Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWhitman Lake Hydroelectric Report FERC Project No. 11597 1999I -l WHITMAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 11597 SCOPING DOCUMENT 2 Ketchikan Public Utilities September 1999 WHITMAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 11597 SCOPING DOCUMENT 2 Ketchikan Public Utilities September 1999 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................. . SCOPING .............................. . 2.1 2.2 2.3 Purposes of Scoping ........................................ . Scoping Meetings ................................... . Site Visit .......................................... . REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ....... . PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............ . 4.1 KPU's Proposed Action ....................... . 4.1.1 Project Description 4.1.2 Project Operation 4.1.3 Proposed Protection and Mitigation .. Modifications to KPU's Proposed Action ..... No Action ......................................... . Table of Contents 1 3 .. 3 3 4 5 ..................... 7 7 10 13 . ........ 14 . ................. 14 . ........ 14 4.2 4.3 4.4 Alternatives Considered by KPU but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation ................................................. . 15 5.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES ............. 16 5.1 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... 16 5.1.1 Resources that Could be Cumulatively Affected ......................... 16 5.1.2 Geographic Scope ......................................................................... 16 5.1.3 Temporal Scope ............................................................................ 16 5.2 Resource Issues ......................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Geological and Soil Resources ...................................................... 17 5.2.2 Water Resources ........................................................................... 17 5.2.3 Fishery Resources ......................................................................... 17 5.2.4 Terrestrial Resources .................................................................... 18 5.2.5 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species .......................... 18 5.2.6 Aesthetic Resources ...................................................................... 18 5.2. 7 Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 19 5.2.8 Recreation and Other Land Uses ................................................. 19 5.2.9 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................. 19 6.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OUTLINE ......... .. 20 7.0 SCHEDULE FOR PREPARING DEA AND UCENSE APPLICATION ........ 22 8.0. MAILIN"G LIST ........................................................ . September 1999 23 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project I APPENDICES Appendix A: Agency Comment Letters Appendix B: Responses to Agency Comments Appendix C: Final Study Plans UST OF TABLES Table ojContents 4-1 Project Statistics ...................................................................... . 8 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Project Location Map ............. . 4-1 General Project Arrangement September 1999 2 ........................................................ 9 &oping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Whitman Lake Project (No. 11597) is located near the southeast end of Revillagigedo Island, approximately four miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska (Figure 1-1). Whitman Lake is naturally formed, but the normal water surface elevation was raised about 18 feet in 1927 with the construction of a 46 -foot high concrete gravity arch dam at the lake outlet. The dam was originally part of a 1,500 kW hydroelectric project owned by New England Fish Company. The Ketchikan Utilities Board purchased the project in 1957 and the plant was retired from service shortly thereafter. The original penstock and powerhouse have, for the most part, been demolished and removed from the site, but the dam remains in service providing water supply to the Herring Cove Fish Hatchery. The proposed hydroelectric project will have an installed capacity of 4.6 MW. The Project is located on lands owned by the State of Alaska and United States Forest Service (USFS). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued a three-year Preliminary Permit for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project on June 5, 1997. The permit gives Ketchikan Public Utility District (K.PU) priority for filing a development application while conducting engineering and environmental feasibility studies. KPU intends to file an application for a "Major Project-Existing Dam" with a total installed capacity of 5 MW or less (18 CFR, Section 4.60). KPU is utilizing the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment ( APEA) process to prepare an application for an original license for the Project. A Communications Protocol has been agreed to by the majority of interested entities. Under the APEA process a draft NEP A Environmental Assessment (DEA) will be prepared in lieu ofExhibit E of the License Application. The DEA will be prepared in conformance with the Commission's regulations governing the APEA process (Order No. 596, issued October 29, 1997). The Commission, under the authority ofthe Federal Power Act (FPA), may issue original licenses for up to 50 years for the construction, operation and maintenance of nonfederal hydroelectric developments. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, issuing an original license for the Project requires preparation of either an environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In accordance with Commission regulations that govern the procedures to be followed in the APEA process, KPU will prepare a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA} that analyzes the issues raised during pre-filing consultation and the scoping process. The PDEA will include descriptions and evaluations ofKPU's proposed action and action alternatives. The PDEA will be circulated to all participants for review. KPU will then file with the Commission a license application and a draft EA (DEA) that addresses the comments and recommendations received on the PDEA The Commission conduct an independent analysis of resource issues and evaluate KPU's DEA The Commission will issue its own DEA for comment followed by a final EA (FEA). September 1999 Page 1 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project GRAVINA ISLAND /.AK£ ~ HARRIE'fl.JV HUNT PROJECT LOCATION 1 0 3 5-;J I I SCAlE IN Ill£$ {) .., I I ALASKA \ I I \ PACIFIC OCEAN KEY MAP WESCORP KETCHIKAN PIJBUC UllUllES ~ITMAN LAKE H'mROO.EC'TRIC PRO.£CT f'ERC PRo.£CT NO. 11597 PROJECT LOCA llON MAP FIGURE 1-1 Scoping 2.0 SCOPING 2.1 PURPOSES OF SCOPING Scoping is the process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with a proposed action. The process, according to NEP A, should be conducted early in the planning stage of the Project .. The purposes ofscoping is to: • Invite participation of federal, state, and local agencies, native groups, and other interested parties to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed action. • Determine the depth of analysis and significance of issues to address in the DEA • Identify how the Project would or would not-contribute to cumulative environmental effects in the Whitman Lake basin. • Identify reasonable alternatives to the Project that should be evaluated. • Eliminate from detailed study the issues and resources that do not require detailed analysis during review of the Project. • Solicit additional study requests. Scoping Document 1 and the scoping meetings were designed to provide further understanding of the Project and to encourage all interested parties to participate and contribute input on important environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be considered in the DEA. Scoping Document 1 was made available to agencies, the public, and other interested participants. All issues raised during the scoping comment period were reviewed and decisions made as to the level of analysis needed in the preparation of the PDEA. Scoping Document 1 (SD1) was revised to reflect comments received during the scoping meetings and comment period and this document, Scoping Document 2 (SD2), was prepared. 2.2 SCOPING MEETINGS In addition to written comments solicited by SD 1, KPU held two scoping meetings on March 3, 1999 to solicit any verbal comments and viewpoints that people wished to offer about the Project. The scoping meetings were recorded, and all statements (oral and written) are part of the public record for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project. Interested parties who choose not September 1999 Page 3 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping to participate, or who were unable to attend either scoping meeting, could submit written comments within 60 calendar days following the scheduled meeting. 2.3 SITE VISIT A visit to the proposed Project site was conducted on March 4, 1999. The site visit was intended to give resource agencies, tribal and native Corporation representatives and any other interested parties a first-hand observation of the Project site. September 1999 Page4 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Request for Information 3.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Federal, state, and local resource agencies, native groups, other interest groups and individuals were requested to forward information that they believed would assist KPU and the Commission staff in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the site-specific as well as cumulative effects of licensing the Whitman lake Hydroelectric Project. Types of information requested included, but were not limited to the following: • Comments on the scope of issues presented in Scoping Document 1, and whether other issues need to be addressed. • Information, quantitative data, or professional opinions that may contribute in identifying and defining the geographical and temporal scope and significant environmental issues. • Identification of, and information from, any other environmental document or similar analyses (previous, on-going, or planned) relevant to the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project. • Information and quantitative data that would help describe the existing environmental resources of the Project area, including physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic resources. • Identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, environmental impact statements, and future project proposals in the affected resource area. • Documentation to support a conclusion whether or not the proposed Project would contribute to adverse or beneficial effects on resources, including but not limited to a) how the Project interacts with other hydropower projects and developmental activities within the affected area, b) results from studies, c) resource management policies, and d) reports from federal, state and local agencies. • Alternatives to the proposed action. • Documentation showing why any resources should be excluded from further study or consideration. The requested information could have been submitted at the scoping meetings, or in writing. Written material was requested by May 3, 1999. Comments and additional study requests were received from Alaska Department ofNatural Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, members of Herring Bay Users Association, Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Montgomery Watson, U.S Fish and Wtldlife Service, September 1999 Page 5 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Request for Information and U.S. Forest Service. Copies ofletters received are included in Appendix A ofthis document. Responses to comments are provided in Appendix B of this document. Comments received on SD 1 have been incorporated into this Scoping Document 2. In addition, the draft study plans presented in the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) that was sent out with SDI have been revised to incorporate comments and additional study requests. Final Study Plans are included in Appendix C of this document. September 1999 Page6 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4.1 KPU'S PROPOSED ACTION Whitman Lake is located near the southeast end ofRevillagigedo Island, approximately four miles east of the City ofKetchikan, Alaska. The lake is naturally formed, but the normal water surface elevation was raised about 18 feet in I 927 with the construction of a 46-foot high concrete gravity arch dam at the lake outlet. The dam was originally part of a 1,500 kW hydroelectric project owned by New England Fish Company. The Ketchikan Utilities Board purchased the project in 1957 and the plant was retired from service shortly thereafter. The original penstock and powerhouse have, for the most part, been demolished and removed from the site, but the dam remains in service providing water supply to the Herring Cove Fish Hatchery, owned and operated by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Inc. (SSRAA), and to the Herring Cove Water User's Association for domestic use. Existing facilities currently in operation include the dam and two parallel above-ground steel pipelines supplying water to the hatchery. Both pipelines are about 2,260 feet in length. The larger pipeline is 24 inches in diameter at the dam, and reduces to 18 inches diameter over the lower 900 feet. The smaller pipeline is 10 inches in diameter at the dam, and reduces to 8 inches over the lower 900 feet. In addition to these facilities, a small concrete diversion structure is located on Whitman Creek about 3,000 feet downstream ofWhitman Dam to supply water for domestic use to 21 homeowners in the Herring Cove area. KPU proposes to construct a new 45" steel penstock from Whitman Dam to a powerhouse at Herring Cove containing two turbine/generator units totaling 4.6 MW. The penstock will follow the same general alignment as the existing hatchery water supply pipelines. Dimensions and sizes of principal project features are presented in Table 4-1. The proposed project alignment is shown on Figure 4-1. September 1999 Page7 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Table4-1 Project Statistics Drainage Area Natural Drainage Area Diversion Area (2 sites) Average Annual Natural Outflow at Darn Combined Average Annual Flow at Diversion Sites Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Elevation Normal Minimum Operating Elevation Active Storage at El. 380 Surface Area at El. 380 Surface Area at El. 362 Existing Darn Darn Type Maximum Structural Height Crest Length Darn Crest Elevation Spillway Type Spillway Crest Elevation Spillway Width Outlets Penstock Existing Pipelines New Penstock Diameter/Length Powerhouse Type size (footprint) Unit 1: (Horizontal Francis) Rated Capacity Rated Head Maximum Discharge Unit 2: (Horizontal Francis) Rated Capacity Rated Head Maximum Discharge September 1999 Page 8 Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.1 square miles 1.25 square miles : 78 cfs 23 cfs. 380' 362 i 2,500 acre-feet 148 acres 129 acres Concrete Gravity Arch 46 feet; 220 feet 385 Ogee Sill within Dam 380~ 40 feet 2-36" dia. and 1-42" dia. 18-inch I 2,260 feet 8-inch I 2,260 feet 45-inch I 2,220 feet Above Ground Concrete 2,800 sq. ft. 3,900 kW 345 feet 150 cfs 700kW 310 feet 30 cfs Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project DI~SIQN . ---·-·- ------- ·"' :---------~\ .... ..... , '. ~~. ·. \._. I __ ) I I \ ' t "'----- ' \ '\ ........__ ' \ --., .,_ ./ .$ '-, (:;, ,_ --. ....__.-- 0 ~--/',-' -WE:SCORP 0 0 _AOO '- "-- 500 0 500 I w--t;;;wwl I SCALE IN FEET KETCHIKAN PUBUC ununES WHITMAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO..ECT FERC PRQ.£CT NO. 11597 PROJECT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 4-1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.1.1 Project Description Specific features are described as follows: Existing Whitman Dam The existing 70-year old dam shows signs of deterioration, but with proper rehabilitation measures and maintenance, it can be made a reliable structure through one or several 30 year FERC license terms. Since the dam will become an important feature of the hydro project, dam repairs and maintenance items will include, at a minimum, grouting the joints, repairing rock pockets, painting exposed metalwork, and installing new safety grating and railings on the dam crest. Based on recent dam safety inspection reports, it appears that the structural stability of the dam has been analyzed, but possibly not to standards required by FERC for licensed hydroelectric projects. Development of a hydroelectric project utilizing Whitman Lake may require additional structural analysis of the dam under seismic and Probable Maximum Flood loading conditions in accordance with FERC's Engineering Guidelines. If results from previous analyses do not meet FERC's accepted methods and factors of safety, then such analyses will be required. Existing Timber Crib Dam When Whitman Dam was constructed in 1927 it inundated a timber crib dam located immediately upstream. Remnants of the timber crib dam are still visible below the water surface. Based on a 1926 sketch showing the location ofboth dams, the crest of the timber crib dam was set at about El. 370, or about 8 feet above the proposed minimum operating pool level. In order to ensure sufficient flow is made available to the Whitman Dam intake down to the proposed minimum operating pool level, El. 362, any flow restrictions caused by the timber crib dam, large trees, root balls or other material, will be removed. New Diversion Structures The natural drainage area into Whitman Lake is 4.1 square miles. A portion of flow from two creeks that do not naturally flow into the lake will be diverted to the lake via small diameter pipelines in order to increase the amount of flow available for power generation. The two diversions combined will augment the natural basin inflow by as much as 30 percent. One of the diversions will be located about 1,300 feet northeast ofWhitman Dam on a tributary that feeds Whitman Creek below the dam. The diversion structure will be capable of diverting up to 3 5 cfs through a 1 ,600-foot long, 24-inch diameter, high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. The drainage area above the diversion site is 0. 95 square miles. The second diversion site will be located about 4,800 feet southwest of the dam on a creek that flows to Herring Cove. The drainage area above this diversion is 0.3 square miles. September 1999 Page 10 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives Streamflow up to 10 cfs will be diverted to Whitman Lake via a 16-inch diameter, 1,760-foot long, HDPE pipe. Both diversions will be rockfill structures constructed from boulders, rock fragments and gravel that can be easily excavated nearby. The diversion structure will have a concrete or HDPE liner blanket on the upstream face to act as an impervious barrier. Future field studies will investigate the availability of sufficient clay as an alternative impervious barrier. At each diversion there will be a small gated intake structure, spillway slot with flashboards, and a gated sluice pipe. The diversion pipelines will be laid at a 1 to 2 percent slope generally following the contours of the land. The pipe will be buried or mounded where feasible to provide protection from falling trees or boulders. The pipe will be anchored to minimize displacement. New 45-inch Diameter Penstock A new 45-inch diameter, 2,220-foot long, steel penstock will be constructed from the dam to the powerhouse at Herring Cove. The penstock will be supported above ground on piers founded on bedrock. Based on geotechnical evaluation of the penstock route, an above ground penstock is more suitable due to the presumed shallow depth to bedrock. It will generally parallel the same alignment of the two existing water supply pipelines from the dam to the existing vacuum valve house. At the valve house, about 200 feet of the new penstock will be buried up to a maximum depth of about 20 feet to ensure that the penstock has sufficient pressure head to convey the full design flow to the turbines. The buried section of penstock will likely require rock blasting. Existing Hatchery Pipelines The two existing pipelines serving the hatchery's water supply and temperature requirements will continue to serve these functions. The existing valves at the dam used to control temperature and flow rate will be automated to make operations more convenient for the hatchery. Instead of delivering water to the hatchery at high pressure, a small turbine unit will be installed on the lower end of the existing pipelines to convert the high potential energy to useful kinetic energy. In order to optimize the amount of hydroelectric generation, the lower 890 feet of the existing 18-inch diameter pipeline will be replaced with 24-inch diameter pipe. September 1999 Page 11 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives Intake Connection There are three existing outlets through the dam. Two 36-inch diameter outlets have inverts at about El. 349, and a single 42-inch diameter outlet has an invert at about EL 354. The 42- inch outlet and one of the 36-inch outlets are currently being used to collectively supply up to 27 cfs to the hatchery. Flow through the outlets is manually regulated to control the temperature of water delivered to the hatchery. The 42-inch outlet draws from the top portion of the lake and the 36-inch outlet draws from deeper waters through an approximate 1,500-foot pipe connected to it on the upstream side. The unused 36-inch outlet will serve as the inlet to the new 45-inch diameter penstock. A trashrack will be installed on the upstream face of the dam to prevent large woody debris from entering the penstock and potentially damaging the turbine runner. Instream Flow Release Valve In order to maintain flow in the channel below the dam, a remotely operated 8-inch diameter throttling valve will be tapped into the new penstock and the existing 24-inch pipeline at the dam to enable a continuous flow below the dam. An instream flow will satisfY fishery concerns and water rights held by the Herring Cove Water User's Association. Powerhouse A 2,800 square foot composite concrete and steel-framed powerhouse will be constructed immediately uphill from the existing PRY building. The powerhouse will contain a 3.9 MW unit and a 0. 