Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02212018 PACAB WS PacketPACAB WORK SESSION PACKET 12:00 p.m. - South Harbor Launch Ramp Discussion with PND 1:00 p.m. - Energy Alternative Ideas • Total Losses in Power Distribution & Transmission Lines (pg. 2) • Lowell Creek Hydro Project (pg. 13) • Crescent Lake Hydro Project (pg. 52) • Fourth of July Creek Hydro Project (pg. 116) February 21, 2018 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers ENERGY ALTERNATIVE IDEAS Darryl My single priority is the acquisition by the city of Seward of a block MLP owned Bradley Lake power. Bruce • Local Hydro Power • Heat Exchanger Technology Expansion • Capture of Waste heat • Energy Conservation • Electric Cars or Charging Stations • Nuclear Christy • I would like to work with the Electric Department to see what projects we can develop to help with the T-line losses. Maybe this issue can be addressed during their negotiations when the contract expires. (Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines document attached) Laura • Wind power - Looking to the example of AVTEC. Just as Darryl told us the benefits of heat pumps at the SeaLife Center, it would be interesting to hear from AVTEC about their turbines. • Hydroelectric - Are there local hydroelectric resources we can harness? • Energy efficiency - What programs are in place to reduce energy usage and improve building efficiency within city buildings? What resources exist to help residents learn about how they can cut energy usage and take advantage of state energy programs? • Community outreach - Improve efforts to educate Seward citizens about the energy options available to them and help them navigate the process of signing up for state programs. 1 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines EEP Page 1 of 1 1 Transmission and Distribution Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines Introduction Power generated in power stations pass through large and complex networks like transformers, overhead lines, cables and other equipment and reaches at the end users. http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2?18 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines I EEP Page 2 of 1 1 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines (photo credit: Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines (on photo: A transmission line of constant voltage of 600 kVDC, at 2400 kilometers built in Brazil; credit: IVOLINES via Flickr) It is fact that the unit of electric energy generated by Power Station does not match with the units distributed to the consumers. Some percentage of the units is lost in the distribution network. This difference in the generated and distributed units is known as Transmission and Distribution loss. Transmission and Distribution loss are the amounts that are not paid for by users. T&D Losses = (Energy Input to feeder(Kwh) — Billed Energy to Consumer(Kwh)) I Energy Input kwh x 100 Distribution Sector considered as the weakest link in the entire power sector. Transmission Losses is approximate 17% while Distribution Losses is approximate 50%. There are two types of Transmission and Distribution Losses: 1. Technical Losses 2. Non Technical Losses (Commercial Losses) 1. Technical losses The technical losses are due to energy dissipated in the conductors, equipment used for transmission line, transformer, subtransmission line and distribution line and magnetic losses in transformers. Technical losses are normally 22.5%, and directly depend on the network characteristics and the mode of operation. http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1/29/218 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines EEP Page 3 of 1 1 The major amount of losses in a power system is in primary and secondary distribution lines. While transmission and sub -transmission lines account for only about 30% of the total losses. Therefore the primary and secondary distribution systems must be properly planned to ensure within limits. • The unexpected load increase was reflected in the increase of technical losses above the normal level • Losses are inherent to the distribution of electricity and cannot be eliminated. There are two Type of Technical Losses. 1. Permanent I Fixed Technical losses • Fixed losses do not vary according to current. These losses take the form of heat and noise and occur as long as a transformer is energized • Between 1/4 and 1/3 of technical losses on distribution networks are fixed losses. Fixed losses on a network can be influenced in the ways set out below • Corona Losses • Leakage Current Losses • Dielectric Losses - ...... .............. • Open -circuit Losses • Losses caused by continuous load of measuring elements • Losses caused by continuous load of control elements http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2(T18 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines EEP Page 4 of 11 2. Variable Technical losses Variable losses vary with the amount of electricity distributed and are, more precisely, proportional to the square of the current. Consequently, a 1% increase in current leads to an increase in losses of more than 1 %. • Between 2/3 and 3/4 of technical (or physical) losses on distribution networks are variable Losses. • By increasing the cross sectional area of lines and cables for a given load, losses will fall. This leads to a direct trade-off between cost of losses and cost of capital expenditure. It has been suggested that optimal average utilization rate on a distribution network that considers the cost of losses in its design could be as low as 30 per cent. • Joule losses in lines in each voltage level • Impedance losses • Losses caused by contact resistance. Main Reasons for Technical losses 1. Lengthy Distribution lines In practically 11 KV and 415 volts lines, in aga.l area are extended ----------------------------•- over long distances to feed loads scattered over large areas. Thus the primary and secondary distributions lines in rural areas are largely radial laid usually extend over long distances. This results in high line resistance and therefore high IZR losses in the line. • Haphazard growths of sub -transmission and distribution system in to new areas. • Large scale rural electrification through long 11 kV and LT lines. http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2618 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines EEP Page S of 11 2. Inadequate Size of Conductors of Distribution lines The size of the conductors should be selected on the basis of KVA x KM capacity of standard conductor for a required voltage regulation, but rural loads are usually scattered and generally fed by radial feeders. The conductor size of these feeders should be adequate. 3. Installation of Distribution transformers away from load centers Distribution Transformers are not located at Load center on the Secondary Distribution System. In most of case Distribution Transformers are not located centrally with respect to consumers. Consequently, the farthest consumers obtain an extremity low voltage even though a good voltage levels maintained at the transformers secondary. This again leads to higher line losses. (The reason for the line losses increasing as a result of decreased voltage at the consumers end therefore in order to reduce the voltage drop in the line to the farthest consumers, the distribution transformer should be located at the load center to keep voltage drop within permissible limits.) 4. Low Power Factor of Primary and secondary distribution system In most LT distribution circuits normally the Power Factor ranges from 0.65 to 0.75. A low Power Factor contributes towards high distribution losses. For a given load, if the Power Factor is low, the current drawn in high And the losses proportional to square of the current will be more. Thus, line losses owing to the poor PF can be reduced by improving the Power Factor. This can be done by application of shunt capacitors. http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2i18 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines ' EEP Page 6 of 1 1 • Shunt capacitors can be connected either in secondary side (11 KV side) of the 33/11 KV power transformers or at various point of Distribution Line. • The optimum rating of capacitor banks for a distribution system is 2/3rd of the average KVAR requirement of that distribution system. • The vantage point is at 2/3rd the length of the main distributor from the transformer. • A more appropriate manner of improving this PF of the distribution system and thereby reduce the line losses is to connect capacitors across the terminals of the consumers having inductive loads. • By connecting the capacitors across individual loads, the line loss is reduced from 4 to 9% depending upon the extent of PF improvement. 5. Bad Workmanship Bad Workmanship contributes significantly role towards increasing distribution losses. Joints are a source of power loss. Therefore the number of joints should be kept to a minimum. Proper jointing techniques should be used to ensure firm connections. Connections to the transformer bushing -stem, drop out fuse, isolator, and LT switch etc. should be periodically inspected and proper pressure maintained to avoid sparking and heating of contacts. Replacement of deteriorated wires and services should also be made timely to avoid any cause of leaking and loss of power. http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2718 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines ' EEP Page 7 of 11 6. Feeder Phase Current and Load Balancing> One of the easiest loss savings of the distribution system is balancing current along three-phase circuits. Feeder phase balancing also tends to balance voltage drop among phases giving three-phase customers less voltage unbalance. Amperage magnitude at the substation doesn't guarantee load is balanced throughout the feeder length. Feeder phase unbalance may vary during the day and with different seasons. Feeders are usually considered "balanced" when phase current magnitudes are within 10.Similarly, balancing load among distribution feeders will also lower losses assuming similar conductor resistance. This may require installing additional switches between feeders to allow for appropriate load transfer. Bifurcation of feeders according to Voltage regulation and Load. 7. Load Factor Effect on Losses Power consumption of customer varies throughout the day and over seasons. Residential customers generally draw their highest power demand in the evening hours. Same commercial customer load generally peak in the early afternoon. Because current level (hence, load) is the primary driver in distribution power losses, keeping power consumption more level throughout the day will lower peak power loss and overall energy losses. Load variation is Called load factor and It varies from 0 to 1. Load Factor = Average load in a specified time period / peak load during that time period. http://electrical-engineering-portal.condtotal-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2118 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines EEP Page 8 of 1 1 For example, for 30 days month (720 hours) peak Load of the feeder is 10 MW. If the feeder supplied a total energy of 5,000 MWH, the load factor for that month is (5,000 MWh)/ (10MW x 720) =0.69. Lower power and energy losses are reduced by raising the load factor, which, evens out feeder demand variation throughout the feeder. The load factor has been increase by offering customers "time -of -use" rates. Companies use pricing power to influence consumers to shift electric -intensive activities during off-peak times (such as, electric water and space heating, air conditioning, irrigating, and pool filter pumping). With financial incentives, some electric customers are also allowing utilities to interrupt large electric loads remotely through radio frequency or power line carrier during periods of peak use. Utilities can try to design in higher load factors by running the same feeders through residential and commercial areas. B. Transformer Sizing and Selection Distribution transformers use copper conductor windings to induce a magnetic field into a grain -oriented silicon steel core. Therefore, transformers have both load losses and no-load core losses. Transformer copper losses vary with load based on the resistive power loss equation (p loss = 12R). For some utilities, economic transformer loading means loading distribution transformers to capacity -or slightly above capacity for a short time -in an effort to minimize capital costs and still maintain long transformer life. http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2D18 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines I EEP Page 9 of 1 1 However, since peak generation is usually the most expensive, total cost of ownership (TCO) studies should take into account the cost of peak transformer losses. Increasing distribution transformer capacity during peak by one size will often result in lower total peak power dissipation -more so if it is overloaded. Transformer no-load excitation loss (iron loss) occurs from a changing magnetic field in the transformer core whenever it is energized. Core loss varies slightly with voltage but is essentially considered constant. Fixed iron loss depends on transformer core design and steel lamination molecular structure. Improved manufacturing of steel cores and introducing amorphous metals (such as metallic glass) have reduced core losses. 9. Balancing 3 phase loads Balancing 3-phase loads periodically throughout a network can reduce losses significantly. It can be done relatively easily on overhead networks and consequently offers considerable scope for cost effective loss reduction, given suitable incentives. 10. Switching off transformers One method of reducing fixed losses is to switch off transformers in periods of low demand. If two transformers of a certain size are required at a substation during peak periods, only one might be required during times of low demand so that the other transformer might be switched off in order to reduce fixed losses. This will produce some offsetting increase in variable losses and might affect security and quality of supply as well as the operational condition of the transformer itself. However, these trade-offs will not be explored and optimized unless the cost of losses are taken into account. 11.Other Reasons for Technical Losses http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /291 18 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines I EEP Page 10 of I 1 • Unequal load distribution among three phases in L.T system causing high neutral currents. • leaking and loss of power • Over loading of lines. • Abnormal operating conditions at which power and distribution transformers are operated • Low voltages at consumer terminals causing higher drawl of currents by inductive loads. • Poor quality of equipment used in agricultural pumping in rural areas, cooler air -conditioners and industrial loads in urban areas. About Author Jignesh Parmar Jignesh Parmar has completed M.Tech (Power System Control) ,B.E (Electrical). He is member of Institution of Engineers (MIE),India. Membership No:M-1473586.He has more than 13 years experience in Transmission -Distribution-Electrical Energy theft detection -Electrical Maintenance -Electrical Projects (Planning -Designing -Technical Review - coordination -Execution). He is Presently associate with one of the leading business group as a Deputy Manager at Ahmedabad, India. He has published numbers of Technical Articles in "Electrical Mirror", "Electrical India", "Lighting India", "Industrial Electrix"(Australian Power Publications) Magazines. He is Freelancer Programmer of Advance Excel and design useful Excel base Electrical Programs as per IS, NEC, IEC,IEEE codes. He is Technical Blogger and Familiar with English, Hindi, Gujarati, French languages. He wants to Share his experience & Knowledge and help technical enthusiasts to find suitable solutions and updating themselves on various Engineering Topics. http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/1d 18 Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines EEP Page 11 of 1 1 http://electrical-engineering-portal.comltotal-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission... 1 /29/2?18 07/18/2007 12:17 9072766262 THE UPS STORE PAGE 02/04 Memo From Andy Baker, PE July 18, 2007 3 Pages July 18, 2007 TO: PACAB Members From: Andy Baker, PE, YourCleanEnergy LLC RE: Tim Bamum Comments On Lowell Creek Hydro Project This memo Is in response to comments from Tim Barnum, Electric Utility Manager dated June 18, 2007 and July 5, 2007 on the Lowell Creek Hydro Proposal. I received a copy of his July 5 memo only yesterday aftemoon. Overall, I find Mr. Bamum's comments constructive and thoughtful, however several of his statements are with unusual context and I will address those first. I will follow by the and of this week with a second memo to address comments on financial and technical Issues that are directfy relevant to the study proposal. This Is a lot of unanticipated extra work for me however I am compelled to set the record straight after such an investment of time by PACAS and myself on this proposal. Contrary to Mr. Bemum's statement that the YCE proposal was unsolicited, an Invitation to present to PACAS was made to me in writing by City Manager Clark Corbrldge on October 20, 2006. In response to this Invitation, I made an conceptual presentaWn to PACAB on November 15, 2008 (including handouts) and I was asked at this time by PACAB to return with an economic evaluation and study proposal, this I did on February 16, 2007 (including handouts). Those efforts were made without direct expense to the City of Seward or its utility customers. It was done in the Interest of dlselosing. educating and debating the merits and challenges of previous hydro projects on Lowell Creek, and the new YCE proposal, for the consideration of PACAB. I offered In writing to PACAB on March 1, 2007, to make an additional presentation to the City Council, City Manager, and the Mayor, if requested. It le understood by YCE that PACAI3 has no direct authority to authorize energy projects on behalf of the City, however I was directed by Mr. Corbridge to present a proposal to them for review and I have followed that procedure. It was my expectation thud if the proposal was recommended to Council by PACAB, there would most certainly first be a constructive review by the City Manager and Utility Manager, we are apparently at that point now. Contrary to Mr. Barnum's suggestion, I have never made a dalm to be the first and only person to have the Idea of hydro power from Lowell Creek. The idea has already been proven and practiced. according to Mary Berry's 'Seward, Alaska: A Hlstory' Vol.111, Page 24, and the 1979 CH2M Hill Study, hydro power from Lowell Creek was used by Seward Power & Light to provide electrical energy for the town from 1905 until 1941 (for 37 years). Improvements In hydro power and screen technology, and the gradual increase in the cost of grid electricity are what make re- visiting the Lowell Creek Hydro Project worthy of consideration, In my professfonal opinion. YourCleanEnergy LLC 306 G Street #212. Anchorage, AK 99317 907-274-2007 www.yourdeanenergy.us 13 07/18/2007 12:17 9072766262 THE UPS STORE PAGE 03/04 Memo From Andy Baker, PE July 13, 2007 3 Pages As I disclosed in the November 15.2006 presentation, The Lowell' Creek Hydro Project is attractive to me not because I need a job (I have work In Anchorage), but because It Is a salmon free high eievatlon creek that has the potential to deliver affordable, reliable, and safe grid quality electrical power to Seward for a 40 year period. It is not easy to do this with renewable energy projects, they are often a difficult challenge that requires a lot of solid research, creative thinking and approaching old problems in new ways. It is unusual for a City to have such an untapped source of hydro energy flowing right through town that is not complicated by fisheries issues, wild and scenic river status, and would require extremely short transmission lines to reach the grid. Contrary to Mr. Barnum's statement that I am enthusiastic about spending the City's money for my own `great Idea', all the money spent to date to research, present and educate PACAB on a modem approach to this projed has come from the YCE table, not from the Electric Utility. This effort by YCE has also included considerable consultation with nationally known firms Canyon Hydro of Demming WA and Norris Screens of NC to addrees the challenges of flooding, sediment, glacial sift, turbine noise and seasonal flow variations associated with the project. Contrary to Mr. Barnum's statement. the YCE proposal is for a prowdesian study only and does mention or include a $90,000 per year salary for myself as a project manager. YCE is an independent consultant, not a contractor, mild would not be building the project The intent of the study is to evaluate the feasibility so that"grant monies can be obtained by the City and final design and construction can be competltivelj bid by quallhAng professional firms. I agree that there would be little merit in pursuing the project if there is no chance In qualifying for federal and/or state grant monies. Mr. Barnum does not ghre specific reference to grant program(s) that would automatically exclude funding for the Lowell Creek Hydro Project on the basis of the economk: evaluation ($0.0971KWH) or power production as presented In the YCE proposal The context that Mr. Barnum uses to compare the YCE proposal to the preseM cost of grid electricity does not account for the time value of money, rising utility grid costs or the Ilfe cycle cost of the proposed hydro facllfty. In pracftce. it would most likely take at least flve years for such a project to be flawstuded, designed, perms ted, built and placed on Ire. Then (in 2012) the facility would begin a forty year life cycle. Therefore what Is cxitical in the economic evaluation is not simply what the cost that power would be today, but rether what the cost of the hydro power will be through each year of Its design life, relative to the cost of grid ekx*icity during the same period. This life cycle cost evaluation Is the method used In the 1979 CH2M HIII Study and again in the YCE proposal. Hydro projects always have a high Initial cost however they often have longer design life than anticipated because the cltical infrastructure (Intake, penstodc, hydro building, etc) is conservatively designed. The essential challenge of the Lowell Creek Hydro Project Is to Identify affordable, reliable and safe concepts and technologies that can conservatively establish the cost of power over the 40 year design life. The proposal should be evaluated on this basis before concluding that it is infeasible or that It is unable to compete with grid electricity for the next 40 - 50 years. YourCiesnEner& LLC 308 a Street 4212. Anchorage, AK 99317 907-274-2007 www.youroleanenergy.us 14 07/18/2007 12:17 9072766262 THE UPS STORE PAGE 04/04 Memo From Andy Balker, PE July 18, 2007 3 Pages Mr. Samum refers twice in his memos to the 1997 Feasibility Study by CH2M HIII and states that the study was stopped due to insufficient flows In Lowell Creek. This is an oversimplification of the conclusions presented in the study, which are specifically given on Page V of the study: "Three altematives sftesfor hydroelectric plants were considered, all were limited to low head, less than 66 feet! The study further states, 'None of the three alternatives approaches feasibility at this time. Major influencing factors are the high cost of energy at over 13 cents per kwh, the winter freeze up resulting In plant shutdown from November to April, and a large amount of rock sedlment requiring expensive intake structures to skim off the rocks.' What is ironic about the 1979 CH2M Hill Study Is that only low head schemes were evaluated. These are schemes which yield relatively small amounts of power for the infrastructure Investment and hence resulted In unacceptably high cost for power In the 1979 Study. The power from hydro electricity is equal to the product of flow and head (please visit the Canyon Hydro website for more Info on this).: The YCE proposal Is therefore based on collecting the greatest amount of flow at the highest elevation possible and dropping that same flow through a penstock to the lowest elevation possible. Collection of some portion of warm underground flow and flow from Marathon Creek is proposed to keep the plant operating during cold winter months when surface freezing may occur. Use of modem and proven seff cleaning coanda or chute screens (manufactured by Norris Screens, Hydroscreen) is proposed to eliminate blockage of the Intake from the normal loads of rocks and sediments. The point of the YCE proposal is to address challenges previously noted and Identify modem cost effective solutions to atom. Mr. Barnum's continued refierence to the conclusions of the.1979 study essentially ignorie the changes in concept and technology offered in the YCE pwoposal, which are sigmificsnt. In response to Mr. Barnum's suggestion that YCE lacks the experience to develop a hydro project, my quallficatlons and experience were disclosed openly In the handout of the first presentation. The proposal outlines in detail the steps and tasks that can be ardldpated In performing the study. Additionally, the approach I have taken Is to consult and engage with some of the beat experts In hydro power inside and outside of Alaska to reach solutions which are proven, affordable and reliable. I have also made an effort to include the collective wisdom of the PACAS board and others in Seward who have lived and worked there for many years. Best Regards, Andy Baker, PE YourCleanEnergy LLC 308 O Street #212. Anchorage. AK 99517 907-274-2007 www.yourdesnenergy.us 15 MEMORANDUM Date: July 5, 2007 To: Phillip Oates, City Manager From: Tim Barnum, Electric Utility Manager Ja Subject: Lowell Creek Hydro: Response to Theresa Butts statements. Opinion: ➢ Construction of a hydro electric project involves highly specialized contractors. Some of the work could be accomplished by some of our talented local contractors but, a large portion would probably go to outside (Seward) contractors. ➢ It would not be cost effective to employee 2 maintenance employees' for a facility that; in a years time only produces what we use in a month. ➢ The fuel surcharge that we pay is the actual cost of fuel used by Chugach Electric to produce our power. Their generators are large, between 60-140 KW each. When you have the load to run a generator at its peak efficiency, you get more power out for the fuel you put in. They don't operate a generator just for the City Of Seward. You can actually have the situation of using more fuel for less power. ➢ The City Of Seward has previously paid a highly experienced, nationally known Engineering firm to study flows at Lowell Creek. It was at their recommendation that the study be stopped in the early stages, due to insufficient water flows. ➢ Mr. Baker's proposal is an unsolicited proposal; he is not the first or only person to have the ideal of hydro power from Lowell Creek. It is easy to be enthusiastic when you need a job and it's not your money on the table. If it's such a great ideal, why doesn't Mr. Baker put together investors and develop the project and sell it back to the City, Chugach Electric, ML & P, Homer Electric or Matanuska Electric? ➢ Mr. Baker's proposal also guarantees his a $90,000.00 per year salary as the project manager. ➢ It would be very fiscally irresponsible to spend $60,000.00 of our rate payer's money on a project that is not eligible for grant funding because, it doesn't meet any of the criteria. Example: 1) Hydro project needs to have a projected cost of :5$0.05/kwh. 2) Does the project offset/replace existing hi -cost generation? No. ➢ Glacial silt is detrimental to turbines. The only way, to my knowledge, that water from glacial streams can be used in turbines is to build a dam and put the water intake in the back water so that the silt can settle out of the water before it is taken into the turbine. ➢ Even with modern screens, how do you screen out the amount of material that came out of the tunnel this last October? If the penstock or screening system gets plugged, it could lead to a breach of Lowell Creek above the hospital, endangering that facility and residents along Jefferson. ➢ The tail race (out flow) of a hydro plant is loud. It is like sitting on the banks of a ,% 16 City of Seward, Alaska April4, 2007 Christy Terry Executive Liaison (City Seal) Port and Commerce Advisory Board Minutes Volume 3, Page 235 Ron Long Board Member 611 17 rushing river. ➢ After the tsunami, the property east of Ballaine was considered unstable and not appropriate for housing. That is why it is used for City parks and RV/tent camping. ➢ Our current energy cost is $0.0401/kwh. We also have a fuel surcharge that is a straight pass thru to the customer, it ranges from about $0.02-$0.06/kwh. The demand charge that is on our bill from Chugach Electric is covered by our rate structure and is not an additional cost, such as the fuel surcharge. ➢ The cost of power will be more from Lowell Creek Hydro than our existing sources (see attached). It is my recommendation that the City Of Seward NOT continue with this proposal, at this time. I 1 18 71 O cM O N e aD E 0 U O O In 21 L � U N N t U L N r \ ~ V FA cr) ma CY) d Y M O Z 7 L M M cv 3 lfl In 0 O 00 O O tD U O _ 1� �O O 0 ' <D I!i `p U co ( O _ > �O j >` N � N � II II = Y C U C: 0' 7 0 N N w 0 U C = N Y v_ oci 0`7c(D 0Z rno�� 0.L403UV OU OMf�O �a O N I O O N N N N N U U N V) OD j 0 O W N 3 0 W C C� U c J Y L N 0) CDO + n rn U J E E t s a U c T N o o c C� 3 Y 'm cm CL w li 3 3 N c + Y Y L L N C y cut cu c i O + 3 3 L) U O O Y Y EU U U �.� U.� J N Q^i M C) O 0 0 N 7 U C j C O N O O �. m IO LO a CcO(D �a`ni0a`�i 033>0 c a,3c y W lL (p LL W Y Y Q U O aD O O O > 3 c U U) U) (D t N N w U Y 3 cu cu E E 'E O O ` Y t .s= O O:3 o 'o U w Q. U } } U d d U U Q 0 rl MEMORANDUM Date: June 18, 2007 To: Phillip Oates, City Manager From: Tim Barnum, Electric Utility Manager J8 Subject: Lowell Creek Hydro: Proposal by Andy Baker, Your Clean Energy LLC. Statement of Facts: ➢ Construction and maintenance portions of this proposal may be underestimated. ➢ Project feasibility hinges on flow analyses of creeks and other unknown factors. ➢ PACAB recommends "sole sourcing" the entire project to Your Clean Energy LLC. ➢ Proposal assumes total Capital Cost, of construction, will be funded by grants totaling $6,000,000.00. ➢ Flow analysis was conducted by CH2M Hill and concluded insufficient flow from Lowell Creek to sustain a hydro project. ➢ Sighting new facility in campground area will introduce high noise levels into the camping area and places the generation infrastructure in a Tsunami zone, built on property that is unstable. ➢ Current energy cost is $0.0401 per KWH. ➢ Projected energy cost from hydro is $0.097 per KWH. ➢ Total project cost is estimated at $10,277,600.00. ➢ Total projected production of project is 6,273,300 KWH per year. ➢ Current average monthly usage is 5,320,869 KWH. .Opinion: ➢ Lowell Creek has insufficient flow to sustain an affordable hydro project. ➢ A $10,000,000.00 hydro project with a projected $0.097 KWH cost is not a viable candidate to receive grant funding, to be a viable project the KWH cost needs to be in the $0.04-0.05 range and offset existing generation. ➢ Lowell Creek hydro would not offset any of the generation used to supply power to Seward. In fact, it could reduce the efficiency of CEA generation, causing our rates to increase. ➢ Our cost of the power generated by Lowell Creek hydro would be at least $105,000.00 per year more than what we currently pay (including fuel surcharge) for the same amount of power. ➢ Your Clean Energy LLC. Has no experience developing a hydro project. ➢ If the goal is to have more "renewable energy" for our customers, the City can enter into negotiations with another buyer of the power produced by the Bradley Lake hydro project and purchase more of the output. ➢ It is my recommendation that the City Of Seward NOT continue with this proposal, at this time. % 20 Rebut to Tim Barnum's Memo as detailed below Date: To: From: Subject: By Theresa Butts as a private individual Black text is the original memo, red (grey) text is added MEMORANDUM June 18, 2007 Phillip Oates, City Manager Tim Bamum, Electric Utility Manager Lowell Creek Hydro Proposal by Ahdy Baker, YourCleanEnergy LLC. Statement of Facts and Conclusions: ➢ Construction and maintenance portions of this^;proposal mayfie underestimated. o Agreed, please also note�ili i ffihe i ga t' ft cDf this project will also provide jobs for many local co awes and andM"' 'dual��or several years. This project also pays for twCi -&', . intet�arrce"positions. ➢ Project feasibility hingest,ati flow, analyses of creeks and other unknown factors. o Agreed. Thougl ^� ° opiruon his_ it s u ly (see below), if flows started to look bad, the. ect would iiptaWiljat that time. ➢ PACAB recommends "$ol&-sourcing" the entire project to Your Clean Energy LLC. o Yes, PACAB`� edttl at of YCE. It did not seem wise to fragment leadership �ofthis vrolect. It` sAa dy, Baker's idea and enthusiasm that got us this far. t,t, Y`E's< etu•31:propos�roxctdes for that option if you wish. ➢ .6� slimes total,CapitafCost, of construction, will be funded by grants of ling $6,000`0D A, .. o Yes, if this cfoeMtseem possible, the project would be reevaluated at that time. (The currgq i:atus of the Energy bill looks rather good). fU. F�oiiu analysis was con.cted by CH2M Hill and concluded insufficient flow from IowelGreek to sustair��; "..>. - hydro project. "%Fh-::-X' ).%ted on :: ag "?