HomeMy WebLinkAboutHunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Final Report 2013HUNTER CREEK
HYDROELECTRIC RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
APRIL 2013
Prepared for
EKLUTNA, INC.
16515 CENTERFIELD DRIVE, SUITE 20 1
EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA 99577
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2011 , the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) granted Eklu t na, Inc. (Eklutna) funds for a
hydroelectric reconnaissance study of Hunter Creek . The funds w ere awarded under the state's
Renewable Energy Grant Program, which is administered by t he AEA . In September 2011,
Eklutna hired Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. to perform the study. Th is report presents the findings
and recommendations of the completed study.
Hunter Creek drains an approximately 71.1 -square-mile bas i n in the Chugach Mountains
located between Eklutna Lake and Lake George (Figure ES -1). The creek's average annual flow
is approximately 311 cubic feet per second (cfs), with annual lo w flow in April of approximately
18 cfs and sustained high flows during the summer of approx i m ately 1,200 cfs. Flood events
reach several thousand cfs.
Figure ES-1 Recommended Hunter Creek Hydroelectr ic Project Configuration
April 2013 -Final Report
1Ekh.11tna, ~nt
1Hlu1111ter Creek IHlydlroe~ectrot IRecormaossance Studly Polarccnsult Alaska, Inc ~
Th1s study considered a range of project conf1gurat1ons that mcluded proJects located only on
the east fork of Hunter Creek as well as projects located on both forks of Hunter Creek 1
Installed generatmg capac1ty of these conf1gurat1ons ranged from 5 3 to 23 megawatts (MW),
w1th est1mated annual energy generation of 21,000 to 80,900 megawatt-hours (MWh) All
proJect conf1gurat1ons w1ll requ1re upgrade of approximately 14 7 miles of Matanuska Electric
Assoc1at1on (MEA)'s ex1stmg d1str1but1on system to transmit electr1c1ty to ra1lbelt ut1llt1es
Based upon evaluation of techmcal, economic, environmental, and pollt1cal factors,
Polarconsult has determmed that a 7 7 MW run-of-r1ver hydroelectric project on east fork
Hunter Creek appears to be the most favorable proJect conf1gurat1on, and IS recommended for
further study Th1s proJect would feature a d1vers1on and mtake structure on the east fork at
r1ver m1le (RM) 5 08, and a powerhouse at RM 2 67 The ent1re project footprint IS located on
lands selected by Eklutna The proJect would generate approximately 27,100 MWh annually
and would have a plant capac1ty factor of approximately 40 2% 2 The estimated capital cost of
the proJect 1s $30 m1lllon The estimated energy sales rate for the recommended project 1s
$0 11 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), w1th a range of $0 064 to $0 162 per kWh under the full range
of cap1tal cost, fmancmg terms, and operatmg costs considered for th1s study These rates are
compet1t1ve w1th the forecast avo1ded cost of energy for MEA over the 50-year proJect life The
recommended proJect conf1gurat1on IS shown m F1gure ES-1 Estimated techmcal and economic
parameters are listed m Table ES-1
If Eklutna d1llgently advances the proJect and future analys1s IS favorable, a realistic operational
date IS 2019 Th1s depends m part on when the BLM conveys proJect lands to Eklutna, wh1ch
w1ll determme whether the proJect requ1res a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Comm1ss1on If lands are conveyed by 2015, the proJect can avo1d the FERC llcensmg process
and the proJect schedule could be accelerated by approximately one year
Some other east fork proJect conf1gurat1ons are s1m1larly favorable as the recommended
conf1gurat1on, and 1t IS poss1ble that future add1t1onal mformat1on such as hydrology, f1sher1es,
or geotechmcal data, may result m the selection of a d1fferent proJect conf1gurat1on for
development
ProJect conf1gurat1ons that mcluded development of west fork Hunter Creek were determmed
to not be VIable for the followmg reasons
1 The most economic west fork conf1gurat1ons are partially located w1thm Chugach State
Park Hydroelectric proJects are not consistent w1th the current management goals of
th1s part of Chugach State Park Th1s IS a s1gmf1cant political barner for these project
conf1gurat1ons West fork conf1gurat1ons that avo1d Chugach State Park are not
economic under current and likely future southcentral energy market cond1t1ons
1 This report refers to the two major forks of Hunter Creek as the 'east fork' and 'west fork' These are not formal
names and have therefore not been capitalized 1n th1s report
2 Plant capac1ty factor IS the amount of energy the plant produces 1n a year d1v1ded by the amount of energy the plant
would produce 1f 1t operated at 100% of 1ts mstalled capacity for the ent1re year
Apn~ 2013-fma~ Report
I I
I I
I I
'_)
I
I I
~,
I ' -
'l I I
I J
-)
I I
I
)
I I
I
I I -'
-}
: I
j
I_ J
'-I
I
I I
_!
:_J
I
I ~
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
2. The remoteness and rugged terrain of the west fork valley causes all west fork
configurations to be less economic than east fork configurations.
3. The cumulative impact of hydro projects on both forks of Hunter Creek is likely to result
in more severe permit terms, such as higher in-stream flow reservations or required off-
site mitigation for fish habitat, that will adversely affect overall project economics.
Table ES-1 Summary of Recommended Hydroelectric Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED PROJECT
ESTIMATED TECHNICAL PARAMETERS (East Fork-only Configuration E2-48)
Design Flow (cfs) 140 cfs
Diversion Location River mile 5.08
Intake Elevation (feet) 1,150 feet
Powerhouse Elevation (feet) 270 feet (River mile 2.67)
Gross Head (feet) 880 feet
Access Roads and Trails (feet) 18,800 feet
Power and Communication Line Upgrades and Extensions (feet) 78,900 feet --
Penstock Length (feet) and Diameter (inches) 11,600 ft./48 in.
Net Head at Full Flow (feet) 793 feet
Reservoir Area (acres) None
Installed Capacity (MW) 7.7MW
Average Annual Net Energy Output (MWh) 27,100 MWh
Plant Capacity Factor 40.2%
ESTIMATED ECONOMIC PARAMETERS 1 Most Li kely Value Estimated Range
ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COST $30M $23.7M-$35.6M
Annual Debt Servicing Costs (Million 2013 $) $1.5M $0 .9M-$2.1M
Annual OMR & R Costs (Million 2013 $) $0.4M $0.4M -$0.5M
Operating Margins (Million 2013 $) $1.1M $0.4M-$1.8M
Total Annual Revenue Requirement (Million 2013 $) $3.0M I $1. 7M-$4 .4M
Estimated Range of Sales Rate for Energy($ per kWh) $0.11 $0.064-$0.162
Estimated Range of Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.0 1.49-3.06
1. Assumptions used to develop project economics are explained in App endix G.
Field investigations of fish habitat confirm that the lower reache s of Hunter Creek, up as far as
approximately RM 3.1, are used by coho salmon and resident Dolly Varden. No evidence of
coho rearing was found in the lower canyon during field studies , and no fish were trapped or
observed in the general vicinity of the proposed east fork diversio n site .
April 2013-Final Report iii
IEidiUitna, ~nc
!Hunter Cll'eek Hycll!'oe~ectii'Jc !Reconnaissance StiUidly Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ~
ln1t1al assessment of f1sh hab1tat along lower Hunter Creek md1cates that the recommended
project conf1gurat1on would l1kely not have a s1gn1f1cant Impact on res1dent or anadromous f1sh
hab1tat If further study 1dent1f1es s1gn1f1cant unavOidable 1mpacts, robust off-s1te or m-stream
m1t1gat1on opportun1t1es are available along lower Hunter Creek or along the Kn1k R1ver near the
project Appropnate measures to avo1d and/or mm1m1ze Impacts to f1sh w1ll depend on the
fmal project conf1gurat1on that IS developed and may mclude m-stream flow reservations
and/or construction of off-s1te hab1tat for 1mpact m1t1gat1on
Based on the fmdmgs of th1s study, further mvest1gat1on of hydroelectnc developments at
Hunter Creek should focus on the followmg mformat1on and analysis
e Collect add1t1onal hydrology data to better charactenze resource hydrology Conduct a
sed1ment transport study to quantify sed1ment transport rates
11> Coordmate w1th MEA to complete a market analys1s for determmmg a preferred project
conf1gurat1on and the preferred route and conf1gurat1on of the project transm1ss1on line
o Further evaluate s1te topography, surf1c1al geology, and wetlands to ref1ne penstock and
access routes Perform topographic and geotechnical mvest1gat1ons of lower Hunter
Creek canyon to 1dent1fy suitable powerhouse s1tes
o Conduct more detailed f1shenes surveys to confirm the upper llm1t of f1sh hab1tat and
develop proposed permit terms for the preferred development conf1gurat1on
e Hold meetmgs w1th regulatory agencies to determme the scope of environmental
stud1es, defme potential m1t1gat1on requirements for f1shery and wetland Impacts, and
determme likely operational constraints on the project
e Generate refmed estimates of electncal output and project costs to determme
economic feas1b1llty
Apn~ 20:1..3-Fma~ Report uv
I
I I
,
I I
I
I
r I
I I
r_l
I I
__)
II
I~
-
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
: _I
r
I 1
I I
I I ,_!
I
I L_l
I
i I
I I
)
; \
I I
)
IEikhJitll'lla, ~ ll'liC
IHiu.mter Cl!"eek Hydiii'Oelectruc !Recoll'llll'lla~ssall'llce S1tll.lldly IPo~arconsll.ll!t Aiaslka, ~ll'llc
REPORT PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS
Purpose of th1s Report
A reconnaissance study 1s the f1rst stage of screenmg for a potential hydroelectric project, and
represents a llm1ted-effort, comprehensive rev1ew of relevant factors that pertam to the
technical, econom1c, environmental, and pol1t1cal v1ab1llty of developmg a hydroelectric project
at a g1ven s1te or for a g1ven power need Dependmg on the ava!iable budget and the quality of
ex1stmg mformat1on, the reconnaissance study may mclude some f1eld data collection for key
mformat1on, or may be llm1ted solely to 'desk-top' rev1ew of ex1st1ng mformat1on
Th1s reconnaissance study prov1des Eklutna, Inc (Eklutna) an m1t1al assessment of the overall
v1ab1llty of a hydroelectric project at Hunter Creek, and prov1des mformat1on on the advantages
and disadvantages associated w1th var1ous project s1tes and conf1gurat1ons Th1s mformat1on 1s
mtended for use by Eklutna to dec1de whether to contmue w1th mvest1gat1on of a project, and
to dec1de wh1ch project s1te(s) and conf1gurat1on(s) warrant further mvest1gat1on
L1m1tat1ons
In conductmg our analysis and formmg the opm1ons and recommendations summanzed m th1s
report, Polarconsult has relied on mformat1on prov1ded by others, and has assumed th1s
mformat1on IS complete and correct Also, Polarconsult has made certam assumptions w1th
regard to future events, cond1t1ons, and Circumstances Polarconsult does not guarantee the
accuracy of the mformat1on, data, or opm1ons contamed herem The methodologies employed
to perform the analys1s and arnve at the conclusions m th1s report follow generally accepted
mdustry pract1ce for th1s level of study We believe that the assumptions and methodologies
used are reasonable and appropriate for meetmg the objeCtives of th1s study Future events
and mformat1on may result m outcomes materially different from those projected m th1s study
Such events and mformat1on mclude, but are not llm1ted to, future energy demand, supply, and
cost along the rallbelt, actual s1te cond1t1ons such as ownership, topography, hydrology, and
geology, future trends m local construction, mater1al, and labor costs, and nat1onal, state, or
local pollc1es that may affect aspects of the project
The contents and fmdmgs of th1s report are llm1ted to potential development of a hydroelectric
project at Hunter Creek by Eklutna, and are suitable only for th1s mtended purpose Any use of
th1s report and the mformat1on contamed therem constitutes agreement that (1) Polarconsult
makes no warranty, express or 1mplled, relatmg to th1s report and 1ts contents, (2) the user
accepts sole r1sk of any such use, and (3) the user wa1ves any cla1m for damages of any kmd
agamst Polarconsult The benefit of such wa1vers, releases, and llm1tat1ons of llab1llty extend to
Polarconsult, 1ts subcontractors, owners, employees, and agents
Apn~ 20:11.3-IFma~ !Report v
1Ekh.11tna, ~nc
Hlu.mter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Stll.llcly Polarconsu~t Alaska, ~m:
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
I I
I 1
I
i I
I I
II
I I
(
I I
I
I
I I
Apr1l 2013 -Fmai Report VI
I I '~l
r ',
c_i
r,
I
'_j
I
'--'
I I
I
~'
I I
[ I
(1
I I
I
;J
I I
(~I
I
I I u
I I
1 I
L:
r-,
1 I
1J
[1
Ekh.11tna, ~nc
Hunter Creek IHydroelectroc Reconnaissance St11.11dly l?oiarconsll.ll!t Alaska, ~nc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY X
10 INTRODUCTION 1
11 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND PURPOSE 1
12 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1
13 PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS 2
14 CURRENT AND PREVIOUS STUDIES 2
20 COMMUNITY PROFILE 3
21 COMMUNITY OVERVIEW 3
22 EXISTING ENERGY SYSTEM 3
30 HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 7
3 1 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION 7
32 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT CONFIGURATIONS CONSIDERED 13
33 RECOMMENDED PROJECT CONFIGURATION 17
34 ESTIMATED ENERGY GENERATION 19
35 DESCRIPTION OF FEATURES FOR RECOMMENDED PROJECT 20
40 MARKET ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES 25
41 POTENTIAL BUSINESS MODELS 25
42 POTENTIAL MARKETS 28
so CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33
51 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULE 34
60 REFERENCES 35
Apr~ I 21013-IFma! Report v~
IEkllUit!'lla, ~ll"iiC
!Hii.llntel!' Creek IHiydll'oeiectll'lc !Reconnaissance StlUidly Polarconsolt Alaska, Inc 0
APPENDIX A-PROJECT MAPS
APPENDIX B-SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C-HYDROLOGY DATA
APPENDICES
C 1 Available Hydrology Data
C 2 Stream Gauge Stat1on Information
C 3 Flow Measurements and Stat1on Calibration
C 4 Hunter Creek Hydrology Data
C 5 Hunter Creek Hydrology Model
Attachment C-1 Hunter Creek Streamflow Analysis Report
Attachments C-2 and C-3 Add1t1onal Gaugmg Station Data, Mam Stem and East Fork #2
APPENDIX D-RESOURCE DATA AND ANALYSIS
D 1 Land Status
D 2 Hydrological Cons1derat1ons
D 3 Geotechnical Cons1derat1ons
APPENDIX E-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
E 1 Threatened and Endangered Spec1es
E 2 F1shenes and Wildlife
E 3 Water and A1r Quality
E 4 Wetland and Protected Areas
E 5 Archaeological and Cultural Resources
E 6 Land Development Cons1derat1ons
E 7 Telecommun1cat1ons and Av1at1on Cons1derat1ons
E 8 V1sual and Aesthetic Resources
E 9 M1t1gat1on Measures
Attachment E-1 Hunter Creek F1shenes Survey Report
APPENDIX F-PERMITTING INFORMATION
F 1 Federal Perm1ts
F 2 State of Alaska Perm1ts
F 3 Local Perm1ts
F 4 Other Perm1ts and Authonzat1ons
APPENDIX G-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
G1 Introduction
G2 Estimated Installed Cost
G3 Estimated Annual Project Cost
G4 Fmancmg Terms
G5 Operatmg Margms
GG Estimated Power Sales Rate
G7 Estimated Benefit-Cost Rat1o
G8 Environmental Attnbutes
G9 Indirect and Non-Monetary Benefits
APPENDIX H-COMMENTS AND REVISIONS TO DRAFT REPORT, UTILITY SUPPORT LETTER
Aprn! ZOB -Fma~ Report vun
I I
I I
I
I
I i
I I
I~
~
I
ll u
II
I I
1 I
I I
_)
I I I
I I
)
I I I _;
'~
I
I I
I
I I
ll
i_l
I I
'--
II
I I I __ )
r-')
1_1
I I I
( ~)
I
I
L
1~1
Ek~utna, inc
H111.mter Creek Hydroelectr~c !Reconnaissance Studly IPo~arconsll.Bit A~aska, inc
Table ES-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table C-1
Table C-2
Table D-1
Table D-2
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Recommended Hydroelectric Project
Hunter Creek Subbasm Descr1pt1on
Estimated Hunter Creek Subbasm Hydrology
Overv1ew of Hydroelectric Project Conf1gurat1ons Considered
Cost Estimates and Fmanc1al Analysis for East Fork-Only Project
Conf1gu rat1ons
Cost Estimates and Fmanc1al Analysis for East and West Fork Project
Conf1gu rat1ons
Proposed Alternative Energy Supplies for MEA
Selected Ra1lbelt Transm1ss1on Gr1d Wheeling Costs
Summary of Hydrology Data for Hunter Creek
Stream Flow and Water Stage Measurements at Hunter Creek
Max1mum Probable Flood Flows at Hunter Creek and Tr1butar1es
Estimated Sed1ment Load m East Fork Hunter Creek
LIST OF FIGURES
F1gure ES-1 Recommended Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Conf1gurat1on
F1gure 2-1 Monthly Peak and Average MEA System Demand and Load Factor
F1gure 2-2 H1stor1cal and Projected Future MEA System Demand
F1gure 3-1 Hunter Creek and Major Subbasms
F1gure 3-2 Estimated Hunter Creek Hydrograph
Figure 3-3 Explanation of Project Conf1gurat1on ldent1f1ers
F1gure 3-4
F1gure 3-5
F1gure 4-1
F1gure 5-1
F1gure A-1
F1gure A-2
F1gure A-3
F1gure A-4
F1gure A-5
F1gure A-6
F1gure C-1
Map of Recommended Project Conf1gurat1on
Estimated Seasonal Energy Generation for Selected Project
Conf1gurat1ons
MEA's Past and Projected Future Non-F1rm Avo1ded Cost of Energy
Project Development Schedule
Project Overv1ew and Location Map
Map of Hunter Creek Subbasms
Land Status m Project Area
East Fork Hydroelectric Project Conf1gurat1ons
West Fork Hydroelectric Project Conf1gurat1ons
Conceptual Layout of East Fork D1vers1on and Intake
Estimated Da1ly Flow m Hunter Creek and Tr1butar1es Based on Extended
Record
Apri~ 2013-IFmaiiReport
Ill
7
9
14
15
16
30
32
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-7
5
6
8
9
13
18
19
29
34
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
C-9
vm
Ek~IUltl!'lla, ~lllC ) -1
IHIII.IInter Creek IH!ydroe~ectii'JC !Reconnaissance St:IU!dly Po~all'tOD"'SIUI~iJ: A~aska, ~me I
~ I
LIST OF PHOTOGIRAPHS
I I
Photograph B-1 Oblique North Aenal V1ew of Lower Hunter Creek B-3
Photograph B-2 Oblique North-Northwest Aenal V1ew of Lower Hunter Creek B-3
Photograph B-3 Oblique South-Southwest Aenal V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek B-4 I
I I
Photograph B-4 Oblique North Aenal V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek B-4
-
Photograph B-5 Oblique Composite Aenal V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek B-5 I
I
Photograph B-6 Oblique Composite Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter Creek B-5
I I
Photograph B-7 Oblique Southeast Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter Creek B-7
Photograph B-8 Oblique Northwest Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter Creek B-7
Photograph B-9 Oblique Composite Southeast Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter I
Creek B-8 I II
)
Photograph B-10 East Fork Hunter Creek Lookmg Downstream (RM 4 42) B-8
Photograph B-11 East Fork Gaugmg Stat1on #1 (RM 4 34) B-9 I I
I
Photograph B-12 East Fork Gaugmg Station #1 (RM 4 34, Deta1led V1ew) B-9 I
Photograph B-13 Typ1cal Exposed T1ll Embankment along East Fork Hunter Creek B-10
Photograph B-14 Upstream V1ew of East Fork Gaugmg Stat1on #2 (RM 4 73) B-11
Photograph B-15 Trans-Alaska P1pelme Bndge Over Tanana R1ver near Delta
Junction B-11 I I
Photograph B-16 Upstream V1ew of East Fork (RM 4 40) B-12
Photograph B-17 V1ew of T1ll Embankment along East Fork Canyon (RM 3 83 to 1-J
4 02) B-13
Photograph B-18 Upstream V1ew of East Fork Canyon From North R1m Above RM ;-J 3 83 B-14
Photograph B-19 V1ew of Active Slide Zone on North S1de of East Fork Hunter Creek
(RM 4 15) B-15
Photograph B-20 Downstream V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek (RM 5 2) B-16
Photograph B-21 Upstream V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek (RM 5 2) B-17
Photograph B-22 Mam Stem of Hunter Creek Gaugmg Stat1on (Preflood) B-18
Photograph B-23 Mam Stem of Hunter Creek at Flood Stage (Post-Flood) B-18
Photograph B-24 Mam Stem of Hunter Creek at Flood Stage (RM 1 50) B-19
I I
Photograph B-25 Upstream V1ew of the Mam Stem of Hunter Creek (RM 2 22) B-20
I j' L_
I
l J
Aprn~ 2013-IFma~ !Report ox
il u G I' EidiUitna, ~me
LJ Hlunter Creek Hydlroelectnc !Reconnaissance Study l?olarconsu~t A~aska, ~111c
~ ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY 1
, I
I oc degrees Cels1us
r-1
j I
OF degrees Fahrenheit
,~ 1 ABC Alaska B1olog1cal Consultmg LJ
r I ADCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Commun1ty, and Economic Development
I I I I Li
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
I lJ ADF&G Alaska Department of F1sh and Game
' 1
I I ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
)
AEA Alaska Energy Authonty
I I
AEP Alaska Environmental Power, LLC
I)
I I ~-I AGDC Alaska Gashne Development Corporation
I-~
I I
IJ ANCSA Alaska Nat1ve Cla1ms Settlement Act
1-)
I I AS Alaska Statute
I
ASAP Alaska Stand-Alone Gas P1pelme
Aurora Aurora Energy, LLC
i I
BHC Bralley Hydrological Consultants
\i Btu Brrt1sh thermal un1t I I L;
ll CEA Chugach Electrrc Assoc1at1on, Inc
I
cfs cub1c feet per second
I(
u
I~J
ll Apnl 20JI.3-Fmai Report X
1Ekh.11tna, ~nc
!Hli.iill"'ter Creek !Hiydlroeie(trnc !Re(onmanssance Study Polarconsult Aiaska, ~11'1(
CIRI Cook Inlet Reg1on, Inc
CPCN Cert1f1cate of Public Convemence and Necess1ty
DCRA
DGGS
discharge
DOPR
EA
EGS
Eklutna
FERC
FIW
D1v1s1on of Commumty and Reg1onal Affa1rs (orgamzed under ADCCED)
D1v1s1on of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (Alaska Department of Natural
Resources)
A synonym for stream flow Flow and discharge are used mterchangeably m th1s
report
ADNR D1v1s1on of Parks and Recreation
environmental attributes The term "environmental attributes" IS used by the
ut1hty mdustry to descr1be the desirable aspects of electr1c1ty that are generated
from environmentally bemgn and/or renewable sources Environmental
attributes are tracked, marketed, bought, and sold separately from the phys1cal
energy Separatmg the environmental attributes from the phys1cal energy allows
customers or ratepayers to elect to buy sustamable or "green" energy even 1f 1t IS
physically unavailable from the1r electric ut1hty
Eklutna Generation Station
Eklutna, Inc
Federal Energy Regulatory Comm1ss1on
F1re Island Wmd, LLC
f1rm energy F1rm energy 1s energy that the ut1hty depends on to meet the needs of 1ts
customers If the ut1hty has a f1rm energy supply from an Independent Power
Producer (IPPL then 1t does not need to supply 1ts own generatmg capac1ty to
meet customer demand
ft foot, feet
GVEA Golden Valley Electric Assoc1at1on, Inc
HEA Homer Electric Assoc1at1on, Inc
Aprn~ 2013-Fma~ !Report xn
I I
I I
i I
I i
I I
I I
I I 1_1
tl
\ I
I I
I
~ I
I I
I I I
I I -
I I
I
~-~
I
I
u
!I u
,-I
I
lJ
I
I
I
~
I lj
I I
I I
-
I I
I I
r-
1 I u
Li
!Ek!u.atna, ~nc
IHIII.llntel!' Creek !Hiydlll'oelectr~c IReconna~ssance Stll.lldly Pclarconsu~ Alaska, Inc •
In
IPP
ISER
ISFR
1sohyet
JBER
kV
mch, mches
Independent Power Producer
Institute of Soc1al and Economic Research (Un1vers1ty of Alaska Anchorage)
m-stream flow reservation A mm1mum amount of flow that must be left m a
nver or stream dunng all or certam t1mes of the year
A contour hne delmeatmg areas of equal prec1p1tat1on
Jomt Base Elmendorf-Richardson
kilovolt, or 1,000 volts
kVA kilovolt-ampere
kW k1lowatt, or 1,000 watts One kW IS the power consumed by ten 100-watt
mcandescent hght bulbs
kWh kilowatt-hour The quantity of energy equal to one k1lowatt (kW) expended for
one hour
LFMC hqU1dt1te flex1ble metal conduit
load factor Average load over a spec1f1ed t1me penod d1v1ded by the peak load for the same
t1me penod
MEA Matanuska Electnc Assoc1at1on, Inc
m1 m1le, m1les
ML&P Mun1c1pal L1ght and Power
MOA Mun1c1pal1ty of Anchorage
mmBtu Un1t of energy produced An abbrev1at1on for m1lhon {10 6
) Bnt1sh thermal un1ts
MW megawatt Equal to 1,000 kW
Apru~ 2013-fmaiiReport X~i
1Ekh.11tna, ~II"'C
IHlunter Creek Hvdlroe~edr~c IReconna~ssance Studly PoiarcoU11su~t A~aska, ~nc
MWh megawatt-hour Equal to 1,000 kWh
NA not applicable
NALA North Anchorage Land Agreement
non-f1rm energy
Non-f1rm energy 1s energy that 1s ava1lable on an unpredictable, mterm1ttent
bas1s, such as wmd energy Non-f1rm energy 1s not scheduled or guaranteed, and
a ut1llty that uses non-f1rm energy supplies must mamtam back up generatmg
capac1ty to meet the needs of 1ts customers m the event the non-f1rm energy
supply 1s unavailable at any g1ven t1me
Energy from run-of-nver hydro proJects falls somewhere between f1rm and non-
firm energy defm1t1ons A certam amount of power IS predictably available at
any g1ven t1me, but the amount of power vanes seasonally Ut1llty pncmg m
some other Junsd1ct1ons recogmzes th1s d1stmct1on, but ut1llt1es on Alaska's
ra1lbelt currently class1fy run-of-nver hydro as a non-f1rm energy supply
avo1ded cost Avo1ded cost IS the cost that a ut1llty does not mcur to generate a kWh of
electnc1ty when 1t mstead purchases the energy from another source (such as an
IPP) Th1s cost typically mcludes the fuel that the ut1llty would have purchased
and the operational and mamtenance costs that the utility does not mcur for the
generation equipment Ut1llt1es have d1fferent avo1ded costs for f1rm and non-
firm energy, w1th the avo1ded cost of f1rm energy normally h1gher than that of
non-f1rm energy
O&M operations and mamtenance
P E Professional Engmeer
Polarconsult Polarconsult Alaska, Inc
PT
PTT
rail belt
pressure transducer
pressure and temperature transducer
The ra1lbelt electncal gnd 1s defmed as the serv1ce areas of s1x regulated public
ut1llt1es that extend from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kena1 Penmsula
These ut1llt1es are Golden Valley Electnc Assoc1at1on, Inc (GVEA), Chugach
Electnc Assoc1at1on, Inc (CEA), Matanuska Electnc Assoc1at1on, Inc (MEA),
Apr1~ 2013 -IFmaiiReport xm
I I
I
I )
I
I I
I I
I
I i
I 1 L ~
I I
I
I 1
I I
I
I
C I
I I
I I
I
I I I
I
! I
I
~~-)
\ I
I_
-
I I
I I
I
l _I
I :
I I
1Ek!ut1111a, inc
Hunter Creek Hydroeiectr~c IRecormaissance Studly Polarconsult Alaska, Inc •
RCA
REA
RM
SES
SFH
sq m1
USACE
USGS
Homer Electnc Assoc1at1on, Inc (HEA), Anchorage Mun1c1pal L1ght & Power
(ML&P, and the City of Seward Electnc System (SES)
Regulatory Comm1ss1on of Alaska
Rural Electnf1cat1on Admm1strat1on (now known as Rural Ut1llty Serv1ce)
nver m1le
Seward Electnc System
South Fork Hydro, LLC
square m1le(s)
U S Army Corps of Engmeers
U S Geolog1cal Survey
Apr!l 21013-FmaiiReport XBV
Ek!utna, inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study PolarconsuR Alaska, Inc •
Th1s page 1ntent1onally blank
Aprn~ 2013-Fnnal Report XV
I
I
J
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I J
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
\ l
I (
I
( )
',
I I
)
I I
I I
(r
I
I l _)
J I
~
IEklu.utna, ~nc
1Hlu.un1tell' Creek IH!ydroe!ectnc !Reconnaissance St:u.uclly
tft'~
IPoiarconsu.ult A~aska, ~nc ~
1 0 INTRODUCTION
11 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND PURPOSE
In July 2011, the Alaska Energy Author~ty (AEA) granted Eklutna, Inc (Eklutna) funds for a
hydroelectric reconnaissance study of Hunter Creek The funds were awarded under the state's
Renewable Energy Grant Program, wh1ch IS admm1stered by the AEA In September 2011,
Eklutna h1red Polarconsult Alaska, Inc (Polarconsult) to conduct the study Th1s report presents
the study fmdmgs and recommendations
1 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Reconnaissance-level mvest1gat1ons of Hunter Creek fmd that a run-of-r1ver hydroelectric
project on the east fork of Hunter Creek appears techmcally, economically, environmentally,
and politically v1able 3 Several project conf1gurat1ons are favorable, w1th a 7 7 megawatt (MW)
project generatmg an estimated 27,100 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually recommended for
further study Favorable east fork conf1gurat1ons range m mstalled capac1ty from 5 3 to 10 9
MW The estimated power sales rates for energy from the recommended project IS $0 11 per
kilowatt-hour (kWh), w1th a probable range of $0 064 to $0 162 per kWh under the full range of
cap1tal cost, fmancmg terms, and operatmg costs considered for th1s study These rates are
compet1t1ve w1th Matanuska Electric Assoc1at1on (MEA)'s forecast avo1ded cost of energy over
the 50-year project life Under the full range of costs and fmancmg terms considered m th1s
study, project conf1gurat1ons have estimated benefit cost rat1os rangmg from of 0 74 to 3 06
The recommended project conf1gurat1on has an estimated benefit-cost rat1o of 2 0, rangmg
from 1 49 to 3 06 under the full range of economic assumptions considered
Projects that mclude development of west fork Hunter Creek were also considered, but these
were found to not be v1able for the followmg reasons
1 The most econom1c west fork conf1gurat1ons are partially located w1thm Chugach State
Park Hydroelectric projects are not consistent w1th the current management goals of
th1s part of Chugach State Park Th1s IS a s1gmf1cant political barner for these project
conf1gurat1ons West fork conf1gurat1ons that av01d Chugach State Park are not
economic under current and likely future southcentral energy market cond1t1ons
2 The remoteness and rugged terram of the west fork valley cause all west fork
conf1gurat1ons to be less economic than east fork conf1gurat1ons
This report refers to the two maJor forks of Hunter Creek as the 'east fork' and 'west fork' These are not formal
names, and have therefore not been capitalized m th1s report Similarly, the term 'Hunter Creek canyon', IS not a
formal name and has not been capitalized m th1s report
Apl!'l! 2013-IFma~ Report
Ekh.JJtna, ~nc
IHIIUinter Creek IHiydroeiectnc IReconna~ssance Studlv IP'o~arconsu~t A~aska, ~nc
3 The cumulative Impact of hydroelectric projects on both forks of Hunter Creek are likely
to result m stricter perm1t terms, such as h1gher m-stream flow reservations or
requirements for off-s1te m1t1gat1on for f1sh hab1tat, that w1ll adversely affect overall
project economics
1 3 PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS
Several hydroelectric project conf1gurat1ons at Hunter Creek were evaluated to defme the range
of expected project output and development cost Relevant resource data for Hunter Creek
were collected and analyzed to develop the project conf1gurat1ons The resource data mcluded
stream hydrology, f1sh surveys, s1te topography, and related mformat1on Environmental and
regulatory factors were also considered m developmg cand1date project conf1gurat1ons
Econom1c evaluations focused on wholesale purchase of the project's net electrical output by
Matanuska Electric Assoc1at1on, Inc (MEAL the local electric ut1llty
The estimated electrical output for each proJect conf1gurat1on was mtegrated w1th economic
data comprised of ut1llty fuel costs, construction costs, operations and mamtenance (O&M)
costs, and fmancmg opt1ons to develop an estimated benefit-cost rat1o Detailed d1scuss1on of
the assumptions used for economic analysis are available m Appendix G
1 4 CURRENT AND PREVIOUS STUDIES
1 4 1 Prev1ous Stud1es
Based on rev1ew of hydroelectric databases mamtamed by the AEA, Polarconsult's arch1ves, and
local, state, and umvers1ty library databases, the hydroelectric potential of Hunter Creek has
not been previously mvest1gated
1 4 2 Current Reconnaissance Study
Polarconsult conducted the followmg f1eld mvest1gat1ons to collect s1te-spec1f1c mformat1on
about Hunter Creek for th1s reconnaissance study
" Installed stream gauges on the mam stem of Hunter Creek upstream of Kmk R1ver Road
and on the east fork Hunter Creek m the v1cm1ty of the proposed d1vers1on s1te These
data were analyzed to generate m1t1al estimates of Hunter Creek's hydrology
fi Performed topographic surveys to determme project head and terram along prospective
penstock routes for var~ous project conf1gurat1ons These topographic surveys were
supplemented w1th ex1stmg data to generate contours of the project area
a Performed f1sh surveys m the powerhouse reach and east fork d1vers1on reach to
prov1de m1t1almformat1on on the presence and d1str~but1on of f1sh m Hunter Creek
Several f1eld VISits were completed m support of the above-listed act1v1t1es between September
2011 and November 2012 F1eld data collected from these tr1ps have been used to complete a
reconnaissance study of Hunter Creek usmg the methodology descr1bed m Sect1on 1 3
Apr~~ 2013 -fma~ !Report 2
I I
I
I
I j
I 1
J
I
I I
I ~ I I J
I I
I
I
J
I )
IJ
I I
I
I
I I
: I
!l I I c --'
1-I
i I
_)
I
\ :
)
: I
lj
I I I
I
I I
I I I I
I I
'-
:l
1Ekh.J11!:1111a, ~nt
Hlunter Creek IHydlmelectnt 1Reto1111011anssance StiUldly IPo~artonsiL.ilt Alaska, ~nc
2.0 COMMUN~TY PROFILE
2 1 COMMUNiTY OVERVIEW
The commumty that would be served by a hydroelectric project at Hunter Creek 1s potentially
anywhere served by the ra1lbelt ut1llt1es, wh1ch mcludes an area extendmg from the south s1de
of Kachemak Bay north to Nenana, Fairbanks, and Delta Junction Approximately 540,000
people live w1thm th1s area The mostly likely commumty the project would serve 1s best
descr1bed as the serv1ce area of MEA, wh1ch extends from Eagle R1ver to Talkeetna and mcludes
the population centers of the Mat-Su Valley Approximately 120,000 people live w1thm MEA's
serv1ce terntory (Alaska Department of Commerce, Commumty, and Economic Development
[ADCCED], 2012)
2 2 EXISTING ENERGY SYSTEM
2 2 1 Commumty Energy Overv1ew
Electric serv1ce m the project area IS prov1ded by MEA MEA IS one of the s1x Interconnected
electric ut1llt1es m Alaska's ra1lbelt Th1s mterconnected gr1d represents the largest utility gr1d m
the state m terms of population served The hydro project would straddle the southern
boundary of MEA's cert1f1cated serv1ce area, With the transm1ss1on lme and access roads
located Wlthm the serv1ce area and the powerhouse, penstock, and mtake south of the serv1ce
area boundary
2 2 2 Electr1c Ut1hty Orgamzat1on
MEA was mcorporated m 1941 under the US Department of Agriculture's Rural Electr1f1cat1on
Admm1strat1on (REA, now Rural Ut1llty Serv1ce) regulations MEA IS an economically regulated
cert1f1cated public ut1llty, holdmg Cert1f1cate of Convenience and Public Necessity (CPCN) No
18, or1gmally 1ssued by the Alaska Publ1c Ut1llt1es Comm1ss1on, the predecessor to the
Regulatory Comm1ss1on of Alaska (RCA)
2 2 3 Generat1on System
MEA currently purchases substantially all of 1ts electr1c1ty from Chugach Electric Assoc1at1on,
Inc (CEA) under an all-requirements power supply contract Th1s supply mcludes a port1on of
the output from two large hydroelectric projects the 44-MW Eklutna Lake Hydroelectric
Project, and the 126-MW Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project The balance of power purchased
from CEA 1s generated w1th natural gas-f1red turbmes In add1t1on to electr1c1ty supplied by CEA,
MEA also directly purchases a small amount of electr1c1ty from the 100 kilowatt (kW)
McRobert's Creek Hydroelectric Project located near Palmer
MEA's ex1stmg all-requirements supply contract w1th CEA exp1res at the end of 2014, and MEA
1s currently constructmg a new power plant, the Eklutna Generation Stat1on (EGS), near the
Apr•~ 2013-IFma~ Report 3
1Ekh.11tna, ~nt
IHllllnter Cl!'eek Hyolll'oe~ectnt IRetonna~ssance StiUidly Polarcons"H Alaska, Inc ~
Nat1ve V1llage of Eklutna to supply electr1c1ty to 1ts customers The EGS will feature 10
rec1procatmg engmes w1th a total generatmg capac1ty of 171 MW The plant will likely be
fueled w1th natural gas/ but w1ll have the capability of operatmg on d1esel fuel or other
hydrocarbon fuel supplies
Startmg m 20151 MEA w1ll use the EGS to meet the electrical demands of 1ts customers MEA
w1ll contmue to purchase power from the Eklutna Lake/ Bradley Lake 1 and McRoberts Creek
Hydroelectric projects/ and has also contracted to purchase the full output of the 1 2-MW
Southfork Hydroelectric Project m Eagle R1ver 1 wh1ch IS expected to be operational m mld-2013
There are several other prospective small hydroelectric and cogeneration projects located m
MENs serv1ce area that may sell electriCity to MEA m the commg years 4
2 2 4 Electnca~ D1stnbut1on System
MEA operates over 41 000 miles of transm1ss1on and d1str~but1on lmes located throughout 1ts
serv1ce area These range from major 115-kllovolt (kV) transm1ss1on lmes down to smgle-phase
71 200-volt d1str~but1on c1rcu1ts The ex1stmg MEA d1str~but1on line m the project VICinity IS a
smgle-phase 71 200-volt overhead lme typ1cal of older REA construction Th1s lme has
msuff1c1ent capac1ty to transmit energy from Hunter Creek to MEA load centers or other ra1lbelt
markets Upgrade options are discussed m Sect1on 3 5 4
225 Planned Upgrades
As1de from the new generation stat1on currently under construction d1scussed m Section 2 2 31
MEA does not have any planned upgrades that Will affect the development of a hydroelectric
project at Hunter Creek
4 Information on the EGS and MEA contracts 1s condensed from MEA lnformattonal Packet Prepared Pursuant to 3 MC
50 790(d} (MEA, August 2012a) Polarconsult prmc1pals have ownership mterests m the McRoberts Creek and
Southfork hydroelectnc projects, as well as other proposed small hydroelectnc projects that may sell to MEA m the
future
Apn~ 201ll3-trona~ !Report 4
I
I I
I _I
1 I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I 1
I I
I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
2.2.6 Existing Demand Profile
MEA's existing demand profile is significantly greater than the supply potential of Hunter Creek.
