The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRAFT - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY REPORT, Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project 2011CHITINA ALASKA DRAFT - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY REPORT Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Prepared For: Chitina Electric Inc. P.O Box 88 Chitina, Alaska 99566 September 16, 2011 Prepared By: DRAFT REPORT i CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Community Overview............................................................................................ 4 2.1 Location ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Population ............................................................................................................ 4 2.3 History .................................................................................................................. 4 2.4 Economy .............................................................................................................. 5 2.5 Facilities ............................................................................................................... 5 2.6 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 5 2.7 Climate ................................................................................................................. 5 3.0 Site Visits and Community Involvement ................................................................ 6 3.1 Project Team ........................................................................................................ 6 4.0 Existing Power Generation and Distribution Systems ........................................... 7 4.1 Power Plant .......................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Power Distribution System .................................................................................... 7 4.3 Historic Fuel Usage .............................................................................................. 8 4.4 Historic Electric Demand ...................................................................................... 9 5.0 Hydrologic Study ................................................................................................ 10 5.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 10 5.1 Fivemile Creek Hydrology ................................................................................... 10 5.2 Flow Measurements and Potential Resources .................................................... 11 5.3 Comparative Analysis ......................................................................................... 12 6.0 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................. 17 6.1 Projected Community Growth ............................................................................. 18 6.2 Projected Price per Gallon for Diesel Fuel .......................................................... 19 6.3 Avoided Cost of Diesel Fuel ................................................................................ 20 7.0 Facility Siting and Design Recommendations ..................................................... 22 7.1 Site Control ......................................................................................................... 22 7.2 Community Flood Data ....................................................................................... 22 7.3 Geotechnical Conditions ..................................................................................... 22 7.4 Borrow Sources .................................................................................................. 23 8.0 Proposed Improvements ..................................................................................... 24 8.1 General............................................................................................................... 24 8.2 Creek Diversion and Intake Structures................................................................ 26 8.3 Penstock ............................................................................................................. 26 8.4 Hydro Power Turbine House ............................................................................... 26 9.0 Proposed Operating Scenario............................................................................. 27 9.1 General............................................................................................................... 27 9.2 Hydro-Diesel Integration ..................................................................................... 27 10.0 Permitting ........................................................................................................... 28 11.0 Construction Plan ............................................................................................... 30 11.1 Administration .............................................................................................. 30 11.2 Use of Local Labor ...................................................................................... 30 11.3 Use of Local Equipment ............................................................................... 30 11.4 Construction Schedule ................................................................................. 30 11.5 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate....................................................... 30 DRAFT REPORT ii CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 TABLES Table 1 Contact Information...................................................................................................... 6 FIGURES Figure 1 - Chitina Population over Time ....................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 - Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost .................................................................. 8 Figure 3 - Average and Peak Electrical Power ............................................................................. 9 Figure 4 - Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements .......................................................................... 11 Figure 5 - Normalized Flows for Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River ........................................... 12 Figure 6 - Normalized flows of Fivemile vs. Gulkana .................................................................. 13 Figure 7 - Fivemile Creek Calculated Flow Rates from Adjusted Historical Gulkana Data ........... 14 Figure 8 - Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power ..................... 15 Figure 9 - Potential Hydro Power ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 10 - Chitina Population Projections ................................................................................. 18 Figure 11 – Chitina Cost Projections for Diesel Fuel .................................................................. 19 Figure 12 - Avoided Cost versus Rated Power ........................................................................... 20 Figure 13 - Available Energy for Space Heating at Present Power Consumptions (300kW hydro) ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14 - Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 25 APPENDICES Appendix A – Conceptual Design Drawings Appendix B – Clifton Laboratories, Economic Feasibility Memorandum Appendix C – Clifton Laboratories, Power Production Memorandum Appendix D – ABR, Aquatic Resources Analysis Appendix E – AOHA, Alaska Heritage Resource Survey Appendix F – USFWS – Critical Habitat Determination Appendix G – USFWS – National Wetlands Inventory DRAFT REPORT 2 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAC Alaska Administrative Code ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AEA Alaska Energy Authority/Rural Energy Group CDR Conceptual Design Report CEI Chitina Electric Inc. Corps U. S. Army Corps of Engineers CRW CRW Engineering Group, LLC EA Environmental Assessment KVA Kilovolt-Ampere kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-Hour O&M operation and maintenance NESC National Electric Safety Code DRAFT REPORT 3 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 1.0 Introduction This Conceptual Design Report (CDR) was prepared by CRW Engineering Group, LLC (CRW) for Chitina Electric Inc. The purpose of this study is to provide a conceptual design, economic analysis and construction cost estimate for a new hydroelectric facility at Fivemile Creek, near the community of Chitina Alaska. Currently, the sole source of electricity for the village and airport is a diesel generator system which was installed in 2008 by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Recent volatility in diesel fuel prices has been acknowledged as an economic strain on Chitina residents and businesses. The Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project is seen as a means to economically stabilize and grow the local economy by reducing reliance on diesel generated power (AEA 2010). The potential diesel fuel savings associated with the hydro project (around 40,700 gallons for power generation and an additional 15,000 gallons for space heating) is valued at nearly $200,000 annually (AEA 2010). This “diesel avoidance” also reduces air emissions and the potential for spills. Multiple feasibility studies have been conducted on various drainages near Chitina to determine their suitability for small-scale hydroelectric projects, including investigations at Liberty, O’Brien, and Fox creeks (in addition to Fivemile Creek). Fivemile Creek was determined to be the most feasible candidate due to its proximity to the community power plant for electrical tie-in, existing road access, and suitable year-round flows. The proposed project would be a high-head, run-of-the-river system with a diversion/intake structure located at an elevation of approximately 1,570 feet and a turbine house/tailrace structure located at around 620 feet elevation (total elevation gain of 950 ft). A 12-inch diameter by 10,000-linear foot, buried, penstock (combination HDPE and Steel pipe) would convey water from the intake to the turbine house. The turbine tailrace would reintroduce diverted water back into the creek approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with the Copper River. As currently envisioned, the project would include a 300 kW rated pelton wheel turbine utilizing between 1 and 5 cfs of water, depending upon seasonal flows and community demand. DRAFT REPORT 4 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 2.0 Community Overview 1 2.1 Location Chitina is located in South-central Alaska, on the west bank of the Copper River at its confluence with the Chitina River, at mile 34 of the Edgerton Highway (Sec. 14, T004S, R005E, Copper River Meridian.) 2.2 Population The population of Chitina based on the 2010 Census is approximately 126 residents. There are approximately 52 occupied housing units. The majority of homes in the community are heated with fuel oil (54.2%) or wood stoves (37.5%). Figure 1 shows the community population trend since 1910. Figure 1 - Chitina Population over Time 2.3 History Athabascan Indians have reportedly occupied this region for the last 5,000 to 7,000 years. Rich copper deposits were discovered at the turn of the century along the northern flanks of the Chitina River Valley, bringing a rush of prospectors and homesteaders to the area. After the mines closed in 1938, support activities moved to the Glennallen area, and Chitina’s population declined sharply. Recently the community 1 Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Online Community Profile Information, May 2011. DRAFT REPORT 5 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 has experienced renewed growth as a result of tourism and sportsmen utilizing the Copper River sport and dipnet fisheries. 