The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAkutan geothermal report Appendix G 2014 Appendix G High Tide Reports • Cultural Resources Survey of the Geothermal Access Road Alignment • Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment • Akutan Geothermal Road Annotated Stream Crossings • Akutan Geothermal Appendix A: Data Forms and Photos • Akutan Geothermal Appendix B: Photo Points Cultural Resources Survey of the Akutan Geothermal Access Road Alignment Prepared by: Erin Laughlin, Archaeologist AARC Applied Anthropological Research and Consulting, Anchorage, Alaska Contracted by: High Tide Environmental Prepared for: City of Akutan P.O. Box 109 Akutan, AK 99553 Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 2 February 2014 Notice of Confidentiality Data regarding the location, character, and ownership of archaeological or historic properties is privileged information and is only to be released to members of the public at the discretion of authorized representatives of the City of Akutan pursuant to AS 40.25.120(a)(12)(A). Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 3 February 2014 Executive Summary The 2013 geothermal road alignment will be constructed on land owned by the Akutan Corporation. The road crosses sections of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-delineated wetlands in the Akutan Harbor Valley and the Hot Springs Bay Valley. Construction of the access road will require fill in some sections of wetlands and culverts to divert or maintain stream flow. Because these activities have the potential to affect the integrity of navigable waters of the United States, and these are actions regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, it is the responsibility of the City of Akutan to satisfy the requirements to obtain an Individual permit under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 defines activities requiring a federal permit as Federal Undertakings according to 36 CFR 800.16(y). Thus, the City of Akutan, as permittee, is required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. To this end, on September 7, 8, and 9, Erin Laughlin, archaeologist, conducted a reconnaissance-level pedestrian survey and judgmental subsurface testing of a 50-foot corridor on either side of the centerline of the 4.7-mile proposed road alignment. The 2013 alignment traverses the Akutan Harbor Valley, crosses the saddle, intersects with the Hot Springs Bay Valley, then trends upslope to the site of the volcanic fumaroles. No evidence of prehistoric or historic occupations was discovered. Based on this, it is recommended that there will be no historic properties affected by construction of the 2013 alignment of the geothermal access road. Should the alignment change to areas that have been previously unsurveyed, or include higher- potential areas at or near the shoreline abutting Hot Springs Bay or the Akutan Harbor, an intensive-level survey is recommended prior to the undertaking. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 4 February 2014 Introduction As a means of potentially utilizing the geothermal energy generated by the Akutan stratovolcano, the City of Akutan has been conducting a grant-sponsored investigation of the geothermal resources west of the City in the Hot Springs Bay Valley. A preliminary model of the geothermal reservoir indicates that production wells should be located adjacent to a fumarole field at approximately the 1800-foot elevation on the east side of the Akutan volcano near the west end of the Hot Springs Bay Valley. In order to access the production well drill site a 4.7- mile long general purpose construction road is planned to extend between the terminus of the Akutan Harbor road through the Akutan Harbor Valley, the Hot Springs Bay Valley, and up a series of ridges to the fumarole site on the Akutan volcano (Sects. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9; T70S; R112W; Seward Meridian; USGS Quad Unimak A-6; figure 1). Figure 1: Project Location Project Description The 2013 alignment of the geothermal well access road is intended to provide a stable means of access for track excavators, road graders, loaders, 10-wheel dump vehicles, semi- tractor and trailer vehicles, and other non-tracked vehicles to travel from Akutan Bay to the fumarole site, a distance of 4.7 miles. The road capacity is partially based on the need to transport significant amounts of equipment, over 12,000 feet of encasement pipe, associated drilling fluid, cement, and other components of a drilling operation. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 5 February 2014 Designed to serve as a general purpose construction road, the road will have a 16-foot surface width with a 12-inch thick road bed. The minimum centerline turn radius will be 60 feet and the maximum grade will be 23% for short stretches where large loads can be assisted by loaders. Where the road crosses streams or creeks, an 18-inch corrugated polyethylene culvert will be placed in a fill section to convey the flow. There will be a one-foot-deep ditch on the uphill side of the road to capture runoff from the hill above and convey it to the cross drain pipes. It is anticipated that excavated duff material will be placed on the down slope side. The material used to construct the road will likely be quarry spall type material that is comprised of 6-inch minus crushed rock paired with a 1-inch minus topping or surface course. The quarry spalls will be placed directly atop bedrock or the strata 18-inches below surface grade. The majority of the road bed material will be excavated and crushed from a local quarry site positioned just north of the Akutan Harbor area and will be transported along the Harbor Road right-of-way. Fills below the 12-inch road section will be composed of excavated bedrock that is roughly 2-foot minus in size. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 6 February 2014 Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the 2013 Access Road Alignment The road starts at the western edge of the existing Akutan Harbor fill area, continues west along the base of the slope in Akutan Harbor Valley, trends upslope over the saddle, then south along the edge of the flat lands of Hot Springs Bay Valley, and upgradient on the southern knoll of the volcano to the fumarole zone (figure 2). For the purposes of this project, the area of potential effect is a 100-foot corridor spanning the length of the current alignment. Figure 2: Geothermal Access Road Configuration Cultural Chronology A developed cultural history can be found in Grover (2011). For the purposes of this report, only a brief chronology will be detailed. Prehistory Knecht and Davis (2005:25) define five phases of prehistoric habitation of the eastern Aleutians based on technological development. The earliest tradition, the Early Anangula phase (9,000 to 7,000 BP) is characterized by abundant blades, unifacial tools, transverse burins, large end scrapers, grooved cobble sinkers, ocher grinders, stone bowls, and oil lamps with occupation sites appearing as tent-like houses on shallow depressions. The Late Anangula phase (7,000 to 4,000 BP) is defined by the assemblages that contain abundant blades, stemmed points, bilateral Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 7 February 2014 barbed harpoons with line guards, the first bifacial tools and shallow semi-subterranean houses. The Margaret Bay phase (4,000 to 3,000 BP) includes blades, Arctic Small Tool tradition-like tools, stone bowls, plummets, angle and polished burins, labrets, unilateral barbs on harpoons, bone socket pieces, net sinkers, exotic lithics, and stone-walled houses. The Amakanak phase (3,000 to 1,000 BP) is discerned by the appearance of stemmed, notched lithics, elaborate barbing on bone hunting implements, toggling harpoons, asymmetrical knives, spall scrapers, and rectangular houses. The Late Aleutian phase (1,000 to 200 BP) is described as containing abundant ground slate ulus, limited chipped stone inventory, multiple-room and longhouses as well as fortified refuge rocks. History – Russian Period (1758-1867) Russian explorations of northwest America began in the early 1700s (VanStone1984). Under orders from Tsar Peter the Great, in 1741, Vitus Bering and Aleksei Chirikov sailed from Kamchatka to the Gulf of Alaska with the purpose of establishing Russian sovereignty in northwestern America to exploit fur and mineral resources (VanStone 1984). Although neither explorer succeeded, reports of an abundance of fur-bearing animals stimulated individual entrepreneurs, promyshlenniki, to sail to Alaska, some reaching Kodiak by 1762 (VanStone 1984). The islands east of Unalaska were known to Russians by 1758 and mapped by 1764 (Black 1999). Pursuing sea otters first, then, after reaching Unalaska, the Krenitzin Islands, and Unimak around1763, fur seals, foxes, and walrus ivory, fur traders established somewhat acrimonious trade relations with the Aleuts. In 1764, V. Shoshin, captain of the Sv. Prokopii I Ioann, Ustiuzhskie Chudotvortsy, sailed with a crew of 47 from Kamchatka, to Bering Island, Attu, Umnak, and Unalaska where he remained until 1768 (Black 1999). During this period Shoshin dispatched hunting crews to explore the Krenitzin Islands (Black 1999). Additionally, as was common in Siberia, Shoshin also took hostages from Akutan, Akun, and Avatanak to begin the process of acculturation (Black 1999). During late summer 1767, Captain, Afanasii Ocheredin of the Sv. Pavel, sent a crew foreman, Matvei Polozkov and 28 men in baidaras to explore Akun and Akutan. In late August Polozkov landed on Akutan. Seeing no signs of native hostility, he left a crew of six men while he continued to Akun (Black 1999). In August of 1768, the navigator of the Sv. Ekaterina, A.I. Dudin, Jr., provided the first account of a settlement on Akutan. Navigator Dudin paddled a baidara to the shore to get fresh drinking water. Approximately 1400 yards from the landing site Dudin sighted a grouping of five semi subterranean houses he described as a summer village. Later, in September 1768, while searching for a suitable harbor site on Akutan, Navigator Ia. I. Shabanov reported two large semi subterranean houses containing 40 to 50 women. Between 1790 and 1792 Akutan was noted to have five villages: Chaxigada, Ugayuxta, Kexta or Chexta, Sishxina, and Yagilak with an estimated total of 275 inhabitants. A Russian naval expedition census in 1821 recorded Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 8 February 2014 only three populated villages on Akutan. Between 1824 and 1834 Veniaminov noted only one remaining village occupied by 13 people. The residents were absorbed into other nearby villages by the end of the Russian period. Akutan Island remained uninhabited until the Western Fur and Trading Company opened a trading facility in 1878 attracting people from nearby islands (Black 1999). History – American Period (1867 to World War II) The return of people to Akutan coincided with economic development. Drawing Aleuts from Akun, Tigalda, and Avatanak, the Western Fur and Trading Company opened a trade facility for the purchase of sea otter pelts in 1878. This became a stable commercial enterprise until the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911 banned offshore hunting. In 1912, a whaling station was constructed on the south side of Akutan Harbor and remained a source of revenue for the next 26 years. Other minor industries were developed during this period including: fox farming, sulphur mining, and a processing plant for the cod fishery. Between 1920 and 1942, Akutan grew to include some 70 residents, a school, post office, and hydroelectric plant. The threat of attack during World War II prompted the Commander of the Naval Air Station in Dutch Harbor to order the relocation of all Aleuts. Residents of Akutan were relocated to a facility in Ward Lake near Ketchikan and were not returned until 1945 (Black 1999). Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 9 February 2014 Identified Cultural Resources in the APE Examination of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey database reveals there are no previously known archaeological or historic sites within the APE for the geothermal access road (figure 3). Three inventoried archaeological sites are adjacent to and outside of the APE. At the northwest corner of Akutan Harbor is UNI-099, a site containing three prehistoric house pits. South of UNI-099 is UNI-033, described by Bank (1974) as an “archaeological site disturbed by military or commercial operations”. An eroding prehistoric site, UNI-034, was recorded at the northeast corner of the shore of Hot Springs Bay (Turner in McCartney 1972). Figure 3: Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the 2013 Road Alignment Previous Cultural Resource Investigations Five archaeological surveys have been conducted on Akutan Island in the last 60 years. The first was conducted during the 1953 field season by Philip Spaulding (1954). Spaulding (1954) examined the coast of Akutan between Akutan Point and Flat Bight identifying five village sites: Onethetha, Ekarana, Ugathigana, Siskena, and Acheneega, the site of the present- day village of Akutan (1954:5). Later, in 1972, Christy and Jacqueline Turner and two physical anthropology graduate assistants surveyed the Akutan Bay area although the survey was secondary to their focus on Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 10 February 2014 excavation of prehistoric sites on Akun Island. Listed only in a table, Turner and Turner (1972:7) note the completion of photographic surveys of Akutan and the abandoned Whaling Station, and surface surveys of the prehistoric village Ugathigana and a historic camp, Fish Bank Landing. The AHRS (2014:UNI-033) notes that in 1974 Theodore Bank inspected the head of Akutan Harbor reporting an “archaeological site that has been disturbed in recent times by military or commercial operations, and very little of the original site remains.” Only a minor campfire stain interpreted as “probably recent” remained. In 2001, Corps archaeologists, Margan Grover and Diane Hanson conducted a pedestrian survey and soil probes near the shoreline in the area proposed for the Akutan Harbor (Grover 2002). Grover and Hanson (2002) identified remnants of the Brown/Rathke farm (UNI-097) but due to its lack of exceptional importance it was deemed ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Despite multiple auger and soil probe tests, Grover and Hanson (2002) failed to relocate evidence of the precontact site, UNI-033 first reported by Bank (1974). In 2010, Idaho State University archaeologists Buck Benson and Sean Mack (2010) surveyed and tested the shoreline, three well sites on the northern edge of the valley, one well site in the southeastern corner, all non-marshy areas, the saddle, and beach terraces in the vicinity of Hot Springs Bay and the valley finding no evidence of cultural deposits. Benson and Mack (2010:7) unsuccessfully attempted to relocate the prehistoric site at the head of Hot Springs Bay, UNI-034, discerning the active modification observed on the beach likely resulted in the complete erosion of the site. Benson and Mack (2010:15) visually identified UNI-033, noting the site was marked by “charcoal staining in [the] seaward side of the beach ridge.” Survey Methods For the purposes of this study, the route was divided up into six discrete units between .3 and 2.8 kilometers long based on topography (figure 4). A 100-foot corridor following the centerline of the 4.7-mile road route was intensively inspected for surface features and subsurface indicators of prehistoric or historic habitation sites (e.g. anthropogenic soil horizons, deposits of shell and bone, charcoal lenses, and lithic artifacts). Fifty by fifty centimeter shovel tests were excavated in areas suspected to be of moderate to high archaeological potential and soil profiles were recorded. Slopes exceeding 60ᵒ and lowland marshes were considered to have low archaeological potential, thus were not surveyed. Landscape features within each survey zone and soil stratigraphy in test pits were photographically documented. GPS coordinates of the survey route and shovel test locations were collected with a Trimble GEO XH Geoexplorer 6000 series handheld receiver. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 11 February 2014 The raw data collected from the Trimble GeoXH was differentially corrected through Pathfinder Office version 5.40 using the Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) UNAVCO Akutan Ak (av10). The corrected data files were generated using the coordinate system NAD 83 Alaska zone 7 and then exported as shapefiles. ESRI ArcMap version 10.0 was used to manipulate the shapefiles, which were overlaid on USGS 2008 seamless quad maps and aerial images using the Transverse Mercator map projection. Figure 4: Reconnaissance Survey Landscape Units (red rectangles 1 through 6) Survey Results Segment 1 Planned Construction: The route through the Akutan Harbor Valley starts at the west end of the existing Akutan Harbor fill area. Through the valley, the 12-inch section will be laid atop the subgrade below the 18-inch duff layer. Survey Observations: The road centerline runs along the base of the western mountain flanks on slightly elevated benches of vegetated slope alluvium, which is bordered, to the east by marsh (figure 5). A four-wheeler trail is worn into the tundra along the road route. Intensive inspection of all raised mounds revealed no surface indications of habitation (i.e. house depressions) and no changes in vegetation that usually characterize midden sites were present. Three fifty by fifty- Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 12 February 2014 centimeter test pits (numbered 12, 13, and 14; figure 6) were excavated to between 50 and 70 cm depth. Excavation was halted when a thick mantle of uniform composition was encountered. Tests 12, 13, and 14 were stratigraphically similar with the vegetation mat extending to a maximum of 15 centimeters below surface (cmbs), a layer of dark brown humus with rootlets between 15 and 20 cmbs, followed by a layer of medium brown soil with lenses of dark brown humus to a depth of 40 cmbs, and terminating in a stratum of medium brown soil intermixed with gravels heterogeneous in size grades. No anthropogenic layers were discernible and no cultural remains were present. Prehistoric site, UNI-099, near the shoreline on the east side of the valley, was relocated and photographed. The center of one of the house depressions was partially submerged. Visibility was obscured by heavy vegetation; no artifacts were visible on the surface. Figure 1: Approximation of Access Road Alignment; view southwest Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 13 February 2014 Figure 6: Line of Survey and Test Pit Locations between Akutan Harbor Valley and the Saddle Segment 2 Planned Construction: The route up the east side of the saddle will be constructed with a 12-inch section of fill laid atop the subgrade below the 18-inch duff layer. At the top of the saddle there will be a 25- foot cut section that serves to lessen the start of the downgrade slope on the west side. Survey Observations: Segment 2 begins on the northwestern edge of a drainage river trending southwest to northeast and extends upgradient approximately 1.8 kilometers to the apex of the saddle (figure 6). The foothills increase in grade to the edge of the saddle. The steep slope, the exposure to high winds, and the lack of surface features indicate this terrain is low probability. Based on these observations, no test pits were excavated (figure 7). Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 14 February 2014 Figure 7: Vertical Swathes of Scoria Exposed by Wind Scour at Saddle Apex Segment 3 Planned Construction: The route down the west side of the saddle will be bench cut out of the slope face transverse to the slope heading to the west. The 12-inch section of road bed atop subgrade beneath the duff layer will be used once to the valley floor. Fill material will be used on the valley floor using the fill material generated from the saddle. Survey Observations: Segment 3 extends approximately 2.5 kilometers from the northwestern edge of the saddle trending downgradient and southwest along the base of the mountain flank (figure 8). Similar to Segment 1, the landscape is composed of slightly elevated mounds of vegetated slope alluvium intersected by multiple ephemeral or stable drainage streams. Intensive inspection of all accessible ground surfaces revealed no indications of cultural sites. One test pit was excavated in Segment 3 with negative results (figure 9). Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 15 February 2014 Figure 8: Segment 3; view southeast Figure 9: Features Identified in Segments 3 and 4 Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 16 February 2014 Segment 4 Planned Construction: A ten-acre parcel will be used for construction of a geothermal power plant. Survey Observations: Segment 4 consists of a tract of slightly elevated wetland approaching one kilometer in length that is intersected by a river (figure 9). A series of 21 metal U-Post stakes strung with barbed wire surround an upturned section of culvert pipe and two water-filled depressions (figure 10). This is the site of a geothermal temperature gradient well (TG-4), drilled in 2010, and officially abandoned in fall 2013. This isolated feature is not culturally significant. No tests were excavated in Segment 4 due to the lowland topography. No additional cultural features were observed. Figure 10: Metal U-Post Stakes and Culvert; view southeast Segment 5 Planned Construction: The route up the southern knoll will require areas of significant cut and fill to maintain the maximum grade. Excavated material will be used as fill in other areas. At the fumarole site, there is a large flat area that can be excavated to generate materials as needed. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 17 February 2014 Survey Observations: Segment 5 includes the ridgeline ascending the southern knoll between the southwestern edge of Hot Springs Bay Valley and the relatively flat gradient at the top of the ridge leading to the fumarole zone (figure 11). The gentle slope of the upper ridge coupled with bordering terraces indicated the area exhibited moderate archaeological potential. Eight test pits were excavated within Segment 5. All tests were negative for cultural remains (figure 12). Intensive examination of all surface features revealed no visible evidence of habitation sites. Figure 11: Segment 5 Ridgeline; view southeast Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 18 February 2014 Figure 12: Test Pit Locations Segment 6 Construction Plans: The route up the southern knoll toward the fumaroles will require areas of significant cut and fill to maintain the maximum grade. It is anticipated that as material is excavated, it will be used as fill in other areas. A 315-foot by 135-foot rectangular drilling pad will be positioned at the end of the access road in a relatively flat area near the fumaroles. Survey Observations: Segment 6 includes approximately 2.5 kilometers of the ridgeline (figure 12). The base of the ridge is formed of volcaniclastic deposits. The ridgeline is centrally flattened and bordered by sparsely vegetated steep slopes (figures 13 and 14). The elevation, proximity to the volcano, and lack of suitable areas to build indicate these areas would have been useful for little but ephemeral pursuits such as tool production or serving as hunting lookouts. Intensive inspection of all leveled ground surfaces revealed no cultural remains. Because of the rock base, no tests were possible (or warranted) in this area. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 19 February 2014 Figure 13: Ridgeline; view west Figure 14: Ridgeline in View of Fumarole Zone Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 20 February 2014 Management Recommendations Results of the pedestrian survey and test excavations reveal that over 90% of the areas examined have low archaeological potential. The exception to this is in Segment 5 where the low gradient slope and terracing indicate a moderate potential. However, no surface indications of cultural sites were present and testing revealed no evidence of cultural remains. Based on these results, the recommendation is that there will be no historic properties affected by construction of the 2013 geothermal road alignment. Should the alignment be rerouted into areas that have not been previously surveyed, include higher-potential areas, (i.e. those at or near the shoreline abutting Hot Springs Bay or the Akutan Harbor) or mountain slopes of less than 60 degrees, additional survey is recommended prior to the undertaking. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 21 February 2014 References AHRS 2014 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey database. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of History and Archaeology. Accessed February 2014. Benson, Buck and Herbert Maschner 2010 An Archaeological Survey of the Hot Springs Bay Valley and Akutan Harbor Energy and Rural Development Projects. Prepared for the City of Akutan. Idaho State University, Pocatello. Grover, Margan A. 2002 Cultural Resources Survey for the Akutan Harbor. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. On file at Anchorage Office of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. McCartney, Allan 1972 An Archaeological Site Survey and Inventory for the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, 1972. Submitted to the Wilderness Studies Branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. On file at Anchorage Office of History and Archaeology. Spaulding, Philip T. 1955 An Ethnohistoric Study of Akutan: An Aleut Community. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Turner, Christy G. 1972 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations in the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 22 February 2014 Appendix 1: Test Pit Stratigraphy All measurements in centimeters below surface (cmbs) Test Pit 1- Negative—55 cm extent 0-5 – thin vegetative cover 10-20 – dark brown soil-fine-grained sandy texture 20-30 – organic rootlets, dark brown soil-finely-grained 30-39 – burnt orange tephra with small rocks 39-43 – black volcanic sand 43-46 – burnt orange tephra with small rocks 46-55 – black volcanic sand Test Pit 2- Negative – 60 cm extent 0-3 – vegetation mat 3-8 – dark brown humus with rootlets 8-60 – homogeneous medium brown soil with small pebbles to terminus Test Pit 3- Negative- 64 cm extent 0-13 – vegetation mat developing into dark brown humus with organics 13-terminus – medium brown finely-grained soil with cobbles heterogeneous in size Test Pit 4- Negative – 62 cm extent 0-6 – vegetation mat 6-17 – dark brown humus 17-35 – medium brown soil 35-39 – lens of dark brown tephra 39-45 – medium brown soil 45-64 – medium brown soil with gravels Test Pit 5- Negative – 75 cm extent Soil composition similar to Test #4 Test Pit 6- Negative – 66 cm extent 0-6 – vegetation mat 6-22 – dark brown humus with organics and rootlets 22-32 – reddish brown soil slight clay texture with sparse number of small cobbles 32-66 – grayish-brown clay with rootlets Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 23 February 2014 Test Pit 7- Negative – 66 cm extent 0-10 – vegetation mat 10-30 – dark brown humus 30-53 – medium brown soil 53-65 – reddish gravels 65-66 – clay Test Pit 8- Negative – 47 cm extent 0-9 vegetation mat 9-24 – dark brown humus with organics 24-32 – medium brown soil 32-47 – black scoria – basalt? Test Pit 9- Negative – 56 cm extent 0-9 vegetation mat 10-15 – dark brown humus with rootlets 16-56 – homogeneous gray clay – between 39-42 lens of reddish gravels pit terminates at 56 due to bedrock Test Pit 10- Negative – 58 cm extent 0-9 vegetation mat 10-26 – dark brown humus 26-30 – black clay 30-34 – burnt orange gravels more clay than gravel 34-58 – brownish-gray clay mottled with tan clay Test Pit 11- Negative – 52 cm extent 0-5 – vegetation mat 5-10 – black humus 10-52 – dark brown soil with rootlets, large, angular cobbles present Test Pit 12- Negative –49 cm extent 0-15 vegetation mat 15-19 – dark brown humus 19-38 – medium brown soil 38-49 – medium brown gravels heterogeneous in size grades, large to miniscule Test Pit 13- Negative – 70 cm extent 0-7 vegetation mat Akutan Geothermal Road Survey Report 24 February 2014 7-23 – dark brown humus with rootlets 23-34 – medium brown soil 34-38 – dark brown humus with rootlets 38-70 – medium brown soil with medium-sized cobbles Test Pit 14- Negative – 53 cm extent 0-4 vegetation mat 4-15 – dark brown humus with rootlets 15-40 – medium brown soil with lenses of dark brown humus 40-53 – burnt orange gravels Akutan Geothermal Project Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment Akutan, Alaska DRAFT October 2013 Prepared for: High Tide Environmental, LLC 2775 N Hematite Drive Wasilla, AK 99654 Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................................. 1 2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Field Work .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Wetland Mapping and Classification ............................................................................................ 3 2.3 Functional Assessment .................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 SUMMARY OF WETLAND INDICATORS ............................................................................... 4 3.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Soils............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 11 4.0 MAPPING RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 12 5.0 WETLAND MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING IMPLICATIONS ................................. 14 5.1 Jurisdictional Status .................................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Functional Performance .............................................................................................................. 15 5.3 Functional Assessment Summary ............................................................................................... 17 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................ 19 TABLES Table 1. Data Plot Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Inventory of Plant Species at Data Collection Locations ............................................................... 9 Table 3. Hydric Soil Indicators at Data Collection Locations .................................................................... 11 Table 4. Hydrology Indicators at Data Collection Locations ..................................................................... 11 Table 5. Mapping Summary ....................................................................................................................... 13 Table 6. Wetland and Waterbody Functions in the Study Area .................................................................. 18 Table 7. Total Wetlands and Waterbodies Present by Category ................................................................. 18 FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Wetland and Waterbody Mapping (Tiles 1-9) Figure 3: Wetland and Waterbody Functional Assessment (Tiles 1-9) APPENDICES Appendix A: Wetland Determination Forms and Photographs Appendix B: Photo Points—Photographs Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 1 Inset 1. Approximate Wetland Study Area 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The City of Akutan (City) is proposing to construct a geothermal power plant and a 4.7 mile road between the Akutan Harbor and Hot Springs Valley to access geothermal energy development sites. This technical report identifies locations within the plant footprint and along the proposed access road that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This report also assesses the ecological and hydrological functions of those areas. Mapping was completed for an area extending 100 feet from either side (200 feet total corridor width) of the City’s proposed road centerline. Additional mapping was also completed for the area in the vicinity of proposed power plant. The total area of study encompasses approximately 122.51 acres (Inset 1 and Figure 1) and is located within Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of Township 70S and Range 112W and Section 1 of Township 70S and Range 113W, Seward Meridian. The proposed access road would originate at the western edge of the new Akutan Small Boat Harbor at the head of Akutan Harbor Bay, approximately 30 feet above sea level. From the harbor, it travels west, up Akutan Harbor Valley to the saddle between Akutan Harbor Valley and Hot Springs Valley, at approximately 360 feet above sea level. From the saddle, the proposed road drops down into Hot Springs Valley, traveling south along the edge of the valley bottom before climbing the southern knoll of the volcano to the fumarole area where geothermal production wells will be drilled. The terminus of the road at the proposed drill sites is located at approximately 1,500 feet above sea level. The proposed geothermal plant site is located along the proposed access road, along the edge of the valley bottom in Hot Springs Valley just prior to the road’s the steep climb to the proposed drill sites. A consideration for siting and selection of an access road alignment alternative is the presence of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. By federal law and associated policy, it is necessary to first avoid project impacts to wetlands wherever practicable, minimize impacts that cannot be avoided, and in some cases compensate for unavoidable impacts. Wetlands, waters of the U.S., and uplands (non-wetlands), as referenced in this report, are defined as: Wetlands: “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 328.3(b)). Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the U.S.” Note that the “wetlands” definition does not include unvegetated areas such Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 2 as streams and ponds. As described in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and in the 2007 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Alaska Region (USACE 1987, USACE 2007), wetlands must possess the following three characteristics: (1) a vegetation community dominated by plant species that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils, (2) inundation or saturation of the soil during the growing season, and (3) soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. Waters of the U.S.: Waters of the U.S. include other waterbodies regulated by the USACE, including navigable waters, lakes, ponds, and streams, in addition to wetlands. Uplands: Non-water and non-wetland areas are called uplands. In addition to a site being wetland, it can also be classified as either a jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetland depending on its connectivity to other regulated waters. Recent court decisions have attempted to clarify the USACE regulatory authority over wetlands without a direct surface water connection or significant nexus to other regulated waters. As stated in 2008 guidance, the USACE will assert jurisdiction, without the need for a significant nexus finding, over all traditional navigable waters (TNW), wetlands adjacent to a TNW, non-navigable tributaries to a TNW that are relatively permanent, and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. The USACE will also assert jurisdiction over non-navigable, not relatively permanent tributaries and their adjacent wetlands where such tributaries and wetlands have a significant nexus to a TNW. These include the following types of waters when they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: (1) non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, (2) wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, and (3) wetlands adjacent to, but not directly abutting, a relatively permanent tributary (e.g., separated from it by uplands, a berm, dike or similar feature). The USACE will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself, together with the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to that tributary, to determine whether collectively they have a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE 2008). Wetlands without a significant nexus to a TNW would be classified non-jurisdictional. The USACE Regulatory Branch must also consider impacts to wetland functions and services when evaluating Section 404 permit applications. Wetland functions are defined as the chemical, physical, and biological processes or attributes that contribute to the self-maintenance of a wetland and relate to the ecological significance of wetland properties without regard to subjective human values (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1999). Services are the benefits that human populations receive from functions that occur in ecosystems (USACE 2009), such as wetlands’ use for recreation or flood control. Not all wetlands perform all functions, nor do they perform all functions to the same extent. For example, a wetland’s geographic location may determine its habitat functions, and the location of a wetland within a watershed may determine hydrologic or water quality functions. The principal factors that determine how a wetland performs these functions are climatic conditions, quantity and quality of water entering and leaving the wetland, and disturbances or alteration within the wetland or the surrounding ecosystem (Novitzki et al. 1997). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Field Work On September 12 and 13, 2013, HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR) wetland scientist’s Zachary Halstead (certified Professional Wetland Scientist no. 2046) and Hannah Griego conducted an on-site investigation of wetlands and waterbodies within the 122.51-acre study area (Inset 1 and Figure 1). Soil conditions, hydrology, and plant communities were studied using methods described in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and 2007 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Alaska Region (Regional Supplement; USACE 1987, 2007). Wherever feasible, wetland/upland Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 3 boundaries were determined by completing paired data plots. This process involves completing standard wetland determination data forms near observable transition zones between wetter and drier areas. A data form was completed in the wet area to verify its wetland status and then a second plot was completed in the drier area to verify its upland status. The wetland/upland boundary between the two data plots was then identified and marked on field maps. Standard USACE Wetland Determination Forms (taken from the 2007 Regional Supplement) were completed at nine sites and are included, along with photographs taken at each site, in Appendix A. Additionally, photographs and observational data were collected at an additional 34 locations to document sites that were similar to those where a data form had already been completed. In total, 43 locations were visited during the two-day site visit. Each location was logged into a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit. Photographs taken at sites where data forms were not completed are included in Appendix B. 2.2 Wetland Mapping and Classification Upon returning from the field, scientists analyzed field-collected data and reviewed the following datasets to help delineate and classify wetlands and waterbodies in the study area: • Color digital ortho-rectified aerial photography with a ground pixel resolution of 0.5 foot (Aerometric 2010) • Two-foot digital elevation model contours (Aerometric 2010) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (streams, watersheds) GPS locations of field-visited sites were overlaid on the aerial photography and digital elevation model contours. Data forms and photographs completed at each site were reviewed to identify and classify wetlands and other waters of the U.S. present within the study area. Findings from the sampling sites were then extrapolated to similar locations throughout the study area and wetland/upland boundaries were digitized into GIS. Wetlands were classified based on a review of field notes, data forms, and site photographs. GIS polygons were attributed with National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping codes based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S. (Cowardin et al. 1979). Existing wetland mapping was also used to supplement data collected in the field to assist in the delineation of wetland/upland boundaries and classify wetland types. Two existing wetland mapping layers were available for areas near the mouth of Whale Bone Creek in Akutan Harbor Valley. These include wetland mapping completed for the Aleutians East Borough’s North Creek Conservation Easement area (HDR 2011a) and wetland mapping completed for the Akutan Harbor Access Road (HDR 2011b). While neither of these wetland mapping data sets directly overlap the Akutan Geothermal Project study area, the existing wetland mapping datasets were used to review wetland occurrence and type in the overall vicinity of the study area. 2.3 Functional Assessment In accordance with the 2009 USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) No. 09-01, wetlands were assessed to determine potential functional capacity (USACE 2009). The following five functions were evaluated: • Groundwater Interchange • Sediment and Shoreline Stabilization • Nutrient Cycling and Food Chain Support • Waterbird Habitat • Fish Habitat Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 4 Due to the limited time available for the field work and the remote location of Akutan, assessment of function is primarily based on best professional judgment and supported by existing Alaska related functional assessment literature deemed relevant to the Aleutian Islands. Physical features that may contribute to or prevent certain functions from occurring were evaluated for the wetlands and waterbodies within the study area. Examples of such indicators include the presence or absence of streams, surface inlets and outlets, vegetation and soil type, the amount of open water present, and the wetland’s topographic position and location in the watershed. For each wetland type, HDR considered these indicators and observations across the study area to define what functions mapped wetlands and waterbodies may perform. Wetland data sheets, site photographs, GIS data layers, and other resource study reports for the project were used to identify indicators of wetland function. To further support the wetland permitting process, and as described in USACE RGL No. 09-01, wetlands were then categorized into the following categories: Category I, II, III, and IV (USACE 2009). Category I – High functioning wetlands: These wetlands are the “cream of the crop”. Generally, these wetlands are less common. These are wetlands that: 1) provide a life support function for threatened or endangered species that has been documented; 2) represent a high quality example of a rare wetland type; 3) are rare within a given region; or 4) are undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible or difficult to replace within a human lifetime, if at all. Examples of the latter are mature forested wetlands that may take a century to develop, and certain bogs and fens with their special plant populations that have taken centuries to develop. The position of the wetland in the landscape plays an integral role in overall watershed health. Category II – High to moderate functioning wetlands: These wetlands are those that: 1) provide habitat for very sensitive or important wildlife or plants; 2) are either difficult to replace (such as bogs); or 3) provide very high functions, particularly for wildlife habitat. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands, but still need a high level of protection. Category III –Moderate to low functioning wetlands: These wetlands can provide important functions and values. They can be important for a variety of wildlife species and can provide watershed protection functions depending on where they are located. Generally these wetlands will be smaller and/or less diverse in the landscape than Category II wetlands. These wetlands usually have experienced some form of degradation, but to a lesser degree than Category IV wetlands. Category IV – Degraded and low functioning wetlands: These wetlands are the smallest, most isolated, have the least diverse vegetation, may contain invasive species, and have been degraded by humankind. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace and, in some cases, be able to improve from a habitat standpoint. These wetlands can provide important habitat functions and values, and should to some degree be protected depending on where they are located in the watershed and the condition of that watershed (urban vs. rural). In some areas, these wetlands may be providing groundwater recharge and water pollution prevention functions and, therefore, may be more important from a local point of view. 3.0 SUMMARY OF WETLAND INDICATORS Wetlands were identified where HDR scientists observed indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils, and at areas that appear on aerial photographs to be similar to wetlands identified in the field. Wetland/upland determinations were made at the 43 sites (including photo points) along the study area; these determinations are summarized below (Table 1). Wetland determination forms and site photographs are included in Appendix A. Photographs taken at all observation points are included in Appendix B. Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 5 Table 1. Data Plot Summary Site # Plot Type Mapping Code Mapping Code Description 01 WDF U Upland 02 WDF PEM1B Saturated emergent wetland 03 PP R4SBC Intermittent stream 04 PP U Perennial stream 05 PP PEM1C Seasonally flooded emergent wetland (disturbed) 06 WDF U Upland 09 WDF PEM1C Seasonally flooded emergent wetland 10 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 11 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 12 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 13 PP PEM1F Semi-permanently flooded emergent wetland 14 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 15 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 16 PP R4SBC Intermittent stream 17 PP U Upland 18 PP PEM1F Semi-permanently flooded emergent wetland 19 WDF PSS1/EM1F Semi-permanently flooded scrub-shrub/emergent wetland 20 PP U Upland 21 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 22 PP U Upland 23 PP R3AB3H Perennial stream with a rooted vascular aquatic bed 24 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 25 PP PSS1/EM1F Semi-permanently flooded scrub-shrub/emergent wetland 26 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 27 WDF PEM1F Semi-permanently flooded emergent wetland 28 WDF U Upland 29 PP PEM1H Permanently flooded emergent wetland 30 PP U Upland 31 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 32 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 33 PP U Upland 34 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 35 PP R4SBC Intermittent stream 36 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 37 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 38 PP U Upland 39 PP R3UBH Perennial stream 40 WDF U Upland 41 WDF PSS3/EM1B Saturated scrub-shrub/emergent wetland 42 PP U Upland Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 6 Table 1. Data Plot Summary Site # Plot Type Mapping Code Mapping Code Description 43 PP R2UBH Perennial stream 44 PP U Upland 45 PP PSS1/EM1C Seasonally flooded scrub-shrub/emergent wetland 3.1 Vegetation Vegetation within the study area varies based on slope and elevation. Vegetation is primarily dominated by herbaceous plant communities. Limited low and dwarf shrub communities also occur within the study area. The most prevelant hydrophytic community found in the study area is a wet gramminod community dominated by grasses and sedges. This community was commonly found near intermittant streams, along toe slopes, and across the valley bottoms of both Hot Springs and Akutan Harbor Valleys (Inset 2). This community was documented at Sites 02, 03, and 27. A hydrophytic, open low willow shrub community was also found along the toe of slopes within Hot Springs Valley. This community, dominated by grey- leaf willow, was documented at Site 19 (Inset 3). Finally, a saturated, dwarf ericacous shrub tundra was documented at Site 41 (Inset 4). This site was dominated by crowberry but also had a high percent cover of grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous plants. Inset 2: Wet sedge meadow tundra (Site 27) Inset 3: Open low willow shrub community (Site 19) Inset 4: Wet ericaceous shrub community (Site 41) Inset 5: Upland mesic herb community (Site 06) Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 7 Non-hydrophytic vegetation communities in the study area include a mesic, mixed herb community (Inset 5) and a dwarf willow shrub tundra community (Inset 6). Both communities were commonly found on ridge tops and backslopes that are not conducive to the growth of hydrophytes. The mixed herb community was also found in moderately well drained footslopes within both Hot Springs and Akutan Harbor Valleys. The mixed herb community was documneted at Sites 06, 28, and 40. Dwarf willow shrub tundra was documented at Site 01. The upper elevations of the study area are unvegetated or partially vegetated (Inset 7) Inset 5: Dwarf shrub tundra community (Site 01) Inset 6: Unvegetated ground in upper elevations Table 2 lists each plant species, their total percent cover, and the designated wetland indicator status for each plant observed at the nine locations where wetland determination forms were completed. In total, six of the nine sites sampled had plant communities dominated by hydrophytes. Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 8 This page intentionally left blank. Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 9 Table 2. Inventory of Plant Species at Data Collection Locations Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status a 01 02 06 09 19 27 28 40 41 Shrub Stratum Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick UPL 5 Dasiphora fruticosa Shrubby cinquefoil FAC 1 Empetrum nigrum Crowberry FAC 1 60 Rubus spectabilis Salmon raspberry FACU 15 5 15 5 Salix barclayi Barclay's willow FAC 8 8 Salix glauca Gray-leaf willow FAC 40 4 Salix ovalifolium Oval-leaf willow FAC 20 Salix reticulata Net-veined willow FAC 20 Vaccinium uliginosum Bog blueberry FAC 5 1 10 Vaccinium vitis-idaea Low-bush cranberry FAC 4 15 Herbaceous Stratum Achillea millefolium Boreal yarrow FACU 10 10 2 2 20 Aconitum maximum Kamchatka monkshood UPL 5 4 4 Agrostis exarata Spiked bentgrass FACW 2 5 2 Agrostis scabra Rough bent FAC 4 Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly everlasting NL 5 7 Anemone narcissiflora Narcissus-flower thimbleweed FACU 15 10 5 Angelica lucida Seacoast angelica FACU 2 Arnica lessingii Nodding arnica NL 3 Artemisia arctica Arctic wormwood NL 2 Artemisia vulgaris Common wormwood UPL 10 Athyrium filix-femina Subarctic lady fern FAC 1 1 4 2 Bistorta vivipara Serpent grass FAC 3 1 Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint reedgrass FAC 3 10 Calamagrostis nutkaensis Nootka reedgrass FAC 30 10 5 70 25 15 Calamagrostis purpurascens Purple reedgrass NL 15 Caltha palustris Yellow marsh marigold OBL 15 10 Campanula lasiocarpa Mountain harebell UPL 2 Cardamine umbellata Umbell's bittercress FACW 2 Carex anthoxanthea Grassy-slope Arctic sedge FACW 7 Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's sedge OBL 1 2 70 10 Castilleja unalaschcensis Alaskan Indian paintbrush FAC 3 Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed FACU 5 Claytonia sibirica Siberian spring beauty FACW 1 Conioselinum pacificum Western hemlock parsley FACW 2 7 Cornus suecica Swedish dwarf dogwood FAC 2 T 2 1 Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted hairgrass FAC 15 7 15 15 15 30 25 Diphasiastrum complanatum Ground cedar FACU 4 Epilobium ciliatum Willow herb FAC 2 4 8 8 Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 10 Table 2. Inventory of Plant Species at Data Collection Locations Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status a 01 02 06 09 19 27 28 40 41 Herbaceous Stratum Epilobium palustre Marsh willowherb OBL 2 Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 1 1 4 4 3 4 Erigeron peregrinus Subalpine fleabane FACW 7 1 1 4 5 Eriophorum angustifolium Tall Cotton-Grass OBL 70 15 5 Geranium erianthum Wooly cranes-bill FACU 15 2 2 4 1 Geum macrophyllum Large-leaf avens FAC 7 5 2 7 Heracleum maximum Cow-parsnip FACU 4 Juncus arcticus Arctic rush OBL 20 Juncus castaneus Chestnut rush FACW 10 Lagotis glauca Weaselsnout NL 1 Leptarrhena pyrolifolia Pearleaf FACW 1 Leymus mollis Sea-lyme grass FAC 5 Ligusticum scoticum Scottish licorice-root FAC 2 Lupinus nootkatensis Nootka lupine FACU 20 12 4 Luzula arctica Arctic wood-rush FAC 5 2 2 1 Luzula wahlenbergii Wahlenberg's wood-rush OBL 4 2 1 Pedicularis lanata Woolly lousewort FAC 1 Petasites frigidus Arctic sweet coltsfoot FACW 3 5 1 Phleum alpinum Alpine timothy FACU 2 1 1 Plantago macrocarpa Alaska plantain FACW 5 3 5 8 Platanthera stricta Slender bog orchid OBL T Platanthera sp. Orchid species - 1 2 Pyrola asarifolia Pink Wintergreen FACU 3 5 Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup FACW 1 Rhinanthus minor Little yellow-rattlebox FACU 2 5 Rubus arcticus Arctic blackberry FAC 5 5 25 Rumex occidentalis Western dock OBL 8 2 Sanguisorba canadensis Canadian burnet FACW 2 2 5 10 5 5 Saxifrage sp. Saxifrage species - 1 Spinulum annotinum Stiff clubmoss FACU 2 Viola sp. Violet species - 7 6 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 50 100 29 75 86 100 50 80 100 Prevalence Index Calculation 3.48 1.27 3.60 2.19 2.57 1.50 3.09 3.31 2.92 Hydrophytic Vegetation No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes a Wetland Indicator Status Region A (Reed 1988; Lichvar 2013): FAC: Facultative: species equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands; FACU: Facultative Upland: species usually occurs in non- wetlands; FACW: Facultative Wetland: species usually occurs in wetlands; OBL: Species almost always occurs under natural conditions in wetlands; NL: Not listed Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 11 3.2 Soils Site-specific soil characteristics were sampled at each of the nine locations where wetland determination data forms were completed as well as at many of the other photo points. Hydric soil indicators observed at each site are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Hydric Soil Indicators at Data Collection Locations Hydric Soil Indicator Site # 01 02 06 09 19 27 28 40 41 Histosol or Histel X X Histic Epipedon X Hydrogen Sulfide X X X X X Alaska Redox with 2.5Y Hue X Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Hydric soil indicators were observed at five locations. Histosols are present at two sites, a histic epipedon was observed at one site, and hydrogen-sulfide odor was detected at five sites (Appendix A). No indicators of hydric soil were observed at any other location. Non-hydric soils were moderately well to excessively well drained and hydric soils were all somewhat to very poorly drained. Specific characteristics of the sampled soils, including color and texture, as well as photographs showing soil conditions for each site are included in Appendix A. 3.3 Hydrology At least one primary or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at five of the eight sites where wetland determination data forms were completed. One site, Site 40, had evidence of only one secondary indicator (geomorphic position) and therefore did not meet the requirements for positive wetland hydrology. No evidence of any primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators was observed at the remaining three sites. Hydrology indicators observed at each site are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Hydrology Indicators at Data Collection Locations Hydrology Indicator Site # 01 02 06 09 19 27 28 40 41 Primary Indicators Surface Water X X X X High Water Table X X X X Saturation X X X X X Iron Deposits X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery X X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor X X X X X Secondary Indicators Drainage Patterns X X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots X Presence of Reduced Iron X X X Geomorphic Position X X X X X X Microtopographic Relief X X X FAC-Neutral Test X X X X Wetland Hydrology Present? (Y/N) N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Common primary indictors of wetland hydrology included the presence of surface water, a high water table, and saturated soils. A hydrogen sulfide odor was detected within 12 inches of the surface at all 5 Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 12 sites where wetland hydrology was observed. The most common secondary indicator observed in the study areas was a geomorphic land position conducive to collecting and storing water, most often a toe slope or valley bottom location with groundwater discharge. Other common secondary indicators observed include the FAC-neutral test, the presence of reduced iron, and microtopographic relief. Specific information about the different indicators (i.e., depth to saturation within the soil pit) can be found on the data forms included in Appendix A. These indicators are further described in the 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 2007). Several perennial streams and numerous intermittent streams were observed within the study area. Larger perennial streams include the south fork of Hot Springs Creek and Whale Bone Creek. The south fork of Hot Springs Creek was observed where it crosses the study area at Photo Point 10. It parallels the proposed road corridor through much of Hot Springs Valley and re-enters the study area near Photo Point 22. The study area crosses Whale Bone Creek, which drains Akutan Harbor Valley, at Photo Point 43. Both streams range in width from 6 to 10 feet and in depth from 1.5 to 3 feet. In addition to these larger drainages, 15 smaller perennial streams were also observed within the study area. These features were generally observed to drain larger catchment areas on hillslopes or wetlands and served as tributaries to either Hot Springs or Whale Bone Creeks. These streams ranged from 6 inches to 3 feet in width and from 3 inches to 1.5 feet in depth. Numerous intermittent streams were observed throughout the study area. These streams appear to flow intermittently based snowmelt and recent precipitation. Most of these streams were relatively narrow, ranging between 9 inches and 1 foot in width. In numerous locations, and clearly visible on aerial photography, sections of some intermittent streams are discontinuous and transition between surface and underground flow. 4.0 MAPPING RESULTS Wetlands were identified where HDR scientists observed indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. If any of these three requirements are not met under normal conditions, the site does not meet the USACE criteria for being classified as a wetland, and therefore would not be subject to Section 404 regulations. Areas that appear on aerial photographs to be similar to wetlands identified in the field were also identified as wetland. Topography appears to be the primary driver of wetland occurrence in the study area. Steeply sloped hillsides with high gradient streams characterize the majority of the study area. Because of the steepness of the terrain, relatively few areas appear to be conducive to the development and maintenance of wetlands. Soils are easily drained and surface water flow, where present, is confined in deeply incised ravines. Based on field observations, some streams that drain the steep hillsides appear to have perennial flow; most, however, appear to flow intermittently based snowmelt and recent precipitation. As discussed above, sections of some intermittent streams were observed to be discontinuous and transition between surface and underground flow. No measurable areas of wetlands persist along the streams draining the steeply sloped hillsides. Steep hillslope areas adjacent to streams were determined to be upland. While the majority of the study area was observed to be steeply sloped uplands, the prevalence of wetlands changes dramatically in locations where the study area traverses the toe slope and flat bottoms of Hot Springs and Akutan Harbor Valleys. Abrupt changes in slope, from the steeply sloped hillsides to flatter toe slopes and valley bottoms results in substantial groundwater discharge and the formation of scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands (NWI codes PSS1 and PSS1/EM1). Small changes in elevation (e.g., 2 to 4 feet) result in a transition between uplands, saturated wetlands, seasonally-flooded wetlands, and semi- and permanently-flooded wetlands. Numerous perennial and intermittent streams meander throughout toe slope and valley bottom areas. These include Whale Bone Creek (observed at photo point 43) and the south fork of Hot Springs Creek Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 13 (observed at Photo Point 10). Few wetlands were observed along the banks of either of these creeks; they appear to be well channelized with no signs of frequent overbank flow. As discussed above, smaller perennial and intermittent streams draining steep hillslopes are generally well confined and had no measurable adjacent wetlands. However, as stream gradients lessen in the flatter toe slope and valley bottom areas, drainage becomes less confined, with broad surface flow contributing to wetland formation. An example of this pattern was observed at Photo Points 12 and 13. Photo Point 12 documents a high