Over the past 5 years, MEA's average monthly system demand varied from 73 to 113 MW, with
highest demand in the winter months (November to Februa r y) and lowest demand in the
summer months (May to July). Peak system demand varied f rom 84 to 145 MW, and load
factor varied from 71% to 86%. Recent MEA system demand da t a are shown on Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1 Monthly Peak and Average MEA System Demand and Load Factor
~ 160
~ -"1J c: e 14o
Qj
0
E
.l!l 120 Ill > VI
<{
w
~ 100
..lf::
Ill
Qj
0..
"1J c:
Ill
Qj
QO
Ill ...
Qj
~
80
60
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Chart is based on data provide d i n TA 423 -18 (MEA, 2012b).
April 2013-Final Report
100%
90 %
80%
70 %
60 %
2010 2011 2012
...
0 .... u
Ill u..
"1J
Ill
0
....J
E
Qj ....
Ill > VI
5
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
2.2.7 Projected Future Demand Profile and Energy Market
MEA's past annual system demand and projected future annual demand is presented on Figure
2-2 . MEA projects annual demand growth of 1.5% over the next 10 years, which is consistent
with the utility's recent annual demand growth trends .5
MEA's system demand is large enough to absorb the f u ll output of any of the Hunter Creek
project configurations considered in this study. Market conditions will be determined by
economics rather than by system demand considerations . The energy market for Hunter Creek
is discussed in Section 4 of this report {Section 4.2.1 speci f ically discusses the MEA market).
2 900,000
~
~
Ill
:I c c s 850,000
"C c
Ill
E cu c
E
~ 800,000
"' > Ill
<1: w
~
cu ...
:I '5 750,000
u..
"C cu
ti cu ·o-... c..
"C 700,000
c
Ill ....
"' Ill c..
650 ,000
M
0
0
N
Figure 2-2 Historical and Projected Future MEA System Demand
-+-Projected Future Annual System Demand
-Historic Annual System Demand
<:t Uj \.0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N
00 ~ 0 M N M '<t U1 \.0 I'
0 0 M M M M M M M M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N
00 ~
M M
0 0
N N
0
N
0
N
M
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
M
N
0
N
5 Past MEA system demand data comp iled from MEA Tariff Advice letter TA 423 -18 (MEA , 2012b). Projected future
MEA system demand data is from the MEA informati on packet dated August 23 , 2012 (MEA , 2012a).
April 2013-Final Report 6
Eklutna, Inc .
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
3.0 HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
3.1 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION
Hunter Creek is a major tributary of the Knik River, drain i ng a 71.1-square-mile basin in the
Chugach Mountains located between Eklutna Lake and Lake George (see Figure 3-1 and Figures
A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A). Hunter Creek discharges into the Knik River approximately 11 miles
upstream of the Old Glenn Highway bridge. The Hunter Creek project site is located at latitude
61 ° 25' 13" north, longitude 148° 48' 47" west, within USGS quadrangle map Anchorage B-5
northwest. The recommended project configuration is located within section 31 of township 16
north, range 4 east, and sections 6 and 7 of township 15 north, range 4 east (Seward Meridian).
The Hunter Creek basin is comprised of subalpine valleys, alpine valleys, glaciers, and barren
alpine terrain. The basin receives approximately 80 inches of precipitation annually.6 The basin
is comprised of two major valleys: the west fork valley, which is oriented with a north-facing
aspect ; and the east fork valley, which is oriented with a northwest-facing aspect . Both valleys
are surrounded by mountains, with the exception of an approximately 2-mile-wide mountain
gap opening north to the Knik River valley through which Hunter Creek flows . The basin is
bounded to the west, east, and south by a series of peaks , valleys, and ridges at elevations from
4,900 to 8,005 feet . The northerly basin divide between Hunter Creek and Knik River is a lower
series of peaks, valleys, and ridges at elevations from 4,700 to 5,800 feet. The southern extents
of both the east fork and west fork valleys are extensively glaciated. Table 3-1 presents the
general land cover composition of the Hu nter Creek basin and major subbasins.
Table 3-1 Hunter Creek Subbasin Description
East Fork West Fork Subbasin Total Hunter
Basin Land Cover Subbasin (above Subbasin (above Downstream of Creek Drainage
Diversion Site) Diversion Site) Diversion Sites Basin
Forested 12% 11% 55 % 19%
Alpine Tundra 12% 25% 17 % 19%
Glaciated 29% 18% 0% 19%
Barren Alpine and 47% 46% 28% 43% Barren Floodplain
Subbasin Area in Square Miles 22.8 33.4 14.9 71 .1
(Percentage of Total Basin) (32 %) (47 %) (21 %) (100%)
Analysis of 2011-12 stream gauging data on the main stem of Hunter Creek at river mile (RM)
1.59 indicates that the annual average flow in the main stem is approximately 311 cubic feet
per second (cfs). Analysis of 2011-12 stream gauging data for east fork Hunter Creek indicates
6 Interpreted from U.S. Geologica l Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigation Report 93 -41 79 , Plate 2 (USGS, 1993).
The Hunter Creek bas in is intersected by several isohyets, indicating precipitation of approximately 80 to 100 inches
per year in the glaciated southeast portion of th e basin closest to Prince William Sound , decrea sin g to approximately
40 to 60 inche s per year in the northwest portion of the basin near its outlet to Knik River.
April 2013-Final Report 7
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Rec o nnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
that flows in the east fork an d west fork can be reasonably estimated by scaling main stem
flows by the ratio of subbasi n areas . Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1 present estimated hydrology for
the main stem, east fork, an d west fork of Hunter Creek . Detailed hydrology analysis of Hunter
Creek is presented in Append ix C.
Figure 3-1 Hunter Creek and Major Subbasins
April 2013 -Final Report 8
Eklutna, Inc .
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Table 3-2 Estimated Hunter Creek Subbasin Hydrology
East Fork above West Fo r k above Main Stem at Gauging
Parameter
Subbasin Area (square miles)
Average Annual Flow
Annual Minimum Flow
(late March I early April)
Sustained Summer Flow
(early June to late September)
Peak Sustained Summer Flow
(mid-July to mid-August)
Range of Project Design Flows
Considered in this Study
NA : Not applicable .
Figure 3-2
Diversion Site Diversion Site
(RM 5.08) {RM 6.14)
22 .8 33 .4
100 cfs 150 cfs
5.5 cfs 8 cfs
130 to 390 cfs 190 to 580 cfs
390 cfs 580 cfs
90 to 210 cfs 260 cfs
Estimated Hunter Creek Hyd rograph
Station
(RM 1.59)
69 .7
311 cfs
18 cfs
400 to 1,200 cfs
1,200 cfs
NA
1,500 -,----------------.---------.. ....... ---.-..... r...------------, 480 720
"l:l c
0 u
Cll
"' ...
Cll
Q. ...
Cll
.! 1,000
u :c
:I u
~~
0 u:::
~
Cll
Cll ... u ...
Cll
i: 500
:I
:I:
E
Cll ...
11'1
c
111
::?i
-Maximum Daily Flow
-Mean (Average) Daily Flow
-Minimum Daily Flow
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
April 2013-Final Report
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
320 480
~ ~ 0 0 u::: u:::
~ ~ ... ...
0 0 u... u... ...
"' 1'0 w
...
"' Cll
3:
160 240
9
1Ekhnt1111a, ~nc
11-h.Jlnter Crreek IHiydlroe~ectiT'JC Reconnaussance St~dly Po~all'cons~~t A~aska, ~111c
The reach of Hunter Creek under cons1derat1on m th1s study for hydroelectnc development
extends from approximately RM 1 3 upstream to RM 5 1 on the east fork and RM 6 2 on the
west fork (see F1gure A-1)
311 East Fork and Mam Stem of Hunter Creek (Headwaters to RM 0 O)
East fork Hunter Creek starts at the termmus of Hunter Creek Glac1er at approximately RM 9 3
From RM 9 3 to RM 7 4, east fork Hunter Creek traverses mostly barren terram droppmg
approximately 1,500 feet m 1 9 m1les, mcludmg a drop of 400 feet from RM 8 0 to RM 7 7 (See
F1gure 3-1) The reach from approximately RM 9 3 to RM 8 5 was st1ll glac1ated m the 1960s 7
From approximately RM 7 4 down to RM 4 36, east fork Hunter Creek has eroded a channelmto
depos1ts of glac1al t1ll along the bottom of the east fork valley Th1s channel 1s approximately
100-feet deep and typically 200-to 300-feet w1de, w1th mostly vegetated banks at 60% to 120%
slopes East fork Hunter Creek follows an actively meandermg bra1ded course down the floor of
th1s channel, actively erodmg t1ll embankments m some areas (see Photographs B-13, B-16, and
B-17 m Appendix B) The creek runs at a gradient of approximately 2% to 5% through th1s
reach The creek bed IS alluv1al matenals mterspersed w1th large boulders (glac1al errat1cs)
exposed as the creek cuts through and washes away fmer constituents of the t1ll
At approximately RM 4 6, the grade of east fork Hunter Creek begms to mcrease, and the w1dth
of the channel narrows At RM 4 40, east fork Hunter Creek mtersects bedrock and enters the
Hunter Creek canyon (Photograph B-16) The average grad1ent from RM 4 36 past the
confluence w1th the west fork (RM 3 48) and down to approximately RM 3 10 IS 12% The w1dth
of the canyon floor through th1s reach IS typically 20 to 50 feet, and the rock canyon IS very
steeply mc1sed, w1th near-vert1cal rock walls nsmg approximately 50 to 150 feet above the
creek (Photograph B-18) There 1s an approximately 200-to 300-foot-thlck mantle of glac1al t1ll
overlymg bedrock m th1s area, wh1ch forms the upper s1des of the canyon Many parts of the
canyon nm w1th favorable dram age patterns mamtam vertical faces approximately 20 to 50 feet
tall at the top of the t1ll layer, trans1t1onmg farther down to unvegetated or sparsely vegetated
slides at approximately 80% to 120% slopes (Photographs B-17 and B-18)
In the v1cm1ty of RM 3 10, the canyon floor trans1t1ons from exposed bedrock and large
boulders to a more umform floor of coarse alluv1um (cobbles and gravels) From RM 3 10 down
to the canyon outlet at RM 1 35, the canyon 1s typically 50-to 250-feet w1de at the floor, and
150-to 500-feet deep The canyon walls are a combmat1on of bedrock outcrops and vegetated
talus slopes The walls have slopes varymg from approximately 100% on talus slopes to vertical
rock faces approximately 10 to 50+ feet tall (Photographs B-16, B-17, and B-18)
Hunter Creek runs through the lower canyon (RM 3 10 to RM 1 35) at a grade of approximately
1 0% to 1 5%, actively meandenng across the canyon floor The canyon floor through th1s reach
1s devo1d of bedrock outcroppmgs and 1s covered m a mantle of alluv1um rangmg from large
7 Based on USGS 1 63,360 scale quadrangle maps Anchorage A 5 and B 5 (USGS, 1969)
Apr1! 21013-IFmai !Report 10
I 'I
r-
I
I
1 I
I ~~
I
I
-
I I
l I
: II
I
I
I I
i I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I~
I I
I I
I
I I
l ~l
J
~ I
I I
I I
I I
[i
I I
I
I I
I
r-1
I I ~
~
I I c_)
1Ekh.11t111a, ~lllC
IH!a.mter Creek Hlydroelectrnc IReconnaassance StiUldly Polarconsult Alaska, Inc •
boulders and cobbles down to sands and s1lts m backwater areas Matenals on the canyon floor
are actively replemshed by ongomg eros1on processes upstream and are red1stnbuted by
frequent h1gh-flow events The Alaska Department of F1sh and Game (ADF&G) has designated
the upper end of th1s reach as the upstream llm1t of anadromous f1sh hab1tat at approximately
RM 313
Hunter Creek ex1ts the canyon at RM 1 35, at the Kmk R1ver Road bndge From RM 1 35 to the
Kmk R1ver at RM 0 00, Hunter Creek actively meanders across an alluv1al fan at a low grad1ent
and has no practical hydropower potential The current channel runs down the easterly edge of
the fan, but U S Geological Survey (USGS) maps published m the late 1960s md1cate that the
creek flowed down the center of the fan at that t1me 8
Hunter Creek from RM 2 58 up to the east fork headwaters at Hunter Creek Glac1er IS ent1rely
w1thm lands selected by Eklutna as part of 1ts land entitlement under the Alaska Nat1ve Cla1ms
Settlement Act (ANCSA)
3 1 2 West Fork Hunter Creek (Headwaters to RM 3 48 Confluence)
West fork Hunter Creek headwaters cons1st of several tnbutanes that emerge from glac1er
termm1 at elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 feet These tnbutanes drop approximately 1,000 to
2,000 feet m 2 m1les, w1th the largest two tnbutanes JOmmg at approximately RM 10 1 and an
elevation of 1,700 feet
From RM 10 1 to RM 5 87, west fork Hunter Creek travels over a bra1ded floodplain at a grade
of 1 5% to 2 5% The floodplam 1s not s1gmf1cantly mc1sed, typically 150 to 600 feet w1de, and
covers most of the floor of the west fork Hunter Creek valley
At RM 5 87, west fork Hunter Creek enters the west fork Hunter Creek canyon (Photographs B-
20 and B-21) The creek runs at a grade of 3 5% to 6% from RM 5 87 down to approximately
RM 4 0, then steepens to a grade of 9% to 11% from approximately RM 4 0 down to the
confluence With the east fork at RM 3 48 Throughout th1s reach, west fork Hunter Creek IS
steeply mc1sed m bedrock, w1th the canyon typ1cally 20 to 50 feet w1de at the floor and 50-to
250-feet deep The canyon IS deepest near the confluence w1th the east fork and becomes
progressively shallower upstream Based on surface topography and eros1on patterns, the west
fork valley appears to lack the deep mantle of glac1al t1ll present m the east fork valley and
confluence area, so the unstable slopes associated w1th the t1ll layer along the east fork canyon
are not as pronounced along the west fork, especially above approximately RM 4 15 Instead,
exposed and shallow bedrock appears to be more prevalent along west fork Hunter Creek, and
the s1des of the west fork valley are generally steeper and more mc1sed than m the east fork
valley
USGS 1 63 360 scale quadrangle map Anchorage B 5 (USGS, 1969)
Apnl 2013 -IFmai !Report u.
IEklutna, ~1111c
IHiunter Creek !Hiydroeiectruc !Reconnaissance S1tudly Polarconsult Alaska, Inc 6
From approximately RM 4 71 up to RM 9 85, west fork Hunter Creek IS w1thm the boundary of
Chugach State Park Land from RM 4 71 up to RM 8 08 IS owned by Eklutna but IS managed as
part of the park by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), D1v1s1on of Parks and
Recreation (DPOR) and IS designated for eventual transfer from Eklutna to the State of Alaska
Hydroelectnc development IS not consistent w1th DOPR's management goals for Eklutna land
w1thm the park 9
313 F1shenes
The lower reach of Hunter Creek from RM 0 00 up to approximately 3 13 1s des1gnated as
anadromous f1sh hab1tat by the ADF&G Th1s reach IS designated as hab1tat for coho salmon
F1eld reconnaissance conducted for th1s study confirmed the presence of adult coho m
spawnmg cond1t1on m the creek up to RM 1 81 No JUVemle coho were trapped on the mam
stem No coho were observed from RM 1 81 up to RM 2 22 10
Res1dent Dolly Varden were also trapped along the mam stem of Hunter Creek between RM
1 35 and RM 1 5 Res1dent Dolly Varden are est1mated to occur up to the confluence of the east
and west forks at RM 3 48 Trappmg at RM 4 5 on the east fork above the canyon d1d not y1eld
any f1sh, md1catmg that the veloc1t1es and falls m the Hunter Creek canyon are an effective f1sh
barner on the east fork and likely on the west fork as well F1shenes data are d1scussed m more
detail m Appendix E (Sect1on E 2)
9 Th1s land IS subject to the 1982 North Anchorage Land Agreement (NALA) between Eklutna, the Mumc1pal1ty of
Anchorage, and the State of Alaska See Appendix D, Section D 1 for d1scuss1on of the terms of the NALA
1° F1eld observations on October 4, 2011, October 12, 2011, and October 19, 2012
Aprui 2013-IFunai !Report 12
-
I I
I I
I :
I I
I i
I
I I
i]
I -I
I
I I I_
I I
I I
I I
I :
I
n
ll '~'
[1
I I
Ll
I I
I I
~)
I I I I ~J
I I
I
(-
I I lJ
1Ekh.11t1111a, ~1111c
IHI!.IIntell' Creek IHiydroe!ectr~c !Reconnaissance Stl!.lldly IPoiarconsl!.lllt Alaska, ~nc
3 2 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT CONFIGURATIONS CONSIDIERED
Hydroelectric developments are techmcally poss1ble on both forks of Hunter Creek, and th1s
study considered project conf1gurat1ons on both forks of Hunter Creek Because of the
geography of the basms and the relat1ve prox1m1ty to ex1stmg access corndors, a hydroelectric
project can be developed on the east fork Without accessmg the west fork valley However, a
project on the west fork would requ1re constructmg many of the access roads and penstock
corndors also needed for an east fork project Accordmgly, th1s study considered east fork-only
project conf1gurat1ons, west fork-and-east fork project conf1gurat1ons, but no west fork-only
project conf1gurat1ons The project conf1gurat1ons considered m th1s study are listed m Table 3-
3 and shown on F1gure A-4 (east fork-only conf1gurat1ons) and F1gure A-5 (east fork and west
fork conf1gurat1ons) F1gure 3-3 explams the conf1gurat1on 1dent1f1ers, used m Table 3-3, F1gures
m Appendix A, and elsewhere m th1s report
F1gure 3-3 Explanation of Project Conf1guratoon Jdent1f1ers
.---------Designates East Fork & West Fork PrOJect
r;"1 Project Conf1gurat1on Descnptor
1 1 = West Fork RM 6 14 D1vers1on Penstock Routed Around East Fork Canyon
2 = West Fork RM 6 14 D1vers1on Penstock Bndge Over East Fork Canyon
3 = West Fork RM 4 20 Dam Penstock Bndge Over East Fork Canyon
As shown m Table 3-3 and F1gure A-4, all east fork project conf1gurat1ons feature a common
d1vers1on/mtake s1te at RM 5 08 Three d1fferent powerhouse s1tes and three different des1gn
flows are considered for east fork-only proJects, resultmg m a total of mne east fork-only
proJect conf1gurat1ons that were evaluated for th1s study
All west fork conf1gurat1ons mclude concurrent development of east fork conf1gurat1on E2-48
Two d1fferent d1vers1on s1tes are considered for west fork proJects West fork conf1gurat1ons
W1 and W2 both feature a d1vers1on at RM 6 14, w1thm Chugach State Park W1 routes the
west fork penstock d1rectly across the east fork canyon w1th a 1,100-foot p1pe br1dge Th1s
would be a maJor br~dge, comparable to the Trans-Alaska P1pellne suspension br1dge across the
Tanana R1ver near Delta Junct1on (see Photograph B-15 m AppendiX B) W2 routes the west
fork penstock on a longer route around the east fork canyon, av01dmg the cost of th1s maJor
br1dge Conf1gurat1on W3 features a dam/d1vers1on at RM 4 20 to av01d Chugach State Park
Th1s conf1gurat1on mcludes a shorter 800-foot p1pe br1dge across the east fork canyon Th1s
study d1d not mclude detailed techmcal evaluation of the proposed dam s1te at RM 4 20 or
proposed br1dge crossmgs for conf1gurat1ons W1 and W3
Apll'oi 20113-IFma~ Report 13
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6 .
.
I
Table 3-3 Overview of Hydroelectric Project Configurations Considered
Project Diversion Site Design Flow Powerhouse Notes Configuration (cfs) Site
E1-42 East Fork, RM 5 .08 110 RM 3 .14
E1-48 East Fork, RM 5 .08 160 RM 2 .67
El-54 East Fork, RM 5.08 210 RM 1.02
E2 -42 East Fork, RM 5 .08 100 RM 3 .14
E2 -48 East Fork, RM 5.08 140 RM 2.67
E2-54 East Fork, RM 5 .08 200 RM 1.02
E2-42 East Fork, RM 5 .08 90 RM 3.14
E3-48 East Fork, RM 5 .08 130 RM 2.67
E2-54 East Fork, RM 5 .08 175 RM 1.02
W1 1 West Fork, RM 6.14 260 RM 2.67
Penstock routed via bridge
over east fork canyon
W2 1 West Fork, RM 6.14 260 RM 2 .67
Penstock routed on grade
around east fork canyon
W3 1 West Fork, RM 5 .21 (dam) 260 RM 2 .67
Penstock routed via bridge
over east fork canyon
1. All west fork configurations include concurrent development of ea st fork project E2-48 .
Detailed technical parameters, costs, and economics of the nine east fork-only project
configurations are summarized in Table 3-4 . Detailed tech n ical parameters, costs, and
economics of the three west fork-and-east fork project configura t ions are summarized in Table
3-5 .
April 2013-Final Report 14
I
Eklutna, Inc .
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
PROJECT CONFIGURATION
ESTIMATED PROJECT PARAMETERS
D ~sign Fl~(cfs)
Diversion location (sub ~sin area in square miles)
Intake Ele'0tion (f~~t) _ _
Powerhouse Elevation (feet)
Gross Head (fee ~
Ac~ss Roads and Trails~~t)
Po ~ and Communication line Upgrades and Extensions (feet)
Pe ~toc~ lengthj_f eet)~~ Di ~me ~r (in~hes)
Net Head at Full Flow (feet)
Reservoir Area (acres)
Active Band of Reservoir
Active Reservoir V~lume (acre -feet)
lnsta~d Capacity (MW)
Average Annual ~et Energy Output (MW~
Plant Capacity Factor
ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COST RANGE (2013 $,MILLIONS)
Preconstruction (studies, permitting, design, sit ~ontro1 etc .)
Power and Communication lines
Access Roads and Flood Protection
Diversion and lntake_Structure(_0
Penstock(s)_
Powerhouse
Co~struction Equipment
Shipping
Construction Engineering and lnsp~tio~~
Construction Management/ Administration
Contingency
ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COST RANGE (2013 $,MILLIONS}
ESTIMATED RANGE OF FINANCIAL PARAMETERS 1
Capital Cost Paid by .§_ran ~
Owner Equity Pos!_!i~n (Million$)
Fin ~nced Capital Cost (Million $J _
Ann~l Debt Servicing Cost (Million$)
Annual OMR & R Costs (Million$)
B eturn on Equity (%)
Total Annual Revenue Requirement (Million$)
Estimated Range of Sales Rate for Energy($ per kWh)
Estimated Range of Benefit-Cost Ratio
1 See Append ix G for economic analysis assumptions .
April 2013-Final Report
Table 3-4 Cost Estimates and Financial Analysis for East Fork-Only Project Configurations
El-42
110 cfs
RM 5 .08 (22 .8)
E1-48
160 cfs
RM 5 .08 (22 .8)
1,150 feet
370 feet (RM 3 .14)
9,700 ft./4~ in.
700 feet
NA
NA
NA
5.3MW
21,000 MWh
45 .0%
$0 .9-$1.3
$1.9 -$2 .8 ---
$2.4-$3.6
$0 .7 -$1 .0 --
$3 .0 -$4.5
$5 .9 -$8 .8
$0 .7-$1.1 ----
$0 .2-$0.3
$Q.7-$1.1
$0 .7 -$1.1 --
$5 .1 -$7.7
$22.2 -$33.3
$85 ,000 :._$8.0 ~
$6 .7 -$2.2
$12 .0 -$26.6
$0 .8 -$1.9
$0.3-$0.4
780 feet
1~300 feet
79 ,700 feet
~J OO ft./48 in.
696 feet
NA
NA
NA
7 .7MW
26 ,50_9 MWh
37.8%
$0 .9-$1.3
$2.0 -$3 .0 ---
$2.4-$3.6
$0 .7 -$1.0 --
$3 .5-$5 .3
$5 .9 -$8 .9
$0 .7-$1.1 ---
$0 .2 -$0 .3
j_O~-$1 .~
$0 .8 -$1.2
$5.4 -$8 .1
$23.3 -$35.0
$8_?,000 -$8.0M
$7 .0 -$2 .3
$13.0 -$27.~
$0 .8-$2 .0
$0.4 -$0.5
12%-18% 12%-18%
$1 .5-$4.0 $1.7 -$4.3
$0.072_: ~0.19~ ~.064-$0 .16~
1.23-2.53 1.48-3.04
El-54
210 cfs
RM 5.08 (22 .8)
9,700 ft./54 in. --
701 feet
NA
NA
NA
10.2 MW
29,200 MW~
32.7%
$0 .9 -$1.3
$2.2 -$3 .3
$2.4-$3 .6
$0 .7 -$1.0
$5 .0-$7.5
$7 .0 -$10 .5
$1.0-$1 .5
$0.3-$0.4
j_~-$1.4
$0.9 -~~4
$6.4 -$9 .6
$27 .7-$41.5
$8~,_9~-$8.0M
$8.3 -$2.8
~16.9 :. $i 3 .1
~1 -$2.4
$0.5 -$0.5
12%-1 8%
$0.074 :_$0.172
1.37-2.82
EAST FORK PROJECT CONFIGURATIONS
E2 -42
100
RM 5.08 (22 .8)
11,§00 ft./4~in :
791 feet
NA
NA
NA
S.SMW
22,400 MWh
46.8%
$0 .9..:. $1.3
$1 .9 -$2.8 ----
$2.5-$3.8
$0 .7 -$1.0
$3.5 -$5.3
$5 .1 -$7 .7
$0 .9-$1.4
$0.2 -$0 .4
$0 .~-$1.1
$0 .8-$1 .1
$5.2-$7.8
$22.5 -$33.7
$85,000 -$8.0M
$6 .7-$2 .3
$12.3-$~.9
$0 .8-$2 .0
$0.4-$0.4
12%-18%
$1.6 -$4.1
E2-48
140 cfs
RM 5 .08 (22 .8)
1,150 feet
270 feet (RM 2.67)
880 feet
18,800 feet
78,900 feet
11,600 ft./4!.!._n . I
-
793 feet
NA
NA
NA
7.7MW
27 ,100 MWh I
40.2%
$0.9 -$~.3
$2 .0 -$3 ._9
$2.5 -$3.8
$0 .7 -$1.0
$3.4-$5 .1
$6 .0 -$9 .0 I
$0 .9 -~_!.4
$0 .2 -~0.4 J
$0 .8-$1.2
$0 .8 -$1.2 I
$5.5 -$8 .2
$23.7-$35.6
$8_?,000 -$8.0M
$2.4-~7 .1 l
$13 .3-$28.4
T $0 .9 -$~1 j
$0.4-$0.5
-12 %-18o/~.:
$1 .7 -$4.4
$0.073-$0.18!_ -$0.064-$0.162
1.30-2.66 1.49-3.06
E2-54
200
RM 5.0 ~3_:8)
112 600 ft./4 ~n .
786 feet
NA
NA
NA
10.9 MW
32,100 MWh
33.6%
$0;2-$1 .3
$2 .2 -$3 .2 ----
$2.5-$3 .8
$0 .7 -$1.0
$6.1 -$9 .1
$7.2 -$10 .8 --
$1.0 -$1.5 ---
$0.4 -$0 .6
$1.0 -$1 .5 --
$1.0 -$1 .5
$6 .9 -$10.3
$29.9 -$44.6
$8S,OOQ_--$8.0M
$3 .0 -$8 .9
$18 .9 -$35 .6
$1.2-$2 .6 ---
$0 .5 -$0.6
12 %-18%
$2 .3-$5.5
$0.073-$0.170
1.41-2.88
E3-42
90
RM 5 .08 (22 .8)
17,200 ft ./48 in.
880 feet
NA
NA
NA
S.SMW ---
23,400 MWh
48 .7%
$0 .9 -$1.3
$1.7 -$2 .5
$2.4 -$3 .7
$0 .7-$1.0 ---
$6.0-$9.:0
$3 .0 -$4.4
$1.1 -$1.7 ---
$0.3-$0.4 --
$0.8-$1.2
$0 .8 -$1.2
$5.3-$7.9
$23.0 -$34.3
$85,000 -$8.0M
$2.3 -$6 .9 ----
$12.7 -$27 .4
$0 .8-$2 .0 ---
$0.4-$0.4
12%-18%
$1 .7-$4.1
$0.072-$0.176
1.33-2.72
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
E3-48
130
RM 5 .08 (22 .~
1,150 feet
172_feet (RM 1.02)
975 feet
17 ,800 feet
72,900 feet
17,200 ft ./48 in.
876 feet
NA
NA
NA
7.9MW
28 ,800_MWh
41.8%
$0.9 -$1.3
$1 .8 -$2 .7 --
$2.4-$3.7
$0 .7 -$1.0 --
$6.8-$10.2
$3 .9 -$5 .8
Sl 1-$1._?
$0 .3 -$0.4
$0 .9-$1.3
$0 .9 -$1.i_
$5 .9 -$8 .8
$25.6-$38.2
$85,000 -~8:0M
$2~-$7 ;.§
$15.0 -$30.5
$1.0 -$2 .2
$0.5 -$0 .5
12%-18%
$2.0 -$4 .7
E3-54
175
RM 5 .08j3_2.8)
17,200 ft.~8 in .
880 feet
NA
NA
NA
10.7 MW
33,600 MWh
36 .0%
$0.9 -$1.3
$2 .0 -$2 .9
$2.4 -$3.7
$0 .7 -$1.0
$10.0 -$15.1
$5 .0 -$7 .5
$1.1 -$1.7
$0 .5 -$0 .7
$1 .1 -$1 .6
$1.1-$1.6
$7.4 -$11.1
$32.2 -$48.2
$85,000 -$8.0M
$32._-$9 .6
$21 .0 -$38 . .?_
$1.4 -$2 .8
$0.5 -$0 .6
12%-18%
$2.5 -$5.8
$0.06~$0.16!_.. _10 .075-$0.174
1.47-3.01 1.36-2.80
15
Eklutna, Inc .
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
Table 3-5 Cost Estimates and Financial Analysis for East and West Fork Project Configurations
PROJECT CONFIGURATIONS WEST FORK PROJECT CONFIGURATIONS 111
ESTIMATED PROJECT PARAMETERS W1 W2 W3
Design Flow {cfs) ---- -
260 cfs 260 cfs 260 cfs ---------------------. -
Diversion Locati ~ {subbasin ar ea in square miles) -RM 6.14 {33 .4) RM 6.14 {33.4) RM 4 .20 {38 .2) .. ----------
Intake E ~vation {feet) ----1,250 feet ~250 feet 920 feet ---
Powerhouse Elevation {feet) -270 feet {RM 2.67) 270 feet {RM 2.67) 270 feet {RM 2.67)
~--
Gross Head {feet) __ 980 feet 980 feet 650 feet ------. -----
_Acces~ Roads and Trails {feet) -----r-39 ,800 feet 32 ,800 feet 37,750 feet -------
__ Power and Com ~ication Line Upgrades and ~xtensions _{!eet) --78,900 feet _]8,900 feet 78,900 feet --
Penstock Length {feet) and Diameter {inche s) -22 ,800 ft./72 in 26 ,000 ft./72 in 8,000 ft./60 ~ -· ----
Net Head at Full Flow {feet) 823 feet 859 feet 557 feet ---------
Reservoir Area {acres) NA NA 12 acres ------
Active Band of Reservoir NA NA 2 feet ------·-1------------
Active Reservoir Volume {acre-feet) NA NA 24 acre-feet -·-1-
Installed Capacity {kW) 22.3 MW 23 .0MW 18.7 MW -----
-Avg . Ann . Net Energy Output {MWh) -1-· ~~OOMWh 80,900 MWh 64,600 MWh
Plant Capacity Factor 40.6% 40 .2% 39.4%
ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COST RANGE (2013 $,MILLIONS)
Precon ~uction _{_studies, permitting, desi_gn , site c~trol , et~.) --------$1 .§ -12.4 -_ _i1.6 -$2 .4 $1.6-$2.4 ---
Power and Communicat ion Lines $3 .3 :14 .9_ $3 .3 -$4 .9 $3 .1 -$4 .7 ------------------~ --·-
Access Roads and Flood Protection ·-$6 .8 -$10.1 __ $6 .9 -$10 .3 -$6.0 -$9.0 --------
Diversion and Intake Structure{s) $1.4-$2 .0 $1.4 -$2 .0 $33 .1 -$49.4 --------
Penstock{s) . $30.2 -$4~ $28.5-$43 .1 _$18.3 -$27.4 I
Powerhouse $17 .3 -$26 .3 $17 .7 -$26 .5 $15 .7 -$23 .6 --------
C ~~t~ Equipment $1 .8 -$2 .8 $1 .8-$2.7 $1 .8 -$2 .7
_?~i pp i ng ----· ---$0 .5-$0.8 ----$0 .5 -$0 .7 _ -----_10 .3 -$0 .5 -----
Construction Engi ~ring and lnspec!!_~ $3.1-~-$3 .0 -$4.5 $3.9 -$5 .9
Constru~tion Management/ Ad minist rat ion -------· ---~ 1 ~--------$3 .1 -$4 .7 -$3 .0 -$4 .5 $3 .9 -$5 .9 ---------------------------
Contingency $20.9 -$31 .7 $20.3 -$30 .4 $26 .3 -$39 .5
ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COST RANGE $90 -$137 $88 -$132 $114-$171
ESTIMATED RANGE OF FINANCIAL PARAMETERS 2
_Capital Cos!_ Paid by Gran ~ ----·-
$85,000 -$8.0M -$85,000 -$8.0M $85,000 -$8.0M -· ----~-
Owner Equity Po ~t ion {Milli~n a -----$9 .1 -$27 .4 $8 .8 -$26 .4 $11.4 -$34 .2 ---------------
Fin~nced Capit<:J_I Cost {~illion Sl -$74 .3 -$109 .7 $71.3 -$105.4 $9 ~:_5_-$1~6 .9 ---------
An!:l ual Debt Servicing Cost {M i ll i on$) $4 .8 -$8 .0 $4 .6-$7 .7 $6 .1-$9 .9 -
Annual OM~ & R Costs {~1illion $) -$1 .3 -$1 .5 $1.3 -$1.4 $1.0 -$1.2 -
Return on Equ ity{%) 12%-18% 12 %-18% 12%-18% ----------
Total Annual Revenue Requirement {Million$) $8.1 -$16.4 $7.8 -$15.8 $9.6 -$19 .7
Estimated Range of Sales Rate for Energy
{$per kWh) ----------1 ~----$0.100 -$0 .20 ~
~ -$0 .09~ -$0.199 --$0 .1~8-t 0 .305 ---
Estimated Range of Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.20-2.47 1.13-2.33 0.74-1.52
1. Tec hn ical and ec onomic d at a fo r a ll west f o rk proj ect configurati on s includ e conc u rr ent deve lo p m en t of east fo rk project E2-4 8 . 2. See Appendi x G fo r econom ic a nalysis ass umptions .
