HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowl Engineers Environmental Evaluation of the Proposed Kurtluk River Hydro Site 1983-
-
-
Dr:--0......;;;:• .·==W:::=::::::::::L======E~ngineers
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Attention: Ms. Merlyn Paine
?.ot
4040 "8" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
0 c t 0 be r 2 8 , 1 9 8 3 Telephone (907) 562·2000
W.O. iiD13470
Subject: King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor and
Togiak Hydroelectric Project
Dear Ms. Paine:
Enclosed for your review with this letter of transmittal is
DOWL Engineer's preliminary report on an ~r nv cnm e tal evalu-
at ion of t he proposed Kurt l uk R.ver hydroelectr ic t e
Tog ak "·
This report supplements the previously issued DOWL 1982 Recon-
naissance Study for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project
(Volume E, Final Report) and addresses the potential effects
that could result · from diversion of the Kurtluk River flows to
a different drainage basin. This diversion would substan-
tially impact the anadromous and resident species currently
utilizing the Kurtluk and it is unlikely that the diverted
waters would provide an alternative habitat in the Big Lake
drainage. However, this potential loss of a small fishery
that is currently under utilized by the local population
(Togiak) must be considered against the need for power in the
village. This report provides the information that would be
required for such a consideration by the Alaska Power Author-
ity and the appropriate regulatory agencies.
We are available to discuss this report with you at your con-
venience.
RRD:rb
Enclosure
APPROVED:
kK•I? .J ~c~. E.
Partner
Very truly your£,
·-/
DOWL NGINEERS
, / I / ··~au~ £f7-
onald R. Dagon, Director
nvironmental Services
dJl ·-·
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED
KURTLUK RIVER HYDROELECTRIC SITE (TOGIAK)
Prepared for:
The Alaska Power Authority
R
Prepared by:
DOWL Engineers
W.O. /1013470
October, 1983
TABLE Of CONTENT
Transmittal Letter .................................... . i
Tab 1 e of Contents .........•...•............•..•...••.... i i-iv
PROJECT DESCRIPTION....... . . . . • • . . . . . • • • . • . . . • • . • • . . • . 1
SCOPE OF WORK.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY................................ 4
HYDROLOGY...... • • • . • . . • • • . • . • • • . . • • • • . . • • • • • • . . • . • • • . • 11
WATER QUALITY •...•............••..••......•....... I • • • 16
WATER QUALITY EFFECTS................................. 16
WATER QUALITY MITIGATION. . . • . • . • . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . 19
AQUATIC HABITAT DE SCRIPT I ON.. . • . • . . • . . • • . . . . . • . . • • . . . . 20
AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES.. . . • . • • . . • . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . • . . 21
FISHERIES .••.. I....................................... 22
SUBSISTENCE USE OF FISHERY RESOURCES.................. 28
F !SHE RY EFFECTS......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FISHERY MITIGATION .....••.••. ,........................ 32
WILDLIFE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 33
ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES ....•.•.....••...•.•.••... , 35
SUBSISTENCE USE OF BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES... 35
WILDLIFE EFFECTS... . • . . • . . • . . . • • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . 38
WILDLIFE MITIGATION. . • . . . . . . . • • • • . . . . . . . . . • . • • • • . . . . . . 40
VEGETATION •.••....•.•.•••••.••••.••••. •.• ......... ••·•·· 41
EFFECTS ON VEGETATION .•........•.•.....••.•.......•. · · 48
VEGETATION MIT I GAT I ON ......•...........•....•........ · 51
ii
ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC SITES....................... 53
A I R QUALITY .........•••...........•. I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 53
lAND STAT US.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS................................. 56
PERM! T T I NG REQUIREMENTS... . • • . . . . • • • . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . 57
RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • . . . . • • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • . • 60
REFERENCES CITED...................................... 61
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS.. . • • • . . . . • • • . • . • • . . . . • • • . . . . . . 62
APPEND IC I ES ............ I ••••••••••••••••••••••• I I • • • • • 63
A. List of Fish species found on the Togiak National
Wildlife Refuge
B. Annotated checklist of Birds of the former Cape
Newenham National Wildlife Refuge and Nushagak
Bay
C. Mammals of the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
D. Plants occuring on the former Cape Newenham National
Wildlife Refuge
E. Site photographs
iii
FIGURES
Vicinity Map ....................................... . Figure
Project Map .......................•..••..........•.. Figure
Geologic Map ....................................... . Figure
Discharge and Water Quality Measurement Locations ••• Figure
Land Status ............•.•.......................... Figure
TABLES
Streamflows of Kurtluk River .•...•.•••••.••....•..•• Table 1
Kurtluk River Point Discharge Measurements .....•...• Table 2
Water Quality Table 3
Chemical Element Concentrations by Location •..•••••• Table 4
Aquatic Invertebrates Occurring by Habitat Type ..••• Table 5
Chum Salmon Escapement Estimates •••••••.•••...••••. Table 6
Subsistence Salmon Harvest ••....•....••..•..•.•••.• Table 7
iv
1
2
3
4
5
October 28, 1983
W.O. /1013470
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Of THE
KURTLUK RIVER HYDROElECTRIC SITE (TOGIAK)
Project Description
Several previous studies of alternative means of supplying the
Togiak area with electrical energy have recommended a hydro-
electric project as the best source. In 1981 and 1982, the
Alaska Power Authority conducted a reconnaissance level
feasibility study to investigate the hydropower potential in
the vicinity of Togiak (DOWL, 1982). The results of the study
indicated that a 432 kilowatt (kW) hydropower project requir-
ing a 38-foot (12m) high dam on the Quigmy River was techni-
cally feasible but had only marginal economic feasibility.
Several alternative projects
course of this 1982 study.
were
Two
also identified during the
of
projects, K-1 and K-2 on the Kurtluk
the smaller alternative
River (Figure 1), were
then considered further in a late 1982 pre-reconnaissance
report, and a recommendation was made to the Power Authority
to perform an environmental evaluation before any further
feasibility analysis be undertaken.
Both of the alternatives being
River utilize a common dam site,
Alternative K-1 would utilize a
considered for the Kurtluk
but with differing heights.
40-foot (12m) high dam to
divert the Kurtluk flow to a different drainage basin via an
8400-foot (2560m) penstock to a 340 kW power plant located in
EXPLANATION
......,. Proposed Dam Site
TOGIAK BAY
SCALE I: 250 000
a
VICINITY MAP
Summit Island
Walrus Islands
!FIGURE 1
the vicinity of a proposed new airport near a large pond that
drains south into the bay • A 1 tern at i v e K-2 wo u 1 d uti 1 i z e a
55-foot (17m) high dam with a 132 kW power plant located
immediately downstream on the Kurtluk River. The K-2 alterna-
tive was designated in the late 1982 pre-reconnaissance report
as the alternate to the Quigmy River project.
Scope of Work
Some background material on the Kurtluk River is provided in
the DOWL 1982 Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak Hydroelec-
tric Project (Volume E, Final Report) and in Appendices B.
(Hydrology), C. (Geology and Geotechnics) and D. (Environ-
mental Report). The following comments relative to environ-
mental concerns on the Kurtluk were included in a letter from
Tudor Engineering to DOWL dated August 13, 1982, regarding the
pre-reconnaissance report.1
"The principal potential impact of either of the Kurtluk
projects is on fisheries. Both projects require high
dams which may render a fish ladder installation marginal
in value. However, the isolation of spawning habitat in
the uppermost reaches of the Kurtluk River may not prove
to be of major significance on a regional basis.
More significant
for Project K-1.
is the trans-basin diversion proposed
This would result in a major reduction
in stream flow in the approximate mile and a quarter long
I
1 From Gordon E. Little, Project Manager for Tudbr Engineering
Company to Melvin Nichols, Project Manager for DOWL Engineers.
-3-
reach that lies between the dam and the next major tribu-
tary downstream. Fishery releases and normal spills from
the dam would mitigate in part the impacts on this
reach. In contrast, flows below the power plant located
on the Togiak flats will be significantly increased. The
large pond on which the powerhouse is located will pro-
vide an excellent afterbay, acting to smooth the diurnaL
and weekly fluctuations in power flows. The existing
outflow channel, which flows in a relatively direct route
southward to Togiak Bay, should handle the increased flow
averaging 18 cubic feet per second or less without major
problems, although some scour is anticipated."
In the fall of 1982, DOWL was directed by the Alaska Power
Authority to conduct an environmental evaluation of the Kurt-
luk River site with emphasis on the potential effects that
could result from diversion of the Kurtluk River flows to a
different drainage basin.
Topography and Geology
Togiak is situated near the mouth of the Togiak River on a
broad alluvial plain that extends down to Togiak Bay, part of
the larger Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska. The entire
area is part of the Ahklun Mountains physiographic province.
The potential dam site on the Kurtluk River is approximately
four miles (6km) west of Togiak (Figure 2).
The entire area between Togiak and the dam site has been
glaciated and is dominated by bedrock hills which have been
-4-
I V 7
~
(
J
I
l
I
~
r i -
{ -4
~~-.~ .....:::,_
(__\
PROJECT MAP ' FIGURE 2:
sculptured by erosional and depositional glacial processes.
These bedrock hills are mostly between 500 and 700 feet (152
and 213m) high and reach a maximum height of approximately
1100 feet (335m) within the project area. In most areas along
the Kurtluk, the glacial deposits are thin and the river has
cut down through these deposits and excavated narrow slots
into the bedrock.
Numerous lakes and wetlands are present locally as a result of
the flat topography on old outwash channels, current flood-
plains, and the depressions associated with stagnant ice topo-
graphy.
The beach area immediately near Togiak consists of successive
beach ridges which have been accreted to the alluvial deposits
of the Togiak River. Further to the southwest of Togiak,
steep beach cliffs range in height from 15 or 20 feet (5 or
6m) to approximately 200 feet (61m). Below the high-water
line, the bottom profile is very shallow. Because of the high
tidal variation, large mudflat areas are exposed at low tide.
Deltas and longshore bars were observed at the river mouth
during the fall 1982 field work; however, the major part of
the coastal zone was still representing summer conditions.
Winter storm waves excavate the materials deposited by the
more gentle summer waves and the river mouth area probably is
modified during winter conditions.
Above the proposed dam site, the drainage basin is some 13
square miles ( 34 sq km). Although some meander bends are
present, the stream has many relatively straight reaches.
-6-
The Togiak area is just north of one of the more active
mountain-building, seismic, and volcanic regions in the
world. The Pacific plate of oceanic crust is being subducted
beneath the North American continental crustal plate in the
area of the Aleutian Trench. Associated tectonic forces have
caused the uplift of the Alaska Range and the seismic activity
characteristic of this part of Alaska. Volcanic activity is
concomitant with subduction zones. As the subducted plate
descends below the opposing plate, it partially melts and the
melted material finds its way to the earth's surface to form
volcanoes.
Although the project area is more stable than some of the
adjacent areas, the presence of aerial photograph lineaments
suggests that active faulting may be present. Judging from
the bedrock outcrops, it appears that some 250 million years
ago these rocks were deposited in an environment similar to
the Aleutian Trench of today. The rock units are considered
to be Jurassic in age, given the proximity to similar rocks of
middle to early Jurassic Age on Hagemeister Island.
