HomeMy WebLinkAboutChitina Fivemile Creek Conceptual Design Study Report 01-2012CHITINA ALASKA
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY REPORT
Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project
Prepared For:
Chitina Electric Inc.
P.O Box 88
Chitina, Alaska 99566
January 13, 2012
Prepared By:
i CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Community Overview............................................................................................ 3
3.0 Site Visits and Community Involvement ................................................................ 5
3.1 Project Team ........................................................................................................ 5
4.0 Existing Power Generation and Distribution Systems ........................................... 6
4.1 Power Generation System .................................................................................... 6
4.2 Power Distribution System .................................................................................... 6
4.3 Historic Electric Demand ...................................................................................... 7
4.4 Historic Fuel Usage for Power Generation ............................................................ 8
5.0 Hydrologic Study .................................................................................................. 9
5.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Fivemile Creek Hydrology ..................................................................................... 9
5.3 Flow Measurements and Potential Power Resource ........................................... 10
5.4 Comparative Analysis ......................................................................................... 11
6.0 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................. 16
6.1 Projected Community Growth ............................................................................. 17
6.2 Projected Price per Gallon for Diesel Fuel .......................................................... 18
6.3 Avoided Cost of Diesel Fuel ................................................................................ 19
7.0 Facility Siting and Design Recommendations ..................................................... 21
7.1 Site Control ......................................................................................................... 21
7.2 Community Flood Data ....................................................................................... 22
7.3 Geotechnical Conditions ..................................................................................... 22
7.4 Borrow Sources .................................................................................................. 23
8.0 Proposed Improvements ..................................................................................... 24
8.1 General............................................................................................................... 24
8.2 Creek Diversion and Intake Structures................................................................ 24
8.3 Penstock ............................................................................................................. 24
8.4 Turbine House .................................................................................................... 25
9.0 Proposed Operating Scenario............................................................................. 26
9.1 General............................................................................................................... 26
9.2 Hydro-Diesel Integration ..................................................................................... 26
10.0 Permitting ........................................................................................................... 27
11.0 Construction Plan ............................................................................................... 29
11.1 Administration .............................................................................................. 29
11.2 Use of Local Labor and Equipment .............................................................. 29
11.3 Construction Access and Logistical Challenges ........................................... 29
11.4 Construction Schedule ................................................................................. 30
11.5 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate....................................................... 30
ii CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
TABLES
Table 1 Contact Information...................................................................................................... 5
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Chitina Population over Time ....................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 - Average and Peak Electrical Power ............................................................................. 7
Figure 3 - Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost .................................................................. 8
Figure 4 - Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements .......................................................................... 10
Figure 5 - Normalized Flows for Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River ........................................... 11
Figure 6 - Normalized flows of Fivemile vs. Gulkana .................................................................. 12
Figure 7 - Fivemile Creek Calculated Flow Rates from Adjusted Historical Gulkana Data ........... 13
Figure 8 - Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power ..................... 14
Figure 9 - Potential Hydro Power ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 10 - Chitina Population Projections ................................................................................. 17
Figure 11 – Chitina Cost Projections for Diesel Fuel .................................................................. 18
Figure 12 - Avoided Cost versus Rated Power ........................................................................... 19
Figure 13 - Available Energy for Space Heating at Present Power Consumptions (300kW hydro)
......................................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Conceptual Design Cost Estimate
Appendix B – Conceptual Design Drawings
Appendix C – Preliminary Site Control Opinion Letter
Appendix D – Clifton Laboratories, Economic Feasibility Memorandum
Appendix E – Clifton Laboratories, Power Production Memorandum
Appendix F – Golder Associates, Geohazard & Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix G – ABR, Aquatic Resources Analysis
Appendix H – AOHA, Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
Appendix I – USFWS, Critical Habitat Determination
2 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AEA Alaska Energy Authority/Rural Energy Group
CDR Conceptual Design Report
CEI Chitina Electric Inc.
Corps U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRW CRW Engineering Group, LLC
EA Environmental Assessment
KVA Kilovolt-Ampere
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-Hour
O&M operation and maintenance
NESC National Electric Safety Code
3 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
1.0 Introduction
This Conceptual Design Report (CDR) was prepared by CRW Engineering Group, LLC
(CRW) for Chitina Electric Inc. and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). The purpose of
this study is to provide a conceptual design, economic analysis and construction cost
estimate for a proposed hydroelectric facility at Fivemile Creek, near the community of
Chitina Alaska.
2.0 Community Overview 1
Chitina is located in south central Alaska, on the west bank of the Copper River at its
confluence with the Chitina River, at mile 34 of the Edgerton Highway (Sec. 14, T004S,
R005E, Copper River Meridian.) The climate in Chitina is continental, characterized by
long, cold winters and relatively warm summers. Total annual water equivalent
precipitation averages 12 inches, including an average annual snowfall of 52 inches.
Temperatures range from a recorded low of -58°F to a high of 91°F.
The population of Chitina based on the 2010 Census is approximately 126 residents.
There are approximately 52 occupied housing units. The majority of homes in the
community are heated with fuel oil (54.2%) or wood stoves (37.5%). Figure 1 shows the
community population trend since 1910.
Figure 1 - Chitina Population over Time
1 Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Online
Community Profile Information, May 2011.
4 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
Residents haul water from a well at the fire hall or have individual wells. Some residents
use stream water during the summer. Outhouses and individual septic systems provide
sewage disposal. Less than 20% of homes are completely plumbed. Refuse collection
services are available from Copper Basin Sanitation.
The Edgerton Highway and Richardson Highway link Chitina with the rest of the state
road system. A State-owned 2,850' long by 75' wide gravel runway, 5 miles North of
Chitina, provides air chartered transportation for passengers, mail and cargo. The river is
an important means of transportation in summer; however there are no docking facilities.
5 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
3.0 Site Visits and Community Involvement
Multiple site visits were conducted for this project. AEA Project manager Alan Fetters
traveled to Chitina in the summer of 2009 to discuss the project with local officials and
asses potential intake sites. CRW Engineering surveyors performed a site visit in June
2011 to collect baseline survey data for the project. Biologists with ABR, Inc. performed
a site visit in June 2011 to collect fish habitat data along Fivemile creek. On September
19, 2011 a site visit team including participants from AEA, CRW, Golder Associates and
Alaska Energy and Engineering (AEE) flew to Chitina to inspect the proposed intake site,
perform a geo hazard/geotechnical evaluation of the penstock alignment and assess
potential turbine house and tailrace configurations. The community and Chitina Electric
have been involved in every step of the project.
3.1 Project Team
Project information was provided by the entities and contacts listed in Table 1
Table 1 Contact Information
Entity Contact Address Contact Information
Chitina Electric Inc.
(CEI)
Martin Finnesand,
Utility Manager
P.O. box 88
Chitina, AK 99566
907-822-3587
907-823-2233 (fax)
chitina_native@cvinternet.net
Chitina Native Corp.Anne Thomas,
President
P.O. box 3
Chitina, AK 99566
907-823-2223
907-823-2202 (fax)
Chitin_native@cvinternet.net
Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA)
Alan Fetters,
Project Manager
813 W. Northern Lights
Anchorage, AK 99503
907-771-3000
907-771-3044 (fax)
AFetters@aidea.org
6 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
4.0 Existing Power Generation and Distribution Systems
4.1 Power Generation System
The local utility, Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI), operates and maintains the community power
generation and distribution systems. CEI’s power plant is located on Chitina Airport
Road just off of the Edgerton Highway approximately 4 miles north of the community
center. The power plant was constructed in 2008 in cooperation with the AEA. The
plant consists of a pre-engineered modular structure with 3 diesel generator sets with a
combined capacity of 301 kilowatts (including two 117 kW gen-sets and a single 67 kW
gen-set). Fuel is supplied via a 12,000 gallon double wall aboveground storage tank
(AST) adjacent to the plant. Chitina’s electrical distribution system is a stand-alone
system, not interconnected to the regional (Copper Valley Electric) grid system. The
diesel plant is the prime power source for the community. CEI receives fuel via truck
haul from several regional venders including Glennallen based Fisher Fuels and
Crowley. The diesel power plant is equipped with a heat recovery system which
provides heat to the power plant fuel tank and the neighboring clinic via buried, insulated
circulating glycol pipelines.
CEI also owns an abandoned 25 kW hydroelectric facility located just south of town.
The existing hydro consists of a Francis turbine and a penstock which taps a small lake
near the town center. The facility was abandoned due to ADF&G restrictions placed on
lake draw down levels which severely limited output, the facility’s switchgear and
controls were obsolete, and the siphon system penstock was unreliable and caused
frequent blackouts. A 2006 study completed by LCMF Inc. for the AEA determined that
it was not economically feasible to repair and/or operate the facility.
4.2 Power Distribution System
The diesel power plant generates at 480 volt AC, which is stepped up to 12.47 kV using
a single, 150 KVA, 3-phase, pad-mount transformer located adjacent to the plant. The
power house is connected to the community’s existing overhead electrical distribution
system via a 4 mile long, 3-phase 12.47 kV overhead transmission line.
7 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
4.3 Historic Electric Demand
Chitina participates in the State’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program, and is
required to submit monthly reports to the AEA itemizing a myriad of power system
related items - most notably the quantity of electric power generated and sold, as well as
peak monthly electrical demands. Historical PCE report data was analyzed to determine
trends in the community’s energy consumption. For fiscal years 2002 through 2010, the
monthly average power consumption ranged from 45 kW to 65 kW. The peak monthly
power consumption was typically less than 80 kW, and usually occurred in December or
January. The highest recorded peak consumption was 89 kW in December of 2001
(Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Average and Peak Electrical Power
8 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
4.4 Historic Fuel Usage for Power Generation
Historical fuel usage data was gathered from CEI, regional fuel vendors, and power cost
equalization (PCE) data. The amount of fuel consumed for generating electrical power
was fairly consistent for fiscal years 2002 through 2010, ranging from a maximum of
40,000 gallons in 2002 to a minimum of 35,000 gallons in 2006. During the same
period, annual fuel costs for power generation rose steadily from $51,000 in 2002 to
$107,000 in 2010 (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost
9 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
5.0 Hydrologic Study
5.1 Background
CEI, in coordination with the AEA and its sub consultants, prepared a Regional
Hydroelectric Investigation in 2008 which evaluated the suitability of multiple streams
near Chitina for hydro-electric development. Liberty Creek, O’Brien Creek, Fox Creek
and Fivemile Creek were investigated. Fivemile Creek was determined to be the most
feasible candidate due to its proximity to the community power plant for electrical tie-in,
existing road access, and suitable year-round flows. For additional information on the
initial selection process refer to the 2008 Regional Hydroelectric Investigation, Chitina
AK, by Polarconsult.
5.2 Fivemile Creek Hydrology
Fivemile Creek is a second-order stream formed by the confluence of 2 short duration
streams which drain a series of small alpine lakes about 4,000 feet above sea level to
the west of the Edgerton Highway. Fivemile Creek flows for approximately 5 miles from
its source to the Copper River. The stream crosses the Edgerton Highway at mile 23.4
via a 12-ft diameter x 100-ft long CMP culvert.
Fivemile Creek empties into a braid of the Copper River immediately north of the runway
at the Chitina Municipal Airport. Based on LIDAR generated topographical contours, the
average slope of the stream is 10% (10ft drop for every 100ft of horizontal stream
length); with multiple reaches exceeding 100% (see Appendix B for profile drawings).
The streambed consists of bedrock and coarse substrate (i.e., boulder and large cobble)
with low sinuosity. The catchment associated with Fivemile Creek has an area of
approximately 33.8-square-miles, and is fed by a series of alpine lakes. The stream is
prone to seasonal flooding during breakup events and periods of sustained high
precipitation. Adjacent riparian forest is composed primarily of white spruce, paper birch,
willow, alder, and black cottonwood.
10 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
5.3 Flow Measurements and Potential Power Resource
To determine the potential power production of a hydro-electric facility at Fivemile Creek,
two weirs were installed and stream flow data was collected for portions of fiscal years
2008 and 2010. One weir was located at the proposed intake site and the other at the
culvert outlet where Fivemile Creek crosses the Edgerton Highway. At the lower weir,
measurements were recorded manually about twice a month from January 7th 2008 to
May 1st 2008 and from December 4th 2009 to May 12th 2010. The upper weir, located
about 9,000 feet upstream, included a pressure transducer and data recorder.
Automated measurements were taken every 15 minutes from August 28th 2009 to
February 22nd 2010 at this location. During the period of time when data was available
from both weirs, the flow measurements were similar (Figure 4). The similar flows
experienced at the two different weir sites indicate that little additional water is entering
the creek below the intake site.
Figure 4 - Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements
11 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
5.4 Comparative Analysis
Approximately 14 months of flow data was collected for Fivemile creek. Through
comparative analysis with other similar, gaged, regional streams with historic flow
records, the limited Fivemile creek data was used to predict approximate average annual
flow for Fivemile Creek.
Comparisons with the Gulkana River were especially useful, as historic flow
measurements were available during the same time period that the Fivemile Creek
gaging occurred. Further, the Gulkana showed similar seasonal flow variations on a per
basin area (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Normalized Flows for Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River
12 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
When comparing the flows between two creeks/rivers it is useful to plot a log/log chart.
If the flow characteristics are similar, a linear relationship between the data points will
occur. The more linear the relationship, the better the predictive power will be. A strong
correlation (R²=0.95) was found between the Gulkana and Fivemile Creek during periods
of low flow (less than around 500 CFS for the Gulkana and 9 CFS for Fivemile Creek).
Figure 6 - Normalized flows of Fivemile vs. Gulkana
The data indicates that, when the Gulkana has flows below 500 cfs, it appears to be a
reasonable source for predicting Fivemile Creek flows. Given the similarity of the
minimum normalized flows, it is assumed that the longer record of flow measurements
for the Gulkana will be helpful in assessing the expected annual variation in minimum
flows at Fivemile Creek. With increased flows the degree of correlation lessens,
however, high flow data is of minimal use for calculating energy production potential for
this project, as the design penstock flow will be around 5 cfs.
Even though there is a strong correlation between the minimum flows it can be seen
from Figure 5 that the Fivemile minimum normalized flows tend to be less than those for
the Gulkana. To better compare the minimum flows, a linear relationship between the
logarithms of the Gulkana River and Fivemile Creek was generated (Figure 6) and a
scaling factor applied to the Gulkana flow data (Figure 7).
13 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
Figure 7 - Fivemile Creek Calculated Flow Rates from Adjusted Historical Gulkana Data
Based on the adjusted historical data above, the minimum flow predicted for Fivemile
Creek would be 0.957 cfs. This minimum flow represents a potential power generation
of around 62 kW. This scaled data is presented below as recurrence intervals for the
minimum available power (Figure 8.)
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
19731974197519761976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009Scaled Gulkana Flow (CFS)
14 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
Figure 8 - Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power
Based upon the minimum hydroelectric power recurrence figure (Figure 8) it is expected
that the available hydroelectric power from Fivemile Creek will be less than Chitina’s
typical peak consumption of 80 kW once every five years. In other words, each year
there is a 20% chance the available hydroelectric power will drop below 80 kW at some
point, or an 80% chance it will remain in excess of 80 kW throughout the year. Based on
the analyzed data, it appears that the proposed Fivemile Creek Hydro Plant will be
capable of supplying nearly all of the electrical power required by Chitina at their present
levels of consumption (assuming there are no environmental base stream flow
requirements between the intake and tailrace). During the periods when the
hydroelectric power cannot meet peak demands, the community’s diesel plant will
provide the additional power required.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 10 100Power (kW)Years
Power Recurrence Interval Chitina Power Requirement (80 kW)
15 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
Figure 9 - Potential Hydro Power
The above chart presents the potential Fivemile Creek hydro power output for a 300 kW
plant during a typical hydrograph year.
170 158 125 107 187
300 300 300 300 300 300 236
215 200 160 139
237
528
880
1467
858
1594
958
304
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHydro Power (kW)For 300 kW Plant with Losses From Streamflow and Gross Head
16 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
6.0 Economic Analysis
Electrical demands in rural Alaskan villages, while relatively small in overall magnitude,
tend to be significantly more variable than those for larger communities. This is due to
dynamic fluctuations in seasonal populations, temperatures, local industrial activities,
and other factors. Properly sizing power generation systems for these communities
requires the integration of hard data, such as historical consumption records, with socio-
economic and other factors, such as projected housing and population growth, planned
infrastructure improvements, and the applicability of alternative energy sources and
emerging system control technologies.
To determine the economic feasibility of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Project a number of
historical documents and previous studies were reviewed, including an initial economic
analysis by Polarconsult Alaska (May 2, 2008) and the economic analysis submitted to
and revised by AEA as part of the Round IV evaluations of the State of Alaska Rural
Energy Fund grant program (Nov 30, 2010). Additionally an Excel-based model was
developed by Clifton Laboratories LLC to model the proposed hydro-diesel system. The
model simulated seasonal electrical demand, seasonal space heating demand (at
multiple community buildings including the hotel, community building, HUD housing
development and the local grocery store), seasonal stream flow variations, and
population growth projections over the project life. The analysis indicated that the
project is economically feasible given that the community population and demand grow
in a linear fashion over the project life. Further, if the proposed system includes a turbine
size greater than 200 kW, interruptible electric space heating in community buildings will
provide up to 20,000-gallons of additional diesel fuel savings. There is no apparent
benefit for a turbine rated above 300 kW.
17 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
6.1 Projected Community Growth
Population information for the Valdez-Cordova Census Area from 1970 to 2010 was
reviewed in order to provide some context for population projections. For the Census
Area, the Alaska Department of Labor projects declines of 25-50% over the next 20-30
years. However the community of Chitina does not appear to follow the general census
area trends. For example, between 1990 and 2010 the Census Area population
remained essentially constant while the Chitina population more than doubled.
For the purposes of this CDR, two growth scenarios were investigated, as shown on
Figure 10, including: linear growth, and exponential growth. For comparative purposes,
the “no growth” scenario is also shown. However, based on historic trends, it is
assumed that the community will continue to grow over the project life. Note that, for
modeling purposes, electrical demand is assumed to increase at the same rate as the
population growth.
Figure 10 - Chitina Population Projections
y = 4.1506x - 8204.1
y = 5E-40e0.0476x
y = 126
0
200
400
600
800
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population
Year
18 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
6.2 Projected Price per Gallon for Diesel Fuel
To determine the potential savings offered by the proposed hydro power plant,
predictions about the cost for diesel fuel must be made. Annual energy outlook statistics
were collected from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to predict the price of
imported crude oil. These national values were adjusted to Chitina equivalents by
means of an adjustment equation developed and published by the AEA. For Chitina the
adjustment equation is the price of crude oil times 1.32 plus $0.59 plus additional costs
for diesel production and CO2 equivalent allowances. Figure 11 shows a projection of
anticipated costs for diesel fuel in Chitina with high, medium, and low price growth
projections.
Figure 11 – Chitina Cost Projections for Diesel Fuel
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 20402010 Dollars per GallonYear
AEA High Projection AEA Medium Projection AEA Low Projection
Extrapolated Extraploated Extraploated
19 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
6.3 Avoided Cost of Diesel Fuel
To determine the potential cost savings created by replacing diesel power generation
with proposed hydro power, a comparative analysis was performed. The analysis used
the medium growth EIA projected fuel prices, and historic Power Cost Equalization
(PCE) power plant fuel consumption data to determine the value of avoided diesel fuel
for differing hydro turbine power ratings. Figure 12 shows the present value of avoided
fuel costs in 2010 dollars based on a 50 year hydro plant design life (design life specified
by AEA).
Figure 12 - Avoided Cost versus Rated Power
Analysis of Figure 12 leads to the following conclusions:
1. Maximum power generation diesel avoidance for the no growth scenario can be
achieved with a 100 kW turbine. Similarly, maximum diesel avoidance for linear
and exponential growth scenarios is achieved with 200 kW and 300 kW turbines,
respectively.
2. From a diesel consumption standpoint, there is no apparent added benefit to a
hydro turbine/generator larger than 300 kW.
3. If a 300kW turbine/generator is installed and the community does not experience
exponential growth, excess hydro energy would be available for meeting
community space heating needs, resulting in additional diesel fuel avoidance.
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Avoided C ost (Millions of USD)
Plant Rating (kW)
No Growth Linear Growth Exponential Growth
20 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
Figure 13 provides a graphical representation of potential diesel fuel displacement using
a 300 kW turbine at the community’s current electrical demand. The figure shows that,
at present, a 300 kW turbine/generator could meet the community’s electrical needs
most of the time and offset 15,000-20,000 gallons of heating fuel in the average winter.
In addition, during the summer months when heat demand is low, but flow (potential
energy proportion) is high, the 300kW turbine offers around 812,000kWh of equivalent
excess energy resources. This energy could be used for any number of economically
beneficial uses, including ice production, campsite RV hookups, refrigeration, sawmill
operation, etc.
Figure 13 - Available Energy for Space Heating at Present Power Consumptions (300kW
hydro)
21 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
7.0 Facility Siting and Design Recommendations
7.1 Site Control
The proposed intake structure, penstock alignment and turbine house are located within
Sections 23, 26, and 27, Township 3 South, Range 5 East, Copper River Meridian. The
surface estate of these sections, with certain exclusions, was conveyed to the Chitina
Native Corporation by Interim Conveyance No. 947 dated September 28, 1984. A copy
of the recorded document is provided in the appendices. The subsurface estate of the
same property was conveyed to the Ahtna Regional Corporation on the same date by
Interim Conveyance No. 948.
It should be noted that there are two Native allotments parcels, lots 1 and 2 of U.S.
Survey 11725, in the immediate vicinity of the project. Both of these lots were conveyed
to Margaret Eskilida by certificate of allotment 50-99-0220. A copy of the recorded
certificate of allotment is attached. As a Native allotment, this parcel is in restricted
status and nothing can be done on the property without BIA approval in addition to
approval of the allottee. However, as currently envisioned, the proposed project will not
encroach on the native allotments.
The access road adjacent to Fivemile Creek (Five Mile Mine Road, EIN 7) is located
within an easement reserved under the provisions of Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). EIN 7 is described as "An easement for an existing
access trail fifty (50) feet in width from the Edgerton Highway in Section 26, T. 3S. R. 5E.
Copper River Meridian, westerly to public land. The uses allowed are those listed above
for a fifty (50) foot wide trail easement." The allowed uses of a 50 Foot Trail, as cited in
the interim conveyance, are as follows: "travel by foot, dogsled, animals, snowmobiles,
two-and three-wheel vehicles (ATVs), track vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles." The
conveyance further provides that "any uses which are not specifically listed are
prohibited." As such, EIN 7 alone does not constitute an adequate site control interest for
the project. However, the BLM Information Sheet for 17(b) easements states that “the
land owner is not bound by (these) restrictions.” Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that the land owner, Chitina Native Corporation, could grant an easement for an
additional use within the EIN 7 easement area provided that the uses authorized by the
17(b) easement are not infringed upon.
The proposed project is also within the vicinity of the Edgerton Highway. The
Edgerton Highway is a 200 foot right of way under the jurisdiction of the State of
Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Northern
Region. The actual right of way width may vary somewhat depending upon the
location. The access road from the Edgerton Highway to the airport is a 100 foot
22 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
right of way. A copy of the airport property plan showing the approximate location of
the access road is provided in the appendices. Crossing above or under either right
of way would require a utility permit from ADOT&PF.
