HomeMy WebLinkAboutYerrick Creek Hydroelectric project App
Renewable Energy Fund
p. 1 Grant Application
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided for preparing your application for a
Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA)
and the forms are available online at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html
The following application forms are required to be submitted for a grant recommendation:
Grant Application
Form
GrantApp.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of
information required to submit a complete application.
Applicants should use the form to assure all information is
provided and attach additional information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed
by applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget
Form
GrantBudget.xls A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of
costs by task and a summary of funds available and
requested to complete the work for which funds are being
requested.
Grant Budget
Form Instructions
GrantBudgetInstr.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form.
• If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application
forms for each project.
• Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide a plan
and grant budget for completion of each phase.
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting
funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the
preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
• If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with
your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
• Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act, AS 40.25 and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
• All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 2
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Power Company (a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone Company)
Type of Entity: Utility
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Physical Address
193 Otto Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Telephone
360-385-1733
Fax
360-385-7538
Email
glen.m@aptalaska.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Glen D. Martin
Title
Grant Writer
Mailing Address
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Telephone
360-385-1733
x122
Fax
360-385-7538
Email
glen.m@aptalaska.com
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer, or
A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If a
collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.)
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 3
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
Provide a brief 1-2 page overview of your project.
2.1 PROJECT TYPE
Describe the type of project you are proposing, (Reconnaissance; Resource Assessment/
Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design; Final Design and Permitting; and/or Construction) as
well as the kind of renewable energy you intend to use. Refer to Section 1.5 of RFA.
AP&T proposes to develop a hydroelectric project on Yerrick Creek near Tok, Alaska. AP&T
has completed reconnaissance level analyses of the project (Phase I), and is currently
conducting selected resource assessment activities (Phase II). Existing grant funds from AEA
and the Rural Utilities Service are sufficient to complete the Phase II and Phase III studies, and
begin Phase IV (Construction). With this application, AP&T is requesting funding to complete
Phase IV (Construction).
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a one paragraph description of your project. At a minimum include the project location,
communities to be served, and who will be involved in the grant project.
AP&T proposes to construct the 2.0 MW Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located
on Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok. The Project would off-set diesel
generation which presently supplies power to the communities of Tetlin, Tanacross, Dot Lake,
and Tok. The Project will consist of a small diversion structure, approximately 15,000 feet of
penstock, powerhouse with a single generating unit, tailrace, small substation, and transmission
line. The Project operation will be run-of-river; annual generation is expected to be
approximately 4,900 MWh/yr (approximately 40% of the interconnected load). The Project will
provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization. The cost to maintain a hydro
project is also significantly lower than diesel generation.
2.3 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source
of other contributions to the project. Include a project cost summary that includes an estimated total cost
through construction.
The total estimated cost of the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project is $14,500,000. Of that
amount, AP&T has already expended $103,000 of its own funds for initial Phase I and Phase II
work. The remaining $14,397,000 needed to complete the Project is allocated as follows:
• Phase II: Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design......$173,500
• Phase III: Final Design and Permitting...........................................................$593,500
• Phase IV: Construction ...............................................................................$13,630,000
AP&T has been awarded grants of $100,000 from the Denali Commission and $1,675,000 from
the Rural Utilities Service for the Project. Additional funding required to complete the Project is
then $12,725,000. AP&T proposes to provide matching funds totaling $2,900,000 (20% of the
total cost), including the $1,775,000 in grants already received. Therefore, AP&T requests that
AEA provide $11,600,000 in grant funding, which will all be used for Phase IV (Construction).
Please see the attached Grant Budget for a cost breakdown for each phase of development.
2.4 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial benefits that will result from this project, including an estimate of economic
benefits(such as reduced fuel costs) and a description of other benefits to the Alaskan public.
The Project will reduce the cost of generation by AP&T, and the savings would be passed on to
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 4
AP&T’s customers in Tetlin, Tok, Tanacross and Dot Lake who presently pay $0.47 per kWh
(excluding PCE). Once the Project interties with the Tok grid, the cost per kWh could be reduced by
approximately 20% to about $0.37 per kWh (excluding PCE). This hydroelectric project will
reduce diesel fuel consumption by approximately 350,000 gallons per year, which at today’s prices
(2008 average=$3.577/gal.) is equivalent to $1,252,000 annually. The existing diesel plant in Tok,
which supplies electricity to all four communities, would use fewer diesel generators to meet the
remaining load, reducing labor and maintenance costs and the frequency of generator overhaul and
replacement for a potential savings of $50,000 annually. Lower energy costs would help stimulate
both residential and commercial development.
The environmental impacts of AP&T’s diesel generation, (e.g. air pollution, noise pollution, and
potential for spills, etc.) will be significantly reduced by this Project. During part of the year it is
expected that the entire load can be carried by the Project, and during the winter the use of
diesel generation will supplement the Project.
2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY
Include a summary of your project’s total costs and benefits below.
2.5.1 Total Project Cost
(Including estimates through construction.)
$14,500,000
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $11,600,000
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match)
$2,900,000 (1)
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $14,500,000
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) $184,300,000 to AP&T
ratepayers (2)
2.5.6 Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in terms of
dollars please provide that number here and explain how
you calculated that number in your application.)
$105,500,000 to public
(State of Alaska) (3)
(1) Includes $1,775,000 in grants already awarded to AP&T
(2) Net present value of 50 years of savings by AP&T ratepayers in diesel fuel and O&M
costs at a 0% discount rate.
(3) Net present value of 50 years of savings by the PCE program.
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 5
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references
for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to
solicit project management Support. If the applicant expects project management assistance
from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
Eric Hannan, AP&T’s Interior Regional Manager, Power, will be the Project Manager for all phases of
the work. Mr. Hannan is located in Tok, and is an electrical engineer with extensive experience in
project management and electrical generation, transmission and distribution.
Rex Goolsby will be the Construction Superintendent, reporting to Mr. Hannan. Mr. Goolsby is a Tok
resident with extensive construction and construction management experience. He will supervise the on-
site construction and installation of fabricated items and equipment, with help as necessary by AP&T’s
electrical and mechanical engineers. Mickey Henton, AP&T’s Safety Director is stationed in Tok, and
will provide safety oversight for the on-site construction.
As noted elsewhere, AP&T’s intent is to pre-fabricate a substantial portion of the intake and powerhouse.
The pre-fabrication work will be located near AP&T’s headquarters in Port Townsend, Washington, and
will be supervised by AP&T’s civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers.
Resumes for Mr. Hannan and Mr. Goolsby are included in Section 7.
3.2 Project Schedule
Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a
chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
A bar schedule of the expected design and construction sequence is provided in Section 7. The
following summarizes key activities and dates of the schedule. Note that this schedule is for the
entire development sequence; activities funded by this grant will be in Phase IV only.
Phase II: Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design: Present – Fall 2008
Environmental studies, geotechnical investigations, topographic mapping, and conceptual
design have already started and are expected to be complete by the end of 2008.
Phase III: Permitting and Final Design: Present – Summer 2009
Permit applications have already been submitted to DNR for a land lease and for water rights.
A Corp of Engineer Section 404 permit application will be submitted by January 15, 2009, as
will an application to ADF&G for a habitat permit. Final design will begin in early 2009 and
will proceed through the summer of 2009 with the intent to start construction in the fall of 2009.
Phase IV: Construction: 2009 –2010
AP&T expects to begin mobilization of equipment to Tok in the summer of 2009 in anticipation
of a fall 2009 start of construction. Once all permits are received and the grant funds released,
AP&T will place the order for generating equipment and begin on-site construction. Pioneering
a road to the diversion area will be the only on-site construction activity during 2009. AP&T
intends to fabricate much of the intake and powerhouse off-site in modified shipping containers
so that on-site outdoor work is limited to the short April-November construction season; the off-
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 6
site fabrication work will begin in late 2009 and continue through much of 2010. Most of the on-
site work will occur in 2010, including completion of the access road to the diversion site,
installation of the penstock along the access road, installation of the powerhouse and diversion
fabricated modules, and construction of the transmission line.
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Key (i.e. critical path) milestones for the Project are:
• Receipt of all necessary permits for construction and release of grant funds by
September, 2009
• Award contract for supply of the generating equipment by September, 2009
• Completion of access road to powerhouse site by June 2010 and to diversion site by
August 2010
• Completion of penstock installation by December 2010
The schedule described in 3.2 above is consistent with these milestones. It should be noted that
the schedule assumes no on-site outside work during the December-March time period. If
unusually harsh weather conditions extend that period, the entire schedule could slip.
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the
project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will
be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process
you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references
for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.
Key AP&T involved in the project development and their roles will be:
• Eric Hannan, Project Manager and Transmission Design
• Rex Goolsby, Construction Superintendent
• Bob Berreth, Electrical Design
• Ben Beste, Mechanical Design
• Larry Coupe, Civil Design
• Glen Martin, Resource Assessment and Permits
• Mickey Henton, Safety Director
Phase II: Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design
In this phase AP&T will continue with acquiring property access and complete environmental
and engineering/conceptual design studies. AP&T intends to use or has used the following
contractors for the various studies:
• Wetlands delineation - - HDR Alaska Inc.
• Threatened and endangered plant species survey - - HDR Alaska Inc.
• Fish surveys - - Graystar Pacific Seafood, Ltd.
• Water quality sampling - - Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
• Cultural resource surveys - - Browne Research; Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
• Topographic mapping - - Aero-Metric, Incorporated
• Seismic refraction surveys - - Philip H. Duoos, Geophysical Consultant
AP&T permitting specialists will compile the environment information into resource assessment
documents as required by the various permitting agencies. AP&T engineers will conduct the
engineering/conceptual design studies in-house.
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 7
Phase III: Final Design & Permitting
In 2007, AP&T received a determination that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would
not have jurisdiction over the Project, therefore a FERC license is not required. Accordingly, in
this phase the following permits will be acquired:
• 404 permit (Corps of Engineers)
• Fish habitat permit (ADF&G)
• Land leases or easements (ADNR & Tanacross, Inc.)
• Water right (ADNR)
• SHPO review
AP&T will prepare the final design documents in-house using its staff civil, mechanical, and
electrical engineers, who all have extensive experience in hydroelectric development. These
engineers designed AP&T’s South Fork Hydroelectric Project which entered service in 2005, as
well as AP&T’s Kasidaya Creek Hydroelctric Project which will enter service later in 2008.
Phase IV: Construction
Construction will be by local contractors and AP&T staff, as follows:
• Access road - - local contractor(s)
• Diversion structure fabrications - - Reynold Grey Machining and Services
• Diversion structure installation - - local contractor(s)
• Penstock materials procurement - - AP&T
• Penstock installation - - local contractor(s)
• Generating equipment procurement - - AP&T
• Powerhouse fabrications - - Reynold Grey Machining and Services
• Powerhouse construction - local contractor(s) and AP&T
• Transmission line construction - - local contractor(s) and AP&T
• Testing and start-up - - AP&T
There are several contractors in the Tok area that will be able to help with the construction. With a
project of this size, we would expect to utilize the services of most of these contractors at some point
during the construction. Mr. Hannan and Mr. Goolsby will select contractors for the various items
of work based on their knowledge of the contractor’s capabilities, interest, workload, and rates.
Reynold Grey Machining and Services is a welding and fabrication company in Port Townsend,
Washington that AP&T has used frequently for similar work, including fabrication of container
modules for diesel powerplants recently installed in Slana and Allakaket. Reynold Grey is located
near AP&T’s engineering staff, who thereby can conveniently oversee the proposed fabrication
work.
AP&T already owns all the line trucks and other equipment necessary for the transmission line
construction. AP&T electricians, and mechanics from Tok will install the generating unit and
other mechanical and electrical equipment at the powerhouse and diversion, with supervision by
AP&T engineers. As noted above, the AP&T engineers have supervised the recent startups of
AP&T’s South Fork and Kasidaya Creek hydro projects.
AP&T will negotiate purchase orders for materials and equipment from vendors who have
performed well on AP&T’s recent projects. For the generating equipment, we expect to purchase
the turbine/generator package from Gilkes Inc., using the same design as the South Fork Project
equipment.
Resumes for the above-mentioned firms and individuals are included in Section 7.
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 8
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
During Phases II and III, AP&T proposes to provide quarterly reports to AEA regarding the
status of the work. AP&T has provided similar reports to AEA and other grant funding agencies
in the past several years on other projects, and has established the necessary procedures for
producing the report expeditiously. At the completion of Phase II, AP&T will provide AEA with
a copy of the conceptual design drawings and cost estimate. At the completion of Phase II,
AP&T will provide AEA with a copy of the final design drawings, specifications, and cost
estimate, along with a request to release the grant funds.
During Phase IV, communications within the team will consist of:
• Weekly reports by the Environmental Compliance Monitor (as likely to be required by
the ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit)
• Bi-weekly conference calls among the Project Manager, Construction
Superintendent, and the Design Engineers.
• Periodic site visits by the Project Manager and Design Engineers.
These internal discussions will form the basis of quarterly reports to AEA. The reports will show
in a clear and concise manner progress made on the various tasks/milestones, the work to be
accomplished in the ensuing quarter, and potential problems and corrective actions to be
considered or implemented. Cost data will also be provided on a quarterly basis. Microsoft
Project or similar software will be used to develop and maintain schedule and budget
information; updating of the management files will be on a monthly basis.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Site Control – AP&T does not yet have development rights on land to be occupied by the
powerhouse and part of the penstock and access road. We are working with the land owner
(Tanacross, Inc.) to negotiate a lease, easement, or sale.
Seismic – Project components will be designed appropriately for seismic activity, since the
Project will be located in a high-risk seismic zone. Structures will be buried as much as possible
to minimize seismic impacts.
Underground Construction – The Project does not include a significant amount of underground
construction, which can be fraught with cost overrun potential. Geotechnical investigations
have been made at the diversion and powerhouse area to provide an adequate level of
knowledge about ground conditions at those sites.
Inclement Weather – Working conditions in the Project area are very harsh during the winter.
The proposed schedule assumes no on-site outside work during the December-March period. If
unusually harsh winter weather extends that period, the entire schedule could slip. Should that
appear likely, AP&T and its contractor(s) will review various options, including double-shift
work during the long summer days or limited outside work during the winter, such as processing
aggregate in the powerhouse area.
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 9
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
• Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of
the RFA. The level of information will vary according to phase of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and
grant budget for completion of each phase.
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project.
Proposed Energy Resource: AP&T will develop the Yerrick Creek site to the largest capacity
that is economically feasible, which at this time is estimated to be 2.0 MW. In 2007, a consultant
for AP&T calculated the potential energy of the Project for various installed capacities, based on
a hydrologic record estimated by transposition of data from a stream gage on Berry Creek near
Dot Lake. Information from that report is the basis for the generation values indicated in this
application. It should be noted however that AP&T now has a full year of gage data on Yerrick
Creek, and it appears to show higher streamflows than determined by AP&T’s consultant, and
Project generation could be significantly greater than indicated herein.
During Phase II the Project capacity will be thoroughly evaluated based on the stream gage data
currently being collected, estimates of instream flow releases that may be required, current
electrical loads, and the potential for load growth. The total energy potential at the site is roughly
5.2 GWh per year, and a 2.0 MW project would be able to generate approximately 94% of that
potential (4.9 GWh/yr).
At this time the only viable alternative to the Project is considered to be continued diesel
generation. A large hydroelectric project at Cathedral Rapids on the Tanana River was studied
many years ago by the Corps of Engineers, but it is not now considered to be economically or
environmentally feasible. The Cathedral Rapids site may have potential for a river turbine
installation, similar to one currently under development by AP&T on a trial basis near Eagle, but
its capacity would likely be quite small and thus not a true alternative to the Project. AP&T is
also considering other creeks in the vicinity of Yerrick Creek for future development, however,
they are not next to the existing Tok grid, and transmission line construction would add
considerable cost.