2.4 Economy Employment is primarily with the village council, village corporation, or the National Park Service. Many residents are self-employed or work in retail establishments. The summer influx of fishermen, tourists, and campers provides some cash income in fish guiding and other services. Many villagers participate in subsistence activities year-round. 2.5 Facilities Residents haul water from a well at the fire hall or have individual wells. Some residents use stream water during the summer. Outhouses and individual septic systems provide sewage disposal. Less than 20% of homes are completely plumbed. Refuse collection services are available from Copper Basin Sanitation. 2.6 Transportation The Edgerton Highway and Richardson Highway link Chitina with the rest of the state road system. A State-owned 2,850' long by 75' wide gravel runway, 5 miles North of Chitina, provides air chartered transportation for passengers, mail and cargo. The river is an important means of transportation in summer; however there are no docking facilities. 2.7 Climate The climate in Chitina is continental, characterized by long, cold winters and relatively warm summers. Total annual precipitation averages 12 inches, with an average annual snowfall of 52 inches. Temperatures range from a recorded low of -58°F to a high of 91°F. DRAFT REPORT 6 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 3.0 Site Visits and Community Involvement Multiple site visits were conducted for this project. AEA Project manager Alan Fetters traveled to Chitina in the summer of 2009 to discuss the project with local officials and asses potential intake sites. CRW Engineering surveyors performed a site visit in June 2011 to collect baseline survey data for the project. Biologists with ABR, Inc. performed a site visit in June 2011, to collect habitat data along Fivemile creek. An additional site visit is planned for late September 2011 to perform a preliminary geo hazard/geotechnical evaluation. The community and Chitina Electric have been involved in every step of the project. A resolution in support of the project is included in the appendices. 3.1 Project Team Project participants include: Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI), the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), and a team of highly qualified engineering, planning, and design professionals. Table 1 Contact Information Entity Contact Address Contact Information Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) Martin Finnesand, Utility Manager P.O. box 88 Chitina, AK 99566 907-822-3587 907-823-2233 (fax) chitina_native@cvinternet.net Chitina Native Corp.Anne Thomas, President P.O. box 3 Chitina, AK 99566 907-823-2223 907-823-2202 (fax) Chitin_native@cvinternet.net Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Alan Fetters, Project Manager 813 W. Northern Lights Anchorage, AK 99503 907-771-3000 907-771-3044 (fax) AFetters@aidea.org CRW Engineering Group, LLC (Prime Engineering Consultant) Karl Hulse, Project Manager 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 907-646-5621 907-561-2273 (fax) khulse@crweng.com DRAFT REPORT 7 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 4.0 Existing Power Generation and Distribution Systems 4.1 Power Plant Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) is the sole electrical provider for Chitina. CEI’s power plant is located on Chitina Airport Road just off of the Edgerton Highway approximately 4 miles north of the community center. The power plant, which was constructed in 2008 by AEA, is a pre-engineered modular structure with 3 diesel generator sets with a combined capacity of 301 kilowatts (including two 117 kW gen-sets and a single 67 kW gen-set). Fuel is supplied via a 12,000 gallon double wall diesel fuel tank adjacent to the plant. The plant currently operates as the prime power source for the community. After the proposed hydro plant is completed the diesel plant will operate in a backup/standby capacity. CEI receives fuel via truck haul from several regional venders including Glennallen based, Fisher Fuels and Crowley. The diesel power plant is equipped with a heat recovery system which provides heat to the power plant fuel tank and the neighboring clinic via buried, insulated pipelines. Additionally, Chitina has an abandoned 25 kW hydroelectric facility located adjacent to the Copper River and south of the Edgerton Highway. In 2006 a CDR by LCMF Chitina Rural Power System Upgrade determined that it would not be operationally feasible to bring the existing hydroelectric facility back on line due to flow restrictions required by ADF&G and outdated controls and equipment. 4.2 Power Distribution System The diesel power house is connected to the electrical grid via a 4 mile, 3-phase 12.47 kV overhead transmission line. The power plant generates at 480 volt AC, which is stepped up to 12.47 kV using a single, 150 KVA, 3-phase, pad-mount transformer located adjacent to the plant. DRAFT REPORT 8 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 4.3 Historic Fuel Usage Historical fuel usage data was gathered from CEI, regional fuel vendors, and power cost equalization (PCE) data. The amount of fuel CEI used for generating electrical power was fairly constant for fiscal years 2002 through 2010, ranging from a maximum of 40,000 gallons in 2002 to a minimum of 35,000 gallons in 2006. During the same period, annual fuel costs for power generation rose steadily from $51,000 in 2002 to $107,000 in 2010 (Figure 2). Figure 2 - Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost DRAFT REPORT 9 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 4.4 Historic Electric Demand Chitina participates in the State’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program, and is required to submit monthly reports to the AEA itemizing a myriad of power system related items - most notably the quantity of electric power generated and sold, as well as peak monthly electrical demands. Historical PCE report data was analyzed to determine trends in the community’s energy consumption. For fiscal years 2002 through 2010, the monthly average power consumption ranged from 45 kW to 65 kW. The monthly peak power consumption was typically less than 80 kW, and usually occurred in December or January. The highest recorded peak consumption was 89 kW in December of 2001 (Figure 3). Figure 3 - Average and Peak Electrical Power DRAFT REPORT 10 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 5.0 Hydrologic Study 5.1 Background Multiple feasibility studies have been conducted on various drainages near Chitina to determine their suitability for small-scale hydroelectric projects, including investigations at Liberty, O’Brien, and Fox creeks (in addition to Fivemile Creek). Fivemile Creek was determined to be the most feasible candidate due to its proximity to the community power plant for electrical tie-in, existing road access, and suitable year-round flows. For additional information reference:Regional Hydroelectric Investigation Chitina, Alaska, by Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. (2008). 5.1 Fivemile Creek Hydrology Fivemile Creek is a second-order stream formed by the confluence of 2 short duration streams which drain a series of small alpine lakes about 4,000 feet above sea level to the west of the Edgerton Highway. Fivemile Creek, as its name implies, flows for approximately 5 miles from its source to the Copper River. The stream passes beneath the Edgerton Highway approximately 2,500 feet upstream of the Copper River. The culvert at mile 23.4 of the highway is a 100-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter corrugated steel pipe. Stream gauging data collected at the proposed intake site and the downstream culvert crossing, between 2008 to 2010 coupled with comparative analysis of similar, gauged, streams predict seasonal flows as low as 1 CFS in the winter and flood events in excess of 600 CFS in the spring. At its mouth, Fivemile Creek empties into a braid of the Copper River immediately north of the runway at the Chitina Municipal Airport. Based on LIDAR generated topographical contours, the average slope of the stream is 10% (10ft drop for every 100ft of horizontal stream length), with multiple reaches exceeding 100% (see Appendix A for plan and profile drawing). The streambed consists of bedrock and coarse substrate (i.e., boulder and large cobble) with low sinuosity. The catchment associated with Fivemile Creek is approximately 33.8-square-miles, and is fed by a series of alpine lakes. The stream is prone to seasonal flooding during breakup events and periods of sustained high precipitation. Adjacent riparian forest is composed primarily of white spruce (Picea glauca), paper birch (Betchula paperifera), willow (Salix spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) (Viereck et al. 1992). Access to the creek includes a pioneer jeep trail along the north side of the creek. DRAFT REPORT 11 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 5.2 Flow Measurements and Potential Resources To determine the potential power production of Fivemile Creek, two weirs were installed and stream flow data was collected for portions of fiscal years 2008 and 2010. The weirs were located at the proposed intake site and the culvert outlet where Fivemile Creek crosses the Edgerton Highway. At the lower weir, measurements were recorded about twice a month from January 7th 2008 to May 1st 2008 and from December 4th 2009 to May 12th 2010. The upper weir was constructed approximately 8,500 feet upstream, at the proposed intake site selected during the initial site visit by AEA. Automated measurements were taken every 15 minutes from August 28th 2009 to February 22nd 2010 at this location. During the period of time when data was available from both weirs, the flow measurements were similar (Figure 4). The similar flows experienced at the two different weir sites indicate that little additional water is entering the creek below the intake site. Figure 4 - Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements DRAFT REPORT 12 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 5.3 Comparative Analysis Approximately 14 months of flow data was collected for Fivemile creek. Through comparative analysis with other similar gaged, regional streams with historic flow records, the limited Fivemile creek data was used to predict approximate average annual flow for Fivemile Creek. Comparisons with the Gulkana River were especially useful, as historic flow measurements were available during the same time period that the Fivemile Creek gaging occurred. Further, the Gulkana showed similar seasonal flow variations on a per basin area (Figure 5). Figure 5 - Normalized Flows for Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River DRAFT REPORT 13 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 When comparing the flows between two creeks/rivers it is useful to plot a log/log chart. If the flow characteristics are similar a linear relationship between the data points will occur. The more linear the relationship, the better the predictive power will be. A strong correlation (R²=0.95) was found between the Gulkana and Fivemile Creek during periods of low flow (less than around 500 CFS for the Gulkana and 9 CFS for Fivemile Creek). Figure 6 - Normalized flows of Fivemile vs. Gulkana The data indicates that, when the Gulkana has flows below 500 cfs, it appears to be a reasonable source for predicting Fivemile creek flows. Given the similarity in catchment characteristics and the similarity in the minimum normalized flows, it is reasonable to expect that the longer record of flow measurements at Gulkana will be helpful in assessing the expected annual variation in minimum flows at Fivemile Creek. With increased flows the degree of correlation lessens, however, high flow data is of minimal use for calculating energy production potential for this project, as the design penstock flow will be around 5 cfs. Even though there is a strong correlation between the minimum flows it can be seen from figure 5 that the Fivemile minimum normalized flows tend to be less than those for the Gulkana. To better compare the minimum flows, a linear relationship between the DRAFT REPORT 14 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 logarithms of the Gulkana River and Fivemile Creek was generated (figure 6) and a scaling factor applied to the Gulkana flow data (Figure 7). Figure 7 - Fivemile Creek Calculated Flow Rates from Adjusted Historical Gulkana Data From the adjusted historical data above, the minimum flow predicted would be 0.957 cfs. This minimum flow represents a potential power generation of 62 kW. This scaled data is presented below as recurrence intervals for the minimum available power (Figure 8.) 