Final Report: Prepared by

1
Draft Instream Flow Report Power Creek Project FERC No. 11243
Cordova Electric Cooperative June, 2013

FINAL REPORT

EVALUATION of INSTREAM RELEASE

POWER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC No. 11243)

Prepared by:
Civil Science (Technical) and
Cordova Electric Cooperative, Cordova, AK

July 2013

2

Contents
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 5
NEED for ACTION ......................................................................................................................... 5
STUDY BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 6
FISHERIES MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 6
IN STREAM FLOW MONITORING and REPORTING .......................................................... 7
STUDY PLANNING .................................................................................................................. 7
CONSULTATION and COMMENT .......................................................................................... 7
STUDY DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 7
METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 8
STREAMFLOW MONITORING METHODS .......................................................................... 8
Measurement Locations .......................................................................................................... 8
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 16
RATING CURVE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 16
Powerhouse Gage Site .......................................................................................................... 17
Comparison of flows at upstream and downstream stations. ................................................ 17
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 25
Gage Datum .............................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix B.................................................................................................................................... 28
Power Creek Geological Maps.................................................................................................. 28

3

Figure 1. Study area showing avalanche zone coverage of Power Creek project ........................... 9
Figure 2. Schematic of Release Site showing dam, intake to penstock and outlet pipe (release) to
Power Creek .................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3. Release Site showing dam and outlet pipe. .................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Outlet works sluice gate position (%) vs. discharge (cfs). Sluice gate position is
continously logged by the SCADA system. .................................................................................. 16
Figure 5. Stage discharge of Power Creek for powerhouse gage site. ......................................... 18
Figure 6. Power Creek Instream Flow Release for winter/spring period 2011-2012 .................... 19
Figure 7. power creek instream flow release for winter/spring 2012-2013 ................................... 20
Figure 9. Accumulative daily discharge at gaging station for Winter/Spring 2011-2012. Periods of
no data are due to avalanche and SCADA errors. ......................................................................... 21
Figure 10. Accumulative daily discharge at gaginf station for Winter/Spring 2012-2013. Periods
of no data are due to avalanche events .......................................................................................... 22
4

Table 1. POWER CREEK Above TAILRACE GAGING STATION LEVELING SUMMARY 14
Table 2. 2011-2012 Winter/Spring accretion in Power Creek ..................................................... 23
Table 3. 2012-2013 Winter/Spring accretion in Power Creek ...................................................... 23
Table 4. 2011-2013 Winter/Spring Accretion In Power Creek ..................................................... 24
5

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

This report documents results of studies performed by Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) and
its contractors regarding operations of the Power Creek Hydroelectric Project ["Project", Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) No. 11243]. As described in the following section, CEC
wishes to amend a condition of the existing FERC license to reduce or eliminate the Project's
instream flow release requirement. The objectives of the amendment would be to realize
significant additional generation while assuring negligible impacts on aquatic resources in Power
Creek.
BACKGROUND

The Project is a 6 megawatt (MW) installed capacity project owned and operated by CEC. The
Project license, issued by the FERC in December, 1997, is accompanied by 21 Articles directing
various Project operations, monitoring studies and other actions.

License Article No. 404 specifies that a minimum streamflow of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) be
released at the project intake at all times. CEC has met the conditions of this Article without
variance since Project operation began operation in January, 2002.

NEED for ACTION

Since Project operation began, CEC has documented costs and other effects associated with the 5
cfs release requirement, in terms of: 1) lost electrical generation and revenue; and 2) costs and air
quality effects of diesel fuel generation necessary to compensate for the lost hydroelectric
generation. Both values and associated impacts are significant.

CEC calculates that if the 5 cfs release were available for hydroelectric generation, it would
produce 410 megawatt hours (MWH) of electricity annually. Furthermore, this additional energy
6
would be produced during the low flow (winter) period when low-cost, non-polluting
hydroelectric energy would provide the greatest value to CEC ratepayers and the environment.

The diesel fuel equivalent of 5 cfs of streamflow during the winter-spring period would be
approximately 47,000 gallons per year. Use of this volume of fuel would result in approximately
17 tons of mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 100 tons of carbon-based emissions which would
degrade air quality and contribute greenhouse gases to the environment.

