RFI 56a Pebble Project EIS Title/Subject: Requestor: Date Transmitted: Recipient: Response Requested by: Rationale: Describe the Information Requested and Level of Detail: Date Received from USACE: Response from Recipient (Describe Information Requested to the Level of Detail Requested; Provide Attachments as Needed): List Number and Type of Response Attachments: Date Returned to USACE: Request for Information Final Compensatory Mitigation Plan Shane McCoy 3/1/2019 Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) 08/1/2019 A compensatory mitigation plan (CMP) will be used in our determination whether the proposal is in compliance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines and the public interest review, and to inform the NEPA analysis. A draft/conceptual CMP was provided by PLP and was appended to the draft EIS. We request the following: A final CMP, which describes how unavoidable impacts to waters of the US would be offset, and which is written in accordance with 33 CFR Part 332. Recipient Response Form Click here to enter text. Please see attached Draft Plan PLP CMP (PLP006-20-003D8) LR.pdf Click here to enter text. AECOM Intake Form Date Response was Received: Received by: Describe any Follow-up Related to this RFI: 1/27/2020 AECOM Click here to enter text. DRAFT REPORT Pebble Project DRAFT Compensatory lVIitigation Plan January 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN CONTENTS Section Page CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. iii 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 2. Proposed Project.............................................................................................................................. 2 3. WOUS Fill Impacts from Proposed Project .................................................................................... 3 4. Compensatory Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 6 AF T 5. Affected Watersheds Analysis......................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Land Cover ................................................................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Wetlands and Other Waters.................................................................................................................... 11 5.3 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 16 5.4 Land Ownership ....................................................................................................................................... 19 5.5 Land Use .................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.6 Water Quality Contaminants .................................................................................................................. 21 5.7 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................................ 24 5.8 Summary of Watershed Conditions ...................................................................................................... 25 R 6. Project Effects on Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 26 D 7. Mitigation Opportunities Evaluated ............................................................................................. 29 7.1 Water Quality Improvement Projects ................................................................................................... 30 7.2 Removal of Pacific Salmon Passage Barriers ....................................................................................... 30 7.3 Marine Debris Removal at Kamishak Bay ........................................................................................... 31 8. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 32 9. References ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Attachments ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Attachment 1 – Figures Attachment 2 – Potential Compensatory Mitigation Projects Evaluated Attachment 3 – Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for Water Quality Improvement Projects Attachment 4 – Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for the Removal of Pacific Salmon Passage Barriers Attachment 5 – Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for Marine Debris Removal at Kamishak Bay JANUARY 2020 i PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN AF T List of Tables Table 1-1 PLP DA application submissions and supporting documentation to USACE ...................................... 2 Table 3-1 Summary of permanent and temporary WOUS impacts (acres)............................................................... 4 Table 3-2 Summary of permanent and temporary WOUS impacts (acres) by project element............................. 5 Table 3-3 Miles of anadromous streams impacted by the Project .............................................................................. 6 Table 4-1 Summary of permanent WOUS impacts (acres) by HUC 10 watershed ................................................. 8 Table 5-1 HUC 10 watersheds included in the geographic area of the watershed analysis .................................. 10 Table 5-2 NLCD Classification for the watershed Analysis Area............................................................................. 12 Table 5-3 Wetlands and other waters mapped by PLP in the Headwaters Koktuli River .................................... 13 Table 5-4 NWI wetlands and other waters in the Headwaters Koktuli River outside PLP mapped wetlands Analysis Area ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5-5 Wetlands and other waters of HUC 10 Watersheds, outside of the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 5-6 Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Watershed Analysis Area .................................................................... 17 Table 5-7 Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Headwaters Koktuli Watershed ......................................................... 18 Table 5-8 Land ownership for the watershed Analysis Area ..................................................................................... 20 Table 5-9 Selected sites of concern from WEAR 2012-2014 .................................................................................... 22 Table 6-1 Summary of aquatic resources (acres) in the HUC 10 Headwaters Koktuli River............................... 26 Table 6-2 Summary of aquatic resources (acres) in the HUC 10 Newhalen River, Iliamna Lake, Gibraltar Lake, Upper Talarik Creek, and Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay watersheds ............................... 28 Attachment 1 – Figures D R Figure 1 Geographic extent of the watershed analysis Figure 2 Area of anadromous waters Figure 3 Land ownership and land use JANUARY 2020 ii PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium AWM Alaska Wetlands Map BBNA Bristol Bay Native Association CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Compensatory Mitigation Plan CWA Clean Water Act DA Department of the Army ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FPID Fish Passage Inventory Database HGM Hydrogeomorphic HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IHS Indian Health Service ILF In-lieu Fee MOU Memorandum of Understanding NLCD National Land Cover Database NWI National Wetland Inventory OCS Outer Continental Shelf PJD Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination PLP Pebble Limited Partnership PRM Permittee-responsible Mitigation RHA Rivers and Harbors Act USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WEAR Waste Erosion Assessment and Review WOUS Waters of the U.S., including wetlands JANUARY 2020 D R AF T ADEC iii PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 1. Introduction Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) submitted a Department of the Army (DA) application, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on December 22nd, 2017 for the Pebble Project (Project) (POA2017-271). A revised application was submitted in January 2018. The DA application proposed the development of a copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry deposit as a surface mine in Southwest Alaska. A list of relevant PLP DA application submittals and supporting documentation, including upcoming revisions, is provided in Table 1-1. The Project is located on State of Alaska and private (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA] corporation) lands in Southwest Alaska near Iliamna Lake, primarily within the Lake and Peninsula Borough, with a portion of the supporting infrastructure in Cook Inlet Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) waters, and in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Project consists of four primary project elements: the mine site, the transportation corridor, the Amakdedori Port, and the natural gas pipeline. AF T The associated discharges of dredged or fill materials in Waters of the U.S. (WOUS), including wetlands, are subject to Section 404 of the CWA, except for those of the natural gas pipeline in OCS waters. The construction of Project elements in the navigable waters of Iliamna Lake and Cook Inlet are subject to Section 10 of the RHA, including those in OCS waters. Construction of the Project will permanently fill approximately 2,227 acres of WOUS, including wetlands, subject to Section 404 of the CWA. R PLP is submitting this Draft Compensatory Mitigation Plan (CMP) to the USACE in fulfillment of the requirements established by the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (The Rule) issued by the USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on April 10, 2008. The Rule emphasized the selection of compensatory mitigation sites on a watershed basis, established the operating standards for mitigation providers, and identified three mechanisms to accomplish compensatory mitigation: 1) mitigation banks, 2) in-lieu fee (ILF) programs, and 3) permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) plans. D This CMP follows The Rule’s requirements and the requirements of the June 15, 2018 Memorandum of Understanding (2018 MOU) between USACE and EPA regarding Mitigation Sequence for Wetlands in Alaska under Section 404 of the CWA (EPA, DA 2018). PLP’s analysis of the three mechanisms to compensate for the loss of wetlands and aquatic resource functions in the watershed is presented in the following sections. JANUARY 2020 1 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 1-1 PLP DA application submissions and supporting documentation to USACE Submitted to USACE Document Name Department of the Army permit application package (POA2017-271) December 2017 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) January 2019 Revised Department of the Army permit application package (POA-2017-271) April 2019 Revised Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD R2) November 2019 Revised Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD R3) January 2019 Draft Conceptual Compensatory Mitigation Plan Proposed Project 2. Accepted by USACE on March 20th, 2018. A revised DA application reflecting updates to the project description was submitted to USACE. Revised wetlands PJD with additional wetlands fieldwork conducted in 2018. Revised wetlands PJD with additional wetlands fieldwork conducted in 2019. This November 2019 plan supersedes the Draft Conceptual Compensatory Mitigation Plan AF T December 2017 Remarks R The Pebble Project comprises four primary elements: The mine site at the Pebble deposit location; one port site in Kamishak Bay in Cook Inlet and two ferry terminals in Iliamna Lake; a road corridor connecting the mine site, ferry terminals and port; and a natural gas pipeline connecting to existing infrastructure on the Kenai Peninsula. Mine Site. The proposed mine site is in the Iliamna region of Southwest Alaska, approximately 200 miles southwest of Anchorage and 60 miles west of Cook Inlet. The closest communities are the villages of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton, each approximately 17 miles from the mine site in a general easterly direction. The fully developed mine site will include the open pit, tailings storage facilities, overburden stockpiles, material sites, water management ponds, milling and processing facilities, and supporting infrastructure such as the power plant, water treatment plants, camp facilities, and storage facilities. • Transportation Corridor. The proposed transportation corridor will connect the mine site to the proposed Amakdedori Port on Cook Inlet, and includes two main components: 1) a private, doublelane road extending 35 miles south from the mine site to a ferry terminal at Eagle Bay on Iliamna Lake; and 2) a private, double-lane road extending 37 miles southeast from the south ferry terminal to the Amakdedori Port on Kamishak Bay. Separate spur roads will connect the transportation corridor to the villages of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Kokhanok. • Port and Ferry Terminals. The port site will be located north of the Amakdedori Creek outflow into Kamishak Bay on the western shore of Cook Inlet, approximately 190 miles southwest of Anchorage and approximately 95 miles southwest of Homer. The port site will include shore-based and marine facilities for the transfer, shipment, and temporary storage of concentrate, freight, and fuel for the D • JANUARY 2020 2 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Project. The marine component includes a caisson supported causeway extending out to wharf located in 15 feet of natural water depth. Copper-gold concentrate containers will be loaded onto lightering barges at the Amakdedori Port and then transported to one of two lightering locations for transfer to bulk carriers. The primary lightering location is approximately 12 miles offshore due east of the proposed Amakdedori Port, the alternative lightering location is approximately 18 miles eastnortheast of the proposed Amakdedori Port between Augustine Island and the mainland. The lightering locations will consist of permanently anchored buoys for mooring the bulk carriers. Two ferry terminals, one on the north shore of Iliamna Lake (located approximately 6.0 miles east of Iliamna) and the other on the south shore of the lake (located approximately 5.1 miles west of the village of Kokhanok), would support the operation of an ice-breaking ferry to transport materials, equipment, and concentrate 28 miles across Iliamna Lake. 3. Natural Gas Pipeline and Fiber Optic Cable. Natural gas will be the primary energy source for the Pebble Project. The natural gas pipeline alignment will connect to an existing natural gas pipeline, and new compressor station located north of Anchor River on the Kenai Peninsula. From there, the pipeline heads southwest across Cook Inlet before turning west to a landfall at the Amakdedori Port. The pipeline then follows the transportation corridor from the port to the south ferry terminal. At the south ferry terminal, the pipeline trends north along the lakebed of Iliamna Lake and makes landfall west of the community of Newhalen, where it continues north and rejoins the mine access road. From there, the pipeline continues west towards the mine site following the mine access road. A fiber optic cable would be co-located with the pipeline. AF T • WOUS Fill Impacts from Proposed Project D R Construction of the Project will require the discharge of fill material into 3,083 acres of WOUS. This includes 2,227 acres of permanent impacts and 856 acres of temporary impacts in WOUS (Table 3-1). Permanent impacts include cut and fill activities at facility locations where the fill cannot be practicably removed from WOUS. Temporary impacts occur where fill is placed into wetlands or WOUS for a limited period during construction to facilitate construction activities, then removed allowing return of wetland functions. Two categories of temporary impacts have been identified for the Project: 1) Construction of the transportation corridor infrastructure from Amakdedori to the mine site will, in some areas, require the temporary placement of fill consisting of mixed vegetative matter and topsoil, or rock and soil from cuts, into areas adjacent to the toe of the defined roadbed and associated pipeline trench. Any such material would typically be placed on one side (the downslope side) of the road. Typical road construction through wetlands would consist of the placement of a coarse rock fill and/or geotextile and fill directly to the existing surface and should not require the temporary storage of material adjacent to the road toe. Furthermore, wetland areas would be flagged ahead of construction and reasonable efforts would be made to avoid impacts beyond the permanent road footprint. However, to address this potential for temporary construction impacts PLP has assumed a 30-foot buffer on each side of the permanently impacted footprint for the transportation corridor. These construction-related impacts to wetlands will occur over a period of approximately one year. JANUARY 2020 3 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 2) Placement of the heavy-wall pipe on the Cook Inlet seabed and Iliamna Lake lakebed has the potential to result in temporary impacts associated with pipe placement activities (i.e. trenching). These temporary construction-related impacts to wetlands will typically have a duration of a few days to a few weeks at any given location. Cross country construction of the pipeline where it is not coincident with the road will also result in temporary construction impacts and PLP has assumed a 150-foot wide construction corridor for these areas. These construction-related impacts to wetlands will occur over a period of approximately two years. The Project has prepared a Restoration Plan that describes the processes and measures that PLP will implement to restore temporary impacted areas on land (Owl Ridge 2019). AF T A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) report was prepared for the Project (HDR 2019). As part of the data collection and mapping inventory, WOUS, including wetlands, and uplands were classified by an Enhanced National Wetlands Inventory (ENWI) classification code. The classification codes are based on the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al. 1979) and NWI Mapping Conventions (USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1995). Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) coding was also applied to the mapping and was based on Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands (Brinson 1993). Lacustrine waters and riverine channel waters are HGM map codes specific to the Project. While lacustrine fringe wetlands occur adjacent to lakes, the lakes themselves are classified as lacustrine waters, and small wetlands and flowing WOUS contained within an active channel are classified as riverine channel waters (HDR 2019). R A summary of permanent and temporary WOUS impacts grouped by HGM and Cowardin classifications for each project element is provided in Table 3-2. Cowardin classification were grouped by System, Subsystem (if defined) and Class. Most permanent discharges of fill for the mine site and transportation corridor will impact slope palustrine scrub-shrub, and slope-emergent WOUS (Table 3-2). D Riverine channel waters impacted by the project include approximately 8.8 miles of anadromous streams, including 8.5 miles of permanent impacts and 0.3 miles of temporary impacts (Table 3-3). Table 3-1 Summary of permanent and temporary WOUS impacts (acres) Facility Mine Site Transportation Corridor Port and Ferry Terminals Natural Gas Pipeline Total JANUARY 2020 Permanent 2,162.63 60.54 2.33 0.99 2,226.49 Temporary 46.52 5.02 805.23 856.77 Total Acres % 2,162.63 70.1% 107.06 3.5% 7.35 0.2% 806.22 26.2% 3,083.26 100.0% 4 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 3-2 Summary of permanent and temporary WOUS impacts (acres) by project element Permanent Impacts Port Transportation Corridor 0.87 0.09 0.31 0.27 0.20 0.69 0.33 0.36 1.67 0.97 0.23 0.47 2.33 0.07 2.26 1.72 0.20 0.09 1.31 0.11 1.76 0.24 1.52 0.00 53.83 0.14 12.96 1.88 33.36 5.41 0.08 2.33 60.54 Permanent Total 51.19 4.87 7.22 30.23 8.87 9.04 3.00 6.04 2.66 1.96 0.23 0.47 0.04 0.04 2.33 0.07 2.26 126.87 41.71 0.09 77.77 7.29 51.44 4.05 45.78 1.60 1,982.92 2.27 560.26 1.88 1,399.21 17.04 2.27 2,226.49 Natural Gas Pipeline 1.75 0.12 1.44 0.02 0.02 0.15 7.92 1.64 6.28 156.03 155.82 0.21 627.12 0.90 626.22 1.51 0.22 0.42 0.87 0.32 0.01 0.30 10.59 2.62 7.97 805.23 T 50.33 4.79 6.91 29.96 8.67 8.35 2.67 5.68 0.04 0.04 125.15 41.51 76.46 7.18 49.67 3.81 44.27 1.60 1,929.09 2.13 547.29 1,365.85 11.63 2.19 2,162.63 D DEPRESSIONAL WETLANDS Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore FLAT WETLANDS Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub-Shrub LACUSTRINE WATERS Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated Bottom Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Bottom Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore LACUSTRINE FRINGE WETLANDS Palustrine Emergent MARINE WATERS Marine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore Marine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom RIVERINE WETLANDS Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom RIVERINE CHANNEL WATERS Riverine Intermittent Streambed Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore SLOPE WETLANDS Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Grand Total Natural Gas Pipeline 0.99 0.99 0.99 R Mine Site AF HGM and Cowardin Classification Temporary Impacts Port Transportation Corridor 1.03 0.16 0.27 0.36 0.24 0.68 0.30 0.38 2.20 1.58 0.07 0.55 5.02 0.78 4.24 1.45 0.16 0.28 0.93 0.09 1.57 0.16 0.04 1.31 0.07 39.59 0.11 9.15 1.32 24.85 4.09 0.06 5.02 46.52 Temporary Total 2.78 0.12 1.60 0.29 0.38 0.39 8.60 1.94 6.66 158.23 157.40 0.07 0.76 632.14 1.68 630.46 2.96 0.38 0.70 1.80 0.09 1.89 0.17 0.04 1.61 0.07 50.18 0.11 11.77 1.32 32.83 4.09 0.06 856.78 Grand Total 53.97 0.12 6.47 7.51 30.61 9.27 17.64 4.94 12.69 160.89 159.36 0.30 1.23 0.04 0.04 634.47 1.74 632.72 129.83 42.09 0.79 79.57 7.38 53.32 4.22 0.04 47.40 1.67 2,033.11 2.38 572.03 3.20 1,432.03 21.13 2.33 3,083.26 Note: Minor discrepancies in totals are the result of rounding numbers. JANUARY 2020 5 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 3-3 Miles of anadromous streams impacted by the Project Impact in miles Impact Duration Permanent HUC10 Watershed Mine Site Transportation Corridor Natural Gas Pipeline Grand Total 4. Grand Total Temporary Headwaters Koktuli River Iliamna Lake Newhalen River Upper Talarik Creek Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay 8.5 -- -- -- -- 8.5 -- 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.21 -- -- 0.03 -- -- 0.03 8.5 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.02 8.74 Compensatory Mitigation D R AF T PLP has avoided and minimized, to the extent practicable, discharges of fill into WOUS, including wetlands: avoidance and minimization measures are discussed in Block 23 of the DA Application. PLP is proposing compensatory mitigation for 2,227 acres of permanent unavoidable impacts to WOUS and aquatic resource functions in the watersheds. PLP is not proposing compensatory mitigation for 857 acres of temporary impacts (including 464 acres in OCS waters that are not subject to Section 404 of the CWA), as those WOUS and functions are expected to recover in the short term after restoration. The proposed permanent impacts are distributed among six Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 10 watersheds. A summary of permanent WOUS impacts grouped by HGM and Cowardin classification for each HUC 10 watershed is provided in Table 4-1. Most of the proposed WOUS impacts (97% or 2,158 acres) are in the Headwaters Koktuli River HUC 10 watershed. Impacts to ‘open waters’ such as streams, lakes and marine waters have been minimized to the extent practicable. Discharges of fill at the mine site would be placed in 125 acres of riverine wetland HGM with mostly palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands, and 50 acres of riverine channel water HGM, mainly palustrine upper perennial. Construction of the Amakdedori Port will discharge fill in 2.2 acres of marine water HGM, including 0.1 acre of marine intertidal WOUS and 2.1 acres of marine subtidal WOUS. Construction of the ferry terminals would require the discharge of fill into 0.04 acres of lacustrine fringe wetland HGM. The Rule emphasizes the selection of compensatory mitigation sites using a watershed approach and established three types of compensatory mitigation mechanisms: (1) mitigation banks, (2) ILF programs, and (3) permittee-responsible mitigation plans. PLP consulted the Regulatory In-Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) and confirmed the existence of The Conservation Fund ILF with a service area that includes the Project (USACE 2018). However, as of October 16, 2017 the fund is no longer authorized to sell credits (USACE 2017). The Project is not located in the service area of an approved bank or ILF with appropriate credits available. In the absence of mitigation banks or an ILF program in the watersheds, 33 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 332.3 (b)(4) states that “permittee-responsible mitigation is the only option.” Three PRM options are identified in The Rule and 2018 MOU. PRM projects using a watershed approach are most favored. Such projects consider the needs of the watershed for advancing and sustaining aquatic resource functions, such as the need for specific habitat enhancements, water quality improvements, or flood control. On-site, in-kind PRM projects replace the specific wetland functions and values that are JANUARY 2020 6 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN D R AF T impacted at the same location as the fill site. Off-site, out-of-kind PRM projects focus on preserving, creating, restoring and enhancing WOUS with different functions and values than the impacted WOUS. JANUARY 2020 7 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 4-1 Summary of permanent WOUS impacts (acres) by HUC 10 watershed JANUARY 2020 Newhalen River Iliamna Lake Gibraltar Lake Upper Talarik Creek Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay 2.18 2.11 0.04 0.04 125.15 41.51 76.46 7.18 49.68 0.63 0.09 0.53 2.33 2.26 0.07 0.07 0.30 0.00 2.66 1.96 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.47 0.04 0.06 1.03 0.20 0.72 0.11 0.04 126.87 41.71 0.09 77.77 7.29 0.20 0.16 0.58 51.44 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.18 4.05 0.66 0.18 0.15 0.40 45.78 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.13 1.60 8.35 2.67 5.68 0.15 0.15 Total 0.69 0.13 3.81 44.27 AF 0.41 0.00 0.00 T 2.36 1.95 Cook Inlet R MARINE WATERS Marine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom Marine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore LACUSTRINE WATERS Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated Bottom Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Bottom Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore LACUSTRINE FRINGE WETLANDS Palustrine Emergent RIVERINE WETLANDS Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom RIVERINE CHANNEL WATERS Riverine Intermittent Streambed Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore FLAT WETLANDS Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Headwaters Koktuli River D HGM and Cowardin Classification 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.40 0.33 0.07 9.04 3.00 6.04 8 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Newhalen River 1,925.27 2.13 546.47 3.33 Iliamna Lake Gibraltar Lake Upper Talarik Creek Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay 19.29 0.14 5.06 1.58 11.14 1.29 8.28 12.61 14.15 2.36 1.75 4.62 4.95 0.97 10.85 0.01 6.39 3.15 2.19 0.07 0.01 49.90 0.55 0.30 3.03 1,362.85 11.63 4.72 6.91 29.70 T SLOPE WETLANDS Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore DEPRESSIONAL WETLANDS Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Grand Total Headwaters Koktuli River 0.74 AF HGM and Cowardin Classification 0.31 0.24 8.57 2,158.38 4.38 22.94 8.48 1,982.92 2.27 560.26 1.88 1,399.21 17.04 2.27 0.01 51.19 0.01 4.87 7.22 30.23 0.15 0.28 8.87 0.31 14.93 Total 17.22 0.15 2,226.49 D R Note: Minor discrepancies in totals are the result of rounding numbers. Cook Inlet JANUARY 2020 9 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 5. Affected Watersheds Analysis A watershed approach is used to establish compensatory mitigation requirements to the extent appropriate and practicable (33 CFR 332.2). The watershed approach is an analytical process for making compensatory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability or improvement of aquatic resources in a watershed. It considers watershed needs, and how locations and types of compensatory mitigation projects address those needs. A landscape perspective is used to identify the types and locations of compensatory mitigation projects that will benefit the watershed and offset losses of aquatic resource functions and services caused by activities authorized by DA permits. This section provides a summary of available data used to determine the watershed conditions. AF T The geographic area of the watershed analysis (Analysis Area) extends over three HUC 6 basins (Nushagak River, Kvichak-Port Heiden, and Western Cook Inlet) and includes 15 HUC 10 watersheds encompassing approximately 3,709,208 acres (Table 5-1, Figure 1 [figures are included in Attachment 1]). The Project footprint includes facilities on the Kenai Peninsula, in the Stariski Creek-Frontal Cook Inlet HUC 10 watershed, but there are no impacts to WOUS, and this watershed is excluded from the Analysis Area. Cook Inlet waters are also excluded from the Analysis Area as WOUS impacts will be minimal (approximately 0.1 acres) or temporary, and no compensatory mitigation is proposed for temporary impacts. Each watershed includes important physical features, ecological processes, and resource types for the sustainability of aquatic resource functions. Table 5-1 HUC 10 watersheds included in the geographic area of the watershed analysis HUC 10 Watershed Project Element Nushagak River (HUC 6) Headwaters Koktuli River 1903030213 Outlet Koktuli River Mine site 170,635 Transportation corridor; natural gas pipeline & fiber optic cable 1903030215 120,176 Pine Creek-Mulchatna River Transportation corridor; natural gas pipeline & fiber optic cable 124,317 1903030217 Outlet Mulchatna River Downstream of Mine site 232,422 1903030302 Tunravik Creek-Nushagak River Downstream of Mine site 222,834 1903030307 Lower Klutuk Creek-Nushagak River Downstream of Mine site 170,512 1903030309 Portage Creek-Nushagak River Downstream of Mine site 216,422 1903030310 Scandinavian Slough-Nushagak River Downstream of Mine site 196,184 1903030311 Little Muklung River-Nushagak River Downstream of Mine site 204,360 1903030608 Nushagak Bay-Frontal Bristol Bay Downstream of Mine site 329,352 D R 1903030211 Watershed Acres Kvichak-Port Heiden (HUC 6) 1903020514 Newhalen River Transportation corridor 1903020609 Iliamna Lake Transportation corridor; natural gas pipeline & fiber optic cable 1,201,978 119,725 1903020606 Gibraltar Lake Transportation corridor; natural gas pipeline & fiber optic cable 81,594 1903020607 Upper Talarik Creek Mine site; transportation corridor; natural gas pipeline & fiber optic cable 87,547 Transportation corridor; natural gas pipeline and fiber optic cable; Amakdedori Port 231,151 Western Cook Inlet (HUC 6) 1902060212 Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay Total 3,709,208 Source: USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset, 2018 JANUARY 2020 10 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 5.1 Land Cover The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Jim, et al. 2011) provides a rapid estimate of land cover types for watersheds, including percent of developed areas and percent of vegetated cover. The most abundant land cover in the Analysis Area is scrub-shrub at 39 percent (See Table 5-2). Open water is the second most abundant cover at 22 percent, most of which (90 percent) is Iliamna Lake. Dwarf shrub is the next most widely distributed vegetation types at 19 percent. Barren lands are unvegetated areas that generally occur at hill tops and shorelines and account for approximately one percent of cover types in the Analysis Area. Mixed forest, evergreen forest, and deciduous forest account for approximately 10 percent of cover types. Less than one percent is identified by the NLCD as developed areas, woody wetlands, perennial ice/snow, and moss areas (See Table 5-2). Wetlands mapped in the NLCD are generally undercounted because the data analysis process is not optimized for this purpose. Wetlands are discussed in section 5.2. 5.2 Wetlands and Other Waters R AF T Using a consistent dataset for the calculation of wetlands is desired for equitable assessment of habitat types on a broad level. Three wetlands datasets provide varying coverage of the Analysis Area: Alaska Wetlands Mapping (AWM), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and PLP wetlands mapping. Only one available dataset, the AWM, covers the entire area with a uniform method of analysis and scale. The AWM is derived from L-band radar imagery acquired by Japanese Earth Resources Satellite (JERS-1) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and is available with a resolution of 100-meter pixels. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) NWI dataset covers approximately 60 percent of the Analysis Area and would need to be supplemented by the AWM dataset. The Headwaters Koktuli River is the only watershed covered 100 percent by the NWI data. A third dataset available is the PLP wetlands mapping for the immediate vicinity of the Project footprint and includes 89 percent of the surface area in the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed. The PLP wetlands data outside the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed are generally limited to the transportation corridor and are of limited use in the evaluation of the Analysis Area. D Most of the proposed Project wetland impacts are in the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed. It is appropriate to provide and use the most accurate data for that portion of the Analysis Area. The PLPgenerated data for the Headwaters Koktuli River is provided in Table 5-3. Since the PLP wetlands mapping only includes 89 percent of the surface area in the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed, NWI data were used to supplement the remaining 11 percent of the watershed (Table 5-4). The AWM dataset is the only consistent dataset for the entire Analysis Area and was used for the remainder of the watersheds and is provided in Table 5-5. The AWM provides only wetlands; therefore, other waters were calculated from the National Hydrography Dataset 1:63,360 scale mapping (USGS 2018). The Headwaters Koktuli River watershed includes approximately 59,581 acres of wetlands, including 48,693 acres mapped by PLP and 10,888 acres mapped by the NWI. Slope palustrine scrub-shrub (42.65%), slope palustrine emergent (18.3%) and riverine palustrine scrub-shrub (12.01%) and emergent (4.44%) are the most abundant wetlands mapped by PLP in the watershed (Table 5-3). The NWI data are not grouped by HGM, but palustrine scrub-shrub (71.74%) and palustrine emergent (23.93%) are the most widely distributed wetlands (Table 5-4). JANUARY 2020 11 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 5-2 NLCD Classification for the watershed Analysis Area Land Cover Class Pine CreekHeadwaters Outlet Mulchatna Koktuli River Koktuli River River (%) (%) (%) Outlet Mulchatna River (%) Nushagak River Lower Tunravik Klutuk CreekCreekNushagak Nushagak River River (%) (%) Western Cook Inlet Kvichak-Port Heiden Little Portage Scandinavian Muklung SloughCreekRiverNushagak Nushagak Nushagak River River River (%) (%) (%) Nushagak Bay-Frontal Newhalen River Bristol Bay (%) (%) Iliamna Lake (%) Gibraltar Lake (%) Upper Talarik Creek (%) Amakdedori Analysis Area Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay Total (%) (%) 2 <1 <1 3 <1 3 <1 1 <1 3 <1 3 <1 2 0 2 <1 3 1 <1 3 5 3 3 4 4 <1 2 9 3 1 2 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 42 0 22 0 22 0 19 0 22 0 17 0 22 0 23 0 23 0 6 <1 13 <1 12 <1 38 <1 47 <1 13 <1 19 <1 <1 <1 2 2 2 <1 <1 2 <1 <1 51 <1 12 2 <1 1 0 <1 58 <1 6 2 0 4 0 <1 61 <1 4 3 0 5 0 4 61 <1 7 3 <1 6 0 4 52 <1 Total 100 100 100 100 AF 9 12 18 13 5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 6 13 5 <1 7 0 7 39 <1 6 3 <1 7 0 9 38 1 3 3 <1 6 0 3 42 <1 2 2 <1 17 0 <1 37 3 <1 <1 <1 74 0 <1 13 <1 11 11 <1 9 <1 <1 46 1 4 5 <1 57 <1 <1 16 <1 <1 1 <1 6 <1 <1 46 <1 2 <1 <1 2 <1 <1 46 <1 <1 <1 <1 3 <1 <1 71 <1 5 3 <1 22 <1 3 39 <1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 R 100 T Barren Land Deciduous Forest Developed, High Intensity Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, Open Space Dwarf Shrub Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Moss Open Water Perennial Ice/Snow Sedge/Herbaceous Shrub/Scrub Woody Wetlands D Source: National Land Cover Database (Jim, et al. 2011). Differences in the acreage between the above and those shown in Table 5-1 are a result of the differences in data resolution and data types (vector versus raster data). JANUARY 2020 12 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 5-3 Wetlands and other waters mapped by PLP in the Headwaters Koktuli River HGM and Cowardin Classification 975.0 844.4 10.1 33.0 33.8 1.1 51.0 2.7 126.7 0.3 9.4 50.7 0.2 64.8 0.5 0.9 8,345.6 1.8 2,163.4 38.5 2.9 5,847.3 160.6 67.6 0.1 41.5 19.1 <0.01 2.2 0.5 1,070.0 1.0 0.3 38.1 6.0 64.1 19.1 0.3 166.6 9.1 0.1 635.7 129.6 6,599.8 <0.1 1,623.7 0.2 33.7 4,917.6 % 2.00% 1.73% 0.02% 0.07% 0.07% <0.01% 0.10% 0.01% 0.26% 0.00% 0.02% 0.10% <0.01% 0.13% <0.01% <0.01% 17.14% <0.01% 4.44% 0.08% 0.01% 12.01% 0.33% 0.14% <0.01% 0.09% 0.04% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% 2.20% <0.01% <0.01% 0.08% 0.01% 0.13% 0.04% <0.01% 0.34% 0.02% <0.01% 1.31% 0.27% 13.55% <0.01% 3.33% <0.01% 0.07% 10.10% D R AF T Lacustrine Waters Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated Bottom Lacustrine Littoral Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Bottom Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Lacustrine Fringe Wetlands Lacustrine Littoral Emergent Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Moss-Lichen Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Wetlands Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Moss-Lichen Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Intermittent Streambed Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Upper Perennial Aquatic Bed Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Channel Waters Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Intermittent Streambed Riverine Lower Perennial Aquatic Bed Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Upper Perennial Emergent Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore Flat Wetlands Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Moss-Lichen Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Acres JANUARY 2020 13 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Acres 4.1 20.3 <0.1 29,813.9 6.1 8,911.2 2.2 27.5 20,768.5 69.3 28.3 0.3 0.5 1,561.2 <0.1 4.8 155.3 0.5 172.7 913.1 314.8 201.3 2.6 197.9 0.9 48,693.5 % 0.01% 0.04% <0.01% 61.23% 0.01% 18.3% <0.01% 0.06% 42.65% 0.14% 0.06% <0.01% <0.01% 3.21% <0.01% 0.01% 0.32% <0.01% 0.35% 1.88% 0.65% 0.41% 0.01% 0.41% <0.01% 100% AF T HGM and Cowardin Classification Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Intermittent Slope Wetlands Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Moss-Lichen Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore Depressional Wetlands Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Moss-Lichen Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore N/A Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Grand Total R Source: PLP mapped wetlands. Minor discrepancies in totals are the result of rounding numbers. Table 5-4 NWI wetlands and other waters in the Headwaters Koktuli River outside PLP mapped wetlands Analysis Area Acres % Palustrine Emergent 2,605.4 23.93% Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 7,811.1 71.74% Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 248.4 2.28% Riverine Unknown Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom 222.8 2.05% 10,887.7 100% D Cowardin Classification Grand Total Source: USFWS NWI mapped wetlands. For the remaining Analysis Area watersheds, the percentage of wetlands and other waters ranges from 14 percent in the Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay watershed, to 100 percent in the Lower Klutuk Creek-Nushagak River watershed (Table 5-5). The most abundant wetlands types are palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent. The Newhalen River, Iliamna Lake, Gibraltar Lake, and Upper Talarik Creek HUC 10 watersheds contain many rivers and streams that drain into Iliamna Lake. At 1,012 sq. mi, 77 miles long, up to 22 miles wide, and up to 984 feet deep, Iliamna Lake is the largest fresh-water waterbody in the Analysis Area. The Kvichak River drains from Iliamna Lake southwest into Bristol Bay. JANUARY 2020 14 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 5-5 Wetlands and other waters of HUC 10 Watersheds, outside of the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed Outlet Mulchatna River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,658 0 0 52,233 65,891 15,113 10 0 81,859 96,982 2,622 2 2,370 206,689 211,683 1,147 74 9,820 189,532 200,573 7,561 0 15,059 139,812 162,432 33,055 0 502 164,152 197,709 0 955 955 306 0 3,780 3,780 393 0 9,281 9,281 851 0 8,941 8,941 505 0 9,805 9,805 355 120,176 65,891 55 955 1 124,317 96,982 78 3,780 3 232,422 211,683 91 9,281 4 222,834 200,573 90 8,941 4 66,846 100,762 220,964 56 81 306 393 0 0 0 Western Cook Inlet Kvichak-Port Heiden Nushagak Bay-Frontal Bristol Bay 0 0 0 Newhalen River 0 0 0 T Pine CreekMulchatna River Iliamna Lake Amakdedori Upper Gibraltar Creek-Frontal Talarik Creek Kamishak Bay Lake Analysis Area Total 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,525 0 1,525 1,540 0 1,540 0 0 116 116 42 42 0 0 0 0 035 35 193 193 145,011 0 0 27,231 172,242 86,460 0 30 63,489 149,979 77,379 121 0 52 77,552 30,908 0 59 25,610 56,577 133,446 0 682 136,444 270,572 7,594 0 0 13,964 21,558 13,200 0 44 22,111 35,355 5,666 0 62 20,240 25,968 572,820 207 28,628 1,143,418 1,745,073 0 9,186 9,186 502 0 8,700 8,700 303 0 4,383 4,383 388 0 3,986 3,986 112 0 8,075 8,075 250 0 681,658 681,658 881 38 5,331 5,369 91 0 1,680 1,680 250 0 3,960 3,960 684 38 759,721 759,759 5,871 170,512 162,432 95 9,805 6 216,422 197,709 91 9,186 4 196,184 172,242 88 8,700 4 204,360 149,979 73 4,383 2 329,352 77,552 24 3,986 1 119,725 56,693 47 8,075 7 1,201,978 270,629 23 681,658 57 81,594 21,558 26 5,369 7 87,547 35,355 40 1,680 2 231,151 27,528 12 3,960 2 3,538,574 1,746,806 49 759,759 21 209,514 172,237 206,895 180,942 154,362 81,538 64,768 952,287 26,927 39,315 31,488 2,506,565 95 94 101 96 92 76 25 54 79 33 45 14 71 851 505 355 502 303 388 112 250 881 91 250 684 5,871 AF 0 0 R Estuarine Emergent (ac) Forested (ac) Total (ac) Lacustrine Emergent (ac) Total (ac) Palustrine Emergent (ac) Moss-lichen (ac) Forested (ac) Scrub-Shrub (ac) Total Other Waters Ice (Glacier) (ac) Lakes (ac) Total (ac) Streams (mi) Summary Watershed Size (ac) Wetlands (ac) Wetlands (%) Other Waters (ac) Other Waters (%) Wetlands and Other Waters (ac) Wetlands and Other Waters (%) Streams (mi) Outlet Koktuli River D Wetlands and Other Waters Nushagak River Lower Little Tunravik Klutuk Portage Scandinavian Muklung CreekSloughCreekCreekRiverNushagak Nushagak Nushagak Nushagak Nushagak River River River River River Source: Wetlands – Alaska Wetlands Map; Other Waters – National Hydrography Dataset JANUARY 2020 15 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 5.3 Fish and Wildlife The wetlands and other WOUS in the watersheds provide habitat for mammals, fish, and bird animal species, many of which are of high importance to the ecosystems they inhabit and to the local economies and subsistence lifestyles. Representative indicator animal species in the Analysis Area include: Caribou. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in this area are referred to as the Mulchatna Caribou Herd. Caribou prefer tundra habitats. Their distribution in the watersheds include the Headwaters Koktuli River, Upper Talarik Creek, Newhalen River, and the western shores of Iliamna Lake. In the mid1990s, the caribou population peaked at about 200,000 animals, and then the herd began simultaneously declining in numbers and expanding its range north and west. This current decade the population reached a low of approximately 18,000 caribou; although in 2015 it had shown an increase to over 30,000. During the late 1990s, reported annual harvests peaked at over 5,000 caribou but during the 2010s, the reported harvest has not exceeded 466 caribou per year (Van Lanen 2018). • Lake Seals. Iliamna Lake provides habitat to a population of freshwater seals, which are believed to be harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), although the exact species identification remains uncertain. These seals are unique in that freshwater seal populations are very rare in the northern hemisphere. Over the 28 years of aerial surveys, counts have ranged from zero to more than 300 seals, with the largest numbers occurring during August. The seals spend most of their time in and around the island systems of the northeast portion of the lake and during salmon season feed near the mouths of the lake’s tributary rivers and streams. Approximately 3-5 seals are harvested per community per year (Van Lanen 2018). • Fish. The Bristol Bay watershed, of which these watersheds are a part, support important commercial and sport fisheries for Pacific salmon and other fishes. The watersheds provide spawning and rearing habitat for all species of anadromous Pacific salmon (Figure 2): sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho (O. kisutch), Chinook (O. tshawytscha), chum (O. keta), and pink (O. gorbuscha). The most abundant species in the watersheds is sockeye salmon. Waters in the watersheds provide habitat for other fish species, including rainbow trout (O. mykiss), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), Arctic char (S. alpinus), lake trout (S. namaycush), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), northern pike (Esox lucius), and humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian). These fishes occupy a variety of habitats in the watershed, from headwater streams to wetlands to large rivers and lakes. The Analysis Area includes approximately 1,120 miles of anadromous streams and 684,616 acres of anadromous waterbodies (Table 5-6). D R AF T • JANUARY 2020 16 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 5-6 Anadromous fish habitat in the watershed Analysis Area Outlet Koktuli River Streams (mi) Lakes (acres) 143 428 81 0 Pine CreekOutlet Mulchatna Mulchatna River River 35 0 111 0 78 0 84 0 Kvichak-Port Heiden Little Portage Scandinavian Muklung SloughNushagak RiverCreekNushagak Nushagak Nushagak Bay-Frontal Newhalen Bristol Bay River River River River 65 0 37 0 60 0 0 0 53 5,749 Iliamna Lake Gibraltar Lake Upper Talarik Creek 213 656,304 43 3,206 76 35 Western Analysis Cook Inlet Area Amakdedori CreekFrontal Kamishak Total Bay 41 428 1,120 666,134 T Anadromous Waters Headwaters Koktuli River Nushagak River Lower Tunravik Klutuk CreekCreekNushagak Nushagak River River D R AF Source: ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog (ADF&G 2019). JANUARY 2020 17 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN The Headwaters Koktuli River watershed includes approximately 143 stream miles and 428 lake acres of anadromous fish habitat for Arctic char, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, and sockeye salmon (ADF&G 2019). Sockeye and coho salmon have the greatest distribution of any anadromous fish in the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed (Table 5-7). Sockeye salmon spawning has been documented in approximately 164 lake acres and 59 stream miles and rearing in 152 lake acres and 53 stream miles. Coho salmon spawning has been documented in approximately 79 stream miles and rearing in 187 lake acres and 123 stream miles. Chinook spawning has been documented in 64 stream miles and rearing in 83 stream miles. Chum spawning includes approximately 49 stream miles and rearing 7 stream miles. Arctic char is present in 41 stream miles. Table 5-7 Anadromous fish habitat in the Headwaters Koktuli Watershed Arctic char Stream (miles) Chinook salmon Lake (acres) Stream (miles) Chum salmon Stream (miles) Coho salmon Lake (acres) Stream (miles) Sockeye salmon Lake (acres) Stream (miles) Present Rearing Spawning 41 -- -- 164.3 11.9 -83.3 -63.8 3.5 6.7 49.5 219.1 19.4 187.1 123.3 79.0 52.0 14.8 151.5 52.7 164.3 58.8 AF T Fish Species Source: ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog (ADF&G 2019). Pacific Salmon Barriers. Culverts that do not mimic the characteristics of the stream, including bankfull width, slope, and depth, can impede both upstream and downstream fish movement. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) maintains the Fish Passage Inventory Database (FPID) (ADF&G 2001) that stores the results of over 2,500 culverts assessed for fish passage by ADF&G since 2001. This database includes detailed physical data for each culvert evaluated, and a determination regarding each culvert’s adequacy to allow passage of juvenile fish. The FPID currently includes a total of 710 culverts that are ‘inadequate passage’ for fish; 350 as ‘unlikely passage’; and 232 that are yet to be determined. Inadequate passage culverts affect hundreds of miles of anadromous and other fish-bearing streams through western and southcentral Alaska, including communities in the Lake and Peninsula Borough, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the MatanuskaSusitna Borough, and the Municipality of Anchorage. This database includes five ‘inadequate passage’ and seven ‘unlikely passage’ culverts on tributary streams of the Nushagak River downstream of project impacts in the community of Dillingham, affecting at least 10.5 mi of anadromous streams. • Protected Species. Protected species in the watershed include southcentral stock northern Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni), which make use of the marine shorelines of Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay. • Other. The watersheds’ wetlands and aquatic resources provide habitat for large carnivores, such as brown bears (Ursus arctos), bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), gray wolves (Canis lupus), ungulates such as moose (Alces alces gigas), and numerous species of waterfowl and small mammals. Brown D R • JANUARY 2020 18 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN bears are abundant in the Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds. Moose are abundant, particularly in the Nushagak River watershed where felt-leaf willow, a preferred forage species, is plentiful. 5.4 Land Ownership Generalized land status data to the section level (generally 1 square mile) including federal, State of Alaska, and native lands is produced by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR 2018). Approximately 85 percent of the 3,709,208-acre Analysis Area (3,165,848 acres) encompasses public lands, including State of Alaska (48%) and federally owned (18%) lands (Table 5-8). Overall, the State of Alaska is the largest surface landowner. Approximately 32 percent of land in the watershed are privately-owned lands (1,025,900 acres), including ANCSA lands (31%) and private or municipal lands (2%). Approximately 87,631 acres (~3%) are grouped in administrative management areas, including Katmai National Park and Preserve, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, and the McNeil River State Game Refuge and Sanctuary (Figure 3). Land Use AF T 5.5 R The watersheds are largely undeveloped, except for twelve rural communities—Nondalton, Iliamna, Newhalen, Pedro Bay, Pile Bay, Igiugig, Kokhanok, Dillingham, Portage Creek, Ekwok, New Stuyahok, and Koliganek. The region is remote with no road access to the State highway system. Limited roads connect Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton and a 15-mile long road connects Williamsport to Pile Bay. Most communities have gravel and earth surfaced streets. Dillingham is the largest and most urbanized community in the Analysis Area. Surface access between most communities is by boat on Iliamna Lake and the Nushagak River in the summer and by snow machine along winter trails in the winter. A few small air carriers provide regular year-round, air charter, and cargo flights from regional hubs to the smaller communities (BBNA 2018). D The communities rely primarily on diesel electric generators for power. However, some communities have implemented alternative energy sources as a means to lower fuel cost (BBNA 2018) and to alleviate spill risk concerns associated with fuel transport (HDR 1998). Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton have implemented hydroelectric options at Tazimina Falls about 9 miles upstream of the confluence of the Tazimina River and the Newhalen River (HDR 1998). Igiugig is experimenting with a river power system (Caldwell 2014). The communities operate as both subsistence and cash economies. Most cash opportunities result from government development projects, commercial fishing, sport fishing, and sport hunting ventures. Iliamna Lake and the Nushagak River are noted for sport fishing; primarily rainbow trout, Pacific salmon, and Arctic grayling. JANUARY 2020 19 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 5-8 Land ownership for the watershed Analysis Area Nushagak River Land Ownership Headwaters Koktuli River (acres) Outlet Koktuli River (acres) Pine CreekOutlet Mulchatna Mulchatna River River (acres) (acres) Western Cook Inlet Kvichak-Port Heiden Tunravik CreekNushagak River (acres) Lower Klutuk CreekNushagak River (acres) Little Portage Scandinavian Muklung SloughNushagak RiverCreekNushagak Nushagak Nushagak Bay-Frontal Newhalen Bristol Bay River River River River (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Iliamna Lake (acres) Gibraltar Lake (acres) Upper Talarik Creek (acres) Amakdedori CreekFrontal Kamishak Bay (acres) Analysis Area Areal Extent (acres) Portion (%) Type 0 0 0 26,760 80,511 33,174 61,874 154,046 93,794 63,263 53,583 356,724 31,866 19,037 0 974,632 31 Private or Municipal 0 0 0 0 1,589 372 0 0 13,340 9,913 4,344 21,710 0 0 0 51,268 2 170,632 120,176 124,317 203,787 16,494 82,692 88,415 37,304 81,476 20,875 40,630 283,807 41,864 64,664 148,642 1,525,775 48 0 0 0 1,384 4,467 6,255 3,172 2,560 0 1,868 5,516 8,117 0 0 0 33,339 1 Federal Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 170,632 120,176 124,317 231,931 103,061 122,493 Administrative Boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Clark National Park & Preserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 McNeil River State Game Refuge 0 0 0 0 0 0 McNeil River State Game Sanctuary 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 640 17,685 15,635 531,496 7,850 3,837 3,691 580,834 18 193,910 189,250 113,604 119,708 1,201,854 81,580 87,538 152,333 3,165,848 100 0 0 0 0 0 336 1,067 0 25,620 27,023 31 0 0 0 0 25,192 1,913 0 0 0 27,105 31 0 0 0 0 0 1,124 1,962 0 11,789 14,875 17 D R Katmai National Park & Preserve 0 153,461 AF State State and ANCSA T ANCSA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,628 18,628 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,192 3,373 3,029 0 56,037 87,631 100 Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources General Land Status, 2018, section level data (ADNR 2018). In some cases, the land ownership was split between State of Alaska and ANCSA owned land. In those cases, the data were not segregated and counted as “State and ANCSA”. Discrepancies in the total acreage for the watershed in this table and those shown in Table 5-1 are a result of the differences in data boundaries between the Generalized Land Status and the HUC; in coastal areas, the Generalized Land Status data, and HUC 10 boundary limits do not match. JANUARY 2020 20 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Almost all State of Alaska lands within the Analysis Area are managed for multiple use and are open to mining. The watersheds include a history of mineral exploration, but to date, no mines have been developed. The most significant placer mining districts in proximity to the Analysis Area are the Nyac (gold) 175 miles northwest of the mine site and Goodnews Bay (platinum) 235 miles west of the mine site. The Alaska Resource Data File maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides a record of mines, prospects and mineral occurrences (USGS 2018). The watersheds within the Nushagak River, Kvichak-Port Heiden, and Western Cook Inlet basins include six mineral occurrences and 26 prospects for gold, copper, iron, silver, and molybdenum. The State of Alaska closed many streams to mineral entry in the Nushagak-Mulchatna River drainage as well as streams around Iliamna Lake (Mineral Closing Order 393). This closure is aimed at protecting Pacific salmon streams, including the North Fork Koktuli River, South Fork Koktuli River, and Upper Talarik Creek. The Analysis Area has large quantities of sand, gravel, and rock materials. There has been little use for these materials except near communities that require them for airport and road construction or upgrades. Water Quality Contaminants AF T 5.6 Wetlands, rivers, and streams that are free of contaminants are important for sustaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Potential sources of contaminants in the Analysis Area include spills of chemicals or petroleum lubricants and fuels, stormwater runoff and erosion, community sanitation facilities including landfills and sewage management systems, and marine debris. PLP has reviewed available databases to locate known potential sources of contamination in the Analysis Area. All known identified sites are listed, however remediation of sites that are the legal responsibility of a known entity may not qualify for compensatory mitigation. • • • JANUARY 2020 R Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) contaminated sites. The ADEC maintains a database of contaminated sites in Alaska. The database includes 12 contaminated sites in the Analysis Area where cleanup actions have been completed, and six sites where cleanup actions are ongoing. Contaminants at these sites included oil and lubricants. There are no identified sites in the Analysis Area where clean up actions are not completed or in progress. ADEC Solid Waste Sites. The ADEC maintains a database of solid waste sites in Alaska. The database includes 11 solid waste sites in the Analysis Area, each located near a village. Six solid waste sites are active, one inactive, and four retired. ADEC Waste Erosion Assessment and Review (WEAR). The ADEC conducted the WEAR program to inventory sites that have the potential to release hazardous substances and garbage from Alaska’s landfills, contaminated sites, tank farms, and other sites of environmental concern into state waters, jeopardizing water quality, fish, and wildlife (ADEC 2018). Pertinent site information from this program is included in Table 5-9. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Sites. The EPA maintains a list of brownfield sites. There are three brownfield sites located in Newhalen that resulted from large historic fuel spills on land, all near waters. Cleanup has been completed at one spill site abutting Iliamna Lake. The two remaining sites are 0.3 miles from the Newhalen River and cleanup actions are under way. Contamination at these sites resulted from a ~13,630-gallon Jet-A spill, and a ~35,000-gallon diesel spill. D • 21 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Table 5-9 Selected sites of concern from WEAR 2012-2014 Community Landfill, 59.325198/155.905045 (Retired) Iliamna Landfill, 59.783836/-154.901292 (Active) Airport Crowley Tank Farm, 59.754428/-154.906141 (Active) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Living Quarters Landfarm, 59.761161/-154.828806 (Active) Former U.S. Post Office, 59.751424/-154.815653 (Active) Abandoned Fuel Tanks, 59.749782/-154.812959 (Abandoned) Newhalen Landfill, 59.731888/-154.892355 (Active) The site was constructed in 2004 for the Native Village of Igiugig and contains nine tanks with a total capacity of 111,000 gallons. The nearest source of erosion, the Kvichak River, is only 20 feet away. Erosion symptoms such as root exposure, undercutting, and slides were observed on the closest bank of the river. This is the location of a historical military landfill that was started in the 1950s. After the military left, the community used it as their landfill until 2001 when the new landfill was constructed. The field is 500 feet from the closest source of erosion, the Kvichak River. The landfill is a permitted, self-haul facility. The landfill has been in operation since at least 1986 and most waste is burned in a Summit burn unit. The landfill employs a landfill operator but would benefit from improved management of burning and special wastes. The landfill is located approximately 3.3 miles from Iliamna Lake. The Crowley tank farm is located across the street from the Iliamna Airport and is an active Contaminated Site (File ID 2560.38.012). A spill of 1,507 gallons of aviation gas occurred at the site in late 2009. 65 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and landfarmed to remediate the soil beginning in 2011. After remediation, the soil was transported to and disposed of at the Newhalen Landfill in June 2013. This site is still being monitored by the Contaminated Sites Program as not all contaminated soil was excavated. The tank farm is about 0.15 acres in size and holds six tanks with a total capacity of 258,000 gallons in a fenced and locked area. This site is part of an active Contaminated Site (File ID 2560.38.001). The landfarm is remediating contaminated soil linked to above-ground fuel tanks that used to exist in the area. The landfarm is within Iliamna Airport Tract II, near the Old FAA landfill and covers an area of approximately 0.08 acres. The site is 170 feet south of Lake Superior. The former Iliamna U.S. Post Office was located on Iliaska Drive at this site. In November of 1999, it was reported that drums of used oil were shot and subsequently leaked. This caused the site to become an active Contaminated Site (File ID 2560.38.007). During inspection, the area appeared to be well vegetated aside from a cut in the bushes to provide access to the lake from the road. The site is no longer owned by the U.S. Postal Service and is located right on the shoreline of Roadhouse Bay. These tanks, with unknown size and contents, reside in the Iliaska Subdivision in front of Lots 30 and 31. The tanks were completely surrounded by dense vegetation and are 245 feet from Iliamna Lake. This unpermitted landfill has been operating since its construction in 1983. Necessary equipment for the removal of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from white goods was unavailable, and batteries and used oil were poorly stored. The 5.5-acre landfill is located half a mile north of Newhalen and 2,000 feet east of erosion reported along the banks of the Newhalen River. This site is an active landfarm to remediate contaminated soil under the Contaminated Sites Program. The site consists of two listings Crowley Jet A Fuel Tank 471 Newhalen Tank Farm (File ID 2619.38.002) and Newhalen Bulk Fuel Storage (File ID 2619.38.001). The site is associated with numerous historic spills and a former tank farm. The site dates back to a 1983 spill reported in relation to Newhalen’s old utility tank farm. There are several data gaps in the history of this site that don’t allow for identification of all spills; however, additional free product was discovered near the 1983 spill during sewer cleaning operations in August 1999. Later, on October 30, 2008, there was a jet fuel spill totaling approximately 13,630 gallons from Crowley Jet A Fuel Tank 471. The majority of the spill was recovered from secondary containment, but 2,777 gallons were suspected to have breached the containment. The tank farm has since been decommissioned with the site consisting mostly of the 2.9-acre landfarm at the time of inspection. Soil staining, 55-gallon drums, piles of dirty rags, and metal debris were identified along the perimeter of the landfarm. The site is located adjacent to the current Newhalen Tank Farm, on its lakeward side, and is 1,000 feet from Iliamna Lake. D Crowley Contaminated Soil, 59.719562/-154.891769 (Active) Description AF T Igiugig Tank Farm, 59.327258/155.897948 (Active) R Site Name and Location Nondalton Drum Cache, 59.970533/154.851000 (Abandoned) Airport Tanks, 59.978880/154.836069 (Abandoned) JANUARY 2020 This site is associated with the construction of generators and a new tank for the water plant. The site is about 0.02 acres in size and is located in the middle of town. It consists of a slightly depressed region covered in black textiles with heavy staining on top of the textile. Vegetation surrounding the perimeter of the site was noted as distressed during the inspection. Several 55-gallon drums were strewn about the site with contents unknown. The site is believed to have originated around 2005 and is 250 feet from Sixmile Lake. These empty tanks are located at the airport. There are 10 tanks in total with the labeling “Out of Service, Do Not Fill, 10-1-02” and a total capacity of 80,500 gallons. The tanks were constructed by the City of Nondalton sometime in the early 1990s with the intent that they become storage for heating fuel and gasoline to be sold to local residences and businesses. However, the project was never completed. The site is unfenced and eight of the vertical tanks rest on a geotextile liner; two of the tanks are located outside of the containment. Roughly two inches of water were seen pooling within the containment at the time of inspection. Stacked alongside one of the tanks were several 55-gallon drums and miscellaneous buckets with contents unknown. The site is 0.15 acres in size and is located 1,230 feet from Sixmile Lake. 22 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Site Name and Location Kokhanok Landfill, 59.433225/-154.750637 (Active) Old Tank Farm, 59.441288/154.751535 (Abandoned) This unpermitted landfill is found a half mile due south of the school on a hill. It was constructed in 1992 by the U.S. Public Health Service. The landfill operates as a trench and fill with a working Tok burn unit. Metals, drums, and white goods (household appliances) are separated at the site. The inactive areas of the landfill have been covered and are revegetated. It lies 1,600 feet from Piva Lake. This tank farm is no longer in use since the 2003 construction of the new tank farm. It is located approximately 540 feet northwest of the school. There were 2 vertical tanks and 5 horizontal tanks, which could hold a total of 52,500 gallons of diesel. The horizontal tanks were within a lined, earthen berm, and the vertical tanks were on wooden platforms with no visible berm or liner. There was evidence of staining on the ground, and ponded water around the tanks had a visible sheen. It is located approximately 400 feet from Iliamna Lake. This lake can be found 1,000 feet east of Big Lake. It was reportedly used as a dump site for many years by the community with sporadic dumping still occurring. There was visible trash on the shores and lake bottom, which ranged from bags of trash to rusted barrels and tires. It is 350 feet from Iliamna Lake. This unpermitted landfill is located on the northeast side of town 1,000 feet from the Village Council building. This one-acre site has been in operation since around 1985. An incinerator is on site but has never been used due to operational costs. A baler is also available but has not been used. Municipal waste is burned in a small pit and then mixed with dirt into a large pile that will eventually be pushed back into a trench. Batteries and other recyclables are separated out. There is a separate area for hide goods and other metals. A fence surrounds part of the landfill, but it is falling down in places. The landfill lies 2,100 feet from Iliamna Lake. AF T Slop Bucket Lake Dump, 59.441696/-154.759466 (Abandoned) Pedro Bay Landfill, 59.791717/-154.102628 (Active) Description Source: ADEC Waste Erosion Assessment and Review (2018) • • • JANUARY 2020 D R • EPA Superfund Sites. The EPA maintains a database of superfund cleanup sites. There are no listed superfund cleanup sites in the Analysis Area. Rural Sanitation. Most villages and private houses are equipped with septic tanks or a centralized sewage system. Community sanitation systems are in constant need of improvement in the Analysis Area. The Indian Health Service (IHS) through the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) maintains a comprehensive database of sanitation and water supply improvement projects (Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System) in Alaska that are prioritized for funding. As of November 2019, approximately $1.4 billion in eligible projects are identified in the database, including multiple projects in the Analysis Area. At current funding rates even the existing list of projects will not be completed for many years. A review of EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) identified multiple wastewater discharge and reporting violations in the Analysis Area and provides evidence of ongoing water quality impacts associated with malfunctioning or underperforming sewage handling systems. Barge Landings. Barge and boat landings can be a source of shoreline erosion and sedimentation in Iliamna Lake. In 2009-2010 the Denali Commission funded the design of barge and boat landings for Iliamna, Kokhanok, Pedro Bay, Pile Bay, and Igiugig. Construction of these projects is pending (Denali Commision 2018). Marine debris. The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a marine debris tracking system (NOAA 2019) that records locations of marine debris and amounts from citizen’s reports and other sources. There are no mapped marine debris sites within Cook Inlet. The nearest mapped marine debris sites are nine reports along the coastlines of Shelikof Strait in the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak. In 2015, approximately 11,169 lbs. of marine debris was removed from 17.8 mi of beaches in Katmai National Park and Preserve (NPS 2019). PLP personnel and contractors have documented large amounts of marine debris between the northern most extent of Amakdedori Beach and Amakdedulia Cove. Marine debris observations include buoys of a variety of materials (e.g. plastic, metal, or polystyrene foam), insulation materials (e.g. polystyrene foam sheets 23 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN and fragments), barrels, buckets, plastic bottles, propane canisters, fish nets and seines, rope, pallets, lumber, coolers, fish totes, pressurized cannisters of paint and lubricant, containers of waste oil, other lubricants, and anti-freeze, tarps and fabric. 5.7 Invasive Species Invasive species pose a threat to ecosystems, including wetlands and other WOUS, by altering the functional compositions of communities and from the loss of locally abundant species (Diaz, et al. 2006). While most invasive plants have been recorded along Alaska’s road network, remote communities off the road system may be increasingly and disproportionately vulnerable to harm from exposure to invasive species. AF T Bristol Bay residents have expressed concern about the potential impacts of invasive plants on local natural resources, including subsistence foods (Spellman and Swenson 2012). Survey data from Bristol Bay indicate relatively small populations of several high-risk invasive species exist in the area. The species include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris Mill.), white sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam), bird vetch (Vicia cracca L.), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum L.) and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare Lam.) (Spellman and Swenson 2012). Fall dandelion (Leontodon autumnalis L.), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemun vulgare Lam.), pineapple weed (Matricaria discoidea DC.), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L. ssp. irrigata), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens L.), common sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella L.) and common chickweed (Stellaria media) were found in Igiugig in 2010 (AKEPIC 2018). It does not appear that surveys have been conducted in most of the communities in the Analysis Area. D R Reed canarygrass, which grows very well in wetlands, has a high potential for impacting important subsistence foods resources. Reed canarygrass can invade active stream channels, accelerating siltation of gravel and sand bars, reducing the active-channel area, and altering fluvial dynamics (Galatowitsch, Anderson and Ascher 1999) (Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group (WRCGMWG) 2009), which could affect Pacific salmon and other fishes habitat. The results of a reed canarygrass vulnerability model for the Bristol Bay region completed in 2012 projected 24 miles of salmon stream could be vulnerable in the next 30 years. From 2039 to 2069, the length of salmon streams vulnerable to reed canarygrass invasion would grow to 275 miles. The model projected that by 2099, the length of salmon streams vulnerable to potential adverse effects from reed canarygrass could total 668 miles. Modeling indicates the Iliamna area had the second greatest number of vulnerable streams for the same period (Spellman and Swenson 2012). Reed canarygrass surveys conducted in 2006 along most primary and secondary roads in the Kenai Peninsula highlight spread and management issues. The surveys located 260 sites populated by reed canarygrass. Of this total, 51sites were in wetlands, with 14 of those adjacent to coho salmon habitats (B. Spellman 2018). Authorities have determined that reed canarygrass on the Kenai Peninsula is beyond eradication efforts, because early detection and eradication opportunities were missed. Consequently, they decided to focus reed canarygrass management efforts in sensitive areas. During additional surveys from 2007-2009 extensive reed canarygrass infestations were documented in four streams had: Kenai River, Bishop Creek, North Fork Anchor River, and Beaver Creek. In an approximately 20 mile-reach of the North Fork Anchor River, reed canary grass was found in 256 sites, including sites directly along the active channel. Eradication efforts have had mixed results, in part because of the extensive distribution of the reed canarygrass (B. Spellman 2018). Although prevention of invasive species is the best JANUARY 2020 24 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN management practice, early detection and eradication are crucial to fighting invasive species once established in an ecosystem. 