-1 of the CH2M study, a substantial amount of the total ff e.lost to subterranean flow...." o Th�`a't�C'eEnergy plan is designed to capture most of that flow, which m'of the total flow, thereby doubling the flow rates documented in 1978 o In addition, if currently popular models prove true, Seward will, on average, be experiencing greater precipitation in the coming decades. o That was a completely different design, fragmenting the "drop" into 3 separate places, the modern proposal gathers all that energy into one location and so is more efficient by nearly an order of magnitude Page 1 of 3 18 21 Rebut to Tim Barnum's Memo as detailed below By Theresa Butts as a private individual Black text is the original memo, red (grey) text is added o Modern screens and penstock technology increase efficiency even further and reduce wear such that the designs are not even comparable to each other - especially in the areas of. o (conclusion) - comparing the energy ext&ia tion and production of the two designs is not appropriate, the CH2M phin is salT a.bad idea. The YourCleanEnergy plan is an imprpvernent vy an,i ri er of magnitude. ➢ Sighting new facility in campground are, will`introid`uce high noise levels into the camping area o No it will not. A properly built §tn�e . ll, not be Ioudes' n the generators alreadyrun at that locAfi6h-' the RVs and t ' * y°`U'srtan all be put on meters and their generators-W' 'd.toxnake up for it: ...and places the generation infrastruct 'r.6 in a,Tsur�ami zone, o Yes, anywhere there is powerful;drpp (head)-UU 1l be near the ocean ...built on property that is unstable. o This is the fist I have heaiAd "T db_not know v t Tim's source is. Of course this should be evluaited as aor of -tie overall engineering. ➢ Current energy cost is $0.040per o No it's not. As Tim Barnes exAed to She-hunself. See attached. o I cannot fathom wli ➢ Projected energy cost from o Yes. The corLqtruc# e also probabl:'" Abe: gr ➢ Total project cost is est[oia ➢ Total,*. !!ad productioii ➢ Cu4efittaverage; r)thly u Q inp ioh ell Creek has iniufri le ar' 9 Wrong. See al ¢ 'y 1 0 000,000.00 hydro project with a projected $0.097 KWH cost is not a viable date.to receive'unding, to be a viable project the KWH cost needs to be in he _ Q4 0..05 rafidid ind offset existing generation. Tim's source is, mine disagree 100% not offset any of the generation used to supply power to o is ➢ Lowell Creepy Seward. his'numb6"is misrepresented in thus way. ydro Is $0:09?j�eX:INVH. costs will 'prdbabl "be higher, but the generation will er (perhaps much greater) Tat $10,277,600.00, .project is 6,273,300 KWH per year. 20,869 KWH, flow to sustain an affordable hydro project. o It would offset any generation that occurred during flow months (Apr -Oct), i.e. the ones in recent months ➢ In fact, it could reduce the efficiency of CEA generation, causing our rates to increase. o How, specifically? And in what ratio compared to the fuel price increases that are f9ely certain in coming years and decades. Page 2 of 3 I 22 Rebut to Tim Barnum's Memo as detailed below By Theresa Butts as a private individual Black text is the original memo, red (grey) text is added ➢ Our cost of the power generated by Lowell Creek hydro would be at least $105,000.00 per year more than what we currently pay (including fuel surcharge) for the same amount of power. o This math does not add up. I would like tp:see the documentation for that. See attached. ➢ Your Clean Energy LLC. Has no experience.de� p%a:fiydro project. o YCE is a new company. Andy Bai ias extux erience developing exactly like these for hi ,o#ner em der projects Y ➢ If the goal is to have more renewable ene�- fdt aurcustorneti=s, 0h61- can enter 9 Jy-. � atyF�.. into negotiations with another buyer of th` :power produced by -fie Bradley Lake hydro project and purchase more of the ou ut 'j {w ,= o This project is not so much about A c`a_kTe r' as it is about fiscal responsibility, economic security• 1 ,and riskaa went (I refer to � .,� ^� diversifying the actual supf?1tte�rgy ., ', and w64#ptiTard being M. Pig independent of fuel prices) ➢ It is my recommendation that tl q City Of Stu. fd NOT continue with this proposal, at this time. o I think PACAB was wis 16siagges , this project c ut'S: s 'Vi �6''t3 4 s `ry Page 3 of 3 r) () 23 Timeline When do Hydro costs beat Chugach Costs? Chugach increasing at 5%/year Year hydro costs per kWh 0.0700 2007 0.0735 2008 0.0772 2009 0.0810 2010 Contract renewal #1 0.0851 2011 0.0893 2012 Completion of Hydro 0.0938 2013 0.0900 at projected cost 0.0985 2014 0.1034 2015 Contract renewal #2 0.1086 2016 0.1080 at 20% over projected cost 0.1140 2017 0.1197 2018 0.1170 at 30% over projected cost 0.1257 2019 0.1260 at 40% over projected cost 0.1320 2020 Contract renewal #3 0.1386 2021 0.1350 at 50% over projected cost 0.1455 2022 0.1528 2023 0.1604 2024 0.1685 2025 0.1769 2026 0.1857 2027 0.1950 2028 0.2048 2029 0.2150 2030 0.2258 2031 0.2370 2032 0.2489 2033 0.2613 2034 0.2744 2035 0.2881 2036 all costs shown in $/kWh 0.3025 2037 0.3177 2038 0.3335 2039 0.3502 2040 0.3677 2041 0.3861 2042 0.4054 2043 Projected life of Hydro 0.4257 2044 0.4470 2045 0.4693 2046 0.4928 2047 0.5174 2048 0.5433 2049 0.5705 2050 0.5990 2051 0.6290 2052 0.6604 2053 costs in $/kwh 7/18/2007 24 How Much Does Hydro Save Over Chugach for the Life of the Project? Chugach Hydro at 50% over Projection Rate Annual Cost Rate Annual Cost difference 0.0938 588,478 2013 0.1350 846,896 -258,418 hydro online 0,0985 617,901 2014 0.1350 846,896 -228,994 0.1034 648,796 2015 0.1350 846,896 -198,099 0.1086 681,236 2016 0.1350 846,896 -165,659 0.1140 715,298 2017 0.1350 846,896 -131, 597 0.1197 751,063 2018 0.1350 846,896 -95, 832 0.1257 788,616 2019 0.1350 846,896 -58,279 0.1320 828,047 2020 0.1350 846,896 -18,849 0.1386 869,449 2021 0.1350 846,896 22,554 0.1455 912,922 2022 0.1350 846,896 66,026 0.1528 958,568 2023 0.1350 846,896 111,672 0.1604 1,006,496 2024 0.1350 846,896 159,601 0.1685 1,056,821 2025 0.1350 846,896 209,926 0.1769 1,109,662 2026 0.1350 846,896 262,767 0.1857 1,165,145 2027 0.1350 846,896 318,250 0.1950 1,223,403 2028 0.1350 846,896 376,507 0.2048 1,284,573 2029 0.1350 846,896 437,677 0.2150 1,348,801 2030 0.1350 846,896 501,9% 0.2258 1,416,241 2031 0.1350 846,896 569,346 0.2370 1,487,053 2032 0.1350 846,896 640,158 0.2489 1,561,406 2033 0.1350 846,896 714,511 0.2613 1,639,476 2034 0.1350 846,896 792,581 0.2744 1,721,450 2035 0.1350 846,896 874,555 0.2881 1,807,523 2036 0.1350 846,896 960,627 0.3025 1,897,899 2037 0.1350 846,896 1,051,003 0.3177 1,992,794 2038 0.1350 846,896 1,145,898 0.3335 2,092,434 2039 0.1350 846,896 1,245,538 0.3502 2.197,055 2040 0.1350 846,896 1,350,160 0.3677 2,306,908 2041 0.1350 846,896 1,460,012 0.3861 2,422,253 2042 0.1350 846,896 1,575,358 0.4054 2,543,366 2043 0.1350 846,896 1,696,471 0.4257 2,670.534 2044 0.1350 846,896 1,823,639 0.4470 2,804, 061 2045 0.1350 846,896 1,957,166 0.4693 2,944.264 2046 0.1350 846,896 2,097,369 0.4928 3,091,477 2047 0.1350 846,896 2,244,582 0.5174 3,246,051 2048 0.1350 846,896 2,399,156 0.5433 3,408,354 2049 0.1350 846,896 2,561,458 0.5705 3,578,771 2050 0.1350 846,896 2,731,876 0.5990 3,757,710 2051 0.1350 846,896 2,910,814 0.6290 3,945,595 2052 0.1350 846,896 3,098.700 0.6604 4,142,875 2053 0.1350 846,896 3,295,980 projected life $75,230,829 $34,722,716 $40,508,114 TOTAL SAVINGS assumes conservative projection of 6,273,300 annual kWhs produced by hydro assumes 5% annual increase in cost of power from Chugach 7/18/2007 25 Sponsored by: Board CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION 2007-02 RESOLUTION OF THE PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD, PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR PURSUIT OF ANDY BAKER'S YOURCLEANENERGY LLC, LOWELL CREEK AND MARATHON CREEK IN -STREAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS AS A SOURCE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOR THE SEWARD UTILITY DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Seward City Council has tasked the Port and Commerce Advisory Board to research possible sources of alternative energy for the community; and WHEREAS, future costs of fuel -based electricity are uncertain and this project offers a potential to sell fixed -cost hydroelectric power profitably over time; and WHEREAS, a diverse, stable, fixed -price energy supply is becoming a vital component of economic health and independence; and WHEREAS, hydroelectric power generated from Lowell Creek may be feasible as affordable, reliable and safe energy for Seward; and WHEREAS, Andy Baker, P.E., d/b/a, YourCleanEnergy, LLC. has submitted a proposal dated March 6, 2007 to perform a pre -design study of Lowell Creek to determine its feasibility to support a hydroelectric generation facility; and WHEREAS, the Port and Commerce Advisory Board finds sufficient merit in the proposal to recommend it to the City Council for consideration and funding; and WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges that the construction and maintenance portions of this proposal may be underestimated; and WHEREAS, the proposed project has the potential to be NOT feasible at all, it also has the potential to be VERY beneficial to this community; and WHEREAS, the engineering costs proposed are quite reasonable; and WHEREAS, this project's feasibility hinges on the flow -analysis of the creeks and other key factors; and 2 ► 26 Port and Commerce Advisory Board Resolution 2007-02 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the City may be able to reduce the amount of money at stake by minimizing or alternately re -structuring the proposed contract; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Seward Port and Commerce Advisory Board that: Section 1. The Board recommends the Seward City Council undertake the necessary steps to make Seward's electrical future safe, secure, reliable and stable in cost. Section 2. The Board Recommends that the Seward City Council authorize the Administration to enter into fixed price contract negotiations with YourCleanEnergy LLC for engineering services outlined in the proposal. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Port and Commerce Advisory Board this 6th day of June 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Jean Lewis, City Clerk (City Seal) THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Deborah Altermatt, Chair 2 27 ■ 9 ■ Celebrate The Power Of Nature r►•, Port And Commerce Advisory Board City Of Seward, Alaska PO Box 167 Seward AK 99664 With... YourCleanEnergy LLc RE: Comments on Draft Resolution — Lowell Creek Hydro Project Dear PACAB Members, April 4, 2007 In review of the draft resolution forwarded to me by Christy Terry on March 30, 2007, 1 respectfully respond to the following items: PACAB — "the Board recommends the Seward City Council examine closely if the proposal might be minimized into basic steps to verify feasibility" - I understand this to mean "let's see how much flow we measure before we spend money on other aspects of the pre -design study" — perhaps a lesson learned from the 1997 study. It is true that this project is mostly about getting as much flow into the screen intake at high elevation — this is where the power will come from that will make the project economically feasible. Including the Marathon creek flow in the study is important because this flow may supplement Lowell Creek flow year round and increase feasibility. I do not think there is much question that there is enough flow to have a hydroelectric facility, it's more a question of what the fixed cost of power will be once the project is completed, given the flow characteristics. Aside from the flow characteristics, there are other preliminary challenges that must be addressed, specifically: - Securing a preliminary FERC permit. - Securing cooperation and acceptance from other agencies, especially Army Corps of Engineers. - Establishing base topo and geologic mapping of stream channel in area of proposed intake — the flow monitoring points will have to be located strategically. There is efficiency in addressing secondary considerations in the study scope parallel with the flow monitoring exercise. This is because many of these tasks can be addressed during the same site visits and these tasks may also have significant impacts on construction costs. Further, completion of the pre -design study can be expedited as soon as the one-year flow study matures. The sooner you complete the entire study, the sooner you may apply for grant funding, moving ahead will give you some priority and momentum that will work in favor of getting in line for revolving funds and appropriations. PACAB — YourCleanEnergy LLC would supply all services including subcontractors, and would provide a final product to include complete engineering studies and permitting — this is a good idea, it will be most efficient to get it all done in one year as the subcontractors can be coordinated more effectively. In summary, I ask you to consider the above and I will be available for a conference call during the meeting today if you would like to this discuss more. Sincerely, Andy Baker, PE YourCleanEnergy LLc 308 G Street #212, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-274-2007 2 ,4j 28 ■ ❑ ® Celebrate The Power Of Nature -. March 6, 2007 Port And Commerce Advisory Board City Of Seward, Alaska PO Box 167 Seward AK 99664 with.. YourCleanEnergy RE: Estimation Of Benefits And Financial Analysis — Lowell Creek Hydro Project Dear PACAB Members, As presented to you at your February 21, 2007 workshop, the attached handout outlines benefits to the City for a hydro project on Lowell Creek; an estimation of probable design and construction costs; and a preliminary evaluation of financial analysis for the same. The evaluation indicates that it may be possible to fix hydroelectric power generated from Lowell Creek under $0.10/kwh for 40 years. This evaluation is based on components that have been estimated with the best information available to me at this time. Cost component assumptions presented here in which I bring to your attention at this time are as follows: Federal and state grants secured prior to final design for $6,000,000 Base construction cost of $6,000,000 Municipal Bond issued G@4% interest for 40 year term Annual O&M costs of $180,000 (two full time hydro operators) Annual administration cost of $90,000 (one full time project administrator) Annual Energy Cost = $0.097 per KWH produced from Lowell Creek In view of rising electric grid costs, rising diesel fuel costs and the increasing potential to sell fixed cost hydroelectric power profitably over time, the Lowell Creek Hydro and Marathon Creek Hydro projects are worthy of consideration. If you have any questions regarding the attached, please feel free to contact me. Again I am willing to make one final summary presentation of this project information to City Council, the City Manager and the Mayor if requested. Sincerely, Andy Baker, PE andybaker@yourcleanenergy.us YOurCleanEnergy uL C 308 G Street 212, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-274-2007 % q 29 03/01/2007 22:59 FAX 9073448770 FEDEX KINKOS ■ ® ■ Celebrate The Power Of Nature -w March 1, 2007 with... YourCleanEnergy LLC Port And Commerce Advisory Board City Of Se"rd, Alaska .4.r` PO Box 167 Seward AK 99664 RE: Scope, Schedule & Budget Proposal — Pre -Design Study - Lowell Creek Hydro Project Dear PACAB Members, I have enjoyed the two presentations that we have had together discussing the potential of Lowell Creek as an affordable, reliable and safe source of dean electrical energy for the City of Seward. As I have disclosed in the presentations, the viability of developing this independent and fixed cost energy supply in Seward is worthy of your consideration. With more rising grid electricity and diesel fuel costs inevitable in the near future, this project will enable the City to apply for various grants and loans to significantly lower the Initial capital costs of final design and construction. This will In turn lower the fixed unit cost of power generated over the 40 year design Iffe of the hydro project In order to secure permits and funding for this project, it will be necessary to conduct stream flow monitoring for at least one year, and re-evaluate the design aspects covered by previous studies as well as the new concepts presented. The intent of this proposal is to provide the City with the hard data and analysis required to undertake such a project responsibly and profitably. ' Further, the completed Pre-Desigro"S udy will place the City in a favorable position to secure funding to advance the hydro project to final design and construction. I have included the option of a Rehabilition Study of the existing Marathon Creek Hydro Project which can be done cost effectively in parallel with the Lowell Creek Hydra Project Pre -Design Study as they are in the same project area. am pleased to submit the following items for your review and consideration for the Lowell Creek Hydro Project Pre -Design Study: Exhibit A: Scope of Content of Pre -Design Study (2 pages) Exhlblt B: Schedule To Complete Flow Monitoring & Study (1 Page) Exhibit C: Budget Estimate To Complete Pre -Design Study (3 pages) I trust that you will find the scope, budget and schedule reasonable and that you will consider recommending them to City Council. If you have any questions regarding these items, please feel free to contact me. I am willing to make one final summary presentation of this proposal to City Council, City Manager and the Mayor, if requested. Sincerely, !a� LL Andy Baker, PE andybaker ® yourcleanenergy. us 4 002/ooa YourCleanEnergy uc 300 G Street #212, Andiorage, Alaska 99501 907-274-2007 30 ., �. 03/01/2007 22:58 FAX 9073448770 FEDEX KINKOS la003/008 s 1 ■ ® ■ Celebrate The Power Of Nature n, w;tt,... YourCleanEnergy « LOWELL CREEK HYDRO PROJECT — PROJECT SCOPE - PAGE 1 OF 2 03/01/07 EXHIBIT A. SCOPE OF CONTENT FOR PRE -DESIGN STUDY REPORT STUDY SCOPE: 1. INTRO A_ PROJECT HISTORY B. EXISTING GENERATION FACILITIES C. CURRENT PPA WITH CHUGACH D. BASE MAPPING £_ 2. POTENTIAL HYDRO -ELECTRIC FACILITIES & POWER A. PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY & SNOW FIELDS B. SURFACE HYDROLOGY C. SUB -SURFACE HYDROLOGY D_ ESTIMATE OF AVAILABLE HYDRO ENERGY E. OPERATIONS 1. INTAKE SCREENING OPTIONS 2. INFILTRATION GALLERY OPTIONS 3. PENSTOCK DESIGN OPTIONS A. PIPE MATERIAL SELECTION B. CORROSION CONTROL C. THRUST RESTRAINT / SEISMIC DESIGN D. FREEZE PROTECTION / INSULATION E. POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS F. ANCHORING/ FLOOD EROSION / FLOATING G. ACCESS FOR INSPECTION / MAINTENANCE 4. SEASONAL FLOW TURBINE OPERATIONS S. TURBINE WHEEL MAINTENANCE/REPAIR OPTIONS B. NOISE MITIGATION 7. DOWNSTREAM GRAVEL DEPOSITION/REMOVAL F. WATER RIGHTS 3. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES — INTAKE LOCATIONS & HYDRO -PLANT SITES A. ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS 1. UPPER INTAKE + CAMPGROUND HYDRO PLANT SITE 2. UPPER INTAKE + ALTERNATE HYDRO PLANT SITE 3. LOWER INTAKE + CAMPGROUND HYDRO PLANT 4. LOWER INTAKE + ALTERNATE HYDRO PLANT SITE YourCleanEnergy uc 308 G Street 0212, AnChorage, Alaska 99501 907-274-2007 31 el, 1. 03/01/2007 22:38 FAX 8073448770 FEDEX KINKDS -- 16 004/008 ■ Celebrate The Power Of Nature Tm with... YourCleanEnergy LLc LOWELL CREEK HYDRO PROJECT -PROJECT SCOPE - PAGE 2 OF 2 03/01/07 EXHIBIT A. SCOPE OF CONTENT FOR PRE -DESIGN STUDY REPORT (CONT'D) B. EQUIPMENT & FACILITY OPTIONS 1. IMPULSE TURBINE SELECTION 2- ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & CONTROLS 3. CONNECTION TO CITY UTILITY GRID 4. HYDRO BLDG DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. EQUIPMENT FOOTPRINT B. OVERHEAD TRAVEIJNG CRANE / LOADING BAY C. NOISE & VIBRATION MITIGATION D. FLOOD & TSUNAMI PROTECTION E. SEISMIC DESIGN F. OPERATION r§ MAINTENANCE REQ?S G. VISITOR ACCESS OPTIONS H. TAILRACE TO RESURECTION BAY I. SALMON RELEASE / RECREATIONAL QPTIONS 4. PROBABLE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 5. DAM SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. REQUIRED PERMITS A. DAM SAFETY B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS C. SEISMICITY D. FISH r§ WILDLIFE E. FORESTRY & MINING F. RECREATION G. PERMITS 6. POWER MARKET ANALYSIS 7. COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS 8. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 9. STRATEGIES FOR PROJECT FINAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FUNDING A. FEDERAL CLEAN ENERGY GRANTS (DOE, USDA) e. FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION C. STATE OF ALASKA — RENEWABLE ENERGY GRAMFUNDS D. STATE OF ALASKA — ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY GRANT E. DENALI COMMISSION GRANTS & LOANS F. LOW IMPACT HYDRO DESIGNATION G. MUNICIPAL BONDS H. GREEN TAGS L CRUISE SHIP POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT YourCleanEnergy LLe 308 G Street #212, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-274-2007 32 03/01/2007 22:58 tAA 5Vra44o.iv O � Q O o U � Z Q Q m � N q Q �O C Z a. Q O "Fa W � 0 O m Z F V O J N t7 13 N a 1 C I I CD L a ac L O LL m Y H G z0 IC Q d Q W W W V Z O O a Z 0O y Z J W : O c Q y Z a Z zIc .0,1 U. w a O H W ti= 10a. W W Z z 1—y W Z y > O O Q O ¢ O C a Q F- a, V00 ioxW O W Q J Q M m Q? o g m Z 0 W � y g C) Z UUA ) = W Q O c Q ^ A W O pay 0 Q W W at U Im M M 03/01/2007 22:58 FAX 8073448770 FEDEX KINKOS 11006/008 ■ [A ■ Celebrate The Power Of Nature -m wiu,... YourCleanEnergy LLc EXHIBIT C: PROPOSED BUDGET OF PRE -DESIGN STUDY Page 1 of 3 Lowell Creek Hydro Project 03101/07 The following Is a summary of budget estimates to complete a Pre -Design Study that will enable the City to seek grant funding for final design and construction of this project. It will be economically efficient and recommended to Include the Marathon Creek Hydro Project in this process as many tasks can be done during site visits for the Lowell Creek Project_ A summary of the budget is as follows: 1. LOWELL CREEK HYDRO PRE -DESIGN STUDY:, A. CONTRACT WITH YourCleanEnergy LLC PRE -DESIGN STUDY LABOR COSTS $29,800 DIRECT -COSTS - TRAVEL EXPENSES $3,510 DIRECT COSTS - OFFICE EXPENSES $1,040 TOTAL BASE CONTRACT — YourCleanEnergy LLC $34,350 B. MINOR GOODS & SERVICES PURCHASED DIRECTLY BY THE CITY STREAM FLOW DATA COLLECTION $9,500 SUB -SURFACE TEST BORING AND MONITORING WELLS $9,600 BASE MAPPING TOPO SURVEY (RECOMMENDED) $9,800 TOTAL MINOR PURCHASE CONTRACTS $28,900 C. TOTAL TO COMPLETE PRE -DESIGN STUDY (A +B) $63,250 b - 2. MARATHON _CREEK HYDRO PROJECT REHAB STUDY;. PREPARE PRE -DESIGN STUDY — YourCleanEnergy LLC $9,600 STREAM FLOW DATA COLLECTION —Minor Purchase $ 6,000 TOTAL TO COMPLETE MARATHON CREEK HYDRO STUDY $16,600 YourCleanEnergy u.c 308 G 5treer #212, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-274-2007 34 03/01/2007 22:59 FAX 9073448770 FEDEX KINKDS ICI 007/008 Lowell Creek Hydro Project Celebrate the power of natureru with... YourCieanEnergy Lw EXHBCi C: PROPOSED BUDGET -ITEMIZED - PRE -DESIGN STUDY 03/01/07 s e 2 of 3 TASK PERFORMED BY YourClesnEneM LLC HOURS RATE COST PREPARE & SUBMIT FERC PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 8 $100 $800 NOTIFY & COORDINATE WITH FEDERAL & STATE AGENCIES PREPARE LETTERS OF INTENT TO AGENCIES 8 $100 $800 CONDUCT SCOPING MEETINGS 20 $100 $2,000 BEGIN STREAM MONITORING PROGAM SECURE STREAM MONITORING PERMIT 8 $100 $800 SECURE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES 8 $100 $800 SUPERVISE INSTALLATION OF DATA MONITORS a $100 $800 SUPERVISE DATA COLLECTION FOR FIRST SIX MONTHS a $100 $800 BEGIN SUBSURFACE FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM SECURE SUBSURFACE FLOW MONITORING PERMIT 8 $100 $800 SECURE GEO-TECH CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIES 8 $100 $800 SUPERVISE FIELD WORK OF GEO-TECH CONTRACTOR a $100 $800 SUPERVISE DATA COLLECTION FOR FIRST SIX MONTHS 8 $100 $am BEGIN BASE MAPPING SURVEY SECURE PERMISSION FROM DNR, COE 8 $100 $600 SECURE SERVICES OF LAND SURVEYOR 8 $100 $800 SUPERVISE SURVEYING ACTIVITIES 8 $100 $800 PREPARE PRE -DESIGN STUDY - LOWELL CREEK HYDRO PROJECT le PROJECT HISTORY 6 $100 $600 EXISTING GENERATION FACILITIES 6 $100 $600 CURRENT POWER AGREEMENT WITH CHUGACH ELECTRIC 6 $100 $600 BASE MAPPING 8 $100 $800 PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY & SNOW FIELDS 8 $100 $800 SURFACE HYDROLOGY 8 $100 $800 SUB -SURFACE HYDROLOGY a $100 $800 ESTIMATE OF AVAILABLE HYDRO ENERGY 8 $100 $800 OPERATIONS 16 $100 $1,600 WATER RIGHTS 2 $100 $200 ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS 8 $100 $800 EQUIPMENT & FACILITY OPTIONS 20 $100 $2,000 PROBABLE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 6 $100 $600 DAM SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. REQUIRED PERMITS 16 $100 $1,600 POWER MARKET ANALYSIS 16 $100 $1,600 COSTS AND BENEFITS 16 $100 $1,600 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 8 $100 $800 STRATEGIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION FUNDING 8 $100 $800 TOTAL TIME EFFORT 290 $100 MAW -Al .: YourCleanEnergy u.c 308 G Street #212, Anchorage, AK 99WI 907-27 j-g007 -� n 03/01/2007 22:59 FAX 9073440770 FEDEX KINKDS Im 00e/00a Lowell Creek Hydro Project Celebrate the power of nature na with... YourCleanEnergy = EXHIBIT C: PROPOSED BUDGET - ITEMIZER - PRE -DESIGN STUDY M1/07 Page 3 of 3 DIRECT EXPENSES - YourCleenEnergy LLC UNIT QUANT UNITS COST TOTAL TRAVEL EXPENSES (RECEIPTS REQUIRED) TRAVEL - AUTO MILES - ANCHORAGE-SEWARD -10 ROUND TRIPS 26M MILES $0 $910 TRAVEL - LODGING IN SEWARD 20 NIGHTS $100 $2,000 TRAVEL - MEALS IN SEWARD 40 MEALS $16 $600 SUB TOTAL $3,510 OFFICE EXPENSES (RECEIPTS REQUIRED) OFFICE EXPENSE - MAILING 120 ITEMS $2 $240 OFFICE EXPENSE - COMPUTER TECH SUPPORT 4 HRS $50 $200 OFFICE EXPENSE - PHOTOCOPYING & PRINTING REPORTS 1200 PAGES $1 $600 SUB TOTAL $1 A" LABOR (Page 1) + DIRECT EXPENSES - YourCleanEnergy LLC MINOR -SERVICES TO BE PURCHASED_DIRECTLY BYTHC ll STREAM FLOW DATA COLLECTION STREAM MONITORING - INSTALL DATA LOGGERS STREAM MONITORING -12 MONTH DATA LOGGING SUB -TOTAL SUB -SURFACE TEST BORING AND MONITORING WELLS GEO-TECH CONTRACTOR SERVICE GROUNDWATER TEST WELL -12 MONTH DATA LOGGING SUB -TOTAL BASE MAPPING TOPO SURVEY (OPTIONAL BUT RECOMMENDED) LAND SURVEYING CREW CONTRACT CAD TECH SERVICE TO ASSEMBLE BASE MAPPING PLOTS SUB -TOTAL TOTAL MINOR GOODS & SERVICES COSTS - 6- LS $3,500 $3,500 12 MO $500 $6,000 69,600 4 WELLS $900 $3,800 12 MO $b00 $6,000 $9,600 LS $8,000 $8,000 24 HOURS $75 $1.800 S9,800 (ITEMS BELOW ARE FOR MARATHON CREEK HYDRO PLANT REHAB STUDY QPTION) PREPARE_ PRE_-neSIGN STUDY - MARATHON KYDR2_REHAB_ HOURS.RATE COST HISTORY, HYDROLOGY, ENERGY ESTIMATES 24 $100 $2.400 OPERATIONS, WATER RIGHTS, REHAB ALTERNATIVES 24 $100 $2,400 PERMITS. SCHEDULE, POWER MARKET ANALYSIS 24 $100 $2,400 COST/6ENEFITS, RECOMMENDATIONS. FUNDING STRATEGIES 24 $100 $2.400 TOTAL TIME EFFORT - YourCleanEnergy LLC 96 $100 $9,600 MARATHON CREEK STREAM FLAW DATA COLLECTION OUANT UNITS STREAM MONITORING -12 MONTH DATA LOGGING 12 MO YourCleanEnergy uo 308 G Street #212, Anchorage, AK 99501 1.. $28,900 UNIT COST TOTAL $500 $6,000 907-27%=7 ESTIMATION OF BENEFITS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AS PRESENTED TO PACAB FEBRUARY 21, 2007 Lowell Creek Hydro Project Affordable, Reliable, & Safe Energy for Seward Project concept that allows maximum hydro power to be harnessed 37 BENEFITS TO CITY FROM LOWELL CREEK HYDRO PROJECT - Additional flood capacity of 100 cfs is made available in 48 inch penstock - Maintenance costs from tunnel damage, dredging, flooding are reduced - Public safety is increased in uncertain future of climate change and floods - Seward develops its own source of affordable, reliable and safe electrical power to hedge off increasing cost of grid power from fossil fuel sources - Marathon Creek Hydro Project can be rehabilitated when Lowell Creek project is constructed to reduce costs of study, permits, & flow monitoring - Electrical costs in Seward will be reduced and stabilized over the 40 year project life with local hydro power, especially if capital costs funded by grants - Reduced cost in emergency power generation when hydro is avallable, every unit of hydro power produced from Lowell Creek will offset expensive fuel consumption by City's back up diesel generators - Hydro project will create several new permanent year round jobs in Seward, and seasonal work to perform routine maintenance BENEFITS TO CITY FROM LOWELL CREEK HYDRO PROJECT - Hydro power does not have the liabilities of pollution, and low Impact hydro projects like Lowell Creek are favorable to the public & agencies - City may be eligible for congressional appropriationslgrants for clean energy - State of Alaska will soon establish a Renewable Energy Fund to be administired by the Alaska Energy Authority, fund will start with $10 million - City will generate the most power when population is highest in summer months and cruise ships are in Seward harbor - City can negotiate agreements with cruise ship companies to supply clean power for retail rates while ships are in port, as done successfully in Juneau - Lowell Creek Waterfall can retain minimum flow even when hydro is operating, this will keep its historic and scenic character preserved - Hydro plant tail race outfall can create a new salmon release area and increase recreation value of waterfront - Hydro turbine building could create additional revenue as a visitors center by presenting clean energy science and technology displays, gift shop, etc. PROJECTED FLOWS BASED ON EXISTING DATA Duration curve of 1979 study was based on flow measured at tunnel entrance, not at higher elevations (guaging of stream flows was not done at upper intake locations proposed in the study) 1979 Study observed that 60% of flow is lost to underground gravel aquifer before it ever reaches the tunnel entrance, some of this underground flow can be intercepted year round with an infiltration gallery It appears possible to collect @50 cfs at least half the year (6 months), with normal rainfall and snow melt flows allowing @75 cfs for up to 2 months in summer PROJECTED FLOWS BASED ON EXISTING DATA Initial turbine sizing would be two pelton wheels, each rated for 50 cfs flow (1.2 MW capacity each turbine) During low flow periods in winter, a single turbine can be run as low as 20% capacity and still produce efficient power (10 cfs = 0.24 MW = 240 KW) Groundwater infiltration gallery at stream intake may allow continuous minimum winter flows of 10 cfs, enough to keep one turbine running from December through March and keep intake and penstock from freezing `a, 39 Hydro Power = Elevation Drop x Flow Thru Turbine specifically: Theoretical Power (kW) = HEAD (feet) x FLOW (cfs) 11.81 Actual power must account for: Energy losses thru screen intake & collection channel Energy losses thru penstock, bends, valves, nozzles Energy losses in turbine, shaft, drives, generator, wiring ESTIMATED POWER BASED ON PROJECTED FLOWS Net head available at turbine = 360 ft elevation minus screen intake loss (5 ft), minus,pipe friction (35ft), minus tailrace drop to MSL (20ft) = @300ft net head Hydro mechanical/electrical system efficiency (turbine to grid) = 65% (turbine) x 90% (alternator) x 90% (grid tie) = @70% - For 6 months avg flow @ 50cfs = 3,840,800kwh For 4 winter months, avg flow @10cfs = 512,100kwh - For remaining two months, avg flow @75cfs = 1,920,400kwh TOTAL ANNUAL HYDRO POWER = 6,273,300kwh Market value of this power @ $0.12/kwh = $752,600/year 40 EVALUATING HYDRO PROJECT COSTS vs BENEFITS - Hydroelectric projects can be evaluated two ways: A. Life cycle cost (how many years to fully pay back initial capital investment?) B. Annual energy costs ($ per kwh over project life) Typically, once a hydro power resource is developed, they are run as long as the community can maintain them! What is most important is keeping the annual energy costs as low as possible to stabilize overall grid power costs. Use 40 year project life to evaluate annual energy costs ESTIMATE PROBABLE CAPITAL COSTS Land and land rights Access road to new intake site Intake screens and collection channel $0 $100,000 $350,000 Groundwater Infiltration gallery piping and collection $200,000 Penstock (6,400ft x 48 inch diameter), inc utility relocation and road resurfacing $2,560,000 Power plant building $1,500,000 Turbine and generator equipment $600,000 Electrical control equipment $400,000 Misc power plant equipment $100,000 Substation equipment $60,000 Poles and fixtures $20,000 Overhead conductors and devices $30,000 Communications equipment $20,000 Tailrace and jetty structure $50,000 CONSTRUCTION SUB TOTAL @ $6,000,000 -7, I n 41 ESTIMATION OF PROBABLE CAPITAL COSTS (cont.) CONSTRUCTION COST SUB -TOTAL $6,000,000 CONTINGENCY AND UNLISTED ITEMS (201/6) $1,200,000 TOTAL DIRECT COST $7,200,000 INDIRECT COSTS: TEMP FACILITIES, BOND, INSURANCE, OHEAD (17%) $1,224,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $8,424,000 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, ADMINISTRATION (151/6) $1,263,600 NET INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (70k) $590,000 LESS STATE (@$2 MILLION) AND FEDERAL (@$4 MILLION) GRANT FUNDS ($6,000,000) TOTAL INVESTMENT $4,277,600 BOND ISSUE (110% OF TOTAL INVESTMENT) $4,705,360 ESTIMATION OF PROBABLE ANNUAL COSTS BOND ISSUE (110% OF TOTAL INVESTMENT) INTEREST & AMORTIZATION (40 YEARS @ 4% INTEREST RATE) INTERIM REPLACEMENTS (1.0% OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS) INSURANCE (0.41/6 OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL (500/6 OF O&M COSTS) LESS INTEREST EARNED ON RESERVE FUNDS (@ 6%) TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS TOTAL KWH PRODUCED PER YEAR (FROM PREVIOUS SLIDE) $4,705,360 $237,600 $84,000 $34,000 $180,000 $90,000 ($14,200) $611,400 6,273,300 KWH ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS = TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS / KWH PER YEAR $0.097 per KWH HOW TO GET YOUR HYDRO PROJECT MOVING AHEAD SUGGESTED PLAN OF ACTION FOR HYDRO PROJECT Secure services of professional energy consultant to prepare permit applications, coordinate with agencies, supervise flow data collection and prepare pre -design report. Include rehabilitation of the City's existing 200kw Marathon Creek Hydro system in this scope to increase efficiency of permitting & flow monitoring and eligibility for small hydro grant funds. Prepare and submit Preliminary Applications with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Schedule scoping and coordination meeting(s) with state and federal agencies that may be involved in the hydro permitting process Once Preliminary FERC permit is issued, begin stream flow and underground flow monitoring program to collect data i 43 COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES IS CRITICAL Federal Agencies: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency Army Corps Of Engineers National Marine Fisheries Service Interior Department Environmental Division National Park Service COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES IS CRITICAL State Of Alaska: Department Of Environmental Conservation (DEC) - master permit application/stream discharge Department Of Natural Resources (DNR)- water rights & dam protection Department Of Fish & Game — habitat protection Office Of Management & Budget — coastal management Alaska Public Utilities Commission — utility interconnection Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) - power purchase agreement with Chugach Electric Association ', U, 44 Proposal For Professional Engineering Services from mom YourCleanEnergy. ODE Andy Baker, PE - Independent Clean Energy Consultant Committed and motivated to achieve a successful project for the City Extensive experience in municipal projects and project management Organizing and communicating with agencies, other disciplines Independent, creative and efficient approach to work Office based in downtown Anchorage, easy travel to Seward Close to most federal and state agency offices Cost advantage over medium and large size consulting firms - lower management costs and overhead — Base rate of $100/hour + expenses Proposal For Professional Engineering Services from M O M YourCleanEnergy � M o M Andy Baker, PE - Independent Clean Energy Consultant Scope, Schedule & Budget - submitted to City on March 1. 2007 Scope of engineering services to the City will begin from present point and continue through completion of a pre -design report The intent is to provide documentation and planning so that grant and/or loan funds for final design & construction can be secured by the City Coordination with other specialty consultants and City departments Coordination with local, state and federal agencies on behalf of the City Consulting services could begin in April so that FERC Preliminary Permit and flow monitoring can be started this summer Flow monitoring will require one year so that flow data can be fully utilized L4 n 45 City of Seward, Alaska June 25, 2007 OTHER NEW BUSINESS City Council Minutes Volume 37, Paze A work session for the Library/Museum Project was not deemed urgent and scheduled on September 24, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Discussion ensued on the Lowell Canyon Tunnel Hydro Project. Oates agreed to make sure PACAB had all of the same information as in the packet and Tim Barnum would add actual kilowatt hour costs. a_ Council Member Thomas had a concern for bed loading go' gthro the turbines. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS (No action eir COUNCIL COMMENTS Amberg stated the Senior Center was looking 11 attending the LTCF meeting on Friday and tonight's public Bardarson also thanked the come%' or coming toni were also important. Schafer looked forward to the work`%!s ',W on substantial input would solmsoftiemf;. Valdatta Touchstone. Dunhjft I He urged t publi and less sadly 3, 200'9`at t is thanked the community for stressed funding for schools with the Borough and thought the Camber on tbrandinQ which was mentioned in the AML omm by andie Roach' on school bus budget cuts were disturbing. 7„ to pu r sch Cngnding since educational opportunities for children were less iention od' im had passed away in Seattle and services would be July Mayor Sf R'Nr staO they met with a congressional staffer to explore grant money options on alternate energy but -14 were too many big projects out there to compete with. She felt they had great meetings, met th John Katz, and spoke of economic development projects and how education funding was affecting our community. CITIZENS' COMMENTS Theresa Butts said PACAB had been concentrating on giving good information to the city council. A lot of issues brought up had already been looked at. She encouraged department heads to attend their meetings. She stated those invitations had been politely declined in the past. Butts agreed the more information they had the better and she emphasized the engineers portion of the bid Ll 1 78 46 x ewar E2 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1064 ganizations and individuals, gave un- stintingly of their time and facilities. Within a few days, there was tem- porary restoration of water, sewerage, and electrical facilities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized to select sites and con- struct a new dock for the Alaska Rail- road, a new small -boat basin, and re- lated facilities. The firm of Shannon and Wilson, Inc., under contract to the Corps of Engineers, investigated sub- surface soils extensively to determine the factors responsible for the sliding along the Seward waterfront and to assist in site selection for reconstruction of the destroyed harbor facilities. Bor- ings were made along the Seward water- front and at the head of the bay, and laboratory tests were conducted on per- tinent samples. These studies were augmented by geophysical studies both on land and in the bay. In addition, the Corps of Engineers made shallow borings on the intertidal flats at the head of the bay and performed pile - driving and load tests. Borings also were drilled and test pits were dug in the subdivision of Forest Acres. Sliding along the Seward waterfront rkedly deepened the water along the` < ff o r m e r shoreline. Postearthquake JJ�� .slopes of the bay floor immediately off- 11 shore also are steeper in places than r before the earthquake. The strong ` ground motion of the earthquake trig- gered the landsliding, but several fac- tors may have contributed to the magni- tude and characteristics of the slides. These factors are: (1) the long duration of strong ground motion, (2) the grain size and texture of the material in- volved in the sliding, (8) the proba- bility that the finer grained materials liquefied and towed seaward, and (4) the added load of manmade facilities built on the edge of the shore. Sec- ondary effects of the slides themselves — sudden drawdown of water, followed by the weight of returning waves —also may have contributed to the destruction. Submarine sliding at the northwest corner of the bay occurred in fine- grained deltaic deposits whose frontal slopes probably were in .metastable equilibrium under static conditions. Uplift pressures from aquifers under hydrostatic head, combined with the probable liquefaction characteristics of the sediments when vibrated by strong ground motion, probably caused the ma- terial to slide and flow seaward as a heavy slurry. Under static conditions, no major shoreline or submarine landsliding is ex- pected in the Seward area; in the event of another severe earthquake, however, additional sliding is likely along the Seward waterfront and also in the deltaic deposits at the northwest corner of the bay. Fractured ground in back of the present shoreline along the Seward waterfront is an area of Incipient landslides that would be un- stable under strong shaking. For this reason the Scientific and Engineering Task Force placed the area in a high - risk classification and recommended no repair, rehabilitation, or new construc- tion in this area involving use of Fed- eral funds ; it was further recommended that the area should be reserved for park or other uses that do not involve large congregations of people. The deltaic deposits at the head of the bay probably also would be susceptible to sliding during another large earthquake. This sliding would result in further landward retreat of the present shore- line toward the new railroad dock. Specifications for the new dock, whose seaward end is now approximately 1,100 feet from the back scarp of the sub- aqueous landslide, require design pro- visions to withstand seismic shock up to certain limits. Earthquake -induced fracturing of the ground in the subdivision of Forest Acres was confined to the lower part of abroad alluvial fan. There, sewer and water lines were ruptured and the foundations of some homes were heavily damaged. Landsliding, such as oc- curred along the shoreline of the bay, was not 4 contributing cause of the fracturing. Two hypotheses are of- fered to explain the fracturing: 1. Seismic energy was transformed into visible surface waves of such amplitude that the strength of surface layer was exceeded and rupturing occurred; tensional and compnessionalstresses alternately opened and closed the fractures and forced out water and mud. 2. Compaction by vibration of the fine- grained deposits of the fan caused ground settlement and fracturing ; ground water under temporary hydrostatic head was forced to the surface as fountains and carried the finer material with it. Water waves that crashed onto shore, while shaking was still continuing, were generated chiefly by onshore and off- shore landsliding. Waves that overran the shores about 25 minutes after shak- ing stopped and that continued to ar- rive for the next several hours are be- lieved to be seismic sea waves (tsunamis) that originated In an up- lifted area in the Gulf of Alaska. Dur- ing the time of seismic sea -wave activity and perhaps preceding it, seiche waves also may have been generated within Resurrection Bay and complicated the wave effects along the shoreline. INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Seward was one of the cities most heavily damaged by the great Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964. The city is near the head of Resurrection Bay, on the southeast coast of the Kenai Peninsula, and about 75 airline miles south of Anchorage (fig. 1; pl. 1) . The climate is mild and humid because of the influence of the Gulf of Alaska, and Seward is one of. the few ports in south-central Alaska that is ice free the entire year. It therefore provides year-round access from the coast by railroad and highway to Anchorage and the interior of Alaska. Before the earthquake of March 27, 1964, the economy of Seward was based mostly on shipping. Freighters, barges, tankers, alld fishing boats docked regularly in the harbor. Most of the freight was transhipped to other com- munities by road or rail. Texaco, Inc., and the Standard Oil Co. of ) 1 _X, 48 ��, v�(`:� `•pia„ - .i }� - L�...