Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChitina Renewable Energy 9-15-2010Renewable Energy Fund Round IV Grant Application AEA 11-005 Application Page 1 of 20 7/21/2010 Application Forms and Instructions The following forms and instructions are provided to assist you in preparing your application for a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and the forms are available online at:http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-IV.html Grant Application Form GrantApp4.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of information required to submit a complete application. Applicants should use the form to assure all information is provided and attach additional information as required. Application Cost Worksheet Costworksheet4.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by applicants in preparing their application. Grant Budget Form GrantBudget4.doc A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of costs by milestone and a summary of funds available and requested to complete the work for which funds are being requested. Grant Budget Form Instructions GrantBudgetInstructions4.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form. x If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. x Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application. x If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones and grant budget for completion of each phase. x If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. x If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. REMINDER: x Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. x All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. x In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you want information is to be kept confidential the applicant must: o Request the information be kept confidential. o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their application. o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 20 7/21/2010 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) Type of Entity: Native Corporation Rural Utility Mailing Address PO Box 88, Chitina, AK 99566 Physical Address Main Street, Chitina, AK 99566 Telephone (907) 952-8748 Fax (907) 823-4006 Email mnfinn@cvinternet.net 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name Martin Finnesand Title Utility Manager/President Mailing Address PO Box 88, Chitina, AK 99566 Telephone (907) 952-8748 Fax (907) 823-4006 Email mnfinn@cvinternet.net 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or A local government, or A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes 1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box ) Yes 1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement. Yes 1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) Yes 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 20 7/21/2010 SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY This is intended to be no more than a 1-2 page overview of your project. 2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 5 word title for your project) Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project. This project is located on Fivemile Creek, which crosses the Edgerton Highway approximately 5-miles north of Chitina, Alaska, near the Chitina Airport. The community of Chitina, ADOT facilities at the Chitina Airport, and local community services and businesses will all benefit from the clean, lower-cost energy that the proposed project would provide. 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type Wind Biomass or Biofuels X Hydro, including run of river X Transmission of Renewable Energy Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic Solar Storage of Renewable Other (Describe) 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) X Reconnaissance X Design and Permitting Feasibility X Construction and Commissioning X Conceptual Design 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project. 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 8,500 linear feet long. Its primary purpose is to pressurize the water from the creek. 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 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 20 7/21/2010 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. 2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, etc.) The proposed hydro electric project will provide a new, sustainable, renewable power source for the community of Chitina, Alaska. The proposed project will reduce the amount of diesel fuel burned at the existing power plant by tens of thousands of gallons annually, significantly lowering power plant operating costs, and helping to stabilize electrical power rates that currently fluctuate dramatically due to spikes in fuel oil prices. The result will be a more robust, sustainable utility. Lowered operating costs, in the form of fuel savings, will also decrease the community’s reliance on Power Cost Equalization funds, allowing the State’s funds to effectively benefit other communities in need. In addition, the proposed project will provide the security and reliability of multiple power sources for this remote community, and create less environmental emissions than the current diesel powered generation and heating systems. During the construction phase, the proposed hydro-electric project will provide new construction related employment and training opportunities for the local work force. In addition when the hydro power generation exceeds community use requirements CEI intends to pursue sales of electric heat to the customers during peak hydro production times. The electric heat will be an interruptible, separately metered, less expensive heating option for the larger power users. There are a number of current utility customers that would benefit from low cost surplus power including the clinic, the local hotel, the Chitina One Stop (local fuel vendor and grocery store), the fire hall, Alaska Department of Transportation, and the local community center and adjacent HUD housing development. The extra capacity provided by the hydro electric plant will also be beneficial in attracting new industries to the community and boosting the local economy. It will reduce heating fuel oil consumption, reduce air pollution and reduce economic payback time of the hydro-electric facility. Economic benefit analysis completed to date indicates a payback period of less than 20 years for the project, compared with an estimated design life of 30 years.. CEI intends to pursue sale of green credits as an alternate economic benefit. In 2008 a new diesel power plant was installed near the Chitina airport along with a 4 mile power line extension that extends to the community. The installed power plant module is fully equipped with control equipment to synchronize a hydro-electric power source with the existing diesel gensets. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 20 7/21/2010 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. Conceptual Design Report $ 115,000.00 Geotechnical Investigation $ 50,000.00 Business and Operations Plan $35,000 Design $300,000 Site Control/Permitting $80,000 Land acquisition $500,000 Intake and Pipeline construction $2,195,000 Powerhouse Building and Turbine $675,000 Electrical Controls and Transmission Line $455,000 Anticipated Project Cost to Completion: $4,405,000 RE Grant funding (Round II) $303,000 In-kind Native Corporation land donation (est.) $ 500,000.00 RE Grant Funds (Round IV) needed $3,602,000 2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below. Grant Costs (Summary of funds requested) 2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application.$ 3,602,000 2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (REF Round II Award)$303,000 (REF Round II) 2.7.3 Other Funds to be provided (Owner In-Kind)$500,000 (Land)* 2.7.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2)$4,405,000 Project Costs & Benefits (Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully operational project) 2.7.5 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet including estimates through construction) $4,405,000 2.7.6 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings over 30 years)$ 6,593,000 ** 2.7.7 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in your application (Section 5.) $ not calculated in dollars * The estimated land value is based upon an assumption of 25 acres total for intake line, building facilities, and distribution line extension at $20,000/acre. ** See Section 5 for financial benefit calculation methodology. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 20 7/21/2010 SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application. 3.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. Chitina Electric, Inc., requests as part of this application, that AEA provide project management assistance in procuring design services and bidding the construction contracts. Chitina Electric, Inc. will provide field supervision services during construction. Through previous discussions and preliminary verbal concurrence it is anticipated that AEA, Rural Energy Group, Rural Power Systems Upgrades will manage the project and assist with system integration. The requested AEA project manager for this project is Mr. Alan Fetters. 3.2 Project Schedule Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.) PROJECT TASK TARGET DATE Regional Hydrologic Investigation Complete Stream Gage Installation and Monitoring Complete Complete new diesel powerhouse and 4-mile distribution tie line (adjacent to mouth of Fivemile Creek)Complete Submit RE Round IV Grant Application Sept 2010 Initiate Fieldwork for Conceptual Design Report (LIDAR, Geotech)Sept - Oct 2010 Recommendation from AEA to Legislature for FY2012 funding Jan-April 2011 Complete Fieldwork for Conceptual Design Report (Survey, Site Control, etc.)May-June 2011 Submit Draft Feasibility Study / CDR (Accomplished with Round II RE Funding)June, 2011 Submit Final Feasibility Study / CDR July 2011 Round IV Grant award to CEI finalized July 2011 Final Design and Permitting Complete July 2012 Long Lead Procurement (Owner Provided Turbine, penstock, controls)August 2012 Prepare Bid Package and Solicit Bids For Construction September 2012 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 20 7/21/2010 Award Hydro Project November, 2012 Construction Completion August 2014 3.3 Project Milestones Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.) MILESTONE TARGET COMPLETION DATE Fieldwork for Conceptual Design Report (LIDAR, Geotech)October 31, 2010 x LIDAR Mapping of Fivemile Creek Drainage x Geotechnical Reconnaissance (Air / Land) Submit Draft Feasibility / Conceptual Design Report (CDR)June 15, 2011 x Site Control Opinion Letter / Title Search Results x Scoping Letters to Regulatory Agencies x Prepare Preliminary Design Drawings / Figures x Refine Economic Analysis x Refine Construction Cost Estimate Submit Final Feasibility Study / CDR July 15, 2011 Submit 65% Construction Documents February 15, 2012 Submit 95% Construction Documents May 15, 2012 Submit Final Construction Documents July 15, 2012 Begin Procurement of Long Lead Items (Owner Provided Turbine, penstock, controls, etc.)August 15, 2012 Prepare Bid Package and Solicit Bids For Construction September 2012 Award Hydro Project November 15, 2012 Contractor Mobilization June, 2013 Construction Substantial Completion August 2014 Operator Training and Plant Startup September 2014 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 20 7/21/2010 3.4 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. Chitina Electric, Inc. (CEI) Martin Finnesand, Utility Manager/President, will be the project contact from CEI. He has 25+ years experience in his position with CEI, with the Chitina Native Corporation, and with construction projects in the community. CEI has administered the local utility since its inception. Utility personnel have been trained and certified as powerhouse operators and have also been trained on hydro operations. It is the intent that the local operators will become knowledgeable on all aspects of this Project to enhance their capability for O&M. (reference appendix) Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) CEI and AEA have a relationship through the Rural Energy Group, Rural Power System Upgrade, which administers and implements the rural power system upgrade projects. AEA has the project management experience to facilitate management and contracting for the planning, design, and construction of the required infrastructure improvements. Continuing the established relationship between CEI and AEA, with the Project Management Agreement, will provide the most efficient and cost effective implementation of the contracts for the facilities. Engineering Design Team The design team will consist of multiple engineering firms. CRW Engineering Group, LLC. under contract to the AEA, will act as the primary engineering consultant for this project. CRW is an Alaskan company with over 25 years of experience in the fields of rural Alaska utility, bulk fuel and power plant design and construction. Other key design team members will include Golder Associates (Geotechnical design), CF Malm Engineers LLC. (Electrical Engineering, hydroelectric system specialist), EDC Inc. (Mechanical Engineering), Larsen Consulting Group (Structural / Architectural), Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. (Hydro Permitting Specialists), Rick Elliot, Land Consultant (site control) and Aurora Consulting (business planning and management). Resumes for specific project personnel are attached. 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Chitina Electric, Inc., will appoint a project representative to work with the AEA project manager in oversight / management of consultants and contractors, and to provide a conduit for distribution of information between the field and the design/construction team. This methodology worked reliably and efficiently for the 2008 diesel powerhouse upgrade project. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 20 7/21/2010 3.6 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. Development of a Hydro-electric project may encounter unknown field conditions, procurement, and permitting delays. Project management will attempt to avoid as many potential pitfalls as possible by: gathering extensive soils and bedrock information at the site to avoid mitigation and blasting delays; coordinating advance procurement requirements to allow construction to proceed on schedule; and facilitating right-of-way, permitting, and regulatory review concerns early in the project approval process. Previous preliminary investigation has already provided valuable information and contributed significantly regarding the selection of Fivemile Creek from the multiple available hydro resources in the Chitina region. With proper scheduling and management the project risk can be mitigated to acceptable levels. The management and engineering design teams assembled for this project are composed of capable and experienced professionals, determined to overcome any challenges that may surface. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 20 7/21/2010 SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS x Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA. x The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. x If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase. x If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. The area surrounding Chitina has multiple potential hydroelectric sources, and previous studies by the Alaska Power Authority and various consultants have considered many possible configurations and locations for hydroelectric generation facilities. Potential sources that have received the most detailed study include Liberty Creek, Fivemile Creek, Trout Lake, Fox Creek and Obrien Creek. Recent studies, including the Regional Hydroelectric Investigation: Chitina, Alaska, Final Report completed in May 2,2008, have focused on O’brien Creek and Fivemile Creek. This report concluded that Fivemile Creek is the preferred development alternative for the following reasons: x Site Access: The proposed intake location can be accessed via an existing 4x4 vehicle trail. Access to O’Brien creek was essentially cut off during flooding in 2006 and susbsequent landslides along the Copper River Highway. x Geotechnical Conditions: The record flood in 2006 caused significant changes in the O’brien Creek drainage resulting in slope instability along the proposed penstock route. Further, discontinuous permafrost was found along the proposed penstock alignment and access cooridor. Fivemile Creek, on the otherhand, has no known permafrost and relatively stable slopes. x Electrical Grid Tie-In – The 2008 Diesel Powerhouse Project included a 4-mile high voltage overhead power line extension from town to the airport (the diesel powerhouse was sited near the airport). As a result of this project, the community power grid extends to within 300 linear feet of the Fivemile Creek Bridge across the Edgerton Highway. Tying the proposed hydro plant into the existing grid would be simple. The proposed Fivemile Creek project would be “high head” with about 1,000 feet of elevation drop between the intake elevation and the powerhouse. The expected design output is 300kW at a penstock flow rate of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs), with winter output bottoming out around 110kW. The cumulative annual potential energy output is expected to be around 2 GWh. Nearby gravel beds provide a local resource to sufficiently bury the pipeline where bedrock precludes direct bury. The timing of the summer peak load from fishing and tourism is ideal for the peak energy delivery of the hydro plant. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 20 7/21/2010 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. Based upon 2010 PCE data, Chitina’s current average electrical demand is approximately 60kW, with peaks in the neighborhood of 115 kW. For this analysis, it is assumed that electrical demand will increase linearly with population growth at around 2% per year, resulting in design average and peak loads of 90 kW and 170 kW, respectively, in the year 2030. CEI’s existing diesel power plant was constructed in 2008 and energized in September, 2009. The project was funded through the Denali Commission and the Alaska Energy Authority, and replaced the community’s aged, non-code compliant power plant. The new facility consists of a pre-engineered, modular metal structure (15’ x 42’) founded on concrete spread footings partially buried within a gravel pad. The structure contains three diesel gensets, including one 54 kW and two 117 kW units, and paralleling switchgear. Power is generated at 480 volts AC and stepped up to 12.47 kV using pole-mounted transformers. A 4-mile overhead powerline connects the power plant to the community power grid. The power plant’s close proximity to Fivemile Creek makes a hydroelectric plant at this location a clear choice. The 2010 PCE report shows that the CEI power plant used 36,870 gallons of fuel at an average cost of $3.55/gal. Each gallon of fuel produced 13.9 kWh. The total generation was about 513,600 kWh, equivalent to a continuous power output of 59kW. The current cost for consumers (after PCE) is $0.43 per kWh. In recent years, utility rates have spiked to over $0.60 per kWh due to fluctuations in fuel oil prices. 