HomeMy WebLinkAboutChitina Hydro Draft CDRCITY OF CHITINA, ALASKA
DRAFT - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY REPORT
Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project
Prepared For:
Chitina Electric Inc.
P.O Box 88
Chitina, Alaska 99566
August 2011
Prepared By:
DRAFT REPORT i CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Community Overview............................................................................................ 4
2.1 Location ................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Population ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3 History .................................................................................................................. 4
2.4 Economy .............................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Facilities ............................................................................................................... 5
2.6 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 5
2.7 Climate ................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 Site Visits and Community Involvement ................................................................ 6
3.1 Project Team ........................................................................................................ 6
4.0 Existing Power Generation and Distribution Systems ........................................... 7
4.1 Power Plant .......................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Power Distribution System .................................................................................... 7
4.3 Historic Fuel Usage .............................................................................................. 8
4.4 Historic Electric Demand ...................................................................................... 9
5.0 Hydrologic Study ................................................................................................ 10
5.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 10
5.1 Fivemile Creek Hydrology ................................................................................... 10
5.2 Flow Measurements and Potential Resources .................................................... 11
5.3 Comparative Analysis ......................................................................................... 12
6.0 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................. 17
6.1 Projected Community Growth ............................................................................. 18
6.2 Projected Price per Gallon for Diesel Fuel .......................................................... 19
6.3 Avoided Cost of Diesel Fuel ................................................................................ 20
7.0 Facility Siting and Design Recommendations ..................................................... 22
7.1 Site Control ......................................................................................................... 22
7.2 Community Flood Data ....................................................................................... 22
7.3 Geotechnical Conditions ..................................................................................... 22
7.4 Borrow Sources .................................................................................................. 22
7.5 Foundation ......................................................................................................... 23
8.0 Proposed Improvements ..................................................................................... 23
8.1 General............................................................................................................... 23
8.2 Intake and Diversion Structure ............................................................................ 25
8.3 Penstock Alignment ............................................................................................ 25
8.5 Hydro Power Plant .............................................................................................. 25
8.4 Tailrace Alignment .............................................................................................. 25
9.0 Proposed Operating Scenario............................................................................. 26
9.1 General............................................................................................................... 26
10.0 Permitting ........................................................................................................... 27
11.0 Construction Plan ............................................................................................... 29
11.1 Administration .............................................................................................. 29
11.2 Use of Local Labor ...................................................................................... 29
11.3 Use of Local Equipment ............................................................................... 29
11.4 Construction Schedule ................................................................................. 29
11.5 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate....................................................... 29
DRAFT REPORT ii CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
TABLES
Table 1 Contact Information...................................................................................................... 6
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Chitina Population over Time ....................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 - Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost .................................................................. 8
Figure 3 - Average and Peak Electrical Power ............................................................................. 9
Figure 4 - Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements .......................................................................... 11
Figure 5 - Normalized Flows for Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River ........................................... 12
Figure 6 - Normalized flows of Fivemile vs. Gulkana .................................................................. 13
Figure 7 - Fivemile Creek Calculated Flow Rates from Adjusted Historical Gulkana Data ........... 14
Figure 8 - Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power ..................... 15
Figure 9 - Potential Hydro Power ............................................................................................... 16
Figure 10 - Chitina Population Projections ................................................................................. 18
Figure 11 – Chitina Cost Projections for Diesel Fuel .................................................................. 19
Figure 12 - Avoided Cost versus Rated Power ........................................................................... 20
Figure 13 - Available Energy for Space Heating at Present Power Consumptions ...................... 21
Figure 14 - Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 24
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Conceptual Design Drawings
Appendix B – Clifton Laboratories, Economic Feasibility Memorandum
Appendix C – Clifton Laboratories, Power Production Memorandum
Appendix D – ABR, Aquatic Resources Analysis
Appendix E – AOHA, Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
Appendix F – USFWS – Critical Habitat Determination
Appendix G – USFWS – National Wetlands Inventory
DRAFT REPORT 2 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
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
DRAFT REPORT 3 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
1.0 Introduction
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 ~950 feet between a small intake impoundment at ~1,570 feet elevation
and the proposed downstream powerhouse near the Chitina Municipal Airport (~620 feet
elevation). A 12-inch diameter by 10,000-linear foot, buried, penstock (combination
HDPE and Steel pipe) would convey water from the intake to the turbine house. The
turbine tailrace would reintroduce diverted water back into the creek approximately 1,500
feet upstream of the confluence with the Copper River (PCA 2008). As currently
envisioned, the project would include a 300 kW rated pelton wheel turbine utilizing
between 1 and 5 cfs of water, depending upon season and power need.
