HomeMy WebLinkAbout111103-PhaseIIReport_FINAL
INDIAN RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PHASE II FINAL REPORT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING
N OVEMBER 2011
Prepared For
CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
P.O. BOX 52
TENAKEE SPRINGS, ALASKA 99841
THIS PROJECT WAS FINANCED BY THE DENALI
COMMISSION AND ITS PARTNERS, THE ALASKA ENERGY
AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS.
Prepared by
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE, SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes activities performed in accordance with AEA grant agreement
#2195348, awarded to the City of Tenakee Springs, Alaska (City) by the Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA) in 2008. The grant budget included $100,000 in Denali Commission grant funds
administered by AEA and $25,000 in matching funds provided by the City.
The work conducted under the grant was organized into two phases. Phase I was a feasibility
study of the proposed hydroelectric project on Indian River, completed in December 2009.
Phase II advanced the conceptual design for the project and project permit activities. This
report summarizes conceptual design and permit work completed under Phase II of the grant.
The current conceptual design for the hydroelectric project is tabulated below. Conceptual
design plans are included in the Appendix to this report.
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY
Static Head 63 feet
Design Flow 50 cubic feet per second
Penstock 1,534' of 36" Pipe
Total Dynamic Head 56 feet
Turbine Type Cross-flow Turbine
Installed Capacity 180 kW
Plant Capacity Factor 76.2%
Estimated Annual Hydroelectric Energy Generation 1,169,000 kWh
Existing Typical Annual Utility Energy Demand 433,000 kWh
Percent of Utility Load Supplied by Hydro 86.2%
Transmission
4,014 feet of
Three-phase 7.2kV buried
cable
Estimated Pre-Construction Costs $ 354,000
Estimated Direct Construction Cost $2,560,000
Estimated Construction Engineering, Administration, Management $ 320,000
Contingency (15%) $ 349,000
Estimated Total Installed Cost $3,583,000
Annual Displaced Diesel Fuel for Utility 31,400 gallons
Continuing Annual Diesel Consumption for Electrical Generation 3,500 gallons
Annual Displaced Fuel for Heating Applications 6,500 gallons
Net Present Value of Displaced Fuel & Project Benefits $5,200,000
Net Present Value of Project Capital and Annual Costs $2,950,000
Benefit – Cost Ratio
Calculated with 2011 AEA Renewable Energy Financial Model 1.76
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report II
Major permit applications for the project were filed in August 2010, and all major permits are
currently being processed. The current issuance and/or processing status of major permits for
the project are tabulated below.
Conceptual designs and permitting activity have been successfully completed under Phase II of
the current grant. AEA is authorized to award the City funding to complete the design and
permitting phases of this project under Round IV of the state’s Renewable Energy Grant
Program. These funds will allow the completion of design and permitting for the project.
Construction is expected to occur in the summer of 2013 or 2014, contingent upon the City
securing construction funds.
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PERMITTING STATUS
Permit / Decision Status Schedule
Jurisdictional Determination
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
FERC has ruled that the project is Non-
Jurisdictional
FERC Order Issued
May 26, 2010
Wetlands Permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Application filed 8/2010, multiple
supplemental submittals to clarify
project. Permit will be Nationwide
Permit #17 for Hydropower Projects
Expected Issuance
December 2011
Land Lease
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
Application filed 8/2010. ADNR ruled
leases not needed for this project -
Easements
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
Application filed 8/2010. ADNR Case
#ADL 108047. Conceptual design is
under review.
Expected issuance
in 2012
Water Rights
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
Application filed 8/2010. ADNR Case
LAS #27836. Conceptual design is
under review, waiting for coordination
with Fish and Game.
Expected issuance
in 2012
Coastal Zone Consistency
Determination
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
Application filed 8/2010. Coastal
Management Program has been
terminated, no longer applicable.
-
Fish Habitat Permit
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
Application filed 8/2010. Conceptual
design is under review.
Expected issuance
in 2012
Coordination, Road Use Permit
U.S. Forest Service
Conceptual design is under review.
Coordinating with USFS on plans to put
Indian River Road into long-term
storage and on design of intake to
enhance performance of fish pass
structure at intake site.
Expected issuance
in 2012
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ III
ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................IV
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
2.0 REVIEW OF PHASE I TASKS..............................................................................................1
2.1 GRANT TASK 1: GRANT AND PROJECT ADMINISTRATION............................................................1
2.2 GRANT TASK 2: PHASE I FIELD WORK ...................................................................................1
2.3 GRANT TASK 3: FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT............................................................................1
3.0 PHASE II TASKS................................................................................................................2
3.1 GRANT TASK 4: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN...................................................................................2
3.2 GRANT TASK 5: LIDAR SURVEY OF PROJECT AREA ...................................................................2
3.3 GRANT TASK 6: STAKEHOLDER MEETING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS............................................2
3.4 GRANT TASK 7: ADVANCE PROJECT PERMITS ..........................................................................3
3.4.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Jurisdictional Determination.......................3
3.4.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application & Permitting............................................3
3.4.3 ADNR Land Lease Permit Application..................................................................................4
3.4.4 ADNR Easement Application...............................................................................................4
3.4.5 ADNR Coastal Project Questionnaire...................................................................................4
3.4.6 Water Rights Permit Application.........................................................................................5
3.4.7 ADFG Fish Habitat Permit Application.................................................................................5
3.4.8 USFS Coordination..............................................................................................................5
3.5 GRANT TASK 8: PHASE II FINAL REPORT ................................................................................6
4.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................6
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report IV
ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
cfs cubic feet per second
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
City City of Tenakee Springs
DCOM Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (under ADNR)
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
ft foot, feet
FY fiscal year
HDPE high-density polyethylene
in inch, inches
kV kilovolt, or 1,000 volts
kW kilowatt, or 1,000 watts. One kW is the power consumed by ten 100-watt
incandescent light bulbs.
kWh kilowatt-hour. The quantity of energy equal to one kilowatt (kW) expended for
one hour.
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
mi mile, miles
MW megawatt, or 1,000 kilowatts
Plant capacity factor
The amount of energy a power plant actually produces divided by the amount of
energy the plant would produce if it operated at full output 100% of the time.
Polarconsult Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
RFP request for proposals
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes activities performed in accordance with grant agreement #2195348,
awarded to the City of Tenakee Springs, Alaska (City) by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in
2008. The grant budget includes $100,000 in Denali Commission grant funds administered by
AEA and $25,000 in matching funds provided by the City. The work conducted under the grant
was organized into two phases. Phase I was a feasibility study of the proposed hydroelectric
project on Indian River, and Phase II advanced conceptual design and permitting of the project.
The City contracted with Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. (Polarconsult) in April 2009 to complete the
authorized work items under the grant.
The Phase I Feasibility Study of the project was successfully completed in November 2009.
Phase II conceptual design and permitting activities were successfully conducted in 2010 and
2011. This report summarizes the Phase II activities completed under Phase II of the grant.
Phase II deliverables are included in the report appendices.
2.0 REVIEW OF PHASE I TASKS
2.1 GRANT TASK 1: GRANT AND PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
The City was responsible for grant and project administration. The City’s Project Manager, Mr.
Art Bloom, successfully coordinated all management functions for the grant. This grant task
required grant administration, project coordination, grant reporting, bookkeeping, and
accounting. The deliverable required of this grant task is the quarterly reports that have been
submitted to AEA.
2.2 GRANT TASK 2: PHASE I FIELD WORK
A field trip was completed in June 2009 under Phase I of the project. The purpose and
accomplishments of the field trip are described in the Feasibility Study Report.
2.3 GRANT TASK 3: FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
A draft of the Indian River Hydroelectric Feasibility Study prepared by Polarconsult was issued to
the City and AEA for review and comment in September 2009. The Indian River Hydroelectric
Feasibility Study – Final Report, incorporating comments from the City and AEA, was issued in
November 2009.
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report 2
3.0 PHASE II TASKS
3.1 GRANT TASK 4: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Polarconsult completed two conceptual designs for the project. The July 29, 2011 conceptual
design plans are the current plans for the project. Half-size prints of both conceptual design
plans are included in Appendix A. Please use the graphical scales on these plans. A cost
estimate for the July 29, 2011 conceptual design is also included in Appendix A.
The first conceptual design was issued April 11, 2011. This conceptual design proposed
construction of a bench along the east side of Indian River Canyon to provide access to
the powerhouse site and for siting of the penstock. Based upon field assessment of the
conceptual design alignments and site conditions in April 2011, this conceptual design
was judged to be problematic for technical, environmental and cost reasons.
A second conceptual design was developed and issued July 29, 2011. This conceptual
design minimized benching within Indian River Canyon. Construction access to the
powerhouse is provided by a steep grade suitable for tracked equipment or winch
operations, and the penstock was moved to the toe of the canyon and supported on
trestles. Also, the power line alignment was moved to begin at the end of the City’s
existing electric system at the harbor, instead of at the end of existing three phase
distribution approximately ¼ mile to the west.
3.2 GRANT TASK 5: LIDAR SURVEY OF PROJECT AREA
A Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) survey of the project area was performed to support
Phase II conceptual design and permitting activities. Aero-METRIC, Inc. was contracted to
perform the LIDAR survey in March 2010, and the data acquisition was completed in late April
2010. The LIDAR deliverables were provided to Polarconsult in June 2010. The LIDAR survey
deliverables include:
Two-foot contour map of the project area
Black and white visible band intensity image of the project area
These deliverables were used in development of the conceptual designs for the project and
were also used in environmental analysis and permitting activities. A two-contour map and an
intensity map of the project area are included in Appendix B.
3.3 GRANT TASK 6: STAKEHOLDER MEETING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS
A Declaration of Intention was filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on
February 26, 2010 to determine the jurisdictional status of the project. A stakeholder meeting
was held in Juneau, Alaska on March 10, 2010. This meeting was convened during the thirty-
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report 3
day public comment period for the FERC Declaration of Intention to insure stakeholders were
aware of the project and solicit comment on the project. The meeting was attended by
personnel representing most of the key permitting agencies involved in the project. An
attendee list, meeting minutes, and copy of the meeting packet are included in Appendix C.
Applications for major permits needed for the project were prepared and submitted in August
2010. The following applications were submitted:
FERC Declaration of Intention;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit application;
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) land lease application;
ADNR easement application;
ADNR Coastal Project Questionnaire for Coastal Zone Consistency Review;
ADNR Water Rights Application; and
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) Fish Habitat Application.
Additionally, the project will require coordination with the U.S. Forest Service for use of Indian
River Road for construction access and long term operations. Copies of these permit
applications are included in Appendix D.
3.4 GRANT TASK 7: ADVANCE PROJECT PERMITS
The current status of the review and issuance process for the major project permits is
summarized in this section. Copies of the permit applications and relevant correspondence
with the permitting agencies are included in Appendix D.
3.4.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Jurisdictional Determination
A Declaration of Intention for the project was prepared and filed with the FERC on February
26, 2010. The FERC issued a finding of Non-Jurisdiction for the project on May 26, 2010.
Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
Declaration of Intention (February 26, 2010)
Finding of Non-Jurisdiction (May 26, 2010)
3.4.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application & Permitting
A wetlands permit application was submitted to the COE on August 31, 2010. In response
to COE comments and questions, supplemental information was submitted to the COE in
November 2010 and August 2011. Ms. Linda Speerstra with the COE also attended a visit to
the project site on April 21, 2011. The COE has been provided with all information needed
to proceed with review and issuance of a wetlands permit for the project, and a permit is
expected before the end of 2011. Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report 4
COE permit application (August 31, 2010)
COE questions (September 14, 2010)
Supplemental information submittal #1 (November 4, 2010)
COE questions (December 17, 2010)
Supplemental information submittal #2 (August 9, 2011)
COE questions (August 29, 2011)
3.4.3 ADNR Land Lease Permit Application
A land lease application was submitted to ADNR on August 31, 2010 for the intake and
powerhouse sites. ADNR notified Polarconsult by email on September 14, 2010 that use of
all state lands for the project will be authorized under a public easement (ADL 108047).
Accordingly, the land lease application has been canceled and a lease of state land will not
be required for the project.
Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
Lease Application (August 31, 2010)
ADNR Email regarding lease (September 14, 2010)
3.4.4 ADNR Easement Application
An easement application was submitted to ADNR on August 31, 2010 for easements for the
access roads, penstock alignment, and power line alignments. ADNR notified Polarconsult
by email on September 14, 2010 that use of all state lands for the project will be handled
under a public easement, and assigned the easement application to case ADL 108047.
