Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Feasibility Study and Prototype Testing of Tidalin Stream App
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Feasibility Study and Prototype Testing of Tidal in Stream Energy Conversion Devices Applicants: Alaska Tidal Energy Company Natural Currents Alaska, LLC City of Gustavus Tlingit-Haida Tribal Council October 7, 2008 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 59 9/2/2008 Application Forms and Instructions The following forms and instructions are provided for preparing your application for a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and the forms are available online at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html The following application forms are required to be submitted for a grant recommendation: Grant Application Form GrantApp.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of information required to submit a complete application. Applicants should use the form to assure all information is provided and attach additional information as required. Application Cost Worksheet Costworksheet.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by applicants in preparing their application. Grant Budget Form GrantBudget.xls A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of costs by task and a summary of funds available and requested to complete the work for which funds are being requested. Grant Budget Form Instructions GrantBudgetInstr.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form. • If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. • Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide a plan and grant budget for completion of each phase. • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. • If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. REMINDER: • Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act, AS 40.25 and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. • All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 59 9/3/2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 - APPLICANT INFORMATION...............................................................................4 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT..............................................................................5 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS...................................................................5 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT SUMMARY.........................................................................................6 2.1 PROJECT TYPE...........................................................................................................7 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................7 2.3 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW.................................................................................8 2.4 PROJECT BENEFIT .....................................................................................................8 2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY*.............................................................9 SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................15 3.1 Project Manager..........................................................................................................15 3.2 Project Schedule.........................................................................................................18 3.3 Project Milestones.......................................................................................................20 3.4 Project Resources.......................................................................................................20 3.4-A TRC Environmental.................................................................................................20 3.4-B University of Alaska.................................................................................................22 3.4-C Biosonics.................................................................................................................24 3.5 Project Communications .............................................................................................26 3.6 Project Risk.................................................................................................................26 SECTION 4.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS...........................................................27 4.1 Project Overview.........................................................................................................27 4.2 Proposed Energy Resource........................................................................................28 4.3 Existing Energy System ..............................................................................................36 4.3.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System.......................................................36 4.3.1-A Kenai (Central Cook Inlet).......................................................................................36 4.3.1-B Gustavus (Icy Passage/Icy Strait) ...........................................................................36 4.2.1-C Angoon (Kootznahoo Inlet)......................................................................................36 4.3.1-D Petersburg (Wrangell Narrows)...............................................................................37 4.3.2 Existing Energy Resources Used............................................................................37 4.3.3 Existing Energy Market ...........................................................................................37 4.4 Proposed System........................................................................................................38 4.4.1 System Design........................................................................................................38 4.4.2 Land Ownership......................................................................................................43 4.4.3 Permits....................................................................................................................44 4.4.4 Environmental .........................................................................................................47 4.4.4-A Threatened or Endangered Species .......................................................................47 4.4.4-B Habitat Issues..........................................................................................................53 4.4.4-C Wetlands and Other Protected Areas......................................................................53 4.3.4-D Archaeological and Historical Resources................................................................54 4.4.4-E Land Development Constraints...........................................................................54 4.4.4-F Telecommunications Interference...........................................................................54 4.4.4-G Aviation Considerations...........................................................................................54 4.4.4-H Visual and Aesthetics Impacts ................................................................................54 4.4.4-I Ice Interference Issues............................................................................................54 4.4.4-I Use conflict Issues .................................................................................................55 4.5 Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed Revenues).......55 4.5.1 Project Development Cost.......................................................................................55 4.5.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs..............................................................55 4.5.3 Power Purchase/Sale..............................................................................................56 4.5.4 Cost Worksheet.......................................................................................................56 4.5.5 Business Plan..........................................................................................................56 4.5.6 Analysis and Recommendations.............................................................................56 SECTION 5.0 - PROJECT BENEFIT..........................................................................................56 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 59 9/3/2008 SECTION 6.0 - GRANT BUDGET ..............................................................................................58 SECTION 7.0 - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:.......................................................59 FIGURES Figure 2.0-1.................................................................................................................................10 Figure 2.0-2b...............................................................................................................................12 Figure 2.0-3a...............................................................................................................................13 Figure 2.0-3b...............................................................................................................................13 Figure 2.0-4.................................................................................................................................14 Figure 2.0-5.................................................................................................................................14 Figure 3.1-1. Management Team ..............................................................................................16 Figure 3.2. Alaska Schedule......................................................................................................19 Figure 4.1-1. NOAA Tidal Current Prediction Sites in Icy Strait.................................................30 Figure 4.1-2. Three NOAA Tidal Current Prediction Sites in Cook Inlet. ....................................31 Figure 4.1-2. ICY Passage Tidal Currents.................................................................................33 Figure 4.1-4. Cooks Inlet Tidal Currents....................................................................................34 Figure 4.1-5. Map of Kootznahoo Inlet Near Angoon, AK...........................................................35 Figure 4.3-1. Barge-Mounted Testing Configuration with Representative Support Structures and Devices................................................................................................................................39 Figure 4.3-2. Barge Dimensions for Phase 1 Testing.................................................................40 Figure 4.3-3. Shugart Sectional Barge in Tidal Generator Test Program (©Natural Currents New England, LLC)..............................................................................................................40 Figure 4.3-4. A Potential Hydrokinetic Generator and Support Structure for Attachment to a Barge...................................................................................................................................42 Figure 4.3-5. 3-D images of Deploying a Hydrokinetic Generator and Support Structure from a Barge...................................................................................................................................42 Figure 4.3-6. Deployment of a Hydrokinetic Generator and Support Structure in Similar Test Program Conducted by Natural Currents New England, LLC .............................................43 Figure 4.3-7. Area Expansion and Stratification. .......................................................................53 TABLES Table 4.1-1. 2008 NOAA Predicted Tidal Currents In Icy Strait, AK..........................................29 Table 4.1-2. 2008 NOAA Predicted Tidal Currents in Cook Inlet, AK........................................30 Table 4.1-3. 2008 NOAA Predicted Tidal Currents in Wrangell Narrows, AK............................35 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 59 9/3/2008 SECTION 1.0 - APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Alaska Tidal Energy Company Type of Entity: Corporation (IPP) Mailing Address 1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036 Physical Address 1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone (202) 494-9232 Fax (202) 756-2801 Email mikehoover@oceanaenergy.com Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Natural Currents Alaska, LLC Type of Entity: Limited Liability Company (IPP) Mailing Address 1400 W. Benson Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 Physical Address 1213 Purchace Street New Bedford, MA 01270 Telephone (845) 691-4008 Fax (845) 691-1557 Email rbason@naturalcurrents.com Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) City of Gustavus Type of Entity: Incorporated Municipality Mailing Address P.O. Box 1 Gustavus, Alaska 99826 Physical Address NHN Main Road Gustavus, AK 99826 Telephone 907-697-2451 Fax 907-697-2136 Email citycouncil1@gustavus-ak.gov (for Ms. Sandi Marchbanks) citycouncil4@gustavus-ak.gov (for Mr. John Nixon) Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and SE Alaska, in association with Kootznoowoo, Inc. Type of Entity: Government Entity Mailing Address 8585 Old Dairy Road, Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 Physical Address 8585 Old Dairy Road, Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone 907-790-2992 Fax 907-790-2995 Email peter@kootznoowoo.com Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 59 9/3/2008 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT Name Mr. Charles Cooper Title Director, Environmental Permitting and Planning, TRC Environmental Mailing Address Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk Street Lowell, MA 01854 Telephone (978) 656-3567 Fax (978) 453-1995 Email ccooper@trcsolutions.com 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or X An independent power producer, or X A local government, or X A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes or No 1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box ) Yes Yes or No 1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement. Yes Yes or No 1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) Yes. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 59 9/3/2008 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT SUMMARY Provide a brief 1-2 page overview of your project. The proposed project is a combination of selective reconnaissance, prototype testing, conflict assessment and comprehensive feasibility assessment to establish the feasibility of prospective pilot tidal energy development projects at four sites where Preliminary Permits have been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Three of the sites are in Southeast Alaska, as follows: • Icy Passage/Icy Straits near Gustavus The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-1) Alaska Tidal Energy Co. (AKTidal) holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. AKTidal and the City of Gustavus, which is severely disadvantaged by high electrical rates and lack of reliable supply, seek Grant funds to perform reconnaissance and study project feasibility at this site. A key issue is the extent to which the massive overall tidal resource potential of the Icy Straits is developable near enough to Gustavus to supply the City. If initial reconnaissance results on this topic are favorable, extensive additional in-water prototype testing, biological response monitoring and related onshore delivery system evaluation work are proposed for this site. • Angoon The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-2a and 2.0-2b)Natural Currents, LLC (Natural Currents) holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. Natural Currents and the local Kootznoowoo village (under the Tlingit – Haida tribal umbrella), which is severely disadvantaged by high electrical rates and reliance on fossil fuel (diesel), seek Grant funds to perform reconnaissance and establish project feasibility at this site. A key issue is the extent to which available prototype devices can extract tidal energy cost-effectively and without adverse biological resource impacts at this site. Extensive prototype testing, biological response monitoring and related onshore delivery system evaluation work are proposed for this site. • Wrangell Narrows The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-3a and 2.0-3b)AKTidal holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. Unlike the other sites, this area reportedly has lower electrical rates and an abundance of reliable hydro-based supply. A key issue is the extent to which tidal energy development would be cost-effective at this site. Until that is determined, no in-water work is proposed for this site. The fourth site in this program, Central Cook Inlet , is near Nikiski in the South-Central part of the State. The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-4) AKTidal holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. While the area as served by the Homer Electric Association is not disadvantaged by high electrical rates, the supply is largely based on fossil- fueled co-generation at Nikiski. This site has very significant tidal resource potential in the Forelands near Nikiski. AKTidal seeks Grant funds to perform reconnaissance and study project feasibility at this site. The potential for system enhancement and/or displacement/diversification of fossil-fueled generation will be studied. If initial reconnaissance results are unfavorable for Gustavus, then prototype testing, biological response monitoring and related onshore delivery system evaluation work are proposed for the Central Cook site. Figure(2.0-5) summarizes the components and decision logic for the proposed program. The proposed reconnaissance, testing/monitoring and feasibility evaluations at all four sites have been tailored to provide the basis for supporting preparation of FERC Pilot Project License applications, if/as warranted by the results. The following critical areas of feasibility will be evaluated: • Development cost/benefit, including but not limited to power development and power delivery Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 59 9/3/2008 engineering requirements and system integration potential • As part of the above, short-term barge-mounted performance testing of prototype devices: • Physical oceanographic suitability, focusing on current velocity profiles, bottom conditions, and potentially limiting physical factors such as ice flows and sand waves • Compatibility with protection of biological resources, including resource characterizations and monitoring of possible device encounters or changes in underwater noise and fish/mammal activity patterns before, during and after prototype testing • Compatibility with other uses of the involved areas, including but not limited to commercial and recreational fishing and navigation, and (at Cook Inlet) oil and gas production • Stakeholder concerns and permitting requirements In summary, the proposed program would benefit multiple parts of the state by providing a definitive basis for deciding whether and how to proceed with Pilot Project Licensing at major candidate tidal energy development sites. This includes all the major sites thus far identified in Southeast Alaska (two of which are otherwise significantly disadvantaged for energy supply), and one of the largest potential tidal power development sites in the South-Central part of the state. Efficiencies and cost savings will be realized compared to the independent assessment of the individual sites because there will be opportunities to reduce survey mobilization and vessel use costs, and to re-use prototypes and their barge testing set-ups between sites. 2.1 PROJECT TYPE Describe the type of project you are proposing, (Reconnaissance; Resource Assessment/ Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design; Final Design and Permitting; and/or Construction) as well as the kind of renewable energy you intend to use. Refer to Section 1.5 of RFA. As described above, the proposed project would consist of Resource Assessment and Feasibility Analysis at four sites, and supporting reconnaissance at three of those sites. With reference to Section 1.5 of the RFA the Grant funding would be for feasibility studies and reconnaissance at four candidate development sites for new tidal power/tidal energy projects which would convert the energy of tides into electricity or other useful forms of power. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a one paragraph description of your project. At a minimum include the project location, communities to be served, and who will be involved in the grant project. The proposed project is a combination of selective reconnaissance, prototype testing, conflict assessment and comprehensive feasibility assessment to establish the feasibility of prospective pilot tidal energy development projects at four sites where Preliminary Permits have been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The four sites and respective communities served are: • Icy Passage Icy Straits, serving the community of Gustavus; • Angoon, serving the local Kootznoowoo community; Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 59 9/3/2008 • Wrangell Narrows, potentially serving the community of Petersburg; and • Central Cook Inlet near Nikiski, potentially supplying the communities in the service area of the Homer Electric Association. The map locations of the sites are provided in figures included in the Section 2 Overview above. The proposed grant recipients are two prospective IPPs, AKTidal Energy Company (developer of the Icy Passage, Wrangell Narrows and Central Cook sites) and Natural Currents Alaska, LLC. (developer of the Angoon site), in partnership with the City of Gustavus and the Tlingit – Haida Tribal Council as the umbrella organization representing the local Kootznoowoo at Angoon. 2.3 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. Include a project cost summary that includes an estimated total cost through construction. The overall project cost is summarized as follows: Grant Request Matching Total Initial Reconnaissance $291,581 $15,000 $306,581 Prototype Testing & Monitoring $1,367,453 $450,000 $1,817,453 Feasibility Evaluation $ 335,000 $50,000 $385,000 Total $1,924,034 $515,000 $2,439,034 Of the requested funds, the majority (about $1.2 million) is for field measurements. About $1.1 million of that is for physical and biological oceanographic measurements by the University of Alaska to characterize the tidal energy resource and monitor prototype testing. The largest fraction of matching is in the development and provision of prototype tidal energy conversion devices by Oceana Energy (parent of AKTidal) and Natural Currents, LLC. (parent of Natural Currents Alaska). Matching for the feasibility evaluation comes from staff time invested by AKTidal and its consultant, TRC Environmental Corp. The budget also includes a $20,000 “placeholder” for feasibility evaluation by the City of Gustavus. The City may decide to return the money as a contribution to the Program. . Detailed cost breakdowns are provided on accompanying cost worksheets. 2.4 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial benefits that will result from this project, including an estimate of economic benefits(such as reduced fuel costs) and a description of other benefits to the Alaskan public. If the tidal energy developments evaluated here prove feasible, potential future benefits would include: • Cost savings compared to costs of historic fossil-fuel based electrical generation at the Angoon and Gustavus sites. For example, given historic costs for diesel-fueled generation at these locations of $0.62-0.83 /kwh, even if tidal generation were to cost $0.45/kwh, over $1 million in annual savings could be realized at these two sites. • Reliability improvements. For example, even if Gustavus achieves cost savings with the implementation of its new run-of-the-river hydro project, the availability of a tidal energy supply could provide an important reliability buffer for the City and nearby National Park Service Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 59 9/3/2008 facilities. Similar benefits could be realized at the other locations, where single supply sources predominate (e.g., the 39 Mw Nikiski Co-gen facility at Central Cook and the local diesel generation at Angoon) • Displacement and/or supplementation of fossil-fuel based generation by carbon-neutral, renewable capacity at the Gustavus, Angoon and Central Cook Inlet (Homer Electric system) sites. At each of these sites, tidal energy generation potential may equal or exceed the full present level of demand. 2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY* Include a summary of your project’s total costs and benefits below. 2.5.1 Total Project Cost (Including estimates through construction.) $ NA- reconnaissance and feasibility only 2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 1.94 million 2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 515 K 2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) ~$ 2.5 million 2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) Potentially > $ 1 million annually 2.5.6 Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in your application.) $ See Section 2.4 * Because this is a proposal for reconnaissance and feasibility evaluations, it is premature to try to project a total monetized benefit calculation for ultimate development of the tidal resources at the four sites. However, as discussed in Section 2.4 above, monetized benefits in costs to consumers of electricity if tidal generation is feasible, could exceed $1 million annually at these sites compared to historic diesel generation costs. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 59 9/2/2008 Figure 2.0-1 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 59 9/2/2008 Figure 2.0-2a Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 2.0-2b Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 2.0-3a Figure 2.0-3b Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 2.0-4 Figure 2.0-5 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 15 of 59 9/3/2008 SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application. 3.