Bedrock in the Togiak area consists of a folded sequence of
sedimentary and volcanic rocks overlain by glacial drift, peat
deposits, modern alluvium and beach deposits. The bedrock has
been assigned to the Gemuk Group. Gemuk rocks in the project
area are predominantly silicified siltstones and andesitic
volcaniclastic rocks. The siltstones range from very well-
bedded to massive and highly silicified. Chert is locally
present and limestone has been reported in the Gemuk Group,
although it was not observed in the project area.
-7-
In various regions of Alaska there have been five major
glacial advances during the Quaternary. The project area has
been subjected to at least two of these events. The first
known glaciation during the Quaternary occurred in early to
mid-Pleistocene time. The second ice advance was probably in
middle to late Pleistocene time and was less extensive than
the previous glaciation.
Glacial drift in the project area consists of abundant outwash
deposits, till, and
Glacial topography
moraines, kettle and
(Figure 3).
ice contact stratified drift deposits.
is expressed by bedrock sculpturing,
kame topography, and outwash terraces
Till and associated kettle and kame deposits are predominantly
found in the western portion of the project area. Locally,
greater than 6 feet (2m) of peat has accumulated in kettles
and other depressions.
Alluvial gravels underlie much of the town of Togiak and the
floodplain area of the Togiak River. Peat locally mantles
these deposits. At the beach front southwest of Togiak, beach
gravels form low ridges which have successively accreted along
the coast as material has been supplied to longshore transport
by the Togiak River, other rivers, and beach cliffs.
Gemuk Group rocks crop out at the proposed Kurt 1 uk dam site
and are mantled by alluvial sediments in the stream bed. The
bedrock is an altered volcaniclastic rock with similar outcrop
-8-
11
I
·.·
'· '~ _-..
·-.... ,..17 .. ·
. f!'-._ --
TOGIAK BAY
R.L.BlJRK 11/81
SCALE
Quaternary
lOall
Recent Alluvium
looll
Older Alluvium
(§!9]
Terrace gravels-
glacial outwash .
Mesozoic
l Mb l
Silicified siltstone a
volcaniclastic rocks
locally covered with
colluvium a till.
EXPLANATION
(§!I]
Floodplain a abandoned
channel deposits-Includes
numerous accumulations of
peat .
Active a older stabilized
beach deposits
Qt-Glacial Till -locally
Includes colluvium a
peat deposits •
Qkk-Kettle a Kame deposits •
Contact dashed where location approximate •
Aerial photo lineament dashed where location
approximate ,
1/2 0 2 3 4 MILES 8=~~==~~~~3=======~~~~~========
CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET
DASHED LINES REPRESENT 25 FOOT CONTOURS
~ DOWL
-,ENGINEERS RECONNAISSANCE GEOLOGIC MAP-TOGIAK AREA
Peat deposits mostly
greater than 3 ' thick,
w E
FIGURE 3
characteristics to the silicified
site originally proposed for the
siltstone
project.
at the Quigmy
The volcanic
breccia is probably andesitic in composition and is a
competent rock which can be used for an abutment. There are
no apparent unusual geotechnical problems at the dam site
itself.
The rock at the dam site is suitable for use as riprap. Sand
and gravel are not available near this site; some arrangement
would need to be made for using older beach deposits or to
bring gravel in from near the originally proposed Quigmy River
dam site.
Approximately three miles (5km) of new road would be needed to
tie the dam site in with the existing road northwest of
Togiak. Some areas of peat would need to be crossed; however,
most of the area is overlain by till. Cutting, filling and
hauling a f grave 1 waul d be necessary over alma st the entire
length of this road.
Southwestern Alaska is part of an intense seismic zone which
circumscribes the Pacific Ocean. Most of the more than
150,000 earthquakes that occur worldwide each year occur in
this circum-Pacific belt and in a somewhat smaller belt which
extends through southern Asia and the Mediterranean.
Past earthquake damage in the study area has been principally
manifested in five separate forms which can act independently
or in combination.
0 Surface faulting -major and minor faults are
present in the Togiak area; however, the rock
-10-
0
0
0
0
and unconsolidated surficial material along
the road and proposed transmission line does
not appear to have been subject to fault
slip.
Strong ground motion -over a 50-year design
period, the maximum rock acceleration expected
(probability of exceedance = 10%) is 10%g.
Ground failure minor landslides have
occurred in this area in the past; however, no
m a j o r s 1 i d e s t h at wo u 1 d a f f e c t t h e in t e g r i t y
of a dam are expected.
Seiches -these are long-period oscillations
of enclosed water bodies and could affect the
proposed reservoir. However, because of the
small reservoir size, the destructive impact
would most likely be minor.
Tsunami seismic sea waves could affect
coastal areas, including the town of Togiak,
but not the dam sites.
Hydrology
The Kurtluk River drains an area of 20 square miles (52 sq km)
before it discharges into Togiak Bay. At the proposed dam
site, the drainage basin is approximately 13 square miles (34
sq km). The drainage basin reaches to elevations of 1300 feet
(396m) and has an estimated mean annual precipitation of 37
-11-
inches (94cm). At the lower elevations where the topography
is fairly flat, numerous lakes and wetlands are present and
capable of storing considerable amounts of water with a slow
release rate.
Streamflows
The Kurtluk River is estimated to have an average flow of 21
cubic feet per second (cfs). The various estimating proce-
dures used to determine this value are contained in Volume
E, Final Report of the
Hydroelectric Project.
started in October 1982
January 1983 are given
Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak
Stream gaging of the Kurtluk River
and the streamflows measured up to
in Table 1. It appears that the
winter of 1982-83 was a wet winter, contributing to high
stream discharge. From stage records, the minimum daily flow
during this period is computed to be 9 cfs. Gaging of the
Kurtluk River is an on-going activity in an effort to obtain a
full year of streamflow data. Point discharge measurements on
the river and the affected diversion basin (see Figure 4) are
given in Table 2.
Based on same-day discharge measurements of the Kurtluk River,
it appears that 35 percent of the total flow at the mouth is
generated below the dam site. Of this, 26 percent is contri-
buted by the two tributaries to the Kurtluk River (Eaglet and
Beaver Creeks) and the remaining 9 percent is from other
sources.
The affected diversion basin has a channel originating in the
area of Big Lake and drains the wetland south of the lake.
Big Lake has a surface area of 0.12 square miles (.31 sq km)
-12-
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Total
Average
TABLE 1
A SUMMARY OF KURTLUK RIVER (TOGIAK, ALASKA)
STREAMFLOW RECORDS FOR OCTOBER 20, 1982
THROUGH JANUARY 9, 1983
Mean Daily Discharge in Cubic Feet Per Second
1982 1983
Oct Nov Dec Jan
120 105 31
130 150 58
195 180 54
120 160 68
54 130 58
11 5 63 28
54 34 19
81 26 16
54 21 28
74 19
74 14
130 14
120 10
88 1 0
88 9
96 10
105 16
145 28
81 37
11 5 96 31
115 88 28
145 88 23
185 130 37
170 105 31
130 96 21
115 88 23
130 88 23
215 88 19
135 81 37
135 34 21
130 43
1 '720 2,906 1 '3 73 360
143 97 44 40
Mean Flow for the period of record: 78 cubic feet per second
Note: 1 cubic foot = 0.28 cubic meters
-13-
.
9 D.ISCHARG.E MEASUREMENT SITE
• WATER QUALITY SITE
WATER QUALITY SAMPLE' SITES
ENGINEERS & 'DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT SITES FIGURE 4
TABLE 2.
KURTLUK RIVER POINT DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS
Date location Discharge (cfs)
10-19-82 Gage site 124.0
1-09-83 Gage site 26.0
6-16-83 Gage site 36.0
7-25-83 Gage site 70.0
9-15-81 Dam site 48.0
10-10-81 Dam site 17. 0
8-09-83 Dam site 87.0
6-16-83 At mouth 55.0
Kurtluk River Tributaries Below Dam Site
6-16-83 Eaglet Creek at confluence 11.5
6-16-83 Beaver Creek at confluence 2.9
Affected Diversion Basin
6-16-83 Lake Creek at lake outlet 0.73
6-16-83 Lake Creek at mouth 2.5
-15-
and is fed by groundwater and surface runoff inflows from an
elevation of some 50 feet (15m) above mean sea level. The
channel, called Lake Creek, had a measured flow of 2.5 cfs at
the mouth on June 16, 1983. This channel may carry flows up
to 5 to 10 cfs with its present channel dimensions. Flows
over this amount would probably flood the surrounding wetlands
environment, causing scour and other forms of erosion and
changed patterns of deposition.
Water Quality
Water quality data was collected from eight separate locations
within the proposed project area (Figure 4). Selected water
quality parameters were measured using the Hydrolab Portable
Water Quality Meter model #4041 during two separate site
visits (Table 3). Subsequent laboratory elemental analysis
( ICAP scan) was done in Anchorage by Chemical and Geological
Laboratories of Alaska on water samples collected during one
of these site visits (Table 4).
Water Quality Effects
Kurtluk River
Effects to the water quality of the Kurtluk River are expected
to be minimal during project construction. An increase in
suspended sediments and turbidity during project construction
resulting in a less desirable water quality will have a mini-
mal impact on the fisheries of the Kurtluk River due to the
limited amount of spawning that is known to occur.
-16-
TABLE 3
KURTLUK RIVER WATER QUALITY
Day Suspended
Location Month Temp. D.O. Cond. Turbidity Solids
Year (oC) pH (mg/L) ~S/cm) (NTU) (mg/L)
Kurtluk River -6-16-83 8.5 7.5 18.3 23 1.0 2.0
By Gaging Station
Kurtluk River Dam 10-10-81 0.5 7.0 --75 ----
Site 6-16-83 13.0 7.0 10.3 26 4.6 5.0
8-09-83 7.8 6.9 14.0 21 6.9 1. 9
Kurtluk River -6-16-83 14.5 8.0 --30 1.0 1.0
Outlet to Ocean 8-10-83 8.0 6.1 11.6 20 6.7 1.4
Big Lake 6-16-83 18.1 7.8 --12 1.2 11 • 0
8-08-83 13.4 6.5 10.7 11 16.5 1.9
Lake Creek 6-16-83 16.7 8.1 --31 2.1 2.0
8-08-83 14.0 6.5 10.0 12 13.1 2.8
Lake Creek -Outlet 6-16-83 18.4 7.8 --200 1 . 3 1.0
to Ocean 8-08-83 13.6 5.8 11 .1 1830 17.5 4.3
Eaglet Creek 6-17-83 7.0 7.6 8.5 21 2.2 3.0
Beaver Creek 6-17-83 4.7 7.6 --27 1 • 1 6.0
Ag,
Al,
As,
Au,
B,
Ba,
Bi,
Ca,
Cd,
Co,
Cr,
Cu,
Fe,
Hg,
K ' Mg,
Mn,
Mo,
Na,
Ni,
p'
Pb,
Pt,
Sb,
Se,
Si,
Sn,
Sr,
Ti,
W,
v' Zn,
Zr,
TABLE 4
CHEMICAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS BY LOCATION
(mg/L)
Lake Lake Big Kurtluk Kurtluk
Mineral Creek Creek Lake River River
Outlet Outlet Dam Site
Silver <0.£15 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Aluminum <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Arsenic <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Gold <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Boron <0.05 0. 1 2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Barium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Bismuth <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Calcium 0.90 1 5 0.89 3.4 3.4
Cadmium < .01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Cobalt <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Chromium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Copper <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Iron <o.o5 0.24 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Mercury <o.o5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Potassium 0.40 10 0.50 0.45 0.43
Magnesium 0.39 34 0.36 0.70 0.70
Manganese <0.05 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Molybdenum <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Sodium 1.4 280. 1.6 1 . 8 1.7
Nickel <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Phosphorus <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Lead <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Platinum <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Antimony <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Selenium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Silicon 0. 11 1 . 9 0.10 3.4 3.4
Tin <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Strontium <0.05 0.24 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Titanium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Tung est en < 1 • 0 < 1 . 0 < 1 . 0 < 1 • 0 < 1 • 0
Vanadium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Zinc <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Zirconium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Samples for the Chemical Elemental analysis ( ICAP Scan) were
taken during the August 7-10, 1983 field trip.