4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. Currently, the community is totally reliant on its diesel generators for all power production. Without a renewable source to supplement the diesel systems, the Utility will continue to struggle with high fuel prices and economic instability. The proposed Fivemile Creek hydro electric project is a long term, cost effective, renewable resource answer to Chitina’s current and future energy needs. It would increase the overall system reliability and help to stabilize energy costs in the community. The proposed project would reduce the amount of “recovered” heat available from the existing diesel plant. Recovered heat is currently utilized to heat the Clinic building and heat the power plant fuel tank to allow the use of #2 diesel. However, excess energy from the proposed hydro electric plant will be used to heat these facilities in place of the recovered heat. Further, when excess hydro power is available, dispatchable, low cost heat will be available for many other facilities in town such as the Chitina One Stop Grocery, ADOT maintenance building, fire hall, community building, local hotel and HUD housing, etc. Other immediate benefits to the community may include extending the operating hours / season for the One Stop Grocery and local guide services due to the availability of low cost electric heating. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 20 7/21/2010 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. Approximately 514,000 kWh were consumed in the community over the last year (7/09 through 6/10), representing a 19% increase compared to the previous year. This rapid increase is the result of recently connecting the new clinic, ADOT maintenance building and a local RV park to the distribution system. However, based upon an analysis of population trends and input from the local operator, it is anticipated that the load will continue to grow at around 2% per year for the foreseeable future. As previously discussed, the proposed hydro-electric powerhouse will provide the consumers with more reliable power and help to stabilize pricing. Excess power production will be offered to consumers at a reduced rate, providing a more cost effective method of heating structures than with diesel fuel or wood. Several existing businesses, including the local grocery/gas station and local guide services, have indicated they would extend their operating seasons if heating wasn’t so expensive. Chitina is actively developing its tourism potential. x The local hotel was recently renovated by a new owner willing to invest over a million dollars. x The local RV campground is constantly being improved by the city. x A modern and scenic multi-million dollar bike path was just completed this last summer x Dip netting along the Copper River brings a staggering number of fishermen, tourists, and campers into town annually. The proposed project will facilitate this and other business growth In the community. 4.3 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.3.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: x A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location x Optimum installed capacity x Anticipated capacity factor x Anticipated annual generation x Anticipated barriers x Basic integration concept x Delivery methods As previously discussed, the proposed Fivemile Creek project would be designed as a high head system, with about 1,000 feet of elevation drop between the intake and the powerhouse An exposed bedrock channel at the intake location will allow for construction of a diversion structure to capture the necessary flows. The diversion structure will likely be constructed of reinforced concrete or steel. The intake will be designed to withstand debris impacts from annual spring floods and ice loading. Other design considerations will include freeze protection and a Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 20 7/21/2010 self-cleaning screen system to prevent debris from entering the pipeline. Power and communication lines will be run to the intake location along the penstock alignment. A pressure transducer at the intake will monitor water availability. Water from the diversion structure will be transported to the turbine power house via a 8,500 LF penstock. The penstock will consist of a combination of HDPE and Steel pipe sections; the diameter of the pipeline will be in the range of 12-inches. The pipeline will be buried where soil conditions allow. Above grade pipe sections, if any, will be insulated and protected from environmental hazards. The pipeline will be designed using proven methods for thrust resistance, air release / vacuum protection, water hammer effects, etc. It is envisioned that the pipeline will cross the Edgerton Highway via directionally drilling methods. The penstock will terminate at a hydroelectric powerhouse situated adjacent to the existing Fivemile Creek channel. The powerhouse will house a hydroelectric turbine (likely a pelton wheel machine) and necessary controls and switchgear. Water from the turbine tailrace will be directed back into Fivemile Creek, and will flow into the Copper River. Based upon the hydrologic data collection and modeling to date, the expected design output of the powerhouse is 300kW at a penstock flow of 5 cfs, with minimum expected winter output of around 110kW. The annual cumulative potential energy output of the system is estimated at 2.04 GWh. Specific powerhouse technologies and automation will be selected in conceptual design. The proposed hydro system controls will be connected to, and integrated with, the existing diesel power plant controls. The Hydro will be capable of providing prime power to the community year around, with the diesel plant operating as a backup system. The community’s recently constructed diesel plant has state of the art PLC-based controls that will readily interface and synchronize with the hydro plant controls. The proposed hydro plant will include a full SCADA control system, including high-speed internet link and video cameras allowing anchorage based technicians to monitor and assist the local operators with troubleshooting the system when necessary. The hydro plant will generate power at 480 volts, and pole-mounted transformers adjacent to the plant will step the voltage up to 12.47 KV. Power from the hydro plant will be delivered to consumers via the existing overhead electric power distribution grid. 4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. Land required for the development of these proposed system 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. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 20 7/21/2010 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. x List of applicable permits x Anticipated permitting timeline x Identify and discussion of potential barriers Required state and federal permits will be identified during preparation of the Conceptual Design Report, and scoping letters will be sent to applicable regulatory agencies early in the design phase. Depending upon agency responses, it is anticipated that permitting for the proposed project will take approximately 6-months to complete. The following permit requirements are anticipated for the proposed project: x Preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with AEA requirements x Review by the State Historic Preservation Officer x Submittal of a Coastal Zone Questionnaire to the ADNR. x ADOT Right of Way Permit for penstock crossing of Edgerton Highway. x Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination and nationwide permit. x USFWS approval (Endangered Species Act Compliance) x FAA-Form 2120 “Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration” x Borough Zoning Permit Environmental Assessment In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) an EA will be completed prior to construction of the project. The EA format should be based on the guidance documents provided in the AEA Reference Manual. The EA process should include the development and distribution of a project-scoping letter to all interested agencies. Responses from the agencies should be attached to the EA checklist as justification for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project. AEA will act as the lead agency for FONSI determination. 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed: x Threatened or Endangered species x Habitat issues x Wetlands and other protected areas x Archaeological and historical resources x Land development constraints x Telecommunications interference x Aviation considerations x Visual, aesthetics impacts x Identify and discuss other potential barriers Threatened or endangered species are not anticipated to be impacted by this project, but US Fish and Wildlife—Endangered Species Act Compliance will be reviewed. Utility Pole lines will be designed with raptor concerns in mind. The State of Alaska Fish and Game does not list Fivemile Creek as an anadromous stream. Visual inspection of the mouth of the creek also indicates that this stream is not suitable fish habitat. Therefore, maintaining a baseflow in the creek bed will likely not be a permitting requirement. Wetlands are not anticipated to be an issue for the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 20 7/21/2010 Fivemile project, however COE Nationwide Permits stipulations may apply for work within the creek streambed. Archeological or historical sites are not anticipated to be encountered on this project, however it comply with State Historic Preservation Office—Pre-construction Notification Procedures. Facilities near the airport will be included in FAA-Form 2120 “Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration”. The project crosses mostly Native owned lands, which will be donated as an in-kind contribution; there are no zoning restrictions on the affected lands. As much of the facilities will be buried and/or hidden with wooded areas and, therefore, visual impacts are not anticipated to be an issue for thisproject. 4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues (Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following: x Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase x Requested grant funding x Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind x Identification of other funding sources x Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system x Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system Total anticipated project costs: $4,405,000 Grant Funding Received to date: $303,000 (REF Round II) Community In-Kind Contribution: $500,000 (Land) Requested Round IV grant funding: $3,602,000 Projected project capital costs: $3,825,000.00 Projected project development costs: $ 580,000.00 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. (Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities they serve.) No grant funding is requested for Operations and Maintenance. A detailed business plan will be developed for the O&M of the new hydro facilities upon approval of the grant. It is anticipated that the decreased O&M costs from reduced use of diesel generation facilities, in addition to the fuel cost savings, will offset any new O&M costs associated with the renewable resource facilities, which are anticipated to be approximately $50,000.00 per year. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 16 of 20 7/21/2010 4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: x Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) x Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range x Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project The existing and future CEI consumers will remain the potential power buyers for the renewable energy generation that will replace/supplement the existing diesel generation. CEI intends to pursue green energy credit sales and interruptible electric heating sales. The detailed business plan to be developed upon grant approval will include assessing impact on fuel surcharge effects of the power costs. While it is anticipated the initial estimate may not indicate significant rate reduction in the first years, the cost benefit is in rate stabilization in the future follow on years from a consistent energy supply that will not fluctuate with oil prices. Based on the current cost of fuel ($3.55 per gallon) and the estimated diesel avoidance at the power plant (around 37,000-gallons per year) and heating oil savings at the store, hotel, community center, fire hall, and other facilities eligible for reduced cost electric heat (estimated at around 50,000-gallons per year) the payback period for the project is 17 years. This estimate is conservative, assuming zero growth and flat fuel costs. With minimal growth, the payback period will likely be less than 15 years. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. Attached. SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following: x Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project x Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate) x Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits) x Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) x Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project Annual fuel Displacement due to Hydro: Assumptions: No Growth, Fuel Price Remains Constant for Life of Project at $3.55 per gallon. Diesel For Power Generation: 37,000 gal @ $3.55/gal = $131,350 Heating Oil (replaced w/ low cost electric): 25,000gal@$3.55/gallon = $88,750 Total Annual Diesel Displacement Cost Savings: $131,350 + $88,750 = $219,750 30-Year Diesel Displacement Value = 30 yr x $219,750/yr = $6,593,000 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 17 of 20 7/21/2010 The other potential economic benefits of interruptible electric heat sales, green credits, or environmental improvement have not been calculated in terms of dollars. Federal and State legislation on the proposed carbon tax could have a significant positive impact on the economical payback of the hydro project and will be monitored closely. Non economic public benefits of the proposed project include the following: x Lower emissions will result in cleaner, healthier air for the community and its visitors. x Successful use of alternative energy will encourage other communities to pursue green technology. x Reduced handling and transport of fuel oil will reduce the potential for a spill and better protect the environment. x SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum: x Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. x How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project x Identification of operational issues that could arise. x A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing systems that may be require to continue operation x Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits 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 Hydroplant should require no 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 with similar transitions. In addition to the business plan, administrative and operator training will be provided on an as-needed basis. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 18 of 20 7/21/2010 SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants. Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI), along with its parent Native Corporation, submitted a Round II Rural Energy Fund Grant Application and received funding for preliminary feasibility and design work. Since then, the project team, under direction from the Alaska Energy Authority, has worked diligently on completing the grant agreement scope of work. An updated hydrologic report, current stream flow data and power output projections are attached to this grant application. The analysis indicates that Fivemile Creek is a viable hydro power source and that a full design effort is warranted. The project team is now actively working on a conceptual design report for the project which will be complete in the spring of 2011. The CDR will flush out remaining design, permitting and economic factors pertinent to the project. After the CDR is completed and approved by the AEA, formal design of the facilities will begin. Additional tasks under the Round II Grant Agreement that will move forward immediately are the LIDAR mapping and the detailed geotechnical investigation of the Fivemile Creek basin. It is anticipated that the field work for these efforts will be completed in October, 2010. SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project. The proposed project is fully supported by the residents and local businesses (consumers), the utility (owner/operator), and the local Corporation (land owner). Please see the grant application cover letter submitted by the CEI President, Mr. Martin Finnesand, in support of the project. The utility has offered to provide free use of its limited spread of heavy equipment for the project. In addition, the Corporation has agreed to donate the necessary land for the project. The residents of Chitina are excited about the potential project; the idea of powering their community with clean, renewable energy has energized the community. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 19 of 20 7/21/2010 SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget3.doc Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the project. Chitina Electric Inc. is requesting $3,602,000 to fund the final design and construction of the proposed Fivemile Creek Hydro Project. We understand AEA’s desire to complete the feasibility phase of work prior to moving forward with construction funding. The project team has worked diligently since the Round II grant award and has successfully proofed that the Fivemile Creek drainage is a viable, year-round hydro resource. Additional fieldwork (LIDAR mapping and Geotechnical Investigation), and the Conceptual Design Report will be completed in 2011, prior to the Round IV grant awards. The award of construction funding would allow for early procurement of long lead items such as the hydro turbine and penstock materials to begin over the winter of 2011, in parallel with the final design efforts. This project approach would avoid construction delays associated with procuring major hydraulic machinery components, which can have lead times of several years. Thank you for your consideration of Chitina Electric Inc.’s request for grant funding. The project team is excited to continue work on this critical infrastructure improvement for the community of Chitina. A. Resumes    Your community. Your resources. Your world. www.crweng.com What makes us stand out from other firms? O ur Crew. We go above and beyond to meet our clients’ needs and expectations on every project, whether for public agencies, private developers, construction contractors, or community organizations. We value relationships, and most of our clients are long-time repeat customers. - CRW is about people. Our Services CRW delivers a broad range of services and a wide variety of project expertise. We are local to Alaska, with years of cold-weather project experience in: transportation & transit, parks & trails, land & site development, power & fuel systems, water resources & treatment, sewage collection & disposal, and storm water & wastewater collection & treatment. - CRW is about service. In our work and in our volunteer efforts, CRW strives to have a positive influence on our neighbors, be they in the house next door or on a remote island in the Aleutians. Engineering is about working with people to create meaningful solutions, providing basic services that improve the quality of life in the places where we live. CRW listens to our neighbors’ needs, develops plans to address human and environmental factors, supports community interests, and designs technical solutions to better our world. - CRW is about community.Civil Engineering Electrical Engineering Planning & Public Involvement Construction Administration Land Surveying & Mapping Our Staff Our staff creates CRW’s spirit and personality. Our team is proud to work at CRW. We have an open management style that builds on the strength of our staff as individuals. Most importantly, we operate as a team, collectively responsible for upholding our mission. CRW emphasizes community and having fun. Whether