Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMekoryuk Environmental Review Record, Wind Turbines & Site Control Documents 2009AVEC at | Key Accounts Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503-7497 Mekoryuk Environmental Review Record Wind Turbines & Site Control Documents AVEC Work Order #9723231 AEA Grant Agreement # 2195384 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Contact Information Brent Petrie Manager, Community Development & Key Accounts 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503-7497 Phone (907) 565-5358 Fax (907) 561-2388 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: July 9th, 2009 Job No. RE: Mekoryuk Wind Turbine AVEC EAS Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503-7497 Phone: (907) 561-7924 (800) 478-1818 Fax: (907) 561-2388 (866) 561-2388 James Jenson TO: AK Energy Authority by Ie IY | JUL 0 9 2009 813 W. Northern Its. Anchorage, AK 99503 AIDEA AEA WE ARE SENDING YOU [J] Attached [1] Task Order # [original Contract oO oO oO [Amendment #___ oO CL a a ee BD B N Description Date 07/09/09 Environmental Review Record Mekoryuk Wind Turbines & Site Control Documents iT Ta AVEC Work Order # 9723231, AEA Grant Agreement # 2195384 07/09/09 1 07/09/09 1 1 eotechnical Report ngineering Plan Set m THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below (0 For approval [1] Approved as submitted [[] Resubmit copies for approval 1] For your review LD Approved as noted [J Submit copies for distribuiton YQ For your files oO Returned for corrections | Return Originals for AVEC approval REMARKS James, This should complete the requirements for milestones 1, 2 and 3. COPY TO Alden Worachek Matt Metcalf , ota Dana Keene ¥ SIGNED Brent Petrie Manager, Community Development & Key Accounts Environmental Checklist AK Dept of Natural Resources Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (Formerly known as Division of Governmental Coordination Coastal Project Questionnaire) Alaska State Historical Preservation Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Federal Aviation Administration US Fish & Wildlife Service Site Control Documents Lease Agreements, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Engineering Drawing Set Geotechnical Report Environmental Checklist Section 1 - Project Data Project Name: Mekoryuk Wind Tower Project Project Site Address: City: Mekoryuk, Alaska County: Project Description Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning on installing two wind turbines in Mekoryuk, Alaska. The wind turbines would be located between the City water lagoon and the sewage lagoon on the north and south sides of Airport Road. These locations are approximately 1,200 feet and 1,600 feet from the southern and northern Nunivak Island coastline, respectively (Attachment 1, Figure 1). The turbines would be installed on 50 by 50 foot (top width) pads (Attachment 1, Figure 2). The total footprint of the pads would be approximately 68 by 68 feet. The access road to the north wind turbine pad north of Airport Road would be 100 foot long by 20 foot wide at the top and 38 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.19 acres. The access road to the south wind turbine would be approximately 200 feet long by 20 foot wide at the top and 38 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.27 acres. All fill would be placed on existing grade, and no excavation would be necessary. The total footprint of the project would be 0.46 acres. Community sponsors and/or the contractor will provide material from an existing, permitted site. Two 100kW wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. Each turbine would be about 100 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. The bottom of the blades would be approximately 70 feet above the ground. Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to offset fuel costs for power generation. Mekoryuk has a high-value, class 7 wind regime for wind power generation. During 2007, 943,600 kWh of energy was generated at the Mekoryuk power plant using 67,500 gallons of diesel fuel. A two-machine array of Northwind 100 wind turbines generating almost 480,000 kWh per year could displace up to 50% of the energy normally generated by the diesel power plant, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water plant. The wind turbines will displace about 29,368 gallons of diesel fuel each year. This project is needed to help the community manage the high costs of energy. In 2008, an average of $4.46 per gallon for the fuel was spent to generate electricity. At this cost, approximately $131,148 will be saved generating power during that first year. Assuming a 4% rate of inflation for the next 20 years, the project will save over $3.9 million. Project Alternatives AVEC considered the advice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in determining a location for the wind turbines. AVEC proposed a location near the existing AVEC power plant and tank farm and a location near the existing water reservoir (Attachment 1, Figure 3). Based on comments from USFWS and geotechnical conditions, AVEC dismissed these locations and moved the project away from town and farther away from the coast line. A no action alternative was considered and dismissed because it would not meet the purpose and need of this project. Attach (if available) a community map showing the project location, a drawing describing the proposed project, and photographs of the existing site and surrounding properties: See Attachment 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE I Environmental Checklist Section 2 - Environmental Review Preparation Review / Preparation Name Title Address City State Zip Phone Fax E-Mail Signature Date Preparer (if not AVEC) Name: Robin Reich Title: Environmental Planner and Owner Company: Solstice Environmental Consulting Address: 11760 Woodbourne Drive City: Anchorage State: Alaska Zip: 99516 Phone: 907.929.5960 Fax: 907.929.5960 E-Mail: Robin@solsticeak.com Signature Date ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE II Environmental Checklist Section 3 - Environmental Review Checklist Resource Potential | Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning Im act behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This p includes agency consultations and other references.) +/0]- Social / Economic Economic Impacts Typical employment for residents of Mekoryuk includes work with the school, the City, the village corporation, the Bering Sea Reindeer Products Co, and work in commercial fishing, construction, and service industries. Most families participate in commercial or subsistence fishing. Fifty five residents hold commercial fishing permits primarily for halibut and herring roe and many families have fish camps. Many residents also trap or make Native crafts for income. ? The project could positively impact the community by stabilizing power costs. No adverse economic impacts are anticipated with the proposed project. Demographic According to the 2000 Census, Mekoryuk has a and population of 210. The Alaska Native population makes —— up 96.7% percent of residents. ” This project will not change the demographic characteristics of the community or region. Community Facilities, The City of Mekoryuk has a community well. Water Services, or Safety from the well is treated and stored in a tank witha flush/haul system that serves 90% of the homes in the community. Funding has been provided to accommodate the remaining homes that currently use honey buckets with the flush/haul system. The City maintains a washeteria that has piped disposal to a new permitted sewage lagoon. The school has its own well but needs a new water treatment system. The City operates a Class 3 landfill. The AVEC diesel power plant supplies electricity to the community.° This project will stabilize the amount of resources spent on energy to operate community facilities. 1 Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development [ADCED]. n.d. Community Database Online. Mekoryuk. Economy, Income, Poverty and Employment. <http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm> Accessed April 2008. 2 ADCED. n.d. Community Database Online. Mekoryuk. 2000 Population and Housing Characteristics. <http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm> Accessed April 2008. 3 ADCED. n.d. Community Database Online. Mekoryuk. 2000 Population and Housing Characteristics. <http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm> Accessed April 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE III Environmental Checklist Resource Potential | Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning Impact behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This p indudes agency consultations and other references.) +{0]- Displacements There will be no public, commercial, or residential displacements as a result of this project. The turbines will be placed in a location approved by the community. Environmental Justice Approximately 97% percent of Mekoryuk residents are Alaska Native, and 22% percent of residents live below the poverty level.’ The project will have no adverse impact on the human health or the environment of minority populations and/or low-income populations. The project will benefit all residents by stabilizing energy costs in the community. Cultural Resources Archaeological Sites A literature review of records on file at the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database was conducted to identify potential historic properties in the proposed project area. Based on this review, there are four recorded sites located in the Mekoryuk area; however, all sites are located at least 1,500 feet from the proposed wind turbine site. In addition, the wind turbines would be located in an inland wetland, where cultural or historic sites are not typically found in the Mekoryuk area. On December 30, 2008, the SHPO concurred with AVEC’s finding that no historic properties would be affected by the project. (See Attachment 2, Agency Correspondence; Written correspondence between SHPO, AVEC, and Solstice Environmental Consulting.) Historic Buildings or The proposed project does not run through any Districts historical districts or any historic buildings. (See Attachment 2, Agency Correspondence; Written correspondence between SHPO, AVEC, and Solstice Environmental Consulting.) | Air Quality The community of Mekoryuk is in an attainment area for National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) pollutants. Air quality in Mekoryuk is assumed to be 4 ADCED. n.d. Community Database Online. Mekoryuk. 2000 Population and Housing Characteristics and Economy, Income, Poverty and Employment.. <http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm> Accessed April 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE IV Environmental Checklist Resource Potential | Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning Impact behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This p includes agency consultations and other references.) +/0]|- good, although air quality monitoring for criteria pollutants has not been conducted in the area.° Installation of the wind turbines could result in reducing the amount of fuel burned in Mekoryuk by over 50 percent. This would result in better air quality. Operation of construction equipment would result in localized, temporary increases in emissions of exhaust and dust; however, air quality impacts during construction would not exceed a NAAQS standard. Water Quality Surface Water No rivers will be crossed with this project. Because less than one acre would be impacted, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Large and Small Construction Activities (Construction General Permit, or CGP) will not be required. Groundwater No groundwater will be impacted by the implementation of this project. Noise This project will not affect the community noise level because construction activities would occur away from residences and other sensitive receptors (schools, health facilities, churches, etc.) and because heavy equipment use will be limited to daytime hours. Solid and Hazardous There are no leaking underground storage tanks or Waste contaminated sites listed for the community of Mekoryuk.° No hazardous waste will be generated by this project. Solid waste generated during construction will be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations. 5 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Non-Attainment Status for Each County by Year. <http://www.epa.gov/air/oagps/greenbk/anay.html> Accessed April 2008. 6 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). n.d. Division of Spill Prevention and Response. Contaminated Sites Program. Database Search Contaminated Sites and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (UST) <http://dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/search/default.asp> Accessed April 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE V Environmental Checklist Resource Natural Resources Threatened and Endangered Species Potential Impact +|0 Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This includes agency consultations and other references.) A review of the current list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species in Alaska and the area shows that the project area is in the breeding range for the spectacled eider. In addition, the project area is in the winter and molting area habitat range, but not within critical habitat, of the Steller’s eider. Given that this project is largely beneficial in nature and that the project is located away from areas where birds are likely to travel, the project is not likely to adversely affect listed species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS (See Attachment 2 Agency Correspondence; Lance, Ellen. January 5, 2008. Letter from Ellen Lance, USFWS, to Robin Reich, Solstice, regarding ESA consultation.). There are no ESA protected species under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries located within the project area (See Attachment 2 Agency Correspondence; Brix, Kaja. April 17, 2008. Email from Kaja Brix, NOAA Fisheries, to HDR regarding ESA consultation). Essential Fish Habitat Mekoryuk River (Stream No. 335-50-10450) has been specified as being important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes. The river supports pink, chum, and coho salmon, as well as resident arctic charr. Although not listed in the State of Alaska’s Anadromous Water Catalog, Shoal Bay is likely important for rearing and migration of salmon. No direct or indirect effects to fish in Mekoryuk River or Shoal Bay are anticipated with this project (See Attachment 2 Agency Correspondence; Telephone conversation between Jeff Estenson, ADF&G Habitat Biologist and Robin Reich, Solstice, Regarding the need for a Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE VI Environmental Checklist Resource Potential Impact +[0|- Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This includes agency consultations and other references.) Farmland Protection The community of Mekoryuk is not located within an identified significant agricultural area.’ Geomorphology This project will not increase the potential for erosion or landslides. Wetlands An Office Based Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) was completed in March 2008 and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in May 2008. Areas displayed as wetlands in the PJD meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) criteria for being classified as wetland. Most of the area where the wind turbine pads will be located is wetland; and therefore subject to jurisdiction under Section 404, of the Clean Water Act (CWA). A Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit application was submitted to the USACE for this project on December 16, 2008. The permit was issued on April 15, 2009 and expires April 30, 2014. (See Attachment 3, Project Permits.) Wild and Scenic Rivers A review of the National Park Service’s Wild and Scenic Rivers website indicated that there are no wild or scenic rivers in the project area.® Coastal Zone Management The community of Mekoryuk is located in the Cenaliutriit Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) Coastal Zone Area. A Coastal Project Questionnaire and Enforceable Policies Consistency Determination was prepared and submitted to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (ADNR-DCOM) on December 16, 2008. ADNR-DCOM found the project consistent on March 31,2009 (See Attachment 3, Project Permits) Sole Source Aquifer There are no designated sole source aquifers in Alaska.” 7 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Alaska. n.d. Prime and Important Farmlands. <http://www.ak.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils/soilslocal.html> Accessed April 2008 8 National Park Service. April 2008. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Designated Rivers: Alaska <http://www. rivers. gov/wildriverslist.html#ak>. Accessed April 2008. ? EPA. 2008. An Overview of the Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program in EPA Region 10: Designated Petitions. <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifers/Overview/> Accessed April 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE VII Environmental Checklist Resource Potential | Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning Im act behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This m | includes agency consultations and other references.) + - i Alaska Communities revealed that there is no known flooding in the community of Mekoryuk. *° A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s flood maps revealed that Floodplain maps do not exist for the community of Mekoryuk.”* Other Issues None Identified Floodplain A review of the Floodplain Management Services for 10 ; a F Floodplain Management Services for Alaska Communities. n.d. Mekoryuk. <http://www.poa.usace.army. mil/en/cw/fld_haz/mekoryuk.htm> Accessed April 2008. 11 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). n.d. Map Service Center. FEMA Issued Flood Maps: Alaska/Bethel Division/Mekoryuk, City 02 02050 020063. <http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm>. Accessed April 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE VIII Environmental Checklist Section 4 - Summary Environmental Consequences Summary (summarize the checklist items that identified a potential negative impact and describe the potential impact.) Approximately 0.47 acres of wetlands would be filled by this project. Environmental Commitments (nescrive the measures that will be taken to mitigate the Environmental Consequences summarized above, if any) Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit special conditions: © No fill or construction materials can be stockpiled on wetlands outside the project boundary. e Natural drainage patterns must be maintained to the extent practicable by the installation of culverts in sufficient number and size und the access roads to prevent ponding, diversion, or concentration runoff that would result in adverse impacts to adjacent wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats. Cultural resource special conditions: elf cultural resources are encountered during construction all ground disturbing activities shall cease in the immediate area and the permittee shall immediately (within one business day of discovery) notify the SHPO. FAA Air Navigation Hazards special conditions: © Due to the proximity to FAA facilities, the FAA requires the contractor to coordinate the construction start date and time with the SRN SOC manager at (916) 859-6042 before starting this project. Environmental Permits (:ist any state, federal, or local permits required.) A Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit was obtained on April 15, 2009. The project was found consistent with the state and local coastal management programs on March 31, 2009. The FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation on January 27, 2009. The project was found to fall under the Alaska Department of Conservation’s 401 (Water Quality) Certification Waiver. Public Involvement (oescrive the public involvement activities performed for this project, if any.) A meeting was held in Mekoryuk with the City mayor and Tribal council representative on June 4, 2008 to discuss the project and other related projects in the community. Other community meetings were held in Mekoryuk on: e June 28, 2006 to present a draft version of the Concept Design Report (CDR) e May 25, 2004 to update the public on the project e@ October 17 and 18, 2002 to meet with community leaders to discuss potential sites for the new facilities and survey the condition of existing tanks and fuel systems See Attachment 4, Public Involvement, for some of the public involvement materials. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE IX Environmental Checklist Conclusion D1 A finding of no significant impact is recommended for the above project. This finding would be based upon the project being completed as described above and in conjunction with the Environmental Commitments presented above. Or O Preparation of an Environmental Assessment / ___ Environmental Impact Statement is recommended for the project. Certifying Officer / Title Date ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE X Attachment 1 Project Figures DRAWING No. 1-19-2009 vo tk ’ 3 5 { 3 3 < ae & 9 AVEC MEKORYUK WIND TOWERS VIONTY MAP 1-19-2009 PROPOSED WIND TOWER LOCATIONS FFMAN NG | 800 F STREET 907-276-6664 Fox 907-276-5042 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 FILLSLOPES «= / WETLAND GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD AND PAD DESIGN DRAWING No. WIND TOWERS 4B Stte Plan NGINEERS nl BH Figure 2. 800 F STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 a 907-276-6664 Fax 907-276-5042 1-19-2009 1, ' ! ! SUSAN Wes EL PROPOSED WIND LIND GENERATOR SITE No. 1 i vy 7 > Vi | 7 || PROPOSED WIND GENERATOR SITE No. 2 JPG. ges: AERIAL_1 22X34PUN.OWG — REVISIONS DESORPTION ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES CORPORATION Project No. 23076 AAR RLAGE ELECTRIC COOPEUTIMG —|scae:s"=100° Joesicnen: sox |onecKen: wr [oram: saw [oATE: 07/09/03 Drowing: |:\23078 MEKORYUK COR\ACAD-DESIGN\DWG\23078_C1.0WG - Loyout: LAYOUT! User: SWHEAT Jul 22, 2003 ~ 3:189m Xrefs: 23076_BASE.OWG 23076. Attachment 4 Public Involvement MEMORANDUM DATE: FROM: 6/17/08 MATTHEW METCALF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/KEY ACCOUNTS SUBJECT: TRIP REPORT, MEKORYUK — JUNE 4 2008 TO: FOR THE RECORD OBJECTIVE: PRELIMINARY COSTRUCTION SITE VISIT / COORDINATION WITH THE COMMUNITY. EINDINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Plane was delayed due to weather; arrived in Mekoryuk around 11:30 a.m., on June 4, 2008. | traveled with STG Project Manager — Gary Mathews. Gary Mathews attended the site visit to also secure housing for STG work crews, inspecting potential residence for proper occupancy. Inspected the AVEC / Community tank farm site location and identified that the survey stakes were still intact, not pulled out. Majority of the snow and ice was already melted away and area appeared grassy and dry. Area around the existing AVEC plant and tank farm requires clean up and organization. Inspected the fuel storage tanks, took photos and identify any damages if any. No damages other than a few scraps, dents from transporting. Two tank pump housing units identified and undamaged. Crates with dike liners identified and sealed. Located concrete blocks for dispensing units, stacked and secured. Inspected the “Small Boat Landing” where the clean fill material will be dredged out. There was some snow/ice build up in the landing area. Some boats were anchored in the landing area or up on shore. Reviewed the LKSD proposed tank site. Identified that t there were two double walled dike tanks for the school district; that they are currently positioned up from the “small boat landing”, near the fish processing facilities. Mr. Mathews and | met with Mayor Howard Amos and IRA representative Mrs. Amos regarding construction schedule and planning. Addressed some of Mayor Amos and the communities concerns regarding the delay of the new power plant and wind turbine projects. The community feels that they should receive what they have worked towards and what was told to them about receiving those fuel conserving projects. Their concerns are relative to the raise in fuel costs and available barge services. | assured them that the project were only delayed and not dissolved. That AVEC is progressing in the proper direction to provide the Community of Mekoryuk with the up-graded power plant design with associated alternative power generation equipment. | illustrated that there are certain phases the have to be completed before other can be preformed. With the funding that is available at this time, we can only complete the consolidate tank farm phase at this time. Upon receiving additional funding we can continue with the up-graded power plant and the wind turbine projects. In the order of progression and to perform completed projects, not almost completed project. Mr. Mathews and | addressed some additional clarifications of the up coming project, schedule, and manpower items, we then completed the meeting. - Upon completion of the meeting, Mr. Mathews completed negotiations with the individual who has vacancies to house the STG construction crews and | make one last walk through before head to the airstrip to catch the last Grant flight out. - Flew back to Bethel, had dinner and flew out of Bethel at 9:00 pm, arriving into Anchorage around 10:20pm. RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR CONCLUSIONS: - Dredge enough clean fill material from the “Small Boat Landing” and fully complete the the consolidated tank farm pad and power plant location. Completely fence the entire area; not just the new tank farm. A collect enough clean fill to build the wind turbine pad site. Do the maximum that is monetarily possible to maximize the equipment and manpower that will be on site and to ensure the community that AVEC is preparing to come back to complete the other phases. Instill some reassurance in to the community. Ae FIELD TRIP REPORT NO. 1 MEKORYUK AMALGAMATED BULK FUEL Project: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades Mekoryuk, Alaska CEI Project No. 04234 Trip Date: May 25, 2004 Trip Participants: Shane Campbell, Lower Kuskokwim School District Ben Momblow, CEI Greg Aughe, CEI Purpose: Evaluate the existing site conditions for the development of a consolidated bulk fuel facility as outlined in the Conceptual Design Report AN ER S$ Structural Mechanical Electrical Civil Corrosion Project and Construction Management EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing school pipelines, pipe supports, tank farm, boiler room, and standby generator were observed during the trip. AVEC’s and NIMA Corporation’s fuel facilities and the proposed wind generation tower sites were also observed. SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED e General observation of LKSD’s existing facilities (tanks, piping, buildings) and the site for the new marine header, tanks, powerplant, wind generator tower, and dispensing area. e Evaluation of pipe routing from proposed marine header location to tank farm. e Evaluation of the wind generator sites identified in the CDR. Based on the topography of the community and accessibility, our recommendation for placement of the wind towers is Wind Site #2. AVEC will need to determine the adequacy of the transmission lines in this area of the community. e Amore thorough evaluation was made for the school boiler room and standby generator building. The standby generator building had a day tank that was in “good” operational condition, while the boiler room did not have a day tank. e The Conceptual Design Report was evaluated for its constructability, and several concerns were noted during the site visit: 1. No intermediate tank shown for LKSD. 2. Gravel dike shown for tank farm, while recent discussions point to wood dikes being preferred. 3. LKSD has need for gasoline. The CDR does not supply LKSD with gasoline, or a dispenser to access their fuel. A dispenser is not necessary for fuel oil. 4. NIMA Corporation currently has a marine dispenser in operation. The conceptual design does not provide a code compliant marine dispenser. The majority of the fuel sales in Mekoryuk are based upon boat sales (gasoline and diesel). Coffman Engineers, Inc. 800 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907 276 6664 Fax 907 276 5042 Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel June 4, 2004 Page 2 5. The length/cost of the fill header is a concern. The CDR shows approximately 2000 feet of buried marine header pipe in the road right-of-way. This was observed to be the most convenient routing from a land ownership point of view, but AVEC may want to approach a private land owner (or City/Corporation) to establish a new header easement or reuse an old fuel line routing which took a more direct route to the beach in order to reduce the length/cost of the fill line. CLOSURE We believe the above information accurately reflects the work that was performed during the site visit and are commencing with our design as described in our proposal letter dated March 30, 2004. We feel that it is prudent to schedule a project update meeting for the near future to discuss the progress of the design, notify AVEC of any deviations from the Conceptual Design Report, and discuss issues that may require decisions by AVEC or other tank farm participants. CEI appreciates the interest and time invested by everyone that attended the site visit and provided support during the field investigation. Please feel free to share this document with all appropriate parties. Feel free to give me a call if you would like to discuss the site visit or any other aspect of the project. COFFMAN ENGINEERS, INC. Be pL Ben Momblow, P.E. Project Manager Distribution by email: Brent Petrie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Eric Marchegiani Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Marie Becker Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Shane Campbell Lower Kuskokwim School District Ben Momblow Coffman Engineers Greg Aughe Coffman Engineers B. Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency Determination SUANITE OOP IIUNSIA, [nan come DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us @] SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE OD CENTRAL OFFICE 550 W 7" AVENUE SUITE 705 302 GOLD STREET, SUITE 202 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 P.O. Box 111030 PH: (907) 269-7470 FAX: (907) 269-3891 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-1030 PH: (907) 465-3562 FAX: (907) 465-3075 March 31, 2009 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, care of Ms. Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 Subject: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines State ID No. AK 0902-10AA Final Consistency Response Dear Ms. Reich: The Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) has completed coordinating the State’s review of your proposed project for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). DCOM has developed the attached final consistency response based on reviewers’ comments. Based on an evaluation of your project by the Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources and the Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area, DCOM concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP and affected coastal district’s enforceable policies. This is the final consistency decision for your project. This consistency response is only for the project as described. If you propose any changes to the approved project, including its intended use, prior to or during its siting, construction, or operation, you must contact this office immediately to determine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. By copy of this letter, I am informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) of DCOM’s final finding. “Develop, Conserve, and Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans.” If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact me at (907) 269-7475 or e-mail ashley.kalli @ alaska. gov. Sincerely, Arh Pal Ashley Kalli Project Review Coordinator Enclosures ce: Adele Lee, DNR/DMLW Land Carl Andrew, CRSA Board Chair-Coastal District Ellen Simpson, ADFG Fran Roche, DEC - JNU Kellie Westphal, DNR/DMLW Water Resources Linda Markham, ADOT/PF Michael Dombkowski, USCG Mike Daigneault, ADFG/Habitat Sean Palmer, DEC - ANC Shauna McMahon, DCOM DNR/SHPO Mary Romero, USACE Regulatory Branch FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE CONCURRENCE DATE ISSUED: MARCH 31, 2009 PROJECT TITLE: MEKORYUK WIND TURBINES STATE Ip. No. AK 0902-10AA AFFECTED COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT: CENALIULRIUIT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project subject to this consistency review is the construction of a wind turbine facility in the community of Mekoryuk. The project would begin in summer 2009 and end in summer 2010. Two 100” tall, 100 kilowatt “Northwind 100” wind turbines would be installed, one on the north side and one on the south side of Airport Road between the water reservoir and sewage lagoon. Each turbine would sit on a gravel pad accessed by a one-lane gravel road. The turbine power lines would connect directly to the existing overhead electric transmission lines on the north side of the road by connecting to the pole nearest to each pad. AVEC expects power from the turbines to displace up to 50% of the energy normally generated by the diesel power plant, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water plant. This would save approximately 29,368 gallons of diesel fuel per year, which at 2008 costs would save $131,148 per year. The wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. The rotor diameter would be 65’ and the bottom of the rotor would be approximately 70’ above the ground. The footprint of the gravel pads for the turbines would be 68’x68’ each and the top of each pad would be 50x50’, with 3:1 sideslopes. The wind turbines would be mounted to hexagonal pile-supported platforms 30’ in diameter. The six 24” diameter steel pipe piles supporting the platform would be driven to bedrock at a depth of 38’-43’. Next to each piling, a 2” diameter thermosyphon would be installed. The gravel pads would consist of a layer of geotextile material on top of the ground surface, 2” of insulation, and 3’ of fill. Fill would come from an existing permitted site. The northern access road would be 100’ long and the southern access road would be 200” long. The footprint of each road would be 38” wide, and the top width of each road would be 20’, with 3:1 side slopes. For construction, brush and boulders would be removed but the organic mat would remain in place. Holes would be filled with sand. A nonwoven geotextile material would be placed on top of the ground, and then fill placed on top of the geotextile material. The fill would be approximately 3’ deep. A total of 2,220 cubic yards of fill would be placed in 0.46 acres of wetlands for the access roads and gravel pads. AVEC reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the project would have no impact on Endangered Species Act listed birds because the turbines would be located more than FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 3 1,200’ from the coastline where the birds usually fly, and because the birds usually fly at an altitude below 30’, which is below the rotor swept area of the turbine blades. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO REVIEW: Except for the water quality issues addressed through the DEC 401 Certification process, the scope of the project to be reviewed is the wind turbine facility including the two turbines with 65’ diameter rotors on 100’ tall tubular towers, the 100’x38’ and 200’x38’ gravel access roads, and the two 68’x68’ gravel pads. The location is on the north and south sides of Airport Road between the water reservoir and the sewage lagoon in the community of Mekoryuk, within section 6, Township 3 North, Range 97 West, Seward Meridian, within the Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area. CONSISTENCY STATEMENT: DCOM concurs with the consistency certification submitted by Solstice Environmental Consulting on behalf of AVEC. AUTHORIZATIONS: State agencies shall issue the following authorizations within five days after DCOM issues the final consistency response that concurs with the applicant’s consistency certification, unless the resource agency considers additional time to be necessary to fulfill its statutory or regulatory authority. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit No. POA-2008-1618 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will review any activities subject to DEC permits, certifications, approvals, and authorizations for consistency with 11 AAC 112.310. The issuance of the permits, certifications, approvals, and authorizations by DEC establishes consistency with 11 AAC 112.310 for those specific activities. Please note that, in addition to their consistency review, State agencies with permitting responsibilities will evaluate this proposed project according to their specific permitting authorities. Agencies will issue permits and authorizations only if they find the proposed project complies with their statutes and regulations in addition to being consistent with the coastal program. An agency may deny a permit or authorization even though the ACMP concurs with your consistency certification. Authorities outside the ACMP may result in additional permit/lease conditions. If a requirement set out in the project description (per 11 AAC 110.260) is more or less restrictive than a similar requirement in a resource agency authorization, the applicant shall comply with the more restrictive requirement. Applicants may not use any State land or water without Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authorization. APPEAL: This final consistency response is a final administrative order and decision under the ACMP and for purposes of Alaska Appellate Rules 601-612. Any appeal from this decision to the superior court of Alaska must be made within thirty (30) days of the date this response is issued. FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 4 ENFORCEMENT: Pursuant to 11 AAC 110.260(e) and 110.445(e), if after receiving this final consistency response, the applicant fails to implement an adopted alternative measure, or if the applicant undertakes a project modification not incorporated into the final response and not reviewed under 11 AAC 110.800-11 AAC 110.820, the State resource agency may take enforcement action according to the resource agency’s statutory and regulatory authorities, priorities, available resources, and preferred methods. ADVISORIES: Please be advised that although DCOM concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP, you are still required to meet all applicable State and federal laws and regulations. This consistency finding may include reference to specific laws and regulations, but this in no way precludes your responsibility to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. If the proposed activities reveal cultural or paleontological resources, please stop any work that would disturb such resources and immediately contact the State Historic Preservation Office (907-269-8720) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (907-753-2712) so that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may proceed. Final Consistency Response Prepared By: Ashley Kalli, Project Review Coordinator Division of Coastal and Ocean Management 550 W. 7™ Ave., Suite 705 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-7475 Abt all. [signature] 3/31/too4 [date] FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 5 ACMP CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Pursuant to the following evaluation, the project as proposed is consistent with applicable ACMP statewide and affected coastal resource district enforceable policies (copies of the policies are available on the ACMP web site at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us) STATEWIDE STANDARDS 11 AAC 112.200. Coastal development a) In planning for and approving development in or adjacent to coastal waters, districts and state agencies shall manage coastal land and water uses in such a manner that those uses that are economically or physically dependent on a coastal location are given higher priority when compared to uses that do not economically or physically require a coastal location. b) Districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities that are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no practicable inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity Evaluation: a) N/A. This project is not located in or adjacent to coastal waters. b) N/A. This project is not located in or adjacent to coastal waters. c) DCOM defers to USACE to interpret compliance with the referenced standards. 11 AAC 112.210. Natural hazard areas Evaluation: The project is located in a designated natural hazard area for permafrost. The wind turbine facilities are designed by licensed professional engineers. The applicant has taken appropriate measures to protect public safety, services, and the environment from potential damage caused by melting permafrost by incorporating thermosyphons, which would freeze the active layer after the towers are installed. 11 AAC 112.220. Coastal access Evaluation: The wind turbines would not be located directly adjacent to coastal waters or coastal access routes and therefore would not affect coastal access. 11 AAC 112.230. Energy facilities Evaluation: 1) The facility would minimize environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements because it is located away from anadromous fish streams and cultural sites and the wind resource is good at this site. Wetlands are impacted by the project; however, most locations in Mekoryuk are wetlands and finding an area with no wetlands is difficult. The community supports the use of this area for turbines. 2) The facility would be sited so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs. The wind turbines have been located away from homes and between the wastewater lagoon and drinking water impoundment. The community has reserved the area for wind turbines. 3) The project consolidates facilities by locating the wind turbines adjacent to existing power lines. The wind turbines could not be consolidated at the existing power plant because of concems for wildlife and because of community preference. 4) Concurrent use of facilities is not practical for this project because wind turbines must be located away from any structure which would impede wind flow. In addition, wind turbines must be located away from the airport for safety reasons. 5)_The applicant has cooperated with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 6 of the wind turbine facilities. The location of the wind turbines was selected together with the community, including the City of Mekoryuk, the Native Village of Mekoryuk, and the NIMA Corporation. Agencies including the USFWS, USACE, and ADFG have been contacted as part of the NEPA process. 6) The site has sufficient acreage for expansion of facilities because each turbine requires 0.16 acre, and 25 acres have been reserved. 7) The facility is sited where existing infrastructure is capable of satisfying industrial requirements because the existing road adjacent to the project area is capable of providing what is needed to construct, operate, and maintain the facility. 8) This project does not involve harbors and shipping routes other than the initial barging of materials. 9) The project does not involve vessels other than the initial barging of materials. 10) The site would require minimal site clearing and no dredging. No overburden removal would be necessary. 11) This project does not involve facilities that rely on shipping routes. 12) The project would not be located in or near a waterbody and therefore would not interfere with fish movement. The project would not be fenced or otherwise create a barrier to terrestrial wildlife. The USFWS found that the project would minimize impacts to birds protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 because black brant, shorebirds, and steller’s and spectacled eiders usually fly along the coastline, and the project site is 1,200 feet inland. Also eiders usually fly at an altitude below 30 feet, which is below the rotor swept area of the turbine blades. During a 2004 study in the tundra habitat where the turbines would be located, 11 birds per hour were observed. Most of the birds were geese and passerines. Nine percent of the birds in the tundra habitat flew through the wind-swept area of the proposed turbine blades. The project location initially proposed was in town close to the shoreline of Shoal Bay. Because of the potential for bird strikes at that location, the site was changed to its current location. 13) The project is not located in any areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value identified in the Cenaliulriit district plan. 14) The wind turbine facilities would not have the risk of effluent or spills. 15) The wind turbine facilities would not have risk of airborne emissions. 16) There would not be associated vessel operations or activities. 11 AAC 112.240. Utility routes and facilities Evaluation: The wind turbine facility would connect directly to the over head electric transmission lines on the north side of the road. The turbine power lines would connect directly to the power lines at the pole nearest to the pad. Therefore no additional utility route or facility would be needed. = 11 AAC 112.250. Timber harvest and processing Evaluation: This project would not involve timber harvest or processing. 11 AAC 112.260. Sand and gravel extraction Evaluation: This project would not involve sand or gravel extraction. 11 AAC 112.270. Subsistence Evaluation: The project is not located in a designated subsistence use area. The applicant reported that berry picking may occur in the area. 11 AAC 112.280. Transportation routes and facilities Evaluation: The project does not include transportation routes or facilities. 11 AAC 112.300. Habitats The Habitat Standard requires that habitats in the coastal area be managed so as to avoid, minimize, or FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE a mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat. In addition, wetlands must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns. Evaluation: The project would impact 0.33 acres of wetlands. Complete avoidance of wetlands is not possible because most of Mekoryuk is wetlands. It is difficult to find a location in the Mekoryuk area that would not impact wetlands and would provide an optimal location for harnessing wind energy. The access road footprints have been minimized by limiting the access road to one lane (20 feet wide). Also the road lengths have been minimized to 100 feet long for the north access road and 200 feet long for the south. The turbines must be constructed a safe distance away from the power lines and Airport Access Road to avoid impacting them if the towers fall. Furthermore, the towers must be spaced far enough away from each other to minimize wind interference and optimize the power harnessed from available wind. The proposed access roads are the minimum distance to ensure that the power lines and road are safe. The area slopes toward the ocean (north-south) and there is minimal movement east-west. Impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns would be minimized because the natural vegetation and soil would be left in place, with the gravel pads and roads constructed on top of a layer of non-woven geotextile fabric. 11 AAC 112.310. Air, land, and water quality. Evaluation: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes and regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality identified in AS 46.40.040(b) are incorporated into the program and, as administered by that department, constitute the exclusive components of the program with respect to those purposes. (Eff. 7/1/2004, Register 170) 11 AAC 112.320. Historic, prehistoric, and archeological resources. Evaluation: Comments from the district and the State did not identify the proposed project location as an area which is important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory. The applicant has been advised to contact DNR/SHPO and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska State Troopers should a site of cultural or historical significance be suspected or revealed and to stop any work that would disturb any resources. AFFECTED COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT ENFORCEABLE POLICIES The coastal resource service area did not identify any affected district enforceable policies. FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 8 Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 907.929.5960 December 15, 2008 Christine Ballard Project Review Assistant Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Coastal and Ocean Management 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 705 Anchorage, AK 99501-3559 Regarding: AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Tubines Project Dear Ms. Ballard: As we’ve discussed by email, the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is proposing to install two wind turbines in Mekoryuk, Alaska. The project would benefit the community by stabilizing energy costs and decreasing the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels. AVEC is interested in constructing this project during the summer of 2009, pending permitting approvals and funding. A detailed project description is attached. The project would occur in the Cenaliutriit Coastal Resource Service Area. The Coastal Project Questionnaire and Enforceable Policies Consistency Determination are attached along with a detailed project description and figures. A copy of the Department of Army Permit Application and Applicant Proposed Mitigation Statements sent to the Army Corps of Engineers is also attached. Please feel free to contact me at 929-5960 or robin@solsticeak.com with any questions regarding the project. Sincerely, Solstice Environmental Consulting Keri Robin Reich Owner Copies: Matt Metcalf, AVEC Project Manager; Scott Thompson, Coffman Engineers Project Manager Enclosures: As stated Bus ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE CONCURRENCE DATE IssuED: MARCH 31, 2009 PROJECT TITLE: MEKORYUK WIND TURBINES STATE Ip. No. AK 0902-10AA AFFECTED COASTAL RESOURCE DistRICT: CENALIULRUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project subject to this consistency review is the construction of a wind turbine facility in the community of Mekoryuk. The project would begin in summer 2009 and end in summer 2010. Two 100’ tall, 100 kilowatt “Northwind 100” wind turbines would be installed, one on the north side and one on the south side of Airport Road between the water reservoir and sewage lagoon. Each turbine would sit on a gravel pad accessed by a one-lane gravel road. The turbine power lines would connect directly to the existing overhead electric transmission lines on the north side of the road by connecting to the pole nearest to each pad. AVEC expects power from the turbines to displace up to 50% of the energy normally generated by the diesel power plant, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water plant. This would save approximately 29,368 gallons of diesel fuel per year, which at 2008 costs would save $131,148 per year. The wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. The rotor diameter would be 65’ and the bottom of the rotor would be approximately 70’ above the ground. The footprint of the gravel pads for the turbines would be 68’x68’ each and the top of each pad would be 50°x50’, with 3:1 sideslopes. The wind turbines would be mounted to hexagonal pile-supported platforms 30’ in diameter. The six 24” diameter steel pipe piles supporting the platform would be driven to bedrock at a depth of 38’-43’. Next to each piling, a 2” diameter thermosyphon would be installed. The gravel pads would consist of a layer of geotextile material on top of the ground surface, 2” of insulation, and 3’ of fill. Fill would come from an existing permitted site. The northern access road would be 100” long and the southern access road would be 200’ long. The footprint of each road would be 38’ wide, and the top width of each road would be 20°, with 3:1 side slopes. For construction, brush and boulders would be removed but the organic mat would remain in place. Holes would be filled with sand. A nonwoven geotextile material would be placed on top of the ground, and then fill placed on top of the geotextile material. The fill - would be approximately 3’ deep. A total of 2,220 cubic yards of fill would be placed in 0.46 acres of wetlands for the access roads and gravel pads. AVEC reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the project would have no impact on Endangered Species Act listed birds because the turbines would be located more than FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 3 1,200’ from the coastline where the birds usually fly, and because the birds usually fly at an altitude below 30’, which is below the rotor swept area of the turbine blades. Score OF THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO REVIEW: Except for the water quality issues addressed through the DEC 401 Certification process, the scope of the project to be reviewed is the wind turbine facility including the two turbines with 65’ diameter rotors on 100’ tall tubular towers, the 100°x38’ and 200°x38" gravel access roads, and the two 68'x68” gravel pads. The location is on the north and south sides of Airport Road between the water reservoir and the sewage lagoon in the community of Mekoryuk, within section 6, Township 3 North, Range 97 West, Seward Meridian, within the Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area. CONSISTENCY STATEMENT: DCOM concurs with the consistency certification submitted by Solstice Environmental Consulting on behalf of AVEC. AUTHORIZATIONS: State agencies shall issue the following authorizations within five days after DCOM issues the final consistency response that concurs with the applicant’s consistency certification, unless the resource agency considers additional time to be necessary to fulfill its Statutory or regulatory authority. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit No. POA-2008-1618 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will review any activities subject to DEC permits, certifications, approvals, and authorizations for consistency with 11 AAC 112.310. The issuance of the permits, certifications, approvals, and authorizations by DEC establishes consistency with 11 AAC 112.310 for those specific activities. Please note that, in addition to their consistency review, State agencies with permitting responsibilities will evaluate this proposed project according to their specific permitting authorities. Agencies will issue permits and authorizations only if they find the proposed project complies with their statutes and regulations in addition to being consistent with the coastal program. An agency may deny a permit or authorization even though the ACMP concurs with your consistency certification. Authorities outside the ACMP may result in additional permivlease conditions. If a requirement set out in the project description (per 11 AAC 110.260) is more or less restrictive than a similar requirement in a resource agency authorization, the applicant shall comply with the more restrictive requirement. Applicants may not use any State land or water without Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authorization. APPEAL: This final consistency response is a final administrative order and decision under the ACMP and for purposes of Alaska Appellate Rules 601-612. Any appeal from this decision to the superior court of Alaska must be made within thirty (30) days of the date this response is issued. FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE. 4 ENFORCEMENT: Pursuant to 11 AAC 110.260(e) and 110.445(e), if after receiving this final consistency response, the applicant fails to implement an adopted alternative measure, or if the applicant undertakes a project modification not incorporated into the final response and not teviewed under 11 AAC 110.800-11 AAC 110.820, the State resource agency may take enforcement action according to the resource agency's statutory and regulatory authorities, priorities, available resources, and preferred methods. ADVISORIES: Please be advised that although DCOM concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP, you are still required to meet all applicable State and federal laws and regulations. This consistency finding may include reference to specific laws and regulations, but this in no way precludes your responsibility to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. If the proposed activities reveal cultural or paleontological resources, please stop any work that would disturb such resources and immediately contact the State Historic Preservation Office (907-269-8720) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (907-753-2712) so that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may proceed. Final Consistency Response Prepared By: Ashley Kalli, Project Review Coordinator Division of Coastal and Ocean Management 550 W. 7 Ave., Suite 705 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-7475 Atlitn, Fall: [signature] t/31/tooy [date] FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE s ih ACMP ConsIsTENcy EVALUATION Pursuant to the following evaluation, the project as proposed is consistent with applicable ACMP statewide and affected coastal resource district enforceable policies (copies of the policies are available on the ACMP web site at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us) STATEWIDE STANDARDS 11 AAC 112.200. Coastal development a) In planning for and approving development in or adjacent to coastal waters, districts and state agencies shall manage coastal land and water uses in such a manner that those uses that are economically or physically dependent on a coastal location are given higher priority when compared to uses that do not economically or physically require a coastal location. b) Districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities that are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no practicable inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity Evaluation: a) N/A. This project is not located in or adjacent to coastal waters. b) N/A. This project is not located in or adjacent to coastal waters. | ¢) DCOM defers to USACE to interpret compliance with the referenced standards. 11 AAC 112.210. Natural hazard areas Evaluation: The project is located in a designated natural hazard area for permafrost. The wind turbine facilities are designed by licensed professional engineers. The applicant has taken appropriate measures to protect public safety, services, and the environment from potential damage caused by melting permafrost by | anal incorporating which would freeze the active layer after the towers are installed. 11 AAC 112.220. Coastal access Evaluation: The wind turbines would not be located directly adjacent to coastal waters or coastal access routes and therefore would not affect coastal access. 11 AAC 112.230, Energy facilities Evaluation: 1) The facility would minimize environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements because it is located away from anadromous fish streams and cultural sites and the wind resource is good at this site. Wetlands are impacted by the project; however, most locations in Mekoryuk are wetlands and finding an area with no wetlands is difficult. The community supports the use of this area for turbines. 2) The facility would be sited so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs. The wind turbines have been located away from homes and between the wastewater lagoon and drinking water impoundment. The community has reserved the area for wind turbines. 3) The project consolidates facilities by locating the wind turbines adjacent to existing power lines. The wind turbines could not be consolidated at the existing power plant because of concems for wildlife and because of community preference. 4) Concurrent use of facilities is not practical for this project because wind turbines must be located away from any structure which would impede wind flow. In addition, wind turbines must be located away from the airport for safety reasons. 5)_The applicant has cooperated with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 6 of the wind turbine facilities. The location of the wind turbines was selected together with the community, including the City of Mekoryuk, the Native Village of Mekoryuk, and the NIMA Corporation. Agencies including the USFWS, USACE, and ADFG have been contacted as part of the NEPA process. 6) The site has sufficient acreage for expansion of facilities because each turbine requires 0.16 acre, and 25 acres have been reserved. 7) The facility is sited where existing infrastructure is capable of satisfying industrial requirements because the existing road adjacent to the project area is capable of providing what is needed to construct, operafe, and maintain the facility. 8) This project does not involve harbors and shipping routes other than the initial barging of materials. 9) The project does not involve vessels other than the initial barging of materials. 10) The site would require minimal site clearing and no dredging. No overburden removal would be necessary. 11) This project does not involve facilities that rely on shipping routes. 12) The project would not be located in or near a waterbody and therefore would not interfere with fish movement. The project would not be fenced or otherwise create a barrier to terrestrial wildlife. The USFWS found that the project would minimize impacts to birds protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 because black brant, shorebirds, and steller's and spectacled eiders usually fly along the coastline, and the project site is 1,200 feet inland. Also ciders usually fly at an altitude below 30 feet, which is below the rotor swept area of the turbine blades. During a 2004 study in the tundra habitat where the turbines would be located, 11 birds per hour were observed. Most of the birds were geese and passerines. Nine percent of the birds in the tundra habitat flew through the wind-swept area of the proposed turbine blades. The project location initially proposed was in town close to the shoreline of Shoal Bay. Because of the potential for bird strikes at that location, the site was changed to its current location. 13) The project is not located in any areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value identified in the Cenaliulniit district plan. 14) The wind turbine facilities would not have the risk of effluent or spills. 15) The wind turbine facilities would not have risk of airborne emissions. | 16) There would not be associated vessel operations or activities. | 11 AAC 112.240. Utility routes and facilities Evaluation: The wind turbine facility would connect directly to the over head electric transmission lines on the north | side of the road. The turbine power lines would connect directly to the power lines at the pole nearest to the pad. Therefore no additional utility route or facility would be needed. 11 AAC 112.250. Timber harvest and processing Evaluation: This project would not involve timber harvest or processing. | 11 AAC 112.260. Sand and gravel extraction Evaluation: This project would not involve sand or gravel extraction. | 11 AAC 112.270. Subsistence Evaluation: The project is not located in a designated subsistence use area. The applicant reported that berry picking may occur in the area. _| 11 AAC 112.280. Transportation routes and facilities Evaluation: | The project does not include transportation routes or facilities. 11 AAC 112.300. Habitats ‘The Habitat Standard requires that habitats in the coastal area be managed so as to avoid, minimize, or FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 7 mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat. In addition, wetlands must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns. Evaluation: The project would impact 0.33 acres of wetlands. Complete avoidance of wetlands is not possible because most of Mekoryuk is wetlands. It is difficult to find a location in the Mekoryuk area that would not impact wetlands and would provide an optimal location for harnessing wind energy. The access road footprints have been minimized by limiting the access road to one lane (20 feet wide). Also the road lengths have been minimized to 100 feet long for the north access road and 200 feet long for the south. ‘The turbines must be constructed a safe distance away from the power lines and Airport Access Road to avoid impacting them if the towers fall. Furthermore, the towers must be spaced far enough away from each other to minimize wind interference and optimize the power harnessed from available wind. The proposed access roads are the minimum distance to ensure that the power lines and road are safe. The area slopes toward the ocean (north-south) and there is minimal movement east-west. Impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns would be minimized because the natural vegetation and soil would be left in place, with the gravel pads and roads constructed on top of a layer of non-woven geotextile fabric. 11 AAC 112.310. Air, land, and water quality. Evaluation: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes and regulations of the ot Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality identified in AS 46.40.040(b) are incorporated into the program and, as administered by that department, constitute the exclusive components of the program with respect to those purposes. (Eff. 7/1/2004, Register 170) 11 AAC 112.320, Historic, prehistoric, and archeological resources. | and to stop any work that would disturb any resources. | AFFECTED COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT ENFORCEABLE POLICIES Evaluation: Comments from the district and the State did not identify the proposed project location as an | area which is important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory. The applicant has been advised to contact DNR/SHPO and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska State Troopers should a site of cultural or historical significance be suspected or revealed The coastal resource service area did not identify any affected district enforceable policies. FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE 8 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement The Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) is a diagnostic tool that will identify the state and federal permit requirements for your project that are subject to a consistency review. You must answer all questions. If you answer “Yes” to any of the questions. please call that specific department for further instructions to avoid delay in processing your application. You can find an agency contact list online at http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Contacts/PRCregcont.htm!. A complete project packet includes accurate maps and plan drawings at scales large enough to show details, copies of your state and federal permit applications, your answers to this questionnaire, and a complete consistency evaluation. DCOM will notify you within 21 days of receipt if the packet is incomplete and what information is still required. For additional information or assistance, you may call or email the Juneau Project Review at (907) 465-2142, or the Anchorage Project Review at (907) 269-7478. This CPQ document contains numerous hyperlinks (underlined text that has a connection to an internet web page) and is best viewed on-line. Additional instructions are available at http://www.alaskacoast state.ak.us/Projects/pepg.html @ APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Brent Petrie 2. Robin Reich, Solstice Environmental Consulting Name of Applicant Agent (or responsible party if other than applicant) 4831 Eagle Street 11760 Woodbourne Drive Address Address Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Anchorage, Alaska 99516 City/State/Zip City/State/Zip 907.565.5531 907.929.5960 Daytime Phone Daytime Phone 907.562.4086 bpetrie@avec.org 907.929.5960 robin@solsticeak.com Fax Number — E-mail Address Fax Number —_ E-mail Address @ PROJECT INFORMATION Yes No 1. This activity is a: KX] new project [] modification or addition to an existing project 2. If this is a modification or an addition, do you currently have any State, federal or local approvals for this activity? X NOTE: Approval means any form of authorization. If "yes," please list below: Approval Type Approval # Issuance Date Expiration Date 3. If this is a modification, was this original project reviewed for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management WP gaean co cenncscc snc edece ence ccc cncoseecencencnescptvercvcesccnc cance nseceeseon ene cuseCeusccuseedecsvasecoececcverersteseseoesseesceessscsdecersiaseenestesereeaece & Previous ACMP I.D. Number: (example: AK 0706-05AA or 1D2004-0505JJ) Previous Project Name: Previous Project Applicant: @ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Attach a complete and detailed narrative description of your new project or of your modification/addition including ALL associated facilities and changes to the current land or water use (if not already attached as part of an agency application). Clearly delineate the project boundaries and all property owners, including owners of adjacent land, on the site plan. The CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 1 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management scale of the maps and plan drawings must be large enough to show pertinent details. Identify your proposed footprint or disturbed area. If this project is a modification to an approved project, identify existing facilities and proposed changes on the site plan. Proposed starting date for project: Summer 2009 Proposed ending date for project: Summer 2010 @ PROJECT LOCATION and LAND OWNERSHIP Yes No 4. Describe/identify the project location on a map (Including nearest community, the name of the nearest land feature or body of water, and other legal description such as a survey or lot number.). Township 3N_ Range 97W_ Section6_ Meridian Seward Latitude/Longitude 60° 23' 13.3542"/166° 11' 46.8816" (specify Decimal Degrees or Degrees, Minutes, Seconds) USGS Quad Map Nunivak Island B-4 5. The project is located on: [[) State land or water* Federal land {J Private land [XJ Municipal land (Check all that apply) Mental Health Trust land University of Alaska land Contact the applicable landowner(s) to obtain necessary authorization. State land ownership can be verified using Alaska Mapper. *State land can be uplands, tidelands or submerged lands to 3 miles offshore. 