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 19731974197519761976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009Scaled Gulkana Flow (CFS) DRAFT REPORT 15 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 Figure 8 - Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power Based upon the minimum hydroelectric power recurrence figure (Figure 8) it is expected that the available hydroelectric power will be less than Chitina’s typical peak average consumption of 80 kW once every five years. In other words, each year there is a 20% chance the available hydroelectric power will drop below 80 kW at some point, or an 80% chance it will remain in excess of 80 kW throughout the year. Based on the analyzed data, it appears that the proposed Fivemile Creek Hydro Plant will be capable of supplying nearly all of the electrical power required by Chitina at their present levels of consumption (assuming there are no environmental base stream flow requirements). During the periods when the hydroelectric power cannot meet peak demands, the community’s diesel plant will provide the additional power required. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1 10 100Power (kW)Years Power Recurrence Interval Chitina Power Requirement (80 kW) DRAFT REPORT 16 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 Figure 9 - Potential Hydro Power The above chart presents the potential Fivemile Creek hydro power output for a 300 kW plant during a typical hydrograph year. 170 158 125 107 187 300 300 300 300 300 300 236 215 200 160 139 237 528 880 1467 858 1594 958 304 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHydro Power (kW)For 300 kW Plant with Losses From Streamflow and Gross Head DRAFT REPORT 17 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 6.0 Economic Analysis Electrical demands in rural Alaskan villages, while relatively small in overall magnitude, tend to be significantly more variable than those for larger communities. This is due to dynamic fluctuations in seasonal populations, temperatures, local industrial activities, and other factors. Properly sizing power generation systems for these communities requires the integration of hard data, such as historical consumption records, with socio- economic and other factors, such as projected housing and population growth, planned infrastructure improvements, and the applicability of alternative energy sources and emerging system control technologies. To determine the economic feasibility of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Project a number of documents were reviewed: The initial economic analysis by Polar Consult Alaska (May 2, 2008) and the economic analysis submitted to and revised by AEA as part of the Round IV evaluations of the RE Fund program (Nov 30, 2010). Additionally an Excel- based model was developed by Clifton Laboratories LLC to model the proposed hydro- diesel system. The model simulated seasonal electrical demand, seasonal space heating demand (at multiple community buildings including the hotel, community building, HUD housing development and the local grocery store), seasonal stream flow variations, and population growth projections over the project life. The analysis indicated that the project is economically feasible given that the community population and demand grow in a linear fashion over the project life. Further, if the proposed system includes a turbine size greater than 200 kW, interruptible electric space heating in community buildings will provide up to 20,000-gallons of additional diesel fuel savings. There is no apparent benefit for a turbine rated above 300 kW. DRAFT REPORT 18 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 6.1 Projected Community Growth Population information for the Valdez-Cordova Census Area from 1970 to 2010 was reviewed, which provides some context for population projections. For the Census Area, the Alaska Department of Labor projects declines of 25-50% over the next 20-30 years. However the community of Chitina does not appear to follow the general census area trends. For example, between 1990 and 2010 the Census Area population remained essentially constant while the Chitina population more than doubled. For the purposes of this CDR, two growth scenarios were investigated, as shown on Figure 10, including: linear growth, and exponential growth. For comparative purposes, the “no growth” scenario is also shown. However, based on historic trends, the community is expected to grow over the project life. Note that, for modeling purposes, electrical demand is assumed to increase at the same rate as the population growth. Figure 10 - Chitina Population Projections y = 4.1506x - 8204.1 y = 5E-40e0.0476x y = 126 0 200 400 600 800 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population Year DRAFT REPORT 19 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 6.2 Projected Price per Gallon for Diesel Fuel To determine the potential savings offered by the proposed hydro power plant, predictions about the cost for diesel fuel must be made. Annual energy outlook statistics were collected from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to predict the price of imported crude oil. These national values were adjusted to Chitina equivalents by means of an adjustment equation developed by AEA. For Chitina the adjustment equation is the price of crude oil times 1.32 plus $0.59 plus additional costs for diesel production and CO² equivalent allowances. Figure 11 shows a projection of anticipated costs for diesel fuel in Chitina with high, medium, and low price growth projections. Figure 11 – Chitina Cost Projections for Diesel Fuel $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 20402010 Dollars per GallonYear AEA High Projection AEA Medium Projection AEA Low Projection Extrapolated Extraploated Extraploated DRAFT REPORT 20 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 6.3 Avoided Cost of Diesel Fuel To determine the potential cost savings created by replacing diesel power generation with proposed hydro power, a comparative analysis was performed. The analysis used the medium growth EIA projected fuel prices, and historic Power Cost Equalization (PCE) fuel consumption data to determine the value of avoided diesel fuel for differing hydro turbine power ratings. Figure 12 shows the present value of avoided fuel costs in 2010 dollars based on a 50 year hydro plant design life (design life specified by AEA). Figure 12 - Avoided Cost versus Rated Power Analysis of Figure 12 leads to the following conclusions: 1. Maximum diesel avoidance for the no growth scenario is achieved with a 100 kW turbine. Similarly, maximum diesel avoidance for linear and exponential growth scenarios is achieved with 200 kW and 300 kW turbines, respectively. 2. There is no apparent added benefit to a hydro turbine/generator larger than 300 kW. 3. If a 300kW turbine/generator is installed and the community experiences limited growth, excess hydro energy would be available for meeting community space heating needs, resulting in additional diesel fuel avoidance. $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Avoided Cost (Millions of USD)Plant Rating (kW) No Growth 4 Persons/Year Growth 4.76%/Year Growth DRAFT REPORT 21 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 Figure 13 provides a graphical representation of potential diesel fuel displacement using a 300 kW turbine at the community’s current electrical demand. The figure shows that, at present, a 300 kW turbine/generator could meet the community’s electrical needs most of the time and offset 15,000-20,000 gallons of heating fuel in the average winter. In addition, during the summer months when heat demand is low, but flow (potential energy proportion) is high, the 300kW turbine offers around 812,000kWh of equivalent excess energy resources. This energy could be used for any number of economically beneficial uses, including ice production, campsite RV hookups, refrigeration, etc. Figure 13 - Available Energy for Space Heating at Present Power Consumptions (300kW hydro) DRAFT REPORT 22 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 7.0 Facility Siting and Design Recommendations 7.1 Site Control Land required for the development of the proposed improvements is owned by the Chitina Native Corporation. As CEI is a subsidiary of the Chitina Native Corporation, the land will be provided to the utility as an in-kind contribution to the project. The proposed penstock will also pass through the Edgerton Highway Right of Way (ROW), owned by the Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT). An ADOT utility permit will be required. 7.2 Community Flood Data Based on the Alaska COE database neither a flood plain report nor a flood insurance study has been performed for Chitina. However, it was noted that only very minor flooding has occurred in the community; with damages limited to two structures located less than 10ft from the Copper River. The proposed turbine house will be located well away from the Copper River. Finish grade for the proposed turbine house will be based upon the airport runway elevation, and the finished floor elevation of other critical infrastructure in the vicinity (diesel powerhouse, clinic, etc.). Fivemile Creek is considered too steep to experience backwater flooding effects, however the intake and tailrace structures will be designed with seasonal high flow / scouring events in mind. 7.3 Geotechnical Conditions A Geotechnical review of soil conditions at the nearby power plant was conducted by Duane Miller and Associates in 2007. This report indicates that the area is underlain by relatively uniform soil conditions but quite variable permafrost conditions. The airport is situated on an alluvial fan composed of sand, sandy silt, silty gravel and gravel. Silty organic overburden is present in undisturbed areas, in places up to 9 feet thick. Where present, the permafrost is thin and discontinuous, and is sensitive to ground surface disturbances. Up to 5 feet of seasonal frost has been reported in areas cleared of snow.3 In the region of the Chitina Airport and existing diesel power plant the soil conditions should be suitable for shallow spread footings, provided that any thaw unstable material is removed from the building area and replaced with a properly compacted, non-frost susceptible (NFS) fill. This would require the removal of organic and/or silty soils, and placement and proper compaction of clean, sand and gravel fill material. Spread footings could then be constructed on the properly compacted fill.3 DRAFT REPORT 23 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 7.4 Borrow Sources Based on conversations with Martin Finnesand, CEI President, local fill material is available at a pit located on the east side of the Copper River, which is operated by Ahtna Corporation. This material is reported to be a washed, sedimentary gravel, that is mined and used as a pit run material.2 2 Source: LCMF, LLC. 2006. Conceptual Design Report: Chitna Rural Power System Upgrade. Final report for the Alaska Energy Authority. 