Currently, the sole source of electricity for the village and airport is a diesel generator
system which was installed in 2008 by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). The volatility
in diesel fuel prices has been acknowledged as an economic strain on Chitina residents
and businesses. 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 (around 40,700 gallons) and heating oil (up to 15,000 gallons) is
estimated to be nearly $200,000 annually (AEA 2010). This “diesel avoidance” also
reduces air emissions and the chances of spills.
DRAFT REPORT 4 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
2.0 Community Overview 1
2.1 Location
Chitina is located in Southcentral 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.)
2.2 Population
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
2.3 History
Athabascan Indians have reportedly occupied this region for the last 5,000 to 7,000
years. Rich copper deposits were discovered at the turn of the century along the
northern flanks of the Chitina River Valley, bringing a rush of prospectors and
homesteaders to the area. After the mines closed in 1938, support activities moved to
the Glennallen area, and Chitina’s population declined sharply. Recently the community
1 Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Online
Community Profile Information, May 2011.
DRAFT REPORT 5 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
has experienced renewed growth as a result of tourism and sportsmen utilizing the
Copper River sport and dipnet fisheries.
2.4 Economy
Employment is primarily with the village council, village corporation, or the National Park
Service. Many residents are self-employed or work in retail establishments. The summer
influx of fishermen, tourists, and campers provides some cash income in fish guiding and
other services. Many villagers participate in subsistence activities year-round.
2.5 Facilities
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.
2.6 Transportation
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. There are
no docking facilities. The river is an important means of transportation in summer.
2.7 Climate
The climate in Chitina is continental, characterized by long, cold winters and relatively
warm summers. Total annual precipitation averages 12 inches, with an average annual
snowfall of 52 inches. Temperatures range from a low of -58°F to a high of 91°F.
DRAFT REPORT 6 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
3.0 Site Visits and Community Involvement
Multiple site visits have been conducted. AEA Project manager Alan Fetters traveled to
Chitina in summer 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 data/perform fish trapping along Fivemile creek. An additional site
visit is planned for late September 2011 to perform a preliminary geo
hazard/geotechnical evaluation. The community and Chitina Electric have been involved
every step of the project. A resolution in support of the project is included in the
appendices.
3.1 Project Team
Project participants include: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI),
and a team of highly qualified engineering, planning, and design professionals.
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
CRW Engineering
Group, LLC
(Prime Engineering
Consultant)
Karl Hulse,
Project Manager
3940 Arctic Blvd.
Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99503
907-646-5621
907-561-2273 (fax)
khulse@crweng.com
DRAFT REPORT 7 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
4.0 Existing Power Generation and Distribution Systems
4.1 Power Plant
Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) is the sole electrical provider for Chitina. 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, which was constructed in 2008 by
AEA, is a pre-engineered modular metal structure with 3 diesel generators that can
generate 301 kilowatts at full capacity (including two 117 kW generators and a single 67
kW generator). The plant has a 12,000 gallon double wall diesel fuel tank to supply fuel
to the gensets. The plant currently operates as the prime power source for the
community. After the proposed hydro plant is completed the diesel plant will operate in a
backup/standby capacity. CEI receives fuel via truck haul from several regional venders
including Fisher Fuels (Glennallen) 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 pipelines.
Additionally, Chitina has an abandoned 25 kW hydroelectric facility located adjacent to
the Copper River and south of the Edgerton Highway. In 2006 a CDR by LCMF Chitina
Rural Power System Upgrade determined that it would not be operationally feasible to
bring the existing hydroelectric facility back on line due to flow restrictions required by
ADF&G and outdated controls and equipment.
