Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Black Bear Lake Appendices 1991
Before the . FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Application for License f'OR MAJOR UNCONSTRUCTED PROJECT BLACK BEAR LAKE PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 10440 / STATE ID NO. AK910315-06J ''!\: Ex1stlng RDod J~i ,~c:·~ '~"':·/ ==ttk ·~ ~ Brldge-~\..1 Area. ···.~lr." Swface PerutDck Siphon Int.alce ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY PoRT TowNSENd, WAsltiNqToN June 1991 lffi APPENDICES HDR Engineering. Inc. BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FORA MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT 5 MEGAWATIS OR LESS BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 10440 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON Prepared By: HDR Engineering, Inc. 11225 S.E. Sixth Street Building C, Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Copyright 0 Alaska Power & Telephone Company, 1991. All rights reserved. This document, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form, for any purpose, without the prior written consent of Alaska Power & Telephone Company. HR APPENDICES BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix E-1: Water Temperature Report Appendix E-2: Water Quality Report Appendix E-3: Section 401 Water Quality Certification Appendix E-4: Tailrace Studies Appendix E-5: Lake Drawdown Analysis Appendix E-6: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Appendix E-7: Fisheries Studies Appendix E-8: 1980 and 1982 Archeological Investigations Appendix E-9: Initial Consultation Package, Agency Consultation Letters, Meeting Notes, and Licensing Study Plans APPENDIX E-1 WATER TEMPERATURE REPORT BLACK BEAR LAKE WATER TEMPERATURE REPORT I. Introduction The purpose of this report is to present the results of the water temperature monitoring and modeling studies. Water temperature monitoring data have been used to define pre- project conditions and to estimate post-project water temperature conditions in the spring upwelling area of Black Bear Creek. The results of these studies provide information on project impacts and support intake and tailrace facilities. Black Bear Lake is on Prince of Wales Island at 1,687 foot elevation near Klawock, Alaska. It is a north-facing cirque lake which discharges over a series of falls to form Black Bear Creek. The combined drop of the falls is approximately 1,400 feet. At the base of the falls is the beginning of an alluvial fan where a significant portion of the streamflow of Black Bear Creek infiltrates. During dry periods, the stream will disappear within the first 500 to 800 feet of the alluvial fan. A series of springs occurs across the base of the alluvial fan approximately .5 mile below the falls near an elevation of 80 feet. These springs are a high-quality salmon spawning area Groundwater supporting these springs comes from (1) Black Bear Lake, which has a watershed area of 1.82 square miles at the outlet, (2) the 1.29 square mile drainage area of Black Bear Creek which occurs between the lake outlet and the springs and (3) South Fork, which has 2.17 square mile drainage area and joins Black Bear Creek in the upwelling area. The project will withdraw water from 20 feet deep in Black Bear Lake and discharge it through a 5,000-foot penstock to the powerhouse (Figure 1 ). The powerhouse will be located approximately 1,000 feet below the falls and 2,000 feet above the springs. It will sit on the north bank of a reach of Black Bear Creek where significant infiltration occurs and which goes dry every year. After flowing through the turbine, the water will be discharged into Black Bear Creek adjacent to the powerhouse. Changes in the temperature regime of Black Bear Creek will occur as a result of two factors, water will be withdrawn from a 20-foot depth compared to the natural surface outflows and the falls will be bypassed. The change will occur over a 20-to 30-year period until the project capacity is reached. When the project starts, water will naturally spill approximately 40 percent of the time. However, when the project reaches capacity, water will spill over the falls approximately 15 percent of the time. This analysis is in response to resource agency questions concerning how the project will affect incubation of salmon eggs in the spring upwelling area of the stream. This study addresses conditions that will exist when the project has reached its full design capacity. II. Overview of the Temperature Regime One of the major factors controlling the temperature of Black Bear Lake and Black Bear Creek is the time when ice cover forms on the lake. If the ice cover forms relatively early 1 (late November or early December) than the insulating ability of the ice limits late fall and early winter heat loss from the lake. When this occurs, much of the water stored in the lake will remain near a temperature of 4 • C for the duration of the winter as was observed during the winter of 1982-83 (Environaid, 1983). However, if ice forms relatively late (end of December or early January) than much of the lake will cool to 1 ·c or less as was observed the winter of 1981-82 (Environaid, 1983). The time when the lake thaws also markedly affects the temperature regime of the system. If the ice melts early (end of April or early May) and relatively warm conditions prevail at the start_o{ the ice-free period, than the lake will become much warmer than would occur if the ice melted relatively late in spring (end of May or early June). The flow of water over the falls typically alters the temperature of water, sometimes to a very significant amount. The change can be either positive or negative depending on whether the water is warmer or colder than the air. Since the water experiences considerable aeration in the falls reach, significant heat exchange can occur between the water and air. For instance, in May through June of 1985 the water temperature below the falls was 4 • C warmer than at the lake outlet on a number of days (Environaid, 1985). In November of 1982, the wa~er temperature below the falls was almost 4 • C colder than at the lake outlet on one occasion, while in November of 1983 the water temperature below the falls ranged from 2 • C colder to 2 • C warmer than at the lake outlet (Environaid, 1983). Typically there is a 1 to 2 degrees celsius temperature difference between these locations. With the influence of the falls diminished or eliminated from the system, water temperatures will become much more uniform throughout a day and from day-to-day. The groundwater interaction that occurs in the alluvial fan reach has a moderating effect on water temperature in Black Bear Creek; in winter, water temperatures are increased and in summer they are decreased. The change is typically about 0.5 to 1.0 degrees celsius, but can be larger. For instance, in August 1981 a temperature drop of 2 to 3 degrees was measured. The project will have little effect on the groundwater reach. The flow path from through the aquifer will be approximately 400 to 600 feet shorter, which is a reduction of approximately 25 percent. There will still be ample time for heat transfer to occur as water flows through the aquifer. III. Methods Data Sources Monitoring data have been obtained from two sources. The main source of data is the series of Environaid reports which present the results of field work completed in the 1980 to 1986 period (Environaid, 1981, 1982a,b, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986). Supplementary data were obtained during the summer of 1990 when monitoring stations were re-established as part of a program of long-term project monitoring. 2 The Environaid studies contained temperature monitoring data for four stations useful for this study. These stations are at a 10-foot depth near the outlet of Black Bear Lake, upstream of the proposed powerhouse and two locations in the spring upwelling zone. One of the spring stations was a thermograph buried in the gravel stream bed and another measured temperatures in the channel called Spring Fork by Environaid. Two to 3 years of data were available from the Environaid studies. The Environaid data were published primarily as figures in which mean daily temperature was plotted over time. For the most part, the numeric data used to construct the figures were not available. Therefore, the Environaid data were reassembled by reading data points off the figures on a mean weekly basis. In June of 1990, four water temperature monitoring stations were established in the study area. One station monitors temperature at depths of 20 and 30 feet in Black Bear Lake near the location of the proposed hydropower intake. The other water temperature monitoring stations are upstream of the proposed powerhouse site, a station in Lake Fork and a station in a spring which is tributary to Spring Fork. These stations provide mean daily temperature readings. Instrument problems caused breaks in the record for the Black Bear Lake station. However, comparative data are available for these stations for all of the summer months. The period of record for these stations that is available for this report is from June 5, 1990 to February 19, 1991. These data provide valuable information for the summer of 1990 when the warmest temperatures were measured at Black Bear Lake of the 3-year record for summer months. The reassembled Environaid data and the data from the summer of 1990 have been included in Appendix 1 of this report. The analysis of the impacts of the project on the temperature regime of Black Bear Creek is based entirely on these data. Seventeen lake temperature profiles had been obtained by Environaid (1981, 1982a,b, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986) and during the summer of 1990. These profiles were taken in 7 different months and in all four seasons of the year. Thus, a fairly good data base is available on the thermal regime of Black Bear Lake. In addition to water temperature, air temperature at Black Bear Lake was recorded on certain dates in June, July, and August of 1990. Since October 10, 1991, a daily record has been made, subject to equipment reliability. Air temperature data through November 15, 1990 is shown in Appendix 1 of this report. Analysis The technique used to assess project impacts on temperature conditions in the upwelling areas is based on the expected project flow conditions. When the project is in full operation, water will be withdrawn from the lake at a 20-foot depth and discharged into the channel at the powerhouse. Water will then infiltrate into the alluvial fan, percolate through the alluvial aquifer and emerge at the springs. While flowing through the penstock, the temperature of the water will not change appreciably. The temperature of 3 the water at the springs will, therefore, be controlled by the water temperature at the depth of withdrawal in the lake and by the effects of the groundwater interaction. Post-project water temperatures in the upwelling areas have been estimated by assuming that water temperature at the point of withdrawal in the lake is equal to measured monthly average lake conditions. These temperatures were then modified to account for the effects of groundwater interactions. Known pre-project conditions at the springs areas were compared to the estimated post-project conditions to determine the effects of the project. The analysis of the Environaid data focused on the original Black Bear Lake temperature station, the spawning gravel station, and the powerhouse station. The original Black Bear Lake station was located at approximately a 10-foot depth near the lake outlet. These two stations have a concurrent but broken period of record from August 1981 to August 1985. It is the best comparative series available for the site and bas data for 3 years for most months. However, data for summer months had only been recorded for 2 years for these stations during the Environaid study. The Environaid powerhouse monitoring station was also used. The effects of groundwater interaction were determined on an average monthly basis by comparing data from the powerhouse station with the spawning gravel station. During· the summer of 1990, monitoring effort data were recorded concurrently at a 20- foot depth in the lake and in the spring upwelling areas. Furthermore, lake profile water temperature data were obtained during service trips to the lake station. As previously stated, the hydropower intake will be at a 20-foot depth in the lake. Hence, the summer 1990 monitoring study provided data for a valuable third season for a comparative analysis of water temperature in the lake and at the spring upwelling areas. Several steps were required to develop predictions for the effect of the project on water temperature in the upwelling areas. The monitoring data were first used to define the existing average monthly water temperature conditions in the upwelling areas and at a 10- foot depth in the lake. The monitoring data were also used to determine average monthly changes in water temperature due to groundwater interaction. Next, the data for the 10- foot depth station were transferred to a 20-foot depth in the lake using the temperature profiles. The lake temperature profiles were used to develop average monthly relationships between temperatures at the surface and at a 20-foot depth in the lake. Relationships between water temperature at the surface and at a 20-foot depth for months with no measurements were estimated using data for months within the same season. It was also observed that the water temperatures at the surface and at a 10-foot depth in the lake were typically within 0.5 ° C. Post-project water temperatures in the spawning gravels were then calculated. For a given month, the average monthly water temperature at a 20-foot depth in Black Bear Lake was adjusted by adding the average monthly change in water temperature that 4 occurs as water passes through the aquifer. The end result was the post~project average monthly water temperatures in the spawning gravels. The estimated post~project average monthly water temperatures were then compared to measured pre-project conditions to determine the impact of the project. IV. Results The estimated post-project average monthly water temperature in the upwelling areas is presented in Table 1. In the same table is the estimated range of change that could occur from year~to~year and the pre-project average monthly water temperature and range for the upwelling area. There are two changes that will occur as a result of the project. Late fall and winter temperatures in the upwelling areas will be warmer by 1 • C on average for the months of November through February. In March, the temperatures will be about 0.5 degrees warmer. The warmer winter temperatures will result in faster degree-day accumulations in the spawning habitat supported by the spring flows. The second change is that April through August temperatures will be colder than natural conditions. This shift from elevated temperatures to cooler conditions occurs early in spring when air temperatures begin to warm above winter conditions. Monitoring records show that this warming typically occurs in middle and late April. Table 2 presents the results of degree-day accumulation calculations for natural and post- project conditions for the upwelling areas. The table presents degree-day accumulation units for the natural average monthly water temperature found in Table 1 as well as for the estimated post-project conditions. For comparison, the measured degree-day accumulation curves for 1982 and 1983 are also listed in the table. Figure 2 depicts the data in Table 2 in a comparative line plot. The measured degree-day accumulation curves for 1982 and 1983 are similar to the calculated degree-day curve for natural average monthly conditions until March and April. At this tiine, it is seen the estimated average curve falls below both measured curves. The third year of data used in calculation of average values had much lower temperatures than 1982 and 1983 for late winter and spring months. It is seen that the post-project degree-day accumulation curve, which represents average conditions, ends with a total degree-day accumulation approximately equal to the measured results for 1982. This is interpreted to mean that post-project average conditions will be within the range of naturally occurring conditions. V. Discussion Project-induced temperature changes will vary from year-to-year due to the variable nature of the climate. In any given year, the change will be determined by the dates when the lake froze over and thawed, by summer air temperatures, and by wind conditions in summer and fall. 5 If the summer is relatively warm and if ice forms early on Black Bear Lake due to cold fall air temperatures, then winter temperatures in the spawning gravels will be on the order of 1.5 to 2.0 degrees celsius warmer than pre-project conditions. On the other hand, if summer temperatures are relatively cool and if ice forms late on Black Bear Lake, then winter water temperatures in the upwelling areas would be near pre-project average conditions. It should be noted that the calculations were completed assuming water would be withdrawn from a 20-foot depth even though it is proposed that the lake will be drawn down at times. This is a conservative assumption, however, since drawing dowq. the lake will counteract the effects of the project on water temperatures in the upwelling areas. For instance, in the winter period, water from the surface to 10 feet in depth is colder than at 20 feet deep. As the lake is drawn down in the winter, the water withdrawn from the lake will become colder. Since the effect of the project in the winter is to increase water temperatures in the upwelling areas, this effect will decrease as the lake is drawn down. In May, June and the first half of July when the thermocline is not present, drawing down the lake will result in warmer water being withdrawn from the lake. Thus, draw down again acts to reduce the impacts of the project on water temperature in the upwelling areas. In the summer when a thermocline is present, and in September and October, drawing down the lake has no impact on how the project affects water temperature in the upwelling areas. Monitoring data for the upwelling area show that water temperature varies from spring to spring. At times there was a 1 degree difference between the temperature measured in Lake Fork and Spring Fork. This difference in water temperature highlights the fact that streams other than Black Bear Creek contribute water to the alluvial fan aquifer. For instance, South Fork undoubtedly contributes water to the springs of Spring Fork. These other sources of groundwater will serve to moderate the effect the project will have on water temperature in the upwelling areas. Tributaries which join Black Bear Creek below Black Bear Lake and which support the alluvial fan aquifer will not be affected by the project. Another effect of the project will be a reduction in the daily temperature fluctuations. Temperatures will fluctuate little during the course of the day when the project reaches capacity. Pre-project fluctuations in water temperature are a result of the air-water heat exchange in the fall reach and warming of water at the surface of the lake and in the channel by solar radiation. At project capacity, only warming of water in the channel will contribute to the daily temperature cycle. 6 VI. Conclusion The Black Bear Lake Hydropower Project will alter the temperature regime of the springs area of Black Bear Creek. When the project is at full capacity, it will lower mean monthly water temperatures by up to 2 • C during the summer and raise mean monthly water temperatures by 1 • C in the winter. However, the altered temperature regime will result in degree-day accumulations in the springs that are within the range of pre-project conditions. 7 References Environaid, 1981. An interim report on biological-ecological work on the Black Bear system. Environaid, 1982a. Biological-ecological investigations of the Black Bear Creek system near Klawock, Alaska. Environaid, 1982b. A report on late-summer and fall observations in upper Black Bear Creek and Black Bear Lake. Environaid, 1983. Further investigations of the Black Bear Creek system near Klawock, Alaska. Environaid, 1985. Environmental status report, late summer visit to Black Bear Creek- 1985. Environaid, 1986. Final report on Black Bear Creek Monitoring Work. 8 ---- ------------- ..... '~ '.,, ' ~ ' ' 'I . -"' ''' •' ' /'•' -~® -,, / ; I ' ' : I '""--•/ / / ~,~'~·-. ..._ "•. ;_..------~ _____ , .. --'-:··_ . ,-' !)l ) 1 !j /: ~.~r---~·/~' / / ,..:::·;'; ~ ----' ' ' ,,, ;!/"""' ........... ~--, ' . I ,,__ : ,,, --' --' ' ., --' ~ . ' ----' .-j ' ' ' / I :; ' f/ . -, --.. ~ .' / / ' I I ! ,. • ~ II . ' .. ' ; ' ' ,. ' ~, ........____.__~---' ;•-I !i L " //--'/ ' ~ ,, ~ ~ ., ---'I ' ,, SIPHON ·-.-.' " · , I ,; 0 ~~/ ~ · ·"" ~ . . ' ' ' " -~ ' u~s2°11 h -. . !.Jl--------,.,J' ' · / ) :i' /'If""~ \ · . I BLACK ' ' ' r . ' : ,' ' ' o" ~ I ~ ~ --· ' ··. 11 1... . \ ':,;..>T··· , ~~ --,l / I ' v1 ( I I! ' "" \ \ -' ---, '-t 1 ,' _.,.-:--· /. -·-~ I I u II I -. , -" r' --..-· ' " -' ' ' ' " '' " r-.--' ' / ' II '• ,, A ~ --//' . . . '. 10•00 ,. ,,_,., ,~..-/ I ' r I ' ' . __ ..-,.•. / ;~:VE Q"~ .. J-, ! ··'' ~-__,_ / I ' " •/· ' I ' ' .V \ -' I ) ! . ~/;',, ,:., :::::\ _j ) , !/i , I ', ~:' _' . J / •:,~:~ \I, ·~ <o 'TAIUIACE ' '-.~·-,'>. '• ; -~;!~/,-~~-\f / ·/.. ,•U~FACEI~~~::-~/ ·· :_7/ /~~r,; ~ !{,'( ,~~/,A\\, ~o~HouSEr 1 1 · · .// 0 -'! I · · • -\.• --/ • ' / ' 1 :,:__ "11 ' ' ' / ' . . ' \ .. ., . . ·\ / •I ,~, I ' _: \ :; ~AHSU~-LIN .. -~:/ic:Vii!1rr)V/ .. /:;-:,~0·,f~, , ,, ' ;' J I ),\·~~-, ~.···': I . :--·'----.j'x~ . .,."'-~~E_)_-,-,~~_:;:~ / · v~· -. · . ...,-.. -• · · 1 • " I ' 'L · · -~ ---J ~o"' ' "\ '-. /£. '_.;.-. ' J/, ! ,' ~-.. · .. _It,.._ i' ·, · : , ·" : ' · . 00 ~~11~-0"/ rjj~SO " ~-__ I ;(r r .· /.. , ) 2o;•• ._ -.r ~x , ----><-... _ ~---~-D "' " ~ ·. ~ rr,li , , · .·, -.. ---/ ______ -----..::: .·::· · _ / ~~_:_::_.-.<--·l\)1)• ' ... ,),-,,;· _ _.~.-::.~toa -· li ______ ._,,.,.. -------~ ,---~ I I ' .. '.C' ~---. .::--=.<0------.. , I , -. '~;<' --...=-. . ,. _.-. ~.,~--) .. j ) (: /r' ,. I ( , ' \.:..:.---::-_-. -::--·---:---;-~,----· _ _. . --.... . (,/ ' ' ........ -" ' ...... .-.--.,,,_ I''' ,'---' ' ' ,... . ....__ ----~~) . \ ' BURIED -"'--------•._rt' ~-;.-;' ~~ \ \ ~ PENSTOCK ',·_, • .,_.fo"'r .. ".-:;:;~'·'",.-' ' . ' .. ' --_ .. - . \ I I •• \ • " '-. • ----------------- • ' _ . 1 • · • , .cc ---• • --- \ \ ' , . ; ', ----- ' \ •, \ ~ 'o -- \ . '· • ' I •, \ ~ 1--~ , ' '· ~o \ ' -... PLAN· ---- <:::: ~\ '~\. o \_ , ·. SCALE: 1" • • ~ '. "· ~'-, :... 490 200 0 . 400 \ ' . . -" ""'---400 ' ' " -' --\ ' . ' ..... ' ..._ ----' ' ' ' ~ -.. ------ !' -- Table 1 Project Impact on Water Temperature in Upwelling Area Month Pre-project Range Post-project Range Average Average Temperature oc January 3.0 2.0 to 4.0 4.0 2.5 to 5.0 February 2.7 1.6 to 3.2 3.7 2.7 to 4.7 March 2.6 1.4 to 3.2 3.1 2.6 to 3.6 April 2.8 1.8 to 4.5 2.3 2.3 to 3.3 May 4.3 2.7 to 8.2 2.8 2.5 to 5.5 June 6.0 3.9 to 8.3 4.0 2.5 to 7.0 July 8.9 7.0 to 11.3 7.4 6.5 to 10.0 August 11.1 9.0 to 13.0 11.6 11.0 to 13.0 September 10.2 8.9 to 11.5 10.2 9.0 to 11.0 October 7.5 4.4to8.1 7.5 7.0 to 8.0 November 5.3 3.8 to 8.5 6.3 4.8 to 6.8 December 3.7 1.8 to 5.0 4.7 3.2 to 5.2 Table 2 Degree-Day Accumulation Results (°C) Beginning Pre-project Post-project 1982 1983 Month Average Month Average Month September 0 0 0 0 October 306 306 330 300 November 540 540 570 540 December 700 730 760 700 January 815 875 910 800 February 910 1000 1020 900 March 990 1110 1110 980 April 1070 1205 1190 1100 April 18 1120 1245 1250 1160 z 0 ~ ::J ::E ........ ::J f) ()-g () 0 <{ f) :J ~ 0 of= -w w a::: Cl w Q 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 AFFECT ON 0 SEPT.1 40 OCT.1 DEGREE DAY ACCUMULATION BLACK BEAR CREEK SPRINGS 80 120 NOV.1 DEC.1 JAN.1 TIME 0 AVERAGE MONTH A POST PROJECT AVERAGE MONTH 0 1982 + 1983 160 FEB.1 MAR.1 200 240 APR. 1 APR. 18 FIGURE 2 WATER TEMPERATURE REPORT APPENDIX 1 Black Bear Lake Mean Weekly Temperature Data Black Bear lake Power House Site Spring Fork Site Stream Gravel Site Date 1 0-Foot Depth (PHS) (SFS) (SGS) (BBL) Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe 8/07/81 14.5 11.9 8/14/81 12.3 12.0 8/28/81 13.0 11.5 9/07/81 12.5 11.5 9/14/81 11.5 11.5 9/21/81 11.7 11.2 9/28/81 11.8 10.0 10/07/81 8.2 8.1 10/14/81 7.9 7.1 10/21/81 7.6 7.5 10/28/81 8.2 8.1 11/7/81 8.8 8.5 11/14/81 7.2 7.0 11/21/81 6.3 5.9 11128/81 6.0 5.3 12107/81 3.8 4.3 12114/81 1.4 5.0 12121181 2.9 3.3 12128/81 2.0 4.5 01107/82 1.5 3.5 01/14/82 2.0 3.3 01/21/82 1.2 2.8 01/28/82 1.0 2.5 02107/82 1.5 2.6 02114/82 1.5 2.6 02121/82 1.2 2.6 02128/82 1.4 2.9 03/07/82 1.8 2.6 03/14/82 2.0 2.8 03/21/85 1.7 2.2 03/28/82 2.7 2.9 04/07/82 2.2 2.6 04/14/82 1.3 2.6 04/21/82 1.3 2.1 04/28/82 1.5 2.5 05/07/82 1.5 2.7 05/14/82 2.0 3.1 05/28/82 1.3 3.3 06/07/82 2.0 3.9 06/14/82 2.0 5.0 Black Bear Lake Mean Weekly Temperature Data Black Bear lake Power House Site Spring Fork Site Stream Gravel Site Date 1 0-Foot Depth (PHS) (SFS) (SGS) (BBL) Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe 06/21/82 2.0 5.0 06/28/82 3.0 6.8 07/07/82 5.9 7.0 07/14/82 5.3 7.9 07/21./82 5.9 7.8 07/28/82 7.2 7.2 08/07/82 12.0 9.0 08/14/82 10.9 9.6 08/28/82 11.9 9.0 09/07/82 11.0 9.0 09/14/82 10.0 8.9 09/28/82 10.0 9.2 11114/82 4.8 3.0 4.5 5.3 11/21182 3.5 0.5 4.0 4.4 11/28/82 2.0 2.3 3.5 4.2 12107/82 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.1 12/14/82 1.9 2.8 3.3 4.1 12/21/82 1.9 1.5 2.9 4.0 12/28/82 1.8 0.5 2.6 3.7 01/07/83 1.9 1.5 3.0 4.0 01114/83 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.2 01121183 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.1 01128/83 2.0 4.0 2.2 2.9 02/07/83 2.0 3.5 2.8 3.2 02/14/83 2.0 2.8 2.6 3.1 02/21/83 1.9 3.1 2.6 3.1 02/28/83 2.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 03/07/83 1.8 3.0 2.8 2.9 03/14/83 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 03/21/83 2.0 2.8 2.8 3.0 03/28/83 2.0 3.8 2.5 3.2 04/07/83 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 04/14/83 2.1 3.8 3.0 3.8 04/21/83 2.8 4.2 3.3 3.9 04/28/83 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 05/07/83 5.6 6.1 6.3 5.0 05/14/83 7.1 7.5 7.1 6.6 05/28/83 4.3 7.6 7.5 8.2 Date 10/28/84 1117/84 11/14/84 11/21/84 11/28/84 12107/84 12114/84 12121/84 12128/84 01/07/85 01/14/85 01/21/85 01128/85 02107/85 02114/85 02/21/85 02128/85 03/07/85 03/14/85 03/21/85 03/28/85 04/07/85 04/14/85 04/21/85 04/28/85 05/07/85 05/14/85 05/28/85 06/07/85 06/14/85 06/21185 06/28/85 07/07/85 07/14/85 07/28/85 08/07/85 08/14/85 Black Bear lake 1 0-Foot Depth (BBL) Tempe 3.4 3.6 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.0 3.2 4.6 6.6 9.0 9.0 10.6 Black Bear Lake Mean Weekly Temperature Data Power House Site (PHS) Tempe 3.6 3.2 1.6 4.0 1.4 3.0 3.2 1.5 1.4 3.0 3.8 3.8 2.8 2.0 1.2 3.0 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.4 2.2 3.8 1.0 2.2 3.8 3.8 5.0 4.6 4.8 5.8 8.4 8.0 9.2 12.0 11.4 11.6 Spring Fork Site (SFS) Tempe 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 3.0 1.8 1.4 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.6 2.0 3.0 2.6 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 7.1 7.6 9.2 10.6 9.4 Stream Gravel Site (SGS) Tempe 4.4 4.8 3.8 4.2 4.4 4.0 3.2 2.9 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.4 2.4 3.0 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.9 1.6 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.2 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.4 4.6 5.0 4.2 7.1 7.6 9.2 10.6 10.0 Date 08/28/85 9/07/85 9/14/85 9/21/85 9/28/85 10/07/85 10/14/85 10/21185 10/28/85 1117/85 11/14/85 11/21/85 11/28/85 12107/85 12114/85 12121185 12/28/85 01/07/86 01/14/86 01/21/86 01128/86 02107/86 02114/86 02121/86 02128/86 03/07/86 03/14/86 03/21/86 Black Bear lake 1 0-Foot Depth (BBL) Tempe 11.0 10.0 9.5 9.6 9.0 7.6 6.5 5.5 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.3 Black Bear Lake Mean Weekly Temperature Data Power House Site (PHS) Tempe 11.8 10.2 11.8 9.8 9.0 8.3 6.3 5.0 2.8 3.0 1.5 1.2 1.9 3.0 3.6 3.2 1.1 4.0 2.2 3.0 3.1 2.0 1.9 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Spring Fork Site (SFS) Tempe 10.6 10.3 9.9 10.0 9.4 8.5 7.9 6.3 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.2 1.4 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.0 6.0 Stream Gravel Site (SGS} Tempe BLACK BEAR LAKE DATE AIR WATER POWERHOUSE LAKE FORK SPRING FORK 06105190 5.70 9.34 06106190 5.60 9.30 06101190 5.80 9.29 9.14 6.67 7.05 06108190 5.70 9.60 8.71 6.79 7.17 06109190 5.10 9.73 8.10 6.85 7.36 06/10/90 8.08 7.00 7.49 06/11/90 7.50 6.98 7.55 06112190 8.36 7.07 7.55 06/13/90 9.42 7.20 7.58 06114/90 8.89 7.24 7.74 06115/90 8.26 7.33 7.91 06116190 8.05 7.36 8.00 06117190 8.64 7.37 8.00 06/18/90 9.98 7.50 8.04 06119190 10.15 7.65 8.23 06120190 10.39 7.86 8.49 06121190 9.87 8.96 9.00 06122190 8.68 8.68 9.01 06123190 8.90 8.62 8.93 06124190 8.98 8.51 8.86 06125190 10.03 8.39 8.80 06126190 10.41 8.43 8.87 06/27/90 10.81 8.55 8.98 06/28/90 11.66 8.59 9 .II 06129190 12.30 8.76 9.35 06130190 12.41 8.82 9.60 07/01/90 12.02 9.00 9.91 07/02/90 11.99 9.17 10.25 07/03/90 12.29 9.30 10.47 07/04/90 13.11 9.48 10.65 07105190 13.92 9.61 10.84 07106190 13.71 9.79 11.11 07107190 13.43 9.84 11.36 07108190 13.11 10.00 11.63 07/09/90 11.55 10.10 11.78 07110190 5.78 12.69 11.49 10.13 11.71 07111/90 5.82 12.42 11.30 9.81 11.18 01112190 5.47 12.29 10.63 9.62 11.13 07/13/90 5.82 12.32 11.32 9.79 11.14 07/14/90 5.26 14.66 11.43 9.82 11.10 071!5190 10.80 9.87 11.08 07/16190 10.74 9.94 11.08 07/17/90 11.04 9.84 10.98 07118/90 12.20 9.88 10.88 BLACK BEAR LAKE -DAIL YAVERAGE TEMPERATURE DATA . ·•· .. . . •• ••••••••••••• BLACK BEAR LAKE DATE AIR WATER POWERHOUSE LAKE FORK SPRING FORK 07119/90 --13.76 10.05 10.88 07/20/90 --16.30 10.11 10.98 07/21190 --16.75 10.25 11.26 07/22/90 --17.08 10.34 11.57 07/23/90 --17.36 10.46 11.85 07/24/90 --14.15 10.54 12.09 01125190 --12.29 10.58 12.20 07/26/90 --12.09 10.52 12.20 07/27/90 12.39 10.56 . 12.20 -- 07/28/90 --13.70 10.69 12.11 07/29/90 --14.24 10.77 11.98 01130190 --14.75 10.72 11.89 07/31190 --12.94 10.62 11.84 08/01190 --12.00 10.61 11.88 08/02/90 --12.49 10.72 11.89 08/03/90 --13.35 10.84 12.00 08/04/90 --13.87 10.83 12.15 08/05/90 - - 12.97 10.89 12.01 08/06/90 5.84 14.24 12.20 10.86 12.06 08/07/90 5.97 14.24 12.31 10.93 12.05 08/08/90 6.02 14.84 13.10 11.54 12.10 08/09/90 6.85 15.40 14.04 11.61 12.18 08/10/90 -15.30 15.15 11.84 12.42 08/11190 --16.22 11.83 12.64 08/12190 --17.35 11.83 12.90 08/13/90 --16.02 12.05 13.28 08/14/90 --14.50 12.14 13.77 08/15/90 --14.94 12.11 14.08 08/16/90 - - 14.83 12.08 14.17 08/17/90 --14.83 11.97 14.11 08/18/90 --14.27 11.97 14.00 08/19/90 --14.67 12.00 13.84 08/20/90 - --14.79 11.86 13.93 08121/90 --13.09 12.11 14.16 08/22/90 --12.24 12.27 14.19 08/23/90 - - 12.74 12.31 14.04 08/24/90 - -12.52 12.06 13.70 08/25/90 - -12.54 11.90 13.40 08/26/90 - - 12.76 11.74 13.12 08/27/90 --12.93 11.66 12.84 08/28/90 --13.77 11.58 12.63 08/29/90 - -12.94 11.31 12.64 08/30/90 --12.12 11.03 12.80 08/31190 --11.30 10.83 12.80 BLACK BEAR LAJ<? -.}?AIL'fA\'~lqGETEMP¥~TURE PA{A. < ····.··•··•···.···· /). • •.. << / / ••••·· ..••. ·..•..•. / ··•·•·•··• • ..... · •..•. ··•·.· < > ••.• . ···.• •• ··••·• BLACK BEAR LAKE DATE AIR WATER POWERHOUSE LAKE FORK SPRING FORK 09/01/90 --11.08 10.80 12.65 09/02/90 - - 11.28 10.09 12.48 09/03/90 - - 11.45 10.11 12.40 09/04/90 --12.30 10.76 12.36 09105190 - - 12.33 10.38 13.06 09106190 - - 11.91 10.75 13.09 09101190 --13.05 10.68 12.96 09/08/90 --12.01 10.67 12.75 09/09/90 --10.87 10.69 12.61 09/10/90 --11.43 10.52 12.47 09/11/90 --12.00 10.16 12.27 09/12190 --10.71 9.72 12.15 DATA WAS NOT RECORDED FROM 09/13/90 TO 10/09/90 10/10/90 4.67 11.86 --- 10/11/90 4.28 11.63 --- 10/12190 4.20 11.40 --- 10/13/90 3.68 11.15 -- - 10/14/90 3.67 11.04 -- - 10/15/90 3.41 10.84 5.00 -7.33 10/16/90 3.42 10.78 4.78 -7.14 10/17/90 3.55 10.52 4.93 -6.94 10/18/90 3.56 10.38 4.49 -6.62 10/19/90 3.98 10.33 5.18 -6.50 10/20/90 4.09 10.23 5.61 -6.34 10121/90 3.65 10.07 5.20 -6.11 10122190 4.07 10.01 5.58 -6.04 10/23/90 4.56 9.98 6.36 -6.27 10/24/90 3.93 9.91 5.12 -6.14 10125/90 3.86 9.82 4.86 -5.99 10/26/90 3.98 9.72 5.11 -5.96 10/27/90 3.74 9.56 4.85 -5.78 10/28/90 3.43 9.40 4.37 -5.63 10/29/90 3.50 9.33 4.10 -5.53 10/30/90 3.53 9.21 3.68 -5.40 10/31/90 3.53 9.20 3.97 -5.39 11/01/90 3.69 9.18 4.24 -5.34 11/02/90 3.72 9.15 4.24 -5.24 11/03/90 3.57 9.00 4.14 -5.15 11/04/90 2.97 8.95 3.00 -4.99 11/05/90 3.04 8.94 1.91 -4.96 11/06/90 3.76 8.76 3.42 -4.84 11/07/90 2.85 8.71 2.85 -4.51 BLACK BEAR LA~ -:" DAILYAYERAGE TEMPERATURE DAtA· .. ············ ) .. . . .... :.: ... .··••••· > . • ... > . ·.: BLACK BEAR LAKE DATE AIR WATER POWERHOUSE LAKE FORK SPRING FORK 11/08/90 2.63 8.51 1.72 -4.36 11/09/90 1.95 8.40 0.69 -4.04 ll/10/90 2.28 8.18 0.50 -3.70 11/11/90 1.99 7.90 0.23 -3.50 11/12190 3.10 7.78 0.53 -3.24 11/13/90 3.09 7.63 1.88 -2.85 11/14/90 3.18 7.54 1.84 -2.80 11/15/90 3.74 7.53 2.53 -2.80 ll/16/90 --2.70 -2.87 11117/90 --2.90 -2.99 11118/90 --3.13 -3.11 11/19/90 --1.12 -3.05 11/20/90 ---0.04 -2.97 11/21/90 ---0.05 -2.60 11/22190 ---0.07 -2.32 11/23/90 ---0.05 -2.12 11/24/90 - - -0.06 -2.10 11/25/90 --0.01 -1.97 11/26/90 --0.37 -1.89 11/27/90 --1.01 -1.74 11128/90 --0.98 -1.65 11/29/90 ---0.04 -1.68 11/30/90 ---0.05 -1.68 12101/90 ---0.05 -!.55 12102190 ---0.06 -1.48 12103/90 - --0.01 -1.49 12104/90 --0.32 -1.50 12105/90 --1.08 -1.32 12106/90 - - 2.59 -2.03 12107/90 - - 1.89 -2.11 12/08/90 --1.99 -2.03 12109/90 --1.71 -2.10 12110/90 - -0.61 -2.10 0 12111/90 --0.29 -2.00 12112190 - -0.59 -1.99 12113/90 - - 1.07 -1.87 12114/90 - - 0.22 -1.74 12115/90 - - -0.05 -Ln 12116/90 - - 0.48 -1.71 12/17/90 - - 0.33 -1.48 12/18/90 - - -0.04 2.30 1.44 12119/90 - - -0.09 2.38 1.40 12120/90 - --0.08 2.47 1.39 12121/90 - --0.01 2.73 1.30 BLACK·•·aEAR LAI<E •• • .... l).~!Ll•••0~7~~.~ ••• -r~~rE~TURE·••ot1'J\•••••··· ·•·· ..••.. ·····••••·•••···•••••••••••••·•·••• BLACK BEAR LAKE DATE AIR WATER 12/22/90 12/23/90 12/24/90 12125/90 12/26/90 12127/90 12128/90 12129/90 12130/90 12/31/90 01/01/91 01/02191 01/03/91 01/04/91 01/05/91 01/06/91 01/07/91 01/08/91 01/09/91 01/10/91 01/11/91 01/12191 01/13/91 01/14/91 01/15/91 01/16/91 01/17/91 01/18/91 01/19/91 01/20/91 01/21/91 01122/91 01/23/91 01/24/91 01/25/91 01/26/91 01/27/91 01/28/91 01/29/91 01/30/91 01/31/91 02/01191 02102191 02103/91 POWERHOUSE 0.18 0.82 1.45 1.63 1.55 0.03 -0.09 0.23 0.30 -0.09 -0.07 -0.08 -0.06 -0.05 0.02 O.QJ 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.19 0.70 0.77 1.57 1.33 0.62 0.94 1.44 1.35 0.52 1.05 0.27 0.01 -0.05 0.02 -0.07 -0.03 0.30 1.07 2.20 1.33 1.42 LAKE FORK 2.85 3.03 3.04 2.92 2.20 1.81 2.04 2.22 2.44 2.30 2.22 2.51 2.58 2.56 2.55 2.38 2.48 2.38 2.41 2.67 2.91 2.52 2.33 2.35 2.45 2.51 1.79 1.63 2.04 2.61 2.67 2.59 2.75 2.72 2.77 2.89 3.13 2.98 3.31 3.44 3.05 3.53 3.17 3.25 SPRING FORK 1.22 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.12 1.12 1.19 1.22 1.19 1.09 1.00 1.04 1.10 1.19 1.27 1.45 1.72 1.89 2.14 2.33 2.57 2.33 1.24 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.42 BLACK BEAR LAKE DATE AIR WATER POWERHOUSE LAKE FORK SPRING FORK 02/04/91 1.29 3.43 02105/91 0.91 3.41 02106/91 0.96 3.47 02107/91 0.12 3.23 02/08/91 -0.05 3.27 02109/91 1.75 4.32 02110/91 2.90 5.54 02/11191 2.88 5.64 02/12/91 2.80 5.79 02113/91 2.99 6.37 02/14/91 3.20 6.75 02115/91 2.16 6.24 02/16/91 1.57 5.89 02117/91 1.15 5.87 02/18/91 l. 73 6.38 02119/91 1.79 6.38 APPENDIX E-2 WATER QUALITY REPORT BlACK BEAR LAKE WATER QUALI1Y REPORT The purpose of this report is to present the results of the data compilation task. Numeric data from the series of Environaid reports (Environaid, 1981, 1982a, b, 1983, 1984, 1986) and from water samples collected in 1990 have been combined in Table 1 to allow an assessment of pre-project conditions. Black Bear Lake is found at fU1 1,687 foot elevation on Prince of Wales Island near Klawock, Alaska. It is a north facing cirque lake which naturally discharges over a series of falls to form Black Bear Creek. The combined drop of the falls is approximately 1,400 feet. Except for the Forest Service recreational cabin, the watershed of Black Bear Lake is undisturbed. Forests grow around the lake at elevations less than about 2,000 feet. A significant portion of the watershed is alpine in nature. Sealaska clear cut logged the land where the buried penstock and powerhouse will be located in the mid-1980's. Access roads and quarries where developed for the logging operation. Very little land will need to be cleared for the proposed hydropower project. In the summer of 1990, the Applicant conducted a water quality sampling program in the project area. Samples of water were collected at five locations, including: near the outlet of Black Bear Lake, Black Bear Creek below the falls, near the powerhouse site (bridge), Spring Fork, and Lake Fork. Samples from these locations were collected three times during the summer of 1990, as follows: July 23, September 6, and October 15. Samples were collected by allowing lake or creek water to fill a sampling bottle. The bottle was labeled and sent immediately to a laboratory for analysis. Results of lab analysis are shown in Table 1. Sampling locations are shown on Figure E2-4, in Exhibit E. The water quality of Black Bear Lake is the dominating factor influencing water quality in the project area. Significant characteristics of the water quality of the lake include low dissolved ions and nutrients. Specific conductance, total alkalinity, and total hardness of the lake are extremely low and indicative of high quality water. Since the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are also at low concentrations in the lake, it must have relatively low productivity. The water has high clarity and low suspended solids. Black Bear Creek also has high quality water. Total alkalinity, total hardness, and phosphorus are found at extremely low levels. As could be expected given the larger contributing area, specific conductance and nitrogen levels are slightly higher in the springs area than in the lake. The limited turbidity and suspended sediment samples do not indicate the sediment is being mobili3ed from areas disturbed by logging activities. However, samples were not taken during a storm runoff period when erosion from disturbed areas could be expected to be greatest. TABLE 1 eLAClC BEAR LAKE HYOROPOIIER w~iER QUALITY SUMMARY FOR BLACK BEAR CREEK \lATER QUALITY STATION: I WE FORX I SPRING FORK I LAKE OUTLET SAMPLING DATE: I 7/23/90 9/6/90 10/15/90 1 7t23t9o 9/6/90 1011st9o 1 7123/90 9/6/90 10/15/90 ··------------------------------------------------l---------------------------1---------------------------l-------------------------- S?~CIFIC CONDUCTANCE umhos/cm 25C I 33 23 I 19 15 I 16 14 pH, LAB ANALYSIS glass electrode 2SC I 6.4 5.9 s.1 I 6.4 6.1 6.3 I 3.3 • 9.6 • 6.6 pH, FIELD ANALYSIS glass electrode I I I COLOR I I c. I TURBIDITY nephelometer units I 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0. 5 TOTAL ALKALINITY as HC03, mg/1 I I I TOTAL ALKALINITY as CaC03, ~~~g/1 I 2 LT 2 2 I 3 2 z I LT 2 LT 2 12 TOTAL HARDNESS as CaC03, ~~~g/1 I 5 7 12 I 4 11 lZ I 4 16 16 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS mg/1 I I I TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/1 I 2 s I 4 6 I LT Z 3 CATION/ANION BALANCE I I I I I I TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN mg/1 I 0.33 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I 0.3 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I 0.26 0.9 LT 0.5 NITRATE ANO NITRITE AS N mg/1 I 0.1 0.062 o.o69 I 0.07 0.12 o.oJ9 I 0.03 LT 0.01 0.011 TOTAL NITROGEN AS N mg/1 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 0.9 LT 0.5 A~MONIA AS N mg/1 I I I 70TAL PHOSPHATE AS P mg/1 I LT 0.01 0.03 0.86 * I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 0.014 I LT 0.01 0.02 LT 0.01 QRTHO PHOSPHATE AS P mg/1 I I I SULFATE mg/1 I I I I I I ?OTASSIUH mg/1 I I I CALCIUM 111!1/1 I I I MAGNESIUM IIJ!I/1 I I I ~LUORIOE mg/1 I I I I I I ARSE.'IIC mg/1 I LT 0.005 I LT 0.005 I LT 0. 005 CA:1-ItuM mg/1 I LT O.OOZ I LT 0.002 I LT 0.002 CHLORINE mg/1 I I I Ci'~OI·!IUM mg/1 I I I C::FPEI! !IIQ/1 ILT O.OOi LT 0.002 ILT 0.002 LT 0.002 ILT 0.002 LT 0.002 GOL!l mg/1 I I I !RC~I mg/1 I I I l~A() mg/1 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 MA:iGAIIESE !IIQ/1 I I I HERCURY mg/1 I I I HOLYi!OEIIUH lllg/1 I I I II!CICE~ !IIQ/1 I I I SE~E~IUH mg/1 I I I Sl!.'IER mg/1 I I I s:oruM mg/1 I I I Z!~IC mg/1 I 0.003 LT 0.002 I D.OOS I.T 0.002 I 0.01 0.002 • Va1ue reported by Lab was In error. TABLE 1 (continued) BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROPOWER WATER QUALITY SUMMARY FOR BLACK BEAR CREEK WATER QUALITY STATION: I MOUTH I BELC\1 FALLS BRIDGE SAMPLING DATE: I AUG '82 SEP '82 ocT '82 1 7/23/90 9/6/90 tot1St9o 1 7t23t9o 9/6/90 10/15/90 --------------------------------------------------l---------------------------l--------------------------·1·------------------------- SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE t.mhos/c:m 2SC I I 13 13 I 15000 • 13 pH, LAB ANALYSIS glass electrode ZSC I s.s 6.4 s.1 I 7.3 9.6 6.5 I 7.2 1.6 • 6.3 pH, F:EID ANALYSIS glass electrode I I I COLOR I 30 5 I I TURBIDITY nephelometer units I o.s I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT o.s I LT O.S LT 0.5 LT 0.5 TOTAL ALKALINITY as HC03, IJI!I/1 I 13 J I I TOTAL ALKALINITY as CaC03, lllg/1 I 0 o I 2 2 2 I 2 LT 2 z TOTAL HARDNESS as CaC03, IJI!I/l I 7 5 I 11 5 1s I 5 3 14 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS lllg/1 I 23 zo I I TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/1 I I LTZ 3 I LT 2 3 CATION/ANION 6ALANCE I I I I I I TOTAL ~ELDAHL NITROGEN mg/1 I 0.3 o.4 I 0.16 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I o.zz LT 0.5 LT 0.5 NITRATE AND NITRITE AS N mg/1 I I 0.03 0.013 o.o2 I 0.03 13 o.ote TOTAL NITROGEN AS N mg/1 ,. I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT o.s I LT 0.5 13 LT 0. S AMHOIIlA AS N lllg/l I I I TOTAL PHOSPHATE AS P mg/1 I LT o.os LT 0.05 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 LT 0.01 ORTHO PHOSPHATE AS P mg/1 I I ! SULFATE 111!111 I 4 3 I ! I I I ~OTASS!UM mg/l I 0.2. o.4 I I CALCIUM 1119/1 I 2.4 2 I I' HAGifESIUH mg/l I 0.4 o.3 I I FLUORIDE ~~g/1 I I I I I I ARSENIC III!J/1 I I LT 0.005 I LT 0.005 CACHIUH 111911 I I LT 0.002 I LT 0.002 CHLORINE mg/1 I LT Z LT 1 I I CHROMIUM mg/1 I I I COP?ER mg/1 I 0.01 0.006 !LT 0.002 LT O.OOZ ILT o.ooz 0.006 GOLO 111911 ! LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I I !ROlf mg/1 l 0.19 o.19 I I LEAO lllg/1 I LT 0.05 LT 0.02 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 ~ANGANESE 1119/l I I I MERCURY 111911 I I I I"OLYBDE!IUM mg/1 I LT 0.02 LT 0.02 I I NICKEL mg/1 I I I SELEN !UM 111911 I I I S!LVEi< mg/1 ILT 0.002 LT o.ooz I I SODIUM lllg/1 I 1 1.1 I I ZINC mg/1 I 0.018 LT .002 I 0.003 LT 0.002 I 0.002 0.003 • V~l~e reported by Lab was In error. APPENDIX E-3 SECTION 401 WATER QUALI1Y CERTIFICATION WALTER J. HICKEl.. GOVERNOR DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE (907) .789·3151 P.O. Box 32420 Juneau, AK 99803 Ms. Debbie Howe HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200, Building C 11225 S. E. Sixth Street Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Dear Ms. Howe: FAX# 789-4877 May 13, 1991 This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the request by Mr. Robert Grimm. Alaska Power and Telephone Company for water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The Department of Environmental Conservation will review Mr. Grimm's request and make a decision during the next consultative stage at which time the pr.oject will also be reviewed for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Sincerely, [~ V?'-../t._ Jt /;-l'' 1 \ . ' Elena Witkin Environmental Technician cc: Robert Grimm, Alaska Power & Telephone Co. l990 AlASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY ---J Elena Witken P.O. BOX222• 191 OTTO STREET FIORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON SNI368 (2011)-385-1733 FAX (2011)-385-5177 December 18, 1990 Division of Environmental Quality Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska Alaska No. AK890309-03J Dear Elena: We are proceeding to file a license application for the above referenced hydroelectric project. The regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires that our application contain one of the following from your agency. 1. A copy of a water quality certificate as described in section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; or 2. An agency statement that such certification is waived; or 3. A copy of a dated letter from the applicant to the appropriate agency requesting 401 certification. As we discussed on the telephone the purpose of this letter is to request a water quality certificate as described in section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In addition, I have enclosed the results of the laboratory analyses of water samples taken this year. Please let me know if you require anything further from us to complete the 401 certification. Sinc~y, .. · . // ~/I "-/ j{t;_k~~ Robert s. Grimfu President Enc. cc Neil MacDonald HDR Engineering Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. sixth street Building c Bellevue, wa. 98004-6441 @@ ©@ 0\c'l ~0 ~ : I L- 1990 Lauells~ Test~ Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 -----..;·_/I Chemistry. Mic'rd:liok:lqy. arrl Technical Services CLIENT: Alaska Power ' Tower P.O. Box 39 Craig, AIC 99921 ATTN Roger Clay Work ID Slack Sear Lake Hydro Taken Sy Cl i•nt Transported by: Hand Delivered Type Water SAHPLE IDENTIFICATION: Saaple Description 01 88 Lake 02 sse Fall's 03 Spring Fork 04 Lake Fork OS Power House 06 Kethod Blank C e r t I f i c 1 t e o f A n a I y s i s Work Order# 90·10·318 DATE RECEIVED 10/17/90 DATE OF REPORT: ll/01/90 Collection Date 10/10/90 11:30 10/IS/90 10:30 10/15/90 11:30 10/IS/90 II :00 10/15/90 10:00 N/A The flag "U" indicates the analyte of interest wu' not detected, to the li•it of detection shown. Unless otherwise instructed all sa•ples will be discarded on 12/IS/90 R•spectfully sub•itted, Laucks Testing Laboratories, Inc. This "'1)0(1 is sub<rillll<l for 1fle exclus.,. usa of the per:soon. ~. "' CXII'PO'atiOn to wiiOm it is add..-ed. ~~ usa of tne name of thiS company 0< any member of its Slalf in connecflOII with lhe ac!lle<tising 01 -of any PfOdUC'I at. Procesa Will be !J'anteCI only on .,.,.,..110:1. This company a<:ce!)ts no responsbollty except for 1M -~ of inapection IndiO< analyllalin good failll and ac:cotdong to !he ru• ollllol l1'lldll and of ICllllfiCe. Lauclls~ Test~ Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry. M~ and Technical Services CLIENT : Alaska Power ' Tower Certificate of Analysis Work Order # 90-10-318 TESTS PERFORMED AND RESULTS: Analyte Units ll ll ll ~ Hardness as CaCO] ~~g/L 16. 16. 12. 12. Nitrate + Nitrite as N ~~g/L 0.011 0.020 0.0]9 0.069 Specific Conductance Kicra.hos/ca 14. 1]. 15. 2]. Total Alkalinity as CaCO] ~~g/L 12. 2. 2. 2. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen N ~~g/L 0.50 u 0.50 u 0.50 u 0. 50 u Total Nitrogen asN ag/L 0.5 u 0.5 u 0.5 u 0.5 u Tau I Phosphate asP ~~g/L 0.010 u 0.010 u 0.014 0.86 Total Suspended Solids ~~g/L 3. 3. 6. 6. Turbidity NTU 0.5 u 0.5 u 0.5 u 0.5 u pH gl alec @25C 6.6 6.5 6.] 6.1 Analyte Units J!2 Hardness as CaC03 ag/L 14. Nitrate + Nitrite as N ag/L 0.018 Specific Conductance Kicra.hos/ca 13. Total Alkalinity as CaC03 ~~g/L 2. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen N ~~g/L 0.50 u Total Nitrogen as N ~~g/L 0.5 u Total Phosphate asP ~~g/L 0.010 u Total Suspended Sol ids ~~g/L ]. This report IS sutiiT'IIIecl lor tile exclusiVe use o1 the penal, partnefSIIip. 01 a>rpOrauon to whom ~ is addressed. S<.OseQuent use of tile name of tn1s company 01 any rnemller of its stall in connect1011 wltll the advertising 01 sale of any product at procesa Will De !J'antecl only on contracl. Th1s company accepts no responsobllity except lor the due per1ornw1ce o1 inspection .-.d/01 analysis '" good faith and accorGing to the rules of the trme and of saence. ·Laucks(i Test~ Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry~ and Technical Services CLIENT : Alaska Power ' Tower TESTS PERFORMED AND RESULTS: Analyte Units Turbidity NTU o.s u pH gl erec @25C 6.3 C e r t i f i c a t • o f A n a 1 y s i s Work Ord•r # 90·10·318 Contlnu•d froa Above • Thia -' ia sutlnWI!ed lor 1M exd...-uH of tile perscn. pal1ne<SIIip. 01 corpotatiOII to whom ~ is ~-SIJ>MQuent use ol the name of th1s company 01 any member of ~ stall in eonnecuon witll !l'le ~ 01 sale ol any produc:! Cit proc:ea Will be lJW1Ied only on con.-acr. Thia compa~~y accepts no teSQQn!llbllily except lor lhe -pe11orm1nce of inspec;tion /lllCIOI lll8lySII in good taith and ~;ng to !he rules ollhe ,,_ and o1 saence. -. Laucks~ Testin.g Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chern~ MicrcbK:lloqy. arxf Technical Services REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9010318 PREPARATION BLANKS Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Nitrate + Nitrite as N Bl022NNW01 Preparation Date: 0.010 U Control Limit mg/L 10/22/90 0.020 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Hardness as Bl024HARW01 1. 000 u : mg/L CaC03 Preparation Date: 10/24/90 Control Limit 2.000 This blank and comments, if any, apply to ~he following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Total Suspended Solids Bl023TSSW01 Preparation Date: 2.000 U Control Limit mg/L 10/23/90 4.000 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Total Alkalinity as CaC03 Bl025ALKW01 Preparation Date: 10/25/90 2.000 U Control Limit 4.000 : mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 This,_, is subnillecl for the exclus111e use ol tha pet'\1(1>, ~~~~.or a.rporat•on to ..nom 11 is aclclte&MIG. 5U:Isequent use o! tl'le name ol !!>IS company or any memllet o1 its SUIIf in con..:tion With ,. acrv.rtislng « sale ol any product or process will be !J8111ed only on conl'act. Th•s company ac:cepts no responslbtlity ••eept tot the due ~ ol inspectton INJ/or analySis in good tanto anc:1 accoming to tl'le rules Of the trme anc:1 ot science. Lauckst~ T~ Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry. M~ and Technical Services REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9010318 PREPARATION BLANKS Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Total Phosphate as P Bl025P04TW01 Preparation Date: 0.010 U Control Limit mg/L 10/25/90 0.020 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample{s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen N Bl031TKNW01 Preparation Date: 0.500 U Control Limit mg/L 10/30/90 1.000 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 * = outside control limits U = analtye not detected ",,..._,,,,.. This repor1 is SUCm!led lot tne excluSI\fe use of tne penon, ~ip. ot ~--to ..nom it ill add.......:t. ~uent use of the name of tnos com"""y ot aJ"f rMmbef o1 its stall in connect1on wotn 1t1e adYe<tislng ot -of aJ"f llfi)CiuCI <:11 l!fOCess will be ~ranted only on conl'acl. ThiS company accepts no responsbtloty except fQ' the due ~ of inspection l¥tdiot analysiS in good 1811h and ~ to the rules of the trede and of saence. Laucksi) T~ Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry Mic:robbloqy. arxl Technical Services REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9010318 SAMPLE DUPLICATES Test Relative Percent Difference Control Limit Hardness as CaC03 13 20 This duplicate and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Relative Percent Difference Control Limit Total Alkalinity as CaC03 40 * 10 This duplicate and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 While the RPD is greater than the control limit, the value is within + or -the LLD. Test Relative Percent Difference Control Limit Total Phosphate as P 0 30 This duplicate and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Relative Percent Difference Control Limit : Total Suspended Solids 18 20 This duplicate and comments, if any, apply to the following samp1e(s): 1-5 * = outside control limits NC = Not able to calculate RPD Lauckse Test~ Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry. Micrt:biolc>qy. arx:i Technical Services REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9010318 SAMPLE DUPLICATES Test * -outside control limits NC = Not able to calculate RPD Thia Fe11Q1t is subn'inect tor the exclusive use of the person, ~ip. or -lllion to whom rt is addresaect. s.bsequent use ot the name ot thiS company or any member ol ils stall in connection wrth the advenislng or sale of any product r:1 proc:eu will be gantecl only on contract. ThiS company accepts no responsobtloty except tor the -perfomw1ce of inspection ond/or analysis in good larth and accorcing to the rules o1 the trm. and ot saenc:e. Chemistry.~ aoo Technical Services {I • CLIENT: HDR Engineering C e r t I f I c a t e o f A n a I y 1 I 1 ~1225 S.£. Sixth St. Suite 200 Building C Bellevue, WA 98004-6441 ATTN Roger Clay Work ID Taken By z llack Bear Lake Client Transported by: - Typ41 : Water SAHPLE IDENTIFICATION: Suple Oeser let ton 01 Ml Lake 02 M2 Below Falh OJ II) Upper IBC 1.-; tr-' 04 114 Lake fork - 05 115 Spring fork 06 Mllthod llank Work OrderM 90-09-109 DATE RECEIVED z 09/10/90 DATE OF REPORT: 09/27/90 CLIENT JOB ID : 7042-001-004 Collect ion Date 09/06/90 1):45 09/06/90 0):30 09/05/90 10:05 09/05/90 10:50 09/05/90 10:40 N/A Tha flag "U" lnc:licatn the analyte of interest wu not detected, to tha ll•lt of detect ion thown. Unless otherwise Instructed all sa.,les will be discarded on 11/08/90 Respectfully subeitted, ;; .. ;:::5··· '-J. K. Owens Inc. Thil ~ ileul:lrnlaed for lhl exc:IUIMI UN ol lhl penon, ~.or~ 10 .mom M ill~. ~ UM ol lhl ,_ otlllill compeny or- ,_ ol illllllaflln ~wilt! 11e ~ ar _.. o1-.,._ 111 ~will 1:)1 IJ'IIIIIIId only an connc:L Thil CIDftiPIIIIY IICCeplll no~ except for .... due pelforli•IOt ol inepeclion llldlot ~ In pld ,... Md ~ 10 ......... ollhl ... Md of tiCIIence . 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry. Mk:tOOidoqy. aoo Technical Services -e CLIENT : HDR Engineering C e r t I f I c a t e 0 f A n 1 1 y I I I Work Order # 90-09-109 TESTS PERFORMED AND RESULTS: ncJ / .,,,-, ' .1o,.:-..._.(/• _, ' < '; -(/-. Analyte Units u ll .tl o• Arsenic (Hethod 206.3) ~~g/L 0.005 u 0.005 u 0.005 u 0.005 u Cacllli1111 (Hethod 213.1) .g/L 0.002 u 0.002 u 0.002 u 0.002 u Copper (Hethod 220.1) .g/L 0.002 u 0.002 u 0.006 0.002 u Hardneas as CaC03 ~~g/L 16. 5. 3. 7. Lead (Hethod 1•20) ~~g/L 0.01 u 0.01 u 0.01 u 0.01 u Nitrate + Nitrite as N ~~g/L 0.010 u 0.013 13. 0.062 Specific Conductance Kicra.hoa/c• 16. 13. 15000. 33. Total Alkalinity 11 CaC03 .g/L 2. u 2. 2. u 2. u Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen N .g/L 0.9 0.50 u 0.50 u . 0.50 u Total Nitrogen 11 N ~~g/L 0.9 0.5 u 13. 0.5 u Total Phosphate 11 P .g/L 0.02 0.010 u ~ 0.010 u 0.03 Total Suspended Solids .g/L 2. u 2. u 2. u 2. Turbidity NTU o.s u 0.5 u 0.5 u 0.5 u Zinc (Method 289. I) .g/L 0.002 0.002 u 0.003 0.002 u pH gl elec t25C 9.6 9.6 1.6 5.9 Analyte Units Arsenic (Hethod 206.3) ~~g/L 0.005 u Cad8i1111 (Hethod 213.1) ~~g/L 0.002 u Thia report il IUbnilled lor the exelulloe UM al the I*D!. pallnerlllip, or corporlllion 10 whom M il ~-~ .,. olthe name al IIIia c:Ofi"*'Y or any -al ila IIIII In c:onnection willl .,. ~ or IIIII al ., producl or ~ wil be ~ only on conhel. Thia c:Ofi"*'Y -=cepca no reepool8ibiM)' exc.pt lor the due pel1or11•a a1 !nlpeCiian llldlor ana~ya In good lllillllfld ICCOftling 10 the ru1ee olthe tr8de lfld a1 -.-. Chemistry. MbdXlloqy. ard Technical Services CLIENT : HDR Engineering TESTS PERFORMED AND RESULTS: Analyte Units Copper ( Kethod 220. 1 ) -.g/L Hardnesa a1 CaC03 -.g/L Lead (Kethod 7420) -.g/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N -.g/L Specific Conductance "icrOIIhos/e~~ Total Alkalinity as CaC03 -.g/L Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen N -.g/L Total Nitrogen as N -.g/L Total Phosphate as P -.g/L Total Suspended Sol ida -.g/L Turbidity NTU Z!nc (Kethod 289.1) -.g/L pH gl elec USC !i 0.002 u II . 0.01 u 0.12 19. 2. o.so u o.s u 0.010 u 4. o.s u 0.002 u 6.1 C e r t I f I c a t e o f A n e 1 y 1 I 1 Work Order ~ 90·09·109 Continued Fra. Above Thil report ill IUbftittlld lor !he exd\IIINe 11M ot !he 1*'1011, l)el'lnlriNp, Of or:JillOfation to whOm M II ~-~ UM ot !he ,_ ot 1hil ~ Of lin'/ ,.,_..,... ot a llall 1ft COIVIKtion will> .,. ~ or _.. ot lin'! pnx1uc:1 ar ~ will biiiJIII*Id only on -.ct. Thil ~ _,... no •IMIPO'IIibillly •'""'PP lor !he due Plllbn•a ot inlpeCiiOn -Of IWIIyeill 1ft gDOd 1111111 Md ~to !he ru111e ot !he ndlt Md ot ~ REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9009109 PREPARATION BLANKS Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Arsenic (Method 206.3) B0911HY02 Preparation Date: 09/11/90 0.005 U Control Limit 0.010 mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blft.nk Name Cone Found Units : Hardness as B0911HAR01 1. 000 u mg/L CaC03 Preparation Date: 09/11/90 Control Limit 2.000 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Cadmium (Method 213.1) : B0912AA01 Preparation Date: 09/12/90 0.002 u Control Limit 0.004 mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 " Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Lead (Method B0912AA01 0.010 u mg/L . . 7420) Preparation Date: 09/12/90 Control Limit 0.020 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following samp1e(s): 1-5 Chem~M~ arx:llechnicai Services REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9009109 PREPARATION BLANKS Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Zinc (Method B0912AA01 0.002 u : mg/L 289.1) Preparation Date: 09/12/90 Control Limit 0.004 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Copper (Method 220.1) B0912AA01 Preparation Date: . . : mg/L 0.002 U Control Limit 09/12/90 0.004 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Nitrate + Nitrite as N : B0913AAW01 Preparation Date: . . : mg/L 0.010 U Control Limit 09/13/90 0.020 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 ~ Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Total Suspended Solids B0913TSSW01 Preparation Date: 2.000 U Control Limit mg/L 09/13/90 4.000 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 - n. NPQI'I • IUbmlllld lor 1M ~ -of 1M pMCI\, jiii1NI'IIIIp, Ot eorporllliOII to wiiOm It • addlwMd. ~ -of 1M-of this comj)lny Ot any -of • ...., In -will! lie ~ or _,. of _, lltOCMt or ~ will be (JWIIIICI only on GQnhCI. Thil _,. acoepca no ,..,.,.l8lbilil)' -=-PC lor 1M due pr~~torn•a of Nptll:llon PNot .,..,.. in QOOd lllilh lind -*"'lto 1M ,...... of 1M ndrt lind of .--. • REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9009109 PREPARATION BLANKS Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Total Alkalinity as CaC03 B0919ALKW01 Preparation Date: 09/19/90 : 2.000 U Control Limit : 4.000 : mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Total Phosphate as P B0919P04TW01 Preparation Date: 09/19/90 0.016 u Control Limit 0.020 mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Total Phosphate as P B0913P04TW01 Preparation Date: 0.010 u Control Limit mg/L . . 09/13/90 0.020 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 2-5 • Test Blank Name Cone Found Units Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen N B0921TKNWW01 Preparation Date: 09/21/90 : 0.500 u Control Limit 1.000 : mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-3 Chemistry. Mk:IOOdoqy. arrl Technical Services • REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9009109 PREPARATION BLANKS * = outside control limits u = analtye not detected Tille NIIOI' ia ~ lor IN 8liCiuUie .-ol IN peNOn, ~. 01 c:arpcnllon 1D w11om M ia ~-~ .-ol IN ,_ ol IIIIa COI'fti*IY 01 ""'f n..-ol 118 .., In c:onnKtion ..,.. b ~ 01 _.. o1 ""'f pnx1ue1 ar ~ will be 1J.-c1 t:Jdr 011 -. Tille COI'fti*IY M:c:epl8 no ..-paollibillly acep~ lor IN -periDI n•oce ol lnllpection lrldlar 8Miylia In gDOd f8ilh end -*'g 1D IN II*-oliN tr.te end ol ecMnc:e . . . Laucksil Test~ Laboratories. Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry. M~ arrl Technical Services CLIENT: HDR Engineering 11225 s.e. Sixth st. Suitt 200 Building C hlltvue, IIA -.-6441 ATTN : Roger Cliy Wort ID : - T1ktn By : Client Trinsporttd by: - Type : Miter SAftPLE IDEITlflCATION: S11ple Dessr ipt ion Collection htt 01 11 Btlov fills 02 12 Bridge 03 13 Late fork 07/23/90 01:50 07/23/90 03:15 07/23/90 09:15 Certificate of Analysis llork Ordtrl : 90-o7-442 DATE RECEIVED 1 07/31/90 DATE CJ REPORT: 08/31190 CLIENT JOB JD : Job 7041·001-002 Silple Dncr iption 04 14 Spring fork OS IS Likt Outlet 0& Ntthod Blink Collection Date 07/23/90 09:30 07/23/90 01:00 N/A The fl1g •u• indicitts tht inllytt of interest Vii not detecttd, to tht li1it of detection shovn. Unless othervise instructed ill SiiPlts vill bt discarded on 10/05/90 Respectfully subaitted, laucks Testing Liboritories, Inc. Charter Member American Crun::il of lroeperdent Laboratories Chemistry. Mic:rdJioloqy. arrl Technical Services a.JEIT 1 IIIII E•gi•Hr 1111 TESTS P£Rf'OIIIED AJID REill.TS1 Anilyte Units eo,,., (lltthod 220,1) ~giL Hirons •• C.C03 •giL lta4 (llttbod 7420) ~giL Mitr1t1 + Mitritt 11 II ~giL Total Alkalinity 11 CaC03 •giL Tot1l KJtl4ahl Mitroglft M •giL Tot1l Mitrotll 11 M Tot1l Ph~1t1 II P Zinc (lltthod 289,1) pH Anilyte to,ptr (llttbod 220.1) HlrdftHI II CIC03 ~giL ~giL IITU ~giL gl tllc 125C Unih ~giL 1giL 0.002 u II, 0.01 u 0.03 2. 0.16 o.s u 0.010 u o.s u 0.003 7.3 Certificate of Analysis llort Ordtr I 90-07-442 0.002 u s. 0.01 u 0.03 2. 0.22 o.s u 0.010 u 0.5 u 0.002 7.2 , .. ' r . . ... . 0.002 u s. 0.01 U 0.10 2. 0.33 o.s u 0.010 u 0.5 0.003 6.4 0.002 u 4. 0.01 u 0.07 3. 0.30 0.5 u 0.010 u 0.5 u 0.005 6.4 L' .-. 0.002 u 4. Chaner Member American Coon:il of lndependeru LabJratories Chemistry. Mk:IOOioloqy. arxl Technical Services cum • HDI Engb,.., ••• T£8T8 I'Of'OIIIEI All Rllll Jla Anilyh Units ltld (lltthN 7420) ag/l litratt + lltritt 11 I ag/l Tot1l Alkllinity 11 CaC03 lf/l Total KJtldahl litrottn I tg/l Tot•l lltrog .. 