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