147 pp. DRAFT REPORT 24 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 8.0 Proposed Improvements 8.1 General The proposed Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project consists of four major components, including: x A creek diversion structure- The diversion structure would create a small impoundment for freeze protection, and 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 a combination of HDPE (low pressure) and steel (high pressure) pipe; the penstock will be 12-inches in diameter and about 10,000 linear feet long. The primary purposes for the penstock include pressurizing and delivering water from the creek to the turbine power plant. x A hydroelectric turbine building – The turbine building will house a pelton wheel turbine and electrical generating equipment and controls. Water from the penstock will spin the turbine and generators to produce electricity. After passing through the turbine the water will be returned to the creek bed via a tailrace structure. x Electrical tie-in – As currently envisioned, a 3-phase, pad mounted transformer adjacent to the turbine house and overhead medium voltage lines will connect the turbine power plant to the existing electrical distribution system near the existing diesel power module. x Diesel integration – The proposed hydro SCADA system controls will be linked to the community’s existing diesel powerhouse module. An electric boiler will be installed within the existing diesel power module to assist with frequency control. x Space Heating – Electric boilers and/or unit heaters will be installed at key community buildings including the school, hotel, HUD housing complex, clinic and grocery store. The electric heating elements will utilize excess hydro capacity to heat the buildings. DRAFT REPORT 26 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 8.2 Creek Diversion and Intake Structures As currently envisioned the diversion structure will be designed as a gravity concrete structure with an integral weir for passage of excess flow during normal operation. The diversion structure will maintain a sufficient upstream pool depth to discourage freezing of the penstock intake / rack structure. Further, the diversion structure will be designed to withstand periodic overtopping during spring runoff events. The intake rack will be positioned near the base of the diversion, and should be fully submerged under normal operating conditions. The intake rack will be designed to prevent rocks or other debris from entering the penstock; the rack will also be configured to minimize debris accumulation and will be removable to allow for periodic clean out. Provisions for heat addition to the rack will be provided to discourage frazel ice formation/blockage during periods of extreme cold. The creek diversion structure would be accessed using the existing jeep trail that runs along the north side of Fivemile Creek. Approximately ¼-mile of new gravel access road would be constructed to link the diversion structure to the existing trail system. 8.3 Penstock The proposed penstock is a 12-inch I.D. pipeline, constructed from a combination of HDPE pipe for low pressure zones (<200psi) and welded carbon steel for high pressure zones. Where feasible, the penstock will be buried; any above grade sections of penstock will be insulated and anchored as necessary. The proposed penstock alignment starts at the diversion structure and follows the proposed access road to the existing jeep trail. The penstock follows the jeep trail east to a point approximately 1000 LF from the Edgerton Hwy where it leaves the existing trail system and travels cross- country, crosses the Edgerton Hwy. and follows a shallow drainage to the intersection with Fivemile Creek. Finally, the penstock crosses beneath the creek and enters the proposed turbine house building. See Figure 14 for a site plan showing the pipeline alignment. 8.4 Hydro Power Turbine House The proposed hydro power turbine house will consist of a pre-engineered modular structure on a concrete foundation. The structure will house a 300kW pelton turbine generator, and control elements. The turbine house will be positioned adjacent to Fivemile Creek; water expelled from the turbine tailrace will flow back into the streambed via a short channel or pipeline. DRAFT REPORT 27 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 9.0 Proposed Operating Scenario 9.1 General The proposed project will be owned and operated by Chitina Electric, Inc. CEI’s existing management structure and administrative department will remain in place. The overall operation of the utility will change little as a result of this project. The Utility will continue to operate and maintain its facilities, and bill its customers for services provided. It is anticipated that operation and maintenance efforts will increase initially while CEI’s staff familiarize themselves with the Hydro plant. However, once startup is completed, the Hydro plant should require little, if any more maintenance than the existing diesel system. 9.2 Hydro-Diesel Integration Under the proposed operating scenario, the hydro turbine will supply prime power to the community the majority of the time. The existing diesel plant will act primarily as a backup power source. The diesel system will need to be exercised on a regular basis to insure it is ready for backup service. During periods of excess stream flow, electric boilers / space heaters in community buildings will utilize the excess energy for heating purposes. In the summer months, when heating demand is low and stream flow is generally high, the hydro turbine will have the capability to provide low-cost energy to other local industry. At this time, CEI plans to utilize the excess summertime energy for ice production and sell the ice to local campers, tourists and fishermen. It is expected that the ice making process will utilize up to 60,000-kWh of excess electricity per season. Other potential uses of excess energy include electrical hookups at the local RV campground (30,000 kWh per season), and head bolt heaters at village corporation / council offices (8,000 kWh /yr). It is anticipated that local residents will find other creative uses for additional excess energy resulting in economic growth. DRAFT REPORT 28 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 10.0 Permitting Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT &PF) An ADOT Right of Way Permit will be required for the penstock crossing of Edgerton Highway. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Projects that result in the placement of fill in wetlands require a Corps of Engineers (COE) permit. The Chitina Hydro project will disturb the streambed of Fivemile Creek. However, activities for this project will fall under an ADNR water rights permit. Bureau of Indian Affairs No restricted deed native allotments are anticipated to be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, no BIA involvement is required. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Review Projects located within 5 miles of any airport runway must complete the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7460-1 “Notice of Proposed Construction or Operation,” and submit it to the FAA Alaska Regional Office for review. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) If a project falls under FERC jurisdiction a license will be required. The following conditions place a project under FERC jurisdiction: x The project is located on navigable waters of the United States. x The project occupies public lands or reservations of the United States. x The project utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a federal dam. x The project is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, project construction occurred on or after August 26, 1935, and the project affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. At this time it is not anticipated that a license will be needed. However Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires an entity to file with the Commission either a hydropower license application for a proposed project, or a Declaration of Intention to determine if the proposed project requires a license. Fire Marshall Review Before beginning construction of the proposed turbine house, a set of stamped construction drawings must be submitted, along with the appropriate fee, to the State of Alaska, Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Prevention (Fire Marshal) for plan review and approval. After review and approval, the Fire Marshal issues a Plan Review Permit to verify compliance with applicable building, fire, and life safety codes. Review DRAFT REPORT 29 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 times depend upon the agency’s work load; a typical review may take up to 3 months to complete. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service will require that any construction project be reviewed for possible impacts to endangered species. Based on preliminary investigation and previous input from USFWS, no endangered species impacts are anticipated. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Review must be completed prior to construction of the project. The review process will include the development and distribution of a project-scoping letter to all interested state and federal agencies, including the USFWS, State Historic Preservation Officer, and State Flood Plain Manager, among others. Responses from the agencies will identify necessary permits and mitigation measures, if required. Agency approval letters should be attached to the review checklist as justification for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project. AEA will act as the lead agency for FONSI determination. Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) Certification The RCA requires that a utility update their Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) after any major facility upgrades or operational changes. To update the CPNC, the utility must complete and submit the RCA form entitled “Application for a New or Amended Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.” State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act any state or federally funded project must be review by SHPO for the potential of disturbing cultural resources. Based on previous SHPO permitting efforts for the recently constructed diesel power plant module, and a preliminary review of the SHPO library regarding the penstock alignment, no historic properties are affected. DRAFT REPORT 30 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 11.0 Construction Plan 11.1 Administration It is assumed that this project will be constructed using conventional contracting methods. The design engineer will prepare construction drawings, specifications and bid documents. The project will be advertised and sealed bids will be accepted from qualified Contractors in accordance with State of Alaska procurement policy. At the appointed date and time the sealed bids will be opened and evaluated. The Contractor with the lowest responsive and responsible bid will be awarded the contract. Once a contract is in place, the Contractor will coordinate procurement and construction activities, as well as recruitment and training of local workers. The Design Engineer will provide AEA with quality assurance and control services through communication with the Contractor, on-site inspections of the work, and review of submittals and shop drawings. 11.2 Use of Local Labor The Contractor will be encouraged to practice local hire to the greatest practical extent. It is assumed that skilled craftsmen, with appropriate certifications, will be imported to perform specialty work (such as pipe welding and electrical installation). 11.3 Use of Local Equipment The contractor will be encouraged to rent locally available equipment. 