7.2 Community Flood Data
Based on the Alaska COE database neither a flood plain report nor a flood insurance
study has been performed for Chitina. However, the database entry notes that only very
minor flooding has occurred in the community, with damages limited to two structures
located less than 10ft from the Copper River. The proposed turbine house will be
located well away from the Copper River. Finish grade for the proposed turbine house
will be based upon the airport runway elevation, and the finished floor elevation of other
critical infrastructure in the vicinity (diesel powerhouse, clinic, etc.). Fivemile Creek is
considered too steep to experience backwater flooding effects, however the design of
the intake and tailrace structures should take into consideration seasonal high flow /
scouring events.
7.3 Geotechnical Conditions
Limited geotechnical and geohazard evaluations were conducted during the 12/19/2011
site visit.
The most significant potential geologic hazards that could impact the project appear to
be from erosion resulting from flooding and landslides occurring upstream of the intake.
Significant scour and re-deposition occurred in the alluvial deposits below the highway
during the flood event of 2006. A similar type event could result in damage to structures
(penstock and/or turbine house) located within the alluvial deposit downstream of the
highway culvert crossing.
The proposed penstock alignment traverses steep side slopes (in excess of 30%) and
considerable shallow bedrock. The bedrock is strong and will require blasting and/or use
of hydraulic rock hammer equipment to excavate. The soils overlying the bedrock, where
present, were easily hand probed. The overlying soils appear to consist of organics and
weathered bedrock, and should be relatively easy to excavate. The depth to bedrock will
be a critical cost factor for buried sections of penstock. Additional investigation of the
proposed penstock alignment, including brush/tree clearing and use of Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR) may be justified to finalize design of pipeline support/burial
methods and to quantify the amount of blasting/rock excavation that will be required for
construction.
Test pits were excavated at three potential turbine house locations using a locally
available John Deere 350 backhoe and CEI operator. The subsurface conditions
generally consisted of a thin organic mat overlying compact to dense poorly graded
gravel with sand and trace silt (GP) to the depth explored. Cobbles and boulders are
23 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
present within the gravel matrix. An organic layer several inches thick was also found
within the gravel about 2 to 3 feet below the ground surface in the two test pits nearest
the Copper River, which suggest these locations have been impacted by past flood
events, probably in the last 20 years or so judging by the tree growth. Moisture content
of the gravel materials appeared dry to moist and no ground water was encountered
during the exploration. Permafrost could be present below the depth of exploration
based on historic information in the area. However, due to the low moisture contents
measured during historic investigations, the potential thaw settlement of frozen sand and
gravel is expected to be very small. The depths of the test pits were limited to a
maximum of 6 feet below ground surface due to time constraints and the size of the
excavation equipment. The test pit logs are included in the appendices.Based on the
historic geotechnical data, the geology, and the subsurface conditions encountered in
the test pits, the proposed turbine house can be supported on conventional shallow
spread footings bearing on properly compacted structural fill. More detailed foundation
recommendations are provided in the geotechnical/geohazard evaluation included in the
appendices.
7.4 Borrow Sources
Based on conversations with Martin Finnesand, CEI President, local fill material is
available at a pit located on the east side of the Copper River, which is operated by
Ahtna Corporation. This material is reported to be a washed, sedimentary gravel, that is
mined and used as a pit run material.
24 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
8.0 Proposed Improvements
8.1 General
The proposed Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project will consist of a diversion / intake
structure, penstock, turbine house and electrical tie-in system. These components and
related infrastructure are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
8.2 Creek Diversion and Intake Structures
As currently envisioned the diversion will consist of a gravity concrete structure with
multiple, Obermeyer-type, pneumatic gates spanning the majority of the stream width.
Under normal operations the gates will maintain a pool depth of around 6-ft above the
diversion. During spring runoff, the gates will be lowered to allow flood flow and debris
to pass. This “self-flushing” capacity is meant to reduce the labor necessary to keep the
pool free of sediment and debris. Operation of the pneumatic gates will require that
power be extended to the diversion site. A compressor for operating the gates will be
housed in a small modular building to be located on the embankment above the intake.
The intake will consist of a reinforced concrete basin and trash/debris rack positioned
adjacent to the diversion pool. The structure will function as a “side-intake” allowing
debris and sediment to pass by without entering. The trash rack will be heated via
electric boiler and circulating hydronic system. The electric boiler will be housed in the
same building as the compressor and controls.
The creek diversion / intake structure would be accessible via the existing jeep trail
(Fivemile Mine Road) that runs along the north side of Fivemile Creek and approximately
¼ mile of pioneer road / ATV trail to be constructed during the project. It is anticipated
that power and communication lines will allow for remote monitoring and operation of the
diversion (web cams, remote gate operation, head level monitoring, etc.).
8.3 Penstock
The proposed penstock for this project will consist of carbon steel pipe; the penstock will
be approximately 12-inches in diameter and about 10,000 linear feet long. Where
feasible, the penstock will be buried; above grade sections will be insulated and
anchored as necessary. The proposed penstock alignment begins at the diversion
structure and then traverses approximately 2,700 LF of wooded side slope, exits the
creek valley and intersects with the existing Fivemile Mine Road. From here, the
penstock alignment follows the jeep trail to the southeast for approximately 1,500 LF
before leaving the trail and following a natural bench feature to the east for
approximately 2,000 LF, where it once again meets up with the existing jeep trail. From
here the penstock continues along the jeep trail for about 700 LF and then cuts cross-
country for approximately 1,000 LF where it meets the Edgerton Highway. The
proposed alignment follows the highway to the south for approximately 2,000 LF, then
25 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
turns down the Chitina Airport Road and travels an additional 400 LF to the proposed
turbine house location. See Appendix B for a site plan showing the proposed pipeline
alignment.
Note that the proposed pipeline alignment is based upon the best available data,
including LIDAR topographic mapping and ground reconnaissance. Prior to final design,
the proposed penstock route should be flagged and cleared to allow a thorough
evaluation of site specific conditions such as construction access, depth to bedrock, etc.
8.4 Turbine House
The proposed hydro power turbine house will consist of a pre-engineered modular
structure on a concrete foundation. The structure will house a 300kW pelton turbine,
generator, and control elements. The turbine house will be positioned adjacent to the
existing diesel power module; water expelled from the turbine tailrace will flow back into
the creek via pipeline. The pipeline will discharge below the creek water surface at an
existing pool formed by the Edgerton Highway culvert outfall. The proposed hydro
SCADA system controls will be linked to the community’s existing diesel powerhouse
module. An electric boiler will be installed within the existing diesel power module to
assist with frequency control. A 3-phase, pad mounted transformer adjacent to the
turbine house and overhead medium voltage lines will connect the turbine power plant to
the existing electrical distribution system near the existing diesel power module.
26 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
9.0 Proposed Operating Scenario
9.1 General
The proposed project will be owned and operated by Chitina Electric, Inc. CEI’s existing
management structure and administrative department will remain in place. The overall
operation of the utility will change little as a result of this project. The utility will continue
to operate and maintain its facilities, and bill its customers for services provided. It is
anticipated that operation and maintenance efforts will increase initially while CEI’s staff
familiarize themselves with the hydro plant. However, once startup is completed, the
effort required for hydro plant operation and maintenance should be similar to that of the
existing diesel system.
9.2 Hydro-Diesel Integration
Under the proposed operating scenario, the hydro turbine will supply prime power to the
community the majority of the time. The existing diesel plant will act primarily as a
backup power source. The diesel system will need to be exercised on a regular basis to
insure it is ready for backup service. During periods of excess stream flow, electric
boilers / space heaters in community buildings will utilize the excess energy for heating
purposes. In the summer months, when heating demand is low and stream flow is
generally high, the hydro turbine will have the capability to provide low-cost energy to
other local industry. At this time, CEI plans to utilize the excess summertime energy for
ice production and sell the ice to local campers, tourists and fishermen. It is expected
that the ice making process will utilize up to 60,000-kWh of excess electricity per
season. Other potential uses of excess energy include electrical hookups at the local
RV campground (30,000 kWh per season), and head bolt heaters at village corporation /
council offices (8,000 kWh/yr). It is anticipated that local residents will find other creative
uses for additional excess energy resulting in economic growth.
27 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
10.0 Permitting
Following is a summary of anticipated permitting requirements for the project:
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT &PF)
An ADOT Utility Permit will be required for all project components to be located within
ADOT Rights of Way.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
The Corps of Engineers regulates work in wetlands and other waters that are subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. Projects that result in the placement of fill in wetlands require a Corps of
Engineers (COE) permit. Activities within a streambed must also be permitted through
the Corps. The proposed activities in Fivemile Creek will likely fall under COE
Nationwide Permit No. 17 for hydropower projects with less than 5,000 kW of generating
capacity. The Corps should be contacted to confirm that the proposed actions are
allowable under this or other applicable Nationwide or General permit.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
No restricted deed native allotments are anticipated to be affected by the proposed
project. Therefore, no BIA involvement is required.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Review
Projects located within 5 miles of any airport runway must complete the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Form 7460-1 “Notice of Proposed Construction or Operation,” and
submit it to the FAA Alaska Regional Office for review.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires an entity planning a hydroelectric
facility to file a hydropower license application, or a Declaration of Intention requesting a
waiver of licensing requirements. A Declaration of Intent was prepared for the proposed
Fivemile Creek Project and submitted to FERC in December 2011.
Based on a review of the FERC public information website, the following conditions
would result in the need for FERC licensing:
x A project located on navigable waters of the United States – based on the
definitions provided on the FERC information page, the Fivemile Creek Project
does not appear to affect navigable waters.
x A project which occupies public lands or reservations of the United States – The
proposed project does not affect public lands or reservations.
28 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
x A project which utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a federal dam – This
stipulation is not applicable to the proposed project.
x A project located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce
Clause jurisdiction, project construction occurred on or after August 26, 1935,
and the project affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce – The
proposed project does not affect interstate or foreign commerce.
Based on the analysis above, and conversations with FERC representatives, it is not
anticipated that a license will be required.
Fire Marshall Review
Before beginning construction of the proposed turbine house, a set of stamped
construction drawings must be submitted, along with the appropriate fee, to the State of
Alaska, Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Prevention (Fire Marshal) for plan
review and approval. Review times depend upon the agency’s work load; a typical
review may take up to 60 days to complete.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will require that any construction project be reviewed
for possible impacts to endangered species. Based on preliminary investigation and
preliminary input from USFWS, no endangered species impacts are anticipated.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Review
must be completed prior to construction of the project. The review process will include
the development and distribution of a project-scoping letter to all interested state and
federal agencies, including the USFWS, State Historic Preservation Officer, and State
Flood Plain Manager, among others. Responses from the agencies will identify
necessary permits and mitigation measures, if required. Agency approval letters should
be attached to the review checklist as justification for a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the project. It is assumed that the AEA will act as the lead agency for
FONSI determination.
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) Certification
The RCA requires that a utility update their Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity (CPCN) after any major facility upgrades or operational changes. To update
the CPNC, the utility must complete and submit the RCA form entitled “Application for a
New or Amended Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.”
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act any state or federally funded
project must be reviewed by SHPO for the potential of disturbing cultural resources.
29 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
Based on previous SHPO permitting efforts for the recently constructed diesel power
plant module, and a preliminary review of the SHPO library regarding the penstock
alignment, it is likely that no historic properties will be affected.
11.0 Construction Plan
11.1 Administration
It is assumed that this project will be constructed using conventional contracting
methods. The design engineer will prepare construction drawings, specifications and bid
documents. The project will be advertised and sealed bids will be accepted from
qualified contractors in accordance with State of Alaska procurement policy. At the
appointed date and time the sealed bids will be opened and evaluated. The Contractor
with the lowest responsive and responsible bid will be awarded the contract.
Once a contract is in place, the Contractor will coordinate procurement and construction
activities, as well as recruitment and training of local workers. The Design Engineer will
provide AEA with quality assurance and control services through communication with the
Contractor, on-site inspections of the work, and review of submittals and shop drawings.
11.2 Use of Local Labor and Equipment
The Contractor will be encouraged to practice local hire to the greatest practical extent.
It is assumed that skilled craftsmen, with appropriate certifications, will be imported to
perform specialty work (such as pipe welding and electrical equipment installation).
11.3 Construction Access and Logistical Challenges
Chitina is located on the state maintained road system, and is accessible via road year-
round. A jeep trail (Fivemile Mine Road), provides ATV and 4wd vehicle access up
Fivemile Creek Valley, however the road surface is generally hundreds of feet above the
creek itself. The jeep trail begins at a pull off on the west side of the Edgerton Highway
approximately 0.5 miles north of the Fivemile Creek culvert crossing. Currently the
intake site is accessible via an unimproved hiking trail which begins about 1.5 miles up
Fivemile Mine Road.
Pioneer access trails will be required to mobilize construction equipment and materials
to the intake site and related cross-country penstock alignment. The access trail will
need to traverse moderately forested, steep terrain with evident near-surface bedrock
and side slopes in excess of 30%. Anchoring and winching of heavy equipment may be
required. Helicopter access to the site may also be a reasonable alternative for material
delivery, etc.
A temporary coffer dam will be required to divert stream flow past the proposed intake
site during construction. Potential coffer dam types include earthen/rock fill constructed
30 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
January 2012
with in-situ materials, inflatable rubber dam, gabions, etc. A large diameter culvert or
flume structure will be required to convey stream flow over or through the permanent
diversion. Construction timing should coincide with periods of low seasonal flow
(typically late summer / fall).
Prior to final design, an experienced construction foreman should conduct a plans-in-
hand site inspection and constructability review of the proposed facilities. The design
engineer should accompany the inspector to discuss perceived construction challenges
and potential solutions.
11.4 Construction Schedule
A preliminary project schedule is shown in Figure 14 on the following page. The project
schedule is contingent upon availability of construction funding. For the purpose of this
CDR, it is assumed that critical long lead items such as the turbine and turbine house
will be owner provided (procured, assembled, and tested by AEA).
11.5 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate
A conceptual cost estimate for the construction of the proposed upgrades is included in
Appendix A. The estimate includes labor, materials and shipping costs for all project
components The cost estimate was developed based on the conceptual design
drawings included in Appendix B, and the assumption that the project will be constructed
using conventional contracting methods. Labor rates are based on Title 36 equivalent
wages for general and certified specialty labor. The total project cost, including all
design, supervision, construction, inspection, permitting, insurance, and a 10 percent
contingency, is estimated as $6,427,090.
ID Task Name Duration
1 Fivemile Creek Hydro Project Schedule 700 days
2 PHASE I TASKS 0 days
3 Finalize CDR 0 wks
4 PHASE II TASKS 161 days
5 Field Work 41 days
6 Survey Penstock Route 5 days
7 Clear Penstock Route 21 days
8 Field Verify Penstock Route / Geophysics 3 days
9 Finalize Penstock Route 1 day
10 Design 100 days
11 65% Design 12 wks
12 AEA Review 2 wks
13 95% Design 4 wks
14 Participant Review and Comment 2 wks
15 Final Design 2 wks
16 Business Plan 60 days
17 Permitting 40 days
18 Environmental Assessment Preparation 8 wks
19 Fire Marshall Review 4 wks
20 PHASE III TASKS 282 days
21 REF Construction Funding Awarded (Assumed Date)1 day
22 Procurement of Owner Provided Long Lead Items 50 wks
23 Assemble Turbine House Module (@ AEA)6 wks
24 Contractor Selection Process 59 days
25 Bid Document Preparation 3 wks
26 Solicit Bids 30 days
27 Protest Period 7 days
28 Contract Award 1 day
29 Project Construction (2013)90 days
30 Mobilization 1 wk
31 Pioneer Trail to Intake Site 2 wks
32 Install Cofferdam and Bypass 21 days
33 Prepare Bypass Foundation 7 days
34 Erect Formwork and Poor Concrete 2 wks
35 Install Pneumatic Gate (leave deflated first winter)3 wks
36 Construct Intake Mechanical Building 3 wks
37 Winter Shutdown 34 wks
38 Project Construction (2014)80 days
39 Remobilization 1 wk
40 Pioneer Trail for Penstock Access 5 wks
41 Construct Penstock 8 wks
42 Construct Power Line Extension to Intake 8 wks
43 Construct Turbine House Foundation Pad 1 wk
44 Turbie House Concrete Foundation / Tailrace 3 wks
45 Set Turbine House on Foundation 3 days
46 Install Tailrace Pipe to Outfall 2 wks
47 Startup and Commissioning 2 wks
6/11 6/15
6/19 7/17
7/23 7/25
8/7 10/29
10/30 11/12
11/13 12/10
12/11 12/24
12/11 12/24
10/30 1/21
11/13 1/7
12/11 1/7
11/5 10/18
10/21 11/29
1/15 2/4
2/12 3/25
3/26 4/3
6/3 6/7
6/10 6/21
6/24 7/22
7/23 7/31
8/1 8/14
8/26 9/13
9/16 10/4
10/7 5/30
6/2 6/6
6/9 7/11
7/14 9/5
7/14 9/5
6/9 6/13
6/16 7/4
7/7 7/9
7/10 7/23
9/8 9/19
Jan '12Feb '12Mar '12Apr '12May '12Jun '12 Jul '12 Aug '12Sep '12Oct '12Nov '12Dec '12Jan '13Feb '13Mar '13Apr '13May '13Jun '13 Jul '13 Aug '13Sep '13Oct '13Nov '13Dec '13Jan '14Feb '14Mar '14Apr '14May '14Jun '14 Jul '14 Aug '14Sep '14Oct '14
PROJECT SCHEDULE
FIVEMILE CREEK HYDRO PROJECT
Chitina, Alaska
Fivemile Creek Hydro Project
Conceptual Design Report
Appendix Table of Contents
Appendix A – Conceptual Design Cost Estimate
Appendix B – Conceptual Design Drawings
Appendix C – Preliminary Site Control Opinion Letter
Appendix D – Clifton Laboratories, Economic Feasibility Memorandum
Appendix E – Clifton Laboratories, Power Production Memorandum
Appendix F – Golder Associates, Geohazard & Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix G – ABR, Aquatic Resources Analysis
Appendix H – AOHA, Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
Appendix I – USFWS – Critical Habitat Determination
Appendix A
Conceptual Design Cost Estimate
CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.FIVEMILE CREEK HYDRO
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
JANUARY 12, 2012
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
ITEM DESCRIPTION COST
1. HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY
A. INTAKE STRUCTURE $762,000
B. PENSTOCK $1,456,750
C.TURBINE HOUSE $588,125
D. POWER, CONTROLS, ETC.$636,800
E. MISCELLANEOUS $53,000
F. OVERHEAD $243,600
G. FREIGHT $406,170
TASK SUB TOTAL $4,146,445
2.PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Construction Task Sub Total $4,146,445
Design and Contract Administration (20% of Construction Cost)$829,000
Contractor Overhead and Profit (25% of Construction Cost)$1,037,000
Contingency (10%)$414,645
Cost to Construct Fivemile Creek Hydro $6,427,090
Summary pg.1
CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.FIVEMILE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC
COST ESTIMATE DETAIL
January 12, 2012
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
ITEM QUAN UNIT UNIT MATL UNIT LAB LAB LABOR CONTR FREIGHT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
COST COST HRS HRS RATE COST COST COST COST WT WT (#)
Intake Structure
Mobilization to Chitina 1 lump $25,000 $25,000 $75 $0 $25,000 0
1/4 mile Pioneer Trail (cut/fill)2,000 CY $35 $70,000 0 $75 $0 $70,000 0
Install coffer dam and bypass flume 1 lump $50,000 $50,000 720 720 $75 $54,000 $104,000 10000.00 10000
Clear & Prep intake Site 1 $0 $0.00 360 360 $75 $27,000 $27,000 0
Prepare Abutment Rock Surface 1 $0 $0.00 120 120 $75 $9,000 $9,000 0
Excavate creek bed loose rock 100 CY $0 $0 2 200 $75 $15,000 $15,000 0
Rock Excavation/blasting 50 CY $0 $0 4 200 $75 $15,000 $15,000
Concrete (in place)150 cu. yd.$1,000 $150,000 0 $75 $0 $150,000 150.00 22500
Install Obermeyer Gate 1 lump $125,000 $125,000 720 720 $75 $54,000 $179,000 20000.00 20000
Intake trashrack 1 lump $2,500 $2,500 120 120 $75 $9,000 $11,500 1500.00 1500
Valves/Flush Gates, Etc.1 lump $10,000 $10,000 360 360 $75 $27,000 $37,000 2500.00 2500
Compressor / boiler building 150 SF $500 $75,000 2 300 $75 $22,500 $97,500 50.00 7500
Compressor 1 lump $7,500 $7,500 40 40 $75 $3,000 $10,500 500.00 500
Electric Boiler (25 kW)1 lump $2,500 $2,500 120 120 $75 $9,000 $11,500 1000.00 1000
Penstock
1 mile Pioneer trail (cut/fill)5,000 CY $35 $175,000 0 $75 $0 $175,000 0
12" Sch 40 buried Cross Country 5,600 LF $60 $336,000 0.25 1400 $75 $105,000 $441,000 54.00 302400
12" Sch 40 Arctic Pipe (AG)2,800 LF $150 $420,000 0.35 980 $75 $73,500 $493,500 65.00 182000
12" Sch 40 buried in Highway 1,800 LF $60 $108,000 0 630 $75 $47,250 $155,250 54.00 97200
Highway Rehabilitation 1,000 SY $80 $80,000 0 0 $75 $0 $80,000 450.00 450000
Rock Excavation 500 CY $50 $25,000 0 0 $75 $0 $25,000 0
Concrete sleepers 280 ea $75 $21,000 1 280 $75 $21,000 $42,000 200.00 56000
Elevated Pipe Supports 20 ea $1,500 $30,000 10 200 $75 $15,000 $45,000 200.00 4000
Turbine House
Pit Run 500 CY $5.00 $2,500 0.25 125 $75 $9,375 $11,875 0
Concrete Foundation / Tail Race 10 CY $1,000.00 $10,000 0 $75 $0 $10,000 4000.00 40000
Thrust block at Turbine House 4 CY $1,000 $4,000 0 $75 $0 $4,000 4000.00 16000
Turbine House Module (Struct)1 ea $100,000 $100,000 180 180 $75 $13,500 $113,500 30000.00 30000
300kW Turbine Package 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 0 $75 $0 $200,000 10000.00 10000
Switchgear 1 lump $150,000 $150,000 0 $75 $0 $150,000 2000.00 2000
Devices / Monitoring Equip 1 lump $50,000 $50,000 100 100 $75 $7,500 $57,500 500.00 500
24" CMP Tailwater Conduit 300 LF $100 $30,000 0.50 150 $75 $11,250 $41,250 40 12000
Detail pg. 2
CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.FIVEMILE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC
COST ESTIMATE DETAIL
January 12, 2012
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
ITEM QUAN UNIT UNIT MATL UNIT LAB LAB LABOR CONTR FREIGHT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
COST COST HRS HRS RATE COST COST COST COST WT WT (#)
POWER, CONTROLS, ETC.
