HomeMy WebLinkAboutYerrick Creek GrantApplication4
September 14, 2010
Alaska Energy Authority
Attn: Butch White, Grants Administrator
AEA-11-005-RE Fund Grant Application Round 4
813 West Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Grant Application
AEA-11-005-RE Fund Grant Application Round 4
Dear AEA:
Enclosed in response to RFA AEA-11-005-RE Fund Grant Application Round 4
program, is an application requesting funding for the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric
Project. Enclosed with this letter are two hard copies and one CD with the document in
PDF format.
Enclosed as per the RFA,
o Grant Application Form
o Cost Worksheet (included in Section 10 – Appendices)
o Grant Budget (included in Section 10 – Appendices)
o Grant Budget Form Instructions
o Other pertinent information
If you have any questions, please call either Glen Martin (Resource Assessment &
Permits) 360-385-1733 x122, or Bob Grimm (President) 360-385-1733 x120.
Sincerely,
Glen D. Martin
Resource Assessment & Permits
Enc. (as stated)
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
Grant Application
AEA 11-005 Application Page 1 of 19 7/21/2010
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided to assist you in preparing your application for
a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA)
and the forms are available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-IV.html
Grant Application
Form
GrantApp4.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline
of information required to submit a complete
application. Applicants should use the form to assure
all information is provided and attach additional
information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet4.doc Summary of Cost information that should be
addressed by applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget Form GrantBudget4.doc A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of
costs by milestone and a summary of funds available
and requested to complete the work for which funds
are being requested.
Grant Budget Form
Instructions
GrantBudgetInstructions4.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget
form.
If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application
forms for each project.
Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide
milestones and grant budget for completion of each phase.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting
funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the
preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with
your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
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 is 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
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 19 7/21/2010
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
ALASKA POWER COMPANY (APC)(a subsidiary of ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY)
Type of Entity:
Utility
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Physical Address
193 Otto Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Telephone
360-385-1733
Fax
360-385-7538
Email
glen.m@aptalaska.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Glen Martin
Title
Permitting & Licensing Manager
Mailing Address
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Telephone
360-385-1733 x122
Fax
360-385-7538
Email
glen.m@aptalaska.com
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
X 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);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s
governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.)
Yes
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 19 7/21/2010
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
This is intended to be no more than a 1-2 page overview of your project.
2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 5 word title for your project)
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project.
This project is located on Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok, Alaska on the
Alaska Hwy. The project would off-set diesel generation in the communities of Tetlin,
Tanacross, Dot Lake, and Tok.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
Wind Biomass or Biofuels
X Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Reconnaissance Design and Permitting
Feasibility X Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
APC proposes to construct the 1.5 MW Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on
Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok. The Project would off-set diesel generation
in the communities of Tetlin, Tanacross, Dot Lake, and Tok. The Project will consist of a small
diversion structure, approximately 15,000 feet of penstock, powerhouse with a single generating
unit, tailrace, small substation, and transmission line. The Project operation will be run-of-
river; annual generation is expected to be approximately 4,900 MWh/yr (approximately 40% of
the interconnected load). The Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate
stabilization. The cost to maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel
generation.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 19 7/21/2010
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel
costs, lower energy costs, etc.)
The Project will reduce the cost of generation by APC, and the savings would be passed on to
APC’s customers in Tetlin, Tok, Tanacross and Dot Lake who presently pay $0.40 per kWh
(excluding PCE). This hydroelectric project will reduce diesel fuel consumption by approximately
340,000 gallons per year, equivalent to about $1,000,000 annually. That savings will be passed on
to APC’s customers through lower rates. Lower energy costs would help stimulate both residential
and commercial development.
The environmental impacts of APC’s diesel generation, (e.g. air pollution, noise pollution, and
potential for spills, etc.) will be significantly reduced by this Project. During part of the year it is
expected that the entire load can be carried by the Project, and during the winter the use of
diesel generation will supplement the Project.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source
of other contributions to the project.
The total estimated cost of the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project is $14,500,000. Of that
amount, APC has already spent approximately $600,000 for initial reconnaissance, design, and
permitting work. The remaining $13,900,000 needed to complete the Project is allocated as
follows:
Phase III: Final Design and Permitting...........................................................$270,000
Phase IV: Construction ...............................................................................$13,630,000
APC has been awarded grants of $100,000 from the Denali Commission, $1,675,000 from the
Rural Utilities Service, and $4,000,000 from the Alaska Energy Authority (Round III) for the
Project. The Denali grant has been used to fund part of the Phase III. The RUS grant will be
applied to the other Phase III work and part of the construction. The AEA grant funding will be
applied to construction. APC will provide a 20% match of $2,900,000 against total project
costs. The remaining project costs after the 20% match is $5,825,000.
Therefore, APC requests that AEA provide $4,000,000 in grant funding (the maximum amount
according to the grant instructions). All of the grant will be used for Phase IV (Construction).
The remaining $1,825,000 of unfunded Project cost will come through cash contributions, loans,
or future grants. AP&T intends to ultimately seek grants totaling $11,600,000 (80% of the total
Project cost).
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below.
Grant Costs
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 4,000,000
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 8,725,000 (1)
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 12,725,000
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 19 7/21/2010
operational project)
2.7.4 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet
including estimates through construction)
$ 14,500,000
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $ 97,900,000 (2)
2.7.6 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in
terms of dollars please provide that number here and
explain how you calculated that number in your application
(Section 5.)
$ 51,900,000 (3)
(1) Net of Total Project Cost ($14,500,000) (minus existing grants ($5,775,000); or add AP&T 20% match
($2,900,000)), proposed grant ($4,000,000), and remaining $1,825,000 (through other sources).
(2) Net present value of 50 years of savings by AP&T ratepayers in diesel fuel and O&M costs at a 0% discount rate.
(3) Net present value of 50 years of savings by the PCE program.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 19 7/21/2010
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a
resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager
indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project
management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
Eric Hannan, APC’s Interior Regional Manager, Power, will be the Project Manager for all phases of the
work. Mr. Hannan is located in Tok, and is an electrical engineer with extensive experience in project
management and electrical generation, transmission and distribution.
Rex Goolsby will be the Construction Superintendent, reporting to Mr. Hannan. Mr. Goolsby is a Tok
resident with extensive construction and construction management experience. He will supervise the on-
site construction and installation of fabricated items and equipment, with help as necessary by APC’s
electrical and mechanical engineers. Mickey Henton, APC’s Safety Director is stationed in Tok, and will
provide safety oversight for the on-site construction.
As noted elsewhere, APC’s intent is to pre-fabricate a substantial portion of the intake and powerhouse.
The pre-fabrication work will be located near APC’s headquarters in Port Townsend, Washington, and
will be supervised by APC’s civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers.
Resumes for Mr. Hannan and Mr. Goolsby are included in Section 10.
3.2 Project Schedule
Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a
chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
A bar schedule of the expected design and construction sequence is provided in Section 10. The
following summarizes key activities and dates of the schedule. Note that this schedule is for the
entire development sequence; activities funded by this grant will be in Phase IV only.
Phase III: Permitting and Final Design: Present – Spring 2011
Permit applications have already been submitted to DNR for a land lease and for water rights.
A Corp of Engineer Section Nation Wide Permit was already issued. Also, ADF&G has issued a
habitat permit for project construction. A final penstock and access road alignment has recently
been selected, and final permitting and design work will be completed this winter to allow
beginning construction next July (2011). Some design work is likely to continue during
construction to respond to unanticipated field conditions.
Phase IV: Construction: 2011 –2013
APC expects to begin mobilization of equipment to Tok in the spring of 2011 in anticipation of a
July 2011 start of construction. Once all permits are received and the grant funds awarded,
APC will place the order for generating equipment and begin on-site construction. Pioneering a
road to the diversion area will be the initial on-site construction activity during summer 2011.
APC intends to fabricate much of the intake and powerhouse off-site in modified shipping
containers so that on-site outdoor work is limited to the short April-November construction
season (except for the first season that will start in July); the off-site fabrication work will begin
in 2011. Most of the on-site work will occur in 2011-2012, including installation of the penstock
along the access road, construction of the powerhouse and diversion structure, installation of
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 19 7/21/2010
generating equipment, and construction/upgrade of the transmission line. Construction could
extend into 2013 if weather, permitting, or grant funding delays mobilization in 2011.
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The
Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to
manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.)
Key (i.e. critical path) milestones for the Project are:
Receipt of all necessary permits and release of RUS grant funds by November 2011
Award contract for supply of the generating equipment by summer 2011
Completion of access road during the 2011 construction season
Receipt of penstock materials by September 2011
Completion of penstock installation by October 2012
Receipt of major generating equipment by June 2012
Completion of powerhouse structure by November 2012
Completion of diversion structure by September 2012 (the diversion structure
construction is scheduled for low flow conditions late in the year)
Completion of generating equipment installation by November 2012
The schedule described in 3.2 above is consistent with these milestones. 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 2012
construction season; if local labor is not sufficient to provide multiple crews, a 2013
construction season may be required.
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the
project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will
be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process
you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references
for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.
Key APC involved in the project development and their roles will be:
Eric Hannan, Project Manager and Transmission Design
Rex Goolsby, Construction Superintendent
Bob Berreth, Electrical Design
Ben Beste, Mechanical Design
Larry Coupe, Civil Design
Glen Martin, Resource Assessment and Permits
Mickey Henton, Safety Director
Phase III: Final Design & Permitting
In 2007, APC received a determination that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would
not have jurisdiction over the Project, therefore a FERC license is not required. Accordingly, in
this phase the following permits will be acquired:
Nation Wide Permit (Corps of Engineers)(issued in 2010)
Fish habitat permit (ADF&G)(issued in 2009)
Land leases or easements (ADNR & Tanacross, Inc.)
Water right (ADNR)(won’t be issued until project starts operations)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 19 7/21/2010
SHPO reviewed
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. These
engineers designed APC’s South Fork Hydroelectric Project which entered service in 2005, as
well as APC’s Kasidaya Creek Hydroelectric Project which entered service in October 2008.
They also participated in the design of two other APC hydroelectric projects, Black Bear Lake
Hydro and Goat Lake Hydro, and directly participated in the construction of both.
Phase IV: Construction
Construction will be by local contractors and APC staff, as follows:
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
Transmission line construction - - local contractor(s) and APC
Testing and start-up - - APC
There are several contractors in the Tok area that will be able to help with the construction. With a
project of this size, we would expect to utilize the services of most of these contractors at some point
during the construction. Mr. Hannan and Mr. Goolsby will select contractors for the various items
of work based on their knowledge of the contractor’s capabilities, interest, workload, and rates.
Reynold Grey Machining and Services is a welding and fabrication company in Port Townsend,
Washington that APC has used frequently for similar work, including fabrication of container
modules for diesel powerplants recently installed in Slana and Allakaket. Reynold Grey is located
near APC’s engineering staff, who thereby can conveniently oversee the proposed fabrication work.
APC already owns all the line trucks and other equipment necessary for the transmission line
construction. APC electricians, and mechanics from Tok will install the generating unit and other
mechanical and electrical equipment at the powerhouse and diversion, with supervision by APC
engineers. As noted above, the APC engineers have supervised the recent startups of APC’s South
Fork and Kasidaya Creek hydro projects.
APC will negotiate purchase orders for materials and equipment from vendors who have performed
well on APC’s recent projects. For the generating equipment, we expect to purchase the
turbine/generator package from Gilkes Inc., using the same design as the Kasidaya Project
equipment.
Resumes for the above-mentioned firms and individuals are included in Section 10.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
During Phase IV, APC proposes to provide quarterly reports to AEA regarding the status of
construction. APC has provided similar reports to AEA and other grant funding agencies in the
past several years on other projects, and has established the necessary procedures for producing
the report expeditiously. At the completion of Phase IV, APC will provide AEA with a final
report on construction, including final design drawings, budget, photographs, and description of
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 19 7/21/2010
difficulties and lessons learned.
During Phase IV, communications within the team will consist of:
Bi-weekly conference calls among the Project Manager, Construction
Superintendent, and the Design Engineers.
Periodic site visits by the Project Manager and Design Engineers.
These internal discussions will form the basis of quarterly reports to AEA. The reports will show
in a clear and concise manner progress made on the various tasks/milestones, the work to be
accomplished in the ensuing quarter, and potential problems and corrective actions to be
considered or implemented. Cost data will also be provided on a quarterly basis. Microsoft
Project or similar software will be used to develop and maintain schedule and budget
information; updating of the management files will be on a monthly basis.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Site Control – APC does not yet have development rights on land to be occupied by the
powerhouse and part of the penstock and access road. We are working with the land owner
(Tanacross, Inc.) to negotiate a lease, easement, or sale. In the past, Tanacross has been
opposed to project development, but since 2008 they have become more supportive. APC is
confident that we will be able to secure the necessary access and development rights from
Tanacross.
Seismic – Project components will be designed appropriately for seismic activity, since the
Project will be located in a high-risk seismic zone. The powerhouse has been relocated to avoid
faults near the Alaska Highway that were made known to us in 2008. Structures will be buried
as much as possible to minimize seismic impacts.
Underground Construction – The Project does not include a significant amount of underground
construction, which can be fraught with cost overrun potential. Geotechnical investigations
have been made at the diversion and powerhouse areas and along the penstock alignment to
provide an adequate level of knowledge about ground conditions at those sites.
Inclement Weather – Working conditions in the Project area are very harsh during the winter.
The proposed schedule assumes no on-site outside work during the December-March period. If
unusually harsh winter weather extends that period, the entire schedule could slip. Should that
appear likely, APC and its contractor(s) will review various options, including double-shift work
during the long summer days or limited outside work during the winter, such as processing
aggregate in the powerhouse area.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 19 7/21/2010
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of
the RFA.
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a
plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project.
Proposed Energy Resource: APC will develop the Yerrick Creek site to the largest capacity that
is economically feasible, which at this time is estimated to be 1.5 MW. In 2007, a consultant for
APC calculated the potential energy of the Project for various installed capacities, based on a
hydrologic record estimated by transposition of data from a stream gage on Berry Creek near
Dot Lake. Information from that report is the basis for the generation values indicated in this
application. It should be noted however that APC now has three years of gage data on Yerrick
Creek, which appears to show higher streamflows than determined by APC’s consultant, and
Project generation could be significantly greater than indicated herein. APC also had a second
consultant conduct a hydrology analysis in 2010 to improve the hydrology forecast, which drew
better conclusions than the 2007 analysis (had stream flow data to work with that wasn’t
available in 2007).
The total energy potential at the site is roughly 5.2 GWh per year, and a 1.5 MW project would
be able to generate approximately 94% of that potential (4.9 GWh/yr).
At this time the only viable alternative to the Project is considered to be continued diesel
generation. A large hydroelectric project at Cathedral Rapids on the Tanana River was studied
many years ago by the Corps of Engineers, but it is not now considered to be economically or
environmentally feasible. The Cathedral Rapids site may have potential for a river turbine
installation, similar to one currently under development by APC on a trial basis near Eagle, but
its capacity would likely be quite small and thus not a true alternative to the Project. APC is also
considering other creeks in the vicinity of Yerrick Creek for future development, however, they
are not next to the existing Tok grid, and transmission line construction would add considerable
cost.
Pros: Compared to diesel generation, the Project will have the following advantages:
less expensive to operate than diesel (lower O&M);
less need to purchase fuel;
fewer air emissions;
fewer hazardous substances;
less particulate matter emissions;
can come on-line after a power outage almost immediately, but diesel can’t;
lower and more stable electric rates for customers.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 19 7/21/2010
Cons: As with all hydroelectric projects, the initial cost of development is much higher than for
diesel generation.
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about
the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
Existing Power Generation
There are 6 gensets in the Tok diesel power plant that supply electricity to all four communities,
as follows:
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 #7 = CAT Model C175-16, 1800 kW, Installed 2007 (is on loan from CAT as a test unit)
Unit #8 = CAT/KATO Model D3508, 440 kW, Purchased / Installed 1985
Unit #9 = CAT/KATO Model 3512C, 1050 kW, Purchased / Installed in 2009
The existing transmission system includes 3-phase overhead line from Tok to Tanacross, single-
phase overhead line from Tanacross to Dot Lake, and 3-phase buried cable from Tok to Tetlin.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
Diesel generation being the existing energy resource, this hydroelectric project will for part of
the year eliminate the use of diesel generators. At other times only one or more diesel gensets
will be needed in addition to the hydro power. This will reduce the use of diesel and the
frequency of their maintenance, including overhauls and replacement. The diesel generators that
would be impacted are all owned and operated by APC in the Tok power plant. The Project will
reduce this area’s reliance on fossil fuels. When hydro provides for 100% of the load, the diesel
generators will be placed on standby to act as a backup to the hydro project. At the other times,
the diesel generators will supplement the hydro generation.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The existing energy market is the communities of Dot Lake, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Tok. All four
communities are on the same grid and are therefore supplied by the Tok diesel power plant. Peak
demand is about 1,750 kW. Peak demand is about the same in winter as in summer. Production
by the diesel power plant has averaged about 12,000 MWh for the last ten years, but there has
been a steady decline in the last several years from the maximum generation of about 12,800
MWh in 2003 and 2004. The decline is probably due to the higher cost from the higher diesel
fuel prices.
The Project will allow a decrease in electric rates for APC’s customers by reducing the use of
diesel; at this time the savings is estimated to be about $1,000,000 in the first year if the Project
is funded as proposed. APC expects that the recent decline in generation will cease or possibly
reverse if lower rates can be achieved. If more renewable energy sources are found for this area,
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 19 7/21/2010
the rates could continue to fall, but until diesel generation can be eliminated the electric rates
will continue to fluctuate.
Many customers supplement their electrical use with wood, kerosene, and oil or gas generators.
Several customers also use propane for cooking, clothes dryers, hot water heaters, etc. If electric
rates come down, use of these other sources may decline, which would help clean the air and
reduce toxic spills.
Energy demand is expected to grow for this area. There are reports of plans to develop gold
mines in the Tok area in the near future. Recently a battery manufacturing company visited Tok
interested in building a plant there, but then didn’t because of the high electric rates. If the
proposed Alaska gas pipeline goes through Tok, it likely would include a compressor station and
tap line in the Tok area, and a significant increase in population could be expected.
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Renewable energy technology specific to location – The Project will be a conventional run-of-
river hydroelectric project. Facilities to be constructed include:
15,000 feet of single lane access road
Diversion structure, approx. 60 cfs diversion capacity
6,300 feet of 48-inch HDPE penstock and 7,900 feet of 42-inch ductile iron penstock
Powerhouse with a single 1,500-kW generating unit
1,500 feet of buried 35-kV transmission cable
Upgrade of 10 miles of 35-kV overhead transmission line
Hydroelectric technology is well developed, and provides most of the renewable energy generated
in the world in general, and in Alaska in particular. The Project will utilize the precipitation and
steep topography afforded by the Yerrick Creek basin to generate renewable energy.
Optimum installed capacity – 1.5 MW.
Anticipated capacity factor – 28%.
Anticipated annual generation – Approximately 4.9 Gwh/yr, which would off-set about 340,000
gallons of diesel generation per year.
Anticipated barriers – No technological barriers.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 19 7/21/2010
Basic integration concept – Integration of hydropower is not particularly difficult; APC already
operates two independent integrated hydro-diesel systems. For much of the year the hydro
generation will be much less than the load, and therefore the diesel generation will be in lead
position and the hydro in lag position. During high flow periods during the summer, the hydro
generation may be sufficient to supply all of the load, in which case the diesels would not operate
and the hydro would be in lead position. During the transition periods, diesel unit(s) will be
block loaded in lag position, with the hydro in lead position.
Delivery methods – Project generation will be delivered to the interconnected Tok system by
about 1500 feet of buried cable from the powerhouse to the existing Tanacross-Dot Lake
transmission line at the highway. A portion of that line will be upgraded from single-phase to
three-phase between the project and Tanacross.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
Part of the project is on State land and part is on Tanacross, Inc. lands. We are working on an
agreement with Tanacross, Inc. and will get an easement from the state. Doyon, Inc. owns the
subsurface estate on the non-State land, and APC will develop an agreement with Doyon for use
of the subsurface estate.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and discussion of potential barriers
Applicable Permits:
Nation Wide Permit (Corps of Engineers) – Received
Water right (ADNR) – waiting for private property access
State land easement(ADNR) – waiting for private property access
Fish habitat permit (ADF&G) – Received
SHPO and RUS review – Almost Completed
Permitting Timeline: All permits are expected to be in place by April 2011.
Potential Permitting Barriers: None are known at this time.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
Threatened or Endangered species
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 19 7/21/2010
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
T&E Species: Data shows they are not found on site and APC has not been asked to survey for
them further.
Habitat Issues: There is some fish habitat for Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling in Yerrick Creek,
but ADF&G has concluded that instream flows are not necessary. ADF&G has issued a permit
(see Section 10) condition on us providing 1) a screen at the intake with openings no larger than
¼ inch and 2) a roughened channel bypass that would allow fish passage over the diversion when
flows are in excess of the hydraulic capacity of the power plant. APC intends to design the
spillway to provide this bypass capability. ADF&G also wants the access road and penstock to
stay a minimum of 66 feet away from the riparian corridor of the creek as much as possible.
Wetlands: Wetlands will be avoided when possible. Wetlands (the creek) will be impacted by
changing flow patterns for part of the year (when most of the water is diverted for power
generation). The access road and penstock routes were designed to avoid wetlands.
Archaeological Issues: An archaeological survey was conducted the first week of September 2008
and again during the summer of 2009. A final report was issued and reviewed by RUS and
SHPO. The Project is being designed to avoid any artifacts.
Land Development Constraints: APC is working towards an agreement with Tanacross, Inc.
regarding rights to develop the Project, which will be partly on Tanacross land. APC is
confident that an agreement can be reached prior to the anticipated start of construction in 2011.
Telecommunications Interference: The 34.5 kV transmission line will not create interference with
telecommunications. This size of conductor is frequently found on the same pole with telephone
lines, as they are also found to coexist on APC’s poles. Higher voltages can cause interference
however.
Aviation Considerations: This project is not near an airport nor typical flight pattern, nor will the
infrastructure be more than 45 feet above ground, well below safe flying elevation. Current
infrastructure has been in place for 40 years and has not been a hazard.