11.4 Construction Schedule A preliminary project schedule is provided below. The project schedule is contingent upon availability of construction funding. Final Design and Permitting – Completed August 2012 Begin Procurement of Owner provided Long Lead Iteems - August 2012 Prepare Bid Package and solicit bids for construction - September 2012 Award Hydro Project - November, 2012 Construction completion - August 2014 11.5 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate Conceptual Design Report $115,000 Geotechnical Investigation $50,000 Business and Operations Plan $35,000 Design $300,000 Site Control/Permitting $80,000 Land acquisition $500,000 Intake and Penstock construction $2,300,000 DRAFT REPORT 31 CRW Engineering Group, LLC. September 2011 Powerhouse Building and Turbine $620,000 Electrical Controls and Transmission Line $405,000 Anticipated Project Cost to Completion: $4,405,000 Appendix Table of Contents Appendix A – Conceptual Design Drawings Appendix B – Clifton Laboratories, Economic Feasibility Memorandum Appendix C – Clifton Laboratories, Power Production Memorandum Appendix D – ABR, Aquatic Resources Analysis Appendix E – AOHA, Alaska Heritage Resource Survey Appendix F – USFWS – Critical Habitat Determination Appendix G – USFWS – National Wetlands Inventory Appendix A Conceptual Design Drawings RUSSIA ANCHORAGE NOME KOTZEBUE BARROW JUNEAU FAIRBANKS CANADA KODIAK BETHEL UNALASKA CHITINA, ALASKA PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS & FIGURES CHITINA HYDRO PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2011 CHITINA T3S R5E T4S R5E T3S R6E T4S R6E CHITINA CHITINA AIRPORT FIVEMILE CREEK CO P P E R R I V E R W R A N G E L L - S A I N T E L I A S N A T I O N A L P R E S E R V E CHITINA RIVER TARAL LOWER TONSINA FIVE MILE CREEK Appendix B Economic Feasibility Memorandum MEMORANDUM To:Karl Hulse, CRW Engineering Group, LLC From:Larry Clifton Date:August 26, 2011 Regarding: Fivemile Creek Hydro Project Economic Feasibility Summary Clifton Labs, Ltd., was retained by CRW Engineering Group, LLC, to review the economic feasibility of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Project near Chitina, Alaska. To this end we reviewed the initial economic analysis by Polar Consult Alaska and the economic analysis submitted to and revised by AEA as part of the Round IV evaluations of the RE Fund program. (1) (2) We also reviewed an Excel simulation of the heat recovery system in the existing Chitina diesel plant by Brian Gray and expanded this simulation to include simulation of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Plant with intermittent as-needed electrical generation by the diesel plant. (3) Simulation of the combined diesel and hydro plants took into account seasonal heating demand, seasonal water availability, and linear or exponential population growth over the project life. There were two main findings. 1.The project is economically feasible assuming linear or exponential extrapolation of Chitina population and a plant rating of at least 200 kW. There is no benefit from increasing the plant rating above 300 kW. 2.The project is also economically feasible with no population growth if interruptible electric space heating is installed in buildings which collectively use 20,000 gal of heating fuel per year. Taking into account the seasonal variation in heating demand and the seasonal availability of hydro power in excess of the present electrical load, we estimate that the electric space heating would displace 15,000 gals/yr of the 20,000 gal/yr presently consumed. A more detailed discussion of the data and conclusions follows. Fuel consumption of existing diesel plant In the Round IV project review, it was noted that the 13.9 kWh/gal diesel generation efficiency submitted by the applicant might be unrealistically high. The diesel generation efficiency was calculated from data obtained from PCE for FY ending June 31, 2010, in which it was reported that 36,868 gals of fuel were consumed to generate 513,590 kWh of electrical energy. So if the calculated efficiency is not correct, there must be an error in the reported fuel consumption or energy production. To address this question we did some consistency checks on the monthly PCE data. Clifton Labs, Ltd. 4710 University Way N.E. #115 Seattle, WA 98105-4428 Phone: Fax: Email: (206) 529-1410 (206) 529-1412 Larry@CliftonLabs.net 2 Figure 1 shows the diesel generation efficiency calculated from monthly PCE data for FY 2002 through FY 2011. From this figure we see that there are indeed questionable computed efficiencies, including an efficiency of 18 kWh/gal for June 2010. We obtained copies of the monthly reports submitted by Chitina Electric to PCE around June 2005 and June 2010 to see if we could identify the source of the abnormal efficiencies calculated for these two months. For June 2005 Chitina Electric reported 2,713 gals of fuel consumed. The data from PCE shows 2,173 gals so in this instance the error appears to be in entering the data at PCE. For June 2010 the submitted fuel consumption and the recorded fuel consumption agree. Since there is nothing suspicious in the energy production for this month, we suspect that the fuel consumption was greater than reported by Chitina Electric. We are now using data from PCE for FY 2011 (ending June 31, 2011) to estimate electrical energy production and fuel consumption of the present diesel plant. The monthly data for this fiscal year are shown in Table 1. The annual diesel generation efficiency calculated from this data is 13.60 kWh/gal based on 40,753 gals consumed to generate 554,137 kWh. The monthly average power generation for FY 2011 is shown in Figure 2. For purposes of comparison, Figure 3 shows the monthly average power generation for FY 2002 through FY 2011. The monthly peak powers shown in Figure 3 are not considered reliable after 2009. From conversations with the power plant operator, the peak generation does not exceed 100 kW. Posting Description Diesel Generated (kWh) Fuel Used (Gallons) Efficiency (kWh/gal) July 2010 49,481 3,530 14.02 August 2010 48,463 3,449 14.05 September 2010 42,044 3,050 13.78 October 2010 41,094 3,085 13.32 November 2010 41,071 3,137 13.09 December 2010 55,769 4,150 13.44 January 2011 53,421 3,809 14.02 February 2011 43,853 3,141 13.96 March 2011 46,365 3,510 13.21 April 2011 39,675 3,125 12.70 May 2011 42,392 3,150 13.46 June 2011 50,509 3,617 13.96 Total 554,137 40,753 13.60 Table 1: Chitina monthly generation and fuel consumption for FY 2011 New hydro plant A Pelton turbine is best for the head and stream flow of the project. With a conservative shaft speed of 1200 RPM, the runner pitch diameter will be about 21”. Figure 4 shows the approximate efficiencies of the penstock, turbine, and generator together with the plant efficiency. The turbine efficiency is for a single-jet unit with the runner custom-designed for the site. The plant efficiency is relatively constant for outputs ranging from 30-100% of rated plant output. 3 The approximate water availability is shown in Figure 5 and the hydropower availability for a 300 kW rated plant is shown in Figure 6. The turbine speed will be controlled by a combination of jet deflection and active load control. During normal operating conditions the deflector will not deflect any of the jet and the system frequency will be maintained by adjusting the electric input to a new electric boiler in the diesel power plant. In this normal mode, the injector will be adjusted to maintain the boiler input near the middle of its operating range. In this way small changes in system load can be quickly offset by adjusting the boiler input and the boiler input can then be restored slowly back to the midpoint by adjusting the turbine injector. The deflector will come into action in the case of load rejections which are too large to be counteracted by increasing the boiler input power. These load rejections include breaker trips. The overspeed protection with lockout will be adjusted so that the turbine will not be immediately shut down following a breaker trip, provided the deflector is able to quickly bring the speed back to normal synchronous speed by diverting water away from the runner. It will then be possible to close the breaker and pick up all of the load. In this situation the turbine governor would rapidly move the deflector out of the stream. Using the deflector for speed control will also make it easier to synchronize the hydro plant to the diesel plant when the diesel plant is running. Integration of new hydro plant into existing power system The existing diesel plant includes a heat recovery system which supplies heat to the control room and to a nearby health clinic. The new electric boiler in the diesel plant will be plumbed to the existing heat recovery system so that it will serve two purposes: to replace heat previously recovered from the diesel engines and to serve as an adjustable load for frequency regulation. The seasonal variation in heat load on the heat recovery system is shown in Figure 7. The increased heat load when no diesel engines are running is due to the need to heat the engine room. The maximum load on the heat recovery system is about 20 kW and we plan to install a 40-50 kW electric boiler which will provide ample adjustable load for frequency regulation. In the simulations of energy production with no diesel engines running we have assumed a minimum electric boiler input of 20 kW. Projected fuel prices All of our simulations used the AEA Medium Projection as shown in Figure 8. (4) Avoided fuel cost with population growth Figure 9 shows population trends for the Valdez-Cordova Census Area, which contains Chitina. (5) The population for this Census Area doubled from 1970-1975 during construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline and has been decreasing the past decade. Figure 10 shows Chitina population from 1990 to 2010. (6) The Chitina population roughly doubled from 1990 to 2000 and remained fairly constant for the past decade. 4 We simulated energy production over 30 years for steady population, best fit linear extrapolation of historical population (4 persons per year), and best fit exponential extrapolation of historical population (4.76% per year) as shown in Figure 11. In these simulations we also varied the plant rating from 100 to 500 kW. The results are summarized in Figure 12. It appears that the present value of the avoided costs exceeds the estimated construction costs for either growth model and that there is no benefit to increasing the plant rating beyond 300 kW. Potential for using excess hydro power for space heating We also performed detailed simulations to determine the potential for using hydro power for space heating assuming no population growth. In these simulations we assumed that the heating degree days in Chitina would be similar to those of Glenallen as shown in Figure 13. (7) Figure 14 shows the seasonal variation in average heating degrees superimposed on a graph of Fivemile Creek stream flow. Here we can see that the greatest demand for space heating will be during the time of year when the stream flow is rapidly decreasing. Figure 15 is a more detailed view of heating demand and hydro power availability. Here the dashed line is the hydro power available from a 300 kW rated plant in excess of the present electrical load for each month of the year. The excess hydro power has been converted to gallons of heating fuel based on a heat content of 134,000 btu/gal and fuel oil furnace efficiencies of 73%. The colored lines are, from bottom to top, the monthly heating demand for a sets of buildings which presently consume 10,000 to 40,000 gals/yr of heating fuel in 5,000 gals/yr steps. As we increase the present annual fuel consumption in which electric heating is installed we quickly reach the point where the heating demand exceeds the available hydro power from January to May. Figure 16 shows the avoided heating fuel consumption as a function of the present heating fuel