleable ~aterials. If necessary, the water also could be
filtered prior to use.
25 18248
FLOW DIAGRAM
ALUMINUM GRATING
Figure 1. Basic design of egg incubation box.
, I , I .. I t I I f • , , I , I ~. .. I , , 1 , ,
Overall, the feasibility of egg boxes appears very good and is enhanced
by their enclosure in a heated building that will prevent freezing of
the box or water connections. Nevertheless, they have not been used
extensfvely for incubatfng chfnook. A box should be tested on Grant
Creek with chi nook eggs pri or to project constructi on to confinn their
perfonnance with this specfes. The chinook eggs should Cor.1e from
another stream to avoid impacting the already sraall Grant Creek stock.
_ and the fry should be killed to prevent their coming back to Grant
Creek and intennixing genetically.
Engineering Feasibility
Field studies indicate an egg box building could be sited near the
adult facility. Water would be provided frora the tailrace channel.
The two egg boxes would be recessed into the ground to allO\~ gravity
flow under no nil a 1 operat1 ng conditions.
The egg box building "ould be a concrete structure with an alum1nutl
roof. A workbench and storage area would be provided to facilitate
maintenance operations.
18248 27
Each egg box woul d measure 8 feet long by 4 feet wi de by 4 feet deep
and would be constructed from moisture sealed, marine quality plywood.
An aluminum grating raised slightly above the floor of the box would
direct water via baffles from the water supply line through a sheet of
perforated "Vexar" plastic, up through a 2 foot layer of round and
washed drat n gravel, and around the eggs.
After the eggs hatch, the alevins gradually migrate to the top of the
box. They do not ~erge until buttoning-up unless there is some stress
like low dissolved oxygen. When the fry emerge, they will be
. automatically carried 1 n a flume to a screened adult raceway. From
there ADF&G staff would truck them to Grant Lake.
Shoul d the power plant be shut down for any reason and the water fall
below a preset level in the discharge canal fron either the egg box
buildi ng or holdi ng pond system, an emergency pump, which draws water
directly from ground\iater or Upper Trail Lake, would be activated.
This pump would fully provide the water needs of the system.
Cost
The c~nstruction and operation and maintenance costs for this option
a re shoun on Tabl e 4. The effect on the cost of power of
imp'e~entation of this option is shown on Table 2.
EGG B OX PLUS POND REARING
Biological Feasibility
This option (Option 19) differs from the preceding egg box option only
in that fry will be diverted via a flume into one of the rearing
raceways when they emerge fron the egg box. There they will be reared
over a 2-year period to smolts and then released to the tail race, as
prev; ously descri bed. The option has a good chance of success.
Itlwever, the perfonnaoce of egg boxes in producing good quality chinook.
fry wi th acceptabl e surv; va 1 needs to be detenni ned ; n advance, as
indicated earl i ere
18248 28
...
..
..
-
•
Eng i neeri ng Fe asi bi 11 ty
All the eleraents have been engineered successfully before and are
feasible.
Cost
The construction and operation and liIaintenarx:e costs for this option
a re shown in Tabl e 4. Tabl e 2 shows the effect on the cost of power
from this option ••
SPAWNING CHANNEL
Biological Feasibility
A general corx:ern alilong the agerx:ies participating in this fish
liIitigation planning is that spawning channels (Option 20) sound better
on paper than they perforlil. The liIajority of spawning channels
throughout the Pacific Northwest and Canada have not produced as well
as expected, although the Canadians have had fairly good success with
sockeye (Cooper 1977). Experience in Alaska is lililited. In Washington
one of the liIain probler,ls with spawning channels for chinook corx:erns
holding the fish for an extended period before spawning. Disease, with
resulting pre-spa\·mer 1iI0rtality, is a liIajor problelil. This is not an
inherent problelil with channel design, only environmental conditions
(high water telilperatures). At Grant Lake there is no reason to believe
that elevated water telilperature. gas supersaturation, low dissolved
oxygen, or any other inimical water quality condition will be present
in waters coming from the powerhouse that would ililpose a significant
stress on adult chi nook.
The spawning channel envisioned would conforlil approximately to the
criteria described in the Appendix. The channel waul d be a segregated
.. section of the tailrace having separate sections for chinook and
sockeye to prevent superililposition of new redds on old redds and
provide species-specific f1mfs, depths, and substrate sizes for
18248 29
spawning. Substrate water velocities could be partly controlled by
manipulating rock size below the 18 inch bed of spawning gravel.
Silting should be a lesser problem in this spawning channel than in
channel s else\lhere because Grant lake acts as a large settling basi n.
Annual gravel cl eani ng shoul d suffice to rer.love any accurnul ated fi nes.
Engi neeri ng Feasi bil ity
Onsite investigations have detenJined that a suitable location for a
spawning channel r.leeting the criteria defined in the Appendix exists
downstrear.l of the pO\lerhouse and north of the tail race channel.
Foundation r.laterial appears adequate for excavating the channel.
Water for the spawning channel would be diverted fror.l the tailrace
channel. The upstream end of the spawn; ng channel \~oul d be screened to
prevent the fi sh fror.l re-enter; ng the tail race channel. Ad ul t salmon
woul d enter the spawni ng channel just upstream from the tail race
confluence with Upper Trail lake. They would be prevented from
swh.v.ti ng up the tail race channel by a barrier located just upstream of
the spawning channel entrance. Thi s barrier would consist of a
concrete weir topped by closely spaced aluminur.l pickets to prevent
upstream passage of adults. Maintenance, rer.loval, and installation of
the pickets would be perfomed from a \/Ooden platfom spanning the
tail race channel over the wei r.
Ar.Iple precedent for construction of this type of facility exists and no
u np rove n technology ; s i nvol ved.
Cost
The cost estimate for the spa\ming channel was developed for an earlier
meeting (APA 1982a). Dir.lensions and characteristics of the channel
were estir.lated from existing 1 iterature and are shown in the Appendix.
The conceptua 1 *1 eve 1 constructi on cost estimate for thi s spawni ng
channel and the annual operation and maintenance cost is shown in
Table 4. The result; ng effect on cost of energy from the project is
shmtO on Tabl e 2.
18248 30
....
..
..
.. -..
..
..
ra·
..
..
-
-..
MITIGATION OPTIOt~ FOR GRANT LAKE
PREVENTING ENTRAINt1ENT AT TUNNEL INTAKE
There is a possibility that juvenile salmon rearing in Grant lake could
be entrained by the submarine powerhouse tunnel and transported to
Upper Trail lake. passing through the turbine in the process. Tuo
questions are raised: how si gn1 ficant wi 11 entrai l1iIent be duri ng
rearing and how can turbine-induced injury be minimized or prevented.
Small salmonids (i.e •• less than 100 mm) might experience some
entrairnent unless they are able to detect and avoid the intake. Their
burst swir.tni ng speeds are simply not enough (approximately 0.9 feet per
second or fps for a 50 mr.l fi sh) to counteract the velocity of water in
the tunnel (3-4 fps). Fish larger than 230 mr.1 shoul d not be subject to
entrainment because their burst swimging speed should exceed. water
velocity in the tunnel (Brett 1964). Fortunately, approach velocities
to the tunnel gradually increase from 0 to 3-4 fps. so salmon fry
should be able to avoid the tunnel if they can detect the current.
Because of sensitive organs along their lateral line, fish can detect
minute currents. which are expressed as pressure waves (Alexander
1967). At the intake currents will not be the only cue; the coarse
grating placed across the intake to exclude large objects will create
pressure gradients (turbulence) in the flo,~ that should be detectable
I
by the fry.
Although entrairnent should not be a significant problem. it should be
possible to assess its importance and. during the smolt ~igration
period. bypass fish safely to Upper Trail Lake should it occur. The
post-operational monitoring program. discussed below, is expected to
provide quantitative data on fish emigration when coupled with a fyke
netting program.
18248 31
PROVIDING SAFE EGRESS OF GRANT LAKE SALMON SlmL TS
PASSI VE SCREEN BYPASS
Biological Feasibility
The passive screen and bypass at the intake was described in Planning
Document No.2. Basically it i nvol ves pl acer.lent of a rotatabl e passi ve
screen in the intake tunnel downstream of the intake gate (Fi gures 4
and 5). Fish seeking an outlet will be attracted into the tunnel.
diverted along the screen to a pipe. pass down the pipe. and diverted
past the turbi ne into Upper Trail Lake. A simil a r i n-1; ne system has
been used at the T.W. Sullivan hYdroelectric plant on the Willamette
River in Oregon (Eicher 1981). The screen and bypass pipe would be
operated only during the out-migration period to avoid the high cost of
the water consumed.
The naterial for the rotatable screen consists of stainless steel
wedge-wire screen appropriately sized bars and bar spacing. Debris and
fish are easily passed over the SCreen. even duri ng peri ods of hi gh
leaf fall (Eicher 1981). Cleaning is accomplished by rotating the
screen. thus back-fl ushi ng materi al s off it.
Eicher (1981) reports that virtually all fish that he introduced into
the penstock ahead of the turbine at the Su11ivan plant bypassed the
turbine and survived.
Use of the screened intake requires that the fish find the intake
facility and enter the tunnel. At maximum pool elevation, the intake
will be at a depth of approximately 47 feet. Duri ng the peri od of
outrnigration (spring through early SLJ:riler) the pool will be drawn down
to mi nir.Jur.l elevations because water for pO\-Ier generation through the
winter months will have been used and pool refilling will not begin
. until snow:lel t. Therefore the outmi gra nts may only have to sound 15 to
1824B 32
.,
-
.'
II'
"',
w w
• PLAt.
SOO o 500 . . . . .
SCALE
toOr-------~------~--------._------_r--~----r_------_r--~~'~~~------__,too
I • I ,
,1 ,
,-, I \ NATUR
I " ~OUND
... _.,~ " \ I \ LINE " -----, ,.--.... ,' \ 100~------~------;--------+,~----~--~~--+-~-----r-------t~r---~800
I
I
, , " , ,
I EXISTI G POOL ~ ~ EL~100. NOR ..... MAXI .. UM
~ 100r-------i-------_t--t/~--_t--------(_------_r--------r-------~--~'~~~7~OO~----:~::~EL:.~_:.:O
.,../ \ M' .MUM POOL EL. __ 0
,
~ 1~~~~t;=~N-T-A-KE~~E-L.-.-4-,----~ :>
III ~ 600~------+-----~-+--------+_------~------~~~~~~~----~------~600
TAIL~ATER
4~L-----~------~~----~~----~=_----~~----~~--~~=_--~~450 -0<>00 ()t(]O Se()() D-oo .&tOO 20.00 2S4OO !5tOO
POWER CONDUIT PBOfJLE
figure 2. Project alignment of tunnel for alternatives 0 and f. The juvenile salmon
screen and bypass would be located in the vicinity of the gate shaft. The bypass
pipe would sit inside the tunnel and bypass the powerhouse.
,....---c~ ------~ ---.
--------" /7 - -'f---/ ~-.-------.
-------------------- -
Figure 3. Close-up view of rotatable screen and bypass pipe. Fish would be travelling with the
flow from left to right and be directed to the bypass in basically the manner shown.
, , ~ If, I ! !' , •
--..,
20 ft to fi nd the intake tunnel. Studies at dar.ls on the El wha River in
Washington have shown that chinook salr.1on outm;grants will go to a
tunnel outl et of 65 ft (Schoeneman and Ju nge 1954). At Baker lake Dar.l
in Wash; ngton sockeye smolts entered a tunnel at a depth of 85 to 107
ft; hm'/ever, they preferred a 'surface outrnigration over a spillway if
available (Andrew, et a1. 1955). Also, if an attraction flow of 1.5
fps suffices for operation of a "gu lper" (see next section), it seems
reasonable to assUr.le that the 3-4 fps at the Grant lake intake tunnel
will be sufficient to attract fish. However, actual entry into the
tunnel may be resisted by sockeye (Andrew, et al. 1955).