Visual & Aesthetic Impacts: Visual and aesthetics are not an issue here, but there would be
minor impacts related to visible human activity. The powerhouse and appurtenances will be
around a bend in the creek and out of sight of the highway with the transmission line buried to
the highway. The upgraded transmission to Tanacross will be similar in appearance to the
existing line.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards,
Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 19 7/21/2010
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
Anticipated project costs:
Phases I-III $870,000 (expenses already incurred and projected)
Phase IV $13,630,000 (APC estimate based on experience)
Total: $14,500,000
Requested grant funding: $4,000,000
Other sources of funding:
Rural Utility Service grant (2008) $1,675,000
Denali Commission grant (2008) $100,000
AEA grant (2010 – Round III) $4,000,000
Total Funds Awarded Thus Far $5,775,000
Applicant matching funds: $2,900,000 (20% match)
Remainder to be funded: $5,825,000 (this $4,000,000 grant would reduce it to $1,825,000)
Projected capital cost: $13,630,000 (capital cost is assumed to be the cost of Phase IV –
Construction)
Projected development cost: $870,000 (development cost is assumed to be the total cost of Phases I,
II, and III)
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by
the applicant.
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the
communities they serve.)
APC will operate and maintain the Project with proceeds from sale of power to its customers. No
grant funding is requested for operation and maintenance.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
APC is developing this Project to supply power to its own interconnected Tok system. This power
ultimately will be sold to APC’s customers in Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot Lake at a lesser
cost than the current cost of diesel generation.
Rate of Return: Not calculated.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 16 of 19 7/21/2010
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
The Cost Worksheet is attached in Section 10 - Appendices.
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings,
and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price,
RCA tariff, or cost based rate)
Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available)
Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
The people of Alaska will benefit from the Project development as follows:
Potential annual fuel displacement: The Project will displace about 340,000 gallons of diesel
fuel, which equates to an annual savings of approximately $1,020,000 at a fuel price of $3.00 per
gallon. Over a 50 year period the Project could potentially save 17,000,000 gallons of diesel fuel
valued at $103,000,000 (average fuel price of $6.06/gallon). Note that this average fuel price is
based on escalation of a 2008 price of $3.00/gal at 3.75% until 2031, constant thereafter. Actual
fuel prices in 2008 were considerably higher than $3.00/gallon, but currently they are lower due
to the global economic slowdown. Fuel prices could easily escalate faster than 3.75% with a
more robust global economy.
Anticipated annual revenue: AP&T would expect to have a new rate tariff for the Tok system
based on the various funding contributions. If funded as proposed herein, the Project is
estimated to result in a decrease in revenue of about $1,000,000 in the first year of operation.
Potential additional annual incentives: Not estimated.
Potential additional revenue streams : Not estimated.
Non-economic public benefits to Alaskans: Reduced air emissions and noise, reduced chance for
oil spills.
Other benefits: The State of Alaska would spend less on the PCE program, since the Project
generation would decrease the amount of diesel generation subject to PCE reimbursement. Over
the 50 year life of the Project, the savings would amount to about $51,900,000 based on the 2009
PCE rate in the Tok area of $0.1595/kWh escalating at 1% per year. The 2010 PCE rate is
$0.2298, providing even greater savings (which as can be seen, fluctuate from year to year).
In the short term the local economy would benefit due to local hire for construction. In the long
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 17 of 19 7/21/2010
term, lower and more stable electric rates could lead to more residential and commercial
development, which in turn would add more income to these communities.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
APC will operate the Project to supply power to APC’s interconnected Tok system, for eventual
sale to its retail customers. APC will maintain the Project as it does with its other hydroelectric
resources, which can be expected to have a life of at least 50 years. The Project will be remotely
operated, with continuous monitoring by a SCADA system. O&M personnel will visit the plant at
least once per week for routine checks on the equipment. A routine maintenance schedule will be
established, a brief annual shutdown is likely for maintenance.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed
with work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
APC has been conducting environmental and geotechnical surveys of the site from 2008-2010.
APC has completed the following studies:
Wetland delineation
Fish habitat surveys
TES Plant survey
Water quality
Hydrology (stream gaging is ongoing)
Archaeological survey
Geotechnical investigation of substrate at diversion site and along penstock route
APC has received grant funds from the Denali Commission totaling $100,000, from RUS totaling
$1,675,000, and from AEA totaling $4,000,000 (Round III). APC has spent all the Denali
Commission funds and the majority of the RUS funds to conduct feasibility analysis and
environmental and geotechnical studies. RUS funds have not been released until we complete our
permitting and we provide them with an EA (done in August 2010). We are currently completing
our permitting. Once the RUS funds are released, they will reimburse our costs to date, fund the
remaining design and permitting work (Phase III) as well as a small part of the construction cost.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 18 of 19 7/21/2010
SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT
Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include
letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project.
Included in Section 10 are several letters of support and a petition passed around the community
of Tok in support of this project.
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget3.doc
Total Project Costs: $14,500,000
Investments to date and funding sources: APC has spent approximately $600,000 on Phase I, II,
and III development activities for the Project. Those costs have been paid to date by a Denali
Commission grant ($100,000) and cash outlay by APC. The RUS has award APC a grant of
$1,675,000, but has not released its funding until completion of an Environmental Review, which
includes procuring permits and issuing an EA. We are currently completing this process. Once
the RUS grant funds are released, they will reimburse our costs to date, fund the remaining
design and permitting work (Phase III) as well as a small part of the construction cost (about
$450,000 for mobilization and $455,000 for pioneer road construction). The Round III AEA
grant funds ($4,000,000) have not yet been released, which will be used for the construction
phase.
Amount requested in grant funds: With this application, APC is requesting the maximum
possible grant amount ($4,000,000). The funds will be used for those activities planned in the
2011-2012 construction seasons ($645,000 for completion of the access road, $2,500,000 for
purchase and delivery of penstock materials, and $855,000 for purchase and delivery of the
turbine and generator).
Additional investment by APC: APC intends to provide $2,900,000 in cash outlay or loans so
that its investment is 20% of the total Project cost. If the maximum grant amount is awarded
($4,000,000), the unfunded amount to complete construction will be $1,825,000. APC would
then need to secure $1,825,000 in future grants or loans so that it matching contribution remains
$2,900,000 for the total Project cost.
[AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES]
Grant Documents Authorized Signers
Please clearly print or type all sections of this form.
Community/Grantee Name: ALASKA POWER COMPANY
Regular Election is held: Annually / Board of Dir. IDate: September 14, 2010
Authorized Grant Si
Printed Name Title Term
Glen Martin Permitting I Lic.ensing / PermanenEnvlfonnfental KeVleW
Robert S. Grimm CEO I President Permanen
I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents:
(Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official)
Printed Name Title Term
Robert S. Grimm CEO I President Permanent
Grantee Contact Information' .
Mailing Address: P.o. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone Number: (360) 385-1733 x122
Fax Number: (360) 385-7538
E-mail Address:
glen.m@aptalaska.com
Federal Tax 10 #: 92-0153693
Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information.
Please return the original completed form to:
Alaska Energy Authority
ALASKA813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. ENERGY AUTHORITYAnchorage, AK 99503
Attn: Butch White, Grants Adminjstrator
H:\GRANTSIAEA Round IV Renewable Energy Grants LOIO\Grant_Authorized_Signers4.doc
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity
2. Corporate Resolution
3. Project Fact Sheet
4. Project Maps
5. Tok Grid One-Line Diagram
6. Project Area Photographs
7. Resume’s
8. Permits
9. Environmental Study Reports
10. NEPA Checklist
11. Letters of Support
12. Cost Worksheet
13. Grant Budget Form
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY
CORPORATE RESOLUTION
PROJECT FACT SHEET
Yerrick Creek Facts Sheet
Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone, generates electricity with
hydroelectric and diesel power plants throughout Alaska, presently serving 24 communities. APC’s
experience in Alaska goes back to 1957. APC has staff certified as electrical, civil, and mechanical
engineers. APC’s engineers are responsible for the designing, ordering materials, and construction of
impoundment structures, power plants, turbines, generators, switchgear, SCADA networks, transmission
lines, etc. APC’s facilities are well maintained and our operations and construction personnel are among
the best in the industry. We have a consistent history of excellent performance in reliability, customer
service, and a reputation for being a low cost provider of electric service.
APC currently operates five hydroelectric projects: two storage and three run‐of‐river; in addition to the
Kasidaya Creek Hydro Project currently under final construction.
The target communities that will benefit from this project are Tetlin (pop. 117), Tanacross (pop. 140),
Dot Lake (pop. 19), and Tok (pop. 1,393), Alaska,
• Economic Hardship: Due to the high cost of gasoline, travelers to and through Tok are down
11% over 2006, impacting this tourism based economy.
• Economic Distress:. 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%. The Denali Commission considers Tetlin and
Tanacross Distressed Communities. The Denali Commission states that Dot Lake and Tok are
distressed by 2007 standards plus/minus 3%.
The hydro project will consist of a small diversion structure, approximately 11,000 feet of penstock,
powerhouse with a single Impulse turbine and generator, tailrace, small substation, and a short
transmission line to the Alaska Highway and then new infrastructure to replace old single‐phase
infrastructure along the highway to Tok (22 miles).
Construction is anticipated to begin in the Fall 2009 after permits are received. The building season is
short at this north latitude, so it will take two years to complete this project.
Immediate Project Benefits – Local Hire During Construction
• ROW clearing
• Road building
• Cement work
• Pipe welding
• Power Plant building construction
• General Labor
• Land ROW / lease/ purchase money to Tanacross Inc.
Page 1 of 2
Yerrick Creek Facts Sheet
Long Term Project Benefits/Outcomes
• Stabilize the fluctuating electric rates due to rapidly changing and rising diesel fuel costs
• The cost to produce electricity for the grid supplying Tok, Tanacross, Dot Lake and Tetlin, will be
a savings of approximately 20%;
• Greater reliability and cost effectiveness with hydropower versus diesel generation
• Reduce air emissions / greenhouse gases
• Reduce noise pollution
• Reduce the chance for fuel spills
• Economic development and home building due to less expensive electricity;
• APC will have a net annual O&M savings of approximately $15,700 by reducing the hours the
Tok diesel generators are used
• Reduced frequency of Tok diesel generator replacement(s)
• The cost to maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel generation
• . Land ROW / lease/ purchase money to Tanacross Inc.
Yerrick Creek Hydro Characteristics
¾ Very Low Impact hydro
¾ Will not flood the valley
¾ Funnel a portion of the current water flow into the 36” penstock, then released back to natural
flow
¾ Minimal impact on the environment
¾ Will be larger than current Tok plant output ‐ will be able to handle community growth
¾ Although too early to tell, our preliminary energy estimate (assuming a May to
November operating range produces 4,900 MWH) at 14 kWh/gal efficiency at the diesel
power plant, this would be a savings of about 350,000 gallons per year, which equates
to at today’s prices (2008 average=$3.577/gal.) is equivalent to $1,251,950 annually.
AP&T has been told by gas pipeline officials that if the pipeline is built, and if it comes through Tok, it
will be at least ten years before the start of construction.
Far Reaching Effects
Although there are many hydroelectric projects found in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska, there are
many sites in Alaska’s mountain ranges where small, seasonal hydroelectric projects would be cost
effective to install. This project will help APC fine tune its small, seasonal hydro capability to take a basic
design almost anywhere and install a cost effective facility to meet the needs of rural Alaska.
¾ This project will not only provide clean, renewable electricity, but will provide rate stabilization.
¾ With the projected price of gasoline hitting $6.00 a gallon within two months – Yerrick Creek
hydro cannot come soon enough!
Page 2 of 2
PROJECT MAPS
TOK GRID ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS
RESUME’S
4
PERMITS
PERMITTING
At this time only the Alaska Department of Fish & Game Habitat Permit has been
acquired. The Department of Natural Resource lease and Corp of Engineer permit will
be acquired shortly. SHPO will soon receive an archaeological survey completed in 2009
for their review as well.
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
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORTS
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORTS
The Environmental studies completed for this project are as follows:
Fish Surveys
Hydrology Baseline Survey & Water Quality Survey
Wetland Delineation Survey
Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plant Species Survey
Cultural Resource Survey
FISH SURVEYS
10 June 2009
To: APT – Glen Martin
From: GRAYSTAR – Steve Grabacki
Subject: Report of Fisheries Fieldwork, Yerrick Creek, May-June 2009
I conducted three sampling sessions on Yerrick Creek -- 19-20 May 2009, 27-29 May 2009, and
7 June 2009.
For the first two sessions, the study area included lower Yerrick Creek, from roughly ½-mile
above the proposed powerhouse site downstream to the Tanana River. The main purpose of the
sampling was to compare spawning aggregations of Arctic grayling above vs. below the
proposed powerhouse site. Sampling methods included visual observation with polarized lenses,
angling with spin and fly terminal tackle, underwater video, and 3 styles of fish traps (small
wire-mesh minnow traps, medium collapsible minnow traps with larger throat, and larger
collapsible traps) baited with commercially cured salmon roe.
On the third sampling session, we focused on the creek downstream of the highway. The purpose
of this sampling was to observe and capture Arctic grayling in lower Yerrick Creek, and to
compare grayling's use of the creek for spring spawning by adults vs. summer feeding by
juveniles. Sampling methods included visual observation with polarized lenses, angling with
spin and fly terminal tackle, and herding fish through pools into a bag seine.
General Habitat Description
For most of its length, Yerrick Creek is a cascading stream with fast flow and boulder substrate.
The stream generally comprises 1-3 channels, within a wide dynamic (scoured) perimeter.
Apparent fish habitat consists of widely spaced, very small (~10-foot long) pools behind large
boulders or logjams.
Roughly 1 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
3 main channels, 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 & large gravel. This transition zone is only a few hundred yards long.
Complicating this situation is the fact that the water flowing in the creek is not always
continuous with the river. Because of the porous substrate, the water sometimes disappears from
the surface, and flows underground.
First Sampling Session
During the field trip of 19-20 May 2009, Yerrick Creek did not flow into (connect to) the Tanana
River. Water flow appeared strongest at the uppermost sampling station (above the powerhouse
site), and water was flowing in only 1 channel under the highway bridge.
On 19 May, the water disappeared approximately ¾-mile downstream of the bridge, within the
rocky streambed. On 20 May, the water had reached about 0.9 miles farther downstream, but
disappeared in the sandy substrate. In the sandy delta area, there were a few very small pools
with very little flow, and mostly dry substrate.
At the bridge, water temperature was –
10.8°C at about 1630 on 18 May
5.1°C at 1030 on 19 May
1.7°C at 0915 on 20 May
-- this range of daily temperature variation was observed on both sampling trips. (Arctic
grayling are thought to spawn at 4°C).
The 3 channels of Yerrick Creek drain into a backwater slough of the Tanana River. Although
there was no surface water flow from the creek to the river, there was water in that slough.
Water temperature was 10.5°C. We observed approximately 12 grayling in a tight school. The
fish appeared to be roughly 250-300 mm in length. They were easily spooked, and did not
respond to spinners or flies. We also observed 1 round whitefish, of approximately 300 mm in
length, dozens of small (~20 mm) grayling, and hundreds of tiny (<10 mm) fish (species
unknown). We captured no fish in the fish traps.
Above the powerhouse site on 19-20 May, we captured 1 Dolly Varden (225 mm FL) in a trap,
but observed no other fishes in this area.
Second Sampling Session
During the field trip of 27-29 May 2009, the flow in the creek was much greater, and the water
appeared to be more turbid, than it had been a week earlier. At the bridge, the water was flowing
in 2 channels (vs. one 1 channel, a week before), and was –
5.1°C at 1010 on 27 May
4.1°C at 0600 on 28 May, after a cool night
7.1°C at 1240 on 28 May
2.8°C at 0610 on 29 May, after a rainy night
3.5°C at 0925 on 29 May
5.3°C at 1455 on 29 May
Yerrick Creek was flowing into the Tanana River (the slough where we had earlier sampled)
through its 3 main channels. Just above those confluences, the creek was braided through the
forest, with several small channels and overland flows (among the trees). In these small
channels, we observed 2 individual grayling (the fish were widely separated, not aggregated).
We observed no fish in the lower creek (below the bridge), on either the rocky or sandy
substrates, but we did capture 2 slimy sculpin in a trap. Water temperature in the lower creek
was –
6.8°C at 1145 on 28 May
4.5°C at 1135 on 29 May
Above the powerhouse site, we captured 7 Dolly Varden in traps, but observed no other fishes,
with any sampling method. Water temperature in this area was –
7.5°C at 1325 on 28 May
3.7°C at 1330 on 29 May
During this second field trip, we found some of the fish traps in different positions from where
we had set them. They appeared to have been moved to the shore or (in one case) out of the
water by an overnight flood event.
To summarize the first two samplings -- For grayling to spawn in Yerrick Creek, 2 factors are
necessary – water temperature of 4-5°C, and continuity of water flow from the creek to the river.
As expected, we observed a school of grayling in the Tanana River very near the mouth of
Yerrick Creek, before the creek had reached the river. Those fish were apparently waiting to
enter the creek. After the creek had reached the river, we observed grayling in the sandy-bottom,
slower-flowing “delta” channels of the creek, but no grayling in the rocky-bottom, faster-flowing
cascading parts of the creek. Also, we did not observe aggregations of grayling anywhere in
Yerrick Creek.
Third Sampling Session
We sampled Yerrick Creek on 7 June 2009. The weather was cool and rainy in the morning, but
turned mostly sunny and warm in the afternoon. Water was clear, and 5.4C at 1100.
The purpose of this sampling was to observe and capture Arctic grayling in lower Yerrick Creek,
and to compare grayling's use of the creek for spring spawning by adults vs. summer feeding by
juveniles. Sampling methods included: visual observation with polarized lenses, angling with
spin and fly gear, and herding fish downstream through pools into a bag seine, which was
stretched across the creek.
We observed no fishes in the fast flow / boulder substrate zone, or in the slow flow / sand
substrate zone. In the transition zone, we captured 1 grayling, and observed 4 individual (not
aggregated) grayling: 2 of these were roughly 200 mm long, and 2 fish were approximately 100
mm long. The captured grayling was 208 mm fork length, and did not appear to be in either a
pre-spawning or post-spawning condition.
I took scale samples from the captured grayling, and released it in apparent good condition. I
drove to Delta, and met with ADFG's Fronty Parker. We discussed my findings, and we pressed
and read the sample of scales that I took from the fish I caught on Sunday (6/7). That grayling
was 2 or 3 years old, definitely juvenile, not a spawning adult.
Based on my sampling in early September 2008, and on these three sampling sessions in May-
June 2009, a picture of grayling 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. While I cannot prove that grayling do not spawn in Yerrick Creek, I have
found no evidence to support it --
* The creek did not connect to the river at the expected time of grayling spawning.
* I observed no aggregations of grayling anywhere in Yerrick Creek; all grayling observed in
the creek in May-June 2009 appeared to be individual fish.
* I observed no adult-size grayling, and the largest grayling observed in June 2009 (the 2- or
3-year-old) did not appear to be in either a pre-spawning or post-spawning condition.
BLANK PAGE
15 April 2009
To: AP&T -- Glen Martin
From: GRAYSTAR -- Steve Grabacki
Subject: Yerrick Creek Fisheries Study, Report of Field Trip, 7-8 April 2009
Personnel --
* Stephen Grabacki, FP-C, GRAYSTAR
* Mike Warner, AP&T Tok
* Dan Burfoot, AP&T Tok
* Fronty Parker, ADFG Delta (8 April only)
Station: YCT, mouth of Yerrick Creek, at the Tanana River
Chain-sawed hole through approximately 8 inches of ice; water about 2 feet deep.
Video examination revealed soft bottom, slow current, no fishes.
Two minnow traps set 7APR09 @ 1140; retrieved 8APR09 @ 1030: no fish.
Overnight, the water had risen to about 3.5 feet deep, ice in main river channel had gone out, and
ice at YCT was broken and treacherous.
Station: MYC, middle Yerrick Creek, roughly halfway between impoundment and powerhouse
Saw 2 fish (possible Dolly Varden) in open water pool; video not used.
Two minnow traps set 7APR09 @ 1310; retrieved 8APR09 @ 1220: 3 Dolly Varden --
140, 125, 165 mm FL
Station: YCI, Yerrick Creek approximately at impoundment site (just below Mike’s camp)
Chain-sawed hole through approximately 4.5 feet of ice; water about 2 feet deep,
about 1 foot of air between bottom of ice and surface of water.
Video examination revealed rocky/icy bottom, moderate current, no fishes.
Two minnow traps set 7APR09 @ 1400; retrieved 8APR09 @ 1200: no fish.
Station: YAI, Yerrick Creek about ¼ mile above impoundment
GPS: N63°20.262’ x W143°37.766’
Two places of open water through about 3 feet of ice.
Video examination revealed rocky bottom, brisk current, 12-20 Dolly Varden, largest about 8”.
Fish did not appear to spook from camera, and at least 1 fish appeared to investigate camera.
Two minnow traps set 7APR09 @ 1500; retrieved 8APR09 @ 1140: 3 Dolly Varden --
198, 140, 110 mm FL
Station: UPD, U-shaped pond west of Yerrick Creek
GPS: N63°21.658’ x W143°38.400’
Ice about 3.5 feet thick; water 23 feet deep. Video not used; water very brown colored.
First chain-saw hole filled with water before completion; cut second hole to within
a few inches of water, the bashed out the remaining ice.
Two minnow traps set 7APR09 @ 1700; retrieved 8APR09 @ 1300: no fish.
Summary of Results
Station Place Liquid Water? Dolly Varden?
YCT Yerrick Creek, below powerhouse Yes No
MYC Yerrick Creek, in project reach Yes Yes
YCI Yerrick Creek, at impoundment Yes No
YAI Yerrick Creek, above impoundment Yes Yes
UPD pond next to Yerrick Creek Yes No
BLANK PAGE
1
REPORT
FISHERIES BASELINE STUDY
for a
PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT
on
YERRICK CREEK
near
TOK, ALASKA
prepared for –
ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE Company
Port Townsend, Washington
by –
Stephen T. Grabacki, FP-C
GRAYSTAR Pacific Seafood, Ltd.
Anchorage, Alaska
(907) 272-5600
graystar@alaska.net
October 2008
2
1 -- INTRODUCTION
ALASKA POWER AND TELEPHONE COMPANY (AP&T) has proposed to install a
hydroelectric project on Yerrick Creek, near Tok, Alaska. This document is the report of the
first year of a fisheries baseline study, in support of that project.
The study area included Yerrick Creek (YER) and Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 (CR1). These
streams are small tributaries of the upper Tanana River, in eastern interior Alaska. The fish and
fisheries of the upper Tanana River drainage are studied and managed by the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADFG, or “the department”). Neither YER nor CR1 are listed in ADFG’s
Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes and
its associated Atlas -- http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/awc/ -- although the Tanana River
itself is listed.
YER and CR1 lie within ADFG’s Upper Tanana Management Area (UTMA), which is within
ADFG’s fishery management region III, also known as the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK)
region (Figure 1). The UTMA encompasses Delta Junction, Tok, and several smaller
communities (Figure 2).
Region II
Region III
Region I
Lower Tanana Management Area
Upper Tanana Mangement Area
Upper Copper Upper Susitna
Management Area
Yukon Management AreaNorthwestern/Arctic
Management Area
Kuskokwim
Management Area
Figure 1 -- Map of ADFG’s Sport Fish Regions, and the Six Region III Management Areas
source: Parker 2006
3
Figure 2 -- Map of the Upper Tanana Management Area within the Tanana River Drainage
source: Parker 2006
Several fish species are found in the UTMA –
Common Name Scientific Name
chinook (king) salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
coho (silver) salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
chum (keta) salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus
burbot Lota lota
lake trout Salvelinus namaycush
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
round whitefish Coregonus cylindraceum
least cisco Coregonus sardinella
humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian
northern pike Esox lucius
YER & CR1
study area
4
ADFG’s Division of Sport Fish publishes an annual Fishery Management Report for Sport
Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River Drainage. These reports focus on the more abundant sport-
caught fishes: coho salmon, Arctic grayling, northern pike, lake trout, and burbot. Dolly Varden
char are not explicitly studied. The most recent available such report (as of October 2008) is
Parker 2006.
ADFG has stocked rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), coho
salmon, Arctic grayling, and lake trout in selected waters of the Upper Tanana area (Parker
2006).
In general, there is less sport fishing effort in the UTMA, as compared to the Lower Tanana
Management Area (Parker 2006); for example, in 2005 --
* 33% of anglers in the Tanana River drainage fished in UTMA
* 30% of fishing trips in the Tanana River drainage were in UTMA
* 28% of fishing effort in the Tanana River drainage was in UTMA
* 39% of fish harvest in the Tanana River drainage was in UTMA
In 2005, Arctic grayling comprised over half of the sport fish catch, but less than one-third of the
sport fish harvest (fish caught and retained) in UTMA (Parker 2006) –
Species Catch % of Catchd Harvest % of Harveste % Harvested
Salmon
* chinook 25 0.03 25 0.15 100.0
* cohoa 2,830 2.97 267 1.61 9.4
* cohob 2,973 3.12 1,002 6.02 33.7
* chum 686 0.72 0 0.0 0.0
Non-Salmon
* rainbow trout 17,355 18.20 6,336 38.10 36.5
* lake trout 3,651 3.83 569 3.42 15.6
* charc 1,453 1.52 463 2.78 31.8
* Arctic grayling 55,943 58.66 5,242 31.52 9.4
* northern pike 8,299 8.70 1,646 9.90 19.8
* whitefish 455 0.48 60 0.36 30.5
* burbot 1,370 1.44 1,021 6.14 74.8
* sheefish 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
* other fishes 321 0.34 0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 95,361 16,631 17.4
a – anadromous salmon
b – landlocked coho & Chinook salmon
c – includes Arctic char & Dolly Varden
d – the species’ percent of UTMA total catch, calculated from Table 7 in Parker 2006
e – the species’ percent of UTMA total harvest, calculated from Table 7 in Parker 2006
5
The preceding table shows that 1.52% of the catch, and 2.78% of the harvest, were composed of
“char”, which includes both wild Dolly Varden and stocked Arctic char.
Because of their wide distribution and comparatively high abundance, Arctic grayling are
important to both sport and subsistence harvesters. As such, they have been extensively studied
by ADFG scientists for decades. In the Tanana River drainage, grayling exhibit a wide range of
age and size at maturity (Clark 1992). Similar studies have not been conducted for Dolly Varden
in the upper Tanana drainage, but anecdotal observations indicate that Dolly Varden in that area
may reach maturity and spawn at small sizes (< 200 mm fork length) (J.F. Parker, ADFG,
personal communication, 2008), and even while exhibiting so-called “juvenile” characteristics
such as parr marks (A.E. Rosenberger, University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries &
Ocean Sciences, personal communication, 2008).
ADFG has conducted comprehensive fish surveys of the streams of the middle and lower Tanana
River drainage, including clear, clear/glacial, glacial, humic/glacial, and humic creeks and rivers,
and found no Dolly Varden in any of those habitats (Durst 2001, Hemming & Morris 1999).
Arctic grayling conduct seasonal migrations among overwintering, spawning, and summer
feeding habitats, and seasonal changes in water temperature are generally considered to be the
triggers for those movements (Ridder 1995, Ridder 1994, and several previous studies cited in
those reports. Similar studies have not been conducted for Dolly Varden in the upper Tanana
drainage, but anecdotal reports indicate that there may be year-round resident populations of
Dolly Varden in the upper reaches of Yerrick Creek (J.F. Parker, ADFG, personal
communication, 2008).
In 1988, 367 Tok households were surveyed to determine their subsistence use of fish, game, and
plant resources. Most households used subsistence-caught salmon (79.4%) and freshwater fish
(71.4%). In the freshwater fish category, the predominant subsistence species were grayling
(55.7%), burbot (40.2%), rainbow trout (35.0%), large pike (27.2%), whitefish (25.9%), and lake
trout (22.9%). Only 0.9% of Tok households reported using subsistence-caught Dolly Varden.
The report does not identify where these various fish species were harvested, but because the
Tok data set includes marine fish (27.5%), such as halibut, it appears that Tok residents harvest
subsistence fisheries resources far from home, and not only in the local Tok area (McMillan &
Cuccarese 1988).
In conclusion, Arctic grayling are the most commonly sport-caught fish in the UTMA, and the
second-most common sport-harvested species. Grayling are also taken by subsistence
harvesters. Dolly Varden are comparatively uncommon in the UTMA, in both the sport and
subsistence harvests, and were not reported by either of two ADFG scientific investigations.
Finally, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game’s Division of
Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, & Development (FRED) investigated possible sites for
salmon hatcheries throughout Alaska. In a survey of Yerrick Creek in February 1980, Raymond
(1980) reported –
6
* the Upper Tanana River Valley has many ingredients for a good hatchery site:
year-round highway access, high-gradient streams, and hardly any salmon
* most of the creeks in this area dry up in winter
* there was no evidence of running water at the highway bridge
* there was evidence of running water at two sites: 1 mile and 2 miles upstream of
the highway
* water temperature was too low for a flow-through hatchery
* there was plenty of hydropower available
2 -- METHODS
YER is characterized by steep gradient, cascading flows, and large boulder substrate. The
channels appear to be dynamic, as judged by cleanliness of the substrate in and near the water:
very little periphyton and almost no terrestrial vegetation. There are few pools in YER that
appear capable of providing habitat for fishes. Those pools are small, in the range of 10-20 ft
long.
CR1 is much smaller and steeper than YER. It is essentially one long, cascading run, with strong
current and large boulder substrate. Small pools are apparent only at very low flows. For
example, in June (lower flow than in September), a pool of roughly 10 ft wide x 20 ft long x 2 ft
deep was observed at WP 037: 63°21.595’N 143°43.005’W elevation: 2,239 ft but this pool
could not be located in early September, when flow was greater. Similarly, a few smaller pools
were observed in June, but by early September, the dynamic channel appeared to have shifted so
that they were no longer apparent.
During sampling visits in summer 2008, the wetted perimeters of both streams were much
smaller (narrower) than their respective dynamic channels (area of clean boulders).
The fish sampling stations on YER and CR1 were selected to bracket the area of interest to
AP&T’s proposed project (Figure 3) –
* Station UYC: upper Yerrick Creek, well above the hydropower impoundment site
* Station UMY: middle/upper Yerrick Creek, above the impoundment site
* Station YCI: Yerrick Creek, in the general vicinity of the proposed impoundment
* Station MYC: middle Yerrick Creek, between the impoundment and the powerhouse
* Station LYC: lower Yerrick Creek, downstream of the proposed powerhouse
* Station CRI: Cathedral Rapids Creek #1, in the vicinity of the proposed impoundment
The purpose of this study was to characterize the seasonal presence and distribution of fishes in
the two streams.
7
Figure 3 -- Sampling Sites for the 2008 Fisheries Baseline Study
The two creeks were visited on foot and examined, but not sampled, 6-7 June 2008. Fish habitat
was generally characterized, and the locations of possible fish-bearing pools were recorded.
Sampling, supported by helicopter, was conducted –
* 3-4 September 2008 (YER and CR1); this sampling was originally scheduled for early
August, in order to sample fish in their summer habitats, but because of unusually heavy and
prolonged rains and flooding in the Tok area, the trip was postponed twice until early
September; nevertheless, the weather and water were warm and summer-like, but the water
flow was still noticeably higher than in June
LYC
UYC
UMY
YCI
MYC
CRI
8
* 29-30 September 2008 (YER only); this sampling was intended to sample fish immediately
before freeze-up, in order to understand the species winter habitats; the water flows were
lower than in early September
Sampling methods included --
* electrofisher + bag seine (the electrofisher was used to herd the fish into the bag seine,
rather than stunning them); it was difficult to maintain the seine in the current at some sites,
and impossible at other sites; also, this was more effective in late September, because flow
was less than in early September; where it was not possible to maintain the bag seine in
strong current, electrofishing was performed as best as possible along the sides of the stream
and in small backwater areas; in most cases, electrofishing was performed by two people:
one bearing the backpack unit, and the other using a dipnet
* minnow traps baited with commercially cured salmon eggs and left to soak overnight in
pools, where pools could be found; fewer pools were visible during early September (higher
flow) vs. in late September (lower flow), so that traps were not set at all sites in early
September
GPS coordinates, as displayed on a brand new Garmin GPS unit, do not appear to match the
apparent location as displayed in Figure 3, which is drawn from a brand new version of the
TOPO! mapping software. It is not clear if the error is within the GPS unit, the software, or in
the interaction between the two. In this report, the GPS readings are listed in Appendix A, and
the apparent location is shown in Figure 3.
3 -- RESULTS
Fish sampling was conducted under ADFG Fish Resource Permit SF2008-172. A report of those
activities was submitted to ADFG on 27 October 2008, and is attached to this report as Appendix
A. Two species of fish were captured: Dolly Varden (DV) and Arctic grayling (AG). All fishes
were measured and released alive, in apparent good condition. The results of the 2008 fish
sampling were –
YERRICK CREEK – 3-4 September 2008
Station UYC
** 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~40 yds of stream
DV (5): 127, 122, 120, 127, 117 mm fork length (FL)
9
Station YCI
** 2 minnow traps + electrofish ~160 yds of stream
DV (4): 135, 110, 102, 115 mm FL
AG (3 possible males): 220, 235, 190 mm FL
AG (1 possible female): 207 mm FL
AG (7 undetermined sex): 165, 150, 148, 190, 148, 162, 148 mm FL
Station MYC
* not possible to set bag seine: current too strong, too wide in run, too deep & fast
* not possible to set minnow trap: current too strong, no slow water
* water still high & fast >10 days after latest rain; thalweg depth 3.5-4.0 ft
* attempted electrofishing along ~50 yards of shoreline: sighted 1 fish ~150mm,
species unknown
Station LYC
* set of seine not very good; current very strong
* electrofish ~35 yards downstream to seine: no fish observed
* no other fish-able sites nearby or anywhere below old pipeline corridor
* no minnow trap set here
YERRICK CREEK – 29-30 September 2008
Station UYC
** 1 minnow trap
DV (3): 175, 126, 145 mm FL
Station UMY
** 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~ 25 yds of stream
DV (4): 125, 147, 159, 142 mm FL
+ 1 DV sighted
Station YCI
** 2 minnow traps + electrofish ~40 yds of stream
DV (14): 124, 131, 167, 133, 131, 137, 136, 128, 125, 123, 141, 105, 130, 80 mm FL
DV (1 possible gravid female?): 149 mm FL
10
Station MYC
* 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~100 yds of stream
DV (2): 122, 98 mm FL
DV (1 w/ white-edged fins, possible spawning male?): 164 mm FL
AG (1): 162 mmFL
+ sighted 3 small fish, each <100 m FL
Station LYC
* 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~100 yds of stream
AG (1): 79 mm FL
CATHEDRAL RAPIDS CREEK #1 – 3-4 September 2008
Station CRI
* electrofished ~0.1 mile of CR1, roughly near the approximate impound site
no fish sighted or captured
* no minnow trap set (no pools)
4 – CONCLUSIONS
Yerrick Creek is used by Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling, in occasional small pools separated
by long sections of cascading runs.
Dolly Varden were captured in the middle and upper reaches of the creek (including the
proposed impoundment area), while Arctic grayling were captured in the middle and lower
sections. In this sampling, Arctic grayling were captured less often than were Dolly Varden.
Dolly Varden were commonly encountered in both late summer and late fall (immediately before
freeze-up), which suggests that they are year-round residents, including over winter. [Inferring
the over-winter habitat of Dolly Varden based on pre-freeze-up surveys and sampling is used by
ADFG biologists in other Alaska streams (Scanlon 2008).]
The capture of a possibly gravid female and possibly spawning male suggests that Dolly Varden
might spawn in the middle reaches of this stream.
This apparent distribution is consistent with general anecdotal observations of these species in
UTMA –
* dwarf Dolly Varden are thought to be year-round residents of upper Yerrick Creek
* Arctic grayling migrate seasonally into and out of lower Yerrick Creek
11
No fish were captured or sighted in Cathedral Rapids Creek #1, and fish habitat appears to be
very scarce. It is not clear to what extent, if any, this cascading stream is used by either fish
species.
5 -- RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2008 fisheries sampling has provided useful characterizations of fish presence and
distribution in Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek #1, in late summer, late fall, and by
inference, over-winter. These data, when supplemented by a sampling in late spring or early
summer of 2009, will yield a picture of yearly habitat use of these two streams. This future
sampling should be performed at a very low water stage, to allow for thorough electrofishing at
all stations.
6 – LITERATURE CITED
Clark, R.A. 1992. Age and Size at Maturity of Arctic Grayling in Selected Waters of the
Tanana Drainage. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Division of Sport Fish; Anchorage.
Fishery Manuscript 92-5.
Durst, J.D. 2001. Fish Habitats and Use in the Tanana Floodplain Near Big Delta, Alaska,
1999-2000. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Habitat & Restoration Division; Juneau.
Technical Report 01-05.
Hemming, C.R., & W.A. Morris. 1999. Fish Habitat Investigations in the Tanana River
Watershed, 1997. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Habitat & Restoration Division; Juneau.
Technical Report 99-1.
McMillan, P.O., & S.V. Cuccarese. 1988. Alaska Over-the-horizon Backscatter Radar System:
Characteristics of Contemporary Subsistence Use Patterns in the Copper River Basin and Upper
Tanana Area; Volume I: Synthesis. Draft Report. Prepared for: Hart Crowser Inc. and Arctic
Environmental Information & Data Center, in cooperation with Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (Anchorage & Fairbanks) and U.S. National Park Service.
Parker, J.F. 2007a. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River
Drainage in 2002. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Divisions of Sport Fish and
Commercial Fisheries; Anchorage. Fishery Management Report 07-03.
Parker, J.F. 2007b. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River
Drainage in 2003. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Divisions of Sport Fish and
Commercial Fisheries; Anchorage. Fishery Management Report 07-05.
12
Parker, J.F. 2006. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River
Drainage in 2005. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Divisions of Sport Fish and
Commercial Fisheries; Anchorage. Fishery Management Report 06-67.
Raymond, J. 1980. AYK Hatchery Site Surveys, and Miscellaneous Chum Spawning
Observations. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement, & Development; Fairbanks.
Ridder, W.P. 1995. Movements of Radio-Tagged Arctic Grayling in the Tok River Drainage.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Data Series 95-36.
Ridder, W.P. 1994. Arctic Grayling Investigations in the Tok River Drainage During 1993.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Division of Sport Fish; Anchorage. Fishery Data Series
94-19.
Scanlon, B. 2008. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Northwest / North
Slope Management Area, 2006. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Anchorage. Fishery
Management Report 08-35.
13
APPENDIX A
Report for FRP SF2008-172
14
Report of Activities and Collections
27 October 2008
Fish Resource Permit SF2008-172
Stephen T. Grabacki, FP-C; 907-272-5600; graystar@alaska.net
Location: Yerrick Creek (YER) and Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 (CR1)
The two creeks were examined but not sampled 6-7 June 2008. Fish habitat was generally
characterized, and the GPS locations of possible fish-bearing pools were recorded.
Sampling was conducted 3-4 September 2008 (YER and CR1), and 29-30 September 2008 (YER
only), with electrofisher + bag seine (the electrofisher was used to herd the fish into the bag
seine, rather than stunning them), and minnow traps baited with commercially cured salmon eggs
and left to soak overnight.
GPS coordinates, as displayed on Grabacki’s brand new Garmin GPS unit, do not appear to
match the apparent location as displayed on the attached map. In this report, the GPS readings
are listed in the text, and the apparent location is shown on the map.
(1) RESULTS FROM 3-4 SEPTEMBER 2008
YERRICK CREEK (YER)
Upper YER, above fork, western channel, well above impoundment, 04SEP08
63°18.204’N 143°35.387’W elevation: 2,830 ft
Minnow trap set 03SEP08@1915, retrieved 04SEP08@1030 –
DV (1): 127 mmFL
Electrofished 2 channels –
* single channel, ~40 yards
* Y-shaped channel, ~80 yards
DV (4): 122, 120, 127, 117 mmFL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive
15
Pool at/near impoundment site (above Mike’s camp), 03SEP08
Waypoint 009, elevation: 2,284 ft
63°20.435’N 143°37.852’W
Electrofished pool & run, ~30 yards –
DV (1): 115 mmFL
AG (3 possible males): 220, 235, 190 mmFL
AG (1 possible female): 207 mmFL
AG (5 undetermined sex): 150, 148, 190, 148, 162, 148 mmFL
All fishes in apparent good condition, and released alive
Minnow trap set 1430, retrieved 0955 (04SEP08) –
DV (2): 110, 102 mmFL
Fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Pool below impoundment site, 03SEP08
Waypoint 008, elevation: 2,263 ft
63°20.589’N 143°37.684’W
Electrofished 2 channels –
* main channel, ~80 yards: no fish captured or sighted
* side channel, ~50 yards: 1 fish sighted + 2 fish captured –
Arctic grayling (AG) 165mm fork length (FL), apparent good condition, released alive
Dolly Varden (DV) 135 mmFL, apparent good condition, released alive
(DV bore parr marks)
Minnow trap set 1300, retrieved 0930 (04SEP08): no catch
Middle YER, near big cut in hill on west bank
Waypoint 024 on Mike Warner’s GPS: 63°21.411’N 143°37.852’W elevation: 2,100 ft
Not possible to set bag seine: current too strong, too wide in run, too deep & fast below pool
Water still high >10 days after latest rain; thalweg depth 3.5-4.0 ft
Attempted electrofishing along ~50 yards of shoreline: sighted 1 fish ~150mm, species unknown
Same conditions downstream ~0.5 mile
Might be able to work this site in lower flow
Lower YER, below highway bridge
63°23.062’N 143°35.538’W elevation: 1,971 ft
Set bag seine below a slight pool
Set of seine not very good; current very strong; lead line not on bottom in some places
My assistant was the anchor for one end of the seine
Electrofished ~35 yards downstream to seine: no fish observed
No other fish-able sites nearby or anywhere below old pipeline corridor
Observation: In June, flow at upper YER was greater than at lower YER. In September, there
was stronger flow at mid- and lower YER sites. Judging by wet marks on the rocks, the water
level was dropping.
16
Yerrick Creek is characterized by steep gradient, cascading flows, and large boulder substrate.
The channels appear to be dynamic, as judged by cleanliness of the substrate in and near the
water: very little periphyton and almost no terrestrial vegetation. There are few pools in YER
that appear capable of providing habitat for fishes. Those pools are small, in the range of 10 ft
long. Besides the pools that we sampled, other small pools were observed (in June) at –
* 63°22.308’N 143°37.007’W elevation: 1,847 ft
* 63°22.123’N 143°37.104’W elevation: not recorded
* 63°21.572’N 143°37.608’W elevation: 2,050 ft (pool near spur of hill)
* 63°21.582’N 143°37.638’W elevation: 1,930 ft
* 63°21.257’N 143°37.913’W elevation: 2,220 ft (pool near scree slope; 1 AG seen in June)
CATHEDRAL RAPIDS CREEK #1 (CR1)
Station CRI
Electrofished ~0.1 mile of CR1, roughly near the approximate impound site
* from WP 012: 63°21.086’N 143°43.153’W elevation: 2,495 ft
* to WP 011: 63°21.175’N 143°43.163’W elevation: 2,442 ft
No fish sighted or captured
No minnow trap set (no pools)
Note: this site was not really a pool or pools; it was a reach of the stream near the impound site,
where we could reasonably set the bag seine and conduct electrofishing.
CR1 is much smaller and steeper than YER. It is essentially one long, cascading run, with strong
current and large boulder substrate. In June (lower flow than in September), a pool of roughly
10 ft wide x 20 ft long x 2 ft deep was observed at WP 037: 63°21.595’N 143°43.005’W
elevation: 2,239 ft but this pool could not be located in early September. Similarly, a few
smaller pools were observed in June, but by early September, the dynamic channel appeared to
have shifted so that they were no longer apparent.
17
(2) RESULTS FROM 29-30 SEPTEMBER 2008
YERRICK CREEK (YER)
Station UYC
Upper YER
Waypoint 026, elevation: 2,811 ft
63° 18.193’N 143°35.406’W
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1415; retrieved 30SEP08@1320 --
DV (3): 175, 126, 145 mmFL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Station UMY
Upper YER, below WP 026
Waypoint 029, elevation: 2,548 ft
63° 19.371’N 143°36.591’W
Nice pool at big dead spruce and snag
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1440; retrieved 30SEP08@ 1235 –
DV (3): 147, 159, 142 mm FL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive.
Electrofished 2 pools, ~25 linear yards of stream –
DV (1): 125 mm FL
+ 1 DV sighted
Fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Station YCI
Pools near impoundment site
Waypoint 030, elevation: 2,242 ft
63° 20.606’N 143°37.686’W
2 minnow traps set 29SEP08@1500, retrieved 30SEP08@1115 –
DV (12): 149*, 133, 131, 137, 136, 128, 125, 123, 141, 105, 130, 80 mm FL
* possible gravid female?
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive.
Electrofished pools near impoundment site, ~25 linear yards of stream –
no fish sighted or captured
Electrofished pool at fork of 3 channels ~100 yards above impoundment site
Waypoint 032, elevation: 2,204 ft
63° 20.521’N 143° 37.773’W
DV (3): 124, 131, 167 mm FL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive
18
Station MYC
Middle YER, near big spur of hill (“razorback”) on west bank
Waypoint 031, elevation: 2,026 ft
63° 21.623’N 143° 37.565’W
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1550, retrieved 30SEP08@1400 –
DV (3): 164*, 122, 98 mmFL
* white-edged fins, possible spawning male?
Electrofished ~100 linear yards of stream, in various small pools –
AG (1): 162 mmFL
+ sighted 3 small fish, each <100 m FL
Fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Station LYC
Lower YER, below highway bridge
Waypoint 025, elevation: 1,717 ft
63° 22.878’N 143°36.438’W
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1350, retrieved 30SEP08@1000 –
* no catch
Electrofished ~100yards of stream –
AG (1): 79 mm FL
HYDROLOGY BASELINE & WATER
QUALITY SURVEYS
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGY BASELINE STUDY
YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, TOK, ALASKA
Prepared for
GRAYSTAR PACIFIC SEAFOOD, LTD.
P.O Box 100506
Anchorage, AK 99510
and
ALASKA POWER AND TELEPHONE CO.
P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by
329 2nd Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
3305 Arctic Blvd., Suite 102
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
October 2008
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING ..............................................2
2.1 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................2
2.2 SAMPLE LOCATIONS ........................................................................................13
2.3 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS ...................................................................14
2.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................14
3.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................15
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................19
5.0 CLOSURE .........................................................................................................................19
6.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................19
TABLES
Table 2.1 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality measurements ..................................................2
Table 2.2 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – alkalinity and hardness .................3
Table 2.3 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – metals, filtered ..............................3
Table 2.4 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – nutrients, ions, residuals ...............4
Table 2.5 Summary of water quality data from USGS 15476000 on the Tanana River .........7
Table 2.6 Model input parameters ...........................................................................................9
Table 2.7 Peak flows and recurrence intervals for Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids
Creek No. 1 ..........................................................................................................9
Table 2.8 Surface water quality parameters ...........................................................................14
Table 3.1 Field measurements ...............................................................................................17
Table 3.2 Laboratory analyses ...............................................................................................18
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Sample locations on Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 .................1
Figure 2.1 Tanana River mean daily discharge, 1953 through 1990 ........................................5
Figure 2.2 Tanana River peak flow ...........................................................................................6
Figure 2.3 Tanana River peak flow distribution ........................................................................6
Figure 2.4 Drainage areas for proposed impoundment sites .....................................................8
Figure 2.5 Surficial geologic map of the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project area ..............11
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page iii
Figure 2.6 Key to geologic map ..............................................................................................12
Figure 2.7 Bedrock and surficial geology ...............................................................................13
Figure 3.1 Sample site locations..............................................................................................16
APPENDICES
Appendix A Sample Site Maps and Site Photos
Appendix B Analysis Methods and Laboratory Data Report
Appendix C Data Sheets and Field Notebook
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The hydroelectric project proposed by Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) will include an
impoundment in Yerrick Creek just below the confluence of two tributaries with Yerrick Creek
(Yerrick Creek Diversion Sample Site, Figure 1.1). A penstock will be constructed to carry
water to a powerhouse to be constructed near the old pipeline corridor (Yerrick Creek Discharge
Sample Site). A separate diversion and powerhouse system may be constructed on Cathedral
Rapids Creek No. 1 as well. The impoundment would be in the approximate location of
Cathedral Rapids No. 1 Diversion Sample Site (Figure 1.1). Power generated from the
hydroelectric project would power Tok and surrounding communities during summer months
and possibly supply some portion of the power supply for a larger portion of the year.
Figure 1.1. Sample locations on Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 (Google
Earth, 2008).
The purpose of the hydrology and water quality studies presented herein is to establish a
preliminary baseline necessary for the permitting process. Additional baseline studies may be
required (see Section 4.0 for recommended further action). Additional flow studies are being
N Alaska Highway
Old pipeline corridor
1 Mile
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 2
conducted by AP&T to determine the potential power output and feasibility of the hydroelectric
project.
2.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING
2.1 BACKGROUND
Hydroelectric project background
The Yerrick Creek hydroelectric project, as described by AP&T is to include: (1) a small
diversion structure with intake; (2) a 48-inch diameter, 15,000-foot long penstock; (3) a
powerhouse with the capacity of 2 to 3 MW; (4) a 0.5-mile long buried and 22-mile overhead
transmission line to connect an existing power grid; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
Hydrology background from nearby USGS stations
Water quality data were collected from Yerrick Creek at USGS station 632257143353500, which
is located in Yerrick Creek at the highway crossing (63°22’57” N; 143°35’35” W; NAD27).
Data were collected between 1949 and 1956. No flow data are available, but a total of 28
physical and chemical parameters were recorded, most of which are summarized in tables below
(Table 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4; USGS, 2008).
Table 2.1. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality measurements (USGS, 2008).
Temperature Specific
Conductance
pH Carbon
Dioxide
Color
°C µS/cm pH units mg/L PtCo units, filtered
7/21/1949 7 95 6.6 14 --
6/22/1951 -- 164 7 8.2 10
6/4/1952 -- 109 6.8 9.6 25
2/17/1953 0 254 7.5 4.5 5
5/13/1953 0 130 7.1 5.6 25
5/18/1955 -- 107 7 6.1 50
9/20/1955 -- 161 7.8 1.5 5
5/11/1956 -- 105 7 6.4 --
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 3
Table 2.2. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – alkalinity and hardness (USGS, 2008).
Acid neutralizing
capacity
bicarbonate hardness non-carbonate
hardness
mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L mg/L as
CaCO3
mg/L as CaCO3
7/21/1949 29 35 39 10
6/22/1951 42 51 65 23
6/4/1952 31 38 50 19
2/17/1953 72 88 120 49
5/13/1953 36 44 60 24
5/18/1955 31 38 46 15
9/20/1955 50 61 68 18
5/11/1956 33 40 45 12
Table 2.3. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – metals, filtered (USGS, 2008).
Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Iron
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
µg/L,
unfiltered
7/21/1949
6/22/1951 21 3.1 20
6/4/1952 15 3.1 1.8 2.1 70
2/17/1953 39 5.6 2.8 4.3 10
5/13/1953 19 3.1 1.2 2.3 40
5/18/1955 15 2.2 1.2 2.4 170
9/20/1955 22 3.2 2.3 2.8 0
5/11/1956 14 2.5 1.6 2
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 4
Table 2.4. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – nutrients, ions, and residuals (USGS,
2008).
Nitrate Sulfate Chloride Fluoride Silica Residue, sum
of constituents
Residue
mg/L as
N,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L
filtered
mg/L, filtered tons/acre-
foot,
filtered
7/21/1949 0.2 15 0.5 4.3
6/22/1951 0.2 27 0.5 0.2 7.3 88 0.12
6/4/1952 0.38 20 1 0.1 5.7 69 0.09
2/17/1953 0.34 58 0.5 0.1 8.4 164 0.22
5/13/1953 0.25 25 0.5 0.2 3.9 78 0.11
5/18/1955 0.47 20 0.5 0 4.4 66 0.09
9/20/1955 0.16 26 0 0 11 98 0.13
5/11/1956 17 1 58 0.08
Data are also available from USGS station 15476000 on the Tanana River just downstream of
the confluence of Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 with the Tanana River. The drainage area sampled
by this station is 8,550 square miles. Data were collected at this site from 1953 through 1990,
including discharge, peak stream-flow, and water quality information. The record of daily mean
discharge is shown in Figure 2.1. Peak flows are shown in Figure 2.2 and the distribution of
peak flows among the summer months is shown in Figure 2.3 (USGS, 2008).
Nine of the ten highest daily discharge measurements for USGS 154760000 occurred between
July 19th and 27th in 1988. Of the 50 highest daily discharge measurements, 27 occurred in July,
18 occurred in August, and 5 occurred in June, suggesting that summer rains cause the highest
flows rather than snowmelt and breakup. If, however, the month of July 1988 is removed from
the record, four of the top ten daily discharges occurred in August and three occurred in each
June and July. Likewise, excepting July 1988, 29 of the 50 highest daily discharges occurred in
August, 14 occurred in July, and 7 occurred in June.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 5 Figure 2.1. Tanana River mean daily discharge, 1953 through 1990 (USGS, 2008).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 6
Figure 2.2. Tanana River peak flow (USGS, 2008).
Figure 2.3. Tanana River peak flow distribution (USGS, 2008).
Water quality data for USGS 15476000 on the Tanana River include 101 parameters. A portion
of the data is presented below and the remainder is available from the USGS at
http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/water/index.php. Data collected only once or several times were
not included in the table below.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 7
Table 2.5. Summary of water quality data from USGS 15476000 on the Tanana River (USGS,
2008).
Parameter, units Maximum Minimum Count Mean Median
Temperature, °C 16.5 0 105 6.3 6.5
Color, filtered, PtCo units 60 0 203 10.4 5
Specific Conductance, µS/cm 448 160 222 233.0 220
pH 8.4 6.6 212 7.7 7.7
Carbon Dioxide, mg/L 68 0.7 212 5.4 3.7
Acid neutralizing capacity, mg/L as CaCO3 203 61 212 98.3 92
Bicarbonate, mg/L 247 74 212 119.7 112
Nitrate, mg/L as Nitrogen 0.77 0 206 0.17 0.14
Phosphate, mg/L 0.16 0 52 0.019 0.01
Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 230 72 207 110.4 100
Non-carbonate Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 30 0 207 12.2 12
Calcium, filtered, mg/L 62 20 207 32.8 31
Magnesium, filtered, mg/L 19 2.9 207 6.97 6.2
Sodium, filtered, mg/L 11 3.3 208 5.84 5.65
Potassium, filtered, mg/L 3.1 0.1 208 1.48 1.5
Chloride, filtered, mg/L 7 0.4 208 3.05 3
Sulfate, filtered, mg/L 45 11 208 21.2 20
Fluoride, filtered, mg/L 1.2 0 205 0.148 0.1
Silica, filtered, mg/L 44 7.2 208 11.8 11
Residue on evaporation, filtered, mg/L 205 108 28 132.6 128
Residue, sum of constituents, filtered, mg/L 310 95 207 143.1 136
Residue, dissolved, tons per day 10500 666 206 4769.2 4680
Residue, filtered, tons per acre foot 0.42 0.13 207 0.196 0.19
Orthophosphate, unfiltered, mg/L as
phosphorous
0.05 0 52 0.006 0
Nitrate, filtered, mg/L 3.4 0 206 0.76 0.6
Manganese, unfiltered, µg/L 100 0 140 1.86 0
Iron, unfiltered, µg/L 620 0 192 64.9 30
Suspended sediment, mg/L 3460 15 106 976.9 908
Suspended sediment, tons/day 326000 81 104 52024 28300
USGS station 15475997 is located on Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1, but no data are available
from this station. This station is located on Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 approximately 0.4
miles above (south of) the highway crossing (63°22’45”N; 143°44’00”W; NAD27) and has a
drainage area of 8.83 square miles (USGS, 2008).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 8
Detectable levels of antimony, arsenic, nitrates/nitrites, barium, chromium, and fluoride have
been found in public drinking water systems in the Tok basin (ADEC, 2008). The only inorganic
contaminant exceedance of maximum contaminant levels for drinking water has been for nitrates
(ADEC, 2008).
Peak Flow Estimates
Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 are within region 6 as described by USGS
Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188 (Curran et al., 2003). As such, the equations for
peak stream-flow presented by Curran et al. (2003) include drainage area, area of lakes and
ponds (storage), and area of forest. Drainage areas are shown in Figure 2.4. Model input
parameters for each stream are shown in Table 2.6. Peak flows are calculated for the proposed
diversion points in each drainage. Peak flows for each recurrence interval are presented in Table
2.7.
Figure 2.4. Drainage areas for proposed impoundment sites.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 9
Table 2.6. Model input parameters
Yerrick Creek Cathedral Rapids
Creek No. 1
Drainage Area
(square miles) 30 6
Area of lakes and ponds
(percent) 0 0
Area of forest
(percent) 0 0
Table 2.7. Peak flows and recurrence intervals for Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek
#1.
Recurrence
Interval (yr)
Yerrick Creek Peak
Streamflow (CF/S)
Cathedral Rapids Creek #1
Peak Streamflow (CF/S)
2 1102 262
5 1575 402
10 1916 508
25 2373 652
50 2728 767
100 3093 887
200 3468 1012
500 3985 1186
The model of Curran et al. (2003) was used to estimate peak flows in the upper and lower gage
sites of Mack (1987, 1988) at Rhoads-Granite Creek, which is approximately 7 miles east of
Donnelly Dome. Input values were a basin area of 32.2 square miles, zero percent storage (lakes
and ponds), and 0.5 percent forest for the upper gage site and 81.2 square miles of drainage
basin, 5.5 percent storage, and 42 percent forest for the gaging site at the road. Drainage area
and percentage forested were extracted from Mack (1987, 1988) and percentage lakes and ponds
was selected so as to minimize the difference from Mack’s output (loss to groundwater and
distributaries are complexities not accounted for in the model of Curran et al. 2003). Output was
compared to the model output produced by Mack (1987, 1988) and the average absolute value of
the percentage errors (assuming Mack’s model output is the best estimate of actual) was
approximately 25 percent for each gaging site.
The data from Mack (1987, 1988) was not used to refine or calibrate the model of Curran et al.
(2003) for the Yerrick Creek or Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 because Mack’s output was model
output based on limited data and a complex watershed. Since region 6, the region for which the
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 10
model equations were designed, is quite large, more local data for refinement of the model to a
smaller region would be desirable and the Mack studies may provide some significant
considerations which may be applicable at Yerrick and Cathedral Rapids Creeks. Some
conditions from Rhoads-Granite Creek which may be found at Yerrick Creek and Cathedral
Rapids Creek No. 1 are: (1) significant loss to groundwater due to permeable glacial deposits; (2)
abandoned channels which may serve as distributaries at high water; and (3) seasonal modeling
complexity based on snowmelt and frost conditions.
Local geology
According to Carrara (2004), the map units that occur in the Yerrick Creek drainage include Qac,
Qco, Ata, Qfa, Qty, Qto, Qrg, and Qls (Figures 2.5, 2.6). Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 drains an
area that includes map units Qac, Qfc, Qto, Qfa, Qrg, and Qta. These map units include alluvial,
colluvial, glacial, and periglacial deposits. Biotite gneiss and schist are among the rock types
found in the surface geology of the area.
Carrara (2004) notes that areas underlain by the Qac unit are subject to floods and debris flows.
The Yerrick Creek bridge abutment was damaged by flooding in August 1997 (Carrara, 2004;
Figure 2.6). With regards to map unit Qto, Carrara (2004) notes that in the Yerrick Creek and
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 areas the unit forms hummocky end moraines extending out from
the base of the Alaska Range.
Bedrock and surficial geology units mapped by Holmes (1965) within the Yerrick Creek and
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 drainages (Figure 2.7) include Qc (colluvium – mixtures of
rubble, talus, alluvium, and loess), Qag (flood-plain gravelly alluvium), Qt (talus – angular
boulders), Qdgl (moraine deposits from Donnelly glaciations), Qdm (moraine deposits from
Delta glaciations), Qg (fan-apron and alluvial-fan deposits – mostly gravel; gravel from local
sources), pCb (Birch Creek Schist – schist, gneiss, quartzite, and amphibolites), Qdf (glacio-
fluvial deposits), and Qts (stream-terrace deposits – mostly silt and sand).
The Birch Creek Schist is the predominant bedrock geologic form in the study area as mapped by
Holmes (1965). The Precambrian or early Precambrian Birch Creek Schist is a thick group
extensive in area resulting from one or more periods of high grade regional metamorphism
(Holmes, 1965). Schist (gray quartz-mica; chloritic; and graphitic), gneiss (gray or light brown
biotite; gray hornblende; and hornblende-biotite), quartzite (white to light brown or gray or
greenish gray), and amphibolites (black) are the main rock types in the mapped area (Holmes,
1965).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 11
Figure 2.5. Surficial geologic map of the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project area (Carrara,
2004)
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 12 Figure 2.6. Key to geologic map (Figure 2.5).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 13
Figure 2.7. Bedrock and surficial geology (Holmes, 1965).
2.2 SAMPLE LOCATIONS
The two streams directly impacted by the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project are Yerrick Creek
and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1. Yerrick Creek has the larger drainage basin, which includes
approximately eight tributaries identifiable on the 1:63,360 scale USGS map. Two small streams
merge to form the headwaters of Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1. Both Cathedral Rapids Creek
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 14
No. 1 and Yerrick Creek drain to the north into the Tanana River. The proposed diversions, as of
September 2008, would discharge into Yerrick Creek downstream (north) of the old pipeline
corridor) and at a separate downstream location on Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1.
2.3 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
The water quality parameters measured are listed in Table 2.8. The physical and chemical
parameters include alkalinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, hardness (calculated), pH,
settleable solids, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, temperature, and turbidity. Two
other general parameters commonly measured are chloride and fluoride. Chloride is necessary
for performing an ion balance. Fluoride is included because it is required by the ADEC. The
nutrient parameters include nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate. The remaining parameters in Table
2.8 are metals and trace elements. Hardness is calculated from measured parameters. Analysis
of all parameters will be on unfiltered samples, so the results are total, not dissolved
concentrations
Table 2.8. Surface water quality parameters.
Laboratory
Antimony Chloride Magnesium Sodium Total Dissolved Solids
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Sulfate Total Suspended Solids
Barium Copper Mercury Zinc Weak Acid Dissociable
Beryllium Fluoride Potassium Cyanide
Cadmium Iron Selenium Total Cyanide
Calcium Lead Silver
Field
Flow pH Conductivity Temperature Turbidity
Alkalinity Nitrate Color Settleable Solids Dissolved Oxygen
Orthophosphate Nitrite
2.4 METHODOLOGY
Field and laboratory water quality parameters were measured in accordance with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency manual Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
or Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Open channel flow was
measured using Model 1205 Price type “mini” current meter. In-situ measurements of
conductivity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were accomplished with YSI 63 and YSI 95
meters. Color, turbidity, and alkalinity were measured in the field within 24 hours of sample
collection using the Hach DR890 Colorimeter, Hach 2100P Turbidimeter, and Hach digital
titrator. A table showing analytes and methods is included in Appendix B.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 15
SGS Environmental Services, Inc. was the analytical laboratory selected for the monitoring
program. SGS Environmental Services, Inc. is an ADEC Certified Chemistry Lab. Duplicate
samples were not collected as part of this sampling effort. Laboratory quality assurance and
quality control measures and results are shown in the laboratory data report in Appendix B.
3.0 RESULTS
Measurements and samples were taken at 3 locations. The sample sites, shown in Figure 3.1, are
located at:
• The approximate diversion site for Yerrick Creek, which is also the transducer location as
of September 2008;
• The approximate diversion site for Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1; and
• A downstream site near the old pipeline corridor’s intersection with Yerrick Creek, which
was intended to be at the discharge or re-entry site for water diverted from Yerrick Creek.
The discharge point will actually be downstream of the sample site.
The Yerrick Creek diversion site is also the location where AP&T personnel have conducted
flow studies and are presently recording stage data on a continuous basis with a permanently
installed pressure transducer. The data collected by AP&T is not included in this report, but
should be comparable based on location.
The Yerrick Creek downstream site is also in immediate vicinity of field work conducted by
Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline personnel. Data from their efforts, if made available, should be
comparable based on location.
Physical and chemical measurements made in the field are presented in Table 3.1. Laboratory
analysis results are shown in Table 3.2. Hardness (Table 3.2) was calculated from the calcium
and magnesium concentrations. Iron, zinc, and manganese could have been included, but were
all either not detected, or detected at levels below the practical quantitation limit and are
therefore minor contributors to total hardness.
Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 are clear, oligotrophic (low nutrient levels),
and well oxygenated. The moderately high pH for surface water suggests contact with some
kind of carbonate rock within the drainage.
Laboratory results confirm that Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 have minimal
levels of most dissolved substances.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 16
Laboratory quality assurance and quality control information were reviewed. No problems were
identified that would affect data quality. For additional details, see the case narrative on page 2
of the laboratory data report in Appendix B.
Figure 3.1. Sample site locations.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 17
Table 3.1. Field measurements.
Parameter Yerrick Creek
Diversion
Yerrick Creek
Downstream Site
Cathedral Rapids
Creek Diversion
Latitude 63° 20.639’ N 63° 22.442’ 63° 21.090’ N
Longitude 143° 37.715’ W 143° 36.769 143° 43.151’ W
Elevation (feet) 2272 1856 2455
Width (feet) 44 51.5 18.5
Discharge (CF/S) 110 99 27
Temperature (°C) 4.5 6.2 5.0
pH 8.01 8.14 8.18
Specific Conductance (µS) 260 277 384
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 16.02 18.511 12.39
Settleable Solids (mL/L) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 57.6 64.0 80.4
Color (PtCo units) 4 6 0
Turbidity (NTU) 0.91 0.89 0.70
Nitrate-N (mg/L) 0.01 0.03 0.01
Nitrite-N (mg/L) 0.002 0.002 0.002
Orthophosphate (mg/L) 0.18 0.19 0.21
1Whitewater – supersaturated.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 18
Table 3.2. Laboratory analyses.
Parameter Units Yerrick Creek
Diversion
Yerrick Creek
Downstream Site
Cathedral Rapids
Creek Diversion
Sample ID AP&T 01 AP&T 03 AP&T 02
Sample Date/Time 9/03/08 12:27 9/03/08 17:50 9/03/08 15:05
Antimony ug/L 0.621 J 0.454 J < 0.310
Arsenic ug/L < 1.50 < 1.50 < 1.50
Barium ug/L 32.2 31.8 44.1
Beryllium ug/L < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.500
Cadmium ug/L < 0.600 < 0.600 < 0.600
Calcium ug/L 43500 42700 57600
Chromium ug/L < 1.20 < 1.20 < 1.20
Copper ug/L < 1.80 < 1.80 < 1.80
Iron ug/L < 310 < 310 < 310
Lead ug/L < 0.310 < 0.310 < 0.310
Magnesium ug/L 7880 7790 12900
Manganese ug/L 0.859 J 0.907 J 1.08 J
Mercury ug/L < 0.0620 < 0.0620 < 0.0620
Potassium ug/L 3290 3330 3660
Selenium ug/L < 0.620 < 0.620 < 0.620
Silver ug/L < 0.620 < 0.620 < 0.620
Sodium ug/L 2400 2460 3250
Zinc ug/L < 7.80 < 7.80 < 7.80
Chloride mg/L 0.0880 J < 0.0310 0.0800 J
Fluoride mg/L 0.0750 J 0.0870 J 0.049 J
Sulfate mg/L 81.8 81.0 119
Total Cyanide mg/L 0.0022 J < 0.0015 0.0017 J
Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide mg/L < 0.0015 < 0.0015 < 0.0015
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 183 176 253
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 1.00 0.400 J 0.700
Hardness (calc.: Ca, Mg) mg/L* 141 139 197
*as CaCO3
J = analyte was detected below the practical quantitation limit
Analytes that were not detected are reported as < the minimum detection limit.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 19
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
As there are no chemical abnormalities that would warrant further investigation of the streams to
be impacted by the hydroelectric project and flow data has been collected regularly by AP&T
personnel, no additional hydrology field work should be required before permitting or
construction.
5.0 CLOSURE
TPECI holds all information acquired during this investigation in the strictest confidence with
AP&T. We will not release any information to any party other than Graystar Pacific Seafoods
unless AP&T has notified us of their approval to do so.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2008. Basin Fact Sheet for Tok.
Accessed online at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/docs/dw/DWP/Tok.pdf on 7-Oct-2008.
Carrara, P.E. 2004. Surficial Geologic Map of the Tanacross B-6 Quadrangle, East-Central
Alaska.
Curran, J.H., Meyer, D.F., and Tasker, G.D. 2003. Estimating the magnitude and frequency of
peak streamflows for ungaged sites and streams in Alaska and conterminous basins in
Canada. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188.
Holmes, G.W. 1965. Geologic reconnaissance along the Alaska Highway Delta River to Tok
Junction, Alaska. Geological Survey Bulletin 1181-H.
Mack, S.F. 1987. Peak flows at the Alaska Highway from the Rhoads-Granite Creek drainages,
Mt. Hayes Quadrangle, Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
Public-data File 87-5.
Mack, S.F. 1988. Peak flows from Rhoads-Granite Creek (1987), Mt. Hayes Quadrangle,
Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Public-data File 88-
10.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. National Water Information System. Accessed
at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis on 30-July-2008. Sites: 632257143353500, 15476000,
and 15475997.
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE SITE MAPS
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Yerrick Creek Map
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Map
Yerrick Creek Diversion Site Map
Yerrick Creek Diversion Site Photos
Upper Left: aerial view
Upper Right: site view
Middle Left: upstream view
Middle Right: downstream view
Lower Left: sediment view
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Diversion Site Map
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Site Photos
Upper Left: aerial view
Upper Right: site view
Middle Left: upstream view
Middle Right: downstream view
Lower Left: sediment view
Yerrick Creek Downstream Site Map
Yerrick Creek Downstream Site Photos
Upper Left: aerial view
Upper Right: site view
Middle Left: upstream view
Middle Right: downstream view
Lower Left: sediment view
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS METHODS
LABORATORY DATA REPORT (SGS WO# 1084964)
WATER ANALYSIS METHODS
Method/
Instrument
Parameter Matrix Container Preservative Hold
Time
Analysis
Location
Metals, Total
SM 6020
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Water 250 or 500
mL HDPE
HNO3; 4°C 180 days Laboratory
EPA 7470 Mercury Water 250 or 500
mL HDPE
HNO3; 4°C 28 days Laboratory
EPA 300.0 Chloride Water 60 mL
Nalgene
4°C 28 days Laboratory
EPA 300.0 Fluoride Water 60 mL
Nalgene
4°C 28 days Laboratory
Hach Method 8192 Nitrate Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Hach Method 8048
equivalent to
EPA Method 365.2
and Standard
Method 4500-PE
Orthophosphate Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
EPA 300.0 Sulfate Water 60 mL
Nalgene
4°C 28 days Laboratory
SM 4500CN-C,E Cyanide Water 60 or 250 mL
Nalgene
NaOH; 4°C 14 days Laboratory
SM 4500CN-I Weak Acid
Dissociable
Cyanide
Water 60 or 250 mL
Nalgene
NaOH; 4°C 14 days Laboratory
SM 2540C Total Dissolved
Solids
Water 250 or 500
mL HDPE
4°C 7 days Laboratory
SM 2540D Total Suspended
Solids
Water 1 L HDPE 4°C 7 days Laboratory
Model 1205 Price
Type “Mini”
Current Meter
Flow Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
YSI 63 pH Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
YSI 63 Conductivity Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
YSI 63 Temperature Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
Hach 8203 Alkalinity Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Hach DR 890
Colorimeter
Method 8025
Color Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
YSI 95 Dissolved
Oxygen
Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
Imhoff Cone Settleable Solids Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Hach 2100P
Turbidimeter
EPA Method 180.1
Turbidity Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Page 1 of 50
Alaska Division Technical Director
Stephen C. Ede
2008.10.01
11:25:31 -08'00'
Page 2 of 50
Page 3 of 50
Alaska Division Technical Director
Stephen C. Ede
2008.10.01
11:25:49 -08'00'
Page 4 of 50
Page 5 of 50
Page 6 of 50
Page 7 of 50
Page 8 of 50
Page 9 of 50
Page 10 of 50
Page 11 of 50
Page 12 of 50
Page 13 of 50
Page 14 of 50
Page 15 of 50
Page 16 of 50
Page 17 of 50
Page 18 of 50
Page 19 of 50
Page 20 of 50
Page 21 of 50
Page 22 of 50
Page 23 of 50
Page 24 of 50
Page 25 of 50
Page 26 of 50
Page 27 of 50
Page 28 of 50
Page 29 of 50
Page 30 of 50
Page 31 of 50
Page 32 of 50
Page 33 of 50
Page 34 of 50
Page 35 of 50
Page 36 of 50
Page 37 of 50
Page 38 of 50
Page 39 of 50
Page 40 of 50
Page 41 of 50
Page 42 of 50
Page 43 of 50
Page 44 of 50
Page 45 of 50
Page 46 of 50
Page 47 of 50
Page 48 of 50
Page 49 of 50
Page 50 of 50
APPENDIX C
DATA SHEETS AND FIELD NOTEBOOK
WETLAND DELINEATION SURVEY
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Tok, Alaska
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
February 2009
Prepared for:
Alaska Power and Telephone Company
PO Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE..............................................................................................................1
PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................2
2. METHODS.......................................................................................................................................................3
FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................................................3
MAPPING ...........................................................................................................................................................5
3. PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.......................................................................6
VEGETATION .....................................................................................................................................................7
HYDROLOGY......................................................................................................................................................9
SOILS ...............................................................................................................................................................11
4. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................12
ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................14
APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX A: WEATHER AND CLIMATE DATA .................................................................................................15
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY TABLE ......................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS ...........................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA FORMS ...................................................................................................................20
Figures
FIGURE 1: PROJECT VICINITY MAP .........................................................................................................................2
FIGURE 2: YERRICK CREEK PHOTOS.......................................................................................................................3
FIGURE 3: NWI MAPPING OF PROJECT AREA .........................................................................................................6
FIGURE 4: YERRICK CREEK WETLANDS MAP .........................................................................ATTACHED MAP BOOK
Tables
TABLE 1: PROJECT AREA INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 3
TABLE 2: VEGETATION AT WETLAND DATA FORM SITES – DOMINANT SPECIES PER PLOT ..................................... 8
TABLE 3: INDICATORS AT WETLAND DATA FORM SITES WITH WETLAND HYDROLOGY ...................................... 11
TABLE 4: S SOILS AT WETLAND DATA FORM SITES FOUND TO HAVE HYDRIC SOILS .......................................... 12
TABLE 5: MAPPED AREA SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 13
1
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
1. Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this report is to identify and describe wetlands and other waters within an
approximately 700-acre area along Yerrick Creek near Tok, Alaska (Figure 1). The area
contains land owned by the State of Alaska and by Tanacross, Inc.
This report describes locations within the project area that are subject to the jurisdiction of
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. By federal law (Clean Water Act) and associated policy, it is necessary to avoid
project impacts to wetlands wherever practicable, minimize impact where impact is not
avoidable, and in some cases compensate for the impact. The focus of this document is on
delineation of wetlands. Wetlands, waters of the U.S., and uplands (non-wetlands), as
referenced in this report, are defined as:
Wetlands. “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 328.3(b)). Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the
U.S.” Note that the “wetlands” definition does not include unvegetated areas such as streams
and ponds.
Waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. include other waterbodies regulated by the USACOE,
such as lakes, ponds, and streams, in addition to wetlands. The ponds and streams mapped in
the project area are “waters of the U.S.” but not “wetlands”.
Uplands. Non-water and non-wetland areas are called uplands.
As described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual,
wetlands must possess the following three characteristics:
1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: Vegetation community dominated by plant species that are
typically adapted for life in saturated soils.
2. Wetland Hydrology: Inundation or saturation of the soil during the growing season.
3. Hydric Soils: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions.
2
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
3
Project Location and Environment
The project area is located along Yerrick Creek, a cobble-, gravel- and sand-substrate creek
which crosses the Alaska Highway at approximately milepost 1339 (Figure 2). Most of the
project area is undeveloped, with an open gravel waterway, adjacent forests, abandoned
gravel side channels in various states of revegetation, and heavily forested banks (see images
below). Specific legal and geographic descriptions for the property required for Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determinations are included in Table 1.
Figure 2: Photos of Yerrick Creek
Figure 2: Yerrick Creek Photos
Table 1: Project Area Information
1. APPLICANT: Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T)
2. WATERWAY: Yerrick Creek
3. LOCATION:
A. Narrative: The project area is along Yerrick Creek near Tok, Alaska, approximately 20 miles west of Tok at
milepost 1339 of the Alaska Highway.
B. Legal Description:
Sections: 36 and 1, 2, 11, and 14 Township: 19N and 18N Range: 9E Meridian: Copper River
Latitude/Longitude (WGS84 Datum): N55.0667159 / W132.1461172
4. SOURCE(S):
USGS Maps: Tanacross B-6
NWI Maps: Tanacross B-6, digital interpretation
Soil Maps: None
Corps Wetland Maps: None
Aerial Photographs: True Color Aerial Photography, 2008, provided by AP&T. Color Infrared High Altitude Aerial
Photography, 1978, from the Alaska GeoData Center archives.
Other: Reconnaissance-level field survey with wetland data forms, written site observations, and photographs from
HDR Alaska, Inc. site visit dated August 21-25, 2008.
2. Methods
Two steps were used to inventory wetlands and waterbodies in the project area. These two
steps include:
Field Investigation
A five-day site visit was completed between August 21 and 25, 2008, to identify any
wetlands and other waters potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. USACOE
guidance on Alaska’s growing season references the end of the growing season to generally
4
follow several continuous days below 28°F. Temperature and precipitation data for the three-
month period prior to the field investigation (June 2008 through August 2008) was reviewed
to determine the degree to which any recent climatic events may have influenced field
hydrology and vegetation indicators. Weather and climate data are given in Appendix A,
including monthly summaries of temperature and precipitation, recording period average, and
stream gage output for part of 2008 for Yerrick Creek.
The general trend in the summer of 2008 was a colder, wetter season than normal. Over the
three-month period preceding the field visit, the average maximum temperature in °F (64.87
for June, 63.9 for July, and 61.52 for August) was lower than the average maximum
temperature for the recording period of 1954 to 2005 (71 for June, 73 for July, and 68 for
August) (NOAA 2008). The average minimum temperature (48.39 for June, 48.55 for July,
and 42.9 for August) was higher than the average minimum temperature for the recording
period (40 for June, 43 for July, and 39 for August). Precipitation for June 2008 was 2.12
inches compared to an average of 1.82 inches. July precipitation average for the period 1946
to 2008 is 2 inches, compared to the single year (2008) measurement of 6.68 inches. August
average is 1.2 inches, compared to the 2008 measurement of 0.79 inches. The much higher
than average precipitation in July led to higher than normal water levels in the creek, and
unusual conditions at the study site during the field survey. Side channels that normally lack
water experienced flow during July, according to AP&T personnel familiar with the project
area. Observations of side channels by AP&T personnel and HDR scientists suggested that
such channels had not experienced any flow in over 20 years. A stream gage on the main
channel of Yerrick Creek was knocked out during an especially high storm at the end of July.
Scientists collected detailed information on soil conditions, hydrology, and plant community
composition. A summary table listing plot number, wetland status, wetland mapping code
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping program
(USFWS 2006), and photo numbers is found in Appendix B. Photographs taken at each of
the data collection locations are included in Appendix C. Locations were studied using the
U.S. Corps of Engineers 1987 wetland delineation manual’s (USACOE 1987) and 2007
Alaska Regional Supplement’s (USACOE 2007) three-parameter method of determining an
area’s wetland status. Standard 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement Corps of Engineers data
sheets were completed at these sites and are included in Appendix D. Each location visited
during the field visit was logged into a handheld global positioning system (GPS) Archer
Field PC unit. Representative photographs and observational data were collected at each plot.
While in the field, wetland/upland boundaries were determined by completing standard
wetland data forms near observable transition zones between wetter and drier areas. A
wetland determination is completed in the area with questionable wetland status, then the
boundary identified in the appropriate direction between that point and obvious wetlands or
uplands. The wetland/upland boundary between the two data plots is then notated on paper
aerial photography maps of the area for later guidance in Geographic Information System
(GIS) mapping of wetland/upland boundaries. In addition, photo points were taken at more
sites to document conditions at a wider range of locations. For these points, a data sheet was
not completed, but photos were taken and conditions were notated in a field notebook.
5
Mapping
Scientists analyzed aerial photography and NWI wetland mapping in a GIS map
environment. GPS locations of field-visited sites and wetland/upland boundaries were
overlaid on aerial photography and notes and photographs completed at each site were
reviewed to identify any wetlands or waterbodies present within the project area. The process
of delineating wetlands from aerial photography included using the following methods:
Vegetation clues: On aerial photography, scientists looked for saturation-adapted vegetation
communities, indicative canopy structure and height, and presence of hydrophytic plant
species. A common example is dwarf spruce trees, which are indicative of a limitation to
growth such as excessively wet soils.
Evidence of soil saturation: Visible evidence of wetland hydrology was sought, including
surface water and darker areas of photos indicating surface saturation. A site’s proximity to
streams, open water habitat, and marshes may be indicative of shallow subsurface water.
Existing mapping: Wetland mapping from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetland
Inventory mapping program is available for the project area (USFWS 2006). This mapping is
generally an effective tool for large-scale planning and analysis of wetlands but not suitable
for smaller site-specific projects such as needed for this study. NWI mapping is primarily
based on aerial photographic interpretation with limited ground truthing, and therefore
wetland boundaries tend to be oversimplified with many smaller wetland complexes not
included in the mapping. According to available NWI mapping for USGS quadrangle
Tanacross B-6, wetlands occur in the project area (Figure 3). Four pond polygons and two
evergreen shrub polygons were mapped at the fringe of the project area, in mostly forested
areas to the west of the creek channel. The main creek channel is mapped as riverine waters,
with seven shrub polygons mapped on channel islands or on the edge of the main channel.
Areas with marginal evidence of wetland characteristics were mapped conservatively as
wetlands. Preliminary JDs do not make legally binding determinations, therefore individual
sites can be assessed at a later date if necessary (USACOE, June 2008).
6
Figure 3: NWI Mapping of Project Area
7
3. Results
No detailed vegetation or soil mapping was available for the project area prior to the field
study. Information presented below is summarized from data collected at 28 wetland data
form locations over the five-day field investigation (Appendix D). Locations of each data
collection location are displayed on Figure 4. Of the 28 wetland data form locations, 6 were
determined to occur in wetlands and 3 in other waters of the U.S.
Vegetation
At wetland data form locations, 15 out of the 28 sites had hydrophytic vegetation (Table 2).
Dominant plant species are shown by stratum for each plot. 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.
8 Table 2: Vegetation at Wetland Data Form Sites – Dominant Species per Plot Tree Stratum Shrub Stratum black spruce felt-leaved willow balsam poplar paper birch white spruce bog kalmia Labrador tea black spruce diamond willow alder dwarf birch crowberry red currant Picea mariana Salix alexensis Populus balsamifera Betula papyrifera Picea glauca Andromeda polifolia Ledum groenlandicum Picea mariana Salix pulchra Alnus crispa Betula glandulifera Empetrum nigrum Ribes triste Plot Number FACW FAC FACU FACU FACU OBL FACW FACW FACW FAC FAC FAC FAC 101 1 1 1 103 1 1 104 1 105 1 106 1 107 1 1 1 1 108 1 109 1 1 110 1 1 116 1 1 1 118 1 119 120 121 1 1 1 122 1 1 1 124 1 125 1 1 1 126 1 1 128 1 130 1 1 132 1 1 1 133 1 134 1 1 1 135 1 136 1 137 1 1 138 1 1 139 1
9 Table 3, continued Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum bog blueberry lingonberry bunchberry dogwood white spruce balsam poplar prickly rose boreal bog sedge NT sedge water sedge marsh five-finger marsh horsetail Biglow's sedge Vaccinium uliginosum Vaccinium vitis-idaea Cornus canadensis Picea glauca Populus balsamifera Rosa acicularis Carex magellanica Carex utriculata Carex aquatilis Comarium palustris Equisetum pratense Carex biglowii Plot Number FAC FAC FACU FACU FACU FACU OBL OBL OBL OBL FACW FAC 101 1 1 103 1 1 104 105 106 107 108 109 1 110 116 1 118 1 1 119 1 1 120 1 1 121 122 1 124 1 125 126 128 1 1 130 1 132 1 133 134 135 1 136 1 137 138 1 139 1
10 Table 4, continued Herbaceous Stratum bluejoint reedgrass fireweed dwarf fireweed Menzies' campion common horsetail timberberry bluebells boreal sagebrush glaucous bluegrass field locoweed purple reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis Chamerion angustifolium Chamerion latifolium Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii Equisetum arvense Geocaulon lividum Mertensia paniculata Artemisia arctica Poa glauca Oxytropis campestris Calamagrostis purpurascens Plot Number FAC FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU FACU NI NI NI NI 101 103 1 104 1 1 105 1 106 1 107 1 1 108 1 109 1 1 110 1 116 1 118 1 119 1 120 121 1 1 122 1 124 1 125 1 126 1 1 128 130 1 132 1 133 1 1 134 1 1 135 1 1 1 136 1 1 1 1 137 1 138 1 1 1 139 1
11
Hydrology
The project area is situated along the valley bottom and slopes of the Yerrick Creek drainage.
Yerrick Creek experiences a declining flow along the surveyed length due to subterranean
flow. The unusually high precipitation and storm events in July filled channels that normally
do not experience flow, and in some cases, likely did not experience any flow for over 20
years, according to observations of persons familiar with the study area. Hydrological
indicators were carefully examined at plot data collection locations that occurred in side
channels to ensure that data collected was not influenced by conditions deviating from
normal. All efforts were made by wetland scientists to consider normal conditions despite the
unusual weather conditions preceding the field data collection time.
At wetland data form locations, 13 out of the 28 sites had wetland hydrology (Table 3).
Commonly seen primary indicators included surface water, saturation, high water table, and
drift deposits. Common secondary indicators included drainage patterns, geomorphic
position, stunted or stressed plants, and FAC-neutral test.
Table 5: Indicators at Wetland Data Form Sites with Wetland Hydrology
Field Observations Primary Wetland
Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Plot
Number Surface Water Depth (inches) Water Table Depth (inches) Saturation Depth (inches) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Image (B7) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic relief (D4) FAC Neutral Test (D5) 101 0-10 11 5 X X X X X X X
104 0-24 0 0 X X X X X X X X
105 X X X X X
108 0-24 0 0 X X X X X X X X X
109 X X X
118 12 0 0 X
119 X
120 2 0 0 X X X X X X
126 11 6 X X X X X
128 4 0 0 X X X X X X X
129 0 8 4 X X X
133 X X X
136 X
Soils
Both hydric and non-hydric soil conditions were observed in soil pits examined during the
field visit. Soils were carefully assessed by wetland scientists to consider soils under normal
conditions, despite the unusual rainfall of the season. Hydric soils were encountered at 6 of
the 28 wetland data form sites (Table 4). Indicators of hydric soil included histosol, histic
12
epipedons, and several other indicators that fell under problematic soil conditions. Analysis
of conditions at all sites with problematic hydric soils that are listed in Table 4 concluded that
the site did contain a hydric soil as per USACE direction (USACE 1987, 2007). Specific
characteristics of the sampled mineral soils, including color and texture, are included on the
wetland data forms (Appendix D).
Table 6: Soils at Wetland Data Form Sites Found to Have Hydric Soils
Hydric Soil Indicators
Plot
Number
Histosol or
Histel (A1)
Histic
Epipedon
(A2)
Restrictive
Layer Type
Restrictive
Layer Depth
(inches)
Other Indicator of Hydric Soils or
“Waters” Status
101 X Permafrost 16
104
Outwash, Entisol (Substrate too young
and coarse to show redox features and
with too little organic carbon to promote
reduction)
108
Outwash, Entisol (Substrate too young
and coarse to show redox features and
with too little organic carbon to promote
reduction)
118 No pit, emergent vegetation and 12"
standing water present
120
Hydrophytic vegetation, primary hydrology
indicator, concave landscape, positive
alpha-alpha dipyridyl
126 X
128 X
130 X
4. Conclusion
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, it has been determined that areas displayed as wetlands or waters on Figure 4
meet the USACOE criteria for being classified as wetland or fall below the plane of Ordinary
High Water (OHW) of Yerrick Creek. 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, and are listed and described in Table 5. The
areas shown as wetlands and other waters on Figure 4 may be subject to jurisdiction under
Section 404. For the purpose of this PJD, it is assumed that Yerrick Creek is a Relatively
Permanent Tributary to Traditional Navigable Waters, and that the mapped wetlands are
“adjacent” to Yerrick Creek. Most of the mapped wetland areas are not within the proposed
project construction areas.
13
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 (Table 5), and is not below the plane of OHW of Yerrick Creek. The areas would not
be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404. As project plans are developed, if construction
would affect wetlands or other waters, AP&T may wish to refine wetland boundaries by
further field investigation and consideration of the jurisdictional status of any affected
wetlands.
Yerrick Creek and its adjacent active bars are waters of the US 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 shown on Figure 4 that are not actually below OHW.
Table 7: Mapped Area Summary
Wetland Type NWI Mapping Code Approximate Area
(Acres)
Seasonally flooded emergent persistent
herbaceous wetland PEM1C 0.51
Semipermanently flooded emergent persistent
herbaceous wetland PEM1F 3.89
Saturated needle-leafed evergreen forest/broad-
leafed scrub-shrub wetland PF04/SS3B 5.07
Saturated needle-leafed evergreen forest wetland PFO4B 0.68
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed scrub-shrub
wetland PSS1C 0.10
Saturated broad-leafed evergreen/needle-leaved
scrub-shrub wetland PSS3/4B 42.24
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed evergreen scrub-
shrub/persistent herbaceous wetland PSS3/EM1B 0.64
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed evergreen scrub-
shrub wetland PSS3B 0.37
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed evergreen/broad-
leafed evergreen scrub-shrub wetland PSS4/3B 5.92
Saturated needle-leafed evergreen scrub-shrub
wetland PSS4B 14.33
Permanently flooded unconsolidated bottom
palustrine wetland PUBH 3.35
Temporarily flooded upper perennial
unconsolidated floor/permanently flooded
unconsolidated bottom wetland
R3USA/UBH 69.96
Upland (non-wetland) U 542.56
Total Mapped Area 689.63
Total Wetlands and Other Waters 147.1 acres (21.3%)
Total Upland (non-wetland) 542.6 acres (78.7%)
14
Determination Made By
Elizabeth Bella, Chris Wrobel, and Irina Lapina
Wetland Scientists
HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: February 2008
Attachments
Figure 4: Yerrick Creek Wetlands Map Book
References
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. National Weather Service, Alaska Regional
Headquarters. Monthly and annual climate data summaries. Available online at
http://www.arh.noaa.gov/climate.php.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 26, 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02. Available online at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Policies/RGL08-02.pdf..
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACOEEL). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Federal Register. November 13, 1986 Part II. Rules and Regulations, Vol. 51, No. 219. U.S. Department of
Defense. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. 33 CFR Parts 320-330, Regulatory Programs
of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. National Wetland Inventory Mapping for USGS Quadrangle Tanacross
B-6. Available online at: http://enterprise.nwi.fws.gov/shapedata/alaska/.
15
Appendices
Appendix A: Weather and Climate Data
http://www.arh.noaa.gov/climate.php
NOAA National Weather Service Alaska Regional Headquarters Data
Period of Record:1946 to 2008
Observed (°F) Observed Extreme Temperature (°F)
Day 2008 Max
Temp:
Min
Temp:
Precipitation
(inches):
Highest
Max:
Lowest
Max:
Highest
Min:
Lowest
Min:
1-Jun 63 47 0 87 1958 44 1947 57 1990 31 1969
2-Jun 69 47 0 80 1958 44 1947 57 1979 32 1947
3-Jun 67 49 T 85 1958 44 1974 57 1957 32 1974
4-Jun 61 49 T 84 1957 40 2006 56 1985 27 1961
5-Jun 61 49 0 85 1957 44 1963 60 1958 26 2006
6-Jun 64 44 T 84 1951 49 1985 60 1986 31 1963
7-Jun 66 49 0.01 84 1958 52 1983 57 1965 36 1991
8-Jun 67 48 T 84 1946 51 1970 55 1969 30 1992
9-Jun 56 45 0.09 83 1947 50 1983 56 2006 32 1961
10-Jun 62 47 0.02 79 1971 52 1959 60 2006 34 1991
11-Jun 63 44 T 80 1972 52 1955 56 2005 35 1987
12-Jun 61 48 0.32 81 1992 52 1979 56 2005 36 1960
13-Jun 68 44 0 85 1972 48 1952 59 1969 36 1955
14-Jun 69 47 0 91 1969 45 1954 58 1972 37 1971
15-Jun 71 48 0.36 91 1969 50 1985 60 1950 32 1960
16-Jun 64 48 0.08 81 1948 52 1985 58 1968 36 1960
17-Jun 59 50 T 88 1948 56 1982 58 1946 40 1987
18-Jun 67 52 0.01 86 1967 52 1980 62 1948 36 1982
19-Jun 69 55 0.09 82 1958 51 1949 58 1967 35 1960
20-Jun 75 50 0 88 1958 53 2005 58 1958 41 1951
21-Jun M M M 90 1991 47 1956 58 1969 33 1968
22-Jun 72 55 T 82 1987 50 2006 60 1969 38 1993
23-Jun 61 50 0.56 85 1971 50 1963 57 1983 33 1949
24-Jun 57 48 0.28 90 1991 50 1964 58 1971 39 1961
25-Jun M M M 86 1983 44 1949 60 1980 35 1949
26-Jun M M M 83 1991 50 1949 63 1983 34 1949
27-Jun M M M 85 1957 49 1949 65 1969 36 1960
28-Jun M M M 81 1986 8 1971 68 1968 -11 1971
29-Jun M M M 85 1992 48 1949 70 1968 34 1949
30-Jun M M M 87 1992 47 1971 64 1987 35 1971
JUNE 2008
AVERAGE 64.87 48.39 Total: 1.82
JUNE
NORMAL 71 40 2.12
1-Jul M M M 83 1991 47 1945 58 1985 32 1971
2-Jul M M M 82 1990 55 1981 60 1958 34 1960
3-Jul 80 48 T 85 1958 57 1969 62 1955 36 1961
4-Jul 82 53 T 91 1958 57 1959 62 1990 37 1961
16
5-Jul 79 53 T 86 1990 55 1949 62 1968 44 1960
6-Jul 72 58 0.07 84 1986 57 1981 63 1980 41 1963
7-Jul 70 53 0.01 82 1982 54 1981 60 1986 42 1993
8-Jul 55 49 0.23 85 1951 54 1981 62 1968 43 1992
9-Jul 68 50 0.01 82 1946 54 1957 60 1968 38 1991
10-Jul 69 52 0.08 88 1975 54 1964 59 1989 36 1960
11-Jul 68 53 0.15 85 1975 48 1954 60 1980 35 1960
12-Jul 73 52 0.01 89 1960 55 1962 59 1980 38 1990
13-Jul 68 52 0.04 85 1960 55 1959 60 1975 36 1961
14-Jul 58 51 0.13 85 1967 53 1971 64 1989 38 1961
15-Jul 71 46 0.01 85 1993 57 1960 62 1954 42 1991
16-Jul 72 52 0 88 1951 53 1955 60 1993 38 1960
17-Jul 63 49 0.27 83 1993 47 2003 62 1947 38 2003
18-Jul 51 46 0.53 79 1993 51 2008 57 1988 39 1961
19-Jul 58 45 T 84 1990 52 1965 59 1978 41 1966
20-Jul 56 47 0.1 85 1990 51 1973 59 1990 38 1968
21-Jul 64 45 0.27 81 1976 51 1956 60 2006 42 1959
22-Jul 55 42 0.16 83 1955 54 1959 61 1952 40 1968
23-Jul 58 44 T 86 1990 58 2008 60 1961 42 1971
24-Jul 67 43 T 86 1990 52 1965 62 1990 38 1988
25-Jul 62 49 T 90 1955 49 1969 60 1947 40 1991
26-Jul 68 50 0.54 85 1955 48 1957 59 1978 40 1961
27-Jul 55 49 0.41 86 1953 53 1963 63 1977 39 1957
28-Jul 51 44 2.27 83 1953 8 1971 62 1958 -11 1971
29-Jul 59 43 0.36 85 1977 59 2008 60 1962 38 1975
30-Jul 53 46 0.28 88 1977 53 2008 62 1947 42 1971
31-Jul 48 44 0.75 85 1978 48 2008 58 1965 35 1968
JULY 2008
AVERAGE 63.9 48.55 Total: 6.68
JULY
NORMAL 73 43 2
1-Aug 60 45 0.1 87 1976 56 1982 64 1993 34 1968
2-Aug 70 44 0.3 79 1962 56 1971 64 1953 35 1948
3-Aug 54 44 0.13 82 1977 50 2003 59 1986 40 1964
4-Aug M M M 88 1977 49 1947 60 1986 36 1968
5-Aug M M M 80 1968 56 1962 62 1977 34 1946
6-Aug M M M 86 1968 54 1949 60 1981 33 1946
7-Aug M M M 85 1968 45 1969 58 1981 33 1969
8-Aug 49 41 0.03 79 1977 42 1969 61 1981 33 1969
9-Aug 53 37 0.01 82 1957 53 2008 62 1977 34 1969
10-Aug M M M 85 2005 43 1969 63 1979 29 1969
11-Aug 61 44 0.05 86 1980 50 1965 59 1945 33 1969
12-Aug 68 35 0 84 1980 46 1969 59 1958 33 1969
13-Aug 66 49 0 85 1990 48 1973 66 1975 29 1969
14-Aug 71 45 T 86 1990 45 1946 57 1991 26 1969
15-Aug 67 50 T 85 1990 50 1983 64 1979 27 1969
16-Aug 67 46 0.04 84 1957 42 1981 64 1979 36 1981
17-Aug 59 49 0.11 80 2007 48 1946 63 1990 28 1981
17
18-Aug M M M 81 1977 53 1992 56 1977 32 1947
19-Aug 60 45 T 81 1950 51 1987 57 2007 35 2005
20-Aug 59 42 0 81 1973 49 1981 55 1950 33 1946
21-Aug 62 37 T 86 1977 42 1946 56 1972 31 1974
22-Aug 64 49 0.02 84 1977 41 1948 56 1963 30 1989
23-Aug M M M 79 1979 44 1948 57 1989 25 1986
24-Aug 58 39 T 82 1979 45 1983 55 1963 22 1948
25-Aug 60 43 0 80 1981 45 1983 57 1989 31 1993
26-Aug 62 38 0 78 1981 38 1984 57 1989 27 1991
27-Aug M M M 80 1981 40 1984 61 1957 29 1991
28-Aug 62 41 T 82 1949 8 1971 63 1989 -11 1971
29-Aug M M M 82 1949 40 1984 51 1951 28 1991
30-Aug 60 38 0 85 1974 40 1948 56 1949 25 1955
31-Aug M M M 77 1974 42 1962 49 1993 23 1987
AUGUST
2008
AVERAGE
61.52 42.9 Total = 0.79
AUGUST
NORMAL 68 39 1.2
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmak.html
Western Regional Climate Center, wrcc@dri.edu
Monthly Climate Summary for Tok, AK
Period of Record : 6/11/1954 to 12/31/2005
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.
Temperature (°F)
-6.6 7.7 25 44 60.4 71 73 68 54 32 8.9 -3.5 36.2
Average Min.
Temperature (°F)
-25 -16 -6 16 29.5 40 43 39 29 13 -9.9 -22 10.8
Average Total
Precipitation
(inches)
0.35 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 2.1 2 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.43 9.22
18
Appendix B: Summary Table
Plot Number Plot Type JD Status NWI Code Photo Numbers
101 JD W PSS3/4C 124-pit, 125-surface, 126-W, 127-E, 128-S
102 PP-RW* W R4SBH 129-W, 130-E
103 JD U U 131-pit, 132-surface, 133-E, 134-W, 135-S
104 JD W R3UB1/2H 136-N, 137-E, 138-S, 139-W
105 JD U U 144-N, 145-S, 146-pit, 147-surface
106 JD U U 148-pit, 149-surface, 150-E, 151-SW, 152-N
107 JD U U 153-pit, 154-surface, 155-N, 156-S
108 JD W R3US1/2C 157-W, 158-N, 159-E, 160-S, 161-SW
109 JD U U 162-N, 163-SE, 164-SW, 165-NW, 166-pit, 167-surface
110 JD U U 168-pit, 169-surface, 170-SE, 171-S, 172-N
111 PP-RU U U 173-SW, 174-NW, 175-NE
112 PP-RW W R3UB2H 180-channel, 181-channel
113 PP-RU U U 182-NW, 183-SE, 184-SE-channel, 185-N
114 PP-RU W R3UBH 186-NW, 187-SE
115 PP-RW W R4SB2C 188-N, 189-S
116 JD U U 190-pit, 191-surface, 192-N, 193-S
117 PP-RW W R4UBF 194-NW, 195-SE
118 JD W PEM1F (Center of polygon is
PUBH)
196-water, 197-E, 198-W, 199-pond
119 JD U U 200-pit, 201-surface, 202-NE, 203-N, 204-hydro
120 JD W PEM1F 205-pit, 206-redox, 207-alpha-alpha, 208-E, 209-W
121 JD U U 210-N, 211-S, 212-pit, 213-surface
122 JD U U 216-N, 217-S, 218-pit, 219-surface
123 PP-RW W R3UB1/2H (Gravel Bar is
R3US1/2C or A)
220-NE, 221-SW, 222-S
124 JD U U 226-NE, 227-SW, 228-SE, 229-pit, 230-surface
125 JD U U 233-N, 234-S, 235-windthrow, 236-pit, 237-surface
126 JD W PSS4B 238-N, 239-N, 241-pit, 242-surface
127 PP-RW U U 243-N, 244-S, 245-pit
128 JD W PEM1/SS3C (PEM1C
adjacent)
246-N, 247-S, 248-water
129 PP-RW W PUBH (PEM1C on fringe) 249-NE, 250-W, 251-W
130 JD W PF04/SS3B 252-NE, 253-SW, 254-pit, 255-surface
131 PP-RW W PF04/SS3B 256-N, 257-S, 260-pit, 261-surface
132 JD U U 262-NE, 263-SE, 264-S, 267-pit, 268-surface
133 JD U U 269-NE, 270-SE, 271-SW
134 JD U U 272-NE, 273-SW, 274-pit, 275-surface
135 JD U U 277-NE, 278-SE, 279-SW
136 JD U U 280-N, 281-SW (cliff), 282-SW, 283-pit, 284-surface
137 JD U U 292-NE, 293-SW, 294-pit, 295-surface
138 JD U U 297-N, 298-S, 299-pit, 300-surface
139 JD U U 305-N, 306-W, 307-S, 310-pit, 311-surface
140 PP-RU U U 312-NE, 313-SW
*PP-RW or PP-RU: Photopoint Plot at a Representative Wetland or Waters (RW) or a
Representative Upland (RU) site, where photos and basic information are recorded instead of
the entire field form, due to similarity in site conditions with previously surveyed plots.
19
Appendix C: Photographs
Included as a Word document:
AppendixC_photos_yerrick.doc
20
Appendix D: Field Data Forms
Included as an Adobe document:
AppendixD_plotfieldforms_yerrick.pdf
TES BOTANICAL SURVEY
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Tok, Alaska
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Report
February 2009
Prepared for:
Alaska Power and Telephone Company
PO Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Table of Contents
STUDY PURPOSE AND LOCATION.............................................................................................................. 1
METHODS........................................................................................................................................................... 1
SAMPLING DESIGN............................................................................................................................................. 2
FIELD METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 3
COLLECTION AND VOUCHERS............................................................................................................................ 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................... 3
NOTABLE PLANTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................... 5
DETERMINATION OF TES SPECIES MADE BY........................................................................................ 5
ATTACHMENTS................................................................................................................................................ 5
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 5
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INTENSITY AND RARITY RANK FOR SPECIES .................................................................. 6
APPENDIX B: PLANTS RECORDED AT SAMPLE PLOTS ........................................................................................ 8
APPENDIX C: PROJECT AREA PLANT SPECIES LIST.......................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX D: PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX E: FIELD DATA FORMS ................................................................................................................... 17
Figures
FIGURE 1: TES SURVEY MAP ......................................................................................................AS ATTACHEMENT
FIGURE 2: PHLOX SIBIRICA PHOTO ......................................................................................................................... 4
Tables
TABLE 1: PRELIMINARY LIST OF POTENTIAL RARE PLANTS ..................................................................................... 1
i
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Report
Key Findings:
No threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants were located
within areas likely to be affected by project activities.
The project, as described, is not expected to adversely
affect any sensitive plants.
Study Purpose and Location
A threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant survey was conducted within the
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric project area. 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 (Appendix A).
The project area is located near along Yerrick Creek, a cobble, gravel and sand substrate
creek which crosses the Alaska Highway at approximately milepost 1339 (see Figure 1 in the
Yerrick Creek Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report for wetlands). 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. Specific legal and geographic descriptions for the property required for
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations are included in the Preliminary Jurisdiction report
for wetlands in Table 1.
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 inhabit 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.
Methods
A five-day site visit was completed between August 21st and 25th, 2008, to identify any
threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species in the proposed project area.
To target rare plants within the Yerrick Creek project area, we composed a list of rare plant
species likely to be encountered. The target species list was compiled based on the Alaska
Natural Heritage Program’s (AKNHP) Biotics database. The AKNHP database query did not
show the occurrence of rare plants within the project area. This area has not been previously
1
surveyed for rare plants. Rare plants known in the general vicinity of Tanacross B5 and B6
USGS Quad maps were located from two queries on 7/21/2008. One query was the AKNHP
Biotics Database query, and the other was from the Arctos Database at the University of
Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF), which lists all known herbarium records stored at the UAF
Herbarium (code letters ALA). The compiled list was reviewed and edited by local botanist
Rob Lipkin (pers. com.) Rarity was determined by the AKNHP’s 2006 Vascular Plant
Tracking list (Lipkin, 2008).
Table 1: Preliminary list of potential rare plants (for explanation of Rarity Rank, see Appendix A).
Scientific Name Common Name Family
Global
Rarity
Rank
State
Rarity
Rank
Possible Habitat
Agrostis clavata clavate bentgrass Poaceae G4G5 S1S2
Open balsam poplar-
white spruce forest.
Bare soils, wet
meadows
Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge Cyperaceae G4G5 S2S3 Peat bogs, swamps
Castilleja annua Scrophulariaceae G3G4Q S3S4 Waste places
Ceratophyllum demersum coon's tail Ceratophyllaceae G5 S1
Ponds, lakes, and
slow moving streams
and rivers. Either
anchored in the mud
or floating freely near
the surface.
Draba paysonii Payson's draba Brassicaceae G5 S1S2 Gravel cutbank in
glacial cirque
Lupinus kuschei Yukon lupine Fabaceae G3 S2 roadsides
Montia bostockii Bostock's minerslettuce Portulacaceae G3 S3 Wet places in the
mountains
Phacelia mollis soft phacelia Hydrophyllaceae G2G3 S2S3
Tall white spruce-
aspen forest, coarse
sand, dry sand
beach, dry alpine
tundra meadows.
Poa secunda curly bluegrass Poaceae G5 SNA Meadows, open
woods
Taraxacum carneocoloratum fleshy dandelion Asteraceae G3Q S3
high alpine scree
slopes, extremely
rare
Sampling Design
The goal was to visit all vegetation types in the study area and identify all plant species
encountered during field work that was focused on wetland mapping. All species were
identified in the field or collected for further identification.
We reviewed aerial photography to identify vegetation types most likely to contain the taxa
of interest. Habitats of greatest interest included the following:
2
Openings in mixed birch – spruce forest,
Edges of ponds and meadows,
Seeps and small creeks,
Gravel river banks along Yerrick Creek.
Daily work was planned to visit as many different habitat types as possible, including those
most likely to include rare plants.
Field Methods
Teams traveled by foot while conducting the survey. As new vegetation communities were
encountered, sampling points were established and the following data were collected:
Each plot was georeferenced using a Garmin GPS unit. Survey routes were also
mapped.
Representative photos of the vegetation community were taken at each plot.
Vegetation type and dominant species by growth form (trees, shrubs, forbs, ferns/
non-vascular plants) were recorded at each site, using the vegetation classification
system by Viereck (1992).
Additional data were gathered specific to the location, habitat, landform, notable
plants, bare ground, or other parameters of interest.
Unidentified plants were collected for lab identification and noted on the field form.
A complete list of plant species encountered was compiled as the survey progressed.
Collection and Vouchers
Collections were made only if the population was large enough to support removal of
individuals. The following data were recorded with each voucher specimen: date, latitude and
longitude (Datum: NAD_1983_StatePlane_Alaska_2_FIPS_5002_Feet, in decimal degrees,
taken from the Garmin GPS unit), associated species, vegetation type, substrate, notes on
characteristics that may not preserve well (e.g., flower color), associated photo number, and
other ecological observations. Each voucher specimen was referenced to a specific
geographic locality.
Results and Discussion
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.
3
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 C.
Two lakes were visited. Aquatic plants were observed and recorded from the shore. The
study area was not surveyed for aquatic plants specifically.
Notable Plants
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.
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° )
Figure 2: Phlox sibirica, Siberian phlox.
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)
4
Conclusion
No globally or state ranked Rare or Sensitive species were encountered or identified 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 project area.
Most plant species observed in the Yerrick Creek project area are considered common and
widespread in interior Alaska.
This TES plant survey is significant as a first floristic study in Yerrick Creek area.
Determination of TES Species Made By
Irina Lapina
Vegetation Ecologist
HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: February 2008
Attachments
Figure 1: TES Survey Map
References
Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2008. Botany Databases.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/Botany_Home.htm.
Cody, W.J. 1996. Flora of the Yukon Territory. NRC Research Press, Canada. 668 p.
Lipkin, R. 2008. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List. April. Alaska Natural
Heritage Program, Anchorage, AK.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/pdfs/Rare%20PLant%20List%202008.pdf
Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). 2006. Arctos Database.
http://arctos.database.museum/SpecimenResults.cfm.
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, & K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland. OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 278 p.
5
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Intensity and Rarity Rank for Species
Survey intensity level for plants:
LEVEL 1 = "FIELD CHECK"
The surveyor gives the area a quick "once-over" but does not walk completely through the
project area. The entire project area has not been examined.
LEVEL 2 = "CURSORY"
The surveyor gives the area a "once-over" by walking through the project area. The entire
project area has not been examined.
LEVEL 3 = "LIMITED FOCUS"
The surveyor closely examines one or more habitat-specific locations within the project area,
but does not look at the rest of the area.
LEVEL 4 = "GENERAL"
The surveyor gives the area a closer look by walking through the project area and walking
around the perimeter of the area or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the
project area is examined.
LEVEL 5 = "INTUITIVE CONTROLLED"
The surveyor has closer look by conducting a complete examination of specific areas of the
project after walking through the project area and perimeter or by walking more than once
through the area.
LEVEL 6 = "COMPLETE"
The surveyor has walked throughout the survey area until nearly all of the area has been
examined.
Rarity Rank for Species:
The rarity rank is a value that best characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of a
native taxon within the specified geographic boundaries (i.e., range-wide for global, or
within-state or province for subnational).
In general, NatureServe Central Science staff assign global, U.S., and Canadian national
Element ranks with guidance from local Heritage Programs/Conservation Data Centres,
especially for endemic Elements, and from experts on particular taxonomic groups. Local
installations assign subnational ranks for Elements in their respective jurisdictions.
Only the following rank components should be entered in this Rank field:
The appropriate geopolitical-level prefixes currently in use are:
G = global
S = subnational
Allowable values are:
1 = critically imperiled
2 = imperiled
3 = vulnerable
6
4 = apparently secure
5 = secure
H = possibly extinct
X = presumed extinct
U = unrankable
NR = not ranked
NA = not applicable (Element is not a suitable target for conservation)
If applicable, an indicator of uncertainty about the rank, either in the form of a range rank or
a “?” qualifier following a numeric basic rank.
For national and subnational ranks, a suffix that describes the population of a migratory
species, as follows:
B = breeding population
N = nonbreeding population
M = transient population
Ranks for one, two, or all three population segments can be entered, separated by commas
(e.g., S1B,S2N,S3M).
For global ranks, if applicable, an appended T-rank for an infraspecies.
For global ranks, if applicable, a qualifier after the basic rank in the form of a Q indicating
questionable taxonomy, or a C indicating captive or cultivated
Species Ranks used by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program
Species Global Rankings
G1: Critically imperiled globally (5 or fewer occurrences)
G2: Imperiled globally (6-20 occurrences)
G3: Rare or Uncommon globally (20-100 occurrences)
G4: Apparently secure globally, but cause for long-term concern (>100 occurrences)
G5: Demonstrably secure globally
G#G# Rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between two ranks
G#Q Taxonomically questionable
G#T# Global rank of species and global rank of the described variety or subspecies
Species State Rankings
S1: Critically imperiled in state (5 or fewer occurrences)
S2: Imperiled in state (6-20 occurrences)
S3: Rare or Uncommon in state (20-100 occurrences)
S4: Apparently secure in state, but cause for long-term concern (>100 occurrences)
S5: Demonstrably secure in state
S#S# Rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between two ranks
For further information concerning rare plant species for this area, please contact the Alaska
Natural Heritage Program Botanist (907) 257-2785.
7
Appendix B: Plants Recorded at Sample Plots
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Betula papyrifera 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Picea glauca 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa
1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Betula glandulosa 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Vaccinium uliginosum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix scouleriana 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix alaxensis 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Lycopodium annotinum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Polygonum alaskanum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Cornus canadensis 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Carex sp. 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
feather moss 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
lichens 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Polytrichum sp. 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Picea mariana 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Salix pulchra 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Betula glandulosa 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Empetrum nigrum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Andromeda polifolia 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Lycopodium annotinum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Equisetum arvense 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Equisetum sylvaticum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Vaccinium oxycoccus 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Carex sp. 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
feather mosses 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Sphagnum russowii 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Sphagnum sp. 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
lichen 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Betula glandulosa 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Empetrum nigrum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Vaccinium uliginosum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Salix glauca 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Carex sp. 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Rubus chamaemorus 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Trientalis europaea 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
8
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Geocaulon lividum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Petasites frigidus x
hyperboreoides 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Vaccinium oxycoccus 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Polytrichum sp. 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Sphagnum sp. 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Agrostis sp. 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Arabis lyrata 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Artemisia tilesii 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Calamagrostis inexpansa 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Epilobium latifolium 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Festuca rubra 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa alpina 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa arctica 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa arctica ssp. lanata 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa palustris 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa pratensis 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Salix alaxensis 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Trisetum spicatum 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Picea glauca - sapling 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Salix alaxensis 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Populus balsamifera - sapling 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Dryopteris fragrans 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Calamagrostis canadensis 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Artemisia tilesii 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Poa glauca 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Populus balsamifera 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Picea glauca 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Salix alaxensis 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Ribes triste 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Rosa acicularis 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Spiraea beauverdiana 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Artemisia tilesii 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Stellaria sp. - no flowers 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Boschniakia rossica 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Pyrola sp. 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Poa glauca 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Aster sibiricus 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Angelica lucida 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Aconitum delphinifolium 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Mertensia paniculata 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Taraxacum sp. 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Anemone richardsonii 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
9
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Betula papyrifera 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Picea glauca 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Populus balsamifera 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Rosa acicularis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix barclayi 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Ribes triste 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Rubus idaeus 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Equisetum pratense 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Cornus canadensis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Epilobium angustifolium 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Linnaea borealis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Polygonum alaskanum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Pyrola secunda 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Aconitum delphiniifolium 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Equisetum sp. 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Hylocomium splendens 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix barclayi 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Chamaedaphne calyculata 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Carex aquatilis 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Eriophorum sp. 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Calamagrostis canadensis 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Potentilla palustris 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Equisetum fluviatile 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Populus tremuloides 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Iris setosa 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Calamagrostis canadensis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Carex lyngbyei 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Carex spp. 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Callitriche verna 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Alopecurus aequalis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Juncus filiformis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Rorippa palustris 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Ranunculus filiformis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Agropyron sp. 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Artemisia tilesii 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Aster sibiricus 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Boschniakia rossica 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
10
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Calamagrostis canadensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Calamagrostis purpurascens 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Dryopteris fragrans 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Epilobium angustifolium 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Geocaulon lividum 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Hylocomium splendens 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Leymus mollis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Linnaea borealis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Lupinus nootkatensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Mertensia paniculata 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Moehringia lateriflora 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Picea glauca 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Goodyera repens 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Lupinus nootkatensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Poa glauca 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Poa pratensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Ribes triste 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Rosa acicularis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Saxifraga cespitosa 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Shepherdia canadensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Vaccinium uliginosum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Betula glandulosa 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Empetrum nigrum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Ledum groenlandicum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Chamaedaphne calyculata 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Carex aquatilis 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Andromeda polifolia 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Lycopodium annotinum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Carex sp. - peat forming 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Rubus chamaemorus 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
11
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Geocaulon lividum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Carex aquatilis 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Nuphar lutea 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Carex lyngbyei 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Iris setosa 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Potamogeton zosteriformis 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Populus balsamifera 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Picea glauca 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Rubus idaeus 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Populus balsamifera - sapling 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Shepherdia canadensis 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Pyrola secunda 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Calamagrostis canadensis 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Calamagrostis purpurascens 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Artemisia tilesii 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Aconitum delphiniifolium 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Poa glauca 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Mertensia paniculata 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Angelica lucida 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Agropyron subsecundum 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
lichen 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
feather moss 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Hylocomium splendens 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Picea glauca 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Rosa acicularis 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Shepherdia canadensis 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Equisetum pratense 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Mertensia paniculata 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Astragalus americanus 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Boschniakia rossica 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Coptis trifolia 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Goodyera repens 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Erigeron acris 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Epilobium angustifolium 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Aster sibiricus 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Pyrola secunda 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Hylocomium splendens 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Silene menziesii ssp. williamzii 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
12
Appendix C: Project Area Plant Species List
# Scientific Name Family
1 Achillea millefolium Asteraceae
2 Aconitum delphiniifolium Ranunculaceae
3 Agropyron sp. Poaceae
4 Agropyron subsecundum Poaceae
5 Agrostis scabra Poaceae
6 Agrostis sp. Poaceae
7 Alnus viridis ssp. crispa Betulaceae
8 Alopecurus aequalis Poaceae
9 Andromeda polifolia Ericaceae
10 Anemone parviflora Ranunculaceae
11 Anemone richardsonii Ranunculaceae
12 Angelica lucida Apiaceae
13 Antennaria sp. Asteraceae
14 Arabis lyrata Brassicaceae
15 Arctagrostis latifolia Poaceae
16 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ericaceae
17 Artemisia alaskana Asteraceae
18 Artemisia arctica Asteraceae
19 Artemisia tilesii Asteraceae
20 Aster sibiricus Asteraceae
21 Astragalus alpinus Fabaceae
22 Astragalus americanus Fabaceae
23 Astragalus robbinsii ssp. harringtonii Fabaceae
24 Betula glandulosa Betulaceae
25 Betula papyrifera Betulaceae
26 Boschniakia rossica Orobanchaceae
27 Botrychium lunaria Ophioglossaceae
28 Calamagrostis canadensis Poaceae
29 Calamagrostis inexpansa Poaceae
30 Calamagrostis lapponica Poaceae
31 Calamagrostis purpurascens Poaceae
32 Calamagrostis purpurascens ssp. purpurascens Poaceae
33 Callitriche verna Callitrichaceae
34 Campanula lasiocarpa Campanulaceae
35 Carex aquatilis Cyperaceae
36 Carex brunnescens Cyperaceae
37 Carex canescens Cyperaceae
38 Carex loliacea Cyperaceae
39 Carex magellanica Cyperaceae
40 Carex saxatilis Cyperaceae
41 Carex scirpoidea Cyperaceae
42 Carex tenuiflora Cyperaceae
43 Carex utriculata Cyperaceae
44 Cerastium sp. Caryophyllaceae
45 Chamaedaphne calyculata Ericaceae
46 Coptis trifolia Ranunculaceae
47 Cornus canadensis Cornaceae
48 Crepis elegans Asteraceae
13
# Scientific Name Family
49 Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda Rosaceae
50 Dryopteris fragrans Dryopteridaceae
51 Empetrum nigrum Ericaceae
52 Epilobium angustifolium Onagraceae
53 Epilobium latifolium Onagraceae
54 Equisetum arvense Equisetaceae
55 Equisetum fluviatile Equisetaceae
56 Equisetum pratense Equisetaceae
57 Equisetum scirpoides Equisetaceae
58 Equisetum sylvaticum Equisetaceae
59 Erigeron acris Asteraceae
60 Erigeron acris ssp. polatus Asteraceae
61 Eriophorum brachyantherum Cyperaceae
62 Eriophorum vaginatum Cyperaceae
63 Festuca brachyanterum Poaceae
64 Festuca brachyphylla Poaceae
65 Festuca rubra Poaceae
66 Geocaulon lividum Santalaceae
67 Goodyera repens Orchidaceae
68 Hedysarum mackenzii Fabaceae
69 Hierochloe alpina Poaceae
70 Hierochloe odorata Poaceae
71 Iris setosa Iridaceae
72 Juncus castaneus Juncaceae
73 Juncus filiformis Juncaceae
74 Ledum groenlandicum Ericaceae
75 Leymus innovatus Poaceae
76 Linnaea borealis Caprifoliaceae
77 Lupinus arctica Fabaceae
78 Lupinus nootkatensis Fabaceae
79 Luzula parviflora Juncaceae
80 Lycopodium annotinum Lycopodiaceae
81 Lycopodium clavatum Lycopodiaceae
82 Lycopodium complanatum Lycopodiaceae
83 Mertensia paniculata Boraginaceae
84 Mertensia paniculata ssp. paniculata Boraginaceae
85 Minuartia stricta Caryophyllaceae
86 Moehringia lateriflora Caryophyllaceae
87 Moneses uniflora Pyrolaceae
88 Nuphar lutea Nymphaeaceae
89 Oxyria digyna Polygonaceae
90 Oxytropis campestris Fabaceae
91 Oxytropis campestris ssp. gracilis Fabaceae
92 Oxytropis nigrescens Fabaceae
93 Pedicularis labradorica Scrophulariaceae
94 Petasites frigidus Asteraceae
95 Petasites frigidus x hyperboreoides Asteraceae
96 Petasites hyperboreus Asteraceae
97 Phlox sibirica Polemoniaceae
14
# Scientific Name Family
98 Picea glauca Pinaceae
99 Picea mariana Pinaceae
100 Platanthera obtusata Orchidaceae
101 Poa alpina Poaceae
102 Poa arctica ssp. lanata Poaceae
103 Poa glauca Poaceae
104 Poa palustris Poaceae
105 Poa pratensis Poaceae
106 Polemonium acutiflorum Polemoniaceae
107 Polygonum alaskanum Polygonaceae
108 Polygonum bistorta Polygonaceae
109 Populus balsamifera Salicaceae
110 Populus tremuloides Salicaceae
111 Potamogeton zosteriformis Potamogetonaceae
112 Potentilla palustris Rosaceae
113 Pyrola asarifolia Pyrolaceae
114 Pyrola secunda Pyrolaceae
115 Ranunculus filiformis Ranunculaceae
116 Ranunculus lapponicus Ranunculaceae
117 Ribes triste Grossulariaceae
118 Rorippa palustris Brassicaceae
119 Rosa acicularis Rosaceae
120 Rubus chamaemorus Rosaceae
121 Rubus idaeus Rosaceae
122 Salix alaxensis Salicaceae
123 Salix alaxensis var. alaxensis Salicaceae
124 Salix arbusculoides Salicaceae
125 Salix barclayi Salicaceae
126 Salix bebbiana Salicaceae
127 Salix glauca Salicaceae
128 Salix pulchra Salicaceae
129 Salix scouleriana Salicaceae
130 Saxifraga cespitosa Saxifragaceae
131 Saxifraga tricuspidata Saxifragaceae
132 Sedum rosea Crassulaceae
133 Shepherdia canadensis Eleagnaceae
134 Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii Caryophyllaceae
135 Spiraea beauverdiana Rosaceae
136 Stellaria crassifolia Caryophyllaceae
137 Taraxacum sp. Asteraceae
138 Trientalis europaea Primulaceae
139 Trisetum spicatum Poaceae
140 Trisetum spicatum ssp. spicatum Poaceae
141 Vaccinium oxycoccus Ericaceae
142 Vaccinium uliginosum Ericaceae
143 Vaccinium vitis-idaea Ericaceae
144 Viburnum edule Caprifoliaceae
15
Appendix D: Photographs
Included as a Word file:
AppendixD_plantphotos_yerrick.doc
16
17
Appendix E: Field Data Forms
Included as an Adobe file:
AppendixE_plantfieldforms_yerrick.pdf
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
2009 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF ALASKA POWER &
TELEPHONE’S YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NEAR MP 1334 OF THE ALASKA HIGHWAY, ALASKA
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for:
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
P. O. Box 3222
193 Otto Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by:
Molly Proue, M.A., R.P.A., and Burr Neely, M.A., R.P.A.
Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
Peter M. Bowers, M.A., R.P.A.
Principal Investigator
600 University Avenue, Suite 6
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
October 2009
ii
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The locations of cultural resources given in this report are provided to facilitate environmental
and engineering planning efforts only. Under the provisions of the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, site location information is
confidential; disclosure of such information is exempt from requests under federal and state
freedom of information laws. This report is not a public document. It is intended for release to
Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and other appropriate federal or state
permitting agencies only.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE................................................................................................. II
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... IV
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................... 2
2.0 SURVEY METHODS ............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED AHRS SITES IN THE PROJECT AREA ............................................... 3
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 4
3.1 POWERHOUSE SITE ................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 PENSTOCK ROUTES ................................................................................................................ 4
3.2.1 Segment 1 ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Segment 2 ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.3 Segment 3 ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.4 Route A ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.5 Route B ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.6 Route C ........................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.7 Route D .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.8 Route E ........................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 10
4.1 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 11
5.0 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................................ 13
APPENDIX 1: SITE FORMS .................................................................................................... 45
NEPA CHECKLIST
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist
Section 1 - Project Data
Project Name: Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Project Site Address: 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
City: Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot Lake, Alaska County: N/A
Project Description (Provide a brief description of the proposed project, including a description of the present use of the property and a summary
of the impacts to the surrounding community. Use additional pages if necessary.)
The proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project will be located on Yerrick Creek, tributary to the
Tanana River, 20 miles west of the community 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. This
project will be sized at 2.0 mega watts and have the following physical features: 1-2 mile
transmission line of 45-55 foot wood poles, powerhouse, tailrace, step-up transformer, 11,000
feet of penstock (pipe), and a diversion structure. This project will be a run-of-river project,
operating only with the flows that are available at the time rather than creating storage to have
water during low flow periods. The project site is presently undeveloped backcountry.
Purpose and Need (Provide an explanation of the problems completion of the proposed project is intended to address.)
The purpose of this project is to provide clean, renewable, rate stabilizing energy by significantly
reducing the use of diesel. Diesel generation provides air and noise pollution to the communities
on the Tok power grid, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. The potential for environmental impacts
due to storage leaks, spills, and mishaps during transporting could occur any time, but
opportunities would be reduced by the reduction in use of diesel. The cost for diesel fluctuates
continually and is expected to get more expensive, which must be passed onto the consumer.
Operation & Maintenance for diesel plants are also significantly higher than for hydro, which is
also passed onto the consumer; overall, diesel is more expensive. This project will lower electric
rates in these communities and stimulate business development and home building.
Project Alternatives (Provide a brief description of possible alternatives to the proposed project, including a description of the impacts if no action
were taken.)
No Project Alternative – Continue to use diesel generation to meet these communities power
needs and continue to pay high prices due to the high and fluctuating cost of diesel fuel. Air and
noise pollution will continue to be a part of these communities from the APC powerplant.
Attach (if available) a community map showing the project location, a drawing describing the proposed
project, and photographs of the existing site and surrounding properties
Section 2 - Environmental Review Preparation
AIDEA/AEA Review / Preparation
Name Title
Address
City State Zip
Phone Fax E-Mail
Signature Date
Preparer (If not AIDEA/AEA)
Name: Glen Martin Title: Environmental Coordinator
Company: Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Address: 193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222
City: Port Townsend State: WA Zip: 98368
Phone: 360-385-1733 x122 Fax: 360-385-7538 E-Mail: glen.m@aptalaska.com
Signature Date
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE 1 OF 4 VER 3/01
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist
Section 3 - Environmental Review Checklist
Potential
Impact
Resource
+ 0 -
Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning
behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This
includes agency consultations and other references.)
Social / Economic
Economic Impacts + Project will provide rate stabilization and lower rates,
which may attract more residents and commercial
operations, having a byproduct of providing more locale
employment. Reducing the cost of electricity by 20% or
more will reduce residence monthly bills providing them
with more disposable income.
Demographic
Characteristics and
Changes
+ Having stabile rates could impact demographics as
mentioned above. If the economy continues to decline,
there will still be a need for clean power and lower
rates.
Community Facilities,
Services, or Safety + Will reduce noise and air pollution, because diesel
generation facilities are located within the Tok city
limits. Public safety should be improved due to the
reduced use of fossil fuels, which could spill in transport
and in fueling the storage tanks; air emissions will be
significantly reduced; noise from the diesel plant will be
significantly reduced and the public may reduce their
use of alternative heating and lighting sources via self
generation, which will create more public safety.
Displacements 0 Will displace the use of diesel and diesel fuel sellers,
potentially significantly reducing their income.
Environmental Justice 0 Because this project is remote, there will be no impact
to human health and no significant environmental due
to its small size. This project will be reviewed by the
resource agencies, ADF&G, DNR, USF&WS, COE, and
others. This project will benefit, not adversely impact,
Native Alaskans and low-income peoples by reducing
their electric rates and increasing public safety.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological Sites 0 This site is not expected to have cultural or historical
artifacts or significance, but SHPO will be consulted to
determine if an archaeologist review will be necessary.
Historic Buildings or
Districts 0 Is not in an historical district nor are any buildings
present within Project right-of-way.
Air Quality + Air quality will improve because less diesel will be used
in the Tok area. This project will significantly reduce the
use of fossil fuels, and thereby improve air quality.
Water Quality
Surface Water + This project will not impact surface water as nothing is
being introduced to the water by this project that would
impact water quality. With the implementation of the
Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP), no
impacts to water quality should occur. Reducing the use
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE 2 OF 4 VER 3/01
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist
Potential
Impact
Resource
+ 0 -
Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning
behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This
includes agency consultations and other references.)
of diesel once project is completed will improve the
environment by the reduction in air emissions and
reduced opportunities for fuel spills.
Groundwater + The reduced use of diesel fuel will reduce chances for
spills that could affect local wells; therefore there will be
no impacts to wells. The project itself is 20 miles away
from Tok and is a significant distance from homes and
community wells. This project will not impact ground
water.
Noise + Noise from the diesel generators presently operated by
APC in Tok will be significantly reduced as the hydro
project will off-set a significant portion of their use.
Noise from construction of the hydro project will be
temporary and isolated in a remote setting
Solid and Hazardous
Waste
0 With a Hazardous Substance Spill Plan, no significant
impacts are expected to occur during construction. The
project will otherwise not contribute any solid or
hazardous waste.
Natural Resources
Threatened and
Endangered Species 0 The area, due to its inland nature and being in South-
Central Alaska is not likely to have threatened or
endangered species. Species may transit through the
area only. No TES aquatic species use the creek and no
TES plant species were found.
Essential Fish Habitat 0 Streams and creeks will have buffers of 100 feet on
either side from poles and brush will be maintained on
stream or creek banks within the project corridor. There
is no Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) within the project
corridor nor is the creek considered EFH.
Farmland Protection 0 N/A; Undeveloped area consisting of forest.
Geomorphology 0 The drainage basin is composed of round cobble in the
drainage with brushy and treed slopes to bare ridges
and peaks. The slope around the project site is fairly
steep but no signs of mass-wasting are evident. An
ESCP, which will include a revegetation plan, will help
stabilize the project site after construction. Construction
methods, i.e. minimal foot print, will also keep slopes
stabilized.
Wetlands - No significant impacts will occur to wetlands; <1.0 acres
will be disturbed, of which the diversion in the creek is
the major portion and otherwise disturbing only hydric
soils. After consultation with the Corps, a 404
Certification or individual permit should be issued.
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE 3 OF 4 VER 3/01
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist
Potential
Impact
Resource
+ 0 -
Discussion / Documentation (Provide a discussion of the reasoning
behind the impact evaluation and document the resources used for the evaluation. This
includes agency consultations and other references.)
Wild and Scenic Rivers 0 Will have no impact on wild & scenic rivers; none exist
in the project area.
Coastal Zone Management 0 This project is not within a Coastal Zone Management
Area.
Sole Source Aquifer 0 The project route is not used as a freshwater source
because of its remote location; there are no impacts to
aquifers.
Floodplain 0 Project is in the floodplain of Yerrick Creek only. The
impoundment will be designed to allow for 100 year
floods.
Other Issues
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE 4 OF 4 VER 3/01
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE 5 OF 4 VER 3/01
Section 4 - Summary
Environmental Consequences Summary (Summarize the checklist items that identified a potential negative impact and describe
the potential impact.)
Wetlands – This project will have a minor impact on wetlands due to the placement of the
diversion structure in Yerrick Creek and in creating a road into the diversion site. The amount of
wetlands impacted is expected to total less than 1.0 acres. Most wetlands encountered would be
of Palustrine nature being of ‘Emergent’ of ‘Forested’ type. The wetlands that might be impacted
would consist of hydric soils rather than surface water.
To minimize impacts to the wetlands mentioned above, excavated hydric soils will be reused,
when applicable, and the project footprint and ground disturbance will be kept to a minimum. In
addition, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will be utilized for protecting water quality
and stabilizing disturbed soils.
Environmental Commitments (Describe the measures that will be taken to mitigate the Environmental Consequences summarized above,
if any)
An erosion and sedimentation control plan to be approved by the COE, ADF&G, DNR, and DEC
will be utilized for protecting water quality and stabilizing disturbed soils. This plan will include
efforts for revegetation of disturbed areas.
Environmental Permits (List any state, federal, or local permits required.)
Corps of Engineers Nation-Wide Permit, ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit
Public Involvement (Describe the public involvement activities performed for this project, if any.)
The Tanacross Village has been discussing the project with us and are favorable to its
construction.
Conclusion
A finding of no significant impact is recommended for the above project. This finding would be based
upon the project being completed as described above and in conjunction with the Environmental
Commitments presented above. X
or Preparation of an Environmental Assessment / Environmental Impact Statement is
recommended for the project.
Certifying Officer / Title Date
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist Instructions
INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental review for “major federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment” (42 U.S.C 4332). This Environmental Review (ER) checklist is intended
to provide a framework for Multi-Disciplinary Engineering Services (MDES) consultants to address NEPA requirements.
After completing the checklist, either enough documentation will have been generated for the AIDEA/AEA to request a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the lead federal agency, or the AIDEA/AEA will have determined if a full
Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required for the project.
Instructions – Section 1
Project Name – Enter the project name.
Project Site Address – Enter the address of the project, or nearest cross streets if an address is not known. Enter the
Latitude and Longitude or Township / Section / Range if no other option is available.
City, County – Enter the city and county the project will be completed in.
Project Description – Write a brief description of the project including a description of the current site use, what
demolition will be completed, and a description of any proposed developments. Summarize what impacts the
project will have on the surrounding community. Attach separate pages if this cannot be completed in the space
provided.
Purpose and Need – Write a brief description of why the proposed project is necessary. Attach separate pages if this
cannot be completed in the space provided.
Project Alternatives – Write a brief description of the possible alternatives to the project. Include a brief description of
the potential impacts from the alternatives (why they were not the selected alternative). Also include description of
the impacts that would result if no action were taken. Attach separate pages if this cannot be completed in the
space provided.
Be sure to attach to the checklist any information that can be used to clarify what the proposed project is. This includes
maps showing the project location, drawings of the proposed project, and photos of the project location.
Instructions – Section 2
AIDEA/AEA Review / Preparation – Enter the name and requested information of the individual at AIDEA/AEA responsible
for review or preparation of the checklist. The AIDEA/AEA representative will also be responsible for signing the
conclusion at the end of the checklist.
Preparer – Enter the name and requested information of the person actually responsible for completing the checklist if it
was not completed by the AIDEA/AEA.
Instructions – Section 3
Each item in the checklist should be answered and a description of the documentation / reasoning behind the answer
should be stated. The potential impact for each item should be marked using the following criteria:
(+) Means a potential positive impact to the specified resource from the proposed action would occur, e.g. positive
economic growth or preservation of natural resources.
(0) Means no potential impact to the specified resource would occur from the proposed action.
(-) Means a potential negative impact to the specified resource would occur as a result of the proposed action, e.g.
an archeological site would be destroyed during construction of the proposed project.
Economic Impacts – Evaluate potential economic impact to the community from the proposed project.
Demographic Characteristics and Changes – Evaluate the potential for changes in the demographic characteristics of the
region. Both economic and racial demographics should be evaluated.
Community Facilities, Services, or Safety – Determine if completion of the proposed project would impact educational
facilities, commercial facilities, health care, social services, public safety (police, fire, and ambulance), recreational
facilities, parks, water supply, power supply, or sanitary services.
Displacements – Determine if any public, commercial, or residential displacement will occur as a result of the proposed
project.
Environmental Justice – Determine if the proposed project would have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on
the human health or environment of minority populations and low-income populations (Executive Order 12898).
Archeological Sites and Historic Buildings or Districts – Obtain concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) that no potential impact to cultural resources would result from completion of the project.
Air Quality – The project must conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Clean Air Act (CAA).
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE I VER 3/01
AIDEA/AEA Environmental Review Checklist
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE II VER 3/01
Water Quality / Surface Water – Identify the surface water bodies in the vicinity of the project (stream, lakes, ocean, etc.)
and determine if potential impact to these water bodies may occur. If potential impact exists, identify the potential
impact and determine if the potential impact would violate any surface water standards for the impacted water
body. Determine if a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit is required for the proposed project.
Water Quality / Groundwater – Identify water supply wells in the vicinity of the proposed project and determine if the
project is within a setback area for the well.
Noise – Determine if the project will generate any noise, and if so, obtain the noise policy from the lead agency and
follow its procedures.
Solid and Hazardous Waste – Identify underground storage tanks (UST) adjacent to the site, leaking underground storage
tanks within ½ mile of the site, and national priority list and superfund sites within one mile of the site. Determine if
a potential impact to the site exists from the identified sites. Document the site follows the Uniform Fire Code or
appropriate guidelines from the lead agency. Determine what wastes will be generated by the project (during
construction and operation) and identify the proposed destination of these wastes. Determine that sufficient
capacity exists at the proposed destination for the wastes.
Threatened and Endangered Species – Contact the US Fish and Wildlife service and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game to determine if the project creates potential impacts to threatened and endangered species.
Essential Fish Habitat – Determine if the project creates potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). If potential
impacts exist, contact the National Marine Fisheries Service and initiate consultation. Attach results of the
consultation to this checklist.
Farmland Protection – Complete Form AD 1006 and submit it to the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to
determine if impacts to farmland exist.
Geomorphology – Describe the geomorphology of the project area (topography, ground cover, etc.) Determine if the
project increases the potential for erosion, landslides, etc.
Wetlands – Identify wetlands in the project area and determine if a Section 404 permit is required. Describe wetland
mitigation measures taken, if any.
Wild and Scenic Rivers – Determine if the project will impact any Federal Wild and Scenic rivers.
Coastal Zone Management – Determine if the project exists within a Coastal Zone Management area, and if so, obtain
approval from the delegated planning commission that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable coastal
zone plan.
Sole Source Aquifer – Determine if the project is located in an area designated by the US EPA as supporting a sole source
aquifer.
Floodplain – Determine if the project lies within a 100 year floodplain or a Regulatory Floodway. If so, describe the
impact and any mitigation measures taken.
Other – Describe any other issues special to the project or required by the funding federal or state agency.
Instructions – Section 4
Environmental Consequences Summary – List each checklist item from Section 3 that was identified as having a negative
impact and write a brief description of the impact. The description needs to be complete enough to either explain
why no significant impact to the human environment exists or to support the rationale behind any proposed
mitigation measures. Attach separate pages if this cannot be completed in the space provided.
Environmental Commitments – Present any measures being proposed by the AIDEA/AEA to mitigate the Environmental
Consequences summarized in the previous question. The description must be sufficient to explain why it prevents a
significant impact to the human environment as created by the potential impact. Attach separate pages if this
cannot be completed in the space provided.
Environmental Permits – List all the environmental permits that will be required to complete the project. This includes,
but is not limited to Section 404 permits and NPDES permits.
Public Involvement – Describe all the public involvement activities performed for this project. The level of public
involvement required will be dependent upon the size of the project and the potential environmental consequences
identified. Attach separate pages if this cannot be completed in the space provided.
Conclusion – The certifying officer with AIDEA/AEA must determine if enough information has been developed during the
completion of this environmental review checklist to recommend the lead federal agency issue a FONSI. If
unresolved potential impacts to the human environment remain, then preparation of either an EA or an EIS must be
recommended. Typically an EA would only be recommended if the certifying officer believes collection of additional
information will lead to the recommendation of a FONSI. If, after completion of the environmental review checklist,
the certifying officer believes the action will significantly affect the quality of the human environment, then a
recommendation for the completion of an EIS should be made.
LETTERS OF SUPPORT & A PETITION
COST WORKSHEET
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-21-10
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. 4,900 MWH – Hydroelectric Project
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 6 diesel generators
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 6,880 kW total installed capacity
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other Varies, 0-24 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 14.4 kWh/gallon
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $125,000 approx.
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 12,245 MWh (average 1998-2009)
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 850,000 gal. (average 1998-2009)
Other
iii. Peak Load 1,978 kW
iv. Average Load 1,295 kW (average 1998-2009)
v. Minimum Load 900 kW
vi. Efficiency 14.4 kWh/gallon (average 1998-2009)
vii. Future trends Generation has steadily decreased from a high of 12,800 MWh in 2003-04 to
12,065 MWh in 2007. Projected lower rates from hydro development may
result in increased generation by increasing the number of customers.
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
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 7-21-10
3. 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]
1.5-MW Hydropower
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 4,900 MWh
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
iv. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $13,630,000 (for Phase IV – Construction)
b) Development cost $870,000 (total of Phases I, II, and III)
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $100,000
d) Annual fuel cost $0
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 340,000 gallons diesel annually
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $3.00/gallon escalating at 3.75% for 20 years
c) Other economic benefits PCE program would save money.
d) Alaska public benefits AP&T ratepayers would save about $98,000,000 over the 50
year life of the Project. The Alaska public would save about
$52,000,000 over the 50 year life through reductions in the
cost of the PCE program.
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale N/A; AP&T is the public utility for these communities.
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 7-21-10
Project benefit/cost ratio 8.2 for AP&T, 4.5 for Alaska
Payback (years)
GRANT BUDGET FORM
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 9-7-10 Milestone or Task Phase IV – Construction Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS Construction management December 2012 $ 0 $ 380,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 380,000 Mobilization July 2011 & May 2012$ 0 $ 750,000 Federal grant, cash $ 750,000 Access road October 2011 $ 645,000 $ 455,000 Federal grant $ 1,100,000 Diversion structure September 2012 $ 0 $ 850,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 850,000 Penstock October 2012 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,250,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 4,750,000 Powerhouse November 2012 $ 855,000 $ 1,395,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 2,250,000 Transmission facilities October 2012 $ 0 $ 3,500,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 3,500,000 Completion/demobilization December 2012 $ 0 $ 50,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 50,000 TOTALS $ 4,000,000 $ 9,630,000 $ 13,630,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ 0 $ 1,750,000 Direct labor & benefits $ 1,750,000 Travel & Per Diem $ 0 $ 100,000 Cash $ 100,000 Equipment $ 855,000 $ 1,645,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 2,500,000 Materials & Supplies $ 0 $ 0 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 0 Contractual Services $ 0 $ 50,000 Cash $ 50,000 Construction Services $ 3,145,000 $ 6,085,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 9,230,000 Other $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 TOTALS $ 4,000,000 $ 9,630,000 $ 13,630,000
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 9-7-10 Project Milestones that should be addressed in Budget Proposal Reconnaissance Feasibility Design and Permitting Construction 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation. 2. Resource identification and analysis 3. Land use, permitting, and environmental analysis 5. Preliminary design analysis and cost 4. Cost of energy and market analysis 5. Simple economic analysis 6. Final report and recommendations 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation. 2. Detailed energy resource analysis 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues, 4. Permitting and environmental analysis 5. Detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets 6. Assessment of alternatives 7. Conceptual design analysis and cost estimate 8. Detailed economic and financial analysis 9, Conceptual business and operations plans 10. Final report and recommendations 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation for planning and design 2. Permit applications (as needed) 3. Final environmental assessment and mitigation plans (as needed) 4. Resolution of land use, right of way issues 5. Permit approvals 6. Final system design 7. Engineers cost estimate 8. Updated economic and financial analysis 9. Negotiated power sales agreements with approved rates 10. Final business and operational plan 1. Confirmation that all design and feasibility requirements are complete. 2. Completion of bid documents 3. Contractor/vendor selection and award 4. Construction Phases – Each project will have unique construction phases, limitations, and schedule constraints which should be identified by the grantee 5. Integration and testing 6. Decommissioning old systems 7. Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start-up 8. Operations Reporting
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
RFA AEA11-005 Grant Budget Instructions Page 1 of 5 7-21-10
Grant Budget Instructions
NOTICE TO GRANTEES
Reimbursement to a Grantee under this program is on a cost reimbursable basis. In
accordance with the terms of the grant a Grantee is required to submit certified requests
for reimbursements that document commitments and expenditures and demonstrate
meeting milestones identified in the grant.
A proposed reimbursement schedule tied to completion of milestones must be identified
in the applicant’s proposal. The Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA” or “Authority”) will n ot
approve a reimbursement schedule that does not reflect costs or commitments tied to
the accomplishment of milestones identified in the grant. The final reimbursement
schedule is subject to negotiation and will be incorporated into the grant agreement.
The Authority may authorize a percentage of grant funds, up to 20% depending on the
type of grant, as an advance reimbursement at the start up of the grant.
The Authority may also withhold up to 20% of the total grant subject to completion of the
project and submission of final reports and other documentation that may be required by
the grant.
A Grantee is required to account for and document all expenditures of grant and
matching funds including documentation of expenditures on any advanced
reimbursement. All requests for reimbursement are subject to audit by the Authority.
The Grantee is also required to comply with 2.AAC.45.010, the State Single Audit
regulations.
1. Budget Form
Information concerning the proposed grant budget needs to be provided on the Grant Budget
Form. The Grantee must tie their budget request to the proposed milestones they propose in
their application. Examples of milestones for each project phase are included with the
budget form and in Section 2 of the RFA.
For the purposes of determining potential cash-flow and a reimbursement schedule Grantees
should use the form to identify the proposed date that the milestone would be met, the
anticipated amount of grant funds to be expended to meet that milestone, and the amount
and type of matching resources they intend to apply to that milestone.
The bottom part of the form includes the allowable Budget Categories and is intended to be a
summary of types of cost for each phase of the grant.
2. Allowable Costs
Allowable costs for a grant include all reasonable and ordinary costs for direct labor and
benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual services, construction services, and other
direct costs identified that are necessary for and incurred as a direct result of the project.
Grant Budget Instructions Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
RFA AEA11-005 Grant Budget Instructions Page 2 of 5 7-21-10
A cost is reasonable and ordinary if, in its nature or amount, it does not exceed that which would
be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was
made to incur the costs.
Allowable costs under this grant include all reasonable and ordinary costs for direct labor &
benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual services, construction services, and other
direct costs identified and approved in the Project budget that are necessary for and incurred as
a direct result of the Project and are consistent with the requirements of the grant agreement.
A cost is reasonable and ordinary if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which
would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the
decision was made to incur the costs.
Allowable costs are only those costs that are directly related to activities authorized by the Grant
Agreement and necessary for the Project. The categories of costs and additional limits or
restrictions are listed below:
a. Direct Labor & Benefits
Include salaries, wages, and employee benefits of the Grantee’s employees for that portion
of those costs attributable to the time actually devoted by each employee to, and necessary
for the Project. Direct labor costs do not include bonuses, stock options, other payments
above base compensation and employee benefits, severance payments or other termination
allowances paid to the Grantee’s employees.
b. Travel, Meals, or Per Diem
Include reasonable travel expenses necessary for the Project. These include necessary
transportation and meal expenses or per diem of Grantee employees for which expenses
the employees are reimbursed under the Grantee’s standard written operating practice for
travel and per diem or the current State of Alaska Administrative Manual for employee
travel.
c. Equipment
Include costs of acquiring, transporting, leasing, installing, operating, and maintaining
equipment necessary for the Project, including sales and use taxes. Equipment owned by
the Grantee is to be charged to the project at the monthly rates contained in the Data Quest
Blue Book. The rates for equipment owned by the Grantee for less than a month’s duration
are to be computed on an hourly charge determined by dividing the monthly rate by 176.
Equipment rented by the Grantee can be charged to the grant at actual invoiced charge
rates, subject to a maximum amount equal to the hourly rates contained in the Data Quest
Blue Book. The Authority’s Project Manager must approve all equipment charge rates to be
used by the Grantee. The Data Quest Blue Book is available to the AEA Project Managers
and grantees may contact them for current allowable rates.
Grant Budget Instructions Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
RFA AEA11-005 Grant Budget Instructions Page 3 of 5 7-21-10
Subject to prior approval of the Authority’s Project Manager, costs or expenses necessary to
repair or replace equipment damage or losses incurred in performance of work under the
grant may be allowed. However, damage or losses that result from the Grantee’s
employees, officer’s, or contractor’s gross negligence, willful misconduct, or criminal conduct
will not be allowed.
d. Materials and Supplies
Include costs of material, office expenses, communications, computers, and supplies
purchased or leased by the Grantee necessary for the Project.
e. Contractual services
Include the Grantee’s cost of contract services necessary for the Project. Services may
include costs of contract feasibility studies, project management services, engineering and
design, environmental studies, field studies, and surveys for the project as well as costs
incurred to comply with ecological, environmental, and health and safety laws.
f. Construction Services
For construction projects this includes the Grantee’s cost for construction contracts, labor,
equipment, materials, insurance, bonding, and transportation necessary for the Project.
Work performed by the Grantee’s employees during construction may be budgeted under
direct labor and benefits. Contracted project management or engineering may be budgeted
under contractual services and major equipment purchases made by the Grantee may be
budgeted under equipment.
g. Other Direct Costs
In addition to the above the following expenses necessary for the Project may be allowed.
• Net insurance premiums paid for insurance required for the grant Project;
• Costs of permits and licenses for the grant Project;
• Non-l itigation legal costs for the Project directly relating to the activities; in this
paragraph, “non-litigation legal costs” includes expenses for the Grantee’s legal staff and
outside legal counsel performing non-litigation legal services;
• Office lease/rental payments;
• Other direct costs for the Project directly relating to the activities and identified in the
grant documents; and/or
• Land or other real property or reasonable and ordinary costs related to interests in land
including easements, right-of-ways, or other defined interests.
3. Specific Expenditures not allowed
Ineligible expenditures include costs for overhead, lobbying, entertainment , alcohol, litigation,
payments for civil or criminal restitution, judgments, interest on judgments, penalties, fines,
costs not necessary for and directly related to the grant Project, or any costs incurred before the
beginning date of the grant as indicated on the signature page.
Grant Budget Instructions Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
RFA AEA11-005 Grant Budget Instructions Page 4 of 5 7-21-10
Overhead costs described in this section include:
• salaries, wages, applicable employee benefits, and business-related expenses of the
Grantee’s employees performing functions not directly related to the grant Project;
• office and other expenses not directly related to the grant Project; and
• costs and expenses of administration, accounting, human resources, training, property
and income taxes, entertainment, self-insurance, and warehousing.
4. Match and Cost Sharing
If the Applicant is providing a match, it is should be detailed either as a specific dollar amount or
as a percentage of the total project budget. The type and amount of matching contributions
should be discussed in the application under section two.
Cost sharing or matching is that portion of the Project costs not borne by the Authority. The
Authority will accept all contributions, including cash and in-kind, as part of the Applicants’ cost
sharing or matching when such contributions meet the following criteria:
• Are provided for in the Project budget;
• Are verifiable from the Applicant’s records;
• Third party costing sharing contributions are verifiable (with a letter of intent or similar
document);
• Are not included as contributions for another state or federally assisted project or
program (i.e., the same funds cannot be counted as match for more than one program);
• Are necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the Project or
program objectives;
• Are allowable costs;
• Are not paid by the State or federal government under another award, except for
authorized by the State or federal statute to be used for cost sharing or matching;
• Must be incurred within the grant eligible time period.
Any match proposed with the application will be required in the Grant award and the Grantee will
be required to document the use of the proposed matching funds or in-kind contributions with
their request for reimbursement.
Previous Renewable Energy Fund grants will not be counted as match.
5. Valuing In-Kind Support as Match
If the Applicant chooses to use in-kind support as some; or, its entire match, the values of those
contributions will be reviewed by the Authority at the time the budget is approved. The values will
be determined as follows:
• The value of real property will be the current fair market value as determined by an
independent third party or a valuation that is mutually agreed to by the Authority and the
Applicant and approved in the grant budget.
• The value assessed to Applicant equipment or supplies will not exceed the approved
equipment rates or fair market value of the supplies at the time the grant is approved or
amended.
Grant Budget Instructions Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
RFA AEA11-005 Grant Budget Instructions Page 5 of 5 7-21-10
Equipment usage will be valued based on approved usage rates that are determined in accordance
with the item c. above. Rates paid will not exceed the fair market value of the equipment if
purchased.
Rates for donated personal services will be based on rates paid for similar work and skill level in the
recipient’s organization. If the required skills are not found in the recipient organization, rates will
be based on rates paid for similar work in the labor market. Fringe benefits that are reasonable,
allowable, and allocable may be included in the valuation.
Transportation and lodging provided by the Applicant for non-local labor will not exceed the
commercial rates that may be available within the community or region.
6. Grant Disbursements
Applicants are reminded that they must request disbursement of grant funds in the form and
format required by the Authority with appropriate back-up documentation and certifications.
This format will be provided by the Authority.
The back-up documentation must demonstrate the total costs incurred are allowable, and reflect
the amount being billed. Documentation must include:
• A summary of direct labor costs supported by timesheets or other valid time record to
document proof of payment;
• Travel and per diem reimbursement documentation;
• Contractor or vendor payment requests; and
• Invoices.
Payment of grant funds will be subject to the Applicant complying with its matching contribution
requirements of the proposed grant.
Payment of grant funds will be made by AEA to the Grantee within 30 days of receipt of a
properly completed, supported, and certified Reimbursement Request.