Control Panels 5 ea $10,000 $50,000 40 200 $90 $18,000 $68,000 200.00 1000
Power / Comm to Intake 10,000 LF $50 $500,000 0 0 $90 $0 $500,000 5.00 50000
Transformers 3 EA $10,000 $30,000 80 240 $90 $21,600 $51,600 3000.00 9000
Meter Bases 2 EA $5,000 $10,000 40 80 $90 $7,200 $17,200 250.00 500
MISCELLANEOUS
Form Lumber, Lags, Nails, Etc 1 lump $10,000 $10,000 40 40 $75 $3,000 $13,000 10000.00 10000
Contingency (10%)0 lump $5,000 $0 30 0 $75 $0 $0 300.00 0
Misc Hardware 1 lump $10,000 $10,000 0 0 $75 $0 $10,000 2500.00 2500
Misc Tools & Safety Gear 1 lump $10,000 $10,000 0 0 $75 $0 $10,000 5000.00 5000
Welding Consumables 1 lump $100,000 $100,000 0 0 $75 $0 $20,000 2500.00 2500
OVERHEAD
Surveying lump $50,000 $50,000 0
Rent/Heavy Equip (12 months)lump $100,000 $100,000 0
Welder/Compr/Misc Tool Rent lump $50,000 $50,000 0
Commission System & Training 40 hr 1 40 $90 $3,600 $3,600 0
Lodging (Commercial)8 mo.$5,000 $40,000 $40,000 0
FREIGHT 1,348,100
Barge Freight Seattle - Anchorage 709600 lb.$0.35 $248,360
Truck Freight Anchorage to Chitina 1348100 lb.$0.10 $134,810
Truck Heavy Equipment Fairbanks
to Chitina 3
Single
Trailer
Loads $3,000 $9,000
TruckHeavy Equipment Chitina to
Fairbanks 3
Single
Trailer
Loads $3,000 $9,000
Misc Small Freight & Gold Streaks 1 lump $5,000 $5,000
SUB TOTAL $2,979,000 7,905 $601,275 $240,000 $406,170 $4,226,445
Detail pg. 3
Appendix B
Conceptual Design Drawings
RUSSIA
ANCHORAGE
NOME
KOTZEBUE
BARROW
JUNEAU
FAIRBANKS
CANADA
KODIAK
BETHEL
UNALASKA
CHITINA, ALASKA
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS & FIGURES
CHITINA HYDRO PROJECT
JANUARY 2012
CHITINA
T3S R5E
T4S R5E
T3S R6E
T4S R6E
CHITINA
CHITINA
AIRPORT
FIVEMILE CREEK
CO
P
P
E
R
R
I
V
E
R
W
R
A
N
G
E
L
L
-
S
A
I
N
T
E
L
I
A
S
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
P
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
CHITINA RIVER
TARAL
LOWER TONSINA
A
-
B
-
FIVEMILE CREEK
Appendix C
Preliminary Site Control Opinion Letter
Preliminary Site Control Opinion
Chitina Hydro Project
Chitina, Alaska
By email dated August 25, 2011, Kurt Meehleis requested that I prepare a
preliminary site control opinion for the Chitina Hydro project. A map depicting the
proposed location was furnished by Mr. Meehleis. I was also requested to
include a section discussing the Five Mile Mine Road (EIN 7) access easement
and allowable uses within the easement. It was noted that the intention is to bury
the penstock alignment within the easement if possible. Additionally, I was
requested to include a section on the Edgerton Highway.
Land Status Report
The provided map shows the proposed penstock alignment within Sections 23,
26, and 27, Township 3 South, Range 5 East, Copper River Meridian. The
surface estate of these sections, with certain exclusions, was conveyed to the
Chitina Native Corporation by Interim Conveyance No. 947 dated September 28,
1984. A copy of the recorded document is attached. The subsurface estate of
the same property was conveyed to the Ahtna Regional Corporation on the same
date by Interim Conveyance No. 948.
It should be noted that there are two Native allotments parcels, lots 1 and 2 of
U.S. Survey 11725, in the immediate vicinity of the project. Both of these lots
were conveyed to Margaret Eskilida by certificate of allotment 50-99-0220. A
copy of the recorded certificate of allotment is attached. As a Native allotment,
this parcel is in restricted status and nothing can be done on the property without
BIA approval in addition to approval of the allottee.
Status of EIN 7 (Five Mile Mine Road)
Interim Conveyance 947, cited above, is subject to EIN 7. This easement was
reserved under the provisions of Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). EIN 7 is described as "An easement for an existing
access trail fifty (50) feet in width from the Edgerton Highway in Section 26, T.
3S. R. 5E. Copper River Meridian, westerly to public land. The uses allowed are
those listed above for a fifty (50) foot wide trail easement." The allowed uses of a
50 Foot Trail, as cited in the interim conveyance, are as follows: "travel by foot,
dogsled, animals, snowmobiles, two-and three-wheel vehicles (ATVs), track
vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles." The conveyance further provides that
"any uses which are not specifically listed are prohibited." A copy of the BLM
map showing the approximate location of EIN 7 is attached.
Accordingly, EIN 7, in itself, does not constitute an adequate site control interest
for the project. In the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) information sheet
concerning ANCSA 17(b) easements, it is stated that 17(b) easements are
"limited" and "any other use other than what is described in the conveyance
document is not authorized."
However, the information sheet also states that "The land owner is not bound
by those restrictions." (A copy of the pertinent portion of the BLM information
sheet is attached.)
Accordingly, I believe that the Chitina Native Corporation as the land owner could
grant an easement for an additional use within the EIN 7 easement area provided
that the use authorized by the 17(b) easement is not infringed upon.
Edgerton Highway
The proposed project is also within the vicinity of the Edgerton Highway. The
Edgerton Highway is a 200 foot right of way under the jurisdiction of the State of
Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Northern
Region. The actual right of way width may vary somewhat depending upon the
location. The access road from the Edgerton Highway to the airport is a 100 foot
right of way. A copy of the airport property plan showing the approximate
location of the access road is attached. Any crossing either above or under
either right of way would require a permit from DOT&PF. The contact person for
utility permits is Gail Gardner, (907)451-5408.
Note on surface and subsurface estates
ANCSA does not define the terms "surface estate" or "subsurface estate." The
law does not give any indication as to where the surface estate ends and the
subsurface estate begins. Thus, it has been left to the courts to define the rights
of the respective estate owners. The courts have indicated that there are
"legitimate incidental uses" of the subsurface estate that do not require payment
to the subsurface owner. There are still differences of opinion about the extent of
rights of the owners of the two estates.
Disclaimer: This report does not purport to insure, warrant or certify title. This
report is not a legal opinion. The report is the result of a limited research effort
as described above and was limited to recording office information that is
available online. The report does not provide an opinion as to whether an
interest would have to be obtained from the subsurface estate owner for a project
of this matter as that is a legal matter.
Prepared by
lilillieott
Rick Elliott
Land Consultant for CRW
September 6,2011
Attachments: a/s
\ •I ) .
AA-G653-A.
AA-6653-B
INTERIM CONVEYANCE
WHEREAS
Chitina Native Corporation
is entitled to a conveyance pursuant to Sees. l4(a) and 22(j) of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971,
43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613[a}, 162l(j), of the surface estate in the
following-described lands:
Copper River Meridian, Alaska
T. 2 S., R. 3 E. (Partially Surveyed)
Sec. 7, the unsurveyed portion south and west of the
left bank of the Tonsina River.
Containing approximately 130 acres.
T. 2 S., R. 4 E. (Partially Surveyed)
Sees. 21 and 27, the unsurveyed portlons north of the
right bank of the Copper River, excluding the
Copper River;
Sec. 28, E2SE4 and the unsurveyed portion south and
west of the left bank of the Tonsina River,
exclUding Native allotments AA-5972 Parcel D and
AA-7637;
Sec. 35, the unsurveyed portion south and east of the
left bank of the Tonsina River, excluding U.S.
Survey No. 3111, U.S. Survey No. 3549, Native
allotments AA-560S, AA-5928, AA-60l6, AA-6112 and
the Copper River;
Sec. 36, exclUding the Copper River.
Containing approximately 740 acres.
T. 3 S., R. 4 E. (Unsurveyed}
Sec. 1, exclud~ng U.5. Survey No. 5198, those lands
formerly within Native allotment AA-S701 and the
Copper River;
947Interim Conveyance No.
SEP 28 1984Date
."..,-~" . --."':l!:.. --.... --...• " -•• 0 _ _ "' '-;J~~~---' .",...,\, ---~"l:"
.J
••,
J
lOOK
Chitina
AA-6653-A
AA-6653-B
Sec. 2, excluding Native allotments A-063660,
M-S101, AA-66l2 and t~le Copper River;
Sec. 3.
Containing approximately 1,460 acres.
T. 2 S., R. 5 E. (Unsurveyed)
Sees. 31 and 32, excluding the Copper River:
Sees. 33 to 36, inclusive.
Containing approximately 3,653 acres.
T. 3 5., R. 5 E. (Unsurveyed)
Sees. land 2;
sees. 3. 4 and 5. excluding the Copper River;
Sec. 6, excluding U.S. Survey No. 5198, Native
allotment AA-S882 and the Copper River;
Sec. 1, excluding Native allotment AA-5882;
Sec. 8, excluding U.S. Survey No. 3578;
sec. 9, excluding Native allotments AA-5967 Parcel B
and AA-76Sl;
Sec. 10. excluding U.S. Survey No. 3548,
Native allotment AA-1651 and the Copper River;
Sec. 11. excluding those lands formerly within Native
allotment AA-2520 Parcel B and the Copper River:
Sec. 12:
Sec. 13, excluding the Copper River:
Sec. 14, exclUding Native allotments AA-2520 Parcel B,
AA-5972 Parcel A and the Copper Riv~r;
Sec. 15, excluding U.S. Survey No. 3548 and Native
allotments AA-765l and AA-B045:
Sec. 16, excluding Native allotment AA-765l;
Sees. 17 to 22, inclusive:
Sec. 23, excluding ~ative allotment AA-5972 Parcels B
and C and the Copper River;
Sec. 24, excluding U.S. Survey No. 3550 and the
Copper River:
Sec. 25, exclUding U.S. Survey No. 3547. U.S. Survey
No. 3550 and the Copper River;
_" 2.
• ~J
,
).
.J
Interim Conveyance No. 947
SEP 288MDate
2
--.•-_. 0' -~-. '_ ;C~. -,........_-----
I
800K :';0 PAGl! 5'2
~kitin. Recordillil Di!tricr
AA-6653-A
AA-6653-B
..
ro",., \
.' .JSees. 26 to 35, inclusive;
Sec. 36, excluding the Copper River.
Containing a~proximate1y 18,917 acres.
T. 4 5., R. 5 Po. (Unsurveyed)
Sec. 1, excluding the Copper River;
Sec. 2, excluding U.S. Survey No. 1506;
Sees. 3 to 10, inclusive;
Sec. 11, excluding U.S. Survey No. 1506 and U.S.
Survey No. 1875;
Sec. 12, excluding the Copper River;
Sec. 13, excluding U.S. Survey No. 596, U.S. Survey
No. 1225, U.S. Survey No. 3221, Native allotment
AA-5568 Tract 1 and the Copper River;
Sec. 14, excluding U.S. Survey No. 264, U.S. Survey
No. 596, U.S. Survey No. 597, U.S. Survey No. 702,
U.S. Survey No. 941, U.S. Survey No. 942, U.S.
Survey No. 1225 and U.S. Survey No. 1875;
Sees. 15 to 21, inclusive:
Sec. 22, excl~ding Native allotment AA-6275;
sec. 23, excluding U.S. Survey No. 264, u.s. Survey
No. 597, U.S. Survey No. 1810, U.S. Survey
No. 2011, Native allotments AA-5889, AA-6275,
AA-6613, AA-7343, those lands formerly within
Native allotment AA-5730 and the Copper River;
Sec. 24, excluding U.S. Survey No. 3221, Native
alloLment AA-66l3, those lands formerly within
Native allotment AA-5730 and the Copper
River;
Sec. 25, excluding the Copper River:
Sec. 27, excluding Native allotment AA-5730;
Secs. 28 to 34, inclusive:
Sec. 36, excluding the Copper River.
Containing approximately 19,191 acres.
T. 2 S., R. 6 E. (Unsurveyed)
Sec. 36.
Containing approximately 640 acres.
Interim Conveyance No. 947_
SEP 2 9 1984Date
3
_ 01' .. ,,
--
l
~!i
.
800lt PAGE<0
Chitina Recording Diltrlct
)
, i AA-6653-1>.
AA-6653-B ,
.J
T. 3 S., R. 6 E. (Unsurveyed)
Sec. I;
Sees. 7 to 29, inclusive;
Sees. 30 and 31, excluding the Copper River:
Sees. 32 to 36, inclusive.
Containing approximately 19,524 acres.
T. 5 S., R. 6 E. (Unsurveyed)
Sees. 2 and 3:
Sees. 4 and 5, excluding Mineral Survey No. 613:
Sees. 6, 9 and 10.
Containing approximately 4,398 acres.
T. 2 S., R. 7 E. (Unsurveyed)
Sees. 19 and 20;
Sec. 21, excluding Mineral Survey No. 905;
Sees. 22, 25 and 26;
Sec. 27, excluding Mineral Survey No. 630, Mineral
Survey No. 661A and Mineral Survey No. 662A;
Sec. 28, excluding Mineral Survey No. 661A and
Mineral Survey No. 665B:
Sec. 29, excluding Mineral Survey No. 661B and
Mineral Survey No. 6658:
Sees. 30, 31 and 32:
Sec. 33, excluding Mineral Survey No. 661A:
Sec. 34, excluding Mineral Survey No. 565, Mineral
Survey No. 630, Mineral Survey No. 631, Min~ral
Survey No. 660B, Mineral Survey No. 66lA, Mineral
Survey No. 662B and Mineral Survey No. 665A:
Sec. 35, excluding Mineral Survey No. 565, Mineral
Survey No. 659, Mineral Survey No. 660A and
Mineral Survey No. 665A;
Sec. 36, excluding Mineral Survey No. 658, Mineral
Survey No. 659 and Mineral Survey No. 660A.
Containing approximately 9,561 acres.
947Interim Conveyance No.
Date SEP 28 1984
4
........
l~
BOOK :2 0 PAGE S~ f,t
Chitina Recording District • .
•I ,
.. ' M-6653-A
AA-6653-B
,,
.J
T. 3 So, R. 7 E. (Unsurveyed)
Sec. n.
Containing approximately 628 acres.
T. 4 S., R. 7 E. (partially Surveyed)
Sec. 6 ~
Sec. 7, excluding Native allotment AA-7332 Parcel A:
Sees. 8 to 11, inclusive:
Sec. 12, excluding U.S. Survey No. 5190~
Sec. 15:
Sec. 16, excluding U.S. Survey No. 5365~
Sec. 17, excluding U.S. Survey No. 4097, U.S. Survey
NO. 5365 and Native allotment AA-7332 Parcel B;
Sec. 18, excluding U.S. Survey No. 6119 and Native
allotment AA-7332 Parcel A:
Sec. 19:
Sec. 20, excluding Native allotment AA-7332 parcel B:
Sees. 21 to 29, inclusive:
Sees. 30, 31 and 32, excluding the Chitina River:
Sees. 33 to 36, inclusiv~.
Containing approximately 15,721 acres.
Aggregating approximately 94,565 acres.
NOW KNOW YEo that there is, therefore, granted by the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, unto the above-named corporation the surface
estate in the lands above described; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the
said estate with all the rights, privileges, immunities, and
appurtenances, of whatsoever nature, thereunto belonging, unto
the said corporation, its successors and assigns, forever:
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE UNITED STATES from the lands
so granted:
1. The subsurface estate therein, and all rights,
privileges, immunities, and appurtenances, of
whatsoever nature, accruing unto said estate pursuant
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of
December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(f)i and
947
Interim Conveyance No.
Date SEP 2 8 ~
I 5
_ ,--~---1I'~
·.......-.....--.
BOOK .:2 0 -
.............
PAGR S. €
1
1
--:"i':ne kt'cord:!l~ Di,~"';r, j
. !
AA-6653-A
AA-6653-B
2. Pursuant to Sec. 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601,
1616(b), the following public easements, referenced by
easement identification number (EIN) on the easement
maps attached to this document, copies of which will be
found in case file AA-6653-EE, are reserved to the
united States. All easements are SUbject to applicable
Federal, State, or Municipal corporation regulation.
The following is a listing o~ uses allowed for each
type of easement. Any uses which are not specifically
listed are prohibited.
25 Foot Trail -The uses allowed on a
twenty-five (25) foot wide trail easement
are: travel by foot, dogsled, animals,
snowmobiles, two-and three-wheel vehicles,
and small all-terrain vehicles (A'rVs) (less
than 3,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW»).
50 Foot Trail -The uses allowed on a
fifty (50) foot wide trail easement are:
travel by foot, dogsled, animals,
snowmobiles, two-and three-wheel vehicles,
small and large all-terrain vehicles (ATVs),
track vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles.
60 Foot Road -The uses allowed on a
sixty (60) foot wide road easement are:
travel by foot, dogsled, animals,
snowmobiles, two-and three-wheel vehicles,
small and large all-terrain vehicles (ATVs),
track vehicles, four-wheel drive vehicles,
automobiles, and trucks.
One Acre Site -The uses allowed for a site
easement are: vehicle parking (e.g.,
aircraft, boats, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs),
snowmobiles, cars, trucks), temporary
camping, and loading or unloading. Temporary
camping, loading, or unloading shall be
limited to 24 hours.
947_Interim Conveyance No.
Date S_E_P_2_8_19&4 _
6
--.-....~ --._-.... -.. -....----p---~-
• 70'
.;...-1 1-.
800K ~O PAGE 5~'
..•. !:......... 0;......;,.,
AA-6653-A
AA-6653-B
.
•
J a. (ErN Id C3, C5, 01, L) An easement for an
existing access trail, fifty (50) feet in .... idth,
from road EIN 19 e3, C5, 01, L in Sec. 12,
T. 4 S., R. 7 E., Copper River Meridian, easterly
to public land. The uses allowed are those listed
above for a fifty (50) foot wide trail easement.
b. (EIN 19 C3, C5, 01, L) An easement fifty (50)
feet in width for an existi~g road from Omnibus
Act Route No. 850 in Sec. 22, T. 4 S., R. 7 E.,
Copper River Meridian, near Strelna, northerly to
public lands. The uses allowed are those listed
above for a sixty (60) foot wide road easement.
c. (EIN 6 C5, 09) An easement for an existing access
trail twenty-five (25) feet in width from Liberty
Falls Campground in Sec. 8, T. 3 5., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian. westerly to public land.
The uses allowed are those listed above for a
twenty-five (25) foot wide trail easement, except
for t~o-and three-wheel vehicles and small
all-terrain vehicles which are limited to winter
us~ only.
d. (EIN 7 C5. D9) An easement for an existing access
trail fifty (50) feet in width from the Edgerton
Highway in Sec. 26, T. 3 S., R. 5 E., Copper River
Meridian, westerly to pUblic land. The uses
allowed are those listed above for a fifty (50)
foot wide trail easement.
e. (EIN 8 CS, 01) An easement sixty (60) feet in
width for an existing road from site ElN Sa C5, 01
in Sec. 11, T. 4 S., R. 5 E., Copper River
Meridian, southerly along the west shore of First
Lake to the Edgerton Highway in Sec. 11, T. 4 S.,
R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian. The uses allowed
are those listed above for a sixty (60) foot wide
road easement.
947Interim Conveyance No.
Date S_E_P_2_8_S84 _
7
-~ ~--~~•• __ ..... a-....·...-----_.-._--~ ~...~ ....
-
I
BOOK :20 PAGE SI:,Z
~hitin. Kecording Di.trier
AA-6653-A
AA-6653-B
f. (ElN Sa C5, 01) A one (l) acre site easement J
upland of the ordinary high water mark on the
southern shore of First Lake in Sec. 11, T. 4 S.,
R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, with an additional
twenty-five (25) foot wide easement on the bed of
the lake along the entire waterfront of the site.
The site will have a maximum lake frontage of 350
feet. The uses allowed are those listed above for
a one (l) acre site easement.
g. (EIN 18 C5, 01, L) An ease~ent for a combination
existing and proposed access trail twenty-five
(25) feet in width from site EIN 19 Cl, L on the
left bank of the Copper River in Sec. 25, T. 4 5.,
R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, southeasterly to
public land in T. 5 S., R. 6 E., Copper River
Meridian. The uses allowed are those listed above
for a twenty-five (25) foot wide trail easement.
h. (EIN 19 Cl, L) A one (1) acre site easement
upland of the ordinary high water mark in Sec. 25,
T. 4 5., R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, on the
left bank of the Copper River. The uses allowed
are those listed above for a one (1) acre site
easement.
i. (EIN 33 E) A one (1) acre site easement upland of
the ordinary high water mark in Sec. 12, T. 4 S.,
R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, on the left bank
of the Copper River. The side fronting the Copper
River will begin at the northern edge of the
Chitina-McCarthy Road right-of-way AA-2922 and
continue upstream for a maximum of 300 feet. The
uses allowed are those listed above for a one (1)
acre site easement.
j. (EIN 33a E) An ~a5ement fifty (50) feet in width
for an existing road from the Omnibus Act Route
FAS No. 850 in Sec. 7, T. 4 S., R. 6 E., Copper
River Meridian, northwesterly to site EIN 33 E.
The uses allowed are those listed above for a
sixty (60) foot wide road easement.
947Interim Conveyance No.
SEP 28 1984Date
8
PAGR:.5/' 8BOOK :;Q
M-6653-A Chitina RerordinJ! District
M-6653-B~:--~ ~
THE GRANT OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS IS SUBJECT TO:
1. Issuance of a patent after approval and filing by the
Bureau of Land Management of the official plat, or
supplemental plat. of survey confirming the boundary
description and acreage of the lands hereinabove
granted;
2. Valid existing rights therein, if any, including but
not limited to those created by any lease (including a
lease issued under Sec. 6(g) of the Alaska Statehood
A.ct of July 7,1958,48 U.S.C. Ch. 2, Sec. 6(g)},
contract, permit, right-of-way, or easement, and the
right of the lessee, contractee, permittee, or grantee
to the complete enjoyment of all rights, privileges,
and benefits thereby granted to him. Further, pursuant
to Sec. 17(b) (2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act of December 18, 1971 (ANCSA). 43 U.S.C. 1601,
1616 (b) (2), any valid existing right recognized by
ANCSA shall continue to have whatever right of access
as is now provided for under existing law;
3. Any right-of-way interest in the Copper River Highway
(FAS Route No. 8SI), extending one hundred fifty (150)
feet on each side of the centerline, transferred to the
State of Alaska by quitclaim deed dated June 3, 1959,
executed by the Secretary of Commerce under the
Authority of the Alaska Omnibus Act, Public Law 86-70,
73 Stat. 141, from T. 6 5., R. 4 E., Copper River
Meridian, Alaska, northerly to a junction with FAS
Route No. 850 at the village of Chitina, located in
T.4 5 •• R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, Alaska:
4. Any right-of-way interest in the Edgerton Cutoff
Highway (FAS Route No. 851) transferred to the State of
Alaska by quitclaim deed dated June 3, 1959, executed
by the Secretary of Commerce under the authority of the
Alaska Omnibus Act, Public Law 86-70, 73 Stat. 141,
from t~e village of Chitina in T. 4 5 •• R. 5 E •• Copper
River Meridian, AlaSka, northwesterly to its junction
with FAP Route No. 71;
Interim conveyance No. ----aoL-941_
SEP 28 1984Date
9
..
I
BOOK ~ Q PAGE;,S6 9
"':hitina Recordi", Dittriet
AA-6653-~ .