6. Is the project within or associated with the Trans Alaska Pipeline Corridor? ............ss:ss:sssssssessesssesseessesssessescssesseceneersesnesese & ®@ COASTAL DISTRICT Yes No 7. Is the project located in a coastal district? ............sescsesssesssesseessessseesseesseconccsscsnecenecncenscasesueesuseasessssasssnseaessecanecsuesatessneeaeesse & If yes, identify the applicable coastal district(s) Cenaliutriit Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) and contact them to ensure your project conforms with district policies and zoning requirements. Coastal districts are a municipality or borough, home rule or first class city, second class municipality with planning powers, or coastal resource service area. A coastal district is a participant in the State's consistency review process. Early interaction with the district can benefit you significantly; please contact the district representative listed on the contact list at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak. us/Contacts/PRCregcont.himl @ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) APPROVALS DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- LAND SECTION Yes No 1. Is the proposed project on State-owned land or water or will you need to cross State-owned land for access? (NOTE: State land includes the land below the ordinary high water line of navigable streams, rivers and lakes, and in marine waters, below the mean high tide line seaward for three miles. State land does not include Alaska Mental Health Trust LE CaiNCA Or aves Veer Si ys Of 7A cae Ras CANCA J eee a ne ee ee ee eee & 2. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Di on of Mining. Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ..............sseccessecsesessesssssessessesnesseeeseseseeneeneeneesesneaeaseneeneneeeceatenses c) If““YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If“ xplain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- MATERIALS SECTION Yes No 3. Do you plan to dredge or otherwise excavate or remove materials such as rock, sand, gravel, peat, or overburden from any land regardless of ownership? .............cssssssssscsssccccsssccsssssccssssscecsenseecessusscesssuseccessuecesueceessueecesssccessnseessssuecesssnecessssneeessase &) a) Location of excavation site if different than the project site: Township Range Section Meridian 4. At any one site (regardless of land ownership), do you plan any of the following? ..............c:scssssssessessnecseeenessseseseeeneesneees & Excavate five or more acres over a year’s time Excavate 50,000 cubic yards or more of materials (rock, sand, gravel, soil, peat, overburden, etc.) over a year’s time Have a cumulative, un-reclaimed, excavated area of five or more acres 5. Do you plan to place fill or excavated material on State-owned land? ...........ecsccsecseesessesseeseesessescsesseesecsessesseesessessesaeeaeeses &® a) Location of fill or material disposal site if different than the project site: Township Range Section Meridian CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 2 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 6. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining, Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ............:::sesesseseseeseseessseeseseeenesnees c) If“ YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If“N isn’t required. Explanation: , explain why an application DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- MINING SECTION 7. Do you plan to mine for locatable minerals such as silver, gold, or copper? 8. Do you plan to explore for or extract coal? _ 9. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining. Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ... c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If“N isn’t required. Explanation: DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- WATER SECTION 10. Will this project or development divert, impound, withdraw, or use any fresh water (regardless of land ownership)? (NOTE: If you know of other water users who withdraw from the same source or any potential conflicts affecting this use of water, contact the Water Section. If you are obtaining water exclusively from either an existing Public Water Supply or from a rainwater catchment system, you are not required to contact the DNR Water Section regional office.) . a) Check all points-of-withdrawal or water sources that apply: Public Water system (name): Stream or Lake (name): Well Rain catchment system Other: b) Intended use(s) of water: c) Amount (maximum daily, not average, in gallons per day d) Is the point of water withdrawal on property you own? .. 11. Do you plan to build or alter a dam (regardless of land ownership)? . 12. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ............:sscssessecsesseseseeseennees c) If“YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If“ isn’t required. Explanation: explain why an application jo”, explain why an application DNR DIVISION OF FORESTRY 13. Does your operation meet both of the following criteria on any land, regardless of ownership? a) The project will commercially harvest timber on 10 or more acres, or commercially harvest timber that intersects, encompasses, or borders on surface waters, and b) The project involves one or more of the following: site preparation, thinning, slash treatment, construction and maintenance of roads associated with a commercial timber harvest, or any other activity leading to or connected to a commercial timber harvest operation... co 14. If you answered yes to any question above, ‘indicate the person you contacted at the ‘appropriate Div ision nLof Fo ‘orestry regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ...........ccccecseseseesseeneeneenteneenses c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If isn’t required. Explanation: CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 3 of 19 0”, explain why an application Yes No Yes No State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management DNR DIVISION OF OIL & GAS Yes 15. a) Will you be exploring for or producing oil and/or gas? .............22..2.2200000 b) Will you conduct surface use activities on/within an oil and gas lease or unit? If yes, please specify: 16. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well (regardless of land ownership)? .................0600cece0eeeeee 17. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Oil & Gas office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .............00..cccceecceeceeeeeceeeeeeeeceeueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeses c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: Visit the Division of Oil & Gas website for application forms and additional information. WRF & DNR OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHAEOLOGY Yes No 18. Will you investigate, remove, or impact historical, archaeological or paleontological resources (anything over 50 years old) on State-owned land? ... 19. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the State H for information. a) Name/date of Contact: Consultation letter sent to Judith Bittner on November 17, 2008 DNR DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS Yes No 20. Is the proposed project located within a natural hazard area designated by a coastal district in the approved district plan? (Refer to the district plan or contact the coastal district Office.) 00... ...cceeeceeececeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeenaeeeaeeenaeeeteeeees & a) If “yes”, describe the measures you will take in the siting, design, construction, and operation of the proposed activity to protect public safety, services, and the environment from potential damage caused by the designated natural hazard(s) in the Natural Hazards portion of the attached Coastal Consistency Evaluation (11 AAC 112.210). 21. If you have contacted someone, please indicate the person you contacted at the Coastal District or the State for information. The Division of Geological & Geophysical Survey may have additional information on hazards for the area. a) Name/date of Contact: DNR DIVISION OF PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION Yes No 22. Is the proposed project located in a unit of the Alaska State Park System including navigable waters, tidelands or submerged lands to three miles offshore? ................ccseecseeeeeeeseeeeeeesueeeueeeeueeeeeeesaneeenees 23. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate DNR D: & Recreation office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ............... cee csecesseeceeeceeeceueeecueceeeeeeeueceuuecteeeeeeeee essen c) If“ YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If“No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DNR APPROVALS List the Department of Natural Resources permits or authorizations required for your project below: Types of project approvals or permits needed. Date application submitted @ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (DFG) APPROVALS Yes 1. Is your project located in a designated State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area or State Game Sanctuary? . 2. Does your project include construction/operation of a salmon hatchery? ...............000c0ccccceeeeeseetteeteteees WR 4 CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 4 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 3. Does your project affect, or is it related to, a previously permitted salmon hatchery? 4. Does your project include construction of an aquatic farm? ...................06.eeeeee 5. Will you work in, remove water or material from, or place anything in, a stream, river or lake? (NOTE: This includes work or activities below the ordinary high water mark or on ice, in the active flood plain, on islands, in or on the face of the banks, or, for streams entering or flowing through tidelands, above the level of mean lower low tide. If the proposed project is located within a special flood hazard area, a municipal floodplain development permit may be required. Contact the affected city or borough planning department for additional information and a floodplain Mdaterminiatior) | stl dt elt detect teed chaesentel eh detdadsndeldebshtebedataclatdenditsesehsestetidersbsabsltsidehdersetdcedste & a) If yes, name of waterbody: 6. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Department of Fish and Game office for information. (For projects involving Hatcheries or Aquatic Farms, please contact the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Other projects should contact the Division of Habitat.) a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ...........0...... cee ceec ee eecece cee eeeceeueeeeeceesee eee eeeeeeueeeeeaua eee c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: ww DFG APPROVALS List the Department of Fish and Game permits or authorizations required for your project below: Types of project approvals or permits needed. Date application submitted + @ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) APPROVALS DEC DIVISION OF WATER Yes No 1 a) Will a discharge of non-domestic wastewater to lands, waters, or the subsurface of the state occur? (NOTE: Non- domestic wastewater includes wastewater from commercial or industrial facilities, excavation projects, wastewater from man-made containers or containment areas, or any other non-domestic wastewater disposal activities see 18 AAG 72.990 fOr de QrahOnes) eis ota svonsss sa susse sins ses suse wanes use ts secwasus vaseeases eucwa tones tesa cers sb esaceeraseewecuamee oe yet b) Will a discharge of domestic wastewater or septage to lands, waters or the subsurface of the state occur? (see 18 AAC 72.990 for definitions.) . c) Will the wastewater disposal activity require a mixing zone or zone of deposit to meet Water Quality Standards (WQS)? (Many disposal activities require a mixing zone to meet WQS, contact DEC if unsure.) ............0.6.e cee eeees d) Will the project include a stormwater collection/discharge system? e) Will the project include placing fill in wetlands? ...............0006 f) Is the surrounding area inundated with water at any time of the year? g) Do you intend to construct, install, modify or use any part of a domestic or non-domestic wastewater treatment or GISDOSANSWSEOM? | taste tell enm sack senesced tals don adie enanrate lass ereetal alent seat aah aouhiatsueaals autedad es seleaatecieaend es tah dal 2. Does your project qualify for a general permit for wastewater? ..........0.cccceseeeeeeees 3. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the [ information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ................ceceseeeceeceeeceeeecee eee neeceaeeeeaaeeeaneceeeeesae cree esse ® c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: A 401 Water Quality Certification will be needed. This permitting process will occur in conjunction with the Corps’ wetland permitting process. Xe WOKK Ww W ion of Water for CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 5 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management DEC DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 4 a) Will your project result in construction, modification, or operation of a facility for solid waste disposal? (NOTE: Solid waste means drilling wastes, household garbage, refuse, sludge, construction or demolition wastes, industrial solid waste, asbestos, and other discarded, abandoned, or unwanted solid or semi-solid material, whether or not subject to decomposition, originating from any source. Disposal means placement of solid waste on land.) .......... b) Will your project result in treatment of solid waste at the site? (Examples of treatment methods include, but are not limited to: incineration, open burning, baling, and composting.) ........ c) Will your project result in storage or transfer of solid waste at the site? d) Will the project result in storage of more than 50 tons of materials for reuse, recycling, or resource recovery? . e) Will any sewage solids or biosolids be disposed of or land-applied to the site? (NOTE: Sewage solids include wastes that have been removed from a wastewater treatment plant system, such as a septic tank lagoon dredge, or wastewater treatment sludge that contain no free liquids. Biosolids are the solid, semi- solid or liquid residues produced during the treatment of domestic septage in a treatment works which are land applied for beneficial use.) .. 5. Will your project require application of oil, pesticides, and/or any other broadcast chemicals? ...........0......00000eeee 6. Does your project qualify for a general permit for solid Waste? «2.0.0.0... 7. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the D Health for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ...............ccecceeeeceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeteeeeteseeaeeeen c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: vironmental DEC DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 8 a) Will you have an asphalt plant designed to process no less than five tons per hour of product? ..................0000000 b) Will you have a thermal remediation unit with a rated capacity of at least five tons per hours of untreated material? .. c) Will you have a rock crusher with a rated capacity of at least five tons per hour? ............0..0.00. 0... ccc eee eee eeee eee eees d) Will you have one or more incinerators with a cumulative rated capacity of 1,000 pounds or more per hour? e) Will you have a coal preparation plant? ................. f) Will you have a Port of Anchorage stationary source? .. g) Will you have a facility with the potential to emit no less than 100 tons per year of any regulated air contaminant?..... h) Will you have a facility with the potential to emit no less than 10 tons per year of any hazardous air contaminant or i) Will you be constructing a new stationary source with a potential to emit greater th 15 tons per year (tpy) of PM-10 40 tpy of nitrogen oxides 40 tpy of sulfur dioxide 0.6 tpy of lead; or 100 tpy of CO within 10 km of a nonattainment area j) Will you be commencing construction, or (if not already authorized under 18 AAC 50) relocating a portable oil and gas operation? (answer “yes” unless you will comply with an existing operating permit developed for the portable oil and gas operation at the permitted location; or you will operate as allowed under AS 46.14.275 without an operating permit) k) Will you be commencing construction or (if not already authorized under 18 AAC 50) relocating an emission n unit with a rated capacity of 10 million Btu or more per hour in a sulfur dioxide special protection area established under 18 AAC 50.025? oo... cee cee cce cece cece eeeeseceeaeeeeeceeeeeeaeeaeeeeeseneeeesaeceeeeeeeseseeeeeereeseseneeeeeueeasesaeeausaeeeeees 1) Will you be commencing a physical change to or a change in the method of construction of an existing stationary source with a potential to emit an air pollutant greater than an amount listed in g) that will cause for that pollutant an emission increase (calculated at your discretion) as either an increase in potential to emit that is greater than: 10 tpy of PM-10 10 tpy of sulfur dioxide 10 tpy of nitrogen oxides; or 100 tpy of CO within 10 km of a nonattainment area; or CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 6 of 19 Yes XKeX Ww Xk Yes BK MhXNRNR Fs State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, ion of Coastal & Ocean Management actual emissions and a net emissions increase greater than: 10 tpy of PM-10 10 tpy of sulfur dioxide 10 tpy of nitrogen oxides; or 100 tpy of CO within 10 km of a nonattainment area m) Will you be commencing construction or making a major modification of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration stationary source under 18 AAC 50.306? & n) Will you be commencing construction or making a major modification of a nonattainment area major stationary source under 18 AAC 50.311? &X 0) Will you be commencing construction or reconstructing a major stationary source under 18 AAC 50.316, for hazardous air pollutants? Definition of Regulated Air Pollutants can be found at http://www.cpa.gov/ttn/oarpe/t5/memoranda/rapdef. pdf... eeeeeeeeecseseeeeseeteseeeeseeeeneee &® 9. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC- Division of Air Quality for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .................0cecceeeeeeeeeeeee eee c) If““YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DEC DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE Yes No 10 a) Will your project involve the operation of waterborne tank vessels or oil barges that carry crude or non crude oil as bulk cargo, or the transfer of oil or other petroleum products to or from such a vessel or a pipeline system? ............. Xi b) Will your project require or include onshore or offshore oil facilities with an effective aggregate storage capacity of greater than 5,000 barrels of crude oil or greater than 10,000 barrels of non-crude oil? ....... XK c) Will you operate facilities on land or water for exploration or production of hydrocarbons? & 11. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC-Division of Spill Prevention and Response office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is a plan required for the proposed activity? 00.2.0... ccc. eeceeceeececee cee eeeeeeeeeuaeeeeseeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeees c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed Oil Discharge Prevention & Contingency Plan to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DEC APPROVALS List the Department of Environmental Conservation permits or authorizations required for your project below: Types of plan approvals or permits needed Date application submitted @ FEDERAL APPROVALS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) Yes No 1. Will you discharge dredged and/or fill material or perform dredging activities in waters of the U.S? Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a Department of the Army permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). (Your application to the USACE would also serve as application for DEC Water Quality Certification.) .....0...600.ccsccceeeeeeeeceeeeeee eens & 2. Will you place fill or structures or perform work in waters of the U.S? Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that a Department of the Army permit be obtained for structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S. (33 U.S.C. 403) (Waters of the U.S. include marine waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, rivers, streams, lakes tributaries, and wetlands. If you are not certain whether your proposed project is located within a wetland, contact the USACE Regulatory Division to request a wetlands determination. For additional information about the Regulatory Program, visit www.poa.usace.army.mil/re. CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 7 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 3. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the US Army Corps of Engineers for information. a) Name/date of Contact: Julie McKim/November 24 and December 5, 2008 b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ................cecceeeeceeceeeeesueeeeeeececeueecaeseeeeeueesseeseeea essere c) If“YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: Copy of Department of Army Permit Application is attached. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) 4. Is the proposed project located on BLM land, or will you need to cross BLM land for access? .............000002.00eseeeeeee 5. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the Bureau of Land Management for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ................c.ccccceeeeceeceeceeceeeee see eesneeeeceeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeesees c) If““YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) 6 a) Do you plan to construct a bridge or causeway over tidal (ocean) waters, or navigable rivers, streams or lakes? . b) Does your project involve building an access to an island? ...............ccccccssseeeeceseeeeeceeeeeceseuueecseeeuaneeees c) Do you plan to site, construct, or operate a deepwater port? ......... 0.0... seeceeeeeeeecee eee eeeeneeees 7. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate U for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ..........00......ccccceeee ce eeeeeeueeeeesuueeeeeeeueeeeseeueeeeesuuuneeeeeee c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 8 a) Will the proposed project have a discharge to any waters? b) Will you dispose of sewage sludge? ................2..:00088 . c) Will construction of your project expose | or more acres of soil? (NOTE: This applies to the total amount of land disturbed, even if disturbance is distributed over more than one season, and also applies to areas that are part of a larger common plan of development or Sale.) .........cccccceeceeeceeeeeceeeeececeeeeccueeeeeeeueeeeeeeeneceuaeeeneeeeeeeeuaneseeae d) Is your project an industrial facility that will have stormwater discharge directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant? If you answered yes to c) or d), your project may require an NPDES Stormwater permit 9. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the US Environmental Protection Agency for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ................cccccseeeeeeeeceeceseeeeee eee eeeeeeeeseeeeeeceeeeeesseesaneees c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) 10 a) Is your project located within five miles of any public airport? . b) Will you have a waste discharge that is likely to decay within 5,000 feet of any public airport? 11. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the Federal Aviation for information. a) Name/date of Contact: Gabriel Mahns, FAA Airports Division Planner, December 4, 2008 CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 8 of 19 Yes No & Yes No w Yes No & & &X & & Yes No & X) State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) 12 a) Does the project include any of the following: 1) anon-federal hydroelectric project on any navigable body of water 2) locating a hydro project on federal land (including transmission lines) 3) using surplus water from any federal government dam for a hydro project b) Does the project include construction and operation, or abandonment of interstate natural gas pipeline facilities under seetions 7 (b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)? oo0ooo ooo. ccc. cc cee ccascoccosencenecocenstenceetsesoeeesceecoecsnee c) Does the project include construction and operation of natural gas or liquefied natural gas importation or exportation facilities under section 3 of the NGA? ...........sccsecsessecesseeseseesneeseeressessesseesesnesneeseeneness d) Does the project include construction for physical interconnection of electric transmission facilities under section 2020) OF ME EP AT eestor sea oeaend ase ioscr si Mital chet te suner oioie geese leaeitnaoMissdccouede estas 13. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Federal Energy Regulatory Commission office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ............ 00... eeeecee eee ceceeecee cece ecueceeeeceaeceeeecaueeeeecenuaeeeees c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) 14 a) Does the proposed project involve construction on USFS land? .................::005 b) Does the proposed project involve the crossing of USFS land with a water line? .. c) The current list of Forest Service permits that require ACMP consistency review are online at http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Clawhome/handbook/pdf/11_ AAC_110.pdf in Article 4, 11 AAC 110.400, pages 28-30. Does your proposed project include any of Forest Service authorizations found on pages 28-30 of the ACMP HandDOOK 7 io: fscn.corstosctnessiecites endesussesanurcUsuestenisasscensiesioontnctsicsaiseais snsisentacocsaen os ectnavansacce ssi ati 15. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at United States Forest S for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ...........0....00cceccceeseeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeceseeeeeeseeeesenseeeeseeesereess c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) 16 a) Is your proposed project on land managed by the USFWS? ...............0.0ccccesseeseee eee ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeseee eee eeeeeeeeeeees b) Does your project require a Right of Way from the USFWS under 50 C.F.R. 29 and 50 C.F.R 36? 17. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the US Fish and Wildlif information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ..............0000ccccssesesesseeeeeseteeteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeee tenes c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY APPROVALS 18 a) Other Federal agencies with authorizations reviewable under the Alaska Coastal Management Program are posted online at http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Clawhome/handbook/pdt/ 11 AAC _110.pdf in Article 4, 11 AAC 110.400, pages 28-30. Does your proposed project include any of the Federal agency authorizations found on pages 28-30 of the ACMP Handbook? b) If yes, which federal authorizations? CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 9 of 19 Yes ® & & Yes Ww 4 Yes WR F Yes No State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 19. Have you applied for any other federal permits or authorizations? .................cceeccseeeeeceeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeae eee eecuaeeuaes Agency Approval Type Date Submitted Note: The Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) identifies state and federal permits subject to a consistency review. You may need additional permits from other agencies or the affected city and borough government to proceed with your activity. Attach the documentation requested under the Project Description. ACMP Consistency Evaluation & Certification Statement Pursuant to 11 AAC 110.215 (a)(1\(c), the applicant shall submit an evaluation of how the proposed project is consistent with the statewide standards at 11 AAC 112.200 - 11 AAC 112.990 and with the applicable district enforceable policies, sufficient to support the consistency certification. Evaluate your project against each section of the state standards and applicable district enforceable policies using the template below or by submitting a narrative description in letter or report form. District enforceable policies are available on the ACMP website at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us. Definitions of key terms can be found at: 11 AAC 110.990, 11 AAC 112.990 and 11 AAC 114.990. If you need more space for an adequate explanation of any of the applicable standards, please attach additional pages to the end of this document. Be sure to include references to the specific sections and subsections that you are evaluating. STATEWIDE STANDARDS 11 AAC 112.200. Coastal Development Standard: (a) In planning for and approving development in or adjacent to coastal waters, districts and state agencies shall manage coastal land and water uses in such a manner that those uses that are economically or physically dependent on a coastal location are given higher priority when compared to uses that do not economically or physically require a coastal location. (b) Districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities that are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no practicable inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. (c) The placement of structures and the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal water must, at a minimum, comply with the standards contained in 33 CFR Parts 320 - 323, revised as of July 1, 2003. Evaluation: (a) H ow is your project economically or physically dependent on a coastal location? Why are you proposing to place the project at the selected location? The Mekoryuk Wind Turbines would be located approximately 0.25 miles away from the coastline. The wind turbine location was selected based on the wind resource at this site, agency comments, geological conditions, land availability, and community support. (b) Evaluation of development priority. (1) How is the proposed project water-dependent? The project is not water dependant, but it is not located on the coast. (2) How is the proposed project water-related? The project is not water dependant, but it is not located on the coast. (3) If the proposed project is neither water-dependent nor water-related, please explain why there is not a practicable inland alternative that meets the public need for the use or activity. The project is not located on the coast. (c) DCOM defers to the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE) to interpret compliance with the referenced standards. If you plan to discharge or fill waters of the US, have you applied to the Corps of Engineers for the CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 10 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management appropriate authorization? A_USACE (Department_of Army) Wetlands Permit application was submitted concurrently with this questionnaire. 11 AAC 112.210. Natural hazard areas. Standard: (a) In addition to those identified in 11 AAC 112.990, the department, or a district in a district plan, may designate other natural processes or adverse conditions that present a threat to life or property in the coastal area as natural hazards. Such designations must provide the scientific basis for designating the natural process or adverse condition as a natural hazard in the coastal area, along with supporting scientific evidence for the designation. (b) Areas likely to be affected by the occurrence of a natural hazard may be designated as natural hazard areas by a state agency or, under 11 AAC 114.250(b), by a district. (c) Development in a natural hazard area may not be found consistent unless the applicant has taken appropriate measures in the siting, design, construction, and operation of the proposed activity to protect public safety, services, and the environment from potential damage caused by known natural hazards. (d) For purposes of (c) of this section, "appropriate measures in the siting, design, construction, and operation of the proposed activity" means those measures that, in the judgment of the coordinating agency, in consultation with the department’s division of geological and geophysical surveys, the Department of Community and Economic Development as state coordinating agency for the National Flood Insurance Program under 44 C.F.R. 60.25, and other local and state agencies with expertise, (1) satisfy relevant codes and safety standards; or (2) in the absence of such codes and standards; (A) the project plans are approved by an engineer who is registered in the state and has engineering experience concerning the specific natural hazard; or (B) the level of risk presented by the design of the project is low and appropriately addressed by the project plans. Evaluation: (a) Describe the natural hazards designated in the district plan as they affect this site. According to the Cenaliutriit CRSA Coastal Management Plan (Section 4.5.2), all land based areas above high tide are a natural hazard area for permafrost and all offshore areas are nature hazard areas for ice. Since the Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Project would be approximately 0.25 miles from the shoreline, permafrost could be a natural hazard for the project. (b) Describe how the proposed project is designed to accommodate the designated hazards. How will you use site design and operate the proposed activity to protect public safety, services and the environment from potential damaged caused by known natural hazards? The wind turbines will be designed by licensed engineers who consider all natural hazards and the safety of the facility. (d)(1) Describe the measures you will take to meet relevant codes and safety standards in the siting, design, construction and operation of the proposed activity. (d)(2)(A) If your project is located in an area without codes and safety standards, how is your project engineered for the specific natural hazard? Give the name of the appropriately qualified registered engineer who will approve the plans for protecting public safety, services, and the environment from damage caused by hazards OR (d)(2)(B) If the level of risk presented by the design of the project is low, how do the project plans and project design address the potential natural hazard? The project area in underlain with permafrost; however, according to project engineers, it is not an issue in the design and implementation of the project. The design will incorporate thermosyphons, which will freeze the active layer after the towers are installed. Licensed professional engineers will design and certify that the project facilities will withstand permafrost and protect human safety. 11 AAC 112.220. Coastal access. Standard: Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. Evaluation: Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 11 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management Please explain how the proposed project will maintain and, where appropriate, increase public access to, from and along coastal water. The wind turbines would not be located near coastal waters and would not interrupt public access to or from coastal waters. 11 AAC 112.230. Energy facilities. Standard: (a) The siting and approval of major energy facilities by districts and state agencies must be based, to the extent practicable, on the following standards: (1) site facilities so as to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements; (2) site facilities so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs; (3) consolidate facilities; (4) consider the concurrent use of facilities for public or economic reasons; (5) cooperate with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development of facilities; (6) select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of facilities; (7) site facilities where existing infrastructure, including roads, docks, and airstrips, is capable of satisfying industrial requirements; (8) select harbors and shipping routes with least exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice, and other obstructions; (9) encourage the use of vessel traffic control and collision avoidance systems; (10) select sites where development will require minimal site clearing, dredging, and construction; (11) site facilities so as to minimize the probability, along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination that would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds, and other biologically productive or vulnerable habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nesting areas; (12) site facilities so that design and construction of those facilities and support infrastructures in coastal areas will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns; (13) site facilities so that areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value, identified in district plans, will be protected; (14) site facilities in areas of least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained; (15) site facilities where winds and air currents disperse airborne emissions that cannot be captured before escape into the atmosphere; (16) site facilities so that associated vessel operations or activities will not result in overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment. (b) The uses authorized by the issuance of state and federal leases, easements, contracts, rights-of-way, or permits for mineral and petroleum resource extraction are uses of state concern. Evaluation: (a) If this standard applies to your project, please describe in detail how the proposed project is designed to meet each applicable section of this standard: (1)_The wind turbine location was selected because the wind resource is good at this site, because land is available at this site, and because the community supported the use of this area for turbines. It is located away from anadromous fish streams and cultural sites. Wetlands would be impacted by the project; however, most locations in Mekoryuk are designated as wetland and finding an area with no wetlands is difficult. (2)_The wind turbines have been located away from homes and between the community wastewater lagoon and drinking water impoundment. The community has reserved the area for the wind turbines. (3)_Although the wind turbines could not be located at the power plant because comments from the USFWS and community preference, the turbines are located near and can easily tie into existing power lines. (4)_Wind turbines must be located away from any structure which would impede wind flow. In addition, it must be located away from the airport for safety reasons. The proposed location is best suited for the project. (5) The location of the wind turbines was selected together with the community, including the City of Mekoryuk, the Native Village of Mekoryuk, and the NIMA (Native) Corporation. Agencies, includin USFWS, USACE, and ADF&G, have been contacted as a part of the NEPA process. The USFWS stated that Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 12 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management other proposed locations could impact threatened bird species. (6) Each turbine requires approximately 0.16 acres, and approximately 25 acres have been reserved. Therefore, there would be sufficient room for future expansion of the facility. (7)_The road adjacent to the project area is capable of providing what is needed to construct and operate and maintain the facility. (8)_N/A-this project does not involve harbors or shipping routes. (9)_N/A-this project does not involve the use of vessels other than to barge the materials to Mekoryuk. (10)_The site selected for the wind turbines will require minimal clearing and no overburden removal. Construction of the pads will not require any dredging. (11)_N/A-this project does not involve facilities that rely on shipping routes. (12)_The wind turbines would not interrupt fish or wildlife migratory routes. The project would not be located in or near a waterbody and would not be fenced or create a barrier to wildlife movement. A bird study was conducted and found that the project would have minimal impact on birds in the area. (13)__The_wind turbine site was designated by the community. It does not include areas of scenic recreational, environmental, or cultural value. (14)_N/A-there would be no risk of spills from this facility. (15)_N/A-there would be no emissions from this facility. (16)_N/A-there would be no associated vessel operations with this facility. (b) List the authorizations for state and federal leases, easements, contracts, rights-of-way, water rights, or permits for mineral and petroleum resource extraction you have applied for or received. N/A-this project is not a mineral or petroleum extraction project. 11 AAC 112.240. Utility routes and facilities. Standard: (a) Utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless (1) the route or facility is water-dependent or water related; or (2) no practicable inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the route or facility. (b) Utility routes and facilities along the coast must avoid, minimize, or mitigate (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit; (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. Evaluation: (a) If the proposed utility route or facility is sited adjacent to beaches or shorelines, explain how the route or facility is water dependent water related or why no practical inland alternative exits. This project is not a utility route or facility. (b) If the proposed utility route or facility is sited along the coast, explain how you will avoid, minimize or mitigate: (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit; (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. 11 AAC 112.250. Timber harvest and processing. Standard: AS 41.17 (Forest Resources and Practices Act) and the regulations adopted under that chapter with respect to the harvest Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 13 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management and processing of timber are incorporated into the program and constitute the components of the program with respect to those purposes. Evaluation: Does your activity involve harvesting or processing of timber? Yes No X If yes, please explain how your proposed project meets the standards of the State Forest Resources and Practices Act. 11 AAC 112.260. Sand and gravel extraction. Standard: Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits if there is no practicable alternative to coastal extraction that will meet the public need for the sand or gravel. Evaluation: If your proposed project includes extracting sand or gravel from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands or spits, please explain why there is no practicable alternative to coastal extraction that meets the public need for sand or gravel. This project is not a sand or gravel extraction project. 11 AAC 112.270. Subsistence. Standard: (a) A project within a subsistence use area designated by the department or under 11 AAC 114.250(g) must avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources. (b) For a project within a subsistence use area designated under 11 AAC 114.250(g), the applicant shall submit an analysis or evaluation of reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the project on subsistence use as part of (1) a consistency review packet submitted under 11 AAC 110.215; and (2) aconsistency evaluation under 15 C.F.R. 930.39, 15 C.F.R. 930.58, or 15 C.F.R. 930.76. (c) Repealed 10/29//2004, Register 172. (d) Except in nonsubsistence areas identified under AS 16.05.258, the department may, after consultation with the appropriate district, federally recognized Indian tribes, Native corporations, and other appropriate persons or groups, designate areas in which a subsistence use is an important use of coastal resources as demonstrated by local usage. (e) For purposes of this section, "federally recognized Indian tribe," "local usage", and "Native corporation" have the meanings given in 11 AAC 114.990. Evaluation: (a) Is your proposed project located within a subsistence use area designated by a coastal district? Yes No X If yes, please describe how the proposed project is designed to “avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources:” (b) If your project is located in a subsistence use area designated by the coastal district, provide an analysis or evaluation of its reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts to the subsistence uses. (c) No response required. (d) If your project is not located in a designated subsistence use area, please describe any subsistence uses of coastal resources within the project area. Please be advised that subsistence use areas may be designated by the department during a review. Berry picking may occur in the area; however, only an area northwest of the project area has been delineated as a berry picking location on the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development community profile map of Mekoryuk. Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 14 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management (e) No response required. 11 AAC 112.280. Transportation routes and facilities. Standard: Transportation routes and facilities must avoid, minimize, or mitigate (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit; and (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. Evaluation: If your proposed project includes transportation routes or facilities, describe how it avoids, minimizes, or mitigates (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; This project is not a transportation route or facility. (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit; and (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. 11 AAC 112.300. Habitats. Standard: (a) Habitats in the coastal area that are subject to the program are (1) offshore areas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands; (4) tideflats; (5) rocky islands and sea cliffs; (6) barrier islands and lagoons; (7) exposed high-energy coasts; (8) rivers, streams, and lakes and the active floodplains and riparian management areas of those rivers, streams, and lakes; and (9) important habitat. (b) The following standards apply to the management of the habitats identified in (a) of this section: (1) offshore areas must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to competing uses such as commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing, to the extent that those uses are determined to be in competition with the proposed use; (2) estuaries must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to (A) adequate water flow and natural water circulation patterns; and (B) competing uses such as commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing, to the extent that those uses are determined to be in competition with the proposed use; (3) wetlands must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns; (4) tideflats must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to (A) water flow and natural drainage patterns; and (B) competing uses such as commercial, recreational, or subsistence uses, to the extent that those uses are determined to be in competition with the proposed use; (5) rocky islands and sea cliffs must be managed to (A) avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat used by coastal species; and (B) avoid the introduction of competing or destructive species and predators; (6) barrier islands and lagoons must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts (A) to flows of sediments and water; (B) from the alteration or redirection of wave energy or marine currents that would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion of barrier islands; and (C) from activities that would decrease the use of barrier islands by coastal species, including polar bears and nesting Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 15 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management birds; (7) exposed high-energy coasts must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts (A) to the mix and transport of sediments; and (B) from redirection of transport processes and wave energy; (8) rivers, streams, and lakes must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to (A) natural water flow; (B) active floodplains; and (C) natural vegetation within riparian management areas; and (9) important habitat (A) designated under 11 AAC 114.250(h) must be managed for the special productivity of the habitat in accordance with district enforceable policies adopted under 11 AAC 114.270(g); or (B) identified under (c)(1)(B) or (C) of this section must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to the special productivity of the habitat. (c) For purposes of this section, (1) "important habitat" means habitats listed in (a)(1) — (8) of this section and other habitats in the coastal area that are (A) designated under 11 AAC 114.250(h); (B) identified by the department as a habitat (i) the use of which has a direct and significant impact on coastal water; and (ii) that is shown by written scientific evidence to be biologically and significantly productive; or (C) identified as state game refuges, state game sanctuaries, state range areas, or fish and game critical habitat areas under AS 16.20; (2) "riparian management area” means the area along or around a waterbody within the following distances, measured from the outermost extent of the ordinary high water mark of the waterbody: (A) for the braided portions of a river or stream, 500 feet on either side of the waterbody; (B) for split channel portions of a river or stream, 200 feet on either side of the waterbody; (C) for single channel portions of a river or stream, 100 feet on either side of the waterbody; (D) for a lake, 100 feet of the waterbody. Evaluation: (a) List the habitats from (a) above that are within your proposed project area or that could be affected by your proposed project. Wetlands (b) Describe how the proposed project avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to each of the identified habitat(s) in section (a) above. According to 11 AAC 112.300, wetlands must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns. Avoidance: _Based_on_a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May 2008, the AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Towers Project would impact approximately 0.33 acres of wetlands. Complete avoidance of wetlands is not possible because most of the Mekoryuk area is wetlands. It is difficult to find a location in the Mekoryuk area that would not impact wetlands and would provide an optimal location for harnessing wind energy. The access _roads_and_ pads cannot _be moved to nearby upland areas. The upland areas are rock outcroppings that would require substantial excavation to remove before the road could be constructed. Other location alternatives were considered for the wind turbines. AVEC considered placing the wind turbines at a location near the existing AVEC power plant and bulk fuel storage facility and another location near the existing water reservoir. These alternative locations would have had similar impacts on wetlands to the proposed alternative. Based on comments from USFWS about the power plant location (the agency was concerned that the site was too close to the coast where Steller’s eiders and other bird species may be found) and geotechnical conditions near the reservoir, AVEC dismissed these locations and moved the Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 16 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management proposed turbine sites away from town and farther away from the coast line. Minimization: The access road footprints have been minimized by limiting the access road to one lane (20 ft wide). Also, the roads lengths have been minimized to 100 ft and 200 ft long for the north and south access roads, respectively. The turbines must be constructed a safe distance away from the power lines and Airport Access Road to avoid impacting them if the towers fall. Furthermore, the towers must be spaced far enough away from each other to minimize wind interference and optimize the power harnessed from available wind. The proposed access road lengths are the minimum distance to ensure that the power lines and road is safe and that there is no wind interference. Mitigation. Placement of culvert would not mitigate impacts to water flow or natural drainage patterns. According to a information gathered during a site visit, the area slopes towards the ocean (north and south) and there is minimal movement east/west. In addition, the road would have to be taller (and therefore wider) to_ accommodate culvert placement and would result_in_ more wetland _and_natural water flow impacts. (c) No response required. 11 AAC 112.310. Air, land and water quality Standard: Not withstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes and regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality identified in AS 46.40.040(b) are incorporated into the program and, as administered by that department, constitute the exclusive components of the program with respect to those purposes. Evaluation: No response required. 11 AAC 112.320. Historic, prehistoric, and archeological resources. Standard: (a) The department will designate areas of the coastal zone that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes. (b) A project within an area designated under (a) of this section shall comply with the applicable requirements of AS 41.35.010 — 41.35.240 and 11 AAC 16.010 — 11 AAC 16.900. Evaluation: (a) Have you contacted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to see if your project is in a designated area of the coastal zone that is important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes? According to the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database, no_historic properties would be affected by the project, since there are no sites near the proposed wind turbine sites. A National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 letter stating that no historic properties would be affected was sent to the SHPO on November 17, 2008. (b) If your project is within an area designated under (a) of this section, how will you comply with the applicable requirements in the statutes and regulations listed in (b)? Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 17 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management Cenaliutriit Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) Enforceable Policies Consistency Evaluation Enforceable Policy | Project Consistency C. Coastal Development C-1. Multiple Use a. Project applicants shall site, design, construct, and operate structures or dredged of fill material placed in coastal waters to minimize the need for duplicative coastal facilities. C-2. Optimum Shoreline Use a. The following water dependent uses shall be given priority consideration for waterfront use in the following order: Subsistence fishing sites, commercial fishing sites, and fishing gear storage. N/A This project does not involve any work in coastal waters. D. Natural Hazards D-1. Ice Hazards a. Project facilities shall not be located in areas subject to ice hazards unless there is no practicable alternative. b. This policy applies to all areas designated for natural ice hazards under 11 AAC 114.250(b) as described in Section 4.5.2. This project is not located in an area subject to ice hazards. G. Sand and Gravel Extraction G-2. Sand and Gravel Priority Siting a. Sand and gravel operations shall be located in areas using the following order of priority: 1) Sand and gravel from already disturbed areas where existing development has been abandoned, 2) Existing sand and gravel sources unless alternate sites would result in less impacts to habitat and subsistence uses, 3) New upland pits, 4) Rivers, streams and lakes that do not support fish, 5) Shoreline and offshore gravel sources, 6) Floodplain gravel sources N/A-This project is not a sand or gravel operation. Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 18 of 19 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Di ion of Coastal & Ocean Management Certification Statement The information contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that the proposed activity complies with, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the Alaska Coastal Management Program. fer 12/15/2008 Signature of Applicant or Agent Date Note: Federal agencies conducting an activity that will affect the coastal zone are required to submit a federal consistency determination, per 15 CFR 930, Subpart C, rather than this certification statement. ACMP has developed a guide to assist federal agencies with this requirement. Contact ACMP to obtain a copy. This certification statement will not be complete until all required State and federal authorization requests have been submitted to the appropriate agencies. Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 19 of 19 LL= 8 a 3 = 2 i 3 3 a 2 % & & e 3 3 s * & 800 F STREET SITE PLAN [2 J ven SCALE: 1” = 60’ GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD AND PAD IGN AVEC MEKORYUK DESIGI DRAWING No. WIND TOWERS JB NG IN EER S Ste Pion a FIGURE 800 F STREET one BH 2 of 3 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 907-276-6664 Fox 907-276-5042 12-03-2008 04234 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 4” SUBBASE C CLASSIFIED FILL 2% MIN ORGANIC MAT TO REMAIN NOTES: NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE, SEE NOTE 3 1. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE PREPARED BY REMOVAL OF STUMPS, BRUSH, BOULDERS, AND SHARP OBJECTS. ALL HOLES AND LARGE RUTS SHOULD BE FILLED WITH BEECH SAND. . CLASSIFIED FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, AS DETERMINED BY MODIFIED PROCTOR TESTING. FILL LIFTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12”. . GEOTEXTILE SHALL MEET ADOT&PF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 729-2.01 FOR STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE, AND BE PLACED ACCORDING TO ADOT SECTION 630, EXCEPT OVERLAP SEAMS 3’-0” MIN INSTEAD OF SEWN SEEMS. TYPICAL PAD/ ACCESS ROAD SCALE: 3/4” = 1'-0" DETAIL AVEC MEKORYUK ACOFFMAN WIND TOWERS NGINEERS TYPICAL PAD/ACCESS ROAD SECTION 800 F STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 907-276-6664 Fax 907-276-5042 DESIGN DRAWN JB BH DATE 12-03-08 DRAWING No. FIGURE 3 of 3 04234 A. State Historic Preservation Office, National Historic Preservation Act Consultation SARAH PALIN, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 550 W. 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 1310 DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION RN CHORACEMATIAGE AaaosOTEas65 OFFICE OF HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY ees December 9, 2008 File No.: 3130-4R AVEC SUBJECT: | AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 Dear Ms. Reich: The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (AK SHPO) received your correspondence on November 17, 2008 and has reviewed the referenced undertaking for conflicts with cultural resources in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 41.35.070 of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. Based on our records, it appears that there are no historic properties within or adjacent to the project area Your letter does not indicate which federal or state agency is funding, permitting or licensing your project. Please ensure that we receive a cover letter regarding this project directly from the agency in compliance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(3). ...the [Federal] agency official may use the services of applicants, consultants, or designees to prepare information, analysis and recommendations under this part. The agency official remains legally responsible for all required findings and determinations. It is the agency or applicant, not the environmental consultant, who will ultimately be responsible for ensuring that historic preservation laws are followed. Once we receive the agency cover letter, we will be able to complete our review of your project. Please contact Tracie Krauthoefer at 269-8722 if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. incerely, Chace Btt Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer JEB:sll Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 907.929.5960 November 17, 2008 Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer Office of History and Archeology 550 West 7™ Avenue, Suite 1310 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3565 Subject: AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Finding of No Affect Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Dear Ms. Bittner, The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning on installing two wind turbines in the village of Mekoryuk, Alaska. The exact location of the project is Township 3N, Range 97W, Section 6; USGS Topographic Map: Nunivak Island B-4. Project Details The wind turbines would be located between the City Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon on the north and south sides of Airport Road. These locations are approximately 1,200 feet and 1,600 feet from the southern and northern Nunivak Island coastline, respectively (Figure 1). The turbines would be installed on 50 by 50 foot (top width) pads (Figure 2). The total footprint of the pads would be approximately 3,844 square feet (62 by 62 feet). The turbine pad north of Airport Road would be 100 foot long by 20 foot wide at the top and 62 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.16 acres. The access road to the south wind turbine would be approximately 200 feet long by 20 foot wide at the top and 62 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.23 acres. The total footprint of the project would be 0.31 acres. Two 100kW Northwind 100 wind turbines would be installed. Each turbine would be 90 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. The bottom of the blades would be approximately 60 feet above the ground. A literature review of records on file at the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database was conducted to identify potential historic properties in the proposed project area. Based on this review, there are four recorded sites located in the Mekoryuk Area: e XNI-00001: Mekoryuk archaeological site. This site is located beneath the existing village, consists of house pits, burials, and pre- and post-contact cultural materials. A survey conducted for a sanitation improvements project indicates that the majority of this site is restricted toa low knoll overlooking Shoal Bay. This site is approximately 0.5 miles from the proposed wind turbine location. CQxrice Judith Bittner, SHPO Page 2 e XNI-00066: Housepits and two graves. This site is on the northern point of Mekoryuk in Section 31, T4N R97W. This site is approximately 0.5 miles from the proposed wind turbine location. e XNI-00027: Housepits. This site located along two distinct terraces along the west bank of the Mekoryuk River. This site is approximately 2,000 feet from the proposed wind turbine location. e XNI-00005: Housepits. This site has 13 documented housepits and is located on the west bank of the Mekoryuk River (just east of XNI-00027). This site is approximately 1,500 feet from the proposed wind turbine location. We find that no historic properties would be affected by the project, since there are no sites near the proposed wind turbine sites. All of the sites described above and in the database are at least 1,500 feet from the proposed wind turbine sites. In addition, the wind turbines would be located in an inland area wetland, where cultural or historic sites are not typically found in the Mekoryuk area. * In the event that any cultural material is discovered during construction, all work will stop in the vicinity of the find and the SHPO will be contacted by AVEC representatives to ensure appropriate steps are taken to document and mitigate any impacts to cultural resources. We look forward to your concurrence with this finding. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting Attachments: As stated Copies: Brent Petrie, AVEC Matt Metcalf, AVEC Scott Thompson, Coffman Engineers * The area was found to be wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May 2008. eS a Proposed Wind Turbines Project Location “ ou XNI-00027 (Off Figure) Figure 1. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Map. Photo source: Mekoryuk Community Map. DCRA Community Profiles website: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/profiles/profile-maps.htm Nats Pan Xref_V:\ABLOCKB\ ERS 100 F Suet ‘wows 99501 Joor 276-8668" For 807° 276-5042 rac! foo REVISIONS: NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTLE LUM OF EXCAVATION (ATYPICAL PAD / ACCESS ROAD DETAIL cu) sone ws SITE PLAN AVEC MEKORYUK WIND TOWERS Figure 2. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Plan. ? oT owe» 2 © roe oom ime oo of ut PRE-65% SUBMITTAL gf NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION sm om oe C1.0 S\SO -4R AVEC B(Bo -1R Dendd mee ceEIvVED DEC 2 4 2008 ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. SHA | No Historic Properties Affected Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer Judith Bitmer, State Historic Preservation Officer Date. [2/30/2008 Office of History and Archeology File Ne... Bi 30-42 Avec 550 West 7” Avemue, Suite 1310 ul ZI SQ > IR Denddi Comn - te Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3565 December 17, 2008 Subject: File number 3130-4R AVEC-AVEC: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project and AVEC New Stuyahok Bulk Fuel Storage and Power System Upgrades Project Dear Ms. Bittner: Thank you for your December 9, 2008 letters to Robin Reich of Solstice Environmental Consulting (Solstice) tegarding the above mentioned Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) projects. Included in this letter are Tesponses to your requests stated in the letter and during a telephone conversation between Tracie Krauthoefer and Robin on December 16, 2008. “™-oarding the federal agency funding, permitting, or licensing these projects: Planning funds for the ~ ~vind project and the New Stuyahok bulk fuel storage project was obtained through the Denali ~“ekoryuk project will require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permit. Construction * ~teig currently undetermined. ~sission: The contact person at the Denali Commission © hj ~~ ~tat The Denali Commission, 510 L Street, Suite 410, Te there 52 Volume ~sumber is 271-1415. Ss our 0. ~~tth environmental President & CEO "© OF the g “istori. Copies: Jodi Fondy, Denali Commission; Robin Reich, Solsurv *PProp A821 FRaale Street @ Ancharaae Alacka 99512-7407 @ (G07) S61-1818 @ In State (RON) ATR-1818 @ Rav (007) 561-7288 @ Tn State (RKAV S41-7 282 4841 Raate ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. December 17, 2008 Judith Bitter, State Historic Preservation Officer Office of History and Archeology 550 West 7” Avenue, Suite 1310 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3565 Subject: File number 3130-4R AVEC-AVEC: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project and AVEC New Stuyahok Bulk Fuel Storage and Power System Upgrades Project Dear Ms. Bittner: ‘Thank you for your December 9, 2008 letters to Robin Reich of Solstice Environmental Consulting (Solstice) regarding the above mentioned Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) projects. Included in this letter are responses to your requests stated in the letter and during a telephone conversation between Tracie Krauthoefer and Robin on December 16, 2008. Regarding the federal agency funding, permitting, or licensing these projects: Planning funds for the Mekoryuk wind project and the New Stuyahok bulk fuel storage project was obtained through the Denali Commission. The Mekoryuk project will require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permit. Construction funding source for these projects is currently undetermined. Regarding a contact person at the Denali Commission: The contact person at the Denali Commission regarding these projects is Jodi Fondy. She can be contacted at The Denali Commission, 510 L Street. Suite 410, Anchorage, AK 99501. Her phone number is 271-3011, and her fax number is 271-1415. Regarding our agent for the consultation process: AVEC has hired Solstice to assist with environmental permitting on these projects. Robin Reich has permission to act as our agent for complying with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. We understand that AVEC and the federal “action” agency remains responsible for all the findings and determinations of this process and that we are responsible for ensuring that historic preservation laws are followed. Please feel free to contact Robin at 929-5960 or robin/@ solsticeak com or Brent Petrie, AVEC*s Manager of Special Projects and Key Accounts at 565-5531 or bpetrie@avec.org if you have additional questions. Thank you. Veare Glew Meera Kohler President & CEO Copies: Jodi Fondy, Denali Commission; Robin Reich, Solstice Environmental Consulting VRIR w ae (007) S417 28R ow Ie State (BAAD S419 3RR A. Department of Army (Corps) Wetlands Permit This notice of authorization must be conspicuously displayed at the site of work. United States Army Corps of Engineers SHOAL BAY A permit to: construct Two on: APRIL 29 Address of Permittee: 4931 Permit Number: POA-2008-1618 | " MARY R.ROMERO ~ REGULATORY SPECIALIST REGULATORY DIVISION ENG FORM 4336, Jui 81 (33 CFR 320-330) EDITION OF JUL 70 MAY BE USED (Proponent: CECW-O) Public Notice Sasa bint of Application Regulatory Division (1145) for Permit RECEIVep CEPOA-RD FEB 19 on, Post Office Box 6898 £Uuy Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506-0898 AVE; PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: February 11, 2009 EXPIRATION DATE: March 12, 2009 REFERENCE NUMBER: POA-2008-1618 WATERWAY: Shoal Bay Interested parties are hereby notified that a Department of the Army permit application has been received for work in waters of the United States as Gescribed below and shown on the enclosed project drawings. Comments on the described work, with the reference number, should reach this office no later than the expiration date of this Public Notice to become part of the record and be considered in the decision, Please contact Mary Romero at (907) 753-5556, toll free from within Alaska at (800) 478-2712, by fax at (907) 753-5567, or by email at mary.r.romero@usace.army.mil if further information is desired concerning this notice. APPLICANT: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), Meera Kohler, 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 AGENT: Robin Reich, Solstice Environmental Consulting, 11760 Woodbourne Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99516 LOCATION: The project site is located within Section 6, T. 3 N., R. 97 W., Seward Meridian; USGS Quad Map Nunivak Island B-4; Latitude 60.3847* Longitude 166.2040 W.; near Mekoryuk, Alaska. SPECIAL AREA DESIGNATION: The project is located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. PURPOSE: The applicant’s stated purpose is construction of two wind turbines. The primary purpose of this project is to reduce fuel costs to the people of Mekoryuk. PROPOSED WORK: The placement of 1857 cubic yards (cy) of classified gravel fill and 363 cy of subbase C fill into 0.46-acre of wetlands for the construction of two access roads and two nd turbine pads. Each pad will have a footprint of 68 feet x 68 feet, the top of the pad will be 50 feet x 50 feet. The northern road will have a footprint of 100 feet long x 38 feet wide, and the southern access road will have a footprint of 200 feet long by 38 feet wide (top width of each road is 20 feet). All work would be performed in accordance with the enclosed plan {sheets 1-12), dated January 30, 2009. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The wind turbines would be located between the City Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon on the north and south sides of Airport Road. These locations are 1,600 and 1,800 feet from the southern and northern Nunivak Island coastline, respectively. All fill would be placed on existing grade, and no excavation would be necessary. The total footprint of the project would be 0.46-acre. Community sponsors and/or the contractor will provide material from an existing. permitted site. The wind turbine platform will be supported by six 24-inch diameter steel pilings on a 15 foot radius. The pilings would be pounded to the depth of bedrock {approximately 38-42 feet deep). Pilings would be hollow; no holes would need to be dug to place the pilings. Thermosyphons would be installed next to each piling. . The holes (approximately four inches by 30 feet) for the thermosyphons would be drilled and backfilled with a sand/water slurry. For further information on the Northwind 100 turbine you can go online: http: / /northernpower .com/assets/files/Nwindl00_rev_tot20PDF.pdf and http: //northernpower .com/assets/files/NWind100_Specs. pdf MITIGATION: Avoidance of wetlands entirely is not possible because, most of the Mekoryuk area is wetlands. It is difficult to find a location in the Mekoryuk area that would not impact wetlands and would provide an optimal lecation for harnessing wind energy. Alternative locations were dismissed based on geotechnical conditions near the reservoir and input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the agency was concerned that these locations were too close to the coast where Steller’s eiders and other bird species may be found. The access road footprints have been minimized by limiting the access road to one lane (20-foot wide at the top with a 38-foot wide footprint impact), wide enough for the heavy equipment needed to install and maintain the wind turbines. The pad size has also been minimized to the smallest size needed to install and provide maintenance for the turbines. No other facilities or activities would occur on the pads. The roads are 100 feet and 200 feet long for the north and south access roads, respectively. The turbines must be constructed a safe distance away from the power lines and Airport Access Road to avoid impacting them if the towers fall. Furthermore, the towers must be spaced far enough away from each other to minimize wind interference and optimize the power harnessed from available wind. The proposed access road lengths are the minimum distance to ensure that the power lines and road is safe and that there is no wind interference. The applicant stated: ‘Compensatory mitigation is not appropriate for this project because it would be a financial burden on AVEC and the residents of the area. AVEC is a nonprofit utility funded through government grants and loans and user fees. Most of the communities served by AVEC are poor, and the cost of fuel in these communities is very high. For example, the median household income in Mekoryuk is $30,833; about half of the State’s median household income which is $59,036. The average cost of fuel in Mekoryuk in 2008 was $4.47/gallon. AVEC charges only enough to cover the cost of fuel and operations. -2- WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: A permit for the described work will not be issued until a certification or waiver of certification, as required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217), has been received from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CERTIFICATION: Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone, Management Act of 1972, as amended by 16 U.S.C. 1456(c) (3), requires the applicant to certify the described activity affecting land or water uses in the Coastal Zone complies with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. A permit will not be issued until the Division of Coastal and Ocean Management, Department of Natural Resources has concurred with the applicant's certification. CULTURAL RESOURCES: The latest published version of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) has been consulted for the presence or absence of historic properties, including those listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. There are unevaluated properties in the vicinity of the worksite. They have been designated as XNI-00001, Mekoryuk, NDE; XNI-00005, Oochuktuligamiut, NDE; XNI-00027, XNI-00027, NDE; XNI-00066, and Housepits and 2 graves, NDE. Because these properties are outside the project area it is concluded that the proposed undertaking will not affect these or any other historic properties. Consultation of the AHRS constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Commander at this time. SHPO responded to a request from the agent in a letter dated December 9, 2008 that states, ‘based on our records, it appears that there are not historic properties within or adjacent to the project area. ENDANGERED SPECIES: The project area is within the known or historic range of the Steller‘s and Spectacled Eiders. Preliminarily, the described activity is not likely to affect threatened or endangered species, or modify their designated critical habitat, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 844). In pre-coordination the Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office (AFWFO) concurs with the determination that installation of two Northwind 100 wind turbines on Nunivak Island is not likely to adversely affect threatened eiders. Preparation of a biological assessment or further consultation under section 7 of the ESA regarding this project is not necessary at this time. This application is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Any comments they may have concerning endangered or threatened wildlife or plants or their critical habitat will be considered in our final assessment of the described work. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires all Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Preliminarily, the described activity will not affect EFH in the project area. This Public Notice initiates EFH consultation with the NMFS. Any comments or recommendations they may have concerning EFH will be considered in our final assessment of the described work. -3- TRIBAL CONSULTATION: The Alaska District fully supports tribal self- governance and government-to-government relations between Federally recognized Tribes and the Federal government. Tribes with protected rights or resources that could be significantly affected by a proposed Federal action (e.g., a permit decision) have the right to consult with the Alaska District on a government-to-government basis. Views of each Tribe regarding protected rights and resources will be accorded due consideration in this process. This Public Notice serves as notification to the Tribes within the area potentially affected by the proposed work and invites their participation in the Federal decision-making process regarding the protected Tribal right or resource. Consultation may be initiated by the affected Tribe upon written request to the District Commander during the public comment period. “ PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, reasons for holding a public hearing. EVALUATION: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts, which the proposed activity may have on the public interest, requires a careful weighing of all the factors that become relevant in each particular case. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The outcome of the general balancing process would determine whether to authorize a proposal, and if so, the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur. The decision should reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors, which may be relevant to the proposal, must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving 404 discharges, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404{b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria (see Sections 320.2 and 320.3), a permit will be granted uniess the District Commander determines that it would be contrary to the public interest. The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. 7s AUTHORITY: This permit will be issued or denied under the following authority: {X) Discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States - Section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Therefore, our public interest review will consider the guidelines set forth under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230). Project drawings, Notice of Application for Certification of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program, and Notice of Application for State Water Quality Certification are enclosed with this Public Notice. District Commander U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Enclosures wnship 3N, Range 9 USGS Topographic Map: Nu: > | LEGEND REPLY TO ATTENTION OF. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA REGULATORY DIVISION P.O. BOX 6898 ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898 APR 2 9 2009 ‘DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Permit No.: POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Issuing Office:_U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term “this office” refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: The placement of 1857 cubic yards (CY) of clean classified gravel fill and 363 CY of clean subbase C fill into 0.46-acre of wetlands for the construction of two access roads and two wind turbine pads. Each pad will have a footprint of 68 feet x 68 feet, the top of the pad will be 50 feet x 50 feet. The northern road will have a footprint of 100 feet long x 38 feet wide, and the southern access road will have a footprint of 200 feet long by 38 feet wide (top width of each road is 20 feet). All work will be performed in accordance with the attached plan, (sheets 1-12), dated January 30, 2009. Project Location: The project site is located within Section 6, T. 3 N.. R. 97 W., Seward Meridian; USGS Quad Map Nunivak Island 8-4; Latitude 60.3847° N., Longitude 166.2040° W.; near Mekoryuk, Alaska. Permit Conditions: General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on April 30, 2014. If you find that you need more time to compiete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. lf a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 1S OBSOLETE (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) ae Special Conditions: 1. No fill or construction materials shall be stockpiled on wetlands outside the project boundary. 2. Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained to the extent practicable by the installation of culverts in sufficient number and size under access roads to prevent ponding, diversion, or concentrated runoff that would result in adverse impacts to adjacent wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats. Further Information. 4. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: {) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). {X) Section 404 of the Ciean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). { } Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State, or local authorization required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from naturai causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a revaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been faise, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). ENG FORM 1721, Nov 66 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE {33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) -2- c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. Vln ol _alrefo4 Meera Kohler (DATE) President and CEO, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. 2H Agrs| 2609 Colonel Kevih J. Wilson, Mary R. Romero Regulatory Specialist When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions have the transferee sign and date below. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 iS OBSOLETE (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) ago Project Area eros stale BCPA MS omg Township 3N, Range 97W, Sec. 6 USGS Topographic Map: Nunivak Island B-4 WAC a a U rN elas POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 1 of 12 Figure 3. Previously Proposed Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Locations POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 20f 12 ZLIOE 6002 ‘ae Auenuer payep shuimesq sauIqin, pul, YNALIOYSW Aeg [@0us ‘81.91-8002-VOd Distance to coast line: 1,800 ft Figure 1. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Map. Photo source: Mekoryuk Community Map. OCRA Community Profiles website: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/profiles/profile-maps.htm PROPOSED] ||}--—-~ WIND | | TOWER teeta : LOCATIONS] }! ee ; ‘ FF ~ [oes [omamees Ne ee COFFMAN | B ACOFFMAN | FIGURE feof Siar it Sorc TGaGN Fox 507-276-5082 | w. POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 4 of 12 ej ~ NCR SERS Coe CT Wael ye Wetland: 74.7 acres OFFICE-BASED WETLAND DETERMINATION BT) esa PBS alectet Wedel POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 $ of 12 SCALE: 1° = 60’ | me AVEC MEXORTUK 200 F SIREET a AICHORICE, KASKA 99501 907-276-6654 Fox 97-27-5042 MAN WIND TOWERS ACOFF FEARS Se Pn - GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD AND PAD FIGURE POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 6 of 12 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE SoS == ODRLRT 7 yoy | 7 ‘NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE, ORGANIC MAT TO REMAIN —/ SEE NOTE 3 | NOTES: 1. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE PREPARED BY REMOVAL OF STUMPS, BRUSH, BOULDERS, AND SHARP OBJECTS. ALL HOLES AND LARGE RUTS SHOULD BE FILLED WITH BEECH SAND. 2. CLASSIFIED FILL_SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, AS DETERMINED BY MODIFIED PROCTOR TESTING. FILL LIFTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12°. 3. GEOTEXTILE SHALL MEET ADOT&PF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 723-2.01 FOR STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE, AND BE PLACED ACCORDING TO ADOT SECTION 630, EXCEPT OVERLAP SEAMS 3°-0" MIN INSTEAD OF SEWN SEEMS. TYPICAL PAD/ ACCESS ROAD DETAIL SCALE: 3/4" = 1-0" Pe ee ee 11 7 ae ee ————— pot | o = ACOFFMAN = _.MO TOWERS wr ® FIGURE 00 F STREET [aac | POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 7 of 12 Zz jt ¢ Hal 3 ihe EAA Bz 38 & $5 sie - Ti Zz wa beet icbiiee airtime hben ce POA-2008-1618, Shoa! Bay acess ~©Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 8 of 12 Bas ~~ WIND TOWER FINISH GRADE — \ ee ee rs ee 2” INSULATION —~/ 2 cEoTEMLE —/ TF aT FT 2 P| 2" THERMO | | SYPHON, TYP ~~ | 24° PIPE PILE, WR ie ACCESS ROAD SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" pee exon Sa | vB ACOFFMAN | MOTOS =x 2} FIGURE ae ia] . MASKA 9950) 554 Fox 9? [ore | POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 9 of 12 276-5082 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Project Project Description Updated January 19, 2009 The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning on installing two wind turbines in the village of Mekoryuk, Alaska. The exact location of the project is Township 3N, Range 97W, Section 6; USGS Topographic Map: Nunivak Island B-4. Project Details The wind turbines would be located between the City Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon on the north and south sides of Airport Road. These locations are 1,600 feet and 1,800 feet from the southern and northern Nunivak Island coastline, respectively (Sheet 2). The turbines would be installed on 50 by 50 foot (top width) pads (sheet 6}. The total footprint of the pads would be approximately 68 by 68 feet. The access road to the north wind turbine pad north of Airport Road would be 100 foot long by 20 foot wide at the top and 38 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.19 acres. The access road to the south wind turbine would be approximately 200 feet long by 20 foot wide at the top and 38 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.28 acres. All fill would be placed on existing grade, and no excavation would be necessary. The total footprint of the project would be 0.46 acres. Community sponsors and/or the contractor will provide material from an existing, permitted site. The area impacts to wetlands would be: Northern Wind Turbine Access Road and Pad: 8,202 ft” (0.19 acres) Southern Wind Turbine Access Road and Pad: 12,002 ft” (0.27 acres) Project Total: 20,204 ft? (0.46 acres) The approximate volumes of fill placed in wetlands would be: Northern Wind Turbine Classified Fill: 758 cubic yards Subbase C: 101 cubic yards Southern Wind Turbine Classified Fill: 1,099 cubic yards Subbase C: 148 cubic yards Project Total: Classified Fill; 1,857 cubic yards Subbase C: 363 cubic yards Two 100kW wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. Each turbine would be about 100 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. The bottom of the blades would be approximately 70 feet above the ground. : POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 10 of 12 AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Project Project Description Page 2 Project Benefits Mekoryuk has a high-value, class 7 wind regime for wind power generation. During 2007, 943,600 kWh of energy was generated at the Mekoryuk power plant using 67,500 gallons of diesel fuel. A two-machine array of Northwind 100 wind turbines generating almost 480,000 kWh per year could displace up to 50% of the energy normally generated by the diesel power plant, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water plant. The wind turbines will displace 29,368 gallons of diesel fuel each year. So far in 2008, an average of $4.46 per gallon for the fuel has been spent to generate electricity. At this cost, approximately $131,148 will be saved generating power during that first year. Assuming a 4% rate of inflation for the next 20 years, the project will save over $3.9 million. The non-economic benefits will be from the reduced carbon footprint of the power plant. By reducing the amount of fuel burned on the island by over 50%, over 350 tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented from entering the atmosphere each year. Project Alternatives AVEC considered the advice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in determining a location for the wind turbines which would not impact Steller’s and spectacled eiders, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and other bird species. AVEC proposed a location near the existing AVEC power plant and tank farm and a location near the existing water reservoir (See SheetZ}. Based on comments from USFWS about the power plant location and geotechnical conditions near the reservoir, AVEC dismissed these locations and moved the proposed turbine sites away from town and farther away from the coast line. The current proposed locations are at least 0.25 miles away from the shore. POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 11 of 12 a ee Romero, Mary R POA From: Palmer, Sean P (DEC) [sean.palmer@alaska.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:24 AM To: Romero, Mary R POA Subject: RE: POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay permit application and pian Good Morning Mary, the CPQ, ver crite looks like th Thanks for t fall und review. Conservati 99501-2617 isace.army.mil} February 02, 2009 12 PM Sean P (DEC); DNR, DCOM Anct PRA (DNR s cation and sonsored) cation, drawings and CPQ for a proposed wind turbine project in Mekoryuk, that will be going out this week. ay Ae — Ly a SUARTTE OF ALAS anon DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT hittp:/Aww.alaskecoast.state.ak.us @ SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE © CENTRAL OFACE 550 W 7” AVENUE SUITE 705 902 GOLD STREET, SUITE 202 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 P.0. Box 111090 P¥t (907) 269-7470 FAX: (907) 269.3891 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-1050 Pht: (907) 465-3582 FAX: (907) 465-2075 March 31, 2009 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, care of Ms. Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 Subject: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines State ID No. AK 0902-10AA Final Consistency Response Dear Ms. Reich: The Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) has completed coordinating the State's review of your proposed project for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). DCOM has developed the attached final consistency response based on reviewers’ comments. Based on an evaluation of your project by the Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources and the Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area, DCOM concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP and affected coastal district's enforceable policies. This is the final consistency decision for your project. This consistency response is only for the project as described. If you propose any changes to the approved project, including its intended use, prior to or during its siting, construction, or operation, you must contact this office immediately to determine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. By copy of this letter, I am informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) of DCOM’s final finding. “Develop, Conserve, and Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans.” If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact me at (907) 269-7475 or e-mail ashley.kalli@alaska.gov. Sincerely, Arr, Ball Ashley Kalli Project Review Coordinator Enclosures ce: Adele Lee, DNR/DMLW Land Carl Andrew, CRSA Board Chair-Coastal District Ellen Simpson, ADFG Fran Roche, DEC - JNU Kellie Westphal, DNR/DMLW Water Resources Linda Markham, ADOT/PF Michael] Dombkowski, USCG Mike Daigneault, ADFG/Habitat Sean Palmer, DEC - ANC Shauna McMahon, DCOM DNR/SHPO Mary Romero, USACE Regulatory Branch FINAL CONSISTENCY RESPONSE - CONCURRENCE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S, ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA REGULATORY DIVISION P.O. BOX 6898 ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898 Regulatory Division POA-2008-1618 Ms. Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Dear Ms. Reich: Enclosed aré two copies of Department of the Army permit POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay, which would authorize the construction of two wind turbines. The project site is located within Section 6, T. 3 N., R. 97 W., Seward Meridian; USGS Quad Map Nunivak Island B-4; Latitude 60.3847° N., Longitude 166.2040° W.; near Mekoryuk, Alaska. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has waived the Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for your project. In addition, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources has certified that your project is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. These certifications are attached to the Department of the Army permit and will become a part of this permit when it is finalized. Additionally, we have enclosed a Notification of Administrative Appeal Options and Process and Request for Appeal form regarding this Department of the Army Permit (see section labeled “Initial Proffered Permit”). If you accept the conditions of the enclosed permit, please sign and date both copies and return them to us, along with your $100 permit fee. Your check or money order should be made payable to FAO, USACE, Alaska District. The permit will not be valid until we have returned a finalized copy to you. It should be understood that this is not an authorization to commence construction. No work is to be performed in Shoal Bay or adjacent wetlands until you have received a validated copy of the permit. Nothing in this letter shall be construed as excusing you from compliance with other Federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations which may affect this work. You may contact me via email at mary.r.romero@usace.army.mil, by mail at the address above, by phone at (907) 753-5556, or toll free from within Alaska at (800) 478-2712, if you have questions. For additional information about our Regulatory Program, visit our web site at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg. Sincerely, oem hpre Regulat¥ry Spgcialist Enclosures Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative File Number: POA-2008-1618 Date: April 16, 2009 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) PERMIT DENIAL APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION THIS REQUEST FOR APPEAL FORM MUST BE RECEIVED BY: June 15, 2009 ‘A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. e ACCEPT: Ifyou received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the District Engineer. Your objections must be received by the District Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the District Engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or, (c) not modify the permit, having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the District Engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit e ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. e ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the Preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Permit No.: POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Issuing Office:_U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office” refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: The placement of 1857 cubic yards (CY) of clean classified gravel fill and 363 CY of clean subbase C fill into 0.46-acre of wetlands for the construction of two access roads and two wind turbine pads. Each pad will have a footprint of 68 feet x 68 feet, the top of the pad will be 50 feet x 50 feet. The northern road will have a footprint of 100 feet long x 38 feet wide, and the southern access road will have a footprint of 200 feet long by 38 feet wide (top width of each road is 20 feet). All work will be performed in accordance with the attached plan, (sheets 1-12), dated January 30, 2009. Project Location: The project site is located within Section 6, T. 3N., R. 97 W., Seward Meridian; USGS Quad Map Nunivak Island B-4; Latitude 60.3847° N., Longitude 166.2040° W.; near Mekoryuk, Alaska. Permit Conditions: General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on April 30, 2014. If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) -1- Special Conditions: 1. No fill or construction materials shall be stockpiled on wetlands outside the project boundary. 2. Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained to the extent practicable by the installation of culverts in sufficient number and size under access roads to prevent ponding, diversion, or concentrated runoff that would result in adverse impacts to adjacent wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats. Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: () Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). () Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State, or local authorization required by law. : b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a revaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) -2- c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. (PERMITTEE) AND TITLE (DATE) This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. FOR (DISTRICT COMMANDER) (DATE) Colonel Kevin J. Wilson Mary R. Romero Regulatory Specialist When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions have the transferee sign and date below. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) ae : 221.006 — Layout: UYOUTE FN 100A PG NOZV eos 56 =357 NSQ2N geo a ZS y es —_ Figure 3. Previously Proposed Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Locations G32 4m REVISIONS. Deon = eco : :s3 -——— 80 © ne 6002 ‘O€ ZLIOE 600z ‘og Auenuer payep sbuimesq SaUIquN| PUM INAOXIW, Keg |eous ‘8191-8002-WOd Proposed Wind Turbines Project Location Figure 1. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Map. Photo source; Mekoryuk Community Map. DCRA Ci ‘ommunity Profiles website: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/profiles/profile-maps.htm Distance to coastline: © 1.600 ft PROPOSED eae a WIND TOWER LOCATIONS] JB DESIGN DRAWN > oO O wn ae £6 2? Dy 2 os vs Qx 8 og 25 Ss as | OAT 1- AVEC MEKORTUK WIND TOWERS FFMAN Ace EERS I ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 907-276-6664 Fox 907-276-5042 600 F STREET Drawings dated January 30, 2009 4 of 12 Wetland: 74.7 acres Upland: 70.0 acres enn = OFFICE-BASED WETLAND DETERMINATION Mekoryuk igi ace and Powe poracde POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 5 of 12 WETLAND GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD AND PAD Tie: Wee DESIGN DRAWING No. ACOFFMAN WIND TOWERS — FIGURE NGINEERS Se Pron 200 F SMT [= ~~ POA-2008-1618, Shoal B O07 = 276-6504 Fox 907-276-5042 Mekoryuk Wind Turbines * Drawings dated January 30, 2009 6 of 12 EXISTING GROUND NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE, SEE NOTE 3 ORGANIC MAT TO REMAIN NOTES: 1. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE PREPARED BY REMOVAL OF STUMPS, BRUSH, BOULDERS, AND SHARP OBJECTS. ALL HOLES AND LARGE RUTS SHOULD BE FILLED WITH BEECH SAND. 2. CLASSIFIED FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, AS DETERMINED BY MODIFIED PROCTOR TESTING. FILL LIFTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12”. 3. GEOTEXTILE SHALL MEET ADOT&PF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS — . 729-2.01 FOR STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE, AND BE PLACED ACCORDING TO ADOT SECTION 630, EXCEPT OVERLAP SEAMS 3'-0" MIN INSTEAD OF SEWN SEEMS. TYPICAL PAD/ ACCESS ROAD DETAIL SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" COFFMAN 800 F STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 907-276-6664 Fox 907-276-5042 WHE: AVEC: WEKORTUK DESIGN DRAWING No. WIND TOWERS a FIGURE TYPICAL PAD/ACCESS ROAD SECTION POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 7 of 12 ZL 508 600z ‘og Auenuer payep sBuimeiq SOUIQINL PUL ANAIOY s=wre wor Keg |eous ‘8191-800¢-VOd 5 fT iy ate ea Tee 34 ae Me Pl can " te ni 3 a it | ea a i agit Ne i a 1 ie tj i a “He i | q 3 wn | i ae ge le eal j 7 ei gee ne ® i 5 ig AVEC MEKORYUK ue 8 “WIND TOWERS z 8 _ STRUCTURAL PLANS als ‘AND DETAILS —— at ASA MLL (came = WIND TOWER PLATFORM GEOTEXTILE 2"6 THERMO SYPHON, TYP 24°6 PIPE PILE, TYP ACCESS R SCALE: 1/8” = 1'-0" AD SECTION FFMAN ND TOWERS Ey Ao I EER TYPICAL PAD/ACCESS ROAD SECTION DRAWN ou FIGURE 800 F STREET Ca S07 ZTE Get Fen 907-276-5042 POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 9 of 12 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Project Project Description - Updated January 19, 2009 The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning on installing two wind turbines in the village of Mekoryuk, Alaska. The exact location of the project is Township 3N, Range 97W, Section 6; USGS Topographic Map: Nunivak Island B-4. Project Details The wind turbines would be located between the City Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon on the north and south sides of Airport Road. These locations are 1,600 feet and 1,800 feet from the southern and northern Nunivak Island coastline, respectively (Sheet 3). The turbines would be installed on 50 by 50 foot (top width) pads (sheet 6}. The total footprint of the pads would be approximately 68 by 68 feet. The access road to the north wind turbine pad north of Airport Road would be 100 foot long by 20 foot wide at the top and 38 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.19 acres. The access road to the south wind turbine would be approximately 200 feet long by 20 foot wide at the top and 38 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.28 acres. All fill would be placed on existing grade, and no excavation would be necessary. The total footprint of the project would be 0.46 acres. Community sponsors and/or the contractor will provide material from an existing, permitted site. The area impacts to wetlands would be: Northern Wind Turbine Access Road and Pad: 8,202 ft? (0.19 acres) Southern Wind Turbine Access Road and Pad: 12,002 ft? (0.27 acres) Project Total: 20,204 ft? (0.46 acres) The approximate volumes of fill placed in wetlands would be: Northern Wind Turbine i Classified Fill: 758 cubic yards Subbase C: 101 cubic yards Southern Wind Turbine Classified Fill: 1,099 cubic yards Subbase C: 148 cubic yards Project Total: Classified Fill: 1,857 cubic yards Subbase C: 363 cubic yards Two 100kW wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. Each turbine would be about 100 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. The bottom of the blades would be approximately 70 feet above the ground. ‘ POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 10 of 12 AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Project Project Description Page2 Project Benefits Mekoryuk has a high-value, class 7 wind regime for wind power generation. During 2007, 943,600 kWh of energy was generated at the Mekoryuk power plant using 67,500 gallons of diesel fuel. A two-machine array of Northwind 100 wind turbines generating almost 480,000 kWh per year could displace up to 50% of the energy normally generated by the diesel power plant, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water plant. The wind turbines will displace 29,368 gallons of diesel fuel each year. So far in 2008, an average of $4.46 per gallon for the fuel has been spent to generate electricity. At this cost, approximately $131,148 will be saved generating power during that first year. Assuming a 4% rate of inflation for the next 20 years, the project will save over $3.9 million. The non-economic benefits will be from the reduced carbon footprint of the power plant. By reducing the amount of fuel burned on the island by over 50%, over 350 tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented from entering the atmosphere each year. ’ Project Alternatives AVEC considered the advice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in determining a location for the wind turbines which would not impact Steller’s and spectacled eiders, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and other bird species. AVEC proposed a location near the existing AVEC power plant and tank farm and a location near the existing water reservoir (See SheetZ). Based on comments from USFWS about the power plant location and geotechnical conditions near the reservoir, AVEC dismissed these locations and moved the proposed turbine sites away from town and farther away from the coast line. The current proposed locations are at least 0.25 miles away from the shore. POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated January 30, 2009 11 of 12 POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Drawings dated Januar) 20( 12 of 12 Romero, Mary R POA = From: Palmer, Sean P (DEC) [sean.palmer@alaska.gov]} Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:24 AM To: Romero, Mary R POA Subject: RE: POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay permit application and plan Good Morning Mary, After reading the CPQ, it looks like this project will fall under ADEC's 401 Cert. waiver criteria. Thanks for the opportunity to review. Thanks, Sean Palmer Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water 555 Cordova Street - Anchorage, AK 99501-2617 (907) 269-7564, fax (907) 334-2415 ----= Original Message----- From: Romero, Mary R POA [mailto:Mary.R.Romero@usace.army.mil]) Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:47 PM To: Palmer, Sean P (DEC); DNR, DCOM Anchorage PRA (DNR sponsored) Subject: POA-2008-1618, Shoal Bay permit application and plan Here is the application, drawings and CPQ for a proposed wind turbine project in Mekoryuk, POA-2008-1618, that will be going out this week. Mary R. Romero Regulatory Specialist North Branch 907.753.5556 fax 907.753.5567 PO Box 6898, Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2796-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Prior Study No. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 2008-WTW-7884-OE Issued Date: 05/27/2009 Brent Petrie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Wind Turbine Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #1 Location: Mekoryuk, AK Latitude: 60-23-13.35N NAD 83 Longitude: 166-11-46.88W Heights: 139 feet above ground level (AGL) 181 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. Additional wind turbines or met towers proposed in the future may cause a cumulative effect on the national airspace system. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates and heights . Any changes in coordinates will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2796-OE. Page | of 3 Signature Control No: 631650-109512117 ( DNE -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2796-OE No Notice Required (NNR). Page 3 of 3 » Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. M Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2796-OE 4 2601 Meacham Blvd. Prior Study No. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 2008-WTW-7884-OE Issued Date: 05/27/2009 Brent Petrie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Wind Turbine Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #1 Location: Mekoryuk, AK Latitude: 60-23-13.35N NAD 83 Longitude: 166-11-46.88W Heights: 139 feet above ground level (AGL) 181 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. Additional wind turbines or met towers proposed in the future may cause a cumulative effect on the national airspace system. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates and heights . Any changes in coordinates will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2796-OE. Page | of 3 Signature Control No: 631650-109512117 ( DNE -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2796-OE No Notice Required (NNR). Page 3 of 3 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport Page | of 2 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport Sponsor: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Details for Case : Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #1 Show Project Summary [Project Name: ALASK-000118678-09 | Case Status | ASN: 2009-WTW-2796-OE Date Accepted: 05/04/2009 | |Status: Determined Date Determined: 05/27/2009 | | Letters: 05/27/2009 | r: |DNE | Documents: None | | i | Construction / Alteration Information Structure Summary | Notice OF: - - Construction / Structure Type: Wind Turbine | Duration: Permanent Structure Name: Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #1 | if Temporary: Months: Days: FCC Number: | Work Schedule - Start: 06/01/2009 Prior ASN: 2008-WTW-7884-OE | Work Schedule - End: 09/01/2009 | State Filing: Not filed with State | Common Frequency Bands 60° 23' 13.35" N " LowFreq HighFreq Freq Unit ERP ERP Unit | Longitude: 166° 11' 46.88" W Specific Frequencies | | Horizontal Datum: NAD83 = = 1 |Site Elevation (SE): 42 (nearest foot) | | | Structure Height (AGL): 139 (nearest foot) | | Requested Marking/ Lighting: None | | | Other : | Recommended Marking/Lighting: None Nearest State: Alaska |Description of Location: The wind turbine | would be located | between the City | Water Lagoon and | the Sewage Lagoon | on the north and south sides of Airport Road. Description of Proposal: A 100kW wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. The turbine would be about 107 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. | i |Nearest City: Mekoryuk | | | | | | | | — https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/eFiling/locationAction.jsp?action=showLocationForm... 6/7/2009 » Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. ) Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2797-OE ¥/ 2601 Meacham Blvd. Prior Study No. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 2009-WTW-109-OE Issued Date: 06/02/2009 Brent Petrie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Wind Turbine Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #2 Location: Mekoryuk, AK Latitude: 60-23-05.00N NAD 83 Longitude: 166-11-35.00W Heights: 139 feet above ground level (AGL) 181 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be completed and returned to this office any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part I) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part II) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. Additional wind turbines or met towers proposed in the future may cause a cumulative effect on the national airspace system. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates and heights . Any changes in coordinates will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. Page | of 3 This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2797-OE. Signature Control No: 631651-109565292 (DNE -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2797-OE No Notice Required (NNR) however, a 7460-2 will be required by FPO. Page 3 of 3 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport Page 1 of 2 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport [Project Name: ALASK-000118678-09 Details for Case : Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #2 Show Project Summary | Case Status ASN: 2009-WTW-2797-OE Date Accepted: 05/04/2009 | Status: Determined Date Determined: 06/02/2009 | an 06/02/2009 fe] DNE | 7460-2 (PART II) required within 5 days after 05/05/2009 B ADD | the construction reaches its greatest height. | | | | | Documents: None | Add Suppiementai! Notice (7460-2) | | Construction / Alteration Information Structure Summary | | Notice Of: Construction aeeeee Structure Type: Wind Turbine | Duration: Permanent Structure Name: Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #2 | | if Temporary: Months: Days: FCC Number: | | Work Schedule - Start: 06/01/2009 Prior ASN: 2009-WTW-109-OE Work Schedule - End: 09/01/2009 | State Filing: Not filed with State | Structure Details Common Frequency Bands | Latitude: 60° 23' 5.00" N Low Freq High Freq Freq Unit ERP ERP Unit, | Longitude: 166° 11' 35.00" W Speci Frequencies Horizontal Datum: NAD83 = . a ‘site Elevation (SE): 42 (nearest foot) | Structure Height (AGL): 139 (nearest foot) | Requested Marking/ Lighting: None | Other : | Recommended Marking/Lighting: None | | Nearest City: Mekoryuk | | Nearest State: Alaska |Description of Location: The wind turbine would be located between the City Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon on the south side of Airport Road. Description of Proposal: A 100kW wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. The turbine would be about 107 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. https://oeaaa. faa.gov/oeaaa/external/eFiling/locationAction.jsp?action=showLocationForm... 6/7/2009 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2008-WTW-7884-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 01/27/2009 ) ld Brent Petrie » Alaska Village Electric Cooperative - 4831 Eagle Street eC (‘) / ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 A ‘ Structure: Wind Turbine Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Location: mekoryuk, AK Latitude: 60-23-13.35N NAD 83 Longitude: 166-11-46.88W Heights: 132 feet above ground level (A 165 feet above mean sea level and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory ised or terminated by the issuing office. ction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission QUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. Additional wind turbines or met towers proposed in the future may cause a cumulative effect on the national airspace system. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates and heights . Any changes in coordinates will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration requires separate notice to the FAA. Page | of 3 This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (770) 909-4401. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2008-WTW-7884-OE. Signature Control No: 609810-107950704 ( DNE -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2008-WTW-7884-OE No Notice Required. However, due to the proximity to FAA facilities, the FAA will require you to coordinate date and time with the SRN SOC manager at (916) 859-6042 before starting this project. Page 3 of 3 s Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. “ \ Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-109-OE 4) 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 01/27/2009 Brent Petrie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Wind Turbine Mekoryuk Wind Turbine #2 Location: Mekoryuk, AK Latitude: 60-23-05.00N NAD 83 Longitude: 166-11-35.00W Heights: 132 feet above ground level (AGL) 165 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. Additional wind turbines or met towers proposed in the future may cause a cumulative effect on the national airspace system. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates and heights . Any changes in coordinates will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (770) 909-4401. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-109-OE. Page | of 3 Signature Control No: 613282-107950396 ( DNE -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-109-OE No Notice Required. However, due to the proximity to FAA facilities, the FAA will require you to coordinate date and time with the SRN SOC manager at(916)859-6042 before starting this project. Page 3 of 3 Telephone Conversation Log Date: January 27, 2009 Project: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Subject: FAA determination Call From: Earl Newalu Telephone Number: 770.909.44091 Call To: Robin Reich Telephone Number: 907.929.5960 Conversation Notes: | emailed Earl asking whether the expiration date (2011) given in the FAA Determination for one turbine applied to the other, since an expiration date was not given for the second turbine FAA determination. Earl left a message stating that FAA’s database has information on the second turbine linked to the first turbine; therefore, when the first turbine is renewed, the second will be too. E. Federal Aviation Administration Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act Consultation 2009-0031 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office 605 West 4" Avenue, Room G-61 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2249 in reply refer to AFWFO January 5, 2009 Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 Re: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project (consultation number 2009-0031) Dear Ms. Reich, On December 2, 2008 we received your letter requesting concurrence with the determination that installation of two-100kW wind turbines in the village of Mekoryuk on Nunivak Island is not likely to adversely affect species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., as amended; ESA). This project, proposed by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), has received funding from the Denali Commission for planning, and will require a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for construction. The initial location for the proposed wind turbine installation was in town, close to the shoreline of Shoal Bay. During early consultation, the Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office (AFWFO) expressed concern about the potential for bird strikes at that location. Ultimately, an alternative location (further inland from Shoal Bay) was chosen for the turbine installation. Northwind 100 wind turbines will be located just outside of the town-site, on both the north and south sides of Airport Road, between the Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon. The turbines will be located > 1,200 feet from the coastline. The turbine blades are 32 feet long and the tower height is about 100 feet tall; thus the lowest elevation of a turbine blade is about 70 feet. Turbines will be installed on tubular towers. Power generated by the turbines will be distributed to the village via an existing power-line. The total footprint of the project will be 0.37 acres. Power generated by the wind turbines is expected to displace 29,386 gallons of diesel fuel/year, reducing carbon dioxide output by 350 tons. The US Fish and Wildlife Service recognize the potential benefits of alternative energy development to our communities and to our Trust Resources. Displacement of diesel fuel usage not only reduces oil dependence, but also reduces 1) the risk of petroleum hydrocarbon pollution and 2) the extent of our carbon footprint, which is essential to yor Ms. Robin Reich combating global climate-change. We hope to help facilitate such development, so long as it is done in a way that does not conflict with our mission: working with others to protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Mekoryuk is located along Shoal Bay. Shoal Bay is believed to be an important migratory stop-over for black brant (Branta bernicla) shorebirds and Steller’s eiders (Polysticta stelleri). Steller’s eiders, listed as threatened under the ESA in 1997, have been observed around Cape Etolin during migration (Brian McCaffery and Christian Dau, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Personal Communication; Swarth 1934). Steller’s eiders have also been observed during the molting period (Swarth 1934), but the location of those congregations are believed to be on the south side of Nunivak Island (AFWFO, Unpublished Data). Because eiders tend to fly low over water and land (approximately 30 feet above ground and water) and are known to collide with towers and lines, especially during poor visibility conditions such as fog and the darkness of night, the AF WFO requested that AVEC execute a study specifically addressing the risk to listed Steller’s eiders and spectacled eiders (Somateria fischeri), listed as threatened under the ESA in 1993. Approximately 3,000 spectacled eiders breed on the nearby Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and may migrate or stage around Mekoryuk during spring or fall (Bowman et al. 2002). In fall of 2004, a study of seasonal bird movements in the vicinity of Mekoryuk was conducted (Day et al. 2004). During the 21-day sampling period, bird movements were document by species, and observations included flight altitude. As many as 12,089 birds of at least 28 species were recorded in six sectors stratified by habitat. No Steller’s eiders were reported, but 2 spectacled eiders were seen off the Nunivak Island coast. Bird movements in the tundra habitat, where the two wind turbine installations are currently proposed, were reported at a rate of about 1 1-birds/hour, and were dominated by geese and passerines. No eiders were observed in the tundra habitat. Only 9% of the birds observed in the tundra habitat flew through the wind-swept area of the proposed turbine blades. The results of this study provided a very important tool, which the AFWFO used to assess potential impacts of this proposed project on birds and especially on species protected by the ESA. Based on the low probability that: A) listed Steller’s and spectacled eiders will fly over the tundra habitat of Nunivak Island; and B) Steller’s and spectacled eiders will fly at an elevation above 30 feet and thus into the rotor swept area of a turbine blade, the AFWFO concurs with the determination that installation of two Northwind 100 wind turbines on Nunivak Island is not likely to adversely affect threatened eiders. Preparation of a biological assessment or further consultation under section 7 of the ESA regarding this project is not necessary at this time. As per my telephone communication with you (on approximately December 5, 2008), we are aware that due to financial constraints AVEC does not plan to monitor for bird collisions, post-construction. The AF WFO strongly recommends that AVEC reconsider Ms. Robin Reich this decision. Because wind power generation is in its infant stages in Alaska, and especially because some projects are constructed along the Alaskan coastline where listed eiders occur, monitoring for bird strikes is an important step to validate our educated assumption that there will be no adverse affects. With that said, if Steller’s or spectacled eiders are documented striking the wind turbine blades, tower, or associated power lines, the AFWFO should be notified immediately and consultation should be reinitiated. This letter relates only to federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat under our jurisdiction. It does not address species under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service, or other legislation or responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Thank you for your cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA. If you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 271-1467. In future correspondences regarding this consultation please refer to consultation number 2009- 0031. Sincerely, Life bi le—— Ellen W. Lance Endangered Species Biologist Literature Cited Bowman T, RA Stehn, G Walters. 2002. Population size and production of geese and eiders nesting on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska in 2002. Unpublished Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, AK. Day RH, RM Burgess, PE Seiser. 2004. Movements of eiders and other birds near a proposed windfarm at Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, Alaska, Fall 2004. Unpublished report prepared by ABR, Inc, Fairbanks Alaska for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Anchorage, Alaska. 58 pp. Swarth HS. 1934. Birds of Nunivak Island, Alaska. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 22. 64 Pp. T:\s7\2009 sec 7\Ellen\20090031_mekoryukwind.doc Robin Reich From: Robin Reich [robin@solsticeak.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:38 PM To: ‘Ellen_Lance@fws.gov' Subject: RE: Mekoryuk Wind Project ESA Consultation Ellen- Thanks for the email. | talked over your question with AVEC. AVEC mentioned that they worked very hard in the planning stages of this project in order to avoid undefined monitoring costs. The utility contracted ABR to study birds in the area. AVEC moved the proposed location of the turbines based on this work and comments from the Service. My understanding is that the originally proposed location for the turbines, near the power plant, would have been easily monitored, since staff is located there. The currently proposed location is more difficult to monitor. As you know, AVEC is a not-for-profit utility and with last summer’s fuel prices, AVEC is trying to be very careful with spending. Because of these points, AVEC is not planning on conducting any formal post monitoring for bird strikes, but would have staff examine the area for strikes during any maintenance visits to the turbine sites. Let me know if you have additional questions. From: Ellen_Lance@fws.gov [mailto:Ellen_Lance@fws.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:14 PM To: Robin Reich Subject: Re: Mekoryuk Wind Project ESA Consultation Hi Robin, Does AVEC or Mekoryuk plan to conduct post construction monitoring for bird strikes? Ellen Ellen W. Lance Endangered Species Program USFWS/AFWFO 605 W. 4th Ave. Rm G-61 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 271-1467 Robin Reich <robin@solsticeak.com> To Elien_Lance@fws.qov cc ‘Brent Petrie’ <bpetrie@avec.org>, ‘Matt Metcalf <mmetcalf@avec.org>, "Thompson, 12/02/2008 09:07 AM Scott" <thompson@coffman.com> Subject Mekoryuk Wind Project ESA Consultation Good morning Ellen- Attached is the ESA consultation letter and attachments for the Mekoryuk Wind Project we discussed about a month ago. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your help with this. Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 phone: 907.929.5960 cell: 907.903.0597 robin@solsticeak.com [attachment "Mekoryuk USFWS Letter-3.pdf" deleted by Ellen Lance/R7/FWS/DOI] [attachment "Mekoryuk Bird Study_FINAL.pdf" deleted by Ellen Lance/R7/FWS/DO!] Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 907.929.5960 December 2, 2008 Ellen W. Lance Endangered Species Program USFWS/AFWFO 605 W. 4th Ave. Rm G-61 Anchorage, AK 99501 Subject: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project ESA Section 7 Consultation Dear Ms. Lance, As we discussed a few weeks ago, the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning on installing two wind turbines in Mekoryuk, Alaska. The purpose of this letter is to obtain U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s concurrence on AVEC’s finding that the project will not likely adversely impact threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Project Details The wind turbines would be located between the City Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon on the north and south sides of Airport Road. These locations are approximately 1,200 feet and 1,600 feet from the southern and northern Nunivak Island coastline, respectively (Figure 1). The turbines would be installed on 50 by 50 foot (top width) pads (Figure 2). The total footprint of the pads would be approximately 3,844 square feet (62 by 62 feet). The access road to the north wind turbine pad north of Airport Road would be 100 foot long by 20 foot wide at the top and 28 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.06 acres. The access road to the south wind turbine would be approximately 200 feet long by 20 foot wide at the top and 28 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.13 acres. The total footprint of the project would be 0.37 acres. Two 100kW wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. Each turbine would be about100 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. The bottom of the blades would be approximately 70 feet above the ground. Project Benefits Mekoryuk has a high-value, class 7 wind regime for wind power generation. During 2007, 943,600 kWh of energy was generated at the Mekoryuk power plant using 67,500 gallons of diesel fuel. A two-machine array of Northwind 100 wind turbines generating almost 480,000 kWh per year could displace up to 50% of the energy normally generated by the diesel CBxrice Ellen Lance, USFWS Page 2 powerplant, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water plant. The wind turbines will displace 29,368 gallons of diesel fuel each year. So far in 2008, an average of $4.46 per gallon for the fuel has been spent to generate electricity. At this cost, approximately $131,148 will be saved generating power during that first year. Assuming a 4% rate of inflation for the next 20 years, the project will save over $3.9 million. The non-economic benefits will be from the reduced carbon footprint of the power plant. By reducing the amount of fuel burned on the island by over 50%, over 350 tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented from entering the atmosphere each year. ESA Section 7 finding A review of the current list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species in Alaska and the area leads us to conclude that the project area is in the breeding range for the spectacled eider. In addition, the project area is in the winter and molting area habitat range, but not within critical habitat, of the Steller’s eider. + Since 2003, AVEC has considered the advice of USFWS to determine a location for the wind turbines which would not impact eiders and other bird species. AVEC once proposed a location near the existing AVEC power plant and tank farm and a location near the existing water reservoir (See Figure 3). Based on comments from USFWS about the power plant location and geotechnical conditions near the reservoir, AVEC dismissed these locations and moved the proposed turbine sites away from town and farther away from the coast line. (See attached July 16, 2003 email correspondence.) The current proposed locations are at least 0.25 miles away from the shore. Upon a request from your office, AVEC commissioned a survey of Steller’s and spectacled eiders and other bird species near the project area in September 2004.” Based on one season of sampling and discussions with local residents, the study concludes that the overall risk for eiders, waterfowl, and other birds is fairly small during fall migration and staging. This report is attached for your review. Chris Dau at the USFWS Migratory Bird Management Office stated in a November 24, 2008 telephone conversation that eiders have a short duration in Mekoryuk. They are in the area "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Threatened and Endangered Species. Unpublished Report, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Anchorage, Alaska. April 2007. Day, Robert H., Robert M. Burgess, and Pamela E. Seiser. 2005. Movements of Eiders and other Birds near a Proposed Wind farm at Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, Alaska, Fall 2004. Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. ABR, Inc.— Environmental Research & Services. CBxice environmental Ellen Lance, USFWS Page 3 between early and mid-September through mid-October. This time frame minimizes the opportunity for impacts to eiders. Based on the above information and the detailed information contained in the attached report, we request your concurrence on our evaluation that the Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project will not likely adversely affect threatened and endangered species under the jurisdiction of your agency, in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We look forward to your concurrence with this finding. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting Attachments: Figure 1. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Map Figure 2. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Plan Figure 3. Previously Proposed Mekoryuk Wind Turbine Locations July 16, 2003 emails between Brent Petrie, AVEC, and Ellen Lance, USFWS. Report: Movements of Eiders and other Birds near a Proposed Wind farm at Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, Alaska, Fall 2004 stice fenvironmental Distance to coast | ine:~1,800 ft Figure 1. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Map. Photo source: Mekoryuk Community Map. DCRA Community Profiles website: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/profiles/profile-maps.htm Figure 2. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Plan. Css PLAN NON-WOVEN. GEOTEXTILE LUMI OF EXCAVATION (41 TYPICAL PAD / ACCESS ROAD DETAIL AVEC MEKORYUK WIND TOWERS SITE PLAN en 2 » veer PRE-65% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Xref V:\ABLOCKB\, Drawing: |:\23076 MEKORYUK CDR\ACAD-DESIGN\DWG\23076_C1.0WG - Loyout: LAYOUT! User: SWHEAT Jul 22, 2003 - 3:18pm 4 4 ~ [PROPOSED WIND ie GENERATOR SITE No. 1 oT 7 y vd I \ \ I Uy 47 | sesame |/ |: ; fNx - Wr : al PROPOSED WIND GENERATOR SITE No. 2 ages: AERIAL_1OOQUAL.JPG. REVISIONS [DESORPTION "23076 _BASE.OWG 23076_22X34PLN.OWG — WRLAGERLECTRCCOOPERATNE —[scaie:r"=100 [oesionen: sox Jonecxen wr [orawe saw [onte: 07/00/03 Xrels: ----- Original Message----- From: Brent Petrie Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:08 PM To: 'Ellen_Lance@fws.gov'; Marie Becker Cc: Greg _Balogh@fws.gov Subject: RE: information on proposed wind sites Ellen- Thank you for your comments and suggestions. One of the problems here seems to be lack of information and unknown probabilities of wind turbine and bird interactions. We will look over your suggestions and see what we can do. There are time constraints involved with all of these that we will have to consider. Nightmute is the only site where we expect to install additional anemometry right now. We already have an anemometer there on an existing light pole and expect to move it. Brent Petrie sooo Original Message----- From: Ellen_Lance@fws.gov [mailto:Ellen_Lance@fws.