7 MW unit for a total installed capacity of 4.6 MW. The larger unit will operat-e within a flow range between 50 and 150 cfs, and the small unit will operate between 12 and 30 cfs. Both turbines will be horizontal Francis type machines, which are the most appropriate type unit with the given head and flow conditions. In order to suppress the magnitude of hydraulic transient pressures in the penstocks when flow is abruptly changed, an 18-inch diameter synchronous bypass valve will be installed to automatically open if the turbine wicket gates suddenly close due to a line fault or other reasons. Tailwater level exiting the powerhouse will be controlled at about EL 40 for the small unit, and at EL 20 for the larger unit. Discharge from the small unit will be conveyed to the hatchery for its use, with any excess flow diverted to the lower tailrace. Discharge from the large unit will be conveyed in a buried concrete box culvert running from the powerhouse to a point immediately east of the existing fish ladder entrance. Discharging adjacent to the fish ladder will minimize any confusion to returning fish. September 1999 Page 12 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives Switchyard and Transmission Line The plant switchyard will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and will contain a power transformer, circuit breakers and disconnect switches. Transmission line work will involve reconductoring approximately 1,200 feet of the existing distribution line serving the hatchery and several residences along Powerhouse Road. The 34.5 kV transmission line will be constructed from the switchyard to an intertie with the 34.5 kV Beaver Falls line along Tongass Highway. Proposed Road Constroction An access road, approximately 22 feet wide and 300 feet in length, will be constructed for access to the powerhouse. The road will begin on Powerhouse Road near the current entrance to the hatchery and wrap around the existing incubation building. The road will be used for construction and permanent access. 4.1.2 Project Operation A main premise of this alternative is that plant operation, in response to reservoir inflow, takes precedence over the operation of all other KPU-owned generating resources. KPU would still purchase power from the Swan Lake Project in accordance with terms under the Four-Dam Pool Agreement. Adopting this operating philosophy will maximize energy generation and minimize spill. Because of the relative lack of storage with this project alternative, the project will operate similar to a run-of-river project, which more or less respond to inflow rather than load. A reservoir level sensing device, installed at the dam and hard-wired to the powerhouse, will periodically transmit water surface elevation and rate of change in elevation to a programmable logic controller (PLC) in the powerhouse. The PLC will transmit a signal to gradually open or close the turbine wicket gates based on a series of pre-programmed logical arguments that take into account variables such as current rate of reservoir inflow, current reservoir level, target reservoir level, hatchery flow demand, and optimum turbine efficiency. Programming the units to respond to reservoir inflow will make more efficient use of inflow and reduce spill. For example, if an inflow of 400 cfs to the reservoir (not an unusual event) were sustained for 4 hours, the reservoir would rise about 1 foot in that time period assuming there were no releases from the dam. If sustained over 24 hours, then the rise would be 6 feet. With reservoir level sensing, wicket gates on the two units would automatically open in an effort to maintain the targeted reservoir level until the full combined maximum turbine discharge of 180 cfs is attained. The reservoir level would still rise because inflow ( 400 cfs) exceeds outflow ( 180 cfs ), but the rise over 24 hours would be only about 3 feet versus 6 feet. This type of operation will reduce overall spill. The hydroelectric project will be hydraulically integrated with the hatchery's water supply needs. Water for the hatchery will continue to be taken from the two existing pipelines, September 1999 Page 13 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives however the larger (18" diameter) pipeline will be connected to the 700 kW turbine unit. Water from the small (8-inch diameter) pipeline will not be used for hydropower generation, but will continue to feed the hatchery. 4.1.3 Proposed Protection and Mitigation KPU proposes to construct and operate the project as described in the above sections and will provide the following measures to protect the environment: • Develop and implement a plan to limit erosion and control sedimentation during all construction related activities. • Minimize vegetation removal during construction of the penstock, powerhouse, switchyard, and transmission line. Revegetate disturbed areas with native vegetation upon completion of construction activities. • Coordinate construction activities with the resource agencies to avoid disturbing major wildlife species known to frequent the project area. • Design the powerhouse and tailrace facilities to blend with the surrounding terrain. • Release a minimum instream flow for aquatic and aesthetic resources. • Develop a contingency plan to halt construction if any cultural or historically significant artifacts are discovered. • Cooperate with ADF&G and USFWS to survey and monitor sensitive species in Project area. • Discharge tailrace near fish ladder to avoid confusion and delay for returning fish. • Consult with agencies on fish surveys. • Monitor instream flows during project operation. 4.2 MODIFICATIONS TO KPU'S PROPOSED ACTION Further protection, mitigation and enhancement measures recommended by resource agencies and the Commission were considered and included as part of the proposed action. 4.3 NO ACTION Under the no-action alternative, the Project would not be constructed. No changes in the existing environment would take place. The no-action alternative is the baseline from which the proposed action and any action alternatives will be compared. September 1999 Page 14 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY KPU BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION During the feasibility study, three additional project configurations were evaluated and eliminated from consideration. In addition, one additional source of water for the project was also considered. A detailed description of each of these alternatives was presented in the feasibility study and are summarized below: Initial Surface Penstock Alternative This is a variation to the preferred alternative that was initially evaluated. It is similar to the alternative presented with the major difference being the location of the powerhouse. In this alternative, the powerhouse would be located near the existing hatchery, about 150 feet north of the furthest western raceway. This alternative is still a viable concept for the proposed development. Lake Tap Alternative This is an alternative that has been considered since it was first introduced in the 1950's. Water to supply the powerhouse would be removed from Whitman Lake via an underground tunnel and penstock to a powerhouse in the vicinity of the hatchery. This project can generate approximately the same energy level as the preferred alternative even though there is a greater volume of reservoir storage available. However, this operation results in a lower average head resulting in energy production similar to the preferred alternative. The cost of this alternative is greater than the other alternatives and hence results in higher power costs. Least Cost Alternative This alternative assumes that KPU enforces its 1978 agreement with SSRAA to the full extent, which would disregard the water supply needs of the existing hatchery. IfKPU elected to pursue this course of action, the three main features of the preferred alternative (turbine capacity, powerhouse location, and reservoir operating criteria) would be modified. A single generator, rated at 3,900 kW would be more economical than installing an additional smaller unit as proposed. Reservoir operating criteria could be modified if the hatchery water supply demands were not considered. And, the powerhouse would be constructed at the location of the existing pressure reducing valve building. September 1999 Page 15 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues 5.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES 5.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEP A (50 CFR, Section 1508.7), an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment ifits impacts overlap in space and/or time with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period oftime, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. Considering the initial consultation document, agency and public comments, and our review of studies and reports to date, we have outlined below our proposed geographic and temporal scope of analysis for cumulative effects in the PDEA. 5.1.1 Resources that Could be Cumulatively Affected At this time, we have tentatively identified the following resources that could be cumulativelj' affected by the Whitman Lake Project. These include other land uses including hatchery operations and residential development and businesses in the vicinity, recreational opportunities, water resources, fisheries resources and wildlife resources. 5.1.2 Geographic Scope The geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of(1) the proposed action's effect on the resource, and (2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities in the Whitman Creek and diversion basins. The geographic scope of our cumulative analysis will include Whitman Creek from its confluence with George Inlet to the headwaters, including Whitman Lake, as well as the diversion basins from outlet to headwaters, Herring Cove and adjacent lands surrounding the hatchery. 5.1.3 Temporal Scope The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the DEA will include past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential 50-year license term for the Whitman Lake Project, the temporal scope will look 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information for each resource. We will document the present resource conditions and the results of our studies in the PDEA. September 1999 Page 16 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues 5.2 RESOURCE ISSUES A preliminary list of resource issues and concerns that have been identified for analysis in the DEA is presented below. Those issues identified by an asterick (*)will be analyzed for cumulative, as well as site-specific, effects. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but is an initial listing of potential issues that have been identified. For convenience, the issues have been listed in categories related to technical disciplines. 5.2.1 Geological and Soil Resources • Whether construction activities and long-term operation, including excavation and foundation building would cause or increase slope instability at the various project features. • How would land-disturbing activities associated with construction and continued operation of the project affect erosion and sedimentation in the stream channels and Project area . • 5.2.2 Water Resources* • Are the existing estimates of water availability accurate and will estimates based upon a newly installed stream gauge negatively impact energy production estimates and project economics? • How would the average monthly flow frequency curves below Whitman change as a result of project operation? • Would project construction impact sedimentation, turbidity, and erosion along Whitman Creek and the diverted streams. • Will removal of the timber crib dam affect turbidity and sedimentation in Whitman Creek? • How would operation of the Project affect water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels in Whitman Creek below the dam? • Would lake level fluctuations increase bank erosion and impact lake turbidity and sedimentation with subsequent effects on the aquatic community? • Would the project impact the supply or quality of water to the Herring Cove Water users Association? • Would the Project impact the supply or quality of water to the Whitman Lake Hatchery? • Would increased flow into Herring Cove affect the sawmill operations and the movement of logs upstream. 5.2.3 Fishery Resources* • Would the implementation of a minimum flow in Whitman Creek below Whitman Dam adequately protect aquatic resources? • What effects would water withdrawals and possible dewatering have on the aquatic communities and habitat below the diversion structures?. September 1999 Page 17 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues • Would the diversion structures eliminate movement corridors for resident and migratory fish? • How would lake level fluctuations affect reproduction, survival, and habitat of fish and invertebrate communities in Whitman Lake? • Would the tailrace discharge adversely impact hatchery operations? • Would the proposed protection and mitigation measures be sufficient to prevent or mitigate any adverse impacts to fishery and aquatic resources affected by project construction and operation? 5.2.4 Terrestrial Resources* • Whether project construction or operation would adversely affect plant communities or critical habitat of sensitive plant and animal species? • Whether proposed protection and mitigation measures would be sufficient to prevent or mitigate any adverse impacts to plant communities or sensitive species and their habitats? • Whether flow reduction would adversely affect the riparian habitat downstream from Whitman dam or below the diversion structures. 5.2.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species* • Whether project construction and operation would affect the following Endangerea Species Act-listed species and whether mitigation would be needed to offset anticipated impacts to these species or their habitats: endangered American peregrine falcon, endangered humpback whale, threatened Stellar sea lion, and delisted Arctic peregrine falcon. • Whether project construction and operation would affect the following U.S. Fish and Wtldlife Service species of concern and whether mitigation would be needed to offset anticipated impacts to these species or their habitats: goose-grass sedge, thick-glume reedgrass, marbled murrelet, Alexander Archipelago wolf, Queen Charlotte goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog. • Whether project construction and operation would affect the following U.S. Forest Service Sensitive species and whether mitigation would be needed to offset anticipated impacts to these species or their habitats: choris bog orchid, trumpeter swan, osprey, and Peale's peregrine falcon. 5.2.6 Aesthetic Resources • Whether the penstock and powerhouse would impact the visual quality of the area. • The degree that construction and operation of project facilities would adversely impact the visual quality of the area. • Would the reduction of flow in Whitman Creek below Whitman dam, as well as the diverted tributaries, be visually unattractive. • Whether lake level fluctuations will result in an aesthetically unpleasing shoreline? September 1999 Page 18 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues 5.2. 7 Cultural Resources • Whether project construction would adversely impact cultural resources that may exist in the area. 5.2.8 Recreation and Other Land Uses* • Whether project construction and operation would affect recreation opportunities. • Whether project construction and operation would affect other land uses in the Project area. 5.2.9 Socioeconomic Resources • How would construction and operation impact employment in the Ketchikan area? September 1999 Page 19 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Draft Environmental Assessment Outline 6.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OUTLINE The tentative outline for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project is as follows: I. SUMMARY IT. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POWER ill. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. Applicant's Proposal 1. Project Facilities and Operations 2. Proposed Environmental Measures 3. Mandatory Requirements B. No-Action Alternative C. Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis IV. AGENCIES AND ENTITIES CONTACTED V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. General Description of the Basin B. Cumulative Effects Analysis C. Proposed Action and Other Recommended Environmental Measures September I 999 1. Geological Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 2. Water Resources a) Affected..Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3. Fishery Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4. Terrestrial Resources a) Wildlife Resources ( 1) Affected Environment (2) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations (3) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts b) Botanical Resources (1) Affected Environment (2) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Page 20 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project September /999 Draft Environmental Assessment Outline (3) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 5. Threatened and Endangered Species a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 6. Aesthetic Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 7. Cultural Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 8. Recreation and Other Land Uses a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 9) Socioeconomic Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 21 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedul! 7.0 SCHEDULE FOR PREPARING DEA AND LICENSE APPLICATI<»> The approximate schedule for completing licensing activities in the alternative licensing/ APEA process for the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project follows: · Licensing Activities Date (a=actual) Draft Communications Protocol circulated to agencies and 9/30/98a interested parties Request to Approve Use of Alternative Licensing Procedures filed 11/13/98a with the Commission (with Communications Protocol) Notice of Request to Approve Use of Alternative Licensing 12/4/98a Procedures published in Federal Register Initial Consultation Package and Scoping Document 1 (SD1) sent 12/30/98a • to Agencies, Native Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)-30 days prior to meeting • Comments due on Request to follow APEA process 2/3/99a 1 (30 days following Notice plus 30 day extension) FERC Order approving Request to follow APEA process 2/5/99 Public Notice of Scoping/ Joint Meeting (15 days prior to meeting) 2/17/99a First Stage Consultation/Public Scoping Meeting held in Ketchikan 3/3/99a Received All Comments on ICD and SD 1 5/19/99a Six-month progress report to the Commission 5/31/99 Applicant issues Scoping Document 2 (SD2) and files it with 9/99 Commission Study Results Provided 12115/99 30 Day Review 12115/99-1/15/00 Six-month progress report due to the Commission 11/30/99 PDEA and Draft Application issued and circulated to agencies and 2/1/00 interested parties (assuming no Additional Study requests) Notice ofPDEA and Draft Application published in Ketchikan 2/1/00 Daily News, Anchorage Daily News, and Federal Register Comments, Recommendations and Conditions due (90 days after 5/1/00 PDEA and Draft Application issued) License Application and DEA filed at the Commission and sent to 6/00 agencies and interested parties September 1999 Page 22 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Federal Agencies: Mr. David P. Boergers Secretary 8.0 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Carter Kruse Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Paul D. Gates U.S. Dept. ofthe Interior Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance Regional Environmental Officer 1689 C. Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Ms. Teresa Woods Mr. John Lindell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801-7100 Steve Brockmann U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 624 Mill St. Ketchikan, Alaska 9990 1 Mr. Andy Grossman, Fisheries Biologist U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service Resources Management Division P.O. 21668 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 September I 999 Mailing List MAILING LIST Mr. Pete Griffin, Acting District Ranger Ms. Teresa Trulock, Recreation Contact U.S. Forest Service Ketchikan Ranger District Tongass National Forest 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Brad Powell, Forest Supervisor Mr. Tom Somrak, Lands Forester U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Stan Burst U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works-Public Facilities C-ENPA-EN-CW-PF P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Mr. Steve Duncan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Processing Section Regulatory Branch C-ENPA-CO-R P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Mr. Bruce Bigelow U.S. Geological Survey P.O. Box 21568 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. MarkJen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Scientist EPA -Alaska Operations Office 222 W. Seventh Ave #19 Anchorage, AK 99513 Page 23 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Mr. John Bregar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MS-EC0-088 1200 6th A venue Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Robert L. Lloyd Assistant District Manager, Lands U.S. Bureau ofLand Management Anchorage District Office 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 Mr. Larry Wright U.S. National Park Service Alaska Regional Office 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503-2892 State Agencies and Native Groups: Ms. Lorraine Marshall Project Review Coordinator Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination Office of Management and Budget P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Mr. Jack Gustafson, Habitat Division Ms. Carol Denton, Commercial Fisheries Mr. Steve Hoffman, Sport Fish Division Alaska Department ofFish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Clayton Hawkes Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat And Restoration Division P.O. Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 September 1999 Mailing List Mr. Kevin Brownlee Alaska Department ofFish and Game Division of Sport Fish/RTS Region 1 P.O.Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 Mr. Christopher Estes Statewide Instream Flow Coordinator Sport Fish Division Alaska Department ofFish and Game 3 3 3 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Mr. John Dunker, Water Resources Division of Mining and Water Management Department ofNatural Resources Southeast Regional Office Water Resources Section 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau,AK 99801-1795 Mr. Chris Landis, Natural Resource Manager, Ms. Elizaveta Shadura, Regional ACMP Coordinator Department ofNatural Resources Southeast Regional Office Division of Lands 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau,AK 99801-1795 Mr. Bill Garry, Superintendent Department ofNatural Resources Southeast Regional Office Division ofParks and Outdoor Recreation 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau,AK 99801-1795 Ms. Mary Kowalczyk Ranger Department ofNatural Resources Alaska State Parks 9983 North Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Page 24 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Mr. Gary Prokosch Chief of Water Resources Department ofNatural Resources Division of Mining and Water Management 360 I C. Street #800 Anchorage, AK 99503-5935 Mr. Steve Planchon Executive Director Trust Land Office Department ofNatural Resources 3601 C. Street #1122 Anchorage, AK 99503-5935 Mr. Dave Sturdevant Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation 410 Willoughby A venue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer Office of History and Archaeology 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 98503-8921 Mr. Dick Emerman State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Stanley Sieczkowski, Operations Mgr. Alaska Energy Authority 480 West Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Dennis McCrohan Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 September 1999 Mr. Andy Hughes Department of Transportation 6860 Glacier A venue Juneau, AK 99801-7999 Mailing List Mr. Percy Frisby, Division Director Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Paul Morrison Alaska Public Utilities Commission ChiefUtility Engineer 1016 West Sixth #400 Anchorage, AK 99501-1963 Ms. Corrine Garza, General Manager Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deermount Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Charles W. White Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deermount Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza #400 Juneau,AK 99801 Ms. Bea Watson Chairman, Tongass Tribe Tongass Tribe 3242 Baranof, #4 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Diane Palmer Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Page 25 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Local Governments: Mr. Bob Weinstein, Mayor Mr. Jim Wingren, Council Member Mr. Tom Coyne, Council Member Mr. Tom Friesen, Council Member Ms. Judy Jenkinson, Council Member Mr. Robert Norton, Council Member Mr. Lew Williams III, Council Member Ms. Joy Butler, Council Member Ms. Katherine Suiter, City Clerk City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Renee Woodell, Executive Director Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Tom Fitzgerald, Administrator City of Saxman Route 2, Box 1 -Saxman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Georgiana Zimmerle, Borough Mgr. Mr. Jack Shay, Borough Mayor Mr. John Hill, Coastal Coordinator Ms. Susan Dickinson, Planning Director Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Other Interested Parties: Mr. William J. Halloran Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association 2721 N. Tongass Ave Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 September 1999 Mr. Ron Wolfe Klukwan Forest Products, Inc. P.O. Box 34659 Juneau, AK 99803 Mr. Dave Pflaum Mailing List Herring Cove Water Users Association 8256 South Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Paul Berkshire Ketchikan Electric Company 2727 T ongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Ron Settje, Administrative Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Allyn Hayes Ketchikan Pulp Company P. 0. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way, Suite 200 Mercer Island, W A 98040 Mr. Roland Stanton 3 817 Fairview Drive Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Eric Hummel TCS P. 0. Box 23377 Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Mike Sallee P. 0. Box 7603 Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Page 26 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project ""-' '") 7 $~£~~ @~ £~£~~£ TONYKNOWLE~GOVERNOR DEPART:MENT OF FISH AND GAME HABITAT AND RESTORATION DIVISION April30,1999 Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way Suite 200 Mercer Island, W A 98040 Dear Mr. Thompson: ISLAND CENTER BUILDING P.O. BOX 240020 DOUGLAS, AK 99824-0020 PHONE: (907) 465-4290 FAX: (907) 465-4272 ill -:-::;--;::::: ~ . ~~ ;-'\ & v : .. :" -~.' 1~1 !: . MAY 0 3 1999 :_· ---------·- RE: REQUEST FOR STUDIES, Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11597 . The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the December 1998 Initial Consultation Document (ICD) and Seeping Document I for the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, approximately four miles east of Ketchikan, Alaska. On March 3 and 4, 1999, staff attended the agency and public first stage consultation meetings and participated in a site visit. This letter contains the Department's requested studies, pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) 18 CFR §10(j). Pursuant to 6 AAC 50 [Project Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)J the following information is also necessary for us to develop stipulations to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the ACMP (6 AAC 80.130 (c)(7) HABITATS). The information will also be used to develop AS 16.05.870 and 16.05.840 permit stipulations. Proposed Project The proposed 4.6 MW hydroelectric project site is about four miles east ofKetchikan on state and U.S. Forest Service lands. It would utilize the existing water intakes on Whitman Lake and a 18-24-inch diameter pipeline that currently supplies the Herring Cove Hatchery. The existing and a new 45" diameter pipeline (constructed along the same alignment) would serve as penstocks. Maximum discharge to the powerhouse, which would be located adjacent to the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association's (SSRAA) hatchery, is 150 cfs. C0 Mt; Don Thompson Whitman Lake: Hydroelectric Project z April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 The applicant projects that a combined average annual flow of 23 cfs additional water wouldhaveto be.divertcdfromothcrstreams into Whitman Lake reservoir. Up to 35 cfs would be. diverted. from Achilles-Creek into Whitman Creek below the dam via a24-inch di~eter, 1:600-foot-long_pipeline. Up to 10 cfs would be. diverted from.Hcrring_Cove creek into Whitman L.a.tc:erescrvoir through a.16:..inch diameter, 1,760-foot long. pipeline~ TlitP.IOject would also include the construction of 1,200 feet of transmission: line and the totafor2artial removal of·an old timber crib dam that is submergedin the. :reservoir.. Fishqy Resources: HJ:rring_Cove Ci:eek (ADF&G #t01-4S:10070) is cataloged for pink. chum and cohe· salmon. A second"catalogecistream (ADF&G.#lOl-45-2011), which has pink salmon~ alse enters !ferring Cove. Whitman Creek is nor-cataloged, but the stream mouth· is popular· for sport fishing because it attracts chinook and coho salmon retumingJo the hatchery. Anadromous ffsh migrate. up into a pool upstream o[the.highway bridge; DollY: Varden ., char use: this habitat during a portion of" their lifi: cycle: Whitman Lake·provides habitat for brook trout andDolly Varden char. Many wildlife s~ies rely on the. fish-from these. water bodies as prey. Proposed access road, penstocks, pipelines, and power line corridor.nnay cross habitat used. by wildlife:. General Iilformation Requirements . In genera4.ADF&G requires the following. t)'P.eS of information for the review of. hY.droelectric. and other t)'P.eS ot development projects: ffsheries, hydrologic characteristics of"the.systcm,..and a description ofpotential.habitatcbanges that may result from construction and short-and long-term operation ofthe·project. For project evaluation, we. . will need to know exactly what thc.a:pplicantproposes to do within all the· project area watersheds. and other project ~ including. any revisions to original plans. IinQacts to ateaS outside. of the. watershed must also be. identified: ~scale. Qlan view maps should . . be. provided showing specific locations or water-intakes~ dams. penstocks,.. transmission lines. access roads, etc. Pre-, during:-, and post;.construction plans are rc:q_uired... Plans for protecting:ffsheries during emergency and routine: :maintenance shutdowns are also needed. If mitigation alternatives aieP.J.'CSCilted,. the costs and technical details should be-identified as...well:as.a.plan forplacing,thenecessary funds in an escrow account to cover costs of construction~ post-construction monitoring. and potential corrective-actions required to achieve mitigation objectives. The specific information we request for this project is summarized below. ~ ;._· I Specific Infonnation Requests- Allsrudy sampling:, and analysis designs should be submitted to theADF&Gforapproval in advance ofimplementation. If studies identify additional information needs. those:studfes- must be condilcted as welL Please do not hesitate: to contact ADF&crKetchikan-staffin the Division of Sport Fish (Stephen Hoffman. 225-2859), Commercial Fisheries Management . . .~ -..... -- -· c;: ww: u -.. WA'fC'""h-~ JN<44 I~Jiii'."t'\i:-· .4. ,!>(,J,l!.'!';;l(t:=z:su ,.p; ;:t~ P ... W. --£ 4 -4 :£-;C.& 4.,.t .• f.,:.O:.'- ~ Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 3 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 (Carol Denton, 225-9677), and Wildlife Conservation (Boyd Poner, 225-2475) for background information on acceptable sampling approaches. When evaluating which methods to use to quantify instream flow requirements, please feel free to contact our Statewide (Christopher Estes, 267-2142) and Region 1 (Kevin Brownlee, 465-4276) Sport Fish/Research and Technical Services instream flow coordinators in Anchorage and Douglas. The subcontractor(s) that will be doing fisheries studies must obtain ADF&G Scientific Collection Permit(s) from Span Fish Division, Headquarters Office (465-4180) to conduct ~dsh sampling in Alaskan waters. Please also contact Jack Gustafson (225-2027) in the '\.VHabitat and Restoration Division to determine whether a Title 16 permit may also be necessary for studies within anadromous water reaches. Specific information we request for this project is summarized below. 1. ~easonal and spatial fiSh composition by species and life phases in all project areas ri"f.ncluding the diversion sites, bypassed reaches, lake inlets and outlets, within lakes, \.::.....tlownstream reaches to the marine environment, etc. '!• Identification of seasonal and spatial fish species composition by life phases (migration, · spawning/incubation and rearing) must be established throughout project areas. Pursuant to AS 16.05.840, adequate instream flow must be provided to maintain the free and efficient seasonal passage of fish in the affected streams. The location, timing, and life phases of anadromous and resident fishes must be determined in the bypass reaches, upstream of the proposed diversion, and other areas to determine if and why fish passage facilities would be needed. The location, timing, and life phases of resident and anadromous fishes must be determined for instream flow analyses. A combination of sampling methods should be employed to avoid gear-sampling bias and to identify all potential life phases and species that may seasonally utilize the ponions of the water body that will be subject to modification associated with the project. At diversion sites, a fyke net or screw trap may be necessary to determine fish species, size, timing, and numbers, that would be subject to entrainment. Verification of the presence or absence of fish in all affected streams with a potential for fish production usually requires sampling after fry emergence in the spring and fall with traps baited with salmon eggs. However, gear sampling, including procedures such as trap soak timing and duration, placement of traps, and bait type, can affect results. When minnow traps are unsuccessful, it is customary to try snorkeling, electro-fishing, and other techniques. Several sampling attempts may be necessary to adequately sample the affected fish populations. We also recommend that adult anadromous fish escapement counts be conducted through the licensing period to establish baseline population estimates. Fish counts shall follow ADF&G protocols for standardization and indexing of peak foot survey counts. Generally, ADF&G conducts three complete stream surveys for each species: before, during, and after peak run timing. Mr. Don Thompson 4 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Determination of necessity of fisheries studies. April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 In general, the requested aquatic resource surveys of fish presence, timing, and types of fish usage will help us to determine the potential consequences of project development and to recommend measures to avoid, mitigate, and/or enhance these fishery resources, pursuant to §lOG) of the FPA, AS 16, and other federal and state laws. This information will also be needed for Title 16 permit reviews, which will be required for the diversion and all road crossings that affect fish passage. On-going escapement counts of adult fish will be recommended as a monitoring tool to help determine the effects of project development on anadromous fish. Comparison of pre-project versus post-project spawning distribution, timing, and abundance will also be required to determine if the proposed tailrace discharge is having an effect on upstream migration and spawning success. Information on periodicity of fish use will be needed to determine appropriate in-water . work windows, fish passage facilities, seasonal instream flow requirements in both the 'anadromous and resident fish reaches affected by the proposed project, and to identify if other impact concerns should be addressed. If fish use or migrate past the proposed Achilles Creek or Herring Cove Creek diversion sites, fish passage must be provided and a fish screen(s) must be installed at the project intake to avoid fish entrainment. If a fish screen is needed, it must be designed to protect juvenile fish. Fish screen criteria (mesh size and approach velocity) will be dictated by the size of juvenile fish that would be exposed to the diversion. Basis for the determination. Pursuant to AS 16.05, ADF&G has direct authority over resource development projects in fish bearing waters, in waters specified as being important for the spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes and within legislatively designated Special Areas. After project operations begin, it would be more difficult to retrospectively describe the baseline conditions to determine the physical, hydrological, and biological impacts to aquatic resources resulting from the project. Why the proposed methods are more appropriate than other methods. The recommended methods of capture and the frequency of sampling should provide a . sufficient data base to determine adequate protection and mitigation measures. Are the study methods generally accepted practices? Depending on the seasonal hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics (including channel ,___ morphology), targeted species and life phases, water quality and other attributes, fyke nets, screw traps, minnow traps, snorkeling, and electroshocking can be effective tools for capturing juvenile fishes. Accordingly, use of these generally accepted techniques must be applied on a case by case basis. Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 5 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 2. Risks to Aquatic Resources with Alternative Project Configurations. G,The proposed project tailrace would enter Herring Cove next to the hatchery fish ladder. The tailrace outfall must be located and designed so that its volume does not mask the ladder entrance or attract adult anadromous fish migrating into the hatchery and/or Herring Cove streams. The proposed discharge has the potential to reduce fishing opportunities for the public. Adult salmon may move into the inner cove where fishing is not allowed much sooner if a steady large volume of water is discharged at the proposed location. ADF&G Sport Fish has a $150,000 grant and project with SSRAA to install a trail around the outer Herring Cove shoreline in order to better utilize fish returning to the hatchery. The tailrace must be carefully integrated with the hatchery fish ladder in order to avoid fish pa.Ssage and management problems. We recommend that the tailrace location and design receive careful scrutiny by an engineer who fully understands anadromous fish behavior and the consequences of false attraction. This study may require a literature review and/or interviews with other project operators, resource managers, and consultants in the lower-48 and/or Canada where many water diversions occur in salmonid habitat. Additional post-licensing studies may be needed if fish passage problems associated with the project are identified after it is operational. For example, post·construction studies may potentially include radio telemetry work to define migration delays and impacts. Modified , operations and/or the construction of fish barriers may then be required to avoid the attraction of anadromous fishes to the tailrace. Determination of necessity of study. There are many examples of projects in the lower-48 states and Canada where tailrace discharges mask ladder entrances resulting in a false attraction to adult salmon. Migration delay can result in significant pre-spawning mortality in some populations. Salmon do not feed once they enter freshwater. They rely on energy reserves stored in body fat and protein to carry them through migration and spawning. The rate of sexual maturity is established by heredity, and cannot adjust to delay. Barriers or false attraction that cause excessive delay and abnormal energy expenditures can thus result in mortality during upstream migration or in the spawning areas. Careful design of the tailrace outfall can help to avoid adverse impacts to anadromous fishes and expensive post-licensing project modifications and operational restrictions. At hydroelectric projects where migration delays occur, radio telemetry is often required as a relicensing study to determine fish migration behavior and the scope of problems. ADF&G is conce.med with the hatchery's success because the coho and chinook salmon it produces are harvested pursuant to the U.S./Canada salmon treaty. l Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Basis for the determination. 6 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 Pursuant to AS 16.05, ADF&G has direct authority over resource development projects in fish bearing waters, in waters specified as being important for the spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes and within legislatively designated Special Areas. Why the proposed methods are more appropriate than other methods and are the study methods generally accepted practices? A literature review and/or interviews with other project operators, resource managers, and consultants to compare the proposed Whitman Lake project design with other projects to . predict potential impacts to fish migration at this site is the best pre-construction means to evaluate potential impacts. Working with an experienced fish passage expert is the best !;:~~~s to avoid problems that have occurred at other developments. ' . 3. Wildlife, Risks to Terrestrial Resources with Alternative Project Configurations. ®.Pr. d . . . "1 . l de th k d" . . d opose new construction pnman y me u s e penstoc , tverston structures, an pipelines from the Herring Cove Creek and Achilles Creek. We concur with the habitat mapping and field reconnaissance of wildlife and vegetation that is proposed in the ICD. Additionally, marine mammals may be attracted to adult anadromous fish that do not readily proceed upstream or into the hatchery as a result of attraction flows from the project outfall. We recommend that potential impacts, management issues, and mitigation, such as an operational response, be evaluated to protect marine mammals from harm. Mitigation techniques such as construction sequencing and timing alternatives, including blasting, should be evaluated in order to protect wildlife at construction sites. Additionally, pursuant to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards under Clean Water Act §404, wetlands must be delineated at each alternative. Site selection must avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable. Ad~tionally, information must be gathered to determine if there are threatened or :r.endangered status species (and other species of concern) under the state and federal endangered species acts and to address potential impacts to those species. The raptor and . marbled murrelet surveys, deer habitat mapping, literature surveys, and other studies proposed in the ICD (page 10 to 15) would be adequate for decision-making. Determination of necessity of study Detailed inventories and an examination of all feasible and prudent project alternatives are warranted to reduce potential adverse impacts as a result of project construction and operation. Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Basis for the determination. 7 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 Project construction and operation may have an impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the area proposed for the penstock and pipelines. Detailed surveys may indicate important areas that could be avoided, critical periods for species when work should not be conducted, and construction methods/techniques that could reduce impacts. Why the proposed methods are more appropriate than other methods. Are the study methods generally accepted practices? A comparison of potential project configurations and alternatives will require the terrestrial habitat surveys that are being conducted. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). the environmental document must present the environmental impacts of a 'proposal and the alternatives in a comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-makers and the public. 