-18-
in addition to the direct efforts of dam construction on the
Kurtluk River, petroleum contamination, caused by surface run-
off, from fuels used in the construction equipment may cause a
temporary effect on water quality. Increased use of the area
by recreational vehicles and the loss of permeable surface
area that will result from the proposed service road may also
add to this effect.
Big Lake
Effects of project construction on Big Lake will be minimal.
In Big Lake, water quality may improve due to the influx of
fresh water from the Kurtluk River. Dissolved oxygen (DO)
could increase, creating a more suitable habitat for fish.
Lake Creek
An increase in suspended sediments and turbidity may be
expected to occur in Lake Creek, due to the higher flows that
will be created by the power plant discharge.
Water Quality Mitigation
Mitigation measures which could reduce impacts to the project
area include careful scheduling of construction activities,
and sediment and runoff control programs. Construction acti-
vities could be scheduled during low flow periods to minimize
the problems associated with increases in turbidity and run-
off.
-19-
Aquatic Habitat Description
Kurtluk River
The Kurtluk River flows through an incised valley with 20 to
40 foot (6 to 12m) bedrock and soil bluffs. Generally, the
valley walls form one bank of the river. In the dam site
vicinity, the bluffs narrow to form both banks of the river.
The Kurtluk is a generally sinuous, low gradient stream with
occasional meanders. The substrate is cobble and pebble
gravel with numerous boulders in the dam site reach. Stream-
banks are 2 to 3.5 feet (0.6 to 1.1m) high, often with a 6
inch (15cm) undercut. Stream-side vegetation alternates
between a grass-forb community and willow thickets.
Big Lake
Big Lake is located in a wetland complex of small ponds,
narrow streams, and boggy ground. It is elliptical in shape,
with a crescent-shaped island in the western corner. Maximum
depth appeared to be 4 to 6 feet (1.2 to 1.8m), although no
detailed measurements were taken. The shoreline is coarse
gravel, extending out about 10 feet (3.1m) into the lake. The
remainder of the lake has a silt or clay substrate. Aquatic
vegetation is scarce, with Equisetum spp. present along the
lake shore at the outlet and a bed of aquatic grass along the
convex side of the island. A species of Potamogeton grows
singly and sparsely throughout the lake.
-20-
Lake Creek
At Big Lake, the outlet channel is approximately 2 feet (0.6m)
wide with a pebble gravel substrate. Organic sediment is
intermixed with the gravels, and frequently completely covers
them. The current is slow, with an average velocity of
0.9 feet per second (fps).
Approximately one mile (1.6km) downstream, the creek flows
over a sturdy, floating bog mat. Past this bog, it again
flows over a gravel bed until entering the tidally influenced
zone. This tidal area, about 3/4 of a mile (1.2km) in length,
resembles more a slough than a stream, with a thick silt and
organic mat bottom. The stream profile gradually changes from
saucer-shaped to a deep "V", with vertical sides. The creek
widens and shallows just before flowing over the gravel beach
and into Togiak Bay.
Aquatic Invertebrates
Several areas that could be effected by the project were sam-
pled to investigate the diversity and abundance of aquatic
invertebrates. The character of the lower Kurtluk River, the
dam area, the spill pond and the outlet channel will all
probably be altered significantly due to the respective in-
creased and decreased flows. Surber
both the Kurtluk River and Lake Creek.
samples were taken in
Samples were taken in
the river above and below the proposed dam site and surbers
were taken throughout the drainage creek. Samples of the
invertebrate fauna in Big Lake pond were made with an aquatic
dip net. Dip net samples were also taken in the Kurtluk River
-21-
and Lake Creek. The Kurtluk River flows primarily over a
gravel cobble substrate. Lake Creek is a slower-moving body
of water, with a silty bottom high in organics over much of
its length. Big Lake differs from either of these two bodies
as much of the bottom of the pond is covered with organics,
with some gravel and sand areas along its edges. These three
areas are indicated separately in the results, based on the
differences in their available habitats (Table 5).
Results
All three areas appeared to be fairly productive, with the
Kurtluk River the most productive and Lake Creek the least.
At the proposed dam site 28 invertebrates per square foot (280
per suqare meter) were collected. Over ·the same sampling
period only 8 invertebrates, mostly pelecypods, were found per
square foot (80 per square meter) in Lake Creek below the
outlet of Big Lake. Near the mouth of Lake Creek the produc-
tivity appeared to be fairly low, possibly as a result of
lower dissolved oxygen or slight salt water intrusion from the
bay. A species list from the three survey areas is shown in
Table 5.
Fisheries
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) (1982) indi-
cates that chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) are known to occur
in the Kurtluk River up to the proposed dam site, and spawn at
least as far upstream as Eaglet Creek. ADF&G chum salmon
escapement estimates for the Kurtluk River area given in
Table 6. A list of fish present in the Togiak National
Wildlife Refuge is given in Appendix A.
-22-
TABLE 5.
Aquatic Invertebrates Occuring by Habitat Type
K B L
u i a
r g k
t e
SPECIES 1 L
u a c _,
k k r
e e
R. e
k
Turbellaria X X
Nematoda X
Annelida
Oligochraeta X X
Hirudinea X X
Insecta
Plecoptera
Isoperla spp. X
Ephemeroptera
Baetis spp. X
Cinygmula spp. X
E:peorus spp. X
Ephemerella spp. X
Trichoptera
Mystacides spp. X
Gumaga spp. X
Romophylax spp. X
Agapetus spp. X
BracFi~centrus spp. X
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae X
Diptera
Chironomidae X X
Simuliidae X
Gastropoda X
Pelecypoda -Sphaeriidae X
-23-
The Kurtluk River was sampled with baited minnow traps in
October, 1981 and June, 1983. Juvenile coho salmon (0.
kisutch), Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) and rainbow
trout (Salmo gairdneri) were collected throughout the river.
Three adult coho salmon were observed above the proposed dam
site in October, 1981. Other species caught in small numbers
were: Alaska blackfish (Dallia pectoralis), ninespine
stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) and coastrange sculpin
(Cottus aleuticus).
Big Lake was sampled in 1983 by minnow trap, sieve and gill
net. Ninespine stickleback dominated the catch, but pond
smelt (Hypomesus olidus), Alaska blackfish and coastrange
sculpin were also captured. A juvenile coho salmon, and an
Alaska blackfish were observed in the tidally influenced por-
tion of Lake Creek.
Spawning
Pink salmon (0. gorbuscha) generally spawn intertidally or in
the lower reaches of short coastal streams. Wilson et al
( 1981) found pink salmon on Kodiak Island to spawn at depths
between 0.1 and 4 feet (0.3 and 1.2m), with the optimum depth
between 1 and 2.5 feet (0.3 and 0.8m). Velocities ranged from
0.08 to 5 fps, but the majority spawned between 1 and 2 fps.
No pink salmon have been observed in the Kurtluk River, but
they probably occur in small numbers.
Chum salmon frequently spawn in the intertidal zone but will
often ascend short rivers. Chum salmon were observed at the
gage site on the Kurtluk River and could ascend to the head-
waters. Peak spawning occurs in the first week of August in
-24-
TABLE 6
CHUM SALMON ESCAPEMENT ESTIMATES*
Year Kurtluk River
1977 1 , 20 a
1978 400
1979 200
* ADF&G aerial survey reports, 1970-1981
-25-
the Togiak area (Bucher, personal communication, 1981).
Morrow (1980) states that "spawning usually occurs over gravel
2 to 3 em in diameter, but chums have also been seen to use
coarser stone, even bedrock covered with small boulders."
Wilson _;::l !!..!_, ( 1981) found chums in the Terror and Kizhuyak
Rivers on Kodiak Island to spawn at depths from 0.5 to 5 feet
(0.15 to 1.5m) with the peak between 0.7 and 2.0 feet (0.2 and
0.6m). Spawning occured at velocities between 0.08 and 3.5
fps with a peak between 1.5 and 2.5 fps.2 Chums often spawn
in springs or groundwater seepages.
Coho salmon generally spawn in short, coastal streams. Wilson
_;::l !!..!_ (1981) reported optimum depths for spawning to range
from 0.7 to 2.0 feet (0.2 to 0.6m), and optimum velocities
from 1.5 to 2.5 fps. Adult and juvenile coho salmon have been
observed above the proposed dam site on the Kurtluk River.
Judging from other streams in the Togiak district, spawning is
likely to begin in the second week in September and extend
through mid-October (Bucher, personal communication, 1981).
The rainbow trout spawns in spring, usually on a riffle above
a pool (Morrow, 1980). Many rainbows spawn more than once.
They are reported to spawn in moderately swift, clear water,
usually in fine gravel (0.16 to 0.3 inch (0.4 to 0.76cm).
Rainbows are likely to spawn throughout the Kurtluk River, but
the majority spawn in the upper reaches and tributaries.
2 Note: 1 foot = 0.30 meters.
-26-
Morrow ( 1980) states that "stream-dwelling rainbows tend ••• to
spend their entire lives in relatively short sections of a
stream."
Dolly Varden char spawn from late August to the end of Novem-
ber. The substrate ranges from .25 to 2 inches (.64 to 5cm).
The redd is located in fairly strong current, usually near the
center of the stream in water at least 1 foot (0.3m) deep
(Morrow, 1980). Spawning probably occurs throughout the main-
stream of the Kurtluk River and in the larger tributaries.
Rearing
Pink and chum salmon go direct 1 y to sea after emerging from
the gravels.
When first emerged, juvenile coho salmon frequent near-shore
areas with gravel substrate. Older juveniles prefer deeper
pools and avoid riffle areas.
and will defend their space
salmonids.
They are strongly territorial
from other j uv en i 1 e cohos and
Juvenile rainbow trout are found along stream margins or
protected lakeshores. Juvenile Dolly Varden trout are rela-
tively inactive, often remaining on the stream bottom in pools
or eddies under rocks and logs or undercut banks. Dolly
Varden occur in both anadromous and nonanadromous popula-
tions. Anadromous juveniles spend three to four years in
their natal stream before entering saltwater.
-27-
Subsistence Use of fisheries Resources
Subsistence salmon harvest figures for the entire Togiak dis-
trict are given in Table 7. The figures are based on a small
number of harvest reports and, therefore, represent minimum
estimates of the subsistence salmon harvest by Togiak villag-
ers (ADF&G, 1980).
According to Robert Nanalook (Togiak Village Council, personal
communications, 1981), no subsistence fishing occurs on the
Kurtluk River due to the small size of the salmon runs. Draft
.maps of subsistence activities in Bristol Bay also show no use
of the Kurtluk River (ADF&G, in press).
fishery Effects
Construction activity may cause increased erosion and subse-
quent sedimentation of spawning gravels. Major effects from
sedimentation include decreased vigor or death of incubating
salmonid eggs by interfering with or preventing respiration,
loss of spawning gravel, and physical disturbance to both
adult anadromous fish and resident species. However, proper
construction techniques and timing constraints could minimize
this effect.