gradient, well channelized perennial stream with no wetland fringe. Photo Point 13, documents the same stream further downslope just below the break in the slope. At Photo Point 12, the stream has broad surface flow and is surrounded by a 40-foot wide wetland fringe. Approximately 15.81 acres (13 percent of the study area) of wetlands were identified within the 122.51 acres study area. Wetlands types include palustrine mixed scrub-shrub and emergent and palustrine emergent wetlands. An additional 1.02 acres (1 percent) of the study area were identified as waterbodies. Waterbody types included lower perennial, upper perennial and intermittent riverine systems and ponds. The remaining 105.67 acres (86 percent) of the study area were identified as uplands. Wetland and waterbody classes found within the study area and acreages of each NWI classification are provided below in Table 5. Figure 2, Tiles 1 through 9, delineate the wetland, upland, and waterbody boundaries within the study area. Locations where wetland determination forms were completed as well as where photos points and notes were taken are also shown. Table 5. Mapping Summary Mapping Code Description Acres PEM1A Temporarily flooded persistent emergent wetland 0.04 PEM1B Saturated persistent emergent wetland 1.88 PEM1C Seasonally flooded persistent emergent wetland 5.73 PEM1F Semi-permanently flooded persistent emergent wetland 4.88 PEM1H Permanently flooded persistent emergent wetland 2.31 PSS3/EM1B Saturated broad-leaved evergreen scrub-shrub and emergent wetland 0.75 PSS1/EM1C Seasonally flooded broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent wetland 0.05 PSS1/EM1F Semi-permanently flooded broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent wetland 0.19 Total Wetlands a 15.81 PAB3H Permanently flooded waterbody with a vegetated aquatic bed 0.02 R2UB1H Permanently flooded lower perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottom 0.05 R3AB3H Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an vegetated aquatic bed 0.05 R3UBH Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottom 0.76 R4SBC Seasonally flooded intermittent streambed 0.15 Total Waterbodies a 1.02 Total Waters of the U.S. including Wetlands a 16.83 U Upland 105.67 Total Mapped Area a 122.51 a Total acreage present may not reflect the sum of the individual cells due to rounding Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 14 5.0 WETLAND MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Jurisdictional Status The regulatory authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as administered by the USACE, has been subject to several lengthy legal reviews. Two notable decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, originating from the Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cases, are likely to affect whether the USACE would regulate wetlands in the study area. Each of these decisions is briefly discussed below along with additional supporting information that may help the USACE in their analysis. 1. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: In 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision on the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. USACE (2001). This court decision limits USACE jurisdiction over wetlands that do not have a direct surface water connection to navigable waters. Generally a wetland is not considered isolated and the USACE retains jurisdiction if the wetland has a continuous surface connection, via a wetland or surface waterway with a bed and banks, to a creek that is a tributary to navigable waters. Wetlands with no surface or piped outlet or other overland connection to navigable waters are considered isolated. However, the USACE may still exert jurisdiction over such a wetland if it is separated from a non-isolated wetland or tributary by a single barrier (i.e. a road). 2. Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States In a recent decision on the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed where the federal government can apply the Clean Water Act, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is a water of the U.S. On December 2, 2008, the EPA and USACE issued joint guidance to implement the court’s decision. The joint guidance is now being used by EPA regions and USACE districts to determine whether aquatic resources such as lakes, streams, and wetlands are waters of the U.S., subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (EPA and USACE 2008). In accordance with the Rapanos guidance, the USACE will assert jurisdiction, without the need for a significant nexus finding, over all traditional navigable waters (TNW), wetlands adjacent to a TNW, non-navigable tributaries to a TNW that are relatively permanent, and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. The USACE will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable, not relatively permanent tributaries and their adjacent wetlands where such tributaries and wetlands have a significant nexus to a TNW. A significant nexus exists if a tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or an insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and/or biological, integrity of a TNW. These areas include the following types of waters: (1) non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, (2) wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, and (3) wetlands adjacent to, but not directly abutting, a relatively permanent tributary (e.g., separated from it by uplands, a berm, a dike, or similar feature). The USACE will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself, together with the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to that tributary, to determine whether collectively they have a significant nexus with TNWs (EPA and USACE 2008). To support the USACE regulatory analysis of their jurisdiction, HDR utilized this existing guidance to preliminarily determine if the 16.83 acres of wetlands and waterbodies mapped within the study area fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. No isolated wetlands were identified in the study area. All wetlands mapped in the study area are likely connected by surface water flow to Whale Bone Creek or Hot Springs Creek and from there to the tidally influenced waters of Akutan Harbor or Hot Springs Bay. Thus, all wetlands and waterbodies in the study Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 15 area are likely subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, the USACE will make the final determination as to its jurisdiction over study area wetlands. 5.2 Functional Performance In 2008 the Federal Register for EPA 40 CFR 230 and USACE 33 CFR 332 published a final rule that addresses compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses of aquatic resources. Consequently, if the USACE claims jurisdiction over wetlands and waterbodies in the study area, compensatory mitigation is expected to be required (USACE and EPA 2008). Furthermore, USACE Alaska RGL No. 09-01 requires that Section 404 permit applicants submit a compensatory mitigation plan with permit applications (USACE 2009). Wetland size, vegetation type, knowledge of hydrological inputs and outputs, wildlife information, location relative to creeks and waterbodies, and topographic settings were used to assess the functional performance of wetlands and waterbodies in the study area. The five functions evaluated include: • Groundwater Interchange • Sediment and Shoreline Stabilization • Nutrient Cycling and Food Chain Support • Waterbird Habitat • Fish Habitat Following evaluation of each wetland and waterbody function, the estimated functional capacity for each mapped wetland and waterbody type was ranked as low (L), moderate (M), or high (H). Wetlands and waterbodies within the study area were then categorized Category I, II, III, or IV based on their overall functional performance (USACE 2009). Groundwater Interchange Wetlands are often located near groundwater recharge or discharge areas (Adamus Resource Assessment 1987). Groundwater recharge is the infiltration of groundwater from a wetland into the underlying aquifer. Groundwater discharge is the net upward vertical movement of water from an aquifer to the surface (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The movement of groundwater either to or from the surface is influenced by the elevation of the wetland relative to the groundwater elevation (elevation head), local topography, and the nature of the substrate, (Adamus et al. 1991; Sather et al. 1984). Ground water interchange is also affected by the degree of water permanence, with saturated wetlands being more conducive to groundwater recharge than more frequently inundated ones, and the availability of surface outlets. Wetlands in the study area likely perform the groundwater recharge function minimally, if at all. Wetlands in the study area generally occur within the lower portions of the Whale Bone Creek and Hot Springs Creek watersheds, with most being located less than 130 feet above sea level, resulting in a relatively small potential elevation head. Furthermore, wetlands in the study area occur in geomorphic positions more conducive to groundwater discharge than recharge. Common geomorphic positions include seeps and toe slopes with either semi-permanent or permanent surface outlets to perennial streams. An exception to the general finding of minimal groundwater interchange occurs in areas where intermittent streams transition between surface and underground flow. Even in these locations, however, limited groundwater recharge is likely to occur. Water from these streams is unlikely to remain in the ground for an extended period of time and toe slope discharge sites were observed immediately downslope of most streams with intermittent flows. Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 16 Shoreline and Soil Stabilization In the study area’s wetlands, wetland vegetation stabilizes the soils against erosion by water that may pass through the wetland by intermittent and perennial streams, sheetflow, and shallow flow through the soils. Vegetation can bind and stabilize substrates affected by moving water and trap sediments during periods of inundation. The effectiveness of bank vegetation in controlling erosion depends on the plant types present, the width of the vegetated bank, the efficiency of the vegetation in trapping sediments, the soil composition of the bank or shore, the height and slope of the bank, and the elevation of the toe of the bank relative to mean high water (Sather et al. 1984). Emergent wetlands bordering streams and waterbodies are most likely to perform shoreline and soil stabilization at a high level. Wetlands that are characterized by water moving at low velocities and through dense energy absorbing vegetation, such as dense herbaceous plants, are also likely to perform this function at a high level. Wetlands that do not border waterbodies, are not seasonally or permanently flooded, or lack vegetation that can withstand erosive forces are unlikely to contribute substantially to shoreline and soil stabilization. Nutrient Cycling and Food Chain Support Wetlands may retain nutrients from water entering a site, incorporating them into plant tissue and sometimes into the peat soil. Nutrients can enter wetlands in one form and leave in another. Wetland productivity depends heavily on inputs of organic matter and nutrients; wetland systems in turn export organic matter and nutrients to the marine environment (NWTC 1978). Most wetlands seem to act as nutrient traps, at least during the growing season. Periodic inundation or overbank flooding into wetlands allow decaying plant material to be washed downstream to other aquatic ecosystems, where it would support the food web with energy and nutrients. These flooding events also give a wetland the opportunity to temporarily store water, thus reducing flood flows, and to slow water flow so particulates may settle out. Wetlands have varying levels of primary productivity; that is, capture of the sun’s energy and conversion to plant material. This plant material may be consumed directly by vertebrates and invertebrates or chemically and physically altered through decomposition before use by other consumers. Decomposition and the rate at which nutrients are transformed to forms usable by plants influence plant productivity and, ultimately, food chain dynamics. The rate of decomposition and