Finally, CEC has conducted studies under Article 404, Streamflow Mitigation and Monitoring, to
document release of the 5 cfs minimum and to measure or estimate streamflow at a point
downstream of the release. Results of these studies have indicated that, due to significant
streamflow accretion between the release point and the powerhouse, the 5 cfs release may not be
necessary to maintain aquatic habitat in the bypassed reach.

STUDY BACKGROUND

FISHERIES MONITORING

Since the project was commissioned in 1997, CEC has monitored fisheries resources within the
bypassed reach (from the base of the intake to the powerhouse). The fisheries studies (Sea-Run,
2010) indicated that there were two primary fish species in the bypassed reach: Dolly Varden
char and coho salmon.

Dolly Varden of various sizes were found from Power Creeks confluence with Eyak Lake
upstream to the base of Ohman Falls. Coho salmon were found from Power Creek's confluence
with Eyak Lake upstream to a point about 440 yards upstream of the powerhouse, where a barrier
to upstream salmon migration (Sea-Run 2010) limits further upstream movement. Numbers of
coho salmon in the bypassed reach have typically been small and there is some question as to
whether those fish successfully spawned in the reach.

7
IN STREAM FLOW MONITORING and REPORTING

Bypass reach flow accretion has been assessed four to six times annually during the winter-spring
low flow period. To estimate accretion, discharge measurements were taken at a suitable cross
section immediately upstream of the powerhouse when only the 5 cfs minimum instream flow
was being released at the intake and there was no spill over the intake. Accretion flow was
calculated to be flow measured just upstream of the powerhouse minus 5 cfs. These
measurements, along with other visual observations from 2002 through 2006, suggested that
accretion flows were relatively stable in the 10-20 cfs range during the winter-spring low flow
period.

Studies documented in this report were conducted to more rigorously document accretion during
the winter-spring low flow period when instream flow volumes are lowest and thus instream
releases are most critical for aquatic life.

STUDY PLANNING

CEC prepared draft and final study plans to document accretion in 2010 and 2011 (CEC 2010 and
2011). This report documents studies performed using methods described in the final study plan
(CEC 2011).

CONSULTATION and COMMENT

The draft version of this report was distributed for stakeholder review. Comments are addressed
in this final report.

STUDY DESIGN

The study design used measurements and analysis to document instream flow releases and
downstream streamflow in Power Creek. Analysis techniques were used to calculate accretion
between the two stations at both upstream (at or very near the intake) and downstream (just
upstream of the powerhouse) locations simultaneously. CEC proceded with the hypothesis that an
instream flow of at least 5 cfs is desired at the downstream gage location. This would require a
8
flow of at least 10 cfs at the downstream gage when 5 cfs is being released at the outtake. If this
condition was met, CEC would proceed with the hypothesis that the 5 cfs release requirement
could be eliminated.

METHODS

Methods for 2011-2012 studies consisted of:

Streamflow Monitoring Methods, to document differences in streamflow between
measurement sites at both the intake and powerhouse, under varying seasonal and
operating conditions; and

Analysis Methods, to evaluate hydrologic significance of differences between the
measurement sites at varying conditions.

STREAMFLOW MONITORING METHODS

Measurement Locations

In the final study plan, it was envisioned that there would be as many as three stream gaging
stations, installed at the following locations:

Just downstream of the dam where the Projects outlet works discharge to the stream;
At a point just upstream of the noted upstream limit of anadromous fish migrations; and
Just upstream of the powerhouse, preferably at the site already established and measured
during the monitoring program

9
After consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) representatives, it was
decided to eliminate the middle station which was located within an area of intense avalanche
activity which would compromise the safety of researchers maintaining gaging equipment within
that stream reach.
It was therefore determined that continuous flow monitoring would be conducted at only two
locations.

1) At or directly below the outlet works of the diversion dam, (the "Release Site"); and

2) Just upstream of the powerhouse (the "Powerhouse Gage Site").

