The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutYerrick Creek REF 9 FINAL 091415 (1) September 11, 2015 Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application 813 West Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 RE: REF Round 9 Grant Application Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase IV Grant Application Dear AEA: Enclosed, on behalf of Upper Tanacross Energy, Inc. (UTE), in response to Requests for Grant Applications (RFA) AEA 16012, Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program (ROUND IX) is an application requesting funding for the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project for Phase IV – Construction. If you have any questions, please call either Glen Martin (Resource Assessment & Permits) 360-385-1733 x122, Christine Overly (Grant Funds Administrator) 360-385- 1733 x137, or Bob Grimm (President) 360-385-1733 x120. Sincerely, Glen D. Martin Resource Assessment & Permits Enc. (as stated) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 1 of 62 7/8/14 Application Forms and Instructions This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for Round IX of the Renewable Energy Fund. A separate application form is available for projects with a primary purpose of producing heat (see RFA section 1.5). This is the standard form for all other projects, including projects that will produce heat and electricity. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and both application forms is available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9. • If you need technical assistance filling out this application, please contact Shawn Calfa, the Alaska Energy Authority Grants Administrator at (907) 771-3031 or at scalfa@aidea.org. • If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. • Multiple phases (e.g. final design, construction) for the same project may be submitted as one application. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones and grant budget for each phase of the project. • In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 ACC 107.605(1). • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, reports, conceptual or final designs, models, photos, maps, proof of site control, utility agreements, power sale agreements, relevant data sets, and other materials. Please provide a list of supporting documents in Section 11 of this application and attach the documents to your application. • If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. Please provide a list of additional information; including any web links, in section 12 of this application and attach the documents to your application. For guidance on application best practices please refer to the resource specific Best Practices Checklists; links to the checklists can be found in the appendices list at the end of the accompanying REF Round IX RFA. • In the sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided. You may add additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient space for the information, or attach additional sheets if needed. REMINDER: • Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. • All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 2 of 62 7/8/14 • In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you want information to be kept confidential the applicant must: o Request the information be kept confidential. o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their application. o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 3 of 62 7/8/14 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion. Name (Name of utility, IPP, local government, or other government entity) Upper Tanana Energy, LLC (UTE): A partnership between the Native Village of Tanacross (NVT), Tanacross, Inc. (Tanacross), and Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T). Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End: Upper Tanana Energy (UTE) is a partnership between the Native Village of Tanacross (NVT), Tanacross Inc. (Tanacross), and Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T). The three entities have executed a MOU supporting development of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project through a coordinated effort. UTE was incorporated in September 2014. Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) is the current legally registered owner of Upper Tanana Energy, LLC. AP&T is participating in the AEA REF grant application as a coapplicant. The Native Village of Tanacross (NVT) is considering joining UTE, LLC as a co-owner. NVT is participating in the AEA REF grant application as a co-applicant. Tanacross, Inc. is considering joining UTE, LLC as a co-owner. Tanacross, Inc. is serving as a key supporter of the AEA REF grant application. [*UTE currently has: an Alaska Business License #1009335; an Alaska Certificate of Organization #10022902; and an EIN #47- 1593084] December, 2015 Tax ID # Tax Status: ☒ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☒ Government (check one) Date of last financial statement audit: April, 2015 (Available in AP&T Annual Report) Mailing Address: Physical Address: Jason Custer [Same] 136 Misty Marie Lane Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907-225-1950 x 29 907-225-6450 Jason.c@aptalaska.com Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 4 of 62 7/8/14 1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Manager Name: Title: Jason Custer -- Business Development Director, Alaska Power & Telephone Mailing Address: Jason Custer 136 Misty Marie Lane Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907-225-1950 x 29 907-225-6450 Jason.c@aptalaska.com 1.1.1 APPLICANT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY CONTACT INFORMATION Name: Title: Robert Grimm President, Upper Tanana Energy Mailing Address: 193 Otto Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Telephone: Fax: Email: 1-800-982-0136 x 120 NA Bob.g@aptalaska.com 1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Jeff Weltzin 907-590-1304 jefferyweltzin@gmail.com 1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements Please check as appropriate. If applicants do not meet the minimum requirements, the application will be rejected. 1.2.1 Applicant Type ☒ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or ☒ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or ☐ A local government, or ☒ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities) 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued) Please check as appropriate. ☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 5 of 62 7/8/14 ☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement (Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) (Indicate by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 6 of 62 7/8/14 SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 Project Title Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project. Type in the space below. Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction 2.2 Project Location 2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or community name. Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact AEA at 907-771-3031. Latitude: 63°22'45.11"N Longitude: 143°36'7.51"W Google Maps coordinates: 63.379197.-143.602086 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. The Yerrick Creek project will benefit the interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.45 kWh pricing for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour.1 If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit from the presence of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel- fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.70 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour2. 2.3 Project Type Please check as appropriate. 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type 1 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf 2 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 7 of 62 7/8/14 ☐ Wind ☐ Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only) ☒ Hydro, Including Run of River ☐ Hydrokinetic ☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy ☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable ☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Pre-Construction Construction ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting ☐ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☒ Construction Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 8 of 62 7/8/14 2.4 Project Description Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project. The 1.5 MW Yerrick Creek hydropower will provide 4.9 aGWH of affordable, renewable energy to Tok and surrounding communities in the upper Tanana region (Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, Dot Creek), which are currently dependent upon 100% diesel-fired generation of electricity, and pay energy costs of $0.45 / kWh (before PCE). Construction of project features (transmission) has already begun through the support of USDA funds. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will displace approximately 50% of the region’s diesel-fired generation of electricity with clean, renewable hydropower from a local, low-impact source, helping to support the State of Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025, and significantly addressing Governor Walker’s concerns regarding the ongoing consumer energy crisis in rural and interior Alaska, which are articulated through Administrative Order No. 272.3 Because Yerrick Creek will be the first renewable energy project developed in this high energy cost service area, it will be uniquely advantaged in that: 1) 100% of the project’s output will be fully subscribed and sold, beginning in year 1, and; 2) it will receive seniority of dispatch over all current and future electrical generation assets. Total project cost is estimated at $19m, per a detailed cost estimate update performed by AP&T in September of 2015. Applicants are requesting $4,000,000 through the AEA REF IX program – it is estimated that this level of funding support by the State of Alaska, in conjunction with $500,000 in new USDA Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP) funds awarded to the project in September of 2015, will result in a project which produces clean energy at less than the cost of diesel fuel, which will allow for project approvals by the RCA. The project will eliminate use of 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year for a 50+ year operating life, avoiding a total of 18,750,000 gallons of diesel fuel during its first 50 years of operation. Total value of diesel displacement benefit is $91,687,500, assuming the AEA’s fuel price projections for the Tok region, published in the AEA’s “Evaluation Model REF R9 Final” econometric workbook. The AEA’s econometric model displaces a benefit cost ratio of 2.49, total NPV benefits of $45.9m, and NPV net benefits of $28.6m. Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) signed a Memorandum of Understanding expressing willingness to work cooperatively on the Yerrick Creek project in August of 2014. The three entities established a new venture named Upper Tanana Energy (UTE) to develop, own, and operate the project as an independent power producer (IPP). The composition of UTE is described in Section 1, “Type of Entity,” above. UTE will sell energy to Alaska Power & Telephone subsidiary Alaska Power Company (APC) – the incumbent utility for the Tok region – under a power sales agreement transaction regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). As a UTE project partner, AP&T is agreeable to this arrangement. AP&T has drafted and will finalize and execute PPA terms and other commercial agreements after project financing is secured. Yerrick Creek is located on private and State lands and has received a non-jurisdictional determination from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), making it possible to develop this low-impact hydropower project in a timely fashion without undergoing lengthy federal permitting processes through FERC. In 2015, UTE installed several stilling wells on Yerrick Creek at the request of ADF&G to record subsurface flow and for stream gaging. In addition, 5.3 miles of new transmission line was installed from Tok toward the project. An additional 5 miles of upgraded transmission line will still need to be funded. Construction is anticipated to be complete by 2018. Project partners anticipate that all remaining permitting, legal agreement activities, and other pre-construction activities will be complete by the 2016 construction season, making REF IX construction phase funding timely and appropriate. Unlike other communities in Alaska, Tok and surrounding communities of the upper 3 Administrative Order 272. http://gov.alaska.gov/Walker_media/documents/20150116-administrative-order-272.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 9 of 62 7/8/14 Tanana region have not yet had the opportunity to transition from 100% diesel-fired generation to an energy mix including renewables. If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. Due to current 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power Cost Equalization (PCE) subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers. State funding will serve as an important match to $500,000 in new USDA Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP) funds awarded to the project in September of 2015. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 10 of 62 7/8/14 Outputs of AEA Econometric Workbook for 2015 Project Description Community Nearest Fuel Community Region RE Technology Project ID Applicant Name Project Title Results NPV Benefits $45,947,973.93 NPV Capital Costs $18,446,602 B/C Ratio 2.49 NPV Net Benefit $28,560,282 Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year 4,900,000 Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 245,000,000 Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 392,000 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 19,600,000 Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 3,979 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 198,940 Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $$19,000,000 Project Start year 2017 Project Life years 50 Displaced Electric kWh per year 4,900,000 Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year - Renewable Generation O&M $ per year 100,000 Electric Capacity kW 1,500 Electric Capacity Factor %37.20% Heating Capacity Btu/hr 0 Heating Capacity Factor %0 Total Public Benefit 2015$ (Total over the life of the project) Base System Size of impacted engines (select from list)$/kWh Diesel Generator O&M 601-1,300kW 0.027$ Applicant's Diesel Generator Efficiency kWh per gallon Total current annual generation kWh/gallon Diesel Generation Efficiency 12.50 Tok and Surrounding Tok Rural Hydro (Run of River) Yerrick Creek Hydro Upper Tanana Energy, LLC Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 11 of 62 7/8/14 A 50 year period of analysis was used. The project’s lifespan will be 100 years, so these numbers could reasonably be doubled. 2.5 Scope of Work Provide a scope of work detailing the tasks to be performed under this funding request. This should include work paid for by grant funds and matching funds or performed as in-kind match. Phase IV (Construction) Activities: Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverable Completion of access road Flagging, survey route, survey for active bird nests (if construction between May 5-July 25), brush and grade right-of-way, install culverts, final grade and surface Jul-16 Jul-17 Completion of road features. Award contract for supply of generating equipment Contact gen/set supplier, get quotes, order Jul-16 Sep-16 Executed supply agreement. Receipt of penstock materials Order penstock materials Jul-16 Sep-17 Executed supply agreement. Receipt of materials. Installation of bridge across creek Order materials and install Sep-16 Oct-17 Completion of bridge. Receipt of major generating equipment Order equipment. Jul-16 Aug-17 Executed supply agreement. Receipt of generating equipment. Completion of powerhouse structure Foundation and prefab structure assembled, tailrace completed. Aug-17 Oct-17 Completed powerhouse and tailrace. Completion of diversion structure Excavate, pour concrete, install valves, flanges, intake, controls, gates Apr-17 Oct-17 Completed diversion. Completion of generating equipment installation Install generating equipment, switchgear, transformer Sep-17 Nov-17 Equipment installed. Completion of Distribution Line to Tok Order materials, install poles and conductor Apr-17 Oct-17 Line completed. Test and Startup Test equipment, operate project to fine tune the instrumentation, etc. Nov-17 Dec-17 Equipment commissioned, fine tuned, and delivering power to consumers. SYSTEM TO BE CONSTRUCTED: Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 12 of 62 7/8/14 Renewable Energy Technology: Run-of-river hydropower. Optimum Installed Capacity: 1.5 MW Anticipated Annual Generation: 4,900,000 average annual kilowatt hours. Capacity Factor: 37.2% Integration Concept: The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will be integrated within the incumbent Alaska Power Company utility system as an alternative to current diesel-fired generation. The project will supplant 4,900,000 average annual kilowatt hours of diesel-fired generation, or approximately 50% of the Tok region’s load. During summer months of highest flows and lowest electricity demand, it is anticipated that the project will be able to support 100% of the region’s power and energy needs. During winter months of lower flows and higher electricity demand, it is anticipated Yerrick Creek will meet 10% of the region’s power and energy needs. As discussed above, Upper Tanana Energy (UTE) – a partnership between Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and Alaska Power & Telephone – will function as an IPP for the project. UTE will sell power and energy from the Yerrick Creek project to Alaska Power Company – an AP&T subsidiary – via a long-term power sales agreement, as an alternative to diesel-fired generation. Beginning in the first year of commercial operations, 100% of the project’s power and energy will be fully subscribed. AP&T is agreeable to this arrangement. As discussed below, integration will include 10 miles of transmission line upgrade, which is included within project construction costs. Description of Project Features to be Constructed: The Project will consist of: • Approximately 3 miles of single-lane access road from the highway to the diversion site. Efforts will be made to utilize existing road corridors to the extent possible. The clearing width for the road will generally be 40-50 feet, but may be somewhat wider in areas of significant ground slope due to the widths of cuts and fills. The right-of-way (ROW) width will be 100 feet to provide for minor field adjustment of the alignment if necessary. The road will cross Yerrick Creek at one location approximately 2 miles from the highway. The single-lane bridge will be roughly 200 feet long. • A diversion structure will be located at about El 2220, just below the confluence of the main stem of Yerrick Creek and two tributaries. The diversion structure will include a concrete-faced rockfill dike on the west abutment, a concrete-faced rockfill spillway and roughened channel outlet in the central portion, and a concrete intake on the right abutment. • A buried pipeline approximately 15,000 feet in length (known as a penstock) using 42- inch HDPE pipe for the upper 55% and 36-inch ductile iron pipe for the lower 45%. The penstock will cross Yerrick Creek just above the bridge; it will be buried below the stream Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 13 of 62 7/8/14 channel and encased in concrete. • A powerhouse approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the Alaska Highway where the water will pass through a single turbine to the tailrace. Other powerhouse equipment will include the 1,500kW generator, controls and switchgear, bridge crane, and pad-mount transformer. The powerhouse structure will be a metal building set on a concrete foundation. • A tailrace consisting of a pond and 800 feet of excavated canal to an existing overflow channel of Yerrick Creek. The pond will be formed in a borrow pit excavated to provide fill material for the access road. The pond is expected to develop a stable ice cover in winter that will allow the turbine to discharge without glaciering. • A transmission line consisting of 1,500 feet of 12.4 kV underground transmission cable from the powerhouse to the highway and 6 miles of upgraded 12.4 kV overhead transmission line adjacent to the highway (see Figure 3). [Approximately 5.3 miles of 12.4 kV overhead transmission line has already been installed as a buildout from Tok in 2015] Figure 3: Transmission Line Features The proposed Project requires state and federal permitting prior to project commencement of construction. The permits needed are: (1) a Department of Natural Resource (DNR) land lease permit [applied for but still being procured]; (2) DNR water rights permit (will be issued after operations start) [applied for]; (3) Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) habitat permit [FH09- III-0182; expired, but new permit is being review]; and, (4) a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) permit [POA-2009-445]. In addition to being located on State of Alaska managed lands, project features are also located on lands owned by Tanacross, Inc., an Alaska Native Claims Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 14 of 62 7/8/14 Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation. Both Tanacross, Inc. and the Native Village of Tanacross have resolutions in support of this project as well as MOAs. The diversion structure and approximately 7,000 feet of the penstock and access road will be on state land, the remainder of the penstock and access road as well as the powerhouse and buried portion of the transmission line will be on private land. The size of easement needed on state land will be approximately 28.4 acres. The size of easement on private land will be approximately 27.7 acres. Yerrick Creek Development Schedule: Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Tri-Party MOA Finalized Create tri-party MOA. Completed Completed Develop and Approve PPA Concept Obtain approval from AP&T. Completed Completed Develop and Incorporate Upper Tanana Energy Incorporation of UTE. Completed Completed Develop preliminary business plan and pro formas. Completion of detailed business plan documents. Completed Completed Install stilling well Applied for and received a DNR [LAS 30018] permit, ADF&G approval and COE approval for the installation of 3 stilling wells. Stilling wells were installed in April 2015. Completed Completed. Finalize hydro system design AP&T Engineering department to complete design for diversion, powerhouse, tailrace, access road, bridge, switchgear, and substation. In Progress 16-May Update business model AP&T will update business plan based on final design / cost, and results of AEA REF funding application. In Progress Aug-16 Formalize USDA grant agreement Work with USDA RUS to obtain $961,733 funds remaining in High Cost Energy Grant. Completed Completed Finalize all agencies' permitting. Receipt of all permits, and transfer to Upper Tanana Energy. In Progress Aug-16 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 15 of 62 7/8/14 Develop Construction Agreement Develop Construction Agreement. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Develop PPA Develop PPA. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Develop O&M Agreement Develop O&M Agreement. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Develop Land Use Agreement Develop Land Use Agreement. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Develop CPCN Application required for Regulatory Approvals. Develop CPCN Application. Substantially completed. Drafted; waiting for final details of financing before completing exhibits and filing with the RCA. Negotiate AEA REF Grant Agreement Await legislative and Governor approval of project AEA REF request. Jul-16 Aug-16 Completion of access road Flagging, survey route, survey for active bird nests (if construction between May 5-July 25), brush and grade right-of-way, install culverts, final grade and surface. Jul-16 Jul-17 Award contract for supply of generating equipment Contact gen/set supplier, get quotes, order. Jul-16 Sep-16 Receipt of penstock materials Order penstock materials. Jul-16 Sep-17 Installation of bridge across creek Order materials and install. Sep-16 Oct-17 Receipt of major generating equipment Order equipment. Jul-16 Aug-17 Completion of powerhouse structure Foundation and prefab structure assembled, tailrace completed. Aug-17 Oct-17 Completion of diversion structure Excavate, pour concrete, install valves, flanges, intake, controls, gates. Apr-17 Oct-17 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 16 of 62 7/8/14 Completion of generating equipment installation Install generating equipment, switchgear, transformer. Sep-17 Nov-17 Completion of Distribution Line to intertie at Tanacross Order materials, install poles and conductor. Apr-17 Oct-17 Test and Startup Test equipment, operate project to fine tune the instrumentation, etc. Nov-17 Dec-17 SECTION 3 – Project Management, Development, and Operation 3.1 Schedule and Milestones Criteria: Stage 2-1.A: The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail. Please fill out the schedule below (or attach a similar sheet) for the work covered by this funding request. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project. Add additional rows as needed. Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverable Completion of access road Flagging, survey route, survey for active bird nests (if construction between May 5-July 25), brush and grade right-of-way, install culverts, final grade and surface Jul-16 Jul-17 Completion of road features. Award contract for supply of generating equipment Contact gen/set supplier, get quotes, order. Jul-16 Sep-16 Executed supply agreement. Receipt of penstock materials Order penstock materials. Jul-16 Sep-17 Executed supply agreement. Receipt of materials. Installation of bridge across creek Order materials and install. Sep-16 Oct-17 Completion of bridge. Receipt of major generating equipment Order equipment. Jul-16 Aug-17 Executed supply agreement. Receipt of generating equipment. Completion of powerhouse structure Foundation and prefab structure assembled, tailrace completed. Aug-17 Oct-17 Completed powerhouse and tailrace. Completion of diversion structure Excavate, pour concrete, install valves, flanges, intake, controls, gates. Apr-17 Oct-17 Completed diversion. Completion of generating equipment installation Install generating equipment, switchgear, transformer. Sep-17 Nov-17 Equipment installed. Completion of Distribution Line to Tok Order materials, install poles and conductor. Apr-17 Oct-17 Line completed. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 17 of 62 7/8/14 Test and Startup Test equipment, operate project to fine tune the instrumentation, etc. Nov-17 Dec-17 Equipment commissioned and delivering power to consumers. It should be noted that the schedule assumes no on-site outside work during the November-March time period. If unusually harsh weather conditions extend that period, the entire schedule could slip. Achievement of this schedule will also require multiple crews working throughout the 2017 construction season; if local labor is not sufficient to provide multiple crews, a 2018 construction season may be required. 3.2 Budget Criteria: Stage 2-1.B: The cost estimates for project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project items meet industry standards or are otherwise justified. 3.2.1 Budget Overview Describe your financial commitment to the project. List the amount of funds needed for project completion and the anticipated nature and sources of funds. Consider all project phases, including future phases not covered in this funding request. Total Construction Cost: $19,000,000  Proposed AEA REF Round VIII Funds -- $4,000,000  USDA REAP FUNDS (Committed) -- $500,000  Match: $14,500,000 in private debt and equity (approximately 15% equity, 85% debt) UTE and its partners anticipate contributing $2,250,000 in private equity, and $12,750,000 in debt via a loan from the Power Project Fund. UTE will be seeking PPF borrowing authorization during the 2016 legislative session. Match previously committed to the project includes: $1,527,324 in USDA RUS grant funds. These funds were used to pay for the permitting process, fish habitat survey, wetlands inventory, water quality testing, hydrology analysis, stream gaging, TES plant survey, other environmental analysis, cultural resource survey, geotechnical evaluations for placement of project features, engineering design, and legal services for obtaining access to private land that have occurred to date. Funds have also assisted in completing construction of about 5 miles of the transmission features [buildout from Tok. $75,801 in private investment supplied by AP&T. NEED TO RE-EVALUATE AND UPDATE. These funds have supported supplemental project development and business planning activities. $100,000 AEA grant funds, supporting preliminary feasibility analysis. This project was concluded successfully, with a final project summary submitted to the Alaska Energy Authority. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 18 of 62 7/8/14 $500,000 in USDA Renewable Energy for American Program (REAP) funds for construction were awarded to Upper Tanana Energy in September of 2015. The proposed $4m in REF IX funds will serve as the required match to REAP funds. The Alaska Energy Authority awarded $4m in construction-phase funds to the Yerrick Creek project under Round III of the REF program, 6 years ago. The grant recipient was AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company (APC). APC indicated that they would like to place the Yerrick Creek project on hold until: 1) completion of a biomass study, and 2) landowner approval. The AEA suggested utilizing the $4m in REF Round III construction funds for other projects, and APC, seeking to support the best interest of the state, had no objections to this course of action. The biomass study has since been completed, and demonstrated that the Yerrick Creek hydropower project is more economically attractive and less risky than development of a biomass powerplant. Since the time of the prior $4m construction funding award by the AEA, the Yerrick Creek project has progressed to an even more advanced state of construction readiness, and the applicants have significantly improved their understanding of Yerrick Creek and its economics. Thus, we believe the time has come for the State of Alaska to award construction funds for the Yerrick Creek project, as had been done previously in Round III of the REF program. A summary project cost estimated is provided below. Estimate was performed by AP&T engineers in September 2015 based on internal records, industry standards, experience on other similar projects in rural Alaska, and supply chain/vendor information. Additional budget detail and sources of cost data / pricing based upon industry sources can be provided to the AEA upon request; however, some of this information may be considered confidential due to agreements between AP&T and other project partners, and AP&T and vendors / suppliers. YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST – 9/2015 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 0.1 MOBILIZATION $ 500,000 0.2 POWERHOUSE $ 405,000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS 0.1 DIVERSION STRUCTURE $ 1,553,000 0.2 UPPER PENSTOCK (HDPE PIPE) $ 1,547,000 0.3 LOWER PENSTOCK (DUCTILE IRON PIPE) $ 3,191,000 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS 0.1 TURBINE SHUTOFF VALVES $ 230,000 0.2 HYDRAULIC TURBINES $ 690,000 0.3 SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS $ 820,000 0.4 AUXILIARY DIESEL GENERATOR $ 56,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 19 of 62 7/8/14 0.1 SWITCHGEAR $ 52,000 0.2 CONTROL SYSTEM $ 250,000 0.3 DC POWER SYSTEM $ 45,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 0.1 POWERHOUSE CRANE $ 134,000 0.2 FIRE PROTECTION AND SECURITY $ 12,000 0.3 SHOP EQUIPMENT $ 14,000 336 ROADS AND BRIDGES 0.1 ROAD TO DIVERSION $ 1,489,000 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES 0.1 POWERHOUSE SUBSTION $ 215,000 355 POLES AND FIXTURES 0.1 UPGRADE EXISTING LINE (10 MILES) $ 850,000 0.2 REMOVE OLD LINE (12 MILES) $ 840,000 0.3 CONSTRUCT NEW LINE (12 MILES) $ 1,740,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR AND DEVICES 0.1 357 UNDERGROUND CONDUIT 0.1 TRANSMISSION LINE $ 37,000 358 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS AND DEVICES 0.1 TRANSMISSION LINE $ 104,000 SUBTOTAL $ 14,774,000 Contingency 10.0% $ 1,477,000 Escalation 10.4% $ 1,687,000 SUBTOTAL $ 17,938,000 Permitting 0.5% $ 90,000 Design 2.0% $ 359,000 CM 3.5% $ 613,000 SUBTOTAL $ 19,000,000 3.2.2 Budget Forms Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in section 2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction. Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project. The milestones and tasks should match those listed in 3.1 above. If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grants Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfa@aidea.org. Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: TOTALS Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 20 of 62 7/8/14 Grant Funds Funds Cash/In- kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other Structures and Improvements: Mobilization and Powerhouse Construction Oct. 17 $905,000 0 NA $905,000 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways: Diversion Structure and Penstock Installation Oct. 17 $3,095,000 $3,196,000 UTE $6,291,000 Turbines and Generators – Installation of all Equipment Nov. 17 0 $1,796,000 UTE $1,796,000 Accessory Electrical Equipment – Installation of all Equipment Nov. 17 0 $347,000 UTE $347,000 Mechanical Equipment – Powerhouse crane, fire protection/safety, shop equipment Oct. 17 $160,000 NA $160,000 Roads and bridges Jul. 17 $1,489,000 $1,489,000 Substation Equipment Oct. 17 $215,000 UTE $215,000 Poles and fixtures – purchase and installation Oct. 17 $3,430,000 UTE $3,430,000 Underground conduit, conductors, and devices Oct. 17 0 $141,000 UTE $141,000 Contingency (10%) NA 0 $1,477,000 UTE $1,477,000 Escalation (10.4%) NA 0 $1,687,000 UTE $1,687,000 Permitting (0.5%) See Above 0 $90,000 USDA RUS $90,000 Design (2%) See Above 0 $359,000 USDA RUS $359,000 Construction Management (3.5%) NA 0 $613,000 UTE $613,000 TOTALS $4,000,000 $15,000,000 $19,000,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ $1,750,000 $1,750,000 Travel & Per Diem $ $100,000 $100,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 21 of 62 7/8/14 Equipment $855,000 $2,172,000 $3,027,000 Materials & Supplies $ $ $ Contractual Services $ $250,000 $250,000 Construction Servicers $3,145,000 $10,728,000 $13,873,000 $4,000,000 $15,000,000 $19,000,000 NOTE: In the event that the AEA prefers to allocate grant funds to other categories or expenditure types, UTE would be glad to amend its proposed allocation of grant and matching funds. 3.2.3 Cost Justification Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget. A summary project cost estimated is provided below. Estimate was performed by AP&T engineers in September 2015 based on internal records, industry standards, experience on other similar projects in rural Alaska, and supply chain/vendor information. Additional budget detail and sources of cost data / pricing based upon industry sources can be provided to the AEA upon request; however, some of this information may be considered confidential due to agreements between AP&T and other project partners, and AP&T and vendors / suppliers. YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST – 9/2015 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 0.1 MOBILIZATION $ 500,000 0.2 POWERHOUSE $ 405,000 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS 0.1 DIVERSION STRUCTURE $ 1,553,000 0.2 UPPER PENSTOCK (HDPE PIPE) $ 1,547,000 0.3 LOWER PENSTOCK (DUCTILE IRON PIPE) $ 3,191,000 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS 0.1 TURBINE SHUTOFF VALVES $ 230,000 0.2 HYDRAULIC TURBINES $ 690,000 0.3 SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS $ 820,000 0.4 AUXILIARY DIESEL GENERATOR $ 56,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 0.1 SWITCHGEAR $ 52,000 0.2 CONTROL SYSTEM $ 250,000 0.3 DC POWER SYSTEM $ 45,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 0.1 POWERHOUSE CRANE $ 134,000 0.2 FIRE PROTECTION AND SECURITY $ 12,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 22 of 62 7/8/14 0.3 SHOP EQUIPMENT $ 14,000 336 ROADS AND BRIDGES 0.1 ROAD TO DIVERSION $ 1,489,000 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES 0.1 POWERHOUSE SUBSTATION $ 215,000 355 POLES AND FIXTURES 0.1 UPGRADE EXISTING LINE (10 MILES) $ 850,000 0.2 REMOVE OLD LINE (12 MILES) $ 840,000 0.3 CONSTRUCT NEW LINE (12 MILES) $ 1,740,000 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR AND DEVICES 0.1 357 UNDERGROUND CONDUIT 0.1 TRANSMISSION LINE $ 37,000 358 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS AND DEVICES 0.1 TRANSMISSION LINE $ 104,000 SUBTOTAL $ 14,774,000 Contingency 10.0% $ 1,477,000 Escalation 10.4% $ 1,687,000 SUBTOTAL $ 17,938,000 Permitting 0.5% $ 90,000 Design 2.0% $ 359,000 CM 3.5% $ 613,000 SUBTOTAL $ 19,000,000 3.2.4 Funding Sources Indicate the funding sources for the phase(s) of the project applied for in this funding request. Grant funds requested in this application $ 4,000,000 Cash match to be provided $ 15,000,000 In-kind match to be provided $ NA Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) $ 19,000,000 3.2.5 Total Project Costs Indicate the anticipated total cost by phase of the project (including all funding sources). Use actual costs for completed phases. Reconnaissance $ 13,267 Feasibility and Conceptual Design $ 525,000 Final Design and Permitting $ 175,000 Construction $ 19,000,000 Total Project Costs (sum of above) $ 20,675,000 3.2.6 Operating and Maintenance Costs O&M costs can be estimated in two ways for the standard application. Most proposed RE projects will fall under Option 1 because the new resource will not allow for diesel generation to be turned off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for periods of time; these projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 23 of 62 7/8/14 Options O&M Impact of proposed RE project Option 1: Diesel generation ON For projects that do not result in shutting down diesel generation there is assumed to be no impact on the base case O&M. Please indicate the estimated annual O&M cost associated with the proposed renewable project. NA Option 2: Diesel generation OFF For projects that will result in shutting down diesel generation please estimate: 1. Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off diesel generation 2. Estimated hours that diesel generation will be off per year. 3. Annual O&M costs associated with the proposed renewable project. 1. The AEA’s workbook estimates $132,023.08 2. 4,380. 3. $100,000 per year. 3.3 Project Communications Criteria: Stage 2-1.C: The applicant’s communications plan, including monitoring and reporting, is described in adequate detail. Describe how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Upper Tanana Energy (UTE) is willing to utilize any reasonable communication, monitoring, and reporting methodology which may be preferred by the AEA. Some suggestions based on typical practices and past experience follow below. Communications: UTE will designate a Project Manager to coordinate communications between Yerrick Creek project team members and the AEA in a timely manner which is responsive to the AEA’s needs. Reporting and Monitoring The UTE partnership will adhere to AEA quarterly reporting requirements, and will make itself available on a continual basis to address any additional needs, concerns, or requests for information from the AEA. We suggest utilizing a series of key project milestones to help monitor progress and key deliverables. As a regulated private utility with a 58 year history in Alaska, UTE partner AP&T has been the recipient of numerous State and Federal grants, is accustomed to fulfilling all agency requirements in a timely manner, and performs them on an ongoing basis. UTE partner AP&T has extensive State- wide experience in successful partnership, application of grant funds, communication, and reporting in association with the Alaska Energy Authority. AP&T maintains a capable and experienced staff with diverse skill sets well suited to performing all management, accounting, administrative, and other requirements. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 24 of 62 7/8/14 As a private ANCSA corporation, UTE partner Tanacross Inc. has experience in accounting and bookkeeping, monitoring projects, and keeping stakeholders informed of their current status. As a federally recognized tribe, UTE partner the Native Village of Tanacross is accustomed to receiving, reporting on, and tracking progress of grants, and performs these responsibilities on an ongoing basis. At the completion of the project, Upper Tanana Energy will provide the AEA with a copy of the final design drawings, specifications, and a report on successes, lessons learned, and recommendations for similar projects which may be constructed in the future. 3.4 Operational Logistics Criteria: Stage 2-1.D: Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and maintaining the project throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and described in adequate detail. Describe the anticipated logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and maintaining the project throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project. Generally, operational logistics will be modelled upon those developed for the Reynolds Creek hydropower project. UTE will sell 100% of the Yerrick Creek project’s output to AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company (APC) under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a term coinciding with the term of the project’s financing (target of 50 years). AP&T is agreeable to this arrangement. AP&T will operate and maintain the project per a long-term O&M agreement between UTE and AP&T. The term of the O&M agreement will coincide with the term of the project’s PPA and financing (target of 50 years). The project will be operated according to standard utility practices under the regulation of the RCA. Logistical Arrangements: The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will be operated primarily through automation. The project’s powerhouse will be located adjoining the existing highway, allowing for easy access for scheduled maintenance, and any emergencies. Access roads will allow personnel to access the project’s other facilities as may be needed. Business Arrangements: UTE will sell 100% of the Yerrick Creek project’s output to AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company (APC) under a PPA with a term coinciding with the term of the project’s financing (target of 50 years). Financial Arrangements: As part of its responsibilities within the O&M agreement, AP&T will perform all utility financial and accounting tasks. AP&T’s incumbent utility accounting department will perform these tasks. Additional details can be provided upon request by the AEA. All arrangements will be subject to RCA approvals. UTE anticipates filing its CPCN and PPA for RCA approvals after details of financing (ex: grant fund approval and loan terms) are available, and can be incorporated into RCA filing exhibits. A draft CPCN filing has been prepared. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 25 of 62 7/8/14 SECTION 4 – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 4.1 Project Team Criteria: Stage 2-2.A: The Applicant, partners, and/or contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete and operate the project. If the applicant has not yet chosen a contractor to complete the work, qualifications and experience points will be based on the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex contracts. Criteria: Stage 2-2.B: The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project. Criteria: Stage 2-2.C: The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation. Criteria: Stage 2-2.D: The project team has positive past grant experience. 4.1.1 Project Manager Indicate who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, and a resume. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. AP&T’s personnel will provide comprehensive project management services, under the executive leadership of its President/CEO (Robert Grimm). Responsibilities will be divided between employees as appropriate for meeting all project needs. Project Management Team: Robert S. Grimm – Alaska Power & Telephone Company 360-385-1733 x 120 Bob.g@aptalaska.com Resume and references attached. Jason Custer – Alaska Power & Telephone Company 907-225-1950 x 33 Jason.c@aptalaska.com Resume and references attached. Jeff Weltzin – Native Village of Tanacross 907-590-1304 jefferyweltzin@gmail.com Resume and references attached. Additional AP&T senior engineers and project managers will be used as needed to assist with management and execution of the project. RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL ATTACHED. 4.1.2 Expertise and Resources Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 26 of 62 7/8/14 Describe the project team including the applicant, partners, and contractors. Provide sufficient detail for reviewers to evaluate: • the extent to which the team has sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete and operate the project; • whether the project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project; • how well the project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation. If contractors have not been selected to complete the work, provide reviewers with sufficient detail to understand the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex contracts. Include brief resumes for known key personnel and contractors as an attachment to your application. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application • Rex Goolsby, Construction Superintendent • Vern Neitzer, PE, Senior Engineer • Bob Berreth, PE, Electrical Engineer • Ben Beste, PE, Mechanical Engineer • Larry Coupe, PE, Civil Design • Greg Mickelsen and Mickey Henton, Transmission • Glen Martin, Resource Assessment and Permits • Chad Haggar, Financial Specialist • Scott MacCormick, Legal (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) • Jason Custer, Project Management, Economic, Financial, and Legal tasks • Danny Gonce, Safety Director • Christine Overly, Senior Accountant, Grant Administrator RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL ATTACHED. APC is preparing the final design documents in-house using its staff civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers, who all have extensive experience in hydroelectric development. AP&T’s in-house engineering and renewable energy development team have performed key engineering and construction tasks for a number of successfully completed hydropower projects, including Black Bear Lake, Goat Lake, Kasidaya Creek, South Fork, and Falls Creek. Construction will be by local contractors and APC staff, as follows: • Brush clearing – local contractor (s) • Access road – local contractor(s) • Diversion structure fabrications – Reynold Grey Machining and Services • Diversion structure installation – local contractor(s) • Penstock materials procurement – APC • Penstock installation – local contractor(s) • Generating equipment procurement – APC • Powerhouse fabrications – Reynold Grey Machining and Services • Powerhouse construction – local contractor(s) and APC Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 27 of 62 7/8/14 • Transmission line construction – local contractor(s) and APC • Testing and start-up – APC Incumbent Project Development / Construction Resources As demonstrated in attached resumes, AP&T maintains formidable in-house capacity for reliable utility operations, and development, construction, and long-term operation and maintenance of hydropower projects. AP&T has power linemen, engineers, accounting and bookkeeping, and project management personnel located at AP&T’s service center in Tok, with additional staff capacity throughout the state of Alaska, and at AP&T’s headquarters in Port Townsend, Washington. AP&T currently owns and operates seven hydropower projects (Dewey Lakes, Lutak, Kasidaya, South Fork, Black Bear Lake, Goat Lake, Falls Creek), with an 8th hydropower project soon to be completed at Reynolds Creek on Prince of Wales Island. AP&T currently maintains over 400 miles of transmission line. AP&T’s certified linemen are trained to install and maintain transmission lines, and operate all associated equipment. If additional workforce or experience is needed, AP&T will follow its standard practice of drawing from its labor pool of personnel throughout its Alaska service areas. AP&T’s experienced engineering staff have been involved in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of hydropower projects for decades. Some outside contractors would be hired to excavate the ground and haul materials to the project site. Qualified local laborers, journeymen, and specialists (ex: blasting contractors) would be hired to assist with construction activities. Specialty manufacturers and suppliers will be used to fabricate the project’s powerhouse structure, turbine, generator, penstock, and other materials. AP&T’s personnel and other hired labor would install and commission all structures and equipment. AP&T also has experienced staff to maintain diesel generators and hydropower plants. Through hire of qualified personnel, OJT (on the job training), and use of apprenticeship programs and educational partnerships, AP&T maintains sufficient workforce for all aspects of utility operations. AP&T intends to maximize opportunities for participation of qualified local workforce in construction and operations, including Tanacross Inc. and Native Village of Tanacross constituents, and maximize “local content” in a manner consistent with federal EEO laws and other applicable state and federal requirements. This practice will help maximize local economic participation, benefit, and workforce development. 4.1.3 Project Accountant(s) Indicate who will be performing the accounting of this project for the grantee and include a resume. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you intend to solicit financial accounting support. AP&T’s utility finance department will perform project accounting tasks under the leadership of CFO Chad Haggar. Chad Haggar, CPA, CFO -- Lead Accountant Christine Overly – Senior Accountant RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL ATTACHED. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 28 of 62 7/8/14 4.1.4 Financial Accounting System Describe the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement from the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. UTE partner AP&T serves as the parent company of various certificated utilities subject to economic regulation under the RCA; as such, AP&T is accustomed to carefully controlling, documenting, and monitoring costs of its business operations to assure that costs do not exceed what is reasonable, ordinary, necessary, and allowable. AP&T will exercise this same high standard of care in its performance of project accounting, management, and financial oversight tasks for the Yerrick Creek project. As a recipient of numerous State and Federal grants, AP&T is well aware that unallowable expenses will not be recoverable via grants, and thus will become expenses of AP&T – this strongly motivates AP&T to avoid unallowable expenses. UTE partner AP&T has been involved in numerous AEA REF-funded projects, and is accustomed to following AEA specifications regarding allowable expenses, and working on projects under close oversight by the AEA. Typically, allowable expenses are defined by the AEA in advance of project activities. As activities are completed, expenses are submitted to the AEA for reimbursement. The AEA reviews all expenses to ensure that they are necessary and appropriate, and that unallowable expenses are not included. The AEA then reimburses the expenses, deducting any unallowable costs which may have been inadvertently included. UTE is glad to follow this process, or any other reasonable process which the AEA may prefer. 4.2 Local Workforce Criteria: Stage 2-2.E: The project uses local labor and trains a local labor workforce. Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce. As displayed in Section 4.1.2 above, UTE’s construction contractor, AP&T, plans to substantially utilize the local workforce. Use of Incumbent Alaskan Utility Workforce As previously discussed, AP&T will serve as the prime construction contractor for the Yerrick Creek project using its incumbent workforce, which is predominantly located in Alaska. AP&T has power linemen, engineers, accounting and bookkeeping, and project management personnel located at AP&T’s service center in Tok, with additional staff capacity throughout the state of Alaska. If additional workforce or experience is needed, AP&T will follow its standard practice of drawing from its labor pool of personnel throughout its Alaska service areas. AP&T currently owns and operates seven hydropower projects (Dewey Lakes, Lutak, Kasidaya, South Fork, Black Bear Lake, Goat Lake, Falls Creek), with an 8th hydropower project soon to be completed at Reynolds Creek on Prince of Wales Island. AP&T currently maintains over 400 miles of transmission line. AP&T’s certified linemen are trained to install and maintain transmission lines, and operate all associated equipment. Access to Additional Workforce: Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 29 of 62 7/8/14 Shop Local First AP&T has a standard practice of hiring locally first whenever possible – not only does it support the economies of the rural communities we serve, it is typically the most affordable option available (ex: no travel or per diem expenses). As the contractor for Yerrick Creek AP&T intends to maximize opportunities for participation of qualified local workforce in Yerrick Creek’s construction, including Tanacross Inc. and Native Village of Tanacross constituents, and maximize “local content” in a manner consistent with federal EEO laws and other applicable state and federal requirements. This practice will help maximize local economic participation, benefit, and workforce development while also making the project more affordable. As displayed in Section 4.1.2 above, AP&T plans to substantially utilize the local workforce. Alaska-Based Options The reality is that rural communities such as Tok often lack some of the specialized skills which are required for renewable energy development tasks. In situations where “shop local” is not a viable option, Yerrick Creek construction contractor AP&T has a standard practice of looking for in-State specialists in nearby communities. Tok is a 3.5 hour drive from Fairbanks, and a 7 hour drive from Anchorage, making access to larger Alaskan talent pools feasible and affordable. SECTION 5 – TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY 5.1 Resource Availability Criteria: Stage 2-3.A: The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained. 5.1.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available, including average resource availability on an annual basis. Describe the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this application. Work on Previous Phases: The following documents are included in the Appendix to demonstrate to AEA that considerable reconnaissance, feasibility, design, and permitting work has been completed. These activities have been completed over the last 8 years, and have brought this project to the point where construction can begin in July of 2016, in time with issuance of State REF Round IX funds. • Resolution No. ___ from the Native Village of Tanacross • Resolution No. ___ from Tanacross, Inc. • UTE Partnership MOUs [with the Native Village of Tanacross and Tanacross, Inc.] • Final EA and FONSI issued by the USDA Rural Utilities Service • Pertinent Resumes • Letters of Support • US Army COE Permit No. POA-2009-445 • COE In -Lieu Fee paid to The Conservation Fund Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 30 of 62 7/8/14 • Alaska Department of Fish & Game Permit FH09-III-0182 Additional documents that can be provided, if requested, are: • Wetlands Survey Report • Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species Report • Cultural Resource Survey • Aquatic Resources Survey • Hydrology Analysis • Wildlife Analysis • ADF&G, USACOE, and ADNR approvals to install 3 stilling wells in Yerrick Creek • ADNR Permit LAS 30018 for installing stilling wells • Seismic Refraction Survey, November 2008 • USDA REAP-Format Yerrick Creek Feasibility Study, 2015 Amount of Energy Available, and Pros and Cons of Yerrick Creek Project: The 1.5 MW Yerrick Creek hydropower will provide 4.9 aGWH of affordable, renewable energy to Tok and surrounding communities in the upper Tanana region (Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, Dot Creek), which are currently dependent upon 100% diesel-fired generation of electricity, and pay energy costs of $0.45 / kWh (before PCE).4 While slightly larger and smaller turbine sizes have been considered, engineers have determined that a 1.5 MW capacity project provides an optimal energy delivery profile and project economics, while meeting permit requirements. Lowers Energy Costs. Applicants are requesting $4m in construction funding through the AEA REF IX program – it is estimated that this level of funding support by the State of Alaska will result in a project which produces clean energy for less than the cost of diesel fuel in its initial year of commercial operations, and therefore capable of receiving RCA approval. Over time, annual savings will increase as the cost of diesel fuel continues to escalate over the cost of producing energy via hydropower. Additionally, revenue requirements – and resulting consumer energy rates – will decrease long term as private investment is recovered through depreciation and deducted from the project’s ratebase. This results in ever-increasing savings for ratepayers, and the State of Alaska’s PCE fund. Stabilizes and Reduces Energy Costs Long Term. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will stabilize local energy costs by reducing dependency on diesel fuel – a volatile commodity with costs which escalate faster than the rate of inflation. As discussed above, revenue requirements – and resulting consumer energy rates – will decrease long term as private investment is recovered through depreciation and deducted from the project’s ratebase. Hydropower maintenance and operating costs are extremely low compared to that those associated with diesel-fired generation. Long Project Lifespan with Additional Cost-Savings Available Beyond Capital Cost Repayment – Yerrick Creek has an estimated useful life of over 50 years. Properly constructed hydropower sites can provide over 100+ years of reliable service. (For example, AP&T’s Dewey Lakes hydropower project has recently been recognized by HydroWorld for operating continuously since 1902.) After the financing period is 4 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 31 of 62 7/8/14 complete and capital costs are paid off, the cost of maintaining and operating a hydropower project drops to very low levels. Diesel Fuel Displacement Benefit. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will displace approximately 50% of the region’s diesel-fired generation of electricity with clean, renewable hydropower from a local, low-impact source. The project will eliminate use of 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year for a 50+ year operating life, avoiding a total of 18,750,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Supports State Renewable Energy Policy Goals. By supplanting diesel-fired generation with clean, renewable hydropower, Yerrick Creek will help to support the State of Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025. Seniority of Dispatch, and Existing Market for 100% of Power and Energy. Economic viability of many hydropower projects in Alaska is frequently challenged by the difficulty of matching the utility’s incremental load growth to the size of locally available hydropower resources; this produces the frequently occurring situation in which 100% of power and energy from a new hydropower project cannot be sold during initial years of operation. Yerrick Creek does not have this problem – because the community does not yet have a renewable energy source, 100% of the project’s 4,900,000 kWh will be saleable from year one, replacing diesel-fired generation. Because it is the region’s first renewable resource, Yerrick Creek will receive seniority of dispatch over all existing and future energy generation assets. Responds to Governor Walker’s Administrative Order 272 by addressing the Consumer Energy Crisis in Interior Alaska. Tok is a prime example of a community which faces the consumer energy crisis articulated by Governor Walker in Administrative Order 272.5 With some support from the State of Alaska, the Yerrick Creek project can leverage private sector expertise and capital to make a tremendous stride in addressing Alaska’s interior energy crisis. MOU Executed Between Project Partners. Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and AP&T signed a Memorandum of Understanding expressing willingness to work cooperatively on the Yerrick Creek project in August of 2014. The three entities established a new venture named Upper Tanana Energy to develop, own, and operate the project as an independent power producer (IPP). Power Sales Agreement Concept Approved by Incumbent Utility. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will sell energy to Alaska Power Company – the incumbent for the Tok region, and a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) – under a power sales agreement transaction regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). As a UTE project partner, AP&T is agreeable to this arrangement. Avoids Costly, Time-Consuming Federal Permitting Requirements. Yerrick Creek is located on private and State lands and has received a non-jurisdictional determination from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), making it possible to develop this low-impact hydropower project in a timely fashion without undergoing lengthy federal permitting processes through FERC. Expedient Construction Possible. Construction is anticipated to be complete by 2017. Project partners anticipate that all remaining permitting, power sales agreement, and other pre-construction 5 Administrative Order 272. http://gov.alaska.gov/Walker_media/documents/20150116-administrative-order-272.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 32 of 62 7/8/14 activities will be complete by the 2016 construction season, making REF IX construction phase funding timely and appropriate. Benefits Communities which are Still 100% Diesel Dependent. The project will benefit the interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. Unlike other communities in Alaska, Tok and surrounding communities of the upper Tanana region have not yet had the opportunity to transition from 100% diesel-fired generation to an energy mix including renewables. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.45 kWh pricing for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour. Reduces Environmental Liabilities. Use of hydropower will reduce the need to transport fuel from Fairbanks to Tok, lowering the potential for leaks and spills along the Alaska Highway. Transferring fuel from a supply truck to APC’s storage tank would be less frequent, reducing the potential for spills during fueling, and keeping groundwater safer for the area. Social Cost of Carbon Avoidance – Yerrick Creek will displace 3,533 metric tons of carbon dioxide avoidance per year, or 176,650 metric tons of carbon dioxide over the project’s initial 50-year period of operation. This is equivalent to approximately $14.9m in Social Cost of Carbon savings. (Calculated using the average of all four federal calculated methodologies specified by the US Interagency Working Group for Social Cost of Carbon, as required for US EO 12866 review. A 50 year period of analysis was used. The project’s lifespan will be 100 years, so these numbers could reasonably be doubled.) Realization of ANCSA Economic Benefit – Yerrick Creek allows Tanacross Inc. to utilize its ANCSA lands to realize the promise of ANCSA; generating economic returns in exchange for extinguishing indigenous land claims. Potential to Extend Benefit to Additional Communities -- If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit from the presence of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.70 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour. Generates Significant Power Cost Equalization Savings for the State of Alaska. Due to current 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power Cost Equalization subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers. Significant Local Support and Cooperation. AP&T, Tanacross Inc., and the Native Village of Tanacross have signed a Memorandum of Agreement agreeing to cooperate to develop the Yerrick Creek project for the benefit of the region. The project is well supported by the Tok community, due to its ability to lower energy rates. Experienced Hydro Development Partner. Project partner AP&T has significant experience developing, owning, and operating low impact hydropower projects. AP&T has developed 4 new hydropower projects in Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 33 of 62 7/8/14 Alaska in the last 20 years, with a 5th hydropower project (Reynolds Creek) currently entering final construction. AP&T has over 50 years experience as a private sector Alaskan business engaged in ownership, development, and reliable operation of hydropower projects. AP&T has also performed hydropower development services for a wide range of utilities within the State of Alaska. AP&T’s in-house engineering department continues to be in high demand for assisting utilities, IPPs, tribal organizations, and others on a contractual basis to plan and develop new renewable energy resources. Support for State of Alaska Resource Development and Economic Development Policy. The upper Tanana region is challenged by high energy costs, which limit economic development and employment opportunities. While businesses are actively pursuing new value-adding opportunities within the forest products sector and are conducting mining exploration activities, commercial feasibility of these resource- driven opportunities is limited by high local energy costs. The current situation creates constraints to realizing State of Alaska’s Natural Resource Policy, as defined in Article 8 Section 1 of the State of Alaska Constitution, which is as follows: “It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.” Existing Investment to Date. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project has benefitted from significant investment supporting 8 years of study, which has brought the project to its current state of development readiness:  $100,000 AEA grant funds, supporting preliminary feasibility analysis. This project was implemented and concluded successfully, with a final project summary submitted to the Alaska Energy Authority.  $1,527,324 in USDA RUS grant funds. These funds were used to pay for the permitting process, fish habitat survey, wetlands inventory, water quality testing, hydrology analysis, stream gaging, TES plant survey, other environmental analysis, cultural resource survey, geotechnical evaluations for placement of project features, engineering design, and legal services.  $500,000 in USDA REAP funds have been awarded to the project for construction (September, 2015). $4m in AEA REF Round IX funds will serve as match to REAP funds.  $75,801 in private investment supplied by AP&T. These funds have supported supplemental project development activities and business planning and development. Willing Private Sector Investor. Alaska Power & Telephone is very interested in participating as an equity investor in the Yerrick Creek project, and is committing to work through the UTE partnership to develop and implement an economically and financially feasible financing package. After economically and financially feasible loan terms can be negotiated, project partners would be in the position to make a final financial commitment to the project. Ease of Integration – Hydropower can be readily incorporated alongside diesel-fired generation within a small utility system, with minimum integration concerns. AP&T owns and operates numerous diesel-hydropower hybrid systems in Alaska, and has specialized in optimization of these systems. Disadvantage – Large Capital Expenditure Requirement. The major drawback of hydropower projects is that they are extremely capital intensive. While hydropower projects have very long useful lifespans (50+ or Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 34 of 62 7/8/14 even 100+ years), commercial financing is typically available for a 30 year period at most. UTE is seeking to help offset these drawbacks by requesting State of Alaska REF Round IX funding, and low interest loans. Discussion of Energy Technology Alternatives in the Tok Region. AP&T’s “Technology-Neutral” Approach for Lowering Energy Costs for Ratepayers: AP&T utilizes a “technology neutral” approach, and considers all possible technologies which may produce clean, reliable energy at a lower rate for the benefit of the ratepayers. While AP&T considers solar, wind, river hydrokinetic, hydropower, biomass, and alternative fuels, the company ultimately focuses on the opportunities which meet the criteria of providing ratepayers with the most affordable, reliable, and low-risk clean energy possible. After studying a wide variety of options, AP&T has identified Yerrick Creek as the renewable energy option offering the best value to ratepayers within the Tok and upper Tanana region.  Solar: Challenged by Intermittency – Solar power is an intermittent resource which is only available when the sun is shining in sufficient quantity to produce useable energy and power. Solar is not yet competitive with diesel-fired generation in the Tok and Upper Tanana region; part of the reason for this is that even in the presence of solar, dispatchable generation sources such as diesel power plants are still needed to supply power to fully serve the local load at times when the sun is not shining – for example, at night, during times of cloud-cover, and during the interior’s long winters when hours of sunshine are scarce. Diesel power plants must still be staffed, maintained, and operated – and so while installation of solar panels may eliminate purchase of some diesel-fired generation, it does not reduce these “fixed costs” incurred by the utility and its ratepayers. While storage and load-shaping technology is available to help to mitigate intermittency, these technologies are not yet commercially competitive versus the cost of diesel-fired generation. There are also limits to the amount of intermittent resources which can be integrated into a small, insular system before significant transmission line and other upgrades are necessary to preserve system stability. The article below, published by the Economist, looks at the costs of “intermittency,” which are oftentimes not reflected in levelized energy costs or comparisons of solar power versus other generation alternatives. http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and- solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and Despite these challenges, AP&T is investigating new opportunities and business models for deployment of small-scale solar. While solar deployment may be economically feasible in future years as technology advances and diesel costs continue to rise, the economics of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project are presently far more attractive.  Wind: Challenged by Intermittency – Like solar, wind is an intermittent resource which requires availability of dispatchable back-up from thermal or hydropower plant sources, and can present significant integration challenges / expenses to small, insular Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 35 of 62 7/8/14 grid systems. AP&T is studying opportunities for wind deployment and integration in its service regions and believes it may eventually be possible – however, economics of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project are presently more attractive, and the project is in a more advanced state of development readiness.  Biomass CHP: Challenged Lack of Viable Market for Heat and Fuel Supply Risks – With the support of State funding, AP&T has studied the opportunity for a commercial-scale biomass CHP power plant in the Tok and Upper Tanana region. While studies found that biomass-fired generation of electricity is feasible, the Yerrick Creek hydropower project is far more economically attractive than a biomass CHP plant, and offers a better value to the Tok and upper Tanana region’s ratepayers, with significantly less risk. The business case for biomass could be improved upon if a market can be found for the heat produced by a CHP biomass power plant; however, no viable markets currently exist. Other challenges to biomass implementation in the Tok region include securing a long-term timber supply which assures financially feasible operations for a period coinciding with project financing and obtaining assurances of sufficient fuel quality, and stability of fuel supply. It would be necessary to find a supplier with the willingness and financial means to commit to a long-term supply agreement which addresses liquidated damages in the event that fuel of agreed-upon quality is not delivered in a timely manner. Another consideration is fuel cost escalation that could occur over time as nearby biomass is exhausted, creating a need to obtain fuel supply from locations further away, at a higher cost of transportation.  LNG: Currently Challenged by Supply Availability, Economies of Scale, and Technology Issues – While AP&T has investigated LNG options, an economically viable business model for small-scale LNG has not yet been identified. Challenges include lack of currently available supply, significant transportation/logistics challenges, and lack of commercially viable and cost-competitive technology for LNG storage and power plants in a service area as small as Tok. Emissions from natural-gas fired generation are lower than those from diesel-fired generation, however, they are still considerably higher than emissions associated with hydropower generation, which are near-zero.  Diesel: A Costly and Unsustainable Energy Source – Tok and the upper Tanana region are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired generation. This energy source is very costly, with pricing escalating faster than inflation due to the rising price of petroleum – a volatile commodity sensitive to a wide variety of supply risks and political factors. The high cost of diesel-fired generation places financial pressure on rural communities, businesses, and schools, forcing migration to other regions with a more affordable cost of living and doing business. Diesel fuel expenditures are made outside of the Tok community, resulting in ongoing financial leakage and attrition. Diesel-fired generation also has high environmental costs, producing a significant level of emissions and carbon, and carrying risks of fuel spills. Continued 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation is not a sustainable way of life for residents of the Tok and upper Tanana region. Residents in this service area have been increasingly outspoken about the unsustainability of continued 100% reliance Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 36 of 62 7/8/14 on diesel-fired generation. However, diesel-fired generation does present advantages in terms of dependability, dispatchability, and the ability to quickly respond to and match load requirements. It is likely that diesel-fired generation will maintain some presence within the Tok region’s energy mix until a commercially viable and financially feasible thermal generation alternative becomes available.  Other Hydropower Options: Viable, but Further from Development – Other hydropower options exist in the upper Tanana region. Like Yerrick Creek, the Clearwater Creek project is also economically attractive, and has the advantage of being located entirely on State lands; however, the understanding of this project is not as advanced as Yerrick Creek, which has experienced a higher level of work and investment to date. AP&T anticipates that with increased analysis and study, Clearwater Creek and other hydropower options should prove viable for integration after Yerrick Creek, and is seeking to advance its understanding of these projects so that they can be developed at a future time following Yerrick.  Transmission Interconnection to the Railbelt, or Copper Valley Electric Cooperative – Long-term, transmission interconnections with the Railbelt and/or Copper Valley Electric Cooperative would allow communities to share access to existing and future renewables, and result in load accretion supporting larger economies of scale for future renewables. However, the level of investment required for these projects is much higher than the investment required for the relatively small Yerrick Creek hydropower project in Tok. 5.1.2 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. • List of applicable permits • Anticipated permitting timeline • Identify and describe potential barriers The following permits have been received: The following documents are included in the Appendix to demonstrate to AEA that considerable reconnaissance, feasibility, design, and permitting work has been completed. These activities have been completed over the last 8 years, and have brought this project to the point where construction can begin in July of 2016, in time with issuance of State REF Round IX funds. • Resolution No. ___ from the Native Village of Tanacross • Resolution No. ___ from Tanacross, Inc. • UTE Partnership MOUs [with the Native Village of Tanacross and Tanacross, Inc.] • LAS 30018 for Stilling Well installation • ADOT Permit to install Transmission Line from Tok • Final EA and FONSI issued by the USDA Rural Utilities Service • Pertinent Resumes • Letters of Support Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 37 of 62 7/8/14 • US Army COE Permit No. POA-2009-445 • COE In -Lieu Fee paid to The Conservation Fund • Alaska Department of Fish & Game Permit FH09-III-0182 Additional documents that can be provided, if requested, are: • Wetlands Survey Report • Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species Report • Cultural Resource Survey • Aquatic Resources Survey • Hydrology Analysis • Wildlife Analysis • ADF&G, USACOE, and ADNR approvals to install 3 stilling wells in Yerrick Creek • ADNR Permit LAS 30018 for installing stilling wells • Seismic Refraction Survey, November 2008 • USDA REAP-Format Yerrick Creek Feasibility Study, 2015 Anticipated permitting timeline: Permits will be completed by July 2016. Potential barriers: Weather is the single greatest potential barrier to the project’s construction timeline. No barriers are anticipated to permit this project. 5.2 Project Site Criteria: Stage 2-3.B: A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system. Describe the availability of the site and its suitability for the proposed energy system. Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. We are currently in the process of finalizing our permitting process with ADNR for a land lease and have an MOU with the other landowner, Tanacross, Inc. [see Appendices]. Potential Land Ownership Issues: None Anticipated: APC has signed an MOU with Tanacross, Inc. and the Tanacross Village Council supporting development of the project. Land use agreements have been drafted, and will be executed following funding commitment. Other project features are located on State lands. 5.3 Project Risk Criteria: Stage 2-3.C: Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable. 5.3.1 Technical Risk Describe potential technical risks and how you would address them. UTE believes that AP&T’s experience designing, constructing, and operating similar small hydropower projects in Alaska; its longstanding vendor, technical service, supply chain relationships and industry knowledge; and its incumbent project development resources will help minimize risks and control costs. AP&T has a strong understanding of risks through development/construction experience, as well as an understanding of the processes involved in creating a durable hydropower asset capable of 50+ years of reliable, safe operation. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 38 of 62 7/8/14 Inclement Weather – Working conditions in Alaska’s interior can be very harsh during the winter. The proposed construction schedule assumes little/no work at the project site during winter months. If it appears likely that a harsh winter would occur and extend for an unusually long time period, AP&T and its contractor(s) can consider options such as double-shift work during long summer days, or completing limited work during winter months. Cost-Overrun – AP&T believes that its experience constructing similar small hydropower projects in Alaska and its mature supply chain relationships shall minimize cost-overrun risks, and inform determination of a reasonable contingency margin. Regulatory Approval Risk – UTE’s Yerrick Creek project must be reviewed and approved by the RCA prior to development; this includes issuance of a new Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and approval of the project’s Power Purchase Agreement. The RCA would likely not approve the project if it were to produce consumer energy rates higher than the diesel business-as- usual (BAU) scenario, or other results contrary to the public’s best interest. UTE would not want to burden AP&T’s customers by worsening the BAU scenario, which is currently challenging; this is why UTE is seeking AEA REF grant funds, and low interest loans to help support the project’s financial feasibility. Environmental Opposition – No environmental opposition to Yerrick Creek is known. However, there is significant environmental opposition to continued diesel-fired generation in the Tok region, which will be addressed through development of the Yerrick Creek project. Tanacross Inc. and its sister entity the Native Village of Tanacross are very sensitive to environmental impacts on Tanacross lands; as development partners for Yerrick Creek, these entities share AP&T’s strong commitment to minimizing environmental impacts during project construction and operation phases, while maximizing the environmental benefits which will be produced by the project through the new availability of clean, renewable energy. Risk of Non-Development – Failing to develop the Yerrick Creek hydropower project due to lack of interest or support by the State of Alaska and others will leave the residents of Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake dependent on diesel-fired generation of electricity. If diesel-dependency persists, these communities can expect exacerbated socioeconomic distress, continued lack of economic opportunity, long term job loss, continued population outmigration, and the inability to respond to emerging commercial opportunities and support new economic development. 5.3.2 Environmental Risk Explain whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed: • Threatened or endangered species • Habitat issues • Wetlands and other protected areas • Archaeological and historical resources • Land development constraints • Telecommunications interference • Aviation considerations • Visual, aesthetics impacts Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 39 of 62 7/8/14 • Identify and describe other potential barriers Attached is the EA created for this project and approved by RUS. TES: No TES species were identified by a wildlife biologist or by USF&WS to be using the Yerrick Creek drainage. Habitat: A fish habitat assessment was conducted using a qualified fish biologist. No salmon utilize the creek. ADF&G issued permit FH14-III-XXX, which is currently being finalized. ADF&G would like to see final design before construction can begin. Wetlands: The project site has wetlands. The COE required an in-lieu fee of $8,700 to compensate for the loss of wetlands. This fee was to be paid to The Conservation Fund, which is out of Eagle River, Alaska. This was done in June 2010. Archaeological / Historical: An archaeologist surveyed the project site and available literature. Although some historical artifacts were identified, APC rerouted the project to avoid them. SHPO and RUS both stated that there will be no impact to said artifacts because of our moving (mitigation) the project features. Potential Land Ownership Issues: APC has signed an MOU with Tanacross, Inc. and the Tanacross Village Council supporting development of the project. Land use agreements have been drafted, and will be finalized and executed following funding commitment. Telecommunications: This project will not affect telecommunications. Aviation: This project will not impact aviation. The project is not near an airport and the transmission line will replace the existing overhead structures along the Alaska Highway, adding approximately 10 feet to their height. Because the transmission line route is mostly through forest, it is unlikely that aviation will be impacted. Visual: Visual impacts will be related to an access road off of the Alaska Highway, but there are many roads off of the highway, making this a familiar feature for the area. No other project features are expected to be visible because of screening by vegetation and terrain. The transmission line from the powerhouse to the existing overhead infrastructure along the highway will be buried (mitigation) to reduce visual impacts. 5.4 Existing and Proposed Energy System Criteria: Stage 2-3.D: The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned. 5.4.1 Basic Configuration of Existing Energy System Describe the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. The existing electrical energy market in the Upper Tanana area consists of an isolated power grid serving the communities of Tok, Tetlin, Dot Lake and Tanacross, as well as other, scattered rural ratepayers. A diesel powerplant located in Tok supplies this small grid system. a) Basic Configuration The Tok powerplant includes five diesel gensets: Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 40 of 62 7/8/14 Unit #3 = CAT Model D3516, 1320 kW, Purchased / Installed 1999 Unit #4 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1989 Unit #5 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1995 Unit #8 = CAT/KATO Model D3508, 440 kW, Purchased / Installed 1985 Unit #9 = CAT/KATO Model 3512C, 1050 kW, Purchased / Installed 2008 Overall efficiency is 14.45 kWh per gallon of diesel.6 No heat recovery due to distance from potential beneficiaries. If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit from the presence of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel- fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.70 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt 7. Fuel efficiency in these communities is 11.17 kWh / gallon.8 Chistochina 1 110 kW John Deere model 6068TF250 Chistochina 2 110 kW John Deere model 6068TF250 Northway 1 330 kW Caterpillar model 3412 Northway 2 300 kW Caterpillar model 3456 Northway 3 400 kW Caterpillar model 3456 Slana 1 150 kW John Deere model 6081TA Slana 2 110 kW John Deere model 6068TF250 Slana 3 127 kW John Deere model 6081AF001 6Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf 7 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf 8 Source http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 41 of 62 7/8/14 Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration – SEE ABOVE i. Number of generators/boilers/other ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other iii. Generator/boilers/other type iv. Age of generators/boilers/other v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other vi. Is there operational heat recovery? (Y/N) If yes estimated annual displaced heating fuel (gallons) b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor $0.19 total non-fuel cost (labor and non-labor) ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $0.19 non-fuel cost (labor and non-labor) c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (f ill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Electricity [kWh] 9,499,440 kWh ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 657,326 gallons Other iii. Peak Load 2.2 MW iv. Average Load 1.1 MW v. Minimum Load 0.5 MW vi. Efficiency 30% vii. Future trends Transition to non-diesel sources, increased distributed generation d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] ii. Electricity [kWh] iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other Section d) Does not apply; Yerrick Creek is an electrical generation project. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 42 of 62 7/8/14 5.4.2 Future Trends Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community over the life of the project. Near-term Trends: In recent years, the Tok service region experienced decreased per kWh sales as consumers made energy efficiency (EE) improvements; this created upward pressure on rates due to the fact that fixed costs must be spread across a reduced levels of sales. We believe that consumers have largely maximized possible EE improvements, halting the downward demand trend attributable to EE improvements. We anticipate increased distributed generation (DG), motivated by trends of rising diesel fuel prices, and/or consumer concern with environmental and climate impacts associated with fossil fuels. Development of intermittent renewables via DG projects does not allow the utility to retire diesel plant capacity, as this capacity is still required to meet electrical needs when intermittent renewables are not available (ex: winter, when solar power is not possible). Thus, DG will have an impact similar to EE, reducing the total volume of sales across which fixed-costs are spread, and putting upward pressure on rates. Development of utility scale renewables (ex: Yerrick Creek) would help mitigate this phenomena by satisfying consumer demand for renewables. If the Tok region remains reliant upon diesel-based generation, rising diesel costs could force increasing numbers of residents to migrate to railbelt communities with lower energy costs. Long-Term Trends: We anticipate that as diesel prices rise long-term, conversion to renewables is inevitable. Natural resource development may eventually create an economic “boom” period in the region. (Ex: Tetlin Mine.) This would support population growth, and community sustainability. Transmission interconnections to CVEA and/or GVEA may eventually become feasible, allowing for sharing of clean energy assets, and development of renewables with larger economies of scale. If the Tok region remains reliant upon diesel-based generation, rising diesel costs could force increasing numbers of residents to migrate to railbelt communities with lower energy costs. 5.4.3 Impact on Rates Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit area over the life of the project. For PCE eligible communities, please describe the expected impact would be for both pre and post PCE. The RCA will Require that the Project Reduces Electrical Rates AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company – the incumbent utility for the Tok interconnected region – is economically regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). The RCA will not provide authorization for a new energy generation project which produces power which is more costly than the business-as-usual (BAU) case of diesel-generation, or otherwise creates increased hardship for the public. Moreover, UTE and its partners would not want to worsen the BAU case, which is Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 43 of 62 7/8/14 already tremendously challenging. The RCA will thoroughly investigate the Yerrick Creek’s project’s financial and economic qualities to ensure that it is in the best interest of the public. As an economically regulated utility, UTE will not be permitted to charge in excess of revenue requirements; a function of allowable expenses plus regulated return on ratebase. UTE will not be able to determine its own rates; rates will be determined by the RCA in accordance with laws, regulations, and requirements governing private sector electrical utilities. The formula is as follows: [Expenses] + [Regulated Return on Ratebase] = [Revenue Requirement] [Return on Ratebase] = [Net Plant x Regulated Rate of Return] + [Recoverable Taxes] Applicants are requesting $4m in construction funding through the AEA REF IX program; it is estimated that this level of funding support by the State of Alaska will combine with low interest loan funds and result in a project which produces clean energy for less than the cost of diesel fuel in its initial year of commercial operations, and thereby be capable of receiving RCA approval. Over time, annual savings produced by Yerrick Creek will increase as the cost of diesel fuel continues to escalate over the cost of producing energy via hydropower. Project revenue requirements – and resulting consumer energy rates – will decrease long term as net private investment in plant is recovered through depreciation, and deducted from the project’s ratebase. This results in ever-increasing savings for ratepayers, and the State of Alaska’s PCE fund. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will stabilize local energy costs by reducing dependency on diesel fuel – a volatile commodity with costs which escalated faster than the rate of inflation. Hydropower maintenance and operating costs are extremely low compared to those associated with diesel-fired generation. Impact on PCE State PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers. 5.4.4 Proposed System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: • A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location • Optimum installed capacity • Anticipated capacity factor • Anticipated annual generation • Anticipated barriers • Integration plan • Delivery methods A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location Run-of-River hydropower. See Section 2.5 for additional details. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 44 of 62 7/8/14 Optimum installed capacity 1.5 MW Anticipated capacity factor 37.2% Anticipated annual generation 4,900,000 akWh Anticipated barriers Only remaining barrier is finalization of a feasible financing package. UTE is hopeful the State of Alaska will be able to assist us in matching $500,000 in new USDA REAP grant funds, and overcoming this challenge. Integration plan Project will receive seniority of dispatch over all current and future generation assets, secured within a long-term Power Purchase Agreement coinciding with the term of financing (target of 50 years). Delivery methods Transmission line consisting of 1,500 feet of 12.4 kV underground transmission cable from the powerhouse to the highway and 10 miles of upgraded 12.4 kV overhead transmission line adjacent to the highway. See Section 2.5 for additional details. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr] 1,500 kWh b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 4,900,000 kWh ii. Heat [MMBtu] NA c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] NA ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] NA iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons, dry tons] NA iv. Other 4,380 d) i. Estimate number of hours renewable will allow powerhouse to turn diesel engines off (fill in as applicable) 5.4.5 Metering Equipment Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 45 of 62 7/8/14 Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications. Yerrick Creek’s project design and construction budget includes a SCADA system, which will track and generate reliable data on energy usage from the project. This data can be used in terms of determining the level of power purchased by APC from UTE, and can also be supplied to the State of Alaska. APC is required to report on details of operations in order to comply with PCE eligibility and RCA requirements – this will include energy purchases from UTE. This information can be supplied to the AEA. If the AEA has an additional metering requirements, or preferences for monitoring project use, UTE would be glad to accommodate these requests. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 46 of 62 7/8/14 SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS 6.1 Economic Feasibility Criteria: Stage 2-4.A: The project is shown to be economically feasible (net positive savings in fuel, operation and maintenance, and capital costs over the life of the proposed project). 6.1.1 Economic Benefit Explain the economic benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following: • Anticipated annual and lifetime fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) • Anticipated annual and lifetime revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate) • Additional incentives (i.e. tax credits) • Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) The economic model used by AEA is available at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9. This economic model may be used by applicants but is not required. The final benefit/cost ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to ensure a level playing field for all applicants. If used, please submit the model with the application. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 47 of 62 7/8/14 Output of 2015 AEA Econometric Workbook Project Description Community Nearest Fuel Community Region RE Technology Project ID Applicant Name Project Title Results NPV Benefits $45,947,973.93 NPV Capital Costs $18,446,602 B/C Ratio 2.49 NPV Net Benefit $28,560,282 Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year 4,900,000 Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 245,000,000 Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 392,000 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 19,600,000 Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 3,979 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 198,940 Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $$19,000,000 Project Start year 2017 Project Life years 50 Displaced Electric kWh per year 4,900,000 Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year - Renewable Generation O&M $ per year 100,000 Electric Capacity kW 1,500 Electric Capacity Factor %37.20% Heating Capacity Btu/hr 0 Heating Capacity Factor %0 Total Public Benefit 2015$ (Total over the life of the project) Base System Size of impacted engines (select from list)$/kWh Diesel Generator O&M 601-1,300kW 0.027$ Applicant's Diesel Generator Efficiency kWh per gallon Total current annual generation kWh/gallon Diesel Generation Efficiency 12.50 Tok and Surrounding Tok Rural Hydro (Run of River) Yerrick Creek Hydro Upper Tanana Energy, LLC Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 48 of 62 7/8/14 The AEA’s econometric model displaces a benefit cost ratio of 2.49, total NPV benefits of $45.9m, and NPV net benefits of $28.6m. Lowers Energy Costs. Applicants are requesting $4m in construction funding through the AEA REF IX program – it is estimated that this level of funding support by the State of Alaska will result in a project which produces clean energy for less than the cost of diesel fuel in its initial year of commercial operations, and therefore capable of receiving RCA approval. Over time, annual savings will increase as the cost of diesel fuel continues to escalate over the cost of producing energy via hydropower. Additionally, revenue requirements – and resulting consumer energy rates – will decrease long term as private investment is recovered through depreciation and deducted from the project’s ratebase. This results in ever-increasing savings for ratepayers, and the State of Alaska’s PCE fund. Stabilizes and Reduces Energy Costs Long Term. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will stabilize local energy costs by reducing dependency on diesel fuel – a volatile commodity with costs which escalate faster than the rate of inflation. As discussed above, revenue requirements – and resulting consumer energy rates – will decrease long term as private investment is recovered through depreciation and deducted from the project’s ratebase. Hydropower maintenance and operating costs are extremely low compared to that those associated with diesel-fired generation. Long Project Lifespan with Additional Cost-Savings Available Beyond Capital Cost Repayment – Yerrick Creek has an estimated useful life of over 50 years. Properly constructed hydropower sites can provide over 100+ years of reliable service. (For example, AP&T’s Dewey Lakes hydropower project has recently been recognized by HydroWorld for operating continuously since 1902.) After the financing period is complete and capital costs are paid off, the cost of maintaining and operating a hydropower project drops to very low levels. Diesel Fuel Displacement Benefit. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will displace approximately 50% of the region’s diesel-fired generation of electricity with clean, renewable hydropower from a local, low-impact source. The project will eliminate use of 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year for a 50+ year operating life, avoiding a total of 18,750,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Total value of diesel displacement benefit is $91,687,500, assuming the AEA’s fuel price projections for the Tok region, published in the Evaluation Model REF R9 Final econometric workbook. Supports State Renewable Energy Policy Goals. By supplanting diesel-fired generation with clean, renewable hydropower, Yerrick Creek will help to support the State of Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025. Responds to Governor Walker’s Administrative Order 272 by addressing the Consumer Energy Crisis in Interior Alaska. Tok is a prime example of a community which faces the consumer energy crisis articulated by Governor Walker in Administrative Order 272.9 With some support from the State of Alaska, the Yerrick Creek project can leverage private sector expertise and capital to make a tremendous stride in addressing Alaska’s interior energy crisis. 9 Administrative Order 272. http://gov.alaska.gov/Walker_media/documents/20150116-administrative-order-272.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 49 of 62 7/8/14 Benefits Communities which are Still 100% Diesel Dependent. The project will benefit the interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. Unlike other communities in Alaska, Tok and surrounding communities of the upper Tanana region have not yet had the opportunity to transition from 100% diesel-fired generation to an energy mix including renewables. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.45 kWh pricing for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour. Reduces Environmental Liabilities. Use of hydropower will reduce the need to transport fuel from Fairbanks to Tok, lowering the potential for leaks and spills along the Alaska Highway. Transferring fuel from a supply truck to APC’s storage tank would be less frequent, reducing the potential for spills during fueling, and keeping groundwater safer for the area. Social Cost of Carbon Avoidance – Yerrick Creek will displace 3,533 metric tons of carbon dioxide avoidance per year, or 176,650 metric tons of carbon dioxide over the project’s initial 50-year period of operation. This is equivalent to approximately $14.9m in Social Cost of Carbon savings. (Calculated using the average of all four federal calculated methodologies specified by the US Interagency Working Group for Social Cost of Carbon, as required for US EO 12866 review. A 50 year period of analysis was used. The project’s lifespan will be 100 years, so these numbers could reasonably be doubled.) Realization of ANCSA Economic Benefit – Yerrick Creek allows Tanacross Inc. to utilize its ANCSA lands to realize the promise of ANCSA; generating economic returns in exchange for extinguishing indigenous land claims. Potential to Extend Benefit to Additional Communities -- If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit from the presence of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.70 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour. Generates Significant Power Cost Equalization Savings for the State of Alaska. Due to current 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power Cost Equalization subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers. Support for State of Alaska Resource Development and Economic Development Policy. The upper Tanana region is challenged by high energy costs, which limit economic development and employment opportunities. While businesses are actively pursuing new value-adding opportunities within the forest products sector and are conducting mining exploration activities, commercial feasibility of these resource-driven opportunities is limited by high local energy costs. The current situation creates constraints to realizing State of Alaska’s Natural Resource Policy, as defined in Article 8 Section 1 of the State of Alaska Constitution, which is as follows: “It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.” Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 50 of 62 7/8/14  $100,000 AEA grant funds, supporting preliminary feasibility analysis. This project was implemented and concluded successfully, with a final project summary submitted to the Alaska Energy Authority.  $1,527,324 in USDA RUS grant funds. These funds were used to pay for the permitting process, fish habitat survey, wetlands inventory, water quality testing, hydrology analysis, stream gaging, TES plant survey, other environmental analysis, cultural resource survey, geotechnical evaluations for placement of project features, engineering design, and legal services.  $500,000 in USDA REAP funds have been awarded to the project for construction (September, 2015). $4m in AEA REF Round IX funds will serve as match to REAP funds.  $75,801 in private investment supplied by AP&T. These funds have supported supplemental project development activities and business planning and development. 6.1.2 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project Identify the potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) and anticipated power purchase/sales price range. Indicate the proposed rate of return from the grant-funded project. • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company will purchase power from UTE on a wholesale basis via a long term PPA. • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range UTE will be subject to economic regulation by the RCA. As an economically regulated utility, UTE will not be permitted to charge in excess of revenue requirements; a function of allowable expenses plus regulated return on ratebase. The RCA and applicable laws and regulations – not UTE – will determine the price of energy produced by Yerrick Creek. [Expenses] + [Regulated Return on Rate Base] = [Revenue Requirement] [Return on Ratebase] = [Net Plant x Regulated Rate of Return] + [Recoverable Taxes] The RCA will not provide approvals for the project unless it is capable of delivering energy at a cost lower than the cost of diesel fuel. We estimate an inception rate of $0.18-$0.22 per kWh, which drops to near-zero levels as private investment is recovered over time through depreciation of net plant. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 51 of 62 7/8/14 The cost of power produced by the project will depend upon: 1) level of grant funding available; 2) level of private equity (“net plant”) involved in the project; and 3) low interest loan terms and conditions. Because the return on private equity is higher than the interest rate for low interest loan funds, UTE plans to utilize a low level of equity (15% equity to 85% debt) in order to keep rates as low as possible while maintaining an acceptable level of equity investment for tax and accounting purposes. • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project The RCA does not allow economically regulated utilities to earn a profit on grants, or to collect depreciation expenses on grants. Thus, UTE will not earn any “profit” on any grant funds invested in the Yerrick Creek hydropower projects, and there will be no “rate of return” from the grant-funded portion of the project. UTE will only earn a regulated return on private equity (net plant). The RCA, not UTE, determines the allowable regulated return. UTE anticipates its regulated return would be approximately 12.8%, consistent with the authorized rate of return for other private utilities. This return can only be fully achieved if UTE carefully controls and minimizes expenses; any costs in excess of what are reasonable and necessary are deducted from “profits,” consistent with RCA requirements. 6.1.3 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales For projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines, etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in the Request for Applications for more information. Does not apply. UTE will sell the full output of Yerrick Creek to one single utility – Alaska Power Company, the certificated utility serving the Tok region. APC will distribute this energy to its ratepayers as an alternative to diesel-generated electricity, under its existing tariffs. Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) NA Estimated sales (kWh) NA Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) NA Estimated sales (kWh) NA Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) NA 6.2 Financing Plan Criteria: Stage 2-4.B: The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant-funded phase and has considered options for financing subsequent phases of the project. 6.2.1 Additional Funds Identify the source and amount of all additional funds needed to complete the work in the phase(s) for which REF funding is being applied in this application. Indicate whether these funds are secured or pending future approvals. Describe the impact, if any, that the timing of additional funds would have on the ability to proceed with the grant. UTE plans to fund the remaining cost of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project using a combination of 15% private equity, and 85% low interest loan funds. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 52 of 62 7/8/14 $12,750,000 – Low Interest Loan. (Pending) UTE plans to request authorization to borrow funds from the Power Project Fund. $2,250,000 – Private Equity. (Conditional.) AP&T will supply private equity after grant and loan funds required for a financially feasible project are committed. 6.2.2 Financing opportunities/limitations If the proposed project includes final design or construction phases, what are your opportunities and/or limitations to fund this project with a loan, bonds, or other financing options? UTE and its partners are capable of funding the project with a combination of private debt and equity; however, a combination of grant funds and a low interest rate are also required to make the project financially feasible. 6.2.3 Cost Overruns Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding. UTE project partner AP&T is accustomed to carefully managing project costs to avoid cost overruns, and funding shortfalls. Because AP&T’s private capital is at risk, the company is strongly motivated to avoid these situations. AP&T has a very strong history of responsible budgeting, and cost-control on utility sector projects. AP&T believes its construction cost estimate includes responsible and realistic contingency and cost- escalation margins. 6.2.4 Subsequent Phases If subsequent phases are required beyond the phases being applied for in this application, describe the anticipated sources of funding and the likelihood of receipt of those funds. NA. Final phase of project. 6.3 Other Public Benefit Criteria: Stage 3-4.C: Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. Avoided costs alone will not be presumed to be in the best interest of the public. Describe the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project. For the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. For example, decreased greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category. Some examples of other public benefits include: • The project will result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, pipes, power lines, etc.) that can be used for other purposes • The project will result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 53 of 62 7/8/14 • The project will solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.) • The project will generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the state • The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community The project will generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the state. Hydropower is a mature technology with over 130 years of successful application in rural Alaska. However, cost-effective development of small hydropower projects in an extreme northern climate such as Tok’s is a new phenomena. The Yerrick Creek project will provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate development of climate-robust small hydropower in rural interior Alaska, and is sure to produce many lessons learned which will be helpful to utilities and communities statewide. The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community. High energy costs make it very difficult to operate an economically viable rural business. This is certainly true in the Tok region, where energy costs are $0.45 per kWh. Meanwhile, the high cost of energy in interior Alaska, described in Governor Walker’s Administrative Order No. 272, forces many rural Alaskans to leave their communities and traditional villages for other communities which have lower energy costs.10 Typically, communities lose their most highly skilled workers first, as skilled workers tend to have the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) and financial means to locate new employment and transfer to a new region. This combination of factors leaves rural communities with limited economic opportunities, and a limited workforce with constricted skillsets. Young people tend to leave early, seeking to relocate to communities where they can raise families as prosperous adults. This leads to a “graying” of the local workforce, and creates a situation where succession of many critical skills, roles, functions within the rural communities may not be possible in the future. Yerrick Creek will produce significant energy cost-savings long term. This will create new economic opportunities, and promote long-term economic development and employment for the Tok interconnected region. 10 Administrative Order 272. http://gov.alaska.gov/Walker_media/documents/20150116-administrative-order- 272.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 54 of 62 7/8/14 SECTION 7 – SUSTAINABILITY Describe your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable throughout its economic life. Include at a minimum: • Capability of the Applicant to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project • Is the Applicant current on all loans and required reporting to state and federal agencies? • Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project • Likelihood of a sufficient market for energy produced over the life of the project • Capability of the Applicant to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project AP&T will operate and maintain the Yerrick Creek hydropower project per a long-term O&M agreement with Upper Tanana Energy. AP&T was founded in 1957, and since that time, has provided reliability and affordable utility service, including operation of hydropower projects. Today, the company operates in 40 Alaska communities. AP&T owns and operates 7 hydropower projects – Dewey Lakes, Lutak, Goat Lake, Black Bear Lake, South Fork, Kasidaya Creek, and Falls Creek, and will soon be completing an 8th project at Reynolds Creek. AP&T’s subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the RCA, and operate according to all standard utility practices and requirements. • Is the Applicant current on all loans and required reporting to state and federal agencies? Upper Tanana Energy is current on all loans and required reporting to state and federal agencies. • Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project Properly constructed, operated, and maintained hydropower assets are capable of over 100 years of useful service. AP&T’s Dewey Lakes project was recently recognized by HydroWorld for being in service continuously since 1902. • Likelihood of a sufficient market for energy produced over the life of the project Market will be assured via a 50-year PPA between UTE and Alaska Power Company, the incumbent utility. AP&T (parent company of Alaska Power Company) is agreeable to this arrangement. SECTION 8 – PROJECT READINESS Describe what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Specifically address your progress towards or readiness to begin, at a minimum, the following: • The phase(s) that must be completed prior to beginning the phase(s) proposed in this application • The phase(s) proposed in this application • Obtaining all necessary permits • Securing land access and use for the project • Procuring all necessary equipment and materials Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 55 of 62 7/8/14 Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Tri-Party MOA Finalized Create tri-party MOA. Completed Completed Develop and Approve PPA Concept Obtain approval from AP&T. Completed Completed Develop and Incorporate Upper Tanana Energy Incorporation of UTE. Completed Completed Develop preliminary business plan and pro formas. Completion of detailed business plan documents. Completed Completed Install stilling well Applied for and received a DNR [LAS 30018] permit, ADF&G approval and COE approval for the installation of 3 stilling wells. Stilling wells were installed in April 2015. Completed Completed. Finalize hydro system design AP&T Engineering department to complete design for diversion, powerhouse, tailrace, access road, bridge, switchgear, and substation. In Progress 16-May Update business model AP&T will update business plan based on final design / cost, and results of AEA REF funding application. In Progress Aug-16 Formalize USDA grant agreement Work with USDA RUS to obtain $961,733 funds remaining in High Cost Energy Grant. Completed Completed Finalize all agencies' permitting. Receipt of all permits, and transfer to Upper Tanana Energy. In Progress Aug-16 Develop Construction Agreement Develop Construction Agreement. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Develop PPA Develop PPA. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 56 of 62 7/8/14 Develop O&M Agreement Develop O&M Agreement. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Develop Land Use Agreement Develop Land Use Agreement. Completed Drafted; awaiting finalization and execution in parallel with financing approvals. Develop CPCN Application required for Regulatory Approvals. Develop CPCN Application. Substantially completed. Drafted; waiting for final details of financing before completing exhibits and filing with the RCA. Negotiate AEA REF Grant Agreement Await legislative and Governor approval of project AEA REF request. Jul-16 Aug-16 Completion of access road Flagging, survey route, survey for active bird nests (if construction between May 5-July 25), brush and grade right-of-way, install culverts, final grade and surface. Jul-16 Jul-17 Award contract for supply of generating equipment Contact gen/set supplier, get quotes, order. Jul-16 Sep-16 Receipt of penstock materials Order penstock materials. Jul-16 Sep-17 Installation of bridge across creek Order materials and install. Sep-16 Oct-17 Receipt of major generating equipment Order equipment. Jul-16 Aug-17 Completion of powerhouse structure Foundation and prefab structure assembled, tailrace completed. Aug-17 Oct-17 Completion of diversion structure Excavate, pour concrete, install valves, flanges, intake, controls, gates. Apr-17 Oct-17 Completion of generating equipment installation Install generating equipment, switchgear, transformer. Sep-17 Nov-17 Completion of Distribution Line to intertie at Tanacross Order materials, install poles and conductor. Apr-17 Oct-17 Test and Startup Test equipment, operate project to fine tune the instrumentation, etc. Nov-17 Dec-17 SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION Describe local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters, resolutions, or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 57 of 62 7/8/14 this project. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July 8, 2015. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project is well understood and supported by the Tok-region community. Supporters include Tanana Chiefs Conference, Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross Inc., AP&T, the Tok Chamber of Commerce, Young’s Timber, and more. SECTION 10 – COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS Identify other grants that may have been previously awarded to the Applicant by the Authority for this or any other project. Describe the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants including project deadlines, reporting, and information requests. Existing Investment to Date. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project has benefitted from significant investment supporting 8 years of study, which has brought the project to its current state of development readiness:  $100,000 AEA grant funds, supporting preliminary feasibility analysis. This project was implemented and concluded successfully, with a final project summary submitted to the Alaska Energy Authority.  $1,527,324 in USDA RUS grant funds. These funds were used to pay for the permitting process, fish habitat survey, wetlands inventory, water quality testing, hydrology analysis, stream gaging, TES plant survey, other environmental analysis, cultural resource survey, geotechnical evaluations for placement of project features, engineering design, and legal services.  $75,801 in private investment supplied by AP&T. These funds have supported supplemental project development activities and business planning and development.  $500,000 in USDA REAP funds have been awarded to the project for construction (September, 2015). $4m in AEA REF Round IX funds will serve as match to REAP funds.  The Alaska Energy Authority awarded $4m in construction-phase funds to the Yerrick Creek project under Round III of the REF program, 6 years ago. The grant recipient was AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company (APC). APC indicated that they would like to place the Yerrick Creek project on hold until: 1) completion of a biomass study, and 2) landowner approval. The AEA suggested utilizing the $4m in REF Round III construction funds for other projects, and APC, seeking to support the best interest of the state, had no objections to this course of action. The biomass study has since been completed, and demonstrated that the Yerrick Creek hydropower project is more economically attractive and less risky than development of a biomass powerplant. Since the time of the prior $4m construction funding award by the AEA, the Yerrick Creek project has progressed to an even more advanced state of construction readiness, and the applicants have significantly improved their understanding of Yerrick Creek and its economics. Thus, we believe the time has come for the State of Alaska to award construction funds for the Yerrick Creek project, as had been done previously in Round III of the REF program. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 58 of 62 7/8/14 SECTION 11 – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES In the space below please provide a list additional documents attached to support completion of prior phases. The following documents are included in the Appendix to demonstrate to AEA that considerable reconnaissance, feasibility, design, and permitting work has been completed. These activities have been completed over the last 8 years, and have brought this project to the point where construction can begin in July of 2016, in time with issuance of State REF Round IX funds. • Resolution No. ___ from the Native Village of Tanacross • Resolution No. ___ from Tanacross, Inc. • UTE Partnership MOUs [with the Native Village of Tanacross and Tanacross, Inc.] • Final EA and FONSI issued by the USDA Rural Utilities Service • Pertinent Resumes • Letters of Support • US Army COE Permit No. POA-2009-445 • COE In-Lieu Fee paid to The Conservation Fund • Alaska Department of Fish & Game Permit FH09-III-0182 Additional documents that can be provided, if requested, are: • Wetlands Survey Report • Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species Report • Cultural Resource Survey • Aquatic Resources Survey • Hydrology Analysis • Wildlife Analysis • ADF&G, USACOE, and ADNR approvals to install 3 stilling wells in Yerrick Creek • ADNR Permit LAS 30018 for installing stilling wells • Seismic Refraction Survey, November 2008 • USDA REAP-Format Yerrick Creek Feasibility Study, 2015 SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION In the space below please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration. The Alaska Energy Authority awarded $4m in construction-phase funds to the Yerrick Creek project under Round III of the REF program, 6 years ago. The grant recipient was AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company (APC). APC indicated that they would like to place the Yerrick Creek project on hold until: 1) completion of a biomass study, and 2) landowner approval. The AEA suggested utilizing the $4m in REF Round III construction funds for other projects, and APC, seeking to support the best interest of the state, had no objections to this course of action. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 15003 Page 59 of 62 7/8/14 The biomass study has since been completed, and demonstrated that the Yerrick Creek hydropower project is more economically attractive and less risky than development of a biomass powerplant. Since the time of the prior $4m construction funding award by the AEA, the Yerrick Creek project has progressed to an even more advanced state of construction readiness, and the applicants have significantly improved their understanding of Yerrick Creek and its economics. Thus, we believe the time has come for the State of Alaska to award construction funds for the Yerrick Creek project, as had been done previously in Round III of the REF program. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application -Standard Form Community/Grantee Name: Upper Tanana En ergy Regular Election is held: NA I Date: 9/1/2015 Printed Name Title Term JeffWeltzin Project Manager, Native Current Villa e of Tanacross Jason Custer Business Development Current Director, Alaska Power & Telephone Company Robert Grimm President & CEO, Alaska Current Power & Telephon e Com an Christine Overly Senior Accountant, Grant Current Administrator, Alaska Power & T ele hone I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents: (Must be authorized by the highest ranking organization/community/municipal official) Printed Name Title Term Signature Robert Brean CEO, Tanacross, Inc. Current Herbie Demi t Tribal President, Native 2015 Villa e of Tan across Robert Grimm President, CEO, Alaska Current Power & T ele hone Mailing Address: 136.Misty Marie Lane , Ketchikan AK 99901 Phone Number: 907-225-1950 X 29 Fax Number: 907-225-4169 E-mail Address: Jason.cra>.aotalaska.com AEA 15003 Page 60 of62 7/8/14 I ' Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application -Standard Form I ' AI Cf)fM 7 ~ENERGY AUTHORITY Bob.g@aptalaska.com Jeffery.weltzin@gmail.com Christine.o@aptalaska.com Federal Tax 10 #: 92-0153693 AEA 15003 Page 61 of62 7/8/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application -Standard Form A. Contact information and resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, Project Accountant(s), key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1, 3.4 and 3.6. Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site. B. Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 9. C. For projects involving heat: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel for the building(s) impacted by the project. D. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application. Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per RFASection 1.7. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations. Print Name Robe~imm J Signaturl!" ?u ,/4/ I" Title President & CEO: Alaska Power & Telephone Date 9-1-2015 AEA 15003 Page 62 of62 7/8/14 APPENDICES  Certificates o AP&T Corporate Resolution o UTE Certificates o UTE Partnership MOU o Resolution No. 2015-8-9 from Native Village of Tanacross o Resolution No. 2015-1 from Tanacross, Inc.  Letters of Support  Project Figures  Permitting  RUS EA & FONSI  Hydrology  Media  Resumes  Photos CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE RESOLUTION The undersigned Secretary of Alaska Power & Telephone Company (the Corporation) hereby certifies that the following resolution was duly adopted by the board of directors of the Corporation at its annual meeting on May 17, 2001, and that such resolution has not been modified or rescinded as of the date hereof: That the president, each vice president, or any one of them, or their designee is hereby authorized to execute and deliver: (i) routine contracts and other routine documents related thereto on behalf of AP&T that arise in the ordinary course of its business that involve the sale or purchase of goods, or the leasing of equipment, real property or other fixed assets pursuant to operating leases; (ii) governmental permit and grant applications and other documents relating to the securing, renewing, and amending of such permits and grants as deemed necessary or desirable for the routine operation of the affairs of AP&T; or (iii) other documents involving routine day-to-day matters arising in the ordinary course and operation of the business of AP&T and its subsidiaries. ~ <~\\)~TNESS my hand and seal of the corporation, this I &:. day of _,.,-f-UYna~L:;;.::;._;;_-==;;..=..' 20 12 . . , Corporate Secretary Date: Cf-Jg-IE. --~----------------- State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing Alaska Entity #10022902 Certificate of Organization The undersigned, as Commissioner of Commerce, Community and Economic Development of the State of Alaska, hereby certifies that a duly signed and verified filing pursuant to the provisions of Alaska Statutes has been received in this office and has been found to conform to law. ACCORDINGLY, the undersigned, as Commissioner of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, and by virtue of the authority vested in me by law, hereby issues this certificate to Upper Tanana Energy LLC IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I execute the certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State of Alaska effective August 14, 2014. Susan K. Bell Commissioner Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing P.O. Box 110806, Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806 Alaska Business License # 1009335 This is to certify that UPPER TANANA ENERGY LLC 136 MISTY MARIE LANE KETCKIKAN AK 99801 owned by UPPER TANANA ENERGY LLC This license shall not be taken as permission to do business in the state without having complied with the other requirements of the laws of the State or of the United States. This license must be posted in a conspicuous place at the business location. It is not transferable or assignable. Susan K. Bell Commissioner is licensed by the department to conduct business for the period August 14, 2014 through December 31, 2015 for the following line of business: 22 - Utilities EIN Assistant Your Progress: 1. Identity y" 2. Authenticate y" 3. Mdresses y" 4. Oeta1ls y" 5. EIN Confirmation • Congratulations! The EIN has been successfully assigned. EIN Assigned: 47 ·1593084 Legal Name: Upper Tanana Energy LLC The confirmation letter will be mailed to the applicant. This letter will be the applicant's official IRS notice and will contain important information regarding the EIN. Allow up to 4 weeks for the letter to arrive by mail. We strongly recommend )IOU print this page for )lOUr records. Click .. Continue .. to get additional information about using the new EIN. Continue > > I IRS Privacy Policy Help Topics & Can the EIN be used before the confirmation letter is received? MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Tanacross, Inc. I Native Village of Tanacross I Alaska Power & Telephone --Yerrick Creek MOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is between Tanacross, Inc . (hereinafter "TI"), the Native Village of Tanacross (hereinafter "NVT"), and the Alaska Power & Telephone Co. (hereinafter "AP& T"). Representatives of AP&T,TI., and NVT conducted discussions in May, 2014 and agreed upon the following Memorandum of Understanding to be presented to the Tl board of directors, the NVT council, and the AP& T board of directors for approval. Upon approval by all governing bodies, Tl, NVT, and AP& T will work cooperatively to advance the Yerrick Creek hydropower project in a manner consistent with the description below. All parties agree that if one of the three governing bodies does not approve this Memorandum of Understanding, there is no agreement between the three parties. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the electric utility ratepayers in Tanacross, Tok, and the neighboring communities pay very high costs of power due to reliance upon diesel fuel, which is subject to long term price escalation; and WHEREAS , The Yerrick Creek hydropower project has the potential to help reduce energy costs for families, support development of new businesses and jobs, and provide more stable energy pricing long term; and WHEREAS, NVT, Tl, and AP& T all have an interest in considering the opportunity for developing the Yerrick Creek hydropower project; and WHEREAS, NVT has investigated the Yerrick Creek project; NVT may have unique fundraising ca pabilities; NVT's members have special cultural, subsistence and traditional ties to the project area; and NVT is interested in participating commercially in development of the Ye rrick Creek project; and WHEREAS, Tl has investigated the Yerrick Creek project; Tl controls land rights associated with project features; Tl's shareholders have special cultural, subsistence and traditional ties to the project area; and Tl is interested in participating commercially in development of the Yerrick Creek project; and WHEREAS, AP& T has studied the Yerrick Creek project through support of public investment; AP& T has conducted business modelling for the Yerrick Creek project using private capital; AP& T has experience designing, constructing, and operating hydropower projects in Alaska; AP& T is a trusted recipient of State and Federal public funds for hydropower development; AP& T is the incumbent utility in the region to be served by the proposed Yerrick Creek hydropower project holding required certificates and authorization; AP& T has formed successful independent power producer {IPP) joint ventures (JVs) with other Alaska Native entities; and AP& T is interested in contributing additional technical services and private capital to develop the Yerrick Creek project; and WHEREAS, All parties recognize that realization and commercial operation of the Yerrick Creek project stands the highest level of success if all three entities take a cooperative approach, and pool their strengths, interests and capabilities for the benefit of the region; and 1 Tanacross, Inc./ Native Village of Tanacross I Alaska Power & Telephone --Yerrick Creek MOU ~y /.!A AUTHORIZED thisf-L day of ~!2014 by the Tanacross, Inc. Board of Directors AUTHORIZED this i~ay of Jb 2014 by the Alaska Power & Telephone Board of Directors. Jason R. Custer, Business Development Director (For RobertS. Grimm-President & CEO , Alaska Power & Telephone) 3 . ________ ... _________ ..--.-~ ----·~ Tanacross , Inc I Native Vrllage of Tanarross I Almka Power & Telephone Yemd. Creek MOU NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Native Village of Tanacross Tribal Council, the Tanacros~ Inc Board of Directors. and the AP&T Board of Directors as follows: Section 1. NVT, Tl , and AP&T cornmrt to work cooperatrvely to develop a Joint Venture Partnership Agreement , or other organizatronal and related documents whrch otherwise formally define an accepta bl e business structure for the Yerrtck Creek Hydropower ProJeCt. Section Z. AP& T shall share proprietary proJeCt rnformation on the Ye rrick Creek hydropower project that has been developed through private capital -including uusrness modelling, revenue foreca~ts , energy rate rmpact modelling, environmental analysis, etc.-a~ may be necess<lry for NVT or Tl to make informed decisions in regard to the project, and the project partnership struc t u r e. This information shall be shared under a confidentiality and non-circumventron agreement whrch is acceptable to the parties, and may car ry a 3-year expirat ron date. Any contidentral ity agreement sha ll be executed separately from thrs MOU. Section 3 . In the event that a Joint Venttr r e enti ty or o ther arrangement ran be formed succe55fully, AP& T shall co nvey all proje ct documents and other information relatmg to the Yernck Creek hydropower project and developed through public or prrvate capital and referenced in Sect1on 2 to the parties involved under circumstances ensurrng confidentiality and commercial protections Section 4 . AP&T agrees to maintain open lines of communiccrtron wrth NVT and Tl. a nd AP&T agree s to engage in consultations with both en t itres to help design a project which is compatrble with stakeholder needs and preferences. maximrzes net positive henefits to NVT and Tl, and meets the expectatrons of all parti es in a manner which 15 commercrally rea sonable . fin ancia lly feasible, environmPntally responsible and culturally r espectful. Section 5 . NVT and T l agree to maintain open li nes of comm u nicatiOn with AP& T and t o coope r ate in good fait h to design a project structure and pursue the Ye rrick Creek model in a manner whic h is commerc ially rea~onable , financ1ally feasible, enviro nmen tally res p onsible and culturally respectful. Th ts Memorandum of Understanding r~ not legally binding in any way Neither NVT nor Tl nor AP& T shall brrng any legal or equitable action of any kin d or any nature for any alleged breach of thts Memorandum of Understandrng or any alleged breach of the rmplied covenant at good faith and fatr dealing or any other action of any kind o r any nature rela ted to this Memora ndum of U n d erstanding NVl , 11, and AP& T specifically agree that thi s Memorandum of Understanding is not a contract and that rt does not create any legal r ights of any ktnd or any nature on behalf of NVT, Tl, or AP& T. PASSED AND APPROVED thrs j~rlay o ~ 2014 by the Native Village of Tanacross Tnbal Co u ncil [INSE RT SIGN.li.TORY ) I I I ! NATIVE VILLAGE OF TANACROSS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-8-9 Tanacross Village Council PO Box 76009 Tanacross, AK 99776-6009 Resolution No.lP\S-B-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF TANACROSS REQUESTING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT ROUND IX INVESTMENT BY THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR THE YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Tok and upper Tanana region is currently 100% reliant upon diesel- fired generation of energy, which creates unsustainably high costs of energy for families and businesses, and is threatening and undermining the stability of the regional economy; and WHEREAS, Governor Walker's Administrative Order Number 272 emphasizes that State of Alaska agencies prioritize efforts to address the "consumer energy crisis" in interior Alaska, which includes the upper Tanana region; and WHEREAS, the 1.5 megawatt Y errick Creek hydropower project has the potential to generate 4,900,000 kilowatt hours of clean energy per year at a cost lower than the diesel generation alternative, eliminating 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year over a 50+ year project lifespan, and helping to stabilize energy costs long-term; and WHEREAS, Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and Alaska Power & Telephone have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to develop the Yerrick Creek hydropower project, and have formed a new partnership for the project named Upper Tanana Energy; and WHEREAS, The Yerrick Creek project is in an advanced state of development- readiness, which is supported by 8 years of analysis and study funded by federal grants and private sector investment, and has received a FERC non-jurisdictional determination; and WHEREAS, Some new construction activities (transmission upgrades) have been completed using USDA RUS grant funds, and Alaska Power & Telephone has expressed a willingness to provide additional investment in construction-phase activities; and WHEREAS, The Alaska Energy Authority previously awarded $4,000,000 in construction funds to the Y errick Creek project during REF Round III, but the project was put on hold, and funds returned, pending completion of a biomass study and achievement of site control; tasks which are now complete, making construction investment timely; and 1 WHEREAS, Due to its technical and economic merit, Y errick Creek was approved for a new $500,000 construction grant (maximum amount available) via the USDA Renewable Energy for America Program in August of 2015; timely State investment in construction is necessary at the present time, so that the project can benefit from these federal grant funds; and WHEREAS, Alaska Power & Telephone has agreed to purchase 100% of the project's output beginning in year one, assuring a market for the entirety of the project's power and energy; and WHEREAS, Due to current 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power Cost Equalization subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers. WHEREAS, the Yerrick Creek project's ability to eliminate 50% of diesel-fired generation in the Tok and upper Tanana region is consistent with the State's policy goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025, and Governor Walker's Administrative Order 272 addressing the "consumer energy crisis" experienced in interior Alaska; and WHEREAS, Alaska Power & Telephone Company has decades of experience and success in the design, construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of hydropower projects in rural Alaska, and will be able to assure the success of the Y errick Creek project; and 1 WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has assisted many communities in Alaska in adding renewable energy to their local energy mix; residents of the upper Tanana region, who remain 100% dependent upon diesel-fired generation, deserve an equitable opportunity to achieve State support so that they may home-source energy from locally available renewables; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY NATIVE VILLAGE OF TANACROSS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Native Village of Tanacross , a member of Upper Tanana Energy, hereby endorses and requests grant funding under the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Round 9 program for the capital project identified below: Y errick Creek Hydroelectric Project: Construction Request Amount --$4,000,000 2 Section 2. Native Village of Tanacross establishes the following highest ranking officials as authorized grant signers, with authority to commit to the obligations under the AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round 9 grant: • Herbert Demit-Tribal President, Native Village of Tanacross • Robert Brean-CEO, Tanacross Inc. • Robert Grimm-President & CEO, Alaska Power & Telephone Section 3. Native Village of Ta11across expresses it is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. DATED THIS __ Day of __ _ ATTEST: ! \ \ I ouncil Member 3 TANACROSS, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-1 Resolution No. 2015-1 A RESOLUTION OF Tanacross Inc. REQUESTING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT ROUND IX INVESTMENT BY THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR THE YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Tok and upper Tanana region is currently 100% reliant upon diesel-fired generation of energy, which creates unsustainably high costs of energy for families and businesses, and is threatening and undermining the stability of the regional economy; and WHEREAS, Governor Walker 's Administrative Order Number 272 emphasizes that State of Alaska agencies prioritize efforts to address the "consumer energy crisis" in interior Alaska, which includes the upper Tanana region; and WHEREAS, the 1.5 megawatt Yerrick Creek hydropower project has the potential to generate 4,900 ,000 kilowatt hours of clean energy per year at a cost lower than the diesel generation alternative, eliminating 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year over a 50+ year project lifespan, and helping to stabilize energy costs long-term; and WHEREAS, Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and Alaska Power & Telephone have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to develop the Yerrick Creek hydropower project, and have formed a new partnership for the project named Upper Tanana Energy; and WHEREAS, The Yerrick Creek project is in an advanced state of development- readiness, which is supported by 8 years of analysis and study funded by federal grants and private sector investment, and has received a FERC non-jurisdictional determination; and WHEREAS, Some new construction activities (transmission upgrades) have been completed using USDA RUS grant funds , and Alaska Power & Telephone has expressed a willingness to provide additional investment in construction-phase activities ; and WHEREAS, The Alaska Energy Authority previously awarded $4,000,000 in construction funds to the Yerrick Creek project during REF Round III, but the project was put on hold, and funds returned, pending completion of a biomass study and achievement of site control; tasks which are now complete, making construction investment timely; and WHEREAS, Due to its technical and economic merit, Yerrick Creek was approved for a new $500 ,000 construction grant (maximum amount available) via the USDA Renewable Energy for America Program in August of 2015; timely State investment in construction is necessary at the present time, so that the project can benefit from these federal grant funds; and WHEREAS, Alaska Power & Telephone has agreed to purchase 100% of the project's output beginning in year one, assuring a market for the entirety of the project's power and energy; and WHEREAS, Due to current 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power Cost Equalization subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers. WHEREAS, the Yerrick Creek project's ability to eliminate 50% of diesel-fired generation in the Tok and upper Tanana region is consistent with the State's policy goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025, and Governor Walker's Administrative Order 272 addressing the "consumer energy crisis" experienced in interior Alaska; and WHEREAS, Alaska Power & Telephone Company has decades of experience and success in the design, construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of hydropower projects in rural Alaska, and will be able to assure the success of the Yerrick Creek project; and WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has assisted many communities in Alaska in adding renewable energy to their local energy mix; residents of the upper Tanana region, who remain 100% dependent upon diesel-fired generation, deserve an equitable opportunity to achieve State support so that they may home-source energy from locally available renewables; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY Tanacross Inc., AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Tanacross Inc., hereby endorses and requests grant funding under the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Round 9 program for the capital project identified below: Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project; Construction Request Amount --$4,000,000 Section 2. Tanacross Inc., establishes the following highest ranking official as authorized grant signer, with authority to commit to the obligations under the AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round 9 grant: • Robert Brean -CEO, Tanacross In Section 3. Tanacross Inc., expresses it is in compliance with all applficable federal, state, and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. DATED THIS _11 th __ Day of_September, 2015 · ATTEST: 8u \.~- (INSERT NAME] LETTERS OF SUPPORT [there is a significant degree of support for this project] ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE Session: State Capitol Building, Suite 115 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2186 Phone: (907) 465-2327 Fax: (907) 465-5241 August 27, 2015 Ms. Sara Fisher-Goad Senator Click Bishop Executive Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Ms. Fisher-Goad; Interim: 1292 Sadler Way, Ste. 308 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Phone: (907) 456-8161 Fax: (907) 456-8163 As the Senator for District C, I am encouraged by the Tok community's effort to replace fossil fuel generation with hydroelectric power, through the Yerrick Creek project. There seems to be a new level of cooperation among the Tanacross Community Corporation and AP&T. This cooperation combined with past investments in this project, give me hope that it will now come to fruition. Alaska Power Association's effort to keep this project moving forward is supported by the Tok Chamber, the Tok community, as well as former Senator Dick Shultz. Too seldomly do projects of this nature achieve the goals needed to justify expenditures of State revenue, especially during such lean times. However, the Yerrick project seems to be the exception. I urge you to move forward with the completion of Y errick Creek, which will demonstrate that willing and united communities can reduce high energy costs through clean energy solutions. Sincerely, Senator Click Bishop ----- E-Mail: senator.click.bishop@akleg.gov alaskasenate. org REPRESENli\Tl VE DAVE TALERICO Resources Committee Co-Chair State Affairs Committee Health and Social Services Committee Education Committee Special Committee on Energy August 27, 2015 Ms. Sara Fisher-Goad REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO Executive Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Ms. Goad, Session: Alaska State Capitol, Room I 04 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2186 Phone (907) 465-4922 Fax (907) 465-2197 Interim: 1292 Sadler Way Fairbanks, Alaska 9970 I I am sure you are well aware of the accomplishments in alternative energy solutions that have been achieved in Tok. The level of cooperation and the assistance from the Alaska Energy Authority has made such positive strides possible for the Gateway School District. With a new and exciting degree of cooperation involving the Tanacross Community and Corporation along with Tok's utility, AP&T, the efforts and investments of the past in this project may now come to fruition. APA's support to keep this project moving forward is supported by Tok's Chamber of Commerce, Senator Bishop, former Senator Dick Shultz, and myself. I encourage you to move forward with the completion of Y errick Creek. The future of a healthy community through commerce depends upon it. Sincerely, Representative Dave Talerico July 31st 2015 Tanana , Chiefs Conference Renewable Energy Fund Review Board 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 Re: TCC Support for the AP& T Hydro Project in the Upper Tanana Dear REF Review Committee 122 /''Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 907-452-8251 www. ta!Ulnachie(s. org The purpose of this letter is to express Tanana Chiefs Conference strong support for State investment in the Y errick Creek hydropower project. Tanana Chiefs Conference represents 42 federally recognized tribes in the interior of Alaska, many of which are located in areas that are not connected to the state's main rail-belt electric grid. This includes our villages in the upper Tanana subregion, which are on the Alaska Highway but still pay as mu c h as $.55/kWh for electricity . While other communities in Alaska have benefitted from State investment in renewable energy years ago, the upper Tanana region has not been so fortunate, and currently remains I 00% dependent on diesel-based generation of electricity. As a result, our region is burdened by extremely high energy costs, which presents a significant hardship for the busine sses and families which seek to make an existence here. Energy costs severely limit economic opportunities and employment, and are contributing to outmigration of families, and loss of our rural workforce. These difficult conditions will only worsen as the cost of fuel increases long term. Alaska Power & Telephone is partnering with Tanacross Inc., and the Native Village of Tanacross to develop the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. This low -impact hydroelectric project has the ability to generate cleaner, more affordable energy from a renewable source for decades to come. Yerrick Creek can help reverse tre nds of increasing energy costs, foster an environment for new economic opportunity and sustainability, and ease families' energy cost burdens. The project will reverse trends of population outmigration, allowing young people to remain in their communities and raise families as successful adults. Yerrick Creek has advanced to "construction ready'' status through 8 years of pre-construction study, work, and investment. Some construc t ion activities (transmission upgrades) have already been completed. The Yerrick Creek development team is now seeking to complete the financing pac kage to complete the project, so that it can provide clean, affordabl e e nergy for decades to come. Grants and low interest loan funds are required for the project to be financially viable. Because AP&T is regulated by the RCA, all of th e economic benefits of State investment will be Ana' Basee' for your time and your consideration of this Will Mayo Tanana Chiefs Conference Executive Director of Tribal Services project, 122 l'ivenue AK99701 907-452-8251 Tok Chamber of Commerce PO Box 389 Tok, Alaska 99780 907-883-5775 P 907-883-5773 F John A. Rusyniak, President 907-883-3124 H, 907-505-0305 C john@rusyniak.com August 27, 2015 Ms. Sara Fisher-Goad Executive Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Ms. Goad; We as a Chamber of Commerce are sure you are well aware of the accomplishments in alternative energy solutions that have been achieved in Tok. The level of cooperation and the assistance from the Alaska Energy Authority has made such positive strides possible for our School District. Now it is time to add to the mix support for our community as a whole in replacing fossil fuel generation with hydro through the Yerrick Creek project. With a new and exciting degree of cooperation involving the Tanacross Community and Corporation along with our utility AP&T the efforts and investments of the past in this project may now come to fruition. APA’s support to keep this project moving forward is supported by our Chamber and our Legislative Delegation as well as our former Senator Dick Shultz. Governor Walker too has seen the type of progress that often occurs on APA’s project list but has too seldom achieved the goals needed to justify expenditure of State revenue, especially during such lean times in the budget process. We encourage you to move forward with the completion of Yerrick Creek and demonstrating that I willing and united communities the high costs of energy can be mitigated through clean energy solution. We stand ready to support AEA in this endeavor. The future of a healthy community through commerce depends upon it. Sincerely, John Rusyniak / Tok Chamber President August 27, 2015 Sara Fisher-Goad Executive Director /Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Ms. Fisher-Goad, Young’s Timber is a vibrant and growing company adding to its portfolio value added forest products in the Upper Tanana region of our state. Critical to the continued progress in creating jobs and using our forest resources for economic expansion, are long term, affordable, and stable power rates. To achieve this we must move away from the volatility and erratic cycles of fossil fuel in the production of power. Two sources of such sustainable and affordable energy are now possible in Tok. The first is small hydro through Yerrick Creek. The second is biomass if and when heat production and sales become part of the overall generation plan. Our operation at Young’s Timber is critical to both as we use very large amounts of power and will have as waste enough biomass to convert to the electrical energy and heat we and the community need. First and foremost we need your support for Yerrick Creek as it is key for the summer months especially in completing the energy challenges in our area. We urge you to see the accomplishment and high support we have in our area to build upon by supporting and funding the Yerrick Creek project. I hope to see you in Juneau this year as I continue to update the legislature on our progress. Sincerely Joe Young President of Young’s Timber Inc. We Serve August 28 , 2015 Tok Lions Club P.O. Box49 Tok, AK 99780 II'II'W.tOAlio/1 \('/II /J. CCIIII Ms. Sa r a Fis h er-Goad, Executive Director Alaska Energy Autho rity 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Madam Director; On beh alf of the Tok Lions I am encourag ing the Alaska Energy Authority to look favorably on the Yerrick Creek Hydro project. It is hard to describe just how much the high electrical cos t s are impacting not just our small organ ization, but the entire community. In or der fo r rura l Alaska Communit ies to survive lower en ergy rates need to be put in place and keep them low. Funding the Yerrick Cree k project only makes sense; this is utilizing a natural source. We have watched many projects funded over the years and some in our opinion did not offer the high degree of success that Yerrick Creek does. With dwindling state revenues we realize you must choose and ran k all projects very carefully. With Tok's record of success and the broad bas ed support to get us off fos sil fuel and the yo-yo cos ts it causes, we urge your support for th is worthy and long term project. We are proud of our school and have seen first-hand the d ifference that AEA's support ca n bring in alternative energy projects. We thank you for that suppo r t and encourage the AEA to magnify that accomplishment into a la rger more impact ful solution for all of our community. Sincere ~ ·-ur?.tfr Robe :Gingue, ~resident Tok Lions August 28, 2015 Sara Fisher-Goad Executive Director AEA Dear Sara, It has been many years since I was a voting member of the Alaska Senate, however when it comes to resolving Tok’s energy costs it truly seems like yesterday all over again. We remain off the Rail-belt grid and any other major grid for that matter. Fossil fuel costs continue to close our businesses. Seniors have to choose between food on the table, heat in their stoves and keeping a few lights on. I saw the Four Dam Pool set aside fund (rail-belt energy fund) squandered on pet political projects while here we sit at the junction of 2 of the main entrance highways into the state and our little grocery store paying $30,000.00 dollars a month for electricity. Our success with biomass in our school was not initiated by AEA, but supported as the project was pushed locally. I mention this because my friends and neighbors are a can do and positive bunch of folks who will not accept no for an answer. We need the Yerrick Creek project. We need long term energy costs that will stabilize and can be predicted over time. Our businesses are small and the only way they can be carried on by the next generation is with reasonable power costs. I respectfully ask your assistance in getting this small in-stream hydro into play. Our utility has a long history in this area of expertise. Now that the political pieces are in place with Tanacross and have the green light we need AEA’s assistance. Both Senator Bishop, and Representative Talerico support this project as does our Chamber. It is a perfect fit with biomass in the winter when Joe Young’s project comes on line which he has funding for and is moving ahead with. Governor Walker liked what he saw in Tok and it never hurts to score a project in areas he has an interest in. If this letter seems a bit more personal than professional, please excuse me. We all go back a ways in the process and I knew you would not expect a political letter from me. Thank you for hearing me out and thank you for supporting the Tok School Projects. Let’s expand that success and all know we did the right thing with our resources designate for worthy projects. Sincerely, Dick Shultz PROJECT FIGURES PROJECT LOCATION T18N, R9E, Section 1, 2, 11, 14 T19N, R9E, Section 36, CRM USGS Tanacross (B-6) Mile Post 1333.5 Alaska Hwy Approximately 20 Miles West of Tok ....... .... .... .... .... .... ----.... --.............. .. Ta nacross YERRICK CREEK-----.L --Tok LEGEND D TANACROSS, INC (VILLAGE CORPORATION OWNED LAND) ........ VICINITY MAP SCALE 1 II = 4000 FT 1---+---+-----------+-+---+---ISCALE: AS SHOWN DESIGNED: ~4--4----------+-~4-~ LDC DRAWN: LDC ACCESS ROAD & ADJACENT PENSTOCK (100' Right-Of-Way) GENERAL PLAN SCALE 1 II = 500 FT 3. SHADED AREAS REPRESENT DELINEATED WETLANDS, INCLUDING THE FLLODPLAI WETLANDS DELINEATION BY HDR ALASKA, INC., 2009. I HALF -SIZE DRAWING I ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 500 0 500 I 000 FT w-u-tJ I I I" ~ 500' 8000 0 8000 16000 FT ~I I I" ~ 6000' ~; . .,_----~. _ _..T19N R9E YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AND VICINITY MAP POSSIBLE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ALIGNMENT DATE: JANUARY, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: I NO. 1 .. _ .. -WETLAND -.. BOUND ARY / ----------([ COF FERD AM, SEE SH EET 6 ~~~~~:fi FOR SECT ION 50 0 50 ~~·~:::~-~~tW::-.--1-- 1" = 50 ' AP&T ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY LEF T ABU TMENT DIKE li ... __ .,( ~C[ BURI ED YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN .. _../'" ././~···-.. --- PROJ ECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO . 2 B 12" CONCRETE FACING 12" CONCRETE FACING 36" GROUTED ROCKFILL WITH BOULDERS ARRANGED FOR FISH PASSAGE 12" BEDDING COMPACTED ROCK FILL CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) ROUGHNED CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL ORIGINAL r GROUND -·~--- OUTLET CHANNEL, 2% MIN. SLOPE 12" CONCRETE FACING CREST -~-EL 2225 12" BEDDING COMPACTED ROCK FILL CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) SPILLWAY SECTION LEFT ABUTMENT DIKE SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' SCALE 1 "=20' TOP OF CONCRETE EL 2225 WOOD-FRAME CONTROL ROOM INTAKE DRAIN SLUICE GATE TRASH RAKE NORMAL W.S EL 2220 ---------- TRASH RACK 20 ORIGINAL GROUND 0 20 1" = 20' AP&T ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 40 FT BELLMOUTH TRANSITION INTAKE SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' HOPE PENSTOCK DISMANTLING JOINT 48" BUTIERFLY VALVE DATE: YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT JANUARY, 2010 INTAKE STRUCTURE SECTIONS PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 3 ROAD EMBANKMENT, TYP. RAILS PAN BRIDGE DECK / ~ su~~o'l\ PENSTOCK I I I BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN SCALE 1"=200' SCALE 1''=10' ORIGINAL GROUND 10 0 10 20 FT CONCRETE ENCASEMENT W::~Jt~Jt~Jt:~Jt:-.J .... --1---1 ROCK FILL 1" 1 o· 40 0 40 1" = 40' 200 0 200 1" = 200' RAILSPAN BRIDGE DECK (3 -70' SPANS) ELEV. 2050.74 ORIGINAL GROUND CONCRETE PIER APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 80 FT 400 FT 48" BEDDING BURIED PENSTOCK SECTION SCALE 1"=10' REINFORCED EARTH ABUTMENT (I.E. HILFIKER WELDED WIRE WALL) ELEV, 2053.41 DELINEATED WETLAND --+---+~ !-..---(FLOODPLAIN) I~~~~~~~~ I ~ FABRICATED STEEL CAP BRIDGE PROFILE PIER FOOTING, TYP. (8'x8.5'x20' CONCRETE FILLED CONTAINER) SCALE 1 "=40' YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN AND SECTIONS DATE: JANUARY, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 4 -~~~~~~~~-~----~~-~~~-----~~~~-~----~--~~ ----~ ~--~ ~--------~~---- ) BORROW PIT ~ BURIED PENSTOCK -1800-- RAILS PAN BRIDGE OUTLET CHANNEL WETLANDS (FLOODPLAIN) POWERHOUSE ~ ACCESS ROAD POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE PLAN SCALE 1"=200' 4' MIN. OUTLET CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1"=10' 10 0 10 20 FT 200 0 200 ~ I I 1" = 1 0' 1" = 200' YERRICK CREEK AP&T HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER & POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE TELEPHONE COMPANY PLAN AND SEC~ONS / .. ··--... .· <... (/.>·· •. · .. _ '1:'7./ ·-· ./( 400 FT DATE: JANUARY, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 5 COFFERDAM I COFFERDAM PLAN AT BURIED PENSTOCK CROSSING COBBLE OR SANDBAG TO SECURE MEMBRAN E 9' MA X. IMPERME AB LE MEMBRANE SCALE 1 "=50' GRAVEL AND SAND- FILLED SUPERSACK, APPRO X. 3'x3'x3' EA. ~--_ ______::[==J~~~-LL.__ STREAMBED COFFERDAM SECTION SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 50 0 50 100 FT 4 0 4 8 FT ~ I I ~ ~ I I 1'' = 50' 1 /4" = 1'-0" YERRICK CREEK DAT E: AP&T MARCH, 2010 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: IS SUE ALASKA POWER & PENSTOCK COFFERDAM NO. TELEPHONE COMPANY PLAN AND SEC110N 6 A PERMITTING April 2, 2015 – ADNR to APC – LAS 30018, Stilling Wells February 13, 2015 – ADOT to APC – Permit, Transmission Line May 01, 2014 – COE to APC – E-MAIL May 01, 2014 – COE to APC – Permit May 15, 2012 – COE to APC – Permit June 16, 2010 – APC to Conservation Fund – In-Lieu Fee May 5, 2010 – Conservation Fund to APC – Fee Estimate April 30, 2010 – COE to APC – Permit March 24, 2010 – SHPO to USDA RUS – Determinations June 8, 2010 – APC to ADNR – Material Sales July 2014 – ADF&G to APC – Draft Habitat Permit November 27, 2012 – APC to ADF&G – Request to renew permit August 5, 2009 – ADF&G to APC – Fish Habitat Permit March 28, 2007 – FERC to APC – No License Required PERMIT # LAS 30018 STATE OF ALASKA Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land & Water LAND USE PERMIT Under AS 38.05.850 Alaska Power and Telephone herein known as the permittee, is issued this permit authorizing the use of state land located within: Sections 11 and 14, Township 18 North, Range 9 East, Copper River Meridian. This permit is effective beginning March 11th, 2015 and ending March 10th, 2017 unless sooner terminated at the State's discretion. This permit is issued for the purpose of authorizing: The use of State land for the installation of stilling wells and off-road travel within Yerrick Creek. All activities shall be conducted in accordance with the following stipulations: 1. Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer for the Department of Natural Resources is the Northern Regional Manager or his designee. The Authorized Officer may be contacted at 3700 Airport Way, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 or 907-451-2740. 2. Indemnification. Permittee assumes all responsibility, risk and liability for its activities and those of its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, or invitees, directly or indirectly related to this permit, including environmental and hazardous substance risk and liability, whether accruing during or after the term of this permit. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the State of Alaska, its agents and employees, from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, penalties, and damages of whatever kind or nature, including all attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of , in connection with, or incident to any act or omission by Permittee, its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, or invitees, unless the proximate cause of the injury or damage is the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the State or a person acting on the State's behalf. Within 15 days, Permittee shall accept any such cause, action or proceeding upon tender by the State. This indemnification shall survive the termination of the permit 3. Valid Existing Rights. This authorization is subject to all valid existing rights in and to the land under this authorization. The State of Alaska makes no representations or warranties whatsoever, either expressed or implied, as to the existence, number, or nature of such valid existing rights. RECEIVED MAR 2 3 15 LAS 30018 Land Use Pennit Alaska Power and Telephone 4. Reservation of Rights. The Division reserves the right to grant additional authorizations to third parties for compatible uses on or adjacent to the land under this authorization. 5. Performance Guaranty. The permittee shall provide a surety bond or other form of security acceptable to the Division in the amount of $5000.00 payable to the State of Alaska. Such performance guaranty shall remain in effect for the term of this authorization and shall secure performance of the permittee's obligations hereunder. The amount of the performance guaranty may be adjusted by the Authorized Officer upon approval of amendments to this authorization, changes in the development plan, upon any change in the activities conducted or performance of operations conducted on the premises. If Permittee fails to perform the obligations under this permit within a reasonable time, the State may perform Permittee's obligations at Permittee's expense. Permittee agrees to pay within 20 days following demand, all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the State of Alaska as a result of the failure of the permittee to comply with the terms of this permit. The provisions of this permit shall not prejudice the State's right to obtain a remedy under any law or regulation. If the authorized officer determines that the permittee has satisfied the terms and conditions of this authorization the performance guaranty may be released. The performance guaranty may only be released in a writing signed by the Authorized Officer. 6. Insurance. Pursuant to 11 AAC 96.065 the permittee shall secure or purchase at its own expense, and maintain in force at all times during the term of this permit, the following policies of insurance to protect both the permittee and the permittor (the State, its officers, agents and employees). If the permittee's policy contains higher limits, the State shall be entitled to coverage to the extent of such higher limits. Certificates of Insurance must be furnished to the AO prior to the issuance of this permit and must provide for a notice of cancellation, non-renewal, or material change of conditions in accordance with policy provisions. The permittee must provide for a 60-day prior notice to the State before they cancel, not renew or make material changes to conditions to the policy. Failure to furnish satisfactory evidence of insurance, or lapse of the policy, are material breaches of this permit and shall be grounds, at the option of the State, for termination of the permit. All insurance policies shall comply with, and be issued by, insurers licensed to transact the business of insurance under Alaska Statute, Title 21. The policy shall be written on an "occurrence" form and shall not be written as a "claims-made" form unless specifically reviewed and agreed to by the Division of Risk Management, Department of Administration. The State must be named as an additional named insured on the policy with respect to the operations of the permittee on or in conjunction with the permitted premises, referred to as LAS 30018. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Commercial General Liability Insurance: Such policy shall have minimum coverage limits of $1 .000.000 combined single limit per occurrence. 7. Preference Right. No preference right for use or conveyance of the land is granted or implied by this authorization. 8. Alaska Historic Preservation Act. The permittee shall consult the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (907) 269-8721 so that known historic, archaeological and paleontological sites may be avoided. Page 2 of 6 LAS 30018 Land Use Permit Alaska Power and Telephone The Alaska Historic Preservation Act (AS 41.35.200) prohibits the appropriation, excavation, removal, injury, or destruction of any state-owned historic, prehistoric (paleontological) or archaeological site without a permit from the commissioner. Should any sites be discovered during the course of field operations, activities that may damage the site will cease and the Office of History and Archaeology in the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (907) 269-8721 and shall be notified immediately. 9. Public Trust Doctrine. The Public Trust Doctrine guarantees public access to, and the public right to use, navigable and public waters and the land beneath them for navigation, commerce, fishing, and other purposes . This authorization is issued subject to the principles of the Public Trust Doctrine regarding navigable or public waters. The Division of Land reserves the right to grant other interests consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine. 10. Revocable at Will. This permit does not convey an interest in state land and as such is revocable, with or without cause. The department will give 30 days' notice before revoking a permit at will. A revocation for cause is effective immediately. 11. Assignment. This permit may not be transferred or assigned to another individual or corporation . 12. Operation of Vehicles. a. Crossing waterway courses will be made using an existing low angle approach in order not to disrupt the naturally occurring stream or lake banks. b. There shall be no bank modification . c. No vehicles or excavation equipment shall be stored within 50 feet of an active channel of the creek. d. During equipment maintenance operations, the site shall be protected from leaking or dripping hazardous substances or fuel. The permittee shall place drip pans or other surface liners designed to catch and hold fluids under the equipment or develop a maintenance area by using an impermeable liner or other suitable containment mechanism. 13. Holes and Excavations. All holes shall be backfilled with sand, gravel, native materials, or a substitute approved by the Authorized Officer. This stipulation is intended to prevent thermal soil degradation, soil erosion, and habitat loss, and to eliminate a potential human and wildlife hazard. (6 AAC 80 .130) 14. Site Restoration. a. Upon expiration, completion, or termination of this authorization, the site shall be vacated and all improvements, personal property, and other chattels shall be removed. b. The site shall be left in a clean, safe condition acceptable to the Authorized Officer. All solid waste debris and any hazardous wastes that are used and stored on the site shall be removed and backhauled to an ADEC approved solid waste facility. Page 3 of 6 LAS 30018 Land Use Pennit Alaska Power and Telephone 15. Solid Waste. All solid waste and debris generated from the activities conducted under this authorization shall be removed to a facility approved by the ADEC prior to the expiration, completion, or termination of the authorization or activities. 16. Inspection. Authorized representatives of the State of Alaska shall have reasonable access to the subject parcel for purposes of inspection. 17. Compliance with Governmental Requirements; Recovery of Costs. Permittee shall, at its expense, comply with all applicable laws, regulations, rules and orders, and the requirements and stipulations included in this authorization. Permittee shall ensure compliance by its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, or invitees. 18. Other Authorizations. The issuance of this authorization does not alleviate the necessity of the permittee to obtain authorizations required by other agencies for this activity. 19. Violations. This authorization is revocable immediately upon violation of any of its terms, conditions, stipulations, nonpayment of fees, or upon failure to comply with any other applicable laws, statutes and regulations (federal and state). Should any unlawful discharge, leakage, spillage, emission, or pollution of any type occur due to permittee's, or its employees', agents', contractors', subcontractors', licensees', or invitees' act or omission, permittee, at its expense shall be obligated to clean the area to the reasonable satisfaction of the State of Alaska. 20. Completion Report. a. Pursuant to 11 AAC 96.070, a completion report shall be submitted prior to relinquishment, or within 30 days after expiration or termination of the authorization. The report shall contain the following information: i. A statement that the permittee has removed all improvements and personal property from the authorized area. ii. Photographs of the permitted site taken before, during and after the proposed activity to document permit compliance. Photographs must consist of a series of aerial view or ground level view photos that clearly depict compliance with site cleanup. iii. A list of vehicles used for any off-road travel that may have taken place. iv. Actual routes of travel, the location of permit activities, and the location of all sites in a GPS track log file. b. Failure to submit the required report may subject the permitted site to a final field inspection. The permittee shall be assessed a fee for this inspection per 11 AAC 05.010 (a)(7)(M). c. The performance guarantee will not be released until a satisfactory completion report has been received. 21. Annual Use Fee. The permittee shall pay to the Division an annual use fee of $250.00. The use fee is due on or before the annual anniversary of the effective date of this permit Page4 of6 LAS 30018 Land Use Pennit Alaska Power and Telephone without the necessity of any billing by the Division. The annual land use fee is subject to adjustments in the fee schedule as set forth in 11 AAC 05.010. 22. Late Payment Penalty Charges. The permittee shall pay a fee for any late payment. The amount is the greater of either the fee specified in 11 AAC 05.010 or interest at the rate set by AS 45.45.010(a) and will be assessed on a past-due account until payment is received by the state. 23. Returned Check Penalty. A returned check fee as provided in 11 AAC 05.010 will be assessed for any check on which the bank refuses payment. Late payment penalties shall continue to accumulate. 24. Maintenance. The State assumes no responsibility for maintenance of improvements constructed on state land nor liability for injuries or damages attributable to that construction. 25. Change of Address. Any change of address must be submitted in writing to the Authorized Officer. 26. Public Access. a. All operations must be conducted in a manner that will ensure minimum conflict with other users of the area. There shall be no interference with free public use of state lands and waters. b. Public access may not be restricted without prior approval of the Authorized Officer. 27. Destruction of Markers. All survey monuments, witness corners, reference monuments, mining claim posts, bearing trees, and unsurveyed lease corner posts shall be protected against damage, destruction, or obliteration. The permittee shall notify the Authorized Officer of any damaged, destroyed, or obliterated markers and shall reestablish the markers at the permittee's expense in accordance with accepted survey practices of the Division of Land. 28. Site Maintenance. The area subject to this authorization shall be maintained in a neat, clean and safe condition, free of any solid waste, debris or litter. 29. Fuel and Hazardous Substances. a. No refueling or transfer of fuel shall take place within the active channel of the creek . b. No fuel or hazardous substances shall be stored within 50 feet from the active creek channel. c. Fuel spill pads and spill containers shall be on site at all times during construction activity. 30. Notification. The permittee shall immediately notify DNR and DEC by phone of any unauthorized discharge of oil to water, any discharge of hazardous substances (other than oil), and any discharge of oil greater than 55 gallons on land. All fires and explosions must also be reported. The DNR 24 hour spill report number is (907) 451-2678; the Fax number is (907) 451-2751. The DEC spill report number is (800) 478-9300. DNR and DEC shall be Page 5 of 6 LAS 30018 Land Use Pennit Alaska Power and Telephone supplied with all follow-up incident reports. 31. Advisory Regarding Violations of the Permit Guidelines. Pursuant to 11 AAC 96.145, a person who violates a provision of a permit issued under this chapter (11 AAC 96) is subject to any action available to the department for enforcement and remedies, including revocation of the permit, civil action for forcible entry and detainer, ejectment, trespass, damages, and associated costs, or arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass in the second degree. The department may seek damages available under a civil action, including restoration damages, compensatory damages, and treble damages under AS 09.45. 730 or 09.45. 735 for violations involving injuring or removing trees or shrubs, gathering geotechnical data, or taking mineral resources. If a person responsible for an unremedied violation of 11 AAC 96 or a provision of a permit issued under this chapter (11 AAC 96) applies for a new authorization from the department under AS 38.05.035 or 38.05.850, the department may require the applicant to remedy the violation as a condition of the new authorization, or to begin remediation and provide security under 11 AAC 96.060 to complete the remediation before receiving the new authorization. If a person who applies for a new authorization under AS 38.05.035 or 38.05.850 has previously been responsible for a violation of this chapter or a provision of a permit issued under this chapter, whether remedied or unremedied, that resulted in substantial damage to the environment or to the public, the department will consider that violation in determining the amount of the security to be furnished under 11 AAC 96.060 and may require the applicant to furnish three times the security that would otherwise be required. The Authorized Officer reserves the right to modify these stipulations or use additional stipulations as deemed necessary. The permittee will be advised before any such modifications or additions are finalized. Any correspondence on this permit may be directed to the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Northern Region Office, 3700 Airport Way, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-4699, telephone (907) 451-2740. I have read and understand all of the foregoing and attached stipulations. By signing this permit, I agree to conduct the authorized activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit. ~j~~~~pd Title Date eo BCN< .J 2.2 2.; fo,_,. F uJtts.u.£l wJJ 18'3' rj 3 'o .JB:f/?33 Gk.~ JWi-,;.., Address Phone Contact Name ~~ .t@rv/f/(~ &rse&/(Cec .fkt~.~/J e-"s r Signature of Authorized State Representative Title Date Page 6 of 6 BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] 25D-263 (5/86) STATE OF ALASKA Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Page No. 1 of 16 AND PUBLIC FACILITIES UTILITY PERMIT (MAJOR) Approval Recommended : Maggie J. Slife Date: February 13, 2015 Title: Regional Permit Officer Region: Northern ***************************************************************************************************************************** THE STATE OF ALASKA, acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, hereinafter called the DEPARTMENT, under provisions of AS 19.25.010 and 19.25.020, grants a Utility Permit to Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) of P.O. Box 207, Tok, AK 99780-0207 hereinafter called the PERMITTEE, permission to construct, install and thereafter perform routine maintenance, use and operate 34.5 kV Transmission Line 125' Left of Centerline, hereinafter called the FACILITY, located as follows: State Route 180000, ALASKA HIGHWAY Route Mileage 90.5 to 101.5 125 LT across, along or over property of the DEPARTMENT, acquired and utilized in the operation and maintenance of a State Transportation System, at the aforementioned locations and/or positions and in strict conformance with plans, specifica tions and special provisions attached hereto and made a part hereof, and not otherwise. A. In accepting this Utility Permit for the Facility, the PERMITTEE agrees to comply with the provisions of AS 02.15.102, AS 02.15.106, AS 19.25.010, AS 19.25.200, AS 35.10.210, and AS 35.10.230; the terms, requirements and regulations as set forth in 17 AAC 15 as authorized under Administrative Procedures Act, AS 44.62.010 - 44.62.650 and the applicable policies, directives and orders issued by the Commissioner of the Department. B. The entire cost of routine maintenance operations of the FACILITY are to be paid for by the PERMITTEE, and said FACILITY shall comply with all applicable codes. C. The PERMITTEE's construction, installation and maintenance operations of the FACILITY shall be accomplished with minimum inte rference and interruption of the use, operation and maintenance of the DEPARTMENT's right of way and/or public facility; or as hereinafter provide d in the DEPARTMENT's Special Provisions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and shall at all times in no way endanger the gen eral public in its use of the public property. Utility Permits expire if construction or installation of the facility has not started within one year afte r the date of approval, unless the applicant obtains an extension of time in writing from the department. 17AAC15.011(d) D. The DEPARTMENT, in granting the Utility Permit, reserves the right to use, occupy and enjoy its property for a public transpo rtation system and for public transportation purposes in such a manner and at such times as it deems necess ary, the same as if this instrument had not been executed by the DEPARTMENT. If any such use by the DEPARTMENT shall at any time necessitate any change in location or manner of use of said FACILITY, or any part thereof, such change or alteration shall be made by the PERMITTEE according to the terms of one of the two clauses set out below as identified by a check mark before the applicable clause. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 2 of 16 __ _ _( 1 ) The PERMITTEE will be reimbursed in full by the DEPARTMENT for all costs incurred in making such changes or alterations to the FACILITY that qualified under the provisions of AS 02.15.104(c), AS 19.25.020(c), or AS 35.10.220(c). __ X__ ( 2 ) The PERMITTEE shall promptly remove or relocate said FACILITY at no cost to the DEPARTMENT in accordance wi th the provisions of AS 02.15.104(c) ( 4 ) or ( 5 ), AS 19.25.020(c) (4) or ( 5 ), AS 35.10.220(c) ( 4 ) or ( 5 ). E. On public property being utilized for right of way on highways originally established as, or converted to, controlled access highways, ingress and egress thereto for maintenance and operation of the FACILITY is limited to the locations as designated by the DEPARTMENT. How ever, the DEPARTMENT may allow the PERMITTEE ingress and egress whenever such is necessary to effect repairs and mainte nance of the FACILITY and when no other access is available. If the DEPARTMENT determines such access is in conflict with the use of the controlled access highway, the FACILITY will be relocated. F. The State of Alaska and the DEPARTMENT for the purpose of this Utility Permit, hereby disclaim any representation of implication to the PERMITTEE that the DEPARTMENT has any title in any property other than the interest conveyed to the DEPARTMENT for specific p urposes as described by the instrument conveying the land to the DEPARTMENT. G. The PERMITTEE by these presents accepts notice and agrees that any expenses or damages incurred by the PERMITTEE through the abandonment, removal, reconstruction or alteration of any public facility, or incurred by said PERMITTEE as a result of this disclaimer shall be borne by said PERMITTEE at no expense whatsoever to the DEPARTMENT or the State of Alaska. H. The waiver or breach of any terms or conditions of this Utility Permit or Provisions of the Administrative Code, by the DEPARTMENT shall be limited to the act or acts constituting such breach, and shall never be construed as being continuing or a permanent waiver o f any such term or condition, unless expressly agreed to in writing by the parties hereto, all of which sha ll remain in full force and affect as to future acts or happenings, notwithstanding any such individual waiver or any breach thereof. I. Only the Commissioner of the DEPARTMENT or his delegate shall have the authority to waiver any term or condition herein contained. J. The PERMITTEE shall not assign or transfer any of the rights authorized by this Utility Permit except upon notification to an d approval by the DEPARTMENT. K The PERMITTEE agrees to comply with all regulations concerning present and future use of the public property acquired, or reimbursed by Federal - Aid funds. L. The PERMITTEE shall give the DEPARTMENT not less than ten (10) days prior written notice, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties hereto, of the PERMITTEE's intention to enter upon the DEPARTMENT's property for the purpose of major maintenance, reconstruction, altering or removal of the FACILITY, provided, however, that normal routine maintenance is excepted from this provision, and provided further, that in a ny instance of sudden emergency requiring prompt and immediate action to protect the public safety, or to mitigate damage to private or public prop erty, no prior notification to 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 3 of 16 the DEPARTMENT will be required. The PERMITTEE shall notify the DEPARTMENT and the Alaska State Troopers, of the location of the emergency and extent of work required by the most expeditious means of communication as soon as reasonably possible to do so, and the P ERMITTEE shall take such measures as are required to protect the health and safety of the traveling public or public facility users for the duration of such emergency operations. M. The PERMITTEE shall indemnify and hold harmless the State of Alaska and the DEPARTMENT, or either of them, from all liability for damage to property, or injury to or death of persons, arising wholly or in part from any action taken by the PERMITTEE in relation to the PERMITTEE's F ACILITIES on DEPARTMENT rights of way or other permitted locations. N. The PERMITTEE is subject to all previous Easements and Utility Permits and any damage to any other utility will be the PERMITTEE's responsibility. O. The PERMITTEE agrees to be responsible for the compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, codes and ordinances. P. The PERMITTEE agrees to be responsible for obtaining all other appropriate permits or letters of non-objection needed from Federal, State and local agencies, or conflicting lessees, property owners or utilities. Q. The PERMITTEE may be required, within thirty (30) days after completion of any improvement placed upon or in the premises herein, deliver to the DEPARTMENT as-built drawings showing the location and construction specifications of said improvement. R. This Utility Permit is issued under the provisions of applicable Alaska Statutes and Administrative Code, effective as of the date of execution of this instrument by the DEPARTMENT. S. The PERMITTEE agrees that the FACILITY will be constructed in accordance with the attached: 1. Plans consisting of: 5 Pages included as part of this permit, Pages 12-16 2. Specifications consisting of: n/a 3. Other: None which, by this reference, are made a part hereof, and in accordance with the applicable codes pertaining to the FACILITY, and not otherwise, unless prior written authorization is obtained from the DEPARTMENT to do so. T. The PERMITTEE agrees to reimburse the DEPARTMENT for actual costs of inspection and testing as required during the performanc e of work proposed by the PERMITTEE. The scope of inspection and testing shall be determined by the Regional Utilities Engineer. The costs billed to the PERMITTEE will be the actual DEPARTMENT's costs incurred while performing the inspection and testing. U. The PERMITTEE agrees by entering on the DEPARTMENT's property to indemnify the DEPARTMENT and its contractors of all costs tangible or intangible that would be the result of any delay in a construction project of the DEPARTMENT caused by work done under this permit. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 4 of 16 V. The PERMITTEE agrees to reimburse the DEPARTMENT for the length of the facility t o be installed in excess of 200 feet (as indicated on the attached plans referred to in paragraph "S" above) which is calculated to be 10000 linear feet at $ 1.00 per foot = $10,000.00 (but not to exceed $10,000) payable at the time the permit is executed by the DEPARTMENT unless arrangements have been made for the PERMITTEE to be billed on a monthly basis. W. WARRANTY 1. The Permittee shall warrant the restoration / repair of the roadway and any areas of the right -of-way disturbed in conjunction with the installation of utilities described in the permit. During the warranty period, any damage, defect or failure to any element o f the Department right of way, including but not limited to: roadway and embankment, fill slopes, ditches, backslopes, structures or undergrou nd utilities determined to be a result of work authorized by this permit shall be repaired by the Permittee. 2. The Warranty will remain in effect for a period of not less than two (2) years from the date of completion of the utility installat ion after which it may be released by the Department. 3. During the warranty period, the Department will notify the Permittee of any damage, defect or failure as soon as it becomes known. The Permittee shall submit a proposal for Department review and approval for the restoration of the Department’s facility. After Department review and approval, the Permittee shall remedy, and without cost to the Department, any and all defects. The Permittee shall notify the Department a minimum of three (3) business days before corrective work commences to facilitate Department inspection. 4. If the damage, defect or failure, in the judgment of the Department, is of such a nature as to demand immediate repair, the Department shall reserve the right to take corrective action and the cost thereof shall be borne by the Permittee. X. RELEASE OF WARRANTY 1. The Department will perform an inspection before the end of the warranty period. The Permittee shall correct any defect in th e restoration revealed by the warranty inspection. 2. Upon the Permittee's satisfactory performance of all its obligations under this Permit, the Department will execute a written statement acknowledging acceptance of the restoration and release of the warranty. Release of the warranty shall not release the Permi ttee of any other provision of the permit. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 5 of 16 UTILITY PERMIT SPECIAL PROVISIONS THE PERMITTEE PROMISES TO COMPLY WITH THESE SPECIAL PROVISIONS BY SIGNATURE ON THE PERMIT. IT IS THE PERMITTEE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FAMILIARIZE ITS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND/OR CONTRACTORS WITH THESE PROVISIONS, AND INSIST ON STRICT COMPLIANCE. These Special Provisions refer to the publication “Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities STANDARD SPECIFI CATIONS for Highway Construction” which is available for $25 from: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public facilities Design and Construction Standards 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7879 Or online at: www.dot.state.ak.us, Design and Construction Standards, Standard Specifications, English 1.0 General and Administrative 1.1 The Permittee shall have a copy if this permit at the work site at all times. 1.2 The permit, together with these Special Provisions, shall take precedence over any additional plans, exhibits, attachments, a nd/or schedules should discrepancies occur. 1.3 All contact between the Department and the Permittee's Contractor shall be through a representative of the Permittee. If the Permittee chooses to perform the work with other than its own forces, a representative of the utility shall be present at all times unless otherwise agreed to by the Department. Failure to comply with this provision is grounds for restricting any further work by the Permittee in the Depart ment's right of way. 1.4 Any rights granted by this permit may not be assigned or transferred to another entity without prior written approval from the Department. If the utility is sold to another utility or merges with another utility, the new utility shall inform the Department in writing wit hin 30 days after the date of transaction. 1.5 Any request for waiver or exception of Special Provision(s), or any request for change in location, alignment, or constructio n method, shall be submitted in writing to the Regional Utilities Engineer, Gail Gardner, 451-5400. 1.6 This permit will expire if construction or installation of the Facility has not started within one year after the date of approval, unless the P ermittee obtains an extension of time in writing from the Department. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 6 of 16 1.7 The Permittee agrees to furnish the Department with a set of as-built plans within sixty (60) days from the completion of the work covered by this Permit. 1.8 The Permittee agrees to provide design locates at no cost to the Department upon request. If a utility locate service is not available, reference markers shall be installed and maintained at both ends of underground highway crossings, and at angle points in the alignment of t he underground Facility. Where utilities are attached to a bridge, the Permittee will attach a plate on the conduit at each abutme nt describing the content of the pipe or conductor, and the name and phone number of the owning utility. 1.9 The Regional Utilities Engineer may assign inspectors in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Utility Permi t. The inspector has the authority to suspend all work in the event of noncompliance. 1.10 The Permittee agrees to reimburse the Department for actual costs of inspections during construction of the Facility. Inspect ion activities will include on-site review of traffic control, highway crossings, and acceptable use and restoration of the Right of Way. Inspection may also include any testing required to verify conformance to the Department's standards, and responding to questions and/or complaints from the public or agencies. Actual direct and indirect charges shall provide the basis for billings, which include wages, benefits, per diem, travel and vehicle expenses, and lodging. 2.0 Coordination 2.1 The Permittee shall notify the Department's Regional Utility Permit Officer ten (10) days prior to beginning work on the Facility: Northern Region (907) 451-5407 (907) 451-5411 (fax) 2.2 The Permittee shall coordinate all construction and maintenance work on the Facility with the Department's District Maintenance Superintendent. 2.3 The Permittee agrees to coordinate work in the Facility with other projects, both public and private, that may occur wit hin the project limits covered by this permit. The Permittee agrees not to interfere or hinder the work being performed by other contractors. 3.0 Traffic Control 3.1 DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 7 of 16 3.1.1 The Permittee SHALL: 1. Obtain a Lane Closure Permit (LCP) from the Department prior to beginning any work in the right of way. A Lane Closure Permit is required for any work within the Department’s Right of Way, even work which does not impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The application for LCP shall include a Traffic Control Plan, detailing the traffic control devices required and their placement. a. On-line application is available at the following website: www.dot.state.ak.us b. To submit an application in person contact: Northern Region (Fairbanks Area) (907) 451- 5407 1-800-475-2464 (907) 451-5411 (fax) 2. Provide all traffic control required by the Lane Closure Permit including, but not limited to, permit fees, traffic control plan designs, traffic control devices, flagging operations, detours, and/or pilot car operation at his/hers own cost. 3. Provide traffic control and devices conforming to the latest edition of the Alaska Traffic Manual (available for download at the DOT&PF website www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic) while constructing the Facility and performing routine maintenance. 4. Have all traffic control devices required by Lane Closure Permit, including signs, barricade, and flagmen in place prior to beginning work within the Right of Way. 5. Remove or cover all temporary traffic control devices as soon as practical when they are not needed or when work on the Facility is suspended for short periods of time. 6. Maintain two-way traffic at all times unless one way traffic or a road closure is specifically allowed in the Lane Closure Permit. 