AA-6653-B
t
5. Any right-of-way interest in the Chitina-McCarthy Road
(FAS Route No. 850) transferred to the State of Alaska
by quitclaim deed dated June 3, 1959, executed by the
Secretary of Commerce under the authority of the Alaska.... Omnibus Act, Public Law 86-70, 73 Stat. 141, from the
junction with FAS Route No. 851 at the village of
Chitina in T. 4 S., R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian,
Alaska, easterly to McCarthy;
6. The following rights-oE-way for Federal Aid Highways,
Act of August 27, 1958, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 317:
a. A-055571, located in Sec. 35, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.,
Sees. 1 and 2, T. 3 S., R. 4 E., and Sees. 6,7,
8,9,15 and 16, T. 3 5., R. 5 E., Copper River
Meridian, Alaska;
b. A-057859, located in Sec. 8, T. 3 5., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
c. AA-798, located in Sees. 14, 15, 23, 25, 26 and
35, T. 3 S., R. 5 E., and Sees. 2,11 and 14,
T. 4 S., R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
d. AA-2527, located in Sec. 11, T. 4 S., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
e. AA-2922, located in Sees. 12 and 13, T. 4 S.,
R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, Alas~a;
f. AA-5894, located in Sec. 13, T. 4 S., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
7. The following rights-of-way for Federal Aid material
sites, Act of August 27, 1958, as amended, 23 U.S.C.
317:
I
....
f
Interim Conveyance No. 947
Date SEP 28 1984
10
, .n. .' I~.
800K :20 PAGE §lo
-~i~in8 Recordjn~ DiJrrict 1
.j
AA-6653-A ,.-j
AA-6653-B I
~.~
~
~
.J a. ~-OS1674, located in Sec. 15, T. 3 S., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
b. 1'.-053476, located in Sec. 8, T. 3 5., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
c. A-053477, located in Sec. 8, T. 3 S., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
d. A-057712, located in Sec. 35. T. 3 S •• R. 5 E.,
Copper River M~ridian. Alaska:
e. 1'.-062456, located in Sec. 35, T. 25., R. 4 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska:
f. AA-363, located in Sec. 2, T. 4 S., R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
g. AA-364, located in Sees. 25 and 26, T. 3 5.,
R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, Alaska;
h. AA-2B57, located in Sec. 13, T. " S •• R. 5 E.,
Copper River Meridian, Alaska:
i. AA-al75, Parcel 5, located in Sec. 35. T. 2 5.,
R. 4 E., Copper River Meridian, Alaska.
8. A right-of-way, AA-5565. located in Sees. 12 and 13,
T.4 S., R. 5 E., Copper River Meridian, Alaska, for a
dike in connection with the Chitina River Bridge, Act
of August 27, 1958, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 107, 317; and
9. Requirements of Sec. 14 (e) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601,
l6l3(c), that the grantee hereunder convey those
portions, if any, of the lands hereinabove granted, as
are prescribed in said section.
947Interim Conveyance No.
SEP 28 1984Date
11
---_..•.~.
., .
:,:.j
SOOTe J:J 0
AA-6653-A
M.-6653-B:J
f
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized officer of
the Bureau of Land Management has, in the name of the United
States, set his hand and caused the seal of the Bureau to be
her~unto affixed on this 28th day of Septe~be[, 1984, in
Anchorage. Alaska.
UN1TED STATES OF AMERICA
947Interim Conveyance No.
Date SEP 2894
'¥: ....-~~ .......... -...........~.
BOOK 5y PAGE 5?)7
~7G 689
m:be mnittb ~tate5 of §merita
Suppfementaf lJ{p.tive JlUotment
AA-5972
Parcels A, B, and C
Margaret Eskilida
This Native Allotment is a deed issued by the UNITED STATES. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, 1113, Anchorage,
Alaska 99513-7599, as GRANTOR, to Margaret Eskilida, P.O. Box 34, Chitina. Alaska
99566, as GRANTEE, fnr lands in the Chitina Recording District.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED That, the application AA-5972,
Parcels A, B, and C, filed pursuant to the Act of May 17, 1906, as
amended, 43 U.S.C. §§ 270-1 to 270-3 (1970), repealed with a savings
provision by 43 U.S.C. § 1617(a) (1994), has been approved pursuant to
that Act and Section 905(aXl) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of December 2, 1980, 43 U.S.C. § 1634 (1994), for the
following-described land:
Parcel A -Lot 4, U.S. Survey No. 11724, Alaska.
Containing 39.96 acres, as shown on the plat of survey officially filed on
March 26,1998.
Parcels Band C -Lots 1 and 2, U.S. Survey No. 11725, Alaska.
Containing 79.93 acres, as shown on the plat of survey officially filed on
March 26,1998.
Aggregating 119.89 acres.
Therefore, let it be known that, pursuant to the Act of May 17, 1906, as
amended, the land described above shall be deemed the homestead of the
allottee and her heirs in perpetuity, and shall be inalienable and
nontaxable until otherwise provided by Congress or until the Secretary
of the Interior or his delegate, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of
May 17, 1906, as amended, approves a deed of conveyance vesting in the
purchaser a complete title to the land.
C'~IIiCOl. No 50 - 99 - 02 20 Pug< I of 2
BOOK 5~ PAGE 53,8
AA-5972
Parcels A, B, and C
EXCEPTING AND RESERVlNG TO THE UNITED STATES, a
right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of
the United States. Act of August 30, 1890, 43 U.S.C. § 945 (1994),
This Certificate is supplemental to Certificate No. 50·93-0269, issued on
June 7, 1993, and is for the purpose of conveying the remaining portion
of the land the allottee is entitled to receive under the Act of May 17,
1906.
Sharon E. Warren
Chief, Branch of Native Allotment
Ad.judication
Dated at ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
on MAY 05 1999
000985
( :I.
\.C ~ 00 lei,w U) ::'l~. :::!:i~: ::a -.
C) I
'n ~,(;"1: 'j I ~ ... ,.;;:' J, IJISTRJCT -.I ';.. -<C.:: Ill: ~; REQUES fED BY ~'t'. ~ ..... ~~~~
"Bunc.h
'99 JUN 15 PM
Location Index for Recording Information:
Lot 4, USS 11724, Sees. 14 & 15,T. 3 S.,
R. 5E., CRM
Lots 1 & 2, USS 11725, Sees. 23 & 26,T. 3 S.,
R. 5 E., CRM
COI1i1i<OIO No 5 0 -9 9-02 20
. ...:::::~
)~ : ::--..··z.J,'"
. r·l 1l!:.1. :: ...."');..---.
(j) -"
""1',3 18 ~~~ :--;: ~():) (,.)~-~-':,,:. -,CD ,.,W L.· ".
Return Recorded Document to:
REALTY OF,FlCE
ANCHORAGE AGENCY
BUREAU OF INDIAN Al"'FAlRS
1675 ·C" STREET
ANCHORAGE, AX 99501-5198
Poge 2 of 2
::::'='...::::;~"':...'"'!.;.'~:~~
t.i<I'V>"""""-.0Ir1 QllIlTlov.IJ111 "'""",,,""'''''''
·OIXlO·'"", -..IOJ '-"'.... S,..l1OI>o, '00" J (t,_-..., 1oo4..",;..O~
ill ~7S" ':";:;,.~;;~.""""_'000-""".. W '.._,.. '<1.<-rt"'.d.a ",,,.e
..o""_,,""O" QI'M:lI...o.DIl:J1~.""""'bI'o.,,"" Valdez C-2 ~:~~Z;~~.=..:~'::'=::~~~:~~ VAWEZ (C-2), AKA_a""'d[ ........
~tW"'n"" .ft< FOA SALE SV U S. GEOt.OGfCAL SURVEY
",... "'",,100 0'_',",,,,0"VI_'"'''''bo_.•." FAIR5l\NI($, ALASI(A GG10', DENVER, COLOFlADO 80~15, Ol:t RESTON. VlROlf'ollA :lto92
"-","_.,~ ...,--..... _"".... "",. A fQUl~ Ot5<;"'BIN(i TQflOGR"~lC "....PS "100 SY~BQtS IS AVAllA~l.E 0111 REoU'E'"
~:-'::'~·~";"~':=-:"··=~·l~·;:~_:~.-'
.~ .. ~tp;""'~-_ ..
l."d~".""".""~I"'.""""odloo:r'_
~"_"r"-a..--.,,,lo"'OI.""II""""' Curront To Dote: 07-14-2010
"'h"Cp-e~IlIo.o'",""" .."
BLM Alaska: What can I do on 17(b) easements? http://www.blm.gov/aklst/en/prog/lands_realty/17b_easements/allowa...
BLM>AlaSl<a>ProgramS>LandS and Realty>17b Easements>What can I do?
Alaska
Sf) What We Do
!iti Visit Us
Wi Information Center
ttl Get Involved
ttl Our Offices/Centers
1£ Contact Us
AI~~ment~Gene;.a1 What can I do on a 17(b) easement?
What can I do on 17(b)
The uses allowed on a 17(b) easement are limited, and easements'
they are descnbed In the conveyance document Issued to More Information
a Native corporation. Common allowable uses for most 17b Easements on Ahtna Lands
17(b) easements are described below. Any use other than
what IS described in the conveyance document IS not
authorized. Please check with the agency managing the
easement or the owner of the land it crosses if authorized General Legal Authorities
uses are not posted at the trailhead or site easement. lit Agreements
An example of authorized use is; motorized vehicles on • Section ll(b) of ttw
2s-foot-wide trails are generally limited to snowmobiles, Alaska Native Claims
two-and three-wheeled vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles Settlement Act
haVing less than 3,000 Ibs. gross weight. larger vehicies (ANCSA) of Dec~mber
are not authorized on a 2s-foot public easement, even if .1.8, 1971, 43 USc.
the physical condition of the trail would support the use. 1616 (lb) (authOrity
An easement may also be limited to seasonal use ..I.IJ.e. for reserving publiC
land owner is not bound by these restrictions easements)
Common Allowable Uses • federal land
~1anagement Policy Act
25-Foot Trail-The uses allowed on a 2s-foot-wide of 1976 (FlP~1A)
trail easement are travel by: foot, dogsleds, animals,
snowmobiles, two-and three-wheeled off-highway • Section 903 (a) and
vehicles; and small ali-terrain vehicles (less than 3,000 (b) of the Aiaska
Ibs. gross vehicle weight). NatIOnal Interest lands
Consel'vat,on Act
50-Foot Trail-The uses allowed on a sO-foot-wide (ANIlCA) of December
trail easement are those allowed for a 2s-foot trail plus 2. 1980, (adds guidlfl<)
large all-terrain vehicles (more than 3,000 Ibs. gross pnrKlples when
vehicle weight), tracked vehicles, and four-wheel-drive reserving easements
vehicles. and C1utllonzes the
acquISitIOn of
60-Foot Road-The uses allowed on a 60-foot-wide easements)
road easement are those allowed for 25-and 50-foot
trails plus automobiles and trucks. • Code of Federal
Regulations 43 CFR
I-Acre 5ite-The uses allowed on a site easement 2650.4-7 and 2650.0-5
are: vehicle parking (such as aircraft, boats, all-terrain (public easements)
vehicles, snowmobiles, cars, and trucks), temporary
camping, and loading or unloading. Temporary • Code of federalcamping and loading or unloading is limited to 24 Regulations 43 cm
hours. 4.410 (who can
appeal)
Can I hunt, fish, or trap on or from a 17(b) easement?
• Departmental ~1anual
601 m1 4 (DepartmentNo. Hunting, fishing, Or trapping on Or from the easement are never allowed, unless you of the Intenorobtain a permit from the landowner for this purpose.
gUidance on
adl1llrllstratlon of
Section 17(b)
easements)
• 1\1ernorandurn of
Understanding (MOU)
among the BlM, NPS,
and FWS dated
.1.2/.1.2/88 (governs
which agency will
administer, the
process for
admlnlstermg/ ane] the
termination of Section
l1(bl easements)
• r~ou between tile Bl~1
dnd the USFS dated
9/4/90 (governs which
agency will admlfllster,
the p"ocess for
administering, and the
tennlnatlon of SE>ctlon
17(b) easernents)
Last updated 05-30-2008
USA.GOV I No Fear Act I DOl I Disclaimer I About BLM I Notices I Get Adobe Reader®
Privacy Policy 1 ForA I Kids Policy I Contact Us I Accessibility I Site Map I Home
1 of 1 8/30/2011 7:43 PM
PROPERTY STATUS
TR I PCL
AREAI (acr GRANTOR INTEREST 2~6~ T r AA IIPROJ
I
L
II
A
B
A
103.892
.~Q.:1.41.
7.424
U.S.A.
D.N.R.
O.N:R~
PATENT
::~:~:::
2/25191
~;::;:=+--
II I B I 24.486 D.N.R. -f!-~~-------f.5 /18195 I
NOTES
t. THIS PLAN SUPERSEDES CHITINA. AIRPORT 4. BOUNOARIES OTHER THAN THOSE B[TWEEH
PROPERTY PLAN, SHEET 1 or I, DATED RECO ....ER[O CORNERS. AS NOTED HEREON,
3-27-56. ARE eASED ON COIo4PILEO IHro"",...TION AND
ARE ...PPROxl......rr ONLY,2. THE 01"'[1'45101'45 roR THESE PL..ANS WERE
COIo4PILED FROW ",ANY SOURCES OF AVAILABlE" 5. Io4EANOERS or COPPER RIVER WERE 01ClTlUO
IHrOR......TIOH INCLUDING BLW SURVEYS. FIELD rROW THE AERIAL SURVEYOr THE PROJECT.
SURVEYS. AMD AERIAL SURVEYS. 6. THE TRACE ... or NATURAL wrANDERS or THE ORDINARY
3. 8,4.SIS or BEARING: TNE LINE rROIo4 RECOVERED HIGH WArOl. UNE or COPPER RIVER rORIo4S THE
BLw 1040MUWENT AT THE W.P. BETWEEN LOT 5 TRUE BOU~OARY LINE or PROPERTY. AS APPUCASLE.
AHD LOT 7, TO R[CO....EREO Bll.! MQNUW[NT
COIo4Io4DH TO CORNER 5, LOT 5 AND GORNER 2,
LOT 4. U.S.S. 3550: WAS ASSIGNED THE
RECORD BEARING or H 20'08'00" w.
u~o ,;
~~
PROTRACTED SECTIONS 23.24,25
TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH RANGE 5 EAST
COPPER RIVER MERIDIAN
.COPPE R LOCATION MAP
'
',/
LOT 2 :•., ~ LOT 4 ~
0)z ¥:.~~.~ 8..a~~~2.
':J
S'
°l~~~
~~
~[
z ~ t ~ 8 ~ 2 ~~
i ~~ B ~ ro g~
+0_w a
"'~ ~ .... ~ +
~~
f/'=====~~~l-
o/~.£~!;f
R IV ER ••••••••••••••••••••::=__ ~~ ~ __~~ USGS OUAD: VALDEZ (8-2) &: (C-2) e.·---··...····01', ,,,c~'"-' _.,
-" ~." ..: :: '-~ ~--' ~--'T~'" I 1116~13 <).,s;~~'::::- •,~ , LO 0)0 •• --~s2CrO·B27 E ~1,B2 :.?
®@569.02---+--__-===eRl'== _41246~--s~2rr06~7" E OF BEARINGi'RLf~"O';'" E B';JI~<rOB'OO") W TRACT I -,.=., ,.""
n PARCEL AI 37S°r;~~CT
t~ ...
N 20'03'11 W 20:1 APPROACH
---75' ~ ----- - -----:E-------sD"RfACE -1000'
1 :l0' X 3330' SAFETY AREA oJ'Iv' ~ ,so ~<
w ~~ ":>•.?
;H5' .... ~ .... ~ ... , r -r -2~ L5 -------~~~--------------_____1~
TRACT II j=-~~:c~~ A'_'RL_ I eRL 'RL :::: LOT 5 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:C~~ " ~I lfo 6' ~~II'< ::: \"":-'"
I PARCEL B wi ~ ~_~ ~ 6/ : ~
.~ 8.rt PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD [Jl ~ ~ ~~ TRACT I '6~~ \I'I.\':
.~ ~I~ ~ ~~:C~~ AI q: : ~ : ~ PARCEL A <~<Y~"o ~~ :I@ tn t;;~ tn[ o.?~, $Cl£L • N 2g.~~·~~ .. ~r • ~- • ---••---• -N 2~~~60~6 ~r • "-••---•• ---~lJ---..---.N· 2~~~;; ---•• ---•• ---•• ~i;~: ~~ ;;W··
~C "-e'"-t W ~?~ 8 ,~. z o~ ~:;IJ, ~~~~ ~ gSPECIAL NOTES: . ~~'i;...~~.'-l':~.~ ~I
THE CENTERLINE DEPICTED ON THIS PROPERTY PLAN IS THE PROPOSED -~..~ Til \'1 0 f;i
FROM THE CENTERLINE TO ANY RECORD OR RECOVERED MONUMENTS INDICATED :hilr:l~ic:a;g~aJi;-'~yl;;,~ !~r !~~d~~a~y g~u~I:~~~~n~nd that \'''' ~';. _ ..;; is, i ~
(DESIGN) CENTERLINE; AND NOT THE AS-BUILT CENTERLINE ALL TIES LEGEND I herebf cer11fy thai I om properly Registered and Licensed ~~7!' ~ ...:.. 0 a.
HEREON ARE FROM SAID PROPOSED CENTERLINE. AND CANNOT BE USED TO OR BLIo4 ~ONUIo4ENTS, RECOVERED.
ESTABLISH ANY AIRPORT PROPERTY CORNERS. LINES, OR MONUMENTS and that oil dlmen,lans and other detoils ore occurgle. .'t""liiiiii».~4'" ...... :::.
+ \r~~c:l~~~o~~o~~~~. a~gt ci~ntb~":~ ~~ ~~~~~r~l~onm~~~~~~~ot,an ;.;;•.•.•L.3 -=....:~~F <i ~
U.S.G.L.O. OR BLIo4 ~OHU"'ENTS. or RECORD.III
(!) U.S. SURVEY CORNER DESIGNATION NUIo4BER J~~.tBe~[S_62t8 '/;<t~(e \\\""',,,............ l/l a:
ANY ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORT PROPERTY CORNERS. LINES. OR MONUMENTS
SHALL BE LOCATED FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE APPROPRIATE
RECORD DOCUMENTS, AS FILED AND RECORDED -~~---S-~1·=2oc;.---
ST ATE OF ALASKA
DlSIGI'L-OEPART~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
DRAWN NORTHER," REGION-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION-AVIATION
APPROVED
CHECK DArr~
CHIEF AV1ATlON DESIGN GROUP
LLL 17/141951uPDATEO PROpERTY STATUS BLOCK
LLl. :1 IB-9
lLL B
LLL ,7-25·91
LLL 7"15"9,
BY' OAT!:.
EVISEDElEARING DIRECTIONTRJI PeLB
REVISED B.R.l.. PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND APRON
COPRECTEO CIL -t:tOUNDARY INTERSECT srATIONS.
CORRECTED ARR~~_~~l-!.~_
UP DATED PRQF£RTY STATUS BLOCK i REVISIONS
STATE OF ALASKA SHE~ /DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES CHITINA AIRPORT
NORTHERN REGION-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTlON-AVtATION
APPROVED /_ PROPERTY PLAN /10'
~/~ DAIT ..~,;,./
JOHN A ~ILLER, P E CHIEf RIGHT Of WAY AGENT
Appendix D
Economic Feasibility Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
To:Karl Hulse, CRW Engineering Group, LLC
From:Larry Clifton
Date:August 26, 2011
Regarding: Fivemile Creek Hydro Project Economic Feasibility
Summary
Clifton Labs, Ltd., was retained by CRW Engineering Group, LLC, to review the economic
feasibility of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Project near Chitina, Alaska. To this end we reviewed
the initial economic analysis by Polar Consult Alaska and the economic analysis submitted to
and revised by AEA as part of the Round IV evaluations of the RE Fund program. (1) (2) We
also reviewed an Excel simulation of the heat recovery system in the existing Chitina diesel plant
by Brian Gray and expanded this simulation to include simulation of the Fivemile Creek Hydro
Plant with intermittent as-needed electrical generation by the diesel plant. (3) Simulation of the
combined diesel and hydro plants took into account seasonal heating demand, seasonal water
availability, and linear or exponential population growth over the project life. There were two
main findings.
1.The project is economically feasible assuming linear or exponential extrapolation of
Chitina population and a plant rating of at least 200 kW. There is no benefit from
increasing the plant rating above 300 kW.
2.The project is also economically feasible with no population growth if interruptible
electric space heating is installed in buildings which collectively use 20,000 gal of heating
fuel per year. Taking into account the seasonal variation in heating demand and the
seasonal availability of hydro power in excess of the present electrical load, we estimate
that the electric space heating would displace 15,000 gals/yr of the 20,000 gal/yr
presently consumed.
A more detailed discussion of the data and conclusions follows.
Fuel consumption of existing diesel plant
In the Round IV project review, it was noted that the 13.9 kWh/gal diesel generation efficiency
submitted by the applicant might be unrealistically high. The diesel generation efficiency was
calculated from data obtained from PCE for FY ending June 31, 2010, in which it was reported
that 36,868 gals of fuel were consumed to generate 513,590 kWh of electrical energy. So if the
calculated efficiency is not correct, there must be an error in the reported fuel consumption or
energy production. To address this question we did some consistency checks on the monthly
PCE data.
Clifton Labs, Ltd.
4710 University Way N.E. #115
Seattle, WA 98105-4428
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
(206) 529-1410
(206) 529-1412
Larry@CliftonLabs.net
2
Figure 1 shows the diesel generation efficiency calculated from monthly PCE data for FY 2002
through FY 2011. From this figure we see that there are indeed questionable computed
efficiencies, including an efficiency of 18 kWh/gal for June 2010. We obtained copies of the
monthly reports submitted by Chitina Electric to PCE around June 2005 and June 2010 to see if
we could identify the source of the abnormal efficiencies calculated for these two months. For
June 2005 Chitina Electric reported 2,713 gals of fuel consumed. The data from PCE shows
2,173 gals so in this instance the error appears to be in entering the data at PCE. For June 2010
the submitted fuel consumption and the recorded fuel consumption agree. Since there is nothing
suspicious in the energy production for this month, we suspect that the fuel consumption was
greater than reported by Chitina Electric.
We are now using data from PCE for FY 2011 (ending June 31, 2011) to estimate electrical
energy production and fuel consumption of the present diesel plant. The monthly data for this
fiscal year are shown in Table 1. The annual diesel generation efficiency calculated from this
data is 13.60 kWh/gal based on 40,753 gals consumed to generate 554,137 kWh. The monthly
average power generation for FY 2011 is shown in Figure 2. For purposes of comparison, Figure
3 shows the monthly average power generation for FY 2002 through FY 2011. The monthly peak
powers shown in Figure 3 are not considered reliable after 2009. From conversations with the
power plant operator, the peak generation does not exceed 100 kW.
Posting Description
Diesel Generated
(kWh)
Fuel Used
(Gallons)
Efficiency
(kWh/gal)
July 2010 49,481 3,530 14.02
August 2010 48,463 3,449 14.05
September 2010 42,044 3,050 13.78
October 2010 41,094 3,085 13.32
November 2010 41,071 3,137 13.09
December 2010 55,769 4,150 13.44
January 2011 53,421 3,809 14.02
February 2011 43,853 3,141 13.96
March 2011 46,365 3,510 13.21
April 2011 39,675 3,125 12.70
May 2011 42,392 3,150 13.46
June 2011 50,509 3,617 13.96
Total 554,137 40,753 13.60
Table 1: Chitina monthly generation and fuel consumption for FY 2011
New hydro plant
A Pelton turbine is best for the head and stream flow of the project. With a conservative shaft
speed of 1200 RPM, the runner pitch diameter will be about 21”. Figure 4 shows the
approximate efficiencies of the penstock, turbine, and generator together with the plant efficiency.