11 I ~g/l Total Phosphat• 11 P ag/l T11rbldUy ITU Zinc (ltthod 289.J) ag/l pH tl alec me 0.01 u 0.03 2. u 0.26 o.s u 0.010 u o.s u O.OJO 3.3 Certificate of Analysis York Ornr 1 to-07-442 CoAtinutd Fr01 Above Charter t.1ember American Ccuocil of lndeperdent Laboratories Laueks~ Testing Laboratories, Inc. 940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063 Chemistry.~ arrl Technical Services REfORT ON WORK ORPER 9007442 PREPARATION BLANKS Test Blank Name Cone Found Units LeAd <Method 7420) B0803AA01 PYeparation Date: 08/03/'90 : 0.010 U Control Limit : 0.020 : mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Zinc <Method 289.1) B0803AA01 Preparation Date: 08/03/90 : 0.002 U Control Limit : 0.004 mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Copper <Method 220.1> B0803AA01 Preparation Date: 08/03/'30 . . : mg/L 0.002 U Control Limit 0.004 This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-5 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Total Phosphate as P B0807P04TW01 Preparation Date: 08/07/'90 0.010 U Control Limit : 0.020 : mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sampleCsl: 1-5 Charter Member American Co.m:il of Irxjependem l..aborntories Chemistry.M~ arxi Technk:al Services REPORT ON WORK ORDER 9007442 PREPARATION BLANKS Test Blank Name Cone Found Units : Nitrate + Nitrite as N : B0820AAW01 Preparation Date: 08/20/90 0.010 U Control Limit 0.020 : mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-4 Test Blank Name Cone Found Units ~ Total KJeldahl Nitrogen N B0824TKNW01 Preparation Date: 08/24/90 : 0.240 U Control Limit : 0.300 1 mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to the following sample(s): 1-4 Test Blank Name Cone Fc•und Units : Total Alkalinity as CaC03 c B0827ALKW01 Preparation Date: 08/27 /'30 : 3.000 Control Limit 4.000 1 mg/L This blank and comments, if any, apply to th& following sample(s): 1-5 *=outside control limits U = analtye not detected Charter Member Amerk::an Cooocil of lrdepen:iern Laboratories WATER QUALI'IY DATA SUMMARIES BLACK BEAR LAKE HYOROP~ER WATER QUALITY SUMMARY FOR BLACK BEAR CREEK WATER QUALITY STATION: I LAKE FORK I SPRING FORK I LAKE OUTLET SAMPLING DATE: I 7/23/90 9/6/90 10t15t9o I 7/z3t9o 9/6/90 10/15/90 I 7/ZJ/90 9/6/90 10/15/90 ·························-------------------------l---------------------------1---------------------------l-------------------------- SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE umhos/an 25C I 33 23 I 19 15 I 16 14 pH, LAB ANALYSIS glass electrode Z5C I 6.4 5.9 6.1 I 6.4 6.1 6.3 I 3.3 * 9.6 • 6.6 pH, FIELD ANALYSIS glass electrode I I I COLOR I I I TURBIDITY nephelometer units I 0.5 LT 0.5 LT D.5 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 LT 0. 5 LT 0.5 TOTAL ALKALINITY as HCOJ • m;/1 I I I TOTAL ALKALINITY as CaC03. m;/1 I 2 LT 2 2 I 3 z 2 I LT 2 LT 2 12 TOTAL HARDNESS as CaC03 , 1119/1 I 5 7 12 I 4 11 12 I 4 16 16 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS m;/1 I I I TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1119/1 I 2 s I 4 6 I LT 2 3 CATION/ANION BALANCE I I I I I I TOTAL KJELOAHL NITROGEN m;/1 I 0.33 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I 0.3 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I 0.26 0.9 LT 0.5 NITRATE ANO NITRITE AS N m;/l I 0.1 0.062 o.o69 I 0.07 0.12 o.o39 1 0.03 LT 0.01 0.01! TOTAL NITROGEN AS N m;/1 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I tT 0.5 0.9 LT 0.5 AI'MONIA AS H m;/1 I I I 70TAL PHOSPHATE AS P m;/1 I LT 0.01 0.03 0.86 • I LT 0.01 tT 0.01 0.014 I LT O.Ol 0.02 LT 0.01 ORTHO PHOSPHATE AS P m;/1 I I I SULF'ATE m;/1 I I I I I I POTASSIUH m;/1 I I I CALCIUM 1119/1 I I I MAGNESIUM 111911 I I I FLUORIDE 1119/1 I I I I I I ARSENIC m;/1 I LT 0.005 I LT 0.005 I LT 0.005 C.'IDM!UM 111911 I LT 0.002 I LT 0.002 I LT 0.002 CHLORINE m;/1 I I I CHROMIUM m;/1 I I I COPP~R m;/1 ILT 0.002 LT 0.002 ILT o.ooz LT o.ooz ItT 0.002 LT 0.002 GOLD 111911 I I I IRON 11191 t I I I LEAD 1119/1 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 !"ANGANESE m;/1 I I I MERCURY m;/1 I I I I"OLYSOENU/1 mg/1 I I I NICKEL m;/1 I I I SELE!flUM 1119/1 I I I SILVER m;/1 I I I SODIUM m;/1 I I I ZINC 11191 t I 0.003 LT O.OD2 I 0.005 LT 0.002 I 0.01 0.002 .; • Value reported by Lab was In error. BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROPOWER VATER QUALITY SUMMARY FOR BLACK BEAR CREEK WATER QUALITY STATtON: I MOUTH I BEL0\1 FALLS I BRIDGE SAMPLING DATE: l AUG '82 SEP '82 OCT 'B2 I 7/23/90 9/6/90 10/15/90 l 7/23/90 9/S/90 10/15/90 -----------·············--------------------···-·-1···--------------------·-··l··--·----------------------l-------------------------- SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Ulllhot/cm ZSC I I 13 13 I 15000 • 13 pH. LAB ANALYSIS glass electrode ZSC I 6.5 6.4 6.7 I 7.3 9.6 6.5 I 7.2 1.6 • 6.3 pH. FIELD ANALYSIS glass electrode I I I COLOR I 30 5 I I TURBIDITY nephelometer units I o.6 I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 LT 0. 5 LT 0.5 TOTAL ALKALINITY as HC03. mg/1 I 13 3 I I TOTAL ALKALINITY as CaC03, mg/1 I 0 o I z 2 2 I LT 2 TOTAL HARDNESS as CaC03. mg/1 l 7 5 I 11 5 16 I 5 3 14 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS mg/1 I 23 20 I I TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/1 I I LT 2 3 I LT 2 3 CATION/ANION BALANCE I I I I I I TOTAL KJELOAHL NITROGEN mg/1 I 0.3 o.• I 0.16 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I 0.22 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 NITRATE AND NITRITE AS N mg/1 I I 0.03 0.013 o.o2 I 0.03 13 0.018 TOTAL NITROGEN AS N mg/1 I I LT 0.5 LT 0.5 LT 0.5 I LT 0.5 13 LT 0.5 AMMONIA AS N mg/1 I I I TOTAL PHOSPHATE AS P mg/1 I LT 0.05 LT 0.05 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 LT 0.01 ORTHO PHOSPHATE AS P mg/1 I I I SULFATE mg/1 I 4 3 I I I I I PQTASSIU11 mg/1 I 0.2 o.4 1 I CALCIU11 mg/1 I 2.4 z I I HAGNES IU11 111911 I 0.4 a.3 I I FLUORIDE mg/1 I I I I I I ARSENIC mg/1 I I LT 0.005 l LT 0.005 CADMIUM mg/1· I I LT 0.002 I u a. oo2 CHLORINE mg/l I LT Z LT 1 I I CHROMIUM ~~~g/1 I I I COPPER 111911 I 0.01 0.006 ILT 0.002 LT 0.002 ILT 0.002 0.006 GOLD ~~~g/1 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I I IRON 111911 I 0.19 o.1s I I LEAD 111911 I LT o.os LT O.DZ I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 I LT 0.01 LT 0.01 MANGANESE 1119/1 I I I MERCURY 111911 I I I MOLYBDENUM ~~~g/1 I LT 0.02 u o.oz I I NICKEL 111911 I I I SELEN!UH ~~~g/1 I I I SILVER mg/1 ILT 0.002 LT o.ooz I I SOOIU11 mg/1 I 1 1.1 I I ZINC mg/1 I 0.018 LT .ooz I 0.003 LT O.OOZ I 0.002 0.003 • Value reported by Lab was fn error. APPENDIX E-4 TAILRACE STUDIES BLACK BEAR LAKE TAILRACE STUDIES INTRODUCI'ION A groundwater tracing study was completed to verify the design of the tailrace injection system to ensure that groundwater will re-emerge in the vital spawning habitat in the spring upwelling areas of Black Bear Creek. The study focused on the E-2 powerhouse location as well as reviewing general geologic conditions in the alluvial fan portion of Black Bear Creek. This report starts with a discussion of geologic conditions followed by the results of the dye study. A discussion on the affects of aquifer storage on sustaining spring flows during dry periods and reducing fluctuations in upwelling flow rates is also included in this report. GENERAL GEOLOGY A series of observations have been made on the alluvial fan aquifer at the Black Bear Lake hydropower site. These observations are based on recent field work at the site, on the various geologic reports available for the project and on Environaid's habitat map of the upwelling area. The alluvial fan begins approximately 200 feet upstream of the former bridge site where Black Bear Creek bends 90 degrees and has four channels (Figure 1). It ends where Black Bear Creek enters Black Lake. Above the 90 degree bend, Black Bear Creek flows through a narrow canyon which is filled with talus and debris from mass wasting or avalanches. Materials deposited in the narrow canyon transition to and supply materials for the alluvial fan. In general, this is a typical alluvial fan deposit characterized by concave radial profiles associated with a downslope grain size reduction. This typical horizontal stratification of sediment sizes is due to the larger and heavier sediments being transported shorter distances than smaller sediments. The downslope decrease in size of the alluvial deposits is best seen by examination of the stream bed materials. At the alluvial fans origin, channel bed materials are predominantly boulders six inches in size or larger. Large boulders continue to frequently occur in the bed materials to approximately the large dog leg found about 100 feet below the E-2 power site. Below this same dog leg where the stream frequently goes dry, the bed materials are mostly in the three-to six-inch size range. In the upwelling areas, one- half-to two-inch gravels are the predominant bed material. Closer to Black Lake, sands are found with no gravels or boulders present. There is also significant vertical stratification of the materials comprising the alluvial fan at the upstream end of the formation. The well log and seismic profiles indicate that depth to bedrock along the upper 300 feet of the fan is 30 to 50 feet. The well log and test pits indicate in this area that fine gravels and course sands form the top three-to eight-feet thick layer of the alluvial fan and are underlain by talus. Since fluvial materials are deposited on an alluvial fan in distinct flood events, they will occur in bedded vertical layers having widely varying hydraulic conductivities. The significance of these vertical layers is that some zones in the fan will be comprised of larger sediment particles than others and thus, have higher hydraulic conductivities than other layers. Larger volumes of subsurface flow will follow path lines through the zones of larger sediment particles. One such zone of relatively high hydraulic conductivity will be along the bed of abandoned channels. Talus deposits in the upper end of the fan will also have high hydraulic conductivity. Several abandoned channels branch from the present course of Black Bear Creek. Their existence is due to wetter and cooler climatic conditions which occurred greater than 300 years ago. That is, prehistoric streamflow conditions were much higher than those that presently occur. Therefore, a larger and more active channel system was present in the past. In geologic parlance, Black Bear Creek is now an underfit stream. That is, the channel system is larger than can be supported by the present flow regime. Two abandoned channels are readily identifiable along the course of Black Bear Creek. These abandoned channels represent paths of groundwater divergence from the present course of Black Bear Creek. One abandoned channel exists at the head of the alluvial fan. Aerial photographs and the topographic map prepared by Harza indicates the Harza powerhouse location lies along the line of an abandoned channel which begins right at the 90 degree bend near the head of the alluvial fan and is oriented in a northwest direction. This abandoned channel appears to rejoin Black Bear Creek from the northeast below the bridge site but above the E-2 powerhouse location. Upwellings in Lake Fork would be partially supported by groundwater following the path of this abandoned channel. Another abandoned channel starts approximately 100 feet below the bridge site and flows southwest from the present channel. The abandoned channel appears to reach a point approximately 100 feet south from the present channel before it turns and runs parallel to the present channel. It is not obvious in the field or on aerial photography where this abandoned channel rejoins the main channel. There are indications that this channel remains separate until the upwelling area. This lower abandoned channel is probably one of the flow routes for water radiating southward through the Black Bear Creek aquifer and to the southern most upwelling areas. However, during field work, no surface seepage was observed entering the abandoned channel. The absence of seepage was unusual because there was only a 15 foot separation between Black Bear Creek and an old scour hole in the abandoned channel and because the bottom of the scour hole was approximately 10 feet below the water surface in Black Bear Creek. Such a phenomena indicates that fine sediments are forming at least a partial seal on the bed and banks of Black Bear Creek, which is a typical condition for streams. This lower abandoned channel is one possible route groundwater flows can travel along towards Spring Fork upwelling areas. Aerial photography interpretations and field reconnaissance also indicate another possible route for groundwater to flow southwest from Black Bear Creek to the Spring Fork upwelling areas starts at the large dog leg found in the channel approximately 100 feet below the E-2 site. Infiltration into the bed of Black Bear Creek will be controlled by several factors which include hydraulic conductivity, the nature of the hydraulic gradient through the alluvial fan, the extent of the aquifer and the length of time available for infiltration to occur. Given that the head of the alluvial fan is comprised in large part of talus, one would expect high hydraulic conductivities and significant infiltration there. However, in the upper fan, bedrock is fairly shallow and travel times are fast. It is also likely that the talus materials fill with water and cannot accept additional water faster than what seeps further down the fan. Therefore, water continues to flow down Black Bear Creek until the stream gradient is lower and the aquifer is more extensive. Stream gaging results indicate uniform infiltration losses occur along the length of Black Bear Creek starting near the Harza Powerhouse site and extending downstream to the point where surface flows finally disappear (Table 1 ). A final significant finding of the initial field work is that the South Fork provides significant water for spring flows in the upwelling area. That is, Spring Fork is sustained by flows in both Black Bear Creek and South Fork. This is a fact that had never been stated clearly in previous work. Environaid had correlated flows in Spring Fork and South Fork but had not discussed South Fork as a possible source of spring water. Previous discussions lead to the conclusion that Black Bear Creek alone sustains the upwelling areas of Spring Fork. However, during recent field work at Spring Fork, an obvious hydraulic connection was observed between South Fork and Spring Fork. During the field work, the reconnaissance team walked the length of Spring Fork and followed each spring area to its source. While standing on the bank near the beginning of the southern-most spring (the upwelling area farthest from the present course of Black Bear Creek), one could see South Fork at a distance of 75 feet. In comparison, Black Bear Creek was 300 feet north. This was at a point on South Fork where the stream makes a sharp 90 degree bend and begins to flow parallel to Black Bear Creek. It was further discovered that an abandoned channel leads from South Fork at this bend to the channel of this southern-most spring at a point approximately 40 feet below the first point of upwelling. These observations lead to the obvious conclusion that South Fork has had a similar geologic history as Black Bear Creek. In other words, South Fork is building an alluvial fan which commingles with the alluvial fan of Black Bear Creek in the upwelling area. Furthermore, South Fork is an underfit stream and has an extensive and braided system of stream channels that formed in an earlier and wetter climatic period. In summary, the upwelling area is a geologically complex area of glacial fluvial materials originating from both Black Bear Creek and South Fork. Stream flows in both streams sustain the springs of Spring Fork. Black Bear Creek is the major contributor to flows in Lake Fork. In the upwelling areas, the channels are braided and will naturally shift location over a long period of time (ten years). The zones of upwelling will move up and down the channel system depending on flow conditions. When conditions are wet, the springs will emerge higher on the fan and when conditions are dry, the springs will emerge at a lower elevation on the alluvial fan. Field surveys with a precision surveying altimeter showed that upwelling areas occurred between elevations of 75 to 85 feet during a dry period. Trees and stumps found along the Black Bear Creek indicate that the channel has been relatively stable in its present location for the last 300 years. The channel appears stable above the E-2 location since significant natural levees and armoring occur along the banks. Below the E-2 location, the channel is fairly free to migrate over a large area. GROUNDWATER TRACER RESULTS A dye tracing study was completed to verify routes of groundwater flow originating at the E-2 powerhouse site. The study followed the procedures used in the 1989 Environaid test. Rhodamine Wt dye was released into the groundwater at the E-2 location and sampled in seven different springs using charcoal packets (Figure 1 ). The charcoal packets were analyzed at the same lab as the earlier work, the Ozark Underground Laboratory. Field testing was started on July 25, 1990. At the start of the test, the weather had been fair for some time and streamflow rates were very low. This was a conservative condition for the test since the sphere of influence of groundwater originating at the E-2 site would be at a minimum during dry conditions. In fact, the stream was completely dry at the E-2 site at the time of the test. Therefore, three pits were dug to allow injection of the dye into the streambed. Immediately above the E-2 site, the channel diverges and widens into three channels. As a result, at the E-2 location the channel is about 100 feet wide. The pits were approximately equally spaced across the streambed at the site. That is, one was near the north bank where the powerhouse will be located, one was in mid-channel, and one was near the southern side of the channel. The pits were 1.5 to 2 feet deep and were dry. From 9:00 AM. to 9:15 AM. on July 25th, two pounds of Rhodamine Wt dye was released to each of the pits. After the dye was released, seven to eight gallons of stream water was carried to the pits and released to help flush the dye into the groundwater. On July 26th, two more pounds of dye were released into the southern pit and more water was released into all pits. Concurrent with the release of Rhodamine Wt dye at the E-2 location, fluorescein dye was released at the base of the falls on South Fork. The second release of dye was not part of the original work plan. However, field observations indicated that South Fork was part of the source of the springs. This second dye release was done to verify this observation. Fluorescein and Rhodamine Wt dyes have distinct and different peak fluorescence wave lengths and can be used in combination for the measurement of two groundwater flow fields. In contrast to Black Bear Creek, the South Fork was flowing all the way down the alluvial fan to the point where the two streams join. Therefore, the fluorescein dye was released to flowing water. Thi~ slightly hampered the test since the dye had a limited time period to infiltrate into the groundwater. Charcoal packets were placed in seven upwelling areas during the afternoon of July 24th, the day before dye was released. The upwelling areas chosen for the study gave complete coverage of spring lows across the base of the alluvial fan (Figure 1). The sample points were at locations influenced by both Black Bear Creek and South Fork. In 1989, Environaid measured very fast movement of the dye through the aquifer to the springs. However, since streamflow conditions were considerably lower during this year's test, there was a considerable lag during which the dye moved through unsaturated layers above the groundwater. Therefore, no dye was detected in the first 48 hours after release. However, dye packets were left in place 25 days until a rain occurred. These packets were removed and replaced, than sent in for the analysis. Dye packets were then left in the upwelling flows for another 46 days before these final samples were sent to the lab. The results of the dye tracing studies are shown in Table 2. It is seen that Rhodamine Wt dye was found at relatively high levels in the emerging areas known as Lake and Spring Fork (Sample Locations 1 to 5). Furthermore, this dye was measured in relatively uniform concentrations at these locations indicating the groundwater spreads out in a uniform fashion as is flows down the fan from the E-2 site. Rhodamine Wt dye was detected once at a trace level in an upwelling area tributary to South Fork (Location 6). This indicates that groundwater originating at the E-2 site is only a small contributor to flows in these springs. In comparison, it is seen that fluorescein dye was found in relatively high concentrations in upwelling areas tributary to South Fork (Locations 6 and 7). The South Fork is the major source of these springs. It was not surprising that fluorescein dye was not found in any of the Spring Fork locations since the dye had a limited time to infiltrate. However, given the close proximity of South Fork to the southern-most upwelling area of Spring Fork, flows in South Fork must contribute in part to water levels and flow rates in this spring. AQUIFER STORAGE The alluvial fan aquifer is approximately one-half mile long and up to one-quarter mile wide above the spring upwelling areas. It is also known to be at least 40-feet thick near the head of the fan and likely is 30-to 40-feet in thickness through much of the extent of the aquifer. Given its extent, the aquifer has considerable storage capacity. This storage capacity acts to moderate fluctuations of streamflow rates at the springs. Daily fluctuations in streamflow from Black Bear Lake will be smoothed because during relatively peak flow periods, storage will occur as the aquifer fills and during relatively low flow periods water will drain from storage as the aquifer drains. Storage in the aquifer will also moderate streamflow rates on a weekly and monthly basis. Storage of water in the alluvial fan aquifer will serve to protect the springs if a catastrophic event occurred where all flow from the lake was prevented. Such an event would involve a combination of the lake being drawn down and the penstock being temporarily shut off. Aquifer storage would sustain spring flows for a short period of time (up to 2 days) until the emergency bypass is operational. Tributary inflows from streams other than Black Bear Creek will also sustain the spring flows in an emergency shut down of the powerplant. The watershed at the outlet of Black Bear Lake is 1.8 square miles. In comparison, there is a 13 square mile watershed below Black Bear Lake, not counting South Fork which contributes flows to the aquifer and which will not be impacted by the project. The South Fork drainage area is 4.5 square miles. CONCLUSION 1. Introduction of groundwater into the aquifer at the E-2 location will sustain the upwelling flows in the areas known as Lake and Spring Fork. 2. The tailrace system should release flows across the entire width of the stream at the E-2 location. At this location, the stream is approximately 100 feet wide. A natural rock and concrete structure with vertical infiltration areas spaced across the width of the channel will adequately recharge the aquifer. IIQAO KEY (!) SAUPLE UlCATION ISPRINQI GROUNDWATER FUlW PAlli 1-il\ ,. 1 _.... , __ BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROPOWER orou-oo.' !?.., . ~-NOV. lllill IGURE 1 -HYDROGEOLOGIC FEATURES -- OF BASIN BETWEEN FAllS AND SPRINGS I lot WACOONAI.D TABLE 1 STREAM GAGING RESULTS (cfs) BLACK BEAR CREEK BELOW FALLS D~~ ) 1s()FEET xBg§l·········· ~~-: ... ~og~EJ2 .· / / ·>~.·F··.E.J!; .... ·· ~ ~• .. ··. . . . ·•········· .. ·a·. '"'·· ·····I""U··· ...•... ·.··.· ....... <.·.···········. ······ • /<> . . ~ / .•·.·•·•··· . . . VJ.A,;..O ... ····.· .·•·· .. ·.••· .. ·:, .. • 6/6/90 24.0 23.6 18.5 9.6 7/23/90 10.9 9.9 2.2 Dry TABLE% DYE TRACING RESULTS (PARTS PER BILLION) 1 Lake Fork 201 ND 28.5 ND 2 Spring Fork 520 ND 41.1 ND 3 Spring Fork at 372 ND 32.2 ND Thermograph 4 Spring Fork 263 ND 25.2 ND 5 Southern-most 305 ND 23.4 ND Upwelling of Spring Fork 6 Upwelling-Tributary 6.3 199 ND 72.2 of South Fork (Environaid K-7, K-8) 7 Upwelling-Tributary of ND 457 ND 126 South Fork NO: Not Detected APPENDIX E-5 LAKE DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS LAKE DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION An analysis of lake drawdown has been completed for the Black Bear Lake hydropower project. The purpose of the study was to determine if the proposed withdrawal schedule would allow the water level in the lake to be maintained above the minimum lake level objective of 1,672 feet. To accomplish this task, the hydropower operation was simulated as a run-of-river project with minimum and maximum flow constraints. Daily flows as recorded at the USGS stream gage at the Black Bear Lake outlet were used for the analysis. If the daily flow was within the range of the minimum and maximum flow for the particular month, the daily flow was assumed to be entirely used for hydropower generation purposes. However, if the daily flow was less than the minimum required flow rate, water was removed from storage in Black Bear Lake to allow operation of the plant at the minimum rate. On the other hand, if the daily flow rate was greater than the maximum flow rate, the maximum flow rate was discharged through the plant; the remaining flow went to lake storage or if the lake was full, was lost as uncontrolled spill over the falls. The analysis started by using the minimum and maximum flow rates which had been determined in 1981 for an earlier project configuration. During the course of the analysis, it became obvious that the actual mean annual and mean monthly flow regime at the site was significantly different than the flow regime projected for the site in 1981. At the present time, there is ten years of stream gage data for the site, compared to the one year of data available for earlier work. It was, therefore, obvious that the required minimum and maximum flow rates needed to be updated. Based on the ten years of gage data, one possible flow schedule has been analyzed. STUDY PROCEDURE The OTI /HDR Hydropower Evaluation Program (HEP) was modified to allow simulation of withdrawals from Black Bear Lake. The analysis used run-of-river conditions except when the daily flow range was outside the specified range for minimum and maximum flows. When the flows were outside of this range, water was added to or subtracted from storage so the flow requirements were met. In some cases, when the maximum flow was exceeded, uncontrolled spill occurred over the falls. A ten year long daily flow file was prepared using the USGS gage data. These daily flows were used for the analysis. Mean monthly and mean annual flow calculated on the basis of these data are found in Table 1 and Figure 1. The modified HEP program calculated lake levels using the storage elevation curve prepared by Harza Engineering during earlier studies (APA, 1982). The storage elevation curve indicates the lake has 200 acre-feet of storage per foot of depth. This is slightly conservative when compared with the 215 acre surface area of the lake. The analysis started with the flow regime proposed in 1981 for license documents of the earlier project proposal (AP A, 1982). The flow regime included monthly requirements for minimum and maximum flows from the lake (Table 1). During the course of the analysis, it became obvious that modifications to these flows would be necessary. It was found that the existing flow regime could not meet the objective of not drawing the lake down more than 15 feet. The reason being the 1982 flow projections are significantly different than the actual flows gaged at the site during the last ten years. Additional calculations were completed for an alternative flow regime (Table 1). This alternative regime was obtained by modifying the 1981 flows. This alternative regime presented here has been derived for discussion purposes and is not meant to be a final flow regime for the project. The goals of the proposed flow regime were to provide flexibility in the flow range which the hydropower operation could operate within while meeting fisheries objectives. Furthermore, the lake should not be drawn down more than 15 feet below the average natural water surface elevation of 1,667 feet. The flow regime should also emphasize the fact that the peak energy demand period is in the winter. The final flow regime should allow for withdrawals of the design flow during daily peaking operations in the winter months when the energy demand is high. A significant aspect of the flow constraints is that the maximum flow rates do not affect the actual turbine flows most of the time. This is because the daily flows are often less than the maximum flows. Furthermore, the lake has an uncontrolled outlet and when spill is occurring, there is no way to control total flow. Total flow is defined here as the sum of turbine flow and uncontrolled spill. Hence, the maximum flows specified here are primarily based on the design flow of the plant. In the summer, maximum flows were reduced somewhat to allow for replenishment of storage. Once again, it needs to be remembered that total flow will exceed these maximum flow rates during times of uncontrolled spill. In the modified regime, minimum flows were reduced in order to meet the objective that the lake would not be drawn down more than 15 feet. For instance, minimum flows for the months of April, May and July to August were reduced since the actual gaged flows for these months were less than 1981 projections. The minimum flows for October and November were also reduced to enhance power production in the winter. October and November minimum flows were set to allow storage of some water for winter power releases. RESULTS Existing (1981) flow regime results are given in Table 2 and Figures 2 and 3. The HEP model was run using the minimum and maximum flows for the 1981 regime with no other constraints. Therefore, the turbine flows given in Table 2 are high for the summer months given the anticipated project start-up power demands. There will not be sufficient energy demand to require these flow rates for these months when the project first comes on line. Figure 3 shows that the 1981 flow regimes causes the lake level to fall to 1,670 feet in 1989, two feet below the desired minimum. A probability analysis of annual m1mmum lake levels indicates that under the 1981 flow regime, the objective of maintaining lake levels at or above an elevation of 1,672 will be met 85 percent of all years. The proposed modified flow regime results are given in Table 3 and Figures 2 and 3. In comparing turbine flows in Tables 2 and 3, it is seen that the modified flow regime has higher winter flows and lower summer flows. In Figures 2 and 3, it is seen that the modified flow regime will result in higher mean annual lake and minimum annual lake levels most of the time. A probability analysis of annual minimum lake levels indicates that under the modified flow regime, the objective of maintaining lake levels at or above an elevation of 1,672 feet will be met 97 percent of all years. Table 4 and Figure 4 show flow and lake conditions when the project first comes on line in 1994. Turbine flows are a lot lower than under either of the above flow regimes. Lake levels are in general higher. It is seen in Figure 4 that significant lake drawdown will occur even at start-up. This is because maximum flow rates were specified to meet projected demands. Hence, summer turbine flows are lower than winter flows and much less than maximum flow rates for either of the above flow regimes. At start-up, winter turbine flows will already be 80 percent of the flows obtained under the modified regime and will be greater than those obtained with the 1981 flow regime. In comparison, summer turbine flows would be 50 to 60 percent of those obtained under the modified or 1981 regimes. Figure 5 is flow duration exceedence curve for the modified flow regime. Figure 6 is a lake drawdown exceedence curve for project start-up conditions under the modified flow regime. This reveals that the lake level is above elevation 1,672 100 percent of the time. At project capacity, conditions under the modified flow regime, the lake level will be above elevation 1,679 100 percent of the time. This is illustrated in Figure 7. REFERENCES Alaska Power Authority, 1982, FERC Application, Exhibit W. Month October 25 November 23 December 9 January 9 February 12 March 9 April 19 May 25 June 15 July 24 August 24 September 29 Annual TABLE 1 PROPOSED FLOW RELEASES FROM THE BLACK BEAR LAKE POWERHOUSE (cfs) 44 33 43 42 31 34 29 19 22 29 18 30 34 17 19 34 17 15 34 20 18 49 30 37 49 27 40 55 33 26 38 31 22 46 34 31 29 28 1 Based on ten years of gage data at the lake outlet. 20 45 15 45 9 45 9 45 12 45 9 45 15 45 22 35 15 35 19 40 17 28 24 38 TABLE 2 FLOW CONDITIONS UNDER THE 1981 FLOW REGIME (cfs) I Month I Turbine Flow ·········•·I···· ·~pnt· ... ·.· I Total I October 34.1 4.2 38.3 November 29.4 5.1 34.5 December 16.6 2.9 19.5 January 18.8 6.0 24.8 February 18.0 2.0 20.0 March 15.7 1.4 17.1 April 21.6 .3 21.9 May 34.7 .7 35.4 June 35.1 2.9 38.0 July 29.3 1.4 30.7 August 26.8 .7 27.5 September 33.3 .6 33.9 Annual 26.1 2.3 28.4 TABLE 3 FWW CONDITIONS UNDER THE MODIFIED FLOW REGIME (cfs) _·. -'· .>'' .'.:.:.::·~:··:_,::<::::::: !·o:::.:· ··'···: :::, .. ,·:··.::oo:·;.;:;';:;o;·· :········· ! >t'. spill,>,(• .. •:··•-·•···· f/tf&thl >······t·:_-.,n Month Th b •· · Fr··<:-->>::0 ·. :: ... ,,,,., .. r me_,_ owr' October 32.7 7.2 39.9 November 26.6 6.8 33.4 December 19.5 3.5 23.0 January 22.9 5.9 28.8 February 19.2 1.3 20.5 March 16.5 .5 17.0 April 19.8 .1 19.9 May 30.4 3.8 34.2 June 30.8 7.7 38.5 July 26.1 2.2 28.3 August 20.7 3.4 24.1 September 28.7 3.1 31.8 Annual 24.5 3.8 28.3 TABLE 4 FLOW CONDITIONS WHEN PROJECT COMES ON-LINE (1994)(cfs) .······ · Tufbilt~ f'l()\\' / • > c•••••••• spin )•••>••••• ... \••: ~········· ).> 'I'cita.t .. i \ . ··.···• ·Month .. October 19.7 22.6 42.3 November 19.6 16.2 35.8 December 19.3 7.5 26.8 January 19.5 9.2 28.7 February 17.7 3.4 21.1 March 17.6 2.5 20.1 April 17.4 .3 17.7 May 17.9 12.2 30.1 June 18.0 18.7. 36.7 July 17.6 9.9 27.5 August 17.4 6.2 23.6 September 17.6 11.2 28.8 Annual 18.3 10.0 28.3 0 LO I I 0 "¢ i">i I I I I I I I I ;: I g I u. I _~ CJ) I ~ u.l zO z co 1 ~~I < w ::::E I 0 I'<') I I I I I I I I 0 C"J Q I LO ,.... (S.=l~) MOl.=l )..lH.lNO~ N'v'3~ I 0 ,.... @{ I""'BL'AcK BEAR LAKE HYDROPOWER ... I";G';;RE 1-MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW BLACK BEAR LAKE OUTLET 0.. w (!) Cl ~ <{ _J ~ """) z ~ """) >-<{ 2 0::: 0.. <{ 0::: <{ ::E co w l.J... z <{ """) Cd 0 > 0 z f-u 0 I LO 0 , ...... Number 07042-001 lo... NOV. 1990 I ............ I f-z 0 ::e: N. MACDONALD 1.69 1.688 1.686 ~~ {I 1.684 ~~ OJ ~ il m 1.682 1\) 0 I A ,...... :s:::: t,...... 1.68 !-!: OJ -111 Ul z m _,~-o 1.678 ~> )> w c: mz :D Gj ~ Glz >c .--1 :::1 1.676 0 ~~ )> w~ """r-A ~-"""> m ~ 1.674 ," J: :o m Or--< I 1.672 c,_m 0 m< :D Om .... r-0 I 1.67 -'""0 -co 0 <XI ~ I 1.668 - MINIMUM LAKE LEVEL OBJECTIVE ------------------------------------- m ~ I:D co I 1.666 e .,. f z i ~ l1 1.664 ~ I ~ ~ i o .... rrr 0 (Q 0 0 (Q 0 z 0 .... 81 85 89 87 83 0 1981 FLOW REGIME YEAR o MOD. FLOW REGIME )> 6 1.69 1.688 1.686 r r ---r 1.684 -~i ~ jl 1.682 ..... c <0 :::0 )> 1.68 ~ m () I (o) ;;J\ .......... ..... I t ......... 1.678 <0 m '-"Ill CD 3: m ....Ju 0--~ )> w 1: 1.676 • 3: ::D Gj ~ • c (11 3: r ....J :J 1.674 0 3: > )> w~ m z ;;J\ ~-1.672 Ci) z >c m ~ ~> I 1.67 >• -t,... -< -t> 0 ""0 " ::D I 1.668 :::om o,... 0 c... m "'0 I 1.666 m < 0 Om -t,... ~ I 1.664 m MINIMUM LAKE LEVEL OBJECTIVE ------------------------------ ::D I 1.662 I ~ f z r] 1.66 i: r 0 ~ i ~ ~ . o .... ~ r 0 co 0 Z CD 0 ,.. 0 .... 81 83 85 87 89 + 1981 FLOW REGIME YEAR ll MOD. FLOW REGIME 6 1.69 1.688 1.686 . ~ r r 1.684 f" ~ I CD r fl 1.682 Ul "" )> :~::• 0 ,....._ m., ;;:J\ t,...... 1.68 G) ::0 >2 CD -~ ~m m _J"O 1.678 )> w c: -tO Gj ~ -1 -1 :::0 .,en r _J :J 1.676 ::0 ~ 0 )> w.r: 0 ::0 ~I-c.. -1 ;;:J\ ~-m I m 1.674 oc -t., ::X: I -< I 1.672 m > 0 m:;~~~; G>m :::0 I zo 0 1.67 .. o ""0 MINIMUM LAKE LEVEL OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------- coz 0 I co c 1.668 .,._ ~ -1 0 m z :::0 I 1.666 en ~I z r] 1.664 :c 1 0 ~ z ~ ~ ~I 0 _. I 0 co 0 z co 0 )o 0 ... 81 85 89 83 87 YEAR 0 MEAN ANNUAL LEVEL + MIN. ANNUAL LEVEL r- 0 7 v 0 0 ..-0 CX) J 0 0'1 '1"' __v 0 CX) 1/ _2 / v ~ 0 (!) 0 l.() 0 <:;~" (S..:l~) MOl..:l I II / I/' / L .,R , ...... ;,ACK BEAR LAKE HYDROPOWER ILL ~--FIGURE 5 -FLOW DURATION CURVE . 4.5 MEGAWATT PROJECT 0 ..-0 0 (!) w u z C§ w w u 0 X <:;~" w 0 N 0 ~ I Profect Number 07042-001 lo.. NOV. 1990 I~:::ONALD _j Vl 2,---.. (fJ _ju w c ~ ~ _j :J 0 w..c ~~---5'-/ STARTUP CONDITIONS 1.688 1.687 r"~-~-~---t--t---t--t--+--+--+---L_J ::::: I 1\J I I L I I I I I I I 1.684 ~--r-----r-----r---~r----4-----4r----4--~~----~----~-----+--~ 1.683 r---r-----r-----r---~r----4-----4r----;-----;--~~----~-----+--~ 1.682 ~--r-----~----~----~--~r---~r---~-----4-----4--~~-----+--~ 1.681 1 . 68o I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I 1 .679 I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I 1.678 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1.677 I I I I I I I I I I ', I l I I 1.676 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I \1 I 1.674 L---~----~----~----~--~----~~--~----~----~----~----~--~ 0 20 Hl\ 40 60 %EXCEEDANCE I Pro;.ct Title BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROPOWER ....... Title , FIGURE 6-LAKE DRAWDOWN EXCEEDANCI;. CURVE MODIFIED PROJECT START UP LAKE CONDITIONS 80 100 I Pro;.ct Number 07042-001 1 0- JAN. 1991 I~M--- N.Macdonald 1.688 1.687 I I 1.686 1.685 I 1.684 _,..., 1.683 _J V1_,..., 2 VI 1.682 ""'-o _J c W D 1.681 21 ~ _J 0 .r:: 1.68 WI-::x:,:'-"' s 1.679 1.678 1.677 1.676 1.675 1.674 0 20 lilt CAPACITY CONDITIONS I ,- '-~ ~ \ \ \ 40 60 80 100 % EXCEEDANCE I rotect , .... ----8-LA-~~ -;~R L=A-=K:_E_H_Y_D_R_O_P_O_W_E_R ____ r Protect ~;;:2 -001 .._Tide FIGURE 7-LAKE DRAWDOWN EXCEEDANCE CURVE MODIFIED PROJECT CAPACITY CONDITIO ... S ' Date JAN. 18111 I Protect M-.- N.Macdonald APPENDIX E-6 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN Prepared By: HDR Engineering, Inc. Bellevue, Washington June 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INfRODUCI10N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 CLIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.0 SOilS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2 Siphon Area Geolo~ic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3 Penstock Area Geolo~ic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4 Powerhouse Area Geolo~ic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.6 Weatherin~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.7 Faultin~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.8 Construction Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.9 Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1 General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2 Controlling Geolowc Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3 Potential Geologic and Soil Hazard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.0 VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.0 MITIGATION AND CONTROL MEASURES ..................... 20 7.1 Basic Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.2 Implementation of Basic Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Section Paa:e 7.3 Mitigation for Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.3.1 Siphon Area and Upper Buried Penstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.3.2. Surface Penstock Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 .3.3. Lower Buried Penstock Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.3.4. Powerhouse Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.3.5 Project New Access Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.3.6 Existing Logging Road Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.4 Revegetation Following Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.4.2 Grass Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.4.3. Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.4.4. Mulch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.4.5. Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.4.6. Acceptance of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.5 Project Abandonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.0 SCHEDULE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8.1.1. Siphon Area and Upper Buried Penstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.1.2. Surface Penstock Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.1.3. Lower Buried Penstock Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Section ~ 8.1.4. Powerhouse Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.1.5. Project New Access Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 APPENDIX A Table Table 1 Table 2 Fi~rure Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figures 9A-9F Figure A-1 Figure A-2 Figure A-3 Figure A-4 Figure A-5 LIST OF TABLES Ketchikan Average Precipitation and Temperature Project Construction Schedule LIST OF FIGURES Project Location Project Plan Project Profile Geology Map Geologic Hazards Vegetation Cover Erosion and Sedimentation Plan Powerhouse Area Erosion Control Measures Roadway Plan and Profile Erosion and Sediment Control Pond Straw Bale Barrier Filter Fabric Fence Erosion Control Fabric Typical Roadway Culvert Pa2e 7 36 Pa2e 2 3 4 10 15 18 22 25 26-31 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Black Bear Creek near the community of Klawock on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The project will utilize the flows of Black Bear Creek to power a hydroelectric turbine. The upper 15 feet of Black Bear Lake will provide flow equalizing storage. The natural water surface elevation of the lake is 1,687 feet above mean sea level (msl). A siphon type intake will extend from the shoreline near the lake outlet approximately 150 feet southeast into Black Bear Lake. The intake will convey water from the lake to a penstock entrance at elevation 1,662. The 30-inch diameter penstock will extend a distance of 4,900 feet to the powerhouse. The first section of the penstock will be buried or bermed over. The second section will be supported on concrete piers which would be founded in the near surface rock, and saddles down gradual slopes and two steep rock cliffs. The third section of the penstock will be buriea in the talus to the powerhouse. A tailrace channel will transport the turbine discharge 100 feet to a tailrace apron which will distribute the flow to the natural stream. Figure 2 shows the project plan of the project. The project is divided into segments which are referred to throughout this report. The segments are illustrated in the Project Profile, Figure 3. A switchyard will be located adjacent to the powerhouse. A pole mounted 34.5 kV transmission line will begin at the switchyard and follow existing logging and forest access roads for a distance of 5 miles to the State Highway and then tum southwest for about 9 miles to the Klawock substation. A new road will be constructed from the powerhouse site a distance of 1.400 feet to a point of connection with an existing logging road which extends to Black Bear Lake. No permanent roads are planned for the penstock route or to access the intake/siphon area. Existing trails to the upper Black Bear Lake area will be improved to provide better access to the area. It is anticipated that a temporary skyway tram will be installed to transport materials to the upper slope and intake areas during construction. The existing site is largely undeveloped except for logging roads. Logging operations have been extensive in the Black Bear Creek and Black Lake Valley resulting in clear-cutting of 95 percent of the penstock and powerhouse area. There are two rock quarries close to the project site. These are located near the proposed powerhouse site on the existing logging road and a second site is located near Big Salt Lake Road. Two staging areas, approximately 5 acres in size, are anticipated, one north of the proposed powerhouse and the other north of the proposed buried penstock. Five designated helicopter landing areas are also anticipated. Two of these will be located at the staging areas. The other three will be located near the Black Bear Lake outlet. The project will result in the disturbance of approximately 16.3 acres. Roadway improvements represent 4.3 acres of disturbed area. 1 f ,If' " '+ ....... ._, .,. . .: 0> -, \> "t: ~,/' . Tongass . ~· • I National . . .._ :Forest ... "' '?, 111111111111111111111111 ( : = -.~: I ~ --' ,o<>' .... = ~ ::. .. ~- ,. ' --. . /.· .•..• ...,. , ' .... -~ ') !"~.~ . "~:v ,. s•'"'= . . .... : \ ~·-----~· .--· ..:..rJ ...J .-.. ; \). .... _ • ~ -' •• ~ ./ i/~ o-· .::;-_~0 • f· • ~~:::r"""/;;: -·i == : ,'~/_·~~~// -~'~:_: 0 .. L i .: . . -··,·. ( ·= :"l,iiJUIIII,IIIIIIfl . {.., .-~~ --·: )""' r ,. .-.. .· I ·= ··:: .. -~~----~,.,.._, .. L=_j_ ·, :. 36 r:-.•· ·-.i --- i~~f_,..,. ;.> ... ~ \ l!l : ,·I j' I ~\'.· . : ~ I I \ ' \ \ ' :\ i ,_ T72S T73S. 0 ~ ~ ,•. ........ . B ,.or: I ; ('-·~/ ! 9 lO N ~ ,14 PROJECT , -, ._ AREA ,_., ..... - "·-:."..,: ... _. -r.:angass -i ---:---'--_r'·--'' ~- .-~-· · National I .! r·· ·, ·. ;32 Forest "3 3 . ! : : ~-.. Penstock 1 . I · Surface Penstock l· ' . -r -~ I ~~•o,no s:-t !3 M86 Siphon Intake :..! •.• ~,,..v,. i '"" BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prince ol ..... ll:lciM, Alaell.a fEIIIC NO. 10440 ALASKA POWER &: TELEPHONE COJ.APANY Port Townsend, Woshinoton HREng~ Figure 1 \ I \ I \ \ I I \ ., ' ' ' '---..._ ----~ I . J , I I --------~ / ' ~--__ ~ --_--_ ,~oo // /, J . --·--1 I ~~~~----------------_/ ' / ~-\~~")0 -~-----.. · ~/ ----;:'S~ ~~ ---------1.000 --~ ,, ~---------------~---------~"-~ ~-/~~~ ~ ' ~ ~~~~-p~ ~UMP HOUSE ------- I I I ( ( t"" I I I , I I I I ' ' 7 / ~ I I /,, ,· '-..,_[ t> I{'-"""-.., :'""'-( I ':1....1 I , ....___ ' ' /'-' I --.... ,/--... I ' I I -----~· "'-, I ....... -I I I ........_ / I ........... ,. / \I I / / : I I / ,;----..._ / i I /j /'-./'' I j I I I I '" I I l·f ' /.,! _: / II v" v I ---------- ---------- \ ~\ I \ ! / / ---·- .// 1/ // ! ,~ -------I ~~ I / ~~ . ;' ,, I ' It ' I I I ' / / II /, I ; I i I :: I / i ; . / I. ~~ II " II I' !,::, ~ / ' ' ' ' < ::, /\ -----~ '' \ -------------... BURIED ,, __ _______-, -< '"-PEN '' ' : .. ~ -"'-~.-----: \--STOCK " ~ .._<'--_-<--'" r \..~ --, , ----~-, ~ ------- \ 7o ' --~-:_-_--------""'~;:-.:.:---~--· 0 ---------~ \ -~---~ -_/ .~---- -------------~ BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT \ ' Prine. of Wales Island, Alaska --F£RC NO. 1~ '-' ~ Port Townsend. Washington V "-... ~ ALASKA POWER &: TELEPHONE COMPANY PLAN -_ \ 1 /___ _ -------PROJECT PLAN \\ ~ <::::) C) \ \ '"-,,, \ \ ' ~ ,_ SCALE: 1" -400' -------------~ / · }ill Engineering Figure 2 400 200 0 400 -~=~L___ --------------- -~ ·:-------------------- \..,---- ~ .... ~ w ..J w 2000 1500 1000 500 0 SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 2 ----· ·--. SIPHON SURFACE PENSTOCK ~ BLACK BEAR LAKE SIPHON INTAKE [ ,-SIPHON VACUUM PUMP HOUSE J II-VALVE CHAMBER _! -~ ;::,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ SUPPORT PIPELINE FOOTINGS TO BEDROCK 20+00 25+00 STATION PROFILE SCALE: 1· • 400' 400 200 0 ...!... 400 ~ SEGMENT 3 BURIED PENSTOCK DEPTH TO BEDROCK- APPROX. 15 FEET (HARZA, 1983) ~ ~ ...;;;:::; DEPTH 10 BEDROCK >15 FEET (HARZ A, 19 8 3) 30+00 35+00 40+00 SEGMENT 4 -----------,;.. c.~ -SEGMENT 5 1 I I I POWERHOUSE ~ _ r TAILRACE - - -=FIJ¥:::; - 45+00 50+00 BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prinoe of Woles Island, Alaska FERC NO. l 0440 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend, Washington OJECT PROFILE }ffi EngineerinQ Figure 3 Alaska Power & Telephone Co. has authorized HDR Engineering, Inc. to prepare this Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) as an appendix to required licensing documents. This ESCP will be adjusted as the level of design increases. Final measures will be established in consultation with agencies, as design of the project proceeds. 5 2.0 CLIMATE The climate of the project area is maritime, typified by cool summers, relatively mild winters, long periods of almost continuous cloudy or foggy conditions, and year-round precipitation. The proximity of the Pacific Ocean is the dominating factor in the local climate. Temperature extremes occur in both winter and summer because of occasional air mass invasions from Canada. Moist air, brought by prevailing southeasterly winds passing over the relatively warm waters of the Alaska current as it flows northward along the southeast Alaska coast, cools as it rises over colder, continental air and over the mountainous terrain, and releases its moisture as precipitation, clouds, and fog. No climatological data are available specifically for Black Bear Lake. The nearest long- term climatological station, located in Ketchikan, is at sea level and lies 50 miles east- southeast of the project. Data collected at this station show that the historical mean annual temperature is 45.7 degrees Fahrenheit (•F), and the historical mean annual precipitation is 156.06 inches. Table 1 shows the variation of average monthly temperature and precipitation in Ketchikan. At Hollis, located at sea level 9 miles southeast of Black Bear Lake, the mean annual temperature is 44.2 • F. The average monthly temperature at Hollis is 32.4"F in January, the coldest month, and 58.1•F in August, the warmest month. The Applicant, estimates that temperatures at the Black Bear Lake drainage basin are approximately 8 • F colder than at Hollis because of the decrease in temperature with altitude. Hollis has a mean annual precipitation of about 100 inches. The mean annual precipitation in the Black Bear Lake drainage basin is about 220 inches. The higher amount of precipitation being induced by the area's high elevation and steep mountainous topography. Much of the precipitation at Black Bear Lake during the colder months occurs as snow. The lake is often frozen over until early summer (FERC, 1983). 6 TABLE 1 KETCHIKAN AVERAGE PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE ( 63-YEAR RECORD) MONTH .• >/· ... '··· .. ·.···· . .. ,,, .•. , .,,, .·. 7 > 7 PRECIPITATION • TEMPERATURE (•F) ''•··············· (INCHES) .· ., I <·' • < ·'·'' ' i> "' ..... } ... , · · , ........ '. ' .·· ' ·, .. ',· January 14.33 33.7 February 12.49 36.0 March 12.08 38.2 April 11.80 42.8 May 8.0 49.1 June 6.0 54.6 July 7.9 58.0 August 11.24 58.6 September 13.50 54.1 October 22.47 46.8 November 18.50 40.2 December 16.26 35.8 7 3.0 SOILS Unconsolidated inorganic materials exist at the proposed project. These include thick talus deposits of angular cobbles and boulders at the base of steep slopes; deposits of finer-grained (gravel-, sand-, and some silt-size) colluvium developed on less steep slopes; glacial till, consisting of poorly sorted gravel and silty sand; and alluvium, or stream deposits, consisting of generally well-sorted materials, ranging from boulders and coarse gravels at steeper stream gradients to medium to fine sand at flatter stream gradients. The inorganic materials are commonly covered with a variable but relatively thin veneer or organic humus soil, averaging about 2 feet thick. In some places, the humus has developed directly on bedrock as a result of the glacial scouring of previous soil material. . Organic soils (muskegs), formed entirely of plant materials in various stages of decomposition, are often found on slopes of less than 12 percent. The muskeg soils range in thickness from 6 inches to several feet. The muskegs are all very poorly drained, with the water table at or near the surface throughout the year. Being water-saturated, they have a tendency toward liquification. Muskeg soils are found at the proposed siphon intake and upper buried penstock area. The shoreline of Black Bear Lake primarily consists of colluvium and talus. Relatively thin colluvium is found at the siphon intake area, with some thick deposits occurring along the left side of the lake outlet. Residual soils, generally less than 1 foot thick, developed from in-situ weathering of bedrock, and consisting of silty clays with gravel-size rock fragments, occur in scattered areas near the lake outlet. Talus deposits cover the base of the steep slope at the falls and the bases of the steep slopes above the right and left banks of Black Bear Creek at the proposed powerhouse site. They then extend beneath the alluvium found at the proposed powerhouse site. 8 4.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 4.1 General The siphon intake and penstock will be located on metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks. These rocks will provide a suitable foundation for the proposed structures. Generally, the rocks are very hard, strong and fresh to very slightly weathered. The rocks are typically massive to thick-bedded. Jointing is moderately to slightly developed and variably spaced. The project geology is shown on Figure 4. 4.2 Siphon Area Geoloeic Conditions The siphon area and lake outlet were investigated by surface geologic mapping and by seismic refraction surveys (Harza 1983). This area is underlain by interbedded adesites, metamorphosed graywackes, and diorite. The rocks that comprise this area are well exposed in the narrow steep-sided gorge cut by Black Bear Creek downstream of the outlet of Black Bear Lake, and in a few scattered surface exposures on the abutments, predominantly on the right bank.. The most prominent rock types encountered are massive, moderately fractured andesite and diorite. 4.3 Penstock Area Geolo2ic Conditions The proposed penstock route was visually inspected. Limited bedrock exposures were observed during surface reconnaissance of the slope down to the proposed powerhouse site. The reconnaissance was made to determine the feasibility of constructing the penstock along the surface of the steep slope and cliffs. Overburden depth along the upper portion of the penstock from the siphon intake to elevation 700 is not expected to be more than 2 to 3 feet. Rock outcrops are scattered and, except on cliff faces, are best exposed in gullies and areas formed by windfalls. The overburden is generally limited to humus with only minimal residual soil/colluvium from weathering of bedrock. Jointing in bedrock is variably oriented and moderately spaced. Often the top of rock is smooth and parallel to the slope due to glacial scour. Stress relief jointing developed parallel to the slopes, and in part due to unloading from the retreat of glacial ice, occurs in local areas and causes slabby breakage from cliff faces. Along the lower portion of the slope from elevation 700 to the powerhouse, rock outcrops are scarce and overburden is expected to be deeper. In the lower slopes, glacial till is expected to occur below the colluvium and humus, and depths to bedrock of more than 15 feet are to be expected locally. A deep accumulation of talus can be expected at the base of the steep rock faces. 9 \ \ ~ ~ C) \ \ \ ,.. 7 ~~/; ______.,,, -------- \ \ ·, \ \ ' ' / -------// '" \ \ ) \ I / I / // I . / ;( ,/ I : I ,/ I s.______ / /1 < ;,;// ' ' I ' / EXPLANATION / '-= // ~~ /-,. / \ to 3 Feet ' I I !/\I ro·?· T~U's-Gravel and Boulders/ II '-V. I ' ~ ------.::::~ / / ---;. ''----\ / _,. I , ~ \ . ,. /1 ; / / SOuv -Vole an iCs ~nd, MetavoiCanics Undifferentiated • ' I I 1 : ' I I J · Andesite Lava FJoVt-s-/ ) ~~ I ' I ) I ' . ' . ' -------- / / I 1 , I I / I , Oal '.~ Alluviu m-Sar}d and Small Grav~ F /' /! // ,, /'/ ·;;I/ I ;: I .~~-· A. -/::-//'/ . I ~~ ) / ;_- : I . I _.,_cc , _..... / J I I f): ' / .· ' I I {/( ' I I -~ ' ~ __,_. /' nO / I ' ' 1 \ / , I / I~ ( v / I ( C ' / I( / 11 -' /--"· 0-c I ; Ill ~!// /; ( Qt.:..~ _ ___..-@ '. I ; ,Y 1 I { Qt / ! ) \ I J I, \,_ ":s-_ ~ -~--// I I; I / \ ;/' I /..> - ..-:?/'-~ I I / / \ \ ;:; \ '/ ---' t/ o i_> I/_;::-::~ \L.. 0 ' ' /1 -'c. .. I If\ I I ;I / ' ~/ / -. (.:;: ... "/' /' ·"' ~ ......... ,. ·. k-YARD --~--· ------------------- ~---------~- <:, / .• .... ~' '..,., f... G0-.. ~ . BURIED PENSTOC ~-------( ~ <--------7 c c- ------------ \ I --............. --~t-----_ ------ '\.ri ~\_.:u·-..~ t.- ------- (/) ../ 4.4 Powerhouse Area Geolo~Uc Conditions Most of the area of the proposed powerhouse is mantled by relatively thick layers of alluvium and talus. Alluvium consists mainly of angular and subrounded sand and small gravel with few fines. Talus consists of angular to subangular blocks and boulders. The particle size is from 3 inches to 3 feet. 4.5 Groundwater Groundwater at the proposed siphon intake is about 25-30 feet below the ground surface. Water level measurements indicate a normal condition with the gradient sloping toward the river. The groundwater level at the outlet of Black Bear Lake is somewhat deep, probably caused by the dewatering effect of Black Bear falls gorge and the steep slopes immediately downstream. The groundwater level in the proposed powerhouse location was found to be at a depth of about 25 feet. 4.6 Weatherin2 Weathering of bedrock is not prominent in the project area. The most readily observable weathering phenomenon is red-brown iron staining on the joints and fracture surfaces due to the oxidation of pyrite. This staining is common to a depth of 10 feet to 12 feet and occurs at greater depths along isolated, more closely fractured intervals. This phenomenon is observed in outcrops along the river channel downstream of the proposed siphon intake. Weathered rock surfaces generally are less than 1/8-inch thick. However, minor joint-controlled zones of more deeply weathered and slightly decomposed rock occur sporadically and at depth. Coatings along open joints are most commonly iron minerals. Occasionally calcite and a green chlorotic material is present up to a thickness of 0.4 inch. Many joints are filled with quartz arid are little affected by weathering. The occurrence of clay along joints is uncommon except in a few isolated instances. 4. 7 Faultin2 No positive evidence of faulting was observed in the immediate area of the proposed project features; however, there is evidence of shearing on the upper abutment of the siphon intake area. Some previous workers have mapped a fault of regional extent through Black Bear Lake and Black Lake Valley but no absolute evidence of this has been found at the site. This previously mapped fault could be the one observed during previous investigations by Harza in June 1979 on the west side of Black Lake, where andesite and diorite are exposed in faulted contact (Harza, 1983). A small fault of unknown displacement was found on the left bank of Black Bear Lake about 2/3 mile upstream of the proposed siphon intake. In this area, a calcite and quartz- filled zone approximately 1-to 2-feet wide is exposed with widely differing strike (across the lake) and dip observed on opposite sides of the fault. 11 4.8 Construction Materials Specific sampling and laboratory testing for construction materials were not conducted for this study. However, it is anticipated that the talus to be excavated from the area can be grizzlied and possibly crushed for use as concrete aggregate. There is a more likely potential of using the alluvial and talus material from required excavation of the powerhouse and tailrace area, and other sources in the vicinity of the powerhouse or at Klawock. A complete gradation of potential aggregate materials from boulders to medium sand exists in the vicinity of the powerhouse. An alluvial sample taken approximately 500 feet upstream from the head of Black Lake contained well sorted medium to fine sand (Harza, 1983). 4.9 Seismic Desim The region of southeastern Alaska is seismically active and the project must be designed for seismic hazard. The largest earthquake recorded was a magnitude 8.1 event which occurred in 1949 about 80 miles southwest of the site along the Fairweather Fault. The closest earthquake (of unknown magnitude) occurred 74 km northeast of the site. Owing to the sparse population in southeastern Alaska, knowledge of the seismic intensity of this area is not as well developed as in the contiguous United States. 12 5.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS 5.1 General Discussion Black Bear Creek flows northwest from heavily glaciated mountainous headwaters located in the central and highest spine of Prince of Wales Island. The headwaters begin in two hanging cirque basins, the higher containing Black Bear Lake at an elevation of 1,680 feet and the South Fork basin at an elevation of about 1,000 feet. Flows from Black Bear Lake, the proposed source for this hydroelectric project, drop through a series of falls and cataracts to an elevation of approximately 300 feet. From the base of the falls the stream flows about 1.5 miles, steeply at first and then more gently, to reach Black Lake at an elevation of approximately 40 feet. The valley is undergoing active modification by mass-wasting processes including snow avalanches, debris and rock avalanches, debris flows and debris torrents. As a result, hazardous conditions to personnel and structures exist in many areas on and adjacent to hill-slopes and along the channel of Black Bear Creek near the head of the valley. The large and continuing supply of coarse rock and organic debris from these processes is also the primary cause of the aggrading condition found in the upper valley section of Black Bear Creek. This action produces rapid channel shifting, deep accumulations of alluvial materials and periodic dewatering of the main channel by the deep seepage of infiltrating water during periods of low flow (Bishop, Swanston and Smith, 1989). The coarse valley fill material also acts as a near-surface aquifer which tends to beneficially affect the volume and quality of flows reaching downstream channels used by fish. Earlier flow measurements made and reported by ENVIRON AID indicate that springflow entering Spring Fork seldom drop below 3 to 5 cfs, even when flows gaged by the USGS at the outlet of Black Bear Lake fall to lower levels. This indicates that flow volume is coming from other sources such as stored water in the alluvial fill and tributary seepage from the massive debris talus cone northeast of the falls of Black Bear Creek. 