� iio. ±'i�+�, t S 1ti, a e� �.1�� +. Frt % �! •- ' 1 V. 7 h fit,,.. h,'-'�A�. ^I_ .�'rl '��:�i+iip. �. � '1� ` n ^'r"�r:•�: , ' kfwl NIS Owl sL Al INA �,;,.. Y• �'_ ;f Mai l`11i- 1 L r F. .. x �v •j• � . ,r r . � 4 ri.c a j _ f >.'. � �� �s-� •-�— zr '. -� C^�—r�x:,4 �+�+• „gin - aT �— �a _ .'r--'�. � _ �� t� � y h :1 2 t��� � I ti �._ �� i� +.�. vim: ar � ► ol '40� W__ 000 a �-.�.w�t'rilep�.!•r".`w'.� •�:J���. �,i �y.,''4a�. _ ;$,, .�v�7].-*.P '''�y��jy�'' -..��� c' �� .i > 'YL ^�'. :r �J t �....L.. •Y.y.-`/ i`'Try d e.! •i�' ri*,r^y 1 .are;.�a'•�C'�'`rw- t,rYa�r�lt� iN �. ti:. , :' •fir" L`� r ►�-a .---'y^ �t w� — ,,� �' �' �! �R"'� Or7 SO E32 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1064 occur under static conditions. the extent of this area is shown by severe earthquake could cause The same statement probably Eckel and Schaem (1966) . In additional sliding. The relatively holds true for the area to the east. general, the limits of the area shallow depth to bedrock and the Deltaic and marine deposits will shown as high risk include the area possibility that only thin deposits gradually accumulate to establish of fractured ground (figs. 3, 4). of fluvial material rest on a stable profiles similar to those that ex- The Task Force recommended that platform of till probably explain isted b e f o r e the earthquake. the high -risk part of the water- why this area was less susceptible Whether the 3: 1 slope formed by front area should be reserved for to sliding than other parts of the dredging at the end of the new park or other uses that do not in- waterfront. railroad dock (pl. 2) will be stable i volve large congregations of peo- Additional submarine landslid- under static conditions is un- \ ple. Shannon and Wilson (1964, ing can be expected along the known. There is 'little doubt, p. 23) further stated that "The present face of the deltaic deposits however, that periodic dredging stability of the waterfront could in the northwest corner of the bay will be necessary in the area in be improved by flattening the un- in the event of another large earth - front of the dock and at the en- derwater slopes and buttressing quake. The present landslide trance to the small -boat basin. the toe of the slide with fill. How- scarp has about the same slope as Sediment brought in by the Resus- ever, due to the great depth we the preearthquake foreset bedding. rection River and by creeks will doubt that slope flattening and The material back of the scarp has continue to accumulate in this area toe buttressing are practicable." virtually the same physical prop - as it has in the past. Tides and The writer concurs in both erties as that involved in the slid - offshore currents will tend to statements. ing, and landward retreat of the spread this material into the The remaining part of down- landslide scarp can be expected. dredged areas. town Seward was classified by the Shannon and Wilson, Inc. (1964, Task Force as nominal risk —risk p. 25), estimated that "additional DYNAMIC CONDITIONS no greater than is normally ex- sliding may be expected to envelop In the event of another large pected in the construction indus- an area to the north of the present earthquake, additional onshore try. However, one must consider scarp for a distance of some 600 and submarine landsliding can be whether fracturing would extend feet." They further stated that expected along that part of the into the eastern part of the nom- "It would be prudent in our opin- Seward waterfront that slid dur- inal-risk area if an additional strip ion to site the proposed improve- ing the earthquake of 1964. As of shoreline should slide into the ments [new Alaska Railroad discussed previously (p. E29) the bay. This possibility cannot be dock] so that an adequate set -back area of fractured ground back of discounted, but the geologic en- from this zone of potential sliding the present shoreline (figs. 3, 4) is vironment indicates that it would, is maintained." The end of the believed to represent incipient at most, be of small extent. The new railroad dock is approxi- landslides. Had shaking con- thickest part of the fan deposits mately 1,100 feet from the edge of tinued longer during the 1964 and probably all the intertongued the scarp (p]. 2). In the writer's earthquake, a large part of this marine sediments lie between opinion, the amount of scarp re - area would have slid into the bay. Seventh Avenue and the bay (sec- treat will depend in part on the Thus, sliding of similar extent can tion C-C', pl. 2) . West. from intensity of shaking, but even more be expected during a future large Seventh Avenue toward the busi- on the duration of future shaking. earthquake. ness district, the fan deposits be- Strong ground motion during the Because of the potential insta- come progressively coarser, are 1964 earthquake lasted approxi- bility of the Seward waterfront. Probably only 100-150 feet thick, mately 4 minutes. During this area, the Scientific and Engineer- are nearly horizontally bedded, period, there was a landward re- ing Task Force of the Reconstruc- and lie on a fairly flat platform of treat of the delta face of 400-500 t.ion Commission, which based its compact stable till. It is there- feet. If the materials are lique- decision upon the investigations of fore probable that fracturing, at fied during shaking, as believed, Shannon and Wilson, Lie., .the ]east west of Sixth Avenue, would then the accumulation of debris at Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. be minor. the toe of the slide will not be a Geological Survey, placed a large The earthquake triggered small- deterrent to further sliding. Pro - part of this area in a high -risk scale landsliding offshore from the vided there is no change in the classification. A map depicting old railroad dock, and another characteristics of the materials in- u 16 51 Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Prepared for: Kenai Hydro, LLC Prepared by: 11 im HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 March 2009 52 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Table of Contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................... I ProjectArea.......................................................................................... ...................... PreviousStudies..........................................................................................................2 Environmental Considerations.............................................................................................2 FishResources............................................................................................................2 Wetlands.....................................................................................................................4 Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................4 Recreation............................................................................................................................4 Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources...................................................................6 Subsistence..................................................................................................................6 Cultural and historic resources...................................................................................6 Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights...........................................................6 Project Arrangement Alternatives........................................................................................7 Alternative I — Run of the River — Powerhouse at 550 ft on Carter Creek................7 A Iternative 2 --- Run of the River — Powerhouse at 900 ft on Crescent Creek ............7 Summary of Alternatives............................................................................................8 TurbineSizing.............................................................................................................8 EnergyGeneration...............................................................................................................9 Results.........................................................................................................................9 CostEstimates......................................................................................................................9 Assumptions...............................................................................................................9 Results.......................................................................................................................10 Economic Evaluation and Alternatives Ranking...............................................................I I 53 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................I I References.......................................................................................................................... 12 Tables................................................................................................................................13 Figures................................................................................................................................19 Appendix A - Land Status Information.............................................................................27 Appendix B - Energy Calculations....................................................................................30 Appendix C - Cost Information.........................................................................................43 Appendix D - Project Photographs....................................................................................56 List of Tables Table 1. Manual instantaneous flow measurements.*......................................................14 Table 2. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula......................................................14 Table 3. USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula.................................................15 Table 4. Parameters for the two alternatives considered at Crescent Lake. Elevations of maximum headwater (HW), minimum HW, tailwater elevation and net head (in feet) are given for each alternative. Design flow (cfs), capacity (MW), average inflow (cfs), and active storage (acre-feet, AF) are detailed foreach project..................................................................................................16 Table 5. Energy generation estimate summary for the alternatives considered. Capacity (MW) and annual energy production (GWh) are shown for each alternative. The modeled plant factor and seasonal benefit are also given for each alternative. For details of energy calculations, see Appendix B........17 Table 6. Reconnaissance -level cost estimates for all alternatives. Rated capacity (MW) and estimated project cost are presented for each alternative in millions of dollars (for details of cost estimates, see Appendix B). Cost estimates assumed a 0% minimum instream flow requirement (0 MIF).......... 17 Table 7. Estimated energy cost (S/KWh), economic rank and environmental rank of all alternatives considered (for details of cost estimates, see Appendix B). Energy cost estimate assumed a 0% minimum instream flow requirement (0 MIF)..............................................................................................................18 54 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report List of Figures Figure 1. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Crescent Lake on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska..............................................................................20 Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Crescent Creek. The anadromous reach is defined as the section of stream in which anadromous fish are documented by the AWC; Johnson and Daigneault 2008)....................................................21 Figure 3. Average monthly flow data at Crescent Creek. Average annual flow (for period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #15254000) is shown as a solid horizontal line (103 cfs)...........................................................................22 Figure 4. Flow duration curve for Crescent Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on the y-axis. This curve was generated using data from the period 1947-1958, from USGSgauge # 15254000...................................................................................22 Figure 5. Crescent Creek historic discharge data from USGS gage #15254000 at the Quartz Creek Road bridge from (1949 to 1966) and HDR 2008 manual instantaneous flow measurements. Mean discharge (heavy blue line), 10% flow exceedence (dashed aqua line), and 90% flow exceedence (pink line) are shown for historical data. HDR 2008 manual stream flow measurements are shown as black dots.............................................................23 Figure 6. Private parcels of Crescent Lake area. State and Federal lands are shown by yellow. Private properties are denoted by other colors...............................24 Figure 7. Water rights and mineral claims in the Crescent Lake area. Federal mining claims are shown by yellow shading. Aqua b shading denotes state mining claims................................................................................................................25 Figure 8. Alternative 1 for the proposed project at Crescent Lake. Location of intake, possible tunnel route, powerhouse location and proposed access routes are shownabove......................................................................................................26 It 55 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Acronyms and Abbreviations ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game AEIDC Arctic Environmental Information and Alaska) AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey APA Alaska Power Authority AWC Anadromous Waters Catalog BLM Bureau of Land Management °C Degrees Celsius CA Cubic feet per second cm centimeter OF Degrees Fahrenheit DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources EPA Environmental Protection Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ft feet G&A general and administrative GWh Gigawatt-hours HEP Hydroelectric Evaluation Program in inch KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough kWh kilowatt-hours LLC Limited liability company mi mile mm millimeter MSL Mean sea level MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt -hours NWI National Wetlands Inventory O&M Operations & maintenance RVDs Recreation visitor days USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey IV Data Center (University of 56 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Introduction Kenai Hydro LLC (KHL) contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to evaluate the feasibility of small- scale hydroelcctric projects at Crescent Lake, Ptarmigan Lake, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake near Moose Pass, Alaska (Figure 1). This reconnaissance report examines the viability of small-scale hydroelectric energy generation at Crescent Lake that would minimize environmental and other impacts. A team consisting of engineers and environmental scientists made reconnaissance —level site visits and analyzed existing information in order to determine if further feasibility analyses were appropriate based on potential constructability, cost effectiveness, and potential environmental impacts. The scope of work defined for this assignment included: • Field reconnaissance by team members; • Review of available project documentation and related information; • Development of conceptual alternatives; • Review of existing hydraulic and hydrologic parameters; • Estimation of energy production and project costs; • Preparation of this reconnaissance report. This report should be considered a high-level overview intended to identify projects which demonstrate a basic measure of feasibility and to eliminate projects that have evident fatal flaws from an engineering and environmental perspective; this report also provides information to enable KHL to determine economic feasibility. Project Area Crescent Lake is located 4 miles (mi) south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska (pop. 206), approximately 25 mi north of Seward, Alaska (pop. 3,016), and just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9); this highway connects Anchorage (pop. 279,671) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the route of the Seward Highway, and is also adjacent to the project area. The town of Cooper Landing is located 15 mi to the northwest and is accessible via the Sterling Highway (State Route 1) which connects to the Seward Highway approximately 10 mi northwest of Moose Pass. Crescent Lake (2 square mi) is located at an elevation of approximately 1,454 feet (ft) above mean sea level (MSL); depth is unknown. The lake is approximately 6 mi long and 0.5 mi wide. Total drainage area of Crescent Lake is approximately 21 square mi. The lake is curved, with both ends extending north; mountains of the Kenai Mountain Range surround the lake, reaching elevations of over 5,000 ft. The lake is fed by several small streams originating in the surrounding mountains. One of these streams originates from a small glacier on the southwest 57 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report flank of Madsen Mountain (elevation 5,269 ft); this glacial outflow likely does not contribute much sediment to Crescent Lake. Crescent Creek flows 6.1 mi northwest from its outlet at through a shallow canyon to join Quartz Creek, which flows south through a wide valley and drains into Kenai Lake. A valley extends to the north, in the vicinity of Carter Lake. Crescent Lake supports resident Arctic grayling (DNR 1998) and does not support anadromous fish (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Anadromous fish species are present in the lower reach of Crescent Creek (Johnson and Daigneault 2008; see Fish Resources below). Arctic grayling are likely present in the upper reaches of the creek. Carter Lake is located approximately 0.5 mi north of the northeast tip of Crescent Lake, at an elevation of 1,486 ft. Maximum lake depth is 60 ft, with a mean depth of 30 ft; the lake has a surface are of 48 acres and 1.8 mi of shoreline.I Anadromous fish species are not known to access Carter Lake (Johnson and Daigneault 2008), but the lake is stocked with rainbow trout.' Carter Creek supports anadromous fish (Johnson and Daigneault 2008) and it is likely that the lower reaches also support rainbow trout and Dolly Varden. Previous Studies The Crescent Lake Project was referenced in the 1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study (USACE 1981). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). Continuous flow data were collected by USGS stream gages installed on Crescent Creek; one gage (#15253000) measured flows at the head of Crescent Creek from 1957 to 1960 and the other (# 15254000) measured flows at the Quartz Creek Road bridge from 1949 to 1966. Environmental Considerations The following presents a general overview of potential expected environmental considerations for a hydroelectric project at Crescent Lake. This section describes fish resources, wetlands, hydrology and water quality, recreation, subsistence, and cultural resources of the project area. The area is managed using several specific management plans, including the Chugach National Forest Plan (Meade 2006), Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (DNR 1998), and Kenai Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Another search for all relevant land management plans would be required as part of FERC licensing and by other required permitting processes. For the purposes of this feasibility report, HDR Alaska did not conduct any environmental work beyond initial reconnaissance visits and stream gaging (Section Hydrology and Water Quality). Fish Resources Crescent Lake and Creek support different assemblages of fish species and possess varying quality and quantity of fish habitat. Only resident Arctic grayling are known to be present in 1 http://www.sfadfg.state.ak.us/statewide/lakedata/index.cfin/FA/main, lakeDetail/LakelD/264. 58 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Crescent Lake; this species was introduced into the lake during the 1950s (DNR 1998). No information is available regarding aquatic life in the streams feeding Crescent Lake; they are generally steep, and possibly intermittent. The following sections provide information on fish resources for each water body. The lower (approximately 1.6 mi) portion of Crescent Creek supports anadromous fish species including Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha; Johnson and Daigneault).2 Resident fish species that are likely present in the same section of stream include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Anadromous fish cannot access Crescent Lake because of a fish passage barrier presently in the lower portion of the stream? The upper reaches of Crescent Creek and Crescent Lake support arctic grayling; this species was introduced into Crescent Lake in the 1950s (DNR 1998). Coho, Chinook, sockeye and pink salmon were listed as present in Crescent Creek in the AWC (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Crescent Creek is a relatively steep (slope = 21/o) clearwater stream, descending approximately 954 ft in 6.1 mi. Water was clear during site visits on October 5, 2008 and October 24, 2008. The lower 1.5 mi of Crescent Creek is classified as anadromous in the AWC (Figure 2; Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Anadromous fish species are not known to access Carter Lake (Johnson and Daigneault), but the lake is stocked in even years with rainbow trout.4 The lake was first stocked in 1976, and 42,559 rainbow trout fingerlings have been stocked in the lake since 1998.5 Rainbow trout caught at Carter Lake during single -day angling surveys in September of 2003 and 2005 ranged from 4.5 to 18.5 inches in length (age classes 1 to 8). Fish in 2003 had a mean length of 7.5 inches in 2003 (n=95) and a mean length of 7 inches (n=163) in 2005.E Carter Creek supports spawning sockeye salmon? and it is likely that the lower reaches also support rainbow trout and Dolly Varden. 2 Southcentral region AWC maps for Seward B-8 and C-8 at http://www.sf adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/AWC/index.cfm/FA/maps.se lectMap/Region/SCN 3 Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream nomination #08-100, http://www.sf adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfin 4 http://www.sfadfg.state.ak.us/statewide/lakedata/index.cfm/FA/main.lakeDetail/LakeID/264. S From search for Carter Lake at http://www.sf.adfg.state,ak.us/Statewide/hatchery/index.cfrn/FA/stocking.search 6 From `fishing data' link from search for Carter Lake at http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak. us/Statewide/hatchery/index.c fm/FA/stocking.search 7 Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream nomination #08-149, http://www.sf ad fg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfin 3 59 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Sockeye salmon were listed as present and spawning in Carter Creek in the AWC (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Stream surveys for salmon have been conducted intermittently from 1953 — 1980. A maximum count of 250 sockeye salmon was recorded from 1967.7 Wetlands No detailed wetland information was located in our review of literature on the Crescent Lake drainage. No additional investigation of wetlands was performed for the purposes of this feasibility report. Data regarding wetlands resources in the project area are available from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping system; evaluation of this database was outside the scope of this reconnaissance -level report. Hydrology and Water Quality The drainage area of the Crescent Lake basin at the outlet of the lake at 1454 ft elevation is approximately 21 square mi. Continuous flow data were collected by USGS stream gages installed on Crescent Creek; one gage (#15253000) measured flows at the head of Crescent Creek from 1957 to 1960 and the other (# 15254000) measured flows at the Quartz Creek Road bridge from 1949 to 1966. Stream flows were gaged for all months. Data from the gage at Quartz Creek road bridge (#15254000) were used to generate average monthly flow and flow duration curve shown in Figures 3 and 4 below. Neither water quality nor temperature data for Crescent Creek or Lake were located in our literature review. The USGS sampled water quality on April 30, 1956; stream flow and temperature were not collected as part of samplings (USGS 1981 unpublished data cited by AEIDC 1983). HDR Alaska gathered instantaneous stream flow data at Crescent Creek on October 5 and October 24, 2008. Stream discharge measurements were taken near of the original site of the USGS stream gage, upstream of the Quartz Creek road bridge at a site that allowed safe fording of the stream. Standard USGS gaging protocols were used (Buchanan and Somers 1969). Flow data and stream widths are shown in Table 1. Measurements from 2008 were compiled with historical discharge data from USGS gage # 15254000 at the Quartz Creek Road bridge from 1949 to 1966. (Figure 5). Recreation The Kenai Peninsula supports significant tourism from residents of the region, of Anchorage, of Alaska and from outside of Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008) includes Crescent Lake area as a designated recreation use area. 8 pH=7.4, conductivity= 74 µohms/cm; other characteristics sampled included alkalinity, hardness, nitrogen, chloride, silica, carbon dioxide, sulfate, fluoride, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, iron and dissolved solids. 4 .0 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administers Chugach National Forest, which surrounds most of the project area; the project area is located within the Seward Ranger District. Peak use of area campgrounds (Table 2) coincides with salmon runs (APA 1984). Total recreational use of Seward Ranger District campgrounds in 1981 was estimated at 442,400 recreation visitor days (RVDs), representing 40% of 1.1 million total RVDs for the entire Chugach National Forest (APA 1984). The project area is currently developed for recreation, with campgrounds (Table 2) and trails (Table 3) in the project area maintained by the USFS. The Crescent Creek campground consists of nine campsites and is located at the confluence of Crescent Creek and Quartz Creek, on the east side of the Sterling Highway. Crescent Lake is accessible via floatplane or hiking trail. Crescent Lake trail (6.4 mi) connects Crescent Creek campground to Crescent Lake; the trail parallels the creek. This trail is used for fishing access and to reach Crescent Lake. Two USFS cabins are located at Crescent Lake. The first cabin is located on the northwestern shore of Crescent Lake near the head of Crescent Creek. The other USFS cabin, Crescent Saddle Cabin, is located on the southeast shore of Crescent Lake (capacity of eight persons per cabin) 9 Crescent Lake may also be accessed via the Carter Lake trail (3.5 mi) from the Seward Highway near Moose Pass. The project lies within the Carter/Crescent subunit of Chugach National Forest for backcountry motorized winter use; winter users often make the USFS cabins at Crescent Lake their destination (Meade 2006). Helicopter skiing is not permitted in the Carter/Crescent subunit (Meade 2006). Recreational fishing occurs in the project area at unknown levels in Crescent Creek, Crescent Lake, Carter Lake and Carter Creek. Popular fishing areas of Crescent Lake include the lake inlet and outlet and along shorelines (ADFG 2007). Open fishing season in the Crescent Creek drainage, including Crescent Lake, is July 1 — May 1, and closed to all fishing May 2 —June 30. Grayling catches are limited to 2 per day/2 in possession. The area is closed to all salmon fishing. Rainbow trout and Dolly Varden retention is limited to 1 per day/1 in possession, and must be less than 16" in length.10 Carter Lake is stocked with rainbow trout during even years. Rainbow trout retention is limited to 5 fish per day/5 in possession, only one of which may be 20" or more in length.10 Carter Lake is accessed via a steep trail that climbs 986 ft in 2 mi." Game animals present in the area are likely the same as those present at nearby Grant Lake (approximately 5 mi to the east) and include mountain goat, black bear, brown bear, Dall sheep, and moose (APA 1984). 9 http://www.recreation.gov/ `0 http://www.sf adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/regulationsisouthcentral/SCkenai.pdf " http:Hwww.sfadfg.state.ak.us/statewide/lakedata/index.cf n/FA/main.lakeDetail/LakeID/264. 61 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report More detailed information assessing recreational use of the project and adjacent areas is needed in order to comply with requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application. Detailed user data are available upon request from the USFS. Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources Subsistence The Crescent Lake drainage is not a designated subsistence use area according to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Qualified residents of Cooper Landing may harvest moose in game units 7, 15A and 15B on the Kenai Peninsula under Federal subsistence regulations 12 (the project area is located in game unit 7.) Federally -qualified subsistence users of Cooper Landing are also allowed to take salmon through a dip net/rod-and- reel fishery, and lake trout, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout in the Kenai River through a rod - and -reel fishery13. A more detailed analysis of subsistence uses of the project area will be required by FERC licensing and other permitting processes. Cultural and historic resources Based on a preliminary investigation of Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) data at the State Office of History and Archaeology, 12 cultural resource sites have been documented in the general vicinity of Crescent Lake and Crescent Creek. Several of the sites are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A more detailed review of cultural and historic resources of the project area will be necessary to comply with requirements of the FERC license application process. Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights HDR researched public land, private holdings, mineral claims and water rights of the Crescent Lake area using information from Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land status maps14 and case file abstracts15, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)16, the State Recorder's Office17 and Kenai Peninsula Boroughta. Full documentation of the land research that was completed is included in Appendix A. 12 httpJ/alaska.fws_gov/asFn/newsrel/r05O2O8.htmi 13 littp://alaska.fws.gov/asn-dnewsrel/rO5llO7.htmi 14 httpY/mapper.Iandrecords.info/ 15 http://dnr.alaska.gov/projects/las/lasmenu.cfrn 16 http://sdms.ak.blm.gov/sdms/ 17 http://dnr.alaska.gov/ssd/recoff/search.cfn 18 http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/assessingdept/ 0 62 Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report All of the lands on which the project facilities would be located are under either State or Federal ownership (Figure 6). A subsurface water right exists near the proposed powerhouse location. A surface water right owned by the USFS is located at the outlet of Crescent Lake. Several mining claims are located in the drainage, with eight federal mining claims and six state mining claims, all located along Crescent Creek (Figure 7). Project Arrangement Alternatives This section of the report describes arrangement of a project for hydroelectric generation at Falls Creek. Two project alternatives were evaluated for Crescent Lake: • Alternative 1 —Powerhouse at 550 ft on Carter Creek • Alternative 2 — Run of the River — Powerhouse at 900 ft on Crescent Creek Neither alternative would feature storage, in order to avoid potential impacts on Crescent Lake from fluctuating water levels that would result from storage and drawdown. In order to provide instream flows for fish habitat, water would be released from the lake; no storage in the lake was used in energy calculations. Three different flow regimes were used to calculate the energy available. Each alternative considered is discussed below. Alternative 1— Powerhouse at 550 ft on Carter Creek Due to extensive concerns regarding fish resources, the project is likely viable at the site only if fish water is released out the natural outlet. Diversion water from Crescent Lake would be via a simple intake structure located on the northeast corner of the lake (Figure 8). Water would be conveyed to the powerhouse via a 40-inch diameter 13,000-foot-long steel penstock (Figure 8). The powerhouse would be located around elevation 550 ft and would be a small structure that would contain a single Pelton-type turbine, synchronous generator and associated switchgear and controls. The powerhouse would discharge the generation water into Carter Creek. Access to the powerhouse site would be with a new 0.25-mi route beginning near Upper Trail Lake. A new 2.5-mi access route would connect the powerhouse and the gate house. Transmission would be via a 0.3-mi overhead pole line following the access route. A fish passage structure would be incorporated at the mouth of Crescent Lake to allow fish to migrate into Crescent Creek for spawning. Key project parameters are presented in Table 4. An instream flow release structure would be constructed at the natural outlet of Crescent Lake to allow environmental flows back to Crescent Creek. The existing Crescent Lake trail along Crescent Creek would be used as access for this structure (Figure 8). The structure would be arranged to minimize visual impacts to the area, such as incorporating the structure into the pedestrian bridge across the creek. Alternative 2 — Run of the River — Powerhouse at 900 ft on Crescent Creek This alternative consists of impounding water from Crescent Creek below the productive fish habitat reach downstream of the lake. The ideal place for this impoundment is at a rock -walled 63 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report canyon just upstream from the pedestrian bridge crossing Crescent Creek. A small concrete structure would be used to create the intake and divert the majority of the water flow. Because of extensive concerns regarding fish resources, only a run -of -river type of project is likely viable at the site and water would be left in the creek in the productive habitat areas and in the anadromous reaches. Water would be conveyed to the powerhouse via a 40-inch diameter 15,000-foot-long steel penstock. The powerhouse would be located around elevation 900 ft and would be a small, reinforced structure that would contain a single Turgo-type turbine, synchronous generator and associated switchgear and controls. Water would be discharged upstream of the anadromous fish habitat zone. Access to the site would be with a new 0.5-mile route originating from the existing mining road south of the creek. A new 1-mi access route would connect the powerhouse and the intake structure. This would also branch off the existing mining road. Upgrades to the mining road may be required. Transmission would be via a 1.5- to 2-mi overhead pole line following the mining road. Summary of Alternatives Table 4 summarizes the key parameters of alternatives that were evaluated. Maximum headwater was greatest for Alternative 1 (Carter Creek) which would draw water from Crescent Lake's natural level at1454 ft (minimum headwater would also be 1,454 ft for this option since no storage or dra.wdown was proposed). Alternative 2 would have a minimum and maximum headwater at a proposed intake at 1,350 ft alongside Crescent Creek (below the productive fish habitat). The powerhouse and tailwater elevation would be 550 ft (along Carter Creek) for Alternative 1, whereas it would be located at 900 ft (above the anadromous reach along Crescent Creek) in Alternative 2. Alternative 1 (783 ft) would have more net head than Alternative 2 (450 ft), resulting in a greater capacity (5.8 vs. 2.3 MW, respectively; Table 4). Design flow was 100 cfs (see Turbine Sizing, below) both alternatives (Table 4). Alternative 1 would use an average inflow of 51 cfs, whereas Alternative 2 would use 100 cfs because it was assumed that it would be using more water in the non anadromous and non productive reaches of stream. This slightly lower flow offsets the additional energy gained by the higher head. Neither alternative would create storage (Table 4). Turbine Sizing For determining turbine size, the rated flow of the turbine was sized at approximately 15% on the flow duration curve (Figure 4) or 100 cfs for Alternative 1. A sensitivity analysis indicated that design flows within 10% of this assumption yield near identical energy generation estimates. As such, this assumption seems appropriate for this level of study. Other Alternatives Not Reviewed No alternatives with additional storage in the lake or drawdown of the lake below its natural elevation were pursued. All options developed were developed assuming that lake levels would remain at 1,454 ft elevation. Crescent Lake —Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Energy Generation Energy generation estimates for Alternative I and 2 were made using HDR's proprietary software "Hydroelectric Evaluation Program" (HEP). HEP has been specifically designed to model run -of -river operations. HEP uses tabulated daily flows, turbine and generator efficiencies, friction coefficients and physical parameters to simulate energy production through a period of record. Turbine and generator efficiencies are determined from tables. HEP outputs were: effective capacity rating of the unit(s), simulated production in megawatt -hours (MWh), percent operating time, and overall plant factor. The following were the key assumptions used in modeling energy production: Energy generation was built simulating run -of -river operations (no regulation of the project with lake levels). The effect of environmental flow releases was simulated with 0, 33% and 66% of the average monthly flows from available power flows. Results Table 6 presents reconnaissance -level estimates of energy generation. Estimates were made for 0%, 33% and 66% of average monthly flow for Alternative 1 (Carter Creek). For Alternative 2 (Crescent Creek), the energy was modeled using all available streamflow for power generation. Alternative 1 would produce the most energy with 0% flow (23.4 GWh). Energy production estimates decreased as instream flow increased, with 16.1 GWh and 8.8 GWh produced annually by Alternatives 1 with 33% and 66% instream flow, respectively. Alternative 2 would produce 10.0 GWh annually with 0% of average monthly flow devoted to instream flow (Table 6). Cost Estimates An opinion of probable construction costs was approach used was to develop base work units prices consistently to the various project features. Assumptions derived for the project presented above. The and unit prices and then apply these units and The following assumptions were used in the cost estimate: • Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, construction management, licensing, permitting and the owner's internal costs were added to the direct construction cost estimate as either percentages or lump sum amounts. • Design engineering was assumed to be 10% of the total direct construction costs. 