These locations are illustrated below in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA SHOWING AVALANCHE ZONE COVERAGE OF POWER CREEK
PROJECT
10

To conduct the measurements and analysis at these two sites, CEC retained Civil Science (CS) of
Klawock, Alaska, to install instrumentation or otherwise determine continuous streamflow in
both locations. Continuous streamflow was determined in different ways at the two sites, as
described below.
Release Site
The objective of streamflow monitoring at the Release Site was to document continuous release
of the required 5 cfs instream flow at or just below the dam location. CEC had originally released
instream flows to Power Creek by means of an 8-inch pipe that fed an 84-inch outlet pipe located
just below the Projects dam/intake. A butterfly valve was used to regulate the continuous 5 cfs
release from the 8-inch pipe.
A sluice gate is also located in the dams outlet works. The gate is used to periodically flush
accumulated streambed material from the forebay through the outlet pipe to Power Creek
downstream of the dam. During earlier operations, the sluice gate was kept closed (except during
sediment sluicing) and all instream flows were discharged to the outlet pipe from the 8-inch pipe.

A schematic of the system, showing the dam, sluice gate, outlet pipe (instream flow release) pipe
and plant intake is illustrated in Figure 2. Note that the unused 8-inch pipe is not shown in
Figure 2. The outlet pipe and its release to Power Creek are shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC OF RELEASE SITE SHOWING DAM, INTAKE TO PENSTOCK AND
OUTLET PIPE (RELEASE) TO POWER CREEK
11

FIGURE 3. RELEASE SITE SHOWING DAM AND OUTLET PIPE.

After several years of operation, it was discovered that the sluice gate was leaking. This leakage,
when added to the 5 cfs release from the 8 in pipe resulted in a total release greater than the
necessary 5 cfs. To compensate for this over-release, the butterfly valve on the 8-inch release
pipe was closed and all instream flow releases were controlled, measured and logged via the
sluice gate after determining the relationship between release discharge and both sluice gate
position (percent opening) and water stage in the forebay. Subsequently, the sluice gate was kept
in a position, using the projects system control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, to
discharge the mandated 5 cfs.
To document continuous releases through the sluice gate, CEC and CS developed an improved
sluice gate position vs. release flow rating by measuring discharge from the outlet works at
various sluice gate positions. Discharge measurements at the Release Site
12
were made using the same methods as described under "Discharge Measurements", below.

Powerhouse Gage Site
On December 7, 2011, CS installed a recording stream gage in Power Creek just upstream of the
powerhouse. The gaging station was selected for channel and flow characteristics and its
instruments were calibrated to match a fixed-elevation datum. The purpose of the gage was to
continuously monitor water surface elevation ("stage") for comparison with actual measured
discharges. After sufficient stage and discharge points were collected, CS developed a rating
curve to predict discharge as a function of stream stage at the station. Using this rating,
instantaneous discharge rates could be determined from the continuous stage measurements
recorded by the gage instrumentation.

Discharge Measurement

Stream discharge was measured at the selected cross-section using a standard USGS Price-type
velocity meter. All measurements were made by wading with the meter suspended from a top-
setting wading rod. Since all measurements were made in the lower flow regime, a Price Pygmy
meter was used.

Stage Measurement

To measure stage, a vertical gage datum was established by placement of physical reference
marks. Differential leveling techniques were then used to determine reference mark elevations.
A staff gage of standard USGS Type A enamel-coated steel plates affixed to an untreated 2 x 6
lumber supported by brackets affixed to streambank bedrock was set to provide an analog reading
of stream stage.

Stage was measured through direct reading from the staff gage. Because staff gages can be
moved by external forces, especially ice, differential leveling was used to check the staff gage to
ensure it had not shifted. All survey leveling instruments were maintained and peg tested
regularly to ensure their proper operation. Turning points were used in leveling operations to
create a closed level loop to check observations. The gage height of zero flow (GZF) was
measured by locating the highest point in the channel control section just downstream of the
gaging station.

13
Stream gage instrumentation consisted of two In-Situ
Leveltroll 500 pressure transducers. The

LevelTroll 500 is a precision instrument approved for stream gage use by the USGS. The units
used on the Project have a level of precision of 0.1 percent across all instruments full range of
pressure (0-35 feet) and temperature (23 122 F). This precision level exceeds field stage
measurement through leveling and even through staff gage observation. The pressure transducers
were mounted in rigid conduit which suspended them in the pool at the gaging station. The gage
conduit was securely anchored to bedrock on the left bank of Power Creek. An In-Situ
Barotroll
transducer was also installed at the powerhouse to log air temperature and barometric pressure.