consumption. From this we see that to avoid 15,000 gal/yr of heating fuel, we will need to install electric heat in buildings which presently consume 20,000 gal/yr of heating fuel. Revising the Round IV economic analysis spread sheet with the diesel plant statistics for FY 2011 and reducing the annual displaced heating fuel to 15,000 gal resulted in a B/C ratio of 1.22. Simulation outline Simulation Summary 1.Projected population 2.Fuel consumption without the hydro plant 3.Fuel consumption with the hydro plant 4.Avoided fuel consumption 5.Present value of avoided fuel cost 5 Simulation parameters Financial 1.Projected fuel price (4) 2.Discount rate 3% 3.Project life 30 years 4.Present year 2011 5.First year of avoided costs 2015 Population 6.2010 Population 126 persons (6) 7.Linear population growth rate 0 or 4 persons/year 8.Exponential population growth rate 0 or 4.76%/year Hydro plant 9.Hydro plant rating, 300 kW (design parameter) 10.Gross head 950 f t 11.Penstock loss at rated discharge 10% (nominal) 12.Turbine loss coefficients 13.Generator loss coefficients 14.Minimum bypass flow, presently set to 0 15.Specific weight of water 62.4 lbf/ft3 16.Minimum electric boiler input for frequency regulation when running only hydro 20 kW (design parameter) Diesel Plant 17.Minimum diesel electrical output, 20 kW 18. Recoverable heat from diesel engines, 2000 Btu/kWh (3) 19.Heat recovery system leakage into engine room, 5 MBH (3) 20.Heat loss is buried arctic piping to clinic, 12 MBH (3) 21.Clinic heat load coefficient, 436 BTU/(h*F) (8) 22.Clinic non-seasonal heat load 2233 BTU/h (8) 23.Total module heat load coefficient, 313 BTU/(h*F) (8) 24.Control room heat load coefficient, 75 BTU/(h*F) (8) By month 25.Days per month 26.Heating degree days 27.Stream flow 28.Electrical energy consumption (Jul 2010 – Jun 2011) 29.Diesel fuel consumption (Jul 2010 – Jun 2011) By hour by month 30.Electrical load variation (3) 31.Building heat demand variation (3) 6 Calculated parameters Time independent 1.Rated plant discharge 2.Ratio of recoverable heat rate to diesel electrical power 3.Diesel efficiency By month 4.Potential hydro power from stream flow and gross head 5.Potential plant discharge considering minimum bypass at intake and rated discharge 6.Hydro turbine and generator efficiency 7.Potential hydro power considering plant efficiency By hour, by month 8.2010 Electrical load 9.Heating degrees 10.Clinic heat load 11.Total module heat load, will not require any heat June, July, and August 12.Control room heat load, will not require any heat June, July, and August 13.Total heat load when running only hydro = clinic + module + arctic pipe loss 14.Total heat load when running at least one diesel engine = clinic + control room + 5MBH loss into engine room + arctic pipe loss 15.Boiler input when running only hydro is the maximum of a.total heat load when running only hydro, and b.minimum boiler input for frequency regulation. Hourly simulation By hour, by month, by year 1.Electrical load 2.Electrical load – available hydro power 3.Electrical load – available hydro power + total heat load when running at least one diesel engine 4.maximum of a.Minimum diesel electrical output, and b.Electrical load – available hydro power + total heat load when running at least one diesel engine 5.Diesel electrical output. If hydro power > Electrical load + boiler input when running only hydro, then diesel electrical output = 0, otherwise it is 4 from above. By year 6.Diesel electrical energy output 7.Fuel consumption 7 Works Cited 1.Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.Regional Hydroelectric Investigation Chitina, Alaska .2008. 2.Alaska Energy Authority. Renewable Energy Fund Round IV. [Online] ftp://ftp.aidea.org/ReFund_RoundIV_Recommendations/REFundRound4/2_Project_Specific_Do cs/economic_analysis_summaries/WordReports/682%20Chitina_hydro_final_113010.docx. 3.Gray, Brian. Chitina Heat Recovery Simulation 3-23-1.xlsx. 4.Institute of Social and Economic Research. [Online] University of Alaska Anchorage. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Fuel_price_projection_2011- 2035_workbook_final.xlsx. 5.Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Resident Population in Valdez-Cordova Census Area, AK. [Online] http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=AKVALD1POP. 6.Zaruba, Ingrid M. (ingrid.zaruba@alaska.gov). Chitina Population. 1990&2000PopforChitina.xlsx.s.l. : Alaska Department of Labor. 7.Western Regional Climate Center.Glennallen KCAM, Alaska.[Online] http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?akglen. 8.Clifton, Larry.Simulation Notes Rev 07.2011. 8 Figure 1: Diesel generation efficiency Figure 2: Power generation for fiscal year 2011 0 5 10 15 20 7/1/2001 7/1/2003 7/1/2005 7/1/2007 7/1/2009Efficiency (kWh/gal)66.51 65.14 58.39 55.23 57.04 74.96 71.80 65.26 62.32 55.10 56.98 70.15 0 20 40 60 80 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunMonthly Average Power (kW) 9 Figure 3: Power generation Figure 4: Penstock, turbine, generator, and plant efficiencies 0 50 100 150 200 7/1/2001 7/1/2003 7/1/2005 7/1/2007 7/1/2009Power (kW)Monthly Average Monthly Peak 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Efficiency Normalized Plant Output Penstock Turbine Generator Plant 10 Figure 5: Fivemile Creek water availability Figure 6: Potential hydro power and maximum power for 300 kW plant 2.44 2.27 1.81 1.57 2.69 6.00 10.00 16.67 9.75 18.12 10.89 3.46 0 5 10 15 20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecFivemile Creek Flow (cfs)155 144 113 96 171 300 300 300 300 300 300 218 196 182 146 127 216 482 804 1340 784 1456 875 278 0 500 1000 1500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHydro Power (kW)For 300 kW Plant with Losses From Streamflow and Gross Head 11 Figure 7: Heat recovery system load Figure 8: 30-year fuel price projections 16.26 15.11 13.15 10.75 8.85 7.15 6.70 7.23 8.99 11.54 14.69 15.78 19.74 18.05 15.18 11.67 8.87 7.15 6.70 7.23 9.09 12.83 17.45 19.04 0 5 10 15 20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHeat Load (kW)Some Diesel Generation No Diesel Generation $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 20402010 Dollars per GallonYear AEA High Projection AEA Medium Projection AEA Low Projection Extrapolated Extraploated Extraploated 12 Figure 9: Population and projections for Valdez-Cordova census area Figure 10: Chitina population 0 5000 10000 15000 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040PopulationLow Projection Medium Projection High Projection 0 50 100 150 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Population Year 13 Figure 11: Chitina population projections Figure 12: Avoided cost versus rated power y = 4.1506x - 8204.1 y = 5E-40e0.0476x y = 126 0 200 400 600 800 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population Year $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Avoided Cost (Millions of USD)Plant Rating (kW) No Growth 4 Persons/Year Growth 4.76%/Year Growth 14 Figure 13: Glenallen heating degree days Figure 14: Glenallen heating degrees and Fivemile water availability 2199 1770 1555 1024 664 356 258 387 672 1222 1814 2100 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHeating Degree Days0 5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60 80 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Fivemile Creek Stream Flow (cfs)Average Heating DegreesHeating Degrees Stream flow 15 Figure 15: Potential heating fuel displacement and heating fuel demand Figure 16: Avoided heating fuel consumption 0 2000 4000 6000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecGallons of Fuel0 10000 20000 30000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000Avoided Heating Fuel Consumption (gal/yr)Present Heating Fuel Consumption (gal/yr) Appendix C Power Production Memorandum MEMORANDUM To:Karl Hulse, CRW Engineering Group, LLC. From:Larry Clifton Date:April 11, 2011 Regarding: Fivemile Creek Hydro Project Power Production Clifton Labs, Ltd. was retained by CRW Engineering Group, LLC. to review the potential power production of the Fivemile Creek Hydro Project near Chitina, Alaska. To this end, we reviewed Chitina Electric, Inc. power generation statistics for fiscal years 2002 through 2010 and Fivemile Creek stream flow data for portions of fiscal years 2008 and 2010. We also reviewed more extensive flow data from nearby nonglacial streams. Based on the available data, it appears that the Fivemile Creek Hydro Plant will be capable of supplying nearly all of the Chitina electrical power at present levels of consumption. A more detailed discussion of the data and conclusions follows with references to slides in the PowerPoint presentation accompanying this memorandum. The Chitina power system serves local customers and is not connected to other power systems. Hence the primary economic benefit of the hydro plant will be to reduce the cost of diesel fuel required to meet local electrical consumption. The amount of fuel used for generating electrical power was fairly constant for fiscal years 2002 through 2010, ranging from a maximum of 40,000 gallons in 2002 to a minimum of 35,000 gallons in 2006. During the same period, annual fuel costs for power generation rose steadily from $51,000 in 2002 to $107,000 in 2010. (Slide 2) The increasing fuel costs were due primarily to the increasing price per gallon of diesel fuel. For fiscal years 2002 through 2010, the monthly average power consumption ranged from 45 kW to 65 kW. The monthly peak power consumption was usually highest in December or January. Usually the peak consumption was less than 80 kW. The highest recorded peak consumption was 89 kW in December of 2001. (Slide 3) With the intake at elevation 1570 ft and the power house at elevation 530 ft, the gross head will be 1040 ft. In relating flow to power generation, it is convenient to use the estimate that, with 1000 ft of gross head and 80% overall efficiency, 1.5 cfs flow is required to generate 100 kW of electrical power. Fivemile Creek flow was measured at a weir constructed across a culvert near the proposed power plant. (Slide 4) Measurements were taken about twice a month from 1/7/2008 to 5/1/2008 and about twice a month from 12/4/09 to 5/12/2010. In addition, a weir was constructed near the proposed intake. (Slides 5 and 6) Automated measurements were taken from this weir every 15 minutes from 8/28/2009 to 2/22/2010. We will refer to these weirs as “lower weir” and “upper weir” respectively. During the period of time when data was available from both weirs, the flow measurements were similar. (Slide 7) Clifton Labs, Ltd. 4710 University Way N.E. #115 Seattle, WA 98105-4428 Phone: Fax: Email: (206) 529-1410 (206) 529-1412 Larry@CliftonLabs.net 2 The minimum flows recorded at the lower weir were 1.33 cfs on 4/14/2008 and 1.77 cfs on 3/25/2010 and 4/13/2010. These flows represent potential power generations of 89 kW and 118 kW. It should be noted that the maximum peak power consumption generally occurs in December or January and, for these two months, the minimum flows measured at the lower weir were 2.46 cfs in 2008 and 2.73 cfs in 2009-2010. These flows represent potential power generations of 164 kW and 182 kW, about double the historical peak consumption for these two months. Peak power consumption and stream flow decrease from January to April. In fiscal 2008, for example, the peak consumption dropped from 65 kW in January to 59 kW in April. During the same period, the potential power generation (calculated from the flow measured at the lower weir) dropped from 164 kW to 89 kW. With only two years of winter/spring flow measurements, it is difficult to assess whether the hydro plant potential power generation will consistently exceed peak power consumption in future years. For instance, there may be significantly more variation in minimum flows than is revealed in two years of flow measurements. There is