5.2 Controllin2 Geolo2ic Conditions Distribution of principal bedrock units in the upper valley is relevant to questions of both geophysical hazards and the hydrology of Black Bear Creek downstream of the falls. Bedrock in the area has been mapped at the broad reconnaissance level only1. During previous field investigations, two dominant rock units were identified and tentatively correlated with published descriptions. Andesite and andesite breccia, probably belonging to the Silurian Descon Formation, underlies most of the valley floor and the southwest ridge. These rocks have a persistent regional strike northwest and dip steeply at variable angles but generally southwest. Undivided diorite and quartz diorite intrusive rocks of probable Cretaceous Age underlie the northeast ridge and a major portion of the South Fork basin. Diorite dikes also occur, 13 cutting andesite and andesite breccia in the cliff immediately southwest of Black Bear Lake at the head of the valley, as indicated by alternating diorite and andesite talus strips at the base of the cliff. The principal contact between the Descon Formation and the Cretaceous intrusives is largely masked by valley fill and hillslope colluvium, but is inferred from rapid change in bedrock outcrop and talus composition on both the northeast and southwest ridges, and by outcrops of andesite breccia on the valley floor immediately east of Black Bear Creek. This contact crosses the upper valley in a northwest direction, from a point immediately southwest of the rock quarry at the valley head, to the northeast ridge adjacent to Black Lake. It appears to exert a significant control on depth of valley fill and on movement and distribution of surface and sub-surface water toward Black Bear Creek. Valley fills appear to be shallower northeast of the contact, except in areas of debris cone deposition, and there is little deep storage or delayed discharge of surface and sub-surface waters to the tributary channels. Southwest of the contact, valley fill is substantially deeper, owing in part to the aggrading alluvial fan of Black Bear Creek. Significant portions of the flow from Black Bear Lake, and seepage from the combined snow and debris avalanche cone at the head of the valley below the falls, seep into the gravels and are retained or stored. This water is available for delayed delivery to springs in the middle portion of the valley section, just above the junction with flows from the South Fork. 5.3 Potential Geolo2ic and Soil Hazard Areas Geologic and soil hazard areas are shown on Figure 5. The locations of specific features shown on the map are referenced with numbers also used in the text. The removal of timber from Black Bear Creek Valley hillslopes has substantially increased both the likelihood of reactivation and the area of impact from mass wasting processes. These increases result from destruction of anchoring and reinforcing vegetation and from concentration of surface and sub-surface flows into previously inactive flow-paths. During field reconnaissance, four sites were observed to be reactivated during the winter of 1988 in clear-cut portions of the upper valley. Three debris flows from the southwest ridge closed the main access road down-valley from the South Fork bridge and deposited debris on the cones at the slope toe. One debris flow from the clear-cut on the northeast ridge (#10) crossed the northeast slope road and deposited its debris on the lower edge of its cone. All linear gullies and flow channels, particularly those with well defined debris cones, pose a continuing, though moderate, hazard from debris flow impact, at least until a substantial forest cover redevelops on the hillslope and cone areas. The cliff at the southeast comer of the valley near its head (#1) is a continuing source of high rock fall and rock avalanche hazard. Boulders and rock blocks ranging from man- sized to house-sized are situated on the talus slope below the cliff and on the valley floor for approximately 100 feet from the slope toe along the entire length of the cliff. These 14 I i / I I ' ! ( \ \ \ . .__ HIGH KAzARQ'-. ,' SNdw AV~ANCt-t._E~ : I ' ·. \ () START B~ED PENS1'ocl< • ·-. ~\_,_ -' -. .. \ ···v / \ FOREST I f' '\ ·. ~·J' PL~~~~Q{-~,~--1-f. "'-. . SCALE: ~ ~-~ j 40 ~ "40Q-200 ~---- -~ ~ ---I ------·---- (ACTIVE! / ' // / /.// //// // __. / / / / / /// ~- // I/ I ·---._- .....____ ~ -, MODeRATE HAZ~D ( \ROCK AVALANCHE -~ ,/ ' fiNACTI~ c ~-...-·· / / /-) (/ \ , ,/ y / :TAILRACE' "\ "' . : PO.WERHOUSE': ~.}8ANSMI~~~E ~ ·-~'• ., .)iYILEH ~~RD ;-~ -Qp..O '< ~ ~ ~ ... a•S ,. ,. . ~ € .v rfi."C7'·' Of.~s u:1f' p..CC ~ ~ ..f~~ ~ pi' p.O sN p.t."tE. ~~\S f~ ___..--t \ ' • -.1 t:J. "-~ .. we"'E. ~/? ~JI \, ~~ ~-~"~~~~ ~--· vi --12-c.. -·D.. ..... ... -C\..-'?1' . ---...... - -------~--~·------..-:-:::: ~' -=-=---~~ BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prine. of Wales Island, Alaska FERC NO. 10440 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend, Wn,.hinntnn -------------I ---··7···--· ... ,. I ... I blocks are most heavily concentrated in the tow area of talus cone construction (#2 ) at the toe of the slope below the main access road to the upper valley. Frequent rock fall and rock avalanche activity (recurrence interval <5 years) extending to approximately the apex of the cones (2/3 of the way down the slope) is indicated by linear strips of shrub and bare talus. Below this scattered old-growth spruce and hemlock stumps on the cone suggest at least partial stabilization and restriction of debris transport to only the largest pieces. Removal of timber has opened the entire cone area and the valley floor immediately adjacent to the cone to direct and frequent impact from these processes. At least one rock avalanche during the winter of 1988 has blocked the southwest slope road, placed truck-sized blocks on the main access road, caused partial failure of the road prism, and deposited a block on the valley floor (#4). Two major and frequently recurring snow avalanche sites (#2 and #3) exert significant control on supply of water and bedload materials to the upper portion of Black Bear Creek. In addition, the frequency and extent of the known and projected runout zones of the snow avalanches are a source of continuing high hazard. A rock/snow avalanche slope on the southwest ridge above the falls of Black Bear Creek ( #5) supplies an annual increment of snow and debris to the upper creek. For the most part, this material is channeled by the canyon of Black Bear Creek and is lodged in the creek below the falls where it becomes incorporated into the channel system. Occasionally, because of excessive snow accumulation combined with rapid warming and unusual rain-on-snow events, a large enough avalanche will occur so that the canyon is plugged or is jumped by the snow mass and damage to extensive areas of additional hillslope will occur. Such an avalanche occurred approximately 60 to 90 years ago, based on tree ring counts, and is indicated by a patch of even-age spruce on the northeast side of the creek just above the falls (#6) and by a strip of similar even-aged spruce (#6a), where the avalanche overran the rock spur in which the rock quarry is located. The zone including this rock spur should be consistent high hazard. Additional evidence of frequent, less catastrophic snow avalanche activity, from this southwest ridge and penetrating into old-growth timber exists immediately southeast of the bedrock spur (#7). These old-growth trees have been harvested, increasing the potential for damage from extension of the snow avalanche runout zone an unknown distance further downslope. This area of expanded impact immediately southwest of the bedrock spur should be considered a zone of intermediate hazard. A large, well defined snow and rock avalanche path extends from the top of the northeast ridge, over a rock cliff, and into a massive talus cone on the north side of Black Bear Creek northwest of the base of the falls ( #8). Snow and rock avalanching from this site poses a high level of hazard to structures and development on the cone and along the channel of Black Bear Creek. It is also the major source of bedload materials feeding alluvial fan development on upper Black Bear Creek and probably contributes substantial quantities of water to the initial flow of Black Bear Creek (Bishop, Swanston and Smith, 1989). An area of organic muskeg soil is located near the Black Bear Lake outlet. As discussed earlier, these soils are generally water-saturated, poorly drained, with a tendency toward liquification. 16 6.0 VEGETATION The vegetation of Prince of Wales Island lies in a segment of the temperate rain forest which extends along the Pacific Coast from northern California to Cook Inlet near Anchorage, Alaska. Major vegetative communities found within the project area are shown in Figure 6 - Vegetation Cover. The vegetation is generally described as follows: Siphon Area - Upper Surface Penstock- Lower Buried Penstock - Powerhouse Area New Access Road - Mature conifer (MC) Wet Meadow/Muskeg (WM) Mature Conifer (MC) Clear-cut (CC}, Deciduous Shrub (DS) Clear-cut (CC) Clear-cut (CC), Deciduous Forest (DF), Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forest (CD) Most of the mature timber present within the Black Lake valley was clear-cut in mid- 1982. Recent clear-cut is the dominant cover type present in the project area. Large clear-cut tracts extend from the base of the Black Bear Creek falls, downstream past the outlet of Black Lake in the valley bottom, and upslope to the 800-1,200 ft elevation. Clear-cut areas are dominated by deciduous shrubs--primarily salmonberry, blueberry, and thimbleberry in association with ferns and other herbaceous vegetation. Most of the clear-cut areas have been replanted with Sitka spruce and western hemlock seedlings which range in height from 6 to 18 inches. The second most prevalent cover type within the project area is Mature Coniferous Forest, comprising 25 percent of the total area. Most of the Mature Coniferous Forest within the project area is located on the steeper slopes adjacent to the Black Bear Creek falls, and along the shoreline of Black Bear Lake. Mature Coniferous Forest is also present in the lower valley in small patches along Black Bear Creek and Black Lake. At the lower elevations the Mature Coniferous Forest cover type is dominated by Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red cedar. Adjacent to the falls and along Black Bear Lake, this cover type is dominated by Sitka spruce, Alaska cedar, and mountain hemlock. Deciduous trees, primarily alder, comprise less than 25 percent of the total canopy cover. Common understory species include blueberry, thimbleberry, red huckleberry, devil's club, and ferns and other herbaceous species. Wet Meadow/Muskeg is present near the outlet of Black Bear Lake and along Black Bear Creek near the confluence with Black Lake. These areas are comprised of typical hydrophytic plant species including sedges, rushes, and willows. Muskeg areas are dominated by sphagnum moss and associated species such as deer cabbage, mountain cranberry, and bog blueberry. Western hemlock and western red cedar are present on small hummocks. 17 'Jl ::J 0 ::1 :::J u '-'--' c -....__ f-V1 lf) ~' Cl::: ::1 w ::J t: 0 Q:: Q:: Q:: (.) ~ .....) ["-. z u.. ~ u z l/1 lf) 0 ::J w u 0 0 er: ::J ::J ::J 0 0 0 f-w u u < X w w 0 :::;;; :::;;; 0 0 z w l.? u 0 w 1..1.. lf) __J :::;;; u 0 0 "" z :::; z ::: Vl Vl CJ UJ :>::: VJ ::J :::;;; ::J u -....__ Q:: < 3:: ::.:: cu 0 uJ 0 ,__ (._1 < <t f-w 3:: z :::;;; w z u f-w w a_ w Q:: 3:: 0 u ::. 3:: u 3:: 0 '-< u (/) z l.J :l. w ~ <t ...J a::_....... <t 3:: w 0 <D .._.., ~ u <t ...J <D BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prince of Wale• Island, Alaska FEIIC 100. 104-40 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend, Washington GETATION COVER }ffi Engineerin9 Figure 6 The Deciduous Shrub cover type is found on steep, avalanche-prone sites both adjacent to, and at the base of, the Black Bear Creek falls. The dominant species within the Deciduous Shrub cover type are salmonberry, devil's club, blueberry and Sitka and red alder saplings. The Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forest is located in the bottom of the Black Bear Creek valley near Black Lake. Deciduous tree species account for 25 to 75 percent of the total canopy cover. Sitka alder and red alder are the dominant deciduous tree species; Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red cedar are the dominant conifers. Understory species are similar to those found in the Mature Coniferous Forest. Deciduous Forest is located on the valley floor near Black Lake, and accounts for only 2 percent of the project area Sitka alder and red alder are the dominant species, accounting for more than 75% of the total canopy cover. The remainder of the project area is Open Water. Yellow pond-lily is present in the shallow portion of the Open Water cover type. 19 7.0 MITIGATION AND CONTROL MEASURES 7.1 Basic Principles EPA and U.S. Forest Service guidelines and Department of Natural Resources forest practice regulations contain most of the practices for the construction and revegetation addressed in this plan. Construction practices and revegetation of disturbed areas will be managed, where applicable, in accordance with these governmental publications. The contractor will follow guidelines outlined in these governmental publications while designing and constructing all erosion and sediment control measures. Continuous on-site monitoring, by Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) representatives, will ensure the following principles are implemented during all construction activities. • Minimize the area and duration of the construction disturbance. • Protect bare soil from rainfall and overland flow and revegetate as soon after final grading as permitted by seasonal conditions. • Reduce the velocity of run-off from construction areas with proper control measures and minimize the volume of construction run-off flowing across bare soil areas by planned diversions. • Provide temporary or permanent drainage facilities to control the run-off released from the construction area with an emphasis on source isolation. • Trap or filter out, sediment before it leaves the construction area with an emphasis on source isolation. • Intercept water drainages and divert away from the construction areas whenever possible. • Clear only those areas which will be graded and stabilized in the current season. • Schedule major land disturbing activities during dry season. • Construction equipment will be appropriately sized for the job. 20 7.2 Implementation of Basic Principles The following is a list of Erosion and Sediment control goals (A thru F) the applicant will use to implement the basic principles of erosion and sediment control at the Black Bear Lake Project: A Detention pond run-off control from larger areas. B. Prevention of erosion from localized areas C. Prevention of erosion on disturbed slopes D. Prevention of erosion in drainage channels E. Stabilization of stream channel bank F. Roadway traffic erosion control A more detailed explanation of the methods used to implement these control measures can be found in Appendix A of this Plan, along with functional drawings for each component. 7.3 Miti&ation for Construction Activities The following sections describe erosion and sediment control measures which are site specific. These are in addition to or in combination with the basic principles described in Section 7.1. These measures and where they will be used are delineated in Figure 7. For discussion purposes, the project is divided into segments. This was illustrated in Figure 3, Project Profile, and stations are shown along the penstock route on Figure 7. 7.3.1 Siphon Area and Upper Buried Penstock Segment 1 Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 8+50 For the siphon intake, minimal excavation will be necessary. The siphon intake will consist of a screened pipeline laid on the bottom of the lake, extending approximately 150 feet into the lake from the lake shore. After the pipeline exits the lake, it will be necessary to excavate some overburden and weathered bedrock. The upper buried penstock will be constructed in an organic soil, muskeg area. The concern in this area is the disturbance of the Muskeg organic soil area that is immediately northwest of Black Bear Lake. There will be an excavation of approximately 8 feet in depth for a distance of approximately 820 feet. Proposed erosion control measures in this location include removal of organic soil material in areas to be excavated, prior to excavation and replacement of disturbed soil following pipeline backfill. The disturbed area will be protected with jute netting. Three helicopter landing areas are anticipated in the vicinity of the siphon intake (see Figure 7). These will be cleared of trees only. The existing soil and grass cover will remain in place. 21 SIPHON INTAKE ·, ' ------ ,/ / / ) I / I I I I I I / / I / I / / I I ,I ,'I-- //" / /// /~/// // / 7 --'/_, / ~ // -----------I/ / I I I ~...._- I --. II ,/ J I '/ .: ' I --··------ ~ / ( t PENSTOCK ALIGNMENT \ \ \ SKYWAY ALIGNMENT \ \ SEDIMENT CONTROL POND \ \ I ________ .... I I I I 11 . !1 1 J... /I v :J /I 1~/ / ~/ I I 4-,.-: -;/-""' :: '<r· 1 !/~ 1 I Vv/ ,/1 11 It '/ I I / I I II I . I rV 11 I // !;' '' \1 I / ' \\ 1;1 I I / , K . ) ~/ / I . "" J ·-, rl I ,1 . /~ :: AR ' ~ '/ --/' ~ /1 ( 'y // ,,t:Jl // I I' , ........... I· . ~ ' ' \\ \ " I ' ) ~~/:) ; ' (_ ' ' ' ,..,..., t -' / --- ' ·-~ ' ' ' ·. / .... <: ---------~ \ / / c ~ ___ ___,_ ------ c \_f. ?-?--- ~- ---- c~"\ / --- //) \.._./ /--_. _. - """""'-..,"' .... , ,.-.::::.,. --..: _ .... _ ~ -... .., --- -------_SKYWAY SUPPORT TOWERS ' ~ --------------I BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ~ -. _ Prince of Wale• Island, Alo•ko HELICOPTER LANDING PAD SILT FENCE , \ \ \~ -~ -~ ~----~ \ ~~· PLA~ ---------..--/ ALASKA POWER!'£~ ~~~HONE COMPANY . ---. -----------Port Townsend, Washington \ ." ~ SCALE: 1• -_400. ----------__ ---~ ~ROSI~ ~TROL & ~l=ntuc..• ..... --&· STRAW BALE BARRIER JUTE NETTING ~ \. ·," SURFACE PENSTOCK SADDLES DRAINAGE CHANN~L~ . '· ··, RIPRAP "-.. 40Q-. 200 0 . __ l 400 ---·-.. --------- ~ -- "" ... _ ----------=----~~ ----------- --- 7.3.2. Surface Penstock Area Segment 2 Sta. 8 +50 to Sta. 27 +50 The 30-inch diameter steel penstock will be constructed on a rock slope and supported by rock anchored piers and saddles. The pipe generally traverses mild slopes of approximately 35 percent and two steep cliffs. The penstock alignment will avoid rock fall hazards. The site will be accessed primarily by cable supported skyway and helicopter with disturbance limited to the excavation for the supporting piers which will be located at approximately 20 foot on center along the penstock alignment. Disturbed areas will be re-seeded and netted with jute erosion control netting. Runoff from disturbed areas will be routed via drainage ditches to a sediment pond prior to discharge into Black Bear Creek. 7 .3.3. Lower Buried Penstock Area Segment 3 Sta. 27 +50 to Sta. 48 + 70 At station 27 +50, the penstock becomes buried and proceeds to the powerhouse where it splits into two 20-inch branches. Each branch enters the powerhouse where it is connected to one of the two turbines. This area consists of generally milder slopes in the 15 to 20 percent range. The buried penstock will cross a debris path, which is a side drainage, and an inactive avalanche area. (This area was recently logged and 300-year old tree stumps that cover this area are testimony to the inactivity of this area.) In the area of the debris path (between Stations 31 and 33), the pipe will either be bridged to allow flows to pass under the pipe or a sag pipe will be anchored to bedrock and covered with concrete. The pipeline will be installed using conventional excavating equipment. The excavation will be protected by a drainage channel on the uphill side and a siltation fence on the downhill side. Erosion control measures such as straw bale barriers will be placed at approximately 100 foot on center throughout the length of the buried penstock. Drainage will be routed to a sediment pond prior to discharge into Black Bear Creek. An approximate 5-acre staging area is expected to be located just north of the buried penstock. A helicopter landing area will also be at this location. Drainage channels will be constructed to route runoff to an adjacent sediment pond which discharges to Black Bear Creek. 7 .3.4. Powerhouse Area Segment 4 Sta. 48+ 70 to Sta. 49+ 70 Construction of the powerhouse will result in the disturbance of approximately 20,000 square feet of land on the right bank of Black Bear Creek. An adequate foundation on pilings may need to be provided to prevent differential settlement of the powerhouse. Excavation of the interlayered sands and gravel and replacement with compacted fill, or preconsolidation by wetting, may be required also. Prior to excavation of the powerhouse and tailrace area, control ditches and a sedimentation pond will be installed. Control 23 ditches will direct drainage flows around the powerhouse site to a sediment control pond which overflows to Black Bear Creek. Following excavation, all cut slopes will be protected with anchored jute netting. A concrete tailrace channel will discharge to Black Bear Creek. Unstable bank areas at the tailrace will be protected with riprap. The powerhouse area erosion control measures are illustrated in Figure 8. A staging area will be located immediately north of the powerhouse site. This area is also anticipated to be used for helicopter landing. There will be drainage channels constructed to route off-site drainage away from the staging area and site drainage to a detention/sedimentation pond. Sedimentation ponds will have sufficient capacity to hold a 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration stormwater run-off event; or approximately 1 acre foot. 7.3.5 Project New Access Road Segment 5 Sta. 49 + 70 to Sta. 189 + 70 The new project access road extends from the powerhouse to its connection with an existing logging road at Sta. 189+79. The road will be designed with a drainage channel on its uphill side throughout it's 24,000 foot length. The roadway design includes culverts at all low points and intermediate culverts. The culvert sizes and locations illustrated in Figures 9A-9F are in accordance with design plans prepared for the project in 1982 by Pool Engineering Company. These culverts will be equipped with headwalls and bar racks on the uphill side and riprap outlet protection and sediment traps on the downstream side. Roadway cut and fill slopes will be stabilized as necessary. 7.3.6 Existing Logging Road Improvements Existing logging roads serve the area. The new access road will connect to an existing logging road near Black Lake. Improvements to existing logging roads will include some regrading and new drainage culvert installations as well as a temporary timber bridge for the existing construction access road. These improvements will be protected similarly to those measures described for the new access road. 7.4 Reveeetation Followine Construction 7.4.1 General Grasses and legumes are considered superior to trees, shrubs, and ground covers for initial soil stabilization because their fibrous root systems bind soil particles and encourage the formation of erosion proof soils. To minimize soil movement, natural vegetation will be maintained wherever possible. However, some sort of cover will be needed on roadside slopes and other areas which are disturbed by construction activities. 24 ACCES.S ~-~C#AIJA-1/EL -P .. AI""--'..AGc DIVG";:(.Sio.A-i ROAD ' ~ 34-.5 KV TRANSMISSION LfNE EL.184 SECTION A EL. 177 ~nr~E'L. 17 5 --5' DEEP RIVER RUN SECTION 8 GRAVeL INFILTRATION G4LLERIES ~ -~--------- " -·,, ---~ ~-=T--f "'~-=A ", \ ELJ87 ~·. --~---·. ~-194 ~------' -~=--\~\ f~~-~\ CRUSHED RDCK PAD EL./83.5 SLOPE TO DRAIN / \:·---~-,~.--.. · 8 ~. ~~--1 f /, Ne 7'-l'/ n..::J ~~ 7iirN?P~..e Yl 1.1 :s; ~ r ,.c:;i;rr-JC E" c,~'t-/ ~<:/;~~, -ORAIA../A.GE CJ-IAN"-..E'L nYJ // " 'l ' ('] \ <;, ~;:::; 0'r'"' // <0// -- (""\\?-/ .../.: \\~// ~ 4.0 "'. :.Fij // 'l INFILTRATION AReAS D!ffUSIOIJ )AILRf\C£ BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prin.,. of wo•s lslond, Alosko FERC NO. 1 04-40 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend, Washington POWERHOUSE EROSION CONTROL }ffi Enqineerin9 Figure 8 TAl LRACE SECTf ONS S.JTE PLAN 4 0 4 8 12 40 0 40 -----1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" SCALE: 1 "= 40' :X: 0 a: l:X18r: ~ a. ~ INa = c( t.o + e c.!' a. GatNa :; (") E ~ \ RoA ~ • a: . Ocn Cl a::t .... + ... I 0 Cll :.,. I ,.. + ;! ... )( .,.. t.O ~ 7 t.O io :X: 0 a: c( wa.. ~~ -. a: .,.. a::t.,.. I (ll) • .... ... + )( c.. ;!If (I)Qo _,---" Ci ~ ~ ~ w :li: -< ..J ~ ~ Sl m I , I \ I '\. I ' ' ~ I -._ ---I --------PLAN wu ~~ -------------------------~ r 80 60 40 20 0 l sTA-33-i--19.47- lE 5t()(NE)' IE 47.o<Swa -------~--·1-"--· 34+00 30+00 ·o STA 24+15.8 I IE 62.D<El IE 61.()( W) ; 0 ! ~A 19.68 ~ IE 59.86(8 JE ~.!lJ, 3 QO~) 20+00 PROFILE 0 [s-TA 14+24 IE 64.8(6 .11_ 80.e!OVJ 10+00 STA1 6+79 IE 32.8(NE) IE 30.0 (SW) 0+00 80 60 40 20 ~"' HORIZONTAL: 1· • 400' VERTICAL: 1• • 40' BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prince of Woles Island, Alaska FE~C NO. 1 04-40 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend. Washington ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE }ffi Enqineering Figure 9A 80 80 40 20 lo.. ~ . 0 t') t') oco t') + + It) .,~ ~ <I( <lit L "' I "' ;:! 10 I Wj Iii 10 -· "'I I ~ ., ' -, !, o .~ • I I i# 1------------~ 0 0 l ---------------- 100 ---- t- t-loo_ ---PLAN ------ -----loo~- I ! I I i ·-· l I I . ---- I ------t --+ ~ i I t I ~------------+--+-80 . I I I I I I -ST~-7~~39-y ----~ - I ! .. 17.0CEl ,J I ___________ ____._ _________ ---- 1 1 1 IE 55.()(.W) r 11 0 STA 88+ 79 I -I ---b i I STA 75+83 I.E ....... STA 62.20.73: YTA 59.89 --.. IE ~~.5(E) IE 44.7(W) j•E 43.0(E) I IE 43.0(E) -+--IE 72D<wl ·--... --+IE 42.82<Wl ------j__J~ 42.8<Wl • STA 65+33.52j I ---- 78+30 IE 49.8 (El 7 0+00 IE 49.5( Wl 80+00 I ! o I '----r--------.... --r-----·-----------~---- 0 I ! I O 1 ; I : I --I ! 0 t-0 ! lirA 55+74.58 b~ ~--~-I sTA ~2~~5~;;1 siA38+3s~8o IE 1 55.9(El IE 63.0(El I · IE 48.()(El IE 41.5(El --li 52.0(Wl ------~-~ F-!·~~~~-----i STA<6+71 IE 42.5(Wl IE_ 40.0(W) i 50+00 PROFILE IE 53.0CSEl IE 51.()( NWl 40+00 34+00 80 40 20 ~N HORIZONTAL: 1· -400' VERTICAL: 1• • 40' BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prince of Wale• Island, Ala•ka FERC NO. 1 0440 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend, Washington ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE lillEnqineerinq j Figure 98 1-40 120 100 80 80 118+80 a.. ~ 0 C') 100 --··-·· WI • 0 + ! EJ(\STIIIG LOGGI!IG RO~D 200-- ------300 --·-----PLAN ---. _t_ ----t-- Q l 90 -------' kA108•os-lsrAJO;.J+---~ - IE 118.0( E) IE 115.9( El IE 108.0( Wl IE 110.0( WI -------·---1. -· 110+00 100+00 PROFILE a.. I :::l' oJ 0 C')l -··· eo+oo ... ---~ ::: 100 80 80 ~N HORIZONTAL: 1· • 400' VERTICAL: 1· • 40' ... z a:O w->t-..J() ::>w ,z ·o It= a.U ~~ • 0 u; t') ~ -.., 0 :;, a. t. a. ':E ..,. ':E ,...() /< ~ i! 0 ~Nf/)t') I J ~I a. ':E o, () t')i «:. u5 c,&:~ t')~g: :geE + co0,... :;&:~ ... ~g: ! geE .. 0 Cll ,... ~ U) :,Ia. .,.':E ... () ~. 01CII ~I t') N \. ,1:.1 ~\\~ N .... EXISTING LOGGING ROAo ~~U) i!lg ~ 00:() t:h --'\00 /J!Q ......-- ~ /~ / i!lg~ 0 a:..J ·~ \ 0 0 ~- f -------- ___.----~--- :too 400 aoo -eeo ----7oo-.. ---200 ---------- --...._ ___ r -L:: -~-.r~o 100 PLAN 180 140 120 100 80 I . I STA 148+36 I I I ' IE 84.0< E) ~rt-----j~~ . -------~~ ;E 8o.ocw• : ~ __.,1_ !STAI141+o8 I I r-----~ i IE 104.7(E) I I ! __ L____ ····-T1 3.0<W:!_._ I STA 15S+86 ! STA 151+01 l : . 180+00 181+20 IE 97.0(E) IE 92.0(W) IE 85.0< E) I STA 145.81 STA 142.521 IE 84.0< W) I IE 81. 75(E) IE 99. 7(E) IE 81.45( W) IE 98.51 W) I 150+00 140+00 PROFILE . 0 0 + I v (1. 0 0 + 0 -.. ·-~· -+--180 -+--14'0 ~ I i''"' •v•r.v••>< I +-120. I I I I I ~ ··-· ---··-s-rA ~7+63 j 1· t-s:rA·-1-2-;-.~ 11 -10o IE 109.0< E> 1 I1E 104.01 e ____ IE 104_,.0<Y!L. ___ -t~--IIE 98.0IW> ·tl 80 ' 1 STA 119+12 STA 126-+-45 IE 107.01El IE 104.5( W) 130+00 IE 108.81El IE 105.51 W) 118+80 120+00 ~N HORIZONTAL: 1• • 400' VERTICAL: 1· • 40' BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prine. of Wole• hllond, Alosko FERC NO. 10440 ALASKA POWER &: TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend. Washington ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE ~ Enqin .. rinq Figure 90 dVI:tdltl J. SSYlO NOIJ.03J.Otld 3d01S >tOO~ IO~VZ\tH 9NIJ.SVM SSVW) di'IO .91: n +C:9a. VJ.S dWO .Of: Ot+t9J. VlS . 0 0 .... I • .,.. I .:J • ~; ~ (S N ~ a: a: 0 w :X: > d'VI:td ltl ~ SSYl 0 NOI.1!>3J.O~d 3d01S >tOOt! dWO .tz 8£_+.l.ll-VlS ); ( I OO+~J, I 1tl31\100 .Of: OS +61J. VlS I I I d'Vtldltl ~ SSYlO NOI103J.OI:td 3d01S >tOOt! lt13A100 .tz \ d'Vtldltl ~ SSV10 NOIJ.03J.Otld 3d01S >t!X>tl J.t13A100 .0£ O.t.+6.U VlS J.ti3A100 .tz 06+01~ VlS dV~dJtl ~ SSYlO NOIJ.0310tld 3d01S >tOOt! IOtiVZVH 9NI1SVM SSVWJ J.Y3A1no. t:iO·c .s-a~. vJ.s \ d'Vtldltl a. SSYlO NOI103J.OI:td 3d01S >tOOt! J.ti3A100:0£ 0·+~ OVOtl SS300V M3N Nl938 O.t.+681. VlS I • 0 0 .,.. yoo+ofl • I • J.t13A100.0£ S~+£61-VJ.S ·-'i\ ~· ~\. ----------------~ \- J.ti3A100.tl: OS+96J. VJ.S <i i ti 1!-. \ I 0 0 N \ 0 -1-oo ... o.,.. ~ ~ti3A100.0£ OJ.+f.OZ VJ.S \ • l· • \ • \ • ........ O.t.+tOI VlS \ \ \ I I j 0 0 (f) ~ 0 0 ..,. I \ I I i I I 1 i I I 1 \ \ \ I \ \ I 0 0 ., o I 0 II) 0 0 ""' l \ \ \ \ \ ' ,\ \ \ \ \\ _.\. _____ _ 0 CD .,.. 0 ., .,.. 0 ..,. .,.. 0 ~ .,.. I \ I -----r····· 0 ..,. .,.. -+-· -· 0 ~ .,.. 0 0 .,.. l 0 0 .,.. 0 CD ! 0 ., tl w ..., 0 0:: a.. 0 CD i -! 0 ., 0 ..,. ! 0 N t-ell) .,.. 0 0 + 0 ..... .,.. 0 0 ------+ 0 ..,. 0 CD .,.. 0 0 + 0 0 N w _, iL 0 a: Q. 1\) (,) ~ CJI 0 N (,) 0 + 0 0 ., :0 0 ., -r-m N N 0 + 0 0 N .... 0 + 0 0 N 0 .... + ...... 0 co 0 ·t .... 0 0 .... 1\) 0 .... • 0 .... co 0 i.OII\) Co) 1\) ' 0) 0 + ...... o, .... co 0 ... 0; : 0 I N 0 0 flo) N 0 ~--t ·~--· 1 iii, w ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~:~' ,::, 11:1 OL' tt. I I c; 11:1 I I r co Ul 1 I 0 I 0 I I w ~~~ I ~~~~ ~ ~ / ~-~~ ----+------- ;r)~~:~ + or// IOL~~// ~ .. 7-< t --~ I -----/I m"' .~r- Ul I ~fij! I --~~-~ ----~ I I -t . ···--------- .... co 0 0 0 r-m )> s: Ul " )> .... N 0 !I "'0 :;o 0 c... fT1 ~ .... • 0 .... g .... CD 0 l~t------i I 1\) 0 0 N 1\) 0 c.:» 0 Q m >< ~ z Ci) ~J 0 .· ~ / m r r ::D 0 ::t Ci) ~11 ;· g G> ~ en z ~~'o m Ci) :,_/', ::0 I \/ ~ /,·\~::a 0 • 0 . I ~ • I ~ i STA 232+10 24 "CULVERT ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION CLASS 1 RIPRAP • 1 STA 226+ 10 so·cuLvERT ,~ -----·· .......... _________ ,_ _____ _ • ROCK SlOPE PROTECTION CLASS 2 RIPRAP \ • STA 222+25 24.CULVERT \ --------·---·. . I ROCK SlOPE PROTECTION CLASS2 RIPRAP i\ I •~ \ • t PROTECTION CLASS 2 RIPRAP \ STA 220+90 24"CULVERT ROCK SLOPE \ \ \ \ ~ 0 ,() ... ,~ / •(.s. S~~--~10+ ~-~ 24 ·c_~LVERT RO?f<: SlOPE 111 "f'a /pROTECTION CLASS 2 RIPRAP '· ~ N 0 0 <:r. mo :o:o -1- - N oo >z r.~ ..... )I' ·r. I ..... • -lla I 0 • 0 q ., ~ STA 214+05 24.CULVERT ~ • 1}'' 0 '• Q,~ t· STA 213+25 24"CULVERT 0 '\"" -----·------....... ------. ' '\ \ ia :(+ STA 208+ 58 24 ·cuLVERT ,..o" '-. -~ . '·\ ~ ~r.,.~~ ~ To prevent surface erosion, a fast-growing, sod-forming grass will be planted, along with mulching for immediate protection. Establishing early grass cover by artificially seeding is the only revegetation believed necessary. Moisture, temperature, soils, and elevation of proposed construction are such that invasion of native shrubs and trees will occur rapidly. Additional revegetation by special planting of trees and/or shrubs may be necessary in critical areas to maintain permanent erosion protection. In areas where vegetative cover cannot control erosion, such as cut rock faces, steep banks and drainage courses, riprap and/or special structural measures will be implemented. Permanent stabilization and soil protection will occur on all disturbed areas at a time when the final topography is established and seasonal conditions are suitable. Replacement of topsoils will be required where practicable. Seed bed preparation is an important consideration and can determine the success or failure of revegetation efforts. Therefore, soils will not be compacted to allow adequate root penetration. Good tillage and slope preparation, fertilization, and proper seeding will be required of the contractor. Undoubtedly, topsoils are better than subsoils for plant establishment and growth; however, replacing topsoils on fill slopes often result in an inadequate bond between the added soils and the subsoil. The potential for slump erosion can then exceed the original surface erosion potential. Soil on areas to be seeded will be left in a roughened condition favorable to the retention and germination of seed. The use of a grader blade to smooth or dress back slopes will be discouraged, as it makes for poor seed bed preparation. Application of seed will occur at a time of year when subsequent temperatures and precipitation will favor germination. Best results are when germination occurs the same season as application. The exact dates for successful seeding will vary from year to year. Seeding will be scheduled early enough to expect subsequent adequate temperatures and late enough to provide most, adhesive soil to hold the seed in place. In southeast Alaska, the most desirable time to plant is within the period from September 1 to October 1. If the construction site lays over the fall and the following spring without seeding, the opportunity for satisfactory results is drastically reduced. Summer seeding has the disadvantages of providing feed for wildlife and non-adhesion to dry slopes, while late fall seeding may leave an insufficient number of sunny days to stimulate seed germination. 7.4.2 Grass Seed Grass seed of the following composition, proportion and quality shall be applied at the rate of 80 pounds per acre on all areas within the project requiring seeding (Alaska Power Authority, 1985). 32 Kmd ~d va.riecy .. ·· · ••··• l'e:c:g~£ by \Yeigt# :Miriiliitirit I>eic~nt · iv!irliriitiirt>I'erterit ofSeed.in Mixture < • • • l$re Se~d . (>(<}el11iliiation . Colonial Bentgrass (Highland or Astoria) Creeping Red Fescure (Illahee Rainier or Pennlawn) Perennial Rye White Clover (pre-inoculated) Percent Weed Seed Inert and Other Crop TOTAL 7.4.3. Fertilizers 10% 50% 30% 10% 9.8% (min.) 85% 49.2% (min.) 90% 29.4% (min.) 90% 9.6% (min.) 90% 0.5% (max.) 1.5% (max.) 100.00% Fertilization often is necessary for successful grass establishment. The major elements most frequently deficient in forest soils are nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). The contractor will be required to apply fertilizer to supply the following amount of nutrients: Total Nitrogen as N -135 pounds per acre Available Phosphoric Aced as Pz05 -60 pounds per acre Soluble Potash as K20 -60 pounds per acre 95 pounds of nitrogen applied per acre will be derived from ureaform of ureaformaldehyde. The remainder may be derived from any source. All fertilizers will be furnished in a standard unopened container with weight, name of nutrients, and manufacturer's guaranteed statement of analysis cleanly marked, all in accordance with state and federal laws. 33 7.4.4. Mulch Mulch will be specifically processed wood cellulose fiber. This wood fiber will not contain any growth or inhibiting factors. The mulch shall be dyed to a suitable color to facilitate inspection of its placement by AP&T inspectors. Mulch shall be manufactured to allow impregnation with seed and absorption and percolation of moisture after application. Wood fiber mulch will be applied at a rate of 2,000 pounds per acre. 7.4.5. Application Approved seeding equipment shall be used to apply seed and in a separate application mulch and fertilizer. The seeder used on this project may utilize water as the carrying agent to maintain a continuous agitator action with a constant pressure. 7.4.6. Acceptance of Work The contractor will be responsible for the revegetation work. Acceptance of areas receiving seed, fertilizer and mulch as specified above will be based on a uniform stand of grass at the time of final inspection by AP&T personnel. All temporary erosion and siltation control facilities will be maintained in satisfactory conditions until the seeded areas are well established. Alternative erosion control measures may be required in some project areas where steep slopes and problem areas persist or in the event the seeding cut-off date established by the State of Alaska is surpassed. The contractor will be responsible for the alternative erosion control measures, and they shall be installed according to manufacturer's instructions and approval of AP&T personnel. This plan depicts anticipated erosion control measures to be taken during construction. An Erosion Control Inspector will be appointed for monitoring compliance with this plan and for directing the contractor to take actions they deem necessary to prevent erosion, if the specific management practices are not adequately controlling erosion. AP&T engineering and environmental staffs will also review the project regularly during construction to ensure that implementation of the erosion and sedimentation plan is functioning as designed. During construction, culverts and retention ponds will be cleaned on an as-needed basis. Extra straw bales, silt fences, and posts will be on-site, and available if required. AP&T operations personnel will be responsible for annually inspecting and maintaining the roads, culverts, drainage courses and other project facilities as required when construction is completed. 34 7.5 Project Abandonment AP&T has no plans to abandon this project in the foreseeable future. However, in the case that abandonment should occur, such an effort would be carefully coordinated with Sealaska Corporation, the United States Forest Service, and appropriate state agencies. While USFS road abandonment procedures and following restoration are well established, abandonment procedures for other project elements are on a case by case basis. USFS personnel are aware of only one abandonment of a hydroelectric facility in this USFS district. The primary concerns of the USFS in this abandonment was the decommissioning of dams and waterways and removal of overhead electrical facilities. The dams and the waterways were either breached or filled. In the case of the Black Bear Lake project, the removal of project facilities would be simpler since no dam is contemplated. Depending upon future years abandonment the site removal may have to be tempered with appropriate historic preservation efforts befitting a site if it were eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 35 8.0 SCHEDULE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES 8.1 General The proposed project schedule is illustrated in Table 2. The siphon and buried penstock construction will occur in the dry months of July and August. The balance of the project will be completed in a two construction season time frame extending from May through September. · Table 2 Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Facility Project Construction Schedule ... .II·Ma.r ••••... •. June ···· II · ····· > \ > lfjlli;.··. > II Aug1lst ···•·•··• II September Segment 1 Siphon Segment 2 Upper Penstock Segment 3 Buried Penstock Segment 4 Powerhouse Segment 5 Roadway Dry Season The erosion and sedimentation control measures will be implemented in the following general manner: • Where necessary, all topsoil in disturbed areas will be removed and stockpiled. • Control ditches and erosion control and sedimentation ponds (ESC ponds) will be in place prior to all project clearing and excavation. 36 • Erosion control measures including silt fences, ESC ponds, control ditches and straw bale barriers will be removed upon the development of vegetation. • All laydown helicopter pads and staging areas will be restored following functional project completion. Restoration will include topsoil cover, re- seeding and netting for slopes greater than 5 percent. Erosion and sedimentation measure schedules are more particularly described as follows: 8.1.1. Siphon Area and Upper Buried Penstock Segment 1 Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 8+50 Prior to Construction Prior to major pipeline construction, the contractor will remove and stockpile organic soils in areas to be disturbed. The organic soil stockpile will be protected with control ditches that divert surface run-off away from the stockpile. During Construction All excavation will be performed using excavating equipment or by hand. Following excavation and backfilling operations, the pipe trench will be brought to within 6 inches of finished grade. After testing, the pipe trench will be brought to finish grade with organic soils that are stockpiled. The finish graded topsoil will be netted with jute erosion fabric and re-seeded. Following Construction The contractor will repair any eroded areas prior to project final completion. 8.1.2. Surface Penstock Area Segment 2 Sta. 8 +50 to Sta. 27 +50 Prior to Construction The 30-inch diameter surface penstock area includes the construction of rock anchored piers for the surface penstock and rock anchored concrete foundations for the temporary skyway support towers. The pipeline will be strung along the penstock alignment ahead of installation and saddle mounting. Prior to excavation in the surface penstock area, the contractor will construct the erosion and sediment control pond at Sta. 29 + 00 or another suitable location. 37 Prior to excavation of penstock piers and skyway towers, the contractor will make efforts to remove and stockpile topsoil from areas to be disturbed. The contractor will provide control ditches to intercept all tributary run-off prior to initiating work in disturbed areas. During Construction During construction, the erosion and sediment control ponds will be inspected daily. The contractor will remove and stockpile any accumulated sediments at locations designated by the engineer. Following Construction Following construction of the penstock and siphon, the skyway may be demolished and removed from the project. Topsoil will be replaced in all disturbed areas where it was removed during construction. The disturbed areas will be re-seeded and netted with jute erosion control netting. The control ditch and pond restoration will include regrading to pre-existing contours and replacement of any removed topsoil. The topsoil areas will be netted with jute erosion control fabric and seeded. All post construction restoration work will be inspected daily by the engineer. 8.1.3. Lower Buried Penstock Area Segment 3 Sta. 27 +50 to Sta. 48 + 70 Prior to Construction Prior to excavation of the buried penstock, the contractor will construct the following: • Silt fence on the west side of the pipeline right-of-way • Erosion and sediment control pond (ESC) and control ditches on the southeast side of the powerhouse • Penstock staging area erosion and sediment control pond. The contractor will remove and stockpile all topsoil located in disturbed areas. Surface drainage will be diverted away from the stockpile through control ditches. There is expected to be a major pipe storage, staging and helicopter landing area just north of the buried penstock. This is also the proposed lower terminal area for the skyway. Pipeline materials will be stored in the penstock staging area. This approximate 5 acre area will have control ditches and ESC pond in place prior to dearing activities. The engineer will inspect all pre-construction erosion and sedimentation control measures. 38 During Construction Pipe material will be strung along the pipeline right-of-way in advance of pipeline installation activities. The compacted pipe trench will have water bar control ditches at approximately 100 feet on center to divert runoff to the silt fence and sediment pond. Following Construction Following hydraulic testing, the buried penstock disturbed area will be covered with approximately 6 inches of suitable material, jute netted, and seeded. Straw bale barriers will be placed at 100-foot intervals along the pipeline right-of-way. Following the growth of vegetation, the ESC ponds, ditches, and staging areas will be backfilled, netted, and re-seeded where slopes exceed 5 percent. 8.1.4. Powerhouse Area Segment 4 Sta. 48 + 70 to Sta. 49 + 70 Prior to Construction Prior to excavation of the powerhouse and tailrace facilities, the contractor will construct drainage control ditches and an ESC pond. The contractor will remove all topsoil from the construction areas where necessary and stockpile at locations designated by the engineer. During Construction All excavation will be performed using appropriate excavating equipment. Cut slopes will be protected with erosion control netting. The stream channel riprap bank stabilization measures will be in place prior to excavating the tailrace structure. Following Construction Upon completion of the project, the area will be graded and disturbed areas will be netted and seeded where slopes exceed 5 percent. Following the development of vegetation, the ESC ponds and control ditches will be backfilled, graded, and seeded. Any topsoil removed from the project staging area will be reapplied and seeded. 39 8.1.5. Project New Access Road Segment 5 Sta. 189 + 70 to Sta. '237 +50 Prior to Construction The roadway alignment will be cleared and grubbed. The topsoil shall be removed and stockpiled at sites designated by the engineer. The soil stockpile sites will be protected with control ditches. During Construction Following grading of the roadwayt all drainage culverts will be installed. The culvert outlets will be equipped with sediment traps and silt fences. The engineer will inspect sediment traps daily and advise the contractor of need to remove accumulated sediment. · Following Construction All cut and fill slopes will be covered with jute netting and seeded. Upon the development of vegetatio~ the silt fences will be removed by the contractor. 40 REFERENCES Alaska Power Authority. 1985. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. February 1985. Bishop, Swanston and Smith. 1989. Hydrogeological Examination of Black Bear Creek between Base of Falls and Head of Spring Fork. June 1989. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1983. Black Bear Lake Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 5715). February, 1983. Harris, AS., and WA Farr. Forest Ecology and Timber Management. The Forest Ecosystem of southeast Alaska, Volume 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. General technical report PNW-25. Harza Engineering Company. 1983. Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Geology Report. June 1983. APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES: A Detention Pond Run-off Control from Larger Areas B. Prevention of Erosion from Localized Areas -Straw Bale Barrier C. Prevention of Erosion from Localized Areas-Silt Fence Barrier D. Prevention of Erosion in Drainage Channels E. Stabilization of Stream Channel Banks F. Roadway Traffic Erosion Control -Rock Construction Entrance Road G. Roadway Traffic Erosion Control-Vehicle Turnouts LIST OF FIGURES A-1 Typical Erosion and Sediment Control Pond A-2 Typical Straw Barrier A-3 Silt Fence Barrier A-4 Erosion Control Fabric A-5 Typical Culvert Detail EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE A: Detention Pond Run-otT Control from Larger Areas REFERENCE FIGURES: A-1 TYPE: Temporary Erosion Control Pond PURPOSE: To control and retain run-off from disturbed areas such that sediment laden waters do not enter the existing drainage course. GENERAL: Temporary erosion control pond are basins created by construction of a barrier or dam across a watercourse or by excavating a basin or by a combination of both. Temporary erosion control ponds shall be installed in order to detain run-off waters and trap sediment and cause settlement of the larger proportion of suspended solids from erodible areas thus protecting land, drainage ways, and streams below the installation from damage by excessive sedimentation and debris deposition. Temporary ponds shall be designed to the following standards. 1. The dam or barrier forming the pond shall be located to provide for maximum volume capacity for trapping sediment behind the structure as well as for greatest ease of clean out. In some cases, intercepting ditches as shown in A-1 are necessary to divert the run-off to the control pond. Whenever possible, these ditches will meander to preserve the natural vegetation. Typical dams and barriers are shown in Figure A-1. The earthen dam structure is used for the larger contributing areas or drainage basins. The straw and silt fence barriers are used when the contributing disturbed are is small or localized. 2. Siltation ponds shall provide a minimum of 1 foot below the outfall elevation for dead storage. The storage volume shall be a minimum of 0.2 cubic feet per 100 square feet tributary to the pond. 3. The volume of the pond above the 1.0 feet storage shall be sized to handle a 2- year, 24-hour design storm and will be based on the geometry of the pond. The surface area of the pond will be determined by the following equation: surface area = 1.20/vs; where Q = the 2-year design flow and vs = the settling velocity. (When additional areas are pumped to sediment ponds, Q = the 2-year design flow and the flow rate of all pumps contributing to the sediment pond. 4. Interior sides of the siltation pond shall be no steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. 5. An outfall consisting of a vertical pipe or box type perforated riser joined by a water tight connection to a pipe which extends through the barrier or dam forming the pond shall be provided. The outfall shall have the capacity to discharge the 2-year frequency peak flow. a. The crest elevation of the riser shall be a minimum of 1 foot below the lowest elevation of the barrier or dam forming the temporary pond providing a minimum 1 foot of free board. b. An anti-vortex device and trashrack shall be securely installed on the top of the outfall riser. c. The bottom of the riser shall be attached to a minimum 1 foot high base of sufficient mass so as to prevent riser floatation. d. A gravel filter consisting of washed gravel or quarry rock shall be placed around the perforated riser. e. Discharge from the siltation pond shall be to a rock lined waterway and shall typically pass through a filter fabric fence immediately prior to discharge from the site. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE B: Prevention of Erosion from Localized Areas REFERENCE FIGURE: A-2 TYPE: Straw Bale Barrier PURPOSE: To reduce the generation of sediment from disturbed areas by filtering or diverting run-off from localized stripped areas. GENERAL: Straw bale barriers will be temporarily installed across existing drainageways to collect and store run-off and sediment prior to discharge. Straw bale barriers will be installed in drainageways, before any upslope grading, or construction activities, commence. Straw bale barriers will be constructed to the following general specifications. 0 1. Straw bale barriers shall be laid sideways, tightly abutted, stacked securely in place with at least two stakes per bale, and keyed into the ground 6 to 8 inches. 2. Straw bale barriers shall be constructed to a sufficient length and height to impound the required volume. 3. Straw bale barriers shall be located to provide maximum capacity for trapping sediments. 4. Sediment ponds, created by the straw bale barriers, shall provide a minimum of 1 foot below the riser elevation for storage. The storage volume will be determined as described in Erosion and Sediment Control Measure A 5. The volume of the sediment pond will be determined as outlined in Erosion and Sediment Control Measure A 6. An outfall shall be provided that consists of a vertical perforated pipe type riser, jointed by a water-tight connection with an anti-seepcollar to a pipe, which extends through the straw bale barrier. The outfall shall have the capacity to discharge the 10-year frequency flow. 7. The crest elevation of the riser shall be a minimum of 1 foot below the lowest elevation of the straw bale barrier, providing a minimum 1 foot of free board. 8. An anti-vortex device and trashrack shall be securely installed on the top of the outfall riser. 9. The bottom of the river shall be attached to a minimum 1-foot high bale of sufficient mass to prevent riser floatation. 10. A gravel filter consisting of washed gravel or quarry rock having less than 2 percent fines shall be placed around the perforated riser. 11. Riprap shall be placed on both sides of the straw bales and outfall channel, for erosion control. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE C: Prevention of Erosion from Localized Areas REFERENCE FIGURE: A-3, A-4 TYPE: Silt Fence Barrier PURPOSE: The silt fence barrier filters run-off, prior to discharge, by intercepting sediment while allowing water to percolate through it. GENERAL: A silt fence is a temporary barrier made of a water-permeable filter fabric such as celanese fiber, polypropylene material, polyvinyl chloride woven cloth, reinforced chlorosulfinated polyethylene cloth, or approved equivalent. Silt fences will be installed along the creek downslope of disturbed areas, prior to any upslope grading. silt fences will be installed around the spoil or stockpile area, immediately following disposal of excavated material. Silt fences shall meet the following criteria: 1. The height of the silt fence shall be a minimum of 2'-0", measured from the existing or graded ground. 2. The silt fence shall be supported by wood or steel fence posts, spaced a maximum of 4 feet apart. 3. Wire shall be used to support the filter fabric unless the manufacturer's recommendations exclude its use. 4. The filter fabric will be securely fastened to the upstream side of each support post. 5. The steel posts which support the silt fences shall be installed on a slight angle toward the expected run-off source. 6. The filter fabric shall be trenched into the ground with a spade, or mechanical trenched, so that the downslope face of the trench is flat and perpendicular to the line of flow. 7. Where solid rock is encountered, steel posts will be used and will be securely grouted into the rock. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE D Prevention of Erosion in Drainage Channels REFERENCE FIGURE: A-5 TYPE: Culvert Outfall PURPOSE: The velocity of flow is nearly always speeded during passage through a culvert and always when passing down a chute. To prevent the formation of a scour hole or plunge pool, the end of the culvert or chute will be protected by the placement of a 1-foot thick blanket of quarry spalls tapering from a width of twice the culvert diameter at the outfall to four times the culvert diameter at a length of four culvert diameters. GENERAL: The velocity of water flowing through a culvert or down a chute will usually increase and, therefore, will tend to form a plunge pool where it flows into an unlined channel. To minimize this potential, the velocity of the water shall be dissipated with the use of riprap. The typical outfall shall include the following provisions. This type of detail is temporary or permanent. 1. The riprap blanket shall be a minimum of 12-inches in thickness. Material may be dumped or hand placed. 2. The lateral extent of the rock shall be at least one culvert diameter on each side of the chute or pipe. 3. The length of the apron beyond the end of the chute or pipe shall be three diameters. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE E: Stabilization of Stream Channel Banks REFERENCE FIGURES: TYPE: Streambank Stabilization PURPOSE: Streambank erosion is a natural phenomenon, but can become a problem during storm events and higher water. Riprap sections will be utilized to provide additional scour protection and stabilization of the streambank particularly in sensitive areas. GENERAL: Most failures of revetments or linings are due to an inadequate extent of the lining. The upper limit should generally be above design high water level. Bank protection should be terminated at bedrock or at the maximum depth of scour. Where lining cannot be extended to the desired depth, place riprap at the toe, and it will fall into the scour hole as it develops. Revetments may consist singly of stone, piling, etc. or in combination with vegetation. Dumped riprap forms a flexible lining which is, therefore, resistant to settlement and will not be so susceptible to undercutting as concrete lines, since stone will gradually slump into the scour hole. Its other major advantage is that it has a very rough surface which results in dissipation of the stream's energy, minimizing scouring problems at the ends of the revetment or lining. In designing stone linings, it must be remembered that ability to resist erosion depends principally on the size of stone used rather than the thickness of the lining. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE F: Roadway Traffic Erosion Control TYPE: Rock Construction Entrance Road PURPOSE: This measure is a stabilized pad of crushed stone located at any point where traffic will be entering or leaving a construction site to reduce or eliminate the tracking or flowing of sediment onto adjacent land or right-of-ways. GENERAL: A temporary Construction Entrance is a rock stabilized temporary entrance pad and shall be constructed at points where traffic will be entering or leaving a construction site from or onto adjacent roads or right-of-way. The pad shall be of sufficient length and width to eliminate transportation of mud and sediment from the construction area onto the right-of-way by motor vehicles or by run-off. This temporary measure if constructed and designed properly can become part of the final roadway section. Construction will meet the following standards: 1. The stabilized construction entrance shall be a minimum thickness of 8 inches and constructed or free draining material such as crushed stone (2-1/2" to 1-1/2"). 2. Width should be the full width of all points of ingress or egress. 3. Length should be as required but not less than 50 feet. 4. The entrance will be maintained in a condition which will prevent tracking or flowing of sediment onto public right-of-ways. Periodic top-dressing with additional stone may be necessary as field conditions dictate. When washing is required, it shall be done on an area stabilized with crushed stone which drains into an approved sediment trap or sediment pond. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE G: Roadway Traffic Erosion Control TYPE: Vehicle Turnouts PURPOSE: This measure is a stabilized turnout area located at designated areas along the access road to provide vehicles a place to pull over to allow passage of other vehicles along the narrow roadway. GENERAL: Vehicle turnouts are surfaced areas adjacent to the roadway to allow vehicles to pass. The pullout will be of sufficient size to allow construction vehicles space to safely pull out of traffic. Construction will meet the following standards: 1. The surfacing material will be the same type and thickness as that used on the roadway surface. 2. The turnout surface will be graded to slope toward the roadway. 3. All cut and fill slopes will have erosion and sediment control measures as outlined in measures B and C. 4 Flow in existing roadside ditches will be maintained throughout construction by lining the ditch with quarry spalls; or for deeper ditches, installing a culvert. 5. Turnouts will not be installed in the bottom of sag vertical curves, and will not be installed to interfere with any natural drainages. 6. A sediment trap will be installed immediately downstream of the vehicle turnout. "'..Uole rb-/:r~r/u/ i)rll,n_ f'r/0~ ""' tit gr~Ir/"'8/-li'l/ed ;,-.....,e/, s~~nreJt/" ~et<.Jt~f!r .. r.£7 .IH'!," ;. "u.:.,.,,.,l/rltd '""f.>{ ~ro-W d-m ?~ ,.., ~~ ~~~ s-A_.., ;u:. , ~,'1;( a ~erft,n711.:1 nfer ~t/Jt.. ,;.cy._p' J,U/;.:;, ,C:/,-t. ... -/1?.br!C. 1:Md ~-..-el "co11e •. 4 t:JJ11fh,/ ~dvr~ m.t~y ako J.e ~'i-t>d' -s~~ /~ 6 tp,dtf-awr W114r.: ;:;/'"#~n-u 4,1:11"1/~s-' An+i -?&!(7 {1:;;//ar-5 !Ju·~ld b-x:, ffug!J Oi'"'fdt~ 1') ~~-r ~ f7a:J.htJY1 BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prince of Woles lslond. Alaska F"ERC NO. 104-40 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend, Washington EROSION AND SEDIMENT CON. POOD l-ilt Engineering Figure A-1 TVIO STAKES PER SALE TO MAINTAIN POSITION AS REQ'O. ANTl-sEEP COLLARl PERFORATED RJSERl \ SILTATION PON/ GRAVEL FILTER (MAY BE HELD IN PLACE WITH WIRE MESH) STRAW SALE AS REQ'O. STRAW SALES BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO.JECT Pri"e• of Woleo lslo"d, Alooko F'EIIC 110. 10440 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE CO'AFANY Port Townsend, Washington STRAW BALE BARRIER ! Figure A-2 9 N 0 Lo ~ 0 • C\J Filter Fabric Material 60" wide rolls. Use staples or wire rings to attatch Iabrie to wire 6° Max. 2" by 4" wood posts. standard or better or equal alternate: Steel fence posts FILTER FABRIC FENCE Provide 314" -1.5" washed gravel backfill in trench and on botll sides of filter fence Iabrie on tne surface 2" by 4" wood post Alt: Steel fence posts 0 . N 0 0 i:n BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO..;C:CT Prine• of Wolet lslond. Alooka FEIIC ~. 