4.2 Power Distribution System
The diesel power house is connected to the electrical grid via 4 miles of 3-phase 12.47
kV overhead transmission lines which follow the highway into town. The power plant
generates at 480 volt AC, which is stepped up to 12.47 kV using pole mounted
transformers adjacent to the plant.
DRAFT REPORT 8 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
4.3 Historic Fuel Usage
Historical fuel usage data was gathered from CEI, regional fuel vendors, and power cost
equalization PCE data. The amount of fuel CEI 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
(Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost
DRAFT REPORT 9 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
4.4 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 Chitina Electric, Inc. 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 (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Average and Peak Electrical Power
DRAFT REPORT 10 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
5.0 Hydrologic Study
5.1 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 stability2. For additional information see the “Regional Hydrologic Study” (2008)
included in the appendices.
5.1 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, as its name implies, flows for
approximately 5 miles from its source to the Copper River. The stream passes beneath
the Edgerton Highway approximately 2,500 upstream of the Copper River. The culvert at
mile 23.4 of the highway is a 100-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter corrugated steel pipe.
Stream gauging data collected between 2008 to 2010, and statistical comparison with
similar, gauged, streams predict seasonal flows as low as 1.5CFS in the winter, flood
events in excess of 600 CFS in the spring. At its mouth, Fivemile Creek empties into a
braid of the Copper River immediately north of the runway at the Chitina Municipal
Airport. Based on LIDAR generated contours, the average slope of the stream is 10%,
with multiple reaches exceeding 100% (see Appendix A for plan and profile drawing).
The streambed consists of bedrock and coarse substrate (i.e., boulder and large cobble)
with low sinuosity. The catchment associated with Fivemile Creek is 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 precipitation2. 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).
Access to the creek includes a pioneer jeep trail adjacent to the north side of the creek.
2 Source: Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. (PCA). 2008. Regional hydraulic investigation: Chitna, Alaska.
Final report for the Alaska Energy Authority. 95 pp.
DRAFT REPORT 11 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
5.2 Flow Measurements and Potential Resources
To determine the potential power production of Fivemile Creek, two weirs were installed
and stream flow data was collected for portions of fiscal years 2008 and 2010. The
weirs were located at the proposed intake site and the culvert outlet where Fivemile
Creek crosses the Edgerton Highway. At the lower weir, measurements were recorded
about twice a month from January 7th 2008 to May 1st 2008 and from December 4th 2009
to May 12th 2010. The upper weir was constructed approximately 8,500 feet upstream,
at the proposed intake site selected during the initial site visit by AEA. 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 water is entering the creek below the intake site.
Figure 4 - Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements
DRAFT REPORT 12 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
5.3 Comparative Analysis
Approximately 14 months of flow data was collected for Fivemile creek. Through
comparative analysis with other similar gaged, regional steams 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 the historic flow
measurements were available during the same time period that the Fivemile Creek
gaging occurred. Further, the Gulkana showed similar seasonal flow variations per
basin area (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Normalized Flows for Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River
DRAFT REPORT 13 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
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. With increased flows the degree of correlation lessens, however, high flow
data is of minimal use for this project.
Figure 6 - Normalized flows of Fivemile vs. Gulkana
The data indicates that, when the Gulkana has flows below 518 cfs, it appears to be a
reasonable source for predicting Fivemile creek flows. Given the similarity in catchment
characteristics and the similarity in the minimum normalized flows, 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.
Even though there is a strong correlation between the minimum flows it can be seen
from figure 5 that the Fivemile minimums tend to be less than the Gulkana minimums.
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).
DRAFT REPORT 14 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
Figure 7 - Fivemile Creek Calculated Flow Rates from Adjusted Historical Gulkana Data
From the adjusted historical data above, the minimum flow predicted would be 0.957 cfs.
This minimum flow represents a potential power generation of 62 kW. It should be noted
that the maximum peak power consumption generally occurs in December or January
and decreases between January and April. For example, in 2010 the peak consumption
went from 84 kW in January to 63 kW in April.
This scaled data has also been presented below as recurrence intervals for the minimum
available power (Figure 8.)
