Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKiseralik-Chikuminuk Hydro Recon and Prelim Hydro Feas.Study 2011 REF Grant 2195447KISARALIK RIVER AND CHIKUMINUK LAKE, ALASKA RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY ST� O � � O G® G Q�- ,NO �P G 1 Prepared for: S ati, ry iQ e Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority GODraft Report January 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the study described in this report is to develop, consolidate, and present a body of information on candidate hydropower projects for serving the electrical demand in the Bethel and surrounding communities region. If the Client (the Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority, or AVCP RHA) or the grant funding agency (the Alaska Energy Authority) deems the projects worthy of further study, the next step would be to conduct a detailed feasibility study and this would include site investigations and formulation of preliminary designs. Candidate Sites for Hydropower Development The study focused on the hydropower development Allen River draining Chikuminuk Lake. These car appear to represent the best opportunities for pro electrical demand in the Bethel and the surroundine c The hydropower generation potential could Kisaralik River (Golden Gate Falls, Lowe Lake outlet. It is possible that the three e6r two projects, or even a single proje reasonable projects with the bt et va environmental constraints, and p deci; The physical develol construction of a dam, of the four sites coul cut through one ot(th could provid*rl within a reash: evaluation. Dn i constructing a d selected to acco separate tunne< directly coyrl�N It Pik Ri a the i mast and meet the scre e p Tects: three on the `d at the Chikuminuk cc old be consolidated into e intent was to develop estimate the costs, assess four candidate sites would involve ling facilities and a powerhouse. Each t rockfill dam and a spillway channel that the spillway channel excavation R-for.LN don: It is not known if fine grained materials exist so ncrete faced rockfill type dam was adopted for this w d g construction of the dam would be accomplished by iN the dam site. The diversion tunnel configuration has been oNte us aversion features as part of the power waterway, avoiding a iainimi<AeNcost. A powerhouse would contain two Francis type turbines to n or. Each project would need facilities to handle migratory fish _cXis s for each candidate project are listed below: rt Average Flow cfs) Reservoir Storage AF) Dam Height ft) Chikuminuk Lake 1,353 2,008,377 128 Golden Gate Falls 1,757 20,894 118 Lower Falls 1,603 72,502 173 Upper Falls 833 53,963 204 MWH ES-1 January 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Energy Generation The anticipated hydropower generation characteristics of each site, as developed for this study, are defined below. The Kisaralik River projects have limited storage, and therefore have a limited ability to regulate flows for delivering firm energy. Firm energy is the amount of energy per year that can be delivered in a specified pattern (by month) with a specified reliability. The months of February and March are low flow months, and therefore constrain the quantity of energy that can be considered firm. For the purposes of this study, the specified reliability for considering energy as firm is 90% on a monthly basis considering the estimated historical flow record. `C�) Site Min /Rated/ Max Head (ft) Generating Capacityergy (MW) Firm Anryell Aver ag n al (GW y actor Chikuminuk Lake 70 / 1 14 / 134 13.4 10.J, 8 87:°% Golden Gate Falls 44 / 75.5 / 85.5 27.0 18. 36% Lower Fal Is 76 / 130 / 147 34.1 3.2 41 °/u Upper Falls 96 / 165.2 / 185 86.7 36% Transmission Interconnection Q� egthe A major transmission line wou{��1�clLure terc didate projects with the regional electrical power sr ply id. h t e is to ed as a 138 kV single circuit line supported on wooden XX- H-s�o es. T��nces from the interconnection in the Bethel area to each sit r iveain ollowin e: O Acces� The sites are no without existing permanent access. Transport of heavy materials and equipment ul e during the winter months via ice road from Bethel. During summer months, small equipm supplies and personnel would be ferried in by aircraft. A construction period labor camp would be required. Sit Distance (miles) i u ' iuk c 118 o G to 57 ower 62 U Is 70 Long-term operation would need to rely on support by air. A permanent road is not planned. MH ES-2 January 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Regulatory and Environmental Constraints Development of any of the projects would require a FERC license. The Kisaralik projects would be located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR). Although not typically found in National Wildlife Refuges, hydroelectric projects may be permissible in the YDNWR, as there are no explicit prohibitions in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 or in the National Wildlife System Improvement Act of 1997. The permissibility of hydroelectric development construction and operation would be determined by the Secretary of the Interior on a case -by -case basis under existing Irw t should be noted that development and operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelec ect as determined to be permissible within Alaska's Kodiak National)*ildlife Refdgp, spite Xrig opposition; a 50-year FERC license for this project was went into service in 1985, and provides much of the elec of The Chikuminuk project would be located within erne Aat d Hof Wood- Tikchik State Park; the park authorizing legislate � u ne am n o specifically allow hydroelectric development at Chikuminuk 1 ikL� f is i %0� asPgrficant constraint. The Kisaralik River is used extensively� alp romo(Is f)s�pis is viewed as a significant licensing constraint. �` Project Development Sche{� The absolute minimum ti to im`lle of candidate hydropower projects is 10 years. The projects wot uire a F tense construction could begin; the estimated minimum duration t a F 1 ens candidate projects