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