1 0440 ALASKA POWER & TELEP~ONE CC~FANY Port Townsend, Washington FILTER FABRIC FENCE 1 Figura A-3 Shallow Slope On shallow slopes, strips of netting may be applfed across the slope. (Slopes up to 1:1) Where there is a berm at the top of the slope. bring the netting over the benn and anchor it 'll!j:=i behind the berm. -= Bring netting down to a level area before terminating the installation. Turn the end under 6" and staple at 12" intervals. Ditch On steep slopes, apply strips of netting parallel to the direction of flow and anchor securely. (Slopes greater than 1:1) In ditches, apply netting parallel to the direction of flow. Use check slots every 15 feet. Do not join strips in the center _._vf the ditch. BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Prine• of Wales Island, Ala1kc F'EIIC HO. t 04<10 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY Port Townsend, Washington EROSION CONTROL FABRIC Figure A-4 ------·-·-.._. ---------"-·------ Ct-4 P C ULVC:AI _::;r--------~i;-;c;~l ( $1Ze VA...:Zt£$) SECTION 5ca/e F 1= !o'-o" 2'' St-.ee./ pt,oe. ba~""" screen Wll"'".l') e. II )C C:.ll c:>p•l""l.nSJS PLAN ~1a/e ;tl = lo '-o~~ BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO_,'ECT Prince of Woles lslond, ~oti<a F'EIIC NO. 1 G440 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE CC~FANY Port Townsend. Wosl'lington L ROAD CULVERT ! Figure A-5 APPENDIX E-7 FISHERIES STUDIES Fisheries Studies Associated with the Proposed Alaska Power & Telephone Company Hydroelectric Project on Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska Draft Report Project No. 00014-001/004 Submitted to: HDR/Ott Engineering, Inc. Prepared by: Pentec Environmental, Inc. Boise, Idaho December 18, 1990 Fisheries Studies Associated with the Proposed Alaska Power & Telephone Company Hydroelectric Project on Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska Draft Report Project No. 00014-001/004 Submitted to: HDR/Ott Engineering, Inc. Lincoln Plaza 11225 SE Sixth St., Bldg. C., Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Prepared by: Pentec Environmental, Inc. 200 S. Cole Road Boise, Idaho 83709 December 18, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................... . 1.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................... . 1.2.1 Salmonid Out-migrant Study ..................................... . 1.2.2 Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2.3 Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2.4 Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.0 STUDY AREA 2 3.0 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 SALMONID OUT -MIGRANT STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J 3.1.1 Out-migrant Trap Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J 3.1.2 Procurement of Scientific Collectors Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.3 Trap Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.3.1 Holding Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.3.2 Fyke Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.3.3 Lead Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.4 Out-migrant Trap Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.5 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.5.1 Water and Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.5.2 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -4 3.1.5.3 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.6 Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.6.1 Water and Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.6.2 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.1.6.3 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2 HABITAT MAPPING STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.1 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.1.1 Black Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.1.2 Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and Upwelling Areas . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.2 Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.2.1 Black Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.2.2 Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and Upwelling Areas . . . . . . 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.4 ADULT ANADROMOUS SALMONID ESCAPEMENT STUDY 49 4.4.1 Steelhead Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.4.2 Chum Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.4.3 Sockeye Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.4.4 Pink Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.4.5 Coho Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.0 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.1 SALMONID OUT·MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.1.1 Water and Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.1.1.2 Stream Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.1.1.3 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.1.2 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.1.2.1 Trap Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.1.2.2 Coho Salmon Smolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.1.2.3 Sockeye Salmon Smolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.1.2.4 Dolly Varden Char . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.1.2.5 Steelhead Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5.1.2.6 Cutthroat Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5.1.2.7 lnddental Observations of Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.2 HABITAT MAPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.2.1 Black Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.2.2 Upper Black Bear Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.3 JUVENILE COHO SALMON HABIT AT USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.3.1 Black Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.3.2 Upper Black Bear Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.4 ADULT ANADROMOUS SALMONID ESCAPEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.0 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Number of stream sections surveyed for juvenile coho salmon abundance by stratum and habitat type in upper Black Bear Creek. Table 2 Date and number of mortalities by fish species in the Black Bear Creek trap just downstream from Black Lake between April 25 and June 5, 1990. Table 3 List and date of incidental observation of non-avian wildlife in or near the fish trap facility on Black Bear Creek near the outlet of Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Table 4 Number and density of juvenile coho salmon in littoral zone sites around Black Lake on July 27 and 28, 1990. Table 5 Number of juvenile coho salmon, threespine stickleback, and sculpin capture in minnow traps placed on the bottom of Black Lake on July 23 through 27, 1990. Table 6 Habitat and fisheries information from 24 sampled 30-m sections in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and five upwelling areas from July 23 through 27, 1990. Table 7 Strata, habitat, and sampling information used for estimating population size of rearing coho salmon by area and volume of habitat type, stratum, and stream in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas from July 27 to July 28, 1990. Table 8 Number of adult anadromous salmonids by date and stratum section in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the upwelling areas. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Black Bear Creek system upstream from outmigrant trap located just downstream of Black Lake during 1990. Figure 2 Changes in channel configuration in the upwelling areas of the "Lake" and "Springs" forks of Black Bear Creek 1981 through 1990. Figure 3 Upstream and downstream views of outmigrant trap on Black Bear Creek at outlet of Black Lake from April 25 through June 5, 1990. Figure 4 Fish holding box and fyke net portions of trapping facility used for collecting salmonid outmigrants from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 through June 5, 1990. Figure 5 "Beaver" fence that was place in front of fyke net opening. Lead netting and logging cables anchored to leads. Figure 6 Lead nets prior to and following attachment to posts. Figure 7 All trapped species except juvenile steelhead trout from top; Dolly Varden char, large coho salmon smolt, small coho salmon smolt, cutthroat trout, sockeye salmon smolt, and coho salmon fry. Onshore station for trapped fish identification and enumeration. Figure 8 Location of littoral zone sampling sites, profunda! zone trap sites, and cross-section depth surveys for bathymetric map on Black Lake. Figure 9 Location of 24 30-meter stream sections in Black Bear Creek used to estimate number of rea ring coho salmon by stratum and habitat type from July 22 through July 25, 1990. Figure 10 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Relationship between stream discharge and gauge height on Black Bear Creek at outlet of Black Lake during April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 11 Discharge of Black Bear Creek at outlet of Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 12 Daily minimum and maximum temperature of water and air on Black Bear Creek at the outlet of Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 13 Daily counts of life history phases of five fish species captured in the trap on Black Bear Creek at the outlet of Black Lake from April to June 1990. Figure 14 Number of trapped coho salmon smolts compared to daily maximum water temperature and discharge in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 15 Mean length and weight of samples of coho salmon smolts trapped from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 16 Cumulative length-frequency of all daily samples of coho and sockeye salmon smolts from a trap on Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 17 Number of trapped sockeye salmon smelts with daily maximum water temperature and discharge in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 18 Mean length and weight of a sample of sockeye salmon smolts trapped from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 19 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Number of trapped Dolly Varden char compared with daily maximum water temperature and discharge in Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 20 Cumulative length-frequency of Dolly Varden char, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout trapped in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 21 Number of trapped steelhead trout compared with daily maximum water temperature and discharge in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 22 Number of trapped cutthroat trout compared with daily maximum water temperature and discharge in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Figure 23 Bathymetric map of Black Lake compiled during mid-July 1990. Figure 24 Distribution of riffle, and pool habitat among 59 30-meter long section in Black Bear Creek between Black Land and five upwelling areas during mid-July 1990. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Pentec Environmental, Incorporated (Pentec) of Edmonds, Washington was subcontracted by HDR/Ott Engineering, Incorporated (HDR/Ott) of Bellevue, Washington to conduct fisheries studies in the Black Bear Creek system on Prince of Wales island in southeast Alaska. HDR was contracted by Alaska Power & Telephone Company (APT) of Port Townsend, Washington. APT is developing a hydroelectric project on Black Bear Creek. The fisheries studies conducted by Pentec were required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC> licensing process and/ or requested by state and federal fisheries agencies involved in the FERC process: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This report contains data collected and observations made during four fisheries/wildlife studies conducted by Pentec during 1990: 1) a salmonid out-migrant study downstream from Black Lake, one of two lakes in the stream system; 2) a fish habitat mapping study of Black Lake and upper Black Bear Creek from the inlet to Black Lake to the upwelling areas; 3) an enumeration and habitat use study of juvenile coho salmon in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, and presence/ absence analysis of juvenile coho salmon in the littoral and profunda! zones of Black Lake; and 4) an enumeration of adult anadromous salmonid escapement to Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the upwelling areas. 1.2 OBJECTIVES 1.2.1 Salmonid Out-migrant Study There were four objectives of the salmonid out-migrant study: (1) to count, weigh, and measure all coho (Oncorhynchus k:isutch) and sockeye (0. nerka) salmon smolts (not fry) that migrated downstream in Black Bear Creek past a point just downstream from Black Lake between April 25 and June 5, 1990; (2) to conduct trap efficiency tests for coho salmon smolts during the sampling season; 3) to count, weigh, and/or measure, as time permitted, all other trapped salmonids, anadromous, and resident species caught in the trap during the sampling season; and (4) to document all incidental observations of wildlife near the fish trap site during the fish sampling season. 1 1.2.2 Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study The objectives of the habitat mapping study were to map the littoral and profunda! zones of Black Lake and the habitat types (i.e., riffle, run, and pool) present in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas. 1.2.3 Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study The objectives of the juvenile coho salmon study were to estimate the number of juvenile coho salmon in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas, excluding tributaries, and to define habitat use (i.e., littoral and profunda! zones) by juvenile coho salmon in Black Lake. 1.2.4 Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study The objective of the adult escapement study was to count adult fish of four species that had returned to spawn in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas. The four species, in chronological order of the seasonal counts, were as follows: 1) steelhead trout (0. mykiss); 2) chum salmon (0. keta); 3) sockeye salmon; and 4) coho salmon. 2.0 STUDY AREA Black Bear Creek is on the west side of Prince of Wales Island, 16 kilometers northeast of the town of Klawock, in southeast Alaska (Figure 1). The stream system has a total drainage area of 7.1 hectares (17.5 square miles, Environaid 1983a). Black Bear Creek begins primarily as outflow from Black Bear Lake (98 hectares, 241 acres) at an elevation of 512 meters (1,680 feet) above sea level. The stream exits the lake and drops approximately 213 meters in a series of falls that bar any upstream fish migration. At low flows, the upper 1.5 km of Black Bear Creek subsurfaces and re-emerges at several upwelling areas, upstream from Black Lake. The portion of Black Bear Creek that re-emerges in the mainstem channel was labeled "Lake Fork" by Environaid (1983); and the portion that emerges from natural springs in the valley was labeled "Spring Fork" (Figure 1 ). The distance between the falls and Black Lake is approximately 3.2 kilometers. Black Bear Creek flows into and out of Black Lake and then downstream approximately 5.6 kilometers to Big Salt Lake (saltwater). 2 Out-migrant Trap South Tnbutary Inset Map Showing Location of Project Araa PROJECT ----:--=:J. ... AREA 0 0.5 I Prfnce of Wales Island Scale In KilomelefS Figure 1 Black Bear Creek system upstream from out-migrant trap located just downstream of Black Lake during 1990. 10 1981 1982 1990 I CD' (1)1 c :it .c. 1.), (;i ::EI -----cr ..----· .. ...!2!!... ... -- Figure 2 Changes in channel configuration in the upwelling areas of the "Lake" and "Spring" forks of Black Bear Creek 1981 through 1990. "Match Line B" Is mapping terminology used by Environaid (1983). From July 1981 through July 1990, the channel configuration of Black Bear Creek in the upper reaches of the Lake and Spring forks changed substantially (Figure 2}. Although some channels probably appear and disappear at different discharge levels in the upper reaches within any given year, at least one channel in the Lake Fork disappeared and one channel migrated from the Lake Fork to the Spring Fork between 1981 and 1990. 3.0 METHODS 3.1 SALMONID OUT-MIGRANT STUDY 3.1.1 Out-migrant Trap Location During mid-March 1990, representatives of APT (Mickelson), Pentec (Konopacky), and HDR/Ott (Macdonald and Zimmerlund), conducted a field inspection of the lower Black Bear Creek system and selected a site for the construction of the out-migrant trap (Figure 1). Discharge at the time of the site visit was approximately four cubic meters per second (m3 /sec) and was termed "relatively high" by APT personnel onsite. The following criteria were used in site selection: water velocity, water depth, stream width, shoreline and instream anchoring points, access, stream bottom contour and debris, potential upstream debris, and onshore working area. The site selected was approximately 30 meters downstream from the outlet from Black Lake and approximately 300 meters upstream from a bridge over Black Bear Creek. Past out-migrant trapping was conducted near a large logjam on the creek by this bridge (Environaid 1983). The traps in all studies were intended to capture out-migrant fish from Black Lake and upper Black Bear Creek. 3.1.2 Procurement of Scientific Collectors Permit Following the March field trip and conversations with local ADFG-Klawock personnel (Freeman}, a proposed study plan for the salmonid out-migrant subproject and an application for a State of Alaska scientific collectors permit was submitted to ADFG-Sport Fish Division (Juneau, Alaska) on March 29, 1990. The application requested a permit to collect out-migrant salmonids from Black Bear Creek at the trap site between April 25 and June 5, 1990. Small juvenile salmonids {i.e., salmonid fry) were not included in the subproject objectives or the permit application, based on instructions from HDR (1990) and the involved fisheries agencies {ADFG 1990, NMFS 1990, Appendix A). 5 A permit to install and operate a fyke net on Black Bear Creek at the outlet of Black lake was issued by ADFG on May 10, 1990 (Appendix A). However, the collection season began on April 25, 1990 as per verbal authorization from ADFG personnel (Freeman). Two other permits, a state DNR Coastal Zone Permit and a DNR Special Use Permit, were potentially required for operation of the fish trap facility. DNR (Romans) and ADFG (Gustafson, Schwan, Freeman) personnel deemed the additional permits unnecessary. 3.1.3 Trap Construction The trap was made up of three major components: two lead nets that directed fish to the center of the trap, a fyke net that funneled fish to a holding box, and a holding box to keep fish alive and unharmed (Figure 3). The trap was constructed on April 23 through April 25, 1990 by Pentec (Konopacky, Romey) and APT (Otos) personnel. The construction sequence began with positioning and anchoring the holding box, then attaching the fyke net, and then attaching the leads to the fyke net. 3.1.3.1 Holding Box The holding box was primarily constructed of exterior grade plywood and was approximately 1.5 meters long, 0.9 meters wide, and 1.2 meters deep (Figure 4). The box consisted of six components: (1) two 15.2 centimeter (em) inlet ports (one was covered while the other was in use) positioned 0.3 and 0.6 meters from the floor for attachment of the fyke net; (2) a velocity baffle in the anterior section; (3) a removable "predator screen" of 3.8 em mesh (diagonal) wire; (4) three outlet windows covered with 12.7 millimeter (mm) mesh hardware cloth; (5) eyebolts on the outside of the box and two crossbars on lower side of the box, perpendicular to the flow, for anchoring points; and (6) a hinged lid. The box was anchored to the stream bottom with sandbags on the crossbars, and stakes driven into the stream bottom and wired to the box through the eyebolts. The box was anchored to shoreline trees with 12.7 millimeter (mm) diameter polyethylene rope. Certain components of the holding box were modified during the sampling season. The 3.8 em wire on the predator screen was replaced with 1.9 em mesh netting on May 3 because of gilling problems with predators in the anterior portion of the box. The 12.7 mm mesh hardware cloth in the outlet windows was replaced with 6.3 mm mesh on May 4 because smaller sockeye salmon smolt were passing through the larger mesh. Because of beaver (Castor canadensis) damage, the polyethylene cover on the lower inlet port was replaced with a PVC cap on May 4. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I 3.1.3.2 Fyke Net The 4.6 meter-long fyke net was constructed of 3.2 mm nylon mesh net connected to a 1.2 meter-wide by 1.8 meter-deep rectangular frame (Figure 4). The net necked down progressively to the 15.2 em diameter outlet end attached to the inlet port of the holding box. The fyke net had two internal "hearts" with support hoops and a zippered port for debris removal. The inlet frame was attached with electrical ties to two 3-meter posts driven into the stream bottom. The inlet frame was anchored with 5 mm diameter nylon rope to shoreline trees, a large grounded snag in the lake upstream of the trap, two fenceposts midway between the inlet frame and the box, and the holding box. Because beavers entered the upstream end of the trap, then entered and chewed holes in the fyke net, a 2 meter square frame with metal fence mesh (6.4 em diagonal) was placed between the leads on May 21 (Figure 5). The fence stopped beavers but allowed all migrating fish to enter the fyke net. 3.1.3.3 Lead Nets The lead nets were constructed of non-stretch Vexar netting (15 mm vertical by 10 mm horizontal mesh size, Figure 5). Mesh size was selected based on subproject objectives and recommendations by five ADFG fisheries personnel (Reed, Gunstrom, Hofmeister, Haddix, and Kerner). Each lead net was approximately 46 meters long and extended from the inlet frame to beyond the high-water channel. The leads formed an approximate 45 degree upstream/ downstream funnel to the fyke in the stream channel; lead angle was perpendicular to flow in the upland flood channel. The net mesh size allowed for passage of most debris and all salmonid fry; project objectives did not include the capture of salmonid fry. A piece of discarded 50 mm diameter logging cable was attached to the base of each lead net with electrical ties to give the lower end of the net rigidity and to anchor the lead to the bottom. Lead nets were attached with electrical ties to 1.5 meter (m) fenceposts driven into the stream bottom at 1.5 m intervals (Figure 6). The three fenceposts nearest the inlet frame were longer and closer together than most of the shallower water posts. All supporting posts were lashed together with 4 mm diameter nylon rope and anchored to shoreline trees, the anchored snag in the lake, and the fyke inlet frame. Stream substrate was piled against the lower lead and the cable to seal the net and preclude passage of fish under the leads. A gate was built into the left lead to allow upstream passage of any adult steelhead trout that encountered the trap facility in a downstream/ upstream direction. 8 - ·--------------------------- Figure 4 . ~t,~~~"'"~\~ ~·;;:~~ - li.. ill~ 'i···,. .... ~ ... ' -·,; .r ... ~ •• \.. • ."t. }l·,, ..... ~ -.. ~..~ Fish holding box (lett photograph) and tyke net portions of trapping facility (right photograph) used for collecting salmonid outmigrants from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black lake from Aprll25through June 5, 1990. - Figure 5 "Beaver" fence that was placed in front of fyke net opening (upper photograph). Lead netting and logging cables anchored to leads (lower photograph). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_ I I Figure 6 Lead nets prior to (upper photograph) and following (lower photograph) attachment to posts. 3.1.4 Out-migrant Trap Operation In general, the operation of the trap was regulated by instructions listed in a Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual that was completed by Pentec biologists (Konopacky and Romey) prior to the sampling season (Appendix 8). The SOP Manual was not intended to present a procedure for every unique situation encountered in the field, but rather to list the standard operating methods for maintenance and collection of field data at the trap. The trap was emptied twice a day, early morning and late evening. All fish were identified by species and counted every time the trap was emptied (Figure 7). On days with large numbers of trapped fish, only a subsample of fish were selected for length and weight measurements. 3.1.5 Data Collection 3.1.5.1 Water and Air Stream Discharge Water level was measured (± mm) twice a day from a staff gauge that was attached to the downstream end of the fish holding box. Stream discharge was measured at three different water levels during the fish sampling season using a Swoffer flow meter, 50 m tape, stadia rod, and standard flow estimation techniques. The staff-discharge relationship was used to estimate discharge from staff readings on days when discharge was not measured. Temperature Minimum and maximum water and air temperatures between early morning and late evening, and late evening and early morning were recorded with Taylor recording thermometers. Temperatures were measured to the nearest ±0.5° Celsius (C) and recorded on a standard field form. Both thermometers were read and reset twice daily in the early morning and late evening. The water thermometer was weighted and attached to the fish holding box, and the air thermometer was attached to a shoreline tree in the shade. 12 ----------------- "' Figure 7 All trapped species except juvenile steelhead trout trom top; Dolly Varden char, large coho salmon smolt, small coho salmon smolt, cutthroat trout, sockeye salmon smolt, and coho salmon fry (left photograph). Onshore station lor trapped fish Identification and enumeration (right photograph). --'\ ~ ''\ ;.'l~ \-. ... 4, ·. 3.1.5.2 Fisheries Coho Salmon Smelts Coho salmon smolts were counted every day of the 42-day sampling season. Smolts were differentiated from fry based on size, weight, and body markings (Figure 7). Fish lengths (fork length, [FL in mm]) from a sample of up to 50 fish were measured every day. Live weights in grams (g) of the same sample were collected once a week. Trap mortalities were also counted. A representative sample of scales were collected from each of 20 fish every week during the sampling season. Scales were placed in labeled coin envelopes and archived. All counts and measurements were recorded on a standard field form. Coho salmon smelts were used to estimate trap efficiency. A daily random sample of up to 100 smelts (usually 50) were marked by fin clipping. A total of 1,952 fish were marked and released during the trap season. No fish were marked during the last week of the trapping season. Marked fish were transported approximately 100 meters upstream and released in Black Lake. Sockeye Salmon Smelts Sockeye salmon smolts were counted every day of the 42-day sampling season. Fish lengths (FL in mm) from a sample of up to 50 fish were measured every day. Live weights (g) of the same sample were collected once a week. Trap mortalities were also counted. A representative sample of scales were collected from each of 20 fish every week during the sampling season. Scales were placed in labeled coin envelopes and archived. All counts and measurements were recorded on a standard field form. Because of their more fragile nature, sockeye salmon smolts were not marked for use in the trap efficiency test. Dolly Varden Char Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma} were counted every day of the 42-day sampling season. Because of the large number of fish collected during the early part of the sampling season, only a portion of the fish collected were measured. A length-frequency analyses of 278 char on April 28 revealed a majority of the trapped fish (77 percent} were less than 23 em long (FL). After April 28, up to 50 fish shorter than 23 em and all fish longer than 23 em were measured daily. No Dolly Varden char were weighed. Trap mortalities were also counted. All counts and measurements were recorded on a standard field form. Dolly Varden char were not marked for use in the trap efficiency test. 14 Steelhead Trout Juvenile steelhead trout were counted every day of the 42-day sampling season. All collected fish were measured (FL in mm). No juvenile steelhead trout were weighed. Trap mortalities were also counted. Adult steelhead trout that were passed through the lead gate were counted. All counts and measurements were recorded on a standard field form. Juvenile steelhead trout were not marked for use in the trap efficiency test. Cutthroat Trout Cutthroat trout (0. clarkii) were counted every day of the 42-day sampling season. All collected fish were measured (FL in mm). No cutthroat trout were weighed. Trap mortalities were also counted. All counts and measurements were recorded on a standard field form. Cutthroat trout were not used in the trap efficiency test. 3.1.5.3 Wildlife All incidental observations of non-avian wildlife were recorded. This included wildlife near or in the trap facility, or sighted while recording information at the trap. All observations were recorded on a standard field form. 3.1.6 Data Analyses 3.1.6.1 Water and Air Stream Discharge Field data were entered and stored on electronic media. The relationship between stream discharge and water level was determined by regression analysis. Daily estimates of discharge were computed from the daily water level data using the discharge-water level relationship. Temperature Field data were entered and stored on electronic media. Daily minimum and maximum water and air temperatures were plotted from the field measurements. 15 3.1.6.2 Fisheries Field data for all species were entered and stored on electronic media. Total numbers of trapped fish of all species, live and dead, were plotted with date. Trap efficiency was calculated based on number of recaptured fish divided by number of marked fish. Trap efficiency was used for all species even though only coho salmon smolts were used in the test, some marked fish may have remained in Black Lake at the end of the sampling season, and some unique qualities of each species may have differentially affected true trap efficiency per species. Coho Salmon and Sockeye Salmon Smelts Numbers of trapped coho salmon and sockeye salmon smolts were plotted with date, discharge, and daily maximum water temperature. Mean length and live weight of the sample of smolts were plotted with date. Length-frequency of smolts was plotted for the sampling season and on a weekly basis throughout the sampling season. Dolly Varden Char, Steelhead Trout, and Cutthroat Trout Numbers of trapped Dolly Varden char, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout were plotted with date, discharge, and daily maximum water temperature. Length-frequency of each species was plotted for the sampling season and on a weekly basis throughout the sampling season. 3.1.6.3 Wildlife All incidental observations of wildlife were listed by date. No other calculations or analyses were made. 3.2 HABITAT MAPPING STUDY 3.2.1 Data Collection 3.2.1.1 Black Lake Littoral and profunda! zones were delineated on Black Lake during July 23 through July 27, 1990. The littoral zone was arbitrarily defined as the shoreline out to a depth of three meters in 16 the lake. Water depth was measured with an Eagle Model 6100P hydroacoustic depth sounder. Littoral and profunda! habitat was determined from measurements of depth along seven short-axis transects of the lake (Figure 8). 3.2.1.2 Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and Upwelling Areas Fish habitat was mapped in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the upwelling areas during July 23 through July 27, 1990. The stream was stratified into nine strata and each stratum was divided into 30 m sections (Figure 9). A stratum was defined as a reach of unbranched stream, with or without tributaries. Stratum 0 started at the inlet to Black Lake. Each section was defined as riffle (higher velocity, shallow depth, surface turbulence), run (laminar flow, deeper than riffle), or pool (slow velocity, deep water, eddies) based on the dominance of a particular habitat type within the section. A photograph was taken of each section. Habitat in the South Fork tributary was not mapped. A transect was established at the beginning and end of each stream section. Stream width (m) and quartile depths (em) were measured at each transect. Standard methods were used to estimate discharge at the first transect in the lowermost stratum (Transect 0-1) on July 26; no rain fell during the sampling session. 3.2.2 Data Analyses 3.2.2.1 Black Lake The delineation between the littoral and profunda! zones was plotted on a map of Black Lake. Approximate areas of each zone were estimated using a planimeter. A bathymetric map of Black Lake was developed from the cross-sectional and littoral zone depth information. 3.2.2.2 Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and Upwelling Areas Field data were entered and stored on electronic media. Discharge near the stream inlet to Black Lake was calculated. Surface area and volume of each section were calculated from section lengths (30 m) and mean depths. Mean widths were calculated from transects bordering each section. 17 \ ®; /® (!) a ~ t\1 ¥ [:)A lii\LH.lllonc S ... unphng S1lc '"'' Pu.Jhlnd.illonc 1 rdp I uc .. UWII ~ .... >ht fl tAl h..:! !o A A' Cross S~chon O<,plll Suf\ley ----tnloral Prolunoal Zone Del.,eahon \\ ) l (!) ~ / '/ ,/ 81dc..·l!. i.Jhu c:::-~1 ' -~.__,( F ---\ 'j 0 / E / ~-~~-v- frgure II locatiOn OIIUlOfUIZOiie Samphng 5.tle~. VrDhHH.l.tl zone uap srles, and cross-section depth ""r•cys lor balhymelric map on illack lake l r,, ~1. 0 l~ 30 ,C!) L..___j__ __ J.---J ~IOMI:ttdr:a. KEY C} San.pll<l StlCIIOn 0-19 Srrara Seclion Number t ~ ::1: Figure 9 Location of 24 30-merer long stream sccllons 10 lllack Bear Creek used Ia estimate number of reanng coho salmon by stratum and habitat type hom July 22 through July 25, 1990. 3.3 JUVENILE COHO SALMON-HABITAT USE STUDY 3.3.1 Data Collection 3.3.1.1 Black Lake Use of the littoral zone of Black Lake by juvenile coho salmon (fry and yearlings) and other fish species was estimated during the afternoon of July 28, 1990. Nine 465 square-meter (m2) sites were systematically assigned within the littoral zone around the lake (Figure 8). A biologist, equipped with snorkel-observation gear, enumerated fish of both salmonid types and noted presence or absence of other species at each site. Although the sites were constant in area, the width of the littoral zone from shore dictated the width and shore length of the site (i.e., if the littoral zone extended 10 m from shore, then the shore length was 46.5 m; if the zone extended 20 m from shore, then shore length was 23.3 m. Minimum shore length was 15.2 m with a width of 30.6 m). Water temperature at 0.6 m depth was measured at each site at the time of sampling. Absence or presence of juvenile coho salmon (fry and yearlings) and other fish was defined for the profunda} zone of Black Lake between July 23 through July 27, 1990. Nine minnow traps, baited with preserved coho salmon eggs, were set in a systematic pattern in the profunda! zone on the bottom of the lake (Figure 8). Depth of traps ranged from 3.6 m (Trap 7) to 12.8 m (Trap 9). Traps were retrieved, emptied of fish, and rebaited four times during the five day sampling session. 3.3.1.2 Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and Upwelling Areas From July Tl through July 28, the juvenile coho salmon (fry) population was estimated in 24 of the 59 30-m sections (41 percent) of upper Black Bear Creek. (Figure 9 and Table 1). If a stratum contained only one or two sections (i.e., Strata 2, 3, 6, and 7), all sections within the stratum were sampled. If there were more than two sections per stratum, the sections were randomly selected using a random numbers table. Stream sections were stratified by reach and habitat type. Only Stratum 0 contained riffle (8 sections), run (22 sections), and pool (5 sections) habitat; all other strata comprised only riffle habitat. A biologist, equipped with snorkel-observation gear, enumerated the number of juvenile coho salmon (fry) in the selected sections. Thalweg velocity (meters/second [m/sec]) and dominant substrate (sand/silt or graveD type were estimated for each section sampled. 20 Table 1 Number of stream sections surveyed for juvenile coho salmon abundance by stratum and habitat type in upper Black Bear Creek. Number of sections Habitat Stratum type Available (N) Surveyed (n) 0 Riffle 8 2 Run 22 5 Pool 5 2 1 Riffle 7 3 2 Riffle 3 Riffle 1 4 Riffle 4 3 5 Riffle 4 2 6 Riffle 2 2 7 Riffle 1 8 Riffle 4 2 Total 59 24 3.3.2 Data Analyses 3.3.2.1 Black Lake Number of fish per species was tabulated and totaled by trap and sampling day. No other analyses were conducted. 3.3.2.2 Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and Upwelling Areas Field data were entered and stored on electronic media. Juvenile coho salmon densities per habitat type, stratum, and stream were calculated based on observed fish numbers and section, stratum, and total stream surface area or volume. Population estimates per habitat type, stratum, and stream were calculated based on mean densities and measured surface area or volume of each section. Confidence intervals (.:!::. 95 percent) were calculated for all population estimates. 3.4 ADULT ANADROMOUS SALMONID ESCAPEMENT STUDY 3.4.1 Data Collection Adult anadromous salmonid escapement counts were conducted for four species in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas. The species observed and dates of surveys were as follows: steelhead trout (May 31), chum salmon (August 15), sockeye salmon (August 27), and coho salmon (to be completed in late October). All adult fish, not just the target species, were counted. Visual counts were referenced by stratum-section numbers used in the habitat mapping subproject. Incidental counts of sockeye salmon and coho salmon were made in the South Fork tributary between Black Bear Creek and the upstream bridge. 3.4.2 Data Analyses Numbers of adult anadromous salmonids in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the upwelling areas were tabulated by species and stratum-section number. A footnote was added concerning numbers of incidental observations in the South Fork tributary. 22 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 SALMONID OUT-MIGRANT STUDY 4.1.1 Water and Air 4.1.1.1 Stream Discharge A staff versus discharge relationship was developed for flow in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake (Figure 10). Extrapolation of stream flows outside the measured relationship occurred over 6.7 percent of the measured range (1.58 to 5.20 m 3 / sec). Flow during the fish trap season fluctuated between 1.32 (May 2} and 5.20 m3 /sec (May 6, Figure 11). Largest flows(> 3.60 m3 /sec) occurred between May 5 and May 7. Two lesser flow events occurred on May 28 (2.58 m3 /sec) and June 3 (2.20 m 3 /sec). 4.1.1.2 Temperature In general, minimum and maximum water temperatures in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake increased over the 42-day 1990 sampling season (Figure 12). Daily minimum water temperatures ranged from 5.0° C (April 25 and 28, May 6 and 7) to 11.0° C (June 2). Daily maximum water temperatures ranged from 6.5° C (April 25) to 13.0° C (May 25 and 27, June 3). In general, minimum and maximum air temperatures near Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake generally increased over the 42-day 1990 sampling season (Figure 12). Daily minimum air temperatures ranged from -1.0° C (April 28 and 29) to 11.0° C (June 3). Daily maximum air temperatures ranged from 8.0° C (May 5) to 23.5° C (May 20). 4.1.2 Fisheries In general, most fish of all species migrated downstream in Black Bear Creek below Black Lake and were captured in the trap during the middle part of the 42-day 1990 trapping season (Figure 13). Daily totals for all species ranged from 28 (partial capture on April 25; lowest full day total was 46 on June 2) to 5,369 fish (May 12). Over the entire trapping season, numbers of each species captured were as follows: 454 cutthroat trout, 1,132 steelhead trout, 13,811 Dolly Varden 23 \t) Discharge • 2.91 -0.01 X Height+ 1.3e-05 X Height squared 15' c 0 u <lJ (f) .... <lJ a. (f) .... <lJ '$ E u :a :J u -<lJ (J) .... ca C") .c u (f) a E ca <lJ .::: (fJ C\1 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Gauge Height (mm) Figure 10 Relationship between stream discharge and gauge height on Black Bear Creek at outlet of Black Lake during April 25 to June 5, 1990. Asterisks indicate measuiad flows. <0 -ll) u c 0 0 Q) (I) .... Q) 0. (I) ..q .... Q) .... Q) E .9 .0 ::l 0 M --Q) CJ) .... (U ..c: 0 -~ 0 C\1 ...- Apr23 Apr30 May? May 14 May 21 May 28 Jun 4 Figure 11 Discharge of Black Bear Creek at outlet of Black Lake from April25 to June 5, 1990. -<..) -Q) \- ::l -ro \- Q) a. E Q) -\- Q) -ro ~ -<..) - C\1 ,.... 0 ,.... co co 1.0 C\1 0 C\1 1.0 - 0 - 0 1.0 I Apr23 . Apr23 .·.. ,, ... ' ... ! \• • f ....... , .. . . ~ ~ . ... . . . .., ..... / Apr30 . . ' ~ ........ : Apr30 .·. : . . .. May 7 May 7 /· ,/"· /\. ...~-.. .: \, ..... \'·. . \,/ ~\. ,• •, .. ••• J~ ··.: ~ ••• • • ...... ~ May 14 May 21 .. . . .. ... .. .. . , Maximum temperarure Minimum temperature May28 Jun 4 /· .. / .. ~~ . ~ .~ ~ • ..... * Maximum temperarure ·••••••••••• Minimum temperature May 14 May 21 May28 Jun 4 Figure 12 Dally minimum and maximum temperature of water and air on Black Bear Creek at the outlet of Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990 en -c ::J 0 (..) 0 0 0 ~ 0 o_ 0 M 0 o_ 0 C\J 0 o_ 0 ....- 0- . ' ' ' ' ' ' .. .. ' . . . . . ' . . ' ' ' ' • • II • II • I l i I I \ I I \ I I : I ~~I ·•••••••••••• Coho Salmon Smelts - - - - -Sockeye Salmon Smelts ---· Steelhead Trout (all) ---Cutthroat Trout (all) ---Dolly Varden Char (all) I ~ rl II A ' :1:. II 1 :I:~ I I ' \ l \i \ I I i i: ( i: ri : : " i V I .: : :\ ,' : , ,, I \ ,. :''\ I I' ..., ·~: \ .. ' \ , I t \ 1 \ _. 1 I •' I , I I I ! I/'\ I I ,. :/~ \ i : \ ..... : 1 1 1 1 :\ I v ,_.·f·· \ Jo' I \j I ' • ... ~ I I .·, I I I V \ '·l I I I •\ \ ~ / · .. 1 1 1 , • 'VI I I V, '.(: ·)I I I ......... / : ~ : \... ;·\\f \ .... \ ' :··' I I I " \ .:"-._ ~ .... ·~. l/ ,, "'..! ~---_, ....... _ , ·-: ·--~ ~ ~~~~--/ ---::::.-----.-:;:o......c..:::-~-..;:"'-"'!:,.:·,;;;,...,.•0 ~~,----~~~----~,------~,------~,------~,-------~,~ Apr 23 Apr 30 May 7 May 14 May 21 May 28 Jun 4 Figure 13 Dally counts of life history phases of five fish species captured in the trap on Black Bear Creek at the outlet of Black Lake from April to June 1990. Counts are not corrected for 80 percent trap efficiency. char, 14,647 sockeye salmon smolts, and 26,854 coho salmon smolts. Small numbers (range of 0 to 30) sculpins (Cottus sp.) and threespine stickleback {Gasterosteus aculeatus) were captured daily but actual counts of fish were not made. 4.1.2.1 Trap Mortalities Small numbers of captured fish died in the trap over the sampling season (Table 2). Trap mortality, as a percent of total fish captured, by species was as follows: cutthroat trout, 0.00 percent; Dolly Varden char, 0.04 percent; coho salmon smolts, 0.17 percent; and sockeye salmon smolts, 1.65 percent. Within each species, more trap mortalities usually occurred on days when a large number of fish in that species were captured. Most sockeye salmon smolts died from physical body damage caused by other fish, whereas most other species died by being partially gilled in the predator screen or stuck in some small crevice in the trap. 4.1.2.2 Trap Efficiency Trap efficiency during the 42-day sampling season was 80.38 percent, based on the number of fish marked and released (1,952) and the number recaptured (1,569). To convert a daily or seasonal trap total for a fish species or for all species, a conversion by multiplying the count by 1.24 was necessary (e.g., the converted number of cutthroat trout that were captured or passed the trap location was 563 fish [454 multiplied by 1.24)). Over the 42-day trapping season, converted trap totals for all captured salmonid species were as follows: 563 cutthroat trout, 1,404 steelhead trout, 17,126 Dolly Varden char, 18,163 sockeye salmon smolts, and 33,299 coho salmon smolts. All fish numbers in the results section of this report are the actual numbers of fish captured in the trap and not the converted estimates. 4.1.2.3 Coho Salmon Smolts Numbers A total of 26,901 coho salmon smolts were captured during the 42-day trapping season. Daily number of trapped coho salmon smolts ranged from 1 (partial capture on April 25, lowest full day total was 3 on June 2) to 3,546 fish (May 10, Figure 14). The highest daily captures of fish (>500 fish/day) occurred between May 6 and May 17. The largest flow event (5.20 m3 /sec on May 6) of the 42-day sampling season occurred just prior to the period of high daily captures. Maximum daily water temperature increased 3.5° C, from 7.0 to 10.5° C, during the same period of time (May 6 through May 17). 28 (/) 0 0 0 "¢ 0 0 0 ±:::(") 0 E (/) c 0 E cu 0 (/) 0 0 0 ..CC\1 0 u -0 ...... Q) .a E 0 :J 0 z 0 ...- 0 I Apr23 1-\ '\ I \ / \ / I \/ \ Apr30 . . " .. .. .. :: .. . . . . I \ .. 1 \ I I I I I I I I I \ . . ! : . . . . i i . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . I I ! l . . . . I \ I ' I \ I I -I ... , .. _ ........ · .... I ·. \ / \/ -J • ...................... . ··. May 7 May 14 I'\/" I I I I \ I I \ I I \ 1 I \ I / \- \ Daily fish count Discharge Water temperature \ --"'\ :-.. .. .. .. f \ \ \ I I " / \ / \ / I -. i \ ('\. . . .......... ..: ...... ', ..... May 21 May 28 Jun 4 Figure 14 ll') "¢ -(/) E l u -Q) en ...... cu M{3 -~ 0 C\1 Number of trapped coho salmon smolts compared to dally maximum water temperature and discharge (cubic meters per second) In Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April25 to June 5, 1990. (X) ...- <0-...-() -Q) ...... :J cu '¢ru ...-0.. E Q) .__ ...... C\12 ..-cu 3: E :J 0 -~ ...-~ 2 >. cu ooo <0 Table 2 Date and number of mortalities by fish species in the Black Bear Creek trap just downstream from Black Lake between Apri125 and June 5, 1990. Date April 26, 1990 April 27. 1990 April 28, 1990 April29, 1990 April 30, 1990 May 1,1990 May 2,1990 May 3, 1990 May 4, 1990 May 5, 1990 May 6, 1990 May 7, 1990 May 8,1990 May 9, 199a May 10, 1990 May 11, 1990 May 12, 1990 May 13, 1990 May 14, 1990 May 15, 1990 May 16, 1990 May 17, 1990 May 18, 1990 May 19, 1990 May 2a. 1990 May21,1990 May 22.1990 May 23,1990 May 24, 1990 May 25, 1990 May 26, 1990 May 28,1990 May 29, 1990 May 3a, 1990 May 31, 1990 June 1, 199a Total dead fish Total live fish Total fish Percent mortality Coho salmon 1 2 3 1 4 2 3 0 4 3 0 5 2 2 0 2 4 2 3 1 a 0 1 0 1 a 0 0 a a a 0 a 0 0 47 26.854 26,9a1 0.17% Sockeye salmon 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 3a 28 14 3 6 6 3 14 27 23 13 19 6 7 6 3 7 3 3 3 2 1 8 1 2 a 246 14,647 14,893 1.65% Steel head trout 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a 0 a 1 1,132 1,133 0.09% Cutthroat trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 454 a.OO%, Dolly Varden char 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a 0 0 1 0 5 13,851 13,856 0.04'% Length and Weight Mean length of coho salmon smolts increased during the first week and then declined during the remainder of the trapping season (Figure 15). Mean length ranged from 83 mm (June 1) to 127 mm (May 2). Individual fish lengths ranged from 37 to 177 mm. On May 1, the outlet window screens in the trap box were replaced with small mesh screen, which possibly affected the mean length range by retaining more small fish. Mean weight of coho salmon smolts increased during the first two weeks and then declined during the remainder of the trapping season (Figure 15). Mean weight ranged from 7.5 g on june 3 to 17.7 g on May 7, 1990. Individual fish weight ranged from 3.2 to 35.0 g. On May 1, the outlet window screens in the trap box were replaced with small mesh screen, which possibly affected the mean weight range by retaining more small fish. Length-Frequency The mode of the cumulative length-frequency distribution of all daily samples of coho salmon smolts was 110-115 mm (Figure 16). Most fish were between 80 and 135 mm. Based on samples collected throughout the sampling season, the weekly modal length for coho salmon smolts coincided with the early increase in mean length (Figure 15) and then the substantial decrease during the remainder of the sampling season (Figure C-1, Appendix C). 4.1.2.4 Sockeye Salmon Smolts Numbers A total of 14,893 sockeye salmon smolts were captured during the 42-day trapping season. Daily number of trapped sockeye salmon smolts ranged from 0 (partial capture on April 25, lowest full day total was also 0 on April 26) to 1,622 fish (May 12, Figure 17). The highest daily captures of fish (>500 fish/day) occurred between May 5 and May 24. The largest flow event (5.20 m3 /sec on May 6) of the 42-day sampling season occurred just prior to the period of high daily captures. Maximum daily water temperature increased 4.0° C, from 7.0° to 11.0° C, during the same period of time (May 5 through May 24). 31 -E E - 0 ("') ...... U) 0 -C\1 0 ...... E en c 0 E o cu ...... en ...... 0 ..c 0 0 -0 0 0 ..c ...... rn c Q) __J ~ '- 0 0 u... m c cu Q) ~ 0 co Apr23 . .. ··········· Mean fork length Mean Jive weight Screen in trap holding box changed from 12.71o 6.4 mm mesh. ·················· .. ~ Apr30 May? May 14 May 21 May 28 Figure 15 Mean length (daily) and weight (weekly) of samples of coho salmon smolts trapped from Black Bear Creek Just downstream from Black lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. Jun 4 co ...... -Ol (0 (/) ...... ~ "¢ ...... 0 E (/) c 0 E cu (/) 0 ..c C\1 0 ...... 0 -0 -..c Ol 0 "Q) ...... ~ Q) > ::i c co cu Q) ~ (0 ..c en LL -0 "-Q) ..c E ::::::1 z 0 I.{) C\1 0 0 C\1 0 I.{) or- 0 0 or- 0 I.{) 0 0 0 <0 0 0 I.{) 0 0 ""'" 0 0 M 0 0 C\1 0 0 or- 0 -,...... ,...... - r- - r- -- .....r - I 50 - 50 ..... Coho Salmon Smelts '""" Mean= 107 mm ,..... Standard Dev. = 18 mm 1- r-Range = 37 to 1 77 mm ,_ f- ,_ i- r- ~ I I 100 150 100 150 Length (mm) Figure 16 I 200 Sockeye Salmon Smelts Mean .. 77 mm Standard Dev. = 7 mm Range= 61 to 139 mm 200 Cumulative length-frequency of all daily samples of coho (upper graph) and sockeye salmon smotts (lowergraph) from a trap on Black Bear Creek tust downstream from Black Lake from April25 to June 5, 1990. 0 0 0 C\1 U) 0 ~0 0 U") E ..- U) c 0 E co U) Q) 0 >.0 Q) 0 ...x::..-- 0 0 U) -0 '-Q) .0 Eo :J 0 zl[) 0 . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . : t i \ : : . . : : I : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I : . . I • : ! . . . . l : l : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . ' " I '/ I I I \ Daily fish count Discharge Water temperature " / \ \ / '--"\ / \ I l[) "¢ -U) E u -\ Q) -. 0> '-co ! i . . . . : 1 I I I l M{3 \ I I Apr23 ·. I i· .. I I ,-\ " I \ / \ / I \/ \ . "'~ ....... ·~ Apr30 : : . . : \ ' : : I ' \\_1 ! \ I . . ; ~. I . . f ····. 'J 1-J •• ••• ••• •••• f ' I . : " I ·. ,... . ···,~.. : .... ··~,. .......... · May7 May 14 May 21 Figure 17 I /\ C\1 . . . . . . . r· .... \ ...... ,• ~ .... . ~ ... ~ ....... : May 28 Jun 4 Number of trapped sockeye salmon smolts compared with daily maximum water temperature and discharge (cubic meters per second) In Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. U) 0 co ..-- <0-..-o -Q) '- ::J (;j """m ..-c.. E Q) ._ '- C\JQ) -..-co 3: E ::J oE ..--·~ ~ >. co coo <0 Length and Weight Mean length of sockeye salmon smolts decreased during the first week and then increased during the remainder of the trapping season (Figure 18). Mean length ranged from 73 mm (May 3) to 81 mm (May 27). Individual fish lengths ranged from 61 to 139 mm. On May 1, the outlet window screens in the trap box were replaced with small mesh screen, which possibly affected the mean length range by retaining more small fish. Mean weight of sockeye salmon smolts decreased during the first week and then increased during the remainder of the trapping season (Figure 18). Mean weight ranged from 3.1 g (May 3) to 4.3 g (June 3). Individual fish weight ranged from 1.8 to 12.0 g. On May 1, the outlet window screens in the trap box were replaced with small mesh screen, which possibly affected the mean weight range by holding more small fish. Length-Frequency The mode of the cumulative length-frequency distribution of all daily samples of sockeye salmon smolts was 70-75 mm (Figure 16). Most fish were between 75 and 85 mm. Based on samples collected throughout the sampling season, the weekly modal length for sockeye salmon smolts coincided with the early decrease in mean length (Figure 18) and then the substantial increase during the remainder of the sampling season (Figure C-2, Appendix C). 4.1.2.5 Dolly Varden Char Numbers A total of 13,856 Dolly Varden char were captured during the 42-day trapping season. Daily number of trapped Dolly Varden char ranged from 21 (June 2) to 1,123 fish (May 6, Figure 19). The highest daily captures of fish (>500 fish/day) occurred between April 26 to May 12. The largest flow event (5.20 m3/sec on May 6) of the 42-day sampling season occurred the same day as the highest daily capture. Maximum daily water temperature increased 4.0° C, from 6.5 to 10.5° C, from April 26 through May 12. 35 N co .......... E E -(/) == 0 0 co E (/) c: 0 E (1j co (/) ....... Q) >-Q) ~ 0 0 (/) -<0 0 ....... ..c ..... {)) c: Q) _J ~ ..q-'-0 ....... u.. c: (1j Q) ~ N ....... Apr23 I I I I I I 1 Screen in trap holding box changed I 1 from 12.7 to 6.4 mm mesh. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... .... l I'· 1 ... I \ I •. I \ I I I I Apr30 May 7 May 14 Figure 16 Mean fork length Mean live weight May 21 May 28 Mean length (daily) and weight (weekly) of a sample of sockeye salmon smolts trapped from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April25 to June 5, 1990. LO -0> --(/) == 0 E (/) c: 0 E (1j (/) Q.) >-Q.) ~ ..q-u 0 (/) -0 ..... ..c 0> Q) ~ Q) .::= I _J I c: (1j Q) ~ M Jun 4 ._ ro ..c: 0 c Q) "E ro > 0 0 C\1 ,... 0 0 0 ,... 0 0 co >.0 =0 0 c.o u -0 ._ Q) .0 0 E 0 :J "¢ z 0 0 C\1 0 Apr23 ·rl /· c : . ' : : .. .. . . . . . . . . . . I : I : : : : : . . . . . . f 1 . . I ' . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . I o : : . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1 ' " I , I I I I I \ Daily fish count Discharge Water temperature " I \ I \ I \ "-,-""\ I \ \ I -. ' I I , I ; : j v ' I I \ I I \ I / ,_ \ I \/ : I f \ I f i. I -, "V! ····-.-t I / \ : .. I •• • ••• •• \ . •···· . I \ / \ j I \. I I ,; ,..J •• •.• •·• •.. I \! I \ ! -' I '•, . . : ,_ \ -~ •• --~ ...... ~#·" ........ ! "-.. ~ .. ·· ... · .. ./ ···· ..... · Apr30 May7 May 14 May 21 Figure 19 :~. .. . . .. . . . . . . : \ ~ : •, .;1 ...... ! \ f \ j ................ .! \ May28 Jun 4 l() -.;;t -C/J E l 0 -Q) Ol ._ ro MTI C/J 0 C\1 Number of trapped Dolly Varden char compared with daily maximum water temperature and discharge (cubic meters per second) In Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from Aprll25 to June 5, 1990. co ,... c.o-,-() -Q) ._ :J ~ ..q-Q) ,-a. E Q) r-._ C\12 ,...ro 3: E :J oE """" ·x ctl ~ >. ·ca coo c.o Length-Frequency Two modes were present in the cumulative length-frequency diagram for Dolly Varden Char (Figure 20). Modes were located at 160-170 mm and 260-270 mm. Most Dolly Varden char captured in the trap were between 140 and 220 mm. Individual fish lengths ranged from 85 to 534 mm. Length-frequency diagrams by week are shown in Figure C-3, Appendix C. 4.1.2.6 Steelhead Trout Numbers A total of 1,133 juvenile steelhead trout were captured during the 42-day trapping season. Daily number of trapped juvenile steelhead trout ranged from 0 (partial capture on April 25, lowest full day total was also 0 on April 26) to 105 fish (May 12, Figure 21). The highest daily captures of fish (>50 fish/day) occurred between May 2 and 14 and on May 29. The largest flow event (5.20 m3 /sec on May 6) of the 42-day sampling season occurred six days prior to the day with the highest trap count (May 12). A freshet on May 29 also corresponded with a relatively large one day count of fish. Maximum daily water temperature increased 3.0° C, from 7.0 to 10.0° C, from May 2 through May 14. Length-Frequency Two modes were present in the cumulative length-frequency diagram for juvenile steelhead trout (Figure 20>. Modes were located at 100-110 mm and 170-180 mm. Most steelhead trout captured in the trap were between 160 and 220 mm. Individual fish lengths ranged from 62 to 411 mm. Length-frequency diagrams by week are shown in Figure C-4, Appendix C. 4.1.2. 7 Cutthroat Trout Numbers A total of 454 cutthroat trout were captured during the 42-day trapping season. Daily number of trapped cutthroat trout ranged from 0 (partial capture on April 25, lowest full day total was also 0 on April 26) to 32 fish (May 12 and May 19, Figure 22). Trap totals for five dates exceeded 20 fish; dates occurred between April 28 and May 28. The largest flow event (5.20 m 3 /sec on Ytay 6) of the 42-day sampling season occurred six days prior to the two highest trap count days. In general, changes in maximum daily water temperature did not correspond to changes in numbers of trapped fish. 38 .c. (/) u.. -0 .... Q) ..c E ::::3 z a a (") a a C\l a a ,... a a C\l a co a ~ a a co a (.0 a C\l a ~ Do1Jfu Varden Char ~e = 204 tandard Dev. = 60 ange = 85 to 534 r rn-rth_ _rf 0 100 200 300 400 500 Steelhead Trout ~ean -173 tandard Dev. = 48 ange .. 62 to 411 J lh-n 0 100 200 300 400 500 r Cutthroat Trout ~ean .. 145 I"" tandard Dev. = 70 ange = 60 to 450 I"" If 11-~ n. 0 100 200 300 400 500 Length (mm) Figure 20 Cumulative length-frequency of samples of Dolly Varden char (upper graph), steel head trout (middle), and cutthroat trout (lower) trapped in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990. 600 600 600 ...... 0 C\.1 ,- 0 0 ,- ::s 0 eco ...... ~ Q) ..c <iio ~<0 (/) -0 '-Q) .00 E .q-::s z 0 C\.1 0 Apr23 Apr30 A .. .. I l .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . : : I l l 1 : : : : : i I 1 : i Daily fish count Discharge Water temperature I I -. : ,, / \ I I ' I i 1 I I l I . . i i I . . : : I " / \ / "\ / \ : i i : , I ! i I \ J ! i I I 1 I i ' I I 1 f \ I\_ I / 1-! \ I \ / ! \ I \/ . . : ., I : ·-.. -....... · .. : '··-· ... ! ·· ... ····--. f A -~ ,- ~ ....... _. " --.. ~ ... ·-. ~ -~ . . . . . . . / May? May 14 May 21 May28 Figure 21 \ I \ I I Jun 4 l[) .q--(/) E 0 -Q) e> (lj M-'= 0 (/) 0 C\.1 Number of trapped steelhead trout compared with daily maximum water temperature and discharge {cubic meters per second) In Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black lake from Apri125to June 5, 1990. co ...- <0-..-o -Q) '- ::J ca <q-(D -r-a. E Q) t- '-C\.1~ T-(lj 3: E ::J oE ...-·:;;: (lj ~ >. '(ij coo <0 l{) C") 0 C") l{) -C\1 :::J e --n:s 0 e C\1 ..c ~ :::J u -0 l{) '-...-- Q) .0 E :::J zo ......- l{) 0 Apr23 ·. I i·. I I I I I' I \ Apr30 \.- May 7 ' I \ I I I : · ...... ..... .. .. \ .. ·. · ..... May 14 1', I I I I / I I I 'I ' ... ··· ....... : · .. / · .... ··..... .. .... ...... May 21 Figure 22 " . . . . Daily fish count Discharge Water temperature -"\ fl": A ··. .. / / ··· ..... .. / \ \ -- May 28 Jun 4 l{) '¢ -en E u --Q) CJ) ..... n:s C")..c u -~ 0 C\1 Number of trapped cutthroat trout compared with daily maximum water temperature and discharge (cubic meters per second) in Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake from April25 to June 5, 1990. co ......- <D-......-(.) -Q) ..... ::J cu ..... '¢ Q) ...--a. E Q) r-..... C\1~ ...--n:s 3: E ::J o.§ ......-~ ~ >. cu coo <D Length-Frequency Three modes were present in the cumulative length-frequency diagram for cutthroat trout (Figure 20). Modes were located at 100-110 mm, 170-190 mm, and 240-250 mm. Most cutthroat trout captured in the trap were between 80 and 120 mm. Individual fish lengths ranged from 60 to 450 mm. Length-frequency diagrams by week are shown in Figure C-5, Appendix C 4.1.3 Wildlife Incidental observations of non-avian wildlife occurred near or in the trap between April 26 and May 28 (Table 3). Three species of wildlife were observed: beaver, black bear (Ursus americanust and river otter (Lutra canadensis). Eleven beaver were observed on ten occasions between April 26 and May 28. Beaver chewed holes in the fyke net on at least five occasions. At least six bear were observed on May 16 and 17. One river otter was observed in Black Bear Creek on May 14. 4.2 HABITAT MAPPING OF BLACK LAKE/BLACK BEAR CREEK STUDY 4.2.1 Black Lake The littoral zone of Black Lake comprised approximately 60 percent of the lake surface (Figure 23). Both ends of the lake were generally less than three meters deep. Approximately 18 percent of the west central portion of the lake was greater than nine meters deep. The deepest point in the lake was 12.8 meters. 4.2.2 Black Bear Creek Upper Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas, was divided into nine strata based on stream size (Figure 24). Strata ranged in length from 30 m (Strata 2, 3, and 7) to 1,050 m (Stratum 0). Across all strata, mean stream width ranged from 2.25 m (Stratum 5) to 15.4 m (Stratum 0) and mean stream depth ranged from 0.04 m (Strata 2 and 3) to 0.52 m (Stratum 0). Discharge in Black Bear Creek near the inlet to Black Lake on July 28 (the day after mapping) was 0.39 m 3 /sec 03.95 cubic feet/second [f /sec]). Weather during the mapping period (July 23 through July 27) was partly cloudy with no rain. 42 Table 3 List and date of incidental observation ot non·avian wildlite in or near the fish trap facility on Black Bear Creek near the outlet of Black Lake from April 25 to June 5, 1990 Date Species N Location Activity April26 Beaver 2 Near trap Swimming April27 Beaver 1 Near trap Swimming May 1 Beaver 1 In creek below trap Swimming May 12 Beaver 1 In creek below trap Slap tail at night May 13 Bear 1 South lake shore Walking May 14 River alter 1 Near trap Swimming May 16 Bear 3 On road south ollake Walking May 17 Bear 3+ Along creek/lake Walking May 18 Beaver 1 Fyke net Chewed hole May 19 Beaver 1 Fyke net Chewed hole May23 Beaver 1 Fyke net Chewed hole May25 Beaver 1 Fyke net Chewed hole May27 Bear 1 Near bridge Walking May 28 (am) Beaver 1 Fyke net Chewed hole May 28 (pm) Beaver 1 Near trap Swimming o- The nine strata comprised 59 30-m sections of three possible habitat types: riffle, run, and pool (Figure 24). Across all nine strata (1,770 meters), there were 32 riffle sections (960 meters), 22 run sections (660 meters), and five pool sections (150 meters). All run and pool reaches were in Stratum 0 or the first stratum upstream from Black Lake; all other sections of Stratum 0 and all sections of the other strata were riffle habitat. 