DRAFT REPORT 15 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
Figure 8 - Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power
From the minimum hydroelectric power recurrence figure (Figure 8) we would expect the
available hydroelectric power to 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 flow requirements). During the
periods when the hydroelectric power cannot meet peak demands, the community’s
diesel plant will provide the additional power required.
DRAFT REPORT 16 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
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
Figure 9 - Potential Hydro Power
The above chart presents the expected Fivemile creek hydro power and power output
for a 300 kW plant during a typical hydrograph year.
DRAFT REPORT 17 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
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
documents were reviewed: The initial economic analysis by Polar Consult Alaska (5-2-
2008) and the economic analysis submitted to and revised by AEA as part of the Round
IV evaluations of the RE Fund program (11-30-2010). Additionally an Excel-based
model of the heat recovery system in the existing Chitina diesel plant was expanded
upon to include operation of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Plant with intermittent as-needed
electrical generation by the diesel plant. Simulation of the combined diesel and hydro
plants took into account seasonal heating demand, seasonal water availability, and
population growth projections over the project life. A summary of the findings follows:
x 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.
x The project is also economically feasible with no population growth if interruptible
electric space heating is installed in buildings which collectively have a heating
demand equivalent to 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 heating demand.
DRAFT REPORT 18 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
6.1 Projected Community Growth
Population information for the Valdez-Cordova Census Area from 1970 to 2010 was
reviewed, which provides 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 between the 20 years from 1990 to 2010 the Census Area population was
essentially constant while the Chitina population more than doubled.
As seen in the below figure of the Chitina population projections (Figure 9) three growth
scenarios were projected with best fit lines: zero growth, 4 people per year (approximate
linear fit), or a 4.76% annual growth (exponential fit). Electrical demand has been
modeled to increase at the same rate as the population growth.
y = 4.1506x - 8204.1
y = 5E-40e0.0476x
y = 126
0
200
400
600
800
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population
Year
Figure 10 - Chitina Population Projections
DRAFT REPORT 19 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
6.2 Projected Price per Gallon for Diesel Fuel
To determine the potential community savings offered by the proposed hydro power
plant, predictions about the cost for diesel fuel must be made. The 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 by 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 10 projects anticipated
costs for diesel fuel per gallon with high, medium, and low price growth projections.
$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
Figure 11 – Chitina Cost Projections for Diesel Fuel
DRAFT REPORT 20 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
6.3 Avoided Cost of Diesel Fuel
To determine the potential cost savings created by replacing the use of diesel power
generation with proposed hydro power, a comparative analysis was performed. The
analysis used the medium growth EIA projected fuel prices, and Power Cost
Equalization (PCE) data provided by AEA to determine the community’s energy
consumption. Figure 11 shows the present value of avoided fuel costs in 2010 dollars
based on a 50 year design life.
$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
Figure 12 - Avoided Cost versus Rated Power
Analysis of Figure 11 leads to the following conclusions:
1. Assuming exponential growth, there would not be any added benefit to have a
turbine/generator that produces greater than 300 kW of power.
2. Similarly, for linear growth a 200 kW and for the no growth scenario a 100 kW
turbine/generator would provide the greatest cost benefit for meeting electric
loads.
Figure 11 also indirectly indicates that if a 300kW turbine/generator is installed and the
community experiences limited to no growth, the community could benefit by replacing
existing oil-fired space heaters/boilers with electric heaters utilizing the excess hydro
power capacity.
DRAFT REPORT 21 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
Figure 13 shows that at the present power consumption of a 300 kW turbine/generator
could offset 15,000-20,000 gallons of heating fuel per year. In addition, during the
summer months when heat demand is low, but flow (potential energy proportion) is high,
the 300kW turbine offers 812,000kWh in Excess energy resources. This energy could be
used for any number of economically beneficial uses, including ice production, campsite
RV hookups, refrigeration, etc.
Figure 13 - Available Energy for Space Heating at Present Power Consumptions (300kW
hydro)
DRAFT REPORT 22 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
7.0 Facility Siting and Design Recommendations
7.1 Site Control
Land required for the development of the proposed improvements is owned by the
Chitina Native Corporation, and will be provided to the utility as an in-kind donation. As
CEI is owned by the Chitina Native Corporation, provision of the land has been agreed
upon as a benefit to the community and Corporation members. The proposed penstock
will also pass through the Edgerton Highway Right of Way (ROW), owned by the Alaska
Department of Transportation (ADOT). An ADOT utility permit will be required.