Although the behavior of salmon outrnigrants \'Iill need to be deterTilined,
it is reasonable to assUr.le that the flow at the intake will attract
outrnigrants. It also is reasonable to assume that these fish can
egress safely to Upper Trai 1 lake. Thi s assumption is made based on
Eicher's studies at the T.W. Sullivan Project and the fact that the
exit velocity from the pipe into Upper Trail lake will be approximately
15 fps, well below the lir.lit of 40 fps at which Bell (1974) and Wayne
(1964) state that shear action ina pipe starts ptlYsically damagi ng
fi she
A key factor that makes the screen attractive biologically is that the
syster.l requi res no handli ng of the fi sh and the fish wi 11 be abl e to
directly el~ligrate fror.l Grant lake without the need for delays due to
trappi ng and transporti ng. In addition, due to the simpl icity of the
rotatable screen's operation, equipr.lent failure should be relatively
minor cOr.lpared to other means of egress.
Eng i neeri ng Fe asi bi 1 i ty
The passive screen bypass will consist of a rotatable screen at the
upstream end of the power tunnel and a turbi ne bypass pipe.
PreliClinary analyses have deten.lined that a 10 i nth diaCleter pipe would
, provide the appropriate range of flows and velocities for transport of
the fish froCl Grant Lake to Upper Trail Lake. Details of the facility
are provided in the Appendix.
1824B 35
The bypass pipe would be installed at the top of the power tunnel. just
below the gate valve, and extend from the intake to the tunnel portal.
The pipe would emerge at the tunnel portal and be routed around the
powerhouse and turbine. The pipe, once outside of the tunnel, would be
buri ed and dhcharge into the tail race channel downstream of the fhh
barrier. Velocities in the bypass pipe would range between 12 and 14
fps, depending on the level of Grant Lake at the time of operation.
Flows wou1 d be on the order of 7 cfs.
The screening system shown in Figure 4. would have to be rotated
periodically on an axle for backflushi ng and c1eani ng. Thi s would
occur during the smolt elJigration period; duri~ the rer.la;nder of the
year, the screen would be stored in the horizontal position. Access to
the screen for routine maintenance would be provided by closing the
intake gate and dewatering the tunnel.
The rotatable screen-bypass facility is considered feasible fror.l an
engineering viewpoint and appears to offer an excellent chance of
passi~ sr.lo1ts past the turbine without injury. The passive screen
technology is proven. havi ng been used on Oregon's Wi11ar.lette Rher.
which carries a debris load far greater than that of Grant Creek.
Because sediraent in Grant Lake's lower basin are very fine, suspended
solids clogging of the screen should be negligible.
Cost
A conceptual-l evel cost estimate was developed for the passive screen
bypass and is shown in Table 4. The resulting effect on the cost of
energy fror.l the project 1s shown on Table 2.
36
18248
l1li'
III"
ai'
...
.'
10'
."
..
... ..
liiIi .. .'
FISH COLLECTION BARGE
Biological Feasibility
The fish collection barge, cor.t1only referred to as the IIgulper,· was
designed by the Washi ngton Departr.1ent of Fi sheries for use as an
artificial outlet in reservoirs to collect downstream oigrants. It has
been used at various Ib'droelectric project sites throughout the Pacific
North\lest (Eicher 1964; Wayne 1961; Allen 1964). Figure 6 shows the
basic cOr.lponents of the gu1per. In general, large ptJllPS are used to
establish an artificial current which attracts fish into a collection
facility. From there, the fish are either transported or pUr.lped
dm<lnstrear.l. In addition to the tlain cOr.lponents of the gulper, a series
of lead nets r.lay be needed to guide the fish to the intake. These nets
are placed so that fish moving along the shoreline will st'/im to the
attraction current. The basic components and operati ng pri ncipal s of
the gulper are sitli1ar at the various sites where it has been used, but
each has been r.1odified to the specific site conditions. The gulper has
been shown to remove at least 6m of the fish in a syster.1 (Allen
1964). Tests are bei ng conducted at other I1Ydro sites to eval uate the
effectiveness of the gulper.
At Grant Lake, a gulper probably should be situated near both the
intake and the shoreline. This would take advantage of the tendency
for outmigrants to follow the shoreline seeking an outf10\" fron the
lake (Andrew, et al. 1955). Fish not attracted to the gulper may seek
the subsurface intake.
The effectiveness of the gulper at Grant Lake would need to be
thoroughly tested duM ng early stages of operation to detennine optimum
lead net and barge configuration. fishing location, efficiency of
capture. and general operation. There is a possibility that the
behavior of fish at Grant Lake will not be conducive to their capture
-by this means. Therefore, the system should be regarded as
experimentai at this time for this location and its effectiveness as
uncertai n.
37
1824B
, ....
" ~----------------------------
ENTRANCE
CHANNEL
..
FLOW ..
FISH
---~---...-=--~ COLLECTING
r-____ -r!F_L_U_M_E ____ ~~HOPPER
HOPPER
II
• .--.-UMPS
Figure 4. Fish collection barge or IIGulperli used at Baker Lake hydroelectric project.
Baker River, Washington(wayne 1961).
t , ' ! , 1 1 • ,
'-
In addition to considerations for capturing the fish in the gulper.
handling stress will also be placed on the fish during transport. The
ragifications of this stress would need to be evaluated.
The gulper is mechanically operated and subject to potential equipgent
failure (Allen 1964). The probability of system failure cannot be
predicted. Operation of the gulper is labor intensive c~pared to the
. passive screen bypass.
Engi neeri ng Feasi bil ity
Construction of the fish collection barge involves no unproven
technology. There is no engi neeri ng probl er.l to constructi ng of the
facility. A technical prob1el.1 does exist in maintaining the integrity
of the structure with the heavy king conditions on the lake. Moving
the barge out of the lake each fall poses significant problems because
of the need for heavy equipgent and lack of a suitable storage site.
Cost
A conceptual level construction cost for the barge has been obtained
frolil utilities using similar facilities in Washington. The Washington
cost basis has been appropriately modified for Alaska conditions. The
operati ng and rna; ntenance cost has a1 so been estimated based on labor
and pO\ier costs in the area. These costs are shown on Table 4 and the
resu1 ti ng effect on cost of power from the project is shown on Tab1 e 2.
POST-OPERATIONAL MONITORING Of MITIGATION EFfECTIVENESS
EFFICACY OF GRANT CREEK MITIGATION
The percentage of adults returning to the adult facility relative to
the nUr.lber of srnolts released can be compared to estimated natural
-escapments to judge the efficacy of the selected mitigation measure.
18248 39
EFFICACY OF GRANT LAKE ru TIGATION
To eonitor the degree of entrain.lent and the survival of fish passing
through the bypass, a coobination of ~droacoustic monitoring and fyke
netting is proposed for a 1-year period post-operationally. It is
known that salmon smo1ts can be detected and enumerated very precisely
using hYdroacoustic gear ii; gate wells of dams (Carlson et a1. 1981;
Carlson 1982). Consequently, the salile gear will work in the power
conduit. Two transcucers will scan the conduit for targets in the size
range of juvenile sa1eon. The echoes will be monitored on-site with a
Iilagnetic tape. Sampling will occur at randor.lly-se1ected intervals.
This data will indicate the nunber of fish using the power tunnel and
the tj~e of day. period, etc. they migrate.
18248 40
...
1l1li'
LITERATURE CITED.
Alaska Fbwer Authority. 1982a. Evaluation of instream flows for the
Grant Lake project and identification of potential mitigation
alternatives. Letter report prepared by Ebasco Services
Incorporated for Al aska Fbwer Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue,
2nd Floor, Anchorage, Alaska. 18 pages.
Alaska Fbuer Authority. 19821>. Grant lake hydroelectric project
[r.1i nutes of] r.1eeti ng wi th agencie s, July 9, 1982. Alaska Fbwer
Authori ty, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage, Al aska.
4 pages.
Alaska Fbwer Authority. 1982c. Planning docUr:1ent No.2: Fisheries
mitigation for proposed Grant Lake I'lYdroelectric project.
August 17, 1982. Alaska Fbwer Authori ty, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd
Floor, Anchorage Alaska. 18 pages.
Alaska Power Authority. 1982d. Minutes of Grant Lake hydroectric
project fish mitigation planning meeting, 17 August 1982. Alaska
Power Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage Alaska.
8 pages.
Alaska Fbuer Authority. 1 982e. Proposed Grant lake hydroectric
project fish mitigation planning: minutes of meeting with ADF&G of
15 September 1982. Alaska Fbwer Authority. 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd
Floor, Anchorage Alaska. 8 pages.
Alexander, R. McN. 1967. Furctional design in fishes. Hutchinson &
Co. Ltd., London. 160 pages.
Allen, R. 1964. lake I~er\";n juvenile fish collector. Washington
Dept. Fish Progress Report, 34 pages.
41
18248
All en, R. L. and L. R. Cowa n. 197B. Sal mon egg i ocubat i on box program
1977-1978 season. Washington Dept. of Fishieres, Progress Report
73. 24 pages.
Allen, R.L. and K.L. Bauersfeld, L.R. Cowan, S.P. Jenks, D.O. King,
J.E. Seeb, A.R. Bergh, T.J. Burns, and D.I. Stuckey. 1981a.
Sa lmon natural product; on enhancement prograr.l, 1979-1980 season.
Washington Dept. Fish. Progress Report No. 136, 67 pages.
Allen, R.L •• K.L. Bauersfeld. T.J. Turns, L.R. Cowan, S.P. Jens.
D.O. King, J.E. Seeb, A.R. Bergh, and 0.1. Stuckey. 1981b. Salmon
natural production enhaocer.lent progran. Washington Dept. Fi she
Progress Report No. 149, 33 pages.
Andrew, F.J., L. R. Kersey, and P.C. Johnson. 1955. An ; nvestigation
of the probl er.t of gui di ng downstream-mi grant salmon at dams.
International Pacific Sa1r.ton Fisheries Cor.lr.lission. Bull. VIII.
65 page s.
Bell, M.C. 1974. Fi sh passage through turbi nes, conduits, and
spillway gates. Pages 251-261. l.!!.: L.D. Jensen (editor)
Entrai~.lent and Intake Screeining. Proceedings of the Second
EntraifT.1ent and Intake Screening Work.shop. Electric Fbwer Research
Institute. Palo Alto. California.
Brett. J. R. 1964. The respi ratory metabol ; sm and swil1'r.li ng perionna oce
of young sockeye salmon. Journal of the Fi sheries Research Board
of Canada. 21 (5): 1183-1226.
Carlson, T.J., W.C. Acker, and D.M. Gaudet. 1981. Hydroacoustic
assessment of downstream mi grant salr.ton and steel head at Priest
Rapids dam in 1980. Applied Alysics Laboratory, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington. Rep. No. APL-UW 8016.
1824B 42
-
...,
."
-
-
..
Ca r1 son, T.J. 1982. Fi xed aspect hydroacousti c techni ques for
estimating the abundance and distribution of downstream migrating
juvenile salmon and steelhead at Colur.'Ibia River hydropower darns.
Biosonics, Inc. Seattle, Washington. 21 pages.
Cooper, A.C. 1977. Evalaution of the production of sockeye and pink
salr.'1on at spawni ng and incubation channel sin the Fraser River
Syster.'l. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Cor.'lrnission,
Progress Report 36, 80 pages.
Daisy, D. 1982. Personal cOl.T.lunicatin. F.R.E.D. Division, Alaska
Departr.'lent of Fish and Garae, Anchorage.
Ebasco Services Incorprated. 1982. Grant La ke hydroel ectri c
project interim report. Al aska fbwer Authority, 334 W. 5th Avenue,
2nd Floor, Anc horage, Al aska.
Eicher. G. J. 1964. Round Butte dar.'l fish-handling costs l.St of total
project outlay. Electric World (February 10, 1964).
Eicher, G. 19m. Turbine screen protects fish at PG&E hydroelectric
plant. Electric Light and fbwer, August 1981. Pages 47-48.
Hartman, J. 1982. Personal cor.nunication. Al aska Dept. of Fi sh and
Gar.'le, Anchorage, Alaska.
Holder. R. 1982. Personal cOCI.lunication. Al aska Dept. of Fi sh and
Gar.'le. F.R.E.D. Division. Glennallen. Alaska.
Horton. W.O. and T. Cochnauer. 1980. Instream flow methodology
eval uation. bi 01 ogica 1 criteri a determi nation. and water qual ity
needs for selected Idaho strear.1s. Idaho Dept. of Fi sh a nd Game.
101 pages.
