Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Chenega Hydroelectric Project 2010
Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report DRAFT REVISION This project was financed by the Denali Commission and its partners: Prepared for: Chenega Corporation 3000 C Street, Suite 301 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 November 25, 2010 Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report i Table of Contents 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Area ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous Studies ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 Field Reconnaissance ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 July Field Reconnaissance ......................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Anderson Creek Reconnaissance Summary ................................................................. 4 2.1.2 South Lake Reconnaissance Summary ......................................................................... 4 2.2 October Field Reconnaissance ................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Anderson Creek Reconnaissance Summary ................................................................. 5 3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Streamflow Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Estimates of Long-Term Streamflow ......................................................................................... 9 3.3 Peak Flow Analysis ................................................................................................................... 9 4 Project Arrangement ............................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 10 5 Energy Generation .............................................................................................................................. 12 6 Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................................... 13 7 Economic Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 13 8 Environmental Considerations ............................................................................................................ 15 8.1 Fish Resources ......................................................................................................................... 15 8.1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................................ 15 8.1.2 Field Methods ............................................................................................................. 15 8.1.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 16 8.1.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 19 8.2 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. 21 8.3 Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 23 9 Land Ownership, and Water Rights .................................................................................................... 24 9.1 City Water Supply ................................................................................................................... 25 10 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 25 11 References........................................................................................................................................... 27 List of Tables Table 1. Characteristics of Anderson Creek at City Intake ........................................................................... 6 Table 2. Streamflow, Anderson Creek at City Intake, April 2009 – September 2010 .................................. 7 Table 3. Comparison of Nearby Precipitation and Streamflow to 50-Year Averages .................................. 8 Table 4. Peak Discharge Estimates for Anderson Creek at City Intake ........................................................ 9 Table 5. Key Project Parameters ................................................................................................................. 10 Table 6. Average Annual Energy ................................................................................................................ 13 Table 7. Economic Analysis, all Energy Sold ............................................................................................. 14 Table 8. Economic Analysis with Present Energy Sales ............................................................................. 14 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Mean Daily Discharge, Anderson Creek at City Intake, April 2009 – September 2010 ............... 7 Figure 3. Preliminary Project Design .......................................................................................................... 11 Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report ii Figure 5. Office-Based Wetland Mapping .................................................................................................. 22 List of Appendices Appendix A. 1992 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Study and 1982 USCOE Reconnaissance Study Appendix B. July 2009 and October 2009 Field Reconnaissance Trip Reports Appendix C. Anderson Creek Flow Data Appendix D. Energy Calculation Appendix E. Cost Calculation Appendix F. Fisheries Resource Information Appendix G. Office-Based Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 1 1 Introduction The Chenega Corporation (Chenega) contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to evaluate the potential of a small-scale hydroelectric project to service the village of Chenega Bay on Evans Island, Alaska (Figure 1). This reconnaissance report examines the viability of small-scale hydroelectric energy generation primarily at the creek that provides the water source for the community. A second site was evaluated during the reconnaissance but was not considered viable due to access constraints. The scope of work defined for this project included: Data collection and review. Field reconnaissance and field reconnaissance memorandum. Evaluation of hydrology and collection of streamflow data. Development of conceptual project layout. Estimation of energy production and project costs. Permit assessment and wetlands evaluation. Preparation of this reconnaissance report. This report should is a high-level overview intended to identify projects which demonstrate a basic measure of feasibility and to eliminate projects that have evident fatal flaws from an engineering and environmental perspective. This report also provides information to enable Chenega to determine the economic feasibility of a project and to pursue funding for future phases of the project. 1.1 Project Area The project is located within the community of Chenega Bay Alaska (pop. 79). Chenega Bay is located on Evans Island at Crab Bay, 42 miles southeast of Whittier in Prince William Sound. It is 104 air miles southeast of Anchorage and 50 air miles east of Seward. It lies at approximately 60.065710 North Latitude and 148.010380 West Longitude (Sec. 24, T001S, R008E, Seward Meridian.) The community of Chenega Bay has an average community load of 28 kilowatt (kW), an estimated peak load of 62 kW and annual community energy sales of 244,187 kilowatt hours (kWh)/year. Power is presently produced using diesel generators. The annual diesel electricity generated is 273,610 kWh/year, with a diesel fuel consumption of 23,374 gallons per year (AEA). The primary creek investigated for this project was a small creek that flows into Sawmill Bay at the community of Chenega Bay. At the start of this report the name of this creek was unknown, but was later identified as Anderson Creek. The main body of this report uses the name Anderson Creek but memorandum included in the appendices may use other names. Also a small creek issuing from a lake on the south side of Evans Island was investigated during the site reconnaissance was. This creek is called South Lake Creek for the purposes of this report. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 2 Figure 1. Vicinity Map Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 3 The Anderson Creek watershed drains steep terrain from the ridgeline of Evans Island, contains no lakes, and has no major tributaries. There is an existing water supply dam and intake approximately 0.6 miles upstream of the mouth of the creek at elevation 248 feet. This water system is owned by the community of Chenega Bay, was constructed in 1984 by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), and the water treatment plant was recently renovated by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Corporation (ANTHC). The drainage area at the city intake is 0.45 square miles in area. Between the city intake and the community of Chenega there is a large waterfall and three abandoned timber dams constructed atop smaller natural falls. Between the community of Chenega and the mouth of the creek there is another small waterfall. South Lake is at an elevation of approximately 600 feet above sea level and has a 0.54-square mile drainage area. The outlet creek that drains South Lake flows through steep terrain, primarily across bedrock, before reaching sea level roughly one mile from the lake. A steep waterfall is located approximately 0.3 miles upstream from the mouth. A wetland complex is located on the east side of the stream near the mouth. The South Lake watershed has no major tributaries. 1.2 Previous Studies The hydroelectric potential at Chenega was evaluated in 1992 (Phukan Consulting Engineers and Associates, 1992). This investigation concluded that a project on Anderson Creek was technically feasible and would generate power at a unit cost of $0.61 per kWh (1992 dollars). The main body (excluding photograph attachments) of the 1992 report is included in Appendix A. The hydroelectric potential at South Lake was evaluated in 1982 (USACE, 1982). This investigation estimated that a project on Section 22 Lake (South Lake) would generate power at a unit cost of $0.72 per kWh (1982 dollars). The section of the 1982 report pertaining to Section 22 Lake is also included in Appendix A. 2 Field Reconnaissance 2.1 July Field Reconnaissance A field reconnaissance was done on July 14 to 15, 2009. The purpose of the field reconnaissance was to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a small hydroelectric project to service the village of Chenega Bay. Reconnaissance was done for two sites that had been identified as potential project locations: Anderson Creek and the South Lake drainage. Anderson Creek drains into Sawmill Bay, while the South Lake drainage is located on the opposite side of the island and empties into Prince of Wales Passage. A separate memorandum included in Appendix B describes the field reconnaissance and provides an overview map of the two areas visited. The field team evaluated the following engineering aspects during the field reconnaissance: site access potential intake and tailrace locations existing and potential pipeline routes Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 4 potential powerhouse locations potential transmission line locations Fisheries-related reconnaissance included recording existing fish passage barriers, documenting fish species presence and distribution, and characterizing general fish habitat within each system. The field team relied on minnow traps, hand nets, and visual observations to document fish presence. 2.1.1 Anderson Creek Reconnaissance Summary Engineering. Constructing a small hydroelectric project at Anderson Creek appears to be technically feasible, mainly due to ease of access at the Chenega Bay site and existing infrastructure. Preliminary findings indicate the intake for the hydroelectric project could be located at the city water supply intake, and the powerhouse could be located adjacent and to the north of the existing diesel generator powerhouse. A viable route to connect the powerhouse back to the stream (i.e. a tailrace) was identified from the proposed powerhouse to the adjacent stream channel. The primary technical challenge for the site will be the construction of the upper portion of the pipeline within the narrow confines of the creek ravine. Fisheries. At a point approximately 0.1 miles upstream from its mouth, the stream flows through relatively steep bedrock, thereby creating a small bedrock cascade/waterfall. The field team observed young-of-the-year coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the lower portion of the stream, downstream from the bedrock falls. Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) was the only fish species observed upstream from the bedrock falls. The small falls appears to preclude fish movement past this point; based on local knowledge, salmon have not been observed upstream from the falls (Vigil 2009). The field team walked the entire length (approximately 0.45 miles) of the creek between the intake and the tailrace. Multiple manmade dams (typically constructed at natural falls) and natural falls considered to be fish passage barriers were documented in the upstream portion of this reach. The most downstream fish passage barrier encountered was approximately 0.65 miles upstream from the mouth (i.e., approximately 0.2 miles upstream from the proposed tailrace or 0.25 miles downstream from the city intake). The farthest upstream Dolly Varden char was observed approximately 0.35 miles upstream from the mouth. Although not documented, the presence of Dolly Varden char upstream from this point, but downstream of the lowest manmade dam (noted above), is likely and was later documented (see Section 8.1). 2.1.2 South Lake Reconnaissance Summary Engineering. Constructing the pipeline and road corridor would be difficult due to the steep terrain in the area. Access is also complicated because of the lack of an existing road connection to the village of Chenega Bay. An access road or a pipeline would not be possible up the stream channel or to its west side, due to steep terrain. It may be possible to divert the lake water to the north and construct a route east of the creek, if the lake level was raised and a dam was constructed at the natural outlet channel. However, the terrain east of the creek may be too steep for an access road. Although constructing a small hydroelectric facility is possible in this Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 5 location, the project would be neither economically justifiable nor easily operated, primarily due to access issues. The village of Chenega has indicated that it is considering a road connection to the south side of Evans Island via the saddle at the existing runway. If this connection were constructed it may be worth revisiting the feasibility of this hydroelectric project. Fisheries. A steep waterfall in bedrock located approximately 0.3 miles upstream from the mouth precludes fish migration past this point. Minnow traps were fished in the creek downstream of the waterfall. Dolly Varden char was the only species captured or observed during the stream survey. Although fish presence was not considered likely in the lake (i.e., primarily due to the steep nature of the creek), one trap was fished in the lake. No fish were captured from or observed in the lake. A wetland complex located along the east of the channel near its mouth appears to drain into the stream. The team visually inspected a small portion of the wetland complex; no fish were observed. 