is 5 years. A minimum one year period is peetwe ie tim use is issued and construction can begin. The construction d e at ar . The above stated durations assume favorable conditions in�f a view pproval in the licensing phase and minimum issues during the constructioni(ctua evelopment duration could be longer. Opinion of �b e The esti d ost o �ai�project, if developed on a stand-alone basis, is as indicated in the followi> P Thd costs are at the December 2010 price level without escalation or charges fo inter st ng construction. The construction cost is the estimated amount for project and transmi construction, plus procurement of the permanent turbine and generating equipment, t i thout an allowance for escalation of costs beyond 2010 during the course of the future construction period. The "total project cost" is the construction cost plus the estimated development costs, such as engineering, management, legal services and reserves, but it does not include escalation or interest charges. The specific cost is the total project cost divided by the generating capacity of the facility. W, H ES-3 January 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Site Construction Cost (2010 $ million) Total Project Cost (2010 $ million) Specific Cost (2010 $/kW) Chikuminuk Lake 391.7 483 36,045 Golden Gate Falls 305.5 378 14,000 Lower Falls 329.5 408 11,965 Upper Falls 386.4 479 17,292 Levelized Cost of Energy Output A "levelized" cost of energy, based on the estimated average annual for the purpose of determining the candidate project with the to for determining if the candidate hydropower projects could generation. The "levelized" energy cost is an index t fle( production, but since the overall schedule and finane' Ir arel which can be significant, are not included in the leve St. Th per kWh that would case the benefit cost ratio o ne breakeven value (NPV = 0) in an economic c n. Th ac is be somewhat greater than the levelized cot Vo a count or nci performance requirements. Various ass s In 1 tj� e c energy cost are described in the attac r ort. T alculate vVS in _`: _ 4 Vhe Z.6st of awns, I&Z mg costs, ed V-Ys-The revenue value to be a upµ quirement would band other financial ition of the levelized costs are summarized �,� � • III 1 1 AM Conclusion Q ON All four c e pro ct /ibit specific costs in excess of $10,000 per kW of installed generati ity, is is somewhat greater than the typical industry average. Calculated levelizenergy ," the projects ranges from 13.3 to 21.4 cents per kWh. Actual revenue requireme is fo fin ial feasibility may be greater. The lowest c st roject (per unit output, both in terns of cost per kW and cost per kWh) is the Lower Falls project on the Kisaralik River. The Chikuminuk Lake project has been favored in previous studies. However, the distance from Bethel (it is the most distant from Bethel of the candidates considered), its location within a State park, and the significant alteration to an existing natural lake are significant impediments. The Chikuminuk Lake project has the advantage over the Kisaralik projects in that it can provide a (jam MWH ES-4 January 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study relatively stable month -to -month energy delivery under a wide variety of hydrological conditions and does not appear to have anadromous fish use. Therefore, if studies are to continue, the Kisaralik River Lower Falls project should be the first to be considered, although it should be recognized that the energy output potential during February and March is constrained. The Lower Falls project reservoir level could be significantly modified from the concept in this report by raising the Lower Falls dam to combine the Lower and Upper falls into a single project. This would result in a substantial increase in energy production and power output at a low incremental cost, and would also provide more reservoir storage to reduce the February and March energy delivery constraints. (^✓ If the Kisaralik River Lower Falls is developed as an initial pr t, this potential significant reduction in the cost of the Chikuminuk c did future development. The substantial cost reduction will trom by approximately 62 miles of the 118 miles of transm' ' me e Chikuminuk Lake project with the Bethel area system; i ( We recommend that future studies continue on River project. The studies should be carried o economic feasibility. The activities sugg initial information for evaluating projec Market study, combined optimum size of a combi Pending a favorable qqutc o Surface ge_Ak,;w O LIUAK U 8 o InstaiRffli of a o _ tn'epare an as in tom �mect a yerPall`s Kisaralik xmit evaluation of the next level of a po�y� operation study, to determine the Up Fa s project, Od er� ion study, then recording station in the vicinity of Lower of the site for the purposes of supporting a 1'WC Pl00y Appl'tran Document o Prep o pr nary engineering concept drawings and an AACE Class 4 cost mate. ` The above ' na ion �(fd\r_ovide a definitive basis for determining if it is justified to proceed y i si mfic ess ments in FERC licensing. G� MWH ES-5 January 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Remove this page and replace with a copy of the Location Map — this is Exhibit 2 in the Main Report. WH ES-6 January 2011 X .Y' WS590 0 k1 r Kisaralik and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Table of Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY..........................................................................................................1 Candidate Sites for Hydropower Development........................................................................... 1 EnergyGeneration.......................................................................................................................2 TransmissionInterconnection...................................................................................................... 2 Access........................................................................................................................ ............... 