4. Hydrology, Instream Flow and Reservoir Operation Needs.· . : 0rnstream flow and reservoir operation requirements for fish in Whitman Creek, Whitman Lake, Herring Cove Creek, and Achilles Creek depend in part on the seasonal presence or absence of the species of fish and life phases, and fluvial and geomorphic characteristics needed to sustain seasonal production. Instream flow and reservoir shifts and variations can also have an impact on terrestrial wildlife, in terms of migration routes, availability of food, riparian habitat, etc. Modifications to flow and reservoir volume and stage can also impact water quality, navigability and recreational and aesthetic uses of water bodies, including access to water bodies. Continuous instantaneous flow (cfs) data and analysis requirements to evaluate the effects of a proposed flow modification should include: long-term mean annual and monthly flows; monthly duration analyses; one-in-two-year peak flow; long- term instantaneous peak discharge; low-flow discharge analyses; and flood stage identification. Ideally a minimum of 10-years of continuous flow records are desired; however shorter periods can be agreed upon and used when field data are combined with synthetic data and mutually agreed upon analyses. Existing and proposed lake volume and stage variability and temperature regime should also be provided. Current water allocation data and information should be requested and secured from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources for all waters that contain point(s) of take from anadromous and resident fish streams and lakes in the project area. Quantities of water approved (measured as instantaneous rates and schedules), uses, date of priority, etc. are needed. Pending water rights actions in the basin should also be identified, including Federal Reserved Water Rights claims. A finding of fact and conclusion of law or similar documentation should link certificates of appropriations or permits to any conditions prescribed under AS 46.15.080 (Criteria for issuance of permit) so that future appropriations take into account earlier conditions. It should also be established whether the Alaska Department of Natural Resources has identified any portions of the projected area as being navigable per the federal definition of navigability used by the state to . Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 8 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 establish its claim to ownership of submerged lands underlying navigable wateiWays. This information may be used to determine what entity has jurisdiction over water allocation and fish resources. We also need to know Ketchikan Public Utilities'(KPU) plans for stream gaging and reporting of instantaneous instream flow data in the lake, all bypass and impacted fishery reaches for all project phases. If it is anticipated that leakage may be reduced by the operator during the license period, then the orifice and/or equipment needed to maintain instream flows must"be adequately sized to replace the water volume that would no longer be available instream. Dam leakage must be measured if it contributes to instream flows available to fish. When the above data are available, we normally request that anywhere from 60 to 100 % of the mean annual flow be retained in a flowing water body to sustain passage and spawning periods and that anywhere from 20 to SO percent of the mean annual flow be retained to · sustain incubation and rearing during other times of the year. If a flushing flow is needed downstream of an impoundment, it usually equates to 400 to 800 per cent of the mean annual flow or can be calculated as a flow release equaling about 60 to 70% of the instantaneous peak flow over a 2-or 3-day period. Refinement of these criteria depends on the total amount of data, whether it is synthesized, period of record, etc. Detailed field assessment methods to determine instream flow requirements, such as the Physical Habitat Simulation Model can also be used .. Using this and other data intensive/analysis Instream Flow Incremental Methodology techniques, may modify these percentages, and are ·:aCceptable to the Department. The complexity, time investment, and cost of these and . similar methods are normally justified for large, controversial projects where difficult }l~gotiations over habitat tradeoffs are expected. Determination of necessity of study. Continuous mean daily flow records are necessary for us to evaluate instream flow fe9.Uirements. Basis for the determination. The requested flow data are needed for us to identify instream flow considerations and are also required per administrative codes for water management in Alaska, including 11 AAC 93.0040 (c) (1) to (15) and AS 46.15.080, 11 AAC 93.0120, 11 AAC 93.0130, 11 AAC 93.0140 and all subsections. Why the proposed method is more appropriate than other methods. Is the studv method a generally accepted practice? The collection of flow data and analyses are standard information needs for the development of water diversion or dam projects. The proposed data collection activities are generally completed for proposed hydroelectric development. .~ Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project , S. Flow Interruption Bypass Equipment. 9 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 {.;\ADF&G will recommend as a term and condition of the license that the proposed project Vinclude fail-safe and redundant backup provisions in project design and operation to insure that instantaneous instream flows are continuously provided to affected fish streams during routine maintenance periods, during emergency project shutdowns, and interruptions in the power grid. The facilities must have the capacity for indefinite flow continuation. Project design and operations must also include remote monitoring and operation of all project components. Interruption of tailrace discharge in the anadromous fish reach flow may cause dewatering of spawning redds and the stranding of juvenile fishes. We request to review functional and conceptual designs of the proposed equipment to maintain instream flow to affected fish streams. Determination of necessity of study. L:.. .. The proposed study is needed to ensure that project design does not allow instantaneous instrearn flows to be interrupted. Basis for the determination. Flow bypass equipment is generally required where instrearn flow is a concern downstream of a powerhouse tailrace. Ensuring that the project is designed with this equipment is necessary because it is difficult to document fishery impacts and to retrofit project facilities if temporary instream flow problems are encountered. The equipment we request is also -- necessary to protect resources under ADF&G's jurisdiction. Why the proposed method is more appropriate than other methods. Is the study method a generally accepted practice? A review of proposed functional and conceptual designs for the flow bypass facilities is the best means to ensure that the project minimizes risk to anadromous fishes and meets the applicant's needs for power production. 6. Water quality. (7;\ Water chemistry data must be collected during project review, including: pH, turbidity, Vdissolved oxygen, water temperature, specific conductance, suspended sediment, or other water quality data related to aquatic productivity, such as the potential for gas supersaturation, which may result from the project design, or proposed flow modifications. We recommend that baseline samples also be taken during a storm runoff event to evaluate when erosion from disturbed areas could be expected to be greatest. We also recommend continuous monitoring of water temperature at both the proposed diversion sites and in Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 10 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 reservoir to determine potential temperature changes in the hatchery water supply. We recommend Standard Methods 1 as the basis for water quality data collection methodology. An additional concern is the potential for sedimentation during the removal of the timber crib dam in the reservoir. We recommend that measures tle developed to avoid downstream -water quality impacts to Whitman Creek and the hatchery. Determination of necessity of study. Turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, specific conductance, and suspended sediments are important aquatic habitat parameters that must be collected prior to project cOI1struction to determine if the proposed facility might have an impact on aquatic life and hatchery operations. If stratification occurs in the reservoir the hypolimnion layer can be much cooler than the epilimnion layer. Cooler or warmer water temperatures of the diverted water may modify the duration of egg incubation, delaying or accelerate juvenile development and migration for salmonids. Late or early emigration can significantly affect early marine survival. Basis for the determination. The proposed water quality parameters directly relate to aquatic habitat productivity and are ~ th.e ones most likely to be affected by project construction and operation. Why the proposed methods are more appropriate than other methods. Methods of collection under the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment process must be agreed upon by the applicant and participants to the process. However it is also important to keep in mind, the database for each parameter must be sufficient for us to evaluate whether the proposed project might affect aquatic productivity. Are the study methods generally accepted practices? The proposed data collection activities are generally completed for proposed hydroelectric development. 7. Fish Passage Facilities 0 Upstream and downstream fish migration necessary to sustain fish production must not be adversely affected by the construction and operation of the proposed project, including project facilities. Examples of concerns at this stage of the project are the two water diversions and in Herring Cove. Typically, resident and anadromous fish seasonally and diurnally migrate both upstream and downstream within watersheds to access various 1 American Public Health Association. 1985. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 16th ed. American Public Health Association, Inc. New York. Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 11 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 habitats to satisfy various life phase requirements, especially when habitat suitability varies in different parts of the watershed. We will need to review conceptual designs of all fishways in order to evaluate their effectiveness at the proposed project. Additionally, more information about the diversion site, hydrology, and the fish that use the area will be needed in order for us to recommend fish passage criteria. Locating the diversions structures in reaches where upstream passage is naturally precluded might negate the need for upstream fish ladders. In general, the diversion intakes must be designed to avoid the entrainment of juvenile salmonids. Fish screen and bypass facilities shall be designed to function properly through the full proposed range of diversion. If fry-sized fish ( < 60 mm fish) are documented in the intake area, the screen shall be sized to have a maximum approach velocity of 0.4 fps with 3/32 inch mesh holes (measured in the narrowest direction) for perforated plate and woven wire or 1. 75 mm for profile bar material. If fish less than 60 mm do not occur near the intake, the fish screen area shall be sufficiently sized to provide maximum approach ve_locity of 0.8 fps and mesh not greater than 1/4 inch. Debris accumulation can adversely affect the performance of a fish screen and increase the likelihood that juvenile fish become _impinged on the screen face. Therefore, an automatically operated cleaning system shall be included in the fish screen design to clean the screen face as frequently as necessary to prevent the accumulation of debris. Head differential to trigger screen cleaning for intermittent type cleaning systems shall be a maximum of 0.1 feet. At the proposed tailrace, we will need to review the layout and draft design to determine whether adult fish could enter the powerhouse and be injured as a result of contact with the I . . turbine runners. If the tailrace is accessible to fish, a perched ledge, velocity barrier, or vertical barrier rack may be necessary. -_., We request draft conceptual and functional designs of all fish passage facilities as early in the consultation process as practicable. Instream flows needed to operate adult and juvenile fish passage facilities, including to and from the stream diversions are additional considerations. D~termination of necessity of study. Resident salmonids (Dolly Varden char and/or cutthroat trout) may occupy the upper reaches of Herring Cove Creek and Achilles Creek at the proposed diversion sites. These fish must be protected from harm due to passage through power turbines. To avoid adverse impacts to migration and potential entrainment, fish passage facilities must be carefully designed with both engineering and fish behavior requirements taken into consideration. Basis for the determination. The requested draft conceptual and functional designs of fish passage facilities are needed for us to ensure that fish passage is not adversely affected, pursuant to AS 16.05.840 and to develop terms and conditions regarding fish passage pursuant to § 1 O(j). Mr. Don Thompson 12 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Why the proposed methods are more appropriate than other methods. April30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 ADF&G 's review of proposed fish passage facilities during this review period is necessary to ensure that proposed designs are consistent with acceptable fish passage biological criteria and for the applicant to plan the project accordingly. Are the study methods generally accepted practices? Determination of necessity of study. There are many alternative configurations and designs for fish passage facilities. The review of designs early in the review process that are specific to proposed site is a generally ~cepted practice and is important for the applicant to evaluate project economics. tr··_ J 8. Inter-basin Transfers -Achilles Creek and Herring Cove Creek water to Herring Cove Hatchery. @Proposed are diversion~ from Achilles Creek and Herring Cove Creek to add an average . annual flow of 23 cfs to Whitman Lake. Resident Dolly Varden char and/or cutthroat trout may likely inhabit the proposed diversion sites. For all inter-basin transfers of fish or water, ADF&G requires a screening protocol of donor and receiving-water fish populations to ensure that pathogens are not spread from one fish population to another. Disease testing is critical for the proposed action to protect the hatchery. The Fish Pathology Lab may have a full disease history on the current fish in Whitman Lake, which supplies the SSRAA hatchery, but no information on fish that may be at the two proposed diversion sites. Current fish disease policy specifies that kidney tissue and ovarian fluid from at least 60 fish per each species from donor and receiver waters must be sampled for fish disease pathogens. As stated above. an ADF&G Scientific Collection Permit from Sport Fish Division is needed to conduct fish sampling in Alaskan waters. Your consultant should contact Ted Meyers (465-3577), at the ADF&G Fish Pathology Laboratory in Juneau regarding ADF&G's sample protocols (Enclosed), which are designed so that whomever is applying for a permit can take the samples. There is no cost for the ADF&G lab work. However, if trout or char in the donor waters are not "clean" our pathologist would likely object to any water from those streams being introduced into the hatchery's water supply. Determination of necessity of study. Trout very commonly carry viruses that can be lethal to salmon. A full disease history on fish from Herring Cove Creek and potentially Achilles Creek must be established in order to determine the potential for fish disease transmission to the hatchery. Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Basis for the determination. 13 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 Pursuant to AS 16.05.868, fish health inspections determined to be necessary by the department shall be performed by a professional fish health specialist certified by the fish health section of the American Fisheries Society. Why the proposed methods are more appropriate than other methods. ADF&G's standard protocol to detect disease pathogens is required for all inter-basin transfers of fish or fish-bearing water. Are the study methods generally accepted practices? Determination of necessity of study. The collection of fish kidney and ovarian samples for fish disease analysis is a generally accepted technique. The addition of 23 cfs of water from other sources with fish ; ·populations that have not been tested for pathogens triggers this investigation. 9. Cumulative Impacts. @Pursuant to the Council of Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space and/or time with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result form individually minor but collectively significant actions. ADF&G is concerned about the cumulative socioeconomic and environmental impacts related to the use of fish and wildlife of this proposed project and other existing and proposed hydropower projects in Southeast Alaska and how they may impact one another if connected by an intertie. We recommend that fish and wildlife resources and potential developments in the project- affected area be entered into a map-based database or geographical information system (GIS) with suitable documentation of standards of precision so that resource-and recreational-use areas and potential areas of impact may be visualized graphically in the project-affected area. Determination of necessitv of study. Currently, many hydroelectric projects exist or are proposed in Southeast Alaska, including the Ketchikan area. There are a number of other existing and proposed activities that affect natural resources, including timber, mining, urban development, roads, and tourism. Although this hydroelectric project might have a relatively minor impact compared to other activities, a look at cumulative impacts is necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to other uses of the watershed, such as fishing and hunting and subsistence. Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Basis for the determination. 14 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 Fish that use the project contribute to important sport, commercial, and subsistence fisheries in the Ketchikan area. Wildlife that use the area contribute to recreational hunting. Development pressure in Ketchikan will expose the fish and wildlife resources in the project-affected area to much greater pressure in the future. Why the proposed method is more appropriate than other methods. GIS is a generally accepted tool to present and analyze information within a geographical area of interest. Is the study method a generally accepted practice? i This study may include collection of mapping and resource use and distribution information, along with literature searches and interviews. GIS is a suitable and appropriate method to compile and analyze the necessary information. VALUE OF REQUESTED STUDIES ADF&G's goals and objectives for the resources involved. Hening Cove and Whitman Creek watersheds, the hatchery, and their fish and wildlife contribute to sport, commercial, and subsistence fisheries, sport and subsistence hunting, . sport and subsistence hunting, wildlife viewing, and a variety of recreational uses. ··M~aging Alaska's fish and wildlife resources and protecting the habitat that sustains them are integral to the health of the state's economy and conservation of Public Trust resources. Collectively, commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries generate over a billion dollars annually to the state's economy. Following the oil industry and government sector, these fisheries represent the third largest source of income to the state's economy. Tourism is the fourth largest industry in Alaska. Tourism is, in part, dependent on maintaining water- related recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, sightseeing, etc. Accordingly, balancing development with maintaining the quality and quantity of aquatic and terrestrial habitat are high priorities in Alaska. How the studies and information will be useful to ADF &G in furthering resource goals and objectives. ·Pursuant to 6 AAC 50 [Project Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Prograrn(ACM:P)] and AS 16.05, ADF&G will use the results of the proposed studies to !Cview Coastal Project Questionnaire and General Waterway/Waterbody project applications, respectively. Pursuant to AS 16.05.840 (Fishway Act) and .870 (Anadromous Fish Act), ADF&G requires permits for any work that may affect fish passage and for instream work in catalogued anadromous fish streams, respectively. Pursuant to section lOG) of the Federal Power Act, the proposed studies will provide information necessary for f' Mr. Don Thompson Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 15 April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 the department to recommend additional studies if necessary and to recommend terms and conditions of the license. Finally, we recommend that KPU institute a policy of no fishing, hunting, or trapping by operators while at the job site so as to not provide an unfair advantage in such activities. We request that this policy be extended to contractors and subcontractors that may have access to fish and game in the study area for weeks at a time. Alternatively, we suggest that adherence to fish and game regulations at the project site be made a term of employment with KPU. It is important to note that ADF&G may expand upon, modify, or add new study needs or requirements to perform our various statutory functions contingent upon what we learn from the initial or later phases of study or based upon the applicant's modifications and refinement of their project plans. Thank you for your concern for the fish and wildlife resources of Alaska. Please contact me at 907-465-4289, if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, ;O;g~f<-~~ c~;;kes. Hydroelectric Project Review Coordinator Enclosure cc: L. Shea Flanders, H&R-Douglas * C. Estes, SF RTS-Anchorage * K. Brownlee, SF RTS-Douglas * S. Hoffman, SF-Ketchikan * J. Gustafson, H&R-Ketchikan* C. Denton, CFMD-Ketchikan * B. Porter, WC-Ketchikan * C. Sampson, C. Kruse, A. Miles, FERC-Wash. DC H. Hall, FERC-Portland R. Settje, KPU W. Halloran, SSRAA M. J anopaul, TU R. Roos-Collins, NHl D. Sturdevant, ADEC-Juneau * I. Dunker, ADNR/DOW-Juneau * B. Garry, ADNR/DPOR-Juneau * J. Bittner, ADNR/SHPO-Anchorage L. Marshall, DOC * A. Grossman, NMFS-Juneau * ' Mr. Don Thompson 16 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project R. Babson, NOAA General Council-Juneau T. Woods, USFWS-Juneau S. Brockmann, USFWS-Ketchikan * R. Sleater, DOI Regional Solicitor-Anchorage J. Brogar, EPA-Seattle J. Burns, USPS-Juneau T. Trulock, USPS-Ketchikan P. Brouha, USPS-Washington, D.C. * e-mail April 30, 1999 FERC No. 11597 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AFES/JFWO/KSO Mr. Don Thompson Westcorp 3035 Island Crest Way, Suite 200 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Dear Mr. Thompson: 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199 MAY I 0 1999 ~ .