All instruments logged data at 15 minute intervals. Gage instruments were calibrated through
leveling and checked when serviced.

Stream stage/discharge was measured 5 times between December 7, 2011 and March 22, 2012.
Measurement timing was selected to occur during the lowest flows of the year, typically seen in
late March.

Leveling was performed at the station to initially determine the elevations of the reference marks
set to mark the gages datum during gage construction. Leveling was performed on subsequent
visits to confirm that the water surface as determined by the stations staff (outside) gage and
instrumentations (inside gage) readings both match the datum marked by the physical reference
points. Leveling efforts and results for this study are summarized below in Table 1. The stations
datum and reference marks are described in the station description in Appendix A.

14
TABLE 1. POWER CREEK ABOVE TAILRACE GAGING STATION LEVELING
SUMMARY
Water surface elevation by:

Date

Party

Outside
Staff (ft)
Gage
Reading
(ft)

Leveling
(ft)
Datum
Correction
(ft)
Remarks

12/7/2011 MCS/DST 1.75 1.75 1.75 - Datum
established/gage
constructed/logging
commenced today.

3/21/2012 DST/HK 4.00* 4.00* *Datum check for
movement of OSS.
3/21/2012 DST/HK 1.52 1.52 - Meas. No. 2

Rating Curve Development

To construct the rating curve for the powerhouse site, concurrent stream stage and discharge
measurements at the station were measured using the techniques and equipment described above.
Stage-discharge relationships for the measured flows were analyzed and used by CS to develop a
stage-discharge rating for the station.

Release Site
At the Release Site, CS developed a rating curve showing measured discharge vs. percent
opening of the sluice gage. Using this rating curve, a discharge could be derived for any given
sluice gate opening to determine instream release at a given gate position. Gate positions for
given times could be determined using the project's SCADA system record which documents
gage position continuously.

15
The rating curve at the Release Site was used primarily to confirm that discharge at that site
supplied the 5 cfs (or 6 cfs in the case of the current operation) required under Article 405.

Time Series Analysis

Release Site
Time series data from CECs existing SCADA system provided a record of reservoir pool
elevation as well as the position (percent open) of the sluice gate in the dams outlet works.
Application of the rating curve developed for the gate with these data yielded a record of the
discharge from the Projects outlet works, i.e., the instream flow release.

The Site's stage-discharge rating was applied to the time series stage data collected from the
stream gage to compute the stream discharge at the gaging station. This process resulted in a time
series record for discharge.

Both the instream flow release and the stream discharge records were averaged for each day to
determine the average release and average stream flow at the gage for each day. The instream
flow release was then simply subtracted from the stream discharge at the gaging station to
determine the accretion in stream flow that occurred between the two measurement stations.

16
RESULTS

RATING CURVE DEVELOPMENT

Release Site

The rating for the outlet works sluice gate was constructed by making discharge measurements
from the outlet pipe at different gate positions and reservoir levels. These data were normalized
to correlate to a constant reservoir stage of 7.50 feet (normal pool elevation) to develop the rating
curve. The rating for the sluice gate is shown in Figure 4 below.

FIGURE 4. OUTLET WORKS SLUICE GATE POSITION (%) VS. DISCHARGE (CFS). SLUICE
GATE POSITION IS CONTINOUSLY LOGGED BY THE SCADA SYSTEM.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0%
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,

c
f
s

Gate Position, % Open
(Full Open = 100%, Closed = 0%)
Gate Postion vs. Discharge
Measured Discharge adjusted
to H = 7.50'
Predicted Values
Q = 2182.6 (Gate Position)
2
+ 2.4389
R
2
= 0.989
17


Stream stage measurements were normalized by subtracting the GZF from the measured stage
and plotted with their respective discharges. The curve was analyzed for outliers. No significant
outliers were found. Measurement No. 4 stage was affected by bank effects resulting from the
heavy snow cover but still fit reasonably well.