18248
43
Orth, D.J. and O.E. naughan. 1982. Evaluation of the increiJenta1
raethodo10gy for recornending instream f10,'is for fishes.
Transactions of the Ar.1erican Fisheries Soc;ety 111C4): 413-445.
Schoeneman, D.E. and C.O. Junge, Jr. 1954. Investigations of
mortalities to downstrear.1 raigrant salraon of two darns on the Elwha
River. Wash; ngotn Dept. Fisheries Res. Bull. No.3. 51 pages.
Tennant, D.l. 1976. Instream flo" regimens for fish, \'1i1dl1fe,
recreation, and related enviromental resources. In: Proc.
Instream Flo\'1 IJeeds, klerc ian Fi sheri es Society. Pges 359-373.
Wayne, W.W. 1961. Fish handli ng facilities for Baker River project.
Journal of the Poller Div; sion, Proceedings of the Ar.lerican Society
of Civil Engineers. 87, No. P03, pages 23-54.
18248 44
.,.
"".
r··
-
III'
....
APPENDIX
ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FISH MITIGATON OPTIONS
~pendix
Tabl e No. Ti tl e
1. Assumptions Concerni ng Design of the Adu1 t
ttl 1di ~/Spawni ng Facility
2. Assur.1ptions Concerni ng Reari ng of Sr:!o1ts at
the Trail lakes Hatchery with and without
Construction of an Additional t~odule
3. AsslSolpti ons Concerni ng Reari ~ of Chi nook
Salr.lon fror.l Eggs to 2-Month 01 d Fry at
Existing Trail lakes Hatchery
4. Assur.lptions Concerning Rearing of Chinook
Salmon fror.l 2-Month 01 d Fry to Smolts ; n
Raceways located at Tail race
5.
6.
7.
1824B
Co nceptua 1 Eng i neeri ng Cr; teri a
For On-Site Egg Iocubation FacO ity
Conceptual Design Criteria for Spawning Channel
Cooceptua1 Engineering Criteria for
Tunnel Bypass and Fi sh Collection Barge
45
Appendix Table 1. ASsUTilptions Concerning Design of the Adult
Hol di ng/Spawni ng Facil ity
1. Species: Chi nook C1 00 i ndivi dual s a veragi ng 25 pounds
each) and sockeye (700 individual s averaging
6 pound s).
2. Water Flow : One (1) cfs of flow requi red per 5 pounds
Requirer.tents of Fish of fish (i.e., 1340 gpr.l or 3 cfs
3. Race\'1ays: alul.linur.l (n=2) (50 ft x 5 ft x 4 ft)
4. Fi sh ladder or channel fror.l tail race to raceways.
5. Fi sh separator to separate salr.lon by species and ripeness.
6. Spawni ng shed: 5 ft x 10ft
7. Fence, securi ty
46
18248
-
IJIO"
Appendb Table 2. Assur.lptions Coocerning Rearing of Sr.lolts at the
Trail Lakes Hatchery with and without Construction
of an Additional t,'odule
1. Eggs are taken at an adult holding and spawning facility located
adjacent to the tailrace~
2. Egg Incubati on
a. For an existing hatchery another l6-tray Heath incubator
would be required.
b. For a new nodul e, the sar.le i ocl ubator woul d be contai ned ina
15 ft x 60 ft (900 ft2 ) building. Cost of the facility was
assur.aed to average $344/ft2 pl us 2C1l for r.lobil i zation. The
1 ife expectancy was estimated at 25 years and $80,000 was
allocated for repai rs between yea rs 25 and 50.
c. Labor associated with loading, monitoring, shocking and
reseedi ng was estimated to be 31 man days at $l20/day for
each facility.
d. Water would be heated fror.l to
3. Rea ri ng of Fry to Smo1 ts
a. The fry would be reared within the building in a 50 ft x 4 ft
x 3 ft deep raceway suppl ied with 300 gpm of water that had
been heated fror.l 3· to 10.S·C.
b. Freezer wi th capacity for 4200 pound s of food.
c. Fish food (4200 lb @ $0.60)
d. Feeding labor (6 months @ 1 hr/day @$120/day).
e. Transfer of sr.lolts fror.l hatchery to screened adult ponds for
imprinting of smo1ts over a 2-week period.
f. Food and feeding labor during 2-week ir.lprinting period.
18248 47
Appendix Table 3. Assur:lptions Concerning Rearing of Chinook. Sallilon
from Eggs to 2-Month Old Fry at Existing Trail
Lak.e s Hatchery
1. Addi ti onal Heath incubator
2. Food: 500 pounds @ $0.60
3. Feedi ng 1 abor: 11h rId ay x 60 days
4. l1=ated freshwater
5. Transportation of finger1 ings to site
18248 48
..
"" ..
•
Appendb Table 4. Assur.lptions ConcernhlQ RearhlQ of Chi nook Salmon
from 2-Honth Old Fry to Smo1ts in Raceways located
at Tan race
1. Bunding to house raceways: 12 ft x 30 ft @ Sl20/ft 2 lasting
25 years
2. Lights. tonet. sink
3. Sui1 di ng repair (@ 30-40% of ori gina1 construction cost)
4. Freezer (4.000 pound food capacity)
5. Race\/ay. aluminum (n=2) (3 ft x 25 ft x 4 ft deep)
6. Screeni ng for reari ng p1 us adu1 t race~/ays
7. Food (4.000 pounds @ $0.60)
8. Feeding labor (1 person full-time on site year-around; 365 days @
S120/day)
9. Electricity
10. Rental of state truck (annual)
11. Supp1 ies (e.g •• nets)
12. Water supply providing 150-200 gpm (0.3-0.4 cfs) of high quality
aquacu1tura1 water meeting ADF&G F.R.E.D. Division water quality
standard
1824B 49
Appendi x Ta bl e 4. As sUr.lpti ons Concerni ng Reari ng of Chi nook Sal mon
from 2-Month Old Fr,y to SDolts in Raceways located
at Tailrace (continued)
13. Road to mitigation facility kept open to vehicular traffic daily
year-around
14. Er.lergency alarr.1 system installed to alert Trail lake hatchery of
r.la 1 functi on in water flow, water ter.1perature. and di ssol ved oxygen
18248 50
..,
"'.
-
III'
Appendix Table 5. Cooceptual Engineering Criteria
For On-Site Egg Incubation Facility
. NUf.lber of Boxes
location
-Pri rna ry Box r~a ten a 1
liner
Shape
Si desl ope
Length
Width
Wet Depth
Wet Vo 1 we (Inc 1 udl ng Gravel)
Inflow
Heat Soun::e Wi nter Inflo\-I
Turnover Tirne
Dry Depth
F1 ow ,Deli very
Buildi ng
Wi dth
Length
Height
Roof
Co r:Jr.Je nt s .
18248 51
2
Downstream of Alwerhouse
Pl ywood Wa r; ne Grade)
2 Foot Gravel (3/4 .. 1.5 In Round
and Wa shed)
Recta ngul a r
Vertical
8 Feet
4 Feet
3 Feet
96 Cubic Feet
0.11 Cfs
Generator Cooling Water
~proxirnately 6 Hi nutes
4 Feet
Through Al urni nun Grat; ng Vi a
Baffles and Thence Through Yexas
Plastic into Gravel
Cast in Place Concrete
20 Feet
20 Feet
10 Feet
Al urn; nurn
Insul ated. El ectri cally Wired,
Includes Refrigerator. Storage
Area. and Workbench
Appendix Table 6. Conceptual Design Criteria for Spa\'ming Channel
Species Design
Channel Width
Water Depth
Water 'Eloc1ty
Channel length!.!
Di scha rge
Slope
Gra ve 1 Dep th
Gravel S1 ze
Underbed
Si de Slope
Sett1 i ng Ba s1 n
Di stance Between
Drop Structure
Drop Structure Area
Sockeye -250 felJales (maximum)
ChinooK -100 feIJa1es (maximum)
200 feet (ft.)
1.5 ft.
1.5 ft./sec
620 ft.
33.8 cfs
• 001
18 i nche s
1 14 -4 i n: he s
80 percent 112 -2 inches
4 inch concrete
1 :1.5 (with si de cobb1 e)
100 ft. x 100 ft.
greater than 3 ft. deep
250 -300 ft.
20 ft. wide x 20 ft. long x 6 ft. deep
!/ Exclusive drop structure and rest area which \li11 add 20 ft. in
length for each of two structures.
1824B 52
.. ,.
."..
.;
-
W·
..
..
Appendix Table 7. Cooceptual Engineeri ng Crfteria for
Tunnel Bypass and Fish Collection Barge
Tunnel Bypass
-Locatfon
Screen Material
Screen Wfdth
Screen Length
Bypass Pi pe t~aterfal
Bypass Pipe Diar:leter
Bypa ss Pi pe Le ngth
Bypass Pipe Di scharge Location
Fi sh Collection Barge
Location
Width
Length
Ai r Blower
Number of Turbi ne Pur:lpS
RAmp F1 ow Each
Seconda ry Pur:lP
Mode of Transport to Tra; 1 Lakes
18248 53
Below Gate Shaft in Tunnel
Stai nl ess Steel
9 Feet
28 Feet
Steel
10 Inches
3400 Feet
Upper Trail Lake
Grant Lake
36 Feet
70 Feet
40 HP
2
34,000 GPM
5,400 GPM
Vi a Truck
'. r
(
(
FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING OF 10 NOVEMBER 1982
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
MINUTES OF MEElINGlI
The purpose of the meeting was to review and gain agency comments and
opinions concerning Fish Mitigation Planning Document No.3, an
assessment of the biological, engineering, and cost feasibility of 22
fish mitigation options.
The meeting was attended by the individuals listed in the Table.
Eric Marchegiani of the Alaska Power Authority began the meeting by
summarizing the proceedings of the three previous fish mitigation
planning meetings for the proposed project. Agency comments were then
sol icited.
Alaska Department of FiSh and Game
Phil 8rna led the Department's presentation of its views. The losses
they wiSh to see mitigated include:
o Losses of physical habitat in Grant Creek and some (i.e.,
littoral habitat) in Grant Lake.
o Losses to commercial and sport fiShing opportunities.
o Losses of potential enhancement potential and value.
Until ADF&G received the addendum to Planning Document No. 3 concerning
existing and projected water temperature regimes in Grant Lake and the
tailrace, the Department believed all potential for salmon rearing in
Grant Lake would be lost because of unfavorably cold water temperatures
post-operationally.
11 Prepared by RiCk Cardwell, Ebasco Services Incorporated.
2949A
1
Name
TABLE
10 NOVEMBER 1982 FISH MITIGATION PLANNING MEETING
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Affil iation Address/Telephone
Rick Cardwell EBASCO 400-112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA
(206) 451-4619
wayne Pietz EBASCO 400-1l2th Ave. N. E. Bellevue, WA
(206) 451-4500
Oon Smith EBASCO 400-112th Ave. N. E. Be 11 evue, WA
Gary Lawley EBASCO 1227 W 9th, Anchorage
(907) 277-1561
Dave Daisy AOF&G, FRED 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage
(907) 267-2165
Ken Florey ADF&G, Comm, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage
Fish (907) 267-2125
Eric Marchegiani APA (907) 276~0001
Ken Thompson USFS 2221 E North. Lts., Anchorage
Eric Myers NAEC 833 Gambell Suite 3 99501
Gary Stackhouse USFWS 1011 E. Tudor, Anchorage
263-3475
Mary Lynn Nation USFwS 605 W 4th Avenue, AnChorage
271-4575
Phil Brna ADF&G, Habitat 333 Raspoerry Road, Anchorage
(709) 344-0541
Jim Thiele AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage
(709) 279-4523
Dave Trudgen AEIDC 707 "A" Street, Anchorage
Bi 11 Wilson AEIDC 707 "A" Street, AnChorage
Dave Nelson ADF&G, Sport 3150, Soldotna, 262-9369
Fi Sh
2949A
2
""
.-,;
...
...
.. '
""'
...
p'
..
'II\i~{
all
.,
""
The Department wished to mitigate for chinook. other anadromous species
(e.g •• COhO), and resident species.
At the time the Department assumed loss of lake rearing d~e to cold
water temperatures, they were favoring a chinook smo1t program in the
Trail lakes hatchery or in a facility at the tailrace. They agreed to
use the hatchery because on their previous commitment to do so for up
to 10 years post-operationa11y.