Pros: Compared to diesel generation, the Project will have the following advantages:
• less expensive to operate than diesel (lower O&M);
• no need to purchase fuel;
• no air emissions;
• fewer hazardous substances;
• no particulate matter emissions;
• can come on-line after a power outage almost immediately, but diesel can’t;
• lower and more stable electric rates for customers.
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 10
Cons: As with all hydroelectric projects, the initial cost of development is much higher than for
diesel generation.
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about
the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
Existing Power Generation
There are 6 gensets in the Tok diesel power plant that supply electricity to all four communities,
as follows:
Unit #3 = CAT Model D3516, 1320 kW, Purchased / Installed 1999
Unit #4 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1989
Unit #5 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1995
Unit #7 = CAT Model C175-16, 1800 kW, Installed 2007 (is on loan from CAT as a test unit)
Unit #8 = CAT/KATO Model D3508, 440 kW, Purchased / Installed 1985
Unit #9 = CAT/KATO Model 3512C, 1050 kW, Purchased / Installation in progress 2008
The existing transmission system includes 3-phase overhead line from Tok to Tanacross, single-
phase overhead line from Tanacross to Dot Lake, and 3-phase buried cable from Tok to Tetlin.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
Diesel generation being the existing energy resource, this hydroelectric project will for part of
the year eliminate the use of diesel generators. At other times only one or more diesel gensets
will be needed in addition to the hydro power. This will reduce the use of diesel and the
frequency of their maintenance, including overhauls and replacement. The diesel generators that
would be impacted are all owned and operated by AP&T in the Tok power plant. The Project
will reduce this area’s reliance on fossil fuels. The diesel generators would be placed on standby
to act as a backup to the hydro project, when hydro provides for 100% of the load demand.
Otherwise the diesel generators will still be needed to supplement the hydro during parts of the
year.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The existing energy market is the communities of Dot Lake, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Tok. All four
communities are on the same grid and are therefore supplied by the Tok diesel power plant. Peak
demand is about 1,750 kW. Peak demand is about the same in winter as in summer. Production
by the diesel power plant has averaged about 12,000 MWh for the last ten years, but there has
been a steady decline in the last several years from the maximum generation of about 12,800
MWh in 2003 and 2004. The decline is probably due to the higher cost from the higher diesel
fuel prices.
The Project will allow a decrease in electric rates for AP&T’s customers by reducing the use of
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 11
diesel; at this time the decrease is estimated to be about 20% if the Project is funded as proposed.
AP&T expects that the recent decline in generation will cease or possibly reverse if lower rates
can be achieved. If more renewable energy sources are found for this area, the rates could
continue to fall, but until diesel generation can be eliminated their electric rates will continue to
have fluctuations.
Many customers supplement their electrical use with wood, kerosene, and oil or gas generators,
as well as for heating. Several customers also use propane for cooking, clothes dryers, hot water
heaters, etc. If electric rates come down these other sources use may decline, which would help
clean the air and reduce toxic spills.
Energy demand is expected to grow for this area. There are reports of plans to develop gold
mines in the Tok area in the near future. Recently a battery manufacturing company visited Tok
interested in building a plant there, but then didn’t because of the high electric rates. If the
proposed Alaska gas pipeline goes through Tok, it would include a compression site and tap line
in the Tok area, and a significant increase in population could be expected.
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
• A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
• Optimum installed capacity
• Anticipated capacity factor
• Anticipated annual generation
• Anticipated barriers
• Basic integration concept
• Delivery methods
Renewable energy technology specific to location – The Project will be a conventional run-of-
river hydroelectric project. Facilities to be constructed include:
• 18,000 feet of single lane access road
• Diversion structure, approx. 60 cfs diversion capacity
• 15,000 feet of 36-inch pipeline
• Powerhouse with a single 2,000-kW generating unit
• 2,500 feet of buried 35-kV transmission cable
• Upgrade of 22 miles of 35-kV overhead transmission line
Hydroelectric technology is well developed, and provides most of the renewable energy generated
in the world in general, and in Alaska in particular. The Project will utilize the rainfall and steep
topography afforded by the Yerrick Creek basin to generate renewable energy.
Optimum installed capacity – 2.0 MW (to be confirmed by Phase II studies).
Anticipated capacity factor – 28% (to be confirmed by Phase II studies).
Anticipated annual generation – Approximately 4.9 Gwh/yr, which would off-set about 350,000
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 12
gallons of diesel generation per year.
Anticipated barriers – No technological barriers.
Basic integration concept – Integration of hydropower is not particularly difficult; AP&T already
operates two independent integrated hydro-diesel systems. For much of the year the hydro
generation will be much less than the load, and therefore the diesel generation will be in lead
position and the hydro in lag position. During high flow periods during the summer, the hydro
generation may be sufficient to supply all of the load, in which case the diesels would not operate
and the hydro would be in lead position. During the transition periods, diesel unit(s) will be
block loaded in lag position, with the hydro in lead position.
Delivery methods – Project generation will be delivered to the interconnected Tok system by
about ¼ mile of buried cable from the powerhouse to the existing Tanacross-Dot Lake
transmission line. A portion of that line will be upgraded from single-phase to three-phase.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
Part of the project is on state land and part is on Tanacross, Inc. lands. We are working on an
agreement with Tanacross, Inc. and will get an easement from the state.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information is it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
• List of applicable permits
• Anticipated permitting timeline
• Identify and discussion of potential barriers
Applicable Permits:
• 404 permit (Corps of Engineers)
• Water right (ADNR),
• State land easement(ADNR)
• Fish habitat permit (ADF&G)
• SHPO review.
Permitting Timeline: we are currently conducting studies to support the permit applications and
expect to have the permits by Fall 2009.
Potential Permitting Barriers: ADF&G may determine that water is needed in the bypassed
reach of the creek (between the diversion structure and powerhouse tailrace) for fish habitat.
Current fish studies are determining what habitat is there. If water is needed in the bypassed
reach this could impact operations because that water could not be used for generating
electricity. For a small project this can be a significant economic impact.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
• Threatened or Endangered species
• Habitat issues
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 13
• Wetlands and other protected areas
• Archaeological and historical resources
• Land development constraints
• Telecommunications interference
• Aviation considerations
• Visual, aesthetics impacts
• Identify and discuss other potential barriers
T&E Species: Are not found there and AP&T has not been asked to survey for them.
Habitat Issues: There is some fish habitat for Dolly Varden and possibly grayling that we are
conducting fish surveys for at this time. We hope to resolve any issue. A wetlands delineation
was conducted in August 2008, but we don’t have the report yet.
Wetlands: Wetlands will be avoided when possible. A wetlands delineation report is expected
shortly.
Archaeological Issues: An archaeological survey was conducted the first week of September 2008
per SHPO’s request with a follow up visit expected to still occur to complete the report.
Land Development Constraints: No land development constraints at this time (assumption is that
an agreement will be reached with Tanacross, Inc. and that site analysis will not come up with
any problems). ADF&G has asked AP&T to remain at minimum 66 feet from the creek, except at
the diversion site and powerhouse site, which have to be at the creek. AP&T has no problem with
this request.
Telecommunications Interference: The 34.5 kV transmission line does not create interference
with telecommunications. This size of conductor is frequently found on the same pole with
telephone lines, as they are also found to coexist on AP&T’s poles. Higher voltages can cause
interference however.
Aviation Considerations: This project is not near an airport nor typical flight pattern, nor will the
infrastructure be more than 45 feet above ground, well below safe flying elevation.
Visual & Aesthetic Impacts: Visual and aesthetics are not an issue here, but there would be
minor impacts related to visible human activity. The powerhouse and appurtenances will be
around a bend in the creek and out of sight of the highway with the transmission line buried to
the highway. The existing infrastructure along the highway will only be upgraded to handle
three-phase instead of the current single-phase to Tanacross, where completely new
infrastructure will be installed the remaining 12 miles to Tok.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards,
Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 14
• Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
• Requested grant funding
• Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
• Identification of other funding sources
• Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
• Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
Anticipated project costs:
• Phase I: $37,500 (based on AP&T records)
• Phase II: $239,000 (based on quotes or contracts with service providers)
• Phase III: $593,500 (AP&T estimate based on experience with other projects)
• Phase IV: $13,630,000 (AP&T estimate based on experience with other projects)
• Total: $14,500,000
Requested grant funding: $11,600,000
Applicant matching funds: $2,900,000 (including existing grants awarded to AP&T)
Other sources of funding:
• Rural Utility Service grant (2008) - $1,675,000
• Denali Commission grant (2008) - $100,000
• Total: $1,775,000
Projected capital cost: $13,630,000 (capital cost is assumed to be the cost of Phase IV –
Construction)
Projected development cost: $870,000 (development cost is assumed to be the total cost of Phase I,
II, and III)
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by
the applicant.
• Total anticipated project cost for this phase
• Requested grant funding
AP&T will operate and maintain the Project with proceeds from sale of power to its customers.
No grant funding is requested for operation and maintenance.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
AP&T is developing this Project to supply power to its own interconnected Tok system. This
power ultimately will be sold to AP&T’s customers in Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot Lake at a
lesser cost than the current cost of diesel generation.
Rate of Return: Not calculated.
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 15
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
The Cost Worksheet is attached in Section 7 - Appendices.
4.4.5 Business Plan
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a
minimum proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
AP&T will operate the Project to supply power to AP&T’s interconnected Tok system, for
eventual sale to its retail customers. AP&T will maintain the Project as it does with its other
hydroelectric resources, which can be expected to have a life of at least 50 years. The Project
will be remotely operated, with continuous monitoring by a SCADA system. O&M personnel will
visit the plant at least once per week for routine checks on the equipment. A routine maintenance
schedule will be established, a brief annual shutdown is likely for maintenance.
4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations
Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your
recommendation for additional project development work.
AP&T has prepared an economic analysis for the Project based on the following assumptions:
General Assumptions:
• Term of analysis 50 years (of Project life)
• General inflation rate 2.75%
• Discount rate 0% and 12%
• Interconnected annual generation 12,065 MWh
• Annual load growth rate 0.5%
• PCE rate (2008) $0.3243
• PCE rate escalation 1%
Yerrick Creek Assumptions:
• AEA grant funds $11,600,000
• Other grant funds $1,775,000
• AP&T funds $1,125,000
• Total cost (capital and development costs) $14,500,000
• First year of operation 2011
• Annual O&M cost (2011) $100,000
• O&M escalation rate General inflation rate
• Generation at plant 4,900 MWh/yr
• Generation for sale (less line losses) 4,400 MWh/yr
Diesel Assumptions
• Cost of diesel fuel (2008) $3.58
• Average efficiency 14.4 kWh/Gal
• Fuel escalation rate 3.75%
• Variable O&M cost (2008) $0.01/kWh
• O&M escalation rate General inflation rate
A copy of the economic analysis is provided in Section 7. The analysis shows the following:
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 16
Discount Rate (1) 0% 12%
Net Present Value of
Yerrick Creek Costs (2) $13,565,000 $1,887,000
Net Present Value of
Fuel Cost Savings (3) $184,317,000 $14,811,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio for
AP&T (4)
14.6 8.8
Net Present Value of
PCE Savings $105,540,000 $14,799,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio for
State of Alaska (5) 9.1 1.3
(1) Low and high discount rate values for comparison.
(2) Annualized AP&T capital cost plus O&M cost, discounted
to 2011. AP&T funds annualized over 50 years at the
indicated discount rate.
(3) Annualized costs without Yerrick Creek less annualized
cost with Yerrick Creek, discounted to 2011. AP&T funds
annualized over 50 years at the indicated discount rate.
(4) B/C ratio =[(3)+(4)]/(3)
(5) B/C ratio = NPV of PCE savings divided by proposed AEA
grant amount ($11,600,000).
For purposes of this analysis, the benefits to the State of Alaska are based on the assumption that
the entire generation by the Project would be excluded from PCE reimbursement calculations,
therefore the PCE savings is the Project generation multiplied by the PCE rate.
The analysis is considered to be conservative, since the annual Yerrick Creek generation is
believed to be a low estimate. The analysis indicates positive benefits for all four cases,
therefore, we recommend AEA provide the necessary funding for Project construction as
described in this application.
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings,
and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
• Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
• Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price,
RCA tariff, or avoided cost of ownership)
• Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
• Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available)
• Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
The people of Alaska will benefit from the Project development as follows:
Potential annual fuel displacement: The Project will displace about 350,000 gallons of diesel
fuel, which equates to a savings of $1,252,000 at the Tok average 2008 fuel price [Jan-Aug] of
$3.577 per gallon. Over a 50 year period the Project could potentially save 17,500,000 gallons
Renewable Energy Fund
YERRICK CREEK HYDRO PROJECT Grant
Application
Page 17
of diesel fuel valued at $192,000,000, assuming a 3.75% escalation rate in the price of diesel fuel.
Anticipated annual revenue: AP&T would expect to have a new rate tariff for the Tok system
based on the various funding contributions. If funded as proposed herein, the Project is
estimated to result in a decrease in revenue of about $1,100,000 per year.
Potential additional annual incentives: Not estimated.
Potential additional revenue streams : Not estimated.
Non-economic public benefits to Alaskans: Reduced air emissions and noise, reduced chance for
oil spills.
Other benefits: The State of Alaska would spend less on the PCE program, since the Project
generation would decrease the amount of diesel generation subject to PCE reimbursement. In the
short term the local economy would benefit due to local hire for construction. In the long term,
lower and more stable electric rates could lead to more residential and commercial development,
which in turn would add more income to these communities.
SECTION 6 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much your total project costs. Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by tasks using the form - GrantBudget.xls
Total Project Costs: $14,500,000
Investments to date and funding sources: AP&T has spent approximately $103,000 to date on
development activities for the Project. To date, all costs have been paid out of AP&T’s general
funds, although some costs will be eligible for reimbursement from two grants received to date
(Rural Utility Service - $1,675,000; Alaska Energy Authority - $100,000; Total: $1,775,000).
Amount requested in grant funds: $11,600,000
Additional investment by AP&T: AP&T will provide additional funding as necessary for the
proposed grant from AEA to provide 80% of the total project costs and other sources (including
AP&T) to provide 20%. Additional funding by AP&T is estimated at this time to be $1,125,000.
BLANK PAGE
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. Permit Applications
9. Draft Study Plans (Versions 1 & 2)(Includes ADF&G Comments)
10. NEPA Checklist
11. Cost Worksheet
12. 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
PROJECT SCHEDULE
YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE200820092010JULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECPHASE II: Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual DesignEnvironmental StudiesGeotechnical InvestigationsTopographic MappingConceptual DesignPHASE III: Final Design and PermittingPermit Application PreparationPermit Application ProcessingFinal DesignPHASE IV: ConstructionMobilizationAccess RoadDiversion Structure FabricationsDiversion Structure InstallationPenstock Materials ProcurementPenstock InstallationGenerating Equipment ProcurementPowerhouse FabricationsPowerhouse ConstructionTransmission Line ConstructionTesting and Start-Up
TOK GRID ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS
RESUME’S
REYNOLD GREY MACHINING & SERVICES, INC. 321 No. Otto St. Pt. Townsend, WA. 98368
(360)385-1167 phone (360)385-3212 Fax
RGMACHINESHOP@YAHOO.COM
Established in June of 2003 by Greg and Marcy Mika, Reynold Grey has progressed into a diverse
shop catering to all types and sizes of machining and fabrication work. Flexible describes us best!
As a small town shop we provide a multitude of services in one location to keep costs down. We are
capable of all conventional machining, production CNC machining, all types of welding and
fabrication designed to suit the project, sandblasting and painting.
We are known for our unique approach to problem solving and for the variety of jobs we are capable
of tackling. Providing quality work at affordable pricing is our constant goal.
Following is a few examples of some of the jobs we have completed.
STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK AT PT. HUDSON MARINA IN PT. TOWNSEND, FRIDAY
HARBOR FERRY TERMINAL, GUARD SHACKS AT MC CORD AFB AND MANY MORE.
COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF TURBINES AND TURBINE SHAFTS FOR THE ROCKY BROOK
GENERATION STATION IN BRINNON, WA.
CONVERSION OF SEMI TRAILER INTO A PORTABLE GENERATION STATION TO POWER
THE TOWN OF SLANA, ALASKA.
MULTIPLE HYDRO PROJECTS WITH SQUARES TO ROUND AND ANGLED FLANGES TO
PIPE AND OTHER ASSORTED PROJECT WORK FOR BOTH KASIDAYA AND FALLS
CREEK PROJECTS IN ALASKA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CALL ANYTIME.
SLANA GENERATION STATION
PERMIT APPLICATIONS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 118 FERC ¶ 62,233
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Alaska Power & Telephone Company Docket No. DI07-2-000
ORDER RULING ON DECLARATION OF INTENTION
AND FINDING LICENSING NOT REQUIRED
(Issued March 28, 2007)
1. On January 16, 2007, Alaska Power & Telephone Company filed a
Declaration of Intention (DI) concerning their proposal to develop the Yerrick
Creek Hydro Project, to be located on Yerrick Creek, tributary to the Tanana
River, near the town of Tok, Alaska, affecting T. 18 N., R. 9 E., secs. 1, 2, 11, 14;
T. 18 N., R.10 E., sec. 6; and T. 19 N., R. 9 E., sec. 36, Copper River Meridian.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2. The proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project would include: (1) a small
diversion structure, with a siphon-type intake; (2) a 36-inch-diameter, 11,000-foot-
long penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing a 1.5 MW Pelton-type turbine; (4) a
1.15-mile-long transmission line, connected to an existing power grid; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The project would not be connected to an interstate grid,
and will not occupy any tribal or federal lands.
PUBLIC NOTICE
3. Notice of the DI was issued on January 30, 2007. Protests, comments,
and/or motions to intervene were to be filed by March 2, 2007. No comments,
protests, and/or motions to intervene have been received.
JURISDICTION
4. Pursuant to Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, §817(1), a non-
federal hydroelectric project must (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal
permit) be licensed if it:
▫ is located on a navigable water of the United States;
▫ occupies lands of the United States;
▫ utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
▫ is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce
Clause jurisdiction, undergoes construction or major modification on
Docket No. DI07-2-000 - 2 -
or after August 26, 1935, and the project affects the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce.
DISCUSSION
5. The proposed project will not occupy any public lands or reservations of
the United States and will not use surplus water or water power from a Federal
government dam. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that Yerrick Creek is a
navigable waterway at the site or in the vicinity of the proposed project. The
proposed project will be constructed after August 26, 1935, and is located on a
Commerce Clause waterway, but it will not be connected to an interstate
transmission grid. Therefore, the project would not affect the interests of interstate
or foreign commerce.
6. In some cases, a project’s effects on anadromous fish can constitute an
effect on the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. However, the effect must
be real and substantial. Although the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project
includes a diversion structure, it will not block spawning habitat in the creek. In
addition, the project will not significantly affect flows in the creek. We, therefore,
find that the project would not have a significant effect on anadromous fish in the
creek, and would not affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.
CONCLUSION
7. Section 23(b)(1) of the FPA does not require licensing of the proposed
project. Although the project will be constructed after August 26, 1935, and is
located on a Commerce Clause water, it would not affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce. There is no evidence to suggest that the project
is located on a navigable waterway. If evidence to support the Commission’s
licensing jurisdiction is found in the future, Section 23(b)(1) would require
licensing. Under Section 4(g) of the FPA, the project owner could then be
required to apply for a license.
The Director orders:
(A) Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act does not require licensing
of the proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project. This order is issued without
prejudice to any future determination, upon new or additional evidence, that
licensing is required.
Docket No. DI07-2-000 - 3 -
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by
the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order,
pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713.
William Y. Guey-Lee, Chief
Engineering & Jurisdiction Branch
Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance
DNR LAND EASEMENT
APPLICATION
ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FOR THE
YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
OCTOBER 2007
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project received a non-jurisdictional determination
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on March 28, 2007. This proposed 1.5
MW hydropower project is on the Alaska Highway approximately 20 miles West of Tok
in South Central Alaska, as shown in Figure 1. The Project is located within the Copper
River Meridian (CRM), the Township of T18N, the Range of R9E, and the Sections 1, 2,
11, and 14, and CRM, T19N, R9E, Section 36, as shown in Figure 1. The Project will
utilize the natural flows in Yerrick Creek. The creek has an estimated drainage area of
approximately 30.0 SQMI from the point of the proposed diversion structure.
The proposed project is located on lands not owned by the United States and is on a non-
navigable stream. Yerrick Creek is a small mountain stream emanating from the Alaska
Range dropping from approximately 4,500 feet in elevation to the Tanana River at
elevation 1,700 over a distance of about 7 miles. A photo of this creek, which is known to
have active debris torrents, because of the steep, non-navigable slope, is below. The
project will provide hydroelectric power to an area solely reliant upon diesel generation.
The area grid this project would intertie with is operated by AP&T, and the communities
on this grid that would benefit are Tok, Dot Lake, Tanacross, and Tetlin.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTlON
The proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project will consist of a 2.3 MW generating
system that will provide hydroelectric power to the AP&T grid around Tok which
is presently solely reliant upon diesel generation. The project will have a small
diversion structure, penstock, powerhouse, and a small substation.
A small diversion structure will be constructed at the approximate elevation of
2350 feet. A siphon type intake will extend into the pond created by the diversion
structure. The intake will convey water from the diversion structure pond to a
penstock entrance at elevation 2350.
The 36-inch diameter penstock will extend a distance of approximately 11,000
feet to the powerhouse, at elevation 1750 feet. The penstock will be either buried
or above ground or a combination of both. The powerhouse will contain one
horizontal shaft Pelton turbine and associated synchronous generator.
The turbine will be capable of handling a maximum flow of 60 cfs. A tailrace
channel will transport the turbine discharge back into Yerrick Creek. The
transmission line will follow a new road for approximately 0.5 miles to the
existing power grid operated by the applicant, APC. At the highway a substation
will be installed to connect the project to the grid.
Project Description for State Land Lease Yerrick Creek Hydro Project
October 2007 Page 2
This project will be a step toward energy independence for this remote area that is
geographically isolated and is reliant upon fossil fuel for its energy needs. This
project will help to avoid the related costs and air quality emissions associated
with diesel generation.
The Project would typically be automatically operated, base-load, run-of-river,
depending upon load power demands.
Photo of Yerrick Creek
Land Status
The proposed project is located on State of Alaska land and private land. No
portion of the project is on Federal land.
Project Description for State Land Lease Yerrick Creek Hydro Project
October 2007 Page 3
TYPICAL IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN TO BE USED
LOOKING UP AT IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE AND VIEW OF SPILLWAY
Project Description for State Land Lease Yerrick Creek Hydro Project
October 2007 Page 4
DNR WATER RIGHTS APPLICATION
Glen Martin
From: Glen Martin [glen.m@aptalaska.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:34 AM
To: 'Durst, James D (DNR)'
Cc: Mac McLean (mac.mclean@alaska.gov)
Subject: RE: Yerrick Creek
Page 1 of 1
3/31/2008
Jim,
How goes getting that information together on Yerrick Creek? I'm anxious to hire a
biologist and want to let them know what they are getting into. Also, want to get
the study plan developed and get agency review going, all of which is contingent
upon your letter. ☺
Thanks,
Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: Durst, James D (DNR) [mailto:james.durst@alaska.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:28 AM
To: glen.m@aptalaska.com
Subject: Yerrick Cr
Glen:
Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about the Yerrick Creek
letter we discussed. Things have been a bit busy around here lately.
-Jim
SHPO REVIEW
DRAFT STUDY PLAN
JUNE 2008
YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DRAFT STUDY PLAN
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APC proposes to construct a run-of-river hydroelectric project that will interconnect with
the grid supplying electricity to the communities of Tetlin, Tok, Dot Lake, and
Tanacross. This grid is presently wholly reliant upon diesel generation. APC is the
certified utility for this area along the Alaska Highway and is within the boundaries of
APC’s certificate from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. This project is called the
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project is located approximately 20 miles
west of Tok on the Alaska Highway at Milepost 1339. Although APC’s existing
transmission infrastructure follows the
highway right-of-way past the project
site, this infrastructure (conductor) will
need to be upgraded to handle the load
from the project. Project capacity is
expected to be 2-3 megawatts (MW).
Project features would include a small
diversion structure, an approximately
11,000 foot long penstock, powerhouse
with a single impulse turbine (Pelton or
Turgo) and generator, tailrace, small
substation, and transmission line to and
along the Alaska Highway, as shown in
Figure 1. The building season is short at this north latitude, so it will take two years to
complete this project. This project not only will provide clean, renewable energy that
will stabilize rates, but will provide a stable source of energy that can quickly come on
line after power outages, which makes it one of the best renewable resources. The cost to
maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel generation. The existing
diesel generation plant in Tok will continue to supplement the grid as the hydro project is
only expected to provide electricity for 100% of the load part of the year and down to
approximately 10% of the load during low flow periods of the year, such as during the
winter.
This project will reduce the cost of electricity to the residents of Tetlin, Tok, Tanacross and
Dot Lake who presently pay $0.36 per kWh. Once the hydroelectric project interties with
the Tok grid, the cost per kWh will be reduced by approximately 20%. The environmental
impacts, i.e. air pollution, noise pollution, spills, etc., of any self-generation will be
significantly reduced by this intertie, as well as from generation at APC’s powerplant in
Tok. During part of the year it is estimated the entire load can be carried by the
hydroelectric project, and during the winter the use of diesel generation will supplement the
hydroelectric project.
This hydroelectric project will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 509,800
gallons per year, which at 2007 prices is equivalent to $1,157,246 annually. The existing
diesel plant in Tok, which supplies electricity to all four communities, would use fewer
diesel generators to meet the remaining load, reducing labor and maintenance costs and the
frequency of generator overhaul and replacement for a potential savings of $1,153,200
annually. At present usage levels, this hydroelectric project would save the residents of all
four communities approximately $693,043 per year (2007). Lower energy costs would help
stimulate development, both economically and home building.
2.0 Project Components
The project facilities described herein are based on a preliminary evaluation of the site,
and represent the maximum degree of resource development. The proposed project
features are described in more detail below:
Impoundment
The project design for this run-of-river hydroelectric project include construction of either a
concrete, steel, or other material impoundment structure. The impoundment structure is
likely to be made of sheet piling to create a barrier that will impound enough water for an
intake to remove it and generate electricity at the powerhouse. Due to the depth of the
cobble expected in Yerrick Creek, it is not expected that the sheet pile will reach bedrock,
and therefore it is expected that some water will go subterranean under the impoundment
structure and surface further down the creek.
Penstock
The penstock is estimated to be approximately 11,000 feet in length and would probably
consist of a combination of HDPE and steel or iron pipe. The penstock is proposed to be on
the surface rather than buried to keep costs down. The diameter of the penstock may be
approximately 36-inches. The penstock would parallel the creek down to the powerhouse
requiring some clearing along its right-of-way.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse would be a metal structure of approximately 30 x 40 feet with a height of
approximately 25 feet. The powerhouse would contain the controls for the operation of the
project, including switchgear, Pelton or Turgo impulse turbine, a generator rated at 2-3 MW,
and controls for valves at the impoundment structure. After the water passes through the
turbine it will fall into a tailrace that will discharge back into Yerrick Creek above the
highway bridge that spans the creek.
Access Road
An access road would be constructed to the powerhouse from off the Alaska Highway. The
road is expected to be less than a mile in length. Another access road would come down the
west side of Yerrick Creek from the impoundment structure, due to its more moderate
elevation changes, to the powerhouse site. The one lane access road width would be
approximately 14-feet wide with frequent pullouts.
Substation
A small pad-mount step-up transformer will be adjacent to the powerhouse to adjust the
voltage for the transmission line to Tok.
Transmission Line
The transmission line will go from the powerhouse step-up transformer to intertie with the
Tok grid along the Alaska Highway, approximately one mile away. This would require
approximately 20 vertical wood pole structures set about 300 feet apart.
Land Ownership
The enclosed Figure 2 is a project map showing property boundaries in relation to the
project features. The project will be located on land managed by the State of Alaska and
Tanacross, Inc., a Village Corporation.
Environmental Impacts
Previous man-made land disturbance (old gas pipeline corridor paralleling the highway,
which was once cleared of vegetation) has left a footprint on the environment that will
reduce this projects impacts by utilizing the corridor for part of the access road and
powerhouse site. Impacts to wetlands will occur as areas along the access route are in
muskeg. The access route will parallel the creek on its west side. It is estimated that
approximately 5-6 acres of land would be disturbed, with possibly ¾’s being in muskeg
and the creek. To mitigate this, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
implemented to confine impacts during construction, of which silt fencing and straw or
hay bales would play a significant part, and repair after construction where possible.
Construction methods, i.e. minimize the construction footprint, will also keep impacts to
a minimum.
DRAFT STUDY PLAN
Existing Resources
Much of the information presented here is from the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (east
of the project) website, and hence the mention of Refuge throughout this description.
The Refuge’s data is used because of its proximity to the project area and wealth of
information available on indigenous species of the area, however, the Refuge’s
geography is different then that of Yerrick Creek which is primarily a mountainous
drainage whereas the Refuge is more lowlands. With that caveat in mind, here is
information on species that may be present.
Botanical Resources
Boreal forest (taiga) and upland tundra are the dominant vegetation types in all of interior
Alaska. In the alpine areas, dry, broad ridge tops are dominated by dryas dwarf scrub and
ericaceous dwarf scrub tundra vegetation. Mesic to moist saddles, slopes, and snow-melt
meadows support mesic graminoid herbaceous and open, low scrub vegetation. Rock-
dominated sites support alpine herbs.
Aquatic Resources
The Department of Natural Resources, Habitat Management Division, provided the
following information in an April 7, 2008, letter to AP&T regarding the Yerrick Creek
drainage.
“Yerrick Creek provides habitat for a variety of non-anadromous fish species, including
Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, round whitefish, and slimy sculpin. Arctic grayling and
round whitefish are fairly ubiquitous in Tanana River basin stream systems, but the
presence of Dolly Varden in Yerrick Creek makes this stream somewhat unusual.
“Fish presence and habitat near the mouth and in the lower reaches of Yerrick Creek
(well downstream of the Alaska Highway) are poorly documented, although habitat for a
variety of species including Arctic grayling, northern pike, burbot, round whitefish, lake
chub, longnose sucker, and slimy sculpin occurs here. Stream flow in portions of Yerrick
Creek in this reach are completely subsurface at times. If operated as run-of-river, the
Yerrick Creek Hydropower project is unlikely to affect these downstream fish resources
and habitats.
“That portion of Yerrick Creek from downstream of the Alaska Highway to upstream of
the Haines-Fairbanks Pipeline crossing has been the most surveyed for fish presence and
use. Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden have been found present from the beginning of
June through late August, and Arctic grayling through late November (under ice cover).
Round whitefish were present in late summer. Even when this reach appears frozen, high
quality water is typically flowing in at least one channel below the ice; adult aquatic
invertebrates were hatching from a small channel under ice in the third week of March
one year. Although Yerrick Creek flow apparently goes subsurface in various locations
between the Alaska Highway and the Tanana River for much of most summers, the
portion of the stream between the mountains and the subsurface flow appears to provide
connected surface flow and habitat.
“Adult and juvenile Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden have been captured upstream of
the proposed diversion structure location up to where Yerrick Creek forks more than 6
miles above the Alaska Highway crossing. A small falls downstream of the fork is
apparently not a fish barrier. Biologists suggested that this reach between the ridges
may be used for grayling spawning and for grayling and Dolly Varden over-wintering
habitats. Sheep hunters have reported seeing fish in stream portions in the upper part of
the drainage that appeared to provide good habitat.”