The correlation coefficient, denoted as R
2
, quantified how well the data fit to the predictive
relationship developed using least squares techniques. An R
2
value of 1 indicates a perfect fit and
a value of zero indicating no correlation. Stream stage-discharge relationships typically fit a
power relationship seen in equation 1.

and the relationship for the Powerhouse Gage Site is no exception. The high correlation
coefficient (0.983) indicates a good fit of the data and; hence, accurate flow prediction. The
rating for the Powerhouse Gage Site includes only measurements in the low flow regime when
there was only 6 cfs discharge from the Release Site.

The rating curve for the Powerhouse Gage Site is illustrated in Figure 5. This figure shows the
shift in the gages rating which occurred before the winter/spring low-flow season during high
flows in the fall of 2012. This shift was determined by level measurements of the control section
at the gage. The periods of low instream release ( <5 cfs ) were due to SCADA data logging
issues.

Comparison of flows at upstream and downstream stations.

A time-series plot of the flows at both the Powerhouse Gage Site and the Release site was created
with daily average flows for both the 2011/12 and the 2012/13 winter-spring low-flow seasons.
The difference between the flow at the Powerhouse Gage Site and the instream release from the
Project was also determined and plotted as well. This value represents the accretion in Power
Creek between the Release Site and the Powerhouse Gage Site. This accretion is attributed to
natural groundwater contribution and minor surface flow from under the insulating blanket
provided by the snow cover in areas above and below the dam.
18

During the gaging period, however, at least two avalanches occurred between the two sites during
winter 2011/12 and also in 2012/13. These events caused very low flows followed by very high
spikes in the discharge curves when avalanches dammed the stream upstream of the gage causing
very low flow events which were followed by very high short-term flow events after the dams
burst.

FIGURE 5. STAGE DISCHARGE OF POWER CREEK FOR POWERHOUSE GAGE SITE.
The lowest value for the accretion in Power Creek for the 2011/2012 winter-spring low-flow
season occurred on March 16, 2012 at a value of 7.80 cfs (Table 1). The lowest value for
accretion in the 2012/13 winter-spring low flow season was 11.9 cfs on April 4 (Table 2). Stream
discharge at the gaging station, instream flow releases and accretion between the release point
and the station are illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7 Error! Reference source not
found.Error! Reference source not found. The periods of low instream release ( <5 cfs ) where
due to SCADA data logging issues. Avalanche events (>60 cfs) were removed from the figures.
Accretion values for the entire period gaged and by each month for winter-spring of 2011/12 and
2012/13 are compiled below in Tables 2, 3 and Table 4 respectively.
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0 10 20 30 40 50
G
a
g
e

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
e
e
t

Discharge (cfs)
Stage-Discharge Relationship
Winter 2011/12 Rating
2011-12 Measurements
2013 measurements
Winter 2012/2013 Rating
Q = 1.940(GH + 0.10)
4.026
R
2
= 0.982
#
2
#3
#5
#1
#4*
Original GZF (Winter 2011/2012)
= -0.10 feet (by levels)
New GZF (Winter 2012/2013)
= +0.04 feet (by levels)
Q = 1.940(GH - 0.04)
4.026
#6
#7
#8
19

FIGURE 6. POWER CREEK INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE FOR WINTER/SPRING PERIOD 2011-2012

0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
T
o
t
a
l

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,

Q

(
c
f
s
)

Winter/Spring 2011-2012 Power Creek
Instream Release
Instream Flow Release
Winter season Accretion
20

FIGURE 7. POWER CREEK INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE FOR WINTER/SPRING 2012-2013

0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
T
o
t
a
l

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
c
f
s
)

Winter/Spring 2012-2013 Power Creek
Instream Release
21

FIGURE 8. ACCUMULATIVE DAILY DISCHARGE AT GAGING STATION FOR WINTER/SPRING 2011-2012. PERIODS OF NO DATA ARE DUE TO
AVALANCHE AND SCADA ERRORS.