---.-~,..., \ . ::: \\ :. · .. ~ '. I c..:::..: -..;.;.. --' . -. •• ~ MAY 141999 Re: Seeping CommentS-- Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Project No. 11597, Alaska The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has attended several seeping meetings, visited some of the project sites, and reviewed the seeping materials provided for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project. We appreciate the applicant's desire to identify potential impacts early in the licensing process, and will provide assistance throughout the process as personnel and budget allow. On April 28, 1999, the Service requested a 1-week extension of the May 3 deadline for these seeping comments, which was granted and confirmed in your letter dated April29, 1999. Existing Conditions The project is located in the Whitman Creek and Herring Cove drainages near Ketchikan, Alaska. Whitman Dam is an existing 46-foot-high structure that diverts water to a penstock that supplies water to a hatchery in Herring Cove (an adjacent drainage). The dam would be repaired and upgraded, and a new 45-inch-diameter steel penstock, approximately 2,220 feet long, would be installed. Two turbines producing a total of 4.6 megawatts would be installed within the hatchery complex. A new 1,200-foot long transmission line would also be required. Little is known about the fisheries in the Whitman Creek system. Although chinook and coho salmon from the Herring Cove hatchery enter the lower portion of Whitman Creek. there is little or no spawning or rearing habitat, and production by these species is thought to be negligible. There may be some spawning at the stream mouth by pink and chum salmon. Resident fish may include Dolly Varden char, cutthroat, rainbow, or brook trout. The area is heavily forested, with forested wetlands and muskegs interspersed. Project area mammals include Sitka black-tailed deer, black bears, Alexander Archipelago wolves, and a variety of smaller species. Deer hunting appears to be the primary recreational use of the project area. . . w 1.{7. \ [:I A variety of birds nest in the area, including bald eagles, marbled murrelets, northern goshawks, varied thrushes, chickadees, and other forest-dwelling species. Service Concerns f":"'he potential fisheries issues/concerns/mitigation listed on page 10 of your December 1998 . ~Initial Consultation Document adequately surmnarizes the Service's concerns with regard to fisheries in the project area. We agree that each of the six issues listed should be evaluated. In addition, the Service recommends that the intake structure be screened to prevent entrainment of fish fry in the penstock. r:f/e also request that construction timing and techniques be developed to minimize siltation and · ··\.:S.bther in-water disturbance in the lake, especially during spawning, incubation and emergence of fry. ~e recommend that all lands within Y2 mile of .any proposed construction be surveyed for nests \2..0f bald eagles, marbled murrelets, and northern goshawks. These species are protected by Federal law, and have been reported within the project area. If nests are found, we request that you coordinate with the Service to develop appropriate methods for avoiding potential impacts. ('::;'\Your Initial Consultation Packet states that Ketchikan is not classified as a subsistence . '\:./community. This is correct, but the town of Saxman, which is closer to the project area is. classified as a subsistence community. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Brockmann in our Ketchikan Suboffice at (907) 225-9691. cc: ADF&G, Ketchikan ADF&G, Anchorage (Attn. Christopher Estes) ADF&G, Douglas (Attn: Clayton Hawkes) NFS,Juneau DOI-OEPC, Anchorage and Washington, DC USFS, Ketchikan District Ranger(3031 Tongass Ave., Ktn, 99901) F\VS, Ketchikan · F\VS,Juneau 1.. . ' .... UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMEF National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Sox 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 eN>..., April 13, 1999 fn)~ ·-· ·----' . :: L::\1' ..J ~ • ' . Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way Suite 200 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11597 Dear Mr. Thompson: &'J AP ;; l ~ 1999 ~ · .. : .. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Seeping Document for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project No. 11597. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-666(c)) requires that the NMFS be consulted "whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be impounded ... for any purpose whatever ... by any public or private agency under Federal permit or license." Section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) authorizes NMFS to provide recommendations necessary to protect, mitigate damage to, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development, operation and management of a project. Section 18 of the FPA authorizes NMFS to prescribe tishways. Whitman Lake is located approximately 4 miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. The level of the natural lake was raised 18 feet with the construction of a 46-foot-high dam in 1927. The dam was part of the power production facilities for the New England Fish Company. Power generation was discontinued after 1957 when the· facility was purchased by the Ketchikan Utilities Board. Although the original penstock was dismantled, water from the lake is currently piped to a fish hatchery and to a residential subdivision to provide drinking water. '• (. <. g # 'P ~ .. ~~ Project Description The proposed project would consist of rehabilitation of the existing dam, removal of an inundated timber crib dam that could limit the operating pool, and construction of two diversions on streams not currently draining into Whitman Lake. One of the streams, Achilles Creek currently drains into Whitman Creek below the lake. The other, Herring Cove Creek, drains into Herring Cove. A new 2,220-foot-long penstock would deliver water from Whitman Lake to a powerhouse near the mouth of Herring Cove Creek. Fishery Resources Whitman Lake contains brook trout and Dolly Varden char. Herring Cove Creek, State of Alaska anadromous fish stream No. 101-45- 10070, is used by pink, chum, and coho salmon. Whitman Creek provides no spawning habitat, but does support a hatchery managed by the Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. Recommended Studies Our project-related concerns include impacts to Whitman Lake resident species resulting from fluctuations in water levels with drawdown, entrainment of fish in water intakes, confusion of fish at the tailrace near the hatchery fishladder, and changes in temperature or water quality. The following studies and analyses would provide information fundamental to determining the effects of this project on area fishery resources. 1. G) 2. 0 The applicant should provide an inventory of fish species present throughout the system, including drainages that would be diverted or that currently flow into Whitman Creek or Whitman Lake. This inventory should be based on available data and on new surveys where existing information is unavailable. The applicant should consult with fish passage professionals to assure that the tailrace discharge results in the highest likelihood of fish entering the fish ladder. 3. The applicant should conduct an assessment of the potential .0 effects to resident fish (if any) of diverting Achilles · · Creek and Herring Cove Creek water. ' . 4 . 0 5. G) The applicant should determine the project's effect on water quality and water temperatures at the tailrace. The applicant should inventory invertebrate fauna in Herring Bay Creek at the proposed tailrace site. Based upon the results of the draft environmental assessment and other information regarding these concerns, we can prepare our recommendations to the FERC on this project. We appreciate your efforts to coordinate this project with the Habitat Conservation Division and l~ok forward to working with you in the future. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 586-7358. CC: c. R. c. c. s. J. D. J. L. T. s. J. J. Sincerely, L-~~ Anc:=:-ew Grossman Fishery Biologist Habitat Conservation Division Sampson, C. Kruse, FERC, Washington, D.C. Settje, KPU, Ketchikan Hawkes, K. Brownlee, ADFG, Douglas Estes, ADFG, Anchorage Hoffman, ADFG, Ketchikan Dunker, ADNR, Juneau S~urdevant, ADEC, Juneau Bittner, ADNR/SHPO, Anchorage Marshall, DGC, Juneau Woods, USFWS, Juneau Brockmann, USFWS, Ketchikan Burns, USDAFS, Juneau Brogar, EPA, Seattle (II}) MONTGOMERY WATSON May 3, 1999 WlfO Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way Suite 200 m e;-;-• ---·-..... .,. ·-. --.......... 1!.• (I ·' . \ ~ \:. . . --... MAY 0 8 1999 J Mercer Island, W A 98040 Subject: Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Comments on Final Report Dear Mr. Thompson: At the request of the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, we have reviewed the final report for the subject project. In general, our review focused on the project aspects which hold the potential for impacting the Whitman Hatchery operation. These impacts would fall into two basic categories (1) Quantity of water available throughout the hatchery operation; (2) Quality of water, specifically nitrogen levels and temperature. Overall, the proposed pipeline and powerhouse arrangement appear to offer the flexibility to provide sufficient water at the necessary temperature and quality. Based on review of the conceptual design report, we had the following comments. Page 1-S Existing Hatchery Pipelines q) Control of the water supply to the hatchery is currently maintained by SSRAA staff. 1 Under the recommended hydroelectric alternative, the existing pipelines will be used for the hatchery water supply with the control valves automated to simply operation. Coordination between KPU and SSRAA will be required on a daily basis to ensure adequate flow is provided at the optimum temperature and quality. As the reservoir fluctuates, the temperature will be impacted. The flow rate will also change because of increase and decreases in the available operating head over the pipe intakes. The control sequence must be carefully developed during the design development. The method for mixing water from the existing 8-inch and upgraded 24-inch pipelines is important to ensure adequate temperature control. SSRAA staff should be consulted on the most efficient method to regulate water temperature within the hatchery complex . 2375-!30th N.E. Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98005-1758 Tel: 425 881 1100 Fax: 425 a 81 8937 . Serving th• World's Environmental Nllttds Mr. William Halloran 05/06/99 Page2 Page 1-7 Powerhouse ~e proposed tail water level for the small unit is elevation 40.0. A careful analysis of the hatchery piping system must be completed to ensure adequate head will be available to provide water demands at the correct pressure. The report mentions a possible benefit of gas reduction through the hydroelectric unit. Gas reduction has been observed at other locations, but is not guaranteed under all situations. We would suggest the hydraulic design allow for future gas reduction towers if gas problems occur during operation of the new powerhouse. The discharge location for the large unit is critical to ensure that adult fish returning to the hatchery are not attracted to the unit outfall. Discharging the flow at the entrance to the existing fish ladder will help minimize any confusion. The outfall should, however, be designed with a gross velocity through a diffuser screen of 1 fps or less. Velocities higher than 1 fps could result in adult fish delay or false attraction to the unit outfall. Page 1-7 Plant Operation (J:Existing operation of the Whitman Lake Hatchery results in drafting of the lake during certain time periods. With the new pipeline and two units in the powerhouse. drafting of the lake could occur more frequently. The control system should be developed to minimize drafting the lake as much as possible. Page3-2 Methodology ... Qtne minimum operating level at elevation 362.0 feet should be carefully considered. Under existing operations, SSRAA has drafted the lake at the maximum hatchery flow of 27 cfs. In 1997, the lake was drawn down to an elevation of approximately 364.0 feet during a dry period in October and November. A similar drawdown occurred in September of 1993. During these drawdown events, SSRAA experienced difficulty in hydraulically conveying sufficient water to the hatchery to meet demands. A target minimum reservoir elevation of 362.0 feet may not provide adequate hydraulic head to push flow to the hatchery. .-- The control system for the new hydroelectric system will require accurate inflow projections to ensure the reservoir is not drawn below the minimum target reservoir level. If the reservoir is drawn down following a rule curve and an extended dry period occurs. the hatchery water supply could be jeopardized. We would suggest a monitoring system be installed to collect additional flow and stage data at the existing Whianan Lake dam. This data could be used to calibrate and refine the generation computer model. .. ... , ---: ~. . ~· ~-. -;-:· ...... ·-·. :· .. ~ ':-... --: ..... ~ . ' ... \ _11>,~7--.. Mr. William Halloran 05/06/99 Page3 The comments outlined in the previous paragraphs outline the major issues associated with integrating the hatchery operation with the new hydroelectric facility. SSRAA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the feasibility report and looks forward to working with Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) and WESCORP as the project enters the design and construction stages. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at ( 425) 881-1100). Sincerely, U;:c_1J. M{lA~ Morton D. McMillen Supervising Engineer Cc: Mr. William Halloran, SSRAA ....... '!" ·~-;·~-~··.,··.-.·-·.""" ...... _,-~ ·····-:---. .....,.... TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR 4..1 '2.1 §1fA1TJE CQ)IF AJLA§~ I DEPARTI\1ENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DMSION OF MINING AND WATER MANAGEMENT J61JI C STREET. SUITE 1111 ANCHORAGE. AJ'.AS.I:..t 99SIJ.J9JS PHONE: (9111) 16N4JI DAM SAFElY AND CONSTRUCTION UNIT Fa: (99'1) S6l-IJU April 1, 1999 m l];©~J!w~~ID !w APR 0 5 1999 . WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way, Suite 200 Mercer Island, WashingtOn 98040 Attention: Mr. Donald J. Thompson RE: WlllTMAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT KETCIDKAN, ALASKA Dear Mr. Thompson: lhc Dam Safety and Construction Unit (DSCU) of the A1a.s.ka. Department of Natural Re:soutces (ADNR) is pleased to submit comments regarding the proposed development of the Whitman Lake Dam and Reservoir into a hydroelectric power generating fucility regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Whitman Lake Dam (NID No. AKOOO 12) is currently regulated by the State of Alaska under Article 3 of 11 AAC 93. I bave included a fa.ct sheet about the A1a.s.ka. Dam Safety Program for your infonnation. The following comments are with respect to dam safety issues at Whitman Lake: l• · f.j\ • Based on a conversation with Mr. Harry Hall, the regional director of the FERC office V responsible for the Ketchikan area, the FERC does not perform field inspections on fucilities with a preliminary permit until the formal application is received. • Until the application is submitted to FERC, the Whitman Lake Dam remains under the jurisdiction of the DSCU. After the FERC receives the application and takes over responsibility for dam safety issues, the DSCU will relinquish jurisdictional authority granted under Alaska Statute 46.17. However, the DSCU requests copies of periodic safety inspection reports developed under FERC for our records. • While the dam remains under state jurisdiction, the City of Ketchikan must comply with the requirements of 11 AAC 93. The Whitman Lake Dam is a Class II hazard dam and the three year periodic safety inspection is due by November 6,1999. The City ofKctcbikan has an excellent reputation for cooperation with the Alaska Dam Safety Program. • Any major repairs or modifications to the dam prior to the submission of the FERC application must be approved by the DSCU. Please see the attached fa.ct sheet for additional infonnation. .. "Develop, Conserve anti Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans" Aoril L 1999 2 AK00012 • Any diversion struct.ures that meet the definition of a state jurisdictional dam that are not spc:cifica1Iy covered by the FERC must be approved by the DSCU prior to construction and meet the requirements of 11 AAC 93 during the life of the structure. • The DSCU should be notified when the FERC application is submitted, and the jurisdictional transfer and scope should be clarified and documented. • Any water rights issues associa:ted with this work must be coordinated directly with the Wate:r Resources Section of the Division of Mining and Wate:r Management in the ADNR. Again. thank you for the opportunity to submit these conunents. lf you have any questions or need additional infonnation. please call me at (901) 269-8636. Sincerely. eLe-8-CI! Charles F. Cobb, P. E. State Dam Safety Engineer Enclosures: Fact Sheet on Dam Safety in Alaska cc: John C. Kleinegger, Ketchikan Public Utilities, Ketchikan, Alaska Harry T. Hall, FERC, Portland, Oregon John Dunker. ADNR Juneau., Alaska DIF:daminfolprojcctsltetchikanlwe:scorp0401.doc .. '. DATE: TO: FROM: April 14, 1999 Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way, Suite 200 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Herring Bay Water Users Association David Pflaum, President 8256 S. Tongass HWY Ketchikan, AK 99901 GvJ) m~~~ 9-:~~ R E: Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11597) C C : Carter Kruse, FERC Project Coordinator Rich Trimble, Ketchikan Public Utilities We the undersigned members of the Herring Bay Water Users Association have a number of questions and concerns regarding the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Most of our issues are related to the possible effects this project might have on our water quantity and our water quality. The water used by 32 households and one lumber mill, captured by a small system on Whitman Creek, comes from Achilles Creek and Whitman Lake. We estimate that 80% of the mix is from Achilles Creek, 20%, from Whitman Lake. The proposal is to divert Achilles Creek to Whitman Lake. If this occurs, the mix will be profoundly affected and our water will primarily be lake water. Lake water tends to be [.;"\lower in quality than spring or stream water. (It is important to note that residents have \..:.)observed and trapped beaver at Whitman Lake.) Even if the current flow level were maintained, the quality of our water could very well be compromised by the Achilles Creek diversion. However, the current flow level would not be maintained after the diversion of Achilles Creek. The flow level would probably meet the quantity requirements of our water rights, but the amount of water passing through Whitman Creek would be significantly less than what we have now. We believe there is a high probability that this decreased flow would increase the likelihood of natural contaminants finding their way into our drinking water. Currently, heavy rains feeding Achilles Creek, as well as Whitman Creek, periodically flush the stream bed, removing possible sources of contamination. The normal flow of the creek is vigorous, providing a natural cleansing action, except in times of extreme cold or draught. This potentially serious impact on water quantity and quality is our greatest concern. In a nutshell, the question is: how do you intend to research the possibility that the diversion of Achilles Creek will negatively affect the quality of our water? What baseline studies are planned? What remedies would members of Herring Bay Water Users Association have if assurances are given, the project is completed, and then a " few years down the road we find a cumulative degradation of water quality? Other observations and concerns by our group include the following: Fish, including salmon, have been observed in Whitman Creek. Salmon have been observed a bit upstream from the bridge. Residents report trout and steelhead in Whitman Creek. _ 0 The outflow from the 45 inch penstock from the powerhouse into Herring Bay will ' create different, strong currents in the bay. The change in currents will affect boat access to the Herring Bay Lumber Company as well as the habitat for fish and birds. We appreciate this opportunity to make our concerns known to you and look forward to working with you. Signed, ·'l~ ~ TJ ~S~k~J ~ ----:~-=(_ ~rJ. ~ ;tit <Jfii/~•11bci ~ 171;J. ad l7lta.-i5Ai1tl {) &A,k=!r'~% ~ w~~ :;= rpj/ z;a·:~ Zf l}.!-u' f4h-2 /jn6 ' c.v J f few years do\WI the road we find a cumulative degradation of water quality? Other observations and concerns by our group include the following: Fish, including salmon, have been observed in Whitman Creek. Salmon have been observed a bit upstream from the bridge. Residents report trout and steelhead in Whitman Creek. The outflow from the 45 inch penstock from the powerhouse into Herring Bay will create different, strong currents in the bay. The change in currents will affect boat access to the Herring Bay Lumber Company as well as the habitat for fish and birds. We appreciate this opportunity to make our concerns known to you and look forward to working with you. rn~©-~~~7:' -~ . . \._' t • • ' ' ' ~ ... .