The Department decided that no further instream flow work would be
ne~ded and that a rainbow trout sport fishery, including appropriate
access, would be needed to replace the lost sport fishing opportunity
in Grant Creek. For sport fishing mitigation. either fry or
catchable-size rainbow trout could be planted into Grant lake,
depending upon whether the lake proves suitable for rearing small
salmonids. It was later disclosed that it may not be absolutely
necessary to plant the trout into Grant Lake if there were competing
uses (e.g., sockeye rearing). The trout could be planted into another
lake considered suitable.
ADF&G is cool to the idea of planting chinook fry into Grant Lake due
to uncertainties regarding how well the chinook will do because of
fears about insufficient food production for chinook in the lake's
littoral region. However, they are interested in planting the lake
with sockeye and rainbow trout, which they believe will perform better.
Maintaining the genetic integrity of the Grant Creek stock is a formal
goal of tne Department. This will be accomplished by preventing the
interminglement of Grant Creek chinoOk eggs and juveniles with those
from other streams in the hatChery.
Initially ADF&G was willing to trade off the use of Grant Lake for
sockeye rearing for a chinook smo1t program at Trail lakes hatchery
(Mitigation Option 10) Hatchery and planting Grant Lake with catchable-
2949A
3
size rainbow trout. If Grant Lake was unsuitable for juvenile salmon
rearing. the trout and sockeye could be planted into another lake(s)
(e.g •• Ptarmigan Lake).
Ken Florey aSked how well the Grant Lake smolt bypass (Option 21) would
work. Rick Cardwell indicated that. although a new concept. it was
working well at the Willamette Falls. Oregon (O'Sullivan Dam). where
clogging was a much greater problem than at Grant Lake. He also noted
several studies that showed salmon smolts. including sockeye. could
find submarine outlets up to 60 feet deep.
Cardwell stated his concern about rainbow trout predating sockeye (or
Chinook) from the standpoint of determining how well juvenile salmon
survive and grow in Grant LaKe before and after Project operation. If
predation was interjected as anotner factor it would not be possible to
determine conclusively tne effect of project operation on smelt
production in the lake.
ADF&G asked whether APA would perform a cost-benefit evaluation for tne
project. Eric Marchegiani stated that a cost benefit analysis with
respect to the power generated and alternatives would be a part of the
feasibility study.
In summary, ADF&G supported the following options:
Grant Lake Unsuitable for Rearing Salmon
o Option 10: Producing cninooK smelts at Trail LaKes HatChery.
o Planting Grant Lake or another lake with catChable-size rainbOW
trout.
o Planting anotner lake witn socKeye fry.
2949A
4·
""
...
Grant Lake Suitable for Rearing Salmon
o Option 13: Producing chinook fry at Trail Lakes Hatchery, then
planting them into Grant Lake.
o Planting Grant Lake or another lake witn rainbow trout fry.
o Planting Grant Lake with sockeye fry.
o Providing safe egress for salmon smolts from Grant Lake (Option 21
or 22).
Mary Lynn Nation indicated tne Fish and Wildlife Service opposes
off-site mitigation when an agency already plans to undertake an
enhancement effort there; SUCh cases would not be mitigation.
Ken Florey wanted the Power Authority to agree to mitigate for the
project whatever the success of the mitigation efforts specified. Eric
Marchegiani said that the APA could not guarantee mitigation, for they
are a state agency subject to tne same legislatively-imposed budget
restrictions as ADF&G. However, it was noted that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission does review project licenses periodicallY9 and
Changes to the license concerning mitigation can be made if deemed
necessary. Gary Stackhouse of the USFWS suggested that the agencies
insist on statements in the license concerning contingencies, should
any mitigation measure prove unsuccessful, and the need for
post-operational monitoring of mitigation efficacy. Eric Marchegiani
agreed that a statement would be contained in the license application
that provides for Changes in mitigation plans and facilities that fail
to perform.
Mary Lynn Nation suggested that a lot of assumptions concerning
mitigation were being made based on very little data. She suggested
that the analysis of water temperature regimes has not been really
2949A
5
extensive. The USF~S plans to look more closely at the information
presented and will communicate their judgement later. The USFWS would
like to see more information on lake temperatures; a water temperature
model was mentioned as one possibility.
Gary Stackhouse said that the USFWS and ADF&G hoped to develop a
unified response concerning fish mitigation.
The meeting then adjourned.
2949A
6
...'
... '
.'
..
..
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
DATE 12/3/82
ENW-GRANT-82-199
TO -------~E~iul~e ________ ~~~7W~-------------------.. AMIt/"IL" MO.
FROM ______ R~.~D •. ~C~a~r~dwwe~'~' __________________________ _
..
CLIENT/PROJECT APA/GRANT LAKE HYPROELECTRIC PROJECT
~8JECT _________________ ~ ________________________________________________ ___
CHARGE: DEPT. NO. 942 CLIENT SYMBOL __ A_P_A ______ _ on NO 6476.009
DISCUSSION WITH Phil Brna, ADF&G, Habitat Division, Anchorage
Brna reviewed the letter on Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Fish Mitigation
the Department is preparing to send to the Power Authority. Brna emphasized
that the statements made below are provisional, pending signature of the
Department's Commissioner.
The letter lists the project impacts on fish and wildlife the Department foresees.
The Department will state its preference for reliance upon a minimum instream
flow to mitigate project effec~on Grant Creek fish, but will admit that other
mitigation avenues appear necessary because of project economics. ADF&G believes
replacement will be the best mitigation option. Until a complete economic
analysis is done, however, the Department will reserve final comment on the
instream flow question.
Other elements of the Departmentls position are highlighted below. Details are
not provided because this information is covered in previous communications.
o IIForegone Resource Use" costs: the Department will expect compensation.
I believe this is equivalent to "Foregone Opportunity."
o Chinook Salmon
-ADF&G does not consider Dse of an existing module to be mitigation.
They want an additional raceway constructed.
-They apparently want Option 14, rearing smolts at Trail Lakes
hatchery in a new module
o Sockeye Salmon
-Mitigate with bypass (Option 21 or 22)
o Recreational Fishing
-Plant Grant Lake or other lake specified by ADF&G with a sport species
(e.g., rainbow trout, chinook salmon also do well)
-Plant Fry if Grant Lake will support rearing, otherwise, plant adults
for a "put and take ll type fishing. .
ENW-GRANT-82-199
Page 2
o
ROC: ld
-Need an acc~ss road and boat launching ramp. Brna later spoke
with Dave Nelson, ADF&G sport fish biologist concerning whether
a launching site for car top boats would be acceptable. Nelson
said that car top boats are not used on the Kenai Peninsula.
A boat ramp should be designed for trailers. Boats are normally
14-18 feet long.
Post-Operational monitoring of efficacy of mitigation. ADF&G would
want a plan spelled out.
cc: D. Smith
W. Pietz
J. Knutzen
B. Hutchinson
-
.,
..
..
..
, . . '
PART XI
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
STUDIES REPORTS
· ..
Archeological Survey of
Proposed Drilling Sites,
Grant Lake, Alaska
by
Michael R. Yarborough
Submitted to
Envirosphere
October 23. 1981
Cultural Resource Consultants
Anchorage, Alaska
Introduction
On October 20, 1981, a brief archeological survey of two proposed
drilling sites at the outlet of Grant Lake was conducted by
Michael R. Yarborough of Cultural Resource Consultants. This
work was done for Envirosphere under U.S. Forest Service special
use permit number 5560.01.
Setting
Grant Lake is located in the central part of the Kenai Peninsula,
1.5 miles due east of Moose Pass and 27 miles northeast of Seward.
The mountains surrounding the lake rise to 5,000 and 6,000 feet
above sea level. This area has in the past been heavily glaciated.
The lake is approximately seven miles long, and "L" shaped
(Plafker 1955:2-3, 12; Orth 1967:386) (figure 1). In the area
surveyed, the lake trends just east of north.
Grant Lake is drained by Grant Creek, a one mile long stream which
flows into the creek connecting Upper and Lower Trail Lakes.
From lake level at an altitude of 700 feet, this creek drops
almost 230 feet through a narrow canyon (Plafker 1955:12).
The two proposed drilling sites lie on the north and south sides
of the lake outlet gure 2). The southern site lies just
above the level of the lake in an area between two points of
land. rge rock rubble covers much of this area. The proposed
northern site is on the lake shore in an area which would be
covered during periods of high water. This si
cent to the site of Solars sawmill.
is just adja-
...
-
"M
Ioet_
..
••
-2-
Solars Sawmill
Orth (1967:896) lists "Solars sawmill" simply as a "local name
of a former sawmill". This site existed at least as early as the
mid-1950's, as the two buildings at the site are depicted on
Plafker's maps. His statement that the outlet of Grant Lake was
accessible via an unused lumber trail suggests that the site
dates much earlier and was already abandonned by the time of
his visit (Plafker 1955:12).
The remains of the sawmill occupy the point above the falls
separating Grant Lake and Creek. On the tip of the point are
three devices each consisting of two metal wheels connected by
a metal axle. In the center of the axlee are large wooden
"flywheels". These were apparently mounted upright between
large wooden timbers and likely guided the cables which powered
the sawmill.
On the slope along the western edge of the point are two can
and bottle dumps and the remains of what probably was an outhouse.
To the eastern side of the point, on the bench just above the
shore, and the location of the northern drill site, is a collapsed
wooden structure. Because of its condition, this building's
size and nature could not be determined. The debris from it,
however, covers an area approximately seven meters square.
Between this structure and the "wheels" on the point is a
scatter of two wooden benches, a wooden cupboard, two items that
look like the axles and whe s from a mining car and segments
of metal cable.
•
-3-
About 10 meters west of this structure on the second rrace
above the lake is a cabin of milled lumber. This cabin is
approximately 6 meters by 4 meters, and has a 2 meter by 4 meter
shed attached to the north wall. The cabin's main entrance is
in the south wall, and a second door leads from the cabin into
the shed. The roof and west wall of this building have collapsed,
\
while the other walls are leaning at various angles. Many metal
arti cts, including buckets, tin cans, a shovel, and stove parts,
are scattered by the front door. In the northwest corner of the
cabin is a set of bunk beds with a galvanized sink resting on the
lower bunk. Pages of magazines were used between the plank
walls as insulation. On one of these was found the date January
13, 1958.
Survey Methods and Results
Visual reconnaissance was made for surface features. Subsurface
testing by shov was conducted in areas deemed appropriate.
No prehistoric or historic cultural material was found in the
southern drill site. At the northern site, there are a few
historic items from the sawmill scattered on the beach. A metal
"wheel" and a metal drum were noted. The northern drill site
contains no prehistoric material.
Testing of two other areas during the survey revealed a layer of
charCbal bearing Boil which may be cUltural. On the point south ...
of the falls, four tests on the second terrace from the stream
showed this layer at approximately 30 cm. below the surface of ••
· .
-4-
the ground. Overlying this layer is 8 to 10 cm. of light to
dark brown, fine grained soil and 20 cm. of moss. The charcoal
is just above a fine grained, white soil. Because this area was
outside the drilling site, it was not extensively tested.
However, the charcoal layer extends at least 20 meters, but not
as far as 40 meters back from the falls. A similar layer was
found on a small bedrock mound, just back from the beach, approx-
imately 15 meters north of the sawmill. Stratigraphy here was
similar to that in the tests on the south side of the falls.
No artifacts were found in any of the tests.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Drilling activities in the southern site will have no affect on
known cultural resources. Given careful placement of the drill
rig on the beach at the north~rn site, work there could be con-
ducted without impacting the sawmill. The few artifacts on
the beach are no longer "in situ", and could be removed by
qualified personnel without loss of important archeological
information.
The two areas containing the charcoal bearing layer will not be
affected by drilling. They should, however, be tested further
in the future so that a determination of their exact nature can
be made. Additional background literature research should be
conducted into the age and possible significance of Solars
Sawmill.
It must be understood that an archeological survey is only a
-5-
sampling of a ven area. If, during the course of construc-
on, any previously undiscovered cultural material is detected,
it is recommended that any ac vities harmful to it be stopped,
and the Chugach Forest archeologist and the State Historic
Preservation Officer be notified immediately.