Construction and operation of the Kurtluk River dam will:
1. Block migration above the dam by anadromous species.
2. Prevent interchange with the lower river by resident
species.
-28-
Number of
Year Subsistence
Permits
1965 36
1974 68
1975 41
1976 30
1977 41
1978 29
1979 25
1980 46
8-Year
Total 316
8-Year
Aver. 39
TABLE 7
SUBSISTENCE SALMON HARVEST
Togiak District (ADF&G, 1980)
HARVEST
Sockeye King Chum Pink
4,600 100 1,600 100
7,400 ·1 ,200 2,000 500
4,600 800 1 '600 +
2,800 500 900 100
2' 100 400 800 +
900 300 700 300
800 200 300 0
3,600 900 300 300
26,800 4,400 8,200 1 'zoo
3,400 500 1,000 300
-29-
Coho I Total
2,200 8,600
1 '800 1 2., 9 00
2,800 9,800
500 4,800
1 '1 00 4,400
500 2,700
700 2,000
1 '200 6,300
10,800 51,500
1 '300 6,400
3. Dewater the river between the dam and the junction with
Eaglet Creek.
4. Decrease by an estimated 65 percent (based on June 1983
discharge measurements) the pre-project summer flow below
the junction with Beaver Creek. This figure does not
included any spillage over the dam. Spillage is assumed
to be too irregular to benefit the fisheries.
5 • Decrease by an
data pod readings
the pre-project
Beaver Creek.
estimated 85 percent (based on winter
and June 1983 discharge measurements)
winter flow below the junction with
6. Raise the level of Big Lake.
7. Increase the flow in the Big Lake outlet stream by a
maximum of 18 cfs, more than 18 times the. June 1983 dis-
charge at the lake outlet.
8. Change the temperature regime in Big Lake due to the
influx of cooler water diverted from the Kurtluk River.
Anadromous Species
The loss of the use of the Kurtluk River above Eaglet Creek,
coupled with the large decrease in flow below the junction
with Beaver Creek will seriously decrease the amount of
habitat available to anadromous species for spawning and
-30-
rearing. Assuming the available habitat is fully utilized at
present, population levels will drop, and these species may be
essentially eliminated.
Anadromous species are not known to use the Big Lake drainage
at present. With the increase in flow through the Lake Creek,
strays from the river or other streams may begin to use this
system. However, due to the short length of the outlet
channel and generally poor substrate, these populations would
be marginal, and could not compensate for the losses in the
Kurtluk River.
Resident Species
Populations of resident species (Dolly Varden, rainbow trout
and sculpin) in the Kurtluk River will also be decreased by
the proposed project. Population levels above the dam should
not be significantly altered since the only habitat loss will
occur in the impoundment area, and it should not be a total
loss. However, mainstem populations below the dam are likely
to be significantly depressed by the 66 percent decrease in
summer flows and 85 percent decrease in winter flows. Spawn-
ing areas may be dewatered and some rearing and overwintering
areas may be lost. Low winter flows and icing could
conceivably eliminate overwintering habitat in the river below
the dam.
Species resident in Big Lake and Lake Creek (sculpin, stickle-
back, blackfish) are tolerant of widely varying environmental
conditions and should not be seriously affected by the proj-
ect.
-31-
Fishery Mitigation
The following measures should be followed to reduce erosion
and sedimentation of area streams:
a
0
a
a
0
Construction should be done during a single summer. This
should reduce the potential for erosion of exposed soil.
To avoid the introduction of suspended solids by road
traffic, the access road should cross as few tributary
streams as possible. Streams should be crossed by small
log bridges or culverts, whichever would provide the best
protection to streamside vegetation.
A vegetated buffer zone should be left between all access
roads and the streambank.
Any organic soils excavated during construction should be
stockpiled and spread over disturbed sites to encourage
revegetation.
Waste petroleum and wastewater should be disposed of in
an environmentally sound manner and a plan for safe stor-
age, use, and clean-up of oil and gas used in project
construction and operation should be prepared following
state and federal oil spill contingency plans (40 CFR
112.38, December 11, 1973).
Many of the changes caused by construction and operation of
the proposed dam cannot be minimized or avoided without de-
stroying the viability of the project. A fish pass is useless
-32-
without sufficient water and raising the dam to provide that
additional water could create additional environmental
problems as well as increasing the cost of the project. With-
out the dam, insufficient water is available in winter to run
the turbines.
Wildlife
Limited bird and mammal observations were made during 1982 and
1 9 8 3 w hi 1 e other fie 1 d work was being performed • A des c rip-
tion of these results follows. Information on subsistence use
of area terrestrial
tion. Checklists
resources is included in a separate sec-
of birds from the former Cape Newenham
National Wildlife Refuge and Nushagak Bay, and mammals of the
then-proposed Togiak National Wildlife Refuge are attached in
Appendices B & C (USDI, 1975).
Birds
The Bristol Bay region is an important resting, feeding and
staging area for enormous numbers of birds awaiting spring
breakup in the arctic and the return migration south after the
summer. Togiak Bay, with its associated mud flats and
wetlands, provides essential habitat during these migrations.
Aerial surveys of the region indicate that breeding popula-
tions of 32 ducks and 1.2 swans per square mile (12.4 ducks
and 0.5 swans per square kilometer) are normal within lowland
habitats (USDI, 1975). The most common nesting species are
oldsquaw, common seater, greater scaup and pintail.
-33-
The cliffs within the Kurtluk River drainage area are attrac-
tive to nesting raptors. An abundance of food in the form of
small birds and mammals, and fish are also present in the
area.
Species observed during the field trips are indicated in
Appendix B. In addition, dippers and cliff swallows were both
observed in the study area but were not included in the origi-
nal checklist.
Several species were observed nesting within the study area.
Barn swallows were constructing a nest in rock walls along the
Kurtluk River a short distance below the proposed dam site,
and in walls along Eaglet Creek. A golden eagle nest with two
eaglets was found in a wall near the confluence of the Kurtluk
River and Eaglet Creek. An active rough-legged hawk nest was
found at the proposed dam site, on a cliff face on the west
side of the river.
Other indications of bird nesting in the area were found. It
appeared that pintails were nesting beside the road out of
Togiak towards the study area. An adult pair of red-breasted
mergansers were seen resting on a gravel bar within the pool
raise area. Cliff swallows appeared to be nesting in the bank
below the golden eagle nest. Sandhill cranes were seen
actively displaying and dancing within the floating bog
complex on Lake Creek.
-34-
Mammals
The Togiak area is known to support diverse small mammal and
furbearer populations, including beaver, muskrat, fox, mink,
river otter, porcupine, weasel, ground squirrels, voles,
lemmings and shrews.
Several species of large mammal also occur proximate to the
project vicinity. Both black and brown bear are present,
wolves are found throughout the region and probably occur in-
termittently near Togiak. Moose and caribou are relatively
rare in the Togiak area.
No mammals were observed during the field trips. Willow
freshly chewed by beaver was seen along the Kurtluk River
below the proposed dam site and beaver dams occur on the river
further upstream, above the area likely to be flooded.
Endangered Wildlife Species
There are no records of
(D. Money, 1981, personal
gered subspecies of the
anatum) normally nests in
endangered species in this area
communication, USFWS). The endan-
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus
rock cliffs along interior rivers
and is not likely to occur within the project area.
Subsistence Use of Botanical and Wildlife Resources
Dr. Joseph
Department
Gross of the University of Alaska
of Anthropology and his student Susan
-35-
Fairbanks,
Berg were
contacted while in Togiak. Dr. Gross and Ms. Berg were con-
ducting research on subsistence activities, among other sub-
jects, and provided the following information regarding the
local use of both botanical and wildlife resources.
The village of Togiak is involved in the full range of subsis-
tence activities available in the area, as opposed to other
villages which have tended to specialize. Gross attributed
the considerable growth of the village to an influx of natives
seeking such a lifestyle.
The local population collects grasses for basket making, some
women traveling as far as Platinum for that purpose. They
make extensive use of berries collected in the field. Berries
are not abundant near Togiak, and residents commonly travel to
Manokotak, Aleknagik and the Kuskokwim area to gather
berries. "Wild spinach" (plants in the family Chenopodi-
aceae), celery and wild rhubarb (Polygonum alaskanum and pos-
sibly other species in that genus) are collected for food.
Local herbs are gathered for medicine.
Beaver is among
species. The fur
the most important mammal subsistence
is used in the village or sold, and the
carcass is a main winter food staple. Ground squirrel, fox,
mink , wo 1 veri n e and river otter are a 1 so trapped . Furs are
sold at the Beaver Roundup festival held annually in March at
Dillingham.
Moose and caribou are sometimes taken. Gross stated that
Togiak residents will range to the Alaska Peninsula, and over
200 miles (520 km) in other directions, in search of caribou.
-36-
Brown bear is hunted in the spring and fall. Porcupine, hare,
and other "varmints" are also hunted. Seal, sea lion, whale
and walrus are taken, as are waterfowl. Goose, duck, gull and
murre eggs are collected for food. Large land and sea mammals
are often shared within the community.
Draft maps showing areas of subsistence hunting and gathering
activities have been prepared for the Bristol Bay region in
connection with the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan
efforts. Copies of the maps were obtained from ADF&G and
examined to ascertain which villages within the region use the
study area for subsistence and which resources are utilized.
According to the ADF&G maps, the villages of Togiak, Platinum
and Ugashik utilize the entire study area, including Togiak
Bay proximate to the Kurtluk River and Lake Creek. The
village of Manokotek uses the nearshore area and the onshore
area approximately one and a half miles (2.5 km) inland at the
study area. The villages of Aleknagik and Clark Point use
Togiak Bay and a somewhat narrower portion along the shore-
line. In all instances the study area constituted a small
portion of the area used for subsistence.
There is considerable subsistence usage of the study area by
the village of Togiak. According to ADF&G maps, moose hunt-
ing, waterfowl hunting, trapping and vegetation gathering
occur onshore while fishing, marine mammal hunting, more
waterfowl hunting and marine invertebrate gathering occur in
Togiak Bay. In every instance the study area is a small por-
tion of a larger area utilized for the hunting and gathering
activities. It should be noted that neither Lake Creek nor
-37-
the Kurtluk River are labeled as salmon or non-salmon fishing
streams, and that according to the maps neither caribou nor
bear are hunted in the study area vicinity.
Wildlife Effects
Effects of project construction and operation on terrestrial
fauna would be limited in scope, simply by virtue of the
aerial extent of the proposed development and the regional
context in which the project occurs. The regional context is
not a simple issue, however. While the presence of extensive
areas of pristine habitat proximate to the study area indi-
cates that the subject proposal will not seriously affect
carrying capacities for any species in the northern Bristol
Bay area or the Togiak Bay area, the designation of the area
around the project area as a National Wildlife Refuge dictates
greater care in assessment of project effects and mitigation
planning than might otherwise be indicated. The following
discussion,
tended to
effort.
Birds
based upon the referenced field trip, is not in-
approximate, let alone substitute for, such an
Raptor nesting on the walls of the Kurtluk River and its
tributaries would be severely affected in a limited area for
an unknown period of time. Based upon previously described
observations, this could be a substantial effect.
Similarly, swallows and other species nesting in or on the
canyon walls will be eliminated from the impoundment area.