floating down the Kenai River on our annual raft trip, playing on one of many sports teams, cleaning up trash for Adopt-A-Trail, or helping out during United Way’s Day of Caring, we work hard to play hard and contribute to Alaska’s communities. - CRW is about teamwork. “Our mission is to provide outstanding engineering services through enthusiastic employees who work in a fun environment and who recognize the impor- tance of each and every client.” Our Company CRW Engineering Group, LLC. was founded in 1981 by Willy Van Hemert, PE. The founding philosophy of the firm was to become a viable part of the engineering work force in Alaska by maintaining a high level of excellence in our work product and at the same time developing a satisfying atmosphere and work environment for our staff. The firm grew from three people in 1981 to a current full-time staff of 62 people. Our emphasis is on civil infrastructure projects, including transportation, water and wastewater systems, parks and trails, fueling & energy facilities, site development and storm water collection and treatment systems. We provide a full range of services from planning & permitting through construction management in more than 90 Alaska communities. Our in-house capabilities include civil and electrical engineering as well as land surveying and mapping & public involvement. www.crweng.com Your community. Your resources. Your world. CRW Engineering Group, LLC 3940 Arctic Blvd., Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 p (907)562.3252 | f (907)561.2273 CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC | Firm Profile Your Community, Your Resources, Your World. Page | 1 Background | CRW Engineering Group, LLC was established in 1981 and has been performing work in Alaska continuously for 28 years. The organization started as a sole-proprietorship but converted to a Limited Liability Company in 2002. There are nine active owners in the LLC. CRW Firm Profile The firm’s strengths are in utility and transportation development in urban and rural Alaska. CRW has a full-time staff of 61 people, including 22 registered civil engineers, one registered electrical engineer, four registered professional land surveyors, 15 graduate engineers, a certified planner, 10 technicians, and two construction administrators. Thirteen members of our staff have been with CRW for eight years or more, providing stability and continuity to our clients. CRW’s client base is primarily governmental although we do perform services for select private sector clients. Primary clients include the Municipality of Anchorage, State of Alaska (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), ADEC Village Safe Water (VSW) Program, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), the Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC), and a variety of municipalities throughout Alaska, including Whittier, Seward, Valdez, Homer, Bethel, Juneau, and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Facilities | CRW is fully equipped with the latest technology to serve our clients, including individual workstations, and state-of-the- art printers, scanners, servers, and other equipment. CRW maintains a public web site (www.crweng.com), a company intranet, and an FTP site, which provides current information on key projects. Data integrity is provided by redundant file server storage, battery backup power systems, daily tape backups, and offsite storage of backups. CRW Firm Profile Our computer system includes a gigabit Ethernet network with dual-screen workstations at each desktop and broadband internet access. Data security is provided by robust firewalls, automatic virus protection, redundant file server storage, daily backups and offsite data storage. We have four copiers, five scanners, and more than 15 monochrome and color output devices for printing from letter size to E size (plotter). Our more than 12 digital cameras allow us to efficiently document field conditions during the design and construction process. We have presentation equipment, including LCD projectors, podium, speakers, wireless microphones, notebook computers, and display boards. CRW uses the latest version of AutoCAD, AutoCAD Civil 3D, and Autodesk Design software for roadway and site design, surveying, watershed modeling, and drafting. We also use the most current version of Land Design Desktop (LDD) computer design and drafting software. We use Microsoft Office for correspondence, spreadsheets, and project scheduling, and we use Adobe software for publishing and graphic design. CRW’s survey department is equipped with efficient and reliable tools, including GPS receivers, robotic total stations, and digital levels that allow us to perform survey tasks in a cost-effective manner. The use of this digital field equipment reduces the potential for errors by streamlining data collection and minimizing manual data input. In some cases, a single person can gather data. Our reflectorless distance meters reduce or eliminate the need to occupy a point to record its location, which is especially helpful when physical access is difficult including on private property and near barriers. We keep our fully equipped survey vehicles ready to go in our garage/shop located next to our midtown office. Our survey crews travel with fully loaded notebook computers, enabling them to check data integrity prior to leaving the project site. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC | Firm Profile Your Community, Your Resources, Your World. Page | 2 Project Experience | CRW Engineering Group is an Anchorage-based consulting firm specializing in cold region and arctic engineering design and application. The firm's strengths are in utility and transportation development for public and private sector clients. Our expertise includes the following: CRW Firm Profile ◦ Site development for major commercial buildings and subdivisions ◦ Bulk fuel facilities ◦ Rural power systems, including alternative energy systems ◦ Drainage facility design, including snow disposal facilities ◦ Water quality enhancements ◦ Road improvements ◦ Water and wastewater systems ◦ Recreational facilities, including parks, trails and stadiums We offer a full range of services, including planning, project management services, surveying and mapping, design, electrical engineering, and construction support, including rural community force account construction methods. We have provided design for municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities ranging from small, modularized arctic camps to full-size municipal systems in Alaska's major communities. We have extensive experience in water and sewer system development throughout the state. Water system designs have included storage tankage, booster stations, traditional buried water mains, recirculating water mains and above-ground arctic pipe systems. We also provide water system modeling, leak detection analysis, and water system evaluations. In the area of transportation, CRW provides planning as well as design for roadway systems ranging from urban expressways to residential subdivisions. We have worked extensively with federal 3R (rehabilitation) projects as well as the federal TEA-21 program through contracts with ADOT&PF. For the Municipality of Anchorage, we specialize in arterial and collector roadways as well as major trail projects. CRW provides signal system design for major intersections, roadway illumination systems, signing and striping, and traffic control plans associated with construction road closures. CRW also provides design for bulk fuel facilities, fueling dispensing stations, and rural power systems. We have worked in more than 20 rural communities and Anchorage on designing, permitting, and providing construction support for fuel facilities. We have also evaluated and designed alternative energy systems using both wind energy and hydraulic power. Our experience also encompasses site development projects, including commercial buildings, residential complexes and municipal parks. CRW also designed the two outdoor artificial turf stadiums in Alaska. Some of our more recent projects of interest include: Design of a number of collector roadways in Anchorage including Kincaid Parkway, Elmore Road, Pine Street, E.84 and Spruce, McRae and 35th, Independence Drive, Bayshore Subdivision and E Street. Development of a number of parks and bike trails in Anchorage including Kincaid Park, the Campbell Creek trail, the Fish Creek trail, the mid-town north-south trail and enhancements to the Coastal Trail. We are also designing transit and pedestrian improvements in the University/Hospital area in Anchorage. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC | Firm Profile Your Community, Your Resources, Your World. Page | 3 Design for the rehabilitation of the Old Glenn Highway through Eagle River. We are currently working on the segment from the North Eagle River exit to Peters Creek which also includes water and sewer upgrades. Planning and design of major water improvements for the Northern Communities of Anchorage including lift stations and water booster stations. Design and construction management for two water treatment plants in Bethel. We are currently working with the community in constructing a piped water and sewer system and designing an upgrade to their backbone sewer system. Major water and sewer improvement projects in local Southcentral communities of Seward (master planning and water extension), Whittier (new water and sewer system), and Valdez (water system extension, water storage). Sanitation improvement projects in a number of rural communities including Napaskiak, Nunapitchuk, Kwinhagak, Beaver, Tanacross, Klukwan, Twin Hills, Noorvik, Coffman Cove and Mekoryuk. Multiple projects at the Anchorage International Airport (ANC) including master planning, taxiway upgrades, snow disposal site development, and roadway and drainage improvements. Bulk fuel and rural power system design and construction support for the Alaska Energy Authority in more than 15 rural Alaska communities. Replacement of the artificial turf at Anchorage Football stadium which was the furthest north installation of its kind. We also designed a similar field for the City and Borough of Juneau at Kennedy-Adair School. In addition to our technical accomplishments, CRW is also proud to be part of the Alaska community, supporting various organizations and events, including participation in United Way’s Day of Caring, Adopt A Trail, support for local activities and organizations, and funding of an annual Engineering Week College Scholarship. CRW has also been one of the CENews Top 25 Best Firms To Work For for three years. Learn more about CRW at www.crweng.com.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Utility Business Planning & Training 1 Experience & Expertise AURORA CONSULTING UTILITY BUSINESS PLANNING & TRAINING EXPERIENCE & EXPERTISE Aurora Consulting’s staff has many years of experience with community development and other projects, preparing and submitting funding proposals and implementing community-based projects throughout the state. We have provided organizations and communities with development plans, grant-writing assistance, business plans, proposal development and project implementation assistance essential to long-term success. UTILITY PLANNING EXPERIENCE Over the past 30 years, our staff has devoted a considerable amount of its individual business and community economic development expertise solving the unique problems that present themselves in the communities and businesses of rural Alaska. Of all the tasks we’ve undertaken, one of the most prevalent has been the universal need for better utilization or management of community energy resources or utilities. For example, working with the Alaska Energy Authority, State of Alaska Village Safe Water and the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, our team has developed more than 100 operating plans for bulk fuel facilities, electric utilities and water/wastewater utilities undergoing upgrades. Additionally, we provided managerial monitoring and business skills training for approximately 75 bookkeepers and managers for rural bulk fuel facilities and electric utilities. We have worked with Alaska's largest utilities including the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility and Municipal Light and Power to develop planning documents, policies and procedures and operations manuals. And, we have worked with coalitions of utilities to advance their collective projects -- Chugachmiut-area villages to develop a strategy for developing utility fees, communities and engineering firms developing new alternative energy projects and Interior Alaska village utilities to assist them in establishing a utility cooperative. Sample client engagements for Aurora Consulting, and its principal Ann Campbell, include: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) – Rural Energy Project Business Planning, 2001 to Present Aurora Consulting provides professional consulting services to the Alaska Energy Authority under a Term Services Contract to assist the Alaska Energy Authority with the development of a Denali Commission approved business operating plan template and associated documents for rural energy projects. Aurora Consulting assists the Rural Energy Group with preparing templates for business plans, operation and maintenance schedules, repair and replacement schedules, regulatory agency coordination and other business related tasks for both the Bulk Fuel Upgrade program and the Rural Power System Upgrade program. Additionally, Aurora Consulting provides follow-up monitoring and evaluation of completed rural energy projects, as well as on-going business training and development. Additionally, working with the Alaska Energy Authority’s design/engineering term contractors, Aurora Consulting has provided a variety of business planning services for rural bulk fuel and electric utility operations, including the development of business operating plans for the communities of Utility Business Planning & Training 2 Experience & Expertise Akiachak, Akhiok, Akutan, Atka, Atmautluak, Beaver, Bettles, Buckland, Chalkyitsik, Chefornak, Chenega Bay, Chignik Bay, Chitna, Clarks Point, Crooked Creek, Deering, Diomede, Egegik, Elfin Cove, Ewkok, False Pass, Fort Yukon, Golovin, Gustavus, Hoonah, Iguigig, King Cove, Kokhanok, Kongiganak, Koyukuk, Kwethluk, Kwigillingok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Levelock, Manokotak, Nanwalek, Napakiak, Nelson Lagoon, Newtok, Nikolski, Nikolai, Nelson Lagoon, Newhalen, Newtok, Nikolski, Pedro Bay, Pelican, Point Baker, Port Lions, Pilot Point, Port Heiden, Ruby, Seldovia, Stony River, Sleetmute, Takotna, Tenekee Springs, Tuluksak, Twin Hills, Tyonek, Unalakleet, Venetie, White Mountain, Whitestone and many others. Through the process of developing these services to the Alaska Energy Authority, Aurora Consulting has worked closely with the rural communities, the Alaska Energy Authority and its contractors, and the Denali Commission; performed a variety of research and analysis tasks; conducted interviews of project participants and engineering firms; and communicated findings back in well organized and understandable oral, written and electronic formats. The level of assistance provided requires excellent communication skills and a broad understanding, interpretation and application of the local, state and federal utility codes and regulations, operating policies and procedures and application and governance of these at the local level. STG, Inc. – Nome/Unalakleet Wind Energy Project Planning Working with STG, Inc., our team developed an alternative energy grant application for a wind energy project for Nome and Unalakleet and coalesced the myriad project elements into a cohesive plan, identified and quantified economic and public project benefits and identified project operational and maintenance costs as well as other operational issues. These efforts resulted in an award of $8 million in grant funds for construction of the wind project. Following up as the project was constructed, our team worked with STG, Inc. and the Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative to develop a Wind Project Business Plan that provided a guideline for the electric cooperative’s maintenance, operation and sustainability of the wind project. The Plan included minimum estimates of operation and maintenance needs and costs, general and administrative costs, depreciation and/or renewal and replacement needs and costs, an average per kilowatt hour (kWh) charge and total electrical costs. UTILITY TRAINING EXPERIENCE Much of our experience includes training and teaching adult learners new skills, processes and concepts. Whether it is teaching a group of people how to function as a Board or a Council, a group of first-time business owners how to develop marketing strategies or schooling adults on the finer points of managing a utility’s/facility’s business, our team works to bring out the best methods for problem solving or to stimulate creating thinking as the end result. We develop training programs that are customized to meet a client’s needs. Programs range in size and scope and may include a three-day customer service training for a hotel property, a 40-hour business skills training for rural utility managers or a two-day marketing training for small business owners. We develop highly engaging, interactive training programs geared to today's adult learners. We specialize in presenting complex concepts in a manageable, understandable manner, thereby allowing for a broader and more successful readership or training experience. Our expertise in communicating a difficult idea from a more understandable perspective, allows for more people to "get it." Sample client engagements for Aurora Consulting, and its principal Ann Campbell, include: Utility Business Planning & Training 3 Experience & Expertise Management Guides: Electric Utility/Bulk Fuel Upgrade Business Operating Plan" – April 2008 Under the guidelines of Denali Commission funding, a funded energy project is required to have a business plan that outlines how the Denali Commission-funded project will be operated and maintained and how the facility will be replaced and renewed over a period of years - 40 years for rural energy projects. Aurora Consulting has assisted the AEA and rural communities with the development of over 75 business operating plans as well as follow-up classroom and on-site business plan training. As part of the training effort, Aurora Consulting developed a "Management Guide: Bulk Fuel Upgrade Business Operating Plan" and a "Management Guide: Electric Utility Upgrade Business Operating Plan" to provide management information and tools for a variety of business management topics - including reporting requirements, price-setting, fuel inventory management, budgeting and depreciation. For many rural utility managers and bookkeepers, this is a first-time introduction to these complicated, multi-step procedures and practices. Aurora Consulting specializes in presenting complex concepts in a manageable, understandable manner, thereby allowing for a broader and more successful readership or training experience. Our expertise in communicating a difficult idea from a more understandable perspective allows for more people to "get it." Taking the accounting concept of "depreciation" for example, and breaking it down into very basic terms has been extremely successful in the AEA training settings and manuals. Bulk Fuel/Electric Utility Bookkeeper/Manager Training Courses – 2004 to 2010 Alaska Energy Authority/State of Alaska, Dept of Community & Economic Development Aurora Consulting, and its principal Ann Campbell, conducted Bulk Fuel Bookkeeper/Manager Training courses for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the State of Alaska, Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) utilizing the AEA/DCED training materials. These courses included the material on financial management, personnel management, accounting and bookkeeping (including budgeting, chart of accounts, setting up accounts, accounts receivable and accounts payable), operations management and bulk fuel facility business operating plans referenced in the RFP (which were developed by Aurora Consulting under contract to DCED in 2004). Subsequently, in 2008, Aurora Consulting, under contract to the Alaska Energy Authority, developed a Bulk Fuel Business Training class and an Electric Utility Business Training class which combined the concepts and materials from the manager class and the bookkeeping class. The audiences for these classes were rural Alaskan adults who were either working, or would be working, for a bulk fuel facility that had a required business operating plan as a condition to receiving funding for an upgrade to their facility. Each of these courses was 32 hours and averaged 12-14 participants. Subsequent follow-up technical assistance was provided in their home communities – including (1) an assessment of current bulk fuel management identifying areas of need and noncompliance with Denali Commission approved business operating plans, and (2) technical assistance in areas identified by the assessment. Aurora Consulting worked closely with AEA staff with the coordination of course development and delivery and outcomes of follow-up training. Bulk Fuel Manager Training - May 2004, May 2005, November 2005, April 2007 Bulk Fuel Bookkeeper Training - May 2004, April 2005, October 2005, March 2007 Electric Utility Manager/Bookkeeper Training – April 2007 Bulk Fuel Business Training - April 2008, November 2008 Electric Utility Business Training - May 2008, March 2009 QUALIFICATIONS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS DESIGN, UPGRADE, MAINTAIN, CONSTRUCT C F MALM ENGINEERS LLC 5511 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 cfme@cfmalm.com Page 1 of 10 QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE HISTORY 2 SERVICES OFFERED 4 STAFF RESUMES 5 C.F. Malm 5 Stephen C. Spaulding 6 Benjamin D. Bottoms 7 PROJECT REFERENCES 8 CF Malm Engineers LLC Founded 1985 Seattle, Washington Page 2 of 11 CF Malm Engineers LLC CORPORATE HISTORY C F Malm Engineers LLC is a professional consulting engineer, and system integrator founded in 1985, Mr. C. F. Malm, Principal has forty years hydroelectric control experience with one hundred hydroelectric projects in sizes from 15 kW to 600MW. Much of CFME’s work is sole source because of our specialized experience. C F Malm Engineers’ business model is a unique paradigm. We have a broad range of capabilities with a repertoire of proven solutions that can be applied to various problems. However, we always keep in mind the economic value to the owner. 