2 Regulatory and Environmental Constraints.......................................................... ....✓.......... 3 Project Development Schedule.......................................................... ..... .... Opinion of Probable Cost........................................................... ... Conclusion ................ ...%�.�.-.......... ... ........ ....�`....... 4 1 INTRODUCTION ............................ .........................�/.....J...... .. �..........�.........1-1 1.1 Scope of Work ................................................. ........... .... . .......... �...........1-1 1.1.1 Hydrology Study .................................. � ....... . ..... 1-1 1.1.2 Assess Existing Conditions.......... .. �...................... LL3 Develop. Feasible Layout........ 1.1.4 Schedule and Costs ............... 1-2 1.1.5 Geotechnical Analysis.<....�..........�.................... .................... 1-2 1.1.6 Land Status and Trans issi Lin g..... ..... 1-2 1.1.7 Environmental Per naly ' ... .. 1-3 1.1.8 Economic Feasi ilit lalysi 1-3 1.1.9 Regional Wh e le tili gafopment.........................................1-3 1.1.10 Public i n........... ............................. —........ .............................. 1-3 1.2 Organizatio a ep �........................................................................1 3 2 BACKGRO ND UU� S.......................... ...................................... 2-1 3 UNDER IN ES AND CONSTRAINTS.................................3-1 3.1 Infrastructur i e Aot s........................................................................ ..................................................................................3-1 3.2 Land Use a nviro a onstraints......................................................................3-1 3.3 Hydrol tudi etting................................................................:.................. 3-2 -ff 3.3.1 mw.... ... 3-2 3.32 Hy y......................................................................................................3-5 -113.4 cal........................................................................................................3 3� Leei.............................................................................. ................................. 3-11 3.4.2 Physiology ............................................. ............................... .................. 3-11 3.4.3 eg nal Geology ..................................... ............................................................. 3-12 3.4.4 Regional Tectonics and Seismic Records ...... ......................................... ............... 3-13 3.4.5 Summary............................................................ .................................................... 3-15 3.4.6 Recommendations ........................................ ...... .................................................... 3-16 4 TRANSMISSION LINE PLANNING ................................................... ................... ......... 4-1 5 SITE SPECIFIC PLANNING WORK.............................................................................. 5-1 MWH ES-i January 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Table of Contents (continued) 5.1 Hydrological Parameters................................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Chikuminuk Lake.....................................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Upper Falls...............................................................................................................5-3 5.1.3 Lower Falls............................................................. ................................................. 5-5 5.1.4 Golden Gate Falls.................................................................................................... 5-7 5.2 Geological Assessment and Construction Materials...................................................... 5-9 5.2.1 Chikuminuk Lake.....................................................................................................5-9 5.2.2 Upper Falls............................................................................................................5-13 5.2.3 Lower Falls............................................................................................. 5-17 5.2.4 Golden Gate Falls............................................................................. .. -19 5.3 Project Concepts................................................................. 5.3.1 Dam and Spillway ................................................ ...... .. 3 .............. .......... .. ...... ..... ................. 5.3.2 Waterways....................................................... ....... ... .. . ... ..5-25 5.3.3 Powerhouse and Major Equipment ............. . . ....... ... 5-26 5.3.4 Switchyard ................................................ . ......... .. 5-27 5.3.5 Access Features ................................... �'�l►....... ......_�� �...............5-27 6 FISH PASSAGE CONSIDERA 6.1 Chikuminuk Lake / Allen River 6.1.1 Fish Passage Design Parap+ 6.1.2 Upstream Passage ..... \. 6.1.3 Tailrace Barrier...... 6.1.4 Downstream Fish 6.1.5 Fish Passage Fa ility pe 6.2 Kisaralik River 6.2.1 Fish Pass gn P 6.2.2 Upstre age .. 6.2.3 4ishassa �ul F cM4tva..e 6.2.4'earn sage 6.2.5 ty Opera ......... if .......................6-1 as ge ............................ 6-1 ............................. 6-1 ...................I.................... 6-1 .......................................... 6-2 .......................................... 6-2 .......................................... 6-3 .......................................... 6-3 .......................................... 6-3 .......................................... 6-4 .......................................... 6-4 .......................................... 6-4 .......................................... 6-5 7 OPINION OFWBwABL ROJECT CAPITAL COST ....................... 7.1 Estim Metho......................................................................... 