0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
T
o
t
a
l

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,

Q

(
c
f
s
)

2011-2012 Daily Total Power Creek Discharge At Stream Gage
22

FIGURE 9. ACCUMULATIVE DAILY DISCHARGE AT GAGINF STATION FOR WINTER/SPRING 2012-2013. PERIODS OF NO DATA ARE DUE TO
AVALANCHE EVENTS

0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
T
o
t
a
l

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

a
t

G
a
g
e
,

Q

(
c
f
s
)

2012-2013 Daily Total Power Creek Discharge At Stream Gage
Winter season
Accretion
Instream Flow
Release
23

TABLE 2. 2011-2012 WINTER/SPRING ACCRETION IN POWER CREEK

Season December
#
January February March April
Maximum
208* 27.3 208* 133* 19.7 26.5

Minimum
7.79 12.4 8.46 9.46 7.80 18.8

Average
20.1 16.1 34.8 17.6 12.2 8.97
*Affected by avalanche.
#
Partial Month.


Season December January* February March April
#

Maximum
153* 55.7 153* 60.1 30.6 12.5

Minimum
11.9 31.2 21.9 15.1 12.3
**
11.9

Average
27.4 39.8 42.8 26.6 16.5 12.1
**excludes avalanche event of March 25.
#
Partial Month.

24


Season December
#
January February March April
##

Maximum
208* 55.7 208* 133* 30.6 26.5

Minimum
7.80 12.4 8.46 9.46 7.80 18.8

Average
20.1 29.2 38.8 17.6 14.0 8.97
#
Partial Month in 2011.
##
Partial Month in 2013.

25
Appendix A

Power Creek above Tailrace near Cordova, Alaska
Gaging Station Description/Notes

Location:
Gage is located on the left bank of Power Creek approximately 300 feet upstream of the
confluence of the powerplants tailrace discharge channel with the bypass reach.

A good measuring section for wading is located approximately 30 feet downstream from the
gage.
Section should be good for low to medium stages.

Establishment: Station Datum was established on December 7, 2011. Gage Began recording on
the same date.

Gage Datum :

RM 1: Top of the threaded shaft of a -inch steel rock bolt anchored in a large
streamside boulder at the station. RM 1 is located 0.5 feet streamward of
the outside staff gage on the outward face of the boulder. Elevation = 3.82
feet.

RM 2: Top of the threaded shaft of a -inch diameter rock bolt located 2 feet
shoreward of the
outside staff gage in large streamside boulder. Elevation = 4.67 feet.

RM 3: Top of boulder in stream located approximately 40 feet below the OSS.
Elevation = 2.59 feet.

Control :
The control is located approximate 50 feet downstream of the staff gage and consists of cobbles
and some bed rock. Shifting may occur on high water events.

The left bank of the control consists of steep bank covered with brush, vegetation-covered
boulders and bed rock. The right bank is armored with large boulders and bed rock.

GZF = 0.04 feet.

Gage Instrumentation:
26
Two In-Situ LevelTrol 500 pressure transducers mounted in 2-inch steel conduit anchored on
large boulder on left bank of stream. One transducer is a vented (gage pressure) unit and the
other is an unvented (absolute pressure) unit. The conduit suspends the transducers in pool above
control section.

An In-Situ BaroTrol recording barometer is kept at the powerhouse approximately 350 feet
from the station. The Barotroll provides readings to compensate for the unvented Leveltrol in the
gage.

An outside staff gage is mounted on the boulder where the gage conduit is mounted. The staff
gage consists of standard USGS Type-A enamel staff plates, graduated 0-3.34 feet and 3.34
6.67 feet. Staff plates are affixed to an untreated 2 x 6 mounted to the boulder with rock bolts.
Remarks:
The station is located in an avalanche zone. Access is gained through the gated powerhouse road.
Consult CEC for access. This station has been chosen for a study of the low-water hydrology in
Power Creek. No measurements have been made at moderate and higher stages.

Power Creek above Tailrace Gaging Station (looking upstream). Note the Station staff gage
and instrument conduit on river left (to right in photo).
27

Power Creek above Tailrace Station showing gage, reference marks, and control.

28
Appendix B

Power Creek Geological Maps

29

Final Report: Prepared by

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report: Prepared by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Leveltroll 500 pressure transducers. The

You might also like