7. Provide and maintain safe and ADA accessible routes and detours for pedestrians and bicyclists through or around traffic control zones at all times as required by the Lane Closure Permit. 8. Be responsible for all liability resulting from their construction activities, traffic control and vehicular and pedestrian detours. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 8 of 16 3.1.2 The Permittee SHALL NOT: 1. Affect normal vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or other normal use patterns without an approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP). 2. Park vehicles, equipment, or store materials on road or pathway surfaces at any time, unless specifically allowed by Lane Closure Permit. 3. Store equipment or materials within thirty feet (30') of the edge of travelled way when not in use, or when work on the Facility is not in progress. 3.2 DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 1. The Permittee shall obtain and comply with an Annual Lane Closure Permit that covers typical maintenance activities within the Right of Way. 4.0 Drainage 4.1 The Permittee shall maintain existing drainage patterns during construction of the Facility and restoration of the Right of Way unless othe rwise agreed to by the Department. 4.2 The Permittee shall be responsible for all erosion control prior to final slope stabilization. 4.3 The Permittee shall notify the Department of drainage problems caused by the work under this Permit and will correct the prob lem as directed by the Department. 4.4 The Permittee shall replace all culverts damaged by work under this Permit. Damaged culverts shall be replaced with a new corrugated metal pipe culvert of the same or greater diameter, but not less than 18-inches.Culverts that are found undersized or damaged shall be restored to working condition or replaced by the Department at the Permittee's expense. 4.5 The Permittee shall provide an Alaska Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (AK -CESCL) trained person with the authority to direct SWPPP work on site during all construction activities authorized by this permit. AK-CESCL supervisors must provide proof of current AK- CESCL certification upon request. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 9 of 16 5.0 Right of Way Protection, Maintenance and Restoration 5.1 The Permittee shall cleanup within one day behind installation of the facility. The Permittee will not be allowed to trench or plow more than can be cleaned up the following day. 5.2 The Permittee or their contractor shall immediately repair any damage of existing utilities, storm drainage or other highway structures caused as a result of construction authorized by this permit. 5.3 Heavy tracked equipment operation will not be permitted on a paved roadway or shoulder, unless approved in writing by the Regional Utilities Engineer. The Permittee shall repair damage to the pavement as a result equipment of operation as directed by the Department. 5.4 The Permittee or his contractor will be responsible for winter and spring maintenance of the road shoulders, ditch lines, bac kslopes, road surfaces, taxiways, and runways that have not been left in a maintainable, neat and clean condition, satisfactory to the Maintenance Section of the Department of Transportation. 5.5 The Permittee shall dispose of trees, brush or other natural growth by mechanical chipping or hauling away. Stumps and grubbing piles shal l be loaded and hauled to a disposal site outside the Department's Right of Way. Trees left for the public shall be limbed and st acked in a location where loading does not interfere with the safe operation of the travel way and a minimum of 30 feet from the travelled way. Cut trees and brush to a height of not more than 6-inches above the surrounding ground. 5.6 Upon completion of the work within the State Right of Way or State property, the Permittee shall remove all equipment, dispose of all waste material and shall leave the premises in a neat and clean condition satisfactory to the Department of Transportation. 5.7 The Department shall not be held responsible for any damages to the Permittee’s facilities resulting from routine ditch grading or gene ral maintenance activities including sign post installations performed under the authority of the Department. 6.0 Topsoil and Seeding 6.1 The Permittee shall replace and restore all vegetation disturbed. Unless otherwise required, re -vegetation shall consist of establishing seeded grass slopes over the disturbed ground. The Permittee shall use all means necessary to maintain and prote ct the disturbed slopes from erosion until the vegetation is established. 6.2 The Permittee shall replace any topsoil lost as a result of construction under this permit. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 10 of 16 6.3 The Permittee shall re-grade all disturbed areas to blend with the existing ground surface and re-seed after completing backfill operations on the facility. 7.0 Overhead Facilities 7.1 New and relocated aerial facilities shall maintain a minimum vertical clearance of twenty feet (20') in all locations within the right of way. (17 AAC 15.201) 7.2 The Permittee shall install guy guards on all down guys installed within the right of way. 7.3 The Permittee shall remove all overhead powerline facilities abandoned as the result of this Permit. 7.4 Guy/Anchor attachment shall not be located within clear zone. Additional Special Provisions: None. 25D-263 (12/07) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 11 of 16 In consideration of the benefits accruing to the Permittee by reasons of the foregoing agreement, this permit is hereby accepted by the Permittee and the Permittee hereby agrees to comply with all of the terms, provisions, conditions, stipulations therein contained. Dated this_________ day of _________,20 _____ *********************************************************** Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) By:__________________________Title:__________________________ Attest:_______________________Title:___________________________ *********************************************************** ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COMPANY OR PERMITTEE STATE OF ALASKA ) _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) BE IT REMEMBERED that on this _____day of ______,20_____,before me the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of Alaska, personally appeared ___________________________________________________ and_______________________________________________________ both to me personally known and known to me to be the identical individuals named in and who executed the foregoing permit, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the above named company for the uses and purposes therein expressed and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my office the day and year first above written. My Commission Expires:_______________ __________________________________________________________ A Notary Public *********************************************************** The State of Alaska, acting by and through its Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has caused this Utility Permit to be executed on the day and year herein acknowledged below. *********************************************************** STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Northern Region By:_______________________________________________________ Title: Regional Utility Engineer *********************************************************** ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DEPARTMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) 4 th. JUDICIAL DISTRICT) BE IT REMEMBERED that on this ______ day of ______,20 ____, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of Alaska, personally appeared ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities known to me to be the identical individual who executed the foregoing permit, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same for and on the behalf of the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities with full authority so to do, and for uses and purposes therein expressed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my office the day and year first above written. My commission Expires________________ ___________________________________________________________ A Notary Public *********************************************************** Alaska DOT--NORTHERN REGION Right -of-Way and Utilities Section Utility Permit Application Page1 1 of ~ Permit No: 2.~ )\0000· 15-00"Z. FACILITY TYPE AND LOCATION Facility Type: [Z]Power Ocomm 0 Pipe 0 Other Crossing Angle: 0 Crossing Length: FT Offset from Highway CL 12 5 FT Facility Length 58·608 FT Latitude/Longitude Facility Start N 63 20'.192" 1 w 142 59'.785" Latitude/Longitude Facility end N 63 21'.699" 1 w 143 21'.151 " Coordinate System WGS B4 Location: D BURIED (Z] OVERHEAD Overhead Clearance 21' power FT BURIED FACILITY SPECIFICATIONS Crossing Installation Type : 0 Bored 0 Jacked Oopen Cut 0Mole Longitudinal Installation : 0 Trenched D Plowed Depth of Burial 1 0' beyond Slope limits: FT Number of Conduits Depth of Burial Below Ditch FT Conduit Type/Size Depth of Burial below Road FT COMMUNICATION AN I!.POWER FACILITIES Number of Circuits Cable Type/Size Voltage 34 .5kv Number of Cables 4 Phase 3 Conductor Type/size 410 PIPE FACILITIES Transmittant: Working Pressure PSI Flash Point: OF Tested Pressure PSI Vent Location : Maximum Pressure PSI Type of Pipe Class of Pipe 0 Cathodic Protection Encasement Size/Type Construction Codes Followed: NESC, NEG, RUS , st .. +t' of .A(ASk.._ fh~lu.~ lbrlstr. S~cs, 2ot,;- Notes: cps 2ou._ tJo·. J!OOOC t"P. '}o.s-.Jo mP lot. s- The new 34.5kv three -phase transmission line would be built on 12' long cross arms at the top of the 60' poles Date Rece ived : Ol· 10 ~ 15 Appl ication Log Number: A-IS·OO'Z.. FORM 250-261 (11/14) Alaska Power & Te lephone New 34 .5 kv Transmission Power Line Uti lity Application Exhibit 0 -Proposed Pole Specifications , Approximate MP 1314 .5 to 1325 .6 i I j . I ! i I . . . . l ~-· so" -· -4--1g'' ·· l I II B-0 I I ' I ' l !"fr\ · Y I I s~~ (C-------tW---. iiJ '-_· ~~-. -'='-------.LJ......1l r - . I ' . ,., j~~~ t!6l I yi;'? lp· )../ ~·-W E sT r:EE DER I . ,· /-;;::/ I r2 . .5 v.,_ v I -;:/. ' "'~"·v l . Vl ,'. ,, I tO -o I I I I I ~J ~ ! I I I lhP --L Permit No: 2-IICDOO -K_-~L Page l&.t of tC, Alaska Power & Te lephone New 34 .5 kv Transmission Power Line Uti l ity Application ~-;. Exhibit C -Close Up of Approximate Mileposts 1314 .5 & 1325 .6 ....... il .. ~,= -0 ~~ ~ (!) Nb.O ~~I ....., ·a ..... (!) 0.. ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O. BOX 207 • MILEPOST 1314 AK. HWY. TOK, ALASKA 99780 (907, 883-5101 FAX (907) 883-5815 Exhibit A -Existing Pole Center Line & Buried Fiber Optics Milepost 1325 .6 (Tanacross area) Exhibit A-Existing & Proposed Easements ___ ___ Center Line Alaska Hwy ------------------ 0 -- {\ Milepost 1314.5 (Tok plant riser pole) 0 ~1;------~,------ Existin Proposed p ~ - - g Pole Center ~ L ole Center Line 30 'Jl-0--e I 0' ~} v n D~ 15' -o-~_ll_ ------""lrtO' ___ - ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O. BOX 207 • MILEPOST 1314 AK. HWY. 4 February 2015 TOK, ALASKA 99780 (907) 883-5101 FAX (907) 883-5815 Proposed Plans for Power Line Upgrade to Y errick Creek Phase I In order to not be entirely dependent upon fossil fuels (and their volatile prices), Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) is in the development of a hydropower plant at Yerrick Creek. In order to transmit the 34.5kv hydroelectricity to our power grid , we need to upgrade our current line structures that parallel the Alaska Highway from YeiTick Creek to Tok. AP&T proposes to install the new 60' utility poles within our existing utility permitted line (#2-180000-76-098). During the initial discussions with DOT, six feet was the given footage for us to move closer towards the Alaska Highway; however, we have since realized that we have buried underground fiber within the discussed area . The underground fiber is buried approximately six-eight feet along the north (highway) side of our existing poles. Therefore, we are now requesting our permitted clearing to be 10 feet. Our currently existing pole center line is 135 ' from the center line of the Alaska Highway. Our proposed pole center line would be 125' from the highway center line, with 15 ' easement on each side of the pole line-for the total of 30 '. We are requesting this additional ten feet permitted area start from our riser pole by our Tok power plant, at approximate ¥ilepost 1314.5 and extend to our last existing pole on the south side of the Alaska Highway at approximate Milepost 1325 .6 -where our current line then crosses to the north side of the highway (in the Tanacross area). We would like to start clearing the proposed ten feet by /on March I 51 , and begin setting poles by March 15. We propose to begin the clearing and installation of the poles at approximate Milepost 1314.5 and end at approximate Milepost 1320.5 by September -for the total of six miles this year. After the six miles of poles are set and new conductor strung, we will then begin the transfer of our existing 12.47 kv distribution power lines, and then our telecom line, onto the new poles. During the construction phase, our total utility permit clearing width would temporarily be 40' wide; after the existing poles are removed , the utility permit would be 30 ' wide. Respectfully submitted, 7& ;/ J£:t::: ~~c~on · · Interior Division Operations Manager BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] From:Post, Janet L POA To:Glen Martin Cc:Egan, Julie A POA Subject:RE: POA-2009-445, Yerrick Creek_time extension_Yerrick Creek (UNCLASSIFIED) Date:Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:28:13 AM Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hi Glen: Sorry about resubmitting the mitigation form to you...please disregard and thank you for the documentation, we lost some of our files when we changed over to electronic systems. Thanks, janet Janet Post Regulatory Specialist janet.l.post@usace.army.mil http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx -----Original Message----- From: Glen Martin [mailto:glen.m@aptalaska.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:18 AM To: Egan, Julie A POA Cc: Pagemaster, Reg POA; Post, Janet L POA Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: POA-2009-445, Yerrick Creek_time extension_Yerrick Creek (UNCLASSIFIED) Julie, Thank you for renewing our permit. Attached is documentation that we have paid for the compensatory mitigation already, including an e-mail from the TCF that they received our check. Do you still need the form you attached signed? If so, do you have Chris Little's e-mail address? Thank you, Glen Glen D. Martin Mgr. Permitting/Licensing/Grants Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 3222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-1733 x122 (360) 385-7538 fax -----Original Message----- From: Egan, Julie A POA [mailto:Julie.A.Egan-Russell@usace.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:42 AM To: Glen Martin Cc: Pagemaster, Reg POA; Post, Janet L POA Subject: POA-2009-445, Yerrick Creek_time extension_Yerrick Creek (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From:BradMeiklejohn@aol.com To:Glen Martin Subject:Mititgation Funds Received POA - 2009-445 Yerrick Creek Date:Monday, June 21, 2010 7:13:54 PM Dear Mr. Martin, On June 22nd, 2010 The Conservation Fund received a check in the amount of $8,700.00 from Alaska Power and Telephone as mitigation for wetlands impacts related to the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project 20 miles west of Tok, Alaska. This correspondence serves as confirmation of receipt of the mitigation funds. Sincerely, Brad Meiklejohn Alaska Representative The Conservation Fund 2727 Hiland Road Eagle River, Alaska 99577 (907) 694-9060 www.conservationfund.org The Conservation Fund Rated A+ -- The Top Environmental Non-Profit in the Nation -- by the American Institute of Philanthropy Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the recipients to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete the original message without making any copies. If you are not the intended recipient, unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is improper and may be subject to legal sanctions. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by The Conservation Fund for any loss or damage arising in anyway from its use. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY DIVISION Regulatory Division POA-2009-445 Alaska Power & Telephone Company Attention : Glen Martin Post Office Box 3222 Port Townsend , Washington 98368 Dear Mr. Martin : P.O. BOX 6898 JBER, ALASKA 99506-0898 HAY 0 1 2014 This is in response to your April 10, 2014 application for a Department of the Army (DA) perm it requesting a time extension on your project wh ich includes a water diversion dam and appurtenances , buried penstock creek crossing , single lane bridge , tailrace terminus, temporary cofferdams and bridges , temporary creek diversions , excavation and backfill , creek and bank restoration activities , etc. in waters of the U.S. to produce year-round hydroelectric power to the local area . The project site is located within Section 2 , T. 18 N ., R. 9 E., Copper River Meridian ; USGS Quad Map Tanacross B-6 ; Latitude 63 .3703° N., Longitude 143.6198° W .; near Tok, Alaska. It has been assigned file number POA-2009-445 , Yerrick Creek which should be referred to in all future correspondence with this office. Based on our review of the information you furnished and available to us , we have preliminarily determined the above project area contains waters of the United States (U .S .), including wetlands , under the Corps' regulatory jurisdiction . DA perm it authorization is necessary because your project would involve work in and placement of structures or fill material into waters of the U.S . under our regulatory jurisdiction . Based upon the information and plans you provided , we hereby verify that the work described above , which would be performed in accordance with the previously verified plans (sheets 0-1), dated January 2010, sheet 2B dated March 2010, sheets 3-5 dated January 2010 , and sheet 6A dated March 2010, is authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) 17 , Hydropower Projects. NWP 17 and its associated Regional and General Conditions can be accessed at our website. Regional Conditions D , E , & F apply to your project. You must comply with all terms and conditions associated with NWP No . 17, as well as with the special conditions listed on the original verification , including : 1. All fill slopes and disturbed areas subject to erosion and siltation of Yerrick Creek or project area wetlands shall be stabilized against erosion by revegetation either by seeding and/or transplanti ng species native to the immediate area . Erosion control with materials such as coir logs, straw wattles , silt fencing, fiber biodegradable mats, straw mulch etc.must be used as best management practices. 2 . Migratory birds, their nests, eggs, nestlings , etc. will not be taken (disturbed in any manner). Vegetation must not be cleared between 5 May and 25 July of any year, unless the area to be cleared has been surveyed for birds and their nests , by a qualified biologist, and the land clearing or human d isturbances can be conducted without a take 3. Yerrick Creek bed and banks disturbed by construction of temporary diversion channels, cofferdams , bridges , or other disturbances must be restored to original conditions upon removal of the temporary fills or structures. -2- 4 . No equipment or machinery shall be refueled, lubricated , or maintained while in any active or inactive channels of Yerrick Creek. All debris will be cleaned from work areas authorized by this permit immediately following construction . 5. Earthen materials shall not be stockpiled adjacent to Yerrick Creek to prevent erosion and siltation of creek waters . 6 . Trenching of Yerrick Creek for installation of the penstock crossing shall not occur within any flowing or open waters. The diversion must result in a dry work area . The creek bed must be restored with the large cobble rocks existing in the channel for armor protection prior to diverting the creek waters back to the original channel over the buried penstock. The creek bed and banks shall have the original elevation and contours re-established . 7. Reasonable precautions and controls must be used to prevent incidental and accidental discharge of petroleum products or other hazardous substances into any water or wetland areas. Clean- up materials shall be available on-site and used immediately to contain any spills of such pollutants. Fuel storage and handling must not be conducted in Yerrick Creek or wetland areas. Equipment leaking fuel , oil , hydraulic oil , etc. must not be operated in aquatic areas and be repaired prior to use in or near Yerrick Creek. 8 . Before commencing work, the perm ittee shall purchase 1.2 in-lieu fee credits from The Conservation Fund as per 'Receipt of Payment Form ' attached for the loss of 0.8 acres of Riverine unconsolidated bottom wetlands. You must email this form signed by both you and The Conservation Fund to mitigationmanager@usace .army.mil and to janet.l.post@usace.army.mil upon completion of payment (see form attached). Further, please note General Cond ition 30 requires that you submit a signed certification to us once any work and required mitigation are completed . Enclosed is the form for you to complete and return to us. This verification is valid until March 18 , 2017 , unless the NWP is modified , reissued, or revoked. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. Nothing in this letter excuses you from compliance with other Federal , State , or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations . Please contact me via email atjanet.l.post@usace.army.mil , by mail at the address above, by phone at (907) 753-2831 , or toll free from within Alaska at (800) 478-2712 , if you have questions or to request paper copies of the regional and/or general conditions. For more information about the Regulatory Program , please visit our website at www.poa.usace.army.mii/Missions/Regulatory. Enclosures Sincerely , Janet Post Regulatory Specialist US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Permit Number: POA-2009-445 ENCLOSURE Name of Permittee: Alaska Power & Telephone Company Date of Issuance : MAY 0 1 2014 Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to Ms. Janet Post at the following address: U.S . Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Regulatory Division Post Office Box 6898 JBER , Alaska 99506-0898 Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S . Army Corps of Engineers representative . If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension, modification , or revocation . I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above-referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions . Signature of Permittee Date US Army Corps of Engineers ® Alaska District CREDIT PURCHASE RECEIPT Compensatory Mitigation Type: Mitigation Bank { ) In-Lieu-Fee Program {X) Credit Provider: The Conservation Fund Service Area or Name of Mitigation Site: Permit Number: POA-2009-445 USACE Project Manager: Janet Post Project:Hydroelectric Power Waterway: Yerrick Creek Impact Site Location: Latitude 63.370r, Longitude -143.6198° CREDITS PURCHASED Credit Type Number of Credits Marine/Estuarine 0.00 Palustrine 0.00 Riverine/Stream 1.20 Lacustrine 0.00 TOTAL CREDITS PURCHASED 1.20 Glen D. Martin, Alaska Power & Telephone Co Date Mr. Chris Little, AK Real Estate, TCF Date BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Regulatory Division POA-2009-445 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA REGULATORY DIVISION P.O. BOX 6898 JBER, ALASKA 99506-0898 MAY 1 5 2012 Alaska Power and Telephone Company Attention: Mr. Glen Martin Post Office Box 3222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your May 1, 2012, request for a Department of the Army (DA) permit for construction of a hydroelectric diversion dam and associated infrastructure in the waters of Yerrick Creek. It has been assigned file number POA-2009-445, Yerrick Creek, which should be referred to in all future correspondence with this office. The project area includes sites within sections 1,2,11 & 14, T. 18N., R. 09E, and section 36, T. 19N., R. 09 E., USGS Tanacross B-6, Copper River Merdian; Latitude 63.34529 and Longitude -1A3.6295° W. The project site is approximately 20 miles west of Tok, Alaska and near Milepost 133.5 of the Alaska Highway. Your proposal includes a water diversion dam and appurtenances, buried penstock creek crossing, single lane bridge, tailrace terminus, temporary cofferdams and bridges, temporary creek diversions, excavation and backfill, creek and bank restoration activities, etc. in waters of the U.S. to produce year-round hydroelectric power to the local area. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a DA permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S., including jurisdictional wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). The Corps defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Based on our review of the information you furnished and available to me, I have determined the above property contains waters of the U.S., including wetlands, under the Corps' regulatory jurisdiction. The Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) form can be located at our website at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg/ApprovedJDs.htm under the above file number. This AJD is for Yerrick Creek and all its adjacent wetlands. Corps of Engineers permit authorization is necessary because your project would involve a discharge of dredged (excavated) and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. under our regulatory jurisdiction. This approved jurisdictional determination is valid for five (5) years from the date of this letter, unless new information supporting a revision is provided to us before the expiration date. Enclosed is a Notification of www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg -2- Administrative Appeal Options and Process and Request for Appeal form regarding this approved jurisdictional determination (see section titled "Approved Jurisdictional Determination"). Based upon the information and plans you provided, we hereby verify that the work described above, which would be performed in accordance with the plans (sheets 0-1), dated January 2010, sheet 2B dated March 2010, sheets 3-5 dated January 2010, and sheet 6A dated March 2010, is authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 17, Hydropower Projects. NWP No. 17 and its associated Regional and General Conditions can be accessed at our website at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg. Regional Conditions D, E, & F apply to your project. You must comply with all terms and conditions associated with NWP No. 17, as well as with the special conditions listed on the original verification: 1. All fill slopes and disturbed areas subject to erosion and siltation of Yerrick Creek or project area wetlands shall be stabilized against erosion byrevegetation either by seeding and/or transplanting species native to the immediate area. Erosion control with materials such as coir logs, straw wattles, silt fencing, fiber biodegradable mats, straw mulch etc. must be used as best management practices. 2. Migratory birds, their nests, eggs, nestlings, etc. will not be taken (disturbed in any manner) . Vegetation must not be cleared between 5 May and25 July of any year, unless the area to be cleared has been surveyed for birds and their nests, by a qualified biologist, and the land clearing orhuman disturbances can be conducted without a take. 3. Yerrick Creek bed and banks disturbed by construction of temporary diversion channels, cofferdams, bridges, or other disturbances must be restored to original conditions upon removal of the temporary fills or structures. 4. No equipment or machinery shall be refueled, lubricated, or maintained while in any active or inactive channels of Yerrick Creek. All debris will be cleaned from work areas authorized by this permit immediately following construction. 5. Earthen materials shall not be stockpiled adjacent to Yerrick Creek to prevent erosion and siltation of creek waters. 6. Trenching of Yerrick Creek for installation of the penstock crossing shall not occur within any flowing or open waters. The diversion must result in a dry work area. The creek bed must be restored with the large cobble rocks existing in the channel for armor protection prior to diverting the creek waters back to the original channel over the buried penstock. The creek bed and banks shall have the original elevation and contours re-established. 7. Reasonable precautions and controls must be used to prevent incidental and accidental discharge of petroleum products or other hazardous substances into any water or wetland areas. Clean-up materials shall be available on-site and used immediately to contain any spills of such -3- pollutants. Fuel storage and handling must not be conducted in Yerrick Creek or wetland areas. Equipment leaking fuel, oil, hydraulic oil, etc. must not be operated in aquatic areas and be repaired prior to use in or near Yerrick Creek. 8. As compensatory mitigation for the permanent net loss of approximately 0.8 acre of Yerrick Creek area, the permittee shall pay an in-lieu fee to The Conservation Fund, or other Corps' In-lieu Fee Program sponsor, prior to initiating construction in waters of the U.S., at the ratio of 1 acre of creek to 1.5 acre preserved. The Conservation Fund will provide the cost per debit to the permittee at the time of payment. Proof of the in- lieu fee payment shall be provided to the Corps prior to beginning construction in the waters of Yerrick Creek. Further, please note General Condition 30 requires that you submit a signed certification to us once any work and required mitigation are completed. Enclosed is the form for you to complete and return to us. This verification is valid for two years from unless the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. the date of this letter, It is incumbent upon you Nothing in this letter excuses you from compliance with other Federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Please contact me via email at janet.l.post@usace.army.mil, by mail at the address above, by phone at (907) 753-2831, or toll free from within Alaska at (800) 478-2712, if you have questions or to request paper copies of the jurisdictional determination, regional and/or general conditions. Enclosures Sincerely, Janet L. Post Regulatory Specialist US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Permit Number: POA-2009-445 Enclosure Name of Permittee: Alaska Power and Telephone Company Date of Issuance: MAY 15 2012 Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to Ms. Janet L. Post at the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Regulatory Division Post Office Box 6898 JBER, Alaska 99506-0898 Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation. I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above-referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. Signature of Permittee Date APJ PROJECT LOCATION T18N, R9E, Section 1, 2, 11, 14 T19N, R9E, Section 36, CRM USGS Tanacross (B-6) Mile Post 1333.5 Alaska Hwy Approximately 20.~Miles West of Tok _j .. _,.r·· ... ~ *~J -v? _,---:~)~ -c- o.~-L .-.,._ ' ~~~~h $ I ... ··•·· •· . . ··-·· ............ .::!!; ...................... . LEGEND YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY PROJECT LOCATION AND FEATURES .... ... ... .. SHEET NUMB£11: 0 2010 ACCESS ROAD & ADJACENT PEifSTI~[-1' (100' Rlght-ot-\Yayj GENERAL PLAN SCALE 1" = 500 FT 1. TANACROSS, INC.: SURfACE ESTATE; DOYON INC.: SUBSURFACE ESTATE_ . UOAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING AND AERIAl. PHOTOGRAPHY BYAEiiW-ME"rR~r:;. ALASI(A, 200&. TtlE IIIAP PROJJ:CT IS ALASKA STATE PLANE, ZONE 2, NAD83, VI!RnCAL DATUM IS REFERENCED TO ORTHQMETRIC HEIGHTS, GEOID Oil. 3. SHADED AREAS REPRESENT DEUNEATED WETLANDS, INCLUDING THE FLLODPLAIN •. WETLANDS DEliNI!AWN 8Y HDR ALASKA, INC., 2009. APJ I HALF -SIZE DRAWING I AI.A$l<A POWER &: TELEPHONE COMPANY '-----------------------------·-····-·· GENERAL PLAN AND \IICINITY MAP ·-·····=-···-· 50 0 ~ , .. = 50' APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN --.. ·--' /./_···-···- ---;--· 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) 36" GROUTED KFILL WITH BOULDERS ARRANGED FOR FISH PASSAGE ORIGINAL ___ L_ GROUND ------- OUTLET CHANNEL, 2% MIN. SLOPE ROUGHNED CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' 1 2" CONCRETE FACING 1 36" GROUTED ROCK FILL 12" CONCRETE FACING TRASH NORMAL W.S EL 2220 COMPACTED ROCK FILL 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) SPILLWAY SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' INTAKE DRAIN SLUICE GATE TOP OF CONCRETE EL 2225 ---=----- TRASH RACK ORIGINAL GROUND 40 FT NORMAL W .S EL 2220 sz ---- COMPACTED . ROCKFILL 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) LEFT ABUTMENT DIKE SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' WOOD-FRAME CONTROL ROOM HDPE PENSTOCK DISMANTLING JOINT INTAKE SECTION BUTTERFLY VALVE 1" = 20' APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY SCALE 1 "=20' YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE SECTIONS ·---,----...,,....-.-----------.-~ ·"------:---- 3 }{{/ EMBANKMENT, WETLAND BOUNDARY -.,-""7"""""f. /) BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN SCALE 1"=200' 10 0 10 ~ I 1" = 1 o· 0 40 1 .. = 40' 200 0 200 1" = 2oo· RAILSPAN BRIDGE DECK (3 -70' SPANS) ELEV. 2050.74 ORIGINAL GROUND CONCRETE PIER APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 20 FT I 80 FT ORIGINAL ROCK FILL SCALE 1"=10' CONCRETE ENCASEMENT 400 FT 48" BEDDING BURIED PENSTOCK SECTION SCALE 1"=10' REINFORCED EARTH ABUTMENT (I.E. HILFIKER WELDED WIRE WALL) DELINEATED WETLAND --+-+~ ~---,---(FLOODPLAIN) I c~~~~~~L 1· -~ BRIDGE PROFILE PIER FOOTING, TYP. (8'x8.5'x20' CONCRETE FILLED CONTAINER) SCALE 1"=40' YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN AND SEC~ONS DATE: JANUARY, 2010 4 ) i '\ ' RAILS PAN BRIDGE POWERHOUSE ~ ACCESS ROAD }<7 POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE PLAN SCALE 1"•200' ORIGINAL GROUND~--- 1" = 10' APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY OUTLET CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1"=10' . 200 1" = 200' YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE PLAN AND SECTIONS /r---./ / 400 FT 5 50 I / / COBBLE OR SANDBAG TO SECURE MEMBRANE IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE 9' MAX. 0 50 t.J-u-W I 1" ::;: 50' APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY SCALE 1 "=50' • ..........- GRAVEL AND SAND- FILLED SUPERSACK, APPROX. 3'x3'x3' EA. COFFERDAM SECTION SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 100 FT 4 0 4 8 FT I kJ ~ I I 1/4" ::;: 1'-0" YERRICK CREEK DATE: t.4ARCH, 2010 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE PENSTOCK COFFERDAM NO. PLAN AND SECTION 6 A A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for fmal authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the District Engineer. Your objections must be received by the District Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the District Engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or, (c) not modify the permit, having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the District Engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for fmal authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the Preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. www.poa.usace.army.mil/ reg/ REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. In order for a Request For Appeal to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the Notice of Process. It is not to submit a For form to the Division office if do not to the decision. If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal process please contact: Janet Post, Regulatory Specialist Alaska District Corps of Engineers CEPOA-RD-N P.O. Box 6898 JBER, AK 99506-0898 (907) 753-2831 (800) 478-2712 (toll free in AK) If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also contact: Commander USAED, Pacific Ocean Division A TIN: CEPOD-PDC/Thom Litche Building 525 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 To submit this form, mail to the address above RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of site · and will have the in all site Telephone number: Signature of appellant or agent. BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY PO BOX 3222-193 OTIO STREET June 16,2010 Brad Meiklejohn Alaska Representative The Conservation Fund 2727 Hiland Road Eagle River, Alaska 99577 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 (360) 385-1733 -(800) 982-0136 FAX (360) 385-5177 Re: POA-2009-445, Yerrick Creek, in-lieu fee Dear Mr. Meiklejohn: Per our discussions and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) request for an in-lieu fee for impacts to wetlands at the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (20 Miles west of Tok, Alaska at Mile Post 1339, Alaska Hwy), enclosed is a check in the amount of $8,700. Please provide confirmation to us that you have received this in-lieu payment so that we may inform the COE that this task has been completed. Sincerely, 'f>.1L Glen D. Martin (360) 385-1733 X 122 (360) 385-7538 fax glen.m(alaptalaska.com I DATE 161912010 I CHECKNUMBER ICHK106706 INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE DESCRIPTION GROSS AMOUNT DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT C052510 5/25/2010 Vchr: V0158099 $8,700.00 $0.00 $8,700.00 PRINT BATCH VENDOR CODE PAY TO NAME NET TOTAL 2,276 CONSlO CONSERVATION FUND, THE $8,700.00 DOCUMENT HAS A COLORED BACKGROUND. SECURITY FEATURES LISTED ON BACK. ··•·····'c6nANK ·. • .·· ; Transaction Provided by Wachovia Bank, N.A. GreenviUeSC \ nATE I 6/9/2010 JcHECKNOMBER I Check void after 90 days CHK1067061 PAY Eight thousand seven hundred and 00 I 100 Dollars Only *******..,.**•*•******************"'********************"'****"'************~ TO THE ORDER OF CONSERVATION FUND, THE 2727 HILAND ROAD EAGLE RIVER, AK 99577 I AMOUNT I $8,700.00 BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] THE CONSERVATION FUND BRAD A. MEIKLEJOHN ALASKA REPRESENTATIVE 2727 HILAND ROAD EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA 99577 (907) 694-9060 BRADMEIKLEJOHN@AOL.COM May 5, 2010 Mr. Glen Martin Alaska Power and Telephone Company Post Office Box 3222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Estimate of In-lieu Fee Compensatory Mitigation for POA-2009-445, Yerrick Creek, Alaska Dear Mr. Martin, This letter is in response to your request for an estimate of the appropriate in-lieu fee for compensatory mitigation associated with your project. It is our understanding that your project will impact approximately 0.8 acres of wetlands along Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok, Alaska. The new rule on compensatory mitigation, published in April 2008 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provides the legal framework for mitigating wetland loses for all regions of the country, including Alaska. The guiding principle of “no net loss” of the nation’s water resources is reiterated and reinforced in the new mitigation rule. The Conservation Fund has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Alaska District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to receive in-lieu fee compensatory mitigation. As provided by that agreement, The Conservation Fund uses the mitigation fees to purchase and protect high-priority wetlands. However, preserving some wetlands does not mitigate the loss of others and does not fulfill the “no net loss” mandate. As a result, the 2008 rule requires that mitigation ratios higher than 1:1 be used where preservation is used as mitigation. We understand that compensatory mitigation will be required by the Army Corps of Engineers at a 1.5:1 ratio for this project. As a result, the compensatory mitigation for this project will be sufficient to purchase and permanently preserve 1.2 acres of similar wetlands. In calculating an estimate of the appropriate in-lieu fee, we consider the following: 1. The costs to purchase land, including but not limited to the purchase price, appraisals, surveys, title research, legal expenses and closing costs. 2. The costs to own and manage land in perpetuity, including but not limited to physical and legal defense, property taxes, stewardship fees and management expenses. When we evaluated the cost to purchase1.2 acres of wetlands in the project vicinity, we looked at recent real estate transactions, current real estate listings, and property values in the project area. We selected a base mitigation rate of $5,000 per acre to calculate the mitigation fee. The land costs for1.2 acres of wetlands are $6,000. Transaction costs are estimated at $1,500 and the long-term stewardship costs are calculated at 20% of the land costs, or $1,200. Thus, the total in-lieu fee for this project is determined to be $8,700. Payment can be made by sending a check to: The Conservation Fund 2727 Hiland Road Eagle River, Alaska 99577 Please contact me at (907) 694-9060 if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Brad Meiklejohn Alaska Representative BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] «Mi) This notice of authorization must be ~ conspicuously displayed at the site of work. United States Army Corps of Engineers Yerrick Creek A permit to: CONSTRUCT A HYDROPOWER FACILITY: DIVERSION DAM & APPURTENANCES; BURIED PENSTOCK CREEK CROSSING; SINGLE LANE BRIDGE; TAILRACE TERMINUS; TEMPORARY COFFERDAMS & BRIDGES; TEMPORARY CREEK DIVERSIONS; EXCAVATION & BACKFILL; CREEK & BANK RESTORATION ACTIVITIES. has been issued to: ALASKA POWER AND TELEPHONE COMPANY on: 30 APRIL 2010 and expires on: ~1~8~MA~R~C=H~2~0~1~2 __________________ ___ Address of Permittee: P.O. BOX 3222, PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368, TELEPHONE 360-385-1733, GLEN MARTIN. Permit Number: POA-2009-445 ENG FORM 4336, Jul 81 (33 CFR 320-330) (Proponent: CECW-0) District Commander HARRY A. BAIJ JR. PROJECT MANAGER REGULATORY DIVISION EDITION OF JUL 70 MAY BE USED REPLY TO ATTENTION OF' Regulatory Division POA-2009-445 Mr. Glen Martin DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA REGULATORY DIVISION P.O. BOX 6998 ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898 ~,PR 3 0 2010 Alaska Power and Telephone Company Post Office Box 3222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your application for a Corps of Engineers permit for construction of a hydroelectric diversion dam and associated infrastructure in the waters of Yerrick Creek. The permit application has been assigned file number POA-2009-445, Yerrick Creek, which should be referred to in correspondence with us. The project area includes sites within sections 1, 2, 11 & 14, T. 18 N., R. 09 E., and section 36, T. 19 N., R. 09 E., U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Tanacross B-6, Copper River Meridian; approximate latitude 63.34529°N and longitude 143.62954°W. The project site is approximately 20 miles west of Tok, Alaska and near Milepost 133.5 of the Alaska Highway. Yerrick Creek flows north and empties into the Tanana River. Your proposal includes a water diversion dam and appurtenances, buried penstock creek crossing, single lane bridge, tailrace terminus, temporary cofferdams and bridges, temporary creek diversions, excavation and backfill, creek and bank restoration activities, etc. in waters of the U.S. to produce year-round hydroelectric power to the local area. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a Department of the Army (DA) permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S., including jurisdictional wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). The Corps defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Based on our review of the information you furnished and available to me, I have determined the above property contains waters of the U.S., including wetlands, under the Corps' regulatory jurisdiction. The Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) form can be located at our website at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg/ApprovedJDs.htm under the above file number. This AJD is for Yerrick Creek and all its adjacent wetlands. Corps of Engineers permit authorization is necessary because your project would involve a discharge of dredged (excavated) and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. under our regul_atory jurisdiction. -2- This approved jurisdictional determination is valid for five (5) years from the date of this letter, unless new information supporting a revision is provided to us before the expiration date. Enclosed is a Notification of Administrative Appeal Options and Process and Request for Appeal form (see section titled "Approved Jurisdictional Determination"). Based upon the information and plans you provided, I verify the work described above for construction of a hydropower facility in waters of the U.S., which would be performed in accordance with the enclosed DA permit application and plans, sheets 0-1 dated January 2010, sheet 2B dated March 2010, sheets 3-5 dated January 2010, and sheet 6A dated March 2010, is authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 17, Hydropower Projects. NWP 17 and its associated Regional and General Conditions can be accessed at our website at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg. Regional Conditions D, E, & F apply to your project. You must comply with all terms and conditions associated with NWP 17. I have enclosed a paper copy of the NWP 17 General and Regional Conditions for your use. In addition to the NWP conditions, you must comply with the following special conditions: 1. All fill slopes and disturbed areas subject to erosion and siltation of Yerrick Creek or project area wetlands shall be stabilized against erosion by revegetation either by seeding and/or transplanting species native to the immediate area. Erosion control with materials such as coir logs, straw wattles, silt fencing, fiber biodegradable mats, straw mulch etc. must be used as best management practices. 2. Migratory birds, their nests, eggs, nestlings, etc. will not be taken (disturbed in any manner) . Vegetation must not be cleared between 5 May and 25 July of any year, unless the area to be cleared has been surveyed for birds and their nests, by a qualified biologist, and the land clearing or human disturbances can be conducted without a take. 3. Yerrick Creek bed and banks disturbed by construction of temporary diversion channels, cofferdams, bridges, or other disturbances must be restored to original conditions upon removal of the temporary fills or structures. 4. No equipment or machinery shall be refueled, lubricated, or maintained while in any active or inactive channels of Yerrick Creek. All debris will be cleaned from work areas authorized by this permit immediately following construction. 5. Earthen materials shall not be stockpiled adjacent to Yerrick Creek to prevent erosion and siltation of creek waters. 6. Trenching of Yerrick Creek for installation of the penstock crossing shall not occur within any flowing or open waters. The diversion must result in a dry work area. The creek bed must be restored with the large cobble rocks existing in the channel for armor protection prior to diverting the cre·ek waters back to the original channel over the buried penstock. The creek bed and banks shall have the original elevation and contours re-established. -3- 7. Reasonable precautions and controls must be used to prevent incidental and accidental discharge of petroleum products or other hazardous substances into any water or wetland areas. Clean-up materials shall be available on-site and used immediately to contain any spills of such pollutants. Fuel storage and handling must not be conducted in Yerrick Creek or wetland areas. Equipment leaking fuel, oil, hydraulic oil, etc. must not be operated in aquatic areas and be repaired prior to use in or near Yerrick Creek. 8. As compensatory mitigation for the permanent net loss of approximately 0.8 acre of Yerrick Creek area, the permittee shall pay an in-lieu fee to The Conservation Fund, or other Corps' In-lieu Fee Program sponsor, prior to initiating construction in waters of the U.S., at the ratio of 1 acre of creek to 1.5 acre preserved. The Conservation Fund will provide the cost per debit to the permittee at the time of payment. Proof of the in-lieu fee payment shall be provided to the Corps prior to beginning construction in the waters of Yerrick Creek. Further, please note General Condition 26 requires that you submit a signed certification to us once any work and required mitigation are completed. Enclosed is the form to complete and return to me. I have also enclosed a Notice of Authorization to post at the work site. This verification will be valid for two years from the date of this letter, unless the NWP authorization is modified, suspended, or revoked. The NWPs, as a program, are scheduled to be re-issued/modified in 2012. To continue your Yerrick Creek hydroelectric construction for 2012, you will need to re-apply for the nationwide permit. Note any changes to your hydropower construction plans at that time. Nothing in this letter excuses you from compliance with other Federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Please contact me by e-mail at harry.a.baij@usace.army.mil, by mail at the address above, by phone at 907-753-2784, or toll free from within Alaska at 800-478-2712, if you have questions. For additional information about our Regulatory Program, visit our web site at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg. Enclosures Sincerely, Harry A. Baij Jr. Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Permit Number: POA-2009-445 Enclosure Name of Permittee: Alaska Power and Telephone Company Date of Issuance: April 30, 2010 Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to Mr. Harry A. Baij Jr. at the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Regulatory Division CEPOA-RD-N Post Office Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506-0898 Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation. I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above-referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. Glen Martin Date Alaska Power and Telephone Company -.-· APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003 (33 CFR 325) Expires December 31, 2004 The Public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average I 0 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate oflnformation Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (071 0-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issu~d. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS) ~APPLICATION NO. ,2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED ,4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED ofi-J.oo? -14 5' C.£POI1-te 0 -N :J.s-:r~, 20/0 ;6 t11~r 2..01 o (ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT) 5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) Alaska Power & Telephone Company 6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 7. AGENT'S ADDRESS P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368 7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. WI AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE a. Residence a. Residence b. Business (360) 385-1733 x122 b. Business II. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project 13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable) Yerrick Creek (tributary of Tanana River) Not applicable 15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Southeast Fairbanks Census Area Alaska COUNTY STATE 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Tl8N, R9E, CRM, Sections 1, 2, 11, and 14; Tl9N, R9E, CRM, Sections 36 Diversion at N63°20'42.3", W143°37'44.3"; Bridge and Penstock crossing at N63°21 '32.5", W143°37'42.2", Powerhouse at N63°22'51.8", W143°36'28.2". ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE The Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, located on Yerrick Creek, is approximately 20 miles west ofTok, at about Mile Post 1333.5 on the Alaska Highway. 18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features) To construct and operate a run-of-river hydroelectric project at Y errick Creek. This project will have a concrete-and- rockfill diversion structure (about 300 feet long and up to 10 feet high) across Yerrick Creek to divert water into a 15,000 feet long pipeline ("penstock") that will transport the water to a powerhouse located about 1,500 feet upstream from the Alaska Highway, where a hydraulic turbine and generator will generate up to 1,500 kW of electricity. An excavated channel ("tailrace") about 700 feet long will discharge the water back to the creek. A 3.0 mile long access road will be constructed from the Alaska Highway to the diversion structure, which will be adjacent to the penstock for most of its length. A power cable will be buried adjacent to the access road between the powerhouse and the Alaska Highway. Please see the attached figures. 19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions) The project's purpose is produce electricity from a renewable resource, thereby reducing the use of fossil fuels to provide power and heating in the communities ofTok, Tetlin, Dot Lake, and Tanacross. These communities currently rely 100% on diesel fuel for generating electricity. This project would stabilize and reduce electric rates for these communities. AP&T expects to begin work in the spring of2010 and complete work by the end of2012. USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason(s) for Discharge In its planning and design for this project, AP&T considered several alternative routes for the required long penstock. Since Yerrick Creek is a very active stream, AP&T wants to minimize the exposure of the penstock to potential flood damage. However, alternatives that kept the penstock completely out of the flood plain were found to require an excessive amount of excavation in very difficult terrain. The proposed design is considered to be optimal, in that the structures in the flood plain are limited to the diversion structure, one buried penstock crossing, one bridge, and a small section of the tailrace channel. The route avoids all mapped wetlands except those associated with these few structures in the flood plain. Approximately half of the penstock/access road route is located on terraces outside of the Yerrick Creek valley, and the other half is at the base of the valley walls in forested upland well away from the active creek channel. Initially, AP&T will construct a pioneer road from the Alaska Highway to the diversion area, including a temporary bridge over Yerrick Creek at the location of the buried penstock river crossing. This temporary bridge will consist of modified railroad cars supported on gabion abutments, with rockfill approaches. A similar temporary bridge will be installed at the diversion structure to provide access to a staging area on the west side of the creek. These temporary bridges will be removed prior to operation of the project. The railroad car bridge structures will be located above the ordinary high water elevation, so they are not included in the dredge-and-fill volumes in Section 21. A borrow pit in the powerhouse area will be used for any roadfill needed for the pioneer road. A source of excellent road material is located in a landslide deposit along the access road alignment about 2 miles from the Alaska Highway. This deposit will be used for raising the grade of the access road and for other required structural backfill. Neither material source is located in the flood plain or mapped wetlands, and so the excavations are not included in the dredge-and-fill volumes in Section 21. Staging areas will be created in relatively flat upland terrain near the powerhouse and diversion structure. These areas (which include the borrow pit described above) will be cleared of vegetation and used for screening and stockpiling of borrow material, as well as storage of construction materials and equipment. Appropriate erosion control measures, such as silt fencing, straw bale check dams, and sediment detention ponds, will be used to prevent release of silt-laden drainage to Y errick Creek. The diversion structure will include an embankment on the left (west) abutment, a spillway in the active stream channel, an intake on the right (east) abutment, and an embankment between the intake and the east valley wall. The embankments and ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE the spillway will be rockfill structures with upstream concrete facing. The concrete facing will be continuous with a cutoff wall to limit seepage. A grout curtain may also be required, depending on the amount of seepage observed following construction. The spillway will have two sections, a 30' section to provide fish passage (as required by the Alaska Department ofFish and Game) and a 100' section to pass flood flows. The downstream face of both sections of the spillway will be constructed oflarge grouted rockfill; the slope ofthe fish passage section will be 10:1, whereas the slope of the flood flow section will be at 4:1. The crest of the fish passage section will be 1' lower than the flood flow section. The intake will be a concrete structure with a trashrack, gates, and fishscreen as required by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The intake will be designed to facilitate the potential construction of a desanding facility if that becomes necessary. The spillway will be constructed after the intake, with the stream temporarily diverted through the intake by a supersack cofferdam and excavated channel. The dredge-and-fill volumes in Section 21 below are for the spillway and cofferdam, which are the only parts of the diversion structure in the mapped floodplain. The potential desander will also be located entirely in uplands. The potential grout curtain is not included in the dredge-and-fill volumes, as it will be entirely subsurface. The upper half of the penstock will be 48 inch diameter HOPE pipe, and the lower half will be 42 inch ductile iron pipe. The buried penstock river crossing will be in the HOPE portion, with the pipe encased in reinforced concrete. The top of the pipe will be a minimum of 6 feet below the current stream level, and the excavation will be backfilled with large rock to resist erosion during flooding. The length in the floodplain is estimated to be 200 feet. The single lane bridge over Yerrick Creek will have three 70-feet-long spans, with each span consisting of two parallel modified railroad cars. The abutments on each end will consist of welded wire walls and rockfill; one will be located outside of the flood plain, and one will be on the edge of the flood plain. The two center supports will be reinforced concrete piers setting on reinforced concrete footings. The footings will be 20 foot shipping containers filled with concrete and buried so the bottoms are at least 12 feet below the existing stream level to resist erosion during flooding. Installation ofthe footings will require a temporary diversion of the stream by a supersack cofferdam and diversion channel. The dredge and fill calculations in Section 21 below are for the center support footings and piers, cofferdam, one abutment, and the temporary diversion, which are the only parts of the bridge in the mapped floodplain and below the ordinary high water level. The powerhouse will discharge into a pond created in the borrow pit for the access road. An excavated channel will return the flow from the pond to the Yerrick Creek floodplain; nearly all of this excavated channel will be in uplands. This section of the floodplain is dry except during very high floods, however, it is mapped as wetlands. In order to provide a reliable tailrace, it is estimated that about 200 feet of the floodplain will need to be reworked (excavation of high sections and placement of that same material in the floodplain downstream). ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE 21. Type(s) ofMaterial Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards Diversion Structure (Permanent Structure) Excavation for temporary diversion channel... ........................ 320 cubic yards Cofferdam for temporary diversion ......................................... l25 cubic yards Excavation ............................................................................... 1 ,000 cubic yards Reinforced concrete ................................................................. 200 cubic yards Rockfill .................................................................................... 670 cubic yards Grouted rockfill ....................................................................... 770 cubic yards Buried Penstock River Crossing (Permanent Structure) Excavation for temporary diversion channel... ........................ l, 750 cubic yards Cofferdam for temporary diversion ......................................... 90 cubic yards Excavation for penstock .......................................................... 1,950 cubic yards 48" diameter HDPE pipe (buried under creek) ....................... 93 cubic yards (200' length) Reinforced concrete encasement of buried HDPE pipe .......... 260 cubic yards Rockfill (backfill of excavation) ............................................. I ,600 cubic yards Single Lane Bridge (Permanent Structure) Excavation ............................................................................... 780 cubic yards Reinforced concrete bridge center supports ............................ 140 cubic yards Rockfill (backfill of excavations) ............................................ 520 cubic yards Welded wire wall ..................................................................... 700 square feet (exposed face) Tailrace (Permanent Structure) Excavation ............................................................................... 490 cubic yards Fill ........................................................................................... 370 cubic yards Temporary Bridges (Temporary Structures) Gabion abutments .................................................................... 112 cubic yards Rockfill (approach embankments) .......................................... 600 cubic yards 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions) Diversion Structure ....................................................................... 0.60 acres Buried Penstock River-Crossing ................................................... 0.20 acres Single Lane Bridge ....................................................................... 0.15 acres Tailrace ......................................................................................... 0.05 acres Excavations will be made with tracked excavators of various sizes and capacities. Backfill will be by excavators, with compaction by plate compactors, tamping with excavator buckets, or hoe-mounted vibrators. Hauling of earthwork materials will be by standard dump trucks. Concrete will be delivered by standard concrete trucks from commercial sources or from an on-site batch plant. 23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes __ _ No :{_ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK 24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list). Property owners for this site are: and Alaska Department of Natural Resources 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699 Attn: Chris Milles, Natural Resource Mgr III Tanacross, Inc. ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE P.O. Box 76029 Tanacross, AK 99776 25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Desciibed in This Application AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED ADF&G Habitat Permit FH09-III-0182 September 2008 August 5, 2009 DNR Land Lease October 2007 DNR Water Rights May 2007 Won't be approved until after operations start. *Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain pennits 26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. IS/ Glen D. Martin Janua!)' 18, 2010 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE PROJECT LOCATION . T18N, R9E, Section 1, 2, 11, 14 T19N, R9E, Section 36, CRM USGS Tanacross (B-6) Mile Post 1333.5 Alaska Hwy Approximately West of Tok SCALE IN MILES 0 1 .APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 2 .... .... _ .. :"' LEGEND D TANACROSS, INC (VILLAGE CORPORATION OWNED LAND) YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION AND FEATURES ....... ..... .... ..... DATE: JANUARY, 2D1D PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 0 \TO COT LAKE, \ 19 MILES ·'· -· \~.;:<·~, .. ~j:~--''i:i?.~ '~~---, ~. , : 'I · ::"v·· -· ·_"tv /i'/ 1·~·1, GENERAL PLAN SCALE 1" =500FT .--t· . :_.;.·.··.· .. · ' -< : ·· ... ' ·-~ ~ ;;: . .. BRIOOE&,:,";.,,'32S:~· ;}/''---_w'<Y:~~·· -J~ y DIVERSI~~~~R3:~ • • J W1o43"3r44.3 ;. "•· . v.il · . ~~- il.l. ' :··1/ f VICINITY MAP SCALE 1"-4000 FT >. ' .. ':-(· ·;( .............. TO TOK, 16 MILES NOTES: 1. TANACROSS, INC.: SURFACE ESTATE; DOYON INC.: SUBSURFACE 2. LIDAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY AERO-METRI" ALASKA, 2008. THE MAP PROJECT IS ALASKA STATE PLANE, ZONE 2, NAD83. VERTICAL DATUM IS REFERENCED TO ORTHOME,.RIC HEIGHTS, GEOID 06. 3. SHADED AREAS REPRESENT DEUNEATED WETLANDS, INCLUDING THE FLLODPLAIN: WETLANDS DELINEATION BY HDR ALASKA, INC., 2009. 1 HALF ...:sizE oRAwiNG 1 APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 'u LiJ d _ + >OOjFT , ... :>UU a~ tJ aio 1Goy rr ,-.. 6000' GENERAL PLAN AND VICINITY MAP / WETLAND-· BOUNDARY ------Cl COFFERDAM, SEE SHEET 6 ~~;;;:::::;~::;:::::ft FOR SECTION 50 0 w-t.-W , .. = 50' AP&T AlASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN MARCH, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: 2 8 12" CONCRETE FACING 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL 36" GROUTED kUCKFILL WITH BOULDERS ARRANGED FOR FISH PASSAGE ORIGINAL ____ r_GROUND --- GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) OUTLET CHANNEL, 2% MIN. SLOPE ROUGHNED CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' 12" CONCRETE FACING COMPACTED ROCK FILL 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) SPILLWAY SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' INTAKE DRAIN SLUICE TOP OF CONCRETE EL 2225 TRASH RAKE NORMAL W.S EL 2220 -------- ORIGINAL GROUND 0 20 40FT NORMAL W.S EL 2220 sz 12" CONCRETE FACING COMPACTED . ROCKFILL 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) LEFT ABUTMENT DIKE SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' WOOD-FRAME CONTROL ROOM HOPE PENSTOCK DISMANTLING JOINT INTAKE SECTION BUTIERFLY VALVE 1" = 20' AP&T ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY SCALE 1 "=20' YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE SECTIONS DATE: JANUARY, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSU NO. 3 ----,---·-··-------------~-------. ------~---------------· ----·---···---·- I ~ BURIED /, P1E~STOCK EMBANKMENT, TYP. WETLAND BOUNDARY ---r---r-t J I f ( i ( t/); I I I . RAILS PAN BRIDGE DECK BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN SCALE 1"=200' SCALE 1"=10' ORIGINAL GROUND 10 0 10 20 FT CONCRETE ENCASEMENT ~~~~tJ~t.il~t~~W --1--' ROCK FILL 1" = 10' 40 0 40 1" = 40' 200 0 200 1" = 200' RAILSPAN BRIDGE DECK (3 -70' SPANS) ELEV. 2050.74 ORIGINAL GROUND CONCRETE PIER APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 80 FT 400 FT 48" HOPE PIPE BEDDING BURIED PENSTOCK SECTION SCALE 1"=10' REINFORCED EARTH ABUTMENT (I.E. HILFIKER WELDED WIRE WALL) DELl NEA TED WETLAND -----1---1--..-! ~---(FLOODPLAIN) L , ... ACTIVE•! BRIDGE PROFILE SCALE 1"=40' PIER FOOTING, TYP. (8'x8.5'x20' CONCRETE FILLED CONTAINER) DATE: YERRICI< CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT JANUARY. 2010 BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN AND SECnONS PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 4 ) __ ----------.--------.----:----------.. ----·------·--··---------·------ ) \ I I \ BORROW Cf_ BURIED PENSTOCK -1800----- \ \ ~'"- \ Cf_ ACCESS ROAD RAILS PAN BRIDGE POWERHOUSE ( \ ) L~ '-----... ~ WETLANDS (FLOODPLAIN) \ -~-r POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE PLAN SCALE 1"=200' OUTLET CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1"=10' 10 0 10 20 FT 200 0 200 400 FT I ~ 1------4 1" = 10' 1" = 200' DATE:: .AP&T YERRICK CREEK JANUARY, 2010 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY ---------------------------------- HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE SHEEr NUMBER: ISSUE NO. PLAN AND SEC~ONS 5 -------------------. -----------------.-------··:·- 50 DIKE /-~···· .. ~>>/ . ~-~ / ..,...-::.:.--, .·J_,- ~- COFFERDAM PLAN AT BURIED PENSTOCK CROSSING COBBLE OR SANDBAG TO SECURE MEMBRANE 9' MAX. IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE SCALE 1"=50' GRAVEL AND SAND- FILLED SUPERSACK, APPROX. 3'x3'x3' EA. ----'---~O~l====::::...l~~~ sTREAMBED COFFERDAM SECTION SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 0 50 100 FT 4 0 4 8 FT ~ I I ~ ~ I I 1" = 50' 1/4" = 1'-o" YERRICK CREEK DATE: AP&T MARCH, 2010 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE ALASKA POWER & PENSTOCK COFFERDAM NO. TELEPHONE COMPANY PLAN AND SECllON 6 A ---------- - --------- ------------------------ --- A cant ower and Tele hone Company File Number POA 2009 445 Date 30 A__l"nl2010 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) B PERMIT DENIAL c XX APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY illRISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E THIS REQUEST FOR APPEAL FORM MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 29 JUNE 2010 A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the District Engineer. Your objections must be received by the District Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the District Engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or, (c) not modify the permit, having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the District Engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the Preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. In order for a Request For Appeal to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the Notice of Process. It is not to submit a For form to the Division office do not ect to the decision. If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal process you may contact: Harry A. Baij Jr. Alaska District Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division, CEPOA-RD-N Post Office Box 6896 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 907-753-2784 harry.a.baij@usace.army.mil If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also contact: Commander USAED. Pacific Ocean Division ATTN: CEPOD-PDC/Linda Hihara-Endo. P.E. Building 525 Fort Shafter, Hl 96858-5440 To submit this form, mail to the address above RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations ofthe project site during the course ofthe appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of site · · · and will have the · in all site · · · Date: Telephone number: Signature of appellant or agent. BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION OFFICE OF HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY March 24, 2010 File No.: 3130-1RRD 3330-6 TNX-211 3330-6 TNX-212 SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR 550 WEST 7'" AVENUE, SUITE 1310 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3565 PHONE: FAX: (907) 269-8721 (907) 269-8908 SUBJECT: Yerrick G-eek Hydroelectric Project, Determinations of Eligibility for TNX-211 and TNX-212 MarkS. Plank USDA, Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Ave, S.W. Washington DC 20250-0700 Dear Mr. Plank, The Alas\-a State Historic Preservation Office received your correspondence regarding the above mentioned project on January 13, 2010 and we have reviewed the report titled 2009 OJJural &arrces Suney if Alaska Pooer & Tdeplxn!'s Y enUk Creek Hylrrxfatric Prqoct rear MP 1334 if the Alaska Hi#wzy, Alaska by Molly Proue and Burr Neely. We concur with your finding that TNX-212 is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion A for its association with the construction of the Alaska Highway. The period of significance is between 1941 and 1944 and the level of significance is local. We do not concur with your finding that TNX-211 is eligible for listing the National Register of Historic Places under criterion D. Because the route has been redesigned to avoid TNX-212, we concur that this project will have no adverse effect on historic properties. Please contact Tracie Krauthoefer at 907-26-8722 if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer JEB:tak •• '•J Printed on Recycled P;1per BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY PO BOX 3222 -193 OTIO STREET June 8, 2010 Re: LIS 27271 Material Sales PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 (360) 385-1733-(800) 982-0136 FAX(360)385-5177 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project AndrewCyr Natural Resource Specialist II Alaska Department ofNatural Resources Division ofLand, Mining and Water Conveyances Team, Adjudication of Material Sales 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 Dear Mr. Cyr: This Letter of Intent is for a Material Sales for use of rock at the Y errick Creek Hydroelectric Project, which anticipates breaking ground this summer. Enclosed are a Development and Reclamation Plan and related diagrams for extracting rock from a site near Y errick Creek. Also included with this letter is a check in the amount of $100 as a processing fee. If you have any questions, please contact us at the information below. Sincerely, Project Manager (360) 385-1733 x122 (360) 385-7538 fax glen.m@aptalaska.com Enc. (as stated) Page | 1 1 INTRODUCTION The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has selected the Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) as a finalist in its High Energy Cost Grant Program to construct the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (20 Miles west of Tok, Alaska at Mile Post 1339, Alaska Hwy). The granting of funds by RUS is a federal action subject to environmental impact review, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and RUS’s NEPA implementing regulations, Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR Part 1794, as amended. RUS has determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be prepared for this Project. This EA provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts, which may result from RUS’s action related to this proposal. RUS Bulletin 1794A-601, “Guide for Preparing an Environmental Report for Electric Projects Requiring an Environmental Assessment,” was used as guidance in the preparation of this EA. In addition to fulfilling its obligations under NEPA, this EA also documents RUS’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. Figure 1: Map of Proposed Project Area Page | 2 Figure 2: Proposed Project Features LENOTHOH ~O:O!:'::r~':" ~~S:~!~~ AREA ON STATE OF TOTAL A.REA. ACRES P*RCE.L TANACROSS/DOYON tSEE. NOTE t) JUT ALASKA L.ANO, ACRE ESTATt ($E.e HOT£ I) =T~;:~=TH~ ..... 21.t BURlED P£NSTOCK Rlvt:R CR0$$1NG (50' R.(IN W!Oflil --~ERHOUSE,lOWER 5TAGINO AND BORROW AR~ -... rAIUtA.CEA.MI!A. -... UPPER BORROW AREA. CTEMPORAR'I) --UPPER STA.OtNO AREA (TEMPORARVI - -OIV£R:$10tt --TOTAL t,$)0 "·' NQIES;, 1. TANACROSS, INC.: SURFACE £$TAT!: DOYON, INC.: SU8$UAFACE ESTATE 2. lENGTHS AND AREAS ARf. BASED ON Alf UNSURVEYED PROJECT OOUNOARY AN.O Af'PAOXIMAft! PUBLIC L.ANO SURvEY 80UHOA~IES AHD AM SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 3. UOAR TOPOGRAPHIC *PPING AHD AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY A1!RO.M£TAIC AI.ASKA., 2001. <4-. POWER CADL(S WU,.I. BE BURatD IN TliE ACCE.$5 ROAD RtGtfT.Qf-. ,i,'· WAY> NO AOOmONAL AREA&S RCOUIRED fOR TRA.NSf.USSION ~£$. $CAl,.~; 1"'"500' ~-LOC DRAWN: lOC :'tl!·•cii.I'I'P'~ ..... 15.1 )7.0 ..... '·' " --·~ --. .• -... . .. -u 5.1 -'·' u 7.690 ··~ .... [HALF-SIZE DRAWING] ACCESS ROAD AND AOJACENT PE.NSTOCK (100' RaOKT.Of.wAY) 't'ERRIC.K CREEK ACnVE CtiAHH£L .APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY ·&m-r ~.~ r j' .. GENERAL PLAN AND PREUMINARY RIGHT OF WAY _.,.., Page | 3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AP&T plans to construct a 1.5 megawatt (MW) “run-of river” hydroelectric facility that would supply renewable energy to the communities of Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot Lake, Alaska. The facility could potentially supply 100% of the communities' energy demand during high flow periods (typically June and July). During the remainder of the year, only part of the load would be met. AP&T’s hydrology studies indicate there will be sufficient flow during the extremely cold winter month for the Project to operate, although at substantially reduced output. While not getting these communities completely off of diesel generation year round, the Project will be a significant first step for the area to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels. The Project will consist of:  Approximately 3 miles of single-lane access road from the highway to the diversion site. The clearing width for the road will generally be 40-50 feet, but may be somewhat wider in areas of significant ground slope due to the widths of cuts and fills. The right-of-way (ROW) width will be 100 feet to provide for minor field adjustment of the alignment if necessary. The road will cross Yerrick Creek at one location about 2 miles from the highway; the bridge will be about 200 feet long.  A diversion structure at about El 2220, just below the confluence of the main stem of Yerrick Creek and two tributaries. The diversion structure will include a concrete-faced rockfill dike on the west abutment, a concrete-faced rockfill spillway and roughened channel outlet in the central portion, and a concrete intake on the right abutment.  A buried pipeline approximately 15,000 feet in length (known as a penstock) using 42-inch HDPE pipe for the upper 55% and 36-inch ductile iron pipe for the lower 45%. The penstock will cross Yerrick Creek just above the bridge noted above; it will be buried below the stream channel and encased in concrete.  A powerhouse approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the Alaska Highway where the water will pass through a single turbine to the tailrace. Other powerhouse equipment will include the 1500 kW generator, controls and switchgear, bridge crane, and pad-mount transformer. The powerhouse structure will be a metal building set on a concrete foundation.  A tailrace consisting of a pond and 800 feet of excavated canal to an existing overflow channel of Yerrick Creek. The pond will be formed in a borrow pit excavated to provide fill material for the access road. The pond is expected to develop a stable ice cover in winter that will allow the turbine to discharge without glaciering.  A transmission line consisting of 1,500 feet of 12.4 kV underground transmission cable from the powerhouse to the highway and 10 miles of upgraded 12.4 kV overhead transmission line adjacent to the highway (see Figure 3), Based on the hydrology studies conducted to date (see Appendix 9.2), AP&T has selected a hydraulic capacity for the Project at 60 cfs, which will provide a generating capacity of 1,500 kW. The streamflow will only exceed the hydraulic capacity during the early summer (typically June and July), or about 10%-20% of the year. This is a relatively low exceedence level for a run-of-river project, but AP&T believes the high capacity is Page | 4 worthwhile because of the high cost of diesel generation. Before pipe and generating equipment is ordered, AP&T will reevaluate the hydraulic capacity. It could be reduced to perhaps 50 cfs, which would allow a reduction in the penstock diameter from about 42 inches to 36 inches. The environmental impacts would be virtually the same with a smaller capacity, therefore the conclusions of this EA would not change. During times of high flow, water will flow over the diversion structure. If the overflow is less than about 30 cfs, it will all pass through the roughened channel outlet to allow fish passage. At higher rates of overflow, water will also pass over the spillway. The duration of this overflow will be intermittent, and of course will vary with the amount of snow accumulated in the basin; during low runoff years there may be only a very short period of overflow, but during high runoff years the overflow period may start in June and extend into August. Figure 3: Transmission Line Features The proposed Project requires state and federal permitting prior to project commencement of construction. The permits needed are: (1) a Department of Natural Resource (DNR) land lease permit; (2) DNR water rights permit; (3) Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) habitat permit; and, (4) a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit. In addition, besides being on State of Alaska managed lands, this project is also on Tanacross, Inc. lands (private), which is a Native corporation. The diversion structure and approximately 7,000 feet of the penstock and access road will be on state land, the remainder of the penstock and access road as well as the powerhouse and buried portion of the transmission line will be on private land. The size of easement needed on state land will be approximately 28.4 acres. The size of easement needed on private land will be approximately 27.7 acres. POWERHOUSE N63°22'51.8"--............. W 143'36'28.2 " ~ -IN (f / is ?f fS -':: BRIDGE & PEN STOCK N63'21'32 .5" 6 W143'37'42 .2"~~ ::: LOCATION DIVERSION S T R UCTUR E : OF MATERIAL SALE N63'20'42~3"~~ -· W143'37'44 .3" AT BORROW SI"FE ' Section 11" SW1 /4, NE1/4 VICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 4000 FT 1--+--+------------+-+----+----ISCALE: AS SHOWN ACCESS ROAD & ADJACENT PENSTOCK (100' Right-Of-Way) GENERAL PLAN SCALE 1" = 500 FT -......_TO TOK, 16 MILES NOTES : YERRICK CREEK ACTIVE CHANNEL YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -1 . TANACROSS , INC .: SURFACE ESTATE ; DOYON INC .: SUBSURFACE ESTATE 2. LIDAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY AERO-M ALASKA, 2008. THE MAP PROJECT IS ALASKA STATE PLANE, ZONE 2, NAD83. VERTICAL DATUM IS REFERENCED TO ORTHOMETRIC HEIGHTS, GEOID 06. 3. SHADED AREAS REPRESENT DELINEATED WETLANDS , INCLUDING THE FLLODPLAIN . WETLANDS DELINEATION BY HDR ALASKA, INC., 2009. DESIGNED: 1--+--+------------+-+---+----1 LDC DRAWN: LDC I HA LF -SIZE DRAWING I APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY t:-.xJ 5r I" • 500' 8000 0 8000 1-d-d I ,. = 8000' POSSIBLE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ALIGNMENT STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING , LAND, & WATER BORROW SITE LOCATION FOR MATERIAL SALES SHEET NUMBER : 1 VICIN ITY M AP SCALE 1" = 4000 FT ,_ ALASKA HVf! _ _ _ ~ • .-r ----~~----• POV•'eRHOOSE e:" NS322'S1 r-.... ... Wt4S)8'21.2'" .,. -..._ r; 0~ I Plr ~ """""'·-·=· ~ NIJJ21'U~-..... W14.33T<tZZ" • ~LOCATlON DIIIEIISION$TRVCTVRE OF MATERIAL SALE wt": ~! ~-AT BORROW SITE Sec·tion 11, SW 114, NE1/4 GRAY AREAS ARE WETLANDS . . -A·~ ... ...,.....,.- _Fairbanks VERRICK CREEK--._{~ .Anchorage DIAGRAM ..... Sec .(s) .11..._ Township1illi, Range.J:!L. Meridia n..Q.BM Scale : 1"=- SHEEil A OF ___9 File # AP&T ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 1 00 0 1 00 200 FT ~~~~ld~o~tiiW --1~.....-1 ~~l~r.l.ft ESTIMATED EXTENT OF YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DNR MA lERIALS SALE PLAN DETAIL BORROW EXCAVATION (40,000 CY) JUNE, 2010 PROJECT NU!jBER: SHEET NUMBER : ISSUE NO. 2 A 0+00 2J ~ ,.~ ~~ 1+00 .. ~ .. 1+75 2+00 ,.~ 2+75 3+00 ,.~ l+75 HOD «~ «" 5+00 .. ~ .. , 6+00 8+2li h75 7+00 ,. ' 7 +75 B+OO .. . 1 +75 9+00 .. . .. , 10 00 2300 ~ --........ -... --.... r-- .......... -r--- ----22 ............. ............... 2200 1--fTl ....... --~--.-ESllt.IA1ED EXTENT OF c -r--.... BORROW EXCAVATlO~ \ 0 CD .............. (40,000 CY) < ...... ....___ \ ACCESS ROAD -+-" c ...... __ ,_ I EMBANKMENT 0 ,........ > 0 ""· --~ \ 1/ PENl K YER RICK ( REEK Q) :J r.... .. ::::::--..... ACTI E CH NNEL w .......... .......... ~ --~ r BACKFil L / I 2.1 ~ ' -='-Jr 2100 ...... r---PENSTOCK / '· 2 !'-... ' ~--·--·--·-~ ......... ----/ ESllLA"":b~~IDrr~~~O~~ _/ / SLOPE TO _j DRAIN 2.0 0+00 ~ ,.~ ~ 1+00 .. ~ .. 1+75 2+00 2+2~ ~ 2 +75 3+00 J+25 -J +75 -4-+00 «~ -wo 5+00 om ~ 5 +75 5+00 8+2~ -.. , 7+00 ,., '~ ,., B+OO ,., ·~ .. , 9+00 ,., ·~ ,., 10 2000 00 m!111Jti1,6 RnAROW mD::IIH LAI!IDISI.Il£ m"IIMIT SCALE 1"--4-0' 0+00 ~ IHiiO ~~ HOD .. .. 1+71i 2+00 '" 2+7~ J+OO '" HJ& HOD " wo 5+00 om IH71i 6+00 u n h7~ 7+00 '" ' 1 .. 71i B+OO '" U71i 9+00 U 21i . h 71i 10 00 2JOu .............. 2300 "" .............. .........._ -.........._ r-~~EXISTlNG GROUND ............... ~ v / .............. ~ r EXISTING ERODED SLOPE APPROX. 1.5H:1V 220 ............... 200 I ACCESS ROAD ...... ESTit.IATlED EXTENT OF r EMBANKMENT fTl " BORROW EXCAVATION l I c -['........ (40,000 CY) I / PENSTOCK 0 CD BACKFlLL +i < .........._ \ v I I I /P~NSTOCK YER~ CK C EEK c ~ ---0 !:::!: ACTIV CHA NEL > 0 I'..... \ I lj / ..----SEDIMENT POND Q) :J EMBANKMENTS w ...... r "" I I I// / v / ...... 2.10 /' ~ ll l / v /v 2100 ............ / "' EXCAVATlE TO BURIED __/ "----J'-CULVERT VAllEY WALL (EST. SLOPE 1.7H:1V) 2.00 0+00 ~~ "t'C ~ 1+00 " a~g "' 2+00 "' "~ "' 3+00 J"f2' ff~ Jt7' HOD «" «~ m o 5+00 5-fZ, ff~ 5t7' 6+00 11'2~ tf75 7+00 ?-f25 H~ 1f75 B+OO 81'25 .. ~ &t75 9+00 11'2 5 Of~ lf75 10 2000 00 SECTION II --m ~ 1 E:l WALL sm r::uL-vmr m liiEIIMEHI egHa SCALE 1"=-4-0' SCALE: YERRICK CREEK DATE: As Shown AP&T June, 2010 DESIGNED: I HALF-SIZE DRAWING I HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: LOC is;-d i BD(T DRAWN: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE LOC ALASKA POWER & 1" = 40' DNR MATERIALS SALE NO. ISSUE CHECKED: TELEPHONE COMPANY SEC110NS 3 A NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY CHK APPR BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] Department of Fish and Game DIVISION OF HABITAT Fairbanks Regional Office 1300 College Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-1551 Main: 907.459.7289 Fax: 907.459.7303 FISH HABITAT PERMIT FH14-III-0XXX ISSUED: XXXX XX, 2014 EXPIRES: Abandonment and Reclamation of Stream Channel Mr. Glen Martin Project Manager Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 3222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Martin: RE: Hydroelectric Stream Diversion and Water Impoundment Yerrick Creek Sections 1, 2, 11 & 14, T18N, R9E; Section 36, T19N, R9E; CRM. Pursuant to AS 16.05.841 (Fishway Act), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Habitat, has reviewed Alaska Power and Telephone Company’s (AP&T) proposal to construct and operate a hydroelectric project (stream diversion and dam on Yerrick Creek), previously authorized under Fish Habitat Permit FH09-III-0182, which expired in 2012. A description of your project and some plans and diagrams were contained in your subsequent application for a Section 404 permit from the Department of the Army dated May 1, 2012. AP&T has requested a reissuance of their Fish Habitat permit as the original has expired and some project specifics have changed. Project Description AP&T proposes to construct diversion structure and submerged penstock intake in Yerrick Creek to divert flow approximately 15,000 feet downstream via a 48 inch diameter pipe to a power generator. From the generator, the diverted water will flow into a stilling basin and will then be diverted back to a currently abandoned channel of Yerrick Creek. Excess water at the dam will be bypassed through a constructed roughened fish passage channel. In addition to the construction above, a one lane bridge, up to 210 feet long, will be constructed across Yerrick Creek along the access road between the power plant and diversion structure. It is not anticipated that the diversion structure will be capable of fully diverting all water in Yerrick Creek into the diversion pipe; however, AP&T’s plans specify that all water below 60 cfs will enter the penstock. Mr. Glenn Martin 2 Date: FH14-III-0XXX Fish Resources Yerrick Creek is used by resident fish species throughout the year. Resident Dolly Varden char are present throughout much of Yerrick Creek including in the upper reaches of the creek and immediately up and downstream from the current proposed tailrace; Dolly Varden occur up and downstream from the diversion dam. Arctic grayling juveniles and adults also use Yerrick Creek in the bypass reach apparently throughout the year despite the fact that portions of the creek go dry during periods of the ice-free season. Adult Arctic grayling in spawning condition have been identified in upper Yerrick Creek just downstream from a potential barrier to fish passage several miles upstream of the diversion location. Slimy sculpin and round whitefish also have been identified in Yerrick Creek. Slimy sculpin have only been identified downstream from the proposed tailrace. Determination Your project as proposed will obstruct the efficient passage and movement of fish. In accordance with AS 16.05.841, project approval is hereby given subject to the project description above and the following stipulations: (1) Upon completion of use the diversion dam and all associated structures, including the bridge, shall be removed from Yerrick Creek and the channel restored such that the free and efficient passage of fish is ensured. Agreed. (2) The fish screen/intake system shall be designed to minimize the potential for the impingement, entrapment and entrainment of fish. Design, construction, and maintenance plans shall be submitted for approval via permit amendment prior to construction. Agreed. (3) As a contingency, AP&T shall install at depth in the diversion dam a pipe sufficient to carry 10 cfs that can function under manual control to allow for some water flow into the bypassed reach if the dam is 100% successful at blocking flow. A gate may be a better method to release water, particularly if it is only used during open-water season. Could this stipulation be more generic? Water will only be required to be released through the pipe during the open-water season during periods when the Haines Pipeline crossing of Yerrick Creek goes dry. The dam will not be 100% successful in blocking flow Recommendation: We recommend that AP&T conduct concurrent discharge measurements at or near the proposed location of the diversion, midway along the proposed by-pass reach, and in the active channel near the proposed tailrace. More frequently measured hydrology data are also recommended from at or above the diversion to provide some understanding of what percentage of the open-water season Yerrick Creek flow is above 60cfs. These data could eliminate the need for Stipulation #2 or could indicate at least that implementation and use of the drainage system would likely be unnecessary. We will get the discharge measurement from three locations as close in time as possible and make an effort to get a summer, fall, and spring flow measurement starting this month (August 2014). (4) The roughened highwater bypass channel (flows above 60 cfs or when the penstock is not using water) shall be designed, operated and maintained to provide the free and efficient passage of fish both up and downstream through the structure. Recommendation: We recommend that the roughened channel outlet be repositioned away from the take-off point of the diversion pipe, preferably to the opposite side of the diversion. We are designing the spillway to be on the opposite side from the intake. (5) The outlet channel/tailrace shall be directed to the active channel of Yerrick Creek. Plans and specifications for the outlet channel/tailrace shall be submitted for approval via permit Mr. Glenn Martin 3 Date: FH14-III-0XXX amendment prior to construction. The tailrace should discharge into the nearest channel, whether currently active or not because if we pass through an inactive channel to reach an active channel, during flood the tailrace could be damaged or plugged by bedload moving downstream through the once inactive channel. This would become a maintenance issue requiring us to go into the creek bed perhaps on an annual basis with mechanized equipment. (6) The bridge shall be designed, installed and maintained to pass fish. Plans and specifications for the bridge shall be submitted for approval via permit amendment prior to construction. Agreed. You are responsible for the actions of contractors, agents, or other persons who perform work to accomplish the approved project. For any activity that significantly deviates from the approved plan, you shall notify the Division of Habitat and obtain written approval in the form of a permit amendment before beginning the activity. Any action that increases the project's overall scope or that negates, alters, or minimizes the intent or effectiveness of any stipulation contained in this permit will be deemed a significant deviation from the approved plan. The final determination as to the significance of any deviation and the need for a permit amendment is the responsibility of the Division of Habitat. Therefore, it is recommended you consult the Division of Habitat immediately when any deviation from the approved plan is being considered. For the purpose of inspecting or monitoring compliance with any condition of this permit, you shall give an authorized representative of the state free and unobstructed access, at safe and reasonable times, to the permit site. You shall furnish whatever assistance and information as the authorized representative reasonably requires for monitoring and inspection purposes. This letter constitutes a permit issued under the authority of AS 16.05.841 and must be retained on site during project activities. Please be advised that this determination applies only to activities regulated by the Division of Habitat; other agencies also may have jurisdiction under their respective authorities. This determination does not relieve you of your responsibility to secure other permits; state, federal, or local. You are still required to comply with all other applicable laws. In addition to the penalties provided by law, this permit may be terminated or revoked for failure to comply with its provisions or failure to comply with applicable statutes and regulations. The Division of Habitat reserves the right to require mitigation measures to correct disruption to fish and game created by the project and which was a direct result of the failure to comply with this permit or any applicable law. Any questions or concerns about this permit may be directed to me. Sincerely, Cora Campbell, Commissioner BY: William A. Morris, Regional Supervisor Division of Habitat Alaska Department of Fish and Game ecc: WAM/wam BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] November 27, 2012 William Morris Regional Supervisor Division of Habitat Alaska Department of Fish & Game 1300 College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701-1551 Re: Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Fish Habitat Permit – FH09-III-0182 Issued: August 5, 2009 Expires: December 31, 2012 Dear Mr. Morris: Our permit, FH09-III-0182, is set to expire on December 31, 2012, for the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project). We would like to renew this permit so that we will be able to move forward when construction is slated to begin. The Project design is still the same as was indicated in 2010 correspondence with you; figures enclosed. The Project would consist of an impoundment dam that would bypass up to 60 cfs of water through a 48-inch diameter, 15,000-foot-long penstock, with bypassed flows reentering Yerrick Creek after passing through a hydro powerhouse located near the Alaska Highway. Based upon your previous review of our plans, you gave us the following stipulations: 1. Prior to construction, civil plans for construction of the impoundment dam and the excess flow bypass shall be submitted to ADF&G for review and approval. 2. The excess flow bypass shall be constructed as a roughened channel that permits all flow in excess of 60 cfs to remain in the middle bypass reach and that provides fish passage, both upstream and downstream when flow reaches or exceeds 60 cfs. 3. Prior to construction, plans shall be submitted to provide for fish exclusion at the penstock intake. These plans must provide for an effective screen opening that does not exceed ¼ inch. William Morris 2 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project November 27, 2012 FH09-III-0182 At this time we are awaiting the results of an energy analysis for the Tok area that initially focused on Biomass as an alternative energy solution for the area. This analysis has been expanded to include other energy alternatives such as hydropower and the draft report is coming out sometime in December. This analysis will help determine if Yerrick Creek Hydro is the best solution for the area, or is part of a multiple energy solution. This is why the above requested plans have not been completed and submitted to you. If however the Project is determined to be feasible as a standalone or as a part of a group of energy resources, we will want to move forward in a timely manner to the construction phase; which could begin in 2013 or 2014. This is why we wish to maintain the permit. We would appreciate your support in this permit renewal. If you have any questions, please contact me using the information below. Sincerely, Glen D. Martin Project Manager (360) 385-1733 x122 (360) 385-7538 fax glen.m@aptalaska.com Enc. (as stated) PROJECT LOCATION T18N, R9E, Section 1, 2, 11, 14 T19N, R9E, Section 36, CRM USGS Tanacross (B-6) Mile Post 1333.5 Alaska Hwy Approximately 20 Miles West of Tok SCALE IN MILES ....... .... .... .... .... .... ----.... --.............. .. Ta nacross YERRICK CREEK-----.L --Tok LEGEND D TANACROSS, INC (VILLAGE CORPORATION OWNED LAND) ........ VICINITY MAP SCALE 1 II = 4000 FT 1---+---+-----------+-+---+---ISCALE: AS SHOWN DESIGNED: ~4--4----------+-~4-~ LDC DRAWN: LDC ACCESS ROAD & ADJACENT PENSTOCK (100' Right-Of-Way) GENERAL PLAN SCALE 1 II = 500 FT 3. SHADED AREAS REPRESENT DELINEATED WETLANDS, INCLUDING THE FLLODPLAI WETLANDS DELINEATION BY HDR ALASKA, INC., 2009. I HALF -SIZE DRAWING I ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 500 0 500 I 000 FT w-u-tJ I I I" ~ 500' 8000 0 8000 16000 FT ~I I I" ~ 6000' ~; . .,_----~. _ _..T19N R9E YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AND VICINITY MAP POSSIBLE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ALIGNMENT DATE: JANUARY, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: I NO. 1 .. _ .. -WETLAND -.. BOUND ARY / ----------([ COF FERD AM, SEE SH EET 6 ~~~~~:fi FOR SECT ION 50 0 50 ~~·~:::~-~~tW::-.--1-- 1" = 50 ' AP&T ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY LEF T ABU TMENT DIKE li ... __ .,( ~C[ BURI ED YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN .. _../'" ././~···-.. --- PROJ ECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO . 2 B 12" CONCRETE FACING 12" CONCRETE FACING 36" GROUTED ROCKFILL WITH BOULDERS ARRANGED FOR FISH PASSAGE 12" BEDDING COMPACTED ROCK FILL CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) ROUGHNED CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' 12" BEDDING CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL ORIGINAL r GROUND -·~--- OUTLET CHANNEL, 2% MIN. SLOPE 12" CONCRETE FACING CREST -~-EL 2225 12" BEDDING COMPACTED ROCK FILL CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) GROUT CURTAIN (AS REQUIRED) SPILLWAY SECTION LEFT ABUTMENT DIKE SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' SCALE 1 "=20' TOP OF CONCRETE EL 2225 WOOD-FRAME CONTROL ROOM INTAKE DRAIN SLUICE GATE TRASH RAKE NORMAL W.S EL 2220 ---------- TRASH RACK 20 ORIGINAL GROUND 0 20 1" = 20' AP&T ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 40 FT BELLMOUTH TRANSITION INTAKE SECTION SCALE 1 "=20' HOPE PENSTOCK DISMANTLING JOINT 48" BUTIERFLY VALVE DATE: YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT JANUARY, 2010 INTAKE STRUCTURE SECTIONS PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 3 ROAD EMBANKMENT, TYP. RAILS PAN BRIDGE DECK / ~ su~~o'l\ PENSTOCK I I I BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN SCALE 1"=200' SCALE 1''=10' ORIGINAL GROUND 10 0 10 20 FT CONCRETE ENCASEMENT W::~Jt~Jt~Jt:~Jt:-.J .... --1---1 ROCK FILL 1" 1 o· 40 0 40 1" = 40' 200 0 200 1" = 200' RAILSPAN BRIDGE DECK (3 -70' SPANS) ELEV. 2050.74 ORIGINAL GROUND CONCRETE PIER APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 80 FT 400 FT 48" BEDDING BURIED PENSTOCK SECTION SCALE 1"=10' REINFORCED EARTH ABUTMENT (I.E. HILFIKER WELDED WIRE WALL) ELEV, 2053.41 DELINEATED WETLAND --+---+~ !-..---(FLOODPLAIN) I~~~~~~~~ I ~ FABRICATED STEEL CAP BRIDGE PROFILE PIER FOOTING, TYP. (8'x8.5'x20' CONCRETE FILLED CONTAINER) SCALE 1 "=40' YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BRIDGE AND PENSTOCK PLAN AND SECTIONS DATE: JANUARY, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 4 -~~~~~~~~-~----~~-~~~-----~~~~-~----~--~~ ----~ ~--~ ~--------~~---- ) BORROW PIT ~ BURIED PENSTOCK -1800-- RAILS PAN BRIDGE OUTLET CHANNEL WETLANDS (FLOODPLAIN) POWERHOUSE ~ ACCESS ROAD POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE PLAN SCALE 1"=200' 4' MIN. OUTLET CHANNEL SECTION SCALE 1"=10' 10 0 10 20 FT 200 0 200 ~ I I 1" = 1 0' 1" = 200' YERRICK CREEK AP&T HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER & POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE TELEPHONE COMPANY PLAN AND SEC~ONS / .. ··--... .· <... (/.>·· •. · .. _ '1:'7./ ·-· ./( 400 FT DATE: JANUARY, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: ISSUE NO. 5 COFFERDAM I COFFERDAM PLAN AT BURIED PENSTOCK CROSSING COBBLE OR SANDBAG TO SECURE MEMBRAN E 9' MA X. IMPERME AB LE MEMBRANE SCALE 1 "=50' GRAVEL AND SAND- FILLED SUPERSACK, APPRO X. 3'x3'x3' EA. ~--_ ______::[==J~~~-LL.__ STREAMBED COFFERDAM SECTION SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 50 0 50 100 FT 4 0 4 8 FT ~ I I ~ ~ I I 1'' = 50' 1 /4" = 1'-0" YERRICK CREEK DAT E: AP&T MARCH, 2010 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: IS SUE ALASKA POWER & PENSTOCK COFFERDAM NO. TELEPHONE COMPANY PLAN AND SEC110N 6 A BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DIVISION OF HABITAT SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR 1300 COLLEGE ROAD FAIRBANKS, AK 99701-1551 PHONE: (907) 459-7289 FAX: (907) 459-7303 FISH HABITAT PERMIT FH09-III-0182 ISSUED: August 5, 2009 EXPIRES: December 31, 2012 Mr. Glen Martin Project Manager Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 3222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Stream Diversion and Water Impoundment Pursuant to AS 16.05.841, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Habitat has reviewed your proposal to construct an impoundment dam and bypass up to 60 cfs of water through a 48-inch diameter, 15,000 feet long penstock, with bypassed flows reentering Yerrick Creek after passing through a hydro power house located near the Alaska Highway. Civil design for construction of the diversion or bypass of excess water around the diversion were not provided. Yerrik Creek support resident fish species (e.g., Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden) in the area of your proposed activity. The resident Dolly Varden population is located in the headwaters and middle bypass reach. Arctic grayling are predominately in the lower reach below the diversion reentry point, but also have been documented in the middle bypassed reach. Based upon our review of your plans, your proposed project may obstruct the efficient passage and movement of fish. In accordance with AS 16.05.841, project approval is hereby given subject to the following stipulations: 1. Prior to construction, civil plans for construction of the impoundment dam and excess flow bypass shall be submitted to ADF&G for review and approval. Mr. Glen Martin 2 August 5, 2009 FH09-III-0182 2. The excess flow bypass shall be constructed as a roughened channel (see enclosed example) that permits all flow in excess of 60 cfs to remain in the middle bypass reach and that provides fish passage, both upstream and downstream. 3. Prior to construction, plans shall be submitted to provide for fish exclusion at the penstock intake. These plans must provide for an effective screen opening that does not exceed ¼ inch. The permittee is responsible for the actions of contractors, agents, or other persons who perform work to accomplish the approved plan. For any activity that significantly deviates from the approved plan, the permittee shall notify the Division of Habitat and obtain written approval in the form of a permit amendment before beginning the activity. Any action taken by the permittee, or an agent of the permittee, that increases the project's overall scope or that negates, alters, or minimizes the intent or effectiveness of any stipulation contained in this permit will be deemed a significant deviation from the approved plan. The final determination as to the significance of any deviation and the need for a permit amendment is the responsibility of the Division of Habitat. Therefore, it is recommended that the Division of Habitat be consulted immediately when a deviation from the approved plan is being considered. This letter constitutes a permit issued under the authority of AS 16.05.841 and must be retained on site during the permitted activity. Please be advised that this approval does not relieve you of the responsibility of securing other permits, state, federal or local. This permit provides reasonable notice from the Commissioner that failure to meet its terms and conditions constitutes violation of AS 16.05.861; no separate notice under AS 16.05.861 is required before citation for violation of AS 16.05.841 can occur. In addition to the penalties provided by law, this permit may be terminated or revoked for failure to comply with its provisions or failure to comply with applicable statutes and regulations. The Division of Habitat reserves the right to require mitigation measures to correct disruption to fish and game created by the project and which was a direct result of the failure to comply with this permit or any applicable law. The recipient of this permit (permittee) shall indemnify, save harmless, and defend the Division of Habitat, its agents and its employees from any and all claims, actions or liabilities for injuries or damages sustained by any person or property arising directly or indirectly from permitted activities or the permittee's performance under this permit. However, this provision has no effect, if, and only if, the sole proximate cause of the injury is the Division of Habitat negligence. Please be advised that this determination applies only to activities regulated by the Division of Habitat; other departments and agencies also may have jurisdiction under their respective authorities. This determination does not relieve you of the responsibility for securing other permits, state, federal, or local. You are still required to comply with all other applicable laws. Mr. Glen Martin 3 August 5, 2009 FH09-III-0182 Sincerely, Denby S. Lloyd, Commissioner BY: Robert F. “Mac” McLean, Regional Supervisor Division of Habitat ecc: Chris Milles, ADNR, Fairbanks Larry Bright, USFWS, Fairbanks NOAA Fisheries, Anchorage Al Ott, ADF&G, Fairbanks Fronty Parker, ADF&G, Delta Tom Taube, ADF&G, Fairbanks Jeff Gross, ADF&G, Tok RFM/mac • Roughened-Channel Design The most mportant aspects to cons,der 1!! the des;gn of roughened channe:s are: bed stab,rty. average veloc.ty at Oows up to the f:sh-passage design flow, turbulence, and bed poros1ty. Maximum average veloCity and twbulence are the basic cnteria of toe Hydraul c Design Option. Tre bed materials mside the culvert create resistance to flow. Their stability is fundamental to the permanence of that structure. Toe effect of turbulence on fish passage can be approx'J:~ated by limiting the energy-dtss:pation factor (EDF). In order for low Oows to reman on the surface of the cll!vert bed and not percolate through a course. pe:rneable substrate. bed porosity must be min mlzed. (Each of these constderations are discussed 1n subsequent sectons of th1s chapter.) The fo!lowtng is an outline of a sug.gested procedure for designif"g roughened channels. These steps are itetative: several trials may have to be calculated to determine a ftr-al acceptable deSign, (Addit;onal details of these steps are provided n subsequent sect•ons.) I. Assume a cu;vert span. Begin wrth a culvert bed w dth equal to the stream width Habitat considerations shou:d be included at th1s phase 1n t~e design process. In part.cuiar, debris and sediment transport and the passage of contarget f,sh and wi'd 'fe should be considered, all of which benef1t from 1ncreased structure width. 2. Size the bed materia! for stability on the basis of unit discharge for the I 00-year event (Q 100 ), as OeJtl1ned -n Step 3. 3. Check to see :hat the argest bed-part,cle s1ze, as determined by stab1~ity, is less than one quarter the culvert span. If not if': Crease the culvert w:dth, which decreases the un1t G1sct"<.arge ar:d. 'n tum, the particle size. 1. Create a bcd-matcnal gradaton to control ooros1ty Chdpter 6). 5. Cafcu:ate the average ve:oCity anG EOF at the fish-passage des•gn flow on the bas,s of dvert w1dth and the bed D9~ from gradat1on In Step 4 above. If the '-"IOCJty or EDF exceed the criteria, increase tbe culvert spart lJes;gn of Rend Culverts for F1sh Passage 77 6. Check the culvert capaoty for extreme flood events. This step 1S not detai!ec: here, but ;t :s required, ;ust as it is for any new culvert or retrofit culvert des gn that affects tre cu~verfs capacity. Tre width of the culvert bed should be at leost the W'dth of the natura! stream channel as defined in th1s gu1deline. Woen the w•dth of the bed 1n roughened channel culverts is less than the bee' w.dth of the stream, hydraulic cond:tions are more extre.-.,e and the channel ,nside the culvert ·S more :ikely to scour. As gradient and unit discharge increase, the best way to ach1eve stab111ty and passability tS to increase the culvert width, Bed Stability In or-Cer for the roughened channe: to be reliable as a fisb-passage fad!ity, it is essential t'rat the bed materia! remain in the ci"annel more or less as placed. It is expected that the bed mater:al wiil shift sligotly but not move any appreciable distance or !eave the culvert. Bed stability :s essential because these channels are not aHuviaL S•nce they are often steeper and more confined than the natural, upstream channel, recruitMent of :arger mater.~ cannot be expected. Any channel~bed eleMents lost wdl not be replaced, and the entire channel w:ll degrace. The I 00-year fiood is suggested as a h;gh structural- design now. Bed-stability considerations, rather than fish-passage veloc~ies, usually domnate the design of the bed- matenal composition. It ,s;, therefore, recommended that bed--stab1lity analys:s be perforr-ed before calcu:at ng the fs..,·passage veloCity. At t~1S time, there are no procedures that can determine the specific size of bed matenal needed to meet the angle of slope and volume of discharge for steep, roughened channels. In the case of the stream-s1mulation des1gn option we can use natural analogs or models of natural systems to rei,ably est1mate bed-matenal s1ze (see Chapter 6}. Roughened channels, on the other hanG, increase hydraulic forces due to con5triction and ,ncreased slope. Unfortunately we do not have a factor to relate the tvvo and must resort to other methods, Four general methods are rev ewed here: the U.S. Army Corps of Eng:neers steep slope nprap design, the cnt1cal-shear-stress method, the U.S. Anmy Corps ofEng1neers Oood· control-channel method, and • emp1rical methods. • • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riprap Design U.S" Ar'1y Corps ofEng;neers reference, EM 1110-2- 160 I, Sect1on e., steep slope rprap des;gn. gives th's equation (Equaton I) for cases where slopes range from two to 20 percent and unit diScharge is low" DJO 1.955°55 '( I .25q)m '" g Equation I Where: o, the dimension of the intermediate ax1s of the 30th percent;:e particle s = the bed slope q = the un~ discharge g = acceleration due to gravity. The recommended value of I "25 as a safety factor may be increased. The study from wh ch this equation was denved cautions against us:ng it for reck s;zes greater that 6 inches. 1 -:-he equation predicts sires reasonab y in hypothetical s:tuations above this, but it has not been tested in real apphcations, The U.S" Army Corps of Engineers recommends angular rock with a uniform gradation (085 /0 15 = 2)" This material is not preferred for use in a fish~passage structure (see the sec:t::on on bed porosity, below). An approximate factor to scale D:10 of a uniform riprap gradat1on for one that is appropriate for stream channels IS 1.5. so that. Where: Equation 2 D84 ~ the dimension of the 'ntermed;ate ax:s of the 84th percentife particle. Critical-Shear-Stress Method Critical shedr stress is a t:me~honored method to est1mate the initial movement of particles. j. C. Bathur.;t' and D. S. Olsen, et a!.,' among others, have sa1d that cnt1cal shear stress should not be applied to steep channel, although R. A. Mussetter, 1 and R. W:ttler and S. Abt J and other; have used .t. The Federa Highway Admn:stration, developed a channel-!1n1ng des.gn Method based on crit:cal shear stress, w~h cata from flume and field stud'e~' The data ;s large:y from low-gradient situat;ons, but the des:gn charts show ~opes up to I 0 percent and part:c:e sizes up to I ,9 feet wh1ch places it in the range or designed roughened channels, Design of Road Culverts for F !Sh Passage 78 The condit1on of stab;lity is defined as the point at wh:ch the crit:cal shear stress, r,. equals the maximum shear stress, r0m,,,, expet<enced by the channeL The crit cal shear stress is the shear stress required to ca·Jse the movement of a particle of a g1ven size and is equal to four t1mes 0 50 , where 0 50 is the Sef' percenti:e particle, :n feet This relationship impl.es a cr1t:cal, dimension1ess shear stress of about 0.039. Mussetter4 and W1ttler and Abt5 used 0.047. j. M Buffington and D. R. Montgomery' discuss the range of~" The max: mum shear stress is 1.5 times yRS, where r·s the un·t we:ght of water, R the hydraulic radius and S the slope. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood-Control-Channel Method U.S. Army Corps of Eng,neers EM II 10-2-160 I hydraulic design of flood-control channels manual uses a modified shear-stress approach to dprap design. This method should not be appiled to channe:s greater than two-percent gradient S. T. Maynord8 modif1ed this method for steep slopes: Where: D,o C' (q'JJS''")i(g" Kl) Equation 3 C' ( 0 \ 5.3($ C C C )0.7S5 ~w~) • ' I • I 0 0 ' • l Equation 4 Equation 5 a the angle of the: channel bottom from horizontal 1/J s the angle of repose of the riprap. Other constants as descnbed 1n the Coros manu a .. Note the similarity to Equation I above. ThiS method shou:d only be applied by those famii;ar w1th EM 1110-2-1601. • Empirical Methods There are a number of velocity methods based on empincal stud1es: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR EM-25),9 U.S. Geological Survey," S. V. lsbash' 1 and the American Society of Civil Engineers.12 They have 1n common this basic equation (Equation 6), w1th some modifications, where a and K are constants derfved from f1eld studies. Equation 6 These methods are questionable for the design of roughened channel beds. Theonetically, the problem is that stream slope is not explicitly a factor in the analysis, and the velocity distributon is quite diffenent at high bed slopes than it is in the low-gradient channels for which these methods were developed. Gravitational forces i~crease with slope, decreasing stab iii~ of a g1ven rock s1ze. Roughness increases with slope, 3 which reduces velocity, and, in tum the recommended rock s1ze. Figure E .. I compares various predictions of bed- material size as a function of slope. The sediment size is 0 84 for all the methods (except the Federal H1ghway Administration method 6 and the lsbash method,11 wh1ch are riprap sizing techniques giving 0 50 of a uniform rip rap gradation). The other significant variable-d1scharge-is held constant at I 0 cfs/ft. This is a typical, bed-fom1ing flow 1ntensity for high- gradient channels. With increasing unit discharge, lsbash predicts smaller part1cle sizes at higher slopes relative to the other methods, and the Federal H1ghway Administration predicts much larger sizes. Figure E-1. Relative performance of various sediment , stability equations (Umt discharge= I Ocfs/ft) i 2.50 1 ·e 2.00 J 1.50 --USACOE --Bathurst --FHWA · - - -lsbash • Natural Channels / / / / ' O I 00 ..:-- / l-:;::: ~ 1- -~ ;;;:;. ~ J o.so I 0.00 0 0.06 0.08 O.ol 0.<>0 Vonous predictions of bed-molena/ s1ze as a function of slope. 0.1 Des1gn of Road Culverts for F1sh Passage 79 Four natural streams are also shown 1n Figure E-1 for reference. These streams' bed-changing discharge is estimated to be, on average, 9.4 cfs/ft. 0 8 ~ from the actual bed-material distribution IS shown here. Shear stress is directly proport1onal to slope so the Federal H1ghway Administration method ( cntical shear stress) shows a linear relationship w1th slope. Th1s is a trend not renected in the other methods or the natural beds. Although, vvhat is not accounted for in this s1mple analys1s IS that only a port1on of the total boundary shear stress is respons1ble for sediment transport Momentum losses due to hydraulic roughness other than bed friction account for the rest 1 ~ In addition, velocity profiles of steep, rough channels are not the same as hydraulically smooth, lower-gradient channels where shear-stress analysis was developed.15 High-gradient channels have velocity profiles that are nonloganthmic, unlike low-gradient channels. The lsbash method IS based solely on velocity, which IS relatively 1nsensit1ve to slope. Velocity, 1n this case, was developed from the J. T. Limerinos 16 roughness equation averaged w1th J. Costa's 17 power law for veloc1ty, using the Bathurst2 estimate of bed material size. It is interesting to note that all the riprap-sizing techniques converge when slope is roughly one percent, which is the slope considered the upper limit of shear stress and velocity-based analys1s. Bathurst IS consistent with natural streambed material that is expected to move at this flow intensity and is recommended for the design of stream simulation culverts. This should be the lower l1mit of particle sizes for designing roughened channels. The safety factor, wh1ch separates Bathurst from the actual des1gn reqUirement, should be based on the various design factors. As the w1dth of the roughened channel culvert decreases relat1ve to the w1dth of the channel, fiow Intensity increases, and inlet contraction plays a role 1n stability. The bed-material des1gn techn1ques account for increases 1n intens1ty. but they do not include inlet contraction as a factor. Small increases 1n head loss at the 1nlet can result in changes in velooty large enough to sign1ficantly change bed-matenal size est1mates. I lead loss of 0.1 foot represents an approx1mate 1.8 feet/sec velooty 1ncrease (h = KV 2/2g, K = 0.5) at the inlet, poss1bly fomng supercrit.Jcal fiow (see next paragraph). If lsbash is used, a 50-percent 1ncrease 1n rock s1ze may be required. EquiValent flow 1ntensrt.y (the increase 1n unit d1scharge requ1red to represent the head loss) increases dramatically as 1nlet losses occur. • • The movement of bed materia! in natural, steep channels 1s thought to cotnclde with supercrittcal fiow.' !f If. by decreas ng the wdth of a culvert. the Froude nuMber .s caused to approach I ,0 at flows below those used to s1ze the parttces, then 1t is ltkely that the bed may fail prematurely. Unfortunately, most of the roughness-factor modes were speciftcally deve oped for subcr:tical flow, it ·,s. as a result d fficult to determine how flow velocity approaches supercntical now. K. j. Tinkler 19 used an approach that calculates a speofic Manning's r. for the en tical case. as a functton of slope and depth. The Limerinos equation" (shovm below in the section on velooty) follows this closely when it is determ;ned that the bed roughness approx1mates a natural channeL In cases where inlet contraction is minimal and flow inside the culvert is not expected to go supercritical prematurely, •t is recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' equation for steep channels be used to size bed matena: for roughened channels. Th1s recommendafon ,s made even though the equation was not considered applicable for particles over s1x 1nches in diameter, lt stfl gives results in :ine w1th what we might expect to find ·n steep channe·s:. In add1tion to the methods mentioned here, theoretica: work has been done by a nuF"lber of researchers on the ·,nita! movement and general bedload discharge 1n steep, rough natural ch1111ne'' Citations are shown in the references sect1on at the end of this appendix. l.l IH.2•.n,D It is not recommended that culverts with bed material inside be designed to operate fn a pressurized condition under any predicted flow. The riprap design methods suggested here assume open channel t:ow. They were not developed for high veloc1ty and turbulence under pr~ssure. Under most scenarios, :t '1s assumed that m1n1rr1Um wic:th requ1rements and f•sh-passage ve:odty cnter,a wil1 be the imiting factors In des·gn, not high flow capac1ty. But there may be cases where an unusual coMbinat1on of events creates as tuat on where r,eadwaterdepth exceeds the crown of the culvert. In such a case a consef'Jatve s+..ab:lity· analys1s wou·d model the culvert us.ng a comp'·ete culvert ana!ys;s program and/or a backwater mocel. The hydraulic results could then used to est:1mate shear stress cond:t;ons and determ;ne a stable rock s1ze. Des1gn of Road Culverts for F1sh Passage 80 Fish-Passage Velocity The po1nt of rovghening the channel •S to create an average cross-sedlonal velocity w1thin the l':m1ts of the f1sh-passage cntena and the Hydraul1c DeSign Option. The average velooty of a roughened channel culvert is essentia:ly a funct on of stream flow, culvert bed w dth, and bed roughness. The flow used to determine the fish-passage velocity is the fish-passage design flow as descnbed 1n the section. Hydrology 1n Chapter 5, Hydraulic DeSign Option. As a deSign startmg pmn!, the width of the culvert bed should be at least the width of the natural stream-channel bed. Steep and rough conditions present a unique challenge for hydraulic modeling. T radiuonal appno~ches to mode:;ng open~channel now assume norma: now over a bed havmg low relative roughness, In roughened channels, the height of the larger bed mater·als are comparable wrth the flow depth and coMplex turbulence dominates the fowY A number of equations are available for an analysis of these conditions, but they are crude and generate widely varying result' Research to date has centered on estimating fow ,n natural, cobble/boulder streams and 1S not intended fOr use in eng1neering artific•al channels . Three researchen; have used bed-material characterization and/or channel geometry to create empirical equations predicting roughness: Jarrett.13 . L1mer'1nos 16 and Mussetter.~ Generally, the conclus1on one can draw from these studies is that friction factors in steep, rough channels are much larger tha~ those found in 1ovver~gradient streams. Ths conc:usron :s not surpris.ng but it is notable ;ust how high the roughness factors are. For .nstance, 1n :'-1ussetter's field data on steep channe:s. 75 percent of the 1'-1anning's n vaiues exceed 0.075. the h•ghest n featured in H. H. Barnes' .~oughness Q;orcctenst1cs of Natura( Chanr:els,2 ~ v.hch covers larger, lovver~gradient streams, It remains unclear as to t'!Ow natura• charnels compare to constructed, roughened channets. Culvert Case Studies> Janes Creek Case Studies Janes Creek Roughened Channel over Small Dam Case Study Contributors • Antonio Llanos, Michael Love & Associates • Michael Love, Michael Love & Associates Location South Fork Janes Creek, Humboldt Bay Watershed, Northern California, USA MAP Project Type • Roughened Channel over Dam • Prefabricated Bridge Pre-project Conditions • 4 ft (1 .2 m) tall dam, historically used for water supply • Concrete box spillway with access road across dam crest • Stored sediment created marshy wetland habitat ideal for reanng coho salmon Pre-project Barrier • 4ft (1.2 m) drop over spillway plunging into shallow pool • Barrier to all coho salmon, steel head and cutthroat trout Watershed Characteristics • Drainage Area: 0.74 mi 2 (1 .9 km 2 ) • Peak Destgn Flow (100-yr): 290 cfs (8.2 ems) • Bankfull Flow ( 1 .5-yr): 65 cfs ( 1.8 ems) • High Passage Flow for: • Salmon and steelhead (1% exceedance flow): 15.9 crs (0.45 ems) • Cutthroat trout (5% exceedance flow): 6.3 ds (0.18 crns) • Juvenile salmon'ds (10% exceedance flow): 3.7 ds (0. 10 ems) Ecological Value Provide upstream and downstream passage for all native aquatic organisms. Open access to 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat upstream of dam, including 2,360 fl (719 m) of low gradient marshy habitat for rearing coho salmon. Project Design ' ' ' http://www.stream.f.s.fed.us!f1shxing/case/Janes/index.html Page I of 4 8/5/2009 Culvert Case Studies> Janes Creek KUOgflefleU C!1CHH161: IUU H lJV.O Ill) dl ~7o slope with 10 It (3.0 m) long horizontal transition aprons at each end • Roughened channel bed material designed to be stable up to 1 00-year flow • Active channel base-width ~ 7 ft (2.1 m) • Bankfull width = 12 fl (3. 7 m) • 9 channel spanning rock structures placed nush with finished grade • Installation of prefabricated bridge with 40ft (12.2 m) span over roughened channel Challenges and Lessons Learned • Project to provide fish passage while preserving wetland formed by stored sediments behind dam • Lack of construction oversight resulted in a wider and steeper channel than designed • Donated rock too large for constructed channel banks. leading to excessive voids Project Contributors • Humboldt Fish Action Council • Michael Love and Associates • Winzler & Kelly Consultrng Engmeers • Kernen Construction • Green Diamond Resource Company Project Funding California Dept. of Fish and Game Completion Date October 2005 Total Project Cost $77.442 Project Summary The4 ft (1.2 m) high water diversion dam built in the 1950's blocked upstream movement for all fish. Over time, the reservoir filled with fine sediment, forming an impounded high- value wetland. The stream flowed over the dam's spillway, which consisted of a concrete box culvert. The spillway created a 4 ft ( 1.2 m) drop into a shallow plunge pool. The project objective was to preserve the upstream impounded wetland for juvenile rearing habitat while providing fish passage over the dam. The preferred alternative involved removal of the concrete spillway and construction of a roughened rock channel designed to (1) maintain the existing upstream grade, (2) avoid release of stored sediments, and (3) provide upstream and downstream passage for all native fish and other aquatic organisms. The roughened channel is 100ft (30.5 m) long, with an average slope of 5%. The shape and features of the roughened channel are intended to create a hydraulic environment http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/case/Janeslindex.html Page 2 of 4 8/512009 Culvert Case Studies> Janes Creek similar to a natural channel of similar slope. Since the upstream channel material is mostly fine grain sands and silts, the larger rock in a roughened channel will not be replenished if it is transported downstream. Therefore, the 084 sized rock used in the roughened channel was designed to be stable up to the 1 00-year design flow. Because the dam crest also serves as an access road, a 40ft (12.1 m) long prefabricated steel bridge was placed over the roughened channel at the location of the removed spillway. Channel Design Design of the roughened channel involved a bed stability analysis to determine the minimum rock size necessary to maintain a stable channel bed during the 1 00-year peak flow of 290 cfs (8.2 ems). The fish passage analysis examined water depth, velocity and turbulence during fish migration flows. By design, a roughened channel provides a wide distribution of water velocities, with many areas of slower water. This analysis required an iterative process Involving the Interdependent variables of particle size, particle stability, channel roughness, and channel geometry. Two methods were used: the Unit-Discharge Bed Equation as defined by Bathurst (1978) for incipient motion of the D84 particle, (84% of the particles have a smaller diameter than the D84 ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers Steep Slope Riprap Design for the D30 particle (ACOE, 1994 in WDFW, 2003). A particle distribution was then developed following methods outlined in (WDFW, 2003) for the Engineered Streambed Material within the channel. IER:;:oc;;k~S~Iz~e~==91JF =7~3~0~m;;m~m~~F29~0~m~m~~~~f="12~0~m=m==lili= ==36~m~m~=9JIF=<=2~m;;;m=9J !Percent Finer II 100 II 84 U 50 ll 16 II 7 Using a maximum roughened channel slope of 5% as a "rule-of-thumb", the final design converged on an active channel base width of 7ft (2.1 m), bankfull width of 12ft (3.7 m), and bankfull depth of about 2ft (0.6 m). To concentrate low flows, ensure adequate water depth for adult fish, and provide slower edge-water for smaller fish, the channel bottom includes a side slope of 10% towards the center. The banks were constructed of large rock to create a rigid and confined channel, characteristic of steep stream channels. A series of rock structures constructed of 2 layers of 1 ton rock were built across the channel and backfilled wlth the Engineered Streambed Material. Rock structures were designed as rigid bed controls and to create small drops and complex flow patterns. The top of the rock structures were placed flush with the finished channel grade and maximum spacing between structures was limited to 20ft (6 m). By design, higher streamflows were expected to move and sort the smaller rock, exposing the larger rock and create an intricate series of small steps, pools, and flow constrictions. This complex hydraulic environment creates suitable migration pathways for fish over a wide flow range, similar to those found in a naturally steep channel reach. Lessons Learned In general, construction of a roughened channel requires skilled equipment operators, a large quantity of imported rock and aggregate, and on-site construction guidance from persons famillar with this type of design. Due to a lack of thorough construction oversight, the upper section of the channel was buill with a width far wider than designed. Additionally, the slope of the upper channel section was less than designed, requiring steepening the channel slope under the bridge to approximately 8%. These deviations from the design have the potential to create insufficient depth at lower migration flows, possibly hindering fish passage. http://www. stream. fs. fed. us/fishxing!casei 1 anes/index. html Page 3 of 4 ll/5/2009 Culvert Case Studies> Janes Creek The rock used to construct the channel banks was donated to the project, and larger than called for in the design. This resulted in large voids within the bank rock that should have been chinked with smaller material to prevent water from flowing behind the rocks and scouring the native material. The horizontal transition apron constructed at the downstream end appears to be functioning well. The transition effectively dissipates energy and has prevented scour of the downstream natural channel. Two years after construction the channel appears to be stable and functioning properly. References Bathurst, J.C. 1978. Flow Resistance of Large-Scale Roughness. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, AM. Soc. Civil Engr., Vol. 104, No. HY12, pp. 1587-1603. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Environmental Engineering Division. 2003. Fish passage design at road culverts: a design manual for fish passage at road crossings. May 2003. b_ttp;/Jwwli'LwcJfw.wa.~QYlbablengin_eeJtcml. Published 04/04107 http://www.strearn.fs.fed.us/fishxinglcase/Janesiindex.html Page 4 of4 R/5/200<J BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 118 FERC ¶ 62,233 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Alaska Power & Telephone Company Docket No. DI07-2-000 ORDER RULING ON DECLARATION OF INTENTION AND FINDING LICENSING NOT REQUIRED (Issued March 28, 2007) 1. On January 16, 2007, Alaska Power & Telephone Company filed a Declaration of Intention (DI) concerning their proposal to develop the Yerrick Creek Hydro Project, to be located on Yerrick Creek, tributary to the Tanana River, near the town of Tok, Alaska, affecting T. 18 N., R. 9 E., secs. 1, 2, 11, 14; T. 18 N., R.10 E., sec. 6; and T. 19 N., R. 9 E., sec. 36, Copper River Meridian. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2. The proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project would include: (1) a small diversion structure, with a siphon-type intake; (2) a 36-inch-diameter, 11,000-foot- long penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing a 1.5 MW Pelton-type turbine; (4) a 1.15-mile-long transmission line, connected to an existing power grid; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would not be connected to an interstate grid, and will not occupy any tribal or federal lands. PUBLIC NOTICE 3. Notice of the DI was issued on January 30, 2007. Protests, comments, and/or motions to intervene were to be filed by March 2, 2007. No comments, protests, and/or motions to intervene have been received. JURISDICTION 4. Pursuant to Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, §817(1), a non- federal hydroelectric project must (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) be licensed if it: ▫ is located on a navigable water of the United States; ▫ occupies lands of the United States; ▫ utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or ▫ is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, undergoes construction or major modification on Docket No. DI07-2-000 - 2 - or after August 26, 1935, and the project affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed project will not occupy any public lands or reservations of the United States and will not use surplus water or water power from a Federal government dam. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that Yerrick Creek is a navigable waterway at the site or in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project will be constructed after August 26, 1935, and is located on a Commerce Clause waterway, but it will not be connected to an interstate transmission grid. Therefore, the project would not affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. 6. In some cases, a project’s effects on anadromous fish can constitute an effect on the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. However, the effect must be real and substantial. Although the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project includes a diversion structure, it will not block spawning habitat in the creek. In addition, the project will not significantly affect flows in the creek. We, therefore, find that the project would not have a significant effect on anadromous fish in the creek, and would not affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. CONCLUSION 7. Section 23(b)(1) of the FPA does not require licensing of the proposed project. Although the project will be constructed after August 26, 1935, and is located on a Commerce Clause water, it would not affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. There is no evidence to suggest that the project is located on a navigable waterway. If evidence to support the Commission’s licensing jurisdiction is found in the future, Section 23(b)(1) would require licensing. Under Section 4(g) of the FPA, the project owner could then be required to apply for a license. The Director orders: (A) Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act does not require licensing of the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project. This order is issued without prejudice to any future determination, upon new or additional evidence, that licensing is required. Docket No. DI07-2-000 - 3 - (B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. William Y. Guey-Lee, Chief Engineering & Jurisdiction Branch Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance RURAL UTILITY SERVICE (RUS) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Southeast Fairbanks Borough, Alaska RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE U.S. Department of Agriculture Alaska Power and Telephone Company High Energy Cost Grant Finalist Prepared by: Engineering and Environmental Staff Rural Utilities Service August 2011 A. INTRODUCTION The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has selected the Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP& T) as a finalist in its High Energy Cost Grant Program (HECG). Prior to taking a federal action (e.g., providing financial assistance), RUS is required to complete an environmental review process in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (U.S.C. 4231 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA ( 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and RUS' NEPA implementing regulations, Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794). After completing an independent analysis of an environmental report prepared by AP& T, RUS concurred with its scope and content. In accordance with 7 CFR § 1794.41, RUS adopted the report and issued it as the agency's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric project (Project). RUS finds that the EA is consistent with federal regulations and meets the standard for an adequate assessment. B. PURPOSE/NEED The Tok area of Alaska (Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot Lake) currently receives its power requirements from an existing diesel generating plant. As a result of operational costs and other factors, AP& T charges its customers in the Tok area approximately $0.47 kilowatt hours (kWh). This rate is significantly above the 2007 RUS High Energy Cost benchmark of $0.239 kWh for extremely high average per unit energy costs, which is one of the eligibility criteria for the HECG program. AP& T estimates that construction and operation of the proposed Project could reduce AP&T customer rates in the Tok area by $0.10 kWh to a rate of $0.37 kWh. C. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 1. No Action Under the No Action Alternative, RUS would not provide financial assistance and/or AP& T would not construct the proposed Project. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the proposed Project or the HECG program. 2. Action Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Under the Action Alternative, RUS would consider providing a partial grant for eligible project costs, and AP& T would construct and operate the proposed Project. The proposed Project includes construction of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) hydroelectric facility. Components of the facility include a diversion structure to be sited within Yerrick Creek; a 15,000-foot penstock; a powerhouse; a 3-mile access road; a 1,500-foot interconnection power line (12 kilovolts); and 10 miles of distribution line upgrades. The facility would be constructed on lands in interim 1 conveyance 1 to Tanacross, Inc. (an easement of approximately 27.7 acres for 8,000 feet of the penstock, a portion of the access road, powerhouse, and interconnection facilities) and state lands (an easement of approximately 28.4 acres for 7,000 feet of the penstock and a portion of the access road). 3. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration In addition to the No Action Alternative and ACtion Alternative, AP& T considered developing a project which would use one of the following renewable generation technologies: hydrokinetic, wind, and biofuel. A more detailed discussion of those alternatives can be found in Section 4.2 of the EA. An alternative site (Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1) was also considered for locating the proposed Project but was dismissed due to a lack of hydrological data and the need for substantial interconnection infrastructure. A more detailed discussion can be found in Section 4.3 of the EA. D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS A summary of anticipated impacts on the human environment and mitigation needed to avoid and/or minimize impacts is provided below. AP&T is responsible for implementation of these measures. Land Use. The proposed Project would be sited on Alaska state lands and lands in interim conveyance to Tanacross, Inc. The area is typically used for subsistence and recreational activities (i.e., hunting and gathering). Tanacross, Inc. has expressed concerns with trespassing by non-tribal members for hunting and/or trapping and potential conflicts that the proposed Project could have with the proposed Denali-Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC project (Denali). Construction of the Project would provide easier access to lands in interim conveyance to Tanacross, Inc. AP&T is considering solutions to preventing vehicular access to these lands (i.e., installation of a locked gate at the proposed access road's entrance point). Also, AP&T is willing to compensate Tanacross, Inc. and/or the appropriate federal land owner as mitigation 1 Interim conveyance documents transfer the title of unsurveyed land to ANSCA Native Corporations. These documents include: i) a Cadastral Survey, which establishes land boundaries of lands selected by Native Corporations under ANSCA, and ii) a Land Patent, which conveys the patentee legal title to public lands. Section 1613 of ANSCA, Conveyance of Lands, further describes this process. To date, Tanacross, Inc. has selected lands under ANSCA and has had a Cadastral Survey completed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the lands, however, may be pending patency. Sources: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) 43 USC § 1613 and BLM Alaska, Conveyance Land Transfer Terms (personal communication) 2 for the effects of trespassing and use of an easement. AP& Tis responsible for obtaining applicable land easements from the State of Alaska (through a Department of Natural Resources Land Use Permit) and Tanacross, Inc. and/or the appropriate federal land owner before construction of the proposed Project and for implementing any additional mitigation that may be required. Tanacross, Inc. has issued a right-of-way permit for the Denali project. The proposed location of the AP& T powerhouse would be the same location as the Denali compressor station. AP& T has indicated that it would work with Denali so that both projects could be co-located on the preferred site. As of May 2011, Denali has withdrawn its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission application materials and suspended its operations due to a lack of customer support. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties. By letter dated October 14, 2008, RUS formally initiated consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in addition to government-to-government consultation with the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake. Consultation was required in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). RUS identified the area of potential effect (APE) for the proposed Project as the areas where the access road, powerhouse, and penstock would be located. On November 10, 2008, Tanacross, Inc., provided comments in response toRUS's initial consultation letter. Comments included: • A significant portion of the project (approximately one half of the penstock route, construction and maintenance roads, and all of the powerhouse site & its auxiliary facilities [access road and transmission infrastructure]) would be located on lands selected and managed by Tanacross, Inc. • The project would conflict with the use of historic trails by members of the Native Village of Tanacross. Such trails are used for subsistence purposes. • The project would interfere with right-of-way development by Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali) for the transportation of North Slope natural gas to market. The proposed location of the powerhouse would be at the same location of Denali's proposed compressor station. Several of these concerns were addressed during a conference call held on November 10, 2008. On December 17, 2008, RUS requested that Tanacross, Inc. identify the site-specific location of the trail. To date, this information has not been submitted to RUS. Following the conference call and with the permission of Tanacross, Inc., AP& T had a cultural resource survey of the APE completed. The survey identified the following sites within the APE: TNX-156: Tanacross quadrangle segment of the Haines-Fairbanks pipeline; TNX-074: Yerrick Creek cabin; TNX-211: Can Dump area; and TNX-212: Construction camp site. When designing this project, AP&T treated all of these sites as historic properties and modified design components to avoid the sites during construction. The historic trail, identified by Tanacross, 3 Inc., was not found within the APE. Accordingly, RUS determined the proposed Project would have no effects to historic properties and received concurrence from the SHPO. Biological Resources. At the recommendation of the Alaska Department of Fisheries and Game (ADFG), AP& T had fish and plant surveys completed for the proposed Pr:oject. Results show that no effects to threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat are anticipated. Impacts to fish are expected to be minimal due to existing poor quality of habitat present near the proposed Project. ADFG issued a Fish Habitat Permit for the proposed Project in August 2009 (Permit No. FH-09-III-0182), which included conditions such as installing an excess flow bypass structure (i.e., a roughened channel) to allow for fish movement during high flow and installing screens over the diversion structure to prevent fish movement into the penstock. Water Resources and Wetlands. The proposed Project would alter the flow of a portion of Yerrick Creek by diverting up to 60 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water flow. In addition, construction of the diversion structure and penstock would cause a permanent net loss of 0.8 acres of waters of the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued an individual permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the proposed Project on April 30, 2010 (DA Permit POA- 2009-445). AP&T is responsible for implementing all conditions, including compensatory mitigation, associated with the permit. A copy of the permit is included in Appendix 9.1 of the EA. E. PUBLIC, AGENCY, AND TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT 1. Availability of Environmental Assessment A local newspaper advertisement and legal notice announcing the availability of the EA were published on June 28, 2010, in the Daily News-Miner (Fairbanks Borough). In addition, AP& T included a mailer announcing the availability of the EA in the electric bill for June 2010 to its customers in the Tok area. Hardcopies of the EA were available for public review at the following repositories: USDA/RUS Headquarters office and the Tok Community Library. The 30-day public comment period ended on July 28, 2010. RUS received no comments from the public. 2. Government-to-Government Consultation Throughout the environmental review process, RUS engaged in government-to-government consultation with Tanacross, Inc., Native Village of Tanacross, the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake. "Attachment 1-Record of Government-to-Government Consultation" provides a synopsis of actions which have occurred to date. 4 RUS engaged in early consultation with Tanacross, Inc., a Native Village Corporation that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Tanacross, Inc. selected its lands under the Alaska Native Claims and Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 and is in the process of receiving lands under Interim Conveyance No. 1508. Tanacross, Inc. is pending receipt of its land patent. If AP& T and Tanacross, Inc. cannot negotiate the terms to an easement, AP& T has indicated that it would attempt to condemn an easement under Alaska Statute (AS) 42.05.631. ANSCA does not exempt lands conveyed to Tanacross, Inc. from the provisions of AS 42.05.631. However, Tanacross, Inc. has indicated that its lands are in interim conveyance and currently under federal jurisdiction. Federal lands may be exempt from the provisions of AS 42.05.631 and cannot be condemned under eminent domain. During the comment period, Tanacross, Inc. submitted two letters to RUS (see Attachment 2 -Comments from Tanacross, Inc. and the Native Village of Tanacross submitted during the EA comment period). The first was dated June 30, 2010, and was addressed to the Alaska DNR. Tanacross, Inc. requested that the DNR address five issues in its review of the project, prior to making a decision on an easement application: 1. Is the DNR comfortable with the models and assumptions presented in the hydrological reports that used to justify the project? 2. Yerrick Creek has unpredictable flow patterns. State-owned assets would be located downstream of the proposed project. Is the DNR assured that the project can be and has been designed to avoid damage to these facilities? 3. Does the project make financial sense at a lower flow rate than originally assumed? 4. AP& T has failed to address Tanacross, Inc.'s concerns about increased trespass. 5. There are authorization issues that are not resolved. The second letter, dated July 28, 2010, was submitted to Mr. Tedd Buelow, Native American Coordinator of Rural Development (RD). It requested that RD/RUS respond to Tanacross, Inc. about three issues: 1. Is the project financially and technically feasible? 2. How will the landowner be fairly compensated for use of its land? 3. How will trespass and littering be avoided? Because of the pendency of the environmental review process, RUS has not completed its final review of the technical and financial aspects of the proposed Project prior to making its award decision. Issuance of this FONSI and publication of applicable notices will allow for those reviews to proceed. If subsequent reviews alter the scope of the proposed Project and require that consultation under Section 106 be re-opened, RUS will continue to consult with Tanacross, Inc. on a government-to-government basis. RUS will consider the technical concerns expressed by Tanacross, Inc. as it completes its additional reviews of the proposed Project. 5 Tanacross, Inc.'s concerns regarding trespassing are addressed in this document under Section D, Land Use. F. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on its EA, RUS has concluded that the proposed Project would have no significant impacts to water quality, wetlands, the 100-year floodplain, planned land use, aesthetics, transportation, or human health and safety. The proposed Project will have no effects on historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. RUS has also concluded that the proposed Project is not likely to affect federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat. As determined statutorily appropriate, RUS will continue to consult on a government-to-government basis with the Native Village of Tanacross and Tanacross, Inc. on the proposed Project. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations ( 40 CFR 1500-1508), and RUS' Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794), RUS has determined that the environmental impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed and that no significant impacts to the quality of the human environment would result from construction and operation of the proposed Project. Any final action by RUS related to the proposed Project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant federal and state environmental laws and regulations. Because RUS' action will not result in significant impacts to the quality of the human environment, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared for the proposed Project. G. RUS FINANCIAL REVIEW AND RIGHT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW This FONSI is not a final decision on the approval of AP& T's grant award and therefore not an approval of the obligation of federal funds. Issuance of the FONSI and its notices concludes RUS' environmental review process in accordance with NEPA and RUS' Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794). The final grant approval decision depends upon conclusion of this environmental review process in addition to financial and engineering review of the proposed Project. Issuance of the FONSI and publication of notices will allow for these reviews to proceed. The decision to provide financial assistance is subject to the availability of federal funds for the designated purpose in RUS' budget. There are no provisions to appeal this decision (i.e., issuance of a FONSI). Legal challenges to the FONSI may be filed in federal district court under the Administrative Procedures Act. 6 H. APPROVAL This Finding of No Significant Impact is effective on signature. Dated: AUG 1 8 2011 Assistant A inistrator Electric Programs Rural Utilities Service Contact Person For additional information on this FONSI and EA, please contact Ms. Lauren McGee, Environmental Scientist, at USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 1571, Washington DC 20250-1571; telephone: (202) 720-1482; fax: (202) 690-0649; or e-mail: lauren.mcgee@wdc.usda.gov. 7 Attachment 1 -Record of Government-to-Government Consultation Documents referenced in this record can be viewed in the "Environmental Briefing" included in the administrative record for this project. October 14, 2008 RUS mailed letters initiating consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) to the Native Village of Tanacross, the Native Village of Tetlin, the Village of Dot Lake, and Tanacross, Inc., a Native Village Corporation. Tanacross, Inc. would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. The letter mentioned that a conference call to discuss RUS' environmental review process and to obtain additional project information would be held on November 13, 2008. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Project proponent, Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T), were invited to participate as well. November 4, 2008 RUS received an email from Mr. Robert Brean (president of Tanacross, Inc.). Mr. Brean indicated that the project description enclosed in RUS's letter was limited in scope and lacked project-specific details, and therefore, requested a copy of AP&T's grant application. After receiving prior approval from AP& T, Mr. Brean received a copy of AP& T's application without the supplementary material and certification sections. November 10, 2008 RUS received a comment letter from Tanacross, Inc.'s attorney, Mr. Bruce Moore, in response to the RUS letter dated October 14, 2008. November 13, 2008 RUS staff members (Lauren McGee, Laura Dean, Karen Larsen, and Mark Plank) held a conference call with consulting parties. Representatives from Tanacross, Inc., the Native Villages of Tanacross, the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake were in attendance. In addition, AP& T participated in the meeting. December 17, 2008 RUS emailed copies of the conference call agenda and minutes to meeting participants. Other enclosures to the email included: • A preliminary literature review/reconnaissance survey completed for the project area • A summary of AP& T's past hydroelectric projects • Tanacross, Inc.'s letter to RUS dated November 10, 2008 • RUS's response to Tanacross, Inc.'s letter dated December 17, 2008 On this same date, RUS (via Lauren McGee) was notified by email from AP&T that its attorney had responded to Tanacross, Inc. letter's dated November 10, 2008. The email included a copy of the letter from AP& T's attorney, which was dated November 25, 2008. The letter concluded that AP& T had the authority to condemn an easement on Tanacross, Inc. lands under Alaska Statute 42.05.631. 8 December 24, 2008 RUS responded to the letter from AP& T's attorney to Tanacross, Inc. A copy of the RUS letter and the letter from AP& T's attorney (dated November 25, 2008) was emailed to all conference call participants. RUS's letter clarified the role of RUS in the Section 106 consultative process and indicated that the requirements of NEPA and Section 106 were applicable regardless of whether AP&T planned to use eminent domain. November 18, 2009 RUS received a copy of an archaeological/cultural resource report from AP& T for the portions of the project area recommended for additional survey. AP&T received permission from Tanacross, Inc. to conduct more intensive surveys on its lands. January 13, 2010 Under Section 106, RUS submitted a finding of effects letter to the Alaska SHPO and consulting parties (i.e., Tanacross, Inc., the Native Villages of Tanacross, the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake). The determination of no effect to historic properties was based on information provided in the cultural resources report. The letter requested notification of concurrence or objection to the finding. The letter stated that if consulting parties failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the letter, RUS would conclude Section 106 in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.3( c)( 4) on the basis of the finding of no historic properties affected. February 17, 2010 RUS (via Lauren McGee) submitted an email to Mr. Brean about the Section 106 finding of effects letter. No response was received. March 10, 2010 In response to a phone conversation held between the RUS (via Lauren McGee) and Mr. Bruce Moore (Tanacross, Inc.'s attorney), Mr. Moore emailed a copy of his mail and email address to Ms. McGee. In the earlier conversation, Mr. Moore questioned the technical feasibility of the proposed project and expressed concerns that RUS had not properly vetted the proposal prior to selecting it as a finalist in the HECG program. Ms. McGee gave Mr. Moore Karen Larsen's contact information and was told to speak with Ms. Larsen for questions about the screening process for HECG award selections. June 9, 2010 RUS (via Lauren McGee) completed its review of the environmental report (ER) prepared by AP& T and approved the ER for adoption as the agency's Environmental Assessment under NEPA. June 23, 2010 RUS mailed a letter to the consulting parties, which initially participated under Section 106 (i.e., Tanacross, Inc., the Native Villages of Tanacross, the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake) to directly notify them of the availability of the EA. The letter indicated that the deadline for submitting comments on the EA was July 28, 2010. June 28, 2011 RUS (via Tedd Buelow) received an email describing how RUS had been "routinely uncooperative and/or late in notifying [Tanacross, Inc.] of actions related to the funding" of the 9 proposed Project. Lauren McGee subsequently drafted a memorandum to the administrative record, responding to certain items discussed in the email. July 28, 2010 RUS (via Tedd Buelow) received a letter from Tanacross, Inc. and the Native Village of Tanacross about the project and the level of consultation that has occurred. The letter highlighted three concerns that the Tanacross, Inc. and the Native Village of Tanacross have with the proposed Project: 4. Is the project financially and technically feasible? 5. How will the landowner be fairly compensated for use of its land? 6. How will trespass and littering be avoided? August 11, 2010 RUS staff members (Lauren McGee, Mark Plank, Emily Orler, Karen Larsen, and Tedd Buelow) had a conference call with Tanacross, Inc. and staff members of the Native Village of Tanacross, concerning the letter to RUS dated July 28, 2010, and other issues of the Village's concern. RUS informed Tanacross that many of the questions raised in its letter could not be answered at that time, as detailed financial and engineering reviews of the project had not begun. Issues related to compensation of Tanacross would have to be negotiated with AP& T. RUS staff members informed Tanacross that the decision to provide financing for a project which could result in condemnation of Native Village Corporation lands could not be made by the RUS staff members participating on the conference call. Unofficial meeting notes were submitted to the administrative file. 10 Attachment 2-Comments from Tanacross, Inc. and the Native Village of Tanacross submitted during the EA comment period 9073381747 AHFC R2D2 02:29:55 p.m. 08-05-2010 JUL-26-2010 MON 12;23 PM TANACROSS COUNCIL FAX NO. 907 883 41.\97 P. 02 Native Villag& of Tanacross P.o. Box 76009 Tl~nacross, AK 9917'6 907-883-5024 Fax 907-88~7 Te:dd Buelow, Native American Coordinator Rurol D;;velop.mt:~lt U.S. Dcpartmen1 of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave .• S.W. Wa.sb.i.Dgeo~ D.C. 20250 Tanacross, Incorporated P .0. Box 76029 Tanacross, AK 9D776 907-883-4130 Fax 907..U:t.4129 July 28, 2010 Re: Yerriek Creek Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Buelow: The Native Village ofTanacross (1hc Village) :is the tribal gwemmellt for the Native People of Tanacross. Tanac;ross Incotpo~~ (the Corporation) is, the corporation for.mcd under auspices of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to receive the: lands included in that settlement. We are one people. Three members of tho Tanacross Village Council~~re also on tbe Board of Directors for the Corpmation. To date, the conversation on theY errlcl; CJ:~rek Project has been ,primarily between the · Coqx~riltion and Alaska Power and Telephone. You may not be aware that this summer has been especially difficult for 01,1r people as the village was evacuated twice because of forest fi.Te and because the Village has conn-acted to do fire suppression repair on the burned Coiporatt' lands. Givec the Village's other priorities, and the fact that the Corporation owns the land affected by th!! Y errick Creek Projeef, the Corporation has been looking out for the best intereSts ofits shareholders and their descendants. who are largely also members of the Tanacross Tribe. The C<l1mcil is UJJaware cfattemp1s by the Rural Utilities Service ''to reach out directly to the Native V'lllage ofTanacros:s on n nw:nber of oc:casiom." At an early stage, it is possible that individual tribal members may have conceptually agreed with Alaska Power and Telepho.11~ th11t lowered utility rates would benefit the Village and '!he Co:rpora.tion. That is a long way from Village support for the :project. The Village and the Corporation share tbe same concerns about the Yerric.k Creek Hydroelectric Project: 2 13 11 9073381747 AHFC R2D2 02:30:10 p.m. 08-05-2010 J~L-2~-2010 HON 12:23 PH TANACROSS COUNCIL I'AX NO. 90? 883 4497 ?. 03 I) Is the project fulancially ~d technically feasible? The Corporation has yet to · be convinced that the project is technically feasible at the power generation capacities cited and that it will result in-substantial and SU!Itaine.ble :reductions in the costofpower. · · 2) How wilL the landoWner be :fuirly corilpc::nsated for the use of its land, land that is also proposed for a gas pipeline and an ~.:(tension of' 1\ railroad to Canada,. and that has important cultural and subsistence meaning to our people? 3) How wiU trespass and littering be avoided? The area is importantt>all sheep . habitat aDd used by our people fur subsistence:. The only way to Discourage 'Use by non-!Ulareilolders/non.-tribal members is w limit access. The only access into the area at present is an uncleared, 2S~foot~wide t:reil easement restricted to.,": . · vehicl.es less than 3;000 pounds gross vehicular weight. To date,..Alasb PDwf:l: tind Telephone has been. dismissive of these legitimate concems. 'I'bC Statc·of Alaska appears to support the project because it will inCNWJe access to public lands beyond the Corporate lmds for both hunting, and possible remote lrmd · Sllles, neither of which are beneficial to our poople. Because of the V"tllage's other priorities, we jointly request lhat you coordinate yoi:n-response· to this letter through the Coxpura.tion's Counsel, Btuce A. Moore at DeLisio; Moan, Geraghty and Zobel, PC. 943 West Sixth Avenue, Ancbor&ge, AX 99501-203, telephone 907-279-9574. Very Truly Your:i, !i#o~~ Roy Denny, Ptesident Native Village ofTanacross Robert L. Brean, President Tanacrou Incorporated 12 JDJE1ISJ[O l\\1loRA\N GrJBJRA\GJHnrY & ZolBJEJL~ JP,C,, Law Offices June 30, 2010 Via email and US Mail Valerie Baxter Nat ural Resource Specialist ADNR-MLW 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 Re: Comments on ADL 418154 Alaska Power and Telephone Y errick Creek Hydroelectric Project Dear Valerie: Joseph M. Moran Michael C. Geraghty Patricia L. Zobel Bruce A. Moore Adolf V. Zeman Nora G. Barlow Stephanie M. Shanklin StephenS. DeLisio, Of Counsel John R. Beard, Of Counsel Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed easement to Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) for a hydroelectric power generating project at Yerrick Creek. These are the issues Tanacross, Inc. would like DNR to address in its review of the project: 1) The hydrology reports, which are generally at the core of any hydroelectric project, are sketchy in this instance and make assumptions that may not be supported by the data. Is DNR comfortable with the models and assumptions used to justifY the project? 2) Yerrick Creek has a history of erratic and unpredictable behavior. Significant state-owned assets, i.e., the Alaska Highway and the Yerrick Creek Bridge, lie downstream of the project. Is the State of Alaska assured that the project can be and has been designed to avoid damage to these facilities from periodic debris flows and flash floods? 943 West Sixth Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501·2033 (907) 279-9574 FAX (907) 276-4231 www.dmgz.com 13 Juno 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page2 3) Does the project make financial sense at a lower discharge rate than AP&T assumes in the April 2010 Environmental Assessment, even with major financial support from the US Department of Agriculture or the Alaska Energy Authority? 4) AP&T has failed to address Tanacross, Inc.'s 1 egitimate concerns about increased trespass that AP&T aclmowledgos will occur as a result of this project. 5) There are authorization issues that are not resolved. Those are the summary points. Let me explain Tanacross, Inc.'s concerns in more deLaiL 1) Hydrology reports a. The data set from AP&T ("Yerrick Creek gage data for Hydrology Reports.xls" emailed June 9, 2010) presents actual flow measurements on Yerrick Creek covering the follow·ing time periods: June 30, 2007 to August 27, 2008 July 29,2008 to January 11, 2009 April 26, 2009 to May, 16, 2010 Based on weather data collected at Tok, Alaska, the weather pattern in the Upper Tanana was considered unusually cold and wet in the months of June, July, and August, 2008. The average precipitation for the month of July in Tok over the period from 1946 to 2008 waR 2 inches, while in July, 2008, Tok received 6.68 inches of precipitation. (HDR, 2009, p. 4) This time period represents a significant portion of measured stream flow data. It is not clear 1} if Tok meteorological data has been analyzed for the other stream flo\V measurement periods, or 2) if this unusual weather pattern was reflected in the Berry Creek data utilized in the report and has been taken into account in the hydrologic modeling. b. fi~nv1ronmental Assessment (AP&T 2010, p. 16) recognizes that the "Correlations between the data from AP&T's gage and that from the USGS gages are only fair, with correlation coefficients (RZ) between 0. 79 and 0.85." The model does not explain about 20% of the variation in the data. 14 ,June 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 3 c. Env.iron (2010) and Berkshire (2009) assume that the Berry Creek drainage is similar enough to Yorrick Creek for modeling purposes. Berkshire (2009) recommends that this assumption be verified in the lietd. A review of the literature shows the following difference between the two creeks: Attribute Yerrick Creek Berry Creek Reference Area (sq. miles) 33.5 65.1 Heinrichs et al., 2001 Mean elevation (feet) 4,190 3,168 Heinrichs et al., 2001 Mean annual 15.3 precipitation (inches) 15.1 Heinrichs et a!., 2001 Uwo discharge (cfs) 1,270 3,240 Heinrichs eta!., 2001 Usoo discharge (cfs) 1,640 4,720 Heinrichs et al., 2001 Valley slope (feet per 0.0300 0.0480 Heinrichs et al., 2001 foot} Angle of attack at 5.0 0.0 Heinnchs et al., 2001 bridge site (degrees) Engineering geology Alluvial Deposits w/ Glacial Deposits Reger, 2010; Reger and map units of creek bed Colluvial Deposits Solie, 2008 Engineering geology Glacial Deposits, Colluvial Hubbard and Reger, map units of adjacent Deposits Bedrock, Colluvial Deposits 2010; Reger and Solie, uplands 2008 The profiles of the two streams arc quito different, with Berry Creek leveling off after a steep drop off and Yerrick Creek maintaining a steep profile. The mean elevation ofYerrick Creek is over 1,000 feet higher than Berry Creek Bedrock has generally poor surface drainage, while the surface drainage of the glacial deposits is considered good. It is not clear if these differences are significant to tho modeling process or if Berkshire's recommendation that similarities between the two drainages be verified in the field has been considered. d. AP&T has decided on a hydraulic capacity of the Project at 60 cubic feet per second (cfs), providing a generating capacity of 1,500 kW (AP&T, p. 3 and 4, 20 10). Any flow above 60 cfs would be 'wasted', meaning that it would not contribute to the generation of electricity. The Environmental Assessment suggests that this 60 cfs might be exceeded 10-20% of the year but presents no 15 June 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 4 data to back this statement up, although the APT data spreadsheet shows that this might be true for the 2007-2009 data. The Environmental Assessment (pp. 3 and 4) determines that: The streamflow will only exceed the hydraulic capacity during the early summer (typically June and July), or about 10%-20% of the year. This is a relatively low exceedence level for a run-of-river project, but AP&T believes the high capacity is worthwhile because of the high cost of diesel generation. Before pipe and generating equipment is ordered, AP&T will reevaluate the hydraulic capacity. It could be reduced to perhaps 50 cfs, which would allow a reduction of the pen-stock d.iameier from about 42 inches to 36 inches. The environmental impactR would be virtually the same with a smaller capacity, therefore the conclusions ofth1s EA would not change. If 10%-20% exceedence level is "relatively low", what is an exceedence rate of less than 3% o[ Lhe Lime? Both Berkshire (2007, p. 4) and Environ (2010, Figure 2, p. 3) anticipate exceedence rates much 1e::;:-; than 10-20% at 60 cfs. Berkshire, who did not have access to the Y errick Creek stream gage data, anticipates the flows exceeding 60 cfs about 1%-2% of tho year. Environ, with its more elaborate modeling based on actual stream stage data, shows Yerrick Creek exceedin14 60 cfs perhaps 2%-3% ofthe year. \iVhile the environmental impacts of the project would not change with a smaller capacity penstock, the financial goals of the project to the ratepayers may not be fulfilled. To match a 20% exceedence rate, the project would have to assume a hydraulic capacity of 50 cfs (Environ) or 23 cfs (Berkshire). Do Lhese flows still support a 1,500kW generator? What is the minimal flow needed to generate enough electricity to pay for Operations and Maintenance? e. Berkshire (2007) "used stream data collected at USGS gage #154 76000, on the Tanana River between the mouths of Yerrick Creek and Berry Creek, which has a 35 year continuous period of daily flow recordings from vVY 1955-1990. vVhat factors caused Environ (2010) to use USGS gage #1fi3fi6000 for the Yukon River at Eagle for the analysis? If it was because the Tanana River gage has been discontinued, would re-establishing the gage significantly improve the model? 16 June 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page5 \Vhat is the correlation between those two USGS stream gages and the Berry Creek gage USGS gage #15476300? 2) Design considerations a. Y errick Creek has an extremely active stream channel. The bed of Y errick Creek is characterized as Alluvial DeposiLs with Colluvial Deposits and is subject to landslides, flash flooding, and debris flows. The Environmental Assessment (AP&T 2010, p. 15) notes that: "High flushing flows occur on almost an annual basis) scouring and moving the cobble within the creek banks." Cobbles and boulders choke the beds of many of the creeks in the area, and Hubbard and Reger foWld Lhe clasLs to be significantly larger in the YelTick Creek floodplain. (Reger, 2010) The largest clastR are about 1 meter in diameter and point bar deposits up to a meter high consist of sub-rounded cobbles and boulders with lenses of sandy pebble gravel. (Carrara, 2004) b. During construction activities in 1982, DOTPF experienced slope and ditch icing and sluffing problems from both season surface runoff and possibly underground water seepage. The alluvial soils were underlain by a silt soil. CVIunson, 1982) Cobbles and boulders from debris flows may contribute to construction difficulties in the alluvial/colluvial deposits. (Hubbard and Reger, 2010) c. HDR staff observed a high water event on Y errick Creek in August 2UU~. They were assured by AP&T staff that a flood event of this level had not been experienced for 20 years. However, the litcratm·c indicates a similar high water event occurred in 1997, eleven years earlier. Yerrick Creek escaped its banks during a flood event in the latter part of July 1997. During that high water event, up to 6.6 inches of precipitation fell in the Upper 'T'anana Valley. The abutment to the Yerrick Creek Bridge was damaged and the Alaska Highway was closed for several days. Late in the season, warm temperatures over the Alaska Range added to the flooding problem as ice and glaciers melted and the Tanana River rose to flood levels. (McGhee, 1997 and Carrara, 2004) It is not known ifthe later warming trend affected the flow ofYerrick Creek. 17 June 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 6 d. Berkshire (2007) mentions that frazil ice condition8 should be evaluated as part of the final design considerations. It is not clear if that factor has been assessed. e. The data set submitted to support the Environ hydrology report indicates several breaks in the data, some for high water events, other."! unexplained. "Bad luck" often accompanies attempts to gage active streams such as Y errick Creek, but could these breaks in the data also point to the dynamic nature ofthe creek? f. LaHi year, AP&T received authorir.ation for seismic studies in upper Yerrick Creek. What were the results of those studies? 3) Financial basis for the project a. If the award of funds from the USDA or AEA is based on specific criteria for energy savings, wil1 the project meet the criteria if it is designed for a lower, perhaps more realistic, discharge rate as suggested by Environ and Berkshire (50 or 23 cfs)? b. Is the production of power linearly 1·elated to the flow rate? If the flow is only 20 cfs, will the power generation be half of what it was at 40 cfs? c. The Environmental Assessment (p. 17) suggests potential savings to customers hecam;;e of reduced diesel generation costs. A reliable estimate of these savings based on known data has not been provided. In addition, while fuel expenses would be lower, capital costs would not, given that AP&T would have to maintain full diesel generation capability for whaL is presumably the high demand period of the year. d. Does AP&T have other projects on creeks that are primarily alluvial/colluvial in nature? What are the Operations and Maintenance expenses for those projects and huw do Lhey compare with the benefits of the project during the relatively short annual operating season? 18 June 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 7 e. The Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric project is justified on the basis of reducing the cost of electricity to AP&T's ratepayers. How will the rate-payers sec the benefits of this project? Does AP&T intend to petition the Regulatory Commission of Alaska for a seasonal or annual reduction in rates? 4) Trespass The Yerr'ick Creek Hydro electric project assumes that an access road, penstock, powerhouse and transmission lines will be built on land belonging to Tanacross, Inc. Although negotiations have begun, little progress has been made to authorize the use of Tanacross land. According to the Environmental Assessment, ADF&G also had concerns over whether the project would provide easier vehicular access into this basin for hunters and trappers. (p. 12) The only hunting by permit in the project area is for Dall sheep in the locale Tanacross people call "sheep place", which is also a natural salt lick. The AP&T Environmental Assessment recognizes the Dall sheep permit hunt in this area and the negative impacts of road access on this critical and limited Dall sheep habitat. However, the Environmental Assessment downpln.ys the potential impact by asserting that a "permit" hunt for one species will discourage trespa.ss and poaching of all other spedes, all along the Alaska range. Tanacross, Inc. has expressed its concerns about trespass and littering on its land from the earliest discussion and comments on the project and asked AP&T for how it intended to mitigate this problem and expenses associated with it. The Environmental Assessment specifically addresses Tanacross, Inc. concerns on Lre::;pass: Trespassing for hunting and/or trapping purposes is a concern of Tanacross, Inc., the private landowner. This sort of activity is not unusual in rural Alaska, which resembles an open range without fencing. Development of this project would provide easier access into both Tanacross, Inc. and state lands. (p. 8, emphasis added.) It is both offensive and belittling to wave off Tanacross, Inc.'s legitimate concerns about trespass by 1) saying that trespass is common in rural Alaska and 2) comparing private lands received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to "open range." "Open range" is a term with specific meaning in some western states 19 .June BO, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 8 regarding the ability of livestock to roam freely in areas without fences. Alaska does not have an Open Range law, and even if it did, Open Range laws do not justify human trespass of the kind AP&T acknowledges will be faciliLaled by iL::; project. Further, AP&T continues in the Environmental Assessment to state that AP&'I' is considering reasonable solutions to prevent vehicular access, such as installing a locked gate at the access road's entrance point. AP&T is also willing to compensate Tanacross, Inc. for the use of its land and to mitigate the effects of trespassing and loss of land. While subsistence and recreational hunters and trappers will have easier foot access to a part of this area, wildlife hunting would remain heavily controlled and monitored by state and federal agencies that permit the amount of take allowed in the area. Therefore, although hunting is allowed in this area, a permit is necessary to harvest, and only a certain number of each species is allowed to be taken annually. This may or may not provide some restraint for illegal use of this area. ((p. 8) emphasis added.) Please note: a. Compensation discussions between AP&T and Tanacross, Inc. have not yet reached resolution. The recently provided hydrology report has raised questions about the ability of the project to generate revenue upon which to apply standard models of compensation. b. Tanacross, Inc. does not intend to allow the Yerrick Creek access road across its land to be used by the public for access to State land. Therefore, it does not desire there to be "easier foot access" as a result of the pr~iect. The existing 17b easement will remain unchanged. c. Even AP&T seems unsure whether illegal use of the area will be restrained by state and federal agencies controlling and monitoring game harvests. Tanacross, Inc.'s experience with trespas.s; and Jittering along River Road, a 17b Aasement east of 'I'ok, indicates that the Alaska State Troopers do not have the ability to effectively deal \Vith trespass on private lands. 5) Authorization issues 20 June 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 9 a) AP&'l' does not yet have authorization to use Tanacross, Inc. lands for the project. If the Environmental Assessment accurately portrays AP&T's attitude toward Tanacross, Inc.'s concerns about trespass and littering, the parties hAve a long way to go before approaching an amicable resolution authorizing the project on Tanacross, Inc. lands. b. We understand that DNR proposes to issue an easement for the diversion structure, penstock, bridges, staging/parking area, and access road on State land rather than a lease. The decision document should fully lay out the reasoning behind that decision and what lhe expected fees will be. Again, we appreciate this opportunity to comment. We are looking forward to DNR's decision document and hope that you will consider our comments in its preparation. If you have any questions after looking this letter over, please give me a call. Sincerely yours, DeLISIO MORAN GERAGHTY & ZOBEL, P.C. Dy: cc: Mark S. Plank, USDA, Rural Development 'T'edd Tiuelow, USDA, Native American Coordinator (email) Ted Wellman, Esq. (emaiD Robert Brean (email) Meg ·Hayes (email) #231243 21 .rune ~~0, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 10 References Cited Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T) ((April ) 2010) "Environmental Assessment, Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, Mile Post 1339, Alaska Highway, 20 miles west of'l'ok Alaska'' Berkshire, Paul A, P.E. (2007) "Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, Estimate of Average Annual Energy" Carrara, Paul E. (2004) "Surficial geologic map of the Tanacross B-6 Quadrangle, East-Central Alaska" USGS Scientific Investigations Map 2850, Version 1.0 Environ (2010) Letter to Larry Coupe, PE Re: Yerrick Creek -Review of Available Data and Recommended Flow Duration Curve (by Felix Kristanovich~ P.E., Ph.D. according to an email received from Glen Martin on June 9, 2010) I-IDR Alaska, Inc. (2009) "Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, Tok Alaska, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination" Heinrichs, Thomas A., Ben W. Kennedy, Dustin E. Langley, and Robert 1. Burrows (200 1) "Methodology and Estimates of Scour at Selected Bridge Sites in Alaska" USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4151 Hubbard, Trent D. and Richard D. Reger (2010) "Engineering geologic map, Alask3 Highway Corridor, Robertson River to Tetlin Junction, Alaska" Preliminary Interpretive Report 2009-6b, Sheet 2 of 4 McGhee, Christine (1997?) "Fairbanks HSA" (Hydrologic Service Area) as accessed 3/29/2010 via Google1s cache of http://aprfc.arh.noaa.gov/pubs/news1tr/pub3/has_fai.html Munson, R. J. (1982) Memo to Paul W. Ivlisterek, Regional Materials Engineer ro: Icing ai.. Siat.ion 246, Tok-Yerrick Creek Project No. F-062-2(13) Reger, Richard D. (2010) Email to Meg Hayes re: PIR 009-6b 22 June 30, 2010 Valerie Baxter Page 11 Reger, Richard D. and Diana N. Solie (2008) "Engineering geologic map, Alaska Highway Corridor, Delta .Junction to Dot Lake, Alaska" Preliminary Interpretive Report 2008-3b, Sheet 2 of 2 23 BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] Environmental Assessment Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Mile Post 1339, Alaska Hwy 20 Miles West of Tok, Alaska Prepared for: U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Prepared by: Alaska Power & Telephone Company Corporate Headquarters Port Townsend, Washington April 2010 Author: Glen Martin – Project Manager Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 3222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-1733 x122 (360) 385-7538 fax glen.m@aptalaska.com Page | ii SUMMARY The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has selected the Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) as a finalist in its High Energy Cost Grant Program to construct the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (or Project). The proposed Project would be located approximately twenty miles west of Tok, Alaska, at Mile Post 1339 on the Alaska Highway. The proposed Project would supply renewable energy to four communities in the Tok area: Dot Lake, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Tok. Prior to making an award for a partial grant, RUS has determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be prepared, pursuant to 7 CFR Part 1794, RUS’s Environmental Policies and Procedures, as amended. This EA identifies environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project. It has been decided that impacts associated with upgrading the supporting transmission system would be minimal, as the infrastructure already exists and would only require minor upgrading and the stringing of a higher voltage conductor. All of this work would occur in previously disturbed rights-of-way that previously have been cleared of vegetation. The Project would be located on lands owned by the state of Alaska and Tanacross, Inc. This proposed Project is needed because the communities of Dot Lake, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Tok rely on diesel generation for their electricity, which is expensive and fluctuates frequently. The Project would reduce electric rates to these four communities by approximately 20%. Several of these communities are on the Denali Commission’s list of distressed communities 1 as this area is experiencing a significant economic downturn. Reducing electric rates may help the local economy. The results of the impact analysis show the project may have the follow environmental affects:  Temporarily impact wildlife due to noise from construction activity, which may temporarily impact hunting in the area  Have a minor impact to wetlands, by placing fill in the creek (i.e. diversion structure, bridge piers (2), part of tailrace)  Have a minor impact to Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling in the bypass section of Yerrick Creek during winter and late summer months because of low flow  Provide easier access for recreation, potentially disturbing wildlife  Reduce the use of diesel in Tok, which in turn would reduce air emissions of green- house gases and particulate matter as well as reducing opportunities for fuel spills 1 Dot Lake, Tanacross, and Tetlin are on the 2009 Denali Commission list of distressed communities. Tok was on the 2008 list. Page | iii TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................iv LIST OF APPENDICES.......................................................................................................iv LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................v 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................3 3 PURPOSE/NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION............................................................5 4 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................6 4.1 No Action...............................................................................................................6 4.2 Energy Generation Technologies Considered .......................................................6 4.3 Alternative Locations for siting the hydroelectric facility .....................................7 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.....................................................................................8 5.1 Land Use................................................................................................................8 5.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties ...........................................................8 5.3 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................10 5.3.1 Fish Resources.............................................................................................10 5.3.2 Wildlife (mammal) Review.........................................................................11 5.3.3 TES botanical survey...................................................................................14 5.4 Water Quality & Quantity.................................................................................... 15 5.4.1 Water Quality...............................................................................................15 5.4.2 Water Quantity.............................................................................................15 5.5 Floodplains/Wetlands ..........................................................................................16 5.6 Environmental Justice..........................................................................................17 5.7 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................17 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES..................................................................19 6.1 Alternative 1: No – Action...................................................................................19 6.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Project....................................................................19 6.2.1 Land Use......................................................................................................19 6.2.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties .................................................20 6.2.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................20 6.2.4 Water Quality & Quantity............................................................................ 21 6.2.5 Floodplains/Wetlands ..................................................................................21 6.2.6 Environmental Justice..................................................................................22 6.2.7 Socioeconomics ...........................................................................................22 7 MITAGATION AND PERMITS ................................................................................23 8 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................25 9 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................27 9.1 Agency Correspondence.......................................................................................... 9.2 Hydrology Studies ................................................................................................... 9.3 Biological and Other Surveys.................................................................................. 9.4 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities..................................... Page | iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Proposed Project Area..............................................................................1 Figure 2: Proposed Project Features.....................................................................................2 Figure 3: Transmission Line Features...................................................................................4 LIST OF APPENDICES 9.1 – Project Correspondence 9.2 – Hydrology / Feasibility Report 9.3 – Biological Surveys 9.3.1 – Fish Resources Report 9.3.2 – Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Plant Report 9.3.3 – Literature Review and Field Report: Hydrology Baseline Study 9.3.4 – Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination 9.3.5 – Heritage Resource Survey 9.4 – 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities Page | v LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS % percent ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game AKNHP Alaska National Historic Preservation ALA APE area of potential effect AP&T Alaska Power and Telephone ATV All terrain vehicle cfs cubic feet per second CO2 carbon dioxide DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources EA Environmental Assessment HDPE kV kilovolt kWh kilowatt-hour MW megawatt NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OHW Ordinary high water (mark) pop. population ROW right-of-way RUS Rural Utilities Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office TES threatened, endangered, and sensitive (species) USACOE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Service Page | 1 1 INTRODUCTION The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has selected the Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) as a finalist in its High Energy Cost Grant Program to construct the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (20 Miles west of Tok, Alaska at Mile Post 1339, Alaska Hwy). The granting of funds by RUS is a federal action subject to environmental impact review, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and RUS’s NEPA implementing regulations, Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR Part 1794, as amended. RUS has determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be prepared for this Project. This EA provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts, which may result from RUS’s action related to this proposal. RUS Bulletin 1794A-601, “Guide for Preparing an Environmental Report for Electric Projects Requiring an Environmental Assessment,” was used as guidance in the preparation of this EA. In addition to fulfilling its obligations under NEPA, this EA also documents RUS’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. Figure 1: Map of Proposed Project Area Page | 2 Figure 2: Proposed Project Features LENOTHOH ~O:O!:'::r~':" ~~S:~!~~ AREA ON STATE OF TOTAL A.REA. ACRES P*RCE.L TANACROSS/DOYON tSEE. NOTE t) JUT ALASKA L.ANO, ACRE ESTATt ($E.e HOT£ I) =T~;:~=TH~ ..... 21.t BURlED P£NSTOCK Rlvt:R CR0$$1NG (50' R.(IN W!Oflil --~ERHOUSE,lOWER 5TAGINO AND BORROW AR~ -... rAIUtA.CEA.MI!A. -... UPPER BORROW AREA. CTEMPORAR'I) --UPPER STA.OtNO AREA (TEMPORARVI - -OIV£R:$10tt --TOTAL t,$)0 "·' NQIES;, 1. TANACROSS, INC.: SURFACE £$TAT!: DOYON, INC.: SU8$UAFACE ESTATE 2. lENGTHS AND AREAS ARf. BASED ON Alf UNSURVEYED PROJECT OOUNOARY AN.O Af'PAOXIMAft! PUBLIC L.ANO SURvEY 80UHOA~IES AHD AM SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 3. UOAR TOPOGRAPHIC *PPING AHD AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY A1!RO.M£TAIC AI.ASKA., 2001. <4-. POWER CADL(S WU,.I. BE BURatD IN TliE ACCE.$5 ROAD RtGtfT.Qf-. ,i,'· WAY> NO AOOmONAL AREA&S RCOUIRED fOR TRA.NSf.USSION ~£$. $CAl,.~; 1"'"500' ~-LOC DRAWN: lOC :'tl!·•cii.I'I'P'~ ..... 15.1 )7.0 ..... '·' " --·~ --. .• -... . .. -u 5.1 -'·' u 7.690 ··~ .... [HALF-SIZE DRAWING] ACCESS ROAD AND AOJACENT PE.NSTOCK (100' RaOKT.Of.wAY) 't'ERRIC.K CREEK ACnVE CtiAHH£L .APJ ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY ·&m-r ~.~ r j' .. GENERAL PLAN AND PREUMINARY RIGHT OF WAY _.,.., Page | 3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AP&T plans to construct a 1.5 megawatt (MW) “run-of river” hydroelectric facility that would supply renewable energy to the communities of Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot Lake, Alaska. The facility could potentially supply 100% of the communities' energy demand during high flow periods (typically June and July). During the remainder of the year, only part of the load would be met. AP&T’s hydrology studies indicate there will be sufficient flow during the extremely cold winter month for the Project to operate, although at substantially reduced output. While not getting these communities completely off of diesel generation year round, the Project will be a significant first step for the area to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels. The Project will consist of:  Approximately 3 miles of single-lane access road from the highway to the diversion site. The clearing width for the road will generally be 40-50 feet, but may be somewhat wider in areas of significant ground slope due to the widths of cuts and fills. The right-of-way (ROW) width will be 100 feet to provide for minor field adjustment of the alignment if necessary. The road will cross Yerrick Creek at one location about 2 miles from the highway; the bridge will be about 200 feet long.  A diversion structure at about El 2220, just below the confluence of the main stem of Yerrick Creek and two tributaries. The diversion structure will include a concrete-faced rockfill dike on the west abutment, a concrete-faced rockfill spillway and roughened channel outlet in the central portion, and a concrete intake on the right abutment.  A buried pipeline approximately 15,000 feet in length (known as a penstock) using 42-inch HDPE pipe for the upper 55% and 36-inch ductile iron pipe for the lower 45%. The penstock will cross Yerrick Creek just above the bridge noted above; it will be buried below the stream channel and encased in concrete.  A powerhouse approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the Alaska Highway where the water will pass through a single turbine to the tailrace. Other powerhouse equipment will include the 1500 kW generator, controls and switchgear, bridge crane, and pad-mount transformer. The powerhouse structure will be a metal building set on a concrete foundation.  A tailrace consisting of a pond and 800 feet of excavated canal to an existing overflow channel of Yerrick Creek. The pond will be formed in a borrow pit excavated to provide fill material for the access road. The pond is expected to develop a stable ice cover in winter that will allow the turbine to discharge without glaciering.  A transmission line consisting of 1,500 feet of 12.4 kV underground transmission cable from the powerhouse to the highway and 10 miles of upgraded 12.4 kV overhead transmission line adjacent to the highway (see Figure 3), Based on the hydrology studies conducted to date (see Appendix 9.2), AP&T has selected a hydraulic capacity for the Project at 60 cfs, which will provide a generating capacity of 1,500 kW. The streamflow will only exceed the hydraulic capacity during the early summer (typically June and July), or about 10%-20% of the year. This is a relatively low exceedence level for a run-of-river project, but AP&T believes the high capacity is Page | 4 worthwhile because of the high cost of diesel generation. Before pipe and generating equipment is ordered, AP&T will reevaluate the hydraulic capacity. It could be reduced to perhaps 50 cfs, which would allow a reduction in the penstock diameter from about 42 inches to 36 inches. The environmental impacts would be virtually the same with a smaller capacity, therefore the conclusions of this EA would not change. During times of high flow, water will flow over the diversion structure. If the overflow is less than about 30 cfs, it will all pass through the roughened channel outlet to allow fish passage. At higher rates of overflow, water will also pass over the spillway. The duration of this overflow will be intermittent, and of course will vary with the amount of snow accumulated in the basin; during low runoff years there may be only a very short period of overflow, but during high runoff years the overflow period may start in June and extend into August. Figure 3: Transmission Line Features The proposed Project requires state and federal permitting prior to project commencement of construction. The permits needed are: (1) a Department of Natural Resource (DNR) land lease permit; (2) DNR water rights permit; (3) Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) habitat permit; and, (4) a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit. In addition, besides being on State of Alaska managed lands, this project is also on Tanacross, Inc. lands (private), which is a Native corporation. The diversion structure and approximately 7,000 feet of the penstock and access road will be on state land, the remainder of the penstock and access road as well as the powerhouse and buried portion of the transmission line will be on private land. The size of easement needed on state land will be approximately 28.4 acres. The size of easement needed on private land will be approximately 27.7 acres. Page | 5 3 PURPOSE/NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of this hydroelectric project is to reduce the use of fossil fuels presently used for generating electricity in the Tok area along the Alaska Highway. The communities that will benefit from this project are Tetlin (pop. 117), Tanacross (pop. 140), Dot Lake (pop. 19), and Tok (pop. 1,393), Alaska. These communities are presently 100% reliant upon fossil fuels for their electricity. AP&T applied to the RUS for a grant for a 2.0 MW run-of- river hydroelectric project that would connect directly to the AP&T transmission system that is centralized out of Tok where diesel generation facilities are located. Based on further hydrologic analysis, the facility is currently being designed with a 1.5 MW capacity. AP&T presently sells power for $0.47 per kWh (2009) in Tok and to other communities connected to Tok’s closed grid. The Proposed Action is needed to reduce this areas use of fossil fuels and to reduce price fluctuations and air emissions associated with diesel generation. To do this, a renewable energy resource is necessary. The proposed Project will be the first such project on this interior Alaska grid. Placing this hydroelectric project on the Tok grid will reduce electric rates to approximately $0.37 per kWh (~20% reduction). The current rate is above the RUS High Energy Cost Benchmark of Extremely High Average per unit energy costs ($0.239 per kWh), one of the eligibility criteria of this program. Two of the communities that would benefit from this project have large Native Alaskan populations, Tetlin 94.9%, Tanacross 88.6%. Page | 6 4 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 No Action If no action is taken, the four communities that would benefit from the proposed Project would remain on diesel generation for their electrical needs. The price of diesel fluctuates and is expected to remain high, keeping the area’s electric rates high. Diesel generation also puts particulate matter and gases such as CO2 into the air, which are related to global warming. The high volume of diesel fuel needed for this small grid increases the likelihood of spills during transport and fueling operations as well as potential leaks from storage. The transport of hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel each year relies on the burning of fossil fuels to transport fuel, which would continue. The high cost of electricity is a stress on residential customers, schools, and businesses, suppressing economic and population growth. The increasingly expensive electrical rates may drive people away from these communities. This economically impacted area on the Alaska Highway will continue to struggle with increases in the cost of diesel fuel. 4.2 Energy Generation Technologies Considered Other energy generation technologies considered other than hydroelectric power were hydrokinetics, wind power, and woody biomass. A hydrokinetic project (the use of moving water to passively move a turbine placed in its flow) was evaluated for the Tanana River not far from Yerrick Creek. However, the environmental issues related to placing a turbine in this river appeared significant (possible impacts to fish, fishermen, boat traffic, subsistence use, testing of new technology, impact of floating debris). In addition, this type of technology is still being developed and tested. Hydrokinetic technology for a river turbine is presently not as efficient and the units are not very large, producing only a small amount of electricity. AP&T prefers to go with proven technology to get the best use of grant funds made available by RUS for renewable energy development as well as develop a larger project to meet more of the load. Wind power is still being evaluated for the area. AP&T is evaluating one or two sites that look promising, but their development could be years down the road. Wind generation requires consistent wind speeds above a base velocity rather than just being a windy area. This too is experimental technology at this northern latitude and is not known to be able to startup as fast as hydro from power outages when integrated with a diesel system. Conventional hydroelectric technology can start almost instantaneously, allowing supplemental diesel generation to be brought more slowly on line. Thus, conventional hydroelectric generation is more reliable in hybrid systems like the one being proposed. Biofuel is being considered by AP&T for the Tok grid. AP&T has been considering the possibility of a 2.0 MW-sized biomass facility using wood from the local area; however, funding was not made available to AP&T by the State of Alaska in its recent grant funding for Renewable Energy Fund Round III. This option will not be pursued in the near term unless grant funding becomes available. In order to get the communities on the Tok grid off of diesel generation, it will require a combination of renewable energy projects. However, biofuel is also less reliable than conventional hydroelectric power in that wood Page | 7 would have to be purchased and would therefore be dependent on a reliable and available source. Conventional hydroelectric power is a mature technology that is well proven. The components are readily available, and the science of finding a good site is well established. Yerrick Creek meets the requirements for a sustainable run-of-river (no storage) hydroelectric project due to relatively consistent flow throughout the year, no significant environmental issues, and no major engineering challenges. All of these contribute to keeping costs down. Hydroelectric projects also have the advantage of quick start-up time after a power outage, which is almost instantly. Hydroelectric power also integrates well with diesel generation units, making the balance between the two easy to manage. The other technologies that were considered either do not work well with quick start-ups or are relatively unproven, however, hydroelectric projects integrate well with other renewable energy projects, such as wind, because generation can be well regulated where as most other renewable energy technologies do not have consistent energy production. 4.3 Alternative Locations for siting the hydroelectric facility Other watersheds considered by AP&T for conventional hydroelectric included:  Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1, just west of Yerrick Creek, o does not have as large a drainage area as Yerrick Creek o does not have enough flow year round, and o does not have the easy accessibility of Yerrick Creek.  Tanana River o many environmental issues, particularly fish passage and sediment buildup o significantly greater costs to construct a project on a river versus a creek AP&T’s transmission grid passes by Yerrick Creek allowing the project to plug into the existing infrastructure, whereas other potential sites would require new transmission infrastructure because they were further away, which would lead to an increase in project costs and introduce new environmental impacts. Page | 8 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 5.1 Land Use Approximately 50% of the proposed Project is located on state managed land, and the remainder is on property privately owned by Tanacross, Inc. The portion of the Yerrick Creek basin on which the Project would be located is used by hunters for bear, moose, caribou, and Dall sheep. Trapping for small furbearers also takes place. The site is used for a combination of subsistence and recreational activities, which is typical of the general area. Trespassing for hunting and/or trapping purposes is a concern of Tanacross, Inc., the private landowner. This sort of activity is not unusual in rural Alaska, which resembles an open range without fencing. Development of this project would provide easier access into both Tanacross, Inc. and state lands. AP&T is considering reasonable solutions to prevent vehicular access, such as installing a locked gate at the access road’s entrance point. AP&T is also willing to compensate Tanacross, Inc. for the use of its land and to mitigate the effects of trespassing and loss of land. While subsistence and recreational hunters and trappers will have easier foot access to a part of this area, wildlife hunting would remain heavily controlled and monitored by state and federal agencies that permit the amount of take allowed in the area. Therefore, although hunting is allowed in this area, a permit is necessary to harvest, and only a certain number of each species is allowed to be taken annually. This may provide some restraint for illegal use of this area. 5.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties Under the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, archeological site- location information is confidential; disclosure of such information is exempt from requests under federal and state freedom of information laws. The following reports are not public documents. They are intended for release to Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tanacross, Inc., and other consulting parties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Prior to initiating consultation with consulting parties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), AP&T gathered information about historic properties in the general project area. On July 9, 2008, AP&T submitted a letter the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which included a copy of a literature review and preliminary recommendations for additional archaeological and historic structure surveys. The Alaska SHPO responded on August 15, 2008, that it agreed with the recommendations of the report, specifically the letter stated that additional archaeological surveys should be completed for the proposed access route, powerhouse site, and penstock route and that surveys should not be needed for the impoundment area. Based on this recommendation, RUS determined that the area of potential effect (APE) would be the proposed locations for the access road, powerhouse site, and penstock. Page | 9 By letter dated October 14, 2008, RUS formally initiated consultation with the Alaska SHPO and government-to-government consultation with the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake. The letter identified the project’s APE, requested that additional information be provided about historic properties within the APE, and requested the participation of consulting parties (Alaska SHPO, the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake) in a teleconference on November 13, 2008. The purpose of this teleconference was to give a more detailed description of the project, discuss known historic properties that may be within the APE, and discuss the predicted progression of this project under Section 106. On November 10, 2008, Tanacross, Inc., provided comments in response to RUS’s letter. Comments included:  A significant portion of the project (approximately one half of the penstock route, construction and maintenance roads, and all of the powerhouse site & its auxiliary facilities [access road and transmission infrastructure]) would be located on lands owned and managed by Tanacross, Inc.  The project would conflict with use of historic trails by members of the Native Village of Tanacross for subsistence purposes.  The project would interfere with right-of-way development by Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali) for the transportation of North Slope natural gas to market. The proposed location of the powerhouse would be at the same location of Denali’s proposed compressor station. Several of these concerns were addressed during the teleconference held on November 10, 2008. Meeting minutes and a formal response to Tanacross, Inc.’s letter were submitted via email to participants of the teleconference on December 17, 2008. Representatives from the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake participated in the teleconference. Minutes from this meeting are included in Appendix 9.1 – Project Correspondence. Following the discussion, Tanacross, Inc., identified a historic trail used by members of Tanacross for subsistence purposes that may be within the APE of this Project. By letter dated, December 17, 2008, RUS requested that site-specific locations of the trail be identified. To date, this information has not been submitted to RUS for review. Following the teleconference, RUS authorized AP&T to begin surveys of the APE, provided it acquired the necessary permissions from Tanacross, Inc., to access its land. In 2009, AP&T hired Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR) to conduct a cultural resource survey of the APE. The survey identified the following sites within the APE:  TNX-156: Tanacross quadrangle segment of the Haines-Fairbanks pipeline  TNX-074: Yerrick Creek cabin  TNX-211: Can Dump area  TNX-212: Construction camp site When designing this project, AP&T treated all of these sites as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Properties, although RUS, with SHPO concurrence) have Page | 10 determined that site TNX-211 is ineligible.2 The historic trail, identified by Tanacross, Inc., was not found within the APE. 5.3 Biological Resources Yerrick Creek is located within the Yukon/Tanana uplands physiographic province (Warhafting 1965). The climate of this area is continental with average annual temperatures ranging between -32°F and 72°F, and extreme temperatures have been measured from -60 to 99°F (ADCED 2004). The Tanana Valley is bound by low, rounded hills ranging in elevation from 300 meters to 1,500 meters (1,000 to 5,000 feet) above sea level, that are interspersed with lowland bog areas and depressions. Wildlife resources within Upper Tanana region include large game, such as moose, caribou and Dall sheep, and furbearers, such as snowshoe hare, muskrat and red squirrels (Halpin 1987). Aquatic resources include occasional whitefish, arctic grayling, and Dolly Varden, while avian resources include geese, ptarmigan, ducks and grouse. A literature search indicates that these species exist in the Yerrick Creek area. The Alaska Range lines the southern horizon of the project area beyond the low-lying hills. The higher relief hills are typically igneous intrusions that sometimes have extensive rock exposures and shallow soil deposition, whereas the lowlands are often characterized by vegetated loess dunes and thick organic layers covering permafrost. The area surrounding the Tanana River is dotted with lowland lakes and small creeks. Yerrick Creek flows north from the Alaska Range before joining the Tanana River. Yerrick Creek is a cascading stream with fast flow with some “islands” of vegetation present in the channel, but for the most part the channel consists of braided sand, gravel, and cobble bars with some large boulders. Old meander channels and lower elevation vegetated creek banks exhibit signs of recent and past vegetation log jams from spring break up. Vegetation in the project area consists of an upland spruce-hardwood forest. Dominant trees include black and white spruce, paper birch, quaking aspen and cottonwood. Willow and alder shrubs are also present in recently disturbed areas. Understory shrubs include dwarf birch, wild rose, Labrador tea, high bush cranberry and raspberry. The dominant forest ground cover noted include toad flax, bog and low bush cranberry, Sphagnum moss, lichens, blue joint grasses and horsetail. Initially, AP&T submitted a Draft Study Plan to the resource agencies to determine what studies were needed and what information was lacking in their biological analysis of the site. Based on comments received from ADF&G on September 3, 2008, the study of mammals was not necessary because there was significant information already available on agency websites, which was included in AP&T’s Study Plan. Fish species, plant surveys, and a wetland determination, however, were conducted. 5.3.1 Fish Resources For most of its length, Yerrick Creek is a cascading stream with fast flow and boulder substrate. The stream generally comprises one to three channels, within a wide dynamic 2 March 24, 2010, letter from SHPO to RUS. Page | 11 (scoured) perimeter. Apparent fish habitat consists of widely spaced, very small (~10-foot long) pools behind large boulders or logjams. Roughly one mile before the creek joins the Tanana River, the habitat is significantly different; flow is much slower and the habitat is composed mostly of sand. In this “delta” area, there are three main channels with several smaller channels which leave and rejoin the larger channels, and at least one large area (“city block” in size) through which the creek flows more-or-less overland, in very shallow channels among dense spruce trees. In between these two reaches is a transition zone, where flow is intermediate in strength and substrate is small rocks and large gravel. This transition zone is only a few hundred yards long. Complicating this situation is the fact that the surface water flowing in the creek is not always continuous within the river. Because of the porous substrate, the water sometimes disappears from the surface and flows underground. Fish surveys were conducted by a qualified fish biologist, Stephen Grabacki (Anchorage), who conducted surveys in 2008 on September 3-4 and 29-30 and in 2009 on May 19-20, May 27-29, and June 7. A report on the fish surveys can be found in Appendix 9.3.1 – Fish Resource Report. Mr. Grabacki stated, “The stream bed morphology indicates that even when there is surface flow, the quality of the habitat is limited and the larger rock moved during the high flow periods reduces the quality of fish habitat.” Based on sampling in early September 2008, and on the three sampling sessions in May- June 2009, an understanding of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) use of Yerrick Creek seems to have emerged. Grayling appear to use parts of Yerrick Creek (below and within the bypass reach) for summer feeding, on an opportunistic basis. No evidence was found to support that grayling spawn in Yerrick Creek:  The creek did not connect to the river at the expected time of grayling spawning  No aggregations were observed of grayling anywhere in Yerrick Creek; all grayling observed in the creek in May-June 2009 appeared to be individual fish  No adult-size grayling were observed, and the largest grayling observed in June 2009 (a 2- or 3-year-old) did not appear to be in either a pre-spawning or post- spawning condition. Studies conducted showed that the majority of Dolly Varden (DV) year-round habitat is above the diversion site. During a May 2009 meeting between ADF&G and AP&T, ADF&G acknowledged that this Project would not significantly impact DV (it was at this time AP&T was directed to focus on studying Grayling use of the creek). Studies confirmed that there is little over-wintering refugia in the bypass portion of the creek so that any loss of over-wintering refugia will have minimal impact to DV. 5.3.2 Wildlife (mammal) Review Wildlife is not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed Project, either by construction or operation. Species that use the proposed Project area are not considered threatened, endangered, or listed species of concern (TES). A literature search conducted by AP&T does not point to any TES using this basin, although some may occasionally pass through during migration. Of the many species that do use the Yerrick Creek area, Game Page | 12 Management Unit 12, some are hunted for their meat (moose, caribou, Dall sheep, black and brown bear) and trapped for their pelts (lynx and marten), or harvested because they kill other preferred game, i.e., wolves. There will be a minimal loss of habitat types from project features:  The powerhouse, staging area, and lower borrow area are near the Alaska Highway and a total of approximately 5.2 acres will be cleared.  The tailrace will require clearing approximately 0.6 acres.  The access road/penstock route will require approximately 38.7 acres of clearing.  The upper borrow area will require approximately 2.5 acres, however this is mostly exposed bedrock.  The upper staging area will require approximately 5.7 acres of clearing, but will be allowed to revegetate after construction.  The diversion area covers 3.4 acres, but little of this has vegetation. The habitat type for the project area is typically open paper birch – white spruce forest. Open balsam poplar–white spruce forest and open white spruce forest habitats are found in drier portions of the Project area. Open black spruce forest and open dwarf black spruce forest occupy areas with poorly drained soils. Closed tall alder or willow scrub occupies the transitional areas between forested areas and creek channel. This habitat type is common throughout this drainage basin as well as other drainages along the Tanana River that Yerrick Creek drains into. ADF&G in a July 1, 2008, letter to AP&T, requested that the penstock and access road remain a minimum of 66 feet from the creek accept when intersecting with the diversion structure or powerhouse; however, it is necessary to cross the creek due to perma frost, wetlands, and steep slopes found further south on the west side of the creek. A single-lane bridge would be used to cross the creek and the penstock would be buried under the creek to avoid damage from flooding that occurs in this wide, dynamic creek. The penstock (pipe) would be passable to wildlife because it will be buried along the access road. This Project is viewed as having limited impacts to wildlife in the area. The main concern would be whether this project will provide easier vehicular access into this basin for hunters and trappers, which could place more pressure on wildlife. However, in regards to increased hunting pressure, sport and subsistence hunting go hand- in-hand in this area, although most is by Alaskan hunters and is therefore most likely for subsistence. All hunting is controlled by permit in this area and there is a limit to how many of each species can be harvested in a given year. This places a control on harvesting these species regardless of whether there is improved access to this drainage or not. Big game that use Game Management Unit 12 are black and brown bear, moose, and possibly migrating caribou. Dall sheep most likely stay at higher elevations. Wolves probably migrate through looking for game. Roads in remote areas with little traffic often become travel corridors for the wildlife using the area (AP&Ts experience from other projects), which simply makes it easier for them to get around. However, the Yerrick Creek forest is primarily open, possibly reducing use of the road by wildlife. Although this project will remove habitat, the loss is not significant because the amount of land is small in comparison with the surrounding undeveloped area. Page | 13 Dall sheep hunting is controlled by a drawing for a permit, only so many permits are allowed, so increased access should have little impact to this species because only so many can be legally harvested. Of the participating hunters, 94% were Alaska residents in regulatory years (RY) 2001-2003, of which 92% of the harvested rams were by Alaskans.3 For Macomb caribou, a permit is required as well with a harvest limit of one bull per year (only for residents). Only one Macomb caribou was harvested in Unit 12 in RY2001-2002 and RY2002-2003. Highway vehicle followed by horse are the dominant methods to hunt Macomb caribou in recent years.4 Brown bears are distributed throughout Unit 12. Unit 12 brown bear hunting regulations were liberalized in 1981 to reduce the bear population and elevate moose calf survival. "In 1994, the Unit 12 brown bear management goal to reduce the brown bear population to increase moose calf survival was eliminated and the management goal was revised to provide for maximum opportunity to hunt brown bears in Unit 12. The management goal has remained the same since 1994."5 Presently, only one brown bear per permit per regulatory year is allowed to be harvested. During RY 04 & 05, non-residents of Alaska accounted for 65% and 75% of the harvest respectively. For black bear, three bears per permit per regulatory year can be harvested. Alaska residents accounted for 89-93% of the black bears harvested during RY98-RY00. Yerrick Creek does not contain a reliable source of fish in the project area (diversion to the powerhouse) to attract bears to feed. Other streams along the Tanana River have better runs of grayling and Dolly Varden as well as other salmonid species. Regarding moose, "Predation by wolves and grizzly bears has likely been the greatest source of mortality for moose in Unit 12 and has likely been the major factor keeping the population at a low density since the mid 1970s. In contrast to most other areas that contain sympatric moose, wolf, and grizzly bear populations, wolves, rather than bears, appeared to be the primary predator on moose calves on the Northway-Tetlin Flats, based on research conducted during the late 1980s (ADF&G, unpublished data; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). Wolf predation also appeared to be the greatest source of adult mortality. However, in some mountainous areas of Unit 12, fall composition data indicate that predation on moose neonates was high, suggesting grizzly bear predation."6 Hunters using 3 or 4 wheelers accounted for the highest percentage of the harvest with highway vehicles next. Predation by wolves and bears shows that other natural processes have a far greater impact on moose than humans. Only one bull can be harvested per year per permit. 3 Parker McNeill D.I. 2005. Portions of Units 12, 13C, and 20D Dall sheep management report. Pages 68-79 in C. Brown, editor. Dall sheep management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001-30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 6.0. Juneau, Alaska. 4 DuBois, S. D. 2007. Units 12 and 20D caribou. Pages 65-82 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA. 5 Gross, J. A. 2007. Unit 12 brown bear. Pages 132-142 in P. Harper, editor. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 4.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA. 6 Hollis, A. L. 2006. Unit 12 moose. Pages 126-143 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory actitivies 1 July 2003-30 June 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA. Page | 14 Up to five wolves can be harvest per year in Game Management Unit 12. Management of these species with state harvest limits is what controls the human take of these species. Putting a road into the Yerrick Creek drainage to reach the diversion site may provide easier access by hunters, but all these species require permits to harvest. The harvest total for the management unit is based on what the populations can tolerate. This short road into Yerrick Creek will not change management of these species, even if it makes it easier to get into this area. Avian species are not expected to be significantly impacted due to the limited nature of the clearing needed (15 feet wide for access road / penstock route) although there could be some loss of habitat. 5.3.3 TES botanical survey A threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species survey was conducted within the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric project area by a qualified botanist of HDR, Inc., Anchorage. The purpose of the study was to determine if there were any individuals or populations of plant species of interest that may be affected by project activities. The survey was conducted at Level 5 intensity. Most of the project area is undeveloped with an open gravel waterway, islands of mixed hardwood and softwood trees, abandoned gravel side channels in various states of revegetation, and heavily forested banks. The main vegetation of Yerrick Creek study area is typically open paper birch – white spruce forest. Open balsam poplar–white spruce forest and open white spruce forest inhabits drier sites. Open black spruce forest and open dwarf black spruce forest occupy areas with poorly drained soils. Closed tall alder or willow scrub occupies the transitional areas between forested areas and creek channel. Narrow areas of gravel floodplain areas along Yerrick Creek are inhabited by early seral graminoids and forbs. Bluejoint meadows and lowland sedge wet meadows occupy wet areas adjacent to ponds. The HDR project botanist surveyed most of the major vegetation types, and covered much of the geographic extent of the Yerrick Creek project area. The majority of collection locations were concentrated on gravel river bars and shrub areas adjacent to the Yerrick Creek. More than 100 vouchers were collected. Specimens were given provisional names in the field and later sorted, examined and identified by the HDR botanist. Specimens of notable taxa will be sent to the UAF Herbarium (ALA) for review by the museum staff. Most of these species are widespread in interior Alaska. No non-native species were observed in the Yerrick Creek study area. In total, 145 species from 40 families were recorded at the area. The complete list of species encountered in Yerrick Creek study area is found in Appendix 9.3.2 – TES Plant Report. Two lakes were visited. Aquatic plants were observed and recorded from the shore. The study area was not surveyed for aquatic plants specifically. Four notable plants were found in the project area. The AKNHP tracks populations of plants of interest. Notable plants are not considered rare, sensitive, or endangered but are considered to be of ecological interest by the AKNHP. Page | 15 Phlox sibirica (Siberian phlox) was not previously reported from the area. The closest records of this plant are approximately (UAF 2008): 1. 30 miles NW of Yerrick Creek in Fort Greely Military Reservation in 2004 (63.78°, -145.79°) 2. 45 miles SE of Yerrick Creek at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (62.20266°, -142.123273°) Other notable plants, for which there are no nearby records, include: 1. Botrychium lunaria (common moonwort) 2. Platanthera obtusata (blunt-leaved orchid) 3. Astragalus robbinsii ssp. harringtonii (Harold’s milkvetch) The TES plant survey found no globally or state ranked Rare or Sensitive species during the survey. No Endangered species were encountered or identified during the survey. The only plant federally listed or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska is Polystichum aleuticum C. Christensen, which is endangered. It is only known from Adak Island and is not expected to occur in the proposed Project area. Most plant species observed in the area are considered common and widespread in interior Alaska. 5.4 Water Quality & Quantity 5.4.1 Water Quality A water quality survey was conducted by Travis/Pederson Environmental Consulting, Inc., Fairbanks, using past (USGS 15476000) and present information to complete an analysis (report can be found in Appendix 9.3.3. – Literature Review and Field Report: Hydrology Baseline Study). The findings from the water quality study is that Yerrick Creek is a clear, oligotrophic (low nutrient levels) and well oxygenated stream. The moderately high pH for surface water suggests contact with some kind of carbonate rock within the drainage. High flushing flows occur on almost an annual basis, scouring and moving the cobble within the creek banks. 5.4.2 Water Quantity AP&T’s initial assessment of the water quantities in Yerrick Creek (Berkshire, 2007) were based on transposition of the record of the USGS gage on Berry Creek some 33 miles west of Yerrick Creek, with adjustment for the drainage areas of the two streams. AP&T installed a stream gage on Yerrick Creek near the diversion site in June 2007. In July 2008, the gage installation was washed out by flooding. The gage was subsequently moved upstream a few hundred feet to a more protected location, but equipment malfunctions prevented collection of data until the spring of 2009. As with all stream gages in interior Alaska, the gage installation is subject to ice influence, and flows in the winter can only be estimated. AP&T has attempted to correlate the small amount of data from the Yerrick Creek gage with contemporaneous data from USGS gages in the area. Unfortunately, there are no contemporaneous USGS gages with similar characteristics (basin size, elevation, annual precipitation); available USGS gages are as follows: Page | 16  Phelan Creek near Paxton - - 12.2 mi2 drainage area, mostly glaciated.  Goodpaster River near Big Delta - - 677 mi2 drainage area, lower and flatter topography  Yukon River near Eagle - - 113,500 mi2 drainage area Correlations between the data from AP&T’s gage and that from the USGS gages are only fair, with correlation coefficients (R2) between 0.79 and 0.85. Based on the flow data collected to date and the correlations with the USGS gage data, it appears that Yerrick Creek has a higher base flow than might be expected. Even in the winter, AP&T has always found water flowing under the ice at the gage location. AP&T theorizes that this is because of the large amount of alluvium in the valley. AP&T will continue to measure Yerrick Creek flows to develop more reliable streamflow correlations. In 2010, AP&T contracted for another review of the hydrology information for the site (Environ Corp., 2010). For that study, a double correlation was attempted between Berry Creek, the Yukon River, and Yerrick Creek. The study determines likely upper and lower limits for Yerrick Creek flows. 5.5 Floodplains/Wetlands A wetlands jurisdictional determination was conducted by HDR, Inc. (Appendix 9.3.4 – Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination). Most of the proposed Project area is undeveloped, with an open gravel waterway, adjacent forests, abandoned gravel side channels in various states of re-vegetation, and heavily forested banks. The creek corridor is the only floodplain, and the project features that will be within the floodplain are the diversion structure and a small portion of the penstock. Besides the creek, there are small and large ponds on the ridges above the creek to the west as well as hydric soils and permafrost scattered about. A significant portion of the soils are not hydric and are well drained. Conclusions from the wetland delineation were: at wetland data from locations, 15 out of the 28 sites had hydrophytic vegetation. The most common trees in the project area include white spruce (Picea glauca), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and some paper birch (Betula papyrifera). The most common shrub is alder (Alnus crispa). Saplings of white spruce and cottonwood are also common in the shrub layer. Common graminoids include bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis) and a variety of sedges (Carex spp.). Common forbs include timberberry (Geocaulon lividum) and dwarf fireweed (Chamerion latifolium). Mosses and lichens were found primarily in forested plots. Wetland locations are based upon the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydrologic indicators, and hydric soil indicators. Other waters of the U.S. are based on the investigators’ judgement about the location of the ordinary high water mark of Yerrick Creek. Based on the findings above, approximately 21.3% (147.1 acres), a conservative delineation, of the mapped acres were determined to meet the USACOE requirements for being classified as wetlands or other waters. Most of the mapped wetland areas are not within the proposed project construction areas. Page | 17 The remainder of the mapped project area, approximately 78.7% (542.6 acres) of the mapped area, lacks one or more of the required three parameters to support classifying an area as wetland and is not below the plane of the ordinary high water (OHW) mark of Yerrick Creek. These areas would not be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Yerrick Creek and its adjacent active bars are waters of the U.S. below the creek’s OHW mark. OHW is particularly difficult to define for a braided channel such as this one. There may be some areas within the river bars that are not actually below the OHW mark. 5.6 Environmental Justice The communities that would benefit from the proposed Project are Tetlin (pop. 117; 94.9% is Native American), Tanacross (pop. 140; 88.6% is Native American), Dot Lake (pop. 19), and Tok (pop. 1,393; 12.8% is Native American), Alaska. The state’s percentage of Native Americans is 13.4%. According to the U.S. Census data, the county median household income was $38,776, which is 75% of the State median household income of $51,571. The per capita income for these communities is: Tetlin $7,372; Tanacross $9,429; Tok $18,521; and Dot Lake $19,406 compared to the State at $33,761. Family poverty levels are higher in Tetlin (40%), Tanacross (22.6%), and Tok (9.5%) than the State as a whole (6.7%). Unemployment in Tanacross is 57.1%, Tetlin 46.9%, and in Tok 18%.7 The Denali Commission’s 2009 Report on Distressed Communities in Alaska lists Dot Lake, Tetlin and Tanacross as distressed. Tok was last listed as a distressed community by the Denali Commission in their 2008 report. Based on the current state of the U.S. economy, it is likely that all four communities will be listed in 2010. The Denali Commission list of Distressed Communities can be found in Appendix 9.4 – 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities. 5.7 Socioeconomics The present (2009) electric rates for AP&T customers in Tetlin, Tok, Tanacross and Dot Lake (a small, isolated grid) is approximately $0.47 per kWh. AP&T’s current diesel fuel consumption is approximately 350,000 gallons per year, which at today’s prices (the 2008 average was $3.577 per gallon) costs $1,252,000 annually. Over 50 years, AP&T’s diesel generation plant will use approximately 17,500,000 gallons of diesel. The existing diesel plant in Tok, which supplies electricity to all four communities, presently has six diesel generators to meet and act as backup for the load demand. The generators require significant labor and maintenance. The frequency of generator overhaul and replacement of these six units averages a cost of approximately $50,000 annually. These costs are passed on to customers via the electric rates. Many customers in AP&T’s service area supplement their electrical use with wood, kerosene, and oil or gas generators for heating because of the high cost of electricity. Several customers also use propane for cooking, clothes dryers, hot water heaters, etc. The economy along the Alaska Highway has suffered from high gas prices, the slowed national economy. This situation has impacted the local economy, which is reliant upon tourism for 7 Based on the 2000 U.S. Census Records Page | 18 its economic sustainability. As mentioned under Environmental Justice, Dot Lake, Tetlin, and Tanacross are on the 2009 Denali Commissions list of distressed communities, and have been so for years, with Tok last listed in 2008. The local school is seeking cheaper electric rates and is therefore looking at other technologies. A couple businesses have come through looking for sites to build manufacturing plants in the Tok area until they discovered how expensive the electricity is. Economic development is bleak for the area at this time. Page | 19 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6.1 Alternative 1: No – Action If No Action is taken, the environment at Yerrick Creek would remain unchanged. There would be no diverting of flow out of the creek to be returned further downstream, having no impact on the limited fish habitat available in this area of the creek and therefore allow free movement by fish as currently exists. There would be no loss of terrestrial habitat from the clearing of the right-of-way for the access road and penstock route. Wildlife that uses the area would not be stressed by the activity of construction, possibly temporarily forcing them out of the area. There would be no possibility of human induced erosion or sedimentation to the creek. The No Action alternative would also mean the four communities that would benefit from this project will remain on diesel generation for their electrical needs. This will cause their electric rates to fluctuate with the price of diesel, which is expected to remain high keeping the area electric rates high. Diesel generation also puts particulate matter and gases such as CO2 into the air, which are related to global warming. The high volume of diesel fuel needed for this small grid increases the likelihood of spills during transport and fueling operations as well as potential leaks from storage. The transport of hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel each year relies on the burning of fossil fuels, which would continue. The high cost of electricity would continue to stress residential customers, schools, and businesses, suppressing economic and residential growth. The increasingly expensive electrical rates may drive people from these communities. This economically impacted area on the Alaska Highway will continue to struggle with increases in the cost of diesel fuel. 6.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Project 6.2.1 Land Use Fall hunting, subsistence activity, and trapping would likely be temporarily impacted during the construction phase because wildlife would probably stay away during construction activity. Although, as usually happens at this type of construction activity, based on AP&Ts experience, if construction clearings cross a wildlife corridor the wildlife will continue to use it but may change the time of day they cross the area of activity. During the operations phase, impacts to hunting, subsistence activity, and trappers would be minor due to personnel surveillance of the proposed Project site for operation and maintenance. Building the access road into the diversion site will make access easier for hunters, possibly changing the land use by increasing, at minimum, the foot traffic into the basin and increasing pressure on wildlife. However, wildlife hunted in this state management unit (Unit 12) is managed by permits, which limits the number harvested per permit. This protects the mammals so that they are not harvested beyond what their population can tolerate. Therefore, any easier access into this area should not increase pressure on wildlife because only a certain number can be taken. Other pressure from increased access is just the intrusion or disturbance potentially caused by more recreational foot traffic or ATVs if they are able to access the project access road. Though use of the Page | 20 basin is likely to increase, this is not expected to be a significant impact as this is a remote part of Alaska, even being on the Alaska Highway. Overall, use of the project area for recreational purposes is likely to increase due to easier access, but impacts are not expected to be significant. The use of both state and private land for this project would be mitigated by paying fees for the use of the land. A gate which locks just off the highway will help limit access by vehicle to prevent illegal dumping. 6.2.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties On January 13, 2010, RUS submitted a finding of effects letter to consulting parties (i.e., Alaska SHPO, Tanacross, Inc., Native Village of Tanacross, Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake). In that letter, RUS included its determination of eligibility of sites identified in the November 2009 survey for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, which included sites: TNX-156 (Tanacross quadrangle segment of the Haines-Fairbanks pipeline), TNX-074 (Yerrick Creek cabin), TNX-211 (Can Dump area), and TNX-212 (Construction camp site). On March 24, 2010, the Alaska SHPO indicated that it considers TNX-212 a historic property. The Alaska SHPO stated that it has no objections with the current design of the proposed Project (i.e., the access road avoiding site TNX-212). SHPO requested that the boundaries of the site be marked as an avoidance area for construction crews. The Alaska SHPO concurred with RUS’s determination that monitoring at site TNX-212 would not be needed. To date, no letters from the other consulting parties have been received. 6.2.3 Biological Resources No Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive wildlife species are known to utilize the proposed Project area, although they may pass through it. Impacts would be temporary from construction activities causing wildlife to avoid the site during construction. No long term impacts are expected. No Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species were found to inhabit the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Fish resources in the Project’s bypass reach will be minimally impacted because the existing quality of the habitat is currently poor. Dolly Varden in the creek primarily use habitat above the proposed Project area, and the Arctic grayling primarily use habitat below the proposed Project’s discharge point. There is no evidence that the Arctic grayling use the creek for spawning; but the species are opportunistic, they may enter the area to feed. The potential loss of the bypass reach as fish habitat during parts of the year when flow is low is not significant for the sustainability of these two species due to better habitat in other nearby streams in the Tanana River basin. ADF&G issued a permit on August 5, 2009, allowing the construction of this Project; however, they do request to see the intake and spillway designs prior to construction. As requested by ADF&G, AP&T plans to remain 66 feet away from the riparian corridor as much as practicable to reduce impacts of sedimentation into the creek. AP&T also Page | 21 proposes to implement erosion and sedimentation control methods to reduce this potential to a level of non-significance. AP&T also proposes to bury the penstock to prevent a barrier to wildlife passage through the project and to place the penstock within the access road corridor as much as possible to minimize vegetation clearing. ADF&G has indicated they agree with both these approaches. ADF&G requested in the habitat permit that an “excess flow bypass shall be constructed as a roughened channel that permits all flow in excess of 60 cfs to remain in the middle bypass reach and that provides fish passage, both upstream and downstream.” This creek is not considered Essential Fish Habitat. With the proposals made by AP&T, which are approved by ADF&G, this Project is not expected to have significant impacts to Biological Resources. 6.2.4 Water Quality & Quantity Based on the water quality studies conducted, there are no chemical abnormalities that would warrant further investigation of the stream to be impacted by the hydroelectric project. With the erosion and sedimentation control methods AP&T proposes to employ (i.e. silt fencing, jut netting, seed mix using annual non-invasive species, using as narrow a corridor as possible, and use of riprap to stabilize slopes along with revegetation as needed) during and after construction of the proposed Project, water quality should be only minimally impacted as these methods will significantly reduce the opportunity for sedimentation. Construction within the creek will use cofferdams to divert flow around construction activity to minimize sedimentation. Cofferdams will likely be made from super-sacks 8 filled with sand. Therefore, the proposed Project should have no significant impacts to water quality. 6.2.5 Floodplains/Wetlands The project will impact a floodplain (creek) by installing a diversion structure across the creek, which will remove flow of up to 60 cfs. This floodplain, or creek, is an open gravel waterway with abandoned gravel side channels in various states of re-vegetation with heavily forested and steep banks. Construction of the diversion and removal of up to 60 cfs would remove most water flow between the diversion and the Project’s tailrace; however, this would have minimal environmental impacts to this floodplain due to a lack of vegetation and poor fish habitat to support. Based on the flow data collected to date and in correlation with other nearby gaged streams, during a typical year flows greater than 60 cfs will occur only in early summer (June and July). During times of high flow, water will flow over the diversion structure and continue down the creek. The duration of this spill flow will be intermittent, and will vary with the amount of snow accumulated in the basin. During low runoff years, there may be only a very short period of spill, but during high runoff years the spill period may start in June and extend through August. The Yerrick Creek channel routinely experiences peak flows over 1000 cfs (based on regional parameters, the two-year flood is estimated at 1,102 cfs and the five-year flood is estimated at 1,575 cfs). This Project will reduce flood flows below the diversion structure, however, the 60 cfs reduction is not considered significant compared to the high peak flows. The diversion structure will be constructed with a relatively flat upstream concrete 8 Large nylon-fabric sacks (very strong) meant to perform like conventional sandbags, only larger. Page | 22 face (4H:1V) to allow movement of bedload and sediment downstream during floods. Nevertheless, accumulation of sediment in the diversion pond is expected, and will require periodic removal and placement in the downstream floodplain to maintain the existing sediment movement regime. There will be minimal impacts to the Yerrick Creek floodplain caused by Project construction or operation because high flows that exceed 60 cfs occur annually. Outside of the creek floodplain, there will be few if any impacts to wetlands because the Project utilizes uplands, thereby avoiding impacting wetlands along the access road/penstock route. The wetland survey conducted found that there were approximately 21% wetlands within the project boundary (including hydric soils), though not necessarily where the project features will be located. In fact, the final design specifically avoids wetlands along the access road/penstock route until meeting the creek where it is spanned by a single-lane bridge. AP&T proposes to mitigate potential impacts to wetlands by using silt fencing to prevent runoff from disturbed soils and revegetation with grass seed mixes, which will help stabilize disturbed soils. AP&T also proposes to confine construction activity to as narrow a footprint as possible, which will also reduce impacts. 6.2.6 Environmental Justice This project would not disproportionately affect low income or minority communities in the proposed Project area. This Project, however, will improve conditions for these small communities by saving the customers money and potentially attracting industry or other commercial endeavors, which would provide employment to the area. Part of the Project is located on the Tribal Corporation, Tanacross, Inc., lands that AP&T will pay compensatory fees to use. 6.2.7 Socioeconomics The proposed Project would provide rate stabilization and lower rates, which may attract more residents and commercial operations to any and all the communities this Project would serve. This Project may have a byproduct of providing more local employment in this economically distressed area. Having stabile rates could impact demographics as mentioned above and if the economy continues to decline, there will still be a need for less expensive and clean power. This project will reduce the noise and air pollution associated with diesel generation facilities which are located within city limits and will increase public safety by reducing the use of diesel fuel. This project will partially displace the use of diesel and diesel fuel sellers by reducing the amount AP&T purchases. Page | 23 7 MITAGATION AND PERMITS Mitigation measures that would be implemented in the construction and operation of the proposed Project include: General  Diversion should have an excess flow bypass when flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the project (60 cfs) as a roughened channel to provide fish passage in both directions.  Fish exclusion configuration at intake to prevent their injury or mortality; screen openings would not exceed ¼ inch.  The access road and penstock will remain a minimum of 66 feet from the riparian zone along the creek except where access is needed to the diversion structure, the bridge crossing, and powerhouse, or unless otherwise necessary.  The penstock will be buried as much as possible to allow wildlife passage.  Project clearing will be kept to a minimum to reduce potential impacts to wildlife.  The boundaries of site TNX-212 will be marked as recommended by SHPO. Construction crews will be notified of this avoidance area.  Silt fencing will be used to contain runoff and prevent sedimentation.  Grass seed mix, jut netting, and/or riprap will be used to stabilize disturbed soils after construction activity has ceased in an area. ADF&G issued a habitat permit for construction on August 5, 2009, with the following stipulations that AP&T would implement:  Prior to construction, civil plans for construction of the impoundment dam and excess flow bypass shall be submitted to ADF&G for review and approval.  The excess flow bypass shall be constructed as a roughened channel that permits all flow in excess of 60 cfs to remain in the middle bypass reach and that provides fish passage, both upstream and downstream.  Prior to construction, plans shall be submitted to provide for fish exclusion at the penstock intake. These plans must provide for an effective screen opening that does not exceed ¼ inch. USACOE issued a Department of Army (DA) permit for construction on April 30, 2010, [POA-2009-445] with the following stipulations that AP&T would implement:  All fill slopes and disturbed areas subject to erosion and siltation of Yerrick Creek or project area wetlands shall be stabilized against erosion by revegetation either by seeding and/or transplanting species native to the immediate area. Erosion control with materials such as coir logs, straw wattles, silt fencing, fiber biodegradable mats, straw mulch etc. must be used as best management practices.  Migratory birds, their nests, eggs, nestlings, etc. will not be taken (disturbed in any manner). Vegetation must not be cleared between 5 May and 25 July of any year, unless the area to be cleared has been surveyed for birds and their nests, by a qualified biologist, and the land clearing or human disturbances can be conducted without a take. Page | 24  Yerrick Creek bed and banks disturbed by construction of temporary diversion channels, cofferdams, bridges, or other disturbances must be restored to original conditions upon removal of the temporary fills or structures.  No equipment or machinery shall be refueled, lubricated, or maintained while in any active or inactive channels of Yerrick Creek. All debris will be cleaned from work areas authorized by this permit immediately following construction.  Earthen materials shall not be stockpiled adjacent to Yerrick Creek to prevent erosion and siltation of creek waters.  Trenching of Yerrick Creek for installation of the penstock crossing shall not occur within any flowing or open waters. The diversion must result in a dry work area. The creek bed must be restored with the large cobble rocks existing in the channel for armor protections prior to diverting the creek waters back to the original channel over the buried penstock. The creek bed and banks shall have the original elevation and contours re-established.  Reasonable precautions and controls must be used to prevent incidental and accidental discharge of petroleum products or other hazardous substances into any water or wetland areas. Clean-up materials shall be available on-site and used immediately to contain any spills of such pollutants. Fuel storage and handling must not be conducted in Yerrick Creek or wetland areas. Equipment leaking fuel, oil, hydraulic oil, etc. must not be operated in aquatic areas and be repaired prior to use in or near Yerrick Creek.  As compensatory mitigation for the permanent net loss of approximately 0.8 acre of Yerrick Creek area, the permittee shall pay an in-lieu fee to The Conservation Fund, or other Corps’ In-lieu Fee Program sponsor, prior to initiating construction in waters of the U.S., at the ratio of 1 acre of creek to 1.5 acre preserved. The Conservation Fund will provide the cost per debit to the permittee at the time of payment. Proof of the in-lieu fee payment shall be provided to the Corps prior to beginning construction in the waters of Yerrick Creek. The issuance of following permits are pending:  DNR Land Use Permit  DNR Water Rights Permit AP&T is committed to implementing all environmental stipulations associated with the issuance of these permits. Page | 25 8 LITERATURE CITED ADF&G, FH-09-III-0182 Permit issued for Construction, R. F. McLean, August 5, 2009. Alaska Power & Telephone Co., AP&T Temperature and Fish Presence Survey, (e-mail) June 24, 2009. Berkshire, P. B., Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, Estimate of Average Annual Energy, July 2007. Browne, Patricia, Findings of AHRS Data Review and Evaluation of Cultural Resources Potential for Hydroelectric Project Development…, June 5, 2008. Denali Commission. 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities. June 2009. DuBois, S. D. 2007. Units 12 and 20D caribou. Pages 65-82 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA. Environ Corp., Yerrick Creek – A Review of Available Data and Recommended Flow Duration Curve, Hydrology Report, May 26 2010. Grabacki, S.T. Fisheries Baseline Study for a Proposed Hydroelectric Development on Yerrick Creek, October 2008. Grabacki, S.T. Fisheries Study for Spawning AG and DV and their movement throughout the Creek during May and June 2009, June 2009. Gross, J. A. 2007. Unit 12 brown bear. Pages 132-142 in P. Harper, editor. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 4.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA. HDR Alaska, Inc. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. February 2009. HDR Alaska, Inc. Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Plant Report. February 2009. Hollis, A. L. 2006. Unit 12 moose. Pages 126-143 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory actitivies 1 July 2003-30 June 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA. http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/ Page | 26 http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/black_bear.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/birds.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/brown_bear.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/caribou.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/dall_sheep.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/fox.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/marten.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/moose.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/otter.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/snowshoe_hare.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolf.htm http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolverine.htm http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/lynx.php http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt Parker McNeill D.I. 2005. Portions of Units 12, 13C, and 20D Dall sheep management report. Pages 68-79 in C. Brown, editor. Dall sheep management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001-30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 6.0. Juneau, Alaska. Proue, M., Neely, B. 2009 Cultural Resource Survey of Alaska Power & Telephone’s Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Near MP 1334 of the Alaska Highway, Alaska. Northern Land Use Research, Inc. November 2009. Travis/Pederson Environmental Consulting, Inc. Literature Review and Field Report: Hydrology Baseline Study (Including Water Quality Testing), October 2008. USACOE, DA Permit POA-2009-445 issued for Construction, April 30, 2010. Page | 27 9 APPENDICES Page | 28 9.1 Agency Correspondence Page | 29 9.2 Hydrology Studies Page | 30 9.3 Biological and Other Surveys 9.3.1. Fish Resources Report 9.3.2. Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Plant Report 9.3.3. Literature Review and Field Report: Hydrology Baseline Study 9.3.4. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination 9.3.5. Heritage Resource Survey Page | 31 9.4 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities HYDROLOGY Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Estimate of Average Annual Energy July 2007 Prepared for: Alaska Power & Telephone by: Paul A. Berkshire, P.E. Executive Summary Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) is in the early evaluation stages of a potential small hydroelectric project on Yerrick Creek located near Dot Lake, Alaska. Renewable energy from this project would offset current diesel generation in nearby Tok. This report provides an initial investigation into the energy potential of the proposed site. Three project sizes ranging from 1.6-2.3 MW size were evaluated. The potential energy ranges from 4,600-5,100 MWh depending upon the capacity selected. Harsh winter conditions will likely limit generation to the months of May -October. The data used to generate these estimates is not site specific. Additional data and analysis using site specific data should be performed when the information becomes available. Project Overview The Y errick Creek project is a proposed small hydroelectric facility located approximately 20 miles west ofTok, in South Central Alaska. As initially configured by AP&T, the proposed project will have a small diversion located at approximately elevation 2,350. Up to 60 cfs of water will be conveyed to the powerhouse through approximately 11,000 feet of36-inch diameter penstock. The powerhouse will be located at approximately elevation 1,750 and will house a single impulse type of turbine/generator set with a rated capacity of 1.5MW. The project is proposed to run in a "run-of-river" mode of operation. Hydrology General Yerrick Creek originates in the foothills ofthe Alaskan Range at approximately elevation 6,000 and flows northward terminating in the Tanana River at about elevation 1,700. The drainage basin has been estimated by others I at 3 0 me. Ideally, a historical record of stream flow of 30 years or more is desirable to analyze a stream of interest. However, long-term stream flow records are seldom available for small hydroelectric projects as is the case for Yerrick Creek. In situations where long-term data is not available, the surrounding area is reviewed for USGS and other stream flow gages with adequate periods of record, and similar geologic and hydrologic conditions. These other records are then adjusted to reflect local conditions. Available Data Site Specific Data AP&T has installed a gage at the proposed diversion site and has initiated a program to record flow history. At this time, data from this site is extremely limited and unverified. However, gage calibration data and photos help define the characteristics of the creek. As shown in Figures 1 and 2 below, Y errick Creek runs relatively wide and shallow in the range of proposed project flows. 1 Alaska Power & Telephone, Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC, January 2007 Page I USGS Stream Gaging Records USGS gage #15476300, with a drainage area of65.1 me, is located at elevation 1,400 on Berry Creek near Dot Lake, AK. The location ofthis gage is approximately 30 miles northwest of the project site and the drainage basin has the same general orientation as the Yerrick Creek drainage. Gage #15476300 has a 10-year continuous period of daily flow recordings from WY1972-1981. As defined by USGS, this gage has a "Fair" rating which indicates that 95% of the daily recordings are within 15% of the true value. USGS gage #15476000, with a drainage are of8,550 me, is located at elevation 1,489.58 on the Tanana River near Tanacross, AK. The location of this gage is within 5 miles of the termination ofYerrick Creek. Gage #15476000 has a 35-year continuous period of daily flow recordings from WY 1955-1990. 2,350.00 c:::: 2,349.50 0 -- +=I ns > Q) w 2,349.00 2,348.50 0 Analysis Yerrick Creek Diversion Site June 29, 2007 0=34.5 cfs 5 10 15 Stream Width (ft) Figure l 20 25 Daily stream flow records were obtained from the USGS for gage #15476300 as well as average annual flows for gage #15476000. These two gages have an overlapping period of record from WY 1972-1981. Gage #15476000 has a long-term (35-yr) annual average flow of8,108 cfs. For the period WY 1972-1981 the average annual flow for this gage was 8,083, or 99.7% of the long- term annual average. This indicates that the period WY 1972-1981 represents likely average flow conditions. Gage #15476300 was used to develop a simulated flow record for Yerrick Creek. Standard methods for correlating drainage basins include corrections for differences in drainage area, elevation and precipitation. A Yerrick Creek flow record was developed by linearly scaling the data from gage 15476300. In this case, precipitation records for either location are unavailable and the general elevations of the two basins are similar. As such, no corrections were made for either elevation or relative precipitation. Average monthly flows and a flow duration curve based upon the simulated data for Yerrick Creek are presented in Figures 3 and 4 below. Page2 70 60 $50 0 _ 40 ~ 30 LL 20 10 0 Figure 2 Yerrick Creek Average Monthly Flows OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Figure3 Page 3 Yerrick Creek Flow Duration Curve 90 80 70 60 .tl u 50 'i 40 0 u::: 30 - 20 10 ------.. 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % Exceedance Figure 4 Observations This analysis relies on the assumption that the Berry Creek drainage is similar to that of the Y errick Creek drainage. This assumption needs to be verified in the field. 100 Figure 5 below presents the average monthly temperature for Tok, AK for a period of record from 6/1111954 to 12/3112006. This figure indicates that on average the region enters into a sub- freezing period sometime in late October and stays below freezing until early April. This pattern is representative of northern Alaska. A visual inspection of the individual data points in the flow record for gage #15476300 during the winter months reveals extended periods of constant flow. This is often indicative of the level sensor freezing in one position. This data and the fact that Y errick Creek flows wide and shallow raises questions about whether or not any flow would be available for hydroelectric generation during the months ofNovember-March. Page4 Tok, AK 80 • •. 1 •--- Figure 5 Another consideration that will likely affect project operations is the formation of frazil ice in the water column in the days and weeks leading up to a complete freeze. The wide, shallow flow combined with the lack of any significant reservoir storage and extreme low temperatures make this site a prime candidate for frazil ice problems. The evaluation of frazil ice is beyond the scope of this report but should be considered as part of final project design. Energy Production Project Configuration The project as defined above equates to an overall water-to-wire efficiency of 54%. Modern day generating equipment operates at significantly higher efficiencies. As such, it is highly likely that further engineering will indicate that the optimal project will have either, or a combination of, lower project flows and increased installed capacity. A detailed optimization is beyond the scope of this report. However this report does evaluate three simplified energy generation scenarios. Equipment Selection At 600' feet of gross head, the project falls within what is generally referred to as the transition zone between reaction-type (Francis) and impulse-type (Pelton) turbines. For this analysis, a Turgo-type (hybrid) of turbine was selected. This type of turbine operates efficiently over a wide range of flows and offers reduced construction costs. Further analysis may indicate that a different type of turbine is warranted. A standard synchronous generator was assumed. Equipment efficiencies were obtained from actual manufacturer's data from other similar projects. Penstock Sizing For all scenarios, a 36-inch diameter steel penstock was assumed. This diameter is most representative of a design flow of 60 cfs. Design flows less than 60 cfs may justify a smaller penstock diameter. Page 5 Reservoir Capacity This project is assumed to have no significant reservoir capacity. Minimum Instream Flow There have been no reductions is the projected project hydrology to account for minimum instream flows in the bypass reach to maintain aquatic habitat. Analysis To estimate the projected average annual generation for the proposed project, a daily energy simulation model was created using the simulated hydrologic flow record developed above. For each day of record, the model determines the appropriate net head and equipment efficiency. These values are then used to determine the average capacity for the day. This process is repeated for each day in the period of record. Generalized deductions were made for station service, transformer, transmission and downtime losses. In total, these losses were estimated to be 3%. Results Table 1 below presents the results of the evaluation of 3 possible scenarios. The Potential Average Annual Energy column represents the results from using the hypothetical hydrology files. The Probable Average Annual Energy column represents project operations only during the months of May-October. Table I Design Flow, cfs Installed Capacity, Potential Average Probable Average MW Annual Energy, Annual Energy, MWh MWh 60 2.3 5,360 5,100 50 2.0 5,320 4,920 40 1.6 5,100 4,640 Page6 Yerrick Creek, AK -Simulated Flow Data July 2007 AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW DATA YEAR AVG OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1972 21.6 12.7 7.4 6.6 4.6 2.3 1.0 1.0 64.3 60.6 51.3 29.9 15.9 1973 21.0 6.5 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 43.0 96.1 38.7 33.7 16.9 1974 17.4 6.4 2.0 . 4 . 0 . 0 .0 .8 39.5 56.0 40.0 37.5 24.8 1975 30.1 10.1 6.7 4.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.5 63.1 100.0 64.8 67.0 37.5 1976 20.0 14.3 6.7 5.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.6 25.1 70.1 35.3 41.3 20.2 1977 20.2 8.5 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.1 37.8 72.8 43.7 30.4 26.4 1978 17.7 18.8 6.8 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 8.3 37.4 35.4 38.0 28.9 15.9 1979 16.2 8.4 4.5 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.7 9.2 28.7 32.6 35.8 36.8 22.7 1980 12.8 11.6 5.4 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.7 7.3 14.9 23.3 33.3 21.6 22.3 1981 17.2 16.6 7.5 6.0 5.1 4.7 5.1 6.7 20.8 43.7 41.5 29.4 17.9 AVERAGE 19.4 11.4 5.5 4.4 3.3 2.9 3.0 5.1 37.5 59.1 42.2 35.7 22.0 FLOW DURATION CURVE DATA CLASS FLOW TOTAL ACCUM PERCT ----------------- 0 0 118 3653 100.00 1 1 200 3535 96.77 2 2 149 3335 91.29 3 3 335 3186 87.22 4 4 234 2851 78.05 5 5 348 2617 71.64 6 6 338 2269 62.11 7 7 116 1931 52.86 8 8 63 1815 49.69 9 9 56 1752 47.96 10 10 38 1696 46.43 11 11 24 1658 45.39 12 12 45 1634 44.73 13 l3 36 1589 43.50 14 14 58 1553 42.51 15 15 52 1495 40.93 16 16 119 1443 39.50 17 18 111 1324 36.24 18 20 67 1213 33.21 19 22 86 1146 31.37 20 24 77 1060 29.02 21 26 79 983 26.91 22 28 78 904 24.75 23 30 102 826 22.61 24 32 69 724 19.82 25 34 69 655 17.93 26 36 72 586 16.04 27 38 36 514 14.07 28 40 62 478 13.09 29 42 32 416 11.39 30 44 18 384 10.51 31 46 25 366 10.02 32 48 21 341 9.33 33 50 57 320 8.76 34 55 22 263 7.20 Page 1 35 60 61 241 6.60 36 65 21 180 4.93 37 70 15 159 4.35 38 75 22 144 3.94 39 80 18 122 3.34 40 85 11 104 2.85 41 90 13 93 2.55 42 95 4 80 2.19 43 100 9 76 2.08 44 105 8 67 1. 83 45 110 6 59 1. 62 46 115 8 53 1. 45 47 120 8 45 1. 23 48 125 3 37 1. 01 49 130 2 34 .93 50 135 6 32 .88 51 140 1 26 .71 52 145 0 25 0 68 53 150 1 25 0 68 54 155 2 24 0 66 55 160 2 22 .60 56 165 1 20 .55 57 170 3 19 .52 58 175 3 16 0 44 59 180 3 13 .36 60 185 0 10 .27 61 190 1 10 .27 62 195 0 9 .25 63 200 2 9 .25 64 210 0 7 .19 65 220 0 7 .19 66 230 1 7 .19 67 240 1 6 .16 68 250 0 5 .14 69 260 0 5 .14 70 270 1 5 .14 71 280 0 4 .11 72 290 0 4 .11 73 300 1 4 .11 74 310 0 3 .08 75 320 0 3 .08 76 330 0 3 .08 77 340 0 3 .08 78 350 0 3 .08 79 360 1 3 .08 80 370 0 2 .05 81 380 1 2 .05 82 390 0 1 .03 83 400 0 1 .03 84 410 1 1 .03 Page 2 YERRICK CREEK ESTIMATED POWER GENERATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATA FILE USED: YERRICK.QCH MODEL DESCRIPTION PIPE II 1 LENGTH 11000 DIAMETER 36 HEADWATER ELEV: 2350 TAILWATER ELEV: 1750 GROSS HEAD: 600 DESIGN FLOW: 50 NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 562.1 MANNING'S n .01 MINOR LOSSES 2 NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 1999.4@ 1 POWER FACTOR STATION SERVICE LOSS: . 5 TRANSFORMER LOSS: .5 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1 SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1 TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -TURGO-GENERAL GENERATOR SELECTED: GE MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 0 TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------- 1972 363.4 181.6 163.3 66.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 838.1 1181.7 1203.7 890.3 452.8 5341. 6 1973 165.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7 1077.5 1344.4 1095.6 973.3 484.6 5164.2 1974 132.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 841.1 1240.3 1125.3 1042.2 703.8 5085.7 1975 278.1 160.7 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.4 935.4 1367.1 1296.3 1413.2 1036.4 6611.5 1976 414.1 162.8 138.6 119.1 111.4 119.1 164.0 744.5 1224.4 1043.1 1086.3 583.3 5910.8 1977 228.5 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.5 795.9 1308.0 1189.4 909.6 764.9 5286.9 1978 556.0 164.4 146.6 146.6 107.6 119.1 213.7 938.3 993.0 1030.1 866.9 453.7 5736.2 1979 225.3 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 239.4 749.5 912.8 1008.8 910.8 658.3 4799.7 1980 329.0 126.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 20.1 179.9 437.7 604.7 931.3 647.6 645.2 3921.5 1981 489.7 187.7 146.6 122.7 76.9 83.4 163.6 610.9 974.4 1155.1 847.6 513.6 5372.0 AVERAGE 318.2 106.0 68.1 45.5 29.6 37.9 109.4 796.9 1115.1 1107.9 958.8 629.7 5323.0 AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.30 AVG. II DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 103 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ----------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 70.1 92.8 65.0 20 79.4 94.9 75.4 30 83.7 96.3 80.6 Page 1 MEDIA Hydropower project planned for Tok area Photo by Sebastian Sarloos Yerrick Creek Yerrick Creek, which would be diverted for a hydroelectric project for the Tok area, is pictured. Posted: Sunday, September 7, 2014 12:15 am | Updated: 10:06 am, Sun Sep 7, 2014. Jeff Richardson jrchardson@newsminer.com FAIRBANKS — Backers of a proposed new hydropower project near Tok say it could significantly slash electric rates in an area plagued by high energy costs. Alaska Power & Telephone, the Native Village of Tanacross and Tanacross Inc. signed a memorandum of agreement last month to explore the $15 million Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project. The 1.5 megawatt project could supply about 40 percent of the electric load in the Tok and upper Tanana region as early as 2017. The Tok area uses expensive diesel-fired generation to make electricity now, resulting in electric costs of as much as 50 cents per kilowatt. AP&T said the energy generated through hydro power could cost as much as half that rate, providing big savings for residents of Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin and Dot Lake. Tanacross Inc., which is a Native corporation that owns the land, owns property in the area, along with the state of Alaska. The Native Village of Tanacross is working to find grant assistance to help finance Yerrick Creek. “It’s a really long-term project,” said Jason Custer, who handles business development for the utility. “It has a high up-front cost, but after that the cost of operating it drops down to almost nothing.” The proposal calls for a “run of river” hydro project, which would divert a portion of Yerrick Creek down a pipe, using that flowing water to power a turbine. Such projects don’t require large storage dams and are touted for their “minimal environmental footprint” by AP&T. The water diverted from Yerrick Creek would be returned about 3 miles downstream, Custer said. AP&T operates three other “run of river” hydro projects, with other examples in the Southeast Alaska communities of Skagway, Gustavus and Prince of Wales Island. AP&T estimates the project will replace about 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel that is now used for power generation in the region. Custer said the utility also looked at biomass, solar and wind options during seven years of study, but didn’t find an option that made as much financial sense or operated as smoothly as the hydro plant. About $1 million has been spent on the project so far, through a combination of state, federal and private funding. Custer said there are hopes to raise as much as $8 million more, either through a state renewable energy grant or capital funds from the Legislature. Custer said the agreement states that the three parties will form a new entity, Upper Tanana Energy, to advance the project. Commercial details will be worked out as it progresses, he said. BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] Mukluk News Serving Eastern Interior Alaska Tok • Tanacross • Dot Lake • Chicken • Boundry • Eagle • Tetlin • Northway • Border • Mentasta Vol. 40, No. 15 Tok, Alaska 99780 August 21, 2014 . SO¢ *~*~*~*~*~*N*~*-*~*~* Tanacross, Inc., Native Village of Tanacross, and Alaska Power & Telephone Sign MOU for Development of the Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of Tana- cross, and Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) are pleased to announce that they have executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) for develop- ment of the Y emck Creek Hydropower Project. The proposed 1.5 MW project would be located near Tanacross, in the Upper Tanana region of Alaska. Once developed, Y errick Creek will sup- ply clean, affordable energy to Tok and surround- mg communities of interior Alaska as an alterna- tive to diesel-fired generators currently supplying I 00% of the region's electricity. The three entities have formed a new energy busmess venture, named Upper Tanana Energy, to develop tile yerric]<, C:r~k,.proj..:ct,.anci sell power toAiask:.l~~;•2me'~tdemi ad utility, and a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Tel- ephone -through a long-term power sales agree- ment. Upper Tanana Energy's Y errick Creek project is anttctpated to supply 4.9 million kilowatt hours of clean energy_ per year -enough to replace 375 ,000 gallons of dtesel fuel per year, or approximately 40% of the Tok and upper Tanana region's electri- cal load. Current engineer estimates indicate that Yerrick Creek has the potential to supply energy at 50% of the cost of diesel-fired generation. Total project cost is estimated at $15 million. Communi- ties benefitting from the project would include Tok Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. ' The Y errick Creek hydropower project's fea- tures are located entirely on private land owned by Tanacross, Inc. -an Alaska Native Claims Settle- ment Act (ANCSA) corporation --and lands owned by the State of Alaska, eliminating the need for ~n expensive and time-consuming federal per- mtttmg process. Nearly $1,000,000 in expendi- tures to ~ate have brought the project very near to construction-ready status, thanks to grants provided by the Alaska Energy Authority and USDA Rural Development, and private investment supplied by AP&T. Yerrick Creek is a small, low impact "run-of- river" hydro project with a minimal environmental footprint. The project will use a small diversion to wllect water for energy production, before return- mg water back to the creek downstream. "Run-of- river" projects like Yerrick Creek avoid the need to build large dams to store water, and allow energy to be produced as conditions and river flows per- mtt. The Y emck Creek project's useful lifespan is esttmated at over 50 years, assuring a clean, relia- ble supply of affordable power to the Upper Tana- na region for decades to oome. . Tanacross, Inc. CEO Robert Brean stated: "Yer- ~ck Cre~k offers an opportunity for our corpora- tion to utiltze our Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act lands to provide cleaner, more affordable pow- er for the benefit of everyone in the region. We are excited for this project, which benefits our environ- ment, our shareholders, and the many families which are currently struggling to afford high ener- gy costs." Native Village of Tanacross representative Jef- fery Weitzin stated: "Yerrick Creek will play an tmportant role supporting Governor Sean Parnell's goal of 50% of Alaska's energy being supplied from renewable sources by 2025. Continued Page 5 ************************************ Alaska Gateway School District Directory DOT LAKE -882-2663/Fax 882-2112 Robert Litwack, Principalfreacher Karen Deeter, Secretary/Aide-Vacant, Cook -Vacant, Custodian MENTASTA LAKE KATIE JOHN SCHOOL 291-2327/Fax 291-2327 Craig Roach, Principalfreacher Lisa Lucien, Teacher -Erika Lundy, Teacher- Lee Nicolai, Custodian -Emmanuel Baker, Aide - Vacant, Aide -Vacant, Cook -Robert John Jr , Atde -Jennette John -Preschool Aide, Virginia John,Aide EAGLE SCHOOL 547-2210/Fax 547-2302 Kristy Jones-Robbins, Principal Marge McElfresh, Teacher -Marlys House, Teacher -Michelle Ashley, Aide; Elisabeth Sager, Aide -Sharon Hamilton, Aide -Sandy Lydic, Sec- retary/Cook-Ricky Nit, Custodian WALTER NORTH WAY SCHOOL 77S-2287/Fax 77S-2221 . • . scOtt H~, pffijcipalffeacller Rn!b Wiklanski, Teacher-Julie Brown, Teacher -Rebecca Gallen, Teacher -Sherri Demit, Secre- tary/Aide-Carolyn Dillard, Cook-Shirley Kem- per, PreSchool Teacher-Lucas Nutting, Aide-Pe- ter MacManus, Dena Paul -Avery Dillard, Custodtan -Rueben Sam, Custodian TANACROSS SCHOOL 883-4391/Fax 883-4390 Koydee Prank, Principalfreacher Joyce Dunning, Teacher -Pat Bridgers, Secre- tary/Aide -Delores Bernhardt, Cook-Liz Webb Aide -Clifford Henry, Custodian ' TETLIN SCHOOL 324-2104/Fax 324-2120 Kurt Schmidt, Principalfreacher Barbara Boysinger, Teacher-Kathy Holmes, Teacher -Natalie Sam, Aide -Eva Thomas - Churchwell, PreSchool Teacher -Ashley Nyswan- er, Cook-Vacant, Custodian-Vacant, Aide TOK SCHOOL 883-5161/Fax 883-5165 Jason Rolansky, Principal Kerri Mann, Kindergarten -Sara Talus, Grade I -Bonnie Dampierre, Grade 2 -Paula Canner, Grade 3 -Lori Weisz, Grace 4 -Dawn Buffum, Grade 5 -Tracie Weisz, Jr High - Chuck Darrel, Jr High -Ben Dexter, English - Cary Bloomquist, Science-Jonathan Alsup, Math- Erica Burnham, Social Studies -Leland Monroe, Voc Ed/PE -Mike Cronk, Physical Education - Stephanie Knoebel, SPED Teacher -Preschool Teacher, Natasha Thurneau & Jessica Lohner - - Aides: Lacey Johnson, Iris Lequire, Megan Tuck- er, Jason Wilkinson, Valerie Hall, Monica Ed- wards, Connie Bishop, Two Vacant Aides-Dia- na Ervin, Secretary-Jennifer James, Cook-Terry Turner, Cook -Taryn Salinas, Librarian -Kelly Goneau-Head Custodian -Custodian, Tony Peet Alaska REACH Academy 883-2591/Fax 883-5777 Le{\nn Young, Principa!Teacher, Teresa Paul- sen, Secretary --Continued, Page 3 ************************************** New Students & Kindergarten Students To the parents of new and/or incoming kinder- garten student(s) enrolling at Tok School you will need to provide the following documentation (if you have not already done so): I) Birth Certificate of student to be enrolled 2) Current immunization records to date 3) Completed enrollment paperwork Enrollment paperwork may be !licked up at the Tok School office at any time on Monday through Friday between the hours of8:00 a.m. to 4:00p.m. ************************************** ********************** Upcoming Events *********************** All Scouts! Family! Friends! You are cordially invited to attend the Tonight, August 21 Tok Boy Scout Troop 75 COURT OF HONOR 7 p.m.-8:30p.m. at the VFW Hall To honor the Boy Scouts of our community for their achievements Come see what makes Troop 75 such a great Troop! Snacks and beverages will be provided. *********************** Monday, August 25 First Day of School Bus Schedule, Page 9 *********************** Outback Thrift Shop Accepting Donations Since the VFW Thrift Store has closed, Ray and Sandy Elsner are happy to announce they will now stock clothing and will welcome donations of clothing and other items. Outback Thrift Shop is located at E. 1st and Sanford and their hours are 12-4 on Thursday, Fri- day and Saturday. A Thrift Shop Donation Station is being set up in front of the store, so donations may be dropped when the store is not open. The store has a wide variety of items including kitchenware, furniture, tools, appliances, toys, arts and crafts and much more. The Elsners invite you to stop in and take a look. The phone number is 883-2637 and the cell number is 505-3029. ************************************** How Tok Voted ••• .Thanks to Election Chairman, Kathy Morgan, here are the Tok election results: Ballot Measure 1 Yes-ISO,No-153 ~ House District 6 · Dunning-115, Talerico-95, Wilson-53 -· Senate District C Bishop -182, Shockley -58 Lt. Gov. Wolf -74, Sullivan-133, Williams-16 Lee- 27, French-33 ' Gov. Snowden -22, Parnell -152 Millette -25 Heikes-14, Stoddard -16, Mallott ~ 28, Clift-30 ' US Rep Young-143, Seward-14, Dohner-16, Cox- 41, Vondersaar -12, McDermott -26, Dunbar -32 US Senator Treadwell-27, Sullivan -88 Miller-107 Jara- millo-11, Walker -10, Kohrins : 9 Kohlha;s -0 Kile-9, Fish-2, Brak-4, Begich-48 ' Total voters for the Tok election were 318 peo- ple. ************************************** I : ~*~*~*~*,...,*~*~*~* Continued From Page I Development of the Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project Governor Parnell and our local legislators Sena- tor Donald Olson, Senator Click Bishop and Repre- sentative Neal Foster have shown a longstanding commitment to replacing diesel-fired generation of electricity in rural Alaska with locally available re- newable sources. We hope that through their lead- ership, we will gain state financial support for the benefit of the upper Tanana region's ratepayers, families, and businesses." "Alaska Power & Telephone applauds Tana- cross Inc. CEO Robert Brean and Tribal President Herbert Demit for this shared commitment to re- newable energy development," remarked AP&T President and CEO Robert Grimm. "Thanks to their leadership, and the vision of the Tribal Coun- cil and Tanacross Inc. Board, Upper Tanana Ener- gy will provide an option for 'home-sourcing' ener- gy from local, renewable sources. It is exciting to see Alaska Native entities entering as key partici- pants within the Tok regional energy market, and bringing cleaner, more affordable .energy options to consumers." AP&T has significant hydropower development experience, having licensed and developed four hy- dropower projects in Alaska since the mid-1990s, with a fifth project, Reynolds Creek, scheduled for near-term construction. These new projects have helped AP&T's service areas transition from 90% dependency on costly diesel fuel, to 75% clean, re- newable energy. ************************************** Penny Pinchers From the U AF Cooperative Extension ervice Pets Let's admit it. Many of us think as much of our pets as we do of our family. That's why it is so im- portant that you make choices for your animals that will safeguard their health. When the labels say "natural," "gluten-free" and "beef flavoring," how do you sort what is best for your pet? When we are choosing foods for ourselves, we are taught to read the foodl";bels. I'll teii you to do tile same when it comes to your pet's f01xt · There are two different types of labels on pet food Gust like on people food): the nutrition label and the ingredient label. The ingredients in pet food are ·listed in de- scending order according to weight in the product. So whatever is listed first is the ingredient that is in greatest quantity in the food. Animals need protein. Make sure that you choose a product that lists pro- tein first on the label. Don't be concerned because the label says chicken or beef meal. Meal is a protein source, such as beef, chicken or lamb that is dehydrated then ground up. So it makes sense that if it lists chicken meal on the label, you'll actually get more protein than if you have fresh chicken, which is 80 percent water. If beef, chicken or lamb meal is the first thing on the label, you'll make sure that your dog is getting lots of good protein. Grains are usu- ally in the formulation for dry dog food. Make sure the grains are whole grains for better nutrition. That's another recommendation that is important to both your diet and that of your pooch. Determine the source of any fat in the formula- tion. Make sure it is labeled as "chicken fat" or "beef fat" rather than animal fat. Listing a specific fat tells us that the manufacturer has taken care with all the ingredients in the formulation rather than just buying whatever is cheapest this week. Flavorings are another much advertised option. Flavorings make the food more palatable. Howev- er, if there is enough protein in the food, the flavor- ings are probably not necessary. If you have a choice, opt for beef (or chicken or lamb) flavoring rather than the more generic meat flavoring. Check out the guaranteed analysis, the equiva- lent of the nutrition label. This contains the labeled percentages of crude protein, fat, fiber and mois- ture. Choose those that are high in protein, low in fat and high in fiber. Animals can have a problem with portion con- trol, so check out the serving size on the label. If your animal is more active, the serving can be a lit- tle larger. Be sure to check the recommendations from the label with your vet so you'll know exactly how much your dog should eat per day. Just like people food, sometimes pet food is re- called because of contaminants that might be present in the food. Recently Bravo pet foods re- called food that might be contaminated with liste- ria. Last month, Purina recalled food because it didn't have the correct amount of vitamins and minerals. If you'd like to know what pet foods have been recalled, check out www .dogfoodadvisor.com/dog-food-recalls/ or Page 5, Mukluk News, August 21, 2014 CFast Eddy's RestauranD . ~ 883-4411 ~ ......__ .... r----------------------------, Summer Hours: 6 a.m. -11 p.m. L----------------------------~ Stop in and enjoy our daily specials, our yummy desserts, a delicious pizza, our great salad bar or choose from our menu for great feasting www .avma.org/news/issues/recalls-alerts/pages/ pet-food-safety-recalls-alerts.aspx. Remember that your vet is the final authority on what is good for your pet or not. Take his or her ad- vice on what to feed and how much. Don't buy substandard food that will cost less but cause health problems for your pet. Sometimes it is a good idea to pay a little more and get a quality product. Yon are what you eat. That goes for you and your animals. A healthy diet will save money in vet bills and make for a happier pet. Roxie Rodgers Dinstel is a professor of exten- sion on the Tanana District Extension Faculty. Questions or column requests can be e-mailed to her at rrdinstel@alaska.edu or by calling 907-474- 2426. The Cooperative Extension Service is part of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. working in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture. ************************************** 907-223-1288 marvbrownell@gmail.com · www .yukoncompanies.com BATCH PLANT Open Through September 19 FOR SALE (Delivered, full loads -2mi) •Clean Pit-run Gravei ...•• $10.00/CY •Unclassified Fill .............. $ 8.50/CY •Drain Rock ........................ POR •Washed Sand ...................... POR •Washed Course Aggr .......• POR •Concrete Redi-Mix ............ POR •Concrete, Volume Mix ••..•. POR •Tilt· top Equip Trailer •Miscellaneous Material • ,__..__q~ CAN YOU TRUST YOUR EYE$? There are at least 5ix differ- ences in drawing details between top and bottom panels. How quickly can you find them? Check answers with those beklw. ~w st uets ·g "j.UQJ9U!P q P.nSIIu!lllBS ·s ·Cu!SS!w s1 leoG "t' "lU8J8il!P&! J!8H ·t "6u!SS!W 51 \8li!WS ·z ·&lfsslw SJlfJU96 . ~ :~a.tGU!C FOR RENT •Construction Equipment, BARE/OR OPERATEDx ~ ! Portable screen plant, cranes, dozer, excavators, aerial lifts, pick-up, com pactors, water trailer, tractors, etc. •Apartments ·Studios -100% furnished •Office Space • Almost Class A •Tools-Construction. You name it, we probably have it -concrete tools., drywall, drilling cutting, bending, coring, survey, welding, carpentry etc. •Concrete Forming Systems ******************************** Yukon Construction is a statewide Gener- al Contractor specializing in private and government commercial projects ... Build or design/build. Yukon Construction is a certifred Hub zone, small business, Equal Employment contractor BLANK PAGE [intentionally left blank] August 18, 2014 12:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time KETCHIKAN, Alaska--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) are pleased to announce that they have executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) for development of the Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project. The proposed 1.5 MW project would be located near Tanacross, in the Upper Tanana region of Alaska. Once developed, Yerrick Creek will supply clean, affordable energy to Tok and surrounding communities of interior Alaska as an alternative to diesel-fired generators currently supplying 100% of the region’s electricity. “Alaska Power & Telephone applauds Tanacross Inc. CEO Robert Brean and Tribal President Herbert Demit for this shared commitment to renewable energy development” The three entities have formed a new energy business venture, named Upper Tanana Energy, to develop the Yerrick Creek project, and sell power to Alaska Power Company – the incumbent electrical utility, and a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone – through a long-term power sales agreement. Upper Tanana Energy’s Yerrick Creek project is anticipated to supply 4.9 million kilowatt hours of clean energy per year – enough to replace 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year, or approximately 40% of the Tok and upper Tanana region’s electrical load. Current engineer estimates indicate that Yerrick Creek has the potential to supply energy at 50% of the cost of diesel-fired generation. Total project cost is estimated at $15 million. Communities benefitting from the project would include Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project’s features are located entirely on private land owned by Tanacross, Inc. – an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation -- and lands owned by the State of Alaska, eliminating the need for an expensive and time-consuming federal permitting process. Nearly $1,000,000 in expenditures to date have brought the project very near to construction-ready status, thanks to grants provided by the Alaska Energy Authority and USDA Rural Development, and private investment supplied by AP&T. Yerrick Creek is a small, low impact “run-of-river” hydro project with a minimal environmental footprint. The project will use a small diversion to collect water for energy production, before returning water back to the creek downstream. “Run-of-river” projects like Yerrick Creek avoid the need to build large dams to store water, and allow energy to be produced as conditions and river flows permit. The Yerrick Creek project’s useful lifespan is estimated at over 50 years, assuring a clean, reliable supply of affordable power to the Upper Tanana region for decades to come. Tanacross, Inc. CEO Robert Brean stated: “Yerrick Creek offers an opportunity for our corporation to utilize our Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act lands to provide cleaner, more affordable power for the benefit of everyone in the region. We are excited for this project, which benefits our environment, our shareholders, and the many families which are currently struggling to afford high energy costs.” Native Village of Tanacross representative Jeffery Weltzin stated: “Yerrick Creek will play an important role supporting Governor Sean Parnell’s goal of 50% of Alaska’s energy being supplied from renewable sources by 2025. Governor Parnell and our local legislators Senator Donald Olson, Senator Click Bishop and Representative Neal Foster have shown a longstanding commitment to replacing diesel-fired generation of electricity in rural Alaska with locally available renewable sources. We hope that through their leadership, we will gain state financial support for the benefit of the upper Tanana region’s ratepayers, families, and businesses.” “Alaska Power & Telephone applauds Tanacross Inc. CEO Robert Brean and Tribal President Herbert Demit for this shared commitment to renewable energy development,” remarked AP&T President and CEO Robert Grimm. “Thanks to their leadership, and the vision of the Tribal Council and Tanacross Inc. Board, Upper Tanana Energy will provide an option for ‘home-sourcing’ energy from local, renewable sources. It is exciting to see Alaska Native entities entering as key participants within the Tok regional energy market, and bringing cleaner, more affordable energy options to consumers.” AP&T has significant hydropower development experience, having licensed and developed four hydropower projects in Alaska since the mid-1990s, with a fifth project, Reynolds Creek, scheduled for near-term construction. These new projects have helped AP&T’s service areas transition from 90% dependency on costly diesel fuel, to 75% clean, renewable energy. Contacts Alaska Power & Telephone Business Development Jason Custer, 907-225-1950 x 29 jason.c@aptalaska.com PHOTOS YERRICK CREEK AT BRIDGE YERRICK CREEK ABOVE HIGHWAY COBBLED STREAM BED TYPICAL OF YERRICK CREEK STREAM GAGING ON YERRICK CREEK TO CALIBRATE THE INSTALLED GAGE COBBLED NATURE OF YERRICK CREEK AERIAL VIEW ABOVE OF THE APPROXIMATELY DIVERSION LOCATION COBBLED NATURE OF YERRICK CREEK COBBLED NATURE OF YERRICK CREEK YERRICK CREEK WINTER OPEN WATER RUS 2012 Progress Report 5 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project August 31, 2015 USDA-RD-RUS-HECG07 Grant Funds TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION 2015 ABOVE -OLD TRANSMISSION LINE BELOW -MAP OF PROJECT ROUTE RIGHT OF WAY CLEARING FOR TRANSMISSION LINE TRANSMISSION LINE INSTALLATION TRANSMISSION LINE INSTALLATION TRANSMISSION LINE INSTALLATION INSTALLATION OF TRANSMISSION LINE TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION ABOVE -PULLING THE CONDUCTOR AND TENSIONING BELOW -FINISHED TRANSMISSION LINE TRANSMISSION LINE PERMITTING 25D-263 (5/86) STATE OF ALASKA Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Page No. 1 of 16 AND PUBLIC FACILITIES UTILITY PERMIT (MAJOR) Approval Recommended : Maggie J. Slife Date: February 13, 2015 Title: Regional Permit Officer Region: Northern ***************************************************************************************************************************** THE STATE OF ALASKA, acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, hereinafter called the DEPARTMENT, under provisions of AS 19.25.010 and 19.25.020, grants a Utility Permit to Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) of P.O. Box 207, Tok, AK 99780-0207 hereinafter called the PERMITTEE, permission to construct, install and thereafter perform routine maintenance, use and operate 34.5 kV Transmission Line 125' Left of Centerline, hereinafter called the FACILITY, located as follows: State Route 180000, ALASKA HIGHWAY Route Mileage 90.5 to 101.5 125 LT across, along or over property of the DEPARTMENT, acquired and utilized in the operation and maintenance of a State Transportation System, at the aforementioned locations and/or positions and in strict conformance with plans, specifica tions and special provisions attached hereto and made a part hereof, and not otherwise. A. In accepting this Utility Permit for the Facility, the PERMITTEE agrees to comply with the provisions of AS 02.15.102, AS 02.15.106, AS 19.25.010, AS 19.25.200, AS 35.10.210, and AS 35.10.230; the terms, requirements and regulations as set forth in 17 AAC 15 as authorized under Administrative Procedures Act, AS 44.62.010 - 44.62.650 and the applicable policies, directives and orders issued by the Commissioner of the Department. B. The entire cost of routine maintenance operations of the FACILITY are to be paid for by the PERMITTEE, and said FACILITY shall comply with all applicable codes. C. The PERMITTEE's construction, installation and maintenance operations of the FACILITY shall be accomplished with minimum inte rference and interruption of the use, operation and maintenance of the DEPARTMENT's right of way and/or public facility; or as hereinafter provide d in the DEPARTMENT's Special Provisions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and shall at all times in no way endanger the gen eral public in its use of the public property. Utility Permits expire if construction or installation of the facility has not started within one year afte r the date of approval, unless the applicant obtains an extension of time in writing from the department. 17AAC15.011(d) D. The DEPARTMENT, in granting the Utility Permit, reserves the right to use, occupy and enjoy its property for a public transpo rtation system and for public transportation purposes in such a manner and at such times as it deems necess ary, the same as if this instrument had not been executed by the DEPARTMENT. If any such use by the DEPARTMENT shall at any time necessitate any change in location or manner of use of said FACILITY, or any part thereof, such change or alteration shall be made by the PERMITTEE according to the terms of one of the two clauses set out below as identified by a check mark before the applicable clause. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 2 of 16 __ _ _( 1 ) The PERMITTEE will be reimbursed in full by the DEPARTMENT for all costs incurred in making such changes or alterations to the FACILITY that qualified under the provisions of AS 02.15.104(c), AS 19.25.020(c), or AS 35.10.220(c). __ X__ ( 2 ) The PERMITTEE shall promptly remove or relocate said FACILITY at no cost to the DEPARTMENT in accordance wi th the provisions of AS 02.15.104(c) ( 4 ) or ( 5 ), AS 19.25.020(c) (4) or ( 5 ), AS 35.10.220(c) ( 4 ) or ( 5 ). E. On public property being utilized for right of way on highways originally established as, or converted to, controlled access highways, ingress and egress thereto for maintenance and operation of the FACILITY is limited to the locations as designated by the DEPARTMENT. How ever, the DEPARTMENT may allow the PERMITTEE ingress and egress whenever such is necessary to effect repairs and mainte nance of the FACILITY and when no other access is available. If the DEPARTMENT determines such access is in conflict with the use of the controlled access highway, the FACILITY will be relocated. F. The State of Alaska and the DEPARTMENT for the purpose of this Utility Permit, hereby disclaim any representation of implication to the PERMITTEE that the DEPARTMENT has any title in any property other than the interest conveyed to the DEPARTMENT for specific p urposes as described by the instrument conveying the land to the DEPARTMENT. G. The PERMITTEE by these presents accepts notice and agrees that any expenses or damages incurred by the PERMITTEE through the abandonment, removal, reconstruction or alteration of any public facility, or incurred by said PERMITTEE as a result of this disclaimer shall be borne by said PERMITTEE at no expense whatsoever to the DEPARTMENT or the State of Alaska. H. The waiver or breach of any terms or conditions of this Utility Permit or Provisions of the Administrative Code, by the DEPARTMENT shall be limited to the act or acts constituting such breach, and shall never be construed as being continuing or a permanent waiver o f any such term or condition, unless expressly agreed to in writing by the parties hereto, all of which sha ll remain in full force and affect as to future acts or happenings, notwithstanding any such individual waiver or any breach thereof. I. Only the Commissioner of the DEPARTMENT or his delegate shall have the authority to waiver any term or condition herein contained. J. The PERMITTEE shall not assign or transfer any of the rights authorized by this Utility Permit except upon notification to an d approval by the DEPARTMENT. K The PERMITTEE agrees to comply with all regulations concerning present and future use of the public property acquired, or reimbursed by Federal - Aid funds. L. The PERMITTEE shall give the DEPARTMENT not less than ten (10) days prior written notice, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties hereto, of the PERMITTEE's intention to enter upon the DEPARTMENT's property for the purpose of major maintenance, reconstruction, altering or removal of the FACILITY, provided, however, that normal routine maintenance is excepted from this provision, and provided further, that in a ny instance of sudden emergency requiring prompt and immediate action to protect the public safety, or to mitigate damage to private or public prop erty, no prior notification to 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 3 of 16 the DEPARTMENT will be required. The PERMITTEE shall notify the DEPARTMENT and the Alaska State Troopers, of the location of the emergency and extent of work required by the most expeditious means of communication as soon as reasonably possible to do so, and the P ERMITTEE shall take such measures as are required to protect the health and safety of the traveling public or public facility users for the duration of such emergency operations. M. The PERMITTEE shall indemnify and hold harmless the State of Alaska and the DEPARTMENT, or either of them, from all liability for damage to property, or injury to or death of persons, arising wholly or in part from any action taken by the PERMITTEE in relation to the PERMITTEE's F ACILITIES on DEPARTMENT rights of way or other permitted locations. N. The PERMITTEE is subject to all previous Easements and Utility Permits and any damage to any other utility will be the PERMITTEE's responsibility. O. The PERMITTEE agrees to be responsible for the compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, codes and ordinances. P. The PERMITTEE agrees to be responsible for obtaining all other appropriate permits or letters of non-objection needed from Federal, State and local agencies, or conflicting lessees, property owners or utilities. Q. The PERMITTEE may be required, within thirty (30) days after completion of any improvement placed upon or in the premises herein, deliver to the DEPARTMENT as-built drawings showing the location and construction specifications of said improvement. R. This Utility Permit is issued under the provisions of applicable Alaska Statutes and Administrative Code, effective as of the date of execution of this instrument by the DEPARTMENT. S. The PERMITTEE agrees that the FACILITY will be constructed in accordance with the attached: 1. Plans consisting of: 5 Pages included as part of this permit, Pages 12-16 2. Specifications consisting of: n/a 3. Other: None which, by this reference, are made a part hereof, and in accordance with the applicable codes pertaining to the FACILITY, and not otherwise, unless prior written authorization is obtained from the DEPARTMENT to do so. T. The PERMITTEE agrees to reimburse the DEPARTMENT for actual costs of inspection and testing as required during the performanc e of work proposed by the PERMITTEE. The scope of inspection and testing shall be determined by the Regional Utilities Engineer. The costs billed to the PERMITTEE will be the actual DEPARTMENT's costs incurred while performing the inspection and testing. U. The PERMITTEE agrees by entering on the DEPARTMENT's property to indemnify the DEPARTMENT and its contractors of all costs tangible or intangible that would be the result of any delay in a construction project of the DEPARTMENT caused by work done under this permit. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 4 of 16 V. The PERMITTEE agrees to reimburse the DEPARTMENT for the length of the facility t o be installed in excess of 200 feet (as indicated on the attached plans referred to in paragraph "S" above) which is calculated to be 10000 linear feet at $ 1.00 per foot = $10,000.00 (but not to exceed $10,000) payable at the time the permit is executed by the DEPARTMENT unless arrangements have been made for the PERMITTEE to be billed on a monthly basis. W. WARRANTY 1. The Permittee shall warrant the restoration / repair of the roadway and any areas of the right -of-way disturbed in conjunction with the installation of utilities described in the permit. During the warranty period, any damage, defect or failure to any element o f the Department right of way, including but not limited to: roadway and embankment, fill slopes, ditches, backslopes, structures or undergrou nd utilities determined to be a result of work authorized by this permit shall be repaired by the Permittee. 2. The Warranty will remain in effect for a period of not less than two (2) years from the date of completion of the utility installat ion after which it may be released by the Department. 3. During the warranty period, the Department will notify the Permittee of any damage, defect or failure as soon as it becomes known. The Permittee shall submit a proposal for Department review and approval for the restoration of the Department’s facility. After Department review and approval, the Permittee shall remedy, and without cost to the Department, any and all defects. The Permittee shall notify the Department a minimum of three (3) business days before corrective work commences to facilitate Department inspection. 4. If the damage, defect or failure, in the judgment of the Department, is of such a nature as to demand immediate repair, the Department shall reserve the right to take corrective action and the cost thereof shall be borne by the Permittee. X. RELEASE OF WARRANTY 1. The Department will perform an inspection before the end of the warranty period. The Permittee shall correct any defect in th e restoration revealed by the warranty inspection. 2. Upon the Permittee's satisfactory performance of all its obligations under this Permit, the Department will execute a written statement acknowledging acceptance of the restoration and release of the warranty. Release of the warranty shall not release the Permi ttee of any other provision of the permit. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 5 of 16 UTILITY PERMIT SPECIAL PROVISIONS THE PERMITTEE PROMISES TO COMPLY WITH THESE SPECIAL PROVISIONS BY SIGNATURE ON THE PERMIT. IT IS THE PERMITTEE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FAMILIARIZE ITS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND/OR CONTRACTORS WITH THESE PROVISIONS, AND INSIST ON STRICT COMPLIANCE. These Special Provisions refer to the publication “Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities STANDARD SPECIFI CATIONS for Highway Construction” which is available for $25 from: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public facilities Design and Construction Standards 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7879 Or online at: www.dot.state.ak.us, Design and Construction Standards, Standard Specifications, English 1.0 General and Administrative 1.1 The Permittee shall have a copy if this permit at the work site at all times. 1.2 The permit, together with these Special Provisions, shall take precedence over any additional plans, exhibits, attachments, a nd/or schedules should discrepancies occur. 1.3 All contact between the Department and the Permittee's Contractor shall be through a representative of the Permittee. If the Permittee chooses to perform the work with other than its own forces, a representative of the utility shall be present at all times unless otherwise agreed to by the Department. Failure to comply with this provision is grounds for restricting any further work by the Permittee in the Depart ment's right of way. 1.4 Any rights granted by this permit may not be assigned or transferred to another entity without prior written approval from the Department. If the utility is sold to another utility or merges with another utility, the new utility shall inform the Department in writing wit hin 30 days after the date of transaction. 1.5 Any request for waiver or exception of Special Provision(s), or any request for change in location, alignment, or constructio n method, shall be submitted in writing to the Regional Utilities Engineer, Gail Gardner, 451-5400. 1.6 This permit will expire if construction or installation of the Facility has not started within one year after the date of approval, unless the P ermittee obtains an extension of time in writing from the Department. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 6 of 16 1.7 The Permittee agrees to furnish the Department with a set of as-built plans within sixty (60) days from the completion of the work covered by this Permit. 1.8 The Permittee agrees to provide design locates at no cost to the Department upon request. If a utility locate service is not available, reference markers shall be installed and maintained at both ends of underground highway crossings, and at angle points in the alignment of t he underground Facility. Where utilities are attached to a bridge, the Permittee will attach a plate on the conduit at each abutme nt describing the content of the pipe or conductor, and the name and phone number of the owning utility. 1.9 The Regional Utilities Engineer may assign inspectors in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Utility Permi t. The inspector has the authority to suspend all work in the event of noncompliance. 1.10 The Permittee agrees to reimburse the Department for actual costs of inspections during construction of the Facility. Inspect ion activities will include on-site review of traffic control, highway crossings, and acceptable use and restoration of the Right of Way. Inspection may also include any testing required to verify conformance to the Department's standards, and responding to questions and/or complaints from the public or agencies. Actual direct and indirect charges shall provide the basis for billings, which include wages, benefits, per diem, travel and vehicle expenses, and lodging. 2.0 Coordination 2.1 The Permittee shall notify the Department's Regional Utility Permit Officer ten (10) days prior to beginning work on the Facility: Northern Region (907) 451-5407 (907) 451-5411 (fax) 2.2 The Permittee shall coordinate all construction and maintenance work on the Facility with the Department's District Maintenance Superintendent. 2.3 The Permittee agrees to coordinate work in the Facility with other projects, both public and private, that may occur wit hin the project limits covered by this permit. The Permittee agrees not to interfere or hinder the work being performed by other contractors. 3.0 Traffic Control 3.1 DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 7 of 16 3.1.1 The Permittee SHALL: 1. Obtain a Lane Closure Permit (LCP) from the Department prior to beginning any work in the right of way. A Lane Closure Permit is required for any work within the Department’s Right of Way, even work which does not impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The application for LCP shall include a Traffic Control Plan, detailing the traffic control devices required and their placement. a. On-line application is available at the following website: www.dot.state.ak.us b. To submit an application in person contact: Northern Region (Fairbanks Area) (907) 451- 5407 1-800-475-2464 (907) 451-5411 (fax) 2. Provide all traffic control required by the Lane Closure Permit including, but not limited to, permit fees, traffic control plan designs, traffic control devices, flagging operations, detours, and/or pilot car operation at his/hers own cost. 3. Provide traffic control and devices conforming to the latest edition of the Alaska Traffic Manual (available for download at the DOT&PF website www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic) while constructing the Facility and performing routine maintenance. 4. Have all traffic control devices required by Lane Closure Permit, including signs, barricade, and flagmen in place prior to beginning work within the Right of Way. 5. Remove or cover all temporary traffic control devices as soon as practical when they are not needed or when work on the Facility is suspended for short periods of time. 6. Maintain two-way traffic at all times unless one way traffic or a road closure is specifically allowed in the Lane Closure Permit. 7. Provide and maintain safe and ADA accessible routes and detours for pedestrians and bicyclists through or around traffic control zones at all times as required by the Lane Closure Permit. 8. Be responsible for all liability resulting from their construction activities, traffic control and vehicular and pedestrian detours. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 8 of 16 3.1.2 The Permittee SHALL NOT: 1. Affect normal vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or other normal use patterns without an approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP). 2. Park vehicles, equipment, or store materials on road or pathway surfaces at any time, unless specifically allowed by Lane Closure Permit. 3. Store equipment or materials within thirty feet (30') of the edge of travelled way when not in use, or when work on the Facility is not in progress. 3.2 DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 1. The Permittee shall obtain and comply with an Annual Lane Closure Permit that covers typical maintenance activities within the Right of Way. 4.0 Drainage 4.1 The Permittee shall maintain existing drainage patterns during construction of the Facility and restoration of the Right of Way unless othe rwise agreed to by the Department. 4.2 The Permittee shall be responsible for all erosion control prior to final slope stabilization. 4.3 The Permittee shall notify the Department of drainage problems caused by the work under this Permit and will correct the prob lem as directed by the Department. 4.4 The Permittee shall replace all culverts damaged by work under this Permit. Damaged culverts shall be replaced with a new corrugated metal pipe culvert of the same or greater diameter, but not less than 18-inches.Culverts that are found undersized or damaged shall be restored to working condition or replaced by the Department at the Permittee's expense. 4.5 The Permittee shall provide an Alaska Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (AK -CESCL) trained person with the authority to direct SWPPP work on site during all construction activities authorized by this permit. AK-CESCL supervisors must provide proof of current AK- CESCL certification upon request. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 9 of 16 5.0 Right of Way Protection, Maintenance and Restoration 5.1 The Permittee shall cleanup within one day behind installation of the facility. The Permittee will not be allowed to trench or plow more than can be cleaned up the following day. 5.2 The Permittee or their contractor shall immediately repair any damage of existing utilities, storm drainage or other highway structures caused as a result of construction authorized by this permit. 5.3 Heavy tracked equipment operation will not be permitted on a paved roadway or shoulder, unless approved in writing by the Regional Utilities Engineer. The Permittee shall repair damage to the pavement as a result equipment of operation as directed by the Department. 5.4 The Permittee or his contractor will be responsible for winter and spring maintenance of the road shoulders, ditch lines, bac kslopes, road surfaces, taxiways, and runways that have not been left in a maintainable, neat and clean condition, satisfactory to the Maintenance Section of the Department of Transportation. 5.5 The Permittee shall dispose of trees, brush or other natural growth by mechanical chipping or hauling away. Stumps and grubbing piles shal l be loaded and hauled to a disposal site outside the Department's Right of Way. Trees left for the public shall be limbed and st acked in a location where loading does not interfere with the safe operation of the travel way and a minimum of 30 feet from the travelled way. Cut trees and brush to a height of not more than 6-inches above the surrounding ground. 5.6 Upon completion of the work within the State Right of Way or State property, the Permittee shall remove all equipment, dispose of all waste material and shall leave the premises in a neat and clean condition satisfactory to the Department of Transportation. 5.7 The Department shall not be held responsible for any damages to the Permittee’s facilities resulting from routine ditch grading or gene ral maintenance activities including sign post installations performed under the authority of the Department. 6.0 Topsoil and Seeding 6.1 The Permittee shall replace and restore all vegetation disturbed. Unless otherwise required, re -vegetation shall consist of establishing seeded grass slopes over the disturbed ground. The Permittee shall use all means necessary to maintain and prote ct the disturbed slopes from erosion until the vegetation is established. 6.2 The Permittee shall replace any topsoil lost as a result of construction under this permit. 25D-263 (5/86) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 10 of 16 6.3 The Permittee shall re-grade all disturbed areas to blend with the existing ground surface and re-seed after completing backfill operations on the facility. 7.0 Overhead Facilities 7.1 New and relocated aerial facilities shall maintain a minimum vertical clearance of twenty feet (20') in all locations within the right of way. (17 AAC 15.201) 7.2 The Permittee shall install guy guards on all down guys installed within the right of way. 7.3 The Permittee shall remove all overhead powerline facilities abandoned as the result of this Permit. 7.4 Guy/Anchor attachment shall not be located within clear zone. Additional Special Provisions: None. 25D-263 (12/07) Permit No. 2-180000-15-02 Page No. 11 of 16 In consideration of the benefits accruing to the Permittee by reasons of the foregoing agreement, this permit is hereby accepted by the Permittee and the Permittee hereby agrees to comply with all of the terms, provisions, conditions, stipulations therein contained. Dated this_________ day of _________,20 _____ *********************************************************** Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) By:__________________________Title:__________________________ Attest:_______________________Title:___________________________ *********************************************************** ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COMPANY OR PERMITTEE STATE OF ALASKA ) _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) BE IT REMEMBERED that on this _____day of ______,20_____,before me the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of Alaska, personally appeared ___________________________________________________ and_______________________________________________________ both to me personally known and known to me to be the identical individuals named in and who executed the foregoing permit, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the above named company for the uses and purposes therein expressed and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my office the day and year first above written. My Commission Expires:_______________ __________________________________________________________ A Notary Public *********************************************************** The State of Alaska, acting by and through its Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has caused this Utility Permit to be executed on the day and year herein acknowledged below. *********************************************************** STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Northern Region By:_______________________________________________________ Title: Regional Utility Engineer *********************************************************** ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DEPARTMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) 4 th. JUDICIAL DISTRICT) BE IT REMEMBERED that on this ______ day of ______,20 ____, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of Alaska, personally appeared ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities known to me to be the identical individual who executed the foregoing permit, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same for and on the behalf of the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities with full authority so to do, and for uses and purposes therein expressed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my office the day and year first above written. My commission Expires________________ ___________________________________________________________ A Notary Public *********************************************************** Alaska DOT--NORTHERN REGION Right -of-Way and Utilities Section Utility Permit Application Page1 1 of ~ Permit No: 2.~ )\0000· 15-00"Z. FACILITY TYPE AND LOCATION Facility Type: [Z]Power Ocomm 0 Pipe 0 Other Crossing Angle: 0 Crossing Length: FT Offset from Highway CL 12 5 FT Facility Length 58·608 FT Latitude/Longitude Facility Start N 63 20'.192" 1 w 142 59'.785" Latitude/Longitude Facility end N 63 21'.699" 1 w 143 21'.151 " Coordinate System WGS B4 Location: D BURIED (Z] OVERHEAD Overhead Clearance 21' power FT BURIED FACILITY SPECIFICATIONS Crossing Installation Type : 0 Bored 0 Jacked Oopen Cut 0Mole Longitudinal Installation : 0 Trenched D Plowed Depth of Burial 1 0' beyond Slope limits: FT Number of Conduits Depth of Burial Below Ditch FT Conduit Type/Size Depth of Burial below Road FT COMMUNICATION AN I!.POWER FACILITIES Number of Circuits Cable Type/Size Voltage 34 .5kv Number of Cables 4 Phase 3 Conductor Type/size 410 PIPE FACILITIES Transmittant: Working Pressure PSI Flash Point: OF Tested Pressure PSI Vent Location : Maximum Pressure PSI Type of Pipe Class of Pipe 0 Cathodic Protection Encasement Size/Type Construction Codes Followed: NESC, NEG, RUS , st .. +t' of .A(ASk.._ fh~lu.~ lbrlstr. S~cs, 2ot,;- Notes: cps 2ou._ tJo·. J!OOOC t"P. '}o.s-.Jo mP lot. s- The new 34.5kv three -phase transmission line would be built on 12' long cross arms at the top of the 60' poles Date Rece ived : Ol· 10 ~ 15 Appl ication Log Number: A-IS·OO'Z.. FORM 250-261 (11/14) Alaska Power & Te lephone New 34 .5 kv Transmission Power Line Uti lity Application Exhibit 0 -Proposed Pole Specifications , Approximate MP 1314 .5 to 1325 .6 i I j . I ! i I . . . . l ~-· so" -· -4--1g'' ·· l I II B-0 I I ' I ' l !"fr\ · Y I I s~~ (C-------tW---. iiJ '-_· ~~-. -'='-------.LJ......1l r - . I ' . ,., j~~~ t!6l I yi;'? lp· )../ ~·-W E sT r:EE DER I . ,· /-;;::/ I r2 . .5 v.,_ v I -;:/. ' "'~"·v l . Vl ,'. ,, I tO -o I I I I I ~J ~ ! I I I lhP --L Permit No: 2-IICDOO -K_-~L Page l&.t of tC, Alaska Power & Te lephone New 34 .5 kv Transmission Power Line Uti l ity Application ~-;. Exhibit C -Close Up of Approximate Mileposts 1314 .5 & 1325 .6 ....... il .. ~,= -0 ~~ ~ (!) Nb.O ~~I ....., ·a ..... (!) 0.. ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O. BOX 207 • MILEPOST 1314 AK. HWY. TOK, ALASKA 99780 (907, 883-5101 FAX (907) 883-5815 Exhibit A -Existing Pole Center Line & Buried Fiber Optics Milepost 1325 .6 (Tanacross area) Exhibit A-Existing & Proposed Easements ___ ___ Center Line Alaska Hwy ------------------ 0 -- {\ Milepost 1314.5 (Tok plant riser pole) 0 ~1;------~,------ Existin Proposed p ~ - - g Pole Center ~ L ole Center Line 30 'Jl-0--e I 0' ~} v n D~ 15' -o-~_ll_ ------""lrtO' ___ - ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O. BOX 207 • MILEPOST 1314 AK. HWY. 4 February 2015 TOK, ALASKA 99780 (907) 883-5101 FAX (907) 883-5815 Proposed Plans for Power Line Upgrade to Y errick Creek Phase I In order to not be entirely dependent upon fossil fuels (and their volatile prices), Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) is in the development of a hydropower plant at Yerrick Creek. In order to transmit the 34.5kv hydroelectricity to our power grid , we need to upgrade our current line structures that parallel the Alaska Highway from YeiTick Creek to Tok. AP&T proposes to install the new 60' utility poles within our existing utility permitted line (#2-180000-76-098). During the initial discussions with DOT, six feet was the given footage for us to move closer towards the Alaska Highway; however, we have since realized that we have buried underground fiber within the discussed area . The underground fiber is buried approximately six-eight feet along the north (highway) side of our existing poles. Therefore, we are now requesting our permitted clearing to be 10 feet. Our currently existing pole center line is 135 ' from the center line of the Alaska Highway. Our proposed pole center line would be 125' from the highway center line, with 15 ' easement on each side of the pole line-for the total of 30 '. We are requesting this additional ten feet permitted area start from our riser pole by our Tok power plant, at approximate ¥ilepost 1314.5 and extend to our last existing pole on the south side of the Alaska Highway at approximate Milepost 1325 .6 -where our current line then crosses to the north side of the highway (in the Tanacross area). We would like to start clearing the proposed ten feet by /on March I 51 , and begin setting poles by March 15. We propose to begin the clearing and installation of the poles at approximate Milepost 1314.5 and end at approximate Milepost 1320.5 by September -for the total of six miles this year. After the six miles of poles are set and new conductor strung, we will then begin the transfer of our existing 12.47 kv distribution power lines, and then our telecom line, onto the new poles. During the construction phase, our total utility permit clearing width would temporarily be 40' wide; after the existing poles are removed , the utility permit would be 30 ' wide. Respectfully submitted, 7& ;/ J£:t::: ~~c~on · · Interior Division Operations Manager STILLING WELL INSTALLATION 2015 April 21, 2015 David Hite Natural Resource Specialist Alaska Department of Natural Resources Land Section, Permits & Easements – Northern Region 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699 Re: ADL 418154 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project David Dear Mr. Hite: Thank you for your assistance with acquiring the EEP of ADL 418154 to install stilling wells at Yerrick Creek for the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project. Enclosed is a brief report with coordinates and photos of the installations. Three stilling wells were installed. Instead of the 8-foot-long by 8-inch-diameter perforated pipe, we installed a 2-inch- diameter by 3-foot-long stainless filter media attached to a 2-inch-diameter galvanized pipe. Their length varied (info in report) depending on the particular site of installation. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Glen D. Martin Project Manager (360) 385-1733 x122 (360) 385-7538 fax Enc. (as stated) YERRICK CREEK STREAMGAUGING STILLING WELL INSTALLATION REPORT ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE April 14, 2015 Background Yerrick Creek is located approximately 21 miles West of Tok, AK. Yerrick Cr. encompasses about 30 square miles of drainage basin on the north side of the Alaska Range. The drainage is subject to large flood flows which have created a braided creek channel subject to frequent relocation. This watershed has been studied for some time by AP&T as a potential hydroelectric source of energy for the Tok, AK area. Preliminary estimates of energy are based on sporadic streamflow measurements and correlations to Berry Cr. flow records. AP&T has collected some flow data but high flow events have disabled the datalogging equipment numerous times. Installation The stilling well installation is intended to provide stable gauge points on the creek in which level recording equipment will be installed. The original plan was to install vertical 8” diameter pipes adjacent to the stream channel with the assumption that water would percolate into these stilling wells to an elevation representative of the water level in the creek channel. This plan would work in the summer season but not after the soils in the creek channel freeze. An alternative plan was implemented using 2” x 3’ well points (stainless filter media) attached to 2” galvanized pipe extending from under the edge of the creek channel to above the normal water elevation. Installed at the proposed diversion, mid reach and near the proposed tailrace location, it is believed that these sloped stilling wells will survive most high water events. There still remains the potential for freezing of the channel and stilling well in the winter. Dataloggers Onset HOBO water level dataloggers (Model U20L-04) were installed in each stilling well. These were programed to log water pressure and temperature hourly. They are capable of recording 2.5 years of data as programed. A stainless steel cable tether is connected to each datalogger for retrieval. In addition, a ¾” poly tube is used to insert the datalogger to the bottom of the stilling well. Since these are non-vented pressure transducers, a barometric pressure datalogger is used in conjunction with the submerged dataloggers. A barometric datalogger was attached to a tree near the highway and will be placed in a pipe this summer. The dataloggers are compensated to -20C. Placing the barometric datalogger in a pipe buried in the ground will keep it within its temperature range in the winter. DIVERSION STILLING WELL 10685458 Location: N 63 20.611’ W 143 37.698’ Total 2” pipe length with well point: 36 feet Vertical 4” x 10 ft stilling well also installed at edge of creek (not presently being used) Datalogger s/n 106854459 MID REACH STILLING WELL Location: N 63 21.628’ W 143 37.579 Total 2’ pipe length with well point: 13’ Channel width at gage location 57 feet Datalogger s/n 106854459 TAILRACE AREA STILLING WELL Location: N 63 22.953 W 143 35.778 End of pipe 33’ 6” downstream of small spruce tree Total length 2” pipe with stilling well: 26 ft Datalogger s/n 106854460 Note: Channel was dry 4.5 ft below thalweg 2” Wellpoint ready to deploy into edge of Yerrick Cr at the diversion location YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 CREEK CONDITIONS AT DIVERSION SITE CREEK CONDITIONS BELOW THE DIVERSION SITE YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 EXCAVATOR AND SNOWMOBILE ROUTE UP CREEKBED AND THROUGH BRUSH ON BANKS YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 EXCAVATION AT CREEKS EDGE TO INSTALL STILLING WELL A CIRCLE IS DRAWN AROUND THE INSTALLED STILLING WELL VIEW IS LOOKING ACROSS CREEK TOWARD TAILRACE YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 STILLING WELL PIPE SHOWN AT RIGHT AND BELOW EMERGING FROM THE GROUND AFTER BEING BURIED IN THE CREEKBED NEAR BRIDGE YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 VIEW OF STILLING WELL INSTALLATION NEAR BRIDGE; SEE CIRCLE STILLING WELL INSTALLATION NEAR BRIDGE IN FORE- GROUND (CIRCLE) WITH EXCAVATOR CLIMBING OUT OF CREEKBED TO HEAD FURTHER UP STREAM FOR OTHER WELL INSTALLATIONS YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 VIEW OF STILLING WELL INSTALLATION AT MID-CREEK LOCATION STILLING WELL INSTALLATION AT MID-CREEK WITH OPEN WATER; ESTIMATED TO BE SCFS YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 PREPING TRANSDUCER FOR INSTALLATION INTO PIPE FOR MID- CREEK INSTALLATION YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 TRANSDUCER CAPPED COMPLETING THE INSTALLATION FOR MID-CREEK STILLING WELL IN FOREGROUND WITH CREEK BEYOND AT MID- CREEK LOCATION YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 EXCAVATOR AT CREEK EDGE AT DIVERSION LOCATION AS IT BEGINS EXCAVATING FOR STILLING WELL 2" X 3' STAINLESS FILTER MEDIA ATTACHED TO A GALVANIZED PIPE; USED AT EACH STILLING WELL LOCATION YERRICK CREEK STILLING WELL INSTALLATION -2015 STILLING WELL PIPE BEING LAID IN TRENCH INTO CREEK BED AT DIVERSION STILLING WELL PIPE INSTALLED AT DIVERSION; INSTRUMENTATION BEING INSTALLED NEXT