also the possibility that the flow measurements were taken during atypical years when the stream flows did not drop to typical minimum values. To address these concerns, we looked for stream flow measurements from other nonglacial rivers in the Copper Creek Basin. The Gulkana River was the only such river for which flow measurements were available during the same time periods as the Fivemile Creek measurements. (USGS 15200280 GULKANA R AT SOURDOUGH AK) The catchment areas of the Gulkana River and Fivemile Creek are, however, substantially different. The catchment area for Fivemile Creek above the intake is estimated to be 12.65 square miles while the catchment area for the Gulkana River is estimated to be 1770 square miles. To compare the flows, we divided the flow measurements by the respective catchment areas. The normalized flows (cfs per square mile) for the two streams were similar for the periods in which measurements were available from both streams. (Slide 8) Given the similarity in catchment characteristics and the similarity in the minimum normalized flows for two different years, it is reasonable to expect that the longer record of flow measurements at Gulkana will be helpful in assessing the expected annual variation in minimum flows at Fivemile Creek. To this end we plotted the available minimum normalized flows at Gulkana and the two minimum normalized flows at Fivemile on the same graph. For purposes of comparison, we also plotted minimum normalized flows at two other nonglacial rivers in the Copper River Basin. (Slide 9) From this graph we see that the two minimum normalized flows at Fivemile Creek are somewhat lower than the corresponding ones at Gulkana. Expecting the logarithms of the minimum flows to be normally distributed, we calculated a linear relationship between the logarithms of the Gulkana River and Fivemile Creek minimum flows for the two years for which we had flow measurements for both streams. (Slide 10) With only two years of simultaneous measurement of minimum flows at the two sites, it is not possible to determine the correlation coefficient between the logarithms of the minimum flows at the two sites. But scaling the logarithms of the Gulkana minimum flows according to this derived linear relationship reduces the minimum flows and, hence, is more conservative than using the unscaled Gulkana data to estimate previous minimum flows at Fivemile Creek. (Slide 11) Using the scaled Gulkana minimum flows as our best estimate of Fivemile Creek historical flows, we constructed graphs of recurrence intervals for minimum normalized flow (Slide 12) and the 3 corresponding minimum hydroelectric power. (Slides 12 and13) From the minimum hydroelectric power recurrence graph we see that the available hydroelectric power will be less than the typical annual peak consumption of 80 kW about once every five years. Chitina Hydroelectric ProjectEnergy ProductionPrepared by: Clifton Labs, Ltd.For: CRW Engineering Group, LLC.April 11, 2011 Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption and Cost2 Average and Peak Electrical Power3 Fivemile Creek Lower Weir4 Fivemile Creek Upper WeirNear Proposed Intake5 Fivemile Creek Upper WeirNear Proposed Intake6 Fivemile Creek Flow Measurements7 Fivemile Creek and Gulkana River Flows80.010.11101/1/2008 12/31/2008 12/31/2009 12/31/2010Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)5‐Mile Upper Weir5‐Mile Lower WeirGulkana USGS Measurements Minimum Normalized Flowsfor Streams Near Chitina90.010.111960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Squirrel CreekGulkana RiverLittle Tonsina River5‐Mile Creek Scaling of Gulkana RiverMinimum Normalized Flows10y = 1.2376x + 0.1176‐2.5‐2.3‐2.1‐1.9‐1.7‐1.5‐2.5‐2.3‐2.1‐1.9‐1.7‐1.55‐Mile Ln Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Gulkana Ln Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)2008 and 2010Linear (2008 and 2010) Fivemile Creek Minimum Flows110.010.111970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Scaled Gulkana River5‐Mile Creek Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Normalized Flows1200.050.10.150.20.250.3110100Minimum Normalized Flow (cfs per square mile)Recurrence Interval (years)Sample ReccuranceLog Normal Fit Fivemile Creek Recurrence Intervals for Minimum Hydroelectric Power13 Appendix D Aquatic Resources Analysis $%5,QF²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFHV )LYHPLOH&UHHN$TXDWLFV*DS$QDO\VLV -XO\ ),9(0,/(&5((.+<'52352-(&7$48$7,&5(6285&(6 '$7$*$3$1$/<6,6 3UHSDUHGIRU &5:(QJLQHHULQJ*URXS//& $UFWLF%OYG6XLWH $QFKRUDJH$. E\ -RHO*RWWVFKDONDQG-RKQ6HLJOH $%5,QF²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFHV 32%R[ $QFKRUDJH$. -XO\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB %$&.*5281' 2YHUWKHSDVW\HDUVPXOWLSOHIHDVLELOLW\VWXGLHVKDYHEHHQFRQGXFWHGRQYDULRXV GUDLQDJHVQHDU&KLWLQDWRGHWHUPLQHWKHLUVXLWDELOLW\IRUVPDOOVFDOHK\GURHOHFWULFSURMHFWV LQFOXGLQJ/LEHUW\2¶%ULHQDQG)R[FUHHNVLQDGGLWLRQWR)LYHPLOH&UHHN)LYHPLOH &UHHNZDVGHWHUPLQHGWREHWKHPRVWIHDVLEOHFDQGLGDWHLQSDUWGXHWRLWVSUR[LPLW\WRWKH YLOODJHRI&KLWLQDIRUHOHFWULFDOWLHLQH[LVWLQJURDGDFFHVVDQGDSSDUHQWVXSHULRUEDQN VWDELOLW\3&$7KLVKLJKKHDGUXQRIWKHULYHUSURMHFWZRXOGKDYHDFKDQJHLQ HOHYDWLRQRIaIHHWEHWZHHQDVPDOOLQWDNHLPSRXQGPHQWDWaIHHWHOHYDWLRQ DQGWKHSURSRVHGGRZQVWUHDPSRZHUKRXVHQHDUWKH&KLWLQD0XQLFLSDO$LUSRUWaIHHW HOHYDWLRQ7KHPDMRULW\RIWKHIRRWLQFKGLDPHWHUSHQVWRFNZRXOGEHEXULHGHQ URXWHWRWKHSRZHUKRXVHIRUHOHFWULFDOSURGXFWLRQOLNHO\YLDD3HOWRQZKHHOV\VWHP7KH SRZHUKRXVHWDLOUDFHZRXOGUHLQWURGXFHGLYHUWHGZDWHUEDFNLQWRWKHFUHHNaIHHW IURPLWVPRXWKDWWKH&RSSHU5LYHU3&$$VFXUUHQWO\HQYLVLRQHGWKHSURMHFW ZRXOGLQFOXGHDN:UDWHGWXUELQHXWLOL]LQJEHWZHHQDQGFIVRIZDWHU &XUUHQWO\WKHVROHVRXUFHRIHOHFWULFLW\IRUWKHYLOODJHDQGDLUSRUWLVDGLHVHO JHQHUDWRUV\VWHPZKLFKZDVLQVWDOOHGLQE\WKH$ODVND(QHUJ\$XWKRULW\$($ $%5,QF²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFHV )LYHPLOH&UHHN$TXDWLFV*DS$QDO\VLV -XO\ 7KHYRODWLOLW\LQGLHVHOIXHOSULFHVGXULQJZLQGRZVRISHDNHOHFWULFDOQHHGKDVEHHQ DFNQRZOHGJHGDVDQHFRQRPLFVWUDLQRQ&KLWLQD9LOODJHUHVLGHQWV7KH)LYHPLOH&UHHN K\GURHOHFWULFSURMHFWLVVHHQDVDPHDQVWRHFRQRPLFDOO\VWDELOL]HDQGJURZWKHORFDO HFRQRP\E\UHGXFLQJUHOLDQFHRQGLHVHOJHQHUDWHGSRZHU$($7KHVDYLQJV DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHFRVWRIGLHVHOIXHOIRUSRZHUJHQHUDWLRQaJDOORQVDQGKHDWLQJ RLOXSWRJDOORQVLVHVWLPDWHGWREHQHDUO\DQQXDOO\$($ ),9(0,/(&5((.678'<$5($ 7KHKHDGZDWHUVRI)LYHPLOH&UHHNDUHORFDWHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOHVQRUWKZHVWRI WKHYLOODJHRI&KLWLQD$.7KLVVHFRQGRUGHUVWUHDPLVIRUPHGE\WKHFRQIOXHQFHRI VKRUWGXUDWLRQVWUHDPVZKLFKGUDLQDVHULHVRIVPDOODOSLQHODNHVaIHHWDERYHVHD OHYHOWRWKHZHVWRIWKH(GJHUWRQ+LJKZD\)LYHPLOH&UHHNDVLWVQDPHLPSOLHVIORZVIRU aPLOHVWKHODVWIHHWHPHUJLQJIURPDFXOYHUWZKLFKFURVVHVXQGHUWKH(GJHUWRQ +LJKZD\DWPLOHSRVW7KHFXOYHUWLWVHOILVDIRRWORQJIRRWGLDPHWHUSLSH $WLWVPRXWK)LYHPLOH&UHHNHPSWLHVLQWRDEUDLGRIWKH&RSSHU5LYHULPPHGLDWHO\ QRUWKRIWKHUXQZD\DWWKH&KLWLQD0XQLFLSDO$LUSRUW)LJXUH$SSHQGL[$7KHFUHHN LVKLJKJUDGLHQWa±LQWKHORZHUUHDFKHVLQFUHDVLQJWR!XSVWUHDPRIWKHFXOYHUW 7KHVWUHDPEHGLVEHGURFNDQGFRDUVHVXEVWUDWHLHERXOGHUDQGODUJHFREEOHZLWKORZ VLQXRVLW\7KHVTXDUHPLOHFDWFKPHQWDVVRFLDWHGZLWK)LYHPLOH&UHHNLVIHGE\D VHULHVRIDOSLQHODNHVDQGLVSURQHWRVHDVRQDOIORRGLQJGXULQJEUHDNXSHYHQWVDQGSHULRGV RIVXVWDLQHGKLJKSUHFLSLWDWLRQ3&$$GMDFHQWULSDULDQIRUHVWLVFRPSRVHG SULPDULO\RIZKLWHVSUXFH3LFHDJODXFDSDSHUELUFK%HWFKXODSDSHULIHUDZLOORZ 6DOL[VSSDOGHU$OQXVVSSDQGEODFNFRWWRQZRRG3RSXOXVWULFKRFDUSD9LHUHFNHW DO3XUVXDQWWRWKH$ODVND1DWLYH&ODLPV6HWWOHPHQW$FW$1&6$RIWKH &KLWLQD9LOODJH&RUSRUDWLRQQRZWKH&KLWLQD1DWLYH&RUSRUDWLRQ&1&FODLPHG DSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHVRIODQGPXFKRILWDGMDFHQWWRWKH&RSSHUDQG&KLWLQDULYHUV QRUWKDQGVRXWKRIWKHYLOODJH6HONUHJJHWDO7KH&1&KDVDIILUPHGDQLQNLQG GRQDWLRQRIODQGVWR&KLWLQD(OHFWULF,QF&(,IRUWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKLVSURMHFW $($$FFHVVWRWKHFUHHNLQFOXGHVDPLQLPDOO\PDLQWDLQHGZKHHOHUURDG DGMDFHQWWRWKHQRUWKVLGHRIWKHFUHHNWKDWZDVFRQVWUXFWHGIRUDFFHVVWRDKLJKHOHYDWLRQ PLQLQJSURVSHFW3&$ $%5,QF²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¶%ULHQ&UHHNDQG)R[&UHHNDUHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH$:&DVKDYLQJUHDULQJ VRFNH\HVDOPRQLQWKHLUORZHUUHDFKHV$')*7KH7RQVLQD5LYHUGUDLQDJH DSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOHVQRUWKRQWKH&RSSHU5LYHULVGRFXPHQWHGDVKDYLQJVSDZQLQJ DQGUHDULQJ&KLQRRNFRKRDQGVRFNH\HVDOPRQ,WLVDOVRSRVVLEOHWKDWWKHUHDUH SRSXODWLRQVRIUHVLGHQWDUFWLFJUD\OLQJ7K\PDOOXVDUFWLFXVDQG'ROO\9DUGHQDERYHRU EHORZWKHFXOYHUWLQ)LYHPLOH&UHHN0DUN6RPHUYLOOH$')*SHUVRQDOFRPPXQLFDWLRQ +\GURORJLFVWXGLHVZHUHFRQGXFWHGRQ)LYHPLOH&UHHNLQDQGE\ 3&$,QDVLJQLILFDQWIORRGLQJHYHQWVSXUUHGWKHGLVPLVVDORIWKH2¶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²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFHV )LYHPLOH&UHHN$TXDWLFV*DS$QDO\VLV -XO\ URXQGHQHUJ\SURGXFWLRQ7KHXSSHUZHLUZDVGDPDJHGE\DIDOOHQWUHHDQGUHQGHUHG LQRSHUDEOHVRPHWLPHSULRUWRDQ$XJXVWLQVSHFWLRQ3&$7KHIDLOXUHRIWKH XSSHUZHLUUHTXLUHGH[WUDSRODWLRQRIGLVFKDUJHGDWDIRUDQQXDOORZIORZHYHQWVIURP VLPLODUUHJLRQDOZDWHUVKHGVDQG\LHOGHGHVWLPDWHVRIa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±-XQHWRVHWPLQQRZWUDSVDW VLWHVDORQJWKHSURSRVHGE\SDVVUHDFKDQGWRFROOHFWZDWHUFKHPLVWU\GDWD7KLVILHOG HIIRUWZDVLQSDUWWRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUDPRUHH[WHQVLYHELRORJLFDODQGVWUHDPKDELWDW VXUYH\LVZDUUDQWHGLQWKHIXWXUHVHHVLWHYLVLWVXPPDU\LQ$SSHQGL[$ 0$1$*(0(17&21&(516 'DWDJDSVIRU)LYHPLOH&UHHNSUHYHQWDQDVVHVVPHQWRIGHVLJQDWHGHVVHQWLDOILVK KDELWDW()+(VVHQWLDOILVKKDELWDWLVUHJXODWHGE\7KH1DWLRQDO2FHDQLFDQG $WPRVSKHULF$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ¶V12$$1DWLRQDO0DULQH)LVKHULHV6HUYLFH10)6 XQGHUWKH0DJQXVRQ6WHYHQV)LVKHU\&RQVHUYDWLRQDQG0DQDJHPHQW$FWDVDPHQGHGE\ WKH6XVWDLQDEOH)LVKHULHV$FWRI3XEOLF/DZ7KLVDFWHVWDEOLVKHGDUXOHWR GHVFULEHDQGLGHQWLI\HVVHQWLDOILVKKDELWDWLQDOOILVKHU\PDQDJHPHQWSODQV()+LV $%5,QF²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFHV )LYHPLOH&UHHN$TXDWLFV*DS$QDO\VLV -XO\ GHILQHGDVWKRVHZDWHUVDQGVXEVWUDWHQHFHVVDU\WRILVKIRUVSDZQLQJEUHHGLQJIHHGLQJ RUJURZWKWRPDWXULW\7KHVH³ZDWHUV´LQFOXGHDTXDWLFDUHDVDQGWKHLUDVVRFLDWHG ELRORJLFDOFKHPLFDODQGSK\VLFDOSURSHUWLHV7KH³VXEVWUDWH´LQFOXGHVEHQWKLFVHGLPHQW XQGHUO\LQJWKHZDWHUV³1HFHVVDU\´PHDQVKDELWDWUHTXLUHGWRVXSSRUWWKHPDQDJHG VSHFLHV FRQWULEXWLRQWRDKHDOWK\HFRV\VWHPDQGDVXVWDLQDEOHILVKHU\+DELWDWUHODWHGWR ³VSDZQLQJEUHHGLQJIHHGLQJRUJURZWKWRPDWXULW\´FRYHUVDOOKDELWDWW\SHVXWLOL]HGE\D VSHFLHVRIFRQFHUQWKURXJKRXWLWVOLIHF\FOH10)6 7KH)LVKZD\$FW$ODVND6WDWXWH>$6@UHTXLUHVWKDW³DQLQGLYLGXDORU JRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\QRWLI\DQGREWDLQDXWKRUL]DWLRQIURPWKH$ODVND'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVK DQG*DPH$')*'LYLVLRQRI+DELWDWIRUDFWLYLWLHVZLWKLQRUDFURVVDVWUHDPXVHGE\ ILVKLI$')*GHWHUPLQHVWKDWVXFKXVHVRUDFWLYLWLHVFRXOGUHSUHVHQWDQLPSHGLPHQWWRWKH HIILFLHQWSDVVDJHRIDQDGURPRXVDQGRUUHVLGHQWILVK´7KHVXSSOHPHQWDO$QDGURPRXV )LVK$FW$6UHTXLUHVWKDWDQLQGLYLGXDORUJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\SURYLGH QRWLILFDWLRQDQGSURYLGHDSSURYDOIURPWKH'LYLVLRQRI+DELWDW³WRFRQVWUXFWDK\GUDXOLF SURMHFWRUXVHGLYHUWREVWUXFWSROOXWHRUFKDQJHWKHQDWXUDOIORZRUEHG´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²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²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFHV )LYHPLOH&UHHN$TXDWLFV*DS$QDO\VLV -XO\ $33(1',;$ 6,7(9,6,75(3257 -81( $%5,QF²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH )LYHPLOH&UHHN)LHOG5HSRUW -XQH ),9(0,/(&5((.