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:40 AM To: Marie Becker; Brent Petrie Cc: Greg Balogh@fws.gov Subject: information on proposed wind sites I spoke with Brian McCaffery (biologist with the YKD Refuge) yesterday, and with the information he has provided taken with other information, I have some recommendations for the proposed wind sites at Nightmute, Toksook Bay, and Mekoryuk. I will also comment on Hooper Bay. 1) Nightmute: should have no issues, either Endangered Species or Migratory Birds. 2) Toksook Bay: There has never been a raptor survey flown for Nelson Island. This year in the Askinuks, Brian counted 21 Rough legged hawks, 9 Gyrfalcons, 2 Golden eagles, and 11 Ravens. Brian does not expect those kinds of numbers on Nelson Island, as there is not as much nesting habitat. He predicted one or two pairs for all of Nelson Island. AVEC could test this prediction by funding a helicopter survey in early to mid-May. The cost would be 10-15 thousand dollars. This is not among the high priority surveys though. While Endangered Species should no be of issue at Toksook Bay, Brian indicated that gull strikes may be an issue, depending on placement of the turbines. Gulls tend to roost upslope hundreds of meters and go to water to feed. Particularly if there are herring spawn sites nearby, the gulls may feed in very large numbers. We recommend site surveys at Toksook Bay, during herring spawn season. This time period will also coincide with some sea duck migrations. 3) Mekoryuk: Both Brian and Chris Dau (long time pilot biologist with the Service) have indicated that wind turbines near town could be problematic, not only for Steller's eiders, but also for Brant and shorebirds migrating through. Stelier's eiders, particularly females with young migrate around Cape Etolin, and potentially cut across the peninsula, especially during periods of low visibility. Shoal Bay is among the top 2 migratory stop over points for shorebirds in this area. As such, we recommend a radar study be conducted at Mekoryuk. 4) Dennis Meiners indicated that ,Brent, you will be facilitating the radar study at Hooper Bay. Brian and others indicated that Hooper could be a very risky location for spectacled eiders, because that is where the begin to come ashore to the nesting areas from migration. We recommend that the spring radar work occur while there is still shorefast ice and while the birds are migrating. This is the most risky time, as it is difficult for the birds to follow the coast. The only way I can think of to do this is monitor the spectacled eider migration in the spring and jump on the radar when they hit the Hooper Bay area. What is currently planned? To date there have been no requests for informal consultation for these proposed wind sites. My recommendation to you would be to initiate informal consultation for the above sites. Where studies are planned, indicate that in the informal consultation request for the anonometers. A not likely to adversely affect determination would be appropriate for Hooper Bay, and Mekoryuk, if monitoring was occurring while the anonometers are up. Please contact me with any questions you might have, or we can talk more on the 28th. Best, Ellen Ellen W. Lance Endangered Species Program USFWS/AFWEFO 605 W. 4th Ave. Rm G-61 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 271-1467 C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Endangered Species Act Consultation Reich, Robin From: Kaja Brix [Kaja.Brix@noaa.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:02 PM To: Arduser, Kate P. Ce: Reich, Robin Subject: Re: FW: Mekoryuk Fuel Storage and Power Upgrades Project Kate When an action agency concludes that there are no listed species in the area and/or that are affected by a project then we do not consult. Kaja Arduser, Kate P. wrote: VVVVVVV VV VV Vv VVVVVVVV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV VV Hi Kaja- I am working with Robin on the Mekoryuk Fuel Storage and Dispensing Upgrades Project. I don’t think we’ve heard back from you about this project. Please see below. Thanks, Kate *From:* Reich, Robin *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:00 PM *To:* Kaja.Brix@noaa.gov *Cc:* Arduser, Kate P. *Subject:* Mekoryuk Fuel Storage and Power Upgrades Project Kaja- The purpose of this email is to request your concurrence on our evaluation that the Mekoryuk Fuel Storage and Dispensing Upgrades Project will not impact threatened and endangered species under the jurisdiction of your agency, in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Alaska Village Cooperative, Inc (AVEC) is planning improvements to the bulk fuel facilities in Mekoryuk, Alaska. The proposed project would involve construction of: + New tank farms with secondary containment for the Nima Corporation (Nima), the City of Mekoryuk, AVEC, and the Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) - A new bulk fuel transfer and dispensing facility A new marine header A new above ground fill pipeline connecting the marine fill header with the NIMA, City, and AVEC tank farms The proposed project would involve decommission and removal of the: Existing AVEC bulk fuel tanks and containment Existing Nima bulk fuel tanks and dispensers Existing marine header Existing above ground (except at the road crossing) fill pipeline + ot OF (More project information and a project figure are attached.) a VVNViVVVVIVVVVVV VV VV VV VV VV VV Vv VV Vv A review of the current list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species in Alaska and a project area investigation leads us to find that there are no ESA protected species under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries within the Mekoryuk Fuel Storage and Power Upgrades project area (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/SPPLIS0206.pdf) . We have determined that, because there are no listed ESA species in the project area, the proposed project would have no effect on threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of the NOAA Fisheries. We have also contacted the USFWS regarding ESA species under their jurisdiction. We look forward to your concurrence with this finding. If you have any questions, please contact me. Robin Reich Senior Environmental Planner HDR Alaska, Inc 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 phone: 907.644.2000 fax: 907.644.2022 D. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division, Essential Fish Habitat/ Title 16 Fish Habitat Consultation Telephone Conversation Log Date: January 5, 2009 Project: Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Subject: Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit Need Call From: Jeff Estenson, ADF&G Habitat Division Telephone Number: 267-2113 Call To: Robin Reich, Solstice Telephone Number: 929-5960 Conversation Notes: Jeff called in response to the email | sent to him on December 4, 2008 regarding the need for a Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit. He stated that no permit would be needed. He said that delay in responding was due to him forwarding the email on to the ADF&G person in the region to determine whether there were issues related to migratory birds. He said that since he had not heard back from the region, the project likely has no issue related to ADF&G’s jurisdiction. | told Jeff that we were working with Ellen Lance at USFWS on bird (listed and migratory) issues. Robin Reich From: Robin Reich [robin@solsticeak.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:27 PM To: ‘jeff.estensen@alaska.gov' Subject: AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Towers Project Attachments: Mekoryuk ADF&Gfigure1 .pdf; Mekoryuk ADF&GFig2.pdf Jeff- The purpose of this email is to request your concurrence on our evaluation that no Title 41 (Fish Habitat) Permit will be needed for the AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Towers Project described below. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning on installing two wind turbines in Mekoryuk, Alaska. The wind turbines would be located between the City Water Lagoon and the Sewage Lagoon on the north and south sides of Airport Road. These locations are approximately 1,200 feet and 1,600 feet from the southern and northern Nunivak Island coastline, respectively (Figure 1). The turbines would be installed on 50 by 50 foot (top width) pads (Figure 2). The total footprint of the pads would be approximately 3,844 square feet (62 by 62 feet). The access road to the north wind turbine pad north of Airport Road would be 100 foot long by 20 foot wide at the top and 28 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.06 acres. The access road to the south wind turbine would be approximately 200 feet long by 20 foot wide at the top and 28 feet wide at the base. The total footprint of the north wind turbine would be 0.13 acres. The total footprint of the project would be 0.37 acres. Two 100kW wind turbines would be installed on tubular towers. Each turbine would be about 100 feet tall and have 32 foot blades. The bottom of the blades would be approximately 70 feet above the ground. Mekoryuk has a high-value, class 7 wind regime for wind power generation. During 2007, 943,600 kWh of energy was generated at the Mekoryuk power plant using 67,500 gallons of diesel fuel. A two-machine array of Northwind 100 wind turbines generating almost 480,000 kWh per year could displace up to 50% of the energy normally generated by the diesel powerplant, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water plant. The wind turbines will displace 29,368 gallons of diesel fuel each year. So far in 2008, an average of $4.46 per gallon for the fuel has been spent to generate electricity. At this cost, approximately $131,148 will be saved generating power during that first year. Assuming a 4% rate of inflation for the next 20 years, the project will save over $3.9 million. The non-economic benefits will be from the reduced carbon footprint of the power plant. By reducing the amount of fuel burned on the island by over 50%, over 350 tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented from entering the atmosphere each year. A search of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Fish Distribution Database (<http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_ims.cfm>) did not list any anadromous fish streams important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes in the project area. In addition, no streams or drainages will be crossed by the project. Based on these findings, we have determined that the proposed project would have no effect on fish habitat and would not require a permit from ADF&G. We request your concurrence with our determination that a permit from ADF&G is not required for the AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Towers Project. We look forward to your concurrence with this finding. If you have any questions, please contact me. Robin Reich Solstice Environmental Consulting 11760 Woodbourne Drive 1 Distance to coastline: ~1.600 ft eo : Proposed Wind Turbines Project Location Distance to coast line:~1,800 ft Figure 1. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Map. Photo source: Mekoryuk Community Map. DCRA Community Profiles website: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/profiles/profile-maps.htm s0.00' Lo \ — wnorower, SEE STRUCTURAL _>~ TURUROUNO/ACCESS, ROND, SEE 1/010 oor Zr 8600 Pex sor 9e-s002 WNOTOWER, SEE INCCESS ROAD, 12.00" ‘000 nos sre PLAN fea ar Ga nea. PAD / ACCESS ROAD DETAIL Figure 2. AVEC Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project Site Plan. ” oct uxt oo we PRE-65% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Xref_V:\ABLOCKB\, 800 F suet react fase REVISIONS AVEC MEKORYUK WIND TOWERS SITE PLAN ea = ime = cof MEKORYUK oe gent C1.0 ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ING. February 18, 2009 Mr. Hollis Twitchell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 346 Bethel, AK 99559 Mr. Allan Skinner Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Regulatory Division P.O. box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506 Re: Notice of Completion of Mekoryuk, Alaska Boat Landing Facility USACE #: POA-2007-1746 Special Use Permit # 747540-08-20 To Whom it May Concern: This letter has been written to alert both the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife | Service of the completion of the Mekoryuk Boat Landing Facility project. There were no issues to report and all stipulations have been adhered to during construction. AVEC did dredge and removed the estimated 18,000 cu. yards of material from the small boat landing for civil fill material required for other projects in the community of Mekoryuk. At this time, AVEC would like to request an invoice from the U.S. Fish and Wild Life for the payment of the removed material, at the agreed price of $1.60 per cu. yard. Upon the receipt of the invoice, AVEC will promptly pay the bill; consequently, completing the closing procedure for this project. Thank you for your assistance throughout this process. Sincerely, Lee. Matthew Metcalf ey Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Project Development - Project Manager L | 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone 907 S61 1814 Facsimle 907 S61 2438 Toll Pree 800 478 1818 Fax 866 561 2588 AVEC: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. February 18, 2009 Mr. Hollis Twitchell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yukon Deita Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 346 Bethel, AK 99559 Mr. Allan Skinner Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Regulatory Division P.O. box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506 Re: Notice of Completion of Mekoryuk, Alaska Boat Landing Facility USACE #: POA-2007-1746 Special Use Permit # 747540-08-20 To Whom it May Concern: This letter has been written to alert both the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife | Service of the completion of the Mekoryuk Boat Landing Facility project. There were no issues to report and all stipulations have been adhered to during construction. AVEC did dredge and removed the estimated 18,000 cu. yards of material from the small boat landing for civil fill material required for other projects in the community of Mekoryuk. At this time, AVEC would like to request an invoice from the U.S. Fish and Wild Life for the payment of the removed material, at the agreed price of $1.60 per cu. yard. Upon the receipt of the invoice, AVEC will promptly pay the bill; consequently, completing the closing procedure for this project. Thank you for your assistance throughout this process. Sincerely, oS ~ Matthew Metcalf 7 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Project Development - Project Manager ee | S61 1418 Facsinsle 907 S61 288% Toll Free 800 478 1X18 Fax S66 561 238K 4841 Lagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone 2004-000860-0 Recording Dist: 201 - Nome 7/20/2004 11:31 AM Pages: 1 of 9 UNUM CCC: A L A s K A After recording, return to: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Ground Lease and Agreement between s Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Nima Corporation for the wind site This Lease is being made between Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (hereinafter “AVEC”), whose address is 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, AK 99503, and the Nima Corporation, the Village Corporation for the Native Village of Mekoryuk (hereinafter “Land Owner”) whose address is Post Office Box 52 , Mekoryuk, AK 99630. 1. Description of Location. Land Owner leases to AVEC the property located in Mekoryuk, Alaska, Cape Nome Recording District, described as follows: Subject land lies total within section 31, Township 4 North, Range 97 West, Seward Meridian and is more specifically described in the attached Exhibit A. Said parcel contains approximately 2.1 acres. The Lease includes all rights-of-way, licenses, or easements now or in the future relating to Land Owner’s title in the property and any improvements on the property. 2. Length of Lease. The initial lease period will last for fifty (50) years, beginning Sut, ¥ Aeo¥ and will terminate on Je " £, 30s! y . Unless either party gives at least one year’s notice prior to the end of a lease périod, the lease will automatically extend for additional ten (10) year periods. 3. Notwithstanding item 2 above, the Grantor and Grantee may agree that the site would be conveyed in fee title after the property is surveyed and a survey plat is recorded. The surveyed site will be reduced to the area that is actually needed for the facility and appropriate buffer and expansion areas. If the site is not conveyed in fee title, this lease may be amended to reflect the surveyed location. Original Filed Avé< Acedq 4. Rent. Rent for this Lease will be in the total amount of One Dollar and No/100 ($1). As additional consideration for this Lease, AVEC promises to use the property for the purposes listed in paragraph 5(a) below during the term of the Lease. 5. Improvements. (a) AVEC will have the unconditional right to build and develop wind power generation, transmission, control, and distribution facilities on the property. Such facilities include, but are not limited to: (i) Power generation equipment for wind turbine generation method; (ii) Above or underground transmission and distribution lines for power; (iii) | Equipment associated with the control of the process of generation, transmission, or distribution; (iv) Any associated facilities that further the purposes of the Lease, including infrastructure improvements such as water lines, sewer lines, fences, etc; (b) AVEC will be responsible for obtaining permits and governmental approvals for construction of the facilities mentioned in Paragraph 5(a). 6. Maintenance and Construction Obligations. (a) Maintenance. AVEC will, at its expense, keep any improvements, including any water, sewer, waste water drain lines, fences, vehicle/pedestrian access ways, trench drains and utilities, on the property in good repair and _ maintenance, and in a safe, sanitary, orderly, and sightly condition. The improvements will be maintained in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. (b) Construction. AVEC may remove all or portions of any existing improvements on the property in its sole discretion. Hie Division. AVEC may divide the property into two (2) or more parcels for purposes of development, assignment, or mortgage. In conjunction with such a division, and upon written request of AVEC, AVEC and Land Owner shall execute new leases identical in terms to this Lease for each new parcel. 8. No Right of Entry. Land Owner will not have the right to enter the property during the term of the Lease without AVEC’s permission. AVEC will grant permission to enter the premises if entry is necessary for Land Owner to perform its 2of 9 2004-000860-0 obligations under this Lease, or to comply with a federal, state, or local law, regulation, or directive. 9) Payment of Taxes and Other Charges. The parties acknowledge that as an Alaska electric cooperative, AVEC is not subject to taxes other than as provided in AS 10.25. However, in the event that any taxing authority shall impose any tax other than that provided in AS 10.25, Land Owner shall pay such tax. 10. Indemnification. Land Owner and AVEC shall indemnify, save, and hold each other harmless, and defend each other against any claim or liability for any injury to any person or persons or damage to any property or any other liability arising or relating to any act, omission, neglect, or misconduct of their respective officers, agents, subcontractors, servants, or employees relating to or arising out of this agreement. 11. Insurance. AVEC will maintain any insurance relating to the property that may be required by state or federal law. 12% Hazardous Materials & Environmental Compliance. (a) As detailed in Paragraph 5, AVEC may use the property for utility purposes. Such use may require Hazardous Materials to be brought onto, used, and stored on the property. AVEC will indemnify, save, and hold Land Owner harmless, and defend Land Owner at AVEC’s sole cost and expense against any claim or liability for any injury to any person or persons or damage to any property or any other liability arising or resulting from any negligent act, omission, or intentional misconduct of AVEC, its officers, agents, subcontractors, servants, or employees relating to AVEC’s use, transportation, or storage of Hazardous Materials on the property. (b) The presence or use of Hazardous Materials on the property, or violations of federal, state, or local environmental laws, regulations, or directives by AVEC, shall not constitute a breach of this Lease agreement. (c) As used herein the term “Hazardous Material” means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste which is or becomes regulated by any local government authority, the State of Alaska, the United States Government, or any other governmental entity. The term “Hazardous Material” includes, without limitation, any material or substance that is (i) defined as a “hazardous substance” under appropriate state law provisions; (ii) petroleum; (iii) asbestos; (iv) designated as a “hazardous substance” pursuant to Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321); (v) designated as a “hazardous waste” pursuant to Section 1004 of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6903); (vi) defined as a “hazardous substance” pursuant to Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601); or (vii) defined as a “regulated substance” pursuant to Subchapter IX Solid Waste Disposal Act (Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks) (42 U.S.C. 6991). IL 9 2004-000860-0 13. Lease Termination. In the event of Lease termination or expiration, AVEC may, at its sole discretion, choose to: (a) _ leave the property with improvements and equipment in place; (b) | remove of destroy any improvements or equipment on the property; or (c) remove or destroy some improvements and equipment while leaving other equipment or.improvements in place. * 14. Modification. This Lease may not be amended or modified except in writing signed by both parties and any mortgagee of any portion of the leasehold estate. 15. Subletting, Assignment, Mortgage, and Security Interests. - (a) Sublet. AVEC may sublet portions of the property during the term of this Lease to its subscribers who will occupy a portion of the property for the conduct of business consistent with the uses permitted herein. Each sublease will be in writing and will provide that the sublease is subject to this Lease and to any extension, modifications, or amendments of this Lease. (b) | Assignment. AVEC may assign this Lease in whole or in part with the consent of Land Owner, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the Lease is assigned, AVEC will be relieved of all of its obligations under this Lease as long as the person taking the assignment assumes AVEC’s obligations under this Lease. (c) Mortgages and Security Interests. As an electric cooperative, AVEC may be required to mortgage the leased property and improvements to the lender. AVEC may mortgage the property as long as it gives written notice to Land Owner within thirty (30) days after recording of any mortgage(s). AVEC may also grant security interests in the property as necessary to secure financing from the federal government or financial institutions. Land Owner agrees to reasonably cooperate with AVEC in the preparation or submission of any documents necessary for AVEC to secure financing from the Rural Utilities Service or other lenders. 16. Land Owner’s Remedies and Breach. (a) In the event that AVEC defaults on its obligations under this Lease, Land Owner may terminate the Lease if: (i) Land Owner has given written notice of the default to AVEC; and 4of 9 2004-000860-0 (ii) | AVEC has not cured the default within sixty (60) days, or in the case of a default, which cannot reasonably be cured within sixty (60) days, has not made reasonable efforts to complete a cure of the default. : (b) In the event that Land Owner defaults upon any of its obligations under this Lease, AVEC may terminate the Lease if: (i) AVEC has given written notice of the default to Land Owner; and ' (ii) | Land Owner has not cured the default within sixty (60) i or in the case of a default which cannot reasonably be cured within sixty (60) days, has not made reasonable efforts to complete a cure of the default. (c) In the event of a termination under subparagraph (b), if AVEC elects to leave any improvements or equipment in place, it shall be entitled to. recover from Land Owner the greater of the fair market value of the equipment and improvements or the outstanding balance on any loans used to purchase and install said improvements or equipment. 17. Notices. Any notice required or desired to be given pursuant to this Lease shall be in writing. Notices may be faxed or mailed and are effective on the date they are received. Notices shall be given to: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Facsimile No. (907) 562-4086 with copy to: Kemppel, Huffman and Ellis, P.C. 255 E. Fireweed Lane, Suite 200 “ Anchorage, AK 99503 Facsimile No. (907) 276-2493 and if addressed to Land Owner, the address of Land Owner is: Nima Corporation Post Office Box 52 Mekoryuk, Alaska 99630 Facsimile No. (907) 827-8427 Upon written notice, the parties may change the address for notice required under this Lease. rN 2004-000860-0 18. Warranty of Title. Land Owner agrees that it has the right and authority to lease the property and that AVEC, by paying rent and performing all promises on AVEC’s part, will be able to use the property without interruption or interference. 19. | Condemnation.” (a) Termination. If, during the term of this Lease, title to the whole or substantially all of the property is taken as the result of the exercise of the power of eminent domain, this Lease shall, at the election of AVEC, terminate as of the date of vesting of title pursuant to such proceeding. For the purposes of this Section 18, “substantially all of. the leased premises” shall be deemed to have been taken if a taking under any such proceeding shall involve such an area, whether the area be improved with a building(s) or be utilized for a parking area or otherwise (including a deprivation of access to all streets and highways abutting the leased premises), that AVEC cannot reasonably operate in the remainder of the leased premises the business being conducted on the leased premises at the time of such taking. (b) | Award. The award made in any proceeding shall be divided between Land Owner and AVEC as follows: The amount of any such award attributable to . the improvements or equipment AVEC has provided shall belong to AVEC, and the remainder of such award shall belong to Land Owner; provided, however, in the event title to the whole or substantially all of the property is taken, or any mortgagee of the property so requires, AVEC shall be obligated to use so much or all of its award as shall be necessary to pay off any permanent mortgage of AVEC. ~ 20. | Easements. AVEC’s interest is subject to any easements of record as of the date of this Lease. 21. — Arbitration. AVEC and Land Owner agree that if any dispute arises between them relating to this Lease, the dispute will be submitted for arbitration. The determination of the arbitrator will be binding on the parties. In the event the parties are unable to agree to an arbitrator or method of selecting an arbitrator, the presiding judge of the Fourth Judicial District shall appoint the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall decide the dispute by applying the laws of the State of Alaska. 22. Attorney’s Fees. The prevailing party in any action or arbitration relating to this Lease agreement is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as may be fixed by the court or arbitrator. 23. Impossibility. If the obligations and duties of AVEC or Land Owner cannot be performed by either of them because of an unforeseeable act beyond their control, then for such time period as the rights and obligations are incapable of being performed this Lease shall be suspended, and the time of such suspension shall not be counted against AVEC, anything in this Lease to the contrary notwithstanding. Gof 9 2004-000860-0 24.. Recording. This Lease may be recorded at AVEC’s option. In the event the Lease terminates, Land Owner shall have the right to record an affidavit so stating. 225. Supersession. This lease supersedes any previous understanding or agreements. i 26.. Effective date: This lease is effective the date it is signed by all parties. ; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused’ this Lense to be executed: : : FOR: NIMA CORPORATION By: ae a Sh STATE OF ALASKA j FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT _) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, duly sworn and commissioned as such, personally appeared Dh the QZ eee of | NIMA c ORATYON, whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she is authorized to and did execute the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes contained therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal this i pe day of _C feck , 20 Public in and for Alaska : ott My Lommission expires: Bess cst 76, 42006 em FFICIAL SEAL STATE OF ALASKA NOTARY PUBLIC MARIE M. BECKER m. expires: Same 26, 2006 Fey ramnvovenveranvowaninnrts ann snannees# Tof 9 2004-000860-0 FOR ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. By: Ws th \% | Meera Kohler, President & CEO * STATE OF ALASKA ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, duly sworn and commissioned as such, personally appeared MEERA KOHLER, the PRESIDENT & CEO of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and she acknowledged to me that she is authorized to and did execute the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes contained therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal this Lath day of July » 2004 _ = ee, ny, : : ae a & Shey a, ne FR y ““0,", Notary Public in and for Alaska My Commission expires: OS -// 2004 Wr” e. ue 9 Expires: WO “Adan 8 of 9 2004-000860-0 Site Mekoryuk Lease Wind Exhibit A -_———— ore ine, EE eae ene —— ceiememiaen meer oe mg Return to: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. a“ 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503-7497 LEASE AMENDMENT (Amendment No.2) This amendment applies to a lease agreement and subsequent lease amendment between the NIMA CORPORATION, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 52, Mekoryuk, Alaska 99630, hereinafter called the LESSOR; and the ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, hereinafter called the LESSEE. Said lease agreement was recorded on July 20, 2004, as document 2004- 000860-0 in the Cape Nome Recording District. A lease amendment was recorded on October 3, 2005, as document 2005-001318-0 in the Cape Nome Recording District. The parties agree to amend said lease and subsequent amendment by replacing the Description of Location contained in paragraph 1, the Indemnification section in paragraph 10 and the Insurance section in paragraph 11, with the following: Subject land is located in Mekoryuk, Alaska within Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 97 West, Seward Meridian, Cape Nome Recording District. The subject land consists of two parcels. The first parcel is approximately 400ft. x 400ft. located on the north side of the Mekoryuk Airport Road. This parcel shares a portion of land that occupies Tract 10 and Tract 5, bordering on the East side of “Right of Way” (ROW) 6. The second parcel is approximately 400ft. x 400ft. located on the south side of the Mekoryuk Airport Road. This parcel shares a portion of land that occupies Tract 9. The tract designations are based upon a draft ANCSA 14(c) map of boundaries prepared by McClintock Land Associates. See Exhibit A for the locations of the two parcels. The locations are approximate and subject to survey. 1. The amended site is shown in the attached Exhibit A. Exhibit A replaces any maps, drawings or description contained in the aforementioned Lease and former amendment and is part of this amendment. 2. Indemnification: Lessee shall save, protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Lessor, its affiliates, parents and subsidiaries, and all of its and their officers, directors, shareholders, employees and agents, from and against any and all demands, claims, causes of action (whether in the nature of an action for damages, indemnity, contribution, government cost recovery or otherwise), actions, damages, fines, penalties, judgments, costs and expenses (including but without limitation costs of defense, settlement, and reasonable attorney’s fees), charges, forfeitures, liens, and liabilities or losses of any nature or kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, personal injury, property damage and wrongful death, arising or resulting directly or indirectly from acts or omissions of Lessees, their employees, agents, contractors, sub contractors, invitees, customers, or assigns, and their respective employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors, or Lessees’ operations or use of the Subject Property. 3. Insurance : Lessee, at their sole cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general liability insurance at all times during the term of this Lease, in the amount of $2,000,000 ($1,000,000 per occurrence) for its construction and operations on the Subject Lands. Such insurance will insure Lessee’s activities upon, in or about the Subject Lands (and such activities of Lessee’s agents, employees, and contractors) against claims of bodily injury or death or property damage or loss with a limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit. All insurance required under this section shall be with companies reasonably acceptable to NIMA licensed in the State of Alaska. Each insurance policy maintained under this section shall provide that (i) such policy is not subject to cancellation or a reduction in coverage except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to NIMA, and (ii) NIMA is as an additional named insured there under. Lessee shall deliver to NIMA contemporaneously with Lessee’s execution of this Agreement, and from time to time thereafter upon ten (10) days written request, certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the existence and amounts of the insurance coverage described in this section. 4. All other provisions of the aforementioned Lease remain in full force and effect. 5. This amendment sets forth all terms, conditions and agreements of the parties and supersedes any previous understanding or agreements regarding the provisions contained in this amendment whether oral or written. No modification of this amendment or the aforementioned Lease is effective unless in writing and by all parties. 6. The effective date of the amendment will be the date that all parties have signed this amendment. : FOR: NIMA CORPORATION LESSOR STATE OF ALASKA ) FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT _) THIS IS. TO CERTIFY that before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, duly swotn ‘and commissioned as such, personally appeared Lous @ Waa Se. , the of Nima Corporation, whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he/she acknowledged te me that he/she is authorized to and did execute the same freely and : ‘ ; : voluntarily for the uses and purposes contained therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal this 24 dayof__ Sesarae _, 2009. neni nf Aen S eo | Notary Public in and for Alaska 5 My Commission expires: Agguw J5. 2013 FOR: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. LESSEE By: . Meera Kohler, President & CEO STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) 4 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public “ini and for the State of Alaska, duly sworn and commissioned as such, personally appeared MEERA KOHLER, the PRESIDENT & CEO of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and she acknowledged to me that she is authorized to and did execute the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes contained therein. +s _IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal this 24" day of Jun 2009. * Notary Public in and for Alaska My Commission expires: Sept. F_20/0 STATE OF ALASKA ax, NOTARY PUBLIC BrentN. Petrie ‘Sas My Commission Expires: September 9, 2010 PROPOSED 400'x 409 LEASE FOR NORTH WINDTOWER WATER P, RIA Fe. ; PROPOSED 400 x 40g LEASE FOR SouTH WINDTOWER DIMENSIONS AR APPROXIMATE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of____June , 2009, by and between Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) whose address is 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, AK 99503, the City of Mekoryuk (CITY) whose address is P.O. Box 29, Mekoryuk, AK 99630, and Nunivak Island Mekoryuk Alaska (NIMA) - Mekoryuk Native Corporation (CORPORATION) whose address is 236 West 10" Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501. - NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual agreements and covenants contained in this Agreement, AVEC, the CITY and the CORPORATION hereby agree and tovenant as follows: A Project Description: AVEC proposes to build and develop wind power generation, transmission, control, and distribution facilities to benefit the community of Mekoryuk. Property Description: Subject land is located in Mekoryuk, Alaska within Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 97 West, Seward Meridian, Cape Nome Recording District. The Subject land consists of one parcel. The proposed parcel is approximately 400ft. x 400ft. The property is located on the north side of the Mekoryuk Airport Road. This parcel shares a portion of land that occupies Tract 10 and Tract 5, bordering on the East side of “Right of Way” (ROW) 6. The location is approximate and is subject to survey, as shown on Exhibit A. It is agreed that after construction, the site will be reduced to the area actually needed for the facility; such site is not to exceed five acres. Land Status: The proposed site is currently owned by the CORPORATION. CORPORATION represents and warrants there are no liens, encumbrances, charges, or claims affecting the surface rights to the land identified in this Agreement which were created by or are the result of any action taken by the CORPORATION. The CORPORATION has leased the subject land to AVEC; however, the CORPORATION is in the process of conveying Tract 5 to the City of Mekoryuk under ANCSA 14(c) (3). The CITY will continue to honor the CORPORATION’s amended lease with AVEC, which is attached as Exhibit B, after the Subject land is conveyed to the CITY. The CITY will stand in the shoes of the Corporation under the lease with regards to the Subject land, upon the conveyance to the CITY. Survey: The parties agree that after the project is constructed, AVEC will survey the appropriate parcel that is actually needed for the AVEC facility. The parcel will not exceed 5 acres in size. The results of said survey will be documented by a Record of Survey in the Cape Nome Recording District. Force Majeure: If any party to this Agreement is prevented from or caused delay in performing any of the obligations on its part under this agreement or from exercising any of its rights hereunder by reasons that include, but are not restricted to, acts of God or the public enemy, acts of the United States, fire, flood, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, or strike, which are beyond the control of the party and which cannot be overcome by the party through the exercise of normal means at a reasonable expense, then in such event any failure to perform shall be suspended during the period of disability and time for performance of an obligation shall be extended for a period equal to the period or periods of disability. The parties agree to use reasonable diligence to remove any cause of disability described above that may occur. Assignment: The rights and obligations of each party to this Agreement may be assigned in whole or in part at any time. No assignment by one party shall be binding upon any other party unless and until a written notice is delivered to such non-assigned party. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the parties hereto, and their respective successors, assigns, heirs, administrator, executors, and personal representatives. 11. Notices and Delivery: All notice contemplated by this Agreement shall be in writing. Any notice or other document contemplated by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if mailed by United States certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: (a) If to AVEC (b) If to the City: » (c) If to the Corporation President Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mayor City of Mekoryuk P.O. Box 29 Mekoryuk, Alaska 99630 President Nunivak Island Mekoryuk Alaska (NIMA) Mekoryuk Native Corporation 236 West 10 Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 (c) Any notice or other document contemplated by this Agreement may be delivered by personal service of the notice or other document upon a corporate officer or designated agent of the party at the address indicated above. In the event of delivery by personal service, no mailing of the notice or other document is necessary and delivery shall be effective and complete on the date of personal service. (d) The address, to which a party desires that notice and other documents be delivered, may be changed at any time by giving written notice to the other party. 12. General Provisions: (a) Modification of Agreement: This Agreement may only be modified by a document in writing executed by all parties to this Agreement. (b) Entire Agreement: This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter. (c) | No Waiver: The failure of any party to this Agreement to insist upon the strict performance of any provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right, power, or remedy consequent upon a breach shall not constitute a waiver by the party of any such provision, breach, or subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. (d) Remedies: Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the parties hereto shall be entitled to any or all remedies provided by law. (e) Severability: If any provision in this Agreement or any application of a provision shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and any other application of the provision shall not be affected. : , (f) Headings: Descriptive paragraph headings throughout this Agreement are for convenience and reference only; the words contained therein shall not be held to expand, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above. Attachment: Exhibit A: Map Exhibit B: Corporation/AVEC Lease 06/25/2008 13:48 19078278626 CITY_OF MEKORVUK #0190 P. 002/002 CITY OF MEKORYUK th By: 4: b yaa STATE OF ALASKA ) SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) TS 15 TO CERTIFY that on tn ALS” tay of cess 2008, als ty ender Nop Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as personally came C4 the Mayor of the City of Mekoryuk whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he is authorized to and did execute the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and parposes contained therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOR, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written, ET:EL 6882/SZ/98 ZB 3d NOILVeOdYOD YWIN LOSTESSZBET 06/25/2008 13:48 18078278626 CITY_OF WEKORVUK #0130 P.001/002 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made 2: of the Z7™ day of __tuge __, 2009, and between Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, la. (AVEC) whose address i» 4891 Eagle Suet, Anchorage, AK 99503, che Deabonyal Als SNE) heer naege Bot 29, Mion, AK 99630, and Nanivak Inland rr 9 con Corporation ( TION) whose address is 236 West [ib Project Description: AVEC proposes w build and develop wind power generation, transmission, control, and distribution facilities to benefit the community of Mekoryuk. Property Description: Subject land is located in Mekoryuk, Alaska within Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 97 West, Seward Meridian, Cape Nome Recording District. The Subject land consists of one parcel. The proposed parvel is approximately 400ft. x 400f. The property is locared on the north side of the Mekoryuk ‘Airport Road. This parcel shares a portion of land that occupies Tract 10 and Tract 5, bordering on the Best side of “Right of Way” (ROW) 6. The location is approximate and is subject 0 Survey, aS Shown on Exhibit A, — _ 2. Tels agreed thar after construction, the site will be reduced to the area actmally necded for the facility: Such site is not to exceed five acres. ; 3. Land Stamg: The proposed site is currently owned by the CORPORATION. CORPORATION represents and warrants there are no liens, encumbrances, charges, or claims affecting the surface rights to the land identified in this Agreoment which were created by or are the result of any action taken by the CORPORATION, The CORPORATION has leased the subject land to AVEC; however, the CORPORATION is in the process of conveying Tract 5 to the City of Mekoryuk under ANCSA 14(¢) (3). The CITY will continue to honor the CORPORATION’s amended lease with AVEC, which is attached as Exhibit B, after the Subject land is conveyed to the CITY. The CITY will stand in the shoes of the Corporation under the lease with regards to the Subject land, upon the conveyance to the CITY. 4. Survey; The parties agree that after the project is constructed, AVEC will survey the appropriate parce) that is actually needed for the AVEC facility. The parcel will not exceed 5 acres in size. The results of said survey Will be documented by a Record of Survey in the Cape Nome Recording District. 5. Roree Majeure: If any party to this Agreement is prevented from or caused delay in performing any of the Obligations on its part under this agreement or from exercising any of its rights hereunder by reasons that include, but are not restricted to, acts of God or the public enemy, acts of the United States, fire, flood, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, or strike, which are beyond the control of the party and which cannot be overcome by the party through the exercise of normal moans at a reasonable expense, thea in sach event any failure to perform shall be suspended during the period of disability and time for performance of an obligation shall be extended for 8 period equal to the poriod or petiods of disability. The parties agree to use reasonable diligence to remove any cause of disability described above that may occur. 6. Assignment: The rights snd obligations of each party to this Agreement may be assigned in whole or in part at . any time. No assignment by one party shall be binding upon any other party unless and until » written notice i¢ 18 3d NOILVYOdaOD YWIN LOSTESSZB6T ET:ET 688Z/S2/98 FOR: Nunivak Island Mekoryuk Alaska (NIMA) STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. Second Judicial District ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, duly sworn and commissioned as such, personally appeared ; , the eo of Mekoryuk Native Corporation, whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she is authorized to and did execute the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes contained therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal this__ 22 ¢ day of duce , 2009. ee, Notary Public in and for Alaska My Commission expires: Agere 15, 2017 ty %, : fea 7 Expire? or Seen nee ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. Meera Kohler, President & CEO . A WLE ENT - STATE OF ALASKA ) )ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the AIM day of JUNE __, 2009, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came Meera Kohler, the PRESIDENT & CEO of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and she acknowledged to me that she is authorized to and did execute the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes contained therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. MV) Mina Sedans (SEAL) Notary Public for Alaska My Commission expires: 9/4/20 7 STATE OF ALASKA NOTARY PUBLIC M. Nina Sterbenz My Commission Expires: Sentember 4. 2012 | SHOISIADS 2} x} 2| ghilvidtiogs Sauce aovTn iv 7 : : B\ | | | E | ml | i | | i | SE La hi Wy |! ye i ae . | © | ial _ dh | | Fl i | | na aay | i ee aL | | i a is | ss! ay : Ee i” \ fF = ORAPHC SCALE 9713261 im oye cm cro MEKORYUK wat 0 490m o -29-001 | : ~~ ZMO a“ O Cot Wi oO 0 L ‘ Yo ey u = OOf- po HE FE Olfaa 2 Oo $a & a gs 3 3; Sg : Sogo & Oo : ~ 2k 7 oO # Cc : AL KOK) es KOU 7 Ay ‘7 PKR KAKI K) EXX MOO MAO OKA? OS IN TivaOgaoc ow NO a90q ———————— g —_ SNosins f°") SRIIVRISd000 ORLOTTS BOVTIIA WISI ° z i eA CENT NV Id ALIS srl : =H; aa >< i SUYIMOL GNIM j = Olgs 8 a al MNAYOMIN DIAV alg wr & ; — mm ff lat [e* ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION |* Fe “y Hd ig i ae i Liem: Bi Wid 7 aye Fig ——— ee ' | | ae i he |? H : iy g! ee ee : ted | ie : 3 | | ee La bis ieee “al a : | |e ae | | ie : g ae 3 ; , . ke ( i i LN fi [i i Ti] x cae on r . fi wi iF ee ©) | = ses ett | |: pee Vee ! | (oo ee eer ee | eeerereie oe | | b | ale — “ | 1 | | LiNOAW] neko] — MC LO—*ETPO\NSMOL coast seed a sanean | BW PETEO\ SEO ONT eres — 600% “*Z UMP SNDIdOH 495N ca # 04234 Sesion ls_— (4) STAIR DETAIL 31] SOME: 34a ONNECTI ON DETAIL \3 v) SAE 1-1, 2 ( 4 EQUIPMENT LAYOUT & ACCESS POWER INVERTER ( t \SkID TO. FLOOR CONNECTION Drawing: J:\04JOBS\04234 AVEC MEKORYUK\DWGS\WIND TOWER\04234—S1.0WG — Layout: LAYOUT! User: HOPKINS Jun 24, 2009 — 2:22pm GRATING: LV. LS ALON W/ BACK OF C12 PIPE RAIL CONNECTION (3 \& GRATING SUPPORT Dy, SOME: 1-1/2"=1'-0" 7 TYPICAL C12 TO W36 Ks) ‘SOA: t"at'=0" 7 ™ #18 AVEC MEKORYUK WIND TOWERS NO. 04234 rr MEKORYUK ISSUED FOR DATE 6/22/08 CONSTRUCTION |* $1 REVISIONS ‘NO. | OATE ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Anchorage, Alaska 99503 } t 3 STRUCTURAL PLANS & DETAILS 3 SNC a te | SNLVeEId000 oRLOTTa JOVTIA WISVIV ° z i: |__| STIVLIO 8 SNY Id TYYNLONULS <i i ie" Hs === SYSIMOL ONIM 3 7 9 ae 8 [ MNAYOMAIW DIAV als wr & i TOE BB lalel =| B 5 {_———— m |§ |x Ble *zv0 # GO tia y 5 4 si al: vi, O = sve uh § oy i syebu : uO nn re Heel i adve =y é a3 42 | & if gstsay 2 ish i il i =< On Z|. é | 5 LY 7 He 22 i wy 2 a aif: ae | bi iff i tant! Hw as qt | a ee = @ = % zi i fie lege Re cat i By ei HE Et Uy 6 3, zi b bd eelliadie d ate He ; c a1 i i id | pete | ie ) = » ee Fei 3 wi Bly a ge i a inet bongs iH i a F436 HARDENED WASHERS GRADE 4 NUT, TYPICAL 16 ASTM AS20 GRADE L7M TOWER PLATE thx aa NT PLATE DETAI TOWER BOLT RING & (B\ CONDUIT PENETRATION PLAN Ce eniere (3 TOWER CONNECTION DETAIL Ly, ‘SOME: 1 1/2"=1'=0" (4 REINFOR NE, SOE: 1 1/2'=1'=0" R_PLA (2 PLATFOR Ly, SOME: tet" 19'-0" CENTER TO CENTER PILE, TYPICAL TYPICAL PILE CAP GS PLATFORM CONNECTION X27) CME 1"=1'=o" LINOAVT NOK] — OMTZS—PETHO\AMOL GNIM\SOMO\NNANOGN OBA *EZFO\SEOPO\;T *uyanig wdiz-z — 600Z “bZ UNF SNDIGOH 4981) Drawing: J:\O4JOBS\04234 AVEC MEKORYUK\DWGS\WIND TOWER\04234—S3.DWG — Layout: LAYOUT! User: HOPKINS Jun 24, 2009 — 2:21pm Pl K ANCHOR F ATION NOTES: 1) PILES SHALL BE DRIVEN OPEN ENDED TO REFUSAL PRE-DRILLING IS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN OVERBURDEN SOILS. 2) PILES SHALL BE INSTALLED TO WITHIN 1” OF PLAN LOCATION AND 1% OF PLUMB. 3) THERMOSYPHON DRILL HOLES SHOULD BE COMPLETELY GACKFILLED WITH A WATER/SAND FABRICATED BY ARCTIC FOUNDATIONS, INC. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT THERMOSYPHON SHOP 5) ELD INSTALL TWO THERMSTER STRINGS TO THE DEPTH OF THE BEDROK AT EACH OF FF! THE TOWER FOUNDATIONS. THERMSTER SHOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN WATER TIGHT HEAVY GIN EE DUTY CONOUT AND PROTECTED ABOVE. GRADE USING METAL CONOUT, ert n oor 276868" Fax 807° 276-5042 | | | bal | | | | | | | | Hdd. Zz | | | | la] g | | Ii} y | | 5 Pry td | fe ri] | dt 88 | if | i i ne a4 . : ol fo Lt ae ° eer | “lo I ° P | + ! + 12 BEYOND * 1. ooo i ooo WD = — u x Sk s Ss 2 ge A sg BE 8 <8 & YD i i : i i a a eee Ses Se 4 j"6 ASZ5N BOLTS EACH END mm ee + Sa 2 RSIS rk (1\ THERMO SYPHON MAST ELEVATION (4\MAST BASE PLATE DETAIL i 7 SAE /4 = 1-0" SAE S/4" = 1-0" 8] aE = MEKORYUK SAE DAE + Seer ISSUED FOR |, &,, = CONSTRUCTION |" 53 ™ o oe Golder Associates Inc. ak: a 1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200 : Anchorage, AK USA 99507-3443 Ee Golder Telephone (907) 344-6001 Fax (907) 344-6011 www.goider.com DRAFT REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BULK FUEL, POWER PLANT, AND WIND TOWER FOUNDATIONS MEKORYUK, ALASKA ‘ae Submitted to: Coffman Engineers 800 F Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Submitted by. Golder Associates Inc. 1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Distribution: + Copies - Coffman Engineers (plus PDF version) 3. Copies- Golder Associates Inc. January 19, 2006 043-5653x001 OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA FIIROPE NOT ARACRIm A ae net oe oom Golder Associates Inc. a cA 1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200 ’ Anchorage. AK USA 99507-3443 : Golder Telephone (907) 344-6001 Fax (907) 344-6011 www goider.com January 19, 2006 Our Ref.: 043-5653x001 Coffman Engineers 800 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Attention: Ben Momblow, P.E. RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BULK FUEL, POWER PLANT AND WIND TOWER FOUNDATIONS MEKORYUK, ALASKA Dear Ben, Golder Associates Inc. is pleased to present Eh Wing of.our Draft Geotechnical Investigation Report for the proposed: Bulk el, . Power, Plant Wind Tower Fouridations in Mekoryuk, Alaska. This investigation is subseque ta the’ ‘Alaska Village Electric’ Cooperative’ 's (AVEC’s) decision to relocate the bulk fuel tanks, Power ‘plants’ and Wind wers due to podr subsurface conditions at the previous locations. in We appreciate the opportunity to work with Coffman Engineers and AVEC on this project and look forward to the final design/construction phases. If you have any questions regarding this report, please let us know. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Matthew J. Wachholz, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer WZ/lem OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA. ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA January 2006 -i- 043-5653x001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK Scope of Work 2.0 PROJECT SETTING AND) DATA. RE VIEW <...-.200:cc.cccssceversvesecossoscserestevecsteceenesscese casei 2.1 Geologic Setting s 5 2.2 Project Setting . 2.3 Permafrost ....... 2.4 Data Review .... 2.5 Mekoryuk Climate... WWWnNnNnN 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3.1 Environmental Field Screening .. 3.2 Soil Sampling 4.0 cme ro 5.0 SITE CONDIT ONS, see 5.1 Wind Tower Site %#s..... 5.1.1 North of Airport Road.. 5.1.2 South of Airport Road...... 5.2 Power Plant and Bulk Fuel Storage Site 5.3 Seismic Conditions......... Pie om eresensasseoussrssecttecoss ceed 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..........:sccssesesseeseeeeseseseeeeeeneeees 10 6.1 Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.. ae esa as . 10 6.2 Gravel Embankment........... .10 6.3 Fuel Tank and Power Plant Foundations... 6.4 Wind Tower Foundations... 6.5 Surface Drainage................ PO SUSE OF RERORT) oorcccrcscescecsesssesecoerstusccoresser cove cececsucnscpentsarecccsey sseasecesesivascvtecec erevseetsreseses 14 BIO PREEERENGES Becesrrccecrsssvarasrestecresresvacrseusteenestatatscnsensapesaceesecisteseseerearesseravenncsesssverteeeeie ss 15 Meter uk 2008 yeovech sepon Golder Associates January 2006 -ii- 043-5653x001 LIST OF TABLES Table | Summary of Laboratory Test Results LIST OF FIGURES Figure | Project Location Map Figure 2 Proposed Wind Tower Site with Borehole Locations Figure 3 Proposed Bulk Fuel Storage Site with Borehole Locations LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Record of Borehole Logs Appendix B _ Photographs of Site Appendix C Golder Report, January 2005 Mekonuk 2008 yeotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -1- 043-5653x001 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) plans to construct a bulk fuel storage facility, power plants, and wind generator towers in Mekoryuk, Alaska. This is the second investigation completed in the village by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), due to poor subsurface conditions encountered during the initial investigation. This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation that was performed in support of the facility design and conclusions reached at the December 5, 2005 meeting between AVEC, Coffman Engineers (Coffman), and Golder where the project, drilling results, and preliminary recommendations were discussed. Mekoryuk is located on the northern tip of Nunivak Island and is situated at the mouth of Shoal Bay (Figure 1). The island lies 30 miles off the coast from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, across the Etolin Straight from Nelson Island, in the Bearing Sea. Mekoryuk is 150 miles west of Bethel and about 530 air miles west of Anchorage, Alaska, 3 ae ge te : a £ a j 5 2 & Face eee i y 2 sae z: , oS & The proposed wind over site. fies southwest of thi + existing water reservoir facility (Figure 2). The final layout of the towéis"is still’ in progress, but the preferred locations are west of the water reservoir, on the north side of Airport Road. The bulk fuel storage facility will be situated north of the existing bulk fuel facility and AVEC power plant (Figure 3). The proposed bulk fuel storage and power plant will replace existing facilities. One to three “Northwind-100” or Vestas (models “V-20” or “V-27”) wind towers are planned. The monopole towers are of varying heights, tapered tubular steel, and are self-supporting. Tower foundations could consist of deep micropiles or shallow reinforced concrete footings if the towers are constructed on shallow bedrock (< 10 ft). Scope of Work Our scope of work included data review, field investigation by drilling testholes, laboratory testing, development of geotechnical recommendations, and preparation of this report. Recommendations included discussions of tank site preparation, pad construction, tank foundations, support of light and fence posts, power plant foundations, buried fuel lines, and wind tower foundations. Our work was accomplished in accordance with our proposal dated July 14, 2005. Mekoryuk 2005 yeotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -2- 043-5653x001 2.0 PROJECT SETTING AND DATA REVIEW 2.1. Geologic Setting Nunivak Island is predominantly of volcanic origin and is geologically similar to Nelson Island (ADGGS, 1973). Most of the island is capped by basaltic lava flows of Tertiary or Quaternary age that reach an aggregate thickness of 200 ft or more. Nunivak Island reaches a maximum elevation of about 1,675 ft at Roberts Mountain, which is built up of a series of volcanic benches, the top being the steep side of a breached crater (ADGGS, 1973). Cretaceous or Tertiary sedimentary bedrock (typically siltstones, sandstones, shales, and coals) underlies the basalt. Sedimentary bedrock outcrops have also been reported along the north coast of the island. Surficial deposits that cover the project area consist primarily of a shallow layer of late-Quaternary unconsolidated sediments and organi terials. Deposits in uy areas typically have 10 ft to 30 ft Sa 2S, ees rs a Sg y of silty soils overlain by organi¢ material and tur ‘Gee a is also present over much FETS 3 FP Rhy, of the eastern portion ofthe villages! pany hte % bi a ee 2.2 Project Setting The proposed wind tower locations are on the west end of the village, along Airport Road. The ground slopes gently upward on both the north and south sides of the peninsula, to a topographic ridge along the east-west trending road. Overburden depths are shallowest near the shoreline and gradually increase toward the center of the peninsula. The most likely foundation for the wind towers is either a micropile system, or placement of the cement pad directly on the excavated bedrock surface. The proposed bulk fuel and power plant facilities are located on the northeast side of the village. The ground in this area is partially thawed, and it is our understanding that AVEC prefers a pile foundation for the power plant which will be elevated approximately 4 feet above the ground surface. The bulk fuel facility will be placed on a gravel pad that is allowed to sit for at least one year to reach equilibrium with respect to ground temperatures and permafrost conditions. Mekonuk 2008 yeotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -3- 043-5653x001 2.3. Permafrost Permafrost has been mapped in the area and characterized as being moderately thick to thin, but may be locally absent near large water bodies (USGS, 1965). Permafrost was encountered at depths between 2 and 19 feet in three borings (G05-7, 8, and 9) while no frozen ground was encountered in two borings (G05-6 and G0S-10) at the proposed wind tower site(s). At the existing power plant and bulk fuel facilities, borings indicated a lack of frozen ground. Borings at the proposed tank farm indicate partially frozen ground, with occasional permafrost between 11.5 and 15 feet. Topographic highs and lows of approximately 5 ft (+/-) have developed as a result of apparent thawed and frozen subsurface conditions. The absence of permafrost could be a result of disturbed ground (i.e. existing structures), or a change in geologic terrain unit. 2.4 Data Review PRs ato SeEts tes Available ceockieat lata reviewed in order: ‘to ean a eke “ of the subsurface i" ~ ene conditions and distribufion of permafrost i in = ar Information a 2 report and is included in: Appendix C. ‘ 1 . summarized in our previous 2.5 Mekoryuk Climate Based on the Alaska Community Database Online (www.commerce.state.ak.us), Mekoryuk weather is strongly influenced by the Bering Sea which surrounds Nunivak Island. Annual precipitation is 15 inches, including 57 inches of snow. Average temperatures are 48°F to 54°F in the summer and around 32°F during the winter with extremes of 76°F to -48°F. Average freezing and thawing degree days were obtained from Mekoryuk from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) website. e Mekoryuk — Freezing Degree Days 2,940 - Thawing Degree Days 1,807 (weather data from September 6, 1949 to February 28, 1973) Mekonuk 2008 geotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -4- 043-5653x001 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation consisted of drilling and sampling fourteen testholes (E05-1 through -4, G05-1 through -10) to depths between 11.5 ft and 53.5 ft, during November 9 — 16, 2005. Four testholes were completed near the existing tank farm and proposed power plant (E05-1 through -4), five at the proposed bulk fuel facility (GO5-1 through -5), and five in the area of the proposed wind tower location (G05-6 through -10). Testholes were drilled by Discovery Drilling of Anchorage, using a track-mounted B-24 drill rig, which was equipped with 2.25-in. inside diameter (I.D.) hollow-stem augers and a 3-in diameter downhole air hammer to penetrate the basalt bedrock. All equipment and personnel were mobilized to Mekoryuk via fixed-wing aircraft. The field investigation was supervised by a Golder engineer who logged the recovered soils and directed the drilling operation. Soils encountered were visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soils Classification SCs) Syste and 7 zen soil. was, further characterized according to the classification system ore ( ape -2, respedtvel). Testhole logs are also aN 4 j presented in eS A. 31 Environmental Field Screening Soil from the testholes completed near the existing tank farm (E05-1 through -4) were field screened for petroleum impacts. Observations of indicators of petroleum impacts such as staining, odor, and visible debris were recorded on the testhole logs (Appendix A). The concentration of volatile organic vapors in the soil headspace were also measured using a photoionization detector (PID) utilizing a 10.2 eV lamp, as described below. PID readings were recorded on the testhole logs (Appendix A). ¢ A sealable plastic bag (quart size) was partially filled with the soil to be screened and sealed. ¢ The bagged sample was brought inside a heated area at the end of the field day to allow vapors to develop in the bag for at least 10 minutes but not longer than 1 hour. The bag was shaken or agitated for 15 seconds at the beginning and end of the vapor development period to assist volatilization. ¢ After vapor development, the PID sampling probe was inserted to the plastic bag to a point about half the headspace depth, being careful to avoid uptake of any moisture or soil particles. Mekoryuh 2008 yeciech report Golder Associates a ren January 2006 -5- 043-5653x001 e After probe insertion, the highest meter reading was recorded. 3.2 Soil Sampling Representative samples of the soils encountered were obtained by driving a split-spoon sampler ahead of the augers. Drive samples were generally collected at 2.5 ft and 5 ft, and 5-ft intervals thereafter. One grab sample of auger cuttings was collected near the surface at testhole E05-1. The recovered samples were visually classified in the field before being individually sealed in double plastic bags and transported to our Anchorage laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Numerous frozen samples were maintained as such during the fieldwork and transported back to the laboratory. Drive samples were collected using a 2-in outside diameter (O.D.) split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven using a 140-lb drop hammer free-falling 30 in. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-in. interval of the sampling attempt is recorded on the borehole logs. In addition, the total number of blows reqiifed, to Jvanodithe sagiter through’ the | ib to 18-in. sampling interval is presented as “N” on the orale logs “The blow counts shown on the borehole logs are field values that have not been corrétted for pn sampler size, frozen conditions, or other factors. Upon completion of Testholes G05S-1 -2, -5, -6, -7, -9, and -10, a l-in diameter PVC pipe was installed and the hole backfilled with sand, drill cuttings, and/or bentonite chips. The remaining testholes were backfilled with drill cuttings. Prior to completing the fieldwork, a thermistor string was inserted into Boreholes G05-1, -2 and -5 to measure ground temperatures. Results of the initial readings indicated ground temperatures were below freezing in areas that were thawed during drilling. It is thought that additional thermistor readings would result in temperatures more consistent with the soil conditions during drilling. Mekonus 2008 yeorech veport Golder Associates January 2006 -6- 043-5653x001 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed to measure index properties of the samples for use in developing correlation with engineering properties of materials encountered. Moisture content tests were run on each sample and generally conducted according to procedures described in ASTM D-2216. In addition, seven samples were tested to determine the grain size distribution (ASTM C-136), and two samples tested for Atterberg Limits (ASTM 4318). The results of the laboratory testing are summarized in Table 1. Results of the moisture content testing are also presented on the testhole logs adjacent to the samples tested. Mekom uk 2008 yeoiech sepont Golder Associates January 2006 -7- 043-5653x001 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS So Wind Tower Site The wind tower locations were relocated to an area southwest of the water reservoir based on difficult surface conditions (wet, hummocky) encountered during the previous Golder (January 2005) investigation. AVEC decided to relocate the towers to an area just north of the roadway to the airport but south of the water pipeline (Figure 2). After completing three boreholes north of the road, Golder contacted Coffman and AVEC to discuss the feasibility of moving the wind towers south of the roadway, close to the Mekoryuk River shoreline. The objective of relocating the towers is to take advantage of relatively shallow (less than 10 ft) competent basalt bedrock as a foundation. Two additional borings were completed as indicated in Figure 2. 