-38-
Certain passerine species, including tree, white-crowned and
golden-crowned sparrows and Wilson's warbler would be displac-
ed and probably eliminated when tall and low shrub scrub habi-
tat is flooded.
Waterfowl and wading birds will suffer habitat losses in the
Kurtluk drainage and in the pond fringes and bog and tundra
areas between Big Lake and Togiak Bay.
Sufficient data does not exist to address avian interactions
with transmission facilities.
Mammals
Species dependent upon riparian habitat and species dependent
upon unaltered habitat or lack of human activities would be
most affected by the proposal. In the former category, beaver
is the only species known to occur proximate to the study
area. Mink, river otter, muskrat and several other small
mammal species may also be present and could, therefore, be
affected.
In the latter category, gray wolf and brown bear are the most
obvious examples. Both may occur in the study area, and
either could be displaced in the short-or long-term by con-
struction of the project.
The assessments of construction effects
habitat usage and seasonal population
additional field work.
-39-
based upon speci fie
levels will require
Wildlife Mitigation
The following discussion covers general mitigation measures
relating to wildlife resources that should be considered for
implementation during design construction, operation and main-
tenance of the Kurtluk River small hydroelectric project.
These mitigation measures are not intended to be comprehen-
sive, but to serve as a beginning point for discussions on the
subject. It is presumed that a comprehensive list will be
developed with agency assistance during review of this draft.
All applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations
concerning fish and wildlife protection must be complied
with. Such compliance should be a condition of all construe-
tion contracts. Workers should be instructed to avoid inter-
actions with area wildlife, and should be supervised to assure
that no deliberate harassment, feeding or other undesirable
actions occur. Muffling devices should be utilized on genera-
tors and heavy equipment. Every effort should be made to
minimize noise from work and living areas. Garbage should be
incinerated or removed from the construction and living areas.
Should animal lairs, bird nests or other wildlife situations
of special value be encountered during clearing and construc-
tion, every effort should be made to avoid damaging or des-
troying the item of concern. If avoidance is impossible,
wildlife authorities should be notified. As with the other
measures mentioned in this report, contractors should be
required to instruct their personnel in matters necessary to
implement the measures, and supervisors should be instructed
to assure that the measures are implemented.
-40-..____
Blasting at the dam site should be scheduled to avoid raptor
nesting periods and periods of high waterfowl use, especially
the fall migration period. Transmission tower configuration
should provide sufficient spacing between power lines to
preclude the possibility of electrocuting large birds.
Vegetation
The vegetation within the project vicinity is predominantly
moist and wet tundra, and willow-alder-cottonwood thickets.
Using Viereck ~ ~ (1981) classification to levels II and
III, approximately nine vegetation types can be identified.
Detailed descriptions follow. Taxonomy follows Hulten
( 1968).
A list of plants occurring on the former Cape Newenham Nation-
al Wildlife Refuge (approximately 62 miles (100 km) southwest
of Togiak) is
the proposed
mental Impact
included in Appendix D.
Togiak National Wildlife
Statement (USDI, 1975).
Open and Closed Tall Shrub Scrub
The list was taken from
Refuge Final Environ-
Several associations present in the study area fall within
this classification. Of greatest interest, from the project
perspective, is the willow association found along the Kurtluk
River from the river mouth to well above the project site.
The willow that dominates the canopy is probably Salix alaxen-
sis alaxensis, growing to 20 feet ( 6m) in height or so. The
low shrub layer is nonexistent. Ground cover consists of
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis) in near monotypic stands,
-41-
with minor components of fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium
angusti folium), meadow horsetail ( Equisetum pratense), burnet
(Sanguisorba stipulate), wild geranium (Geranium erianthum)
and angelica (Angelica lucid a). False hellebore (Veratrum
virida Eschscholtzii) occurs on some south facing slopes. In
portions of the project area the willows are scattered such
that the vegetation might be classified as a graminoid herba-
ceous association. In other areas, generally removed somewhat
from the riverbank but within the floodway, Salix glauca
acutifolia is found growing in small, closed stands, 3 to 7
feet (1 to 2m) tall, interspersed with herbaceous meadows.
The herbaceous areas within this assembly are somewhat more
diverse, containing, in
blacklily (Fritillaria
borealis), Nagoon berry
straw (Galium boreale).
addition to the species noted above,
camschatcensis), yarrow (Achillea
(Rubus arcticus stellatus) and bed-
The other vegetation associations falling within the open tall
shrubland category are the willow and alder assemblages found
on ridges and slopes, interspersed with moist tundra areas.
Alder thickets are the more common. The alder (Alnus crispa)
is generally 7 to 10 feet ( 2 to 3m) in height and in some
stands are dense enough to be classified as closed rather than
open. Cottonwood saplings (Populus balsamifera balsamifera)
are often present within the thickets and range from a few
individuals 3 to 7 feet (1 to 2m) tall to the dominant species
with individuals up to 16 feet (5m) in height. Highbush cran-
berry (Viburnum edule) is often present in the low shrub
layer, as is 3 to 7 foot (1 to 2m) tall willow (Salix spp.).
Nagoon berry, cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus) and spiraea
(Spiraea Beauverdiana) constitute the bulk of the dwarf shrub
-42-
layer. Bluejoint generally dominates the herbaceous layer,
with ferns (Gymnocarpium dryopteris) abundant and fireweed
present. There is a more or less continuous moss mat in these
areas. Moist tundra is often interspersed within the
thickets.
Willow 5 to 7 feet ( 1.5 to 2m) tall was found in moist tundra ,
near the mouth of Lake Creek. Bluejoint, meadow horsetail,
burnet, fireweed, spiraea, yarrow and angelica were present,
as in previously described associations. Additionally, moist
tundra species such as wild iris (Iris setosa setosa), bog
rosemary (Andromeda poli folia), Labrador tea ( Ledum palustre
decumbens) and mountain cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea
minus) occur throughout the thickets. This indistinct transi-
tion between associations also occurs in the alder-willow tall
shrub fringe around Big Lake. In this area, Swedish cornel
(Cornus suecica), alpine blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum
alpinum), and dwarf birch (Betula nan a) occur within the blue-
joint-forb strata. The fringe around the lake is a closed
canopy association, the only closed tall shrub grouping
encountered in the project area.
Open and Closed Low Shrub Scrub
Willows from 2 to 3 feet (0.5 to 1.0m) in height are scattered
throughout much of the moist tundra area within the project
vicinity. Highbush cranberry usually is present, though it is
rarely very abundant. Generally, the low shrub canopy cover
is less than 25 percent in these areas, so detailed descrip-
tions will be given under dwarf shrub or bryoid herbaceous
categories.
-43-
Cover from 8 inches to 5 feet (20 em to 1.5m) in height is
dense enough to be classified as low shrub habitat on certain
slopes within the proposed pool raise area. The dwarf shrub/
herbaceous cover within this habitat does not differ markedly
from that found in adjacent areas with less cover, with the
exception of a few species that occur within the low shrub
areas but not in adjacent areas. Those species include iris,
cornel, geranium, burnet, fireweed, wintergreen (Pyrola
asarifolia and P. minor), starflower (Trientalis europaea),
horsetail and clubmosses (Lycopodium spp.).
Low shrub vegetative habitat is common along the banks of
small streams and other surface and near-surface water courses
in the study area. Willows are the common shrub in such
areas, and plants found growing in association with the
willows include bluejoint and various moist tundra species.
There are areas of willow 2 feet (O.Sm) tall within the tall
shrub habitat found in the Kurtluk River floodway. The assem-
blage of woody and herbaceous species associated with these
areas is similar to those previously described for tall shrub
habitat in the area.
Open and Closed Dwarf Shrub Scrub
The bulk of the areas commonly referred to as moist and alpine
tundra area are classified under this system as dwarf shrub-
land. The remainder is graminoid, forb or bryoid herbaceous.
The dwarf shrub areas are most often dominated by Labrador
tea, bog rosemary and dwarf birch above the prostrate level
-44-
and lowbush cranberry, alpine bearberry (Arctostaphylos
alpina), Alaska moss heath ( Cassiope Stelleriana), diapensia
(Diapensia lapponica obovata), swamp cranberry (Oxycoccus
microcarpus), cloudberry and crowberry (Empetrum nigrum herma-
phroditum) either locally dominating or common in the pros-
trate shrub layer. Other woody species found in these associ-
ations include spiraea, bog blueberry, various species of
willow, shrubby cinquefoil (Pontentilla fruticosa) and alpine
azalea (Loiseleuria procumbens). The non-woody ground cover
in the dwarf shrub areas consists of a continuous moss or
lichen mat with intermittent grasses and sedges (Carex spp.)
and various forbs such as Oeders lousewort (Pedicularis
Oederi), Kane lousewart (~ Kanei Kanei), woodland horsetail
(Equisetum silvaticum), violet (Viola spp.), lupine (Lupinus
nootkatensis), coltsfoot (Petasites frigidus), iris and burnet
scattered throughout. Sundew (Drosera rotundifolia) and
butterwort (Pinguicula villosa) are common in wetter areas.
Graminoid Herbaceous
Several distinct graminoid herbaceous associations exist with-
in the study area. The tall grass meadows between and within
the open tall shrub associations along the Kurtluk River have
been previously described. Monotypic stands of an unidenti-
fied sedge occur adjacent to those tall grass areas, along the
Kurtluk River banks and at a slightly lower elevation.
Within the pond complex north of Big Lake and along portions
of Lake Creek exists a wet tundra association dominated by
sedges and cottongrasses (Eriophorum angustifolium subarcti-
~; E. russeolum; E. vagina tum). North of Big Lake, the
-45-
wettest areas are restricted to channels, with dwarf
association vegetation on hummocks beside the channels.
shrub
South
of Big Lake, the graminoid dominated areas occur on floating
sphagnum mats. Cottongrasses are the dominant species in the
area with sedges, bog rosemary and willow are present in
lesser amounts. Marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris) is
found in the wetter portion of both areas. The wet tundra/
floating bog area south of Big Lake contains multiple channels
of Lake Creek and the channels contain extensive growths of
buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliate).
There are large fringes of beach ryegrass (Elymus arenarius
mollis) and sedge on the banks of Lake Creek near its mouth.
Common silverweed (Potentilla Egedii Egedii) is also present
and is sometimes co-dominant. Beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus
pubescens) also occurs.
The fringe of grasses and sedges grades into dwarf tundra, low
shrub and cottongrass associations away from the channel.
Forb Herbaceous
Several areas within the area of interest are dominated by
forbs. None occupy an extensive area. Swamp horsetail (Equi-
setum fluviatile) occurs as a fringe in shallow areas of Big
Lake and within the Lake Creek channel.
There are channels within the Kurtluk River floodway that con-
tain forb associations growing in slow-moving, shallow waters
and on saturated moss mats at the side of the water. Large
areas are dominated by marsh marigold (Caltha palustris
-46-
arctica) and arctic dock (Rumex arcticus •
cinquefoil and swamp horsetail are also common.
Burnet, marsh
At the base of rock canyon walls within the Kurtluk drainage
there occur limited areas that are vegetated by a diverse forb
community that includes fireweed, alpine willow-herb (Epilo-
bium anagallidifolium), wild geranium, meadow horsetail
( Equisetum arvense), few-flower meadowrue ( Thalict rum sparsi-
florum), roseroot (Sedum rosea integrifolium), fragile fern
(Cystopteris fragilis fragilis) and many lesser represented
species.