April 2013-Final Report 16
r~
I _I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I~
I I
I_ I
I I
l )
! I L_
I I
I I
I '
I _I
1Ekh.11tna, ~nc
IHII!.mter Creek IHiydlll'oe~ectroc 1Recom11aossa1111ce Sti!Jldly Poiall'consi!Jl~t A~aska, inc
3 3 RECOMMENDED PROJECT CONFIGURATION
Several of the east fork project conf1gurat1ons evaluated m th1s study appear to be technically,
economically, environmentally, and politically v1able Based on currently available mformat1on
and the level of analysis performed for th1s study, project conf1gurat1on E2-48 (see F1gure 3-4) IS
the most economic of the project conf1gurat1ons evaluated, prov1dmg the lowest-cost electr1c1ty
and h1ghest benefit-cost rat1o East fork-only project conf1gurat1ons El-48 and E3-48 have
margmally less favorable economics than E2-48
Project conf1gurat1ons El-48 and E3-48 have s1m1lar econom1cs as E2-48 Conf1gurat1on El-48
may have a lesser environmental Impact than E2-48 or E3-48 because El-48 1s located entirely
upstream of anadromous f1sh hab1tat Conf1gurat1on E3-48 IS more technically straightforward
than the others because 1t avo1ds the technical challenges associated w1th s1tmg a powerhouse
w1thm Hunter Creek canyon Accordmgly, 1t IS poss1ble that add1t1onal mformat1on collected
for a future feas1b1llty study may result m the selection of a d1fferent project conf1gurat1on for
development
West fork and east fork project conf1gurat1ons Wl and W2 also have favorable econom1cs but
less so than the east fork-only project conf1gurat1ons Conf1gurat1ons Wl and W2 both face a
s1gn1f1cant political barner smce they would be partially located w1thm a Wilderness zone of
Chugach State Park DOPR's management plans for the park des1gnate hydroelectric projects as
mcons1stent w1th the management goals for a wilderness zone (See Appendix D, Sect1on D 1}
West fork-and-east fork project W3, wh1ch features a dam and small reservoir on the west fork
outs1de Chugach State Park, IS not economically v1able under current market cond1t1ons
Sect1ons 3 4 and 3 5 focus on project conf1gurat1on E2-48, 1dent1f1ed as the most favorable
conf1gurat1on, to descr1be the performance and conf1gurat1on of a hydroelectric project at
Hunter Creek
Apni 20113-IFmai !Report
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Rec o nnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Figure 3-4 Map of Recommended Project Configuration
SOLE IN F"EET
0 PO W ERHOUSE SITE
a DIVERSION /INTAKE SI TE
-P -PENSTOCK ROUT E
=== ACCESS ROAD
-oH-POWER LINE EXT EN SION
~PRIVATE lAND
I SELECTED OR OWNED BY
....._ __ _,_ EKLUTNA, INC.
SELECTED BY C IR I, INC .
~
1. THIS FIGURE IS INTENDED FOR PLANN ING PURPOSES ONLY .
2 . ENTRE FIGURE IS LOCATED WITHIN SEWARD MERID IAN.
J . 50-FOOT TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR LINES AR E SU ITAB LE FOR
PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE A COM POSI TE OF :
-POLARCONSULT TOPOGRAPH IC SURVEYS
-MAT -SU BOROUGH UDAR TOPOGRAPHY
-TOPOGRAPHY DATA FROM USGS 1 :6JJ60 SCALE QUAD MAPS
-ASTER 2 GLOBAL DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL ASTER DATA IS A
PRODUCT OF JAPAN'S MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, TRADE, AND
INDUSTRY (METI) AND NASA.
April 2013-Final Report
I
18
$
.::£
c
.Q .....
t1l
I...
(l)
c
(l)
(.!J
I...
(l)
~
0
CL
2::
t1l
0
(l)
tl.O
t1l
I...
(l)
> <x:
"'0
(l) .....
t1l
E .....
VI
l.I.J
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
3.4 ESTIMATED ENERGY GENERATION
Estimated average seasonal energy generation for the reco m mended project (E2-48) is
presented on Figure 3-5 . For reference, Figure 3-5 also include s the estimated average daily
energy generation for the other project configurations considere d in this study. Several sets of
project configurations have substantially similar energy generati o n profiles. For clarity, Figure
3-5 shows a single curve for each set rather than multiple overlap p ing curves.
All project configurations considered for Hunter Creek are effect iv ely run-of-river projects since
the topography in the Hunter Creek basin is not conducive t o economic construction of
significant volumes of reservoir storage. Even configuration W3, which includes a dam and
reservoir, does not provide significant storage and would operate as a r un-of-river project. The
power generation of all project configurations would vary with stream flow in Hunter Creek.
Projects would typically generate full output from mid-June to early September, decreasing
through the winter to approximately 5% of installed capacity in early April, and then increasing
through break -up back to full output.
Figure 3-5 Estimated Seasonal Energy Generation for Selected Project Configurations
25,000 --,--------------------------------------,
20,000
15 ,000
Configurations
El-54, E2-54 , E3 -54
Configuration E2-48
10,000 (Recommended Project)
Configuration El-48, E3 -48)
Configurations
El -42, E2-42, E3-42
5,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
April 2013-Final Report 19
1Ekh.11tna, ~ nc
IHiumtell' Creek IHiydlroelectm: IReconnaBssance Studly Polarco"sult Alaska, Inc ~
Annual energy generation estimates for all Hunter Creek proJect conf1gurat1ons were developed
by
1 Computmg the average da1ly flow from the extended hydrology record for the mam stem
Hunter Creek gaugmg station
2 Scaling th1s da1ly flow by relative basm areas to the approprrate d1vers1on location on the
east fork or west fork
3 Calculatmg the gross energy generation for each day by cons1derrng the available flow,
hydraulic losses through the d1vers1on, mtake, and penstock, and turbme and generator
eff1c1enc1es at that particular operatmg pomt
4 Subtractmg losses for station serv1ce and step-up transformer The result IS multiplied by
95% to prov1de an allowance for routme and unscheduled plant outages The pomt of
delivery to the purchasmg ut1llty 1s assumed to be the h1gh s1de of the transformer at the
hydro powerhouse
Th1s study has assumed that the project would be operated year-round It IS poss1ble that
operatmg costs through the wmter season may exceed revenues, m wh1ch case 1t would be
cost-effective to shut down the proJect durrng the wmter season More detailed analysis of the
econom1cs of wmter operations are warranted at the feas1b1llty study stage of analysis The
analysis should also evaluate sprrng start-up cons1derat1ons, such as management of 1cmg m the
penstock durrng the sprrng start-up sequence
3 5 DESCRiPTION OF FEATURES FOR RECOMMENDED PROJECT
Th1s study has 1dent1f1ed project conf1gurat1on E2-48 as the most favorable Hunter Creek
hydroelectrrc project conf1gurat1on Th1s sect1on descrrbes maJor features of conf1gurat1on E2-
48 (see F1gure 3-4)
3 51 Access and Stag1ng
A new construction road w1ll be bu1lt from Kmk R1ver Road to the proJect s1te, startmg
approximately 0 4 m1les east of the Hunter Creek brrdge (see F1gure 3-4) The recommended
project would requ1re approximately 3 3 miles of new access roads up mto the east fork Hunter
Creek valley Heavy equ1pment may also access the m-canyon powerhouse s1te by traveling up
the Hunter Creek canyon floor
I
Equipment and materral stagmg areas can be s1ted on Eklutna land m the proJect area or on
other prrvately-owned land m the proJect v1cm1ty
352 Construction Schedule
Construction of the proJect 1s assumed to occur over two construction seasons
Apru~ 2013-IFma~ !Report 210
I I
I i
I I I I
I
I
I I I I
I :
I -I
I
I I
; I
I I
I
_I
I
I I
I
I I
I )
I I
l I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I l
I !
I I
I I
I
;-I
I I
Ekh.JJtna, ~nc
!Hiunter Creek IHiydroeiectruc !Reconnaissance Study PolarconsultAiaska, Inc ~
The f1rst season would begm w1th upgradmg the power lme to the project and construction of
the access roads mto the project work area Once access roads are completed, one crew would
work on mstallmg the penstock, power lines, and control lines, and a second crew would work
on s1te work for the m-canyon powerhouse, mcludmg stab1llzmg and/or scaling the canyon wall
above the powerhouse m preparation for construction of the powerhouse and the port1on of
the penstock that descends the canyon wall Once water levels m Hunter Creek drop m late fall,
construction of the powerhouse foundations and d1vers1on/mtake structure would begm and
advance until wmter shutdown Long lead 1tems such as the turbmes and generators would
also be ordered dur~ng the f1rst year of construction
The second construction season would start m February or March, focusmg on completion of
m-water work at the powerhouse and d1vers1on structure before the onset of h1gher summer
flows Work on these structures would contmue startmg m May or June, fm1shmg the
superstructure and furn1shmg the powerhouse w1th switchgear, controls, turbmes, generators,
etc Project testmg and comm1ss1onmg would occur m late summer or early fall
3 5 3 Transm1ss1on lme
There are two MEA substations m the general project v1cm1ty The closest IS located at the
mtersect1on of the Old Glenn Highway and Bodenburg Loop Road, approximately 14 7 m1les
from the proposed Hunter Creek powerhouse along ex1stmg ut1llty easements The Eklutna
Hydro Substation 1s 16 6 m1les from Hunter Creek The d1stnbut1on c1rcu1t servmg Hunter Creek
IS three-phase from the Bodenburg substation 0 3 m1les to the mtersect1on of the Old Glenn
H1ghway and East Our Road From there, the c1rcu1t IS smgle-phase 1 6 miles to the south s1de
of the Kmk R1ver and an add1t1onal10 6 m1les to Hunter Creek along Kmk R1ver Road
Th1s ex1stmg d1str~but1on c1rcu1t w1ll need to be bypassed or upgraded to deliver energy from
Hunter Creek to MEA load centers or other ra1lbelt markets For budgetmg purposes, th1s study
assumes that th1s ex1stmg c1rcu1t w1ll be upgraded to a three-phase 34 5-kV c1rcu1t Project
conf1gurat1ons over approximately 6 MW may requ1re a h1gher voltage or a double c1rcu1t, likely
w1th a 7 2 kV underbuild to serve local customers
354 Controls and System integration
The project would mclude dedicated commumcat1ons c1rcu1ts between the mtake and the
powerhouse to operate the project A dedicated commumcat1ons c1rcu1t would also be
prov1ded between the powerhouse and the nearest MEA substation to mtegrate the project
w1th MEA's control systems These c1rcu1ts would allow for remote operation, momtor~ng, and
control of the project
The control reg1me used to manage project operations would depend on the market for the
electr1c1ty If the electr1c1ty was sold to MEA, the project could be configured to be
d1spatchable by MEA to mm1m1ze MEA's fuel and purchased power costs, thereby max1m1zmg
Aprn~ 2013-IFma! 1Re[por1t 21L
1Ek~11.1111:01a, ~I'IC
IHilmter Creek IH!ydlroe~ectll'lc !Reconna~ssance St11.1dly Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ®
the project's value Dunng system emergencies, MEA or Eklutna would have the capability of
shuttmg down the project and 1solatmg 1t from the MEA gnd
3 5 5 Davers1on and Intake
The east fork project d1vers1on would be located at approximately RM 5 08 The bed of Hunter
Creek m th1s reach IS alluv1um, likely overlymg glac1al till and bedrock The d1vers1on structure
would be a d1ke approximately 200 feet long and 10 feet tall, spannmg the full w1dth of Hunter
Creek's floodplam m the d1vers1on area A concrete spillway would be s1ted at the ex1stmg mam
channel of Hunter Creek to pass flow through the d1vers1on and mto the bypass reach The
mam sp1llway could be f1tted w1th a bank of tamter gates to help regulate water elevation m the
d1vers1on Impoundment Th1s conf1gurat1on would also help to preferentially pass bedload
downstream A lateral mtake structure would be located upstream of the d1vers1on d1ke on the
north s1de of the creek to adm1t up to 140 cfs mto the project mtake works Water would flow
from the mtake mto a st1llmg basm, where most suspended sed1ment would be removed from
the water column Clanf1ed water would then flow from the st1llmg basms over an mclmed
plate mtake screen to screen out small debns, and mto a gallery for admittance to the
penstock The mtake works would be des1gned to allow for unmterrupted flow to the penstock
dunng st1lllng basm flushmg operations A conceptual s1te plan 1s shown m F1gure A-6
lmt1al estimates of sediment transport m east fork Hunter Creek, and 1ssues surroundmg
sed1ment management at the d1vers1on and mtake works, are discussed m more deta1l m
Sect1on D 2 3 of Appendix D
356 Penstock
The penstock would be an approximately 11,600-foot long, 48-mch-dlameter buned p1pelme
co-located w1th the access road to the d1vers1on and mtake s1te (see F1gure 3-4) Most of the
penstock (approximately 9,800 feet) would be h1gh-dens1ty polyethylene (HOPE) p1pe The
1,800 feet of penstock nearest the powerhouse would operate at a h1gher pressure, requ1rmg
the use of ductile 1ron, steel, or a s1m1lar p1pe matenal
The f1rst 2,400 feet of the penstock/access road would be located along the edge of Hunter
Creek's act1ve floodplam, set at a grade of approximately -5% Th1s port1on would be armored
With nprap or sheet p1le to prevent eros1on by Hunter Creek's meandermg act1on
Approximately 2,400 feet downstream of the d1vers1on, the penstock would s1dehlll along the
bank of Hunter Creek's mc1sed channel for approximately 1,200 feet (stat1on 24+00 to 36+00),
cl1mbmg approximately 70 feet at grades of up to +20% A manual dram valve and automatic
a1r-purge valve would be located at the bottom and top of th1s 1,100-foot sect1on, respectively
Once out of the mc1sed channel, the penstock would contmue downhill above the nm of the
channel and canyon for approximately 3,300 feet at a grade of approximately -Q 5% to -1 0%
(stat1on 36+00 to 69+00) Th1s shallow grade 1s necessary to stay uphill of the canyon nm Near
Apll'll 210:1!.3 -Irma~ !Report 22
I
I
I I
I
I
~ )
I
_j
I I
I I
I I
I
~~
i I '~
I I
I
I I
, r
l I
I I
I I
I
1 i
i I
-
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I~
'~I
-
I I
I
l_ I
~
j I
L
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
[I
1Ekh.11tna, hu:
IHI1!.1111ltel!' Creek IH!ydlroelectr~c IReconnanssance StiUidly IPo~arconsiUI!t A!aska, ~me
the upstream end of th1s sect1on (approximately 4,300 feet from the d1vers1on), a 40-foot-deep
cut or d1rect1onal bore IS necessary for approximately 300 feet to mamtam grade Th1s sect1on
IS located approximately 70 to 100 feet from the top edge of an exposed embankment of glac1al
t1ll that forms the north s1de of the canyon at RM 4 15 (see Photographs B-7, B-9, and B-19}
The next 2,100 feet (station 69+00 to 90+00} of the penstock would s1dehlll at grades of -1 to
-10% through upland terram w1th cross slopes that vary from 2 1 to 4 1 There are several
small gullies m th1s area that would be crossed w1th culverts and f1ll
The next 2,000 feet (stat1on 90+00 to 110+00} of the penstock would cross relatively levelland
away from the canyon nm at grades of -6% to -15%, ultimately returnmg to the canyon nm
directly above powerhouse s1te #2 at RM 2 67 The penstock would change from HDPE to
duct1le 1ron or steel at approximately stat1on 98+00 A s1gmf1cant port1on of the land along the
penstock alignment m th1s area 1s wetland Further f1eld mvest1gat1ons may 1dent1fy penstock
alignments that can av01d or mm1m1ze Impacts to wetlands m th1s area
The fmal 600 feet of the penstock (stat1on 110+00 to 116+00} would descend the wall of the
canyon down to the powerhouse at a grade of -100% to -140% The canyon wall would be
cleared and scaled to remove overburden and loose rock The penstock would then be set on
remforced concrete or steel p1ers secured w1th grouted rock bolts to the canyon wall Th1s
port1on of the penstock would likely be 40-foot sect1ons of steel p1pe, mm1m1zmg the number of
mtermed1ate p1ers bu1lt mto the canyon wall A permanent means of access to the powerhouse
would be mtegrated to the penstock structure descendmg the canyon wall Th1s would likely
mclude a covered staircase for four-season pedestnan access and a ra1lway or sk1d to move
machmery (generators, turbme, etc ) m and out of the powerhouse The powerhouse s1te could
also be su1table for mstallat1on of a h1ghlme for th1s purpose
357 Powerhouse
The powerhouse would be located m lower Hunter Creek canyon at approximately RM 2 67
The exact powerhouse locat1on would depend on s1te-spec1f1c charactenst1cs of the canyon
walls (rock stability, su1tab1llty for penstock mstallat1on, and construction access), and
environmental cons1derat1ons (exact extent of f1sh hab1tat, m1t1gat1on opt1ons, etc )
The powerhouse would be an approximately 30-by 50-foot bUJidmg The bUJidmg footpnnt
may be formed by partially blastmg an alcove mto the canyon wall Some or all of the bu1ldmg
footprmt would occupy the canyon floor The bUJidmg foundation could use dnven p1lmg to
mm1m1ze obstructions to the flow of Hunter Creek The general bUJidmg des1gn would
accommodate peak flood events, mcludmg the poss1bll1ty of debns accumulatmg on the
powerhouse foundation and ra1smg the local flood stage
Routme access to the powerhouse would be v1a the overland proJect access road and then
down the canyon wall v1a the penstock structure Heavy equipment for construction and
mfrequent heavy mamtenance would access the powerhouse s1te by dnvmg up the canyon
Apll'i~ 2013-IFma~ Report 23
Ekhlltll'la" ~nc
H11.11nter Creek Hlydroelectnc IReconll'laJssance Study l?olarconsl!.ll~t A~aska" inc
floor to the powerhouse Th1s act1v1ty would be weather and season dependent smce most of
the canyon floor 1s mundated dunng peak flood events w1th few 1f any refuge areas for
equ1pment (see Photograph B-24) Such access would also need to be coordmated w1th
f1shenes to av01d damage to f1sh hab1tat or poss1ble redds along the creek bed
3 5 8 Ta1lrace
The tailrace would be mtegrated mto the powerhouse foundation, d1schargmg d1rectly to
Hunter Creek on the canyon floor
Apll'll 2013-IFma~ Report 24
I I
I
I
! I
I
I
I :
I I
I I
~)
I
I I
_J
,--~
I
I I
' I
=I
: I
I I I I
I
I
I (
I ',
'_)
L
'-I
I
l_j
1 )
I I
IEk~UJJtnla, ~ll'lC
HIUJJB11ter Creek IHydhroe~ectruc IReconB11anssaB11ce Studly 1Poiarco1111sUJJ~t A~aslka, ~011c
4 0 MARKET ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNIT;Es
Based on current mformat1on and market cond1t1ons, the most accessible market for electrrc1ty
from a hydroelectrrc project at Hunter Creek would be wholesale purchase by MEA at 1ts non-
firm avo1ded cost of energy or a negotiated prrce Under th1s busmess arrangement, Eklutna
would be operatmg as an Independent Power Producer (IPP) Th1s and other potential busmess
models and markets are discussed m th1s section, as follows
f!il Sect1on 4 1 discusses potential busmess models for a Hunter Creek Hydro Project
fl Sect1on 4 2 d1scusses potent1al markets for electrrc1ty from a Hunter Creek Hydro
Project
41 POTENTIAL BUSINESS MODELS
Eklutna could adopt three busmess models as the owner of a hydro project at Hunter Creek
9 Independent Power Producer (IPP),
® Electrrc Utility, or
e Non-Utility Ent1ty w1th Directed Sales
411 Independent Power Producer
Eklutna could become an IPP IPPs are non-ut1llty energy generators that output commercial
quant1t1es of electrrc1ty to the electrrc grrd on a wholesale bas1s They are generally
d1stmgu1shed from "trad1t1onal" ut1llt1es m that they do not prov1de reta1l sales of electrrc1ty to
end users, and they do not own and ma1ntam transm1ss1on or d1strrbut1on systems beyond what
IS necessary to deliver the1r electrrc1ty to the local grrd
IPPs are a well-established market presence m the lower 48 states, but the1r role m Alaska's
(and the rallbelt's) electrrc mdustry IS still relatively new and evolvmg IPPs have been
operatmg on the ra1lbelt grrd for over 20 years, but until very recently the1r role has not been
fully recognized by most Alaska ut1hty plannmg efforts or m the State's regulatory framework 11
Th1s s1tuat1on has started to change m the past few years, With mcreased recogmt1on of the cost
savmgs, rrsk management benef1ts, supply d1vers1f1cat1on, and other benef1ts IPPs prov1de to
electrrc ut1llt1es and the1r ratepayers 12
11 One of the earliest pnvate sector IPPs on the rail belt gnd was Enerdyne, LLC, operator of a 100-kW run of-nver hydro
project near Palmer that has sold wholesale energy to MEA smce 1991 Enerdyne IS owned by prmc1pals of
Polarconsult Another early IPP 1s Aurora Energy, LLC, which started sellmg electnc1ty to GVEA from 1ts coal f1red
plant m Fairbanks m 1995
12 There are at least f1ve commercial scale IPPs now operatmg on the ra1lbelt, w1th several others m pre commercial
stages of proJect development The Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan acknowledged the positive role IPPs can play m
the ra1lbelt energy market (AEA, 2010)
Apll'n~ 2013 -fmai !Report 25
IEk~urfl:ll"'la, ~lllC
IHli.Jinter Creek IHiydlroe~ectrut 1Re«:onna1ssan«:e S1tu.udly Polaroonsult Alaska, Inc ~
Under Alaska's ex1stmg regulations, many IPPs st1ll fall under the def1n1t1on of a utility and may
face varymg levels of regulatory oversight or exemption by the RCA Mamtammg compliance
w1th full RCA regulation IS expens1ve and IS a s1gn1f1cant cost for smaller IPPs The RCA
recognizes th1s and has therefore exempted some IPPs from full RCA regulation under the
public mterest cntena m Alaska Statute (AS) 42 OS 711(d) 13 Some representative examples of
regulatory oversight exerc1sed over IPPs operatmg on the rallbelt are prov1ded below
o Aurora Energy, LLC (Aurora) -Aurora, an aff1llate of Us1belll Coal Mme, Inc, operates a
coal-f1red power plant m Fa1rbanks and sells f1rm power to Golden Valley Electnc
Assoc1at1on, Inc (GVEA) Aurora IS an economically regulated cert1f1cated public ut1llty
operating under CPCN No S20 14
~ F1re Island W1nd, LLC (FIW) -FIW, a wholly owned subs1d1ary of Cook Inlet Reg1on, Inc,
operates a 17-MW w1nd farm on F1re Island that sells 100% of 1ts output to CEA at a
f1xed net pnce of $97 per MWh over a 2S-year term FIW was exempted from RCA
regulation by AS 42 OS 711(r), and does not have a CPCN 15
® South Fork Hydro, LLC (SFH) -SFH IS a pnvately owned company currently developing a
1 2-MW run-of-nver hydro project on the south fork of Eagle R1ver near Anchorage SFH
w1ll sell 100% of 1ts output to MEA at a f1xed net pnce of $70 per MWh over a 30-year
term 16 SFH was granted exemption from RCA regulation under AS 42 OS 711(d) and
does not have a CPCN 17
o Alaska Environmental Power, LLC (AEP) -AEP 1s a pnvately owned company that
operates a w1nd farm w1th an mstalled capac1ty of 1 0 MW m Delta Junction, Alaska
AEP sells 100% of 1ts output to GVEA for a vanable pnce equal to GVEA's system average
avo1ded energy cost reported m 1ts tanff on a quarterly bas1s AEP IS a Quallf1ed Facility
under federal regulations, wh1ch exempts 1t from state utility regulation However,
because of cond1t1ons associated w1th a construction grant rece1ved from the AEA, AEP
1s requ1red to operate as a cert1f1cated public ut1llty under CPCN No 742 18
412 Independent Electnc Utnhty
Eklutna could form a new ut1llty and prov1de retail electnc serv1ce to developments m the
project v1c1n1ty outs1de of the MEA serv1ce area In the project VICinity, th1s would generally
13 Some of the economic assumptions m this study mclude receipt of grant funds under the Renewable Energy Grant
Program for construction Current program rules requ1re the grant rec1p1ent to obtam a CPCN and submit to
economic regulation by the RCA or equivalent oversight by AEA Th1s IS the case for Alaska Environmental Power,
LLC
14 See Order No 2 m RCA Docket U 97 139
15 See Order No 5 m RCA Docket U 11 100 AS 42 OS 711(r) IS a narrowly defmed exemption cntena that does not
apply to Hunter Creek
16 See AEA/AIDEA Board Resolution 2012 02 One of the members of SFH IS a prmc1pal at Polarconsult
17 See Order No 2m RCA Docket U 08-102
18 See Order No 2 m RCA Docket U 11 111
Apn~ 2013-IFma~ !Report 26
( \
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
Ll
I
I t
~
\ I
I I I
l
1 I
I
I~
I
C I
'l
I I
1
L
ll
I
I
I I
II
I I
I_
I I
I \
I
Jl
I :
I
Ekh.1tna, ~nc
IHiunter ICI!'eek IHiydlroelectruc IRecoll'llna•ssall"'ce Studly Po~al!'consi!JIIt Aiaska, ~me
mclude Eklutna land m the east fork Hunter Creek valley and most of the west s1de of the west
fork valley (the MEA serv1ce area boundary 1s shown on F1gure A-3)
Th1s opt1on presumes that Eklutna des1res to develop these lands and that there 1s a market for
developed property m th1s area Because of the seasonal var1at1on m electrical output from
Hunter Creek, Eklutna would st1ll need to sell surplus electr1c1ty to the rallbelt dur1ng the
summer months, and e1ther generate or purchase electr1c1ty dur1ng the wmter months to meet
1ts customers' demand Eklutna would also assume respons1b1llty for bu1ldmg, operatmg, and
mamtammg the d1str~but1on system, metering, b1llmg, customer serv1ce, and related busmess
operations of a full electric ut1llty
Wh1le th1s busmess model IS an opt1on, 1t would Involve s1gn1f1cant cost, r1sk, and respons1b1llty
The relatively small s1ze of the ut1llty, and the contmumg need to sell and purchase energy from
ra1lbelt ut1llt1es to meet the needs of local customers, makes 1t questionable whether an
mdependent utility busmess model would be the least-cost solution for prov1dmg electric
serv1ce m th1s area or would max1m1ze the economic benef1ts of a hydroelectric project at
Hunter Creek
If a spec1f1c development plan consistent w1th an mdependent ut1llty model 1s env1s1oned for
these lands, the busmess case should be rev1ewed to see 1f 1t IS compet1t1ve w1th more
conventional alternatives
413 Non-Ut1hty Ent1ty
If Eklutna 1dent1f1ed a non-ut1llty market for electr1c1ty from a project at Hunter Creek, 1t may be
able to d1rectly sell energy to that market Some of the opportun1t1es and restr1ct1ons for d1rect
sales to non-utll1ty ent1t1es are described below
1 Sale to less than 10 mdependent end users that are not w1thm an ex1stmg cert1f1cated
ut1llty serv1ce area IS not regulated by the RCA F1gure A-3 shows the extent of MEA's
ex1stmg cert1f1cated serv1ce terntory m the project VICinity Ex1stmg developed areas
along Kmk R1ver Road are all w1thm MEA's cert1f1cated serv1ce area
2 Potential examples of th1s market mclude mmes, lodges, resorts, or s1m1lar busmesses
operatmg m the 1mmed1ate project VICinity Th1s busmess model would need to consider
the market demand for electr1c1ty and the supply capability of the selected hydro
project Mismatches between demand and supply could potentially be met by sale or
purchase of energy from MEA, or other generation means Th1s busmess model would
requ1re detailed analys1s to ver~fy a spec1f1c project busmess plan complied w1th ex1stmg
statutes and regulations
3 Sale to affiliated mterests of the hydro project owner Under th1s structure, Eklutna (or
1ts subs1d1ary ownmg the hydro project) could sell electriCity to affiliated mterests
located w1thm an ex1stmg ut1llty serv1ce terntory m certam llm1ted s1tuat1ons A spec1f1c
Apru~ 20:1!.3 -IFma~ IReport 27
Ek~11.1tna, ~nt
IHIIU!ntell' Creek Hydlii'Oe~ectll'lc Reconnaissance StiUidly JPio~arconsiUI~t A~aska, ~1111c
busmess plan would requ1re detailed analysis to determme 1f 1t complied w1th RCA
regulations
4 D1rect sale of electr1c1ty to unaffiliated ent1t1es w1thm an ex1stmg ut1llty serv1ce area IS
not allowed under RCA regulations Some electr1c1ty markets m the lower 48 states
have been deregulated to allow such d1rect sales, but Alaska remams a regulated market
where such act1v1t1es are not allowed
4 2 POTENTIAL MARKETS
421 local Market-Matanuska Electr1c Assoc1at1on, Inc
Because Hunter Creek 1s located w1thm MEA's serv1ce terntory, MEA 1s the most log1cal
purchaser of electr1c1ty from Hunter Creek The recommended project conf1gurat1on, E2-48,
would supply approximately 8% of MEA's average load durmg the summer months
F1gure 4-1 presents MEA's past and projected future non-f1rm avo1ded cost of energy Th1s, or a
s1m1lar negotiated pr1ce, 1s the most likely pr1ce that MEA would pay for the electrical output
from Hunter Creek The greatest uncertamty m MEA's projected future non-f1rm energy costs 1s
the pr1ce MEA Will pay for the natural gas needed to run the EGS startmg m 2014 Annual
shortages of natural gas are pred1cted m Cook Inlet m 2013 or 2014, and the pr1cmg and
ava1lab1llty of natural gas from new d1scover1es or llquef1ed natural gas Imports remams a
cr1t1cal unknown Developments over the next 2 years are expected to prov1de better gu1dance
for energy costs m 2018 and after, wh1ch IS when Hunter Creek would become operat1onal
Apll'i~ 20:11.3 -!Fma~ !Report 28
~
I I
~~I
I~~
I
I
I I
I I
1 I
I
I I
I
I I
~~ I
I
I I
I 1
I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Qj'
tiO
nl
<t ...
w Cll
~ > <t
Cll 'iii ...
:I :I ... c:::
:I c:::
LL. s "'C
Cll ... ... "' u 0
Cll u
'0' > ... tiO Q. ...
"'C Cll
c::: ~
nl E ...
"' ...
nl u: Q. I c:::
0 z
Figure 4-1 MEA's Past and Projected Future Non-Firm Avoided Cost of Energy
$0 .100
$0 .090
$0.080
$0 .070
$0 .060
$0.050
-+-Projected Future MEA Non-Firm Energy Cost (Annual Average)
$0 .040
-Historic Non-Firm Energy Cost (Annual Average)
Historic Non-Firm Energy Cost (Quarterly Cost)
$0 .030
C'l'l <:t LJ) lO r--00 ()') 0 ,...; N C'l'l <:t LJ) lO r--00 ()') 0 ,...; N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Chart sources:
1 . Historic non-firm energy costs are compiled from MEA's quarterly tariff advice filings with the RCA.
2. Projected future non-firm energy costs for 2013 and 2014 are ba sed on 80% of MEA's average annual
cost for 2012 , escalated by 2% per year . The 80% factor reflec t s CEA 's improved system heat rate
with the Southcentral Power Project operational. The South ce ntral Power Project became fully
operational in January 2013 .
3 . Projected future non-firm energy costs for 2015 to 2017 are from MEA (MEA, 2012a).
4 . Projected future non-firm energy costs for 2018 and after are escalated from MEA's 2017 forecast
cost at 2% per year.
There are several energy projects in various stages of develop m ent that could impact MEA's
energy costs, adversely affecting the market for a Hunter Creek p r oject. Some of these projects
are listed in Table 4-1.
April 2013-Final Report 29
C'l'l
N
0
N
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Table 4-1 Proposed Alternative Energy Supplies for MEA
Resource/Project
Fire Island Wind Farm 111
New Natural Gas
Supplies in Cook Inlet
Alaska Stand Alone Gas
Pipeline (ASAP)
Susitna -Watana
Hydroelectric Project 141
Trans-Canada Gas
Pipeline
Proposed
Operational
Date
Fall 2012
2013 -2016
2018 -2019
2024
Unknown
Proposed
Energy Price
{2013 $)
$0 .097 per
kWh
NA
$0 .083 per
kWh
$0 .138 per
kWh
Unknown
Probable Impact on MEA's Non-Firm Avoided Cost
Neutral. Full o utput is purchased by CEA . This
slightly increases MEA's rates through 2014 but will
have no impact on MEA rates thereafter .
Neutral to increa se. These new supplies are needed
to meet existin g utility demand in southcentral
Alaska . Prices fo r gas from these new supplies will
likely be si milar t o or slightly higher than existing
natural gas pric es, which is consistent with projected
future MEA avo ided cost .
Neutral. Assum ed to supplement existing natural
gas supplies . Projected cost of gas from the ASAP
project is simila r to MEA's cost projections . 121
Increase. The p r ojected cost of energy from Susitna -
Watana is approximately 30% higher than MEA 's
projected energy costs in 2024 . 131
Too many unkn o wns to speculate. Likely similar to
other gas supply projects listed in this table .
(1) Based on project information on FIW Web site: www.fireislandwind .com/n ews -updates/
(2) Based on an assumed power plant heat rate of 9,000 British thermal units (Btu)/kWh and delivered natural gas
cost in Anchorage of $9 .63 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) (ASAP Project Plan [AGDC, 2011)).
(3) Based on information in January 10, 2013 Project Update to Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA)/AEA Board (AEA , 2013).
All of these projects have some degree of risk and uncertainty. With the exceptions of the Fire
Island Wind Farm, which was completed in fall 2012 and is operational, it is unknown if or when
any of these projects will be built or whether the estimated bud gets will be met and projected
energy costs will be realized.
4.2.2 Railbelt Market
The railbelt is the largest single electric market in Alaska and is capable of receiving the full
output of any Hunter Creek hydro project. The railbelt presents a variety of interesting market
opportunities and challenges for Eklutna's consideration.