•
.,
•
..
..
1IIot,
.. ..
· .
-6-
BibliographY
Orth, D.J.
1967 Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. Geological Survey
Professional Paper no. 567. U,S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Plafker, George
1955 Geological Investigations of Proposed Power Sites at
Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan and Crescent Lakes, Alaska.
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A. U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
..
Weter surface 468.4 ft
July 1. 1950
Figure 1
-7-
Water surface 700.2 ft
July 24. 1950
.
,
l •
., .. .. ..
'" .. ..
.,
.,
..
"",0
•
iii; .. .' ..
!Iii .. ..
True ,s,a l ... d.L!-----------------------~~
y, -" -..
'" ..
Location of proposed Grant Lake project area. • ..
~ ... \ '" \. .
1
1
~
1 • !
A
J
-8-
c -areas of charcoal
Contour 'ntervA' 10 feet
DAtum is meAn seA /0",,1
.. ....
" o.J
$4,. l,vd iT'll/! dip of beddin
GRANT
LA.KE
A'
2000'
1500'
10001
500'
s... lnaL
Figure 2: Proposed drilling site locations, and locations of
Historic buildings an~ charcoal deposits.
Archeological Reconnaissance,
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Area,
Moose Pass, Alaska
Prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority
by
Katherine L. Arndt, Archeologist
Fairbanks, Alaska
August 24, 1982
To be submitted to the
Forest Supervisor,
Chugach National Forest
in fulfillment of
Special Use Permit 2700-4
for Cultural Resource Investigations
1
ArcheD-1ogica1 Reconnaissance, Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project Area, Moose Pass, Alaska
Katherine Arndt, archeologist, and Maggie Floyd, field
companion and ecologist, carried out a reconnaissance-level
archeological survey within the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
area, near Moose Pass, Alaska, on 7 through 12 June 1982. The field
work focused upon areas which may be affected by construction and
operation of alternative F of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project.
This alternative consists of a small dam on Falls Creek and a
pipeline which will divert water from the creek to Grant Lake,
an underground lake tap between Grant Lake and a powerhouse on
Upper Trail Lake, and associated access roads and transmission
1ine corridors. The work was conducted under USDA-Forest Service
special use permit (2700-4) issued to the Alaska Power Authority
for cultural resource investigation.
Survey Methods
The survey consisted of a brief aerial reconnaissance of the
project area followed by an examination on foot of the ground's
surface and any exposures, such as uprooted trees and road cuts,
in areas to be affected by project construction. Because none
of the construction sites or routes had yet been marked on the
ground, survey was confined to proposed construction locations
which were easily identifiable due to their proximity to natural
or man-made landmarks. A limited number of small test pits were
dug in areas without natural exposures which appeared to be
relatively high in archeological potential; all tests were
•
..
backfilled. No artifacts were collected in the course of the survey. H
•
1a '.
Approximate locations of project construction, alternative F.
IRQ
, \ ,.\ ;\ Wl I 1'1 .~ •. , (\~' '1 ; \Mountaln \ '\
• _ .\ '\ 'J .~ 1\ \ s: ~. ~ ; , -r~ ~) '~, Y) Ii )
A~ '0) 7--'-"~
L ) 'I o
'7,
R E, S
SEWARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE
ALASKA
163.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
I" -r
Tl
'~-34
149°15
60"30'
IRQ
A eas covere r
'\ , AC> L I 0
d in survey.
" \ o
'I,'
I
R
5
QUADRANGLE WARD (B-7)
1b
SE ALASK-A PHIC}
360 SERIES (TOPOGRA 149'15
I • 63. _ 60'3a 630 000 FEET' ,
..
•
..
•
2
Survey methods for specific project segments are described below.
1) Area between Vagt Lake Trail and an existing access road
in Section 13, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., Seward Meridian: A pipeline
access road will pass through this area. We covered the area
from the Alaska Railroad track to the point where the 500-foot
contour crosses the trail in a series of 12 north-south transects.
The first transect ran parallel to and approximately 15 m east Of
the railroad track. The second transect ran roughly parallel to
and approximately 10 m east of the first. The remaining transects
were spaced at intervals of approximately 30 to 35 m. The area is
forested but fairly clear of underbrush except for a stand of low
willows near the west end of the trail. We also walked along the
Vagt Lake Trail, from its beginning to a point just beyond its
right-angle turn in Section 18, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian.
The proposed route approaches the portion of the trail which lies
between the 500-foot contour and the bend.
2) North bank of Falls Creek between the Alaska Railroad
track and the proposed site of a diversion dam in Section 17,
T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: The area north of the creek
between the railroad track and approximately the 530-foot contour,
where an existing access road comes down to a placer claim on the
creek, is relatively level with open forest. We covered a swath
20 to 25 m wide along this portion of the creek. Crossing the
access road, we continued along the creek bank for a short distance
until its increasing steepness forced us to climb back up to the
road. The existing road runs parallel to but well above the creek
bed nearly to the point where the 600-foot contour crosses the
creek. Here the road veers north around a small knoll; we
continued east through heavy brush, staying as close to the bank
as possible. We crossed the access road again at a point where
the creek forces its way past a resistant rock promontory. The
creek elevation here is approximately 895 feet. We continued
3
east through open, old-growth forest along a trail brushed for the
north boundary of the Marathon 1 placer claim, parallel to the
creek but well above it. Beyond Marathon 1, we proceeded parallel
to the creek through heavy brush along the flagged northern
boundaries of the Marathon 2 and 3 claims. The farthest point
reached upstream was slightly beyond the intersection of the NE
corner of the Marathon 3 with the NW corner of the Four Jokers 1
placer claims, where the existing access road again approaches
the creek. We believed this to be in the vicinity of the proposed
dam site. We returned to the Alaska Railroad track via the exist-
ing access road.
3) Proposed pipeline outlet, south end of Grant Lake: The
archeologist walked five transects between a grove of alders on
the east and a patch of beaver-felled birch and the forest on
the west, zigzagging upslope. A broad band of slope wash on the
east was also examined; it appears to be fairly recent for it
lies in a thin layer atop the thick grasses which cover the area.
The shaley beach between the alder grove and the birch stand was
also examined.
4) Solars Sawmill overland to the proposed powerhouse site
in Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian: We examined the
sawmill site, then set out along a trail which we believed to be
that leading to Upper Trail Lake shown on the 1953 USGS map. The
trail, however, had been quite recently brushed in places, marked
•
• ..
•
.'"
..
4
occasionally with flagging tape, and turned decidedly north. We
took a fainter western branch but lost it on the edge of a muskeg
and simply continued on to the powerhouse site. We walked com-
pletely around the cove on which the powerhouse site is located,
both on the beach and inland as far as the steep hill which rises
to the east of the site. The higher ground here is covered with
an open growth of scrub spruce while the lower areas are marshy.
The upper part of the small stream which flows into the bay here
is lined with alders.
5) The shoreline of Upper Trail Lake from the powerhouse site
to the east end of the proposed bridge site at the mouth of Grant
Creek: This is the proposed route of an access road. The archeol-
ogist walked south along the shore of Upper Trail Lake from the
proposed powerhouse site, stay~ng generally on the first terrace
above the lake. The shore is. covered with open forest except for
an area of thick brush and scrub spruce near the narrows between
the upper and lower lake. The small, elongate island which splits
the mouth of Grant Creek was also examined. This is the east end
of a proposed bridge site. The archeologist walked around the
knoll on the north side of Grant Creek before returning along the
same route.
6) Island between upper and lower Grant Lake and adjacent
points of land: The lake is very shallow here and may be dredged
to increase water flow. We walked completely around the island
and along the shore of both adjacent points of land where dredging
equipment might be based. The island is steep and rocky and
mountain hemlock obscures the ground in places. There were,
however, a number of natural exposures among the moss and reindeer
5
lichens. The adjacent point of land to the north, covered with
open forest, offered a more extensive area of relatively level
ground backed by steep rock outcrops. The extreme south point
was steeper, with sparser vegetation.
Survey Results
It
1) Area between Vagt Lake Trail and an existing access road:
We located an overgrown cabin foundation associated with historic-
age debris and several pits near the beginning of Vagt Lake Trail.
It is described in the Appendix. Other historic debris was found
scattered through the forest along the first north-south transect
through this survey area, but we located no other structures.
..
..
....
, ..
''''''
--
Diffuse charcoal was noted in the existing road cut, but this may .'
be due to past forest fires in the area. A small test pit dug
atop the rocky knoll where the Vagt Lake Trail makes a right-angle
turn yielded 21 cm of culturally sterile soil over bedrock.
A literature search identified two historic sites within this
area, Crown Point/Trail Creek Station (SEW021).and the Stevenson
cabin. The cabin foundation located may be the latter, dating to
around 1910, as it does not fit the description of Crown Point/
Trail Creek Station. No other structural remains were found here,
however. This area is also adjacent to the Alaska Northern Railway
(SEW029) and the Iditarod Trail (Smv148 and National Register of
Historic Places), the routes of which roughly coincide with the
present route of the Alaska Railroad.
2) North bank of Falls Creek to proposed diversion dam: A
literature search identified one site, the Baggs cabin, on lower
Falls Creek. Although it lay on our route to the diversion dam
..
. .. -..
site, we could not locate it. It dates to approximately A.D. 1910 w
Locations of sites in or adjacent to project area.
L A
SEWARD (8-7) QUADRANGLE
ALASKA
163,360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
5a
6
and may no longer be standing. We did, however, find a sluice,
a historic-age campsite, and the remains of the C. M. Brosius
cabin further upstream. These three sites are described in the
Appendix. We also noted the NE and NW corner stakes for the
Marathon 1, 2, and 3 placer claims, posted by Perry N., Perry S.,
and Thomas Buchanan of Seward in 1981, and the NW corner of the
adjacent Four Jokers 1 placer claim. Slightly north of the
latter, on the road leading up to the Crown Point Mine, are the
remains of a log structure and some historic debris. It is
described in the Appendix.
Other sites identified in the literature search, the Crown
Foint IVIine (S£W192), Crown Point Mountain Trail (SEW140), and
Crown Point Mine structures at localities A, B, and C, lie above
the area of direct project impact and were not visited.
3) Pipeline outlet, south end of Grant Lake: This appears to
be an old slide area. A shovel test pit dug through the sod
approximately 10 m inland from the beach in line with the standing
survey marker revealed 24 cm of very wet, fine-grained, red-brown
soil above gravel or stones. No cultural material was found in
either the test or the surface survey.
4) Solars Sawmill overland to proposed powerhouse site: A
literature search identified two sites in this area, Solars
Sawmill and a trail between the mill and Upper Trail lake. We
found the sawmill site to be as described by Yarborough, who
visited it in October 1981 (Yarborough 1981). A more detailed
description of the site is provided in the Appendix. We believe
we located at least part of the trail between the mill and Upper
Trail Lake which is shown on the 1953 USGS map. Although it had
• -
•
-
,,,..
,,..
.,
-
7
been recently brushed in places, it was flanked by old sawn stumps
and a few wooden treads still bridged short wet sections. As
noted above, we did not find a branch of the trail which led to
the proposed powerhouse site on Upper Trail Lake as indicated on
the USGS map. A crew of biologists reported a well-constructed
trail, with historic debris, leading east out of the next large
cove to the north, but they lost it at the edge of a muskeg. The
old Portage Trail which leads from the railroad bridge at Moose
Pass through a pass in Section 31, T. 5 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian
(Plafker 1955:plate 2), is also reported by the biological crew
to be well corduroyed and easy to follow. Both of these trails
are outside the present project area and were not included in the
archeological survey. No cultural material, other than a recent
campfire, was found on the shores of the powerhouse cove. Two
small test pits, one on the south promontory defining the cove and
one on a small peninsula on the south side of the cove, revealed
10 cm of vegetation and culturally sterile soil above bedrock.
The soil under several uprooted trees in the area yielded diffuse
-traces of charcoal, but there is also evidence of an old burn in
the area.
5) Shoreline of Upper Trail Lake from the powerhouse site to
the mouth of Grant Creek: No cultural material other than occas-
ional modern debris washed up on the beach was found. One roughly
rectangular hole, approximately 1 m by 2 m, was noted at the west
end of the island which splits the mouth of Grant Creek. Its
bottom was obscured by shallow water, but a shovel probe immediately
struck gravel. It could be the natural result of fluctuating
creek and lake levels. There was no associated cultural material.