Small, monotypic stands of river beauty (Epilobium latifolium)
occur on gravel bars within the Kurtluk River and on the
gravel road from Togiak toward the study area.
Bryoid Herbaceous
Areas within the dwarf shrub dominated moist tundra areas are
lacking in ericaceous and other woody species, and are strong-
ly dominated by lichens. The areas are limited in size and
exist as patches of fruticose lichen within the dwarf shrub
habitat. foliose and crustose lichens are also common within
the study area, the former on tundra and the latter on rocky
outcrops.
Aquatic Herbaceous
The only association found within the study area that falls
under this category are the stands of yellow pond lily (Nuphar
polysepalum) that occur on some ponds.
-47-
Effects on Vegetation
Pool Raise Area
The area that would be flooded by the proposed dam is mostly
vegetated by open tall shrub scrub, interspersed with tall
grass meadows. Moist tundra/dwarf shrub scrub on canyon walls
_,
and small hills within the impoundment would be the second
most affected association, if effects were based upon aerial
extent eliminated by flooding. Small rocky areas that are
forb-dominated and some forb-dominated areas along slow,
shallow silt channels along the Kurtluk River would also be
destroyed.
Big Lake
Effects on the vegetation around Big Lake would be minor, and
proportional to the degree of modification within the lake
that results from project implementation. It is likely that
changes in water velocity within the lake, temperature, sub-
strate composition and water level would result from routing a
penstock from the Kurtluk River to Big Lake. Under such con-
ditions the horsetail fringe around the lake would probably be
eliminated. The closed tall shrub scrub association fringing
much of the lake would be pushed back as the lake level rose
and could be eliminated if the soil-moisture regime around the
lake becomes unsuitable for the involved species.
-48-
Lake Creek
The greatest potential for effects to vegetation as a result
of project implementation exists in the area of Lake Creek.
Lake Creek is the only outlet for Big Lake and at the time of
inspection was less than 2 feet (0.5m) wide and carried less
than 1 c fs. Big Lake appeared to have 3 to 5 feet ( 1 to
1.5 m) of "freeboard" between the existing lake surface and
the top of a natural berm surrounding the lake, indicating
that the lake would retain considerable additional water
before an additional outlet opened and/or another outlet was
artifically created.
If Lake Creek remained the only outlet when water was rerouted
from the Kurtluk River to Big Lake, it is expected that con-
siderable scour would result. Lake Creek remains a constrict-
ed channel for 300 to 500 feet (100 to 150m), then enters a
1 a r g e , f 1 oat in g mat bog are a , then becomes cons t ric t e d ag a in •
The constricted channel has a very narrow fringe of low and
tall shrubs and associated grasses and Forbs. Beyond that
fringe the vegetation consists mainly of dwarf shrub scrub/
moist tundra growing on flat topography. A large increase in
flow in Lake Creek would overflow the existing banks and would
be likely to scour the channel and destroy vegetation adjacent
to the channel not adapted for the water regime imposed. Sub-
strate in areas where vegetation is killed would then be sub-
jected to scour. The extent of scour that would take place
before the system stabilized would depend upon the presence or
absence of permafrost in the area, the size fraction of
bedload sediments, and the amount of flow routed into Lake
Creek.
-49-
It is expected that the floating mat bog area would also sus-
tain substantial effects and probably be eliminated by large
increases in flow from Big Lake. The existing equilibrium in
the area is dependent upon slow moving water within the many
chan n e 1 s • Faster f 1 ow wo u 1 d be 1 ike 1 y to scour a sing 1 e ,
large channel and could remove the entire mat via scour.
Tidal influence is evident 5000 to 6500 feet (1500 to 2000 m)
upstream from Togiak Bay. Increased flows in Lake Creek would
result in increased flooding in the tidal portion of the
creek.
Scour-related effects would continue throughout the length of
the creek until some equilibrium was reached. Flooding of
v e get at ion adjacent to the creek wo u 1 d either e 1 imina t e or
alter the associations involved, depending upon the period and
magnitude of the increased flows.
Road and Borrow Sites
The road and borrow sites have not been finalized, so effects
specific to vegetation associations cannot be determined.
Obviously, some vegetation will be buried by road construction
and additional vegetation will be destroyed through gravel
mining activities. It is logical that these facilities will
be placed in higher, dryer areas.
In areas where there is no perceptible surface flow, near-sur-
face drainage through sloping peatlands may be improved by
compaction from the road bed, causing a gradual change in the
vegetative composition.
-50-
Once it is
powerhouse
recreational
constructed, the
will be utilized
and subsistence
road to the proposed dam and
by the people of Togiak for
activities. Off-road vehicle
activity will increase in areas adjacent
:"ike 1 y to destroy add it ion a l v e get at ion •
Boils chemistry adjacent to the road,
changes in vegetation.
Vegetation Mitigation
to the road and is
Road dust may alter
leading to gradual
,\s previously mentioned in the section on wildlife mitigation,
:he following mitigation measures relating to vegetative re-
:3 our c e s that s h o u 1 d be considered in respect to the Kurt l u k
~iver small hydroelectric project are of a general nature, and
3S such merely constitute a beginning point for discussions on
:he subject.
:learing of the transmission line right-of-way should be
Limited to that necessary to string the conductors and allow
1elicopters and other construction equipment to operate.
:learing should be done in a manner that leaves the root mat
intact to expedite revegetation of the area. Brush should be
left along the transmission right-of-way to provide winter
browse for wildlife. Unless absolutely necessary, vegetation
lower than 15 feet (5m) should not be removed within 300 feet
(91m) of streams. No machine clearing should be done within
200 feet (61m) of streams or waterways.
Care should be exercised to avoid scarring or removal of vege-
tation where such removal is not necessary. Overburden or
topsoil should be removed from areas that will be used as work
-51-
:ueas during canst ruction and rest a red fallowing construe-
·:ion. The overburden should be used during restoration to
Facilitate revegetation. Seriously disturbed ground surfaces
:3 h o u 1 d be graded , terraced i f n e cess a r y , and seeded using
11ative species to assure minimal erosion. Seeding should take
place early enough in the growing season to allow the plants
:o become well established prior to freezes. Restored areas
3hould be monitored and further mitigation techniques such as
:erracing or mulching implemented if necessary to prevent
~rosion and to assure that vegetation becomes well establish-
~d.
:anstruction within wetland areas should take place during
Ninter months to the degree possible to minimize damage to
the vegetation. Adequate culverting should be maintained
3long roads to assure continued natural drainage and preclude
~onding in wet areas. Woody vegetation within the pool raise
area should be cleared prior to filling the reservoir to
reduce future maintenance work at the intake and outlet struc-
tures. Brush should be chipped and spread as mulch, or
stacked in a manner that would preclude entry of the remainder
of the slash into streams. Stacking of brush that cannot be
chipped would also create habitat for certain birds and
animals.
Project access roads should be watered during dry periods to
reduce the amount of dust generated by construction equip-
ment. Construction camps and staging and storage areas should
be designed in as
possible, borrow
impoundment zone.
compact a manner
areas should be
-52-
as possible.
located in the
Whenever
proposed
Archaeologic and Historic Sites
The only known archaeologic or historic site in the project
3rea is located at the mouth of the Kurtluk River where an
Eskimo village was formerly located. However, additional un-
identified sites are likely within the project area (Ty Dilli-
Jlane, personal communication, 1981) and the Alaska Division
Jf Parks has recommended an archaeologic survey of the project
area before construction is undertaken on the Kurtluk River
dam site.
Air Quality
During project construction, exhaust fumes from diesel equip-
ment and dust generated by construction activity may affect
air quality. This activity will be centered in the vicinity
of the proposed dam, about 12 miles (19km) from Togiak, and
should not affect local residents. Dispersion of air pollu-
tants is expected to be adequate to prevent any significant
effects on air quality in the area.
Electrical power for Togiak is currently provided by diesel
generators. Particulate emissions from the combustion of
diesel fuel have a high proportion of particles with a very
small size fraction. These smaller particles penetrate deeper
into the lungs and are therefore more hazardous to health than
emissions from the combustion of other hydrocarbon products.
Partial replacement of the diesel generating facilities should
lower the discharge of hydrocarbon pollutants.
-53-
land Status
A generalized land status map of the Togiak area is shown in
Figure 5. The proposed dam site on the Kurtluk River and
borrow sites A and B are located on lands interim conveyed to
Togiak Natives, Ltd. under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA), Public Law 92-203, enacted December 18, 1971.
Interim conveyance is used to convey unsurveyed lands. Patent
will follow interim conveyance once the lands are identified
by survey.
The subsurface estate for all lands in the proposed project
area conveyed to Togiak Natives, Ltd., has been interim con-
veyed to the regional native corporation, Bristol Bay Native
Corporation.
Togiak has
issued to
a federal townsite, U.S.S. 4905,
the Bureau of Land Management
with the patent
( B L M) Townsite
Trustee. The Trustee has deeded occupied parcels to the resi-
dents and some vacant lots to the City of Togiak. Other sub-
divided property remains with the Trustee. A permit would be
required for the transmission line to cross Trustee land and
it may be issued by the U.S. Department of Interior following
the affirmative resolution by the City Council.
The final transmission route and transportation corridor have
not been selected at this time, but all preliminary alterna-
tives for both are entirely within interim conveyed lands of
Togiak Native, Ltd.
-54-
T.l5 S.
T.l4 S.
SCALE I : 2!50 000
5i::::=--==--==i0------~!5 MILES ~
0::
EX PLAN AT I 0 N
0 USFWS Management Area
§±I Togiak Natives Ltd. Lands
[81 Villa9e Selected Lands
~ Private Lands Within Section
__..Proposed Dam Site
8ENGINEERS General Land Status Map FIGURE 5
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the management
responsibility for all lands classified Village selected with-
in the general project area until such time as final disposi-
tion is made. All Village selected lands in the general proj-
ect area are in the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. Since
final disposition of the Village selected lands and final
decisions on the project conceptual plan have not been made,
coordination with USFWS, Togiak Natives Ltd., Bristol Bay
Native Corporation, and BLM is recommended so that timely
delays in acquiring the needed permits and easements may pos-
sibly be avoided.
Socioeconomic Effects
Togiak is one of the more traditional villages in the Bristol
Bay area, but even so, socioeconomic impacts will be minimal.
The construction force is not expected to exceed 30 people and
would probably average 20. Since accommodations are not
available in Togiak, trailers would be brought into the proj-
ect area (and removed when construction is completed) and a
camp will be set up near the dam site. Working hours would
normally be ten hours a day, six or seven days a week. The
project should be completed within a one year period, beginn-
ing in early May and finishing in late November. Skilled
craft labor will be required and only limited local hire is
probable. Some Togiak residents may resent this, but since
construction would occur during the summer months when most
local residents are likely to be busy with commercial fishing,
this may not be a substantive issue.
-56-
Togiak normally has a large influx of people during the spring
herring season, so local residents are accustomed to large
groups of strangers being in and around the village. Ex-
changes between villagers and workers may be limited due to
the limited amount of free time available to the construction
workers.
The potential does exist for alcohol-related problems between
villagers and construction personnel. Togiak is a dry town.
Past experience on other projects has shown that, despite
rules to the contrary, alcohol will be present in construction
camps. Intoxicated workers could obviously create problems
for the local people in the village. The availability of
alcohol in the camp may also lead to the purchase or barter of
alcohol (particularly for local products) from construction
workers by local residents.