the degree to which nutrients and organic carbon are transported out of the wetland affect the wetland’s role in the aquatic food chain (NWTC 1978). Wetlands with surface flow outlets, wetlands that flood, and wetlands used by highly mobile fish and wildlife species have mechanisms for exporting organic matter and nutrients. Food chain value depends not only on the amount and type of organic material produced by wetland plants, but also on the availability of this plant material to detrital and herbivore-based food webs. Alaskan coastal wetlands, whose primary productivity appears to be relatively low, may have relatively high food chain value to estuarine and marine fish because they export proportionally large amounts of palatable organic material to nearby waters (NWTC 1978). Waterbird Habitat The waterbird habitat function considers the effectiveness of the wetland in providing habitat for various types of resident and migratory species typically associated with wetlands and the wetland edge (USACE 1995). Many birds depend on wetland habitats during all or parts of their life histories. Akutan Island and its nearby marine waters support winter populations of a variety of migratory birds, including eiders, scoters, harlequin and long-tailed ducks, and emperor geese. Wetland habitat values are not constant over time. Habitat conditions can change daily (e.g., with tides or water levels), with the seasons, over periods of several years, and with long-term succession (NWTC Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 17 1978). Within the study area, the level of interspersion of different vegetation types can influence the quality of waterbird habitat. When vegetation types are highly interspersed, more edge between communities exists. Edge communities are important to many bird species, and generally the more edge within a wetland, the greater diversity of birds (Thompson 1998). Similarly, the greater interspersion of open water and plant communities, the greater the diversity of wildlife. Seasonally flooded wetlands interspersed with surface water are often important to pre-breeding waterfowl, which depend on the rich invertebrate resources found there to obtain the protein essential to egg laying (Krapu 1974). Whale Bone Creek and Hot Springs Creek and adjacent riparian wetlands likely support some waterbird habitat during the summer months. Many different food sources including fish, aquatic insects, and plants are available within the streams itself. Smaller perennial and intermittent streams within the study area are likely not used as frequently by waterbirds because of their steep gradient and narrow channels. Fish Habitat Fish entering freshwater streams and adjacent wetlands are likely dependent on habitat factors such as the availability of cover, freedom from disturbance, availability of food, availability of specialized habitat features, water regime (especially fluctuations in water level), and interspersion of different vegetation forms and water. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Anadromous Fish Catalog lists Whale Bone Creek (stream #302-16-10300) as the only anadromous stream in the study area (ADF&G 2013). According to the list, anadromous species present within Whale Bone Creek include Coho and pink salmon. Pink salmon were also observed in Whale Bone Creek at the time of the field visit. The south fork of Hot Springs Creek is also likely to provide habitat for anadromous fish. Permanently flooded wetlands adjacent to both of these creeks are also likely to provide important fish habitat including shade, contribution of detrital matter, spawning areas, and juvenile rest areas. Smaller perennial tributaries to Hot Springs and Whale Bone Creeks likely provide habitat for some fish, but not to the extent that provided by Hot Springs and Whale Bone Creeks. Perennial streams draining steep hillslopes likely provide marginal habitat for fish, but generally were observed to be too steep and shallow to provide high quality habitat. 5.3 Functional Assessment Summary As discussed above, the ecological functions performed by wetland or waterbodies in the study areas were evaluated based on wetland size, vegetation type, proximity to waterbodies, hydrological input and outputs, topographic setting, and numerous other variables. Based on this evaluation, the capacity of wetland and waterbody type to perform each of the five functions was divided into three categories: low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). However, the relative value of any one function over another is difficult to ascertain. Almost all wetlands and waterbodies within the study area contribute to the nutrient cycling and food chain support of the surrounding aquatic habitat. This particular function appears to be the most important function that the study area wetlands and waterbodies perform. Support of water bird habitat, both directly and indirectly, fish habitat, and shoreline stabilization also appears to be a common function that most mapped wetland and waterbodies in the study area perform. These functions are performed to varying degrees, however, based on wetland size, proximity to larger waterbodies, and other habitat qualities. Groundwater recharge was determined to be the least important function, most likely a result of the coastal proximity of the study area and prevalence of groundwater discharge sites. Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 18 Table 6. Wetland and Waterbody Functions in the Study Area Mapping Code Groundwater Interchange Shoreline & Soil Stabilization Nutrient Cycling & Food Chain Support Waterbird Habitat Fish Habitat Classification PEM1A M L M L L Category III PEM1B M L L L L/Ma Category III/ Category IIb PEM1C L H H M M Category II PEM1F L H H H M/Ha Category II/ Category Ib PEM1H L H H H H Category I PSS3/EM1B M L L L L Category III PSS1/EM1C L M H M M Category II PSS1/EM1F L M H H H Category I PAB3H L H M M M/Ha Category II/ Category I b R2UB1H L L H H H Category I R3AB3H L H M H H Category I R3UB1H L L H M/Hc M/Hc Category I/ Category IIc R4SB3C M M M L L Category III a Varies based on presence of a direct surface connection to anadromous-fish bearing stream b Varies based on wetland size, position in landscape, and presence of a direct surface connection to anadromous-fish bearing stream c Varies based on waterbody size, position in landscape, and role in providing habitat for anadromous fish Figure 3, Tiles 1 through 9 display wetlands and waterbodies mapped within the study area by functional category. The total acreage of wetland and waterbodies within each functional category within the study area is provided in Table 7. Final mitigation ratios, if warranted, will be negotiated with the USACE during the Section 404 permitting process. Table 7. Total Wetlands and Waterbodies Present by Category Functional Category Total Acreage Category I 7.07 Category II 8.59 Category III 1.17 Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 19 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Aerometric. 2010. Color orthorectified aerial imagery and 2 foot contour digital elevation model. Provided by Mead & Hunt, Inc. Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., D.R. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). Volume I. Literature Review and Evaluation Rationale. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. 1987. Juneau Wetlands Functions and Values. Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau, Department of Community Development. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2013. Anadromous Stream Catalog. Accessed on line at http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FlexMaps/fishresourcemonitor.html?mode=awc. Viewed in October 2013. American Society for Testing Material (ASTM). 1999. Standard Guide for Assessment of Wetland Functions. Subcommittee E50.05. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR). 2011a. Wetland Report: North Creek Conservation Area. Akutan, Alaska. Prepared for the Aleutians East Borough. HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR). 2011b. Akutan Harbor Access Road: Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment. Akutan, Alaska. Prepared for High Tide Environmental, LLC. Krapu, G.L. 1974. Foods of Breeding Pintails in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 38, No. 3. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: Alaska 2012 Final Regional Wetland Plant List. ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. “Hydrology tools for wetland determination”: Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 19. Washington, D.C. National Wetlands Technical Council (NWTC). 1978. Scientists’ Report: National Symposium on Wetlands. Washington D.C. Novitzki, R.P., Smith, R.D., and J.D. Fretwell. 1997. Restoration, Creation, and Recovery of Wetlands; Wetland Functions, Values and Assessment. National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425. Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Alaska (Region A). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. Biological Report 88(26.11). Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment 20 Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An overview of major wetland functions and values. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-84/18. 68 pp. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. 531 U.S. 159 Thompson, R. 1998. Southeast Alaska Freshwater Wetland Assessment Method. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Alaska District, Juneau Regulatory Field Office. Juneau, AK. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Alaska District Regulatory Guidance Letter RGL ID No. 09-01. CEPOA-RD. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70):19594-19705. April 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACE). 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Alaska Region. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACE). 1995. Corps of Engineers: Alaska District List of Navigable Waters (in addition to all Tidal Waters). Available online at: http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg/NavWat.htm. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. U.S. Federal Register. November 13, 1986 Part II. Rules and Regulations, Vol. 51, No. 219. U.S. Department of Defense. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. 33 CFR Parts 320-330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment Figures Akutan Geothermal Project Draft Jurisdictional Determination Report and Functional Assessment This page intentionally left blank. LEGENDFIGURE 1 Overview 0 1 2 Miles I 4 ProjectLocation Anchorage Created by HDR, October, 25, 2013Topo Source: ESRI, 2013 4Akutan AKUTAN, ALASKA Study Area Boundary A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTI0200400100Miles Study Area Location: Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9 of T70S and R112W, Section 1 of T70S and R113W, Seward Meridian Unimak A-6 Topographic Map Akutan Harbor 0 2.5 51.25 Miles This page intentionally left blank. 