5.8 Summary of Watershed Conditions This watershed analysis has characterized conditions within the Analysis Area. The following is a summary of these conditions and provides general watershed improvement opportunities that could benefit aquatic functions in the watersheds. The majority of the Analysis Area is undeveloped and wetlands and aquatic resources have little to no degradation. The principal sources of land development in the Analysis Area are those associated with residential housing, fishing and hunting cabins and lodges, sanitation systems, community energy, and the limited transportation infrastructure associated with the villages. Development accounts for less than 1 percent of land use in the Analysis Area. AF T Wetlands and other waters are widely distributed in the Analysis Area. The Headwaters Koktuli River watershed includes more than 59,581 acres of wetlands and other waters. The other watersheds encompass a combined total of 1,136,689 acres of wetlands and other waters. Dominant wetlands include palustrine scrubshrub and emergent, whereas estuarine and lacustrine emergent wetlands are rare. R Generalized land ownership in the Analysis Area is split between the State of Alaska (48%), federal government (18%), native owned lands (31%), and private and municipal lands (2%). Roughly 3 percent of the Analysis Area includes the Katmai and Lake Clark national parks and is permanently protected from development. Although State of Alaska lands are open to multiple uses, including mining, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources has closed many streams to mineral entry in the Nushagak-Mulchatna River drainage, as well as streams around Iliamna Lake, to protect Pacific salmon fish habitat. Regardless of land ownership and the occurrence of minerals in the watershed, the potential for development, other than the proposed Project, is low. D Aquatic habitats, though plentiful, do face potential threats from fish barriers and pollution associated with community growth, marine debris, or invasive species. Known fish barriers in the Analysis Area include five ‘inadequate passage’ and seven ‘unlikely passage’ culverts in the community of Dillingham, impacting more than 10.5 miles of Pacific salmon streams. Most of the communities have documented contamination from fuel and lubricant spills and under-performing village sanitation systems, such as landfills and wastewater treatment and collection systems, and these are a continuing source of water quality impacts. Large amounts of marine debris have been reported in Kamishak Bay. Invasive species are a threat to aquatic resources in the Analysis Area, but much of the area remains un-surveyed. JANUARY 2020 25 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 6. Project Effects on Aquatic Resources The discharge of fill proposed by the project will permanently impact 2,227 acres of WOUS. Most of these impacts (2,158 acres) would occur in the Headwaters Koktuli River watershed (Table 6-1). The remaining permanent impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources (68 acres) are divided among the Newhalen River, Iliamna Lake, Gibraltar River, Upper Talarik Creek, Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay watersheds, and Cook Inlet watersheds (Table 6-2), and the Cook Inlet watershed (<1 acre [0.15 acre]). AF T The greatest impact would be to slope wetland HGM aquatic resources which would be reduced by 6.46 percent. Slope palustrine unconsolidated bottom would be reduced by 16.78 percent, slope palustrine scrubshrub would be reduced by 6.56 percent, slope palustrine emergent would be reduced by 6.13 percent and palustrine aquatic bed and unconsolidated shore would be reduced 34.95 and 7.73 percent respectively. Riverine wetland and riverine channel water HGM aquatic resources will experience a 1.50 percent and 4.64 percent loss respectively. Most impacts to the riverine channel waters are to upper perennial streams unconsolidated bottom with a 6.96 percent reduction. Riverine channel intermittent streambed would experience a 5.94 percent reduction. Slope wetland HGM palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands are the most widely distributed aquatic resource in the watershed with approximately 20,769 acres and 8,911 acres respectively. These wetlands are broadly used by ungulates such as moose and caribou. D R Construction of the mine facilities within Headwaters Koktuli River would permanently remove 8.5 miles of anadromous streams in the North Fork Koktuli (NFK) River, a tributary of the Koktuli River (Owl Ridge 2019). These are narrow, steep, and higher gradient headwater streams. This loss equates to approximately 17 acres of low Pacific salmon use habitat (R2 Resource Consultants 2019). The loss would be permanent, but the impacts in the context of Pacific salmon species use by life stage and density is low and localized when compared to the higher quantity and higher use Pacific salmon habitat immediately downstream in the NFK River (Owl Ridge 2019). The larger, downstream reaches more heavily used by Pacific salmon for spawning and rearing would not be directly impacted. Indirect effects, such as alterations to water flow and nutrient transport, could have further indirect impacts in downstream reaches of NFK River and South Fork Koktuli River in designated aquatic habitat for Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, and chum salmon (Owl Ridge 2019). Low numbers of rearing Chinook salmon and coho salmon and spawning and developing embryonic coho salmon would be permanently removed in areas with low salmon densities and lower habitat value characteristics (Owl Ridge 2019). Table 6-1 Summary of aquatic resources (acres) in the HUC 10 Headwaters Koktuli River Baseline HGM and Cowardin Classification Acres LACUSTRINE WATERS Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Lacustrine Littoral Aquatic Bed 1 Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore 1 Palustrine Emergent 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 LACUSTRINE FRINGE WETLANDS Lacustrine Littoral Emergent 1 Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore 1 975.00 844.40 10.10 33.00 32.80 1.10 51.00 2.70 126.70 0.30 9.40 JANUARY 2020 % 1.64% 1.42% 0.02% 0.06% 0.06% <0.01% 0.09% <0.01% 0.21% <0.01% 0.02% Impacts to WOUS Reduction Acres % --------0.04 --- --------0.03% --- 26 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Baseline D JANUARY 2020 Acres 50.70 0.20 64.80 0.50 0.90 8,345.60 1.80 2,163.40 38.50 2.90 5,847.30 160.60 67.60 0.10 41.50 19.10 <0.1 2.20 0.50 1,070.00 1.00 0.30 38.10 6.00 64.10 19.10 0.30 166.60 9.10 0.10 635.70 129.60 6,599.80 <0.1 1,623.70 0.20 33.70 4,917.60 4.10 20.30 <0.1 29,813.90 6.10 8,911.20 2.20 27.50 20,768.50 69.30 28.30 0.30 0.50 1,561.20 <0.1 4.80 % 0.09% <0.01% 0.11% <0.01% <0.01% 14.01% <0.01% 3.63% 0.06% <0.01% 9.81% 0.27% 0.11% <0.01% 0.07% 0.03% <0.01% <0.01% <0.01% 1.80% <0.01% <0.01% 0.06% 0.01% 0.11% 0.03% <0.01% 0.28% 0.02% <0.01% 1.07% 0.22% 11.08% <0.01% 2.73% <0.01% 0.06% 8.25% 0.01% 0.03% <0.01% 50.04% 0.01% 14.96% <0.01% 0.05% 34.86% 0.12% 0.05% <0.01% <0.01% 2.62% <0.01% 0.01% AF T R HGM and Cowardin Classification Palustrine Emergent 1 Palustrine Moss-Lichen 1 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 RIVERINE WETLANDS Palustrine Aquatic Bed 1 Palustrine Emergent 1 Palustrine Forested 1 Palustrine Moss-Lichen 1 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 Riverine Intermittent Streambed 1 Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Shore 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Aquatic Bed 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore 1 RIVERINE CHANNEL WATERS Palustrine Aquatic Bed 1 Palustrine Emergent 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 Riverine Intermittent Streambed 1 Riverine Lower Perennial Aquatic Bed 1 Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent 1 Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Shore 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Emergent 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore 1 FLAT WETLANDS Palustrine Aquatic Bed 1 Palustrine Emergent 1 Palustrine Forested 1 Palustrine Moss-Lichen 1 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 Riverine Intermittent Streambed 1 SLOPE WETLANDS Palustrine Aquatic Bed 1 Palustrine Emergent 1 Palustrine Forested 1 Palustrine Moss-Lichen 1 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Shore 1 DEPRESSIONAL WETLANDS Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore 1 Palustrine Aquatic Bed 1 Impacts to WOUS Acres 0.04 ----125.15 -41.51 --76.46 7.18 -------49.68 ----3.81 -----44.27 <0.00 8.35 -2.67 --5.68 ---1925.27 2.13 546.47 --1362.85 11.63 2.19 --49.90 --- Reduction % 0.07% ----1.50% -1.92% --1.31% 4.47% -------4.64% ----5.94% -----6.96% <0.00% 0.13% -0.16% --0.12% ---6.46% 34.95% 6.13% --6.56% 16.78% 7.73% --3.20% --- 27 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Impacts to WOUS Acres 4.72 -6.91 29.70 8.57 ------2,158.38 Baseline HGM and Cowardin Classification Palustrine Emergent 1 Palustrine Moss-Lichen 1 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 N/A Palustrine Emergent 1, 2 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 1, 2 Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 1 Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 2 Riverine Unknown Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom 2 Grand Total Acres 155.30 0.50 172.70 913.10 314.80 11,089.00 2,608.00 8,009.00 0.90 248.40 222.80 59,581.20 % 0.26% <0.01% 0.29% 1.53% 0.53% 18.61% 4.38% 13.44% <0.01% 0.42% 0.37% 100% Reduction % 3.04% -4.00% 3.25% 2.72% ------3.62% Source: (1) PLP mapped wetlands, (2) NWI mapped wetlands. AF T Project impacts from fill discharges to aquatic resources in the Newhalen River, Iliamna Lake, Gibraltar Lake, Upper Talarik Creek, and Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay Watersheds would be small relative to the abundance of wetlands and other waters in each watershed and the footprint of project impacts (Table 6-2). The largest reduction in aquatic resources (<0.05%) outside of the Headwaters Koktuli watershed would take place in the Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay watershed. Within the Newhalen River, Iliamna Lake, Gibraltar Lake, Upper Talarik Creek, and Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay watersheds the aquatic resources most impacted include palustrine, lacustrine, and marine subtidal habitats, all of which are abundant. Fills will impact riverine aquatic resources that provide habitat to Pacific salmon and other fishes in the watersheds, but this will be minimized by including bridges and culverts designed to allow for fish passage. R Table 6-2 Summary of aquatic resources (acres) in the HUC 10 Newhalen River, Iliamna Lake, Gibraltar Lake, Upper Talarik Creek, and Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay watersheds D Kvichak-Port Heiden Baseline Aquatic Resources Estuarine (ac.) Lacustrine (ac.) Palustrine (ac.) Ice (Glacier) (ac.) Lakes (ac.) Streams (mi.) Total Aquatic Resources (ac.) Impacts to Aquatic Resources Lacustrine (ac.) Palustrine (ac.) Riverine (ac.) Marine (ac.) Total Impact to Aquatic Resources (ac.) Reduction of Aquatic Resources (%) JANUARY 2020 Upper Talarik Creek Western Cook Inlet Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay Newhalen River Iliamna Lake Gibraltar Lake -116 56,577 -8,075 250 64,768 15 42 270,572 -681,658 881 952,287 -<0.01 21,558 38 5,331 91 26,926 -<0.01 35,355 -1,680 250 37,036 1,525 35 25,968 -3,960 684 31,487 1,540 193 431,995 99 702,863 2,713 1,112,504 0.00 4.25 0.13 0.00 4.38 2.36 19.90 0.69 0.00 22.94 0.00 8.28 0.20 0.00 8.48 0.00 14.77 0.16 0.00 14.93 0.30 14.16 0.58 2.18 17.22 2.66 61.36 1.76 2.18 67.96 <0.01% <0.00% <0.03% <0.04% <0.05% <0.01% Total 28 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Mitigation Opportunities Evaluated 7. When the results of each of the watershed analysis sections are considered and synthesized it becomes apparent that: 1) wetlands and other waters in the Analysis Area are abundant and in a natural state, 2) the existing threats to aquatic resources in the affected watersheds are minimal and arise from impacts associated with contaminated sites, community sanitary systems, fish passage barriers, and marine debris, and 3) discharges of fill from the Project will result in the loss of 8.4 miles of documented Pacific salmon habitat in the Koktuli River Headwaters Watershed and Pacific salmon are an important component of the local aquatic environment and economies, Consequently, PLPs approach to compensate for the permanent loss of wetlands and aquatic habitat in the Analysis Area resulting from the Project will prioritize on opportunities that benefit anadromous fish habitat, including improvements to water quality. The following factors will be used to evaluate compensatory mitigation options: AF T Location. On-site opportunities will be given preference versus off-site opportunities. If needed, mitigation sites will be ranked according to their location using the following preference order: 1) HUC 10 watersheds that intersect with the Project wetlands impacts; 2) HUC 10 watersheds downstream of Project wetlands impacts; 3) HUC 8 watersheds that intersect with the Project wetlands impacts; 4) HUC 6 watersheds that intersect with the Project wetlands impacts; and 5) HUC 4 watersheds that intersect with the Project wetlands impacts. R • Watershed health impacts. Sites within watersheds that are experiencing or may experience water quality or other impacts due to development and human activity. • Environmental significance. Selected sites will be ranked according to the aquatic resources that are impacted or threatened and can be returned to health or protected by mitigation projects. Sites with wetlands, streams, and other waters that provide regionally significant support to fish will be given higher priority consistent with the results of the watershed analysis. • Practicability. Practicability will be evaluated in consideration of engineering feasibility, authorization for the construction work, and construction costs. D • Compensatory mitigation may be performed using methods of restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or in certain circumstances, preservation of wetlands and other waters. Restoration as re-establishment opportunities for aquatic resources in the Analysis Area are unavailable because development in the Analysis Area is limited, and all existing developments are in use or needed. However restoration as rehabilitation, may be possible in the affected watersheds through repair, enhancement, or replacement of underperforming sanitation systems that would result in water quality improvements to WOUS and, through removal of marine debris, would restore coastal marine wetlands and marine habitat by removing wildlife hazards. Establishment of wetlands is not highly desirable as wetlands are JANUARY 2020 29 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN already abundant in the Analysis Area. Lastly, preservation opportunities are limited due to the land status and unjustifiable due to the lack of foreseeable development threat to existing wetlands and aquatic resources in the Analysis Area. PLP has evaluated multiple wetland mitigation leads or opportunities (Attachment 2) and determined that opportunities with community wastewater projects, Pacific salmon fish passage improvement projects, and marine debris removal opportunities were practicable as mitigation for the project and were further developed into permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) plans. 7.1 Water Quality Improvement Projects AF T The goal of the water-quality-improvement PRM plan (Attachment 3) is to enhance water quality in the affected watersheds by improving the quality of discharges from wastewater treatment systems in drainages with identified needs. Discharges from properly designed wastewater management systems have little or no adverse effect on water quality and the biota that thrives in the aquatic system. Furthermore, discharges from properly designed systems could improve the quality of water in poorly functioning drainages downstream of the discharges. Consequently, improving under-performing treatment systems would improve overall water quality in the region. PLP is proposing to perform wastewater management improvement projects in three communities adjacent to the project, namely Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton. The objectives of the improvements include: Increase treatment and storage capacity of the sewage lagoon in Kokhanok. • Increase treatment and storage capacity of the sewage lagoon in Newhalen. • Reduce wastewater treatment volume by reducing sewage collection system infiltration and improving operational reliability of the lift station unit. R • D The projects were identified and prioritized based on information provided in the IHS/ANTHC database and in discussions with the Lake and Peninsula Borough and with the affected communities. PLP would perform the required mitigation in coordination with the affected communities and would retain responsibility for ensuring that required compensatory mitigation activities are completed and successful. 7.2 Removal of Pacific Salmon Passage Barriers PLP’s PRM Plan for the Removal of Pacific salmon Passage Barriers (Attachment 4) proposes to rehabilitate up to 8.5 miles of Pacific salmon habitat. During planning, PLP consulted with ADF&G personnel to better align the plan’s objectives with those of ADF&G’s Fish Passage Improvement Program. The Fish Passage Improvement Program is one of the resources identified by the EPA as a potential source of Compensatory Mitigation projects (EPA 2019). The removal of fish passage barriers satisfies PLP’s compensatory mitigation approach of seeking opportunities that enhance or restore fish habitat. PLP has proposed fill placement in riverine channel waters that are considered regionally important in the watershed based on their connection to important fish and wildlife species (AECOM 2019). PLP’s proposed discharge of fill material will result in the permanent removal of approximately 8.5 miles of Pacific salmon habitat within the headwater streams of the Koktuli JANUARY 2020 30 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN River, a tributary to the Nushagak River. The proposed PRM Plan will compensate the riverine channel waters losses by rehabilitating 8.5 miles of streams containing Pacific Salmon habitat through replacement of undersized or damaged culverts. Approximately 6 miles of Pacific salmon habitat in stream tributaries to the Nushagak River near the community of Dillingham, located downstream of the project impacts, have already been degraded by undersized culverts associated with local road infrastructure. PLP expects that all fish passage improvement projects will take place outside (off-site) of the Analysis Area. PLP’s proposed plan prioritizes culverts based on their location (e.g., watersheds downstream of project impacts and in proximity to the project) and potential for Pacific salmon habitat gains. 7.3 Marine Debris Removal at Kamishak Bay D R AF T PLP’s PRM Plan for Marine Debris Removal at Kamishak Bay (Attachment 5) proposes to rehabilitate 7.4 miles of coastal habitat in Kamishak Bay by removing marine debris currently accumulated in large amounts at local beaches. Marine debris has several documented impacts to habitats and natural resources. It can cause physical damage to shoreline, marshes, and the benthos. Marine debris can also cause injury to wildlife from entanglement and ingestion. The removal of debris will result in ecosystem service benefits to beach habitats in Kamishak Bay and adjacent marine habitat that are currently used by marine wildlife, including protected species under the ESA. JANUARY 2020 31 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 8. Conclusion Construction of the Project will require the dredge or discharge of fill material into 3,083 acres of WOUS. This includes 2,227 acres of permanent impacts and 857 acres of temporary impacts to WOUS. PLP plans to restore the 857 acres of temporarily impacted wetlands post-construction. The proposed impacts will take place in HUC-10 watersheds with large expanses of wetlands that are at low risk of being cumulatively degraded. AF T 33 CFR Part 320.4 (r)(2) states that all compensatory mitigation will be for significant resource losses of importance to the human or aquatic environment. The majority of the proposed WOUS impacts would occur within the HUC-10 Headwaters Koktuli Watershed and would affect headwater streams and wetlands. Headwater WOUS are important ecosystem components because they deliver water, sediments, and organic material to downstream waters and contribute to the nutrient cycling and water quality. When natural flow regimes of headwater streams are altered, downstream water quality is often impaired (Colvin, et al. 2019). Direct impacts to anadromous streams are estimated at approximately 8.5 miles. Therefore, PLP believes compensatory mitigation should focus on opportunities that benefit anadromous streams and water quality in the watershed. Consideration of compensatory mitigation options over a larger watershed scale beyond the HUC-10 Analysis Area is necessary given that compensatory mitigation options are limited at the smaller, local watershed scale. There are no Mitigation Banks or In-Lieu Fee program opportunities within the impacted watersheds, and PRM compensatory mitigation opportunities are similarly unavailable due to the remoteness and lack of disturbance in the watersheds. D R PLP has identified three approaches to mitigate for the project’s WOUS impacts. The first is off-site, out-ofkind water quality restoration opportunities that will enhance water quality in the Bristol Bay region by improving wastewater collection and treatment systems in drainages with identified needs. Discharges from properly designed wastewater management systems have little or no adverse effect on water quality and the biota that thrives in the aquatic system. Discharges from properly designed systems could improve the quality of water in poorly functioning drainages downstream of the discharges. Consequently, improving underperforming treatment systems would improve overall water quality in the region. The PRM plan is included as Attachment 3. PLP believes this to be a practical approach, capable of meeting the compensatory mitigation requirements stated in 33 CFR Part 332. The second approach is removing Pacific salmon fish passage barriers associated with undersized or damaged culverts. This approach is promising because of the large amount of Pacific salmon habitat that can be restored through a single fish passage improvement. The proposed PRM Plan will compensate the Project’s riverine wetlands losses by rehabilitating up to 8.5 mi of streams containing Pacific Salmon habitat through replacement of undersized or damaged culverts. The removal of these fish passage barriers also satisfies PLP’s compensatory mitigation approach of seeking opportunities that enhance or restore fish habitat. The PRM plan is included as Attachment 4. The third approach is removing and properly disposing of marine debris accumulated on beaches in Kamishak Bay. Marine debris pose hazards to wildlife through entanglement and ingestion and can damage JANUARY 2020 32 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN habitat. This PRM (Attachment 5) will result in the rehabilitation of 7.4 mi of coastal marine wetlands and marine habitat in Kamishak Bay. D R AF T PLP believes this combination of PRM plans including, wastewater facility improvement projects in Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton, the restoration of 8.5 mi of fish habitat from repair of fish passage barriers, and cleanup of marine debris in 7.4 mi of coastal habitats in Kamishak, are a practical approach, capable of meeting the compensatory mitigation requirements stated in 33 CFR Part 332. JANUARY 2020 33 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 9. References ADEC. 2018. "VSW Project Planning Documents Review Status." Village Safe Water (VSW). Accessed October 7, 2018. http://dec.alaska.gov/media/4809/list-of-vsw-reviewed-pers.pdf. —. 2018. Waste Erosion Assessment and Review (WEAR) Project. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Accessed September 27, 2018. https://dec.alaska.gov/eh/solid-waste/wear-project/. ADF&G. 2019. Anadromous Waters Catalog. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Accessed October 2, 2018. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/index.cfm?ADFG=main.home. —. 2001. Fish Passage Invetory Database (FPID) - Inventory & Assessment. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://adfg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f5aac9a8e4bb4bf49dc39db33f9 50bbd. AF T ADNR. 2013. "Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands." Alaska. 484. ADNR. 2001. Kenai Area Plan. Management Plan, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land, and Water Reource Assessment & Development Section. —. 2018. Land Information System Database. Accessed September 27, 2018. http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/. AECOM. 2019. "Pebble Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement." Anchorage. R AKEPIC. 2018. Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC). University of Alaska Anchorage Alaska Center for Conservation Science. Accessed October 1, 2018. http://accs.uaa.alaska.edu/invasive-species/non-native-plants/. D BBNA. 2018. "Bristol Bay Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2017-2022." Bristol Bay Native Association, Dillingham. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4., Vicksburg, M.S.: USACE, Waterway Experiment Station. Caldwell, S. 2014. "Tiny Alaska village hopes to cut energy costs with experimental river power." Anchorage Daily News, June 15. Accessed September 27, 2018. https://www.adn.com/energy/article/tiny-igiugig-hopes-find-success-experimental-riverpower/2014/06/16/. Colvin, A. R., S. Mazeika, P. Sullivan, P. D. Shrirey, R. W. Colvin, K. O. Winemiller, R. M. Hughes, et al. 2019. "Headwater Streams and Wetlands are Critical for Sustaining Fish, Fisheries, and Ecoystem Services." American Fisheries Society 73-91. doi:10.1002/Fish.10229. JANUARY 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Cowardin, L.M., V Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Denali Commision. 2018. At-a-Glance for Lake and Peninsula Borough Project #317-07 Igiugig,Iliamna,Kokhanok,Newhalen,Pedro Bay: Lake Iliamna Multiple Community Barge Landing Design . Accessed October 7, 2018. https://cf.denali.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=Project.ProjectAtAGlance&project_id=6111. Diaz, S,, J. Fargione, S. Chappin III, and D. Tilman. 2006. Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human WellBeing. PLoS Biol 4(8):e277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277 . EPA. 2019. Compensatory Mitigation in Alaska under CWA Section 404. Accessed June 28, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/compensatory-mitigation-alaska-under-cwa-section-404. AF T —. 2019. Enforcement and Compliance History Online. Accessed August 29, 2019. https://echo.epa.gov. EPA et al. 1994. "Alaska Wetlands Initiative." EPA, DA. 2018. "Memorandum of Agreement Between The Department of the Army and the Enviromental Protection Agency Concerning Mitigation Sequence for Wetlands in Alaska Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, and P. A. Ascher. 1999. "Invasiveness in wetland plants of temperate North America." (Wetlands) 19: 733-755. R HDR. 2019. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report. Revision 3. Anchorage, AK: The Pebble Project. D HDR. 1998. "Tazimina Hydroelectric Project, Iliamna, Alaska Final Technical and Construction Cost Report." Technical Report, United States. Accessed September 27, 2018. doi:10.2172/5742. Jim, S., L. Yang, P. Danielson, C. G Homer, J. Fry, G. Xiam, J A Dewitz, et al. 2011. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States - Representing a decade of land cover change information. NOAA. 2019. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project (MDMAP v2.0.18). Accessed December 26, 2019. http://marinedebris.engr.uga.edu/. NPS. 2019. "Cleaning Up Alaska's Beaches." National Park Service. Accessed December 11, 2019. https://www.nps.gov/rlc/oceanalaska/trash-collected-off-harris-bay.htm. Owl Ridge. 2019. "Pebble Project Essenstial Fish Habitat Assesment." Anchorage. Owl Ridge. 2019. Restoration Plan. The Pebble Project, Anchorage: The Pebble Limited Partnership. R2 Resource Consultants. 2019. Estimated area of fish habitat loss due to the mine footprint. [Data file]. The Pebble Partnership. JANUARY 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Service), USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Photointerpretation conventions for the National Wetlands Inventory. St. Petersburg, FL: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Center. Spellman, B. 2018. "Managing Reed Canarygrass on the Kenai Peninsula Before, Now and the Future." Kenai Peninsula Cooperative Weed Management Area. Accessed 10 1, 2018. http://www.kenaiweeds.org/user_images/Blaine%20RCG%20talk%20-%20CNIPM%2009.pdf. Spellman, K. V., and N. Y. Swenson. 2012. Assessing the vulnerability of Western Alaska Ecosystems and Subsistence Resources to Non-native Plant Invasion. Fairbanks: Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks. USACE. 2018. RIBITS. September 27. Accessed September 28, 2018. https://ribits.usace.army.mil/ribits_apex/f?p=107:2. AF T —. 2017. US Army Corpos of Engineers - Alaska District. 10 16. http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/1344637/corps-terminates-thirdpartys-mitigation-in-lieu-fee-program-in-alaska/. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Photointerpretation conventions for the National Wetlands Inventory. St. Petersburg, FL: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Center. R USGS. 2018. Alaska Resource Data File (ARDF). https://www.usgs.gov/centers/asc/science/alaskaresource-data-file?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. D USGS. 2018. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). U.S. Geological Service. https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/national-hydrographydataset?qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_related_con. Van Lanen, J. M. 2018. Iliamna Lake Seals Local and Scientific Understanding. September 26. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=553. —. 2018. Local Knowledge of the Mulchatna Caribou Herd and Habitat Change in Southwest Alaska. September 26. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=864. Whitcomb, J M, Moghaddam, K., McDonald,J, Kellndorfer, and E. Podest. 2009. "Mapping Wetlands of Alaska from L-band SAR imagery." Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 54-72. doi:10.5589/m08-080. Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group (WRCGMWG). 2009. "Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Management Guide: Recommendations for Landowners andRestoration Professionals." JANUARY 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 5%ng ?hi1". Jih." Attachments JANUARY 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN D R AF T Attachment 1 – Figures JANUARY 2020 Mulc hat Rive na r 1. Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay 2. Gibraltar Lake 3. Iliamna Lake 4. Newhalen River 5. Upper Talarik Creek 6. Headwaters Koktuli River 7. Outlet Koktuli River 8. Pike Creek-Mulchatna River 9. Outlet Mulchatna River 10. Tunravik Creek-Nushagak River 11. Lower Klutuk Creek-Nushagak River 12. Portage Creek-Nushagak River 13. Scandinavian Slough-Nushagak River 14. Little Muklung River-Nushagak River 15. Nushagak Bay-Frontal Bristol Bay Project Feature Lighted Navigation Buoy sh a gak Riv er Nu T Proposed Project Transportation Corridor 7 Mine Site 4 5 6 AF 9 Eagle Bay Ferry Terminal 3 10 13 15 R 2 ! ? 1 Amakdedori Port ! ? Kamishak Bay D 12 er pp er o C iv R Iliamna Lake S. Ferry Terminal 14 Lightering Location ! ? Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline 8 11 Area (Geopraphic Area of Watershed Analysis) Miles 0 9 18 27 36 45 Scale 1:1,713,118 NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Feet Seward Meridian Figure: 1 Geographic Extent of the Watershed Analysis Compensatory Mitigation Plan Pebble Project Bristol Bay File: PLP105 Date: 11/12/2019 Revision: 08 Author: ORNRC ³ Analysis Area (Geographic Area of Watershed Analysis) Anadromous Lakes 1. Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay 6. Headwaters Koktuli River 11. Lower Klutuk Creek-Nushagak River Anadromous Streams 2. Gibraltar Lake 7. Outlet Koktuli River 12. Portage Creek-Nushagak River Project Feature 3. Iliamna Lake 8. Pike Creek-Mulchatna River 13. Scandinavian Slough-Nushagak River Lighted Navigation Buoy 4. Newhalen River 9. Outlet Mulchatna River 14. Little Muklung River-Nushagak River 5. Upper Talarik Creek 10. Tunravik Creek-Nushagak River 15. Nushagak Bay-Frontal Bristol Bay ! ? Lightering Location Proposed Project Transportation Corridor Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline 15 5 4 Eagle Bay Ferry Terminal AF S. Ferry Terminal 2 1 ! ? R Amakdedori Port ! ? Kamishak Bay D 13 6 Iliamna Lake 11 12 Mine Site 3 10 14 7 T 9 8 Miles 0 9 18 27 36 45 Scale 1:1,713,118 Bristol Bay NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Feet Seward Meridian Figure: 2 Area of Anadromous Waters Compensatory Mitigation Plan Pebble Project File: PLP107 Date: 11/12/2019 Revision: 07 Author: ORNRC ³ 1. Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay 2. Gibraltar Lake 3. Iliamna Lake 4. Newhalen River 5. Upper Talarik Creek 6. Headwaters Koktuli River 7. Outlet Koktuli River 8. Pike Creek-Mulchatna River 9. Outlet Mulchatna River 10. Tunravik Creek-Nushagak River 11. Lower Klutuk Creek-Nushagak River 12. Portage Creek-Nushagak River 13. Scandinavian Slough-Nushagak River 14. Little Muklung River-Nushagak River 15. Nushagak Bay-Frontal Bristol Bay 8 9 Cu? 6 Ag, Au, Cu Au?, Cu, Mo Miles 21 28 35 Scale1:1,291,103 NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Feet Seward Meridian Figure: 3 Land Ownership and Land Use Compensatory Mitigation Plan Pebble Project File: PLP106 Date: 11/12/2019 Revision: 07 Author: ORNRC ³ 4 Au Au, Cu Cu Cu 5 T Iliamna Lake Au? R Bristol Bay 14 Cu Fe Au Au Eagle Bay Ferry Terminal Cu S. Ferry Terminal Fe Au 2 Au Au, Cu, Mo, Te Fe Cu, Fe, Zn 1 Amakdedori Port Kamishak Bay McNeil River SGR Katmai National Park D 15 Ag, Au, Cu, Pb, Zn Mine Site AF 12 13 7 Au 10 Au 0 7 3 11 14 Lewis and Clark National Park Au Analysis Area (Geographic Area of Watershed Analysis) Section Level Land Status Administrative Boundaries BLM National Park Project Feature National Park Service State Game Sanctuary and Refuge Resource Occurrence State Prospect State and ANCSA Existing Road ANCSA Proposed Project Transportation Corridor Private or Municipal PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN D R AF T Attachment 2 – Potential Compensatory Mitigation Projects Evaluated JANUARY 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN Potential Mitigation Project Watershed health impacts Environmental significance Practicability Existing Mitigation Banks and In-Lieu Fee Programs Location Not practical - There are no active permitted Mitigation Banks or In-Lieu Fee programs within the HUC-10 watersheds that would be impacted by the project. Mitigation banks would be available at a HUC4 or HUC 2 level. Hundreds of miles of anadromous fish habitat have been degraded throughout Alaska by undersized or damaged culverts that limit the passage of Pacific salmon. Healthy anadromous fish habitat is of high importance to residents who rely on Pacific salmon for subsistence. Approximately 6 miles of anadromous stream are impacted in the Analysis area. Anadromous habitat can be returned to health by simply upgrading the undersized or damaged culvert. Benefits could extend for many miles upstream of the replaced culvert and have regional significance. Practical - Generally, most sites will practicable as long and the land or right-of-way owner authorizes the construction activity, and cost are reasonable. There are virtually hundreds of miles of degraded streams that could be candidates for restoration. There are no opportunities in the HUC-10 affected watershed, and few opportunities downstream of project impacts. There are abundant opportunities in waters connected to Upper Cook Inlet. Restoration of Abandoned Fish Canneries Wetlands or river shoreline on the Kvichak has been lost or are degraded by construction of the canneries. It is likely that canneries may include contaminants such as lead-based paint, asbestos, and oil-and lubricants contaminations. Removal of the canneries and potential contamination could restore wetlands and improve water quality near the sites. Not practical - the sites’ lack of site assessment data on recognized environmental conditions, complex title history and mixed land ownership, historic values, and remoteness made it unfeasible to determine a practical approach to mitigation. Potential would be for a few acres of wetlands. Outside the HUC-10 watersheds affected by the project. ADEC Contaminated Sites Reviewed spills are in improved locations (developed) sites. Clean up spills is unlikely to result in wildlife habitat gains, or habitat may continue to be degraded even after restoration is complete. Wetlands, rivers, and streams that are free of contaminants are important for sustaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Not practical - All contaminated sites (fuel spills) within the affected watersheds appear to have clean up actions in progress and are the legal responsibility of known entities. Contaminated sites are generally small and would result in few acres of benefit, and even fewer wetlands. The database includes 12 contaminated sites in the Analysis Area where cleanup actions have been complete, and six sites where cleanup actions are undergoing. ADEC Solid Waste Sites Abandoned solid was sites are capped and expect to be generally upland locations. Further improvement are unlikely to result in wetland habitat gains. Wetlands, rivers, and streams that are free of contaminants are important for sustaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Not practical - Retired solid waste sites appear to be properly closed and operating solid waste sites appear to generally employee measures protective of the environment, with minor enhancements needed. There is little room for improvements that would result in either habitat or wildlife benefits. Solid waste sites are generally small and would result in few acres of benefit, and even fewer wetlands. The database includes 11 solid waste sites in the Analysis Area located in the proximity of villages. Six solid waste sites are active, one inactive, and four retired. ADEC Waste Erosion Assessment and Review (WEAR) The ADEC conducted the WEAR program to inventory sites that have the potential to release hazardous substances and garbage from Alaska’s landfills, contaminated sites, tank farms, and other sites of environmental concern into state waters, jeopardizing water quality, fish and wildlife. Reviewed WEAR sites are in improved locations (developed) sites. Restoration is unlikely to result in wildlife habitat gains, or habitat may continue to be degraded even after restoration is complete due. Not practical. There is much overlap between the ADEC WEAR program and other ADEC lists including the contaminated sites and solid waste sites databases. Similar practicability limitations discussed for ADEC contaminated sites and solid waste sites applies. WEAR sites are generally small and would result in few acres of benefit, and even fewer wetlands. WEAR sites are present within the Analysis Area. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Sites Potential source of water pollutants. There are 5 contaminated Brownfield sites in the Analysis Area. Wetlands, rivers, and streams that are free of contaminants are important for sustaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Not practical due to lack of opportunities. Cleanup has been completed at one spill site abutting Iliamna Lake. The two remaining sites are 0.3 miles the Newhalen River and cleanup actions are underway. Currently, not potential to generate any compensatory mitigation due to the lack of sites. There are three brownfield sites located in Newhalen that resulted from large historic fuel spills on land, all near waters. EPA Superfund Sites Potential source of water pollutants, however there are no listed superfund cleanup sites in the Analysis Area. Wetlands, rivers, and streams that are free of contaminants are important for sustaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Not practicable due the lack of opportunities. There are no listed superfund cleanup sites in the Analysis Area. Rural Sanitation Wastewater collection and treatment systems in the region need upgrades or improvements. Some systems are underperforming introducing pollutants into aquatic habitats. Wetlands, rivers, and streams that are free of contaminants are important for sustaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Improvement in sanitation systems may result in water quality improvement. Practical. Community sanitation systems are in constant need of improvement in the Analysis Area. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) is working on building a sludge disposal site for the sludge that is pumped from the individual septic tanks at Iliamna, but funding to complete the project is insufficient. Kokhanok, Nondalton, and Newhalen recently received approval for their water and wastewater feasibility study (ADEC 2018). Would not result in area increases, but functions would be improved In Analysis Area Barge Landings Barge and boat landings can be a source of shoreline erosion and sedimentation in Iliamna Lake. Barge landing improvements may result in localized lake habitat improvement by reducing suspended sediment in the water from boat activity. However, necessary improvements would likely result in additional habitat loss. Not practicable as improvement projects are already under way: In 2009-2010 the Denali Commission funded the design of barge and boat landings for Iliamna, Kokhanok, Pedro Bay, Pile Bay, and Igiugig. Construction of these projects is pending (Denali Commision 2018). In Analysis Area JANUARY 2020 D R AF T Removal of Pacific salmon Passage Barriers (e.g. culvert barrier removal) PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN D R AF T Attachment 3 – Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for Water Quality Improvement Projects JANUARY 2020 DRAFT REPORT D R AF T Pebble Project Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for Water Quality Improvement Projects January 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS D R AF T - Page Intentionally Left Blank - PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CONTENTS Section Page CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... ii 1. Objectives .........................................................................................................................................1 2. Site Selection.....................................................................................................................................1 3. Determination of Credits ................................................................................................................. 8 4. Mitigation Work Plan ...................................................................................................................... 8 AF T 5. Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................................................ 9 6. Performance Standards.................................................................................................................... 9 7. Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................................................... 9 8. Long-term Management Plan ......................................................................................................... 9 9. Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 9 10. Financial Assurances ...................................................................................................................... 10 R 11. Other Information .......................................................................................................................... 10 D 12. References ...................................................................................................................................... 11 List of Tables Table 1. Potential sewer, water treatment, and solid waste projects at specific communities1 .............................. 4 Exhibit A. Concept design memorandums JANUARY 2020 i PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Alaska Administrative Code ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium AWC Anadromous Waters Catalog BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CMP Compensatory Mitigation Plan DA Department of the Army EPA Environmental Protection Agency ER Environmental Report HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IHS Indian Health Service NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service O&M Operation and Maintenance PER Preliminary Engineering Report PLP Pebble Limited Partnership PRM Permittee-responsible Mitigation STARS Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule TSS Total Suspended Solids USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VSW Village Safe Water WOUS Waters of the U.S., including wetlands JANUARY 2020 D R AF T AAC ii PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1. Objectives The Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) is proposing this permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) plan for water quality improvement projects as compensation for the unavoidable losses to aquatics resources that would result from the Pebble Project’s proposed discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. (WOUS), including wetlands. Wetlands improve water quality by intercepting surface runoff and removing or retaining inorganic nutrients, processing organic wastes, and reducing suspended sediments before they reach open water. The removal of wetlands can reduce the watershed’s ability to perform these functions and improve water quality. AF T Current sources of water pollutants in the project’s watersheds include community wastewater treatment systems. Poorly performing wastewater collection and treatment systems can introduce large volumes of pollutants (excrement, detergents, chlorine, and other chemicals) into the environment (NMFS 2017), degrading water quality and aquatic habitats. Discharges from properly designed and managed wastewater management systems have little or no adverse effect on water quality and the biota that thrives in the aquatic system. The goal of this PRM plan is to rehabilitate water quality in the project watersheds by reducing pollutants in discharges from wastewater collection and treatment systems. PLP is proposing to conduct wastewater improvement projects located within project watersheds that will address deficiencies and result in the rehabilitation of water quality in the communities of Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton. Objectives of this PRM include: Increase treatment and storage capacity of the sewage lagoon in Kokhanok. • Increase treatment and storage capacity of the sewage lagoon in Newhalen • Reduce wastewater treatment volume by reducing sewage collection system infiltration and improving operation reliability of the lift station unit in Nondalton. D R • PLP would be responsible for implementing this PRM, including ensuring that required compensatory mitigation activities are completed and successful. This type of mitigation project is not unique in Alaska. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has previously accepted wastewater treatment facility improvements as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses resulting from discharges to WOUS (USACE 2019). 2. Site Selection PLP’s site selection process considered current wastewater collection and treatment needs within the project watersheds. Most wastewater collection and treatment systems serving communities in the project watersheds typically consist of a combination of piped gravity systems, sewage lagoons, individual septic tanks, and privies. Treated wastewater that meets federal and state requirements is vital for preventing disease and protecting the environment. Individual privies and septic tanks can seep into the underground water tables and pollute water. Failing septic systems are a consequence of urban development. EPA estimates that 10 to 25 percent of all individual septic systems are failing at any one time, introducing contaminants into the environment JANUARY 2020 1 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (NMFS 2017). Sewage may contain significant amounts of organic matter that exert a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and cause immune suppression in fish (Arkoosh, et al. 2001). Piped gravity systems that store, treat, and discharge wastewater provide better protection for the environment in rural communities. However, successful operation of these facilities is often hampered by inadequate training and a lack of funding for preventive maintenance (U.S. Congress 1994). Federal and state agencies have programs to provide essential capital funds for repairing existing facilities and building new ones. The funding for proper operation and maintenance (O&M) of sanitation facilities is not traditionally part of any federal or state plan. Recognizing this deficiency, Congress amended the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 by passing the Indian Health Amendments of 1992, authorizing the Indian Health Service (IHS) to provide, for the first time, up to 80 percent of the O&M funding needed by economically deprived Native communities. AF T The IHS Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction maintains the Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS) database to track sanitation facilities’ projects (Indian Health Services 2019). Similarly, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Village Safe Water (VSW) Program maintains a multi-year project list to identify where funding is needed for the next several years. Projects are added to the list when communities submit applications that receive high overall ADEC review scores. Scoring is based primarily on critical health-related needs and local capacity to operate and maintain existing facilities. Sanitation projects are also funded and supported by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). Wastewater sanitation projects in rural areas often require the joint participation of IHS, ADEC’s VSW Program, and ANTHC. Table 1 identifies rural sanitation projects for communities in the project affected watersheds listed in the STARS database as of November 11, 2019. R IHS and VSW projects are initiated and completed based on their priority and the availability of funds. The project list is constantly evolving as new projects are added and projects are completed. Federal and state funds need to be stretched to complete as many projects as possible across Alaska. Table 1 includes ANTHC identified projects in the project watersheds that were considered by PLP. D In 2019, the Lake and Peninsula Borough (LPB) manager approached PLP to explore potential financing opportunities for community wastewater improvement projects within the framework of PLP’s compensatory mitigation plans. The LPB and PLP engaged in planning discussions and collaborated in the selection of potential wastewater projects from those listed in Table 1 that would meet the water quality goal of reducing pollutants in wastewater discharges, offsetting unavoidable losses to aquatic resources. Projects were selected based on their location within the potentially affected watershed, environmental significance, and practicability. Wastewater improvement project opportunities in the communities of Kokhanok, Newhalen and Nondalton are in proximity to the proposed discharges of fill material into WOUS and in the same watershed as the proposed mine facilities and transportation infrastructure. PLP reviewed the wastewater treatment systems’ deficiencies identified by IHS, ADEC and LPB for the communities of Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton. In general, these deficiencies affect wastewater treatment storage and capacity, and result in discharges of wastewater that have undergone little removal of contaminants or have the potential to bypass treatment entirely. Key deficiencies identified include: • Kokhanok wastewater treatment system . The wastewater treatment demands exceed the system’s design capacity and the sewage treatment and storage lagoon is at risk of overtopping the berms. The percolation cell is undersized and has been damaged due to the excess demand. The wastewater JANUARY 2020 2 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS system does not meet EPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule for turbidity requirements. The wastewater system is adjacent to Big Lake, which discharges into Iliamna Lake. • Newhalen wastewater treatment system . The wastewater treatment plant is undersized to handle the current wastewater volume and has reached the limit of its useful life. The plant is equipped with two septic tanks that are at a high risk of imminent failure (collapse). Raw sewage passes through these tanks substantially untreated. Removal of the septic tanks will require expansion of the sewage lagoon. This wastewater system is proximity 750 feet from Iliamna Lake. Nondalton wastewater treatment system . The wastewater treatment plant is undersized to handle the current wastewater volume which has increased as a result of significant stormwater infiltrations (hydraulic overloading) and debris intrusion in the sewage collection system. The lift station operates almost continuously (up to 80,000 gallons of wastewater per day) in order to meet the community’s wastewater demand and discharges to a lagoon designed to receive 12,300 gallons per day. The infiltration is a consequence of manholes that have experienced separation from their concrete bases due to frost jacking. Compounding the hydraulic overloading, the lift station components are severely deteriorated, causing the unit to be frequently offline. The increased flow and lift station conditions have caused back-ups to occur at lower elevation manholes, which could spill into adjacent Sixmile Lake waters. There are 17 manholes located within approximately 300 feet of Sixmile Lake, including the three closest to the lift station which are within 150 feet of Sixmile Lake. The lift station is located approximately 100 feet from Sixmile Lake. AF T • D R In December 2019 PLP contactors conducted in-depth reviews and site visits of wastewater facilities in Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton to confirm facility and site conditions and to initiate the development of conceptual wastewater improvement designs. The Concept Design Memorandums for each project are included in Exhibit A. Based on the review of site conditions and construction cost estimates, PLP has determined these conceptual plans to be practical, and capable of meeting the water quality rehabilitation goals of this PRM. JANUARY 2020 3 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Table 1. Potential sewer, water treatment, and solid waste projects at specific communities1 Community Project Name (IHS #) Existing Deficiencies Proposed Facilities2 The Igiugig sewage lagoon was constructed over 25 years ago and consists of two lagoon cells. Cell one and cell two were designed with berm heights of 10 feet and 4 feet. Deficiencies include: • The lagoon berms were constructed with native silt material and have settled approximately 2-3 feet. • The wire perimeter mesh fencing surrounding the lagoons is in disrepair. • The cell one liner has degraded due to ultraviolet (UV) light exposure. The facility is over 20 years old and has severely degraded in the extreme weather that comes off Iliamna Lake. The existing surface water treatment plant is not capable of meeting EPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Deficiencies include: • The existing facility is too small to be retrofitted to meet the SWTR. • Existing filtration does not meet SWTR turbidity requirements. • The solo-valve on the pressure sand filter, has frozen in the past and the internal orifices within the valve have broken, creating an internal crossconnection problem in the filter piping. • During heavy snow conditions, snow drifts bury the facility. This project would: • Repair lagoon dike settlement and reshape the lagoon berms. • Replace the wire mesh fencing with chain-link fencing and fence posts. • Patch the lagoon liner. Kokhanok Sewage Lagoon Expansion (AK15455-2003) JANUARY 2020 D R Kokhanok Water Treatment Plant (AK15455-1002) AF Igiugig Sewage Lagoon Improvements (AK15429-2001) T Iliamna Lake and Sixmile Lake Communities The existing sewage lagoon was constructed in 1995 and is undersized. • Limited capacity in cell one causes sewage overflows into cell two, the percolation cell. • The undersized percolation cell has been damaged due to overloaded demand. The percolation rate in cell two has slowly decreased over time and during certain times of the year, the incoming flow rates are greater than cells one and two can treat. • A 2016 sanitation survey reported local source water streams close to the lagoon were at risk of contamination due to the overflow. Construct a new surface water treatment plant that complies with the current SWTR, including: • Dual multimedia filters for direct filtration and polymer injection. • Dual boilers for adding heat to cold lake water being pumped to the water storage tank and water distribution system. • A small laboratory, bathroom, office, storage, and O&M workspace. • A concrete foundation, 2x6 insulated wall, metal siding and metal roof structure. This project would construct an additional 14,000 square-foot percolation cell for expansion of the sewage lagoon. 4 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Community Project Name (IHS #) Proposed Facilities2 The Kokhanok wastewater system was installed in the early 1990s and has exceeded its design life. Wastewater flows to the community’s lagoon by either a conventional gravity sewer main with individual sewer services or a sewer force main working in conjunction with Residential Effluent Pump (REP) units. The 10 to 15-year design life of REP units has been exceeded. • Many of the existing pumps and controls have failed causing some residents to manually turn on their pumps for wastewater discharge. Others have resorted to using honey buckets for their wastewater needs. • The failed systems have led to sewage regularly backing up into residential toilets, tubs, and sinks, exposing homeowners to raw sewage and creating a health hazard. • Steel septic tanks and pump vaults have rusted through causing wastewater to surface on residential property. The Kokhanok Tribe and homeowners have attempted to replace the pumps and control panels throughout the system, however due to the age of the system, replacing only these components does not solve the deficiency. The existing groundwater treatment plant is over 34 years old and at the end of its useful life. Although still capable of meeting current water quality standards, the plant deficiencies include: • Extremely deteriorated, which precludes safe and normal operation and maintenance on the piping and components. • O&M costs are high due to significant structure energy deficiencies and it needs to be replaced. The existing sewage lagoon is only approved as an effluent lagoon and is not permitted for or capable of handling raw sewage. During the development of the current sewage lift station project, it was assumed that the lagoon would be able to handle raw sewage, thereby eliminating the two failing septic tanks and failing wet well/dry well lift station. ADEC reviewed the proposed expansion plans and are requiring that in order to connect to the new sewage lift station and accept raw sewage the existing sewage lagoon must be expanded. The existing failing septic tanks would be left in place until the lagoon is expanded. This project would replace the individual REPS and sewer service lines for 15 homes. JANUARY 2020 R Newhalen Sewage Lagoon Expansion (AK15440-2003) D Newhalen Water Treatment Plant (AK15400-1001) AF T Kokhanok Individual Wastewater System Replacement (AK15455-2004) Existing Deficiencies Construct a new groundwater treatment plant. This proposed project would upgrade an existing sanitation component that cannot meet capacity requirements and if unresolved, would jeopardize the health benefits of the system. Improvements include: • Expand and permit the existing sewage lagoon to connect to a new sewage lift station and permit and accept raw sewage. • Retain existing failing septic tanks in place until the lagoon is 5 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Community Project Name (IHS #) Existing Deficiencies The lift station has deteriorated over time and no longer functions as designed. Deficiencies include: • Broken pump rails that make it impossible to provide operation and maintenance or replacement of the lift station pumps. • Malfunctioning electrical controls, including those for the ventilation fans • Electrical controls are housed in the same room as the wet well and are not explosion proof as required by National Electrical Manufacturers Association. • The lift station operates almost continuously (up to 80,000 gallons of wastewater per day) in order to meet the community’s wastewater demand and discharges to a lagoon designed to receive 12,300 gallons per day. • The lift station is located less than 100 ft from the high-water level of Sixmile Lake, a violation of the State of Alaska’s separation distance requirements. Nondalton Sewage Lagoon (AK15442-2105) • Nondalton Sewer Collection (AK15442-4006) • expanded and permitted to accept raw sewage. Remove the existing lift station structure, pumps, wet well, and electrical, and replace the lift station with a new structure, wet well, submersible pumps, and new electrical. Replace the failed 20+ year old lift station. • • • JANUARY 2020 R The sewage lagoon is undersized for the flow it receives and discharges without a discharge permit more than 10% of the time. Effluent is discharged to a lined primary cell; an overflow structure on the south side of the primary cell connects to an unlined percolation cell. The percolation cell has an overflow pipe that discharges into woods east of the lagoon. Wastewater flows from this overflow discharge pipe to a lowland area and eventually to Sixmile Lake, the community’s drinking water source. The sewer system’s polyvinyl chloride (PVC) mains and service lines have become brittle over the years, causing breaks, specifically at connection points where the main meets a service line or manhole. Existing corrugated metal manholes have experienced separation from their concrete bases due to frost jacking. Sediment and debris have built up in the manhole inverts and many of the manholes and covers are below grade making access for maintenance difficult. Infiltration caused by the system's deficiencies has led to a significant increase in the system’s wastewater flow causing the community lift station to work overtime. D • AF T Nondalton Lift Station Replacement (AK15442-2001) Proposed Facilities2 • Construct an additional 3 acres of lagoon cell(s) at the existing sewage lagoon site. • Upgrade components that intermittently compromise or are likely to compromise the health benefits of the system. The project would replace existing system components where structural integrity has been compromised and currently jeopardizes the health benefits of the system. • Replace the existing PVC arctic gravity sewer collection mains with 8-inch high density polyethylene (HDPE) insulated arctic pipe. • Replace the existing arctic manholes with 4-foot diameter concrete manholes. 6 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Community Project Name (IHS #) Existing Deficiencies Proposed Facilities2 • Koliganek Onsite Water and Sewer for Two Homes (AK15433-2003) Water: Two homes have no interior or exterior water facilities. Homeowners haul water for residential use. Sewer: Two homes have no interior or exterior sewer facilities. Ekwok Sewage Lagoon Improvements (AK15428-2003) • • 1 T Source: Indian Health Services, Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), https://wstars.ihs.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reports.selectCommunityForPublicSdsSummary, November 6, 2019, unless otherwise noted. The project as summarized in STARS. R 2 AF • Fencing is in disrepair. Lagoon seepage estimated at over 10 times the current applicable standard. The first cell was designed as a percolating cell, and a second cell was subsequently added. The first cell is undersized and is functioning as a cesspool, with uncontrolled sewage flow into the ground and overland to the second cell. The lagoon receives periodic deliveries of septage; most homes use on-site systems. Replace arctic boxes and service lines at each home. Water: This project would provide two un-served homes with in-home plumbing and onsite wells. Sewer: This project would provide two un-served homes with in-home plumbing and onsite wastewater facilities. The project would rehabilitate the lagoon by expanding and lining the first cell, rehabilitating the second cell and, as necessary, replacing/repairing fencing. D Abbreviations: Preliminary Engineering Report (PER); Environmental Report (ER); Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), Indian Health Service (IHS) JANUARY 2020 7 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 3. Determination of Credits PLP’s proposal to fund village wastewater collection and treatment projects at Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton would improve local wastewater management systems in project watersheds; the resulting outcomes would be the rehabilitation of receiving WOUS water quality or prevention of further degradation. This rehabilitation would not result in a gain of aquatic resources area for purposes of tracking “no net loss” of wetlands; however, it can still be used to compensate for a loss in resource area. 4. Mitigation Work Plan PLP has prepared conceptual plans, including concept design requirements and preliminary engineering drawings, for the proposed wastewater improvements at Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton (Exhibit A). Proposed wastewater improvements include: Kokhanok wastewater system improvements. Newhalen wastewater system improvements. o • Construct a new groundwater treatment plant with a three-cell lagoon having a total surface area of approximately 2.1 acres to meet required wastewater storage and adequate percolation. Nondalton wastewater system improvements. R • Construct a new groundwater treatment plant with a three-cell lagoon having a total surface area of approximately 4 acres to meet required wastewater storage and adequate percolation. AF T o o Remove the existing lift station structure, pumps, wet well, and electrical, and replace the lift station with a new structure, wet well, submersible pumps, and new electrical. o Replace the existing 21 arctic manholes with 4-foot diameter concrete manholes. D • The work plan to complete the proposed wastewater improvements includes: • Complete final coordination with village administration and operations and maintenance (O&M) personnel to ensure planned upgrades and repairs address identified problems and are compatible with O&M capabilities. • Coordinate with ADEC and ANTHC to ensure plans are compatible with existing systems and current standards for village community sewage systems. • Complete comprehensive assessment of the existing wastewater infrastructure. • Confirm current wastewater volumes and calculate projected volumes through project design life. • Prepare system upgrade engineering plans for review by agencies and villages. • ADEC plan review and final approval obtained. JANUARY 2020 8 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS • Prepare final project plans and specifications and release for bid. • Construct wastewater system upgrades and commission systems. • ADEC issues final approval to operate (FATO). • Villages accept upgrades and assume maintenance and operations responsibility. • Prepare a report of wastewater improvements completed and provide copies of the ADEC issued final approval to operate certificates to the USACE for review; document achievement of performance goals. 5. Maintenance Plan AF T Wastewater collection and treatment systems would be operated and maintained by the community or tribal entity served by the system and would be subject to state and federal regulatory oversight and reporting requirements. PLP is not proposing maintenance of the facilities or systems other than as necessary to correct potential system construction or design deficiencies for a period of five years after performance standards are achieved. The local wastewater treatment operators would continue to be responsible for maintaining their facilities. Therefore, no specific maintenance plan has been developed. 6. Performance Standards The performance standard for wastewater projects is: Wastewater system improvements will receive the required “final approval to operate (FATO)” from the ADEC. R • 7. Monitoring Requirements D The proposed wastewater treatment systems will be subject to state and federal regulatory oversight, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The community or tribal entity would continue to be responsible for their facilities. PLP will conduct annual post-construction inspections to document integrity of improvements for a period of five years. 8. Long-term Management Plan Long-term management of the wastewater treatment system by PLP is not warranted because PLP would not be the owner or operator of the system. 9. Adaptive Management Plan This PRM proposes wastewater improvement projects for the communities of Kokhanok, Newhalen, and Nondalton. The timing to start construction of these projects is dependent on the USACE’s approval of PLP’s Department of the Army permit application, and PLP’s decision to proceed with construction of the overall Pebble Project. The proposed improvements are critically needed by the communities to resolve JANUARY 2020 9 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS existing deficiencies and have already been identified by ADEC, IHS, and ANTHC. It is possible that if funding becomes available from ANTHC or another party, the proposed wastewater improvements could be completed without PLP’s involvement prior to execution of this plan. If the proposed wastewater improvements become impractical for any reason, PLP will research and propose similar scope project(s) within the potentially affected watershed, or outside if required. Such a change would require the revision of the PRM objectives and performance standards, which would be submitted to the USACE for review and approval. Project design changes, necessary to meet regulatory requirements and the plan objectives and performance standards, will be completed by PLP without approval from USACE. 10. Financial Assurances PLP will establish a performance bond to ensure the PRM projects are satisfactorily constructed and all performance criteria are met. PLP is responsible for: All permit acquisition and compliance. • Project design, set-up, management, planning, support, and execution of the PRM plan. • Site inventory, data collection, and monitoring. • Reporting to USACE. AF T • The bond will be closed once all PRM objectives and performance standards are met, and a final sign-off on the PRM plan has been provided by the USACE. R 11. Other Information D No other information is provided. JANUARY 2020 10 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 12. References Arkoosh, M. R., E. Cassillas, E. Clemons, P. Huffman, A. N. Kagley, T. Collier, and J. E. Stein. 2001. "Increased susceptibility of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to vibriosis after exposure to chlorinated and aromatic compounds found in contaminated urban estuaries." Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 13:257-268. EPA. 2019. Enforcement and Compliance History Online. Accessed August 29, 2019. https://echo.epa.gov. Indian Health Services. 2019. Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS). Accessed November 6, 2019. https://wstars.ihs.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reports.selectCommunityForPublicSdsSummary. AF T NMFS. 2017. Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-Fishing Activities in Alaska, Appendix G Nonfishing Impacts to Essenstial Fish Habitat and Recommended Conservation Measure. Environmental Impact Statement, National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Congress. 1994. An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. Goverment Printing Office. doi:OTA-ENV591. D R USACE. 2019. "Department of the Army Permit POA-2015-00025." May 21. JANUARY 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS D R AF T Exhibit A JANUARY 2020 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com Concept Design Memorandum TO: Alaska Peninsula Corporation SUBJECT: Kokhanok Sewage Lagoon Improvements DATE: 1/23/2020 BY: Steven Hebnes, PE, Civil Engineer Existing Conditions R AF T CRW Engineering Group, LLC (CRW) is providing subcontract services with the Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC) to assess various sanitation needs in the community of Kokhanok as a component of the mitigation planning for the Pebble Project. As a part of the evaluation effort, CRW has reviewed current Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) documentation provided by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), performed a site assessment, interviewed community members familiar with the system operation, and reviewed record documents for past specific projects, including previous design reports, field assessments, and related correspondence. The community of Kokhanok is served by ANTHC for addressing public sanitation needs. ANTHC has summarized various sanitation needs in Kokhanok for seeking Indian Health Service (IHS) funding through the SDS program. The Kokhanok wastewater lagoon project has been summarized in SDS reporting, but does not rank high enough for securing IHS funding. D The community of Kokhanok wastewater system includes a piped sewer collection system with a community percolation sewage lagoon used for wastewater treatment and disposal. The existing sewage lagoon in the community of Kokhanok was constructed in 1995 and has been found to be significantly undersized for current wastewater hydraulic and BOD loading rates. The sewage lagoon currently features a two-cell system: a primary cell and a smaller percolation cell. Both the primary and percolation cells are undersized. The percolation rate of the underlying soils have apparently diminished due to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) overloading and solids overloading. BOD represents the amount of oxygen needed by aerobic organisms to break down organic material and reduce/remove organic solids. It has been noted by ANTHC and the community that percolation rates appear to be slower during the wetter and colder seasons of the year, and as a result, incoming flow rates often exceed the treatment rate of the lagoon. Lagoon overflows have been associated with these conditions. During CRW’s October 2019 site visit, the regional State of Alaska Remote Maintenance Worker (RMW) was on-site and indicated that portions of the liner in Cell #1 occasionally float up above the water surface, possibly Page 1 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com reducing the water capacity in Cell 1. Visible liners are typically a sign of off-gassing from decaying organics below the liner, or that the liner is compromised. High groundwater may also exacerbate this condition. As part of this evaluation, CRW traveled to Kokhanok in early December 2019 and dug 3 test pits in the vicinity of the existing wastewater lagoon to identify the potential for percolation cell expansion, and also identify a potential site for a new wastewater lagoon. During the inspection, groundwater was found approximately 2 to 3 feet below the ground surface near the existing lagoon. The testing information and the geotechnical memo from this effort is attached. AF T Having a high potential for future overtopping and with a compromised liner, it is evident that the lagoon is failing and is in need of system improvements. Upgrades to the lagoon are necessary to meet current and future treatment capacity requirements. Risk to the Environment from the Current Wastewater System Deficiencies D R The existing sewage lagoon is at risk of overtopping. If the sewage lagoon continues to operate with the current deficiencies, it is expected that raw sewage will continue to be conveyed into the undersized primary treatment and percolation cells, and will continue to overtop the lagoon berms when incoming flow rates are greater than the diminishing treatment capacity of the existing lagoon. The result of a wastewater lagoon breach could create a substantial release of wastewater into the adjacent wetlands and waterbodies, as much as the daily volume of 18,750 gallons per day. Untreated releases of wastewater into the surrounding environment can impose threats to community health and damage aquatic habitats from high BOD, pathogens and other contaminants. Recommended Improvement The recommended improvement for the community of Kokhanok is to increase the treatment capacity of the sewage lagoon to meet ADEC standards for treating raw sewage. Further, the improvements should also provide adequate percolation and hydraulic storage capacity. This recommendation is consistent with ANTHC’s findings from reviewing the lagoon’s deficiencies. With these improvements, the treatment of domestic wastewater would be performed in a three-cell lagoon having a total surface area of approximately 173,000 SF (4.0 acres). The lagoon would be bounded by berms constructed from local granular fill. The berms would be built in one-foot lifts to create 3:1 interior and exterior slopes. A vegetative cover on the exterior slopes would be graded at a 4:1 slope. The new berm height would be 8 feet above the existing grade. The primary treatment cells berm height provide a 3-foot freeboard height above the liquid Page 2 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com volume, and a 1.0-foot depth for sludge storage (220,000 gallons), in accordance with the ADEC design criteria. Improvements for existing Cells #1 and #2 would be limited to regrading existing berm slopes and adding fill as required. Two feet of additional fill is anticipated. Secondary treatment and percolation would be performed in Cell #3, and would be constructed similar to Cell’s #1 and #2, but to a lower berm height of 6 feet. The new percolation cell would be located in an undisturbed area, and would require full grading and berm development. With this geometry, the berm construction would require approximately 12,000 CY of granular fill. Approximately 1 foot of organic material would cap the exterior slopes, to be vegetated for erosion control and bank stability. • Lagoon Design Criteria: o 18,750 GPD 1 AF T Conceptual Design Requirements o Percolation Rate: 0.25 gal/SF/day (ADEC reduced rate due to high groundwater). o Maximum Organic Loading: 20-30 lb/acre 2 o Minimum Primary Treatment Wetted Surface Area: 1.42 acres. o Total Effective Volume: 4,410,000 Gallons Upgrade existing Primary Cell #1 and Percolation Cell #2 berms to meet ADEC primary treatment surface area requirements based on the calculated organic loading 3: R • o Repair the failed liner from Cell #1. D o Upgrades to the existing cells: •  Cell #1 would provide an effective operating volume of 2,390,000 gallons and a wetted surface area of 1.15 acres.  Cell #2 would provide an effective operating volume of 767,000 gallons and a wetted surface area of 0.45 acres. Design of a new percolation Cell #3 based on design percolation rate with a minimum winter volume storage capacity of 120 days: 1 GV Jones and Associates, Kokhanok Wastewater Feasibility Study, 2011, ANTHC. Heath Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division, Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, 2004, Member States and Province. 3 Heath Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division, Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, 2004, Member States and Province. 2 Page 3 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com o The new percolation Cell #3 will provide an effective winter storage capacity of 2,350,000 gallons, percolation surface area of 84,000 square feet and a wetted surface area of 2.04 acres (area not included for Organic Loading requirements). The proposed action would result in the construction of a fully-permitted community sewage treatment system, would will protect the environment and public health from the hazards identified. Conceptual Construction Drawings Kokhanok Sewage Lagoon Photos – October 2019 D R AF T Geotechnical Report: Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment – January 2020 Page 4 of 4 BARROW KOTZEBUE NOME FAIRBANKS BETHEL ANCHORAGE JUNEAU KODIAK R AF T KOKHANOK D UNALASKA TOAARPORT Overviewdw. Communit WATER CLINIC - TREATMENT PLANT .com uro?ects JobsDoto 48601.00 APC Newhclen KOKHANOK, ALASKA Project No:46801.00 Drown By: MCH CRW ENGINEERINGGROUBLLC COMMUNITY OVERVIEW Scale: GRAPHIC 3940 ARCTIC SUITE 300 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 DateLAGOON IMPROVEMENT PLAN Figure: 2 T AF R D FIG 3 B FIG 5 D R AF T C FIG 5 A FIG 5 LAGOON CELL A FIG 5 TYPICAL BERM SECTION A Scale:AS SHOWN EXISTING CELL #2 B TYPICAL BERM SECTION B Scale:AS SHOWN R FIG 5 AF T EXISTING CELL #1 D EXISTING CELL #2 C FIG 5 FIG 5 TYPICAL BERM SECTION C Scale:AS SHOWN OVERFLOW CHANNEL DETAIL Scale:NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED PERCOLATION CELL #3 Concept Design Memorandum Kokhanok, Alaska January 2020 Kokhanok Lagoon Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Lagoon Cell #1 with liner visible. – October 29, 2019 CRW Project: 48601.00 Lagoon Cell #1, view two. – October 29, 2019 Page 1 December 2019 Concept Design Memorandum Kokhanok, Alaska January 2020 Kokhanok Lagoon Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Lagoon Cell #2 – October 29, 2019 CRW Project: 48601.00 Berm between Cell #1 (right) and Cell #2 (left) – October 29, 2019 Page 2 December 2019 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment D R AF T January 2020 Contact Steven Halcomb, PE, GE shalcomb@crweng.com 3940 Arctic Blvd., Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 p (907) 562.3252 f (907) 561.2273 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok Water and Sewer Scoping Assessment Submitted To: Submitted By: D R CRW Engineering Group, LLC 3940 Arctic Blvd., Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 562-3252 www.crweng.com AF T Mr. David McAlister Alaska Peninsula Corporation 301 Calista Court, Suite 101 Anchorage, AK 99513 [DRAFT – NO SIGNATURES] ____________________________ Steven Halcomb, PE, GE, D.GE Senior Geotechnical Engineer January 2020 CRW Project Number 48601.00 CRW Project: 48601.00 Page i Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 Table of Contents Contents Introduction and Project Description .............................................................................. 1 Site Description .............................................................................................................. 1 Subsurface Investigation ................................................................................................. 1 3.1 Test Pit Sample Collecting ................................................................................................................. 1 3.1.1 3.2 Test Pit Completion ......................................................................................................................................2 Percolation Test ................................................................................................................................ 2 Laboratory Testing and Results ....................................................................................... 2 Site Conditions ............................................................................................................... 3 Soil Lithology ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Permafrost ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Bedrock ............................................................................................................................................. 4 AF T 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Limitations and Closure .................................................................................................. 4 References ..................................................................................................................... 4 Figures R Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2– Test Pit Locations Tables Appendices D Table 1 – Percolation Rates........................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2 – Groundwater Depths ..................................................................................................................... 3 Appendix A – Test Pit Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Results Appendix C – Site Investigation Photos CRW Project: 48601.00 Page ii Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 Introduction and Project Description CRW Engineering Group, LLC (CRW) is pleased to present this geotechnical report to support the design and construction of a new lagoon in Kokhanok, Alaska (see Figure 1). This report summarizes our geotechnical investigation and existing subsurface conditions. The project consists of the expansion of the existing lagoon for the Village of Kokhanok. The locations evaluated for the new lagoon were to the east and south of the existing lagoon and a new site approximately 0.43 miles north-northeast of the existing lagoon (see Figure 2). Our scope of work included: • • Performing a geotechnical investigation which included excavating four test pits. Percolation testing. Overseeing laboratory testing of recovered soil samples including moisture content, grain size distribution, and Atterberg Limits. Analysis of field observations and testing results. Preparing the geotechnical data report. Site Description AF T • • • The project site is located in Kokhanok, Alaska, which is on the southern shoreline of Lake Iliamna, 22 miles south of the City of Iliamna, and 88 miles northeast of the City of King Salmon. The topography of the area is generally flat with some rolling hills, and benches with mountains to the southeast. Peat bogs occur in some of the lowland areas and consist of organic and silty soils with surface water or shallow groundwater present. R Subsurface Investigation A geotechnical investigation was completed on December 16th and 17th of 2019 to assess existing subsurface conditions. The investigation included four test pit (TP-01 thru 03 and HDTP-01). D Test pit locations were determined by CRW and field-adjusted as needed. Final test pit location are shown on Figure 2. Excavation services were provided by the Native Village of Kokhanok, using a Case 580 rubber-tired backhoe. Backhoe-completed test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 5 to 8 feet below the ground surface (BGS). One hand-dug test pit (HDTP-01) was completed to a depth of 2 feet BGS using a square-nosed shovel and gardening spade. Test pit logs are presented in Appendix A. Field operations were supervised by a CRW geotechnical engineer, who logged the recovered soils, collected samples, and directed the excavation operation. Photos from the exploration are presented in Appendix C. 3.1 Test Pit Sample Collecting Representative samples were collected from the backhoe bucket as the test pits were excavated or as grab samples from the excavation. Recovered samples were visually classified in the field before being individually sealed in double plastic bags. Visual classification was performed following the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS) according to ASTM D2487/D2488. Samples will be retained for up to 6 months for future testing if requested. CRW Project: 48601.00 Page 1 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 3.1.1 Test Pit Completion Upon completion, the test pits were filled and compacted with the backhoe bucket or shovel to closely match original grade. 3.2 Percolation Test One in-situ falling head percolation test was performed (PERC-01) in TP-03. The groundwater table was observed to be too shallow in TP-01, TP-02, and HDTP-01 to perform percolation testing. Results from the percolation tests are presented on the test pit log and shown in Table 1 below. The tests were performed in accordance with the Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Design Manual (EPA, 1980). The percolation test location is shown in Figure 2. Table 1 – Percolation Rates Percolation Pit PERC-01 0.98 AF T Percolation Rate (minutes per inch) Laboratory Testing and Results Soil laboratory tests to evaluate index properties of representative samples were performed by Alaska Testlab at their Anchorage facility. The laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the test methods of ASTM International. In total, 8 samples were submitted for testing. The laboratory testing consisted of soil index tests to determine: water content, grain-size distribution, organic content, and Atterberg Limits. R All samples were tested for their water content per ASTM D2216. Water contents varied from 8 to 33 percent. D Five samples were selected for grain-size distribution testing in accordance with ASTM D6913 and/or D422. Four samples were classified as poorly graded sand and gravel with varying fines content, with one sample being silty sand with gravel. Two samples were washed through the No. 200 mesh sieve in accordance with ASTM D1140. The coarse fraction of the remaining soil was then dried and sieved through the No. 4 sieve to determine the sand and gravel content. This method is termed the Limited Mechanical Analysis (LMA). The LMA is a means to determine the percentage of coarse and fine soil in a sample without having to perform full gradations. These two samples were classified as silty sand and silty gravel. One sample was tested for its Atterberg Limits in accordance with ASTM D4318. The result of this test determined the plasticity to be non-plastic. One sample was tested for its organic content in accordance with ASTM D2974. The organic and ash content was determined to be 5.3 and 94.7 percent, respectively. Results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. CRW Project: 48601.00 Page 2 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 Site Conditions 5.1 Soil Lithology Kokhanok is primarily underlain by beach deposits of estuarine and lacustrine origin, potential glacial drift, and bedrock (Detterman and Reed, 1973). A thin organic mat approximately 3 inches thick was observed in the test pits. The organic mat was brown, moist, and had up to 1 inch fibrous roots. The subsurface conditions around the existing lagoon generally consisted of poorly graded sand to silty sand. The sand was brown to dark gray in color and moist to wet with water contents ranging from 11 to 33 percent. The fines content of the sand ranged from 1 to 24 percent and was noted to be non-plastic. The sand content ranged from 41 to 99 percent, with a size range of coarse-to-fine. The gravel content ranged from 0 to 35 percent with a size range of coarse-to-fine and maximum particle size of 3 inches. AF T Significant organic content was observed in TP-01, in addition to variation in color of the sand compared to TP-02 and HDTP-01. It is most likely that the material encountered in TP-01 was from the construction of the existing lagoon and not necessarily reflective of the native in-situ soils. The subsurface condition at TP-03 was observed to be 1 foot of brown, moist organic silt underlying the organic mat. Below the organic silt was a brown, moist, clean poorly graded gravel to a depth of 7 feet BGS. The moisture content of the gravel varied from 7.6 to 9.2 percent. The gravel content was noted to decrease with depth during the excavation. Below the poorly graded gravel was a silty gravel with sand until 8 feet BGS at which point the excavator bucket encountered refusal. Cobbles were observed in the test pits and ranged from 8 to 11 inches in diameter though less than 5 percent of the soil matrix by volume. Groundwater R 5.2 D Groundwater was observed in the test pits from 2 to 7 feet BGS. A summary of the depth of groundwater is presented in Table 2 below. Table 2 – Groundwater Depths Test Pit TP-01 TP-02 TP-03 HDTP-01 5.3 Depth, feet 3 1 7 2 Permafrost The project area is located in a region known to have isolated to absent permafrost (INE, 2008). Recovered samples were all observed to be in a thawed state. We therefore conclude that no permafrost is present at the site. CRW Project: 48601.00 Page 3 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment 5.4 January 2020 Bedrock Local bedrock is of volcanic origin, found near the surface and in visible outcrops consisting of volcanic flows and tuffs including Mesozoic porphyry and Tertiary basalts (Martin, G.C., and Katz, F.P., 1912). The bedrock is not metamorphosed and is generally overlain at the lower altitudes by terrace gravels and small amounts of glacial till. The area has been heavily glaciated with glacial deposits prevalent throughout (Detterman and Reed, 1973). Limitations and Closure The information submitted in this report is based on our interpretation of data from the field geotechnical investigation performed for this project. The conclusions contained in this report are based on site conditions as they were observed on the dates indicated. It is presumed that the exploratory test pits are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. Effort was made to obtain information representative of existing conditions at the site. If, however, subsurface conditions are found to differ, we should be notified immediately to review these recommendations in light of additional information. AF T If there is substantial lapse of time between the submittal of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, we recommend that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions considering the changed conditions and time lapse. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot fully be determined by collecting discrete samples or performing test pits. The client and contractor should be aware of this risk and account for contingency accordingly. This report was prepared by CRW Engineering Group, LLC for use on this project and is not intended for use on other projects. CRW is not responsible for conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based on data presented in this report. R References Detterman, R.L. and Reed, B.L., 1973. Surficial Deposits of the Iliamna Quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1368-A, p. A1-A64. D Institute of Northern Engineering (INE), 2008. Permafrost Characteristics of Alaska Map. University of Alaska Fairbanks, December 2008. Martin, G.C. and Katz, F.J., 1912. A Geologic Reconnaissance of the Iliamna Region, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 485, p.144. Otis, R., W. Boyle, E. Clements, AND C. Schmidt. Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/625/1-80/012 (NTIS PB83219907), 1980. CRW Project: 48601.00 Page 4 Included in this section: D R 1) Vicinity Map 2) Test Pit Locations AF T Figures BARROW KOTZEBUE NOME FAIRBANKS BETHEL ANCHORAGE JUNEAU KODIAK R AF T KOKHANOK D UNALASKA AF T R D Appendix A Test Pit Logs AF T Included in this section: D R 1) Test Pit Log Legend 2) Test Pit Logs (TP-01 thru 03 and HDTP-01) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 2487) 60 CLAYEY GRAVEL SW WELL-GRADED SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND CL LEAN CLAY ML SILT OL ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT GW FAT CLAY MH ELASTIC SILT OH ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT PT PEAT (LL < 50) 40 ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT (OH, OL) if: LL (oven dried) LL (not dried) < 0.75 30 t (a CL 20 (PI > 7) (4 ≤ PI ≤ 7) CL-ML (PI < 4) 7 4 0 0 COMPONENT BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL COARSE GRAVEL FINE GRAVEL SAND COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT AND CLAY SILT CLAY 0-4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50 OVER 50 VERY SOFT SOFT MEDIUM STIFF VERY STIFF HARD 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) DESCRIPTIVE TERMS TRACE N60 (BLOWS/FOOT)(c) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TSF)(d) D 90 100 0-2 2-4 4-8 8 - 15 15 - 30 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 OVER 30 OVER 4.0 RANGE OF PROPORTION 0 - 5% FEW 5 - 10% 10 - 25% SOME 30 - 45% MOSTLY 50 - 100% CRITERIA FOR DESCRIBING MOISTURE CONDITION (ASTM D 2488) ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCH MOIST DAMP BUT NO VISIBLE WATER VISIBLE FREE WATER, USUALLY WET SOIL IS BELOW WATER TABLE DRY SAMPLER ABBREVIATIONS SPT Sampler (2 in. OD, 140 lb hammer) C Core (Rock) TW Thin Wall (Shelby Tube) HD Heavy Duty Split Spoon (3 in. OD, 300/340 lb typ.) MS Modified Shelby BD Bulk Drive (4 in. OD, 300/340 lb hammer typ.) GP Geoprobe CA Continuous Core (Soil in Hollow-Stem Auger) AR Air Rotary Cuttings Grab Sample from surface / testpit AG Auger Cuttings G 80 LITTLE Oversize Spit Spoon (2.5 in. OD, 140 lb typ.) SSO 70 SIZE RANGE ABOVE 12 IN. 3 IN. TO 12 IN. 3 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm) 3 IN. TO 3/4 IN. 3/4 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm) NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm) NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 10 (2.0 mm) NO 10 (2.0 mm) TO NO. 40 (0.42 mm) NO. 40 (0.42 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm) SMALLER THAN NO. 200 (0.074 mm) 0.074 mm TO 0.005 mm LESS THAN 0.005 mm (a) Soils consisting of gravel, sand and silt, either separately or in combination possessing no characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting drained behavior. (b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting undrained behavior. (c) Refer to ASTM D 1586-99 for a definition of N. (d) Undrained shear strength, su = 1/2 unconfined compression strength, Uc . Note that Torvane measures su and Pocket Penetrometer measures Uc . SS ab DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR PERCENTAGES (ASTM D 2488) R VERY LOOSE LOOSE MED DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE A e" ) ov ne " li "A w elo (b or ML COHESIVE SOILS(b) N60 (BLOWS/FOOT)(c) CONSISTENCY E IN "L "A MH 10 RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY ESTIMATE USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) VALUES (FROM TERZAGHI & PECK 1996) RELATIVE DENSITY e) n " li COMPONENT DEFINITIONS BY GRADATION Gravels or sands with 5% to 12 % fines require dual symbols (GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, GP-GC, SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC) and add "with clay or "with silt" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML for GM or SM, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. Optional Abbreviations: Lower case "s" after USCS group symbol denotes either "sandy or "with sand" and "g" denotes either "gravelly" or "with gravel." COHESIONLESS SOILS(a) CH (LL ≥ 50) PLASTICITY CHART GC 50 AF T SILTY GRAVEL if soil contains coarse-grained soil from 15% to 29%, add "with sand" or "with gravel" for whichever type is prominent, or for ≥ 30%, add "sandy" or "gravelly" GM if soil contains POORLY GRADED GRAVEL "with sand" if soil contains GP "with gravel" WELL-GRADED GRAVEL ≥ 15% gravel, add GW ≥ 15% sand, add SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) GROUP SYMBOL LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS AL Consol LMA Atterberg Limit Consolidation Limited Mechanical Analysis MA Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis MC NP Moisture Content Non-plastic OLI Organic Loss Plastic Index TS PID Photoionization Detector TV Proc Proctor TXCD Pocket Penetrometer Percent Fines (Silt & Clay) TXCU Consolidated Undrained Triaxial P200 TXUU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial SA SpG Sieve Analysis VS Specific Gravity Ω PI PP Thaw Consolidation Torvane Consolidated Drained Triaxial Vane Shear Soil Resistivity FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS FIGURE N.T.S. A-1 4/25/2018 A-1 FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 4083) 1. DESCRIBE SOIL INDEPENDENT OF FROZEN STATE MAJOR GROUP DESCRIPTION Poorly bonded of friable Nf V Ice greater than 25 mm thick No excess ice Nbn Excess ice Nbe Individual ice crystals or inclusions Vx Ice coatings on particles Vc Random or irregularly oriented ice formations Vr Stratified or distinctly oriented ice formations Vs Uniformly distributed ice Vu (3) NFS GENERAL SOIL TYPE (a) Gravels Crushed stone Crushed rock (b) Sands Ice with soil inclusions ICE+soil type Ice without soil inclusions ICE ICE [MOA F2] (b) Sands S1 [MOA F2] F1(5) (5) F2 (5) F3 F4(5) TYPICAL USCS SOIL CLASS 0 - 1.5 GW, GP 0-3 SW, SP GW, GP 1.5 - 3 3 - 10 SW, SP Gravelly soils 3-6 GW, GP, GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC Sandy soils 3-6 SW, SP, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC Gravelly soils 6 - 10 GM, GC, GM-GC, GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC (a) Gravelly soils 10 - 20 (b) Sands 6 - 15 (a) Gravelly soils 10 -20 GM, GC, GM-GC 6 - 15 SM, SC, SM-SC --- CL, CH ML, MH, ML-CL (b) Very fine silty sands Over 15 SM, SC, SM-SC (c) Clays, PI<12 -- CL, ML-CL (d) Varved clays or other fine-grained banded sediments -- CL or CH layered with ML, MH, ML-CL, SM, SC, or SM-SC D S1 [MOA F1] % FINER THAN 0.02 mm BY WEIGHT R PFS [MOA NFS] (a) Gravels Crushed stone Crushed rock (4) (b) Sands, except very fine silty sands (c) Clays, PI>12 (a) Silts DEFINITIONS Candled Ice is ice which has rotted or otherwise formed into long columnar crystals, very loosely bonded together. Clear Ice is transparent and contains only a moderate number of air bubbles. Cloudy Ice is translucent, but essentially sound and non-pervious. Friable denotes a condition in which material is easily broken up under light to moderate pressure. FROST DESIGN SOIL CLASSIFICATION(1) FROST GROUP(2) Poorly bonded or friable Well bonded Well bonded MODIFY SOIL DESCRIPTION BY DESCRIPTION OF FROZEN SOIL MODIFY SOIL DESCRIPTION BY DESCRIPTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ICE STRATA DESIGNATION AF T 3. DESCRIPTION N Segregated ice visible by eye (ice less than 25 mm thick) No ice-bonded soil observed SUBGROUP DESIGNATION Segregated ice not visible by eye 2. ICE BONDING SYMBOLS CLASSIFY SOIL BY THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GW, GP, GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC SM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SC, SW-SC, SP-SC, SM-SC Granular Ice is composed of coarse, more or less equidimensional, ice crystals weakly bonded together. Ice Coatings on particles are discernible layers of ice found on or below the larger soil particles in a frozen soil mass. They are sometimes associated with hoarfrost crystals, which have grown into voids produced by the freezing action. Ice Crystal is a very small individual ice particle visible in the face of a soil mass. Crystals may be present alone or in a combination with other ice formations. Ice Lenses are lenticular ice formations in soil occurring essentially parallel to each other, generally normal to the direction of heat loss and commonly in repeated layers. Ice Segregation is the growth of ice as distinct lenses, layers, veins and masses in soils, commonly but not always oriented normal to direction of heat loss. Massive Ice is a large mass of ice, typically nearly pure and relatively homogeneous. Poorly-Bonded signifies that the soil particles are weakly held together by the ice and that the frozen soil consequently has poor resistance to chipping or breaking. Porous Ice contains numerous void, usually interconnected and usually resulting from melting at air bubbles or along crystal interfaces from presence of salt or other materials in the water, or from the freezing of saturated snow. Though porous, the mass retains its structural unity. Thaw-Stable frozen soils do not, on thawing, show loss of strength below normal, long-time thawed values nor produce detrimental settlement. Thaw-Unstable frozen soils show on thawing, significant loss of strength below normal, long-time thawed values and/or significant settlement, as a direct result of the melting of the excess ice in the soil. Well-Bonded signifies that the soil particles are strongly held together by the ice and that the frozen soil possesses relatively high resistance to chipping or breaking. (1) From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EM 1110-3-138, "Pavement Criteria for Seasonal Frost Conditions", April 1984 (2) USACE frost groups directly correspond to frost groups in Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Design Criteria Manual (DCM). (3) Non-frost susceptible (4) Possibly frost susceptible, requires lab test for void ratio to determine frost design classification. (5) Consistent with MOA Definition. FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND FIGURE N.T.S. A-2 4/25/2018 A-2 BOREHOLE HDTP-01 CRW Engineering Group, LLC 3940 Arctic Blvd Ste 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: (907) 562-3252 Fax: (907) 561-2273 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Alaska Peninsula Corporation PROJECT NAME Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment PROJECT NUMBER 48601.00 PROJECT LOCATION Kokhanok, AK DATE STARTED 12/17/19 COMPLETED 12/17/19 DRILLING CONTRACTOR None GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Handdug LOGGED BY SMH AT TIME OF DRILLING 2.00 ft CHECKED BY SMH 0.0 G 1 SM D R Bottom of borehole at 2.0 feet. CRW MOA LOG - CRW_DATATEMPLATE_20190115.GDT - 1/23/20 15:26 - 48601 KOKHANOK W&S.GPJ OTHER TESTS PID ICE BOND POCKET PEN. (tsf) BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) SPT N VALUE 10 PL 10 ORGANIC MAT, (PT) brown, moist, organic odor, fiberous SILTY SAND, (SM) 26% gravel, 60% sand, 14% fines, brown, fine to medium grained, moist AF T PT RECOVERY % (RQD) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG AFTER DRILLING --- U.S.C.S. DEPTH (ft) NOTES AT END OF DRILLING --- SA 20 30 MC 20 30 40 LL 40 TEST PIT TP-01 CRW Engineering Group, LLC 3940 Arctic Blvd Ste 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: (907) 562-3252 Fax: (907) 561-2273 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Alaska Peninsula Corporation PROJECT NAME Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment PROJECT NUMBER 48601.00 PROJECT LOCATION Kokhanok, AK DATE STARTED 12/17/19 COMPLETED 12/17/19 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Village of Kokhanok GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Case 580N LOGGED BY SMH AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 3.00 ft CHECKED BY SMH 0.0 D CRW MOA LOG - CRW_DATATEMPLATE_20190115.GDT - 1/23/20 15:26 - 48601 KOKHANOK W&S.GPJ R 2.5 SPSM 5.0 OTHER TESTS PID ICE BOND POCKET PEN. (tsf) BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) SPT N VALUE G 1 100 OLI G 2 100 SA G 3 100 AL, LMA Fiberous roots up to 2 inch in diameter SM SILTY SAND, (SM) 35% gravel, 41% sand, 24% fines, gray, wet, non plastic Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. 10 PL 10 ORGANIC MAT, (PT) brown, moist, 1 inch fiberous roots POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, (SP-SM) 38% gravel, 54% sand, 8% fines, brown to dark gray, moist, organic odor, fiber/roots to 1 foot depth, cobbles up to 10 inches approximately 5% by volume, organic content = 5.3%, ash content = 94.7% AF T PT RECOVERY % (RQD) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG AFTER EXCAVATION --- U.S.C.S. DEPTH (ft) NOTES AT END OF EXCAVATION --- 20 30 MC 20 30 40 LL 40 TEST PIT TP-02 CRW Engineering Group, LLC 3940 Arctic Blvd Ste 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: (907) 562-3252 Fax: (907) 561-2273 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Alaska Peninsula Corporation PROJECT NAME Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment PROJECT NUMBER 48601.00 PROJECT LOCATION Kokhanok, AK DATE STARTED 12/16/19 COMPLETED 12/17/19 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Village of Kokhanok GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Case 580N LOGGED BY SMH AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 1.00 ft CHECKED BY SMH 0.0 G 1 2.5 R Test pit sloughing at 4.5 feet. Went an additional 6 inches then test pit collapsed D CRW MOA LOG - CRW_DATATEMPLATE_20190115.GDT - 1/23/20 15:26 - 48601 KOKHANOK W&S.GPJ SP 5.0 OTHER TESTS PID ICE BOND POCKET PEN. (tsf) BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) SPT N VALUE Gray layer observed at 5 feet but no sample due to caving of test pit Bottom of test pit at 5.0 feet. 100 10 PL 10 ORGANIC MAT, (PT) brown, moist, 1 inch fiberous roots POORLY GRADED SAND, (SP) 0% gravel, 99% sand, 1% fines, brown, wet, cobbles up to 11 inches approximately 5% by volume AF T PT RECOVERY % (RQD) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG AFTER EXCAVATION --- U.S.C.S. DEPTH (ft) NOTES AT END OF EXCAVATION --- SA 20 30 MC 20 30 40 LL 40 TEST PIT TP-03 (Perc-01) CRW Engineering Group, LLC 3940 Arctic Blvd Ste 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: (907) 562-3252 Fax: (907) 561-2273 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Alaska Peninsula Corporation PROJECT NAME Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment PROJECT NUMBER 48601.00 PROJECT LOCATION Kokhanok, AK DATE STARTED 12/16/19 COMPLETED 12/16/19 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Village of Kokhanok GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Case 580N LOGGED BY SMH AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.00 ft CHECKED BY SMH AT END OF EXCAVATION --- 0.0 OL 2.5 G 1 100 PID ICE BOND POCKET PEN. (tsf) BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) OTHER TESTS SA D POORLY GRADED GRAVEL, (GP) 57% gravel, 41% sand, 2% fines, brown, moist, cobbles up to 8 inches approximately 5% by volume GM 20 30 MC 20 30 40 WELL DIAGRAM LL 40 SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, (GM) 47% gravel, 36% sand, 17% fines, gray, wet Excavator bucket refusal at 8 feet Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Percolation Test Excavation Percolation Rate = 0.98 minutes per inch (12/16/19) G 2 100 SA G 3 100 LMA GP 7.5 PL 10 R GP 5.0 10 ORGANIC MAT, (PT) brown, moist, 1 inch fiberous roots ORGANIC SOIL, (OL) brown, moist POORLY GRADED GRAVEL, (GP) 82% gravel, 14% sand, 4% fines, brown, moist, cobbles up to 8 inches approximately 5% by volume CRW MOA LOG - CRW_DATATEMPLATE_20190115.GDT - 1/23/20 15:26 - 48601 KOKHANOK W&S.GPJ SPT N VALUE AF T PT RECOVERY % (RQD) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG AFTER EXCAVATION --- U.S.C.S. DEPTH (ft) NOTES Appendix B Included in this section: AF T Laboratory Results D R 1) Laboratory Results from Alaska TestLab Testing Report Summary Date Sample Recv'd W.O. # Client Project Location CRW Engineering Group APC Kokhanok W&S TP-01 through TP-03 12/20/2019 753 1483 Lab # Samples will be kept for 30 days before being disposed. Please contact us if you would like the remaining material returned. Test Performed Moisture Content, ASTM D2216 Sample ID Results (%) Sample ID Results (%) Sample ID Results (%) TP-01, Sample 1 TP-01, Sample 2 TP-01, Sample 3 HDTP-01, Sample 1 22 19.7 10.7 33.4 TP-02, Sample 1 25.3 TP-03, Sample 1 TP-03, Sample 2 TP-03, Sample 3 9.2 7.6 8.4 T If you have questions regarding this summary report or the test procedures, please contact us. D R AF Oscar Oscar Lage Laboratory Supervisor (Rev 1, 3/18) 4040 B Street, Suite 102 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907-205-1987 © 2018 Copyright ATL Client: CRW Engineering Group, LLC Project: Kokhanok W&S Particle Size Distribution ASTM D422 Work Order: 753 Lab Number 2019-1485 Location: TP-01, Sample 2 Received 12/20/2019 Reported 12/31/2019 Engineering Classification: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel, SP-SM Not Measured D R AF T Frost Classification: Size Passing 3" 100% 2" 82% 1½" 73% 1" 69% ¾" 69% ½" 66% Ǫ 65% #4 62% Specification Total Weight of Sample 2288.9g #10 58% #20 53% #40 42% #60 22% #100 11% #200 8.0% Total Weight of Fine Fraction 413g Maria E. Kampsen, P.E ‡ 0 B Street, Suite 102 ‡ Anchorage ‡ Alaska ‡ ‡ 205-1987 ‡ Fax 907/782-4409 Client: CRW Engineering Group, LLC Project: Kokhanok W&S Particle Size Distribution ASTM D422 Work Order: 753 Lab Number 2019-1487 Location: TP-02, Sample 1 Received 12/20/2019 Reported 12/31/2019 Engineering Classification: Poorly Graded Sand, SP NFS D R AF T Frost Classification: Size Passing 3" 100% 2" 100% 1½" 100% 1" 100% ¾" 100% ½" 100% Ǫ 100% #4 100% Specification Total Weight of Sample 1428.5g #10 99% #20 93% #40 74% #60 27% #100 3% #200 1.2% Total Weight of Fine Fraction 317.6g Maria E. Kampsen, P.E • 4040 B Street, Suite 102 • Anchorage • Alaska • 99503 • 907/205-1987 • Fax 907/782-4409 Client: CRW Engineering Group, LLC Project: Kokhanok W&S Particle Size Distribution ASTM D422 Work Order: 753 Lab Number 2019-1488 Location: TP-03, Sample 1 Received 12/20/2019 Reported 12/31/2019 Engineering Classification: Poorly Graded Gravel, GP Not Measured D R AF T Frost Classification: Size Passing 3" 100% 2" 100% 1½" 85% 1" 60% ¾" 44% ½" 32% Ǫ 27% #4 18% Specification Total Weight of Sample 2679.3g #10 15% #20 13% #40 11% #60 8% #100 6% #200 4.0% Total Weight of Fine Fraction 489.3g Maria E. Kampsen, P.E • 4040 B Street, Suite 102 • Anchorage • Alaska • 99503 • 907/205-1987 • Fax 907/782-4409 Client: CRW Engineering Group, LLC Project: Kokhanok W&S Particle Size Distribution ASTM D422 Work Order: 753 Lab Number 2019-1489 Location: TP-03, Sample 2 Received 12/20/2019 Reported 12/31/2019 Engineering Classification: Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand, GP NFS D R AF T Frost Classification: Size Passing 3" 100% 2" 93% 1½" 74% 1" 69% ¾" 61% ½" 56% Ǫ 52% #4 43% Specification Total Weight of Sample 3121.8g #10 33% #20 28% #40 24% #60 11% #100 3% #200 1.5% Total Weight of Fine Fraction 313.1g Maria E. Kampsen, P.E • 4040 B Street, Suite 102 • Anchorage • Alaska • 99503 • 907/205-1987 • Fax 907/782-4409 Client: CRW Engineering Group, LLC Project: Kokhanok W&S Particle Size Distribution ASTM D422 Work Order: 753 Lab Number 2019-1491 Location: HDTP-01, Sample 1 Received 12/20/2019 Reported 12/31/2019 Engineering Classification: Silty Sand with Gravel, SM Not Measured D R AF T Frost Classification: Size Passing 3" 100% 2" 100% 1½" 100% 1" 96% ¾" 87% ½" 82% Ǫ 80% #4 74% Specification Total Weight of Sample 1353.5g #10 68% #20 59% #40 46% #60 31% #100 20% #200 14.1% Total Weight of Fine Fraction 387g Maria E. Kampsen, P.E • 4040 B Street, Suite 102 • Anchorage • Alaska • 99503 • 907/205-1987 • Fax 907/782-4409 Testing Report Summary Client Project Location Date Sample Recv'd W.O. # CRW Engineering Group APC Kokhanok W&S TP-01, TP-03 Lab # 12/20/2019 753 See Below Test Performed Limited Mechanical Analysis Results (%) Gravel Sand Silt USCS TP-01, S3 (ATL#1486) 35 41 24 SM TP-03, S3 (ATL#1490) 47 36 17 GM T Sample ID AF If you have questions regarding this summary report or the test procedures, please contact us. D R Oscar Oscar Lage Laboratory Supervisor Testing Report Summary Client Project Location CRW Engineering Group APC Kokhanok W&S TP-01, Sample 3 Date Sample Recv'd W.O. # Lab # 12/20/2019 753 1486 All results will be posted to the website for your access and convenience. Samples will be kept for 30 days before being disposed. Please contact us if you would like the remaining material returned. Test Performed TP-01, SA 3 Lab No. 1486 Plasticity Index Test Method ASTM D4318 Results Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index T Sample ID USCS of Finer Fraction NP NP NP If you have questions regarding this summary report or the test procedures, please contact us. D R AF Oscar Oscar Lage Laboratory Supervisor ML Testing Report Summary Client Project Location CRW Engineering Group APC Kokhanok W&S TP-01, Sample 1 Date Sample Recv'd W.O. # Lab # 12/20/2019 753 1484 All results will be posted to the website for your access and convenience. Samples will be kept for 30 days before being disposed. Please contact us if you would like the remaining material returned. Test Performed Test Method TP-01, SA 1 Lab No. 1484 Moisture, Ash & Organic Matter of Peat Materials ASTM D2974 Results % Organics (by weight) % Ash % Moisture T Sample ID 5.3 94.7 33.2 AF If you have questions regarding this summary report or the test procedures, please contact us. D R oscar Oscar Lage Laboratory Supervisor Appendix C Included in this section: AF T Site Investigation Photos D R 1) Select Site Photos Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 Kokhanok Water and Sewer Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Excavation of TP-01. CRW Project: 48601.00 Excavation of TP-02. Page C-1 December 2019 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 Kokhanok Water and Sewer Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Excavation of TP-03. CRW Project: 48601.00 Excavation of HDTP-01 Page C-2 December 2019 Geotechnical Report Kokhanok W&S Scoping Assessment January 2020 Kokhanok Water and Sewer Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Completion of percolation test PERC-01. CRW Project: 48601.00 Example of cobble Page C-3 December 2019 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com Concept Design Memorandum TO: Alaska Peninsula Corporation SUBJECT: Newhalen Sewage Treatment Improvements DATE: 1/23/2020 BY: Steven Hebnes, PE, Civil Engineer Existing Conditions R AF T CRW Engineering Group, LLC (CRW) is providing subcontract services with the Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC) to assess various sanitation needs in the community of Newhalen as a component of the mitigation planning for the Pebble Project. As a part of the evaluation effort, CRW has reviewed current Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) documentation provided by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), performed a site assessment, interviewed community members familiar with the system operation, and reviewed record documents for past specific projects, including previous design reports, field assessments, and related correspondence. The community of Newhalen is served by ANTHC for addressing public sanitation needs. ANTHC has summarized various sanitation needs in Newhalen for seeking Indian Health Service (HIS) funding through the SDS program. The Newhalen wastewater lagoon project has been developed to a preliminary design level by ANTHC, and is in need of funding to finalize the design and construct the facility. D About 40% of Newhalen’s population is served by a community piped sewer system and community percolation sewage lagoon, which is used for wastewater treatment and disposal. The remaining population utilizes on-site wastewater disposal systems. Prior to 2016, it was discovered that the existing community septic tanks and sewage lift station were failing. The existing pump station was reportedly no longer reliably operating and consequently was backing up the sewage system. The existing septic tanks are also reportedly of steel construction and have experienced significant corrosion and are leaking. In this condition, these septic tanks have a high collapse potential and potentially for introducing contaminates to the soil and/or groundwater. In 2016, ANTHC designed and constructed a new sewage lift station for the community system. In the design of this facility, it was assumed that the existing percolation lagoon would be able to receive and treat raw sewage, thereby eliminating the need for the two existing septic tanks. During a plan review conducted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Page 1 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com (ADEC), it was determined that the existing sewer lagoon was originally approved only as an effluent lagoon, and was not permitted to handle or treat raw sewage. Based on this determination, ADEC conditionally-approved the new lift station design, contingent to the existing effluent lagoon being enlarged to receive and treat raw sewage. Currently, the failing septic tanks have been left in place until the lagoon work can be permitted and completed to accept raw sewage. Based on this current evaluation, it is evident that wastewater system improvements are necessary to upgrade failing components that do not meet current and future capacity requirements. Additionally, the community does not currently have the ability to maintain the septic tanks, as both pumper trucks are not operational. Consequently, there is a high likelihood that raw sewage is being introduced into the percolation lagoon. AF T Risk to the Environment from the Current Wastewater System Deficiencies R The existing community septic tanks are at risk of collapsing. The result of a septic tank breach could create a substantial release of wastewater into the adjacent wetlands and waterbodies, as much as the daily volume of 6,000 gallons per day. Untreated releases of wastewater into the surrounding environment can impose threats to community health and damage aquatic habitats from high BOD, pathogens and other contaminants. Furthermore, if the existing septic tanks continue to operate with the current deficiencies, then raw sewage will continue to pass through them substantially untreated. The solids that would otherwise be captured in the septic tank would eventually be introduced to the undersized percolation lagoon, wherein sludge deposits would reduce the percolation rate and ultimately cause the lagoon to overtop. D Recommended Improvement The recommended improvement for the community of Newhalen is to increase the treatment capacity of the sewage lagoon to meet ADEC standards for treating raw sewage. Further, the improvements should also provide adequate percolation and hydraulic storage capacity. With these improvements, the treatment of domestic wastewater would be performed in a three-cell lagoon having a total surface area of approximately 90,000 SF (2.1 acres). Primary treatment would be performed in Cells #1 and #2. The lagoon would be bounded by berms constructed from local granular fill. The berms would be built in one-foot lifts to create 3:1 interior and exterior slopes. A vegetative cover on the exterior slopes would be graded at a 4:1 slope. The new berm height would be 8 feet above the existing grade. The top-of-berm elevation for the primary treatment cells would provide a 3-foot freeboard height above the liquid volume and a 6-inch depth for sludge storage (67,000 gallons), in accordance with the ADEC design criteria. Page 2 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com Concept Design Requirements • Lagoon Design Criteria: o 6,000 GPD 1 AF T Improvements to Cells #1 and #2 would be limited to regrading their berm slopes and adding fill as required (2 feet of additional fill anticipated). Cell #1 currently features a liner which provides 1 foot of freeboard volume. The additional berm height around Cell #1 would not necessitate the replacement of this liner. However, installation of a liner in Cell #2 is recommended to prevent short-circuiting of wastewater flow before treatment is sufficiently achieved. Percolation will occur in Cell #3, and be constructed similar to Cell’s #1 and #2. The new percolation cell is anticipated to replace the existing sludge disposal area, which has not been used. Full surface grading and berm development is anticipated in this area. With the upgraded geometry, the berm construction will require approximately 10,000 CY of granular fill. Approximately 1 foot of organic material will cap the exterior slopes to be vegetated for erosion control and bank stability. o Percolation Rate: 0.5 gal/SF/day (ADEC conventional rate). o Maximum Organic Loading: 20-30 lb/acre 2 o Minimum Wetted Surface Area for BOD Treatment: 0.54 acres. Upgrade existing polishing Cell #1 and Cell #2 berms to meet ADEC primary treatment surface area requirements based on the calculated organic loading 3: D • R o Total Effective Volume: 1,220,000 gallons. o Cell #1 would provide an effective operating volume of 96,000 gallons and wetted surface area of 0.1 acres. o Cell #2 would provide an operating volume of 633,000 gallons and wetted surface area of 0.67 acres. o A liner would be installed in Cell #2. • Design of a new percolation Cell #3 based on design percolation rate with a minimum winter volume storage capacity of 90 days: 1 Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Environmental Health & Engineering; Newhalen, Alaska Waste Water Upgrades Record Drawings (Phase One) NHL-14-001; November 13, 2019. 2 Heath Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division, Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, 2004, Member States and Province. 3 Heath Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division, Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, 2004, Member States and Province. Page 3 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com o The new percolation Cell #3 would provide an effective winter storage capacity of 600,000 gallons, percolation surface area of 17,000 SF and a wetted surface area of 0.45 acres (area not included for organic loading requirements). The proposed action would result in the construction of a fully-permitted community sewage treatment system, which would protect the environment and public health from the hazards identified. Conceptual Construction Drawings D R AF T Newhalen Sewage Lagoon Site Photos – October 2019 Page 4 of 4 BARROW KOTZEBUE NOME FAIRBANKS BETHEL ANCHORAGE JUNEAU KODIAK R AF T NEWHALEN D UNALASKA AF T R D T AF R D FIGURE 3 A FIG 5 AF T C FIG 5 D R B FIG 5 LAGOON CELL A FIG 5 TYPICAL BERM SECTION A Scale:AS SHOWN EXISTING CELL #2 B TYPICAL BERM SECTION B Scale:AS SHOWN R FIG 5 AF T EXISTING CELL #1 D EXISTING CELL #2 C FIG 5 FIG 5 TYPICAL BERM SECTION C Scale:AS SHOWN OVERFLOW CHANNEL DETAIL Scale:NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED PERCOLATION CELL #3 Concept Design Memorandum Newhalen, Alaska January 2020 Newhalen Lagoon Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Existing Cell #1. – October 30, 2019 CRW Project: 46801.00 Existing Cell #1 with liner visible. – October 30, 2019 Page 1 December 2019 Concept Design Memorandum Newhalen, Alaska January 2020 Newhalen Lagoon Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Existing Cell #2. – October 30, 2019 CRW Project: 46801.00 Existing Cell #2, view two. – October 30, 2019 Page 2 December 2019 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Office (907) 562-3252 Fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com Concept Design Memorandum TO: Alaska Peninsula Corporation SUBJECT: Nondalton Sewer Collection System Improvements DATE: 1/23/2020 BY: Steven Hebnes, PE, Civil Engineer AF T CRW Engineering, LLC (CRW) is providing subcontract services currently under contract with the Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC) to assess various sanitation needs in the community of Nondalton as a component of the mitigation planning for the Pebble Project. For the evaluation effort, CRW performed a site assessment of the community wastewater system, held discussions with community members, reviewed record documents provided by the State of Alaska Remote Maintenance Worker (RMW) program for specific past projects, and performed sewer manhole assessments. Nondalton is a community served by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), which was planning to evaluate the community sewer system for Indian Health Service (IHS) funding through its Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) program. Existing Conditions D R About 90 percent of Nondalton’s population is served by a community sewer system, and the remaining population utilizes on-site wastewater disposal systems. The sewer system is a gravity collection system comprised of over 30 manholes and which drains into a central lift station. From the lift station, wastewater is discharged through a force main into a percolating treatment lagoon. The sewer system was originally installed prior to 1980 and included 17 original manholes. The system has had four expansions with various types of manhole configurations, and now features a total of 31 manholes. The community has reported that the manholes are in a state of significant deterioration. Table 1. Sewer System Expansions and Associated Manhole Construction Sewer System Expansion Manholes Constructed Original MH1-MH15, MH7A #1 MH7B Page 1 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Office (907) 562-3252 Fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com #2 MH3A-MH3D #3 MH7C-MH7E #4 MH14A-14F AF T As part of the evaluation effort, CRW traveled to Nondalton in early January 2020 to examine the sewer system manholes and identify the extent of deterioration and need for replacement. This effort revealed that the condition of the manholes from the original construction and first two expansions are in poor-to-failing condition. Manhole issues include: generally-aging infrastructure, missing lids, disintegrating concrete tops and bases, infiltration, gravel and solids buildup in the base, and separation between the base and barrel. In some manholes, service lines were also found to be directly connected, which is a discouraged practice due to a high potential of plugging those service lines with manhole debris. Sewer main inlets and outlets are primarily insulated PCV pipe and appeared to be in fair condition with no obvious signs of collapsed or breached pipes. R Manholes from the 3rd and 4th system expansions were observed to be in fair-to-good condition. Sewer main piping in these areas consist of insulated HDPE, and are in good condition. D In their current condition, the degraded manholes allow excessive inflow and infiltration, which can overload the sewage lift station and lagoon, result in overflows at manholes, reduced wastewater treatment capability and lagoon berm overtopping. Additionally, the degraded manholes allow debris and rocks to enter the system, which constricts wastewater flow, causes substantial blockages and damages pumps, all of which increase the potential for sewage to backup, overflow into surrounding areas and contaminate surface water and groundwater. During the manhole assessment it was observed that, due to relatively flat pipe slopes, sewer back-ups are experienced in Manholes 6 through 14 due the existing lift station’s failure to operate as intended. Manholes 1 through 15 are located along Main Street, and are all located about 150 feet or less from Six Mile Lake per the Record Drawings. Manholes with missing lids create a significant safety hazard, as people, animals and/or vehicles could fall into open or plywoodcovered manholes. Many of these manholes were very difficult to locate in this assessment, so falls could occur inadvertently. Page 2 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Office (907) 562-3252 Fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com Based on the current evaluation it is evident that wastewater system improvements are necessary to upgrade the failing manholes to eliminate unnecessary hydraulic overloading and gravel intrusion that currently burden the community’s ability to collect, convey and treat its wastewater. Potential Hazards Recommended improvement AF T Failure to perform these improvements will diminish the community’s ability to treat and dispose of its wastewater and increases the risk of environmental and health hazards. Excess infiltration from the degraded manholes increases the potential for untreated wastewater overtopping the lagoon. As manholes continue to deteriorate, the potential for build-up and blockages increases, which causes flow restrictions and wastewater back-ups in manholes, which in turn increases the risk of wastewater spillages in the community and associated contamination of nearby water bodies. In addition, manholes without sufficient lids present safety hazards to the public. The recommended improvement for the community of Nondalton is to replace 21 aging manholes from the original construction and first two sewer system expansions that are in poorto-failed condition with new manholes that conform to the ANTHC design standards. • R Concept Design Requirements Sewer Manholes Design Criteria1: D o Placement of manholes: at changes in the sewer main alignment and at no more than 400 foot intervals. o Concrete barrel and base with 48-inch inside diameter. o Eccentric cones for manholes deeper than 4 feet; and flat tops for manholes less than 4 feet deep. o Ladder rungs installed in all manholes deeper than 4 feet. o Manhole tops in isolated areas should be 6 inches to 12 inches above the ground surface. o Grouted channels/beaver slides should be used in manholes with drops less than 24 inches where grade adjustment is not possible. 1 Alaska Native Health Consortium, Environmental Health and Engineering; Technical Directive 18-3 – Standard Design Criteria for Sanitation Facilities; July 11, 2018. Page 3 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Office (907) 562-3252 Fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com o Service lines will not be connected directly into manholes. • Manholes in straight run sections should be replaced upstream of the existing manholes within 10 feet so the existing sewer main alignment are not impacted. • Intersection Manholes with 3 or more sewer main connections should be replaced inplace. • Wastewater flow will need to be maintained during construction. accomplished with temporary bypass pumping. Conceptual Construction Drawings D R AF T Manhole Inspection Reports – January 2020 Page 4 of 4 This can be BARROW KOTZEBUE NOME FAIRBANKS BETHEL ANCHORAGE JUNEAU KODIAK R AF T NONDALTON D UNALASKA T AF R D S I X M I L E L A K E D R AF T ORIGIONAL MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FIG 3 PROPOSED MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 1 3 2 4 Division of Environmental Health and Engineering D 4500 Diplomacy Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 (907) 729-3600 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" = 1'-0" ARCTIC CONCRETE MANHOLE ARCTIC MANHOLE FO 80" Ø N O B T EX R C O C1 U ONE-PIECE (MONOLITHIC) BASE SECTION, NO JOINT BETWEEN BASE AND RISER N ST R C C TI O N JOIN STRAPS (TYP) MANHOLE FLAT TOP D AM R PLE AFON LY T D3 B3 INSULATED MANHOLE BASE 3/4" = 1'-0" JOIN STRAPS (TYP) A A1 ARCTIC DROP CONNECTION MANHOLE 1/2" = 1'-0" A3 ARCTIC SHALLOW MANHOLE 1/2" = 1'-0" FIG 4 SD-250 1 2 SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 1 11:30am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: Northeast part of the community. See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: STEP (PVC) and outlet PVC(?) D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 4 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Plywood cover with insulation approximately below lid. STEP systems feed into this MH. Base appears to be attached. Gravel and sludge at base. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC Insulation plug in MH1. D R AF T MH1 from road. Insulation plug open, MH1. STEP service line into MH1. MH1 interior. MH1 outlet. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 2 11:40am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: Northeast part of the community. See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: steel (?) D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 5.9 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete top with metal lid. No insulation. Portion of concrete lid was covered with snow, portion uncovered showed signs of deterioration. Base appears to be attached. Some gravel in bottom. Barrel shows some degradation. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC View into MH2. R AF T Uncovering MH2. D MH2 looking north. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH2 looking south. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: WEATHER: 1/4/2020 -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 3 12:05pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 9.5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Rope in MH to help catch rocks, should have been removed prior to winter. Some separation at base. Ricco (City maintenance employee) reports that gravel needs to be cleaned out of this MH frequently. Concrete lid with metal cover. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH3 concrete lit with metal cover. D R AF T MH3 concrete lid. View into MH3. MH3 service connection entering from east. MH3 view to north. MH3 view to south. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: 1/4/2020 INSPECTION TIME: -15°F INSPECTED BY: 3A 11:57am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 9.5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Disintegrated concrete lid with metal cover. No insulation. Inlet might enter MH at elevation lower than outlet. Manhole barrel might have been set on top of connecting pipes. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC View into MH3A. R AF T MH3A from road. D MH3A view east. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH3A. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 3B 11:20am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 9 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: “Concrete” top with metal lid. Concrete top is almost fully disintegrated. Lid was not removed as it likely would have fallen into the MH in the process of removal, and would not have been able to readily replace. No insulation. Separation at base. Has a collapsed pipe or notch in barrel to accommodate entry of one connecting pipe. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC View into MH3B. R AF T MH3B from road. D MH3B collapsed pipe or nonexistent pipe with barrel notch. MH3B rocks in bottom of MH. MH3B. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 3C 11:10am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 7 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete top with metal cover. Concrete is deteriorating. Separation at bottom. Not insulated. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC Opening MH3C. R AF T MH3C from Road. MH3C collapsed pipe or nonexistent pipe with barrel notch.. D View into MH3C. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 3D 11:30am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 7 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Plywood cover. PVC line comes in from west. Rebuilt 3 years ago. Bottom has some separation. Some infiltration. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH3D another view from Road. D R AF T MH3D from Road. View into MH3D. MH3D looking east. MH3D looking south. MH3D looking south zoomed in. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 4 12:15pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 8 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid has almost completely disintegrated. As such, did not take cover off. Rope installed in MH for rock catching. Hose and snow inside MH. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH4 lid view. D R AF T MH4 from Road. View into MH4. MH4 looking east. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 5 12:25pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 6.5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid with metal cover. No insulation. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH5 lid view. R AF T MH5 from Road. D View into MH5. MH5 looking south CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH5 looking north. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 6 2:43pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR CONDITION OF LID GOOD 1 2 3 4 Full of water – did not observe CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF BARREL CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS Full of water – did not observe PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Not observable. PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Not observable. DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 5 feet to top of water. MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Plywood cover with no insulation. Water was present in manhole and obscured view of the bottom. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC View into MH6,. D R AF T MH6 from Road. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 6A 2:45pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR CONDITION OF LID GOOD 1 2 3 4 Full of water – did not observe. AF T CONDITION OF BASE CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS Full of water – did not observe. PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Not observable. PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Not observable. R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: Not observable. MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: No cover. Unfrozen wastewater was observed in MH. Fluid level nearly full. MH appears to be surcharged from lift station not operating. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC D R AF T MH6A behind MH6. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 7 4:00pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 2 Full of water - not observed. PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: Not observable. D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Plywood cover. No insulation. Base full of wastewater and sludge. Bottom was not observable. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH7 view from inside. D R AF T MH7 lid. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 7A 11:15am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS Not observable. PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base R SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 7.5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid with metal cover. Concrete base is separating from MH barrel. Concrete lid is deteriorating. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH7A Lid. R AF T MH7A lid. MH7A view east. D MH7A view from above MH7A view west. MH7A north service. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 WEATHER: -17°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 7B 11:02am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 6 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid with metal cover. Concrete base is separating from MH barrel. Concrete lid is deteriorating. Service line runs directly to MH. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH7B north view. R AF T MH7B from road. MH7B view from above. D MH7B lid. MH7B north. MH7B, west service. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 WEATHER: -17°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 7C 1:20pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Galvanized metal hatch cover. Insulation plug present, near bottom. Newer construction. Due to insulation plug, was not able to get good photos of MH bottom. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH7C from road. MH7C insulation plug. R AF T MH7C south. D MH7C from above. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 7D 9:59am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 11.36 feet to bottom, 10 feet to top of insulation. MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Galvanized metal hatch cover. Insulation plug present, near bottom. Newer construction. Due to insulation plug, was not able to get good photos of MH bottom. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH7D insulation plug. D R AF T MH7D from road. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 WEATHER: -15°F MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 7E 10:11am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 48 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 9.75 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Galvanized metal hatch cover. Insulation plug present, near bottom. No trash in MH. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH7E Barrel R AF T MH7Efrom road. D MH7Efrom above. MH7E view south. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH7E view north. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 -15°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 8 3:48pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC DEPTH TO BOTTOM: Approx 5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid with metal cover. Concrete base is separating from MH barrel. Barrel seems to not be plumb—leaning towards road. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC Using camera in MH8. R AF T MH8 from road. D MH8 view from above MH8 view south. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH8 view north. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 -15°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 9 3:10pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC with HDPE service DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 6 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid with metal cover. No insulation. Located in front of two-story house. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH9 view from above. R AF T MH9 from road. D MH9 with lid open. MH9 view south. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH9 view north. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 -15°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 10 3:33pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 8.3 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Plywood lid with insulation. Concrete base is separating from MH barrel. Infiltration present. Cracked PVC on south inlet. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH10 view with insulation on lid. R AF T MH10 from road. MH10 insulated lid. D MH10 view from above. MH10 north view. MH10 south view. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 -15°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 11 4:10pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 6 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid with metal cover. Concrete is falling apart. We did not remove lid as it did not look re-installable. Surface infiltration from road. Rocks in base. Concrete base is separating from MH barrel. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH11 cement deterioration. R AF T MH11 from road. D MH11 view from above. MH11 south view. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH11 north view. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: 1/4/2020 INSPECTION TIME: -15°F INSPECTED BY: 12 3:05pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches R MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC D DEPTH TO BOTTOM: MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Plywood cover (vehicle impacted 60-inch collar and it broke off) Lid frozen in place—had to chip away snow and ice to open. Surface infiltration from road. Rocks in base of MH. Concrete base is separating from MH barrel. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH12 from road view 2. R AF T MH12 from road. MH12 with lid propped open. D MH12 view from above. MH12 north view. MH12 south view. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 -15°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 13 2:46pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: PVC DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 6 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Concrete lid with metal cover. Water in base obscured view of beaver slide. Lid buried slightly. No insulation. Fencing in MH. Debris in MH. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH13 with fence inside. R AF T MH13 with cover open. D MH13 view north. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH13 view south. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/4/2020 INSPECTION TIME: -15°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: INSPECTED BY: 14 2:32pm CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: CONDITION POOR 1 2 AF T CONDITION OF LID GOOD 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER (not applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP Yes R PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW Yes DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE (West) /PVC DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 8.5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Plywood cover. 60” top culvert top with 42-inch barrel. Barrel is separated halfway up at joint. Some ice buildup in bottom. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14 with 60” Lid and 42” barrel.. D R AF T Opening MH14. MH14 view from above. MH14 view west MH14 view north. MH14 view southwest CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 INSPECTION TIME: WEATHER: -17°F INSPECTED BY: MANHOLE NUMBER: 14A FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: 10:36am CRW SH/MH See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR 1 2.5 AF T CONDITION OF LID GOOD 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No R PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP w/ concrete base D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE (West) /PVC DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 10 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Metal cover with grade ring. Metal cover is a little slanted/not level. Has insulated plug. Inlet PVC pipe might be service from school. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14A view from above with PVC inlet in view. D R AF T Opening MH14A. MH14A view from above. MH14A view east. MH14A view west, high PVC service. MH14A view west. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 -17°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 14B 10:20am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2.5 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 6 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Metal cover with grade ring. NO insulated plug. In base seems to be few inch grade change between inlet and outlet. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14B view from above with lid. R AF T Opening MH14B. D MH14B view east. MH14B view west. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14B ladder. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 -17°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 14C 10:20am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR 1 2.5 AF T CONDITION OF LID GOOD 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No R PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 10 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Metal cover with grade ring. With insulated plug. In base seems to be few inch grade change between inlet and outlet. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14C with lid and insulation plug. D R AF T Opening MH14C. MH14C view from above. MH14C view east. MH14C view south. MH14C view of barrel. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 INSPECTION TIME: WEATHER: -17°F INSPECTED BY: MANHOLE NUMBER: 14D FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: 9:56am CRW SH/MH See Figure 2. APPROXIMATE LOCATION: CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2.5 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 9.5 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Metal cover. Has insulated plug. Lid is crooked and at ground level. Barrel has slight bulging. May have put too much concrete in bottom. Barrel axis does not appear to be plumb. Steamy inside—difficult to take clear pictures. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14D view from above. R AF T Opening MH14D. D MH14D view north. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14D south. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 -17°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 14E 9:48am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR 1 2.5 AF T CONDITION OF LID GOOD 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER(applicable) 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No R PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 6.8 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Metal cover with grade ring. With insulated plug. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC Opening MH14E. D R AF T MH14E from road. MH14E view from above. MH14E ladder. MH14E view north. MH14E view south. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: 1/5/2020 -17°F WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTED BY: 14F 9:37am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR 1 2.5 AF T CONDITION OF LID GOOD 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP No R PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW No DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: 42 inches MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CMP D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: HDPE DEPTH TO BOTTOM: 8 feet MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Metal cover. With insulated plug. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC Opening MH14F and removing insulation plug. D R AF T MH14F from road. MH14F view from above. MH14F view south. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC MH14F view north. SEWER MANHOLE FIELD INSPECTION FORM NONDALTON, ALASKA INSPECTION DATE: WEATHER: MANHOLE NUMBER: APPROXIMATE LOCATION: 1/5/2020 INSPECTION TIME: -17°F INSPECTED BY: 15 10:55am CRW SH/MH FIRST PHOTO NUMBER: See Figure 2. CONDITION POOR GOOD 1 2.5 3 4 CONDITION OF BASE 1 2 3 4 AF T CONDITION OF LID CONDITION OF BARREL 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF LADDER 1 2 3 4 CONDITION OF PIPE INLETS/OUTLETS 1 2 3 4 PRESENCE OF SOLIDS OR BUILDUP PRESENCE OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW R DIAMETER OF MANHOLE: MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: D SEWER PIPING MATERIALS: DEPTH TO BOTTOM: MANHOLE CONDITION NOTES: Could not locate this manhole. Yard had many sheds and raised garden beds. Attempted to use metal detector to find. However, the yard had metal tanks and other metal debris. Hence, we were not able to use the metal detector to locate. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC Looking for MH15 in yard. D R AF T Looking for MH15 in yard. CRW ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com Concept Design Memorandum TO: Alaska Peninsula Corporation SUBJECT: Nondalton Lift Station Improvements DATE: 1/23/2020 BY: Steven Hebnes, PE, Civil Engineer AF T CRW Engineering, LLC (CRW) is providing subcontract services currently under contract with the Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC) to assess various sanitation needs in the community of Nondalton as a component of the mitigation planning for the Pebble Project. For the evaluation effort, CRW performed a site assessment of the community wastewater system, held discussions with community members, reviewed record documents provided by the State of Alaska Remote Maintenance Worker (RMW) program for specific past projects, and performed sewer manhole assessments. Nondalton is a community served by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), which was planning to evaluate the community sewer system for Indian Health Service (IHS) funding through its Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) program. Existing Conditions D R About 90 percent of Nondalton’s population is served by a community sewer system, and the remaining population utilizes on-site wastewater disposal systems. The sewer system is a gravity collection system comprised of over 30 manholes and which drains into a central lift station. From the lift station, wastewater is discharged through a force main into a percolating treatment lagoon. The lift station was constructed in 1984 for a design population of 246 people and 12,300 GPD average flow. The lift station is substantially aged and suffering from significant deterioration and equipment failure. On multiple occasions during our two community visits, the existing lift station pumps were found to not be operating when the wet well was filled with wastewater. This condition has required the operators to frequently reset the pump controls. The cause of the pump failures has yet not been determined, but may be a result of a deteriorated electrical system, pump hydraulic deficiencies, flow constrictions or other reasons. During the sewage manhole assessments it was very apparent that when the lift station pumps were not operational, wastewater backs up in the sewage collection system. This condition has a relatively high potential for wastewater overtopping manholes or backing up into homes. The existing lift station alarm system is also no longer operational, so problems with the lift station are often realized only when residents notify the operators of strong sewer odors. During the Page 1 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com manhole inspection, we witnessed Manhole 6A filling to within 8 inches below the top of the manhole. If the lift station pumps had not started at the time, the overtopping of Manhole 6A would’ve been likely. Manhole 6A is the first upstream manhole from the lift station, and is located 110 feet up hill of Six Mile Lake and 190 feet from community well #1 per the Record Drawings. The elevation of Six Mile Lake varies significantly, based on the 2006 Google Earth image where the lift station was approximately 150 feet from Six Mile Lake but in the 2019 Google Earth image the lift station was approximately 75 feet from Six Mile Lake. During the manhole assessment it was observed that, due to relatively flat pipe slopes, sewer back-ups are experienced in Manholes 6 through 14. Manholes 1 through 15 are located along Main Street, and are all located about 150 feet or less from Six Mile Lake per the Record Drawings. AF T Potential Hazards R Failure to replace the community sewage lift station will continue to reduce the community’s ability to treat and dispose of wastewater. When the lift station fails to convey wastewater, sewer system back-ups occur, which increases the potential for overflows at the lower manholes. The lowest point of the system appears to be at Manhole 6A. Overflows at Manhole 6A have a potential to flow into Six Mile Lake, in addition to exposing the community and local environment to contamination. All the community manholes along Main Street are accessible to the public and could result in human exposure to contaminated water in these areas. Recommended Improvement D The recommended improvement for the community of Nondalton is to replace the existing lift station with a new facility that conforms to the ANTHC standard lift station details and standard design criteria. Concept Design Requirements • Lift Station Design Criteria1: o Sewage Flow Requirements - 12,300 GPD2  The 1984 design population was 246 people. 1 Alaska Native Health Consortium, Environmental Health and Engineering; Technical Directive 18-3 – Standard Design Criteria for Sanitation Facilities; July 11, 2018. 2 US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, Construction Plans Sanitation Facilities, Nondalton, Alaska, Public Law 86-121, Project Number AN-82-275C; Wastewater Feasibility Study, June 6, 1984. Page 2 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com  Based on census information taken between 1940 and 2018, the population has varied significantly, and is currently at a low level.  Keeping the design population of 246 people would represent a 1.05% growth rate since 1980 and is recommended for future design considerations. o Community lift station must feature a duplex pump system, with each pump capable of handling the maximum flows expected with one pump out of service. o Pump intake size must pass 3-inch diameter solids. o Flow Velocities: Vertical Pipe -5 fps minimum.  Horizontal Pipe - 3.5 fps minimum. AF T  o Maximum pump starts: 10 per hour. o Maximum wet well detention time: 20 minutes. Small systems may allow for increased detention times. • R o Lift station wet wells are considered confined spaces and the surrounding working space is a classified electrical safety area. These spaces are hazardous environments. Designs must therefore minimize the operator’s need to enter these hazardous areas and in a lift station facility should include two separated rooms: a control room and a wet well room. Lift Station setbacks requirements3 4: D o 100 feet from mean annual high water level of a lake. o 200 feet from Community Well. • Additional inflow and infiltration base flow consideration: 10,000 GPD. o The existing collection system currently experiences significant inflow and infiltration due to deteriorated manholes. The lift station design should anticipate the need to convey additional flow if it is constructed prior to the repair or replacement of the manholes. o Annual precipitation is comprised of 23.1 inches of rain in the summer and 80.9 inches of snow in the winter. A high daily rain/snow melt has been assumed at 1 inch/day, with a runoff coefficient of 0.3, over a basin area of 90 acres, with total 3 4 State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation; 18 AAC 72, Wastewater Disposal; November 7, 2017. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation; 18 AAC 80, Drinking Water; May 3, 2019. Page 3 of 4 3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 office (907) 562-3252 fax (907) 561-2273 www.crweng.com infiltration area percentage of 1.3% (fifteen 3-foot diameter manhole openings over a 3,200-foot width of drainage front). The proposed action would result in the construction of a sewage lift station that would prevent system back-ups and would facilitate the proper disposal and treatment of the community’s wastewater, which would protect the environment and public health from the hazards identified. Conceptual Construction Drawings D R AF T Sewage Lift Station Photos – January 2020 Page 4 of 4 BARROW KOTZEBUE NOME FAIRBANKS BETHEL ANCHORAGE JUNEAU KODIAK R AF T NONDALTON D UNALASKA T AF R D S I X M I L E L A K E AF T R D T AF R D EXISTING LIFT STATION RECORD DRAWINGS FIG 4 ANTHC STANDARD LIFT STATION FIG 5 T A M R FO ST R N O C U C Y TI O N R PLE AF O N TL D O N EX ANTHC STANDARD LIFT STATION FIG 6 T A M R FO ST R N O C U C Y TI O N R PLE AF O N TL D O N EX ANTHC STANDARD LIFT STATION FIG 7 T A M R FO ST R N O C U C Y TI O N R PLE AF O N TL D O N EX Concept Design Memorandum Nondalton, Alaska Lift Station January 2020 Nondalton Lift Station Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Lift Station. CRW Project: 46801.00 Interior of Lift Station. Page 1 December 2019 Concept Design Memorandum Nondalton, Alaska Lift Station January 2020 Nondalton Lift Station Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T Lift Station wetwell. CRW Project: 46801.00 Lift Station control panels. Page 2 December 2019 Concept Design Memorandum Nondalton, Alaska Lift Station January 2020 Nondalton Lift Station Site Investigation Photos Photo Description D R AF T MH-6 with wastewater in bottom on 1/4/2020 at 3:00pm. CRW Project: 46801.00 MH-6A nearly full on 1/5/2020 at 2:00pm. Page 3 December 2019 PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN D R AF T Attachment 4 – Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for the Removal of Pacific Salmon Passage Barriers JANUARY 2020 DRAFT REPORT D R AF T Pebble Project Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for the Removal of Pacific Salmon Passage Barriers January 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS CONTENTS Section Page CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. iii 1. Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Site Selection.................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Site Protection Instrument .............................................................................................................. 6 4. Baseline Information ....................................................................................................................... 6 5. Determination of Credits ................................................................................................................. 6 AF T 6. Mitigation Work Plan ...................................................................................................................... 6 7. Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................................................ 7 8. Performance Standards .................................................................................................................... 7 9. Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................................................... 7 10. Long-term Management Plan ......................................................................................................... 8 R 11. Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 9 12. Financial Assurances ....................................................................................................................... 9 D 13. Other Information ........................................................................................................................... 9 14. References ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Exhibits Figures List of Tables Table 1 – Preference area by ADF&G Culvert Fish Passage Rating as of March 2019. ........................................ 5 Exhibits Exhibit A. Potential culvert replacement projects JANUARY 2020 i PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS D R AF T Figures Figure 1. Culvert locations overview map Figure 2. PRM Culverts Kenai Area Figure 3. PRM Culverts Dillingham Area Figure 4. PRM Culverts Beluga-Tyonek Area Figure 5. PRM Culverts Beluga-Tyonek Area Figure 6. PRM Culverts King Salmon Area Figure 7. PRM Culverts Susitna River Area Figure 8. PRM Culverts Mat-Su Area JANUARY 2020 ii PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Alaska Department of Fish and Game AWC Anadromous Waters Catalog CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Compensatory Mitigation Plan DA Department of the Army FPID Fish Passage Inventory Database HUC Hydrologic Unit Code PLP Pebble Limited Partnership PRM Permittee-responsible Mitigation ROW Right-of-way USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WOUS Waters of the U.S., including wetlands D R AF T ADF&G JANUARY 2020 iii PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS 1. Objectives The Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) is proposing this permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) plan to restore Pacific salmon habitat as compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable losses to aquatics resources that would result from the Pebble Project’s discharges to waters of the U.S., including wetlands (WOUS). The goal of this PRM plan is to rehabilitate 8.5 miles of Pacific salmon habitat by removing or replacing culverts that limit the passage of juvenile and/or adult Pacific salmon. AF T Properly designed culverts have little or no adverse effect on fish, aquatic organisms, and other riverine animals, but when culverts do not mimic the characteristics of the stream, including bankfull width, slope, and depth, they can impede both upstream and downstream fish movement (Eisenman and O'Doherty 2004) and degrade aquatic habitats. Undersized culverts cause channel constriction at the culvert inlet, in turn causing upstream ponding, increased bank erosion and suspended sediment loads, and reduced water quality. Channel constriction increases flow velocity within the culvert structure, a potential barrier to fish passage. High flow velocities result in high energy at the culvert outlet that can erode or “scour” the streambed downstream. Downstream scour further contributes to water quality degradation, as well as dewatering of wetlands and, in some cases, results in an elevation drop at the culvert outlet that compounds the problem of fish passage. The replacement of an undersized culvert with a properly sized and well-designed structure can restore stream connectivity and improve the environmental quality of riparian habitats (O'Hanley 2011). D R The removal of fish passage barriers meets the goals of PLP’s Compensatory Mitigation Plan. The proposed Pebble Project wetland impacts will occur in remote watersheds with large expanses of relatively undisturbed wetlands, and the remaining wetlands are at low risk of being cumulatively degraded. The impacted wetlands in the affected watersheds are not rare or unique; however, construction would place fill in Pacific salmon streams and adjacent wetlands, which are an important resource to the economies and subsistence activities of local communities. PLP’s proposed discharge of fill material will result in the removal of 8.5 miles of Pacific salmon habitat within the headwater streams of the Koktuli River, a tributary to the Nushagak River. The city of Dillingham is located downstream of the project site at the mouth of the Nushagak River. Approximately 6 miles of Pacific salmon habitat in streams that are tributaries to the Nushagak River near Dillingham, have already been degraded by undersized culverts associated with local infrastructure. Consistent with the watershed approach outlined in 33 CFR Part 332.3(c) and 40 CFR Part 230.93(c), PLP’s watershed analysis concludes that compensatory mitigation opportunities that benefit water quality and fish habitat, would best meet the watershed needs. This PRM plan targets those needs by rehabilitating 8.5 miles of Pacific salmon stream habitat through the replacement of undersized culverts. This quantification of restoration includes only upstream benefits of replaced culverts, as benefits downstream would be difficult to quantify. PLP is proposing to implement this PRM through ad hoc payments to private individuals, and nongovernmental or governmental organizations (partners) that would perform the culvert replacement activity that would provide the compensatory mitigation for PLP. PLP would retain responsibility for ensuring that required compensatory mitigation activities are completed and successful, and any long-term management of the compensatory mitigation project as described in Section 10 of this plan. The selection of specific culvert replacement projects would occur after receipt of the approved Department of the Army (DA) Permit for the Pebble Project, in coordination with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), interested land or Right-of-Way (ROW) owners, and partners. JANUARY 2020 4 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS Site Selection 2. The ADF&G maintains the Fish Passage Inventory Database (FPID) (ADF&G 2001) that stores the results of over 2,500 stream crossings assessed for fish passage by ADF&G since 2001. This database includes detailed physical data for each culvert evaluated, and a determination regarding the culverts adequacy to allow passage of juvenile fish. The database is updated annually to reflect the results of ongoing mitigation efforts by the State of Alaska and other entities. PLP’s site selection process will consider all current culvert sites identified by ADF&G as limiting fish passage. Sites will then be prioritized based on their location, restoration potential, and practicability. Location. Sites closer to the proposed impacted watersheds will be given higher priority over more distant sites when all other factors are equal. PLP has established five Preference Areas based on proximity to the location of proposed impacts (Dillingham, King Salmon, Beluga-Tyonek, Kenai Peninsula, and Matanuska-Susitna) and organized by hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds (a national system of water resource classifications based on geographic area). Table 1 summarizes potential candidates projects for rehabilitation as of March 2019. The FPID includes a total of 710 culverts with a fish passage rating of ‘inadequate passage’; 350 as ‘unlikely passage’; and 232 that are yet to be determined in preference areas 1 – 5 (Table 1). Exhibit A lists the locations and site information of potential candidate culverts that were reviewed by PLP to assess restoration potential for the Program. Figure 1 provides an overview of potential candidate culverts by preference area and figures 2 – 8 provide a detailed view for each preference area. AF T • Table 1 – Preference area by ADF&G Culvert Fish Passage Rating as of March 2019. 2 3 4 5 HUC 10 watersheds that intersect with the Pebble Project wetlands impacts HUC 10 watersheds downstream of the Pebble Project wetlands impacts HUC 8 watersheds that intersect with the Pebble Project wetlands impacts HUC 6 watersheds that intersect with the Pebble Project wetlands impacts HUC 4 watersheds that intersect with the Pebble Project wetlands impacts D 1 ADF&G Culvert Fish Passage Rating1 Description R Preference Area Grand Total Inadequate Passage Unlikely Passage Insufficient Information 0 0 0 2 2 6 0 0 0 20 15 4 688 333 222 710 350 232 1. Source: Fish Passage Inventory Database (FPID), ADF&G 2019 • Restoration potential. Upstream Pacific salmon rehabilitation habitat will be calculated for each potential fish barrier project site. Projects with the larger potential to rehabilitate Pacific salmon habitat that are practicable will be given priority, when other factors are equal. • Practicability. Practicability will be evaluated in consideration of engineering feasibility, authorization by land or ROW owners for the construction work, and construction costs. PLP will evaluate proposals from partners, or PLP’s own selections, using the above criteria for location, restoration potential, and practicability. A list of potential culvert replacement projects has been prepared (Exhibit A). However, the final selection of culvert replacement projects would occur after receipt of the JANUARY 2020 5 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS approved DA Permit Application for the Pebble Project, in coordination with interested partners. As an alternative PLP could select culvert replacement projects and perform the culvert replacement activity. Site Protection Instrument 3. PLP is not proposing site protection for the fish habitats enhanced, other than protections that are already in place through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, which includes compliance with current ADF&G fish passage design practices. Baseline Information 4. The following studies will be completed to gather the ecological characteristics of the proposed mitigation sites: Hydrology and hydraulics study. This study will describe area drainage patterns and provide culvert design information. • Stream habitat inventory study. This study will provide baseline information on Pacific salmon habitat upstream of the culvert locations. Data sources will include the Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) (ADF&G 2018), field site observations, and detailed stream mapping. Field observations on Pacific salmon presence or absence may be used to update the AWC. In addition to identifying fish passage issues, this study will also include information on additional actions that would benefit the stream (e.g., bank stabilization). AF T • Determination of Credits 5. D R The replacement of undersized culverts will restore or enhance at least 8.5 miles of streams that contain Pacific salmon habitat. The total linear feet of habitat restoration and enhancement will be calculated by adding the linear feet of Pacific salmon aquatic habitat identified upstream of the culvert as determined through monitoring. Mitigation Work Plan 6. The mitigation work plan includes the following items: • Geographic boundaries. Sites will be selected from Preference Areas 1-5 (See section 2). • Construction methods. Existing culvert structures will be replaced with structures designed to restore the hydrologic functioning of the streams being crossed, and that mimic the natural stream characteristics, including juvenile fish passage, and connectivity of wetlands and riparian areas adjacent to the stream channels to the greatest extent possible. Structure design would conform to the Fish Passage Guidelines (U.S. Fish Wildlife Service 2018) and would be reviewed by ADF&G during the permitting process. Construction activity will require in-water work using heavy equipment such as excavators, and support equipment such as trucks. Typical construction requirements for in-water work include silt curtains or cofferdams and temporary diversion channels or bypass pumping to isolate work areas from the flowing water of a stream or river. Temporary JANUARY 2020 6 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS stream diversions, if required, would provide a sufficient quantity of water and a slope and velocity approximating that of the original stream to provide for both upstream and downstream travel of fish. Disturbed areas in the construction sites will be stabilized and erosion and sediment control measures will be installed to direct stormwater away from fish bearing waterbodies. Timing. Culvert replacement construction would be timed to occur prior to or concurrent with Project construction activities. The installation of culverts will be timed to avoid sensitive fish life stages such as spawning and/or migration periods as required by permit conditions. • Water source(s). Existing flow at each mitigation site is sufficient to support Pacific salmon habitat. • Methods for establishing the desired plant community. Plant communities will be established consistent with species and methods described in the Alaska Coastal Revegetation & Erosion Control Guide (Wright and Czapla 2011), and the Streambank Revegetation and Protection (Muhlberg, et al. 2005). • Plans to control invasive plant species. Invasive species control methods for each species will be selected in accordance with an invasive species management plan that will be developed for the project. • Grading plan. Site-specific grading plans would be developed for each location. Maintenance Plan 7. AF T • R PLP will maintain the mitigation sites on an as-needed basis to resolve erosion problems, wood debris removal, vegetation planting, etc. or to correct structural issues that affect juvenile fish passage, if discovered during a site inspection. The frequency of site inspections is addressed in sections 9 and 10. Performance Standards 8. D Performance standards will be met when both of the following conditions are satisfied: • Final stabilization of the construction site is achieved. This is defined as: “all soil disturbing activities are completed, and the exposed soil has been stabilized with at least a 70 percent vegetative cover with a uniform density, or by equivalent means (e.g., concrete, rip rap, gravel, asphalt), over the entire site to prevent soil failure.” • Site conditions at the culvert are adequate to pass juvenile salmon, as determined using techniques employed by ADF&G (Eisenman and O'Doherty 2004). Monitoring Requirements 9. The following monitoring will be conducted for each site: • Site inspections. During construction and until final site stabilization is achieved, each site will be inspected for signs of erosion once every 7 days, or once every 14 days, and after a 0.25-inch storm event, consistent with applicable stormwater management regulations. JANUARY 2020 7 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS • Fish passage assessment. Fish passage will be assessed at each rehabilitated site after final site stabilization is achieved using the same techniques employed by ADF&G (Eisenman and O'Doherty 2004). Adaptive management will be implemented if: o Changes to stormwater controls are needed to avoid and minimize stormwater runoff to facilitate final site stabilization, or o The fish passage assessment results in “inadequate” or “unlikely” fish passage. Fish habitat use assessment. After fish passage is determined adequate, aquatic monitoring will be conducted to determine the length of stream habitat used by Pacific salmon. This number will be used to determine the number of miles of stream habitat rehabilitated. • Monitoring report. PLP will submit a monitoring report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by December 31st of each year monitoring occurs. The monitoring report will include all data collected from the year’s monitoring events and will be used to compare the PRM site’s progress toward meeting the performance standards found in Section 8. Additionally, reports would include a detailed discussion of maintenance and management activities conducted during that year, along with a proposed maintenance schedule for the following year based upon the results of the yearly monitoring. The report should also include discussion of all activities that took place at the PRM sites. At a minimum, monitoring reports should also include the following: AF T • Photos taken at each site to document overall conditions. o A description of the general condition of the culvert structure, including inlet/outlet protection, and embankment as applicable. o Copies of the fish passage assessment for each site. o A description of the general condition of the seedlings, including survival and mortality, and if applicable, a discussion of likely causes for mortality. o A description of vegetative communities developing at each site. o A corrective action plan or explanation to address any Performance Standards that have not been achieved if applicable. D R o 10. Long-term Management Plan PLP will monitor the PRM sites for five years to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Standards: • Post Construction Annual Inspection: The sites will be monitored for signs of erosion, culvert and fish passage integrity annually during ice and snow free conditions. JANUARY 2020 8 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS 11. Adaptive Management Plan Selection of culvert replacement projects would occur after receipt of the approved DA Permit Application for the Pebble Project, in coordination with interested partners. PLP will submit a list of project and supporting baseline data to the USACE for review an approval. If performance standards have not been achieved at a site after the year five post-construction monitoring event, PLP will develop a “Remedial Plan” for the agency(s) which discusses the likely reasons for failing to meet requirements, corrective actions, an assessment of risks, and a schedule for conducting the remedial work. Once approved, the “Remedial Plan” will be implemented according to the approved schedule. 12. Financial Assurances PLP will establish a performance bond to ensure the PRM site construction is complete and all performance criteria are met. PLP is responsible for: All permit acquisition and compliance. • Project design, set up, management, planning, support, and execution of the PRM plan. • Site inventory, data collection, and monitoring. • Reporting to USACE. AF T • The bond will be closed once all PRM objectives and performance standards are met, and a final sign-off on the PRM site has been provided by the USACE. D Not Applicable. R 13. Other Information JANUARY 2020 9 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS 14. References ADF&G. 2018. Anadromous Waters Catalog. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Accessed October 2, 2018. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/index.cfm?ADFG=main.home. —. 2001. Fish Passage Invetory Database (FPID) - Inventory & Assessment. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://adfg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f5aac9a8e4bb4bf49dc39db33f9 50bbd. Bates, Ken, Bob Banard, Bruce Heiner, Patrick J. Klavas, and Patrick D. Powers. 2003. Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage . Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife . Eisenman, Mark, and Gillian O'Doherty. 2004. Culvert Inventory and Assessment for Fish Passage in the State of Alaska: A Guide to the Procedures and Techniques Used to Inventory and Assess Stream Crossings 2009-2014. Special Publication No. 14-08, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. AF T Muhlberg, Gay, Nancy Moore, Frances Inoue, Jeanne Water, and Dean Hughes. 2005. Streambank Revegetation and Protection: A Guide for Alaska. Revised 2015. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. O'Doherty, Gillian M. 2014. Fish Passage Assessment of Culverted Road Crossings in King Salmon, Naknek, and Dillingham: 2012-2013. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. O'Hanley, Jesse. 2011. "Open rivers: Barrier removal planning and the restoration of free-flowing rivers." Journal of Environmental Management 92 (12): 3112-3120. R Tyonek Tribal Conservation Distric (TTCD). Unkonwn. "The Tyonek Area Watershed Action Plan." D U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. 2018. "Fish Passage Design Guidelines: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Fish Passage Program." Washington Trout. 2004. Evaluation of Fisheries Benefits Arising from the Repair, Replacement and Removal of Culverts for Selected Projects Funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Washington Trout. Wright, Stoney J., and K. Philip Czapla. 2011. Alaska Coastal Revegetation & Erosion Control Guide. State of Alaska Plant Materials Center. JANUARY 2020 10 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS D R AF T Exhibits JANUARY 2020 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS Exhibit A. Potential culvert replacement projects This list includes a selection of current potential culvert replacement projects. Additional potential projects can be viewed on the ADF&G Fish Passage Inventory Database1. The final selection of culvert replacement projects will occur after receipt of the approved DA Permit Application for the Pebble Project, in coordination with interested partners. Location River System Preference Area / Figure Culverts Stream Lake Habitat Habitat (mi) (ac) Dillingham Wood River 4 / Figure 3 30303064 2.0 Dillingham Snake River 4 / Figure 3 30303067 2.3 Dillingham Squaw Creek 4 / Figure 3 30303073 5.56 30303074 30303075 Otter Creek Trib. 4 / Figure 3 30303068 (DOT&PF2) 0.67 King Salmon Naknek 4 / Figure 6 30203270 0.36 Unknown Trib.1 King Salmon Beluga-Tyonek Eskimo Creek Old Tyonek AF T Dillingham 4 / Figure 6 4 / Figure 4 30203269 20601543 (KPB3) 1.26 1.7 444.2 60.1 20603494 (MHT4) Creek 4 / Figure 5 20601528 1.53 4 / Figure 5 20601540 11.74 5 / Figure 2 20301004 (USFWS5) 2.29 1,100.0 5 / Figure 8 20501433 6.17 12.9 R 20603495 (MHT) 20501442 Beluga-Tyonek Indian Creek Beluga-Tyonek Tyonek Creek Kenai Swanson R. Mat-Su Lily Creek Mat-Su Various Susitna 5 / Figure 7 River tribs. (E. 20501398 (DOT&PF) 4.64 20501480 (DOT&PF) Mat-Su Mat-Su D Petersville Rd.) Mat-Su Answer Creek 5 / Figure 7 20501417 (DOT&PF) 8.17 Lucile Creek 5 / Figure 8 20501434 (DOT&PF or 12.47 Various Wasilla MSB6) 5 / Figure 8 Creek Tribs. 20401315 (ARR7) 3.68 20401322 (SOA8) (Nelson Rd./ Matanuska Old Town Site Rd.) 64.54 Notes: 1. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishpassage.database 2. DOT&PF – Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3. KPB – Kenai Peninsula Borough 4. MHT – Alaska Mental Health Trust 5. USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6. MSB – Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough 7. ARR – Alaska Railroad 8. SOA – State of Alaska JANUARY 2020 1,617.2 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF PACIFIC SALMON PASSAGE BARRIERS D R AF T Figures JANUARY 2020 K Inn er k k Yu 20501398 20501480 20501417 on Ri v er e Sk w n t n a River R i er v 20603494 20603495 20601543 Preference 5 gak Ri ha us 30303075 30203270 30203269 Preference 2 Preference 1 D ( ! ( ! (! ! (! Dillingham 30303064 30303067 30303068 30303073 30303074 R Preference 3 Preference 4 Proposed Pebble Project ( ! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( Tyonek ! ! ( ! Iliamna Lake Culverts Reviewed by PLP Existing Access Willow ! Other Potential Culverts by Rating ( ! ( ! Gray Red Prioritized Mitigation Areas Anchorage ! Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3 Preference 4 Kenai ! ver N R iver 20501442 20501433 20501434 20401315 ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ( 20401322 20301004 20601540 20601528 ! ( Preference 4 a Ye Ri n tn a ve r AF Mulcha tn ! (! ( T Kusk o k wim River si t na Su o ko Riv er r Fo v ut h Ri So w i m k ko us McGrath ! Preference 5 Preference 5 Seward ! Prioritized Mitigation Areas Map Area Homer ! Cook Inlet ³ Miles Preference 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 Scale 1:2,972,586 NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Feet Seward Meridian ! (! ! ( King Salmon Preference 4 P fe re e nc re 5 Gulf of Alaska Figure: 1 Potential Culvert Replacement Project Pebble Project File: PLP149 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 08 Author: ORNRC Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP164.mxd ! ( Culverts Reviewed by PLP Anadromous Waters Other Potential Culverts by Rating 20301004 Red T ( ! R ! ( Gray AF S w an Cree k ³ D S w a n s o n Ri v e r ( ! Miles 0 0.65 1.3 1.95 2.6 Scale 1:68,110 NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian se Moo Ri v e Figure: 2 PRM Culverts Kenai Area r Pebble Project File: PLP164 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 04 Author: ORNRC ek r Cr k ee Da m C re na ca Woo d Rive Aleknagik ! ( eek Cr n S il ve r Sa l mo Other Potential Culverts by Rating v er ! ( ng ( ! Gray ( ! Red Ri 30303067 Culverts Reviewed by PLP Anadromous Waters 30303064 k Mu lu ! ( 30303068 e Wea r y R i v er T ³ Cree k ak re k Little M River Sq u a w C Sn ak e D R Weary River Ri ver AF reek un g B e lt C L i tt l e Mu k l ! ( Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP164.mxd re e k Ar oC Ya k 30303075 ( !! 30303074 ( ! ( 30303073 mi l i n Ak o uklu n g Ri v er Miles 0 1 2 3 4 Scale 1:134,130 Figure: NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian Dillingham Nu 3 PRM Culverts Dillingham Area sh a g ak River Pebble Project File: PLP164 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 04 Author: ORNRC Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP164.mxd Ty o n ek Creek Ol d Ty o ne k 20603495 Anadromous Waters r eek Other Potential Culverts by Rating 20603494 ! ( ( ! Gray ( ! Red AF k ree 20601543 D R ! ( ³ Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Scale 1:50,980 Figure: NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian 4 PRM Culverts Beluga-Tyonek Area olai Creek Nik C Sted a t n a Culverts Reviewed by PLP T ! ( C ! ( Pebble Project File: PLP164 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 04 Author: ORNRC Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP164.mxd ne Lo e e k Cr na River it C hu ! ( Culverts Reviewed by PLP Anadromous Waters Other Potential Culverts by Rating ia n 20601540 Red k Tyonek ! ( 20601528 R ek C re ! ( ( ! T ee D n ek Tyo Gray AF In d Cr ( ! ³ Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Scale 1:51,230 Figure: NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian 5 PRM Culverts Beluga-Tyonek Area Pebble Project File: PLP164 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 04 Author: ORNRC Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP164.mxd k ee r sC P ul a on lm g Sa n i K k C re e ! ( Culverts Reviewed by PLP Anadromous Waters Other Potential Culverts by Rating rs cke Pa reek C E sk i m o C re Na k im en ch Red nek ek King Salmon R iver ! ( 30203269 S m el D R Ch ( ! AF ! ( Cr u n ee k Gray T 30203270 ( ! tC re e ³ Miles 0 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 Scale 1:92,950 k Figure: NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian 6 PRM Culverts King Salmon Area Pebble Project File: PLP164 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 04 Author: ORNRC Wi g g le C C h u n i ln a re ek ek e rs C re en mil e C re e k Wh isk e k Tr ap Cr p e r Cre ek e lk B ch k ee Sl ver ( ! Gray ( ! Red Cre e k T eek Tw i st e r 20501480 Creek w l Cr e e mil R Sa ch Cre k Bi r u e S lo gh AF o to a Ri Other Potential Culverts by Rating Talkeetna ! ( Kr itn Ta Culverts Reviewed by PLP Anadromous Waters Sl o Bir Cr or Mo o se ul on illi h ou g etna Rive r ! ( Wh isk u g ey h S ev en t e k Ch We st F 20501398 ! ( Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP164.mxd e Cr Bi r ch C reek eu n re 0 1 2 3 20501417 Figure: NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian k S u n sh i Cr juk n e Creek PRM Culverts Susitna River Area re ek na 7 C Su Ch i s it 4 Scale 1:114,640 e ek Ri v er t a na Qu ! ( Ans r C ree k we Mo n ek e m i le Cre in k N re ek ek o se C re e ee C Miles o xC M o eer Cr ³ Q u es t i C re e k Ra b i d G a te D k Pebble Project File: PLP164 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 04 Author: ORNRC C West Fo rk West Fork Sawmill Creek k R ado w C reek e M it tle k e L e Cr ! ( 20501434 ee Cr k Red ie C re e k ( ! rn 20401322 ! ( 20401315 ! ( ³ er iv n ata u s k a R Goat Creek M Miles 0 K n i k River un d Th So l Cr dier eek Knik er l utna B i rd k 4.5 6 Figure: 8 PRM Culverts Mat-Su Area R i v er C ree 3 NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian Eklutna Ek 1.5 Scale 1:163,490 O'B rie mi le ee e e Cr ek n Cr eek Th r G s oo ll a ock e k Gray ee r rC Fi sh C ree ( ! eg si Wa ek Cr e ek Big Lake Other Potential Culverts by Rating k Co D M eado w e C re Anadromous Waters Li t t re wo o d C n o tt Wasilla il Lu c Culverts Reviewed by PLP ek AF T Co Houston ! ( Ca Cr k Mo on P ri n c e ss Cre e al k Cr e ek k ek re k eC W Co est ho F o C r rk ee k k l e S u si tn a River a nc ee Cr S i e C reek Pe C r t e rs ee k r ee n C reek C C r o ho ee k La re e Fish C D e cept i o Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP164.mxd C en t ! ( 20501442 20501433 ! ( Cr m er n Lill y C re ek ee ok Creek v Go Willow hh o s Will o w C reek ie De l Fi ra i g Fr r Hatche k e Cre ia t y Creek ho r ke sta k me Ho C ree C reek rs Ro ge Pebble Project File: PLP164 Date: 1/23/2020 Revision: 04 Author: ORNRC PEBBLE PROJECT DRAFT 08 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN D R AF T Attachment 5 – Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for Marine Debris Removal at Kamishak Bay JANUARY 2020 DRAFT REPORT Pebble Project D R AF T Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for Marine Debris Removal at Kamishak Bay December 2019 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY CONTENTS Section Page CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... ii 1. Objectives .........................................................................................................................................1 2. Site Selection.................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Site Protection Instrument .............................................................................................................. 2 4. Baseline Information ....................................................................................................................... 4 5. Determination of Credits ................................................................................................................. 6 AF T 6. Mitigation Work Plan ...................................................................................................................... 6 7. Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................................................ 7 8. Performance Standards.................................................................................................................... 8 9. Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................................................... 8 10. Long-term Management Plan ......................................................................................................... 8 11. Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 8 R 12. Financial Assurances ....................................................................................................................... 9 13. Other Information ........................................................................................................................... 9 D 14. References ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Exhibit A ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Figures Figure 1. Restoration Sites in Kamishak Bay.................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Amakdedori Beach............................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Photograph of marine debris at Amakdedori Beach .................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Polystyrene foam buoy and ropes at Amakdedori Beach ............................................................................ 5 DECEMBER 2019 i PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Alaska Department of Fish and Game MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act MRSGR McNeil River State Game Refuge NPS National Park Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PLP Pebble Limited Partnership PRM Permittee-responsible Mitigation USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WOUS Waters of the U.S., including wetlands D R AF T ADF&G DECEMBER 2019 ii PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY Objectives 1. The Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) is proposing this permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) plan for the removal of marine debris at Kamishak Bay, as compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable losses to aquatics resources that would result from the Pebble Project’s proposed discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands (WOUS). The primary purpose of this PRM project is habitat restoration, although it also provides protection to wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, by removing potential entanglement or ingestion hazards. Marine debris is defined as persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment (33 USC 1951 et seq. as amended by Title VI of the Public Law 112-213). Potential impacts of marine debris include wildlife entanglement, ingestion, and habitat damage. Wildlife entanglement. Derelict nets, ropes, line, or other fishing gear, packing bands, six-pack rings, and a variety of marine debris can wrap around marine life. Entanglement can lead to injury, illness, suffocation, starvation, and even death (NOAA 2019). • Ingestion. Animals including seabirds and marine mammals have been known to ingest marine debris. The debris item may be mistaken for food and ingested, and animal’s natural food (e.g., fish eggs) may be attached to debris, or the debris item may have been ingested accidentally with other food. Debris ingestion may lead to loss of nutrition, internal injury, intestinal blockage, starvation, and even death (NOAA 2019). • Habitat damage. Marine debris can scour, break, smother, and otherwise damage important marine habitat. Many of these habitats serve as the basis for marine ecosystems and are critical to the survival of many other species (NOAA 2019). R AF T • D Marine debris has become one of the most recognized pollution problems in the world’s oceans and waterways today and was officially recognized as a problem by the federal government with the passing of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) in 1987 (Public Law 100-200, Title II). This act provides specific mandates for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) including mapping, identification, impact assessments, removal and prevention activities, research and development of alternatives to gear posing threats to the marine environment, and outreach activities (NOAA 2013). High tides and storm events deposit marine debris along beaches and other coastal habitats, where they can further degrade and break down into smaller pieces or microplastics. Debris accumulated on coastal habitats may remain onshore or be returned to the sea during storm events or high tides. Coastal cleanup projects can help reduce the thread of marine debris in coastal ecosystems. In the United States, federal agencies such as NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and non-profit organizations have organized coastal cleanup events to restore coastal habitat degraded by marine debris. In 2015 the Ocean Alaska Science and Learning Center, supported by a grant from the National Park Foundation, removed approximately 22,000 pounds of marine debris from 50 miles (mi) of coastal habitats from Alaska national parks and preserves (NPS 2019). Coastal cleanup events in Cook Inlet have taken place near established communities such as Anchorage and Homer, but rarely take place in remote areas such as Kamishak Bay due to access limitations. DECEMBER 2019 1 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY The goal of this PRM plan is to address the thread of marine debris to coastal ecosystems within Kamishak Bay. Objectives of this PRM include: • Remove and properly dispose of marine debris from 7.4 mi of coastal habitat in Kamishak Bay. PLP is proposing to implement this PRM using company resources or contractors. In addition, PLP may consider public and community involvement during the cleanup effort, or participation in informational community events, to enhance public understanding of marine debris concerns. Site Selection 2. This PRM plan targets mitigation opportunities of land contiguous to the proposed WOUS impacts in Kamishak Bay (i.e., on-site) that would result from construction of the proposed project, including Amakdedori Port, lightering mooring facilities, navigation buoys, airstrip, and segments of access road. • • • Amakdedori Beach - 4.6 mi. Chenik Point - 1.5 mi. Amakdedulia Cove – 1.3 mi. AF T The restoration sites were selected from within an approximately 13-mile long continuous stretch of coastline in Kamishak Bay where large amounts of marine debris have been documented by PLP personnel and contractors. Areas that are inaccessible to cleanup crews because of potentially hazardous terrain conditions (e.g., rocky bluffs) were excluded from potential consideration. The three selected sites include a total of 7.4 mi of coastal habitat (Figure 1): 3. R Marine debris would be removed from the supratidal (the area above spring high tide) and intertidal zones. Site Protection Instrument D The 7.4 mi of coastal habitat that makes up the restoration area is composed of tidelands and submerged lands that are owned by the State of Alaska. Approximately 3.3 mi are on state-owned public lands and the remaining 4.1 mi are within the McNeil River State Game Refuge (MRSGR). The MRSGR is a special use area managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). In 1996 the ADF&G adopted the McNeil River State Game Refuge and State Game Sanctuary Management Plan (ADF&G 2008), which provides some protection from development. Under this plan MRSGR lands cannot be sold, but leasing may be possible if the activity is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Establishment of a site protection instrument is not feasible because PLP does not have a real estate interest but would obtain authorization to conduct this environmentally beneficial activity. Furthermore, the project site is a dynamic coastal environment and the long-term sustainability of the project cannot be assured because of the natural littoral processes that occur in the area. DECEMBER 2019 2 Document Path: G:\Pebble\ARC_Proj\MXD\PLP197.mxd AMAKDEDORI BEACH AIRSTRIP CHENIK POINT CHENIK POINT ma k d A dori C re e k e Kamishak Bay Cleanup Areas Project Components Lighted Navigation Buoys Proposed Access Road Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline AMAKDEDORI BEACH AF T AMAKDEDORI PORT R ! CHENIK POINT AMAKDEDULIA COVE D AMAKDEDULIA COVE MCNEIL RIVER SGR Reference Mcneil River State Management Amakdedori Creek-Frontal Kamishak Bay Watershed (HUC 10) Amakdedori Creek Mouth ! KAMISHAK B AY ! Proposed Port Site Footprint State Game Refuge Boundary ³ ! Miles 0 Amakdedulia Cove 1 2 3 4 Scale 1:96,672 NAD 1983 StatePlane Alaska 5 FIPS 5005 Seward Meridian Figure: 1 Potential Beach Cleanup Project MCNEIL RIVER SGS GULF OF ALASKA Pebble Project File: PLP197 Date: 1/2/2020 Revision: 01 Author: ORNRC PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY 4. Baseline Information Geoengineers (2018) conducted habitat mapping of nearshore habitats in Kamishak Bay. Amakdedori Beach consists of a long gravel/sand beach that receives strong wave action. The beach extends for several miles north and south of the mouth of Amakdedori Creek. North of the creek mouth the beach extends approximately 2 mi until it meets high cliff bluffs and mountains. Near the north end of this long beach, the low tide flats narrow in width and change from gavel and sand to a more stable hard clay substrate. Beyond the zones of finer material at Amakdedori Beach, the shallow subtidal flats become dominated by gravels and cobbles with increasing numbers of large boulders on the surface, likely derived from the high cliffs to the north. South of the mouth of Amakdedori Creek, the section of beach identified for cleanup at Chenik Point and Amakdedulia Cover, are more varied with bedrock outcrops and geologically active cliffs that often feed large angular rock to the upper beach (GeoEngineers 2018). AF T A wetlands delineation was completed for an approximately 1,700-foot-long reach of Amakdedori Beach (HDR 2019), and is representative of most of the site. Starting on the water’s edge (Figure 2), the site includes bare marine intertidal unconsolidated shore composed of cobbles and gravel. The lower portion of this intertidal zone (closest to the water’s edge) is flooded at least once daily, while the higher portion is flooded less often than daily. This is because of the variability in high tides. At the highest point of the beach (furthest from the water’s edge) is a vegetated zone that may be affected by marine spray or surges during high marine storm events. D R Figure 2. Amakdedori Beach (view south) Amakdedori Beach, Chenik Point, and Amakdedulia Cove border habitats that are used by marine wildlife including Steller’s sea lion, harbor seals, northern sea otters, beluga whales, humpback whales, Steller’s eiders and other sea ducks (ADF&G 2008). The Steller’s sea lion, northern sea otter, beluga and humpback whale, and Steller’s eider are protected species under the Endangered Species Act, and the beach borders designated critical habitat for the northern sea otter, and beluga and humpback whales. DECEMBER 2019 4 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY Marine debris observed at the restoration sites include buoys of a variety of materials (e.g., plastic, metal, polystyrene foam), insulation materials (e.g., polystyrene foam sheets and fragments), barrels, buckets, plastic bottles, propane canisters, fish nets and seines, rope, pallets, lumber, coolers, fish totes, pressurized cannisters for paint and lubricant, tarps and fabric (Figure 3, Figure 4). D R AF T Figure 3. Marine debris at Amakdedori Beach (view north) Figure 4. Polystyrene foam buoy and ropes at Amakdedori Beach DECEMBER 2019 5 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY Determination of Credits 5. Marine debris has several documented impacts to habitats and natural resources. It can cause physical damage to shoreline, marshes, and the benthos. Marine debris can also cause injury to wildlife from entanglement, ingestion and ghost fishing (where derelict fishing gear continues to catch and kill marine life for many years after it has been lost or discarded). The removal of marine debris will result in ecosystem service benefits to 7.4 mi of Kamishak Bay beach habitats, adjacent marine habitat, and the wildlife species that use these habitats. This restoration would not result in a gain of aquatic resources area for purposes of tracking “no net loss” of wetlands; however, the benefit to the habitat can still be used to compensate for a loss in resource area. Mitigation Work Plan 6. The mitigation work plan includes the following items: Geographic boundaries. The restoration site encompasses approximately 7.4 mi of coastline in Kamishak Bay (Figure 1). • Marine debris baseline density study. PLP will conduct a standing-stock study to identify and quantify the types and amount of debris along the shoreline prior to cleanup. Debris within discrete 100 meter transects at the shoreline site will be tallied. The results will provide an assessment, and the baseline, of the total load of debris and will be used to determine the density (# of items per unit area) of debris present. Debris density reflects the long-term balance between debris inputs and removal and is important to understanding the overall impact of debris. The standing-stock study would use and follow the procedures and forms described in the NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide (NOAA 2012, or current version) included in Exhibit A. The standing-stock study will be shared with the NOAA Marine Debris Program. • Marine debris cleanup plan. o o DECEMBER 2019 Cleanup team. Marine debris cleanup from sites will be completed by a 12-person field crew consisting of eight cleanup technicians, two bear guards, one hazardous material (hazmat) trained technician, and one project field team coordinator. All crew members will be trained in applicable site-specific safety and environmental procedures. At least one member of the field crew will be a qualified EMT. The field crew will be based in Kokhanok and transported to the cleanup site each day by helicopter. Debris size criteria and volume estimates. Small debris items measuring over 1 inch (~bottle cap size) will be picked by hand and placed in light trash bags which will then be consolidated in super sacks. Heavy and larger items will be placed directly in super sacks. For planning, PLP estimates a total of 12,500 pounds (lbs) of marine debris would be removed from Kamishak Bay coastal habitats, based on a debris density of 1,650 lbs/mi that was calculated from the National Park Service (NPS) cleanup of beaches in Katmai and the Gulf of Alaska (NPS 2019). Collection. Collected debris will be segregated as necessary for final disposal at regulated facilities. Any items that are known or suspected to contain hazardous materials (e.g., oil, paint or unknown substances) will be segregated from other wastes and managed in D o R AF T • 6 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY • Reporting. On completion of the cleanup, a report will be prepared that includes: o o o o Results of the pre-clean-up standing-stock survey. Summary narrative of the debris removal effort. Breakdown of the debris types and weights removed. Before and after photographs of cleanup sites. Maintenance Plan R 7. AF T • accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. Supersacks that have been filled will be closed or covered and slung by helicopter to a designated temporary upland staging area just above the tidal zone. Any debris items that cannot be moved by hand will be lifted by helicopter and placed in the storage area or in a super-sack. o Removal. Once cleanup is completed at each of the three beach project sites, a barge will be mobilized to a safe offshore location near each beach staging areas. As soon as the barge is in-place the super sack will be slung by helicopter to the barge and secured on the deck. o Disposal. The loaded barge will transit to Nikiski or other Cook Inlet dock where the supersacks would be offloaded and transferred to trucks for transport to a Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) landfill for proper disposal. Alternative disposal, other than the KPB landfill, would be considered on a case-by-case basis for waste types that may not be accepted at the landfill (i.e., hazardous materials). Schedule. Marine debris removal work at Kamishak Bay is estimated to last approximately 20 days, followed by a 36-hour period to transfer the consolidated marine debris from land to the barges. The work would be completed during ice the free season between May and October when favorable weather is forecasted. Clean-up work can be scheduled to avoid sensitive wildlife or land use periods. PLP will consult with the relevant landowner or land management agency prior to the start of the cleanup work. D Kamishak Bay is exposed to substantial wave energy generated by wind waves and swells coming from the Gulf of Alaska (GeoEngineers 2018) that can transport marine debris. It is expected that after the initial cleanup, marine debris will continue to accumulate along cleaned beaches, however the rate at which marine debris will accumulate is unknown. To ensure the continued viability of the restored habitat, additional cleanup event(s) may be necessary to suppress the build-up of marine debris. Five years after the initial marine debris removal action, PLP will initiate monitoring (Section 9) by conducting a standing-stock survey (NOAA 2012). The calculated marine debris density will be used to determine what additional actions are needed: • If the marine debris density is less than 10 percent of the baseline, monitoring will be continued. • If the marine debris density is greater than 10 percent of the baseline, additional beach cleanup efforts will be conducted to remove accumulated marine debris. After the initial five-year monitoring event post cleanup, additional monitoring events would be scheduled using adaptive management. DECEMBER 2019 7 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY Performance Standards 8. The following performance standard will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives: • All visible marine debris is removed from the 7.4 mi of beach during the initial cleanup event. Monitoring Requirements 9. Standing-stock surveys (NOAA 2012) will be completed at the start of the project prior to debris removal, and 5 years post clean-up to record marine debris densities as indicated in the following Table 1: Table 1 Restoration Site Monitoring Schedule Purpose Pre debris removal Determine baseline conditions prior to start of cleanup 5-year post debris removal Ensure recovered resource is stable Schedule as determined by adaptive management Ensure continued viability of the resource AF T Timing 10. Long-term Management Plan R After the initial clean up event, PLP will continue to manage and be financially responsible for maintenance and monitoring activities. PLP will assume long-term management until conclusion of mine operation activities, currently estimated to 20 years after construction. PLP is not proposing long-term management beyond this point. 11. Adaptive Management Plan D PLP will use adaptive management as an overall approach to ensure the plan goals and objectives are met: • PLP will prepare a report of the initial cleanup event and submit to USACE for review. USACE will review the report and determine whether performance standards have been met, or if additional work is needed to meet the performance standard. • Monitoring results will be used to determine marine debris accumulation rates. This information will be used to schedule the timing of future monitoring or to determine if and when an additional cleanup is required. PLP will provide the USACE with schedule updates of monitoring and cleanup events. • In the unlikely event that the proposed cleanup sites, or a portion of them, cannot be completed because of land management restrictions, wildlife, or safety reasons, PLP will substitute those areas with others of equal length within Kamishak Bay, or elsewhere in Cook Inlet. Should this become necessary, PLP will notify the USACE for verification and approval. • Any required revisions to this PRM will be provided to the USACE for review and approval. DECEMBER 2019 8 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY 12. Financial Assurances PLP will establish a performance bond to ensure the PRM projects are satisfactorily constructed and all performance criteria are met. PLP will be responsible for: • All permit acquisition and compliance. • Project design, set-up, management, planning, support, and execution of the PRM plan. • Site inventory, data collection, and monitoring. • Reporting to USACE. 13. Other Information D R No other information is provided. AF T The bond will be closed once the PRM objective and performance standard has been met, and a final sign-off on the PRM plan has been provided by the USACE. DECEMBER 2019 9 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY 14. References ADF&G. 2008. "McNeil River State Game Refuge and State Game Sanctuary Managmement Plan." Alaska Department of Fish and Game, May. —. 2008. "NcNeil River State Game Refuge and Sanctuary Map." June. Accessed December 26, 2019. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=mcneilriver.maps. GeoEngineers. 2018. "Synthesis of Nearshore Habitats of Current and Proposed Port Alternatives for the Pebble Mine Project." October 5. HDR. 2019. "Draft Wetland Delineation Data." Filename "Wetlands_2019_PJD_Rev2.shp". The Pebble Partnership. AF T NOAA. 2013. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment: Recommendations for Monitoring Debris Trends in the Marine Environment. Technical memorandum NOS-OR&R-46, NOA Marine Debris Program, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. —. 2019. Marine debris program office of response and restoration. Accessed December 11, 2019. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/discover-issue/impacts. —. 2012. "NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide." NOAA Marine Debris Program. D R NPS. 2019. "Cleaning Up Alaska's Beaches." National Park Service. Accessed December 11, 2019. https://www.nps.gov/rlc/oceanalaska/trash-collected-off-harris-bay.htm. DECEMBER 2019 10 PEBBLE PROJECT PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN FOR MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL AT KAMISHAK BAY D R AF T Exhibit A DECEMBER 2019 11 AF T NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide D R Sarah Opfer, Courtney Arthur, and Sherry Lippiatt U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration Marine Debris Program January 2012 This shoreline protocol was developed and tested by the NOAA Marine Debris Program. This document is a revised version of the August 2011 field guide, and should be treated as a draft protocol that may be altered in the future. Further testing is currently underway to develop a statistically robust survey design that will recommend the frequency of sampling, number of transects, and sampling unit size at site, location, and regional spatial scales. D R AF T Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 1, 2 1, 2 Sarah Opfer, Courtney Arthur, and Sherry Lippiatt I.M. Systems Group, Inc. 3206 Tower Oaks Boulevard Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20852, USA 2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Response & Restoration Marine Debris Program Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA R D January 2012 AF T 1 1, 2 For copies of this document, please contact: NOAA Marine Debris Program Email: MD.monitoring@noaa.gov Website: www.MarineDebris.noaa.gov NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Contents INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1  TYPES OF SHORELINE SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................... 1  HOW TO PICK YOUR SITE .................................................................................................................................... 2  BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR SURVEYS ............................................................................................................... 3  ACCUMULATION SURVEYS .................................................................................................................................. 4  STANDING‐STOCK SURVEYS............................................................................................................................... 4  SUBMITTING YOUR SHORELINE DEBRIS DATA TO NOAA ....................................................................... 6  APPENDIX A: DATA FORMS ................................................................................................................................ 7  APPENDIX B: SHORELINE WALKING PATTERNS ..................................................................................... 13  APPENDIX C: RANDOM TRANSECT SELECTION ........................................................................................ 14  D R AF T NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Introduction Marine debris has become one of the most widespread pollution problems in the world’s oceans and waterways today. The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) serves as a centralized marine debris resource within NOAA, coordinating and supporting activities within NOAA and with other federal agencies. The MDP uses partnerships to support projects carried out by state and local agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, academia, and industry. Marine debris monitoring programs are necessary to compare debris sources, amounts, locations, movement, and impacts across the US and internationally. Monitoring data can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of policies to mitigate debris and provide insight into priority targets for prevention. Thus, the NOAA MDP has developed standardized marine debris shoreline survey protocols to facilitate regional and site-specific comparisons. This document provides a standard data sheet and two different methods for shoreline monitoring and assessment. AF T Types of Shoreline Surveys D R The objectives of your study will determine how you monitor for marine debris. There are two main types of shoreline surveys: accumulation and standing-stock surveys.  Accumulation studies provide information on the rate of deposition (flux) of debris onto the shoreline. These studies are more suited to areas that have beach cleanups, as debris is removed from the entire length of shoreline during each site visit. This type of survey is more labor-intensive and is used to determine the rate of debris deposition (# of items per unit area, per unit time). Accumulation studies can also provide information about debris type and weight. These surveys cannot be used to measure the density of debris on the shoreline because removal of debris biases the amount of debris present during subsequent surveys.  Standing-stock studies provide information on the amount and types of debris on the shoreline. Debris within discrete transects at the shoreline site is tallied during standingstock surveys. This is a quick assessment of the total load of debris and is used to determine the density (# of items per unit area) of debris present. Debris density reflects the long-term balance between debris inputs and removal and is important to understanding the overall impact of debris. Table 1. Salient characteristics of standing-stock and accumulation surveys. CHARACTERISTIC STANDING-STOCK Debris removed during surveys? No Time required per survey Less Length of shoreline site 100 m Is a set survey interval required (e.g., Yes once per week or per month)? Types of data that can be collected  Debris density (# of items / unit area)  Debris material types ACCUMULATION Yes More 100 m or longer Yes  Debris deposition rate (# of items / unit area / unit time)  Debris material types  Debris weight 1 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 We suggest that users give careful consideration to which type of survey best suits their goals and objectives. Table 1 provides important information to take into account when deciding how to monitor. Once a survey type is chosen, meaningful data can be collected through regular monitoring. The following sections describe how to choose survey sites and conduct surveys. How to Pick Your Site D R AF T To select your sampling site(s), follow these steps: 1. The first step is to choose an appropriate shoreline location based on the objectives of your study. For example, if you wish to examine the impact of land use, you should select locations in watersheds with various land use types. Next, categorize the various areas within your location (it may help to use an aerial photo or map, as shown below). For example, your location may cover a span of shoreline 1 km long. Within that 1 km, there may be an area with heavy recreational use and another area where an urban stream mouth is located. Identify any barriers to shoreline access or offshore structures that may affect nearshore circulation (e.g. jetties). 2. Select shoreline sites (where you will sample) according to the characteristics below. If your location includes different use areas (for example, an area with heavy recreational use and a more remote area), it is preferable to select a site within each use category. Shoreline sites should have the following characteristics:  Sandy beach or pebble shoreline  Clear, direct, year-round access  No breakwaters or jetties  At least 100 m in length parallel to the water (note that standing-stock surveys require a 100-m shoreline site)  No regular cleanup activities These characteristics should be met where possible, but can be modified. 2 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Before You Begin Your Surveys Before any data collection begins, the Shoreline Characterization Sheet should be completed for each shoreline site. On this data sheet you will note:  GPS coordinates in decimal degrees at the beginning and end of your shoreline site, or at the site’s four corners if the width of the beach is > 6 m;  Shoreline characteristics (e.g. tidal range and substrate); and  Surrounding land-use characteristics that may influence the delivery of land-based debris to the site (e.g., farmland 5 km from a small town or urban parkland 50 m from a river mouth). The Shoreline Characterization Sheet needs to be completed only once per site per year unless major changes occur to the shoreline. AF T Shore IDs (on the Shoreline Characterization Sheet) should be created based on the initials of the shoreline name (e.g., Fort Smallwood = FS). This will make it easier to keep track of multiple sampling sites. The Shoreline Characterization Sheet and Debris Density Data Sheet were adapted from Cheshire et al. (2009)1. D R You will need the following supplies in order to complete your surveys:  Digital camera  Hand-held GPS unit  Extra batteries for GPS and camera (we recommend rechargeable batteries)  Surveyor’s measuring wheel - for standing-stock surveys only  Flag markers or stakes  ~100′ fiberglass measuring tape  First aid kit (including sunscreen, bug spray, drinking water)  Work gloves  Sturdy 12″ ruler  Clipboards for data sheets  Data sheets (on waterproof paper)  Pencils  Trash bag or bucket - for accumulation surveys only Safety is a priority. Do not touch or lift potentially hazardous or large, heavy items. Notify your local officials if such items are encountered. All of the data collection forms you will need are included in Appendix A at the end of this document. The same data collection forms are used for accumulation and standing-stock surveys.  Shoreline Characterization Sheet (pp. 8–9)  Debris Density Data Sheet (pp. 10–12) 1 Cheshire, A. C., E. Adler, et al. (2009). UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter, UNEP Regional Seas Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission: 132 pp. 3 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Accumulation Surveys If you decide to conduct accumulation surveys, follow this protocol: 1. BEFORE arriving at the site, check local tide tables and plan to arrive at your site during low tide. 2. ONCE ARRIVED, begin filling out the Debris Density Data Sheet’s Additional Information section. Mark the beginning and end of your shoreline site, perhaps with flags or stakes. (Remember to pick up these markers at the end of your survey to make sure they do not become marine debris!) The back of the shoreline is where the primary substrate (e.g., sand) changes (e.g., sand becomes gravel) or at the first barrier (e.g., vegetation line). AF T 3. In order to cover the entire site from water’s edge to the back of the shoreline, decide whether you will traverse the survey area parallel or perpendicular to the water. See Appendix B for walking pattern schematics. If more than one surveyor is available, the survey area should be divided evenly with clearly specified areas assigned to each individual. Surveyors should traverse the survey area in a pre-determined walking pattern until the entire site is cleared of marine debris. 4. Record on your Debris Density Data Sheet counts of debris items that measure over 2.5 cm, or 1 inch (~bottle cap size), in the longest dimension (see Figure 1). If any part of the item is within the survey area, count the item. Record large debris items, anything bigger than 1 foot (~ 0.3 m, typical forearm length from palm to elbow) in the large debris section of the Debris Density Data Sheet. 2.5cm D R 5. Take photos of your shoreline site and some of the debris items! Figure 1. Minimum debris size to be counted. *This size is required to keep surveyors counting the same size items and to help keep the survey results uniform. Standing‐stock Surveys If you decide to conduct standing-stock surveys, follow this protocol: 1. Sketch your 100-m shoreline site and divide the 100 m into 5-m segments. There should be 20 of them. Number each section (left to right) from 1 to 20. Each 5-m segment should run from the water’s edge to the back of the shoreline (Figure 2). The back of the shoreline is where the primary substrate (e.g., sand) changes (e.g., sand becomes gravel) or at the first barrier (e.g., vegetation line). 2. BEFORE arriving at the site, select four numbers from the Random Number Table (Appendix C) by first choosing a number between 1 and 5, and then a number between 1 4 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 and 4. The corresponding number in the table (1–20) is one of the four transects you will survey. Complete this exercise four times to choose four random transects (each transect can be used only once per survey). These numbers correspond to the 5-m segments you drew on your sketch and are called transect ID numbers (see Debris Density Data Sheet). You should fill out one Debris Density Data Sheet per transect. On any sampling day, 20 m of your 100-m shoreline site is analyzed (i.e., 20% coverage of the area). In addition, check local tide tables and plan to arrive at your site during low tide. Transect ID 1 (0-5m) Transect ID 4 (15-20m) Transect ID 5 (20-25m) -5m- -5m- -5m- Low tide Transect ID 16 (75-80m) … AF T Back of shoreline -5m- Figure 2. Shoreline section (100 m) displaying perpendicular transects from water’s edge at low tide to the first barrier at the back of the shoreline section. D R 3. ONCE ARRIVED, begin filling out the Debris Density Data Sheet Additional Information section. Using your measuring wheel, begin at the start of your shoreline section and mark the four selected transect boundaries with flags according to the distances provided in the Transect ID table (for example, transect 12 covers 55 to 60 m from the start of your shoreline section). 4. Measure the width of each transect from water’s edge to the back of the shoreline. Record GPS coordinates for each transect in decimal degree format. For shoreline segments that are less than 6 m wide from the water’s edge to the back of the shoreline, GPS coordinates should be taken at the center (Figure 3). For shoreline segments that are over 6 m wide, take GPS coordinates at two spots—one nearer the back of the shoreline and one nearer the water. 5. Walking each transect from water’s edge to the back of the shoreline, record on your Debris Density Data Sheet counts of debris items that measure over 2.5 cm, or 1 inch (~bottle cap size), in the longest dimension (see Figure 1). If any part of the item is within the sample transect, count the item. Remember that for standing-stock surveys, debris is not removed from the shoreline. Record large debris items, anything bigger than 1 foot (~ 0.3 m, typical forearm length from palm to elbow) in the large debris section of the Debris Density Data Sheet. 5 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Back of shoreline Transect ID 1 (0-5m) Transect ID 10 (45-50m) Transect ID 11 (50-55m) -5m- -5m- -5m- Transect ID 20 (95-100m) -5m- Low tide 100m Figure 3. Example of a shoreline section (100m) with yellow circles indicating marked GPS coordinates. Width determines location of GPS coordinates. AF T 6. Take photos of each transect and some of the debris items! Submitting Your Shoreline Debris Data to NOAA D R Marine debris monitoring groups should plan to compile and analyze their own survey results. The NOAA MDP will have periodic calls for data from monitoring groups. If you would like more information on data analysis or to be included in data calls, please send an email to MD.monitoring@noaa.gov. 6 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 D R AF T Appendix A: Data Forms 7 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 SHORELINE DEBRIS Shoreline Characterization Sheet Complete this form ONCE for each site location SAMPLING AREA Shore ID Phone number Name of organization responsible for collecting the data Name of person responsible for filling in this sheet Phone contact for surveyor Date Date of this survey Organization Surveyor name Unique code for the shoreline Name by which the section of shoreline is known (e.g., beach name, park) State and county where your site is located Shoreline name State/County Latitude Longitude Recorded as XXX.XXXX (decimal degrees) at start of shoreline section (in both corners if width > 6 meters) AF T Coordinates at start of shoreline section Latitude Coordinates at end of shoreline section R Photo number/ID Longitude Recorded as XXX.XXXX (decimal degrees) at end of shoreline section (in both corners if width > 6 meters) The digital identification number(s) of photos taken of shoreline section D SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS – from beginning of shoreline site Length of sample area Length measured along the midpoint of the shoreline (in (should be 100 m if meters) standing-stock survey) Substratum type Substrate uniformity Tidal range Tidal distance Back of shoreline Aspect For example, a sandy or gravel beach Percent coverage of the main substrate type (%) Maximum & minimum vertical tidal range. Use tide chart (usually in feet). Horizontal distance (in meters) from low- to high-tide line. Measure on beach at low and high tides or estimate based on wrack lines. Describe landward limit (e.g., vegetation, rock wall, cliff, dunes, parking lot) Direction you are facing when you look out at the water (e.g., northeast) 8 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 D R AF T LAND-USE CHARACTERISTICS – within shoreline location Urban Select one and indicate major Location & major usage Suburban usage (e.g., recreation, boat access, remote) Rural Vehicular (you can drive to your site), pedestrian (must Access walk), isolated (need a boat or plane) Nearest town Name of nearest town Distance to nearest town Nearest town distance (miles) Direction to nearest town Nearest town direction (cardinal direction) If applicable, name of nearest river or stream. If blank, Nearest river name assumed to mean no inputs nearby Distance to nearest Nearest river distance river/stream (km) Direction to nearest Nearest river direction river/stream (cardinal direction from site) Whether nearest river/stream River/creek input to beach YES NO has an outlet within this shoreline section If there is a storm drain or Pipe or drain input YES NO channelized outlet within shoreline section Notes (including description, landmarks, fishing activity, etc.): 9 Page NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Name of organization responsible for data collection Name of person responsible for filling in this sheet Phone contact for surveyor Organization SHORELINE DEBRIS Debris Density Data Sheet Surveyor name Phone number Email address Complete this form during EACH survey or transect (if standing-stock) per site visit Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Shoreline name Survey Type Date of this survey Accumulation Standing-stock Latitude Longitude Coordinates of end of shoreline site Latitude R Width of beach Start Longitude End D Season Date of last survey Storm activity Current weather Number of persons Large items Photo ID #s Name for section of shoreline (e.g., beach name, park) Type of shoreline survey conducted (check box) Transect ID (include shoreline ID, date, and transect #) Recorded as XXX.XXXX (decimal degrees). Record in both corners if width > 6 m. If transect, record at water’s edge. AF T Transect ID # (N/A if accumulation survey) Coordinates of start of shoreline site Time start/end Email contact for surveyor YES NO Recorded as XXX.XXXX (decimal degrees). Record in both corners if width > 6 m. If transect, record at back of shoreline. Width of beach at time of survey from water’s edge to back of shoreline (meters) Time at the beginning and end of the survey Spring, summer, fall, winter, tropical wet, etc. Date on which the last survey was conducted Describe significant storm activity within the previous week (date(s), high winds, etc.) Describe weather on sampling day, including wind speed and % cloud coverage Number of persons conducting the survey Did you note large items in the large debris section? The digital identification number(s) of debris photos taken during this survey. 10 P a g e NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Notes: Evidence of cleanup, sampling issues, etc. DEBRIS DATA: (continued on back) ITEM TALLY (e.g., IIII) PLASTIC Film D R Food wrappers Beverage bottles Other jugs or containers Bottle or container caps Cigar tips Cigarettes Disposable cigarette lighters 6-pack rings Bags Plastic rope/small net pieces Buoys & floats Fishing lures & line Cups (including polystyrene/foamed plastic) Plastic utensils Straws Balloons Personal care products Other: Foamed AF T Hard Plastic fragments TOTAL METAL Aluminum/tin cans Aerosol cans Metal fragments Other: GLASS Beverage bottles Jars Glass fragments Other: 11 P a g e NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 TALLY (e.g., IIII) RUBBER ITEM TOTAL Flip-flops Gloves Tires Rubber fragments Other: PROCESSED LUMBER Cardboard cartons Paper and cardboard Paper bags Lumber/building material Other: AF T CLOTH/FABRIC Clothing & shoes Gloves (non-rubber) Towels/rags Rope/net pieces (non-nylon) Fabric pieces Other: LARGE DEBRIS ITEMS (> 1 foot or ~ 0.3 m) Status (sunken, Approximate Approximate Description / photo ID # stranded, buried) width (m) length (m) D Item type (vessel, net, etc.) R OTHER/UNCLASSIFIABLE Notes on debris items, description of “Other/unclassifiable” items, etc: 12 P a g e NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 Appendix B: Shoreline Walking Patterns D R AF T The schematics below are potential survey walking patterns to ensure that the entire shoreline site or transect is covered. Suggested distance between walking lines is approximately one meter. 13 P a g e NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide 2012 APPENDIX C: RANDOM TRANSECT SELECTION If you are conducting a standing-stock survey, use these tables to select transects. BEFORE arriving at the site, select four numbers from the Random Number Table, by first choosing a number between 1 and 5, and then a number between 1 and 4. The corresponding number in the table (1–20) is one of the four transects you will survey. Complete this exercise four times to choose four random transects (each transect can be used only once per survey). 5 1 20 11 13 AF T 1 2 3 4 1 4 7 18 3 Random Number Table 2 3 4 8 17 9 19 2 12 14 6 16 5 15 10 Transect ID and distance along shore from start of 100-m shoreline section (see Figure 2 above) Meters Feet and inches 0–5 m 5–10 m 10–15 m 15–20 m 20–25 m 25–30 m 30–35 m 35–40 m 40–45 m 45–50 m 50–55 m 55–60 m 60–65 m 65–70 m 70–75 m 75–80 m 80–85 m 85–90 m 90–95 m 95–100 m 0–16' 4" 16'4"–32'9" 32'9"–49'2" 49'2"–65'7" 65'7"–82' 82'–98'5" 98'5"–114'9" 114'9"–131'2" 131'2"–147'7" 147'7"–164' 164'–180'5" 180'5"–196'10" 196'10"–213'3" 213'3"–229'7" 229'7"–246' 246'–262'5" 262'5"–278'10" 278'5"–295'3" 295'3"–311'8" 311'8" - 328'1" D R Transect ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 P a g e AF T R D United States Department of Commerce John Bryson Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service David Kennedy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management