9 65 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report • A lump sum value of $1,000,000 was assumed to provide environmental baseline studies in support of the FERC licensing application. As well as preparation for the FERC licensing application. • The Owner's General Administration and Overhead of the design and construction was assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs. • Construction management was assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs. • A contingency of 30% was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs to reflect uncertainties of layout and design that wouldn't be resolved until later in the development process. • Interest accrued during a 3-year construction period was assumed to be 7% and was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs. • The estimate assumed first -year operations and maintenance (O&M) expense were comprised of the following three expenses o Total labor, expenses and owner's general and administrative (G&A) expenses were estimated at $300,000/yr19. o A repair and replacement fund of $50,000 was also included. o General liability and business interruption insurance was estimated at $1.00 per $100.00 of asset. • Cost estimates assumed that the project would be designed for un-manned operations and would be part of a larger organization; thereby the project would experience lower administrative expenses. On -site O&M labor would be limited to periodic inspections and seasonal maintenance. Results Table 6 presents the results of the reconnaissance level cost estimates for the two alternatives. It should be noted that the costs in Table 6 are relative and not absolute. It is estimated that Alternative I (Carter Creek) would cost $56.6 million, and that Alternative 2 (Crescent Creek) would cost $30.1 million in 2008 dollars (Table 6; see Appendix C, Cost Information). 19 The estimated G&A expense could be reduced if several of the sites investigated are constructed which would allow some economies to be realized between the similar operations of the hydroelectric projects. 10 A. Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Economic Evaluation and Alternatives Ranking A detailed economic evaluation was not included in the scope of this work. However, in order to provide a conceptual view of the economics, we have made some general assumptions. We have chosen to present the results as estimated annual cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2008 dollars. In deriving these costs, we assumed that the project could be financed through the issuance of bonds. Our assumption was that 100% of the debt would be financed at 6% for 30 years. Using these assumptions, Alternative 1 project would have a 2008 range in price of energy from $0.53/kWh to $0.20/kWh, depending on the minimum instream flow (MIF) allowance. Alternative 2 would have a base cost of $0.26/kWh. For this evaluation, 0% MIF was used as base case (Table 7). A complete analysis of cost of each of the alternatives requires not only consideration of the financial parameters but also an integration of environmental and licensing considerations. These latter concerns are not nearly as tangible as estimating costs and energy, so their impact on cost is subjective at this point. Based upon past experience, we have integrated them as fairly as possible into the ranking (Table 7). Conclusions Based on the results of this reconnaissance level study, and agency and public input, development of a project at the East end of Crescent Lake (Carter Lake side) is the most viable. Additional study will be needed to determine if introducing a small amount of storage (+/- 2 feet) would allow the project to operate over a variable time period to optimize power generation during times when fossil fuels are more difficult to obtain. Additionally, the topography near Carter Lake needs to be obtained to verify excavation depths for the penstock and determine if deep excavation will adversely impact the cost estimate for construction of this project. The financial feasibility of the project, and the value of the power it produces, must be reviewed by KHL. 67 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report References Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2007. Seward area — Kenai Peninsula recreational fishing series. Southcentral Region, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1998. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. Rep. from Division of Land and Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division, and Kenai Peninsula Borough. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2009. Alaska energy — a first step toward energy independence. A guide for Alaskan communities to utilize local energy resources. Prepared by Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AE1DC). 1983 Summary of environmental knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area. Final Report submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. Johnson, J. and M. Daigneault. 2008. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes — Southcentral Region, Effective June 2, 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 08-05, Anchorage, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2008. Coastal management plan. Effective June 2008. Meade, J. 2006. Draft environmental impact statement: Kenai winter access. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest. Anchorage, Alaska Plafker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. National Hydroelectric Power Study, Regional Report. Regional Report: volume "Iff — Alaska. USACE North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon and Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1961. Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, progress report on the fish and wildlife resources. Department of the Interior. Juneau, Alaska. 12 - - — m Tables 13 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Tables Table 1. Manual instantaneous flow measurements.* Date Instantaneous Wetted stream discharge (cfs) width (ft) 10/5/2008 69.6 40.5 10/24/2008 74.8 27.4 *Collected by HDR staff, October 2008 Table 2. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula. Location Number of sites Cooper Creek 26 Crescent Creek 9 Porcupine Creek 24 Primrose Creek 10 Ptarmigan Creek 16 Quartz Creek 45 Russian River 84 70 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Tables Table 3. USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula. Location Length (mi) Carter Lake 3.5 Crescent Creek 6.4 Devil's Pass 10 Grayling Lake 1.5 Gull Rock 5.1 Hope Point 2.5 Johnson Pass 23 Lost Lake 7.5 Primrose 7.5 Ptarmigan Creek 7.1 Rainbow Lake 0.24 71 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Tables Table 4. Parameters for the two alternatives considered at Crescent Lake. Elevations of maximum headwater (HW), minimum HW, tailwater elevation and net head (in feet) are given for each alternative. Design flow (cfs), capacity (MW), average inflow (cfs), and active storage (acre-feet, AF) are detailed for each project. Alternative 1 2 Description Carter Creek Crescent Creek Max. HW, ft 1454 1350 Min. HW, ft 1454 1350 Tailwater, ft 550 900 Net Bead, ft 783 450 Design Flow, cfs 100 100 Capacity, MW 5.8 2.3 Avg. Inflow, cfs 51 100 Active Storage, AF 0 0 -- 16 - 72 Crescent Lake- Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Tables Table 5. Energy generation estimate summary for the alternatives considered. Capacity (MW) and annual energy production (GWh) are shown for each alternative. The modeled plant factor and seasonal benefit are also given for each alternative. For details of energy calculations, see Appendix B. Annual Energy (GWh) Average monthly Alternative I Alternative 2 flow for instream (Carter Creek) (Crescent Creek) flow 0% 23.4 10.0 33% 16.1 - 66% 8.8 Table 6. Reconnaissance -level cost estimates for all alternatives. Rated capacity (MW) and estimated project cost are presented for each alternative in millions of dollars (for details of cost estimates, see Appendix B). Cost estimates assumed a 0% minimum instream flow requirement (0 MIF). Alternative Description (MWjy Estimated project cost 1 (0 MIF) Carter 5.8 $61.8 M 2 (0 MIF) Run -of - River (Crescent Creek) 2.3 $34.3 M 17 73 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Tables Table 7. Estimated energy cost ($/KWh), economic rank and environmental rank of all alternatives considered (for details of cost estimates, see Appendix B). Energy cost estimate assumed a 0% minimum instream flow requirement (0 MIF). Alternative Description Energy Cost Economic Environmental $/kWh rank rank la (0% MIF) Carter Creek $0.223 1 4 1 b (33% MIF) Carter Creek $0.325 3 2 lc (66% MIF) Carter Creek $0.551 4 1 2 (0% MIF) Run -of -River $0.306 2 3 (Crescent Creek) 74 Figures 19 75 Ao U y d � O Vlla n U i 0 N 7" t�11 w NP vs cs g 000 0 0 o a 'o O = �� C a` C i 4, 2 00 0 C o a Crescent Lake =- Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Figures 140 120 100 v 80 0 60 40 20 0 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Figure 3. Average monthly flow data at Crescent Creek. Average annual flow (for period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #15254000) is shown as a solid horizontal line (103 cfs). 400 n_.......... n-1, CL.... n..�...:... 300 c� 3 200 0 100 W 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Exceedance Figure 4. Flow duration curve for Crescent Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on the y-axis. This curve was generated using data from the period 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #15254000. 22 78 N v 00 U U 0 cc c W W 5 cc o c 2 cc L U N - x a� U U r T T T 1 In N O ti In N O � In N O ti In (SIO) a6jeg3sia N O CO `o 3 o a�i 0 COON i) (UN co E C or- 0 0 O U co 3 E Cd= 3 O O C4 o = 0 0a�i L �� L. U n co co 0 co O' E c o0 co N O o �q wlCO N - cV ci co � co U d0 o w x �40, E E c O � i. '+ O co co CA v E lo- co OD cd v O U C vaci Y C U .� co E O U 00 L C> O U N o Q` a O co L U iz a7 M N cp ti 3 O N O O No dig i IN m � L g Ir m p R�u Q_ cm y 3 N • ,INEMI m o C 41 C V v ry Y ri d d d o! b N ✓' ua C a LL i in N N a 0 e: t 46' s 0 1� C =' Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Figures �- KHL SITE EVALUATION _rlr� PRC),:FC:T UPTION DESCRIPTIONS Ocl 201 i11 C HDR Alaska, Inc. �- ��•� I LAi<F Figure 8. Alternative I for the proposed project at Crescent Lake. Location of intake, possible tunnel route, powerhouse location and proposed access routes are shown above. 26 82 Appendix A - Land Status Information 27 83 J ( W J W J M W w w W J M w J ( W J a p w w p w w 0 w w F a F N. F Q r N �- Q r N W 0 w w F Q r N W 0 w w F Q r N W 0 w w J 0 w w w w of w w a4i w pp Sit LU coS 1 pspi c N m N ni N �q m Cd N a�I N Q a7 u1 N M 2S N M S m m 25 W p p W n � g {pp l7 N to N eryy ap N n W Q q m S O p N N 10 N N �WJ F Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Y Q Q W Q W Q W Q W Q LLl Q W Q W Q W Q LLl Q W Q W Q O O O 0 O O x O x O x O x O x 0 Z xap'�x SZNZN �x� Sam x�xa� x� M m OSI QS' Z§z,u QnQ�Q9Q�Q� Z� Q8s Z Q ZS QB� ZS Q&' Zs Q M § 8 � C W m y Q Q Q y ¢ y Q N O_ x x N x N x U S U U a 30 3m p3a3m3m3m �0 $F �iF�F a,Oj oW (per pN W � � l7 Nfn Nfn Nfn N m l7 NN l7 Nfn � m m N Q N SsZ �W O < ( pW NQQ Z Z Z � O ZW Q w x IL0ow Z Y w O W 0 O > <5wWYWVWW V ~ zQ Q QfQ � Q <0 0MW OV, Q O D� W V17fgQV)u1V1 f J QfQ QF7fq W (f) u1wV1W D(f) Z Z p Z a w w 3x LZx U, ���-wr n3 mN 3n3 rnN 3z mp W 3 ro a0n'0 Q 3�e rn3W�'nFm N N o� mc� F U R Y °O aa'1 0 Y n Z Z n Z Z c Z Q �!Q Z N N x qy W ¢�.�XNm,wZ saipYo oxOw 69—=N, oYo-op zoIL) �a_�� w20z WxHpw aNFw �0 �FNmliOpjxxNa7¢x \ ¢i x xxxnxyy NiyiN —an_a anZ� JV1 FIB W W 3 <2 YN°OpJ adZZQ(XJXjF? OOW NUeW�Z W N CD�xnx�x(�x W U IL WQ � £"NFJ Q (7aroamOON3rncw�3�y3z¢z3¢W� W �—� W x nN�O�Na.Nj W Np�nQN�a0°dW xZy Y7N W F O Z� N pn N$ fn Nfn � 6V- N �� N=f/� �� fn�Z � F- d ail � O. Q.m w l7 N O J R O J to U' W A N A W. 3 J N J fn U �fn N N.aI p! m a0 0 _ m W N 0-am a, a3NNL, wx�U aiME"WroLLp°c�wai W UQUXU l� N WUmaa.0 � mQ NNJQU N Ua;v N n �°d'OY 3zxzw"oozN°Q3oLLNQN�nNwNN��Naro3owNa3oN3z°<o ivwiYOVUsN(rNNNWQ�pNNNN3n�zF3 N. x OF O(n Jad ad70 f f N N Q J J x O x-f x z Q. W xOgz.zxOx�� Q J W200w W Z U m U W Q Z y c U J Q W � W x W Q 3¢ � x Q Z( N W _ z N 3 Z :, N W _ vz5 3 Z U N N W w, z a �— U Z W 3 W X W N W Z> 3 N O m�� f 2 U (n 3 W U. AA rrnaaWUzlrmJ3waorirmrmr0F00 20NWNFfF(9Wrn0a7N w < �i aa� mo m g M m d' V Q U qqy W > Q > > > Q Q > 7 Q A m N QQ, QU OYn WFQ QUQUQUpQU Oan wQ Oan wF_Q OY WZ pY WZ WZ pYn WUQ QaQZZ pyn W pan W UZ ¢aYn pW Up QYn (r Q QWxQm - a Qa aW (ra M( Q QQ W a)mW wz mmW z mWmFmF z z mzm aFa Z r ZYZ Yn Z Z y Z m miminmQfnmQimico mim QQ mi J }Q{ }qq{ Q o 0 fA fA fA fA fA fA N N L N fA 01 N N� E U c Appendix B - Energy Calculations 30 M. VS a z z w W K V OZ H w d 7 K V w of J W H LL J F w 0 f N N N O ri K O Z H K f O G a LL C w w z a z 1 H O ri z Q � i O n I � ry 7 fYf Z W F M c0 J W 41 n. H 7 3 W v 7 V1 Q N W '� OJ OJ F- N H W 7 OJ OJ wu w z MO w w d H ; W .--1 J J W J W LL Q V > K K z O O a W W J in K K ¢ w 0 x VH1 o N w Q l F- x Q z O H J W F- yC a Q W J Q LL Y z Q 3 3 2 a H H W d 0 Q J H (A O H W f f Q z z Q z z Q w x co w K z a s z i (n F H (n F 0 m N W 3 LL J LL f a w z Nn z H S H V H W z 0 f O z G ti O O V O m IT 00 r. W m .1 00 O+ r. v+ W r. m W .q n 00 00 h . i h V W 00 h . i V N O 00 h 00 00 O M 0% ri O .-i V O . q W O . q N ri N O ko N k0 0% h M M O O N h 00 ri h N 00 h . q ri M O O 00 ri M �q W 00 00 M M V M 00 O h M O1 O O ri v1 W W h V1 h M rl rl 00 V 00 W W V1 M O1 n n N W 00 O M O CYN n W 00 V1 N h 00 h h 00 0% �q W V1 CN V T V1 V c0 oO l0 M M p 01 M r- V O 01 oo M CN O V1 M �q h M 0% oo CN V h oo 0% ri oo oo h V oo ri M h W h V v1 oo V M h h c0 oo oo oo V h O V M V O oo V �-i ri V M T M M l0 �0 T h h �i h k0 a0 k0 V N h N O h h v1 h O .-i ri a0 ri ri ri V M M M V M V V N M p V V M V V V M c0 M c0 O O O O N v1 oo O O V O O O �q M c0 O ko N �0 v1 h V W O1 oo h V V V �q W M V 0% M �0 M N O h h c0 O O O ON W oo O ON ON M M M p M M M M p p p M M M V M M N 01 O M c0 M 01 l0 ri ri l0 N M N l0 01 M V N c0 'i oo .q l0 oo M 01 M N h M M l0 h V �0 ri oo ri ''i O W V oo O h M c0 �0 V c0 h h ON oo M O N p c0 N l0 M li O l0 oO N N 01 V c0 O M CN ko V ko ko O ko h M . q M h h c0 W N h 0% O M M h N W h O �q M n . q h V M n M co W n h co n rl O M O C1 N l0 V M M 01 V N V M N V W oo O . i O oo oo 0% V1 W V V 0% ' q W h 0% W ON O W M N N c0 M V V V V1 V V V1 V1 V1 V h V1 V W V O h h W ri 00 ri N �q h h CN M h h ON h h M O 00 h ko ri n N N N l0 O M O �/1 N V1 l0 V M M V M N �-i V V1 lO V l0 V V CYN V1 V1 V1 M V1 ri ri O T c0 M co W W CYN CN V N �-i V oo W W V v1 �0 ON h h h vCYN IT �1 ko ri ''i ri T O a0 oO T M �0 T T k0 V V h oO i N N O O ON V 01 M V1 N p V Q p c0 O h M h o0 T T T O c0 p h ri N �-i ri ri ri ''i ri c0 'i co 11 L� 01 N1 N V W 01 O h oo h V h W O N M oo oo ri ri CN 0% V W oo CN O .q v1 v1 oo oo M oo M 0% 0% O �q M v1 h c0 N �0 0% h oo ri O M oo oo h oo O oo V oo 0% k0 O h h N N ri V CN W h W O h �/1 c0 01 O M M N N M h W 0% N n V1 01 W h 00 O �q N M V �0 ON ON ON 0% ON ON 0% ON ON 0% 0% O0 0% O0 O� O� O� T O� O� T O� O� 0� O� O� T T O� T ON ri ri ''i ri ''i ri ri ''i ri ''i ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ON N 0% N M co co cp w Ln w H v z w H v H LL LL O W H Z OC W 1 � 1 ¢ H O I 3 d H I N w N In �t N In at st rl O tggL I O ♦t fn t0 n n 00 00 00 00 00 z O i n 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O H v I O I W J C) J 0 O O O FQ- I O W M O M In n n n n st Z O 09 w Z i O W I F l7 I 0 m p 1 O x w I bIn on w 1 V N 0Q H I O O O In fV W w In aT pp LL W O w I O 00 00 00 M 00 01 01 01 z J } J 1 O f W H w ik /1 O I J I O O O O O O O O 00 O O W l7 H j H N M �t V1 wn 00 Q1 O N N N O � K O Z M f K O F- Q LL C K W N Z CD O .1 z z Z (oj O In cY N M v1 F F- 00 w y w r. a F- ¢ o .i •i L7 Ln O Q .i .i Ln W 0:z .-1 In O >� O H w F- J Ln ~ w H r F- O O J U W ILn O U p W F- 0 z O M > W > W of J m Q 0. U H O J J F- w U J Ln H W '•1 J J LL Q > z W w J W W U p V p 0 W W M W W Ln K K Q W VI F In O In K J W W W W p F- d' VI W O < x w 3 a LL vc a o LL f � z Q J Wp W 3 p 3 J rn VI x a W 1-+ F- rn Z rn Z p W H co W R Q H O Q S am Q F- K K V W p f F 0 Z z rn F- F- VI F- 0 d 1 N N W 1 In 1 1 I 1 I 1 M l'! 1 N 7 1 Q I I 1 1 1 I rn J I M � 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 M z � 1 I a n 1 1 1 1 I Q1 F I 1 I 1 K 1 I 1f I M I I 1 1 V K I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 to m VI W 1 3 LL 1 O J 1 1 LL 1 g 1 1 Q 1 l0 W Z I at rai z Z 1 M 1 i 1 1 � U i M W z Q 1 1 f 1 I I � zQ 1 I I 1 f\ C 1 r-r O I I O O rl cp v r r ID 1� ID N ID ID O 1� N ID ID 1� N 1� O I 00 en co 00 In 00 en M 1l O N enO 1l en � N ID ri Ln In co 00 N LnM rl Ln N N O O co ID Ln r•1 ID O 01 I r•1 N ri .--1 ri ri N .--1 ri N ri ri N r•1 ri r•1 W M en01 In v N v en en enO O N I I N rl O en In IT en en IT rl N N 0 0In Ln M 00 0 00 ID O 0 O 00 ID N 1q N In M 00 00 In y rn '� i I rlto ri N 01 00 r•1 f. ID ri N r•1 000 N ri O r•1 In N p 01 1l 1l ri 0 01 ri M co ri 0i O 4 j I I v In M co v ID In M 1l In n N N co ID In r-I � F/ Q i I I Q1 00 ID Q1 M ID 01 ID M 1� n en N Ln 00 w M M 00 w W, 01 O p M N M O pp Trl W* 1 1 I 0o 1l ri w N O N co N In N co IT N rl ri r-I M N M r•1 r 1 0o ri O M 01 N 1l N ri N p� •y O I I yNd� J I M N 01 ri V1 f� 1� ID 1� 01 M N N N 'i O +� 1 r1 I I In co ri 00 Ln ri r-I en In 0 N ri w ID M en M 00 In 01 ao N In en0 01 V1 N Q1 N n N p M .--1 co co U I en N N en enN en en enN N `' a I I rq w Ln 00 In M o v .1 v m w co rl o v Ln M o r-I er, M 14 01 w p o r-I o IT IT In O 01 co ID I M w 01 O N In w O M w M O v In M N M 00 N M N O IT 01 N M M 01 N V I N T I ID M 01 � 01 01 M � 1� 00 � N I-1 lD lD 1� 01 00 I rl O n N co N In W -4 N v rl N O M O In r-I v N O 00 M M N 00 M N 1l. N p .--4 1l IT � 01 I I 1 w rl r'1 N In N 00 ri M rl ri r-I N 01 ri rl N 00 N In N v ri ri In M In rl 11 r-I In ri oC 1 I Q I I In 01 00 ri O 00 N 1� In O 00 O O 01 N O ID 01 � p ID In N 01 O Ln O 00 ID � ri I I I N In enIn ri In In N In ri 0 Q1 1l cz Q 1 I I O O O M O 00 O In r-I v O O M a O 0 H � OIC ce I 01 co 0 ID 1� 01 0 00 p O rl. 1 rl. .--1 N 0 a IT N IT In 00 ri M 1n M 7 O I I ID ri ri ri M ri ri M M N M N i I I F. Q W i 1� O O ri O ID N O n O n ID ID ID QI O ID .1 3 Q LL I I N O O O 1n en O n 00 01 1l 01 In In Ln ri 00 00 000 co ID U' W I I ri 01 N M ri � ri ri 1� N N N N N � f I � Z M 2 Q I I M M v In M p •• OI 1l N I. M of In In r\ p Oo Wp r r I In 00 In M r-1 ri N N 01 ri ri Q � <% I I 3 O � W i 00 O O V1 M M v 01 0 M 00 00 IT O J y a o I I C M o o Ln In In O In m 0o rl a O M In M In ao N to 0o Ic IT In IT Ln In 00 m 00 ,-i ri O r O W I I en rl co r-I ID en .--1 en .--1 IT In Ln ri Ln ID LnM m 1� W Q 1 Q J > M 1 1 00 1l O O O ID r-1 O N V1 n to 00 QI n O N M 2 I/1 I I � N to 00 ri w 1� w M ri O N rl In In ID n 00 n V1 O N rl .--1 M V1 co M Ip ID N O ID O Q 1 M N ID ID M 1l v � N rl en rl N ID 01 rl ri 00 00 N co 00 � r1 •• 5 I O = r VI I LL QQ O I N 0In co co 00 0ri In 00 w v w 0v In co 0In 00 0o rl N v co O In 0v p 01 ID rl W r T I I O N ID 01 w M N N w ri v M w N In ri 00 00 ri N M 01 0o ri O ri In ri 2 \ Q VI I 4 Q I 4 Q I I I O In ri In N In M In In In In ID In 1� In 00 In O1 In p w N M IG IG IG W Q W Q W � I 01 r-I r 01 Q1 .--1 Q1 ri 01 ri Q1 .--1 01 ri Q1 ri 01 ri Q1 ri 01 0 ri 01 0 ri Q1 0 ri 01 0 .--1 Q1 ri Q1 ri 01 ri cz w W OC W V' I Q Q Q W w H V z W H t„! H U. LL W H z w a H CY w Hw m O 0 z u � u o w w x z H w 0 w Ln z H z m O j H H J H Q LnLn O J H I 1 I I I I O N lD N N sr 1 Go Go h n Go Go Go ao Go I n a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 I 1 I 1 I I O w O M In n n n n I O N a to, n n n n n n n I 01 0) 01 01 01 0) 0 Im 01 01 I I 1 I 1 I I O O O �n N a0 a �D In tf N I QO Q Qp I O Go Go Go Go 01 Im 01 QI 01 I 1 I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O N M a M tD r. ao O+ C �O M N cp N W N N O J .-1 K O Z H F K O F v LL G w to (a + a Z 1-4 H O / 2 Q E w to ry co 2 W M A O ~ Il,Y,JJ W M w O a Z � H a � 3 w w tn W O O V to .-� • • ri w .4 to O O E O z J .. to H .. W g ~ H i- O J V w to O w V Z tT J ¢ V O J Z �- W W to a H W M r-4 W J W J LL d H J w J 7 K J W W •• V K R' O J VI W to K K ¢ W to $ to O to tY J W W W W_ O O LL O # ¢ ¢ W J O i Z ~ J 3 3 N Y a H V1 to O H K ¢ W W O J to W V- 2 2 W m W O H r-1 W H O V % W O a x H 0 Z z ttn to F 0 w th Z a f a m tn W 3 3 U. O J LL W 2 L N H H f w H W H � f O Z uH O M cp U � U U U y � I In o0 01 In r-1 T � 00 � to 01 O rl O O T T n Ci Q I O Ol n In r 1 l0 co 00 In In N In N n M l0 n y r I co n O r4 IT M co ri 01 k0 n k0 O N O M 01 O n l0 M l0 N O o0 O n N rl 00 O rl rl In N 00 Oi l0 N N N I ITl0 rq rlO rl l0 IT m 00 00 I d I M O M O rl 00 .-1 n O N 01 n N 01 �O 01 l0 V) I M m In 14 O O N co r-1 O O co O l0 m l0 rl I N 00 00 O 01 IT 00 l0 N In N n 01 O rl }{ I N V1 00 l0 N O 00 l0 In N l0 00 l0 O N rl M N rl � 1 1 4 Q O O 00 N 00 O l0 ID -1 O r-1 M n o0 O rl rl T O 01 %0rl r4 %0 .-1 M 00 M M 1 1 %0 01 01 I n IT to N M rl co Ol rl O N 10 N N �O O O 00 rl N N Q I I ' 00 01 rl rl rl N O1 n 00 rl M In M rl In P1 I M N n n In In N N r-1 M r-1 In M N O In 00 00 ci I M r-1 IT n %0 00 N %0 %0 r1 al N 0) 00 IT n %0 In N %0 00 00 M %0 00 M 01 n %0 In In U 1 M M rl rl rl N rl rl N N rl y I I Q 1 U j i 00 r♦ O1 N ri N n O1 �0 M � N n O1 O M O N Q P1 I N O Ol Ol M O V1 M Ol 00 00 l0 O Ol N V1 t O H 00 In O 00 rl N O 10 .-1 T 10 T I 00 N n 01 M N 00 00 r-1 00 M O O O l0 I M .-1 rl N N r♦ N rl r-1 N Q I U 1 1 I O O O M O N V1 V1 O 01 � n O n O n M M 1 M M O 00 00 O n 00 In 01 In 01 N r-1 In 01 00 I rl O1 00 N N N rl O %0 IT n M 01 N %0 01 00 I rl n rl M O %0 M n %0 rl In N 01 I rl rl rl r-1 rl N rl M I I K 1 O O O co O O O O 01 00 O In N O 01 N 1. 00 d 1 Q 1 O O O n O O O O 00 n O rl M O 01 N I rl %0 In rl rl rl N rl I N N N M M n In N I � I I I ce 1 O O O In O O O O O O O O O 10 O 00 00 I V1 I O O O �p O O O O O O O O O .-1 O 01 00 01 K I n M In n ? O I N S I I I I Q W i O O O n O O O O O O O In O O O O O O w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 n v W 1 f 1 rH l 2 I H Z 00 O O 00 O O O O M O O rl N O O O O T z n 1 00 O O O O 10 O O O O 01 v1 O O O O 1. W O I O %0 n In 00 O r H I N Ln rl 00 l0 N U 1 3 � 1 3 I K W M O O In O O In In O M ri O O n O M 0_ p 1 M O O M O co P4 p 1 v n rl M In In 0o ri 1. In v r 1 01 N In 01 rl rl r-1 rl M W I r1 r1 w I I J1 O; N O n In O N O n N N N r-1 M M O N Q l0 r•1 332 H 2 1 1n O O rl O O O O 4 01 4 10 1. 4 O rl O O O V1 1 Ol M 00 N M O r) O N %0 In Q 1 n r-1 N O1 rl M M In rl N rl l0 }- 1 1 O S 1 N I V I M W n n O O Ol In n l0 N Q r♦ n Ol LL O 1 O O r1 W M In Q W O o0 M W I O 01 r1 M n O 00 n n 01 In F- } I N N ri In 00 01 00 r-1 O n r♦ Ol M o0 2 \ I rl M rl H r1 rl Q V1 1 J } 1 a 1 � K 1 O rl N M In W n 00 01 O H N M In l0 l7 l7 ik Q 1 1n to 1n to to to to to to 1n }W 1 01 01 01 H C1 01 H 01 01 H H C1 H 01 01 H H K K 1 rl rl rl rl r-1 r-1 rl rl rl rl rl r-1 rl r-1 rl rl rl W W � 1 Q Q Q 00 M V cp rry LA W H U 2 W H U H LL LL W f- 2 W f IL i H W dM 1 O N lD N IA V N LA m 1 O 7 M lD h h 06 co co Co Co 2 I h co co co co co co co Go co 3H V O J � 1 J O 1 LL 6Q 1 O N V lD th h 1h th (h fN th = 2 1 O1 O1 C1 O1 01 01 O1 O1 C1 O1 Ld (.1 W V1 W 1 O Z 1 O O O IA N w V W 1A N H 1 Z 00 1 O O 00 d1 O O1 O O O O O O K 1 co co co C1 co C1 01 O 01 C1 H I � � 1 Q 1 J I � I E O 1 H Q N O i J 1 O O O O O O O O O O O LA H aQ 1 r-I N M v in h 00 ch 2 N cp IA W IA N O � K O H K F O F a LL C K W n -I H O ri Z J 2Oc U a Sg 00 W Z N W f1'1 I = K W f1 01 N O cr H O 'C 3. u W H l:7 W f1'1 Q N W cr OJ Or W O t7 O > > LA Q O Z W d Z en ~ W W M LL d H J A U J O K J W W U K K 6 J IN pQ W IA K K Q W N i IA O IA d' J W O W W W _ K H W LL ih a a W J O LL i =) Z a 3 3 N S d H NZQ< IA O H K QJ W a K W Ia- K K U :3 W a 1 I 0 W I N 1 I I I I � a 1 1 I I 1 I J I I o � I n I 1 1 I I o z � I n � I 1 I I O I 1 I I I i I O � 1 a a 1 � i I 1 I 1 O R' I I I I I I I � m I N W 1 3 LL 1 J I LL I I I I O W 2 I a ^ I 1 2 z I H 1 1 O F U i H W 2 O 1 1 S 1 1 I O I I I I I I I I � F- 1 I to cp ti cp •� r ' I r-I �O 01 l0 M r-1 01 v1 pp N M 00 �O M O 1/� 1� O U V Q l0 V1 O 1� 1� N 1� a N M V V4 1� l0 1; 00 1 1n O 01 In H rl m rn 00 rl ti Q I IA 00 O M ri 01 01 01 r-4 In In rl N m m rl rl m h i m n n rn m m 0o 00 rm m O rm m 0o O O m m r-qr•I 11 O 01 V 01 M 01 l0 V1 V N 01 1l M r•I V W !A 1 r•I 00 00 M l0 V l0 r•I N M 01 n 01 �O ri M l0 1 00 r•1 01 M 00 M M r•I rm N r•I 01 O 01i N C4 �O n 1 O V 00 N 00 r•I O Nl N 01 V l0 00 00 rV r•I ri r•I ri ri ri r•I ri ri ri ri r•I ri ri o � ' ri n N N N �O O �O V1 00 V �O ri n O O V1 Q I ri l0 V 00 a ON 00 01 l0 M 00 O 01 �O 00 V l0 ri 1 I 01 00 r•I " M lA Iq 00 N — l0 01 rry IA IA V M ti I r-1 11 r•-1 r•I r•I r•I r•I 11 r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I � I Ci I 1 J I M O V M O M M 1/1 ri ri N M M V1 N N .--I V1 .�, n I n 1n 00 M V1 M n V r•I V M M M 01 M M 01 00 ,L•' 1 01 rn n U rn n V O n V l0 n 00 V1 n rll0 lA I M M Nl l0 M l0 l0 N Nl l0 l0 l0 Nl l0 l0 l0 V V1 C.1 I ri ri ri ri r•I ri ri ri ri r•I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri I 5 I U � i O 0� ri v N+ �O �O m v v v N �O r•I v 0� In 0� n I ri rm V 0q V1 o n 0l � 0q 0q N1 Nl �O � o �•. I N N rn r•1 In 00 V n r•1 r•1 r•1 ao r-I n r•1 O ao V1 1 V1 V M l0 Nl V V1 V1 l0 l0 l0 � V1 Vq V1 l0 l0 V1 V1 1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r•I r-1 r-1 r-1 r•I 1..1 r-1 r•I 1..1 r•I 1..1 r•I 1..1 r•I 1..1 Ci 1 U 1 01 1 N N O M N 00 1 00 N r•I 01 V M w M w V V n ri N 01 n n 1 N M �O a O r•I N N l0 N V1 V1 V1 O V1 rn N 1 \O 01 rn ri In 01 N N ri V M w 00 w O 01 O 1 r•-1 r•1 r•1 r-I r•1 r•1 r•1 r•1 r•1 r-I CL 1 1 C I O M O In n n 01 In N M ri n n ri ri 00 n O Q 1 O N O n ri O rm 1/1 rl i w n Iq r01 00 a0 O 0 1 O V rn M In N In n M V l0 V 01 a V1 01 1 r•I N M N N r•I M N N M M N n 1 I 1 C I ri O O w O 1/1 w N N N l0 1/1 N w O M N 01 M ri O O O O O N O O r. M IO r. r/1 r. 0o m K 0� O O 04 O rn 00q rn In V i rri V 00 V N r-I N N ri ri N N N N M N r-I I I F I Q W LL 1 l0 co pp p O rl V N l0 V l0 M a V rn N O ao pp Q 1 M 1l M O 01 1� 01 N M M M rm V 1N t7 1 r-I 1/1 r-1 N N r-1 N ri N a N N N r-q M N N W 1 to i 1 ri I Z 1 H 2 I O ri O ri In n N 01 N ri 00 �O V 1/1 � n N V Q. Z M 1� O N 01 r-1 01 r•I M r•I 00 l0 V M W O O 01 M rl rl O 00 w In %D 00 In M N V O to h H V ri V1 r•1 M M N w N N 01 M M M N M rn Q h 3 U I p O V M ri 01 l0 01 V1 00 M M 00 l0 n 00 N n N 00 N J K W d M n l0 M m 0; n n o l0 ri v n 01 v Oo O 00 N N 0 N v N M 01 00 r•-1 rl N rl0 rn In N h 1 n N N O M M l0 n M a 00 a V M a M IA W 1 r•I W h 1 7 Q 1 � J I 01 I l0 l0 O 1/1 N N N 00 ri r•I 01 01 l0 00 N M M V1 Z O 1 } H Z 1 N n 01 ri rn l0 ri a M 01 M M n 01 W In N O O {n 1 l0 O 00 M In OI l0 ri ri 00 00 Irn ri w 00 rO p 1 N M wNl l0 N V a M w �O n 00 l0 l0 a n M n f- 1 r•I r•I r•I r•I K 7 O x ' G `^ 1 00 00 In r-1 n In O IA M �O Q K O 1.; 0� o rn v o rn 01 m w 1.; Oo 0 m — rl o " w 1 O m rn O ri 1., ri r. 1., w co co m r. 14 1., rl p h } 1 N w 00 w M O w V1 M O n 14 N V1 00 ri 00 O Z \ 1 r•1 r•1 r•1 r•1 r•1 r•1 14 r•1 r•1 r•1 Q In 1 J } 1 d Q 1 1 W W C 1 O ri N M n 00 01 O ri N M it W 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 C K } 1 r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I r•I W W V' w cp tA WVH V 2 W H IH U. U. W Z W 1 Y a I I H � Q W I I W H m i O 'n U1 O N M M R R a R 2 i t0 n o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 H U t 3 t J K 1 J O 1 LL h Q I I O 00 01 M O M ,n n n n n i Z i 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Q1 Q � I I w to w H I 1 Z m o o ai rh a c+ to to to to to O t n n o0 00 00 00 00 00 0o m F F Q t J 1 7 , E L� H t kn O4 t J 1 O O O O O O O O O O O H � .-1 N M R to t0 n a0 01 O � F Appendix C - Cost Information 43 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information CRESCENT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Powerhouse on Carter Creek - 0% MIF T ouwKkyT unn unn cost Amount - 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights - Generation Plant 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,D00 .2 Special use permits 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .3 Surveying 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE $ - .1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 5 180,000 2 Concrete (Intl. reinfo(cement) 230 CY $ 1,200 $ 276,D00 .3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 5 375,DD0 .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50,000 $ %D00 .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,D00 .7 Fire Protection 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK $ .1 Clearing0rainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50.000 .2 CRESCENT CREEK OUTLET S ,1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56,250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 S 100,000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .4 Control GatesNalve w/operator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150.D00 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 S 120,D00 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $ .7 Misc. Metals t LS $ 25,000 $ 25,D00 .3 INTAKE $ ,1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 S 56,250 .2 Care of WaterlDiversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Trash rocks 1 LS $ 50,D00 S 50,D00 .4 Control GatesNalvewloperetor 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,D00 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,D00 $ .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 25.000 S 25,00D .8 Siphon pipe (nail & installation) LF $ 750 $ .9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 $ .4 SLUICEWAY $ A Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45,D00 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .4 Concrele (structural) 100 CY $ 1.200 $ 120,000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK $ .a Clearing 30 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 750,D00 .b Steel Penstock natedal 13000 LF $ 280 $ 3,640,000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks end supports) 500 CY $ 1,200 $ 600,000 A Penstock Installation 13000 LF $ 150 $ 1,950,D00 .e Slope stabilization 3 MI $ 250,000 $ 625,000 .f Surge tank 0 LS $ 100,000 $ .2 CARTER LAKE EXCAVATION .a Excavation 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,D00 .b Backfill 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000 .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .b Support and lining 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 44 100 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information CRESCENT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Powerhouse on Carter Creek - 0% MIF iltem _ TQuw&YT--Tn--ft7 Unit Cost Amount 333 WATERWHEELS. TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply 1 LS $ 2,610,000 $ 2.610.000 .2 Install 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150.000 .2 Station Service 1 LS $ 150.000 $ 150,000 .3 Control Panel 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 .4 Condu"restcables 1 LS $ 150.000 $ 150.000 .5 Power to intake 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Coding Water System 1 LS $ 25.000 $ 25,000 .2 Powerhouse crane 1 LS $ 260,000 $ 250,000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Highway to Powerhouse 0.25 MI $ 500,000 $ 125,000 .2 Powerhouse to intake 2.50 MI $ 500,000 $ 1,250,000 .3 1 ntake to Cresent Creek outlet 5 MI $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000 .4 ClearinglDrainagetErosion Control 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250.000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS 1 Land rights - transmission line 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS $ 50.000 $ 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 Grounding grid 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment I LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line 0.3 MI $ 750,000 $ 187,500 TaW Direct Construction Costs S 31,500,000 Design Engineering 10°% S 3.150.000 FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 1,575,000 Construction Management 5% $ 1.575,000 Subtotal $ 38,800,000 Contingency 30°% $ 11,640,000 Interest during construction 7% $ 11,352.000 2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 61,800,000 Annual Energy, MVVh 23,400 Debt Service S 4,489,703 O&M $ 738,000 2008 Cost of Energy, StkWh $ 0.223 43 101 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information CRESCENT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Powerhouse on Carter Creek - 33% MIF Item T Ouantlty T It I untt cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights - Generation Plant 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Special use permits 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .3 Surveying t LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE S .1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 $ 180,000 .2 Concrete(erd, reinforcement) 230 CY $ 1,200 $ 276,000 .3 Metal Building 2500 SF S 150 $ 375,000 .4 Mac. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .5 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25.000 S 25.000 .7 Fire Prutection 1 LS $ 25,000 S 25,000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK $ - .1 CleeringrDrainege/Erosion Control i LS S 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 CRESCENT CREEK OUTLET $ - A Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 66,250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50.000 .4 Control Gates/Valve w/openetor 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .5 Concrete (Muct sal) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $ - .7 Misc. Metals I LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 INTAKE $ .1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 66.250 .2 Care of WaterlDivemion 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 60,000 .4 Control GatesiValve wloperator 1 LS $ 150.000 $ 150.000 .5 Concrete (st ucluml) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120.000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 S - .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .8 Siphon pipe (met'i & installetlon) LF $ 750 $ .0 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 $ .4 SLUICEWAY $ .1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45,000 .2 Care of Weter/Dtvarsion 1 LS S 100,000 S 100,000 .3 Sluice Gate wloperator 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .4 Concrete (stnulurel) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK _a Clearing .b Steel penstock material .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) A Penstock InstaRefen .a Slope stabilization .f Surge tank .2 CARTER LAKE EXCAVATION .a Excavation .b BackRll .