2.2 October Field Reconnaissance 2.2.1 Anderson Creek Reconnaissance Summary A second field reconnaissance was done on October 14 to 15, 2009. The purpose of the field reconnaissance was to collect additional, site-specific information for Anderson Creek related to engineering and fish resources. The field team collected streamflow and elevation data; installed an additional staff gage lower in the drainage; and identified the upstream extent of fish presence in Anderson Creek. A separate memorandum included in Appendix B describes the field reconnaissance. Engineering. The primary technical challenge for the site will be the construction of the upper portion of the pipeline within the narrow confines of the creek ravine, but this is not seen as insurmountable and could be accomplished with HDPE pipe. Streamflow data was downloaded and along with more accurate elevation information will provide a basis for reevaluating the potential energy from the project. Permitting for the flow modification of the creek in the reach between the intake and the tailrace will need to be done to finalize evaluation of the potential energy. Fisheries. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to further assess fish presence within the reach of the creek between the intake and the tailrace, and to determine the upstream extent of fish presence in Anderson Creek. The team set a total of 21 traps within reach of the creek between the intake and the tailrace. Traps were fished overnight throughout this reach. Dolly Varden char was the only fish species captured. The farthest upstream Dolly Varden char was captured in a pool at the base of the first series of falls. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 6 3 Hydrology Characteristics of Anderson Creek at the city intake are summarized in Table 1Error! Reference source not found.. Table 1. Characteristics of Anderson Creek at City Intake Site Characteristics Anderson Creek (at City Intake) Drainage Area (sq. mi) 0.45 Main Channel Length (mi) 0.77 Main Channel Slope (ft / mi) 1625 Mean Basin Elevation (ft) ~600 Range of Basin Elevation (ft) 248 to ~1500 Basin Aspect Southeast Area of Lakes and Ponds (%) 0% Area of Forest (%) 46% Mean annual precipitation (in) 200 Mean min. January temp. (°F) 18 Area of Glaciers (%) 0 3.1 Streamflow Data Collection At the time of the July 2009 field reconnaissance, streamflow in Anderson Creek at the city intake was 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) (3.3 cfs/square mile), and at South Lake was measured at 2.7 cfs (5.0 cfs per square mile). As the two basins are of similar size, this difference in runoff per square mile can likely be attributed to the variation in basin aspect. The Anderson Creek basin faces southeast and was generally free of snow while the South Lake basin faces northwest and snowmelt was still contributing to flow in the basin at the time of this reconnaissance. A stream gage was installed at the city intake on April 2, 2009 at the existing city weir. Data from the recorder was downloaded on October 14, 2009 and again on September 22, 2010 providing 18 months of streamflow data. Mean monthly flow for this period is shown in Table 2, and a graph of daily flows is shown in Figure 2. Appendix C provides mean daily discharge data and a flow duration curve for the period of record from April 2, 2009 to September 22, 2010. Flow records were averaged for overlapping days during the 18 month period of record. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 7 Table 2. Streamflow, Anderson Creek at City Intake, April 2009 – September 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) 2.6 9.7 4.2 5.9 11.6 5.1 3.8 3.9 6.8 6.7 5.2 6.7 Runoff (cfs/square mile) 5.7 21.6 9.4 13.1 25.9 11.3 8.5 8.7 15.0 15.0 11.6 14.9 Figure 2. Mean Daily Discharge, Anderson Creek at City Intake, April 2009 – September 2010 Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 8 Storms happen any season of the year in Prince William Sound, thus there is not a consistent seasonal pattern of streamflow at Anderson Creek, except during snowmelt in the spring. Between mid-April and late June, flow is higher than the mean (5 cfs) for 40 to 50 days. Other months of the year, Anderson Creek is flashy, with rainfall events typically causing flow to rise above the mean for 48 hours or less. Low flow (lower than 5 cfs) occurs between storms during the summer and during cold spells in the winter. The longest low-flow period on record is 31 days in the summer of 2009, but typical low-flow periods last 7 to 14 days. During more typical (wetter) years, storms happen more frequently, shortening the period of time when flow is below average. A wetter winter may also increase the duration of the spring snowmelt period. To gain insight as to whether the gaged period was representative of a wet, dry, or average period, precipitation records from the National Weather Service stations at Cordova (80 miles to the east) and Seward (50 miles to the west) were obtained along with the 50-year averages. These data are shown in Table 3.3 along with the monthly departure from the average. Also shown is the discharge at Nicolet Creek near Cordova, a gaged stream with similar basin characteristics to Anderson Creek. Most months, the period of record was drier than average, and this is reflected in lower-than-average flows in Nicolet Creek for 14 of the 18 months (all but August and July of 2009 and June and July of 2010). Based on these data, recorded flows at Anderson Creek represent generally dry conditions. Table 3. Comparison of Nearby Precipitation and Streamflow to 50-Year Averages Month Cordova Precipitation (inches) Deviation from 50- Year Average (inches) Seward Precipitation (inches) Deviation from Average (inches) Nicolet Creek Flow (cfs) Deviation from Average (cfs) Apr-09 1.85 -3.5 1.93 -2.09 3.10 -12.90 May-09 1.56 -4.42 1.25 -2.77 8.91 -3.09 Jun-09 4.32 -0.75 1.67 -0.63 2.84 -1.16 Jul-09 5.85 -0.36 9.95 7.32 6.20 1.20 Aug-09 13.19 4.11 3.67 -1.47 12.96 4.96 Sep-09 10.68 -2.88 3.51 -6.55 9.76 -0.24 Oct-09 6.64 -5.57 7.81 -1.96 5.81 -9.19 Nov-09 4.88 -3.28 7.26 0.29 3.95 -11.05 Dec-09 8.27 -0.23 5.69 -1.86 8.99 -6.01 Jan-10 2.98 -3.23 1.45 -4.65 9.84 -4.16 Feb-10 5.55 -0.98 10.09 4.32 7.66 -6.34 Mar-10 6.51 1.11 2.66 -1.12 6.54 -5.46 Apr-10 7.75 2.4 5.35 1.33 8.91 -7.09 May-10 3.64 -2.34 1.94 -2.08 9.40 -2.60 Jun-10 5.87 0.8 1.83 -0.47 6.93 2.93 Jul-10 8.21 24.541.91 9.47 4.47 Aug-10 8.36 -0.72 3.97 -1.17 6.37 -1.63 Sep-10 1.57 -11.99 0.67 -9.39 1.73 -8.28 Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 9 3.2 Estimates of Long-Term Streamflow A number of USGS stream gages in the Western Prince William Sound area were considered to select a station for estimating a long-term streamflow record for Anderson Creek at the city intake. Nicolet Creek near Cordova was selected as the most comparable station to Anderson Creek. Nicolet Creek has a 0.76-square mile drainage area and was gaged continuously by the USGS from September 9, 1999 until the present (11 years). Although seasonal differences between the creeks were apparent when comparing the first 6 months of streamflow data, it seemed appropriate to use Nicolet long-term daily means adjusted by drainage area to fill in missing months. This correlation was revisited when a full 18 months of hourly streamflow data had been collected at Anderson Creek and found to be inconsistent. For example, in 2009 snowmelt was a full month earlier at Nicolet Creek than at Anderson Creek, but in 2010 snowmelt peaks were concurrent. Short-duration storm peaks occurred with similar frequency but different timing between the two gages. The most appropriate record on which to base daily energy estimates is the 18 months of data at Anderson Creek. The energy estimate will likely be conservative because of persistent dry conditions during the period of record described above. 3.3 Peak Flow Analysis Applying the USGS regression equation for Region 3 yields the discharge estimates summarized in Table 4. (Curran 2003). This regression equation applies the following basin characteristics: drainage area, the percent of the drainage basin that is lake storage, annual precipitation, and average January temperature. The peak hourly flow recorded for the period of record of April 2, 2009 to September 22, 2010 was 117 cfs on September 24, 2009. Table 4. Peak Discharge Estimates for Anderson Creek at City Intake Recurrence Interval Peak Discharge Estimates (years) (cfs) 2 158 5 210 10 245 25 288 50 320 100 350 200 382 500 422 Note: Based on USGS Regression Equation (Curran 2003) 4 Project Arrangement This section of the report describes arrangement of a project for hydroelectric generation at Anderson Creek. The alternative described in this report would be a stand-alone project that would discharge its water back into Anderson Creek. This project would be run-of-the-river because the Anderson Creek basin is too steep to create a significant amount of storage. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 10 4.1 Project Description The intake for Anderson Creek would be located at the existing city intake at elevation 248 feet mean sea level (MSL); Figure 3. Water would be conveyed to the powerhouse via a 12-inch diameter 2,000-foot-long HDPE or steel pipeline. This pipeline would be either above ground HDPE pipe supported either by cables or steel pipe supported on concrete saddles through the upper 350 feet of canyon area and shallow buried HDPE pipe once it exits the canyon. The pipeline would follow and could potentially be combined with the water supply pipeline. The powerhouse would be located adjacent to the existing diesel powerhouse at a finish floor elevation of 63.5 feet (MSL) and would be a pre-engineered structure containing a combination of three 1-cfs and one 2-cfs pumps running in reverse as turbines, induction generators, and associated switchgear and controls. This type of generating system would need to run in parallel with the existing diesel generating units. This configuration was selected due to the small size of the system and the simplicity of the equipment and operations. It was assumed that a small control weir would be required to supply back pressure on the pumps to reduce cavitation. Alternatively, the use of a single turbine may also be applicable. The use of a reaction-type Francis turbine was also evaluated but not selected due to concerns about operational flexibility, high installed costs, and poor efficiency at low flows. It is recommended that pipeline material and equipment selection should be revisited in future feasibility study work. Water would be returned to Anderson Creek though a 400-foot long rock lined channel (tailrace). The existing city intake access road would be used for access to the intake and for construction of the new pipeline. No new electrical transmission line is required as the hydro powerhouse would be located adjacent to the existing diesel powerhouse. Key project parameters are presented in Table 5 below. Net head for this run-of-the-river project would be approximately 169 feet at the design flow of 5 cfs, resulting in a capacity of 54 kW. Average annual inflow was estimated to be 4.9 cfs. For determining turbine size, the rated flow of the turbine was sized at 30% on the annual flow duration curve. Table 5. Key Project Parameters Parameter Value Max. HW, ft 248 Centerline Elev., ft 66 Gross Head, ft 182 Net Head, ft 169 Design Flow, cfs 5 Capacity, kW 54 Avg. Inflow, cfs 4.9 Active Storage, AF 0 Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 11 Figure 3. Preliminary Project Design Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 12 5 Energy Generation Energy generation was estimated using a spreadsheet model. If pump turbine equipment was selected for this project, the individual units would run in either an “on” or “off” type of operation. There would be no flow regulation by the unit. As such, the energy generation for this alternative configuration was estimated by integrating the flow duration curve, net head and equipment performance data. See Appendix D, Energy Calculation, for more detail. The following assumptions were used in modeling energy production: Use of hourly flow data from Anderson Creek for the period of record of April 2, 2009 to September 22, 2010. A quantity of 40 gallons per minute (0.09 cfs) on a continuous basis was assumed as the amount of flow used by the water treatment plant (telephone conversation with Rebecca Poolis of USPHS, April 16, 2009). Plant capacity sized for the optimum power available from the stream. Diesel generators will run continuously, and the hydroelectric system will offset a portion of the diesel requirements. Losses for station service, transformers, and unscheduled downtime were estimated to reduce gross generation by 3%. Using these assumptions the average annual energy generation was estimated at 224 megawatt- hours (MWh) corresponding to an annual plant factor (the average percentage of full capacity used over a given period of time) of 48%. From FY 2004 to 2008 Chenega had average annual community energy sales of 250 MWh. This is approximately the capacity of the project. However, due to the need to operate a diesel generator in conjunction with the hydroelectric project for voltage and frequency control, the full output of the hydropower project would not be used until the load grows. Fisheries studies conducted for this project (Section 8.1) found resident Dolly Varden char in a portion of Anderson Creek between the intake and the proposed tailrace. The State of Alaska Fishway Act requires that a “sufficient quantity of water be maintained in the stream to admit freely the passage of fish” (AS 16.05.841). Satisfying the intent of this statute may require an environmental flow allowance in the creek to provide fish passage during periods of low natural stream flows. To evaluate the effect of environmental flow on the project, various minimum flow allowances at the intake were analyzed and could be expected to reduce generation proportionately as shown in Table 5.1. This reduction would occur primarily in the times of low natural inflow. Environmental flows, if required, would be supplemented by local flows from tributary streams and spill during time when inflow exceeded turbine capacity. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 13 Table 6. Average Annual Energy Environmental Flow (cfs) Average Annual Energy Generation (MWh) 0.0 224 0.25 209 0.5 194 0.75 182 1.0 171 6 Cost Estimates An opinion of probable construction costs was derived for the Anderson Creek project presented above. The following assumptions were used in the cost estimate: Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, construction management, permitting, and the owner’s internal costs were added to the direct construction cost estimate as lump sum amounts. A contingency of 30% was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs to reflect uncertainties of layout and design that would not be resolved until later in the development process. Interest accrued during a 1-year construction period was assumed to be 5% and was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs. The estimate assumed first-year operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses were comprised of the following: o Total labor, expenses, and owner’s general and administrative (G&A) expenses were estimated at $5,000/yr. o A repair and replacement fund of $5,000. Cost estimates assumed that the project would be operated as part of the overall electrical generation system; therefore labor to operate the project was not included. It is estimated that a run-of-the-river project on Anderson Creek would have a construction cost $850,000 in 2010 dollars. (Appendix E, Cost Information). 