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management Support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 16 of 59 9/2/2008 Figure 3.1-1. Management Team Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 17 of 59 9/2/2008 The Management Team is comprised of management representatives from each of the Grantee partners. Figure 3.1-1 shows the team membership. The team will be responsible for providing overall guidance and policy decisions throughout the project. Resumes and references for each member of the Management Team are provided as an Attachment The composition of the Management Team is as follows: Mr. Charles Cooper – Director Environmental Permitting and Planning, TRC Environmental The Management Team will be coordinated by the Project Manager, Mr. Charles Cooper. Mr. Cooper will schedule and oversee major activities, information transfer, interface with AEA, and the project budget. He will manage TRC’s feasibility evaluation and the subcontracted efforts by the University of Alaska and Biosonics, Inc. Mr. Cooper has more than 35 years of experience in managing the evaluation of major energy development projects and environmental regulatory programs. Mr. Cooper managed the development of AK Tidal’s Preliminary Permit applications and ongoing feasibility assessments. His consulting experience in Alaska includes assignments on behalf of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), USDOE, and Aurora Energy in Fairbanks. For ADEC, he was a principal investigator in a study to evaluate State takeover of the NPDES permit program. For USDOE, Mr. Cooper was in charge of the environmental aspects of a Clean coal Demonstration Program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks power plant. For Aurora Energy, he managed TRC’s permitting support for potential modifications to the company’s NPDES permit for its Fairbanks power plant. . Mr. Michael Hoover – President, Alaska Tidal Energy Mr. Michael Hoover will be responsible for providing AKTidal’s inputs and policy guidance for the effort.. Mr. Hoover has managed companies in the tidal power industry for the past six years, including service on the Board of Directors of world leading OpenHydro Group Limited. In 2005, Mr. Hoover brokered the partial sale of a U.S. tidal power technology company to a European firm for more than $10 million, negotiating terms of the deal and drafting the commercial agreements in connection with the transaction. He is knowledgeable in the field of offshore electrical power permitting, having secured the largest private tidal power permit in the world to date. He has demonstrated experience managing intellectual property issues, domestically and internationally, including patent development and complex licensing transactions. Mr. Hoover has cultivated valuable relationships throughout the industry and has worked directly with the U.S. Navy developing and testing tidal energy technologies. He earned a J.D. from Tulane Law School and pursued a post-graduate degree in Energy and Environmental Law specifically for a career in this industry. Mr. Roger Bason - President, Natural Currents Alaska Mr. Roger Bason will be responsible for providing Natural Currents’ inputs and policy guidance for the effort. Mr. Bason has directed fourteen significant tidal and technology related projects over the past six years. He is a leader in the field of sustainable development and has served as president of the Institute for a Sustainable Future, with operations on the Big Island of Hawaii. Mr. Bason has completed Oceanographic survey work with Woods Hole in the Galapagos Islands in 1970 and again for tidal and hydro power site assessments for E3, Inc in 2002 in both the Galapagos and the upper Amazon River. He has taught tidal power courses at the Center for Energy, Marine Transportation, and Public Policy, School of International and Public Affairs (SIPI), Columbia University (2002-2004) and field study classes at SUNY Maritime College for site specific data collection in New York Harbor. Ms. Sandi Marchbanks – Vice Mayor, City of Gustavus Ms. Sandi Marchbanks will coordinate participation by the City of Gustavus in the project.. Ms. Marchbanks was a member of the Gustavus Community Association (GCA) for three years. The GCA was a non-profit advisory and financial oversight organization for unincorporated Gustavus, Alaska. In 2004 the functions of the GCA were transferred to the newly incorporated City of Gustavus (the first community incorporated in Alaska in 19 years). Ms. Marchbanks was elected the first mayor of Gustavus and held the office for three years. Ms. Marchbanks currently serves as Vice Mayor of Gustavus. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 18 of 59 9/3/2008 Mr. John Nixon – City Council Member, City of Gustavus Mr. John Nixon will be the technical lead for the city of Gustavus. He is the Council member responsible for oversight of the city’s utility needs.. Peter Naoroz – Tlingit-Haida Mr. Naoroz will be the lead representative of Tlingit-Haida and Kootznoowoo, Inc. for the feasibility evaluation at Angoon. Kootznoowoo, Inc, is the village corporation for the city of Angoon, AK, a Tlingit-Haida Indian community on Admiralty Island in southeastern Alaska. Mr. Naoroz, CEO of Kootznoowoo, Inc, will be the grant liaison for Kootznoowoo, Inc, and represents the combined interests of Kootznoowoo, Inc, the City of Angoon, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian tribes of Alaska and SE Alaska. Kootznoowoo, Inc, acts as a liaison between the tribal council and the city government in Angoon, and invests in many village projects and tribal trusts. Dr. Shannon Atkinson - University of Alaska, Fairbanks Dr. Shannon Atkinson will manage participation by the University of Alaska and its subconsultants for the project. She will also be the Principal Investigator for Biological Oceanographic studies during prototype testing. Dr. Atkinson joined the faculty at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in 2000 when she was appointed as Professor of Marine Science and Science Director at the Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC) in Seward, Alaska. She served as the Science Director at the Alaska SeaLife Center until September of 2007. She is currently a Professor of Marine Science at UAF and still holds the position of Principle Investigator for the Cetacean Research Program at ASLC. She oversees the Alaska Region of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies. She received the Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review – Silver Hammer Award a group effort, Marine Debris Removal Project, Northwestern Archipelago in 1999. Dr. Atkinson currently sits on two recovery teams for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Pacific Research Board Science panel. She also sat on the Steller sea lion (SSL) and Hawaiian monk seal Recovery Teams. The final SSL recovery plan was published in 2008. She has hosted and co-hosted numerous scientific workshops. She has chaired the committees of 24 graduate students and was a member of 26 others. Dr. Atkinson has been awarded 25 grants from federal, provincial and private sources. Her current research specialty is in the field of reproductive biology and endocrinology of marine animals. Dr. Atkinson has authored 78 peer reviewed scientific publications, 12 book chapters and over 120 presentations at international and national conferences including being an invited keynote speaker and guest speaker. She was the featured scientist in 5 TV programs promoting science and marine careers. She has a Ph.D. in Veterinary Studies from Murdoch University in Western Australia and a M.Sc. in Animal Science from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Mr. James Dawson – Senior Scientist and Acoustics Expert, Biosonics, Inc. Mr. James Dawson is the lead investigator for BioSonics participation in determining fish behavior and abundance, presence and behavior of marine mammals, and movement of ice during prototype testing.. Prior to joining Biosonics, Inc. (Biosonics) in 1981, Mr. Dawson specialized in the development of mobile survey and fixed-location techniques. Mr. Dawson was Staff Biologist at the University of Washington's Fisheries Research Institute through 1980. Primary tasks included design of scientific surveys, collection and analysis of acoustic data, and report writing. He also worked in the development of products and algorithms. At Biosonics, Mr. Dawson specializes in shallow water applications, detection and tracking of underwater acoustic targets, and sonar deployment in challenging environments. Mr. Dawson has worked on hundreds of hydroacoustic projects in rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, hydroelectric power facilities, and marine environments. 3.2 Project Schedule Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.) Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 19 of 59 9/2/2008 Figure 3.2. Alaska Schedule Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 20 of 59 9/2/2008 3.3 Project Milestones Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. Assuming Grant award in December, 2008, key project milestones will be as follows: • March , 2009 – Approvals/permits in place for field activities • April, 2009 – Initiate physical oceanographic field activities • Late April/early May, 2009 – decision on whether to implement prototype testing and monitoring at Gustavus or Central Cook, based on initial field results • Late May-early June, 2009 – Initiate prototype testing and monitoring • October-December, 2009 – establish future development plans based on results of feasibility evaluation 3.4 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. 3.4-A TRC Environmental TRC Environmental (TRC) is a multi-disciplinary, full-service environmental consulting and engineering firm with over 36 years of experience in environmental management and support of infrastructure projects. TRC is a public corporation (New York Stock Exchange: TRR) with a combined strength of over 2,700 environmental and engineering professionals in 80 offices located throughout the nation. TRC is a national leader in providing permitting and compliance services for infrastructure projects. TRC’s experience includes extensive resource characterization and permitting with local, state, and federal agencies, and close work with project designers and contractors to achieve cost-effective environmental compliance. This work has given TRC a good understanding of the environmental issues around the country, as well as strong working relationships with the regulators and permit authorities. Services TRC will oversee and guide the field studies and perform the feasibility evaluation with the field study results and the various other information it develops during the program. TRC will also coordinate the permitting for the prototype testing with assistance from University of Alaska personnel. Key Personnel – Figure 3.4-1 Mr. Charles Cooper – Director Environmental Permitting and Planning Mr. Cooper has more than 35 years of experience in managing the evaluation of major energy development projects and environmental regulatory programs. Mr. Cooper managed the development of AK Tidal’s Preliminary Permit applications and ongoing feasibility assessments. His consulting experience in Alaska includes assignments on behalf of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), USDOE, and Aurora Energy in Fairbanks. For ADEC, he was a principal Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 21 of 59 9/3/2008 investigator in a study to evaluate State takeover of the NPDES permit program. For USDOE, Mr. Cooper was in charge of the environmental aspects of a Clean coal Demonstration Program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks power plant. For Aurora Energy, he managed TRC’s permitting support for potential modifications to the company’s NPDES permit for its Fairbanks power plant. Mr. Shankar (Shan) Bhattacharya – Professional Engineer Mr. Shankar Bhattacharya is a professional engineer and management executive with over 30 years experience in a broad range of engineering, construction, and power plant operations (nuclear, fossil, and hydro), including energy transmission and distribution systems. His recent background includes serving as a Principal Consultant and Expert Witness in support of complex projects (1996-present) and as a Vice President of Engineering and Asset Management for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), one of the largest utility companies in the United States (1995–2005). In PG&E, Mr. Bhattacharya led a team of over 1,000 engineers and professionals, and managed assets utilizing a capital budget of over $1 billion. Also known for his positive, results-oriented approach to problem-solving, Mr. Bhattacharya’s career includes Bechtel Corporation where, as senior and project engineer, he was involved with the construction of major infrastructure projects in locations around the world. In the executive management role, Mr. Bhattacharya has consistently been regarded as a key member and contributor to the senior management team. His educational background includes a Bachelor of Technology degree (with Honors) from the Indian Institute of Technology, Master of Science in Structural Engineering from Bucknell University, and Master of Business Administration from the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Bhattacharya has also completed advanced executive studies at the University of Michigan and at Harvard University. He is registered as both a Civil and Mechanical Engineer in the State of California. Mr. Jeff Brandt – Senior Project Manager Mr. Jeff Brandt is a senior project manager with TRC’s Energy Group and has over 20 years experience in the siting and environmental permitting of electric generation facilities, including wind turbines, gas pipelines and electric transmission line projects across the country. Mr. Brandt works with proponents to develop project design, site selection, and permit filings needed to achieve full regulatory compliance. He manages preparation of critical issues analyses, performs siting studies, and conducts due diligence work for energy facilities. At TRC, Mr. Brandt manages field studies, directs the preparation of environmental assessments and permit documents, and provides expert testimony for clients at public hearings. Prior to joining TRC, Mr. Brandt worked as a senior analyst at the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, where he was responsible for evaluating and writing license decisions for more than a dozen energy projects. Mr. Brandt has also worked at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a project manager in their Regulatory Branch. Ms. Margaret Mills – Aquatic Biologist Ms. Margaret Mills is an aquatic biologist with over twenty years of experience in federal, state, and local environmental permitting and environmental impact assessment. Ms. Mills’ work has included preparation of regulatory submittals for numerous projects including wind energy facilities, a tidal energy pilot project, submarine electric and fiber optic cable installations, marine and LNG terminal facilities, natural gas pipelines, highways and marina/mixed use development facilities. Ms. Beverly Schultz – Environmental Scientist Ms. Beverly Schultz has 18 years of experience in the preparation of permitting documents associated with gas distribution and electric transmission and distribution lines. Mrs. Schultz has collected and developed data to provide analysis and evaluation of project related impacts on site environments. She has utilized aerial photography, topographic maps, census data, and GIS to conduct siting studies, route selection, and impact analysis. Ms. Schultz has evaluated zoning issues considering recent land use laws. She also has experience in the preparation and filing of various federal, state, and local permits, including Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FERC and Minerals Management Service. At the local level Ms. Schultz has prepared environmental filings for over fifty Conservation Commissions. Ms Schultz has also provided on-site Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 22 of 59 9/3/2008 inspection services for corporate compliance with state and federal permits during construction. Ms Schultz recently compiled a draft application for Golden Gate Energy’s Draft Application for an Original License for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project in San Francisco Bay. Ms. Schultz assured that the application met all FERC requirements for this first in the nation submission, under the new guidance for licensing hydrokinetic pilot under the Commission’s existing regulations. Ms. Sophy Townsend – Environmental Scientist and Ecologist Ms. Sophy Townsend is an environmental scientist and ecologist with eight years of experience in federal, state, and local environmental permitting; environmental impact assessment; and the planning and conduct of comprehensive biological studies and surveys. Ms. Townsend has worked directly on the preparation of regulatory submittals in the United States, Canada, and Australia for numerous developments including wind energy facilities, highways, natural gas pipelines and underground natural gas storage, airports, ports, refineries, and water storage projects. Ms. Stefanie Croyle – Environmental Scientist Ms. Stefanie Croyle has over three years of experience in the energy industry. Her research background includes energy market forecasting and analysis, as well as industry trends. She has also studied econometrics and advanced economics with a quantitative emphasis at Tufts University. Ms. Croyle worked as an Energy Market Analyst for Astoria Energy, a 500 MW natural-gas, combined- cycle power facility in New York City. As an Environmental Scientist with the Energy Group at TRC, Ms. Croyle supports federal, state, and local permitting for natural gas, tidal energy, wind energy, power plant, and public transit projects. She specializes in socioeconomic impact analyses of energy projects. Mr. Adam Slayton – Project Scientist Mr. Adam Slayton has more than seven years of experience in the energy industry supporting environmental permitting of energy facilities including natural gas pipelines, off-shore wind turbines, transmission lines, gas/coal-fired power plants, and tidal energy turbines. Mr. Slayton specializes in graphical and statistical analysis of physical and biological data and computer modeling. He has analyzed the existing data on tidal currents at each of the project sites. 3.4-B University of Alaska The following is a description of studies that will be undertaken by the University of Alaska Fairbanks in collaboration with the University of Hawaii (see Section 4.3.4-A and Attachment G for further detail). Presence and Activity of Biological Resources in Angoon, Cook Inlet and/or Icy Straits The objective of this study is to quantify behavioral responses of fish and marine mammals during deployment and operation of prototype tidal energy generators in Angoon, Cook Inlet and/or Icy Straits. The Principal Investigator will be Dr. Shannon Atkinson of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. For this study, information will be compiled on the seasonal distribution and numbers of marine mammals and fish within and adjacent to boundary areas of site locations based on published and ’gray literature (i.e., either non-peer-reviewed or literature that is not easily obtainable or readily distributed). Based on this information, recommendations for generator site locations within the proposed boundary that potentially reduce impacts to marine mammals will be provided. An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) from the National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources will be required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. TRC will be responsible for obtaining this permit. However, the University will be available to lend their experience and expertise Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 23 of 59 9/3/2008 to obtaining this authorization. This will allow for marine mammal Level B harassment required for conducting the monitoring. Once sites are identified, assessments will be made to evaluate alterations in distribution and behavior before, during, and after deployment of generators. Primary measurements will be made from surface observations via a combination of aerial and vessel-based surveys. If suitable land sites are located near generator sites, land-based observations may also be used. Subsurface assessments of changes in marine mammal distribution and behavior also will be made using a combination of acoustic assessments (see Underwater Acoustic Monitoring section below) and, if turbidity allows, still or time-lapse video cameras mounted to the generator platform will be used to assess marine animal activity immediately adjacent to generators and any direct contact between organisms and the generator. Underwater Acoustic Monitoring Associated with Installation and Testing of Tidal Energy Generators The objective of this study is to perform passive acoustic monitoring in conjunction with the prototype testing at two sites (Angoon and Gustavus or Central Cook) to gather information about existing sound levels and marine mammal activities. The Principal Investigators for the study will be Dr. Whitlow W. L. Au and Dr. Marc O. Lammers of the University of Hawaii. An acoustical array will be designed to fit the bathymetry and locations of the prototype testing sites. This array will initially be deployed to allow the assessment of sound and movements. The data will be logged and analyzed by acoustical experts. The data will also be compared to known sightings of mammals using aerial surveys. Details regarding this proposed monitoring will be reviewed as part of the consultations with resource agencies such as NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other interested agencies. The University will undertake the following: 1. Fabricate four EAR for deployment in two mutually agreeable locations in Alaskan waters. 2. Fabricate a low-noise acoustic monitoring system for broadband measurement of underwater ambient noise. 3. Assist in the deployment of two EARs = in each of two mutually agreeable locations in Alaskan waters at least two week prior to the deployment of the tidal energy test bed. 4. Perform broadband underwater ambient noise measurements in both locations during the deployment and retrieval of EARs. 5. Assist in the retrieval of EARs after approximately six weeks after their deployment. 6. Analyze data obtain by the EARs and by the broadband ambient noise measurements. 7. Report results for integration into feasibility assessment. Fieldwork and Data Analysis of Existing and New Physical Oceanographic Data for Tidal Power Pilot Projects in Cook Inlet and Icy Straits (Gustavus). The objective of this study is to characterize ocean currents in the Gustavus area (Icy Passage and Icy Straits) and Cook Inlet and their suitability for extracting tidal power. The Principal Investigator will be Dr. Peter Winsor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 24 of 59 9/3/2008 At each site the flow field, which most likely is dominated by tides (typically, tides contribute to 90 percent of the total current variance in the proposed areas), will be characterized. At each site the distribution of absolute current speeds and their vertical and horizontal distribution will be determined. The tides are complex in these areas, with the dominant component typically being the lunar semidiurnal (M2). The vertical structure of the currents can be highly variable, with vertical shear often being present in the upper part of the water column (i.e. lower/higher currents speeds in the upper/lower water column, respectively). To obtain reliable first-order estimates of current statistics (minimum, maximum, variance, vertical, fortnightly modulation, etc.) a current meter mooring or vessel survey using Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) will be used over a 14-day period. A chartered, smaller vessel (local fishing vessel or similar) will be used for the proposed fieldwork. For these surveys the University will use two different frequency ADCPs that are lowered off the side of the vessel collecting data for a minimum of 24 hours for each location of interest at the main site. The vessel will steam cross-channel, stopping to acquire data at discrete locations at the appropriate vertical resolution given the local water depth. Since the seabed geology has to be permissive but is not a primary selection criterion, the recommendation is to survey the main site using side scan sonar and acoustic profiling to determine bottom conditions. The data collected can address the type of seafloor substrate, dynamic nature of substrate (i.e., presence of moving sand waves), and sediment thickness. An appropriate side-scan system for this work will be leased, for example, a Benthos C3D. The side-scan system will collect both acoustic reflectance imagery and interferometric bathymetry measurements. Acoustic profiling of the sediments during the side-scan sonar survey will provide quantitative information on sediment thickness and possible subsurface structures. Ice Movement and Potential Interactions The extent and character of marine ice is ever changing in coastal Alaska, and usually exists as pack ice, shorefast ice, Stamukhi (i.e., sea ice that has broken and piled upward because of wind, tides, or thermal expansion forces) or estuarine/river ice. Places such as Cook Inlet experience all four types of ice along with the second highest tidal height variations in the world. The objective of this study is to assess the potential interactions of marine ice with the tidal energy generators. Specifically, a thorough description including maps will be prepared for the Cook Inlet site, and conditions will be assessed at least qualitatively for Gustavus. Ice interference is not considered a potentially pre-emptive feasibility issue at Angoon or Petersburg. The Principal Investigator will be Dr. Peter Winsor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Minimal or no field effort is anticipated for this study. Rather, existing published information will be compiled in order to make an assessment of the potential interactions of marine ice with the tidal energy generators. Further information will also be collected during the spring fieldwork effort. 3.4-C Biosonics BioSonics is widely recognized as preeminent in the field of hydroacoustic surveys, including and beyond applications to the renewable energy industry. BioSonics started building and applying hydroacoustic (scientific echosounder) monitoring tools in 1978 for detection and quantification of juvenile fish at hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest. Over the past 30 years, BioSonics has gained extensive experience and unique capabilities in the assessment of physical and biological resources in rivers and coastal marine environments. BioSonics has developed and utilizes advanced hydroacoustic tools to monitor and assess both fixed and mobile variables in the underwater environment. Bathymetry, Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 25 of 59 9/3/2008 zooplankton and fish, drifting materials and objects can all be detected, tracked, classified and counted. In addition, BioSonics’ advanced technology enables analysis of the acoustic echo properties of each object, which allows for classification of the object when this information is combined with rate of movement, trajectory, duration in the sample volume, and external sensor data (such as Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) current measurements). BioSonics is currently performing hydroacoustic monitoring for kinetic hydropower projects in New York City and on the Yukon River in Alaska. Key Personnel Mr. James Dawson - Senior Scientist and Acoustics Expert Mr. James Dawson is the lead investigator for determining fish behavior and abundance, presence and behavior of marine mammals, and movement of ice in the pilot project area. Prior to joining Biosonics, Inc. (Biosonics) in 1981, Mr. Dawson specialized in the development of mobile survey and fixed-location techniques. Mr. Dawson was Staff Biologist at the University of Washington's Fisheries Research Institute through 1980. Primary tasks included design of scientific surveys, collection and analysis of acoustic data, and report writing. He also worked in the development of products and algorithms. At Biosonics, Mr. Dawson specializes in shallow water applications, detection and tracking of underwater acoustic targets, and sonar deployment in challenging environments. Mr. Dawson has worked on hundreds of hydroacoustic projects in rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, hydroelectric power facilities, and marine environments. Dr. Mike Burger - Senior Scientist Dr. Mike Burger has a broad background in fisheries science and has conducted field research in riverine, estuarine, and marine ecosystems throughout the United States. In addition to his biological expertise, Dr. Burger has a comprehensive background in statistics. He joined BioSonics in 2005 as a senior scientist. He is responsible for the coordination and oversight of multiple aquatic assessment projects throughout the United States. He has participated in numerous projects designed for the further understanding and monitoring of juvenile salmonid passage at hydroelectric projects in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to fixed location monitoring, he has conducted mobile surveys of fish and invertebrate populations in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay. B.S., Oregon State University, 1986, M.S., Marine Biology, University of Delaware, 1992, Ph.D., Oceanography, Louisiana State University, 1998. Mr. Assad Ebrahim - Director of Engineering, Director of Operations Mr. Assad Ebrahim is an applied mathematician and systems engineer with principal interests in algorithms, optimization, and intelligent systems. At BioSonics, Assad led the design and development of the fifth-generation X-Series digital scientific echosounder system (a.k.a. DT-X). He currently leads the Engineering team's efforts to integrate state-of-the-art computational and embedded systems technologies to bring additional capabilities to the X-Series system and its real-time software. He also leads the implementation of sound operational processes and the growth of BioSonics' technical teams. Assad has received NSF and Sigma Xi research grants for his work in optimization (The Boeing Company - Phantom Works Advanced R&D Division) and in parallel algorithms (Parallel Numerical Linear Algebra Group, University of Missouri, Rolla). He is co-inventor on two patents for innovative hydroacoustic systems. Assad received his B.A. in Mathematics from Swarthmore College, and his M.Sc. in Applied Mathematics from the University of Washington Dr. Asa Packer - Lead Systems Engineer Dr. Asa Packer is a mathematician and computer scientist whose areas of expertise are in Optimization, Numerical Analysis, Algorithm Design, Computational Geometry, and Computer Graphics. His work experience prior to joining BioSonics included a number of positions developing scientific, mathematical, and computer graphics software. He received his B.A. in Mathematics and Computer Science with High Honors from Swarthmore College in 1992 and his Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Washington in 2001, where his research focused on the computational complexity of certain geometric problems. He has published four articles in scientific journals. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 26 of 59 9/3/2008 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. The Management Team will meet weekly (either face-to-face or via conference calls) to discuss the progress made during the previous week and to outline the work planned for the ensuing week. An FTP site will be established by TRC to share information. Meetings and phone calls will be documented. The project management team will provide monthly status reports to the AEA Project Manager. These reports will be submitted commencing the first full month after the award of the grant. The monthly status report will update the Authority on the project’s progress, possible delays, regulatory and compliance issues, and grant expenditures during the month. The reports will also include copies of work products completed during the month. 3.6 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. 1. Concerns about fish strikes and effects of fish strikes to the commercial fishery: the Team realizes that there are concerns about tidal turbines disturbing fish and other aquatic animals. For every site, there will ultimately be a full study done on the effects of the turbines to marine life. If it appears that there will be a risk to fisheries in the area, the proponents will propose solutions or changes in the siting or design of the turbines to solve these issues. 2. Concerns about navigation. The proponents will make every effort to site their turbines away from areas of high marine traffic. It is the company’s intention not to take up more than 2% of the cross section of Kootznahoo Inlet with tidal turbines and associated equipment. 3. Power purchase agreements. Natural Currents hopes that the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative will realize the potential benefits of this project to the goals of their business, which include providing a reliable supply of electricity to the city of Angoon. The negotiation of a power purchase agreement is integral to the progress of a project at each site. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 27 of 59 9/3/2008 SECTION 4.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS • Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA. The level of information will vary according to phase of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant budget for completion of each phase. • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 4.1 Project Overview The proposed project is a combination of selective reconnaissance, prototype testing, conflict assessment and comprehensive feasibility assessment to establish the feasibility of prospective pilot tidal energy development projects at four sites where Preliminary Permits have been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Three of the sites are in Southeast Alaska, as follows: • Icy Passage/Icy Straits near Gustavus The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-1) in Section 2 above. Alaska Tidal Energy Co. (AKTidal) holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. AKTidal and the City of Gustavus, which is severely disadvantaged by high electrical rates and lack of reliable supply, seek Grant funds to perform reconnaissance and study project feasibility at this site. A key issue is the extent to which the massive overall tidal resource potential of the Icy Straits is developable near enough to Gustavus to supply the City. If initial reconnaissance results on this topic are favorable, extensive additional in-water prototype testing, biological response monitoring and related onshore delivery system evaluation work are proposed for this site. • Angoon The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-2a and 2.0-2b) in Section 2 above. Natural Currents, LLC (Natural Currents) holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. Natural Currents and the local Kootznoowoo village (under the Tlingit – Haida tribal umbrella), which is severely disadvantaged by high electrical rates and reliance on fossil fuel (diesel), seek Grant funds to perform reconnaissance and establish project feasibility at this site. A key issue is the extent to which available prototype devices can extract tidal energy cost-effectively and without adverse biological resource impacts at this site. Extensive prototype testing , biological response monitoring and related onshore delivery system evaluation work are proposed for this site. • Wrangell Narrows The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-3a and 2.0-3b) in Section 2 above. AKTidal holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. Unlike the other sites, this area reportedly has lower electrical rates and an abundance of reliable hydro-based supply. A key issue is the extent to which tidal energy development would be cost-effective at this site. Until that is determined, no in-water work is proposed for this site. The fourth site in this program, Central Cook Inlet, is near Nikiski in the South-Central part of the State. The location of this site is shown in Figure (2.0-4) in section 2 above. AKTidal holds the FERC Preliminary Permit for feasibility studies that may lead to future development of this site. While the area as served by the Homer Electric Association is not disadvantaged by high electrical rates, the supply is largely based on fossil-fueled co-generation at Nikiski. This site has very significant tidal resource potential in the Forelands near Nikiski. AKTidal seeks Grant funds to perform reconnaissance and study project feasibility at this site. The potential for system enhancement and/or displacement/diversification of fossil-fueled generation will be studied. If initial reconnaissance results are unfavorable for Gustavus, then prototype testing, biological response monitoring and related onshore delivery system evaluation work are proposed for the Central Cook site. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 28 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure(2.0-5) in Section 2 above summarizes the components and decision logic for the proposed program. The proposed reconnaissance, testing/monitoring and feasibility evaluations at all four sites have been tailored to provide the basis for supporting preparation of FERC Pilot Project License applications, if/as warranted by the results. The following critical areas of feasibility will be evaluated:: • Development cost/benefit, including but not limited to power development and power delivery engineering requirements and system integration potential • As part of the above, short-term barge-mounted performance testing of prototype devices: • Physical oceanographic suitability, focusing on current velocity profiles, bottom conditions, and potentially limiting physical factors such as ice flows and sand waves • Compatibility with protection of biological resources, including resource characterizations and monitoring of possible device encounters or changes in underwater noise and fish/mammal activity patterns before, during and after prototype testing • Compatibility with other uses of the involved areas, including but not limited to commercial and recreational fishing and navigation, and (at Cook Inlet) oil and gas production Stakeholder concerns and permitting requirements , 4.2 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 29 of 59 9/2/2008 Tidal Energy is a nascent technology that has large potential for the intercoastal regions of Alaska. Natural Currents has extensively developed and tested its Red Hawk turbine. The city of Angoon, AK is ideal for the implementation of tidal energy because of reported 8-knot currents in Kootznahoo Inlet and a close connection to the grid from the water. Tidal technology has an aesthetic advantage over wind turbines, and a cost advantage over pricier solar electricity. As pilot projects are tested and mass production is started, the cost scale for tidal electricity is expected to go down as low as 6 cents per kwh. As costs go down, the savings will be passed on to the greater community. In terms of capacity factor and predictability, tidal power beats both wind and solar power on Admirality Island. The capacity factor for tidal is predicted at 40%, and electricity generation can be predicted via tidal tables for up to 1000 years, as opposed to capricious and infrequent solar exposure and wind generation. Finally, tidal power is free from price volatility, while the price of diesel has increased prices by 100% over the last two years in the city of Angoon. Risks with tidal energy include possible sediment disturbance, though only 2% of the channel width will be allocated for underwater turbines. Extensive fish testing will be done and the turbines will both be built to deflect fish strikes and be out of the way of migration corridors. Discussions of resource characterization information and further proposed activities by site follows: ICY STRAITS--NEAR GUSTAVUS A review of the area around Icy Straits was conducted to determine the suitability of the area for a pilot test program of tidal energy turbines. NOAA has four locations for which it regularly makes tidal current predictions in the Icy Strait area. Summary data for 2008 at each of the locations appears in Table 4.1-1 (See Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 for locations and summary of the data. Table 4.1-1. 2008 NOAA Predicted Tidal Currents In Icy Strait, AK NOAA Tidal Current Prediction Location Latitude Longitude Max Flood Direction (Degrees True) Max Ebb Direction (Degrees True) Max Flood (kts) Max Ebb (kts) Average Max Food (kts) Average Max Ebb (kts) North Passage 58° 19' -136°7' 70 250 3.1 5.7 1.7 3.6 South Passage 58° 14' -136°6' 85 265 3.6 6.6 1.9 4.2 West of Beardslee Island 58° 28' -136°2' 343 158 8.1 8.2 4.3 5.2 South of Pleasant Island 58° 17' -135°35' 91 284 0.5 1.6 0.25 1 Areas in which tidal currents exceed 2 m/s (approximately 3.9 kts) have potential as sites for at least a pilot test of tidal energy units and possibly for full build out tidal energy farm. Except for the station south of Pleasant Island, the stations around Icy Strait meet this screening criterion. All of these NOAA stations are 10 miles or more from Gustavus (the site with the highest NOAA predicted current--West of Beardslee Island--as the additional complication of being within Glacier Bay National Park), where it is expected that the landfall connection for units deployed in Icy Strait would occur. The high currents throughout the area warrant further investigation of tidal currents. Further ADCP investigations would be necessary to characterize the area at a greater resolution, to evaluate the vertical profile of the tidal current velocities, and to determine specific sites for test devices. The relatively narrow channel between Pleasant Island and Gustavus on the mainland would be of particular interest because of potentially high tidal currents and proximity to Gustavus. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 30 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.1-1. NOAA Tidal Current Prediction Sites in Icy Strait COOK INLET--THE FORELANDS In the Cook Inlet, there are several stations North of Kenai where the inlet narrows. Summary data for three of these stations is presented in Table 4.1-2 (see also Figures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4). Table 4.1-2. 2008 NOAA Predicted Tidal Currents in Cook Inlet, AK NOAA Tidal Current Predicion Location Latitude Longitude Max Flood Direction (Degrees True) Max Ebb Direction (Degrees True) Max Flood (kts) Max Ebb (kts) Average Max Food (kts) Average Max Ebb (kts) West Foreland 60° 44.35' -151°38.50' 349 171 5.2 6.3 3.7 4.2 Foreland 60° 43.24' - 151°33.44' 10 201 5.8 6.3 4.1 4.2 East Forland 60° 43.04' -151°25.98' 7 191 7.5 8.2 5.3 5.4 As with the sites in Icy Straits, discussed above, these locations regularly have tidal current velocities exceeding 2 m/s and thus have potential for deployment of tidal generator test units. Further tidal current investigation (e.g. ADCP studies and modeling) could establish sites for tidal unit deployment. The suite area is extensive, with ulktimate build-out potential in the tens of MW. The narrowing of the inlet is immediately proximate to Nikiski, where the major generating and transmission infrastructure of the homer Electric Association is located. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 31 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.1-2. Three NOAA Tidal Current Prediction Sites in Cook Inlet. Because of the critical importance of determining the availability of suitable currents and bottom conditions near Gustavus, field studies, are proposed here during Spring 2009. A summary is presented here and full details are provided in the attached comprehensive sub-award proposal from UAK. Principal Investigators Physical Oceanography: Peter Winsor pwinsor@sfos.uaf.edu 907-474-7740 Harper Simmons hsimmons@sfos.uaf.edu 907-474-5729 Thomas Weingartner weingart@ims.uaf.edu 907-474-7993 Rachel Potter potter@ims.uaf.edu 907-474-5709 Geological Oceanography: Jennifer Reynolds jreynolds@guru.uaf.edu 907- 474-5871 Introduction This proposal describes field work and data analysis aimed at characterizing ocean currents in the Gustavus area (Icy Passage and Icy Straits) and Cook Inlet Forelands and their suitability for extracting tidal power. The main objective at each site would be to characterize the flow field, which most likely is dominated by tides (typically, tides contribute to 90% of the total current variance in the proposed areas). At any given site, one would need to know the distribution of absolute current speeds, and their vertical and horizontal distribution. The tides are complex in these areas, with the dominant component typically being the lunar semidiurnal (M2). The vertical structure of the currents can be highly variable, with vertical shear often being present in the upper part of the water column (i.e. lower/higher currents speeds in the upper/lower water column, respectively). Characteristics will definitely change on a seasonal basis. The minimum field effort required at a single location to obtain reliable first-order estimates of current statistics (min, max, variance, vertical, fortnightly modulation, etc) would require a current meter mooring or vessel survey using Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) over a 14-day period. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 32 of 59 9/3/2008 We will use a chartered, smaller vessel (local fishing vessel or similar) for the proposed field work. For these surveys we will use two different frequency ADCPs that are lowered off the side of the vessel collecting data for a minimum of 24 hrs for each location of interest at the main site. The vessel will steam cross-channel, stopping to acquire data at discrete locations at the appropriate vertical resolution given the local water depth. A more detailed description is given below. Since the seabed geology has to be permissive but is not a primary selection criterion, the recommendation is to survey the main site using side scan sonar and acoustic profiling to determine bottom conditions. The data collected can address the type of seafloor substrate, dynamic nature of substrate (i.e., presence of moving sand waves), and sediment thickness. An appropriate side-scan system for this work will be leased, for example, a Benthos C3D. The side-scan system will collect both acoustic reflectance imagery and interferometric bathymetry measurements. Acoustic profiling of the sediments during the side-scan sonar survey will provide quantitative information on sediment thickness and possible subsurface structures, at modest additional cost. Based on the side-scan data, sediment grab samples could be collected to groundtruth seabed substrates if needed; however, sediment sampling and analysis is not included in the present budget. Gustavus site – Icy Straits and Icy Passage General sampling strategy – We propose a 14-day ship-based survey for Icy Straits and Icy Passage just outside Gustavus. We plan on chartering a vessel and to occupy a series of stations across Icy Straits and Icy Passage, measuring a current profile long enough to gather adequate local measurement statistics from ADCP data. By occupying stations over two weeks, we can get high-quality measurements of the diurnal variation in currents for a given cross-channel section. We have budgeted for 16 days of ship time to be able to steam to the site and allow for weather or other unforeseen events. The suggested site at Icy Straits and Icy Passage is highly variable in terms of water depth, ranging from 10 m to 120 m. Icy Passage, the narrow passage between Pleasant Island and Gustavus, is particularly shallow and narrow and we plan to only occupy one or two sites here, probably looking at along-channel variations as channel is very narrow. For Icy Straits we plan to do one or several cross-channel (and possibly along- channel) surveys with multiple stations. We will use a 1200 kHz RDI ADCP for Icy Passage in order to resolve the vertical structure of currents in that shallow environment and a 600 kHz ADCP for Icy Bay. Cook Inlet The Cook Inlet Forelands bathymetry is variable; the water depth of the main strait between the Forelands is between 18 and 120 m deep, with the two other suggested locations being shallower at ~65 m maximum depth. We have access to HF radar surface current data for this site, or just south of the main Strait, collected in 2002-2003 where an array of two Seasondes (CODAR Ocean Sensors’ HF radar systems) measured hourly surface currents near the mouth of the Kenai River on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet. The systems were deployed in December 2002 and operated until June 2003. The approximate resolution in time and space is hourly and ~2 km, respectively. We propose to analyze the existing data, including potential NOAA buoy data, and do not plan on using a vessel for new, direct measurements for this location. The HF radar data time series is long enough to be able to produce reliable statistics of surface currents. Note that we will not be able to provide information about the vertical distribution of currents using HF radar but we will be able to map the horizontal variations. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 33 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.1-3. ICY Passage Tidal Currents Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 34 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.1-4. Cooks Inlet Tidal Currents Concerns: The HF Radar data will provide well-defined two-dimensional current maps and statistics for the area covered. As mentioned above, we will not be able to provide information about the vertical distribution of currents from HF radar data. Cook Inlet is known to have vertical shear, so a first order approximation would be to assume that the bottom currents are the same as those at the surface. If we get access to NOAA buoys that were deployed in the general area and equipped with ADCP, then we can analyze the vertical structure of the currents in detail. Work Plan The work outlined above will require detailed planning, acquisition of instruments, construction of davits and other equipment, and installing these on the chartered vessel. We will have one main PI at sea for both the oceanography (Simmons/Winsor) and geological (Reynolds) work along with a technician for the ADCP measurements and an operator of the side-scan sonar to ensure consistent, high-quality data. Potter will be in charge of analyzing the HF radar and buoy data and provide statistics of current properties. We will store all collected data in a central, backed-up location at UAF and provide a report of the analyzed data and provide all data on portable media (CD-Rom or DVD). Angoon – Kootznahoo Inlet The 2008 tidal current data from the NOAA predictions at the entrance to Kooztnahoo Inlet near Angoon, Alaska was reviewed in order to determine the feasibility of siting a pilot test program for tidal energy generators in the inlet. Potential locations will have substantial periods during each tide cycle during which the tidal current is 2 m/s (approximately 4 kts) or greater. NOAA makes predictions for tidal currents at a single location in Kootznahoo Inlet (see Figure 4.1-5). Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 35 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.1-5. Map of Kootznahoo Inlet Near Angoon, AK The maximum flood and ebb currents through the entrance of Kootznahoo Inlet in the 2008 predictions are 9.9 and 10.2 knots respectively with average maxima of 6.9 (flood) and 5.9 (ebb). These maximum currents indicate that the entrance to the inlet will have currents above the 2 m/s screening level for significant portions of each tidal cycle. As a proposed in-kind matching contribution to this program, Natural Currents proposes to obtain additional site-specific current measurements at its proposed development site.. Wrangell Narrows near Petersburg The Wrangell narrows, between Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands in southeastern Alaska has potential for siting tidal energy generation devices. Four sites for which NOAA predicts tidal current velocity were reviewed. Each of these sites is within a mile of land and three are within a mile of the city of Petersburg, AK. Table Wrangell-1 summarizes the predicted tidal current data for 2008 tidal predictions and Figure Wrangell-1 depicts the locations. Table 4.1-3. 2008 NOAA Predicted Tidal Currents in Wrangell Narrows, AK NOAA Tidal Current Predicion Location Latitude Longitude Max Flood Direction (Degrees True) Max Ebb Direction (Degrees True) Max Flood (kts) Max Ebb (kts) Average Max Food (kts) Average Max Ebb (kts) Off Petersburg 56° 48.98' -132°57.84' 246 62 4.5 3.5 3.1 2 Turn Point 56° 48.47' -132°59.01' 220 40 6.3 6.3 4.3 3.7 Blunt Point 56° 46.70' -132°58.76' 160 340 5 5.6 3.4 3.3 Prolewy Rocks 56° 49.34' -132°56.90' 240 60 5 5.6 3.4 3.3 Additionally, from late May through June 2001, NOAA installed an ADCP unit, SEA0103, in Wrangell Narrows near Petersburg, AK (see Figure Wrangell-2). During this month long deployment, the ADCP unit routinely recorded current velocities greater than the screening criterion of 2 m/s (about 3.9 kts) (see figure Wrangell-3). The ADCP data also shows that the tidal currents diminish with depth below a depth of 2.5 m Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 36 of 59 9/3/2008 (see figures Wrangell-4). Additional studies to acquire data like that from the NOAA study would ultimately be required to completely assess the feasibility of deploying test tidal generators (or building a tidal energy farm) in the Wrangell Narrows.. However, as the demand situation in Petersburg is colored by an abundance of low-cost hydro power, no in-water studies are proposed in this program, which instead focuses on further evaluation of economic feasibility there. 4.3 Existing Energy System 4.3.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. 4.3.1-A Kenai (Central Cook Inlet) Electricity for the City of Kenai is provided by Homer Electric Association, Inc (Homer Electric). Homer Electric is a member-owned cooperative with offices in Homer, AK and Kenai, AK. There are approximately 20,000 member owners and 2,200 miles of energized line. Homer Electric has a total generation capacity of 55.5 MW. Power is supplied from the following sources: Nikiski Cogeneration Project (39 MW), Seldovia Power Plant (2.5 MW), and Bradley Lake Hydroelectric (14 MW) (Homer Electric, 2008). 4.3.1-B Gustavus (Icy Passage/Icy Strait) Gustavus Electric Company, Inc. (GEC) was established in 1983 to the Gustavus and Glacier Bay forelands area and community with a modern, centralized, reliable source of commercially generated electricity. In September 1998, the US Congress passed an act enabling Gustavus Electric access to the Falls Creek drainage as a source of hydroelectric energy upon successful completion of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process. Detailed environmental studies began in 1996. An Environmental Assessment and application for the FERC license was submitted in 2001. The FERC license for the project was issued on October 29, 2004. Construction began April 1, 2006. The Falls Creek Project site is located approximately 5 miles east of Gustavus, AK and about 45 miles west of Juneau, AK. The project will be a run-of-river facility, consisting generally of 3.1 miles of access road, a low gated diversion structure at about El 670 on Falls Creek, a 9,400-foot long penstock, a powerhouse containing a single 800 kW generating unit, a tailrace conduit for conveying the powerhouse discharge to near the upstream limit of anadromous fish habitat, and a 5-mile long buried transmission cable between the powerhouse and the existing diesel powerhouse in Gustavus. Gustavus still suffers from extraordinarily high energy costs and lack of reliability, pending completion and successful operation of the Falls Creek Project. Thus, investigation of the potential feasibility of tidal power to contribute to enhance the City’s supply options has high priority. 4.2.1-C Angoon (Kootznahoo Inlet) Electricity for the City of Angoon is provided by Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority (THREA). The THREA, a non-profit subdivision of the State, operates three diesel-fueled generators in Angoon. The villages currently served by THREA are Angoon, Hoonah, Kake, Klukwan and Chilkat Valley, serving a total population of approximately 2,815 residents. As of January 1st, 2004, THREA reorganized as a member-owned electric cooperative in order to better serve its customers. The name of the new utility is Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) (IPEC, 2008). Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 37 of 59 9/3/2008 The average load for Angoon, AK is about 400kw. Right now, the city is renovating their dual 500kw diesel generators, insulating the shed they are kept in, and updating the heat exchangers on the generators. While this renovation is being carried out, a single Caterpillar 1MW generator is being used to power the city, and is kept outside the shed where the main generators are. 4.3.1-D Petersburg (Wrangell Narrows) Electricity for the City of Petersburg is provided by Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMP&L). PMP&L is a municipally-owned electric utility providing electric service to approximately 2,000 customers within the Petersburg city limits and on Mitkof Island. The utility’s primary source of electrical energy is the Tyee Hydroelectric Power Project. The Tyee Project is part of the Four Dam Pool Power Agency and can produce 20 MW of hydropower for the communities of Petersburg and Wrangell. Tyee presently has surplus capacity which can serve Petersburg’s growth far into the future. PMP&L also operates and maintains a 2 MW system at the Crystal Lake Hydro site, supplying approximately 25 percent of its requirements. These two hydro sources insure that competitive, stable rates will prevail in Petersburg. The utility also has stand-by 10 MW diesel generation plant and an electrical distribution system for Mitkoff Island, sufficient enough to meet the electrical needs of the city in the event of an outage at Tyee. With the Tyee-Swan Lake transmission line now under construction, the two hydro plants, with a total output of 22 MW, Petersburg enjoys a high level of electric system reliability. As such, this proposal does not involve field work activity at this site. However, there will be a feasibility assessment for Wrangell Narrows. 4.3.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. Existing energy resources at the three Project sites consist of primarily diesel generation. Other energy resources include hydro—Bradley Lake Hydroelectric on the Kenai Peninsula and the future Falls Creek Project in Gustavus. The Project would have little impact on the existing energy resource, other than lowering the demand on the diesel generators and increasing reliability. Natural Currents’ 50kw system would be complimentary to the existing energy infrastructure and would be geographically close to grid interconnection, requiring only about 350 feet of new transmission lines. 4.3.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. The diesel generators used in the city of Angoon and Gustavus have been difficult for the Angoon and Gustavus economies, raising the price of electricity to 62 cents per kwh in Angoon and 83 cents per kwh in Gustavus with the recent spike in oil prices. These are some of the highest energy costs in the country. Our project would serve the much-needed function of offsetting some of the diesel fuel used to power the towns, lowering energy costs and building a measure of security into the currently volatile energy system. Although less dependent on diesel generation, the Homer Electric customers will also experience a reduction in energy costs should the project move forward at the Cook Inlet location. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 38 of 59 9/3/2008 4.4 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.4.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: • A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location • Optimum installed capacity • Anticipated capacity factor • Anticipated annual generation • Anticipated barriers • Basic integration concept • Delivery methods For each of the factors listed here, we propose a concentrated site-specific feasibility assessment based on coordination with the local electrical system providers, importantly supplemented at two sites by in-water short-term barge-mounted prototype testing and monitoring to begin to quantify realistic expectations for tidal technology performance. Short-term Barge-mounted Prototype Testing Short-term testing and monitoring is proposed of two different hydrokinetic devices at two sites, Angoon and either Gustavus or Central Cook (depending on initial reconnaissance results at Gustavus). Each of the multiple testing sessions for each device will take under two weeks to complete. The test units will be suspended on frames from barges. Each device deployed during the barge-mounted testing phase will share an almost identical footprint of approximately 3 meters tall, 2 meters wide, and 2 meters in depth relative to the axis of the current flow, which includes the footprint of the support structure. (See Figure 4.3-1). Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 39 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.3-1. Barge-Mounted Testing Configuration with Representative Support Structures and Devices 4.4.1.1 Barge The type of barge being utilized for the Phase I surface-mounted testing is based on other prior tests. It will include a configuration of up to five connected Shugart sectional barges, each having dimensions of 10’4” in width, 31’ in length, and 5’ in height, and weighing 22,500 pounds. The configuration fully assembled will have dimensions of 31’ in width, 51’8” in length, and 5’ in height, will weigh 112,500 pounds, and will have a full load draft of approximately 12-18 inches. (See Figure 4.3-2). The barge will be equipped with a control room, a crane, and a mechanism for lowering/raising the hydrokinetic generator equipment. Figure 4.3-3 depicts a barge used in a similar testing program conducted by Natural Currents New England, LLC (NCNE). There will also be all equipment necessary to ensure worker safety (handrails, lighting, life preservers, fire extinguishers, etc.) aboard. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 40 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.3-2. Barge Dimensions for Phase 1 Testing Figure 4.3-3. Shugart Sectional Barge in Tidal Generator Test Program (©Natural Currents New England, LLC) 4.4.1.2 Anchoring The barge will be anchored utilizing a common cross-anchoring and spud attachment combination. The exact method of anchoring the barge will be determined in part through consultation with knowledgeable local experts. However, the following three applied methods of anchoring are under consideration: Cross Anchoring, Fore and Aft - This scheme has been utilized to anchor a deployment vessel during tests of a 3m horizontal-axis turbine. This system was devised by a former Coast Guard officer and was Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 41 of 59 9/3/2008 approved by the USCG harbormaster where the tests occurred. This system utilized four (4) 4,000 pound anchors that were crossed at the bow and stern of the vessel, bringing the bow starboard line to port and vice versa, with the same arrangement for the two stern anchors. This method effectively moored the unit essentially near midstream in a depth of approximately 45 feet at high tide. Spud Barge Approach - This method was accomplished for a Natural Currents deployment of two wedded 10' by 20' Shugart barges at a deployment in the Intercoastal Waterway near Neptune Beach, FL. This deployment was fixed in approximately 40 feet of water with a maximum current speed of approximately 2.5 m/sec. Spuds or large steel spikes were fabricated at the Moody Fabrication Plant located on the ICW and were “pinned” up in spud anchors along the sides of the assembled Shugart Barge deployment platform. A tugboat pushed the assemblage into position, the pins on the spuds were pulled out, and the weight of the released spuds were driven by gravity force into the soft mud bottom of the channel on two ends (upstream and downstream) of the rectangular platform. These two spud anchors were sufficient to secure the barged unit in place during the preliminary days of testing. Monitoring racks were constructed at the Moody shop that enabled instrument probes to be placed fore and aft of the deployed turbine unit amid-ships that facilitated accurate water speed measurements for both ebb and flood tidal cycles. Three Anchor - This method uses three anchors, deployed at roughly 120 degrees apart, which can be strategically placed to hold the system in the flow. Calculations must be made on the mass and resistive force the loaded barge makes in the waterway, with appropriate calculations on the needed anchoring weight, given the assumed or known bottom characteristics and speed of water flow. 4.4.1.3 Support Structures The prototype units will be mounted on support structures and suspended from the barges. Figures 4.3-4, 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 show, respectively, a schematic of one of the hydrokinetic generators and support structures that is currently being evaluated for inclusion in short term tests, a set of conceptual 3-D drawings of the deployment of another type of possible test unit suspended from a barge, and a photograph of a prototype deployed in a similar test program conducted by NCNE. The support structures will occupy a nearly identical footprint in terms of size, weight and proportion to the test devices. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 42 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.3-4. A Potential Hydrokinetic Generator and Support Structure for Attachment to a Barge Figure 4.3-5. 3-D images of Deploying a Hydrokinetic Generator and Support Structure from a Barge Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 43 of 59 9/3/2008 Figure 4.3-6. Deployment of a Hydrokinetic Generator and Support Structure in Similar Test Program Conducted by Natural Currents New England, LLC 4.4.1.4 Data Acquisition The test program will not only include the instrumentation (such as dynamometers) to take operating data from the hydrokinetic generator technologies, but will also include instruments for acquiring physical and biological data that will assist in determining the potential impacts a larger-scale, longer-term pilot device and, potentially, in the future after additional licensing, a fully-submerged tidal energy farm. The data acquired during the pilot program will include: water quality, hydro-acoustic and video records of fish and marine mammal movements, including but not limited to device “encounters”, flow data before and after passing the generator equipment, and surveys of underwater noise. Natural Currents is planning on barge testing two (2) 25kw Red Hawk tidal turbines in Kootznahoo Inlet, some 350 feet to the east of the village of Angoon, AK. This pilot project will allow Natural Currents to test and prove its Red Hawk technology for larger, scalable operations. The capacity factor for tidal energy is expected to be 40%, based on tidal tables from Angoon. Annual generation is expected at 171,696 kwh for the site. Integration will be carried out through a few possible methods after a feasibility study. 4.4.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. Part of the feasibility assessment will include siting for possible grid connection to land. As such, land ownership is not known at the time, but will be determined. However, Matt Kokesh is an interested landowner for a possible grid connection to land at the Angoon site. The arrangement would include a fee simple lease for a land-based tie in to the city of Angoon’s grid, and the possible construction of a dock to mount the turbine under. Please see site map below for possible dock location. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 44 of 59 9/3/2008 4.4.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. • List of applicable permits • Anticipated permitting timeline • Identify and discussion of potential barriers Federal Laws, Regulations, and Potentially Applicable Permits Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq.) Under the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is authorized to issue licenses for the construction, operation, and maintenance of hydropower projects. (16 U.S.C. § 796). FERC staff has proposed to adapt existing regulations and provide waivers for specific types of projects, namely small, pilot projects with short license terms. FERC staff has indicated it believes that the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP, Part 5 of 18 CFR), with specific waivers granted under § 5.29(f)(2) on a case-by-case basis, is the best process to use to apply for a hydrokinetic pilot project license. Review of this project proposal will be carried out under the Commission’s existing authority and regulations and the Commission will incorporate input from federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, non- governmental organizations, and members of the public, as applicable. The grantees have received from FERC preliminary permits at each site for the project. River and Harbors Act § 10 (33 U.S.C § 403); Clean Water Act § 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1344); 33 CFR 320-331; Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is required to review and approve all construction work or placement of structures in or affecting navigable waters, including hydrokinetic generation facilities. Section 10 generally applies to any obstruction to or alteration of navigable waters, while Section 404 generally applies to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. Processing such permits involves evaluation of individual, project-specific applications in three steps: pre- application consultation, formal project review, and decision making. Pre-application consultation usually involves meetings between an applicant, Corps district staff, interested resource agencies (Federal, state, or local), and sometimes the public. The purpose is to provide for informal discussions about the proposal before an applicant makes irreversible commitments of resources. Once a complete application is received, the formal review process begins. The project manager prepares a public notice, evaluates the impacts of the project and all comments received, negotiates necessary modifications of the project if required, and drafts appropriate documentation to support a recommended permit decision. The permit decision document includes a discussion of environmental impacts, findings of the public interest review process, and any required special evaluations. In making the final decision, the Corps will evaluate factors, which may include conservation, economics, aesthetics, wetlands, cultural values, navigation, fish and wildlife values, water supply/quality, and other factors judged important to human welfare. The following criteria are considered in evaluating all applications: (1) relevant public and private needs; (2) where conflicts of resource use exist, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations/methods to accomplish project purposes; and (3) the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects the proposed project may have on public and private uses of area. Based on recent discussions with the Corps in September 2008 for a similar project located San Francisco Bay, short-term barge-mounted testing is expected to require a Letter of Permission. A Phase 1 Letter of Permission would be expected to take about 4 to 6 months to process. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 45 of 59 9/3/2008 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4371 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); FERC Regulations A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review is triggered by federal permits. The relevant lead review here is expected to be of the pilot license by FERC. An Environmental Assessment and FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) is anticipated as the pilot license is finalized. The NEPA review will occur during the draft application review process, of a future Pilot License by FERC. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 - 1544) Federal permit applications must be reviewed for the potential impact on threatened and endangered species pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The information required for ESA evaluation must be prepared in the form of a Biological Opinion (BO), Biological Evaluation (BE) or Biological Assessment (BA) which are utilized to assess project impacts to listed/proposed species and designated/proposed critical habitat. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will use the BO/BE/BA to determine whether the project may affect listed species or their critical habitat. If the agencies determine that work proposed in the permit application would have no effect on all threatened or endangered species, no further consultation with NOAA or USFWS is required. If the agencies determine that the pilot project may affect any threatened or endangered species, some kind of consultation, formal or informal, with NOAA or USFWS is required. Moreover, an Incidental Take Permit, ESA section 10(a(1)(B), may be required if a relevant species is adversely affected. NOAA and USFWS process applications for Incidental Take Permits for endangered or threatened species within one year, but this is not anticipated for the pilot project. The applicant would conduct ESA consultation during the future Pilot license application review process of later development, if feasibility .warrants. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq.) If the project incidentally “takes” or “harasses” (defined broadly) marine mammals, the applicant must obtain a permit from NOAA Fisheries and/or USFWS, depending on the impacted species. The process for marine mammal permits is analogous to the ESA permit. A permit is not anticipated for this project because of pre-emptive monitoring and shutdown procedures; however, Incidental Taking Authorizations (or Letters of Authorization) are generally issued within 6-8 months, and Incidental Harassment Authorizations are issued within 120 days. Incidental Harassment Authorizations are expected to be required and will be sought immediately upon Grant Award Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712; 50 CFR § 10.13 and Parts 13 & 21)); Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.); Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the harming of migratory birds. The USFWS permit program does not authorize the incidental taking of listed birds. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NOAA Fisheries is responsible for overseeing fishery management plans. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with NOAA/USFWS and the fish and wildlife agencies of States where the "waters of any ... body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or otherwise controlled or modified" by any agency under a Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of "preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources." The pilot project must be consistent with the requirements of these Acts and the fishery management plans, and incorporate the results of the required consultations. These issues will be addressed in future phases during the draft license application comment and review process. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 46 of 59 9/3/2008 National Historical Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) requires FERC during the permitting process to consider the effects of the project on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (i.e., to consider options for avoiding, minimizing or mitigating the adverse impacts on such properties). Compliance with section 106 would potentially require consultation with the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (which carries out the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Office), the Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or Native American tribes, if any, connected with the project area. These issues would be addressed during the future phases of draft license application comment and review process for feasible sites. State Laws, Regulations, and Potentially Applicable Permits Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency Finding - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management and Permitting The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) (AS 46.40.010 et. Seq.) was formed in 1977 in response to the importance of the coastal zone and its resources to Alaskans and the incentives provided by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The ACMP is managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP). The ACMP assures coordinated review of permit applications for development within the coastal zone. A Coastal Project Questionnaire must be completed and submitted with related materials to the OPMP. OPMP coordinates a review by state agencies and the public to determine whether the project is consistent with the ACMP and issues a Consistency Determination Finding. Alaska Statute 16.20 Conservation and Protection of Alaska Wildlife - Special Area Permit (5 AAC 95.420) The Alaska State Legislature has classified certain areas as being essential to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. These areas are designated as a refuge, critical habitat area, or sanctuary. Management of these special areas is the responsibility of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). A special area permit (5 AAC 95.420) is required for any habitat altering work, including any construction activity in a designated state refuge, critical habitat area, or sanctuary None of the testing locations impinges on any such area, and no future development is expected to either.. Leasing of State-Owned Land (11 AAC 58/11 AAC 62.690-730) State-owned land includes State-owned tidelands (land between mean high and mean lower low tides), submerged land (three miles out from mean lower low tide), and shoreland (land covered by non-tidal water considered to be navigable under federal law). In future phases, if feasibility is established, , for longer-term activities, the ADNR would be asked provide a lease for the use of State-owned lands. Actions considered could involve lease, easement on, or purchase of State- owned lands. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 47 of 59 9/3/2008 4.4.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed: • Threatened or Endangered species • Habitat issues • Wetlands and other protected areas • Archaeological and historical resources • Land development constraints • Telecommunications interference • Aviation considerations • Visual, aesthetics impacts • Identify and discuss other potential barriers 4.4.4-A Threatened or Endangered Species In order to identify any Federal and/or State listed rare, threatened, endangered (RTE) or special concern species that may be present within or near the project areas, consultations shall be sent to the following agencies that include but may not be limited to: • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the National Marine Fishery Service • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Alaska Department of Fish and Game The preliminary consultations will help identify: (1) if any RTE species exist within the defined project areas; (2) if the project will impact any RTE species and/or their habitat, food source etc.; and (3) if any suggested survey methods are to be conducted and/or if mitigation measures need to be implemented. At this point, four Federally-listed RTE species including the humpback whale, grey whale, beluga whale, and Steller sea lion have been are known to occur within the vicinity of the project areas. Correspondence and coordination with the above-listed agencies will ignite discussions on whether the Project will adversely affect these species and/or their habitat. In addition to correspondence with the Federal and State agencies, biologists and ecologists from the University of Alaska, Alaska SeaLife Center Project will be collecting baseline information of the seasonal occurrence and abundance of marine mammals, with special emphasis on depleted, threatened or endangered species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). This baseline information will help quantify behavioral responses of marine animals during deployment and operation of the prototype tidal energy generator in Cook Inlet Forelands and Icy Passage. The following monitoring of prototype tests will be geared towards identification of potential issues relative to threatened or endangered species, and other marine mammals as well: 1. Passive Acoustic Monitoring Passive acoustic monitoring is a rapidly emerging technique that has the potential to complement Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 48 of 59 9/3/2008 aerial photography as a method of monitoring CIB habitat utilization. Passive acoustic monitoring relies on the production of underwater sounds by marine animals and the ability to record and identify those sounds. Evidence of the success of this technique is provided by Moore et al. (2000). Simply described, an array of passive acoustic monitors will give information about existing sound levels and marine mammal activities over time. Methodology The Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) is a digital, low power system that records ambient sounds up to 30 kHz on a programmable schedule, but can also respond to transient acoustic events that meet specific criteria, such as vessels passing nearby. There are two types of EAR: a shallow-water (0-36 m) version that is diver-deployed and a deep-water version that is rated to a depth of 500 m. The deep EAR is recovered by activating an acoustic release that allows the unit to float back to the surface. The shallow-water EAR can be deployed for a year or longer, depending on the number of batteries included and the recording schedule. The deep EAR can be deployed for up to 6 months at a time. The system is based on a Persistor CF2 microprocessor and a 16-bit analog to digital converter that records the ambient sound field and stores the recordings on an onboard 120 Gb disk. Recording sessions are initiated in one of three ways; on a software-regulated schedule, on a start trigger tuned to vessel-generated acoustic energy, and/or on a trigger tuned to sounds produced by cetaceans. To date, the EAR has been used to record long-term acoustic patterns on coral reefs, monitor vessel traffic in marine reserves, track the occurrence of cetaceans in an area, and establish the acoustic signaling behavior of bottom fish. An acoustical array will be designed to fit the bathymetry and locations of the prototype testing sites. This array will initially be deployed to allow the assessment of sound and movements. The data will be logged and analyzed by acoustical experts. The data will also be compared to known sightings of belugas using aerial surveys. Details regarding this proposed monitoring will be reviewed as part of the consultations with resource agencies such as NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other interested agencies. Statement of Work 8. Fabricate four ecological acoustic recorders (EAR) for deployment in two mutually agreeable locations in Alaskan waters. 9. Fabricate a low-noise acoustic monitoring system for broadband measurement of underwater ambient noise. 10. Assist in the deployment of two EARs in each of two mutually agreeable locations in Alaskan waters at least two week prior to the deployment of the tidal energy test bed. 11. Perform broadband underwater ambient noise measurements in both locations during the deployment and retrieval of EARs. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 49 of 59 9/3/2008 12. Assist in the retrieval of EARs after approximately six weeks after their deployment. 13. Analyze data obtain by the EARs and by the broadband ambient noise measurements. 14. Report results for integration into feasibility assessment 2. Biological Oceanographic Studies Proposal for fieldwork and analysis of existing and new data pertaining to the presence and activity of biological resources near tidal power pilot projects in Angoon, Cook Inlet and/or Icy Straits. Principal Investigator: Shannon Atkinson, email: atkinson@sfos.uaf.edu; ph: (907)-224-4310 Collaborating Scientists: Jan Straley, email: jan.straley@uas.alaska.edu; ph: (907) 747-7779 Kate Wynne, email: ffkmw@uaf.edu; ph: (907) 486-1517 Anne Hoover-Miller, email: aamiller@ak.net; phone (907) 491-0999 Objective Quantify behavioral responses of fish and marine mammals during deployment and operation of prototype tidal energy generators. General field work approach and limitations Proposed locations for generator deployment include areas frequented by a more than 10 species of marine mammals (Table 1). Three species, including humpback, and Cook Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions have been or are proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Harbor seals, although not listed by the ESA or MMPA are depressed in numbers in the Gulf of Alaska and have precipitously declined in Glacier Bay Southeast Alaska, adjacent to the proposed Icy Strait testing area. The distribution and activities of marine mammals varies seasonally often in a generally predictive manner. Marine mammals, however, are highly sensitive to marine conditions thus will alter distribution and behavior in response to short term ecological conditions and foraging opportunities. The proposed work will assess distribution patterns in proposed regions of the tidal generator deployments based on previous research in published and ‘gray’ literature (i.e., either non peer reviewed or literature that is not easily obtainable or readily distributed). Although this study will synthesize current knowledge on each species to assist evaluations of potential effects of tidal generator operations during prototype testing, knowledge of year-around distribution and habitat use are already known to be insufficient for projecting potential effects of year-around operations of tidal generators without further directed research that is beyond the scope of this study. To measure changes in distribution or behavior consistent with marine fish and mammals being attracted to the site or avoiding the site, repeated standardized surveys will be conducted two weeks prior to generator deployment, during generator deployment and for two weeks after deployment. Surveys will include documentation of the distribution and activity of marine mammals based on surface observations from aerial, vessel, and/or land platforms. Results will be analyzed to test whether the spatial distribution of each species within surveys indicates changes in density associated with the tidal generator deployment site. Results also will be evaluated to detect broader influences on marine mammal and fish behavior and distribution. Temporal comparisons will be made to determine whether attraction or avoidance of the entire area surveyed is indicated between periods of generator deployment and absence. Final survey design will be influenced by the specific location of generators. In areas of suitable light and Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 50 of 59 9/3/2008 water clarity, subsurface assessments may be made using photographic or time-lapse video images from cameras mounted on generator platform to assess direct interactions between marine life and the generators. Acoustic records (see project on hydroacoustics and underwater noise) also will be reviewed to ascertain whether acoustics can be quantitatively used to measure changes in marine mammal and/or fish activity during periods of generator deployment. Primary project objectives include the following activities: Background research: (1) compile information on seasonal distribution and numbers of marine mammals and fish within and adjacent to boundary areas of site locations based on published and gray literature. (2) Provide recommendations for generator site locations within proposed boundary areas that potentially reduce impacts to marine mammals. Permits: An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) from the National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources will be required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. TRC will be responsible for obtaining this permit. However, the UAF resources associated with this proposal will be available to lend their experience and expertise to obtaining this authorization. This will allow for marine mammal Level B harassment required for conducting the monitoring in this subaward. Effects of generators on marine mammal distribution or behavior: Once sites are identified, assessments will be made to evaluate alterations in distribution and behavior before, during, and after deployment of generators. Primary measurements will be made from surface observations via a combination of aerial and vessel-based surveys. If suitable land sites are located near generator sites, land-based observations may also be used. Subsurface assessments of changes in marine mammal distribution and behavior also will be made using a combination of acoustic assessments (see project on hydroacoustics and underwater noise) and, if turbidity allows, still or time-lapse video cameras mounted to the generator platform will be used to assess marine animal activity immediately adjacent to generators and any direct contact between organisms and the generator. Data analysis and reports. Prior to final site selection, a summary report describing marine mammal seasonal distribution and activities specific to the regions of generator deployment will be provided to identify locations with lowest potential impact to marine mammals based on published and ‘gray’ literature review. The review will focus on seasonal distribution information appropriate to anticipated prototype testing but will include year-around assessments for longer deployments. After completion of prototype testing and associated data collection, a second report will present monitoring results and conclusions from experimental studies. General sampling strategy Sampling will involve multiple assessments to determine which species are potentially affected by the tidal generators and to determine responses such as altered feeding, migration, or movements indicative of avoidance or attraction to the generator: • Aerial and vessel-based surveys will be conducted during the two weeks prior to generator deployment, during deployment (approximately 5 21 days) and for two weeks after deployment. The mode of surveys will follow comparable protocols and will focus on contrasting marine fish and mammal distribution and activity at the generator site with comparable locations away from the generator. • Subsurface assessments of fish and marine mammals using acoustic surveys will used to contrast regional fish and marine mammal distributions prior to, during, and subsequent to deployment of the prototype generator. Site-specific considerations Icy Strait or Cook Inlet: Aerial surveys will be used to evaluate changes in marine mammal density, with emphasis on Cook Inlet belugas and harbor seals, prior to, during, and after generator deployment. Three surveys following standardized transects will be conducted during the two weeks prior to generator deployment, three surveys will be conducted during generator deployment, and three Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 51 of 59 9/3/2008 surveys will be conducted after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for tides, time of day, and weather to the maximum extent practicable. If generators are located sufficiently close to shore for land-based observations, additional field observations may be used to assess changes in distribution and behavior of marine mammals associated with generator deployment. Vessel surveys using a towed acoustic body will be used to assess distribution and biomass of primary fish species with particular emphasis on various salmon species and eulachon. As possible, pots will be used near generators to investigate potential changes in the distribution of benthic and epibenthic species. Two vessel surveys will be conducted prior to generator deployment, two surveys during generator deployment and two surveys after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for time of day and tides, but will be limited to daylight hours. As possible, photographs from waterproof cameras will be analyzed for presence and absence of fish species before, during, and after deployment of the generators. Given the lack of water clarity in Cook Inlet, it is very unlikely that such imagery will prove useful. Angoon: Proposed locations of generator deployment are much more restricted than in Icy Strait or Cook Inlet. The reduced spatial extent facilitates the use of vessel and the potential for land-based observations that provide more detailed records on the presence of marine mammals and behavioral responses than other proposed survey methods. Vessel surveys will be used to assess distribution and relative numbers of marine mammals, with emphasis on harbor seals and humpback whales. Three surveys will be conducted prior to generator deployment, three surveys will be conducted during deployment, and three surveys after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for tides, time of day, and weather. If shore-based observation sites are sufficiently close to the generator deployment site, land observations will be used to supplement vessel surveys. Vessel surveys using a towed acoustic body will be used to assess distribution and biomass of primary fish species with particular emphasis on herring. Two surveys will be conducted prior to generator deployment, two surveys during generator deployment, and two surveys after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for time of day, and as possible will be conducted during both daylight and evening hours. In addition, surveys utilizing divers will be conducted to assess possible interactions with benthic or epibenthic fish species (although such interactions are not anticipated). Line transect or point transect protocols will be followed, as appropriate. Surveys conducted in this manner will only be conducted during daylight hours. In addition, photographs from waterproof cameras may be used for analysis of presence and absence of fish species before, during, and after deployment of the generators. Differences in the proportion of images with a given species occurring will be used to test hypotheses regarding the potential for generators to either attract or repel fish. At one of the sites, monitoring using the hydro-acoustic technology provided by BioSomics will be used. This is described below: Monitoring Plan for the Presence of Fish, Marine Mammals, and Drifting Ice Background on Hydroacoustic Technology Hydroacoustic techniques utilize SONAR (SOund NAvigation and Ranging) technology to detect underwater ‘targets’ (e.g. fish) as well as to classify those targets based on various acoustic properties of the target. Advanced hydroacoustic analysis can discern target direction, velocity, horizontal and vertical location in the water column, and acoustic size (related to actual size). Combined with precision timing and knowledge of the sampled volume, this rich data set can provide documentation of fish behavior, abundance, and size as well as variations in these parameters throughout the day and throughout the migration period. Hydroacoustic technology has been applied to this type of fish monitoring for more than 30 years, Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 52 of 59 9/3/2008 with current advances providing more detail and resolution than ever. In addition, precision calibration and standardized methods for data collection and processing have eliminated much of the subjectivity that can plague other traditional fish sampling and monitoring methods. Advantages of hydroacoustics over other sampling and monitoring methods include, • Acoustic sampling requires minimal fish handling (only for species and size confirmation) • Acoustic sampling requires NO tagging or ‘take’ • Acoustic sampling does not change fish behavior • Continuous sampling (multiple samples per second) captures daily and longer term variability in; o Abundance o Distribution in the water column o Size composition (large vs. medium vs. small fish) o Direction of travel o Behavior and response to environmental changes • Virtual elimination of sampler bias or subjectivity • Evaluation of Automated data collection and processing o Standardized collection and analysis • Equally effective day or night • Minimal effect from weather-related variables (wind, rain, snow) on data quality Hydroacoustic detection, assessment, and monitoring of salmon, both adults and smolts, as well as many species of marine and freshwater fish has been employed and accepted by Tribal, First Nation, and State and Federal fisheries managers and there are many references to support the use of this technology. Finally, hydroacoustic methods greatly reduce the manpower and fish-handling requirements and provide much greater sampling power by collecting hundreds of samples each hour and information on (potentially) thousands of (unmarked) fish each day. Sampling and Monitoring of Fish and Marine Mammal Presence, Behavior, and Abundance and for Drifting Ice The grantees are interested in determining fish behavior and abundance, presence and behavior of marine mammals, and movement of ice (“targets of interest”) in the project areas. Based on the expected conditions at the sampling locations, BioSonics propose to use either 120 kHz or 200 kHz split beam active hydroacoustic technology. These frequencies will provide adequate range, minimize noise from suspended sediment and entrained air bubble backscatter, and detection of a wide range of fish species and sizes. The split beam technology will allow estimation of both relative size and direction travel of targets of interest. The barge-mounted monitoring component of this study will be based on a standard BioSonics DT-X Digital echosounder, equipped with two 6-degree (beam width) split beam transducers and a transducer mount assembly. The transducer mount will allow the acoustic sample volume to be adjusted to sample the surface area, the mid-water area, and the area close to the bottom to best accommodate the physical conditions present at each site. Acoustic information will be collected from the water column in the area proposed to be occupied by the pilot project equipment, Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 53 of 59 9/3/2008 maintaining a reasonable data volume and minimizing system complexity. This will include samples between the surface and the bottom, not the entire water column volume. Horizontal Sampling. If the site is most suited to a horizontal sampling protocol, one or both of the horizontally aimed transducers will cover a different portion of the water column, as suggested in Figure 4.3-7. The acoustic beams will be positioned to cover the area where the turbine would be expected to be operational, as well as the nearby area of the water column. Figure 4.3-7. Area Expansion and Stratification. Since the entire water column cannot be sampled for target presence, abundance, and distribution, detections made in the sampled area can be used to represent the un-sampled volume and target distribution. The acoustic beams will be aimed appropriately (based on site physical characteristics, horizontally, vertically, or obliquely) in order to sample fish in the portion of the water column which will be occupied by the kinetic hydropower project. The abundance and distribution of targets of interest that are acoustically sampled will provide insight into the portion subject to interaction with the project, once installed. Hydroacoustic data can provide counts, acoustic target strength and direction of travel. The submerged target of interest information will be evaluated for target strength (a measure of acoustic reflectivity), direction of travel, and duration in the beam. This information is useful in classifying (and separating) fish targets from floating debris. The acoustic beams will sample a portion of the water column that a single turbine will actually occupy, providing insight into target distribution in the nearby area. This information will be important in understanding normal variations in abundance and distribution. 4.4.4-B Habitat Issues Consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game field offices will determine if there are initial concerns with the disturbance of surrounding wildlife habitats. This will include wildlife that utilize the coastal waters, coastal shores and the surrounding coastal zone for food, nesting and coverage. 4.4.4-C Wetlands and Other Protected Areas Wetlands – This is only an issue for transmission lines We will address this by reconnaissance and avoidance evaluations as part of the feasibility assessment. We will work with the National Park Service at gustavus to be sure the feasibility evaluation Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 54 of 59 9/3/2008 addresses all potential issues of interest to NPS. 4.3.4-D Archaeological and Historical Resources Tidal units will be sited in locations having strong currents, therefore it is expected that the presence of archeological or historic properties of significance are unlikely at the turbine deployment locations. Site preparation onshore for the land components of the Project (e.g., shore station, distribution right-of-way) could potentially disrupt cultural sites. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American tribes, and other relevant groups during the siting process will minimize any negative effects by either avoiding sensitive areas or using appropriate methods to minimize potential effects. 4.4.4-E Land Development Constraints Land development constraints would apply only to the transmission lines (if new ones are constructed for the project). If hooking into existing lines, no issue. This is a positive aspect of the project and should be emphasized here. 4.4.4-F Telecommunications Interference The project will not present obstructions to telecommunications systems. 4.4.4-G Aviation Considerations The project will not present obstacles to aviation. 4.4.4-H Visual and Aesthetics Impacts The project will consist of limited short-term demonstration testing of hydrokinetic generators on a series of Shugart-type sectional floating barges. The devices will be entirely underwater so that the only visual impact will be the barge itself and the equipment on the barge. The barge will extend about 3.5 feet above the water line and will have a one story high control building/equipment shed. The barge will also have one or two small cranes that will extend about two stories high when in use. Figures earlier in Section 4 illustrates the visual appearance of the equipment from a similar previous short-term test conducted in Florida. 4.4.4-I Ice Interference Issues The extent and character of marine ice is ever changing in coastal Alaska, and usually exists as pack ice, shorefast ice, Stamukhi (i.e., sea ice that has broken and piled upward because of wind, tides, or thermal expansion forces) or estuarine/river ice. Places like Cook Inlet experience all four types of ice along with the second highest tidal height variations in the world. These conditions make it essential for scientists to describe and address the potential interactions of marine ice with the tidal energy generators. Specifically, a thorough description including maps will be prepared for the Cook Inlet site. Minimal or no field effort is anticipated as much of this work has already been published in various forms (e.g., Mulherin et al, 2001; http://aprfc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php). The sites in southeast Alaska have had much less work done on them, however what is known will be compiled, and further descriptions will be collected during the spring field effort at those sites. This work, while described here will be budgeted for by TRC. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 55 of 59 9/3/2008 Reference: Mulherin, ND, Tucker, WB III, Smith, OP, and Lee, WJ. 2001. Marine Ice Atlas for Cook Inlet, Alaska. US Army Corps of Engineers. Technical Report-01-10. Pp145. 4.4.4-I Use conflict Issues At each site, the feasibility evaluation will include extensive discussions and information review with stakeholders involved in other uses to determine the potential for use conflicts and their mitigation. This will include, among others, detailed considerations of the following: • Commercial and recreational boating and fishing • Maintenance of navigation requirements • Habitat protection 4.5 Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates. 4.5.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following: • Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase • Requested grant funding • Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind • Identification of other funding sources • Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system • Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system This feasibility study is, in part, designed to evaluate prospective new system costs, none of which are well- enough defined to establish feasibility prior to the proposed work 4.5.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. • Total anticipated project cost for this phase • Requested grant funding Not applicable. This feasibility study will not involve long-term deployment of equipment requiring O&M costs. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 56 of 59 9/3/2008 4.5.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project Not applicable. This feasibility study will not involve power purchase or sale. 4.5.4 Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. Please see attached 4.5.5 Business Plan Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. Not Applicable 4.5.6 Analysis and Recommendations Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your recommendation for additional project development work. This pilot project will give a good idea of what the exact costs will be for the mass production of turbines, and close monitoring of all costs during the project will give the developers better information on the cost- competitiveness of the technology. Results of this work will define the outlook for cost-effective production of tidal energy at each site. For each site where results are favorable, the next step will be development and support of a Pilot License Application to FERC for longer-term demonstration of scaled-up devices. SECTION 5.0 - PROJECT BENEFIT Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following: • Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project • Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or avoided cost of ownership) • Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits) • Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) • Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 57 of 59 9/3/2008 Fuel displacement for a 50kw offset of diesel generation in Angoon: 81030 gallons, or $384,082 at $4.74 a gallon. Angoon’s Potential Financial Savings Yearly Output (kwh) 171696 Differential charge per kwh 0.17 Yearly Savings $29784 20 year savings $595680 Anticipated annual gross revenue from project, at a proposed 45 cent per kwh price: $89,110 Annual production tax credit revenue contributing to bottom line: $3,262 Anticipated annual green tag sales at $0.05 per kwh: $8,585 This project would benefit those in Angoon not just financially but will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas and carcinogenic pollution generated by the diesel generators. An hypothetical illustrative example for Gustavus (based on historic diesel, not projected hydro) costs is provided below: Gustavus Power Project Year 1 2 3 4 5 Installed Capacity (kW) 500 500 500 500 500 Annual Generation 2190000 2190000 2190000 2190000 2190000 Transformer loss at 2% 43800 43800 43800 43800 43800 Net Generation for Sale (kWh) 2146200 2146200 2146200 2146200 2146200 Revenue Energy Rate per kWh $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 Production Tax Credits at 0.019 $40,778 $40,778 $40,778 $40,778 $40,778 Generation Capacity $965,790 $965,790 $965,790 $965,790 $965,790 REC's $107,310 $107,310 $107,310 $107,310 $107,310 Gross Income $1,113,878 $1,113,878 $1,113,878 $1,113,878 $1,113,878 Costs Original Capital Costs $1,435,000 O & M with Labor $399,000 $399,000 $399,000 $399,000 $399,000 Monitoring $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 G & A non-labor $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Total Costs $2,084,000 $649,000 $649,000 $649,000 $649,000 Net Income -$970,122 $464,878 $464,878 $464,878 $464,878 Balance -$970,122 -$505,244 -$40,367 $424,511 $889,389 Cost Savings to historic fossil-fueled Rates $ 600,936 $ 600,936 $ 600,936 $ 600,936 $ 600,936 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 58 of 59 9/3/2008 SECTION 6.0 - GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much your total project costs. Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. Include an estimate of budget costs by tasks using the form - GrantBudget.xls The overall project cost is summarized as follows: Grant Request Matching Total . Initial Reconnaissance $291,581 $15,000 $306,581 Prototype Testing & Monitoring $1,367,453 $450,000 $1,817,453 Feasibility Evaluation $ 335,000 $50,000 $385,000 Total $1,924,034 $515,000 $2,439,034 Of the requested funds, the majority (about $1.2 million) is for field measurements. About $1.1 million of that is for physical and biological oceanographic measurements by the University of Alaska to characterize the tidal energy resource and monitor prototype testing. The largest fraction of matching is in the development and provision of prototype tidal energy conversion devices by Oceana Energy (parent of AKTidal) and Natural Currents, LLC. (parent of Natural Currents Alaska). Matching for the feasibility evaluation comes from staff time invested by AKTidal and its consultant, TRC Environmental Corp. The budget also includes a $20,000 “placeholder” for feasibility evaluation by the City of Gustavus. The City may decide to return the money as a contribution to the Program. . Detailed cost breakdowns are provided on accompanying worksheet in Attachment C. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 59 of 59 9/3/2008 SECTION 7.0 - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A. Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4 B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4 C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6. D. An electronic version of the entire application per RFA Section 1.6 E. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4 Enclose a copy of the resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s governing body or management that: - authorizes this application for project funding at the match amounts indicated in the application - authorizes the individual named as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application - states the applicant is in compliance with all federal state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. Print Name * See Attachment F Signature * See Attachment F Title * See Attachment F Date * See Attachment F G. University of Alaska Fairbanks Proposal . . . • Renewable Energy Fund RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 Application Cost Worksheet Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project phases. Level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.* *As this grant application includes reconnaissance and feasibility phases only, this cost worksheet is not applicable. Part of the feasibility assessment will include evaluating these factors and costs by developing information at each of the sites. 1. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. Annual average resource availability. Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel) 2. Existing Energy Generation a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other iii. Generator/boilers/other type iv. Age of generators/boilers/other v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other b) Annual O&M cost i. Annual O&M cost for labor ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] ii. Fuel usage (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank Diesel [gal] Other iii. Peak Load iv. Average Load v. Minimum Load vi. Efficiency vii. Future trends d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] ii. Electricity [kWh] iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] Renewable Energy Fund RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other 3. Proposed System Design a) Installed capacity b) Annual renewable electricity generation i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] ii. Electricity [kWh] iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other 4. Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system b) Development cost c) Annual O&M cost of new system d) Annual fuel cost 5. Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity ii. Heat iii. Transportation b) Price of displaced fuel c) Other economic benefits d) Amount of Alaska public benefits 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale 7. Project Analysis Renewable Energy Fund RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio Payback Alaska Energy Authority - Renewable Energy FundBUDGET INFORMATIONBUDGET SUMMARY:Milestone or TaskFederal FundsState FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Local Match Funds (In-Kind)Other FundsTOTALS1 Initial Reconnaissance$291,581.00$15,000.00$306,581.002 Prototype Testing and Monitoring$1,367,453.00$450,000.00$1,817,453.003 Feasibility Evaluation$265,000.00$50,000.00$315,000.004$0.005$0.00Total$1,924,034.00$515,000.00$2,439,034.00Milestone # or Task #BUDGET CATAGORIES:12345TOTALSDirect Labor and Benefits$118,000.00$55,000.00$173,000.00Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$25,000.00$10,000.00$35,000.00Equipment$240,000.00$240,000.00Supplies$0.00Contractual Services$291,581.00$934,453.00$200,000.00$1,426,034.00 Biosonics$110,000.00 TRC$70,000.00$200,000.00 University of Alaska$291,581.00$754,453.00Construction Services$0.00Other Direct Costs$50,000.00$50,000.00TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES$291,581.00$1,367,453.00$265,000.00$0.00$0.00$1,924,034.00RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form NATURAL CURRENTS ALASKA, LLC 1400 WEST BENSON BOULEVARD SUITE 370 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 Whereas the Officers and Directors of Natural Currents Alaska, LLC have conferred and studied the proposal to Alaska Energy Authority #09-004, the Officers and Directors agree to the terms and conditions of, and support all aspects and details of this effort. We authorize the application for project funds at the match amount specified in the application. We authorize the individual named as the point of contact to represent Natural Currents Alaska, LLC for purposes of this application. Natural Currents Alaska, LLC is in compliance with all federal, state and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. Be it hereby resolved that this proposal has full authorization to proceed as described therein. As indicated in the following e-mail string, the City of Gustavus has provided its Certification of participation (included in Attachment F). The City Council is scheduled to act on the Resolution at its monthly meeting on Thursday, October 9. A copy of the executed Resolution will be provided to AEA immediately upon receipt. A draft Resolution is provided below. 1 Townsend, Sophy (Lowell,MA-US) To:Townsend, Sophy (Lowell,MA-US) Subject:RE: Gustavus From: Ponch and Sandi Marchbanks [mailto:PSMarchbanks@starband.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 11:24 PM To: Cooper, Charlie (Lowell,MA-US) Cc: citycouncil4@gustavus-ak.gov Subject: RE: Gustavus If the stars have aligned properly, you should have your signed document now! Sandi From: Cooper, Charlie (Lowell,MA-US) [mailto:CCooper@TRCSOLUTIONS.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:37 PM To: Ponch and Sandi Marchbanks Cc: Townsend, Sophy (Lowell,MA-US) Subject: RE: Gustavus Sandi, Thanks for the update. We’ll be looking for the material. Charlie Cooper Charles B. Cooper Director, Environmental Permitting and Planning TRC Environmental Corporation Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk Street, Second Floor Lowell, MA 01854 Phone/Voicemail: 978‐656‐3567 Cell: 978‐771‐8977 e‐mail: ccooper@trcsolutions.com From: Ponch and Sandi Marchbanks [mailto:PSMarchbanks@starband.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 7:42 PM To: Cooper, Charlie (Lowell,MA-US) Subject: FW: Gustavus I seem to be jinxed where computers are concerned today. I was not finished with the email below, but apparently pressed something too hard and it sent anyway! I have finished this now. From: Ponch and Sandi Marchbanks [mailto:PSMarchbanks@starband.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:37 PM 2 To: Charles B. Cooper (CCooper@TRCSolutions.com) Subject: Gustavus Good Afternoon, I wanted to let you know we are acting on the signatures for the Grant Application and on the Resolution. The City meets once a month and we will hold our monthly meeting on Thursday night. I have drafted and forwarded a Resolution to the council. John just got back to town and will be looking over all of the information this evening. I will meet with him a bit later today and get his signature and will then scan and email that to you. I apologize for any inconvenience, but our council tries to work at least in pairs on these types of issues. Sandi CITY OF GUSTAVUS RESOLUTION 2008-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GUSTAVUS SUPPORTING TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION’S APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDING THROUGH ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF TIDAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION IN THE ICY STRAITS AREA WHEREAS, heretofore all electrical energy produced within the community of Gustavus is generated through use of diesel power at an extremely high cost to consumers; and WHEREAS, businesses throughout the community receive no Price Cost Equalization (PCE) resulting in high electrical rates, a cost which is passed on to business customers; and WHEREAS, Gustavus Strategic Plan lists reduction of electrical rates as a number one priority as a goal for the City; and WHEREAS, economic vitality is the driving force for job creation, tax dollars, continued city services, and the quality of life for all citizens; and WHEREAS, the Gustavus City Council and the citizens of Gustavus have and will continue to pursue renewable energy resource development; WHEREAS, this feasibility study will be customized to reflect complimentary efforts to lower electrical costs for the community and to not compete with the hydroelectric project presently under construction; and WHEREAS, the City of Angoon, Alaska, and the City of Wrangell, Alaska, will also participate in the feasibility study, AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Gustavus supports this application for project funding for a feasibility study by TRC Environmental Corporation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, John Nixon and Sandi Marchbanks will presently serve as the points of contact to represent the City of Gustavus for purposes of this application, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Gustavus is in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, including existing credit and federal tax obligations. ADOPTED and PASSED THIS ________ day of __________________, 2008. sFos oe-ose BH -I University of Alaska Fairbanks Proposal TO: Alaska Energy Authority FROM:Fisheries Division School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK 9977 5-7220 Grant and Contract Services PO Box 757880 Fairbanks,AK 99775-7560 GONTAGT: TITLE: Proposal for fieldwork and analysis of existing and new data pertaining to the presence and activity of biological resources near tidal power pilot projects in Angoon, Cook lnlet and/or lcy Straits. Shannon Atkinson PeterWinsor New 1 Year 1 January 2009 $ I,OtlbiO:.{ PRINCIPAL I NVESTIGATORS : NEWCONTINUATION: DURATION: PROPOSED START DATE: UAF AMOUNT REQUESTED: Principal lnvestigator William W. Smoker Director Fisheries Division School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences N/A ffi ---7Date Co-Principal I nvestigator Terry Director tMs School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Director Office of Sponsored Programs October 2008 Proposal for fieldwork and analysis of existing and new data pertaining to the presence and activity of biological resources near tidal power pilot projects in Angoon, Cook Inlet and/or Icy Straits. Principal Investigator: Shannon Atkinson, email: atkinson@sfos.uaf.edu; ph: (907)-224-4310 Collaborating Scientists: Jan Straley, email: jan.straley@uas.alaska.edu; ph: (907) 747-7779 Kate Wynne, email: ffkmw@uaf.edu; ph: (907) 486-1517 Anne Hoover-Miller, email: aamiller@ak.net; phone (907) 491-0999 Objective Quantify behavioral responses of fish and marine mammals during deployment and operation of prototype tidal energy generators. General field work approach and limitations Proposed locations for generator deployment include areas frequented by a more than 10 species of marine mammals (Table 1). Three species, including humpback, and Cook Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions have been or are proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Harbor seals, although not listed by the ESA or MMPA are depressed in numbers in the Gulf of Alaska and have precipitously declined in Glacier Bay Southeast Alaska, adjacent to the proposed Icy Strait testing area. The distribution and activities of marine mammals varies seasonally often in a generally predictive manner. Marine mammals, however, are highly sensitive to marine conditions thus will alter distribution and behavior in response to short‐term ecological conditions and foraging opportunities. The proposed work will assess distribution patterns in proposed regions of the tidal generator deployments based on previous research in published and ‘gray’ literature (ie., either non‐peer‐reviewed or literature that is not easily obtainable or readily distributed). Although this study will synthesize current knowledge on each species to assist evaluations of potential effects of tidal generator operations during prototype testing, knowledge of year‐ around distribution and habitat use are already known to be insufficient for projecting potential effects of year‐around operations of tidal generators without further directed research that is beyond the scope of this study. To measure changes in distribution or behavior consistent with marine fish and mammals being attracted to the site or avoiding the site, repeated standardized surveys will be conducted two weeks prior to generator deployment, during generator deployment and for two weeks after deployment. Surveys will include documentation of the distribution and activity of marine mammals based on surface observations from aerial, vessel, and/or land platforms. Results will be analyzed to test whether the spatial distribution of each species within surveys indicates changes in density associated with the tidal generator deployment site. Results also will be evaluated to detect broader influences on marine mammal and fish behavior and distribution. Temporal comparisons will be made to determine whether attraction or avoidance of the entire area surveyed is indicated between periods of generator deployment and absence. Final survey design will be influenced by the specific location of generators. In areas of suitable light and water clarity, subsurface assessments may be made using photographic or time‐lapse video images from cameras mounted on generator platform to assess direct interactions between marine life and the generators. Acoustic records (see project on hydroacoustics and underwater noise) also will be reviewed to ascertain whether acoustics can be quantitatively used to measure changes in marine mammal and/or fish activity during periods of generator deployment. Primary project objectives include the following activities: Background research: (1) compile information on seasonal distribution and numbers of marine mammals and fish within and adjacent to boundary areas of site locations based on published and gray literature. (2) Provide recommendations for generator site locations within proposed boundary areas that potentially reduce impacts to marine mammals. Permits: An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) from the National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources will be required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. TRC Solutions will be responsible for obtaining this permit. However, the UAF resources associated with this proposal will be available to lend their experience and expertise to obtaining this authorization. This will allow for marine mammal Level B harassment required for conducting the monitoring in this subaward. Effects of generators on marine mammal distribution or behavior: Once sites are identified, assessments will be made to evaluate alterations in distribution and behavior before, during, and after deployment of generators. Primary measurements will be made from surface observations via a combination of aerial and vessel‐based surveys. If suitable land sites are located near generator sites, land‐based observations may also be used. Subsurface assessments of changes in marine mammal distribution and behavior also will be made using a combination of acoustic assessments (see project on hydroacoustics and underwater noise) and, if turbidity allows, still or time‐lapse video cameras mounted to the generator platform will be used to assess marine animal activity immediately adjacent to generators and any direct contact between organisms and the generator. Data analysis and reports. Prior to final site selection, a summary report describing marine mammal seasonal distribution and activities specific to the regions of generator deployment will be provided to identify locations with lowest potential impact to marine mammals based on published and ‘gray’ literature review. The review will focus on seasonal distribution information appropriate to anticipated prototype testing but will include year‐around assessments for longer deployments. After completion of prototype testing and associated data collection, a second report will present monitoring results and conclusions from experimental studies. General sampling strategy Sampling will involve multiple assessments to determine which species are potentially affected by the tidal generators and to determine responses such as altered feeding, migration, or movements indicative of avoidance or attraction to the generator: • Aerial and vessel‐based surveys will be conducted during the two weeks prior to generator deployment, during deployment (approximately 5‐21 days) and for two weeks after deployment. The mode of surveys will follow comparable protocols and will focus on contrasting marine fish and mammal distribution and activity at the generator site with comparable locations away from the generator. • Subsurface assessments of fish and marine mammals using acoustic surveys will used to contrast regional fish and marine mammal distributions prior to, during, and subsequent to deployment of the prototype generator. Site-specific considerations Icy Strait or Cook Inlet: Aerial surveys will be used to evaluate changes in marine mammal density, with emphasis on Cook Inlet belugas and harbor seals, prior to, during, and after generator deployment. Three surveys following standardized transects will be conducted during the two weeks prior to generator deployment, three surveys will be conducted during generator deployment, and three surveys will be conducted after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for tides, time of day, and weather to the maximum extent practicable. If generators are located sufficiently close to shore for land‐based observations, additional field observations may be used to assess changes in distribution and behavior of marine mammals associated with generator deployment. Vessel surveys using a towed acoustic body will be used to assess distribution and biomass of primary fish species with particular emphasis on various salmon species and eulachon. As possible, pots will be used near generators to investigate potential changes in the distribution of benthic and epibenthic species. Two vessel surveys will be conducted prior to generator deployment, two surveys during generator deployment and two surveys after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for time of day and tides, but will be limited to daylight hours. As possible, photographs from waterproof cameras will be analyzed for presence and absence of fish species before, during, and after deployment of the generators. Given the lack of water clarity in Cook Inlet, it is very unlikely that such imagery will prove useful. Angoon: Proposed locations of generator deployment are much more restricted than in Icy Strait or Cook Inlet. The reduced spatial extent facilitates the use of vessel and the potential for land‐ based observations that provide more detailed records on the presence of marine mammals and behavioral responses than other proposed survey methods. Vessel surveys will be used to assess distribution and relative numbers of marine mammals, with emphasis on harbor seals and humpback whales. Three surveys will be conducted prior to generator deployment, three surveys will be conducted during deployment, and three surveys after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for tides, time of day, and weather. If shore‐based observation sites are sufficiently close to the generator deployment site, land observations will be used to supplement vessel surveys. Vessel surveys using a towed acoustic body will be used to assess distribution and biomass of primary fish species with particular emphasis on herring. Two surveys will be conducted prior to generator deployment, two surveys during generator deployment, and two surveys after deployment. Surveys will be controlled for time of day, and as possible will be conducted during both daylight and evening hours. In addition, surveys utilizing divers will be conducted to assess possible interactions with benthic or epibenthic fish species (although such interactions are not anticipated). Line transect or point transect protocols will be followed, as appropriate. Surveys conducted in this manner will only be conducted during daylight hours. In addition, photographs from waterproof cameras may be used for analysis of presence and absence of fish species before, during, and after deployment of the generators. Differences in the proportion of images with a given species occurring will be used to test hypotheses regarding the potential for generators to either attract or repel fish. Table 1. Marine mammal species and status in upper Cook Inlet and Icy Strait. Species Status Upper Cook Inlet Icy Strait Angoon Beluga Proposed for Endangered Listing under ESA; proposed for Depleted MMPA under Cook Inlet Depressed numbers N/A N/A Killer Whale (Transient) Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Killer Whale (Resident) Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Harbor Porpoise Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Dall Porpoise Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Humpback Whale Endangered under ESA Infrequent visitor Seasonal, high densities Year‐around resident Gray Whale Infrequent, rare visitor Rare N/A Minke Whale Present Present Harbor Seal Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Steller Sea Lion Threatened (eastern), Endangered (western) under ESA; Depleted under MMPA Seasonal visitor, infrequent Year‐around resident Year‐around resident Sea Otter N/A Resident Infrequent Other species: Pacific white‐sided dolphin, sei whales, fin whales1, beaked whales, sperm whales2, northern fur seals3, northern elephant seals, CA sea lions 1&2 listed as endangered under ESA and depleted under MMPA 3 listed as depleted under MMPA Seasonal, infrequent &/or absent Seasonal, infrequent &/or absent Seasonal, infrequent &/or absent University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Justification Salaries: Funding is requested to support 174 hours of faculty salary for Dr. Shannon Atkinson during the 18 month period of 01/012009 to 06/30/2010. Funding is also requested to support 522 hours each for two faculty salaries for Jan Straley and Kate Wynne Funding is requested for the support of two field assistants, one for 696 hours of time and one for 348 hours of time. Benefits: Staff benefits for Dr. Atkinson, Jan Straley, and Kate Wynne are applied according to UAF’s fixed benefit rates for FY09 with the Office of Naval Research (ONR). A copy of the negotiated rate proposal is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/controller/cost-analysis/downloads/Negotiated/FY09_SB_Neg.pdf. Travel: Domestic Three round trips from Kodiak to Anchorage, seven round trips from Kodiak to Juneau, five round trips from Juneau to Angoon and two round trips Kodiak to Kenai. Travel is planned for five persons to attend two co-investigator meetings in Juneau and to field locations for conducting surveys. Two round trips have been budgeted for travel from Kodiak to Kenai. All travel will utilize federal per diem and mileage rates. Contractual Services Contractual services will include fish surveys, biosonar surveys, platform modifications. These costs are estimated to be $120,000. The contractual services also include aerial surveys costs, which are estimated at $600 per hour for 3 hours each and 9 days of surveys for a total of $16,200. Subawards subject to F&A (first $25,000) The budget includes a third tier subaward to Pacific Rim Research. Funds are requested for Pacific Rim Research ($25,000) and Vessel Charter for 18 days at $25,000. Subaward costs over $25,000 Additional funds are requested for Pacific Rim Research at $20,000 and Vessel Charter for $50,000 Commodities: Funds are requested for field supplies including wet suits, dry suits, mustang suits, binoculars, rope and totes. Funds are requested for lab supplies including electronics, spray foam and foam collars. Indirect Costs: The F&A rate is negotiated with the state of Alaska and the rate for research is calculated at 25% of the Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC includes Total Direct Costs minus tuition, stipends, scholarships, subaward amounts over $25,000, and equipment. A copy of the agreement is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/ controller/cost-analysis/negotiated_agreements.html. Straley budget justification for indirect allocated to University of Alaska Southeast Sitka Campus: A percentage of the indirect from collaborating investigator Straley budget component of the award will be used to pay for office and laboratory space, computer, business office and technology assistance from UAS Sitka staff to accomplish the goals and objectives of the proposal. This percentage is 34.8% of the total award indirect of 25% . UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS PROJECT TITLE:DEPT #: Proposal for fieldwork and analysis of existing and new data pertaining to the presence and activity of SFOS 09-059 biological resources near tidal power pilot projects in Angoon, Cook Inlet and/or Icy Straits. PI: Atkinson, S. START: 1 JAN 2009 BANNER #: END: 30 JUN 2010 11633 Year 1 Total Project SALARIES AND WAGES Hours Senior Personnel Hourly Wage Leave Rate Yearly Increase Total Number of Hours Employee Name 174.00 Atkinson, S.$60.02 1.5%1.045 174.0 $11,077 $11,077 522.00 Straley, J.$33.21 1.5%1.045 522.0 $18,387 $18,387 522.00 Wynne, K.$54.06 1.5%1.045 522.0 $29,932 $29,932 $59,396 $59,396 Other Personnel Total Number of Hours 696.00 Field Assistant $25.00 21.4% 1.03 696.0 $21,124 $21,124 348.00 Field Assistant $25.00 21.4% 1.03 348.0 $10,562 $10,562 $31,686 $31,686 TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES $91,082 FRINGE BENEFITS Senior Personnel 32.1% $3,556 $3,556 Straley, J.40.5% $7,447 $7,447 Wynne, K.32.1% $9,608 $9,608 $20,611 $20,611 Other Personnel Field Assistant 62.8% $13,266 $13,266 $19,899 $19,899 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS $40,510 TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS $131,592 TRAVEL 1. Domestic Travel Description Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Item Cost Airfare 3 RT Kodiak to ANC 3 400 1.1 $1,320 Meals 3 people, 4 days 12 44 1 $528 Lodging 3 people, 3 nights 9 170 1 $1,530 Car Rental 4 days 1 250 1.1 $275 Airfare 4RT Kodiak to JUN 4 600 1.1 $2,640 Meals 4 people, 4 days 16 44 1 $704 Lodging 4 people, 3 nights 12 120 1 $1,440 Car Rental 4 days 1 250 1.1 $275 Airfare 5 RT Kodiak to JUN 5 600 1.1 $3,300 Airfare 5 RT JUN to Angoon 5 200 1.1 $1,100 Meals 5 people, 10 days 50 44 1 $2,200 Lodging 5 people, 9 nights 45 80 1 $3,600 Car Rental 4 days 1 750 1.1 $825 Airfare 2 RT Kodiak to Kenai 2 600 1.1 $1,320 Meals 2 people, 10 days 20 44 1 $880 Lodging 2 people, 9 nights 18 110 1 $1,980 Car Rental 4 days 1 750 1.1 $825 Airfare 3 RT Kodiak to JUN 3 600 1.1 $1,980 Meals 3 people, 4 days 12 44 1 $528 Lodging 3 people, 3 nights 9 120 1 $1,080 Car Rental 4 days 1 250 1.1 $275 $28,605 TOTAL TRAVEL $28,605 $120,000 $16,200 $3,000 $139,200 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $189,200 $6,000 $4,000 TOTAL COMMODITIES $10,000 A. MTDC (total costs subject to F&A)$359,397 B. Facilities and Administration (F&A)25.0% $89,849 Subaward #1 $20,000 Subaward #2 $50,000 $70,000 C. Total Costs Exempt from F&A $70,000 D. Total Direct Costs (A+C)$429,397 E. Total Sponsor Request (B+D)$519,246 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Subawards subject to F&A (first $25,000) SUBAWARD COSTS OVER $25,000 TOTAL SUBAWARDS EXEMPT FROM F&A Total Other Personnel A9 - Faculty (ACCFT) 4075 - Field Supplies Vessel Charter 18 days Pacific Rim Research $519,246 $429,397 $70,000 $70,000 $89,849 $20,000 $50,000 $10,000 $359,397 $4,000 $189,200 $6,000 $139,200 $3,000 $28,605 F9 - Faculty (UNAC) $528 $1,320 $1,530 NR - Classified Staff $131,592 F9 - Faculty (UNAC) Total Senior Personnel NR - Classified Staff F9 - Faculty (UNAC) NR - Classified Staff Total Senior Personnel $275 $120,000 $16,2003005 - Consultants (Professional Fees) shipping Vessel Charter 18 days Contractual Service (include description) 3331, 3444, 3442 - Communication (Photocopies, Postage, Toll Charge F9 - Faculty (UNAC) A9 - Faculty (ACCFT) $704 Total Other Personnel $2,640 $528 $1,080 $275 $28,605 Sponsored Research Pacific Rim Research Total Subawards Anne Hoover-Miller 4012 - Lab Supplies (Professional, Technical and Scientific Supplies) COMMODITIES electronics, spray foam, foam collars Description Air Surveys, 3 hours, 9 days Wet suits, dry suits, mustang suits, binoculars, rope, totes Description Total Other Contractual Srvs Fish Surveys, Biosonar Surveys, Platform Modifications Number Total Domestic Travel Yearly Increase $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $3,300 $275 $1,440 $40,510 $91,082 $825 $1,980 $1,980 $1,320 $880 $3,600 $2,200 $825 $1,100 Pacific Rim Research (EIN 92‐0099676) P.O. Box 2507 Seward, AK 99664 Phone (907) 491‐0999 Email: aamiller@ak.net October 3, 2008 Scope of Work: Duties: Provide Project Manager (Anne Hoover-Miller) for project titled: Fieldwork and data analysis of existing and new data for tidal power pilot projects in Angoon, Cook Inlet and/or Icy Straits pertaining to Marine Mammal presence and activity Responsibilities of Project Manager: Project lead: • Coordinate activities of co-investigators o Manage and coordinate research, communications, data collection and analysis and report generation among collaborating researchers. • Communicate project status and progress with Principal Investigator. • Contribute to decisions of tidal generator site selection based on project results. • Manage budgets and oversee completion of field research, data analysis, and project reporting as described in project scope of work. Compensation: Project costs are total $45,000. Compensation for 5 months of the Project Manager’s time is calculated at $39130 (including 25% fringe benefits). Costs include 15% ($5,870) administrative fee to Pacific Rim Research. University of Alaska Fairbanks Statement of work and Budget Justification Statement of work Dr. Shannon Atkinson will serve as the Principal Investigator of Tidal Energy Studies – Biological and Oceanographic Monitoring subaward to UAF. This includes the oversight of the co-investigators activities, and completion of the field work, analyses and reporting. Dr. Atkinson will also manage the budgets. In addition a field coordinator will be hired to assist for the coordination of the various parts of the project, ensuring that the researchers take every advantage of collaborating on vessel and equipment use. Budget Justification Salaries: Funding is requested to support 696 hours of faculty salary for Dr. Shannon Atkinson during the 18 month period of 01/012009 to 06/30/2010. Funding is requested for the support of field coordinator for 696 hours of time. Benefits: Staff benefits for Dr. Atkinson, and the field coordinator are applied according to UAF’s fixed benefit rates for FY09 with the Office of Naval Research (ONR). A copy of the negotiated rate proposal is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/controller/cost-analysis/downloads/Negotiated/FY09_SB_Neg.pdf. Subawards subject to F&A (first $25,000) The budget includes a third tier subaward to the University of Hawaii. Funds are requested for the University of Hawaii ($25,000) Subaward costs over $25,000 Additional funds are requested for the University of Hawaii at $87,804. A separate statement of work and budget justification was prepared for this. Indirect Costs: The F&A rate is negotiated with the state of Alaska and the rate for research is calculated at 25% of the Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC includes Total Direct Costs minus tuition, stipends, scholarships, subaward amounts over $25,000, and equipment. A copy of the agreement is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/ controller/cost-analysis/negotiated_agreements.html. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS PROJECT TITLE:DEPT #: Overall Management SFOS 09-059 PI: Atkinson, S. START: 1 JAN 2009 BANNER #: END: 30 JUN 2010 11633 Year 1 Total Project ACCT SALARIES AND WAGES Hours 1000 Senior Personnel Hourly Wage Leave Rate Yearly Increase Total Number of Hours Employee Name 696.00 Atkinson, S.$60.02 1.5%1.045 696.0 $44,309 $44,309 $44,309 $44,309 1000 Other Personnel Total Number of Hours 696.00 Field Coordinator $25.00 21.4% 1.03 696.0 $21,124 $21,124 $21,124 $21,124 TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES $65,433 1900 FRINGE BENEFITS Senior Personnel 32.1% $14,223 $14,223 $14,223 $14,223 Other Personnel Field Coordinator 62.8% $13,266 $13,266 $13,266 $13,266 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS $27,489 $65,433 $27,489 F9 - Faculty (UNAC) Total Other Personnel Total Senior Personnel NR - Classified Staff F9 - Faculty (UNAC) Total Senior Personnel NR - Classified Staff Total Other Personnel TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS $92,922 1 $25,000 $25,000 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $25,000 A. MTDC (total costs subject to F&A)$117,922 B. Facilities and Administration (F&A)25.0%$29,481 3022/ 3029 Subaward #1 $87,804 $87,804 C. Total Costs Exempt from F&A $87,804 D. Total Direct Costs (A+C)$205,726 E. Total Sponsor Request (B+D)$235,207 $25,000 $25,000 3021/ 3028 Hawaii Total Subawards Sponsored Research $92,922 $25,000 $87,804 $117,922 $29,481 $87,804 $205,726 $87,804 $235,207 SUBAWARD COSTS OVER $25,000 TOTAL SUBAWARDS EXEMPT FROM F&A Hawaii Subawards subject to F&A (first $25,000) Underwater Acoustic Monitoring Associated with Installation and Testing of Tidal Energy Generators Whitlow W. L. Au, Ph.D. – PI Marc O. Lammers, Ph.D. – Co-PI Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology University of Hawaii P.O. Box 1106 Kailua, HI 96734 Submitted to University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Marine Science P.O. Box 730 201 Railway Ave. Seward, AK 99664-730 Statement of Work 1. Fabricate four ecological acoustic recorders (EAR) for deployment in two mutually agreeable locations in Alaskan waters. 2. Fabricate a low-noise acoustic monitoring system for broadband measurement of underwater ambient noise. 3. Assist in the deployment of two EARs in each of two mutually agreeable locations in Alaskan waters at least two week prior to the deployment of the tidal energy test bed. 4. Perform broadband underwater ambient noise measurements in both locations during the deployment and retrieval of EARs. 5. Assist in the retrieval of EARs after approximately six weeks after their deployment. 6. Analyze data obtain by the EARs and by the broadband ambient noise measurements. 7. Write a final report Budget: $112,804 Budget Justification Salaries and fringe benefits: Salaries are sought for Drs Whitlow Au (2 weeks) and Marc Lammers (3 months) to prepare the EARs and analyze the data. In addition, a graduate research assistant at the University of Hawaii will be hired at half time to assist with the project. Fringe benefits have been calculated at 33.3% for the PI (Au), 41.5% for the co-PI (Lammers) and 9.8% for the graduate assistant. Supplies: Four Ecological Acoustic Recorders (EARs) are budgeted at $5,000 each, which includes several components. Each one has an acoustic release ($1500 each) and an acoustic measurement system ($1000 each). Miscellaneous supplies have been included at $2000 for a subtotal of $32000. Travel: Two trips to AK from Hawaii have been budgeted for the PI and co-PI to assist with deployment and recovery of the EARs. Costs were estimated at $2500 for each trip. Indirect Costs: University of Hawaii has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate of 38.4%. Year-1 Tidal Energy Project PI: Whit Au (2 weeks) 6827 Co-PI Marc Lammers (3 months) 18038 Grad assistant (1/2 time) 9000 fringe (33.3% for PI, 41.5% for Co-PI, 9.8% grad assistant) 10641 Total salary and fringe 44505 Supplies four EARs 20000 acoustic releases 6000 acoustic measurement system 4000 Miscellaneous 2000 subtotal 32000 Travel 5000 Total direct 81505 Indirect (38.4%) 31298 Total 112804 Proposal for fieldwork and data analysis of existing and new data for tidal power pilot projects in Cook Inlet and Icy Straits (Gustavus). Principal Investigators: Peter Winsor pwinsor@sfos.uaf.edu 907-474-7740 Investigators: Physical Oceanography: Harper Simmons hsimmons@sfos.uaf.edu 907-474-5729 Thomas Weingartner weingart@ims.uaf.edu 907-474-7993 Rachel Potter potter@ims.uaf.edu 907-474-5709 Geological Oceanography: Jennifer Reynolds jreynolds@guru.uaf.edu 907- 474-5871 Introduction This proposal describes field work and data analysis aimed at characterizing ocean currents in the Gustavus area (Icy Passage and Icy Straits) and Cook Inlet Forelands and their suitability for extracting tidal power. The main objective at each site would be to characterize the flow field, which most likely is dominated by tides (typically, tides contribute to 90% of the total current variance in the proposed areas). At any given site, one would need to know the distribution of absolute current speeds, and their vertical and horizontal distribution. The tides are complex in these areas, with the dominant component typically being the lunar semidiurnal (M2). The vertical structure of the currents can be highly variable, with vertical shear often being present in the upper part of the water column (i.e. lower/higher currents speeds in the upper/lower water column, respectively). Characteristics will definitely change on a seasonal basis. The minimum field effort required at a single location to obtain reliable first-order estimates of current statistics (min, max, variance, vertical, fortnightly modulation, etc) would require a current meter mooring or vessel survey using Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) over a 14-day period. We will use a chartered, smaller vessel (local fishing vessel or similar) for the proposed field work. For these surveys we will use two different frequency ADCPs that are lowered off the side of the vessel collecting data for a minimum of 24 hrs for each location of interest at the main site. The vessel will steam cross-channel, stopping to acquire data at discrete locations at the appropriate vertical resolution given the local water depth. A more detailed description is given below. Since the seabed geology has to be permissive but is not a primary selection criterion, the recommendation is to survey the main site using side scan sonar and acoustic profiling to determine bottom conditions. The data collected can address the type of seafloor substrate, dynamic nature of substrate (i.e., presence of moving sand waves), and sediment thickness. An appropriate side-scan system for this work will be leased, for example, a Benthos C3D. The side-scan system will collect both acoustic reflectance imagery and interferometric bathymetry measurements. Acoustic profiling of the sediments during the side-scan sonar survey will provide quantitative information on sediment thickness and possible subsurface structures, at modest additional cost. Based on the side-scan data, sediment grab samples could be collected to groundtruth seabed substrates if needed; however, sediment sampling and analysis is not included in the present budget. Gustavus site – Icy Straits and Icy Passage General sampling strategy – We propose a 14-day ship-based survey for Icy Straits and Icy Passage just outside Gustavus. We plan on chartering a vessel and to occupy a series of stations across Icy Straits and Icy Passage, measuring a current profile long enough to gather adequate local measurement statistics from ADCP data. By occupying stations over two weeks, we can get high-quality measurements of the diurnal variation in currents for a given cross-channel section. We have budgeted for 16 days of ship time to be able to steam to the site and allow for weather or other unforeseen events. The suggested site at Icy Straits and Icy Passage is highly variable in terms of water depth, ranging from 10 m to 120 m. Icy Passage, the narrow passage between Pleasant Island and Gustavus, is particularly shallow and narrow and we plan to only occupy one or two sites here, probably looking at along-channel variations as channel is very narrow. For Icy Straits we plan to do one or several cross-channel (and possibly along-channel) surveys with multiple stations. We will use a 1200 kHz RDI ADCP for Icy Passage in order to resolve the vertical structure of currents in that shallow environment and a 600 kHz ADCP for Icy Bay. Concerns: Parts of the suggested locations are very shallow (for example parts of Icy Passage are only ~< 10 m deep). We question if these areas are suitable for deployment of turbines at all. Given the size of the turbines (we were told ~7 m diameter) and possibly mounted on a frame of pylon maybe 1 m high would give a total height of ~ 8 m. The risk would them be that the turbine would be exposed during low tide. Even if the turbines were 4-5 m tall this would be marginal for ice and shipping purposes. These shallow areas also make it challenging to operate a ship and conduct high-quality measurements. We will choose our site or sites here based on bathymetry and local conditions. We are also concerned about the ability of the leased vessel and its crew to keep the vessel still in a high-current environment and obtain high-quality measurements. The data quality will be dependent on the ships ability to maintain position during measurements. Anchoring might be needed but that may interfere with current measurements and will be time consuming. We will analyze our option during the field planning phase. Cook Inlet The Cook Inlet Forelands bathymetry is variable; the water depth of the main strait between the Forelands is between 18 and 120 m deep, with the two other suggested locations being shallower at ~65 m maximum depth. We have access to HF radar surface current data for this site, or just south of the main Strait, collected in 2002-2003 where an array of two Seasondes (CODAR Ocean Sensors’ HF radar systems) measured hourly surface currents near the mouth of the Kenai River on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet. The systems were deployed in December 2002 and operated until June 2003. The approximate resolution in time and space is hourly and ~2 km, respectively. We propose to analyze the existing data, including potential NOAA buoy data, and do not plan on using a vessel for new, direct measurements for this location. The HF radar data time series is long enough to be able to produce reliable statistics of surface currents. Note that we will not be able to provide information about the vertical distribution of currents using HF radar but we will be able to map the horizontal variations. Concerns: The HF Radar data will provide well-defined two-dimensional current maps and statistics for the area covered. As mentioned above, we will not be able to provide information about the vertical distribution of currents from HF radar data. Cook Inlet is known to have vertical shear, so a first order approximation would be to assume that the bottom currents are the same as those at the surface. If we get access to NOAA buoys that were deployed in the general area and equipped with ADCP, then we can analyze the vertical structure of the currents in detail. Work Plan The work outlined above will require detailed planning, acquisition of instruments, construction of davits and other equipment, and installing these on the chartered vessel. We will have one main PI at sea for both the oceanography (Simmons/Winsor) and geological (Reynolds) work along with a technician for the ADCP measurements and an operator of the side-scan sonar to ensure consistent, high-quality data. Potter will be in charge of analyzing the HF radar and buoy data and provide statistics of current properties. We will store all collected data in a central, backed-up location at UAF and provide a report of the analyzed data and provide all data on portable media (CD-Rom or DVD). University of Alaska Fairbanks Budget Justification Salaries: We have budgeted 0.75 months for Winsor, Simmons and 1.25 months for Reynolds. We added at-sea time for one PI of 0.5 months. The budgeted time includes planning of the project, purchasing of instruments, at-sea time and time for analyzing the data. Potter is budgeted for 0.5 months to conduct the HF Radar and buoy data analysis. There is also technician time budgeted to aid with the construction of a davit for the ADCPs and to conduct the sampling at sea. Senior personnel salaries are incremented by 4.5% and other personnel are incremented by 3% to allow for increases beginning in year 2. Students work full time in summer and part time during the academic year and are not incremented for increases. Benefits: Staff benefits are applied according to UAF’s fixed benefit rates for FY09 with the Office of Naval Research (ONR). A copy of the negotiated rate proposal is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/controller/cost-analysis/downloads/Negotiated/FY09_SB_Neg.pdf. Funds are requested for graduate student health care costs. Equipment: We request two RDI Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) for the project; one 600 kHz and one 1200 kHz unit. We have budgeted for construction of a davit to hold these instruments in place for the measurements, hard-drives for data storage and back-up, and a weather-proof laptop for data acquisition. Travel: Domestic We budget for travel for 3 between UAF and Gustavus for the field effort for all participants, and return travel for two PIs and a technician to meet with the chartered vessel and perform installations of equipment prior to the field effort. 10% has been added to airfare, car rental and taxi travel beginning in year 2 to accommodate anticipated price increases. Per diem (food, lodging and mileage) have not been increased. Other/Contractual/Services: We have budgeted for vessel charter to conduct our measurements. We have also budgeted for charter of the side-scan sonar equipment and acoustics for the geological survey. Funds are requested to cover the shipping costs of the survey equipment and other materials. Indirect Costs: The F&A rate is negotiated with the state of Alaska and the rate for research is calculated at 25% of the Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC includes Total Direct Costs minus tuition, stipends, scholarships, subaward amounts over $25,000, and equipment. A copy of the agreement is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/ controller/cost-analysis/negotiated_agreements.html. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS PROJECT TITLE:DEPT #: 16-day Ship Based Oceanographic and Geological Survery of Icy Strait and Icy Narrows SFOS 09-059 PI: Winsor, P. START: 1 JAN 2009 BANNER #: END: 30 JUN 2010 11633 Year 1 Total Project ACCT SALARIES AND WAGES Hours 1000 Senior Personnel Hourly Wage Leave Rate Yearly Increase Total Number of Hours Employee Name 217.50 Winsor, P.$43.27 1.5%1.045 217.5 $9,982 $9,982 130.50 Simmons, H.$43.27 1.5%1.045 130.5 $5,989 $5,989 217.50 Reynolds, J.$38.87 1.5%1.045 217.5 $8,967 $8,967 $24,938 $24,938 1000 Other Personnel Total Number of Hours 87.00 Potter, R.$31.39 20.0% 1.03 87.0 $3,375 $3,375 183.00 Statscewich, H.$25.64 21.4% 1.03 183.0 $5,867 $5,867 96.00 Statscewich, H.$38.46 0.0% 1.03 96.0 $3,803 $3,803 $13,045 $13,045 TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES $37,983 1900 FRINGE BENEFITS Senior Personnel 32.1% $3,204 $3,204 Simmons, H.32.1% $1,922 $1,922 Reynolds, J.32.1% $2,878 $2,878 $8,004 $8,004 Other Personnel Potter, R.48.7% $1,644 $1,644 Statscewich, H.62.8% $3,684 $3,684 Statscewich, H.62.8% $2,388 $2,388 $7,716 $7,716 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS $15,720 TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS $53,703 2000 TRAVEL XR - Exempt Staff Total Other Personnel F9 - Faculty (UNAC) F9 - Faculty (UNAC) NR - Classified Staff $53,703 Total Senior Personnel NR - overtime XR - Exempt Staff F9 - Faculty (UNAC) F9 - Faculty (UNAC) NR - Classified Staff F9 - Faculty (UNAC) F9 - Faculty (UNAC) Total Senior Personnel Number NR - overtime Total Other Personnel $15,720 $37,983 1. Domestic Travel Description Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Item Cost Airfare 3 RT FBKS to JUN 3 400 1.1 $1,320 Airfare 3RT JUN to Gustavas 3 200 1.1 $660 Meals 3 people, 3 days 9 44 1 $396 Lodging 3 people, 2 days 6 80 1 $480 Airfare 3 RT FBKS to Dutch Harbor 3 850 1.1 $2,805 Meals 3 people, 3 days 9 44 1 $396 Lodging 3 people, 2 nights 6801 $480 $6,537 TOTAL TRAVEL $6,537 3000 $2,500 $15,225 $13,000 $30,725 1 $25,000 $25,000 TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $55,725 4000 $500 $4,000 TOTAL COMMODITIES $4,500 A. MTDC (total costs subject to F&A)$120,465 B. Facilities and Administration (F&A)25.0% $30,116 3022/ 3029 Subaward #1 $71,000 $71,000 5000 EQUIPMENT $70,000 $70,000 C. Total Costs Exempt from F&A $141,000 D. Total Direct Costs (A+C)$261,465 E. Total Sponsor Request (B+D)$291,581 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Subawards subject to F&A (first $25,000) SUBAWARD COSTS OVER $25,000 TOTAL SUBAWARDS EXEMPT FROM F&A Vessel-based ADCP measurements (16 days ship time) $291,581 $261,465 $141,000 $70,000 $70,000 $71,000 $30,116 $6,537 $120,465 $71,000 $4,500 $4,000 $30,725 $55,725 $500 $13,000 $6,537 $660 $1,320 $396 $2,500 $15,225 Instrumentation Two ACPDs TOTAL EQUIPMENT shipping shipping survey equipment, geological 3005 - Consultants (Professional Fees) side scan sonar COMMODITIES Hard drives Description Total Other Contractual Srvs $480 3331, 3444, 3442 - Communication (Photocopies, Postage, Toll Charg 3331, 3444, 3442 - Communication (Photocopies, Postage, Toll Charg $396 $480 $2,805 Description Sponsored Research Vessel-based ADCP measurements (16 days ship time) Total Subawards Weather-proof laptop 3021/ 3028 4012 - Lab Supplies (Professional, Technical and Scientific Supplies) 4012 - Lab Supplies (Professional, Technical and Scientific Supplies) Total Domestic Travel Yearly Increase $25,000 $25,000 Revised Sept 2008 Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae Name: Shannon Atkinson, Ph.D., Professor of Marine Science Address: University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, PO Box 0730, Seward AK 99664 Telephone: (907) 224-4310 Fax: (907) 224-4324 E-Mail: atkinson@sfos.uaf.edu. Education: Ph.D. Murdoch University, School of Veterinary Studies, 1985 M.Sc. University of Hawaii, Department of Animal Science, 1981 B.Sc. University of Hawaii, Department of Animal Science, 1978 Professional Experience Professor of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks 2000 - present Professor of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks and Science Director Alaska SeaLife Center 2000-2007 Associate Researcher, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii 1991- 2000 Affiliate Researcher, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii 1989-1991 Experimental Scientist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Division of Animal Production, Western Australia 1986-1988 Administrative Experience (Approximately $41.3 million 2000-2007) Principal Investigator, Alliance for Coastal Technologies, NOAA funded national partnership to promote technology development. May 2005 $75,000; May 2006 $300,000, May 2007 $122,000; 2008 $232,000. Principal Investigator, National Marine Fisheries Services grant to conduct research on Cetaceans. October 2007 – present $775,198 Principal Investigator, National Marine Fisheries Service grant to conduct research on Pinnipeds (Steller sea lions, Northern fur seals and harbor seals) Mr. D. Calkins is Program Manager for the Steller sea lions and Northern fur seals. A. Hoover-Miller is Program Manager for harbor seals. Oct 2006 $4,944,172; Oct 2007 $5,170,124. Principal Investigator, Fish and Wildlife Service grant to conduct research on sea otters. Dr. James Estes is Program Manager. Jul 2003 $685,515; Jul 2004 $817,797; Jul 2005 $663,000, Oct 2006 $585,489 Principal Investigator, Fish and Wildlife Service grant to conduct research on Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders. Dr. T. Hollmen is Program Manager. Apr 2001. $550,212; Aug 2002 $736,000; Jul 2003 $872,495, Jul 2004 $818,000, Jul 2005 $878,000, Oct 2006 $904,107 Principal Investigator, National Marine Fisheries Service grant to conduct research on harbor seals. Ms. A. Hoover-Miller is Program Manager. June 2002; $439,000; Jul 2003; $310,822, Oct 2004 $917,558; Oct 2005 $974,006 Principal Investigator, National Marine Fisheries Service grant to conduct research on Steller sea lions. Mr. D. Calkins is Program Manager. May 2001; $5,987,000; Jul 2002. $4,987,000; Jul 2003 $4,637,588, Jul 2004 $5,431,150; Aug 2005 $5,770,893 Principal Investigator, National Marine Fisheries Service grant for Steller sea lion research. Oct 2000-Dec 2001 $900,000 Acting Project Manager, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant to conduct research on Steller sea lions. Feb-Dec 2000 $650,000 Teaching Experience 24 MS and PhD students whose committees I have or am currently chairing 24 MS and PhD students whose committees I am a member 11 undergraduate students who have done directed research 5 students to whom I have served as a mentor (3 veterinary students and 1 foreign veterinarian) Awards 1. U.S. Dept of Commerce, NOAA. Marine Environmental Stewardship Award for Marine Debris Removal Project, Northwestern Hawaiian Archipelago. 1998. 2. Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review- Silver Hammer Award for Marine Debris Removal Project, Northwestern Hawaiian Archipelago. 1999. Revised Sept 2008 3. Sigma Xi the Scientific Research Society devoted to the promotion of Research Science, duly elected a member by the Alaska Chapter of the Society. 2003. Publications 77 Peer-reviewed publications in international journals 10 Book Chapters and Editorships 119 Conference abstracts Sample Publications 1. Atkinson, S, Becker, BL, Johanos, TC, Pietraszek, JR and Kuhn, BCS (1994) Reproductive morphology and status of female Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schuainslandi) fatally injured by male seals. J. Reprod. Fert. 100:225-230. 2. Atkinson, S (1997) Reproductive biology of seals. Reviews of Reproduction. 2:175-194. 3. Atkinson, S, Ragen, TJ, Gilmartin, WG, Becker, BL and Johanos, TC (1998) Use of a GnRH agonist to suppress testosterone in wild Hawaiian monk seals(Monachus schuainslandi). Gen. Comp. Endo. 112:178-182. 4. Palmer, J, Atkinson, S, Yoshida, WY, Stalcup, AM and Landers, JP (1998) Charged chelate- capillary electrophoresis of endogenous corticosteroids. Electrophoresis 19:3045-3051. 5. Crow, GL, Atkinson, MJ, Ron, B, Atkinson, S, Skillman, DK, and Wong, GTF (1998) Relationship of water chemistry to serum thyroid hormones in captive sharks with goitres. Aqua. Chem. 4:469- 480. 6. Atkinson, S, Atkinson, MJ, and Tarrant, AM (2003) Estrogens from sewage in coastal marine environments. Envir. Health Persp. 111 (4):531-535. 7. Oki, C and Atkinson, S (2004) Diurnal patterns of cortisol and thyroid hormones in the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) during summer and winter seasons. Gen. Comp. Endo. 136:289-297. 8. Tarrant AM., Atkinson MJ., Atkinson, S (2004) Effects of steriodal estrogens on coral growth and reproduction. Mar. Eco. Prog. Ser. 269:121-129. 9. Mashburn, KM and Atkinson, S (2004) Evaluation of adrenal function in serum and feces of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus): influences of molt, gender, sample storage, and age on glucocorticoid metabolism. Gen. Comp. Endo. 136:371-381. 10. Myers, M.J., Rea, LD, and Atkinson, S (2006) The effects of age, season and geographic region on thyroid hormones in Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A 145: 90-98. 11. Greig, DJ., Mashburn, KL., Rutishauser, M., Gulland, FMD., Willliams, TM., and Atkinson, S. (2007) Seasonal changes in circulating progesterone and estrogen concentrations in the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) J. Mammal. 88(1):67-72. 12. Wang, D., Atkinson, S., Hoover-Miller, A., Li, Q. X. (2007) Polychlorinated naphthalenes and coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls in tissues of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) from the northern Gulf of Alaska. Chemosp. 67:2044-2057. 13. Mashburn, K., and Atkinson, S. (2007) Seasonal and predator influences on adrenal function in adult Steller sea lions: Gender matters. Gen.. Comp. Endoc.150:246-252. 14. Mashburn, K.L., and Atkinson, S. (2007). Variability in leptin and adrenal response in juvenile Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) to adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) in different seasons. Gen. Comp. Endo. Doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2007.05.030. 15. Atkinson, S., Calkins, D., Burkanov, V., Castellini, M., Hennen, D., Inglis, S. (2008) Impact of changing diet regimes on Steller sea lion body condition. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 24(2): 276-289 16. Atkinson, S., DeMaster, D.P., Calkins, D.G. (2008) Anthropogenic causes of the Steller sea lion decline and their threat to recovery. Mammal Rev. 38(1): 1-18. 17. Myers, M.J., Ylitalo, G.M., Krahn, M.M., Boyd, D., Calkins, D., Burkanov, V., Atkinson, S. (2008) Organochlorine contaminants in endangered Steller sea lion pups (Eumetopias jubatus) from Western Alaska and the Russian far east. Sci. Tot. Env. 396: 60-69 Peter Winsor Associate Professor School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks PO Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 907.474.7836 phone 907.474.5804 fax; E-mail: pwinsor@whoi.edu Curriculum Vitae Education: 2002 Ph.D. Oceanography, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. 1997 B.S. Oceanography, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. 1993 B.A., Electrical Engineering, Komvux, Göteborg, Sweden. Additional education: Ice dynamics, held by Prof. Matti Lepperanta. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, held by Prof. Gösta Walin. The biological pump, held by Prof. Anders Stigebrandt. Diapycnical mixing, held by Prof. Anders Stigebrandt. CTD measurements and technical repairs, Sea Bird Inc., Seattle. PROBE - a problem-solving model course, held by Prof. Anders Omstedt. Positions held: August 2008 to present; Associate Professor, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK, USA Jan 2008 to Aug 2008; Associate Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA, USA. 2005-2008 Fellow of the Ocean and Climate Change, Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA, USA. 2004 to 2008 Assistant Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA, USA. 2002-2004 Postdoctoral Fellowship at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA, USA. 1997-2003 Researcher within the Swedish Regional Climate Modeling Program (SWECLIM), Sweden. Research interests: Freshwater dynamics on regional to global scales. Physical Oceanography of the Arctic Ocean. Ocean-ice-atmosphere dynamics. Diapycnal mixing – novel measurements and interpretation. Instrument development and field work. Current supervising: MIT-WHOI Joint Program Graduate Student Peter Sugimura, 2005-2008. MIT-WHOI Postdoctoral Fellow Alan Condron, 2006-2008. Teaching experience: 2001 World Science Class, Arctic and Antarctica: Arctic Ocean-key to the future climate. 1998-1999 Marine hydromechanics, a last year course in physical oceanography at Göteborg University. 1998 Introduction to Oceanography at Göteborg University. 1997 Geophysical mathematics, Göteborg University. 1996-2000 Assistant on several field courses in Oceanography at Göteborg University. Awards and Professional activities: 2007 NSF OPP BEST and NPRB panel member and Science Steering Committee representative, NSF, Washington D.C. 2007 NASA IPY Sea ice panel member 2005-2008 Appointed Fellow of the Ocean and Climate Change Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 2005 NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship Panel member 2005-2008 Member NSF Science Steering Committee for the Bering Ecosystem Study (BEST) 2004 Guest Editor of Progress in Oceanography for special issue on the Nordic Seas. 1997-1998 Member, Steering Committee for Computers, Earth Sciences Centre, Göteborg University. Member, AGU, EGU, TOS. Reviewer for NSF, Norwegian Research Council, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Physical Oceanography, Deep-Sea Research, Ocean Modelling, Geophysical Research Letters, Cold Regions Science and Technology, Journal of Oceanography, and Polar Research. Selected publications: Winsor, P., and G. Björk, 2000: Polynya activity in the Arctic Ocean from 1958 to 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(C4), 8789-8803. Winsor P., Rodhe J., and A. Omstedt, 2001: Baltic Sea Ocean Climate-an analysis of 100 years of historical data with focus on the freshwater budget, Climate Research, 18(1/2), 1-15. Winsor, P, 2001: Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s, Geophysical Research Letters, 28(6), 1039-1041. Dokken, S. T., P. Winsor, T. Markus, J. Askne, and G. Björk, 2002: ERS SAR characterization of coastal polynyas in the Arctic, and comparison with SSM/I, and numerical model investigations, Remote Sensing of Environment, 80(2), 321-335. Winsor, P., and D. C. Chapman, 2002: Distribution and interannual variability of dense water production from coastal polynyas on the Chukchi Shelf, Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(C7), 10.1029. Rodhe, J., and P. Winsor, 2002: On the influence of the freshwater supply on the Baltic Sea mean salinity, Tellus, 54A, 175-186. Björk, G., J. Söderkvist, P. Winsor, A. Nikolopolous, and M. Steele, 2002: Return of the cold halocline layer to the Amundsen Basin: Implications for the sea ice mass balance, Geophysical Research Letters, 29(11), 10.1029. Winsor, P., and D. C. Chapman, 2004: Pathways of Pacific Water across the Chukchi Sea: A numerical model study, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, C03002, doi: 1029/2003JC001962. Omstedt, A., C. Petterson, J. Rodhe, and P. Winsor, 2004: Baltic Sea climate: analysis of 200 years of data with a focus on air temperature, sea-level variation, ice extent, and large-scale atmospheric circulation, Climate Research, 25, 205-216. V. Alfimov, V., A. Aldahan, G. Possnert, and P. Winsor: Anthropogenic I-129 in Seawater along a Transect from the Norwegian Coastal Current to the North Pole, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49, 1097-1104, 2004. Rudels, B., G. Björk, J. Nilsson, P. Winsor, I. Lake, and C. Nohr: The interactions between Arctic and Nordic Seas waters north of Fram Strait and East Greenland Current: results from the Arctic Ocean-02 Oden expedition, Journal of Marine Systems, 55, 1-30, 2006. M. Timmermans, P. Winsor, and J. A. Whitehead: Deep-water transport over the Lomonosov Ridge, Arctic Ocean, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 35, 1489-1493, 2005. Björk, G., and P. Winsor: The deep waters of the Eurasian Basin, Arctic Ocean: Geothermal heat flow, mixing and renewal, Deep-Sea Research, 53, 1253-1271, 2006. Danielson, S., K. Aagaard, T. Weingartner, S. Martin, P. Winsor, G. Gawarkiewicz, D. Quadfasel, 2006: A year in the St. Lawrence Island Polynya, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, doi:10.1029/2005JC003268, 2006. Johan Nilsson, J., G. Björk, B. Rudels, P. Winsor and Daniel Torres, 2008: Late-winter conditions and freshwater transport in the East Greenland Current: results from an icebreaker-based survey, Progress in Oceanography, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2007.06.002. Björk, G., M. Jakobsson, B. Rudels, J. H. Swift, L. Anderson, D. A. Darby, J. Backman, B. Coakley, P. Winsor, L. Polyak and M. Edwards, Bathymetry and deep-water exchange across the central Lomonosov Ridge at 88°- 89°N, Deep Sea Research, 54, 1197-1208, 2007. Winsor, P., D. C. Chapman, L. D. Keigwin, and S. J. Lentz, 2008: The pathway and impact of fresh water discharge through Hudson Strait 8200 years ago, Paleooceanography, submitted. Rainville, L., and P. Winsor, 2008: Mixing across the Arctic Ocean: Microstructure observations during the Beringia 2005 Expedition, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08606, doi:10.1029/2008GL033532, 2008. Sohn, R. A. et al., 2008: Explosive volcanism on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel Ridge, Arctic Ocean, Nature, 453, 1236-1238, doi:10.1038/nature07075. CURRICULUM VITAE WHITLOW W.L AU Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (808) 247-5026[work] P.O. Box 1106 (808) 262-4927[home] Kailua, Hawaii 96734 wau@hawaii.edu[e-mail] EDUCATION Ph.D. Electrical Science, Washington State University, 1970 M.S. Electrical Engineering, Washington State University, 1964 B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Hawaii, 1962 PRESENT POSITION Chief Scientist, Marine Mammal Res. Prog., Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology PROFESSIONAL AWARDS Silver Medal, Acoustical Society of America, October, 1998 Fellow, Acoustical Society of America, May, 1990 Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award (3rd highest national award-Navy civilian), for contributions in dolphin bioacoustics, 1986 Publication Award, Naval Ocean Systems Center, 1990, 1991, 1992 Award of Merit - Quality Step Increase - Dec. 1974; Nov. 1976; Dec. 1979 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES President elect, Acoustical Society of America, 2008 Vice President, Acoustical Society of America, 2006. Ocean Studies Board, National Res. Council, National Academies, 2004-2006. Executive Council, Acoustical Society of America, 2001-2004. Chair, Technical Committee on Animal Bioacoustics Acoustical Society of America, 1997-2000 Member of Technical Specialty Committee on Animal Bioacoustics, Acoustical Society of America, 1989-1994. Member of organizing committee of the 13th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Wailea, Maui, Hawaii, Nov. 28 – Dec 3, p. 9. Member of organizing committee of the 3rd Joint Acoustical Society of America/Acoustical Society of Japan meeting in Honolulu, Dec 1-7, 1996. Organizer and Session chairman, Animal Bioacoustics Session, 127th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Austin, Texas, 1994. Organizing Committee member and Session chairman, International symposium on sensory systems and behavior of aquatic mammals, Moscow, 1991. Organizer and Session chairman, Animal Bioacoustics Session, 122th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Houston, 1991. Session Chairman, Psychological and Physiological Acoustics, Joint Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America and Acoustical Society of Japan, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1988. Organizing Committee member, 3rd International symposium on animal sonar systems, Helsingor, Denmark, 1986. Organizer and Chairman, Session on Animal Bioacoustics, 106th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, San Diego, 1983. Organizing Committee member and Session chairman, 2nd International symposium on animal sonar systems, Jersey Island, 1979. PATENTS Simulated Echo Transponder for Training Marine Mammals Marine Mammal Guidance Device Broadband Sonar Signal Processor and Target Recognition System RESEARCH AND/OR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1993-present Chief Scientist-Marine Mammal Res. Prog., HIMB. 1971-1993 Senior Scientist, Naval Ocean Systems Center, Hawaii Laboratory Principle investigator and Branch Head 1970-1971 Scientist, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Conducted research in theoretical acoustic propagation 1969-1970 Graduate Assistant., EE Depart.Wash. St.Univ., Pullman, WA. Conducted research in radio-wave prop. in magnetosphere and ionosphere 1964-1968 R&D Project Officer and Engineer., Air Force Weapons Lab., N.M. Project officer & researcher on radar propagation through reentry plasma PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Acoustical Society of America, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Marine Mammal Society, Sigma Tau Honor Society, Sigma Xi Honor Society PUBLICATION SUMMARY 162 papers in open literature, 112 Published abstracts, 6 Technical Reports 3 books: Au, W. W. L. (1993). The Sonar of Dolphins, Springer-Verlag N.Y. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects (2005). Nat’l Academies. Au, W. W. L. and Hastings, M. (2008). Principles of Marine Bioacoustics, Springer-Verlag, New York. Edited Books: Au, W. W. L., Popper, A., and Fay, R., editors, (2000). Hearing in Whales and Dolphins, Springer-Verlag, New York. Nachtigall, P. E., Lien, J., Au, W. W. L. and Read, A. J. (1995). Harbour Porpoises: A Study of Bycatch, De Spiel, The Netherlands. CURRICULUM VITAE Marc Olav Lammers Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology P.O. Box 1106 Kailua, HI 96834 Ph: (808) 247-5063, Fax: (808) 247-5831, cell: (808) 375-0010 E-mail: lammers@hawaii.edu Born: May 1st, 1970 in Helsinki, Finland Citizenship: U.S.A. and Finland EDUCATION Ph.D. in Zoology (2003), University of Hawaii at Manoa. B.A. in Zoology (1993), University of Hawaii at Manoa. RECENT EMPLOYMENT AND RESEARCH HISTORY Assistant Researcher. Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology. July 2007 – present. Duties include: Design and execute field research projects to assess and acoustically monitor biological activity in the NWHI. Lead field investigation of marine mammal in Hawaiian and Alaskan waters. Conduct experimental research on cetacean acoustic behavior processes. Supervise the work of graduate and undergraduate students. Marine Bioacoustician. Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii. Sept. 2007 – present. Duties include: Lead and develop all phases of a passive acoustics monitoring program for NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Coral Reef Ecosystem Division. President and Research Director. Oceanwide Science Institute (OSI, a Hawaii-based non-profit organization). April 1998 - present. Duties include: Create, plan and execute OSI research objectives, secure funding for research and operational costs, implement research programs and coordinate the activities of members of the organization (www.oceanwidescience.org). Post-Doctoral Fellow. NOAA Fisheries, Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED). April 2003 – Present. Duties include: Develop bioacoustic tools and research projects to monitor the health of remote reef locations in the Pacific, including the NWHI, Guam, CNMI, American Samoa and the Line Islands. Project Leader. SPLASH – Oahu, Hawaii (OSI). January 2004 – May 2006. Duties included: Lead an effort to obtain humpback whale photo-ID data and biopsy samples from Oahu’s wintering whale population as part of an international population assessment study. Doctoral Student Researcher. Marine Mammal Research Program, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology. March 1996 – May 2003. Dissertation research was focused on the bioacoustics and behavioral ecology of Hawaiian spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) and other small delphinid species. Publications: • Lammers, M.O., Pack, A.A. and Davis, L. (In prep). “Trends in whale/vessel collisions in Hawaiian waters” To be submitted to the J. Cetacean Res. Manage. • Lammers, M.O., Stieb, S., Au, W.W.L., Mooney, T.A., Brainard, R.E. and Wong, K. (In prep). “Temporal, geographic and density variations in the acoustic activity of snapping shrimp.” To be submitted to Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. • Lammers, M.O. and Castellote, M. (In review). “The beluga whale convolves two pulses to form its sonar signal” Submitted to Biology Letters. • Lammers, M.O., Brainard, R.E. and Au, W.W.L., Mooney, T.A. and Wong K. (2008). “An Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR) for long-term monitoring of biological and anthropogenic sounds on coral reefs and other marine habitats.” In press at the J. Acoust. Soc. Am. • Au, W. W. L. and Lammers, M.O. (2007). “Cetacean acoustics” In: Handbook of Acoustics. Ed. T. Rossing. Springer-Verlang. 1000p • Oswald, J.N., Rankin, S., Barlow, J. and Lammers, M.O. (2007) “ROCCA: A new tool for real-time acoustic species identification of delphinid whistles”. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122:587-595. • Rankin, S., Oswald, J.N., Barlow, J. and Lammers, M.O. (2007.). “Vocalizations of the northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis).” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121: 1213-1218. • Lammers, M.O., Brainard, R.E. and Au, W.W.L (2006). “Diel trends in the mesopelagic biomass community of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands observed acoustically”. Atoll Research Bulletin, 543:391-407. • Rasmussen M.H., Lammers M.O., Beedholm K. and Miller L.A. (2006). “Source levels and directionality of white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) whistles”. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120:510-517. • Au, W. W. L. and Lammers, M.O. (2006). “Cetacean acoustics” In: Handbook of Acoustics. Ed. T. Rossing. Springer-Verlang. 1000p • Lammers, M.O., Schotten, M. and Au, W.W.L. (2006). “The spatial context of whistle and click production in pods of Hawaiian spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris).” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119: 1244-1250. • Lammers, M.O. (2004). “Occurrence and behavior of Hawaiian spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) along Oahu’s leeward and south shores.” Aqua. Mamm. 30:237-250. • Lammers, M.O., Au, W.W.L. and Aubauer, R. (2004). “A comparative analysis of echolocation and burst-pulse click trains in Stenella longirostris.” In: Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins. Eds. Thomas, J., Moss, C. & Vater, M. University of Chicago Press. pp. 414-419. • Schotten, M., Au, W. W. L., Lammers M. O., and Aubauer R. (2004). "Echolocation recordings and localizations of wild spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) and pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) using a four hydrophone array." In: Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins. Eds. Thomas, J., Moss, C. & Vater, M. University of Chicago Press. pp. 393-400. • Lammers, M.O., Au, W.W.L and Herzing, D.L. (2003). “The broadband social acoustic signaling behavior of spinner and spotted dolphins.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:1629-1639. • Lammers M.O. and Au W.W.L. (2003). “Directionality in the whistles of Hawaiian spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris): A signal feature to cue direction of movement?” Mar. Mamm. Sci. 19:249- 264. • Benoit-Bird, K.J., Au, W.W.L., Brainard, R.E. and Lammers, M.O. (2001). “Diel horizontal migration of the Hawaiian mesopelagic boundary community observed acoustically.” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 217:1-14. • Au, W. W. L., Mobley, J., Burgess, W. C., Lammers, M. O., Nachtigall, P. E. (2000). “Seasonal and diurnal trends of chorusing humpback whales wintering in waters off west Maui.” Mar. Mamm. Sci. 16:530-544. • Aubauer, R., Lammers, M. O. and Au, W. W. L. (2000). “One-hydrophone method of estimating distance and depth of phonating dolphins in shallow water.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:2744-2749. • Au, W. W. L., Lammers, M. O. and Aubauer, R. (1999). “A Portable Broadband Data Acquisition System for field studies in bioacoustics,” Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15:526-531. Anne Hoover-Miller Harbor Seal Program Manager Alaska SeaLife Center P.O. Box 1329, Seward, AK 99664-1329 Phone: 907-224-6331 Fax: 907-224-6371 AnneH@alaskasealife.org Professional Preparation University of Alaska, Fairbanks Zoology MS 1983 University of California, Santa Cruz Environmental Studies BS 1978 & Psychobiology Appointments and Positions Alaska SeaLife Center Program Manager 2/02 to present University of Alaska Affiliate Faculty 1/08 to present Pacific Rim Research Co-Owner 5/83 to present Reports and Publications Hoover-Miller, A., and A. Pinchuk (in press). An Exploratory Study of Marine Ecology and Oceanography in Aialik Bay. Alaska Park Science. National Park Service. Anchorage Alaska Jezierski, C., A. Hoover-Miller, and B. Norcross (in press) Integration of tourism into the marine ecosystem. .Alaska Park Science. National Park Service. Anchorage Alaska. Maniscalco, J.M., A. Hoover-Miller, and D. Zatz. (in press). Remote monitoring of pinnipeds in Kenai Fjords National Park. Alaska Park Science. National Park Service. Anchorage Alaska. Hoover-Miller, A., C. Jezierski and S. Atkinson. 2008. Harbor Seal Monitoring in Southern Kenai Peninsula Fjords. Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Project Draft Final Report (Project 050749), Alaska SeaLife Center, P.O. Box 1329, Seward, Alaska. 99664. Wang, D. S. Atkinson, A. Hoover-Miller, W. Shelver and Q. Li. 2008. Simultaneous use of gas chromatography/ion trap mass spectrometry – electron capture detection to improve the analysis of bromodiphenyl ethers in biological and environmental samples. Wang, D., S. Atkinson, A. Hoover-Miller, and Q.X. Li, 2007. Polychlorinated naphthalenes and coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls in tissues of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) from the northern Gulf of Alaska. Chemosphere 67:2044-2057. Wang, D., S. Atkinson., A. Hoover-Miller, S. Lee, and Q.X. Li,. 2007. Organochlorines in harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) tissues from the northern Gulf of Alaska. J. Environ. Poll. 146(1):268- 280. Atkinson, S. A., and A. Hoover-Miller. 2007. Harbor Seal Program Final Programmatic report to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Grant Number NA05NMF4391139. FY 2005-2006. Alaska SeaLife Center. Seward, AK. 268pp. Atkinson, S. A., and A. Hoover-Miller. 2006. Harbor Seal Program Final Programmatic report to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Grant Number NA16FX2714. FY 2002-2005. Alaska SeaLife Center. Seward, AK. 734 pp. Atkinson, S. A., J. M. Castellini, A. Hoover-Miller, L. Polasek. 2006. Improved Rehabilitation Techniques through Monitoring of Nutrition and Growth Rates in Free-Ranging and Rehabilitated Harbor Seal Pups. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, grant number: NA03NMF4390036. Alaska SeaLife Center. Seward. 87 pp. Wang, D., S. Atkinson, A. Hoover-Miller, and Q. Li. 2005. Analysis of organochlorines in harbor seal tissue samples from Alaska using gas chromatography/ion trap mass spectrometry by an isotopic dilution technique. Rapid Communication in Mass Spectrometry 19(13): 1815 – 1821 Atkinson, S., A. Hoover-Miller, C. Oki, and D. O’Neil. 2004 Harbor Seal Recovery: Application of New technologies for monitoring health. Restoration project Final Report to: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 03558), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division, Anchorage, Alaska. 46 pp. Hoover-Miller, A., S. Atkinson, P. Armato. 2004 Live feed video monitoring of harbor seals. Alaska Park Science. National Park Service. Anchorage Alaska. Vol 3, Issue 1. pp 25-29. Hoover-Miller, A. A, K. R. Parker, and J. J. Burns. 2001. A reassessment of the impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in Prince William Sound. Marine Mammal Science. 17(1):111-135. Hoover-Miller, A. A. 1995. Report of the Workshop on Enhancing Methods for Locating, Accessing, and Integrating Population and Environmental Data Related to Marine Resources in Alaska. April 5-7, 1994, Hotel Captain Cook, Anchorage, Alaska. Hoover-Miller, A. A. 1994. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina): Biology and Management in Alaska. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission. Contract Number T75134749. Washington, D.C. 45 pp. Murphy, E. C., A.A. Hoover, R.H. Day, K.L. Oakley. 1992. Intracolony variability during periods of poor reproductive performance at a glaucous-winged gull colony. The Condor. 94:598-607 Hoover-Miller, A.A. 1992. Assessment of the possible use of a cooperative/coordinated geographic information system (GIS) to facilitate access to, and integration and analysis of, data bearing upon the conservation of marine mammals in Alaska. Final report for MMC contract T75136297. NTIS PB93-128429. Hoover-Miller, A. A. 1988. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). In: Selected marine mammals of Alaska: species accounts with management recommendations, 1991 update. Jack Lentfer (ed.). Marine Mammal Commission. Washington D.C. Hoover-Miller, A. A. 1988. Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). In: Selected marine mammals of Alaska: species accounts with management recommendations. Jack Lentfer (ed.). Marine Mammal Commission. Washington D.C. Murphy, E. C., A.A. Hoover, R.H. Day, K.L. Oakley. 1992. Intracolony variability during periods of poor reproductive performance at a glaucous-winged gull colony. The Condor. 94:598-607 Murphy, E. C., R. H. Day, K. L. Oakely, and A. A. Hoover. 1984. Dietary changes and poor reproductive performance in Glaucous-winged Gulls. Auk. 101:532-541. Fay, F. H., B. P. Kelly, P. H. Gehnrich, J. L. Sease, and A. A. Hoover. 1984. Modern populations, migrations, demography, trophics, and historical status of the Pacific walrus. Final Report. Research Unit 611. NOAA Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. Anchorage. Alaska. 142 pp. Hoover, A. A. 1983. Behavior and ecology of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) inhabiting glacial ice in Aialik Bay, Alaska. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 133 pp. Murphy, E. C. and A. Anne Hoover. 1981 Research study of the reactions of wildlife to boating activity along Kenai Fjords coastline. Final Report for the National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Contract No. CX-9000-8-0151. 125 pp. Hoover, A. A. 1978. Sexual dimorphism in dentition and molting of northern elephant seal pups. Senior Thesis. University of California, Santa Cruz. 64 pp