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation .b Support and lining 46 S 30 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 750,000 13000 LF $ 280 $ 1640,000 Soo CY $ 1,200 $ 600.000 13000 LF $ 150 $ 1,950,000 3 MI $ 250,000 $ 625,000 0 LS $ 100,000 $ - 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000 610000 CY S 10 $ 6,100,000 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000 1 LS $ 25,000 S 25.000 102 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information CRESCENT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Powerhouse on Carter Creek - 33% MIF AmOurd -Item Quantity I unit I unit cost 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply 1 LS $ 2,610,000 $ 2,610,000 .2 Install 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .2 Station Service 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .3 Control Panel 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 .4 Conduittwires/cables 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .5 Power to intake 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System t LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .2 Powerhouse crane 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 336 ROAD% RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Highway 10 %werhorse 0.25 MI $ 50Q000 $ 125,000 .2 Po mrhouse to intake 2.50 Ml $ 500,000 $ 1,250,000 .3 Intake to Cresent Creek outlet 5 MI $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000 ,4 Clearing`Dreinage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHITS .1 Land rights - transmission line 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment a LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 Grounding grid 4L LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main truwbrmse 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 360,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line 0.3 MI $ 760,000 $ 187,500 Total Direct Construction Costs $ 31,600,000 Dew Engineering 10% $ 3,150,000 FERC and other licerminrg $ 1.000,000 Cnv 9 General Administration 8 overhead 5% $ 1,575,000 Construction Management 5% $ 1,575,000 Subtotal $ 38,800,000 Co &Qemy 30% $ 11,640,000 Interest during man 7% $ 11,352.000 2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 61,800,000 Annual Energy, MWh 16,100 Debt Service $ 4,489,703 08M $ 738,000 2008 Cost of Energy, $kWh $ 0.325 47 103 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information CRESCENT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Powerhouse on Carter Creek - 66% MIF item _ T 5uemttYT Unit Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS 1 Land Rights - Generation Plant 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Special use Permits t LS $ 50,000 $ 60.000 .3 Surveying 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 1 POWERHOUSE $ - .1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 $ 180,000 .2 Concrete (Ind. reinforcement) 230 CY $ 1,200 $ 276,000 .3 Metal Building 26M SF $ 150 $ 375,000 .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .5 WAC, Plumbing 8 Electrical 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .7 Fire Protection 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS 1 SITE WORK $ - 1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 CRESCENT CREEK OUTLET $ - 1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56.250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .4 Control GatesNalve w/operstor 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 160,000 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 11000 $ - .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 INTAKE $ .1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56,250 .2 Care of WatedDiversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .4 Control GetssNelve wioperator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 160,000 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $ - .7 Mac. Metals 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .6 Siphon pipe (meYl 8 installation) LF $ 750 $ - .9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 $ .4 SLUICEWAY $ - .1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45,000 ,2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Sluice Gatew/operator 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK $ - .a Clearing 30 ACRE S 25,000 $ 760,000 .b Steel penstock material 13000 LF $ 280 $ 3,640,000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 500 CY $ 1,200 $ 600.000 A Penstock installation 13000 LF $ 150 $ 119501000 .e Slope stabilization 3 MI $ 250,000 $ 625,000 .f Surge tank 0 LS $ 100,000 $ - .2 CARTER LAKE EXCAVATION .a Excavation 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000 .b Beckfifl 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000 .3 TAILRACE .a Excavation 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .b Support and lining t LS S 25,000 $ 25,000 48 104 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C — Cost Information CRESCENT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Powerhouse on Carter Creek - 66% MIF Item Tdin—n"T Unit Unit Cost Amount 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply 1 LS $ 2,610,000 $ 2,610.000 .2 Install 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 SNitchgea► i LS $ 150,000 $ 160,000 .2 Station Service 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150.000 .3 Control Panel 1 LS $ 250.000 $ 250.000 .4 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 160.000 .5 Power to intake 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .2 Powertrouse crane 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 260,000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Highway to Powefiouse 0.25 MI $ 5W'000 $ 125,000 .2 Powerhouse to intake 2.50 MI $ 500,000 $ 1.260,000 .3 Intake to Cresent Creek outlet 5 MI $ 500,000 $ 2,600,000 A ClearhWDrelinage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 250.000 $ 2%000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights - transmission line 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment 1 LS $ 25.000 S 25,000 .3 Grounding grid 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 360,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 New pole line 0.3 MI $ 250.000 $ 62.500 Total Direct Construction Costs $ 31.400,000 Design Engineering 10% $ 3,140.000 FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 1.570,000 Construction Management 5% $ 1,570.000 Subtotal $ 38.680,000 Contingency 30% $ 11.61341000 Interest during construction 4% $ 6.270,000 2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 56,570,000 Annual Energy, MWh 8,800 Debt Service S 4,109,749 O&M $ 736,8W 2008 Cost of Energy. $/kWh $ 0.551 49 105 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C --_ Cost Information CRESCENT LAKE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Run of river - Powerhouse on Crescent Creek gem TCuantityi unit unit Cost Amount 3M LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights - Generation Plant 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Special use permits 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .3 Surveying 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE $ - .1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 $ 180,000 .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 226 CY $ 1,200 $ 271.200 .3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 $ 375.000 .4 Misc. Metals I LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .5 IHVAC, Plumbing & Electrical LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .7 Fire Protection 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS 1 SITE WORK a .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY $ .2 Excavation 500 CY $ 150 $ 75,000 .3 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .4 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1,200 $ - .5 Concrete (mass) 400 CY $ 1,000 $ 400,000 .3 INTAKE $ - .1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56,250 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .4 Control GateslValve w/operator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1.000 $ - .7 Misc. Metals t LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .8 Siphon pipe (mat'I & installation) LF $ 750 $ .9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 $ A SLUICEWAY $ - .1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45,000 .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000 .4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000 .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK $ .a Clearing 40 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 1,000,000 50 1: Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - Cost Information .b Steel penstock material 15000 LF $ 280 $ 4,200,000 .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 400 CY $ 1,200 $ 480,000 A Penstock installation 17500 LF $ 150 $ 2,625,000 .e Slope stabilization 3 MI $ 250,000 $ 825,000 .f Surge tank 0 LS $ 100,000 $ .2 TAILRACE .a Excavation 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .b Support and lining 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply 1 LS $ 1,035,000 $ 1,035,000 .2 Install 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .2 Station Service 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .3 Control Panel 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 .4 ConduithAres/cables 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 .5 Power to intake I LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .2 Powerhouse crane 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Road to Powerhouse 0.50 MI $ 500,000 $ 250,000 .2 Powerhouse to intake 1.00 MI $ 300,000 $ 300,000 .3 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS 1 Land rights - transmission line 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 .2 Oil spill containment 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 .3 Grounding grid 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 .2 Accessory switchgear equipment I LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES 1 New pole line 1.8 MI $ 750,000 $ 1.312,500 Total Direct Construction Costs $ 17,100,000 Design Engineering 10% $ 1,710,000 FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000 Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 855,000 Construction Management 5% $ 855,000 51 107 Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C — Cost Information Subtotai Contingency Interest during construction 2008 Estimated Project Cost Annual Energy, MWh Debt Service O&M 2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh 30% 7% 52 $ 21,520,000 $ 6,456,000 $ 6,296,000 $ 34,280,000 10,000 $ 2,490,405 $ 565.200 $ 0.306 108 Dam Type Crest Length Max height Crest width Section A E3 G Excavation Width Depth Volume Box Intake Length Width Height Thickness, avg Concrete volumes Floor Walls Excavation Sluiceway Length Width Height Thickness, avg Concrete volumes Floor Walls Excavation Crescent Lake --- Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C — Cost Information Simple concrete gravity 250 R 9 ft 1.5 length 50% 30% 20% 27 2 500 cy 30 15 15 1.5 25 cy 75 Total 100 cy 375 cy 30 10 18 2 17 cy 70 87 300 cy 53 height area, sf vol, cy 100% 54 250 80% 37 102 50% 17 31 383 109 PENSTOCK Head 904 It Flow 100 ds Val. max 12 fps DA. req 39.1 Inches t, tep 0.4254 I. heroirg 0.1477 L mh 0.4254 wt R 163.3 Ibs oreo 10.2 Cost Miami $ 1.50 Ib $ 244.96 Ching S 1.50 st $ 15.35 Coo" $ 1.50 sl $ 15.35 $ 275.67 Stpports Span 60 ft Length I5000 u 250 WWIh. 2d 6.5163521 Dep1h..5d 1629W Heipht.5d 1.629068 Vd 160.12896 71vw Blocks 4 25.0 Width. 2d 6.5163521 Dep1h.2d 6.5103521 Hoot 2d 6.5163521 vd 256 20634 T01e1 41633531 Crescent Lake - Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C - - Cost Information Trench 2:1 $We 00 Length 7750 25oo 50"0 25% Bese width 8 54 Dept, Arec Val 50 5400 387500 25 1450 208102 8 192 13778 609360 cy 110 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix C — Cost Information POWERHOUSE Powerhouse structure Metal Building 2500 Length 50 Width 50 Thickness 2 tailrace chamber Length 15 Width 8 Depth 6 Thickness, avg 4 Concrete Volumes Foundation 40.9 Floor 185.2 226,0741 Building Cost 375000 55 1T1171 Excavation ITZ1171 III Appendix D - Project Photographs 56 112 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix D - Photos . .+•y .� n^. a �,a' A Looking at Carter Lake from end of Crescent lake. Intake on this side would have to be trenched across this bench. T. i 7 ti Head of Crescent Creek. Hiking bridge to cabin in foreground. 27 113 Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report - Appendix D - Photos Flat section of crescent creek assumed prime fish habitat. r fy �5 �- Canyon and bend in upper left of picture. 28 114 I L1 a 1 1 1 1 1 Canyon section of creek. Crescent Lake — Proposed Hydroelectric Projeci Reconnaissance Report - Appendix D - Photos 29 IN 115 FOURTH OF JULY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECONNAISSANCE STUDY AND INITIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2009 By INDEPENDENCE POWER, LLC 1503 WEST 33R° AVENUE, SUITE 211A ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 116 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of a reconnaissance study and initial feasibility assessment of a proposed run -of -river hydroelectric development on Fourth of July Creek near Seward, Alaska. Development of a run -of -river hydroelectric project on Fourth of July Creek with an installed capacity of 5.4 MW is technically and economically feasible. This project can provide approximately 21,700 MWh of energy annually (approximately 1/3rd of the Seward Electric System's current annual energy demand) at an estimated wholesale cost of $0.04 to $0.12 per kWh. Based on these estimates, the project appears competitive with future energy generation alternatives for the railbelt, and warrants continued investigation. These findings are based upon review of existing information and field investigations conducted for this project. Field investigations to date include: ➢ One year of hydrology data for Fourth of July Creek ➢ Visual (airborne and terrestrial) reconnaissance of the entire project ➢ RTK GPS survey of critical project elevations The proposed technical configuration of a hydroelectric development at Fourth of July Creek is summarized below. Parameter Value Intake Elevation (ft) 790' Powerhouse Elevation (ft) 120' Gross Head (ft) 670' Net Head (ft) 636' Penstock Length (ft) 6, 100'of and diameter (inches) 48" pipe Design Flow (cfs) _ 120 TInstalled Capacity (kW) 5,400 kW Plant Capacity Factor 47% Minimum Annual Output (kW) 240 kW Net Annual Energy Generation (kWh) 21,700,000 kWh Transmission Length (mi) 2 miles The next steps necessary to advance the project is a full feasibility study. This study will include collection of additional field data and detailed analysis of the project's technical and economic feasibility. Major feasibility study activities include: ➢ Continue to measure stream discharge to characterize basin hydrology. ➢ Complete topographic survey to support design and analysis activities. ➢ Conduct analysis of flood stages at key project locations to guide project design. ➢ Conduct geotechnical investigations. ➢ Conduct engineering analysis to determine optimal penstock routing. ➢ Project cost estimate and economic analysis. ➢ Feasibility study analysis and report. NOVEMBER 2009 117 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................................................I TABLEOF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................11 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND PURPOSE............................................................................. 3 1.2 COMMUNITY BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 3 1.3 PROPOSED ENERGY RESOURCE.............................................................................................. 3 1.4 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES... ........................................................................................ 4 2.0 EXISTING ENERGY SYSTEM..............................................................................................6 2.1 COMMUNITY ENERGY PROFILE.............................................................................................. 6 2.2 ELECTRIC UTILITY ORGANIZATION....................................................................................... 6 2.3 GENERATION SYSTEM............................................................................................................ 6 2.4 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS......................................................................... 7 2.5 LOAD PROFILE....................................................................................................................... 7 2.6 FUTURE LOAD PROJECTIONS.................................................................................................. 8 2.7 PLANNED UPGRADES............................................................................................................ 8 2.8 ENERGY MARKET.................................................................................................................. 8 3.0 PROPOSED ENERGY RESOURCE....................................................................................10 3.1 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Project Drainage Basin.................................................................................................... 10 3.1.2 Project Creek................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 HYDROLOGY........................................................................................................................11 3.2.1 Flood Potential................................................................................................................ 17 3.3 GEOTECHNICAL...................................................................................................................18 3.3.1 Mass Soil Movement....................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Avalanche....................................................................................................................... 19 3.4 PROJECT LAND.................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Site Control Requirements............................................................................................... 20 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN......................................................................................... 22 4.1 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES................................................................................ 22 4.2 RECOMMENDED PROJECT.................................................................................................... 25 4.3 ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 25 4.4 CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM DESIGN............................................................................................ 26 4.4.1 Site Access...................................................................................................................... 26 4.4.2 Pozver Line...................................................................................................................... 27 4.4.3 Pozverhouse..................................................................................................................... 27 4.4.4 Penstock..........................................................................................................................27 4.4.5 Intake .............................................................................................................................. 28 4.5 CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION DESIGN................................................................................... 28 4.6 MAJOR REMAINING TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS............................................................. 28 4.6.1 Hydrology....................................................................................................................... 28 4.6.2 Geotechnical....................................................................................................................29 4.6.3 Topographic Survey......................................................................................................... 29 4.6.4 Penstock Routing............................................................................................................ 29 4.6.5 Intake Configuration....................................................................................................... 29 5.0 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT............................................................................................... 30 NOVEMBER 2009 n 118 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 5.1 PROJECT COSTS.................................................................................................................... 31 5.2 PROJECTBENEFITS...............................................................................................................31 5.2.1 Fuel Displacement........................................................................................................... 31 5.2.2 Grid Efficiency................................................................................................................ 31 5.2.3 Environmental Attributes................................................................................................ 31 5.2.4 Non -Monetary Benefits................................................................................................... 31 6.0 PERMITS...............................................................................................................................33 6.1 FEDERAL PERMITS............................................................................................................... 33 6.1.1 FERC Licensing.............................................................................................................. 33 6.1.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits............................................................................ 33 6.1.3 U.S. Coast Guard Permits............................................................................................... 33 6.1.4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................................................................... 33 6.1.5 Federal Aviation Administration..................................................................................... 33 6.2 STATE OF ALASKA PERMITS................................................................................................. 33 6.2.1 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Permits ............................................. 33 6.2.2 Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) Permits ................................................... 34 6.2.3 Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) Permits ................................................... 35 6.2.4 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Permits .............................. 35 6.2.5 Regulatory Commission of Alaska.................................................................................... 35 6.3 LOCALPERMITS...................................................................................................................36 6.3.1 Kenai Peninsula Borough................................................................................................ 36 6.3.2 Plan Review.................................................................................................................... 36 6.3.3 Site Access...................................................................................................................... 36 6.3.4 Utility Agreement........................................................................................................... 36 6.3.5 Other Local Permits......................................................................................................... 36 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................... 37 7.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.......................................................................... 37 7.2 FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE.................................................................................................... 37 7.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife.......................................................................................................... 37 7.2.2 Fisheries.......................................................................................................................... 37 7.3 WATER AND AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................. 37 7.4 FLOOD CONTROL................................................................................................................. 37 7.5 WETLAND AND PROTECTED AREAS..................................................................................... 38 7.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES............................................................... 38 7.7 LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................38 7.8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND AVIATION............................................................................. 38 7.9 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS RESOURCES................................................................................. 38 7.10 MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................................................... 39 8.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 40 APPENDIX A — PUBLIC MEETINGS AND MEETING RECORDS..............................................1 NOVEMBER 2009 119 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment LIST OF FIGURES Figure1-1: Location Map....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-1: SES Quarterly Electrical Load 2002 — 2009......................................................... 7 Figure2-2: SES Cost of Energy.............................................................................................. 9 Figure 3-1: Project Basin and Nearby Basins Used to Estimate Hydrology ......................12 Figure 3-2: Fourth of July Creek Gauge Installation...........................................................14 Figure 3-3: Stage -Discharge Curve for Fourth of July Creek Stream Gauge.....................14 Figure 3-4: Measured and Expected Discharge at Fourth of July Creek PowerhouseSite.................................................................................................15 Figure 3-5: Measuring Stream Discharge in Powerhouse Vicinity (April 2009)...............16 Figure 3-6: Land Ownership in Project Vicinity..................................................................21 Figure 4-1: Proposed Project Layout and Penstock Route Options...................................24 Figure 4-2: Expected Seasonal Power Output.....................................................................26 Figure 4-3: View Looking Downstream at Intake Location (April 2009) ...........................28 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Annualized SES Energy Purchases from CEA.................................................... 6 Table 3-1: Land Characterization in Project Basin..............................................................10 Table 3-2: Project Basin and Nearby USGS Basins..............................................................12 Table 3-2: Project Basin and Nearby USGS Basins..............................................................13 Table 3-3: Discharge Anomalies in Fourth of July Creek Discharge Record ....................16 Table 3-4: Initial Assessment of Project Flood Hazards......................................................18 Table 4-1: Comparison of Fourth of July Creek Project Configurations ............................23 Table 4-2: Comparison of Kasidaya Creek and Fourth of July Creek Projects..................25 Table 5-1: Summary of Economic Estimates for Fourth of July Creek Project..................30 Table A-1: Summary of Project Meetings............................................................................. 2 NOVEMBER 2009 IV 120 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AEA Alaska Energy Authority AVTEC Alaska Vocational Training Center CEA Chugach Electric Association, Inc. cfs cubic feet per second COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development ft foot, feet HDPE high -density polyethylene in inch, inches IP Independence Power, LLC kV kilovolt, or 1,000 volts kVA kilovolt -amp kW kilowatt, or 1,000 watts. One kW is the power consumed by ten 100-watt incandescent light bulbs. kWh kilowatt-hour. The quantity of energy equal to one kilowatt (kW) expended for one hour. LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging mi mile, miles MW megawatt, or 1,000 kilowatts MWh 1,000 kWh. NOVEMBER 2009 1 121 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment powder blast A pressure wave of compressed air and entrained snow that can precede an avalanche down a mountain. Powder blasts can exert significant force, damaging objects well beyond the footprint of the avalanche's path and runout. RCA Regulatory Commission of Alaska SES Seward Electric System Surge -release flood A flood caused by a creek or river becoming temporarily dammed behind an obstruction such as an avalanche or landslide. USGS United States Geological Survey WRI(R) Water Resources Investigation (Report) NOVEMBER 2009 122 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND PURPOSE In 2008, Independence Power, LLC was formed to develop a run -of -river hydroelectric resource identified on Fourth of July Creek in Seward, Alaska. The first step in the orderly development of Fourth of July Creek's hydroelectric potential is to complete a reconnaissance -level study and initial feasibility assessment of the resource to determine if the resource is likely suitable for a technically and economically viable renewable energy development. This reconnaissance study was funded in part by Independence Power, LLC and in part by a grant from the State of Alaska's Renewable Energy Grant Program. The purpose of this study is to present the findings of the reconnaissance -level investigations of the hydropower potential of Fourth of July Creek. 1.2 COMMUNITY BACKGROUND Fourth of July Creek is located within the city limits of Seward, Alaska. Seward is a community of approximately 2,600 residents first settled in 1903 and incorporated in 1912. It is located on Resurrection Bay along the southerly -facing gulf coast of the Kenai Peninsula. Seward is the southern terminus of the Seward Highway and the Alaska Railroad. It is a major shipping port for Alaska, and is also served by a state-owned airport. Seward's climate is maritime, and is characterized by frequent precipitation, relatively cool summers with typical temperatures of 49 to 63°F, and relatively warm winters with typical temperatures of 17 to 38°F. Normal annual precipitation is 66 inches of rainfall, and 80 inches of snowfall. Seward has a diverse economy. The Alaska SeaLife Center, Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC), Spring Creek Correctional Facility, Usibelli Coal Shipment Facility, Seward Shipyard, and Kenai Fjords National Park all contribute significantly to the local economy. More generally, tourism, commercial fishing, and government are also major contributors to the local economy. I 1.3 PROPOSED ENERGY RESOURCE The proposed energy resource is a run -of -river hydropower resource located along Fourth of July Creek. The resource location is indicated on Figure 1-1. Development of the resource would consist of: I Background data from the DCCED's Alaska Community Database. NOVEMBER 2009 3 123 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment ➢ An intake structure, which may include a dam up to 40 feet tall, located on Fourth of July Creek at an elevation of about 750 feet (dam spillway elevation of 790 feet), which is at the head of a prominent canyon located about three river - miles above tidewater; ➢ A 5,100 to 6,100 foot long, 48-inch diameter penstock to convey 120 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water; ➢ A powerhouse with 5.4 MW of installed generating capacity located at an elevation of about 120 feet, located near the outlet of the same canyon; ➢ A tailrace to return project waters to Fourth of July Creek; ➢ A transmission line to connect the powerhouse to the City of Seward's electrical system; ➢ Access roads and trails; and ➢ Appurtenant facilities. The resource is estimated to provide approximately 21,700 megawatt -hours (MWh) of energy in a typical water year. This equates to roughly 1/31d of the Seward Electric System (SES)'s annual energy requirements. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES IP is unaware of any existing studies of hydropower development on Fourth of July Creek. There are several other existing studies that are relevant to the proposed development, which are summarized below. ➢ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigation 81-21 (WRI 81-21). Hydrological investigation of the Fourth of July Creek alluvial fan area to identify suitable water supplies to support industrial development of the alluvial fan area. This report provides some instantaneous discharge data for Fourth of July Creek and information about the local hydrology in the alluvial area. The area covered by WRI 81-21 is downstream of the proposed powerhouse site. ➢ USGS WRI 87-4728. Analysis of the cause, extent, and damage from a major storm event that dumped 15.05 inches of rain in Seward in a 24-hour period over October 9-11, 1986. The USGS characterized this storm event as a 100-year or greater event. Because of the magnitude of this storm event, this report provides very valuable analysis and data on expected peak discharges, mass soil movement, and sediment flows that any hydropower development along Fourth of July Creek would be designed to withstand. ➢ A feasibility study for the development of an industrial park at Fourth of July Creek prepared for the City of Seward by Arctic Environmental Engineers in March 1979. NOVEMBER 2009 4 124 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Figure 1-1: Location Map STATE INDEX MAP LOCATION MAP BARROW r - - o°li — ANCHORAGE t $ .:� FAIRBANKS LIM?�' d �V ANCHORAGE W`IITTIER <) r c SEE - SEWARD LOCATION a GULF OF MAP THIS ALASKA KODIAK t PROJECT PROJECT VICINITY MAP 0 1 2 M LES 'f, Q d s DOWNTOWN .. SEWARD }� SPRING CREEK c _ - CORRECTIONAL -� FACILITY SEWARD SHIP YARD FO URTH s JULY CREEK , PROJECT AREA NOVEMBER 2009 5 125 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 2.0 EXISTING ENERGY SYSTEM 2.1 COMMUNITY ENERGY PROFILE The city of Seward and surrounding areas are served by SES. SES is connected to the railbelt electrical grid, and imports nearly all of its electrical energy from Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (CEA). Table 2-1 summarizes SES' annual electrical energy purchases from CEA. Table 2-1: Annualized SES Energy Purchases from CEA Year CEA Energy Generation and Purchases for SES (MWh) 2002 61,334 2003 2004 62,9592 64,204 2005 65,028 2006 60,5303 _ 2007 65,911 2008 65,524 2009 65,9104 Note 1: Data are compiled from CEA quarterly tariff filings with the RCA. Note 2: Data are unavailable for second quarter of 2002. The average of 2002 and 2004 second quarter energy sales is used to estimate 2003 sales. Note 3: A 26-day transmission outage in February 2006 required SES to self -generate. Note 4: Data for 2nd half of 2009 are CEA projections. 2.2 ELECTRIC UTILITY ORGANIZATION The City of Seward owns and operates the SES under Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 102, issued by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). As a municipally -owned electric utility, SES is exempt from RCA economic regulation pursuant to AS 42.05.711(b). 2.3 GENERATION SYSTEM SES normally purchases 100% of its electricity from CEA, which includes SES' share of output from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. SES maintains six diesel generators for backup generation when energy from CEA is unavailable. These include two World War II -era Alco generators installed after the 1964 earthquake. These systems are very old, and increasingly difficult to maintain and repair. Seward received funds to replace these aged generators in 2009. 2 Fiscal Year 2009 Capital Budget TPS Report 50617. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. NOVEMBER 2009 6 126 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 2.4 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SES maintains a 69-kV transmission line from the interconnection point with the CEA system into downtown Seward. There is also a 69-kV line that runs from Seward over to the Fourth of July Creek industrial area. The terminal substation for this line is located approximately two miles from the proposed hydroelectric powerhouse site. These transmission lines are in good condition, although portions of the line from CEA in the Kenai Mountains are located in avalanche hazard areas. An avalanche in February 2006 damaged this transmission line, resulting in loss of service for 26 days, forcing SES to rely on its diesel generators to provide electrical service to customers. 2.5 LOAD PROFILE SES' load profile is relatively constant seasonally, and has been relatively constant over the past several years. SES' quarterly load data are presented in Figure 2-1. It is expected that the energy and power from the Fourth of July Creek project can be completely consumed by existing SES system demand. 18,000 16,000 14,000 3 12,000 r c 10,000 W `n 8,000 N d 6,000 a 4,000 2,000 0 Figure 2-1: SES Quarterly Electrical Load 2002 — 2009 1 9 8 d 2 0 Quarter Notes: These data are compiled from CEA quarterly tariff filings with the RCA. See Table 2-1 notes regarding second quarter 2006 and the second half of 2009. The data is CEA's combined energy generation and purchases for SES, reduced by 3% to account for CEA system losses that would not apply to local generation within the SES system. NOVEMBER 2009 7 127 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 2.6 FUTURE LOAD PROJECTIONS Because SES has a reliable transmission connection with the railbelt, the potential load served by this project is considerably larger than this project. Should the project produce more energy than SES can use, excess energy can be exported to other railbelt utilities. 2.7 PLANNED UPGRADES SES is in the process of installing new diesel generation to provide back-up electricity for the SES system. Planned upgrades on the remainder of the railbelt energy grid are not applicable to this project. 