1. We make the analysis effort to determine the true nature of the problem, which is not always what the client believes it is. 2. We find a way to quantify and measure the problem and possible solution in terms of the universal denominator, money. 3. We use in-house resources only when we have the specific expertise required, otherwise we find qualified suppliers and subcontractors. 4. We want risks to be manageable so we are not interested in speculative solutions. 5. We do well coordinating various resources. 6. Finally, we remind ourselves and prospective clients, that we offer results and not our time. CFME accepts unique assignments. Our projects often require close coordination between engineering and the actual doing. For that reason, we maintain capability to subcontract specialized craft labor required for difficult projects. Some of the difficult factors often encountered: • Coordinate the work with operating facilities • Maintain continuous water supply • Maintain confined space safety precautions • Limited access makes work labor intensive requiring careful planning. • Coordinate work such to avoid stacking trades in the work area. Page 3 of 11 CF Malm Engineers LLC HISTORY, CONT. PROJECT OWNERS • Water and Electric Utilities - 10 • City, County, State and PUD - 31 • Design Professionals - 11 • Prime Contractors - 21 • Federal Agencies - 7 US Fish and Wildlife Services US Bureau of Reclamation US Army Corps of Engineers • Projects are located Coast-to-Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, and Overseas. Distance is never a problem The CFME staff gains hands-on hydroelectric expertise from maintenance contracts, which include mechanical and electrical equipment. The maintenance and operations experience enables the staff to understand the hydro plant operators and owners perspective. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS CLIENTS • Douglas County, Oregon, Galesville • City of Ashland, Oregon, Reeder Gulch • City of Cove, Oregon, Cove Hydro • Mt. Pleasant Utah, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 • Idaho Water Resources Board, Dworshak Small Hydro Energy Recovery Facility Page 4 of 11 CF Malm Engineers LLC SERVICES OFFERED • Water-to Wire Hydroelectric Design • Acceptance & Index Tests • Rehabilitation & Upgrade Controls • Commissioning Services • Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition • Construction & Project Management • Control Board Design & Modifications • Mechanical Installation & Upgrades • Vibration Analysis • Maintenance Contracts and Operations • Feasibility Studies • Project Review • Design-Build Construction QS Alaska 8-14-10 C F MALM ENGINEERS LLC 5511 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Phone (206) 270 0450 Fax (206) 270 0449 E-mail cfme@cfmalm.com B. Cost Worksheet    Renewable Energy Fund Round 4 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-21-10 Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements. 1. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. Annual average resource availability. 2.04 GWh (based on 5.0cfs design flow, 1.65cfs winter minimum—see data pg 16 Polarconsult report dated May 2, 2008 Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel) 2. Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3 diesel generators ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 117, 117, 54 kW iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel generation iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 2 years v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.9 kWh per gallon on diesel fuel b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor 30,000 ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor 20,000 c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Electricity [kWh] 513,590 (FY 2010 Figures) ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 36,868 Other iii. Peak Load 115kW iv. Average Load 59kW v. Minimum Load vi. Efficiency 13.9 kWh per gallon of diesel fuel vii. Future trends d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] None ii. Electricity [kWh] iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]                                                              1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric  Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.      Renewable Energy Fund Round 4 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 7-21-10 vi. Other 3. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr] 300kW Hydro-electric b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 2.0 gWh ii. Heat [MMBtu] c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] iv. Other None 4. Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system $3,825,000.00 b) Development cost $580,000.00 c) Annual O&M cost of new system $ 50,000.00 d) Annual fuel cost $0 5. Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity 37,000 gal/year ii. Heat 25,000 gal/year iii. Transportation b) Current price of displaced fuel $219,750/year (Assuming $3.55/gallon) c) Other economic benefits Excess generation capacity is intended to be utilized for community heating fuel displacement. O&M on the diesel generation will be significantly reduced. Emissions and noise from the diesel plant will be reduced. d) Alaska public benefits 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale $0.60/kWh 7. Project Analysis   Renewable Energy Fund Round 4 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 7-21-10 a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio 1.5 Payback (years) 17 years   C. Grant Budget Form  Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form Summary 9/15/2010 Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other (List milestones based on phase and type of project.See Attached Milestone list. ) Summary of Costs Reconnaissance $0 $0 $0 Feasibility $185,000 (Round II RE)$0 $185,000 Design and Permitting $395,000 (See Note 1)$500,000 Land $895,000 Construction $3,325,000 $0 $3,325,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $3,905,000 $500,000 $4,405,000 Direct Labor & Benefits $50,000 $50,000 Travel & Per Diem $25,000 $25,000 Equipment $42,000 $42,000 Materials & Supplies $18,000 $18,000 Contractual Services $665,000 $665,000 Construction Services $3,105,000 $3,105,000 Other $500,000 Land $500,000 TOTALS $3,905,000 $500,000 $4,405,000 Notes: Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date TOTALS Budget Categories: 1. $140,000 funded from RE Round II + $95,000 from RE Round IV RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form Reconnaissance 9/15/2010 RE- Fund Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: Grant Funds Funds Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other (List milestones based on phase and type of project.See Attached Milestone list. ) Reconnaissance "Preliminary Evaluation of Hydropower Alternatives for Chitina, Alaska" APA Completed (1981) "Chitina Hydro Evaluation " EPS Completed (2003) "Fivemile Creek Inspection and Concept Design " Polarconsult.Completed (2007) TOTALS $0 $0 $0 Direct Labor & Benefits Travel & Per Diem Equipment Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Construction Services Other TOTALS $0 $0 $0 Notes: Budget Categories: 1. Reconnaissance is essentially complete with the exception of land use, permitting, and environmental analysis that will be covered in the Conceptual Design Report and Design & Permitting. Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date TOTALS Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form Feasibility 9/15/2010 RE- Fund Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: Grant Funds Funds Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other (List milestones based on phase and type of project.See Attached Milestone list. ) Feasibility Conceptual Design Report (CDR) (Includes; Identification of land and regulatory issues, preliminary permitting and environmental analysis, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, final report and recommendations) 7/15/2011 $115,000 $115,000 Geotechnical Investigation and Report 7/15/2011 $50,000 $50,000 Conceptual business and operations plan 6/15/2011 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $185,000 $0 $185,000 Direct Labor & Benefits $0 Travel & Per Diem $0 Equipment $0 Materials & Supplies $0 Contractual Services $185,000 $185,000 Construction Services $0 Other $0 TOTALS $185,000 $0 $185,000 Notes: Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date TOTALS Budget Categories: Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form Design and Permitting 9/15/2010 RE- Fund Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: Grant Funds Funds Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other (List milestones based on phase and type of project.See Attached Milestone list. ) Design and Permitting Permitting and Final environmental assessment 5/15/2012 $15,000 $15,000 Land acquisition 5/15/2012 $500,000 $500,000 Site Control 5/15/2012 $65,000 $65,000 65% Design 2/15/2012 $180,000 $180,000 Final Design 7/15/2012 $120,000 $120,000 Final business and operational plan $15,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $395,000 $500,000 $895,000 Direct Labor & Benefits $0 Travel & Per Diem $0 Equipment $0 Materials & Supplies $0 Contractual Services $395,000 $395,000 Construction Services $0 Other (Land)$500,000 $500,000 TOTALS $395,000 $500,000 $895,000 Notes: Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date TOTALS Budget Categories: Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form Construction 9/15/2010 RE- Fund Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: Grant Funds Funds Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other (List milestones based on phase and type of project.See Attached Milestone list. ) Construction Bid documents and contractor selection 11/15/2012 $10,000 $51,228 Administration NA $150,000 $150,000 Construction Tasks: Improvements to Fivemile Mine Road and Construction of access road along penstock route 9/30/2013 $350,000 Intake / Diversion Structure 7/30/2014 $105,000 $146,850 Blasting at Intake and Portions of penstock route 9/30/2013 $250,000 Low Pressure HDPE Penstock 9/30/2013 $350,000 $391,547 High Pressure Welded Steel Penstock 8/30/2014 $1,030,000 $1,071,881 Edgerton Highway penstock crossing 8/15/2014 $35,000 Powerhouse Building (20'x20')10/30/2013 $270,000 $311,577 Turbine 6/15/2014 $330,000 $371,805 Electrical Controls and Transmission Line 8/30/2014 $385,000 $426,881 Final Testing and Project Close Out 9/15/2014 $60,000 $101,897 TOTALS $3,325,000 $0 $3,325,000 Direct Labor & Benefits $50,000 $50,000 Travel & Per Diem $25,000 $25,000 Equipment $42,000 $42,000 Materials & Supplies $18,000 $18,000 Contractual Services $270,000 $270,000 Construction Services $2,920,000 $2,920,000 Other $0 TOTALS $3,325,000 $0 $3,325,000 Notes: Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date TOTALS Budget Categories:   D. Letter Demonstrating Local Support  F. Authorized Signers Form  G. Resolution    Figures        CHITINA RUSSIA ANCHORAGE NOME KOTZEBUE BARROW JUNEAU FAIRBANKS CANADA KODIAK BETHEL UNALASKA 5%#.'%1//70+6;/#2)4#2*+% 5%#.'5+6'2.#0)4#2*+% Updated Hydrologic Data    Polarconsult, Alaska Inc.Five Mile Stream Flow ReportAugust, 20101 of 1Fivemile Creek Estimated Stream Flow and Power OutputAugust 2010050100150200250300350Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthPower Output (kW)0.010.020.030.040.050.060.0Daily Average Stream Flow (cfs)Power Output (300kW Project)Stream Flow (Est.) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE i R EGIONAL H YDROELECTRIC I NVESTIGATION C HITINA, A LASKA F INAL R EPORT May 2, 2008 Prepared by polarconsult alaska, inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone: (907) 258-2420 Prepared for ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Contracting Agency LCMF 615 East 82nd Ave., #200 Anchorage, Alaska 99518 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY .....................................................................................................III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3 1.1 PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS ..................................................................................................3 1.2 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................................4 1.3 CHITINA PROJECTED ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................5 1.4 COMMUNITY BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................6 2.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES ...................................................................................................................7 2.1 LIBERTY CREEK ...........................................................................................................................7 2.2 FIVEMILE CREEK ..........................................................................................................................7 2.3 TROUT LAKE ................................................................................................................................8 2.4 FOX CREEK ..................................................................................................................................8 2.5 O'BRIEN CREEK............................................................................................................................8 3.0 SELECTED PROJECT ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................10 3.1 O'BRIEN CREEK, LOW HEAD PROJECT .......................................................................................10 3.2 O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD PROJECT ......................................................................................12 3.3 FIVEMILE CREEK ........................................................................................................................15 3.4 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ................................................................................................................16 4.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................19 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................21 6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................23 TABLES TABLE 1 - PROJECT CONFIGURATIONS AND MINIMUM OUTPUTS ....................................................................9 TABLE 2 - O'BRIEN CREEK LOW HEAD COST ESTIMATE ...............................................................................11 TABLE 3 - O'BRIEN CREEK LOW HEAD PROJECT SUMMARY .........................................................................11 TABLE 4 - O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD COST ..............................................................................................14 TABLE 5 - O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD CONFIGURATION ............................................................................14 TABLE 6 - FIVEMILE CREEK PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................16 TABLE 7 - FIVEMILE CREEK COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................18 TABLE 8 - ECONOMIC SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................19 FIGURES FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP ...............................................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2. O'BRIEN CREEK, LOW HEAD PROJECT MAP ..................................................................................3 FIGURE 3. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD PROJECT MAP .................................................................................4 FIGURE 4. FIVEMILE CREEK PROJECT MAP ....................................................................................................5 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE ii PROJECT PHOTOS PHOTO 1. O'BRIEN CREEK, LOW HEAD PROJECT INTAKE SITE PHOTO 2. O'BRIEN CREEK CANYON AT FOX CREEK. PHOTO 3. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE PHOTO 4. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE PHOTO 5. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE LOCATION BEFORE FLOOD PHOTO 6. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE AREA AFTER FLOODING PHOTO 7. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE AREA AFTER FLOODING PHOTO 8. BANK EROSION NEAR FROM INTAKE PHOTO 9. DOWNSTREAM VIEW OF UPPER RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK PHOTO 10. UPSTREAM VIEW OF UPPER RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK PHOTO 11. VIEW OF SECOND RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK PHOTO 12. SECOND RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK PHOTO 13. O'BRIEN CREEK POWERHOUSE SITE, HIGH HEAD PROJECT PHOTO 14. SLIDES ALONG COPPER RIVER HIGHWAY PHOTO 15. SLIDES ALONG COPPER RIVER. PHOTO 16. ROAD ADJACENT TO FIVEMILE CREEK PHOTO 17. EXPOSED ROCK FORMATION, FIVEMILE PROJECT PHOTO 18. FIVEMILE AERIAL PHOTO. PHOTO 19. FIVEMILE CREEK, POSSIBLE INTAKE SITE. APPENDICES APPENDIX A, HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APPENDIX B, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, SHANNON WILSON APPENDIX C, SUMMARY OF FLOODING IN SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA, OCTOBER, 2006. USGS POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE iii ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY AEA Alaska Energy Authority APA Alaska Power Administration ATV All terrain vehicle cfs cubic feet per second CVEA Copper Valley Electrical Association EPS Electric Power Systems, Inc. ft feet HDPE high-density polyethylene in inch kVA kilovolt-amp kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hours LCMF LCMF, LLC LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging mi mile PCE Power Cost Equalization Program Polarconsult Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. USGS United States Geological Survey POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared at the request of Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Rural Energy Group. Its purpose is to assist in the evaluation of hydropower resources available to the community of Chitina, Alaska. Based on field investigations, analysis of resource suitability, and community power needs, recommendations have been provided for additional investigation and development activities. The continued investigation of O’Brien Creek was the initial intent of this project and required field activities to select a project configuration among the alternatives presented in the O’Brien Creek Hydroelectric Conceptual Design Report (Polarconsult, 2005). A record flood in 2006 (USGS, 2006) caused drastic changes to the stream bed, resulted in slope stability problems, and caused landslides along the proposed penstock alignment and Copper River Highway effectively cutting off access to the project. In addition, discontinuous permafrost was found along the penstock and access alignment. It became apparent that a re-evaluation of the conceptual design and cost assumptions was required. The primary focus of this report is the continued evaluation of the O’Brien Creek resource and a preliminary review of Fivemile Creek and other creeks to determine the best potential hydro project alternative. The end result is a more comprehensive review of the hydropower alternatives for Chitina. Fivemile Creek was originally not pursued as a project alternative because a 4 mile transmission line was required and it was reported that there was little or no discernable stream flow in the winter time. Since the 2005 analysis, an extension of the power line from Chitina to a new diesel powerhouse located at the airport (immediately adjacent to Fivemile Creek) is planned and will be completed in the near future. As a result, the economic viability of the Fivemile project is improved and prompted further consideration during this investigation. Field reconnaissance of the Fivemile project in 2007 suggests that it is a favorable alternative to the O’Brien Creek project in several respects. The benefits include existing access, better soil conditions, and a nearby interconnection point to the electric grid. In addition, the smaller size of the project makes it a better fit for Chitina’s current electric requirements. The project is currently envisioned as having a design output of 300 kW and a minimum winter output of 110 kW. An economic analysis of the project indicates is has a benefit to cost ratio of 2.0 in a “growth” scenario and 1.3 in a “no growth” scenario. Given the current economic and technical difficulties of constructing a project on O'Brien Creek, investigative efforts would be more efficiently spent evaluating a project on Fivemile Creek. It is concluded that further evaluation of the potential for hydropower on Fivemile Creek is warranted. Further investigative activities on Fivemile Creek should include: · Installation of a stream gauge near the intake location · Stream flow measurement to correlate weir readings at the culvert POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 2 · A Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) survey of the area suitable for project layout · Preliminary geotechnical investigation · Identification of regulatory requirements · Preparation of a conceptual design report · Development of a project cost estimate · Refinement of project economics The cost to perform these investigative activities is estimated to be $100,000-$150,000 and will be used to prepare a conceptual design report and refine the project cost estimate. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Rural Energy Group is pursuing the evaluation of hydroelectric projects for the community of Chitina, Alaska, in order to lower energy costs. The increasing costs are the result of escalating costs of diesel generation upon which the community currently depends. Through the use of a renewable hydroelectric resource, the community will benefit from long-term independence from the escalating costs of diesel. To achieve this goal, AEA has taken steps to identify the most suitable hydroelectric projects available to the community. This has required the review of existing studies of alternatives, a conceptual evaluation of desirable project alternatives, initial field investigations, and finally a more detailed evaluation of those projects that are most likely to satisfy the electrical generation needs of the community. Each of these evaluations required a careful review of project configurations, costs, and benefits to make an equitable comparison between projects, resulting in a determination of the project most appropriate and economical for Chitina. This report details previous studies, field investigations, analysis of project configurations and resource availability, and a review of community power needs. The summary of previously investigated projects provides a comprehensive understanding of the alternatives that had been explored. The investigative work has been an iterative effort to further identify the best hydro resource available to the community. The initial project focus was the continued investigation of potential hydro projects on O’Brien Creek due to its large water resource and its capability to meet the long-term electrical needs of the community. The report provides detailed characteristics of the O’Brien and Fivemile Creek projects and a detailed hydrology analysis. In addition, recommendations have been provided to guide the additional investigation and activities necessary to proceed with the development of a hydroelectric project to meet Chitina's needs. Figures attached with the report include a vicinity map (Figure 1) that shows the location of Chitina, the drainage basins being considered for hydro development, and the nearby United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream flow gauging sites. Figures 2 through 4 show the location of each of the most favorable project alternatives. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. prepared this report under the August 30, 2007 proposal, September 21, 2007 notice to proceed, and subsequent changes in scope requested by AEA. The work was coordinated through the term contract between LCMF, LLC and AEA. 1.1 PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS The selection and evaluation of hydro projects suitable for construction is an iterative process that involves several steps. Evaluation of prospective hydro projects began with the selection of superior projects by using existing data and reports. This effort primarily was based on finding a project that could provide sufficient power to meet the energy needs of the community and then considering the technical feasibility and associated cost of the project. Those projects that could provide sufficient power and could be constructed within reasonable economic limitations were submitted to AEA for further POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 4 consideration. Numerous potential projects that initially appeared feasible have been conclusively eliminated through this process. The process resulted in the recommendation to further evaluate O’Brien Creek for its hydroelectric potential. In coordination with AEA, several data gathering and review iterations were necessary to evaluate the O’Brien Creek project configurations with the best potential to provide hydropower to the community. As a part of this process, AEA requested the scope of the investigation be expanded to include the evaluation of Fivemile Creek. 1.2 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS The initial review and analysis of a potential hydro project on O'Brien Creek began in September 2004. A review of existing studies, maps, and potential project configurations was undertaken. Potential projects were identified and an aerial field trip via helicopter was arranged in October 2004 to visually investigate the terrain conditions. Following the 2004 field trip, Polarconsult coordinated the collection of Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data for the project area to further evaluate project options including access, penstock, and transmission routes. LIDAR data provides a detailed image of the ground topography. Due to the vast area of the site, this data was used to cost-effectively evaluate the surface conditions. In December of 2004, the LIDAR data was used to develop a more detailed and reliable evaluation of project alternatives. A Conceptual Design Report (Polarconsult, 2005) was completed that outlined the various project options based on the selection of the preferred project intake site. The project configurations being considered offered alternatives for site access, power house location, and transmission considerations. The report included a project cost estimate and recommendations for further work that included selection among these alternatives along with stream flow and geotechnical investigations. In April of 2005, a field trip was conducted to assess the minimum stream flow available at the preferred project intake site. The measurement of the minimum stream flow is critical to evaluating the ability of the project to meet the power needs of the community. This trip also afforded the opportunity to evaluate the terrain near the intake site as well as along the proposed project routes by helicopter. The visual assessment during this field trip also served to validate the LIDAR data. Subsequent to the 2005 field trip, local reports of severe landslides along the Copper River Highway prompted a reconsideration of the option that sited the powerhouse and the project access route near Eskilida Creek. The extensive nature of the slides eliminated those options and forced a reassessment of the project and associated costs. In October of 2007, a geotechnical and more detailed investigation of the remaining project options was undertaken. As part of this work, a comprehensive review of project alternatives for O’Brien Creek was conducted. During this investigation, significant changes in the site conditions were identified resulting from a severe flood in 2006 (USGS, 2006). The flood resulted in landslides and slope stability concerns near the proposed intake and along the first mile of the penstock route. The landslides along the Copper River Highway required the penstock to bridge O’Brien Creek near the POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 5 powerhouse. In addition, the discovery of permafrost conditions along the penstock route required another reassessment of the project and associated costs. During the same field investigation, a brief evaluation of Fivemile Creek was conducted. This change in project scope was performed in recognition of the fact that the feasibility of a hydro project on Fivemile would avoid many of the difficulties encountered on O’Brien Creek. Although a Fivemile Creek project is significantly smaller than O’Brien Creek, it was recognized to have the potential to meet the current power needs of the community for a much lower cost. The decision was made by AEA to utilize the mobilized design team and available helicopter to evaluate the feasibility of developing a hydro project on Fivemile Creek. The findings of the O’Brien fieldwork were summarized in a brief report (Polarconsult, 2007a) that enumerated the significant construction challenges and the anticipated increases in project costs associated with developing a hydro project on O'Brien Creek. As a result, other more favorable hydro alternatives were focused on. A separate and similarly brief report summary of the Fivemile Creek project was also prepared that included some basic hydrology information and field observations. It was concluded that the low winter stream flow in Fivemile Creek was critical to assessing the potential value of the project. In order to progress in a timely manner with the new focus on Fivemile Creek, a plan involving local residents constructing and monitoring a weir to verify winter low stream flows on Fivemile Creek was undertaken during the winter of 2007 and 2008. The results of the 2007 investigations of the O’Brien Creek project, Fivemile Creek project, and other relevant previous work are presented in this report. 1.3 CHITINA PROJECTED ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS The current and projected electrical requirements for Chitina were required to determine the adequacy of the proposed hydroelectric project to meet the electrical needs of the community. A projection was summarized in the Chitina Rural Power System Upgrade report (LCMF, 2005). The findings of this report and current information have been provided in this summary. The findings of the LCMF report indicated a 189 kW absolute peak demand at the end of FY2015. This was based on an increase in the demand based on 6-year historical population growth for Chitina of 3.26% plus a step increase in demand of 68 kW (peak) related to the tie-in of the Chitina Airport to the existing community. These conclusions are augmented by information provided by the Fiscal Year 2007 Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) which provides data for the period from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, and by information from Mr. Martin Finnesand, the power plant operator for Chitina Electric. The 2007 PCE report shows that the community used 33,789 gallons of fuel at an average cost of $2.52 per gallon. Each gallon of fuel produced 13.34 kWh of electricity. The total generation was about 450,086 kWh which is equivalent to a continuous power output of 51.4 kW. For a community load profile, the absolute peak demand overestimates power usage. The calculation of the probable peak was made to anticipate long-term peak loads. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 6 Discussions with Mr. Finnesand indicated that the current peak demand is approximately 75 kW. This does not include the additional loads that will come when the power line extension is constructed to the airport, which is expected to be approximately 30 kW (factored peak) for the clinic and DOT maintenance facility. Applying the 3.26% growth factor applied to the current 75 kW peak demand plus an estimated 30 kW peak results in a 124 kW probable peak for FY2015. The peak demand in Chitina occurs during the summer and winter. The summer peak is caused by the seasonal increase in population and the increased refrigeration loads to freeze salmon caught by the residents and summer visitors. The timing of the summer peak load is ideal for a run-of-river hydroplant, as it has more than sufficient capacity since water flows increase greatly during the summer. 1.4 COMMUNITY BACKGROUND Chitina is located on the west bank of the Copper River at its confluence with the Chitina River, at mile 34 of the Edgerton Highway, 53 miles southeast of Copper Center. Chitina was established in the early 1900s as a support town for mining in Kennicott but was nearly abandoned after the mine shut down in 1938. The 2000 census population was 123. The climate in Chitina is characterized by long, cold winters and relatively warm summers. Total annual precipitation averages 12 inches. Temperature extremes from a low of -58 to a high of 91 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded (Alaska Community Database, 2008). During the summer, subsistence dipnetting for salmon on the Copper River brings a large number of Alaskans from Anchorage and other areas of the state. 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 through fish guiding and other services. The terrain near Chitina is rugged, with the Chugach Mountains rising steeply from the banks of the Copper River. A series of small lakes is located in the narrow valley along the Edgerton Highway between the townsite and the airport. A bridge crosses the Copper River at the townsite leading into the Wrangell St. Elias National Park and the road to McCarthy and the Kennicott Mine. The park on the east side of the Copper River near the bridge consists of National Wilderness and Preserve areas. South of Chitina, the Edgerton Highway becomes the Copper River Highway. This is an unimproved trail accessible by four wheel drive and all terrain vehicles (ATVs). In the 1920s, it was the alignment of a railroad track that extended to Cordova, crossing the Copper River via the Million Dollar Bridge. The old railroad grade has not been maintained and recent flooding has taken out bridges and caused landslides that have effectively blocked travel between O’Brien and Eskilida Creeks. Chitina is accessible by road system and the small airport. The driving distance from Valdez to Chitina is 116 miles. Driving distance from Anchorage is 247 miles. The Chitina Airport has a 2,850-foot gravel runway. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 7 2.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES Previous reports considered many possible configurations and locations for hydroelectric projects near Chitina. The U.S. Department of Energy and the Alaska Power Administration (APA) performed a study in 1981 evaluating four potential hydroelectric sites within 10 miles of Chitina (APA, 1981). The study included an evaluation of the feasibility of an intertie between Chitina and the Copper Valley Electrical Association (CVEA) system at Tonsina as well. The APA study concluded that there were no reasonably developable small hydro sites in Chitina given the combined economics of providing transmission and distribution and the low power demand. The study suggested that a more favorable solution was to construct a larger hydro (500 kW) on Fivemile or Liberty Creek along with the intertie. The excess energy from the hydro would be sold back to CVEA during the summer to offset the cost of the hydro and local distribution system. A study of an intertie was performed by Electric Power Systems, Inc. (EPS) to determine the possible routing and estimated costs for a single-phase overhead tieline from Lower Tonsina to Chitina along the Edgerton Highway (EPS, 2003a). This intertie would connect Chitina’s existing distribution system to CVEA’s single-phase distribution line. The total cost to construct this line was estimated at $2,190,960 (EPS, 2003a). The cost of the line was compared to the cost of a replacement generation plant and was concluded to be cost prohibitive. The following is a summary of several different projects that have been considered for hydro development. 