4.3 JUVENILE COHO SALMON-HABITAT USE STUDY 4.3.1 Black Lake 4.3.1.1 Littoral Zone Numbers of coho salmon fry in littoral zone sites ranged from 0 (Sites D, E, F) to 80 fish (Site G) on July 28 (Table 4). Numbers of coho salmon fingerlings in littoral zone sites ranged from 0 (Sites A through F, and I) to 8 fish (Site H, Table 4). Sculpin and threespine stickleback were observed in all sites but were not enumerated. Water temperature in the sites at the time of sampling ranged from 18.5 to 21.0° Cat 0.6 m depth. Most coho salmon fry (206 of 222 fish) occurred in Sites G,H, and I on the north or north west shore of the lake (Table 4 and Figure 23). All coho salmon fingerlings were observed in Sites G and H. 4.3.1.2 Profundal Zone A total of 327 fish were captured in the baited minnow traps placed at various points in the profunda! zone of Black Lake during July 23 through July 27 (Table 5). The total consisted of 23 juvenile coho salmon, 299 threespine stickleback, and five sculpin. Only Trap 8, located near the west end of the lake in four meters of water, contained coho salmon (N=23 fish) during the sampling session. The lengths of the 20 coho salmon fry in Trap 8 ranged from 43 to 72 mm. Lengths of the three coho salmon fingerlings in the trap ranged from 82 to 104 mm. All nine minnow traps contained some type of fish on every day of the sampling session. 45 Bladi l dl<• 0 l() 60 iii() L--~~----.L...---L--~J $<.41oonMu...-. KEY 0·19 Suata-Secuon Number I RdHe [~_]Run DPool ~ -' § ~:i I I ~ ! N I I Figure 24 Oi$lnbutron ol rillle, run, and pool habrtal among 1 59 »meter long .ections In Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and live upwelling areas . during mod-July 1990. Site A 8 c D E F G H Total Table 4 Number and density of juvenile coho salmon in littoral zone sites around Black Lake on July 27 and 28, 1990. Coho salmon f!l Coho salmon fingerling Number Oensity/1 00 m 2 Number Oensity/1 00 m 2 5 1.08 0 0.00 3 0.65 0 0.00 8 1.72 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 80 17.22 4 0.86 73 15.72 8 1.72 53 16.15 0 0.00 222 12 TableS Number of juvenile coho salmon, threespine stickleback, and sculpin captured in minnow traps placed on the bottom of Black Lake from July 23 through 27, 1990. Number of coho salmon, stickleback, sculpin Trap Day 1 Day2 Day3 DayS Total 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 0 62 0 0 26 0 0 3 0 0 47 0 0 165 0 6 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 2 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 1 20 0 4 32 1 18 21 0 0 8 0 23 81 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Total 1 124 0 4 65 5 18 55 0 0 55 0 23 299 5 4.3.2 Black Bear Creek Densities of juvenile coho salmon, per unit of area or volume, differed among the 24 sampled sections. Within the 24 sections, fish density ranged from 0.01 to 4.81 fish/m2 (area) and 0.01 to 34.91 fish/m3 (volume, Table 6). Within riffle habitat in all strata, fish densities ranged from 0.26 to 4.81 fish/m2 and from 1.19 to 34.91 fish/m3 . Within run habitat in Stratum 0, fish densities ranged from 0.01 to 0.16 fish/m2 and from 0.01 to 0.27 fish/m3• Within pool habitat in Stratum 0, fish densities ranged from 0.12 to 0.41 fish/m2 and from 0.16 to 0.53 fish/m 3. Within the reaches sampled for fish, thalweg velocity ranged from 0.05 to 0.66 m/sec. Substrate ranged in composition from silts and sands in runs and pools of Section 0, to gravel and small cobble in riffles of all sections. From July 25 through July 26, water temperature in Black Bear Creek near the inlet to Black Lake ranged from 9.5 to 13.0° C; air temperatures ranged from 12.5 to 19.5° C. Based on surface area and mean density of coho salmon (fish/m2 ), the number of juvenile coho salmon in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas was estimated at 8,975 ± 1,999 fish (Table 7). The following are numbers of fish in each habitat type in Stratum 0: riffle (1,844 ± 6,479 fish), run (873 ± 889 fish), and pool (649 ± 3,471 fish). Numbers of fish per stratum ranged from 58 fish in Stratum 2 to 3,365 ± 1,467 fish in Stratum 0. Based on volume and mean density of coho salmon (fish/m3 ), the number of juvenile coho salmon in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas was estimated at 11,169 ± 2,614 fish (Table 7). The following are numbers of fish in each habitat type in Stratum 0: riffle (2,236 ± 3,584 fish), run (911 ± 902 fish), and pool (685 ± 3,527 fish). Numbers of fish per stratum ranged from 58 fish in Stratum 2 to 4,119 ± 4,677 fish in Stratum 0. 4.4 AOUL T ANAOROMOUS SALMONIO ESCAPEMENT STUDY 4.4.1 Steelhead Trout No adult steelhead trout were observed in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas on May 31 (Table 8). Three adult steelhead trout, however, were passed through the fish trap facility on Black Bear Creek just downstream of Black Lake during late May. Survev efficiency was estimated at 90 percent. 49 Stream stratum Number 0 32 0 34 0 8 0 9 0 11 0 12 0 20 0 3 0 14 1 2 4 7 2 1 3 1 4 1 4 2 4 4 5 2 5 4 6 1 6 2 7 1 8 1 8 2 Table 6 Habitat and fisheries information from 24 sampled 3Q..m sections in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and five upwelling areas from July 23 through July 27, 1990. Stratum section Mean Mean Mean Habitat length width depth velocity Fish Area Volume type (m) (m) (m) Substrate (m/sec) count (m2) (m3) Riffle 30 13.56 0.19 Gravel 0.40 173 406.80 77.29 Riffle 30 12.95 0.27 Gravel 0.89 314 388.50 104.90 Run 30 19.05 0.49 Sand 0.05 6 571.50 280.04 Run 30 18.13 0.52 Sand 0.08 63 543.90 282.83 Run 30 16.15 0.59 Sand 0.10 77 484.50 285.86 Run 30 17.83 0.66 Sand 0.08 5 534.90 353.03 Run 30 15.39 0.66 Sand 0.15 53 461.70 304.72 Pool 30 15.85 0.77 Sand 0.13 193 475.50 366.14 Pool 30 16.61 0.71 Sand 0.06 58 498.30 353.79 Riffle 30 3.20 0.16 Gravel 0.64 435 96.00 15.36 Riffle 30 1.83 0.15 Gravel 0.56 264 54.90 8.24 Rittle 30 3.81 0.16 Gravel 0.66 126 114.30 18.29 Riffle 30 1.83 0.04 Gravel 0.38 71 54.90 2.20 Rittle 30 1.83 0.04 Gravel 0.35 58 54.90 2.20 Riffle 30 7.31 0.22 Gravel 0.19 523 219.30 48.25 Rillle 30 7.01 0.17 Gravel 0.55 292 210.30 35.75 Riffle 30 10.67 0.22 Gravel 0.52 84 320.10 70.42 Rittle 30 2.59 0.15 Gravel 0.29 96 77.70 11.65 Riffle 30 1.83 0.09 Gravel 0.23 133 54.90 4.94 Riffle 30 5.64 0 13 Gravel 0.90 117 169.20 22.00 Riffle 30 3.65 0.10 Gravel 0.59 76 109.50 10.95 Riffle 30 2.74 0.10 Gravel 0.39 287 82.20 8.22 Rittle 30 2.59 0.09 Gravel 0.20 123 77.70 6.99 Riffle 30 3.66 0.12 Gravel 0.23 167 109.80 13.18 Fish/m2 Fish/m3 0.43 2.24 0.81 2.99 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.22 0.16 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.17 0.41 0.53 0.12 0.16 4.53 28.32 4.81 32.06 1.10 6.89 1.29 32.33 1.06 26.41 2.38 10.84 1.39 8.17 0.26 1.19 1.24 8.24 2.42 26.92 0.69 5.32 0.69 6.94 3.49 34.91 1.58 17.59 1.52 12.67 Strata 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 All Table 7 Strata, habitat, and sampling Information used lor estimating population size (± 95 percent confidence intervals) of rearing coho salmon by area and volume of habitat type, stratum, and stream In Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the live upwelling areas from July 271o July 28, 1990. Habitat Sections Area Density Volume Density Po~ulatlon estimate ± 95% Cl type N n (m2) (flsh/m2) (m3) (flsh/m3) Surface area Volume Riffle 8 2 2990 0.62 854 2.62 1844 ± 6459 2235 ± 3584 Run 22 5 10661 0.08 6489 0.14 873 ± 889 911 ±902 Pool 5 2 2483 0.26 1982 0.35 648 ± 3471 685 ± 3527 All 35 9 16133 0.21 9326 0.41 3365 ± 1467 3831 ± 1142 Rillle 7 3 708 3.48 184 22.42 2465 ± 2741 4119 ± 4677 Riffle 1 1 55 1.29 2 32.27 71 ± 0 71 ± 0 Riffle 1 1 55 1.06 2 26.36 58 ±0 58 ±0 Riflle 4 3 1074 1.35 197 6.73 1445 ± 1432 1324 ± 1217 Riffle 4 2 270 1.83 43 17.58 494 ± 1441 763 ± 3644 Rillle 2 2 279 0.69 33 6.13 193 ± 0 202 ±0 Riffle 1 1 82 3.49 8 34.91 287 ± 0 287 ±0 Riffle 4 2 384 1.55 34 15.13 596 ± 98 515 ± 752 All 59 24 19040 0.48 9829 1.14 8975 ± 1999 11169 ± 2614 Table 8 Number of adult anadromous salmonids by date and stratum section in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the upwelling areas. Survey Stratum Date Species efficiency(%) section May31 Steelhead trout 90 All August 15 Chum salmon 90 0-30 0-31 Sockeye salmon {a) 95 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-14 0-15 0-16 0-27 August 27 Sockeye salmon {b) 95 0-4 0-5 0-17 0-25 0-26 0-27 0-28 0-29 0-31 0-32 Pink salmon 95 0·4 October15 Coho salmon 50 0-26 1-3 8-3 (a) additional15 sockeye salmon counted in ·soultl fork" tributary between Black Bear Creek and bndge. (b) additional 101 sockeye salmon counted in ·soultl fork" tributary between Stack Bear Creek and bndge (c) includes 1 dead sockeye salmon. Fish None 1 3 6 12 30 40 5 17 41 1 1 53 4 (c) 8 123 18 4 1 4 4 1 2 3 4.4.2 Chum Salmon Four adult chum salmon were observed in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas on August 15 (Table 8). One fish was located in Section 0-30 and three fish were in Section 0-31 (Figure 24). Two dead chum salmon were also observed near the outlet of Black Bear Creek from Black Lake on August 27. Survey efficiency was estimated at 90 percent. 4.4.3 Sockeye Salmon A total of 155 adult sockeye salmon were observed in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas on August 15 (chum salmon count date, Table 8). All fish were observed in Stratum 0 (Figure 24). Section 0-14 and Section 0-27 had high numbers of fish (40 and 41, respectively). An additional 15 adult fish were observed in the South Fork tributary between Black Bear Creek and the bridge on August 15. A total of 247 adult sockeye salmon (including one dead fish) were observed in BIJck Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas on August 27 (Table 8). All fish were observed in Stratum 0 (Figure 24). Section 0-27 had the highest number of fish (123). An additional 101 adult fish were observed in the South Fork tributary between Black Bear Creek and the bridge on August 27. Survey efficiency was estimated at 95 percent. 4.4.4 Pink Salmon Four adult pink salmon were observed in Black Bear Creek between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas on August 27 (sockeye salmon count date, Table 8). All fish were located in Section 0-4 (Figure 24). An undetermined number of pink salmon were also observed near the logjam just downstream from the bridge over the outlet of Black Bear Creek from Black Lake on August 27. 4.4.5 Coho Salmon Six adult coho salmon were observed in Black Bear Creek in the three strata between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas on October 15th (Table 8, Figure 24). Survey efficiency was estimated at SO percent. 53 5.0 DISCUSSION Very little published literature exists on the fisheries of the upper Black Bear Creek system. Five reports by Environaid (1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b, 1985) or their subcontractors constitute the only recent information available other than incomplete spawning ground surveys by ADFC and incomplete flow records from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1982). The following discussion and comparison of 1990 results mainly relies on information from the present study and the previous Environaid reports. 5.1 SALMONID OUT-MIGRATION 5.1.1 Water and Air 5.1.1.2 Stream Discharge Stream discharge, 1.32 to 5.20 m 3 /sec, during the trapping season was similar to the magnitude and size of events in past years. One major freshet (May 6) and two minor freshets (May 28 and June 3) occurred during the April 25 through June 5 sampling season. USGS (1982) reported a 0.24 to 2.18 m 3 /sec range of flow in Black Bear Creek at the outlet from Black Bear Lake between April 25 and June 5, 1982 No major freshets occurred during 1982. Environaid (1983b) reported a 0.56 to 4.25 m3 I sec range of flow in Black Bear Creek at the outlet from Black Bear Lake in 1982. A large flow event (4.25 m 3 I sec) occurred around May 20. Environaid (1983b) did not compare numbers of outmigrating fish from Black Lake with discharge other than to note that a freshet on April 17 through April 19 damaged their fish trap downstream from Black Lake; numbers of trapped sockeye salmon and coho salmon smolts did not peak until three weeks after the mishap. 5.1.1.3 Temperature Water temperatures in Black Bear Creek were generally similar, although not directly comparable, to water temperatures during like periods of time in past study years. Daily minimum water temperatures ranged from 5.0 to 11.0" C from April 25 through June 5, 1990. Daily maximum water temperatures ranged from 6.5 to 13.0° C for the same period. Environaid (1982a) reported that~ daily water temperatures near the bridge over Black Bear Creek below Black Lake ranged from 6.7 to 11.0" C for the same period in 1981 and from 4.5 to 8.7° C for the same period in 1982 Environaid (1983b) reported~ daily water temperatures ranging from 6.5 to 10.3° C from April 25 through May 31, 1983. 54 Daily air temperatures near the out-migrant trap in Black Bear Creek ranged wider and increased at a slower seasonal rate than water temperatures. Daily minimum air temperatures ranged from -1.0 to 11.0" C from April 25 through June 5, 1990. Daily maximum water temperatures ranged from 8.0 to 23.SO C for the same period. Environaid (1983b} did not collect air temperature data but concluded that air temperature influenced water temperature to some degree. 5.1.2 Fisheries 5.1.2.1 Trap Efficiency Trap efficiency was high (80.38 percent} relative to past studies in Black Bear Creek. Although the 1990 recovery rate was high, we consider the rate conservative for the following reasons: 1) some marked fish probably remained in Black Lake at the end of the sampling season because marked fish (up to 34/day) were caught through the end of the trapping period (seven days after the last marked fish was released}; 2) some marked and unmarked fish probably escaped through the holes chewed in the fyke net by beaver on five occasions; 3} the mortality from predators was probably higher on marked fish than on unmarked fish because all were released near shore in the daylight near a large school (>500 fish} of predator-size fish at the outlet from Black Lake; 4) the marking procedure may have caused a higher than natural mortality rate; and 5) the size of mesh in the Vexar netting allowed all sockeye salmon smolt (test of 50 fish on May 19) and six percent (3 of 50 fish tested) of coho salmon smolt to pass through the net. The latter reason is minor because all smolts, coho salmon and sockeye salmon, migrated downstream tail-first; after entering the fyke net (3.2 mm mesh), the mesh contained 100 percent of the fish. A small number of sockeye salmon smolts were observed passing through the lead nets while being chased by large predator fish during the daytime. Environaid (1982a) estimated their trap efficiency at nine percent based on the recapture of 21 of 243 marked sockeye salmon smolt (one day test). They postulated that the handling mortality of the fish was similar to mortalities (up to 50 percent) measured in another Alaska study (Haddix et al. 1981), and suggested their trap efficiency was 15 percent for computation reasons. Their efficiency estimate was also based on the 15 percent flow that entered the net, which had no leads, and was positioned in the deepest portion of the stream (thalweg). 5.1.2.2 Coho Salmon Smolts The number of coho salmon smolts captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was significantly higher than numbers caught in past studies on upper Black Bear Creek. Between April25 and June 5, 1990, a total of 26,854 coho salmon smolts, or 33,299 fish when converted for trap efficiency (80.38 percent), were captured in the trap. Environaid (1982a) reported that 1,141 55 smolts, or 7,607 fish when converted for trap efficiency (15 percent), were captured in a trap on Black Bear Creek from April 18 through June 8, 1982. Their meter-square trap was positioned in the middle of the stream without lead nets during the 1982 study. Environaid (1983a) reported that 3,217 smolts were captured in a trap on Black Bear Creek from April 9 through June 1, 1983. The 1982 trap, without lead nets, and the 1983 trap, with lead nets, were positioned approximately 350 meters downstream from the Black Lake outlet. An estimated 255 fish (Pentec extrapolation) were not captured during a two-day period (May 20-21) during which floods damaged their net; thus, the 1983 total smolt capture was estimated at 3,472 fish. Reasons for higher numbers of fish in 1990 might include higher seeding rate based on a larger number of adult escapement in previous years or a significant change in the drainage habitat. Relative to the latter reason, the drainage was extensively logged between 1983 and 1990, and the effects of the logging were not documented during that period of time. Mean length of all coho salmon smolts captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was substantially longer than in past studies. During 1990, mean length of smolts was 107.2 mm with a mode at 110 to 115 mm. Environaid (1982a) reported the mean length of all captured smolts as 91.6 mm with a mode at 85 to 90 mm. Environaid (1983a) reported the mean length of all captured smolts as 97.4 mm with a mode at 85 to 90 mm. Weekly mean lengths in all three studies were longest during the middle of the sampling season (May 1 through May 15). Environaid (1983a) aged samples of fish in their study and reported the following age-length relationships: age one, 70 to 95 mm; age two, 74 to 120 mm; and age three, 99 to 148 mm. Fish were not aged in the 1990 study. Reasons for the capture of larger fish in 1990, the same year that more fish were captured than in other studies, were not known. Mean weight of all coho salmon smolts captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was substantially heavier than in past studies. During 1990, mean weight of smolts was 13.04 g. Environaid (1982a) reported the mean weight of all captured smolts as 8.75 g. Environaid (1983a) reported the mean weight of all captured smolts as 10.68 g. Weekly mean weights in all three studies were heaviest during the middle of the sampling season (May 1 through May 15). Reasons for the capture of heavier fish in 1990, the same year that more fish were captured than in other studies, were not known. 5.1.2.3 Sockeye Salmon Smolts The number of sockeye salmon smolts captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was significantly higher than numbers caught in past studies on upper Black Bear Creek. Between April 25 and June 5, 1990, a total of 14,647 sockeye salmon smolts, or 18,163 fish when converted for trap efficiency (80.38 percent), were captured in the trap. Environaid (1982a) reported that 56 2,488 smelts, or 16,587 fish when converted for trap efficiency (15 percent), were captured in a trap on Black Bear Creek from April 18 through June 8, 1982. Their meter-square trap was positioned in the middle of the stream without lead nets during the 1982 study. Environaid (1983a) reported that 2,815 smelts were captured in a trap on Black Bear Creek from April 9 through June 1, 1983. The 1982 trap, without lead nets, and the 1983 trap, with lead nets, were positioned approximately 350 meters downstream from the Black Lake outlet. An estimated 154 fish (Pentec extrilpolation) were not captured during a two-day period (May 20-21) during which floods damuged their net; thus, the 1983 total smolt capture wa~ estimated at 2,969 fish. Reasons for higher numbers of fish in 1990, and possibly 1982, might include higher seeding rate based on a larger number of adult escapement in previous years or a significant change in the drainage habitat. Relative to the latter reason, the drainage was extensively logged between 1983 and 1990, and the effects of the logging were not documented during that period of time. Mean length of all sockeye salmon smelts captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was substantially longer than in past studies. During 1990, mean length of smelts as 76.8 mm with a mode at 70 to 75 m_m. Environaid (1982a) reported the mean length of all captured smelts as 71.0 mm with a mode at 70 to 75 mm. Environaid (1983a) reported the mean length of all captured smelts as 73.8 mm with a mode at 70 to 75 mm. Weekly mean lengths in all three studies were longest during the middle to latter part of the sampling season (May 8 through May 29). Environaid (1983a) aged samples of fish in their study and reported the following age- length relationships: age one, 59 to 93 mm; and age two, 79 to 106 mm. Fish were not aged in the 1990 study. Reasons for the capture of larger fish in 1990, the same year that more fish were captured than in other studies, were not known. Mean weight of all coho salmon smelts captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was substantially heavier than in a 1982 study, but similar to a 1983 study. During 1990, mean weight of smelts was 3.88 g. Environaid (1982a) reported the mean weight of all captured smelts as 2.82 g. Environaid (1983a) reported the mean weight of all captured smelts as 3.90 g. Weekly mean weights in all three studies were heaviest during the middle to latter part of the sampling season (May 8 through June 3). Reasons for the capture of heavier fish in 1990, the same year that more fish were captured than in other studies, were not known. 5.1.2.4 Dolly Varden Char The number of Dolly Varden char captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was significantly higher than numbers caught in a past study on upper Black Bear Creek. Between April 25 and June 5, 1990, a total of 13,811 Dolly Varden char, or 17,126 fish when converted for trap efficiency (80.38 percent), were captured in the trap. Environaid (1983a) reported that 321 57 char were captured in a trap (assumed total catch} on Black Bear Creek from April 9 through June 1, 1983. Their trap had lead nets with much smaller mesh than the 1990 trap and was located approximately 350 meters downstream from the Black Lake outlet and the 1990 trap. Reasons for higher numbers of fish in 1990 might include higher numbers of outrnigrating fish from Black Lake and upper Black Bear Creek, and more encounters with the trap by Dolly Varden char when pursuing outmigrating smolts and fry as prey. The latter reason could be true for some larger fish because of the predatory and piscivorous nature of even small Dolly Varden char, but most fish in 1990 were less than 300 mm long. The length range of Dolly Varden char captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was substantially larger than in a past study. During 1990, captured Dolly Varden char ranged in length from 85 to 534 mm (mean of 204 mm). A length-frequency analysis of the captured fish contained two modes: 160-170 mm and 260-270 mm. Small numbers of larger fish prevented detection of additional modes. Environaid (1983a) reported length of captured Dolly Varden char ranging from 60 to 286 mm (mean of 142 mm). Their length-frequency analysis of the captured fish contained two modes: 140-150 mm and 250-260 mm. Fish were not aged in either study. Reasons for the capture of larger fish in 1990 were not known. 5.1.2.5 Steelhead Trout The 1990 out-migrant study was the first to collect information on steelhead trout on upper Black Bear Creek. Between April 25 and June 5, 1990, a total of 1,132 steelhead trout, or 1,404 fish when converted for trap efficiency (80.38 percent}, were captured in the trap. During 1990, captured steelhead trout ranged in length from 62 to 411 mm (mean of 173 mm). A length- frequency analysis of the captured fish contained two modes: 100-110 mm and 170-180 mm. Small numbers of larger fish prevented detection of additional modes. Fish were not aged in either study. Reasons for the capture of steelhead trout in 1990 and not in previous studies were not known. 5.1.2.6 Cutthroat Trout The number of cutthroat trout captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was substantially higher than numbers caught in a past study on upper Black Bear Creek. Between April 25 and June 5, 1990, a total of 454 cutthroat trout, or 563 fish when converted for trap efficiency (80.38 percent}, were captured in the trap. Environaid (1983a} reported that 65 cutthroat trout were captured in a trap (assumed total catch} on Black Bear Creek from April 9 through June 1, 1983. Their trap had lead nets with much smaller mesh than the 1990 trap and was located approximately 350 meters downstream from the Black Lake outlet and the 1990 trap. Reasons for 58 higher numbers of fish in 1990 might include higher numbers of outmigrating fish from Black Lake and upper Black Bear Creek, and more encounters with the trap by cutthroat trout when pursuing outmigrating smolts and fry as prey. The latter reason could be true for some larger fish, but most fish in 1990 were less than 250 mm long. The length range of cutthroat trout captured in the out-migrant trap during 1990 was substantially larger than in a past study. During 1990, captured cutthroat trout ranged in length from 60 to 450 mm (mean of 145 mm). A length-frequency analysis of the captured fish contained three modes: 100-110 mm, 170-190 mm, and 240-250 mm. Small numbers of larger fish prevented detection of additional modes. Environaid (1983a) reported length of captured cutthroat trout ranging from 63 to 258 mm (mean of 154 mm). Their length-frequency analysis of the captured fish contained two modes: 130-140 mm and 250-260 mm. Fish were not aged in either study. Reasons for the capture of larger fish in 1990 were not known. 5.1.2. 7 Incidental Observations of Wildlife Three types of non-avian wildlife, beaver, black bear, and river otter, were observed during operation of the out-migrant trap. Of the three, beavers were the most numerous (11 sightings) and had the most impact on the fish trap operation by chewing holes in the fyke net on five occasions. Operation of the fish trap coincided with the mating season of the beaver. Most animals encountered the fyke net while swimming out of Black Lake and downstream in Black Bear Creek. All bears were sighted on the shores of Black Lake and the otter was observed in the stream near the trap. During 1981, Environaid (1982a) conducted more intensive and extensive wildlife studies and recorded sightings or signs of beaver, bear, otter, deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), wolf (Canis lupis), mink (Mustela vison), and marten (Maries americana), in the upper Black Bear Creek drainage. During fall 1982, Environaid {1982b) reported observations of the same wildlife species except wolf and marten. During spring 1983, Environaid (1983b) reported observations of the same wildlife species except otter. During fall 1985, Environaid (1985) reported observations of the same wildlife species except wolf. 5.2 HABITAT MAPPING 5.2.1 Black Lake Most of Black Lake (60 percent) consists of littoral zone habitat less than three meters deep. Most of the shallow habitat is located on the east and west ends of the lake. A deep trough (> 9 m) occurs in the west-central portion of the lake; the trough contains the deepest point in the 59 lake, 12.8 m. Environaid (1982a) suggested that the mean depth of Black Lake was 7.6 m and the deepest point was 12.2 m. They also suggested that the east end of the lake (Black Bear Creek inlet) consisted of a shallow littoral shelf. 5.2.2 Upper Black Bear Creek The amount of each habitat type, riffle, run, and pool, differed in upper Black Bear Creek depending on the mode of measurement. Based on total linear distance (1,770 m), most of the upper Black Bear Creek system consisted of riffle habitat (54 percent) with lesser amounts of run (37 percent) and pool (9 percent) habitat. Based on total surface area of the stream (19,040 m2), run habitat comprised most of the stream (56 percent), whereas riffle (31 percent) and pool (13 percent) habitat comprised smaller amounts. Based on total volume of the stream (9,829 m3 ), run habitat comprised most of the stream (66 percent); pool (20 percent) and riffle (14 percent) habitat comprised smaller amounts. Habitat in upper Black Bear Creek changed from the Black Lake inlet to the five upwelling areas. The stream became smaller, faster, narrower, shallower, and more brush covered. The downstream two-thirds of Stratum 0 contained the only run and pool habitat in the nine strata. A stratum was defined as the unforked stream above Black Lake (Stratum 0) or the successive forks up to an upwelling source, but not a tributary entering from a side drainage. Environaid (1982a) divided upper Black Bear Creek into two zones, I and IT. Their Zone I corresponded to the downstream three-quarters of Stratum 0 and their Zone II was the upstream one-quarter of Stratum 0 and the other eight strata of the 1990 study. Relative to the general habitat definitions, Environaid described the upper system in a very similar manner as the 1990 study. They used more detail, however, in their description of the composition of riparian vegetation, instream debris, and shoreline beaver activity. We generally observed the same conditions in 1990 as described in 1981 with one exception -the "migration" of a channel from the Lake Fork to the Spring Fork. The movement of the stream channel may have resulted from natural erosion processes or from a subsurface shift in upwelling volumes. Additional studies of the water sources in both forks may provide a better explanation. 5.3 JUVENILE COHO SALMON HABITAT USE 5.3.1 Black Lake Juvenile coho salmon, fry and fingerlings, were observed in six of the nine littoral zone sites in Black Lake during July 1990. Most fry (93 percent) and all fingerlings were observed in Sites G, H, 60 and I, which were on the north shore of the lake but west of the east end littoral shelf. All three sites were characterized by a relatively narrow littoral zone and substantial numbers of large trees that had fallen into the water along the shoreline. Habitat in Sites B, C, and D along the south shoreline was similar to the north shore sites, but those sites contained very few fry (5 percent) and no fingerlings. Shallow sites located on the ends of the lake (Sites A, E, and F) contained very few fish during the afternoon sampling session. Environaid (1982a) conducted a multiple mark and recapture study with 45 baited minnow traps in the littoral zone of Black Lake from September 7 through September 15, 1981. In contrast to the 1990 findings, most of their captured fish were in traps in the ends of the lake and very few on the north shore. They estimated 2,394 ± 612 age 0+ coho salmon and 2,628 ± 538 age 1+ coho salmon were in Black Lake at the end of the sampling period. Environaid results also suggested a ratio of 0.9 age 0+ fish for every 1.0 age 1 + fish, whereas we calculated an 18.5 age 0+ fish for every 1.0 age 1 + fish in 1990. Both Pentec and Environaid found coho salmon fry and fingerlings utilized the same areas of the lake. Differences in fish densities and locations between years may have resulted from differences in water temperature, study design, time of year, or the time of day in which observations were made. Juvenile coho salmon were captured in one of nine profunda! zone minnow traps in Black Lake. Only Trap 8, in four meters of water, contained juvenile salmon during the five-day trapping season. Trap 7 {3.7 m of water) and all other traps (up to 12.8 m of water) consistently captured threespine stickleback and some sculpin, but never salmonids of any type. Environaid did not conduct studies of profunda! zone use by juvenile coho salmon. 5.3.2 Upper Black Bear Creek Use by juvenile coho salmon {fry and fingerlings), based on density per unit of area or volume, differed among riffle, run, and pool habitat in upper Black Bear Creek during July 1990. In general, densities were highest in riffle habitat, lower in pool habitat, and lowest in run habitat. Based on density per unit of area and a total of 8,975 fish in the stream, riffle habitat contained 83 percent of the fish, run habitat contained 10 percent, and pool habitat contained 7 percent. Based on density per unit of volume and a total of 11,169 fish in the stream, riffle habitat contained 86 percent of the fish, run habitat contained 8 percent, and pool habitat contained 6 percent. Most riffle habitat occurred in the upstream reaches of the upper creek system. Fish location by habitat type was possibly confounded by stream size, cover, food, influences of the upwelling areas, and other unmeasured variables. Environaid (1982a) estimated the populations of rearing juvenile salmonids in four 91 to 107m sections of upper Black Bear Creek (their Zones I and II, our Strata 0 and 6). They used a multiple mark and recapture approach with 40 baited minnow traps in each section as collection devices. They estimated 1,962.:!:. 193 age 0+ coho salmon and 372.:!:. 51 age 1T 61 fish were present in Section A (107 rn) and 213 ±. 158 age 1+ fish were in Section C (99 rn). Too few fish were captured and marked in Sections B and 0 to make estimates. 5.4 ADULT ANADROMOUS SALMONID ESCAPEMENT Numbers of adult anadrornous salrnonids of various species that returned to upper Black Bear Creek in 1990 were similar or lower than in past years. We did not observe any adult steelhead trout (90 percent survey efficiency) in upper Black Bear Creek (between Black Lake and the five upwelling areas) on May 31 even though three adults were passed through the fish trap earlier in the month. Environaid (1982a) also reported an absence of adult steelhead trout in upper Black Bear Creek during May 1982, although 12 fish were observed near the bridge below the lake and two fish were observed near the Black Lake outlet. Numbers of adult churn salmon in upper Black Bear Creek were similar in 1981, 1982, and 1990. We observed four adult fish (90 percent survey efficiency) in Sections 0-30 and 0-31 near the confluence of the South Fork tributary with Black Bear Creek. Environaid (1982a) observed nine fish above the lake in 1981; five of the observed fish spawned in the upwelling areas of the Spring Fork with four spawnings occurring in August. Environaid (1982b) reported 11 adult churn salmon were observed just below the confluence of Black Bear Creek with the South Fork on August 21, 1982. Three fish were observed on August 26. None of the observed fish were in the upwelling spawning areas. Numbers of adult sockeye salmon in 1990 were generally lower than in previous survey years. We observed 155 adult fish on August 15 and 247 fish on August 27 (95 percent survey efficiency, both dates); all fish were observed in Stratum 0. An additional 15 fish and 101 fish were observed in the South Fork between Black Bear Creek and the bridge on August 15 and August 27, respectively. Environaid (1982a, 1985) observed between 391 and 810 adult sockeye salmon in upper Black Bear Creek between August 27 and August 30 in their 1981 through 1985 survey years. They also reported an additional 81 to 391 fish in the west and south tributaries. Numbers of pink salmon observed in upper Black Bear Creek were very low because the system is primarily a "odd-year" spawning stream. Only four adult pink salmon were observed in Stratum 0 during 1990. Environaid (1985) reported 3,907 adult pink salmon present in the stream and tributaries on September 16, 1981; 574 adult fish were present on August 28, 1985. They made no counts in 1982, 1983, and 1984. ADFG counts of adult pink salmon in all of Black Bear Creek (upstream of saltwater) ranged from none in 1967 to 62,000 in 1963; average count for the 22 years was 14,218 (Environaid 1982a). 62 Numbers of coho salmon observed in upper Black Bear Creek during 1990 were lower than in previous survey years. A total of six adult fish (50 percent survey efficiency) were observed in Strata 0, 1, and 8 on October 15. Environaid (1982a) reported 42 adult coho salmon in the system during the third week of October 1981, although most fish were in the south tributary. Environaid {1982b) also reported 63 fish in the system on October 26, 1982; 38 of the fish were located in beaver dam ponds. They estimated that up to 150 adult fish were possibly in the system at some point during the year. 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ADFG. 1990. Letter from Richard Reed, Regional Supervisor, Southeast Regional Office, Habitat Division, ADFG, Juneau, Alaska to Neil H. Macdonald, Director of Water Resources and Energy Development, Ott Engineering, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Environaid. 1982a. Biological-ecological investigations on the Black Bear Creek system near Klawock, Alaska. Submitted to Harza Engineering Co., Chicago Illinois, and Alaska Power Authority. Environaid. 1982b. A report on late-summer and fall observations in upper Black Bear Creek and Black Bear Lake. Submitted to Harza Engineering Co., Chicago Illinois, and Alaska Power Authority. Environaid. 1983a. Fry and smolt out-migration studies on Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, southeastern Alaska during spring 1983. Submitted to Harza Engineering Co., Chicago Illinois, and Alaska Power Authority. Environaid. 1983b. Further investigations on the Black Bear Creek system near Klawock, Alaska. Submitted to Harza Engineering Co., Chicago Illinois, and Alaska Power Authority. Environaid. 1985. Environmental status report based upon late summer visit to Black Bear Creek, 1985. Submitted to Harza Engineering Co., Chicago Illinois, and Alaska Power Authority. Haddix, M., G. Downey, and L. Peltz. 1981. Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon smolt and fry studies (1980). Southern Southeast Lake Fertilization Project Progress Report. F.R.E.D. Division, ADFG. HDR. 1990. Black Bear Lake hydro license development activities. Prepared by Ott Engineers, Bellevue, Washington for Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Port Townsend, Washington. Presented at agency meeting in Juneau, Alaska on January 17 and 18, 1990. 63 NMFS. 1990. Letter of February 20 from Steven T. Zimmerman, Ph.D., Chief of the Protected Resources Division, NMFS-Juneau, Alaska to Neil H. Macdonald, Director of Water Resources and Energy Development, Ott Engineering, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. USGS. 1982. Water year (1982) provisional data for Station 15181589, Black Bear Lake outlet, Prince of Wales Island (County 200), Alaska (State 02). G: \00014 \002\BBCFYKE.RP 64 Appendix A 11·K2L.H DEP.<\RT:tiENT OF FISH t\ND Gt\ MF. May 10. 1990 Mr. Richard c. KonopackY Pentee Environmental, Inc. 120 w. Dayton, Suite A7 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Konopacky: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR P. o.Box 101 Klawock. Alaska 99925 907-755-2331 Re: Fyke Net Installation and Operation-Black Bear Creek <Stream No. 103-60-10310>. Outlet Stream of Black Lake <Section 36. T.72S •• R.81E., C.R.M.> FG-90-I<kl>-7 Pursuant to AS 16.05.870<b> the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed your Proposal to install and operate a 3/16 inch mesh fyke net with a live box trap along Black Bear Creek. approximately 100 feet downstream from Black Lake. The net and trap will be in Black Bear Creek between April 25 and June 15 for the purPose of enumerating and sampling coho and sockeye smolt during outmigration from the Black Lake drainage. A person<s> will be on-~ite continuously during fyke net/trap operation to monitor the structures and fish passage and to facilitate upstream and downstream migration of a 11 fishes. These activities are part of a base 1 i ne environmental assessment to aid planning and evaluation of a proposed hydroelectric project. Black Bear Creek has been specified as being imPortant far the migration. spawning, and rearing of anadromous fish pursuant to AS 16.05.870(a). Your net installation site is in an area essential for the migration of all coho. sockeye, pink and chum salmon arrd steelhead which migrate upstream and downstream between lower Black Bear Creek and Black Lake during various life phases. In accordance with AS 16.05.870<d> <Anadromous Fish Act> and AS 16.05.840 <the Fishway Act>, project approval is herebY qiven subject to the following conditions: <1> Di~ruptions to the natural upstream and downstream migration of fishes shall be minimized by continuous monitoring and dailY excavation of the fish trap. Adult migrating salmonids shall be passed by the net dailY and as encountered. <2) The fyke net and trap shall be in the stream only from April 25 to June 15. All associated structures shall be removed from the stream upon termination of operations. by June 15. Richard Konopacky -2-May 10. 1990 For any activity which significantly deviates from the approved plan. the permittee shall notify the ADF&G and obtain written approval in the form of a permit amendment prior to commencement of the activity. Any action taken by the permittee which increases the overall scope of the project or which negates. alters or minimizes the intent or effectiveness of any stipulation contained in this permit will be considered a significant deviation from the approved plan. The final determination relative to the significance of any deviation and the need for a permit amendment is the responsibility of the ADF&G; therefore. it is recommended that the ADF&G be consulted immediately when a deviation from the approved plan is being considered. This letter constitutes a permit issued under the authority of 16.05.870. It must be retained onsite during construction. and expires on June 15, 1993. Please be advised that our approval does not relieve you of the-responsibility of securing other permits; state. federal or local. You are encouraged to contact the Juneau Permit Information and Referral Center. telephone 465-2615. if you are in doubt as to the need for obtaining other permits. Pursuant to 6 AAC 80.010<b> the conditions of this permit are consistent with the Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. In addition to any penalty provided by lau, this permit may be terminated or revoked for failure to comply with its provisions or failure to comply uith applicable statutes and regulations. The Department reserves the right to require mitigation measures to correct disruption to fish and game created by the project and which were a direct result of the failure to comply with this permit or any applicable law. This permit decision may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of AS44.62.330 --44.62.630. Please contact us at 225-2027 if you have any questions. Thank you in advance far your cooperation. Sincerely, Norman A. Cohen Deputy Commissioner By: cc: ~O _c_ Ow ) ~ · Glenn Freeman }(] \ A.r\ Habitat Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game R. Reed, AOF&G, Juneau G. LaRoche. OMB. Juneau N. McDonald, Ott Engineering, Bellevue. WA J. Gustafson, AOF&G, Ketchikan s. Hoffman, AOF&G, Ketchikan DEPARTMENT OF FISH ~\SO G.:\ME SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Habitat Division February 2~ 1990 ..... _ Mr. Neil H. Macdonald Direc~or of Water Resources and Enerqy Development Ott Engineering, Inc. · 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, WA 98007 Dear ~r. Macdonald: P.2/ll STEVE COWPER. GOVERNOR P.O. SOX 20 aouau.s. ALASKA 99124-0020 I'WJNE: (907)4 6 5-4 2 9 0 OTI WATER ENGIN~ER3 BELLEVUE Thank you tor your February 1 letter regarding concerns you have reqardinq certain proposed studies for the Black Bear take hydroelectric project for 1990. 1. Juvenile outmiarants. We believe that juvenile ou~qrant ~nfor.mat~on is necessary for 1990. We also understand, however, vour coat concerns and thus are aqreea.ble to eliminatlnq ch.um and pink fry from the outmiqrant study. This should result in a reduced time period fer fyke nettir.q with a corresponding reduction in costs. Specific timing which encompasses the outmiqration of .socke.ye and coho could be determined from the past field studies. We believe reari~~ species, especially coho, will provide a qood indication o: habitat viability. 2. Rearina coho studv. ~e agree with eliminating the coho popula'l:.ion esl:ima.tes in Black Lake and concentrating the work in the creek. t-Te do recommend that !'labitat evaluations by means of rnappinq and minnow t=appinq be conducted in Slack Lake to deter.mine habitat use. We have no objections to using snorkel qear for direct observations or ~innow trapping (mark/release) for the population estima1:.es. We object to eleetrofishinq due to hiqh mortality. 3. Incidental analer survev. The incidanta eatch por un~t: e:trort stua~es as orot:~osed wo d be of verv limit:d. value. .::?referred met-hodcloqy ould incorporate a direct: expans~on angler creel census for tha waters downst:ream cf 9lack Bear Lake, with an individual stationed. at t!le Biq Salt bridge (or possibly movinq alonq the road system) to interview anglers on a random schedule durinq the period from Aoril to Oetober. ;: . ::va -2- Sam~linq o~ all harvested fishes encountered curi~g the in~erviews is mandatory. A auestionnaire should also be develo~ed and left at the -Fores~ Service cabin for dis~:ribution to those who fish :Slack :Sear Lake. We realize such an anqler survey may be cost excessive for this project. Mowever, i~ other op~ions are utilized their lbnitations need to be clearly stated. 4. Adult esca:cemen~. Htt agree wi ~h the additional escapement survey. F.owever, the surveys must be keyed ~o the peale esea~ement timing rztther than for convenience. We again suqqest usinq past study data to determine the appropriate dates. Sincerely, -~-a. ~ --:15. ~. (_) P.ichard Reed ~ Reqional Supervisor cc: NMFS tJSFWS ma.cdonald/RICK3 March 19, 1990 Neil H. Macdonald Direc~or of Wa~er Resources and Energy Developmen~ Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 l40th Place NE Bellevue, Washin~on 98007 Dear Mr. Macdonald: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMEf Nationaf Oceanic and Atmosonerrc Administr;; .'la:tioMi. Na:rine Fishsl"'i.es Seruice P. 0. 3o: 2:.668 Juneau. ALaska J3802-1668 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed your Fab:u~-22, 1990, letter an: copies of cor:ec~ed Study O~tlines for Agency "Final Cetermina~ion" responses. We mus~ clarify NMFS position on ins~ream flow issues associa~ed with the Black Bear Lake project. Based upon past negotiations, NMFS feels that minimum and maximum instream flow constrain~s proposed in the February, 1983, project craft Environmen~al Impact Statemen~ are accep~able. Cue to uncertainty about the project intake and operation regime, however, it is difficult to identify other instream flow studies which may be required. For example, within the above flow cons~raints, the magnitude and duration of instream flows remain a concern of NMFS. In particular, regulated flow scheduling and magnitude must be consistent with optimal periods for emergence and migration of salmon fry in Black Bear Creek (Milner ~ Al, 1985). Thus, if the projec~ will be a peaking operation, the effec~s of regulated flows may have to be fUrther evalua~ed. Some unres~rained flows may be necessary to main~ain spawning gravels. NMFS reques~s, therefore, that we be provided with projec~ed flows and a firm design for the intake s~ruc~ure Lmmedia~ely. In general, NMFS is in agreement with the other s~udies proposed in your February 22, 1990, letter. In regard to the smelt outmigran~ fyke netting, we understand that the fyke ne~ting is to be done a~ the outlet of Black Lake. NMFS recommends that scales from a sample of smelts be taken and analyzed to verify that tha aqe struc~ure of outmigran~s and lenqeh used to dif- feren~iate fry from parr/smelts are the same as in pas~ years. rt appears tha~ mapping of fish habitat of Black Bear Cr2ek and Black Bear L~ke will need to be completed prior to the rearing echo study. NMFS requests that we be able to review the habitat classification used in the rearing coho study and that lake locations and stream reaches sampled for this study be randomly selected (rather than "representative") within areas stratified by habitat type. If you have any questions regarding the related please contact John Hamilton at (907) 586-7235. the opportunity to assist in the development of Lake project license application. concerns of NMFS, We appreciate the Black Bear 7~y7. ---~"""""""-- Steven T. Z Ph.D., Chief Protected Management Division Literature cited: Milner, A.M., D.M. Bishop, and L.A. Smith. 1985. The influence of water temperature and streamflow on sockeye saLmon fry emergence and migration in Black Bear creek, Southeastern Alaska. Paqes 54-58 in: Proceedings of the symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. May 1-3, 1985, Aurora, Colorado. American Fisheries Society Pub- licaeion. cc: ADFG, Reed, Freeman, Guseafson Div. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau FERC, D.C., Portland EPA, Anchorage FWS, Ketchikan, Juneau AONR, Juneau GC -Sathre APT, Gr~, Ne~tzer Appendix B PREPARED BY: FOR: BLACK BEAR CREEK SALMON STUDIES Technical Procedures Manual April 16, 1990 Bernard Romey Pentec Environmental, Inc. 120 W. Dayton, Suite A7 Edmonds. Washington 98020 HDR/Ott Engineering Inc. Uncoln Plaza, Suite 200 11225 S.E. Sixth St., Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 APPROVED BY Date \~ 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives 2.0 STIJDY AREA 2.1 Trap Location 2.2 Trap Construction TABLE OF CONTE~"TS ' PAGE 1 2 2 2 2 3.0 METI-IODS 7 3.1 General Trap Information Collection 7 3.2 Fish Information 8 3.2.1 Primary Flsh Species/Life Stages Selected for Collection 8 3.2.2 Trap Efficiency Evaluation 8 3.2.3 Secondary Fish Species/Life Stages Selected for Collection 8 3.3 Incidental Wildlife Observations 9 3.4 Daily Checklist of Tasks 9 3.5 Daily Lag 9 Appendix A Appendix B STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR THE FISHTRAP ON BLACK BEAR CREEK NEAR THE OUTLET TO BLACK LAKE, PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND, ALASKA 7 Aprill990 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOP} was developed for the exclusive use of Pentec Environmental and Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&:T) personnel while collecting fish at the fish trap on Black Bear Creek below Black Lake, Prince of Wales Island, southeast Alaska. As implied, the manual is intended to standardiz~ all procedures used to identify, count, measure, weigh, mark, and document all fish collected in the trap during the course of the project (April 25 through June 5, 1990}. The manual is not intended to contain solutions for all unique situations encountered in the field. The SOP Manual will be updated on an "as needed" basis. Dates of future manuals will include a "superseded" date of a past edition. 1.1 Background Pentec <Edmonds, Washington) was subcontracted by HDR·Ott Engineers <Bellevue, Washington) to conduct the fishtrap work and other fisheries studies. HDR-Ott was contracted by AP&:T <Port Townsend, Washington) to conduct existing conditions studies associated with the FERC licensing of a proposed hydroelectric facility on Black Bear Creek. AP&:T personnel will assist Pentec scientists in the construction of the trap, collection of the fish. and the dismantling and storage or the trap at the end of the sampling season. Fish will be collected at a fish trap that will be constructed just prior to the sampling season. The trap will be designed and constructed to collect most if not all anadromous salmonid smolts and resident trout that are moving downstream in Black Bear Creek. Documentation of collected fish must be completed under a standardized format to fulfill the requirements of the FERC licensing process and within the guidelines of the fish and wildlife agencies (ADF&G and NMFS) requesting the study (Appendix A). All project activities will be conducted with this directive in mind. If questions arise in the office, laboratory, or field that concern the methods outlined in this manual. or a departUre iTom the normal operations of the 1 trap. e.g .. trap washed out by r1ood. a trap section destroyed. by bear. adult steelhead trout unable to pass. the following project personnel should be contacted. as soon as possible in the order shown: Rlchard C. Konopacky, Pentec Project Manager, (206) 775-4682. Home \503) 641-1098 Douglas Martin, Pentec Environmental Div. Mgr., (206) 7i5-4682. Home \206} 527-1741 \fi.ke McDowell, Pentec President, (206) 7i5-4682, Home (206) 784-4446 N"eil Macdonald, HDR-Ott Project Coord., (206) 747-1126. 453-1523. Home (206) 323-2059 1.2 Objecnves The objectives of the study are to: 1) count, weigh, and measure all sockeye (0nchorhynchus nerka) and coho (0. kisutch) smelts thafmigrate downstream in Black Bear Creek downstream of Black Lake between April25 and June 5, 1990; 2) conduct trap efficiency tests for sockeye and coho smoits during the sampling season: 3} count, weigh, and measure all other salmoruds. both anadromous and resident, caught in the trap during the sampling season: and 4} document all the wildlife observations made on an inddental basis during the fish sampling season. 2.0 STIJDY AREA 2.1 Trap Location The trap will be located on Black Bear Creek just downstream (within 150 meters) of its outlet from Black I.....ake (Figure 1 ). The actual site of the trap will be detennmed during construcnon. A road/bridge crosses the creek approxnnately 400 meters downstream oi the outlet. 2.2 Trap Construction The trap will be made up of net wings or leads to either shore with an anchored trap box in the center of the stream <Figure 2). A net "heart" will lead fish to a pipe that will empty into the trap box. The wings will slant downstream and lead the fish to the heart. Flow through the pipe and the downstream migration pattern will move fish into the trap. The trap will feature: 1) a water velocity baffle: and 2) a predator "screen· made of one-inch mesh netting that will separate trapped smelts from trapped predator speaes. e.g., Dolly Varden trout. 2 ·-.,.,_ .. ,J -:;'.;;-;•.·-_ .. ·-~ ::c ~. .· • JO '; ~-· :33"'CXY -:o p Ma.-o. ea•tea. -oullldfteO O't tile~ su,.., ~..,uSGS-NOS/NOAA I \, 1-_ N :2 r-c 0 .,. F ' e . ' ... ::::: -·· ~--- _.- ',...Vf":-ioA I IS .........,. - I I I I I I I I I 5\:AL~ :-:3360 I I I I I I I I I I . I I I -rn 0 : ~ 'Q I ~ 0 -~ \ \ -... -\ ~ ,\ \, ~ 1: c; w < ... u CJ ..., e Cl w -C'J ... ._ ~ ~ c: -0 --C'J .... C) '§ ...; I ---0 - ·. . . -.....Jl I I ~ i -+J ~I -:; -· ";.---' ,..---. \.--! I , I I I I J ' I \ \ \ --·-.. ..; • I l:- ~------~------- •, ··. i I >----------------/··t '/ ·' .... ._ ___ -..\,------ .~ \1\ ~ ---..,.. " ~ ~-\~ -J. v ~.A' \~ ' 3.0 METHODS 3.1 General Trap Infonnation Collection The fish trap on Black Bear Creek will usuallv be checked for soundness and emptied of fish twice every diel penod (approximately 12 hours apart) during the sampling season (Apnl 25 through June 5, 1990). One removal of fish from the trap will occur in the morning (0700-0800 hours) and be called the "AI.\1 removal" while the second removal will be in the evening (1900- 2000 hours) and be considered the "PM removal." A project field form (Appendix B) for fish and other related data will be filled out each time the trap is emptied. If large numbers of fish in the trap require more than two removals per diel period. the additional removal and the time of each removal should be noted on a field form and in the daily log (See Section 3.4}. If high flows or other abnormal situations require more than normal maintainence efforts at the trap, the reasons for the additional effort will be noted in the daily log for that day. A list of onsite equipment required for fish sampling/ documentation and maintainence of the trap facilities is located in Appendix B. Most general information related to the removal of fish from the traps will be entered in the upper portion of the field form. Field observers will identify themselves on the form. The actual date, time of arrival onsite, time of departUre, page of infonnation, and weather conditions will also be entered. Upon anival onsite. the field crew will read the stage or level of the stream from the staff gauge installed near the trap. In addition, a minimum-maximum thermometer installed near the trap tn the stream will be used to estimate the water temperarure at the time of anival onslte. the mmimum since the last removai of fish. and the maximum since the last removal of fish. Likewise. a second thermometer will be used for the three estimates of the air temperatures. Photographs of trap operations. fish collected. documentation procedures. and abnormal events during the sampling season will be taken. Estimates of the flow in Black Bear Creek will also be made three times during the fish trapptng season. Headpins will be placed in both banks and the same cross-section oi the stream will be measured each time. A level. stadia rod, and flow meter will be used to estimate discharge. The regression of the three estimated flows on the staff gauge readings at the trap will allow estimation of daily flows from the staff gauge readings during the trappmg season. 7 3.2 Fish Information 3.2.1 Primary Fish Species/Life Stages Selected for Collection Counts and measurements of sockeye salmon (Qnchorhynchus nerka) smelts. coho salmon (0. kisutch) smelts, cutthroat trout (0. cfarkii), and Doily Varden trout (Salvelinus maimai are the primary reasons for the operation of the trap on Black Bear Creek during 1990. Identification of fish will follow the keys in Appendix B. Fork length of each fish will be measured to the nearest millimeter (mm}. The wet live weight of a sample of fish will be estimated to the nearest 0.1 gram (gm) on various dates of the sampling season. A length-weight relationship will be developed from the collected data; extrapolation of weights of non-sampled fish will be possible from the resulting regression and measured lengths. Data will be entered along with other pertinent header information twice a day on a project field data form (Figure 3>. Scales wlil be collected from above the lateral line near the dorsal fin from a range of lengths (n=20> of sockeye and coho salmon caught on four dates during the April 25 through June 5, 1990 sampling season; a total of 20 x 2 x 4 or 160 scale samples will be collected. Since separation of juvenile fish into fry and smolt stages is somewhat subjective based only on length, length-frequency distributions and scale samples will ultimately be used to separate the two year-classes in the laboratory. 3.2.2 Trap Efficiency Evaluation Trap efficiency will be evaluated through use of marked fish releases of sockeye and coho smelts every three days. Up to 50 fish of each species (if present) will be marked with the removal of a small portion of the lower lobe of the caudal fin. The marked fish will be carried approximately 100 meters upstream of the trap and released. Cumulative recapture of each species over the sampling period will indicate the efficiency of the trap. 3.2.3 Secondary Fish Species/Life Stages Selected for Collection Fish other than the primary species caught in the trap will be counted, weighed. and measured as time permits. Other trapped fish might include sockeye and coho salmon fry, chum salmon (0. walbaum), pink salmon (0. gorbuscha), and steelhead trout (0. mykiss) fry and smoits. Information from the secondary species will be entered on the daily field form. 8 3.3 Incidental Wildlife Observations Trap personnel will also document any wildlife observations, e.g., sightings, tracks, scat. etc., during the fish sampling season on a wildlife field form (Appendix B) supplied by the wildlife task subcontractor (Beak Consultants Incorporated, Portland, Oregon}. Wildlife observations by fisheries personnel should be considered a secondary task or "incidental" to the primary task of documenting the downstream migration of anadromous salmonid smelts in Black Bear Creek. 3.4 Daily Log A daily log of activities will be maintained by trap personnel Daily entries should include notes on normal activities, changes in weather, abnormal number of trap/lead maintainence efforts, vandalism, numbers of fishermen observed, etc. 3.5 Daily Checklist of Tasks A list of tasks <Table 1} should be manually checked at the end of each of the twice-a-day removal of fish from the fish trap. The check will ensure that the trap will continue functioning until the next fish removal (barring unforseen difficulties) and that the trap will continue to operate as designed without unnecessary mortality to the fish. 9 Table 1. Chronological checklist for each of the two-a-day fish removal from the fish trap on Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The list should be manually read at the end of each sampling session to ensure that all items have either been accomplished or were unwarranted during that sampling period. 1. Stan new field form 2. Identify observers, note date and time of arrival 3. Note three ~ temperatures and reset min-max thermometer 4. Note three air temperatures and reset min-max thermometer 5. Note staff gauge height 6. Note general weather conditions and changes since last notation 7. Note condition of trap/leads 8. Note fish numbers, lengths, and weights by species 9. Note number of sockeye and coho smelts marked and released upstream 10. Note number of recaptured and marked sockeye and coho smelts from previous releases 11. Note total number of each fish collected 12. Note number of mortalities by species 13. Note number of pages of data 14. Note time of departure tS. Daily log entry 10 -Appendix A K1SLH DEPARTMENT OF FISH .\.~0 GAME SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Habitat Division February 2~ 1990 / Mr. Neil H. Macdonald Director of Water Resources and Enerqy Development Ott Enqineerinq, Inc. 1412 l40th Place NE Bellevue, WA 98007 Dear ~r. ~acdonald: STEVE COWPER, COVERNOR P.O. BOX 20 DOUGLAS. AL.ASK.A 99124..0020 PHONE: /907)4 6 5-4 2 9 0 '1:-::lD I? tfiW rc: n D·7 r.; [· . i) [£ ~j ~ u \~ ~ u ~ w F£S 2 3 :~C:l OTI WATER ENGlN~ER3 BEllEVUE Thank you for your February l letter regarding concerns you have reqardinq certain proposed studies for the Slack S~ar Lake hydroelectric project for 1990. 