The availability of hydropower could possibly affect the cash
flow within the village and for individual families. Lower
electric bills should result in a net cash increase for the
householder. Residents may elect to switch from oil heat to
electric heat, which will require an initial cash output for
the conversion. Maintenance on the road to the dam will pro-
vide part-time employment for village residents and a skilled
resident will be needed for periodic maintenance of the power
generation equipment.
Permitting Requirements
The following permits will be required for construction of the
Togiak hydropower facility:
-57-
0
0
0
0
Under the authority of Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, Amendments of 1972, the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) must authorize the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into U.S. waters, by all indi-
viduals, organizations, commercial enterprises, and
federal, state and local agencies. A COE Section 404
Permit will therefore be required for the Kurtluk River
dam and may be required for portions of the road.
A Water Quality Certificate from the State of Alaska,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is also
required for any activity which may result in a discharge
into the navigable waters of Alaska. Application for the
certificate is made by submitting to DEC a letter
requesting the certificate,
permit application being
Engineers.
accompanied by a copy of the
submitted to the Corps of
All public or private entities (except federal agencies)
proposing to construct or operate a hydroelectric power
project must have a license from the Federal Energy Regu-
latory Commission (FERC) if the proposed site is located
on a navigable stream, or on U.S. lands, or if the proj-
ect affects a U.S. government dam or interstate
commerce.
A Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam is required from
the Forest, Land, and Water Management Division of the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources for the construe-
tion, enlargement, alteration, or
the State of Alaska that is 10
-58-
repair of
feet (3m)
any dam
or more
in
in
0
0
0
height or stores 50 acre-feet (60984 cubic meters) or
more of water.
A Water Rights Permit is required from the Director of
the Division of Forest, Land and Water Management,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources for any person who
desires to appropriate waters of the State of Alaska.
However, this does not secure rights to the water. When
the permit holder has commenced to use the appropriate
water, he should notify the director, who will issue a
Certificate of Appropriations which secures the holders'
rights to the water.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division,
under authority of AS16.05.870, the Anadromous Fish Act,
requires a Habitat Protection Permit if a person or
governmental agency desires to construct a hydraulic
project or affect the natural flow or bed of a specified
anadromous river, lake or stream, or use equipment in
such waters. A Habitat Protection Permit will be requir-
ed for the Kurtluk River dam and for any work in or
proximate to other anadromous streams.
Under authority of AS16.05.840, the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game can require, if the Commissioner determines
that it is necessary, that every dam or other obstruction
built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon
or other fish be provided with a durable and efficient
fishway and a device for efficient passage of fish. A
Habitat Protection Permit will, therefore, be required.
-59-
0 The proposed project area is located within the coastal
zone. Under the Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977, a
determination of consistency with Alaska Coastal Manage-
ment Standards must be obtained from the Division of
Governmental Coordination, Office of Management and
Budget, in the Office of the Governor. This determina-
tion would be made during the COE 404 Permit review.
Recommendation
If the Alaska Power Authority decides to continue with con-
sideration on the Kurtluk River site as a potential source of
power for Togiak, it is recommended that the results of this
evaluation be distributed to all the appropriate regulatory
agencies for review and comment. Following such a review and
comment period, it is recommended that the Alaska Power
Authority and the consultant, hold a briefing session with
these agencies to determine if there are any environmental
issues of such significance to preclude the construction of
the project or radically effect the anticipated cost of con-
struction. If not, the remainder of the briefing session
could be utilized to develop a scope of work that would meet
any additional agency requirements that may not have been
addressed in this evaluation. Based on this evaluation, it
would appear that the concerns of the residents of the area
are more directly related to the
localized potential environmental
facility.
-60-
cost of power
effects of the
than the
proposed
REFERENCES CITED
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1980.
management report. Appendix, Table 47.
Bristol Bay annual
1982. (Revised 1983). An atlas to the catalog
of waters important for spawning, rearing and migration of
anadromous fishes. Southwestern Region 3.
In press. Maps of subsistence activities in the
Bristol Bay region, in conjunction with the Bristol Bay
Comprehensive Management Plan.
DOWL Engineers, 1982. Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak
In association with
& LaRue Consulting
Hydroelectric Project, Final Report.
Tudor Engineering Co. and Dryden
Engineers. Anchorage, Alaska.
Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories
-Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Morrow, James E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska.
Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. Anchorage, Alaska.
Tudor Engineering
Kurtluk River
report.
Co. 1982.
Alternative
U.S. Department of the Interior.
tiona! Wildlife Refuge, final
ment. Alaska Planning Group,
vice.
Togiak hydroelectric project,
projects pre-reconnaissance
1975. Proposed Togiak Na-
environmental impact state-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness and A.R. Batten. 1982. (1982
revision of 1980) Preliminary Classification for vegetation
of Alaska. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-106, U.S. Forest Service.
Wilson, W.J., E.W. Trihey, J.E. Baldridge, C.D. Evans, J.G.
Thiele and D.E. Trudgeon. 1981. An assessment of
environmental effects of construction and operation of the
proposed Terror Lake hydroelectric facility, Kodiak, Alaska:
Instream flow studies. Final report prepared by Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center, University of
Alaska, Anchorage.
-61-
Personal Communications
Berg, Susan. University of Alaska -Fairbanks, Department of
Anthropology. 1983.
Bucher, Wes. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Commercial
Fisheries Division). Dillingham, Alaska. 1981.
Dilliplane, Ty.
sian of Parks.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divi-
1 9 81 •
Gross, Joseph.
of Anthropology.
University of Alaska -Fairbanks,
1983.
Money, Dennis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Species Division. Anchorage, Alaska. 1981.
Department
Endangered
Nanalook, Robert.
1 9 81 •
Togiak Village Council. Togiak, Alaska.
-62-
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -List of Fish species found on the Togiak Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge.
APPENDIX B -Annotated checklist of Birds of the former Cape
Newenham National Wildlife Refuge and Nushagak
Bay
APPENDIX C -Mammals of the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX D -Plants occuring on the former Cape Newenham Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge.
APPENDIX A
Fish species found on Togiak NWR and the extent to which
they use the ecosystem subcomponents on the refuge.
Freshwater Aquatic Marine
SPECIES
Lacustrine Fluvi.atile Nearshore
Arctic lamprey H R N
Pacific herring N N H
Alaska whitefish I H N
Round whitefish I H N
Rainbow trout H I N
Lake trout H H N
Arctic char H I N
Dolly Varden H H N
Pink salmon H H H
Sockeye salmon H H H
Chinook salmon H H H
Coho salmon H H H
Chum salmon H H H
Arctic grayling H H N
Eulachon H H H
Rainbow smelt I I H
Northern pike I H N
Burbot I H N
Coastrange sculpin H H N
Arctic flounder N N H
Starry flounder N N H
Species arranged by taxonomic order.
Key:
R = rare use
I = intermediate use
H = high use
N = unknown or no use
Source: U.S. Department of Interior, 1975.
APPENDIX B
BIRDS OF THE FORMER CAPE NEWENHAM NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE AND NUSHAGAK BAY
Species Status
Common loon* c N
Arctic loon c N
Red-throated loon* c v
Red-necked grebe u v
Horned grebe u v
Double-crested cormorant c N
Pelagic cormorant u v
Red-faced cormorant u N
Whistling swan* A N
Canada goose A M
Black brant A M
Emperor goose A M
White-fronted goose A M
Snow goose A M
Mallard A N
Gadwall u v
Pintail* A N
Green-winged teal* c N
Blue-winged teal c N
American widgeon* c v
Shoveler u v
Greater scaup u N
Common goldeneye c M
Barrow's goldeneye c M
Old squaw c M
Steller's eider A M
King eider A M
Harlequin duck c M
Common eider c v
White-winged scoter c p
Surf scot er u v
Common seater* c N
Common merganser c v
Red-breasted merganser* u v
Goshawk u v
Rough-legged hawk* u N
Golden eagle* u v
Bald eagle* c N
Osprey u N
Gyrfalcon c N
Peregrine falcon u v
Pigeon hawk u v
Spruce grouse p u N
APPENDIX B • Continued.
Species Status
Willow ptarmigan p u N
Rock ptarmigan p u N
Sandhill crane* A N
Semi-palmated plover c N
American golden plover c v
Black-bellied plover c v
Ruddy turnstone c v
Black turnstone* A N
Common snipe* A N
Whimbrel A v
Bristle-thighed curlew u M
Wandering tattler c M
Spotted sandpiper c v
Greater yellowlegs c N
Lesser yellowlegs u v
Rock sandpiper A N
Sharp-tailed sandpiper c M
Knot u v
Pectoral sandpiper u v
Baird's sandpiper u v
Least sandpiper* c N
Western sandpiper A N
Dun lin A N
Short-billed dowitcher A M
Long-billed dowitcher A M
Semi-palmated sandpiper u v
Bar-tailed godwit u v
Sanderling c M
Hudson ian godwit A M
Red phalarope u v
Northern phalarope* c N
Parasitic jaeger c N
Long-tailed jaeger A N
Glaucous gull* A N
Glaucous-winged gull* A N
Mew gull* A N
Bonaparte's gull u M
Sabine's gull A N
Black-legged kittiwake A N
Arctic tern* A N
Common murre A N
Pigeon guillemot c N
Parakeet auk let c N
Horned puffin A N
Tufted puffin p A N
Appendix B. Continued.
Species
Great horned owl
Snowy owl
Short-eared owl
Boreal owl
Belted kingfisher
Say's phoebe
Tree swallow
Bank swallow*
Barn swallow
Gray jay*
Black-billed magpie
Common raven*
Black-capped chickadee
Boreal chickadee
Robin
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Swainson's thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Golden-crowned kinglet
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Yellow wagtail
Water pipit
Bohemian waxwing
Cedar waxwing
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow warbler
Willow warbler
Myrtle warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Northern waterthrush
Wilson's warbler*
Rusty blackbird
Gray-crowned rosy finch
Pine grosbeak
Hoary redpoll
Common redpoll*
Red crossbill
White-winged crossbill
Savannah sparrow
Tree sparrow*
White-crowned sparrow*
Golden-crowned sparrow
Fox sparrow
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
Status
u
u
c
c
u
c
c
A
c
A
c
A
c
c
A
c
u
c
u
u
c
c
u
u
u
c
c
R
c
c
u
c
c
c
c
c
A
u
c
A
c
c
c
c
p
p
N
v
v
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
v
v
v
N
v
v
v
N
N
v
N
N
v
N
N
N
M
v
N
v
v
N
N
N
N
v
Appendix B. Continued
Species Status
Song sparrow c N
Lapland longspur* c N
Snow bunting c N
Common names are in phylogenetic order after the American
Ornithological Union.
Source: U.S. Department of Interior, 1975.
* Observed during 15-17 June, 1983 Togiak/Kurtluk field work.