2.1 LIBERTY CREEK The APA report examined a project on Liberty Creek below the falls. This project was configured with 250 feet of head with the pipe suspended from the canyon walls. Minimum winter production would be approximately 60 kW. The presence of a State Recreation Site at Liberty Falls is anticipated to be a substantial impediment to obtaining approval to build a project. To permit the project, the falls would have to be avoided, limiting design options. A project could be entirely located upstream of the falls, but the creek is in a deeply incised canyon for several miles making construction and access a significant difficulty. Another option that was not considered in the APA report was to lengthen the penstock and place the powerhouse on the banks of the Copper River, netting approximately 550 feet of head. This configuration would produce about 130 kW in the winter and have a capacity of 300 kW. This option would have a 6,500-foot pipeline with a 6-mile transmission line. The high cost of the transmission line alone is expected to result in the project not being economically viable. 2.2 FIVEMILE CREEK APA found that Fivemile Creek could support a hydro plant in the summer but did not expect enough water in the winter to make development worthwhile. Additionally, at the POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 8 time of the report, a 4-mile transmission line would have been required to connect to Chitina Electric. The project considered by APA had 300 feet of head. Such a project would have a minimum winter power production of 30 kW. This would require the diesel plant to run most of the winter to handle peak loads. Another alternative for Fivemile Creek was a high head configuration. This configuration utilizes an intake at an elevation of about 1,570 feet and a powerhouse located at about 530 feet. This option would produce a minimum power output of about 110 kW in the winter and would be designed for a maximum output of about 300 kW. This is the option that is more thoroughly investigated, and ultimately recommended, later in this report. 2.3 TROUT LAKE The existing hydroelectric project on Trout Lake has never been fully operational due to problems keeping the siphon portion of the penstock from leaking air. EPS prepared the Chitina Hydro Evaluation report (EPS, 2003c). This report details the investigation of the existing hydro and evaluates the feasibility of bringing the system back into service. EPS initially recommended bringing the project online if the costs to do so were minimal. The EPS report states that the Francis turbine output is 63 to 85 kW at a net head of 82 to 121 feet and flow of 11.3 to 12.7 cubic feet per second (cfs). The actual output of the Trout Lake hydro under full output was found to be 52 kW. The report found the cost to restore operation of the hydro to be approximately $50,000. This was under the assumption that the penstock air leaks could be easily repaired. After consideration of the EPS report, the conclusion reached by LCMF was that the Trout Lake project was not worth pursuing as a possible hydropower resource for Chitina. The capacity of the turbine on Trout Lake, about 60 kW, is not indicative of the ultimate value of this resource. The amount of water on a yearly basis is very limited due to the small drainage area. Coupled with the very poor efficiency of a Francis turbine at low operational flows, the potential winter power production is essentially zero. The limited output and other operational considerations combined with the relatively high cost and uncertainty of restoring operation warrant, as a minimum, delaying any investment into this project until further analysis of the Fivemile project is completed. 2.4 FOX CREEK APA also investigated the potential for a project on Fox Creek. Helicopter over flights, and later review of LIDAR data, confirmed the conclusion by APA investigators that the canyon was too steeply incised to effectively construct a project there. 2.5 O'BRIEN CREEK The APA report considered a project located along the lower reaches of O'Brien Creek. This project sited the intake location above the Fox Creek discharge and the powerhouse downstream from the Fox Creek discharge. Net head was estimated to be approximately 300 feet with a 2,700-foot-long pipeline. Polarconsult reviewed this project using LIDAR data and found that approximately 5,300 feet of pipeline would be required to obtain 300 feet of head. The intake elevation would POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 9 be at approximately 850 feet, with the powerhouse at 550 feet. This option would generate 220 kW in the summer and have a minimum power output of about 80 kW in the winter. The transmission line associated with this project would be about 2.3 miles long. Polarconsult evaluated other design configurations for hydropower on O'Brien Creek (Polarconsult, 2005). These were high head options that considered the intake sited at an elevation of about 1,950 feet and powerhouse located on either the Copper River or somewhere along the lower reaches of O'Brien Creek. These options would have the ability to produce significantly more power than the low head options. Depending on the turbine size selected, this option could generate 470 kW in the summer and have a minimum power output of about 390 kW in the winter. The higher head option, with a substantial amount of extra energy available, was the primary focus of investigations upon which this report is based. The LIDAR data indicated that such a project appeared feasible and would be accessible via a road access located about 2 miles south of the O'Brien Creek mouth near Eskilida Creek. Both options on O'Brien Creek are discussed in more detail in the sections to follow. Table 1 compares the various project configurations. Table 1 - Project Configurations and Minimum Outputs Location Basin area Head Min. Flow Min. Output (sq mi) (ft) (cfs) (kW) O'Brien low head 34.0 300 4.43 80 O'Brien high head 31.8 1500 4.13 390 Liberty Creek 27.9 550 3.63 130 Fivemile low head 13.2 300 1.73 30 Fivemile high head 12.6 1040 1.65 110 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 10 3.0 SELECTED PROJECT ANALYSIS Several hydro projects were considered for further analysis based on the potential to meet the power needs of the community and be economically viable. The selected projects were analyzed to determine if further investigation was appropriate. The projects considered under this section are low head and high head project configurations on O'Brien Creek and an analysis of a high head project on Fivemile Creek. 3.1 O'BRIEN CREEK, LOW HEAD PROJECT A low head project that located the intake and powerhouse in the canyon near the discharge of Fox Creek was considered by APA. The project envisioned by APA, and considered here, is described using the LIDAR data gathered and differs slightly from the APA report due to more accurate topographic information (Figure 2). The intake location for this project is at an elevation of about 850 feet. Siting the intake another 600 feet further upstream could net additional head; however, the bank on the west side gets very steep and a large outcropping exists that imposes a practical limitation for access. The APA report placed the powerhouse near Fox Creek at an elevation of 620 feet. Since a road is required for intake access, a better solution is to locate the powerhouse further downstream at an elevation of about 550 feet. This adds about 2,300 feet of penstock but reduces the transmission line length. The field visit in 2007 afforded only a brief aerial look into this option. Based on pictures and video, the intake site is rocky and gravelly with what appears to be a significant amount of talus material coming off both banks. Construction of an access road on the west bank will encounter the same soil conditions that were found higher up in the drainage, namely unstable glacial till. Such soil conditions will make long-term maintenance of and access to the intake difficult. The intake location may present the problem of establishing an effective water cutoff due to the potential for significant amounts of permeable material at the base of the creek bed (Photo 1). This can make the collection of low water flows difficult. The pipeline and access road would need to be adequately protected from slides and erosion of the embankment (Photo 2). Enough loose material exists so that trenching appears feasible; however, the material may not be suitable for backfill without screening. A culvert or bridge over Fox Creek will be required as well. The powerhouse site has enough area to adequately be located above flood stage and is not on a steep slope. The transmission line would likely follow the access road. Overall, this low head option for O'Brien Creek is more economical than the higher head options evaluated. However, the project is expected to be more expensive and would likely have a higher maintenance cost than a project on Fivemile Creek due to the narrow and difficult canyon conditions and transmission line costs. Additionally, it is expected to produce less power than Fivemile Creek. Should conditions on Fivemile Creek turn out not to be very favorable, then a closer look at this project is worthwhile. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 11 In comparison to the high head option on O'Brien Creek, this lower head project would be better for just meeting Chitina's current energy needs. Table 2 - O'Brien Creek Low Head Cost Estimate Description Cost Materials Pipe $ 238,500 Turbine $ 150,000 Controls $ 70,000 Intake $ 85,000 Powehouse $ 80,000 Transmission $ 287,500 Access $ 50,000 Labor $ 250,000 Equipment $ 150,000 Shipping $ 150,000 Subtotal $1,511,000 Contingency (25%) $ 380,000 Subtotal $1,891,000 Profit/Overhead (25%) $ 470,000 Engineering $ 210,000 Administrative $ 70,000 Total $2,641,000 Table 3 - O'Brien Creek Low Head Project Summary Basin Area 34.1 sq mi Winter Minimum Flow 4.6 cfs Design Flow 17.0 cfs Pipeline Length 5,300 ft Nominal Pipeline Dia 18 in Transmission Length 12,350 ft Intake Elevation 850 ft Powerhouse Elevation 550 ft Static Head 300 ft Dynamic Head 220 ft Design Power Output 220 kW Winter Power Output 80 kW POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 12 3.2 O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD PROJECT Several high head project configurations have been proposed for O’Brien Creek. The Polarconsult 2005 report recommended a project where the powerhouse was located along the banks of the Copper River about 1½ mile downstream from the mouth of O'Brien Creek (Figure 3). An access road was to be constructed 0.5 miles to the south that was to follow an existing ATV trail. Access to the project and the transmission route required the use of the Copper River Highway. Given the large amount of power that was available with the high head project, this option appeared to be the most favorable. Since the field investigation in 2005, extensive slide activity has occurred on the Copper River Highway between the mouth of O'Brien Creek and the proposed powerhouse location. The slide has been described as a major obstacle that will remain unstable for a considerable time. The high cost and dangerous conditions* associated with the slide have, for the time being, precluded further consideration of this alternative. For this reason, a closer look at other options was undertaken in 2007. * "…repairing the original slide was going to cost an estimated $10 million and it’s gotten a lot worse since — it’s not safe to work on the road. 'We had a hydrologist go look at it, and he said the whole mountain is unstable,' Thies said. 'I don’t see any way you can put that thing back in shape.' " Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 12, 2007. The fieldwork in 2007 primarily focused on finding a new powerhouse location and project access route to avoid the slide area. The other alternatives considered locating the powerhouse somewhere along the lower reach of O'Brien Creek with access ascending in the same area. Additional work during the field trip involved evaluating soil conditions, intake locations, and construction issues. During the 2007 field trip, several conditions were encountered that affected previous project concept design and cost assumptions: 1. It was discovered that the flood event of 2006 (USGS, 2006) completely reshaped the intake area (Photos 4-8) and caused new landslides and slope stability problems along the proposed pipeline route (Shannon Wilson, 2007). 2. The soil conditions along the penstock route were found to be poor with broad areas of bog and discontinuous permafrost requiring more costly construction methods. 3. The steep initial ascent of the access road would require the use of a winch line and a helicopter to move personnel, equipment, and materials, resulting in additional costs to access the project during construction and future maintenance. Relocation of the powerhouse required crossing O'Brien Creek with the high pressure pipe over a bridge able to withstand the 2006 flood and increasing the total pipeline length by about 3,000 feet for a total of 18,500 feet. The transmission line would be reduced by 1.3 miles for a total length of about 2.0 miles. The project cost estimate was also affected by the presence of permafrost soils identified along the penstock and access route (Shannon Wilson, 2007). Once disturbed, these soils can thaw, creating pools of water and areas of active soil movement. If widespread, the permafrost will dramatically slow the progress of pipeline installation. Where there is POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 13 permafrost, anchors need to be installed to keep the pipe from floating when empty and to provide restraint at bends and on slopes. A separate maintenance access route may be necessary after initial construction to avoid subsequent bogs and poor soil strength where the pipeline disturbance has melted the permafrost. Both the additional access difficulties and the presence of poor soils significantly complicated the design, construction, and maintenance aspects of the project. The consequence of this is a large increase in the planning, engineering, and administrative efforts. Similarly, due to unforeseen construction risk, the contingency costs also increase substantially. The extensive erosion, landslides, and slope stability concerns resulting from the 2006 flood also affect the project costs. The intake area was found to be inundated with alluvial material. As a result, it is expected to be more difficult to capture low stream flows. The floods caused undercutting and large landslides along the side hill that the original design called for benching the pipeline in. The unstable slopes dictate that the pipe should now be buried at the base of the side hill along the edge of the creek. This will require thicker wall high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe buried at a greater depth in the flood prone area to withstand higher pressures and boulders in the backfill. To maintain the same project power output, the pipe diameter will need to be increased to compensate for the thicker walls. As a result of these findings, the construction cost of a high head project is significantly higher than previously estimated. An estimate of the total project cost for the high head project with the powerhouse located on O'Brien Creek is presented in Table 4 with the project specifications shown in Table 5. The development of a high head project is not economical based on the cost and current power requirements of Chitina. If a market for significantly more power were available, this project would warrant further consideration. Such a project may have a rated capacity anywhere between 900 kW and 2500 kW. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 14 Table 4 - O'Brien Creek, High Head Cost Description Cost Diversion / Intake / Desander $150,000 Penstock $600,000 Powerhouse/Turbine/Generator $300,000 Access and Bridge $75,000 Power Transmission System $420,000 Equipment $560,000 Labor $375,000 Shipping $200,000 Subtotal Direct Costs $2,680,000 Contingency (25%) $670,000 Subtotal Estimated Cost $3,351,000 Overhead & Profit (25%) $838,000 Total Construction Cost $4,188,000 Engineering $350,000 Construction Management $165,000 Total Project Cost $4,703,000 Table 5 - O'Brien Creek, High Head Configuration Basin Area 31.8 sq mi Winter Minimum Flow 4.1 cfs Design Flow 6.5 cfs Pipeline Length 18,500 ft Nominal Pipeline Dia 12 in Transmission Length 17,600 ft Intake Elevation 1,950 ft Powerhouse Elevation 450 ft Static Head 1,500 ft Dynamic Head 1,130 ft Design Power Output 470 kW Winter Power Output 390 kW POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 15 3.3 FIVEMILE CREEK A project on Fivemile Creek was evaluated and is presented as the recommended project for further investigation (Figure 4). The initial review presented in the APA report indicated that a Fivemile Creek project lacked sufficient water to generate enough power for local needs during the winter. In addition, the project required a 4-mile extension of the transmission line to connect with the community. The impediments to developing Fivemile Creek were considered in 2005 and prompted the investigation of a project on O’Brien Creek. O’Brien Creek was known to have more than enough water to meet the power generation needs for Chitina, even during the lowest flows of spring. At that time, the presumed location for the new diesel power plant was in the town of Chitina, which would have required a 4-mile transmission line to connect Fivemile to the city grid. As a result, a project on O'Brien Creek was considered to be more feasible. The high cost of developing O'Brien Creek and the decision to locate the new diesel power plant near the airport prompted a more detailed review of the Fivemile Creek project. During the 2007 field trip, an aerial reconnaissance of the Fivemile project area was performed and a short excursion was undertaken to search for a possible intake location and pipeline route out of the steeply incised canyon. Analysis of the project indicated that a high head option for the project was the only way to provide sufficient power to justify development of the project. This required placement of the intake site near the 1,570-foot elevation contour. Aerial inspection of the site indicated the possibility of mild side slopes suitable for a penstock route that was not apparent during the prior review of topographic maps. Considering Fivemile Creek as a potential alternative location for a hydroelectric facility focused on the availability of water for power generation. Based on the findings of the hydrological investigation (Appendix A), there appears to be enough water to make a project viable on Fivemile. The field inspection focused on a project with an intake elevation of 1,570 feet and a powerhouse located near the Copper River at an elevation of about 530 feet. The choice of intake location was based on review of the USGS contour map and a brief aerial observation that confirmed more suitable terrain at the higher elevations. A handheld GPS and altimeter was used to locate the possible intake location. An existing four wheel drive trail that ascends the drainage on the ridge on the north side of the creek was used to ascend to an elevation of approximately 1,450 feet followed by a foot survey to the creek. The terrain encountered included flat benches with soil and medium-sized spruce trees and rock cliffs. The predominant terrain was a slight to moderate side hill (slopes of about 2.5:1) with dense spruce and dead fall over soil. Active erosion, landslides, or slope instability were not observed. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 16 It was concluded that a good probability of finding a penstock alignment could be benched to avoid significant rock excavation. However, this initial impression is based on visual observation and needs to be verified. Below the intake site, Fivemile Creek flows through a confined canyon that becomes more incised in the downstream direction. At the intake site, the creek is confined tightly on the south side (opposite the pipeline side) by canyon-like cliffs and steep slopes. The north bank at the intake, which is where the pipeline would traverse, had some exposed rock but did have a stretch of flat to slightly sloped ground that may have consisted of large alluvial material. The flat ground gave way to a steep slope and some cliffs about 100 feet away from the creek. Above the intake site, the north bank of the creek rises steeply again then appears to flatten out again. Just downstream from the intake site, the north bank appears to remain relatively flat and accessible for some distance. The Fivemile Creek project would be high head with about 1,040 feet of elevation drop between the intake and powerhouse. This project is able to produce 300 kW of electricity at a flow of 5 cfs. The Fivemile Creek Project specifications are presented in Table 6. Table 6 - Fivemile Creek Project Specifications Basin Area 12.65 sq mi Winter Minimum Flow 1.65 cfs Design Flow 5.0 cfs Pipeline Length 8,500 ft Nominal Pipeline Diameter 12 in Transmission Length 2,000 ft Intake Elevation 1,570 ft Powerhouse Elevation 530 ft Static Head 1,040 ft Dynamic Head 940 ft Design Power Output 300 kW Winter Minimum Output 110 kW Annual Potential Energy 2.04 GWh Estimated Cost* $2,010,000 *Approximate estimate of costs based on assumed site conditions to be verified by further investigation. 3.4 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN The Fivemile Creek intake area is fairly narrow and appears to be confined in a bedrock channel that will allow for a relatively simple diversion to capture flows. Although the total project flow is only 5 cfs, the small dam and intake will require a design to support the occasional extreme flood with large trees and boulders being carried downstream. However, site conditions suggested that the area withstood the 2006 floods without significant bed or bank changes and channel meandering. Additionally, in the winter, a substantial amount of glaciation is anticipated. As such, the dam and intake will be subject to significant ice loads. Additional design features should include a pool deep enough to prevent freezing of the slow moving water down to the streambed and insulation to minimize heat loss. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 17 A significant amount of dead wood and spruce needles should be expected in the stream flow. A self-cleaning screen system will be required to keep debris from entering the pipeline. Power at the intake site is required to operate screening systems. A head level control system will be required to monitor water availability. The section of penstock extending approximately 3,200 feet from the intake is envisioned to traverse the hillside until it crosses the existing four wheel drive trail. As described above, the embankment on the north side of the intake is relatively flat, leaving sufficient room to establish an access trail and pipeline bench. Collection of topographic survey data will determine the best location for the pipeline and access route and, subsequently, the intake location. An inspection of the soil conditions was made along the four wheel drive access trail that ascends from the Edgerton Highway up to the peak of the mountain on the north side of Fivemile Creek. This trail leads to an abandoned mine. Only a few sections of the trail, primarily close to the highway, have appreciable topsoil. Most of the trail was rocky with large cobbles and occasional patches of exposed bedrock. The bedrock appeared competent. If insufficient soil or loose rock is found along the pipeline route then burial may be quite difficult. However, a gravel pit is located along the trail approximately ½ mile from the highway (per discussions with Martin Finnesand), and may serve as a source of material for bedding, padding, and mounding the pipeline. Sufficient burial is important for this project in order to obtain low-cost pipeline protection from movement and insulation to guard against freezing. HDPE pipe could be used for the 3,200-foot low pressure section. Steel pipe is required for the remaining high pressure section. Once the traverse is completed out of the creek canyon, there are several pipeline route options. The topography is at a 12% to 18% grade. This large potential area will dictate a thorough investigation to find the best route to minimize construction and maintenance costs. A LIDAR survey of the area is recommended to avoid terrain features shown on the low resolution USGS quad map. A future geotechnical investigation along the proposed pipeline route should be done with the intent of minimizing rock excavation and identifying good natural bedding conditions. This route almost certainly will not coincide with the existing four wheel drive trail. Crossing the Edgerton Highway will also be required. It is expected that the pipeline will be buried under the highway. The suggested powerhouse location was chosen to maximize the static head while avoiding airport property. The final location selected should address these considerations along with long-term erosion potential of the banks of the Copper River, vehicle access to the powerhouse, pipeline alignment, transmission line length, and the pipeline crossing location of the Edgerton Highway. The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game does not list Fivemile Creek as an anadromous stream. Visual inspection of the mouth of the creek also indicates that this stream is not suitable fish habitat. Therefore, the tailrace does not need to drain back into Fivemile Creek. This will also simplify permitting requirements. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 18 Table 7 - Fivemile Creek Cost Estimate Item Amount Materials Pipe $ 220,000 Turbine $ 150,000 Controls $ 70,000 Intake $ 50,000 Powerhouse $ 60,000 Transmission $ 50,000 Labor $ 200,000 Equipment $ 150,000 Shipping $ 150,000 Subtotal $1,100,000 Contingency (25%) $ 280,000 Subtotal $1,380,000 Profit/Overhead (25%) $ 350,000 Engineering $ 210,000 Administrative $ 70,000 Total* $2,010,000 *Approximate estimate of costs based on assumed site conditions to be verified by further investigation. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 19 4.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A comparative analysis of the O’Brien high head project and the Fivemile Creek high head project alternatives were made against the projected diesel generation costs. Based on this comparison, the Fivemile Creek project is superior to the O’Brien Creek project. Further, the Fivemile Creek project will more than pay for itself in savings in fuel that would otherwise have been used in the diesel plant. The following assumptions were used to make this analysis: Item Value Fuel use in FY2007 33,789 gallons (AEA, 2008) Fuel cost for 2008 $3.70 per gallon (Data from Martin Finnesand) Increased demand on Airport tie-in 30 kW* Total Yearly Energy from Airport 25,000 kWh * Current peak demand for community 75 kW (Data from Martin Finnesand) Power generated in FY2007 450,586 kWh/yr (AEA, 2008) Annual increase in energy growth 3.26%/year (LCMF, 2005) Loan payment period 30 years Real discount rate 3% (AEA Alternative Energy RFP, Dec. 6, 2007) * Energy usage is estimated. A 25-kW genset can carry the DOT State Maintenance Facility Loads, and 5 kW is the estimate for the Clinic. Assumed average load is about 3 kW. Based on conversation with Martin Finnesand. For the purposes of this comparison, the analysis used the current peak demand of 75 kW plus the 30 kW probable demand for the Chitina Airport tie-in. Based on load growth projections, the calculation for peak demand growth was made with the 75 kW demand escalating for 30 years at a rate of 3.26% per year (LCMF, 2005). The total energy demand used in these calculations is the FY2007 power generated (450,586 kWh) plus the assumed static demand of 25,000 kWh from the airport and clinic. Daily peak load requirements and subsequent diesel use were factored in as well. Present worth values were then calculated based on the value of fuel displaced for diesel generation by the respective hydro project. The following table summarizes the construction costs, projected value of fuel saved, and the benefit to cost ratio under different growth scenarios. Table 8 - Economic Summary Project Construction Cost No Growth 3.26% Growth Savings PV* B/C** Savings PV* B/C** O'Brien, High Head $ 4,703,000 $ 2,600,000 0.6 $ 4,100,000 0.9 O'Brien, Low Head $ 2,641,000 $ 2,500,000 0.9 $ 3,500,000 1.3 Fivemile*** $ 2,010,000 $ 2,600,000 1.3 $ 3,900,000 1.9 * PV = Present value at real discount rate. ** B/C Benefit to cost ratio. ***Approx. est. of costs based on assumed site conditions to be verified by further investigation. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 20 This analysis did not include the potential benefits gained by using excess electricity for heating or other purposes. The heating value of surplus electricity produced by the projects can positively affect their economic values, offsetting local use of heating fuel. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 21 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The 2007 field investigation provided additional information to evaluate the O’Brien Creek hydro project alternatives. The field investigation also included the Fivemile Creek project. This report includes a summary of previous projects in the area as well as further evaluation of the O’Brien and Fivemile Creek alternatives. Previously unidentified field conditions resulted in a significant change in the design concept and cost assumptions for the proposed configurations on O’Brien Creek. These changes were the result of a record flood in 2006 (USGS, 2006) that caused drastic changes to the stream bed, resulted in slope stability problems, and caused landslides along the proposed penstock alignment and Copper River Highway. The landslides along the highway effectively cut off access to the project. In addition, discontinuous permafrost was found along the penstock and access alignment. These conditions required a re-evaluation of the conceptual design and negatively affected the project economics and construction risks. A preliminary investigation of Fivemile Creek was conducted to evaluate the hydroelectric potential of the resource. A previous analysis of the Fivemile project required the construction of a 4-mile-long power line to Chitina. Since the 2005 analysis, an extension of the power line from Chitina to a new diesel powerhouse located at the airport (immediately adjacent to Fivemile Creek) is planned and will be completed in the near future. As a result, the economic viability of the Fivemile project is improved and prompted further consideration during this investigation. Field reconnaissance of the Fivemile project suggests that it is a favorable alternative to the O’Brien Creek projects in several respects. The benefits include existing access, better soil conditions, and a nearby interconnection point to the electric grid. In addition, it is the lowest estimated cost and the best fit for Chitina’s current electric requirements. This results in favorable economics and significantly reduced construction risks. A comparative analysis of the project alternatives was made against the projected diesel generation costs. Based on this comparison, the Fivemile Creek project is superior to the both O’Brien Creek projects. Further, should the electrical load increase as predicted by LCMF, the Fivemile project remains the superior project in terms of economics and ability to meet Chitina's energy needs. The project on Fivemile Creek is currently envisioned as having a design output of 300 kW and a minimum winter output of 110 kW. The construction cost of the Fivemile Creek project is $2,010,000. The Fivemile Project has a benefit to cost ratio of 2.0 in a “growth” scenario and 1.3 in a “no growth” scenario. Continued investigative efforts should focus on evaluating the potential of a hydro project on Fivemile Creek. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 22 Further investigative activities on Fivemile Creek should include: · Installation of a stream gauge near the intake location · Stream flow measurement to correlate weir readings at the culvert · A Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) survey of the area suitable for project layout · Preliminary geotechnical investigation · Identification of regulatory requirements · Preparation of a conceptual design report · Development of a project cost estimate · Refinement of project economics The cost to perform these investigative activities is estimated to be $100,000-$150,000 and will be used to prepare a conceptual design report and refine the project cost estimate. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 23 6.0 REFERENCES AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2008. Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year 2007. February. Alaska Community Database, Community Information Summaries (CIS). 2008. http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CIS.cfm?Comm_Boro_Name=Chitina APA (U.S. Department of Energy and Alaska Power Administration). 1981. Preliminary Evaluation of Hydropower Alternatives for Chitina, Alaska. February. EPS (Electric Power Systems, Inc.). 2003a. Chitina Electric Power Generation and Delivery System Inspection. March. EPS. 2003b. Lower Tonsina to Chitina Single Phase Overhead Tieline Feasibility Report. July. EPS. 2003c. Chitina Hydro Evaluation. August 28. Fairbanks, Morse & Co. 1981. Hydraulic Handbook. First Edition. LCMF. 2005. Conceptual Design Report, Chitina Rural Power System Upgrade, Draft Revision 1. September 6. Polarconsult (Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.). 2005. O’Brien Creek Hydroelectric Conceptual Design. March 21. Polarconsult. 2007a. O’Brien Creek Hydroelectric. October 31. Polarconsult. 2007b. Fivemile Creek Inspection and Concept Design. October 31. Shannon Wilson. 2007. O’Brien Hydroelectric Project, Geotechnical Report. November 14. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2006. Summary of Flooding in Southcentral Alaska. October. http://ak.water.usgs.gov/flood/2006October/index.php POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 FIGURES POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PROJECT PHOTOS POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 1 PROJECT PHOTOS PHOTO 1. O'BRIEN CREEK, LOW HEAD PROJECT INTAKE SITE ..............................................................................2 PHOTO 2. O'BRIEN CREEK CANYON AT FOX CREEK...............................................................................................3 PHOTO 3. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE ....................................................................................................4 PHOTO 4. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE ....................................................................................................4 PHOTO 5. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE LOCATION BEFORE FLOOD ..........................................................5 PHOTO 6. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE AREA AFTER FLOODING...............................................................6 PHOTO 7. O'BRIEN CREEK, HIGH HEAD INTAKE AREA AFTER FLOODING...............................................................7 PHOTO 8. BANK EROSION NEAR FROM INTAKE ......................................................................................................8 PHOTO 9. DOWNSTREAM VIEW OF UPPER RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK ..................................................................9 PHOTO 10. UPSTREAM VIEW OF UPPER RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK ....................................................................10 PHOTO 11. VIEW OF SECOND RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK ....................................................................................11 PHOTO 12. SECOND RIDGE ON O'BRIEN CREEK ...................................................................................................12 PHOTO 13. O'BRIEN CREEK POWERHOUSE SITE, HIGH HEAD PROJECT ..............................................................13 PHOTO 14. SLIDES ALONG COPPER RIVER HIGHWAY ...........................................................................................14 PHOTO 15. SLIDES ALONG COPPER RIVER...........................................................................................................15 PHOTO 16. ROAD ADJACENT TO FIVEMILE CREEK ...............................................................................................16 PHOTO 17. EXPOSED ROCK FORMATION, FIVEMILE PROJECT..............................................................................17 PHOTO 18. FIVEMILE AERIAL PHOTO...................................................................................................................18 PHOTO 19. FIVEMILE CREEK, POSSIBLE INTAKE SITE...........................................................................................19 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 2 Photo 1. O'Brien Creek, Low Head Project Intake Site Taken from a screen capture of a video recording, this is a view looking upstream towards the assumed location of the intake for the low head project on O'Brien Creek. Note the fractured rocky embankment and unstable slopes. Capturing low water flows will be difficult due to substrate permeability. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 3 Photo 2. O'Brien Creek Canyon at Fox Creek. View upstream along the pipeline route of the low head O'Brien Creek project. Access and penstock bench would be located along the right side of the stream. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 4 Photo 3. O'Brien Creek, High Head Intake Creek bed and banks during flow measurement at intake area before flood. Photo taken just upstream from the intake and is looking downstream. (2005 Polarconsult) Photo 4. O'Brien Creek, High Head Intake Photo was taken just downstream from the intake and is looking downstream. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 5 Photo 5. O'Brien Creek, High Head intake location before flood Intake was presumed to be located at the 1950' elevation that is near the bottom middle of the photo on the curve of the stream. Stream flow is from left to right. (2005 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 6 Photo 6. O'Brien Creek, High Head intake area after flooding View looking downstream at intake location that is near the upper middle of the photo where the creek jogs to the left. The first ridge crossing can be seen about a 1/4 mi further downstream at near the top middle of the photo. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 7 Photo 7. O'Brien Creek, High Head intake area after flooding Photo shows debris and boulders moved during the 2006 flood event. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 8 Photo 8. Bank Erosion Near from Intake Along the east embankment of O'Brien Creek just upstream from the intake. Due to slope stability concerns, the pipeline and access would have to be located at the toe of the slope. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 9 Photo 9. Downstream View of Upper Ridge on O'Brien Creek This photo shows the first (upper) ridge crossing for the O'Brien Creek project. The required cut through the ridge is approximately 25 feet. Geologist indicates that this cut will likely not encounter rock. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 10 Photo 10. Upstream View of Upper Ridge on O'Brien Creek View of the first ridge crossing on O'Brien Creek. Active erosion is visible indicating loose material. Competent rock plane is visible on the right side of the ridge. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 11 Photo 11 . View of Second Ridge on O'Brien Creek This photo is taken from the top of the first ridge looking downstream. The pipeline and access route would be located along the creek bed because unstable slopes prevent benching (numerous areas of erosion are visible). The second ridge crossing is visible in the top middle of the picture as the low spot along the hill crest. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 12 Photo 12. Second Ridge on O'Brien Creek This is a closeup of the second ridge and the basin divide looking downstream from the upper ridge. As evidenced by the erosion, the ridge appears to consist of loose material. The cut through this ridge would be about 25 feet. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 13 Photo 13. O'Brien Creek Powerhouse Site, High Head Project (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 14 Photo 14. Slides Along Copper River Highway (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 15 Photo 15. Slides Along Copper River. This photo shows slides that occurred along the Copper River between O'Brien Creek and Eskilida Creek. This area was the presumed access route recommended in the 2005 report. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 16 Photo 16. Road adjacent to Fivemile Creek The road was constructed for mine access and goes to the top of the peak just south of Liberty Creek. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 17 Photo 17. Exposed Rock Formation, Fivemile Project This exposed rock formation was found during the traverse to the intake site and appears to be visible in the aerial photo. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 18 Photo 18. Fivemile Aerial Photo. This aerial shows the low pressure pipe area. The creek does not become steeply incised until well below the intake site. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, A LASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 PAGE 19 Photo 19. Fivemile Creek, Possible intake site. Note basement rock outcrop on left and narrow stream section. Stable stream banks and spruce tree on right suggest insignificant damage to site from the 2006 flood. (2007 Polarconsult) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 APPENDIX A - HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 1 C HITINA H YDROLOGY A NALYSIS April 11 , 2008 prepared by polarconsult alaska, inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone: (907) 258-2420 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE 1 - HYDROLOGIC BASIN SIZE, ELEVATION, AND LOCATION........................................................................2 FIGURE 1 - USGS MEDIAN DAILY UNIT FLOW DATA (CFS/SQMI)..........................................................................3 TABLE 2 - FLOW MEASUREMENTS ..........................................................................................................................4 TABLE 3 - WINTER HYDROGRAPH FACTORS ..........................................................................................................4 FIGURE 2 - O'BRIEN CREEK SUMMER FLOWS CORRELATED TO USGS GAUGE SITES ..........................................5 FIGURE 3 - LITTLE TONSINA MEDIAN UNIT FLOW AND CHITINA ESTIMATED UNIT FLOW ....................................6 FIGURE 4 - FIVEMILE CREEK POWER OUTPUT .......................................................................................................6 PHOTO 1 - O'BRIEN CREEK FLOW MEASUREMENT 1, ~0.7 MI ABOVE INTAKE SITE ...............................................7 PHOTO 2 - O'BRIEN CREEK FLOW MEASUREMENT LOCATION 2, AT INTAKE SITE ..................................................8 FIGURE 5 - O'BRIEN CREEK FLOW MEASUREMENTS MAP .....................................................................................8 FIGURE 6 - FIVEMILE CREEK WEIR DESIGN .........................................................................................................10 PHOTO 3 - INSTALLED WEIR, EARLY IN WINTER ...................................................................................................11 PHOTO 4 - VIEW OF WATER SPILLING OVER WEIR .................................................................................................11 PHOTO 5 - VIEW OF WEIR, LATER WINTER ............................................................................................................12 TABLE 4 - WEIR /FLOW MEASUREMENTS..............................................................................................................12 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 2 An analysis of the hydrology in the Chitina area was conducted to estimate the quantity of water available to the projects being evaluated. The stream flow characteristics directly affect the power production and associated economic viability of the respective projects. None of the creeks in the Chitina area have continuous stream flow data available. The USGS performed numerous summer and fall flow measurements looking for high flows in O'Brien Creek but only performed one low flow measurement in April. This information is presented in a study performed by APA in 1981. These measurements were made near the mouth of O'Brien Creek just upstream of the bridge. The study further stated that local residents indicate the stream runs year-round. The 1981 study made an effort to forecast the low winter flow and power production using data from Squirrel Creek. The resulting low flow was estimated to be between 3.4 and 2.2 cfs. The USGS has gauging data for the Little Tonsina River, Tebay River, and Squirrel Creek, all of which are situated at latitudes similar to O'Brien Creek and Fivemile Creek. The following table summarizes the various locations, basin sizes, and elevations for the project locations discussed and the three USGS sites. Table 1 - Hydrologic Basin Size, Elevation, and Location Location USGS Site No Basin size (sq mi) Elevation (ft) Latitude (dd.dd) Longitude (dd.dd) Begin Date End Date No of Records O'Brien Mouth 46.3 450 61.4817 -144.4556 O'Brien Intake, APA 34.0 920 61.4733 -144.4906 O'Brien Intake, PCA 31.8 1950 61.4608 -144.5408 Fivemile Culvert 13.3 620 61.5822 -144.4375 Fivemile Intake, APA 13.2 890 61.5811 -144.4475 Fivemile Intake, PCA 12.6 1550 61.5781 -144.4819 Little Tonsina River 15207800 22.7 1850 61.4800 -145.1500 9/1/1972 9/30/1978 2221 Tebay River 15211500 55.4 1796 61.2300 -144.2000 7/1/1962 6/30/1965 1096 Squirrel Creek 15208100 70.5 1520 61.6700 -145.1800 7/1/1965 9/30/1975 3744 All data from each USGS site was averaged for each day and divided by the basin area to get the average daily flow per square mile for each of the gauged sites. The following chart shows the results. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 3 Figure 1 - USGS Median Daily Unit Flow Data (cfs/sqmi) As shown in Figure 1, there is an extreme amount of variability, both in the summer and winter. Squirrel Creek has significantly lower flows than both the Tonsina and Tebay on discharge per unit area basis. This is probably due to the fact that it is further north and most of the basin lies on the north flank of the Chugach Range. Squirrel Creek probably lacks precipitation due to down sloping effects under the predominant southerly flow regimes. On a discharge per unit area basis, both the Little Tonsina River and the Tebay River exhibit very similar winter flow characteristics. The summer flows, which differ significantly, are not relevant for the size of project that is being considered in Chitina. Because of the climate conditions in Chitina, the stream flow in all of the creeks in the area tends to drop off rapidly at the onset of winter. It quickly reaches a low flow that is relatively constant until the spring thaw. For purposes of providing power year round, this low flow period is critical for determining the project economics. Generally, all of the projects in this report and in the APA report easily exceed Chitina's power requirements in the summer. The APA report recognized the importance of this low flow period and, rightfully, made it one of their primary concerns in evaluating the various project options. The following table is a list of actual low flow measurements made on O'Brien and Fivemile Creeks. This data is compared with averages and minimums on the USGS sites. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecUnit Flow (cfs/sqmi)Tebay L Tonsina Unit Flow Squirrel POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 4 Table 2 - Flow Measurements Location Date Flow (cfs) Unit Flow (cfs/sq mi) O'Brien Mouth 4/23/1976 4.00 0.086 O'Brien Intake, PCA 4/15/2005 4.00 0.126 Fivemile Culvert 1/7/2008 2.44 0.183 Fivemile Culvert 2/6/2008 2.26 0.170 Fivemile Culvert 2/20/2008 2.10 0.157 Fivemile Culvert 3/5/2008 1.93 0.145 Little Tonsina River, Median Min 3/9 4.50 0.198 Tebay River, Median Min 4/15 16.00 0.289 Squirrel Creek, Median Min 3/8 11.50 0.163 Little Tonsina River, Min 4/1/1974 3.00 0.132 Tebay River, Min 4/15/1964 14.00 0.253 Squirrel Creek, Min 4/5/1967 9.00 0.128 As stated in the APA report, the USGS measured a stream flow of 4.0 cfs on 4/23/1976. On the same date (4/23/1976) that the USGS measured the O'Brien flow, the USGS gauge data at Little Tonsina River was 6 cfs, whereas the median for that day is 5.5 cfs. The lowest Tonsina record is 3 cfs. No similar comparison data is available for the flow measurements done in 2005 and 2008. The first three readings taken at the Fivemile Creek culvert were not collected in the springtime when the absolute minimum flow is likely to occur; however, the final measurement made on 3/5/08 nearly coincides with the minimum spring flow on the Little Tonsina. All of the above spring flow measurements at O'Brien and Fivemile Creeks indicate the springtime unit stream flows near Chitina are lower than the median values at the gauged USGS sites. The USGS reading done on 4/23/1976 at the O'Brien mouth is significantly less than that measured by Polarconsult on O'Brien and Fivemile Creeks. A possible explanation for this is that a significant portion of the stream flow occurs as groundwater flow. The USGS measurement was taken at the mouth, where the streambed consists of a gravel outwash plane that would allow for such an occurrence. The 4/23/76 flow measurement at the O'Brien mouth will be discarded as an outlier. Therefore, choosing the Little Tonsina River as the basis for a unit winter hydrograph, the following data points are used to obtain an appropriate scale factor. Table 3 - Winter Hydrograph Factors Location Date Flow Unit Flow L Tonsina Unit Flow Ratio Predicted Flow % Diff O'Brien Intake, PCA 4/15/2005 4.00 0.126 0.220 57% 4.60 15% Fivemile Culvert 1/7/2008 2.44 0.183 0.264 69% 2.32 -5% Fivemile Culvert 2/6/2008 2.26 0.170 0.264 64% 2.32 2% Fivemile Culvert 2/20/2008 2.10 0.157 0.242 65% 2.12 1% Fivemile Culvert 3/5/2008 1.93 0.145 0.198 73% 1.74 -10% Average 65.7% POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 5 As shown, the resulting average ratio is 65.7%. This factor was applied to the winter portion of the Little Tonsina data set to obtain daily average flow values that directly convert to project output. The predicted flows for the dates that actual flows were measured are shown in the table also. The remainder of the unit hydrograph, early summer through early winter, is obtained from the Little Tonsina River flow record as well. A comparison with the Little Tonsina and Squirrel Creek basins was performed using the stream flow measurements done by the USGS at O'Brien Creek that are presented in the APA report. (The APA report data is included on page A-13.) The following chart clearly indicates that O'Brien Creek flows correlate well with the Little Tonsina River (88%) and not very well with Squirrel Creek (52%). Figure 2 - O'Brien Creek Summer Flows Correlated to USGS Gauge Sites Based on the above, a unit hydrograph is developed using the median unit flows of the Little Tonsina winter data scaled by a factor of 65.7%. The graph is then scaled up linearly from the middle of April through the end of May to match the Little Tonsina River (on a cfs/sqmi basis). From the end of May until the end of September, the graph is simply the Little Tonsina River median record scaled by basin area. Then the graph is scaled back down linearly from the beginning of October through November using the 65.7% winter production factor. The following chart shows the Little Tonsina River median hydrograph, the scale factor used, and the resulting O'Brien/Fivemile Creek (Chitina) hydrograph. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 05/14/7010/01/7006/07/7106/09/7208/16/7209/29/7206/07/7306/19/7407/26/7406/25/7507/01/7509/04/7504/23/7606/26/7607/13/7608/24/7605/24/7707/06/7708/09/7709/28/7707/06/7805/03/7905/25/79DateUnit Flow (cfs/sqmi)O'Brien Little Tonsina Squirrel POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 6 Figure 3 - Little Tonsina Median Unit Flow and Chitina Estimated Unit Flow The resulting estimated median minimum springtime flow for the O'Brien Creek intake (PCA) is 4.1 cfs, and for the Fivemile Creek intake, 1.6 cfs. Using a maximum flow of 5 cfs, the following chart shows the estimated power output for a project on Fivemile Creek along with the assumed stream flows. The stream flow should be verified through physical measurements and the installation of a stream gauge. Figure 4 - Fivemile Creek Power Output 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/110/111/112/1Unit Flow (cfs/sqmi)0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Chitina Scale FactorL Tonsina Unit Flow Chitina Unit Flow Chitina Scale Factor 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/110/111/112/1Power (kW) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 7 FLOW MEASUREMENT DATA AT O'BRIEN INTAKE SITE, 4/15/2005 Location 1 (~0.7 mi upstream of intake site) N61°27.8536' W144°33.6790' 4/15/2005 13:00 Flow 4.1 s d v q 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 1.05 0.00 0.00 4 1.20 0.30 0.36 5 1.18 0.25 0.30 6 1.62 0.40 0.65 7 1.17 0.60 0.70 8 0.93 0.60 0.56 9 1.09 0.45 0.49 10 1.05 0.50 0.53 11 0.98 0.40 0.39 12 0.57 0.28 0.16 13 0.70 0.00 0.00 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Location 2 (intake site) N61°27.6543' W144°32.5137' 4/15/2005 15:00 Flow 3.9 s d v q 2 0.00 0.00 0.01 3 0.55 0.20 0.11 4 0.41 0.55 0.23 5 0.78 0.55 0.43 6 0.37 0.00 0.00 7 0.58 0.00 0.00 8 0.91 0.00 0.00 9 0.75 0.35 0.26 10 1.16 1.00 1.16 11 1.08 1.20 1.30 12 0.82 0.50 0.41 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Photo 1 - O'Brien Creek Flow Measurement 1, ~0.7 mi above intake site POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 8 Photo 2 - O'Brien Creek Flow Measurement Location 2, at intake site Figure 5 - O'Brien Creek Flow Measurements Map POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 9 FLOW MEASUREMENT DATA AT FIVEMILE CREEK CULVERT Measurements at Fivemile Creek were performed by installing a weir at the outlet of the culvert that goes under the Edgerton Highway. The following drawing and pictures detail the weir design and installation. Measurements and installation were performed by Martin Finnesand of Chitina Electric and reported to Polarconsult. The table following the photographs summarizes the measurements and the flow values. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 10 Figure 6 - Fivemile Creek Weir Design POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 11 Photo 3 - Installed Weir, early in winter Photo 4 - View of water spilling over weir POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 12 Photo 5 - View of weir, later winter Water Height Measurements (above crest): Table 4 - Weir/Flow Measurements Date Height (ft) Flow (cfs) 1/7/2008 0.44 2.44 2/6/2008 0.42 2.26 2/20/2008 0.40 2.10 3/5/2008 0.38 1.93 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHITINA HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS APRIL 11, 2008 13 The following USGS flow measurements performed at O'Brien Creek were presented in the Preliminary Evaluation of Hydropower Alternatives for Chitina, Alaska (U.S. Department of Energy and Alaska Power Administration, 1981). POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 APPENDIX B - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, SHANNON WILSON POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC INVESTIGATION CHITINA, ALASKA FINAL REPORT MAY 2, 2008 APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF FLOODING IN SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA, OCTOBER, 2006. USGS October 2006 Flooding in the Seward- Prince William Sound areas, Alaska USGS Home Contact USGS Search USGS Summary of flooding in Southcentral Alaska, October 2006 / Alaska Science Center / Water Office / National Water Information System (NWIS) / Contacts / PROVISIONAL FLOOD PEAKS AND RECURRENCE INTERVALS STATION NUMBER STATION NAME PERIOD OF RECORD PREVIOUS PEAK DISCHARGE (FT3/S) DATE OF PREVIOUS PEAK NUMBER OF PEAKS HIGHER THAN OCTOBER 2006 PEAK DISCHARGE (FT3/S) DATE AND TIME OF PEAK 15200280 Gulkana River at Sourdough 1973-78; 1989-2004 12,700 9/12/1990 none 15,300 10/ ? /2006 15207800 Little Tonsina R near Tonsina 1972-78 214 7/20/1977 none 570 est 10/9 -10/2006 15208000 Tonsina River at Tonsina 1950-82 8,490 6/17/1962 none b14,000 est 10/9 -10/2006 15208100 Squirrel Cr at Tonsina 1964-82 1,200 6/ /1964 1 in 19 yr c1,100 est 10/9/2006 15208200 Rock Cr nr Tonsina 1966-95 225 5/29/1989 1 in 29 yr 200 10/9/2006 15210025 McCarthy Creek nr McCarthy 1994-current 4,000 9/27/2000 none 7,100 est 10/9 -10/2006 15211700 Strelna Cr near Chitina 1971-96 670 8/12/1985 unknown unknown 10/9 -10/2006 15211900 O'Brien Creek near Chitina 1970-82, 84- 96 1,950 6/6/1990 unknown unknown unknown 15212000 Copper River nr Chitina 1950, 52-53, 56-90 380,000 8/8/1981 1 in 38 yr 334,000 10/10/2006 15212500 Boulder Creek nr Tiekel 1964-current 1,330 8/7/1981 none 1,700 10/9 -10/2006 Page 1 of 3USGS ASC Summary of flooding in Southcentral Alaska, October 2006 4/9/2008http://ak.water.usgs.gov/flood/2006October/index.php Last revised 6/22/2007 (revised) 15212800 Ptarmigan Creek Trib nr Valdez 1965-70, 95- current 85 9/ /1965 none 184 10/9/2006 15214000 Copper R. @ Million Dollar Bridge 1913, 1988- 95 415,000 9/23/1995 none 447,000 10/11/2006 16:00 15215990 Nicolet Creek near Cordova 1990-current 988 11/3/1994 8 in 15 yr 557 10/9/2006 11:00 15225997 Solomon Gulch Top of Falls 1986-current 3,280 10/11/1986 none 3,350 10/9/2006 11:15 15226600 Lowe River in Keystone Canyon near Valdez 1976-77, 1995 18,700 9/22/1995 none 42,000 10/10/2006 15227500 Mineral Creek near Valdez 1990-current 5,570 6/ /1976 5 in 16 yr 3,500 10/9/2006 15236200 Shakespeare Creek at Whittier 1970-80, 84- current 690 9/20/1995 13 in 33 yr 491 10/9/2006 15237550 Mt. Alice Creek nr Seward 1990-95 1,340 10/11/1986 2 in 7 yr 600 est 10/9/2006 15237730 Grouse Cr. at Lake Outlet near Seward 1997-current 478 2/5/2003 none 901 10/9/2006 13:15 15238010 Salmon Creek near Seward 1990-95 8,500 10/11/1986 1 in 6 yr 6,200 est 10/9/2006 15238600 Spruce Creek near Seward 1967-current 13,600 10/11/1986 1 in 40 yr 3,640 10/9/2006 15239050 Middle Fork Bradley R near Homer 1979-current 1,470 9/20/1995 1 in 26 yr 1,350 10/9/2006 11:00 15243950 Porcupine Creek near Primrose 1963-89, 2003 4,000 10/11/1986 1 in 28 yr 3,800 est 10/9/2006 15248000 Trail River near Lawing 1947-77, 87, 2003 8,200 10/24/2002 15 in 31 yr 4,000 10/9/2006 15250000 Falls Creek near Lawing 1963-76 693 9/15/1966 2 in 9 yr 500 est 10/9/2006 * note, recurrence intervals have not been adjusted using 2006 peaks Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices Page 2 of 3USGS ASC Summary of flooding in Southcentral Alaska, October 2006 4/9/2008http://ak.water.usgs.gov/flood/2006October/index.php