The turbine efficiency is for a single-jet unit with the runner custom-designed for the site. The
plant efficiency is relatively constant for outputs ranging from 30-100% of rated plant output.
3
The approximate water availability is shown in Figure 5 and the hydropower availability for a 300
kW rated plant is shown in Figure 6.
The turbine speed will be controlled by a combination of jet deflection and active load control.
During normal operating conditions the deflector will not deflect any of the jet and the system
frequency will be maintained by adjusting the electric input to a new electric boiler in the diesel
power plant. In this normal mode, the injector will be adjusted to maintain the boiler input near
the middle of its operating range. In this way small changes in system load can be quickly offset
by adjusting the boiler input and the boiler input can then be restored slowly back to the midpoint
by adjusting the turbine injector. The deflector will come into action in the case of load rejections
which are too large to be counteracted by increasing the boiler input power. These load rejections
include breaker trips. The overspeed protection with lockout will be adjusted so that the turbine
will not be immediately shut down following a breaker trip, provided the deflector is able to
quickly bring the speed back to normal synchronous speed by diverting water away from the
runner. It will then be possible to close the breaker and pick up all of the load. In this situation
the turbine governor would rapidly move the deflector out of the stream. Using the deflector for
speed control will also make it easier to synchronize the hydro plant to the diesel plant when the
diesel plant is running.
Integration of new hydro plant into existing power system
The existing diesel plant includes a heat recovery system which supplies heat to the control room
and to a nearby health clinic. The new electric boiler in the diesel plant will be plumbed to the
existing heat recovery system so that it will serve two purposes: to replace heat previously
recovered from the diesel engines and to serve as an adjustable load for frequency regulation.
The seasonal variation in heat load on the heat recovery system is shown in Figure 7. The
increased heat load when no diesel engines are running is due to the need to heat the engine room.
The maximum load on the heat recovery system is about 20 kW and we plan to install a 40-50
kW electric boiler which will provide ample adjustable load for frequency regulation. In the
simulations of energy production with no diesel engines running we have assumed a minimum
electric boiler input of 20 kW.
Projected fuel prices
All of our simulations used the AEA Medium Projection as shown in Figure 8. (4)
Avoided fuel cost with population growth
Figure 9 shows population trends for the Valdez-Cordova Census Area, which contains Chitina.
(5) The population for this Census Area doubled from 1970-1975 during construction of the
Trans Alaska Pipeline and has been decreasing the past decade. Figure 10 shows Chitina
population from 1990 to 2010. (6) The Chitina population roughly doubled from 1990 to 2000
and remained fairly constant for the past decade.
4
We simulated energy production over 30 years for steady population, best fit linear extrapolation
of historical population (4 persons per year), and best fit exponential extrapolation of historical
population (4.76% per year) as shown in Figure 11. In these simulations we also varied the plant
rating from 100 to 500 kW. The results are summarized in Figure 12. It appears that the present
value of the avoided costs exceeds the estimated construction costs for either growth model and
that there is no benefit to increasing the plant rating beyond 300 kW.
Potential for using excess hydro power for space heating
We also performed detailed simulations to determine the potential for using hydro power for
space heating assuming no population growth. In these simulations we assumed that the heating
degree days in Chitina would be similar to those of Glenallen as shown in Figure 13. (7) Figure
14 shows the seasonal variation in average heating degrees superimposed on a graph of Fivemile
Creek stream flow. Here we can see that the greatest demand for space heating will be during the
time of year when the stream flow is rapidly decreasing.
Figure 15 is a more detailed view of heating demand and hydro power availability. Here the
dashed line is the hydro power available from a 300 kW rated plant in excess of the present
electrical load for each month of the year. The excess hydro power has been converted to gallons
of heating fuel based on a heat content of 134,000 btu/gal and fuel oil furnace efficiencies of
73%. The colored lines are, from bottom to top, the monthly heating demand for a sets of
buildings which presently consume 10,000 to 40,000 gals/yr of heating fuel in 5,000 gals/yr steps.
As we increase the present annual fuel consumption in which electric heating is installed we
quickly reach the point where the heating demand exceeds the available hydro power from
January to May. Figure 16 shows the avoided heating fuel consumption as a function of the
present heating fuel consumption. From this we see that to avoid 15,000 gal/yr of heating fuel, we
will need to install electric heat in buildings which presently consume 20,000 gal/yr of heating
fuel.
Revising the Round IV economic analysis spread sheet with the diesel plant statistics for FY 2011
and reducing the annual displaced heating fuel to 15,000 gal resulted in a B/C ratio of 1.22.
Simulation outline
Simulation Summary
1.Projected population
2.Fuel consumption without the hydro plant
3.Fuel consumption with the hydro plant
4.Avoided fuel consumption
5.Present value of avoided fuel cost
5
Simulation parameters
Financial
1.Projected fuel price (4)
2.Discount rate 3%
3.Project life 30 years
4.Present year 2011
5.First year of avoided costs 2015
Population
6.2010 Population 126 persons (6)
7.Linear population growth rate 0 or 4 persons/year
8.Exponential population growth rate 0 or 4.76%/year
Hydro plant
9.Hydro plant rating, 300 kW (design parameter)
10.Gross head 950 f t
11.Penstock loss at rated discharge 10% (nominal)
12.Turbine loss coefficients
13.Generator loss coefficients
14.Minimum bypass flow, presently set to 0
15.Specific weight of water 62.4 lbf/ft3
16.Minimum electric boiler input for frequency regulation when running only hydro 20 kW
(design parameter)
Diesel Plant
17.Minimum diesel electrical output, 20 kW
18.Recoverable heat from diesel engines, 2000 Btu/kWh (3)
19.Heat recovery system leakage into engine room, 5 MBH (3)
20.Heat loss is buried arctic piping to clinic, 12 MBH (3)
21.Clinic heat load coefficient, 436 BTU/(h*F) (8)
22.Clinic non-seasonal heat load 2233 BTU/h (8)
23.Total module heat load coefficient, 313 BTU/(h*F) (8)
24.Control room heat load coefficient, 75 BTU/(h*F) (8)
By month
25.Days per month
26.Heating degree days
27.Stream flow
28.Electrical energy consumption (Jul 2010 – Jun 2011)
29.Diesel fuel consumption (Jul 2010 – Jun 2011)
By hour by month
30.Electrical load variation (3)
31.Building heat demand variation (3)
6
Calculated parameters
Time independent
1.Rated plant discharge
2.Ratio of recoverable heat rate to diesel electrical power
3.Diesel efficiency
By month
4.Potential hydro power from stream flow and gross head
5.Potential plant discharge considering minimum bypass at intake and rated discharge
6.Hydro turbine and generator efficiency
7.Potential hydro power considering plant efficiency
By hour, by month
8.2010 Electrical load
9.Heating degrees
10.Clinic heat load
11.Total module heat load, will not require any heat June, July, and August
12.Control room heat load, will not require any heat June, July, and August
13.Total heat load when running only hydro = clinic + module + arctic pipe loss
14.Total heat load when running at least one diesel engine = clinic + control room + 5MBH
loss into engine room + arctic pipe loss
15.Boiler input when running only hydro is the maximum of
a.total heat load when running only hydro, and
b.minimum boiler input for frequency regulation.
Hourly simulation
By hour, by month, by year
1.Electrical load
2.Electrical load – available hydro power
3.Electrical load – available hydro power + total heat load when running at least one diesel
engine
4.maximum of
a.Minimum diesel electrical output, and
b.Electrical load – available hydro power + total heat load when running at least one
diesel engine
5.Diesel electrical output. If hydro power > Electrical load + boiler input when running only
hydro, then diesel electrical output = 0, otherwise it is 4 from above.
By year
6.Diesel electrical energy output
7.Fuel consumption
7
Works Cited
1.Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.Regional Hydroelectric Investigation Chitina, Alaska .2008.
2.Alaska Energy Authority. Renewable Energy Fund Round IV. [Online]
ftp://ftp.aidea.org/ReFund_RoundIV_Recommendations/REFundRound4/2_Project_Specific_Do
cs/economic_analysis_summaries/WordReports/682%20Chitina_hydro_final_113010.docx.
3.Gray, Brian. Chitina Heat Recovery Simulation 3-23-1.xlsx.
4.Institute of Social and Economic Research. [Online] University of Alaska Anchorage.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Fuel_price_projection_2011-
2035_workbook_final.xlsx.
5.Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Resident Population in Valdez-Cordova Census Area,
AK. [Online] http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=AKVALD1POP.
6.Zaruba, Ingrid M. (ingrid.zaruba@alaska.gov). Chitina Population.
1990&2000PopforChitina.xlsx.s.l. : Alaska Department of Labor.
7.Western Regional Climate Center.Glennallen KCAM, Alaska.[Online]
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?akglen.
8.Clifton, Larry.Simulation Notes Rev 07.2011.
8
Figure 1: Diesel generation efficiency
Figure 2: Power generation for fiscal year 2011
0
5
10
15
20
7/1/2001 7/1/2003 7/1/2005 7/1/2007 7/1/2009Efficiency (kWh/gal)66.51 65.14
58.39 55.23 57.04
74.96 71.80
65.26 62.32
55.10 56.98
70.15
0
20
40
60
80
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunMonthly Average Power (kW)
9
Figure 3: Power generation
Figure 4: Penstock, turbine, generator, and plant efficiencies
0
50
100
150
200
7/1/2001 7/1/2003 7/1/2005 7/1/2007 7/1/2009Power (kW)Monthly Average Monthly Peak
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Efficiency
Normalized Plant Output
Penstock Turbine Generator Plant
10
Figure 5: Fivemile Creek water availability
Figure 6: Potential hydro power and maximum power for 300 kW plant
2.44 2.27 1.81 1.57
2.69
6.00
10.00
16.67
9.75
18.12
10.89
3.46
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecFivemile Creek Flow (cfs)155 144 113 96 171
300 300 300 300 300 300
218
196 182 146 127
216
482
804
1340
784
1456
875
278
0
500
1000
1500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHydro Power (kW)For 300 kW Plant with Losses From Streamflow and Gross Head
11
Figure 7: Heat recovery system load
Figure 8: 30-year fuel price projections
16.26
15.11
13.15
10.75
8.85
7.15 6.70 7.23
8.99
11.54
14.69
15.78
19.74 18.05
15.18
11.67
8.87
7.15 6.70 7.23
9.09
12.83
17.45
19.04
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHeat Load (kW)Some Diesel Generation No Diesel Generation
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 20402010 Dollars per GallonYear
AEA High Projection AEA Medium Projection AEA Low Projection
Extrapolated Extraploated Extraploated
12
Figure 9: Population and projections for Valdez-Cordova census area
Figure 10: Chitina population
0
5000
10000
15000
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040PopulationLow Projection Medium Projection High Projection
0
50
100
150
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Population
Year
13
Figure 11: Chitina population projections
Figure 12: Avoided cost versus rated power
y = 4.1506x - 8204.1
y = 5E-40e0.0476x
y = 126
0
200
400
600
800
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population
Year
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Avoided Cost (Millions of USD)Plant Rating (kW)
No Growth 4 Persons/Year Growth 4.76%/Year Growth
14
Figure 13: Glenallen heating degree days
Figure 14: Glenallen heating degrees and Fivemile water availability
2199
1770
1555
1024
664
356 258
387
672
1222
1814
2100
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHeating Degree Days0
5
10
15
20
0
20
40
60
80
Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Fivemile Creek Stream Flow (cfs)Average Heating DegreesHeating Degrees Stream flow
15
Figure 15: Potential heating fuel displacement and heating fuel demand
Figure 16: Avoided heating fuel consumption
0
2000
4000
6000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecGallons of Fuel0
10000
20000
30000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000Avoided Heating Fuel Consumption (gal/yr)Present Heating Fuel Consumption (gal/yr)
Appendix E
Power Production Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
To:Karl Hulse, CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
From:Larry Clifton
Date:April 11, 2011
Regarding: Fivemile Creek Hydro Project Power Production
Clifton Labs, Ltd. was retained by CRW Engineering Group, LLC. to review the potential power
production of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Project near Chitina, Alaska. To this end, we reviewed
Chitina Electric, Inc. power generation statistics for fiscal years 2002 through 2010 and Fivemile
Creek stream flow data for portions of fiscal years 2008 and 2010. We also reviewed more
extensive flow data from nearby nonglacial streams. Based on the available data, it appears that
the Fivemile Creek Hydro Plant will be capable of supplying nearly all of the Chitina electrical
power at present levels of consumption. A more detailed discussion of the data and conclusions
follows with references to slides in the PowerPoint presentation accompanying this
memorandum.
The Chitina power system serves local customers and is not connected to other power systems.
Hence the primary economic benefit of the hydro plant will be to reduce the cost of diesel fuel
required to meet local electrical consumption. The amount of fuel used for generating electrical
power was fairly constant for fiscal years 2002 through 2010, ranging from a maximum of 40,000
gallons in 2002 to a minimum of 35,000 gallons in 2006. During the same period, annual fuel
costs for power generation rose steadily from $51,000 in 2002 to $107,000 in 2010. (Slide 2) The
increasing fuel costs were due primarily to the increasing price per gallon of diesel fuel.
For fiscal years 2002 through 2010, the monthly average power consumption ranged from 45 kW
to 65 kW. The monthly peak power consumption was usually highest in December or January.
Usually the peak consumption was less than 80 kW. The highest recorded peak consumption was
89 kW in December of 2001. (Slide 3)
With the intake at elevation 1570 ft and the power house at elevation 530 ft, the gross head will
be 1040 ft. In relating flow to power generation, it is convenient to use the estimate that, with
1000 ft of gross head and 80% overall efficiency, 1.5 cfs flow is required to generate 100 kW of
electrical power.
Fivemile Creek flow was measured at a weir constructed across a culvert near the proposed power
plant. (Slide 4) Measurements were taken about twice a month from 1/7/2008 to 5/1/2008 and
about twice a month from 12/4/09 to 5/12/2010. In addition, a weir was constructed near the
proposed intake. (Slides 5 and 6) Automated measurements were taken from this weir every 15
minutes from 8/28/2009 to 2/22/2010. We will refer to these weirs as “lower weir” and “upper
weir” respectively. During the period of time when data was available from both weirs, the flow
measurements were similar. (Slide 7)
Clifton Labs, Ltd.
4710 University Way N.E. #115
Seattle, WA 98105-4428
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
(206) 529-1410
(206) 529-1412
Larry@CliftonLabs.net
2
The minimum flows recorded at the lower weir were 1.33 cfs on 4/14/2008 and 1.77 cfs on
3/25/2010 and 4/13/2010. These flows represent potential power generations of 89 kW and 118
kW. It should be noted that the maximum peak power consumption generally occurs in
December or January and, for these two months, the minimum flows measured at the lower weir
were 2.46 cfs in 2008 and 2.73 cfs in 2009-2010. These flows represent potential power
generations of 164 kW and 182 kW, about double the historical peak consumption for these two
months. Peak power consumption and stream flow decrease from January to April. In fiscal
2008, for example, the peak consumption dropped from 65 kW in January to 59 kW in April.
During the same period, the potential power generation (calculated from the flow measured at the
lower weir) dropped from 164 kW to 89 kW.
With only two years of winter/spring flow measurements, it is difficult to assess whether the
hydro plant potential power generation will consistently exceed peak power consumption in
future years. For instance, there may be significantly more variation in minimum flows than is
revealed in two years of flow measurements. There is also the possibility that the flow
measurements were taken during atypical years when the stream flows did not drop to typical
minimum values. To address these concerns, we looked for stream flow measurements from
other nonglacial rivers in the Copper Creek Basin. The Gulkana River was the only such river for
which flow measurements were available during the same time periods as the Fivemile Creek
measurements. (USGS 15200280 GULKANA R AT SOURDOUGH AK) The catchment areas
of the Gulkana River and Fivemile Creek are, however, substantially different. The catchment
area for Fivemile Creek above the intake is estimated to be 12.65 square miles while the
catchment area for the Gulkana River is estimated to be 1770 square miles. To compare the
flows, we divided the flow measurements by the respective catchment areas. The normalized
flows (cfs per square mile) for the two streams were similar for the periods in which
measurements were available from both streams. (Slide 8)
Given the similarity in catchment characteristics and the similarity in the minimum normalized
flows for two different years, it is reasonable to expect that the longer record of flow
measurements at Gulkana will be helpful in assessing the expected annual variation in minimum
flows at Fivemile Creek. To this end we plotted the available minimum normalized flows at
Gulkana and the two minimum normalized flows at Fivemile on the same graph. For purposes of
comparison, we also plotted minimum normalized flows at two other nonglacial rivers in the
Copper River Basin. (Slide 9) From this graph we see that the two minimum normalized flows at
Fivemile Creek are somewhat lower than the corresponding ones at Gulkana.
Expecting the logarithms of the minimum flows to be normally distributed, we calculated a linear
relationship between the logarithms of the Gulkana River and Fivemile Creek minimum flows for
the two years for which we had flow measurements for both streams. (Slide 10) With only two
years of simultaneous measurement of minimum flows at the two sites, it is not possible to
determine the correlation coefficient between the logarithms of the minimum flows at the two
sites. But scaling the logarithms of the Gulkana minimum flows according to this derived linear
relationship reduces the minimum flows and, hence, is more conservative than using the unscaled
Gulkana data to estimate previous minimum flows at Fivemile Creek. (Slide 11)
Using the scaled Gulkana minimum flows as our best estimate of Fivemile Creek historical flows,
we constructed graphs of recurrence intervals for minimum normalized flow (Slide 12) and the
3
corresponding minimum hydroelectric power. (Slides 12 and13) From the minimum
hydroelectric power recurrence graph we see that the available hydroelectric power will be less
than the typical annual peak consumption of 80 kW about once every five years.
Chitina Hydroelectric ProjectEnergy ProductionPrepared by: Clifton Labs, Ltd.For: CRW Engineering Group, LLC.April 11, 2011
Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost2
Average and Peak Electrical Power3
Fivemile Creek Lower Weir4
Fivemile Creek Upper WeirNear Proposed Intake5
Fivemile Creek Upper WeirNear Proposed Intake6
Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements7
Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River Flows80.010.11101/1/2008 12/31/2008 12/31/2009 12/31/2010Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)5‐Mile Upper Weir5‐Mile Lower WeirGulkana USGS Measurements
Minimum Normalized Flowsfor Streams Near Chitina90.010.111960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Squirrel CreekGulkana RiverLittle Tonsina River5‐Mile Creek
Scaling of Gulkana RiverMinimum Normalized Flows10y = 1.2376x + 0.1176‐2.5‐2.3‐2.1‐1.9‐1.7‐1.5‐2.5‐2.3‐2.1‐1.9‐1.7‐1.55‐Mile Ln Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Gulkana Ln Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)2008 and 2010Linear (2008 and 2010)
Fivemile Creek Minimum Flows110.010.111970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Scaled Gulkana River5‐Mile Creek
Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Normalized Flows1200.050.10.150.20.250.3110100Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Recurrence Interval (years)Sample ReccuranceLog Normal Fit
Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power13
Appendix F
Geohazard & Geotechnical Investigation
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
Golder Associates Inc.
2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99507 USA
Tel: (907) 344-6001 Fax: (907) 344-6011 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
October 21, 2011 103-95547
Karl Hulse, PE
CRW Engineering Group, LLC
3940 Arctic Blvd., Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY GEOHAZARD AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR
PROPOSED FIVEMILE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, CHITINA, ALASKA
Dear Karl:
Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to present the results of the preliminary geohazard and
geotechnical investigation for the proposed Fivemile Hydroelectric Project located in Chitina, Alaska (see
Figure 1). The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to assess potential geohazards at the intake
site and along the proposed penstock alignment, and to investigate the subsurface conditions at the
proposed turbine house location. Our scope of work included a review of aerial photos and light detection
and ranging (LIDAR) imagery of the proposed project site; a geologic reconnaissance of the project site
including inspection of the intake/diversion site, penstock alignment, and proposed turbine house location;
and, preparation of this report summarizing the results of the imagery review and the field investigation to
identify potential geohazards, and provide recommendations for above-grade and buried pipelines and for
preliminary intake/diversion structure and turbine house foundations. This work was done in accordance
to our revised proposal to CRW Engineering Group, LLC (CRW) dated August 1, 2011.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed hydroelectric project is composed of an intake/diversion structure, penstock, and turbine
house at the locations shown in Figures 2 and 3. Preliminary plans envision a gravity concrete diversion
structure with an integral weir for passage of excess flow during normal operation and enough upstream
pool depth to discourage freezing of the penstock intake/rack structure (CRW 2011). The proposed
penstock will be a 12-inch-inside-diameter pipeline constructed of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe
for low pressure zones (less than 200 pounds per square inch) and welded carbon steel for high pressure
zones. The planned penstock will be buried where feasible, such as at the creek crossing, and any above
grade sections will be insulated and anchored as necessary.
As shown in Figure 2, the initial proposed penstock alignment starts at the diversion structure, travels for
about 2,800 feet where it connects to the existing jeep trail, follows along or near the jeep trail for another
4,800 feet, leaves the jeep trail and follows a gully for about 900 feet until it crosses the Edgerton
Highway, and finally drops down a steep slope (about a 45 percent grade) and runs along a drainage until
it crosses the creek and connects into the proposed turbine house. The proposed turbine house will be a
pre-engineered modular structure on a concrete foundation. Water expelled from the turbine tailrace will
be directed back into the creek via a short channel or pipeline.
1.1 Aerial Photo and LIDAR Imagery Review
Recent aerial photographs of the project site were reviewed as stereo pairs prior to the reconnaissance to
evaluate landforms and potential geologic hazards. After the reconnaissance, we reviewed the LIDAR
data to evaluate other alternative for the penstock alignment. PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Karl Hulse, PE October 21, 2011
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 2 103-95547
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
1.2 Historic Geotechnical Data Review
Prior to the field reconnaissance, we reviewed historic geotechnical reports in the area that included a
2005 report by Duane Miller & Associates (DMA 2005) for the AEA power generator building across the
street (see Figure 3 for building location). This preliminary geotechnical foundations recommendations
report included a review of a total of four geotechnical investigation reports for the highway, the airport,
and other roads. Based on this existing information, the expected site conditions were composed of
relatively clean sand and gravel alluvial soils beneath an overburden of silt and organic soil. Moisture
content of the sand and gravel from past work was relatively low even when frozen. Where present,
permafrost was generally thin and discontinuous, but was found below a depth of 20 feet in some
undisturbed areas during the 1991 airport investigation. Up to 5 feet of seasonal frost was reported in
areas cleared of snow.
1.3 Field Reconnaissance
The field reconnaissance was performed on September 19, 2011 and included Karl Hulse and Kurt
Meehleis from CRW, Bob Dugan and Steve Anderson from Golder, Alan Fetters and Doug Ott from the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), and John Dickerson from Alaska Energy & Engineering, Inc. (AEEI). The
reconnaissance group arrived at the site via a chartered aircraft. During the flight to the site, the group
reviewed the upstream basins and the creek drainage from the airplane. The group was met at the
airport by Martin Finnesand and Dan Stevens local representatives from Chitina Electrical Inc. (CEI) who
provided road transportation and guided the group. Photographs from the reconnaissance are shown in
Appendix A.