5.1.1 North of Ai ad] el iy aie % go° mms Three borings were cobbpleted! north ofA irpoft Rokd ( a -7, alld -8, Figure 2). The ground surface generally consists of tall din and tundra, with 1. 1.5 to 2 ft of 4 érganic silt and peat, underlain by inorganic to organic sandy silt and silt to a depth of 28 ft (G05-8 — bottom of hole) to 36 ft. Permafrost conditions vary from thawed to frozen and well-bonded and topographic variations of + 5 ft indicate apparent thawed or frozen ground conditions. Relatively thin (10 ft thick) layers of competent basalt bedrock were present beneath the silts in all boreholes except G05-8, which did not penetrate to the depth of G05-6 and G05-7 (53.5 ft and 48 ft respectively). It should be noted that the boreholes were advanced through the bedrock with a 3 inch diameter downhole air hammer. Material identification was difficult due to inconsistent cuttings return. The hammer generated substantial heat which thawed the frozen, interbedded soil, creating a caving borehole situation. The caving soil/ash material did not allow additional cuttings return and material identification. The hammer had difficulty advancing through the frozen soil but quickly penetrated the hard basalt since the hammer efficiency is directly related to the amount of resistance supplied by the material being struck by the hammer. Mleboryuk 2008 yeotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -8- 043-5653x001 5.1.2 South of Airport Road Two borings were completed south of Airport Road, at 135 ft and 385 ft north from the existing shoreline (G05-9 and 10, Figure 2). Surface ice and frozen peat were present at G05-9, closest to the southern shore of the peninsula. Frozen soils were not encountered in G05-10, but were present in G05-9 from 3 to 11 ft. Basalt bedrock layers of varying thickness were encountered at 12.5 ft interbedded with thin (<1 ft) layers of presumed sandy silt or ash. Visual observations while in the field indicate that moving the wind tower location to the north side of the peninsula, near the shoreline, may offer the best constructability (shallowest bedrock) and cost- favorable conditions for the proposed wind towers. 5.2 Power Plant and Bulk Fuel Storage Site 3 Exes : J ¥ Terrain across this site is s reltiv levelgand ene are’no promin it drainage patterns. Surface vegetation consists of — There & are‘relic ¢ and-active avi trails on the site, along with remnants of playground Stcipmaekt and fish ricks. Ina few aredd the tundra has been disturbed, and has caused >a RT4 some thawing of the permafrost. This has resulted in local ground depressions that tend to fill with standing water. Soil conditions on and near the current power plant and bulk fuel facility (testholes E05-1 through -5) consist primarily of a layer of organic silt and peat approximately 2 ft thick, underlain by silt and sandy silt. Some bedrock fragments were present at 15 ft to 19 ft in testholes E05-1 and -2. No frozen soils were encountered on or near the existing facilities. Evidence of petroleum impacted soil was not encountered in the borings. The field screening did not detect staining or petroleum odor on the soil collected from testholes E0S-1 through -4. The soil headspace PID readings were low in all borings with measurements below the minimum detection level of the instrument in E05-2, -3 and -4. The highest readings for E0S-1 were 149 parts per million (ppm) from 5 ft to 6.5 ft and 40.2 ppm from 2 ft to 3.5 ft in E05-1. The minimum action level for diesel contaminant migration to groundwater is 250 ppm. The PID readings are recorded on the testhole logs presented in Appendix A. Soils encountered at the proposed bulk fuel facility consist of 1 to 2 ft of peat and organic silt underlain by sandy silts and silty sands. Permafrost was encountered in 4 of the 5 boreholes at a Ntehonui 2008 yeotech repor Golder Associates January 2006 -9- 043-5653x001 depth of 11.5 to 25.3 ft (G0S-2 and 1 respectively). Some vesicular basalt bedrock fragments were encountered between 19 ft and 20 ft in testholes G05-1, -2, and -5. Visible ice in the basalt vesicles was present in G0S-1 at 25.3 ft, and groundwater was encountered at 23.5 ft. 5.3 Seismic Conditions The USGS Alaska Seismic Hazard Map — 1999 indicates a 0.02 g and 0.04 g (where “g” is the acceleration due to gravity) peak horizontal acceleration with a 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years for Mekoryuk, respectively (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/interactive/). Nesom uk 2008 yeotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -10- 043-5653x001 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Bulk Fuel Storage Facility As mentioned previously, permafrost is variable at the proposed site ranging from 11.5 to 25.3 ft in Boreholes G0S-2 & 1 and was absent in G0S-4. Construction at the site will disturb the existing ground cover and reduce the natural insulation that it provides. This disturbance has the potential to cause the permafrost to thaw further, which will be reflected in settlement of the fill pad. We recommend constructing the fill pad and allowing it to settle for at least one year prior to constructing the tanks. Settlement will occur in the thawed soils as a result of the increased stress from the proposed embankment loads and also due to additional thawing of frozen soils. The proposed embankment will impact the thermal regime by causing additional thaw to occur. Approximately 0.5 to 1 ft of consolidation is anticipated based on the thermal regime encountered during drilling, visual inspection of the samples, apd the pnceay esting Performed. Construction should occur during the thawed months to climate cepted thin the active layer. 4 : weighs q 3 z : Proper site drainage is = to t prevent excess suiface water from ponding beneath the proposed structures or at the toe of embankment. Surface water and roof runoff should be diverted away from the structures and embankment. Ponding water could cause thawing which could lead to loss of support, increased active layer thickness (additional settlement and heave potential) and other site disturbance. 6.2 Gravel Embankment The tanks can be supported on newly placed embankment. In general, the embankment would be constructed during late spring to summer by excavating the tundra and peat, placing a nonwoven geotextile at the base of excavation, backfilling with non-frost susceptible sand/gravel compacted in place (CIP). After constructing the embankment it should be allowed to consolidate for a minimum of 1 year. Survey points should be installed throughout the embankment to allow monitoring after construction and periodically through the year to determine the amount of differential settlement across the gravel pad. If differential settlements exceed tolerable amounts (determined by Coffman/AVEC) additional time may be required to allow the embankment to consolidate. Additional embankment grading may be required after the settlement has occurred but prior to Mekorvuk 2008 geotech reper Golder Associates January 2006 -ll- 043-5653x001 placing the tank foundations. Bulk fuel tank foundations should be designed to allow periodic leveling due to potential thaw and subsequent consolidation. The gravel fill should consist of free-draining gravel with less than 6 percent passing the number 200 sieve and maximum particle size of 8 inches. Fill should be placed in maximum |2-in loose lifts compacted to 95% of the Maximum Modified Proctor Density (ASTM D-1557). The sand fill below the insulation should be non-frost susceptible and compacted to 90% of maximum Modified Proctor density. It is our understanding the proposed fuel tanks will be supported by wooden skids bearing directly on the gravel pad. Some settlement may occur after placing the tanks due to additional thawing and consolidation within the sand fill. Periodic leveling may be required to keep the tanks plumb. Provisions should be made to allow for this in the design. Hee A bearing capacity of doo Re an igfion a o: 5 can & u utilized between the wooden skids and newly pcedbenet fil Sten fal and lated loads. 6.3 Fuel Tank and Power Plant Foundations The proposed power plant buildings will consist of multiple, single story structures. Based on discussions with AVEC, we understand the preferred foundation is a driven pile system. A driven pile foundation system is feasible to support the power plants. Driven piles could consist of either open-ended pipe or H-piles driven to the basalt bedrock. Pile lengths will vary based on the depth of rock. The lateral capacity of the piles may be the limiting case in the foundation design. The loose thawed soils encountered near the ground surface may not provide adequate lateral resistance without experiencing excessive deflections. Therefore, a larger diameter pile section may be required to adequately resist the lateral load with tolerable deflections. An alternate foundation could be to utilize a shallow, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete footing bearing on a newly placed gravel embankment. Spread footings should have minimum dimensions of 24 inches and continuous footings should be a minimum of 16 inches wide. Footings of these dimensions can be designed with an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 Ib/ft’ for static loading and 2,600 Ib/ft” for transient wind & seismic loading. The footing option can more efficiently resist lateral loads since the foundation area is greater, thereby reducing the lateral earth pressure, which Miekorvuk 200 geotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -12- 043-5653x001 reduces the amount of deflection. The gravel embankment should be allowed to settle for 1 year prior to constructing footings as previously discussed. Regardless of the option selected, additional geotechnical engineering analysis should be conducted once the structural loads are known. This information will be summarized in the final report. 6.4 Wind Tower Foundations One to three “Northwind-100” or Vestas (model “V-20” or “V-27”) wind towers are proposed for Mekoryuk at a location yet to be determined. At this time, AVEC has not selected a tower. Therefore, the actual structural loads are not available. As previously mentioned, gredrock was encountered at depths of Pee 35 ft at the proposed tower site north of the airport es We sug relodating the tov yer site to the north side of the island or near the propoged butt i eae ‘glong ‘the shorelin e, mwhere oyerburden apparently thins and bedrock may be reached more readily. If the” proposed site north of the roadway is utilized for the wind towers, the foundations could consist of micropiles with short rock sockets embedded in the basalt. The basalt can provide adequate resistance for axial tension and compression loads. However, the thawed overburden will not effectively resist the lateral, shear loads from the wind. Larger diameter, short casings or piles may need to be utilized within the upper 20 ft of soil to adequately resist the lateral forces with tolerable deflections. Once the tower is selected and foundation reactions are known, the geotechnical analysis can be completed for the proposed tower locations. If the overburden depth is no greater than 10 ft, a shallow, reinforced concrete mat foundation may be utilized bearing on the basalt bedrock. The mat footing could be enhanced with short rock anchors to assist in resisting potential uplift loads. Assuming the footing is bearing on the basalt bedrock, a preliminary allowable bearing capacity of 20 ksf can be utilized. 6.5 Surface Drainage Positive gradients should be provided so that runoff will quickly flow away from the towers, tanks, and power plant foundations. Care should be taken in the site layout to avoid ponding of water Mtekoryuk 2008 yeotech repo Golder Associates January 2006 -13- 043-5653x001 adjacent to the tanks, light foundations, or the generator buildings. The underlying impermeable liner should be graded such that water collecting in the containment areas drains away from the tanks. The sump and subdrain system installed in the containment areas should be maintained regularly to insure proper function. To the extent possible, soil at the base of the fill pad slopes should drain away from the pad. Mekorvuk 2005 yeotech repon Golder Associates January 2006 -14- 043-5653x001 7.0 USE OF REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Coffman Engineers and AVEC during design of the proposed bulk fuel, power generation, and wind tower foundations in Mekoryuk, Alaska. If there are significant changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities, we should be notified so that we may review our conclusions and recommendations in light of the proposed changes and provide a written modification or verification of the changes. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between explorations and also with time. Therefore, inspection and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer should be included during construction to provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions revealed during the work. Unanticipated soil conditions ad commonly encountered that cannot fully be determined by a limited number of explorations or soi sar les Sich digo congond equently result in additional project costs in order id build ‘the! Proj ct as geen. Therefore, afontingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. The work program followed the standard of care expected of professionals undertaking similar work in the State of Alaska under similar conditions. No warranty expressed or implied is made. GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Julie A. Utley, E.LT. Staff Geological Engineer Matthew J. Wachholz, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Thomas G. Krzewinksi, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer and Principal JAU/MJW/TGK/Iem Meton uk 2008 geotech report Golder Associates January 2006 -15- 043-5653x001 8.0 REFERENCES State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS), Geology and Mineral Evaluation of Proposed Wilderness Area, Nunivak National Wildlife Refuge and Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Range, Alaska, by P.L. Dobey & D.C. Hartman, January 1973. United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Permafrost Map of Alaska, Compiled by O.J. Ferrians Jr., 1965. Mekor.uk 2003 yeoiech report Golder Associates TABLES Golder Associates 043-5653x001 J January £006 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MEKORYUK, ALASKA Testhole, Sample} Sample _ | Moisture} Atterberg Organic | U.S.C.S. Additional Tests / Test Pit, Number} Depth Content | Limits ' Content] Soil Comments ** or Corehole #4 to >0.005 Class? Number (m) (%) [PLILL] PI] +#4 | #200 | - #200 mm (%) Pi ie Siulaoame eM eee eee pe Te nT ui SiMe ee nese alt 3A 75-84 21.5 fi 3B 8.4-8.5 1533) 4 10.0- 11.5 Tit 5 15.0 - 16.5 8.7 ] 25-40 | 252 Pea 2 5.0 - 6.5 97.8 sles 3 7.5 -9.0 26.7 im ni STDTee epost UT anTu EET UTTUCNHE 5 15.0 - 16.5 SO MAN | MN es | NN UAT mi 6 OSA MSO ie 2.5-4.0 26.2 ‘ins |) li wu ON Vet es 0 OU ETT LT SATE 0s OT WMATA TEC 7. mk Hm I [25-40 nau A 105-4 : ee 2 Lisl Golder Associates Page | of 3 043-56>3x001 Tanuary .006 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MEKORYUK, ALASKA Testhole, Sample| Sample | Moisture} Atterberg US.C.S. Additional Tests / Test Pit, Number| Depth Content Soil Comments ** or Corehole Class” Number (m) (%) | PL] LL] PI Typo | oo | | | | | ba] ao] |_| 2 [s0-65 [2 [Prt 3 75-90 44.0 90.0 coset iA_| 100-107 [272 | | | | | |_|] a | lor-is | 37_| | | || |_| _] sp soes| 3a _[ [Ty] ~ || |_| | 6 20.0-21.5 | 165 1 5.0 - 6.5 20.8 | [| 0.0 2.7 | 973 (05-2 2 [| too-ms} 352 7 Top tot tT { 3 {150-165 { 292 | {| { | [| | 5.0 - 6.5 39 | J | 0.0 | 15.2 [| 848 2silt [| 10.0- 11.5 | | bi | G0s-3 Zorg | 10.0-11.5 | 109.7 f+ | | 3 15.0-16.5 | 25.3 | {| 6 23 1.0 [1 | 50-65 270 | | ysis 2A_ | 100-1075] 253 [ [ [T [oT] 2B to.7s-ii] 173 [ [ T T ] 3] t50-165 ] 73 [ Tot TT [ 1 5.0-6.5 28.3 0.0 91 | 90.9 cuss 2 [100-15] 232 | 1 rt... 3 | s0-163} 65 |_| || | |_| + [200-213 [ 2s | | TT | | | Page 2 of 3 Sort Sunimary 2004 Golder Associates fanuary 006 043-5653x001 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION oe: ane Testhole, Sample; Sample | Moisture] Atterberg Additional Tests / Test Pit, Number} Depth Content Comments *** or Corehole Number (m) (%) I 5.0-5.7 Sore eee la J | A LL A, a A 5) sented | es tae ODE me Me 4 20.0-21.5 | 22.5 GS-6 5 25.0-26.5 | 282 | oa ne sao es exes eae] Eases ASIan eS 5!0 F-15610 | ene? 728 ata | | eae | te | tee ttee | Peete 7B 36 21.6 8 40 13.2 | 5.0 - 6.5 40.1 (05-7 2 200 21S | Eee 2 gael a ole 3 350-365 { 170 | | [| ] 50-65 | 27.7 [| | | | 2 10.0-11.5 | 29.9 G05-8 3 [150-165] 194 EGER | 4 | 200-215 | 248 SEE | 5 25.0-26.5 | 26.2 PR LE Ce |e L [= 5.0 - 6. : | 5.0-6.5 277 3 15.0-16.5 | 27.2 | ia ceateee Fae ee LE Ta NOTES: |) PL. Plastic Limit, LL=Liquid Limit, PI=Plastic Index. 2) U.S.C.S.-Unified Soil Classification System Page 3 of 3 ist Golder Associates FIGURES Golder Associates . FAIRBANKS sMYCHORAGE FILE No. Anchorage, Alaska VICIN_MAP.COR PROJECT No. 043-—5653x001 . Ney , Kangnaksnak Kirhikthak. i 2 jt 205 4 8 i x ‘Hills ee | e* x4 ironed / Bx Kgnbmiut SCALE, MILES PROJECT LOCATION DATE 42/8/05 REV. 0 | COFFMAN / MEKORYUK WIND TOWER / AK GO5-6 GOS~7 GOS5-8 ot ae GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE ~ 2005 GO4—03 °@ GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE — 2004 REFERENCE: BASEMAP PROVIDED By COFFMAN ENGINEERS, 2004. cos-s@ GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE APPROXIMATE r BOREHOLE LOCATIONS cos-3© ENVIRONMENTAL BOREHOLE fehoteoe see TANK FARM FILE No. BORING LOCATIONS.DWG |[*E 1/16/06 — 3 REFERENCE: BASEMAP PROVIDED 8Y COFFMAN ENGINEERS, 2004. PROIEGT We 043-5653x001 | *=™ 2] COFFMAN / MEKORYUK TOWERS / AK APPENDIX A RECORD OF BOREHOLE LOGS Golder Associates Unified Soil Classification System Silt and Clay Descriptions SOIL CLASSIFICATICN ar lca] CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING GROLP SYMBOLS AND NAMES \ASTM 02487) | ANC GENERALIZED f Typicai Unified | | _ GROUP DESCRIPTIONS | Description Designaton | wy | Weir. S al | CLEAN GRAVELS | cn | See aaa | | silt ML (nor-piastic) | pote Less! & fires | Gp | Po aded Gravels | Clayey Sit | CLML (ow-plasticity) | | More than 50% ofcoarse | . sity ct | cu | eee | GRAVELS vaTH FINES | cm | wel and Suit Mixtures j Sty Cy \ | More than 12% fines Fils 5 Clay ce } { | 4 and Clay Mixt: | COARSE - GRAINED SCILS | sc ddan alt | | Plastic Silt MH | More than $0* retained aes aif S | - i | on No. 200 Sieve poses Sree S| Well-graded Sands | Orgaric Soils OL, OH, PT ' SANOS ess than 5% fines | : Ee ee ee s0%e.or more ol conte JESE2| Reetye pieced Som fraction passes No. 4 Sieve | SANDS WITHFINES | SM | Sand and Silt Mixtures | More than 12% fines | SC | Sand and Clay Mixtures | Low-plasticity Clays. : INORGANIC aay | Non-lastic and Low-Piasticty . Plasticity Chart SILT ANDO CLAYS, Sults 60 Liquid lint less than 50 Non-plastic and Low-Piasticity ! i OL | Organic Clays, Non-plastic and! 5 cH FINE-GRAINED SO! , 3 ENTG ee ee ORGANS) Low-Plasticity Organic Silts £40 the No. 200 Sieve T CH | High-plasticity Clays = x, INORGANIC * a S/o and st SILTS AND CLAYS Ne Lear pee Se a2 Y Liquid limit greater than 50 )} on | High-plasticty Organic Clays ORGANIC High-plasticity Organic Sits 6 = ML and OL 0 20 40 60 80 100 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primaniy organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor | pt | peat Liquid Limit Relative Density or Consistency Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values Laboratory Tests 7 : Cohesioniess Soits Cohesive Sois © fest Designation Moisture Content MC(1) (9) (c) | Relative (c) Undrained (4) Density D Density Ny, blowssft: Density Consistency Nj, blows/ft Shear Stength, psf sai (%) Grain Size G Very loose Oto4 0-15 Very soft Oto2z <250 Hydrometer H Loose : Soft 2to4 250 - 500 Compact wes ae . ra Fum 408 500 1000 Atterberg Limits AL(1) Dense 30 to 50 65-85 Stiff Bto 15 1000 - 2000 Very Dense over 60) > 85 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 Consolidation c | Hard cover 30 >4000 Unconmed| v {a) Soils consisting of gravel, sand, and sitt, either separately or in combination possessing no characteristics of plasticity, UU Triax uu and exhibiting drained behavior. CU Triax cw (b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting undrained behavior. CD Triax cD Permeability P {c) Refer to text of ASTM D 1586-99 for a definition of N; in normally consolidated cohesionless soils relative density terms (1) Morsture Content and Aterberg are based on N values corrected for overburden pressures (Ny). N values may be affected by a number of factors including cntetng bo material size, depth, drilling method, and bore-hole disturbance. N values are only an approximate guide to the consistency pone me of cohesive and frozen soil (d) Undrained shear strength, s,, = 1/2 unconfined compression strength, U.. Samples SPT Sampler ( 2 in. 0.0.) Criteria for Describing Moisture Condition Component Definitions by Gradation SSO Oversize SPT (2.5 in. 0.0.) eae p ¥ HD Heavy Duty Spoon (3.0 in. 0.0.) Ory | dusty, dry to the touch [___ Component Size Range SH Shelby Tube Moist | Damp but no visible water Boulders Aboveilem Cobbles Jin. to 12 in. Pp Pitcher Sampler Visible free water, a - ' Wet | usually soil is below Gravel Jin to No. 4 (4.76mm) 8 Auger Cuttings or Grab Sample (Bulk) | water table Coarse gravel Bin. to 3/4 «. | a aes | Fine gravel 3/4 in. to No. 4 (4. 76mm) { | a 7 | Sand Ne. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 200 (0.C74mm) | ‘ RC Air Rotary Cuttings j Descriptive Terminology Denoting Coarse sand No. 4; 4.7€mm) to No. 10 (2.Gmm) | 1 c Component Proportion: Medium sand No. 10:2.0mm to No. 40 .0.42mm} ! AC Auger Core | jomponentErop: = . ; Fire sand No 43/0 42mm) to No. 200 .9.974mm} : |__Sescretive Terms fatten | | sit and Ciay Smaiier than No 2C0\0 374mm) ' ' 1. SS deve sampies advanced with 140 b ace . hammer with a 300. drop | ute tal wo Some or Adjective" 12 % ! 2. HO dove samples are advarced with 260 ib land 20-50% hammer with a 301n, drop eee eee aoe . ' (a) Use Gravelly, Sandy oF Silty 38 appropriate 3. SSO dave samples advanced with 140 °b u Se SPE hammer with a 30 in, Crop 2 Figure A-1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND REVISED FILE NAME: SCILS,SCILCLASS COR = aa Gael oe en CLASSIFY SCIL BY THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR GROUP SUBGROUP | Description ie) esignation Cescription (b) Cesignation Poorly bonded Nt Segregated or fnable ! ice not visible N ; No Non by eye Loar excess ice bonde 2. MOCIFY SOIL DESCRIPTION Excess) Noe BY CESCRIPTION OF FROZEN Ice soicta) Individual ice crystals Vx of inclusions Ice coatings Segregated on particles ice visible by eye (ice less vi Random or irregularly Vr than 25mm oriented ice formations thick) tJ Stratified or distincitly Vs oriented ice formations Uniformly [ distributed ice vu TT Ice with ICE + 3. MODIFY SOIL DESCRIPTION BY Ice greater soil inclusions Soil Type DESCRIPTION OF SUBSTANTIAL than 25mm ICE ICE STRATA(a) thick Ice without Ice soil inclusions (a) Reference ASTM D4083. (b) Description of ice within frozen soil is based on visual examination of the sample in the field. ICE BONDING SYMBOLS DEFINITIONS Well Bonded - Soil particles are strongly held together by the ice and the frozen soil No ice-bonded soil possesses relatively high resistance to chipping or breaking. observed Poorly Bonded - Soil particles are weakly heid together by the ice and the frozen soil consequently has poor resistance to chipping and breaking. Coot irl or Friable - Soil is easily broken up under light to moderate pressure. inal Ice Coatings - Discernible layers of ice found on or below the larger soil particles in a frozen mass. Ice Crystal - A very small individual ice particle visible in the face of a soil mass. Crystals may Well bonded be present alone or in combination with other ice formations. Ice Segregation - Growth of ice as distinct lenses, layers, veins, and masses in soils. FROST-SUSCEPTIBLE SOILS PERCENTAGE FINER THAN TYPICAL FROST GENERAL 0.02mm UNIFIED SOIL GROUP SOIL TYPE BY WEIGHT. CLASSIFICATION Gravelly soils 3to 10 GW, GP, GW-GM, GP-MG (a) Gravelly soils 10 to 20 GM, GW-GM, GP-GM (b) Sands 3to 15 SW, SP, SM, SW-SM, SP-SM F3 (a) Gravelly soils Over 20 GM, GC (b) Sands, except very fine Over 15 SM, SC silty sands 5 (c} Ciays, P1 > 12 = CL, CH £4 All silts ee ML. MH ) Very fine silty sands evens SM ) Ciays, Pt < 12 . CL. CL-ML Varied clays and cther CL ana ML; CL. ML, and SM: fine-grained, banded sediments. CL, CH, and ML; CL. CH, ML, and SM REFERENCE. US Army Corps of Engineers, TM 5-818-2, “Pavement Designs for Frost Conditions”, July 1965. Figure A-2 FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND REVISED. FILE NAME SO!ILS,CECLASS.CO7 LOR_ANC GOT 1/6/06 ANC BORFHOLE 049-5655X001 MEKOS GPJ C PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE E05-1 SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION LOCATION: Tank Farm (Existing) ORILLING DATE: 11-9-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: 8-24 CCORDS: nia INCLINATION: -90 2) SOIL PROFILE i SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE Fa ; a BLOWS, fl z |g ° ; | BLOWS = sous o |2| 13 3 32 ret =| = | N \ 3 WATER CONTENT :PERCENT) & | VEGETATION: grass 13} Ome ecrns Cor esanee seeds teas ae at | a { | j L ote ° | a ie 00-20 le jes | Yeezes sees tia REE oe S, SiLT T { | Dark brewn, most CRGANIC SILT ard PEA rec eels ie | (PT) | | |e | | L PT k | 4 i | | | | | | | 4 fe 20-84 Pid=40.2 Loose, light brown to gray, moist SILT with 7 ppm ut nd ). ittle fine-grained sand (ML). 1 |ss 345 a 2 5 ° | rs had PID=149 BOE . Pps0.4 TSF 2}ss| 267 [11 | 48 Sreut O° at [ PID=4.1 ppm PP=0.75 L § : . TSF ff Oo) s4-150 Eh] 64 Ob PID=3.6 ppm | Soft, gray to dark brown, moist SANDY SILT ab | - S| with fragments of weathered basalt less than “| 1 in giameter (ML, WBx). t+ 10 PID=2.9 ppm = be PP=0.4 TSF 5-56 1 | 4 a 4 L et fis 4 150-170 150 | PID=4.0 ppm Compact, green to brown SILTY SAND with | me ft ts of weathered basalt (SM. i | Wey). a curereeafis = S|Ss} 12-65(5) | _ # Z| | | | || | | (| Ll i | desesen | nsec H bE Bcrerole completed at 17 ott i | eer i i T | 1 l | 4 | ji tle Po lege] lee r | NOTES i | | { | q ‘wg stopped at 17 ‘ton apparent bedrock or | | | | zen ground | | ! ! | 2) Test gas (1 week cid) tested at 66 ppm in | i ; | | Tevar tag | | | i | zl 3: Ne grcundwater ercountered whe ariling | | | | i | le) ! ' | | i i re | | Ee ee : - DEPTH SCALE 1 into25ft LOGGED: C. Seaman i Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR Discovery Criling CHECKED ae Associates FILLER Alex c oaTe ] PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE E05-2 SHEET 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION LOCATION: Tank Farm (Existing) ORILLING DATE: 11-9-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION. i CUIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: n/a INCLINATION: -90 : : 3) SOIL PROFILE i SAMPLES ] PENETRATION RESISTANCE =r ak | T i BLOWS. fi xz |S) lol j Bice Low 3 F fe 3) DESCRIPTION Z| 2 | So | ELEY § om ee er on nan Secs a {3! zi g 1&8 12/2) N | 5 WATER CONTENT PERCENT) iw =! - > | OER air me Wer | jv S| VEGETATION. grass iS! \ Sorte |e Reidy | 2 5 c | fae T 00-20 x i * | | ! | | Dark brown. moist CRGANIC SILT ard PEAT | | } | en | ; | 4 ! { | ro} oft 4 { | | | | | ' i | L L | j i } | J | 20-40 j PID=0.0 ppm Firm, tan to gray, morst SILT with littie fine PP=15-20 rt rust colored staining at breaks in sample alles AGe Aa at ® TSF F MU ° 4 r 40-90 on 4 Firm, gray, moist CLAYEY SILT (MH). ae r® : P1D=0.0 ppm | ‘ le PP=075- 2{ss| “366 12 | 42 bahia 7 ° 4 MH T PID=1.3 ppm E PP=06- 1.0 | aoe | 1 | 42 ree oO 20-150 4 | Softto firm, gray to brown, moist SILT with Bittle dark brown, fine sand (ML). 1 |2 + = 8 . a Ss} 2.5.2 7 {4b O° 4 4 F ML 4 sh1s 150-190 | PID<0 0 ppm 4 - Medium dense, light brown, moist, fine to | } 5 medium SAND with trace dark brown silt | " s o partings (SP). ? ; 54SS 8-10-10 20 | ar . i gt | . | 1 © | 4 2 1 t 4 | ! : j fi] S$ \ % 1). feed | | ; | | 4 Br | | sP ib | i 3 | { | ' 4 z if fee; | | en | 2 | to: ; oi | ge | 1] \ | ij | i } t 4 2 | ly | | | | E \ | | 1 | | s I } ! j | } | | ri [W90-2°5 i 111 0 i | i \ | | 4 2 + Brown, wet SILT with fragmented vessicuiar | | ! | | | | I { | ! i z | Pasat (ML, WBx) | | mt ity | ; | i | | | bo | + | rTity | | i | | ! | | se | | Log continued cn next cage | | | i |! } if a a . CEPTH SCALE 1 nto2Sft LOGGED: ¢ Seaman Fi | @ | ¢ Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ciscevery Dnilling CHECKED 78 | z ‘Associates DRIELERS! Alex, DATE PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE E05-2 SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Holiow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Tank Farm (Existing) ORILLING DATE: 11-9-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman s AVEC DRILL RIG: 8-24 COORDS: n/a NCLINATION: -90. 3 SOIL PROFILE I SAMPLES | PENETRATICN RESISTANCE : re , i ae BLOWS. 1 + c > } bedhe - 10 20 » 40 Fels CESCRIPTION | Q | elev.) & | NOTES Gels 5) 3 | Ee Bim | per sin Se eee WATER LEVELS alg: ai go gst ;z'¢ N | 3 MATER CONTENT (PERCENT! g | vesetarion grass i & Pe Z| qtemitiectenly | 2 | My a [°° Tgp eo-are ] nT = a TT bao pa Xj; Brown, wet SILT wth fragmented vessicular Hty| | | ! x | basaitML, WBx). (Continued) i |i | +3 | | an 3 | ome | | | ; @ | SS} 12-27-27 4s i } | + et j 1 | | | O | 8} i | ht | | | My _t Li | Borehole completed at 21.5 ft. T t li | | NOTES: 1) Groundwater encountered at 20.5 ft while L ariting it I. 30 3 L- 35 § | | ! i sr | | | | 2 | | } } FA | | | | i x | | | | reyoroa ft | SL | = { ! } | | ' | i ! c j | i i) 4 pop Gj a | | | | —— | i | ¢ | j i ' ' , i | hot | | | j | | ) | : | bE { | | | 1 i | | i | | | | | j ' on | | Pt toi dt L | i ' | j pot toby | t i | | | | | | i i | i | | | { | ! ' } | | ee Lt | i ! | i 1 DEPTH SCALE.1 in to 2.5 ft LOGGED. C. Seaman Fi Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discevery Drilling CHECKED: vee ciates ORILLER: Alex C DATE “4 ANC BOREHOLE +0-5653X001 MEKOS ( RECORD OF BOREHOLE E05-3 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION. LOCATION: Tank Farm (Existing) DRILLING DATE: 11-9-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC ORILL RIG: 8-24 COORCS: nwa INCLINATION: -90 2 SOIL PROFILE | SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE = ae | - BLOWS: fm Fo |¥! CESCRIPTION 3 tg jeeig See le oi 30 4 NOTES e | 1 eee eee .! & |g ig| g | 38 13 | 3 pWATER CONTENT PeRCENT)| W/ATER LEVELS ie ! 3 | ; 5) VEGETATION: sparse grass 2 i 3 a al Fe y bs Mae [° [1 se-a0 t THT t rq | Light brown, moist to frozen (top 6 in) SILTY | 14 | | | { SAND, medium grained sand, trace organics, | feb ! | possitly fil (SM. FILL). || : { | | | | r t 4 1 1 i | hs | 1 | | sm EE] ' | i : | PID=0.0 pm r 30-65 a s| * Light reddish brown to gray, moist SILTY ss 34 8 hag SAND grading to SANDY SILT, fine grained ; © sand (SM, ML). i 5 a S T i PID=0.0 ppm =z 9 2 |ss .| 10 | 48 & ; 9 n o5-115 85 Firm, ight gray to brown SILT (ML). fe PID=3.4 ppm L PP=0.75 42. r TSF 1 | 2 a ML ri PID=0.0 ppm al PP=1.1 TSF i ss] 4.35 8 | 42 At ° Je ee me | | Borehole completed at 17.57 7; T NOTES: f apitt 1.) No groundwater encountered while drilirig. gL a | 8 | | | oF i i + 3 | = | | « | | | | : i ! | | ze | | | i | f : | i; | boy | f toi x } } + | io & i | € \ ee 1 |g ‘ | z[ || ; |] | ! = | | | ! | | | 3 | | i | ft | 4 3 | ; 4 sL | li | | g 14 ; | ft ; | 3 | | | pot of tod | wz | | | | | | | | | 2 i i pot i ! [ame & DEPTH SCALE:1 in te 2.54 LOGGED C Seaman . 3 © Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR. Discovery Drilling CHECKED Figure g ciates ORILLER: Alex C DATE A-5 z Eeciaeele) dallealelnde boat RECORD OF BOREHOLE E05-4 SHEET tol 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Tank Farm (Existing) ORILLING DATE: 11-9-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: LIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG. 8-24 COORDS, nia INCLINATION: -90. 8 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE = T 7 BLOWS : ft z |e n iB BLOWS | iw ~ » w Te Fels DESCRIPTION 2]. |g] eevee] | Been | E x (NOTES & {g 3} 3 i 38 r—ieié | N | 5 WATER CONTENT PERCENT] WATER LEVELS = Ht ao: 5 ery a ——4____, § VEGETATION: tall, dead grass |g] |3 \ Ph zl * dseoreomge 2 2 e's a" | : ee el Po To-a0 1 / t Tk lon T Loose, dark brown, ORGANIC SILT, possibly | | | } BM (OL, FILL) { | | | | ena L | | | 4 i | | | L ena 4 20-115 20 j Soft to firm, light gray to gray, moist to wet SILT with little very fine to fine sand, PID=0.0 ppm interbedded with thin layers (< 0.5 in) of PP=0.5 TSF r ‘organic silt (ML). 10. a 4 1}ss| 444 8 |B d z q ae = drove sample and dniled through pieces of foam PID=0.0 ppm | 3 and metal, ra i. PP=0.5 TSF S z}ss| -e93 [12] 2 £ : Qk iO 4 [ a a il | 7 PID=0.0 y ppm 4 a . a ailicctan 2 |B PP=0.3 TSF 10 ole fonli PID=0.0 ppm : PP=0.4 TSF on os = ; 4 |ss| 222 4 | te hieesviaely oO nt ¥ tL 11-9-05 Borehole completed at 11.5 A. eal : | : NOTES: Ra 1.) Groundwater encountered at 11 ft whie driling, F a 4 L J 3 15 4 5 ! el 3 | | gr ape ia | 7 z 1} | atte x | | ae | ‘an ze \ | | ! | ie | ian a 4 he | | ' | A lene | eel 3 | ii { { | i | | | | is | ! | | | { | ian ' st | Py ELH i | li 1 Gg | j ! | j ¥ | | | Teste = | j ! | | 3 | i \ | | | 31 | Ad | | $ | | 8 | eee | | 4 } | | | ' | | A i | | a \ i inn eee t | ! | i da 4 é 1 = DEPTH SCALE.1 in to25 LOGGED C. Seaman Fi i $ ‘Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Oring CHECKED a | 3 Associates ORILLER: Aiex C DATE PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-1 SHEET 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hellow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) DRILLING DATE: 11-10-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC. ORILL RIG 8-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -SO 8 ] SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE . (le Ty] + ; fare . BLOWS fil ae Fels DESCRIPTION Fe eee | ceva] | eons le wo 2039 | WATER LEVELS a ig i! aS; fete] N | & WATER CONTENT \PERCENT) GRA = : hes | i f c | , PHIC 5! VEGETATION tat grass 3 3 | OEPTH) 3 | Hammer Wegrt 1a iw e———s4* 1 w 3} ail gra iS} ' jy | Z| cchoeasoce Meng « L i « x «0 = | mate — ee ee am 00-20 | ey T Loose, brown, frozen ORGANIC SILT (OL). | | eel | lea el lees t feat ieee ee ' | ' bet fee tre ete zor z0 Soff to firm, jight gray to brown, moist SANOY | SILT, very fine to medium sand (ML). r a 1}ss| 344 e |e j er q Ls : i 3) 2|ss} .°5-54 s | 44 i ati ° ML [ ri] ° Oo 3 . iE to |S Hel: io “ : 5 107-190 Fou (SS i) eet e-e-o. 10 | 44] O iE Loose, fight brown to brown, moist, very fine to 18 Oo medium grained SILTY SAND (SM). Thermistor casing installed to f 2568 Skis eM LE = peep e |: i 3 At | 5 |ss 598 6 | 17 +4 He or bf | ' c 2 | | ! ' « i i | fea | | iS | ! { } zr ! | Pee eater oo g | Hoey | | | | 3 : | eee ie eae i } Bitty } | ! | | eae] 2 | | fee fet 2 1 | ae Beat | | 3 Hie | | | 1 errs | i | fas eee eee | eet | 2 | Lipla 19 | | | | | esl ; Eee | Bid | || nas | Log continued on rest page il feabe | [ere iee L | renner 5 DEPTH SCALE 1into2.Sft LOGGED: C. Seaman . | 5 F Golder DRILLING mea Discovery Driting CHECKED cae 2 Associates DRILLER. Alex C DATE PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-1 SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Ho'!low-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION. LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) ORILLING DATE: 11-10-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman i AVEC DRILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -! 3] SOIL PROFILE | SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE g — T _—— Tel BLOWS: hl aeae z_ly eRe lol Biows | ran syator - Fe|3 DESCRIPTION ‘2| a |g. | ete. | & ml eather d| 5 oz WATER LEVELS & |? ‘8 3 | a3 aaa] g\e) N- | 5 pVATER CONTENT (PERCENT: GRAPHIC ESOT - 31 | sammer we 1 eae ee, 8| VEGETATION: tail grass isl 13 | mn l= epithe ||" squneicor seommated | i bed tial | 2° 130-256 el tid T ‘ TT 1 Soft, brown to gray, moist to wet to frezen | pagel | | { | SANDY SILT with fragments of weathered i | eet } on 1 45 j . vesicular basait, some visible ice in vessicies | | ih 6 | Ss | ere me r (ML, ‘WBx). (Continued) i { | | { ° | ae 1 S$ ; = a me |. | 4 | a ahh 25 : i kK Lt EI: 7 | ss} 2-20 | _ | 4 lo [Tr Borehole completed at 25.6 A. rE ale H ale 1.) Groundwater encountered at 23.5 ft while daifing T oe | & ! i | 2 | | ' recor eet | ee | | wha | | | = 2 _t i | | I c . CEPTH SCALE:1 inc 2.5% LCGGED: C. Seaman Rare = TRAC : ! igur = Golder ae a TRACTOR, Ciscovery Drsling sosue ne Z Associates pear ae PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-2 SHEET 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hetlow-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) ORILLING DATE: 11-10-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: 8-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -90 r. Te SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES. | PENETRATION RESISTANCE ie T BLOWS A ® iis te 3| DESCRIPTION 12! Seta co OS WATER 3 |g! 13) > WATER CONTENT :PERCENT)| GRAPHIC z| jus g iw, -——o%__4 w & | VEGETATION: tall grass iQ! yf 90) || oe) aed) laa | . [sl Pe al i G0-20 ; | Tein) ane ee Loose, dark brown, mosst to partially frozen i | | ' | ORGANIC SILT (OL) | | | Hi ! | - | ! | | | ie | aii i i } | | r rnig------------ is | Ha lal Soft to firm, gray to light brown, moist SANDY | | SILT with very fine tc fine sand (ML). | L { | | Ls s | t}ss} 4-45 9 |2 b ML - 3 10 [9 8 ie . 1 Z]ss| 23-12 15 | 48 Y Oo 11.5-20.0 Thermistor Light gray, frozen, well-bonded SANDY SILT ee wal fine sand partngs and na able ice OAL, 4 ted to Non : . | 8h 15 s | | | s 5 he | 13 3 a] ss} 2622 | 4 |e] 1 4 gf Wat | | | = t4—+-——_+++—_ | x } ' i S | He Hate | ab | { { | | j i | 3 ' ! i | 3 \ i , 3 | el | | | j st | | a ea = | Hii | | j | | | 8 | AG EAR i | Pa s | Haat | | 2 | | ee | fit cha | | eek | ae ae ee cere ee te (‘SE an at DEPTH SCALE 7 inte 2.5% LOGGED: C. Seaman Fi § Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discsvery Crilling CHECKED vad 2 Associates CRILLER Alex C DATE - PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wing Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-2 SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) DRILLING DATE: 11-10-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B24 COORDS: na INCLINATION: -90 3] SOIL PROFILE ] SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE = Y | BLOWS fm =z {cl eet | mows ] NCTES Fe|2} CESCRIPTION {2} a g ELEV. | & a serio | 5 pore ce resem ae WATER LEVELS ge z| \2) g : £8 = 2 & | G {WATER CONTENT PERCENT; GRAPHIC | veceraTion: tal gas 181 > |B joeeray 3 | {V2 | Sabosee amici ieee | 200-237 re | | Presumed frozen SANDY SILT with basalt tH Smal | fragments (ML, WBx), oe i i | {$4 j i | | | r i itl | | | 1s) bey | =| ih EF Fa Me itd | e it 7 iI | HY Borehole completed at 23.7 ft. L 4 NOTES: - 25 1.) No groundwater encountered while dniling. | 4 L2 4 4 4 r~ 35 +4 | { | | | L | | | i } | Gat | | 1 { | | i | i } | feel [i Ly | E ' { a t { | } ma | emeas inttes| Teetiaa ee | | i | | | ' i ie ie i | ' oo L | cor ' | | | 4 { fe eae enna lel \ ! i cy | | | eT | L He | | | 1 i i 4 i i ' | i | | ij | | loon | ! ! i | | | { | \ | | | | ' j | | | aot | | | ee a} A DEPTH SCALE:1 nto2.5ft LCGGEO: C Seaman Golder ORILLING CONTRACTCR: Discovery Oniting CHECKED: Figure Associates CRILLER Alex Cc DATE A8 ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653X001 MEKOS GPJ GLDR_ANC GODT 146/06 casos sae RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-3 ears PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) DRILLING DATE: 11-11-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION CLIENT. Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: n/a INCLINATION: -90 T 7 T \2! SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE =} BLOWS /* Fels] DESCRIPTION Peay | 5 wo 230 NOTES a |g N | 5 [WATER CONTENT PERCENT} “WATER LEVELS ©! vecer, | & |w, ——_e#& —__1 w, Sj VEGETATION: tali grass {@]}"* «2 zw. 4 ko + pt j 00-10 | i T T | Dark brown, frozen ORGANIC SILT (CL). t | | es | | r [10-40 | | Loose, dark brown, moist ORGANIC SILT j (Ou) be —— r 40-140 40 Firm, brown to gray, moist SANDY SILT with trace roots and some organics from 10 to 14 ft (ML). Ls ie . t}ss} se | 17 | 44 a + ML 3 =z L10 |° & ee 35-6 | fi fi p 09.7 —. [ 140-230 14.0 Gray te brown, moist. barely frozen, . fine-grained SAND with some silt grading to } SANDY SILT, ro visible ice (SM, ML, Nba) F § r- 15 5 f tt s Ht | 5 Ae | “ 8 | 2] SS| 15-2240 | 62 | 7p | gf | Pee z | | { i lee | + aa x i T : T j at SI : I-I4 | eal Sr ot { ; | | = ! j ia eee So | by ‘nic crit $s he lee let ie i | Z | ay Vln | S 1 Mery | | | | | | | HE) | | BS ar | tI ' | | | ro a a | te] | | 2 | Act | | Fen i S | bhr | | | | Bt | ! | | Log contaued on next cage if 1 1 i CEPTH SCALE.1 in toZ§ ft ED C Seaman . Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR Discovery Dniting CHECKED. ie ay ‘Associates DRILLER: Alex, DATE - PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-3 SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5853x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) DRILLING DATE: 11-11-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -90 8 { SCIL PROFILE SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE : ie t T T a =F BLOWS. 4B z_|u) = lo BLOWS eas Fels DESCRIPTION 1m |S | Ee | & | per én 5 3 NOTES ae | Zo < a |g | Z| a8} 3 | & N15 WATER CONTENT PERCENT] WATER LEVELS g ia | w 7 1g VEGETATION: tal grass 3} [& [OEETH| eS tanner egee | 2 YE L 20 a to-e=+ {+ Drop od leicray ists 1 ; | | i | y to brown, moist, barely frozen, | | ! { i | fine-grained SAND with some silt gradirg to | . | | 4 } — SANDY SILT, no visibie ice (SM, ML, Non) REL 4 iss Soi) | LL ag j F 3 (Continued) al FI | a ow ||) | | : + | b a ML if ns EEE ThE | “Pee [ | | r —)23.0-23.1 - 2s = P Light gray, very dry, ground-up BASALT with as Borehole completed at 23.1% ‘ NOTES. 1.) No groundwater encountered while drilling, | 25 E b r- 30 rs | | a | i 9 | } | OL | | | c | , | z | | | < 14 | i | —|—4 « 1 | | pt yt td zt Py ot ot | j i i i | | ' | i 4 | g i; | | | i | | | Z ee [| | | 8 | | | | = | ! z | i} | | i | f | i = i fi ; | | 3 | 1; | ; | | | = 3 i it] | | i SL | it | § | | | : hoy yy yf | s joa ! | j | | uFao } | | | | i Lo 3 DEPTH SCALE tir to25ft LOGGED C Seaman . 8 A - Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Oiscevery Drilling CHECKED: Te g . DRILLER: Alex C DATE: E 2 ‘Associates PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) RECORD OF BORE HOLE G05-4 DRILLING METHOD: Holiow-Stem Auger DATUM: SHEET 1 of 1 GS ELEVATION: GOT 1/6/06 ANG BORLHOLE 043-5653X901 MEKOS GP GLOR_ANC DRILLING DATE: 11-11-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B-24 COORCS: nia INCLINATION: -SO 2) SOIL PROFILE | SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE ie - + i 1 LOWS /ft i T 1 Eo|3 DESCRIPTION SIs HELEVA | ec eeree 1 i) peeton ico ao Vg NOTES 2 13 | &$ | 3 | e| N | 5 [WATER CONTENT PeRCENT)} WATER LEVELS =z a- > ' 5 4 wv & VEGETATION. tat grass & eee Z| qittsantpe aed) | Teldec (commisaaie seminal Lo m Ee Lr ele _— 20 eal 4 } | 7 7 se, dark brown, most ORGANIC SILT with fs } | | | | some sand {OL} a | | | r | RS | 4 | 4 | [= | | bk Poel 4 20-108 TT]]] 20 Soff to firm, gray, moist SILT with some fine sand, brown stain along fine sand partings «ML). L | 4 5 4 : 1/ss .| 11 | +f . ° ML 3 xz a b 8 4 N 10 s 708-169 a) | "ae 9° r Loose, brown, moist, fine to medium-grained Oo SILTY SAND (SM). b | 15 1 7 ass} 5.30. i zt o L | | | | 4 t 1 We \ eel | \ | | eaten F — | H ! ! i | ! ' ach Perna NTE SET 1 e completed at 17 | i | ee | ' | i | | ' | t Hd | | | | ane Hl b NOTES: } i | | i ! | | i ! i 4 | T'Samperwas touncng ca rack n samp 3. | | | | i | Ha | | 2. No peretraton, ne return for attempted sarpie! | | } ‘| is | | | Hie i 4 i 1 i | | 3; No groundwater encountered while dr ng. ' i | | | | | | i | | ut | | ' i i | | } | | A Ue (ees da | | | An ' 1 | 1 | 1 | [| | Ln jena i ai} CEPTH SCALE t inte 25ft LCGGED: C. Seaman ; | Golder DRILLING CCNTRACTCR: Discovery Drilling CHECKED Figure Associates ORILLER: Alex C DATE A-10 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-5 SHEET 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollew-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) ORILLING DATE: 11-11-05 AZIMUTH: nva TOC ELEVATION CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: 8.24 COORDS: wa INCLINATION: -90 ‘y9 SOIL PROFILE { SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE 2 ' inane — —- BLOWS hm ree S | 1 ws | | Eo/¥ CESCRIPTION ig o 12. | Ee | &| pores TI ELo2 2» « WATER LEVELS € i ig El ul peren 5 a {2 12: g 188 sic | No] 5 VATER CONTENT PERCENT) peptic Rileserar wl 2 | S~ |DEPTH! 3 | e Hanmer Weight | w |w, ——_#—___. w, § | VESETATION: ta grass 2% (8 lm | F | cprentiioce emi | & [I ToS ew L. foes Maal Re ene sisal a T ¢0-20 TT ae | nt | Locse, trown, moist ORGANIC SILT and al en | PEAT. sightly frozen to 8 in (OL. PT). | | | ' \ L ee eet ee la ; i b 35 ar-ccccccclccc Sof, gray, moist CLAYEY SILT with fine sand Partings with brown stain (ML-CL) Ls as| 4 [ ss 9 | 48 i aot hoo Soft. gray, moist SANDY SILT with fine sand partings (ML). | 2 1 {9 8 . i. ss 3-3-4 7 {4 Thermistor i 18 casing installed to 22k r L sca ih le et : +t] 130 Loose to compact, tan to brown, fine-grained”. 2 STAG SILTY SANO (SM). ak gt 15 | - 6 | 13 = § | 3}ss| eer | 22 |B or | { | 2 i | { L i ! ey] i \ \ & I | | aa ar | | | | | | | | 2 i a j nen 5 j j | | | | | | 2 | | | | | ; in| ‘ | t | ' a | | | | iii = i 1 | | | 3 | i j | ae | | ni zL | it | | | | | | | g | One| ey | | i | i | | | te | | 4 LJ OU ole i Teg continued on next page i i Hoy ! joa é DEPTH SCALE:1 in to2.5 ft LOGGED C Searran ' $ DRILLING CONTRACTCR: Discovery Criling CHECKED Figure 2 DRILLER. Alex C DATE A-11 < RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-5 ANC RORPHOLE 043-5653K001 MEKOS GPJ GLOR_ANC GOT 1/6/66 F- 35 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Tank Farm (New) DRILLING DATE: 11-11-05 AZiMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC ORILL RIG: _B-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -90 3 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE Si j 5 iz a t - - = — BLCWS i Tare fels DESCRIPTION ton |S. fevev. | & | a! Son 5 to 20 ee WATER LEVELS. a |g; 18} 3:88 i i) s | N | 5 [WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC =I, " Igl 3 | 7 [OEPTH| 3 | F | wommerweant w lw, ———e ___ w, ~ & | VEGETATION tal grass gt | Vim | 2] cprenstere wens: | & | MO ID” ww L-20 MOT + 459 t a= 20.0- 220 i iT]], 2° 1 T T $j Tarte aay. barely frozen SILTY SAND win FY | | | | | i | | i ¢ gments |! ). t | 1 2 | small basait fragments ML. By 4 Hai y 4 Iss ossazisy | 48 i i 5 lol 3} i; | “ =) nos | | 8 | | | eS | NOTES: bedrock. Borehole completed at 22.0 tt. 1.) Refusal encountered at 22 f on apgarent 2.) No groundwater encountered while dailing. | zl SEPTH SCALE:1 CRILLING CONTRACTOR: Ciscovery Criing CRILLER: Alex C LOGGED. CHECKED: DATE C Seaman PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-6 SHEET 1 of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hoilow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Proposed Wind Tower ORILLING DATE: 11-12-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: 8-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -90 8 SOIL PROFILE T SAMPLES T PENETRATION RESISTANCE o I = TT t 7 T i BLOWS / fi aoree Fo|8! DESCRIPTION Py A crows E 102 WATER LEVELS Pa 3 al = : N i & [WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAFHIC &! VEGETATION: tundra 19} PMeee eee ele dl Sltnemiseol serie ne 0 | Drop 1 | 00-20 j ] | a | | Loose, dark brown, moist ORGANIC SILT and | | | \ PEAT (OL. PT) | | | F \ | | | vis | r Pa0n8on aaa oT 20 Soft, brown, moist SANDY SILT with some organics (ML). ’ t BS ML - 1}ss| 333 els iE ee 80-130 y 80 Sof, gray, moist SANDY SILT with roots and : wood fragments (ML). g = 10 {9 _ 8 fa "| i Ziss| 55-3 ett i r 13.0- 180 : 13.0 Soft, gray, moist SANDY to CLAYEY SILT with fine sand (ML). ra Thermistor L casing installed to | 28f L. | muct| t lar s 3 }ss 344 8 te b | { a | | | D | | te ead | | | ' ea to i it i Het i ! ' | | hed | oo ! | \ | } | ! | | i | ata te (| i t | | | je a | ot | 1a ii 1186-280 | Thy) 7 330 | | | i | Very softte soft gray, meist to wet SANDY | PEEE i | } ee | | | SILT with very fine te fine sand (ML) i | | 1 i | | j L we Ppt } | i TIL Ela i | (fe a et ' 11 ' | | | Hele lit | | | | ia } 20 | Log sontinued on sext page rik | | i | | DEPTH SCALE.1 nto2Stt LOGGED C Seaman Fi ! Gold DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Drilling CHECKED igure ' ae, fat ORILLER Alex C OATE. A-12 ‘Associates ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653X001 MEKOS GPJ GLOR_ANC GDT 1/6/06 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-6 SHEET 2 of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hcllow-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Proposed Wind Tower DRILLING DATE: 11-12-05 AZIMUTH: nva TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC. DRILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: ria INCLINATION: -90 t Ey SOIL PROFILE i SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE =} ; - BLOWS /A None Ee Fal DESCRIPTION Spee Giln | asnee 4 E a WATER LEVELS g° 19} 5 a8 4 3 § |__| N | 3 MATER CONTENT PERCENT) GRAPHIC & | VEGETATION, tundra Pe ete zal Lemire ne }2 | + on es IL z=. Lop. —— ot = | 180-280 tT q ] | i H T Ty T Very saft to sott, gray, moist to wet SANDY reeled | i | | b SILT with very fine to fine sand (ML) ad | . . 3 | } | (Continued) ey ;4 is 2650 1 11 | 43 I E | | hry | | | ha red L i H | | LEy| | - ¢ | } : rs oi: | 5 |ss | 12148 A r | d-3607 rT wo] Oy Very soft to stif gray, wet SILT with fine sand : (ML). & = 30 |9 el & & . s s8|ss| 667 13 | L a O J L ML J \s A }— 4 3 35 5 | | | 48 > 3 Lu 7 |ss| 22346 | 69 | 18 i Ul Ka | 3r 350-405 5 360 po | 4 2 Weathered BASALT bedrock with very soft, Cot t | | e | wet. gray sandy silt /Bx) Ko a T j | i ' 3 { | HH t | j | { SP | i | ui 1 | | | a a i | t-<"4 | | | | & | a \ i ' | t I } © i | io i i } | ee | g} j | | ex fH } oi | | eee eel 4 3 | P PCH ty | forory S 1 to | i 1 | ! | i § | | ee 1] le | | er | KR 4 | t | } | 4 $ | 14 KI | j 2 ty van | | \ t 3 ie | t | | ' i_ s ' | ; wee | Laer oneal (| || Pt}t et yt | + a DEPTH SCALE'1 nto 254 LCGGED. C Seaman Fj \ é “Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR Ciscevery Oniling CHECKED: pea g ‘ i ORILLER: Alex C DATE - 2 rASSOciates PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-6 SHEET 3 of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Proposed Wind Tower ORILLING DATE: 11-12-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B24 CCORDS: na INCLINATION: -90 3] SO!L PROFILE ] SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE 2h ~ | + | BLOWS. nore Eo /¥! DESCRIPTION is] ue tecevall cll ail cere Il = UE JE SEE WATER LEVELS 8” 2 Z| 3 | es} 12/e) | -N | 5 WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC = | } \ e B | ly Ww iy & | VEGETATION: tundra 3) is | Peat 2 plies eos CS obra cere fa) ape at + | S free t = od ; 4 Bo aan a 40.5-420 Yt 405 j { i | BASALT bedrock (Bx). | | | ex | | r Ro ae lipo 42.0 | Pressined SIT (MO) Ee aes 42.5 -53.0 425 a BASALT bedrock (Bx) bs | a i < < b Bx + 50 r ~ §3: x = oo $3.0 ‘Soft, presumed SANDY SILT or ASH (ML, *- mk ASH aT + Borehole completed at 53.5 ft. [ NOTES: 3 1.) No groundwater encountered while dnilling. 2 r- 55 ie | at ' ai | z al ia P| | \ | | | ae Pent i LT 8 | | 1 | | } i | i 3 i | | | | > ' | 1) ! ; } | 5 : Hit | ; | o i | } an { | | i 7 || va BB | | 2 | | | eel | 3 | | | j | Wa Be it { j 3 | | \ 8 | a 3 | RIFLE | i | | | eel i so | ‘ | | | fall | aa fr < DEPTH SCALE:1.n 10254 LOGGED: ¢ Seaman , 8 + Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Driiling CHECKED: jae g i DRILLER: Alex C CATE Zz Z Associates PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-7 SHEET 1 of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Proposed Wind Tower DRILLING DATE: 11-12-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION CUIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: _-90 g! SOIL PROFILE | SAMPLES | PENETRATICN RESISTANCE | = 1 TJ + BLOWS /f Nae = 2 r) - oat x ° al Fe 3} DESCRIPTION 2 a 12, /RV lel Bee I 10 3 40 WATER LEVELS sg 8} 2 13S Toon B/E N | 5 WATER CONTENT PERCENT) GRAPHIC x oO © | stammer Weight igh, iv § | VEGETATION: tundra 3] > |S joer) 2 omnes Welg Ea hilar emery ae ye BS [Sl Se| po} | 06-20 T | , Loose, dark brown, meist CRGANIC SILT and | } | | | PEAT (OL, PT). j | | r | | | | | | | | \ L | | | | | {20-350 20 j | Gray, frozen SANDY SILT with some visible ica, thawed from 28 to 32.5 ft (ML) | . | | j | | | Ls : . 1 ]ss| .6-12:12 || 24 +e u ' b | 3 = F10 19 & Q 5 EB | Sis | € | } 5 | } 4 | | o 7 j | g | | | . | | | | | « | | | | 1 { ab | ! | ; | , | = | ;o oj 4 i; 11 | 5 | | | | $ | | i | | Zh i i Z | | | | < ' | | | | | 5 | | fof | SL | | | | | 3 | i i | pi | tag | | | } 4 | bd L206 ! | | | | | | | | | les Log cortrued on next page i | 4 CEPTH SCALE 1 into 2.5f CGGEO: © Seaman “Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Crilling ECKED Associates Caen i 1 RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-7 SHEET 2 of 3 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Proposed Wind Tower DRILLING DATE: 11-12-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman i AVEC ORILL RIG: B-24 2OERES na INCLINATION: -90 3} SOIL PROFILE \ SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE zt — 7 + BLOWS, Kara =} 4] DESCRIPTION ig! Hou tilevevillle Beal b 2% 3 40 WATER LEVELS ae 2| 3| 2 | Fe iwlw per Gin ee a7 19, a! g 3o facial © | = N | 5 | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC z! jal = i i Wes |w, -———_—__; & | VEGETATION: tundra ig) 7 18 Hr a ge ere ees rag er yk cH jaesiee peeea tet Es fc 20-350 iT; TT ici | Gray, frezen SANDY SILT with some visible hel | pe eee | fl ice, thawed from 26 to 32.5 ft (ML) 14 | ae | (Continued) Kt | | 2jss} 25-3240 | 72 | 48 ee | r | | + | | | 7 | i] Bo Et | | | | r | i ol T-7- Thermistor L t casing F installed to 48 ft 2s ML & 3 = oa b & | s 30 rt ince [pese=ags0 | it 6.) 11 tt ta 35.9 “) = é }, Gray, wet SANDY SILT with weathered basait iia 5 ° 5 {fr WBx! i | 8 | 736:3-36.5 war | of \Vleathered BASALT bedrock (WBx) } | in 2 | en | < | ! ! 1 « | <6 $-475 | 36.5 | | | | ! ' is BASALT bedrock :3x) i | va ein ar ze | Hott | i Tien z | | lara aon eens loner & | | { el anaes | s j a ta eee < | | lp eee etl i : || | a : | || | Caen x i | | nt | g Ha ; | | eee | ne | | | i LL debetateteee | LL OEM é DEPTH SCALE'1 into2Sf LOGGED: C. Seaman Fi 3 ‘ Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Drilling CHECKED ae 2 Associates DRILLER Alex C DATE PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-7 SHEET 3of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Proposed Wind Tower DRILLING DATE: 11-12-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC ORILL RIG: 8-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -90 - * g t SOIL PROFILE i SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE zi - J — BLOWS. Al AGES Feld! DESCRIPTION 3 » |Z peeve | =|} Ei 2 2 9 4 WATER LEVELS a {3 3} 39 183} gic N | 5 [WATER CONTENT PERCENT) BS E x] al 3 | 2 tpepta! 3 | E | nammerweigtr | 8 lw SRAREEC) 3! REGETA TION Hndra 1S] 2 i = | chireas Rope Metrds! ejtiw «2» 0 40 1, w65-475 1] D4 | Hl * | T | | BASALT bedrock (8x). (Contiaved) a | | ; RY | 1 } 1 } ! - hee: | | } ’ } | my I | ‘ j ie | | x § 3 2 BX 4 2 b 45 47.5-48.0 ML “| 475 ‘Soft, presumed SANDY SILT or ASH (ML, rho - Borehole completed at 48.0 ft. r NOTES. 4 1.) No groundwater encountered while dniling. L so 4 | 5 L ss | | | 5 | | i i | | a | | | Ii | Pt tt 1 < | | en | © | 1 | i | | é a | | = i | a 2 | | i | pofoby S j | | | ; | Gi | | i i | 5 i | i ' a i | J 3 | | | ;y | | = ' \ | | foe fo Goy ft 8 ' ; jf | | 1 | 1 yet t | Pitt 3 | | | | | || 3 i — | | g i | | | | | | | | iso pet ti Ltda 7 z DEPTH SCALE.1 into 2.5 ft LOGGED: ©. Seaman . 3 Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR. Discovery Chilling CHECKED Bet s i ORILLER: Alex C OATE ~ z ‘Associates PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-8 SHEET 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hellow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Proposed Wind Tower - West DRILLING DATE: 11-13-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC ORILL RIG: 8-24 COORDS: n/a INCLINATION: -90 gS SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RES!STANCE $ = — BLOWS / fi Fol DESCRIPTION ee jana SOR Oe rerned swan NOTES 3 |g} | 5 [MATER CONTENT PERCENT] ATER LEVELS © | VEGETATY 4 ___ ws, & VEGETATION: tundra (sel haar yam narrerrerey 3| See eel ic [ co-1s oa Loose, dark brown, moist ORGANIC SILT and { PEAT, frozen te 1 ft (OL, PT). | | j 75-190 Soft, gray, moist ORGANIC SANDY SILT with | r fine sand, frequent sand partings from 15 to } 19 (OL). 5 714 . fe Oo} 4 =z 10 |S Pa & . = 47-8 15 | 48 fF 9 s+ 18 ie 2 & y 7 | 8 8-7-10 17 | ae 4 St ! Ot ae z | < | i < } | { ° i | al | zk | tls t \ i ! | i iz i | | | } ' g \ i | | | i { | 8 ' i j | | | sr ella | = | | i | aq | | eee Sr 19.5- 28.0 j | | 3 | Compact, gray, frozen sandy sitt with very fine | i | | z | sand, some visibie ice (ML. Von) : | | | uy E 20 Log continued or next cage i L | i | Pf DEPTH SCALE. 1 into 2S ft LOGGED: C. Seaman Fi s Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR. Discovery Daliing CHECKED eae g s i ORILLER Alex C CATE z Zz iates PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-8 SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Preposed Wind Tower - West ORILLING DATE: 11-13-05 AZIMUTH: nva TOC ELEVATION CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: _-90 Fy SOM PROFILE | SAMPLES. | PENETRATION RESISTANCE zr 7 l T r + T SLOWS /h z_ 1G | ' BLOWS | ona 5 Fole DESCRIPTION ig fy | ctev.| « A He a a NOTES oe B} 2 j Pwd ig per Gin | | t WATER LES & 1/2 SLES el 38 r—aaleé IN < WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)} WATER LEVELS = } = S/F] : iw 5} VEGETATION: tundra 3 7 18 oe | eee Ln | Jal eg ra arpeery! F a i i nee | ae f+ 20 TE TTT t + feel lal — | Compact, gray. frozen sandy silt wth very fne thy on | | sand, some wsible ice (ML, Von). (Continued) Ve] eet a | | sl i 4] ss) owetrz | 23 | 4B Y i | L | | |241.0 || i E | | | ] 2 | al bel ara 4 = L S$ MU j & “ 25 a >- 8 |ss| 15-2627 | 51 | 43 + aw Oo [ | y + + Borehole completed at 280. r NOTES 1.) Refusal encountered at 28 ft on apparent bedrock. 2.) No groundwater encountered while drilling, + 30 j | 8 i} srs | | | | | 5 | st | | | | faa z | i lt | {oupee| < | | | lls | 5 i; | ! om | ' | ! i Sr | i | jee ea | | iat 2 { 1 Hare | | | i 2 | i | | | | \ SF ; | Jee ee \ 2 i | | i | | | S | | |e | i | | | BE j | | | i | ; { ; Pal \ i | ' ae] & ee eee | | | $ eet 1 | ie 1 | s | | i | | | iol oe | i Eee) (eek | ee eee é = a CEPTH SCALE:1 into2. Sh LCGGED C Seaman A 5 G DRILLING CCNTRACTCR: Discovery Drilling CHECKED Figure 3 Golder CRILLER: Alex C CATE A-14 z| ciates ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653X001 MEK5S GPJ GLOR_ANC GDT 1/6/06 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-9 SHEET 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: South of road, near river ORILLING DATE: 11-14-05 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC ORILL RIG: 8-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: -90 3] SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES | PENETRATION RESISTANCE = : ~ BLOWS /A = |5/ al stows | jit} » 2 NOTES te 3| CESCRIPTION Zlee Sot erin | E pass Eee WATER LEVELS a {2 ia! 3 3 = | N | 5 |WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC |S) VEGETATION: tundra, tr ig] > 2 Mammer Weght a |w, ———o*__, w, $ : i>} CpireaaRope Merja) | e200 ao ° } 00-05 a or (anes sleet | ICE lel | | 05-16 Frozen PEAT (PT). PT [v0-175 7 | Ss S| | | Loose, dark brown, moist to frozen ORGANIC | | | SILT and PEAT with woody piant matenal, frozen from 6 to 11 ft, no visible ice (PT. Nbn). | | ar | | } 11.14.05 | Me we we ly Wet P 5 Thermistor ie wet i" n wh |. installed to 9 EY = ft Es , wh, ah 2 oA 4 ets 1|ss o|4 a be vy 181.1 2 od a PT by, wy eg Le ty wey Wy ht, th wv 10 a >i AS 12-42-45 | 57 | 48 9 | 4 725-170 =. OF z BASALT bedrock (Bx). : se 4 iE 15 4 (eel 5 | | 3| | |= |e el j ; FA | ia g| | | | eee | east <| | | | | | “I Fo- 180 i | | leer | | Soft, presumed SANDY SILT or ASH ML, | | | ! ASH) | | | ae | i 1 | } i } [180-208 4 | | | | i | BASALT cedrack (Bx) } i | eS | | 1 | ie el | | | eae ei | | | | | | i | | je] peed cele} | | (2aifea) 4 2 Log -ontirued cn ext page je et al CEPTH SCALE:1 nto 25 ft LOGGED: C Seaman F | Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Drilling CHECKED: ‘gure i s i CRILLER Alex C CATE A-15 ociates PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-9 SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: South of road, near river ORILLING DATE: 11-14-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILL RIG: _B-24 COORDS: nia INCLINATION: _-90 2 SCIL PROFILE SAMPLES. | PENETRATICN RESISTANCE ae 4 4 BLOWS he zg) T ‘gl Oo | elev BLOWS, kb 10 2 30 40 PROS g2|3| DESCRIPTION Zo [Si {El el yl pean BY WATER LEVELS alg i2| 3 ' 3 gp g)e | N | 5 WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC g | VEGETATION: tundra, frozen marsh igh joie | PERT rs cprastoce ae or aera Lo { ! i } Drop | ———————— os | ' g| | | KRY ; ; | [i] 2{ 205-210 1 Tw (Tit) 25 ; ! i j Soft, presumed SANDY SILT or ASH (ML, | tid | iI Vay 2to | i | | &| “210-25 | 8x KY] | | RLBASALT bedrock (Bx) | 215-220 } [ome I] vem} ' ), Soft presumed SANDY SILT or ASH ML, Borehole completed at 22.0 R r NOTES: 1} Oriting ended at 22 ft because air hammer Could not penetrate softer matenals. 2.) Thermistor casing could not penetrate to L bottom of hole, and was filled with water to 2’ after 3.) Ne groundwater encountered wie driling, | | 25 Fr }30 g-35 ' i ; oe 9 | i { sf | i 1 | | ; | ft I | < | | i | ! ! | «| { ! | i | S i ! i od | if = a) { tot ! i i \ é i | | eb | | | | om i | ' £ | i | ; & i ; | = c— | | | 3 1 | i x | Ly | | | , | | ar | || | ; i ' ! 3 | | | i | | ; | 4 | 3 i 13 i | i 1 4 i; | aye] ii} ii ! a % DEPTH SCALE 1 in to 2.5 ft LOGGED: C Seaman 7 z $ Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Drilling CHECKED oe Q . a / g PA Ssociates DRILLER Alex C DATE PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05-10 SHEET 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: ~250' N of G05-9, ~385' N of river DRILLING DATE: 11-16-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC DRILLRIG: B-24 COORDS: na INCLINATION: -90 3] SOIL PROFILE | SAMPLES. | PENETRATION RESISTANCE ~ {EP : 7 on 4 BLOWS / ft NGS Ee|2 DESCRIPTION ig| - elev. || | persia | E 22 WATER LEVELS be i 2s _ 2 0 | a |g 3) 8 3\¢ | N | 5 WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) eles § | VEGETATION. tunara, frozen marsh Ei on | 2 spreninece ah pte ta Welaeassan rssicon r° sora = iat rr T T Brown, moist to frozen PEAT (PT) | | ' | | | | | L pr | | We hy | ! P= | | \ shy r (e20s200n orn | iS bar 20 Soft, gray, moist to wet SANDY SILT with fine i sand and trace woody debris (ML). - L aft 11-16-05 bs 2 11ss 71s A] L 3 = E10 |o Thermistor Rg casing nN . installed to thin tayer of woody debris 334 71 gaan - thin layer of woody debris > | E 15 | . | a3|ss| 456 11 | 32 | ! ' | \ | | ® | } eS ! } { ae t i; b | { } | | | | \ i | ERE 1 eae | | i ieepl | | i hea | a | | tft | | | | | bey | | | Vert j | | | | | | | L | | til | } | l/s} | i | ' teed i | | 1 i | | Peek | | | | ! ) EH | | 1 20 i 1 it | ‘| i (ag :catnced on nest page: 1 I i 1 l ai | DEPTH SCALE.1 into 258 LOGGED: C. Seaman 7 | - Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR. Discovery Drilling CHECKED: Figure Associates CRILLER: Alex C DATE A-16 ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653X001 MEKOS GPJ GLOR ANC GOT 1/6/06 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Wind Towers RECORD OF BOREHOLE G05- 10 SHEET 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653x001 ORILLING METHOD: Holiow-Stem Auger DATUM GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: ~250'N of GS-9, ~385' N of river DRILLING DATE: 11-16-05 AZIMUTH: nia TOC ELEVATION: CLIENT: Coffman / AVEC ORILL RIG: B-24 COORDS: n/a INCLINATION: _-90 12 SOIL PROFILE | SAMPLES. | PENETRATION RESISTANCE = r . - BLOWS hm z {tg lol | ' BLOWS | Fe ee NOTES Fels OESCRIPTICN 9 7 Z Elev. ' aw} a per 60 Ey 0:0, 0 WATER LEVELS ze Z| ig 8 $3 eae 3 [& | N | 5 [WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC 3 VEGETATION tundra, frezer marsh i) 7 18 pea | pooner eg: ly | & 1% sar re | i BO el ae ae 1 6 T T T Li gtay, wet SANDY SILT with fragments of | | 8X 4| ss} 100) | _ | 6 p RS | x TT T i Borehole completed at 20.5 tt. NOTES: 1.) Water began running in to hole at 3 ft 25 ees r- 35 | i i | | | | | | | == = Lil = CEPTH SCALE.1 into 25 ft LOGGED: C Seaman . CRILLING CONTRACTOR: Discovery Drilling CHECKED: Figure DRILLER: Alex C CATE. A-16 ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653K091 MEKO5 GPJ_GLDR_ANC GDT_ 1/6/06 are \ 2. A de % DRILLING G05-10 LOOKING SOUTH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BULK FUEL, POWER PLANT & WIND TOWER FOUNDATION: MEKORYUK, ALASKA Project No.: 043-5653x001 File: B-5 Photos.ppt Drawn: LCM Checked By. MJW | COFFMAN ENGINEERS / GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MEKORYUK, ALASKA Project No. i DRILLING G05-8 LOOKING NORTH NOTE: PIPELINE INBACKGROUND 4 F nie Ae oS, SE we EXPOSED BEDROCK ON NORTH SIDE OF MEKORYUK SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BULK FUEL, POWER PLANT & WIND TOWER FOUNDATION: MEKORYUK, ALASKA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION | MEKORYUK, ALASKA 043-5653x001 File: B-4 Photos.ppt Drawn: LCM Checked By: MJW | COFFMAN ENGINEERS, | { | i i A 4 if 4 i if if r jf | i fi <—™~ DRILLING G05-6 LOOKING NORTH FROM ROADWAY NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL TOWER ASS anact Vi CRO 2 DRILLING G05-6 LOOKING NORTH NOTE: PIPELINE INBACKGROUND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MEKORYUK, ALASKA HNICAL INVESTIGATION / MEKORYUK. ALASKA Project No.. C43-5653x001 File: B-3 Photos.ppt Drawn: LCM Checked By MJW | COFFMAN ENGINEERS, GEC BULK FUEL, POWER PLANT & WIND TOWER FOUNDATIONS} B-3 es: i a , EXISTING POWER PLANTS | SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION | BULK FUEL, POWER PLANT & WIND TOWER FOUNDATIONS MEKORYUK, ALASKA COFFMAN ENGINEERS ; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. MEKORYUK, ALASKA Proyect No.. 043-5653x001 File: B-2 Photos. ppt Drawn: LCM Checked By) MJW DRILLING E05-1 NEAR EXISTING TANK FARM SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BULK FUEL, POWER PLANT & WIND TOWER FOUNDATION MEKORYUK, ALASKA Project No.. 043-5653x001 File: B-1 Photos ppt Drawn: LCM Checked By: MJW [COFFMAN ENGINEERS / GECTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MEKCRYUK ALASKA APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE Golder Associates APPENDIX C GOLDER REPORT, JANUARY 2005 Golder Associates Golder Associates Inc. 1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK USA 99507-3443 Telephone (907) 344-6001 Fax (907) 344-6011 www.golder.com Distribution: FINAL REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BULK FUEL UPGRADES MEKORYUK, ALASKA Submitted to: Coffman Engineers 800 F Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. 1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 4 Copies - Coffman Engineers (plus PDF version) 3 Copies- Golder Associates Inc. January 04, 2005 043-5653 January 2005 -i- 043-5653 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK Scope of Work.... 2.0 PROJECT SETTING AND DATA REVIEW 2.1 Geologic Setting... 2.2 Permafrost .... 2.3 Data Review 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION sacFonnaeystsnsesttesececcasacassunsstsiecseessesssssseustontecnecsugenysonssincsetoeesstsnssee3 5 AiO) TABORATORY: TESTING (rectcccecscescscvcscttasncoesenscersecerseovesssssnsersssessecasesasevasesnasarestoveerssvers i 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 8 5.1 Wind Tower Site ......... 8 5.2 Bulk Fuel Storage Site. 9 5.3 Fuel Pipeline eo 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Bulk Fuel Storage Facility 6.1.1 Fill Pad Design Criteria. 6.1.2 Earthworks . 6.1.3 Tanks.......... 6.2 Power Plant Foundations. 6.3 Fuel Pipelines .............. 6.3.1 Buried Pipelines ............ 6.3.2 Transitions Between Trench Sections .. 6.3.3. Aboveground Pipelines . 6.4 Wind Tower Foundations....... 