6) Island between upper and lower Grant lake and adjacent
points of land: Aside from old signs of small-scale logging on
the north adjacent point and a recent survey marker on the south
adjacent point, we noted no evidence of human activity.
Site Significance and Potential Project Imnacts
8
The prehistoric and early historic periods are poorly docu-
mented in the project area. No sites relating to these periods
were identified in either the literature search or the field
reconnaissance, though it is quite possible that sites of this
age do exist within the area. Written references to the area
deal primarily with the development of gold mining and the Alaska
Railroad in the period after 1900. All of the historic sites
identified in the archeological survey post-date 1900 and most
relate either directly or indirectly to the mining industry.
The Iditarod Trail (SEW148 and National Register of Historic
Places) and the Alaska Northern Railway (SEW029) routes roughly
coincide with the present route of the Alaska Railroad through the
project area. The lditarod Trail was blazed in 1908 by the Alaska
Road Commission as a winter route between the port of Seward and
the gold fields of Nome and the interior. Its importance dwindled
with the decline in gold production in the interior and with the
advent of airmail service in the 1920s (BLM 1981 :19-31). It has
recently been designated a National Historic Trail and is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The first spike of
the Alaska Central Railroad was driven in Seward in 1904 and by
1905 fifty miles of track had been constructed. The Alaska Central
went into receivership in 1907, but in 1909 the Alaska Northern
Railway was formed. It constructed an additional 21 miles of
..
''''
••
"Ie
9
track before going bankrupt in 1911. The tracks were still used,
however, by a gas car which regularly transported mining supplies
from Seward to the wagon road at Moose Pass (Barry 1973:114-116).
When construction of the Alaska Railroad from Seward to Fairbanks
commenced in 1915, this section of track was improved and the old
right-of-way is sti used by the present-day railroad (Barry
1973:144-147). Two proposed access roads will cross the routes
of the trail and railroad. They are already crossed by a number
of access roads, however, and it does not appear that this will
be a significant impact. The State Historic Preservation Officer,
the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service should be
consulted in the assessment of project impact upon the Iditarod
Trail.
The Solars Sawmi was, by local accounts, never a commercially
viable mill and apparently had little effect upon the economic
development of the region. (see Appendix). Reported to have operated
sporadically in the period 1927 or 1930 through 1941, the mi is
presently in very poor condition. There are, however, a few
artifacts at the site which the Forest Service or a local historical
group might wish to salvage for display. The site may be directly
affected by the proposed project. In one project alternative a
bridge joining two access roads wi occupy part of the site. In
other project alternatives an access road will pass to the north
of the site and thus not directly affect it. Such a road could,
however, open the site to vandalism or collectors, and if anything
were to be salvaged, it would have to be removed during the road
construction phase.
10
The trail between the sawmill and Upper Trail Lake is neither
an elaborate nor a well-preserved trail. It reportedly was used
by dog teams hauling processed lumber from the sawmill to market
in !'vloose Pass. No historic artifacts were found along the portion
we were able to follow, and the Forest Service in Seward has no
record of 'construction or maintenance work on the trail. It will
be crossed or followed in places by an access road if the project
is constructed.
The Crown Point Nountain Trail (SEW140), Crown Point Mine
(SEW192) and associated structures at localities A, B, and C
have played an important role in the history of gold mining in the
area, and may be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. The Black Butte vein at the Crown Point mine was discovered
in 1906, making it one of the earliest important discoveries on
Falls Creek. The mine and associated structures were developed
primarily in the periods 1910-1916 by the Kenai-Alaska Gold Co.
and 1935-1940 by the Crown Point Mining Co., C. Brosius and
Associates of Seward, but was worked on a small scale into the
1960s. All lie north and east of the project area and will not
be directly affected by project construction or operation. All
are presently accessible from the highway by a mining road, but
beyond approximately one-half mile a four-wheel-drive vehicle
with a winch is needed. Construction of an access road along
the pipeline route to the proposed diversion dam may improve
access to these sites somewhat and may increase the risk of
vandalism. Vandals still, however, would have to travel quite a
way down the pipeline road and then take the steep mining road to
the structures. The most likely to be affected would be structures
•
•
...
ftIIi'
.'"
,,,.
....
11
at locality A.
The remains of a log structure, in very poor condition, lie
on the Crown Point Mine.road above the proposed dam site and thus
outside the area of direct impact. The structure probably dates
to about 1940 and may be associated with the later development of
the Crown Point IVIine. Like the other structures associated with
the mine, construction of the pipeline access road may slightly
improve access to it. It is in such poor condition, however,
that little could be done to damage it further.
The Brosius cabin, sluice, and camp all appear to be asso-
ciated with mining in the area around 1940. All lie west of the
project area. Construction of the diversion dam would dewa±er
Falls Creek and thus slightly change the settings of sites located
at the edge of the canyon above the creek, but is not expected to
inprease erosion or otherwise affect these sites. The Baggs
cabin, which we did not locate, relates to the period around 1910.
It, too, lies well to the west of the project area and would be
affected in the same way.
Crown Point/Trail Creek Station (SE1,V021) and the Stevenson
cabin are associated with early mining and the early days of the
railroad in this area. Both lie near a Forest Service recreation
trail and the existing access road which leads eventually to the
Crown Point rUne. Both lie north of a proposed access road and are
not expected to be affected by project construction or operation.
Conclusions
This archeological survey has identified four sites which
wi be directly affected by construction of alternative F of the
Grant Lake Hydroelectric project: the Alaska Northern Railway
12
(SEW029), the Idi~arod Trail (SE1tJ148 and National Register of
Historic Places), Solars Sawmill, and the trail between the saw-
mill and Upper Trail Lake. While it does not appear that any
sites included on or eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places will be significantly affected by the
project, such a preliminary determination can be made only by the
State Historic Preservation Officer in consultation with the
interested parties.
This was a reconnaissance-level survey of the "project area.
As specific construction sites and routes had not yet been identi-
fied on the ground, these could not be intensively examined;
previously unrecorded cultural resources may yet be found there.
The survey did, however t identify areas of high to moderate
archeological potential which appear to warrant subsurface arche-
ological testing before construc'tion begins. These areas are:
1) the route of the access road which parallels part of Vagt Lake
Trail, 2~ the route of the access road between Grant Lake and the
powerhouse site t 3) the route of the access road between the
powerhouse and the highway, and the pipeline route between the
diversion dam and its intersection with the access road which
parallels Vagt Lake Trail. The remainder of the pipeline route
passes over what appears to be a slide area. While it may warrant
a walk-over and examination of any natural exposures t any cultural
-
...
'11'
material is likely quite deeply buried there. ••
III'
..
13
References Cited
Barry, Mary J.
1973 A history of mlnlng on the Kenai Peninsula. Anchorage:
Alaska Northwest Publishing.
Iditarod National Historic Trail Project Office, BLM
1981 The Iditarod National Historic Trail, Seward to Nome
route. Volume 1: A comprehensive management plan.
Anchorage: Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage
District Office.
Plafker, George
1955 Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at
Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan and Crescent lakes, Alaska.
USGS Bull. 1031-A. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Yarborough, Michael R.
1981 Archeological survey of proposed drilling sites, Grant
Lake, Alaska. Anchorage: Cultural Resource Consultants.
1
Photo Log: Grant Jake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982
Roll 1
Frame
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
8 June 1982
Subject
"Sluice" site. Corrugated sheet metal trough.
" II Corrugated sheet metal trough.
II " Sluice, pipe, and cobble deposit
which divides stream into two forks, looking N
upstream.
"Sluice" site. Debris associated with sluice,
looking E across stream.
"Sluice" site. Debris associated with sluice.
" " Wire cable associated with sluice,
looking W across stream, near mouth.
"Sluice" site. Wooden trough on E bank next to
sluice. Possibly replaced with the corrugated
sheet metal.
"Sluice" site. Debris associated with s]uice,
looking across stream.
"Sluice" site. Wooden trough associated with sluice.
Itt " Pipe and corrugated sheet metal
trough through which water flows, looking E.
"Sluice" site. Same as frame 10.
Camp site. N side of Falls Creek, looking E.
Pack in foreground and Maggie Floyd at center
provide scale.
Camp site. Same as frame 12.
" " Sherwin-Williams packing crate on S
edge of site. Planks visible on ground behind it.
Camp site. Pile of lumber on ground between
trees with boards nailed to them horizontally ca.
3 m above ground, looking W. Possibly remains
of raised cache.
Camp site. Wooden wheels with metal rims, looking
E. A metal door with a plastic potato bag lies
between them.
Camp site. Closeup of cache box with screened
top, looking N. Shovel provides scale.
Camp site. Cache box and table nailed to spruce
and scattered camp debris, looking N. Shovel
provides scale.
Camp site. Closer view of wooden wheels.
2
Photo Log: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982
Roll 1 8 June 1982 (cant.)
Frame . Subj ect
20 Camp site. Ladder of unpeeled saplings and bo~rd
nailed horizontally to spruce ca. 3 m above gra~nd,
looking W. Cache box and table nailed to tree
are visible at left.
21 Camp site. View of perforated sheet metal rims
on wooden wheels, looking E.
22 Camp site. Same as frame 21.
23 Frozen waterfall, S bank of Falls Creek opposite
camp site and Brosius cabin.
24 Brosius cabin. W wall of structure built into
hillside S of cabin, looking E.
25 Brosius cabin. Structure built into hillside S
of cabin, looking N from road cut.
26 Brosius cabin. Same as frame 25.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
" " Same as frame 25.
Brosius cabin. View of waterfall in Falls Creek
from road cut below Brosius cabin, looking E.
Brosius cab~n. W wall of cabin, looking E.
" " Collansed portion of W wall and
collapsed S wall, looking SEe N side of door
jamb is visible at left.
Brosius cabin. Trash, looking E toward SE corner.
" " Collapsed shed N of cabin,
looking B.
Brosius cabin. Same as frame 32.
" " Detail of construction of NW
corner, looking S.
Brosius cabin. Interior view of E wall, looking
E. Note bed frame at right.
Brosius cabin. Interior view of SE corner,
looking SEe
..
•
3
Photo Log: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982
Roll 2 8-11 June 1982
Frame Subject
1 Blank.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Brosius cabin. Roofing preserved in NE corner,
looking NE.
Brosius cabin. One charred and one uncharred
roof beam inside cabin near NW corner, looking
W. Note moss chinking petween logs and laths
nailed over cracks.
Brosius cabin. Trash inside cabin near SW corner
looking S. Note heavy concentration of charcoal
at center left.
Brosius cabin. Trash.
Brosius cabin. Corrugated metal roofing outside
cabin near SW corner, looking NE.
Brosius cabin. Roof of structure built into
hillside south of cabin, looking S and down
from cabin.
Brosius cabin.
" "
Fragment of oilcloth.
Auto hood SE of cabin.
" 'f Sign inside cabin near door:
ItC. M. Brosius--Seward."
Log structure. View of SW corner, looking S.
If " View S along \'I wall. Stumps in
foreground are remnants of W wall, still wedged
between logs of N wall which has fallen outward.
Log structure. Closer view of W wall stumps.
" " View W across remains of structure.
If If N half, looking NW. W wall stump
visible in center.
Log structure, looking NW.
" II Same as frame 16, Maggie Floyd
provides scale.
Log structure. Outhouse or cache depression E
of structure, looking SE diagonally across it.
Log structure. Detail of SW corner, looking N.
II II Boiler lying across road to N of
structure.
Ilog structure. Looking S from road.
4
Photo T;og: Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, 7-12 June 1982
Roll 2 8-11 June 1982 (cant.)
Frame
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Subject
Cabin foundation. Heap of large cans or buckets
S of cabin foundation, looking S.
Cabin foundation. SE corner of foundation with
some of vegetation cleared away, looking 1:/.
Cabin foundation. E side of foundation, looking W.
" " Looking along one side of
foundation.
Cabin foundation. f"ietal bands to N of foundation,
looking N.
Cabin foundation. Metal strip in willow N of
foundation.
Cabin foundation. SE corner, looking ~.