While the railbelt is interconnected, it is not an integrated market. Different sections of the
railbelt transmission system are owned by different entities, and there are several technical and
contractual bottlenecks that restrict flow of power within the rai l belt . Many of the utilities are
subject to all-requirements or some-requirements power supply contracts that limit the ability
of an IPP to sell electricity to utilities . The result is a very complicated technical and legal
"patchwork." The railbelt electric utilities are currently in a cycle of capital reinvestment and
structural reform, which may simplify this patchwork over the next 5 to 10 years. By the time
April 2013 -Final Report 30
I I
I I
IJ
~ I
I~
I -I
I I
I I
~~I
I I
I
\ J
I
I
I
~
~I
I
IEidiUitll'lla, ~ll'liC
IHIIUIII'llter Creek IHlydlroeiectnc IReconna~ssall'lJce Stll.lldly Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ~
Hunter Creek IS operational, 1t may be s1mpler to sell electr1c1ty to d1stant ra1lbelt ut1llt1es than 1t
1s at present
Other Rat/belt Uttllttes
Electr1c1ty from Hunter Creek could be sold to one or more of the other f1ve rallbelt ut1llt1es
These are
e Chugach Electric Assoc1at1on, Inc (southern Anchorage and northern Kenai Penmsula),
~ Anchorage Mumc1pal L1ght and Power (ML&P) (northern Anchorage),
s Golden Valley Electric Assoc1at1on, Inc (GVEA) (Cantwell, Fa1rbanks, Delta Junction),
e Homer Electric Assoc1at1on, Inc (HEA) (southern Kenai Peninsula), and
s Seward Electric System (SES) (City of Seward)
At th1s t1me, the ra1lbelt transm1ss1on system 1s techmcally capable of transm1ttmg electr1c1ty
from Hunter Creek to other ra1lbelt ut1llt1es, but 1t 1s not legally or contractually configured for
use by IPPs Assummg that Eklutna pays the cost of upgradmg the d1str~but1on lme from Hunter
Creek to MEA's substation, then Eklutna would only need to pay MEA wheelmg charges from
that substation to the rece1vmg ut1llty's (or mtermed1ate utility's) pomt of mterconnect1on w1th
MEA Wheelmg agreements would need to be negotiated w1th MEA for use of 1ts transm1ss1on
system and w1th the owners of spec1f1c transm1ss1on lme segments between the MEA system
and purchasmg utility Wheelmg to other ut1llt1es may be a practical opt1on for Hunter Creek
dependmg on the expected costs and revenues associated w1th a spec1f1c proposal
ML&P and CEA could take delivery of Hunter Creek electriCity at the Eklutna Hydroelectric
Project Substation smce they already rece1ve electr1c1ty from th1s stat1on and have ex1stmg
contractual transm1ss1on paths for th1s electr1c1ty
GVEA could take del1very of Hunter Creek electr1c1ty at the Douglas Substation near Willow,
where 1t has ex1stmg wheelmg agreements for delivery of electr1c1ty from CEA, ML&P, and the
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project
SES and HEA do not have ex1stmg wheeling agreements w1th delivery pomts 1n the VICinity of
the project
The four southern ra1lbelt ut1llt1es all have generally s1m1lar projected future energy costs as
MEA and do not appear to present a super1or market opportumty than d1rect sale to MEA
GVEA currently has h1gher energy costs than MEA, and th1s trend 1s expected to contmue until
GVEA secures a less-costly energy supply 19 For the present, sale to GVEA IS a potentially
19 GVEA's system average non-f1rm avo1ded energy cost 1s approximately 60% higher than MEA's, currently $0 1055 per
kWh compared to MEA's $0 062 per kWh (GVEA, 2012, MEA, 2012b)
Apro~ 2013-Fma~ !Report 3:!1.
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
superior market than direct sale to MEA. It is unknown at this time if GVEA's relatively higher
energy costs will persist long e nough to justify a long-term power sales contract with GVEA over
MEA . It is also unknown if GVEA would be supportive of overcoming the mostly contractual
and regulatory challenges involved in wheeling IPP energy from Hunter Creek to GVEA .
Table 4-2 provides some exa mpl es of existing transmission wheeling rates on the railbelt grid. If
these rates applied to Hunter Creek energy being transmitted to GVEA, the total wheeling cost
is estimated at $0.005 to 0 .00 7 per kWh .
Table 4-2 Selected Railbelt Transmission Grid Wheeling Costs
Energy Transmission Transmission Description and location
Transmission
Wheeling Cost
Customer line Owner line length
Whee l ing Bradley Lake Energy over the Alaska $0 .0257
GVEA AEA lntertie System 170 miles per MWh-mile
(MEA's Douglas Substation to Healy)
GVEA MEA Whee lin g Bradley Lake Energy over MEA System 19 m i les $0 .0242
(MEA's Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation) per MWh-mile
Whee ling Bradley Lake Energy over CEA system
GVEA CEA from Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage (Dave's Creek 98 miles $0.0316
Subst ation to Rutherford Substation in per MWh -mile
Anch o r age)
Wheeling costs derived from GV EA filings in RCA Docket TA230-13 .
Individual Customers
Sale to individual customers is possible if the total number of customers is less than 10 and they
are located outside of an exis t ing utility's certificated service area (the limits of MEA's service
area in the project vicinity ar e shown on Figure A-3). If the customers are located within the
utility's certificated service ar ea, direct sale is generally not allowed since it would violate the
terms of the certificate of pub l ic convenience and necessity granted to the utility by the RCA .
April 2013 -Final Report 32
I 1
I J
I
I I LJ
r I
: !
I I
[ I
I' I
I \
I I
_)
r-
1
-
I I
I
1-\
I I
I
I)
I I
I I_)
1Ekh.11tna, ~nc
IHilllll'ltell' ICII'eek Hlydlme~ectll'ic !Reconna~ssall'lce Study l?o~arconsllllt Aiaska, ~nc
5 0 CONCLUSiONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Reconnaissance-level study of Hunter Creek has found that several run-of-r1ver hydroelectric
project conf1gurat1ons on the east fork of Hunter Creek appear to be technically, economically,
environmentally, and politically v1able These conf1gurat1ons range m mstalled capac1ty from
5 3 to 10 7 MW Of these, a 7 7-MW project (conf1gurat1on E2-48) w1th a powerhouse located
at RM 2 67 m Hunter Creek canyon and a des1gn flow of 140 cfs appears to be the most
favorable project conf1gurat1on, and IS recommended for further study Project conf1gurat1ons
E1-48 and E3-48 are s1m1larly favorable as E2-48 It IS poss1ble that add1t1onal mformat1on such
as hydrology, f1sher1es, or geotechn~cal data may result m the selection of a different project
conf1gurat1on than E2-48 for development
The most accessible market for the electric output of a hydro project at Hunter Creek 1s
wholesale purchase of the full electr1cal output of the project by MEA Other ra1lbelt ut1llt1es, m
particular GVEA m Fairbanks, have s1gn1f1cantly h1gher avo1ded costs than MEA, and may
present a better market than d1rect sale to MEA However, sale of energy to other ut1llt1es
requ1res nav1gatmg a more complex legal and regulatory framework that mtroduces greater
uncertamty and r1sk, at least partially offsettmg these potential gams These and s1m1lar market
opportun1t1es should be mon~tored as project development contmues Project E2-48 has an
estimated benefit-cost rat1o of between 1 49nd 3 06 and est1mated power sales rates of $0 064
to $0 162 per kWh These are compet1t1ve w1th MEA's expected long-term avo1ded cost of
energy
ln1t1al assessment of f1sh hab1tat along lower Hunter Creek md1cates that the recommended
project conf1gurat1on would likely not have a s1gn1f1cant Impact on anadromous f1sh hab1tat If
further study 1dent1f1es s1gn1f1cant unavoidable Impacts, robust off-s1te or m-stream m1t1gat1on
opportunities are available along lower Hunter Creek or along the Kn1k R1ver near the project
Based on the fmdmgs of th1s study, further mvest1gat1on of hydroelectric development on
Hunter Creek should focus on the followmg mformat1on to determme 1f a hydroelectric project
at Hunter Creek 1s feas1ble
e Collect add1t1onal hydrology data to better charactenze resource hydrology Conduct a
sed1ment transport study to quant1fy sed1ment transport rates
e Coordmate w1th MEA to complete a market analysis to help determme a preferred
project conf1gurat1on and the preferred route and conf1gurat1on of the project
transm1ss1on line
~ Refme s1te topography, surf1c1al geology, and delineate wetlands to refme penstock and
access routes Perform more detailed topographic and geotechnical mvest1gat1ons of
lower Hunter Creek canyon to 1dent1fy su1table powerhouse s1tes
GJ Conduct more detailed f1sher1es surveys to conf1rm the upper llm1t of f1sh hab1tat and
develop proposed permit terms for the preferred development conf1gurat1on
Apll'~~ 20:11.3 -IFma~ !Report 33
IEkiiUitna, ~nc
IHIIU!ntell" Cll"eelk IHiydlme~ectll"'c Recorma~ssance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ~
<» Hold meetmgs With regulatory agenc1es to outlme the scope of environmental stud1es,
defme likely m1t1gat1on requirements for f1shery and wetland Impacts, and determme
likely operational constramts on the project
® Generate refmed estimates of electncal output and project costs to determme
economic feas1b1llty
5 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SCHEDUlE
The next step m the development of a hydro project at Hunter Creek IS to perform a feas1b1llty
study to collected more detailed s1te mformat1on, refme the preferred project conf1gurat1on,
and develop a detailed conceptual des1gn The feas1b1llty study would focus on collectmg more
f1eld data to better defme the hydroelectnc resource and potential techmcal, environmental
and regulatory constramts that may be Imposed on the project's operations Once these
parameters are better defmed, a more deta1led economic analys1s can be performed to
evaluate the project's economic feas1b1llty
The proposed development schedule for the project IS presented on F1gure 5-1 A key vanable
m the development schedule 1s when the project lands are conveyed to Eklutna by BLM If
lands have not been conveyed to Eklutna by the t1me the project IS ready to begm the
perm1ttmg process (m 2015), then Eklutna w1ll have to e1ther license the project w1th the
Federal Energy Regulatory Comm1ss1on (FERC) or postpone perm1ttmg until conveyance 1s
completed The schedule m F1gure 5-1 has assumed that land conveyance 1s not completed and
the FERC llcensmg process IS completed m approximately 30 months Conveyance of the lands
before 2015 would likely result m a faster perm1ttmg process, poss1bly acceleratmg project
comm1ss1omng from 2019 to 2018
Figure 5-Jl. Pro]ect Development Schedule
Apr1~ 2013 -fma~ !Report 34
j 1
I I
L I
( )
I
I )
I f
)
: r
I
~ )
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
, I
I
I
' I
I I
j
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 0
6.0 REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Dev e lopment (ADCCED). 2012.
Community profiles . Web site :
http://www.commerce.state .ak.us/dca/commdb/CF COMDB .htm
ADCCED, Division of Energy and Power Development . 1977. Alask a Regional Energy Resources
Planning Project, Phase I, Volume II : Inventory of Oil, Gas, Coal, Hydroelectric, and
Uranium Resources, Final Report. October
ADCCED, Division of Energy and Power Development. 1980. Alas k a Regional Energy Resources
Planning Project, Phase II : Coal, Hydroelectric, and Energy A lternatives Volume II:
Hydroelectric Development.
ADCCED, Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative . 2012. Web site:
http://www.alaskamapped.org/sdmi
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Geo lo gical and Geophysical
Surveys (DGGS). 1977 . Geological Report 55 : Short Notes on Alaska Geology . Tectonic
Significance of the Knik River Schist Terrane, Southcentral A laska . By Carden, J. R. and
Decker, J.E .
ADNR, Division of Parks and Recreation (DOPR). 2011. Chugach St ate Park Management Plan,
Public Review Draft. May. Web site :
http://dnr.alaska .gov/parks/units/chugach/chugachmanageplan/cspmp prd complete.
pdf.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2010. Railbelt Integrated Resourc e Plan . Prepared by Black &
Veatch, Inc .
AEA . 2011. Amended and Restated Alaska lntertie Agreement . November 18.
AEA. 2012a. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6. Web site:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE Fund -6.html. July.
AEA. 2012b . Susitna -Watana Hydroelectric Project Website : http ://www.susitna -watanaydro .org
AEA. 2012c . Board Resolution 2012-02.
AEA. 2012d. PCE Program Statistical Report for Fiscal Year 2011.
AEA . 2013 . Project Update to Alaska Industrial Development an d Export Authority
{AIDEA)/AEA Board . January 10.
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC). 2011. Alaska Stand Alone Gas
Pipeline/ASAP : Project Plan. July 1. Web site: http://www.agdc.us/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/ASAP-Project-Pian 1July2011 WEBl.pdf.
April 2013-Final Report 35
!Ekh.111t1111a, ~1111C
IHlunter Cll'eek i-!lydlroeiectr~c !Reconnaissance Stll.lldy l?o~al!'consu!t Alaska, ~nc
Golden Valley Electnc Assoc1at,1on (GVEA) 2012 GVEA Tanff Adv1ce letters m Dockets TA222-
13, TA224-13, TA231-13, and TA230-13
Institute of Soc1al and Economic Research (ISER), Umvers1ty of Alaska Anchorage 2012b
I
Alaska Fuel Pnce ProJeCtions 2012-2035 ISER Workmg Paper 2012 1 and Microsoft
I
Excel Spreadsheet Pnce Model July
I
I Matanuska Electnc Assoc1at1on, Inc (MEA) 2012a Informational Packet Prepared Pursuant to
I
3 AAC 50 790(d) ProJe,cted future avoidable f1rm and non-f1rm energy costs, capac1ty
add1t1ons, f1rm power purchases, and tanff and spec1al contract purchases August 23
I
MEA 2012b Tanff Adv1ce letter TA423-18, F1led With the RCA on October 4, 2012
I
Mun1c1pa1Jty of Anchorage (MOA) 1982 North Anchorage Land Agreement Informational
Pamphlet !
I Regulatory Comm1ss1on of Alaska (RCA) 1997 Docket U-97-139, Order No 2
I
I
I
RCA 2008 Docket U-08-102 I Order No 2
I
RCA 2011a Docket Ull-100: Order No 5
RCA 2011b Docket Ull-111 Order No 2
I
RCA 2011c Docket Ull-127 i
I
I
U S Department of the lntenor, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2008 Rmg of F1re Record
of Dec1s1on and Approved Management Plan March
I
U S Geolog1cal Survey (USGSL: 1969 USGS 1 63,360 scale quadrangle map Anchorage B-5
I
USGS 1973 The McHugh tomplex of Southcentral Alaska Contnbut1ons to Stratigraphy
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS Bulletm 1372-D 'By Clark, Sandra H B
1993 Plate 2 Map showmg Mean Annual Prec1p1tat1on for Alaska and Contermmous
Basms of Canada Magmtude and Frequency of Floods m Alaska and Contermmous
Basms m Canada Wat~er-Resources lnvest1gat1ons Report 93-4179 By Jones, S H and
Fahl, C B
I
I 1992 Glac1er Runoff and Sed1ment Transport and Depos1t1on Eklutna Lake Basm, Alaska
I
Water-Resources lnvest1gat1ons Report 92-4132 By Brabets, Timothy P
I
I
2003 Est1matmg the Magmtude and Frequency of Peak Streamflows for Ungaged S1tes
I
on Streams m Alaska and Contermmous Basms m Canada Water-Resources
lnvest1gat1ons Report 2003-4188 By Curran, Janet H , Meyer, Dav1d F , and Tasker, Gary
D
Apll'li 2013 -IFma! !Report 36
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
-
I i
I
I I I
I I
I
I I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc . G
APPENDIX A -PROJECT MAPS
April 2013-Final Report A-1
I =L',
~ \ f
-
I i
I
I I
I I
' '
I I
i
I I
I
I _!
I
l_i
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc
F1gure T1tle Page Nos
F1gure A-1 Project Overv1ew and Locat1on Map A-3
F1gure A-2 Map of Hunter Creek Subbasms A-4
F1gure A-3 Land Status m Project Area A-5
F1gure A-4 East Fork Hydroelectric Project Conf1gurat1ons A-6
F1gure A-5 West Fork Hydroelectric Project Conf1gurat1ons A-7
F1gure A-6 Conceptual Layout of East Fork D1vers1on and Intake A-8
Apnl 2013-F1nal Report A-2
I II II II I I
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report
I I
I
I
I I
I I j I
'
I J
I I
I I
Eklutna, Inc .
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Figure A-1 Project Overview and Locati o n Map
SIAJE INDEX NAP
0 250 500
E3 E3
NILES
LQCADON MAP
0 2.5
F3 &3
WILES
0 4
E3 E3
'lO
I
. G
April 2013 -Final Report A-3
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
a L
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. ~
Map of Hunter Creek Subbasins
MAP LEG END • E3 E3
I
..alllllD
__ _,...ROAD
.._ _ _.I DRAINAGE SUBBASINS
April 2013-Final Report A-4
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Figure A-3 Land Status in Project A r ea
-.E IIIIIILD
GACH STATE ~:~>
ARK BOUNDARY -.,.._ ~ MEA SERVICE AREA
4 - -BOUNDARY & CITY I
PRIVATE LAND BOROUGH LIMITS
PATENTED T O EKLUTNA , INC . (SEE NOTE 4)
April 2013 -Final Report A-5
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Figure A-4 East Fork Hydroelectric Project Configurations
SCN..E IP'I FEET
0 POWERHOUSE SITE
h._ DIVERSION I INTAKE SITE
-P -PENSTOCK ROUTE
tlQIES;
1. THIS FlGURE IS INTENDED FOR PLANN ING PUR POSES ONLY.
2. ENTIRE FIGURE IS LOCATED WITHI N SEWARD MERIDIAN .
3. 50-FOOT TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR LINES ARE SUITABLE FOR
PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE A COMPOS ITE OF:
-POLARCONSULT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS
-MAT -SU BOROUGH LIOAR TOPOGRAPHY
-TOPOGRAPHY DATA FROM USGS 1:63360 SCALE QUAD MAPS
-ASTER 2 GLOBAL DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL. ASTER DATA IS A
PRODUCT OF JAPAN'S MIN ISTIRY OF ECONOMY, TIRADE, AND
INDUSTRY (METI) AND NASA.
April 2013 -Final Report
a " "'I'
A-6
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Figure A-5 West Fork Hydroelectric Project Co nfigurations
April 2013-Final Report
SCALE IN fEET
r.====:::;J C HUGACH STATE
~ PARK BOUNDARY
0 PO WE RHOUSE SITE
A_ DIV ERSION /INTAKE SITE
- P -PENSTOCK ROUTE I
tiQlll;
1. TH IS FIGURE IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY .
2. ENTRE FlGUR E IS LOCATED WITHIN SEWARD MERIDIAN .
3. 50-FOOT TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR UNES ARE SUITABLE FOR
PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE A COMPOSITE OF:
-POLARCONS ULT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS
-MAT -SU BOROUGH LIDAR TOPOGRAPHY
-TOPOGRAPHY DATA FROM USGS 1:63360 SCALE QUAD MAPS
-ASTER 2 GLOBAL DIGI TAL ELEVATION MODEL. ASTER DATA IS A
PRODUCT OF JAPAN'S MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, TRADE, AND
INDUSTRY (METI) AND NASA.
A-7
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc .
Figure A-6 Conceptual Layout of East Fork Diversion and Intake
0 100 200
F3 E3
SCALE I N FEET
---PENSTOCK
---ACCESS ROAD , SITE PAD ,
DIVERSION /INTAKE WORKS
5-FOOT CONTOUR
25-FOOT CONTOUR
THIS FIGURE IS INlENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
ENTIRE FIGURE IS LOCATED WITHIN SEWARD MERIDIAN.
5-FOOT CONTOURS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY DERIVED FIROM
IFSAR DATA PRCMDED BV THE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
NETWORK OF ALASKA (GINA) AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
FAIRBANKS. DATA COLLECTED AS PART OF THE ALASKA MAPPED
PROGRAM.
AIERIAL IMAGERY 1 996. USDA-NRCS .
April 2013-Final Report
·~ ...
A-8
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
APPENDIX B-SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
April 2013 -Final Report B-1
I I
I
J I
Ekh.11t1111a, i1111c ~
Hunter Creek IHlydliroelectruc Reco1111naossance Study Po~arco1111su~t Alaska, ~nc
Photogra12h T1tle Page Nos
Photograph B-1 Oblique North Aenal V1ew of Lower Hunter Creek B-3
Photograph B-2 Oblique North-Northwest Aenal V1ew of Lower Hunter Creek B-3
Photograph B-3 Oblique South-Southwest Aenal V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek B-4
Photograph B-4 Oblique North Aenal V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek B-4
Photograph B-5 Oblique Composite Aenal V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek B-5
Photograph B-6 Oblique Composite Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter Creek B-5
Photograph B-7 Oblique Southeast Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter Creek B-7
Photograph B-8 Oblique Northwest Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter Creek B-7
Photograph B-9 Oblique Composite Southeast Aenal V1ew of East Fork Hunter
Creek B-8
Photograph B-10 East Fork Hunter Creek Look1ng Downstream (RM 4 42) B-8
Photograph B-11 East Fork Gauging Stat1on #1 (RM 4 34) B-9
Photograph B-12 East Fork Gauging Stat1on #1 (RM 4 34, Deta1led V1ew) B-9
Photograph B-13 Typ1cal Exposed Till Embankment along East Fork Hunter Creek B-10
Photograph B-14 Upstream V1ew of East Fork Gauging Stat1on #2 (RM 4 73) B-11
Photograph B-15 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Bndge Over Tanana R1ver near Delta
Junct1on B-11
Photograph B-16 Upstream V1ew of East Fork (RM 4 40) B-12
Photograph B-17 V1ew of Till Embankment along East Fork Canyon (RM 3 83 to
4 02) B-13
Photograph B-18 Upstream V1ew of East Fork Canyon From North R1m Above RM
3 83 B-14
Photograph B-19 V1ew of Act1ve Sl1de Zone on North S1de of East Fork Hunter Creek
(RM 415) B-15
Photograph B-20 Downstream V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek (RM 5 2) B-16
Photograph B-21 Upstream V1ew of West Fork Hunter Creek (RM 5 2) B-17
Photograph B-22 Main Stem of Hunter Creek Gauging Stat1on (Preflood) B-18
Photograph B-23 Main Stem of Hunter Creek at Flood Stage (Post-Flood) B-18
Photograph B-24 Main Stem of Hunter Creek at Flood Stage (RM 1 SO) B-19
Photograph B-25 Upstream V1ew of the Main Stem of Hunter Creek (RM 2 22) B-20
Apn! 2013-Fona~ Re[port B-2
I I
I I
Ek~utna, inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, ~n~c
Th1s page 1ntent1onally blank
Apro! 2013-IFmal Report
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc .
Photograph B-1 Oblique No rth Ae r ial View of Lower Hunter Creek
Powerhouse Site 2
Powerhouse Site 3
Penstock Routes for East
Fork-only Project
Configurations
Penstock Route for West
Fork Configuration Wl
Penstock Route for West
Fork Configuration W2
Ob liq u e aerial view of Hunter Creek canyon looking north-northwest. The lower east fork (right) and west fork
(left) canyons are visible in the foreground. The Knik River is visib le in t h e far distance. Approximate locations of
some project features are shown.
Photograph B-2
Penstock Route for
West Fork
Configuration W3
Penstock Route for
West Fork
Configuration Wl
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011.
Oblique North -No rthwest Aerial Vie w of Lower Hunter Creek
Powerhouse Site 3
Oblique aerial view of Hunter Creek canyon looking northwest. The east fork is visible in the foreground , and the
confluence with the west fork is visible at middle left. Approximate locations of some project features are shown .
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011 .
April 2013 -Final Repo rt B-3
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
Photograph B-3
RM 6.14 Diversion Site
(Configurations Wl and W2)
Pen stock Route for West
Oblique South -So uthwest Ae r ial View of West Fork Hunter Creek
Oblique aerial view of west f o rk Hunter Creek looking south -southwest (upstream). Approximate locations of
some west-fork project features are shown .
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011.
Photograph B-4 Oblique North Aerial View of West Fork Hunter Creek
Oblique aerial view of west fork Hunter Creek valley looking north {downstream). The approximate location of the
pro posed west fork diversion site is shown . The Knik River valley is visible in the far distance .
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011 .
April 2013-Final Report B-4
I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
Up stream Extent of Reservoir
(Configuration W3)
Penstock and Access Route,
Configurations Wl and W2
Photograph B-5 Oblique Composite Aerial View of West Fork Hunter Creek
Penstock Route ,
Configuration W3
Penstock Route (Configuration W2)
and Access Route (all West-Fo r k Project Configurations)
Oblique composite aerial view of west fork Hunter Creek . Approximate locations of some west fork and east fork project features are shown.
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011 .
Access Route for All Project Configurations,
Penstock Route for al l East Fork Project Configurations and West Fork Configuration W2
(Generally obscured by bluff in th is view where dotted)
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
Oblique composite aerial view of east fork Hunter Creek valley extending from approximately RM 5 .3 downstream to RM 4 .4. Approximate locations of some east fork and west fork project features are shown .
Polarconsu/t, Oc t ober 19, 2011 .
April 2013-Final Report B-5
Eklutna, Inc. 6 .
'
.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
This page intentionally blank.
I
April 2013-Final Report B-6
I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Oblique aerial view of east fork Hunter Creek looking southeast (upstream). The creek is visible at right from
approximately RM 3.6 up to RM 4 .5 . Approximate locations of some east fork project features are shown .
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011 .
ue Northwest Aerial View of East Fork Hunter Creek
Oblique aerial view of east fork Hunter Creek valley looking northwest (downstream). The creek is visible from
approximately RM 5 .0 down to RM 4.4 . Approximate locations of some project features are shown .
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011 .
April 2013-Final Report B-7
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study G j
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc .
Photograph B-9
East Fork Penstock and Access
Route (All Project Configurations)
Ea st Fork Gauging
Station #2 (RM 4.73)
East Fork Gauging
Station #1 (RM 4 .34)
West Fork Penstock Route (Configuration W2)
West Fork Access Route (All Configurations)
Oblique composite aerial view of east fork Hunter Creek looking southeast (upstream). The creek is visible at right
from approximately RM 3.6 up to RM 4.5 . Approximate locations of some project features are shown .
Polarconsult, October 19, 2011 .
Photograph B-10 East Fork Hunter Creek Looking Downstream (RM 4.42}
Downstream view of east fork Hunter Creek at RM 4.42. The creek is running over alluvial material and exposed
glacial erratics in this reach, but the creek bed transitions to bedrock shortly downstream . Exposed embankments
of glacial till are visible at upper left . These embankments are also shown in Photograph B-13 . Flow is 125 cfs .
Polarconsult, October 4, 2011 .
April 2013 -Final Report B-8
I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Photograph B-11 East Fork Gauging Station #1 (RM 4.34)
'
Downstream view of East Fork Gauging Station #1 at RM 4 .34 . The creek bed in this reach is bedrock with
numerous glacial erratics. This area has large {10+ feet) boulders ; most boulders smaller than 12 inches are
swept downstream . Hunter Creek descends into the canyon below this location . Flow is 125 cfs .
Polarconsult, October 4, 2011 .
p
Detailed view of East Fork Gauging Station #1 at RM 4 .34 . The pool outlet is a rock sill extending from the middle
of the photograph to the lower right . Hydrologist David Brailey is measuring stage. Flow is 125 cfs .
Polarconsult, October 4, 2011 .
April 2013-Final Report B-9
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
Typ ical Exposed Till Embankment alon
Exposed embankment of glacial till along the south side of east fork Hunter Creek at RM 4.43. A minor drainage or
local groundwater seep is causing accelerated erosion at the center of the photograph . The till maintains near-
vertica l faces where protected from erosion by local dra inage patterns.
Polarcons ult, October 4, 2011 .
April 2013-Final Report 8-10
I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
a ~ ~
Photograph B-14 Upstream View of East Fork Gauging Station #2 (RM 4.73)
Upstream view of East Fork Gauging Station #2 at RM 4.73. The west fork access road and configuration W2
penstock would cross the east fork just upstream of this location .
Polarconsult, November 16, 2012 .
Photograph B-15 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Bridge Over Tanana River near Delta Junction
View from south bank of the Trans -Alaska Pipeline bridge over the Tanana River near Delta Junction . The 48 -inch
pipe and approximately 1,200 -foot main span of this bridge are similar to the pipe bridges required for west fork
project configurations Wl and W3 .
Wikipedia, December 14, 2012
April 2013-Final Report 8-11
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc .
Photograph B-16 Upstream View of East Fork (RM 4.40)
Upstream view of East Fork Hunter Creek at RM 4 .40. The bedrock visible in the foreground is the first
presentation of bedrock in the creek bed downstream of the proposed intake site at RM 5 .08 . The abundance of
large glacial erratics and large woody debris is typical of this reach and indicates the intensity of high-flow events
through this channel. Eroding glacial till embankments are visible to the right of the creek (also see Photographs B-
10 and B-13). Flow is 125 cfs .
Polarconsult, October 4, 2011 .
April 2013-Final Report B-12
I
Eklutna, Inc .
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
.i
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. ~
Photograph B-17 View of Till Embankment along East Fork Canyon (RM 3.83 to 4.02)
Detailed view of glacial till embankment on south side of east fork Hunter Creek from approxi mately RM 3 .83 to
4 .02 . This bank and the debris field below it extend for approximately 300 vertical feet down to east fork Hunter
Creek . Note the 20 -to 40 -foot-tall vertical faces at the top of the bank and partially exposed glacial erratics.
Polarconsult, October 4, 2011 .
April 2013 -Final Report B-13
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc . 6
Upstream view of east fork canyon from north rim above RM 3 .83 . The lower portion of the slide zone shown in
Photograph B-15 is visible on the south side of the creek (photograph right). This reach of the canyon is
inaccessible due to the steep and unstable terrain .
Polarconsult, August 27, 2012.
April 2013 -Final Report B-14
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
Photograph B-19
East Fork Penstock and Access Route
(All Project Configurat ions)
(Generally obscured by te rrai n where dotted)
-
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
a _
~
View of active slide zone on north side of east fork Hunte r Creek canyon at RM 4 .15 . The slide is stable enough for mature cottonwoo ds to grow along the lower
flanks , but the growth patterns of the tree trunks indicate the entire slide face is active. Large partially exposed erratics and vertical faces occur along the top of the
active slide area . The proposed penstock route is uph i ll of this slide area (also see Photographs B-7 and B-9).
Polarconsu/t, October 12, 2011.
April 2013 -Final Report 8-15
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Downstream View of West Fork Hunter Creek (RM 5.2)
Downstream view of west fork Hunter Creek at RM 5.2 showing the narrow rock canyon typical of this reach .
Polarconsult, Apri/3, 2012 .
April 2013 -Final Report B-16
Eklutna,lnc. 1/1!!!. ·
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. ~
------------~------------------------~----------------------------------------
Upstream View of West Fork Hunter Creek (RM 5.2)
I
Upstream view of west fork Hunter Creek at RM 5 .2 showing the rock canyon typical of this reach . Flow is 11 cfs .
Polarconsult, April 3, 2012.
April 2013-Final Report B-17
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc .
Upstream view of main stem gauging station . The PT is buried in the right edge of the streambed at the right edge
of the photograph . This gauging station remained stable from October 2011 through September 2012 but was
buried by sediment in the floods of late September 2012. The PT survived the flood, but the main channel shifted
to the far side of the canyon approximately 150 feet away (See Photograph B-23). Flow is 88 cfs .
Polarconsult, October 28, 2011.
View upstream of main stem gauging station after September 22 -24 , 2012 , flood event . Data logger is located in alder bush at
left . Red arrows point to same features in Photographs B-22 and B-23 , illustrating sedimentation of the former creek channel.
Polarconsult, September 23, 2012 .
April 2013-Final Report B-18
-
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 6
Photograph B-24 Main Stem of Hunter Creek at Flood Stage (RM 1.50)
Upstream view of the main stem of Hunter Creek from Kn i k River Road during flood event. Estimated flow is 3,300 cfs. This storm event resulted in significant
flo oding in several areas of the Mat-Su Borough .
Polarconsult, September 23, 2012 .
April 2013-Final Report 8-19
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
a _
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc . .,.
ream View of the Main Stem of Hunter Creek (RM 2.22)
Upstream view of the main stem of Hunter Creek at RM 2.22 . The canyon floor in this reach is approximately 80 to 100 feet wide, and the creek is confined by
the canyon to a single channel. The creek runs as a near-continuous riffle at a grade of appro ximately 1.5 %, and the creek bed is large cobbles (6 to 18 inches)
with few very backwater areas or pools with finer bed materi als . Flow is approximately 88 cfs .
Po/arconsult, October 12, 2011 .
April 2013 -Final Report B-20
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. ~
APPENDIX C -HYDROLOGY DATA
April 2013-Final Report C-1
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I I
I
Ekiut1111a, I1111c
Hunter Creek Hydroelectroc Reconnaissance Study
Sect1on T1tle Page Nos
C1 Available Hydrology Data C-3
C2 Stream Gauge Stat1on Information C-5
C3 Flow Measurements and Stat1on Callbrat1on C-8
C4 Hunter Creek Hydrology Data C-8
cs Hunter Creek Hydrology Model C-8
Attachment C-1 Hunter Creek Streamflow Analys1s Report
Attachment C-2 Add1t1onal Gaugmg Stat1on Data, East Fork Hunter Creek Stat1on #2
Attachment C-3 Add1t1onal Gaugmg Stat1on Data, Mam Stem Hunter Creek Stat1on
Tables
Table C-1 Summary of Hydrology Data for Hunter Creek C-3
Table C-2 Stream Flow and Water Stage Measurements at Hunter Creek C-4
F1gures
F1gure C-1 Est1mated Dally Flow 1n Hunter Creek and Tnbutanes Based on Extended
Record C-9
Apnl 2013-Fmai Report C-2
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study 6 ~
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
I I
I
I I
I
' I
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, I nco
C.l AVAILABLE HYDROLOGY DATA
Approximately 12 months of usable hydrology data have been collected at Hunter Creek. Two
gauging stations are currently installed at Hunter Creek; these are d escribed in Section C.2. This
appendix summarizes the hydrology data and analysis used for t h is study. Daily stage and
calculated f low data for both gauging stations is included at the end of Attachment C-1.
Existing hydrology data are summarized in Table C-1. Flow measure ments at the Hunter Creek
gauging stations are summarized in Table C-2 . Hydrographs, stage-discharge curves, flow
duration curves, and station notes for both gauges are included in t hi s appendix .
Location on
Hunter Creek
Main Stem
Gauging Station
(RM 1.59)
Table C-1
Basin Size
(square
miles)
69 .7
Summary of Hydrology Data for Hu nter Creek
Site
Elevation
(ft) (1)
210
Latitude 111 Longitude 111
61 ° 148°
26.37 ' 48 .86'
Begin
Date
10/28/11
End
Date
1/26/13
Number of
Daily Records
456 121
--------
East Fork Gauging
Station #1 (RM
4.34)
East Fork Gauging
Station #2
(RM 4.73)
West Fork Hunter
Creek
(RM 5 .21)
NOTES :
23 .6
24 .5
37 .2
950 61 ° 148°
24.32' 48 .29'
1,060 61 ° 148°
24.07' 47 .94'
1,000 61 ° 148°
23.53' 49.57'
11 /14/11 5/8/12 176 (l)
11/16/12 12/1/12 15 141
----
4/3/12
(single 1 (5)
measurement)
(1) Coordinates are in North American Datum (NAD) 83 . Gaug i ng sta t ion elevat ions are orthometric height in feet, Geoid 12A.
(2) Count of available da i ly records through power failure on January 26 , 2013 . The PT fa i led , presumably due to freezing, by
the time the power supply was replaced on March 5, 2013 . The gauge wa s removed on March 21, 2013 .
(3) Gauge destroyed by landslide on May 8, 2012.
(4) The station data logger entered a low-power mode on January 27 , 2013 due to low vol ta ge. The data logger is believed to be
intact but is not currently transmitting. The station pressure tran sducer (PT) stop ped working on December 1, 2012 ,
presumably due to freezing.
(5) Individual flow mea surement only. No data logge r was deployed at this location .
April 2013-Final Report C-3
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
Table C-2 Stream Flow and Water Stage Measurements at Hunter Creek
Date/Time Location Party Flow (cfs) Stage (ft) Flow Method Comments
MAIN STEM HUNTER CREEK STAGE AND FLOW MEASUREMENTS
10/12/11 10:45 Main Stem (RM 1.59) Brailey/Groves 88 .3 +/-2 RPS : +0 .14 Current-Velocity Not ice affected. Stage : 1.83
10/28/1115:30 Main Stem (RM1.59) Br ailey 77.3 +/-2 RPS : +0 .08 Current -Velocity Not ice affected. Stage : 1.77
12/16/1115:30 Main Stem (RMl.SS) Groves/Paulus 34 .7 +/-2 RP7 : -3 .56 Salt Injection Not ice affected. Stage : 1.44
2/28/12 15 :00 Main Stem (RMl.SS) Brailey 22 .2 +/-8
RP8 : -4 .89 Salt Injection Not ice affected, poor
Stage : 1 .30 measurement repeatability .
3/7/12 15 :00 Main Stem (RMl.SS) Brailey 19 .2 +/-2 RP8 : -4 .02 Salt Injection and Stage affected by ice .