Wildlife Resources
The Department of Natural Resources, Habitat Management Division, provided the
following information in an April 7, 2008, letter to AP&T regarding the Yerrick Creek
drainage.
“The Yerrick Creek drainage is used by a variety of big game species including moose,
caribou, and Dall sheep, and is part of the Tok Management Area for Dall sheep. A
significant amount of sheep hunting occurs in this drainage. Some sheep hunters have
reported being able to walk up the Yerrick Creek streambed to access sheep country
since the stream in portions was mostly gravel and rocks with a relatively small channel
of water meandering through.”
Dall Sheep (Ovis dalli)
The Dall sheep is a stocky sheep that utilize nearly inaccessible, steep mountain slopes,
ridges and meadows for feeding and resting. They are generally high country animals but
sometimes occur in rocky gorges below timberline in Alaska.
They are mostly white and weigh between 125 and 200 pounds. Male Dall sheep are
called rams and are distinguished by massive curling, yellowish horns. The females,
ewes, have shorter, more slender, slightly curved horns. Dall sheep are sometimes
mistaken for mountain goats, however, the mountain goat has long fur and a beard, and
small, slender, black horns that curve slightly backward.
A single young lamb is born in late May or early June. Lambs begin feeding on
vegetation within a week after birth and are usually weaned by October. Sheep have well-
developed social systems. Adult rams live in bands which seldom associate with female
groups except during the mating season in late November and early December.
Yerrick Creek is one of the few drainages on the north side of the range that has provided
historical access to Dall sheep hunting grounds (Cathedral Rapids Creeks and Sheep
Creek being the others). For this reason, maintaining access to these hunting grounds
without providing ‘improved’ access that could further stress the population would be the
goal of project design. Gating any access road to the project would be the preferred
method of maintaining access for hunters as exists today, although they would be able to
hike up the road on foot to the projects impoundment site, but would not be able to drive
up the drainage beyond what they presently can. This could be viewed as an impact by
providing an easier hike into part of the drainage.
Moose (Alces alces)
Moose are the world's largest members of the deer family and are most abundant in
recently burned areas that contain willow and birch shrubs, on timberline plateaus, and
along the major rivers of Southcentral and Interior Alaska. During fall and winter, moose
consume large quantities of willow, birch, and aspen twigs. In the spring, moose eat a
variety of foods, particularly sedges, equisetum (horsetail), pond weeds, and grasses.
During summer, moose feed on vegetation in shallow ponds, forbs, and the leaves of
birch, willow, and aspen.
Moose are long-legged and heavy bodied with a "bell" or dewlap under the chin; only the
bulls have antlers. Their color ranges from golden brown to almost black, depending
upon the season and the age of the animal. The hair of newborn calves is generally red-
brown fading to a lighter rust color within a few weeks.
Calves are born any time from mid-May to early June after a gestation period of about
230 days; newborns weigh 28 to 35 pounds and within five months grow to over 300
pounds. Males can weigh from 1,200 to 1,600 pounds and females weigh 800 to 1,300
pounds.
Moose are common in this area and are also hunted in this and the adjoining drainages.
Yerrick Creek is brushy habitat, providing food for Moose including the few small lakes
and marshes approximately 0.5 miles west of the creek. Moose may be temporarily
impacted by this project from construction activity, but should otherwise not be impacted.
If the penstock (pipe) is kept on the surface (least expensive method of construction) and
placed on saddles that elevate the penstock from 6-12 inches (and assuming the penstock
will have a diameter of 36-inches), it could be a barrier to young moose, but adults should
be able to get over. The alternatives would be to partially bury, or place berms
approximately every 300 feet on either side to allow mammals to get past the penstock.
Due to variances in the terrain, if the penstock is on the surface it may be suspended over
ravines or be partially buried through a rise, or be 6-12 inches above flat terrain.
Caribou (Rangifer tarandus)
All caribou and reindeer throughout the world are considered to be the same species, but
there are 7 subspecies, two of which occur in Alaska: barren ground and woodland.
Caribou have special adaptations that allow them to survive their harsh arctic
environment. Long legs and broad, flat hooves allow them walk on snow, and a dense
woolly undercoat overlain by stiff, hollow guard hairs helps keep them warm. Caribou
are also the only member of the deer family in which both sexes grow antlers. Antlers of
adult bulls are large and massive; those of adult cows are much shorter and are usually
more slender. In late fall, caribou are clove-brown with a white neck, rump, and feet and
often have a white flank stripe. Weights of adult bulls average 350 to 400 pounds and
females average 175 to 225 pounds.
Barren Ground Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti)
In the United States, Alaska is the only state that supports a healthy barren ground
caribou population. Barren ground caribou are found in the arctic tundra, mountain
tundra, and northern forests of North America, Russia, and Scandinavia.
Calving occurs in late May to early June. After calving, barren ground caribou collect in
large “postcalving aggregations”. Migration then begins in the fall, where large herds
often travel long distances (up to 400 miles) between summer and winter ranges. During
the summer, barren ground caribou feed on the leaves of willows, sedges, flowering
tundra plants, and mushrooms. They switch to lichens, dried sedges, and small shrubs
during the fall.
Portions of four different barren caribou herds winter on or near Tetlin National Wildlife
Refuge. The Nelchina Herd (> 30,000 animals), makes up the majority of caribou that
pass through or winter on the Refuge. The Fortymile Herd (> 40,000 animals) is
generally found north of the Refuge during the winter, although occasional individuals
are also on Refuge lands. The remaining two herds are much smaller (< 1,000 animals).
The Mentasta Herd calves on the slopes of Mt. Sanford in the Wrangell Mountains with a
few individuals lingering some years in the southwest portion of the Refuge. The
Macomb Herd calves northwest of the Refuge on the Macomb Plateau, and rarely moves
onto Refuge lands.
According to ADF&G, Caribou are known to pass through the Yerrick Creek drainage.1
Gray (Timber) Wolf (Canis lupus)
Wolves are described as having the greatest natural range of any terrestrial mammal,
excluding humans. Most wolves in Alaska weigh between 85 and 115 pounds with most
females rarely reaching more than 110 pounds. Color varies greatly from pure black to
almost white. Wolves in southern Alaska tend to be darker and slightly smaller than
those in the Arctic.
Wolves are skilled hunters and prey on a variety of species including moose, caribou,
hares, beaver, fish, mice and other small mammals. Most wolves hunt and live in packs
that range from two to thirty wolves; six or seven is the average.
Breeding occurs January through March and the pups are born in late May to early June.
Litter size varies from two to thirteen but averages four to seven pups. Females usually
will produce a litter every year. The packs usually include the parents and the current
year’s pups. The young are usually not able to kill large game for themselves until late
winter when they have reached adult size.
Wolves may pass through the Yerrick Creek drainage in pursuit of game.
Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus)
Snowshoe hares average 18 to 20 inches in length and weigh three to four pounds. Their
summer coats are yellowish to grayish brown with white underparts, and the tail is brown
on top. During the winter, their coat is replaced by white fur, but the hair is dusky at the
base with a gray underfur. Snowshoes’ ears are dark at the tip.
Hares are found in mixed spruce forests, wooded swamps, and brushy areas. They feed
on a variety of vegetation including grasses, buds, twigs, leaves, needles, and bark.
Snowshoe hares travel on well-established trails or runways at all times of the year.
Young are born April thru August with two to three litters per year. Litters average two
to four leverets (young hares) and can range from one to seven. Leverets weigh about
two ounces at birth and can walk as soon as their fur is dry. They are weaned after about
a month, but will eat green vegetation at only two weeks old.
Refuge staff monitor relative snowshoe hare population abundance with permanent mile-
long transects. Hare populations on the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (east of the
1 Personal communication between AP&T and Jeff Gross, Tok ADF&G Office, May 2008.
project) cycle every 8 to 11 years and appear to follow those in central Yukon by about a
year.
Snowshoe hares could use the Yerrick Creek drainage.
Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
Wolverines are among the least understood large carnivores in North America and the
largest land-dwelling member of the weasel family. Most wolverines weigh 15 to 45
pounds and stand 15 to 18 inches at the shoulder. Females are smaller than males. Their
coats are glossy dark brown with two pale lateral stripes converging at the base of the
tail. Wolverine heads are gray with black muzzles, short ears, and dark eyes. They are
described as having a low-slung body with powerful legs and large, curved claws.
Wolverines are omnivorous (eat both meat and plants) and will eat anything from berries
to moose. They also feed on small mammals such as voles, squirrels, and hares.
Although they are very strong for their size, their reputation for ferocious attacks on large
carnivores has been exaggerated. They will vigorously defend their food, but do tend to
avoid bears, wolves, and other large predators. Wolverines are solitary hunters and roam
large areas in search of food.
Breeding occurs May through July and the kits are born in January through April. Kits
emerge from their dens, usually in snow caves, hollow stumps, or under rock piles, in
early summer and remain with their mother until fall.
Wolverines appear to occur at low density levels in the Upper Tanana Valley. They are
primarily found in the foothills and mountainous areas where access is limited. It is
possible that wolverines may use or pass through the Yerrick Creek drainage.
River (Land) Otter (Lontra canadensis)
River otters have a powerful, low-slung, slender body and flattened heads. They have a
tapered tail, short legs, and webbed feet. Large males can grow to almost five feet long
and stand 9 to 10 inches high at the shoulder. Most river otters weigh between 15 and 35
pounds with females being about a quarter smaller than males. The fur is very dense and
with shades of brown that are distinctively lighter on the underparts, chin, and throat.
River otters eat mainly fish but also consume a variety of foods including shellfish,
insects, frogs, birds, eggs, small mammals, and vegetation. They are mostly aquatic but
will travel distances over land to reach another stream or lake. River otters are also social
and tend to travel in pairs or larger groups.
Breeding usually occurs May to July with young born in April or May. Litters average
two pups and can range from one to five.
Although not common, characteristic signs of this wetland furbearer can be found
throughout the Refuge wherever there are beaver ponds or open water in winter. In
summer, they are occasionally seen along fishing streams.
River otters may also use or pass through the Yerrick Creek drainage, though they may
more likely be below the highway toward the Tanana River. There are no beaver dams
on Yerrick Creek within the range of the projects impacts.
Marten (Martes americana)
The long, beautiful, chocolate brown coat of marten lead to its nickname: American
Sable. A streak of lighter fur usually runs from the throat onto the chest. They have a
fox-like face with broad rounded ears and unlike other members of the weasel family, a
long bushy tail. Male marten grow 10 to 25 inches long plus an 8-inch tail and weigh up
to 3 pounds. Females are substantially smaller.
Marten are mostly nocturnal and spend a great deal of their time in trees. They inhabit
mature conifer forests and prey on red squirrels and other small mammals but will vary
their diet with snowshoe hares, insects, birds, eggs, fruit and nuts.
Breeding usually occurs July to August with young born in April. Litters average two to
four and the newborns are six inches long, weighing only one ounce. They develop
slowly and are about half of adult size by mid-July. By fall the young are independent
and leave their mother to become solitary hunters.
Marten could be present in the Yerrick Creek drainage.
Fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Red fox usually weigh between six and fifteen pounds, standing 16 to 18 inches high at
the shoulder. The most common color is a rich red-gold, with black legs and feet. The
chest and underparts are usually white with a long bushy tail also tipped in white. Other
color variations include pure black and silver.
Red fox are omnivorous. They appear to prefer mice and hares, but also feed upon birds,
eggs, plants, berries, and insects.
Breeding occurs February thru March and the pups are born in April to May. Litter size
averages four pups. Females usually will produce a litter every year. The pups remain in
the den for the first three or four weeks and continue to hunt from it for the next three
months. The family will break up in the fall and each individual will goes its own way.
Foxes may use the Yerrick Creek drainage.
Black Bear (Ursus americanus)
The term “black” used to describe this species is not entirely accurate. Black bears come
in a variety of colors from brown to gray and the occasional cream, although black with a
brown muzzle is the most common. Brown colored black bears are often confused with
brown bears but normally Brown bears are much larger. Black bears also have a smaller,
more pointed head with a straight profile. Brown bears have a more rounded head and
dished-shaped face along with a distinctive hump on their shoulders that is lacking in the
black bear. Average male black bears weigh between 180 to 200 pounds depending on
the season and stand over two feet tall at the shoulder. Females are usually around 120 to
150 pounds also depending upon the season.
Black bears are omnivorous (eat both meat and plants), although vegetation makes up a
substantial portion of their diet. Their diet varies from vegetation in the spring to fish in
some areas during the summer. Otherwise, their diet consists mostly of berries and
insects.
Breeding occurs June through July and the cubs are born in January or February,
weighing only 8 to 10 ounces. Litter size varies from one to four, with twins being the
most common. The cubs are weaned by September but will den with their mothers their
second winter, after which they will be on their own. Females typically breed every year
in good habitat.
Black bears are typically dormant during the winter months. Denning times can vary
depending on location, snow levels, and temperature. Like brown bears, their
metabolism and temperature are lowered and their need for food and water are
eliminated. Bears in colder climates will remain in their dens longer and males typically
emerge before females.
Black bear have been observed in and around the Yerrick Creek drainage.
Brown Bear (Ursus arctos)
Brown bears tend to be larger than black bears. Brown bears are considered the largest
living land carnivore. Though polar bears can be larger, they are not considered to be
land dwelling. Brown bear sizes vary depending on location, time of year, age and
gender. Most male brown bears range from 500 to 900 pounds. Color varies greatly
from black with silver tipped hair to blonde. Males tend to be darker than females and
cubs often sport a white collar during their first summer. Although the same species,
Alaskans typically refer to coastal bears as “browns” and interior bears as “grizzlies”.
The grizzlies of the Tetlin Refuge are smaller and lighter in weight than those in southern
and western Alaska. Grizzlies occur throughout the entire Refuge at a low density, but
are more abundant along the foothills and mountains.
Brown bears have a varied diet ranging from grasses in the spring, berries in the summer,
and fish during the fall. Meat is not usually a major component of the bears’ diet but they
will eat whatever they can catch which includes marmots, porcupines, squirrels, mice,
moose, and caribou.
Breeding occurs May thru July and the cubs are born in January / February, weighing
only 8 to 10 ounces. Litter size varies from one to four, with twins being the most
common. Most females nurse their young for two summers, and then wean the cubs
during the third.
Brown bears typically “hibernate” in dens during the winter months. Denning times can
vary depending on location, snow levels, and temperature. While denning, the bears’
metabolism and temperature are lowered and their need for food and water are
eliminated. Bears in colder climates remain in their dens longer and males typically
emerge before females.
It is possible Brown bears, or grizzlies, pass through Yerrick Creek in pursuit of forbs
and game.
Birds
The Refuge provides habitat for 143 breeding and 47 migrating bird species (Bird
Checklist - pdf) and serves as a major migration corridor for many of the bird species that
are entering or leaving interior Alaska. Compared to the rest of Alaska, the diversity of
landbirds is high because the Refuge is located within a major migration corridor and a
number of species reach their northern range limit here. However, extreme winter
weather sends most birds traveling south, leaving only about 25 resident species year
round.
The Refuge was set aside primarily for its unique waterfowl values. It has one of
Alaska’s highest densities of nesting waterfowl and annually produces an estimated
35,000 to 65,000 ducklings. Spectacular migrations of lesser sandhill cranes, tundra and
trumpeter swans occur each spring and fall. Up to 200,000 cranes, representing about
one half of the world population, migrate through this corridor. The Refuge also provides
habitat for an expanding population of trumpeter swans and for the largest concentration
of nesting osprey in Alaska. Raptors such as bald eagles are common nesters along the
major rivers and shorelines of larger lakes. Peregrine falcons can be seen once again as
new pairs find local cliffs for nesting. Nine species of marsh and waterbirds, and 26
species of shorebirds occur on the refuge.