-.. ": ·:,.. ._ ~: ' I APR 3 0 1999 t Signed, The Members of Herring Bay Water Users Association: ~wl) ( VV\l K r:Acu.at-> ~ D\ ~----·---·-· ----------::;;;;r . o:J.i--r ~• lon<ia.ss t-W~ 1 k'efrk'&:lLVL. -j?evvtAa.w+=t vtfi5l~ s:z~ tJ. l.fr'ttt 5t. I ~.eu.-tlu. uJA qi5/03 (±etu90<aru'itv~~ ~!moo) J J1&-i>Jk~-? ~-tllf~ d~"!J tilt<-tf4-i<Ju;;~~ ;~-~ ~/[;(:) ~ 4 ~ ~ ../&:~ 1/w~....£.d7UaAJ..t J;... '+tv;. ~a ~ f't$-h ..te ~ ~ ffi!'// .... ~ tl#1 #tit tU1 JU.o/c;::jt61' a;& ~ /tdf ~?ut. ltw till~ hoi~ ca./. , n~~ ~ ~ n.. A St::rl ""!a~ e:stu~, /ruT ../ ~ wtrrn ·tf'd W<al" Ju~ velcC-t 77 wa~ flt!hs h.. 5't(aT th.M. wzU~~.et:..e:ktS~ ~ ~. f.L.wu4fL14iz'm.J, /f'UA5h-~odak~ .J:~ y.bbz. ~ 4.. -lr'dJ/kk71s~~~~~ <1tu 4-rV" w'k. tfl(kl n~etwd pwtdl ~ e;. fttU~~ -71"?MJ~ ~tf!f~ ~~ i-. 'fPUt-..5-4~, 4?ndi2.P ~~~ q.e_, :&,.~>U) h=. %u<e~~MJ 44CI-,'fs. j "-elm..:-: ut4L ~~~s a.w ~ ~ d~JH '+ &~-t;w · ~ ~ bf-~ h-t7V ~ ...et/'h;.t~ 1 W...! a:A c~ 'ftta.l v&~ ..l~w. cl«l vn addi12/!!'ft M~ ~ dtu kh.;k..emJ1U14. "''.41u. ~tJ.Icevs_~~eJ5-ts pttddbYuij Uf' <1-tu ~/:..tV"~ -h(::il #U-<diJf'!ZJ ~eS'fz.tiU.-4j . ..Jt ~~ Wt31~J! ,otw t?J ,a:u:/dk awi t> ,le,vd,._ t!4'kt<.e14 altaJ=estwvt'tM. CJJ . i!4'VVJ'r V"Y1 ~( s. :r.. JtRY 01 ~ c!..M i_> 'M-it::JZ.w~ tv"% -veltXt'f7 wa~ / /A.<J ~yt-r '-A7 a-u~ llliU ~ ~ ~P,tl2Cft:& ~ (y-& tMJ!y ~ !ZfZtJtc'tuw~ 1>1 Y4r road '*!6~ h.-)U~'~d.J,..) ..j ~ i!uuJ; ~ air1tJ ~/14-?~ v.w U7d4 -fLt!kl h... ~ ~ ~ to-e ~ t1U-t ~ :':f wa:ff-. -.J a.itlkJ 1lJ 4ttti"! ~ V:W ~ltJ'3''cJ ~ 01.~ ~ wdP A'~ d . ../} 41..1 R.tLfJ~ pdl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {~l.f.u.~"1~ w.&..oiQ~~~ ~J ~~ ~~PY' 1~"~ ~ i-~ <poaiA ~ '+W fdv-,'d9--, ~·c,k ~~ ~ tu t, .. d ... l.:,-tH' ~a,..., e(<rt...._ ~-~ ~ L-fG't< -fo< ~c;l...eM~"-' ~ (O"vfAU-l,..e{,..:f-5, ~ckM~ (1¥-i'!ev,·JII e ra((Ott. (.5~ ad~ tJ4 a};-py-t) ] ). J_ \1 _) _j i " ! ! _) -t; , i I ' 1 0 £ l ! -1 • # "' j. J !..] ~ ~ -\1 ~ ~ l! ~ -4 3 .. ~ 1 v. ""' 9 1 \. t >'I " ): 1 ... ~ .., ~ Ill ..s < l +1 -r-,) J ' I. ~ ~ -<:; u "' ( lJ ... =:!. _j ....f. ,) liJ - ~ ....:::. 1 i. "" _,_ 4 }. ,) .). " .,:J -,. t 3 j ~ )-3 . ~ ~- UNITED STATES OEPARTMENl OF c::r::lJIMt Nationai Oceanic and: Atmospheric: AdmiraitUu. N;monaJ Manne Fishentn~ Ssrvret!t P. G. i3ox 21668 Juneau. Alaska 99902·1668 Mr. :ton Set:t::je Ketchikan Pub~ic U~~!it::ies 2930 Tongass Avenue ~et::cbikan, Alaska 99901 :--1ay :l. :999 RE: cannel~ ~ake ~ydroelec~ric. 2rojecc :ERC No. ::599 Whit::~an ~e ~ydroelect::ric 9rojec~ :ERC ~o. :1537 Dear :-tr. Set::t::je: ::; . ( ... . . :-:::... -- ~A1W -: .~ aca ....... a .•• .- w4'{ J. .~ t.-.~ We wish t::o inform you of new requirement::s relevant: t::o ~ederal permits ~ licenses and ocher Federal actions. As· of January 21. :999, rederal~y r7\auchorized pro)ec:s are subJect t::o an assessment of gssent:ial Fish Habit::ac ~ (EFHl as required ~ :he Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and ~gemenc .~:. (16 cr.s.c. 1801 ec seq~l. EFH is described for ~l species ·.t~it:.h Fisheries Management Plans pursuant· r.:.o regulations· and. procedures. developed ~y ;:he-~acional Marine· Fisheries Servl.ce· {NMFSl and. approved. by me-regl.onal. Fisheries Management: Councils. :'he-regulat::ions are-provided in 50 C:E"R 500.920. :n ::he case of. most hydroelec~ric.: ;:rojece.s:-ill' Alaska, EFH consideracions w1~L be limit:ed co Pacifi~salmon. The NMFS will work wit:h r.:.he Federal Energy Regulacory commission (FERCl t::o implement: t:.his program as it: applies c:o t:.he:-referenced.. hyd.roe-~ectric.: proj ec:.s . '!'he FERC will make a der:erminat:ion as t:O whet:her a FER.C proj ecc: would adversely impaCt: gFH. !f :hei~ det:erminat:ion indicat:e$~adverse­ impac~ from a projec:. chey will provide che NMFS wich an EFK assessmen~. We· will then provide conserr.ation recommendat:ions co m~miz~ impacrs c:a ident:Lfied EFH for t:he· pa.r1:icular j;)roject:-. Thi.s-process cequi.res· no act::ion on che part: of. Ketc:hi.k:an Public: IJt:ili.r:ies. Be-cause-EFH reviews are-t:o use exisr:i.nq procedures, ow: conserva.r:ion recommendat:ions will. be-included in our final recommendations t:o t:he-FERC on: t::.his: l.i.cense-. Sho~d you have questions cegardi.ng: t:his procedure, please cont::act: Andrew. Grossman. Habit:.at Conser"'rat:.ion Division, ( 907) 586 -73Sa. cc: ~ERC, Washingcon, D.C. WESCORP. Seat:~~e ,.... _ . ._.. .. MAY. -ZU'IJ'JITHUI U'J:Ju L~r~ fttr~nlnAn-~1~11 1 tu• 'u ', •• a . .,.. r. 11110 • ; u.-..s .. .lllpai'IIIIIMKot Aarielltmn Mr. Oon.'Jbampsan w~- A1uka Baviaa Katdaibalbqlr·.ll!ftlt4! l1art& TaDIIIf Nal&ollal Fo111111. MlltJ' J'tarrM Naaaa.&.Maa•ac; I.....U. l031TC)rta-~Ytllll6r n'Y (Vt1) =s.a4t4 r.tkJitkni.AJ•aka~HNt; --. (90'7'1 %21"-214" l'a.Cad• 1770. Datil& May 19, 1999~ 3035Iilmd C:estW&y, Suita 2CO Mercer lalaad, WA 98040 Dc:a.c-Mr: n1ompaon: This .lct"..er coataizu our cmumcrus. ta yaur initial. scoping documcms for Ci.:ume:Jl.tako; Hydrocl.edric PtQjCCtf FER.C (Fodoral&er&Y R.cp.Ja=ry CammtuJan) Pmja:t No.. 11$99 and.: Wb:h:mao ~Hydroelectric Project,. PERC P.raject No. ll.S9T. Commenti·J!Crtinent to both projects · A mandt a.ga. wc:-scnta;~plcl: copy of the 1997 Pcrc.lt Pta.D. a:ad EAvitOJUZlC'Ittl ImpACt: Stm::meat to. you.. As.you. p:ac:c~ with your. praject analysi£.. be.familiat widt tha: maupawu· pzescripaou.de.scribcliin Cbapw-·3 of tbc P'o:rcst Pla.a.foreactrpmjc,ct area.. 'I'ba pmpOSCll prc,tects..for-each·rcso~ will need to meet the Pcn:.st-wide: StaDdard and. Ciuidclinea dcacribed in Cbapcor 4 of tb4 Po.teat Plao.. WftclUfa:Reeow:cata; lt Will be. necessary Ul. complete required.. wil41:i.fl: invcnt.ari.ca. I have attached & paper titled 0"ctarificatic:atR.cqui:ecl.TtMPWilc!lifc·&nd TBS Prcjecc.lnvenlDri.os for·PY91r'' Thfa: dOCimmt will provide; SOraJ!.'pidclines for campletin&,neces:sary survcya.. s~ A aub.sis&I::DCc:UW.ys:il. aclipossiblc.ALub National Interest Lands Cans.e.rvaliort Act(AW.CA) ~~ evalua.tiOJr and. ftrutlnp aro·ncccssary in ardu to evalwmuubAistc.a.c= usa dfceted.. by the.: ~c:c:tL , 'l'J'rnatoneci and..Endanuered aDd. S.n.Uti, .. Species, Btclogical. A.Uessmont/Bialo&tcat EValuad.on will. b4 required. t!a. th4 aUIU:tled direction fer ~ ancl.bCl't~Di.cal surveys fot completing required r-.etd invomorie£.- Baa:Dlat~ . Tnvin be c.•eessary to.. compleat a. &e.ll.lid.w and rare-plaataurvey fer any ll'D&l wboro pot=tial ' chanps mthe:enviro~ wi!loccur; th&vc:amd:Jed a papcnittccl. .. Javenwy Pi'otocal for. Sc.IUive; aD4 R.aro-: PJaqla .. that you should. follow. wbc2t.c:ompleting,plw:GI!I"VVYJ-'!b.=. ~YC$. at U:IJ.&. protOCOl UlliO. suwon Biolog:loal Rvamatlona by providiD,r.memolk. aa:wi \.::JaUaarda for u~~aasing· d:\a· dia1ribudou of s.euidvo· and rare: pl&ms iu.arca& of=w diaturbm:c, ID4tat det:rmirliul. Wb.at. Jfany. impaa.a thaw:ucavities may ba.w:on their population&. '7ll4 • C..rtftl far tll .. .tatuland 1\J.nlna l'oapl.. ........_,..._......, 0 2 ....... ·t''d ~ Wd60:2! 56. 02 -'t.W MAY. ·20' 991THU) 09:27 Mr. Thompson USI"S 1\t.HiHIUM·~IlHT I t.L.: ':IU I Hilll /JII . . protDCOJ il apecific ta. timber. h.atve&tueu.azad roa4 co~ Howove:., these wnc.. pidclincs shoulci. be: fallowed. Corarry:uw ground~ pap2 I Am &8':loac,a.papcr.;1ided.. "KCtchibn Araa.Salitive: PWtt Survey Guide:• wb:icJJ. will al&o-bat Vlluabl&.for~mplocin&;plant &Ul"JCfL. Iti=ludcs.tbD:-listotsauitivepW:\u 011 the:Tonpu. Nllion&lP'or=stand..thc:1Lirot' raro-plantL. WbcA.camplean,aw:veyapv~cmphasia ta s=.aiDVCt. plwr laaowrr or expeccccl to occur ill. that uea.; however watcll fcc pwns. that amliltad. em. the.~ plant tin. taD.. · Salfl.. JUparian IIIXl. Wedad.I.Moarcu.· f:\ No iDfarmatica: was prc:rrit.tcct.for.tbeae:rcsource.ailube initial scopin&dccument. Sail. wetlaad~ _, ?J mel riparian rcsou~iaformaaoa Will.'b& zequircd.for an:u where =w di£wrb&DU. i.t antictpau:d.:. Any proposed acciVidel.tharirJcludc: altomf.an· of watla.nd.l (f!lliDa or dl:dpa) wiU requ.in:.&. CIUn Wac=r.Act 404 pcrmi"'-n:gulate4.bytbc u.s~ Army Corps ofEngincctL Weda.Ddl Jboald..:. be mapped and idoru:ified. iA are:LS where propo&ecl&CUcms. ta.b. plac.e:. Wethmci delineat:ioai..ll11llt! follow U.s.. Arrtty Corps af !npncers• 1917 Mma:&l.tor dell.o.eati.nrjurtsctJcticmal. wedandL Pla.se. coarac:t u.s it you do not .b.&vr:: tbia m:r.nuaL Ill: A.ddbio:.. we have: ibctouah invenuuy· ~ wbich inclv.da aoil. ripari.u.. m4 wedaa.d mapa mel ~ooa.. Haritace Raeou:rca: .. Ityov..plai:UO .. CCD.Ctaet'!.O&&rcv.lnmt.l rescurce&..&utYeya..you will..nud.ta:.mbmit&.muarcb.:desip. uclaquall.ficacimu o£your:prim.ary mveattgaUlf tor tCViow. A-qualified ~licant uc::c:da tc:. . mecttbe:qaaliflcaticr~s-faa.ncl.at36:CFR 2.96.6 .. &closed is a.pcnaitappl!catlmt(.scmsdard.fcrm-® 299) to· ba.filed.. with· thi• aftr=-prier tc my worktakin g place on· National Fcreat Systcm.lmd.s.. ticonaiD&:ia ooDSidca:d aa.:wtdcmkinc,ua.der:sec:bo~ 106 ot the NationaLHistodl::~ AIJf;._ 1-JUtorlC: propenios.must be: lcca.ted, documented a.d evaluated far pat=Jial.effecu:cf tbc: pmpoaed. activides a• wen-as tba eligibility to me Na&icnal R.lgisr.e.r. of Hlauxic: Places- We·cazzcotd.c.Jcarwt. our:capaasibility tn dcmnniBa:dus eli&i}:sility ofhbtor.U: prcpeniu ta.lb.t:; Nadonal R.eg1.stu of Hiltotic;Piisl:cs nor. ~potcntiald!=t of a. propoaed. \lJldUW.'.i:c&• ComJ)liaacc witb:.S'ectimr 106 of lhe:Ntrioaal Histaric: Prescrvatil:m: A¢ as ameaded~ is Dot" iAitta=. UlUi.l ~ h&ve:.mvicwecla:.c1commcnwiupoo. the· adequacy of the: dccnmeutarion provided amisubmitredcutcommenu c!F.cially ta.the..Ahwla .. Swe Histaric-Presorvad.ort. Offic:c.r; 1bc c:urrem d.ocumcut:Uiao:i&AOndcqWl~ ~hist.or:U:. dams have: not bWl considered far eligibility and effects. edict. the: documentation.. doe& not provide ellOUp iDfonwdioA. to CC11St:rr.1ct a. dctcnsibltr:tia.a.alo.·ta. maJa::: thcsc:dmmdnadons:. Izr ardcr to. atteq\Wely evalum. historic:. dam~.;. U.=y mu.st.bc. comparccl to the: co~xt of similar.bistori.c: dam: sit:a.md... h.ydtodectrtc. eomptems.wtt!W:I:Soulh=stAJuk4.a.nd pot=tiallT Alaska.. One: historit:. coatatot·c:ancem.ts. tho· role of thc.la: bi.ato.rie;sJtea. Wilhia. community dcvelop:m.cnt.. 00C1m'l.eD.Cltion:should. iaclnde imanuation about. t.ba ralo:of camnwait;y !bade~ L1bor-a.nd cthaic:. sroup.a involved .witlL CCiftS11'UCtion, u. well as the. focilities 1 role: iD cccncmic. development.;. r. UIU .. .:.--z · d &::a::::631 t.lc£l0 : 2t 66. a2 ,.\J:W NA 1. --'U' '1'1 lfltU I \llt: l I V~f) ~~~~ftl~A"·~1~11 I t'.ol.o• hi I '-'.JO 1.10 Mr. 'nlompacm pqo3 {.;'\ VllallRirlourcH· . '~1114 pmpo1ed i.atl:ua:netl.lD::s'UCA. U.roadl. pawerUDes.. pipel1ncl. hlrvestareu.. n1a, · cusplf011Ads. teside.aco aaci buaineu.ll:rUC1W'U: u bo1b projaGca. ab.ould. b~di&pla)'Cd Oil a· CADmgr-map ina larp cmouctr scale;: 111 e.valtllll'llvilaal caacama.. Yow:. vt&ual aulyai.l shaalcl.d.cscribe: the: ~at tbe.· pte posed c:onsr:rucctmt and lab lc.m JDaiii.ICUient·an sc:;.nory; Tncludct CODt:wl of tozm;..U=t color" acd tcx.C:I.1rc with cbc:. nrrouadlng land~ COmments COr the COnnell t&ke· Project. Fflherr lleloureet; ~River coarams some hi1b qw&lity.JUW1rcmous M babiw and population~. You aced to ' , L. ccmducc studies in White River CO tD=: l:m%4 lAVe! and .sccpo:. u. tho. Aqua&ic. 'Resouroc& Swdy for 'thb.ICeu=ikaD t..lkes Hyclrodcc:cric Projcct..1uQC.;l991. 'I'hs-atudy should.dcac::ribc:tb.cLfflbery :UOI.ll'CeS e:xiscma widltn w:l ~ U'POA cbc. atreama c£ Whit::River md.· eva.luata· pornttal· inrpoa:s rc.nldnc:from project consU"Cctlolr md opcra.tiona. Describe the· par.eutial. offc:d'S. af cbc: project's flow madificatiaus on &q'U&t.'ic; habiQt ia the Wbit.e: River watcnhccl md. e=c=<t cbaapa iD. ftsh survivaliUlcl prcd.ucd.on.. YOu.uecd. tctcondw:tmwtreamflfow Study farWMce River TAl tbc aamalevcl.and &COpc:u.- chcu.yau arec:ow:tuctin&.fo: Ward Crc.ck... Widldlawiaa\\-ater will modify tlowc daWilSU'elm.. Ideadty md. evaluate:recn:atioall ti.shiD& oppornm:1t1ca .uu:n· a.s. but noc l!m2tecl to. a..smaD boat: launch· atConxv:ll Lak4 or fi&hizla platform at Ward Lab. to midii!C the eff'ectl of davolcmDeat WlldHf4 R.etoo:rces· I&:w~uld bt hclpfi.d ·to have a. cLearer d~d.on of the. acted~ that will tab. 'Place under eaclulwnas:ive. We-asmmcd that tb:.:dmn and the aiiW:l& condUit will ncad.llttJ.e. tf any. addi'doaal construed on dlu will cau&c any habitat ciisturbl.llCC. If tb.is is tho cue. the. i.ss'a4s mac. IUUf mast relevant ara: W'htttRivor divmion-'Ibil..aeeds ta be: clearly outliaed and. mapped i.n.crc:let ta provide.: tnformalioa..DMded to.wreu possible.·impK.t.L. A clba.r analy~il al the cost of the divcrsian; 11m0wat of additianal clccUtcity to: be.-pnerated. and the. amoant of habitat.dt&&urba.race wi11 be: reqllir=d..m otdertxr examine tba:ccst-bc:nctits;.af.the.: divor.sion. It mi&ht be: usdal14have-.m. 11~-dw:doeS not includc:thc:.WhUc:lUve:-divcrsio~r.. Wanl Cove~·-'T'ho. bigg:st ditfcrcn=:bctweezt Alternative£ A md.B:a.ppeus.to. b& t1w. fer· Akenw:i'Ve.·A-alln:.W. peasrm:k.,. DCW·U'IDmtis.sion line;..th=:switchyard, md..fbe:pawcrt:Jouaa-wiD.. bc.cou.str'llCtiSd 11mnucatiretymr.a1rcady developccUand (tbc:cld.pulp mill. site)_ ~.,.a win coniU'I.ll::tl'l'tOI'd peau.ock;. man::wllSmissiortliu.e,; tbc:swi=h.yar:d, W.tb:·pawcritcu.se:a~t uAdovcloped, Lmd-It wculdappcar: thU.Alcetwivet B· has. a. biatw"likdihood..af impactilll: wUdJi!t resaurcca... The·iinpact c! tba-Alremativc:: a powerhousa.. swiiehyud.. uu1 rmnsm.i.ui&:m: liner to ·the:. Ward. Cove e~taary need~. to-~closely examined. TTmam.iaaioD. lines· A11=w tranuni.sd.oa:lines lihaa\d be deaiped to pRVCD~~of birdl;. c.spcc:ially .dm:e llald. Eagles ara relatively carmrum. iD. the project areL r. U\hl <!..-'E.d d'::KX)S3'1 Wdat :2! 66. 1212 AtW ,.AT. • 21.1' IJIJ (THUI UIJ: 2¥ Mr. Thomplon U~r~ :St. n.iH l KAN·:'It I !i rT lei,: ':fU 11.1.~ K /.lIS pqc4 ) BoandNII.RMQQZ'c:s. Cl:ll:pap-ll'ot.lbe:ICD, T'ab1e.4-2.cm be reduced to.mdudc.cmlytho&a.aeuid.ve-planta.that.ue· kaown r.o.oc:au::armnaal*f.Cd.ta.occ:armthe.areL Thu&t of.s.en.Rtaiw:plmm.i• incbsdcd iD. t11a II:UIChcd. paper; •lC:ctclUba Area s.siti'Ye: PIIIU.S.Smvey auuse;" On pqr;4d ot tl1a ICD, p1elsrt acate that wha:'IES: plAnts. arc·locatt:d, '"USPS: liabdDJ form will be compleu:d amlaubmit.1K."ta ttc. Pamt Service;. Vllatli~; We. DCCd. mare i:a:fmmacian ou tb:. W'hittt lUv~: pipeline: and dtvetsion: ~to. be: able to c::ommcmt 011 potential impiGtllO visualresourcca.. Provide ~map ab.owi:r&;thc: lac:atiazt ot tbele &truccutes. ) Conncll.Altcma1ivG B propo.s.e.s a n=w 4&" pipelina from noar. tho. aoumemmoauunne.l to. W uti ~ 1bi.& will cn:w lb.c new. Ravil1L roat:l. Higb.wly 39. How will &hidx::accoml))isAed. m:l what will tho poceuial alfcas be1 Cocnell Almmadvc B propaaes cmmcctlng from tbo powe.rhouse to Nordl Tonpu Hi;hway via.. &...34 Kv powetlino along_the-DOE"d2e.m sham of Warc1Covc, 4itecdy above:arDa&Cezttdu&~omea. &Ad buliu&aeao. There-wtlllie wmctic and othcraodsdimpact.a framthiaJncar:fnzt 11'tescr impactS arc: notm~OI'Ioci' Hadtap·~ Tbo:CormalJ I.A.Ia::FBR.C PrcjectCaltural Rcaaurcea secdon 4.1.& ou: pagc20 wichin me "Imdal. l Ccum1ltationDOCUJ:Ilent11 1 d&:JQnm add:r!!l the. potential. histone £i~oftb.edam:. · ca.aauucwl iu.1951.. Althau&h Aat yec 50 ycar1.ald tbia dam. shoulc:i abo be: COD.Sidcrecl. for National rc&i&tcrcli&ibilitY and pot:mia.l effect of tht proposeD. activities a well.u any AddUicma1 h..i.acoril:.ar: pn:hiatori.: cultiU'Il situ idenctflcci. priat tn IU1d durin&.th4 =~tal U&tane.DI procesa. Recnadon ancl..OtberWnd..tlsel. 'l'flo Connell L3b. Hyciroclc:cuic.:projcctillacQ.tad. witb.in:tJlo, Ward. tab-Rec:reacton Area .whicb. is desi~t~aWl u ~Spcc:i:UlntmesrAn:a... Tha.:Spcdal.~Atea.wu.tncreued to 7~:acrca. iA-1997-a.nd.no~cncampasac:.a dlamaJorUy-ofUu:;pmposaL. Tlic c:mpha&is.o!t.bi& 1mui ua:. doaiamuion i& oaa:.whc:nt.11 l.Uliqpe:nawnl feature.!: ara:Pll*t'locl;!'. 'rllO!~•bnuld "rem lilt lusely UDdUturbeci by lmmm· uw or acl:ivitit:K, ~tfor localizedJ.metptedvc-purpoaea and. in aon:se. eucs.o recrea.d on cievelapmelltst and. provide:-qualitY opporamh:Je.c tor. public. study, ua.t and. etti~11 (Tan sua Land Martagc:mc::J: Plan; 3;.55). There. ia •n additional land ustdcsi~· widlmlbaW'ud.takc..Sptsdal l&u&=a:Are&. w.b:ich· r~ca a. Trat~SpCrtali&:uuru:LUdlity System (TUS). (.TODp.ss.I:incl.M&DapmaatP!IIt,.l;.l~B).. The pcmst.ockmd.dmt. at CcmaeU t:..ale. are kacarecl on privara land. partially-wicbtathe corrid.or: The propo.aod waru dl.ver.sio~utnzcaz=aa. tbo-Wbitc=Rivee-mclthc:caaespocdtnr;J)i~co "ralbot I..aka:uc nat covered by dlia:ros· acd a:re-:unc:l4r'a:runbcr Ptoduc:dOD. mauapmat pruoripctoL {Tousua.LimlMmagomcatPJaa..3;.144) 1 t. !JU4 .!./17. d .~ wan :zt 66. aa At:W nAr. ·lU' IJ'JtTHUI U'J: ll un s 1\t..n.in II\_..~, s 1 T lt.L.:'JU/Ullll.)ll Mt. Th011fSN01t pqaS <leoJl"D.PbiC: acape. af. tbA. pmjecl :aceQ&. t.O-be elcatly defiAeci. tdcm:it'!ed.. on Llarp .IC&l.4:map, ii1Clude: &Jtelemcnrrat 'each: altt.madlllriacl•Wn,ma Wh1ta River dtveraioJJ dant .. •· Tile: JC:Oaraph~QSCOJXIOA. pap-ll~ottba: soop:tuJ.docw'acnt indicates= the.. Ward Cn::4k.ICODDelJ: talt:&. baD.u.lbe::UJcat.cftba:projc:ct ancltlria·i.t uota.camplata:deteripliOJL • l'!:iore:needa.ta·be-cladftcatlQQ"if~= ::r;...wiJt bt:put"Oft!IA project mt1 tbt pouibmtyoflaJcaodr&w-dawn (EbccxiatiJJ&· m;;;;'Y~ ""memicmed). -z.., •· Tba-lncuiaD;lltthc; Wld.te. River~ c:l.a!!t1md carmapoadfac: m:iie: of pipelina n=d ta be idcmtifii:d..aa.: &:map... • Altematiw-B 1~uaa tot the po1Wibou&e ia .thowa. em tho map bat nat in mlatiQil. ta Rovilla... Road.-tbtpri:a.W.'y acceu raa.ci foralhec::rwioa acUvitiuilttho.bub:l.. C!:oslina.afR.cvilia.. Road. wfda tho ponsttlek ta tho pow~ is not m=d.oacd yet mustoa:urte. reach.loc:a.Wm. a. Axi•ttnl Candftton of Resreation and Other Land Usc a (p:l&&ll " 2l.of1CD) r: ou~ ., Rr.villa.Raad..iJ:naw-tho primary~ rouccinul the Wantt..ak.c. R.c.creatiou..~ Wtrluba-. upanaioa:at. the;: boundary. , all lhleo camplfiiUIIda, u ~~ot, ~ -~ ..0 Pene.venmco-Lala a:o·wichin tile Recn!attonA.ceA. {Sec •UAQ ~ectfe&QltC&. oxcept thoa in:~ Whi~ River dlaia.a~ am widri.n the. W ard.:t..akii ·on. Area.. •· ThtConnellL&kt.:Ttlil.recounetioa. was~ in.l9gL 'Iblre ii.aJ1ddp over the. crcc:k:bccweea..Com:leJtand Talbot I..ukca with d:la 1:\opa of·aomeday bvilttiDg~a.u:all.an;.the: IDU'dt side: at.Talb~I.:.a.kl:~ •· na Focc.u:serricc:hu na plans at this dme to remove tt= atum'PJ.from: CoasaeJtt:alcc. Thea do: prc~cmn.-b•urd to boaters on the 1a.k: and tlw ia-why we, lflcc'lli.lc:,. do D.Gl have pl&D.L co c:oaattUcta.;boat ramp at ConneU Lab. Both would. =b•nce me boa!ial- oppormnides on t:bA Lake and atD petential n:rittcadan mcuurcs. Comment& (or the-Whitman LaJce ProJect Wlldl!ta bloa:rcel A clcarde.sertp'don·of a.ctual 'NC1'k. that will take place would be useful for performinl.: '"'"mu=t.s... wm. tile. new~ requtte-· clcariq forcat tDd rn.oYln& earth, or-will it fit iA tbe dUI'l"Cnt penstock corridor7 '1.'.1= aow divers1cns JU:.Cd ta be clearly autliacd a.ncl mapped.. ~ Tiuanri•sioa 1iac:a • All ncw·l;t'll1l$missian UDCS llhould. be designed ta prevcmr electtocutiaa. ot · birds; aspecinlly since B'ald EAgle& are relatively common ht ~ project area.. Plea.!&6 provide: u.t with mare infornuation about tile doc:u.menw:l &o&hawk ucat. ait4 JUDtioned an pap-11. JlotaDieal Raaurcu- Onpap 14-olt.be.ICD\" Table 4-l Call be reduc:t:toiccluda o:ly dwo IC1'Iaiiivo plazus:thaun:. kDown or suspecrecl to. cc:ur in au; :aca.. That Jist of &eD.Jitive plants is iacltldcd.iA.tbc: amcbc¢ @paper; "!Ceu:hilcan: Am& Semitf.vc Plana Survey Guide."· Ckl pqc·l7 of the ICD.. please stat= t1w. wb.en 1.'1lS plants Are 1ocate4, a usps· ughtinc farm will. be. camplctcd wt submiu.ecl to chc Forest Ser.ice. . .:....'S'd ~ Wd2't :2't 66, 132 A~ ~ftl. -~u ,,,.nu1 u'''' ~~r~ ~~~~nt~AA-~1~11 te.&.:'1U'HHIJI Mt~ Thom~co. pap6 Beri ... RMoarcel ~Tho.cxiadnc;. Whftman-Dam· wu ~in:.l!nT, coverio.a ceulicl: timbct'c:z:ilJ. dara;. v~ m·1908 wbicb..wual&Guacd:tat·hydtaelec$powe:t; 'I'he;Clllmral.Relcu:rcol. a:eti.ac:4.1~8:aa:paps 15 ed:l6-wid:Wr:tbs:•Jidtlal.Ous.aultaU=.Doc:ument.! dccr;addteutbe· paumdat ht.nortc sipt.fic&Dur.oflh4:crib.c1mr.&lld,woaderut:Lve pit2eti=: '1bt: 19%/era;dam,. shaald.. al&o be considered forNattoulR.qi&r=: oU ifbfUty a4pot~.ntial e.lf=ct at tbe propol6d. acd.videa aa well u any &dditional hiaiDiic-orpn:hiatori.c. cu1U11'11 .ti~a idemified pnar. 14md: durin&. tbe. NBP A proc:a.ca. ~ a.matfcm and. Other :tancl.UU&t -~ \J Th~ Whitman Lake· Hydroelectric project illocw.d. wtdtiD.. ~ 014 Cltowrb.&bita:c.L&nd USG; Oe4igrwion (Tonpu Lwl Managemac Plu, 1997, 3"·76), A very small portion may be in Scm.i-IWnc~ Rurealion m..MP; 3-83). New road conatn~c:d.oamd ticilitic£ are c=enllY incDD&itte.nt with the Old Growth Habitat dcsignadon but accepta.b~ if no feasible alt.en:ultive:i.s. a.vailable. Gcagraphic II:CtJC ot the project ne.eda to ba clwty defined to include aU elem=.t~. of eac:h:. ~ccnwive i::ldUding tbA divetiU:= d.A:Ua:d. ptpdtDcs. trom the adler dr:UDJ.gu.. Impacrc ot lbe· other twa dmiuagea will a1Jo be ued to be evaluared u con.mw:lioo. aod removal. of. wuet;wJll. oc:cur. Tho Ketchikan Ttu.ils Plan wu. approved and i&.beiD&,implemeznocL The:final pro®ctiDt:llsdcs tn1iJ &CCCII to. Achillea Monataia .. Two rourcs-~eurrcntly bcinc evduatcd.. <ll=locutca.for tho: proposed mil t.& buectioa24-4214 the. o:bt'zis ilucction 26. of TlSS. R91B: (ace. auached: map). Tbefiratrouttis d:l4mostllkaJy = bod.tvdop=C. Ttwautd.follow 1hc. clramacc towatd.thc two sma.U lakes at clcvat:ion.ll-'0 and..d'tc:lt wut to Ac:biUea Peak;. T!ds roura wauJd worlc. weJI aa it coulc1 be coordinated. witftfu1m'B plms for aquarium, sauo park, o: any other public::laa.dt. devolopwmt;. The second roum would. toUow. tb.e: drainage just to the· ca.st of W1lilmaA take. Th1& ia the--drainag~ with tbA poumtlal diveniou dam and pipeline. Then: is a pouibUity thar. a loop trail woul.d be consuucted.udli%:in&:both optiona;. ' r. uuo It wuscmewhai unclear it road acce.sa wO\llcl ba roquitod tor the. cooaU'I.lCdcn of the. pen.amct.. 4ive:rsiaa. dams.. and P_ ipclincs... The-dAvelopmenc at-reads in this lud use dc.tigaati.04 would be a) ccacem; Use. of any road.l consauctcd. would require: further di&et~uion:.. / Acr;nstes to JlQ Ct.:maulwd. • · US Ferest Semce •· K.crcbikan G.a.reway Borough: Parks aad Recni&Jion, Plonnial •· Kctcbi'kan Visitcnr Bureau ,, .A.I.tub Dopanmont ~f Namral Relourcaa.-Staur Parks •· ntchikan Outdoor Rcc:rcsadca.w:L.Trail&CoalJtiou: ~!Mint Spgrcc;s gf RQc;n;!ttigp-!ptqrmltign- • ~a.Ouuioor-Logmey. StatewidoOlmprohCMivo CutdoarR.ecn:acton P1m.1997·2002. ONlt,. JW'IIS 199& • Parts and Itecreauon Plan.IC.eu:b;kan Oarowav Bor011gb.. Sel)=mber 19!M. ..:./'3. d ~3"1 Wc£t :Zt 66, ez AI::W --"w"----· -~--~ --~---·-----·~-----~ .... ~--------------- 1 )lA f. • ~IJ '1'1 \ OtiJI tl~: .lU U:SI"~ 1\t.tl.tn IM,.