Stage : 1.28 Current-Veloc ity See Attachment C-1
4/13/12 17 :35 Main Stem (RMl.SS) Brailey 22 .5 +/-0.5 RP7 : -3 .71 Salt Injection Not ice affected . Stage : 1 .29
5/9/12 11 :45 Main Stem (RM1.59) Groves 116.8 +/-2 RP7 : -2 .98 Current -Veloc ity Not ice affected . Stage : 2.02
8/29/12 13 :30 Main Stem (RMl.SS) Brailey 395 +/-so
RP8 : -3 .77 Acoustic Current Not ice affect ed . Stage : 2 .72 Doppler Profiler
EAST FORK HUNTER CREEK STAGE AND FLOW MEASUREMENTS
10/4/1116:00 East Fork (RM 4 .73) Brailey/Groves 125 +/-3 RP2 : -5 .45 Current-Velocity Not ice affected . Stage : 2 .75
10/12/1115:00 East Fork (RM 4.73) Brailey/Groves 29 .5 +/-1 RP2 : -5.84 Current-Veloc ity Not ice affected . Stage : 2 .36
11/14/1116:00 East Fork (RM 4 .35) Brailey 13 .6 +/-0.4
RP6 : -0 .08 Salt Injection See Attachment C-1 Stage : 2 .20
2/28/12 15:45 East Fork (RM 4.35) Brailey 8 +/-0 .6 Stage : 1.87 Salt Injection See Attachment C-1
4/3/12 13 :40 East Fork (RM 4 .35) Brailey 5.7 +I -0 .3 Stage : 1 .70 Salt Injection See Attachment C-1
4/13/12 14 :15 East Fork (RM 4.35) Brailey 7 .6 +/-1 .4 RP2 : -6.40 Salt Injection See Attachment C-1
Stage : 1.80
9/13/12 15 :30 East Fork (RM 4 .73) Groves/Paulus 43 +/-1.5 RP3B : -0.25 Current -Velocity Not ice affected.
WEST FORK HUNTER CREEK STAGE AND FLOW MEASUREMENTS
4/3/12 15 :30 West Fork (RM 5 .21) Brailey 11.1 +/-0 .1 NM Salt Injection See Attachment C-1
NM : Not measured. RP : vertical reference point f rom whi ch stage is measured from .
April 2013-Final Report C-4
Jl
I )
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
/ I
I I
~-I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I -1
I I
/ I
1Ekh.11tna, ~nc
Hunter Creek Hydroeiectl!'lc Reconnaissance Studly IPolarconsult Alaska, ~nc
C2 STREAM GAUGE STATION INFORMATION
The mam stem and both east fork gaugmg stat1on s1tes were 1dent1f1ed m October 2011 On the
mam stem, s1te cntena mcluded a deep pool to protect the pressure and temperature
transducer (PTI) from freezmg, a stable outlet control, a protected locat1on for the PTI from
flood events, and a low v1sual prof1le to discourage vandalism These same cntena apply on the
east fork, except that vandalism IS less of a concern due to the s1te's remoteness All three
stations are descnbed 1n detail m th1s section
C 2 1 Mam Stem Gaugmg Stat1on
On October 28, 2011, Polarconsult subconsultant Bralley Hydrological Consultants (BHC)
mstalled a gaugmg station ("Mam Stem Gaugmg Stat1on") at RM 1 59 on Hunter Creek,
approximately 400 yards upstream of Kn1k R1ver Road (see F1gure A-2) Th1s stat1on was
selected based on the presence of a deep pool w1th a nffle outlet control at lower flows,
perce1ved stability of the creek bed m the 1mmed1ate stat1on VICinity, relative protection from
flood debns and veloc1t1es behmd a rock outcrop, and prox1m1ty to Kn1k R1ver Road for
download and mamtenance
At the t1me of mstallat1on, the gaugmg stat1on was located on the nght bank of the mam
channel of Hunter Creek m an area where the creek flows along the east wall of the canyon
(Photograph B-22) The mam channel m th1s area 1s approximately 35 feet w1de and IS mc1sed
approximately 3 feet mto the alluv1al f1eld that covers the 200-foot-wlde canyon floor At low
flows, the creek IS well-confmed to th1s channel, but at h1gh flows, the creek can meander
across the ent1re canyon floor The creek bed 1n th1s channel cons1sts mamly of cobbles 4 to 8
mches m d1ameter The gaugmg stat1on 1s m a scour pool behmd a rock outcrop At low flows,
the s1te IS a pool w1th a nffle outlet formed by a low cobble bar At h1gher flows, the s1te 1s
relatively un1form subcnt1cal open channel flow, eventually developmg s1gn1f1cant vortices and
turbulence m the PTI v1cm1ty at flows over approximately 500 cfs
The PTI was buned under cobbles at the toe of the canyon wall/nght bank of the creek
approximately 20 feet downstream of the rock outcrop, and the data logger was t1ed to an
alder bush approximately 10 feet above the creek and 5 feet above the ordmary h1gh water
lme The vented PTI cable was routed m l1qUJdt1te flexible metallic condu1t (LFMC) under
cobbles and up to the data logger
Instrumentation at th1s gaugmg stat1on IS an Acculevel vented PTI manufactured by Keller
Amenca, Inc and a MONITOR-1 data logger manufactured by Sutron, Inc The data logger 1s
powered by a pnmary llth1um battery pack The data logger was configured to record water
depth at 15-mmute mtervals The PTI 1s mounted m LFMC and buned under cobbles on the
nght bank of the creek At annual low-flow cond1t1ons, the PTI IS Immersed m approximately
1 4 feet of water The battery pack 1s suff1c1ent for 12 to 14 months of operation
Apn~ 2013-IFma~ Report C-5
Ekh.11tna, !nc
Hunter Creek IHydroelectnc Reconnaossance Studly
Several vert1cal datums were established for th1s s1te The pnmary vert1cal datum 1s the top of a
~-mch rock bolt dnlled mto the upstream face of the rock outcrop upstream of the PTI Other
datums were natural rock outcroppmgs The top of the rock bolt 1s +5 00 feet m the station
datum The pomt of zero flow for the pool outlet contrails 0 00 feet m th1s datum
Th1s hardware remamed m serv1ce at th1s stat1on Without problems from October 28, 2011,
through January 26, 2013, when the power supply was depleted A new power supply was
mstalled on March 5, 2013, but the PTI was no longer workmg at that t1me The PTI IS
presumed to have fa1led due to freezing act1on The stat1on was removed on March 22, 2013
A flood event from September 21 to 24, 2012, s1gmf1cantly changed the creek sect1on at the
gaugmg stat1on (Photographs B-22, 23, and 24 m Appendix B) The ex1stmg channel was f1lled
m, and the creek sh1fted to the opposite s1de of the canyon The creek's new channel 1s not
s1gn1f1cantly mc1sed mto the alluv1al plam, and as a result local water elevation IS approximately
2 to 3 feet h1gher than before the flood Th1s new channel appears susceptible to contmued
sh1ftmg under h1gh water cond1t1ons m 2013
The data logger and PTI surv1ved th1s flood event and remamed m workmg order through
January 26, 2013 The ratmg curve developed for the 2011-12 water year was mvalldated by
th1s flood event, and a new ratmg curve Will be needed to convert stage data recorded after
September 22, 2012 to flow
There are a handful of other s1tes along the lower canyon that are s1m1lar to the ex1stmg
gaugmg stat1on None of these offer a particular advantage to the ex1stmg station, and supenor
s1tes are unlikely downstream of approximately RM 3 0 that will be 1mmune to frequent
channel sh1ftmg and flood hazards Gaugmg s1tes above RM 3 0 would be extremely d1ff1cult to
access and are 1mpract1cal Future stream gaugmg efforts on the mam stem of Hunter Creek
should plan for frequent channel changes, flood events, and h1gh nsk of equipment loss
C22 East Fork Gaugmg Stat1on #1
On November 14, 2011, Polarconsult subconsultant BHC mstalled a gaugmg stat1on ("East Fork
Gaugmg Stat1on #1") at RM 4 34 on east fork Hunter Creek, at the head of the east fork canyon
(see F1gure A-4) Th1s stat1on was selected based on the presence of a deep pool w1th a rock s1ll
for outlet control at lower flows One of the 3/8-mch rock bolts used to secure the PTI to the
rock s1ll was used as a vert1cal datum The top of the bolt has an elevation of +2 28 feet m the
stat1on vertical datum The approximate pomt of zero flow for the stat1on IS 0 00 feet
The mam channel at the gaugmg stat1on IS approximately 30 feet w1de and IS cut approximately
12 feet mto bedrock on the left s1de and confmed by a JUmble of 10-foot (and larger) boulders
on the nght s1de (Photograph B-11 and F1gure A-4) The creek bed at the gaugmg stat1on IS
bedrock, With a rock we1r controllmg stage m a pool at low flows At h1gher flows, the pool IS
overwhelmed by water Jets from upstream, and the ent1re reach becomes turbulent The creek
1s well-confmed to th1s channel at all flows
Apnl 20:11.3-Fmal Report C-6
-
I I
I
I I
I (
I
I
I I
: I
I I I ~~/
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
~)
I
I I
I I
Ekh.11tna, Inc
Hunter Creek 1Hydroe~ectr1c !Reconnaissance Studly IPolarconsu~t Aiaska, inc •
The PTI was mstalled buned m a gravel deposit 1mmed1ately upstream of the rock we1r The
vented PTI cable was routed m a section of electncal metallic conduit bolted to the rock s1ll,
then routed through LFMC up to a data logger on top of the bedrock outcrop
Instrumentation at th1s gaugmg stat1on was an Acculevel vented PTI manufactured by Keller
Amenca, Inc and a MONITOR-1 data logger manufactured by Sutron, Inc The data logger was
powered by a pnmary l1th1um battery pack The data logger was configured to record water
depth at 15-mmute mtervals At annual low-flow cond1t1ons, the PTI was Immersed m
approximately 0 4 feet of water The battery pack 1s suff1c1ent for 12 to 14 months of
operation
Th1s stat1on performed well through the wmter months The s1te channels flows mto a smgle
chute, mm1m1zmg the potential for freezmg In add1t1on, the s1te IS carved from bedrock, and IS
expected to be stable unless blocked by flood debns However, the stat1on 1s exposed to debns
shdes and extreme flow veloc1t1es dunng the summer months The PTI mstallat1on was torn
away by summer flows, and the data logger was destroyed by a boulder slide on May 8 In
add1t1on, th1s stat1on 1s d1ff1cult to access dunng the summer months due to h1gh flows and
dense brush The stat1on hardware was located on the south (far) s1de of Hunter Creek, wh1ch
cannot be safely crossed on foot at typical summer flows
Future gaugmg efforts on the east fork should cons1der th1s stat1on for wmter-only gaugmg or
year-round gaugmg 1f the PTI and mstrumentat1on can be mounted on the north s1de of the
creek The north s1de IS not as exposed to landslides and can be accessed on foot Without
crossmg east fork Hunter Creek The PTI mstallat1on w1ll need to be very robust to surv1ve
summer flow cond1t1ons
C 2 2 East Fork Gaugmg Stat1on #2
On November 11, 2012, Polarconsult mstalled a replacement gaugmg stat1on ("East Fork
Gaugmg Stat1on #2") at RM 4 73 on the east fork of Hunter Creek (see F1gure A-4) East Fork
Gaugmg Stat1on #1 was not safely accessible at the t1me Th1s stat1on was 1dent1f1ed m fall 2011
as one of the better locat1ons for current-velocity flow measurements m the reach from RM
4 34 to 5 10
The mam channel at the gaugmg station 1s approximately 30 feet w1de and 1s mc1sed
approximately 2 feet mto the alluv1al plam The left (south) bank abuts the edge of the
currently act1ve floodplam, wh1ch 1s an approximately 6-foot-tall bank vegetated by alders An
older floodplam bench IS present south of th1s bank The nght (north) bank 1s part of the act1ve
floodplam and 1s only sparsely vegetated (Photographs B-14 and B-15) The creek bed at the
gaugmg stat1on IS alluv1um, generally gravels and cobbles w1th sand m backwater areas The
creek bed forms a shallow pool, wh1ch becomes a nffle at typ1cal summer flows The creek IS
not confmed to th1s channel at h1gher flows A new channel formed on the north s1de of the
valley floor durmg the September 22-24, 2012, flood event, although low flows remam confmed
to the ongmal channel where the PTI was mstalled
Apll'a~ 2013-Fma~ Report C-7
Ekh.11tna, ~nc
HIILmter Creek Hydlroe~ectl!'lc Reconnaossance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ~
The PTI was mstalled m gravels at the thalweg of the mam channel The vented PTI cable was
routed m a sect1on of electncal metallic condUit buned m the creek bed, then la1d exposed on
the ground back to the data logger
Instrumentation at th1s gaugmg stat1on IS an Acculevel vented PTI manufactured by Keller
Amenca, Inc and a DataGarnson SolarStream data logger manufactured by Upward
Innovations, Inc The data logger 1s powered by a 7-amp-hour lead-ac1d battery and a f1ve-watt
amorphous solar panel The data logger mcludes an lnd1um satellite transceiver and uploads
data at programmed mtervals
The PTI at th1s stat1on fa1led on December 1, 2012, only 2 weeks after mstallat1on The fa1lure
mode was consistent w1th freezmg of the PTI although th1s has not been confirmed Th1s
stat1on IS subject to frequent channel sh1ftmg and IS generally mfenor to East Fork Gaugmg
Stat1on #1, prov1ded that mstrumentat1on can be mstalled on the north s1de of the creek and
can be armored to surv1ve summer flows The data logger went mto a low-power mode on
January 27, 2013 and has not transmitted data as of March 25, 2013 The data logger should
automatically resume normal operation once the battery 1s recharged
Future gaugmg efforts on the east fork should focus on 1mprovmg gaugmg station #1 as th1s s1te
performed wellm through the 2011-12 wmter season
C3 HOW MEASUREMENTS AND STATION CAliBRATION
The stage-discharge curve for the Mam Stem Gaugmg Stat1on and East Fork Gaugmg Stat1on #1
has been developed by measunng flow m Hunter Creek multiple t1mes between October 2011
and September 2012 (Table C-2) Development of stage discharge curves and the resultmg
curves for each stat1on are discussed m Attachment C-1
C 4 HUNTER CREEK HYDROLOGY DATA
Hydrology data for the penod of record at the Mam Stem Gaugmg Stat1on and East Fork
Gaugmg Stat1on #1 was compared agamst ex1stmg nearby USGS gaugmg stat1ons to develop
m1t1al estimates of the long-term hydrology at Hunter Creek The analys1s and resultmg
estimated long-term hydrology are presented m Attachment C-1
cs HUNTER CREEK HYDROLOGY MODEL
The hydrology model for Hunter Creek IS developed m Attachment C-1 Estimated average and
extreme flows m Hunter Creek are shown on F1gure C-1
Apnl 2013 -Fmal Report C-8
~~ I
I I
I I
I I
I I
i
:l I
I
I i
I
I I
I I
~
I I
Eklutna, Inc .
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 0
Figure C-1 Estimated Daily Flow in Hunter Creek and Tributaries Based on Extended
Record
4,500 -,-----------------------------,----------, 1,440 2,160
-g 4,000
0 u
C1J
"' w 3,500
Q. ....
C1J
C1J
:; 3,000
:c
:I u
3 2,500
~ u..
~
C1J ~ 2,000
u ...
C1J ....
§ 1,500
:I:
E
C1J
~ 1,000
c:
"' ~
500
-Ma xi mum Daily Flow
-Mean (Av erag e) Da i ly Flow
-M i nimum Da i ly Flow
Jan Feb Mar Apr
April 2013-Final Report
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
960 1,440
~ ~
0 0 ~ ~
~ ~ ... ...
0 0 u.. u.. .... ....
"' "' "' C1J w 3
480 720
C-9
1Ekh.11tna, inc
Hunter Creek IHiydlroelectr1c Reconnaossance Studly IP'o!arconsiJlit Alaska, ~me : I
I I
I
I I
I
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
i I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
Apnl 2013-Fma~ Report C-10 I I
I j
!]
I
: I
I
I I
-
I I
-
I I
IJ
I \
I I I
' I I
I~
~
I I
~~-
I I
I I
I
Ll
il
I I
I I
EkllUitna, inc
Hu11rnter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsuit Alaska, inc
ATIACHMENT C-1
HUNTER CREEK STREAMFLOW ANALYSIS REPORT
Apn~ 2013 -Fma! Report C-11
I
\ J
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, inc I I
I I
-
I I
I
I I
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
I
I
I I
I'
I I
I
~ I
I
I I
-I I
I
!
\ I
I
~I
I I
I
~
-
I
I I
I I -
1/
I_J
I I
I -
Apnl 2013-Fma! Report C-12
I I
I
Brailey Hydrologic
Consultants
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc .
1503 W. 33'd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Attn: Mr. Joel Groves, P.E.
3527 North Point D rive
Anchorage, AK 995 02
907-248-0058 phone
dbrailey@alaska.net
December 12,2012
Subject: Hunter Creek 2011-12 streamflow analyses
Dear Joel:
As per your request, this letter provides the results of streamflow analyses for gaging stations
on the east fork and the main stem of Hunter Creek near Knik, Alaska. The main stem
gaging station was installed October 28, 2011 , and the east fork ga g ing station was installed
on November 14, 2011. The main stem gaging station remains in operation, but the east fork
gage was struck by a landslide on May 8, 2012. The landslide crushed the datalogger and
interrupted the power supply, but the streamflow data was recovered.
Stage hydrographs for both gaging stations are shown on Figure 1. The main stem stage
hydrograph shows three large peaks during the winter months that are attributed to ice
effects. Although the east fork hydrograph displays a smooth reces sion, photographs during
3
2 .5 = ai
C)
"' fjj
2
5
4
2
Figure 1. Hunter Creek Raw Stage Hydrographs
East Fork Gage
11 /1 0/11 1/10/12 3/11 /12 5 /11 /12
Main Stem Gage
1 1/10/1 1 1/10/12 3 /11/12 5/1 1/1 2
Q Stag e-d ischarge mmts
--M easured stage
7/10/12 9 /9/12 11/9 /12
Mr. Joel Groves, P.E.
December 12, 2012
Page2
installation and subsequent rating measurements suggest that the entire winter record is
affected by ice.
A corrected winter stage hydrograph for the main stem gaging station was created by
honoring ice-free rating measurements in October and April, and periods of baseline
recession in December and February (Figure 2). The corrected winter stage record for the
east fork gaging station is more tenuous, relying on ice-free measurements in October and an
annual minimum in April (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Winter Stage Corrections, Hunter Creek Main Stem
2
1.8 \I
1.6
Qi
~
Ql-ice free C>
19 en
1.4
--raw stage data
1.2 --ice corrections
0 measured stage
b. corrected stage
10/11 /11 11 /10/11 12/11 /11 1/10 /12 2/9/12 3/11 /12 4 /1 0/12
For the main stem gaging station, the ice-free measurements define a linear relationship in
bilogarithmic space, when gage height is transformed using an offset of 0.25 feet (Figure 4).
Assuming that flow is linearly related to hydraulic head, the offset indicates a point of zero
head slightly above the streambed. The exponent of the rating equation is at the upper limit
of the acceptable range for steady, uniform flow. As a result, the rating equation is probably
not valid for extrapolation to high flow conditions.
For the east fork gage, a linear relationship is evident for the low-flow measurements, but no
single linear fit could be obtained that includes the highest measurement (Figure 5). This
may indicate a change in flow conditions at higher stages. Although the gage pool showed
only slight turbulence and aeration at 29.5 cfs (Figure 6), these effects would be more
pronounced at higher flows. This is consistent with the exponent for the upper segment of
the rating curve, which exceeds the limit for steady, uniform flow conditions.
Q)
2
ai
Ol ro
Ci5
2 .8
2.4
2
1.6
9/10/11
5.0
4 .0
(I) 3.0
Ol
Cll en
2.0
Mr. Joel Groves, P.E.
December 12, 2012
Page3
Figure 3. Winter Stage Corrections, East Fork Hunter Creek
raw stage data
ice corrections
0 measured stage
Kn ik River flow
10/11 111 11 /10111 12/11 111 1/10/12 2/9112 3/11/12 4110112
Figure 4. Preliminary Rating Curve, Main Stem Hunter Creek
0 Measurement, unadj usted
./:;:,. Measurement, ice affected
0 Measurement, adjusted
- -- Rating , extrapolated
Q = 19 .732 *(G-0.25)3 ·294
10 100
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
5/11 /12
1.0 ,_----,-----~----~----.-----.-----.-----r-----.----.-----.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Discharge, cfs
.......... ro c
0
"iii ·:;
0 .... a. -~
(.)
ai
~ ro ..c
(.)
!/)
i5 ....
Q.)
> cc
.::s:. ·c:
:::!C
a;
2
3.2
2 .8
Q) 2 .4
CJ)
co
U5
2.0
1.6
0
Mr. Joel Groves, P .E.
December 12, 2012
Page4
Figure 5. Tentative Rating Curve, East Fork Hunter Creek
0 Measurement, unadjusted
~ Measurement, ice affected
- - -Rating , tentative
10
100
Discharge , cfs
100
200
Figure 5. East Fork Gage Pool, October 12, 2011 (Q = 29.5 cfs)
300
Mr. Joel Groves, P.E.
December 12,2012
PageS
The preliminary rating curves were used to compute mean daily flows using the Aquarius
Workstation software (Tables 1 and 2). To evaluate long-term streamflow characteristics, a
synthetic streamflow record was generated by correlating mean daily flows at the main stem
gaging station against provisional online flow data for the Knik River USGS station (no.
15281000). The Knik River station has 28 years of continuous flo w data from 1959 to 1987, 2.6
years of continuous flow data from 2001 to 2003, and 7 years of open-water flow records from
2004 to 2011. Although only provisional data are available after October 1, 2011, mean daily
flows for the concurrent period of record were computed using 15-minute provisional flow
data. Minor corrections of the provisional data were needed to remove some spurious
values.
Although a reasonable correlation between flows at the main stem of Hunter Creek and the
Knik River was obtained using linear regression (r-squared = 0.86), a better correlation was
obtained using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy interference (ANFIS) m odel (r-squared = 0.89). The
ANFIS model also produced more realistic winter flow estimates.
Eliminating prior Knik River flows affected by glacial outburst flo ods, the ANFIS model was
used to generate a synthetic streamflow record from 1967 to the p resent. Results are shown
on Figure 6, indicating that measured 2012 flows are consistent w ith the long-term record
during the open-water season, but winter flows correspond to long-term daily minimums.
Considering that the concurrent record is limited to May 1 through October 20, 2012 , it is
Q) 1000 ~
(1J
..c u rn
0
.::,£
Q)
Q) ....
0 ....
Q) -c
::J 100
I
E
2
(/)
c
"(ij
::2E
10
Oct
Figure 6. Hunter Creek Main Stem Extended Re cord
~ Maximum
Correlated from ---Average
Knik River Minimum
2011 water year
---2011-12 gage data
0 Discharge mmts
Basis of correlation
(concu rr ent period of record)
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Mr. Joel Groves, P .E.
December 12, 2012
Page6
apparent that the ANFIS model overestimates winter flows, and the synthetic winter flows
are probably inaccurate.
To avoid overestimating winter flows, measured flows from October 29, 2011 through April
30, 2012 were substituted for the corresponding part of the average synthetic hydrograph.
Results were used to prepare an "average" flow duration curve (Figure 7). This curve
presumes that the measured winter flows are representative of "average" conditions, which
seems reasonable based on the 2011 and 2012 open-water record (Figure 6).
Figure 7. "Average" Flow Duration Curve, Hunter Creek Main Stem
1000 ~
' ""'\.
""' ~ 25-year extended ""-Winter 2011-12 ~
record '\ gaged flows
' r-...
'-... ........_ ......._ --
10
I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Perce nt of time flow wa s equa ll ed or ex ceeded
Similar analyses were performed for the east fork gage, except that synthetic east fork flows
were generated using synthetic main stem flows rather than the Knik River. This is because
there are only 8 days of concurrent flow data for the Knik River and the east fork gaging
station (May 1-9, 2012). Using the slightly longer ice-free concurrent flow record for the main
stem and east fork gaging stations, the ANFIS model provides a good corre lation (r-squared
= 0.94), but the model overestimates summer flows (Figure 8). Because it is based on the
main stem synthetic flow record, it also overestimates winter flows.
Mr. Joel Groves, P.E.
December 12, 2012
Page7
Figure 8. Hunter Creek East Fork Attempted Record Extension
---Main stem average Q , ANFIS model
---East fork average Q , ANFIS model
1000 Main stem gage data
-§
<1> 100
Ol .... ro
.I::
(.)
(/)
0
10
---East fork gage data
0 Main stem Q mmts
f'::l. East fork Q mmts
Bas is of east fork ANFIS model
~~ (concu rrent east fork and main
stem fl ows , not ice affected)
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Lacking a valid extended flow record for the east fork gage, an estimated annual hydrograph
could be generated by scaling the main stem hydrograph using basin areas. Studies in the
adjacent Eklutna watershed show that the proportion of glacial coverage also affects annual
flows (Figures 9 and 10; Larquier 2011). Based on 2009 and 2010 Eklutna streamflow data,
the unit discharge for glaciated areas ranged from 2.6 to 3 .1 times greater than for unglaciated
areas. However, because both forks of Hunter Creek have similar proportions of glaciated
area, the glacial component causes only a small change (<1 percent ) in estimated flows. Scale
factors for the east fork gage and the west fork intake location are provided on Table 3.
Table 3. Scale Factors and Drainage Areas
Location Drainage Area, mF Glaciated Area, mF Main Stem Scale Factor
East Fork Gage 23.6 6.3 0.53
West Fork Intake 36.2 6.4 0.32
Main Stem Gage 69.7 12.7 1.0
Using the main stem annual hydrograph and the scale factors provided on Table 1, flow-
duration curves for the east fork gage and the basin and glacier areas provided on Figure 11.
Mr. Joel Groves, P.E.
December 12, 2012
Page8
Figure 9. Eklutna East and West Fork Streamflow Data (Larquier 2011)
Melt Season Total Runoff per unit area -2,500 ...
Ql
.2! 2,000 41
! 1,500
Ql
E 1 ,000 :::1
~ ::: 500
0 c
:::1 0 a::
1961 1986 1987 1988 2009 2010
Figure 10. Eklutna and Hunter Creek Subbasins & Glaciated Areas
c=:::> GLACIATED AREAS
c::::J DRAINAGE SUBBASINS
Mr. Joel Groves, P.E.
December 12, 2012
Page9
Figure 11. "Average" Flow Duration Curves, East Fork Gaging Station
and West Fork Intake Location
1000
~
(.)
ai
~ 100 ro ..c
(.)
(/)
i5
10
0
East Fork Gage ---
----West Fork Intake -
'\. f-
' ,,
'\. " "'~ ' ' "' i' \
::\.\,..
\""" \' ' " "--"'--!-........ -r--.
........... -I I I I I
20 40 60 80 100
Percent of time flow was equalled or exceeded
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. Please call should you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
David E. Brailey
Brailey Hydrologic Consultants
Attachments: Tables 1 and 2
Reference Cited: Larquie r, A.M ., Loso, M. and Sa ss, L. 2011. Glacial lnfluences on Water Resources in
the Eklutna Basin. American Water Re source Association Annual Mee ting, Fairbanks Alaska.
Table 1 Mean Da1ly Flows (cfs}, Hunter Creek Mam Stem Gage, Page 1 of 2
Year 2011 Average 55 0 Max1mum 80 6 Mm1mum 29 2
Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 75 5 E 412 E
2 68 7 E 40 6 E
3 69 9 E 40 0 E
4 68 0 E 39 4 E
5 615 E 38 8 E
6 64 0 E 38 2 E
7 59 6 E 37 7 E
8 55 0 E 371 E
9 60 3 E 36 8 E
10 ---59 2 E 35 8 E
-11 --58 2 E 351 E -----
12 571 E 34 7 E
13 56 0 E 34 2 E
14 55 0 E 33 7 E
15 54 0 E 33 5 E
16 53 0 E 33 1 E
17 52 0 E 32 9 E
18 510 E 32 5 E
19 50 0 E 32 4 E
20 491 E 32 2 E
21 481 E 319 E
22 47 2 E 315 E
23 46 3 E 312 E
24 45 6 E 310 E
25 44 9 E 30 7 E
26 44 3 E 30 5 E
27 43 6 E 30 2 E
28 43 0 E 30 0 E
29 80 6 E 42 4 E 29 7 E
30 79 3 E 418 E 29 5 E
31 70 3 E 29 2 E
Average 76 7 541 340
Max1mum 80 6 75 5 412
M1mmum 70 3 418 29 2
E = estimated due to 1ce effects
I
Table 1 Mean Da1ly Flows (cfs) Hunter Creek Mam Stem Gage, Page 2 of 2
Year 2012 Average 343 8 Max1mum 3300 5 Mm1mum 17 5
Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 29 0 E 23 8 E 20 4 E 18 0 E 118 8 206 6 738 6 813 8 T 468 4 172 3
2 28 7 E 23 7 E 20 3 E 17 7 E 104 3 2110 714 0 1066 3 T 287 0 159 7
3 28 5 E 23 6 E 20 0 E 17 6 941 223 7 712 8 7971 387 9 153 8
4 28 3 E 23 4 E 19 8 E 17 5 84 7 222 5 683 4 5991 318 0 206 2
5 28 0 E 23 3 E 19 7 E 17 6 813 247 9 626 4 489 5 322 8 272 0
6 27 8 E 23 1 E 19 6 E 17 9 84 4 2731 5981 428 7 216 6 945 9 T
7 27 6 E 23 0 E 19 5 E 18 2 95 7 280 9 5619 459 8 154 7 777 3
8 27 5 E 22 9 E 19 4 E 18 1 1117 295 6 534 4 4491 120 9 688 4
9 27 3 E 22 7 E 19 3 E 18 1 129 4 314 0 487 4 506 7 103 9 585 4
10 27 2 E 22 6 E 19 2 E 18 3 134 7 324 4 440 7 562 5 90 9 493 5
11 27 0 E 22 4 E 19 1 E 18 9 1391 312 0 424 2 645 7 82 3 428 0
12 26 8 E 22 3 E 19 0 E 201 122 2 348 3 396 9 7371 79 6 388 8
13 26 7 E 22 2 E 18 9 E 22 0 109 6 375 7 389 3 790 6 76 7 3611
14 26 5 E 22 0 E 18 8 E 24 0 103 6 362 7 4115 859 4 T 76 5 337 8
15 26 4 E 22 2 E 18 7 E 26 4 105 7 346 9 457 7 928 4 T 143 2 318 4
16 26 2 E 22 0 E 18 7 E 32 0 1141 340 8 4471 852 8 T 1165 0 T 3014
17 261 E 218 E 18 6 E 37 2 130 6 362 3 449 9 647 3 615 4 286 4
18 25 9 E 216 E 18 5 E 401 153 3 437 7 506 9 530 6 267 9 276 7
19 25 8 E 22 5 E 18 4 E 47 0 165 9 708 8 5513 6261 557 2
20 25 6 E 215 E 18 3 E 53 5 159 4 1066 0 T 7101 679 5 22714 T
21 25 5 E 214 E 18 2 E 621 168 5 1286 6 T 1380 3 T 508 8 2193 4 T
22 25 3 E 211 E 181 E 67 9 202 2 1748 9 T 2120 8 T 445 9 3300 5 T
23 25 2 E 210 E 18 0 E 74 2 237 8 2036 5 T 2082 0 T 489 0
24 25 0 E 20 8 E 17 9 E 77 9 2714 2126 2 T 1468 5 T 383 3 1430 9 T
25 24 9 E 20 8 E 17 8 E 82 5 286 4 1766 5 T 1130 5 T 393 9 1654 2 T
26 24 7 E 20 7 E 17 7 E 94 8 268 7 1268 0 T 11312 T 386 8 6613
27 24 6 E 20 6 E 17 6 E 107 5 2531 927 6 T 1197 9 T 964 6 T 268 4
28 24 4 E 20 5 E 17 5 E 110 8 237 4 7721 1326 9 T 6961 2481
29 24 3 E 20 3 E 17 8 E 107 2 2319 7412 1395 9 T 460 7 227 2
30 241 E 17 8 E 1141 2151 758 2 1165 1 T 492 6 193 2
31 24 0 E 17 9 E 208 8 834 9 T 440 6
Average 26 3 221 18 7 46 6 158 8 689 7 8412 617 2 6201 397 4
Max1mum 29 0 23 8 20 4 1141 286 4 2126 2 2120 8 1066 3 3300 5 945 9
Mm1mum 24 0 20 3 17 5 17 5 813 206 6 389 3 383 3 76 5 153 8
E = estimated due to 1ce effects
T = ratmg tentative above 800 cfs
Table 2 Mean Da1ly Flows (cfs), Hunter Creek East Fork Gage, Page 1 of 2
Year 2011 Average 19 3
Day Jan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average
Max1mum
Mm1mum
E = est1mated due to 1ce effects
T = ratmg tentative above 30 cfs
Feb
Max1mum 102 8
Mar Apr May
Mm1mum 8 9
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
17 7 E 112 E
17 4 E 111 E
171 E 110 E
16 8 E 116 E
102 8 T 16 6 E 110 E
87 6 T 16 3 E 10 4 E
741 T 161 E 10 7 E
62 2 T 15 8 E 10 6 E
519 T 15 6 E 10 4 E
440 T 15 3 E 10 4 E
36 4 T 151 E 10 5 E
30 2 T 14 8 E 10 8 E
281 E 14 6 E 10 5 E
271 E 14 4 E 10 2 E
261 E 14 2 E 10 1 E
251 E 14 0 E 99E
24 2 E 13 8 E 98E
23 5 E 13 6 E 9 8 E
22 9 E 13 4 E 9 7 E
22 3 E 13 2 E 9 7 E
218 E 13 0 E 9 7 E
213 E 12 8 E 9 6 E
20 9 E 12 7 E 9 5 E
20 5 E 12 3 E 9 4 E
201 E 121 E 94E
19 7 E 118 E 9 3 E
19 3 E 117 E 9 2 E
19 0 E 115 E 9 1 E
18 7 E 112 E 91 E
18 4 E 114 E 9 0 E
18 0 E 8 9 E
33 6 14 2 10 0
102 8 17 7 116
18 0 112 89
Table 2 Mean Da1ly Flows (cfs), Hunter Creek East Fork Gage, Page 2 of 2
Year 2012 Average 10 9
Day Jan
1 8 7 E
2 8 6 E
3 8 5 E
4 86E
5 87E
6 SSE
7 8 5 E
8 8 5 E
9 84 E
10 8 2 E
11 8 2 E
12 8 4 E
13 8 2 E
14 81 E
15 8 2 E
16 8 0 E
17 7 8 E
18 7 8 E
19 7 8 E
20 7 9 E
21 7 9 E
22 7 8 E
23 7 7 E
24 7 7 E
25 7 7 E
26 7 6 E
27 7 5 E
28 7 4 E
29 7 3 E
30 7 3 E
31 7 3 E
Average 80
Max1mum 87
Mm1mum 73
E = est1mated due to 1ce effects
T = ratmg tentative above 30 cfs
Feb
73E
74E
73E
74E
73E
71E
71E
70E
69E
70E
6 9 E
6 9 E
6 9 E
6 9 E
68E
68E
6 8 E
6 8 E
6 8 E
6 8 E
6 7 E
6 7 E
6 6 E
66E
6 5 E
66E
66E
65E
6 4 E
69
74
64
Max1mum 741
Mar Apr
6 4 E 57 E
6 4 E 56 E
6 4 E 56
6 3 E 56
6 3 E 56
6 3 E 55
62E 55
61E 55
6 3 E 56
62E 57
61E 61
61E 68
61E 75
61E 84
60E 91
59 E 10 7
59 E 12 7
59 E 14 9
59 E 17 8
58 E 213
58 E 25 0
57 E 28 6
58 E 36 7 T
57 E 42 5 T
57 E 46 7 T
57 E 60 2 T
56 E 741 T
56E 72 6 T
56E 621 T
57 E 65 9 T
57 E
60 22 8
64 741
56 55
Mm1mum 55
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
69 3 T
52 7 T
42 2 T
30 4 T
28 5
29 0
371 T
I I
I_ I
I i
I I
IJ
I I
I_)
: __ j
I I I
I I
I I
I )
L _I
I
:_I
I I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I_!