2.8 ENERGY MARKET SES is the logical customer for the electrical output of this project. More generally, the potential energy market for this project is the railbelt energy grid. The railbelt energy grid's electrical demand is considerably larger than the output of this project, and this project's output could be consumed by any of the six railbelt utilities. SES has contracted with CEA for energy supply. Under the contract, SES is obligated to purchase 100% of its energy needs from CEA, which includes SES' share of the output of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project near Homer. Under this contract, SES' electrical supply is interruptible with notice from CEA, and is also subject to outages on the transmission line from CEA. During such events, SES switches to diesel generators located in Seward. In exchange for interruptible service, SES only pays the direct costs incurred for its energy needs, and does not normally pay CEA for generation capacity. This contract is in effect through December 31, 2011, with two automatic five-year renewal periods to 2016 and 2021. To opt out of automatic contract renewal at the end of 2011, either party must provide notice by December 31, 2010. SES' cost of energy from CEA from 2002 through 2009 is presented in Figure 2-2. The energy costs presented in Figure 2-2 include energy CEA purchases on SES' behalf from the Bradley Lake project. Figure 2-2 does not include SES' costs for local diesel generation because self generation comprises a very small portion of SES' overall energy supply. NOVEMBER 2009 8 128 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment $0.080 $0.070 $0.060 $0.050 c $0.040 U w $0.030 $0.020 $0.010 $0.000 4— Jan-02 Figure 2-2: SES Cost of Energy Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Date Notes 1. Actual and predicted SES energy costs are compiled from CEA quarterly tariff filings with the RCA. Actual energy costs are CEA's reported costs for energy generation and purchase, increased by 3% to reflect cost at SES delivery instead of cost at CEA generation. NOVEMBER 2009 9 129 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 3.0 PROPOSED ENERGY RESOURCE 3.1 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION 3.1.1 Project Drainage Basin Fourth of July Creek is a steep -gradient mountain creek that originates from small alpine glaciers in the Chugach Mountains along the gulf coast of the Kenai Peninsula. The creek above the proposed intake site drains a basin 9.4 square miles in area, with elevations ranging from 750 feet to 4,883 feet. This basin is generally oriented facing the northwest, and is ringed by peaks ranging from approximately 2,600 to 4,883 feet in height. Land classification in the basin above the proposed intake location is summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Land Characterization in Project Basin Classification Area (square miles) Percentage of Basin Glaciated area 3.6 40.6% Barren ground (alpine and flood lain areas) 4.2 47.0% Forested / vegetated 1.1 12.1% Lake/water 0.03 (-17 acres) 0.3% Based upon comparison of USGS 1:63,360 series topographic maps (ca. 1975 for the project vicinity) and more recent aerial imagery (ca. 2005), the land classifications in Table 3-1 - in particular the extents of forested and glaciated areas - have not changed significantly over the last 30 years. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1-1. 3.1.2 Project Creek The headwaters of Fourth of July Creek are short, high -gradient alpine streams emanating from the termini of multiple small glaciers. Typical gradients along these headwater creeks are in the range of 15 to 50%. As these creeks converge along the upper valley floor to form Fourth of July Creek, the gradient drops to about 3 to 8%. The creek braids along the valley floor for about one mile, actively meandering across a well-defined flood plain 200 to 600 feet wide. The proposed project intake site is at the lower end of this braided reach of the creek, where it becomes confined between rock walls that are about 50 feet tall and channel the creek through a notch about 20 feet wide. Below this notch, the creek remains confined within an incised rock canyon for one mile, averaging a gradient of 12%. NOVEMBER 2009 10 130 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment The proposed powerhouse site is near the lower end of this canyon. Below the powerhouse site, the creek emerges onto a large alluvial fan and joins with Godwin Creek, which drains Godwin Glacier to the immediate north of the project basin. Before the early 1980s, the combined flow of these creeks actively meandered across this alluvial fan the remaining two miles to Resurrection Bay. The gradient across this alluvial fan varies from 1 to 6%, decreasing towards the coast. Since the lower alluvial fan was developed into an industrial park by the City of Seward in the early 1980s, Fourth of July Creek has been confined to a channel along the southern edge of the fan by a series of earth and rip -rap levees. 3.2 HYDROLOGY The project area has a maritime climate, and is exposed to frequent storms coming in from the Gulf of Alaska. Annual precipitation in the project basin is estimated at 40 to 100 inches annually, with the higher values probable in the alpine areas. While the project basin drains to the northwest away from prevailing on -shore flows, taller peaks on the northerly rim of the basin likely induce precipitation into the basin, compensating for any rain shadow effects caused by peaks along the basin's southeastern perimeter. Existing information about Fourth of July Creek's hydrology is available from: ➢ A USGS report on major flooding that occurred around Seward in 1986. This report provides information about the cause and magnitude of floods on Fourth of July Creek. ➢ USGS stream gauges in the region. These provide guidance on the expected seasonal discharge at Fourth of July Creek. ➢ Engineering reports for the development of the Fourth of July Creek Industrial Park. These provide some discrete flow measurements on Fourth of July Creek. These data indicate that the creek has good hydropower potential. IP installed a gauge at Fourth of July Creek in 2008 to directly measure discharge, but has also synthesized expected hydrology for the project in order to conduct reconnaissance -level evaluations of the project. Expected hydrology was synthesized using USGS stream flow data for three nearby basins: the Nellie Juan River, Resurrection River, and Lowell Creek. The average daily median flows for these three basins were combined and scaled to the Fourth of July Creek basin to create expected average daily flows for the project. The relative location and size of these basins compared to the project basin are shown in Figure 3-1. Basin parameters and gauge information are summarized in Table 3-2. NOVEMBER 2009 11 131 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Figure 3-1: Project Basin and Nearby Basins Used to Estimate Hydrology 0 6 12 ' - 1 INCH = 6 MILES t-' ' _ -+"�•k '„^ - mot, ' _ ,.�' 6� s� NELLIE JUAN RNER GAUGE USGS GAUGE #15237000 � -�•- ` (1950-1955 4.6 YRS)ow ,.L - -+li � } / V „\•- ek" Z fin". s i, .k_ MIN ry _•!: � � "_{4�-'��"�-� _"1 � yam^`. � � fFit W'.\ i . � •�.�Mlr�'" fp'1�r�.- s i • t! 1' x'44 r � ,�," a4 't. � '� Y � THIS PROJECT f y } FOURTH OF JULY CREEK' 2008-2009 0.9 YEARS LOWELL CREEL( CAUGE r_ • } `- USGS GAUGE 1152385W =v'; r *'" r(1965-1993, 5.4 YRS) RESURRECTION I GAUGE RRRECTION q f �b .. ESU USGS GAUGE /152377 BAY �q. t' S (1954-1968, 3.0 YRS) • S I T ' AK NOVEMBER 2009 12 132 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Table 3-2: Project Basin and Nearby USGS Basins Basin USGS Site Latitude Longitude Begin End Years of Location Gauge ID Size Elevation (DMS) (DMS) Date Date Data (sq mi) (ft) Project Basin 9.4 750 60°05'24" 149°16'41 (above Intake)Project Basin _ 10.0 100 60°05'53" 149°18'12" 9/26/08 Current 1.0 (above gauge) Nellie Juan 15237000 133 90 60°25'20" 148°43'30" 12/1/60 7/7/65 4.6 River Resurrection 15237700 169 20 60°08'30" 149°25'00" 10/1/64 6/30/68 3.7 River Lowell Creek 15238500 4.02 5 60°05'55" 149°26'35" 5/1/65 9/30/94 6.4 The expected discharge model will be validated and supplemented with actual stream discharge being measured at Fourth of July Creek. These combined data will be used to assess project feasibility. The stream gauge IP installed in 2008 consists of a Druck 0 to 5 psi pressure transducer coupled to a battery powered data recorder. IP regularly visits the stream gauge to perform maintenance on the hardware and to collect manual discharge measurements to calibrate the installation. The gauging location was selected because it is easily accessible, appears to have a stable stream bed profile and section, is considered unlikely to experience significant subsurface flow, and is considered representative of flows at the intake site. The gauged basin is 10.0 square miles in area, compared with a 9.4 square mile drainage above the proposed intake site. Figure 3-2 is a picture of the installed stream gauge, Figure 3-3 presents the stage - discharge curve developed for the gauge site, and Figure 3-4 presents the calculated discharge in Fourth of July Creek over the period of record. The expected discharge is overlaid on the measured discharge in Figure 3-4 for comparison. The expected and measured discharge agree very well. There are six noteworthy discharge anomalies in the measured discharge data on Figure 3-4. These events and their probable causes are summarized in Table 3-3. NOVEMBER 2009 13 133 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Figure 3-2: Fourth of July Creek Gauge Installation 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 E° R O 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 -3.50 Figure 3-3: Stage -Discharge Curve for Fourth of July Creek Stream Gauge -3.30 -3.10 -2.90 -2.70 -2.50 -2.30 -2.10 -1.90 -1.70 -1.50 Stage (ft) NOVEMBER 2009 14 134 U w C if LGrI ^� C N ry (r3)�ipt�751[] N v T t� O` v n G l ON G �Y s r, s G tf: G i7 N (V f ti O aN p� N P4 LL7 LL7 Q z Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Table 3-3: Discharge Anomalies in Fourth of July Creek Discharge Record Graph Key Dates of Discharge Discussion (Fig 3-5) Anomaly A October 10 to 13, Actual flood event. Eight inches of rain recorded in Seward 2008 over four days. Likely snow at higher elevations. December 13 to 19, Gauge and/or creek section affected by ice formation due to 2008 cold snap (nightly temperatures below 107). 'December 27, 2008 Gauge and/or creek section affected by ice formation due to C to January 8, 2009 cold snap (nightly temperatures below 07). D January 14 to 20, Actual flood event. Six inches of rain recorded in Seward 2009 over seven days. Likely snow at higher elevations. E January 31 to Gauge and/or creek section affected by ice formation due to February 13, 2009 cold snap (nightly temperatures below 0°F). Actual flood event. No precipitation, but day time F July 5 to 16, 2009 temperatures in the 70s and 80s OF accelerated snowpack and elacier melt. Actual flood event. 5.2 inches of rain recorded in Seward G July 20 to 30, 2009 over 13 days. This flood changed the creek section at the stream gauge, requiring a new stage -discharge curve to be developed. Temperature and precipitation data compiled from National Weather Service station logs for Seward, Alaska (Station #50-8377). Figure 3-5: Measuring Stream Discharge in Powerhouse Vicinity (April 2009) 136 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 3.2.1 Flood Potential The project is not subject to coastal flooding hazards from storm surges, waves, or tsunami. The project is subject to flooding on Fourth of July Creek and Godwin Creek. Flooding may come from two causes — instantaneous surface runoff of precipitation and surge -release flooding caused by landslides or avalanches that temporarily block a stream. Both flooding mechanisms occur on Fourth of July and Godwin Creeks. Previous floods of note include: ➢ A flood on September 15-16, 1982, with an estimated peak discharge of 4,700 cfs at the levees. This estimated discharge represents the combined discharge from Fourth of July and Godwin Creeks. The USGS estimated this flood event has a 10- to 25-year recurrence interval. 3 ➢ The USGS estimated the October 10 to 11, 1986 storm event to have a 100-year recurrence interval. Normalized instantaneous flood discharges from this storm for basins in the Seward vicinity varied from 300 to 1,000 cfs per square mile. Seward -vicinity basins similar in size to the project basin experienced estimated peak instantaneous discharges of 500 to 600 cfs per square mile. Based on these data, the 100-year peak flood discharge at the project intake site is estimated at 5,600 cfs. 3 ➢ A surge -release flood occurred on Godwin Creek during the October 1986 storm with an estimated peak discharge just upstream from the alluvial fan of 30,000 cfs. The USGS characterized this flood flow as having a velocity of 16 feet per second, width of 170 feet, and depth of 12 feet. The levees were overtopped and severely damaged, but successfully confined this flood. The 1986 storm caused surge -release floods of similar magnitude in several basins around Seward. 3 USGS analysis of the Fourth of July Creek basin indicates the presence of perched glacial deposits capable of producing surge -release floods like the 1986 Godwin Creek flood. Conditions for such floods to occur are present in the canyon between the intake and powerhouse and also upstream of the intake location. In addition to flood hazards from Fourth of July Creek, floods on Godwin Creek could endanger the powerhouse, site access, and power lines. Flood hazards based on these data are summarized in Table 3-4. 3 WRIR 87-4278. USGS; Anchorage, Alaska; 1988. NOVEMBER 2009 17 137 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Table 3-4: Initial Assessment of Project Flood Hazards Location / Design Recurrence Feature Flood Interval Basis Flow (cfs) (years) Intake 20,000 100 1,600 cfs/ sq. mi. surge -release flood up 41h of July. Powerhouse 20,000 100 1,600 cfs/ sq. mi. surge -release flood up 411, of July. Access Road 30,000 100 2,200 cfs/ sq. mi. surge -release flood u Godwin. Power Line 30,000 100 2,200 cfs/ sq. mi. surge -release flood u Godwin. 3.3 GEOTECHNICAL Geology in the project area can be generalized into two groups. Steep mountainous areas characterized by shallow or exposed bedrock, and flatter or valley bottom areas characterized by a variety of fluvial and glacial deposits. Bedrock areas in the project vicinity generally consist of alternating units of moderately metamorphosed greywacke and phyllite. Greywacke is a sedimentary rock comprised of sand -sized grains with a fair amount of fine grains. Phyllite is a low grade metamorphic rock derived from silty shale. The bedrock in the general Seward vicinity was deposited 70 to 90 million years ago. The bedrock in the project vicinity has a foliation strike about north -south, with a dip of 85 degrees. Geotechnical investigations for the industrial park development included borings and seismic profiling of the valley area. Glacial deposits in the project area include lateral moraines of loose silt, sand, and gravel, with minor amounts of clay, cobbles, and boulders. The Fourth of July Creek valley floor is composed of coarse sands and gravels with some silt. This material is coarser, including cobbles and boulders towards the head of the valley, and finer towards Resurrection Bay. Test borings indicate alluvial depths in excess of 30 to 50 feet and a consistent absence of permafrost in the valley floor. There is a large outcrop of sandstone exposed in the middle of the valley, located near the dikes upstream of the prison facility. The alluvial fan below the proposed powerhouse site would be used for access to the project and also for a transmission line from the powerhouse to the existing SES system located on the lower alluvial fan. Available information and site review indicate that conventional design and construction methods will be appropriate for these improvements. Based upon site review, the powerhouse site is comprised of alluvial or glacial deposits over bedrock. Site investigations will be necessary once a specific powerhouse site is 4 Information is condensed from Fourth of July Creek Industrial Development Feasibility Study, Arctic Environmental Engineers, March 1979. Also: Flood of 1986 at Seward Alaska: WRIR 87- 4278, USGS,1988. NOVEMBER 2009 18 138 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment identified to determine the presence, depth, and quality of bedrock. It may be desirable to anchor the powerhouse foundation to bedrock if suitable rock is present at the powerhouse site. Based upon site review, both penstock routes are comprised of a combination of shallow bedrock, organic soils, and mineral soils. Shallow bedrock areas will require ripping or blasting to establish a bench for construction and access. The greywackes and phyllites found in the area do not present unique challenges for this type of construction. Construction in areas of organic or mineral soils can be completed using conventional methods. The intake site consists of an incised rock notch roughly 50 feet deep by 20 feet wide. The exposed rock on the cliff walls appears competent and may be suitable for a concrete dam. Geotechnical investigations and engineering analysis are necessary to determine what type of dam is best for the intake site. 3.3.1 Mass Soil Movement The steep slopes, perched glacial deposits, and heavy rains characteristic of the project area are known to cause mass soil movements within the project drainage. These slides generally occur when intense rainfall causes glacial deposits on steep bedrock slopes to fail and collapse. When the resulting landslide impounds a creek or river, the surge - release floods discussed in Section 3.2.1 can result. Mass bedrock slabbing or slides are less common owing to the near -vertical strike of bedrock in the project area. In the 1986 flood, soil failures in the mountains around Seward principally occurred on slopes greater than 32 degrees (63% grade) in areas of shallow (a few inches to two feet) till soils underlain by bedrock 5. These conditions occur in the Fourth of July Creek basin, but not in proximity to the intake, penstock, or powerhouse locations. 3.3.2 Avalanche A number of well-defined avalanche chutes and hazard zones are evident in the immediate project vicinity. Avalanches along the south side of the valley have been observed with runouts of 200 feet from the foot of the mountains, and significant powder blasts out to 400 feet. 6 Avalanche hazard areas will be avoided by appropriate routing and positioning of project features. WRIR 87-4278, page 6. 6 Fourth of July Creek Industrial Development Feasibility Study, Arctic Environmental Engineers, March 1979 NOVEMBER 2009 19 139 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 3.4 PROJECT LAND The intake, penstock, and powerhouse sites are all located on land owned by the State of Alaska. Power line and project access routes are primarily on land owned by the City of Seward. These routes would also cross state land near the powerhouse site. There are no federal or private land holdings in the project footprint. Land ownership is indicated on Figure 3-6. The project area is zoned by the City of Seward as'Resource Management'. Responsible hydroelectric development is consistent with the description of the Resource Management district in the Seward City Code: "SCC 15.05.025(b)(13): Resource Management (RM): Lands which are generally undeveloped and cannot be precisely zoned due to inadequate information on the extension of public services and utilities; the suitability of the land to support commercial, residential, industrial or public uses, and other possible environmental considerations." 3.4.1 Site Control Requirements IP will require legal access to the project site across City of Seward land. There is a 100- foot wide section line easement between sections 8 and 17 that may be appropriate for part of the power line and site access road, but site conditions will require some deviations from this easement. Authorization can come in the form of platting a right- of-way or access easement to the site, or executing some other form of access agreement with the City of Seward. IP will require authorization to develop the project on state land. Consultations with ADNR indicate this will consist of easements for the penstock, access, and power line routes, and leases for the intake and powerhouse sites. NOVEMBER 2009 20 140 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Figure 3-6: Land Ownership in Project Vicinity LEGEND NOTES: 1. UNHATCHED AREAS ARE OWNED 0= COv 0= SEI ARU — STATE LAND UN_ESS ANNOTATED OTHERWISE. / CHUGACH NAI ONAL 2. PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR FOREST F30LJNDARY ILLUSTRATIVE AND PANNING PURPOSES ONLY- SFNARF1 CITY LIMITS 3. LAND STATUS AND OWNERSHIP IS BASED U-ON REVIEW OF STATE STATUS PLATS. RECCRUEU PLATS, AND OTHER • �� PENSTOCK/ACCFSS PUBLIC INFORMA'T ON. LAND STATUS AND OWNLRSHN SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS SUITABLE FOR PLANNING I� �� P044'ER/ACCF.iS PURPOSES ONLY. INFORMATION ON THIS VAP SHOULD BE 0 _ T15 V'E:1?II=1ED PRIOR 10 USE FOR OIHER PURPOSES - MILES 4. VAP EXTENTS ARE WITHIN 5E'd�AR0 VER DIAN, T1 S, R1 F. 5 4 CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST - - - CITY LIMITS --•71 � s 9 POWERHOUSE ENSTO — ` LOCATION w ROUTES —s s i Q 4 RY ± INTAKE LOCATION 17 96 O EWAs I � I II POWER LINE I �49. 1FARK Ili ACCESS ROUTES Ix W 19 20 NOVEMBER 2009 21 /11 141 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN 4.1 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Several access and transmission corridors to the project are possible from the existing roads and transmission lines in the project area. The preferred route will depend on site conditions, land status, technical and economic factors. The topography of the project area creates well-defined intake and powerhouse sites. A variety of intake configurations may be viable. Defining a preferred intake configuration will require additional field investigations and engineering analysis. The type of intake will in part be determined by the penstock routing - there are two general penstock routes that warrant consideration. One penstock route (Route 'A') requires an approximately 40-foot tall dam at the intake location to provide sufficient elevation at the project intake to cross a saddle and head around the north side of a hill to avoid steep sidehilling along the canyon. This route is about 6,100 feet long, rejoining Fourth of July Creek at the powerhouse site just below the canyon. An alternate route (Route 'B') can utilize a shorter intake structure, following the north side of the creek along the rim of the canyon for about 5,100 feet down to the powerhouse. For Route B to use a shorter dam or intake weir, significant rock benching along the upper 1,000 to 1,500 feet of the canyon would be required, or the penstock would need to be hung from the canyon walls. Route B includes about 500 feet of grades near 50%. Because of the steep grades and location in the upper canyon, separate penstock and access routes will be necessary for a significant portion of Route B. Additionally, Route B will likely have greater erosion potential than Route A. Project parameters for the two different penstock routes and key route considerations are summarized in Table 4-1. Penstock routes are shown in Figure 4-1. NOVEMBER 2009 22 142 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Table 4-1: Comparison of Fourth of July Creek Project Configurations Penstock Route ' A' Penstock Route' B' Parameter with Dam without Dam Intake Elevation (ft) 790' 750' Powerhouse Elevation (ft) 120' 120' Gross Head (ft) _ 670' _ 630' Net Head (ft) 636' 602' Penstock Length (ft) 6,100' of 5,100, of and diameter (inches) 48" pipe 48" pipe Design Flow (cfs) 120 120 Installed Capacity (kW) 5,400 kW _ 5,100 kW Plant Capacity Factor 47% 47% Minimum Annual Output (kW) 240 kW 230 kW Net Annual Energy Generation (kWh) 21,700,000 kWh 20,500,000 kWh Transmission Length (mi) 2 miles 2 miles Penstock Route Description Around knob Along rim of canyon Penstock Length 61100' 5,100' Maximum grade _ 20% 50% Intake 40 foot tall dam 15 foot tall structure Route requires less sidehilling in rock, fewer steep grades, less work near the creek and along steep slopes. Route A may encounter some marshy areas. Discussion Route B is shorter, but likely involves more rock work, steeper grades, more clearing, and greater erosion potential. NOVEMBER 2009 23 143 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Figure 4-1: Proposed Project Layout and Penstock Route Options POWERHOUSE SECTJ01 ELEV: 120' 262_ 2t « 5qo 772 ,�rtis i,• 3-ir! - Bb3 �LJ gig r PENSTOCK; a �� ACCESS ROUTE'S' LENGTH: 5 100' V4 PENSTOCK/ ` - - --- ACCESS ROUTE 'A' - � LENGTH: 6,100' NOTFS: - i ? 117_9; 1 2n—I.1FTFR CONTOURS ARF FROM USCS 1.25,000 SCALE QUAD MA.P SE'NARD A-7 SE. �--qy$LLE'JAIICNS AH.L �'ABELLD IN FLLI. 2. MAP BACKGRQUND IS AE dAL WAOERY ,Z FROM AFROME?RI: , INC. DATED 6/17/95. ram. � iG INTAKE STRUCTURE' ELEV: 750' 0 600 1200 SPILLWAY:790' E' Bg - -- `` r:R NOVEMBER 2009 24 144 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 4.2 RECOMMENDED PROJECT Defining the optimal project configuration will require additional engineering studies. At this stage in project development, penstock Route A — around the knob, is considered a superior route. A site plan showing the recommended project is shown in Figure 4-1. The project's overall configuration and size is quite similar with the Kasidaya Creek Project recently completed by Alaska Power and Telephone, Inc. near Skagway, Alaska. These two projects are compared in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Comparison of Kasidaya Creek and Fourth of July Creek Projects Fourth of July Creek Kasidaya Creek Attribute (Commissioned 2009, (Proposed, Route A) for com arison) Installed Capacity 5.4 MW 3.0 MW Operational Mode Run of River Run of River Average Annual n„t „t 21,700 MWh 11,900 MWh Gross Head 670 ft 537 ft Intake Structure 100 ft long x 40 ft tall 70 ft long x 16 ft tall reinforced concrete Hydraulic Capacity 120 cfs 88 cfs Penstock Length 6,100 ft 4,000 ft Penstock Diameter 48 inches 42 inches Powerhouse TBD 24' x 48' Metal Building Capital Cost $10.8 to $21.6 million $10 million (reconnaissance estimate) Capital Cost per Installed kW $2,000 to $4,000 zer kW $3,330 per kW 4.3 ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION Discharge data collected to date at Fourth of July Creek supports continued use of the expected hydrology developed from adjacent USGS-gauged river basins for project analysis. Based upon the expected hydrology and measured gross head of the project, average annual net energy production is estimated at 21,700 MWh. For perspective, this is approximately 1/3rd of the annual energy SES purchases from CEA. Expected seasonal energy generation is shown in Figure 4-2. NOVEMBER 2009 25 145 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 6,000 5,000 3 c 4,000 FI ri rd V i-i 3 3,000 0 v 00 w y d 2,000 T R 1,000 0 Figure 4-2: Expected Seasonal Power Output Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Date 4.4 CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM DESIGN 4.4.1 Site Access Two site access points are possible. These are (1) the City of Seward's quarry or (2) the road leading from the City's water wells east past the north perimeter of the Spring Creek Correctional Facility to the northeastern end of the levee system. Access from either point could traverse north along the levee to the section line between sections 8 and 17; and then follow the section line to the powerhouse location. The overall length of the access road would be about 1.2 miles from the quarry or 0.7 miles from the levee. Either route would be starting from restricted -access roads on City of Seward property or easements, requiring IP to coordinate access with the City of Seward and/or the correctional facility. Design of the road will need to consider the flooding characteristics of both Godwin and Fourth of July Creeks. Because there is a high probability for both of these creeks to shift their course during the design life of this project, it may be appropriate to structure the access agreement with the City of Seward for a low -impact road constructed from local material that can be readily abandoned, repaired, or rerouted after flood events. There is an ample supply of suitable aggregates on the flood plain for such road construction. NOVEMBER 2009 26 146 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Studv and Initial Feasibilitv Assessment 4.4.2 Power Line Approximately two miles of new power line are needed to connect the powerhouse with the existing 69 kV line along Nash Road. This line may be an overhead line similar to the existing lines in the area. The new line would likely start at the existing substation at the corner of Nash and Mustang Roads. The power line route through the existing industrial park, correctional facility, and quarry developments will need to be coordinated with existing land uses and property owners. Two potential routes are shown on Figure 3-7. The last 3,000 feet of the power line route near the powerhouse traverses the active alluvial fan of Godwin and Fourth of July Creeks. Avalanche hazards near the mountains require that this line be located out on the alluvial fan where it is exposed to flood hazards. During the design life of the project, any alignment through this area has a good chance of being inundated by floods and may be subject to inundation, flood velocity, and erosion hazards. The most practical way to mitigate for these hazards is to design the approximately 8 to 12 power poles that will be located in this area to withstand the flood hazards. Because of the flood hazards in this area, which includes significant scour potential, burying this part of the power line is not practical. 4.4.3 Powerhouse The powerhouse will be located on a hill above the alluvial fan at the lower end of the Fourth of July Creek canyon at an elevation of about 120 feet. This will provide flood protection from both Fourth of July and Godwin Creeks. The exact siting and elevation of the powerhouse should include analysis of potential flood stages at the powerhouse site from Godwin and Fourth of July Creeks. A small parking area will be located at the powerhouse. Lighting will be installed at the powerhouse. The powerhouse is proposed to house two Pelton-type impulse turbines. Each turbine would be a two -jet machine with a rated capacity of 2.7 MW. The total installed capacity of the project would be 5.4 MW. Each turbine would drive a synchronous generator. The powerhouse would also house controls, switchgear, and associated equipment necessary for operation of the project. 4.4.4 Penstock The penstock (using Route 'A') will be 48 inches in diameter and approximately 6,100 feet long. The penstock will generally be co -located with the access trail to the intake. It will be buried where practical. Where shallow bedrock or other adverse conditions preclude burial, the penstock will be built above grade on pipe supports. Power and communications will be installed to the intake to operate and control the intake systems. These will be installed adjacent to the penstock. NOVEMBER 2009 27 147 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 4.4.5 Intake The intake will be located in a bedrock notch at the upper end of the Fourth of July Creek Canyon. This notch is approximately 20 to 60 feet wide and 50 feet tall, and accommodates the entire flow of Fourth of July Creek. Visual inspection of the notch suggests that it may be suitable for a 40-foot tall concrete dam. Geotechnical investigations would be necessary to confirm this and guide design of such a dam. If a concrete dam is not feasible at this site, a rock -fill dam with concrete faces may warrant consideration. Figure 4-3: View Looking Downstream at Intake Location (April 2009) 4.5 CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION DESIGN Utility dispatchers with SES and/or CEA would have the ability to dispatch the project. Project controls would be automated, and would allow for authorized remote access, interrogation, and control of the project works. 4.6 MAJOR REMAINING TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.6.1 Hydrology IP has collected approximately one year of discharge data at Fourth of July Creek. Continued stream gauging is appropriate to improve the characterization of Fourth of NOVEMBER 2009 28 148 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment July Creek's hydrology. This will be useful in designing the project for flood events and sizing the project. 4.6.2 Geotechnical Geotechnical investigations are needed to identify a specific powerhouse site, determine feasibility and design parameters for a dam at the intake site, and to determine the extent and nature of rock work needed for site access and penstock construction. 4.6.3 Topographic Survey A detailed topography survey of the project area will aid in locating and designing the access road, transmission line, powerhouse site, intake structure, penstock route, and other project features. Given the extent and rugged nature of the area involved, a LIDAR survey may be cost-effective. 4.6.4 Penstock Routing Two penstock routes are apparent. At this time, Route A around the hill, appears more favorable than Route B along the canyon. Further technical and economic analysis will determine which route is superior. 4.6.5 Intake Configuration The intake configuration will depend on the outcome of technical and economic analyses of the intake and penstock design options. If Route 'A' is preferred, as assumed in this study, then the intake will consist of an approximately 40-foot tall dam creating an impoundment approximately three acres in area. Intake works would be located at one end of the dam or built into the adjacent shore. Intake works would filter out any materials deleterious to the project works. NOVEMBER 2009 29 149 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 5.0 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Insufficient information exists to prepare an accurate financial profile of this project. Unknowns on the project hydrology, geology, permit conditions, financing arrangements, contractual arrangements, operating costs, and other factors preclude developing detailed project financial projections at this time. The next step in development of this project is a feasibility study to provide answers for these unknowns. Based upon existing information and reconnaissance activities, it appears probable that the project can be developed for an installed cost in the range of $2,500 to $4,000 per kW of installed capacity. For the proposed 5.4 MW installation, the total installed cost would be in the range of $13.5 to 21.6 million. Depending on how the project is financed, the project's benefit -cost ratio ranges from 0.9 to 2.7, and energy from the project could cost from $0.04 to $0.12 per kWh. This compares favorably with projected energy costs for other proposed energy sources for the railbelt, and also compares favorably with long-term forecasts for gas -fired electrical generation. Table 5-1 summarizes economic projections for the project. Assumptions used to generate the estimates in Table 5-1 are discussed on the following pages. Table 5-1: Summary of Economic Estimates for Fourth of July Creek Project Item Low Range High Range PROJECT COSTS Probable Installed Cost $13,500,000 $21,600,000 Est. Annual Costs (O,M,R & R, etc.) (50 years) Est. Annual Debt Service (30 ey ars) ESTIMATED PRESENT VALUE OF PROJECT COSTS $285,000 $600,000 $19,000,000 $785,000 $1,900,000 $49,100,000 PROJECT BENEFITS Est. Displaced Energy Generation (kWh / year) 21,700,000 kWh / year Est. Wholesale Cost of Energy (Avoided Cost) $0.077 / kWh Est. Annual Value of Displaced Fuel ($ / year) $1,670,000 / yr Estimated Present Value of Displaced Fuel (50 years) $42,500,000 Est. Net Gain in CE_A/SES Grid Efficiency 4% Est. Reduction in Grid Energy Losses (kWh/yr) _ _ 866,000 kWh/yr Est. Annual Value of Energy $66,300 / yr Est. Present Value of Improved Grid Efficiency (50 years) $1,700,000 Est. Annual Revenue from Environmental Attributes $0 $434,000 Est. Present Value of Environmental Attributes (50 years) $0 $8,500,000 Estimated Present Value of Project Benefits (50 years) $44,200,000 $52,700,000 Estimated Benefit -Cost Ratio (Energy Only) 2.3 0.9 Estimated Benefit -Cost Ratio (All Attributes) 2.8 1.1 ESTIMATED COST OF ENERGY ($ per kWh) $0.04 / kWh $0.12 / kWh NOVEMBER 2009 30 150 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 5.1 PROJECT COSTS The estimated installed cost of the project is based on a unit installed cost of $2,500 to $4,000 per kW. The 3.0 MW Kasidaya Creek project near Skagway, commissioned in 2009, was completed at an installed cost of $3,300 per kW. The technical parameters and configuration of Kasidaya Creek is very similar to Fourth of July Creek. Annual costs for operations, maintenance, repair, replacement, and margins are estimated to be in the range of $0.013 to $0.036 per kWh. The annual estimated debt service payment is estimated to be in the range of $0.028 to $0.088 per kWh. The low -end of this range assumes the lower installed cost, a $2.5 million grant, and debt financing over 30 years at 4.0%. The high -end of this range assumes the higher installed cost, no grant, and debt financing over 30 years at 8.0%. 5.2 PROJECT BENEFITS 5.2.1 Fuel Displacement The estimated cost of energy displaced by the project, $0.077 per kWh, is based on an assumed long-term average price of $9.00 per MCF of natural gas and an average railbelt generation heat rate of 8,500 btu/kWh. 5.2.2 Grid Efficiency SES' existing energy deliveries from CEA incur approximately 3% losses on the CEA system between point of generation and point of wholesale delivery to SES. Additional losses on the SES system between delivery and use are estimated at 1.5%. By comparison, energy from this project would incur estimated losses on the SES system of 0.5%, increasing the overall efficiency of SES and CEA's transmission and distribution systems. 5.2.3 Environmental Attributes The project may be able to earn revenue from its environmental attributes. This will depend on the project's eligibility for government and private sector green energy programs and markets. The range of revenues from environmental attributes is based on a rate of $0.00 to $0.02 per kWh. 5.2.4 Non -Monetary Benefits The project will likely have significant non -monetary benefits. These may include: NOVEMBER 2009 31 151 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment ➢ Local employment. The project will work to employ qualified local residents during construction. During operation, the project would prefer to employ local residents for periodic maintenance activities. ➢ Recreational opportunities. By providing a year-round road to the upper Fourth of July Creek alluvial fan and also the alpine country along the penstock and around the intake, the project will improve public access to these areas. The land owners — the City of Seward and State of Alaska — will need to determine how this improved access is managed. ➢ Electric system reliability/stability. Having 5.4 MW of local generation will tend to improve the reliability and stability of the local electric grid. ➢ Educational opportunities. There is an opportunity for IP to work with AVTEC on training in the construction and operation of hydroelectric projects during both the construction and operational phases of this project. This synergy would benefit IP, AVTEC, and the state of Alaska in promoting a skilled workforce that is knowledgeable about hydro projects. NOVEMBER 2009 32 152 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 6.0 PERMITS The following permits would be required for study, construction, and/or operation of this project. 