7.2 Community Flood Data
Based on the Alaska COE database neither a flood plain report nor a flood insurance
study has been performed. However, It has been noted that only very minor flooding
has occurred to two structures less than 10ft from the Copper River. Finish grade for the
proposed facilities will be based on the airport floor elevation
7.3 Geotechnical Conditions
A Geotechnical review of soil conditions at the nearby power plant was conducted by
Duane Miller and Associates in 2007. This report indicates that the site is underlain by
relatively uniform soil conditions but quite variable permafrost conditions. The airport is
situated on an alluvial fan composed of sand, sandy silt, silty gravel and gravel. Silty
organic overburden is present in undisturbed areas, in places up to 9 feet thick. Where
present, the permafrost is thin and discontinuous, and is sensitive to ground surface
disturbances. Up to 5 feet of seasonal frost has been reported in areas cleared of
snow.3
7.4 Borrow Sources
Community residents indicate that 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.3
3 Source: LCMF, LLC. 2006. Conceptual Design Report: Chitna Rural Power System Upgrade.
Final report for the Alaska Energy Authority. 147 pp.
DRAFT REPORT 23 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
7.5 Foundation
In the region of the Chitina Airport and existing diesel power plant the soil conditions
should be suitable for shallow spread footings, provided that any thaw unstable material
is removed from the building area and replaced with a properly compacted, non-frost
susceptible (NFS) fill. This would require the removal of organic and/or silty soils, and
placement and proper compaction of clean, sand and gravel fill material. Spread footings
could then be constructed on the properly compacted fill.3
8.0 Proposed Improvements
8.1 General
The proposed Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project consists of four major components,
including:
x A creek diversion structure- The diversion structure would create a small
impoundment that would divert a portion of flow from Fivemile Creek into a
pipeline (penstock).
x A penstock – The penstock is a pipeline that will transport water from the intake
structure to the turbine powerhouse. The penstock for this project will be around
12-inches in diameter and 10,000 linear feet long. Its primary purpose is to
pressurize and deliver the water from the creek to the turbine power plant.
x A hydroelectric turbine power plant – The power plant will house the turbine and
electrical generating equipment and controls. Water from the penstock will spin
the turbine and generators and produce electricity. The power plant will include a
tailrace that will return water from the penstock to the creek bed.
x Electrical tie-in – An overhead high voltage line will connect the turbine power
plant to the existing electrical distribution system near the airport.
x Diesel integration – The proposed hydro will be linked to the community’s
existing, AEA-type, diesel powerhouse module.
DRAFT REPORT 24 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
Figure 14 - Site Plan
Insert actual 11X17 sheet from plan set.
DRAFT REPORT 25 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
8.2 Intake and Diversion Structure
The diversion structure will be 4 to 6 feet tall to maintain a pool deep enough to
discourage freezing of the intake / rack structure. Heat will also likely need to be
supplied to the rack to discourage frazel ice formation/blockage. The facility will operate
as a “run of the river” system, so no significant storage is anticipated. As currently
envisioned the diversion structure will be constructed as a gravity concrete structure,
with an inflatable spillway to allow spring thaw runoff passage.
8.3 Penstock Alignment
As seen in figure 14 the proposed penstock would follow the Fivemile Mine road when
possible. The penstock is anticipated to be 12-inch diameter pipe and constructed of
HDPE and steel (high pressure). In situations where the penstock must run overland,
the pipe will be insulated to protect against freezing.
8.5 Hydro Power Plant
As currently envisioned the hydro power plant will consist of a pre-engineered modular
structure on concrete foundation. The structure will house the pelton turbine, generator,
and control elements.
8.4 Tailrace Alignment
The tailrace will terminate as close to the Edgerton Highway culvert crossing outfall as
possible. This will be done to ensure minimal impact to potential downstream fish
habitat, and prevent the need for cooling systems prior to discharging the tailrace
waters.