Ekh.11tna, ~nc
Hunter Creek Hydroeiectroc Recorma1ssance Study Poiarconsult Alaska, Inc
ATTACHMENT C-2
ADDITIONAL GAUGING STATION DATA, EAST FORK HUNTER CREEK STATION #2
April 2013-IFmai Report C-13
-
1 I
6 _I
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
-
I I I
I ~I
I
I I
I I '~-
I
I
I -
,~I
Th1s page mtent1onally blank I I
I
-
I I
I I -
I
I
I
~
I I
I
l I
I
,J
I I
I I -
-I I I
I
I I I )
I I I
___)
I I
I I
~ I
I I
I
_j
I I I I
I J
I I
! I
I
C-14 I I I
Apn! 2013-Fmal Report
I
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
Eklutna Inc
EAST FORK HUNTER CREEK GAUGING STATION #2 STATION DATA
Record Water Stage (S1te Datum feet) Water Temperature (F)
Date Count M1mmum Average MaXImum M1mmum Average MaXImum
11/16/2012 97 0 03 101 127 13 57 2913 3183
11/17/2012 36 120 121 124 3170 3173 3179
11/18/201 22 117 120 124 3166 3173 3178
11/19/201 12 117 117 117 3168 3173 3180
11/20/201 12 114 118 120 3170 3173 3176
11/21/201 12 117 119 120 3168 3171 3176
11/22/201 12 120 122 124 3168 3173 3179
11/23/201 12 120 124 124 3166 3173 3179
11/24/201 12 124 124 127 3168 3174 3179
11/25/201 12 124 127 130 3173 3175 3177
11/26/201 12 130 139 147 3167 3171 3173
11/27/201 12 147 160 167 3165 3172 3177
11/28/201 12 167 171 177 3167 3171 3174
11/29/201 12 177 187 194 3167 3171 3176
11/30/201 12 194 2 04 211 3166 3170 3175
12/1/201:. 12 151 213 2 24 217 24 49 3167
12/2/201 12 014 0 68 175
12/3/201:. 12 2 08 2 98 3 so
12/4/201 12 3 59 3 91 415
12/5/201 12 158 2 79 3 94
12/6/201 12 0 62 0 99 141
12/7/201 12 0 07 0 32 0 64
12/8/201 12 140 0 46 0 03
12/9/201 12 159 117 0 60
12/10/201 12 0 48 0 01 0 43
12/11/201 12 0 53 0 83 114
12/12/201 12 123 140 164
12/13/201 12 169 192 213
12/14/201 12 2 21 2 38 2 52
12/15/201 12 2 54 2 62 2 67
12/16/201 12 2 59 264 2 67
12/17/201 12 240 2 52 2 65
12/18/201 12 2 27 2 35 2 44
12/19/201 12 2 04 211 2 21
12/20/201 12 2 06 210 215
12/21/201 12 196 2 01 2 08
12/22/201 12 2 00 2 08 2 23
12/23/201 13 2 25 234 244
12/24/201 12
12/25/201 12
12/26/201 12
12/27/201 12
12/28/201 12
12/29/201 12
12/30/201 12
12/31/201 12
1/1/201 12
1/2/201 12
1/3/201 12
1/4/201:. 12
1/5/201 12
1/6/201:. 12
1/7/201:. 12
1/8/201' 12
1/9/201 12
1/10/201; 12
1/11/201; 12
1/12/ZOf. 12
1/13/201 12
1/14/201 12
1/15/201; 12
1/16/201 12
Apnl 2013 Fmal Report
Polarconsult Alaska Inc
A1r Temperature (F)
M1mmum Average MaXImum Comments
6 02 10 40 25 63
445 9 54 14 95 station mstalled approx 14 OOh
6 86 1147 16 53 sample rate reduced to every Zh
148 487 6 93
0 71 3 90 1168
0 56 196 313
2 54 549 8 03
616 10 60 17 95
5 53 7 50 918
5 88 7 07 8 24
645 7 98 10 38
5 46 715 918
313 6 70 9 58
194 640 16 35
2 84 4 74 7 35
2 01 453 6 30 Apparent freeze and failure of PT between
17 10 and 19 10h
313 0 64 110 Water temperatures after PT fa1lure are
suspect
3 63 144 8 65
1100 8 48 464
1100 7 63 3 96
2 96 0 02 2 01
166 193 5 88
517 17 41 26 22
22 64 25 93 27 54
19 47 23 60 25 42
13 02 2012 2417
24 61 2715 29 61
1778 2191 25 69
048 6 43 12 57
s 16 4 23 9 58
1178 8 60 3 96
14 62 13 20 1100
7 99 106 6 65
1100 6 52 186
7 45 2 71 0 06
4 81 2 85 166
6 38 3 23 040
5 59 0 21 4 09 PTtemperature channel turned off to
conserve battery power bandwidth
6 79 22 60 30 94
20 79 25 83 29 92
22 02 28 00 3149
25 31 29 34 32 24
22 91 27 35 37 32
30 58 33 79 35 54
3319 34 03 36 94
24 93 29 43 33 73
29 20 3177 34 03
26 59 29 60 3164
26 01 30 53 34 22
25 31 26 64 27 96
24 77 2919 32 09
26 38 30 30 32 04
17 24 20 56 28 58
13 83 22 75 27 43
5 67 1171 20 22
1103 17 56 23 46
18 48 24 25 28 01
2515 3157 3413
33 53 34 so 36 70
2848 34 56 38 65
15 so 19 70 30 99
17 95 21 OS 27 80
Appendix C Attachment C2 Page C2 1
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
Eklutna Inc
EAST FORK HUNTER CREEK GAUGING STATION #2 STATION DATA
Record Water Stage (S1te Datum feet) Water Temperature (F)
Date Count Mm1mum Average MaXImum Mm1mum Average Max1mum
1/17/201: 12
1/18/201 12
1/19/201: 12
1/20/201 12
1/21/201 12
1/22/201: 12
1/23/201 12
1/24/201 12
1/25/201: 12
1/26/201 12
1/27/201: 12
1/28/201 12
1/29/201: 12
1/30/201 12
1/31/201 12
Apnl 2013 Fmal Report
Polarconsult Alaska Inc
Air Temperature (F)
Mm1mum Average MaXImum Comments
1038 14 29 17 72
141 6 43 12 38
1161 2158 27 70
2010 27 28 32 64
18 77 23 43 30 48
25 90 29 49 32 39
20 96 27 32 3214
2186 24 25 26 59
2 69 14 68 26 91
17 21 9 78 0 40
20 66 18 80 17 21 Station entered low power mode 1110h
stopped transm1ttmg data
Appendix C Attachment C2 Page C2 2
I ~
I
I I
I I
I I
I_ I
I
I I
r -,
I
I I
I I
I I
)
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
IEkh.atna, ~nc
IH!umtell' Cll'eek IHydlll'oe~ectruc IRecoU11111Jaussance S1!1Uidly l?olarcoll'lsUJJit A~aska, ~nc
ATIACHMENT C~3
ADDiT!ONAIL GAUGING STATiON DATA, MAIN STIEM HUNTER CREEK STATION
Aprul 2013 -fmai !Report
1Ekh.11tna, ~nc
IHI11.mter Cl!'eek Hydroe~ectruc IReconnaossance Studly IPo~arconsu~t Aiaska, ~nc
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apll'll 2013 -IFmai Report C-16
I I
I
I I
I
I '
I I I
l I
I
I I
~'
' i
I
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
Eklutna Inc
MAIN STEM HUNTER CREEK GAUGING STATION STATION DATA (note 1)
Record Water Stage (S1te Datum feet) Data Lo~ er Temp (F) (note 2)
Date Count M1nrmum Average MaXImum Mrmmum Average MaXImum
10/19/2012 96 243 244 2 46 2126 2338 25 98
10/20/2012 96 2 42 2 42 2 45 19 81 2215 25 76
10/21/2012 96 2 41 2 42 243 2017 2135 23 32
10/22/2012 96 242 243 244 16 67 18 73 20 72
10/23/2012 96 244 244 2 45 1516 17 04 19 43
10/24/2012 96 245 245 246 17 12 19 02 2189
10/25/2012 96 2 45 246 248 18 26 19 64 2195
10/26/2012 96 247 254 2 67 16 55 1813 20 06
10/27/2012 96 2 67 272 2 75 15 06 17 21 20 07
10/28/2012 96 2 74 3 08 3 31 16 59 18 49 21 35
10/29/2012 96 3 27 349 3 59 18 02 20 59 24 91
10/30/2012 96 2 47 3 33 3 99 19 91 23 92 25 39
10/31/2012 96 2 42 248 2 62 15 87 17 89 20 01
11/1/2012 96 242 2 52 2 70 15 20 16 24 17 90
11/2/2012 96 240 240 2 42 16 15 20 98 27 00
11/3/2012 96 240 240 240 19 36 2155 25 39
11/4/2012 96 2 39 2 39 2 40 16 25 1818 2101
11/5/2012 96 2 39 2 39 240 16 19 17 98 19 77
11/6/2012 96 2 39 239 240 18 02 19 92 2143
11/7/2012 96 2 39 2 41 244 9 09 12 81 18 99
11/8/2012 96 244 246 2 48 872 12 61 18 10
11/9/2012 96 2 39 2 40 245 1819 25 39 2944
11/10/2012 96 2 39 2 39 2 40 25 37 26 92 28 29
11/11/2012 96 2 39 240 240 25 03 26 40 2813
11/12/2012 96 2 39 2 39 240 27 99 28 87 30 39
11/13/2012 96 2 39 2 39 240 23 30 25 92 28 86
11/14/2012 96 2 39 2 43 249 22 78 27 24 29 65
11/15/2012 96 248 2 so 2 51 19 69 2169 2441
11/16/2012 96 2 so 2 51 2 52 1410 19 31 23 36
11/17/2012 96 2 52 255 257 1311 14 74 16 76
11/18/2012 96 2 56 2 58 2 61 1174 13 69 16 02
11/19/2012 96 2 60 263 2 67 8OS 10 01 1170
11/20/2012 96 2 67 284 304 7 28 8 58 10 04
11/21/2012 96 3 04 3 48 406 5 86 652 7 23
11/22/2012 96 408 4 74 5 36 618 662 714
11/23/2012 96 5 37 5 59 572 715 11 so 14 90
11/24/2012 96 570 5 75 5 79 10 49 1222 13 69
11/25/2012 96 572 5 78 5 81 719 9 09 10 55
11/26/2012 96 5 62 5 70 5 78 6 31 7 08 8 02
11/27/2012 96 5 61 5 69 5 76 2 85 4 68 6 43
11/28/2012 96 5 62 5 75 5 81 3 80 5 28 7 50
11/29/2012 96 5 21 5 37 5 61 6 81 9 95 14 66
11/30/2012 96 495 5 03 5 21 9 24 11 OS 13 87
12/1/2012 96 4 74 4 82 4 95 8 58 1122 15 97
12/2/2012 96 454 464 4 75 7 52 884 10 04
12/3/2012 96 417 4 36 454 5 91 7 so 9 00
12/4/2012 96 406 418 4 25 2 37 140 6 97
12/5/2012 96 3 93 4 01 409 511 -4 09 2 15
12/6/2012 96 3 59 3 76 3 93 445 204 094
12/7/2012 96 3 33 345 3 59 249 153 019
12/8/2012 96 3 27 3 30 3 33 246 933 20 52
12/9/2012 96 3 23 326 3 30 17 21 18 43 20 55
12/10/2012 96 3 13 319 3 23 18 59 2120 2249
12/11/2012 96 3 07 311 314 18 71 2185 22 98
12/12/2012 96 3 06 3 08 3 09 2197 2513 26 39
12/13/2012 96 2 99 3 OS 3 07 23 41 24 35 25 03
12/14/2012 96 2 70 2 80 3 01 15 69 18 89 23 28
12/15/2012 96 2 64 2 67 2 70 1110 14 76 16 93
12/16/2012 96 2 61 2 62 2 63 437 7 82 10 98
12/17/2012 96 2 60 2 61 2 61 6 66 271 426
12/18/2012 96 2 60 2 61 2 63 6 98 394 030
12/19/2012 96 2 59 2 60 2 61 0 70 0 68 149
12/20/2012 96 2 59 2 60 2 61 197 023 215
12/21/2012 96 2 60 2 60 2 60 114 3 25 5 28
12/22/2012 96 2 60 2 60 2 61 3 so 445 495
12/23/2012 96 2 61 2 62 2 63 048 103 3 52
12/24/2012 96 2 63 2 63 264 0 26 10 91 2122
12/25/2012 96 2 62 2 63 2 63 2119 2218 23 61
12/26/2012 96 2 62 2 62 2 63 19 97 22 so 25 22
12/27/2012 96 2 59 2 61 2 62 24 99 25 61 26 09
12/28/2012 96 2 57 2 57 2 59 25 24 25 79 26 59
Apnl2013 F1nal Report
Polarconsu~ Alaska Inc
Battery Voltage
Mrmmum Average MaXlmum Comments
12 81 12 85 12 92 download by J Groves at 18 15h
12 78 12 81 12 84
12 76 12 78 12 80
12 73 12 76 12 78
12 71 12 74 12 77
12 73 12 76 12 80
12 75 12 77 12 80
12 73 12 75 12 77
12 71 12 74 12 78
12 73 12 76 12 79
12 75 12 78 12 84
12 77 12 82 12 84
12 71 12 74 12 76
12 70 12 72 12 74
12 72 12 78 12 86
12 75 12 79 12 84
12 71 12 74 12 78
12 72 12 74 12 76
12 73 12 76 12 78
12 63 12 67 12 75
12 62 12 67 12 75
12 74 12 83 12 88
12 83 12 85 12 87
12 81 12 83 12 85
12 84 12 86 12 88
12 78 12 82 12 86
12 77 12 83 12 86
12 73 12 76 12 79
12 66 12 73 12 78
12 65 12 68 12 70
12 64 12 66 12 69
12 60 12 63 12 64
12 59 12 61 12 63
12 58 12 59 12 61
12 58 12 59 12 60
12 60 12 65 12 70
12 63 12 66 12 68
12 59 12 61 12 63
12 57 12 59 12 60
12 53 12 56 12 58
12 54 12 57 12 60
12 58 12 63 12 69
12 61 12 63 12 67
12 59 12 63 12 69
12 58 12 60 12 62
12 56 12 58 12 60
1244 12 so 12 58
12 40 12 42 12 45
1241 12 45 12 47
12 38 1244 12 48
12 38 12 57 12 74
12 68 12 70 12 72
12 68 12 72 12 74
12 67 12 72 12 75
12 72 12 76 12 78
12 73 12 75 12 76
12 63 12 67 12 74
12 55 12 61 12 65
1244 12 so 12 56
12 24 12 32 1244
12 23 12 27 12 35
12 32 12 34 12 37
12 29 12 32 12 35
12 32 12 36 12 39
12 34 12 36 12 38
12 25 12 29 12 35
12 25 1244 12 62
12 62 12 63 12 66
12 60 12 64 12 67
12 66 12 68 12 69
12 66 12 67 12 69
AppendiX C Attachment C3 Page C3 1
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
Eklutna Inc
MAIN STEM HUNTER CREEK GAUGING STATION STATION DATA (note 1)
Record Water Stage (S1te Datum feet) Data Logger Temp (F) (note 2)
Date Count Mm1mum Average MaXImum Mmimum Average MaXJmum
12/29/2012 96 2 55 2 56 257 26 62 2974 30 93
12/30/2012 96 2 55 2 55 256 3017 3110 3162
12/31/2012 96 2 54 2 54 2 55 29 59 30 so 3141
1/1/2013 96 254 2 54 255 3104 3116 3144
1/2/2013 96 2 53 254 254 30 85 3102 3117
1/3/2013 96 254 254 254 29 99 30 69 3112
1/4/2013 96 254 2 54 254 29 58 29 85 30 01
1/5/2013 96 2 53 2 54 2 57 29 25 30 02 30 60
1/6/2013 96 2 54 2 54 2 54 2949 30 31 30 69
1/7/2013 96 2 54 2 54 254 26 06 27 68 30 58
1/8/2013 96 2 54 2 55 2 55 22 98 25 91 26 87
1/9/2013 96 2 55 2 55 2 55 19 32 2084 22 91
1/10/2013 96 2 55 2 55 2 55 18 48 20 65 23 28
1/11/2013 96 2 55 2 55 2 55 18 90 2230 2440
1/12/2013 96 2 54 2 55 2 55 23 37 27 23 3182
1/13/2013 96 2 54 2 55 2 56 31 65 32 79 34 78
1/14/2013 96 2 54 2 55 2 55 31 OS 3310 34 81
1/15/2013 96 254 2 54 2 55 26 69 28 24 31 OS
1/16/2013 96 2 53 2 54 2 54 23 32 25 51 2745
1/17/2013 96 253 2 53 2 54 20 52 22 06 23 36
1/18/2013 96 2 54 2 56 2 58 12 25 1627 20 63
1/19/2013 96 2 58 2 59 2 61 12 45 1619 20 66
1/20/2013 96 2 54 2 58 2 61 20 67 23 27 2610
1/21/2013 96 254 2 55 2 55 19 67 20 94 23 54
1/22/2013 96 2 53 2 54 2 54 2315 24 08 2514
1/23/2013 96 252 2 53 2 53 24 89 2612 27 97
1/24/2013 96 252 2 52 2 52 2410 26 46 27 67
1/25/2013 96 244 2 93 643 16 95 23 69 27 69
1/26/2013 58 2 55 5 78 6 78 6 29 1114 16 71
1/27/2013 0
1/28/2013 0
1/29/2013 0
1/30/2013 0
1/31/2013 0
2/1/2013 0
2/2/2013 0
2/3/2013 0
2/4/2013 0
2/5/2013 0
2/6/2013 0
2/7/2013 0
2/8/2013 0
2/9/2013 0
2/10/2013 0
2/11/2013 0
2/12/2013 0
2/13/2013 0
2/14/2013 0 ~
2/15/2013 0
2/16/2013 0
2/17/2013 0
2/18/2013 0
2/19/2013 0
2/20/2013 0
2/21/2013 0
2/22/2013 0
2/23/2013 0
2/24/2013 0
2/25/2013 0
2/26/2013 0
2/27/2013 0
2/28/2013 0
3/1/2013 0
3/2/2013 0
3/3/2013 0
3/4/2013 0
3/5/2013 21 24 66 26 38 29 94
3/6/2013 96 23 68 2542 28 52
3/7/2013 96 25 56 28 54 3139
3/8/2013 96 3104 3150 32 34
Apnl 2013 Fmal Report
Polarconsu~ Alaska Inc
Battery Voltage
Mm1mum Average Maxtmum Comments
12 67 1272 12 73
12 71 12 72 12 73
12 68 12 70 12 72
1266 12 68 12 70
12 63 12 65 12 67
12 60 12 63 12 65
12 53 12 58 12 62
1248 12 51 12 57
12 45 12 48 12 55
12 37 12 42 12 so
12 29 12 36 1244
1217 12 22 12 29
12 12 12 18 12 23
12 12 12 17 12 21
1217 12 23 12 29
12 27 12 29 12 33
12 23 12 28 12 31
1212 1216 12 23
12 04 12 09 1213
1196 12 01 12 OS
1175 1186 1197
1174 1179 1186
1182 1188 1194
1173 1177 1182
1176 1178 1180
1170 1177 1179
1157 1161 1173
1131 1148 1158
10 98 1114 1131 battenes depleted power fa1lure at 14 OOh
12 37 13 04 13 24 Battenes replaced at 18 30h PT not functional
12 97 12 98 13 01
12 96 12 97 12 99
12 95 12 96 12 99
AppendiX C Attachment C3 Page C3 2
I~
I '--
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
Eklutna Inc
MAIN STEM HUNTER CREEK GAUGING STATION STATION DATA (note 1)
Record Water Stage (Sote Datum feet) Data logger Temp (F) (note 2)
Date Count Mlnomum Average Ma)Qmum Mmamum Average Maxamum
3/9/2013 96 30 63 3142 3318
3/10/2013 96 28 59 30 24 3185
3/11/2013 96 2447 2840 29 94
3/12/2013 96 19 99 22 56 25 45
3/13/2013 96 15 96 18 72 22 92
3/14/2013 96 1740 2144 28 04
3/15/2013 96 16 00 18 64 22 04
3/16/2013 96 1419 18 25 22 77
3/17/2013 96 14 27 17 00 2102
3/18/2013 96 12 81 16 00 2102
3/19/2013 96 12 79 1548 19 93
3/20/2013 96 9 31 13 00 18 84
3/21/2013 80 872
GENERAL NOTES
Polarconsu~ Alaska Inc
Battery Volta e
Mammum Average MaXImum Comments
12 92 12 94 12 95
12 90 12 91 12 93
12 85 12 88 12 91
12 81 12 84 1286
12 79 12 81 12 85
12 80 12 84 12 89
12 78 12 81 12 83
12 77 12 81 12 85
12 77 1280 12 83
12 76 12 79 12 83
12 76 12 79 12 82
12 73 12 77 12 81
12 72 Statoon hardware removed at 13 DOh
1 NO STAGE DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED FOR THE PERIOD OF RECORD SHOWN PRIOR STAGE DISCHARGE CURVE DEVELOPED FOR 2011 12 SEASON
WAS INVALIDATED BY FLOOD EVENT OF SEPTEMBER 21 TO 25 2012
2 DATA LOGGER TEMPERATURE SENSOR IS MOUNTED ON THE LOGGER PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD AND IS SUBJECTTOTHERMALANOMALIES FROM LOGGER POWER DISSIPATION
THE LOGGER HOUSING IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THERMAL ANOMALIES FROM EXPOSURE TO DIRECT SUNLIGHT OR BURIAL IN SNOWPACK ACCORDINGLY THIS DATA IS INDICATIVE
OF AMBIENT TEMPERATURES AT THE GAUGING STATION BUT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ACCURATE AIR TEMPERATURE RECORD
Apnl2013 F1nal Report AppendiX C Attachment C3 Page C3 3
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ®
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report
Eklutna, Inc. -
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. ....
----------~--------------------~------------------------------------
APPENDIX D-RESOURCE DATA AND ANAl VSIS
April 2013-Final Report D-1
( -I I
I
I I I I
J I
I -,
I I
I
' )
I I
r
l~
Eklutna, ~nc
Hunter C1reek Hydroeiectnc Reconnaissance Study
~~-
Polarconsuit Alaska, Inc ~
Sect1on T1tle Page Nos
01 Land Status 0-3
02 Hydrological Cons1derat1ons 0-5
03 Geotechmcal Cons1derat1ons 0-8
Tables
Table 0-1 Max1mum Probable Flood Flows at Hunter Creek and Tnbutanes 0-5
Table 0-2 Estimated Sed1ment Loads m East Fork Hunter Creek 0-7
Apn! 2013-Fnna! Report D-2
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report
I I
l
I
I \
I I
l
J
u
I I
I
I
~~
I l I I
I
-'
I I
I
I I
\~I
I I
I
(~
I I
1 I
_j
lr
I I ~
IEkhJtD'11a, inc I
IHI11.11n1:er Creek Hlydroeiectl!"lc IReconnaossance Studly l?olarconsult Alaska, ~D'11C
D 1 LAND STATUS
Land status m the project area 1s shown on F1gure A-3 Most of the la'nd m the project area has
been selected by Eklutna, Inc (Eklutna) as part of 1ts land entitlement from the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) under the Alaska Nat1ve Cla1ms Settlement Act (ANCSA) Eklutna-selected
land m the project area does not have any competmg land selections, so these lands should be
conveyed to Eklutna over the next several years The ent1re footprint of the recommended
project conf1gurat1on 1s located on lands that have been selected by Eklutna No development
restr1ct1ons were 1dent1f1ed on land needed for any of the east fork' project conf1gurat1ons or
west fork conf1gurat1on W3 1
Conveyance of lands needed for the recommended project IS currently wa1tmg for the State of
Alaska to make 1ts requests for ANCSA 17(b) easements so the BLM can contmue processmg the
lands There IS not a defm1te schedule for when the State will make 1ts formal 17(b) easement
requests, or when the conveyance process for these lands will be completed, but conveyance IS
expected w1thm the next f1ve years
Eklutna owns land along west fork Hunter Creek needed for project conf1gurat1ons W1 and W2
(sections 13 and 24 of Township 15 North, Range 3 East, Seward mer1d1an) Th1s land 1s subject
I to the 1982 North Anchorage Land Agreement (NALA) between Eklutna, the Mumc1pallty of
Anchorage (MOA), and State of Alaska (SOA), and 1s managed by the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources (ADNR) D1v1s1on of Parks and Recreation (DOPR) as part of Chugach State
I
Park Th1s land IS designated as /{Wilderness zone" m the 2011 public rev1ew draft of the
Chugach State Park Management Plan The management plan states that hydroelectric
development IS not compatible w1th th1s management des1gnat1on 20
II For west fork project conf1gurat1ons occupymg lands w1thm Chugach State Park to be
authonzed, 1t appears that the NALA would have to be mod1f1ed, 10r DOPR's management
objeCtives for the project footprint would need to be changed Hydroelectric developments are
allowed m both other park land management des1gnat1ons urecreat1on development zone" and
/{natural environment zone " I
If Eklutna chooses to pursue hydroelectric development of west fork Hunter Creek w1thm
Chugach State Park, more deta1led rev1ew of the NALA and DOPR management objectives will
be necessary to determme development constramts and a strategy for developmg an
acceptable hydroelectric project conf1gurat1on that 1s compatible With the var1ous management
objectives for the project area I
20 Table 54 (Fac1ht1es Alternative Power Development, page 56) and Table 5 5 (Commercial Uses Commercial Power
Development, page 58) (ADNR, 2011)
Aproi 210:11.3-IFmaiiReport ID-3
Ek!utna, ~nc
Hlmter Creek IHydlroe~ectrrc Reconnaissance StiUldy IPolarconsult Alaska, ~nc
D 11 Ownershnp 21
The proposed project rs located wrthm the sectrons listed below, all wrthm the Seward
Mendran Land ownershrp rs shown on Frgure A-3
Township 16 North, Range 4 East, Section 31 (powerhouse, lower penstock, and access}
5 Current land ownership of thrs sectron rs a patchwork of natrve-selected federal land and
pnvate land Both Cook Inlet Regron, Inc (CIRI) and Eklutna have selected federal lands
wrthm thrs sectron These selectrons do not have any competing selectrons from the SOA or
other entrtres Eklutna ANCSA selectrons wrthm thrs sectron are ranked 4th for conveyance
pnonty 22 No rmpedrments to the eventual conveyance of these lands to Eklutna were
rdentrfred Powerhouse srte #3 at RM 1 02 of Hunter Creek rs located on CIRI-selected land,
and would be accessed by crossmg CIRI-selected land north of Knrk Rrver Road
Township 15 North, Range 4 East, SectiOns 6, 7, and 8 (east fork penstock, diVersion}
Q These three sectrons are part of Eklutna's ANCSA selectrons Nerther the SOA or CIRI have
fried competrng selections for these sectrons Eklutna has ranked these selectrons gth, 3ih,
415t, and 48th, for sectron 6, sectron 7, sectron 8 W%., and sectron 8 E%., respectrvely, for
conveyance pnonty 23 No rmpedrments to the eventual conveyance of these lands to
Eklutna were rdentrfred
Township 15 North, Range 3 East, Secttons 12, 13, and 24 (west fork penstock, diVersion}
6 These three sectrons are owned by Eklutna, and are located wrthm the boundary of Chugach
State Park's Eklutna -Peters Creek Plannrng Unrt 24 25 All three sectrons are subject to the
NALA, a 1982 agreement between Eklutna, the MOA, and the SOA The NALA settled
htrgatron relatmg to a number of land rssues 1n north Anchorage It provrdes for transfer of
future excess mrlrtary land assocrated wrth Jornt Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) to the
MOA and Eklutna, rn exchange for concurrent transfer of certam Eklutna lands to the SOA
Under the NALA, most Eklutna lands wrthrn Chugach State Park are managed by DOPR as
part of the park Thrs mcludes sectrons 12, 13 and 24 All Eklutna lands subject to the NALA
have been ranked 1n the order that they wrll be transferred to the SOA These sectrons are
near the bottom of the transfer pnonty hst (sectrons 12, 13, and 24 are 54th, 53rd, and 52nd
pnonty, respectrvely, out of 57 total tracts subject to the NALA) 26
21 Land ownership and status 1n the project area rs based on revrew of land records on federal Master Trtle Plats, State
of Alaska Status Plat Maps, State Recorder's Offrce records, the BLM's Spatral Data Management System, and
summary rnformatron regardrng the NALA
22 ANSCA conveyance rankrng sets the order 1n whrch the BLM processes ANSCA conveyances Also, m the event an
ANSCA natrve corporatron selects lands m excess of rts ANCSA entitlement, the overage wrll be wrthheld from the
lowest-prrorrty land selectron(s),
23 E marl from Chrrsty Favorrte, BLM ANCSA Coordmator December 7, 2012
24 Thrs land was conveyed from BLM to Eklutna by Patent 50 93 0565
25 The boundary of Chugach State Park rs established by AS 41 21120
26 North Anchorage Land Agreement, Informational Pamphlet MOA, 1982
Apni 20:1l.3-Fma~ Report ID-4
_,
I I
I
I I
( I
I
I
I
I I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarco n sult Alaska, Inc. G
D.2 HYDROLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
0.2.1 Maximum Probable Flood
Determining the maximum probable flood for Hunter Creek is important for (1) designing the
in -s tream diversion structure(s) at Hunter Creek to withstand flood flows, and (2) designing the
creek crossing(s), powerhouse, and other project features so they are not damaged by flood
events . Existing data from the gauging station are compared with sta t istical models for
southcentral Alaska streams to develop initial estimates of the 100-year and 500-year flood
flows for Hunter Creek and its tributaries.
The USGS has developed statistical models to estimate the maximum probable floods for
streams in southcentral Alaska. These models are developed based on stre am gauging data
throughout the region and specific parameters for the drainage basin o f the stream of
interest.27 The USGS model input parameters and estimated flood flows ar e summarized in
Table D-1. The highest calculated flow estimate in the extended record (4,170 cfs on August 16,
1979) is approximately 75% of the estimated 30-year flood flow based on the US GS model. This
is reasonable agreement, given the accuracy of the USGS estimation method, the accuracy of
the extended record at higher flows, and the length of record at these gauging stations.
Table 0-1 Maximum Probable Flood Flows at Hunter Creek and Tr i butaries
Main Stem Gauging East Fork Gauging West Fork Dam
Parameter Station Station #1 Site
(RM 1.59) 1 (RM 4 .34) 2 (RM 4.20) 3
Basin Area (square miles) 69 .7 23.6 38 .2
Mean Annual Precipitation (inches) 4 70 80 80
Percentage of Basin as Storage (lakes , ponds) 0 % 0 % 0 %
Estimated 500-year flood 9 ,100 cfs 4,300 cfs 6,400 cfs
Estimated 100-year flood 7 ,000 cfs 3,300 cfs 4,900 cfs
Estimated 30-year flood 5,500 cfs 2,500 cfs 3,900 cfs
Estimated 10-year flood 4,200 cfs 1,900 cfs 2,900 cfs
Maximum Flow in Extended Record 4,170 cfs NA NA
(approximately 30 years) (8/16/1979)
NOTES:
1. At this level of study, these estimated flood flows are suita ble for all main stem structu res.
2. At this level of study, these estimated flood flows are suitable for all east fork structures .
3. At this level of study, these estimated flood flows are suitable for all west fork structu res.
4. Data are from source maps specified in the USGS Water Re sources Invest igation Report 2003 -4188 (U SGS, 2003).
27 See USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 2003 -4188 (USGS, 2003).
April 2013 -Final Report D-5
Ek~IUitnajl ~nc
1H1u111ter Creek IHiydlroe~ectric IRec~mnaussance Studly PolarconsiUI!t A~aska, !me
I
022 Flood Hazards;
Flood hazards at Hunter Creek are llm1ted to well-defmed floodplams m the creek canyons and
I
valleys
I
On the east fork of Hunter Creek, the d1vers1on structure, upper approximately 2,000 feet of
penstock/access road, and (for west fork project conf1gurat1on W2) penstock/access road creek
crossmg would all be des1gned to surv1ve flood hazards along east fork Hunter Creek These
I flood hazards, such as mundat1on, scour, and channel sh1ftmg, occur w1thm a flood-hazard area
I
that IS well-defmed by toplography and IS generally llm1ted to a corndor along the creek
approximately 100 to 300 feet w1de
The d1vers1on structure would span the act1ve meander area of the creek and would confme
flow to engmeered channels to prov1de contmuous flow to the project The d1vers1on would be
engmeered to prevent scour or undercuttmg from flood flows The access road and penstock
alignment would be armored by np rap or sheetplle where exposed to scour from creek
meandenng
On the west fork of Hunt1er Creek, for project conf1gurat1ons W1 and W2, the d1vers1on
structure and upper approximately 1,000 feet of penstock/access road would all be des1gned to
surv1ve flood hazards along 1west fork Hunter Creek These flood hazards occur w1thm a flood-
hazard area that rs well-defmed by topography and IS generally l1m1ted to a corndor along the
creek approximately 300 feet w1de
On the mam stem of Hunter Creek, the powerhouse s1te would be des1gned to surv1ve flood
hazards along Hunter Creek such as mundat1on, channel sh1ftmg, debns, or sed1mentat1on
I
These flood hazards would be confmed to the canyon floor, w1th the max1mum flood stage
dependent on location w1thm the canyon and the powerhouse conf1gurat1on Any m-canyon
access routes would likely be left unrmproved and would be reestablished after flood events
023 Sed1ment Management
The sed1ment load m Hunter Creek has not been measured, but 1t IS apparent from f1eld
observations and the geolog1c settmg that Hunter Creek carnes a s1gnrf1cant sed1ment load
Both forks of Hunter Creek dram basms that are s1gnrf1cantly glac1ated Add1t1onally, the east
fork 1s act1vely degradmg ttl rough glac1al t1ll, mcreasmg the sed1ment load Dunng the summer
months, the east fork IS turbid, With VISibility under one mch Mam stem turb1d1ty m the wmter
months IS vanable, w1th VIS11bll1ty varymg from SIX mches to clear Wmter-t1me turb1d1ty may be
mfluenced by the cond1t1on of md1v1dual sl1de areas and eros1on zones
I
Sediment transport m east fork Hunter Creek 1s estimated to be between 6,900 and 37,000 tons
per year, based on measufements on the east and west forks of Eklutna R1ver from the 1980s
I
Aprui 20113-IFmaiiReport ID-6
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I I u
I I
I
-
I
I I
I
I I
~-!
I I
I
I
I I
I j
I I
I
I
-J
I \
I I
I I
1 I I
)
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. G
(see Table D-2).28 The Eklutna River basin is immediately southwest of the Hunter Creek basin,
and is similar in aspect, area, topography, geology, climate, and glaciation (See Figure 10 in
Attachment C-1 for relative locations of project basins to Eklutn a basins).
Table D-2 Estimated Sediment Load in East Fork Hunter Creek
Estimate Based on Estimate Based Estimate Adjusted
Parameter East Fork Eklutna o n West Fork for Percentage of
Creek Eklutna Creek Glaciated Basin Area
Suspended Sed i m ent Transport (tons per year) 8,100 38,200 17,200
Bedload Transpo rt (tons pe r yea r ) 3,300 3,000 3,200
Total Sediment Transport (tons per year) 11,400 41,200 18,400
Average Daily Total Sediment Transport
(tons per day)
180 600 310
NO TES : Est i mates are based o n data an d relat ion shi ps re po rte d i n WR IR 92-4132 adj uste d by basin area and percentage of
glaciate d basin area t o t he subject si te .
Sediment is a key issue in project design and operations. Im p roper design of the diversion and
intake works can lead to rapid sedimentation and blockag e of these structures, resulting in
excessive downtime and operations and maintenance costs to clear the sediment. Excessive
sediment entering the project can cause a variety of operational problems, such as scour and
damage to the penstock (accelerated erosion of plastic pipe walls and steel pipe coatings, etc.)
and accelerated wear of the turbine .
To minimize accelerated wear of project infrastructure, th e intake structure will need to be
designed to remove most of the sediment from the water before admitting it to the penstock.
The conceptual intake design described in Section 3.5 .5 of the main narrative is one of many
ways that sediment can be removed from the water and r eturned to Hunter Creek . Sediment
loads need to be quantified before development of a m ore detailed conceptual design is
warranted . Future studies at Hunter Creek should include sediment measurements to quantify
the sediment transport and guide intake structure design .
28 USGS , 1992. Gla cier Runoff and Sediment Tran s port and De po sit ion Eklu tn o La k e Ba sin, Alaska. WRIR 92 -4132 .