6.1 FEDERAL PERMITS 6.1.1 FERC Licensing This project does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The FERC issued a finding of non -jurisdiction for this project on November 6, 2008. 6.1.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits The project would consist of placing structures within waters of the United States, and therefore requires a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The project is expected to require an individual permit from the COE. Once IP delivers drawings of the project intake works and wetlands impacts, the COE will issue a jurisdictional determination and begin the applicable permit processes. 6.1.3 U.S. Coast Guard Permits Not applicable to this project. 6.1.4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the project during construction. ADEC has assumed responsibility for managing the SWPPP program from USEPA. 6.1.5 Federal Aviation Administration Not applicable. 6.2 STATE OF ALASKA PERMITS 6.2.1 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Permits 6.2.1.1 Coastal Zone Consistency Review The project is located within the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone District. IP submitted a Coastal Project Questionnaire to ADNR's Division of Coastal and Ocean NOVEMBER 2009 33 153 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Management on August 27, 2008. Coastal zone consistency review is on hold until the COE determines what COE permits the project will require. 6.2.1.2 Dam Safety The state's Dam Safety Program has jurisdiction over dams exceeding 10 feet in height or impounding more than 50 acre-feet of water. The proposed intake structure for this project falls under these criteria. Dam safety review is an involved technical process to verify that the dam and reservoir are adequately designed so as to not pose a public safety hazard. 6.2.1.3 Land Authorizations The project would be located on city and state land. The project will require easements for the penstock, access, and transmission alignments, and leases for the powerhouse and intake sites. IP filed applications for these easements and leases on August 27, 2008 (ADL 230487). 6.2.1.4 Tidelands Permits Not applicable to this project. 6.2.1.5 Material Sale Agreement Use of on -site materials for construction would require a material sale agreement with the owner of the applicable subsurface estate. Material sources have not been identified for this project. Potential sources include the City of Seward's quarry in the Fourth of July Creek industrial area or cut or borrow sites within the project footprint. Some of the timber cleared for the project may have commercial value. Commercially valuable timber would be sold in accordance with the land owner's preferences. 6.2.1.6 Water Use Permit / Water Rights The project will require an appropriation of water from Fourth of July Creek. A water rights application was completed and submitted to ADNR on August 28, 2008 (LAS 27051). All waters diverted from the creek at the intake would be returned to the creek at the tailrace, with no downstream change in water quantity or quality. 6.2.2 Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) Permits 6.2.2.1 Fish Habitat Permit According to the Atlas of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes, maintained by AFDG, the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat on NOVEMBER 2009 34 154 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Fourth of July Creek occurs below the proposed powerhouse location. IP submitted a Fish Habitat Permit application to ADFG on August 27, 2008. Action on this permit is on hold awaiting completion of the coastal zone consistency review. IP is working with ADFG staff to coordinate a site visit to the project powerhouse site to facilitate processing of this permit. 6.2.3 Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) Permits Not applicable. 6.2.4 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Permits 6.2.4.1 DEC Wastewater or Potable Water Permits Human wastes during construction would be handled by portable latrines and refuse receptacles. Human wastes during operations of the project would be handled off -site or by a DEC -permitted wastewater system located at the powerhouse. 6.2.4.2 Solid Waste Disposal Permit Solid wastes generated during construction would be hauled offsite to an approved disposal facility, burned on -site under a burn permit, or buried on -site in a permitted monofill, as appropriate to the nature of the waste and local conditions. Solid waste generation during operations would be minimal, and would be disposed of off -site. 6.2.4.3 Air Quality Permit Not applicable to this project. 6.2.4.4 Bulk Fuel Permit Not applicable to this project. 6.2.5 Regulatory Commission of Alaska In order to sell wholesale electricity to a public utility, state law requires that IP either receive a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) or be exempted from RCA regulations. Either action would be taken by the RCA based upon a filing brought by IP. Separately, any contract for wholesale power purchase between IP and a public utility requires RCA review and approval before it can take effect. NOVEMBER 2009 35 155 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 6.3 LOCAL PERMITS 6.3.1 Kenai Peninsula Borough Because the entire project is located within Seward's city limits, no Borough permits are required for the project. 6.3.2 Plan Review The City of Seward has a plan review process this project would follow. The plan review would cover items such as planning and zoning review and approval, code compliance, coordination with utilities, any variances that may be required, and other local matters. Plan review does not normally occur until engineering documents have been completed. Because of the unique nature of this project and several key coordination issues, IP has held preliminary meetings with city personnel to begin coordination for this project. 6.3.3 Site Access All roads and property in the developed portion of the Fourth of July Creek valley are owned by the City of Seward. The city also owns sections 8 and 17, which will be crossed by the project access road and power line. Rights of way for existing roads in this area have not been platted. Access to the project site would require an access agreement with the City of Seward. 6.3.4 Utility Agreement The project will connect to the SES electric grid. This will require an interconnection agreement. If the project sells electricity to SES, a power purchase agreement will also be required. 6.3.5 Other Local Permits The project will need to obtain other approvals, such as obtaining a city business license. NOVEMBER 2009 36 156 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Resource agencies were consulted during completion of the Coastal Project Questionnaire. The project area is not designated as critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species. 7.2 FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 7.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Previous studies and field observations have identified the general project area as being habitat for black bear, moose, and winter mountain goat range. The area is likely habitat for most of the wildlife and game typically found in south central Alaska. The project area has not been designated critical habitat for any species. The project is not expected to significantly affect terrestrial wildlife or its habitat. Project features will not alter a significant amount of habitat area, nor will they deter natural migration through the project vicinity. The total project footprint, including access roads and utility alignments, is estimated to be less than 30 acres spread over a distance of over three miles. 7.2.2 Fisheries The project is not expected to have any significant effect on fish, fish habitat, or fisheries. The bypassed reach of Fourth of July Creek is not listed by ADFG as an anadromous stream. Natural barriers in the vicinity of the powerhouse site likely limit the upstream extent of any resident fish that may be present in the creek. This project is a run -of -river project, so it will not affect water quality or quantity in anadromous fish habitat below the powerhouse. The project may include a 40-foot tall dam at the intake. This dam will initially create a small reservoir, but the reservoir is too small to significantly affect water quality. This reservoir will quickly fill with sediment, eliminating any long-term potential to affect water quality. 7.3 WATER AND AIR QUALITY The project will not affect air or water quality. 7.4 FLOOD CONTROL The project does not offer significant flood protection potential to downstream improvements. The project may include a 40-foot tall dam at the intake site. The NOVEMBER 2009 37 157 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment impoundment behind this dam would initially have a volume of approximately 80 acre- feet, but will rapidly collect sediment, reducing its effective volume. Even at its initial volume, this impoundment represents less than three minutes' flow at the estimated 100- year design flood of 20,000 cfs. Accordingly, this project offers very little if any flood control or protection for downstream improvements along Fourth of July Creek. 7.5 WETLAND AND PROTECTED AREAS The project would include selected disturbance or fill of some wetlands areas. At a minimum, this would include the intake and tailrace structures. The penstock and project access routes will likely also require some disturbance or fill of wetlands. 7.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES No significant archaeological or historical resources are known to be present in the project area. 7.7 LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Not applicable. 7.8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND AVIATION The project will not affect telecommunications operations in the area. The project would include construction of new overhead power lines in the Fourth of July Creek area. These would be similar in scale to existing lines in the area, and would not affect aviation. 7.9 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS RESOURCES The project would consist of the following visual elements: ➢ A road continuing up the Fourth of July Creek alluvial fan from the existing road system approximately 1.5 miles to the powerhouse. This road would likely be gravel, and would include one or more bridges. ➢ A transmission line between the existing substation in the industrial park and the powerhouse. For technical reasons, this line will likely be required to be overhead. ➢ A powerhouse structure at the top of the Fourth of July Creek alluvial fan, near the bottom of the canyon. This building would be much smaller than the major buildings at the Spring Creek Correctional Facility or Seward Ship Yard, and would be located about 1.5 miles farther up the valley than existing buildings. NOVEMBER 2009 38 158 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment ➢ An access road extending up the hill at the head of the lower Fourth of July Creek valley. This road would initially follow the old logging road through the clear cut on this hill, and then wrap around the hill and towards the intake site. The penstock would generally parallel this road, and may be buried or above grade. Shortly after this road exits the old timber sale clear cut area, it would wrap around the hill and is no longer visible from existing readily accessible locations on the ground. ➢ An intake structure at the 750-foot elevation on Fourth of July Creek. The intake site is not visible from existing readily accessible locations on the ground. None of the project features would be prominently visible from downtown Seward or vantage points on Resurrection Bay. The project's greatest visual impact is expected to be from the air, for example from the vantage point of air traffic between Seward and tourist operations on Godwin Glacier. 7.10 MITIGATION MEASURES None proposed. NOVEMBER 2009 39 159 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment 8.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the findings in this reconnaissance study, the project appears viable and warrants continued study. The next steps to advance the project include additional data collection and a feasibility study; preliminary engineering; continued processing of permits necessary for the project; and continued discussion with SES regarding a power sales contract. The scope of the feasibility study and preliminary engineering includes: Feasibility Study Tasks ➢ Continue to measure stream discharge to characterize basin hydrology. ➢ Obtain detailed topographic data over the project footprint to support design and analysis activities. ➢ Conduct analysis of flood stages at key project locations to guide project design. ➢ Conduct geotechnical investigations. ➢ Conduct engineering analysis to determine optimal penstock routing. ➢ Project cost estimate and economic analysis. ➢ Draft Business Plan. ➢ Feasibility study report. Permitting asks ➢ Negotiate access agreement with City of Seward. ➢ Negotiate power sales terms and interconnection requirements with SES. ➢ Continue to process all permit applications listed in Section 6. Preliminary Engineering Tasks ➢ Conceptual dam design. ➢ Penstock routing and design. ➢ Powerhouse siting and design. ➢ Access routing and design. ➢ Transmission routing and design, interconnection design. NOVEMBER 2009 40 160 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX A — PUBLIC MEETINGS AND MEETING RECORDS NOVEMBER 2009 APPENDIX A PAGE 1 161 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Reconnaissance Study and Initial Feasibility Assessment Meetings to discuss project issues with various stakeholders are summarized below. Meeting records and/or minutes as appropriate are provided on the following pages. Table A-1: Summary of Project Meetings Venue / Audience Meeting Date Subject Participants Meet to provide overview of project. September 25, 2008 Willard Dunham, Vice- Discussed key issues that will need to be Mayor addressed, including power sales contract and site access. City Manager, Phillip December 5, 2008 Oates SES Manager Tim Barnum February 23, 2009 City Council Meeting April 1, 2009 Ports and Commerce Advisory Board Introduction and overview of project, scope, status. Discussed key issues that will need to be addressed, including power sales contract and site access. Gave a presentation on the project to the city council, answered questions from the council. Gave a presentation on the project to the PACAB, solicited questions from the PACAB and attendees. Ports and Commerce Gave a project update to PACAB to September 2, 2009 Advisory Board report on findings of reconnaissance and stream gauging efforts. NOVEMBER 2009 APPENDIX A PAGE 2 162 Citv of'Seward, Alaska Fehrua,l' 23, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Cin? Cnuncit Alinures Volume 38, Pct.Qe22 The February 23, 2009 regular meeting of the Seward City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Clark Corbridge. OPENING CEREMONY Lt. Butch Tiner led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ROIL CALL There were present: Clark Corbridge presiding and Bob Valdatta Tom Smith comprising a quorum of the Council; and Jean Bardarson Betsy Kellar Kirsten Vesel, .Assistant City Manager Johanna Dollerhide, Assistant City Clerk ABSENT — Willard Dunham, Marianna Kell CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON ANY SUB.IECT EXCEPT THOSE ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING Matt Gray, representing Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance, updated the council on the alliance's recent events. He commended the i larbormaster's efforts on containment in the harbor. The alliance's community program would start back up in the spring for bear resistant cans and dumpsters. The alliance's annual spring beach and river program would be kicking off on May 9, 2009. Walter Corrigan spoke in support of Resolution 2009-012. The Fire Department's current vehicle was beyond its service life. It was a second hand vehicle that had served the department well, and Corrigan thought this purchase was a cost effective item. Theresa Butts thanked the council for squeezing in some support for net metering for legislation. She wanted to clear up a misconception that windmills were dirty power. Butts announced there were devices available at the library forcheck out to plug into appliances to see how much energy was consumed and how much could be saved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Motion (BardarsonlSmitli) Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda Resolution 2009-01 1 was placed on the regular agenda upon the request of Councilmember Kellar. 163 City of .Seward. Alaskrr Cit}, Council Minutes Fehrunry 23. 2009 Volume 38, Puke23 Motion Passed Unanimous The clerk read the following approved consent agenda items; The February 9, 2009 Regular And Special City Council Meeting Minutes Were Approved. SPECIAL ORDERS, PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS Proclamations and Awards The "Adelmann Award" was presented to Seward High School Senior Lee Yoo. A proclamation was read to welcome the 53"" Annual Western District Convention of the American Legion. Borough Assembly Report. Borough Assembly Representative Ron Long - not present. City Manager's Report. Assistant City Manager Kirsten Vesel stated $40,944.00 had been authorized for Cable Fault Locators to rind underground cable faults. The Seward Community Library recently received kudos for service outputs in the new 2009 Library Journal Index of Public Library service. The Seward Community Library was given a star -p- rating within the peer group category, A total of 7115 libraries were rated nationwide with six libraries in Alaska earning star reviews. The Chamber of Commerce had reported that Holland American Cruise Line had signed an agreement to stay in Seward for six years. The Alaska Railroad had signed a letter agreeing to all terms and conditions with Aurora Energy concerning the tug boat agreement for Seward (a 3000 horse power tug operated by Amak Towing Co. out of Ketchikan). The City of Seward Fire Department had issued an "Intent to Award" notice for the contract for a Triple Combination Pumper to Spencer Manufacturing, Harbor/SMIC: A 50 foot recreational vessel sunk in the Harbor (in its slip) on the eveningof Friday, February 13, 2009. The owner and USCG were immediately notified, and a local salvage company was hired to re -float the vessel and provide additional containment. The City was reviewing inspection reports for Seward Ship's Dry Dock and should have a report ready for Council in early March. The South Harbor Uplands area (created by dredged material from the Harbor Expansion Project) was platted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 17, 2009. The plat would come before Council soon. Finance: The Finance Director attended her first meeting of the Alaska Retirement Management Board in Juneau this past week and would be serving on two sub -committees on the .__. Board; the audit committee and the real estate investment committee. The Finance Department had been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 164 CitY of Seward. Alaska City Council Mirttrtes Fc brUar .y 23. _"OU9 T Vohmte 38, Page 24 comprehensive annual financial report, for the tenth consecutive year. The finance department staff __.. continued to prepare for the annual audit which would take place from March 23-April 3, 2009. The City anticipated receiving the final permit for the Japanese Creek levee/road project next week from the Anny Corps of Engineers, which would allow the City to proceed with property acquisition and with issuing a Request fbr Information to begin the initial phase of construction. The permit with DOT had not been finalized, and the city was awaiting the outcome of their department review of the permit application. The Public Works Department completed and submitted two questionnaires to the State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's Alaska Clean Water Fund (ACWF) loan fiend program for the State's Fiscal Year 2010 Intended Use Plan for two projects: North Seward Water Storage Tank & Pumping Facility and a New Lift Station No. 3 Electrical Building. Sports and Recreation: Visiting coach T'Neisha Turner met with students and athletes with an all school assembly at the Middle School and with the High School basketball teams. She was here promoting Mini Camp basics as well as the basketball camps coming this summer. Community Development: Bob Hicks received his Flood Plain Management Certification from the Association of State Floodplain Managers. The Planning and Zoning Commission recently approved two conditional use permits allowing Captain Jack's Seafood Locker to operate a commercial processing business in Leirer subdivision, and allowing Blue Rose Enterprises to convert ..r first floor commercial vendor space into additional residential apartments. The South Harbor Upland plat was approved and would come to council for approval prior to being sent to the Borough. An Alaska Harbor Observation Network Tower was approved as an unlisted use in the Harbor Commercial District. Other Reports, Special Presentations A presentation was given by Dan Hertrich of Polar Consult on a proposed Hydro- electric project at the 4th of July Creek area. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ordinance 2009-002, Amending Seward City Code Title 15, Land Uses Allowed Table 15.10.225 To Allow Lodging, Multi -Family Dwelling Apartment By Conditional Use Permit In The Harbor Commercial Zoning District. Community Development Director Christy Terry stated the intent of the Ordinance and gave some background information. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval for this zoning change. There were no life safety concerns and it also received support by the harbormaster. Notice of the public hearing being posted and published as required by law was noted and the public hearing was opened. 165 City of Scivard. Alaska Cin, Council ,Minutes F'ebmaiy 23, 2009 volume 38, Page25 Dennis Bailey, owner of Harbor Lights Condominiums, spoke in support of this Ordinance. They had tried very hard to keep the lodging as monthly rentals and it was consistently proving to be difficult. They were now being approached for summer rentals to be able to make ends meet and were now hoping to provide a nightly rental in addition even though they preferred the monthly rentals. Motion (Bardarson/Kellar) Enact Ordinance 2009-002 Kellar commended the owners of the condominiums on their service to the community and she supported this ordinance. Motion Passed Unanimous UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2009-011, Accepting A Grant In The Amount Of $662.11 From The Alaska Highway Safety Office For 2009 Every Fifteen Minutes Program And Appropriating Funds. Motion (Bardarson/Smith) Approve Resolution 2009-011 Vesel stated administration was in support of this resolution and summarized the Every Fifteen Minutes Program. Kellar thought it sounded like a great program, but she had researched and found information indicating the program may not be that effective. She was concerned with the intensity and severity of the program. She feared the program could come off as scare tactics or could have even worse effects on the youth. Kellar would not be supporting this resolution because of the approach it took to educate Seward's youth. In response to Valdatta, Police Lieutenant Butch Tiner believed there were other costs other than the grant funded portion. It was volunteer time, as well as some SPD time. The $662 awarded was jList to cover the additional costs not already taken care of. The extra costs to the city would be personnel costs, basically staff time. Motion Passed Yes: Smith, Bardarson, Valdatta, Corbridge No: Kellar Resolution 2009-012, Authorizing The City Manager To Purchase One Light Rescue Fire Apparatus From Spencer Manufacturing, Inc., And A Mobile Radio And Automatic External Defibrillator From Other Vendors, In An Amount Not To Exceed $161,877.00 Subject To Obtaining Financing And Appropriating Funds From The Motor Pool Internal Service Fund. Motion (Kellar/Smith) Approve Resolution 2009-012 City of Seward, Alaska City Council Rinutes Februar-v 23, 2009 Volume 3b, Page26 Vesel stated administration's support for this resolution. This would be a multi purpose vehicle that would be replacing two fire department vehicles that were old and dilapidated. Staff anticipated a reduction in fuel costs. Fire Chief Dave Squires reported this vehicle would have everything needed to combine the light rescue vehicle and brush truck. Squires answered some questions on the technical specifications of the vehicle and stated no capabilities would be lost with this purchase. in response to Kellar, Squires stated both new units would be housed in the fire station, with one old vehicle going over to SMIC. Motion Passed Unanimous INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS (No action required 41h of July Creek Hydro Electric Project Informational Item. COUNCIL COMMENTS Smith thought the fire department made a smart decision with this purchase. Valdatta complimented the Harbor for their informational letter going out to boat owners. Bardarson agreed with Valdatta on the Harbor letter. CITIZENS' COMMENTS Theresa Butts hoped PACAB could be involved with the Hydro Project proposal. She thanked Kellar for her comments on the Every Fifteen Minutes Program. She hoped the SMIC fire response would remain adequate. Corbridge responded to Butts that this hydro project proposal was in a very preliminary state, and was sure if it progressed, PACAB would be brought on board on this issue. COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE, TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS Kellar thanked Butts for her support and for Corbridge's assurance that PACAB would he involved with the hydro project if it went anywhere. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 167 04. of Seward, Alaska City Council Minuses February. 23, 2009 Volume 38, Page27 Johanna Dollerhide, CMC Clark Corbridge Assistant City Clerk Mayor (City Seal) .•'',•Of � uIZ '`"''''fd�. a OF e i •- w .mac, j, "•`" ,`; ��-..,u ,,� ;C' m.` 168 011. of Seirure% .Alaska Pon and Conmica c Adrisorr Bourn Minutes April 1, 2009 f'ohune 3, Page 56 CALL TO ORDER The regular April 1, 2009 meeting of the Seward Port and Commerce Advisory Board was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Chair Ron Long. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Board Member Long led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Roll Call There were present: Board Member Ron Long presiding, and Theresa Butts Dan Oliver Deborah Altermatt Darryl Schaefenneyer Paul Tougas (12:08 p.m.) comprising a quorum of the Board; and Karl Anderson, Harbormaster Christy Terry, Community Development Director Anne Bailey, Executive Liaison Oliver explained he would have to leave at 12:40 p.m. for another meeting. ARRC Representative Louis Bencardino Alaska Railroad Dock Manager — Louis Bencardino reported on the following issues: • He had talked to Kurt Wright and trains would not arrive in Seward until April 6, 2009dueto an avalanche. A coal train was waiting in Anchorage to arrive. • A coal ship would arrive today, April I, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. and a second coal ship would arrive on April 7, 2009. • A railroad Board Meeting was held on March 31-April 1, 2009 in Anchorage. • An inspection had occurred at the Yukon to make sure all the equipment and systems worked properly and the Southeast Stevedore were working. • The cruise ship coming to Seward on April 16, 2009 had requested water capability and he hoped it would not be too difficult. • Discussed the vessels that would be moored at the Railroad dock (fishing vessels, dredging barges, and Sampson vessels). • Noted he had a community service worker currently working for the Railroad. In response to Altermatt, Bencardino stated he had not heard from Holland America regarding Seward trips being cancelled. 169 City o f Semird. Alaska April 1, 2009 Port and Commerce Advisor Board Minutes 1"ohmic 3, Page 57 Long explained that the Anchorage Daily News had an article stating some Holland America turn -a -round ships would not be stopping in Seward in 2010. Chamber Report by Laura Cloward Executive Director — None Administrative Report - Harbormaster Kari Anderson reported on the following items: • The Harbor Department continued to work with Community Development on Tariff and Code Revisions. • The Harbor Department recently attended a workshop sponsored by the EPA and ADEC on the new MSGP for Stor nwater Pollution. ADEC would review the Harbor Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the city anticipated obtaining the N PDES permit in the next couple of months. • Northern Economics was completing the SMIC feasibility study and copies would be available at the May 6, 2009 Port and Commerce Advisory Board meeting and a joint work session with Council was planned for May 1 1, 2009. • The Harbor sent out a newsletter to slip holder and she discussed the items included. • Used oil collection sites at the top of and F float have been renovated to include used anti- freeze collection sites, which would be recycled through the assistance of private company. The sites should be ready for used anti -freeze collection by May 1, 2009. • The Harbor was applying for four grants with April deadlines and she reviewed the projects. • Welcomed Jeri Kain to the Harbor Department who would begin on April 6, 2009. Long congratulated the Harbor on changing the layout of the ti•ont of the harbor building stating it was a great improvement. Community Development Director Christy Terry reported on the following items: • Explained the lay downs before the Board: 2006 Economic Forum with staff accomplishments, an Alaska SeaLife Center document, Coal Dust Task Force Meeting Document, an email regarding Polar Consult, a copy of color proposal from Polar Consult, and a Natural Resource Development flyer. • The Chamber regretted not being in attendance but two film crews were in Seward filming a wedding show and a tourism/sniall business development DVD. • The PACAB North Harbor recommendations would go before Council the same evening as the PACAB priority resolution. • The Planning and Zoning Commission would begin discussions on their code updates and PACAB would begin their code review shortly after that. • On April 27, 2009, Council entered into agreement with Harmon Construction to construct the Adam's Street Pavilion and would reach substantial completion by July 4, 2009 and final ... completion by July 17, 2009. • A list of Stimulus Funds would be continuously updated. 170 Cit.), of Seward, Alaska Port and Cuutmcr -C Adrison- Board Minutes April 1, 2009 1'Ohmw 3, Page SN a The Voice Over IP conversion would occur on April 4, 2009. In response to Alt ermatt, Terry stated there was a meeting with DOT to discuss road closures and would email the Board the information. Schaefermeyer interjected that there was discussion about having a weekend road closure. In further response to Altermatt, Terry stated before the Harbor Tariff rough drafts were available they needed to be vetted by the City Attorney and would he provided to the Board prior to the meeting. Anderson stated the existing Harbor Tariff was available on the harbor website and Terry would send the Board the link. The Board discussed the code review and coordinating with the Planning and Zoning Commission. In response to Butts, Terry explained the proposed change to the zoning of the South Harbor Uplands would occur after the Borough replats it and PACAB's recommendations would go before Planning and Zoning and then Council. Presentation by Polarconsult on the proposed 4"' of July Creek Hydro Project Joel Groves, outside city limits, explained Polar Consult was an engineering consultation firm based out of Anchorage and one of the key focuses was hydro electric power development and projects had been done throughout the state. He stated a prospective project on Fourth ofJuly Creek had been identified and was in the reconnaissance phase to see if this was a viable project. He gave an overview of what has been done so far, initial estimate of electric capacity and usage, and the future schedule with it operational in 2011. He noted the property was on State land within the City limits and the requirements they would need to operate. In response to Long, Groves discussed the proposed funding, the renewable grant program and hydro -electric, and whether hydro -electric was considered renewable energy. In further response to Long, Groves explained other projects Polar Consult had taken on stating Fourth of July Creek was not the largest one and other projects Polar Consult were involved in were operational. In response to Schaefermeyer, Groves explained Independence Power, LLC would own and operate the project and was comprised of the same people involved in Polar Consult. Groves continued to explain the business entity. In further response to Schaetermeyer, Groves explained the sustainability of the project through the summer and winter months, the rough cost estimate, and the lifeline of the project. In response to Butts, Groves discussed the location of the project, the land owner's requirements, the design -style of the project, the life of the project, cost of operation, and stated he could get the financial information to the Board. 171 CitY of Seuwrd, Alaska April1, 2009 Board Member Oliver left at 12:40 p.m. Port and Commerce Adrisort, Board Xfillures l'ohane 3. Pave 59 In response to the Board, Groves explained projects that were geographically similar to Fourth of July Creek, the flow of intake during the winter and summer months, creek debris and the effects on the turbine, and the costs for power. In response to City of Seward Utility Manager John Foutz, Groves discussed the effect this project would have on the natural habitat. He continued to say there was not a biologist on staff but had brought a habitat biologist on board when needed on other projects. In response to Long, Groves discussed the permits and requirements that would be needed. Citizens' comments on any subject except those items scheduled for public hearing - Russ Maddox, 3385 Nash Road, Chris Rose from the Renewable Energy Alaska project would do a presentation on April 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rae Building to address renewable energy opportunities, fund, and net -metering meeting that recently occurred. He stated the definition of renewable energy was a Federal definition and Senator Murkowski was trying to change this. He said many Board members did not make it to the Coal Dust Task Force and they discussed what would be done about the problem. He said he had received 14 complaints regarding the dust and wondered if there was another method for these complaints to be received. He continued to discuss the dust problem and how to assess it. In response to Terry, Maddox stated it would be great to have the complaints be directed to the railroad but it needs to be advertised or the complaints needed to be quantified. Anderson stated she did not want to add coal dust complaints to her staff's workload. Marianna Keil, inside City limits, hoped the Board would add the update to the Harbor Master Plan to their list of priorities. Mark Luttrell, outside City limits, supported the Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance concept of renewable energy and urged the Board to include a hydro project proposal to Lowell Creek. He continued that he was concerned about road access trail to the intake and the notion of clean energy to Seward not subject to disruptions was attractive. Approval of the Agenda and Consent Agenda Motion (Butts/Schaefermeyer) Approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda Motion Passed Unanimous Consent The following items were approved under the Consent Agenda: 172 Citr o/ Seward, Alaska April 1, 2009 * March 4, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes Board Member Tougas excused himself from the meeting. Unfinished Business - None New Business - Port and Conimere r ; l drisoly Board Aliontles 1'ohnme 3, Ptive 60 Resolution 2009-03, Providing a Recommendation to Seward City Council Supporting the Low -Impact Run -of -River Hydroelectric Facility Proposed on Fourth of July Creek Motion (Butts/Altermatt) Approver Resolution 2009-03 Schaefermeyer stated he would like this to come to the Board at a later date following the completion of the feasibility study. Motion (Schaefermeyer/Long) Lay Resolution 2009-03 on the table Butts suggested rather than supporting the project they support the feasibility study. Long thought laying this on the table was not stopping the project and would like to revisit this at a later date when there was more information available. Butts countered that a few words could be changed in Section 1 of the Resolution to change the support of the project to the feasibility itself. Motion Passed Yes: Alterman, Schaefermeyer, Long No: Butts Long explained how this agenda item could be brought back before the Board. Provide Recommendations for the Economic Stimulus Forum Scheduled for May 13, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Terry stated Council had set the next economic forum on May 13, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. but the City Manager had asked for the Boards recommendation on the forum format, location, facilitators, specific invitations, groups and topics to be addressed. She continued that staff' comments on what had been accomplished from the last forum. Altermatt thanked Terry for the lay down and thought it was a great idea to do something but was concerned with the feedback. She noted the lack of communication devices and that a lot of participants did not receive feedback from the last forum. Long surmised that the last forum was a good session but the follow through might not have been the best and did not think it went as tar as it could have. lie thought the facilitators should not 173 01Y of Sewarcl, Alaska Anril 1. 2009 be known political tigures. Port and Commerce Advisorr Board rtilinare.e Volume 3, Page 61 In response to Butts, Terry stated Council Members had directed the City Manager to resurrect this, this would not take place if the City did not want the biggest response possible, and follow-up needed to occur from the last forum. Bailey clarified this Economic Forum took place in September 2007. Schaefermeyer asked what the goal of this forum was and suggested focusing on certain issues and having more structure. Altennatt stated a lot of people had attended the 2007 forum and the problem was not getting enough feedback and it might be easy to hone in on a narrower topic. She suggested the high school for the location but did not like separating into groups. She asked what impact the efficiency study had on the community. Anderson coirunented this forum could address the efficiency study and what the City had done with the information gathered in 2007. The Board continued to discuss their stance on the Economic Forum and suggested the High School Auditorium or Rae Building for the location, any method to get the word out to the public, the 2007 facilitators and others not involved in local politics, a creative method of debate, place as much infonnation in the invitations about the Forum, whether or not to break up into groups, breaking the forum into two stages, and the need for open communication. Discuss contracting Northern Economics to do a presentation at a joint work session with City Council on the SMIC feasibility study Anderson stated that Northern Economics had been contracted to do a SMIC feasibility study and there was an additional cost to do a presentation to the Board and Council that was beyond the original scope of work. She explauied that this was a request to the Board to use a portion of the PACAB budget to fund the presentation and recommended the Board approve a resolution to authorizing $1000 of the PACAB budget to help with the presentation cost. In response to Long, Anderson said she did not have the PACAB fund intormation available. Long stated he was surprised Northern Economics did not include a presentation un the scope of work and supported the drafting of a resolution for the next business meeting. Terry interjected the Board could authorize these funds by a motion. Motion (Schaefermeyer/Altermatt) Motion Passed Designate $1,000 from the PACAB budget for a SMIC Feasibility Study Presentation Unanimous Consent 174 Cilr o%Selrord. Alaska Par and Commerce Adrisory Boaal Miuuw< April 1, 2009 i'ohtme 3, Poge 02 Anderson stated the presentation had been scheduled for May 11, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. and the feasibility study should be distributed on May 6, 2009. Discuss the PACAB priorities in preparation for Council and Board joint work session scheduled for April 8, 2009 at 8:00 p.m. Anderson agreed with Keil to add the Harbor Master Development flan and requested this be done in the tall. Tent' interjected the 1993 Small Boat Harbor Master Plan needed an update and requested to do this in the tall. harbor. The Board suggested reviewing the Small Boat Harbor Master plan in October 2009. In response to Altermatt, Anderson discussed what was being completed or worked on in the Long said he expected Council to provide their input on the Board's priorities. Discuss the World Trade Center Alaska Membership Renewal Long stated this renewal was worth it if the Wednesday PACAB meetings could be rescheduled so Board Members could attend the World Trade Center meetings. Butts agreed if we were not going to have a presence there than the renewal was not necessary. Altermatt thought it was a good liaison lbr the Board. In response to Butts, Terry stated this World Trade Centel- Alaska renewal was budgeted for 2009. Motion (Altermatt/Schaefermeyer) Motion Passed Renew the World Trade Center Alaska Membership Unanimous Consent Correspondence, Information Items and Reports (no action required) — None Board Comments- Altermatt stated Seward Harbor Opening weekend was May 16, 2009 and was hoping to re - energize the Community Street Dance at the Harbor Plaza. 175 Citt' of Sen•m-cl, A/u.eku Port and Commerce Advismy Board A1inules April 1, 009 volume 3, Page 63 Butts expressed gratitude on having the public and council members attend and clarified the April 8, 2009 joint work session with Council. Schaefermeyer thanked Joel Groves for his hydro presentation and stated a lot of time was spent on looking at a Lowell Creek project. He reviewed the SeaLife Center report and stated there may be an opportunity to use sea water has a heating source in Seward. Anderson recommended cancelling the April 15, 2009 work session. By general consensus, the April 15, 2009 work session had been cancelled. Long thanked Joel Groves and the utility manager for coming noted the Harbor Opening Weekend dance was sponsored by the Kenai Fords Yacht Club and Sailing inc and some of the proceeds would go towards the Mariner's Memorial. Citizen Comments [5 minutc.,s• per individual -Each indivichial has one opportunity to speak.J- None Board and Administrative Response to Citizens' Comments- None Adjournment Chair Ron Long adjourned the meeting at 1:49 p.m. Ain Ann Bailey Ron Long Executive Liaison Chair (City Sea]) 176 Memorandum Date: February 23, 2009 To: Mayor, City Council From: Jean Lewis, City C19 Nk(_� Subj: Hydro -electric Project at 4t' of July Creek Daniel Hertrich of Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. is the company developing this project for Independence Power LLC. He will drive down from Anchorage to give a ten-minute presentation and answer questions on a proposed hydro -electric project at 4 h of July creek area. Attached is three pages from Polarconsult, describing the project, and I have attached their fish habitat permit application and their listing found on the Alaska Energy Authority website, --Jean LA� 177 THE 4TH OF JULY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT is an approximately four megawatt run -of -river hydroelectric project proposed for Fourth of July Creek in Seward, Alaska. The Project is located in the mountains 2 miles behind the Spring Creek Correctional Facility. The project protects the integrity of the scenic viewshed from downtown Seward, and at the same time produces about 17,000 to 23,000 megawatt -hours of clean renewable energy annually. Through responsible design, the Fourth of July Creek project avoids any impacts to local salmon habitat. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. is developing the Fourth of July Creek Project for Independence Power, LLC. Independence Power is owned by five professional engineers with extensive experience in developing small hydroelectric projects throughout Alaska. This same team is currently developing a similar hydroelectric project on Fishhook Creek in Hatcher Pass. The two megawatt Fishhook Project is scheduled for construction in the late summer of 2009. Run -of -river hydroelectric projects have no dams, and thus avoid the environmental issues associated with dams. Run -of -river projects utilize the instantaneous flow of a creek to generate electricity. By not storing a significant amount of water, run -of -river projects do not change the amount of water flowing below the project, and they also do not change the water quality. This helps to insure that valued downstream habitat is not hanned by the project. The Project benefits Southcentral Alaska in many ways. ➢ It will generate savings for the City of Seward and Chugach Electric Associations, helping to lower costs for rate payers on both systems. ➢ It will generate 17,000 to 23,000 megawatt -hours of electricity annually for distribution on the Railbelt energy grid. This is enough to power about 2,000 Alaskan homes. ➢ This project is sustainable, renewable, and low impact. It has zero emissions, and it bums no fossil fuels. ➢ By not burning natural gas for electricity, the gas saved is available for other uses. This is especially important given that Cook Inlet's proven natural gas reserves are being used up and seasonal shortages are possible in just a few years. ';:'^� ➢ It is a local project that will generate local jobs and local green P j g J electricity. It will improve the reliability of Seward's ` �• electricals stem. polarconsult alaska, inc. FEBRUARY Z009 L � 178 4TH OF JuLY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT — DETAILS A run -of -river hydroelectric plant is a fairly straightforward facility made up of only a few major components. These major components on the 4`h of July Creek Project are briefly described below. Intake / Diversion Structure — The Project begins with a weir, located on 4`h of July Creek in the mountains about two miles behind the Spring Creek Correctional Facility. The weir impounds the water in the creek so that it can be diverted into the pipeline. Because of debris that is carried along in the stream, a desander and screening box is used between the intake and pipeline to ensure only clean water enters the pipeline. Pipeline (penstock) — A four -foot diameter buried pipeline will carry about 120 cubic feet per second of water from the intake 4,500 feet downhill to a small powerhouse. The penstock would likely be buried in some areas and above ground in other areas. Powerhouse — The powerhouse will be located at the base of the mountains about one mile east (up valley) from the correctional facility. The powerhouse will be accessed via a new gravel access road. A gravel turnaround and small parking area will be located next to the powerhouse_ The primary purpose of the powerhouse is to house and anchor the turbomachinery, turbine controls, and associated equipment. The construction materials will likely be concrete block or poured concrete with an architectural finish. The exterior colors will be selected to blend with the natural setting. Turbine — The installed water turbine is called an impulse turbine or Pelton wheel, and consists of a series of buckets arranged around a shaft. For this project, two turbines will be utilized, each with about 2 MW output. Both turbines will likely have 2 nozzles (or jets). These nozzles discharge the high pressure water from the pipeline onto the Pelton wheel, spinning the wheel. The turbine shaft is directly connected to a generator which produces electrical energy. Power Transmission Line — The power line conveys the electrical energy produced by the generator to the utility's power distribution system. In order to economically transmit this energy over long distances, the voltage is increased using a transformer located next to the powerhouse. The Fourth of July Creek Project will have about two miles of overhead transmission line connecting to the City of Seward's existing substation in the Fourth of July Creek industrial area. Electricity will flow from the project to the many homes and businesses in the City of Seward and surrounding area. PROJECT SCHEDULE Reconnaissance Study 2008 - 2009 Feasibility Study 2009 Permitting and Design 2009 - 2010 Construction 2011 Operational Date Late 2011 polarconsult alaska, inc. FEBRUARY 200!: y—1 179 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC., is a full services engineering consulting firm headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska. Polarconsult specializes in providing cost effective, robust, and low-cost engineering solutions to Alaska's unique technical challenges. The Polarconsult Team offers considerable expertise in the full range of project development from conceptualization and feasibility, through permitting and design to construction and long term operation. The Polarconsult Team has extensive experience designing, permitting, constructing and operating hydroelectric plants in Alaska. Our design professionals have been involved in hydro in Alaska since 1966, and collectively have nearly a century of experience in the field. SELECTED HYDRO PROJECTS BY POLARCONSULT 11'roject Mc Roberts Design Type of 100 kW Run of River Local iort Palmer, AK Ser% ices Rendered Design, Permitting, Construction, ree Ck— Operation, Owner. Pelican +t 650 kW Storage Pelican, AK Design, Permitting. Creek fIndian Creek _ - 60 kW Storage Chignik, AK Permitting, FERC Relicense. Larsen Bay 475 kW Run of River Larsen Bay, AK Design, Permitting. Old Harbor 500 kW Run of River Old Harbor, AK Design, State and FERC Permitting. O'Brien Creek & 5 400 kW Run of River Chitna, AK Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design. Mile Creek ! Fishhook 2,000 kW Run of River Hatcher Pass, AK + Design, Permitting, Construction. Creek Chun iisax �� Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design, 280 kW Run of River Atka, AK Creek Permitting. Angoon 600 kW Storage Angoon, AK Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design. Tenakee a Springs, Indian River 125 kW Run of River Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design. AK polarconsult alaska, inc. energy systems - environmental services - engineering design 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 tel: 907.258.2420 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 fax: 907.258.2419 Internet Website: http://www.polarconsult.net WEA 180 KENAI 4 R ~ ~ ~ - - ~ Project Tracking Sheet Project Start. ---- � pro�n��o��etmd� r-- --- ] F- - meC# App. S��Dm�: L_ua0aonm� Tax Credit: [] Cost S:om,-[] ' Parcel No- Riv. Mile Contact Name: JGROVES, JOEL D.IPOLARCONSULT AK INC) Location: i, FOURTH OF JULY CREEK 7 Comments: �'Lii-UIWVEER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT; GENERATE & FURNISH RENEWABLE ENERGY; INSTALL PERMANENT WEIR A DIVERT STREAM; UP TO 20 CYDS MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED. I SBoFSA. TAX: 2 oZM' RJ oPMp RJ uSFw O mNWm O com [] COS. O ADF&omp: O Al: mRemDate: -------` Al Rec Date: �'-' -� * Days Review muop�___] Amend nuvr permuw nwsvouo Revised Due msnvct n°xm n,cmDat xvm Final Action /Date snnon n» ----- ---`----------`-------~ Tax C*O nzm F��--� --------� �----�[ pamy �----�r- l._ ./__' !. | | jT: -----[" o*Mp FLM --_ _-__-----_ - IDw -'-_----_ Date ownmm�t ��pmuo�mn�u ___ Comments Due Revised Due OP80P: [------� -� r l Y Reem Comments Only Final Action __ m��n�/ Denied��n����> - ORMP upo-HP __no) Recovniel --' '"=°d -- ow�p�hpaoomBo -- nnqmbwab|= -_o General Comments Not Reviewed --n wmnmn'u wm>vmmunm�uxom*/com --c» V7m����Vv�ur oo�Emo,Benny --O8O>��U��. »o --" vmmunwn�v�d --''~' -- utoo, FP --c9�P�o,s�o — �w�Tax�n,ou --- Generally Consistent __c� co����xxm��n�� -040) __ /w) inconsistent /_\ \�� ~\ 181 polarconsult alaska, inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS August 27, 2008 GIIVNY LITCHFIEI.D HABITAT B70LOGIST Kenai River Center 514 Kenai River Road Soldotna, Alaska, 99669 Subject: Fish Habitat Permit Application, Fourth of July Creek, beward, Alaska Dear Ms. Litchfield: Enclosed please find a completed ,fish habitat permit application and supporting,; doddmentation for a run -of -river hydroelectric project pioposed by Independence Power LLC, on Fourth of July Creek, near Seward, Alaska. The following are enclosed: A Fish Habitat Permit Application Map indicating project location and layout Sketches indicating major project structures Site Rehabilitation / Restoration Plan If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 258- 2420 or by email at ioel(a?,polarconsult net. Sincerely, cam_ Joel D. Groves, PE Project Manager 1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE • SUITE 310 • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 995M PHONE (907) 259-2420 • FAX (9M 258-2419 • HOMEPAGE www.polarconsult.net '50 182 RECEIVED SEP 022008 KENAI RIVER CE FH# NTER (Office Use Only) GENERAL WATERWAY/WATERBODY APPLICATION ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Division of Habitat Office Locations A. APPLICANT 1. Name: rowclz, LLC 2. Address (Mailing): [5_03 `'=' 33� Av1=N+e '63ICs A K 9` 5) 3 Email Address: �'oG-L C� �'Q��►�5'. NL� Telephone: q07- 7--5'6--2'AZo� Fax: 4n`fi�25$-2'�t9 3. Project Coordinator/Contractor: Name: SQQ_ �iIQ01 5 ?6LA9rae..+SL)Lr AA5?ck2 We— . Address: 19,41-A F Email Address: 7,ArxF Telephone: SAt-kc Fax: - _SAME B. TYPE AND PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Qum- df' Rtvt'l- ECrl2cL �i?�TLa'- FuY2r- r-1-+ <!1-49C5-7 i I-TU it�i�lt .�T ENEct72«a� C. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE 1. Name of River, Stream, or Lake: F;ZX; + eF Z-,' W or Anadromous Stream No: FA0 4 231- 36-1,0130 2. Legal Description: Township 06IS- Range 601E Meridian S Section `% USGS Quad Map-gf-WA>Q> 3. Plans, Specifications, and Aerial Photograph. See specific instructions July 2008 183 D. TIME FRAME FOR PROJECT: I / i 1 2010 TO (mm/dd/yy) E. CONSTRUCTION METHODS: 1. - Will the stream be diverted? ® Yes ❑ No Now will the stream be diverted? �PQPj�AAae+-T DlLAtASto,J STiZu<frUlt ' �lNtu2l How long? PCRMa►':P-rL-y 2. Will stream channelization occur? ❑ Yes f'No 3. Will the banks of the stream be altered or modified? ® Yes ❑ No Describe: A wec2 L1RL- SE Cc>W&T4OCT E7 ACROSS _T*C A 8u2rQD DESAN�.��i 8oX WJL<- SC /3NtT AtW6.4 - 'r4 TUE C4-.&--K. 4. List all tracked or wheeled equipment (type and size) that will be used in the stream (in the water, on ice, or in the floodplain): ,.E urcr l -, 5iWL4'- Now long will equipment be in the stream? ,C5'nr- t 2n4o.-'I:fS fbW- 1"TAYc n:,t,5r2ucricj E SEnCO, j *bC A ---A ro CA"--jr- cQpSSIt'345 5. a. Will material be removed from the floodplain, bed, stream, or lake? ® Yes ❑ No Type: _QAjK 4- 00 WT,',2tAL- Amount: APPW iS--2o C-it�S b. Will material be removed from below the water table? Z Yes ❑ No If so, to what depth? _APPPO( G �c�r Is a pumping operation planned? ❑ Yes ® No 6. Will material (including spoils, debris, or overburden) be deposited in the floodplain, stream, or lake? .Z Yes ❑ No If so, what type? _We-t-g2 'SVUM ', NA^nuG C-xCAVa�A Ang—WP" � Amount: _ Wit-t-- VA2y to Mi Su6514*cC AT- S rrc cks'r' < uQ c � 1 Disposal site location(s): ?. Will blasting be performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 U Nr-N°w^' Weight of charges: U uicNuar.J TjBp &Asq> o,-� &TatAi jt jjffgnep d,,j Type of substrate: vw+ww' -J �.�1-1 8. Will temporary fills in the stream or lake be required during construction (e.g., for construction traffic around construction site)? M Yes ❑ No 9. Will ice bridges be required? ❑ Yes ® No July 2008 -4- SC41 184 F. G. H. SITE REHABILITATION/RESTORATION PLAN: On a separate sheet present a site rehabilitation/restoration plan, See specific instructions A-, FActqrno WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS: Width of stream: _EST. AT 'SU-[DO 1—_-,_ Depth of stream or lake: Cs'r. AT" I-5 IT. Type of stream or lake bottom (e,g., sand, gravel, mud): UNKrb-4►-N . - _ Stream gradient: it "'-36W•3 • _ HYDRAULIC EVALUATION: 1. Will a structure (e.g., culvert, bridge support, dike) be placed below ordinary high water of the stream? Q Yes ❑ No If yes, attach engineering drawings or a field sketch, as described in Step B. A1TA---+°D For culverts, attach stream discharge data for a mean annual flood (Q=2.3), if available. N/A . If applicable, describe potential for channel changes and/or increased bank erosion: �j 6; . 2. Will more than 25,000 cubic yards of material be removed? ❑ Yes g No If yes, attach a written hydraulic evaluation including, at a minimum, the following: potential for channel changes, assessment of Increased aufeis (glaclering) potential, assessment of potential for increased bank erosion. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of Applicant -5- �1251-'61R . Date July 200B 185 FOURTH OF JULY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SITE REHABILITATION / RESTORATION PLAN The Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project will rehabilitate and restore the site using the following techniques: 1. Minimize disturbed footprint. To the extent practical based on technical, cost, schedule, and other considerations, the disturbed construction footprint will be minimized. As an example of this approach, some areas may be cleared with a hydro -axe or similar means, but the root layer will remain intact and be traversed with tracked equipment. This will minimize erosion potential and allow for rapid revegetation after the construction phase of the project. This technique will not be possible in all areas. 2. Maintain Separations from Disturbed Areas and Waterways. To the extent practical based on technical, cost, schedule, and other considerations, project alignments will maintain a reasonable buffer of intact vegetation to wetlands and creeks. This will not be possible in all areas, such as at the creek diversion, tailrace, and crossing of the Godwin Fork of Fourth of July Creek. 3. Construction Schedule. In -stream work will be scheduled during low -flow periods, such as late spring (April -May) or mid summer to reduce the amount of water to be diverted at the intake during its construction. 4. Stockpile Grubbings. To the extent practical, grnbbings from cleared areas will be stockpiled and used for revegetation of disturbed areas at the end of construction. This approach will promote rapid revegetation using the viable native vegetation present in the grubbings. 5. Best Management Practices. Where appropriate, BMPs will be employed to promote site rehabilitation and restoration at the end of construction. SL� �l � �B` //.i � � \ �j ��: �..• l ., . � 'yTv� 1 I � /� ;/lam .. c;� STA i� j. ii .Y-_ • � \Yt •. F -PT E91 WER LINE EI(TEN>f10N TE AND CONNECTION TO J-'- .% 1 O s� '- \ ' .'��!.;' f _ 3r '"_•`-. 6• '�J,'9 ♦:` e, 1 L, •_,``' test _ i,-+1-. SEWARD ELRBICTRIC TO Be OET IN - ` s ' l r Y .� .� ♦ :, ` \ l/^`._. ,,, :' - .'� =y. - Y_ iY/��'- '_ '' 1 �,' . {,�('!�%' .. ``' — %l ♦.- \s ! ._ `, 1 �� 'Cry �,�,M; 14 � � � l �%�!�/ � � y it 1 ��� _'• L ..✓� tall,` r:/r.. _� �: _ B 1/2 LAID l NOTE: 20 METER (66') CONTOUR INTERVAL. FOURTH OF JULY CREEK RUN•OF-RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT g J t'1 utau SUMMARY INFORMATION . Y TWO SOUXD VPRO CT f 1 690' GROSS HEAD 2 ESTIMATED 160 CFS MAX. DESIGN FLOW 3 ESTIMATED 3.6 MW CAPACITY 4 ESTIMATED 17,800 ANNUAL MWh 5 ESTIMATED 4,600' 48- 0 PENSTOCK 6 ESTIMATED 8,000- POWERLINE •• ••• 7 ESTIMATED 4,000' ACCESS ROAD. 8 NO ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT IDENTIFIED IN e,e DIVERTED REACH OF CREEK PER ADFG FISH ATLAS. PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9 USGS 1:25,000 SCALE QUAD MAPS SEWARD A-7NE, KW, SE, SW DE96✓ M Jot [MAW* •QC MOM SUL AT -PC RLE. u aote. W mK PROJECT LOCATION MAP AND BASE MAP polurconsult sleeks, Inc. `0XV Sher anlr . aVININICa 4Aa • �®t e40011v FOURTH OF JULY CREEK RUN —OF —RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ISo/ M SAA7 ATS. SOME UO TxCIR tenl HA-Sls 11 Independence Power, LLC 15Sr O 187 polarconsult alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue 0 Suite 310 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 258-2420 Fax (907) 258-2419 email polarak@alaska.nel JOB SMEEI NO, OF CALCULATED BY C)ILCKEDBY- DATE a-'. C . . . ......... �M SCAUi� r-6 —7- -Al r 1.0 k. Mu P, Ar '2H f-I n; Fx ifnN t fAh �j ...... ie� ot FF=V29+1"r.W4X54P*N00 5G 188 polarconsult alaska, inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue a Suite 310 ANCHORAGE, AIASKA 99503 (907) 258-2420 Fax (907) 258-2419 email polarakoWaskamd rroWZ41 S5h* tllplm"Wly SHEET NO. CALM UTED $Y DATE CHECKED sir. _ ... s 1 DATE 189 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 1 (FY09) Recommended Project Funding January 16, 2009 Applicant Energy Region 1 ID Project Name Applicant_ Project Type I (Aleutians 58 Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectnc City of Atka - _Type Utility — Hydro Construction 89 Nikolski Wind Integration Umnak Power / Nikolski Government -Wind _ I Construction IRA. Council _ _ -- St. George Wind Farm -City of St' -George St. 90 Construction George Municipal Elects. Government Wind Aleutians East Borough 11 Renewable Energy Aleutians East Borough Government -Other Reconnaissance Nome/Newton Peak Wind Farm City of Nome d/b/a Nome Bering Straits 52 Construction Joint Utility System Utility 'Wind r 50 Unalakleet Wind Farm Unalakleet Valley Electric Utility Wind Construction ;Cooperative, Inc. (UVEC) 4' Nome Banner Peak Wind Farm City of Nome dib/a Nome Utility iTransmission Transmission Construction Joint Utilities System Bristol Bay 64 (Lake Pen Borough Wind iLake and Peninsula Government Wind jFeasibility Study I Borough 62 IChignik Lake Area Wind -Hydro !Lake and Peni nsula :Government Wind Final Design !Borough _ _ 63 _ TLake Pen Borough Wood Lake and Peninsula -Government Biomass (Heating Final Design Borough - _-- - - --� - 40 Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility City Of Chi giik Government 'Hydro __Study _ __ - _-• Lake Elva Hydropower Nushagak Electric & 6 Construction Telephone Cooperative, jUtility Hydro ;Inc 14 Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric IChignik Lagoon Power - Utility Hydro Hydro }---_ - - Final Design Utilit CLPU _ - - 21 ;Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Cordova Electric Utility Hydro Copper River! 'Construction Cooperative Chugach 22 'Cordova Heat Recovery Cordova Electric iUtility Recovery Construction_ — -Heat 26 _Cooperative Cordova Wood Processing Plant Native Village of Eyak Government 'Biomass _Construction _ 27 Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility ;Copper Valley Electric utility Hydro Study___ Association, Inc (CVEA) 15 Chistochina Central Wood Cheesh'na Tribal Council Government Biomass - HeaUng Construction - 46 ,Kenny Lake Wood Heating Copper River School Government -Biomass Construction District !,-_-- ----_ __ 2 Gulkana Central Wood Heating Gulkana Village Council Government Biomass Construction- - -- --- -- _- ---- -_-- -- ALASKA Page 1 of 4 / r -� ENERGYAUTHORITY S O 190 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 1 (FY09) Recommended Project Funding January 16. 2009 Applicant Energy Region ID Project Name 10:3 Pillar Mountain Wind Farm Applicant Type Project Type ' Kodiak Electric Utility Wind Kodiak Construction Associaiton, Inc. Old Harbor Hydroelerti:c Final 73 Alaska Village Electric Utility Hydro - - -- -- - - �e��--- --- - — - Cooperative - -- ---- -- ---- Lower Yukon/ 122 Bethel Wind Power Project 4 City of Bethel Government Wind Kuskokwim __Times 110 Kongiganak Wind Farm :Puvurnaq Power ,Utility Wind Construction __ Company- t - -- - Kwigillingok Wind Farm 10'l Puvurnaq Power Utility Wind _,Construction Company - IQuinhagak Wind Farm 70 Alaska Village Electric Utility Wind - _— !Construction - _Cooperative - !Mekoryuk Wind Farm 72 'Construction Alaska Village Electric Wind -- 7oksook Bay Wind Farm 71 .Cooperative Alaska Village Electric— rUtility R Utility Wind j - -_ - ,Expansion Construction Cooperative - — 35 Hooper Bay Wind Farrn City of Hooper Bay Government Wind Construction 59 Kobuk River Valley Woody 'Northwest Inupiat Housing !Government Biomass Northwest Arctic Biomass Feasibility Study .Authority--___--_-_- 75 iAmbler / Noatak / Shungnak Alaska Village Electric :Utility Solar Solar PV Construction !Cooperative �{ :Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion Kotzebue Electric 85 Utility Wind ,Construction Association 56 'Buckland 1 Deering I Noorvik Northwest Arctic Borough lGovemment Wind - - Wind Farm Construction I Y 74 Upper Kobuk Region Alaska Village Electric .Utility y Hydro Hydroelectric Feasibility !Cooperative Anchorage Landfill Gas Municipality of Anchorage, Government Biotuels Railbell 66 ,Electricity Construction Solid Waste Services Dept 57 jSouth Fork Hydroelectric South Fork Hydro, LLC IPP Hydro Construction Nikolaevsk Wind Farm Final Alaska Wind Energy, LLC, 94 Design �d/bla Wind Energy Alaska IPP Wind 109 !Eva Creek Wind Farm Golden Valley Electric Utility Wind iConstruction Associatio.n 53 North Pole Biomass Chena Power Utility, LLC l Utility - Biofuels - Electricity/Heat Construction _ _ 87 Fishhook Hydroelectric _ Fishhook Renewable IPP Hydro y Construction !Energy, LLC _ __ Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydro 34 Kenai Hydro. LLC IPP ,Hydro Feasibility Study North Pole Heat Recovery 105 Golden Valley Electric Utility Heat Recovery Construction _ A_ssociatio n - -_—.-_ - 66 Coal Mine Road Wind Farm IAlaska Wind Power, LLC 'IPP Wind _ Final Design 102 Delta Junction Wind Farm Alaska En uronmental IPP Wind Construction Power LLC 98 Nikiski Wind Farm Construction Kenai Winds, LLC IPP 'Wind LAS1-Page 2 of 4 /'4'F= / 1 s^ ENERGY AUTHORITY 191 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 1 (FY09) Recommended Project Funding January 16, 2009 — Applicant 1 Energy Reg cin (D P r Oct N are Appli ca rt Type P n-e¢t Type - 78 Girdwood Gas CHP/Hydro/Wind - Alaska Green Energy, LLC - IPP Other Solar Construction Whittier Creek Hydroelectric 48 C ty of LNhiflier Government Hydro Reconnaissance 86 Fourth of July Creek Independence Power, LLC IPP Hydro _Hydroelectric Reconnaissance University of Alaska I Nenana Hydrokinetic 97 Construction 'Fairbanks, Office of Government Ocean/River Sponsored Programs 111 112 Delta Junction Wood Chip Delta/Greely School Government Biomass Heating Dist.ict I Kenai Hydro Recon Assessment -_ Homer Electric __--- Utility Hydro ---------I Associtation ------- ---------- - -.. ..,--•---- Southeast 23 Coffman Cove-Naukati Intertie (Alaska Power & Utility Transmission Construction .Tele•oone Company -^—_ Kwaan Electric 29 Kake-Petersburg Intertie Final Transmission Intertie Utility Transmission Design Cooperative, Inc (K WET OQC �ils Creek Hy doelectric 10 Gustavus Electric ICom Utility ` ;Hydro 'Construction an 1 104 (Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Haida Power, Inc. Utility Hydro ; Con-strur ion - Juneau Ground Source Heat J.1. 111 Pump Construction (Aquatic City & Borough of Juneau Government (Geothermal Center) — 37 Whitman Lake Hydro .Ketchikan Public Utilities_ Utility Hydro Construction IElectic Division (Haines Central Wood Heating Chilkoot Indian 33 � System Construction (Low i Government Biomass Income Housing Project) Association _--_ Yakutat Biomass Gasification 60 Yakutat Power _ Utility -- - Biofuels Construction F- 4 Ruth Lake Hydro ;City of Petersburg d/Na 38 Reconnaissance_ Petersburg Municipal & Utility -Hydro Light - - - _ 42 ;Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Burro Creek Holdings, IPP Hydro Study _ - LLC Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie 20 Metlakatla Indian Government Transmission Construction _Community_-___-_- -_ -- _ - Haines Centra! Wood Heating 41 Feasibility Study (Community Haines Borough Government Biomass - Buildings)_ Wrangell Hydro Based Electric 9 City and Borough of Government Other Boilers Construction Wran�cell- _ __ Juneau Ground Source Heat -City & Borough of Juneau Government Geothermal Pump Construction (Airportl I / A!_.ASKA Page 3 of 4 C ENERGY AUTHORITY (DO 192 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 1 (FY09) Recommended Project Funding January 16, 2009 Applicant :Energy Region ID :Project Name Applicant Type Project Type 61 McGrath Heat Recovery McGrath Light 8 Power, Utility Heat Recovery Yukon-Koyukukl Construction ,Co Upper Tanana _ _ _ f 54 Galena Wood Heating Interior Regional Housing Government Biomass Construction Authority (I HA) . _ 84 'Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction Yukon River Inter -Tribal IPP Hydro Watershed CedneiF_-_— ------ --- 49 Tok Wood Heating Construction Alaska Gateway School Government Biomass — -- ------ --- — — District __ 30 McGrath Central Wood Heating McGrath Power and Light Utility Biomass Construction Fort Yukon Central Wood 31 Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Utility i — Biomass e Heating Construction _ Company Manley Hot Springs Geothermal ITDX Power Utility Geothermal Construction Statewide ;Statewide Hydrokinetic 88 Thomas Ravens, Ph.D and Myree McDonald, Government Ocean/River Feasibility Study Ph.D. / Page 4 of 4 4ill!= ENERGY AUTHORITY W 193 THE 4"' OF JULY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC: PROJECT is a five megawatt run -of -river hydroelectric project proposed for Fourth of July Creek in Seward, Alaska. The Project is located in the mountains 2 miles behind the Spring Creek Correctional Facility. The project will provide a significant boost to the Seward economy, create numerous additional recreational opportunities, and at the same time will produce about 20,500 megawatt -hours of clean renewable energy annually without causing any impacts to local salmon habitat. Run -of -river hydroelectric projects do not store water, and thus avoid the environmental issues associated with water storage. Additionally, fish habitat is not lost because the powerhouse, where the water is returned to the creek, is located upstream of salmon habitat. Independence Power, LLC, a group of five Alaskan professional engineers, is advancing the Fourth of July Creek Project. Independence Power has extensive experience in developing small hydroelectric projects throughout Alaska. This same team is currently developing a similar hydroelectric project on Fishhook Creek in Hatcher Pass. The Project benefits Southcentral Alaska in many ways: ➢ It will generate 20,500 megawatt -hours of renewable electricity annually (about 1/3 d of Seward's annual electricity usage). ➢ The project will provide a perpetual source of economic activity for Seward as the project will require regular maintenance and rehabilitation. ➢ The project preserves natural gas which is especially important given that Cook Inlet's natural gas supply is declining and winter shortages are possible. ➢ Recreational activities including hunting, biking, skiing, hiking, and tours in an area of inaccessible State land will be available to everyone in Seward. INDEPENDENCE POWER, LLC •.tit �s �tr 194 A run -of -river hydroelectric plant is a fairly straightforward facility made up of only a few major components. These major components on the 4'h of July Creek Project are briefly described below. Intake 1 Diversion Structure — The Project begins with an intake structure, located on 4'h of July Creek in the mountains about two miles behind the Spring Creek Correctional Facility. The proposed intake structure is a concrete dam 20 to 40 feet tall that will impound water in the creek so that it can be diverted into the pipeline. The dam would create an impoundment up to three acres in size. An intake screen is used between the intake and pipeline to ensure clean water enters the pipeline. Pipeline (penstock) — A four -foot diameter buried or above ground pipeline will carry about 120 cubic feet per second of water from the intake about 6,100 feet downhill to a powerhouse. The penstock would likely be buried in some areas and above ground in other areas. Powe l', w,zse — The powerhouse will be located at the base of the mountains about one mile east (up valley) from the correctional facility. The powerhouse will be accessed via a new gravel access road. A gravel turnaround and small parking area will be located next to the powerhouse. 4Z�az�e The primary purpose of the powerhouse is to house and anchor the turbomachinery, turbine controls, and associated equipment. The construction materials will likely be concrete block or poured concrete with an architectural finish. The exterior colors will be selected to blend with the natural setting. Turbine — The installed water turbine is called an impulse turbine or Pelton wheel, and consists of a series of buckets arranged around a shaft. For this project, two turbines will be utilized, each with about 2.7 MW output. Both turbines will likely have 2 nozzles (or jets). These nozzles discharge the high pressure water from the pipeline onto the Pelton wheel, spinning the wheel. The turbine shaft is directly connected to a generator which produces electrical energy. Power Transmission Line — The power line conveys the electrical energy produced by the generator to the utility's power distribution system. In order to economically transmit this energy over long distances, the voltage is increased using a transformer located next to the powerhouse. The Fourth of July Creek Project will have about two miles of transmission line connecting to the City of Seward's existing substation in the Fourth of July Creek industrial area. Electricity will flow from the project to the many homes and businesses in the City of Seward and surrounding area. PROJECT SCHEDULE Reconnaissance Study Feasibility Study Permitting and Design Construction 2008 — 2009 2009 — 2010 2009 — 2010 2011 — 2012 Operational Date Late 2012 INDEPENDENCE POWER, LLC At 1) , t) 195 Stream gauge installation at the powerhouse site on Fourth of July t Creek. Flow is 119 cfs. September 26, 2008. �� r Flow measurement above gauge installation on Fourth of July Creek. Flow is 7.5 cfs. April 9, 2009. gixo y�►-- Rock notch at top of canyon in vicinity of proposed intake site. Flow is about 9.6 cfs. April 23, 2009. L INDEPENDENCE POWER, LLC AUGV1 'r 2t.o- ti cp rl V J J c W r O a. W V Z W G Z W a. W G Z v J J W O a W v Z W In Z W a W 0 Z 198 42" above -grade penstock and access S road. Power and controls to the , .F . intake are mounted in conduit to the penstock. July 2009. r �w I f Access road looking downstream from the intake structure. The penstock, power, and controls are buried in the roadway. July 2009. P :, - .. ,'..'ivy-• = 4 = i - 5. a + Looking upstream at the 18-foot tall reinforced concrete intake structure. Discharge is spilling over twin Obermeyer gates. July 2009. Attribute Fourth of July Creek Kasidaya Creek Seward, Alaska (operational 2012) Near Ska wa , Alaska Commissioned 2009 Installed Capacity 5.4 MW, Run -of -river 3.0 MW, Run -of -river Average Annual Output 20,500 MWh 11,900 MWh Gross Head 670 ft 537 ft Intake Structure 60 ft long x 40 ft tall, reinforced concrete 70 ft long x 16 ft, tall reinforced concrete Hydraulic Capacity 120 cfs 88 cis Penstock 6,100 ft, 48 inches _ 4,000 ft, 42 inches 199 Port and Commerce Advisory Board 2009 Budget Advertising $ 250.00 Subscriptions & Dues $ 750.00 Travel & Subsistence $ 1,560.00 Education & Training $ 660.00 Insurance $ 400.00 Supplies $ 990.00 Postage & Fees $ 210.00 Misc. $ - Total: $ 4,820,00 Spent Remaining $ 250.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,560.00 $ 660.00 $ 171.43 $ 228.57 $ 341.76 $ 648.24 $ 210.00 $ 513.19 $ 4,306.81 200