6.5 Surface Drainage 7.0 USE OF REPORT 8.0 | REFERENCES Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -li- 043-5653 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2 Proposed Wind Tower Site with Borehole Locations Figure 3 Proposed Bulk Fuel Storage Site with Borehole Locations Figure 4 Proposed Fuel Fill Line Alignment with Borehole Locations Figure 5 Soil Classification/Legend Figure 6 Frozen Soil Classification/Legend Figure 7 Record of Borehole G04-1 Figure 8 Record of Borehole G04-2 Figure 9 Record of Borehole G04-3 Figure 10 Record of Borehole G04-4 Figure 11 Record of Borehole G04-5 Figure 12 Record of Borehole G04-6 Figure 13 Record of Borehole G04-7 Figure 14 Record of Borehole G04-8 Figure 15 Record of Borehole G04-9 Figure 16 Record of Test Pit G04-TP10 Figure 17 Schematic of Gravel Pad LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Test Pit Investigation by Bristol Environmental Appendix B = Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations for High School Site by R&M Consultants, Inc. Appendix C _ Select Pages from Report on Pile Performance and Remedial Action, Mekoryuk High School by A.W. Murfitt Company Appendix D — Schematic of Buried Fuel Pipeline Trench Details . Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -1- 043-5653 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) plans to construct a bulk fuel storage facility, power plant, wind generator towers, and marine header with associated fuel fill pipelines. This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation that was performed in support of the facility design. Mekoryuk is located on the northern tip of Nunivak Island and is situated at the mouth of Shoal Bay (Figure 1). The island lies 30 miles off the coast from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, across the Etolin Straight from Nelson Island, in the Bearing Sea. Mekoryuk is 150 miles west of Bethel and about 530 air miles west of Anchorage, AK. The proposed wind tower site adjoins the water reservoir property on the north side (Figure 2). The final layout of the towers is still in progress, but the preferred locations are immediately adjacent to the reservoir fence (to the north) and close to existing power lines. The bulk fuel storage facility will be situated west of the school, but again the layout is being refined (Figure 3). The proposed bulk fuel storage and power plant will replace existing facilities. The school district will share fuel storage with AVEC at the proposed site, but the City and Native Corporation plan on having a separate facility. A marine header is planned near the small boat launch, along with a buried fuel fill line leading from it to the tank site (Figure 4). The proposed bulk fuel storage facility will include numerous large capacity (22k to 27k gallons) aboveground storage tanks and eight structures associated with the power plant. Fuel storage will be in horizontal, skid-mounted tanks. The eight buildings will be modular type structures, which will be elevated about 4 ft above grade. The facility will also have aboveground fuel fill & draw lines, fences, overhead lights, and lined containment. One to three “Northwind-100” wind towers are planned. The monopole towers are 95 ft tall (29m), tapered tubular steel, and self-supporting. The tower is about 7.5 ft diameter at the base. We understand that AVEC prefers (for consistency purposes) a tower foundation that is similar to that planned for the Toksook Bay project. At this time the contractor, differing from our final Toksook design, is proposing an alternative foundation. This reflects recent changes in pile material and equipment availability, but is yet to be finalized or reviewed. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -2- 043-5653 Scope of Work Our scope of work included data review, field investigation by drilling testholes, laboratory testing, development of geotechnical recommendations, and preparation of this report. Recommendations included discussions of tank site preparation, pad construction, tank foundations, support of light and fence posts, power plant foundations, buried fuel lines, and wind tower foundations. Our work was accomplished in accordance with our proposal dated March 30, 2004. This Final report reflects comments made to our September 2004 Draft report. A more detailed design of the wind tower foundations will be submitted at a later date, once the preferred concept is developed. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -3- 043-5653 2.0 PROJECT SETTING AND DATA REVIEW 2.1 Geologic Setting Nunivak Island is predominantly of volcanic origin and geologically similar to Nelson Island (ADGGS, 1973). Most of the island is capped by basaltic lava flows of Tertiary or Quaternary age. The flows reach an aggregate thickness of 200 ft or more. Nunivak Island reaches a maximum elevation of about 1,675 ft. Roberts Mountain is built up of a series of volcanic benches, the top being the steep side of a breached crater (ADGGS, 1973). Cretaceous or Tertiary sedimentary bedrock underlies the basalt, typically siltstones, sandstones, shales, and coals. Sedimentary bedrock outcrops have been reported along the north coast of the island. Surficial deposits that cover the project area consist mostly of a shallow layer of late-Quaternary unconsolidated sediments and organic materials. Deposits in upland areas typically have 10 ft to 30 ft of silty soils overlain by organic material and tundra mat. Beach/dune sand is also present over much of the eastern portion of the village. 2.2 Permafrost Permafrost has been mapped in the area and characterized as being moderately thick to thin, but may be locally absent near large water bodies (USGS, 1965). Permafrost was present both at the wind tower and bulk fuel storage sites, but not encountered along the fuel fill pipeline. The absence of permafrost along the pipeline route could be a result of disturbed ground (i.e. route within existing road), or a change in geologic terrain unit. 2.3 Data Review Available geotechnical data was reviewed in order to gain a better understanding of the subsurface conditions and distribution of permafrost in the area. Information is summarized below and select data is included in Appendix A. e Test Pit Investigations by Bristol Environmental Services. Under a previous contract with AVEC, and as part of the Conceptual Design Report (CDR), Bristol Environmental (2003) explored the proposed bulk fuel storage site by excavating five test pits. The explorations ranged between 7 ft and 9 ft depths. Conditions Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -4- 043-5653 were found to be similar to our nearby testhole, consisting of 1 ft to 2 ft of organics underlain by ice-rich organic (OL) and inorganic Silt (ML). Shallow permafrost was present throughout. Silt with massive ice inclusions was noted in most of the explorations, and lenses up to 2 inches thick were found. Field testpit logs and a sketch of the locations are provided in Appendix A. Approximate testpit locations were plotted and shown on our site plan (Figure 3). e Recent Health Clinic Construction. Kelly-Ryan Inc. installed driven steel pipe piling at the recently constructed health clinic (Kelly-Ryan, 2004). The clinic is located about 300 ft to the west of the bulk fuel storage site. According to the Superintendent, piles on the backside (east) of the building were driven to about 25 ft depth, and refusal was met at what was interpreted as either bedrock or large boulder. The remainder of the piles located at the front and mid sections of the building were driven to the design specified depth of 30 ft. The 8 in. or 10 in. diameter piles were driven using a Delmag 8-22 pile-driving hammer. Soils were generally thawed to about 15 ft depth with permafrost below. Piles are not outfitted as thermal piles. e Geotechnical Investigation at Mekoryuk School. R&M Consultants completed a Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations Report for construction of the High School (R&M, 1979). They completed three testholes within the school footprint to 26.5 ft, 26 ft, and 17 ft depths (Figure 3). Subsurface conditions consisted of 1 ft to 3 ft of organics, overlying 7 ft to 13 ft of Silt (ML), underlain by Sand with trace to some silt (SP to SM). At depth, below the Sand, was a layer of Gravel with sand and cobbles (below 21 to 22 ft depths). Permafrost was prominent below 5 ft to 7 ft depth and contained little visible ice. The R&M report is included in Appendix B, and their testhole locations are shown on the site plan (Figure 3). e Pile Performance and Remedial Action at Mekoryuk School. All the piles supporting the school were originally designed to be thermal piling using passive refrigeration. Soon after the school was completed, structural distress was noticed within the building. Lower Kuskokwin School District (LKSD) contracted A.W. Murfitt Company to monitor the piles and complete any remedial action (1984). They discovered that a few piles were experiencing severe jacking, and all were confined to one corner of the building. The remaining piles were fairly stationary. It turned out that the jacking piles were installed without a thermal siphon. Also, the jacking piles were installed much shallower (~15ft depth) than the others. Thermal syphons were subsequently installed and rectified the problem. Numerous soil logs, along with select portions of the report, are included in Appendix C. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -5- 043-5653 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation consisted of drilling and sampling nine testholes (G04-01 through -09) to depths between 9.0 ft and 23.8 ft, between July 8 & 10, 2004. Five testholes were completed at the proposed wind tower site (G04-01 thru -05), one at the bulk fuel storage site (G04-06), and three along the alignment of the buried fuel fill pipeline (G04-07 thru -09), as shown on Figures 2, 3, & 4. One shallow hand dug Test Pit was also completed (G04-TP10) near the wind tower site. Testholes were drilled by Denali Drilling of Anchorage, using a skid mounted CME 45 drill rig, which was equipped with 3.25 in. inside diameter hollow-stem augers. The drill rig was flown in from Bethel and moved around the site using the City’s front-end loader. Soft, saturated, organic rich soils at the bulk fuel storage site made transporting the heavy equipment extremely difficult without sinking or severely marring the vegetation. Consequently, only one testhole was completed at that site. Fortunately, there was supplementary data by previous AVEC explorations by Bristol Environmental, and from the nearby health clinic and school sites. The field investigation was supervised by a GAI engineer who logged the recovered soils and directed the drilling operation. Soils encountered were visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soils Classification (USCS) System that is summarized in Figure 5. Frozen soil was further characterized according to the classification system summarized on Figure 6. Testhole logs are presented in Figures 7 thru 16. Representative samples of the soils encountered were obtained by driving a split-spoon sampler ahead of the augers. Drive samples were collected at 2.5 ft, 5 ft, and 5-ft intervals thereafter. Also, a grab sample of auger cuttings was collected near surface. The recovered samples were visually classified in the field before being individually sealed in double plastic bags and transported to our Anchorage laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Numerous frozen samples were maintained as such during the fieldwork and transported back to the laboratory. Drive samples were collected using a 2 in. outside diameter (O.D.) split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven using a 140-lb drop hammer free falling 30 in. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-in. interval of the sampling attempt is recorded on the borehole logs. In addition, the total number of blows required to advance the sampler through the 6-in. to 18-in. sampling interval is Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -6- 043-5653 presented as “N” on the borehole logs. The blow counts shown on the borehole logs are field values that have not been corrected for overburden, sampler size, frozen conditions, or other factors. Upon completion of Testholes G04-04, -05, & -06, a 1 in diameter PVC pipe was installed and the hole backfilled with borrow sand, drill cuttings, and/or bentonite chips. The remaining testholes were backfilled with drill cuttings. Prior to completing the fieldwork, a thermistor string was inserted into the PVC pipe and ground temperatures were measured. However, the measurements were taken too soon after drilling such that all the drilling induced heat had not yet dissipated. We plan to collect ground temperature measurements prior to finalizing the wind tower foundation design. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -7- 043-5653 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed to measure index properties of the samples for use developing correlation with engineering properties of materials encountered. Moisture content tests were run on each sample and generally conducted according to procedures described in ASTM D-2216. In addition, seven samples were tested to determine the grain size distribution (ASTM C-136), and two samples tested for Atterberg Limits (ASTM 4318). Salinity analyses were performed on eleven permafrost samples. Salinity was measured on the soil pore water using “Quantab” chloride titrators. All test results were below the detectable limit of the test method (<about Ippt (parts per thousand)). Measurable salinity was not expected at these sites, but it is good practice to verify this since brackish water will lower the freezing point of pore water. Salinity contents as low as few ppt are known to influence the amount of ice content versus liquid pore water below temperatures of 32° Fahrenheit. For reference, typical seawater has salinity content in the range of 28 to 32 ppt. Four thaw strain tests were also performed. Samples for this test were collected by inserting thin walled cylindrical liners inside the split spoon sampler. The undisturbed samples remain in the liner and are kept frozen in the field and during transport to the laboratory. The dimensions and weight of the frozen samples were measured in order to calculate frozen bulk density. The samples were then allowed to thaw and drain water at room temperature while still in the liner. A static axial pressure of about 1 psi was applied during the thaw, and the final thawed height of the sample measured upon completion. The samples were then dried, allowing for determination of dry density and frozen moisture content. Unit thaw strain is reported as the thaw settlement divided by the initial frozen sample height. It should be noted that sample 3 collected from Testhole G04-06 (not tested for thaw strain) contained more visible ice than the three other samples tested from the same testhole. The results of the laboratory testing are summarized in Table 1. Results of the moisture content testing are also presented on the testhole logs adjacent to the samples tested. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -8- 043-5653 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Wind Tower Site There is a distinct change in terrain at this site, reflecting a transition between the man-made reservoir and fairly undisturbed tundra (as shown on Figure 2). A dike encompasses the perimeter of the reservoir, along with a fence. The dike is about 10 ft to 15 ft in elevation above native ground, and the footprint is between 30 and 60 ft beyond the fence. The native terrain is overall relatively level, but highly undulating. Perched surface water was found in most low areas in the tundra, but not within the dike embankment. Vegetation on the embankment consisted of tall grasses. Three Testholes were completed each within 30 ft of the fence (G04-01, -02, -05), and subsurface conditions were similar. These testholes consisted of about 8 ft of organic silt, 9 ft to 10 ft of silt, underlain by basalt bedrock (at 17 ft to 18 ft depth). Overburden soils were thawed completely in Testholes G04-02 & -05, but permafrost remained below a depth of 15 ft depth in Testhole G04-01. Frozen soils in that testhole had about 5% visible ice. Bedrock was also frozen in Testhole G04-01, and is likely frozen at depth in all three testholes. The organic and inorganic silt was generally loose and moist to wet. Moisture content of the organic silt was close to 50% and moisture content of the silt ranged between 24% and 34%. One other Testhole (G04-04) was drilled near the transition between the two terrains. Conditions in G04-04 were similar to the other three described above, except for 1 ft thick tundra mat, shallower permafrost at 13.5 ft depth, and bedrock below a depth of 19 ft. The last testhole (G04-03) at this site was drilled within the tundra. Subsurface conditions were comprised of 1.6 ft thick tundra mat, 1.3 ft of organic silt, underlain by silt down to the depth of exploration of 9ft. Very soft, saturated ground proved an obstacle for the heavy equipment, and limited the ability to advance this testhole further. Based on the consistency in the bedrock elevation in the other explorations to the south, one can extrapolate with reasonable certainty the bedrock is at similar depth in this northern area. Mekorvuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -9- 043-5653 5.2 Bulk Fuel Storage Site Terrain across this site is relatively level and there are no prominent drainage patterns. Surface vegetation consists of tundra, which has maintained much of the permafrost. There are relic and active ATV trails on the site, along with remnants of playground equipment and fish racks. In a few areas the tundra has been disturbed, and has caused some thawing of the permafrost. This has resulted in local ground depressions that tend to fill in with standing water. Soil conditions discovered in Testhole G04-06 contained a 1.5 ft thick tundra mat, 2 ft of organic silt, 17.2 ft of silt, underlain by bedrock below 20.7 ft. Soil and rock was completely frozen below the tundra. All of the soils were ice-rich, but the most visible segregated ice was noticed in the sample taken at 5 ft depth. Ice lenses up to % in. thick and 25% visible ice content (by volume) were present at that sample interval. The moisture content of the silt ranged between 18% and 44%. Bedrock consisted of black fresh vesicular Basalt. Conditions were found to be similar, at least within the 9 ft maximum depth of exploration, as revealed in the Testpits completed by Bristol Environmental. Historic testholes at the school also proved similar to our Testhole, except rather than basalt bedrock, dense Gravel with sand and cobbles was encountered near a depth of 22. 5.3 Fuel Pipeline The proposed alignment of the fuel pipeline follows existing roads that lead from the school to the small boat harbor Figure 4). Subsurface conditions encountered in the three testholes consisted of 3 ft to 10.5 ft of fine dune/beach sand (SP) overlying sandy silt (ML). The surface of the road contained a thin veneer (0.5 ft to 1.5 ft) of gravel fill mixed with the sand, serving as surfacing course. Thawed soils were found throughout theses explorations. Soils were generally loose within the top 10 ft and became loose/compact at greater depth. The moisture content of the upper sand was typically 4% to 7%, whereas the underlying silt had moisture contents between 24% and 39%. The dune/beach sand generally classifies as non-frost susceptible (NFS), but the silt is considered highly susceptible to frost heave (F4). This beach’dune sand is highly erodable by the wind. No groundwater was encountered on the northern end, where the silt layer is much shallower. Conversely, groundwater was found in Testhole G04-07 (southem end) at a depth of 10 ft near the Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -10- 043-5653 base of the sand layer. Ground water levels are likely to vary seasonally across the site and with changes in precipitation. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -ll- 043-5653 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Bulk Fuel Storage Facility As mentioned, permafrost is prominent at the proposed site. Construction at the site will disturb the existing ground cover and reduce the natural insulation that it provides. This disturbance has the potential to cause permafrost to thaw, which will be reflected in settlement of the fill pad. We recommend placing an insulated fill pad as an effort to limit the amount of thawing (and consequent settlement) into the subgrade. The pad is also required to provide bearing capacity for the tanks. Due to very soft and saturated ground, construction is most feasible during the winter or late spring, and our recommendations presume this to be the case. If scheduling dictates construction during thawed months, we can revisit our recommendations and make changes accordingly. 6.1.1 Fill Pad Design Criteria Generalized design criteria for the insulated fill pad are presented in Figure 17 and described below. e The pad construction includes stripping the organic mat (1.5 ft to 2 ft thick), placing two feet of structural fill, 4 inches of insulation, and another 3 ft of fill. ¢ A medium weight, non-woven geotextile (Amoco 4545, or equal) should be placed at the base of the excavation to prevent mixing of the fill and underlying silt and allow drainage. The overlap between geotextile rolls should be at least 3 ft. e All facilities, tanks, and containment berms should not be closer than 10 ft from the edge of the pad. This is to allow for cracking and settlement that may occur at the edge of the pad due to settlement of underlying soil. ¢ The surface of the pad should be graded to drain. Furthermore, the site should be graded so that water does not pond at the toe of the embankment slopes. e Light poles, fences and other structures placed near the crest of the gravel pad should be expected to move over time and provisions should be made for periodic releveling of these structures. ¢ Fill slopes should be designed for a maximum 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope (2H:1V). Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -12- 043-5653 e Placement of fill and insulation should occur during the winter to late spring months. e A minimum of 4 in. of extruded polystyrene boardstock insulation is required. This will limit thaw penetration into the subgrade to less than 1 ft. This is based on analyses performed using the computer program BERG2 (ADOT&PF, 1989) and design environmental parameters provided in the Environmental Atlas of Alaska (Hartman, 1978). Insulation should be placed 3 ft below the ground surface in two layers with joints offset between layers. Some settlement of the fill pad should be expected, but we understand that these facilities can withstand such movement. The settlement is expected to be differential due to subsurface variations. 6.1.2 Earthworks General criteria for site preparation and placement of fill for the gravel pad are described below. ¢ The organic vegetation mat should be stripped from the site prior to placement of fill. e Fill should be placed in maximum 12 in. loose lifts compacted to 95% of the Maximum Modified Proctor Density (ASTM D-1557). ¢ Structural fill should consist of well-graded NFS sand and gravel with less than 6% passing the #200 sieve. Fill should not contain organic matter, lumps, frozen material, or other deleterious matter. If pumping occurs during construction of the fill, due to repetitive construction traffic, heavy equipment should be routed around the area. The pumping soil should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 1 ft, and a layer of filter fabric should be placed before backfilling with a free- draining crushed gravel (minimum of 30% retained on the % in. sieve). Use of clean, free-draining crushed gravel in overexcavations will require only minimal compaction; therefore, the potential for additional pumping shall be reduced. Neither groundwater nor surface water should be allowed to accumulate in stripped or excavated areas. 6.1.3 Tanks The skid-mounted tanks can be founded directly on the structural fill grade. Some settlement is expected, both from possibly melting of the subgrade and consolidation of the sand when dead loads Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -13- 043-5653 are applied. These recommendations presume that this magnitude of settlement is acceptable for these facilities. e Lateral forces on the foundations will be resisted by friction along the base of the skids. Frictional forces at the base of the footings may be calculated using a coefficient of 0.5 times the net vertical dead load on the footing, assuming that the timber grade stringer is resting directly against the surficial gravel at the site. e Piping and other utility connections to the tanks should be designed to accommodate potential differential movement on the order of 6 to 12 in. e Provisions should be made for periodic releveling. © One to two inches of settlement (due to consolidation) should be expected as the tanks are initially filled. 6.2 Power Plant Foundations Each of the eight power plant buildings is 11 ft x 30 ft in plan and will be elevated 4 ft above grade. We understand that AVEC prefers a similar foundation configuration as we helped design for Toksook Bay. This includes four isolated piles, one at each corner of the structure, and which are braced laterally. Reportedly, the maximum vertical load is 50 kips (at the generator building) with a maximum lateral load of 6.75 kips per pile. Based on the results of our field investigation and experience with similar conditions, we have prepared the following recommendations. Power Plant foundations can be similar to Toksook Bay, including four 7 in. O.D., grade L-80 steel pipe piles with 3/8 in. wall thickness. In this case, the piles should be driven and seated into rock at least 2 ft. If weathered rock is encountered, piles should be driven to practical refusal, assuming a properly sized hammer. Unless the tundra mat is preserved over the life of the project, there is threat of melting the permafrost. This could result in soils becoming loose and saturated, and cause settlement. If this were the case, the long-term lateral support of the piles could be compromised. Essentially the thawed soils would not provide much lateral resistance and the pile would have a much longer “cantilever” length. Therefore, we recommend placing at least 3 ft of clean sandy fill, while maintaining the tundra intact as much as practical. The fill will provide lateral support on the pile, a trafficable surface, and prevent traffic from damaging the tundra. If the contractor chooses to utilize a larger pile section (i.e. 8 in. diameter and 0.3 in. wall, or larger), the thickness of the fill Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rt Golder Associates January 2005 -14- 043-5653 could be reduced to 2 ft minimum instead of 3 ft. This criterion is an effort to limit pile head deflection to 1 in., given the design loads. Pile driving through the permafrost at this site is likely to be fairly difficult. Depending upon hammer selection, installation may have to be supplemented with pre-drilling. Pre-drilling should be accomplished by air-rotary techniques, as other methods may thaw too much of the frozen soil and be cumbersome. Fortunately, pre-drilling can be accomplished with the same equipment that is to be used to drill through rock for the anchors at the wind tower. Since we are relying on information from one borehole across the power plant site, we should account for variability in the bedrock surface in the planning stages. For ordering materials, we should expect that the bedrock surface might be as much as 6 ft deeper than encountered in our exploration. Piles should be driven open-ended and installed plumb to within 1/8 in. per foot 6.3 Fuel Pipelines Both buried fill lines and above grade fill & draw lines are planned. 6.3.1 Buried Pipelines The layout for the proposed buried fuel pipeline is shown on Figure 4, The fuel line is to be either 4 in. or 6 in. diameter steel pipe. We understand that the preferred burial depth is about 3 ft to 4 ft. As mentioned, subsurface conditions along the pipeline consist of clean sand overlying highly frost susceptible silt. The thickness of sand varies from 3 ft to 10.5 ft depths. We have developed different trench sections for those segments with shallow silt and segments with deeper silt. We have provided trench details and minimum burial depths that attempt to minimize the amount of differential heave on the pipe. However, some differential movement should be expected due to variations in subgrade and frost depths. Three general trench sections are shown in Appendix D and described below. e The first trench section applies to portions of the pipe where silty subgrade is more than 7.5 ft deep (near Testhole G04-07). In this section, the pipe burial should be 3 ft and bedding thickness 1 ft below the pipe. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -15- 043-5653 e The second trench detail is provided for sections of the pipe where the silty subgrade is less than 7.5 ft deep below final grade (near Testholes G04-08 & - 09). This includes 4.5 ft burial depth and 2 ft thick bedding below the pipe. e An optional insulated trench section is also included and can be substituted for the previous trench described. The contractor should decide if it is economically feasible to utilize an insulated trench. The pipe should be founded on a minimum of 12 in. or 24 in. (depending upon subgrade) of bedding material. The pipe should have 6 inches of bedding/padding material cover, and shall extend at least 6 in. on either side of the pipe. Bedding material below the bottom of pipe elevation should be compacted to 95% of the max dry density (as determined by modified proctor testing). The subsequent lift of bedding/padding material should be hand tamped. Bedding material should consist of NFS sand and gravel with less than 6% passing the #200 sieve and 100% passing the % in. sieve. It should be free of organic or deleterious material. Most of the dune/beach sand encountered along this alignment met these criteria. Unclassified trench backfill should consist of mineral soil free or organic or deleterious material, and be compacted to 85% of the max dry density. Lifts of bedding material should not exceed 12 in. thick. Compaction should be performed with handheld equipment and not within 12 inches above the pipe. 6.3.2 Transitions Between Trench Sections Transitions should be made between changes in trench sections, specifically changes in subgrade depth, thickness of bedding below the pipe, and insulation. The length of the transition is defined by the slope of the subgrade depth, which should have a maximum grade of 4%. Transitions between insulated and uninsulated trenches should also include at least 50 linear feet of 1 inch thick insulation compared to 2 inches. 6.3.3 Aboveground Pipelines At a few locations, the above ground fuel lines are planned to be buried at road crossings. We recommend placing the pipeline in an open culvert at road crossings. Differential movements are expected. The pipe and its connections should be designed to withstand the stress caused by these ground movements. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -16- 043-5653 6.4 Wind Tower Foundations One to three “Northwind-100” wind towers are planned for this site. The monopole towers are 95 ft tall (29m), tapered tubular steel, and self-supporting. The tower is about 7.5 ft diameter at the base. We understand that AVEC prefers a tower foundation similar to what we helped design for Toksook Bay. Which consisted of a series of eight driven pipe piles forming a circular pattern with 5.3 ft radius. A base frame is welded atop the piles and the monopole bolts into the base frame. The design calls for installing rock anchor bolts through the inside and below the piles in order to resist the high uplift forces. However, there have been discussions lately of changing the foundation for Toksook, possibly eliminating the rock anchor, as a result of the contractor having a surplus of larger diameter piles and different equipment available. As mentioned, bedrock was encountered at depths of 17 ft to 18 ft in the four testholes drilled at this site. Foundation designs which are similar to Toksook Bay are appropriate for Mekoryuk, consisting of eight 10.75 in. O.D. driven piles with rock anchors installed. Unlike Toksook though, the basalt bedrock is not very conducive to pile driving, so the plan would be to drive the pile a few feet into rock in order to seat the tip. We are still analyzing uplift capacity in order to define the required anchor size, tendon length, and diameter. But the tower foundations are currently on hold, while we of explore other concepts with the contractor. Aside from uplift capacity, another governing load case is shear forces due to wind, and corresponding lateral deflections of the piles. The vegetation and organic silt layers found near the surface do not provide much lateral stiffness to the pile. Therefore, in order to provide stiffer resistance and limit pile head deflection, we recommend stripping the vegetation and placement of 4 ft of compacted sand and gravel fill. This fill thickness corresponds to using 10.75 in. diameter piles, and would have to be adjusted if the pile size changes. Beach/dune sand seemed readily available in Mekoryuk, but more information needs to be gathered regarding gravel sources. 6.5 Surface Drainage Positive gradients should be provided so that runoff will quickly flow away from the tanks, power plant, and other foundations. Care should be taken in the site layout to avoid ponding of water adjacent to the tanks, light foundations, or the generator buildings. The underlying impermeable liner should be graded such that water collecting in the containment areas drains away from the tanks. The Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -17- 043-5653 sump and subdrain system installed in the containment areas should be maintained regularly to insure proper function. To the extent possible, soil at the base of the fill pad slopes should drain away from the pad. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest cpt Golder Associates January 2005 -18- 043-5653 7.0 USE OF REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Coffman Engineers and AVEC during design of the proposed bulk fuel facilities. If there are significant changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities, we should be notified so that we may review our conclusions and recommendations in light of the proposed changes and provide a written modification or verification of the changes. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between explorations and also with time. Therefore, inspection and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer should be included during construction to provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions revealed during the work. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered that cannot fully be determined by a limited number of explorations or soil samples. Such unexpected conditions frequently result in additional project costs in order to build the project as designed. Therefore, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. The work program followed the standard of care expected of professionals undertaking similar work in the State of Alaska under similar conditions. No warranty expressed or implied is made. Travis E. Ross, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer ~ me oe. PSE Thomas G. Krzewinksi, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer and Principal TER/TGK/icm Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates January 2005 -19- 043-5653 8.0 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facility, BERG2 Microcomputer Estimation of Freeze and Thaw Depths and Thaw Consolidation, Statewide Research, Fairbanks, Alaska, 1989. A.W. Murfitt Company, Report on Pile Performance and Remedial Action, Mekoryuk High School, LKSD, November, 1984. Bristol Environmental and Engineering Services, Testpits Logs completed as part of the CDR report for AVEC’s Mekoryuk Tank Farm and Power Plant project, August, 2003. Hartman & Johnson, Environmental Atlas of Alaska, 1978. Kelly-Ryan Inc. (contractor out of Washington State), Telephone Conversation with Tom Culver, Construction Superintendent, July 16, 2004. R&M Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations Report for Mekoryuk High School Site, LKSD, March, 1979. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS), Geology and Mineral Evaluation of Proposed Wilderness Area, Nunivak National Wildlife Refuge and Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Range, Alaska, by P.L. Dobey & D.C. Hartman, January 1973. United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Permafrost Map of Alaska, Compiled by O.J. Ferrians Jr., 1965. Mekoryuk Final geotech invest rpt Golder Associates TABLES Golder Associates TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SOIL PORE FROZEN | FROZEN | UNIT BOREHOLE] SAMPLE | APPROX.| MOISTURE] WATER SIEVE ANALYSIS |ATTERBERG| BULK uscs' NUMBER |NUMBER| DEPTH | CONTENT | SALINITY ‘| +#4 | #4-#200] -#200 LIMITS DENSITY] DENSITY|STRAIN| CLASS. (ft) (%) (ppt, as Cl’) GO4-01 | 0-2 50 2 5-6.5 53 3A 10.0-11.1 34 100 ML. w/Org 3B 11.1-11.6 46 4 15.0-17.0 24 ND, <1 NP n/a ML 5 192-195 15 G04-03 2 45-65 31 ND, <1 G04-04, 1 1.0-1.5 o7; 2 4.0-6.0 29 % 9.0-11.0 27 ND, <1 4A 14.0-14.8 28 ND, <1 0 24 76 MI 1B 148-155 27 ND, <1 0 31 69 ML. 5A 19.0-19.3 32 ND, <1 5B 19 3-195 22 G04-05 1A 15.0-16.5 18 ND, <1 iz 30 63 128.1 108.4 tS ML. IB 16 5-16.7 21 G04-06 l 0.5-15 148 2 2.0-3.0 99 3 40-60 38 ND, <1 4 90-110 44 ND, <1 0 1 oo) 100.0 69.6 2.7 MI. w/Org, 5 14.0-16.0 34 ND, <1 112.5 84.2 3.2 oA 19.0-20..2 18 ND, <1 NP n/a 125.4 106.1 5) ML. 6b 20.2-20.3 22 GO04-07 1 0-1.0 Z 2 20-30 4 7 90 3 sP 3 45-65 4 4A 95-105 25) 4B 10.5-113 28 G04-08 ! 15-25 10 2 45-65 24 0 i 99 MI 3A 95-113 27 3B 113-115 16 4 14.5-16.5 5 G04-09 1 2.0-30 7, 2 4565 39 3 9.0-11.0 37 NOTES. 1. USCS ~ UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 2. SALINITY WAS MEASURED ON THE SOIL PORE WATER, USING "QUANTAB" CHLORIDE TITRATORS. ALL SAMPLES WERE MEASURED AS NON-DETECTABLE (ND). THE LOWER DETECTABLE LIMIT FOR THIS TEST METHOD IS ABOUT Ippt. + UNI THAW STRAIN IS DEFINED AS THE AMOUNT OF THAW SETTLEMENT EXPERIENCED IN A SAMPLE DIVIDED BY ITS INTTIAL FROZEN HEIGHT ony ik Fuel Upgrades*Firal Rerort'LABSUMMARY M Project Numbers'G4 5654 Me Galdar heenrintnn FIGURES Golder Associates im 60°23'14" N, 166°11'08" W WGS84 166217°00" W 66°15'00" W 166°13'00" W 166°11'00" W 166°09'00" W 166°07'00" W WGS84 166°04'00" W ero ia BE . heed MR has acaba z a 21 z 3 Lai é ° q \ 2 S CALASKA\ i 8 a \ i] 6 . 2 3 . a Fes S i ‘ ? i iain) |) QUADRANGLE LOCATION PROJECT z2 z ; LOCATION ; x ik Vee + NN N $ ° °o o o we 2 2 8 3 8 & 3 & wo wo Boy im | z f : S| Ss ce ' ; OREN eg qf NAT. iS iy a 16691700" 21200" Seer = - 10" W 166°15'00" W 166°13'00" W 166°11'00" W 166°09'00" W 166°07'00" W WGS84 166°04'U0" W TN#/MN or) 0s 10 15 20 miles ce oo 05 10 15 20 25 30 35m Map created with TOPO!® ©2002 National Geographic (www nationalgrogaphic comitopo) Figure 1 oo“ PROJECT LOCATION MAP pees MEKORYUK 1) U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS ON CD-ROM, POWERED BY TOPO! SOFTWARE COFFMAN ENGR. / AVEC / MEKORYUK / AK Re PROJECT NO.: 043-5653 FILE: 565%3proj Mekoryuk CDR = DATE: 08/23/04. DRAWN: RCC | LEGEND: | GAt TESTHOLE GAI HAND DUG TEST PIT “a | ’ | REFERENCE: Figure 2 | 2 Aerial photography provided by AeroMap U.S., PROPOSED WIND TOWER SITE | oa Awe2e WITH BOREHOLE LOCATIONS | Soe eae eee ene ees COFFMAN ENGR. / AVEC / MEKORYUK FUEL UPGRADES / AK | PROJECT NO.: 043-5653 FILE: FIGURE 2 WIND TOWER SITE.CDR DATE: 09/24/04 ORAWN: DHFL Golder Associates aaa LEGENI ; ENC we tography by AeroMap U.S. (July_1996). & G04-06 GOLDER TESTHOLE ('04) 2 ‘ald est Wtlous nd locations by Brito enveonmental, Figure 3 3 Re Ont r te feat rept or he fortend Foundation eport on eotechnical investiga! an FW TP-2 TESIPIT BY BRISTOL ) Rebommendations, Mekoyuk School Site” by PROPOSED BULK FUEL STORAGE SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ('03) R&M Consultants (1979). WITH BOREHOLE LOCATIONS Te: NOTE TH- > : 1) Testhole and Testpit locations should be COFFMAN ENGR. / AVEC / MEKORYUK FUEL UPGRADES / AK @ H-4 TESTHOLE BY R&M ('73) considered approximate. PROJECT NO. 043-5653 9 FILE: Figure 3 FuelStoraneFinal cdr MATE: 49!90IN4 Nate neem ' MARINE f a HEADER by | f APPROX.) a RELEREN io xccier Fowe 4 R OTOGRAPH PROVIDED BY , 200 igure AEROMAP US. JULY 4, 1996> a 9 ; ; PROPOSED FUEL FILL LINE ALIGNMENT APPROXIMATE SCALE, FEET NOTE WITH BOREHOLE LOCATIONS 1) Borehole locations should be considered approximate COFFMAN ENGR. / AVEC / MEKORYUK FUEL UPGRADES / AK Sees Goridar Acennintac Unified Soil Classification System Silt and Clay Descriptions SOIL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING GROUP SYMBOLSAND NAMES (ASTM 02487} ANDO GENERALIZED Typical Unified GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Description Desgrstion WW | Weil-gr i CLEAN GRAVELS SoU et oreces Saves sit ML (non-plastic) ‘ \ ae Less than 5% fines GP | Poorty-graded Gravels Ciayey Sit | CL-ML (loweplasticity) Mote ear com orcearse | GRAVELS WITH FINES | GM | Gravel and Sit Mixtures Silty Clay cL COARSE - GRANED SOILS pertseve More than 12% fines | Ge | Gravel and Clay Mixtures Clay cH co - GRA More than 50% retained Plastic Sit, | MH ‘on No. 200 Sieve eaNGS EAN Se Well-graded Sands Organic Soils | OL, OH, PT 50% or more of coarse | Poorty-graded Sands. More than 12% fines Sand and Clay Mixtures Low-plasticity Clays Non-plastic and Low-Plasticity Plasticity Chart Sw sP fraction passes No. 4 Sieve | SANOS WITH FINES ‘SM | Sand and Silt Mixtures sc co INORGANIC MU SILT AND CLAYS Silts 60 Liquid limit iess than 50 Sai SE OL | Organic Clays, Non-plastic and] x FINE- GRAINED SOILS ORGANIC 7 |_| 50% or more passes, " Low-Plasticity Organic Sits $40 the No. 200 Sieve Gill wear siesaciy Glas : INORGANIC , i 3 SILTSAND CLAYS. At eh pacily Se # 20 Liquid limit greater than le ascii on | High-plasticity Organic Clays Ct GAN! High-plasticity Organic Silts e 0 2 40 60 80 100 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor | pr | peat Liquid Limit Relative Density or Consistency Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values Laboratory Tests Cohesioniess Soils *) Cohesive Soils ©) Test Designation es Moisture Content MC(1) (c) (c) | Relative () Undrained (4) Density 5 Density | Ny, blows Density | Consistency | N,, blowsrn| a - | t (%) a: nee Grain Size c Very loose 0to4 0-15 ye al Ho a Hydrometer H Loose - to - Compact jomoo aetes Firm 4to8 500 - 1000 Atterberg Limits AL(1) Cre ee | SF | wee | eh | Ras comcttn | Very Dense ery 7 aut or oe Hard over 30 >4000 Unconfined uU (a) Soils consisting of gravel, sand, and silt, either separately or in combination possessing no characteristics of plasticity, UU Trax uu ‘and exhibiting drained behavior. CU Triax cu (0) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting undrained behavior. CD Triax co Pp (c) Refer to text of ASTM D 1586-99 for a definition of N; in normally consolidated cohesionless soils relative density terms a ae Goad are based on N values corrected for overburden pressures (Ny). N values may be affected by a number of factors including Limts on eee material size, depth, drilling method, and bore-hole disturbance. N values are only an approximate guide to the consistency boring tog. of cohesive and frozen soil. (d) Undrained shear strength, s, = 1/2 unconfined compression strength, U.. Samples Pm) SPT Sampler (2in.0.D) Criteria for Describing Moisture Condition Component Definitions by Gradation SSO Oversize SPT (2.5 in. 0.0.) eens HD Heavy Duty Spoon (3.0 in, 0.0.) Pry | dusty, dry to the touch Component _Size Range SH Shelby Tube Moist | Damp but no visible water a in Rees ee P Pitcher Sampler Visite tee water, i Wet | usually soil is below Gravel Jin. to No. 4 (4.76mm) B Buk water table Coarse gravel in. to 3/4 in. a Fine gravel 3/4 in. to No. 4 (4,76mm) Sand No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) RC Air Rotary Cuttings Descriptive Terminology Denoting Coarse sand No. 4 ( 4.76mm) to No. 10 (2.0mm) m nt Pri ion: Medium sand No. 10 (2.0mm to No. 40 (0.42mm) AC Auger Core Component a Le Fire sand No. 40 (0.42mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) ‘Auger Cuttings Cescriptive Terms eee Silt ard Clay Smailer than No. 200 (0.074mm) 1. SS drive samples advanced with 140 Ib Tacs 0-55 hammer with a 36 in. arop. Uitte 5.12% a) 12 - 30% 2. HO drive samples are advanced with 300 ib. come) oc Aree a c one hammer with a 30 in, drop. Gravelly, Sandy or Silty as appropriate 3. SSO drive samples advanced with 140 tb race oot eet enaoeeaeee hammer with a 30 in. Drop. 8102 Figure 5 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND REVISE FILE NAME: SOILS/SOILCLASS.CDR a7 REVISED. Se EE CE CARI eid CLASSIFY SOIL BY THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR GROUP SUBGROUP )] (b) 1 Description! |__Designation Description’ ’ Designation lal Poorly bonded Nf Segregated or friable ce not visible N No Nbn by eye eas excess ice 2. MODIFY SOIL DESCRIPTION : Excess Noe BY DESCRIPTION OF FROZEN t Ice soiLta) Individual ice crystals Ve or inclusions + Ice coatings Ve Segregated on particles ice visible by ¥ [|] $$ ++ eye (ice less Random or irregularly Ve than 25mm oriented ice formations thick) Stratified or distincitly Vs oriented ice formations Uniformly | distributed ice | vu Ice with ICE + 3. MODIFY SOIL DESCRIPTION BY Ice greater soil inclusions Soil Type DESCRIPTION OF SUBSTANTIAL than 25mm ICE Pi ieee aT \ STRAT ick Rees il " soil inclusions Ice (a) Reference ASTM D4083. (b) Description of ice within frozen soil is based on visual examination of the sample in the field. ICE BONDING SYMBOLS DEFINITIONS Well Bonded - Soil particles are strongly held together by the ice and the frozen soil No ice-bonded soil possesses relatively high resistance to chipping or breaking. observed Poorly Bonded - Soil particles are weakly held together by the ice and the frozen soil consequently has poor resistance to chipping and breaking. Poorly bonded or Friable - Soil is easily broken up under light to moderate pressure. friable Ice Coatings - Discernible layers of ice found on or below the larger soil particles in a frozen mass. Ice Crystal - A very small individual ice particle visible in the face of a soil mass. Crystals may Well bonded be present alone or in combination with other ice formations. Ice Segregation - Growth of ice as distinct lenses, layers, veins, and masses in soils. FROST-SUSCEPTIBLE SOILS PERCENTAGE FINER THAN TYPICAL FROST GENERAL 0.02mm UNIFIED SOIL GROUP SOIL TYPE BY WEIGHT CLASSIFICATION ra Gravelly soils 3 to 10 GW, GP, GW-GM, GP-MG F2 (a) Gravelly soils 10 to 20 GM, GW-GM, GP-GM (b) Sands 3to15 SW, SP, SM, SW-SM, SP-SM F3 (a) Gravelly soils Over 20 GM, GC (b) Sands, except very fine Over 15 SM, SC silty sands {c) Clays, P1 > 12 7 CL, CH F4 (a) Allsilts a4 ML, MH (b) Very fine silty sands Ne 1S SM (c) Clays, P1 < 12 * CL, CL-ML (d) Varied clays and other CL and ML; CL, ML, and SM; fine-grained, banded sediments CL, CH, and ML; CL, CH, ML, and SM REFERENCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TM 5-818-2, “Pavement Designs for Frost Conditions”, July 1965. Figure 6 © Golder Associates FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND FILE NAME: SCILS/ICECLASS.CD7 ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653 GINT.GPJ GLOR_ANC.GDT 1/05 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-01 SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 DRILLING METHOD: Holiow-Stem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: N/A. LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, AK DRILLING DATE: 7/8/04 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: N/A CLIENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC DRILL RIG:_skid- mounted CME 45 COORDS: n/a INCLINATION: _-30 3 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE - +— — BLOWS/ nl be g DESCRIPTION | Gal tenon E om wo WATERLEVELS Z| 3 & | Hammer want | N | 3 | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC Q | VEGETATION: tall grass, no tundra at | =\ "qd seine foals gi” Commies Ww re 00-60 ‘Thawed, loose, mo'st, dark brown, ORGANIC ie L a trace to little vegetation 4 BULK t-t-te1 21% | | | r | i Ls ie E 2 [set] 3-45 s | 44 5 L [ 3 Theved, loose, moist Sandy SILT, fin | it ray, fine a ‘sand, sightty plastic 5 (ML) 10 + j . wajspr] 3444 | 8 | 2) & oO r g 5 T14 | ‘ am 38 |sPT| -1% L 11.8- 158.0 Thawed, loose, moist, gray, Sandy SILT, fine sand, slightly plastic (ML) 15 WO=ES 15.0 Frozen, wet when thawed, gray, Sandy SILT, 2 - uno 4 [SPT] 916-1415 | 30 | o r 130-102 Spas ; 18.0 | rozen, very’ basalt (no recovery) 192-208 F 792 ° rozen, black, Vesicular BASALT, most 20 bedrock, possible boulder but unlikely ory | | Borehole completed at 20.61. i t TEES uncweter encountered wile diting. 4 2) Hit auger refusal at 20.8 ft on bedrock. . zt 3 | 4 iE | | 25 | feel + | | | | a | 1 } | | | | 7 | | | 30 | =I — iL i DEPTH SCALE:1 in to 3.7 ft LOGGED: T. Ross a. Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Drilling . CHECKED: TER Figure ciates ORILLER: Lyle DATE: / 29/4 7 10 oo 6 ™—T R DR_ANC.GOT 1/3/05 — ft 30 PROJECT: Mek PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 LOCATION: CLIENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC oryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades k, Nunivak Island, AK RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-02 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface DRILLING DATE: 7/8/04 DRILL RIG:_skid- mounted CME 45 AZIMUTH: n/a COORDS: na_- SHEET 1 of 1 GS ELEVATION: N/A TOC ELEVATION: N/A INCLINATION: -90 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES BORING METHOD | VEGETATION: tail grass, no tundra mat | DESCRIPTION \CE BOND BLOWS per Bin 14010 NUMBER TYPE Drop: 30 in ; | Hammer Weight BLOWS /f 10 2 ~~ 30 —+__+ PENETRATION RESISTANCE 40 N REC / ATT Wy, aE a) WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) Ww 40 NOTES WATER LEVELS GRAPHIC. 0.0-80 Thawed, loose, moist, dark brown, ORGANIC SILT, some rooty vegetation grading to trace (ol) 3.25 in. |.D. Hollow Stem Auger 41.0 -12.0 Thawed, dark brown, moist, ORGANIC SILT —r (Ou) 12.0-187 Oidn't fee! frozen zone augering 0-17", but could simitar to Testhole GO4-01. 3) Smoke coming out of drill after completion) indcaing grnclng on boar or Bouter 4) No samples taken, just monitored cuttings, and Presumed similar to Testhole G04-01. Lt ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653 GINT.GPJ GLI 5 der Preiser. DRILLER: Lyle DEPTH SCALE:1 into 3.78 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Drilling LOGGED: T. Ross CHECKED: TE DATE: s2/eq fou Figure PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-03 SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 DRILLING METHOD: HollowStem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, AK DRILLING DATE: 7/8/04 AZIMUTH: TOC ELEVATION: N/A CLIENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC DRILL RIG:_skid- mounted CME 45 COORDS: INCLINATION: -90 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE 8 — BLOWS / fm on ; 2/2 DESCRIPTION 3 ELEV. 5 st 5 fo 2 % 4 WATER LEVELS | 3 8 3 Hammer weigne | N | | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC. VEGETATION: grassy tundra 3} mn z trope) g women ‘ie 00-18 T " 4 T Thawed, Vegetation Mat, saturated r | L 18-30 ‘Thawed, loose, moist to wet, dark brown, ORGANIC SILT | | 31 | 30-45 5 Frozen, loose, moist to wet, gray, SILT, ite ra L fine sand, sightly plastic i = 5 et era = SILT, litle 7 F : moist to wet, gray, SILT, 2] fine sand, si. plastic 1 |sPT] 3445 || ™ | My) = p i i} ot r Borehole completed at 50 A. onl = NOTES: Ce ee F 4 15 | f L209 Al ke a4 5 sr 25 By a | | 4 a | 5 | | ~ : 9 DEPTH SCALE:1 in to 3,7 ft LOGGED: T. Ross Fi 3 Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Driling CHECKED: (2/29 ed Z YAssociates ORILLER: Lyle DATE: Tée PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades 9 RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-04 SHEET 1 of 4 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 DRILLING METHOD: HollowStem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: WA LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, AK ORILLING DATE: 7/9/04 AZIMUTH: na TOC ELEVATION: N/A CLIENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC ORILL RIG:_skid- mounted CME 45 COORDS: na INCLINATION: -90 2 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES T PENETRATION RESISTANCE é BLOWS /ft pes BLOWS fe 2 DESCRIPTION 3 8 ev. | eo EL» » » WATER LEVELS 2 \3| 3 3 ¢ Hammar wet N | | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC Q | VEGETATION: tall grass, on fringe of tundra g 4 Nie (demnesarRope Methdd) Ee |S omens cranial ize 00-10 oa y Thawed, Vegetation Mat, wet r 10-33 10 -{fc Thawed, loose, moist to wal, brown, ORGANIC 1p a bo7.2 E ‘SILT, mixed w/ some vegetation grading to trace vegetation ou (Ol) ae ate ote ee eee rie 33 L Thawed, loose, moist to wet, gray, SILT, Ktle fine sand, slightly plastic, homogeneous, (ML) = Ls f 2 |set| 3244 tla 1 in. PVC backfilled wi c ‘i + J dil cuttings: ML ++ } al +10 3 |sPt] 3386 | 8 4 Ela z } j eee eee FS poe rece " ee S| ted, SIT to Sandy SLT bentonte lf 8 (ML, Noe) L { oF i = - 15-193 ReBp [ae | reenter a = dl Frozen, wet when thawed, tannish gray, Sandy eS | SILT, fine sand ree pels 8 ° (ML, Nbe to Vx) r t i aE — SL 19.3-228 193 + p jo Be Frozen (&-15% Vx), Black, Vesicular BASALT ry e L Borehole completed at 22.6 1 5e: q | | r 1) No groundwater encountered while drilling. ~~ 2) Auger refusal at 22.5 . on basalt, | | + 25 | | = i} ' | | | | | | 7 | L 4 } { L | | | 4 [ | 7 frien eee Eel a DEPTH SCALE:1 in to 3,7 8 LOGGED: T. Ross ; i Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Oenali Drilling - CHECKED: Te Figure ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653 GINT.GP) GLOR_ANC.GDT_ 1/305 ciates ORILLER: Lyle DATE: +2 (oohy 10 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-05 SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, AK DRILLING DATE: 7/9/04 AZIMUTH: ra TOC ELEVATION: N/A ryu CLIENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC. ORILL RIG: skid- mounted CME 45 COORDS: na INCLINATION: _-90 3 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE G 2 2 BLOWS | 10 — ry 40 2 be 3 DESCRIPTION 3 m llcacenta| E WATER LEVELS, 2 3 g & vera esne| § WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC VEGETATION: tall grass, no tundra mat Q (Gatheamope ro we. a ro = Oran: 30 in. jp 00-08 T e 5 a Thawed, loose, moist, dark brown, ORGANIC SILT, some rooty vegetation grading lo trace + vegetation (ol) o -= Ls is } 75-165 TH 75 F 5 Thawed, loose, moist, gray, SILT, ittle to some fine sand L j (ML) b410 3 s | 8 r ML 15 rT] L talspr] store | 24 | 4B - os ‘tb 16.5- 18.0 165 Py >t b Thawed, Black, Vesicular BASALT | | Borehole completed at 18.0 A. ii $} No groundwater encountered whe Orifing. 20 2) Very hard dirilfing below 16.5 ft. 4 L 4 EL | \ 1 : 25 | | = ' ! ar | | 4 9 oO | ab 4 g E 2b 4 Oo} #L | 3 3 wp 30 = y | | a DEPTH SCALE:1 in to 3.7 ft LOGGED: T. Ross Fi 3 Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Driling CHECKED: TE eh g FA ssociates DRILLER: Lyle oate: (2/24/04 ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653 GINT.GPJ GLDR_ANC.GOT 1/35 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, AK RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-06 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface SHEET 1 of 1 GS ELEVATION: N/A 20.7 -23.8 Frozen, Black, Vesicular BASALT DRILLING DATE: 7/9/04 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: N/A CLIENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC DRILL RIG:_skid- mounted CME 45, COORDS: Wa INCLINATION: -90 2 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE BLOWS //t Roree \Ee DESCRIPTION 9 2, | | & en }EL 2 2 » © WATER LEVELS, a g 8 g 88 3 g Hammer Weigtt| N | 5 | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC : -——_ot’___, & | VEGETATION: grassy tuncra 18 Oe parel =| meaaee nets 3 glenda ee imc 00-15 . ] Thawed, wet, brown, Vegetation Mat, w/ trace _+— Organic’ Sit = L 1 BULM -le | ove8.4 75-35 15 + Frozen, wet when thawed, brown, ORGANIC SILT, no visible ice noticed 2 BU -l3 | (OL, Noe) 2 38.9 [38-30 TT 35 F Frozen, wet when thawed, gray, SILT, litte tin. eve sand, 10%-25% visible Ice, ice lenses up to vecitad et iE V4" thick, . bentonite 5 (ML, Vx & Vs) 3 |srt] sto1st4 | 23 | 5 dl sri E i = Ie r 30-207 Sonat to SILT, non-plastic, conch 2 = + Non < s 10 3 eee spr] 9112618 | 37 | 5 5 + very siow deing below sample 4, essentially L 5 melting through frozen soll and creating very 5 ‘soupy drill cuttings L S s b15 Ls 5 |SPT| 25-36-29-30+ | >50 | 5, aT fe} [ siougty L material 20 6A |SPT| 35-52-50/4in, at Borehole completed at 23.8 fl MOES: 1) No Groundwater encountered while driiting. 2) Auger refusal at 23.8 f. 3) No water In hole afler drilling to 20 R ceoth on 7/804. Returned to the testhole the next day and | alee infitrated onto most of the hole. OEPTH SCALE:1 in to 3.7 ft Associates muse Lyle DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Drilling LOGGED: T. Ross CHECKED:. TER pate: 12/24/04 Figure 12 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-07 SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak island, AK DRILLING DATE: 7/10/04 AZIMUTH: na Toc ELEVATION. WA 7 Coffman Engineers / AVEC DRILL RIG: skid- mounted CME 45 COORDS: INCLINATION: -90 3 SOIL PROFILE | SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE BLOWS /ft be g DESCRIPTION 2 Q | egy. | ee tli» ~ » « WATERLENELS oO < 2 g ge — 3 E Hanna woert N | 5 | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC @ | VEGETATION: none, win road 3 z 2 | wee a™ Lo 4 | ; c 00-15 ot Thawed, dry, brown, Oune/Beach SAND, mixed L w/ little to some Gravel fil, fine sand sP (SP- Road Fil, NFS) [i3-i065 TT a F Thawed, moist, becoming wet below about 8.0 AB brown Dunetiench SAND, fine sand T 3.25 in. LD. Hollow Stem Auger % fe fF E10 ° eee ‘Sandy SILT, stightly plastic nn | | r ory, é 4—(tal. F4) | Borehole completed at 11.5. | TT r 4 L HTS water t 10.0 below ground eurtoce whe ting, i. 2) 50 permatrost encountered. | 20 4 i; a Los 1 | | | if | r 4 L Lao | = 1 DEPTH SCALE:1 in to.3.7 ft LOGGED: T. Ross . Golder : DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Driting CHECKED: Ee Figure ANC BOREHOLE 043-5653 GINT.GPJ GLOR_ANC.GOT_ 1/3/05 Associates whee ed Date: 2/24/04 os PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-08 SHEET 4 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 ORILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, AK DRILLING DATE: 7/10/04 AZIMUTH: n/a TOC ELEVATION: W/A CUENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC ORILL RIG:_skid- mounted CME 45 COORDS: n/a INCLINATION: -90 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE SLOWS / Atl sors Ee|2 DESCRIPTION a, auev. | mows E ~~» » © WATER LEVELS. 4 8 3 z 3 g Hammecwegne | N | 3 | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC VEGETATION: none, win roed Q " S| dees nde ai%'s a*ss'" ine 39-30 | T Thawed, moist, Oune/Beach SANO, contains i surface veneer of gravel fil | (SP, NFS) se odor about {ft to 3ft depth; fuel i b i “Tocarbon a 1 po R q 30-115 30 Thawed, loose, moist, gray to tan, Sandy SILT, IL foe sand (ML, F4) 4 Ls b 2 |ser] 4556 | 10 | 2 iE ° 3 ie + [ li r 6|4 s 10 § sa|set] 2877 | 12 | 8 . o r 13 ° 13.0 4 |SPT| 47-55 12 a ° ETE a a —+—— 1 4 T GLOR_ANC.GDT 1/3/05 | os | | 4 | | | | st | | 4 8 | i | | $F | 4 3 wo | - z DEPTH SCALE:1 in to 3.7 ft LOGGED: T. Ross ' 5 Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Driting CHECKED: TE. rae 2 "Associates DRILLER: Lyle DATE: 12/2 9/4 PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades RECORD OF BOREHOLE G04-09 SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Island, AK DRILLING DATE: 7/10/04 AZIMUTH: ova TOC ELEVATION: NA | CLIENT: Coffman Engineers / AVEC DRILL RiG:_skid- mounted CME 45 COORDS: Wa INCLINATION: -90 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE BLOWS /A nore Fe | DESCRIPTION 3 2. [ae | g See EL 2» » WATER LEVELS 3 3 g 3 8 g g Hammer weight | N_| > | WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) GRAPHIC VEGETATION: none, wiin road i2 on 2 (dainesdoge Meo) g Ve oliiseiclan irae es be 0-45 Thawed, loose, moist, brown, Dune/Beach | L ‘SAND, contains thin vaneer of gravel fill near the surfsce | (SP, NFS) ® alana al uu -lalo | 5 j a wet below | a ‘about 8.5 ft, brownish gray, Sandy SILT, fine at j Sand, sigfty posi: conta lenes of story Peet | eeeeeent | nen hae 3 ie g rd my ‘8 couple Inches thick bg s a a L alia spt] 2945 | 7 st 10 in a L | i : L caret os Borehole completed al 17.0 R. Wie poundwaler encountred wie sing 2) No permatrost encountered. 4 1s 7 L 4 Lo = 5 Ol og = z | | { | | | 4 & zt | | a ° 1 i 3 fico a al | | | BI 5 DEPTH SCALE:1 into 3.7 ft LOGGED: T. Ross Fi 5 Golder DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Denali Driling CHECKED: 7S ae Z Associates DRILLER: Lye OATE: 2/2 9/ed PROJECT: Mekoryuk Bulk Fuel Upgrades RECORD OF TEST PIT G04-TP10 SHEET 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 043-5653 LOCATION: Mekoryuk, Nunivak Istand, AK EXCAVATION DATE: 7/8/04 DATUM: Ground Surface GS ELEVATION: N/A CLIENT: Coffman Engi LAVE |PMENT: —COORDS: Wa Xr (ATION: N/A SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES | - 5 é DESCRIPTION 9 ELE, ee NOTES a 3 g t REMARKS WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)} “WATER LEVELS VEGETATION: tundra 3 nt = ell oT Tao) ae ~™ [° \~0-o8 ala - 4 t Frozen, wet when thawed, light brown, SILT, litle t | in sand, 10% to 20% vishie ice, Test Pit completed at 22 ft. r 1) No groundwater encountered while excavating. bs 4 | a J : ay | | j | { 3 | | 4 S & | | 5 | z | S10 | 4 eS = £ DEPTH SCALE:1 in to 1.25.8 LOGGED: T. Ross ' i) Golder CONTRACTOR: Wa. CHECKED: TER, Figure g PAssociates OPERATOR: ra cate: /2 [24/04 16 10ft MIN. OFFSET FOR ALL TANKS AND EXPECT CRACKING AND CONTAINMENT DIKES SLOUGHING AT EDGE a SAND & GRAVEL OF WORK PAD _ STRUCTURAL FILL = GRADE TO PREVENT 4 in. INSULATION PONDING, BACKFILL (extruded polystyrene W/ STRIPPED ORGANICS _- board stock, EXCAVATION “Dew HI 40 or eq.) uMiTS | EXISTING \ GRADE TO DRAIN GROUND \ — SURFACE \ \ [ ORGANIC MAT 4 (1.5ft to 2 ft thick) se Zz __ GRADE TO DRAIN REMOVE 2 ft min. ORGANIC MAT y 2 Oe UNDERLYING ORGANIC Fn Soe (SILT, GRADING TO SILT ee ars 4 = SCHEMATIC NON WOVEN GEOTEXTILE NOTES: ACTIVE LAYER “> (Amoco 4545 or eq.) 1) The base of the insulation should be maintained above the existing ground surface elevation. 2) Joints in the board insulation should be staggered by at least 1ft. 3) Overlap between rolls of geotextile fabric should be at least 3 ft. Sees BEETS ree 4) Structural Fill should be compacted to 95% of the maximum dry ; density, as determined by modified proctor testing (ASTM D1557). Figure 17 Fill lifts should not exceed 12 inches. 5) This design assumes either winter time or late spring construction. statlmeaatlla gy yt Pn During thawed periods, the site is too soft and saturated to support construction equipment. COFFMAN ENGRS./AVEC / MEKORYUK BULK FUEL UPGRADES / AK PROJECT: 043-5653 FILE: GRAVLPAD.cdr DATE: 09/04 DRAWN: TFR APPENDIX A TEST PIT INVESTIGATION BY BRISTOL ENVIRONMENTAL Golder Associates - ee ee eee i aw Gi EAU PHA NU, DbSbI1S P, Ol 2000 W., International Airport Road, #C-1 Anchorage, AK 90502-1117 Bristol bg 602117 ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING 907-683-6713 Fax SERVICES CORPORATION FAX TRANSMITTAL This message Is intended only for the use of the person to whom It is addressed and may contain information that is Privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. if the reader of this message Is not the intended recipient or a person responsible far delivering the message to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication ia strictly forbidden. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at (907) 663-0013. Thank you, Total number of sheets (Including cover): q Date: Z = Dec-OL Time: ro: TRAUS ROSS From AA! Ke FIT PAT RICIC Fax No.: 3 44 -601\ Regarding: MEKO Reyvu I< Phone No.: , Project No. Project Name: PLEASE CALL LF You HAVE QUESNONS. Deu~c1-2UU4 TUE US!26 PM BRISTUL ENVIROMENTAL FAX NO. 6636713 P, 02 t . : ‘ CONTAINMENT OIKE/FENOE ' SEK ATTACHED 0 No. 12 { PIPING DETAIL (OTHERS SIMILAR t — Saranac tie en lo MOT NE SEATS TE RTE ee MEKORYUK TANK FARM ANO POWER PLANT * PROPOSED POWER PLANT, STORAGE TANKS, ‘| YARD PIPING LAYOUT, & PROPOSED FILL PIPELINE STA 16+52.43 TO STA 19+64.83 ENVIRONMENTAL && ENGINEERING SERVICES CORPORATION DEC-21-2004 TUE 03:26 PM BRISTOL ENVIROMENTAL FAX NO, 5636713 P, 03 ' sel 1 \ \ Fe = 277,000 GALLON YANK (TYP OF 10) SEE ATTACHED ORAWING Ne. CONTAINMENT DIKE/FEN see =< SEE ATTACHED ORAWING NIMA CORP Pere ayes of 3) Sek ATIACHED No, 20806; {-5 Se ait - ir | ese. | “on TE mon cor rl aes 4 r MATCH LINE STA 1€ Bristo. ENVIRONMEN1 SERVICES CO Pro DEC-21-2004 TUE 03:27 PM BRISTOL ENVIROMENTAL FAX NO. 6636713 JUN O1 2004 7:31 CROWTHER#ASSOCIATS 9075229885 044.006 CROWTHER ASSOCIATES May 31, 2004 To: Mike Fitzpatrick Bristol Environmental and Engineering Services Corporation 2000 West International Airpart Road, #C-1 Anchorage, Alaska 99502-1117 Subject: Mekoryuk Laboratory Testing Teat Pit 04 Page I P.O. Box 110834, Anchorage, Alaska 99511-0854 Telephone (907) 349-2198 / Telecopy (907) 522-3885 E mail: crowther@alazka.net _ _ _DEC-21-2004 TUE 03:27 PM BRISTOL ENVIROMENTAL FAX NO, 5636713 YCATION OF BORING: oF Ls PS et te DEC-21-2004 TUE 03:28 PM BRISTOL ENVIROMENTAL * FAX NO, 5636713 \CATION OF BORING: DEC-21-2004 TUE 63:29 PM BRISTOL ENVIROMENTAL FAX NO, 5636713 CATION OF BORING: Wi? 4 DEC-21-2004 TUE 03:30 PM BRISTOL ENVIROMENTAL cad iit earen sii ~. i, ST etce t FAX NO, 5636713 MH ioe « SFIELD LOG.OF BORING.» a “| PROJECT: MAKORY 608i. tag VEU~21~2UU4 TUE 03:32 PH BRISTOL ENVIROMENTAL FAX NO. $636713 5 err ate cna pee ae : ace a8 z Sebi BSP Re heeritties Mremge ots ial APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE BY R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. Golder Associates GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE MEKORYUK, ALASKA March, 1979 By R&M Consultants, Inc. 5024 Cordova Street Anchorage, Alaska 99502 For LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL DISTRICT Bethel, Alaska CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Scope 2.0 Subsurface Investigation 3.0 Laboratory Testing Program 4.0 Site Conditions and Geologic Setting 5.0 Subsurface Conditions 6.0 Conclusions and Foundation Recommendations Design Parameters Recommended Foundation System Alternate Foundation System Overexcavation and Backfill Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration and Thermal Protection On Site Septic System NYAHUBWN- Taw) Closure Appendix A Regional Location Map Test Hole Location Map Appendix B General Notes Explanation of Symbols Explanation of Ice Symbols Logs of Test Holes Temperature Data Appendix C Summary of Laboratory Test Data Appendix D Schematic for Refrigerated Shallow Footing Long Term Footing Bearing Loads Schematic Diagram of Pile in Permafrost Long Term Load Capacities for Piles Appendix E Geotechnical Data Sheet ocUlUOFD CU 10 11 2: 13 13 13 B-01 B-02 B-03 B-04 thru B-05 B-06 c-01 information; laboratory testing of recovered samples to determine index and engineering properties; geotechnical recommendations regarding general site development and foundation design; and preparation of a written report. It is our understanding that the proposed 6600-square foot Mekoryuk High School will be a one story wood-frame structure generating moderate foun- dation loads. A water storage tank will also be added to the site which already includes several structures. The purpose of this report is to: 1) describe the apparent subsurface soil, groundwater and permafrost conditions encountered at the site utilizing field and laboratory data, 2) present recommendations regarding foundation selection and design and general site development. 2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION The subsurface investigation for this site was conducted as part of a seventeen village program. Bethel served as a base of operations for the field investigations. Three drill rigs were simultaneously employed at different sites. Three test holes, designated Test Holes 10-1, 10-2 and 10-3 were drilled on the subject site as shown on the attached Location Diagram, A-02. Two string was left in the test hole for long term monitoring of subsurface temperatures. A PVC casing was also installed in Test Hole 10-1 for future use if required. 