Apri l 2013 -Final Report 0-7
Ekh.11tna, ~nc
IHIILII11111:err Creek Hlydlrroe~ectr!c 1Reconrna!ssa1111ce Stll.lldly Polarconslll!t Alaska, ll111111:
D 3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
D 3 1 Bedrock Geology
The Hunter Creek basm 1s largely located w1thm the Valdez Group, w1th the southwestern
portion of the basm (upper west fork subbasm) located m the McHugh Complex 29 Rock m the
project area IS generally a heav1ly folded complex of shales, arg1ll1tes, slates, greywackes, and
conglomerates Bedrock IS present throughout the Hunter Creek canyon, predommantly as
outcrops along the walls of the canyon and the floor at the head of the east fork canyon
D 3 2 Surf1c1al Geology
Surf1c1al geology of the project area IS charactenzed by past glac1at1on events Exposed bedrock
generally occurs w1thm Hunter Creek canyon and m alpme areas above the project A few areas
of exposed rock occur on the crests of the rollmg topography east of the mam stem of Hunter
Creek between 300-and 800-foot elevation Most other areas are covered by a mantle of
glac1al till, w1th some talus and rubble cone depos1ts at the base of mountam slopes, more
commonly along the west fork The so1ls are generally poorly dramed, w1th wetlands typically
present m areas w1th slopes of 10% or less 1f they have s1gn1f1cant upstream catchment areas
Upland vegetation IS typically present m areas w1th slopes over 10% or along hilltops and
ndgelmes
Hunter Creek canyon 1s formed where Hunter Creek has cut through a layer of glac1al t1ll and
then further cut 100 to 200 feet down mto bedrock dependmg on location Generally, the t1ll
layer IS deepest m the east fork canyon (100 to 200+ feet th1ck), above the confluence of the
east and west forks, progressively thmmng to less than 100 feet where the canyon ends
1mmed1ately upstream of Kmk R1ver Road Where exposed, the glac1al till mamtams near-
vertical faces from approximately 10 to 50+ feet tall where protected from surface runoff
Where more exposed to eros1on, the t1ll generally mamtams slopes of 11 Approximately half
of the erodmg till embankments along the canyon 1s covered by mature vegetation, generally
cons1stmg of cottonwood, b1rch, alder, and Willow The balance IS exposed t1ll w1th llm1ted
woody vegetation It appears that vegetation 1s able to establish Itself on these slopes over the
course of decades, but mass1ve fa1lures of the resultmg vegetative mat commonly occur on
these faces, perhaps due to low frequency events such as extremely heavy rams or large
earthquakes
D 3 3 Se1sm1c Cons1derat1ons
Several known faults are located w1thm the project VICinity, and other unknown faults are likely
present as well Major fault systems m the v1cm1ty of the project mclude
29 The McHugh Complex of South central Alaska Contnbut1ons to Stratigraphy USGS Bulletm 1372-D (USGS, 1973)
Aprr1l 20113-fma~ !Report ID-8
I I
I I
I
I I
I ~~
-
I I
I
I )
I I
' I
I I
I
'-~
I I
I I
~~
I I
I
I
_!
I I
I I I
I I
L
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I I
l_ J
I
I I
~l
I I
LJ
Ek~utna, ~nc
IHluntell" Creek Hydroe~ectruc !Reconnaissance Study Polarconsu!t A~aska, ~nc
0 The Castle Mountam fault system, trendmg southwest-northeast approximately 25 m1les
to the northwest of the project area north of Palmer,
o The Border Ranges fault system, also trendmg southwest-northeast approximately 10
m1les north-northwest of the project area near the Kmk R1ver bndge on the Old Glenn
Highway,
® The Contact fault system, trendmg southwest-northeast approximately 50 m1les to the
southeast of the project area m Pnnce William Sound, and
~ The Eagle R1ver thrust fault, located approximately 5 m1les southwest of the project
area 30
The reg1on IS se1sm1cally act1ve, and the above-listed or other unknown faults m the project
VICinity can be expected to produce major earthquakes that w1ll affect the project Des1gn of
project features m accordance With buildmg codes and accepted engmeenng pract1ce IS
adequate to address general se1sm1c hazards of the reg1on More detailed analys1s of the s1te
geology 1s warranted to charactenze se1sm1c hazards and appropnate des1gn cntena for spec1f1c
development concepts In particular, developments on or near the oversteepened slopes of
rock and glac1al till m the VICinity of the Hunter Creek canyon warrant analys1s to evaluate the
nsk of se1sm1cally-mduced slope failures and appropnate des1gn practices to m1t1gate these
nsks
D 3 4 Mass Wastmg Events
Mass wastmg events are ev1dent m the general VICinity of the project Two forms of mass
wastmg are md1cated m the project area
1 Fa1lure of vegetated layer along the till bluffs overlookmg east fork Hunter Creek The
apparent fa1lure sequence IS the progressive growth of vegetation and quas1-stabi11zat1on of
a margmal sl1de face, followed by eventual fa1lure of the vegetation layer due to some
discrete event such as h1gh ramfall or earthquake Evidence of such events 1s apparent
along the t1ll slopes of the east fork canyon The penstock route (m particular from
approximately stat1on 24+00 to 36+00) may traverse slopes susceptible to th1s type of mass
wastmg In such areas, the penstock should be buned m mtact t1ll along the ms1de cut of
the bench to reduce the likelihood of damage m the event of a mass wastmg failure
2 The act1vely erodmg banks of glac1al till strata generate mass wastmg events as the banks
are directly undercut by Hunter Creek or undergo uneven eros1on There are several
oversteepened faces of glac1al till strata ev1dent along Hunter Creek that may produce
future mass wastmg events (see Photographs B-10, B-13, B-16, B-17, B-18, B-19) These
areas are generally confmed to the reach between approximately RM 3 5 (east-west
confluence) and RM 4 2 (top of east fork canyon)
30 Geologtcal Report 55 Short Notes on Alaska Geology (ADNR, DGGS, 1977)
Apll'U~ 2013 -Fma~ Report ID-9
IEkl~tna, inc
Hunter Creek Hydlroeiectrrc IReconnatssance Study Po!arconsuit Alaska, Inc
The only such feature that could dtrectly affect the recommended project IS the exposed
slope adjacent to the penstock alignment from approximately stat1on 42+00 to 48+00
shown m Photograph B-19 The penstock 1s proposed to be routed approximately 100 feet
laterally behmd the lip of th1s exposed slope A mass wastmg event would reduce th1s
setback Based on the angle of repose on th1s slope, 1t 1s unlikely that a mass wastmg event
would jeopardize the penstock at th1s location More deta1led mvest1gat1on of th1s area
would be warranted m the fmal des1gn phase of the project A greater setback IS possible 1f
warranted, but may requ1re mcreased excavation to ma1ntam the penstock grade or other
des1gn changes to accommodate th1s setback
Failure of some of these features could md1rectly affect the project by temporanly dammmg
east fork Hunter Creek m the bypass reach Th1s could result m a dam-burst flood at the
powerhouse when the dam was breached The des1gn of the powerhouse s1te should
cons1der the potential magnitude of floodmg due to such an event
D 3 5 Avalanche Hazards
While avalanche hazards generally ex1st w1thm the mountamous terram of the Hunter Creek
basm, no promment avalanche chutes are ev1dent m the development corndors 1dent1f1ed for
the proposed project conf1gurat1on Terram slopes and vegetation patterns md1cate that no
avalanche hazards ex1st for the access road corndor from Kn1k R1ver Road to the powerhouse
s1te, or the penstock corndor from stat1on 70+00 to 116+00 The penstock corndor from
approximately stat1on 50+00 to 70+00 traverses terram that could generate avalanches,
however vegetation m the corndor suggests avalanches are uncommon m th1s area The
powerhouse s1te, d1vers1on structure s1te, and upper 2,000 feet of the penstock corndor could
be subject to small avalanches orrgmatmg on the approximately 200 to 400-foot tall slopes
above these project features
The penstock would not be susceptible to avalanches as 1t 1s buned m all areas at depths and m
matenals that would protect 1t from damage The access road that 1s co-located w1th the
penstock could be blocked by avalanches should they occur along th1s route The s1gn1f1cance
of such blockages to project operations would depend on (1) how often the mtake requ1res on-
Site personnel dunng the wmter months, (2) what type of equipment IS used to access the
mtake dunng the wmter months, and (3) whether the project 1s operated year-round It IS likely
that wmter access to the mtake (and powerhouse) by means of a snow cat or s1m1lar vehicle w1ll
be more economic than plowmg the road to the mtake through the wmter season
The potential for small avalanches at the d1vers1on and powerhouse locations would depend on
the fmal s1tes selected for these features It IS expected that avalanche hazards at these
locations can be m1t1gated through appropnate des1gn of these structures
Aprtl 2013-Fmal Report D-10
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Eklutna, Inc.
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Po larconsult Alaska, Inc.
APPENDIX E-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSID ERATIONS
April 2013-Final Report E-1
I I
Eklutna, ~nc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectrnc 1RecoiJ'Ina1ssance Study
Sect1on T1tle
E 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
E 2 FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
E 3 WATER AND AIR QUALITY
E 4 WETLAND AND PROTECTED AREAS
E 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
E 6 LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
E 7 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND AVIATION CONSIDERATIONS
E 8 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES
E 9 MITIGATION MEASURES
Attachment E-1 F1shenes Survey Report
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ~
Page Nos
E-3
E-3
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-7
E-2
l
I I
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
a-::
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ~
I I
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
I I
I
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report
I l
I I
1 I ~~~
I I
I
I I
I I
I I u
I
I \
_j
~
I I
I I
I
I I I I
_)
I I I
i I
\ )
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
-
I I
I
I _J
I :
I
I I
I I
~I
I
I I
Ek!utna, ~nc
I
IHII!.IIB'llter Creek IHydlroe~ectruc IRecorrmaussance Stu.licly Po~arcons11.11it Alaska, ~nc
E 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
I The U S F1sh and Wildlife Serv1ce and National Manne F1shenes Serv1ce were contacted about
th1s project Both agenc1es confirmed that the project area 1s not listed as cnt1cal hab1tat for
any threatened or endangered spec1es
E2 FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Wooded areas m the project footpnnt prov1de calvmg, ruttmg, and wmtenng hab1tat for moose,
and the general project area prov1des hab1tat for mammals typ1cal of southcentral Alaska such
as black bear, brown bear, wolves, lynx, and wolvennes Alpme areas m the Hunter Creek
basm, above the project, are hab1tat for mountam goats 31 The project would not s1gn1f1cantly
affect these hab1tat areas, so no w1ldllfe Impacts are expected
Polarconsult contracted w1th Alaska B1olog1cal Consultmg, Inc (ABC) to complete an assessment
I
of f1shenes resources m Hunter Creek that may be affected by the hydro project ABC's full
I
report IS mcluded at the end of th1s sect1on as Attachment E-1
The lower port1on of Hunter Creek up to approximately RM 3 1 IS anadromous hab1tat for coho
I salmon and 1s also habitat for res1dent Dolly Varden No f1sh were trapped m the v1cm1ty of the
proposed mtake s1te on east fork Hunter Creek Trappmg was not conducted along the west
fork for th1s study Based on the s1m1lanty of cond1t1ons on the west fork and east fork, no f1sh
are expected to occur along west fork Hunter Creek above the canyon :
Prellmmary analysis of environmental Impacts of project conf1gurat1ons md1cates that
hydroelectnc development of only the east fork Hunter Creek IS not likely to have a s1gn1f1cant
adverse Impact on f1sh hab1tat m Hunter Creek Reasonable m1t1gat1on measures can likely
address any 1m pacts that do occur If further study 1dent1f1ed s1gn1f1cant 1m pacts to f1sh hab1tat,
several m1t1gat1on strateg1es can be considered
1 S1tmg the powerhouse upstream of f1sh hab1tat S1tmg the powerhouse w1thm Hunter
I
Creek canyon presents some techn~cal challenges but appears technically feas1ble and was
1dent1f1ed as a more cost-effective conf1gurat1on than s1tmg the powerhouse downstream of
I
the canyon Reconnaissance-level economic analys1s md1cates that the h1gher costs of s1tmg
the powerhouse downstream of the canyon (powerhouse s1te 3} are not qUite offset by the
mcreased electncal output gamed from the mcreased project head S1tmg the powerhouse
upstream of s1gn1f1cant f1sh hab1tat appears to be a good avo1dance opt1on
2 Developmg only the east fork of Hunter Creek The relat1ve remoteness of west fork
Hunter Creek makes hydroelectnc development of th1s fork less econom1cal than
development of the east fork Add1t1onally, some west fork land 1s subject to the NALA, and
IS managed by the DOPR as part of Chugach State Park Current management plans for the
31 Chugach State Park Management Plan, Public Review Draft May 2011
April 2013 -fma~ !Report E-3
1Ekh.11tna, ~B'Ic
IH11.0nter Creek Hydlroeiectr~c IReconna~ssance St11.0dy 1Po~arcons11.0~t A~aska, ~nc
park do not allow hydroelectnc development m th1s area Wh1le th1s does not absolutely
preclude hydroelectnc development on the west fork, 1t 1s a formidable barner to an
economically margmal project Because of the land status and economics of the west fork,
1t IS likely benef1c1al to forego development of the west fork, allowmg the west fork to
mamtam m-stream flows throughout f1sh hab1tat reaches of Hunter Creek and reducmg or
avo1dmg 1mpacts to f1sh hab1tat
3 Mamtammg m1n1mum In-stream flows m Hunter Creek The relatively low flows that occur
m Hunter Creek m late wmter may present techn1cal challenges for year-round project
operat1on or may be uneconomic, w1th operatmg costs m these months exceedmg project
revenue If e1ther or both of these are the case, 1t may be advantageous to shut down the
project durmg these months, allowmg flow to remam m the creek and av01dmg Impacts to
f1sh In-stream flow reservations wh1le the project IS operational would have an adverse
econom1c 1mpact on the project, especially dunng the fall, wmter, and spnng seasons
E3 WATER AND AIR QUALITY
The project w1ll not negatively 1mpact water or a1r quality By reducmg natural gas or d1esel
combustion m southcentral Alaska, the project w1ll1mprove reg1onal a1r qual1ty
E 4 WETLAND AND PROTECTED AREAS
The d1vers1on, mtake, ta1lrace, and poss1bly powerhouse structures are by necess1ty located
w1thm the ordmary h1gh water mark of Hunter Creek The creek bed at these proposed
features IS a combmat1on of exposed bedrock, boulders, cobbles, and/or gravels
The penstock and access routes w1ll likely cross some wetland areas, and may have some
unavOidable wetland Impacts Other project features do not pass through s1gmf1cant wetland
areas although some small umdent1f1ed wetlands may ex1st along the proposed routes Many
of these small wetland areas can likely be avo1ded m fmal des1gn once they are 1dent1f1ed
E 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
No archeological or h1stoncal resources are known to ex1st m the project area No cultural
resource surveys or consultations were conducted as part of th1s study
E 6 LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The d1vers1on/mtake structures and upper port1on of the access roads and penstock for project
conf1gurat1ons W1 and W2 would be located on Eklutna land located w1thm Chugach State Park
Th1s land 1s subject to the 1982 North Anchorage Land Agreement (See Sect1on D 1), and IS
managed by ADNR D1v1s1on of Parks and Recreation (DOPR) as part of Chugach State Park Th1s
land IS designated as "wilderness zone" m the 2011 Public Rev1ew Draft of the Chugach State
Aprn~ 2013-fma~ !Report E-4
I I
I j
I l
I i
~
I I
L_l
I I
I I
I I I I
I I
I I
-
I I
' I
~)
I I
: I
I
: I
I I lJ
-
I I
I '
1-l
1-I
I I
I
1 I
I i
_I
I I _I
\1
I
I
I _I
;-I
, I
I_J
I I u
[I
Ek~utna, ~nc
IHiunter Creek Hydroelectric !Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc •
Park Management Plan Hydroelectric development IS not compatible w1th th1s management
des1gnat1on
' For the west fork project to be authonzed, the NALA would have to be mod1f1ed, or DOPR's
management objectives for the project footprint would need to be changed Hydroelectric
developments are allowed m both other parkland management des1gnat1ons "recreation
development zone" and "natural environment zone"
Project lands needed for west fork conf1gurat1on W3 and all east fork-only conf1gurat1ons are
ent1rely outs1de of Chugach State Park and not subject to DOPR management
The project access corndors will Improve access to portions of the Hunter Creek basm that are
currently only accessible by pr1m1t1ve foot tra1ls Th1s Will likely mcrease use of the area by the
public Use of these access corndors should be controlled consistent w1th the mterests of the
owners of land m the Hunter Creek basm (BLM, Eklutna, CIRI, State of Alaska, and pr1vate
owners)
E 7 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND AVIATION CONSIDERATIONS
The project w1ll not affect telecommumcat1ons Penstock br~dges across the east fork canyon
' proposed m project conf1gurat1ons Wl and W3 would be a hazard to extremely low-flymg
a1rcraft
E8 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The project Will not be VISible from w1dely accessible vantage pomts on the ground Project
I
features would be generally v1s1ble from the a1r and from remote alpme areas m and near the
Hunter Creek basm
E 9 MITIGATION MEASURES
M1t1gat1on measures would depend on the fmal project conf1gurat1on proposed
may be appropriate for affected wetland areas, and for affected f1sh hab1tat
Apn! 20113-IFnna~ Report
M1t1gat1on
E-5
Eklutna, lm:
!Hlunter Creek IHydroelectnc Reconnanssance Studly IPolall"consiUI!t A~aska, inc
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apnl 20:11.3-Fma~ Report E-6
I I
i
I
I
I 1
I I
-u
:J
I ~
I]
I I
I
[I
1 I
I I
I J I
I
I
I I
r-1
I I
-
LJ
u
IJ
I I
I I
~ I
L
-
: I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
u
'l I I
LJ
[]
u
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroeiectroc Reconnanssance St11.11dy Polarconsult Alaska, Inc 0
ATTACHMENT E-1
FISHERIES SURVEY REPORT
Ap1r1l 2013 -Fmai Report E-7
Ek!utna, ~nc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectrnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, lll"'lc
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apro! 2013-IFmal Report E-8
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I i
I I
I I
I
u
I I
I i
-----'
I
I
~
]
(
i I
I :
I
I I
I I I I
I I
1 I
I
I
I
I 1
-
I I
I
I
I
I I
1 I
I I I I
I
Techmcal Report No 12-012
A Fisheries Survey of Hum.ter Creek, a Iuuk RIVer tnbu.tary near Palmer-AK,
Associated wnth Poten.t.ua! Hydroelednc Development
by
Bruce M Barrett
Alaska BIOlogical Consultmg
PO Box 322
Lakeside, MT 59922-0322
Tel 406-844-3453
E-mml alaskab10l@yahoo com
October 2012
INTRODUCTION
Hunter Creek, a south tnbutary of the Kmk Rtver near Palmer, Alaska, IS a designated anadromous fish
stream under Alaska Statute 16 05 871 The stream IS bemg considered for hydroelectnc development by
Eklutna, Inc Polarconsult Alaska, Inc IS handlmg the reconnaissance study, proJect destgn, and
penmttmg
The mam stem of Hunter Creek IS occupied by two spectes of anadromous fish based on the Alaska
Department of Ftsh and Game's (ADF&G) Catalog of Waters Important for Spawnmg Rearmg, and
M1gratzon of Anadromous F1shes (2012) An October 15, 2011 survey by ADF&G confirmed JUVemle
and adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and adult Coho salmon ( 0 lasutch) downstream of East
Kmk River Road near the stream's mterface wtth the Kmk River floodplam The reported upper hmtt of
anadromous fish habttat m Hunter Creek IS nver-mile (RM) 3 13, whtch IS about 1 8 miles upstream of
the East Kmk River Road bndge
At approx!IDately RM 3 5, Hunter Creek dtvtdes mto the east and west forks (Ftgure 1) The
reconnaissance study IS assessmg the hydroelectric potenttal of both forks of Hunter Creek The full run-
of-nver hydroelectric development scheme under consideratiOn ts for a dtversiOn at about RM 5 6 of the
west fork (Elv 1150 ft ), a ptpelme to RM 4 5 of the east fork (Elv 1050 ft ), and a penstock transportmg
the water from both forks to a powerhouse stted between RM 1 0 and RM 2 0 of the mam stem of Hunter
Creek Dtverted waters would be returned to Hunter Creek at the powerhouse stte
Based on stmilar charactensttcs of the east and west forks above thetr confluence through the canyon
reach at RM 3 5, tt ts reasonable to assume that fish presence and habttat m the area of the west fork
dtverswn stte are hkely stmilar to condttions at the east fork dtversiOn stte Should the reconnaissance
study conclude that development of the west fork ts vtable, thts will need to be venfied m the field wtth
fish trappmg and habttat assessment Dtvertmg both forks for hydroelectnc would stgntficantly reduce
m-stream flows m the anadromous fish reach from RM 3 13 to the powerhouse stte, and expectedly
demand fishenes mitigatiOn etther onstte or off-locatiOn or both
Thts report summanzes fishenes work conducted m the area of the proposed mtake on the east fork of
Hunter Creek and on the mam stem of Hunter Creek upstream of the Kmk River Road bndge m late
August 2012 It also addresses potential fish tmpacts and mttlgatwn alternatives
OBJECTIVES
The objectives ofthts study were
Determme fish presence by spectes and thetr relattve abundance m the east fork of Hunter Creek
from a potenttal hydroelectric water mtake stte at RM 4 5 downstream to the west fork confluence
at RM 3 5, and whether there are any apparent fish tmpedtments or barners withm that reach
2 Evaluate whether mmnow traps and salmon roe batt are suttable for evaluatmg fish occurrence m
Hunter Creek at the time of the August survey
3 Determme average fish size by spectes of any rest dent and JUVemle salmon caught
4 Classify the general stream charactenstics of the east fork of Hunter Creek, and evaluate the
sport-fishmg potential
5 Identify maJor fish Impacts and potenttal mitigation alternatives
METHODS
A total of SIX standard minnow traps were deployed m two reaches of Hunter Creek upstream of the Kmk
River Road bndge (RM 1 3) Three were stted m the area of the east fork gaugmg station near RM 4 5
1
I I
I I
I I
_)
I
I ' I
I
I I I
I l
I I
I
I I
( I
!
I I
' I
I I u
:_)
and another three m the area ofRM 1 5 Average fishmg time per trap was 23 9 h (range 23 4-24 2h) for
the east fork traps and 7 5 h (range 7 1-7 8 h) for the mam stem traps fished upstream of the bndge The
trap baits consisted of sockeye salmon roe d1smfected by a 10-m soak time m a 1/100 Betadyne solutwn
Two sectwns of roe (approx 20 g/each) md1v1dually secured m a cheesecloth wrap were placed m each
trap along w1th one or two medmm-sized cobble for weight The traps were set m relatively low velocity
areas, typically behmd boulders or a similar flow obstructiOn along the stream bank, and secured by a hne
attached to the shore Trap locatiOns were Identified by GPS and flagged for visual IdentificatiOn
Fish captured were confirmed by species m accordance with Pacific F1shenes of Canada (Hart 1973) A
total of 129 trap-caught Dolly Varden (Salvelmus malma) were measured for FL (tip of snout to fork-of
tml, mm) One larger length Dolly Varden (DV) was exammed for matunty
Fish sampling was conducted m compliance w1th an ADF&G-1ssued collection permit (SF2012-256), and
field assistance was provided by Joel Groves, PE ofPolarconsult Alaska, Inc
RESULTS
EAST FORK HUNTER CREEK
A limited number of smtable gear placement sites were found m the VICinity of the proposed east fork
mtake at RM 4 5, and the most optimum for fish occurrence were the three locatiOns fished In 72 h of
total fishmg time, no resident or other fish were caught m the three traps (Tables 1-2)
On both days sampled there was no VlSlble evidence of fish presence, mostly owmg to the stream's
transport of glacier silt which limited vlSlbly to a depth of less than one-mch Figures 2-3 are Illustrative
of the conditions
The east fork flow was estimated at 300-400 cfs on both days (August 27-28/12) based on observed
channel width, depth, and velocity of the mam channel A mmor surface drop m water elevatiOn occurred
overnight after the traps were set amountmg to approximately 3 to 4 mches The change was not
considered substantial to alter trappmg efficiency
Surface velocity m the mid-channel was estimated to be m the 10 ftlsec range on both days, and stream
gradient was estimated at 4-8% m the reach where the mmnow traps were deployed w1th 4% m the area
of traps #I and #2 and 8% JUSt below trap #3 (Figures 2-3) As Illustrated m Figure 3, flow was limited
to a smgle channel, and with the exceptiOn of log debns on the nght s1de of the creek at trap s1te #3, no
other large woody matenals were noted except for wood debns on exposed bars below the OHW hne
deposited by floods On both sampled days, relatively heavy matenals (cobbles and other) were bemg
moved by stream forces as evidenced by a persistent sound of rocks tumblmg m the mam channel
The east fork stream temperature was 38F, and the correspondmg air temperature was 53F on August 27,
2012 at 1340hrs
An attempt to reach the Hunter Creek east fork-west fork confluence at RM 3 5 was aborted Safety
Issues associated with steep terram precluded a successful decent However, the confluence VICinity was
photographed as shown m Figure 5 From observatiOn of the stream channel downstream of trap site #3
at RM 4 4 to the RM 3 5 confluence, It IS apparent that the reach IS unsUitable for fish passage and
occupancy due to the lack of reanng habitat from steep gradient, velocity, mc1sed channel, and absence of
any smtable fish restmg, cover, and holdmg areas
Irrespective ofmmnow traps catches, there IS no evidence that the east fork has any sport-fishmg potential
as ( 1) stream access IS restricted due to steep terram, (2) the stream cannot be forded safely from spnng
2
to m1d to late fall, (3) there are no fishable pools nor turbid free flow until a hard freeze-up occurs m the
glacial fields upstream and, ( 4) water velocities are excessive (1 O+ft/sec)
WEST FORK HUNTER CREEK
The west fork mtake s1te was maccess1ble by foot on August 27 and 28, 2012 Likely the west fork
upstream of RM 3 5 does not support fish hfe due to flow conditiOns mcludmg gradient and turbidity
This IS based on the physical s1mllanty of the east and west forks and the absence of any fish bemg taken
m the three east-fork mmnow traps (Table 1) Should Polarconsult's reconnaissance survey conclude that
development of the west fork IS economically feasible then these prehmmary fmdmgs need to be field-
venfied
MAIN STEM HUNTER CREEK
Three mmnow traps were set m the mam stem of Hunter Creek, upstream of East Kmk R1ver Road from
approximately RM 1 5 to RM 1 8, for a combmed total of 22 5 hours (Figure 6, Tables 1-2) Each trap
produced fish, and all 27 fish caught were positively Identified as DV Trap #2 produced the highest
catch at 17 DV and was located off the downstream end of an exposed gravel bar Likely the catch would
have been greater had an 18 8 em FL (7 4") DV not been lodged m the downstream end of the trap
opemng (Figure 7)
Average FL of the 27 DV taken m the three traps was 14 7 em (5 8") and the median was nearly the same
at 14 5mm (57", Tables 3-4) The range was 11 9-18 8 em (4 7-7 4")
A smgle DV sampled for matunty was determmed to be a non-anadromous gravid female This fish
would have spawned about mid fall (Figure 8, Hart 1973)
Interestmgly, no salmon fry were trapped near RM 1 5 With Coho salmon known to spawn upstream to
about RM 3 1, expectedly some fry would have been taken The absence IS mdicatiOn that Coho fry may
well prefer reanng habitat elsewhere, hkely m non-turbid waters downstream m the Kmk River floodplam
among spnng-fed ponds and confluences of clear-water tnbutanes Alternatively, the relatively high DV
abundance suggests that the species may be more adapted for reanng m highly turbid waters than Coho
fry or DV were too much of a predator base m the mam stem of Hunter Creek The literature mdicates
that DV can be a maJor component of the mortahty suffered by Coho fry Logan (1968) reported that
31% of the DV stomachs exammed from an Alaskan coastal stream con tamed J uvemle Coho salmon
In the RM 1 5-1 8 reach of the mam stem of Hunter Creek, there was no visible s1gn of fish presence As
encountered m the east fork, turbidity levels were h1gh due to the transport of glacier silt hm1tmg VISibly
to a depth of about two mches
Water temperature m Hunter Creek was recorded at 38F and the a1r at 44F on August 28, 2012 at
1000his
From the mam-stem Hunter Creek catch data, It IS apparent that the mmnow traps, salmon roe, and site
selectiVIty standards were appropnate for samplmg fish presence and relative abundance m the east fork
of Hunter Creek
IMP ACT ASSESSMENT and MITIGATION
EAST FORK DIVERSION ONLY
The mam stem of Hunter Creek supports anadromous and resident fishes downstream of RM 3 5
Evidence IS that the east fork of Hunter Creek upstream of RM 3 5 IS not fishenes habitat and neither IS
the west fork DiversiOn of flow only from the east fork for hydroelectric use could Improve summer and
3
I I
I
I I
: I
I
I I
i I
I
,--
1 I
I I
\
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
early fall water quahty conditions and, correspondmgly, fishenes habttat m the mam stem of Hunter
Creek downstream of RM 3 5 to about RM 1 5 or the powerhouse stte Thts IS probable as the east fork
transports substantial amounts of glacier stlt much more so than the west fork by about a factor of about 2
(Joel Groves, Polarconsult, pers com) Further, mam-stem velocities would be reduced from less water
from the east fork entenng the mam channel of Hunter Creek at RM 3 5 However from late fall through
early spnng, an east fork flow dtverswn would reduce mam-stem Hunter Creek flow by about a thtrd at a
time when restdent DV and salmon egg-mcubatwn ts occurrmg, and when the east fork would be
contnbutmg less volume (than m the summer) but htgher quahty water due to less glactal mput The
questiOn of whether a net 1m pact on Coho salmon productiOn to smolt stage would result ts debatable It
would be unlikely that all mam-stem spawmng would be Impacted because expectedly about 2/3 of the
mam stem flow would be mamtamed from the west fork and the sub-basm reach between RM 3 13 and
the RM 5 6 at the west fork dtverswn stte (Tables 5-6) Further, numerous studtes mdtcate that Coho
salmon productiOn ts more dependent on reanng habttat availability than spawnmg habttat (Groot and
Margohs 1991) Nevertheless tf deemed necessary, mtttgatwn could be provtded by constructmg a Coho
salmon spawnmg channel usmg the flow dtscharge from the powerhouse Addttwnally a pond could be
bmlt off the spawnmg channel to serve as a npenmg area for adult salmon and rearmg area for salmon fry
and resident fish Land smtable for such developments exists below the bndge on the East Kmk River
Road
EAST AND WEST FORKS DIVERSION COMBINED
If both the east and west forks are developed for hydroelectnc power, the DV reanng habttat upstream of
the powerhouse stte on Hunter Creek would be senously reduced and as well as the Coho salmon
spawnmg habttat extendmg to RM 3 13 However, replacement spawmng hab1tat for Coho salmon could
be prov1ded by usmg the ta1lrace dtscharge, and the reductiOn of wmter reanng habttat for DV could be
part1ally 1f not completely mtttgated by constructmg one or more ponds usmg water from the tatlrace
dtscharge
An alternative m1t1gatwn proposal would be for Eklutna, Inc to prov1de an agreed level of annual fundmg
to the Eklutna Salmon Hatchery (Cook Inlet Aquaculture Assoc1atwn facthty) whtch currently 1s a
standby facthty for the Upper Tratl Lakes Hatchery A prov1ston for such IS prov1ded m A S 16 05 851
LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department ofF1sh and Game (ADF&G) 2008, updated 2012 Catalog of waters Important for
spawnmg, reanng, and mtgratwn of anadromous fishes ADF&G, Sport Ftsh Dtv , Juneau, AK
Groot, C and Margohs L 1991 Pactfic salmon life htstones UBC Press, Vancouver, BC
Hart, J L 1973 Pactfic fishes of Canada Bull 180, Ftsh Res Bd Canada
Logan, S M 1968 Sliver salmon stud1es m the ResurrectiOn Bay area Prog Rep ADF&G Sport F1sh
D1v 9(1967-68) 117 -134 In Groot and Margolis 1991
4
. 36 UPPER END
EC. 1
OF POSS IBLE
POWERHOUSE
SITE
PROPOSED
CROSS-BASIN
PIPELINE
TO PROPOSED
WEST FORK
DIY
. 31 SEC. 32
NOTES:
1. CONTOUR INTERVAL: 25-FT.
2. PROPOSED PROJECT AREA IS
WITHIN SEWARD MERIDIAN:
T15N, R3E, SECTION 13.
T15N, R4E. SECTIONS 6, 7, 18.
T16N, R4E. SECTION 31.
0 2000 4000
E3 E3
1 INCH = 2000 FEET
LIMIT OF ANADRO OUS HABITAT
(ADF&G, 2012)
SEC . 6
PROPOSED
.--PENSTOCK
~ ROUTE
PROPOSED
EAST FORK
DIVERS ION
SITE
SEC . 5
SEC 8
T N
T15
Figure I. Map of Hunter Creek with the proposed hydroelectric reach defin ed and the locations where
fish traps were set.
Figure 2 . East Fork ofHunter Creek upstream of RM 4 .5 and below trap ite #1, August 28,2012 .
6
Figure 3 . East Fork of Hunter Creek above RM 4 .5 in the genera l area of trap site #2, August 27, 2012.
Figure 4. Ea t Fork of Hunter Creek at trap ite #3 in the immediate area of the proposed hydroelectric
intake at RM 4 .5, August 27, 2012 .
7
Figure 5. East Fork of Hunter Creek at RM 3 .6, immediately upstream of West Fork confluence, August
27 ,2012.
8
Figure 6 . Hunter Creek upstream of East Knik River Road in the area ofRM 1.8 , and trap site #T-3,
August 28 , 20 12.
Figure 7. Minnow trap catch of 17 DV with an 18.8 em DV lodged in the trap opening, trap #T-2 , Hunter
Creek, August 28 , 2012.
9
Figure 8. Dolly Varden , 18 .8cm FL, gravid female from Trap #T -2 catch , Hunter Creek, August 27 , 2012.
10
Table 1. Summary of minnow trapping catch results in total number of fish, and average
hourly catch by location, date, and species, Hunter Creek, n ear Palmer, AK, 2012 .