1. Juvenile outmiarants. we believe that juvenile ou~grant ~nformation is necessary for 1990. We also understand, however, vour cost concerns and t!l.us are aqreea.ble to eliminatlnc;; chum and pink fry from the outmiqrant study. This should result in a reduced time period for fyke nettinq with a corresponding reduction in costs. Specific timing whic!l. encompasses the outmiqration of .o;ockeve and coho could be determined from ~he past field. studies. We believe ~earinq species, especially coho, will !?rovide a good indication of habitat viability. 2. Rearina coho stud~. We agree wi~~ eliminating ~he coho populatl.on es1:.ima.t:.es in Black Lake and concentratir.q the work i.n the c.ree.k. ~-Te do recommend that habitat evaluations by means o: rn~pping and minnow t~appinq be conducted in Black Lake to determine habitat ~se. We have no objections to usinq snorkel gear :=or direct observations or ~innow t~appinq (mark/release) tor the population estimates. We object to electrofishinq due to hiqh mortality. .' 3. Incidental analer survev. The inciden~a eatch per unl.t::. e:fort::. st::.Ual.es as Qroposed we d :Oe of •Jery limited value. ~referred methodoloqy ~ ould i~cor~orate a direct e~pansion angler creel census for ~he waters downstream of 3lack 3ear Lake, with an i:1dividual stationed at:. the 13ig Salt bridge (or possibly movi!1q along the road system) ~o interview anglers on a random schedule during the period from April to Octcber. -2- Sam~li~q o: all harves~ed :~shes encou~~ered curi~q tbe interviews is mandatory. A auestio~naire should also be developed and left a~ ~he ·:crest Servica cabin for distribution ":o those \1ho fish 3lack Sear !..a.ke. We realize such an angler survey may be cost excessive for this project. Eowever, ~! other options are utilized their limitations need to be claarly stated. 4. Adult esca:cement. Hit aqree ,,...ith the additional escapement survey. eowever, the surveys must be keyed to the peak esc:a~ement timing rather than for convenience. We aqain suqqest usinq past study data to determine the appropriate dates. Sincerely, .. ::::J2.?& ·a ~ -:JS_ ~ . ~ !!!.ic:hard Reed ~ Regional Supervisor cc:: NMFS USFWS mac:donald/RICK3 March 19, 1990 Neil H. Macdonald Direc~or of Water Resources and Energy Developmen~ Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, Washin~on 98007 Dear Mr. Macdonald: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMME Nat1cna* Oceamc ana Atmaschertc Adm'"1str ,'/a.ticnai. .\t.zrine Fisheries Service P.O. 3o:r: ::::568 ,;W'l.eaU9 ALaska jJ802-Za68 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed your Fab:u:=j· 22, 1990, lettar ar.d copies of ccr=ectad Study O~tlines for Agency "Final Determina~ion" responses. We must clarify NMFS position on ins~ream flow issues associated wi~h the Black Bear Lake project. Based upon past negotiations, NMFS feels that minimum and maximum instream flow constraints proposed in the February, 1983, project Draft Environmen~al Impac~ Statement are accep~able. Due to uncertainty about the project intake and operation regime, however, it is difficult to identify other instream flow studies which may be required. For example, within the above flow constraints, the magnitude and duration of instream flows remain a concern of NMFS. In p~icular, regulated flow scheduling and magnitude must be consistent with op~imal periods for emergence and migra~ion of salmon fry in Black Bear Creek (Milner ~ ~~ 1985). Thus, if the project will be a peaking opera~ion, the effec~s of regulated flows may have to be fu~her evalua~ed. Some unres~rained flows may be necessary ~o maintain spawning gravels. NMFS requests, therefore, that we be provided with projected flows and a firm design for the in~ake structure immediately. In general, NMFS is in agreemen~ with the other studies proposed in your February 22, 1990, let~er. In regard to the smelt outmigran~ fyke ne~~ing, we understand that the fyke ne~~ing is to be done a~ the outle~ of Black Lake. NMFS recommends that scales from a sample of smelts be ~aken and analyzed to verify that tha aqe struc~ure of outmigrants and len~h used ~o dif- feren!'.iate fry from parr/ smol ts are the same as in past years· It appears that mapping of fish habitat of Black Bear Cr~ek and Black Bear L~ke will need to be completed prior to the rearing coho study. NMFS requests that we be able to review the habitat classification used in the rearing coho study and that lake locations and stream reaches sampled for this study be randomly selected (rather than "representative") within areas stratified by habitat type. If you have any questions regara~ng the related please contact John Hamilton at (907) 586-7235. the opportunity to assist in the development of Lake project license application. concerns of NMFS, We appreciate the Black Bear Sincerely, J~;;;~ Steven T. Z,.linmerman Ph.D. , Chief Protected ~urces Management Division Literature cited: Milner, A.M., D.M. Bishop, and L.A. Smith. 1985. The influence of water temperature and streamflow on sockeye salmon fry emergence and migration in Black Bear Creek, Southeastern Alaska. Paqes 54-58 in: Proceedings of the symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. May 1-3, 1985, Aurora, Colorado. American Fisheries Society Pub- l.ication. cc: ADFG, Reed, Freeman, Gustafson Oiv. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau FERC, D.C., Portland EPA, Anchorage FWS, Ketchikan, Juneau ADNR, Juneau GC -Sathre APT, Grimm, Neitzer -Appendix B LNE BOX FYKE NET VEXAR LEADS BOOTS DIP NETS FLOW METER FIRST AID KIT LEVEL METAL FENCE POSIS FENCE POST ORNER 5 GALLON BUCKETS MEASURING BOARDS FISH SCALE ALtJMIN1nv1 CLIPBOARD MAX/MIN TiiERMOMETERS STAFF GAUGE MS-222 TALLY COUNTERS TAPE MEAStJRE ELECTRICAL TIES COOLER FLASHUGHT SURVEYING PAINT FORCEPS COIN ENVELOPES SCISSORS TRAP CLEANING BRUSH SAND BAGS CAMERA AND FILM ROPE SEINE TIVINE FIELD LOG SHEETS FIELD FORMS EQUIPMENT LIST TIME SHEETS SEINE NEEDLES BAILING WIRE PLASTIC WASH BASIN TARP DIAL GRAM SCALE l ~, u t~ k u e u 1 C 1 e e k 1 1 s t 1 1 r u p I o q Page of __ _ Date: I ~~TE~ =n:~~: ~~::· -1 ~:~: ---' ~!age !:H;__· ______ ___._ . Observ. /Vealher ArnveTime: hap Cond._ COiPe;;pa;;r;rt *r~im;;:;e:::------!:~ ~ Coho , --t , , , sot:keyij, i ~~ : > Ct1tJh1 u~c~ I hi~ YXPihk_.:i::: -· staalheaij; , u: cutthroat . Dolly V. T.L. WT T.l. WT T.l. WT T.L. WT T.L. WT T.L. WT T.L WT I ? ) ' ) ) ' J } 10 11 12 i3 14 I§_ 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 -3 4 5 a tal : I : : ~~~plum_~ _ __! I I I I Date: Observer: Observation Time Wildlife Sighting No. Species Type• •sighting Type bvegetation Type 1. Animal seen 1. Mature forest 2. Animal heard 2. Young forest 3. Tracks 3. Recent clearcut 4. Seal 4. Deciduous forest 5. Other (specify) 5. Meadow 6. Open water 7. Other (specify) Wildlile Field Form Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Revised 4/12/90 Vegetation Typeb Weather: Comments Instructions: Start a new form each day lor each observer. Number observations consecutively each day beginning with '1'. --···--······--····- Show the localion ol each observation by placing a number, corresponding with lhe "Observation No. •, on the map on the reverse side. Enter appropriate comments. Usa more than 1 line per entry if needed. AppendixC .c (/) u.. -0 '-(1) ..c E ::l z 0 "' 0 0 "' '3 0 .,. 0 N 0 0 . 0 0 0 ,...--- April 25-30 - ,..- 1- r- r-n 50 100 150 . --r--May 1 -7 - r- r- .- r-n--, 50 100 150 .- May 8-14 - ,..- ..- r- ,..- r IL., 50 100 150 Lengths (mm) Figure c-1 Length-frequency of weekly samples of coho salmon smolts from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Blacklake; April25 to 30 (upper graph), May 1 to 7 (middle), May 8 to 14 (lower). 200 200 200 .c (/) LJ.. -0 '-Q) .c E :::l z 0 " lil ~ 0 .. ~ 0 " 0 "' 0 0 . . r-- r--May 15-21 t--1-- ,..__ ,...- f- ~ 0 50 100 150 200 - May 22-28 I-- ....--1-- f- J ll 0 50 100 150 200 .-- I--May 29 -June 5 1-- ..- , 1-- 11_ 0 50 100 150 200 Lengths (mm) Figure C.1, Continued May 15 to 21(upper graph), May 22 to 28 (middle), and May 29 to June 5 (lower). ... . . I) 8 "' .c ~ C/) u... -0 2 '-Q) .c E :::J ~ z 0 0 0 - April25-30 ...--- ...--- ~ ~ ...-- so 100 1SO .- May 1 -7 - l l so 100 1SO May 8-14 so 100 1SO Lengths (mm) Figure C-2 Length-frequency of weekly samples of sockeye salmon smotts from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake; April25 to 30 (upper graph), May 1 to 7 (middle), May 8 to 14 (lower). 200 200 200 May 15-21 8 0 l 0 50 100 150 200 ~ N 8 May 22-28 N ...c:: (f) u.. ~ -0 '-8 Ql .c E ::3 0 z "' --, 0 0 50 100 150 200 - 0 May 29 -June 5 all o~====~====D~======~====~ 0 50 100 150 200 Lengths (mm) Ftgure C-2, Continued May 15 to 21 (upper graph), May 22 to 28 (middle), and May 29 to June 5 (lower). ..c: (/) u:: -0 "-Q) ..c E ::I z 0 ... 0 8 0 ... 0 "' 0 0 Q 0 Q April 25 -30 riTT ht tnn .n 100 200 300 500 . r- May 1 -7 ,.. 1-1- Jf ~~ 100 200 300 400 500 r- May 8-14 r r r- r ,... t- r rr ~nn n 100 200 300 400 500 Lengths (mm} Figure C.3 Length-frequency of weekly samples of Dolly Varden char from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake; April25 to 30 (upper graph), May 1 to 7 (middle), May 8 to 14 (lower). I 600 500 .c: en u.. -0 \,.. Q) .c E :::l z 0 <D 0 .... 0 "' 0 ~ 0 "' 0 .... 0 "' Q 0 . 0 . 0 0 r 1-May 15-21 rf 11-nrr"\ - 100 200 500 600 . May 22-28 !- I lk r-t 100 200 400 500 600 r May 29 -June 5 rnf 11-n -~ 100 200 300 400 500 600 Lengths (mm) Figure c-3, Continued May 15 to 21(upper graph), May 22 to 28 (middle), May 29 to June 5 (lower). ..c (/) u. -0 '-Q) .0 E :::::J z ~ 5! .., 0 0 ... - ~ 0 0 0 1- nr 100 r- r 100 r- rl 100 r r - r 200 - r- 1- 1-r 200 r- r- n 200 April 25-30 - r 500 600 May 1 -7 - r-rfnn . 300 400 500 600 May 8-14 w r-1 ,...., 300 400 500 600 Lengths (mm) Figure C-4 Length-frequency of weekly samples of steelhead trout from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake; April 25 to 30 (upper graph), May 1 to 7 (middle), May 8 to 14 (lower). J:: .~ u. -0 '-Q) ..c E ::::J z N 0 0 N ~ 2 ..... 0 ..., N 0 N ..... - 0 0 0 ,.... May 15-21 1- - r hn n 100 300 400 500 600 ... May 22-28 ... ... i- rf In-, 100 200 300 400 500 600 May 29-June 5 ,.. ... 1-1- ... J nm 100 200 300 400 500 600 Lengths (mm) Figure C-4, Continued May 15 to 21 (upper graph), May 22 to 28 (middle), May 29 to June 5 (lower). .c en u: -0 .... (1) .c E :J z April 25-30 .... N rr-,.... n n '-· n ill Q . 0 tOO 200 300 400 500 "' . - "' May 1 - 7 .... .., "' Cl n IT rn r I r n 0 100 200 300 400 500 500 ,.... May 8-14 ... r -r nr nm 0 100 200 300 400 500 500 Lengths (mm) Figure C-5 Length-frequency of weekly samples of cutthroat trout from Black Bear Creek just downstream from Black Lake; April 25 to 30 (upper graph), May 1 to 7 (middle), May 8 to 14 (lower). May 15-21 IT nrrrfl nn 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 "' "' May 22-28 ~ ..c: (/) r- u.. '!! -0 '-Q) .c 2 E ::J z "' 0 - r n rMf 11-nn 0 100 300 500 600 May 29 -June 5 r"' r h ll:mm n 0 100 500 600 Lengths (mm} Figure C-5, Continued May 15 to 21 (upper graph), May 22 to 28 (middle), May 29 to June 5 (Iowen. APPENDIX E-8 1980 AND 1982 ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS FINAL ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR TBE PROPOSED BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND, ALASKA ·Report To aarza Engineering Company 150 South wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Prepared By Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc. P.O. Box 397 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Glenn Bacon Archeologist August 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page 1 Map 1: Project Location Map, Prince of Wales Island •••••• Theoretical Orientation •••••••••••••••••••••• Methodoloqy •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Environmental Parameters for Human Occupation 3 5 7 of the Study Area •••••••••••••••••• 10 Table 1: Alexander Archipelago Vegetational History ••••••• 15 The Survey ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19 The Black Lake Valley Survey ••••••••••••••••• 21 Map 2: Black Lake Vicinity ••••••••••••••• 22 The Natzuhini Bay Survey ••••••••••••••••••••• 24 Map 3: Natzuhini Bay Vicinity •••••••••••• 27 The Hydaburg Survey •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28 Post-survey Interviews and Records Check ••••• 31 Conclusions and Recommendations •••••••••••••• 32 Bibliography INTRODUCTION In recent years Alaska has witnessed in increase in the interest in development of relatively small hydroelectric sites. One such si~e is the Black Bear Lake site, located on the west side of Prince of Wales Island approximately 50 miles west of Ketchikan in southeastern Alaska. Many of these proposed hydroelectric projects require license applications to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and in such cases an assessment of the project impact on cultural resources is included. The cultural resources assessment of the impact of construction of the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project was begun in 1980. That year Alaskarctic, now a subsidiary of Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc., completed a literature search and field study (Bacon 1980) of the project area. The 1980 study was designed to provide data for planning purposes and did not cover all of the proposed project area in detail. In 1982, Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc. was contracted by Barza Engineering Company to complete the study in~tiated in 1980 by Alaskarctic. Archeologist Glenn Bacon of the Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc. returned to Prince of Wales Island, again assisted by George Bacon, in July of this year. During two man-weeks in the field, a detailed archeological survey was performed over those areas which had not been surveyed in 1980. These areas included: (1) In Black Lake Valley from the tunnel portal to the proposed powerhouse and -1- -2- switchyard sites, then along the proposed transmission line/access road route, including the eastern shoreline of Black Lake, to the point in section 25 where the earlier 1980 survey ended (see maps), (2) The proposed transmission line route from just north of Natzuhini Bay to the boundary of Sealaska Corporation and National Forest lands (see maps> , and (J) The proposed transmission line route from the boundary of National Forest and Haida Corporation lands to the proposed project substation site in Hydaburg, including the two alternative legs at the end of the route (see maps). During the period of field investigations, discussions were held with a number of persons who have special knowledge of the research area. Robert Sanderson, Chairman of the Board of the Ha1da Corporation, is especially knowledgeable about historic and prehistoric sites on Prince of Wales Island; and he was a principal researcher the the effort that led to the Sealaska Corporation report on native cemetery and historical sites (Sealaska Corporation 1975). We also talked to Richard Harris# Environmental Coordination Manager for Sealaska, and to Vince Matt, Forest and Lands Manager for ~ealaska Corporation. David Katzeek, of the Sealaska Heritage Foundation, was also contacted. Each ot these gentlemen was questioned concerning their knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The net result was that no cultural resources were brought to our attention which had ot been brought to our attention and reported in 1980. However, we did obtain additional data on a wooden aquaduct located in I I I . I I I I I I I I I I -3- MAP 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP. PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND BLACK LAKE SURVEY AREA NATZUHINI BAY SURVEY AREA HYDABURG SURVEY AREA CRAIG, ALASKA N5500-Wll200/60XI60 1957 "'"OA A[lloSo~NS :9'2 SCALE 1:250000 ~==:===~====~O::::::::::::::::::'E=::::::::=:::::::~IO::::::::::::::::::I~5================~20~::::::::::::::::=~MI L£S 'E~~==::~io::::::::::j'~========~!~o::::::::::s·t5~========~20t::::::::::=~K I LOMtrERS CONTOUR INTERVAL200 FEET DATUM IS "'EAH SEA U:VEL DEPTH CUI!YES IN FEET·DATU"' IS "'EAH lOWER LOW WATER 5HCIInllll $HOIIIt II£PII£SOIB Tit( AI'I'IIOKIMATt UN£ OF I4£AH HIGH WATEII ~- Hydaburg. This aquaduct appears to be too recent to be considered an historical object, but it is historically interesting and is reported on here. A reiteration of conclusions reached in 1980 will be reproduced in this report to ease the burden on the reader, but the basic conclusions will remain the same. As best we can determine, proposed development of the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric site should not adversely effect any known archeological or historical site. -5- THEORETICAL ORIENTATION Following White (1949), and more recently Steward (1959), we have utilized the broad concept of cultural ecology in approaching our research data. Underlying our study plan is a concept which focuses on the interaction between human social behavior, material culture, and the physical environment. A basic assumption is that material culture applied to the physical environment corresponds to social behavior, and that if patterns are observed in the technological record, then corresponding patterns may be inferred in the social behavior of the societies which used the technology. Those aspects o~ material culture most closely associated with food getting will be most sensitive to changes in available food resources (Steward 1959>7 and food getting technology is relative!y easily studied for hunting/fishing societies. Granting these assumptions two basic levels of study can be persued through the study of the ~aterial leavings of human groups. First, extinct behavior patterns can be revealed through a study of technology as it is preserved as discarded material culture. Second, behavioral response to changing physical environmental conditions will be revealed through observed changes in the technological record. our study of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project impact area hoped to focus on extinct behavior patterns through study of material culture as revealed in the archeological record. -6- Unfortunately, the archeological record is incomplete, and in the study area extremely sparse. Lost and discarded items of material culture have not been uniformly preserved, and there is a bias for modern trash. The difficulty before any archeologist is not unlike attempting to reconstruct an object through study of the shadow it has cast. Nevertheless, we are secure in the beilef that enough of the technological record will eventually be revealed to provide a clearer picture of past human behavior. -7- METHODOLOGY Project methodology was designed to concentrate on a field based on-the-ground archeological survey. That survey was supported by a pre-survey literature search (Bacon 1980). An intensive archeological survey was conducted over portions of the potential project impact area. The survey was designed so as to maximize detection of surface and near surface archeological and/or historical resources in portions of the potential impact area which were not studied in detail in 1980. Surface cQverage of areas surveyed permitted visual detection of above ground features such as structures and collapsed structures. A list ot such structures could include, but not be limited to, cabins, totem poles, grave markers, pitch trees, bark trees, lean-to frames, house pits, and the like. Small trowel or shovel dug excavations provided opportunities to examine subsurface geological deposits. Subsurface deposits were also revealed through natural erosion scars and through upturned vegetation. Extensive clearing due to previous logging operations and road cuts along logging roads also provided excellent opportunities to examine subsurface sediments. Careful examination of test excavation holes and points of erosion enabled the field archeologists to search for buried cultural material. survey corridors, which followed road or proposed road alignments, -8- were defined as 100 feet either side of the roadway centerline. Thus corridors were approximately 200 feet in width. As logging roads had been constructed over much of this alignment at the time of our survey, a center swath perhaps fifty feet wide had already been disturbea. This enabled the field archeologists to divide the corridor into three parallel sub-corridors: (1) the roadway and ditches, (2) the portion of the corridor between the edge of the ditch and the uphill limit of the 200 foot wide corridor, and (3) the portion of corridor between the edge of the ditch and the downhill limit of the 200 foot wide corridor. Each or the two field archeologists took responsibility for one of the two lateral sub-corridors, and both were responsible for examination of the roadway and adjacent ditches. Heavily disturbea areas were examined from the roadway, since it was assumed that further construction would not significantly adversely effect an already significantly disturbed resource. Significantly disturbed areas included areas heavily scarred due to logging activities, areas over which a road had been constructed, and areas which had suffered massive distortion of surface sediments such as in the case of landslide areas. onaisturbed portions of corridors were examined on foot during a pedestrian survey. Pedestrian surveys consisted of on-the-ground inspection of from one to three sub-corridors, depending on the degree and location of prior disturbance. Definition of the sub-corridors in effect -9- defined a set of three parallel transects which covered the 200 foot wide corridor. As the spacing between the centerlines of these three transects did not exceed 25 yards, the spacing was well w1thin the guidelines proposed by the Alaska State Office ot the Bureau of Land Management CBLM Manual 8lll.l4CB:3)) for an intensive (Class 3) archeological survey. Transects were examined by an archeologist following a zig-zag path. Few test excavations (test pits) were found to be needed due to the frequency of other means to examine the subsurface .. sediments. Each of the three survey areas differed in certain respects, so certain modifications were made in the basic procedure for each area. These will be discussed below. Once each set of transects was examined for a given segment of a corridor, results of transect investigations were compared in order to determine if any significant differences in observations had occurred. This never was the case, but if it had happened, an explanation would bave been sought. Results of the surveys were noted and eventually retranscribed into this document. -10- ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION OF THE STUDY AREA In order to estimate the potential for archeology within the project area it is necessary to gain some insight as to how long the area has been inhabitable. Within that time range, we must then establish the types of natural resources that might have drawn early man to the area. Unfortunately, much of the data needed to provide better understanding of this problem are not yet available. Some OJ: the aviilable data have been summarized by Pladmark <1979) in his dis~ussion ot the possibilities of finding additional evidence for early man along the Pacific Gulf Coast of Alaska. PladmaJ:k wrote C Ibid. : 59): IDmediately north of the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Alexander Archipelago of Southeastern Alaska has seen little geological research. SWanston (1969) reports undated evidence foJ: two glaciations on the east coast of Prince ot Wales Island, which he correlates with main and late Wisconsinan events in Cook Inlet. Max- imum ice surfaces up to 900 m for the earlier, more extensive glaciation in the middle of the Alexander Arcnipelago suggest that any glaciers reaching the outer west coast were restricted to valleys and sounds, separated by· ice-free headlands and r idqes. The latter might be sufficient to provide the biotic refugia that Heusser (1960) postulates for the area. It is apparent from Pladmark's comments that the western side of Pr1nce of Wales Island may have been available for prehistoric human exploitation as early as late Pleistocene times, over ten thousand years ago. Additional geologic investigations appear necessary betore full discussion is possible concerning the nature -11- and extent ot coastal areas which might have been made available by a lower Wisconsinan sea level. Some areas may now be under water due to eustatic sea level changes, while other areas may now lie higher than sea level due to isostatic rebound effects. Heusser is one of the earliest scientists to argue for coastal migration of early man into the New World. In 1960 (Ibid. : 209) he wrote, Anthropologists generally agree that th~ route early man followed onto this continent was by way of Bering Strait (Griffin 1960). They also generally agree that his route continued southward by way of unglaciated interior Alaska and along the Rocky Mountain front. The porthwestern coast is usually discounted as a route, mainly because its cultures are young. The Great Frazer midden deposit in Vancouver, Brltish Columbia, for example, dates from only 2100 ± 900 B.P. (Broecker and Kulp 1957). Strong geo- logical evidence indicates that unglaciated corridors, where man may have waited for an ice age to pass during a migration, are apparent in western and central Alaska, Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, and Alberta (Wilson, et. al. 1958, Fig. 48). In some of these corridors, botanical studies point toward refugia for plants at least, if not also for man and other animals (Ha~liday and Brown 1943, Hansen 1949a and b). But refugia and unglaciated tracts appear certain to have existed, as we~l, along the North Pacific coast. It would seem just as likely that early man followed this route either during or between times of glaciation. Both routes are conjectural, since conclusive evidence is still lacking. Heusser·continues and lists three main reasons for his preference· for the coastal migration thesis: •c1> equable oceanic climate, C2J available marine food, and (3) greater travel facility by water, particularly through coastal archipelagoes.• {Ibid,). It was not until after publication of Heusser's comments in 1960 -12- that the first prehistoric archeological site was excavated in southeast Alaska. That site, the Ground Bog Bay II site near Glacier Bay, has been radiocarbon dated to circa 10,000 B.P. (Ackerman 1964, 1973, 1979). More recently a second prehistoric site has been excavated along the southeast side of Baronof Island. The Bidden Falls site has been radiocarbon dated to circa 9,500 D.P. (Davis 1979, 1980). The third of only three known prehistoric sites in Southeast Alaska was recently tested. Th1s siee, the Irish Creek site, has yet to ·be dated, but it has yielded a core"and microblade technology and so presumably dates to early Holocene time (that period following the last major glaciation, approximately the last 10,000 years). The Irish Creek site is located on the west coast of Kupreanof Island (Roberts 1982). These three archeological sites attest to the early postglacial human occupancy of the Pacific Gulf Coast. Other evidence for early human occupation along the Pacific Gulf Coast has been reported by other investigators. An artifact complex, named the •Moresby Tradition•, from the Queen Charlotte Islands dates to circa 7,400 B.P. CPladmark 1979). Early Holocene archeological sites have also been reported from Cook Inlet CReger 1978), the Alaska Peninsula coumond 1971), and the Aleutian Islands (Laughlin 1975) • Thus areas both to the north and south of Prince of Wales Island have produced evidence of earl~ Holocene occupation. In view of the fact that several archeological sites have now been -13- discovered along the Pacific Gulf Coast of Alaska, and in view of the fact that some of these sites have been demonstrated to date to late glacial or early postglacial time, a paleogeographic reconstruction of the Northwest Coast proposed by Fladmark <1978: 124) may be appropriate. The vision ot an unbroken wall of ice completely sealing in the Northwest Coast during the Wisconsinan Glaciation should be replaced by the more complex and realistic pic- ture of an Greenland-like shoreline, with major glaciers spilling out to the ocean through trunk valleys, but sep- arated and flanked by strips of ice-free coast, unglaciated headlands·· and offshore islands. Rapid deglaciation following Wisconsin time quickly freed Prince of Wales Island for expanded human occupation. A glacial advance during the period 20,000 to 15,000 B.P. (SWanston 1969) apparently was followed by a dryer and colder period from 15,000 to 12,000 B.P. (Heusser 1966) • A warmer and wetter period from 12,000 to 11,000 B.P. was rapid glacier retreat Cibid.)7 but this was short lived and the climate reverted back to a dry, cold climate for the interval between 11,000 and 10,500 B.P. (Miller and Anaerson 1974). Heusser C~ c1te.) and Swanston Cl969) have documented what they interpret as a climatic shift to a moister but still cold climate during the period 10,000 to 8,000 B.P. This was associated with another glacial advance on Prince of Wa.J.es Island. Reversal back to a warm, dry climate is postulated by Heusser (1966) to have occurred during the period from approximately 8,500 -14- to 4,500 B.P. Although various authors disagree as to the exact timing, it is during this warm period that the temperature maximum occurred. This hypsothermal event is dated between 5,500 and 3,250 B.P. (Miller and Anderson 1974), betwen 7,050 and 4,150 B.P. by McKenzie and Goldwait Cl971), and at 3,500 ± 250 B.P. by Heusser (1953). The period following the hypsothermal has been characterized as cool and dry between 4,500 and 3,000 and as cool and wet from 3,000 B.P. to the present (Heusser 1966). Although we mu~t be somewhat cautious in relying too heavily on Heusser's interpretations (Anderson 1977: 10), his data set is the most complete with respect to Prince of Wales Island. Heusser (1960: 178) offers a tentative reconstruction of vegetational history along the Alexander Archipelago (see Table 1). It is apparent.that wood for fuel and construction would have been available to anyone choosing to occupy Prince of Wales Island during late glacial time, and from then on. With wood available for fue1, shelter, and boat construction, it then becomes a question ot wnether or not adequate food resources were present. The valleys that separate Prince of Wales Island from the mainland would have been quickly inundated by the Pacific Ocean, rising at the close.of the last ·glacial period. Thus the larger fauna found on the island today must closely represent the variety of fauna that has been trapped on the island since the period of lower sea level. Faunal species present on Prince of Wales Island today are -15- TABLE 1. _________ .,_ ------------------------------------- ALEXANDER ARCHIPELAGO VEGETATIONAL HISTORY Mi.llenia 0 --------B.P. Hemlock-Spruce Lodgepole Pine Sphagnum 1 ... Western Hemlock MUSKEG REGmERATION Mountain Hemlock AND INVASION OF COAST FOREST 2 Sitka Spruce WESTERN HEMLOCK LOagepole Pine MAXIMUM Heaths 3 3500 ±. 250 B.P. Western Hemlock 4 Sitka Spruce Lysic:hitum COASTAL 5 (Marine Transgression) FOREST Ruppia PREOOMINANCE Chenopodiac:eae 6 6100 ± 300 B.P. Alder Spruce 7 Mountain Hemlock Lysichitum Ferns 7800 ± 300 B.P • . 8 Lodgepole Pine 9 Alder (volcanic: ash) Ferns LODGEPOLE (postglacial) PINE 10 ------------------Clate glacial) PARKLAND Alder -Willow Lodgepole Pine 10,300 ± 600 B.P. ---.....----- -16- limited in number and represent animal forms which do not occur in herd aggregates. Large species present now, or in the recent past, include black bears, deer and wolves. In stark contrast to this meager list is the list of sea mammals which frequent the near snore waters and coastal streams of the island. The waters around Prince of Wales Island abound with harbor seals, sea lions, sea otters, whales, and a large variety of waterfowl and seabirds (State of Alaska 1974). In addition, a large number of marine fishes are present, some of these fish species spawn in the rivers of the island. Since human hunters, as predators, must of necessity hunt those areas where food is most abundant, the coastal areas of Prince of wa~es Island can be expected to have attracted the greatest number of hunters in the past. This situation continues today. Coastal areas provide adequate staging areas for near-shore marine mammal hunting, shoreline and stream fishing, and the hunting of other island predators such as bears, which will also congregate near . prey species. Shore areas are also contiguous to water which represents a much smoo~her, and therefore much easier traversed, surface than the steep-sided and heavily vegetated inland regions. In a recent study commissioned by the Outer Continental Shelf Office, Bureau of Land Managment (Dixon 1979), an attempt was made to delineate terrain features most likely to be associated with detectable archeological sites in coastal settings. Reasoning -17- that winter settlements require a greater amount of ground alteration to prepare than do summer settlements, the study concluded, •targe winter settlements will be located in areas where the greatest possibility exists of securing surplus faunal harvest.• Areas for which the probability of finding an archeological site c•high probability areas•) is relatively high were defined as: 1. Non-glacial river mouths and constricted marine approaches to these river mouths, river margins and lake outlets, 2. Natural terrestrial constrictions, such as passes, which funnel large 'mammal movements 1 3. Prominent spits, points, rocky capes, headlands and islands that may have provided habitat for Phocid and Otarid seals and for marine birds. Such habitat is only considered high potential if it occurs in conjunction with one or more additional habitat types, or if there is a natural constriction which would tend to concentrate these species; 4. Areas of habitat diversity and general high marine intertidal productivity, particularly those which might have prompted extensive machrophyte develop- ment. An example of this type of environment would be deep sinuous embayments. When these criteria are applied to Prince of Wales Island it becomes immediately apparent that mo~ern settlement patterns <see Sealaska 1975) conform to the above predictions. This review of environmental parameters which could be expected to have influence settlement of Prince of Wales Island bas demonstrated that the island could have supported a human population since early prehistoric times. Known coastal and near shore archeological sites along the Pacific Gulf Coast attest to the fact that sufficient technological skill existed to allow travel throughout the ~lexander Archipelago; the raw materials for both construction and food were available; and the region was deglaciated at an early time. These conditions have not substantialy changed in over 10,000 years. Thus, there is every reason to believe that humans have occupied Southeastern Alaska, and perhaps Prince of Wales Island, for many many generations. If our perceptions a~e closely mirrored in reality, we can expect to eventually di~over a long and rich prehistory there. -19- THE SURVEY The archeological survey plan was designed so as to maximize detection of surface and near surface archeological and/or historical features. Methods of survey are discussed in the methods chapter of this report. The 1982 archeological survey was divided into three tasks, each conforming to one of the survey areas defined in the scope of work. These three areas were: (1) a portion of Black Lake Valley, (2) an area just north of Natzuhini Bay, and (3) an area near Hydaburg. This chapter will discuss the survey of each of these three areas as separate but related surveys. The surveys discussed were conducted between the 19th and 27th of July 1982. Survey archeologists were Glenn and George Bacon; these two archeologists coordinated to conduct the cultural resources portion of the original feasibility study in 1980. Continuity between the 1980 and the 1982 efforts was thereby maximized. This allowed for greater efficiency in the field than might otherwise have been possible. Cost and time savings were also realized in obviating the need for project orientation and background literature research. The 1982 field team had also had the opportunity to meet or speak with many of the contact persons associated with the project. This prior experience also helped provide for a more efficient field effort. -20- The following persons were contacted prior to initiation of field archeological survey: 1. Robert Loescher, Director of Natural Resources, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau 2. Kurt Korthals, Sealaska Timber Corporation, Ketchikan 3. Robert Sanderson, Chairman of the Board, Haida COrporation, Hydaburg 4. Dave Barber, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Ketchikan 5. Chris Rabich Campbell, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Archeologist, Ketchikan Attempts were made to contact the following persons who were unavailable: 6. Percy Frisby, President·, Haida Corporation, Hydaburg 7. John Galea, Sealaska Timber Corporation, Ketchikan The Black Lake Valley survey The Black Lake archeological survey was completed in two segments. The first segment was that portion down-valley from the outlet of Black Lake. This segment parallels an existing logging road; thus the roadcut on the uphill side of the road provided an excellent exposure of subsurface sediments. Much of this segment had also already been cleared during by logging prior to our survey. The resulting situation was one in which no test pits needed to be excavated, since adequate exposures were available for inspection. The second segment of the Black Lake Valley·survey was in stark contrast. to the first segment. That pbrtion of the Black Lake Valley survey, which paralleled Black Lake and then continued on to the powerhouse site, traversed an extremely steep sidehill area. steep sidehill areas in Southeastern Alaska are commonly characterized by tangles of large deadfalls, and this segment of the Black Lake survey area was no exception. In addition to deadfalls, the underbrush was extremely thick. Sediment exposures in segment two were generally restricted to stream channels, which were incised into the hillside, and to the shoreline of Black Lake. Landslide scars were evident on the hillside, attesting to the downslope movement of surface and near surface sediments. Band dug test pits were restricted to areas thought to be flat enough to contain intact archeological materials. The only areas which fit this description were along -22- SCALE l 63 360 i.::::.~~:~.t:::.ac::~~c.__&IEE ___ _.I::::======i-=-----e~::=======~ .. ,"n :aaoo :!000 :blO ~: .:a:i '££"" -*'+* +++* -------:::::.===; 'a ca:::l!!i:::a::a::i51!!5---i::::===::i.a-51!!5!5!!!Eai:====-====0!351~ ....... ~o~( tt zs CONTOUR INTERVAL 100 FEET MAP 2. BLACK LAKE VICINITY -23- the lake shoreline. The best lakeshore bea~h we found was the result of a landslide chute. It is estimated that several dozen exposures, both natural and had dug, were examined during the Black Lake Valley survey. Along the alignment, the many uprooted trees and several stream crossings obviated the need for hand dug test pits. The natural erosion scars proved that little soil was mixed with a rock rubble of broken bedrock. All indications were that massive downslope movement of material was in progress. Toward the powerhouse site location, an apparent alluvial fan was visible. Large boulders indicate occasional heavy discharge, probably mixed with landslide material. It is concluded that site visibility along the segment of the survey route parallel and up-valley to Black Lake is extremely poor, but the likelihood of undetected sites is equally extremely poor. Site visibility along the section of the valley downstream from the outlet of Black Lake is relatively better. However, the survey alignment is located along steep sidehill areas and away from the Black Lake outlet stream. Also much of the alignment corridor along this segment has been logged and shows the . resulting disturbance to surface soils. Thus, the opportunity to locate in ~ archeological sites is even further reduced. Both segment of the Black Lake Valley survey corridor exhibit all indications of being too unstable to have attracted human -24- occupation. While small ephemeral sites can be expected along lower elevations in the valley, sites along the sidehill areas are expected to be rare, extremely difficult to located if they exist, and probably greatly displaced spatially. The Natzuhini Bay Survey The Natzuhini Bay survey covered a corridor parrallel to a segment of the road which will eventually connect Hydaburg with Craig and Klawock. This survey corridor is approximately three miles long, rounds the head of the bay; and for a short distance parallels the eastern shoreline of the bay. All of the surveyed corridor is in the vicinity of the old Natzune Bay Village Site CSealaska 1975: 308), but the northernmost portion of the survey corridor lies along areas more topographically suited to settlement, and it was assumed that the potential for finding archeological and historical materials was higher there. However, nearly all of this survey corridor was along steep sidehill areas, so it was thought that the general potential for finding significant cultural resources was low. An obvious exception was a location where the corridor crossed the river flowing into the east arm of Natzuhini bay. It is on this arm that the Natzune Bay Village was located. As was the case with the Black Lake Valley survey corridor, we conceptually divided the Natzuhini Bay survey into two segments. One segment covered that portion of the corridor north and west of the current boat landing, a second segment covered that portion of the survey corridor south of the boat landing. These two segments we referred to as the northern segment and the southern segment. The northern segment was characterized by steep sidehill areas, the surface sediments of much of which had been disturbed by logging operations prior to our survey. One exception was where the corridor crossed the river flowing into the eastern arm of Natzuhini Bay. Many exposure of the surface sediments were -available for inspection, consequently no additional hand dug test pits were excavated. The most accessible of the soil exposures was the road cut that was continuous along the survey corridor. This revealed a shallow sediment mantle over broken, angular bedrock. Trees which had been uprooted during logging operations revealed a multitude of craters which could be examined for subsurface cultural materials. Portions of the northern corridor segment which had not been logged can be characterized as steep sidehills which are deeply incised by several small streams flowing to tidewater. OVerbank deposits were noted near the river channel which flows into the eastern arm of Natzuhini Bay. These deposits were carefully examined where they are cut along the banks of the . river. -26- The southern segment lies along even more steeply graded sidehill areas than is the northern segment. However, its proximity to beach areas offered some promise for l~cating cultural material along the bay side of the corridor. Two excellent exposures of underlying sediments parallel the southern segment~ one is the roadcut on the uphill side of the road, and the other is the highwater wave cut along the beach. At the time of our survey of the beach cut the tide was at a minus tide. Both of these longitudinal exposures are crosscut by several streams which drop down the hillside in deeply cut channels. Aside from trimming back vegetation from these existing surface exposures, no ~ additional test p~ts were dug. At only one location along the Natzhini Bay survey did we find apparent evidence of an archeological site. At a point where a large stream flows into Natzuhini Bay from the east (just opposite the location of Natzune Bay village) and intersects the beach, a small assemblage of broken and crushed clam shells was discovered near the high water mark. These shell fragments probably represented no more than approximately two dozen clams. An exhaustive search yielded no other shell remains or any other evidence of a midden deposit, so it was concluded that the shell fragments were natural in origin. -27- SCALE !-53360 lOOO , ------- "0NTOUR :NT(RvAL 't'10 FEET MAP 3. NATZUHINI BAY VICINITY. SHOWING NATZUHINI BAY AND HYDABURG SURVEY AREAS -28- The Hydaburg survey The Hydaburg portion of our three survey areas consisted of a corridor beqiMing near the eastern shore of Natzuhini Bay, at a point approximately one mile south of the southern terminus of the southern segment of the Natzuhini Bay survey area. The Hydaburg survey area ended at a proposed substation site just northeast of the community of Hydaburg. The survey beqan with a drive to the boat landing near the end of the Craig-Klawock to Hydaburg road. From that point we traveled by boat, chartered from Mr. Leslie Edenshaw, to a point along the shoreline opposite the northern terminus of the Hydaburg survey area. Landing the boat at the shore, we then hiked inland to intercept the flagged centerline of the proposed road alignment which would eventually link Hydaburg with the communities further north. Once the centerline had been located, we surveyed the corridor While walking toward Hydaburg. After reaching Hydaburg we were returned by boat to the boat landing where we had left our land vehicle. While fully vegetated, the Hydaburg survey area proved much easier to travel than did the Black Lake survey area. Fewer and small deadfalls did little to impede our survey. The underbrush also seemed to be much less dense than we had experienced further north. At times, when the survey corridor came closest to the beach, we could see the water very close. These beach areas were -29- examined from the inland side, and also from the boat at a minus tide. While no prehistoric sites were located during the survey of the Hydaburg section, we did note that the evidence for historic period land use increased as we approached Hydaburg. Most evident were the large number of smaller trees which had been cut. Due to their small size relative to other trees in the vicinity, it was assumed that the cut trees were harvested for fuel or construction. We also noted several sets of plastic flagging and numerous blazed trees. One cedar tree, located at the approximate substation site, had a thirty foot long strip of bark removed; but this removal was very recent. The most obvious cultural feature encountered during the survey, aside from Hydaburg itself, was a wooden aquaduct. This aquaduct is noted on the o.s. Geological Survey maps of the area CA-3), and is of recent origin. According to a Public Health Services Report Cn.d.>, the aquaduct was constructed along with a dam across the Hydaburg River in 1935. It purpose was to bring water to Hydaburg. However, seasonal icing problems in the aquduct led the system to be abandoned. In 1962 the aquaduct was extended from its previous terminus at a chloriation station to the local cannery. The orignal aquaduct was built to a ten inch square duct, and the 1962 extension was built to a six inch square duct. In 1964 the dam was renovated. Originally constructed at a pool elevation of 90 feet, the v-shaped dam is SO feet wide, 20 feet ·30- hiqh, and ten feet thick. -31- POST-SURVEY INTERVIEWS AND RECORDS CHECK At the invitation of Robert Loescher we visited the Sealaska offices in Juneau to examine their records regarding historical use of the three survey areas. Assisted by Ms. Sherry Holmes, we held discussions with both Richard Barris, Environmental Coordination Manager, and Vince Matt, Forest and Lands Manager for Sealaska. we also talked with David Katzeek, President of the Sealaska Heritage Foundation. While a literature search had been conducted prior to the initial Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project archeological survey in 1980, we took the opportunity provided to examine Sealaska records with the thought that the earlier literature search may have overlooked some item of historical interest. We also wished to obtain specific information on the aquaduct near Hydaburg. The very helpful people with whom we met expressed interest in our cultural resources investigation, but in the end could provide no new data on historical sites which we had not already gathered in 1980. Useful information was provided concerning the Hydaburg aquaduct, and this information has been included in this report. -32- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS An intensive and careful archeological survey of three survey areas, all potentially impacted by development of the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric site, yielded evidence of only minor historical use of the land. Aside.from logging roads, material remains consisted of a minor litter of trash and of several cut trees near Hydaburg. The modern litter appeared to be randomly distributed over the landscape, but was clearly associated with the existing roadways. None of it is. considered to possess necessary antiquity to be considered for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under criteria set forth in 36 CFR 800 FF. The cut trees near Hydaburg may represent harvest of construction or fuel materials, or they may be related to construction of a wooden aquaduct. None of this activity occurred early enough to be considered historically significant. No significant archeological or historical sites were discovered either during the archeological survey or during the pre-field literature search or during interviews held with several person especially knowledgeable about area history. An earlier study of remaining portions of the potential impact area concluded that those areas contained no significant cultural material which would be adVersely effected by proposed construction of the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric facility and associated transmission lines. An -33- archeological survey conducted by the u.s.o.A. Forest Service on land between our Natzuhini Bay survey area and our Hydaburg survey area also failed to detect the presence of significant historical material. Thus we conclude that construction of the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project poses no threat to any known significant cultural resource. Because archeology is a limited science it is not foolproof. The standard archeological techniques employed during our investigation may fail to detect buried cultural material. Given the thoroughness of our effort, we feel this possibility to be extremely remote. However, in the event that historical material is encountered during construction, it is appropriate to contact the land owner and the Alaska Historic Preservation Office for guidance. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, R. 1968 The Archeology of the Glacier Bay Region, Southeastern Alaska. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology, Report of Investigation No. 44, Pullman. 1973 Post Pleistocene Cultural Adaptations of the Northern Northwest Coast • .in INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE PREHISTORY AND PALEOECOLOGY OF THE WESTERN ARCTIC AND SUB-ARCTIC, pp. 1-20, University of Calgary Archaeological Association. Ackerman, R. & T. Hamilton & R. Stuckenrath 1979 Early Culture Complexes on the Northern Northwest Coast. paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archeology, Vancouver, B.C • .... Anderson, P. · 1977 Alaskan Climatic History: 6000 BP to Present. typescript, ms 18 pp. Bacon, G. 1980 Archeological Investigations for the Proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. report from Alaskarctic to CB2M Hill, 26 pp. Bureau of Land Management n.d. Manual 8111.14, Guideline for Class 3 Archaeological survey Davis, s. 1979 Hidden Falls, A Stratified Site in Southeast Alaska. paper presented at the 32nd Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, March 22-24, Eugene, Oregon. 1980 Bidden Fails: A Multicomponent Site in the Alexander Archiplago of the Northwest Coast. paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archeology, Philadelphia. Dixon, E. 1979 Lower Cook Inlet Cultural Resource Study. report prepared for the Outer Continental Shelf Office, Bureau of Land Management, Contract AA5Sl-cT8-29, Anchorage. Dumond, D. 1971 A summary of Archaeology in the Katmai Regions, Southwestern, Alaska. UNIVERSITY OF OREGW ANTHROPOLOOICAL PAPERS, Eugene. Fladmark, K. 197& The Feasibility of the Northwest Coast as a Migration Route for Early Man. .in EARLY MAN IN AMERICA FRCH A CIROJM-PACIFIC PERSPECTIVE, edited by A. Bryan, pp. 119-128, Occasional Papers No. 1 of the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. in AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, 44(1): 55-69. Griffin, J. 1960 Some Prehistoric Connections between Siberia and America. in SCIENCE, 131: 810-812. Hansen, H. 1949a Postglacial Forests in West Central Alberta, Canada. in BULLETIN OF THE 'roRREY BOTANICAL CLUB, 76: 278-289. 1949b Postglacial Forests in South Central Alberta, canada. in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTONY, 36: 54~5 • . Halliday, w. and A. Brown 1943 The Distribution of Same Important Forest Trees in Canada. ECOLOGY, 24: 353-373. Heusser, c. 1953 Radiocarbon Dating of the Thermal Maximum in Southeastern Alaska. ECX>LOGY, 34 (3): 637~40. 1960 Late Pleistocene Environment of North Pacific North America. American Geographical Special Publication No. 35. 1966 Polar Hemispheric Correlation: Palynological Evidence from Chile and the Pacific Northwest of America. in WORLD CLIMATE FRCM 8,000 'ro 0 B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium on world Climate, Imperial College, London, edited by J. Sawyer, pp. 124-142, Royal Meteorological Society, London. Laughlin, w. 1975 Aleuts: Ecosystems, Holocene History, and Siberian Origin. SCIENCE, 189(4202). McKenzie, D. and R. Goldwait 1971 Glacial History of the last 11,000 Years in Adams Inlet, Southeastern Alaska. GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA BULLETIN 82, pp. 1767-1782. Miller, M. and J. Anderson 1974 Out-of-Phase Holocene Climatic Trends in the Maritime and Continental Sectors of the Alaska-canada Boundary Range • .in QUATERNARY ENVIRONMENTS: PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM, First York University SympOsium on Quaternary Research, edited by w. c. Mahaney, Geographical Monographs No. 5, York University, Toronto. PUblic Health Service n.d. Final Report on Sanitation Facilities Construction for Hydaburg, Alaska: Engineering Report. report to the Indian Health Service, Environmental Health Branch, Anchorage, Alaska, Project No. AN-72-930 & 75-138 Reger, D. 1978 1977 Excavations on the Beluga Point Site. paper presented at the 5th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropology Association, Anchorage. Roberts, L. 1982 Southeastern Archaeology Viewed in Light of the Irish Creek Site. Abstracts of the 9th Annual Meeting of Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks. Sealaska Corporation 1975 Native Cemetey and Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska. Juneau. State of Alaska 1974 ALASKA'S WILDLIFE AND HABITAT. Department of Fish and Game. Steward, J. 1959 THEORY OF CULTURE CHANGE: THE METHODOLOGY OF MULTILINEAR EVOLUTIION. University of Illinois Press. Swanston, D. 1969 A Late Pleistocene Glacial Sequence from Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. ARcriC, 22: 25-33. White, L. 1949 THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE: A STUDY OF MAN AND CIVILIZATION. Farrar Straus and Giroux, To~onto. Wilson, J. and~~ 1958 Glacial Map of canada. Geological Association of Canada, Toronto. Archeological Investigations for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Prince of Wales Island, Alaska report prepared by ALASKARCTIC Glenn Bacon Principle Investigator report to CH2M HILL Denali Towers North 2550 Denali St., 8th Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99503 September 1980 Cm!TENTS Introduction .......................................... page Methodo 1 ogy •.•....•..•.•....•••.....•.•.....•...•..... Research Design •...................................... Environmental Parameters for Human Occupation ........ . The Survey Plan ...................................... . The Survey Sites Revealed Through Literature Review ............. . Sites Revealed Through Interviews 3 4 5 10 12 19 21 Conclusions........................................... 22 Recorrrnendations . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . • • • . . . . . • • • . . . • . . . . . . . . 23 Bibliography ................ ·.......................... 