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples recovered in a frozen state were kept frozen until laboratory testing was initiated. This allowed a direct determination of certain frozen soil properties during testing. The laboratory testing program was limited to the evaluation of general soil index properties. Laboratory determination of water content of recovered samples was performed according to ASTM Specification D-2216. Particle size distribution analysis was performed on selected samples in accordance with ASTM Specification D-422. Organic contents were measured using State of Alaska Test Method T-6. Density tests used ASTM Specification D-2937; specific gravity used ASTM Specification D-853. Laboratory test results for selected samples are provided on Table C-01. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGIC SETTING The existing B.!.A. School site was chosen by the residents of Mekoryuk as the location for the new High School. This site has adequate space, is centrally located and easily accessible. The site, 5.49 acres, has an existing B.I|.A. school, utility building, quarters building, covered play area, fuel storage, playground equipment, and associated boardwalks, utilidors, electrical conduits, and fuel lines. Residents wish to locate the 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As shown on the attached test hole logs the location of the proposed school structure is underlain by permafrost beginning at an overage depth of 6.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Approximately 1 to 3 feet of surficial organic material was noted, followed by 7 to 12 feet of dark gray silt containing organic material in the bottom 6 inches to 2 feet. Below this stratum was dark gray sand with a trace to some silt to a depth of 21 to 22.5 feet. Dense gravel with some sand and occasional cobbles was encountered beneath the sand, and extended to the total depth drilled, in the two deeper test holes. At the time of drilling in February 1979, the seasonal frost was approxi- mately 1 foot thick. Beneath the seasonal frost a thawed zone of very moist, soft silt was noted. This stratum became frozen at about 6.5 feet and the remainder of the profile was permafrost. The permafrost had moderate ice content in the form of large crystals and thin lenses. The deeper gravel and cobbles also contained significant amounts of visible ice. The original structure at this site burned several years ago. Although the exact type of foundation is unknown, it is suspected that buried debris and portions of the original foundation may underlie this site. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The foundation recommendations and site geotechnical parameters contained in this report are based upon the fact that permafrost underlies the entire Within the depth drilled soil temperatures, below approximately 6.5 feet, range from 30.5°F to 31.5°F. For design purposes a temperature of 31.5°F should be considered representative of the thermal condition within the permanently frozen portion of the profile. The depth to permafrost, is approximately 6.5 feet. We estimate the active layer thickness is approxi- mately 2 feet. Thawed soils may occur between 1 and 8 feet in most of the the area. This thawed zone may have resulted when the original schoo! on this site burned several years ago. The permafrost table may be much nearer the ground surface outside the original timits of the structure which was destroyed by fire. 6.2 Recommended Foundation System A pile foundation may be utilized for support of proposed school at this site. Several types of pile foundations may be feasible including slurried self refrigerating structural piles (for example Long Thermo piles), siurried timber piles, and driven H-piles. Slurried timber piles and driven H-piles may require "heat pipes" to be installed adjacent to each pile to maintain acceptable long term soil tem- peratures. Slurried piles (long piles and timber piles) require drilling of an oversize pile hole, followed by placement of the pile and slurry. The pile hole must remain frozen and dry prior to slurry placement. Loading of the pile A detailed schematic diagram for a pile foundation is presented in Appendix D. 6.3 Alternate Foundation System A possible alternate foundation design for support of the school building is the refrigerated shallow foundation system illustrated in Drawing D-01. Winter construction may be required for the successful installation of this system. A detailed schematic diagram for the recommended refrigerated foundation system is presented on Drawing, D-01. The depth of excava- tion and the potential for groundwater within the thawed zone may make this type of foundation unfeasible. Foundation components should bear on permanently frozen (permafrost), undisturbed, dark gray silty material which exists at a depth of 5 to 7 feet. If any natural bearing surfaces are disturbed (loosened) or thawed during construction, they should be removed and replaced with a thawed granular (sand or gravel) backfill placed in nine inch lifts compacted to a minimum of 95% density. Ail footings should be placed betow the active layer to a depth which will assure a minimum 12 inch embeddment in permafrost. We recommend that all excavations be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer to insure that the soil beneath the footing is frozen and that the footing is founded on permafrost. The leveling course should consist of thawed well graded sand or gravel placed in lifts not exceeding nine inches in loose thickness. Each lift should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum density. -10- ASTM Specification D1557-70 or the Corps of Engineers' Providence Vibra- tory Density Method. If an overexcavation and backfill technique is utilized anywhere for foun- dation footings, backfill should extend from the footings to the underiying natural competent soi] bearing surface at a maximum slope of 1:2 (horizon- tal to vertical). 6.5 Groundwater and Surface Water Because a thawed zone existed between the active layer and top of the permafrost encountered in each test hole, groundwater may be expected at the site. It should be anticipated that surface and near surface water could enter building excavations and pile holes. Therefore, measures should be taken to keep all footing excavations and pile holes dry in order to prevent softening or thawing of bearing soils. As a minimum we recommend that: (1) surface water be isolated from entering all pile holes and excava- tions during construction, (2) final surface grading be accomplished in a manner which will positively drain all water away from the structure, and (3) diversion of concentrated runoff away from below ground build- ing areas be provided, for example, from roof structures. (4) casing of the thawed zone if slurried piles are used. -12- necessary, present any required corresponding changes to our present recommendations. Additionally, because subsurface characteristics can change sharply within a given area, the possibility exists that important subsurface conditions not disclosed by this field investigation may be discovered during construction. Should this situation occur, the influence of the new information on the present recommendations should be evaluated without delay. Thus, a qualified soils engineer should be on site during foundation construction. The future performance of the structures at this site is highly dependent upon construction techniques. We therefore recommend that a construction quality contro! program be implemented so that the contractor can be continuously monitored to insure the specifications are followed. We appreciate the opportunity to perform this subsurface investigation. Should you require further information concerning the subsurface investi- gation or this report, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. Bune 2 Sent Da Se ; ON Ne YG pees cag Sas AQ rTEssONS Bruce E. Davison Dennis WABHSRam Senior Geotechnical Engineer Vice President DN:BED/djb/G1-D -14- LOWER KUSKOKWIM REGION LOCATION MAP A-Ol APPENDIX B MEM CONSULTANTS, INC STANDARD SYMBOLS KZ IGNEOUS ROCK Y SANDY SILT J y iW SILT GRADING TO CLAY q CONGLOMERATE Ey) SAIC ECC L i“ SANOY SILT ~«~| ORGANIC MATERIAL COBBLES & BOULDERS i an. GZ YG, SILT = SANOSTONE ICE, MASSIVE SANDY GRAVEL, SCATTERED COBBLES (ROCK FRAGMENTS) INTERLAYERED SAND SAND MUDSTONE ICE - SILT & SANDY GRAVEL GRAVEL LIMESTONE ee ORGANIC SILT SILTY CLAY w/TR. SAND oo SAMPLER TYPE SYMBOLS Seierorace 1.4" SPLIT SPOON WITH 140 # HAMMER Ts... . SHELBY TUBE Sz . 4" SPLIT SPOON WITH 3404 HAMMER Tm... .MODIFIEO SHELBY TUBE Si.....25" SPLIT SPOON WITH I40# HAMMER Pb.... PITCHER BARREL Sh . 25" SPLIT SPOON WITH 340# HAMMER Cs.... CORE BARREL WITH SINGLE TUBE Sp - 2.5" SPLIT SPOON, PUSHED Cd. . CORE BARREL WITH DOUBLE TuBE A . AUGER SAMPLE Bs. - +. BULK SAMPLE NOTE: SAMPLER TYPES ARE EITHER NOTED ABOVE THE BORING LOG OR ADJACENT TO IT AT THE RESPECTIVE SAMPLE DEPTH. TYPICAL BORING LOG BORING NUMBER +4 30-15 Elev. 2746 2 ELEVATION IN FEET DATE ORILLED~m19- 2}. 7 All Samples Ss SAMPLER TYPE ORGANIC MATERIAL Consid. Visible ice O-7 IgE ~ SILT Stimote 65% Visibie Ice C1) 90, 56.2%, 80.5pct, ML 1CE+ML : SAMPLER TYPEw Ss AFTER BORING 9 AB WATER TABLES 11.8 WD- WHILE DRILLING” SANDY SILT STRATA CHANGE APPROXIMATE STRATA CHANGE _—_—_—_— — ~— 12° Little to No Visible ice 13-30’ Vx <@—/CE, DESCRIPTION & CLASSIFICATION 72, 571%, 85.9pct, 289 GP (CORPS OF ENGINEERS METHOD) \\__“NUNIFIED OR FAA CLASSIFICATION TEMPERATURE, F DRY DENSITY WATER CONTENT BLOWS/FOOT SAMPLE NUMBER SANDY GRAVEL FROZEN GROUND 26° SCHIST «©— GENERALIZED SOIL OR ROCK DESCRIPTION SAMPLE LOCATION 30'——DA/LL DEPTH EXPLANATION OF SELECTED SYMBOLS SILT dark gray Little Visible Ice, 5'-14.5' 7 Vx O48, ML Little Visible Ice, 7’-10', Vx Ss Intermixed with some Organic Material, 7'-10' Tm @ 39, 48.1%, 70.5 pcf Intermixed with some Organic @ Material, 11.5'-14.5' SAND W/TRACE SILT dark gray Little Visible Ice, 10'-22.5', Vx+Vs me Ss 93, 30.6%, 87.1 pcf Bi }@61, 23.7%, 97.5 pc£ @ i a Little Visible Ice, 14.5'~21' * louse oe SAND W/TRACE SILT po dark gra ous re Slied 2 lang oleh co cece Ee DVRS ELE © GRAVEL W/SOME SAND OCCASIONAL COBBLE dark gray Ss Occasional Visible Ice, 21'-26' QD occasional Visible Ice, Tm 26' 22.5'-26.5", VxtVct+Vr 26.5'T.D 6° T.D. : te Water Table Not Encountered Water Table Not Encountered 3/4-inch PVC installed to 24.5 ft. 3/4-inch PVC installed to 26.5 ft. oun | Test Hole Logs es une. -; || REM, CONSULTANTS, INC. Geotechnical Investigation oo pare Bae ars| ff ee ee ered cea) ie PROJNO 951010 scaLel"=4' owGwo B-04 TEMPERATURE °F 28 30 32 Se Cd eG v= Thermistor Measurements 2) REM CONSULTANTS, INC. Geotechnical Investigation DATEMar.1979 | ||""*~TT*® StotomreTe Seammnme ohevevone Mekoryuk, Alaska ae SCALE] "=4! OWGNO B-06 DATE PROJECT NO. 951010 R é M aT INC. CLIENT: LKSD CONSULTANTS, —_Mekoryuk -O1 ————— SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA| “A*’Y NO.———— Pace No 0h oO w % LaB | Zo /z “| a a ci ” FINE WET ORY |MOISTURElORGANIC No. | ee a2 DEPTH iive"| 1" | 37a} 172"| 378"| 4 | 10 | 40 | 200] .o2 | .005 | 002 | cog | LL} PI. loensity \pensity IcoNTENTIY wr. a lo-1}117.5' = 9.5! -+ 1 7o.5|_4a.1}_ _|2_115.0'-17.0" | | __| | 120.6 97.5| 23.7 |_ Sei 7.0°=20..0" | oO | 99} 98) 97 1.1 = 5 | 21.0'-22.5' too | 99} 98] 971|77.9 {115.9 [ 90.1| 28.7 | os + ta pte + + +——— t 7| 24.5'-26.5' {100 | 98} 95 | 9) | 891 87 |s0.9 . | [ tI | | _| a _ 1o-2| 1 |5.0' - 7.0! |= [7 | 43.9 4 |13.0'-14.5' _ | 100} 99 198.0] 36.6 | 6.7 3.8| 2.66 i" Biad 5 tia.s'-i6.0" | } | ll | i: 100 |87.5 | 113.8 87.1] 30.6 —_ 9 | 23.0'-25.0' 99 |81.1 | 125.7 | 100.8} 24.7 7 i is | + — — a lo-3| 1 |1.0' - 3.0! | ___f = S522 oon 4 _ 2.|5.0' - 7.0! | 100| 99 26.5] 119.6 91.0| 31.4 3. |9.0' -10.0' | 113.4 91.4| 24.1 1, —— te 4 4110,0'-10,5' iS - 99,9 | ca.a|_45.3| S=)1055"=].50° | all | [ 23.6] 6 | 11.0'-13.5' — L 100| 99 |27.5 4 = 8 | 15.0'-17.0! 118.1 det NOTE: SIEVE ANALYSIS = PERCENT PASSING . pee Ce ta) : APPROVED REMARKS : SECURE ATTACHMENT IN CASING 25'min 2 el / FROZEN ACTIVE | AYEK TYPICAL. SPREAD FooTING eal VEO active LAYER Nores Oo 8 TO? OF PER MAR POST i EXcaAvaTioN To BE KEPT DRY" pow di insdLation 2) LEVELING couKsé To BE com. TO MINIMUM OF a5% of MaxiMuslo Leveling coURSé, Ad REQUIRED @ placeo IN THAWED STATE INSULATION fo BE Dow .Hi ok EQL Ne UNDER TYPICAL INTERIOR FOUNDATION SYSTEM To BE OED1G),) ie re POTENTIAL FROST HEAVE & JAcKinN OER TYPICAL CORNER FooTiniy Q@rouNo UNoer iNsuLaArioN To B¢ SErore Losoing roopina go Nef Stock Heat ripe FINS F PREVAILING wines OSM eel nas NI Temperarure must BE Die F oF Fee nac cee ace ee BeNeatH Fooring BEFORE PLAc! Place ede Hea PIPE AT EACH ¢ SCHEMATIC FOR SEE Rim Soil REPORTS FOR AF ocr Rem soil REPORTS FOR A REFRIGERATED SHALLOW FOUNDATION 2-22-79 © NONE DEAD LOAD JACKING FORCE | | UPLIFT RESISTING FORCE | = | | RESISTING FORCE + DEAD LOAD > JACKING FORCE vo Ae = = PILE = AIR TEMPERATURE ADFREEZE STRENGTH AT AIR TEMPERATURE (LONG TERM) cs Ven Yow . . FROZEN ACTIVE LAYER THAWED ACTIVE LAYER ZERO ADFREEZE PERMAFROST aes STRENGTH AT SOIL TEMPERATURE (LONG TERM) RESISTING FORCE FOR STRUCTURAI LOADS | ' YY DWN. RSM CKD. BED Lee 2/15/79 SCALE. N/A j R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. aNOINEER® GeoLOoIeTS PLANNERS BURVEYORS (Fe. ) | crip. ie PROJNO 95100) OwG.No. 0-03 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PILE IN PERMAFROST APPENDIX E GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS a) b) j) k) Site Soils: Surficial organic layer 1'-3', underlain by a thawed silt layer to a depth of 5' to 8'. Permafrost was encountered at S' to 8' below the ground surface. An organic silt was encountered beneath the silt stratum. Frozen sand was then encountered grading to gravel and cobbles at 21 to 23 feet. Permafrost: Permafrost contained ice lenses and ice crystals, normally 0% to 30% visible ice, but up to 50% visible ice in frozen organic silts. Groundwater: No free groundwater table encountered, however, the thawed zone is very moist and may contain free water. When the active layer is thawed additional groundwater may be present. Site Drainage: Due to flat topography and tundra vegetation, local site drainage is poor, i.e., the ground surface is very wet with local ponding during summer months. There is a_ small shallow pond on the west edge of the site. The proposed school site receives little or no water as runoff from adjacent property. Surface water is derived from precipita- tion and thawing of saturated ground. Depth of Active Layer: 1! to 2%! Depth to Permafrost: 5' to 8! Depth of Surficial Organic Layer: 1' to 3'; Buried frozen organic layer 7! to 10! and 11! to 14! Ground Temperatures: 31.5°F (see attached temperature profile). Laboratory Test Data: Potential for Settlement if Thawing of Permafrost Occurs: Moderate Design Soil Classification: Low strength 4. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS a) b) c) d) f) Trafficability Vehicular transportation during summer months is limited to gravel roads within Mekoryuk and _ to the airport. Mekoryuk is not connected to any other villages by roads. Access to the beach landing area is good. A gravel road is within 100' of the proposed high school site. Since the ground is soft during the summer, access to the building location, by heavy equipment, will be difficult unless additional access road is constructed. Motorcycles, three- tired vehicles, and four-wheel drive trucks are major modes of transportation in the summer. Excavation Excavation and drilling of thawed soils easily accomplished. Excavation and drilling in permafrost may be difficult especially in gravel strata. Borrow Material Sand fill may be obtained from a sand beach area accessible via the old airport road approximately one mile from Mekoryuk. There is a rock quarry site, which served as a source for crushed aggregate for airport and highway construction, located approximately 0.7 miles north of the runway. Another possible material source is the stockpiled crushed aggregate along the entrance road to the airport. Access The existing haul road is trafficable and should be used to avoid disturbance of fragile sand dune vegetation. The site is also used as a dump area for the village, therefore, some garbage may have to be scraped away prior to utilization. Seasonal Considerations Although winter construction may be more desirable, no major problems are forseen with summer construction. Site disturbance and Restoration Site disturbance should be minimized to prevent degradation of the permafrost. The surface tundra mat should be replaced after construction (outside the building limits only). APPENDIX C SELECT PAGES FROM REPORT ON PILE PERFORMANCE AND REMEDIAL ACTION, MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL BY A.W. MURFITT COMPANY Golder Associates REPORT ON PILE PERFORMANCE REMEDIAL ACTION MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL MEKORYUK, ALASKA Prepared for Lower Kuskokwim School District P. O. Box 305 Bethel, AK 99559 Prepared by A. W. Murfitt Company 8010 King Street Anchorage, AK 99502 November 20, 1984 Job Number 82-027.02 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents our observations on pile performance in 1982, 1983 and 1984, and documents our remedial action taken in 1982 in an attempt to stabilize movement of the pile foundation supporting the Mekoryuk High School located in Mekoryuk, Alaska. On June 3, 1982, Mr. T. J. Robertson, Construction Engineer for the Lower Kuskokwim School District, contacted the A. W. [furfitt Company to determine the cause of the structural distress occurring within the building. On Jume 17, 1982, Mr. Allan W. Murfitt, P.E. of A. W. Murfitt Company of Anchorage, Alaska, made a site visit to assess the damage. Differential movement in excess of one-half a foot was visually evident. During this visit, we attempted to measure thermistor strings installed on six (6) of the piling during construction, drilled a hand auger probe hole and photographed the building foundation. Mr. A. Bianchi of Delta Surveys was on hand to take level measurements on the piling foundation. From the 1981 survey information, it was apparent that some of the piling were frost jacking and that most of the movement occurred on the north and west sides of the structure. It was later determined that the moving piling are apparently confined to those piles having approximately fifteen (15) feet of total embedment. Based on the field observations and analysis, it was evident that the jacking loads were not being overcome by the load of the structure. This is discussed in our letter report of July 15, 1982, a copy of which is in Appendix D. 2.0 DISCUSSION OF FIELDWORK Prior to the initiation of our fieldwork, LKSD had releveled the school and was in the process of fixing the structural damage caused by the moving piling. Fieldwork commenced on August 20, 1982, with the arrival of the C-82 aircraft chartered to bring the drill rigs and equipment to Mekoryuk. Supplies and equipment were transported fram the airstrip to the school with the LKSD truck located at Mekoryuk. Drilling near the school perimeter was accomplished with a track-mounted Mobile B-24 hydraulic drill utilizing 4-inch outside-diameter (O.D.) solid-stem auger and 8- inch 0.D. hollow-stem auger. Drilling under the school was accomplished with a smaller portable Mobile Minuteman drill utilizing 3-inch 0O.D., continuous-flight, solid-stem auger. The piling locations supporting the school are shown on Plate l. A total of twenty-eight (28) boreholes were drilled between August 21, and August 29, 1982 as shown on Plate 2. Twenty-one (21) boreholes were drilled for Thermoprobe installation, three (3) boreholes were drilled for thermistor installation, three (3) boreholes were drilled to install 4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) schedule 80 ABS plastic pipe for future Thermoprobe installation adjacent to the Alaska Village Electric Corporations (A.V.E.C.) transformers and one (1) boring was drilled to install an Arctic Benchmark. Logs of the soil profiles encountered in each boring were made in the field as drilling progressed and are presented in Appendix B. The thermistor points in the strings are at two and one half (2.5) foot spacings. The resistance value of each thermistor point was measured with a Data Precision Corporation Model 258 Multi-Meter. These were later converted to temperature in degrees Fahrenheit using conversion formulae and ice point correction factors for each thermistor as supplied by the manu- facturer of the strings, Instrumentation Services of Fairbanks, Alaska, (Appendix E). All themmistars were checked and found to be operational prior to installation. An Arctic Benchmark was installed concurrently with the installation of the thermoprobes and PVC thermistor casings. This was installed to provide an accurate reference to elevation for future monitoring of pile movement, (Plate 24). Three additional boreholes were drilled adjacent to the AVEC power transformers as shown on Plate 2. Four (4) inch I.D. ABS pipe was installed in each of these boreholes for future themmoprobe installation. Thermoprobes were installed in these boreholes by LKSD persomel at a later date. Upon completion of the thermmoprobe, thermistor string, and Arctic Benchmark installations, hand-grading and backfilling under the north end of the school for surface water control commenced. ‘Two, one and one-half (1-1/2) inch thick layers of board insulation were placed approximately four (4) feet around the piles in which the themmoprobes 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE The subject site is located within the village limits of Mekoryuk, Alaska. Mekoryuk is located on the north side of Nunivak Island in the Bering Sea. The Environmental Atlas of Alaska, 1978, reports that the Mekoryuk area is generally underlain by continuous permafrost and is in seismic probability Zone 2. This zone is defined as an area of moderate structural damage potential of Richter magnitude 4.5 to 6.0. The mean annual snowfall in the Mekoryuk area is approximately sixty (60) inches. The site is generally flat and poorly drained. Local relief is generally in the order of only a few feet in elevation and consists of tundra grasses and mosses. The basic geology of Nunivak Island is igneous in nature consisting of Quatermary and Tertiary volcanic rock. The site soils are thermally complex as described in the report entitled “Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations" for the High School Site at Mekoryuk, Alaska, as prepared by R & M Consultants, Inc., in March of 1979. The site was previously occupied by a school which burned to the ground, significantly altering the thermal regime of these soils. Thawed ground within the permafrost exists in localized areas beneath the school. as one-eighth (1/8) inch to three (3) inch randamly-oriented ice lenses (Vr) and small ice crystals (Vx). required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches into the soil is recorded on the test boring log adjacent to the soil group colum, as shown on Plate 3. Blowcouts of 4 to 9 blows per foot were noted in the unfrozen Silt in the upper eight (8) feet. These values are indicative of a soft to medium soil. These tests are relevant to thawed soils only and are not valid for frozen soils. Two elevation surveys have been performed an the school piling since installation of the thermoprobes. The results have been plotted and tabulated on Plates 4 to 10. Four sets of ground temperature data has been collected since the installation of the thermoprobes. These data are plotted and tabulated on Plates ll to 18. In general, our observations indicate that differential movement of the piling has been significantly reduced by the selective installation of the freeze probes. Net movement which was estimated to be in excess of one-half (1/2) a foot has been reduced to less than one and one-half (1- 1/2) inches. Pile 8 appears to be moving the most (1-1/2 inches) however, a Talik from 6 to 8 feet was observed during probe drilling. - Net movements are still less than one (1) inch on the other piling. Movement in the piling with themmoprobes would normally be expected as the subsurface soils refreeze. Limited survey data indicates that piling is moving both up and down throughout the year. No specific trend is at this time obvious. Ground temperature data indicates that soils in the vacinity of the freeze probes are generally being reduced with time by the probes. This is particularly evident under the A.V.E.C. transformers. Temperatures are seasonally fluctuating and permafrost temperatures at the site are very near thawing. We conclude that the thermal regime at this site is extremely delicate with respect to pile perfommance. In closing, we expect continued minor pile movement at the site as the soils adjust to past thermal disturbances. We can only speculate in hindsight as to why freeze probes were not installed on the piling during construction as the design suggested. Taliks may be refreezing resulting in large areas of ground movement. We currently can offer no cost-effective way of dealing with this. We suggest however, that piling elevations be monitored annually to isolate piles which continue to move. Piles causing adverse structural damage may have to be cut and Benchmark —>~ @ ; FA B ; AVEC Transformers A col] 36A 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 NOTES: Not to Scale. Pile Numbers Arbitrarily Assigned. ~ Thermistors. SITE PLAN Pile Locations and Numbers Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska A.W. Murfitt Company “‘r.u1¢ Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants 2-027.02 Appr_oMA__ Date_4/6/84 sob no. LOG OF BORING E EQUIPMENT hiobile B-24 ELEVATIONEXist. Grade paTE_8/29/82 SAND, SP, Fill waterial, saturated PEAT, PT, fibrous, saturated LABORATORY FESO BLOWS/FOOT CONTENT (%) DENSITY (pcf) © DEPTH (ft) RFE Seeeeet ET sawn MOISTURE ORY ORGANIC SILT, OL to NL, grey-brown, wet, plastic, trace of calcarious shells present, F-4 soft Frozen at 8.0' SILT, ML, F-4 et FROZEN PEAT, PT brown, no visible Ice, Nbe ORGANIC SILT, OL grey-brown, approx. 20% visible ice as Vx and Vs “SANDY SILT, NL _grey, approx 15% visible ice as Vx and Vs, F-4 SILTY GRAVELLY SAND, SM grey, visible ice as Vx and Vs TOTAL DEPTIi - 21.5' AW. Murfitt Company LOG OF BORING E Lower Kuskokwim School District Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants| Hekoyruk High School é o Net Displacement (feet) ' o ~ é Oo _ » wo ov e— ~~ re] z vu oO so H- a. 7) — a » vo = 1 o e Elevation Survey (by Delta Surveying) February 1983 —_ __ March 1984 . Net Pile Displacement AW. Murfitt Company Mekoryuk High School ; ; A Mekoryuk Alaska Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no_82-027.02 Appr_JMA Dare_4/13/84 + oO we Net Displacement (feet) oO 1 o we é oO =~ a wv Oo e ~~ »~ iS ®o Ee a ° o - a w oe Q » wv = t oO e Elevation Survey (by Delta Surveying) February 1983 — — — March 1984 A W. M fi C Net Pile Displacement . . VV. urfitt ompany Mekoryuk High School Sis ; : . Mekoryuk Alaska Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job wo _82-027.02 Appr_MA__ Date_4713/84 f Pile Gross Displacement (ft) Direction 1” 0.01 + 2* 0.06 + 3* 0.14 ¢ 4* 0.04 + 5* 0.06 + 6* 0.05 + 1= “0.04 + 8* 0.12 + 9 0.08 +. 10 0.05 + 11 0.01 + 12 0.03 ~ 13* 0.02 - 14 0.02 + 15 0.12 ; 16 0.04 + 17 0.11 + 18* 0.04 = 19* 0.06 + 20 0.01 - 21* 0.01 + 22 0.03 z 23 0.01 + 24 not measured 2a 0.02 _ Notes: 1) "+" indicates upward movement. | | 2) "-" indicates downward movement. . 3) Many piles have moved in both directions as indicated by "+" or "3%" symbols. | 4) *Thermoprobe installed 8/82. Gross Displacement Per Pile Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska AW. Murfitt Company » tic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no_82-027.02 Appr. JMA Dote_ 4/13/84 Temperature (°F) eee eee roreeg T 6 33 36A E Thermistor Location (Pile or Borehole) Temperature readings from thermistor points located approximately 13.5 feet below existing ground surface. ——————October 1982 measurements February 1983 measurements —i—_—_—_——4— July 1984 measurements (made by LKSD) . Seasonal Subsurface Temperature A.W. Murfitt Company Mekoryuk High School : Mekoryuk Alaska Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Appr JNA _ Dat A/13/84 _ MEKORYUX HIGH SCHOOL Corrected Corrected Temperature Temperature Location Depth (ft) Resistance () (°F) (SC) Pile No. 6 MEK 101 0 5020 45.7 7.61 7-31-84 0 4845 47.3 8.50 0 4806 A7c3 8.50 1.0 6502 36.2 2.33 3.5 7524 S12 -0.44 6.0 7646 30.6 -0.78 8.5 7662 30.5 -0.83 11.0 7635 30.7 -0.72 13.3 7581 30.9 -0.61 16.0 7553 3 Pe -0.50 5' SW of Pile 33 0 4377 50.8 10.44 MEK 102 1.0 6329 37.3 2.94 8-30-82 355) 7639 30.5 -0.83 6.0 7788 30.0 -1.11 8.5 7834 29.8 -1.22 11.0 78093 29.8 -1.22 a3e5. 7784 29.9 -1.17 16.0 7777 30.2 1.06 18.5 7727 30.2 -1.00 21.0 7706 30.3 -0.94 Pile No. 33 MEK 102 2-11-83 16402 9528 22.9 -5.06 8128 28.3 -2.06 7677 30.5 -0.83 7652 30.6 -0.78 7643 30.6 -0.78 7646 30.6 -0.78 7667 30.6 -0.78 7641 30.6 -0.78 7641 30.6 -0.78 fe) eet iw | @ivell als PERE BaeawHno oOuoMNouUdwNoe L 1 1 2 WV M i TEMPERATURE DATA A. . urfitt Company MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no_82-027.02 __Appr_AWM _ Dote_11-16-84 | weKoryuK ALASKA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Location Depth (ft) Resistance (n) (°F) (°c) Borehole 36A MEK 103 2e5 8442 27.8 2.33 2-11-83 5.0 8118 28.9 -1.72 eo 8024 28.9 -1.72 10.0 7994 29.0 -1.67 12.5 7942 29.3 =O) 15.0 7865 23.7 -1.28 2755 7780 30.0 -1.11 20.0 7689 30.3 -0.94 22.5 7677 30.6 -0.78 25.0 7598 3057 -0.72 Borehole 36A MEK 103 2.5 7596 31.0 -0.56 7-31-84 5.0 7789 29.9 -1.17 7.5 7884 29.5 -1.39 10.0 7924 29.3 -1.50 12.5 8078 28.7 -1.83 15.0 8000 29.1 1.61 L725 7954 29.3 -1,.50 20.0 7956 29.1 -1.61 22.5 7908 29.5 -1.39 25-0 7812 29.8 -1.22 North of Transformer in Hole E MEK 104 8-30-82 PRROS oe ee eee oil etal ei wibieee © . Mmounonouocu WADWOWORAAT~ 1 1 Ll 2 Wwww PReee AW. Murfitt Company TEMPERATURE DATA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no._82-027.02 Appr_AWM Date 11-16-84 | NEKORYUK ALASKA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Location Depth (ft) Resistance (n.) (°F) (2c) Benchmark MEK 105 2.5 6882 34.3 1.28 8-30-82 5.0 7367 31.9 -0.06 ve> Tao 32.9 -0.06 10.0 7370 31.9 -0.06 a2.5 7389 31.9 -0.06 15.0 7386 31.8 -0.11 17.5 7410 Sia7 -0.17 20.0 7468 31.6 -0.22 22.5 7425 31.6 -0.22 25.0 7462 31.6 -0.22 Benchmark MEK 105 2.5 6859 34.4 1.33 10-8-82 5.0 7386 31.8 -0.11 TD 7393 SLOT, -0.17 10.0 7419 31.6 -0.22 12.5 7447 31.6 -0.22 15.0 7448 31.5 -0.28 17.5 7448 31.5 0.28 20.0 7482 3z25 -0.28 22.5 7483 31.3 -0.39 25.0 7434 31.5 -0.28 Benchmark MEK 105 2.5 7476 31.4 “O.23 2-11-83 5.0 7390 31.8 -0.11 7.5 7391 31.7 -0.17 10.0 7420 31.6 -0.22 12.5 7445 31.6 -0.22 15.0 7454 31.5 -0.28 17.5 7446 31.5 -0.28 20.0 7469 31.6 -0.22 22.5 7440 31.5 -0.28 25.0 7489 31.4 -0.33 A.W. Murfitt Company TEMPERATURE DATA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants| Job no - Appr._Abll Date 11-16-84 |MEKORYUK ALASKA eo e o ° ec So o ° > ° o = ~ ° : ” e - o = 200 TTT HH Ht He COCs a ° F4 98.2 toe eee HT a TTT AUT aT b co He HU. ee. aanaue ro SILT (ML) Frost Classification % Passing 200 WORK ORDER ~82-027.02 Pl z 08 HTT TTT TTT TTT ARARARERUORRERRAEDGDURUORDIDOUODDIOORODDLALDREDOR bd» - TTT TTT oc Lie HUTT TT TTT on LY SCOOT HUTTE TTT TT % % HUTT TT CCT 5 COT i A Ee COO con coy) TTT TTT] UT i “TOOT Ss ° o e e e 2 e 2 ° Ss a = < = ” = > = iS 6.25 ft Dust Ratio GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL 3 PROJECT E Sample Boring ; F . f 3 cf & I A.W. Murfitt Company Arcisc Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consuliants _SOIL_ CLASSIFICATION CHART aT 20. 30 AVEL (+#4SCREEN) % BY WEIGHT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FROST DESIGN SOIL CLASSIFICATI AND USCS EQUIVALENT GROUPING ® peacentace FINER THAN TYPICAL SOIL TYPES FROST 0.02 mm, UNDER UNIFIED SOIL. GROUP SOIL TYPE BY WEIGHT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Fi Gravelly soils 31010 GW, GP, GW-GM, GP-GM F2 (a) Gravelly soils 10 to 20 GM, GW-GM, GP-GM (b) Sands 3to 1S SW. SP, SM, SW-SM, SP-SM EB (a) Gravelly soils i >20 GM.GC (b) Sands, except very fine >15 SM.SC silty sands ° {c) Clays, Pi> 12 — CL, CH Fé (a) All silts — ML, MH (b) Very fine silty sands >is SM (c) Clays, Pi < 12 _ CL. CL-ML (d) Varved clays and — CL'sand ML; other fine-grained, CL, ML, and SM; danded sediments CL. CH, and ML; CL.CH, ML, and SM A.W. Murfitt Company . arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants tob no._82-027.02 Appr._AWM Dote 11/29/82 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION ~ SYSTEM ~ AM. Murfitt Company escription Poorly bonded or friable No excess ice Well bonded Excess ice ICE DESCRIPTIONS ICE NOT VISIBLE Ice Visibility & Content Segregated Ice not visible by eye ICE DESCRIPTIONS VISIBLE ICE-LESS THAN 1 INCH THICK Ice Visibility & Content Individual ice crystal or inclusions Ice coatings on particles Random or irregularly oriented ice formations Stratified or distinctly oriented ice formations VISIBLE Ice with soil inclusion Ice without inclusions el Segregated ice is visible by eye, ice one inch or less in thickness ICE-GREATER THAN 1 INCH THICK Ice greater than one inch in thickness Soil Ice Classification Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no 82-027.02 Appr AWh Date 11/20/84 Appendix A SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET_Z_OF_/_ ure 7, TOTAL DEPTH. 7S PROJECT #_E EOF 7 OF PROJECT Lipset ys LIAS, 5. Pee MACHINE USED e-24 ae SrA VEGETATION, DRAINAGE 6 GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER Cc ety Didicwst pate | | CT a pePtH |Sucterce [TT LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES VARYING, ice TYPE, ‘BONDING oR TOUGHNESS, ORILLING NOTES eS de REESE TS i272 ¢ SPV - fl) Pie loge es Pfoprp] a ROAR STOO OE EL MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET. OF_“__ B- 2 A.W. Murfitt Company ~ ery SOILS LOG HOLE # y ue TOTAL pert 220 ot =e ; PROJECT # OP 7.02 eaILLER_ Quedzsr) Ss Loeeer 4) enouecy Dieter cl FE. Time starteD__//: 29 ay. FiniSHED 42 2Y_ en) pate 2/- Se VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & \ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER a - pate | | fT time [ | yy joepTH | Se ¢ Ferer [Afro ded 0. 70H LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES _ Pie 5 OBOR UGHNE MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET“ OF 2-24 AW. Murfitt Company HOLE # ' meTHgD, “PA SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH_/ =. : IS ES PROJECT #32 O27 Ce | DRILLER LOGGER Z ee TIME Se FINISHED 730 5, | DATE NSte-g2 | ro DRAINAGE @ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER Ore 7k lore | =| SSC] CT time [ fT DEPTH | Shee | | | LOCATION DIAGRAM @ NOTES d # Ad, ‘ace fe Eh So a 2 $ Clse te AVEC Trans torrner 6 2 o/3 s z sis " & ae z Pr] o a « 4 3 HS #6 isis 13 $|Sia Aaaul ed eel eS a Sf teat ee 8 ey TY Un trozen clue yo feat mmpeF Foy | eae a PCP Ol VN Sipe oomvo on mart we N . ‘ ny | ~ nN MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET A OF_/4_ St: nvtemwar A.W. Murfitt Company METHOD USED SOILS LOG HOLE # Sila TOTAL pert Ze PROJECT # Cz ae POOLE! | teat late eee LE UL oe tA ce 7 On ee ie DATE __5-2 2 -fO GROUND WATER ee eG eles UU eee eer TT NOTES I eotet Fe ye Ved 4E time STARTED 2 2° Zs einisueo SS Or VE! a jee RAMAGE, & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY eae ea ee rer vie cly jainedA LOCATION DIAGRA Vaz SAMPLING METHOD eH Sa a a a ST eee eel oa DAT Ace yes ve- fT thick ef eel 7-P EST eH ES AP es LTT =f =a SII LIS os od yer ne - S iP) a i ef ems PE Aa Lea RT See fi EEG IESG FOr a pe lace et Feros! [rp fetefp ct” zfave7t | OE DIR ve LE sea an TST Yo MET eS sa te tn ata MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants : en AW. Murfitt Co: Clay epne ASE Marit Company | ex LZ], per A SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH. 76.0 PROJECT # 32-0 277. C'< Ales s TET ae aS DRILLER 4c¥°5 LOGGER eS pamiear ee ee TIME STARTED 2° a rintsHep_ 20° 7 ate I-22 -8E VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER a: pate | fT time [ | LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES : ; z i MAC HINE. USE! Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants 13-24 A.W. Murfitt Company <I) SOILS LOG Wit tesa TOTAL 0D! | ALLER Qve-yosch LoeceR _“/ PROVECT HEL OC 7. OS provectZtefefyek #5 _ TIME STARTED_7: 30 ~~ FinisHen JO 9 «~— pate _F-22 -FR VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER TIME Kx T TT peptHip-s {Tt LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Adocert te pare (F 656 TOUGHNE 3 & = 2 13 SHEET .\_OF_1_ HOLE # Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants A.W. Murfitt Company MACHINE USED Y2-2¢ pele Toke SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH 13S vitteR—tuzEeck—— taesen Kiam] Rovere szcenn.ca TIME STARTED 210 __sFINISHED__UijoP sf paTe _ Aue 2e/an VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER Greed taal cet ell Aa a a Ah pare | 1 TOT eee ae ie ee le [ere LOCATION DIAGRAM = NOTES at ye Pk 37 SAMPLING METHOD Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET.Z_ OF_2 HOLE # TOTAL DEPTH 2257 PROJECT #22 9 27-0% CSOD Y + aS & MACHINE USED a 2 Acege—| AW. Murfitt Company METHOD USED SOILS LOG ELE HEH FOLAR DRILLER 4. Svev7esun LOGGER FC KKncrcw TIME STARTED DRC FINISHED "5 VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY S/E4K Ast FSURFALA AT -/-2% S6oPa Ze Sova GROUND WATER eee Te ery ced DEPTH | Surface [| LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES sw oF free 36 PISO TCO Be 0 PNONEM OFFER, ASSEM RAED TWERAGISTiA. OF? G TURK AWD AW SERTEO STUNG, Art® PAIRS F216 TE Tare CocaTlos? VARVING, ICE TYPE, @ OR TOUGHNESS, DR MOISTURE OR ICE % i a .. SHE BR Gr CSPOT a H 5S is Fy | Ri » fs Oh N S DS i po Ls D * ; h Ly k) a UR ) %, AAAS Pie ee 7 7 7 Zohn = PATTER Daierwe KT Boccab ADGA Flot Woe To DestAee. | a! OP ele SA A TAAUL. ER x * erent eee eee ere reer rea eee EI re ee a eee re re ey er 5 Ef fore eee erreeeeer errr ite err eee rece ee MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET .Z_OF_2_ a-uy ¥*necee| AW Murfitt Company = METHOD USED HOLE # TOTAL DEPTH 43.3 PROVECT #_P% - O77, 02 _ PROJECT YR Ae Fe Ye DATE _€&-2Y- FU SOILS LOG i. SV Aw = Ger R | -aILLER 20 E/T PS CY LOGGER LLB CCW | TIME STARTED_S~ 0° ss FINISHED ZOO VEGETATION, DRAINAGE -@ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY ' GROUND WATER GEsss 4 cvscscae. Pear.” (2, Baer Ta Tog EASS Aci“ poate | fT | 8 ive epmi wre TT LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES . 97106 —?.48 F7I0VE RG Dit FEY KR CE FO OV RT [SAMPLE NO. BLOws /6" VARVING, ice TYPE, ‘BONDING OR TOUGHNESS, "DRILLING NOTES a f iil GRAPHIC LO® el TEE MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Say yee rt A.W. Murfitt Company METHOD USED SOILS LOG tS van - CFE AS ~AlLLER = Sy¥e-Tescu. MTU ee TALI VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY 5 < AD fT ee eee ‘ LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES L7I0VE Te Meo PICKED ve Torts Ta 8240 |g 5 5 SHEET IC OF SZ" MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, SHEETOZ OF _S-27 vv %Heorn | AW Murfitt Company © —— woee Lee | METHOD = SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH 23. S KES LA = 2 fe URILLER 2S. @oerrescw LoeceR 2 Crncicw PROVECT #_£22.-S27, 0% ° PROJECT Z2EK ORY TIME STARTED 4/3" 5s FINISHED __&: 70 ______| DATE 3 —25-- 97. -| VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER —_— P2d06 C406 — 1ST REFLECING AWD /TIug 3°/9 —J2%0 WD. —yvo GETMKs “Access Te PHO waned Beca SAT STOR Kore _ “gu Pack cacerTa A WO svoneTit Co Foe @ OR TOUGHNE ° 3 a ° = a < & Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants A.W. Murfitt Company SHEET.¢2. OF 2 HOLE # MACHINE USED As - ty ee USED > SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTHZ r $7 eee PAH J URILLER 2 Dosv7ecc. LocceR S Canessn | PROVECT HA Z-O27. 02 PROJECT.ACERORYOK FC Kioee DATE _§ ~ 2s-- 6% GROUND WATER TIME STARTED _2<'u_47__ FINISHED ZO 2 VS -| VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY WYRAASAC FPEATM, GRASS ~- OK 7-2% SLOPE CY LAM Zuse : Vv. é LAS, , = LT z 2 LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Ad jecqutt * Pile sé ECOVERY % TOUGHNE r Db D D ny Dy 0 . PS » G h CO ip : Se 3} Feh, = DS » v © DD A it EK D k SReyisw ARIWP Foss z LY S f » PRoFS LSA STALE SP n MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET. OF 2 Rn Zy y Mwoer A.W. Murfitt Company METHOD USED HOLE # 7 TOTAL DEPTH_ 2 5 J SOILS LOG 64s ees —~GAAE —_—oOoOOOoOCOC: PROJECT #.2.¢ -O7 0% -) vRILLER 252 OS CE TESTER GE Ke 7 mati PROJECT 2cKOR YOK TIME STARTED “CSS” FINISHED __ 72790 DATE P—-2G-F&re | VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER ee UCC pe ptt eo : oh LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES LOWS / 6" 1 rn i ~ @ OR TOUGHNESS, ORILLING SAMPLING METHOD DEPTH GRAPHIC LOG > ” Yl (+9 rT Tan ea PTT Tanne on -~-OC¥0@M@ NAOH YW ee ey MACHINE USED SHEET_£Z.OF_4_ nk \JOHN M LAMBE PLE. SS te HOLE # METHOD USED ee SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH_Z3 = ‘ ~O2z7. | Witlerée. Ouxr? see — LocceR Wl PROVECT #22 ~ 0272.0 a oo . | TIME STARTEO_ EC FINISHED | vece tation, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER | pare | =| S| SCT { Time ||| | 4] peptHic’ | 1 1] LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES 7S SREC OF TLRAWMSFESS AMES f . i joe Db x » D on Oa AN MNT Sh whe C D ¥ o M ACHINE -USED Arete Civil and Cees Engineering Conese G@-2y Trace _: A.W, Murfitt Company ’ . a © METHOD USED ; SO LOG as £0 NAME PR ORILLER SS. Ova TSEC LOGGER Fe Cw/acreW SHEET {OF 4 mee Le] . TOTAL DEPTH 245 PROJECT #_S6- 02 7 9 PROJECT Z2B7eg RY are SOW 0 TIME STARTEO_7-2 9 ss FINISHED _Z7QQ ATE PO DF-SU VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY «ROUND WATER : 00 Rig LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Froxw — 72% PRC PEP & LAA = SO % PCORTN OF AORTA. FAD OF TRAMS FOI I ERS 9° weeT Of GULLY SIGE. |= ; i LR La ee he SLE Go ye 2 irc /Ree (os CSG > Be id [eee ese ieee fowl ove pee! a DODO SU ENS NEES) MACHINE USED METHOD USED Bele NAN | GRAPHIC LOS ke ENR = o c KAAS - ZY LH itt —- VRILLER Gc e 7/2: TIME STARTED _G “CO p>" __ FINISHED 890 ey 7% eae eT & EERE aa FORK alm FfaSs Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants AW. Murfitt Company SOILS LOG SHEET _/L OF_— ARTIC BENCHMARK HOLE # 7 TOTACH DE BT Hic MIM Dat PROJECTH SE -O27. 02 LOGGER A PROJECT eee GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER ee 00 a eR Te es LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES prvel Plc ro ' | 2 c N BON CSTE G3 I TNTITN A 00 TT T AY : SURED PAZ MUSCLES S 9 EZ) MST BS ANNO CY Selle a UO ANA 5 NS RTL eT TA | UMDSSSW27 N10 AMM (=F SEL EGY IMU See re CATER 7a BT ATT Ac eT a0 IMM Pes RE Ff SMMOR 868i eA RT GA TT APPENDIX D SCHEMATIC OF BURIED FUEL PIPELINE TRENCH DETAIL Golder Associates Client/Project Coffman £ VS Description Burred Fuel el peice “Ty UDEAL TRENCH DETAIL. WHEN NATE SozLs ARB PREPOMINAMILY. NFS SAND ANG | S/ZTY. SHB 6428 rs. At LEAST. 7.5 ++ er DEEL2C. BELOW. GROUND. SaRFACE enema ts | 45 AAW asitied : back, Fell ce packed. ~ BK HP dneacbenusceurbonn foc dy. densi ” fevod beddlin / ina ina oe Hii or obi Da. : i 5 ——— E an dt Fis K ye L em Loin apo ke Gin Sp OF mane ly. chensiie i Gynt : be ; + naples barn pipe) ~ETNWES Clean | Sacly WaOESST3 (Dane Beach: Sarct | Client/Project Coffman Engrs. mekor, gt Balk Fudl O73- sia ee qf: vot Zaviedl fuel Zia Ape line Sheet No a Checked: Treves Detoat inl s -Typicay TRANCH OFTAIL, WHEN. S/ZTY. SUBGRADE WITHIN 7SFt of GROunD SuRersce » Baltig e Ker 96 S OF ma alry density ~ Below botfemn of Ppe’) be I, Sabqvade Ay Client/Project ss job No. “Coffman Eugrs, / Meloryule Bulle Fed Description an By: Date; Buried Fuel Fid Pipolne Sheet No. Ri Checked: Gee “TYPICAL IN Sura Teo. TRENCH. DETAIL (OPTIONAL) Tronck i bee Horbin. \ = WE brladeiect itp 26 po gay fe ii NR A Mhz od Olt ye Ory Density belous FILL / BACK FIeL PARTERIAL SPECIFICATIONS Bedding MaleriaD: Non Fost- Suscgpible Snel anol Grae with Jess than 6B. fassirg _ The #200 Seve. med. 00% PRSoraGy Yair, Seve, free = or game of Sela neat rrateriol COmbackeel te. 75% e Mos ary leisy belowppe As determmed by ASTM D-~/5S7 Pp Un class: hod Trench Back fil/: Mrerk soil free of Organ. a dele tevious maserial , Congachel “o 35% of pmax Arg clens ity. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE MEKORYUK, ALASKA March, 1979 By R&M Consultants, Inc. 5024 Cordova Street Anchorage, Alaska 99502 For LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL DISTRICT Bethel, Alaska CHS) Ve) REM CONSULTANTS, ING. 5024 CORCOVA m@ BOX 6087 B ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 995027 B PH. 907-279-0483 mM TLX. 0890-25360 ENGINEERS GeaLocisTs PLANNERS SURVEYORS March 20, 1979 R&M No. 951010 Lower Kuskokwim School District P.O. Box 305 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Attention: Mr. David Chauvin, Contract Manager Re: Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations, High School Site, Mekoryuk, Alaska. Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit 25 copies of our final report for the geotechnical investigation and foundation recommendations for the proposed High School at Mekoryuk, Alaska. This work was accomplished under Amendment 3 of R&M Consultants’ contract with the Lower Kuskokwim School District dated October 30, 1978 and in accordance with our interpretation of your geéo- @ technical requirements. Should you have any questions with regard to this report, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. Dennis Nottingham, P.E Vice President DN: BED/djb/G1-B ANCHORAGE FALRBANKS JUNEAU VALOEZ WASILLA CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Scope 2.0 Subsurface Investigation 3.0 Laboratory Testing Program 4.0 Site Conditions and Geologic Setting 5.0 Subsurface Conditions 6.0 Conclusions and Foundation Recommendations Design Parameters Recommended Foundation System Alternate Foundation System Overexcavation and Backfill Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration and Thermal Protection On Site Septic System AAMAHAAD NOUDBWN- 7.9 Closure Appendix A Regional Location Map Test Hole Location Map Appendix B General Notes Explanation of Symbols Explanation of Ice Symbols Logs of Test Holes Temperature Data Appendix C Summary of Laboratory Test Data Appendix D Schematic for Refrigerated Shallow Footing Long Term Footing Bearing Loads Schematic Diagram of Pile in Permafrost Long Term Load Capacities for Piles Appendix E Geotechnical Data Sheet 2 4 4 6 6 ZL 8 10 11 12 13 13 13 A-01 A-02 B-01 B-02 B-03 8-04 thru B-05 B-06 c-01 0-01 D-02 D-03 D-04 1.0 INTRODUCTION R&M Consultants, Inc. has undertaken a two phased study of the site at Mekoryuk, (Drawing A-01) Alaska, where a Lower Kuskokwim School District secondary school is to be constructed. Phase One of this study, published under separate cover, included a site survey, the development of comprehensive design determinants, and technical assistance, provided during public hearings in which the villagers selected a site. Phase Two of the site study was a geotechnical investigation of the school site. This phase included a detailed field drilling program, extensive laboratory testing and analysis of site soil conditions to provide site geotechnical recommendations. This Second Phase report presents the results of the subsurface soils investigation and soil engineering recommendations for the proposed high school. The proposed site is located within the village on the existing B.1.A. School site. The site is shown on the attached loca- tion diagram, Drawing A-02. The study of the subsurface conditions at the proposed project location was performed in accordance with R&M Consultants' contract with the Lower Kuskokwim Schoo! District. Mr. B. A. Weinberg, Superindentent of the Lower Kuskokwim School District authorized commencement of Phase |! in a letter dated January 5, 1979. Phase {! was carried out under the supervision of Mr. David L. Chauvin, Contract Manager, for the Lower Kuskokwim School District. R&M Consultants’ scope of work included a subsurface soils investigation, installation of temperature instrumentation to obtain subsurface temperature information; laboratory testing of recovered sampies to determine index and engineering properties; geotechnical recommendations regarding general site development and foundation design; and preparation of a written report. It is our understanding that the proposed 6600-square foot Mekoryuk High School will be a one story wood-frame structure generating moderate foun- dation loads. A water storage tank wil! also be added to the site which already includes several structures. The purpose of this report is to: 1) describe the apparent subsurface soil, groundwater and permafrost conditions encountered at the site utilizing field and laboratory data, 2) present recommendations regarding foundation selection and design and general site development. 2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION The subsurface investigation for this site was conducted as part of a seventeen village program. Bethel served as a base of operations for the field investigations. Three drill rigs were simultaneously employed at different sites. Three test holes, designated Test Holes 10-1, 10-2 and 10-3 were drilled on the subject site as shown on the attached Location Diagram, A-02. Two of the borings were advanced to about 26 feet and a third was drilled to 17 feet. Logs of these test holes are presented in Drawings B-04 and B-05. Soil boring and sampling operations were performed with a skid-mounted SiIMCO 2400 rotary-type hydraulic drilling rig. The drill rig and drilling crew, were transported in two trips to Mekoryuk by a Skyvan aircraft. A four wheel drive vehicle obtained at Mekoryuk was used to transport the drill from the airstrip to the school site. The test holes were advanced by continuous sampling with a 2.5 inch core barrei sampler. Representative subsurface materials were obtained by standard shelby sampling techniques and by means of a standard split-spoon sample pro- cedure. In this last procedure a split-spoon sampler (1.4-inch !.D.) is driven into undisturbed natural soil with a 140-pound drop hammer having a 30-inch free fall. The penetration resistance (as measured by blow count) in unfrozen soil provides an "N" value which can be correlated with the bearing capacity of the in situ soils. In frozen soils the blow count values give an indication of the relative strength of the soils but do not correlate to any absolute frozen strength values. After visual classifica~ tion in the field, all soil samples were transferred to the R&M Laboratory in Anchorage for further examination and testing. A 3/4-inch PVC casing and a thermistor string were installed in Test Hole 10-2 to measure soil temperatures. The 30-foot string contained 6 thermis- tor points located at 5-foot intervals. A summary of readings taken dur- ing the site investigation is shown on Drawing B-06. The thermistor string was left in the test hole for long term monitoring of subsurface temperatures. A PVC casing was also instalied in Test Hole 10-1 for future use if required. 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples recovered in a frozen state were kept frozen until laboratory testing was initiated. This allowed a direct determination of certain frozen soil properties during testing. The laboratory testing program was limited to the evaluation of general soil index properties. Laboratory determination of water content of recovered samples was performed according to ASTM Specification D-2216. Particle size distribution analysis was performed on selected samples in accordance with ASTM Specification D-422. Organic contents were measured using State of Alaska Test Method T-6. Density tests used ASTM Specification D-2937; specific gravity used ASTM Specification D-853. Laboratory test results for selected samples are provided on Table C-01. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGIC SETTING The existing B.1.A. School site was chosen by the residents of Mekoryuk as the location for the new High School. This site has adequate space, is centrally located and easily accessible. The site, 5.49 acres, has an existing B.1.A. school, utility building, quarters building, covered play area, fuel storage, playground equipment, and associated boardwalks, utilidors, electrical conduits, and fuel lines. Residents wish to locate the new high school on the site where the old B.1.A. school burned in 1973. Only a portion of the connecting utilidor and old, burned, foundation piles remain at this location. TRA/Farr Architects selected three school locations on the site, two as alternates in the event the preferred location Proved unacceptable. The primary location near the west center of the site was investigated during this study and found satisfactory for the proposed structure. The village of Mekoryuk is located on Nunivak Island which fies within the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Lowland, a delta complex consisting of a lake- dotted marshy plain rising from sea level in the west to 300 feet above sea level in the east. Nunivak Island and many low hills within the deita complex are composed of volcanic rock. The volcanics consist of Quaternary and Tertiary olivine basalt flows, cinder cones, and cinder blankets. These volcanic accumulations are mantied with unconsolidated volcanic debris which varies in thickness. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area lies within the discontinuous permafrost region of Alaska. Many areas are underlain by fine-grained ice-rich soils varying in thickness from tens to hundreds of feet. Permafrost may be locally absent near bodies of water. Mekoryuk is located within Seismic Zone 1 as defined by the 1976 edition of the Uniform Building Code. 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As shown on the attached test hole logs the location of the proposed school structure is underlain by permafrost beginning at an overage depth of 6.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Approximately 1 to 3 feet of surficial organic material was noted, followed by 7 to 12 feet of dark gray silt containing organic material in the bottom 6 inches to 2 feet. Below this stratum was dark gray sand with a trace to some silt to a depth of 21 to 22.5 feet. Dense gravel with some sand and occasional cobbles was encountered beneath the sand, and extended to the total depth drilled, in the two deeper test holes. At the time of drilling in February 1979, the seasonal frost was approxi- mately 171 foot thick. Beneath the seasonal frost a thawed zone of very moist, soft silt was noted. This stratum became frozen at about 6.5 feet and the remainder of the profile was permafrost. The permafrost had moderate ice content in the form of large crystals and thin lenses. The deeper gravel and cobbles also contained significant amounts of visible ice. The original structure at this site burned several years ago. Although the exact type of foundation is unknown, it is suspected that buried debris and portions of the origina! foundation may underlie this site. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The foundation recommendations and site geotechnical parameters contained in this report are based upon the fact that permafrost underlies the entire site. When these conditions are present it is imperative that the soils which support structures on the site remain in a frozen state over the life of the structures. Thus, all foundation design, construction, and operating conditions must be directed toward avoiding any thermal distur- bance of the underlying permafrost. If the permafrost thaws, either during construction or the operating life of any of the structures proposed for this site, severe settlement may be expected. We therefore recommend that all foundation construction be continually monitored by qualified personnel to insure that proper construction tech- niques (which preserve the permafrost) are employed. It is further recommended that a periodic inspection program be established after con- struction is complete, to insure that foundation systems are performing as expected and that long term thermal equilibrium of the site is maintained. 6.1 Design Parameters Permanently frozen soils (permafrost) can generally be divided into three performance groups; high strength soil, medium strength soil and low strength soil. High strength soils are fine sands and silty sands with little or no visible ice. Medium strength soils are fine sands and silty sands with some organic material and/or visible ice. Low strength soils are fine-grained and organic soils with high ice contents. Soils at the proposed site should be considered low strength soils within the frozen silt and frozen organic layers and medium strength in the sand and gravel strata according to the above classification. Within the depth drilled soil temperatures, below approximately 6.5 feet, range from 30.5°F to 31.5°F. For design purposes a temperature of 31.5°F should be considered representative of the thermal condition within the permanently frozen portion of the profile. The depth to permafrost, is approximately 6.5 feet. We estimate the active layer thickness is approxi- mately 2 feet. Thawed soils may occur between 1 and 8 feet in most of the the area. This thawed zone may have resulted when the original school on this site burned several years ago. The permafrost table may be much nearer the ground surface outside the original timits of the structure which was destroyed by fire. 6.2 Recommended Foundation System A pile foundation may be utilized for support of proposed school at this site. Several types of pile foundations may be feasible including slurried self refrigerating structural piles (for example Long Thermo piles), slurried timber piles, and driven H-piles. Slurried timber piles and driven H-piles may require "heat pipes" to be installed adjacent to each pile to maintain acceptable long term soil tem- peratures. Slurried piles (long piles and timber piles) require drilling of an oversize pile hole, followed by placement of the pile and slurry. The pile hole must remain frozen and dry prior to slurry placement. Loading of the pile cannot begin until the design slurry temperature which depends upon pile spacing, pile hole diameter and soil temperature has been achieved. For a slurried pile, the load bearing capacity is a function of the adfreeze strength between the pile surface and the slurry and the adfreeze strength between the interface of the slurry and the natural soil. Since the slurry composition is usually controlled by specifications it can normally be considered a high strength soil when bonding to the pile surface. The recommended pile-slurry allowable fong term bond stress is 225 psf. The bond between the slurry and the naturai soil is governed by the strength classification of the natural soil. The recommended natural soil allowable long term bond stress is 150 psf. It should be noted that the possibility of buried debris and the dense gravel and cobble stratum which occurred at a depth of approximately 20 feet may preclude drilling pile holes past that depth, thus limiting the load on slurried piles. Since slurried pile spacing should be on the order of 10 feet, large building column loads may have to be spread over several piles located some distance apart if slurried piles are utilized. H-piles may be driven directly into the ground and immediately loaded. The adfreeze bond should be based on the natura! soil parameters. Pile spacing for driven piles can be as close as practical although some reduction on individual pile strengths should be made for close grouping of driven piles. Pile driving refusal may occur between 10 and 25 feet below the ground surface depending upon pile shape and hammer size. Any pile system used should have provisions for monitoring soil tempera- tures adjacent to individual piles. A detailed schematic diagram for a pile foundation is presented in Appendix D. 6.3 Alternate Foundation System A possible alternate foundation design for support of the school building is the refrigerated shallow foundation system illustrated in Drawing D-01. Winter construction may be required for the successful installation of this system. A detailed schematic diagram for the recommended refrigerated foundation system is presented on Drawing, D-01. The depth of excava- tion and the potential for groundwater within the thawed zone may make this type of foundation unfeasible. Foundation components should bear on permanently frozen (permafrost), undisturbed, dark gray silty material which exists at a depth of 5 to 7 feet. If any natural bearing surfaces are disturbed (loosened) or thawed during construction, they should be removed and replaced with a thawed granular (sand or gravel) backfill placed in nine inch lifts compacted to a minimum of 95% density. Ail footings should be placed betow the active layer to a depth which wil! assure a minimum 12 inch embeddment in permafrost. We recommend that all excavations be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer to insure that the soi! beneath the footing is frozen and that the footing is founded on permafrost. The leveling course should consist of thawed well graded sand or gravel placed in lifts not exceeding nine inches in loose thickness. Each lift should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum density. -10- All backfill should be dry or moist. No backfill which is saturated or contains debris, ice or any deleterious material should be permitted. No excavation should remain open more than 24 hours and no accumulations of rain, snow or other water should be permitted. This may require continuous pumping to maintain a dry excavation if groundwater is encoun- tered in or below the active layer. A thermistor or other temperature monitoring device should be placed directly beneath representative footings to insure that soil temperatures are below 31°F before placing loads on the footings. in accordance with the Long-Term Footing Bearing Loads in Fine-Grained Frozen Soils Chart (Drawing D-02), and following the recommendations outlined in this report, a 200 psf total load soil bearing pressure for expected long term loads may be used in foundation design. Short term or impact loads equal to twice the long term loads may be used. This should ensure that total settlement will not exceed one inch. Differential settie- ment should not exceed 3/4". 6.4 Overexcavation and Backfill All backfill placed below footings should be non-frost-susceptible (NFS) sands or gravels. All such backfill should be completely free of organic matter, debris, or ice. Backfill should be placed in a thawed condition in lifts mot exceeding nine inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95% maximum density determined in accordance with either -11- ASTM Specification D1557-70 or the Corps of Engineers' Providence Vibra- tory Density Method. If an overexcavation and backfill technique is utilized anywhere for foun- dation footings, backfill should extend from the footings to the underlying natural competent soil bearing surface at a maximum slope of 1:2 (horizon- tal to vertical). 6.5 Groundwater and Surface Water Because a thawed zone existed between the active layer and top of the permafrost encountered in each test hole, groundwater may be expected at the site. It should be anticipated that surface and near surface water could enter building excavations and pile holes. Therefore, measures should be taken to keep all footing excavations and pile holes dry in order to prevent softening or thawing of bearing soils. As a minimum we recommend that: (1) surface water be isolated from entering all pile holes and excava- tions during construction, (2) final surface grading be accomplished in a manner which will positively drain all water away from the structure, and (3) diversion of concentrated runoff away from below ground build- ing areas be provided, for example, from roof structures. (4) casing of the thawed zone if slurried piles are used. -12- 6.6 Restoration and Thermal Protection Frozen soils at the building site are highly susceptible to therma! degreda- tion if significant surface disturbance occurs. If severe surface distur- bance is permitted, the natural environmental cycle may result in thermal erosion and thaw settlement. The following protective procedures are recommended: (1) where feasible, all earthwork should be conducted during the winter season, (2) surface disturbance by equipment should be kept to a minimum, (3) the existing surface organic mat should be stripped and then replaced over disturbed areas wherever possible. 6.7 On Site Septic System It is understood that existing sewage facilities will be used to treat waste water from the school, thus an on site below ground waste disposal was not considered. 7.0 CLOSURE The engineering recommendations presented in this report have been based on the pertinent development information listed in Section 1.0. Significant alteration of any of these concepts could substantially alter the foregoing engineering recommendations. We would, therfore, appreciate having the opportunity to review and evaluate any such design changes and, where -33- necessary, present any required corresponding changes to our present recommendations. Additionally, because subsurface characteristics can change sharply within a given area, the possibility exists that important subsurface conditions not disclosed by this field investigation may be discovered during construction. Should this situation occur, the influence of the new information on the present recommendations should be evaluated without delay. Thus, a qualified soils engineer should be on site during foundation construction. The future performance of the structures at this site is highly dependent upon construction techniques. We therefore recommend that a construction quality contro! program be implemented so that the contractor can be continuously monitored to insure the specifications are followed. We appreciate the opportunity to perform this subsurface investigation. Should you require further information concerning the subsurface investi- gation or this report, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. 1725;-, No 1H# 7 Di ores nent oe ¢ fae Oona ie ProrsseOS ae pe Bruce E. Davison Dennis WNEHSRsm Senior Geotechnical Engineer Vice President DN:BED/djb/G1-D -14- APPENDIX A LOWER KUSKOKWIM REGION LOCATION MAP A-O! MEKORYUK LATITUDE 60° 23° LONGITUDE 186" 11! VICINITY MAP Pan we SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE }, Bob A. Oortch certify that | am a Registered and Surveyor in tne State of Alaska and that the survey as snown herecn accurately repre- sents a field survey performed under my direct supervision Loeb Df iPr s. 00s GENERAL NOTES A- VERTICAL CONTROL - (ASSUMED 8.1.4. SCHOOL QUARTERS FINISHEO FLOOR-100. 00") 1. TBM A - TOP OF B.L.M. 3 {INCHES BRASS CAP MONUMENT 0.7" ABOVE GROUND - ELEVATION 96.11" - ASSUMED DATUM 2. IMB B = SPIKE IN WEST SIDE OF WOODEN ANTENNAE POLE 0.8' ABOVE GROUND - ELEVA- TION 95.03" ASSUMED DATUM 3. TBM C - DUPLEX NAIL {N SOUTH SIDE OF UTILIOGA SUPPORT BEAM ON SIXTH PILING EAST OF THE UTILITY BUILOING - ELEVATION 93.83 ASSUMED OATUM 4. TBM 0 = TOP PLUG OF FIRE HYDRANT - ELEVA* TION 97.51" ASSUMED DATUM B- RELATIVE ELEVATIONS 1. th. AL SCHOOL QUARTERS FLOOR ~ 100.00 2. LILA. SCHOOL BUILOING FLOOR - 98.51 3. UTILITY BUILO:ING FLOOR = 98.74 4. APPROX. MFAN HIGH WATER ON BEACH - 69.00 S. SEWAGE LAGOON LEVEL - 78.50 &. P.H.S. BUILOING FLOOR - 101.43 Prepared for: LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL DISTRICT Date of Survey: 11-25-78 MEKORYUK SITE SURVEY REM CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS GSOLOGISTS PLANNERS SURVEYORS APPENDIX B SOILS | CLASSIFICATION, CONSISTENCY AND SYMBOLS oa CLASSIFICATION: Identification and classification of the soil is accomplished in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Normally, the grain size distribution determines classification of the soil, The soil is defined according to major and minor constituents with the minor elements serving as modifiers of the major elements. For cohesive soils, the clay becomes the principal noun with the other major soil constituents used as modifier; i.e. silty clay, when the clay particles are such that the clay dominates soil properties, Minor soil constituents may be added to the classification breakdown in accordance with the particle size proportion listed below; i.e, sandy silt w/some gravel, trace clay. no call ~ 0 - 3% trace - 3 - 12% some ~ 13 - 30% SOIL CONSISTENCY - CRITERIA: Soil consistency as defined below and determined by normal field and laboratory methods applies only to non-frozen material, For these materials, the influence of such factors as soil structure, i.e. fissure systems, shrinkage cracks, slickensides, etc., must be taken into consideration in making any correlation with the consistency values listed below, In permafrost zones, the consistency and strength of frozen soils may vary significantly and unexplainably with ice content, thermal regime and soil type, Cohesionless Cohesive N*(blows/£t) Relative Density T-(tsf) Loose 0-10 0 to 40% Very Soft 0 - 0,25 Medium Dense 10 - 30 40 to 70% Soft 0,25-0,5 Dense 30 - 60 70 to 90% Stiff 0.5 -1.0 Very Dense - 60 90 to 100% Firm 1,0 - 2,0 *Standard Penetration "N": Blows per foot of Very Firm 2,0 - 4,0 a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a Hard ~ 4,0 2-inch OD split-spoon except where noted, DRILLING SYMBOLS WO: Wash Out WD: While Drilling WL: Water Level BCR: Before Casing Removal WCI: Wet Cave In ACR: After Casing Removal DCI: Dry Cave In AB: After Boring WS: While Sampling TD: Total Depth Note: Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated, In pervious unfrozen soils, the indicated elevations are considered to represent actual ground water conditions, In impervious and frozen soils, accurate determinations of ground water elevations cannot be obtained within a limited period of observation and other evidence on ground water elevations and conditions are required, = - aus (re N/A — HE —- | (RSM. comsuuranTs, ine, GENERAL NOTES GRE N/a [date Feb. 1972 cNoINKene GeOLOo PROU.NO General | | DWG.NO. B-O1 SCALE. None 3 Ss... NOTE: RBM CONSULTANTS, INC STANDARD SYMBOLS ORGANIC MATERIAL A COBBLES & BOULDERS Fe] IGNEOUS ROCK SANDY SILT B)))))) SILT GRADING TO CLAY CONGLOMERATE dy) METAMORPHIC ROCK abe aa SANDY GRAVEL, SILT SANDSTONE . ICE, MASSIVE SCATTERED COBBLES {ROCK FRAGMENTS) ; J INTERLAYERED SAND SAND MUDSTONE ICE - SILT @ SANDY GRAVEL p O75) GRAVEL LIMESTONE OA ORGANIC SILT [777 SILTY CLAY w/TR. SAND Ho of (777) SAMPLER TYPE SYMBOLS ..1.4" SPLIT SPOON WITH 140 # HAMMER Ts... . SHELBY TUBE . 1.4" SPLIT SPOON WITH 3404 HAMMER Tm... . MODIFIED SHELBY TUBE . 25" SPLIT SPOON WITH 1404 HAMMER Pb,... PITCHER BARREL . 25" SPLIT SPOON WITH 3404 HAMMER Cs.... CORE BARREL WITH SINGLE TUBE - 2.5" SPLIT SPOON, PUSHED Cd.... CORE BARREL WITH DOUBLE TUBE . AUGER SAMPLE Bs.... BULK SAMPLE SAMPLER TYPES ARE EITHER NOTED ABOVE THE BORING LOG OR ADJACENT TO IT AT THE RESPECTIVE SAMPLE DEPTH. TYPICAL BORING LOG BORING NUMBERw +14 30-15 Elev. 2746 -<- ELEVATION IN FEET DATE ORILLED~m i 2)-70 All Samples Ss@~ SAMPLER TYPE ORGANIC MATERIAL Consid. Visible Ice O-7 ICE ~ SILT timate §& 7, Visible Ice (1) 90, 56.2% ,80.Spcf, ML 7 SANDY SILT STRATA CHANGE APPROXIMATE STRATA CHANGE — — 12 icerM | WATER TABLES (1.8 WD. a = . ’ WHILE DRILLING Little 10No Visible ice 13-30’ Vx <@—/CE, DESCRIPTION @ CLASSIFICATION 2, 571%, 85.9 pcf, 28° oP (CORPS OF ENGINEERS METHOD} \ UNIFIED OR FAA CLASSIFICATION TEMPERATURE, F ORY DENS/TY WATER CONTENT BLOWS/FOOT SAMPLE NUMBER SANDY GRAVEL FROZEN GROUND 26° SCHIST «@— GENERALIZED SOIL OR ROCK DESCRIPTION SAMPLE LOCATION 30'——OAR/LL DEPTH EXPLANATION OF SELECTED SYMBOLS EXPLANATION OF ICE SYMBOLS Percentage of visible ice has been grouped for the purpose of designating the amount of soil ice content, These groups have arbitrarily been set out as follows: 0% No Visible Ice 1% - 10% Little Visible Ice 11% - 20% Occasional Visible Ice 21% - 35% Some Visible Ice >35% Considerable Visible Ice The ice description system is based on that presented by K, A, Linell, and C. W. Kaplar (1966). In this system, which is an extension of the Unified Soil Classification System, the amount and physical characteristics of the soil ice are accounted for, The following table is a brief summary of the salient points of their classification system as modified to meet the needs of this study. 1CE DESCRIPTIONS DESCRIPTION | SYMBOL Poorly bonded or friable No excess Well- lice ! Non ICE VISIBILITY & CONTENT Ice not visible tice Individual ice crystals or v inclusions Ice coatings on particles Ice visible, <50% Random or irregularly oriented ice ormation Strotitied or distinctly oriented ice formations ice with soil ICE + inclusions soi! type lee without soil inclusions Ice visible, >50% Individual layer >6" thick * ice * in some cases where the soil is ic@ poor a thin ice layer may be called out by special nototion on the jog, ie 2 Ice lens ot 7 R & M CONSULTANTS, !NC. EXPLANATION OF ICE SYMBOLS T.H. 10-1 T.H. 10-2 2-24-79 0 2-25-79 0 SILT dark gray Little Visible Ice, 7'-10', Vx Ss Intermixed with some Organic Material, 7‘'-10' Tn @ 39, 48.1%, 70.5 pef AN ANA SS se Intermixed with some Organic @ Material, 11.5'-14.5' Bro SAND W/TRACE SILT dark gray isa es Little Visible Ice, 10’-22.5', Vx+tVs OL 2 Sell oe oN pee Vx+Vs SAND W/TRACE SILT dark gray bh tous Visible Ice, 14.5'-21', a iO 79, 28.7%, 90.1 pefoy 5+ Tm © GRAVEL W/SOME SAND OCCASIONAL COBBLE GRAVEL W/SOME SAND, ®voccastonaL COBBLE dark gray dark gray Se 100+ ; oe ' \ T Do ; betel ie eee) Visible Ice, 21'-26 AEE ee ll a 26" TD. ee Pye PB coun Water Table Not Encountered ee eae Fee ia vane 3/4-inch PVC installed to 24.5 ft. 3/4-inch PVC installed to 26.5 ft. Oeil Test Hole Logs Serene omaet CeO _. | || R&M CONSULTANTS, ING. Geotechnical Investigation bate. Mar 1979 Mekoryuk, Alaska scalel"=4! PROJ.NO 951010 | owe.no B-O4 enoieens awo.ooleye manwans sUnvevone ORGANIC MATERIAL dark brown @5, 65.2% 2 11, 31.4%, 91.0 pef, ML SILT dark gray Organic Material, 10'-10.5' SAND W/SOME SILT dark gray , 14.7%, 118.1 pef 1720 > Dis Water Table Not Encountered REM CONBULTANTS, ING.|| | Geotechnical Investigation Grin! Mekoryuk, Alaska svomene osc.carers sLanveme almvavone Test Hole Logs ] ES aerate PROU.NOY5S]. 10 | | ows. no B-05 =! TEMPERATURE °F 30 C 0) pots Thermistor Measurements {3 cKO REM CONSULTANTS, ING. Geotechnical Investigation || SRO Crameune esc.oseTs manwene ebavevens DATE Mar.1979_ Mekoryuk, Alaska | PROJ.NO 951010 SCALE] "=4! ( owG NO B-O6 APPENDIX C Cee PROVECT NO. 221010 00 DATE CONSULTANTS, INC. CLIENT: LKSD PROJECT NAME_Mekoryuk PARTY NO.________ pace no C-01__ % ORY MOISTUREJORGANIC DENSITY [CONTENTIRy wr. (ag s6) 04.4 20,51 48.1 j_. 15.0'-17.0' 120.6 97.5] 23.7) 7.9'=20.0' 4 wa 5 Prem Los D: 90.1] 28.7 24.5'-26.5' 4 - 5.0’ - 7.0° a 43.9 13.0'-14.5' : 3 | 5.3 '~ Bi : 113.8 87.1 30.6 23.0'-25.0' 125.7 | 100.8] 24.7 -0' - 3.0! le : = = 7.0! 5; : | 9.0' ~10.0' 10.0'~10.5' 10.5'~11.0' J 02=T325° 15.0°-17.0° NOTE: SIEVE ANALYSIS = PERCENT PASSING REMARKS : = _—= = age ee eee APRRPVED APPENDIX D SECURE ATTACHMENT ? FROZEN Active | avEK TYPICAL SPREAD fooTiNa i VED active LAYER Nores TO OF PERMA LP ODT ) EXEAVATION FO BE KEPT DRY" pow di ilsdlation LEVELING couRse To BE com TO MINIMUM OF 45% of Maximuilo LevelLina coURSE, Ad REQUIRED flaceD IN THAWED STATE INSULATION To BE DOW. .HI oR EQu Né UNDER TYPICAL INTERIOR FOUNDATION SYSTEM To BE CEA NDER TYPICAL copNeR roots POTENTIAL FROST HEAVE & JACK! arouNo UNoer iNsulLArioN To Bé Berorne Leasina rooting po Nor Stock Heap pipe FINS F PREVAILING wines Sv TemperRacuRe must BE Bier oF Be ee aie oes BENecatH Footing BEFORE PLACE Place ode Heaqy piee ar cAcH ¢ SCHEMATIC FOR SEE Rim Soil REPORTS FOR AF cr SRmarc \ ELEVATION oF Tor OF PERMAF REFRIGERATED SHALLOW FOUNDATION a 2-22°79 MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED BEARING VALUE FOR ANY SOIL CONDITION 29 30 31 32 TEMPERATURE °F STRENGTH SOIL SANDS, SILTY SANDS, VISIBLE ICE 40PSI 30 PS} LONG TERM ALLOWABLE FOOTING BEARING PRESSURE {UM STRENGTH SOIL, E SANDS, SILTY SANDS H SOME ICE LENSES 8 ANICS & VISIBLE ICE TONS / SQUARE FOOT So shee Tt at 6 t -4 -3 -2 -/ OQ TEMPERATURE °C MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE DIRECTLY BENEATH FOOTING OVER LIFETIME OF STRUCTURE NOTE: ALLOWABLE SHORT TERM OR IMPACT LOADS EQUAL TO TWICE LONG TERM VALUES TO A MAXIMUM OF 4 TSF FOOTING MUST BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON PERMAFROST BENEATH ACTIVE LAYER REM CONSULTANTS, INC. BEARING LOADS IN GRIO. a ENGINEERS OROLOGI@TS PLANNERS SURVEYORS LONG TERM FOOTING | (#2. + I FINE GRAINED FROZEN | {PRosNo 951001 | SOILS \0WG.NO D-O2 DEAD LOAD i JACKING FORCE PILE lee: > AIR TEMPERATURE ADFREEZE STRENGTH AT AIR TEMPERATURE (LONG TERM) FROZEN ACTIVE LAYER UPLIFT RESISTING FORCE RESISTING FORCE + DEAD LOAD > JACKING FORCE THAWED ACTIVE LAYER ZERO ADFREEZE PERMAFROST ADFREEZE STRENGTH AT SOIL TEMPERATURE (LONG TERM) RESISTING FORCE FOR STRUCTURAY LOADS OWN. cKO. BED. DATE. 2/15/79 SCALE. N/A REM CONSULTANTS, INC. ANGINGERS GEOLODIOTS PLANNERS SURVEYORS PJLE, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF IN PERMAFROST —_. c EB. GRID. PROV.NO 95100! Owo.no. 0-03 TEMPERATURE °F ALLOWABLE BOND STRESS PS! ALLOWABLE BOND STRESS TSF TEMPERATURE °C LOW STRENGTH SOIL, ICE RICH SILTS, ORGANIC SILTS WITH VISIBLE ICE —-—-— HIGH STRENGTH SOIL, FINE SANDS,SILTY SANDS, NO VISIBLE ICE OATE. 2/ 2/79 SCALE FROZEN FINE ___) REM CONSULTANTS, ING. GRAINED SOIL 1 PROWNO. 951001 OWG.NO D-O4. ENGINEERS GHOLOGATR PLANNER® SURVEYORS PILE ADFREEZE VALUES APPENDIX E LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL DISTRICT VILLAGE SCHOOL SITES GEOTECHNICAL DATA SHEET R&M No. 951010 SITE: MEKORYUK DATE? 2-2-7S3 ARCHITECT: TRA/FARR Vs BACKGROUND INFORMATION a) Date Drilled: Site drilled on February 26, 1979 b) Make of Drill: SIMCO 2400 c) Type of Drilling: 6" Auger d) Type of Sampling: 1.4" Split Spoon; Modified Shelby e) Field Crew: Geologist: Hardcastle Driller: Reas Drillers Helper/Mechanic: Harrigan f) Comments: 2c GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS a) Site Soils: Surficial organic layer 1'-3', underlain by a thawed silt layer to a depth of 5' to 8'. Permafrost was encountered at 5' to 8' below the ground surface. An organic silt was encountered beneath the silt stratum. Frozen sand was then encountered grading to gravel and cobbles at 21 to 23 feet. b) Permafrost: Permafrost contained ice lenses and ice crystals, normally 0% to 30% visible ice, but up to 50% visible ice in frozen organic silts. c¢) Groundwater: No free groundwater table encountered, however, the thawed zone is very moist and may contain free water. When the active layer is thawed additional groundwater may be present. d) Site Drainage: Due to flat topography and tundra vegetation, local site drainage is poor, i.e., the ground surface is very wet with local ponding during summer months. There is a small shallow pond on the west edge of the site. The proposed school site receives little or no water as runoff from adjacent property. Surface water is derived from precipita- tion and thawing of saturated ground. e) Depth of Active Layer: 15! to 2%! f) Depth to Permafrost: 5' to 8! g) Depth of Surficial Organic Layer: 1' to 3'; Buried frozen organic layer 7' to 10' and 11' to 14! h) Ground Temperatures: 31.5°F (see attached temperature profile). i) Laboratory Test Data: j) Potential for Settlement if Thawing of Permafrost Occurs: Moderate k) Design Soil Classification: Low strength FOUNDATION DETERMINANTS a) Recommended Foundation Type Preferred: Pile foundation; tip elevations limited because of dense gravel and cobbles at approximately 22' Alternate 1: Possibly a shallow foundation (refrigerated) if some vertical differential movement is allowable. Alternate 2: b) Load - Settlement Data for Preferred Foundation Max Allowable Load: ; Pile - slurry 225 psf slurry-natural soil 150 psf Max Expected Settlement: 1" Total 3/4" differential c) Frost Susceptibility & Frost Jacking Potential High frost susceptibility and high potential for frost jacking. Estimate 1500 psf uplift on foundation components in active layer. d) Recommended Specifications: e) Special Considerations: Installation of timber piles to depths greater than 21' may be difficult. Driven H-piles can probably penetrate to depths of 25' to 30' if HPS 10 x 57 shape is utilized. 4. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS a) Trafficability Vehicular transportation during summer months is limited to gravel roads within Mekoryuk and to the airport. Mekoryuk is not connected to any other villages by roads. Access to the beach landing area is good. A gravel road is within 100! of the proposed high school site. Since the ground is soft during the summer, access to the building location, by heavy equipment, will be difficult unless additional access road is constructed. Motorcycles, three- tired vehicles, and four-wheel drive trucks are major modes of transportation in the summer. b) Excavation Excavation and drilling of thawed soils easily accomplished. Excavation and drilling in permafrost may be difficult especially in gravel strata. c) Borrow Material Sand fill may be obtained from a sand beach area accessible via the oid airport road approximately one mile from Mekoryuk. There is a rock quarry site, which served as a source for crushed aggregate for airport and highway construction, located approximately 0.7 miles north of the runway. Another possible material source is the stockpiled crushed aggregate along the entrance road to the airport. d) Access The existing haul road is trafficable and should be used to avoid disturbance of fragile sand dune vegetation. The site is also used as a dump area for the village, therefore, some garbage may have to be scraped away prior to utilization. e) Seasonal Considerations Although winter construction may be more desirable, no major problems are forseen with summer construction. f) Site disturbance and Restoration Site disturbance should be minimized to prevent degradation of the permafrost. The surface tundra mat should be replaced after construction (outside the building limits only). MISCELLANEOUS GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION a) Percolation Characteristics Permafrost is relatively impermeable; Upper thawed zone may be permeable enough for subsurface waste disposal. b) Suitability of on site soil for fill Not suitable for structural fill. APPENDIX C SELECT PAGES FROM REPORT ON PILE PERFORMANCE AND REMEDIAL ACTION, MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL BY A.W. MURFITT COMPANY Golder Associates REPORT ON PILE PERFORMANCE REMEDIAL ACTION MEKORYUX HIGH SCHOOL Prepared for Lower Kuskokwim School District P. O. Box 305 Bethel, AK 99559 Prepared by A. W. Murfitt Company 8010 King Street Anchorage, AK 99502 November 20, 1984 Job Nunber 82-027.02 Table Of Contents Section Page 1.0 ‘INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DISCUSSION OF FIELDWORK 3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE 7 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 8 5-0 LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 List Of Plates Site Plans Plates 1 & 2 Test Boring Log Plate 3 Net Pile Displacement Plates 4 to 8 Gross Displacement Per Pile Plates 9 & 10 Seasonal Subsurface Temperature Plate 11 Temperature Data Plates 12 to 18 Particle Size Analysis Plate 19 Laboratory Test Results : Plate 20 Symbols and Terminology Plates 21 to 23 Arctic Bench Mark Detail Plate 24 Appendices Appendix A Project Photographs Appendix B Boring Logs Appendix C Daily Field Reports Appendix D Associated Project Information Appendix E Thermistor Offset Corrections 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents our observations on pile performance in 1982, 1983 and 1984, and documents our remedial action taken in 1982 in an attempt to stabilize movement of the pile foundation supporting the Mekoryuk High School located in Mekoryuk, Alaska. On June 3, 1982, Mr. T. J. Robertson, Construction Engineer for the Lower Kuskokwim School District, contacted the A. W. Ifurfitt Company to determine the cause of the structural distress occurring within the building. On Jume 17, 1982, Mr. Allan W. Murfitt, P.E. of A. W. Murfitt Company of Anchorage, Alaska, made a site visit to assess the damage. Differential movement in excess of one-half a foot was visually evident. During this visit, we attempted to measure thermistor strings installed on six (6) of the piling during construction, drilled a hand auger probe hole and photographed the building foundation. Mr. A. Bianchi of Delta Surveys was on hand to take level measurements on the piling foundation. From the 1981 survey information, it was apparent that some of the Piling were frost jacking and that most of the movement occurred on the north and west sides of the structure. It was later determined that the moving piling are apparently confined to those piles having approximately fifteen (15) feet of total embedment. Based on the field observations and analysis, it was evident that the jacking loads were not being overcome by the load of the structure. This is discussed in our letter report of July 15, 1982, a copy of which is in Appendix D. The purpose of this project was to attempt to stabilize the movement of the pile foundation by installing a passive refrigeration system as was originally designed for the piling. The themmprobe passive refrigeration system used was a proprietary system designed and manufactured by Mr. Erwin Long, P.E., of Arctic Foundations, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska. Drilling for the themmoprobe installation was subcontracted to Oosik Drilling, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska. Mobilization to Mekoryuk, Alaska commenced on August 19, 1982. Installa- tion of thermoprobes, themnistor strings and earthwork was satisfactorily completed on August 30, 1982, and the field crew and equipment were demobilized to Anchorage. Subsequent pile elevation measurements and ground temperature measurements have been made in 1982, 1983, and 1984, and the results discussed in this report. 2.0 DISCUSSION OF FIELDWORK Prior to the initiation of our fieldwork, LKSD had releveled the school and was in the process of fixing the structural damage caused by the moving piling. Fieldwork commenced on August 20, 1982, with the arrival of the C-82 aircraft chartered to bring the drill rigs and equipment to Mekoryuk. Supplies and equipment were transported from the airstrip to the school with the LKSD truck located at Mekoryuk. Drilling near the school perimeter was accomplished with a track-mounted Mobile B-24 hydraulic drill utilizing 4-inch outside-diameter (0.D.) solid-stem auger and 8- inch 0.D. hollow-stem auger. Drilling under the school was accomplished with a smaller portable Mobile Minuteman drill utilizing 3-inch O.D., continuous-flight, solid-stem auger. The piling locations supporting the school are shown on Plate l. A total of twenty-eight (28) boreholes were drilled between August 21, and August 29, 1982 as shown on Plate 2. Twenty-one (21) boreholes were drilled for Thermoprobe installation, three (3) boreholes were drilled for thermistor installation, three (3) boreholes were drilled to install 4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) schedule 80 ABS plastic pipe for future Thermoprobe installation adjacent to the Alaska Village Electric Corporations (A.V.E.C.) transformers and one (1) boring was drilled to install an Arctic Benchmark. Logs of the soil profiles encountered in each boring were made in the field as drilling progressed and are presented in Appendix B. The primary foundation pile design specified that the thermoprobes be installed in the angle irons welded in the web of the H-pile vertical support members. Upon inspection of the piles during the preliminary site visit on June 17, 1982, it was found that the channels had filled in with frozen soil and/or water and could not be used as probe access. Instead, probe access holes were drilled adjacent to the 15-foot piles and thermoprobes installed in the boreholes. Rigid, three (3) inch I.D. thermoprobes were installed around the perimeter of the structure. Under the building, flexible thermoprobes were installed in one and one- half (1-1/2) inch I.D. PvC pipe that had been placed in each drilled borehole. The average installed depth of the thermoprobes was approximately thirteen and one half (13.5) feet below ground surface. The "cathead" rope attached to the drill tower was used to lift and lower the thermoprobes into the drilled holes on the perimeter of the building. A bond break consisting of four (4) wraps of six (6) mil polyethylene sheeting was applied to each rigid probe to reduce the effects of seasonal frost jacking. The bond break extended approximately four (4) feet below the bottom of the radiator fins. On placement of the thermoprobes, the bond hreaks extended from ground surface, through the active layer, to approximately four (4) feet below the ground surface. The flexible themmprobes installed under the school did not require bond breaks. A total of five (5) thermistor strings were installed at selected locations under and around the building. The strings were placed in one (1) inch I.D. PVC pipe that had been installed in the drilled holes. The thermistor points in the strings are at two and one half (2.5) foot spacings. The resistance value of each thermistor point was measured with a Data Precision Corporation Model 258 Multi-Meter. These were later converted to temperature in degrees Fahrenheit using conversion formulae and ice point correction factors for each themmistor as supplied by the manv- facturer of the strings, Instrumentation Services of Fairbanks, Alaska, (Appendix.E). All themmistars were checked and found to be operational prior to installation. An Arctic Benchmark was installed concurrently with the installation of the thexrmoprobes and PVC thermistor casings. This was installed to provide an accurate reference to elevation for future monitoring of pile Movement, (Plate 24). Three additional boreholes were drilled adjacent to the AVEC power transformers as shown on Plate 2. Four (4) inch I.D. ABS pipe was installed in each of these boreholes for future thermoprobe installation. Thermoprobes were installed in these boreholes by LKSD persomnel at a later date. Upon completion of the themmoprobe, thermistor string, and Arctic Benchmark installations, hand-grading and backfilling under the north end of the school for surface water control commenced. ‘Two, one and one-half (1-1/2) inch thick layers of board insulation were placed approximately four (4) feet around the piles in which the themmprobes were placed to retard the thermal erosion. Approximately two hundred (200) cubic yards of sand fill was placed by hand methods around the piling and graded to prevent inundation of surface water under the north end of the building. Selected project photographs are presented in Appendix A. All elevation surveys were conducted by Delta Surveying of Bethel, Alaska, and thermistor string temperature measurements made by LKSD personnel in 1984. Site visits were made by Mr. Murfitt in October of 1982 and in February of 1983. Trip reports are contained in Appendix D. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE The subject site is located within the village limits of Mekoryuk, Alaska. Mekoryuk is located on the north side of Nunivak Island in the Bering Sea. The Environmental Atlas of Alaska, 1978, reports that the Mekoryuk area is generally underlain by continuous permafrost and is in seismic probability Zone 2. This zone is defined as an area of moderate structural damage potential of Richter magnitude 4.5 to 6.0. The mean annual snowfall in the Mekoryuk area is approximately sixty (60) inches. The site is generally flat and poorly drained. Local relief is generally in the order of only a few feet in elevation and consists of tundra grasses and mosses. The basic geology of Nunivak Island is igneous in nature consisting of Quaternary and Tertiary voleanic rock. The site soils are thermally complex as described in the report entitled “Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Reconmendations" for the High School Site at Mekoryuk, Alaska, as prepared by R & M Consultants, Inc., in March of 1979. The site was previously occupied by a school which burned to the ground, significantly altering the thermal regime of these soils. Thawed ground within the permafrost exists in localized areas beneath the school. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface soils encountered while drilling varied over the site. An exploratory soils boring log is shown on Plate 3 and field boring logs are shown in Appendix B. Generally, one to four feet of organic material (fibrous Peat) was encountered at the surface. Mn the north end of the building, the Peat was occasionally overlain with approximately ane foot of Silty Sand fill. Underlying the Peat and extending to approximately thirteen (13) feet, an Organic Silt with varying amunts of Sand and Clay was encountered. The organics within this stratum consisted of dark brown amorphic Peat and layers of Fibrous Peat up to two and one half (2-1/2) feet in thickness. A gray Silty Sand to Sandy Silt with trace Gravel was encountered in approximately 30 percent of the boreholes under the Organic Silt stratum. Groundwater was encountered in all boreholes at or near the surface within the surficial Peat deposits. Permafrost was encountered in all boreholes. The active layer or depth of seasonal thaw varied from 1.5 to 3.5 feet below the ground surface. Taliks (unfrozen layers within permafrost) were encountered in borings 6, 7, 8, 13, 19, 21, and 35. These thawed zones varied in thickness from .5 to 4.5 feet and were encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface. When Borehole 5 was drilled adjacent to the AVEC power transformers, approximately ten (10) feet of thawed ground was encountered. This depth of thaw however, is believed to be as a result of the heat generated by the transformers. Boreholes B, C, D, and E around the transformers also indicated nine (9) to ten (10) feet of thawed material. Visible ice was noted in some boreholes as one-eighth (1/8) inch to three (3) inch randomly-oriented ice lenses (Vr) and small ice crystals (Vx). 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS The results of laboratory testing conducted far this project are shown on Plates 19 and 20. Soil samples recovered in the field from Borehole E were returned to the laboratory where moisture contents were determined. The samples were visually classified in the laboratory and grouped according to similarities in color and texture. Each group was assigned an arbitrary letter designation. A selected sample was then analyzed for grainsize distribution and frost classification. All samples were classified according to the Unified Soils Classification System, Plate 21, the Textural Classification System, Plate 22, and the Soil Ice Classificatio System, Plate 23. The results of the grainsize analysis are presented on Plate 19, and indicate the soil is a Silt (ML). The frost classification of Silt is F-4 or highly frost susceptible. The moisture contents of the soil analyzed ranged from 162.0 percent in the fibrous Peat to 7.3 percent in the Silty Gravelly Sand. These high moisture contents are generally indicative of a saturated soil condition. The Standard Penetration Test was conducted to obtain in-place soil consistency information of the unfrozen soils and relatively undisturbed samples within Borehole E. This penetration test is defined as the number of blows, of a 140-pound hammer falling through a distance of 30 inches, required to advance a standard 2.0-inch 0.D. split-spoon sampler the last 12 inches of an 18 inch sample attempt. The number of blows 10 required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches into the soil is recorded on the test boring log adjacent to the soil group colum, as shown on Plate 3. Blowcounts of 4 to 9 blows per foot were noted in the unfrozen Silt in the upper eight (8) feet. These values are indicative of a soft to medium soil. These tests are relevant to thawed soils only and are not valid for frozen soils. Two elevation surveys have been performed on the school piling since installation of the thermoprobes. The results have been plotted and tabulated on Plates 4 to 10. Four sets of ground temperature data has been collected since the installation of the thermmoprobes. These data are plotted and tabulated on Plates 11 to 18. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our 1982 site visit and review of limited project design and as-built information, twenty-one (21) thermoprobes were installed in the locations shown on Plate 2 in an attempt to reduce pile frost jacking. , The decision to install the probes in the fifteen (15) foot deep piles was based on 1981 survey results. The locations of these piling was established by as-built plans and limited foundation inspection report data. Project constraints required that this work, in addition to the repair of the school damage, be completed by school opening in the last week of August 1982. All twenty-one (21) thermoprobes for the Mekoryuk School were installed in accordance with the scope of work for this project with the following exception: A rigid thermoprobe was designed to be installed at the Number 8 pile location. Upon inspection of the access, it was determined that the boardwalk to the entry of the building could not feasibly be dismantled to allow access for the drill rig. Since the Number 8 pile showed a considerable amount of movement and required a thermoprobe, the flexible thermoprobe designed to be installed at the Number 12 pile location was installed adjacent to the Number 8 pile. The rigid therm- probe originally scheduled to stabilize the Number 8 pile was installed adjacent to the Number 2 pile. No themmoprobe was installed by the Number 12 pile as this pile essentially showed little movement based on the survey results. In general, our observations indicate that differential movement of the piling has been significantly reduced by the selective installation of the freeze probes. Net movement which was estimated to be in excess of one-half (1/2) a foot has been reduced to less than one and one-half (1- 1/2) inches. Pile 8 appears to be moving the most (1-1/2 inches) however, a Talik from 6 to 8 feet was observed during probe drilling. ' Net movements are still less than one (1) inch on the other piling. Movement in the piling with themmoprobes would normally be expected as the subsurface soils refreeze. Limited survey data indicates that piling is moving both up and down throughout the year. No specific trend is at this time obvious. Ground temperature data indicates that soils in the vacinity of the freeze probes are generally being reduced with time by the probes. This is particularly evident under the A.V.E.C. transformers. Temperatures are seasonally fluctuating and permafrost temperatures at the site are very near thawing. We conclude that the thermal regime at this site is extremely delicate with respect to pile performance. In closing, we expect continued minor pile movement at the site as the soils adjust to past thermal disturbances. We can only speculate in hindsight as to why freeze probes were not installed on the piling during construction as the design suggested. Taliks may be refreezing resulting in large areas of ground movement. We currently can offer no cost~effective way of dealing with this. We suggest however, that piling elevations be monitored annually to isolate piles which continue to move. Piles causing adverse structural damage may have to be cut and releveled and additional thenml devices may have to be installed. In any event, site grading should be camleted so as to prevent water from ponding under and immediately adjacent to the structure. We understand that entire site grading was never completed. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey M. Ayres Senior Engineering Geologist Allan W. Murfitt, PE. Civil Engineer 4977-E 14 Benchmark —> @ rea FA | B AVEC Transformers A col] 36A 52 §1 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 NOTES: Not to Scale. Pile Numbers Arbitrarily Assigned. “~” Thermistors. AW. Murfitt Company SITE PLAN ‘ Pile Locations and Numbers reac Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Mekoryuk High School vob no._82-027.02 Appr_JMA_ Date_4/6/84_| Mekoryuk Alaska PLATE NOTE: Not to scale. Locations are approximate and have not been located by survey methods. ‘ LEGEND o Pile and Probe @ Thermistor Borehole @ Borehote and ABS for future probe installation & Arctic Benchmark M Thermistor Installed 2 Installed SITE PLAN Thermoprobe Locations Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk A.W. Murfitt Company Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no.__82-027.02 Appr. AWM Dote_11/29/82 Alaska LOG OF BORING E = = = gf i Ee 2 a a 5 (= = aes LABORATORY 8 £ 8 SE EQUIPMENT___Hobile B24 00 > a . TESTS & 3 $8 RR ELEVATIONEXist. Grade_pate_8/29/82 0 SAND, SP, Fill material, saturated E 142.1 PEAT, PT, fibrous, saturated B 4 28.8 ORGANIC SILT, OL to MIL, 5 grey-brown, wet, plastic, trace of calcarious shells present, F-4 SILT, ML, F-4 B 9 34.5 soft . Frozen at 8.0' A 14 67.2 PEAT, PT A 9 162.0 brown, no visible Ice,, Nbe c 32.4 ORGANIC SILT, OL B 36.6 grey-brown, approx. 20% visible ice c 28 25.9 as Vx and Vs 15 SANDY SILT, ML grey, approx 15% visible ice as c 58 21.0 Vx and Vs, F-4 D 42 17.3 SILTY GRAVELLY SAND, SM grey, visible ice as Vx and Vs TOTAL DEPTIi - 21.5° LOG OF BORING E AW. Murfitt Company Lower Kuskokwim School District Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Hekoyruk High School See ——— Net Displacement (feet) T laa) Blea T T eee eee 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 Pile Elevation Survey (by Delta Surveying) February 1983 Sem oon MAYICh 11964 2 Pil isp] A.W. Murfitt Company Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants' Job no, 82-027.02 Appr_JMA Dote 4/13/84 Net Displacement (feet) Q -0.1 Net Displacement (feet) T T Elevation Survey (by Delta Surveying) —______. February 1983 — __ March 1984 Net Pile Displacement Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska A.W. Murfitt Company Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no,_82-027.02 Appr_JMA__ Date_4/13/84 Net Displacement (feet) + oO Oo . 1 Oo me TTT CT OT OT 2 7 12 11 27 30 40 44 Pile Net Displacement (feet) o 86 ? ' ° Elevation Survey (by Delta Surveying) February 1983 — — — March 1984 Net Pile Displacement Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska AW. Murfitt Company Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Sob no 82-027.02 ApprUMA___ Date 4/13/84 é Net Displacement (feet) & © & Oo ~ » wv o + ~~ aad S 5 oS s - a “ oa a » 2 = t Oo ra Elevation Survey (by Delta Surveying) February 1983 — — — March 1984 7 AW. M fj Cl Net Pile Displacement WwW. urfitt Company Mekoryuk High School Steels ; AoA Mekoryuk Alaska Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no_82-027.02 Appr. IMA Date 4/13/84 Net Displacement (feet) +0.1 0 Hy —-—_ e -0.1 18 34 35 36 52 Pile - % +0.1 ae » i a 5 Pili SEO oe —e a -~ —_" a 2 @ =-0.1 20 33 37 50 Pile Elevation Survey (by Delta Surveying) February 1983 — —— — March 1984 Net Pile Displacement Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska A.W. Murfitt Company Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job rio,_82-027 .02 Appr._JMA__ Date 4/13/84 f Pile Gross Displacement (ft) 13* 14 15 16 17 18* 19* 20 21* 22 23 24 25 Notes: 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 not measured 0.02 1} "+" indicates upward movement. i 2) "-" indicates downward movement. 3) Many piles have moved in both directions as indicated by "+" or "Z" symbols. | 4) *Thermoprobe installed 8/82. { Job no._ 82-027 .02 AW. Murfitt Company 2 tic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants| Appr_JMA__ Date_4/13/84_ Direction + 1 oH Ht He tH Ft tH FE Ft Ft tH +e He + +h + Gross Displacement Per Pile Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska . Pile Gross Displacement (ft) Direction 26 0.04 Le 27 0.04 + 28 0.03 - 29 0.09 + 30 0.05 + 31 not measured 32 0.01 - 33 0.10 + 34* 0.07 7 So 0.07 - 36* 0.10 - 37 0.10 + 38 0.03 - 39 0.07 + 40 0.04 + 41* 0.02 + 42 0.06 t 43 0.06 + 44 0.02 t 45* 0.00 46 0.02 + 47* 0.02 + 48 0.07 49* 0.00 | 50 0.08 + | 51* 0.12 + : 52* 0.09 + Notes: 1) "+" indicates upward movement. 2) "-" indicates downward movement. Is) Many piles have moved in both directions as indicated by "+" or "zx" symbols. 4) *Thermoprobe installed 8/82. Gross Displacement Per Pile Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska AW. Murfitt Company farctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no _82-027.02 Appr JA date 4/13/84 Temperature (°F) 6 33 36A E BM Thermistor Location (Pile or Borehole) { Temperature readings from thermistor points located approximately 13.5 feet below existing ground surface. > October 1982 measurements ce ee ee ee ee February 1983 measurements —aA-—_—___—-4— July 1984 measurements (made by LKSD) Seasonal Subsurface Temperature Mekoryuk High School Mekoryuk Alaska A.W. Murfitt Company Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Corrected Corrected Temperature Temperature Location Depth (ft) Resistance (s) (SE) (°c) Pile Wo. 6 MEK 101 0 4412 50.5 10.28 8-30-82 ) 4417 50.8 10.44 0 4366 50.9 10.50 1.0 5019 45.6 7.56 3.5 6533 36.2 2.33 6.0 7404 31.8 -0.11 8.5 7391 31.8 -0.11 11.0 7403 31.8 ~0.11 13.5 7411 31.7 -0.17 16.0 7437 31.6 -0.22 Pile No. 6 MEK 101 0 7417 31.6 -0.22 10~-8-82 0 7560 31.2 -0.44 0 7598 30.7 0.72 1.0 7610 30.6 -0.78 3.5 7631 30.7 0.72 6.0 7645 30.6 -0.78 8.5 7633 30.7 -0.72 11.0 7600 30.9 ~0.61 13.5 7627 30.7 0.72 16.0 7575 31.0 0.56 Pile No. 6 MEK 101 0 16600 5 ~15.00 2-11-83 0 17005 4 ~15.56 0 16742 4 ~15.56 1.0 9922 21.5 -5.83 3.5 8421 27.3 -2.61 6.0 7766 30.1 ~1.06 8.5 7612 30.8 ~0.67 11.0 7949 29.3 -1.50 13.5 7988 29.1 -1,.61 16.0 7571 31.0 ~0.56 A.W. Murfitt Company TENPERATURE DATA KEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants! Job no__82-027.02 Appr_Al®i__ Dote_11-16-84 MEKORYUK MEKORYUX HIGH SCHOOL TEMPERATURES DATA Corrected Corrected Temperature ‘Temperature Location Depth (ft) Resistance (m) (°F) (°C) Pile No. 6 MEK 101 0 5020 45.7 7.61 7-31-84 Q 4845 47.3 8.50 0 4806 47.3 8.50 1.0 6502 36.2 2.33 3.5 7524 31.2 -0.44 6.0 7646 30.6 -0.78 8.5 7662 30.5 -0.83 11.0 7635 30.7 -0.72 13.5 7581 30.9 -0.61 16.0 7553 31.1 -0.50 5° SW of Pile 33 0 4377 50.8 10.44 MEK 102 1.0 6329 37.3 2.94 8-30-82 3.5 7639 30.5 ~0.83 6.0 7788 30.0 “110 8.5 7834 29.8 1,22 11.0 7809 29.8 ~1.22 13.5 7784 29.9 -1.17 16.0 7777 30.1 -1.06 18.5 7727 30.2 -1.00 21.0 7706 30.3 -0.94 Pile No. 33 MEK 102 2-11-83 16402 9528 8128 7677 7652 7643 7646 7667 7641 7641 aie eee eis. Me eee ouUnoMUoUdoOWUOo Ww NN Wwww iets . DADADAHADHUwWwo oooo0co . 0 1. 3 6 8 1 13. 16 18 21 A.W Murfi TEMPERATURE DATA ow urfitt Comp any MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no__82-027.02 Appr_AWM _ Dote_11-16-84 | mexoryuk ALASKA MEKORYUK HIGH SCLIOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Corrected Corrected Temperature Temperature Location Depth (ft) Resistance (n) (°F) (°C) Pile No. 33 MEK 102 0 4750 47.8 8.78 7-31-84 10 7292 32.2 OorE 3.5 7808 29.7 -1.28 6.0 8018 29.9 -1.17 8.5 8128 28.5 -1.94 150 8141 28.4 ~2.00 13.5 8135 28.4 -2.00 16.0 8138 28.5 -1.94 1325 8061 28.7 -1.83 21.0 8020 28.9 -1.72 Borehole 36A MEK 103 25 7417 31.9 -0.06 8-30-82 5.0 7542 ak -0.50 dee 7575 30.9 -0.61 10.0 15¢5 30.9 -0.61 ha 'eS) 7595 30.8 -0.67 15.0 7632 30.7 -0.72 LTD 7621 30.8 -0.67 20.0 7583 30.8 -0.67 2225, 7607 30.9 -0.61 25.0 7556 30.9 -0.61 Borehole 36A MEK 103 235 7417 31.9 -0.06 10-8-82 530 7560 31.0 -0.56 7.5 7598 30.8 -0.67 10.0 7610 30.7 -0.72 22.5 7631 30.7 -0.72 15.0 7645 30.7 -0.72 27.5 7633 30.7 =0.72 20.0 7600 S0nr7, -0.72 2205) 7627 30.8 -0.67 25.0 7575 30.8 ~-0.67 AW. Murfitt Company TEMPERATURE DATA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants} Job no_82-027.02 ss Appr__AWM _ Date 11-16- MEKORYUK ALASKA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Corrected Corrected Temperature Temperature Location Depth (ft) Resistance (nr) (°F) (°C) Borehole 36A MEK 103 2.5 8442 27.8 -2.33 2~11-83 5.0 8118 28.9 1.72 iso 8024 28.9 ade 10.0 7994 29.0 -1.67 12.5 7942 29.3 =1°50 15.0 7865 29.7 -1,28 17.5 7780 30.0 ~h a) 20.0 7689 30.3 -0.94 22.5 7677 30.6 -0.78 25.0 7598 30.7 ~0.72 Borehole 36A MEK 103 2.5 7596 31.0 -0.56 7-31-84 5.0 7789 29.9 1.17 7.5 7884 29.5 =1.39 10.0 7924 29.3 ~1,50 12.5 8078 28.7 -1.83 15.0 8000 29.1 1.61 47,5 7954 29.3 ~1.50 20.0 7956 29 -1.61 22.5 7908 29.5 -1.39 25.0 7812 29.8 1.22 North of Transformer in Kole E MEK 104 8-30-82 4450 50.3 10.17 5010 45.7 7.61 6991 33.7 9.44 7229 32.6 0.33 7344 32.0 0.00 7367 31.9 —-0.06 7376 31.9 -0.06 7395 31.8 -0.11 7399 31.6 -0.22 7490 Sis3 -0.39 see 8 PEaREonepHo MmMonounovywdou 1 1 Ll 2 AW. Murfitt Company TEMPERATURE DATA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no._82-027.02 ApprAWN Dote11-16-84 | NEKORYUK ALASKA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Corrected Corrected Temperature Temperature Location Depth (ft) Resistance (Nl) (°F) (°C) Borehole E MEK 104 0 7301 32.3 Onl 10-8-82 15 6703 35.3 1.83 4.0 6616 35.7 2.06 6.5 6960 33.9 1.06 9.0 7329 32.1 0.56 11.5 7394 aL.7 -0.17 14.0 7419 31.7 -0.17 16.5 7448 31.6 0.22 19.0 7416 31.6 =0.22 21.5 7460 ett -0.28 Transformer MEK 104 0 16150 5 -15.0 2-11-83 1.5 8075 28.6 1.89 4.0 7401 21.7 -0.17 6.5 7387 31.8 -0.11 9.0 7376 31.8 -0.11 ada 7401 31.7 =O 37 14.0 7428 31.6 0.22 Ges: 7458 3225 ~0.28 19.0 7418 35 -0.28 2125 7458 31.6 -0.22 Borehole E MEK 104 0 4735 48.0 8.89 7-31-84 1.5 5331 43.4 6.33 4.0 7476 31.4 ~0.33 6.5 7493 31.3 -0.39 9.0 7431 31.6 -0.22 11.5 7453 31.5 -0.28 14.0 7486 31.3 0.39 16.5 7513 31.3 0.39 19.0 7459 31.4 -0.33 21.5 7490 ae -0.39 TEMPERATURE DATA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL A.W. Murfitt Company Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants| Job no._82- 027.02 Appr_Alll _ Dote_11-16-84 | MEKORYUK ALASKA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Corrected Corrected Temperature Temperature Location Depth (ft) Resistance (n.) (°F) (Sc) Benchmark MEK 105 2.5 6882 34.3 1.28 8-30-82 5.0 7367 31.9 -0.06 re) 7355 31.9 —0,06 10.0 7370 a1.9 -0.06 12.5 7389 31.9 —0.06 15.0 7386 31.8 -0.11 17.5 7410 Saker, -0.17 20.0 7468 31.6 -0.22 22.5 7425 3E26 -0.22 25.0 7462 31.6 ~0.22 Benchmark MEK 105 2:5 6859 34.4 Laos 10-8-82 5.0 7386 31.8 -0.11 7.5 7393 She? -0.17 10.0 7419 31.6 -0.22 12.5 7447 31.6 -0.22 15.0 7448 31-5 -0.28 17.5 7448 31.5 -0.28 20.0 7482 ae -0.28 22.5 7483 SLs -0.39 25.0 7484 aL) -0.28 Benchmark MEK 105 2-5) 7476 31.4 -0.33 2-11-83 5.0 7390 31.8 Oot: 7.5 7391 31.7 -0.17 10.0 7420 31.6 -0.22 12.5 7445 31.6 -0.22 25.0 7454 31.5 -0.28 17.5 7446 31.5 -0.28 20.0 7469 31.6 -0.22 22.5 7440 S45) -0.28 25.0 7489 31.4 -0.33 AW. Murfitt Company TEMPERATURE DATA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Appr_Allti_ Dote_11-16-84 |HEKORYUK MEKORYUK HIGH SCIIOOL TEMPERATURE DATA Location Depth (ft) Resistance (1) (°F) (°c) Benchmark MEK 105 225) 6793 34.8 2256 7-31-84 5.0 7355 39 -0.06 1S 7347 at.9) -0.06 10.0 7436 31.6 0.22 12.5 7453 31.5 -0.28 25°50 7605 30.8 -0.67 L7eD 7463 31.4 -0.33 20.0 7482 SPS) -0.28 22c9 7447 31.4 -0.33 25.0 8826 25a 3550 AW. Murfitt Company TEMPERATURE DATA MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no._82-027.02_ _ Appr__AWM _ Dote_11- 16-84) ne xoryuK ALASKA F4 98.2 ry ° = TH SILT (ML) Frost Classification % Passing 200 WORK ORDER —82-027.02 eM HUTT TTT A hh yy————————E oo OTT TTT oe Lie 91 ie ° = PERERA T HTT TTT SCOT fl TTT TT CCE lH at UT or MUTT ow HE ma eee a “TOT o oO —J oe <4 o 2 oO o o o a - ~ o o = oo ~ = 6.25 ft Dust Ratio GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Depth 5.0- PROVECT —MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL : ; ; 3 : oor AW. Murfitt Company Arcuc Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants 4 A.W. Murfitt Company | Mekoryuk High School Moisture Contents | Classification of Samples Within Groups Schedule of Testing : | set Moisture Group Boring Sample Depth Contents ; Description | A PEAT E 1 2.0' 142.1 E 4 7.5 - 9.0' 67.2 | E 5 10.0 - 11.0! 162.0 B SILT, ML, F-4 | E 2 3:00 1 3.7" 28.8 E 3 5.0 - 6.25' . 34.5 | E 7 12.5 - 13.0! 36.6 c SANDY SILT, ML, F-4 | E 6 11.0 - 11.5! 32.4 E 8 13.0 - 14.0! 25.9 E 9 15.0.- 16.5! 21.0 D -SILTY GRAVELLY SAND, SM E 10 17.5 - 19.0! 17.3 | E 11 20.0 - 21.5' 27.2 L A.W. Murfitt Company — Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants| Job no._82-027.02 Appr._AWM Dote 11/29/82 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS _ SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART 0 0 20 30 60 EL (4#4SCREEN) % BY WEIGHT: CORPS OF ENGINEERS FROST DESIGN SOIL CLASSIFICATI AND USCS EQUIVALENT GROUPING ® percentace FINER THAN TYPICAL SOIL TYPES FROST 0.02 mm, UNDER UNIFIED SOIL. GROUP SOIL TYPE RY WEIGHT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Fl Gravelly soits 31010 Gw, GP, GW-GM, GP-GM F2 (a) Gravelly soils 10 to 20 GM, GW-GM, GP-GM (b) Sands 3to lS SW. SP, SM, SW-SM, SP-SM F3 (a) Gravelly soils 7 >20 GM.GC (>) Sands, except very fine >is SM. SC silty sands 2 (c) Clays, Pi> 12 =— CL, CH Fé (a) All silts _ ML, MH (b) Very fine silty sands >15 SM (c) Clays, Pl < 12 — CL. CL-ML (d) Varved clays and _— CL'and ML; other fine-grained, CL, ML, and SM; Ddanded sediments CL. CH, and ML: CL. CH, ML, and SM A.W. Murfitt Company .rctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Lob no._82-027,02 Appr._AWM Dote 11/29/82 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION ” SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS } | TYPICAL NAMES Ep sme eon son mn GRAVELS POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTVRES Coes mncmote i SILLY GRAVELS, POORLY GAADED OAAVEL + BAND - 18 LANGER THAN Ey | sae acres NO, 4 518VE Siz a7 FGA CAYTY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADES OLAVEL - SAND - 44 CLAY pAXTURRS fe POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELY SANDS FC) EH SILTY SANDS, POOKLY GLADED SAND » SILT Mey] mixrumet INORGANIC SILTS AND VIRY FINE SANDE, BOCK FLOUR, SILTY O8 CLAYEY PINE SANDS, C8 YEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICN 77] INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOw TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, cu GRAVELY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, “ UAN GAYS CLEAN SANDS witht LITTUL O8 NO PINES SANDS MOAL THAN HALF COARSE PLACTION 13 SMALLIN PHAN NO. 4 StfVE SIZE COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALS 1S LARGER THAN 9280 SERVE SILTS AND CLAYS QUID LIANT LESS THAN $0 SILTS ANO CLAYS UQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 90 FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF 1S SMALLER THAN 280 SERVE Y, INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, A FAT CLAYS % Wy, ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, U4 ORGANIC SITS ~— Eel reeonmmonrnwecions feel INIFIED CLA Shear Strength, pol [ec 320 (2600) Unconsetideted Undreined triextal Conrelidetion wk Liquid Limit (in %) Tatu 320 (2600) Consalidsted Untrained Irientel Pheatle Limit (in %) os 2750 (2000) Consolideted Dretned Direct Sheer Specific Gravity Pvs 470 Pleld Vene Sheer Sleve Anslysis uc 2000 Unconfined Compression *Undisturbed® Semple tvs 700 Lebeoretery Vene Sheer Bulk Semple Neores: {1} All strength torts on 2.8° or 2.4% dlomeoter semplos walese otherwise Indicated. (2) * Indleetes 1.4" dlemeter temple. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST DATA PLATL. 22 A.W. Murfitt Company Job No,_82-027.02 Appr AWM Date 11/29/82 ICE DESCRIPTIONS ICE NOT VISIBLE . ad ee superouot t| p Description Symbol Ice Visibility & Content Poorly bonded or friable Segregated Ice not visible by eye No excess ice Well bonded Excess ice ICE DESCRIPTIONS VISIBLE ICE-LESS THAN 1 INCH THICK Description Ice Visibility & Content oe Individual ice crystal or inclusions Segregated ice is visible by eye, ice one inch or less in thickness Ice coatings on particles Random or irregularly Vv oriented ice jformations Stratified or distinctly oriented ice formations VISIBLE ICE-GREATER THAN 1 INCH THICK oe with soil lusion oi] Ice greater than one inch ICE ice without hie | in thickness A.W. Murfitt Company Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Job no._82-027.02 AWM Date_11/20/84 Soil Ice Classification Appr Replaceable Screw-on Cap 3/4 inch Ball (welded to rod) 5/8 inch Continuous Inner Rod Inner Casing Plug (Rubber) NATURAL PERMAFROST SOIL 34 inch Steel Casing Backfill Casing (between plugs) with SAE 90 oil Inner Casing Plug (Rubber) Auger Inner Rod to Natural Permafrost ARCTIC BENCH MARK MEKORYUK HIGH SCHOOL Appendix A SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS Appendix B BORING LOGS MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET_L_OF R- AW. Murfitt Company at wre Lo. MET E ee SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH WA = ? ° FS “fas PROJECT #_E&~O2 7% O02 DRILLER = ae LOGGER <2 t eeaagae ie - OF foe ae Taek graye err eee ae ee Pee VE TATION DRAINAGE &, GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER 3 a bof ae ee t “ eee 2 eae 0 Fn 0 | Tn pre | oo ler tH LS ertce | LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES eee ei aici, STURE OR ICE % DESTRIPTION=- SO 3 VARVING, ICE TYPE, ‘BONDING oR TOUGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES arian r Pegg sree BSR eee FS 7 US Nf) aN ff IL ex fi TES WB OP as COI SGA AGA pe FeaT Tesh Tee ERTIES eg aT Pre ae SE bese SATE uscs SYMBOL | i lh it tee eee > | ik ws | MACHI USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET CF=—Z HOLE # ' METHOD USED 5 DRILLER Te fe -ce 7 Ts PROJEC Losser </ . mmoieer Salers 7S Time stanten/2 275° pinisHep Eo pol oare B27 Ce VEGETATION, DRAINAGE, @ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER c Latte Ota) eee joate | | SCT CT Time | | | oepTH | SUsHe cq LOCATION DIAGRAM @ NOTES : = j # fldsecer! % Fh 2 se g 8 e \t 135 5 zhi £ é 5 rig & BESCHIF SOIL, CO RAIN, SHAPE, 4 Sie 8 § |VARVING, ICE TYPE, S, DRILLIN en MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET B.2Y A.W. Murfitt Company eee HOLE # METHOD USED SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH ZO pRoveST Reet TE PROJECT pate 27S < Yt sal ee 2 LoccerR A) ye Te started //) 29 ay. FINISHED “2 220 277! VEGETATION, ORAINAGE @& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER tee 'o a pa - pare | | | fT TIME SAMPLING METHOD SYMBOL uscs Bll ieee LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES 5. VARVING, Ice TYPE, "BONDING oR TOUGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES SS MOISTURE OR ICE % Ores. cS /L0 =) SOL AAD few STF 2 UTERINE Spt i F. D per ss M pte ae a eee Se OIRHTES SHEET OF - fe urtitt mpany ae ee ee Ee) iy TOTAL DEPTH_47.0_ T5.0" Er eee P- OFT.OR ; PROVECT #. o DRILLER Glue 72s togcer Av ses lara ee PROJECT. TIME STARTED 7.02 =~ FinisHeD 7/7 OY DATE 3. 2/- 32 yy owe en peg a ee ae B happen oe GROUND WATER co ad ? EL, oe jpaTE | surferce Latufe 7d | eee ON ag ae LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES } pes Ad: cent fo 7. le “f SAMPLING METHOD MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET UZ jg -p tf AW. Murfitt Company ~ ~ METHOD, USED SOILS LOG HOLE # ' asf EA. TOTAL DEPTH — = 55 | DRILLER Loeser _/ 7 SE S Baie Ce Ta TIME —— === FINISHED 47.30 )- | DATE "Ete-G2 | VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER f Or /k - lore | OT CUT CUT time Ty TT OEPTH | Surfs | | LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Ad, ace nN\7 fe -ik & Close +e AVEC Transtorener DEPTH i . SAMPLING METHOD i le VARVING, ICE TYPE, BONDING OR TOUGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES = Cee = pL ST at ele pes RT eT HRP SOREN IO STL Tae BO ET pe Pers ba eg : eae ae ee ee EL OyM\ CAV I pL ES Tas er ene fd oo on raf WwW N n= ——————————— a E72 Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants AW. Murfitt Company CEA. SOILS LOG DRILLER A) yes LOGGER hoe ___ TIME started 2-7 20 ro FINISHED ZC Pe shes hig DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY 2" , MACHINE USED ff riute mun "| METHOD, USED provectJeker yuh AL >. DATE F-2/-RE GROUND WATER ee A ET ee = ipePTH || SU bro gG = LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Neca? #& Jp. Gg J SAMPLING METHOD DEPTH GRAPHIC LO@ USCS SYMBOL Ed “i _aeG FN SBS ELAS 297 DEI SI 7p UN Nf 24 sy Male 42 © SNe ADDL Sool Wg NS LV ca UAV JE Ne lo) DEVS C= a fe a SEN COC i enn ena eae aT a {MT ce els Ta lg as TG We Tre ee Ug a 2 PIES ZC 10D ON cGy NN ZIRT FeO LCA 6 cE OT BE Sea IE Li [aaa a Nei sa TPE st Thess iv Ter sale | Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants A.W. Murfitt Company METHOD “2 SOILS LOG TOTAL pepe ae eon es oy me o PROJECT #_62 Of 7. eR oe LOGGER “Ar / eee ar ia Time STARTED 23° 4" einisnen SS ed ae peers rin Pee en & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER 1G ned more | fT clita kites Ltd jpePTH | Serperce[ SHEET_1_ HOLE # MACHINE USED OF_-_ Sis ole Man LOCATION DIAGRA NOTES ; | Vad weeny xe ey a = & a = Zh ul~ 5/5/8/8| © 5 ‘|S sla] 2] 3 TT oe Ey eee ade Wel fell rao | LIKE ANIC SILT eT ct SAAT yy ZA A ae eee [SALA AS MeN A AI AEA BL cto) Ja Ti Ate feel Se TRS eT veo ELA saa ate ete a eet te ed ee eT Lard lS: Neca Ris ae CONGO LOS CAEL 5/7 G aL aed | ERAS SOR 72 BE Aap cS ER A a Ei a A dn TNS ANNE WR y720 1 DT) EY 2 WL EO OE Pe leree ek Zeca ve! [yp fetefn ct" sfave7J | decane oD aR AEA Ae eT ib Pete dT} gett eCard oeee eet ee neeerti MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET OF Mirtle niger A.W. Murfitt Company eee errr ITT Ti rene We we#l_6 |, METHOD, USED SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH/7=-O Vein oe TF ooeen Ducts atte )Pnosecr ee S270 TIME Unt aa FINISHED O° 2 cr) | DATE foe ea {VESETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL, TOPOGRAPHY |, GROUND WATER a me EE eT eS lal ee jogPTH | Suifco [|| LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Adjacert & Pik 8 GRAPHIC LO@ VARVING, ICE TYPE, “BONDING OR TOUGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES 20 a i pe ear at AON ge CMC Ofio ery Lain eisai TOKG ANIC SILT wf TREE SAMY) FF SoA 6] eae OT) 9 SI aN NN SS 627) SM F224 AAC pe ea iene M. ACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants lode Qu te Aol AW. Murfitt Company METHOD SED SOILS LOG HOLE # 7a 2. SFA. TOTAL DEPTH /6.O- won SEA) - PROJECT #52 - 0 277. DRILLER —/-3 LOGGER a 8 pRosECT a doryek FS TIME STARTED 72° a. rinisHepn_ 2 C2 ate 22-8 VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER = eee eae Lp i 3 i a f 2 s 2 = = Ie 5/56/81 6 & a a [My ee a ee me a A rE | a i Ni | h | VACA ARS 7 ee ee ere PX i tare) MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET_Z OF 6-24 A.W. Murfitt Company METHOD USED y! SrA SOILS LOG TOTAL OePTH HS ec TesE— vocoen Tle | peepee DRILLER «Tzse LOGGER = PROJECT frek ff. TIME STARTED_2.. 20 pr FINISHED 7.00 2+) pare _§-2762 VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER ser pate Fees] | TIME fovea} Td lpeptH OST OT LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES 7p Asjacent ~ fe Le a = t Jail. glul~ * E i eee rs ODORS 2 w is UGHNE eke ee eer re ete ger er entered PAW ERAEN NR tare PZ SP Cala Sake A/V ig Mala | egeF Be a Sta oe Jace reece eet MACHINE USE Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants ee eae A.W. Murfitt Company ; ‘ HOLE # Fi <1 SS, sous Loe (Me LAE A’ 4 PROVECT #32: 027.9 a |) -RILLER @ ve-42 sc [5 LOGGER _Z TIME STARTED 7:30 ~~ __ FinisHep £020 «~~ pRovECTZ te f- DATE ees bee oe ohare, & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER Patt te xm _____________loare Bz] | 7 _4 Time Ket TT ESPN E EUO UOC CU EUU A ELEC eet eter LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Adbcert te pale (F a E @ = s = 2 z Me is q< 3 as ete crete WN Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultents SHEET _/LOF/__ AW. Murfitt Company SSS | 2/ |) + SOILS LOG wre 2 73.0) PROJECT #_& 2 - O27. x PROJECT Liehery ch DATE GROUND WATER pate | | TT time [ [| peptul Sy trcq MACHINE USED B-2Y METHOD USED yh SFA DRILLER Deten LOGGER TIME STARTED (O22 v-___ FinisHep JZ 2/5 rer VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY per ole ae ene LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Aol sacent do [2le 2! SAMPLING METHOD BLows /6" DEPTH @RAPHIC LOS MOISTURE OR ICE % AA TTT Poa ener RTT I 1A I Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants. AW. Murfitt Company SHEET.1_OF_1_ HOLE # MACHINE USED (R- 24. er can SOl LS LO G TOTAL DEPTH S. ree pe eect cee a oie ee TTT PROJECT _MEKDRUUK, Scnp LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES at ¥ Pike 34 GRAPHIC LOG » Ice iS OR TOUGHNE MACHINE USED % -2@. METHOD USED ut DRILLER , TIME STARTED £220. 4/7 FINISHED 742° P72 | DATE Rus 24%, VEGETATION, da : SENERAL ba eae = ; “ Be _ 29 Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET _1_ OF, AW. Murfitt Compan’ : AR Misfit Compan |, SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH_13S Che fez) PROJECT # 22-027. LOGGER — PROJECT Mckio chal GROUND WATER et rime | | CT lOEPTH | Cuma | |_| LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES © , Abjecev? & ee aye%e)= UGHNE P| EEE eee eee \CmfCEY SOHO oO 9 I % A ETOKATED LS tO WAS A/a lg PPEL od GRAPHIC LOS oe ON HAS UN np Maw) Wing ey Zia: Tm Sa UA RA Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants MACHINE USED SHEET_Z_ OF Ram 2 Tacegs—| AW Murfitt Company METHOD USED HOLE # ECE fe + OoCKB SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH_=2 57 J DRILLER 4. Qver7esc~ LogceR & CKKcrcy PROJECT #22 DO 270% PROJECT, SNE 2 * aS TIME STARTED 2/26 ss FINISHED "5 3 VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY Seo s Avrl SURFACAL PEAT -~-/-2% SdoPar Te Hoviwlhw GROUND WATER eee ee ere eee eee pepTu | Surface | | | LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES sw oF Pree FIG PISO Toe BRNO PANACHE OFFICE, ASSERT D WERAYIST ON OTeetttG TOE WD AS ERTEO TEN Gey err® PHIED 216 TE TAS coca Tran? SAMPLING METHOD ) x KAMIYA AK RAPTOR OMAN b b » C R > a bs S opt U sf LX) hs fo a) ib A) TT tat MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET <2. OF _<_ 2 secer.| AW Murfitt Company = woe # LEGA | METHOD USED J+ VEE ba = RAK SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH oe Bb apoiilag, noon nee eee B CA Att DRILLER & Qeusce7escn LOGGER paadeer TIME STARTED 2 = 2.0 FINISHED _ </"y's7 ATE _S Bate: VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER SAMPLING METHOD EPTH LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES fee Ps: ifs VARVING, ICE TYPE, BONDING OR TOUGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES = |= QRAPHIC LOS MACHINE USED Asctie Civit and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET.4_OF_4_ Zu-zy Ytnccee| AW Murfitt Company. ize METHOD USED HOLE # TOTAL DEPTH 22.2 ; PROJECT #_@2% - O27, 0 ee ee SOILS LOG (6 9 Ao = HER laren £, YeerTesew Looser Cracow be STARTED S770. o. FINISHED 700 pate = Y= Fe _ VEGETATION, ‘DRAINAGE -@ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER GRAss 4 cutricae, PCr. (= 2%, 5 aPE Te eee Tee LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES PI06 —?RYS S7I0VE ReG Dep FEY RACE 1 OCT a SAMPLING METHOD SESTRIPTION - Soll & | varvine, ice TIPE, BLOWS /6" OEPTH § 3 F4 “ < * He faced ae i Ba re Ld Arctic Civil and Geotechnicat Engineering Consultants ae =| SHEET OF ae HOLE # TOTAL DEPTH. 22." PROVECT#.2Z2-027,0% PROJECT LZ G20 Ye DATE _& -ZG -9'e GROUND WATER MACHINE USED FE RSHWC St “y AREER ARE ‘| METHOD USED OS VA LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Adjacerr? Pile ae SAMPLING METHOD Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants A.W. Murfitt Company SOILS LOG SHEET_<. OF 4. HOLE # MACHINE USED pt —"2 od Yaw FO. ‘| METHOD USED [oe TOTAL DEPTH = ne _}-AILLER Ze SvecTesew LogGER Li Cree cv PROVECT#@2Z-O27.0% PROJECT Keen van Seaoud TNE STARTED _G°7O es winngump 7 Se eee me | VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER a LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES - SIevE Te Heo 3 PIC«éKED ve Tools Ta : & "oe 7 - £) als : of Blzlg|5| Eig s8 , oe 3 3 iz 2 See ee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ea eee ae eg eee ae ae So Fe Sasa con tet eco Sar DEPTH GRAPHIC LO6 MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET_< OF_24_ |_na-ty Hever AW. Murfitt Company focn HOLE # METHOD USED SOILS LOG ee ee Sete =e) ET Te PE OU. DRILLER 2. Quevresed .ogcen 2 Cacerca __| PRONECT #2922. CS pa STARTEO_9 20 FINISHED. @ OO ATE VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER ee ee TIME ee foePtH IS ee TC LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Deere NT 5 17 7 3 ss UGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES al it a : a > A) 7 ON GAYE N k ) aval nuercn 6 Ly Neal " Ly iN RIA R by fj h el ' nf \ A | D 5 WY fOr D a } ' BF sie 0 S i iS In PS Nn AN OQ D Df iN 0 A & R » ' of Ns : | Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, AW. Murfitt Company ” SHEET_4.OF_4_ HOLE # MACHINE USED FS -2Y wv veer aE METHOD USED ay ne ORAL SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH_Z3-S Fe. Be CwxAcICN PROVECT #22 —- O27, 0% _ URILLER ZS. Seerresew LOGGER PROJECT. yes TIME STARTED is" 5 FINISHED. 270 DATE BH 25 PU -| VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY - GROUND WATER (Oe, =- CA x LY. as ee See ew bare | TT imme | fT tT LOCATION DIAGRAM @ NOTES Acharceit & F: Ri wes ¢ Yo - 7 ST 3 8 RE FLECING AWD S7IUs 37/0 — 320 E el die} 90 —v0 Gers access Te Puord weed = Sigsis Benn S48 STORE Hoce _ — : ° = S “yu Pane cance sTa AW Sores! ce rie ZlelE < o 3S 1S 1|3)3 gp pate, BD) Zo PAA (0 LP KT 7 SAL fALTE LT? | 7 FT 3 bs tig Po a 5 é Tens Z SF a - ie ge] ct = f p qe | ERMEY sre LC, FESS EXR AO LES Beg 7ce | ; x ‘ PTA Ee | my en ee, [OK Fre OW enK4 - 2 Ape. id oz Aig a: 3 PZ b li — STEAL. DP irnnunwvOnve-™oNnvNvvn’-"n-"- . a ae Fe a 7 ‘ Pd an Da eT Li Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET“ OF_c_ A.W. Murfitt Company E ~~ THOLE at a ee SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH_ZS. > =z Fe FO Crrre PROJECT #22-O27-0% | ORILLER # Lo@GeR FCA Ae lei ect Sake TIME STARTED _<O'S" 5” FINISHED _Z2SYO DATE S— Zea | VEGETATION, 1 & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY ac S Z x war ° OM SLIGHT GROUND WATER ZEM SoseA Fo set 44asr ee ee ieee SEL MACHINE USED ere eee LOCATION DIAGRAM NOTES Pid jecent w& Prk Sf SAMPLING METHOD fae ET PIR Tee eee eee tte ot} eer Pa ee ae lel Pope Pre ome beni Re ee erties eases ees eee eee Clee | Era aL a ee ee ioe teed tee eee cee eed EI IPE eg ae SPSL age ed age ate IZ (eK Bitty F hose Mee Pl or src | | , CAC SIP ER SATU GATED ay Testy ET EP aR Ta ara A ae aT, Pa fee se tee eee ee EEE HERES Hepa o-oo oie 2 ELL eee CSR Ene nee anole tate [eee eer eee Eee CELE ele TEPC tbh erin eeeee ete SS oT ES [eee OBESE LTT oe ee be lel ieee eteeeee . {yee ee IEEE eee ESL Sie eee rh He) Tat sbeh Pe nee ereeeeeeeteecel| ooo eee Peete Perri Piette tei eeiee eee eee eee fT RI Te Do TS eee fat tte sb efoto Lee et tea] MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Bao ty A.W. Murfitt Company ‘| METHOD USED SOILS LOG VWisthe ~ GAL y URILLER 4 Oe "Terc, LOGGER TIME STARTED Zo 4? FINISHED ZO 2 ¥ -| VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY VREASCA TA GRACES - {-27 SHEET 2. OF 2 HOLE # TOTAL DEPTHZO- SO PROVECT#H2-027.02 PROJECT AZEROR YOK SCKoLe DATE _€ ~ 257- O2 GROUND WATER . Ee Fi~lpare | | [Tt LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES jpeptH TO TUT Ad jecevtt a Pik $2 # 5 = o Qa iad = TOUGHNE Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET 2. OF_2_ A.W. Murfitt Compan i ~~ lnoew LA] SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH 2o- 1k PROJECT ce DATE ide Oe GROUND WATER loare | S| | CT a peptH] @ | | MACHINE USED ger 2 Y kv6e METHOD USED ORILLER TIME STARTED ZO. 35" FINISHED __ Zz oY VEGETATION, DRAINAGE 4& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY Ok «asc —- vt KAcnc PEST PT OY Ctr Ctiev-r QO -— Poyhe VY PRAWWAD LOCATION DIAGRAM @ NOTES AEC AP PiLe X1IATELY BO RST OF AECT 3 LEI ON NAR es j Bau a d 7 NI (A ii nhs | Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET OF 2 HOLE # TOTAL DEPT — PROJECT #22 -9727 .O° PROJECT L2G “OR YOm — ~£2U MACHINE USED kee Zy yy Meee AW. Murfitt Company “ METHOD USED : / SOILS LOG enn 78s -GrnaszA E -] wRILLER £5. OE TESCK LOGGER TIME STARTED _ OSS" FINISHED 22790 | VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY a x = | i ——————————sv—OOD VARVING Ice TYPE, BONDING OR TOUGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES” = GROUND WATER LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES uscs SYMBOL le Pe Pa le a MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET _L_ OF. KB-2yY Y " AesEen AW. Murfitt Company “METHOD USED. SOILS LOG HOLE # Lo) Lf Sy wo TOTAL DEPTH <s. + = = Fs —- cs DRILLER Fo Ghee ere: Loccen & Crneron PROJECT #252 O27. Oo 2 PROJECT Aecog ro TIME STARTED 23 “c® FINISHED DATE OF —28-f. VEGETATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER jpare | Ot CT time | jpeptHL os | | | LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES Of Seotlovlt Slew OF POWCFR TRAVEYFORASIL. SAMPLING METHOD MACHINE USED SHEETW2.OF_2_ ee \JOHN M LAMBE PE. a te Wi Yaw TOTAL DEPTH 143 LS OSV OM | WLLERe&. Suer7esco Looser & ue PROJECT #. 2 | ‘ oA Ad ‘TIME STARTED. C—“‘“‘CSSCORINISHEDWU.CCtC“‘C‘(‘(C( ‘(CCC | VEse TATION, DRAINAGE & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER = pare | | | | | | itme | | |; [| ———s 5] + GRAPHIC LOS VARVING, ICE TYPE, b oar oa pe | bs bole b v » ib MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET_Z OFZ R-24 Track A.W. Murfitt Company ~~ THOLE # METHOD USED = Ee SOILS LOG TOTAL DEPTH_<3-% ON ~ eH P. CNWALIOCK SF DRILLER GB. YeeeT2sc LOGGER eae TIME STARTED FINISHED 790 paTE S- 28-82 VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER CUM me ee ir ES heap eaemioc’ {| {| Jf | LOCATION DIAGRAM @& NOTES =]. LT nec taghron! a z 4 5 2 g ; = a < § aL Pret avis pith tea ear eee ee eee Seen aerate ny cS f> AADZP oO = bert ese Ait PEAT IO SAC OT TRO Pr AAT TA a ey Oo > iN — LAT Ce %) > 90 D eg eh at c+] MACHINE -USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET_~ OF 4 G@-24 Trace -_| AW Murfite Company | - (ein) METHOD USED 186 el iin fold | JL Ae abe lla TOTAL oer SE ORILLER 2. Ova (TESCW LOGGER SF Cwacrew ____| PROVECT #. : PROJECT A276 feo ky are SOI TIME STARTED 7-2 © FINISHED _ZigQ ATE P— BFP-2e VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY Mi eas WATER ood UT Ud BANE: Ah | (Nf) LN A | joeptH | OT OT) TC LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES For —- F728 BR PreP & LAA = SO % ACORTN OF AORTN. FAD OF TRANS FoI Ens G° west of GULLoWIR SIGE. Re ils : i |gS : i coco a= za Te » ou oOnaraepew WN eee a RT Lh ee te PF pee sy ee ere | = a u Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET 2 OF to ‘A.W. MarfiteCurpany SOILS LOG wore z=] paint USED a - “ZY - TKACE METHOD USED Q°ss dA 2. Ae ie TOTAL DEPTH_ 2427 : ae PROJECT #22 O22, 07 DRILLER £2. 9Uer72SC% LOGGER PROJECT ‘2, TIME STARTED. 73 © FINISHED. “¢OO | DATE bea Done VEGETATION, DRAINAGE @& GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER eee ULE CU iia eT en ed emer alsa LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES VARVING, Ice TYPE, "BONDING OR TOUGHNESS, DRILLING NOTES 4" SF URILLER Gs ©7 | VEGETATION, DRAI - Sl =e i+} | FROSI [AIK NON e ¢ oo nrnonae wn NNNOOMLE 2.48 MA USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET OF_=—. a ARTIC _BEMH MARK NAG MOISTURE OR ICE % uscs sYMBOL TOTAL peeretee UT & GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY lo furd/& LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOT. Fuel rT] \ | MI PaO DST LAS) ey [op yg VS td ANZ Ce ey ee ey 7 Aa Te y Q MACHINE USED Arctic Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Consultants SHEET _2_ OF 2 - . es K (B24 AM. Murfitt Company AIR TIS BENCH/IAP METHOD USED SOILS LOG HOLE # , UOSE TOTAL DEPTH “7 eo ter a a PROJECT # EE O9 7-02 — DRILLER | LOGGER = nouEcrikery ok 7S TIME STARTED GD Z. rinisHep °C pH | pate __ 7 Lee VEZETATION, DRAINAGE @_ GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY GROUND WATER a, a v acs Lore Aye gl PRT Puyo 20s? _tpere [TOSS ——— ee ee ee SAMPLING METHOD LOCATION DIAGRAM & NOTES See re eye / VARVING, (cE TYPE, "BONDING OR TOUGHNESS, ORILLING NOTES alsiale| Bi |B | & eect ice esoae "a evemen, ce eos = cs APPENDIX D SCHEMATIC OF BURIED FUEL PIPELINE TRENCH DETAIL Golder Associates Cli => Coffman € See Fuel Fl Phi Sur Ww ‘0 TUDE FRENCH DeraiL i+ When” TET “Sars + PRE DOMINAMLY. NFS. SAND AND S/ZTY. SuBGRIDE tS. At. LEAST. 7544 er Deezee B&Low G Round Sa RPACE Con whet p fe. 1SD. vedo Of mene iy. eee ‘.. elon. ni of af pipe). wes Clean p Sealy ipa S315 s bane news Sanct] Client/Project CSF man Engrs [ Mekoryh Bulk bull On: Description : as By: Date; Bavied Fael Fill Aoe'hine wate Tre Date TYPicaL TREC OETAIL WHEN S/ZTY SUBGRADE IS. WITTIN. ZSF_ of. GROUND SURFACE. Ue ES, Stgnde | ian Fuol Liu eae pote Trench Details re job No. per le Stn) Mele eli eetie so “eampeckeet b as si re ieee Ket fale PL [BACK FI MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS al: ~Niggt Fost Susceptible “Xvef Qunol Grnjnob oo bed less than 6% (AESIAG the .7B200 Sceve Amel 120 FPA SEG: Yarr,. Sre ve free of orgame or, deleterious materia? ° Corlackeel Ro 9S % OF Te Mak. hry eisity bel ouypye As determined by ASTM D- ne Unclasss fied Trench Back tl: Miner soil Free of organs avd dele tevyous madera. , carac keel % 86 .s Max. Ary dhensity. })