TRAP Dates Total TOTAL CATCH Avg. Hourly
# LOCATION Fished Hours DOLLY other Catch
VARDEN Dolly Varden
Eas t Fork# I N 6124.129 8/2 7-28 /2 012 24.2 0 0 0.0
w 14 8 48.009
East Fork #2 N 61 24.156 8/27 -2 8/2012 23 .4 0 0 0.0
w 14 8 48 . 055
East Fork #3 N 61 24.231 8/27 -28 /2 012 24 .2 0 0 0 .0
w 14 8 48. 185
Hunter Cr. N 61 26.4 16 8/2 8/2 012 7 .6 0 .8
# T-1 w 14 8 4 8. 776
Hunter Cr. N 61 26.391 8/28 /2 012 7 .1 17 0 2.4
# T-2 w 14 8 4 8. 791
Hunter Cr. 6126.318 8/2 8/2 012 7.8 4 0 0 .5
# T-3 w 148 4 8.920
II
I I
I I
[ _____ 1 ____ L-__ L __ _l_ _ L ___ _! ____ l ___ _J ____ J_
12
[Tab I; 3 -sall'lpled)or~ l_engtb~J'!l~ -C?_f o_il1y van:l_~~--~ l
1 by m1nnow trap, m lower Hunter Creek, a Kn1k i r-----Rl~ertr~buta;y~e-ar-Pal-~;r~-A-K,8/28/2o12---i
----! --------------~------i
I ______ I Hunter Creek mamstem traps 1
I Spec1 me_nl __ T_!:ae__l! 1 _ _Ir~p tf' 2 _ I _ Jr~e_#~ __ j
# I I
[
-1 ~ -__ 15 ? --1~ Q --14 0
-__ 2 I _ 14 7---< 13 7 13 0
I 3 ! 14 0 15 5 14 5 \------f-----------------------
I --~ -l -_1~5--J -~~ ----_1~ --
t --~-___ 145 ---'-----~_Q ___ : _____ --~
~ __ ? ___ ~_14 2 __
1
__ __1~-.? ~-----_ I
~--?__ L___ _i-~6_9__-------~
f --: --i--------j---}~ ~ ---------
~-~~ ----_ ~ __ -l5 l ~ ---~-= --~----~
r--~}-~-----~--~:-~-1-----------~
I __ ---t ------, --------~---------,
13 I I 157 I -~: r ~ --:-~:~-~l_::-: --:=J
1-16--T-----t --188 -l-------~
I -17 I ---------:--12 i -I ------l
I I _ _ _ _ _ _l_ _ __ _ _ _I_ _ _ J
~abre~4_Se~~~t,~~:z:~~n~~~;~;~~~~t~!-~
Sap.lPJ~-~IZe I Mean MedJall Range I ~~dard J
_ _ {n) _ _ 1_ _!Pill ___ ! _ m_ch~s 1-~ i _ ~ch~~ ~-_ ~ _ +-!fiCh~ t-d~~tJ.on I
I I r , 1 1 (nnn)
r-------~-----r---I_ --_I _____ :_----~ ---~-------1
I _ z_1 --~ _14_Z_! _ _5_s i _145 ~--~? __ ,11_9_:)!8r7_-_14_1 _g__~_l
13
I
I I
I I
-1
I
I I
I
I :
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
Table 5 Hunter Creek watershed area by selected reach (source Polarconsult Alaska (1 0/12))
AREA
East Fork Sub-basm above RM 4 5 Diversion Site
West Fork Sub-basm above RM 5 6 Diversion Site
RM 3 13 (Anadromous Limit) upstream to Both Diversions
RM 1 7 (Gaugmg Stat) upstream to RM 3 13 (Anadromous Limit)
TOTAL ABOVE RM 1 7 (Gaugmg Station)
Sub-Basm
Area (square
miles)
23 5
36 2
8
1 9
69 6
Percent of
Sub-basin
Above Mam
Stem Gauging
Station
34%
52%
11%
3%
100%
Table 6 Water flow (cfs) measurements by date at selected locations m the Hunter Creek drainage
(source Polarconsult Alaska (10/12))
October 12, February 28, Apnl13,
2011 2012 2012
%of %of %of
AREA Flow Mam Flow Mam Flow Mam
(cfs) Stem (cfs) Stem (cfs) Stem
Flow Flow Flow
East Fork Sub-basm at RM 4 5 Diversion Site 29 5 33% 77 35% 8 1 34%
West Fork Sub-basin at RM 5 6 Diversion Site
TOTAL at Mam Stem Gaugmg Site (RM 1 7) 88 3 100% 21 8 100% 23 5 100%
14
Eklutna, Inc. #l,
Hun t er Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. .... ----------~--------------------~------------------------~--------
APPENDIX F -PERMITT ING INFORMATION
April 20 13-Final Report F-1
Ek~utna, Inc .L
HIUinter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaussance Study Polarconsuit Alaska, Inc
Sect1on T1tle Page Nos
F 1 Federal Perm1ts F-3
F2 State of Alaska Perm1ts F-4
F3 Local Perm1ts F-6
F4 Other Perm1ts and Authonzat1ons F-6
I I
I
_I
I
I I
I '
I
1 I
)
Apn! 2013-Fma~ Report F-2
Ek~utna, Inc
Hunter Cll'eek Hydroe!ectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ~
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
I I
I I
~'
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report
~I
: I
I I
I _I
~-I
I I
L
I I
I
I
,,
I i
-
I I
I I
-
I I u
I :
'--I
I I :J
Ekh.11tna, !nc ~.~
Hunter Creek IHydlmeiectnc IReconnaJssance Studly IPo~all'consi.llit Alaska, ~nc ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
F 1 FEDERAl PERMITS
F 11 Federal Energy Regulatory CommiSSion (FERC)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Comm1ss1on (FERC) has Junsd1ct1on over hydroelectric proJects
that meet certam cr1ter1a Generally, these cr1ter1a mclude
(1) The project 1s located on nav1gable waters,
(2) The project IS located on federal land,
(3) The project affects mterstate commerce, or
(4) The project IS part of an mterstate electrical gr1d
Once project lands are conveyed to Eklutna, none of these cr1ter1a are expected to apply to the
proposed project Accordmgly, the project should not fall under FERC JUriSdiction A
Declaration of Intention w1ll need to be f1led w1th the FERC m the perm1ttmg phase of the
proJect to ver~fy th1s JUriSdictional analysis
F13 U S Army Corps of Engmeers (USACE) Permats
The d1vers1on structure, mtake structure, tailrace, and other features of the recommended
project Will be located w1thm waters of the Umted States, therefore, perm1ts from the USACE
Will be requ1red under Sect1on 10 of the R1vers and Harbors Act In add1t1on, some project
features or project m1t1gat1on efforts may 1mpact wetlands, wh1ch w1ll also requ1re a USACE
permit under Sect1on 404 of the Clean Water Act The proJect may be ellg1ble for a Nat1onw1de
Perm1t #17 for hydro proJects Otherw1se, an md1v1dual perm1t will need to be obtamed for the
proJect
F14 U S Environmental Protection Agency
A stormwater pollut1on prevention plan will be requ1red for construction of the project
F 1 5 Federal Av1at1on Adm1mstrataon
The recommended project Will not have any features likely to present a hazard to av1at1on
The penstock br1dges mcluded m west fork conf1gurat1ons W1 and W3 would be more than 200
feet over the floor of the east fork canyon, and would requ1re consultation w1th the FAA
F 1 6 BLM land Use
As1de from pr1vate land near Kn1k R1ver Road, land m the project area 1s currently managed by
the BLM or DOPR
~ BLM's current management plan for southcentral Alaska calls for 1mplementat1on of a
Kn1k R1ver Spec1al Management Area (SMA) that would mclude the ent1re project area
BLM does not ant1c1pate 1mplementmg th1s SMA until ex1stmg state and nat1ve land
Apn~ 2013-fmai !Report f-3
Eklutna, ~nc
!Hunter Creek Hlydroelectroc IReconnanssance Studly IPolarconsuit Alaska, ~nc
selections are adjudicated, and the SMA des1gnat1on would not carry forward 1f lands
are transferred out of BLM ownership 32
Land managed by DOPR as part of Chugach State Park (upper portions of west fork
conf1gurat1ons W1 and W2) IS designated as "wilderness zone" m the 2011 Public Rev1ew Draft
of the Chugach State Park Management Plan Hydroelectric development 1s not compatible
With th1s management des1gnat1on
F 2 STATE OF AlASKA PERMITS
F 2 1 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Permots
F211 Coastal Zone Consistency Rev1ew
The State of Alaska does not currently have a Coastal Zone Management Program
F212 Land Authonzat1ons
None of the recommended project area 1s on state land However, the d1vers1on/mtake
structures and upper portion of the access roads and penstock for project conf1gurat1ons W1
and W2 would be located on Eklutna land located w1thm Chugach State Park Th1s land 1s
subject to the 1982 North Anchorage Land Agreement (See Sect1on D 1L and IS managed by
ADNR D1v1s1on of Parks and Recreation (DOPR) as part of Chugach State Park Th1s land 1s
designated as "wilderness zone" m the 2011 Public Rev1ew Draft of the Chugach State Park
Management Plan Hydroelectric development IS not compatible w1th th1s management
des1gnat1on
For the west fork project to be authonzed, the NALA would have to be mod1f1ed, or DOPR's
management objectives for the project footprint would need to be changed Hydroelectric
developments are allowed m both other park land management des1gnat1ons "recreation
development zone" and "natural environment zone"
F213 Tidelands Perm1ts
No tidelands perm1ts are needed for the project
F214 Matenal Sale Agreement
Not applicable Material sources hkely to be used for th1s project are not state-owned
32 Rmg of F1re Record of Dec1s1on and Approved Management Plan, March 2008 Appendix F and F1gure 2 3 7
ApD"'i 2013 -Fmal Report IF-4
I I
J
I I
I I
I
I 1
J
~'
1 )
I I
I _j
I
I I
I
I ~I
r 1
'-I
-
I I
I I
I
L~l
--,
I
I I
I I
I I
~
\ j
Jl
I I
~
I I
I I
[I
ll
I I
1Ekh.11tna, ~ll'llc
IHII!Jinter Creek IHiydroe~ectii'JC 1Reco!l1111'1lalssance StiJidly Polarco1111su~t A~aska, ~nc
F215 Water Use Permit/Water R1ghts
The proJect w1ll need to obtam water nghts from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR) No ex1stmg water nghts were 1dent1f1ed m the project footpnnt that would affect the
proJect
F216 State H1stor~ca/ Preservation Office (SHPO)
Sect1on 106 of the federal National Histone Preservation Act requ1res federal agenc1es and
federal act1ons (such as Issuance of a federal perm1t) to take mto account the effects of the1r
act1ons on h1stonc properties Eklutna can e1ther d1rectly consult w1th the SHPO, or relevant
federal agenc1es will consult w1th SHPO directly m cons1derat1on of 1ssumg permits for the
project
It 1s likely that a cultural resources survey Will be requ1red to determme 1f the project would
disturb any s1gn1f1cant 1tems The survey should be conducted once a spec1f1c proJect
conf1gurat1on and road, penstock, and power lme alignments have been selected
F217 Dam Safety Program Perm1t or Fmdmg
Consultation w1th ADNR's Dam Safety Program Will be requ1red to determme 1f the d1vers1on
structure requ1res a dam safety perm1t The JUriSdiCtional cntena for dam safety perm1ts are
I
1 Structure greater than 10 feet tall and Impounds more than 50 acre-feet of water, or
2 Structure greater than 20 feet tall, or
3 Would threaten lives and property 1f 1t fa1led
The Dam Safety Program has mterpreted potentially vulnerable downstream f1sh hab1tat as
property that can tngger dam safety JUnsd1ct1on
Alaska's Dam Safety Program does not have JUnsd1ct1on 1f the project 1s under the JUriSdiction of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Comm1ss1on
F 2 2 Alaska Department of F1sh and Game (ADF&G) Perm1ts
F221 F1sh Hab1tat Perm1t
Title 16 of the Alaska Statutes requ1res that the project w1ll need to obtam a f1sh hab1tat perm1t
from the ADF&G
F 2 3 Alaska Department of Transportation and Pub he Fac1ht1es 1Perm1ts
A dnveway perm1t w1ll be needed for the mtersect1on of the project access road(s) and Kmk
R1ver Road
Apll'l~ 2013-IFmal Report IF-5
Eklutna, inc
Hunter Creek Hydroe!ectnc Reconnaussance Study Poiarconsu!t Alaska, ~m:
F24 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Perm1ts
F241 ADEC Wastewater or Potable Water Permtts
Not applicable
F242 Soltd Waste Dtsposal Permtt
Not applicable
F243 Atr Qua/tty Permtt and Bulk Fuel Permtt
Not applicable
Apn! 2013 -!Fmal Report F-6
I I u
i)
l_J
I I
I
:J
I )
I u
~\
I I
I
~)
I
I I
j --1
I I
I I
I
-I I
I I I
-
\ I
: J
~~ I
I I
I
I I
I
~
I
I~
i I
I I
I )
I I
I
I
_j
I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I c_J
u
IEkiut:na, !nc
IHiunter Cll'eek Hydroe~ectii'Jc Reconnaassance Studly
1
l?o~arco011s1U1~t Alaska, ~011c •
F3 LOCAL PERMITS
The proJect area IS located w1thm both the Matanuska-Sus1t~a Borough (MSB) and the
Mun1c1pallty of Anchorage (MOA) F1gure A-3 shows the boundary between the two local
JUriSdictions, wh1ch 1n the project v1c1n1ty runs east-west along the 'boundary between Township
15 North and 16 North Generally, maJor Improvements for the recommended project
(d1vers1on/1ntake structure, penstock, and powerhouse) are all located w1th1n the MOA, and
most of the transm1ss1on l1ne and a port1on of the access road lare located w1th1n the MSB
Some other project conf1gurat1ons may have the powerhouse and a port1on of the penstock
I
located w1th1n the MSB as well
Local perm1tt1ng processes would need to be completed for the portions of the proJect located
w1thm each JUriSdiction I
F 4 OTHER PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS
F 4 1 Matenal Sales
Locally sourced aggregate mater1al for the proJect w1ll need to be purchased from the
appropriate land owner There are a number of ex1st1ng material sources 1n the project VICinity
on state and pr1vate land, or a new quarry could be developed on Eklutna land w1th1n the
proJect footprint
F42 S1te Access
All project access corndors shown on F1gures A-4 and A-5 have been routed on land selected by
Eklutna when poss1ble (land ownership IS shown on F1gure A-3) S1gn1f1cant exceptions are
listed below Land owners were not contacted regardmg potential use of the1r property 1n
conJunction w1th hydroelectric developments as part of th1s project 33
o Powerhouse S1te 3 (F1gure A-4) and the access corndor from Kn1k R1ver Road 1s s1ted
on BLM land selected by CIRI An alternate route and s1te located on adjacent
pr1vate land to the east appears to be a v1able alternative
In some Instances, use of non-Eklutna land may result 1n cost savmgs relat1ve to the costs
I presented m th1s study through the use of more d1rect or eas1er routes These potential sav1ngs
are not considered s1gn1f1cant w1th regard to the overall fmdmgs of th1s study
33 I Pnvate land owners were contacted for perm1ss1on to cross the1r property to conduct fieldwork necessary to
complete th1s reconnaissance study
Apru~ 2011.3-~mai !Report
Ekh.JJtna, ~nc
Hu.mter Creek Hydroelectrnc IReconna~ssance Study IPo!arconsult Alaska, ~nc
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Aprul 2013-IFmaliReport IF-8
I
I
_)
il l_j
I I
I_)
I
I I
I I
I
I
_)
Eklutna, Inc. a
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. ....
----------~--------------------~------------------------~--------
APPENDIX G-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ASS UMPTIONS
April 2013-Final Report G-1
I I
I I
I
I I
Ekiutna, inc
Huntell" CIJ"eek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study
Sect1on T1tle
Gl Introduction
G2 Estimated Installed Cost
G3 Estimated Annual ProJect Cost
G4 Fmancmg Terms
G5 Operatmg Margms
G6 Estimated Power Sale Rate
G7 Estimated Benefit-Cost Rat1o
G8 Environmental Attnbutes
G9 lnd1rect and Non-Monetary Benef1ts
Aproi 2013-Fmal Report
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc ®
Page Nos
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-5
G-5
G-2
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnanssance Study
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apnl 2013-Fnnai Report
-
Polarconsu!t Alaska, Inc
-,
I I
I
I ~~
I ~I
I
r
I
I
I _j
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
~-1
I I
I )
-
I I
\_
r-
\ I
I
I I
I I
I I
'--I
I I
I~~
II u
Eklutna, inc
IHUJJnter Cll'eek Hydlroelectii'IC 1Reconl!1a!ssance Sti.Jidy PoiarconsiUIIt Alaska, ~nc
G 1 INTRODUCTION
The economic analys1s of the project conf1gurat1ons considered m th1s study used a range of
estimated capital costs and related fmanc1al parameters to develop a range of estimated energy
costs for each conf1gurat1on and a range of estimated benefit cost rat1os for each conf1gurat1on
Th1s appendiX explams the ranges used for each parameter
To av01d confusion over the mtent of the range of parameters used,
!:) "low'' values always correspond to more favorable project economics, and
e "h1gh" values always correspond to less favorable project econom1cs
In some mstances, th1s convention results m the "low" value bemg numencally greater than the
"h1gh" value These terms are kept m quotes to emphas1ze the1r spec1al defm1t1on m th1s
sect1on
G 2 ESTIMATED INSTALLED COST
Reconnaissance level cost estimates were developed for each project conf1gurat1on by
est1matmg un1t quant1t1es and volumes of project components and applymg estimated Unit
costs to each component line 1tem An approximate 30% contmgency was then applied to the
result The resultmg estimated cost was multiplied by a range of+/-20% to develop a range of
probable cost
G 3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PROJECT COSTS
G 3 1 General, Admm1strat1ve, Operation, Mamtenance, Repair, and Replacement Expenses
All operatmg costs of the projects are assumed to cost between $0 013 ("low" case) and $0 018
(uh1gh" case) per kWh Th1s term mcludes general, admm1strat1ve, operation, mamtenance,
repa1r, and replacement expenses associated w1th the project
G 4 FINANCING TERMS
G 4 1 "Low'' Case Assumptions
For the "low" case, cap1tal project costs are assumed to be fmanced w1th $8 million m grants, a
10% owner equ1ty pos1t1on, and the balance fmanced at a 5% mterest rate and 30-year
term 34 35 A 3% surcharge 1s added to the fmanced amount to cover loan ongmat1on fees,
underwntmg, and guarantee fees Return on equ1ty 1s assumed to be 12%
34 $4 m1llion 1s the max1mum construction grant currently allowed under the Renewable Energy Grant Program Under
current program rules, acceptance of a construction grant would requ1re Eklutna to become a cert1f1cated
economically regulated utility The economic assumptions used m the "low" case are believed to be consistent With
Apll'l~ 2013-fma~ !Report G-3
Eklutna, Inc ~~ -
Hunter Creek !Hydroelectric Recormaussance Study IPolarconsult A~aska, ~nc ~
----------~----------------------~-------------------------------------
G 4 2 "H1gh" Case Assumptions
For the "h1gh" case, cap1tal project costs are assumed to be fmanced w1th $85,000 m grants (the
grant award rece1ved for th1s reconnaissance study), a 20% equ1ty pos1t1on, and the balance
fmanced at a 6% mterest rate and 30-year term Loan ongmat1on costs of 3% are assumed for
1tems such as application fees, loan guarantee fees, and other ongmat1on fees Return on
equ1ty 1s assumed to be 18%
G 5 OPERATING MARGINS
Operatmg margms of 12% of gross revenue ("low" case) and 14% of gross revenue ("h1gh"
case) are assumed
G6 ESTIMATED POWER SALES RATE
Annualized estimated costs as descnbed above are totaled and then d1v1ded by the estimated
net energy output of the project to calculate an estimated power sales rate for energy from the
project H1gh-and low-range est1mated annual costs are d1v1ded by the same estimated total
energy output
G 7 ESTIMATED BENEFIT-COST RATIO
Benefit-cost rat1os for project conf1gurat1ons were calculated usmg the economic model
developed for the Alaska Energy Authonty {AEA)'s Renewable Energy Grant Program Round 6
by the Institute of Soc1al and Economic Research {ISER) at the Umvers1ty of Alaska Anchorage
Before bemg used for economic analysis of Hunter Creek project conf1gurat1ons, the power
plant heat rate m the ISER economic model was reduced approximately 10% to match MEA's
future projected avo1ded cost of energy from 2013 to 2022 {F1gure 4-1) Th1s mod1f1ed heat rate
was used over the full model penod {2010 to 2070)
For the "low" case (more favorable) economic assumptions, the mod1f1ed ISER model was used
to calculate the project benefit-cost rat1o "Low" case cap1tal cost and O&M cost were mput to
the ISER model
For the "h1gh" case (less favorable) economic assumptions, the ISER model was further
mod1f1ed by zeromg out a "soc1al cost of carbon" term from years 2010 to 2070 Th1s
mod1f1cat1on has the effect of reducmg the cost of fuel for MEA Wh1le the ments and
probability of future mamfestat1on of th1s carbon cost are debatable, the cost IS not
represented m current rallbelt electnc utility econom1cs, and therefore IS zeroed out for the
the fmanc1al constramts typical associated With RCA economic regulation
35 The ability of the project to obtain grant funds will depend on what state and federal grant programs ex1st, whether
the project meets spec1f1c program eligibility cntena, and whether the project successfully competes for grant funds
1f and when the project 1s ready to pursue construction fundmg
Apn~ 2013 -fmal Report G-4
J
I
I I IJ
I I
I I
I I,
I I I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
J I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
,_,
I I I
I I
,--) I I
l I
I
IEklutna, inc
Hunter Creek HydroeiectrJc Reconnaassance Studly Polarconsuit Alaska, ~nc
"h1gh" case Th1s mod1f1cat1on assumes the ra1lbelt ut1llt1es do not adopt a carbon pr1c1ng
mechamsm dur1ng the 50-year economic life of the project
"H1gh" case cap1tal and O&M costs were mput to the mod1f1ed ISER model to compute the
estimated "h1gh" case benefit-cost rat1o
G 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES
No revenue from sale of the project's environmental attributes IS explicitly considered m the
reconnaissance study The ISER energy pr1ces used to calculate the benefit-cost rat1os mcludes
a monetary value for the "soc1al cost of carbon," wh1ch 1s functionally s1m1lar to the value of the
project's environmental attributes (See G 7 for details of how th1s was handled m the "low" and
"h1gh" cases)
G 9 INDIRECT AND NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
The recommended hydroelectric project offers s1gn1f1cant md1rect and non-monetary benef1ts
m add1t1on to d1rect economic benefits These other benef1ts mclude
G Reduced a1r pollution (NOx, SOx, particulates, and hydrocarbons) due to decreased
operation of natural gas-f1red power plants m the Cook Inlet reg1on
More stable energy pr1ces Hunter Creek would mcrementally help to stabilize MEA's
energy rates
Apnl 2013-fmal Report G-5
Eklutna, Inc
Hunter Creek Hydroelectnc Reconnaissance Study Polarconsuk Alaska, Inc G
Th1s page mtent1onally blank
Apnl 2013-Fmal Report G-6
: I
I I
il
~~
-'
[j
:]
[J
l
:_I
I -,
I I
I
)
Eklutna, Inc. Ill
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. ....
----------~--------------------~---------------------------------
APPENDIX H -DRAFT REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
I
April 2013-Final Report H-1
I
polarconsult a l aska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Aven ue , Suite 310
An chorage , Ala ska 99503-3638
Pho ne : (90 7) 258-2 420
FAX : (907) 258-2419
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CC:
April 22, 2013
Erin Ealum, Corporate Lands Project Assistant, Eklutna, Inc.
Joel Groves, Project Manager, Polarconsult
Response to AEA Review Comments on Hunter Creek Hydroelectric
Reconnaissance Study and Summary of Other Major Revisio n s to Final Report
Final Report Appendix H
The Client Review Draft of the Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Reconna iss a nce Study Final Report
was provided to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) on February 13, 2012 . The AEA provided
comments on February 25 , 2013. Upon review of the revised final report, AEA issued a second
series of review comments on April17, 2013 .
AEA comments and Polarconsult responses are summarized below . As appropriate, AEA's
comments have been incorporated into the final release of the Hu n ter Creek Hydroelectric
Reconnaissance Study Final Report dated April 2013.
AEA Comments Received February 25, 2013 (Polarconsult responses i n BLUE )
1. The estimated unit construction costs for the recommended sch eme found in this report
are approximately one -third to one -half of that for a nearby hydro project on another Knik
River tributary. A recently completed study of a seasonal , run-of-riv er hydroelectric plant on
Glacier Fork of the Knik River estimated the cost of plant at approxi m ately $9 M per MW. The
most favorable Hunter Creek scheme is estimated at $3 -4.5 M per MW. Review and confirm
the construction cost data provided in this report .
The line item cost estimates for the Hunter Creek and Glacier Fork run-of-river schemes were
reviewed to determine the cause of the disparity in estimated per-kW costs for these two
projects. Most of the cost difference can be attributed to:
1. The Glacier Fork project requires a significantly more expensive four-mile power tunnel than the
two-mile buried penstock at Hunter Creek.
2. The Glacier Fork project requires a significantly longer access road than the Hunter Creek project.
3. The Glacier Fork project requires a significantly longer transmission line than the Hunter Creek
project.
When Glacier Fork costs for these three items are adjusted for conditions at the Hunter Creek
site, the per-kW cost of the Glacier Fork project falls from $9,219 to $4,044 per kW. This is
consistent with the cost range of $3,078 to $4,623 per kW in the Hunter Creek
Reconnaissance Study for the recommended project configuration. Based on this review, the
per-kW cost estimates in the Hunter Creek and Glacier Fork studies are comparable, and
there is no cause to adjust the construction cost estimates in the reconnaissance study. The
following table explains how the Glacier Fork costs were adjusted.
130422-HUNTE RCKR EPORT _AEACOMMENTS . DOC
POLARCONSUL T M EM ORAN DUM
Cost Item
Land and Land Rights
Structures and Improvements
Reservoir, Dams, and Waterways
Waterwheels, Turbines, and
Generators
Accessory Electrical/Mechanical
Equipment
Roads and Bridges
Transmission Plant
SUBTOTAL
Contingency (30%)
SUBTOTAL
Engineering, Environmental,
Regulatory (3.0%)
Construction Management (1.0%)
Administrative and General
Expenses (2.0%)
SUBTOTAL
Interest During Construction
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Installed Capacity (kW)
Estimated Cost per Installed kW
Glacier Fork
Adjustments Cost Estimate 1
$0 $0
$8,300,000 $0
$272,700,000 -$194,000,000
+ $39,440,000
$46,000,000 $0
$5,400,000 $0
$135,000,000 -$104,145,000
-$13,236,000
$36,700,000 -$11,010,000
$504,100,000 -$282,951,000
$151,230,000
$655,330,000
$19,659,900
$6,553,300
$13,106,600
$694,649,800
$89,000,000
$783,649,800
85,000
$9,219
Adjusted
Estimated Cost 2
$0
$8,300,000
$118,140,000
No adjustment
No adjustment
Notes
Subtract all tunnel and penstock costs, replace with cost of
11,600 foot long buried 12-foot diameter penstock at average
installed cost of $3,400 per foot. 3
$46,000,000 No adjustment
$5,400,000 No adjustment
Subtract cost of 18-mile access road to site, prorate cost of on-
$17,619,000 site roads by 0.429 (ratio of roads needed at Hunter Creek to
roads needed at Glacier Fork, 15,000 LF I 35,000 LF).
$25 ,690,000 Prorate cost of transmission line by 0.70 (ratio of line needed at
Hunter Creek to line needed at Glacier Fork, 14.7 mi I 21.0 mi).
$221,149,000
$66,345,000 Percentage of cost basis held constant.
$287,494,000
$8,625,000 Percentage of cost basis held constant.
$2,875,000 Percentage of cost basis held constant.
$5,750,000 Percentage of cost basis held constant.
$304,744,000
$39,038,000 Percentage of cost basis held constant at 12.81%.
$343,782,000
85 ,000
$4,044
1. Values taken from Glacier Fork Reconnaissance Hydropower Study, Palmer, Alaska. March 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Appendix D, first table .
2. Values are rounded to nearest $1,000.
3. A 12-foot diameter penstock is permissible instead of the 14-foot diameter tunnel due to the higher gross head (880 ft. vs. 710 ft.) and shorter water conveyance route
(11,600 ft. vs. 19,760 ft.) at the Hunter Creek site .
April 22, 2013
POLAR C ONSULT MEMORANDUM
2 . The most recent history of a power purchase agreement betwee n MEA and South Fork
Hydro in Eagle River has provided for 7 cents/kWh with no escalator for 30 years. It is unlikely a
power sales rate exceeding th is wi l l be available to an IPP from MEA in the near term .
The terms of a power sales contract for the Hunter Creek project will depend on the
prevailing market conditions and utility forecasts that exist when Eklutna is ready to
negotiate a contract, which will not be for severa l years . Recent IPP power sales contract
examples on the southern railbelt include the Southfork contract, at a fixed $0.07 per kWh for
30 years, and the Fire Island Wind (FIW) contract with Chugach Electr ic Association, Inc. (CEA)
at a gross price of $0.10785 per kWh for 25 years .1
Future avoided costs of energy on the southern railbelt are subject to considerable
uncertainty, primarily surrounding the availability and cost of local natural gas and alternate
supplies. This uncertainty is expected to be resolved before the Hunter Creek project would
be ready to begin contract negotiations, which will help determine if Hunter Creek is an
economic generation option for railbelt utilities.
3. Table ES -1 indicates Annual OMR & R costs for the project at $0.4-0 .5 M in 2013 dollars.
Prov i de a paragraph to describe how this number was arrived at.
This range is based on a range of assumed OMR & R costs of $0 .013 to $0.018 per kWh, which
is explained in Section G.4.1 of Appendix G. A footnote has been added to Table ES-1
referring the reader to Appendix G for more explanation of the assumptions used in the
economic analysis.
4 . Appendix D -The report fails to describe the potential risks of sedimentation issues and
woody debris collection at the proposed intake structure during h igh flow events . Loss of
generation and expense of clearing and debris removal do not app e ar to be accounted for in
the operational budget of the project.
A narrative has been added to Section 0 .2.3 of Appendix D estimati ng sediment loads in east
fork Hunter Creek and generally discussing some of the operational issues associated with
sediment and debris management. The description of the diversion and intake structure at
Section 3.5 .5 of the main narrative has been expanded to conceptually explain how the
diversion and intake might be configured to manage sediment.
The main narrative at Section 3.4 has been revised to provide more detail about how energy
generation estimates were developed. All power generation estimates in this study are
discounted by an assumed plant reliability of 95%, which addresses interruptions due to
unusual debris or sediment issues at the diversion and intake structures .
1 The CEA -FI W contract includes a wind integration cost to FIW of $0 .01085 per kW h, so the net price f o r FIW
energ y is $0 .097 per kW h. This integration cost would not apply to a run -of -river hydro source, so t he gross
price is m o st appropriate for contract comparison .
April 22, 2013 Page 3 of 6
POLARCONSULT MEMORANDUM
5. Appendix D -The report fails to address othe r potential risks to project structures and
operations reliability from extreme events, such as landslides, channel changes, flood events
and avalanches .
Extreme event hazards are addressed as applicable throughout the report narrative. An
expanded discussion of extreme event hazards has been added to Appendix D.
6. Page 33 -Almost all of the lands for the selected p roject scheme E2 -48 are currently owned
by BLM. Land ownership directly influences the lice n sing jurisdiction of the project. Until the
land is transferred out of federal hands, any hydropower licensing activity at Hunter Creek will
be under FERC jurisdiction . Due to the licensing jurisdiction impacts, AEA recommends Eklutna
Inc . to take steps to secure land ownership from BLM before seeking any additional grant
funding for additional studies or to further advance a project at this site.
The narrative explaining the current status of land conveyance in the project area in Section
0.1 of Appendix D has been expanded. Land status will not significantly affect site
investigations until the project has advanced to the permitting stage. If Eklutna were to
decide to commence permitting prior to land conveyance, the project would fall under FERC
jurisdiction and would require a FERC license or license exemption.
7. The grant scope (Page 13 of 24} was to include a letter from prospective utilities affirming
their interest in an opportunity to purchase power fro m this site . No letter of this nature (from
MEA) has been included in the study.
Eklutna and Polarconsult met with MEA staff on March 21, 2013 to review the report findings.
MEA staff affirmed that they believe the project may have merits and are interested in the
opportunity to purchase electricity from the project. A letter fulfilling this requirement was
requested from MEA and will be included after this memo when received.
8. Page 3, Section 2.1: Kachemak Bay has been miss-s pelled.
This has been corrected in the final report.
9. Page 11, Section 3.1.1: ANCSA has been miss-spelle d
This has been corrected in the final report.
10 . Page 15, Table 3-4: Under ESTIMATED RANGE OF FINANCIAL PARAMETERS , Capital Cost
paid by Grants is listed for each of the nine schemes as $85,000 -$8 .0M. However, the
maximum eligible REF grant funding for construction of this railbelt project is limited to $4M .
Accordingly, the financial parameters found in this section need to be revised, as well as those
shown for the Estimated Ranges of Sales Rate for Energy and Benefit-Cost Ratios, to reflect the
lower amount of grant funds available.
The source of grant funding for this project is not limited to the Renewable Energy Fund (REF)
Grant Program. The ability of the project to obtain grant funds will depend on what state and
federal grant programs exist, whether the project meets specific program eligibility criteria,
and whether the project successfully competes for those grant funds, if and when the project
is ready to pursue construction funding. If Eklutna diligently advances the project, this would
not occur until 2016 or 2017.
April 22, 2013 Page 4 of 6
POLARCONSULT MEMORANDUM
11. Page G-3, G.4.1 : The maximum REFund grant a construction project at Hunter Creek would
be eligible for is $4 M (not $8 M). Revise this section and footnote 33 accordingly .
The footnote on page G-3 has been corrected. See response to AEA comment #10 regarding
general grant funding limits. The narrative in Appendix G has been revised to clarify the
range of grants for which the project may be eligible.
12 . Page 28 , Figure 4-1: Provide citation for source of data for the Pro jected Future MEA Non -
Firm Energy Cost.
A footnote has been added to Figure 4-1 explaining the source of the past and projected
future MEA non-firm energy costs.
13 . Page 33, Section 5.1: Indicate the expected date of land transfer from BLM to Eklutna, Inc .
and adjust the project development schedule accordingly.
The expected date of land transfer from BLM to Eklutna is unknown. The narrative in Section
D.l has been expanded to explain the current status of land conveyance in the project area.
The project development schedule allows two years for land conveyance to be completed
before the formal permitting process would begin. If land conveyance is not completed at
that time, Eklutna would have to proceed with the FERC licensing process or wait for final
conveyance before permitting the project. Figure 5-l has been revised to reflect this
scenario, and the accompanying narrative has been revised to explain these assumptions.
AEA Followup Comments Received Aprill7, 2013 (Polarconsult responses in BLUE )
1. The original AEA review comments and their responses were rec ei ved by AEA on Apr il 15
and have now been bound in the report in Appendix H.
AEA's followup comments have also been included in Appendix H of the final report.
2. The size of the West Fork Subbasin has been changed from 36 .2 to 33.4 sq mile in Figure 3-
1, while the same subbasin remains at 36.2 sq mile in Figure A-2. Reconcile and modify as
needed for consistency.
The area of the west fork subbasin is 33.4 square miles. Figure A-2 has been corrected.
3. The revised discussion of the Diversion and Intake for the favored scheme A2-48 in Section
3.2 .2 now includes stilling basins where suspended sediment wou l d be dropped out before
entering the penstock. The terrain upstream from the proposed intake is a narrow canyon, not
conducive for large flat basin areas constructed below intake grade of sufficient size to collect
the annual deposition of hundreds (thousands?) of tons of cree k sediment and still avoid
damage from storm and break-up flood surges . I am not convinced this is a feasible option for
this location . Given the significance of arriving at a workable solutio n, there needs to be further
effort put into ideas that can effectively cope with this problem in th is location.
The narrow canyon along east fork Hunter Creek is downstream of the proposed intake
location, outside the footprint of the intake works. There is sufficient area adjacent to the
creek for the conceptual intake configuration. While beyond the customary level of analysis
appropriate for a reconnaissance study, Polarconsult has prepared a new Figure A-6 to show
the existing topography at the proposed intake site and a conceptual layout of the intake
configuration described in Section 3.5.5 of the report. The conceptual stilling basin shown in
April 22, 2013 Page 5 of 6
POLARCONSULT MEMORANDUM
Figure A-6 provides for an approximately 1 foot per second average velocity and 2 minute
residence time which, depending on several factors, can be expected to remove suspended
sediments larger than approximately 0.1 to 0.4 mils in diameter. A significantly larger stilling
basin appears feasible at the site if necessary. A reference to Figure A-6 has been added to
Section 3.5.5 of the report.
4 . When it becomes available, the letter from MEA acknowledging their support for the
project as a future energy source remains to be provided to AEA. It should also be bound in the
final report.
MEA provided a letter indicating their support for the project on April17, 2013. The letter is
included in Appendix H of the final report.
5. Newly included in the revised report is page V, which provides for statement of project
Purpose, Limitations and Copyright. Per Provision 28 of Appendix A of the Award Document for
Grant 7040060, the following has been agreed to :
28. Ownership of Documents and Products
All designs, drawings , specifications, notes, artwork, computer programs, reports and other work
developed with grant funds in the performance of this agreement are public domain and will be used
by the Authority and/or public without notice or compensation to the Grantee . The Grantee agrees not
to assert any rights and not to establish any claim under the design patent or copyright laws . E xc ept
as otherwise specifically agreed, and without limiting any Intellectual Property requirements of a
federal funding agency, the Authority shall have unlimited rights to use and to disseminate any data
produced or delivered in the performance of the contract.
Accordingly, this copyright notice must be removed from this document.
Polarconsult has removed the copyright notice included on Page V.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS FROM DRAFT REPORT
1. The executive summary was expanded to include the estimated development schedule for
the recommended project configuration .
2. The first paragraph of Section 3.1 was expanded to include a geographic description of the
project site .
3 . Appendix C was updated to reflect the current status of stream gauging stations instal led at
Hunter Creek .
4. Section F.2.1.7 was added to Appendix F detailing the requirements of ADNR 's Dam Safety
Program.
April 22, 2013 Page 6 of 6
I
April17, 2013
Joel D. Groves, PE
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, 3rd Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Re: Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mr. Groves;
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA) has received your request to provide a letter of support
and intention with regards to the above referenced project. Based on the Hunter Creek
Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study, MEA is in support of the project in concept. It is MEA's
intention to acquire power generated by the project via a Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA) should it become a viable generation source and a method of delivery to our facilities achieved.
It's premature at this time to predict the outcome of the project viability and potentially a resultant
agreement for said output, but never the less we are generally supportive of hydroelectric
developments within our service territory. We agree that based on the study information presented
to us, the project has some merits and MEA intends to monitor the project for potential power
output in the future. Any power/energy acquisition as the result of a successful project would be by
agreement through a PPA that will be tied to our avoided cost basis.
MEA currently purchases substantially all of its electric energy from Chugach Electric Association,
Inc. (Chugach) pursuant to our 1989 Tripartite Agreement. Under the 1989 Tripartite Agreement,
MEA is prohibited from purchasing, or negotiating to purchase, electric energy from the Hunter
Creek project, unless Chugach grants its consent to such negotiations and purchase in writing.
However, the 1989 Tripartite Agreement expires at midnight, December 31, 2014 and MEA is
currently on schedule to provide all our own generation needs from the Eklutna Generation Station
power plant by this date. Assuming the Hunter Creek project is scheduled for completion in 2017 and/or
later, therefore MEA would be in a position to engage with the owners of the Hunter Creek
project directly after 2014. Of course any contract negotiated between MEA and the Hunter Creek
project would have to be approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska before going into
effect.
Per your request MEA would be willing to contribute up to $2,000.00, one time, to support stream
gaging in 2013 if it is directly related to the ongoing stream monitoring required to prove the flow ra tes
for the project are viable, and document relevant seasonal changes in flow. We would agree to match
an Eklutna Inc.'s parallel contribution for the same monitoring, dollar for dollar, up to that amount.
Sincerely,
~;(_a__
Gary Kuhn, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Matanuska Electric Association