7 Economic Evaluation A detailed economic evaluation was not included in the scope of this work. However, in order to provide a conceptual view of the economics, a general analysis was done. Results are presented as estimated annual cost per kWh in 2010 dollars. In deriving these costs, it was assumed that 100% of the debt would be financed at 5% for 30 years. Annual O&M costs assume that the diesel power plant operator maintains the hydroelectric plant. Using these assumptions, the stand-alone project would have a 2010 price of energy of $0.29 per kWh. Stipulation of environmental flows would increase the cost of this energy. Grant funding would reduce this cost of energy. The table below provides a simple economic analysis of the project. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 14 Table 7. Economic Analysis, all Energy Sold Project Annual Energy (MWh/yr), 0 cfs environmental flow 240 Estimated Project Cost $850,000 Annual Debt Service (30 yr @ 5%, 100% financing of entire project cost) $65,000 Annual O&M Allowance $10,000 Energy Cost per kWh $0.29 Estimated Diesel Efficiency (kWh/gallon) 11.7 Displaced Diesel Fuel (gallons) 19150 Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $6.00 per gallon $115,000 The present average annual community energy sales are approximately 250 MWh. Running in conjunction with a diesel generator, the amount of energy that could be utilized from a hydroelectric project would be less than its theoretical capacity. Assuming no load growth and that 30% of the community’s needs would be met with diesel generation, the hydroelectric project would integrate into the existing system as shown below. The economics of the project would be as shown in Table 8. Table 8. Economic Analysis with Present Energy Sales Project Annual Power Sales (MWh/yr), 0 cfs environmental flow 164 Estimated Project Cost $850,000 Annual Debt Service (30 yr @6%, 100% financing of entire project cost) $65,000 Annual O&M Allowance $10,000 Energy Cost per kWh, 2010 dollars $0.40 Estimated Diesel Efficiency (kWh/gallon) 11.7 Displaced Diesel Fuel (gallons) 14000 Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $6.00 per gallon $84,000 Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 15 8 Environmental Considerations The following section presents a general overview of potential expected environmental considerations for a hydroelectric project at Anderson Creek. This section describes fish resources and wetlands which are considered to be the primary considerations. For the purposes of this reconnaissance report, HDR Alaska did not conduct any environmental work beyond the two reconnaissance visits described in Section 2. 8.1 Fish Resources 8.1.1 Background and Purpose Anderson Creek is listed by the Alaska Department Fish and Game (ADF&G) Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) as providing habitat for sockeye salmon (O. nerka) to a point approximately 0.45 miles upstream from its mouth (ADF&G 2009a). According to Mr. Vigil, a resident of the village, pink (humpy; O. gorbuscha) and chum salmon (dog; O. keta) spawn in the lower reaches of the creek; however, sockeye (red) salmon do not enter Anderson Creek.1 Mr. Vigil also indicated that salmon do not migrate upstream of a small waterfall approximately 0.1 miles upstream from the mouth and downstream of the road crossing (Figure 4). The purpose of the fisheries-related reconnaissance level field surveys was to document fish species presence and distribution, record existing fish passage barriers, and characterize general fish habitat in Anderson Creek. Information contained in this report is based on the reconnaissance level field work (July 14 to 15 and October 14 to 15, 2009); interviews with a local resident Michael Vigil of Chenega Village; and correspondence with ADF&G biologists Samuel Hochhalter (2009) and Steve Moffitt. Study methods were reviewed by ADF&G, and fish resource permit (FRP) SF2009-219d-1 was issued by ADF&G prior to the team conducting fieldwork. The sampling plan, FRP application, and FRP are provided in Appendix F. 8.1.2 Field Methods The field team relied on minnow traps, hand nets, underwater observations, and visual (ground) observations to document fish presence. The field team set ¼-inch mesh minnow traps baited with commercially processed salmon eggs. Traps were set in Anderson Creek from its mouth upstream to the city intake structure. Traps were fished for varying periods of time, ranging from less than one hour to overnight; most traps were fished overnight. The field team relied on visual observations and hand nets in areas where habitat conditions precluded the effectiveness of minnow traps and underwater observations (i.e., shallow areas). Polarized sunglasses were used to maximize the effectiveness of this approach. Captured fish were identified by species and counted before being returned live near the point of capture. The 1 Personal communication with Michael Vigil, August 14, 2009. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 16 field team also recorded fish fork lengths (i.e., fork of the tail to the nose) for most of the fish captured. The field team recorded global positioning system (GPS) locations for each sample site and documented general habitat and stream channel characteristics. Field photographs representative of habitat conditions in Anderson Creek are shown in Figure 4. 8.1.3 Results In July, the field team set a total of 14 minnow traps in Anderson Creek and visually inspected the stream for fish presence from the mouth to the city intake site. Traps were fished from the mouth of Anderson Creek to just downstream of the proposed tailrace, and upstream of a fish barrier (Figure 4). The traps captured Dolly Varden char (n=39) and Sculpin (n=1), and the field team used hand nets to capture young-of-the-year coho salmon. All coho salmon (i.e., estimated n=100) and the Sculpin were observed in the downstream portion of Anderson Creek, near or within the limits of tidal influence. Dolly Varden char fork lengths ranged from 76 mm to 170 mm (mean=124 mm). Fish capture results are presented in Appendix F. The team also identified probable fish passage barriers: one in the lower portion of Anderson Creek (i.e., downstream from the road crossing) and a series of falls between the tailrace and the intake, as discussed below. In October, the field team returned to further assess fish presence within the reach between the intake and the tailrace and to determine the upstream extent of fish presence in Anderson Creek. The team set a total of 21 traps within the reach between the intake and the tailrace. Traps were fished overnight in the vicinity of the tailrace site, upstream throughout the reach between the intake and the tailrace, and downstream and upstream of a series of manmade dams and natural falls (Figure 4). The traps captured Dolly Varden char (n=84) exclusively. The field team measured Dolly Varden char fork lengths; fork lengths ranged from 63 mm to 160 mm (mean=103 mm). In the upstream portion of the reach between the intake and the tailrace, the team recorded GPS locations for a series of manmade dams (typically constructed at natural falls) and natural falls. The field team set traps upstream and downstream of each manmade dam and/or falls to confirm whether or not any of the falls act as passage barriers to fish and to determine the upstream extent of fish use in Anderson Creek. The traps captured Dolly Varden char immediately downstream of the lower falls; however, no fish were captured in any of the traps (n=6) set upstream from this point in October. Additionally, no fish were captured from traps (n=8) set above this point in July. The base of the downstream (i.e., nearest to the tailrace) falls and associated dam in the reach between the intake and the tailrace was found to be the upstream extent of fish in Anderson Creek (Figure 4). The natural falls and associated timber dam, measured to be approximately 14 feet high, is located approximately 0.65 miles upstream from the mouth (i.e., approximately 0.2 miles upstream from the tailrace or 0.25 miles downstream from the city dam). Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 17 Figure 4. Fisheries Resources Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 18 The field team also recorded general habitat characteristics observed in Anderson Creek during both survey events. Overall, Anderson Creek provides good habitat for rearing and resident fish. Anderson Creek flows through a forested area for most of its length, and therefore has a high recruitment potential for large woody debris. The creek provides abundant overhanging vegetation, woody debris, undercut banks, and small pools, all of which provide suitable cover for fish. Throughout its length, the stream channel varies from approximately 2 feet to 30 feet wide (i.e. average 12 feet) and just a few inches to over 4 feet deep. All four depth and flow combinations (i.e., shallow-slow, shallow-fast, deep-slow, deep-fast) are present. The lower portion of the creek (i.e., just upstream from the mouth) is primarily riffle habitat dominated by a cobble and gravel substrate. Just upstream from the tidally influenced area, rearing habitat was considered good with abundant overhanging vegetation, woody debris, undercut banks, and small pools, all of which presumably provide suitable cover for juvenile fish. Juvenile coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and Sculpin occupied this portion of Anderson Creek. Habitat in the lower section appears suitable for salmon spawning in places although no spawning was observed. At a point approximately 0.1 miles upstream from its mouth, the stream flows through relatively steep bedrock, thereby creating a bedrock cascade/waterfall. Boulders and exposed bedrock dominate the substrate in the vicinity of the bedrock falls. In July, the field team observed young- of-the-year coho salmon in the lower portion of the stream, downstream from the bedrock falls. The field team did not capture or observe coho salmon upstream from this point during either sampling event. Local knowledge also indicates salmon do not migrate upstream from the falls. Dolly Varden char, captured during both survey events, was the only fish species observed upstream from the bedrock falls. Upstream from the road crossing, the stream flows through a low-gradient slow meandering channel with variable habitat types including runs, small pools, and riffles. Coarse angular cobbles and organics/fines are the dominant substrate in this section. Abundant overhanging vegetation, woody debris, undercut banks, and small pools appear to provide good habitat for rearing or resident fish. The length of the stream between the proposed tailrace and the intake is roughly 0.45 miles in length. In the lower 0.2 miles of this reach, substrate is dominated by variable size gravels (i.e., ranging from fine to coarse). All four depth and flow combinations are present throughout the reach. In the upstream 0.25 miles of this reach, the stream channel is confined by steep bedrock. Multiple natural falls and manmade dams preclude fish passage. The upstream extent of fish presence was identified within a relatively deep (3.5 to 4 feet) plunge pool located at the base of a waterfall (Barrier Falls 1, Figure 3). Substrate in this area is dominated by small, angular cobble. The width of the stream channel from this point downstream varies from approximately 5 feet (i.e., higher gradient areas confined by bedrock) to approximately 15 feet (i.e., deep, slow pools created by downed large wood debris). In most areas the stream channel appears relatively stable. However, the field team identified areas where the stream channel recently shifted its course. One such area was located near the middle portion of the reach between the intake and the tailrace, where the stream has shifted to Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 19 the east and is actively cutting through compressed organic material. The stream flows fast through this moderately incised and narrow (1 to 2 feet) channel (i.e., approximately 250 feet in length). Canopy cover in this area is significantly less than the majority of the stream. This section has relatively faster flow and provides a lesser variety of habitats used by Dolly Varden than the former channel. 8.1.4 Discussion According to the AWC, streams draining Evans Island into Sawmill Bay primarily provide spawning habitat for pink salmon, with the exception of Anderson Creek (ADF&G 2009a). The AWC lists Anderson Creek as anadromous for the presence of sockeye salmon (ADF&G 2009a). However, according to local knowledge, sockeye (red) salmon do not enter Anderson Creek but do spawn in O’Brien Creek.2 Local knowledge indicates that pink (humpy) and chum (dog) salmon spawn in the lower reaches of the Anderson Creek, but do not migrate upstream of a waterfall located below the road crossing (Vigil 2009). The small waterfall is located approximately 0.1 miles upstream from the mouth. Based on local knowledge, none of the salmon species has been observed upstream from the falls. Pink salmon typically return to their natal streams beginning mid-July through late August (ADF&G 2009b). Mr. Vigil indicated that large numbers of pink salmon are typically visible near the mouth of Anderson Creek in mid-late July. He reported that chum (dog) salmon typically enter the creek at the same time as pink (humpy) salmon (Vigil 2009). The team did not observe any pink or chum salmon during the survey. It is possible that adult pink and chum salmon had not yet moved into the creek at the time of the survey. Pink and chum salmon fry generally emerge in late winter and out migrate in the spring so their presence at the time of this survey was not expected (Heard 1991). In Prince William Sound, sockeye salmon return to their natal streams from late May through August (ADF&G 2009b). Local knowledge indicates that sockeye (red) salmon enter O’Brien Creek from May through June. Based on local knowledge, sockeye salmon do not enter Anderson Creek (Vigil 2009). The field team did not observe sockeye salmon in Anderson Creek. However, in this area (i.e., based on run timing for O’Brien Creek), the peak run of sockeye salmon would have already occurred by the time of the July 15 survey. Coho salmon was the only salmon species observed in Anderson Creek. The field team observed young-of-the-year coho salmon in the lower portion of Anderson Creek during the July survey. The farthest upstream coho salmon was observed near the base of the small waterfall, located approximately 0.1 miles upstream from the mouth. The presence of young-of-the-year coho salmon suggests that adult coho salmon may spawn in the lower portion of Anderson Creek. Typically adult coho salmon return to their natal streams in late summer through early fall in Alaska. Run timing in Prince William Sound varies from mid-late July through late September 2 O’Brien Creek, which flows past the airport and drains into Crab Bay, is located approximately one mile to the northeast. Mr. Vigil counted 28 adult red salmon in 2008. A recent report (McLaughlin 2004) confirmed that sockeye salmon spawn in O’Brien Creek, and also found coho, pink, and chum salmon. In addition to pink salmon, AWC lists O’Brien Creek as anadromous for the presence of chum salmon. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 20 with the peak of the run in late August (ADF&G 2009b). The team did not observe any adult coho salmon during either survey event3. The lack of spawning adults was not surprising, due to the natural timing of spawning for this species in this area. However, the locals noted the presence of spawning coho salmon in O’Brien Creek up until early October 2009; the locals indicated this was later than usual. In Alaska, Dolly Varden char typically spawn in streams from mid-August through November (ADF&G 2007). Dolly Varden char is one of the most widely distributed salmonids in Alaska (DeCicco 2005). Coastal areas throughout the state support both anadromous and resident (i.e., potamodrous4) forms (DeCicco 2005; ADF&G 2007). The resident form is most often found upstream from barriers (i.e., natural falls, manmade dams) that prevent the upstream migration of anadromous fish (Ihlenfeldt 2005). Resident forms typically have smaller body lengths (i.e., average 135 mm) than anadromous forms (i.e., average 321 mm) and are darker in color (Ihlenfeldt 2005). The sea-run Dolly Varden char is typically silver with numerous red to orange spots (ADF&G 2007). The field team did not observe larger, silvery Dolly Varden char typical of the sea-run (i.e., anadromous) form during either survey. Dolly Varden char was the most widely distributed species observed and/or captured from Anderson Creek, and was the only fish species observed upstream from the bedrock falls (i.e., located below the road crossing). The upstream extent of Dolly Varden char was recorded at the base of a large waterfall and associated dam structure, located approximately 0.65 miles upstream from the mouth. The presence of Dolly Varden char upstream from the passage barrier in the lower portion of the creek; the small body size of fish observed (i.e., min=63; max=170; average=114 mm); and the lack of larger spawning Dolly Varden presence indicates that Anderson Creek supports a resident form of Dolly Varden char (i.e., upstream of the small waterfall). The small waterfall located approximately 0.1 miles upstream from the mouth currently acts as a barrier to fish movement. Based on preliminary local knowledge and information gained through the field surveys, the small waterfall marks the upstream extent of anadromous fish use in Anderson Creek, while the large waterfall and associated dam structure located approximately 0.65 miles upstream of the mouth marks the upstream extent of the resident population of Dolly Varden in Anderson Creek. Based on preliminary project design concepts, the intake for the potential hydroelectric project would be located at the existing city intake site. Water would be conveyed to the powerhouse via a pipeline; the powerhouse would be located adjacent to the existing diesel powerhouse. Water would be returned to the stream via a rock-lined channel (i.e. a tailrace). The project as proposed would divert up to a maximum of 5 cfs from Anderson Creek at the existing city intake. It is expected that flow from the local drainage basin will supplement the reach downstream of the intake. This flow will increase with distance downstream. Flows 3 The field team visually inspected the lower portion of Anderson Creek for fish presence in July 2009; however, the field team did not include the lower 0.1 miles during the October field event. 4 Potamodrous fish migrate within freshwater only Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 21 greater than 5 cfs would pass through the spillway and flow through the stream. Flows greater than 5 cfs are expected about 30 percent of the time, primarily from snowmelt from April through June and from rainfall in August and September. Bedload would be released during high flow events to maintain sediment transport in the creek. Dolly Varden char was the only fish species observed to occupy habitat in the reach between the intake and the tailrace during the surveys. Dolly Varden char were observed throughout the stream to a point approximately 0.65 miles upstream from the mouth, at the base of a waterfall and dam structure. Based on preliminary project design concepts, local knowledge, and information gained through the field surveys, Dolly Varden char is the only species occupying habitat in the reach between the intake and the tailrace and would therefore be the only species affected by the project. 8.2 Wetlands A consideration for the siting and selection of any new hydroelectric facilities is the presence of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. An office-based preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) was prepared for the project area (Appendix G). The attached PJD report describes locations within a 25.4-acre area that are preliminarily determined to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. By federal law (Clean Water Act) and associated policy, it is necessary to avoid project impacts to wetlands wherever practicable, minimize impacts where impacts are not avoidable, and in some cases compensate for impacts. The PJD report is an office-based study; no formal field verification was conducted. Off-site identification of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. were completed using readily available aerial photographs, natural resource mapping, and existing documentation. Based on the findings of the PJD, it has been preliminarily determined that areas displayed as wetlands on Figure 5 meet the USACE criteria for being classified as wetland. Approximately 55 percent (13.9 acres) of the mapped 25.4 acres are wetland and therefore subject to jurisdiction under Section 404. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 22 Figure 5. Office-Based Wetland Mapping Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 23 The proposed hydroelectric pipeline would be located along the same alignment as the existing domestic water pipeline. Based on the findings of the PJD and the approximate location of the existing domestic pipeline, approximately 200 feet of the proposed pipeline would traverse through wetlands. All three wetland types (i.e., emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested) mapped in the project area would likely be traversed. The existing pipeline intersects with wetlands at a point approximately 150 feet downstream from the point at which it is buried underground. Based on the PJD, the upper portion of the existing access road is also shown to intersect wetlands. Figure 5 displays the findings of the office-based PJD overlain by existing features and the preliminary project design. The remainder of the project area, approximately 45 percent (11.5 acres) of the mapped area, appears to lack characteristics to support classifying those areas as wetland. This includes the steep canyon walls of Anderson Creek, developed areas, and mature forested areas situated on the terrace above Anderson Creek. These areas would not be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404, subject to the confirmation of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 8.3 Permits Typically hydroelectric project are regulated under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) guidelines. The jurisdiction granted to FERC to issue licenses and exemptions was established by Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act of (1976) 5 which: “…requires that waterpower projects be licensed if they are located on navigable waters of the United States, occupy any part of the public lands or reservations of the United States, use surplus water or waterpower from a Federal Government dam, or, if constructed after August 26, 1935 are located on any part of a non-navigable water subject to Congress’ Jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause and affect the interests of the interstate or foreign commerce.” The proposed Chenega Bay hydroelectric project appears to lack the specific criteria that would necessitate any license or exemption from FERC because the project: 1. does not involve any waterbody having known current or historic navigational uses such as the passage of people or goods, and so is located on non-navigable waters, 2. would not use surplus water or water power from a federal dam, 3. would be located on non-navigable waters, and is not subject to the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause, or 4. would not occupy lands or reservations of the United States. The finding that no FERC license is required for the Anderson Creek hydropower project is based on the lack of FERC jurisdiction and not on an exemption granted by that agency. Consultation with FERC should be done to verify and document that this project is not under FERC jurisdiction. 5 Section 23(b), 16 USC subpart 817. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 24 The Chenega Bay hydroelectric project would go through the State of Alaska permitting process, and the following permits would be required for the proposed project: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Division of Habitat Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Section 401 Water Quality Certification in support of Section 404 permits Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) Coastal Consistency Determination ADNR Water Rights Permit The lower portion of Anderson Creek is classified as an anadromous fish stream; therefore, a Fish Habitat Title 16 permit will be required for the construction of the proposed project because there would be impacts to the creek. Dolly Varden char were found in a portion of the creek in which flows will be altered. ADF&G will need to be consulted regarding requirements for environmental flow in this reach of the creek. The construction of the project would require a Section 404 permit because the project would involve fill within waters of the United States, including wetlands. In addition, an ADEC Section 401 Water Quality Certification in support of the Section 404 permit would be required. The project is located within the coastal boundaries of the State of Alaska, and a consistency determination from the Alaska Coastal Management Program and Coastal Zone Questionnaire would be required for this project. A water right is a legal right to use surface or ground water under the Alaska Water Use Act (AS 46.15). A water right allows a specific amount of water from a specific water source to be diverted, impounded, or withdrawn for a specific time. The proposed project would require a water right for the use of water from Anderson Creek. 9 Land Ownership, and Water Rights The proposed project area includes Sections 23 and 26, and Sections 24 and 25 are adjacent to the project area. The land within the project area has been conveyed from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Chenega Corporation/Chugach Natives, Inc.6 There are two ADNR interests in Section 26: a lease on the school and a Temporary Water Use Permit (TWUP) issued to Chenega Bay Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) Village Council for temporary use of water from Anderson Creek for a road construction project. This TWUP does not grant rights to the water in Anderson Creek, and the water rights permit for the proposed hydroelectric project would take precedence. The IRA permit expires in November 2009. 6 Interim conveyances (IC) 208-207 in Section 26 and ICs 1216/1215 in Section 23. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 25 9.1 City Water Supply The City of Chenega Bay currently diverts a small amount of water (up to 40 gallons per minute, 0.09cfs) from Anderson Creek to provide drinking water for the community.7 The water is diverted from the creek into a 4-inch diameter pipeline where it is conveyed to the water treatment plant and is distributed to the community. The proposed hydroelectric project would use the remainder of the water in the creek that is in excess of the amount required for the community’s drinking water to generate energy. The pipeline for the hydroelectric facility would be built in the same corridor as the existing drinking water pipe and ideally would be combined with this pipeline. The Chenega Corporation would coordinate with the City of Chenega Bay throughout the project, and initial consultation with the City of Chenega Bay regarding the proposed project has taken place (Poolis 2009). The City of Chenega Bay water supply would have priority regarding the use of the water in Anderson Creek. The existing drinking water pipeline is in disrepair, and the Chenega Corporation is proposing to replace the pipeline. Ideally both the drinking water facility and the hydroelectric facility would be served by a single shared pipeline and the cost of the pipeline shared between the two users. Further details would be determined during project design. 10 Conclusions and Recommendations The feasibility of a small hydroelectric project on Anderson Creek is aided because access roads and an intake have already been constructed as part of the existing water facility, no electrical transmission line is required due to co-location of the hydroelectric powerhouse with the diesel powerhouse, and hydroelectric operations costs are minimized because there is already a powerhouse operator who could handle this function. The project would be able to produce power at a rate of approximately $0.29 per kWh. This rate would be reduced if grant funding is obtained for the project. Non-economic benefits of the project are that a reduced amount of diesel fuel would be shipped in Prince William Sound and less atmospheric carbon would be produced. A further benefit of the project is that because it is renewable it will help stabilize the future cost of power for the City of Chenega Bay. If a decision is made to pursue this project the next steps are to: Pursue additional grant funding. Continue stream gaging of Anderson Creek through the winter and until design is complete. Initiate discussions with ADF&G regarding requirements for environmental flow. Prepare and submit permit applications. Survey plan and profile of the pipeline route. Perform soils exploration along pipeline and tailrace route. 7 Approximately 40 gallons/minute are diverted to meet the drinking water needs of the community. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 26 Prepare preliminary design criteria and preliminary design of project. Refine estimate of cost. Prepare final design documents. Bid the project Construct the project. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 27 11 References Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2007. Dolly Varden – ADF&G Wildlife Notebook Series. (last updated November 2007). Available at: (http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/notehome.php as) as viewed on 26 October 2009. _____. 2009a. Catalog of Waters Important to the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes –Evans Island. Available at: (http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/AWC_IMS/viewer.htm) as viewed on 14 August 2009. _____. 2009b. Run Timing – Cordova, Whittier, Valdez and other Prince William Sound destinations. Available at: (http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Static/Region2/pdfpubs/pws_runtime.pdf) as viewed on 14 August 2009. Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2010. Community Information Summary, Chenega Bay 2010). Available at: (ftp://ftp.aidea.org/2010AlaskaEnergyPlan/2010%20Alaska%20Energy%20Plan/Commu nity%20Deployment%20Scenarios/Chenega%20Bay%20- %20Community%20Deployment%20Scenario.pdf) as viewed on 18 November 2010. Curran, 2003. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Conterminous Basins in Canada. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4188. DeCicco, F. 2005. Dolly Varden: Beautiful and Misunderstood; Dolly Varden's Reputation as Varmint Undeserved - ADF&G Wildlife News. Sport Fish Division. Available at: (http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&articl es_id=147) as viewed on 26 October 2009. Heard, William R. 1991. Life History of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Auke Bay, Alaska 99821, pg 121 in Pacific Salmon Life Histories, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., edited by C. Groot and L. Margolis, 1991. Hochhalter, Samuel. 2009. Personal Communication with Sam Hochhalter, Division of Sport Fish, Cordova. Phone and email correspondence (Re: timing of fish runs – Evans Island) with Erin Cunningham, HDR Alaska, on August 14, 2009. Ihlenfeldt, Nancy J. 2005. An Annotated Bibiolography: Above Barrier Resident Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and Related Studies. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report 28 of Habitat Management and Permitting; Technical Report No. 05-05, by Nancy J. Ihlenfeldt, November 2005. McLaughlin, Andrew T. 2004. O’Brien Creek Anadromous Stream Enhancement Project Proposal and Report. Moffit, Steve. 2009. Personal Communication with Steve Moffit and Samuel Holter, Division of Sport Fish, Cordova. Phone and email correspondence (Re: timing of fish runs – Evans Island) with Erin Cunningham, HDR Alaska, on August 18, 2009. Phukan Consulting Engineers and Associates, Inc. 1992. Chenega Bay Hydro-Electric Study. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. October 1992 (W.O. 92466). Poolis, Rebecca. USPHS, Personal Communication, April 16, 2009. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACE). 1982. Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects Southcentral Alaska. _____. 1995. Corps of Engineers: Alaska District List of Navigable Waters (in addition to all Tidal Waters). Available at: (http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg/NavWat.htm). _____. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS. _____. 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Alaska Region. Vicksburg, MS. Vigil, Michael. 2009. Personal Communication with Michael Vigil, Chenega Corporation (Re: timing of fish runs – Evans Island Region) with Erin Cunningham, HDR Alaska, on July 14, 2009 and August 14, 2009. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Appendix A 1992 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Study and 1982 USCOE Reconnaissance Study Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Appendix B July 2009 and October 2009 Field Reconnaissance Trip Reports HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503-2632 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Appendix Cover Memo To: Brian Pillars, Chenega Corporation From: Bob Butera, HDR Alaska, Inc. Project: Chenega Hydro Reconnaissance CC: Date: July 24, 2009 Job No: 107232 Re: Field Reconnaissance Trip Report: Chenega PHS Water Supply Creek and South Lake Creek Purpose of Field Reconnaissance The overarching purpose of the field reconnaissance trip was to begin to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a small hydroelectric project to service the village of Chenega Bay. The HDR team visited two sites that have been identified as potential project locations: the Chenega PHS Water Supply Creek and the South Lake drainage (Figure 1). The Chenega PHS Water Supply Creek drains into Sawmill Bay, while the South Lake drainage is located on the opposite side of the island and empties into Prince of Wales Passage. The field team evaluated the following engineering aspects during the field reconnaissance: site access, potential intake and tailrace locations, existing and potential pipeline routes, potential powerhouse locations, and potential transmission line locations. Fisheries-related aspects included recording existing fish passage barriers, documenting fish species presence and distribution, and characterizing general fish habitat within each system. The field team relied on minnow traps, hand nets, and visual observations to document fish presence. Field Team and Logistics Bob Butera and Erin Cunningham (HDR Alaska, Inc.; HDR) arrived in Chenega Bay via Alaska Air Transit at approximately 10:00 am on Tuesday, July 14, 2009. A representative of Chenega Corporation, Larry, provided transportation from the airstrip to the Corporation office, where Brian Pillars (Chenega Corporation), greeted the HDR field team. Brian indicated that due to boat availability, the three of us would visit the South Lake site on July 14th and the Chenega Bay site the following day. South Lake Reconnaissance Summary Michael Vigil (Chenega Corporation), Brian, Bob, and Erin departed from the Chenega boat harbor at approximately 11:30 am. The team traveled around the north side of Evans Island and landed near the mouth of the South Lake Outlet Creek at approximately 12:30 pm. The team traveled on both sides of the creek to evaluate potential tailrace, powerhouse, and access locations in an effort to determine if the South Lake site would be suitable for a hydroelectric facility. The field team sampled for fish presence in the lower portion of the creek and within the lake and recorded general fish habitat characteristics within the lower portion of the creek. The team walked along the lower 600 feet of the creek before climbing onto a ridgeline and traversing to South Lake. The team reached the lake at approximately 2:30 pm. The team recorded flow measurements within the creek just downstream of the lake’s outlet. The team walked along a portion of the lake’s northern perimeter to a depression in the bank to evaluate Diesel PowerhouseStation Chenega PHSWater Supply Inake 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet 0 140 280 420 56070 Meters o 1:9,600Scale= Figure 1. Study Sites: July 2009 ReconnaissanceTrip Report South Lake Chenega PHS Water Suppy Creek South Lake'sOutlet Creek Mouth of South LakeOutlet Creek Submitted to: The Chenega Corporation Created by: HDR Alaska, Inc. Project: Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Feasibility Study South Lake Site South Lake Site Chenega Site INDEX MAP Chenega Site HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503-2632 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Appendix Cover whether this area could provide a route for a penstock alternative to that of the creek channel. The team recorded rudimentary elevation measurements before descending a valley east of the creek. The team departed the South Lake drainage at approximately 5:30 pm and returned to the Chenega boat harbor at approximately 6:30 pm. Preliminary Findings: South Lake is at an elevation of approximately 600 feet above sea level. The South Lake Outlet Creek flows through steep terrain, primarily across bedrock, before reaching sea level, roughly one mile from the lake. Engineering Aspects. Constructing the penstock/road corridor would be difficult due to the steep terrain in the area and the lack of an existing connection to the village of Chenega Bay. Access would not be possible up the stream channel or to its west side, due to steep terrain. It may be possible to divert the lake water to the north and construct a route east of the creek, if the lake level was raised and a dam was constructed at the natural outlet channel. However, the terrain east of the creek may be too steep for an access road. Although constructing a small hydroelectric facility is possible in this location, our general impression is that the project may not be justifiable, primarily due to access issues. Fisheries Aspects. A steep waterfall in bedrock located approximately 0.3 miles upstream from the mouth precludes fish migration past this point. Minnow traps were fished in the creek downstream of the waterfall. Dolly Varden char (Salvalineus malma) was the only species captured or observed during the stream survey. Although fish presence was not considered likely in the lake (i.e., primarily due to the steep nature of the creek), one trap was fished in the lake. No fish were captured from or observed in the lake. Chenega PHS Water Supply Creek Reconnaissance Summary At approximately 7:00 pm on July 14, the field team set minnow traps in the lower portion of the creek to verify fish presence above and below the road crossing. The morning of July 15th, Bob and Erin met Brian at approximately 9:00 am at the Chenega Corporation office. The field team started the day by pulling traps set the previous night, then traveled to the PHS intake site to collect data relative to the feasibility of the hydroelectric project. The field team reached the PHS intake dam via the ATV access trail, at approximately 10:30 am. The team assessed the condition of the dam, downloaded and reinstalled the two HOBO U- 20 pressure transducers/data loggers; cleaned the weir; added a sharp crest to the top of the upper stop log; installed a new staff gage; measured the volume of water flowing through the leaking sluice gate; and recorded elevation data with standard survey equipment in the vicinity of the dam. The field team collected a GPS track log of the existing water line pipe route. The team started the track at the point at which the pipe is directed away from the creek (i.e., at a large waterfall just downstream of the dam), recorded the point at which the pipe is buried underground, and continued to log a track to the existing powerhouse station via the ATV trail. The field team identified an area adjacent and to the north of the existing diesel powerhouse as the probable location for the hydroelectric powerhouse. The team walked from the powerhouse to the stream to evaluate potential tailrace connection locations. The team walked the stream channel from the probable tailrace location upstream to assess conditions within the potential HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503-2632 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Appendix Cover bypass reach (i.e., stream section between the project’s proposed intake and tailrace). Fish migration barriers were recorded with a handheld GPS. The western drainage boundary of the creek was also recorded so that the runoff from the creek can be estimated. The field team departed from the Chenega Bay airstrip at approximately 8:15 pm via Alaska Air Transit on July 15, 2009 and arrived in Anchorage at approximately 9:00 pm. Preliminary Findings: Engineering Aspects. Constructing a small hydroelectric project at the Chenega PHS Water Supply Creek appears to be more feasible than the South Lake site, mainly due to ease of access at the Chenega Bay site and existing infrastructure. Preliminary findings indicate the intake for the hydroelectric project could be located at the PHS Water Supply intake dam and the powerhouse station could be located north of the existing diesel powerhouse station. A viable route to connect the powerhouse back to the stream (i.e., tailrace) was identified from this point to the adjacent stream channel. The primary challenge for the site will be the construction of the upper portion of the pipeline within the narrow confines of the creek ravine. Fisheries Aspects. At a point approximately 0.1 miles upstream from its mouth, the stream flows through relatively steep bedrock, thereby creating a small bedrock cascade/waterfall. The field team observed young-of-the-year coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the lower portion of the stream, downstream from the bedrock falls. Dolly Varden char was the only fish species observed upstream from the bedrock falls. It is unclear whether the falls currently presents a total fish migration barrier, or if it may be seasonal in nature (i.e., fish passage possible during high flows). Based on local knowledge, salmon have not been observed upstream from the falls (personal communication with Michael Vigil, July 14, 2009). The field team walked the entire length (roughly 0.45 miles in length) of the potential bypass reach). Multiple manmade dams (typically constructed at natural falls) and natural falls considered to be fish passage barriers were documented in the upstream portion of the potential bypass reach. The first fish passage barrier encountered was recorded approximately 0.65 miles upstream from the mouth (i.e., approximately 0.2 miles upstream from the tailrace or 0.25 miles downstream from the PHS dam). The farthest upstream Dolly Varden was observed approximately 0.35 miles upstream from the mouth. Although not documented, the presence of Dolly Varden upstream from this point but downstream of the manmade dam (noted above) is likely. HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503-2632 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Appendix Cover Memo To: Brian Pillars, Chenega Corporation From: Bob Butera, HDR Alaska, Inc. Project: Chenega Hydro Reconnaissance CC: Date: October 23, 2009 Job No: 107232 Re: Field Reconnaissance Trip Report: Chenega PHS Water Supply Creek (October) Purpose of Field Reconnaissance The purpose of the October field reconnaissance trip was to further evaluate the feasibility of constructing a small hydroelectric project on Anderson Creek to service the village of Chenega Bay (Figure 1). The field team collected additional site specific data for Anderson Creek related to engineering and fish resources. Field Team and Logistics Bob Butera and Erin Cunningham (HDR Alaska, Inc.; HDR) arrived in Chenega Bay via Alaska Air Transit at approximately 6:00 pm on Tuesday, October 13, 2009. Brian Pillars (Chenega Corporation), provided transportation from the airstrip to the Corporation office, where the team received keys to the apartments. Anderson Creek Reconnaissance Summary At approximately 7:00 pm on October 13, the field team set minnow traps in the lower portion of the bypass reach in Anderson Creek lower portion of the creek to verify fish presence in the reach upstream of the proposed tailrace location. The morning of October 14th, field team started the day by pulling traps set the previous night, and setting additional traps upstream of the previous traps, then returned to the tailrace site and measured the flow in Anderson Creek. In the afternoon of October 14th the intake site was visited. At the intake site the field team downloaded and reinstalled the two HOBO U-20 pressure transducers/data loggers; removed the plywood obstructing the weir; measured the volume of water flowing through the leaking sluice gate; and verified the elevation datum at the gage site using standard survey equipment. Streamflow measurements were made upstream and downstream of the weir to verify the amount of flow removed from the system by the WTP and to verify the weir equation. The morning of October 15th, field team started the day by pulling traps set the previous night. Locations of fish barriers were collected using an accurate GPS. The field team then returned to the intake site and obtained a stage reading. Peat probes were done along the segment of the pipeline between the canyon and the access road. The WTP was visited and the pressure gage noted at 82 psi, with typical average daily flows of 40 to 50 gpm. A topographic survey was done from a benchmark at the clinic to the potential powerhouse site to verify the elevation at this location. A flow measurement was made at the road crossing of Anderson Creek and a staff gage installed that could potentially be read through the winter. HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503-2632 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Appendix Cover The field team departed from the Chenega Bay airstrip at approximately 2:15 pm via Alaska Air Transit on October 15, 2009 and arrived in Anchorage at approximately 3:30 pm. Preliminary Findings: Engineering Aspects. Streamflow data was downloaded and along with more accurate elevation information will provide a basis for reevaluating the potential energy from the project. The primary technical challenge for the site will be the construction of the upper portion of the pipeline within the narrow confines of the creek ravine, but this is not seen as insurmountable and could be accomplished with HDPE pipe. The primary challenge for the project will be permitting the flow modification of the bypass reach. Fisheries Aspects. Traps were set throughout the potential bypass reach, both downstream and upstream of a series of falls (natural falls, and manmade dams constructed at natural falls). Traps placed downstream of the dams/falls captured Dolly Varden char; no fish were captured upstream of the downstream most falls. The farthest upstream Dolly Varden was captured in a pool at the base of the first series of falls. Dolly Varden char was the only fish species captured. Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Appendix C Anderson Creek Flow Data 2009 Streamflow at Anderson CreekDateDaily AverageDateDaily AverageDateDaily AverageDateDaily AverageDateDaily AverageDateDaily AverageDateDaily AverageDateDaily AverageDateDaily Average4/2/2009 0.2 5/1/2009 7.8 6/1/2009 7.3 7/1/2009 2.0 8/1/2009 2.3 9/1/2009 1.5 10/1/2009 1.4 11/1/2009 1.2 12/1/2009 29.64/3/2009 0.2 5/2/2009 11.1 6/2/2009 7.3 7/2/2009 1.8 8/2/2009 1.6 9/2/2009 1.6 10/2/2009 1.1 11/2/2009 1.1 12/2/2009 11.94/4/2009 0.3 5/3/2009 12.8 6/3/2009 8.0 7/3/2009 1.6 8/3/2009 1.2 9/3/2009 2.8 10/3/2009 3.3 11/3/2009 1.2 12/3/2009 3.44/5/2009 0.3 5/4/2009 9.2 6/4/2009 8.7 7/4/2009 1.6 8/4/2009 1.6 9/4/2009 1.4 10/4/2009 8.9 11/4/2009 19.8 12/4/2009 2.04/6/2009 0.3 5/5/2009 7.0 6/5/2009 10.7 7/5/2009 1.5 8/5/2009 9.0 9/5/2009 1.1 10/5/2009 8.5 11/5/2009 27.5 12/5/2009 1.64/7/2009 0.3 5/6/2009 6.6 6/6/2009 8.7 7/6/2009 1.4 8/6/2009 2.5 9/6/2009 0.8 10/6/2009 2.7 11/6/2009 4.2 12/6/2009 1.34/8/2009 0.3 5/7/2009 9.9 6/7/2009 8.7 7/7/2009 1.3 8/7/2009 1.4 9/7/2009 0.8 10/7/2009 9.0 11/7/2009 2.2 12/7/2009 1.14/9/2009 0.4 5/8/2009 10.0 6/8/2009 7.9 7/8/2009 1.1 8/8/2009 1.2 9/8/2009 1.1 10/8/2009 8.5 11/8/2009 2.9 12/8/2009 1.04/10/2009 0.4 5/9/2009 9.4 6/9/2009 7.7 7/9/2009 1.0 8/9/2009 1.0 9/9/2009 1.6 10/9/2009 5.0 11/9/2009 4.3 12/9/2009 0.94/11/2009 0.5 5/10/2009 8.6 6/10/2009 6.6 7/10/2009 0.8 8/10/2009 0.9 9/10/2009 14.5 10/10/2009 10.4 11/10/2009 1.9 12/10/2009 0.84/11/20090.55/10/20098.66/10/20096.67/10/20090.88/10/20090.99/10/200914.510/10/200910.411/10/20091.912/10/20090.84/12/2009 0.6 5/11/2009 10.3 6/11/2009 5.2 7/11/2009 0.7 8/11/2009 0.7 9/11/2009 9.8 10/11/2009 20.8 11/11/2009 1.5 12/11/2009 0.84/13/2009 0.5 5/12/2009 11.9 6/12/2009 4.6 7/12/2009 0.7 8/12/2009 0.6 9/12/2009 25.2 10/12/2009 4.5 11/12/2009 0.8 12/12/2009 0.74/14/2009 0.5 5/13/2009 10.6 6/13/2009 4.8 7/13/2009 0.6 8/13/2009 0.6 9/13/2009 8.9 10/13/2009 2.7 11/13/2009 1.0 12/13/2009 0.64/15/2009 0.6 5/14/2009 7.4 6/14/2009 3.9 7/14/2009 0.5 8/14/2009 1.6 9/14/2009 3.9 10/14/2009 2.0 11/14/2009 0.7 12/14/2009 0.64/16/2009 0.9 5/15/2009 6.0 6/15/2009 4.2 7/15/2009 0.5 8/15/2009 6.2 9/15/2009 2.3 10/15/2009 1.6 11/15/2009 0.7 12/15/2009 0.64/17/2009 1.7 5/16/2009 8.2 6/16/2009 3.9 7/16/2009 0.4 8/16/2009 9.1 9/16/2009 17.8 10/16/2009 1.4 11/16/2009 0.6 12/16/2009 0.64/18/2009 2.9 5/17/2009 9.3 6/17/2009 3.8 7/17/2009 0.3 8/17/2009 2.9 9/17/2009 5.2 10/17/2009 1.1 11/17/2009 0.6 12/17/2009 0.44/19/2009 6.1 5/18/2009 9.4 6/18/2009 5.8 7/18/2009 0.2 8/18/2009 1.6 9/18/2009 2.9 10/18/2009 1.0 11/18/2009 0.6 12/18/2009 1.44/20/2009 3.5 5/19/2009 8.6 6/19/2009 4.4 7/19/2009 0.4 8/19/2009 1.2 9/19/2009 1.7 10/19/2009 1.0 11/19/2009 0.6 12/19/2009 1.94/21/2009 3.2 5/20/2009 7.6 6/20/2009 3.9 7/20/2009 1.4 8/20/2009 1.0 9/20/2009 11.3 10/20/2009 2.7 11/20/2009 0.5 12/20/2009 0.84/22/2009 3.2 5/21/2009 8.0 6/21/2009 4.6 7/21/2009 5.1 8/21/2009 0.8 9/21/2009 35.8 10/21/2009 8.8 11/21/2009 0.5 12/21/2009 0.94/23/2009 2.8 5/22/2009 14.5 6/22/2009 8.8 7/22/2009 13.4 8/22/2009 0.6 9/22/2009 4.0 10/22/2009 12.3 11/22/2009 0.7 12/22/2009 4.34/24/2009265/23/200915 46/23/2009417/23/2009728/23/2009079/23/20091910/23/200912 611/23/200913 812/23/2009924/24/20092.65/23/200915.46/23/20094.17/23/20097.28/23/20090.79/23/20091.910/23/200912.611/23/200913.812/23/20099.24/25/2009 2.6 5/24/2009 26.6 6/24/2009 3.1 7/24/2009 4.9 8/24/2009 2.3 9/24/2009 26.2 10/24/2009 10.6 11/24/2009 4.5 12/24/2009 8.84/26/2009 3.5 5/25/2009 13.7 6/25/2009 3.0 7/25/2009 3.8 8/25/2009 2.4 9/25/2009 26.2 10/25/2009 8.8 11/25/2009 3.1 12/25/2009 21.14/27/2009 4.9 5/26/2009 12.7 6/26/2009 2.9 7/26/2009 18.3 8/26/2009 4.8 9/26/2009 4.4 10/26/2009 3.8 11/26/2009 3.8 12/26/2009 11.84/28/2009 5.5 5/27/2009 9.0 6/27/2009 2.8 7/27/2009 5.2 8/27/2009 11.1 9/27/2009 2.8 10/27/2009 2.4 11/27/2009 9.7 12/27/2009 8.74/29/2009 6.7 5/28/2009 6.8 6/28/2009 2.8 7/28/2009 8.0 8/28/2009 23.2 9/28/2009 1.7 10/28/2009 2.2 11/28/2009 3.9 12/28/2009 5.24/30/2009 7.2 5/29/2009 6.8 6/29/2009 2.7 7/29/2009 10.4 8/29/2009 9.6 9/29/2009 1.5 10/29/2009 1.6 11/29/2009 4.0 12/29/2009 3.75/30/2009 6.9 6/30/2009 2.3 7/30/2009 6.1 8/30/2009 4.1 9/30/2009 2.5 10/30/2009 1.3 11/30/2009 2.6 12/30/2009 2.35/31/2009 6.5 7/31/2009 5.6 8/31/2009 2.1 10/31/2009 1.0 12/31/2009 1.8APPENDIX C: STREAMFLOW DATA 2010 Streamflow at Anderson Creek. DateDaily Average DateDaily Average DateDaily Average DateDaily Average DateDaily Average DateDaily Average DateDaily Average DateDaily Average DateDaily Average1/1/2010 1.5829236 2/1/2010 1.610587 3/1/2010 12.8 4/1/2010 4.0 5/1/2010 4.9 6/1/2010 9.1 7/1/2010 1.5 8/1/2010 4.0 9/1/2010 0.91/2/2010 3.8422175 2/2/2010 1.562401 3/2/2010 13.4 4/2/2010 2.6 5/2/2010 4.5 6/2/2010 9.9 7/2/2010 1.6 8/2/2010 2.5 9/2/2010 0.71/3/2010 1.6869937 2/3/2010 1.30095 3/3/2010 4.4 4/3/2010 2.0 5/3/2010 5.4 6/3/2010 7.2 7/3/2010 3.2 8/3/2010 2.1 9/3/2010 0.61/4/2010 1.641149 2/4/2010 1.082167 3/4/2010 3.1 4/4/2010 2.0 5/4/2010 8.2 6/4/2010 6.5 7/4/2010 1.9 8/4/2010 10.0 9/4/2010 0.81/5/2010 1.5238143 2/5/2010 1.011303 3/5/2010 2.9 4/5/2010 2.0 5/5/2010 7.5 6/5/2010 8.3 7/5/2010 3.5 8/5/2010 4.3 9/5/2010 4.21/6/2010 2.0696949 2/6/2010 5.426924 3/6/2010 2.6 4/6/2010 1.4 5/6/2010 7.1 6/6/2010 5.3 7/6/2010 2.4 8/6/2010 2.7 9/6/2010 1.41/7/2010 10.530891 2/7/2010 1.961815 3/7/2010 3.0 4/7/2010 1.0 5/7/2010 6.1 6/7/2010 4.9 7/7/2010 7.0 8/7/2010 2.3 9/7/2010 3.21/8/2010 6.1486831 2/8/2010 1.12403 3/8/2010 2.2 4/8/2010 0.9 5/8/2010 5.5 6/8/2010 4.8 7/8/2010 6.3 8/8/2010 2.4 9/8/2010 2.21/9/2010 6.3241213 2/9/2010 1.582694 3/9/2010 5.3 4/9/2010 0.9 5/9/2010 6.0 6/9/2010 4.7 7/9/2010 2.4 8/9/2010 2.6 9/9/2010 1.31/10/2010 3.7639672 2/10/2010 9.40279 3/10/2010 16.7 4/10/2010 0.9 5/10/2010 5.8 6/10/2010 3.6 7/10/2010 2.6 8/10/2010 2.8 9/10/2010 1.01/11/2010 1.9971891 2/11/2010 12.97266 3/11/2010 19.3 4/11/2010 1.1 5/11/2010 29.9 6/11/2010 6.4 7/11/2010 1.9 8/11/2010 2.4 9/11/2010 0.91/12/2010 1.5102857 2/12/2010 8.402642 3/12/2010 18.7 4/12/2010 1.2 5/12/2010 31.3 6/12/2010 7.4 7/12/2010 1.4 8/12/2010 2.2 9/12/2010 0.81/13/2010 1.470525 2/13/2010 3.85226 3/13/2010 0.9 4/13/2010 1.8 5/13/2010 7.8 6/13/2010 5.2 7/13/2010 2.3 8/13/2010 10.6 9/13/2010 0.71/14/2010 1.5147916 2/14/2010 10.7957 3/14/2010 1.1 4/14/2010 4.4 5/14/2010 28.0 6/14/2010 3.9 7/14/2010 2.7 8/14/2010 6.0 9/14/2010 0.71/15/2010 1.6010368 2/15/2010 15.27755 3/15/2010 12.0 4/15/2010 3.3 5/15/2010 15.3 6/15/2010 7.2 7/15/2010 1.5 8/15/2010 3.2 9/15/2010 0.61/16/2010 3.582325 2/16/2010 14.96681 3/16/2010 2.7 4/16/2010 2.4 5/16/2010 7.5 6/16/2010 4.4 7/16/2010 1.4 8/16/2010 3.2 9/16/2010 0.61/17/2010 3.1576666 2/17/2010 12.24485 3/17/2010 1.2 4/17/2010 4.3 5/17/2010 5.1 6/17/2010 4.4 7/17/2010 1.1 8/17/2010 3.7 9/17/2010 0.51/18/2010 2.0887224 2/18/2010 39.98469 3/18/2010 1.6 4/18/2010 16.3 5/18/2010 5.9 6/18/2010 3.8 7/18/2010 1.5 8/18/2010 2.5 9/18/2010 0.51/19/2010 1.4008921 2/19/2010 19.58795 3/19/2010 4.7 4/19/2010 8.5 5/19/2010 7.7 6/19/2010 3.8 7/19/2010 2.6 8/19/2010 1.8 9/19/2010 0.51/20/2010 2.0721605 2/20/2010 9.591183 3/20/2010 2.8 4/20/2010 4.4 5/20/2010 10.3 6/20/2010 4.3 7/20/2010 1.8 8/20/2010 1.5 9/20/2010 0.41/21/2010 1.4314797 2/21/2010 4.828183 3/21/2010 1.7 4/21/2010 5.9 5/21/2010 6.3 6/21/2010 3.5 7/21/2010 2.1 8/21/2010 1.3 9/21/2010 0.51/22/2010 0.8320539 2/22/2010 3.562504 3/22/2010 1.2 4/22/2010 4.3 5/22/2010 6.1 6/22/2010 3.2 7/22/2010 1.4 8/22/2010 1.5 9/22/2010 0.51/22/20100.83205392/22/20103.5625043/22/20101.24/22/20104.35/22/20106.16/22/20103.27/22/20101.48/22/20101.59/22/20100.51/23/2010 0.7140557 2/23/2010 3.285649 3/23/2010 1.1 4/23/2010 3.0 5/23/2010 5.1 6/23/2010 3.0 7/23/2010 1.1 8/23/2010 1.51/24/2010 0.6668832 2/24/2010 2.729168 3/24/2010 2.2 4/24/2010 2.6 5/24/2010 4.6 6/24/2010 3.1 7/24/2010 1.1 8/24/2010 1.01/25/2010 0.5999489 2/25/2010 2.21556 3/25/2010 1.4 4/25/2010 9.6 5/25/2010 6.3 6/25/2010 3.1 7/25/2010 2.9 8/25/2010 0.91/26/2010 0.5722742 2/26/2010 1.782979 3/26/2010 1.2 4/26/2010 45.1 5/26/2010 8.5 6/26/2010 2.9 7/26/2010 11.6 8/26/2010 0.81/27/2010 0.8404856 2/27/2010 1.394207 3/27/2010 1.6 4/27/2010 29.3 5/27/2010 9.6 6/27/2010 2.2 7/27/2010 4.0 8/27/2010 1.01/28/2010 3.4557759 2/28/2010 1.430996 3/28/2010 2.5 4/28/2010 12.9 5/28/2010 8.6 6/28/2010 2.4 7/28/2010 2.8 8/28/2010 1.61/29/2010 6.3336088 3/29/2010 3.9 4/29/2010 12.0 5/29/2010 10.1 6/29/2010 2.0 7/29/2010 2.4 8/29/2010 1.21/30/2010 2.6378359 3/30/2010 3.6 4/30/2010 8.3 5/30/2010 9.4 6/30/2010 1.7 7/30/2010 2.0 8/30/2010 1.11/31/2010 1.5238039 3/31/2010 3.6 5/31/2010 8.7 7/31/2010 7.7 8/31/2010 0.8APPENDIX C: STREAMFLOW DATA Appendix C. Flow Duration Curve for Discharge Below 20 cfs 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 102030405060708090100Anderson Creek Discharge (cfs)% of Time Exceeded Flow Duration Curve APPENDIX C: STREAMFLOW DATA Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Appendix D Energy Calculation Alt 1WithdrawalsHW248Water Supply40 gpm0.089 cfsPH Floor63.5Env. Flow00.25 cfsTW65.5PipelineLength2000Months to run (1=yes, 0=no, only select ONE month at a time)Dia12Jan311Area0.79Feb282f0.011Mar313Apr304Qmax5 cfsMay315Vmax6.37 fpsJun306HL max13.85 ftJul317Aug318Sep309Net Head168.7Oct31 10Capacity53.6Nov30 11Dec31 121Total Days 31- 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 744Jan13,366 12,386 10,024 8,676 7,595 Energy from using 4 pumpsNov 2010Feb20,162 18,722 17,473 16,554 158012 @ 1 cfsW2WMar17,617 15,830 14,206 12,787 11,760 2 @ 3 cfsQ % Exceed Eff HoursHL kWEnergyApr16,253 15,406 14,354 13,351 123031.0 55.38 0.75 134.00.6 11.6 1,548 kWhMay37,916 37,556 37,133 36,718 36,226 2.0 37.37 0.75 42.02.2 22.9 962 kWhJun28,035 26,698 25,367 23,952 225413.0 31.72 0.75 34.05.0 33.8 1,150 kWhJul14,618 13,178 11,565 10,155 9,215 4.0 27.15 0.75 39.08.9 44.1 1,720 kWhAug13,949 12,098 10,748 9,695 86955.0 21.91 0.75 163.0 13.8 53.6 8,729 kWhSep12,631 11,498 10,459 9,537 8,826 6.0 0.00 0.75 0.0 19.9 - - Oct21,491 19,991 18,531 17,459 166977.0 0.00 0.75 0.0 27.1 - - Nov13,345 12,233 11,359 10,561 9,743 8.0 0.00 0.75 0.0 35.4 - - Dec14,595 13,686 12,923 12,086 1134114,109 223,978 209,282 194,142 181,531 170,743 Losses -3%(423) 13,686 3%Alternative 3MIF 30% diesel FY 2010 kWh Sold Hydro Potenti Usable Hydro 09 J 15,620 14,618 10,934 A 17,766 13,949 12,436 S 19,789 12,631 12,631 O 15 446 21 491 10 812O15,446 21,491 10,812 N 21,907 13,345 13,345 D 25,079 14,595 14,595 J 26,259 13,366 13,366 F 21,598 20,162 15,119 M 22,887 17,617 16,021 A 21,662 16,253 15,163 M23,399 37,916 16,379 M 23,399 37,916 16,379 J 18,695 28,035 13,087 250,107 223,978 163,888 48% Chenega Energy Profile 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 kWhChenega Energy Profile kWh Sold ‐ 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 JASONDJFMAMJkWh FY 2010 Chenega Energy Profile kWh Sold Hydro Potential Usable Hydro ‐ 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 JASONDJFMAMJkWh FY 2010 Chenega Energy Profile kWh Sold Hydro Potential Usable Hydro Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Appendix E Cost Calculation Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights - Generation Plant LS -$ .2 Special use permits LS -$ .3 Surveying 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$ 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE -$ .1 Excavation 15 CY 50$ 733$ .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement)9 CY 1,200$ 11,316$ .3 Pre-engineered metal building 400 SF 125$ 50,000$ .4 Misc. Metals 0 LS 1,000$ -$ .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical (included)0 LS 2,500$ -$ .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$ .7 Fire Protection (included)0 LS 500$ -$ 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK -$ .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ .3 INTAKE -$ .1 Excavation 20 CY 50$ 1,000$ .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ .3 Trash racks LS -$ .4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .5 Concrete (structural)1 CY 1,200$ 1,200$ .6 Concrete (mass)CY -$ .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS 750$ 750$ .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK (Buried and supported on saddles)-$ .a Clearing 0.9 ACRE 25,000$ 23,674$ .b Penstock material (steel)2000 LF 45$ 90,000$ .c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)3 CY 1,200$ 3,600$ .d Penstock installation 2000 LF 25$ 50,000$ .e Bifurcation/inlet piping 0 LS 15,000$ -$ .2 TAILRACE .a Clearing 0.2 ACRE 25,000$ 5,739$ .b Excavation 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .c Support and lining 1 LS 4,000$ 4,000$ 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 54 kW pump/turbine, generator, guard valve 54 kW 750$ 40,500$ .2 Install 1 EA 30,000$ 30,000$ 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .2 Station Service 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$ .3 Control Panel 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$ .4 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ CHENEGA OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Powerhouse crane 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Road Grading 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ .3 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Main transformer 1 LS 4,000$ 4,000$ .2 Accessory switchgear equipment 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ Total Direct Construction Costs 406,513$ Survey and Geotechnical 1 LS 30,000$ Design Engineering 1 LS 120,000$ Permitting 1 LS 30,000$ Owner's General Administration & overhead 1 LS 10,000$ Construction Management 1 LS 20,000$ Subtotal 616,513$ Contingency 30%185,000$ Interest during construction 5%41,000$ 2010 Estimated Project Cost (rounded)850,000$ Annual Energy, MWh 224 Debt Service (5%, 30 yr)55,294$ O&M 10,000$ 2010 Cost of Energy, $/kWh 0.29$ Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Appendix F Fisheries Resource Information Fish Resource Permit Application – Email Form (11/2006) Page 1 of 2 FRPAppOL.doc / ©2006 ADF&G A FISH RESOURCE PERMIT is required to take, possess, hold alive, or tag FISH AND THEIR EGGS (except goldfish and decorative tropical fish) FOR SCIENTIFIC OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. (in order to use this form over again as a “blank form” first re-name and save this as a new document) Erin Cunningham HDR Alaska, Inc. (Name of Applicant) (Organization or School) 2525 C Street, Anchorage Alaska, 99501 (type in complete mailing address including City, State, and Zip Code) 907-644-2115 907-644-2022 erin.cunningham@hdrinc.com (your Telephone Number) (Fax Number) (Email Address) Chenega Corp., 6411 A Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99518 (type in the name and address of the organization with which you are under contract) I am making application to capture fish of the following species and number for the specified disposition (example: identify and release, measure and release, genetic sample and release, tag and release, sacrifice, transport, hold alive, etc.): Species Species Common Name Scientific Name Life Stage Number Disposition* Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Sockeye Salmon Pink Salmon Coho Salmon All Salmon Species Listed above Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Oncorhynchus kisutch Juvenile <50 Identify and release Dolly Varden Char Salvelinus malma Juvenile Adult <50 Identify and release Sculpin spp. All Sculpin species Cottus cognatus spp. Juvenile Adult <10 Identify and release Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Pungitius pungitius Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult <10 Identify and release *For multiple sample locations give detail of species and number and disposition in your study plan STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Fish Resource Permit Application — Email Form — Fish Resource Permit Application – Email Form (11/2006) Page 2 of 2 FRPAppOL.doc / ©2006 ADF&G I understand permits are only valid for dates within a calendar year; I am requesting this permit for the following period: (a new application is required each year) 2009 July December 31 Year: (20 ) From: (month and day) To: (month and day) I wish to obtain the above fish [finfish, shellfish, amphibians] by means of: Minnow traps, hand nets, hand line, rod and reel (Specify gear type(s): minnow traps, hoop traps, fyke nets, gillnets, dip nets, spat collectors, etc.) from the following location(s): Evans Island, Alaska specific streams will include but not be limited to streams 226-40-16670 and 226-40-16494 (AWC) (Specify location(s), i.e., X River at latitude/longitude, or ESE of Pt. Barrow, or on Kodiak Island, etc.) Fish Resource Permit Application – Email Form (11/2006) Page 3 of 2 FRPAppOL.doc / ©2006 ADF&G The purpose of the activities for which a permit is being requested: (a brief purpose statement) The purpose of the field reconnaissance is to evaluate fisheries aspects of two streams on Evans Island that are being considered in the Chenega Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. Stream 226-40-16670 (near Crab Bay) is documented as having sockeye salmon while Stream 226-40-16494 (drains a lake on the opposite side of island) is listed as providing habitat for pink salmon. During this field reconnaissance we would like to have the option to sample these streams/waterbodies to document any fish species present. (this area and other boxes will expand as you type) NOTE: A STUDY PLAN or RESEARCH PROPOSAL explaining the purpose and need, the objectives, and the procedures you will use must be included in/with this permit application: The purpose of the field reconnaissance is to evaluate fisheries aspects of two streams on Evans Island that are being considered in the Chenega Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. Stream 226-40-16670 (near Crab Bay) is documented as having sockeye salmon while Stream 226-40-16494 (drains a lake on the opposite side of island) is listed as providing habitat for pink salmon. During this field reconnaissance we would like to have the option to sample these streams/waterbodies to document any fish species present. (Study Plan) Final disposition of collected specimens* not to be released live at the site of capture will be: *(specimens may not be consumed, sold, traded, or bartered, or used in any commercial manner) The following people will participate in field collections under terms of this requested permit: Erin Cunningham Bob Butera (If applicant is representing a corporation or institution, a certification of affiliation may be required which must be notarized and attached to this application). ( completed application must be submitted to ): Email Address: Freshwater and estuarine environment collections (Division of Sport Fish):\ robert.piorkowski@alaska.gov Marine environment collections (Division of Commercial Fisheries): sara.conrad@alaska.gov or Mailing Address: Freshwater & estuarine environment collections: Fish Resource Permit Application – Email Form (11/2006) Page 4 of 2 FRPAppOL.doc / ©2006 ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game Attn: Bob Piorkowski Division of Sport Fish-RTS/FR Permits P.O. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Marine environment collections and permits involving propagation. : Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries Attn: Sara Conrad P.O. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Fish Capture/Fisheries Reconnaissance Data for Chenega Creek on Evans Island. Field work completed on July 14-15, and October 13-14, 2009.Location ID Latitude Longitude Date Fish collection method Species Life stage Length (mm) LengthType CommentsPhoto010 60.06440599 -148.017874567/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 109 forkMT: DV, Sc; COr observed010 60.06440599 -148.017874567/14/2009 Minnow Trap sculpin-unspecified juvenile/adultMT: DV, 54 Sc captured; COr observed010 60.06440599 -148.017874567/14/2009 Visual Observation, Ground coho salmon juvenileMT: DV, Sc; ~ 100 COr observed011 60.06500764 -148.016893547/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 150 forkMT: DV, COr observed; just d/s of cascade 4002011 60.06500764 -148.016893547/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 160 forkMT: DV, COr observed; just d/s of cascade 4002011 60.06500764 -148.016893547/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkMT: DV, COr observed; just d/s of cascade 4002011 60.06500764 -148.016893547/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkMT: DV, COr observed; just d/s of cascade 4002011 60.06500764 -148.016893547/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 90 forkMT: DV, COr observed; just d/s of cascade 4002011 60.06500764 -148.016893547/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 95 forkMT: DV, COr observed; just d/s of cascade 4002011 60.06500764 -148.016893547/14/2009 Visual Observation, Ground coho salmon juvenileMT: DV, ~ 30 COr observed; just d/s of cascade 4002012 60.06507042 -148.016525917/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 76 forkMT: DV 4004013 60.06508173 -148.016536137/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 101 forkMT: DV 4003013 60.06508173 -148.016536137/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 86 forkMT: DV 4003014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 160 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 160 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 150 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 150 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006014 60.06569982 -148.015635837/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkMT: DV 4005, 4006015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 112 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkMT: DV 4007, 400801560 06578389148 015569537/14/2009Minnow TrapDolly Vardenjuvenile/adult170forkMT: DV4007 400801560.06578389-148.015569537/14/2009Minnow TrapDolly Vardenjuvenile/adult170forkMT: DV4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008015 60.06578389 -148.015569537/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 90 forkMT: DV 4007, 4008016 60.07224977 -148.018206487/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish017 60.07213804 -148.018425337/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish018 60.07236091 -148.017469717/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish; d/s of PHS dam site; at top of falls 4010, 4011021 60.07218841 -148.017256147/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish, falls/migration barrier just u/s 4012-4014022 60.07224323 -148.017137457/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish, d/s of MT21 4019-4020023 60.07199412 -148.016335477/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish 4021024 60.07195666 -148.016088207/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish 4022028 60.07078830 -148.015493597/15/2009 Visual Observation, Ground no collection effortmigration barrier: manmade dam 1 of 3 4030-4032029 60.07106968 -148.015521597/15/2009 Visual Observation, Ground no collection effortmigration barrier: manmade dam 2 of 3 4033030 60.07198784 -148.015758637/15/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedMT: no fish031 60.06627138 -148.015948487/15/2009 Visual Observation, Ground no fish collected or observedchummed for fish, none observed021b 60.07218841 -148.017256147/15/2009 Visual Observation, Ground no collection effort4012-4014025 60.06777794 -148.015412967/15/2009 Visual Observation, Ground no collection effortphotopoint (habitat observation) 4027026 60.06847615 -148.015231997/15/2009 Visual Observation, Ground no collection effortphotopoint (habitat observation) 4028, 4029Oct001 60.06792706 -148.0156453910/13/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observed not applicableOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 115 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 93 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 95 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 83 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 102 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 93 forkOct002 60.06785413 -148.0153544510/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 112 forkOct003 60.06789805 -148.0153095310/13/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observed not applicableOct004 60.06812914 -148.0152273010/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult ranged from 70 to 120mm in length, most around 100-110 mm in lengthOct005 60.06858034 -148.0151719810/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkOct005 60.06858034 -148.0151719810/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 72 forkOct005 60.06858034 -148.0151719810/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 90 forkOct005 60.06858034 -148.0151719810/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 90 forkOct005 60.06858034 -148.0151719810/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 85 forkPage 1 of 2 Fish Capture/Fisheries Reconnaissance Data for Chenega Creek on Evans Island. Field work completed on July 14-15, and October 13-14, 2009.Location ID Latitude Longitude Date Fish collection method Species Life stage Length (mm) LengthType CommentsPhotoOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 90 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 104 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 160 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkOct006 60.06869526 -148.0150394610/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkOct007 60.06879508 -148.0150240410/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 95 forkOct007 60.06879508 -148.0150240410/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct008 60.06900924 -148.0155473210/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 72 forkOct008 60.06900924 -148.0155473210/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 103 forkOct009 60.06906783 -148.0155842810/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkOct009 60.06906783 -148.0155842810/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 98 forkOct010 60.06950495 -148.0155396910/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkOct010 60.06950495 -148.0155396910/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkOct010 60.06950495 -148.0155396910/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 112 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 63 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 74 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 103 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 72 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 84 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 86 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 75 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 90 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 76 forkOct011 60.06983511 -148.0152388710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 85 forkOct012 60.07015346 -148.0145840710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkOct012 60.07015346 -148.0145840710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct012 60.07015346 -148.0145840710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 70 forkOct012 60.07015346 -148.0145840710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct012 60.07015346 -148.0145840710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct012 60.07015346 -148.0145840710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct012 60.07015346 -148.0145840710/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 95 forkOct01360 07032017148 0149402210/13/2009Minnow TrapDolly Vardenjuvenile/adult105forkOct01360.07032017-148.0149402210/13/2009Minnow TrapDolly Vardenjuvenile/adult105forkOct013 60.07032017 -148.0149402210/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 90 forkOct013 60.07032017 -148.0149402210/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 85 forkOct013 60.07032017 -148.0149402210/13/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 92 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 115 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 125 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 109 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 100 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 115 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 125 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 120 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 118 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 115 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 82 forkOct017 60.07073910 -148.0155860410/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 96 forkOct024 60.07181307 -148.0160622210/14/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedOct025 60.07168718 -148.0156759810/14/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedOct026 60.07170972 -148.0152651010/14/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedOct027 60.07168014 -148.0149258910/14/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedOct028 60.07141510 -148.0148798710/14/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedOct030 60.07093817 -148.0154702110/14/2009 Minnow Trap no fish collected or observedOct031 60.07029050 -148.0152672010/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 140 forkOct031 60.07029050 -148.0152672010/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 130 forkOct031 60.07029050 -148.0152672010/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 110 forkOct031 60.07029050 -148.0152672010/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 118 forkOct031 60.07029050 -148.0152672010/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 105 forkOct031 60.07029050 -148.0152672010/14/2009 Minnow Trap Dolly Varden juvenile/adult 95 forkPage 2 of 2 Chenega Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report Appendix G Office-Based Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination - 1 - Office Based Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Project Chenega, Alaska 1. APPLICANT: Chenega Corporation 2. WATERWAY: Sawmill Bay 3. LOCATION: A. Narrative: The project area is located along Anderson Creek, immediately northwest of the community of Chenega Bay on Evan’s Island, Alaska. Wetland mapping was completed for a 25.4 acre area surrounding a proposed hydroelectric project intake site on Anderson Creek and a proposed tailrace corridor located near the community’s existing power facilities (Graphic 1, Figure 1). B. Legal Description: Section: 23 and 26 Township: 1S Range: 8E Meridian: Seward Latitude/Longitude (WGS84 Datum): N60.069/W148.016 4. SOURCE(S): USGS Maps: Seward A‐3 (Figure 1) NWI Maps: Seward A‐3 (Figure 2) Soil Maps: None Corps Wetland Maps: None Aerial Photographs: Stereoscopic pairs of color aerial photography from Aerometric, Inc. taken on June 28, 2005 at 1”=1,500’ scale and two 2005 orthorectified aerial images (2‐foot and 1‐foot pixel resolution (1”=800’ scale)). Other: Photographs of the surrounding area from two site visits conducted by a project engineer and fisheries scientist over July 14‐15 and on October 15, 2009. 5. PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: The Chenega Corporation is currently evaluating alternatives to provide a reliable source of electricity to the community of Chenega Bay through hydroelectric power generation. A consideration for the siting and selection of any new hydroelectric facilities is the presence of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. This report describes locations within a 25.4 acre area that are preliminarily determined to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. By federal law (Clean Water Act) and associated policy, it is necessary to avoid project impacts to wetlands wherever practicable, minimize impact where impact is not avoidable, and in some cases compensate for the impact. This preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is an office‐based study. No formal field verification was conducted. Off‐site identification of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. were completed using readily available aerial photographs, natural resource mapping, and existing documentation. The focus of this PJD is on identification of wetlands and other regulated waters; project design and impacts are not discussed in this report. Wetlands, waters of the U.S., and uplands (non‐wetlands), as referenced in this report, are defined as: - 2 - Wetlands: “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 328.3(b)). Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the U.S.” Note that the “wetlands” definition does not include unvegetated areas such as streams and ponds. As described in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and in the Alaska Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987, USACE 2007), wetlands must possess the following three characteristics: (1) a vegetation community dominated by plant species that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils, (2) inundation or saturation of the soil during the growing season, and (3) soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. Waters of the U.S.: Waters of the U.S. include other waterbodies regulated by the USACE, including navigable waters, lakes, ponds, and streams, in addition to wetlands. Uplands: Non‐water and non‐wetland areas are called uplands. Aerial photographs, topography, and existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping were combined into a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database and analyzed to identify probable wetlands or other regulated waters occurring within the mapping area. Delineating wetlands from aerial photography includes looking for vegetation clues, evidence of soil saturation, and Graphic 1. Approximate area mapped for this desktop study (photo courtesy of the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs) - 3 - evaluating topographic features. On aerial photography, scientists look for saturation‐adapted vegetation communities, low plant height, open canopy structure, and presence of hydrophytic plant species. A common example is the presence of stunted spruce trees, which are indicative of a limitation to growth such as excessively wet soils. Visible evidence of wetland hydrology is also sought, including surface water and darker areas of photos indicating surface saturation. A site’s proximity to streams, open water habitat, and marshes can be indicative of shallow subsurface water. Lastly, evidence of topographic high points and sloped surfaces that would allow soils to drain is used to support classifying those areas as upland. Topographic depressions, toes of slopes, and flat topography serve as indicators of potentially poor soil drainage. Photographs taken during two site visits (on July 14‐15 and October 15, 2009) were also used to identify apparent wetland areas and wherever possible, those photo locations were located on the aerial photography. Photo signatures (color, texture) seen on aerial photography matched with the on‐the‐ ground photographs were then extrapolated to similar locations throughout the mapping area and wetland/upland boundaries were digitized into the GIS database. In addition to examining aerial photograph features and ground photographs, NWI wetland mapping was reviewed for this office‐based study. NWI mapping is generally an effective tool for large‐scale planning and analysis of wetlands but not suitable for smaller site‐specific projects such as this study. NWI mapping is primarily based on high altitude aerial photographic interpretation with limited ground truthing, and therefore wetland boundaries tend to be oversimplified with many smaller wetlands not included in the mapping. According to the NWI, emergent and scrub‐shrub wetlands occur within the mapping limits of this office‐based PJD (USFWS 1996) (Figure 2). All available datasets were reviewed collectively to complete digitizing of wetland‐upland boundaries using GIS. GIS polygons were attributed with NWI mapping codes based on the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S. (Cowardin et al. 1979). A map of wetland boundaries overlaid on the 2005 orthorectified aerial photograph base is shown on Figure 3. Descriptions of each mapped wetland type, their jurisdictional status, and acreage are included below. Three wetland types are likely to occur in the mapped area, these include: Emergent Wetlands. Emergent wetlands are characterized by a plant community dominated by graminoids and forbs. Within the mapped area, this community type is seen in both wetland and non‐wetland areas. Areas mapped as emergent wetlands on Figure 3 are locations where surface saturation (i.e., darker areas) is seen on aerial photographs and where emergent communities are situated along topographically flat or low‐lying areas that may be conducive to retaining water. Plant species often encountered in this common Prince William Sound wetland type include deer cabbage (Fauria crista‐galli – FACW), calthaleaf avens (geum calthifolium – FACW), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum – FAC), and luetka (Luetka pectinata – UPL) (DeVelice et al. 1999 and Viereck et al. 1992). Graphic 2 shows a site photograph of emergent wetlands taken nearby the project area. Approximately 2 acres of emergent wetlands were identified in the mapping area. Areas with similar emergent vegetation signatures that were determined to be non‐wetland include developed and disturbed areas near the existing power generation facilities and along a small access road corridor extending to the north. Plant communities in these areas are typically early successional communities that are resilient to frequent disturbances, likely dominated by non‐native and weedy species. - 4 - Graphic 2. Typical view of emergent and scrub‐shrub wetlands. Graphic 3. Existing water pipeline along Anderson Creek. Graphic 4. Steep sideslopes along Anderson Creek. Scrub‐shrub wetlands. Scrub‐shrub wetlands were identified on aerial photographs along the fringes of and within drier areas of the widespread emergent wetland complexes. Common plant species likely include mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana – FAC), Steller’s cassiope (Cassiope stelleriana – FACW), crowberry (FAC), and early blueberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium – FAC) (DeVelice et al. 1999 and Viereck et al. 1992). Small areas of scrub‐shrub wetland can be seen intermixed with emergent wetlands on Graphic 2. Approximately 2.7 acres of scrub‐shrub wetlands were delineated in the mapping area. Differences in shrub height were also used to determine wetland from non‐ wetland scrub‐shrub sites; where stunted shrub growth is visible on the aerial photography, this may be an indication of wetter soils and an overall suppression of growth. Non‐wetland scrub‐shrub communities occur along steep sideslopes (Graphics 3 and 4) and along roadway corridors. Forested wetlands. Forested wetlands are often the most difficult wetland type to delineate from aerial photograph interpretation. According to NWI maps, forested wetlands are ubiquitous throughout Prince William Sound. Given the maritime climate of the project area, it is likely that many of the forested areas situated along flat or low‐lying landforms are wetland and were mapped as such for the office‐based PJD. Tree height was also used a key indicator of wetland presence or absence; tall, mature trees are often good indicators of non‐hydric soils and stunted trees are often good indicators of saturated hydric soils. Common plant species likely include mountain hemlock (FAC), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis – FACU), tall blueberry (Vaccinium alaskaense – FAC), and Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata – FAC) (DeVelice et al. 1999 and Viereck et al. 1992). - 5 - Forested areas situated on steep slopes and topographic high points that are not conducive to retaining water are likely non‐wetland. Accordingly, field photographs indicate that many of the forested areas along the Anderson Creek riparian corridor are too steep to be wetland (Graphics 3 and 4). Approximately 9.2 acres of forested wetlands were delineated in the mapping area. The project area also includes the waters and floodplain of Anderson Creek, a small perennial stream approximately 1 mile in length from source to sea. The creek flows through the mapping area and then enters the marine waters of Sawmill Bay, a Section 10 water. The creek is generally confined to narrow channel surrounded by steep canyon walls in its upper half. The creek channel meanders through relatively low gradient, forested terrain in its middle portion, flows through a narrow constricted bedrock channel (i.e., downstream of the road crossing) before draining into Sawmill May. 6. SUMMARY: Based on the findings above, it has been preliminarily determined that areas displayed as wetlands on Figure 3 meets the USACE criteria for being classified as wetland. Approximately 55 percent (13.9 acres) of the mapped 25.4 acres are wetland; and therefore subject to jurisdiction under Section 404. The NWI mapping codes used to classify these wetlands include PEM1C (seasonally flooded emergent wetland), PSS4/EM1C (seasonally flooded mixed needleleaf scrub‐shrub/emergent wetland), and PFO4B (saturated needleleaf forest wetland). Within the mapped area, the USACE also has jurisdiction over “Other Waters of the U.S.”, including streams. Anderson Creek would be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404. Anderson Creek is not listed on 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers list of navigable waters of Alaska; however, Anderson Creek is a tributary of Sawmill Bay, which is subject to jurisdiction under Section 10. The remainder of the project area, approximately 45 percent (11.5 acres) of the mapped area appears to lack characteristics to support classifying those areas as wetland. This includes the steep canyon walls of Anderson Creek, developed areas, and mature forested areas situated on the terrace above Anderson Creek. These areas would not be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404, subject to the confirmation of the USACE. OFFICE‐BASED DETERMINATION MADE BY: Jeff Schively, PWS Biologist/Professional Wetland Scientist HDR Alaska, Inc. Date: October 2009 Attachments: Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. NWI Mapping Figure 3. Office‐Based Wetland Determination - 6 - REFERENCES CITED Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. DeVelice, R.L., C.J. Hubbard, K. Boggs, S. Boudreau, M. Potkin, T. Boucher, and C. Wertheim. 1999. Plant community types of the Chugach National Forest, southcentral Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication R10‐TP‐76. Anchorage, Alaska. 375 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACE). 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Alaska Region. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACE). 1995. Corps of Engineers: Alaska District List of Navigable Waters (in addition to all Tidal Waters). Available online at: http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg/NavWat.htm. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Federal Register. November 13, 1986 Part II. Rules and Regulations, Vol. 51, No. 219. U.S. Department of Defense. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. 33 CFR Parts 320‐330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. National Wetland Inventory Mapping for USGS Quadrangles Seward A‐3. Available online at: http://enterprise.nwi.fws.gov/shapedata/alaska/ Viereck L. A., C. T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska Vegetation Classification. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Mapping Area 0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Miles Chenega Bay Hydroelectric ProjectPreliminary Jurisdictional Determination Vicinity Map Figure 1 MAP NOTES: 1. USGS topographic map Seward A-3 shown as base map. LEGEND Mapping Area PEM1/SS4B PEM1/SS4B 0 200 400100 Feet Chenega Bay Hydroelectric ProjectPreliminary Jurisdictional Determination NWI Mapping Figure 2 MAP NOTES: 1. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Sewardd A-3) 2. Base aerial image from Aerometric, Inc. taken June 28, 2005. LEGEND Mapping Area Chenega Creek NWI Mapped Wetlands PEM1/SS4B Saturated Mix Needleleaf Scrub-Shrub/Emergent Wetland Mapping Codes PEM1C PFO4B PFO4B PSS4/EM1C PSS4/EM1C PEM1C PEM1C PSS4/ EM1C PFO4B PFO4B PSS4/ EM1C PEM1C PEM1C PSS4/ EM1C PFO4B PSS4/ EM1C PSS4/EM1C PSS4/ EM1C PSS4/ EM1C PSS4/ EM1C PSS4/ EM1C 0 200 400100 Feet Chenega Bay Hydroelectric ProjectPreliminary Jurisdictional Determination Office-Based Wetland Mapping Figure 3 MAP NOTES: 1. Wetland mapping based on a review of aerial photographs, available resource mapping, and topographic information. No fieldwork has been conducted to verify boundaries. 2. Base aerial image from Aerometric, Inc. taken June 28, 2005. LEGEND Mapping Area Anderson Creek Wetlands PEM1C Seasonally Flooded Emergent Wetland PSS4/EM1C Seasonally Flooded Mix Needleleaf Scrub-Shrub/Emergent Wetland PFO4B Saturated Needleleaf Forest Wetland Mapping Codes