Cabin foundation.
Solars sawmill. Cable pulleys.
Solars sawmill. Cable pUlleys.
" II View of Grant Creek rapids,
looking S from site of pulleys.
Solars sawmill. Closeup of pulley shown in frame
31.
Solars sawmill. Timbers leading down to Grant
Creek just E of pulleys.
Solars sawmill. Mining-cart wheels 'west of
collapsed structure.-
Solars sawmill. Another pair of mining-cart
wheels near first pair.
•
..
i"
IIII'
,.
•
..
•
5
Photo Log: Grant Lake Hydro ectric Project, 7-12 June 1982
Roll 3 11 June 1982
Frame Subject
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15-36
Advancing film.
Solars sawmi Collapsed structure, looking
roughly HE.
Solars sawmill. Collapsed structure, looking
roughly S.
Solars sawmill. Outside view of S wall of
standing cabin, looking roughly N. Door lies
in foreground.
Solars sawmi • Collapsed roof of standing
cabin, looking roughly N.
Solars sawmi Inside view of S wall of standing
cabin, looking
Solars sa~mi • Standing cabin, detail of con-
struction of W wall, looking roughly E.
Solars sawmill. Collapsing shed attached to H
wall of standing cabin, looking roughly E.
Solars sawmi • Galvanized sink in NiH corner
of standing cabin.
Solars sawmill. Outhouse, looking roughly S.
If " Timber framework leading down
into Grant Creek W of pulleys, looking roughly
E, upstream.
Solars sawmill. Wire cable at framework leading
down into Grant Creek W of pulleys.
Solars sawmill. Timber framework leading down
into Grant Creek W of pulleys.
Solars sawmill. Looldng S across Grant Creek
rapids from timber framework IV of pulleys.
Blank.
Appendix: Site Reports
Site name: Cabin foundation
Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1910
Location: m'/{ Nwt SEi Section 13, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., Seward
Meridian
Description: The foundation lies in a level clearing now vegetated
with grass and willows 5 m south of the beginning of the Chugach
National Forest's Vagt Lake Trail, which parallels the south shore
of Lower Trail Lake, and approximately 20 m east of the Alaska
Railroad track. The closest source of water is Lower Trail Lake.
This roughly square foundation of decaying logs, covered
with moss, grass, and willows, measures approximately 5 m NS by
4.4 mEW. Though the poor condition of the wood prevented an
accurate count, it appears that only one or two tiers of logs
remain in place in each wall. At least two grass-covered logs
lie outside the foundation, parallel to the east wall, from which
they may have fallen.
Associated features include a dump of large rusted cans or
buckets to the south and a smallm square depression to the north-
east. The latter measures approximately 1.05 m NS by 0.9 mEW.
A shovel test 30 cm deep in its center revealed an organic layer,
varying from 2 cm thick on the north to 18 cm thick on the south,
underlain by cultural material and gray clayey soil mottled with
sand and gravel. The cultural material consisted of a few frag-
ments of rusted cans, a few small pieces of glass, and a carpal
or tarsal bone of a large herbivore. This material was not
collected. The test pit hit water at 25 cm below surface and was
abandoned and backfilled at a depth of 30 cm below surface. The
depression may represent an outhouse hole or trash pit which was
later filled in. Other trash, including rusted metal bands, cans,
a piece of pipe, a rubber overshoe, and half of a light blue
glass insulator which bears the inscription BROOKFIE __ , lies
scattered around the foundation.
Other features which may be of more recent vintage are a
square pit filled with water right at the south edge of the Vagt
Lake Trail; a large rectangular hole, just inland from the float-
plane dock, which contains a boiler, a metal rod, and a machine
part; and a pair of railroad-car wheels and a large machine part
immediately east and a recent round pit east and slightly south
..
of the rectangular hole.
Significance: Crown POint/Trail Creek Station (SEW 021) and a
structure known as the Stevenson cabin are both reported to have
been located at approximately this location. The Stevenson
cabin, shown on a map compiled by D. H. Sleem in 1910, may have
been associated with the Stephenson or Stevenson brothers, who
discovered gold at what was later to become the Crown Point Mine.
Trail Creek Station, in approximately the same location, was a
stop at Mile 26 on the Alaska Northern Railway at a slightly later
date. In 1915 the Kenai-Alaska Gold Co., which had taken over the
Stevenson mining claims in 1910, had a large log house with an
office and warehouse at this same milepost (Martin et ale 1915:
157-159; Barry 1973:145). The poor state of preservation of the
cabin foundation which we located here suggests that the structure
could indeed date to early in the twentieth century. The foundation
does not appear to be that of a "large log house," but we found
no other structural remains in the area. If Crown Point/Trail
Creek Station and the Stevenson cabin are in fact separate sites,
the foundation discovered more likely represents the latter.
Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other
than that due to natural weathering.
References:
Barry, Mary J.
1973 A history of mlnlng on the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska
Northwest Publishing, Anchorage.
Martin, G. C., B. L. Johnson, and U. S. Grant
1915 Geology and mineral resources of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.
USGS Bull. 587. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C.
Sleem, D. H.
1910 Map of Kenai mlnlng district and Moose Pass regions,
Kenai precinct, Alaska. Information from this map
provided by Forest Archeologist, Chugach National
Forest, Anchorage, Alaska.
Owner of property: Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Location of cabin foundation.
SEWARD (8-7) QUADRANGLE
ALASKA
1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
149"15' 1~~~~~--;r--~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~r-~~~~~--~---~r-~~~'~~-=~~~=--~~3a
L A k
~ N,
3"
•
..
..
..
..
.,.,. ..
~ .. -..
"'"
• .,. .
• .,., . .. ..
I[IJ
Tr ... .rh
",
~ I
(~ ________________________ ~) l~s
l .. )
0 (] 0 ",' ....
"f ..r.(
b41'1J.'s ...p
0 Ca..~ i"
("
Alit{ 'Pi"".
Fo",,,J,Q..tio,, 0 fI"
.jJ,rr~f",d .. 1 ~
A
I CJ 0 0
\ -~~
Sketch map, cabin foundati'on site.
Site name: Solars Sawmill
Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1924-1941
Location: Nwi SEi SRi Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward
Meridian
Description: The sawmill is located on a peninsula on the north
side of the rapids at the outlet of Grant Lake. The peninsula is
steep, with several small, relatively level benches or terraces
•
-
.'
upon which the structural remains are found. The area around the .'
site supports a mature spruce forest in which a few sawn stumps
are visible and part of the site occupies a lichen-covered rock
outcrop which overlooks the rapids.
The sawmill site consists of a collapsed wooden structure, a
standing cabin with an attached woodshed, an outhouse, three large
pulleys, two timber frameworks leading down into Grant Creek, and
assorted historic debris. The site was visited in 1981 by M.
Yarborough, who measured and briefly described the structures.
In 1982 we recorded additional details of construction and obtained
some local information on the history of the site.
The collapsed wooden structure is located on the lowest bench
on the east side of the peninsula, just east of the rapids. It
was built of milled lumber, but its form and size are indiscernible
in its present condition. Its debris covers an area of approxi-
mately 7 m2 (Yarborough 1981 :2). Two pairs of mining-car wheel$
lie under some young spruce between this structure and the rock
outcrop upon which the remains of the mill itself are located.
The standing cabin, constructed of milled lumber, is located
in the forest on a small bench above and about 10 m west of the
collapsed structure. It measures approximately 6 m NS by 4 m EW
(Yarborough 1981 :3). It is in very poor condition, as the roof
and west wall have collapsed and the south and east walls lean
outward at precarious angles. The gable roof consisted of tar
paper sandwiched between two layers of vertical planks. The
walls were insulated with newspaper and magazines sandwiched
between a layer of horizontal planks on the inside and vertical
planks on the outside. Yarborough (1981 :3) found a date of 13
January 1958 on one of the magazines. Slats nailed vertically
.. ..
•
•
over chinks between the outside planks further reduced cold
drafts. The cabin had two windows, a small one in the center of
the west wall and one twice as wide in the center of the east wall.
It also had two doors, one in the north wall which led into an
attached shed and one in the south wall. A wooden door missing
most of its panels lies just south of the cabin. Among the
debris inside the cabin are a bed in the northwest corner with a
large galvanized sink resting upon it, a set of shelves lying on
the floor near the east windows, and fragments of window glass.
The stove was probably located in the southwest corner. A col-
lapsing shed, built of milled lumber and measuring about 2 m NS
by 4 mEW, is attached to the north wall of the cabinc(Yarborough
1981 :3). It had a shed-type roof which sloped down toward the
north and is filled with scrap lumber. It apparently served as a
woodshed. Trash scattered outside the cabin included a bucket,
stove parts, and rusted cans. Two IIPreferred Stock" coffee cans
and a large IlSchillingll black pepper can still bear identifiable
labels.
A trail leads from the standing cabin west to an outhouse
which has tumbled part way down a steep slope. Two small piles
of rusted cans lie just north of the outhouse.
Three large pulleys mounted on heavy timbers lie on a rock
outcrop overlooking the rapids, southeast of the outhouse and
west of the collapsed structure. A framework of timbers leads
down into Grant Creek on each side of the rock outcrop. The
pulleys, frameworks, and associated wire cable constitute the
remains of the mill itself.
The 1953 USGS map shows a trail between Upper Trail Lake and
the mill site. Signs of logging and a few traces of wooden treads
bridging short muddy stretches were visible along the portion of
the trail we were able to follow, but we lost the trail in the
vicinity of the divide between Upper Trail and Grant lakes.
Significance: A report compiled by the USDA-Forest Service in
1924 mentions that an area at the head of Grant Lake had been cut
over for a sawmill at the foot of the lake, but maps which accom-
panY,the report do not show the mill site (Holbrook 1924; R.
Quill~m, USDA-FS Seward, personal communication). A local
resident very knowledgeable about the history of the area provided
more information. He believes that the mill first operated
around 1927 or 1930. It was never a viable mill, but was run
from time to time by Al Solars, its owner, until his death around
1941. The processed lumber was hauled out over a trail by dog
team, a little being sold to the railroad and some being sold
locally, but the mill never produced much. This account agrees
with what little published information is available. When Plafker
visited the area for the qSGS in 1952, the mill was abandoned and
the trail had fallen into disuse (Plafker 1955:2, 12). Given
the date of January 1958 found on one of the magazines used as
insulation in the standing cabin, it is quite possible that this
cabin was periodically occupied and modified by hunters or
trappers after the mill itself was abandoned.
Danger of destruction: The structures at the site are in poor
condition and the winter snows could cause the last one to
collapse within a few years. The site is presently protected
from vandals by its difficult access, but if access were improved
a few of the artifacts remaining at the site, such as the galvan-
ized sink and mining-car wheels, might prove attractive to collectors.
References:
Holbrook, Wellman
1924 Land classification report on the Kenai Peninsula
division of the Chugach National Forest, Alaska. On
file at Seward District Office, Chugach National
Forest, Seward, Alaska.
Plafker, George
1955 Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at
Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan and Crescent lakes, Alaska.
USGS Bull. 1031-A. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Yarborough, P1ichael
1981 Archeological survey. of proposed drilling sites, Grant
lake, Alaska. Anchorage: Cultural Resource Consultants.
Owner of property: Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
•
•
-
• -
•
Location of Solars Sawmill.
L A
SEW ARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE
ALASKA
1:63.360 SERIES (TOroGRAPHIC)
149"15'
6O"3U
,
mal), Sola:rs sawmill site.
i , ~ "
,
Site name: Sluic~
Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1940
Location: swi NE~ SEi Section 18, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward
Meridian
Description: The "sluice" is located on the north bank of the
Falls Creek canyon, on the first small tributary stream to Falls
Creek above the Alaska Railroad. The creek is bridged by a
plank. \ve found no cultural material upstream from the plank.
Slightly below the plank the stream forks around a deposit of
large, loose cobbles. On the east fork the stream is directed
through a piece of stovepipe, below which the stream bed is lined
with pieces of corrugated sheet metal bent into a trough. The
metal trough extends to the edge of the canyon and the stream
drops straight down to Falls Creek, about 50 feet below. Scattered
along the sides of the east stream fork are pieces of lumber,
pieces of a wooden trough which may have been replaced by the
sheet metal, and wire cable.