The reconnaissance group initially reviewed the erosion and deposition near the creek from a recent
storm event that had occurred in October 2006 (see Photos 16 to 18, Appendix A). Mr. Stevens
described that the storm caused the existing 12-foot-diameter culvert to discharge fully and scoured the
area about 700 feet in front of the culvert. The proposed location for the turbine house conflicted with an
existing leach field adjacent to the RV parking area; therefore, the group reviewed other potential turbine
house locations. The group then split into two parties : Messrs. Hulse, Dugan, Fetters, Ott, and Stevens
traveled to the intake/diversion location to review upstream features and Messrs. Meehlis, Anderson,
Dickerson, and Finnesand excavated test pits at the selected turbine house locations and reviewed the
proposed penstock highway crossing. The parties then rejoined at the jeep trail above the proposed
intake/diversion location. The remainder of the reconnaissance included walking the penstock alignment
where it leaves the jeep trail and connects to the highway crossing, and reviewing other crossing and
alignment options for the penstock. Due to time limitations and no survey flagging along the alignment,
the reconnaissance did not include a complete review of the penstock alignment from the intake/diversion
location to the jeep trail, nor down the steep slope after the highway crossing to the turbine house.
Three test pits were excavated for the proposed turbine house at the locations shown in Figure 3. The
excavations were performed with a John Deere 350 backhoe operated by Mr. Finnesand. Mr. Anderson
logged the test pits and directed the operation. The soils encountered were described in accordance to
the unified soil classification system (USCS) (see Figure B-1, Appendix B). Representative samples were
not collected for lab testing due to the large size of the materials encountered (see Photos 19 to 22,
Appendix A). The depths of the test pits were also limited to a maximum of 6 feet below ground surface
due to time constraints and the size of the excavation equipment. The test pit logs are included in
Appendix B.
Following the field reconnaissance, CRW identified the three alternative penstock alignments shown in
Figure 4 for consideration. PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Karl Hulse, PE October 21, 2011
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 3 103-95547
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Climate
The climate in Chitina is continental and is characterized by long, cold winters and relatively warm
summers (State of Alaska Community Database Online). Total annual precipitation averages 12 inches,
with an average annual snowfall of 52 inches. Temperature extremes have been recorded that range
from a low of -58-degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to a high of 91°F.
The following climate design parameters are recommended and were derived from historic 1979 to 2009
mean monthly temperature data for the Chitina region from the online Scenarios Network for Alaska
Planning (SNAP) Alaska Climate Dataset. The design freezing and thawing indices (DFI and DTI,
respectively) shown below considers the average of the three coldest or warmest years during the 30-
year period.
Table 1: Recommended Climate Design Parameters
Average
Temperature
Average
Freezing
Index (AFI)
Average
Thawing
Index (ATI)
Design
Freezing
Index (DFI)
Design
Thawing
Index (DTI)
30 °F -3,968 °F-days 3,257 °F-days -4,787 °F-days 3,646 °F-days
2.2 Site Setting and Regional Geology
The project elements are located along a steep, east-facing tributary to the Copper River on the northern
edge of the Chugach Mountains. The region is underlain by Paleozoic metamorphic bedrock consisting
primarily of argillite, greywacke, quartzite, and mica and quartz schists. Sills, dikes, and small crystalli ne
limestone beds occur locally plus some lavas and tuffs altered to greenstone (Nichols and Yehle 1969).
The region was extensively glaciated during the Quaternary. Glaciers dammed the Copper River during
the late Pleistocene creating a lake that inundated several thousand square miles. The ice dam was
breached approximately 9,000 years ago draining the lake and exposing the lake sediments. These
sediments froze creating extensive deep permafrost. Much of the permafrost has since thawed due to
climate warming, but some permafrost persists in areas with sufficient vegetative and protected from solar
radiation.
The upper drainage basin (see Photos 1 and 2, Appendix A) extends to a maximum elevation of
approximately 5,500 feet with treeline termination at approximately 3,500 feet. The upper elevations are
characterized by U-shaped valleys, cirques, tarns, and exposed bedrock and appear to have been
recently deglaciated. The surface is characterized by numerous end and lateral moraines, talus
accumulations at the base of steep slopes, and poorly sorted till.
Fivemile Creek is generally confined to a steep, narrow V-shaped valley below an elevation of 2,500 feet.
This portion of the drainage is characterized by a narrow band of very coarse alluvium near the level of
the creek bordered by steep, intermittently exposed bedrock. The slopes bordering the creek rise steeply
for 50 to 100 feet before laying back to more moderate angles. However, the canyon walls become
deeper with decreasing elevation. The upper portions of these slopes are characterized by generally
shallow deposits of colluvium consisting of unsorted mixtures of clay to boulder-sized materials formed by
mass wastage, landslides, and solifluction (Nichols and Yehle 1969).
2.2.1 Permafrost
The region is underlain by isolated masses of relict permafrost. The permafrost is relatively warm with
temperatures between 31°F to 31.9°F. Permafrost is more prevalent on north facing slopes protected
from solar radiation and with an insulating layer of surficial organics. PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Karl Hulse, PE October 21, 2011
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 4 103-95547
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
2.2.2 Seismicity
The region is seismically active. The site is located approximately 100 miles northeast of the epicenter of
the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake (magnitude 9.2), the second largest earthquake ever recorded. It is
approximately 150 miles southeast of the epicenter of the 2009 earthquake (magnitude 7.9) on the Denali
Fault, the largest earthquake in the world that year. According to Wesson and others (2007), the peak
ground acceleration is estimated to range from 17 to 26 percent g with a 10 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years.
2.2.3 Geologic Units
The following geologic units, and corresponding map symbols in parentheses, were generally
distinguishable in the corridor from the proposed intake to the turbine house:
Fill (Qf) – consists of compact to dense accumulations of fine to coarse particles deposited and
compacted by trucks and bull-dozers. Locally contains boulders to 4 feet in diameter.
Coarse Alluvium (Qac) – consists of cross-bedded and inter-bedded very coarse sand, gravel, cobbles
and boulders deposited by streams. Silt content is low.
Colluvium (Qc) – consists of unsorted mixtures of clay to boulder-sized particles originally deposited by
glaciers but since re-transported by sliding, washing or rolling downhill. Silt content is high.
Bedrock (Bxm) – consists of Paleozoic metamorphic bedrock, typically greenschist, but may also include
argillite, greywacke and schist with random dikes of igneous rocks. The rock is foliated, but generally
strong.
These units were mapped along the project corridor for the proposed Alternative 2 penstock alignment
and a preliminary geologic plan and profile depicting the inferred horizontal and vertical extent of the units
is shown in Figures 5 through 8. Not mapped is the surficial organic layer that mantles most of the
terrain. This layer is composed of forest litter such as wood, leaves, roots and moss in various states of
decay mixed with variable amounts of silt. It is generally loose and 0.5 to 1.5 feet thick. A mapped
surficial unit is presumed to have a thickness of at least 4 feet. Where dual units are shown, such as
Qc/Bxm, the thickness of the upper unit is estimated to be limited to approximately 5 feet.
2.3 Site Specific Conditions
2.3.1 Intake
The proposed intake is located at an approximate elevation of 1,565 feet in a reach of the creek that runs
to the east. The active channel is approximately 25 f eet wide and constricted by bedrock consisting of
greenschist that is exposed on both sides of the intake site (see Photos 5 and 6, Appendix A). The right
abutment is characterized by a near-vertical rock slope that rises approximately 15 ft before laying back to
a slope of approximately 60 degrees. The rock has prominent open vertical joints plus numerous other
low angle joints (see Photo 7, Appendix A). Approximately 50 feet downstream of the intake site a
prominent vertical fault zone (see Photo 9, Appendix A), approximately 2 feet wide, strikes to the north,
roughly sub-perpendicular to the orientation of the creek. The left abutment is characterized by a low
protrusion of greenschist approximately 6 feet high with a 45-degree rock slope extending approximately
50 feet above it (see Photo 8, Appendix A).
Immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed intake the channel is characterized by numerous
large boulders, some with diameters greater than 5 feet (see Photos 5 and 6, Appendix A). Beginning
approximately 300 feet upstream of the proposed intake there is a landslide zone with signs of activity in
the last few years (see Photo 4, Appendix A). This slide appears to have created a partial blockage of the
channel and forced the active channel to the west. The slide is approximately 300 feet high and appears
to be a shallow translational failure rather than a deep-seated one. Another similar slide zone has PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Karl Hulse, PE October 21, 2011
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 5 103-95547
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
reached the creek a couple hundred feet upstream of the first slide (see Photo 3, Appendix A). These
active slide zones are also identified in Figures 4 and 5.
The depth to bedrock under the very coarse surficial boulder alluvium at the intake location is unknown.
We estimated it to be 10 to 20 feet based on the general configuration of the terrain and the fact that the
bedrock is quite resistant to downcutting. It appears that it takes very large runoff events to move the
large boulders in the active floodplain although such an event occurred in October 2006.
2.3.2 Penstock Alignment
Three penstock alignment alternatives have been identified, as shown in Figure 4.
The primary penstock alternative (Alternative 2) exits the floodplain by cutting into the slope north of the
creek. This alignment appears to initially traverse the coarse bouldery floodplain deposits for
approximately 200 feet where it then encounters shallow colluvial deposits overlying bedrock. From
Station 2+00 to Station 36+00 (see Figures 5 and 6) the alignment traverses shallow colluvium over
bedrock and occasional bedrock outcrops. From approximately Station 36+00 feet to Station 55+00 (see
Figures 6 and 7) the colluvium appears to be thicker than 5 feet. From about Station 57+50 to Station
66+00 (see Figure 7) the route follows the adjacent to the existing jeep trail over shallow colluvium and
bedrock. The route departs the jeep trail near Station 66+00 and descends a shallow drainage to the
crossing of the highway (see Photos, 11 and 12, Appendix A). This drainage was generally dry during the
reconnaissance, but water was observed periodically in the lower reaches between boulder s.
The route crosses highway fill from approximately Station 75+00 to Station 76+00 feet. Numerous large
angular boulders, some with diameters of approximately 4 feet, are present in the fill (see Photo 13,
Appendix A). The downslope (east side) of the fill is very steep (see Photo 15, Appendix A). The route
traverses the base of the fill from Station 76+00 to Sta 85+00 (see Figure 8) on the remnants of an old
road constructed on colluviums (see Photo 14, Appendix A) . The route then descends a slope of
colluvium to approximately Station 88+00 feet where it transition onto the coarse alluvial fan for the
reminder of the route to the proposed turbine house. The materials in the alluvial fan are characterized by
coarse gravel with a very high percentage of sub-angular to sub-round cobbles and boulders, as were
encountered it the investigations for the turbine house.
With the exception of the portions of the penstock that are in the Fivemile Creek floodplain at the top a nd
bottom of the route, and the zone from Station 66+00 to Station 75+00, significant volumes of
groundwater are not likely to be encountered in a trenched excavation for the penstock.
Isolated zones of permafrost may be present although, judging from the relatively large trees along the
route, thaw-unstable permafrost is unlikely to be extensive, if encountered at all.
2.3.3 Turbine House
The subsurface conditions at the three proposed turbine house locations, as identified by the test pit
locations, generally consisted of a thin organic mat overlying compact to dense poorly graded gravel with
sand, trace silt (GP) to the depth explored. Cobbles and boulders are present within the gravel matrix.
An organic layer several inches thick was also found within the gravel about 2 to 3 feet below the ground
surface in Test Pits TP-G11-01 and TP-G11-02, which suggest these locations have been impacted by
past flood events, probably in the last 20 years or so judging by the tree growth. Moisture content of the
gravel materials appeared dry to moist and no ground water was encountered during the exploration.
Permafrost could be present below the depth of exploration based on historic information in the area.
However, due to the low moisture contents measured during historic investigations, the potential thaw
settlement of frozen sand and gravel is expected to be very small. PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Karl Hulse, PE October 21, 2011
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 6 103-95547
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
2.4 Geohazards
The most significant potential geologic hazards that could impact the project appear to be from erosion
resulting from flooding and landslides occurring upstream of the intake. Significant scour and re-
deposition occurred in the alluvial deposits below the highway during the flood event of 2006 (see Photos
19 to 21, Appendix A). A similar type event could result in damage to a buried penstock and turbine
house within the alluvial deposit area east of Station 88+00.
Active small landslides have occurred in sediments along the valley side-slopes upstream of the intake.
Future slides have the potential to temporarily block the creek that could cut off flow to the intake.
Material washed down from the slide debris could bury the intake or cause flooding when the temporary
blockage is breached.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Intake/Diversion Structure
The proposed intake is sited in a narrow reach of a steep-gradient creek with a high percentage of large
boulders. Large runoff events during storms or breakup have the capacity to move large volumes of
material in the creek bed, which would quickly fill any reservoir. Therefore, a buried intake consisting of a
slotted screen should be seriously considered.
While the intake structure can be abutted into reasonably competent bedrock, the depth to bedrock under
the channel is unknown. We recommend at least one borehole be drilled along the axis of the proposed
structure to determine bedrock depth. The hole should be cored a minimum of 10 feet into bedrock to
confirm that bedrock has been encountered. Drilling may require helicopter support to mobilize and
demobilize the drill due to the difficulty of access. It is highly questionable whether or not a small hand-
portable drill would be successful in the expected subsurface conditions. A geophysical survey using
seismic refraction supplemented by ground penetrating radar (GPR) may be able to determine a bedrock
profile in lieu of boreholes. Geophysical methods may not be definitive in determining the depth to
bedrock, but they will cost significantly less than drilling.
3.2 Penstock Alignment
The penstock alignment traverses considerable shallow bedrock. The bedrock is strong and will require
blasting to excavate. The soils overlying bedrock will be relatively easy to excavate. The depth to
bedrock will be the critical cost factor for a buried penstock. Therefore, additional investigation of the
route using GPR appears to be justified to quantify the amount of blasting needed to excavate a trench.
This effort should be preceded by clearing of a brush line with a minimum width of 5 feet. At a minimum,
the segment from the intake to the highway should be surveyed with GPR.
The most difficult segments of the penstock to construct will be the first 1,000 feet below the intake and
near the highway embankment. The first 1,000 feet are complicated by large boulders, intermittent
bedrock, and steep side slopes. The downslope side of the highway embankment is near the angle of
repose and includes a high percentage of boulders. The materials in the embankment are not suitable for
anchoring a penstock and the design for this segment will have to take this into account.
3.3 Turbine House Foundation
Based on the historic geotechnical data, the geology, and the subsurface conditions encountered in the
test pits, the proposed turbine house can be supported on conventional shallow spread footings that are
bearing on properly compacted structural fill. Isolated footings should be a minimum 18 inches wide and
buried a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. The footings should be placed on a minimum of 3
feet of structural fill. Provided our recommendations are followed, the footings can be designed with a
bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus sustained live loads. The bearing PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Karl Hulse, PE October 21, 2011
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 7 103-95547
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
pressure can be increased by one-third for total loads that include wind and seismic forces. The base of
the excavation should be smooth and compacted for placed precast footings.
Resistance to lateral loads will be developed by passive lateral pressures against the footing and by
sliding friction. Passive pressures can be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 psf, which
includes a factor of safety of 1.5. Base friction can be calculated as 0.30 times the vertical dead load on
precast footings and the friction factor can be increased to 0.35 for cast-in-place footings.
Provided permafrost does not exist at the final turbine house location, total settlement is estimated to be
less than 1 inch. If permafrost is present, additional settlements may occur if the permafrost thaws.
Therefore, options for releveling the structure should be considered.
Site preparation should include excavating all organics or silty soils beneath the building footprint and to a
distance that extends at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeter. The base of the excavation should be
inspected to verify the presence of clean sand and gravel soils. After the base is leveled or smoothed,
the area should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum dry density as determined by the modified
Proctor test (ASTM D-1557). Structural fill should then be placed in maximum 12-inch lifts and
compacted to 95 percent maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test. The structural
fill should meet the specification for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) Type A Select Fill (less than 6 percent passing the US Number 200 sieve size).
4.0 LIMITATIONS AND CLOSURE
This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of CRW, AEA, and Chitina Electric Inc. for use in
design of the proposed Fivemile Hydroelectric Project in Chitina, Alaska. If there are significant changes
in the nature, design, or location of the facilities, we should be notified so that we may review our
conclusions and recommendations in light of the proposed changes and provide a written modification or
verification of the changes.
There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between explorations and also with time.
Therefore, inspection and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer should be included during
construction to provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions revealed during the work.
In addition, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and
schedule.
The work program followed the standard of care expected of professionals undertaking similar work in the
State of Alaska under similar conditions. No warranty expressed or implied is made.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Karl Hulse, PE October 21, 2011
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 8 103-95547
draft fivemile hydro letter report 103-95547.docx
We appreciate the opportunity to assist with this project. Please contact us at (907) 344-6001 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
Steven L. Anderson, PE Robert G. Dugan, CPG
Associate and Senior Geotechnical Engineering Principal and Senior Geologist
Consultant
Attachments: References
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Map
Figure 3 – Test Pit Locations
Figure 4 – Alternative Penstock Alignments
Figures 5 to 8 – Alternative 2 Penstock Alignment, Preliminary Geologic P&P
Appendix A – Reconnaissance Photographs
Appendix B – Test Pit Logs
SLA/RGD/mlp PRELIMINARY DRAFT
REFERENCES
Nichols, Donald R., and Yehle, Lynn A. 1969. Engineering Geologic Map of the Southeastern Copper
River Basin, Alaska. U.S. Geologic Survey Map I-524.
CRW (CRW Engineering Group, LLC). 2011. Draft – Conceptual Design Study Report, Fivemile Creek
Hydroelectric Project, Chitina, Alaska, prepared for Chitina Electric Inc., dated September 16, 2011.
DMA (Duane Miller & Associates). 2005. Geotechnical consultation letter report for the AEA Power
Generator Building in Chitina, Alaska, prepared for LCMF, Inc., dated April 29, 2005.
State of Alaska Community Database Online, general overview for Chitina. Online:
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm?Comm_Boro_Name=Chitina&Data_Type=
generalOverview&submit2=Get+Data. (accessed October 10, 2011).
Wesson, R. L, , Boyd, O. S., Mueller, C. S., Bufe, C. G., Frankel, A. D and Petersen, M. D. 2007 .
Revision of Time Independent Probablistic Seismic Hazard Maps for Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report 2007-1043.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:09 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
SCALE
0
MILE
11
1
---- ----
APG 10/21/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PROVIDED BY U.S.G.S. AND DISTRIBUTED BY
GINA/SDMI.DRAFT
REFERENCE
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
LOCATION
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
7501000125015001750200020002000200020002000200075010001250150017502000225025002J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:09 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
---- ----APG 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----CHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.FIG.103-95547Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKSITE MAPCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKADRAFT1. AERIAL PHOTO ACQUIRED IN AUGUST 2011 BYAEROMETRIC. IMAGERY PROVIDED BY CRW.2. TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS GENERATED FROMLIDAR COLLECTION BE AEROMETRIC IN AUGUST2011 AND PROVIDED BY CRW.REFERENCESSCALE0FEET800800INITIAL PROPOSEDPENSTOCK ALIGNMENTDURING RECONEDGARTONHIGHWAYPROPOSED INTAKELOCATIONPROPOSEDTURBINE HOUSELOCATIONEXISTINGJEEP TRAILPRELIMINARY DRAFT
TP-G11-01TP-G11-02TP-G11-03DRAFTAERIAL PHOTO ACQUIRED IN AUGUST 2011BY AEROMETRIC. IMAGERY PROVIDED BYCRW.REFERENCEJ:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:09 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKASCALE0FEET400400
3---- ----APG 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----FIG.103-95547Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKTEST PIT LOCATIONSCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.INITIAL PROPOSEDPENSTOCK ALIGNMENTDURING RECONEDGARTONHIGHWAYPROPOSEDTURBINE HOUSELOCATIONTEST PIT LOCATIONAND DESIGNATIONLEGENDTP-G11-03AEA POWERGENERATORBUILDINGRV PARKINGAREALEACHFIELDPRELIMINARY DRAFT
7501000125015001750200020002000200020002000200075010001250150017502000225025004J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:10 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
---- ----SLA 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----CHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.FIG.103-95547Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKALTERNATIVE PENSTOCK ALIGNMENTSCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKADRAFT1. AERIAL PHOTO ACQUIRED IN AUGUST 2011 BYAEROMETRIC. IMAGERY PROVIDED BY CRW.2. TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS GENERATED FROM LIDARCOLLECTION BE AEROMETRIC IN AUGUST 2011 ANDPROVIDED BY CRW.3. ALTERNATIVE PENSTOCK ALIGNMENTS PROVIDED BYCRW FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER RECONNAISSANCE TRIP.REFERENCESSCALE0FEET800800ALTERNATIVE 2PENSTOCKALIGNMENTEDGARTONHIGHWAYPROPOSED INTAKELOCATIONEXISTINGJEEP TRAILALTERNATIVE 3PENSTOCKALIGNMENTALTERNATIVE 1PENSTOCKALIGNMENTALTERNATIVE 2PENSTOCKALIGNMENTALTERNATIVE 1PENSTOCKALIGNMENTACTIVESLIDE ZONEACTIVESLIDE ZONESPRELIMINARY DRAFT
5J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:10 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
---- ----APG 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----CHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.FIG.103-95547Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKALTERNATIVE 2 PENSTOCK ALIGNMENTPRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC P&PCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKASCALE0FEET200200DRAFTQc/BxmBxmQc/BxmBxmBxmBxmQc/BxmBxmACTIVESLIDE ZONEREFERENCELEGENDBxmBEDROCK - CONSISTS OF PALEOZOIC METAMORPHICBEDROCK, TYPICALLY GREENSCHIST, BUT MAY ALSOINCLUDE ARGILLITE, GREYWACKE AND SCHIST WITHRANDOM DIKES OF IGNEOUS ROCKS. THE ROCK ISFOLIATED, BUT GENERALLY STRONG.SHADED RELIEF IMAGE GENERATED FROM 2011 LIDAR DATASETACQUIRED BY AEROMETRIC AND PROVIDED BY CRW.PROPOSED PENSTOCKALIGNMENT (ALTERNATE 2)LIMIT OF GEOLOGICINTERPRETATIONQcCOLLUVIUM - CONSISTS OF UNSORTED MIXTURES OFCLAY TO BOULDER-SIZED PARTICLES ORIGINALLYDEPOSITED BY GLACIERS BUT SINCE RE-TRANSPORTEDBY SLIDING, WASHING OR ROLLING DOWNHILL. SILTCONTENT IS HIGH.PRELIMINARY DRAFT
6J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:10 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
---- ----APG 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----CHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.FIG.103-95547Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKALTERNATIVE 2 PENSTOCK ALIGNMENTPRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC P&PCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKASCALE0FEET200200DRAFTQc/BxmBxmBxmBxmBxmBxmQcQcQc/BxmQcBxmLEGENDBxmBEDROCK - CONSISTS OF PALEOZOIC METAMORPHICBEDROCK, TYPICALLY GREENSCHIST, BUT MAY ALSOINCLUDE ARGILLITE, GREYWACKE AND SCHIST WITHRANDOM DIKES OF IGNEOUS ROCKS. THE ROCK ISFOLIATED, BUT GENERALLY STRONG.QcCOLLUVIUM - CONSISTS OF UNSORTED MIXTURES OFCLAY TO BOULDER-SIZED PARTICLES ORIGINALLYDEPOSITED BY GLACIERS BUT SINCE RE-TRANSPORTEDBY SLIDING, WASHING OR ROLLING DOWNHILL. SILTCONTENT IS HIGH.REFERENCESHADED RELIEF IMAGE GENERATED FROM 2011 LIDAR DATASETACQUIRED BY AEROMETRIC AND PROVIDED BY CRW.PROPOSED PENSTOCKALIGNMENT (ALTERNATE 2)LIMIT OF GEOLOGICINTERPRETATIONPRELIMINARY DRAFT
7J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:10 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
---- ----APG 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----CHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.FIG.103-95547Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKALTERNATIVE 2 PENSTOCK ALIGNMENTPRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC P&PCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKASCALE0FEET200200DRAFTBxmQcBxmBxmQfQcQcQcREFERENCELEGENDBxmBEDROCK - CONSISTS OF PALEOZOIC METAMORPHICBEDROCK, TYPICALLY GREENSCHIST, BUT MAY ALSOINCLUDE ARGILLITE, GREYWACKE AND SCHIST WITHRANDOM DIKES OF IGNEOUS ROCKS. THE ROCK ISFOLIATED, BUT GENERALLY STRONG.SHADED RELIEF IMAGE GENERATED FROM 2011 LIDAR DATASETACQUIRED BY AEROMETRIC AND PROVIDED BY CRW.PROPOSED PENSTOCKALIGNMENT (ALTERNATE 2)LIMIT OF GEOLOGICINTERPRETATIONQcCOLLUVIUM - CONSISTS OF UNSORTED MIXTURES OFCLAY TO BOULDER-SIZED PARTICLES ORIGINALLYDEPOSITED BY GLACIERS BUT SINCE RE-TRANSPORTEDBY SLIDING, WASHING OR ROLLING DOWNHILL. SILTCONTENT IS HIGH.QfFILL - CONSISTS OF COMPACT TO DENSE ACCUMULATIONSOF FINE TO VERY COARSE PARTICLES DEPOSITED ANDCOMPACED BY TRUCKS AND BULL-DOZERS. LOCALLYCONTAINS BOULDERS TO 4 FEET IN DIAMETER.PRELIMINARY DRAFT
8J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwg | 10/21/2011 3:11 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
---- ----APG 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----CHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.FIG.103-95547Project Location Map_ak83-3f.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKALTERNATIVE 2 PENSTOCK ALIGNMENTPRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC P&PCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKASCALE0FEET200200QfQcQacQcQfQacFILL - CONSISTS OF COMPACT TO DENSE ACCUMULATIONSOF FINE TO VERY COARSE PARTICLES DEPOSITED ANDCOMPACED BY TRUCKS AND BULL-DOZERS. LOCALLYCONTAINS BOULDERS TO 4 FEET IN DIAMETER.COLLUVIUM - CONSISTS OF UNSORTED MIXTURESOF CLAY TO BOULDER-SIZED PARTICLESORIGINALLY DEPOSITED BY GLACIERS BUT SINCERE-TRANSPORTED BY SLIDING, WASHING ORROLLING DOWNHILL. SILT CONTENT IS HIGH.REFERENCELEGENDSHADED RELIEF IMAGE GENERATED FROM 2011 LIDAR DATASETACQUIRED BY AEROMETRIC AND PROVIDED BY CRW.PROPOSED PENSTOCKALIGNMENT (ALTERNATE 2)LIMIT OF GEOLOGICINTERPRETATIONQcCOLLUVIUM - CONSISTS OF UNSORTED MIXTURES OFCLAY TO BOULDER-SIZED PARTICLES ORIGINALLYDEPOSITED BY GLACIERS BUT SINCE RE-TRANSPORTEDBY SLIDING, WASHING OR ROLLING DOWNHILL. SILTCONTENT IS HIGH.TEST PITS ATPROPOSED TURBINE HOUSELOCATIONSDRAFTPRELIMINARY DRAFT
APPENDIX A
RECONNAISSANCE PHOTOGRAPHS PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:39 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-1
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
WATERSHED BASINS UPSTREAM OF
PROPOSED INTAKE LOCATION
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. PHOTO 1
COURTESY OF CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.