Status Key:
A -
c -
u
R -
Abundant
Common
Uncommon
Rare
N -Nesting
M -Migrant
P -Resident All Seasons
V -Status as Nesting
Species Uncertain
APPENDIX C
MAMMALS OF THE TOGIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Species
Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus)
Arctic Shrew (Sorex ar~ticus
tundrensis)
Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus)
Alaskan Hare (Lepus othus poadromus)
Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus)
Hoary marmot (Marmota caligata)
Arctic Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus
parryi)
Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus)
Beaver (Castor canadensis)
Greenland Collared Lemming
(Dicrostonyx groenlandicus)
Northern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys
borealis)
Brown Lemming (Lemmus sibiricus)
Northern Red-backed Vole
Clethrionomys rutilus)
Status
Occurs throughout
Occurs throughout
Probably occurs
throughout
Occurs throughout
Possibly occurs
Throughout
Throughout
Possibly occurs in
eastern section
Sparsely distributed
throughout
Throughout
Possibly occurs in
northeastern section
Occurs throughout
Occurs throughout
Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Nushagak Peninsula and
Togiak Valley
Tundra Vole (Microtus oeconomus)
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus
hudsonius)
Occurs throughout
Occurs throughout
Occurs throughout
APPENDIX C. Continued
Species
Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum)
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus)
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Black Bear (Ursus americanus)
Brown/Grizzly Bear (Ursus
arctos-group)
Pine Marten (Martes americana)
Short-tailed Weasel or Ermine
(Mustela erminea)
Least Weasel (Mustela nivalis)
Mink (Mustela vison)
Wolverine (Gulo luscus)
River Otter (Lutra canadensis)
Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus
ursinus)
Steller 1 s Sea Lion (Eumetopias
jubata)
Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)
Status
Possibly occurs in
eastern section
Sparsely distributed
throughout
Sparsely distributed
throughout
Occurs throughout
Possibly occurs in
eastern section
Sparsely distributed
throughout
Possibly occurs in
eastern section
Occurs throughout
Occurs throughout
Occurs throughout
Sparsely distributed
throughout
Sparsely distributed
throughout
Possibly occurs
Rare visitor during
migration
Occurs throughout
coastal area
Occurs throughout
coastal area
Occurs throughout
coastal area
APPENDIX C. Continued
Species Status
Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca fasciata) Possibly throughout
coastal area
Ringed Seal (Pusa --hispida) Occurs throughout
coastal area
Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus) Occurs throughout
coastal area
Moose (Alces alces) Sparsely distributed
throughout
Barren Ground Caribou (Rangifer Occurs in northeastern
tarandus) section
Adapted from: U.S. Department of Interior, 1975.
APPENDIX 0
PLANTS OCCURRING ON THE FORMER CAPE NEWENHAM
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Lycopodium selago selago
L. annotinum
C alpinum
!quisetum variegatum
E. scirpoides
E. fluviatile
IE. silvaticum
E. pratense
E. arvense
Tnelypteris phegopteris
Athyrium filix-femina
Cystopteris fragilis
Dryopteris dilatata
Gymnocarpium dryopteris
Sparganium hyperboreum
Zostera mar1na
Hierochloe alpina
H. odorata
if:" pauci flora
ATopecurus alpinus
Calamagrostis canadensis
C. deschampsio1des
Deschampsia caespitosa
Trisetum spicatum
Poa eminens
oupontia Fischeri
Festuca altaica
F. brachyphylla r. rubra
Elymus arenarius mollis
Eriophorum angustifolium
E. russeolum r. vaginatum
Carex dioica gynocrates
C. glareosa
C. aquatilis
C. Lyngbyaei
C. Gmelini
C. macrochaeta
C. podocarpa
COMMON NAME
Fir Club-moss
Stiff Club-moss
Alpine Club-moss
Northen Scouring-rush
Little Horsetail
Swamp Horsetail
Wood Horsetail or Bottle-brush
Thicket or Meadow Horsetail
Common Horsetail
Beech-fern
Lady-fern
Fragile-fern
Spreading Wood-fern
Northern Bur-reed
Eel-grass
Alpine Holy-grass
Holy-grass or Sweet-grass
Arctic Holy-grass
Mountain Foxtail
Blue Joint
Tufted Hair-grass
Downy Oat-grass
Large-flowered Spear-grass
Dupontia
Rough Fescue
Alpine fescue
Red fescue
Beach Ryegrass
Tall Cotton-grass
Russet Cotton-grass
Niggerheads or Sheathed
Cotton-grass
Northern Bog Sedge
Weak Clustered Sedge
Water Sedge
Lyngbye sedge
Gmelin Sedge
Alaska Long-awned Sedge
Short-Stalk Sedge
APPENDIX D. Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
c . microchaeta r. nesopfilia Bering Sea Sedge c:-rariflora Loose-flowered Alpine Sedge
COrydalis pauciflora Few-flowered Corydalis
Cochlearia officinal is Scurvy Grass
tutrema tdwarasii
Barb area orthoceras Winter Cress or Yellow Rocket
Caraamine 6eiiidirolia Alpine Cress
c. pratensis Cuckoo Flower c. umbel lata Umbel-flowered Bitter-cress c. purpurea Purplish Bitter-cress
Drab a nivaiis
D. (possibly kamtschatica)
Arab is lyrata Kamchatka Rock-cress
Sedum rose a Rose root or Rosewort
Saxifraga oppositifolia Purple Mountain Saxifrage s. serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Saxifrage
"57 hirculus Yellow Marsh Saxifrage
5. flagellar is
"5:" 6roncfilails Spotted Saxifrage
5. punctata Brook Saxifrage
5. bracteata Bracted Saxifrage s. hieracifolia Hawkweed-leaved Saxifrage
"57 foiiolosa Foliose Saxifrage
Parnassia palustris Northern Grass-of-Parnassus
5plraea Beauveralana Beauverd Spiraea
Rubus chamaemorus Cloudberry
R • arctic us Nagoon Berry
Potentilla palustris Purple or Marsh Cinquefoil
p • villosa Villous Cinquefoil
p:-uniflora One-flowered Cinquefoil
p:-hyparctica
p:-Eg ed i i Pacific Silverweed
Sibbaldia procumbens Sibbaldia
Geum Rossii Ross Avens
Dryas octopetala Eight-petaled Mountain Avens
Sanguisorba stipulata
[uplnus nootkafensis Nootka Lupine
Astragalus umbel latus Hairy Arctic Milk Vetch
Oxytropis nigrescens Blackish Oxytrope
Lathyrus maritimus Beach Pea
Geranium erianthum Northern Geranium
Viola biflora Two-flowered Violet
v. epipslla Northern Marsh Violet -
APPENDIX D. Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
v. Langsdorffii Alaska Violet
tpilobium angustifolium Fireweed
E. latifolium Dwarf Fireweed
~ anagallidifolium Pimpernel Willow-herb
Hippuris vulgaris
juncus fi!irormis Thread Rush
J • arctic us Arctic Rush
J. castaneus Chestnut Rush r biglumis Two-flowered Rush
Ilizuia rufescens Hairy Wood-Rush
L. Wahlenbergii Wahlenbery Wood-Rush
IL. parv1t'Iora Small-flowered Wood-Rush c tundricola
L. multi flora Many-flowered Wood-Rush
TOfieldia coccinea Northern Asphodel
F'ritiiiaria cam sc ha tc ensi s Indian Rice or Blacklily
Lloydia serotina Alp Lily
~treptopus ampiexifolius Cucumber-root or Clasping
Twisted Stalk
Iris setosa Wild Iris or Flag
Plat anther a obtusata Small Northern Bog Orchid
Corallorrhiza trifida Early Coral-root
Salix arctic a Arctic Willow
5. ruscescens Alaska Bog Willow
s:-glauca Grayleaf Willow
s:-planifolia Mondleaf Willow
s:-reticulate Net leaf Willow
s:-rotundifolia Least Willow
57 stolonifera Ovalleaf Willow
"Setuia nan a Dwarf Alpine Birch
Alnus crispa Green Alder
Koenigia islandica Koenigia
Rumex arcticus Arctic Dock
Oxyria d1gyna Mountain Sorrel
Polygonum viviparum Alpine Bistort
p • 61storta Mountain Meadow Bistort
Claytonia sarmentosa Alaska Spring Beauty
Mantia fontana Water Chickweed
Stellaria humifusa Low Chickweed
~. crassifoiia Fleshy Star wort
Cerastium Beeringianum Bering Chickweed
Minuartia arct1ca Arctic Sandwort
M. macrocarpa Long-podded Sandwort
Honckenya peploides Sea-beach Sand wort
APPENDIX D. Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Silene acaulis Moss Campion or Moss Pink
~altha paius£ris Yellow Marsh Marigold
Aconitum delphinifolium Delphinium-leaved Aconite
Anemone R1cfiardsonii Yellow Anemone
A. parviflora Northern Anemone
A-: narcissi flora Narcissus-flowered Anemone
Ranunculus Pallasii Pallas Buttercup
R • rep£ans Creeping Spearwort
R:" nivalis Snow Buttercup
Papaver aiaskanum Arctic Poppy
Ligusticum scoticum Hulten Sea Lovage
L • mutellinoides
Ailgelica lucid a Sea Coast Angelica
Heracleum lanatum Cow Parsnip
Cor nus suecica Lapland Cornel
Pyroia asarif'olia Liver-leaf Wintergreen
p • minor Lesser Wintergreen
Erlipetrum nigrum Crowberry
Ledum palustre Narrow-leaved Labrador Tea
Rhododendron camtschaticum Kamchatka Rhododendron
Loiseleuria procumbens Alpine or Trailing Azalea
Cass1ope Iycopo1des Club-moss Mountain Heather
Andromeda polifolia Bog Rosemary
Arctostaphylos alp ina Alpine Bearberry
Vaccinium vitis-idaea Mountain Cranberry or
Lingen Berry
v • uliginosum Bog Blueberry
Oxycoccus microcarpus Swamp Cranberry
Diapensia lapponica Diapensia
Primula tschuktschorum Chukchi Primrose
p • cunei folia Wedge-leaved Primrose
Aii'drosace chamaejasme
Trientalis europaea Staf Flower
Armer1a maritima Sea Pink
Gentiana algid a Whitish Gentian
G, glauca Glaucous Gentian
Polemonium acutiflorum Jacob's Ladder
Mertensia maritima Sea Lungwort
Veronica Wormskjoldii Alpine Speedwell
[agotls gi auc a
Euphrasia moll is Eyebright
APPENDIX D. Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Pedicular is verticillata Lousewort, Eskimo -Eskimo
Bumble-Bee Plant
p • labradorica "
P:"" Langsdorffii " P. sudetica " P:"" capitata "
P. Oederl II
P. Kanei "
Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw
Ad ox a moschatellina Moschatel or Mush Root
Valeriana capitata Capitate valerian
C:ampanula lasiocarpa Mountain Harebell
Solidago multiradiata Northern Golden Rod
Aster sibiricus Siver ian Aster
Erigeron peregrinus
Antennaria monocephala
A. Friesiana
Achillea borealis Northern Yarrow
Chrysanthemum arcticum Arctic Daisy
Artemlsla giobuiaria
A. Tilesii
A:" arctica Arctic Wormwood
j5"'8tasites frigid us Arctic Sweet Coltsfoot
Arnica Lessingii
A. frigid a
"'5"enecio aEropurpureus
s . resedifolius s. pseudo-Arnica
Siiussurea viscid a
Taraxacum alaskanum
T. kamtschaticum -
Source: U.S. Department of Interior, 1975
APPENDIX E
Site Photographs
Big Lake, with Lake Creek in rig~t corner.
Lake Creek as it enters Togiak Bay.
Kurtluk River mouth, with Togiak Bay in background.
Kurtluk River substrate with six inch ruler.
-
-
Lake Creek substrate, near Big Lake outlet
~iew down the penstock route to Big Lake, ·with Togiak Bay
in background. ·
-
,..
,..
,..
-
-
-
,.....