The remains of a campsite and a ruined cabin dating to approx-
imately 1935-1940 lie within a few hundred feet to the east.
Significance: The "sluice" is probably associated with gold
prospecting on Falls Creek. The area has been prospected from the
first decade of the twentieth century to the present. Recently
staked placer claims are located approximately 500 feet up Falls
Creek from this site and an active placer claim is located near
the mouth of Falls Creek. The small stream could also have served
as a water source for the nearby camp and cabin, as Falls Creek
flows at the bottom of a de~p canyon here.
Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other
than that due to natural weathering.
References: None.
Owner of property: Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Location of sl~ice.
26
L A
-
.1
SEW ARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE
ALASKA
I: 6.3. 360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
149'15'
-~~--.-...,......"...., 60'30'
3 ~
..
..
-
-...
..
"'" ..
.... ..
...
III'
lilt
Site name: Camp·
Pertinent dates: some time in the period A.D. 1940-1960
Location: swi NEt
Meridian
Section 18, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward
Description: The camp is located on the north bank of the Falls
Creek canyon approximately 100 m west' of the northwest corner of
the Marathon 1 placer claim and an equal distance downstream from
the waterfall where the 895-foot contour crosses Falls Creek. It
lies in a small clearing surrounded by a very dense growth of
young spruce with trunks approximately 1 to 2 inches in diameter.
The nearest sources of water are a small stream with a sluice a
short distance to the west and Falls Creek which flows through the
canyon about 50 feet below.
The camp area measures approxiamtely 3.6 m NS by 6.5 m E1t/.
Along the south edge lie some planks and corrugated metal roofing.
A cache box, with quarter-inch wire mesh covering the top, is
nailed to the south side of a large spruce above a table which is
also nailed to the tree. Leaning against the north side of the
same tree is a ladder, made of unpe ed saplings, which leads up
to a board nailed to the spruce about 3 m above the ground.
Boards are nailed at about 3 m and 4 m above the ground on another
spruce a short distance to the north. Some lumber lies between
the two trees, which may have supported some type of cache. Other
material scattered about the site includes a Bordents Evaporated
Milk crate, a Sherwin-Williams-Paint crate, a large square can
with a wire handle, pieces of pipe, a small metal door, a plastic
potato bag which says "Alaska Nuggets--Palmer, Alaska," a large
bent piece of rusted sheet metal, approximately one-eighth inch
thick, with regular perforations, and two wooden wheels with rims
of galvanized sheet metal with regular perforations. Some cans and
other trash also lie in a heap southwest of the clearing.
A road cut which extends from the Crown Point Mine road down
toward Falls Creek lies immediately east of the camp and the
Brosius cabin, probably occupied in the period 1935-1940, lies
slightly to the north on the opposite side of the road.
Significance: The camp is very likely associated with gold pros-
pecting on Falls Creek. The area has been'prospected from the
first decade of the twentieth century to the present. Judging
from the size of the young spruce around the clearing, the camp
is at least 20 years old and may be older. It may be associated
with the nearby Brosius cabin, which probably dates to the
period 1935-1940.
Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other
than that due to natural weathering.
References: None.
Owner of property: Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
.,
..
..,.
• -..
Location of camp.
SEWARD (8-7) QUADRANGLE
N
a..f r I'OXi"", .... t~
se .... l~
Sketch map, camp site.
, , I • f , I • A I , • 'I. , I , ,
e
I.. rOIL..!
7'
•
Site name: Brosius Cabin
Pertinent dates: A.D. 1935-1940
Location: swt NEt SEt Section 18, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward
Meridian
Description: The structure is located on the north side of
Falls Creek canyon on a small bench some 50 to 75 feet above the
creek. The northwest corner of the Marathon 1 placer claim lies
about 30 m uphill to the northeast, and a waterfall whe~e the
895-foot contour crosses Falls Creek is located an equal distance
upstream. Immediately to the west of the cabin is a steep road
spur which leads from the Crown Point Mine road down toward Falls
Creek. The cabin ruins stand in a clearing, but young spruce
grow near it and mature spruce forest grows to the east and north.
The nearest sources of water are Falls Creek and a small stream
with a sluice some 100 m to the west.
The cabin measures 5.1 m NS by 6.3 mEW. It was built of
unpeeled double-notched logs chinked with moss. On the inside
of the north wall laths were nailed over the chinking, presumably
to reduce drafts. The north wall and the west wall between the
northwest corner and the door jamb still stand eight logs high.
The east wall stands eight logs high at the north end and five or
six logs high at the south end. The remaining walls have collapsed.
The east wall has a central window frame without glass and, as
mentioned, there was a door in the west wall. Nails pounded into
the north wall probably served as hooks on which to hang things.
No flooring was noted, but may be present.
The structure appears to have had a shed roof which slanted
down toward the south. A small fragment of the roof preserved in
the northeast corner consisted of several layers of a coarse
fabric resembling burlap covered with a sparkling sandy material,
possibly decayed shingles, sandwiched between corrugated sheet
metal on the inside and tar paper on the outside. A charred beam
leaning against the wall near the northwest corner suggests that
the roof burned. I did not note any charring of the standing
walls, but a dense scatter of charcoal fragments extends from the
southwest corner half way along the collapsed south wall.
A shed measuring 2.95 m NS by 4.4 m EW was attached to the
cabin's north wall. It has completely collapsed, but machine
parts and pieces of metal roofing lie among the ruins.
A great deal of trash is associated with the cabin. One
metal bed frame stands in the southeast corner and another lies
nearby, outside the cabin. A stove may once have stood in the
southwest corner where there is a concentration of charcoal. A
piece of stovepipe lies nearby, outside the doorway. Inside the
cabin, the heaviest concentration of trash lies in the southwest
quarter and included boots, shoes, a can of eating utensils, and
machine parts. A wooden sign lying just inside the door bears
faint lettering which reads IIC. M. Brosius--Seward." Outside
the cabin are pieces of metal roofing and rusted cans. The
existing road appears to have cut through a trash heap, as rusted
cans are also found in the berm on the opposite side of the road.
East of the cabin is the hood of a car or truck. A railing has
been nailed to a tree at the edge of the cliff east of the cabin,
forming a little walkway.
An associated structure is dug into the hillside below and
southwest of the cabin. As it has been undermined by the road
cut and erosion, I did not descent to measure or examine it
closely. It appears to be built OI milled lumber and has a roof
of corrugated sheet metal. It appears too large to have been
an outhouse.
Significance: This cabin is most likely related to gold mining
in the area. The Crown Point Mine, which lies north of Falls
Creek near the summit of a nearby mountain, was operated by the
CrownPoint Mining eompanYt C. Brosius and Associates, Seward,
in the period 1935-1940 (Stewart 1937:48, 1939:39, 1941:74).
Danger of destruction: There is little danger of destruction other
than that due to natural weathering. The associated structure
dug into the hillside may soon be lost to erosion. Although a
mining road passes right by the cabin, it is impassible without a
four-wheel-drive vehicle. Most IIcollectables" appear alreadt to
have been salvaged by the former owner or removed by later visitors.
..
..
..
References:
Stewart, B. D.
1937 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to
the biennium ended December 31, 1936.
Territory of Alaska.
the Governor for
(Juneau?) :
1939 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for
the biennium ended December 31, 1938. (Juneau?):
Territory of Alaska.
1941 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for
the biennium e,nded December 31, 1940. (Juneau?):
Territory of Alaska.
Owner of property: Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
I Location of Brosius cabin.
L
SEW ARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE
ALASKA
1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
149·15'
--.,-.......j~.;.:~c-.,---:--,.....,.,:,...:....:-=-.,:.:.-=-...;;,---r-; '-r:,-;;;~~-:-±......",~~.,----:-:-;~---'...;;.;:::-!-,=-,;-~=:-;;:::::::7i 60·30'
26
A.
..
•
-
•
•
-
• ..
(
I
\' ro.' ~
\
~)
I
/
I
!
I
I
I
I
\
Roo..~
\
\
\
I
I
N
1
0 1", ~,..
I
"'-fljI·OJ( i ,., ... t..
.Ie. ... I c.
r-----------,--
I
I~
I \\"
I
c.I.a.,. ....... I
-"0------------------~ c .. ,.,.~3··h.t ~ 'v/ ~";.J V"
Str" .. fu r.c.
.(,,~ ;"to
hillsiJ .....
Sketch map, Brosius cabin.
Site name: Log structure
Pertinent dates: approx. A.D. 1940
Location: Nwi SWi Section 17, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Seward Meridian
Description: This collapsed structure lies approximately 75 m
north of the edge of Falls Creek canyon in a large, fairly level,
grassy clearing dotted with cow parsnip just below treeline.
The Crown Point Mine road passes immediately north of it and the
juncture of the NE corner of the Marathon 3 placer claim with the
NW corner of the Four Jokers 1 placer claim lies a short distance
to the south. The nearest source of water which we identified
is Falls Creek, but several small mountain streams cross the road
to the west and may cross it to the east as well.
The structure was built of unpeeled logs which have been
flattened on the inside surface. Only the southwest corner is
still relatively intact, and that stands only a few tiers high.
The structure's dimensions were approximately 3.6 m NS by 4.85 m
EW, but accurate measurement is difficult because the east and
north walls appear to have fallen outward. The north wall was
at least five logs high when it collapsed. No windows are evident,
but the doorway appears to have been in the west wall. Under the
grass inside the structure is a plank floor which runs EW and cor-
rugated metal roofing lies under the grass around the outside.
Recent and old cans were found in and on the grass inside the
structure.
Associated material includes a small rusted boiler on the
opposite side of the road and a small, square depression which
lies 4.4 m east and slightly south of the structure. The latter
measures approximately 1.2 m by 1.2 m and may have served as an
outhouse or cache hole. A bulldozed clearing and a recent camp-
site in the trees south of the structure are most likely associated
with the recent staking of the Marathon and Four Jokers placer
claims.
Significance: This structure is most likely associated with
gold mining in the area, possibly with the Crown Point Mine
which lies near the summit of the mountain rising to the north.
~-
-
-
The gold vein at the Crown Point Mine was discovered in 1906 by
J. W. and C. E. Ste~henson or Stevenson and developed in earnest
by the Kenai-Alaska Gold Co. in the period 1910-1916 (Martin et
ale 1915:157-159; Johnson 1919:175). It was opened again in the
period 1935-1940 by the Crown Point Mining Co., C. Brosius and
Associates, of Seward, and operated by others from 1955 until at
least 1960 (stewart 1937:48; 1939:39; 1941 :74). The logs of the
structure appear to be too sound to date to the 1910s. The struc-
ture bears some resemblance to the Brosius cabin located further
downstream in that it was built of unpeeled, double-notched logs
with a roof of corrugated sheet metal, and may date to approximately
the same period (1935-1940).
The maps posted at the corners of the Marathon placer claims
identify the structure as an "old barn." It may have served as
a waystation on the road up to the Crown Point Mine.
Danger of destruction: There is no danger of destruction other
than that due to natural weathering.
References:
Johnson, B. L.
1919 J'vlining in central and northern Kenai Peninsula. In:
Martin, G.
1915
Mineral resources of Alaska: report on progress of
investigations in 1917, by G. C. Martin et al., pp.
175-176. USGS Bull. 692. Washington, D. C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
C., B. L. Johnson, and U. S. Grant
Geology and mineral resources of Kenai Peninsula,
Alaska. USGS Bull. 587. Washington, D. C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Stewart, B. D.
1937 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for
the biennium ended Dec. 31, 1936. (Juneau?): Territory
of Alaska.
1939 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for
the biennium ended Dec. 31, 1938. (Juneau?): Territory
of Alaska.
1941 Report of the Commissioner of Mines to the Governor for
the biennium ended Dec. 31, 1940. (Juneau?): Territory
of Alaska.
Owner of property: Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 238
Anchorage, Alaska 99502 -
-
.. -..
-
,.'< -
-
-
Location of log structure.
SEW ARD (B-7) QUADRANGLE
ALASKA
1:63.360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
149"15
60030'
~ N ; 1 ~ .
0 1m
I
""I'prol{ i...-... te. s e ... IO!.
( """'---'---,---------------------------------------4
Sketch map, log structure.
I I II I I , I if , , , J 1 15 , , I 1 I I • '" I ~ ,