Polarconsult submitted the July 29, 2011 conceptual design drawings to ADNR on
September 1, 2011 and requested ADNR to proceed with processing the easement.
Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
ADNR Easement Application (August 31, 2010)
Transmittal of 7/29/11 Conceptual Design Plans to ADNR (September 1, 2011)
3.4.5 ADNR Coastal Project Questionnaire
A Coastal Project Questionnaire was submitted to ADNR’s Division of Coastal and Ocean
Management (DCOM) on August 31, 2010. Processing of the questionnaire and making a
consistency determination has been waiting for completion of the COE permit application.
Ms. Jill Taylor with DCOM attended a visit to the project site on April 21, 2011. Legislative
action ended Alaska’s Coastal Management Program effective June 30, 2011, so the
consistency determination is no longer required.
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report 5
Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
ADNR-DCOM Coastal Project Questionnaire (August 31, 2010)
Email notice from Jill Taylor of program termination (June 29, 2011)
3.4.6 Water Rights Permit Application
A water rights application was submitted to ADNR on August 31, 2010. The application was
assigned LAS 27836 in October 2010. Current action is awaiting coordination with ADFG.
Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
ADNR Water Rights Application (August 31, 2010)
Confirmation of LAS # for Rights Application (October 4, 2010)
3.4.7 ADFG Fish Habitat Permit Application
A fish habitat permit application was submitted to ADFG on August 31, 2010. The July 29,
2011 conceptual design drawings were submitted to ADFG on September 14, 2011 to allow
ADFG to review the project and issue a fish habitat permit.
Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
ADFG Fish Habitat Permit Application (August 31, 2010)
Conceptual Design submittal (September 14, 2011)
3.4.8 USFS Coordination
The USFS issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) in July 2011 to put Indian River Road into
long term storage in 2012, which includes removing the culverts and log bridges from the
1.3 miles of Indian River Road needed to access the project site. The City reminded the
USFS of the hydro project by email and letter in August 2011, and clarified that maintaining
the road in a serviceable condition for heavy equipment traffic is necessary for construction
and long-term maintenance of the hydro project. The USFS has indicated that they are
amenable to modifying their RFP to accommodate the needs of the hydro project, and the
City is working with the USFS on arrangements for long-term maintenance of the 1.3 miles
of Indian River Road necessary for hydro project access.
Documents included in Appendix D are listed below.
Letter to USFS from Polarconsult on behalf of City clarifying intended use of Indian River
Road for hydro project (August 31, 2011)
Excerpt of USFS RFP for Indian River Road Storage Project (July 29, 2011)
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report 6
3.5 GRANT TASK 8: PHASE II FINAL REPORT
This document is the Phase II Final Report. AEA’s review comments of the September 2011
draft of this report are included in Appendix E. Review comments have been incorporated into
this report as described in Appendix E.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
All Phase II grant tasks have been successfully completed. All major permits are in place, and
permit applications are being processed by resource agencies. AEA is authorized to award the
City funds from the Renewable Energy Grant Program that will enable completion of permitting
and final design for the project. Once these activities are completed and construction funds are
secured, the project will be ready for construction. Provided that the City is able to obtain
funding, construction is expected to occur in the summer of 2013 or 2014.
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
● Current Project Cost Estimate
● July 29, 2011 (Release #2 – CURRENT)
● April 11, 2011 (Release #1 – Superceded)
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX A
TENAKEE SPRINGS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS $354,000
(Feasibility Study, Engineering Design,
Studies, Permitting, etc.)
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Transmission Line $238,000
Access Trails/Roads $433,000
Diversion / Intake Structure $205,000
Penstock Trestle / Alignment Prep $444,000
Penstock $370,000
Powerhouse $512,000
Equipment $161,000
Shipping $197,000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS $2,560,000
Construction Management & Administration $160,000
Construction Engineering & Inspection $160,000
Construction Contigency (15%) $349,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COST $3,583,000
The cost estimate presented in the 2009 Feasibility Study has been updated to reflect
the more advanced conceptual design that has been developed for the project. The
conceptual design was developed using the detailed LIDAR topographic data.
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B – LIDAR SURVEY DELIVERABLES
● Two-Foot Topographic Map of Project Area
● Black & White Intensity Image of Project Area
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C – STAKEHOLDER MEETING
● Meeting Summary
● Meeting Sign-In Sheet
● Meeting Packet
polarconsult a la ska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
M E E T I N G R E C O R D
100310-MEETINGMINUTES.DOC
DATE/TIME: 3/10/2010 (3:00 – 4:00 PM)
SUBJECT: Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Pre Application Stakeholders’ Meeting
LOCATION: 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400, Juneau, Alaska
ATTENDEES (COUNTER-CLOCKWISE FROM SPEAKER):
Joel Groves, Polarconsult (Owner’s Representative)
Art Bloom, City of Tenakee Springs (Project Proponent)
Carol Goularte, USDA, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Shawn Johnson, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (ADFG)
Carrie Bohan, Alaska Dept of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of
Coastal & Ocean Mgmt.
Audrey Alstrom, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Dan Bussard, ADNR (Water Section)
Jim Anderson, ADNR (Land Section)
David Lockard, AEA
Doug Ott, AEA
Jim Ferguson, ADFG
Jackie Timothy, ADFG
Katie Eaton, ADFG
INVITEES (NOT IN ATTENDANCE):
Sue Walker, NOAA-NMFS
Phil Mooney, ADFG
Stefanie Ludwig, State Historical Preservation Office
Michele Metz, Sealaska Corporation
Perry Edwards, USFS
The stakeholders meeting was convened at 3:00 PM, followed by introductions of the attendees.
No stakeholders were present on teleconference.
Mr. Groves gave a brief overview of the project history, technical details of the proposed project,
and a current understanding of the resource issues pertaining to the project and major permits
required for the project. (refer to the meeting agenda and information packet).
The floor was opened to attendees to ask questions or offer their insights regarding anticipated
permitting processes or issues. The discussion topics are summarized below.
● Ms. Goularte stated that the USFS road is currently open only to off-road vehicles, and
asked what type of traffic might be expected along the USFS road to support project
construction and maintenance.
Mr. Groves replied that a variety of motorized heavy construction equipment may be used for
project construction. Project operations would normally use lighter vehicles. Major
infrequent maintenance activities would require heavier vehicles.
I NDIAN R IVER P RE -A PPLICATION M EETING
D RAFT M EETING M INUTES P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
M ARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 2 OF 4
Ms. Goularte replied that the USFS would work with the City to permit this type of project
traffic on the road. One particular concern is a failing bridge on the road in the vicinity of the
project.
Mr. Groves clarified that the bridge in question was above the portion of the road that would
be used for this project.
● Mr. Ferguson asked what type of intake structure was anticipated for the project.
Mr. Groves replied that the conceptual intake design called for a low weir across the creek at
or above the fish ladder at falls 4. A coanda-type intake screen would be built into the
spillway downstream of the weir. Mr. Groves provided a brief overview of what a coanda
screen is, how it works, and why it is being considered for this project.
Mr. Ferguson commented that such an intake may not have impingement issues for small
fish. Mr. Groves concurred, stating that flows down the surface of the intake screens would
tend to flush any small fish off the screen, where they would be washed down the falls as
under natural conditions.
● Mr. Lockard asked what type of power line was being considered for this project and why.
Mr. Groves replied that the type of power line had not yet been decided, but a buried cable
was under consideration. An overhead line would be the other option. Preliminary review
of system reliability, repair, and maintenance costs on a life-cycle basis favors a buried cable
over an overhead line. The crossing at Indian River to the powerhouse would be overhead
regardless of how the remaining line is constructed.
● Mr. Johnson asked if the USFS had any water rights granted for the fish ladder at barrier falls
4.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Bussard were uncertain if the ladder had been issued water rights.1 Mr.
Groves clarified that the USFS had defined the minimum flow requirements for the fish
ladder, and that the city’s intent is to design the hydro intake to insure the fish ladder
preferentially receives the minimum necessary flows during the migratory seasons.
Mr. Bloom commented that the migratory seasons tend to coincide with high flows, so low
flow management should not be a particularly critical issue.
Mr. Groves commented that by co-locating the hydro intake with the existing fish ladder
headworks at the top of the falls, the hydro project may be able to increase flows into the
ladder during low flow periods on Indian River by directing in-stream flows from the natural
falls into the ladder.
● Ms. Timothy asked if the project fell under FERC jurisdiction.
1 A review of ADNR’s online water rights database on 3/18/10 did not return any record of water rights for the
fish ladder.
I NDIAN R IVER P RE -A PPLICATION M EETING
D RAFT M EETING M INUTES P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
M ARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 3 OF 4
Mr. Groves replied that Polarconsult’s jurisdictional analysis indicated the project was not
under FERC jurisdiction. A Declaration of Intent has been filed with FERC to answer this
question (docket DI10-8-000). FERC’s comment period for the DOI closes April 9, 2010.
● Mr. Lockard asked if any local permits would be required for the project.
Mr. Bloom replied that he is not aware of any city permits that would be required beyond
easements for the portions of the power line on city land.
Mr. Groves mentioned that the project is not located within a state borough, so no borough-
level permitting was necessary.
Ms. Bohan mentioned that the project is not located within any local coastal management
districts, so only the state-wide coastal management policies would be applicable.
● Mr. Anderson asked if artificially enhanced fish resources received the same consideration in
permitting as natural fish resources.
Mr. Ferguson replied that for anadromous fish resources, the simple answer is yes. For
resident fish resources, the simple answer is that it depends.
● Mr. Lockard asked what type of communications were being considered for the project.
Mr. Groves replied that communications were necessary between the diesel and hydro
powerhouses to coordinate generation functions, and also between the hydro powerhouse and
intake for head level control. Mr. Groves stated that communications could be achieved with
fiber optics or copper, and the project budget assumed fiber optics.
Mr. Lockard advocated for more communications capability over less, mentioning AEA’s
positive experiences with video capabilities at their newer rural power plants.
Mr. Groves concurred, mentioning that sufficient bandwidth and power at the intake would
help with project operations and could also aid the USFS’ efforts to quantify salmon returns
at Indian River.
● Mr. Ott asked whether the project cost estimates were based on a unit installed-cost-per-kW
of capacity, or if a more detailed method was used.
Mr. Groves replied that the cost estimates were developed by estimating quantities for the
various project elements, and applying unit costs for materials, equipment, labor, etc. The
resulting estimate includes a 25% contingency. Mr. Groves stated that a more detailed cost
estimate would be produced once the conceptual design was completed.
● Mr. Ott (?) asked if there was equipment access between the project and Tekanee Springs,
and how access logistics would be handled for project construction and operations.
Mr. Groves replied that there was a well developed foot trail and suspension bridge from
Tenakee Springs to the USFS road near the beach, but this was suitable only for foot traffic.
Off-road vehicles can travel from Tenakee Springs to the beach landing at the USFS road
along the tidelands during low tide.
I NDIAN R IVER P RE -A PPLICATION M EETING
D RAFT M EETING M INUTES P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
M ARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 4 OF 4
Specific construction methods have not been decided, but generally, construction equipment
and materials would be landed on the beach at the USFS road and all construction activities
would be based from the USFS road and new access trails from the road to Indian River.
Because the power line is located on the Tenakee Springs side of Indian River, equipment for
line construction would be driven down the tidelands or moved via barge to Tenakee Springs
for line construction.
Construction personnel could be housed in Tenakee Springs and walk to the project site
daily. Operations personnel would live in Tenakee Springs and walk to the project as needed
for inspection, maintenance, and operations. If desired, a small garage could be built near the
intersection of the walking trail and USFS road to house a vehicle(s) for project access.
● Ms. Timothy (?) asked what the source of funds for the project were, and if they were already
committed to the project.
Mr. Groves replied that the current effort, which includes the feasibility study, conceptual
design, and initial permitting, was funded with a Denali Commission grant administered by
AEA. The City has also applied for additional funding through the FY 2011 round of the
state’s Renewable Energy Grant Program for permitting and design. The city’s application
was recommended for funding by AEA, but is subject to legislative approval and
appropriations. The city has not started work on securing construction funding or financing.
● Ms. Timothy mentioned that her office would develop a study plan and perform some fish
trapping to assess the fish resources in Indian River.
Ms. Goularte mentioned that the USFS had performed significant fisheries assessment work
at Indian River in conjunction with their fish ladder project. Ms. Goularte mentioned that
Mr. Perry Edwards with the USFS was familiar with their existing efforts and data.
Mr. Ferguson mentioned that the USFS had completed a watershed analysis for the Indian
River basin that included extensive environmental data pertinent to quantity and quality of
potential fish habitat in Indian River 2.
There being no further comments or questions, Mr. Groves summarized the near-term project
schedule. Polarconsult will prepare and submit permit applications for the project over the next
month, and would advance conceptual designs in concert with resource agency comments over
the next several months. Beyond that, the project schedule would depend on the level of effort
and time necessary to secure project permits.
Mr. Groves thanked attendees for their participation and adjourned the meeting at approximately
4:00 PM.
2 Indian River Watershed Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service: Sitka Ranger District and
Chatham Area Supervisor’s Office. January 1996.
AGENDA
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING
MARCH 10, 2010 – 3:00 PM
400 WILLOUGHBY 4TH FLOOR – JUNEAU
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3. PROJECT SCHEDULE
4. PERMITTING OVERVIEW
5. PERMITTING PROCESS & DISCUSSION
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTIRC PROJECT CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
MARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 2 OF 8
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Indian River is located approximately one mile east of Tenakee Springs. Indian River
has a series of 5 barrier falls occurring between river miles 0.6 and 1.3 above tidewater.
The gross head over these five barriers is 100 feet. The mean annual flow in Indian River
through these barriers is about 137 cfs. Extreme minimum flows of down to 8 cfs can
occur during late summer dry spells (July – August) and the winter months (December –
February).
Below barrier 5, Indian River is incised into a canyon about 50 to 100 feet deep. The
canyon walls are generally steeper along the west bank (the Tenakee Springs side), and
less steep along the east bank, although rock outcroppings are common along both banks
through this canyon.
Recommended development of Indian River’s hydropower potential is with a run-of-river
hydroelectric project built along the east side of the river from the top of barrier 4 to the
bottom of barrier 2. This project would be located on state land, with some of the
transmission line crossing city land en route to Tenakee Springs.
The USFS has constructed a fish ladder to improve fish passage in Indian River at barrier
4, and has also completed fish passage enhancements at barriers 2 and 5.
TECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Static Head 60 feet
Design Flow 41 - 77 cubic feet per second
Penstock 1,550' of
30 - 42" HDPE
Total Dynamic Head 50 feet
Turbine Type Ossberger Cross-flow
Installed Capacity 120 - 250 kW
Capacity Factor 87.1%
Estimated Annual Energy Generation 839,000 – 1,500,000 kWh
Existing Utility Energy Generation 433,000 kWh
Transmission 4,500 feet of
Three-phase 7.2kV buried cable
Estimated Direct Construction Cost $1,752,000
Estimated Installed Cost $2,590,000
Annual Displaced Diesel Fuel 44,400 gallons
Continuing Diesel Consumption for Electrical
Generation 4,400 gallons
Benefit – Cost Ratio 1.33
PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTIRC PROJECT CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
MARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 3 OF 8
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT SCHEDULE
MARCH 2010 - PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS
- SUBMIT DECLARATION OF INTENT TO FERC
APRIL 2010 - PREPARE AND SUBMIT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
- FERC JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
- SITE SURVEY
SUMMER 2010 - REVIEW AND PROCESS PERMITS, DETERMINE
PERMITTING SCHEDULE
- PROJECT DESIGN
SUBSEQUENT SCHEDULE WILL BE DETERMINED BY PERMITTING PROCESS
PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTIRC PROJECT CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
MARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 4 OF 8
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
OVERVIEW OF MAJOR PERMITS
AGENCY PERMIT(S) REQUIRED STATUS NOTES
FERC Jurisdictional
Determination.
Submitted
2/26/10
Finding of non-
jurisdiction
expected
Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Permit. Application not
submitted yet
May be eligible for
NWP #17
USDA-USFS Project review. “ -
NOAA-NMFS Project review. “ -
USEPA/ADEC SWPPP (construction). “ -
ADEC To be determined.
ADNR-Land Land lease & easement. “ -
ADNR-Water Water use permit Æ water
rights. “ -
ADNR-Coastal Consistency review. “ -
ADNR – Dam
Safety None. “ -
ADNR-SHPO Project review. “ -
ADFG Fish habitat permit. “ -
ADFG Wildlife Conservation. “ -
PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTIRC PROJECT CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
MARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 5 OF 8
PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTIRC PROJECT CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
MARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 6 OF 8
PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTIRC PROJECT CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
MARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 7 OF 8
PRE-APPLICATION STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTIRC PROJECT CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS MARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 8 OF 8 INTAKEPOWER LINEACCESS ROADS/TRAILSPOWERHOUSE
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D – PROJECT PERMITTING DOCUMENTS
● FERC Jurisdictional Determination
● U.S. Army Corps of Engineering Permit Application &
Documents
● ADNR Land Lease Application & Documents
● ADNR Easement Application & Documents
● ADNR Coastal Project Questionnaire & Documents
● ADNR Water Rights Application & Documents
● ADFG Fish Habitat Application & Documents
● U.S. Forest Service Coordination
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
FERC JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 131 FERC ¶62,179
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
City of Tenakee Springs Docket No.DI10-8-000
ORDER RULING ON DECLARATION OF INTENTION
AND FINDING LICENSING NOT REQUIRED
(Issued May 26,2010)
1.On March 1,2010,the City of Tenakee Springs filed a Declaration of Intention
(DI)concerning the proposed Indian River Hydroelectric Project,which will be located
near the city of Tenakee Springs,on Chichagof Island,Sitka Borough,Alaska,affecting
T.47 S,R.63 E,secs.15,21,and 22,Copper River Meridian.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.The proposed run-of-river Indian River Hydroelectric Project will consist of:(1)
a 6-foot-high,30-foot-wide diversion structure,to be located at river mile (RM)0.85;
(2)a 40-inch-diameter,1,550-foot-long penstock;(3)a 30-foot-wide,40-foot-long,
wood frame powerhouse,located at RM 0.55,housing a 250 kW turbine-synchronous
generator;(4)a 50-foot-long tailrace returning flows back into Indian River;(5)a
5,900-foot-long transmission line;and (6)appurtenant facilities.
PUBLIC NOTICE
3.Notice of the DI was issued on March 9,2010.Protests,comments,and motions
to intervene were to be filed by April 9,2010.The U.S.Department of Agriculture,
U.S.Forest Service,Tongass National Forest,filed a motion to intervene and comments
on April 19,2010.The comments stated that the proposed project had the potential to
affect Forest Service interests,but the comments did not relate to the issue of
jurisdiction.No other protests,comments,or motions to intervene have been received.
JURISDICTION
4.Pursuant to Section 23(b)(1)of the Federal Power Act (FPA),16 U.S.C.§817(1),
a non-federal hydroelectric project must (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal
permit)be licensed if it:
20100526-3076 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/26/2010
Docket No.DI10-8-000 2
•is located on a navigable water of the United States;
•occupies lands or reservations of the United States;
•utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam;or
•is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction,is
constructed or modified on or after August 26,1935,and affects the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce.
DISCUSSION
5.The proposed project will not occupy an y public lands or reservations of the
United States and will not use surplus water or waterpower from a Federal government
dam.The proposed project would be constructed after August 26,1935,and would be
located on a Commerce Clause stream.1 However,the proposed project would not
affect the interests of interstate commerce,because the City of Tenakee Springs plans to
sell the generated power to the Tenakee Springs Electric Utility,which is not connected
to an interstate transmission grid.Therefore,the project does not require licensing
under Section 23(b)(1)of the FPA.
CONCLUSION
6.Consequently,Section 23(b)(1)of the FPA does not require licensing of the
proposed project.If evidence to support the Commission’s licensing jurisdiction is
found in the future,Section 23(b)(1)would require licensing.Under Section 4(g)of the
FPA,the project owner could then be required to apply for a license.
The Director orders:
(A)Section 23(b)(1)of the Federal Power Act does not require licensing of the
proposed Indian River Hydroelectric Project.This order is issued without prejudice to
any future determination upon new or additional evidence that licensing is required.
1 The Indian River flows into Tenakee Inlet and Chatham Straits,tributary to the
Pacific Ocean.
20100526-3076 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/26/2010
Docket No.DI10-8-000 3
(B)This order constitutes final agency action.Requests for rehearing by the
Commission ma y be filed within 30 da ys of the date of issuance of this order,pursuant
to 18 C.F.R.§385.713.
William Guey-Lee,Chief
Engineering and Jurisdiction Branch
Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance
20100526-3076 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/26/2010
polarconsult alaska, inc.
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE • SUITE 310 • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2420 • FAX (907) 258-2419 • HOMEPAGE www.polarconsult.net
FEBRUARY 26, 2010
SECRETARY
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Declaration of Intention for Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Dear Secretary:
On behalf of our client, the City of Tenakee Springs, Alaska, enclosed please find an
electronic submittal of the Declaration of Intention for the Indian River Hydroelectric
Project for your consideration.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Joel D. Groves, PE
C ITY OF T ENAKEE S PRINGS , A LASKA
DECLARATION OF INTENTION
FOR THE
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
February 26, 2010
prepared by
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: (907) 258-2420
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DECLARATION OF INTENT
FEBRUARY 26, 2010 PAGE 1 OF 5
Declaration of Intention
The Indian River Hydroelectric Project (project) is located at:
State: Alaska
Town: Tenakee Springs
Street: N/A
County: Unorganized Borough
(Sitka Recording District)
Stream: Indian River
River Basin Name: N/A
Township, Range, and Meridian: 47S, 63E, Copper River Meridian
The exact name, business address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of
the applicant is:
City of Tenakee Springs
P.O. Box 52
Tenakee Springs, AK 99841
Tel: 907-736-2207
Fax: 907-736-2207
citytke@gmail.com
The exact name, business address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of
the authorized agent is:
Joel Groves
1503 W 33rd Ave #310
Anchorage AK 99503
Tel: 907-258-2420
Fax: 907-258-2419
joel@polarconsult.net
The exact name, business address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of
the local electric utility company is:
City of Tenakee Springs DBA Tenakee Springs Electric Utility
P.O. Box 52
Tenakee Springs, AK 99841
Tel: 907-736-2207
Fax: 907-736-2207
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DECLARATION OF INTENT
FEBRUARY 26, 2010 PAGE 2 OF 5
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an up to 250 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project located on the
Indian River approximately one mile south of Tenakee Springs, Alaska. The project
would include the following major components: An intake structure consisting of an
approximately 6-foot tall by 30-foot wide diversion structure spanning the creek near or
adjacent to an existing USFS fish ladder located approximately at river mile 0.85.
Apparatus to remove debris from the project water would either be incorporated into the
diversion structure or constructed on uplands immediately adjacent to the diversion
structure. The diversion structure would direct up to 80 cfs of water into a approximately
1,550 foot long penstock. The project would have a gross head of approximately 60 feet,
and net head of approximately 50 feet. The project powerhouse would be located
adjacent to Indian River at approximately river mile 0.55, and would house a crossflow
turbine, synchronous generator, switchgear, controls, and related equipment. The tailrace
would return flows back to Indian River. The project would generate approximately
1,500,000 kWh of energy annually, which would be transmitted to Tenakee Springs via
an approximately 5,900 foot long three-phase 7.2kV power line. This project is a run-of-
river project so there is no storage capacity.
MAPS
A Location Map and Project Map are attached on the following pages. The Location
Map shows the general project location in Alaska, and the Project Map shows, in detail,
the proposed locations of project features and location of federal, state and municipal
land in the project vicinity.
RIVER DURATION CURVE AND HYDROGRAPH
Because this project is run-of-river, it has no storage or modification of flows
downstream of the project. Therefore, only the flow duration curve and the stream
hydrograph are shown. The curves are attached on the following pages. Hydrology data
is derived from seven years of USGS stream flow data for Indian River, augmented by
additional USGS data from nearby drainages with similar hydrology.
JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS
Navigability of the stream
Indian River is not a navigable stream.
Land Status
The project lands are owned by the State of Alaska and the City of Tenakee Springs.
Lands affected by the project are shown in the Project Map.
Government Dam
The project does not utilize waterpower from a Government Dam
Interstate Commerce
The project does not affect interstate commerce. Power from the project will be sold
by Tenakee Springs Electric Utility to its customers located in Tenakee Springs.
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DECLARATION OF INTENT
FEBRUARY 26, 2010 PAGE 3 OF 5
Tenakee Springs is an electrical 'island' that is not electrically interconnected to
adjacent communities or to any interstate electrical grid.