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 U 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types U: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 1 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 U U R4SBC U 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types R4SBC: Seasonally flooded intermittent streambed U: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 2 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 U U U PEM1B PEM1BR4SBC R4SBC R4SBC 001 002 003 004 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types PEM1B: Saturated persistent emergent wetlandR4SBC: Seasonally flooded intermittent streambed U: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 3 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 PEM1C U R3UBH R4SBC R3UBHR3AB3H PEM1C PEM1F PEM1F PEM1C U R3UBH U U R3UBH PEM1C PSS1/EM1C PEM1F PEM1C PEM1C PEM1C PSS1/EM1F PEM1F PEM1C U R3AB3H PEM1C PEM1F PSS1/EM1C PEM1C PEM1A U PEM1F U U U U R4SBC R4SBC R4SBCR4SBC R3UBH R3UBH R4SBC R4SBC R3UBH R3UBH R3UBH R3UBH 005 006 009 010 011 012013 014 015 016 017018019 020 021 022023 024 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types PSS1/EM1C: Seasonally flooded broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent wetlandPSS1/EM1F: Semi-permanently flooded broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent wetlandPEM1A: Temporarily flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1C: Seasonally flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1F: Semi-permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandR3UBH: Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottomR4SBC: Seasonally flooded intermittent streambedR3AB3H: Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an vegetated aquatic bedU: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 4 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 R4SBC PEM1F PEM1C R3UBH R3UBHPEM1F R3UBH U PEM1C PEM1F PEM1C R3UBH R3UBH R3UBH R4SBC R4SBC R4SBC R4SBC R3UBH R4SBC PEM1F R3UBH R3AB3H PEM1C U R3UBH R3UBH PEM1F PEM1F PEM1F U PEM1F PSS1/EM1FPEM1C PEM1C PEM1C PEM1H PEM1H PEM1H U R3AB3H 022023 024 025 026 027 028 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types PSS1/EM1F: Semi-permanently flooded broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent wetlandPEM1C: Seasonally flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1F: Semi-permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1H: Permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandR3UBH: Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottomR4SBC: Seasonally flooded intermittent streambedR3AB3H: Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an vegetated aquatic bedU: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 5 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 PEM1C U R3UBHR3UBH R3UBH PEM1C R3UBH PEM1C R3UBHPEM1F R3UBH U R3UBH PEM1H PEM1H R3UBH PEM1H R3UBH R3UBH PEM1H U PEM1F PEM1C PEM1F PEM1C PAB3H 029 030 031 032 033 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types PEM1C: Seasonally flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1F: Semi-permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1H: Permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandR3UBH: Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottom U: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 6 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 PEM1F PEM1C PEM1C R3UBHR4SBC R3UBH R3UBH R3UBH PEM1F U PEM1F R3UBH R3UBH PEM1H PEM1FPEM1F PEM1C R4SBC R3UBH R4SBC R4SBC R4SBC R4SBC R4SBC R3UBH R3UBH R4SBC R4SBC R3UBH R3UBH PEM1F U PEM1C PEM1C PEM1F PEM1C PEM1C U R3UBH032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types PEM1C: Seasonally flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1F: Semi-permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandR3UBH: Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottomR4SBC: Seasonally flooded intermittent streambed U: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 7 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 R4SBC PEM1F PSS1/EM1C PAB3H PEM1B PEM1B R3UBH R3UBH R3UBH R4SBC PEM1F U R3UBH PEM1F PSS1/EM1C U PEM1F R3UBH R3UBH U PSS3/EM1B PEM1F PEM1H PEM1FPEM1F PSS3/EM1B PEM1C PEM1C R3UBH PEM1FPEM1F 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types PSS3/EM1B: Saturated broad-leaved evergreen scrub-shrub and emergent wetlandPSS1/EM1C: Seasonally flooded broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent wetlandPEM1B: Saturated persistent emergent wetlandPEM1C: Seasonally flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1F: Semi-permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandPEM1H: Permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandR3UBH: Permanently flooded upper perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottomR4SBC: Seasonally flooded intermittent streambed U: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 8 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 PEM1B U PSS1/EM1C PAB3H PEM1F PEM1B R2UB1H R2UB1H R2UB1H PEM1B R2UB1H R2UB1H PEM1F 045 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K A Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Waterbody Perennial Stream Intermittant Stream Data Collection Points !(Data Form- Upland !(Data Form- Wetland GF Photo Point- Upland GF Photo Point- Wetland GF Photo Point- Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Wetlands and Waterbodies Mapping Types PSS1/EM1C: Seasonally flooded broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub and emergent wetlandPEM1B: Saturated persistent emergent wetlandPEM1F: Semi-permanently flooded persistent emergent wetlandR2UB1H: Permanently flooded lower perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottomU: Upland Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan FIGURE 2 Wetland and Waterbody MappingTILE 9 This page intentionally left blank. 615 7 2 3 4 8 90200100Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 1 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category III 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 2 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category III Category IIICategory III Category III Category III 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 3 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category I Category I Category II Category I Category I Category I Category I Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category III Category III Category III Category II Category III Category III Category III Category II Category II Category IIICategory III Category II Category II Category II Category IICategory II 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 4 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category I Category I Category I Category ICategory I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category I Category I Category I Category III Category III Category III Category III Category II Category III Category III 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 5 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category IICategory II Category II 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 6 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category II Category II Category I Category I Category I Category IICategory II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category II Category III Category II Category III Category III Category III Category III Category II Category I Category II Category III Category III Category II Category II Category III Category II Category II Category III Category III Category I 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 7 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category II Category II Category I Category I Category I Category I Category II Category II Category II Category IICategory III Category III Category III Category II Category I Category II Category I 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 8 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan 615 7 2 3 4 8 9 Category II Category I Category I Category II Category II Category II Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I Category I 0 200100 Feet I LEGENDCreated by HDR, October, 30, 2013Source: HDR 2013; Cowardin et al. 1979Imagery Source: Aerometric 2010 A K U T A N G E O T H E R M A L A C C E S S P R O J E C TJURISDICTIONAL D E T E R M I N AT I O NREPORTAKUTAN, A L A S K AFIGURE 3 Wetland and Waterbody Functional CategoriesTILE 9 Study Area Boundary Road Centerline Stream Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Stream Category II: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Stream Wetlands and Waterbody Functional Categories Category I: High Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category II: High to Moderate Functioning Wetland or Waterbody Category III: Moderate to Low Functioning Wetland or Waterbody I 0 1 20.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp,Earthstar Geographics LLC State of Michigan This page intentionally left blank. Akutan Geothermal Access Road Annotated Stream Crossings Prepared for: The City of Akutan Prepared by: February 2014 Introduction: A 4.75 mile long access road is proposed to access a geothermal well site in Hot Springs Bay on Akutan Island. The road would connect the newly constructed harbor at the head of Akutan Harbor with the geothermal site near the 1,800 foot elevation at the head of Hot Springs Bay. The road alignment was planned to minimize impacts to streams, but crossing certain streams is inevitable given the local topography and hydrology. When a stream had to be crossed, the goal was to cross it the fewest number of times possible and cross it with the smallest impact centered on the most stable reach. This report is intended to provide details on each crossing by providing photographs and brief narrative of each crossing. Short videos are available for many of the crossings and are referenced in the discussion so they can be viewed as necessary. A video of the entire area taken from a helicopter on a clear day is also available in the accompanying DVD. The primary purpose of the videos was to ensure the details of the stream crossing were preserved for preparation of this report. Crossings are referenced to the closest station inferred from the project drawings. Ultimately, this report will guide preparation of the Title 16 permit applications to ADF&G and assist ADF&G in making informed decisions based on actual conditions on the ground in Akutan. Station 137 Culvert crossing at Sta 137. Upstream branching (at finger tip) was clearly identified on the ground. Sta 137 crossing area. Wetted width in this area is between 6 and 8 feet wide and a maximum of 8” deep. Culvert would be sized to match existing width. Station 132 Culvert crossing at Sta 132. Small tributary at Sta 132. 4-7” deep and 18-24” wetted width. Station 130 Station 130 crossing location on drawing. Station 130 shows shovel at approximate centerline. There is a pronounced gradient change in this reach, some very small plunges, a 15” wetted width and 5” deep pools. An 18” culvert should be adequate for this crossing. Station 124 Station 124 location on drawing. See video for additional images. This section has a wetted width of 13” and a depth of 2”. Due to the lack of a straight section, the section would have to be rerouted slightly. An 18” culvert should be adequate. Station 115 Station 115 crossing on drawing. Station 115 stream. This section is 12” wide and 1-3” deep. An 18” culvert should be adequate here. Station 107 Station 107 location on drawing. Station 107 crossing with shovel for size reference. Width is 18” and depth at deepest point is 9”. It is a sinuous section with iron floc present, which is typical of streams in wetlands. Station 107 crossing close-up. It is important to note that the 35% drawings indicate more stream crossings between Station 107 and the saddle, the situation on the ground does not bear this out. Though the route laid out over the aerial image on page 2 of the 35% design has streams drawn in, any drainage through these areas is likely ephemeral through a wide vegetated drainage area. A culvert makes sense in these areas, but there is no stream crossing identifiable for permitting purposes. There are also areas on the Akutan Harbor side of the saddle that appear to be crossings on the drawings but are not actually streams. Station 75 Station 75 location on the drawing. Crossing at Station 75. This is near the top of the saddle. It is high gradient with pools up to 4” deep and rather sinuous. Width is generally less than 18” overall. Station 48 Station 48 on the drawing. Station 48 crossing. This wide section shows damage from repeated ATV crossings. Outside of this damaged area, the stream is 12” wide and 1-2” deep. An 18” culvert would be appropriate. Station 44 Station 44 crossing showing wide area from ATV damage. This is the actual stream for the station 44 crossing; note the narrow width (12-15”) where it has not been damaged by ATV traffic. An 18” culvert would be adequate at this crossing. Station 30 Station 30 crossing. This is the largest crossing on the Akutan Bay side of the project. It is 8’ wide and 6- 8” deep. ATV damage is minimal due to the gravel bottom and hardened banks. An 8’ culvert would be best here. Pink salmon were present above and below the crossing location. Station 30 crossing looking upstream. The planned crossing for station 30 appears to be well sited at a straight and stable reach. There was no identifiable crossing at Station 16, though it appears that way from the drawing. A culvert should be used to allow for surface water flow during periods of heavy runoff. Questions about this report can be directed to Chris Hoffman of High Tide Environmental. (907) 354- 3132 or Chris@hightidealaska.com