-1'!1 ~If it.l..!'1U/l-'~8'JI Mt; Thampson pqe7 ... TCetchilc:m Oatcway Barouch Ecoacmic .U:.d:ica~ Univc:mtY of.Aluka. SE. May 1993 .. AJ.ub! s.Vilitor Iudusuy: AD. f:coao.mie. Profile. Tha McDowell Group- If yoa.bve qaestiou. please call Teresa. Trulock of my stU! :1.t (907) 22i·410 1. e~ nument Ranaer Bn.c:l.oiarea cc: Tom So.mrak. SO Iama Burns, RO Ron Scttjc, Kl'U r. UU/ ~.-~-d :::IC!Q_,'"'S:J'1 Wdvt :at 60~ 02 J.J:::W --------------------------------------- _____ J·- ,. ~ .. Responses to Agency Comments APPENDIXB RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS Responses to specific issues raised in Agency comment letters regarding SD1 and the ICD are provided below. These letters are provided in Appendix A. The issue numbers are shown on the left hand margins of the letters. Final Study Plans outlining studies discussed below are provided in Appendix C. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, April 1, 1999 Issue# 1 Response KPU will be conducting a three year periodic safety inspection of Whitman dam this year. Water rights applications have been prepared. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, April 13, 1999 Issue# 1 2 3 4 5 Response Please see our response Number 3 to ADF&G letter dated April30, 1999. Please see response Number 4 to ADF&G letter dated April30, 1999. The assessments requested will be performed as defined in the Final Study Plans (Appendix C). Also, please see response Number 10 to ADF&G letter dated April 30, 1999. The assessment of impacts to water quality and temperature at the tailrace will be assessed as defined in the Final Study Plans. Also, see response Number 8 to ADF&G letter dated April30, 1999. Although we question the value of inventorying invertebrate fauna in Herring Bay Creek at the site of the proposed tailrace site, we will work with the agencies to assess the impacts to invertebrates due to the construction of the project. Members of Herring Bay Water Users Association, April14, 1999 Issue# 1 September 1999 Response We appreciate and understand the Association's concern and are proposing to study the quantity and quality of water below Whitman Dam under present and Page 1 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 2 Responses to Agency Comments future conditions. The proposed flow regime (quantity and quality) below Whitman Darn and the Achilles Creek diversion will be analyzed in greater detail for the License Application. The volumes and rates of flow past each structure, and the percent contribution to overall flow, will be estimated. From these estimates, together with water quality data we collect and data collected by SSRAA over the past several years, we will estimate how project operations may affect the water supply system. If needed, we will develop alternatives to provide an adequate supply of water at the diversion site. Estimates of average flow velocity under the bridge and at other select locations in the cove will be calculated for a variety of powerhouse discharge and sea level combinations to determine if there would be impacts to boat access or fish and wildlife habitat. State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, April 30, 1999 Issue# 1 2 3 September 1999 Response The information requested will be included in the License Application and supporting documents. KPU is aware of the need to secure a collection permit from the ADF&G and will be contacting the Sport Fish Division in the near future to apply for and obtain the necessary Scientific Collection Permit. In addition, R2 will also contact Mr. Jack Gustafson regarding the potential need for a Title 16 permit. Please refer to the Fisheries Resources Final Study Plan included in Appendix C of this document which discusses evaluating the fisheries habitat and species compositions within waters potentially affected by the Project development. That study plan specifically identified several studies that would, in part address the data needs identified in this comment. Specific surveys would be conducted to evaluate habitat conditions both within Whitman Creek and in adjoining tributaries. In addition, fish sampling using electrofishing techniques is proposed to evaluate species composition and relative abundance both within Whitman Creek and other fish-bearing tributaries. The Final Study Plan also provides for some expansion of the previously proposed analyses to adequately evaluate species composition and habitats within streams tributary to Whitman Lake. These data collected would be supplemented with already existing information provided by ADF&G and the USFS. Our proposed fish surveys will focus primarily on resident species that are either native to the Whitman Creek watershed and/or have been planted through hatchery stockings. We believe that a single survey of the project Page2 Scoping Document 2 'Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 4 5 6 September 1999 Responses to Agency Comments waters completed during low flow conditions will be sufficient to adequately characterize the species composition, relative abundance and age class characteristics of resident species that may be potentially affected by the Project. Although as referenced in your letter, there are a variety of sampling techniques that may be employed, we have found that electrofishing using a backpack shocker (straight DC) in combination with snorkel surveys, have proven to be effective in collecting fish in streams and tributaries of comparable size to Whitman Creek. Based on ADF&G comments, we will add a specific sampling effort for Whitman Lake that will consist of a combination of seining, snorkeling, gill netting (pending approval by ADF&G), angling, and perhaps use of baited minnow traps. This sampling will be conducted in concert with the stream surveys and again will consist of a single effort during the summer, low flow period. KPU is aware of the concerns expressed by the ADF&G regarding tailrace placement and the potential for project operations to influence adult movements into Herring Cove. KPU will work closely with the ADF&G and SSRAA in ensuring that the location of the tailrace is closely integrated with the existing hatchery fish ladder to avoid such problems. Comments noted. The information requested will be included in the Licensing documents. Operation of the Project will include a continuous discharge into Whitman Creek at the base of Whitman dam. There will also be continuous discharge past the two diversion structures. The targeted minimum rate of flow past each structure will be determined based on streamflow records in the area and consideration of water quality, fishery and wildlife resources and aesthetic and recreation uses. A stream gage was installed on Whitman Creek in February 1999. Long-term streamflow data has been synthesized, with very good correlation, from actual streamflow records on Beaver Falls Creek. Existing water rights on the subject bodies of water have been identified and will be reported in the PDEA In response to paragraph 3: In February 1999, KPU installed a permanent stream gage in Whitman Creek just above the point of diversion for the Herring Bay Water Users Association. This gage has been operational since then and stage data have been recorded. It is anticipated that during the next year, a stage: discharge relationship will be determined for the gage facilitating the determination of stream flows at any given time. Page3 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 7 8 9 September 1999 Responses to Agency Commenls Because of the absence of anadromous fish from Whitman Creek, we are not proposing to conduct any detailed instream flow studies in this system. We will, however, collect sufficient data at the estuary boundary to assess the potential impact of the project of anadromous fish that may be attracted to lower Whitman Creek. In addition, we acknowledge the need to provide flows that will maintain resident species and their habitats, and therefore will collect water depth and velocity information from several transects across areas considered suitable for resident species spawning and also important for invertebrate production. The selection of specific transects for measurements will be based on the results of the habitat surveys that have already been completed on Whitman Creek. The collection of these data will be made during the summer low flow period. The data so collected will be coupled with the stream gage data and should allow an assessment of changes in wetted-perimeter with flow. In addition, we will evaluate the hydrologic record for Whitman Creek and evaluate various percentiles of the main annual flow relative to the field-collected data. From this analysis, we will work with ADF&G in identifying necessary instream flows to protect resident aquatic biota. Flow bypass equipment and controls will be designed for high reliability and to maintain the required bypass flows during normal and emergency operations, including power intenuptions. We concur with the need to collect baseline water quality data and, as stated in our Final Study Plan, we are planning to take measurements of pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), water temperature, and specific conductance during the fish survey field studies conducted. Our Final Study Plan (Appendix C) also reflects the addition ofthe collection of such measurements in Whitman Lake as well as in tributaries influent to the lake. We will attempt to collect a variety of such measurements during a typical storm runoff event; such measurements will be taken at the site of the stream gage. In addition, continuous temperature recorders will be installed at two locations in Whitman Creek, one immediately below Whitman Dam, and the second at the mouth ofthe stream. These will be monitored to document water temperature changes occurring under natural conditions. It is KPU' s understanding that lake temperatures are monitored by the SSRAA so that those data will be utilized in evaluating potential impacts to the hatchery water supply due to project operations. KPU and its contractors will work closely with the state and federal agencies in designing diversion structures that will avoid and/or minimize impacts to adult and juvenile salmonids. As previous noted, Whitman Creek does not support anadromous fish runs and therefore the need for upstream passage into that Page4 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 10 11 Responses to Agency Comments system and on Whitman Lake is not justified. We anticipate that information collected as part of the fish surveys will be useful in evaluating the potential for impacts relative to the proposed locations of the diversion structures. In general, juvenile fish in lakes reside along the littoral margins and therefore would be less susceptible to deep-water intake systems. However, the development of final engineering plans will be closely coordinated with state and federal agencies and with consideration for minimizing impacts to the fishery resource. The fish surveys should establish whether Dolly Varden and/or cutthroat trout are present within the two proposed diversion streams, Achilles Creek and Herring Cove Creek. Should those species be present, KPU will, in coordination with the ADF&G, collect the required 60 fish per species and transmit those specimens to the ADF&G fish pathology laboratory in Juneau. Sampling will be completed in accordance with ADF&G's sample protocols. However, the collection of fish will only be made following an initial evaluation of the species composition of those two streams and with discussions and concurrence from the ADF&G. As noted in Section 5.0 (Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues), we will assess cumulative impacts for this project. A geographic information system will be used in the cumulative impact analysis. Joe Rottschafer, Member of Herring Bay Water Users Association, April30, 1999 Issue# Response 1 See response to Members of Herring Bay Water Users Association. Catherine Fallon, Member of Herring Bay Water Users Association, April 30, 1999 Issue# Response 1 See response to Members of Herring Bay Water Users Association. Montgomery Watson, May 3, 1999 Issue# 1 2 September 1999 Response We agree with the comments and the need for coordination during design and operation. The preliminary design of the hydro project considered the hatchery piping system and was developed to overcome some of the current limitations. We Page 5 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 3 4 Responses to Agency Comments will review this situation in further detail during the current studies. Similarly, we will review the gas saturation issue during these studies. Also, see response Number 4 to ADF&G letter dated April 30, 1999, concerning tailrace desigA. Operation of the hydro plant will be automated. The logic programmed into the control system will be developed in concert with SSRAA, Herring Bay Water Users Association, and the responsible state and federal resource agencies. In order to optimize energy generation from the plant_. it will be important to minimize the annual quantity of unregulated spill over the dam. To do so, lake levels will be more controlled than they have been in the past. Efforts will be made to ensure that lake level fluctuations will be ramped smoothly without abrupt rises or falls, and that the frequency of large rises and falls is minimized. Preliminary end-of-month target reservoir elevations have been selected for Whitman Lake, but with little input from SSRAA or others. KPU plans to discuss and review the operating plans with all interested parties during the licensing process in order to develop a reasonable and acceptable reservoir operating rule curve. Increases in the size of the water line to the hatchery was designed to overcome existing demand shortages. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, May 10, 1999 Issue# 1 2 3 4 Response Construction of an intake screen will be considered in the studies. The timing and construction methods of any in-water construction (e.g. intake work, timber crib work) will be coordinated with the responsible resource agencies, SSRAA and the Water Users Association. Surveys for nest sites will be conducted for Northern Goshawk, marbled murrelets and the bald eagle. If any nest sites are located all concerned agencies will be contacted. We will coordinate with the USFWS in the development of appropriate methods for avoiding potential impacts in the event that nest sites are found. Comment concerning status of Saxman as a subsistence community is noted and will be reflected in future reports. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, May 19, 1999 September 1999 Page6 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Issue# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 September 1999 Responses to Agenc_v Comments Response Wildlife surveys are planned, as identified in the Final Study Plans (Appendix C). The main project features (dam and pipeline route) are already in place. In addition the powerhouse will be located in an already developed area. For these reasons, a further analysis is not proposed. The Project will not impact subsistence in the area. The attached directive will be used in our studies. Our surveys of sensitive and rare plants will utilize the protocols suggested. Soil stability as well as regeneration capability in areas where timber removal or ground compaction may occur is certainly a concern. We will be assessing these concerns during our survey and will consult with the USFS on this matter. In our lCD the protection ofhigh wildlife use areas such as wetlands and riparian zones was listed under Potential Wildlife Issues/Concerns/ Mitigation. During field work we will be mapping all wetland and riparian zones, within our survey area, that may or may not be impacted by this project. All efforts will be made to avoid these areas when possible. We will be contacting the USFS regarding your inventory of these areas. Our primary investigator will be consulting with the USFS. As required under FERC regulations (18 CFR, Section 4.51(4)), the Cultural Resources study will include a discussion of the historical and archeological resources in the Project area and the impact of the Project on those resources. The report will also identify any sites either listed or presently determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places that are located in the Project area, or that would be affected by operation of the Project. Project features will be displayed on maps and the visual analysis will describe the impacts of the proposed construction and lake level management on scenery. The new penstock will run adjacent to the existing penstock, now feeding the fish hatchery. While there may be some removal of ground vegetation along the existing penstock and possibly some trees, the amount of removal and the impacts to existing habitat is expected to be minimal. During our field studies we will be closely evaluating this concern. Page? Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project 15 16 17 Responses to Agency Comments Prevention of electrocution of aviary wildlife through proper construction of new power lines has been recommended in our Initial Consultation Document for the Whitman Lake Project on page 12 under Potential Wildlife Issues/Concerns/Mitigation. Information concerning the goshawk nest site was provided to us in 1997 from the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP). ANHP has since told us that such documentation does not exist. Field studies conducted during July 1999 indicate that there are no such nests in the project area. We agree. Please refer to Final Study Plan (Appendix C). As required under FERC regulations (18 CFR, Section 4.51(4)), the Cultural Resources study will include a discussion of the historical and archeological resources in the Project area and the impact of the Project on those resources. The report will also identify any sites either listed or presently determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are located in the Project area, or that would be affected by operation of the Project. The new penstock will be constructed adjacent to the existing pipelines and will not include an access road. Likewise, roads are not planned as part of the diversion structures and pipelines. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, May 21, 1999 Issue# 1 September 1999 Response Your comment pertaining to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is noted. KPU and our contractors look forward to working with NMFS and the FERC in considering EFH as part of the licensing procedures for the Whitman Lake Project. PageS Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans APPENDIXC FINAL LICENSING STUDY PLANS WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Purpose The purpose of the water quality and quantity studies is to refine information developed during the feasibility study of the project and to develop final operating criteria for the project. A new gauging station was installed in February 1999, and the data collected will be used to determine if the flow relationships described earlier are still valid. The water quality study will evaluate the impact that reservoir elevation will have on downstream flow releases. Agencies to be Consulted State and federal agencies and non-governmental agencies that will be contacted as part of the water quality and quantity investigations will include, but not limited to, the following: • Alaska Department ofNatural Resources (ADNR) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Methodology Data from the new stream gauge is currently being collected. If newly collected data or data developed by the stream gauging station indicates that flow estimates should be revised, then the flow data developed previously will be re-worked and a new set of data developed. The operations studies from earlier studies may be revised utilizing any new flow data that becomes available and agreed-upon minimum flow from the fishery studies. The purpose of any revised studies will be to determine if there are any changes in average annual energy estimates and to optimize minimum instream flows to better meet fishery needs. An optimum operating procedure for the project will be developed. The revised studies will also reflect other operating criteria which may develop out of other ongoing studies of the project. Temperature and lake level data has been collected by SSRAA for use in their hatchery operations. This data, combined with data to be collected for the proposed fishery studies, will be analyzed and the current water quality conditions assessed. Steps and actions necessary to protect water quality during construction will be developed and water quality conditions during project operations will be projected. If needed, modifications to further protect the water quality at the Herring Bay Water Users Association diversion will be developed. September 1999 Page 1 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans FISHERIES Purpose The purpose of the fisheries studies is to describe the fishery resources existing within and reliant upon the streams and lakes within the Whitman Hydroelectric Project area, and to evaluate potential impacts resulting from project construction and operation. For this, fisheries literature/data and information pertaining to the Whitman Creek watershed shall be identified, compiled and reviewed. In addition, pedestrian habitat and fisheries surveys shall be completed ofWhitman Creek (and adjoining tributaries) to collect qualitative physical habitat and biological information needed to address project impacts. Qualitative site surveys shall also be completed ofWhitman Lake. Agencies to be Consulted State and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations that will be consulted as part of the fishery investigations will include but not be limited to the following: • Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G) • Alaska Department ofNatural Resources (ADNR) • Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) • U.S. Forest Service (USFS) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) • Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) Methodology Literature Review - Sources and types of information that will be collected and reviewed shall likely include but not be limited to: ADF&G: stocking records, fish population data, management plans; State listed T& E spectes ADNR: water quantity infonnation and flow records ADEC: water quality information, NPDES permits USFWS: general fisheries data; ESA listed species NMFS:: anadromous fisheries data; escapement estimates; ESA listed species September 1999 Page2 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans USFS: habitat information, species presence/absence data SSRAA: hatchery production and stocking records for Whitman Creek KPU: technical reports prepared by consultants, anecdotal information University of Alaska: thesis, technical reports USGS: streamflow statistics, regional hydrology data Supplemental information shall be provided via personal contacts made with local and regional biologists within the ADF&G (e.g. Steve Hoffinan, Jack Gustafson, Ricardo Sainz) to discuss individual species distributions and management goals for the Ward Creek watersheds. Qualitative Habitat and Fish Surveys Whitman Creek and Affected Tributaries (Achilles Creek/Herring Cove Creek) The qualitative habitat and fish surveys shall be conducted in a downstream direction, from Whitman Lake to Whitman Creek outlet. The surveys shall be completed by a two -person field crew experienced in habitat assessments and fisheries surveys. The surveys shall be completed following protocols specified by the USFS using a modified Hankin-Reeves approach, and shall include the mapping of habitats (classified as to riflle, pool, run, cascade, glide, ripple) throughout the stream length, as well as fish species composition. Fish species composition shall be determined via electrofishing using a Smith -Root POW backpack shocker. Fish sampling (to determine species composition and relative abundance) shall be conducted at selected intervals throughout the length of each stream. All salmonids captured during the surveys shall be identified, measured (length and weight) and released unharmed within the general vicinity of capture. Scale samples shall be collected from a representative number of salmonids (> 200 mm in length) to enable age: growth analysis, should it be deemed necessary at some later time. Non-salmonid fishes shall be identified, enumerated and released. In addition, qualitative fish sampling shall be completed within the first 50 ft (depending on access) of each of the tributaries entering Whitman Creek. Because of the proposed diversion offlows from Achilles Creek and Herring Cove Creek, the fish surveys (snorkeling and/or electrofishing) ofthese systems shall extend upstream for a minimum of300 ft, less if a natural barrier were encountered. In order to evaluate thermal changes in Whitman Creek, two continuous recording temperature gages will be installed at two locations below Whitman Dam. These will include; directly below Whitman Dam, and at the outlet of Whitman Creek to the ocean. Temperature recorders shall also be installed at the mouth of Achilles Creek, and in the mouth of Herring Cove Creek. These will be installed during the habitat and fish surveys and will be monitored during the remainder of the summer and fall in order to evaluate seasonal and diurnal changes in temperature under existing conditions. September 1999 Page 3 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake H_vdroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans Whitman Lake and Tributaries Tributaries influent to Whitman Lake that might provide fish habitat shall be identified from topographic maps and discussions with the ADF&G and USFS biologists. Each of these streams will be field-visited and depending on stream gradient, the lower 1,000 ft of stream habitat mapped using USFS procedures. For relatively small streams, the survey may extend upstream only 500 ft., or less, if a natural fish barrier is encountered. For each of the major influent tributaries, a longitudinal profile of the bed elevation shall be completed within the lower 1 00 ft of stream channel and extending out into the lake to the elevation representing low-pool conditions. This information shall be used in evaluating lake level changes resulting from project operations on tributary connectivity. Fish sampling within the tributaries will be completed using snorkeling and electrofishing techniques. Sampling would be completed in an upstream direction for a minimum of300 ft, less if a natural barrier were encountered. All fish captured or observed shall be identified to species, measured (estimated length if snorkel surveys), and released. Sample times and effort shall be recorded to enable estimates of Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE). The habitat and fish sampling work within the tributaries is estimated to ·require a two (2) day field effort and will be conducted in concert with the lake fish sampling surveys The fish sampling in Whitman Lake will be conducted as a single sampling effort during the late summer/early fall period (August/September). Sampling will be completed using a variety of gear types including Gee minnow traps (large and small), and hook and line. Contingent on approval from ADF&G, supplemental gill net sets shall also be completed at selected locations in the lake, in particular, within the deeper portions of the lake, and at locations proximal to the existing intake used to supply water to the hatchery in Herring Cove. The gill nets shall be checked every two hours in order to minimize injury to captured fish. All fish captured (by all sample methods) shall be counted, identified to species, measured ((length (mm) and weight (to nearest 1g)) and subsequently released. Contingent on visibility, shoreline snorkeling surveys shall also be completed in order to evaluate littoral margin habitats (especially near tributary inlets) and juvenile fish usage. Coincident with the lake fish sampling, ancillary measurements of water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity shall be taken within each lake using water quality meters. These measurements shall be taken on the surface, at mid-depth, and near the bottom of each lake. A minimum of two temperature profiles shall be measured on Whitman Lake during the sampling period, with a focus on the deepest portions ofthe lake and in proximity to the existing water supply intake pipeline. It is anticipated that Whitman Lake can be sampled during a three (3) day period; total time for both tributary and lake habitat and fish sampling = 5-6 days. Instream Flow Assessment Because of the absence of anadromous fish from Whitman Creek, detailed instream flow studies using the USFWS Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) system are not proposed for this stream. However, KPU acknowledges the need to provide flows within streams from which waters will be diverted that will maintain resident species and their habitats and the September 1999 Page4 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans need to assess conditions at the mouth of Whitman Creek. Therefore, KPU proposes to collect water depth and velocity information from several transects within Whitman Creek (below Whitman Dam), Achilles Creek, and the tributary to Herring Cove. The transects shaft be placed across areas considered suitable for resident species spawning and also important for invertebrate production. The selection of specific transects for measurement will be based on the results of the habitat surveys that have already been completed on Whitman Creek, as well as the proposed surveys for the other streams. The collection of these data will be made during the summer low flow period. The data so collected will be coupled with the stream gage data (on Whitman Creek) and should allow an assessment of changes in wetted- perimeter with flow. In addition, the hydrologic record for Whitman Creek (and the two tributaries) shall be reviewed and evaluated. The results of these analyses shall be summarized and presented to and discussed with the ADF&G, USFWS, NMFS, and USFS, and will result in the identification of instream flows deemed suitable for protecting resident fish species. Impacts Assessment Based on the information and data obtained and reviewed~ and the results of the habitat and fishery surveys, an assessment of the effects ofthe proposed project construction and operations on the existing fishery resources shall be made. This shall include potential habitat loss, habitat alteration/ degradation (e. g. water quality changes -temperature), effects on anadromous and resident fish and aquatic biota, and modifications in streamflow and lake level regime. The assessment shall also focus on the effects of lake level fluctuations on littoral margin habitats and productivity and the impact of changes in water quality and temperature at the tailrace. The impacts on fish shall focus on determining to what extent project operations will directly or indirectly impact existing fish populations within the watershed. Examples of direct impacts include habitat loss (due to passage barriers, loss of stream length, fluctuations in lake levels), false attraction to powerhouse outfalls resulting in delay of adult migrations, and mortality occurring during construction. Indirect impacts include loss of food production within a given reach which could influence fish population abundance, reduction in spawning gravel recruitment below the darn, changes in water quality (e.g. temperature alterations) that could alter the timing of certain life history components (e.g. spawning, egg incubation and fry emergence), and changes in flow availability and quantity. Identification of Mitigation Measures For each of the impacts identified, mitigation measures shall be described and discussed that serve to reduce or eliminate project impacts. Such measures may include the provision of instream flows within the diverted reach of Whitman Creek, development and funding of a lake stocking program (if deemed desirable by the ADF&G), development oflake level and flow operation rule curves that are compatible with salrnonid life history requirements and periodicities, and other measures as "agreed-to" during agency consultations. Emphasis shall be placed on identifying those measures which substantially reduce or eliminate project impacts, and which in some cases may actually provide an enhancement of existing conditions. September 1999 Page 5 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans Wll..DLIFE Purpose The purpose of the wildlife study is to describe and quantify habitats and confirm presence or absence of wildlife species. The potential impact ofthe Project on wildlife resources will be evaluated and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts will be developed. Agencies to be Consulted • USFWS • USFS • ADFG • NMFS Methodology Studies will include agency consultation, literature reviews, field studies, interpretation of field data, analysis of aerial photographs, and documentation. Tasks All existing data on wildlife species and habitat in or near the Project area will be reviewed. This will include lists, survey data, aerial photographs, and reports from with USFWS, USFS, ADFG and NMFS. Field Surveys A field survey will be conducted to confirm existing project data. Areas to be surveyed will include the dam, penstock route, power house location, and access road/transmission route. The field survey will confirm presence/absence of common wildlife species, as well as species of concern (i.e., threatened and endangered species). The field survey will consist of: a) a qualitative survey ofwildlife habitats, and b) a general inventory of wildlife species will be conducted for mammals and birds. A combination of valley watch and broadcast surveys for the northern goshawk will be conducted within a half- mile radius of all project areas. Ancillary observations will include identification of calls, tracks, scat, and rapt or pellet analysis. Surveys of the Project area will be conducted while walking to and from fixed points. If individuals of an animal species of concern are located, the pertinent officials will be informed. The appropriate extent of the analysis area for other potential animal species will be determined in consultation with the agencies. September 1999 Page 6 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans VEGETATION Purpose The purpose of the vegetation studies is to characterize the plant communities in and around the Project area and to identify any populations of threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) plant species that will be potentially impacted by the Project. Any potential impacts to botanical resources will be evaluated and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts will be developed. Agencies to be Consulted • USFS • USFWS • ANHP Methodology Plant Community Classification and Identification Characterization of botanical resources shall include a classification and description of plant communities in and around existing and proposed facilities (lakeshores, dams, penstocks, powerhouses, and access roads). The vegetation in the area around the existing and proposed facilities will be described in terms of dominant tree species, component understory shrubs, and understory herbaceous species. Successional stage and evidence of past disturbance will also be characterized. A list of species observed in the Project area will be developed and included in the Environmental Assessment. The regional and local importance of plant communities occurring in the Project area will be discussed to provide a basis for assessing impacts to plant communities as a result ofthe proposed Project. Coordination of wildlife studies with plant community classification and identification will ensure consistency between the two resource studies and how they are addressed in the Environmental Assessment. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Surveys A survey for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species occurring in areas to be impacted by the Whitman Project will be conducted. An up-to-date list ofTES will be determined from information requests to the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Surveys will consist of two individuals walking the pipeline corridors and examining areas to be affected by ground disturbance, shoreline effects, or indirect impacts from changes in hydrology. Consultation with USFS and ANHP botanists will be conducted to ensure that local knowledge and all available information is being incorporated into the study. Any individuals or populations of TES plant species found will be thoroughly documented with photographs, maps, and notes. A USFS sighting form will be completed for each September 1999 Page7 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans population/individual found and submitted to the USFS. Information of any TES plant species found will also be sent to the ANHP. Results The project alternatives will be evaluated for potential impacts to both plant communities and TES plant species. Loss or conversion of native plant communities will be assessed in terms of their relative sensitivity and rarity in the region, as well as their importance to hydrology and wildlife habitat. Special attention will be given to wetland plant communities. Areal extent of disturbance to each community type will be estimated and the nature and degree of disturbance described. Any individuals/populations of TES plant species that are potentially impacted by the Whitman Project will be identified. Where high value plant communities or TES plant species occur in areas to be impacted, possible mitigation measures will be developed. Avoidance of impacts will be the highest priority, and the project botanist will work with the project engineers to determine possible design or route changes to avoid impacts to important botanical resources. The botanist will also help develop revegetation/reclamation plans to identify ways to mitigate for loss ofbotanical resources. Use of native species, establishment or relocation ofTES species, and design of revegetated natural communities are possible mitigation measures that can be incorporated into revegetation/reclamation plans. September 1999 Page 8 &oping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans AESTHETICS Purpose The primary purpose of the aesthetics study is to evaluate aesthetic impacts from the proposed Project and describe measures proposed by the Applicant to reduce impacts. Agencies to be Consulted • USFS • City and Borough ofKetchikaa • ADNR Methodology The aesthetic study will evaluate existing visual conditions, assess project effects, and identifY potential mitigation measures. Existing Visual Conditions A summary of existing visual conditions that addresses both project facilities and the adjacent landscape will be addressed. Existing visual resource data related to the Project area, including the USFS Visual Management System, will be reviewed. Landscape character of the Project area will also be described. Approximate seen areas from selected viewpoints at and near the Project will be identifieEI.. Project Effects Assessment The impacts of proposed Project construction and operation will be evaluated. The effects of the proposed project facilities and lake level management on visual quality will be determined. The visibility of project features and changes in instream flows from selected viewpoints will be evaluated. Proposed Aesthetic Measures Potential measures that will reduce the visual contrast of project features with the surrounding environment will be identified and their feasibility will be reviewed. September 1999 Page9 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans CULTURAL RESOURCES Purpose The purpose is to develop information on the nature and distribution of cultural resources within the Project area that have not been previously surveyed. This information, together with professional opinions and consultations with affected native groups, and agencies will be presented in a written cultural resources report. Agencies to be Consulted • Native Corporations • USFS • SHPO Methodology Historical/Archeological studies will be conducted to comply with FERC's regulations and requirements ofthe NEPA EA A literature search and surficial investigation ofthe existing and proposed structures will be performed to determine if there are any cultural remains that might be impacted. This will include a pedestrian survey of the Project area. Subsurface testing will be conducted in areas judged to have archeological potential. The search will be for indications of prehistoric as well as proto-historic materials. September 1999 Page 10 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans RECREATION AND LAND USE Purpose The purpose of the recreational resources study is to identify information regarding existing recreation use, future demand and opportunities, and the potential impacts on recreation resulting from development of the Project. The purpose of studying other land uses is to provide updated information on existing land use and ownership in the Project area and evaluate the project's consistency with relevant comprehensive and land management plans. Agencies to be Consulted Agencies who are responsible for recreation and land use planning and management within the Project area will be consulted including: • US Forest Service • Ketchikan Gateway Borough; Parks and Recreation, Planning • Ketchikan Visitors Bureau • Alaska Department of Natural Resources -State Parks • Ketchikan Outdoor Recreation and Trails Coalition Methodology Evaluation of Existing Recreation and Land Uses Existing information will be collected including maps, recreation guides, USFS plans and policies, assessors information and local and regional planning documents. Examples of existing information that will be reviewed include: • Alaska's Outdoor Legacy, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1991- 2002, DNR. June 1998 • Parks and Recreation Plan, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, September 1994 • Ketchikan Gateway Borough Economic Indicators, Universiy of alaska SE, may 1993 • Alaska's Visitor Industry: An Economic Profile, The McDowell Group • US Forest Service, Land and Resource Management Plan From data collected, existing recreation facilities in the Project area will be described and mapped. Land use and ownership in the Project area will described and ownership information will also be mapped. USFS land management designations in the Project area will be reviewed as well as other recreation, trail and land management planning documents in the area. September 1999 Page 11 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study Plans Evaluate Recreation Demand Existing recreation facilities in terms of activity type, physical setting, experience required, economic costs, and current demand will be evaluated. Future recreation use within the Project area will be identified and evaluated. Anticipated recreation demand with and without the proposed Project will be estimated using demographic data, the Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, USFS and other local and regional planning documents. Consistency with Comprehensive and Land Management Plans Project facilities will be examined for consistency with existing federal, state, and local comprehensive and land management plans. Evaluate Project Impacts of Existing and Future Recreation and Other Land Uses Potential environmental, social and economic impacts created by the Project regarding existing and future recreation and other land uses in the Project area will be identified. If appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended if it is determined that the Project will produce adverse effects on existing and proposed future recreation and other land uses. September 1999 Page 12 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Licensing Study P'tans SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES Purpose The purpose of the socioeconomic study is to examine the economic and social impacts of the Project on the residents of Ketchikan Agencies to be Consulted The local planning department and state agencies that may have employment> income and population data for the area will be consulted. Methodology Information for the socioeconomic study will primarily come from a recent (1997) study commissioned by KPU on this subject. The existing employment, population and income trends in the area will be described. On-site manpower requirements and payroll during and after project construction will be summarized. Potential impacts from Project constructioa and operation to local employment and businesses, public services, and housing will be evaluated. September 1999 Page 13 Scoping Document 2 Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project --------------~-----