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DECLARATION OF INTENT
FEBRUARY 26, 2010 PAGE 4 OF 5
PROJECT MAP
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DECLARATION OF INTENT
FEBRUARY 26, 2010 PAGE 5 OF 5
Average Daily Flows at Indian River Intake Site
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MonthFlow (cfs)Flow Duration Curve for Indian River
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Duration (Percent of Time Flow is Equaled or Exceeded)Flow (cfs)
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING
Joel Groves
From:"Speerstra, Linda POA" <Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil>
Date:Monday, August 29, 2011 12:48 PM
To:"Joel Groves" <joel@polarconsult.net>
Cc:"Art Bloom" <artmbloom@gmail.com>
Subject:POA-2010-0758 Teankee Hydro Project
Page 1 of 2
9/16/2011
HI Joel. Your information is well organized and easy to follow. I'll be
reviewing the entire project under Nationwide Permit #17 Hydro Projects. We
won't need to separate out by utility/roads etc. I've just finish reviewing
it and have the following items that need additional
clarification/information:
Wetlands Delineation
1) send data sheets that determined the delineation
2) Include the methods used to determine the mosaic along with field notes to
determine the ratios submitted.
Site Plans
1) Include the potential landing sites for landing the equipment/materials
ie; LTF and/or the beach access. Include the eel grass beds that you
described near the beach access. HTL and MHW mark too.
Project Access Roads
1) The description of the access road (the last 250 feet) station 18-20.50.
You describe an estimated 250 cubic yards of fill into 1,700 sq. ft of
wetlands. I believe the fill would be below the OHWM of Indian River.
Please clarify.
2) Will any of the roads be removed post installation?
Powerhouse
1) How many cubic yards of material will be blasted in Indian River to
establish the final grade of the tailrace channel?
2) Will sedimentation measures be used during blasting?
3) How much sheet pile and/or concrete will be required to stabilize between
the powerhouse and OWHM of Indian River?
Power Line
1)The narrative indicates up to 15% of the power line would be located in
uplands. Additionally a stream crossing would be required. Does the amount
of fill include the stream crossing to bed the culvert? If so, reduce the
wetlands fill and add to a category called waters of the U.S. (essentially
below the ordinary high water line of a water body) Show the flow of water
in the drawing too.
Once you've revised those numbers please add it to the Table in the project
description. If you have any questions please give me a call. Linda
Regulatory Specialist
Sitka Field Office
P.O. Box 16
Sitka, AK 99835
907-747-0658
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Groves [mailto:joel@polarconsult.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:59 PM
To: Speerstra, Linda POA
Subject: Tenakee Submittal
Hi Linda,
How's review of the submittal for Indian River coming along?
Thanks,
Joel
Page 2 of 2
9/16/2011
polarconsult a la ska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
L E T T E R R E P O R T
110809-WETLANDLETTERREPORT.DOC
DATE: August 9, 2011
TO: Linda Speerstra, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sitka Field Office
FROM: Joel Groves, PE -- Polarconsult Project Manager
SUBJECT: Wetlands Delineation, Project Design Summary, and Summary of Measures
to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts; Indian River Hydroelectric Project;
Tenakee Springs, Alaska
CC: Art Bloom, Tenakee Springs Hydro Project Manager
1.0 INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
The City of Tenakee Springs retained Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. to develop conceptual
engineering designs and perform related professional engineering services for a run-of-river
hydroelectric project the city is developing on Indian River. The hydroelectric project will
supply an estimated 90% of Tenakee Springs’ electricity, eliminating approximately 31,000
gallons of fuel shipments to the community annually. The project will help to lower the
extremely high price of electricity in the community.
This letter report provides the following:
1. Documentation of wetland investigations and delineations performed to quantify
wetlands impacts associated with project construction.
2. Provides a summary of the hydro project features and the wetland impacts associated
with each feature.
3. Provides a description of the design modifications and strategies used to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate wetlands impacts associated with construction of this project.
Hydro project features, footprints, and alignments described in this letter report are based
upon the conceptual design drawings for the project prepared by Polarconsult and dated July
29, 2011. These conceptual design drawings replace an earlier plan set completed April 14,
2011. The newer conceptual designs reflect revisions to the project that have been made to
avoid and minimize wetlands impacts.
The conceptual design described herein reflects the current development concept for the
project, based on available technical and environmental information. These designs are subject
to change as necessitated by economic, technical, environmental, and other factors as this
project continues through the design and permitting process.
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 2 OF 9
1.2 Project Site
The Indian River hydroelectric project site is located approximately one mile east of Tenakee
Springs, Alaska on a combination of city and state land. The site is located within Sections 15,
21, and 22 of Township 47 South, Range 63 East, Copper River Meridian (see Permit Drawings).
The project site totals approximately 4.23 acres (Table 1).
Table 1: Summary of Project Area and Wetland Impacts by Project Feature
Feature Total Area
(acres)
Area of Wetland Impact
(square feet)
Volume of Wetland
Fill (cubic yards)
Access Roads 2.00 Along intake access road: 7,000 1,000
Diversion / Intake 0.03 Diversion/Intake footprint: 1,000 1 100 1
Penstock 0.60 Trestle piers, on grade penstock: 1,500 100
Powerhouse Site 0.10 Powerhouse footprint: 3,000 1 700 1
Power Line 1.50 sta. 24+00 culvert crossing: 600
incidental other (microsites): 9,200
50
750
TOTAL 4.23 18,300 + 4,000 1 = 22,300 1,900 / 800 1 = 2,700
Wetland Impact Area Under NWP #12 for Utility Lines 9,800 SF (0.23 ac)
Wetland Impact Area Under NWP #14 for Access Roads 7,000 SF (0.16 ac)
Wetland Impact Area Under NWP #17 for Hydropower Projects 5,500 SF (0.13 ac)
1. Fill below ordinary high water line in Indian River
The project site will be accessed from an existing U.S. Forest Service logging road (Road No.
7500) via approximately 3,200 feet of new access roads and/or trails. The project will feature a
diversion and intake structure at an elevation of 120 feet on Indian River. This structure will be
co-located with an existing fish pass built and maintained by the U.S Forest Service to establish
a coho salmon population on Indian River.
Up to 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water will be conveyed from the intake structure down
to the powerhouse building via approximately 1,550 feet of penstock (pipeline). This penstock
will be supported on trestles and located along and/or above the bank of Indian River.
Approximately 4,000 feet of power line will connect the hydro powerhouse with the city’s
existing electric distribution system. The power line will cross Indian River overhead, and will
run underground to connect with the existing overhead system near the small boat harbor. A
small trail will be built along the power line route to provide access from Tenakee Springs for
construction, inspection, maintenance, and repair of this power line. The project will not be
directly accessible from this trail due to Indian River Canyon.
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 3 OF 9
1.3 Wetland Delineation Methods
The wetlands delineation for this project was completed using a Routine Level 3 delineation
method, as set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Manual1 and Alaska Supplement2. The
delineation relied on a combination of existing site information, new site information obtained
for this project, and on-site wetland determinations in areas where existing information lacked
sufficient detail to complete delineations at the mapping scales necessary for this project.
Wetland determinations in the field were made using hydrophytic vegetation and wetlands
hydrology assessment. Soil pits were not feasible during the April 2011 site visit due to frozen
ground. In order to avoid misclassification of wetlands as uplands, hydric soils were assumed to
exist at sites where the Wetlands Manual calls for the identification of hydric soils to make a
wetland determination. The result of this approach is a conservative wetlands delineation for
the project area.
1.4 Summary of Information and Investigations
First, available existing information sources for the project site were obtained. Existing
information includes:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:63,360 scale topographic maps of the project area, 3
Visible-band aerial color imagery of the project area, 4
Infrared-band aerial color imagery of the project area, 5
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey of the project area, 6
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database, 7
Corps of Engineers investigations letter report for Indian River Hydroelectric Project, 8
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Indian River Timber Sales, 9 and
Indian River Watershed Analysis. 10
1 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-07-24.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
3 USGS quadrangle maps SITKA D-4 and SITKA D-5.
4 1 inch = 1,500 foot scale imagery acquired August 6, 2006. AeroMETRIC, US, Inc.
5 Alaska Satellite Facility. August 1979. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Geophysical institute.
6 USDA, NRCS. 2008. Soil Survey Tabular Database of the Chatham Area, Alaska; Soils of the Tenakee Springs
Area, 1:24,000. (AK646).
7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html
8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Small Hydropower and Related Purposes Letter Report for Tenakee
Springs, Alaska.
9 USDA, USFS. 1979. Indian River Timber Sale(s) Final EIS.
10 USDA, USFS. 1996. Indian River Watershed Analysis. Sitka Ranger District & Chatham Area Supervisor’s Office.
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 4 OF 9
This information was supplemented with two field visits to the project site. Due to the remote
project location, wetlands delineation field work was conducted concurrently with project
evaluation and conceptual design efforts to economize on cost.
Polarconsult engineers Joel Groves, PE and Michael Dahl, PE conducted initial field
investigations from June 1 through June 3, 2009. Mr. Groves and Mr. Dahl were accompanied
in the field by Mr. Art Bloom, the project manager for the City of Tenakee Springs. This field
investigation was conducted to evaluate the project site for constructability; evaluate potential
power, penstock, and access alignments; review proposed diversion/intake and powerhouse
sites; and assess the presence of wetlands in the project vicinity. During this site visit, limited
aerial reconnaissance of the project area was also completed. Field observations were used to
develop the November 2009 feasibility study for the hydroelectric project.
Subsequent to this field visit and completion of the project feasibility study, a LIDAR
topographic survey of the project area was performed in April 2010 by Aero-Metric U.S., Inc.
The LIDAR survey produced two-foot contours and a reflectivity map of the project area.
Based on this data, a conceptual project design was completed April 14, 2011. Mr. Groves
conducted additional field investigations from April 17 to 23, 2011. Mr. Groves was
accompanied in the field by Mr. Bloom on this second field visit.
Field activities in April 2011 included wetlands delineations in the project footprint, verification
of the LIDAR survey data in key areas, additional topographic surveys in key project locations,
and a field review of the conceptual design for general constructibility and compatibility with
environmental conditions in the project area. The April 2011 conceptual designs were revised
to reflect field findings, and a new set of conceptual designs completed July 29, 2011.
2.0 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INDICATOR INFORMATION
2.1 Summary of Information on Hydrophytic Vegetation
The Indian River Timber Sale EIS, NWI database, and NRCS soil mapping datasets provide
consistent overviews of vegetation in the project area at a 1:24,000 scale. These
characterizations are consistent with field observations and aerial imagery. Small sites within
the project area not captured by 1:24,000 scale mapping (sites from approximately 1,000 to
10,000 square feet) were also identified and mapped during field visits.
2.2 Summary of Information on Wetlands Hydrology
The Indian River Timber Sale EIS and NRCS soil mapping dataset both provide a general
narrative of site hydrology. This data is augmented with the detailed topographic mapping
completed for this project and field observations. Field efforts in the project area focused on
mapping small sites (approximately 1,000 to 10,000 square feet) not identified by previous
mapping efforts.
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 5 OF 9
2.3 Summary of Information on Hydric Soils
Test pits were not feasible during the April 2011 site visit because the ground was still frozen.
Information in the NRCS soils database and naturally exposed soil profiles in the project area
are used to guide assessment of hydric soils. Where this data is insufficient, hydric soils are
assumed to be present at candidate wetland sites.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FEATURES AND WETLAND IMPACTS
3.1 Beach Landing Sites for Project Equipment and Materials
Materials and equipment for the project will be landed at two locations:
(1) Materials for the hydro project will be landed at or near the existing log dump site at the
beginning of Indian River Road. Two options are possible here. There is an existing shot
rock pier that extends into the upper intertidal zone that was used for logging operations at
Indian River in the early 1980s. There is also a spur road that ends at the beach just west of
the pier. The beach at this location is comprised of broken rock and gravel, and is suitable
to land a barge for materials and equipment offload. The lower intertidal zone in this area
is populated by eel grass beds, so any landings at this site would need to coordinate with
high tides to avoid beaching the barge or maneuvering in the eel grass beds. There is ample
room in the upper intertidal zone for this. The beach in this area transitions from gravels
into bedrock and forested uplands. There are no wetlands in the immediate area above the
tidal zone.
(2) Materials for the power line between the hydro project and Tenakee Springs will be landed
in the vicinity of the small boat harbor in Tenakee Springs. The beach in this area is gravel
with occasional large rocks and bedrock outcroppings. The upper intertidal zone is devoid
of vegetation, but vegetation is increasingly present moving towards the low tide line.
There is ample room to land a barge and offload materials and equipment. There are no
wetlands in the immediate area above the intertidal zone.
No wetlands impacts are identified from beach landings required for this project. There are no
practical alternatives to beach landings to deliver the materials and equipment necessary to
construct this project. No permanent improvements are proposed for the barge landing sites
associated with this project.
3.2 Project Access Roads
The main access route to the hydro powerhouse will be a 10 to 16-foot wide construction road
extending from the existing U.S. Forest Service road down to the Indian River powerhouse. The
road will be built with local materials using balanced cut and fill, and capped with geofabric
and/or gravel where necessary.
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 6 OF 9
The first approximately 750 feet of this road (station 0+00 to 7+50) crosses uplands that slope
uniformly down towards Indian River at approximately 8%. This upland area is vegetated by
mature conifer forest. This portion of the access road does not cross any wetlands or streams.
The next approximately 850 feet of the access road (station 7+50 to 16+00) climbs a 20-foot tall
embankment and follows the top of this embankment towards the powerhouse. This area is
uplands, populated by mature conifer forest and deciduous brush. Forested wetlands are
present in some areas along the toe of this embankment. The access route has been positioned
away from the rim of this embankment to avoid any disturbance of these wetlands. This
portion of the access road does not cross any wetlands or streams.
The next approximately 200 feet of the access road (station 16+00 to 18+00) is a steep grade
descending approximately 90 feet down the fall-line into Indian River Canyon. This is suitable
only for passage of tracked equipment or winch operations. This grade ends on a uplands
bench approximately 30 feet above Indian River. An approximately 3,600 square foot staging
area will be built on this bench for powerhouse construction. This bench is vegetated with
mature conifer forest. The northern end of this bench becomes increasingly brushy, and
eventually transitions into a forested wetland. This portion of the access road and the staging
area does not impact any wetlands or streams.
The last approximately 250 feet of the access road (station 18+00 to 20+50) is a 10 to 14-foot
wide access trail descending at 20% grade down to the powerhouse in the canyon. This road
will be built on structural fill the toe of which will partially extend into Indian River in the
immediate vicinity of the powerhouse. A sheet pile and/or concrete retaining wall will limit the
footprint of this structural fill in Indian River and protect the fill from flood flows and erosion.
Vegetation in this area is a combination of barren rock slopes/slides and vegetation (mostly
alder with some willow and devil’s club) near Indian River. Some conifer forest is present in less
steep areas from approximately station 18+00 to 19+00. An estimated 250 cubic yards of fill
into 1,700 square feet of wetlands are associated with this access road.
A spur road will depart from the main access road at station 7+50 and head to the intake site.
This road will have the same dimensions and construction as the main access road.
The first approximately 900 feet of the intake road (station 0+00 to 9+00) will be located on
moderate side slopes above the rim of Indian River Canyon. This road passes along the edge of
a forested uplands/wetlands complex that is 50% upland / 50% wetland, and vegetated by
mature conifers with deciduous under story brush.
The last approximately 190 feet of the intake road (station 9+00 to 10+90) passes through a
forested wetland (mixed conifer/deciduous canopy with brush and devil’s club in the under
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 7 OF 9
story) located on a bench above Indian River. This portion of the access road has been
narrowed to a width of 10 to 14 feet to reduce wetland impacts. An 18-inch diameter culvert
will be installed at station 10+60 to pass discharge from this wetland under the access road.
The road is estimated to require 750 cubic yards of fill into 5,300 square feet of wetlands.
Alternative methods to access the intake were evaluated and all are considered impractical for
cost, logistic, and long term sustainability reasons. Permanent vehicular access to the intake is
necessary for operations, maintenance, and repair, and will also reduce construction costs.
Two short construction trail spurs are proposed off the intake access road to the rim of the
Indian River Canyon to facilitate penstock construction. Both roads would be 10-foot wide
temporary construction trails built of native material and used to transport penstock materials
to the penstock alignment. Neither road passes through wetlands.
All of these access alignments were evaluated on foot during the June 2009 and/or April 2011
field work. Wetlands delineations and impacted areas are indicated on the July 29, 2011
conceptual design drawings and August 9, 2011 Corps of Engineers permit drawings.
The April 14, 2011 conceptual design called for the access road to the powerhouse to be built at
an approximately 15% grade. This required a bench to be built in Indian River Canyon for
approximately 980 feet. This configuration would have required significant earth work and
blasting, resulting in increased discharge of some of the spoils into Indian River and wetlands
along this route. The April 2011 field work identified slope stability, cost, and environmental
concerns with this approach. The currently proposed design with a steep track/winch line
avoids these impacts.
3.3 Diversion / Intake Structure
The proposed diversion and intake structure will be co-located with the existing concrete fish
pass at barrier 4 on the west side of Indian River. The intake structure will add a new taller
head wall and two additional fish cells to the top of the existing fish pass, as well as a hydro
intake and a weir across Indian River. The head wall and water inlets will be designed to
preferentially direct low flows first into the fish pass, second into the hydro intake, and third
over the weir and into Indian River. The hydro intake will be built adjacent and parallel to the
fish pass structure. The intake will utilize a coanda-effect inclined plate screen to filter debris
out of the penstock and to allow all life stages of fish to pass over the screen and into Indian
River.
Except for the east end of the weir wing wall, the intake and diversion structure is located
below the ordinary high water line of Indian River. The structure’s footprint is devoid of
vegetation and is mostly bedrock. Some areas have a thin mantle of gravels over bedrock.
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 8 OF 9
The diversion structure will require approximately 100 cubic yards of fill into 1,000 square feet
below the ordinary high water line of Indian River.
3.4 Penstock
The penstock alignment extends along the floor of Indian River Canyon for approximately 1,225
feet downstream from the intake structure (station 0+36 to 12+62). This portion of the
penstock is built above grade with trestles supporting the pipe every 20 feet. The trestles will
be supported by concrete or steel piers. Most of these piers will be founded on bedrock above
the ordinary high water mark of Indian River. Piers located below the ordinary high water mark
or within flood velocity hazard areas may include additional civil works to protect them from
flood damage. The penstock alignment in this area is comprised of bedrock or a thin mantle of
gravels and cobbles over bedrock. When present, vegetation is generally a combination of
alders, willows, and sometimes devil’s club.
The last 325 feet of the penstock will be built on grade or buried. Approximately 90 feet
(station 12+62 to 13+50) will be built on cribs installed on grade through a forested wetland
(conifer forest with deciduous under story and devil’s club). The remaining approximately 235
feet or the penstock alignment will be located in forested uplands and will be on grade or
buried.
The penstock will require approximately 100 cubic yards of fill into 1,500 square feet of
wetlands and/or areas below the ordinary high water line of Indian River.
The April 14, 2011 conceptual design called for the penstock to be installed on a trestle system
along the east side of Indian River running at a 2% grade from the intake down to the
powerhouse. This configuration would have required significant earth work and blasting,
resulting in increased discharge of spoils into Indian River and wetlands along the route. The
April field work identified slope stability, cost, and environmental concerns with this approach.
The currently proposed trestle design avoids and/or minimizes these impacts.
3.5 Powerhouse
The powerhouse will be located on fill placed partially below the ordinary high water mark on
the east side of Indian River immediately downstream of falls #2. Soils at the powerhouse site
are a combination of exposed bedrock and shallow gravel deposits over bedrock. Vegetation is
not present below the ordinary high water line. A sheet pile and/or concrete retaining wall will
be installed between the powerhouse site and Indian River to protect the powerhouse site from
floods and erosion. This is the same wall associated with the access road to the powerhouse
(Section 3.2). The tailrace channel and powerhouse foundation will be integral to this retaining
wall. Blasting in Indian River will be required to establish the final grade of the tailrace channel.
I NDIAN R IVER H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT P OLARCONSULT A LASKA , I NC .
W ETLANDS D ELINEATION L ETTER R EPORT A UGUST 9, 2011
PAGE 9 OF 9
No cut slopes are proposed in the canyon wall at the powerhouse site to avoid compromising
the stability of the canyon slopes above the powerhouse. The powerhouse site will require
approximately 700 cubic yards of fill placed in 3,000 square feet below the ordinary high water
line of Indian River.
The powerhouse site was moved upriver approximately 140 feet from the location in the April
14, 2011 conceptual design drawings. This revision was implemented for the following reasons:
The upriver site reduces the fill area below the ordinary high water line.
The canyon slopes at the upriver site appear to be more stable.
The upriver site is more compatible with river hydraulics than the original site.
The upriver site does not diminish the project’s technical or economic performance.
3.6 Power Line
The power line for the project will start at the small boat harbor and continue underground for
approximately 3,850 feet to the west rim of Indian River Canyon. It will cross Indian River
overhead and terminate at the powerhouse at approximately station 40+14. The power line
route traverses sidehill country that is vegetated by conifer forest with deciduous understory in
some areas. Several large emergent wetlands with forested wetland buffers in this area are
identified in NWI, NRCS, and USFS information, and are apparent in aerial imagery and detailed
topographic maps. The power line route avoids these areas. A small creek that drains this
wetland area is crossed at station 22+00 with a 24-inch culvert.
A maintenance trail will be co-located with the buried power line to allow inspection,
maintenance, and repair of the power line. The trail will be 6 to 8 feet wide, and built of native
materials. Vehicular access to the powerhouse will not be possible along the power line route
due to Indian River Canyon.
There are several small wetlands created by micro topography along the power line route that
were not mapped in detail during field investigations. There is sufficient flexibility in the power
line alignment to avoid impacting many of these small wetland areas. Fifteen percent of the
total power line footprint is assumed to require wetlands fill. Based upon field review of the
power line alignment, this is a very conservative allowance. The power line will require
approximately 800 cubic yards of fill into 9,800 square feet of wetlands.
Joel Groves
From:"Speerstra, Linda POA" <Linda.Speerstra@usace.army.mil>
Date:Friday, December 17, 2010 10:48 AM
To:<joel@polarconsult.net>
Subject:Tenakee Springs Hydro
Page 1 of 2
9/16/2011
Hi Joel. I'm almost back from leave. I do have some additional questions on
the Hydro Project in Tenakee POA-2010-0758. I'll list them below:
1) How many crossings will be needed on the 3200' road? What is the width of
the road? Also, cubic yards of material necessary to bed the two crossings
indicated. What is the size of the culverts? If the road is crossing any
wetland areas the acreage and fill material will need to be tallied. If you
aren't crossing wetlands state that in your narrative/application. Figure 2
of 5 indicates that the road to the intake will cross the top of a wetland
area.
2) Will the penstock be bedded underground or in the stream? Figure 3 shows
the intake structure with the penstock incased in something. Is the
encasement concrete? Can you send me additional information on the intake
unit with dimensions and type of material for each component.
3) How much riprap will be used and placed in the stream for the hydro unit
placement? I need specific information on amounts of fill material and area
of impact broken out by intake, powerhouse, penstock, road, trail, access
area, etc.
4) Figure 4 Powerhouse indicates wetlands along the OHW. I'll need
quantities for this location also. What is the deflector wall made of?
You'll need to label river bank as OHW if that is what it is.
5) The compensatory mitigation measures described our minimization measures.
Are you proposing compensatory mitigation? Bullet number 2 in compensatory
mitigation discusses a coordinated effort with USFS and ADF&G. I would need
more description on the enhancement work that would increase the
functionality of the fish passage. Send drawings and pictures for the
proposal.
6)I need drawings for the access trail, penstock at location determined,
staging area for equipment, etc.
7) the CPQ indicated there will be fill in Section 10 waters (marine waters)
is there a proposal for a staging area along the beach?
I'm sure you'll have some questions. So please give me a call. I'm in the
Juneau Field Office today 790-4490. I'll be back in the Sitka Field Office
on Monday.
Joel, if you have pictures of the area that would help a bunch. It's been
years since I've been in Tenakee. If you have a field trip planned for the
spring please let me know and I'll tag along. Linda
Linda Speerstra
Regulatory Specialist
Sitka Field Office
P.O. Box 16
Sitka, AK 99835
907-747-0658
Page 2 of 2
9/16/2011
Applicant Proposed Mitigation Statements
1
Background:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations
that govern national compensatory mitigation policy for activities in waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, authorized by Corps permits. The final mitigation rule was published in the federal register on
April 10, 2008, and became effective on June 9, 2008. The final rule establishes standards and criteria for
the use of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation for unavoidable functional losses of
aquatic resources authorized by Corps permits (33 CFR Part 332). Additionally, the rule requires new
information to be included in Corps permit applications and public notices to enable meaningful
comments on applicant proposed mitigation. In accordance with 33 CFR Part 325.1(d)(7), “For activities
involving discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., the application must include a
statement describing how impacts to waters of the United States are to be avoided and minimized. The
application must also include either a statement describing how impacts to waters of the United States are
to be compensated for or a statement explaining why compensatory mitigation should not be required for
the proposed impacts.” For additional information, the final mitigation rule can be viewed at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/news/final_mitig_rule.pdf
Mitigation is a sequential process of avoidance, minimization, and compensation. Compensatory
mitigation is not considered until after all appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to first avoid
and then minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Please provide your proposed avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation below:
Applicant’s Proposed Mitigation (attach additional sheets as necessary):
1. Avoidance of impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands:
Please describe how, in your project planning process, you avoided impacts to waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands, to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of avoidance measures include site
selection, routes, design configurations, etc...
Project features such as access roads, penstock, and trails will be routed to avoid wetlands and
minor drainages where technically and economically feasible.
2. Minimization of unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands:
Please describe how your project design incorporates measures that minimize the unavoidable impacts to
waters of the U.S., including wetlands, by limiting fill discharges to the minimum amount/size necessary
to achieve the project purpose.
Where fill of wetlands/waters or crossing of minor drainages cannot be avoided, such as at the
intake, powerhouse, and other locations, the design of these features will minimize the impact to
wetlands and waters. The powerhouse site will use a combination of rip-rap, retaining walls,
piling, or other methods to minimize the powerhouse site footprint. The intake will be a concrete
or similar structure built in a section of Indian River that flows over bedrock and cobbles,
minimizing habitat loss relative to other intake sites. Access features will use culverts or other
means as appropriate to cross minor drainages with minimal disruption of drainage patterns.
Applicant Proposed Mitigation Statements
2
3. Compensation for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands:
Please describe your proposed compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters of the
U.S., or, alternatively, why compensatory mitigation is not appropriate or practicable for your project.
Compensatory mitigation involves actions taken to offset unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the
U.S., including wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources (aquatic sites) authorized by Corps
permits. Compensatory mitigation may involve the restoration, enhancement, establishment (creation),
and/or the preservation of aquatic sites. The three mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation
are mitigation banks, in-lieu fee of mitigation, and permittee-responsible mitigation. Please see the
attached definitions for additional information.
Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated by one or more of the following measures:
Impacts along the banks of Indian River at the in take and powerhouse sites will be
mitigated by revegetating the banks in these areas after construction. Typical existing
bank-edge vegetation includes alders, willows, and devil’s club, and these sites are
deemed to be excellent candidates for successful revegetation.
Design of the project will be coordinated with US FS and ADFG to complement and
where practicable enhance the functionality of the fish passage improvements USFS has
constructed on Indian River. This mitigation effort will help support enhancement of the
biological productivity of the resource.
Applicant Proposed Mitigation Statements
3
Definitions:
Enhancement: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic
resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in
the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource
function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Establishment (creation): the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present
to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results in a
gain in aquatic resource area and functions.
In-lieu fee program: a program involving the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation of aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit natural resources
management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for DA permits. Similar to a
mitigation bank, an in-lieu fee program sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose
obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in-lieu program sponsor.
However, the rules governing the operation and use of in-lieu fee programs are somewhat different from
the rules governing operation and use of mitigation banks. The operation and use of an in-lieu fee
program are governed by an in-lieu fee program instrument.
Mitigation bank: a site, or suite of sites, where resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, riparian areas) are
restored, established, enhanced, and/or preserved for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation
for impacts authorized by DA permits. In general, a mitigation bank sells compensatory mitigation credits
to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the mitigation
bank sponsor. The operation and use of a mitigation bank are governed by a mitigation banking
instrument.
Permittee-responsible mitigation: an aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation activity undertaken by the permittee (or an authorized agent or contractor) to provide
compensatory mitigation for which the permittee retains full responsibility.
Practicable: available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology,
and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Preservation: the removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in or
near those aquatic resources. This term includes activities commonly associated with the protection and
maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms. Preservation does not result in a gain of aquatic resource area or functions.
Restoration: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the
goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. For the purpose of
tracking net gains in aquatic resource area, restoration is divided into two categories: re-establishment and
rehabilitation.
polarconsult alaska, inc.
ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - ENERGY CONSULTANTS
specializing in energy conservation systems
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: PROJECT: TIME:
September 14, 2010 09004 11:20 AM
CONTACT: COMPANY:
Linda Speerstra Coe
PHONE#: FAX#: Taken By:
747-0658 Joel Groves
SUBJECT:
Initial Application Comments
SUMMARY:
Linda called to review application.
Things she needs:
1. Wetlands delineation. Not shown on maps. Told her we had a good idea of where
they are based on past field trips, topo, and aerial imagery, but a formal delineation
hasn’t been done. She said this would work on a preliminary basis and she would
check with her supervisor on if this was sufficient generally.
I mentioned that we did plan to mobe out again and could do the wetlands at that
time. She asked of schedule, I said I wanted to receive all the comments from
permitting agencies and then do a site visit to collect what data is necessary. Not sure
if that will happen this fall or in the spring. She would like to accompany us on the
visit if possible.
2. Road plan. She needs to see stream crossings, drainages, etc.
3. Mitigation Plan. There is a form for the PCN. I didn’t see this.
4. Details on the 4,500’ trail. There are a number of NWPs that can be used for the
project, so split it and impacts out into the hydro, the access route, and the utility
corridor. That will help increase the minimums.
She will email the Mitigation Plan form and recap the discussion.
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
ADNR LAND LEASING
Joel Groves
From:"Anderson, James W (DNR)" <jim.anderson@alaska.gov>
Date:Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:20 PM
To:"Asplund, Kristi L (DNR)" <kristi.asplund@alaska.gov>
Cc:"Joel Groves" <joel@polarconsult.net>
Subject:RE: NEW CPQ: Indian River (City of Tenakee Springs ELEC UTIL DPT Hydroelectric Development);
ID2010-0904J
Page 1 of 2
9/16/2011
Kristi,
The Lands section of DMLW originally requested two applications for this proposed project and two application
were submitted by the City of Tenakee Springs agent – Polar consult Alaska inc., one application for a lease and
another for an easement. After receiving these two applications Lands revaluated the project and determined
that one authorization will work and we initialized both applications under an application for a public easement
and have assigned it case file number – ADL 108047. For purposes of starting an ACMP review we consider our
application complete.
Jim
From:Asplund, Kristi L (DNR)
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 11:59 AM
To: Roche, Frances E (DEC); Palmer, Sean P (DEC); Timothy, Jackie L (DFG); Kelley, David L (DNR); Bussard,
Daniel P (DNR); Deats, Theodore A (DNR); DNR, Parks OHA Review Compliance (DNR sponsored); 'Speerstra,
Linda POA'; cityoftb@aptalaska.net; juneau@fws.gov; mary.goode@noaa.gov; 'Degering.tracy@epamail.epa.gov';
'Lacroix.matthew@epamail.epa.gov'; cityoftke@gmail.com
Cc: Bohan, Carrie D (DNR); Groom, William M (DNR); Taylor, Jill A (DNR); Anderson, James W (DNR)
Subject: NEW CPQ: Indian River (City of Tenakee Springs ELEC UTIL DPT Hydroelectric Development); ID2010-
0904J
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Page 2 of 2
9/16/2011
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
ADNR EASEMENT PROCUREMENT
Joel Groves
From:"Joel Groves" <joel@polarconsult.net>
Date:Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:05 PM
To:"Anderson, James W (DNR)" <jim.anderson@alaska.gov>
Attach:110729-IndianRiverConceptDesign_R2.pdf; Solicitation_1.zip
Subject:Tenakee Hydro Project
Page 1 of 1
9/14/2011
Hi Jim,
It was a pleasure talking to you today. I've attached two items for your information:
1. Conceptual design drawings for the project. Easements will be needed for the access roads,
intake, powerhouse, penstock, and part of the power line.
2. USFS notice of RFP for putting Indian River Road into storage.
Regards,
Joel
Joel D. Groves, PE
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, 3rd Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Tel: 907.258.2420 x204
Fax: 907.258.2419
Cell: 907.360.9042
joel@polarconsult.net
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
ADNR COASTAL PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 111030
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-1030
PHONE: (907) 465-3562
FAX: (907) 465-3075
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 705
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3559
DIVISION OF COASTAL & OCEAN MANAGEMENT PHONE: (907) 269-7470
FAX: (907) 269-3981
http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us
“Develop, Conserve, and Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans.”
June 29, 2011
City of Tenakee Springs
Joel D. Graves
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99503
Subject: Review Termination/Program Termination
Indian River (Tenakee Springs Hydro Development)
ACMP I.D. # 2010-0904J
Dear Mr. Graves:
The Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) has not yet initiated a consistency
review of your above-referenced project.
The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) is scheduled to terminate as of July 1, 2011.
Should the ACMP sunset, your proposed project will no longer be subject to ACMP consistency
review as of 5:00 PM, June 30, 2011. However, it is extremely important for you to note that,
despite termination of the ACMP, you must still obtain any federal, state or local permits,
licenses or authorizations your project needs.
Because DCOM may not be able to inform review participants and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, please retain this letter as proof that your project is no longer subject to ACMP
review.
Sincerely,
Jill Taylor
Project Review Coordinator
cc: Fran Roche - ADEC, Juneau
David Kelley - ADNR/DMLW, Juneau
Kristin Dirks - ADNR/DMLW, Juneau
Jackie Timothy - ADFG/Habitat, Juneau
Marla Carter – ADFG, Anchorage
State Historical Preservation Office - ADNR/SHPO, Anchorage
Linda Speerstra – USACE Regulatory, Sitka
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 1 of 18
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.html.
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/pcpq.html
APPLICANT INFORMATION
1.
Name of Applicant
Address
City/State/Zip
Daytime Phone
Fax Number E-mail Address
2.
Agent (or responsible party if other than applicant)
Address
City/State/Zip
Daytime Phone
Fax Number E-mail Address
PROJECT INFORMATION Yes No
1. This activity is a: 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?
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
Program? .............................................................................................................................................................................
Previous ACMP I.D. Number: (example: AK 0706-05AA or ID2004-0505JJ)
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
scale of the maps and plan drawings must be large enough to show pertinent details. Identify your proposed footprint or
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 2 of 18
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: Proposed ending date for project:
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 Range Section Meridian
Latitude/Longitude / (specify Decimal Degrees or Degrees, Minutes, Seconds)
USGS Quad Map
5. The project is located on: State land or water* Federal land Private land 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? ......................................................................
COASTAL DISTRICT Yes No
7. Is the project located in a coastal district? ..........................................................................................................................
If yes, identify the applicable coastal district(s) 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.html
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
Land or University of Alaska Land.) ……………………………………………………………..………………………..
2. If you answered yes to the 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 “No”, explain 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? ......................................................................................................................................
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? ............................................................
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? ...............................................................................
a) Location of fill or material disposal site if different than the project site:
Township Range Section Meridian
6. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining,
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 3 of 18
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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- MINING SECTION Yes No
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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- WATER SECTION Yes No
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? .......................................................................................................
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 DIVISION OF FORESTRY Yes No
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…………………………........................................................................................
14. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Forestry
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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 4 of 18
DNR DIVISION OF OIL & GAS Yes No
15. a) Will you be exploring for or producing oil and/or gas? ………………………………………………………………...
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)? ………………………………………………….
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? …………………………………………………………………...
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.
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 Historic Preservation Office
for information.
a) Name/date of Contact:
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.) …………………………………………………….
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? ………………………………………………………………………………….
23. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate DNR Division of Parks
& Recreation 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 “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
No
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? …………………………………………………
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 5 of 18
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? ………………………………………………………………
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
determination.) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
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? ………………………………………………………………….
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:
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
AAC 72.990 for definitions.) …………………………………………………………………………………………...
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.) ……………………..
d) Will the project include a stormwater collection/discharge system? ……………………………………………………
e) Will the project include placing fill in wetlands? ……………………………………………………………………….
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
disposal system? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Does your project qualify for a general permit for wastewater? ...............................................................
3. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC-Division of Water 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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 6 of 18
DEC DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Yes No
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? ………………………….
6. Does your project qualify for a general permit for solid waste? ................................................................
7. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC- Division of Environmental
Health 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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
DEC DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Yes No
8 a) Will you have an asphalt plant designed to process no less than five tons per hour of product? ………………………
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? ……………………………………..
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
25 tons per year of all hazardous air contaminants?........................................................................................................
i) Will you be constructing a new stationary source with a potential to emit greater than: ………………………………
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 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? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
l) 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
actual emissions and a net emissions increase greater than:
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 7 of 18
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? …………………………………………………………………………………………...
o) 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.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/rapdef.pdf ..................................................................................................
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? ……………………………………………………………………
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? ………….
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? ………………………………..
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? ……………………………………………………………………
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.) ………………………………….
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/reg) ………………………………………..
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 8 of 18
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:
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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) Yes No
4. Is the proposed project located on BLM land, or will you need to cross BLM land for access? ………………………….
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) 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) Yes No
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? …………………………………………………………….
c) Do you plan to site, construct, or operate a deepwater port? ……………………………………………………………
7. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate US Coast Guard 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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) Yes No
8 a) Will the proposed project have a discharge to any waters? ……………………………………………………………...
b) Will you dispose of sewage sludge? …………………………………………………………………………………….
c) Will construction of your project expose 1 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.) …………………………………………………………………………...
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? ……………………………………………………………………
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) Yes No
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 Administration
for information.
a) Name/date of Contact:
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 9 of 18
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) Yes No
12 a) Does the project include any of the following: …………………………………………………………………………
1) a non-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 sections 7 (b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)? .....………………………………………………………
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? .........................................................................................................
d) Does the project include construction for physical interconnection of electric transmission facilities under section
202 (b) of the FPA? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
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? ……………………………………………………………………
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) Yes No
14 a) Does the proposed project involve construction on USFS land? ………………………………………………………..
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
Handbook? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
15. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at United States Forest Service 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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) Yes No
16 a) Is your proposed project on land managed by the USFWS? …………………………………………………………….
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 Wildlife Service 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 “No”, explain why an application
isn’t required. Explanation:
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY APPROVALS Yes No
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/pdf/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?
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 10 of 18
19. Have you applied for any other federal permits or authorizations? ………………………………………………………..
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) How is your project economically or physically dependent on a coastal location? Why are you proposing to place
the project at the selected location?
(b) Evaluation of development priority.
(1) How is the proposed project water-dependent? Explain.
(2) How is the proposed project water-related? Explain.
(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. Explain.
(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
appropriate authorization?
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 11 of 18
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.
(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?
(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?
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:
Please explain how the proposed project will maintain and, where appropriate, increase public access to, from and along
coastal water.
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;
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 12 of 18
(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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(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.
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.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 13 of 18
(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.
(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
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
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.
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) a consistency 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.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 14 of 18
(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
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.
(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;
(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;
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 15 of 18
(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
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;
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 16 of 18
(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.
(b) Describe how the proposed project avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to each of the identified habitat(s) in
section (a) above.
(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?
(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)?
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management
Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 18 of 18
Project Description: Please provide or attach a brief description of your project including the planned
work, any effects to coastal uses and resources and how your project is being designed to avoid, minimize
and mitigate those effects.
Project Area: Please provide or attach a map of your project location and your proposed work. (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.)
Nearest Community:
Nearest Waterbody:
Legal Survey Description:
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
ADNR WATER RIGHTS PERMITTING
Joel Groves
From:"Bussard, Daniel P (DNR)" <daniel.bussard@alaska.gov>
Date:Monday, October 04, 2010 11:11 AM
To:"Joel Groves" <joel@polarconsult.net>
Subject:RE: Receipt for Water Rights App - Indian River / Tenakee Springs
Page 1 of 1
9/16/2011
Hi Joel,
Your file has been created LAS 27836 and the receipt number is 3163114 as soon as I get
Financial Services to fix something on the receipt I will email you a copy
Dan Bussard
907-465-6363
From: Joel Groves [mailto:joel@polarconsult.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Bussard, Daniel P (DNR)
Subject: Receipt for Water Rights App - Indian River / Tenakee Springs
Hi Dan,
My accounting office tells me that we haven't received a receipt for the Indian River / Tenakee Springs
water rights application submitted in late August. Could you please have someone email or fax me the
receipt?
Thanks,
Joel
Joel D. Groves, PE
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, 3rd Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Tel: 907.258.2420 x204
Fax: 907.258.2419
Cell: 907.360.9042
joel@polarconsult.net
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
ADFG FISH HABITAT PERMITTING
Joel Groves
From:"Joel Groves" <joel@polarconsult.net>
Date:Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:26 PM
To:"Timothy, Jackie L (DFG)" <jackie.timothy@alaska.gov>
Cc:"Albrecht, Gregory T (DFG)" <greg.albrecht@alaska.gov>; "Johnson, Shawn L (DFG)"
<shawn.johnson@alaska.gov>
Subject:Re: Indian River Hydro - Tenakee Springs
Page 1 of 2
9/16/2011
Hi Jackie,
I've been working with Linda Speerstra at COE. Wetlands delineations are completed, and she sent
me a few more questions about the project two weeks ago that I will have addressed shortly. Then
she should be able to proceed with her process to issue a NWP.
FYI, USFS also has these drawings, but I haven't yet received any feedback from them on the
proposed modifications to the fish pass. I've configured the hydro diversion to improve
performance of the fish pass and reduce O&M requirements on the pass structure (debris clearing,
etc).
Thanks,
Joel
From:Timothy, Jackie L (DFG)
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:55 PM
To:joel@polarconsult.net
Cc:Albrecht, Gregory T (DFG) ; Johnson, Shawn L (DFG)
Subject: FW: Indian River Hydro - Tenakee Springs
Hi there, Joel –
Greg Albrecht will be taking over for Katie Eaton. I’ll bring him up to speed, have him start
coordinating in-house, and get in touch with you. Where are you with USACE permitting? Now the
ACMP is gone we can issue when we are satisfied fish habitat impacts have been avoided, minimized
or mitigated and fish passage can be assured.
Thanks. . .Jackie
From: Joel Groves [mailto:joel@polarconsult.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:42 PM
To: Timothy, Jackie L (DFG)
Subject: Indian River Hydro - Tenakee Springs
Hi Jackie,
I don't see that I ever sent you the concept design drawings for the Indian River hydro after
we spoke last month - they are attached. My apologies for the delay! Please let me know who will
be taking Katie Eaton's place in issuing the habitat permit, and as always give me a call if you have
any questions.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel D. Groves, PE
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, 3rd Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Tel: 907.258.2420 x204
Fax: 907.258.2419
Cell: 907.360.9042
joel@polarconsult.net
Page 2 of 2
9/16/2011
CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC
FISH HABITAT PERMIT – ATTACHMENTS AUGUST 2010
PAGE 1 OF 4
1. SKETCH OF DIVERSION STRUCTURE
SEE ATTACHED FIGURE 3
2. SKETCH OF POWERHOUSE SITE
SEE ATTACHED FIGURE 4
CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC
FISH HABITAT PERMIT – ATTACHMENTS AUGUST 2010
PAGE 2 OF 4
3. AERIAL PHOTOS
Project Area
Tenakee Springs
CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC
FISH HABITAT PERMIT – ATTACHMENTS AUGUST 2010
PAGE 3 OF 4
4. RESTORATION / REVEGETATION PLAN
Below the project, the first half-mile of Indian River is a low gradient stream running at
approximately 0.6%. This reach supports pink and chum salmon. From River mile 0.5 to
1.0, Indian River has an average gradient of about 2.7%, but drops through a series of
five significant waterfalls or fish barriers. This is where the hydro project will be located.
The value of this reach of the river as fish habitat is understood to be primarily as a
migration corridor to upstream rearing and spawning habitat. Several past USFS projects
have improved fish passage around the barrier waterfalls.
The project will be designed to strike a balance between the need to control construction
and operating costs and minimize impacts on fish habitat. Topography in the project area
requires that the penstock and powerhouse will be located within the Indian River
Canyon. This will require some trail work within the canyon, including blasting, which
will generate some potential for erosion and sediment transport. Stormwater prevention
measures will be used to control sediment transport.
Generally, it is less costly and superior ecologically to avoid habitat impacts rather than
restore or mitigate them. By close consultation with ADFG and USFS, the City of
Tenakee Springs intends to create a realistic project design and construction approach for
the hydro project.
Primary project objectives with regard to fish habitat protection are expected to include:
➘ Avoid formation of new migration barriers along project reach.
➘ Avoid excessive sedimentation of downstream habitat areas.
➘ Avoid excessive degradation of stream bank vegetation.
Each of these is briefly discussed below.
Avoid Formation Of New Migration Barriers
Migration barriers may be formed by:
➘ Reduction of flows in the bypass reach. It is unknown if reducing flows in the
bypass reach will improve or impede fish passage. Reduced flows may eliminate
existing velocity barriers. The USFS has established a minimum flow
requirement for their fish ladder around barrier 4 of 10 cfs, which will also be
available through the entire hydro bypass reach. Natural flows at the fish ladder
exceed 10 cfs 99% of the time. The city proposes to design and operate the hydro
project in a manner that maintains minimum flows through the fish ladder and
bypass reach during critical migration seasons. Natural low flow periods occur
during December through February and in late July through mid-September.
➘ Creation of new barriers by deposit of waste rock or fill into Indian River. Project
construction will result in some placement of fill into Indian River. The volume,
type, and location of fill will be determined through the design and permitting
process.
Avoid Excessive Sedimentation Of Downstream Habitat Areas
Excessive sedimentation of downstream habitat areas will be avoided by:
CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC
FISH HABITAT PERMIT – ATTACHMENTS AUGUST 2010
PAGE 4 OF 4
➘ Project design to minimize generation of top soil, exposed cuts, and related civil
works with erosion potential.
➘ Avoiding disposal of top soil and fines into Indian River.
➘ Use of silt fences and similar storm water control measures to trap sediment.
➘ Revegetating cleared areas to reduce long-term erosion potential.
Avoid Excessive Degradation Of Stream Bank Vegetation
Excessive degradation of stream bank vegetation will be avoided by:
➘ Avoiding construction activities on the stream bank.
➘ Restoring vegetation along disturbed areas of the stream bank. The stream bank
in the project area is typically vegetated by a variety of willows, devil’s club, and
similar fast-growing plants. The potential for successful revegetation of disturbed
areas of the stream bank is considered to be very good.
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX D
U.S. FOREST SERVICE COORDINATION
SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD 1.THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER RATING PAGE OF
UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700) 1 36 PAGES
2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. SOLICITATION NUMBER 4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION 5. DATE ISSUED 6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE
Total HUBZone Set-
Aside
AG-0116-S-11-0118
SEALED BID (IFB)
7/29/11
NUMBER
NEGOTIATED (RFP) 533864
7. ISSUED BY CODE 0116 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If other than Item 7)
TNF Contracting Office, 648 Mission Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
See Item 7
NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".
SOLICITATION
9. Sealed offers in original and 1 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8,
or if handcarried, in the depository located in TNF Contracting Office until 4:00pm local time 8/29/2011
(Hour) (Date)
CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and
conditions contained in this solicitation.
10. FOR
INFORMATION A. NAME B. TELEPHONE NO. (NO COLLECT
CALLS)Area Code/Number/Extension C. E-MAIL ADDRESS
CALL: Sherman Mayle 907-228-6244 smayle@fs.fed.us
11. TABLE OF CONTENTS
(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)
PART I - THE SCHEDULE PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES
X A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM 1 X I CONTRACT CLAUSES 19-23
X B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS 2-3 PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER
ATTACH.
X C DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT 4-6 X J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 24
X D PACKAGING AND MARKING 7 PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
X E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 7 X K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND 25-32 X F DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 8 OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS
X G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 9 X L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 33-35
X H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 10-18 X M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 36
OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)
NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.
12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within 60 calendar days (60 calendar days unless a
different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered
at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.
13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT 10 CALENDAR DAYS 20 CALENDAR DAYS 30 CALENDAR DAYS CALENDAR DAYS
(See Section I, Clause No. 52-232-8) % % % %
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT NO. DATE AMENDMENT NO. DATE
(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amend-
ments to the SOLICITATION for offerors and
related documents numbered and dated):
15A.
NAME AND
ADDRESS
OF OFFEROR
CODE FACILITY 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN
OFFER (Type or Print)
15B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area
code and extension)
15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS
17. SIGNATURE
18. OFFER DATE
IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER
SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.
AWARD (To be completed by Government)
19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION
22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN
COMPETITION
23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM
10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c) ( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)
24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE
26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE
(Signature of Contracting Officer)
IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.
AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION STANDARD FORM 33 (REV.9-97)
Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)
SERVICE RFP AG-0116-S-11-0118
TNF
Indian River Road Storage
PAGE 2 of 36
PART I—THE SCHEDULE
SECTION B--SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS
Indian River Road Storage
Sitka/Hoonah Ranger Districts
B.1 SCHEDULE OF ITEMS
Base Item
Item
Number
Description
Unit
Estimated
Quantity
Unit
Price
Total
1.1 203(01) Removal of Log Stringer Bridge Each 26 $ $
1.2
203(01) Removal and Transport of 40’
Modular Bridge MP 8.368 Road 7500
Lump
Sum 1
$
$
1.3
203(01) Removal and Transport of 80’
Modular Bridge MP 8.737 Road 7500
Lump
Sum 1
$
$
1.4
203(01) Removal and Transport of 60’
Modular Bridge MP 9.835 Road 7500
Lump
Sum 1 $ $
1.5
203(01) Removal and Transport of 70’
Modular Bridge MP 13.273 Road 7500
Lump
Sum 1
$
$
1.6
557(01) Furnish and Install 50’ Log Trail
Bridge, MP 0.466 Road 7500
Lump
Sum 1
$
$
1.7 802(03) Road Storage Mile 20.78
$
$
1.8 881(1) Mobilization
Lump
Sum 1
$
$
TOTAL BASE
$
Option Work Items
TOTAL (BASE YEAR AND ALL OPTIONS) $_____________
Item
Number
Description Unit Estimated
Quantity
Unit Price Total
2.1 861(01) Resurface Bridge Surface SF 3,150 $ $
TOTAL OPTION
$
SERVICE RFP AG-0116-S-11-0118
TNF
Indian River Road Storage
PAGE 3 of 36
B.2 Note
Line Items 1.7 and 2.1 are design quantities, which mean that if the quantity is within +/- 15%, the contractor
gets paid for the units listed in the schedule of items at the unit cost listed in the schedule of items - a fixed
dollar amount even when the quantity changes if the change is within 15%. If quantities vary by more than
15%, then a Contract Modification is required
B.3 Vendor Information
Vendor Name: Phone
Signature: Fax
Address: Email
City, State, Zip: TIN#
Duns#
Info Below requested to ensure payment info on record is accurate in the interest of preventing
any delays in the distribution of any payments.
Bank Name Last 4 digits of Acct #
SERVICE RFP AG-0116-S-11-0118
TNF
Indian River Road Storage
PAGE 4 of 36
SECTION C--DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK
C.1 Scope of Contract
The intent of the contract is to perform road maintenance activities in accordance with the scope of work,
worklist, specifications and attachments incorporated into this contract. Work includes installing waterbars,
excavating and sidecasting road fill material, removing culverts and log bridges, removing modular bridges and
transporting them to Thorne Bay, Alaska, removing 2 abandoned vehicles, constructing a log stringer trail
bridge, clearing brush from the roadway for equipment access, and seeding and fertilizing exposed organic soils
on and along roadsides on approximately 20 miles of National Forest System Roads on Chichagof Island. The
removed culverts and hardware become the property of the contractor and must be removed from the National
Forest. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, supplies, and perform
all work required to maintain the facilities in accordance with the attached typical drawings, supplemental
specifications and parent specifications.
Road storage work in this contract involves stabilizing roads regarding drainage. Work will include a
combination of drainage structure removal, waterbar construction, clearing the roadway of brush for project
access and proper drainage, and seeding and fertilizing bare organic soils.
Road storage work is payable on a per mile basis, regardless of the number of drainage structures removed or
constructed for each mile, and the amount of seeding and fertilizing required. Approximately 9 miles of road
storage will construct waterbars and fords for off highway type vehicle (OHV) passage at locations where
culverts and bridges are removed, and at additional staked locations. The remaining 11 miles of road storage
will not be left open to OHVs, these roads will have structures removed, waterbars constructed and be blocked
to motorized vehicles with a barrier of rock borrow and logs. Spacing between waterbars will be 50 to 750 feet
apart on each type of road storage. Refer to the drawings and worklist in Section J for details on each project
road.
The work includes removing and transporting modular steel bridges from the work area to the Thorne Bay,
Alaska sortyard. Moving the bridges on the Indian River road system may require additional work on the
existing native log bridges, which were constructed in the late 1970s. Several bridges have undermined sill logs
due to stream scour, and many have visible rot in the brow logs. The modular bridge furthest from the beach, a
70’ Hamilton at MP 13.273 on road 7500 is located beyond a site where a log bridge has been previously
removed. The span of the removed log bridge was 70’ and it sat on log crib abutments approximately 15’ above
the stream elevation. Mobilizing beyond the removed log bridge site may involve construction of a temporary
bridge provided by the Contractor, or it may involve additional excavation of the rock borrow approaches to
allow equipment access through the stream and beyond the site. A site visit to the work area is recommended,
the road leading to the removed log bridge site is presently open and drivable to OHVs.
The work includes construction of a 50’ native log trail bridge. Construction timber in the form of standing trees
will be made available within 5 miles of the bridge site.
Equipment cleaning will be required prior to mobilizing to the work site. Refer to the Special Project
Specifications for details.
The structures listed in the worklogs represent known locations of drainage structures needing work.
Additional structures may be located during the project that require maintenance or removal, any work
within the scope of the project associated with additional structures or additional required work to
SERVICE RFP AG-0116-S-11-0118
TNF
Indian River Road Storage
PAGE 5 of 36
stabilize the roads located on project roads is considered incidental to the rest of the project work. Many
project roads are covered with vegetation such as alder and young spruce growth.
The contract also includes an option for additional work furnishing and installing 4”x12” treated wooden
planks for the middle joint on 3 modular bridges, and for furnishing and installing 3”x12” untreated
wooden planks for the wear surface on the 3 modular bridges. Refer to Sections B and J for optional work
details.
In-stream timing restrictions are included in the contract for work in streams with fish populations.
Refer to Section H for times and locations where this will affect work scheduling. Additionally, a pre-
commercial tree thinning contractor will be using road 7500 from the beach to MP 10.935 and road 7502
in its entirety during the spring of 2012. There will be no road storage work allowed on these 2 road
segments that interferes with OHV type vehicles before July 1, 2012.
The Contractor shall assume all risk, loss, damage, or expense arising out of prosecution of the work, except as
otherwise provided in the contract.
C.2 Description and Location
The project is located on Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska. The Indian River road system is isolated, and is
accessible by air or salt water. There are no services available. Tenakee Springs is the nearest community to the
work area, however there is no road connection between Tenakee Springs and the work area.. Juneau is the
nearest full service community to the work area, approximately 30 air miles towards the east northeast.
The Log Transfer Facility (LTF) that serves the Indian River road system is located in Sunny Cove. The present
condition of the facility is ringed with a vegetated cover of alder trees. The shot rock fill at the LTF is in place,
however the site has not been used for equipment transport since 1999. The Indian River road system is in
similar condition, motorized traffic on the roads has been limited to OHVs for approximately 10 years, allowing
alder and grass to spread towards the road center. All brush removed for equipment access shall be sidecast
below the roadway and shall not be placed in or near streams creating the potential to affect stream flows.
C.4 Mobilization
Per FP-03, this work consists of moving personnel, equipment, material, and incidentals to the project and
performing all work necessary before beginning work at the project site. Mobilization includes the obtaining of
permits, insurance and bonds. When 5% of the original contract amount is earned from other bid items, 50% of
the mobilization item, or 5% of the original contract amount, whichever is less, will be paid. When 10% of the
original contract amount is earned from other bid items, 100% of the mobilization item, or 10% of the original
contract amount, whichever is less, will be paid.
C.5 Signing and Safety
(a) A reflective SLOW MOVING VEHICLE emblem shall be attached to any equipment not designed to
maintain a safe travel rate or that will be moving at a slow rate while performing maintenance.
(b) It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to furnish black and orange reflective maintenance warning signs
to alert motorists of maintenance operations. All signs shall conform to the standards for Temporary Traffic
Control in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A minimum of one (1)
City of Tenakee Springs
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
Phase II Final Report Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
November 2011 – Final Report APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E – PHASE II FINAL REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS
polarconsult a la ska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638
Phone: (907) 258-2420
FAX: (907) 258-2419
M E M O R A N D U M
111103-TENAKEEPHASEIIREPORT_APDXE.DOC
DATE: November 3, 2011
TO: Art Bloom, Tenakee Springs Project Manger
FROM: Joel Groves, Polarconsult Project Manager
SUBJECT: Response to AEA Review Comments on
Indian River Hydroelectric Project Phase II Final Report
CC: Phase II Final Report Appendix E
The Client Review Draft of the Indian River Hydroelectric Project Phase II Final Report was
provided to the City of Tenakee Springs on September 28, 2011 and the Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA) on October 11, 2011. The AEA provided comments on October 31, 2011.
AEA comments and Polarconsult responses are summarized below. As appropriate, AEA’s
comments have been incorporated into the final release of the Indian River Hydroelectric
Project Phase II Final Report, dated November 2011.
AEA Comments Received (Polarconsult responses in BLUE)
1. Section 2.3 – Refers to “Feasibility Study Report.” Please include the title of the report,
author, and date so that it is understood exactly which report it is being referred to.
Section 2.3 has been modified to state the full name, date and author of the Feasibility Study
report.
2. Appendix A: Conceptual Drawings
a. Scales don’t appear to be correct. In final report, please print on intended page size or
fix scales.
The conceptual design drawings are formatted as D size drawings (22” by 34”). The
printed copies of the Phase II reports include half-size drawings for the readers’
convenience. Graphic scale bars are included on all sheets to provide a correct scale
regardless of what size paper is used to plot the drawings. This has been clarified in
the narrative and on the drawings to avoid confusion.
b. Sheet C1.2: The reference roadway section for the road in the steep drop into Indian
River canyon (from Sta 16 + 15 to 18 + 40) is listed as Type 2. But the Type 2 section
would apply only if the route were sideways to the hill slope, which it is not.
A fourth typical roadway section has been added as Detail 6, Sheet C1.1 to represent
the main access road from Sta. 16+15 to 18+40, and the callout on Sheet C1.2 has been
corrected.
P OLARCONSULT M EMORANDUM
Page 2 of 2
c. Sheet C1.2: The 54% grade drop down this steep hill will be a hazard for routine access
to the powerhouse after construction. Please comment.
The local community is very sensitive to minimizing the roads associated with this
project, which is one reason for the proposed powerhouse access configuration. Two
means of access to the powerhouse will be available post-construction. For routine
personnel access, existing foot trails down this slope are adequate and safe to provide
pedestrian access to the powerhouse. For equipment or heavy maintenance access, a
permanent winch point will be provided at the top of this grade to allow materials,
equipment or vehicles to be winched up and down this grade. Sheet C1.2 has been
modified to show these provisions.
d. Sheet C3.1: The location of the penstock on trestles in the canyon may be at risk
during high water events.
The final design for the penstock will evaluate flood stage in the canyon and site the
penstock trestle above flood stage to the extent practical. Any penstock trestles that
cannot be sited above flood stage will be built to withstand inundation and impact
from flood debris (e.g., logs). The penstock design will also evaluate the potential for
logs to directly impact the pipe spans and the penstock will be designed accordingly.
e. Sheet C3.1 – Detail 2? Missing profile? Two of the same page?
There is not a missing detail. Sheet C3.1 has been corrected.
f. Sheet C5.1, Detail 1 – “leader”/”arrow to” some portions of the drawing are off, i.e.,
switchgear, load bank.
The leaders on Sheet C5.1 have been corrected.
g. Did not review April drawings
3. The impact of the USFS Indian River Road Storage project upon the access for the Indian River
Hydroelectric Project remains a concern to this reviewer. At worst case scenario the removal of
existing log bridges and steel culverts by USFS contractors would negatively impact the
construction cost of the hydro project. AEA requests the Grantee to continue to communicate
with USFS on this issue to reduce these negative impacts as much as possible.
The City is maintain an active dialog with the USFS on this issue to work towards an
acceptable solution. The USFS has stated that they will make reasonable accommodations
for the City’s access needs to the project site. The City will keep AEA appraised of the status
of these discussions.