REFERENCE
PHOTO 1: WATERSHED BASIN, NORTH FORK
OF FIVEMILE CREEK, LOOKING EAST
PHOTO 2: WATERSHED BASIN, SOUTH FORK
OF FIVEMILE CREEK, LOOKING SOUTHWEST
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:39 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-2
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
SLIDE FEATURES NEAR PROPOSED
INTAKE LOCATION
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011.
REFERENCE
PHOTO 3: SLIDE FEATURES UPSTREAM OF
INTAKE LOCATION, LOOKING SOUTH
PHOTO 4: CLOSEUP OF NEAREST SLIDE
FEATURE, LOOKING SOUTH
APPROX. PROPOSED
LOCATION OF INTAKE
PARTIAL BLOCKAGE OF
CREEK CHANNEL FROM SLIDE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:51 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
A-3---- ----SLA 10/21/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----FIG.103-95547Recon Photos.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKPROPOSED INTAKE LOCATIONCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.PHOTO 5: PROPOSED INTAKE LOCATION, LOOKING UPSTREAMPHOTO 6: PROPOSED INTAKE LOCATION, LOOKING DOWNSTREAMPHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. PHOTO 5COURTESY OF CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.REFERENCELARGE BOULDERSWITHIN CREEK BEDLARGE BOULDERSWITHIN CREEK BEDLARGE BOULDERSWITHIN CREEK BEDLARGE BOULDERSWITHIN CREEK BEDPRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:39 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-4
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
PROPOSED INTAKE LOCATION DETAILS
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTO 7: RIGHT ABUTMENT OF
PROPOSED INTAKE, LOOKING WEST
PHOTO 9: FAULT ZONE DOWNSTREAM
OF INTAKE, LOOKING SOUTH
PHOTO 8: LEFT ABUTMENT OF
PROPOSED INTAKE, LOOKING NORTH
BEDROCK EXPOSURE WITH
OPEN NEAR-VERTICAL JOINTS
AND LOW-ANGLE JOINTS
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011.
REFERENCE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:39 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-5
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
PROPOSED PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTO 10: AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED PENSTOCK
HIGHWAY CROSSING AREA, LOOKING NORTHWEST
PHOTO 12: PROPOSED PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT
NEAR HIGHWAY CROSSING, LOOKING NORTHEAST
PHOTO 11: PROPOSED PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT
NEAR WHERE EXISTS JEEP TRAIL, LOOKING EAST
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. PHOTOS 7 &
9 COURTESY OF CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.
REFERENCE
APPROX. PROPOSED
PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:39 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-6
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
PROPOSED PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT -
EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. PHOTOS 11 &
12 COURTESY OF CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.
REFERENCE
PHOTO 13: PROPOSED PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT, EASTERN
BASE OF ROAD EMBANKMENT, LOOKING SOUTH
PHOTO 14: PROPOSED PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT, HISTORIC
ROAD EAST OF HIGHWAY, LOOKING NORTHWEST
PHOTO 15: PROPOSED PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT, STEEP
SLOPE EAST OF HISTORIC ROAD, LOOKING NORTHEAST
UP TO 4-FOOT DIAMETER
BOULDERS IN EMBANKMENT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:39 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-7
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
PROPOSED TURBINE HOUSE AREA
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. PHOTOS
COURTESY OF CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.
REFERENCE
PHOTO 16: AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED TURBINE HOUSE
AREA NEAR CHITINA AIRPORT, LOOKING SOUTHWEST
PHOTO 17: WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY NEAR PROPOSED
PENSTOCK CROSSING, LOOKING SOUTHEAST
PHOTO 18: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF HISTORIC
SUBSIDENCE NEAR EMBANKMENT ABOVE CULVERT,
LOOKING NORTHWEST
APPROX. PROPOSED
PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT
TEST PIT
TP-G11-03
TEST PIT
TP-G11-02
CULVERT FOR
FIVEMILE CREEK
TEST PIT
TP-G11-01
GUARD RAIL THAT
MAY HAVE SETTLED
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:40 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKA
A-8---- ----SLA 10/18/11SLA 10/21/11---- ----0 ----FIG.103-95547Recon Photos.dwgCHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AKHISTORIC FLOOD EROSION ANDDEPOSITIONCHITINA HYDRO RECON CHITINA, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.PHOTO 19: EROSION AND DEPOSITION FROM HISTORIC FLOODING, LOOKING NORTHWESTPHOTO 20: SECTION SHOWING FLOOD DEPOSTIONDOWNSTREAM OF CULVERT, LOOKING NORTHWESTPHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. PHOTO 16COURTESY OF CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC.REFERENCEPHOTO 21: HISTORIC FLOOD DEPOSITION NEAR PROPOSEDPENSTOCK CREEK CROSSING, LOOKING SOUTHWESTCULVERT FORFIVEMILE CREEKFILL EMBANKMENTCONSTRUCTED AFTERHISTORIC FLOOD EVENTLIMITS OF SCOURINGFROM HISTORIC FLOODDISCHARGETHROUGH CULVERTPRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:40 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-9
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
TEST PIT TP-G11-01
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTO 22: SPOIL PILE FROM EXCAVATION
OF TEST PIT TP-G11-01, LOOKING EAST
PHOTO 23: SIDEWALL OF TEST PIT TP-G11-01,
LOOKING SOUTHEAST
SUBSURFACE
ORGANIC LAYER
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011.
REFERENCE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:40 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-10
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
TEST PIT TP-G11-02
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTO 24: SPOIL PILE FROM EXCAVATION
OF TEST PIT TP-G11-02, LOOKING NORTH
PHOTO 25: SIDEWALL OF TEST PIT TP-G11-02,
LOOKING EAST
SUBSURFACE
ORGANIC LAYER
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011.
REFERENCE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2010\103-95547 CRW Chitina Hydro Recon\CAD\Recon Photos.dwg | 10/21/2011 2:40 PM | SANDERSON | ALASKAA-11
---- ----
SLA 10/18/11
SLA 10/21/11
---- ----
0 ----
FIG.
103-95547
Recon Photos.dwg
CHITINA / CHITINA HYDRO RECON / AK
TEST PIT TP-G11-03
CHITINA HYDRO RECON
CHITINA, ALASKA
PHOTO 26: SPOIL PILE FROM EXCAVATION
OF TEST PIT TP-G11-03, LOOKING EAST
PHOTO 27: SIDEWALL OF TEST PIT TP-G11-03,
LOOKING SOUTH
PHOTOS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 19, 2011.
REFERENCE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
APPENDIX B
TEST PIT LOGS
Caption Text PRELIMINARY DRAFT
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR
PERCENTAGES (ASTM D 2488-00)
CU 6 AND 1 CC 3
CU < 6 AND/OR 1 > CC > 3
CLEAN SANDS
<5% FINES
SANDS AND FINES
>12% FINES
SANDS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT <50
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT 50
50% OF COARSE
FRACTION PASSES
ON NO 4. SIEVE
If soil contains 15% gravel, add"with gravel"VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
COMPACT
DENSE
VERY DENSE
VERY SOFT
SOFT
FIRM
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
CONSISTENCY
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
OVER 30
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
OVER 4.0
RELATIVE DENSITY
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
OVER 50
COHESIONLESS SOILS (a)COHESIVE SOILS(b)
RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY ESTIMATE
USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) VALUES
D 30( )
2
PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR
SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND
>50% OF COARSE
FRACTION RETAINED
ON NO 4. SIEVE
DPLASTICITY INDEX (PI)Figure
B-1SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND
LIBRARY-ANC(6-22-11).GLB [ANC_SOIL_LEGEND] 6/22/11Gravels or sands with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols (GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, GP-GC, SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC)
and add "with clay" or "with silt" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML for GM or SM, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.
Optional Abbeviations: Lower case "s" after USCS group symbol
denotes either "sandy" or "with sand" and
"g" denotes either "gravelly" or "with gravel"
N1 (BLOWS/
FOOT)(c)N1 (BLOWS/
FOOT)(c)
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (TSF)(d)
10D =
LL (oven dried)
LL (not dried)
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
(OH, OL) if:
(4 PI 7)
x
60
DC
60
PEATCOARSE-GRAINED SOILS>50% RETAINED ONNO. 200 SIEVEGRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS
<5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
>12% FINES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7
CC
10D=U
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
CL
ML
OL
CH
MH
OH
TRACE
FEW
LITTLE
SOME
MOSTLY
DESCRIPTIVE
TERMS
RANGE OF
PROPORTION
0 - 5%
5 - 10%
10 - 25%
30 - 45%
50 - 100%
LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS
C
TW
MS
GP
RC
AG
Core (Rock)
Thin Wall (Shelby Tube)
Modified Shelby
Geoprobe
Air Rotary Cuttings
Auger Cuttings
SS
SSO
HD
BD
CA
GS
SAMPLER ABBREVIATIONS
CRITERIA FOR DESCRIBING
MOISTURE CONDITION (ASTM D 2488-00)
SIZE RANGE
ABOVE 12 IN.
3 IN. TO 12 IN.
3 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm)
3 IN. TO 3/4 IN.
3/4 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm)
NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 10 (2.0 mm)
NO. 10 (2.0 mm) TO NO. 40 (0.42 mm)
NO. 40 (0.42 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
SMALLER THAN NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
0.074 mm TO 0.005 mm
LESS THAN 0.005 mm
SPT Sampler (2 in. OD, 140 lb hammer)
Oversize Split Spoon (2.5 in. OD, 140 lb typ.)
Heavy Duty Split Spoon (3 in. OD, 300/340 lb typ.)
Bulk Drive (4 in. OD, 300/340 lb hammer typ.)
Continous Core (Soil in Hollow-Stem Auger)
Grab Sample from Surface / Testpit
BOULDERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
COARSE GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
SAND
COARSE SAND
MEDIUM SAND
FINE SAND
SILT AND CLAY
SILT
CLAY
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS BY GRADATION
COMPONENT
ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCH
DAMP BUT NO VISIBLE WATER
VISIBLE FREE WATER, USUALLY SOIL IS BELOW
WATER TABLE
DRY
MOIST
WET
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL
WELL-GRADED SAND
POORLY GRADED SAND
SILTY SAND
CLAYEY SAND
LEAN CLAY
SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
FAT CLAY
ELASTIC SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
4
MATERIAL
TYPES
FINE-GRAINED SOILS>50% PASSESNO. 200 SIEVELIQUID LIMIT (LL)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
(PI > 7)
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
PT
GROUP
SYMBOL
If soil contains 15% sand, add"with sand"If soil contains coarse-grained soil from15% to 29%, add "with sand" or "withgravel" for whichever type is prominent,or for 30%, add "sandy" or "gravelly"PLASTICITY CHARTUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 2487-00)
(a) Soils consisting of gravel, sand, and silt, either separately or in combination possessing no characteristics of
plasticity, and exhibiting drained behavior.
(b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting undrained behavior.
(c) Refer to ASTM D 1586-99 for a definition of N. Values shown are based on N values corrected for overburden
pressure (N1). N values may be affected by a number of factors including material size, depth, drilling method,
and borehole disturbance. N values are only an approximate guide for frozen soil or cohesive soil.
(d) Undrained shear strength, su= 1/2 unconfined compression strength, Uc. Note that Torvane measures su and
Pocket Penetrometer measures Uc
< 0.75
CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES
AND GROUP SYMBOLS USING LABORATORY TESTS
(PI < 4)
Con
Comp
Dd
K
MA
NP
OLI
Consolidation
Proctor Compaction (D698/D1557)
Dry Density
Thermal Conductivity
Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis
Non-plastic
Organic Loss
Percent Fines (Silt & Clay)
Soil pH
Photoionization Detector
Modified Proctor
Pocket Penetrometer
Point Load
Sieve Analysis
P200
pH
PID
PM
PP
PTLD
SA
Specific Gravity
Thaw Consolidation/Strain
Torvane
Unconfined Compression
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL)
Soil Resistivity
SpG
TC
TV
TX
WC
WP(at or above "A" line)ML
CL
MH
CH
CU 4 AND 1 CC 3
CU < 4 AND/OR 1 > CC > 3
CL-ML (LL < 50)(LL 50)"A" LI
N
E
(below "A" line)PRELIMINARY DRAFT
711.6
709.3
709.0
707.0
NOTES:
1. No groundwater encountered during excavation.
2. Test pit backfilled with cuttings.
0.4
2.7
3.0
PT
GP
PT
GP
0.0 - 0.4
Organic Mat
(PT)
0.4 - 2.7
Compact to dense, moist, gray, poorly graded
GRAVEL, few to little sand, trace silt, subrounded
gravel to 3-inch diameter, 20 to 40 percent cobbles,
0 to 10 percent boulders up to 1.5-foot diameter
(GP)
2.7 - 3.0
Organic layer (roots, etc.)
3.0 - 5.0
Compact to dense, moist, gray, poorly graded
GRAVEL, few to little sand, trace silt, subrounded
gravel to 3-inch diameter, 20 to 40 percent cobbles,
0 to 10 percent boulders up to 1.5-foot diameter
(GP)
Test Pit completed at 5.0 ft.USCSSOIL PROFILE
DEPTH
(ft)ICE BONDVEGETATION:
DESCRIPTION ELEV.GRAPHICLOGRECORD OF TEST PIT TP-G11-01
TYPENUMBERWlWp10 20 30 40
W
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
SALINITY (ppt)
SAMPLES
CHITINA TEST PITS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(9-20-11).GLB [ANC TESTPIT] SANDERSON 10/21/11DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
PROJECT: Chitina Hydro Recon
PROJECT NUMBER: 103-95547
LOCATION: Chitina, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group
EXCAVATION DATE: 9/19/11
EQUIPMENT: JD 350 Backhoe
Figure
B-2
DATUM: n/a
APPROX. ELEVATION: 712 ft
APPROX. COORDS: 61.58408° N 144.43649° W
LOGGED: S. Anderson
CHECKED:
CHECK DATE:
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 1.25 feet
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: City of Chitina
OPERATOR: Martin Finnesand
NOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
628.6
627.0
626.8
623.0
NOTES:
1. No groundwater encountered during excavation.
2. Test pit backfilled with cuttings.
0.4
2.0
2.2
PT
GP
PT
GP
0.0 - 0.4
Organic Mat
(PT)
0.4 - 2.0
Compact to dense, moist, gray, poorly graded
GRAVEL with sand, little sand, trace silt,
subrounded gravel to 3-inch diameter (GP)
2.0 - 2.2
Organic layer (roots, etc.)
2.2 - 6.0
Compact to dense, moist, gray, poorly graded
GRAVEL with sand, little sand, trace silt,
subrounded to subangular gravel to 3-inch
diameter, 10 to 20 percent cobbles up to 10-inch
diameter (GP)
Test Pit completed at 6.0 ft.USCSSOIL PROFILE
DEPTH
(ft)ICE BONDVEGETATION:
DESCRIPTION ELEV.GRAPHICLOGRECORD OF TEST PIT TP-G11-02
TYPENUMBERWlWp10 20 30 40
W
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
SALINITY (ppt)
SAMPLES
CHITINA TEST PITS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(9-20-11).GLB [ANC TESTPIT] SANDERSON 10/21/11DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
PROJECT: Chitina Hydro Recon
PROJECT NUMBER: 103-95547
LOCATION: Chitina, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group
EXCAVATION DATE: 9/19/11
EQUIPMENT: JD 350 Backhoe
Figure
B-3
DATUM: n/a
APPROX. ELEVATION: 629 ft
APPROX. COORDS: 61.58444° N 144.43596° W
LOGGED: S. Anderson
CHECKED:
CHECK DATE:
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 1.25 feet
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: City of Chitina
OPERATOR: Martin Finnesand
NOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
658.6
655.0
NOTES:
1. No groundwater encountered during excavation.
2. Test pit backfilled with cuttings.
0.4
PT
GP
0.0 - 0.4
Organic Mat
(PT)
0.4 - 4.0
Compact to dense, moist, gray, poorly graded
GRAVEL with sand, little sand, trace silt,
subrounded to subangular gravel to 3-inch
diameter, 0 to 5 percent cobbles up to 8-inch
diameter (GP)
Test Pit completed at 4.0 ft.USCSSOIL PROFILE
DEPTH
(ft)ICE BONDVEGETATION:
DESCRIPTION ELEV.GRAPHICLOGRECORD OF TEST PIT TP-G11-03
TYPENUMBERWlWp10 20 30 40
W
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
SALINITY (ppt)
SAMPLES
CHITINA TEST PITS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(9-20-11).GLB [ANC TESTPIT] SANDERSON 10/21/11DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
PROJECT: Chitina Hydro Recon
PROJECT NUMBER: 103-95547
LOCATION: Chitina, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group
EXCAVATION DATE: 9/19/11
EQUIPMENT: JD 350 Backhoe
Figure
B-4
DATUM: n/a
APPROX. ELEVATION: 659 ft
APPROX. COORDS: 61.58195° N 144.43637° W
LOGGED: S. Anderson
CHECKED:
CHECK DATE:
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 1.25 feet
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: City of Chitina
OPERATOR: Martin Finnesand
NOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Appendix G
Aquatic Resources Analysis
ABR Inc.—Environmental Research & Services Fivemile Creek Aquatics Gap Analysis
July 2011
1
FIVEMILE CREEK HYDRO PROJECT: AQUATIC RESOURCES
DATA GAP ANALYSIS
Prepared for
CRW Engineering Group, LLC
3940 Arctic Blvd, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99503
by
Joel Gottschalk and John Seigle
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services
P.O. Box 240268
Anchorage, AK 99524
July 2011
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Over the past 4 years multiple feasibility studies have been conducted on various
drainages near Chitina to determine their suitability for small-scale hydroelectric projects,
including Liberty, O’Brien, and Fox creeks (in addition to Fivemile Creek). Fivemile
Creek was determined to be the most feasible candidate, in part due to its proximity to the
village of Chitina for electrical tie-in, existing road access, and apparent superior bank
stability (PCA 2008). This high-head, run-of-the-river project would have a change in
elevation of ~1,000 feet between a small intake impoundment at ~1,570 feet elevation
and the proposed downstream powerhouse near the Chitina Municipal Airport (~530 feet
elevation). The majority of the 1,800-foot, 12-inch-diameter penstock would be buried en
route to the powerhouse for electrical production, likely via a Pelton wheel system. The
powerhouse tailrace would reintroduce diverted water back into the creek ~1,500 feet
from its mouth at the Copper River (PCA 2008). As currently envisioned, the project
would include a 300 kW rated turbine utilizing between 2 and 5 cfs of water.
Currently, the sole source of electricity for the village and airport is a diesel
generator system which was installed in 2005 by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
ABR Inc.—Environmental Research & Services Fivemile Creek Aquatics Gap Analysis
July 2011
2
The volatility in diesel fuel prices during windows of peak electrical need has been
acknowledged as an economic strain on Chitina Village residents. The Fivemile Creek
hydroelectric project is seen as a means to economically stabilize and grow the local
economy by reducing reliance on diesel generated power (AEA 2010). The savings
associated with the cost of diesel fuel for power generation (~37,000 gallons) and heating
oil (up to 10,000 gallons) is estimated to be nearly $200,000 annually (AEA 2010).
FIVEMILE CREEK STUDY AREA
The headwaters of Fivemile Creek are located approximately 6 miles northwest of
the village of Chitina, AK. This second-order stream is formed by the confluence of 2
short duration streams which drain a series of small alpine lakes ~4,000 feet above sea
level to the west of the Edgerton Highway. Fivemile Creek, as its name implies, flows for
~5 miles, the last 2,500 feet emerging from a culvert which crosses under the Edgerton
Highway at milepost 23.4. The culvert itself is a 100-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter pipe.
At its mouth, Fivemile Creek empties into a braid of the Copper River immediately
north of the runway at the Chitina Municipal Airport (Figure 1, Appendix A). The creek
is high gradient, ~3–7% in the lower reaches, increasing to >5% upstream of the culvert.