DRAFT REPORT 26 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
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
Hydro plant should require little, if any more maintenance than the existing diesel
system. The diesel system will need to be exercised on a regular basis to insure it is
ready for backup service. Similarly, during periods of low water when the diesel plant is
carrying the load, the Hydro will need to be maintained in a ready condition.
Operation, maintenance and management requirements will be addressed in the project
business plan. The Plan will provide an organizational structure to help the Utility
transition to Hydro power. The proposed business plan consultant, Aurora Consulting,
has assisted dozens of communities, and utilities with similar business plans. In addition
to the business plan, administrative and operator training will be provided on an as-
needed basis as part of the startup services.
DRAFT REPORT 27 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
10.0 Permitting
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT &PF)
An ADOT Right of Way Permit will be required for the penstock crossing of Edgerton
Highway.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Projects that result in the placement of fill in wetlands require a Corps of Engineers
(COE) permit. The Chitina Hydro project will disturb the streambed of Fivemile Creek.
However, activities for this project will fall under an ADNR water rights permit.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
If the construction of a tie-in to the existing electrical distribution system falls within an
existing right-of-way through Native allotment(s), a permit from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) will likely be 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)
If a project falls under FERC jurisdiction a license will be required. The following
conditions place a project under FERC jurisdiction:
x The project is located on navigable waters of the United States.
x The project occupies public lands or reservations of the United States.
x The project utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a federal dam.
x The project is 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.
At this time it is not anticipated that a license will be needed. However Section 23(b)(1)
of the Federal Power Act requires an entity to file with the Commission either a
hydropower license application for a proposed project, or a Declaration of Intention to
determine if the proposed project requires a license.
Fire Marshall Review
Before beginning construction of the proposed power plant, 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. After review and approval, the Fire Marshal issues a Plan Review
Permit to verify compliance with applicable building, fire, and life safety codes. Review
DRAFT REPORT 28 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
times depend upon the agency’s work load; a typical review may take up to 3 months to
complete.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service will require that any
construction project be reviewed for possible impacts to endangered species.
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. 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 review by SHPO for the potential of disturbing cultural resources.
DRAFT REPORT 29 CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
August 2011
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 for a minimum of two consecutive weeks and
sealed bids will be accepted from qualified Contractors. 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
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 installation).
11.3 Use of Local Equipment
The contractor will be encouraged to rent locally available equipment.
11.4 Construction Schedule
Begin Long Lead Procurement - August 2012
Prepare Bid Package and solicit bids for construction - September 2012
Award Hydro Project - November, 2012
Construction completion - August 2014
11.5 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate
Conceptual Design Report $115,000
Geotechnical Investigation $50,000
Business and Operations Plan $35,000
Design $300,000
Site Control/Permitting $80,000
Land acquisition $500,000
Intake and Penstock construction $2,300,000
Powerhouse Building and Turbine $620,000
Electrical Controls and Transmission Line $405,000
Anticipated Project Cost to Completion: $4,405,000
Appendix Table of Contents
Appendix A – Conceptual Design Drawings
Appendix B – Clifton Laboratories, Economic Feasibility Memorandum
Appendix C – Clifton Laboratories, Power Production Memorandum
Appendix D – ABR, Aquatic Resources Analysis
Appendix E – AOHA, Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
Appendix F – USFWS – Critical Habitat Determination
Appendix G – USFWS – National Wetlands Inventory
Appendix A
Conceptual Design Drawings
RUSSIA
ANCHORAGE
NOME
KOTZEBUE
BARROW
JUNEAU
FAIRBANKS
CANADA
KODIAK
BETHEL
UNALASKA
CHITINA, ALASKA
35% DESIGN DRAWINGS
CHITINA HYDRO PROJECT
JUNE 2011
CHITINA
T3S R5E
T4S R5E
T3S R6E
T4S R6E
CHITINA
CHITINA
AIRPORT
5 MILE 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
FIVE MILE CREEK
Appendix B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
Critical Habitat Determination
Appendix G
National Wetlands Inventory
Fivemile Creek
Wetlands Map
May 19, 2011
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All
wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks: