Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutYerrick Creek Appendices 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 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   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 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 10-7-09 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 i. Number of generators/boilers/other grid, leave this section blank) 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 1998-2007) ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 850,000 gal. (average 1998-2007) Other iii. Peak Load 1,978 kW iv. Average Load 1,295 kW (average 1998-2007) v. Minimum Load 900 kW vi. Efficiency 14.4 kWh/gallon (average 1998-2007) 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. 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 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 10-7-09 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) [kWh or MMBtu/hr] 2-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) Price of displaced fuel $3.00/gallon escalating at 3.75% for 20 years c) Other economic benefits PCE program would save money. d) Amount of 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 10-7-09 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 Project benefit/cost ratio 8.2 for AP&T, 4.5 for Alaska Payback GRANT BUDGET FORM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09 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, 2011 $ 0 $ 380,000 Cash, labor & benefits $ 380,000 Mobilization May 2010 & 2011 $ 0 $ 750,000 Federal grant, cash $ 750,000 Access road October, 2010 $ 645,000 $ 455,000 Federal grant $ 1,100,000 Diversion structure November, 2011 $ 0 $ 850,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 850,000 Penstock November, 2011 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,250,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 4,750,000 Powerhouse November, 2011 $ 855,000 $ 1,395,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 2,250,000 Transmission facilities October, 2011 $ 0 $ 3,500,000 Cash, labor & benefits, future grants $ 3,500,000 Completion/demobilization December, 2011 $ 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 III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09 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