7.1.1 uctio............................................................................. 7.1. Pri ing B is ....................................................... I........................... 7.1. stima st ication....................................................................... 7.1.4 Esti at Scheduling Systems......................................................... 7.1.5 ethodology.......................................................................... 7.1.6 kltiAating Accuracy.......................................................................... 7.1.7 Direct Cost Development................................................................... 7.1.9 Indirect Cost Development................................................................ 7.1.9 Estimate Adders................................................................................. 7.1.10 Labor Rate Development................................................................ 7.1.1 l Equipment Rate Development........................................................ T1.12 Escalation........................................................................................ ...................... 7-1 ...................... 7-1 ...................... 7-1 ....I ................. 7-1 ...................... 7-1 ...................... 7-1 ...................... 7-1 ...................... 7-2 ...................... 7-2 ...................... 7-2 ...................... 7-3 ...................... 7-3 ...................... 7-3 ...................... 7-3 W H ii November 2010 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Table of Contents (continued) 7.1.13 Allowances and Contingency...............................................................................7-3 7.1.14 Market Conditions................................................................................................7-3 7.2 BASIS OF ESTIMATE..................................................................................................7-3 7.2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 7-3 7.2.2 Project Scope...........................................................................................................7-4 7.2.3 Project Status...........................................................................................................7-4 7.2.4 OPCC Background...................................................................................................7-4 7.2.5 OPCC Reference Documents........................................................................... 7-4 7.2.6 OPCC Quantity Basis............................................................................. .7-4 7.2.7 OPCC Classification......................................................................... .. 4 ........... 7.2.8 OPCC General Assumptions ..................................... /..► 7.2.9 OPCC Specific Assumptions ................................. ..... .............V -5 7.2.10 OPCC Labor Assumptions .......................... ..`�� ... . �. / 7-5 7.2.11 OPCC Exclusions/Exceptions ................. ... 7-6 .......... 7.2.12 OPCC Allowances ................................. ........... .. 7-6 7.2.13 OPCC Bidding Assumptions .............. ........ .. .. ... 7-6 ................ 7.2.14 OPCC Contingency Recommen...........�......} 7-6 7.2.15 Project Risks/Opportunities........... ... ........ .......................7-7 ............ ........................... 7.3 Opinion of Probable Cost............ „r.........r..... .....................................7-7 8 ENVIRONMENTAL AND 8.1 Introduction ................... 8.2 FERC Preliminary Perri g ...... 8.3 FERC Licensing ....................... 8.3.1 Project Ma and 8.3.2 Early Lic c ctiv' ' ..... 8.3.3 Pre -A I n Doc t, Sch� 8.3.4 Scorii St } 'l Apr v 8.3.5 C En i and 8 3 6 Pre ina mg rop YSIS'SW VIMARY .......................... 8-1 .......... 8-1 ........................................... . .......%.�...................................................... 8-1 .1..................................................... 8-3 `........................................................ 8 3 .................................................................... 8 4 Ynd Notice of Intent....................................8-5 .................................................. 8-6 iStudies...................................................8-6 8-10 ............................................................................. 8.3.7 Develo 7he i License Application.....................................................8-10 8.3.8 Post-FL�ection 401 Water Quality Certification .......................8-14 8.4 Other&SIG s ? als....................................................................................... 8-15 9 SCHEY..............................................................................................9-1 10 EL BC \1 BILITY REVIEW.........................................................................10-1 11 REGIONAL Wj3`OLESALE UTILITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT .......... 11-1 12 REFER N( ES..................................................................................................................12-1 12.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................................12-1 12.2 Geology.....................................................................................................................12-2 13 Attachments.......................................................................................................................13-1 W H iii November 2010 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study Table of Contents (continued) Exhibits I. Kisaralik Regional Map 2. Kisaralik Location Map 3. Kisaralik Drainage Basin Boundaries 4. Kisaralik Regional Geological Map ,( 5. Chikuminuk Lake Conceptual Project Plan 6. Upper Falls Conceptual Project Plan . Lower Falls Conceptual Project Plan 8. Golden Gate Falls Conceptual Project Plan 2 e September 2010 Site Visit Summary Memorand N Photos` ® C� ® C' O Q� YV Q4 4� 0 � Go W H iv November 2010