The streambed is bedrock and coarse substrate (i.e., boulder and large cobble) with low
sinuosity. The 33.8-square-mile catchment associated with Fivemile Creek is fed by a
series of alpine lakes and is prone to seasonal flooding during breakup events and periods
of sustained high precipitation (PCA 2008). Adjacent riparian forest is composed
primarily of white spruce (Picea glauca), paper birch (Betchula paperifera), willow
(Salix spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) (Viereck et
al. 1992). Pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, the
Chitina Village Corporation, now the Chitina Native Corporation (CNC), claimed
approximately 115,000 acres of land, much of it adjacent to the Copper and Chitina rivers
north and south of the village (Selkregg et al. 1977). The CNC has affirmed an in-kind
donation of lands to Chitina Electric, Inc., (CEI) for the development of this project
(AEA 2010). Access to the creek includes a minimally-maintained 4-wheeler road
adjacent to the north side of the creek that was constructed for access to a high elevation
mining prospect (PCA 2008).
ABR Inc.—Environmental Research & Services Fivemile Creek Aquatics Gap Analysis
July 2011
3
AQUATIC RESOURCES OF FIVEMILE CREEK
There is no evidence of federal and state agencies or private consultants performing
baseline fish or other aquatic surveys (i.e., stream habitat evaluations, macroinvertebrate
sampling) on Fivemile Creek within the past 3 decades. The ADFG Catalog of Waters
Important for the Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (also known as
Anadromous Waters Catalog [AWC]) is a database describing the anadromous species
that have been documented in each investigated stream within the state of Alaska. There
is no AWC entry for Fivemile Creek (ADFG 2011a). Rearing, spawning, and migrating
Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and sockeye
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), as well as Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and steelhead
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), are present in the Copper River near the mouth of Fivemile
Creek. Therefore, it would be surprising not to find rearing juvenile salmonids in lower
Fivemile Creek downstream of the culvert beneath the Edgerton Highway (Mark
Somerville, ADFG, personal communication). Several nearby tributaries to the Copper
River (e.g., O’Brien Creek and Fox Creek) are identified in the AWC as having rearing
sockeye salmon in their lower reaches (ADFG 2011). The Tonsina River drainage,
approximately 12 miles north on the Copper River, is documented as having spawning
and rearing Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon. It is also possible that there are
populations of resident arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) and Dolly Varden above or
below the culvert in Fivemile Creek (Mark Somerville, ADFG, personal communication).
Hydrologic studies were conducted on Fivemile Creek in 2007 and 2009-2010 by
PCA. In 2006, a significant flooding event spurred the dismissal of the O’Brien Creek
hydroelectric alternative and reconnaissance was performed by PCA on Fivemile Creek
the following year. Two weirs and solar powered staff gages were installed on Fivemile
Creek in August 2009. The first weir was located in the upper creek near a potential
water removal site and the second was located within the discharge end of the culvert
under the Edgerton Highway to determine the adequacy of stream flow for hydroelectric
generation (Figure 1, Appendix A). Data collected from the staff gages were analyzed to
calculate the range of annual flows for Fivemile Creek to assess the adequacy for year-
ABR Inc.—Environmental Research & Services Fivemile Creek Aquatics Gap Analysis
July 2011
4
round energy production. The upper weir was damaged by a fallen tree and rendered
inoperable sometime prior to an August 2010 inspection (PCA 2010). The failure of the
upper weir required extrapolation of discharge data for annual low flow events from
similar regional watersheds and yielded estimates of ~2.0 cfs at low flow conditions.
During the same inspection in August 2010, it was determined that the lower gaging
station had been altered by high flow events and a new site for measuring discharge
(using a Marsh-McBirney flowmeter) was selected 300 feet below the Edgerton Highway
culvert (PCA 2010).
DATA GAPS
No fish surveys or detailed in-stream/riparian habitat surveys have been conducted
on Fivemile Creek. If deemed necessary, a biological assessment of the creek could be
conducted to:
Determine presence/absence of anadromous fish species in lower Fivemile Creek
Determine presence/absence of resident fish species upstream of the culvert
Confirm the Edgerton Highway culvert as a barrier to upstream fish passage
Sample and analyze aquatic invertebrate and/or periphyton communities
Collect stream habitat and water quality data in the creek where fish are present
ABR conducted a site visit to Fivemile Creek on 24–25 June to set minnow traps at 4
sites along the proposed bypass reach and to collect water chemistry data. This field
effort was, in part, to determine whether a more extensive biological and stream habitat
survey is warranted in the future (see site visit summary in Appendix A).
MANAGEMENT CONCERNS
Data gaps for Fivemile Creek prevent an assessment of designated essential fish
habitat (EFH). Essential fish habitat is regulated by The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by
the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267). This act established a rule to
describe and identify "essential fish habitat" in all fishery management plans. EFH is
ABR Inc.—Environmental Research & Services Fivemile Creek Aquatics Gap Analysis
July 2011
5
defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity". These “waters” include aquatic areas and their associated
biological, chemical, and physical properties. The “substrate” includes benthic sediment
underlying the waters. “Necessary” means habitat required to support the managed
species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem and a sustainable fishery. Habitat related to
“spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers all habitat types utilized by a
species of concern throughout its life cycle (NMFS 2011).
The Fishway Act (Alaska Statute [AS] 16.05.841) requires that “an individual or
government agency notify and obtain authorization from the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADFG), Division of Habitat for activities within or across a stream used by
fish if ADFG determines that such uses or activities could represent an impediment to the
efficient passage of (anadromous and/or resident) fish.” The supplemental Anadromous
Fish Act (AS 16.05.871) requires that an individual or government agency provide
notification and provide approval from the Division of Habitat “to construct a hydraulic
project or use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow or bed” of a specified
waterway. In addition, if any section of the stream is found to support Alaska
anadromous fish species (salmon, trout, char, whitefish, sturgeon, etc.) the waterway will
be afforded protection under AS 16.05.871 as well. This statute requires the ADFG to
"specify the various rivers, lakes and streams or parts of them" of the state that are
important to the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes. Water bodies that
are not "specified" within the current AWC are not afforded that protection. To be
protected under AS 16.05.871, water bodies must be documented as supporting some life
function of an anadromous fish. Anadromous fish must have been seen or collected and
identified by a qualified observer.
LITERATURE CITED
ADFG. 2010. Catalog of waters important for the spawning, rearing or migration of
anadromous fishes. Accessed online June 2011 at:
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/awc/index.cfm/.
ABR Inc.—Environmental Research & Services Fivemile Creek Aquatics Gap Analysis
July 2011
6
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2010. Alaska Energy Authority, Renewable Energy
Fund, round IV grant application, 2010. Submitted by Chitina Electric, Inc.;
Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. (PCA). 2008. Regional hydraulic investigation: Chitna, Alaska.
Final report for the Alaska Energy Authority. 95 pp.
PCA. 2010. Chitna hydrology analysis. Report for the Alaska Energy Authority. 11 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Essential Fish Habitat. Accessed online June 2011 at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ess_fish_habitat.htm/.
Selkregg, L., K. Whiteman, J. Wise, D. Melners, and M. Aho. 1977. Informational map.
Prepared by University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental and Data Center for Copper
River Native Association and the Copper River Housing Authority.
Viereck, L.A., C. T. Dyrness, A. R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska
vegetation classification. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 278
pp.
ABR Inc.—Environmental Research & Services Fivemile Creek Aquatics Gap Analysis
July 2011
7
APPENDIX A.
SITE VISIT REPORT
JUNE 2011
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 1 Fivemile Creek Field Report
June 2011
FIVEMILE CREEK HYDRO PROJECT FISH AND HABITAT
STUDIES
JUNE SITE VISIT REPORT
Prepared for:
CRW Engineering Group, LLC
3940 Arctic Blvd, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99503
by
Joel Gottschalk and John Seigle
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services
P.O. Box 240268
Anchorage, AK 99524
June 2011
______________________________________________________________________________
ABR staff visited Chitina, AK, on 24 and 25 June 2011 to conduct a site visit and
reconnaissance-level survey of fish and fish habitat resources in Fivemile Creek. The area
of particular interest was within and below the bypass reach for a proposed hydroelectric
project on Fivemile Creek. Our objectives for this trip were to 1) describe the lower creek
and proposed bypass reach, 2) deploy minnow traps at multiple locations to assess the
potential presence of resident and anadromous fish (ADFG Fish Resource Permit
#SF2011-233), 3) collect baseline data on ambient water quality and describe instream
habitat. 4) collect baseline water chemistry data and record stream bed substrate
composition from 1 site above the culvert under the Edgerton Highway and 1 site ~1.8
miles upstream of the creek mouth, and 5) assess the potential for upstream movement of
salmonids, if present, beyond the culvert under the Edgerton Highway. This information
is required to determine whether or not the areas upstream and downstream of the culvert
are being used by anadromous or resident fishes and would hence be classified as
essential fish habitat (EFH) or covered under ADFG Title 16 regulations.
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 2 Fivemile Creek Field Report
June 2011
24 JUNE
ABR biologists John Seigle and Joel Gottschalk traveled from Anchorage to Chitina
on Friday, 24 June. On the way we made a brief stop at the ADFG field office in
Glennallen to speak with area fish biologist Mark Somerville to introduce ourselves and
to discuss our site visit plans. Upon arrival at Fivemile Creek in Chitina, we met with
Martin Finnesand of Chitina Electric, Inc. We describe our field study and discussed
historical flooding events that have occurred in the area. In the early afternoon, we set 3
baited (roe) minnow traps in pools at the north end of the airport (Plate 1), 2 traps in the
plunge pool immediately below the culvert under the Edgerton Highway (Plate 2), and 3
traps in the margins of the creek immediately above the culvert (Plate 3). The culvert is
12 feet in diameter and approximately 100 feet long with beveled intake and outflow
aprons (Plates 4–5). The water surface in the perched pipe is approximately 4.5 feet
above the water surface of the pool below. Although it was not possible to measure the
depth of the plunge pool at the outfall of the culvert, it was clearly unwadeable and over 5
feet deep.
The right side of the stream (facing downstream) above the culvert is a rock wall.
The left side is a steep hillside with a rocky/cobble substrate. The constrained floodplain
above this canyon shows ample evidence of an extreme flooding event (2006) that
deposited terraces of evenly mixed sand, gravels, and cobble (Plate 6).
We then traveled approximately 1.8 miles by truck up the drainage on a steep,
minimally maintained mining access road to a steep trail that was cut recently by CRW
Engineering Group, LLC (CRW) surveyors (Plates 7–8). The ~0.25-mile-long trail
descends quickly to the creek below. The gradient in this reach is over 8% and the
dominant stream bed substrate is bedrock and small boulders (Plate 12). We set 3
minnow traps in small pools in this area (Figure 1). All traps were left to fish overnight.
25 JUNE
After allowing traps to fish for ~24 hours each, we returned to Fivemile Creek to
retrieve traps. The 3 traps farthest downstream, at the the north end of the airstrip, were
checked first and a single juvenile Dolly Varden (110 mm fork length) was captured
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 3 Fivemile Creek Field Report
June 2011
(Plate 9). No other fish were captured in any of the remaining traps, not below the
culvert, just above the culvert, nor at the farthest upstream trapping location (Figure 1).
Ambient water quality parameters (temperature [°C], specific conductance [µS/cm], pH,
dissolved oxygen [% and mg/L], total dissolved solids [mg/L], and turbidity [NTU]) were
recorded at 2 locations (Figure 1) with a YSI Professional Plus water quality meter.
SITE VISIT SUMMARY
ABR documented the presence of Dolly Varden in the lower creek, but did not
observe any other species during the brief site visit. The lower creek clearly has potential
to support some small degree of adult salmon spawning and could provide juvenile
salmon rearing habitat during lower flows. However, rearing habitat for juvenile salmon
probably is marginal due to the high flows that occur here seasonally. The gradient is ~3–
7% with a wide floodplain intermittently vegetated by white spruce (Pica glauca), paper
birch (Betchula paperifera), and alder (Alnus spp.) (Plates 10–11). The culvert under the
Edgerton Highway may be a barrier to upstream passage of fish due to its height and
water velocity.
During the site visit the water level in the culvert was ~1 foot below the ordinary
high water mark (based on observation of residue line in culvert walls). Even at these
lower flows, the culvert may be classified hydraulically as a velocity barrier for most
fishes. The difference in elevation between the culvert and the outflow water surface
(~4.5 feet) may also be a barrier to fish passage in its own right. However, species such
as Dolly Varden have been documented to traverse impediments of this height. The
overall slope of the culvert is less than the natural gradient of this section of stream. No
fish species were observed upstream of the culvert.
Ambient water quality parameters were similar between the upstream and
downstream sampling locations (Table 1). Fivemile Creek is a cold, clearwater (at
observed flows) stream with circumneutral pH and high dissolved oxygen resulting from
turbulent mixing along the length of the stream. The range of specific conductance
(100.0–103.0 µS/cm) was low, indicative of the relatively low level of dissolved and
particulate materials in the stream at the time of sampling and also reflected in the low
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 4 Fivemile Creek Field Report
June 2011
turbidity of the stream (1.09–1.29 NTU). All measurements are typical of southcentral
Alaskan streams that are fed by alpine lake systems and have little or no anthropogenic
influences within the watershed.
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 5 Fivemile Creek Field Report June 2011 Table 1. Ambient water quality measurements from upper and lower Fivemile Creek, 25 June 2011. Date Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Location Temperature (˚C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved Oxygen (%) Specific Conductance (μS/cm) pH Turbidity (NTU) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 24 June 61.5817 -144.439 Lower creek 7.4 11.98 102.1 103.0 7.99 1.09 66.95 24 June 61.57848 -144.482 Upper creek 7.2 11.93 102.8 100.0 8.08 1.29 65.65
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 6 Fivemile Creek Field Report June 2011 Table 2. Minnow trap locations, trapping effort, and harvest results in Fivemile Creek, 24–25 June 2011. Trap ID Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Location Date In Time In Date Out Time Out Total Effort (hrs:min) Number of Fish caught Species/Life Stage Length (mm) 1 61.58783 -144.43384 near airport 24 June 14:27 25 June 14:18 23:51 0 na na 2 61.58783 -144.43384 near airport 24 June 14:30 25 June 14:21 23:51 0 na na 3 61.58783 -144.43384 near airport 24 June 14:32 25 June 14:25 23:53 1 Dolly Varden/ juvenile 110 4 61.58199 -144.43794 below culvert 24 June 15:01 25 June 14:30 23:29 0 na na 5 61.58199 -144.43794 below culvert 24 June 15:06 25 June 14:29 23:23 0 na na 6 61.5817 -144.43922 above culvert 24 June 15:23 25 June 14:40 23:17 0 na na 7 61.5817 -144.43922 above culvert 24 June 15:28 25 June 14:42 23:14 0 na na 8 61.5817 -144.43922 above culvert 24 June 15:35 25 June 14:50 23:15 0 na na 9 61.57848 -144.48158 upstream from trail 24 June 16:27 25 June 15:30 23:03 0 na na 10 61.57848 -144.48158 upstream from trail 24 June 16:20 25 June 15:31 23:11 0 na na 11 61.57848 -144.48158 upstream from trail 24 June 16:24 25 June 15:32 23:08 0 na na
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 7 Fivemile Creek Field Report June 2011 Figure 1. Site map and location of minnow trapping and ambient water chemistry testing at Fivemile Creek, Chitina, AK, June 2011.
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 8 Fivemile Creek Field Report
June 2011
Plate 1. Setting minnow traps near the airport (~200
feet from mouth), 24 June 2011.
Plate 2. Setting traps near the culvert outfall pool,
24 June 2011.
Plate 3. Setting traps immediately above the culvert
with rock wall on far bank, 24 June 2011.
Plate 4. Looking upstream at the outfall of the 12’
diameter culvert under the Edgerton Highway.
Plate 5. Looking downstream into the inlet of the
Edgerton Highway culvert.
Edgerton Highway culvert
Plate 6. Looking upstream from the culvert inlet
at mixed debris terraces (top) deposited during a
2006 flood event.
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 9 Fivemile Creek Field Report
June 2011
Plate 7. Access road leading to farthest upstream
minnow trap location (photo courtesy of CRW).
Plate 8. Pulling minnow traps from the high
gradient upstream trapping location off trail, 25
June 2011.
Plate 9. The upper creek near the former weir,
looking downstream (photo courtesy of CRW).
Plate 10. A single juvenile Dolly Varden (110 mm
fork length) captured in a trap set near the airport,
25 June 2011.
Plate 11. The lower creek looking downstream from
the culvert outfall at large debris terraces.
Plate 12. The mouth of Fivemile Creek and the
confluence with the Copper River (photo courtesy
of CRW).
Appendix H
Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
Office of History & Archaeology
AHRS Location Snapshot
For information contact the Alaska Office of History & Archaeology at (907) 269-8721
Tue Jun 07 13:30:57 AKDT 2011
This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is
prohibited by law!
61.6N, -144.5W 61.59N, -144.36W
61.56N, -144.51W 61.55N, -144.37W
page: 1
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721
Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:21:03 AKDT 2011
This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is prohibited by law!
AHRS Number:VAL-00014 Mapsheet(s):VALDEZ C-2 (VALC2)
Acreage:Date Issued:05-29-1974 MTRS(s):C003S005E24
Resource Shape:Point Location Approximate:No
Site Name(s):NAXTIN KE RE
Other Name(s):
Informal Association(s):
Formal Association(s):
Site Description:
"Settlement on west bank, at the landing field, five miles above Chitina, at the mouth of a stream. Allen (1887:58) camped
here on May 6, 1885, at the home of an old man and his family, nine in all. This was a Dikagiyu village, called 'Naxtin ke
re', the last inhabitants of which were McKinley John and his Tcicyu wife...Two house pits, five graves."
Site Significance:
Location:
At the mouth of a stream on the west bank of Copper River, about 5 miles north of Chitina.
Citation(s):
de Laguna, Frederica 1970:6
Allen, H.T. 1887:58
West, C.F. 1974:11
Danger(s) of Destruction:Unknown
Present Condition:Unknown (E)
Associated Dates:
Period(s):Historic
Resource Nature:Site
Historic Function(s):
Current Function(s):
Cultural Affiliation:Ahtna
Property Owner:
Repository/Accession #:
BIA/BLM Number(s):
Other Number(s):de Laguna 18
Source Reliability:Professional reports, records and field studies (A)
Location Reliability:Location exact and site existence verified (1)
page: 1
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721
Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:20:32 AKDT 2011
This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is prohibited by law!
AHRS Number:VAL-00489 Mapsheet(s):VALDEZ C-2 (VALC2)
Acreage:0.25 Date Issued:07-14-2005 MTRS(s):C003S005E23
Resource Shape:Point Location Approximate:No
Site Name(s):VAL-00489
Other Name(s):
Informal Association(s):
Formal Association(s):
Site Description:
The site consists of 2 bermed, semisubterranean 2-room house depressions. The main rooms are 6.5m x6.5m and 6.5m
x 5.5m, rear rooms are 4.2m x 3.5m and 4.4m x 3.6m. Tests in Feature 1 produced a carbon date, fire-cracked rock and
bone fragments. The charcoal from Feature 1, TP-2, 23-35cm, floor) yielded a radiocarbon date of BP 2920+/-90 (Beta-
56550). This date seems anomalously old. Modern camp remains include wall tent frame, frame smokehouse, 2 frame
outhouses, all of dimensional lumber. Access roads and ATV trails criss-cross the site.
Site Significance:
Location:
On a terrace between the Edgerton Highway (ca. mile 28) and the bluff above the right (W) bank of the Copper River,
less than 1km NW of the Chitina airport and the mouth of Fivemile Creek.
Citation(s):
BIA ANCSA AHRS Card
Danger(s) of Destruction:Trail
Present Condition:Disturbed site, degree unknown or Modified building, degree unknown (B)
Associated Dates:BP 2920ñ90
Period(s):Protohistoric
Historic
Resource Nature:Site: Settlement
Historic Function(s):
Current Function(s):
Cultural Affiliation:Ahtna
Property Owner:
Repository/Accession #:
BIA/BLM Number(s):AA005972C
Other Number(s):
Source Reliability:Professional reports, records and field studies (A)
Location Reliability:Location exact and site existence verified (1)
page: 1
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721
Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:29:38 AKDT 2011
This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is prohibited by law!
AHRS Number:VAL-00505 Mapsheet(s):VALDEZ C-2 (VALC2)
Acreage:Date Issued:10-22-2007 MTRS(s):C003S005E06, C003S005E26
C003S005E25, C003S005E23
C003S005E16, C003S005E15
C003S005E14, C003S005E07
C003S005E08, C003S005E09
C002S004E34, C002S004E35
C003S004E02, C003S004E01
C004S005E14, C004S005E11
C004S005E02, C003S005E35
Resource Shape:Linear Location Approximate:No
Site Name(s):OLD ROAD TO CHITINA
OLD ROAD TO CHITNA
Other Name(s):OLD EDGERTON HIGHWAY
Informal Association(s):
Formal Association(s):
Site Description:
[AHRS] After the Copper River and Northwestern Railway connected Chitina to the mines in Kennecott 1910, the Alaska
Road Commission (ARC) commenced with the construction of nearly 30 miles of road that connected Chitina to the
Valdez-Eagle trail. This new route provided the mine at Kennecott and the town of Chitina with a transporation route for
receiving and shipping mail and supplies into the interior. In its early stages of development, this road was nothing more
than a partial sled trail and wagon road, but, by 1911, wagon bridges were constructed over the Tonsina River and one of
its sloughs (ARC 1911:11). Because the new road made the old military rail obsolete, Nafstad built another roadhouse
along this new route. This roadhouse was much larger and had more accommodations than that of the previous trading
post (Phillips Sr. 1985:E10). Essentially, commerce at Lower Tonsina moved from the old trail and ferry crossing to the
new road. [DOE] This is a corridor of disturbed vegetation that runs NW from Mahle's Cabin (VAL-00490) towards the
NW corner of the lot. It appears to parallel the existing highway at places on the property and resembled an old road bed
presumed to be the original road to Chitna.
Site Significance:
[DOE] The original route is disturbed with several intrusions, it has lost physical integrity and is not eligible for the NRHP.
[AHRS] Associated with the early development of transportation and infrastructure in Alaska.
Location:
The highway runs from the Tonsina River (W of its confluence with the Copper River) for approx 33mi. to Chitina.
Citation(s):
ADP 3330-6N file (Old Road to Chitna, VAL-505)
BIA Archeology Site Inventory Record 2007
BIA (Meinhardt) 10/07 (106 Review, DOE Site on Mahle Nat Alltmnt)
Danger(s) of Destruction:Construction
Present Condition:Disturbed site, degree unknown or Modified building, degree unknown (B)
page: 2
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721
Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:29:38 AKDT 2011
Associated Dates:AD 1911
Period(s):Historic
Resource Nature:Structure: Transportation
Historic Function(s):Transportation
Current Function(s):Vacant/Not in use
Cultural Affiliation:Euroamerican
Property Owner:State of Alaska, ADOT&PF, Federal trust
Repository/Accession #:
BIA/BLM Number(s):AA006112
Other Number(s):
Source Reliability:Professional reports, records and field studies (A)
Location Reliability:Location exact and site existence verified (1)
DOE Associations
DOE Status:Determined not eligible by SHPO and agency (DREJ-S)
DOE Date:11-08-2007
Distinctive Features:
Period of Significance:
Area Significance(s):
Criteria:
Considerations:
Files As:3330-6N Old Road to Chitna
Appendix I
Critical Habitat Determination