+<'52352-(&7),6+$1'+$%,7$7 678',(6 -81(6,7(9,6,75(3257 3UHSDUHGIRU &5:(QJLQHHULQJ*URXS//& $UFWLF%OYG6XLWH $QFKRUDJH$. E\ -RHO*RWWVFKDONDQG-RKQ6HLJOH $%5,QF²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a PLOHVXSVWUHDPRIWKHFUHHNPRXWKDQGDVVHVVWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUXSVWUHDPPRYHPHQWRI VDOPRQLGVLISUHVHQWEH\RQGWKHFXOYHUWXQGHUWKH(GJHUWRQ+LJKZD\7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQ LVUHTXLUHGWRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHURUQRWWKHDUHDVXSVWUHDPDQGGRZQVWUHDPRIWKHFXOYHUW DUHEHLQJXVHGE\DQDGURPRXVRUUHVLGHQWILVKHVDQGZRXOGKHQFHEHFODVVLILHGDV HVVHQWLDOILVKKDELWDW()+RUFRYHUHGXQGHU$')*7LWOHUHJXODWLRQV $%5,QF²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±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±7KHaPLOHORQJWUDLO GHVFHQGVTXLFNO\WRWKHFUHHNEHORZ7KHJUDGLHQWLQWKLVUHDFKLVRYHUDQGWKH GRPLQDQWVWUHDPEHGVXEVWUDWHLVEHGURFNDQGVPDOOERXOGHUV3ODWH:HVHW PLQQRZWUDSVLQVPDOOSRROVLQWKLVDUHD)LJXUH$OOWUDSVZHUHOHIWWRILVKRYHUQLJKW 25 JUNE $IWHUDOORZLQJWUDSVWRILVKIRUaKRXUVHDFKZHUHWXUQHGWR)LYHPLOH&UHHNWR UHWULHYHWUDSV7KHWUDSVIDUWKHVWGRZQVWUHDPDWWKHWKHQRUWKHQGRIWKHDLUVWULSZHUH FKHFNHGILUVWDQGDVLQJOHMXYHQLOH'ROO\9DUGHQPPIRUNOHQJWKZDVFDSWXUHG $%5,QF²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a± ZLWKDZLGHIORRGSODLQLQWHUPLWWHQWO\YHJHWDWHGE\ZKLWHVSUXFH3LFDJODXFDSDSHU ELUFK%HWFKXODSDSHULIHUDDQGDOGHU$OQXVVSS3ODWHV±7KHFXOYHUWXQGHUWKH (GJHUWRQ+LJKZD\PD\EHDEDUULHUWRXSVWUHDPSDVVDJHRIILVKGXHWRLWVKHLJKWDQG ZDWHUYHORFLW\ 'XULQJWKHVLWHYLVLWWKHZDWHUOHYHOLQWKHFXOYHUWZDVaIRRWEHORZWKHRUGLQDU\ KLJKZDWHUPDUNEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQRIUHVLGXHOLQHLQFXOYHUWZDOOV(YHQDWWKHVH ORZHUIORZVWKHFXOYHUWPD\EHFODVVLILHGK\GUDXOLFDOO\DVDYHORFLW\EDUULHUIRUPRVW ILVKHV7KHGLIIHUHQFHLQHOHYDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHFXOYHUWDQGWKHRXWIORZZDWHUVXUIDFH a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±6FPZDVORZLQGLFDWLYHRIWKHUHODWLYHO\ORZOHYHORIGLVVROYHGDQG SDUWLFXODWHPDWHULDOVLQWKHVWUHDPDWWKHWLPHRIVDPSOLQJDQGDOVRUHIOHFWHGLQWKHORZ $%5,QF²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH )LYHPLOH&UHHN)LHOG5HSRUW -XQH WXUELGLW\RIWKHVWUHDP±178$OOPHDVXUHPHQWVDUHW\SLFDORIVRXWKFHQWUDO $ODVNDQVWUHDPVWKDWDUHIHGE\DOSLQHODNHV\VWHPVDQGKDYHOLWWOHRUQRDQWKURSRJHQLF LQIOXHQFHVZLWKLQWKHZDWHUVKHG ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 5 Fivemile Creek Field Report June 2011 Table 1. Ambient water quality measurements from upper and lower Fivemile Creek, 25 June 2011. Date Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Location Temperature (˚C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved Oxygen (%) Specific Conductance (μS/cm) pH Turbidity (NTU) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 24 June 61.5817 -144.439 Lower creek 7.4 11.98 102.1 103.0 7.99 1.09 66.95 24 June 61.57848 -144.482 Upper creek 7.2 11.93 102.8 100.0 8.08 1.29 65.65 ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 6 Fivemile Creek Field Report June 2011 Table 2. Minnow trap locations, trapping effort, and harvest results in Fivemile Creek, 24–25 June 2011. Trap ID Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Location Date In Time In Date Out Time Out Total Effort (hrs:min) Number of Fish caught Species/Life Stage Length (mm) 1 61.58783 -144.43384 near airport 24 June 14:27 25 June 14:18 23:51 0 na na 2 61.58783 -144.43384 near airport 24 June 14:30 25 June 14:21 23:51 0 na na 3 61.58783 -144.43384 near airport 24 June 14:32 25 June 14:25 23:53 1 Dolly Varden/ juvenile 110 4 61.58199 -144.43794 below culvert 24 June 15:01 25 June 14:30 23:29 0 na na 5 61.58199 -144.43794 below culvert 24 June 15:06 25 June 14:29 23:23 0 na na 6 61.5817 -144.43922 above culvert 24 June 15:23 25 June 14:40 23:17 0 na na 7 61.5817 -144.43922 above culvert 24 June 15:28 25 June 14:42 23:14 0 na na 8 61.5817 -144.43922 above culvert 24 June 15:35 25 June 14:50 23:15 0 na na 9 61.57848 -144.48158 upstream from trail 24 June 16:27 25 June 15:30 23:03 0 na na 10 61.57848 -144.48158 upstream from trail 24 June 16:20 25 June 15:31 23:11 0 na na 11 61.57848 -144.48158 upstream from trail 24 June 16:24 25 June 15:32 23:08 0 na na ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Service 7 Fivemile Creek Field Report June 2011 Figure 1. Site map and location of minnow trapping and ambient water chemistry testing at Fivemile Creek, Chitina, AK, June 2011. $%5,QF²(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH )LYHPLOH&UHHN)LHOG5HSRUW -XQH 3ODWH6HWWLQJPLQQRZWUDSVQHDUWKHDLUSRUWa IHHWIURPPRXWK-XQH 3ODWH6HWWLQJWUDSVQHDUWKHFXOYHUWRXWIDOOSRRO -XQH 3ODWH6HWWLQJWUDSVLPPHGLDWHO\DERYHWKHFXOYHUW ZLWKURFNZDOORQIDUEDQN-XQH 3ODWH/RRNLQJXSVWUHDPDWWKHRXWIDOORIWKH¶ GLDPHWHUFXOYHUWXQGHUWKH(GJHUWRQ+LJKZD\ 3ODWH/RRNLQJGRZQVWUHDPLQWRWKHLQOHWRIWKH (GJHUWRQ+LJKZD\FXOYHUW (GJHUWRQ+LJKZD\FXOYHUW 3ODWH/RRNLQJXSVWUHDPIURPWKHFXOYHUWLQOHW DWPL[HGGHEULVWHUUDFHVWRSGHSRVLWHGGXULQJD IORRGHYHQW $%5,QF²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ppendix E Alaska Heritage Resource Survey Office of History & Archaeology AHRS Location Snapshot For information contact the Alaska Office of History & Archaeology at (907) 269-8721 Tue Jun 07 13:30:57 AKDT 2011 This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is prohibited by law! 61.6N, -144.5W 61.59N, -144.36W 61.56N, -144.51W 61.55N, -144.37W page: 1 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Alaska Office of History and Archaeology For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721 Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:21:03 AKDT 2011 This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is prohibited by law! AHRS Number: VAL-00014 Mapsheet(s):VALDEZ C-2 (VALC2) Acreage:Date Issued:05-29-1974 MTRS(s):C003S005E24 Resource Shape:Point Location Approximate:No Site Name(s):NAXTIN KE RE Other Name(s): Informal Association(s): Formal Association(s): Site Description: "Settlement on west bank, at the landing field, five miles above Chitina, at the mouth of a stream. Allen (1887:58) camped here on May 6, 1885, at the home of an old man and his family, nine in all. This was a Dikagiyu village, called 'Naxtin ke re', the last inhabitants of which were McKinley John and his Tcicyu wife...Two house pits, five graves." Site Significance: Location: At the mouth of a stream on the west bank of Copper River, about 5 miles north of Chitina. Citation(s): de Laguna, Frederica 1970:6 Allen, H.T. 1887:58 West, C.F. 1974:11 Danger(s) of Destruction:Unknown Present Condition:Unknown (E) Associated Dates: Period(s):Historic Resource Nature:Site Historic Function(s): Current Function(s): Cultural Affiliation:Ahtna Property Owner: Repository/Accession #: BIA/BLM Number(s): Other Number(s):de Laguna 18 Source Reliability:Professional reports, records and field studies (A) Location Reliability:Location exact and site existence verified (1) page: 1 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Alaska Office of History and Archaeology For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721 Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:20:32 AKDT 2011 This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is prohibited by law! AHRS Number: VAL-00489 Mapsheet(s):VALDEZ C-2 (VALC2) Acreage:0.25 Date Issued:07-14-2005 MTRS(s):C003S005E23 Resource Shape:Point Location Approximate:No Site Name(s):VAL-00489 Other Name(s): Informal Association(s): Formal Association(s): Site Description: The site consists of 2 bermed, semisubterranean 2-room house depressions. The main rooms are 6.5m x6.5m and 6.5m x 5.5m, rear rooms are 4.2m x 3.5m and 4.4m x 3.6m. Tests in Feature 1 produced a carbon date, fire-cracked rock and bone fragments. The charcoal from Feature 1, TP-2, 23-35cm, floor) yielded a radiocarbon date of BP 2920+/-90 (Beta- 56550). This date seems anomalously old. Modern camp remains include wall tent frame, frame smokehouse, 2 frame outhouses, all of dimensional lumber. Access roads and ATV trails criss-cross the site. Site Significance: Location: On a terrace between the Edgerton Highway (ca. mile 28) and the bluff above the right (W) bank of the Copper River, less than 1km NW of the Chitina airport and the mouth of Fivemile Creek. Citation(s): BIA ANCSA AHRS Card Danger(s) of Destruction:Trail Present Condition:Disturbed site, degree unknown or Modified building, degree unknown (B) Associated Dates:BP 2920ñ90 Period(s):Protohistoric Historic Resource Nature:Site: Settlement Historic Function(s): Current Function(s): Cultural Affiliation:Ahtna Property Owner: Repository/Accession #: BIA/BLM Number(s):AA005972C Other Number(s): Source Reliability:Professional reports, records and field studies (A) Location Reliability:Location exact and site existence verified (1) page: 1 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Alaska Office of History and Archaeology For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721 Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:29:38 AKDT 2011 This document contains restricted information. Unauthorized circulation is prohibited by law! AHRS Number: VAL-00505 Mapsheet(s):VALDEZ C-2 (VALC2) Acreage:Date Issued:10-22-2007 MTRS(s):C003S005E06, C003S005E26 C003S005E25, C003S005E23 C003S005E16, C003S005E15 C003S005E14, C003S005E07 C003S005E08, C003S005E09 C002S004E34, C002S004E35 C003S004E02, C003S004E01 C004S005E14, C004S005E11 C004S005E02, C003S005E35 Resource Shape:Linear Location Approximate:No Site Name(s):OLD ROAD TO CHITINA OLD ROAD TO CHITNA Other Name(s):OLD EDGERTON HIGHWAY Informal Association(s): Formal Association(s): Site Description: [AHRS] After the Copper River and Northwestern Railway connected Chitina to the mines in Kennecott 1910, the Alaska Road Commission (ARC) commenced with the construction of nearly 30 miles of road that connected Chitina to the Valdez-Eagle trail. This new route provided the mine at Kennecott and the town of Chitina with a transporation route for receiving and shipping mail and supplies into the interior. In its early stages of development, this road was nothing more than a partial sled trail and wagon road, but, by 1911, wagon bridges were constructed over the Tonsina River and one of its sloughs (ARC 1911:11). Because the new road made the old military rail obsolete, Nafstad built another roadhouse along this new route. This roadhouse was much larger and had more accommodations than that of the previous trading post (Phillips Sr. 1985:E10). Essentially, commerce at Lower Tonsina moved from the old trail and ferry crossing to the new road. [DOE] This is a corridor of disturbed vegetation that runs NW from Mahle's Cabin (VAL-00490) towards the NW corner of the lot. It appears to parallel the existing highway at places on the property and resembled an old road bed presumed to be the original road to Chitna. Site Significance: [DOE] The original route is disturbed with several intrusions, it has lost physical integrity and is not eligible for the NRHP. [AHRS] Associated with the early development of transportation and infrastructure in Alaska. Location: The highway runs from the Tonsina River (W of its confluence with the Copper River) for approx 33mi. to Chitina. Citation(s): ADP 3330-6N file (Old Road to Chitna, VAL-505) BIA Archeology Site Inventory Record 2007 BIA (Meinhardt) 10/07 (106 Review, DOE Site on Mahle Nat Alltmnt) Danger(s) of Destruction:Construction Present Condition:Disturbed site, degree unknown or Modified building, degree unknown (B) page: 2 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Alaska Office of History and Archaeology For information contact the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology at (907) 269-8721 Compiled: Tue Jun 07 14:29:38 AKDT 2011 Associated Dates:AD 1911 Period(s):Historic Resource Nature:Structure: Transportation Historic Function(s):Transportation Current Function(s):Vacant/Not in use Cultural Affiliation:Euroamerican Property Owner:State of Alaska, ADOT&PF, Federal trust Repository/Accession #: BIA/BLM Number(s):AA006112 Other Number(s): Source Reliability:Professional reports, records and field studies (A) Location Reliability:Location exact and site existence verified (1) DOE Associations DOE Status:Determined not eligible by SHPO and agency (DREJ-S) DOE Date:11-08-2007 Distinctive Features: Period of Significance: Area Significance(s): Criteria: Considerations: Files As:3330-6N Old Road to Chitna Appendix F Critical Habitat Determination Appendix G National Wetlands Inventory Fivemile Creek Wetlands Map May 19, 2011 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. User Remarks: