HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendixF(Full)CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION
BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F
AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 1
APPENDIX F: SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT INFORMATION
F1: Project Maps pages 2‐5
F2: Site Photographs pages 6‐7
F3: Project Cost Estimate page 8
F4: Existing Reconnaissance‐Level Assessments
● Reconnaissance Assessment Memo (Polarconsult, 9/11/2013)
● Hydrology Memo (Polarconsult, 2/15/2013)
● Hydro Reconnaissance Memo (Summit, 11/5/2012)
● Hydro Reconnaissance Memo (Summit, 6/14/2012)
● Budgetary Quotes for Turbine/Generator Options (Canyon, 6/8/2012)
● Hydro Reconnaissance Memo (Summit, 2/16/2012)
● Renewable Strategies Report (YourCleanEnergy, 7/8/2009)
CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION
BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F
AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 2
Appendix F.1: Project Maps
Map 1: Project Location
CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7,RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 3 Map 2: General Land Status in Project Area (Downloaded from BLM SDMS Website, September 11, 2013) Proposed Project Study AreaTsaina Lodge T8S T9S R2W R1WRichardson Highway
CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7,RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 4 Map 3: ADF&G Anadromous Fish Atlas for Project Area (Downloaded from ADFG Website, September 11, 2013) Nearest Listed Anadromous Fish Habitat (downstream on Little Tonsina River)CascadeCreekRichardson Highway
CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7,RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 5 Map 4: Topography in Project Area and Proposed Penstock Profile
CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION
BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F
AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7,RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 6
Appendix F.2: Site Photographs
Photograph 1: Lodge Property Looking Southbound Towards Hydro Site
Photograph 2: View of Hydro Site from Richardson Highway MP 34, approximately one mile
south of Tsaina Lodge. Hydro site is obscured by road‐side vegetation.
Approximate penstock /
access route
Image from Google Streetview, imagery ~fall 2011.
Image from Google Streetview, imagery ~fall 2011.
CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION
BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F
AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7,RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 7
Photograph 3: View of Hydro Site from Richardson Highway MP ~34.9, approximately ½ mile
north of Tsaina Lodge. Hydro site is visible to southbound travelers for approximately ½ mile
from this road cut to the lodge.
Photograph 4: Oblique Aerial View of Tsaina Lodge. Cascade Creek is at picture‐right.
Hydro Site
Tsaina Lodge
Image from Google Streetview, imagery ~fall 2011.
CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT APPLICATION
BLUE HOLE PROPERTIES, LLC APPENDIX F
AEA RFA 2014‐006: ROUND 7,RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PAGE 8
Appendix F.3: Preliminary Project Cost Estimate for Cascade Creek
A preliminary cost estimate (Table 1) was developed for Cascade Creek based on the assumed
project configuration shown on the maps in section F.1, project technical data as described in
this application, preliminary estimates of material quantities, and estimated unit costs for these
materials.
Table 1: Preliminary Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Cost Estimate
Item Estimated Cost
Preconstruction Cost (reconnaissance, feasibility, design, permitting) $340,000
Construction
Power Line Connection (not including line extension) $40,000
Site Access Roads / Trails $100,000
Diversion / Intake Structure $270,000
Penstock $250,000
Powerhouse Building, Tailrace $130,000
Turbine / Generator $300,000
Controls / Switchgear $60,000
Construction Equipment $90,000
Shipping $80,000
Direct Construction Cost Total $1,320,000
Project Management $70,000
Construction Engineering $70,000
Total Installed Cost $1,800,000
Contingency (25%) $450,000
Project Cost Estimate $2,250,000
ATTACHMENT F.4
PREVIOUS STUDY MEMOS AND INFORMATION
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503‐3638
Phone: (907) 258‐2420
FAX: (907) 258‐2419
M EMORANDUM
130911M-PROJECTSTATUSSUMMARY.DOC
DATE: September 11, 2013
TO: Jeff and Ingrid Fraser, Blue Hole Properties, LLC
FROM: Joel Groves, PE Polarconsult Project Manager
SUBJECT: Reconnaissance Assessment, Cascade Creek
CC: Project File
SUMMARY
Previous work performed evaluating Cascade Creek has provided sufficient data to establish
that a technically, environmentally, economically, and politically viable hydroelectric project
likely exists at Cascade Creek. More detailed analysis is warranted to identify a preferred
project configuration, evaluate project economics, business plan, and development plan and to
make an informed decision on whether the project should proceed from the study phase to the
development phase. A feasibility study is recommended to complete these items.
BACKGROUND
Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP) owns and operates the Tsaina Lodge at MP 35 Richardson
Highway north of Valdez. The lodge is powered by on‐site diesel generators, and BHP is
interested in reducing energy costs for the lodge by either connecting to the Copper Valley
Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) grid or developing a run‐of‐river micro hydroelectric system on
Cascade Creek, which flows adjacent to the lodge property. BHP has actively investigated both
of these options since 2011.
● BHP contracted with CVEA to investigate line extension options, with the goal of
developing a route and cost estimate.
● BHP contracted with Summit Consulting Services, Inc. (Summit) to perform a hydrology
study, permitting analysis and consultations, and develop cost estimates for a
hydroelectric project at Cascade Creek.
Over the course of these investigations, building the hydroelectric project for wholesale
purchase of electricity by CVEA has emerged as a business model BHP is interested in exploring.
This memo summarizes information collected to date and recommends future actions to
complete evaluation of this business model and decide whether to proceed with the
development phase of the project.
RESOURCE DESCRIPTION
Cascade Creek drains a 6.7 square mile basin in the Chugach Range northeast of Valdez, Alaska.
The headwaters rise from an alpine plateau with a south‐facing aspect at approximately 4,000
ft. elevation that straddles the divide between the Lowe and Tsaina Rivers. There are several
sizable lakes on this plateau that comprise approximately 3% of the basin by area. Peaks
surrounding this plateau are 5,000 to 7,000 ft elevation. Cascade Creek drains north from this
plateau towards the Tsaina River, passing through a mountain gap at 2,800 to 3,500 ft.
elevation. Glaciers occurring on the west side of the mountain gap cover approximately 20% of
the creek’s basin. Downstream of this gap, the creek has formed an incised canyon 50 to 100 ft.
B LUE H OLE P ROPERTIES, LLC
C ASCADE C REEK R ECONNAISSANCE A SSESSMENT P OLARCONSULT M EMORANDUM
S EPTEMBER 11, 2013 Page 2 of 3
deep, and drops down to the Tsaina Valley floor at grades of 30 to 40%, discharging to the
Tsaina River at approximately 1,600 ft. elevation. The lodge is located just upstream of (and
across the Richardson Highway from) the mouth of the creek at approximately 1,620 ft.
elevation. Possible diversion sites for a run‐of‐river hydro occur between approximately 1,670
to 2,300 ft. elevation, roughly ¼ to ¾ mile from the lodge property. Assuming the powerhouse
would be sited on the lodge property, hydro projects could be developed with a gross head of
approximately 50 to 680 feet. All land within the proposed hydro project footprint is either on
the Tsaina lodge property or on patented state land.
The region receives approximately 100 to 120 inches per year of precipitation.1 Review of
available regional hydrology data and hydrology field work completed by Summit suggest
Cascade Creek’s hydrology is similar to the nearby Lowe River.2 This indicates sustained
summer flows (approximately June 1 to September 15) exceeding 20 to 60 cubic feet per
second (cfs) and annual low flows of 1 to 2 cfs occurring in April. Summit estimated winter
flows are 2 to 10 cfs. The alpine plateau in the creek’s headwaters is an uncommon terrain
feature, and may generate higher winter flows than is typical for a drainage basin of this size.
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Summit developed estimated costs for run‐of‐river project configurations with installed
capacity ranging from 7 to 225 kW based on a range of heads (net head of 53 to 277 ft.) and
flows (design flow of 2.5 to 20 cfs). In general terms, the CVEA wholesale market would favor
larger projects, as the per‐kWh revenue requirement for the hydro project will trend lower for
larger projects. The capacity and cost of the power line extension from CVEA will likely be a
critical component of the project sizing analysis.
In reviewing available site data, it may be advantageous to locate the diversion site farther
upstream than proposed by Summit. Cascade Creek appears to become less incised at higher
elevations, which could simplify access to the diversion site and allow the penstock to be
routed along comparatively gentler terrain, which could reduce construction costs. A higher‐
elevation diversion would also increase total head and power output for a given flow. A 20 cfs
project with a diversion at 2,300 ft. elevation would have 670 ft. of gross head and a generating
capacity of approximately 800 kW.
Moving the diversion site upstream would result in a minor decrease in available flow for the
project. At the current level of analysis, stream flow can be proportioned by drainage basin
area with reasonable accuracy. The basin area above the 2,300 ft. elevation is approximately
94% of the basin area above the gauging station on the lodge property, so expected flow at the
highest diversion site is 94% of flow at the lodge. At the current level of analysis, this expected
6% difference is not significant.
A feasibility study should include technical and economic analysis of several project
configurations to identify the preferred project capacity and diversion site.
1 As interpreted from Plate 1, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 93‐4188.
2 See Polarconsult Hydrology Memo, February 15, 2013.
B LUE H OLE P ROPERTIES, LLC
C ASCADE C REEK R ECONNAISSANCE A SSESSMENT P OLARCONSULT M EMORANDUM
S EPTEMBER 11, 2013 Page 3 of 3
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
Summit provided a comprehensive review of permitting requirements for the project and
completed initial consultations with key resource agencies. Based on this effort, the project
does not appear to have any significant permitting barriers.
Summit did not reach a conclusion regarding Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
jurisdiction for the project, which has major implications for permitting requirements and cost
for a small hydroelectric project. Polarconsult has reviewed pertinent criteria, and concludes
that the project does not fall under FERC jurisdiction.3 A Declaration of Intention should be
filed with the FERC during the course of the feasibility study to obtain FERC concurrence on this
determination as FERC jurisdiction could have a significant adverse impact on permitting and
operating costs.
MARKET ANALYSIS
BHP has contacted CVEA regarding purchase of power from a hydro power project at Cascade
Creek, and CVEA has expressed interest in the project. Because the project is still in the study
phase, the parties have not engaged in detailed contract negotiations. The power purchase
price would likely be at CVEA’s avoided cost of energy, which varies by season as CVEA uses
different generation sources (diesel, cogen, or hydro). Costs are generally higher in the winter
due to increased diesel and cogen use (approximately $0.20 to 0.25 per kWh) and lower in the
summer due to increased hydro use (approximately $0.10 to 0.11 per kWh).
ESTIMATED COSTS
The cost of the project will depend on the specific configuration and capacity that is developed.
The cost estimates prepared by Summit appear to be realistic. If a larger project capacity is
feasible, the cost per kW (and required revenue per kWh) would be lower, improving the
economic feasibility of the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A feasibility study is recommended to complete detailed analysis to identify a preferred project
configuration, evaluate project economics, business plan, and development plan and to make
an informed decision on whether the project should move from the study phase to the
development phase. The study should specifically include the following:
1. New stream gauging campaign to collect flow data at Cascade Creek for a full year.
2. Site visit to evaluate potential diversion sites at higher elevations.
3. Coordinate with CVEA to finalize line extension cost and define line capacity.
4. Complete economic analysis of project configurations, identify preferred configuration.
5. Prepare conceptual design drawings suitable for obtaining resource permits.
6. Prepare a final business plan and development plan for the project.
ATTACHMENTS
‐ Polarconsult hydrology memo (February 15, 2013).
‐ Summit letter reports (November 5, 2012; June 14, 2012; February 16, 2012).
‐ YourCleanEnergy LLC Renewable Energy Strategy Report (July 8, 2009).
3 In summary: the project is not located on federal land, is not located on a navigable waterway, is not connected
to an interstate electric grid, and would not affect interstate commerce.
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
M EMORANDUM
130215-HYDROLOGYMEMO.DOC
DATE: February 15, 2013
TO: Mike Dahl
FROM: Joel Groves
SUBJECT: Estimated Hydrology at Cascade Creek near Thompson Pass, AK
CC:
To estimate seasonal flows in Cascade Creek I reviewed available U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
gauging data for rivers in the general vicinity. There are six USGS‐gauged basins in the general
vicinity, listed on Table 1. Average daily normalized discharge (cubic feet per second per square
mile of drainage basin, cfs/sqmi) for each of these basins is shown on Figure 1. The gauging
stations and gauged basins are shown on Figure 2.
None of these gauging stations is currently active, but they have sufficiently long records to
provide a good initial estimate of flow at Cascade Creek. Based on proximity and similar basin
size, Lowe River (USGS #15226500) and Little Tonsina River (USGS #15207800) are taken as the
best predictors for flow at Cascade Creek.
Table 2 presents the approximate monthly normalized flows for each of these two basins, and
the estimated flow in Cascade Creek assuming it has similar hydrology as these two basins. The
resultant estimated flow is 1 to 3 cfs in the winter (November to April). Typical flow during the
summer months (mid‐May through mid‐September) is estimated at 18 to 45 cfs.
Based on review of the four flow measurements at Cascade Creek reported in Summit
Consulting Service’s November 5, 2012 memo (shown on Figure 1), Cascade Creek’s hydrology
appears more similar to Lowe River than to Little Tonsina River. This observation suggests that
Cascade Creek flows may be better characterized by the “High End Guess” in Table 2.
ph: (907) 291-2339
fax: (907) 291-2333
summitctok@aol.com
ph: (907) 563-5675
fax: (907) 563-5685
scs@scsalaska.com
ph: (907) 458-7747
fax: (907) 458-7748
summitcfbks@gmail.com
Tok Office
HC 72 Box 850
Tok, AK 99780
Anchorage Office
4500 Business Park Blvd, Ste. C-10
Anchorage, AK 99503
Fairbanks Office
3745 Geist Road, Suite B,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Tok Office Phone: (907) 291-2339 Tok Office Fax: (907) 291-2333
To: Jeff and Ingrid Fraser, Blue Hole Properties, LLC.
From: Heather Gross, Summit Consulting Services
Date: November 5, 2012
Jeff and Ingrid Fraser,
Summit visited the Tsaina Lodge on October 23, 2012 to search for the stream gauging device that had
been reported missing. Although it is possible the device, still attached to the stilling well, is lodged in ice
in the creek, it is more likely that it will not be recovered. This is very disappointing and presents a
number of questions regarding how you would like to proceed or close out the project. The following is a
summary of the data gathered and work completed to date.
If a micro-hydro installation is pursued in the future, the primary questions will be:
1. What are the expected flow rates?
2. What is the expected power production?
3. What are the installation costs?
4. What permitting and site control is required?
This memo summarizes the extent that we have addressed each of these questions.
1. What are the expected flow rates?
The following graph combines the data from the “Renewable Energy Strategy Report” and field
measurements taken over the last year. Field measurements follow the predicted flow rates fairly closely.
The primary difference is the assumed value of zero during winter months. We observed that Cascade
Creek did have flow in December and some of the pools appear to stay open.
The second graph summarizes accumulated precipitation data for the Tsaina River SNOTEL station. It
appears there was significantly more precipitation during September 2012 than on average resulting in
the high water conditions that removed the stilling well and gauge. If the data for the 2012 water year had
been recovered, a correlation between stream depth, flow rate, and accumulated precipitation could have
been made.
Page 2 of 5
Tok Office Phone: (907) 291-2339 Tok Office Fax: (907) 291-2333
It appears that expected flow rates will, on average, be close to those shown in the flow graph. Cascade
creek probably maintains a small flow (2-10 cfs) through the winter months although heavy icing and
snow can be expected. Flow picks up in May through October with a peak over 100 cfs. A micro-hydro
design for cascade creek should take into consideration the extreme flow rates that could be observed.
The Alaska DOT&PF has determined the following flow rates and return intervals in designing the culvert
at Cascade Creek: Two-year 275 cfs, 50-year 639 cfs, 100-year 721 cfs. Based on this information,
Cascade Creek will flow at a rate slightly more than twice the average high flowrate (120 cfs)
approximately once every two years.
2. What is the expected power production?
Power production will be tied to the equipment installed and available flow. Summit requested equipment
quotes from Canyon Hydro for several alternatives. Canyon Hydro estimated preliminary design
parameters (penstock diameter, net head, and design flow) to predict a power output. Three sets of
equipment were compared at the three intake locations provided in the feasibility study. The table below
summarizes the comparison from Canyon Hydro, including their equipment costs.
Pelton Turbine
Parallel
w/generators
Canyon Crossflow
Turbine
Grid Parallel
Pump Turbine
Grid Parallel
Penstock Diam (in) 10 24 16
Net Head (ft) 54 55 53
Design Flow (cfs) 2.5 20 8.3
Output (kW) 7 65 26
Scenario 1
Equipment Cost $60,000 $285,000 $85,000
Penstock Diam (in) 10 20 12
Net Head (ft) 182 185 177
Design Flow (cfs) 4 20 7.25
Output (kW) 42 225 85
Scenario 2
Equipment Cost $135,000 $365,000 $100,000
Penstock Diam (in) 10 12 16
Net Head (ft) 270 266 277
Design Flow (cfs) 4 7 10.5
Output (kW) 67 120 195
Scenario 3
Equipment Cost $155,000
Not Applicable
$125,000 $150,000
Page 3 of 5
Tok Office Phone: (907) 291-2339 Tok Office Fax: (907) 291-2333
3. What are the installation costs?
In addition to hydro equipment, installation costs will also include design, permitting, pipe, transmission
line and electrical materials, and a power house. A Rough Order of Magnitude estimate of the total
installation costs was prepared in June 2012 and is summarized below.
Pelton Turbine
Parallel
w/generators
Canyon
Crossflow
Turbine
Grid Parallel
Pump Turbine
Grid Parallel
Design/Permitting/Land $90,000 $90,000 $90,000
Pipe $17,934 $63,000 $42,134
Penstock Installation $85,280 $108,800 $97,040
Power House $48,000 $56,000 $56,000
Transmission/Electrical $54,000 $54,000 $54,000
Canyon Hydro Equip/Services $60,000 $285,000 $85,000
Overhead (8%) & Profit (10%) $63,939 $118,224 $76,351
Contingency (20%) $71,043 $131,360 $84,835 Scenario 1 TOTAL $355,214 $906,384 $585,361
Design/Permitting/Land $95,000 $95,000 $95,000
Pipe $24,126 $60,342 $35,968
Penstock Installation $97,460 $121,190 $105,370
Power House $48,000 $56,000 $48,000
Transmission/Electrical $54,000 $54,000 $54,000
Canyon Hydro Equip/Services $135,000 $365,000 $100,000
Overhead (8%) & Profit (10%) $81,645 $135,276 $78,901
Contingency (20%) $90,717 $150,306 $87,668 Scenario 2 TOTAL $625,948 $1,037,114 $604,906
Design/Permitting/Land $105,000 $105,000 $105,000
Pipe $39,498 $58,886 $92,796
Penstock Installation $127,700 $140,650 $153,600
Power House $48,000 $48,000 $56,000
Transmission/Electrical $54,000 $54,000 $54,000
Canyon Hydro Equip/Services $155,000 $125,000 $150,000
Overhead (8%) & Profit (10%) $95,256 $95,676 $110,051
Contingency (20%) $105,840 $106,307 $122,279 Scenario 3 TOTAL $730,293
$733,519 $843,726
4. What permitting and site control is required?
Permitting and site control related to the installation of a micro-hydro system at Cascade creek was
investigated during the summer of 2012. The following summary is re-statement of that work.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Lands Division
There are several easements in the area including the Richardson Highway ROW, power line utilitity
leases, and the TAPS Easement. There are two pipeline corridors close to the Tsaina Lodge, one is a
1000' lease and one is a 100' lease. Our contact with the DNR, Clark Cox, couldn't tell which of these
may impact the project or what their intent was without additional work. It appears that this project may
Page 4 of 5
Tok Office Phone: (907) 291-2339 Tok Office Fax: (907) 291-2333
be within the 1000' lease. Being within another lease does not preclude the project, but it may make it
more complicated because the lease owner needs to be involved. Consultation with DOT would be
required for work within their ROW.
There are three options available for the intake system located on State property: permit, easement, or
lease. A permit is generally for temporary uses and would not be applicable in this case. This project
would be either an easement or a lease, probably an easement because it is a utility / lineal foot project.
A lease is generally for projects such as warehouses and airports. Both easements and leases have
annual fees, bonding/insurance, and possibly survey requirements. Clark Cox was not able to provide
exact numbers because they have a complex matrix they use to set these requirements. But, this project
would likely include the $100 application fee, approximately $250 annual fee, and bonding would be
about $2,000 minimum. The insurance requirements are set by the owner's insurance company. The
owner must name the State of Alaska as an additional insured. There may or may not be a survey
required but it sounds likely in this case because of the number of easements in the area.
The DNR process would be simplified if the power house is located on private property. If it is on State
land they will have to evaluate generator noise, fuel usage, building foundation, etc.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Water Division, Water Rights
We consulted with Chrissy Plett at the DNR about the Tsaina Lodge project. She can not provide all
details and conditions of a permit until she sees an application. We did discuss the following:
• The fee is $900 + an additional $50/hr beyond 18 hours of work. They normally can complete the
permit in 18 hours unless it is complicated (i.e., there are a lot of concerns and they end up doing
public meetings in Valdez).
• There is an annual fee of $50 and the owner will be required to submit quarterly reports. We
don't know yet what these reports will contain, but probably it will be stream flow measurement
and the quantity of flow removed.
• Standard conditions of permit will probably include intake screens and appropriate site control.
• The DNR will consult with ADF&G regarding stream habitat. ADF&G will specify the amount of
flow necessary to be kept in the stream and will have to look at the Tsaina River to make sure
that its flow is not impacted, especially if it has an In-Stream Rate already defined for fish habitat.
She noted that water rights around the Valdez area are sometimes complicated.
• Fish survey may be required. This would include contracting a firm that could perform
electrofishing or minnow trapping.
• They typically like to see 5 years of stream gauging. She thought they may approve the permit
with the one year previous information and this year. But, one of the conditions of the permit will
likely be to continue stream gauging for a few years.
The easement process with the DNR (both Lands and Water) may have a long timeline which is
completely dependent upon their workload. It may be prudent to start the applications process a year in
advance.
State of Alaska, Department of Fish & Game, Fish Habitat
We consulted with Megan Marie of ADF&G. I provided her with a description of the project. Megan
consulted with other biologists and responded that they did not believe this project would impact fish
habitat or flow to the Tsaina River. DNR Water Division will still consult with ADF&G when they get an
application, but it is likely that ADF&G will maintain this decision.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
An application, or registration, with the FERC for a small hydropower project may be required.
State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, 401(c) Water Quality Certification
The State DEC would likely want to review the project for impacts to water quality.
Page 5 of 5
Tok Office Phone: (907) 291-2339 Tok Office Fax: (907) 291-2333
US Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Permit
A permit may be required if the conduit is buried in the creek bed, or any other trenching, filling, or
clearing activities occur within wetlands or waters of the US. A request for Jurisdictional Determination
should be made.
Thank you for the opportunity to work on this project and if you have any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
Heather Gross
Summit Consulting Services