Landbirds
Tetlin Refuge has a comprehensive landbird monitoring program that is consistent with
the International Partners in Flight Initiative. This includes maintaining migratory bird
arrival dates, participating in the North American Migration Count, Breeding Bird
Surveys, off-road point counts, and fall migration banding. In addition, a Christmas Bird
Count is conducted each winter and an Upper Tanana Bird Festival is hosted by the
Refuge in mid-May.
Four Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) routes in eastern interior Alaska are annually
completed. Off-road point counts were established on the Refuge in 1994 as part of a
pilot project for Boreal Partners in Flight. Seven routes are monitored each year.
A fall migration banding station was established in 1993 seven miles east of Tok and has
been operated daily in August and September each year. This long-term banding effort is
part of a regional landbird monitoring program and helps to monitor landbird populations
not adequately monitored by the Breeding Bird Survey. The most common species
captured are: slate-colored junco, swainson’s thrush, Wilson’s warbler, ruby-crowned
kinglet, myrtle (yellow-rumped) warbler, and orange-crowned warbler.
Relatively few species of birds are residents on the Refuge. Gray jay, black-billed
magpie, common raven, black-capped chickadee, boreal chickadee, and redpolls are the
most common species with lesser numbers of the non-migratory owls and woodpeckers.
White-winged crossbills are abundant during productive cone crop years.
Spruce grouse, ruffed grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and willow ptarmigan are uncommon
breeders on the Refuge. Rock ptarmigan are rarely seen but may breed in the upper
Cheslina River drainage. Sharp-tailed grouse have increased, especially in the Tok and
Tetlin Village areas following the Tok River Fire in 1990.
Raptors
Thirteen species of hawks are known to occur on Tetlin Refuge. Usually present in small
numbers, bald eagle, osprey, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, and
American kestrel are confirmed breeders. Less frequently observed northern goshawk,
golden eagle, merlin, peregrine falcon, and gyrfalcon are rare breeders on the Refuge.
Rough-legged hawks are uncommon migrants. Turkey vultures and Swainson’s hawks
are casual visitors.
Six species of owls occur on the Refuge, the most common being the great horned owl.
Northern hawk owls, great gray owls, and boreal owls can be fairly common some years.
The short-eared owl is a migrant and casual summer breeder, while the snowy owl is a
casual visitor in fall and winter.
The American peregrine falcon is the only previously endangered species found on the
Refuge. The population of this species/race has been increasing nation-wide and was de-
listed in 1999. The first peregrine falcon nest on Tetlin Refuge was discovered in June
1994 along the Nabesna River nearly 100 river miles upstream from the closest known
nest site. Recovering peregrine populations have increased their density within their
nesting range in the Upper Tanana Valley in the last decade, doubling the number of
territories in the last 4 years to 16 presently known above the Robertson River.
Extensive raptor surveys have been completed annually since 1991. Most raptor nests are
located along the rivers and wetlands.
Waterfowl
Green-winged teal, mallard, American wigeon, ring-necked duck, scaup (primarily
lesser) and bufflehead are the most abundant ducks breeding on the Refuge. Smaller
numbers of northern pintail, northern shoveler, Barrow’s goldeneye, common goldeneye,
white-winged scoter, surf scoter, canvasback and blue-winged teal are known to breed
here as well. Rarely sightings are made of common mergansers, redheads, ruddy ducks,
gadwall and harlequin ducks which also breed in the area, or of long-tailed ducks which
do not. An estimated 35,000 to 65,000 ducklings are produced on Tetlin Refuge each
year.
The Refuge lies along an important migration route for both Canada and greater white-
fronted geese that migrate to and from the state. Occasionally snow geese and brant are
seen during migration. Canada geese breed on the refuge in small numbers.
The Refuge provides important habitat for migrating tundra and trumpeter swans during
spring and fall. Over 200 trumpeter swans were banded and neck collared from 1983 to
1984 and from 1989 to 1995. Recoveries and sightings of banded trumpeter swans help
identify their wintering habitat as being coastal wetlands and fields from the central coast
of British Columbia to northern Puget Sound.
Waterbirds
Nine species of marsh and water birds occur on the Refuge with horned grebe, pacific
loon, and red-necked grebe being the most common breeders. Common loons are rare
breeders and red-throated loons are considered casual. A small number of sandhill cranes
nest on the muskeg flats in the northern third of the refuge. During spring and fall
migration, up to 200,000 sandhill cranes (one half of the entire world population) can
pass through the Tanana River Valley. The numbers seen from year to year vary
depending on weather conditions which affect their flight paths. The Upper Tanana
Valley is one of the few places in Alaska where sora and American coot are found
regularly.
While some 26 species of shorebirds occur on the Refuge, most are migrants passing
between wintering and breeding grounds. The most abundant breeding shorebird is the
ubiquitous lesser yellowlegs. Common snipe are less abundant but widely distributed,
while spotted sandpipers are common along watercourses. Red-necked phalaropes are
often seen during fall migration. Mew and Bonaparte's gulls are common breeders. The
American golden plover, upland sandpiper, and whimbrel breed in the alpine areas.
Avian species of all types may pass through the Yerrick Creek drainage because of its
proximity to the Tanana River. There are also a few wetlands within or adjacent to the
drainage that may attract waterfowl and predators alike during the summer months.
Cultural - Historical Resources
A review of the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) documents and related data
sources at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) for records of known
AHRS sites and previous cultural resource investigations in or near the Areas of Potential
Effect (APE) was conducted by a certified archaeologist. One site was found on the west
side of Yerrick Creek (TNX-074) that will be along the access road and penstock route.
This site can be avoided by project alignment.
Study Plan
Botanical Resources
A wetland delineation of the project will be conducted.
Aquatic Resources
Fish surveys by Steve Grabacki are being conducted this summer and fall. Surveys are
focused on Arctic Grayling, Dolly Varden, and Round Whitefish. This will be a
multiyear baseline fisheries survey going from the summer 2008 to late winter of 2008-
2009. Gear to be used are minnow traps, hoop traps, fyke nets, gillnets, dip nets, spat
collectors, etc. All specimens will be released alive. Studies will occur above, at, and
downstream of the possible impoundment site. The objective in this first year of
surveying is to examine for use by all life stages of fishes, including – summer residency,
migratory pathway, over-wintering, spawning, rearing, etc. Three sampling trips are
planned – a reconnaissance level survey in early summer (angling only), a full-scope
sampling in late summer, and a late-winter examination of over-wintering habitat (in
2009). The first report will be submitted by the end of December 2008.
Both Yerrick Creek and the drainage just west of Yerrick Creek, Cathedral Rapids Creek
#1 will be surveyed. Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 will be surveyed for potential future
consideration if more water is needed for electricity. This survey will give us a baseline
on Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 so we will have advanced knowledge to make any future
determination of its use. However, at this point in time we propose to only develop
Yerrick Creek.
Wildlife Resources
We request input and guidance from the resource agencies, however, it is expected that
certain species of mammal may utilize the project corridor and therefore attempt to cross
project features. The project will remain in close proximity to the west side of Yerrick
Creek as it parallels the creek between the impoundment and powerhouse. The penstock
(pipe) will be passable because it will be buried along most or all of its length, allowing
mammals, including hunters, access to and through the project site. Therefore, wildlife
passage should not be an issue. In addition, this project is in the lower part of this
drainage (but above the highway) and for that reason is less likely to be in important
habitat as may be the case for further up the valley. We view this project as having
limited impacts to wildlife in the area.
Cultural – Historical Resources
A review by an archaeologist has already been completed and the report will be
submitted to SHPO for their review and comments.
RESOURCES
ADF&G, Biological Information Needs, Letter, April 7, 2008.
Browne, Patricia, Findings of AHRS Data Review and Evaluation of Cultural Resources
Potential for Hydroelectric Project Development…, June 5, 2008.
Grabacki, Stephen, 2008-2009 Study Plan for Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek
#1. June 2008.
Gross, Jeff, ADF&G, Personal communication in which wildlife species were discussed
for the project area, and in particular info on Dall Sheep hunting in area. May
2008.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/black_bear.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/birds.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/brown_bear.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/caribou.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/dall_sheep.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/fox.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/marten.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/moose.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/otter.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/snowshoe_hare.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolf.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolverine.htm
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm
DRAFT STUDY PLAN
JULY 2008
July 22, 2008
To: All Agencies
Regarding: Yerrick Creek Hydro Draft Study Plan – Version 2
Dear Agency Representatives:
Enclosed is a revised draft study plan for your review for the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric
Project, located approximately 20 miles west of Tok on the Alaska Highway. A project
description and map are included in the draft study plan. This plan incorporates
ADF&G’s comments and provides more detail on what studies are being conducted.
Please provide your comments by August 29, 2008. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Glen D. Martin
Project Manager
glen.m@aptalaska.com
(360) 385-1733 x122
Enc. (as stated)
Cc: Deborah Rocque, USF&WS
Victor Ross, COE
Krissy Plett, DNR-Water
Jim Vohden, ADNR Water
Chris Milles, DNR-Land
Tim Wingerter, DEC
Jim Ferguson, ADF&G
Fronty Parker, ADF&G
Jeff Gross, ADF&G
Todd Nichols, ADF&G
Mac McLean, ADF&G
Jim Durst, ADF&G
Caroline Brown, ADF&G
Judith Bittner, SHPO
YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
(REVISED) DRAFT STUDY PLAN
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APC proposes to construct a run-of-river hydroelectric project that will interconnect with
the grid supplying electricity to the communities of Tetlin, Tok, Dot Lake, and
Tanacross. This grid is presently wholly reliant upon diesel generation. APC is the
certified utility for this area along the Alaska Highway and is within the boundaries of
APC’s certificate from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. This project is called the
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project is located approximately 20 miles
west of Tok on the Alaska Highway at Milepost 1339. Although APC’s existing
transmission infrastructure follows the
highway right-of-way past the project
site, this infrastructure (conductor) will
need to be upgraded to handle the load
from the project. Project capacity is
expected to be 2-3 megawatts (MW).
Project features would include a small
diversion structure, an approximately
11,000 foot long penstock, powerhouse
with a single impulse turbine (Pelton or
Turgo) and generator, tailrace, small
substation, and transmission line to and
along the Alaska Highway, as shown in
Figure 1. The building season is short at this north latitude, so it will take two years to
complete this project. This project not only will provide clean, renewable energy that
will stabilize rates, but will provide a stable source of energy that can quickly come on
line after power outages, which makes it one of the best renewable resources. The cost to
maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel generation. The existing
diesel generation plant in Tok will continue to supplement the grid as the hydro project is
only expected to provide electricity for 100% of the load part of the year and down to
approximately 10% of the load during low flow periods of the year, such as during the
winter.
This project will reduce the cost of electricity to the residents of Tetlin, Tok, Tanacross and
Dot Lake who presently pay $0.36 per kWh. Once the hydroelectric project interties with
the Tok grid, the cost per kWh will be reduced by approximately 20%. The environmental
impacts, i.e. air pollution, noise pollution, spills, etc., of any self-generation will be
significantly reduced by this intertie, as well as from generation at APC’s powerplant in
Tok. During part of the year it is estimated the entire load can be carried by the
hydroelectric project, and during the winter the use of diesel generation will supplement the
hydroelectric project.
This hydroelectric project will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 509,800
gallons per year, which at 2007 prices is equivalent to $1,157,246 annually. The existing
diesel plant in Tok, which supplies electricity to all four communities, would use fewer
diesel generators to meet the remaining load, reducing labor and maintenance costs and the
frequency of generator overhaul and replacement for a potential savings of $1,153,200
annually. At present usage levels, this hydroelectric project would save the residents of all
four communities approximately $693,043 per year (2007). Lower energy costs would help
stimulate development, both economically and home building.
2.0 Project Components
The project facilities described herein are based on a preliminary evaluation of the site,
and represent the maximum degree of resource development. The proposed project
features are described in more detail below:
Impoundment
The project design for this run-of-river hydroelectric project include construction of either a
concrete, steel, or other material impoundment structure. The impoundment structure is
likely to be made of sheet piling to create a barrier that will impound enough water for an
intake to remove it and generate electricity at the powerhouse. Due to the depth of the
cobble expected in Yerrick Creek, it is not expected that the sheet pile will reach bedrock,
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 2 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
and therefore it is expected that some water will go subterranean under the impoundment
structure and surface further down the creek.
Penstock
The penstock is estimated to be approximately 11,000 feet in length and would probably
consist of a combination of HDPE and steel or iron pipe. The penstock is proposed to be
buried along most if not all its length. The diameter of the penstock may be approximately
36-inches. The penstock would parallel the creek down to the powerhouse requiring some
clearing along its right-of-way.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse would be a metal structure of approximately 30 x 40 feet with a height of
approximately 25 feet. The powerhouse would contain the controls for the operation of the
project, including switchgear, Pelton or Turgo impulse turbine, a generator rated at 2-3 MW,
and controls for valves at the impoundment structure. After the water passes through the
turbine it will fall into a tailrace that will discharge back into Yerrick Creek above the
highway bridge that spans the creek.
Access Road
An access road would be constructed to the powerhouse from off the Alaska Highway. The
road is expected to be less than a mile in length. Another access road would come down the
west side of Yerrick Creek from the impoundment structure, due to its more moderate
elevation changes, to the powerhouse site. The one lane access road width would be
approximately 14-feet wide with frequent pullouts.
Substation
A small pad-mount step-up transformer will be adjacent to the powerhouse to adjust the
voltage for the transmission line to Tok.
Transmission Line
The transmission line will go from the powerhouse step-up transformer to intertie with the
Tok grid along the Alaska Highway, approximately one mile away. This would require
approximately 20 vertical wood pole structures set about 300 feet apart.
Land Ownership
The enclosed Figure 1 is a project map showing property boundaries in relation to the
project features. The project will be located on land managed by the State of Alaska and
Tanacross, Inc., a Village Corporation.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 3 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Environmental Impacts
Previous man-made land disturbance (old gas pipeline corridor paralleling the highway,
which was once cleared of vegetation) has left a footprint on the environment that will
reduce this projects impact by utilizing the corridor for part of the access road and
powerhouse site. Impacts to wetlands will occur as areas along the access route are in
muskeg. The access route will parallel the creek on its west side. It is estimated that
approximately 5-6 acres of land would be disturbed, with possibly ¾’s being in muskeg
and the creek. To minimize impacts, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
implemented to confine impacts during construction, of which silt fencing and straw or
hay bales would play a significant part, and repair after construction where possible.
Construction methods, i.e. minimize the construction footprint, will also keep impacts to
a minimum.
Threatened, Endangered, or Under Consideration Species
No species listed on the ADF&G or USF&WS websites as Threatened or Endangered or
under consideration (http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/esa_home.php) will be
impacted by this project as they either reside or prefer habitat outside of the project area.
DRAFT STUDY PLAN
Existing Resources
Part of the information presented here is from the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (east of
the project) website, and hence the mention of Refuge throughout this description. The
Refuge’s data is used because of its proximity to the project area and wealth of
information available on indigenous species of the area, however, the Refuge’s
geography is different then that of Yerrick Creek which is primarily a mountainous
drainage whereas the Refuge is more lowlands. There was also a significant amount of
information on the ADF&G website regarding hunting and trapping in Unit 12, which
Yerrick Creek is within. Information from the ADF&G website is also incorporated into
the description of resources in the Yerrick Creek area found below.
Botanical Resources
Boreal forest (taiga) and upland tundra are the dominant vegetation types in all of interior
Alaska. In the alpine areas, dry, broad ridge tops are dominated by dryas dwarf scrub and
ericaceous dwarf scrub tundra vegetation. Mesic to moist saddles, slopes, and snow-melt
meadows support mesic graminoid herbaceous and open, low scrub vegetation. Rock-
dominated sites support alpine herbs.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 4 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Aquatic Resources
The Department of Natural Resources, Habitat Management Division, provided the
following information in an April 7, 2008, letter to AP&T regarding the Yerrick Creek
drainage.
“Yerrick Creek provides habitat for a variety of non-anadromous fish species, including
Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, round whitefish, and slimy sculpin. Arctic grayling and
round whitefish are fairly ubiquitous in Tanana River basin stream systems, but the
presence of Dolly Varden in Yerrick Creek makes this stream somewhat unusual.
“Fish presence and habitat near the mouth and in the lower reaches of Yerrick Creek
(well downstream of the Alaska Highway) are poorly documented, although habitat for a
variety of species including Arctic grayling, northern pike, burbot, round whitefish, lake
chub, longnose sucker, and slimy sculpin occurs here. Stream flow in portions of Yerrick
Creek in this reach are completely subsurface at times. If operated as run-of-river, the
Yerrick Creek Hydropower project is unlikely to affect these downstream fish resources
and habitats.
“That portion of Yerrick Creek from downstream of the Alaska Highway to upstream of
the Haines-Fairbanks Pipeline crossing has been the most surveyed for fish presence and
use. Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden have been found present from the beginning of
June through late August, and Arctic grayling through late November (under ice cover).
Round whitefish were present in late summer. Even when this reach appears frozen, high
quality water is typically flowing in at least one channel below the ice; adult aquatic
invertebrates were hatching from a small channel under ice in the third week of March
one year. Although Yerrick Creek flow apparently goes subsurface in various locations
between the Alaska Highway and the Tanana River for much of most summers, the
portion of the stream between the mountains and the subsurface flow appears to provide
connected surface flow and habitat.
“Adult and juvenile Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden have been captured upstream of
the proposed diversion structure location up to where Yerrick Creek forks more than 6
miles above the Alaska Highway crossing. A small falls downstream of the fork is
apparently not a fish barrier. Biologists suggested that this reach between the ridges
may be used for grayling spawning and for grayling and Dolly Varden over-wintering
habitats. Sheep hunters have reported seeing fish in stream portions in the upper part of
the drainage that appeared to provide good habitat.”
Wildlife Resources
The Department of Natural Resources, Habitat Management Division, provided the
following information in an April 7, 2008, letter to AP&T regarding the Yerrick Creek
drainage.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 5 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
“The Yerrick Creek drainage is used by a variety of big game species including moose,
caribou, and Dall sheep, and is part of the Tok Management Area for Dall sheep. A
significant amount of sheep hunting occurs in this drainage. Some sheep hunters have
reported being able to walk up the Yerrick Creek streambed to access sheep country
since the stream in portions was mostly gravel and rocks with a relatively small channel
of water meandering through.”
Yerrick Creek is located in Game Management Unit 12 (GMU-12). Information on the
harvesting of these species was found on the ADF&G website. All these species benefit
from a diverse plant community commonly created by forest fires. Wildlife agencies are
now trying controlled burns and clear-cuts to improve habitat that not only benefits
herbivores but also predators who feed on them.
Dall Sheep (Ovis dalli)
The Dall sheep is a stocky sheep that utilize nearly inaccessible, steep mountain slopes,
ridges and meadows for feeding and resting. They are generally high country animals but
sometimes occur in rocky gorges below timberline in Alaska.
They are mostly white and weigh between 125 and 200 pounds. Male Dall sheep are
called rams and are distinguished by massive curling, yellowish horns. The females,
ewes, have shorter, more slender, slightly curved horns. Dall sheep are sometimes
mistaken for mountain goats, however, the mountain goat has long fur and a beard, and
small, slender, black horns that curve slightly backward.
The management goals for the harvest of Dall sheep is being met, but will continue to be
watched to make sure they are not over grazed.1 In RY02-RY03 the number of permits
issued was reduced because hunters complained of overcrowding. Since then there have
been fewer complaints.
Yerrick Creek is one of the few drainages on the north side of the range that has provided
historical access to Dall sheep hunting grounds (Cathedral Rapids Creeks and Sheep
Creek being the others). For this reason, maintaining access to these hunting grounds
without providing ‘improved’ access that could further stress the population would be the
goal of project design. Gating any access road to the project would be the preferred
method of maintaining access for hunters as exists today, although they would be able to
hike up the road on foot to the projects impoundment site, but would not be able to drive
up the drainage beyond what they presently can. This could be viewed as an impact by
providing an easier hike into part of the drainage.
Moose (Alces alces)
Moose are the world's largest members of the deer family and are most abundant in
recently burned areas that contain willow and birch shrubs, on timberline plateaus, and
1 Dall Sheep Management Report, 2005, ADF&G; www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 6 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
along the major rivers of Southcentral and Interior Alaska. During fall and winter, moose
consume large quantities of willow, birch, and aspen twigs. In the spring, moose eat a
variety of foods, particularly sedges, equisetum (horsetail), pond weeds, and grasses.
During summer, moose feed on vegetation in shallow ponds, forbs, and the leaves of
birch, willow, and aspen.
Moose are long-legged and heavy bodied with a "bell" or dewlap under the chin; only the
bulls have antlers. Their color ranges from golden brown to almost black, depending
upon the season and the age of the animal. The hair of newborn calves is generally red-
brown fading to a lighter rust color within a few weeks.
Moose are common in this area and are also hunted in this and the adjoining drainages.
Moose in this GMU have had lower harvest levels than desired by ADF&G so that wolf
and bear harvesting quotas may be increased to reduce the moose’s major predators.
Yerrick Creek is brushy habitat, providing food for Moose including the few small lakes
and marshes approximately 0.5 miles west of the creek. Moose may be temporarily
impacted by this project from construction activity, but should otherwise not be impacted.
The penstock (pipe) will be primarily buried along its route and will not be a barrier to
the moose’s movement through the area.
Caribou (Rangifer tarandus)
All caribou and reindeer throughout the world are considered to be the same species, but
there are 7 subspecies, two of which occur in Alaska: barren ground and woodland.
Caribou have special adaptations that allow them to survive their harsh arctic
environment. Long legs and broad, flat hooves allow them walk on snow, and a dense
woolly undercoat overlain by stiff, hollow guard hairs helps keep them warm. Caribou
are also the only member of the deer family in which both sexes grow antlers. Antlers of
adult bulls are large and massive; those of adult cows are much shorter and are usually
more slender. In late fall, caribou are clove-brown with a white neck, rump, and feet and
often have a white flank stripe. Weights of adult bulls average 350 to 400 pounds and
females average 175 to 225 pounds.
The caribou present in the Yerrick Creek area, which is in GMU 12, are the Macomb
caribou herd (MCH). Harvest of the MCH has remained below the harvest objective due
to the small size of the herd and the slow increase in herd size with the present
management plan. An increase in wolf take was approved in 1995 in an effort to reduce
the MCH’s main predatory species. The MCH also uses the lowlands of the Tanana
River valley as winter range.2
According to ADF&G, Caribou are known to pass through the Yerrick Creek drainage.3
Project construction should be the only factor to impact Caribou and this should be a
temporary impact from noise and activity.
2 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
3 Personal communication between AP&T and Jeff Gross, Tok ADF&G Office, May 2008.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 7 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Gray (Timber) Wolf (Canis lupus)
Wolves are described as having the greatest natural range of any terrestrial mammal,
excluding humans. Most wolves in Alaska weigh between 85 and 115 pounds with most
females rarely reaching more than 110 pounds. Color varies greatly from pure black to
almost white. Wolves in southern Alaska tend to be darker and slightly smaller than
those in the Arctic.
Wolves are skilled hunters and prey on a variety of species including moose, caribou,
hares, beaver, fish, mice and other small mammals. Most wolves hunt and live in packs
that range from two to thirty wolves; six or seven is the average.
“Historically, the Unit 12 wolf population fluctuated dramatically in response to federal
and state predator control programs, ungulate prey abundance, and harvest. The current
wolf control program in Unit 12, projected to last 5 years, began in January 2005 in an
1190-mi² area north of the Alaska Highway and west of the Taylor Highway. The area
was expanded in 2006 to include all portions of Unit 12 north of the Alaska Highway.”
“The Unit 12 wolf population increased by an estimated 22% from RY93-RY95 to RY96-
RY98. A comparable estimate was not obtained for RY02-RY04, but results of surveys
conducted in portions of Unit 12 and adjacent Unit 20E indicate wolf numbers increased
during RY99-RY04, likely as a result of increased survival and productivity associated
with an increased prey base and harvest below sustainable rates. Harvest rates averaged
22% during RY96-RY98 and the same prey base, wolf numbers likely continued to
increase during RY02-RY04. Annual harvest rates of >30% would likely be required to
preclude wolf population growth in Unit 12.
“Prior to 1998 and the arrival of wintering Nelchina and Mentasta caribou herds and the
increase in the Unit 12 wolf population, the moose population in Unit 12 increased about
5% annually (Gardner 2002a). The Unit 12 moose population in Unit 12 stopped
growing during the period of wolf population growth. Moose are the only ungulate prey
available to much of the Unit 12 wolf population between April and mid October. Since
1998 however, northern Unit 12 packs have had access to large numbers of caribou
during the winter. Packs in central Unit 12 can also access large numbers of caribou in
October, March, and April, but since 1997 only a few caribou winter in the central
portion of the unit. The southern unit packs rely primarily on moose year-round.
“During the 1980’s the Unit 12 wolf population was lightly harvested. During the 1990’s
the annual wolf harvest in Unit 12 varied and in some years was the primary limiting
factor to the wolf population. During RY99-RY01, harvest was light but caused area-
specific declines in wolf numbers. During RY02-RY04 harvest was light and did not limit
the wolf population. Harvest rates in the remote areas are dependent on fur price and
weather conditions. Along the road system, trapping pressure is high especially around
communities and wolves are regulated at lower numbers.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 8 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
“Most area residents desire some type of intensive management to benefit Unit 12 moose.
Area residents support management that incorporates a combination of area-specific
wolf reduction programs conducted by the public and habitat enhancement programs
conducted by agencies. Modeling predicts this management regime could cause a low to
moderate increase in the moose population. However, this level of management is not
expected to attain a high-density moose population. This management is feasible
because the areas most trapped for wolves are also the areas most hunted for moose.
The primary challenge will be to design a habitat enhancement program that is
economically feasible, and is supported by the department and the public.”4
According to ADF&G, wolves are trapped in the Yerrick Creek basin. This project
should only have a temporary impact related to the noise and activity of construction.
Black Bear (Ursus americanus)
The term “black” used to describe this species is not entirely accurate. Black bears come
in a variety of colors from brown to gray and the occasional cream, although black with a
brown muzzle is the most common. Brown colored black bears are often confused with
brown bears but normally Brown bears are much larger. Black bears also have a smaller,
more pointed head with a straight profile. Brown bears have a more rounded head and
dished-shaped face along with a distinctive hump on their shoulders that is lacking in the
black bear. Average male black bears weigh between 180 to 200 pounds depending on
the season and stand over two feet tall at the shoulder. Females are usually around 120 to
150 pounds also depending upon the season.
Black bears are omnivorous (eat both meat and plants), although vegetation makes up a
substantial portion of their diet. Their diet varies from vegetation in the spring to fish in
some areas during the summer. Otherwise, their diet consists mostly of berries and
insects.
“Historically, human use of black bears in Unit 12 was relatively low despite liberal
hunting regulations and moderate bear population levels. Most black bear hunting
occurred along the highway system and the Tanana River. There was no closed season
for black bears in Unit 12, and the bag limit was 3 bears. ”
“In 1992 interest in black bear hunting increased, particularly at bait stations, and has
remained relatively high. Most bears are taken by local residents in the spring and are
an important meat source. Even before regulations were implemented requiring the
salvage of black bear meat from 1 January to 31 May, meat was salvaged from over 90%
of all black bears harvested by local residents. In the fall most black bears were
harvested incidentally during hunts for other species.”
Black bear have been observed in and around the Yerrick Creek drainage.
4 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 9 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Brown Bear (Ursus arctos)
Brown bears tend to be larger than black bears. Brown bears are considered the largest
living land carnivore. Though polar bears can be larger, they are not considered to be
land dwelling. Brown bear sizes vary depending on location, time of year, age and
gender. Most male brown bears range from 500 to 900 pounds. Color varies greatly
from black with silver tipped hair to blonde. Males tend to be darker than females and
cubs often sport a white collar during their first summer. Although the same species,
Alaskans typically refer to coastal bears as “browns” and interior bears as “grizzlies”.
The grizzlies of the Tetlin Refuge are smaller and lighter in weight than those in southern
and western Alaska. Grizzlies occur throughout the entire Refuge at a low density, but
are more abundant along the foothills and mountains.
Brown bears have a varied diet ranging from grasses in the spring, berries in the summer,
and fish during the fall. Meat is not usually a major component of the bears’ diet but they
will eat whatever they can catch which includes marmots, porcupines, squirrels, mice,
moose, and caribou.
Brown bears are distributed throughout most of Unit 12. As with the black bear
population, brown bears have liberal hunting management objectives to maintain or
reduce their numbers in order to improve moose survival, the preferred game meat by
residents. Hunting for brown bears has increased with the liberalization of the hunting
season. Brown bears most likely utilize the Yerrick Creek area.
Small Furbearers
Small furbearers present in the Yerrick Creek basin and historically or currently trapped
include lynx, wolverine, marten, mink, coyote, and red fox.5 “Marten and lynx are the
most economically important furbearers in Units 12 and 20E. During population highs,
muskrats are also economically and culturally important in Unit 12. Beavers are an
important subsistence resource to Northway residents but are lightly trapped in most of
the area. Little trapping effort is spent on coyotes, red foxes, mink, river otters, ermine,
red squirrels, and wolverines because of low pelt values, low abundance, or difficulty and
expense of trapping.”6 Current management plans for Unit 12 to improve furbearer
habitat is to conduct burns and clear-cuts to increase the diversity of habitat.
Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
The lynx is the only cat native to Alaska and is known to be in Unit 12. Lynx occur over
most of northern North America (though their numbers in the northern continental United
States have been greatly reduced) and throughout Alaska except the Aleutian islands,
Kodiak archipelago, the islands of the Bering Sea and some islands of Prince William
Sound and Southeast Alaska. Because they are shy and unobtrusive animals, people think
5 July 1, 2008, letter from ADF&G.
6 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 10 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
that lynx are scarce. In Alaska, however, they are commonly seen during long periods of
summer daylight, especially during years that they are abundant. “Link” is a common
local name for lynx in Alaska and the Yukon.
Lynx inhabit much of Alaska's forested terrain and use a variety of habitats, including
spruce and hardwood forests, and both subalpine and successional communities.
The primary prey of lynx in most areas is the snowshoe hare, which undergoes an 8-11
year cycle of abundance. This cycle appears to be caused by the interaction of hares with
their food and predators. Lynx numbers fluctuate with those of hares and other small
game, but lag one or two years behind. Although snowshoe hares are an important prey
for lynx, when they are scarce lynx use other food sources more extensively during these
periods. Other small prey such as grouse, ptarmigan, squirrels, and microtine rodents are
regularly taken. Lynx are also known to prey on caribou, Dall sheep, and foxes,
especially during periods of scarcity.
Since the early 1970s, lynx pelts have increased in value and may bring from $200 to
$500. Their high value has led to increased trapping pressure and concern among
trappers that lynx harvest should be regulated more closely. However, lynx numbers and
harvest began to increase in Unit 12 following the cyclic low in RY03. Lynx pelt prices
increased and were adequate for most trappers. In combination with the upswing of the
lynx cycle, increased lynx pelt prices could begin to influence trapper effort. Harvest of
lynx is currently more relaxed in the management plan.7
Marten (Martes americana)
The long, beautiful, chocolate brown coat of marten lead to its nickname: American
Sable. A streak of lighter fur usually runs from the throat onto the chest. They have a
fox-like face with broad rounded ears and unlike other members of the weasel family, a
long bushy tail. Male marten grow 10 to 25 inches long plus an 8-inch tail and weigh up
to 3 pounds. Females are substantially smaller.
Marten are mostly nocturnal and spend a great deal of their time in trees. They inhabit
mature conifer forests and prey on red squirrels and other small mammals but will vary
their diet with snowshoe hares, insects, birds, eggs, fruit and nuts.
Historically in Unit 12 marten trapping contributed most of the income for area trappers
and is considered the most sought after furbearer due to the increase in fur value.
Trapper information indicates that marten declined to moderate-to-low numbers during
RY03-RY05. However, no regulatory changes are planned for marten harvesting.8
7 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
8 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 11 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
Wolverines are among the least understood large carnivores in North America and the
largest land-dwelling member of the weasel family. Most wolverines weigh 15 to 45
pounds and stand 15 to 18 inches at the shoulder. Females are smaller than males. Their
coats are glossy dark brown with two pale lateral stripes converging at the base of the
tail. Wolverine heads are gray with black muzzles, short ears, and dark eyes. They are
described as having a low-slung body with powerful legs and large, curved claws.
Wolverines are omnivorous (eat both meat and plants) and will eat anything from berries
to moose. They also feed on small mammals such as voles, squirrels, and hares.
Wolverines appear to occur at low density levels in the Upper Tanana Valley. They are
primarily found in the foothills and mountainous areas where access is limited.
Wolverine harvest was low in Unit 12, with the majority harvested by a few area trappers
who selected for wolverine due to their high market value relative to other furbearer
species. No change was recommended in their management plan.9
River (Land) Otter (Lontra canadensis)
River otters have a powerful, low-slung, slender body and flattened heads. They have a
tapered tail, short legs, and webbed feet. Large males can grow to almost five feet long
and stand 9 to 10 inches high at the shoulder. Most river otters weigh between 15 and 35
pounds with females being about a quarter smaller than males. The fur is very dense and
with shades of brown that are distinctively lighter on the underparts, chin, and throat.
River otters eat mainly fish but also consume a variety of foods including shellfish,
insects, frogs, birds, eggs, small mammals, and vegetation. They are mostly aquatic but
will travel distances over land to reach another stream or lake. River otters are also social
and tend to travel in pairs or larger groups.
River otter populations in Unit 12 were low due to a lack of suitable habitat. Trappers
seldom selected for river otters due to low fur prices and the difficulty of catching
them.10
Fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Red fox usually weigh between six and fifteen pounds, standing 16 to 18 inches high at
the shoulder. The most common color is a rich red-gold, with black legs and feet. The
chest and underparts are usually white with a long bushy tail also tipped in white. Other
color variations include pure black and silver.
Red fox are omnivorous. They appear to prefer mice and hares, but also feed upon birds,
eggs, plants, berries, and insects. Red fox populations in Unit 12 show indications of
9 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
10 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 12 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
being stable at moderate-to-high levels. Little trapping effort is spent on red foxes most
likely due to low pelt prices and expense to trap.11
Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus)
Snowshoe hares average 18 to 20 inches in length and weigh three to four pounds. Their
summer coats are yellowish to grayish brown with white underparts, and the tail is brown
on top. During the winter, their coat is replaced by white fur, but the hair is dusky at the
base with a gray underfur. Snowshoes’ ears are dark at the tip.
Hares are found in mixed spruce forests, wooded swamps, and brushy areas. They feed
on a variety of vegetation including grasses, buds, twigs, leaves, needles, and bark.
Snowshoe hares travel on well-established trails or runways at all times of the year.
Hare populations in Unit 12 cycle every 8 to 11 years. Hare population fluctuations are
closely related to predator populations.
Avian Species
The Refuge provides habitat for 143 breeding and 47 migrating bird species (Bird
Checklist - pdf) and serves as a major migration corridor for many of the bird species that
are entering or leaving interior Alaska. Compared to the rest of Alaska, the diversity of
landbirds is high because the Refuge is located within a major migration corridor and a
number of species reach their northern range limit here. However, extreme winter
weather sends most birds traveling south, leaving only about 25 resident species year
round.
The Refuge was set aside primarily for its unique waterfowl values. It has one of
Alaska’s highest densities of nesting waterfowl and annually produces an estimated
35,000 to 65,000 ducklings. Spectacular migrations of lesser sandhill cranes, tundra and
trumpeter swans occur each spring and fall. Up to 200,000 cranes, representing about
one half of the world population, migrate through this corridor. The Refuge also provides
habitat for an expanding population of trumpeter swans and for the largest concentration
of nesting osprey in Alaska. Raptors such as bald eagles are common nesters along the
major rivers and shorelines of larger lakes and nesting pairs have been observed along the
Tanana River. Peregrine falcons can be seen once again as new pairs find local cliffs for
nesting. Nine species of marsh and waterbirds, and 26 species of shorebirds occur on the
refuge.
Terrestrial Avian Species
Tetlin Refuge has a comprehensive landbird monitoring program that is consistent with
the International Partners in Flight Initiative. This includes maintaining migratory bird
arrival dates, participating in the North American Migration Count, Breeding Bird
11 www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 13 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Surveys, off-road point counts, and fall migration banding. In addition, a Christmas Bird
Count is conducted each winter and an Upper Tanana Bird Festival is hosted by the
Refuge in mid-May.
Four Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) routes in eastern interior Alaska are annually
completed. Off-road point counts were established on the Refuge in 1994 as part of a
pilot project for Boreal Partners in Flight. Seven routes are monitored each year.
A fall migration banding station was established in 1993 seven miles east of Tok and has
been operated daily in August and September each year. This long-term banding effort is
part of a regional landbird monitoring program and helps to monitor landbird populations
not adequately monitored by the Breeding Bird Survey. The most common species
captured are: slate-colored junco, swainson’s thrush, Wilson’s warbler, ruby-crowned
kinglet, myrtle (yellow-rumped) warbler, and orange-crowned warbler.
Relatively few species of birds are residents on the Refuge. Gray jay, black-billed
magpie, common raven, black-capped chickadee, boreal chickadee, and redpolls are the
most common species with lesser numbers of the non-migratory owls and woodpeckers.
White-winged crossbills are abundant during productive cone crop years.
Spruce grouse, ruffed grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and willow ptarmigan are uncommon
breeders on the Refuge. Rock ptarmigan are rarely seen but may breed in the upper
Cheslina River drainage. Sharp-tailed grouse have increased, especially in the Tok and
Tetlin Village areas following the Tok River Fire in 1990.
Raptors
Thirteen species of hawks are known to occur on Tetlin Refuge. Usually present in small
numbers, bald eagle, osprey, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, and
American kestrel are confirmed breeders. Less frequently observed northern goshawk,
golden eagle, merlin, peregrine falcon, and gyrfalcon are rare breeders on the Refuge.
Rough-legged hawks are uncommon migrants. Turkey vultures and Swainson’s hawks
are casual visitors.
Six species of owls occur on the Refuge, the most common being the great horned owl.
Northern hawk owls, great gray owls, and boreal owls can be fairly common some years.
The short-eared owl is a migrant and casual summer breeder, while the snowy owl is a
casual visitor in fall and winter.
The American peregrine falcon is the only previously endangered species found on the
Refuge. The population of this species/race has been increasing nation-wide and was de-
listed in 1999. The first peregrine falcon nest on Tetlin Refuge was discovered in June
1994 along the Nabesna River nearly 100 river miles upstream from the closest known
nest site. Recovering peregrine populations have increased their density within their
nesting range in the Upper Tanana Valley in the last decade, doubling the number of
territories in the last 4 years to 16 presently known above the Robertson River.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 14 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Extensive raptor surveys have been completed annually since 1991. Most raptor nests are
located along the rivers and wetlands.
Waterfowl
Green-winged teal, mallard, American wigeon, ring-necked duck, scaup (primarily
lesser) and bufflehead are the most abundant ducks breeding on the Refuge. Smaller
numbers of northern pintail, northern shoveler, Barrow’s goldeneye, common goldeneye,
white-winged scoter, surf scoter, canvasback and blue-winged teal are known to breed
here as well. Rarely sightings are made of common mergansers, redheads, ruddy ducks,
gadwall and harlequin ducks which also breed in the area, or of long-tailed ducks which
do not. An estimated 35,000 to 65,000 ducklings are produced on Tetlin Refuge each
year.
The Refuge lies along an important migration route for both Canada and greater white-
fronted geese that migrate to and from the state. Occasionally snow geese and brant are
seen during migration. Canada geese breed on the refuge in small numbers.
The Refuge provides important habitat for migrating tundra and trumpeter swans during
spring and fall. Over 200 trumpeter swans were banded and neck collared from 1983 to
1984 and from 1989 to 1995. Recoveries and sightings of banded trumpeter swans help
identify their wintering habitat as being coastal wetlands and fields from the central coast
of British Columbia to northern Puget Sound.
Waterbirds
Nine species of marsh and water birds occur on the Refuge with horned grebe, pacific
loon, and red-necked grebe being the most common breeders. Common loons are rare
breeders and red-throated loons are considered casual. A small number of sandhill cranes
nest on the muskeg flats in the northern third of the refuge. During spring and fall
migration, up to 200,000 sandhill cranes (one half of the entire world population) can
pass through the Tanana River Valley. The numbers seen from year to year vary
depending on weather conditions which affect their flight paths. The Upper Tanana
Valley is one of the few places in Alaska where sora and American coot are found
regularly.
While some 26 species of shorebirds occur on the Refuge, most are migrants passing
between wintering and breeding grounds. The most abundant breeding shorebird is the
ubiquitous lesser yellowlegs. Common snipe are less abundant but widely distributed,
while spotted sandpipers are common along watercourses. Red-necked phalaropes are
often seen during fall migration. Mew and Bonaparte's gulls are common breeders. The
American golden plover, upland sandpiper, and whimbrel breed in the alpine areas.
Avian species of all types may pass through the Yerrick Creek drainage because of its
proximity to the Tanana River. There are also a few wetlands within or adjacent to the
drainage that may attract waterfowl and predators alike during the summer months.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 15 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Cultural - Historical Resources
A review of the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) documents and related data
sources at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) for records of known
AHRS sites and previous cultural resource investigations in or near the Areas of Potential
Effect (APE) was conducted by a certified archaeologist. One site was found on the west
side of Yerrick Creek (TNX-074) that will be along the access road and penstock route.
This site can be avoided by project alignment. SHPO is being consulted for clearance.
STUDY PLAN
Water Resources
Water quality sampling by Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting-Anchorage is
occurring over one year on a more or less quarterly basis.
A stream gage was installed in Yerrick Creek in May 2007. A table showing the flow
data over one year is enclosed. The gage will remain in place. An analysis of what the
flow regime might be in the bypass reach during project operations has yet to be done.
Botanical Resources
A wetland delineation and threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species survey of
the project will be conducted in August 2008 by HDR out of Anchorage.
Aquatic Resources
Fish surveys by Steve Grabacki are being conducted this summer, fall, and next spring.
Surveys are focused on Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, and round whitefish. This will be
a multiyear baseline fisheries survey going from the summer 2008 to late winter of 2008-
2009. Gear to be used are angling, electrofishing, minnow traps, hoop traps, fyke nets,
gillnets, and dip nets, as appropriate to local conditions. All specimens will be released
alive. Studies will occur above, at, and downstream of the possible impoundment site to
the powerhouse site. The objective in this first year of surveying is to examine the
habitat for use by all life stages of fishes, including – summer residency, migratory
pathway, over-wintering, spawning, rearing, etc. Four or five sampling trips are planned
– a reconnaissance level survey in early summer (angling only) was already
accomplished, a full-scope sampling in late summer, another sampling shortly before
freeze-up, and a spring sampling shortly after break-up. If appropriate, a late-winter
examination of over-wintering habitat (in 2009) might be conducted. The first report will
be submitted by the end of December 2008.
Until fish habitat has been described in the bypass reach, an analysis of instream flows
needed in the bypass reach cannot be conducted.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 16 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
Both Yerrick Creek and the drainage just west of Yerrick Creek, Cathedral Rapids Creek
#1 will be surveyed. Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 will be surveyed for potential future
consideration if more water is needed for electricity. This survey will give us a baseline
on Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 so we will have advanced knowledge to make any future
determination of its use. However, at this point in time we propose to only develop
Yerrick Creek.
Wildlife Resources
Wildlife is not expected to be significantly impacted by this project, either by
construction or operation. Species that use the Yerrick Creek area are not considered
threatened, endangered, or listed species of concern. A literature search conducted does
not point to any TES using this basin, although some may occasionally pass through
during migration. Of the many species that do use the Yerrick Creek area, some are
hunted for their meat (moose, caribou, Dall sheep, black and brown bear), and trapped for
their pelts (lynx and marten). There will be a minimal loss of habitat types from project
features such as the access road/penstock route, powerhouse site with staging area for
materials, and the impoundment site. The staging area for materials at the powerhouse
will be in or near the gas pipeline clearing near the highway, which should minimize
vegetative clearing.
The project will remain in close proximity to the west side of Yerrick Creek as it parallels
the creek between the impoundment and powerhouse. As desired in the ADF&G July 1,
2008, letter, the penstock and access road will remain a minimum of 66 feet from the
creek accept when intersecting with the impoundment structure or powerhouse. The
penstock (pipe) will be passable because it will be buried along most or all of its length,
allowing mammals, including hunters, access to and through the project site, eliminating
wildlife passage as an issue. We view this project as having limited impacts to wildlife in
the area. The main concern would be whether this project will provide easier vehicular
access into this basin for hunters and trappers, which could place more pressure on
wildlife. We are interested in discussing methods to minimize this potential impact.
Birdlife is not expected to be significantly impacted due to the limited nature of the
clearing needed (15 feet wide access road / penstock route) although there could be some
loss of habitat.
Cultural – Historical Resources
A review by an archaeologist has already been completed for the project site and the
report was submitted to SHPO for their review and comments.
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 17 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
RESOURCES
ADF&G, Biological Information Needs, Letter, Robert F. McLean, April 7, 2008.
ADF&G, Draft Study Plan Comments, Letter, Robert F. McLean, July 1, 2008.
Browne, Patricia, Findings of AHRS Data Review and Evaluation of Cultural Resources
Potential for Hydroelectric Project Development…, June 5, 2008.
Grabacki, Stephen, 2008-2009 Study Plan for Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek
#1. June 2008.
Gross, Jeff, ADF&G, Personal communication in which wildlife species were discussed
for the project area, and in particular info on Dall Sheep hunting in area. May
2008.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/black_bear.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/birds.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/brown_bear.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/caribou.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/dall_sheep.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/fox.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/marten.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/moose.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/otter.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/snowshoe_hare.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolf.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolverine.htm
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/lynx.php
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 18 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Revised Draft Study Plan p. 19 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
July 16, 2008
YERRICK CREEK STREAM GAGE01020304050607080901001101201301406/1/077/1/078/1/079/1/0710/1/0711/1/0712/1/071/1/082/1/083/1/084/1/085/1/086/1/087/1/08DATESTAGE, INCHES and FLOW, CFS-60.00-40.00-20.000.0020.0040.0060.0080.00TEMPERATURE, °FRaw StageAdjusted StageInstantaneous FlowAverage Daily FlowTemperature
ADF&G COMMENTS ON DRAFT
STUDY PLAN
STUDIES ON-GOING OR COMPLETED
B ROWNE R ESEARCH
Patricia Browne
446 East 23 Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99503
patty99503@yahoo.com
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Glen Martin
Project Manager
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-1733 x 122
Subject: Findings of AHRS Data Review and Evaluation of Cultural Resources Potential
for Hydroelectric Project Development in the Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek
No. 1 Drainages near Tok, Alaska.
Dear Mr. Martin,
As per our agreement, I have reviewed Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS)
documents and related data sources at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
(OHA) for records of known AHRS sites and previous cultural resource investigations in
or near the Areas of Potential Effect (APE) for the Alaska Power & Telephone
Company’s two alternatives. These alternatives are:
• Yerrick Creek Drainage: the main project drainage, located approximately 20
miles west of Tok, Alaska, crossing beneath the Alaska Highway and flowing into
the Tanana River north of Moon Lake. The project area is located along that part
of the drainage south of the highway.
• Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Drainage: located to the west of and adjacent to
Yerrick Creek Drainage, crossing beneath the Alaska Highway and flowing into
the Tanana River just north of Cathedral Rapids.
Prior to AHRS review, I examined area maps, aerial photos, and property records for the
Area of Potential Effect (APE). The records research, conducted in consultation with
OHA staff, was conducted to determine whether known potentially significant historic
and/or prehistoric sites, historic buildings or structures were located in or near the APE.
AHRS Sites:
Four known AHRS sites are located within approximately five miles of the proposed
project areas (see attached maps), but only two of these are within close proximity of the
project. TNX-075 and TNX-076 are located outside and several miles west of the project
area near the Alaska Highway. These sites are comprised of historic debris scatters that
probably postdate highway construction. It is unlikely that either site is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. TNX-030, the remains of a cold war era White
Alice facility, is located on the east side of the Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Drainage
approximately 0.3 miles west of the proposed penstock associated with that alternative.
It is outside the APE for the penstock as depicted on project maps. The site was
documented by Corps of Engineers archaeologist G.L. Reynolds in 1988 and determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. TNX-074, a partially collapsed log
cabin and debris scatter, is located on the west side of Yerrick Creek opposite the Yerrick
Creek penstock route. The cabin is believed to have been associated with a trapline and
possibly constructed around 1901 at the time of the Tanacross settlement. A terminal
date is believed to have been around 1954. A determination of eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places has not been completed for this site, and the AHRS card does
not contain enough information in itself to complete a determination. The site is outside
the area of direct effect of the penstock route, provided that the penstock remains on the
east side of Yerrick Creek as depicted on project maps.
No known sites are recorded in the proposed impoundment area, which probably has low
potential for cultural sites due to its rugged relief.
In summary, there are no known AHRS sites within the APE of the penstock or access
road components as currently depicted on project maps. TNX-074 is the closest known
site to a project component (the Yerrick Creek penstock), but is separated from the
project corridor by Yerrick Creek.
Previous Investigations:
Records of two previous investigations in the vicinity of the project were found at the
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology.
One of the investigations was a short literature review conducted on behalf of Alaska
Power and Telephone Co. by archaeologist Mike Kunz (letter report, 4/19/90). His
review focused on a disturbed section of the Alaska Highway corridor in T19N/R9E,
Sections 30-32, and was done in conjunction with a proposed cable relocation project.
The other investigation was a large-scale 2001 archaeological reconnaissance conducted
by Northern Land Use Research in conjunction with planning for a natural gas pipeline
route (NLUR 2002). It was this study that resulted in the discovery of TNX-074, TNX-
075, and TNX-076. While records indicate that NLUR was issued a State permit to
conduct investigations within the townships/ranges that encompass the APE for this
hydroelectric project, the exact location of the NLUR survey effort could not be
ascertained. While sites discovered as a result of this investigation are abstracted in the
AHRS, detailed information (such as the exact survey area) and proprietary project
reports have not been released by the consortium of companies that contracted NLUR.
Findings:
Based on my review of existing data within and adjacent to the APE, it is my professional
opinion that the proposed undertaking will have no effect on known properties that are
on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Based on an examination of
maps and aerial photos, the lower portions of Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek
No. 1 appear to offer at least moderate potential for locating historic resources, while the
proposed impoundment area appears to hold low potential.
Sincerely,
Patricia Browne
SEPTEMBER 2008 FISH SURVEYS IN
YERRICK CREEK
DRAFT REPORT WITHOUT
ANALYSIS – JUST RAW DATA
Report of Fish Sampling – DRAFT 22 September 2008
Yerrick Creek
Stephen T. Grabacki, FP-C
The two creeks were examined but not sampled 6-7 June 2008. Fish habitat was characterized,
and the GPS locations of possible fish-bearing pools were recorded.
Sampling was conducted 3-4 September 2008, 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.
YERRICK CREEK (YER)
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
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 apparent males): 220, 235, 190 mmFL
AG (1 apparent 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
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
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.
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)
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 2.3 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 an impoundment 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. The creek is not expected to have fish within
the project influence due to its range in flows and
cobbled substrate. An agency review will occur once
funds are available to determine the extent of studies.
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 within the project corridor.
No fish are expected to be found up near the project. A
fish survey will be conducted once funds are available.
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 dam in the creek is the
major portion and otherwise disturbing only hydric soils.
After consultation with the Corps, a 404 Certification or
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.)
individual permit should be issued.
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
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
impoundment structure in Yerrick Creek and in creating a road into the impoundment 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/DNR 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 PAGE 5 OF 4 VER 3/01
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
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.
AIDEA/AEA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST PAGE II VER 3/01
COST WORKSHEET
Renewable Energy Fund
Application Cost Worksheet
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. 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
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 6 diesel generators
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other There are 6 gensets in the Tok diesel power plant
that supply electricity to all four communities. The
total installed capacity is 6,880 kW.
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other Varies, 0-23 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 $88,679 in 2004; $105,057 in 2005; $111,244 in 2006;
$124,801 in 2007; $93,027 YTD 2008.
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
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.
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 1
Renewable Energy Fund
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
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity 2.0 MW
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh] 4,900 MWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. 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 At total capacity = 350,000 gallons diesel annually.
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $3.58/gallon ( average 2008 diesel fuel price for Tok)
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 2
Renewable Energy Fund
c) Other economic benefits PCE program would save money.
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits AP&T ratepayers would save over $184,000,000 over
the 50 year life of the Project. The Alaska public would
save over $105,000,000 over the 50 year life through
reductions in the cost of the PCE program.
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale N/A; AP&T is the public utility for these communities.
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 14.6 for AP&T, 9.1 for Alaska public
Payback 1 year for AP&T, 7 years for Alaska public
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 3
Discount Rate 0.0% 12.0%
Net Present Value of Costs to AP&T without Yerrick Creek
Diesel Fuel 567,215,000$ 42,964,000$
Variable O&M 16,290,000 1,502,000
Total 583,505,000$ 44,466,000$
Net Present Value of Costs to AP&T with Yerrick Creek
Yerrick Creek
Depreciation 1,125,000$ 187,000$
Regulated Return 3,084,000$ 820,000$
O&M 10,481,000 1,067,000
Subtotal - Yerrick Creek 13,565,000$ 1,887,000$
Diesel
Fuel 374,905,000$ 26,833,000$
Variable O&M 10,718,000 935,000
Subtotal - Diesel 385,623,000$ 27,768,000$
Total 399,188,000$ 29,655,000$
Net Benefits 184,317,000$ 14,811,000$
B/C 14.59 8.85
Discount Rate 0.0% 12.0%
Net Present Value of PCE Savings 105,540,000$ 14,799,000$
Project Cost 11,600,000 11,600,000
B/C 9.10 1.28
Analysis for AP&T
Analysis for State of Alaska
YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
GRANT BUDGET FORM
Alaska Energy Authority ‐ Renewable Energy FundBUDGET SUMMARY: YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTMilestone or TaskFederal Funds (RUS Grant)State Funds (Existing AEA Grant)State Funds (Proposed AEA Grant) AP&T FundsOther FundsTOTALSPhase 1 ‐ ReconnaissanceStream gaging$22,500$22,500Site reconnaissance $15,000$15,000Phase 2 ‐ FeasibilityConceptual design$30,000 $30,000Geotechnical investigations$29,000 $29,000Topographic mapping$41,000 $41,000Fish surveys & analysis $25,000$25,000Wildlife surveys $12,000$12,000Botanical survey $25,000$25,000Wetland survey $37,000$37,000Archaeological survey$30,000$30,000Water quality testing$10,000$10,000Phase 3 ‐ Design and PermittingPermit applications and processing $42,500$42,500Stream gaging$6,000$6,000Final design $515,000$515,000Final topographic mapping$30,000$30,000Phase 4 ‐ ConstructionConstruction management$42,500 $300,000 $37,500 $380,000Mobilization $700,000 $50,000 $750,000Access road $1,000,000 $100,000 $1,100,000Diversion structure $800,000 $50,000 $850,000Penstock$4,330,000 $420,000 $4,750,000Powerhouse $900,000 $1,230,000 $120,000 $2,250,000Transmission facilities$3,200,000 $300,000 $3,500,000Completion/demobilization $40,000 $10,000 $50,000Total $1,675,000 $100,000 $11,600,000 $1,125,000 $0 $14,500,000BUDGET INFORMATIONRFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA09-004 Grant Budget Instructions Page 1 of 4
Grant Budget Instructions
Information concerning the proposed budget needs to be provided on the attached form.
The Budget Summary (upper portion of the form) is to provide information on the funding for the
entire project by tasks. The applicant is to provide amounts and identify the source of all funds
that will be used to complete this project. The tasks should represent major units of work that
will need to be completed on the project. At a minimum they should represent the phases
discussed in the application (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, or
Construction). Tasks may also represent subtasks under a specific phase. For example, under
Conceptual Design phase, a separate permitting task could be noted.
The Budget Categories (lower portion of the form) is to provide specific budget information for
the grant funds being applied for. Budget information for the other funds to be used to complete
the project need only be provided if that additional information is currently available.
Allowable costs for a grant include all reasonable and ordinary costs for direct labor and
benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual services, construction services, and other
direct costs identified that are necessary for and incurred as a direct result of the project.
A cost is reasonable and ordinary if, in its nature or amount, it does not exceed that which would
be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was
made to incur the costs.
1. Allowable Cost
Allowable costs are only those costs that are directly related to those activities necessary for the
completion of the proposed project. The categories of costs and additional limits or restrictions
are listed below:
a. Direct Labor and Benefits
Include salaries, wages, and employee benefits of the Applicant’s employees for that portion
of those costs that will be attributable to the time actually devoted by each employee to, and
necessary for the project. Direct labor costs do not include bonuses, stock options, other
payments above base compensation and employee benefits, severance payments or other
termination allowances paid to the Applicant’s employees.
b. Travel, Meals, or Per Diem
Include reasonable travel expenses necessary for the Project. These include necessary
transportation and meal expenses or per diem of Applicant employees for which expenses
the employees are reimbursed under the Applicant’s standard written operating practice for
travel and per diem; or, the current State of Alaska Administrative Manual for employee
travel.
c. Equipment
Include costs of acquiring, transporting, leasing, installing, operating, and maintaining
equipment necessary for the Project, including sales and use taxes.
Subject to prior approval of the Authority’s Project Manager, costs or expenses necessary to
repair or replace equipment damage or losses incurred in performance of work under a
grant may be allowed. However, damage or losses that result from the Applicant’s
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA09-004 Grant Budget Instructions Page 2 of 4
employees, officer’s, or contractor’s gross negligence, willful misconduct, or criminal conduct
will not be allowed.
d. Supplies
Include costs of material, office expenses, communications, computers, and supplies
purchased or leased by the Applicant necessary for the project.
e. Contractual Services
Include the Applicant’s cost of contract services necessary for the Project. Services may
include costs of contract feasibility studies, project management services, engineering and
design, environmental studies, field studies, and surveys for the project as well as costs
incurred to comply with ecological, environmental, and health and safety laws.
f. Construction Services
For construction projects this includes the Applicant’s cost for construction contracts, labor,
equipment, materials, insurance, bonding, and transportation necessary for the project.
Work performed by the Applicant’s employees during construction may be budgeted under
direct labor and benefits, project management or engineering. Major equipment purchases
made by the Applicant may be budgeted under equipment.
g. Other Direct Costs
In addition to the above the following expenses necessary for the project may be allowed.
Net insurance premiums paid for insurance required for the grant project;
Costs of permits and licenses for the grant project;
Non-litigation legal costs for the project directly relating to the activities (in this
paragraph, “non-litigation legal costs” includes expenses for the Applicant’s legal staff
and outside legal counsel performing non-litigation legal services);
Office lease/rental payments;
Other direct costs for the project directly relating to the activities and identified in the
grant documents; and/or
Land or other real property or reasonable and ordinary costs related to interests in land
including easements, right-of-ways, or other defined interests.
The Applicant is reminded to include sufficient funds for the management of the project, as the
Authority may terminate the grant or assume the project management responsibilities if it is
determined by the Authority that the Applicant is not providing adequate project management on
its own.
2. Specific Expenditures Not Allowed
Ineligible expenditures include costs for overhead, lobbying, entertainment, alcohol, litigation,
payments for civil or criminal restitution, judgments, interest on judgments, penalties, fines,
costs not necessary for and directly related to the grant project, or any costs incurred before the
beginning date of the grant. This is not intended to be a complete list of all ineligible
expenditures.
Overhead costs described in this section include:
salaries, wages, applicable employee benefits, and business-related expenses of the
Applicant’s employees performing functions not directly related to the grant project;
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA09-004 Grant Budget Instructions Page 3 of 4
office and other expenses not directly related to the grant project; and
costs and expenses of administration, accounting, human resources, training, property
and income taxes, entertainment, self-insurance, and warehousing.
3. Match and Cost Sharing
If the Applicant is providing a match, it is should be detailed either as a specific dollar amount or
as a percentage of the total project budget. The type and amount of matching contributions
should be discussed in the application under section two.
Cost sharing or matching is that portion of the Project costs not borne by the Authority. The
Authority will accept all contributions, including cash and in-kind, as part of the Applicants’ cost
sharing or matching when such contributions meet the following criteria:
Are provided for in the Project budget;
Are verifiable from the Applicant’s records;
Third party costing sharing contributions are verifiable (with a letter of intent or similar
document);
Are not included as contributions for another state or federally assisted project or
program (i.e., the same funds cannot be counted as match for more than one program);
Are necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the Project or
program objectives;
Are allowable costs;
Are not paid by the State or federal government under another award, except for
authorized by the State or federal statute to be used for cost sharing or matching;
Must be incurred within the grant eligible time period.
Any match proposed with the application will be required in the Grant award and the Grantee
will be required to document the use of the proposed matching funds or in-kind contributions
with their request for reimbursement.
4. Valuing In-Kind Support as Match
If the Applicant chooses to use in-kind support as some; or, its entire match, the values of those
contributions will be reviewed by the Authority at the time the budget is approved. The values
will be determined as follows:
The value of real property will be the current fair market value as determined by an
independent third party or a valuation that is mutually agreed to by the Authority and
the Applicant and approved in the grant budget.
The value assessed to Applicant equipment or supplies will not exceed the fair
market value of the equipment or supplies at the time the grant is approved or
amended.
Equipment usage will be valued based on approved usage rates that are determined
in accordance with the usual accounting policies of the recipient or the rates for
equipment that would be charged if procured through a competitive process. Rates
paid will not exceed the fair market value of the equipment if purchased.
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA09-004 Grant Budget Instructions Page 4 of 4
Rates for donated personal services will be based on rates paid for similar work and
skill level in the recipient’s organization. If the required skills are not found in the
recipient organization, rates will be based on rates paid for similar work in the labor
market. Fringe benefits that are reasonable, allowable, and allocable may be
included in the valuation.
Transportation and lodging provided by the Applicant for non-local labor will not
exceed the commercial rates that may be available within the community or region.
5. Grant Disbursements
Applicants are reminded that they must request disbursement of grant funds in the form and
format required by the Authority with appropriate back-up documentation and certifications.
This format will be provided by the Authority.
The back-up documentation must demonstrate the total costs incurred are allowable, and reflect
the amount being billed. Documentation must include:
A summary of direct labor costs
Travel and per diem reimbursement documentation
Contractor or vendor pay requests
Invoices
Timesheets or check copies to document proof of payment must be available for audit purposes
at the Applicants place of business.
Payment of grant funds will be subject to the Applicant complying with its matching contribution
requirements of the proposed grant.