24 -1- INTRODUCTION This is a report on an archeological survey in the vicinity of Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The archeological survey was one of several studies completed in order to evaluate proposed hydroelectric development plans for Black Bear Lake. The hydroelectric project, when completed, will provide electricity for the communities of Klawock, Craig and Hydaburg. This report has been prepared to support a license application before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The field survey was conducted between July 9 and July 16, 1980 by two Alaskarctic archeologists. The author of this report directed the field survey and was assisted in the field by George Bacon. The Alaskarctic plan of study included a literature search and a field survey. The specific objective of the study plan was to identify direct and adverse effects of proposed hydroelectric development on properties included 1n or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A literature search was conducted with the objective of identifying import- ant archeological and/or historical sites which might have already been known to exist in the project area. This literature search included an appropriate search of the files maintained by the State Historic Preserva- tion Office within the Alaska Division of Parks, Anchorage. Persons with special knowledge of the history of the project area were also consulted. A brief literature search was also conducted which was designed to locate information necessary to establish geophysical parameters for past human occupation and exploitation of the project vicinity. The field survey focused on two primary objectives. The first of these was to attempt to verify the locations of sites revealed through the lit- erature search. A second objective was, through a sampling survey, an attempt to locate previously unreported sites in the project area. The field survey can generally be regarded as extensive rather than intensive. The results of the field survey can be used to realistically ascertain the likely impact of Black Bear Lake hydroelectric development on cultural resources. -2- I T I I I' I \ I ~ c I \ \ -3- METHODOLOGY Project methodology was designed to concentrate on a field based on-the- ground archeological survey. That survey was supported by a pre-survey literature search. A limited literature search was conducted. Records of the State Historic Preservation Office and the University of Alaska library facilities, as well as the Alaskarctic library, were searched for referP.nces to historic and prehistoric sites within the project area. An intensive on-the-ground archeological survey was conducted over portions of the project area. The survey was designed so as to maximize detection of surface and near surface archeological and/or historical resources. Surface coverage of areas surveyed permitted visual detection of above ground structures and collapsed structures. Such structures could have included cabins, totem poles, grave markers, pitch trees, lean-to frames, house pits and the like. Small trowel or shovel dug excavations provided opportunities to examine subsurface geologic deposits. Subsurface deposits. were also revealed through natural erosion scars and through upturned vegetation. Careful examination of test excavation holes and points of erosion e~abl~d field archeologists to search for buried cultural material. Not all portions of the project area were surveyed. Some areas proved too steep of slope to permit foot traverse. Other areas consisted of naked rock. And, based on available ethnographic and archeological data, some portions of the project area can be considered to hold little potential for yielding significant historic and/or prehistoric sites. Consequently, only portions of these areas were surveyed on the ground. -4- RESEARCH DESIGN Following White (1949), and more recently Steward (1959), we will utilize the broad concept of cultural ecology. Underlying our study is a concept which focuses on the interaction between human social behavior, material culture and the physical environment. A basic assumption is that material culture applied to the physical environment corresponds to social behavior, and that if patterns are observed in the technological record then cor- responding patterns may be inferred in the social behavior of the societies which used the technology. Those aspects of material culture most closely associated with food getting will be most sensitive to changes in available food resources (Steward 1959); and food getting technology is relatively easily studied for hunting/ fishing societies. Granting these assumptions two basic levels of study can be persued through the study of the material leavings of human groups. First, extinct behavior patterns can be revealed through a study of tech- nology as it is preserved as discarded material culture. Second, behavioral response to changing physical environmental conditions will be revealed through observed changes in the technological record. Our study of extinct behavior patterns through the study of material culture must necessarily rely heavily upon the archeological record. Unfortunately the archeological record is incomplete. Lost and discarded items of material culture are not uniformly preserved. The difficulty of the task before us is not unlike attempting to reconstruct an object through study of the shaddow it has cast. Nevertheless we are secure in the belief that enough of the technological record will eventually be re- vealed to provide a clearer picture of human behavior. -5- ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION In order to estimate the potential for archeology within the project area it is necessary to gain some insight as to how long the area has been inhabitable. Within that time range, we must then establish the types of natural resources that might have drawn early man to the area. Unfort- unately much of the data needed to provide better understanding of this problem are not available. Some of the available data are summarized by Fladmark (1979) in his dis- cussion of the possibilities of finding additional evidence for early man along the Pacific Gulf Coast of Alaska. Fladmark wrote (ibid.: 59): Immediately north of the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Alexander Archipelago of Southeastern Alaska has seen little geological research. Swanston (1969) reports undated evidence for two glaciations on the east coast of Prince of Wales Island, which he correlates with main and late Wisconsinan events in Cook Inlet. Maximum ice surfaces up to 900 m for the earlier, more extensive glaciation in the middle of the Alexander Archipelago suggest that any glaciers reaching the outer west coast were restricted to valleys and sounds, separated by ice-free head- lands and ridges. The latter might be sufficient to provide The biotic refugia that Heusser (1960) postulates for the area. It is apparent from the above observations by Fladmark that the western side of Prince of Wales Island may have been available for prehistoric human exploitation as early as late pleistocene times, over ten thousand years ago. Additional geologic investigations appear necessary before full discussion is possible concerning the nature and extent of coastal areas that might have been available by a lower Wisconsin sea level. However, it seems likely that some previously habitable areas are now under water. Heusser is one of the earliest scientists to argue for coastal migration of early man into the New World. In 1960 he wrote (ibid.: 209), Anthropologists generally agree that the route early man followed onto this continent was by way of Bering Strait (Griffin 1960). They also generally agree that his route continued southward by way of unglaciated interior Alaska and along the Rocky Mountain front. The northwestern coast is usually discounted as a route, mainly because its cultures are young. The Great Fraser midden deposit in Vancouver, British Columbia, for example, dates from only 2100+900 B.P. (Broecker and Kulp 1957). Strong geological evidence Tndicates that unglaciated corridors, where man may have waited for an ice age to pass during a migration, are apparent in western and central Alaska, Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, and Alberta (Wilson, et. al. 1958, Fig. 48). In some of these corridors, botanical studies point toward refugia -6- for plants at least, if not also for man and other animals (Halliday and Brown 1943, Hansen 1949a and b). But refugia and unglaciated tracts appear certain to have existed, as well, along the North Pacific coast. It would seem just as likely that early man followed this route either during or between times of glacia- tion. Both routes are conjectural, since conclusive evidence is still lacking. Heusser continues and lists three main reasons for his preference for the coastal migration thesis: "(1) equable oceanic climate, (2) available marine food, and (3) greater travel facility by water, particularly through coastal archipelagoes." (ibid.). It was not until after publication of Heusser's comments in 1960 that the first prehistoric site was excavated in southeast Alaska. That site, the Ground Hog Bay II site near Glacier Bay, has been radiocarbon dated to circa 10,000 B.P. (Ackerman 1964, 1973, 1979). More recently the second, of only two, prehistoric site has been excavated along the southeast Alaskan coast. The Hidden Falls site, located on the northeast side of Baronof Island has been radiocarbon dated to circa 9,500 B.P. (Davis 1979, 1980). These two sites attest to the early postglacial human occupancy of the Pacific Gulf Coast of Alaska. An artifact complex, named the "Moresby Tradition", from the Queen Charlotte Islands dates to circa 7,400 B.P. (Fladmark 1979). Thus areas to both the north and south of Prince of Wales Island have produced evidence of early Holocene human occupation. Other evidence for early human occupation of the Pacific Gulf Coast of Alaska has been found at (1) Cook Inlet (Reger 1978), (2) the Alaska Peninsula (Dumond 1971) and (3) in the Aleutian Islands (Laughlin 1975). In view of the fact that several archeological sites have now been dis- covered along the Pacific Gulf Coast of Alaska, and in view of the fact that some of these sites have been demonstrated to date to late glacial or early postglacial time, a paleogeographic reconstruction of the North- west Coast proposed by Fladmark may be appropriate (Fladmark 1978: 124). The vision of an unbroken wall of ice completely sealing in the Northwest Coast during the Wisconsinan Glaciation should be re- placed by the more complex and realistic picture of an Greenland- like shoreline, with major glaciers spilling out to the ocean through trunk valleys, but separated and flanked by strips of ice-free coast, unglaciated headlands and offshore islands. Rapid deglaciation following Wisconsin time quickly freed Prince of Wales Island for expanded human occupation. A glacial advance during the period 20,000 to 15,000 B.P. (Swanston 1969) apparently was followed by a dryer and colder period from 15,000 to 12,500 B.P. (Heusser 1966). A warmer and wetter period from 12,500 to 11,000 B.P. saw rapid glacier retreat (ibid.); but this was short lived and the climate reverted back -7- to a cold, dry climate for the interval 11,000 to 10,500 B.P. (Miller and Anderson 1974). Heusser(~. cite.) and Swanston (1969) have doc- umented what they interpret as a climatic shift to a moister but still cold climate during the period 10,000 to 8,000 B.P. This was associated with another glacial advance on Prince of Wales Island. A reversal back to a warm, dry climate is postulated by Heusser (1966) to have occurred during the period from approximately 8,500 to 4,500 B.P. Although various authors disagree as to the exact timing, it is during this warm period that the temperature maximum occurred. This hypsothermal event is dated at 5,500 to 3,250 B.P. (Miller and Anderson 1974), 7,050 to 4,150 B.P. (McKenzie and Goldwait 1971) and at 3,500 + 250 B.P. by Heusser (1953). The period following the hypsothermal has been character- ized by Heusser as cool and dry between 4,500 and 3,000 B.P. and as cool and wet from 3,000 B.P. to the present (1966). Although we must be somewhat cautious in interpretations (Anderson 1977: 10), his with respect to Prince of Wales Island. tentative reconstruction of vegetational Archipelego (see Table 1). relying too heavily on Heusser•s data set is the most complete Heusser (1960: 178) offers a history along the Alexander It is apparent that wood for fuel and construction would have been available to anyone choosing to occupy Prince of Wales Island during late glacial time and from then on. With wood available for fuel and shelter it then becomes a question of whether or not adequate food resources were present to have supported aboriginal hunters on Prince of Wales Island. The valleys that separate Prince of Wales Island from the mainland would have been quickly inundated by the Pacific Ocean rising at the close of the Wisconsinan glacial period. Thus the larger fauna found on the island today must closely represent the variety of fauna that has existed on the island since it became ice free. Faunal species present on Prince of Wales Island today are limited in number and represent animal forms which do not occur in herd form. Large species present include black bears, deer and wolves. In stark contrast to this meager list is the list of sea animals which frequent the near shore waters and coastal streams of the island. The waters around Prince of Wales Island abound with harbor seals, sea lions, sea· otters, whales and a large variety of waterfowl and seabirds (State of Alaska 1974). In addition a large number of marine fishes are present. Some of these fish species spawn in the rivers of the island. Since human hunters, as predators, must of necessity hunted those areas where food was most abundant, the coastal areas of Prince of Wales Island can be expected to have attracted the greatest number of hunters in the past. Coastal areas provide adequate staginf areas for near-shore marine mammal hunting, shoreline and stream fishing, and the hunting of other island predators such as bears. Shore areas are also contiguous to water which represents a much smoother, and therefore much easier traversed, surface than the steep sided and heavily vegetated inland regions. -8- TABLE 1 . Alexander Archipelago Vegetational History MILLENNIA B.P. 0 Hemlocks-Spruce 1- Lodgepole Pine ~ I.I.J z z 0:: Sphagnum 000 -..... 1.1.. ~--~ ~<I->~ western 'Hemlock'--<..!:7\.I.JZC:C u.J:z:,....o Mountain Hemlock :::..:: I.I.J u ~<..!:70 :::::> I.I.J z 1.1.. :EO:: <CO 2 Sitka Spruce Z:::W::::£ Lodgepole Pine cc:u:::::> u.JO::£ Heaths 1-....J- ~:EX 3 I.I.JI.I.J~ ::J::C 3500 + 250 BP Western Hemlock I.I.J 4 u Sitka Spruce z < 1-Z Lysichitum ~--~-~UJ::E: <CC:O 5 MARINE TRANSGRESSION 000 u 1.1.. I.I.J 0:: c.. Ruppia Chenopodiaceae 6 6100 + 300 Alder Spruce 7 Mountain Hemlock Lysichitum Ferns 7800 + 300 8 Lodgepole Pine 9 Alder ------(volcanic ash) Ferns I.I.J z -(postglacial) c..o z UJC:C 10 ================= ....J ....J (late glacial} O:::W:: c.. 0:: I.I.Jc:( 10,300 :: 600 Alder-Willow <..OC.. Lodgepole Pine 0 0 ....J -9- In a recent study conducted by the University of Alaska Museum (Dixon 1979) an attempt was made to delineate terrain features most likely to be associated with detectable archeological sites. Reasoning that winter settlements require a greater amount of ground alteration to prepare, the Museum study concluded, "Large winter settlements will be located in areas where the greatest possibility exists of securing surplus faunal harvest." Areas for which the probability of finding an archeological site (high probability areas) is relatively high were defined in the Museum study. They are: 1. Non-glacial river mouths and constricted marine approaches to these river mouths, river margins and lake outlets, 2. Natural terrestrial constrictions, such as passes, which funnel large mammal movements, 3. Prominent spits, points, rocky capes, headlands and islands that may have provided habitat for Phocid and Otarid seals and for marine birds. Such habitat is only considered high potential if it occurs in conjunction with one or more add- itional habitat types, or if there is a natural constriction which would tend to concentrate these species, 4. Areas of habitat diversity and general high marine intertidal productivity, particularly those which might have prompted extensive machrophyte development. An example of this type of environment would be deep sinuous embayments. When these criteria are applied to Prince of Wales Island it becomes immediately apparent that modern settlement patterns (Sealaska 1975} conform to predictions made in the Museum's proposed model. -10- THE SURVEY PLAN The archeological survey plan was designed to insure coverage of those areas thought most likely to have a high potential for yielding archeological sites. Areas of highest probability are discussed in the previous chapter and, on Prince of Wales Island, tend to coincide with historically inhabited areas. With respect to the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project several areas were considered to have high archeological potential. These areas included: a tidewater lagoon named Big Salt Lake, the coastal areas along Klawock Inlet, the areas contiguous to the Klawock River and Klawock Lake, and the land approaches to Klawock, Craig and Hydaburg. The vicinity immediate to Black Bear Lake was considered to be of lower archeological potential, but this area was surveyed as part of a sample of low probability areas. On the basis of this evaluation, and on the basis of our previous decision to conduct a sample survey, certain specific areas were selected as the focus of on-the-ground archeological survey. Areas initially selected for ground level survey included: a. The shoreline of Black Bear Lake, b. The proposed damsite, c. The proposed spillway area, d. The proposed penstock alignment, e. The proposed powerhouse site, f. And portions of proposed transmission line corridors which are located contiguous to existing roads. Proposed Development Near Black Bear lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska 1 ,.,.._._ •• I ...... ~ ;:s-0 0~ I __. __. -12- THE SURVEY The shoreline of Black Bear Lake proved to be a steep-sided, ice-scoured, lower portion ora-gTacrar-cTrqUe. Naked bedrock and boulder field talus slopes were much in evidence around the lake. As impoundment of the lake is projected to raise the lake level some thirty vertical feet, shore areas around the lake were surveyed to a contour line approximately thirty feet above the present lake surface. In most instances, due to the steepness of shore areas, the survey covered only a narrow strip of land. Often this narrow strip ended less than thirty feet back from the present shoreline. Within that narrow strip only three areas around the lake were found to be relatively level. At the upper end of the lake a Forest Service cabin lies on a relatively level boulder field. Large boulders in the field and a high ground water level would not have encourage aboriginal encamp- ments in this area. In addition. the area is in constant danger of being impacted from rocks and boulders falling from the near vertical rock wall just behind the cabin site. Some of the more recent rock fall clearly weighs several tons. A second level area along the lake shore is the former site of the Forest Service cabin. This is the same location as the base camp we used during our stay at the lake. The level area at this location is small and measures only about four to five meters in diameter. A thin soil veneer lying over bedrock is saturated with ground water and historic material associated with the cabin that formerly stood there. A third level area lies at the outlet of the lake. This is the area also proposed as the damsite. Testing in the thin soil mantle yielded no cultural material there. Black Bear Lake is a snow fed lake which appears to contain too little organics to sustain much of an indiginous fresh water fish population. Although the lake presently supports a fish population these.fish were recently planted in the lake. The local pilots to whom we spoke claim that because of the poor feeding conditions the fish in the lake grow very slowly and tend to be elongated without much body bulk. It can be assumed that conditions of the lake were not much better in the past. If this is the case, then the only attraction at the lake for prehistoric hunters would be in other food resources at the lake such as bear or deer which occasionally inhabit the area. The damsite is located on what appears to be a natural bedrock dam at the outlet of Black Bear Lake. Each end of the damsite is dominated by steeply rising rock walls. The outlet stream breaches the damsite and forms a rapids. This rapids quickly gives way to a waterfall a short distance downstream where Black Bear Lake valley hangs above Bear Lake valley below. A fossil breach of the dam at the end of Black Bear Lake is evident at the left margin {facing downstream} of the proposed damsite. -13- The proposed spillway area is located along the fossil channel. This channel appears to have-been created when ice choked the outlet of Black Bear Lake and forced the outlet stream to cut into the steep rock wall which rises on the west end of the damsite. As does the present outlet of Black Bear Lake, the old outlet consists of a deep groove cut into a rock surface which hangs above tte valley below. The hanging Black Bear Lake valley is too high above the low Bear Lake valley for anadromous fish to have entered Black Bear Lake. The pro~osed renstock alignment'drops from Black Bear Lake valley to Bear La e val ey some fifteen hundred feet below. The steepness of slope is suggested by the fact that the penstock drops that distance in less than twenty-seven hundred feet on the horizontal. In fact the hillside was too steep to completely survey. The upper half of the penstock alignment, which is slightly less steep than the lower half, was surveyed on the ground. However, ropes were employed during ascent and descent. A great number of bent and uprooted trees attest to the fact that surface soils are unstable. Avalanche scars were also in evidence. No cultural features were noted along the portion of the penstock align- ment surveyed. However, a feature which proved to be a natural sinkhole was tested. The sinkhole was located on a small shelf at about the 1700 foot contour line just below the northeast end of the damsite. Unsurveyed areas of the penstock alignment are considered uninhabitable due to steepness of slope. The powerhouse site had not been determined at the time of our survey. ~entative locat1on, on the northeast side of Black Bear Creek and between the 100 and 200 foot contour elevations, had already been rejected by field geologists due to its location within a large avalanche zone. In any event the rejected site was examined from the air and observed to be unsuitable for archeological testing due to standing water on the ground surface. Power transmission line routes had also not been firmly fixed at the time or-our survey. Tentat1ve plans called for these lines to parallel roads as much as possible. Tentative routes are shown on the map on page 15. Although alternate routes are being studied, routes along roadways would appear to present the least threat to cultural resources. Utilization of already disturbed areas contiguous to existing roads would obviate any need to cut new rights-of-way to string power lines such as would be required, for example, along a straight-line route between the powerhouse and Klawock. At the time of our survey a logging road was being constructed toward Black Bear Lake from the direction of Bear Lake. This road will no doubt be used to support construction at Black Bear Lake. Existing roads come within a few miles of connecting Black Bear Lake with Klawock, Craig and Hydaburg. -14- Based on our analysis (see previous chapter) of areas most likely to yield cultural resources, three major segments of the power transmission line system were surveyed. These segments included: (l) a Big Salt Lake segment, (2) a Klawock Lagoon segment and (3) a Klawock to Craig coastal segment. The surveyed portion of the proposed transmission line system represents approximately 55% to 60% of the total proposed system. A segment of the proposed transmission line route, just north of Hydaburg. ~ot covered by o~r.survey was surveyed by U.S. Forest Service archeologists JUSt after our v1s1t to the area. Although the report will not be completed for some time due to.scheduling delays, the Forest Service area archeologist, Joyce Campbell, has 1nformed us that no archeological sites were found in the area they surveyed. With the addition of the Forest Service survey north of Hydaburg, all areas thought to be high in cultural resource potential will have been surveyed except the area around Bear Lake. However, since the transmission lines will likely follow road alignments and road alignments are separated from streams and lake shores, transmission lines probably will not be constructed over the highly sensitive areas nearest lake shores and salmon streams. The other unsurveyed portion of the proposed transmission line system is a portion of the system connecting the Klawock to Hollis road with Hydaburg. A survey of the northernmost portion of this transmission line segment produced no evidence of cultural material. The southernmost portion of this segment has beensurveyed by Forest Service archeologists. The middle portion runs overland down the middle of Prince of Wales Island. Based on our research on the paleoenvironment and on aboriginal settlement patterns, we consider this area to be low in archeological potential. If, as expected, the transmission line is constructed alongside the exist- ing logging road at this location on Prince of Wales Island there is even less need to worry about potential adverse impact of transmission line construction on cultural resources. As with transmission line construction along any roadside. the construction will be across areas already disturbed during construction of the road itself. The transmission line survey consisted of an on-the-ground examination of areas near both sides of the roads mentioned above (see map indicating areas surveyed). tanding and felled trees were examined for man-made alteration. Hf~torical examples of such alteration include totem carving and stripping of bark. Ground surface topography was monitored for clues to the presence of surface or near surface cultural material. This material could have included cache pits, house pits, traps, lean-toes and graves. However, none of these features was discovered during the survey. -15- ·~· E·X..Ht8iT-: B-i '> • ' ... • ·-""\ • r • I I I I -16- ""INOEX""MAP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ...... .~·-~ ,• ,, I '--. •• .t ,·t • •, ... ... . .-. - ,. ''!.:!::~~ '• . v· itlo :l •'l +-•• ... ·~ ·~· •. ''"'""'''" .... Ol .... -. ...... o ... l.o•o 4•1f ~-. , .. I ...... ,.. ~ ,., +• .-. •'·'"' • • t+•:• ,, ... •· .•.r: ''''"' ·••, .•. · •,, •t•.· • -•• • •••.•• ,., ,., .. ,.'ill ......... r. l'H (l)t ll'~'fll''' lfi'UI¥.1} ...... , 0 : ' ~ ' • -' . : ~ ' ; ~ I I o I :I I I J: IIH•o:! I I,:.~:, I f }, f ''l ,:.::' •. '.,"::";1!.,. f ' 1 ',:~·_. I \~• r·~·J ~-fllff~l·l \!.._;--=· •' -_._,:-, -:..: ':::~:::-:.·. ~7'.-:-r ··"-:' ·.-·-~ r I I t rr-:"'t :m (";;t£91 ]1Y)Ci --- ........ • J l I I ' . ,,,., "''·'· ... .. --- ......... ~·!!;~ :~'t:": ;:: .. "";.:.;,: t~: .. :;~·:.;:::~ ... .:.: ..... _, •h-• .,, •••-:• .............. ~ ...... ,, .... , .. ,.,, '1•11"""''•\'"''o.,.. U)H(,I ,,~lll)lNI IOOl'II)J . . I : I f I I I f ' I I lf"l ..... , •.• ....• ' ........... " • • I I I ' I I lit Itt . ""' "I I I II t f fI ll ' I ' .: () ~ -19- SITES REVEALED THROUGH LITERATURE REVIEW Aside from historic use of the Prince of Wales Island area little is known of aboriginal land use on the island. Recent mining activity near Hollis apparently did not extend as far west at Black Bear Lake or the western coast of the island (Bufvers 1967: 8-15). The following sites all lie near the project area. They are listed here in order to illustrate the nature of cultural resources potentially impacted by the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project. While some of these sites lie close to proposed development, none appear to be endangered except as noted. Sites listed with a "CRG" prefix are from the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey file maintained by the Alaska Division of Parks. 1. CRG-006: Craig; "Originally named •Fish Egg• for nearby Fish Egg Island, the name was changed to •craig Millar• for a cannery owner (see Alaska Sportsman, 1962, no. 12, p.28). The present name was adopted in 1912 when a post office was es~ablished (see Orth 1967: 243). 2. CRG-016: Klawock Burial; cemetery located on False Island in Klawock Harbor; reported in Sealaska 1975: 268. 3. CRG-024: Craig Petroglyph; petroglyph located at the edge of a road which parallels the water west and south of Craig; reported in Sealaska 1975: 194. 4. CRG-031: Klawock; "Tlingit Indian village reported in 1853, on Russian Hydrographic Department Chart 1493, as •seleniye Klyakkhan•, i.e. 1 Klyakkhan settlement•, applied to a location on the west side of Shinaku Inlet. This may represent the location of the village prior to the establishment of a cannery at the present site in 1878." (Orth 1967: 530) 5. CRG-045: Battle Site; on Salmonberry Island this is site of last reported battle between Haida and Tlingit in Klawock area; source personal comm. John Galazia to Karen Workman, 7/17/73. 6. CRG-100: Craig Burial; cemetery located on Port Bagial just south of major portion of Craig; reported in Sealaska 1975: 192. 7. CRG-118: Klawock Inlet Burial; cemetery located on island in Klawock Inlet; reported in Sealaska 1975: 270. 8. CRG-119: Klawock Village; located east of present town of Klawock, at mouth of Klawock River; reported in Sealaska 1975: 272. 9. CRG-126: Nutzune Bay Village; seasonal village site at north- east corner of Nutzune Bay five miles north of Hydaburg; reported in Sealaska 1975: 308. -20- 10. CRG-127: Peratrovich Island Burial; cemete.ry located on the southern tip of Peratrovich Island; reported in Sealaska 1975: 310. 11. CRG-146: Wadleigh Island Garden anrl Burial; reported old village site which was later used as cemetary and garden site -located on small peninsula near the southern extremity of Wadleigh Island; reported in Sealaska 1975: 372. 12. CRG-148: Klawock Cannery; "About 1869, an Indian Trader George Hamilton developed a salmon saltery here. This was acquired by North Pacific and Trading Company (San Francisco) in 1878 who installed canning equipment, which along with a new cannery built that year near Sitka, produced the first canned salmon pack in Alaska. There seems little doubt that this was the site. If the present abandoned structure, with bell tower, constitutes Fabric of the cannery it is eligible for the National Register. At later period, a diesel-generated electric plant was installed here, possibly one of first to be operated by Alaska Natives. Territorial Centennial plaque placed here in 1967."; source, Territorial Centennial records; Hinckley, Amer.icanization of Alaska; Sitka Post, 1-5-77; U.S. Customs D1strict Report, 1878; photo avaiable-rn-Americanization of Alaska, p. 124. Additional sites are referred to in an archeological survey report prepared by the Alaska Division of Parks after a survey that agency conducted prior to road reconstruction between Klawock and Craig (Division of Parks 1973). 13. "Totem poles are also reported but no one could remember seeing them in recent times." (Ibid.: 2) 14. "The west side of Fish Egg Island is good for gathering herring eggs on hemlock boughs and many people are aware of old garden sites in this vicinity." (Ibid.) 15. "A sa 1 tery is reported to have been 1 oca ted near the mouth of Crab Creek.'' (Ibid.) 16. Mile 2.5: a shell midden was revealed in a cut-bank at this location near the beach. Then State Archeologist Karen Workman reported,"Superficial examination does not indicate a potentially significant archeological site." (Ibid.: 5) 17. Mile 5.5: "At mile 5.5 there is a cross which marks the location of a 1957 automobile accident which took the life of a young man. This is not a grave." (Ibid.: 4) 18. A stone maul was found by Earnest King of Craig in his front yard when he was clearing for a garden. (Ibid.: 3) -21- SITES REVEALED THROUGH INTERVIEWS No sites were revealed through interviews held with residents of Prince of Wales Island which had the potential for being adversely impacted by the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project. The only site reported to us as possibly near proposed hydroelectric development we had already identified as CRG-126 (Nutzune Bay Village). The following persons were contacted during our study:·.·, · Mr. Leanardo Kato, President Klawock Heenya Corporation Mr. Ron Hatch, City Planner City of Craig · Mr. George Hamilton Sr. (age 97} Craig Mr. Robert Sanderson Haida Corporation Hydaburg, Alaska We were unsuccessful in our attempts to meet the following people. Mr. Jim Sprague, Mayor City of Craig Mr. Albert Macasaet, Mayor City of Klawock Mr. John Morris, Mayor City of Hydaburg Upon leaving the field, we visited the Ketchikan Area offices of the U.S. Forest Service. The Ketchikan Area archeologist proved hospitable but unhelpful in locating previously unreported sites in the project study area. We were not especially surprised at the results to our efforts. The Native Cemetery and Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska report funded by the Sealaska Corporat1on (1975} nas only recently been completed. This study is a comprehensive update of an earlier report to the Commissioner of Indian Affair prepared as supporting documentation in a lands claims dispute (Goldschmidt and Haas 1946). Although both reports are admittedly weak in coverage of prehistoric sites, both reports incorporate data obtained from extensive interviews with informants from all across Southeast Alaska. -22- CONCLUSIONS 1he proposed Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project has the potential for adverse impact on cultural resources. Most of the potentially threatened resources are related to currently utilized areas on Prince of Wales Island. Potential adverse impact would be associated with the construction of transmission lines between Black Bear Lake and the communities of Klawock, Craig and Hydaburg. Specific potential impact would be related to the erection of powerline support poles and to ground altering activities which may be associated with the actual suspension of powerlines from the poles. All potential adverse impact of hydroelectric development can be minimized by restricting developmental activities to those areas already impact by past development. For example, transmission lines could be strung alongside existing roadways. Roadside areas along existing logging roads were observed to be heavily scarred. Even if cultural resources should prove to be present in such a heavily disturbed area. they likely would not suffer significant further disturbance through the erection of powerlines. This would be especially true if powerline crews worked from the existing roadway rather than work- ing from newly cleared rights-of-way. Most of the potentially impacted cultural resources are associated with the communities of Klawock, Craig and Hydaburg. Most of the historical material is too recent to qualify for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places according to criteria set forth in 36 CFR BOO, Procedures-ror the Protection of Cultural Properties. Somewhat older cultural material may be associated with one or more of the sites listed in this report. For example. the road from Klawock to Hollis passes near Klawock Lagoon and the Klawock River. The area is a reported old village site and cultural resources were discovered during an archeo- logical survey prior to construction of the Klawock Fish Hatchery (Clark 1977). But, only at such time as specific resources are identified will it be possible to evaluate them for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Of all the cultural resources now known in the study area, only one has been identified as potentially eligible for the Nation Register. CRG-148 may be eligible. but to date it has not been· determined so by the Alaska Historic Sites Advisory Committee. In any event this structure does not appear to be endangered by the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project. On the basis of our study, and given the qualifications above, we conclude that the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on any property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. -23- RECOMMENDATIONS Since no specific cultural resources are known to be under threat of adverse impact from Black Bear Lake hydroelectric development, no plans to mitigate specific adverse effects are included in this report. However, certain aspects of the proposed development were not finalized at the time of our survey. Specifically, the final location of the powerhouse and power transmission line alignments had not been decided. For reasons cited in the body of this report, we urge that transmission lines be constructed near the edge of existing roadways when ever possible. This will mitigate potential adverse effects of transmission line construc- tion by minimizing the need for additional ground area disturbance. Although a significant sample of proposed hydroelectric development impact area has now been archeologically surveyed, two areas remain unsurveyed. One area between the Klawock-Hollis road and Hydaburg has not been surveyed but we consider to be low in archeological potential. An existing road in this area could be used to locate transmission.line alignment in a manner described elsewhere in this report. No further survey is recommended. The second unsurveyed area lies along Bear Lake valley between the damsite and an area southeast of Big Salt Lake. Because the stream that drains Bear Lake valley is reportedly·a salmon stream a somewhat higher potential for archeological site occurrence exists here than at the other unsurveyed location. A logging road is now being constructed through the Bear Lake valley. If the edge of this road is utilized for transmission line con- struction, the road edge should be surveyed prior to powerline construction. At the time this survey is conducted it will be possible to survey the powerhouse location. This additional survey area is relatively small and, once the Bear Lake valley road is constructed, the survey should require no more than about one or two field days to complete. Areas contiguous to the shoreline of Black Bear Lake have now been surveyed and need not be examined further for cultural resources. This is also the case for the damsite and the upper portion of the penstock alignment. We judge the lower portion of the penstock alignment to be too steep of slope to contain significant cultural resources. We, therefore, recommend no further archeological survey there. -24- BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, R. 1968 The Archaeology of the Glacier Bay Region, Southeastern Alaska. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology, Report of Investigation No. 44. 1973 Post Pleistocene Cultural Adaptations on the Northern Northwest Coast., in International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleo- ecology or Western Arctic and Sub-arctic, pp. 1-20, University of Calgary Archaeological Association. 1979 Early Culture Complexes on the Northern Northwest Coast., paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archeology, Vancouver. co-authored with T. Hamilton & R. Stuckenrath. Anderson, P. 1977 Alaskan Climatic History: 6000 BP to Present. typescript, 18 pp. ms Broecker, W. and J. Kulp 1957 Lamont natural radiocarbon measurements IV. in Science, 126, pp. 1324-1334. Bufvers, J. 1967 History of Mines and Prospects, Ketchikan District, Prior to 1952. Clark, G. Division of Mines and Minerals, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska. 1977 Archeological Reconnaissance: Klawock Fish Hatchery. memorandum to Forest Supervisor, Ketchikan Area, June 20, 1977. Davis, S. 1979 Hidden Falls, A Stratified Site in Southeast Alaska., paper presented at the 32nd Annual Northwest Anthropological Conferencem March 22-24, Eugene, Oregon. 1980 Hidden Falls: A Multicomponent Site in the Alexander Archipelago of the Northwest Coast., paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archeology, Philadelphia. Dixon, E. 1979 Lower Cook Inlet Cultural Resource Study. report prepared for the Outer Continental Shelf Office of the Bureau of Land Manage- ment under contract AA551-CT8-29. Dumond, D. 1971 A Summary of Archaeology in the Katmai Regions, Southwestern Alaska., University of Oregon Anthropological Papers. -25- Fl admark, K. 1978 The Feasibility of tte Northwest Coast as a Migration Route for Early Man. in Earl* Man in America From a Circum-Pacific PersTective, edited by . Bryan, pp. 119-128.-Occasional Papers No. of the Department of Anthropology, Univ. of Alberta. 1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. in American Antiquity, 44(1}:55-69. Goldschmidt9 W. and T. Haas 1946 Possessory rites of the natives of Southeastern Alaska, a Report to the Conmissioner of Indian Affairs. mimeograph. Griffin, J. 1960 Some Prehistoric Connections between Siberia and America. in Science, 131: 810-812. Hansen, H. 1949a Postglacial Forests in West Central Alberta, Canada. in Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 76:278-289. 1949b Postglacial Forests in South Central Alberta, Canada. in American Journal of Botany, 36: 54-65. Halliday, W. and A. Brown 1943 The distribution of some important forest trees in Canada., Ecology, 24: 353-373. Heusser, C. 1953 Radiocarbon Dating of the Thermal Maximum in Southeastern Alaska., in Ecology, 34(3}: 637-640. 1960 Late Pleistocene Environments of North Pacific North America. American Geographical Society Special Publication No. 35. 1966 Polar hemispheric correlation: Palynological evidence from Chile and the Pacific Northwest of America. in World Climate from 8 1000 to Q B.C ••• Proceedings of the Internat1ona Sympos1um on-wor~imate, Imperial College, London. Edited by J. Sawyer, pp. 124-142, Royal Meteorological Society, London. Laughlin, W. 1975 Aleuts: Ecosystems, Holocene History, and Siberian Origin. in Science, 189(4202} McKenzie, D. and R. Goldwait 1971 Glacial History of the Last 11,000 Years in Adams Inlet, Southeastern Alaska., in Geological Society of America Bulletin, 82: 1767-1782. -26- Miller, M. and J. Anderson 1974 Out-of-Phase Holocene climatic trends in the maritime and continental sectors of the Alaska-Canada boundary range. in Quaternary Environments: Proceedings of! Symposium, First York University Sympos1um on Quaternary Research, edited by W. C. Mahaney, Geographical Monographs No. 5, York University, Toronto. Orth, D. 1967 Dictionary of Alaska Place Names., Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 567, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reger, D. 1978 1977 Excavations on the Beluga Point Site. paper presented at the 5th Annual Alaska Anthropology Association Conference, Anchorage. Sealaska Corporation 1975 Native Cemetery and Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska. , Juneau. State of Alaska 1974 Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat., Department of Fish and Game. 1973 Reconnaissance Survey of the Craig to Klawock Road: Proposed ms Highway Project RS-0924(5). report prepared by the Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources, 10 pp. Steward, J. 1959 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution., University of Illinois Press. Swanston, D. 1969 A L•te Pleistocene Glacial Sequence from Prince of Wales Island, Alaska., in Arctic, 22: 25-33. White, L. 1949 The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization., Farrar Straus and G'"froux, Toronto. ----- Wilson, J. and et. al. 1958 Glaciar-Map-of Canada., Geological Association of Canada, Toronto. APPENDIX E-9 INITIAL CONSULTATION PACKAGE, AGENCY CONSULTATION LEITERS, MEETING NOTES, AND LICENSING STUDY PLANS ..... l. ... 'IQ an•NTOONCW' Regulatory Branch Permit Processing Section 0-870589 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. AAUY &NGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.O. sox .. ANCHORAGE, .AJ.ASt<A II8506-0IN 12 NOV 1987 Alaska Power and Telephone Post Office Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Attention: Mr. Robert S. Grimm Dear Mr. Grimm: This is in response to your permit application dated October 16, 1987, concerning the proposed construction of a dam, water intake structure, powerhouse with penstock supply system, and access road at Black Bear Lake near Klawock, Alaska. Department of the Anny Nationwide permits (NWPs) have been fssued pursuant to 33 CFR 330.5(a)(lZ)(l3){25), which authorize: 12. Discharges of material for backfill or bedding for utility lines including outfall or intake structures provided there is no change in preconstruction bottom contours (excess material must be removed to an upland disposal area). 13. Bank stabilization activities provided: (a} The bank stabilization activity is less than 500' in length; (b) The activity is necessary for erosion prevention; I (c) The activity is limited to less than an average of one cubic yard per running foot placed along the bank within waters of the United States; (d) No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion protection; (e) No material is placed 1n any wetland area; (f) No material is placed in any manner so as to impair surface water flow into or out of any wetland area; (g) Only clean mater1al free of waste metal products, organic materials, unsightly debris, etc. 1s used; and -2- (h) The act1v1ty is a single and complete project. (Note: This work may be necessary at the site of the powerplant.) ' 25. Discharges of concrete into tightly sealed forms or cells where the concrete is used as a structural member which would not otherwise be subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Your proposed dam, powerplant and associated facilities m~ be constructed under the authority of the above NWPs pro~ided they conform to the conditions and management practices listed on the enclosed sheets. Accordingly, no further individual permits will be required from this office provided the project is constructed as proposed.ln addition to the NWP conditions we have also enclosed a list of regional conditions which have been established for various NWPs 1n Alaska. Please note that regional conditions 11 011 , .. E11 and "W apply to the Nationwide permits that authorize your proposed project. This letter verifies that your project, as proposed, complies with the terms and conditions of the above referenced Nationwide permits. Our verification is valid for a period of two years from the date of this letter. Further verification on the applicability of these permits may be required after this date, in order to keep current with changing regulations and conditions. If you have additional questions, please contact Mr. Richard L. Howard at the address above or at {907) 753-2712. Enclosures Sincerely, ~:ir:V~ Chief, Southern Unit Permit Processing Section Regulatory Branch Conditions and Management Pr4tt1ces for Nationwide Permits Regional Conditions REGIONAL CONDITION A: Fills for access roads, pads, airstrips, f1eld camps and other major support facilities are not authorized by this Nationwide penm1t (NWP) under the definition of •seismic exploratory operations•. Survey activities are subject to surface management regulations of the Department of Natural Resources and/or the Hiner a 1s . · · Management Service and those mitigating measure.s pertaining to State and :· ... Federal oil and gas lease sales. This REGIONAL CONDITION 1s applicable to·· NW? (6}. REGIONAL CONDITION B: Placement of causeways, gravel islands, pipelines and other support structures in State waters, or in waters of judicially disputed ownership, are not authorized under this NWP. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (8). REGIONAL CONDITION C: Placement of structures or materials related to the construction of new small boat harbors are not authorized under this NWP. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (9). REGIONAL CONDITION 0: Revegetation of backfilled materiaJ or alternat1ve stab1lization techniques are required to minimize erosion. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (12). Erosion control activities are limited by NWPs (13), {18) and (19). REGIONAL CONDITION E: Timing, siting, road access, design and construction methods for utility lines are subject to authorizations of Federal and State agencies with Regulatory responsibility for such projects. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (12). REGIONAL CONDITION F: A minor road crossing fill is further defined as invotv1ng a total d1scharge of less than 200 cubic yards of fill material below the plane of o~din~ry high water and into adjacent wetlands. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (14). REGIONAL CONDITION G: This NWP applies provided that the Federal agency or department has received concurrence from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination that the category of the project or specific activity proposed will have no more than m1nor effects on water quality. In the absence of State concurrence, the Federal agency or department will need an individual permit under standard permit processing procedures. This REGIONAL CONDITION is Applicable to NWP {23). REGIONAL CONDITION H: Work 1n a designated andromous fish streams is subject to authorization from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWPs (3), {13), (14). (lB). (19), (21}, (22), (23), (25) and {2S). t I l 'I..J ,-I . :. . Nationwide Conditions (1) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proxim1ty of a public water supply intake; (2) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by 33 CFR 330.5(a)(4); . · (3) That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered ., ~~ species as identified under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or destroy ·: · or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. In the case of Federal agenc1es, 1t is the agencies• responsibility to comply with the requirements of the ESA. If the activity may adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat, the District Engineer (DE) must initiate Section 7 consultation in accordance with the ESA. In such cases, the DE may: (i) initiate Section 7 consultation and then, upon completion, authorize the activity un~er the Nationwide permit (NWP) by adding, if appropriate, activity specific conditions, or (ii) prior to or concurrent ~th Section 7 consultation he may recommend discretionary authority (see 33 CFR 330.8) or use modification, suspensi~n, or revocation procedures (see 33 CFR 325.7); (4) That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic "life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water); (5} That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act) in toxic amounts; (6) That any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained; (7) That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in a river officially designated by Congress as a wstudy river~ for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status; (8) That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation; (9) That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for · listing on, the National Register of H1stor1c Places, the permittee will notify the DE. If the DE determines that such historic properties may be adversely affected, he w111 provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the effects on such historic properties or he will consider modification. suspension, or revocation in accordance with 33 CFR 325.7. FurthQrmore. that, if th~ permitt~~ b~foro or during prosecution of the work ~uthor1zed, encounters a historic property that has not been listed or determined e11g1b1e for listing on the National Register, but which may ba eligible for 11sting in the National Register, ha shall 1mmed1ate1y notify the DE; (10) That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights; (11) That in certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived (Water quality certifications have been issued for all NWPs fn the State of Alaska.); .. · · · ( 12) ·That 1n certain states an individual. state coastal zone man.agement consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (Coastal zone · · management cqns~tency concurrence has been obtained for all NWPs in the. State of Alaska.); (13} That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer (Note regional condition(s) mentioned in letter, 1f any, and refer to enclosed list of regional conditions.]; and (14) That the management practices listed 1n 33 CFR 330.6 shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. (Management practices on enclosed list.) 2 Management Practices In addition to the (enclosed} Nationwide conditions, specified in 33 CFR 330.5, the following management practices shall be followed, to the maximum extent practicable, in order to min1mize the adverse effects of these discharges on the ~quatic environment. Failure to comply with these practices m~ be cause for the District Engineer to recommend, or the . Division Engineer to take, discretionary authority to regulate the activity on an individual or regional basis pursuant to 33 CFR 330.8. (1) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical alternatives. · (2) Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided. (3) Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the.waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters}. (4) If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow, shall be minimized. - (5) Discharges in wetlands areas shall be avoided. (6) Heavy equipment working in wetlands shal1 be placed on mats. {7) Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl sha11 be avoided. (8) All temporary fil1s shall be removed in their entirety. INITIAL STAGE CONSULTATION INFORMATION BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska Alaska Power & Telephone Company September 1988 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION GENERAL DESIGN OPERATIONAL MODE LIST OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY CONSULTATION MAILING LIST' INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska approximately 14 road miles north east of the town of Klawock. This hydroelectric site has been studied by the Alaska Power Authority and others since 1977.* Alaska Power & Telephone Company is now proposing a somewhat smaller initial project using an overground penstock with either a small dam or siphon intake. The project would initially provide electric energy to the towns of Craig and Klawock. The powerhouse site can be reached by traveling approximately 6.8 miles northeast from the town of Klawock on US Forest Development Road No.5000 to the mouth of Black Bear Creek and then approximately 5.4 miles southeast on private logging roads belonging to Sealaska Corporation. Two possible powerhouse locations, a dam or siphon site, two transmission line routes and one substation site are presently being evaluated. These features are shown on Maps 1, 5 and 6. *See BIBLIOGRAPHY I I ; ' I : ~-... ·- . ·' \\,' 0 .. \ 0 I 2 3 4 5 E3 E"? ---a SCALE MILES LEGEND ROADS ---TRANSMISSION LINE BLACK 8 EAR LAK£ HWROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP ALASKA POWERS TELEPHONE ; . ,. ', I I . . . :-, .. :::·~r/.:~ T i -;··~~':", :;'. , t.:\"'.f · .. ~ .. "': .:::1 ()'. .'.) :.:, ~ _,. .. ~~~~4: t,: t, ~ ---- ,, . 1 • , ...... ~. .r . .. · .. :: .. ,: ··u .\ • • J ~ "" ·!"• r.· -- .. - ' '+ " ...... - . .. , ) •·· ,.~ .. l.,, .. BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUBSTATIOr•s AND TRANSMISSION LINE ALASKA POWER Bo TELEPHONE COMPANY REVISED ----- ,, I• {) N A L SCALE ~2 1 ~ molu , . •. ..; .• · . .. -.. -.. .. ----___ ,._ .~ '1) ------ ----- ,,. Pa..erllOOSe LocaU on A: 5 . 25 river mi. fran roouth of Black Bear Cr·. · nl Big S.1.lt l.nke * P~rhou .. <:>e I..DcaUon 13: 5 .0 rj ver nti .• fran routJ1 of Bl.ad< Ihlr Cr. a l Big Salt Lake Scale : 0 1/a 1/~J rn 1le L -· _::L: __ :::t. . ·-·-· --_:-::-··. J BLACK BEAR LAI<E H'(OROELH.TRIC.. PROJEC.T GENERAL PLAN - AlASKA POWE'R B., i'EL[ P~0NE COfi'.PPilY tot~·· GENERAL DES:IGN BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 GENERAL DESIGN Water will be drawn from Black Bear Lake using one of two possible alternatives. The first is a small concrete or rockfill darn that will provide a maximum normal water elevation of 1695 ft. The second is a siphon type intake that will not change the natural maximum normal lake elevation (1687 ft). Both alternatives will use an unconventional screened intake structure to minimize intake water velocities and submersion requirements. Minimum lake elevation with the darn alternative will be 1685 ft and with the siphon alternative, 1672 ft. The siphon alternative will require a small building to house vacuum pump equipment at the outlet of Black Bear Lake. In addition, both alternatives will employ remotely controlled valves or gates to discharge water below Black Bear Lake when minimum flows are not met by the powerhouse discharge or spill from the lake. A welded steel penstock will convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock will be above ground supported on saddles down to about 550 ft. elevation. From that point it will be buried until reaching the powerhouse. The penstock diameter will be approximately 22 inches. The final diameter will be selected during the detailed design stage. The powerhouse will be located at one of two alternative sites. Powerhouse location A is the site established by Harza Engineering Company and is above the uppermost reaches of fish habitat. This site is threatened by possible snow slides, land slides and flooding.* The other alternative, powerhouse location B, is approximately 1500 ft. downstream from powerhouse location A. It is assumed at this time that very little fish habitat will be affected by the use of powerhouse location B. While powerhouse location B will require a longer penstock, the additional head and protection from geological hazards will increase capacity and reliability. The powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal building approximately 30 ft. by 60 ft. by 20 ft. high, located on a reinforced concrete foundation. It will house two 2000 hp horizontal shaft impulse turbines and auxiliary equipment including a standby diesel unit to provide backup station power during outages. *Munch, E., Alaska Woods Service Company. 1987. GENERAL DESIGN (Cont.) An open tailrace channel will conduct powerhouse discharges into Black Bear Creek. It will be approximately 15 feet wide and concrete lined for the first 20 feet from the powerhouse. A 4.16kv/34.5kv 6000kva substation will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to a 34.5kv/12.47kv substation at Klawock via one of two alternative transmission line routes. Transmission Line Alternative A would follow the existing logging and Forest Development roads for about 14 miles to the Klawock substation. Transmission Line Alternative B would follow the existing logging road for 1.5 miles and then proceed overland in roadless areas for 5.5 miles to the Klawock-Hollis highway, which it would follow for 2.5 miles to the Klawock substation. OPERATIONAL MODE BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 OPERATIONAL MODE The proposed project will be operated to maintain streamflows within the minimum and maximum flow restraints established in previous studies for protection, mitigation and enhancement of the fisheries resource. Since the powerhouse discharges will not always meet the minimum flow requirements, particularly during initial years of operation and during maintenance or emergency shutdowns, provision will be made to release flows from the lake to supplement the powerhouse discharges. Since there is a good record of streamflows and since the project load requirements will be known during the project operation, releases can also be made in anticipation of spill flows that would exceed the maximum flow requirements. A computer model is being used to study reservoir operation for various energy demands, load factors, monthly flows, project capacities, reservoir area-volume ratios, turbine-generator efficiencies, penstock head losses, and powerhouse locations. The calculations for the coefficients used in the computer model are shown in Appendix A. Two Black Bear Lake Operation Sheets, show the reservoir operation for an initial year (1994) and an unlimited load year (Table I-4a and Table I-4b respectively). Both operation sheets are for the following scenario: 1. Powerhouse at location B 2. Capacity 3.0 MW 3. Siphon Intake 4. Generator Efficiency 96% 5. Turbine Efficiency 87% 6. Monthly Load Distribution same as 1983-1987 (Table I-3) 7. Maximum Penstock Head Loss 180 ft. 8. Average year watershed.streamflow 9. Load characteristics from Figure 1-3 For the initial year operation sheet, Table I-4a, a load growth of 6% per year was assumed and the load factor and monthly distribution of energy requirements were assumed to be the same as the average for the last five years as shown in Table I-3. The unlimited load operation sheet, Table I-4b, shows the typical flows with the project operating at maximum capacity and a maximum reservoir drawdown elevation of 1672 feet. 4 ... ... _. -~ • ~ ... • • "'"' ~~ ~:! ~~ H 88 ...... 2::0 ...... ... ~~ ...... ''"'' "'" n ... .,. o ... """' ,..., ~~ H .... ~~ ... •• ~!!:! ": . ..... ... ... ...... ..... ... ,.,. ! u ... e'!l ..... .... f' :>1 ·-., .... ........ ..... ~ _. .... ...... --s ...... -........ -:::.-... _.., ...... -.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o..o-o-CJ-Idiii"\0"""""'-W'\ ____ N...,NNI'""'l'>#NNN OOOO>OOOOOOQON ooo-oooooooo"' 000.0000000000 ~~gg~~~~~:s~~:; ~.,.;oo.,.;o:,..:~,..:o..:..o~ _N ___ J'I"\_ - ~!=""'gg~~gggggggg .. --~ ........... . --~--ii~Uiiiiiii """ ------------... ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,..,N_Nt\.1-0NNI'I"\JII'\"<11 ------------ 0000000000000 ooocoooccoaoo ::~~~~~~~~~~~ #'\ffll'*-------f'lfi'-IN =~J:!~~~~~J::=~= o:.o,.,;.a.o~,...:a.;.oo:o: 888888388888::1 ~=!~i~;~~~ ~·~;;:e lUll 1·41> • • ILACI ltA.l L.AI(f OPEU II CoiS • • • • • • • • A~.YI. lolllf.ISIIlD SIUNiflt\1 I NI'U I V.U I A.lll S PIOJlCl CAI'ACIIY (111.1) A.IIIIJAl liiUGJ OIJIA.IID (111.111) CIS 110111 M/111.111 LJC U. CIWIU/CJS 11011111 I(CIIIIIIIG U:. fl. PO.( I l CAD lAC I C. AI.CUUitO (MOll" l~. fl. J"" ho ll.u" .,. ll&y J ..... Jut •ue Sop Ocl IIOY Doc: ~t.li1S 1111111-U. fl. UISliiG AVCi IOII•U flt\1 (CIS) 19.00 11.00 10.00 14.00 3~.00 41.00 28.00 25.00 }0.00 44.00 25.00 21.00 2S.el Pt.U lOAD DUWIO (111.1) .UIIJAl rttOJ. l11Uii1' (-) P(Al PIOJ. OliiAMO (IIIII) AVIi. PIOJ. OUWIO (IIIII) .UIIJAl OllUl liUGJ (-) I« AI llll Ul Ol!IAMO 1111.1) AYii • .blll.I.U ILC\1 !CfU AYG.SPill/llllASl (CIS) Sl'lll/IUUSE flliJIV. Ulllil lfWir....-tally c-tralned n-(CUI IIIII IWC 9 29 12 )4 9 )4 19 ]4 2S 49 IS 49 24 5S 24 )8 29 46 2S 44 23 42 9 29 1.00 28~0 0.014662 O.:W174S 16114.2 0.6 non·variabt• 16&4.2 1612.0 6.15 20691.6 3.00 2.l6 7158.4 3.15 25.82 0.54 441.8 LOAD AS ll: Of rlA.lll , .... ., 9.01 8.41 7.71 8.41 8.21 7.51 7.21 8.11 8.21 8.61 9.11 9.61 AVIi. IIOIIIIIll (N(I(il II(IIAIIO (111111) 2524. so 2H6.20 2159.85 21S6.20 2100. 10 210}.7'> 2019.60 2212.05 2)00.10 2412.30 2552.55 2691.80 2110SO.OO PfAJC I'<MI Of MAIO {Mil) 5.76 5.18 4.93 5.)8 5.2$ 4.110 4.61 5.19 S.2S S. Sl uu 6.1S l'lo'IIIISl lOC A/II/OAK•.OIS20) MNSE lOC A/II/OOAK•.OI5l12 NIINU LOC I/II/OAK=.OIH4S P!olltNSf lOC I/11/00A11•.014662 1911 lf•.S7 ACIUAl OUSEl ACIUAL l'lo'IINSE lifNEUilO PWIINSE LAXE liiUCJ liiU&T DISCHRG UEVAIIOII (MIIII) (M\111) (MUll) (f I l 16M.2 1829.1 695.4 26.82 1681.114 1111.] 618.9 25.47 1679.59 1624.8 535.0 21.112 1675.41 1117.3 618.9 25.47 1671.95 1705.& 59,.3 25.01 1674.91 1591.6 512.1 U.14 IUIO.SO U40.9 418.1 22.59 11.31.50 1689.9 Sll2.2 24.111 11.31.51 11os.a 594.3 25.01 1681.87 1168.4 1>41.9 2$.9} 1681.00 11144.0 108.6 21.04 168.6.39 1916.6 716.2 28.10 1684.24 20091..6 1158.4 SPill ftt\1 IOIAL flt\1 ACIUAl lflUS(O Ill. u. !CISl {CIS) (CIS) 0.00 0.00 26.82 0.00 0.00 2'S.41 0.00 0.00 2).82 0.00 0.00 25.41 0.00 0.00 2S.OI 0.00 0.00 21.34 0.00 1.41 24.00 0.00 0.00 24.16 0.00 }.W 29.00 1.08 0.00 27.01 0.00 0.00 27.04 0.00 0.00 28.10 0.09 0.45 25.82 TABLE 1-3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ENERGY SOLD CRAIG & KLAUOCK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (HUH) YEAII 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Monthly Percentage CRAIG KLAUOCK CRAIG KLA\oOCK CRAIG KLAUOCIC CRAIG KLAUOCK CRAIG KLAUOCK Total 5yr of Yearly a:aca:caz::::a:~a:::::::;z:a3::::z::::::aa::c::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::====================================== January 280 128 391 134 415 1n 414 182 465 235 2821 9.0X february 287 130 366 131 363 140 433 139 432 211 2632 8.4X Harch 245 118 300 156 349 132 381 160 404 192 2437 7.TX. April 264 139 351 170 365 155 434 163 420 185 261.6 8.4X Hay 228 119 317 146 390 172 391 191 402 231 2587 8.2X J..ne 234 107 334 104 355 156 388 142 388 152 2360 7.5X July 245 104 318 131 330 109 347 163 378 141 2266 7.2X August 292 108 334 126 384 158 404 173 403 176 2558 8.1X Septenber 292 139 347 145 381 160 386 149 414 152 2565 8.2X October 302 120 346 170 372 173 395 202 416 210 2706 8.6X Novenber 323 128 362 170 428 163 431 212 472 184 2873 9.1X Decenber 333 181 370 157 456 233 434 206 453 192 3015 9.6X ·======================================================================================================================== Total 3325 1521 4136 1740 4588 1928 4838 2082 5047 2261 31466 100.0X Avg. nl Demand 380 174 472 199 524 220 552 238 576 258 Peak KU Demand 675 N.A. 800 N.A. 1020 N.A. 960 450 1050 450 Load Factor 0.56 N.A. 0.59 N.A. 0.51 N.A. 0.58 0.53 0.55 0.57 Craig & Klawock Coobined 4846 5876 6516 6920 7308 Annual Growth 21X 11X 6X 6X JAN FEB MAR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 .. ·-----------1.-. I i· ! ; t f a.. N r C' 0 0 c N l ~ ~ 0 J.. 1H1t\Ol\ 30 V SV OV01 ; ; ;>- < Q t::... 0 t:.:' :::.:: ....... E-' ,_;;:. ~ u 0 ::.0: <! ....J ~ Q ;z < 0 """ < Ct: u --= u c. < 0 (") I ..... ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 ENVIRONMENT/RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION PREVIOUS STUDIES The affected environment and resources in the project area were identified, impacts assessed and mitigative measures proposed by the Alaska Power Authority during the licensing of a 6MW project (FERC No. 5715) in 1980-1984. The APA withdrew their license application in 1984 and continued studies under a preliminary permit which expired in 1986.* In 1987 the APA studied the feasibility of an overground penstock route and siphon intake which would eliminate the dam andjor tunnel in previous project designs. These features were found to be technically feasible although somewhat less reliable than the original design. In assessing the natural hazards that the overground penstock would be exposed to, it was found that the powerhouse site was also threatened by snow slides, land slides and flooding. Therefore the alternative powerhouse location B is being considered at this time. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology and Soils: The project area is rugged and mountainous with glacier-carved rock basins. Previous studies indicate a "possible" regional fault passing through Black Bear Lake and valley. Bedrock includes highly metamorphosed Silurian-Ordovician age volcanic and sedimentary rocks and Cretaceous-Jurassic age igneous intrusive rocks. Inorganic materials at the project site include thick talus deposits at the base of steep slopes, gravel sand and silt on less steep slopes, steep streambeds containing boulders and course gravels and lower gradient streambeds containing smaller gravel to medium and fine sand. Organic soils for~ed from plant materials are common in poorly drained low gradient areas. These muskeg soils range in depth from 6 inches to several feet. Water Quality: Previous studies have found the water of Black Bear creek to be brown in color, weakly acidic, low in cations 1 phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations. A significant increase in total dissolved solids occurs between the outlet of Black Bear Lake and upper Black Lake due to upwelling of mineralized water from groundwater systems in this reach of the creek. The water temperature of Black Bear Creek is controlled by several factors which vary seasonally and in magnitude. The humic materials which absorb solar radiation tend to increase the water temperatures from April through August. However, the flow from the groundwater reservoir appears to moderate these temperature extremes. Vegetation: The project area includes old growth forest, muskeg forest, subalpine vegetation and in the lower elevations 1 recently logged clearcut areas. The maximum area disturbed by the project will be 42.5 acres. *See BIBLIOGRAPHY EXISTING ENVIRONMENT (cont.) Wildlife: Black Bear, Sitka black tailed deer, timber wolves, beaver, mink, marten, weasel, land otter, red and flying squirrels, shrews, mice, moles and bats are known to inhabit the project area. Birds: The USFS Wildlife Task Force has listed 268 species of birds in Southeast Alaska. It is possible for any of these birds to be found in the project area. Only a few of these species occur as breeding birds in the Black Bear Lake drainage. These include common goldeneye, red breasted merganser, common loon, belted kingfisher, dipper, hawks, owls, thrushes, flycatchers, sparrows, chickadees, wood warblers, finches and robins. The northern bald eagle is also a common year around resident although most eagle nests are located within 100 yards of salt water and none are known within the project area at this time. Reptiles and Amphibians: The western toad and possibly a few salamanders arc the only members in these groups. Threatened or Endangered Species: No species of plant, fish or wildlife, federally listed as threatened or endangered, resides in the project area or general vicinity. The federally listed endangered species, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinius), may occur as an occasional migrant in the project area (FERC, 1983, Draft Environmental Impact Statement). Fish: Black Bear lake was stocked with rainbow trout in 1956 and has been self sustaining. In the valley below Black Bear Lake, anadromous fish species include pink salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, and coho salmon. Resident fish species include cutthroat trout, rainbow trout or steelhead, Dolly Varden, sculpin and threespine stickleback. Anadromous forms of cutthroat, Dolly Varden and rainbow trout are also believed to be present. AFFECTED RESOURCES Fisheries Resource: The fisheries industry is a major contributor to the economic base of Southeastern Alaska. The principle anadromous species using Black Bear Creek is the pink salmon, followed by the chum, coho and sockeye. The quantitative contribution of Black Bear Creek to the Prince Of Wales fisheries resource is not known at this time. The mitigative measures proposed in the previous studies by the APA and in future studies are expected to maintain or enhance this fisheries resource. Land Resource: The land surrounding the project area is primarily used for timber production. In late 1986 through 1987, Sealaska Corporation, landowner of the lower slopes and Black Bear Creek valley bottom, harvested the timber in the powerhouse area and lower reaches of the penstock route. Private logging roads now provide access to the powerhouse site. The 2.5 acres of penstock right of way clearing will include some timber of commercial value. The clearing required for the Dam option including inundated areas will be less than 18 acres and has no commercial value. Approximately 10 acres of transmission line ROW would be cleared on route A and 22 acres on route B. Both routes will include some commercial timber. AFFECTED RESOURCES (Cont. ) Recreational Resources: Fishing, boating, hunting, camping and hiking are popular recreational activities on Prince of Wales Island. The project area presently has a USFS cabin located on Black Bear Lake. The land in the Black Bear valley including the powerhouse site and lower penstock route is owned by Sealaska Corporation and is not open to public recreation at this time. The upper penstock route and Black Bear Lake are in the Tongass National Forest (see Maps 5 & 6). Since Black Bear Lake is usually accessed by float plane, recreation activities are somewhat limited. Development of the project could improve access to the area. This would be viewed as an adverse impact by those who favor wilderness oriented activities and as a benefit by others who would find improved access. The State Of Alaska is currently considering selecting approximately 460 acres along the southeastern shore of Black Bear Lake for community development (hydroelectric development) and community recreational purposes. The selection is a Priority A selection. The Prince of Wales Area Plan (Public Review Draft) states: "State lands at Black Bear Lake will be managed to maintain the opportunity to develop hydroelectric power and community recreation facilities for the communities of Hollis, Craig, Klawock, and possibly Thorne Bay. To the extent consistent with the power project, state lands at Black Bear Lake will be managed for community recreation." Visual Resources: The Black Bear Lake area and spectacular falls at its outlet have been rated Class A by the USFS national forest visual management system. The lower portion of the valley had been rated Class B prior to the logging. The project will have a visual impact on the Black Bear Lake area and the areas traversed by the transmission line. Cultural Resources: Previous studies identified two historically significant sites near Hydaburg. The proposed project no longer includes those areas and there no known archeological or historical sites in the project area. ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE PROTECTION The Alaska Power & Telephone company has reviewed the environmental studies that have been done and will incorporate the previous environmental protection, mitigation and enhancement plans as they may apply to the presently proposed project. These plans, to the extent they are known at this time, are summarized in Table I. BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 TABLE I ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 1. DAM ALTERNATIVE a. Vegetation: Disturbance or removal of vegetation to new lake el. and in area of dam. Approx. 18 acres b. Wildlife: Loss or distu~b ance of habitat during construction and inundation c. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during constr. d. Air Quality & Noise Lvs: Temp. increases in partic- lates & noise levels during construction. e. Fisheries Resource: Possible loss of self-sustaining Rainbow trout population f. Visual Resource: Dam crest & unnatural shoreline visible from USFS cabin. Loss of 1300ft. falls. 2. NO DAM OPTION (SIPHON) a. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during constr. b. Air Quality & Noise Lvs: Temp. increases during con- struction. c. Fisheries Resource: Possible loss of self-sustaining Rainbow trout population d. Visual Resource: Unnatural shoreline -vacuum pump house visible from USFS cabin. Loss of 1300ft. falls. 3. POWERHOUSE LOCATION A a. Water Quantity: Modified flow particularly in the upper reaches of Black Bear Creek. PROPOSED MITIGATIVE MEAS. Minimize brush clearing in areas of periodic inundation Remove all trees & slash- revegetate disturbed areas. Disturbed areas revegetated with natural habitat values. Erosion/sedimentation control methods during construction. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Establish fish stocking as needed. Texture & color concrete to blend with environment. Erosion/sedimentation control methods during construction. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Establish fish stocking as needed. Use natural colors for vacuum pump house and screen with vegetation. Flow regime within minjmax constraints (see "Proposed Flow Regime"). TABLE I CONT. ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 3. POWERHOUSE LOCATION A (Cont.) b. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during constr. Minor increases/decreases in water temp. depending on lake elevation and powerhouse discharge rate. Localized reduction in dissolved oxygen in areas associated with grd. water discharge. c. Air Quality & Noise levels: Temp. increase in partic- ulate & noise levels during construction. d. Fisheries Resource: Possible disruption of salmon spawning and rearing because of const. and modified flows. e. Visual Resource: Minor impact from visibility of powerhouse, penstock and transmission lines. 4. POWERHOUSE LOCATION B a. Water Quantity: Modified flow below powerhouse. De- watering of Lake fork above powerhouse during no spill periods. Likely reduction in Spring fork flows. b. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during contr. Minor increase/decrease in water temperature depend- ing on lake elevation and powerhouse discharge rate. Localized reduction in dis- solved oxygen in areas with grd. water discharge. c. Air Quality & Noise Lvs. Minor increases in partic- ulates and noise during construction. d. Fisheries Resource: Possible disruption of salmon spawn- ing/rearing because of modified flows/temperatures. e. Visual Resource: Minor impact due to visibility of powerhouse, penstock, sub- station and transmission ROW PROPOSED MITIGATIVE MEAS. Minimize impact through use of proper flow regime. Time constr. to avoid periods when fish are spawning. Use erosion/sedimentation control methods during constr. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize impact through use of proper flow regime and construction timing. Use natural screens and best ROW alignment. Pump tailrace water to supply minimum flows above powerhouse during no spill/ release periods if feasible. Minimize impact through use of proper construction timing and flowjpump regime. Use erosion/sedimentation control methods during constr. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize through use of proper flow regime and/or small spawning channel cown stream of powerhouse. Minimize through use of natural screens and suitable ROW alignment. TABLE I CONT. ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 5. Transmission Line Alt. A a. Vegetation: Disturbance or removal of about 10 acres of vegetation. ROW will follow existing roads. b. Wildlife: Loss & disturbance of existing habitat. Possible adverse impact on eagles c. Air quality and Noise Lvs. Minor increases in partic- ulate and noise levels during construction. d. Geology: Erosion during construction & minor erosion during operation e. Visual Resources: Minor impacts from construction Some areas visible from roads, water or air. f. Cultural Resources: No known impacts 6. Transmission Line Alt. B a. Vegetation: Disturbance or removal of about 22 acres of vegetation. Approx. 6 miles through roadless areas. b. Wildlife: Loss & disturbance of existing habitat. Possible adverse impact on eagles less than Alt.A. c. Air quality and Noise lvs. Minor increases in partie- late and noise levels during construction. d. Geology: Erosion during construction & minor erosion during operation. Greater impact likely than Alt.A. e. Visual Resources: Minor impacts from construction. Some areas visible from roads,water or air. f. Cultural Resources: No known impacts. PROPOSED MITIGATIVE MEAS. Limit clearing only to vegetation that posses a hazard to the line. Avoid eagle nest areas and minimize electrocution hazard with proper line design. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize ground disturbance during construction and replant disturbed areas as needed. Select location and alignment to naturally screen the line. None Limit clearing only to vegetation that posses a hazard to the line. Avoid eagle nest areas and minimize electrocution hazard with proper line design. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize ground disturbance during construction and replant disturbed areas as needed. Select location and alignment to naturally screen the line. None STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME Black Bear Lake has a drainage area of 1.82 square miles, a natural lake surface area of 215 acres and an estimated volume of 22,000 acre feet. The mean drainage basin elevation is 2410 ft. and the natural lake elevation is 1687.4 ft. A USGS streamflow gauge station (No. 15081580) was set up at the outlet of Black Bear Lake in June 1980. This gauge has accumulated eight years of streamflow record. Thirty years of synthesized monthly streamflow records have been compiled by HECO using log-log regressions with the nearby USGS gauge station (No. 15085100) at Old Tom cr~ek. These synthesized monthly flows were combined with the USGS recorded flows by HECO in 1985-86 and updated again by AP&T in Table I-2. The estimated average annual flow has remained unchanged at 26 cfs but some changes in monthly flow distribution are noteworthy. Table I-1 shows that the average recorded flows in January and March are higher while May thru October and December are lower than previous estimates. This new estimated flow distribution as shown in figure 1-2 is closer to the environmentally preferred flow distribution than the previous estimates which had very low flows in January, February, and March. The average monthly flow duration curve for the years 1949 to 1937 is shown in Fig. 1-1. The proposed flow releases from Black Bear Lake are the same as those recommended in the FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the APA project in 1983. These flows will be maintained by a combination of powerhouse discharge, spill from the lake and controlled release as discussed under "Operational Mode'' and shown in Table I-4 and Table I-5. Figure 1-2 shows the mean streamflow curve for each month and its relationship to the proposed flow regime at the powerhouse tailrace. TABLE I-1 BLACK BEAR LAKE ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW Current 1985-86 1980-81 Estimate Estimate Estimate Recorded Number of Years 38 36 30 7.25 Avg. Annual Flow ( cfs) 26 26 26 28 Month Monthly Flow (% annual) October 171 170 180 154 November 97 96 130 101 December 83 81 95 62 January 74 69 25 127 February 70 88 21 79 March 40 38 18 59 April 52 50 61 57 May 136 130 150 128 June 158 160 180 148 July 107 110 110 95 August 97 110 88 82 September 116 120 140 103 TABLE I-2 * * * * * AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW, BLACK BEAR LAKE OUTLET * * * * * ( C F S ) YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ANNUAL ====================================================================== 1949 N N N N N N N N N 24 33 34 N 1950 47 24 16 2 3 5 17 37 61 40 37 37 27 1951 25 14 14 11 9 7 10 35 41 24 25 26 20 1952 20 16 13 23 21 7 18 35 49 31 20 34 24 1953 29 15 28 12 23 14 16 40 31 21 26 35 24 1954 59 30 21 8 33 4 8 35 45 31 15 24 26 1955 47 40 32 16 12 6 8 29 34 21 29 34 26 1956 71 16 6 4 8 4 15 43 46 29 34 25 25 1957 45 31 25 6 12 5 10 33 34 23 15 29 22 1958 26 32 20 41 19 5 11 34 16 11 24 29 22 1959 59 23 21 12 16 14 11 34 52 31 22 31 27 1960 26 27 36 15 16 .10 16 34 42 38 20 31 26 1961 46 22 23 18 21 16 12 31 44 22 18 25 25 1962 41 20 11 25 8 8 11 30 37 28 32 30 24 1963 43 38 34 16 24 6 11 28 32 21 15 33 25 1964 56 26 32 24 22 8 10 33 46 34 32 29 29 1965 37 14 11 28 12 6 11 34 35 22 14 16 20 1966 37 9 23 13 16 14 10 38 37 21 19 37 23 1967 46 15 21 29 27 6 6 35 36 30 30 38 27 1968 55 15 22 19 18 18 12 31 41 22 21 36 26 1969 52 35 12 3 4 5 23 37 46 35 48 31 28 1970 23 41 36 18 26 13 12 33 34 29 26 32 27 1971 47 22 18 10 16 9 14 37 54 33 39 33 28 1972 33 24 11 10 6 13 8 36 44 31 46 25 24 1973 33 29 13 14 23 8 14 38 49 32 18 31 25 1974 40 9 27 4 16 4 13 37 46 35 19 28 23 1975 57 31 36 21 11 6 14 38 51 32 28 23 29 1976 37 23 30 28 14 11 17 40 50 42 35 32 30 1977 47 27 32 13 29 11 15 33 47 33 16 24 27 1978 87 27 6 6 24 10 9 32 25 15 19 32 24 1979 56 30 21 10 10 14 9 33 30 20 17 30 23 1980 41 26 41 14 28 8 29 33 23 25.5 22.4 25.1 26 1981 63.1 63.1 32.2 55.4 21.9 21.4 12 31 24.5 14.6 18.5 42 33.4 1982 24.6 51.7 11.7 16.3 6.75 4.2 8.21 34 56.3 32.9 12.4 24.8 23.7 1983 40.4 13.7 9.01 24.3 21.8 12.2 24.6 45.6 31.3 21 41.2 27.9 26.2 1984 48.9 16.8 5.11 48.7 28.7 27.4 16.3 36.5 46.9 28.7 34.3 20.6 30 1985 32.3 19.2 16.2 45.7 22.9 11.4 13.3 37.7 54 44.7 31.2 24.8 29.5 1986 34.3 8.62 20 27.3 31.6 32.7 16 30 34.4 21.1 13.6 17.6 23.9 1987 63 28.7 29.3 35.3 22.7 7.5 23.5 41.7 48.6 25.5 11.2 48.8 32.2 AVG. 44 25 21 19 18 10 14 35 41 28 25 30 26 % Yr 171 97 83 74 70 40 52 136 158 107 97 116 USGS gauge record since July 1980. Earlier monthly flow from APA/HECO regression with Old Tom Creek. 80 \ \ ~~ "" 60 ~ u ! 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... _, u. 20 0 0 10 20 a...tARZA 1"--INff:A•NG C()II.IOOANY • MAAC.,. 1981 .......... ~ ... r---............ -r---. ......... . 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENT OF TIME EQUALED OR EXCEEDED FIGURE 1-1 I --·-··· -·------~ 80 90 100 BLACK BEAR LAK£ HYORO£LECTRIC PROtECT ALASKA FLOW DURATION CURVE ALASKA .-ow£11 Al.ffitONTY ,......_ cv ~ ::1 c:: ·.-f ::;:: ~ Q) 0.. ~ Q) Q) I:L. u •r-l ..a ::1 u 50 '--' i:Ll C) 40 ~ <:: ::r: u Ul H 30 0 20 10 0 . .] FICtrRE l-2. "' LEGEND I •. Existing Conditions: Average Monthly Flows--)1- 38 year period 2. With Proposed Project Proposed Flow Regime -----NONTJ!----- Range l~clationship beth'PC'n the natural Black 13ear Lake mean streamflow curve . l l 1 ,.-.,rr. TABLE I-5. Proposed flow releases from Black Bear Lake (cfs) Minimium Maximum Avg. Natural Month flow flow flow January 9 29 19 February 12 34 18 March 9 34 10 April 19 34 14 May 25 49 35 June 15 49 41 July 24 55 28 August 24 38 25 September 29 46 30 October 25 44 44 November 23 42 25 December 9 29 21 APPENDIX A ----+--------------'--------·----_____ 7_/i_h' -----~ o71 Wct-fe.v ..S,p~o.., P~~+cuft (opf.#.-. f3 ec:owe..-~o...,~c..)__ Pe-. ~toe... I<. t.c:.--~ ~ t... 7BS .f.t 2130 .ft J loo {t ToiQ I G,o GS ft AJJ ·~ I o!..> } .fo,. beVIJS efc.. o7T "<Sc.J 1 o ~ /0 c.r~ ----·-·· I. I 12. G, r,.r; c}O. ~ cJ.o c}..).S ~ OfT•O'""' c.....J/ OptloV'\ .B. foy .r....,.Lo~. 1/c-.J /o~s ~0 c..{~ ··-··· ----· t.f,2.. 4~.0 2 t.f. g 77.0 7.0 s 1../. 0 ~~f-oe.. k:,_ ~ .S~r.,.,.. f., .. J { l .S"~ c::t S c::t bcJ '-' C:... Off'o"" A fov..><...or~o..JS.~ fo<:.-c:o .J.-,o..., P~.>+ock J7oo -rIO~ /C? c.~• J, I }~.(. ~.7 -17 .. 4 I. 7 4·2 4rt•O I '3-C- ~.5.'6 c.~ ?.] . tJ .(j I I ({~-=--··u. lclt.1 fi .... j r~ ...?o c.(~ 9,0 !OI,t,/ 5'-/. 3 j -·---i ,,'{.7 -!+ I(, f-t ---------- I ~o -ft .2 CJ crs. -··---! cr.o 1 ot. Cf ;2 9. 8' I 'i(;_~--: 1'-/.0 ··- 1.5 4. 2 -rt j J:S 1ac. '< ./::!>e..A.,. 1-a. x:e. --~ 0 , .. e. -:=---::. Fo..c ... :f-c=>.,.. To c.o., vevf .f:V'lex.!.J ( mc., •• n-1) -to ~o"'~ I'J f b'-'-' (c.(~) : l £ "'"""'~ .j ( "" Wti) = Po~.,.,. (I" I <..3) X b """-(" rs) I Pot.A.Je.x (,., w) = Cfn e /n J goo ' w~e.v-e... Q::. -{/c._. > l11 c...f .s ~ t..n c:::· I h= ~". -~~-r <!,.::::. r·- e..,..,. l c. '"' •• C' ' • ' I C'\.1t.:.-·•~o.,·1~ r..:.••(..-1 7.30 IIJ goo /f'lt.Jt/ /r.~e.,f~-:= • 0 (;,J~(..Cf h C'!.. q or-g --'-... t_:){. I ft G.' I 1-t c:... ..;,/....£:-.',.,,,!:. , ... )4· t·.·.' __ . ._.,.. / . 1;:; ...... rf···· ..... i I"'IN· hc:..o..d (ft) ~ u.l.: .. "' '5.;.. ""io II GC!.AA-Tvvbi.,C... P...Y . .:..+c.-cl C. ... e..-bt.,t:J Po.....,f...-t..ovs~ A w/Oa..,.., w/ S1pl,o.,., 14 3 I <63 • .5 --.,-·-·-~---··· ----1 74.3 i ,.0152~3 ;.015332 3 I I , l - I 1 1 Poc.ue...-'-'ov.Sc. B I I . v..>/DCJ..'"""' I c.J / .$ 1 pHo r J I 1512 1500 II, goo )< .3 he. . : !· 73.£ 73.5 ! .o/~Slo 13 I .oJt16b2. 3 I . l ~r .. Ac.. fr, c tov-To C-.c::ll.1vc. .. ·f -c. 1~ v~ ho"" H!.: A Lk d. _ c. .f ~ ( -·-~~) - tbre 7 -f-r If::. 72ft = = ? a.-~ .:. .::; 1,£ o.t:... oo..,C:Oa:::;. JS .ff 2..3, 75o · ·, t-f1 2oJ7So o.~ fJ. -3~;;;; ·Cl~-jf-· ---·---·'Is '4:-. A Vc }v..,.c_ ~ e./e.._f,..,..,. 1.30C. i X,~.) ;t -----~ ·- IS fX" A V = ~ t: c •• Aev~ Q.::. .f/rx.J .f.o,_ C... 'OV!e_ ......,0 ... +k f"'-"' I o J J:.,;:. ~..; Qt"" c:. p!. = = fl. 7 12. "/0 t:lp-~ t:J .p.· aJ. -' /-~1 '~: •{' . !:::. f* .r...\ -::-_.,, (.. :J Y. l i, tO (. -·-'. --· . , __ '"-~ <i. 712.. 'I.. to" "i/.712.XIot:. c2:t"'~e. ~~ Lf(kc. e.l<~~vt:(!.'.~' -.. 3oi7'-IS .ft c. f ~ 'f?\0"\ i"" I ...?.'-.:!S~ X~o'<<.~ I I -• 3oi7'1S .ft RESERV::iiR AREA IN ACRES 300 200 1800 "' 1700 ....... ~ ~ '"" ........ .... lt.72 _ .. -. .... LLI r--.... ~ I""" ..... w u.. .......... 100 0 I l El. 1721 Max Y'l ~ EL. 1715 Max N .-. EL. 1685 Min N -.--...... FIGURE W-33 1800 s . orm W.S. rm W.S. 1700 .... w w z u.. z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r--... z 1600 0 j: "' > v jlllll""' ~ w ..J w 1500 / v v ------ 1400 0 10,000 1-.tA,R.ZA !"......OtNEE~='•"'O CO"'-"'IPAP~'II • N"AI'\CH '1981 1600 z 0 j: "' > -~ r-....... ~ w ...1 w ~, ~ -------- ~ ""---23,750 20,000 ~ 2.0 750 30,000 ) RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET "' 1500 1400 BLACK BEAR LAKE. tm>ROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA RESERVOIR AREA-VOLUME CURVES IUSI<A POWER At.mfOOITY BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 1 of J BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Prince of Wales Island Plan (Public Review Draft). Juneau. Alaska Power & Telephone Company. 1987. Application for Preliminary Permit for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 10440-000). Port Townsend, Washington. Alaska Power Authority. 1981. Application for License for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 5715), Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (Revised, 1982; Supplemental Information, 1982). Anchorage. Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Findings and Recommendations Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, Prince of Wales Island. Anchorage. Alaska Power Authority. 1984. Application for Preliminary Permit for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 5715-001). Anchorage. Bacon, G., Alaskarctic. 1981. (revision). Archeological Investigations for the Proposed Black Bear Lake Hydro- electric Project, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Fairbanks. Bacon, G., Alaska Heritage Research Group, Incorporated. 1982. Final Archeological Investigations for the Proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Projec~, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Fairbanks. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1980. Black Bear Lake Aquatic Study, Phase 1. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1981. Notes on Black Bear Creek Investigations, Visit 2-13 to 2-18-81. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1981. An Interim Report on Biological-Ecological Work on the Black Bear Creek System. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1982. Preliminary Report-Black Bear Lake Investigations. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1985. Late Summer Visit to Black Bear Creek. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1986. Black Bear Creek Monitoring Work, Fall 1985 and Late Winter 1986. Juneau. Page 2 of 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.) Bishop, D.M., and Milner, A., Environaid. 1981. Preliminary Study of Outmigrant Fry from Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Milner, A.M., and Smith, L.A., Environaid. 1982. Biological-Ecological Investigations on the Black Bear Creek System near Klawock, Alaska. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Milner, A.M., and Smith, L.A., Environaid. 1982. Late summer and Fall Observations in Upper Black Bear creek, southeastern Alaska. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Milner, A.M., and smith, L.A., Environaid. 1985. Environmental Monitoring Upper Black Bear Creek. Juneau. CH2M Hill Northwest, Incorporated. 1982. Black Bear Lake Hydrology Report. Anchorage. CH2M Hill Northwest, Incorporated. 1982. Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project-Hydrology Update-October 1982. Anchorage. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Regulation. 1983. Black Bear Lake, Project No. 5715, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, FERC/DEIS-0036. Washington. Harza Engineering Company. 1979. Black Bear Lake Project, a Reconnaissance Report. Chicago. Harza Engineering Company and CH2M-Hill Northwest, Inc. 1981. Black Bear Lake Project Feasibility Report. Chicago and Anchorage. Harza Engineering Company. 1983. Black Bear Lake Hydro- electric Project, Geology Report (Preliminary). Chicago. Harza Engineering Company. 1983. Black Bear Lake Hydro- electric Project Update of Power Market Forecast. Chicago. Harza Engineering Company. 1986. Black Bear Lake Hydro- electric Project, Feasibility Report Update (Draft). Chicago. Page 3 of 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.) Harza Engineering Company. 1987. Black Bear Lake Hydro- electric Project, Penstock Siphon Study Report. Chicago. Munch, E., Alaska Woods Service Company. 1987. Report on investigation of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Ketchikan. OTT Water Engineers, Incorporated. 1987. Hydroelectric Project Cost Estimate. Black Bear Lake Bellevue, Wa. Pool Engineering, Incorporated. 1982. Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Field Survey Report, 1 October 1982. Ketchikan. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Water Resources Data-Alaska, annual summaries 1980-1987. CONSULTATION MAILING LIST MAILING LIST OF AGENCIES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE CONSULTED: Regional Director u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Director Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Endangered Species Specialist u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Regional Director Alaska Regional Office National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Chief of History and Archeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks Pouch 7001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Regional Forester u.s. Forest Service P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628 Diane Mayer Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99801 State Director Bureau of Land Management 710 c Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 MAILING LIST CONTINUED Regional Environmental Officer Department of the Interior P.O. Box 100120 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-120 Division of Environmental Quality Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Regional Environmental Coordinator National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2892 Division of Parks & outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Juneau, Alaska 99801 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Environmental Impact Review Officer Environmental P:otection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Robert w. Loescher Senior Vice President Sealaska corporation one sealaska Plaza Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 President Gordon R. James Shaan Seet, Inc. P.O. Box 90 Craig, Alaska 99921-0090 MAILING LIST CONTINUED Theodore F. Meyers Chief, Habitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Constance Sathre staff Attorney National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Jim Sprague Mayor City Of Craig P.O. Box 23 Craig, Alaska 99921 Roy S. Williams Mayor City of Klawock P.O. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Mayor Dan Wagner City of Thorne Bay P.O. Box 19110 Thorne Bay, Alaska Jack Broughton General Manager 99919 Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-0149 Director Division of Land & Water Management P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005 DEI•ART,IEXT OF XATURAL RESOURCES 0/V/SION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION September 26, 1988 File No.: 3130-lR FERC Subject: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska Mr. Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 PHONE. !907) 561-2020 MAILING ADDRESS. P.O. Box 107001 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510-7001 We have reviewed the information provided by you about the Black Bear Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska. We have also reviewed the 1982 archaeological survey report for the project done by Alaska Heritage Research Group. We are satisfied that no cultural resources will be effected by the project. Sincerely, Neil C. Johannsen Director <::_) L~<:\'-.. £6.jJ:>~.__ By: Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer JEB:DR:dw 01·A35LH OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811~165 PHONE: (907) 465-3552 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 2600 DENALI STREET SUITE 700 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503-2798 PHONE.· (907) 274-1581 STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX AW JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811~155 PHONE: (&07) 455-3562 NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 675 SEVENTH AVENUE STATIONH FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (907) 456-3084 September 30, 1988 Hr. Robert S. Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: SUBJECT: BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 10440-000-ALASKA The Division of Governmental Coordination received the informa- tion regarding you submitted for our review. The enclosed project information sheet includes a State I.D. number (AK880930-l6J). Please refer to this number in any future reference to the project. Appropriate materials have been distributed to participants in the Alaska Coastal Management Program for their review and comments. Reviewer milestones are also indicated on the enclosed sheet. Meet{ngs regarding the project can be arranged upon request. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process. Sincerely, .~·~~ ~Diane E. Mayer Project Review Coordinator Enclosure csak88093016jsucc STEVl COWI'f'J, COVEINO• OWICB o• TBB GOVERNO& DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET SOUTHEAST AeOIOHAL ~E 431 NORTH FRANKUN P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 JIJNEAIJ. ALASKA i9111 1.()1!5 fiHONE: r~n 4as..l5Q ARMED FORCES ACTIVITIES COM.!-1ERCIAL/TYPE ..,/' f'~.oc:t(i-(. LAND MGMT. PLJ.N MINING: HARDR~MINING PLACER MINING ---- OFFSHORE MINI~ OIL AND GAS OTHER PUBLI~c-=uT=I=L~I=T=I=E=s~/~F=A~c=r=L~I=T=r=E=s-------- PRIVATE P.ESIDENTIAL -- FILL PLACEMENT FLOATING STRUCTURES TIMBER ---- FISHERIES PRODUCTION: GENERAL HATCHERy- REMOTE RE'LfASE FISHERIES FARMS: FINFISH SHELLFimr- SEA VEGETABLES FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT FISHERIES PROCESSING PROJECT LOCATION: NEAREST COASTAL DISTRICT: PROJECT INSIDE THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY: YES NOV DISTRICT PLAN APPROVED: YES V No_·_ PENDING REVIEW MILESTONES: DAY l ____________ q~/~3~o~/~K~k~--------------------- REVIEW SCHEDULE: 15-0ay __ 30-Day ____ 50-Day ___ OTHER __ y/ __________ _ REVIEWER REQUEST FOR ADDIT!ONAL DECISION DEADLINE: 01-A.lSLH PROJECT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED UNDER STATE ID NO._~~----~=---------------~---- STATE APPROVALS (LIST AGENCY/APPROVAL TYPE/I.D. NUMBER): FEDERAL APPROVALS (LIST AGENCY/APPROVAL TYPE/I.D. NUMBER): FE!<J!.. ®.~:it rnr n4oi 1Jam>6 !?o. !Ocftfo -oo('l-A leAk EXTENSION GRANTED FOR: FORMAL INFORMATION REQUEST ____ PUBLIC HEARING HELD PROJECT IN U.O.B. ____ FIELD REVIEW DNR DISPOSAL SMCRA __ MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANT REQUEST ____ UNUSUALLY COMPLEX PROJECT __ __ ELEVATION TO DIRECTORS: YES NO IF YES, BY: _______________ _ ELEVATION TO COMMISSIONERS: YES NO IF YES, BY: -------- CLOCK STOPPED ON _____________________ CLOCK RESTARTED ON _______ __ WAS STOPPED FOR __ DAYS ACTION AT CLOSEOUT: CLOSE-OUT DATE _________________ ACTUAL NUMBER OF DAYS IN REVIEW ____ __ DISTRICT COMMENTS RECEIVED: YES NO FOR CONCLUSIVE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS: CONSISTENT CONSISTENT WITH STIPULATIONS INCONSISTENT WITHDRAh"N ------ FOR OTHER REVIEWS: COMMENTS SUBMITTED ______ OTHER ________________ __ -.C.:RO pis/prinfo DISTRIBUTION LIST (15) Hr. Richard Sumner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage (52) Hr. Rick Harris, Juneau (72] Hr. Rick Reed, Department of Fish and Game, Douglas (163) Hr. Al Hacasaet, Klawock [275) Hs. Rochelle Rollenhagen, Craig (375) Ihe Honorable Roy S. Williams, Klawock (389] Hr. Rich Poor, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau (394] Hr. Robert HeVey, U.S. Department of Commerce, Juneau [488] Hr. Ron Wolfe, Juneau [491) Ihe Honorable James Sprague, Craig [691] Hr. Jack Gustafson, Department of Fish and Game, Ketchikan [745] Hr. Nevin Holmberg, U.S. Department of the Interior, Juneau [900] Hr. Dick Stokes, Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau [1206] Ms. Judith Bittner, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage [1211) Hs. Linda Kruger, Department of Natural Resources, Juneau (1280) Hr. Hike McKinnon, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau (1421] Ms. Nancy Holguin, Division of Governmental Coordination, Juneau [1439) Hs. Elizaveta Shadura, Department of Natural Resources, Juneau distribution li~t Scptenhcr 30, 19EB P.O. Dux 23, Crulg, Alusku 99921 Oc..\.e.~ 1. ,q~8 {907) 826-3275 Robert Grimm Alaska Power and Telephone Co. P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydro Dear P.ob: The City of Craig has his:torically supported the concept of a hydroelectric generation plant at Black Bear Lake. While the newly elected City Council has not yet had an opportunity to review the latest proposal, I can state that the Council in the past has been supportive of improvements to the electrical system on Prince of Wales Island and the Black Bear Hydro project. The City lobbied vigorou.sly for t{le intertie between Craig and Klawock with the long range goal of having the communities connected to a larger distribution grid that obtained power from the Black Bear Lake project. We know that there are numerous details to be worked out, but I believe I can safely speak for the Council in saying that they endorse the Black Bear Lake project. cc: Mayor Sprague vi Executive Assistant to the Mayor ~ Alaska Power Authority October 3, 1988 Mr. Robert S. Grimm President State ot Alaska Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98318 Subject: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Initial S~ge Consultation Information Dear Mry4c' Steve Cowper. Gove•nor Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject information packet. We have no specific comments or recommendations at this time. We would, however, appreciate it if you would provide us with copies of comments from other recipients of this information. Si~ly, c'-~~ Donald L. Shira Director of Program Development and Facilities Operations TJA:DLS:tlj cc: Remy Williams, Alaska Power Authority ;:,0 Sox Ar.1 Juneau. Alaska 998'•1 (907) 465-3575 X' c·-=:· ~ox ~90i'~: 70' Em' ltJCJor Rood Ar.choroge Alaska 99519 Oe69 (9:::7) 56~ 7E77 3990/838(1) United States Department of the Interior • - BUREAU OF lAND MANAGEMENT 6881 ABBOTI LOOP ROAD ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99507-2599 ·---. Alaska Power and Telephone Post Office Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Sirs: 2800 (041) OCT 07 B The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation Information for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska, and determined that BLM has no administrative interest in these lands. The lands are either managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Tongass National Forest) or are in private ownership. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Sandra Dunn Assistant District Manager, Lands 1 Attachment: 1 -Initial Stage Consultation Information Public Lands USA: Use, Share, Appreciate UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Juneau Area Office P. 0. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Hr. Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Comp~ny P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, W~shington q8J~q Dear Mr. Crimm: October 11, 19~~ The Rureau of Inclinn Affairs ( 'B1A) has recEd ved your request for assistance related to the proposed 'Black Bear Hydr.oelectric Project, dated September 15, lq88. \.le have reviewed your propos«l co:1.cerning th~ various altern;;tives presented for the project 3nd offer the following comments for your consideratio:-~. Since WP. have no record of any Native allotments in the are~ of the proposed project, our comments are necessarily lirniterl to the overall project impacts as reflects thP. conternpor;uy scenttrio spP.cifir to potentinl and r'"<tJ direct and indirect effects on Al 1'\Sknn Natives. Accordingly, it is our conclusion thi'.lt tht:! project stu:!ies heretofore completed hy Envirorudd «rP no longer completely applicable. Tt is our understanding that extensi.vt"' logging adjacent to th-: project si tl;! has occurred subsequent to the completion of studies performed by Env1ronaid. Consequently, conclusions derived from those studies rn~y no long~r he totally pertinent owing to the change of environmental parameters precipitated by the loggin~ ncar the project site. Therefore, we recommen1 that: 1) the existing studies be consolidated, 2) thnt « summary of all these studies be developed, 1) the «pplica.bility of thE-se be deteroined in light of the recently Jogged nreas, and 4) that nev studies be completed vhere necessary. There are ;1 vide r;;nge of resource impacts vhich could occur in Blac:k Bear Lake, creek and surrounding environs. The major adverse impacts to anRdromous fishery resources potentially resulting from the propost!d project are chilngPs in inc;tream flows, welter temperature changes, ground water infiltration, and downstre<1:'1 sedirn~ntatio:1 durin~ project construction. Tn addition to th<' major salmon species; i.e., sock<>ye, pink, chum, and coho, the Bhclt, Bei'lr system c;u!lports, resid~nt or :madromous populationc:; of cutthro.1t, rain~o·.,, ste~lhead, trout and dolly v~rdcn char. Hr. Robert S. Grimm Page 2 WP would hope that evalu~tfon of existing studies in concert with the need for new studies would entail adequate provision for species potentiAlly affected by this project. Additionally, we believe that there> is a high probability that due to the change in environmental parameters new studies will be necessary. Upon receipt and subsequent review of our com~ents and recommendations should you feel the need to consult further with someone regarding this project, please contact Robert D. Schultz of our Natural Resource Section, (907) 566-7064. we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposed project. Sincerely, ~~cfit:&;_ =t;,,c, George A. Walters Acting Area Director tl1nc;1t &. ha1ba R€c;lonal €l€CtRical authORity P.O. Box 210149 • Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 • (907) 789·3196 October 11, 1988 Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 702 Water Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Black Bear Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Grimm: I am writing to add my support of your efforts to construct a hydroelectric facility at Black Bear Lake near Klawock, Alaska. I believe this project is a higher order viable alternative to current diesel-electric generation, especially when consideration is given to long-term cost of diesel fuel, power plant maintenance and the environmental effects caused by diesel exhaust. With a clean lower cost renewal energy source, economic development in the area would stand on firmer ground, therefore, enhancing the opportunities of residents on Prince of Wales Island. If I can be of any assistance with your preliminary investigation, please feel free to call on me. cc: Frank See, Sr. Marvin Davis Harry Brown Sincerely, ~~Ps!~ General Manager STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPT. OF EN\-'IRONMENTAL CONSER\'ATION October 13, 1988 3601 "C" St., Suit.€:-13[>0 Anchorage, AK., 99503 Hr. Robert S. Grimru Alaska Power & Telephone Co. r-·. 0. Box 2 2 2 Port Townsend, Wa., 98368 Subject: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC ~ 10440-000-AK Ilear Mr. Grimm: I am responding to your letter of 9-15-88 concerning the AK. F'owro::r & Telephone Co. application for tbe Black Be.::.r L.Stke Hydrc• project. The initial stage conEultation information rai~es a W.ll:!b(::r of quections. Not having the AK. Po~er Authority docu- ment~ to r~fer to, the information presented gives an incomplete picture of the project. Therefore, the comments made hro::rein are preliminary, Laced on the initial information you·ve provided. With reference to the proposed project alternatives, the ''No Dam O~tioniSiphon" seems to minin1ize the siting impact and could enable temperature adjustments to compliment the thermal regime. Y.lhile "Powerhouse Site B" appears to be the preferable location. due to physical problems associated with Alt. A, it is unclear as to poscible impacts at this location, eg. the effect of stream flo~ reduct iow:.; and anticipated project re lat.ed ten1perature variations. What is charac~erized as minor temperature change~ and strearu flow reductions needs to be described in detail. Considering potential disturbances related to the powerline cc•rridor, "Alternative A", folL:~ing exist,ing road cc•rridors, appears to be the preferable route. From the information provided in Table 1-5. the project flou veloci~ie~ sugge~t that bed scour and re-entrainment of sediment should be addressed. Also, stream de-watering may be an un- acceptable impact based on possible fisheries impacts. Addi- tionally, if the project uill result in any major water quality changes, eg. temperature variations from natural conditions, bed sc0ur/re-entrainment of sediment, the department may require a ~astewater disposal perruit. Finally, the department will have to complete a 401 Certification of the project, based on the project license a~plication, environmental assessment/impact statement and ~ny Corpc of Engin~cru 404 Permit, and certify the project r~lativ~ to Coactal Consi~tency. It appears that the formal 2· ~-a t e ::. t' u' c Y r ~-v i e w " .i. 11 b •.: c <)c) r iJ i n ::; t E:-d t h :n:m g h t L <'.: [1 i ·: i s ion c f c;,:_,·; •.: !·:.:::·..::~ t."J 1 C'.lt~· 1 d i.n.:.. t i C>l1 "'it h tL~ d et-J& rt nlf: (l t.. · ::; t !J ~-.-;; ::-~ Te r r, =~· f<;;' f' i ,:.. : l·:~ l (!: f i c· •-· i Il lJ ~.l L t:.' .:. ~l + -page: 2 - The department will need the more detailed information as noted prior to proceeding with the identified project reviews and permit determinations. You may contact me if you have questions concerning these comments. D\\/dw I t I Sinct::rely, } / )tttit/[!~~~ ~1 L. Wilkerson cc: Larry Dietrick Dicl'l. Stokes, SERO ~ ::7-7 U · Diane Mayer, OMB/DGC SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Habitat Division October 25, 1988 Mr. Robert S. Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone Company P. 0. Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR P 0 BOX 20 DOUGLAS. ALASKA 99824-0020 PHON£ (907) The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation information for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project recently submitted by Alaska Power & Telephone Company. Our preliminary comments at this stage of the review are as follows: (1) Much of the watershed between Black Lake and Black Bear Lake has been clearcut following Environaid's investigations of the area. As extensive logging of the area occurred after the collection of biological and hydrological data, the present biotic and physical stream characteristics may be somewhat different now than what was previously reported. Recent changes may have taken place regarding stream temperature regimes, flow characteristics, debris deposition, sedimentation, oxygen levels, rearing habitat availability, water quality, and similar parameters. We recommend that additional assessment work be discussed and possibly be designed so that post-construction hydroelectric studies will adequately differentiate possible logging related impacts from the potential future hydroelectric impacts. It may also be to the Alaska Power and Telephone Company's advantage to document present stream conditions and physical parameters in the event that post-hydroelectric construction monitoring indicates the need for fisheries mitigation at a later date. Such post-logging information appears necessary to adequately determine possible suitable post-hydroelectric development mitigation, should future mitigation become an issue. -2- (2) If the powerhouse is moved to Location B, some additional stream assessment work may be necessary regarding habitat impacts in this area. Powerhouse Location B appears to be located within the upstream portion of cataloged anadromous fisheries habitat along B 1 a c k Bear Creek ( Stream # 1 0 3-6 0 -1 0 3 1 0-0 0 1 0 ) . We understand there will be dewatering of Lake Fork above the powerhouse during no spill periods and the likely reduction in Spring Fork flows. Will the adjacent downstream area also be affected by the powerhouse relocation? What is the value of the habitat bypassed by the penstock? Under what conditions is it feasible to pump tailrace water above the powerhouse as suggested? What will be the affect of temperature changes in downstream waters following project construction? ( 3) Black Lake and Black Bear Creek are productive and valuable for the spawning, rearing, and migration of pink, chum, sockeye, and coho salmon, as well as for Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat, steelhead, and rainbow trout. For this reason we feel that post-project fisheries evaluations of Black Bear Lake and Creek should be implemented. The scope of this post-project assessment work needs further discussion, but such studies seem necessary to determine suitable mitigation if the need should arise. The life-cycle for one age class may be an appropriate study period. Our preliminary suggestion is to begin fisheries evaluations for at least one year before project start-up, if possible, and continue post-project monitoring for five years after project completion. Annual reports would be distributed to summarize each year's findings. ( 4) The Alternative B transmission line alignment would require right-of-way clearing for a distance of approximately six miles through a roadless area. It may be beneficial to maintain this existing wildlife habitat around Klawock to Black Lake, which has been heavily logged in the recent past. For this reason the Alternative A transmission line alignment, which is located along existing roads, may be preferable, providing beach fringe cutting is held to a minimum. We assume that Alternative A is identified as having more adverse impact on bald eagles because it is closer to the beach. We cannot adequately evaluate the transmission line alternatives until we get more specific information regarding the proposed eagle impacts, the exact amount of clearing at each location along Alternative A, and the habitat characteristics of clearing Alternative B. -3- Please feel free to contact Jack Gustafson at 225-2195 or by writing him at 2030 Sealevel Drive, Suite 203, Ketchikan, Ak 99901 if you have any questions concerning these review comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input at this stage of the project. Sincerely, ~l ._l-:D. '+2~ Richard D. Reed Regional Supervisor cc: J. Gustafson, ADF&G, Ketchikan G. Freeman, ADF&G, Klawock N. Holmberg, USFWS, Juneau R. McVey, NMFS, Juneau D. Mayer, DGC, Juneau BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 10440-000-ALASKA JOINT AGENCY MEETING OCTOBER 26, 1988 1:30 PM FEDERAL BUILDING ROOM 465 JUNEAU, ALASKA AGENDA Agenda Page 2 1. Introduction of Agencies and interested parties present at meeting. 2. Present status of project and the remaining consultation and licensing process. 3. General description of proposed project. 4. Specific description and discussion of alternative project features, their environmental/resource impact and their respective proposed mitigation measures: A. Siphon and Dam. B. Power Plant sites A & B. c. Transmission routes A & B. 5. Identification of studies [18 CFR 4.38 (a) (2) (i)] needed to determine: A. Economic Feasibility B. Technical Feasibility c. Design or location of Project Features D. Impact on natural or cultural resources E. Suitable mitigation of impacts F. How to minimize impacts to a resource 6. Conclusions to be reached if possible: A. Preferable project alternative features. B. Identification of required studies. 1 "") f"""1i 1-r 1 60SHEETS 8Y. IN. 11. 11'A IN. E9 Benchmark 32·12!! CANARY 32-225 WHITE /0-Z(:,-8fJ jg{-1-c_fC. ~ ~Ke.. JV'~e_ ~J~~~ ?err-e.s:::J;"' J {"L.Awt,)c./~ He.e..tvyA C..ortt C,·f~ ~.f2. Thorne 8C(j us. n~~ ~ w~tdt;.r.(! s"rv. ~ A,C /~elL AMTI/61Z!Tf t.-\ ~~ l\~, Fr~ ~ "\:. <:A 4c;So "G-\Jv, 1l-~; h.l ~ R P<v-6-w. ~ l:JN R-bL..uJrt-1 t../(-.:-: · .-<·,'-:-l'"':' o/\.1 t< -~Lw/V\ 5~41~~ T I» !Z-i5N A~ ~ ~ reJric;(e_ fJi"\1 f<; UNITED STATES ,.._PARTMI::NT Ut-~UMIV1C:H'""c:. National Oceanic J Atmospheric Administration NationaZ Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box (:JCC8 Juneau, AZaska PP80~-JCCE October 31, 1988 Robert s. Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA. 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation Information Package for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska) sent to us on September 15, 1988. The Black Bear Lake system supports considerable resources which contribute to commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries. We have summarized this information in a previous review of the project status (NMFS letter of September 23, 1986). NMFS has been actively involved with the Black Bear Lake Project since early 1981. We have participated in meetings with the previous applicant, Alaska Power Authority (APA) , Environaid (contracted to conduct biological and impact studies), and concerned state and federal agencies to discuss mitigating potential impacts that may result from the project. A representative from NMFS also conducted an on site inspection of the proposed project area in 1981. In March 1981, NMFS recommended six baseline studies to assess the fishery resource, salmonid habitat use, and the potential dam impacts. Five of these recommended studies have been carried out over the past four years in an effort which, for the most part, adequately addressed most of our questions associated with the project. In place of the sixth recommended study, an instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) flow investigation, an alternative instream flow study was conducted. Unique circumstances, including groundwater flows into upper Black Bear Creek, made this investigation more appropriate. Based upon alternative study and assessment of the Black Bear Creek channel and evaluation, negotiations between the previous applicant and fisheries agency personnel took place in 1982. Out of this discussion, environmentally constrained flows for Black Bear Creek were agreed to and included in the DRAFT Environ- mental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Black Bear Lake Project dated February 1983. Given the information we now have, and assuming the continuation of other existing stream conditions, including comparable groundwater flows, NMFS feels these negotiated instream flow regimes will adequately protect anadromous fish habitat. NMFS remains concerned these groundwater flows be maintained in Black Bear Creek. A section of coarse, porous substrate in Lake Creek Fork and bedrock fissures at the base of the falls apparently contribute to upwelling areas in spring creek Fork and Lake Creek Fork. This groundwater provides spawning habitat in the form of upwelling groundwater flows. Sockeye salmon in particular use these upwelling areas when the water returns to the channel further downstream. The proposed bypa~s of water through the powerhouse, rather than into groundwater aquifers, may significantly reduce downstream upwelling volume. Further, the proposed relocation of the powerhouse 1,500 feet downstream is a considerable departure from the DEIS and may conflict with past plans to recharge groundwater. On page 4-10 of the DEIS, it is stated that discharge at the powerhouse location A would result in a degree of recharge of groundwater systems. By moving the powerhouse to location B, this recharge may be lost or de- creased considerably to the detriment of water quality and quantity necessary for downstream anadromous fish habitat. NMFS recommends, therefore, additional studies be undertaken to quantify first, the reduction in groundwater flows, if any, due hydropower development and, second, assess the effects that moving the location of the powerhouse would have on groundwater flows in Black Bear Creek. In addition, NMFS recommends the following studies: A. Additional studies to examine the feasibility of intake structures which allow the intake of water at various temperatures from Black Bear Lake and modeling to determine optimal tailrace discharge temperatures during summer months. Water tempera~ures in upper Black Bear Creek and Black Lake will apparently be reduced over the critical summer rearing period. These depressed water temperatures may decrease growth of fry and parr in upper Black Bear Creek and Black Lake and, possibly, reduce the returns of adult salmon. B. Studies are needed to determine the status of beaver ponds in Black Bear Creek below the powerhouse and above Black Lake. These beaver ponds have provided considerable rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon when fish can access these areas at higher water levels. Should these 2 ponds still e~ist, the feasibility of providing access flows needs to be considered. c. If above studies show that regulated spill from Black Bear Lake or relocation of the powerhouse will decrease significantly groundwater flows, study is needed of the feasibility of discharging a portion of the tailrace waters so they reenter the groundwater system. D. Post-project fisheries evaluations of Black Bear Lake and upper Black Bear Creek should be implemented. The scope of this post-project assessment needs to be discussed further, but some degree of follow-up evaluation is necessary to verify that fish habitat and resources have been given adequate consideration. It is our understanding all hydrological and fisheries related studies which are pertinent to the Black Bear Creek project are being consolidated and summarized into one document to assist in the consultation process. This information will be helpful prior to application for FERC licensing and may point out the need for additional monitoring, if any, of water quality, instream-flows, salmonid escapements, or outmigration timing of anadromous fish resources in the Black Bear Lake system. NMFS must be a full and active party to the development of studies and determinations of the impacts of the proposed project on anadromous fishery resources and the actions necessary for the protection, maintenance and enhancement of this resource. Once the information requested above is available, NMFS will better be able to evaluate whether the construction and operation can be carried out to insure no net loss to the Black Bear Creek fishery resources. If not, compensatory mitigation for the loss of habitat may be required. Sincer~ly, .~·t~~ ~~ • ~mes Brooks~g Director Alaska Region 3 • DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSER\'A.TION Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Co. P.O.Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 I STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR october 31, 1988 The Department of Environmental Conservation has completed a review of the Initial Stage Consultation Information submitted by the Alaska Power & Telephone Company in accordance with 18 CFR 4.38 (b) {1) for development of the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project. We have several general comments on the selection of the transmission line routes, the substation site location and the use of a dam or a siphon system. For all items mentioned above we urge you to select the option with the lest environmental impacts overall. One of the biggest environmental impacts that can result from construction of a dam is the blockage of fish passage. Since there are resident populations of anadromous fish in Black Bear Lake, the design of any dam should include a fish passage structure. A build up of sediments behind the dam may result in siltation of the natural substrates. This can change the natural composition and may adversely affect the spawning capacity of resident fish in Black Bear Lake. The retention of sediments also reduces the amount of allocthonous material that reaches the lower portions of the stream. This can reduce the nutrient levels and adversely affect the food chain. Dams can also alter the temperature regimes of the stream and reservoir which may adversely affect the resident fish and macroinvertebrate populations. We strongly recommend that you weight the possible environmental impacts of both the dam and siphon options before you make your final choice. Mitigation for the development of either option will be in line with it's environmental impacts. The selection of a powerhouse location should include consideration of the site with the least impact on fishery resources. The maintenance of minimum acceptable stream flows without large fluctuations in discharge will be critical to the continuation of a productive fishery resource in Black Bear Lake and stream. Location A, which is further upstream may have fewer impacts than location B. This alternative should be considered. Mr. Robert S. Grimm october 31, 1988 page two The selection of a transmission line route should again be based partially on the choice with the least environmental impacts. Line A would require less disturbance of habitat and follow an existing road corridor. Disturbance of fewer acres of vegetation may result in fewer water quality problems. We appreciate the opportunity to review your project during the early design stage so that we may minimize the possible future environmental impacts. We look forward to working with you in the future. cc Jack Gustafson, ADF&G Richard Sumner, EPA Nevin Holmberg, USF&WS Elizaveta Shadura, ADNR Diane Mayer, DGC ~~ Amy Kruse Ecologist United States Department of the Interior IN ~EPLY ~EFE~ TO: Mr. Robert S. Grimm FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Juneau Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Southeast Alaska Ecolop:ical Services P. 0. Box 021287 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1287 (907) 586-7240 Alaska Power and Telephone Co. P. 0. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: November 23, 1988 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation Information package presented by the Alaska Power and Telephone Company for the proposed Black Bear Lake hydropower project (FERC No. 10440-000) on Prince of Wales Island. We have coordinated our review with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and concur fully with their comments and recommendations relevant to aquatic habitat resources. We offer the following additional comments. Specific Comments Based on the geographic location of this project, we believe the Prince of Wales flying squirrel (Glaucomvs sabrinus griseifrons) may occur in the project area. This is a species not currently listed as "endangered" but is being investigated to ascertain its population status. We do not believe that the proposed project will significantly affect this species or its habitat. No federally-proposed or listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur in or near the project area, and therefore no further Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat, 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the Service. Bald eagles occur throughout the project area. The potential for aerial strikes and electrocution of bald eagles can be a problem on improperly designed transmission lines. Great horned owls, a common species in southeast Alaska, are also very susceptible to electrocution. Good preconstruction planning will decrease the chance of future problems. Adequate separation of energized wires, ground wires and other metal hardware is the most important factor in preventing eagle and other raptor electrocutions. Young birds whose flight skills are not fully developed are most vulnerable. The objective is a 60-inch minimum separation of conductors. A design that minimizes the chance of bird collisions and electrocutions will also minimize maintenance costs and power outages. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines." We appreciate the opportunity to provide preliminary comments on this project. cc: NMFS, USFS, Juneau ADF&G, Douglas EPA, Anchorage ADF&G, FWS, Ketchikan Sincerely, ¢ /~/ ' . !/;'"' ))'/' /'. / ~ 4';-,f-z} . 7, !l Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor II" UPI..Y IU:.FER TO: United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE 2525 Gambell Street, Room 107 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 · 2892 L7427(ARO-REC) 6 DEC 1988 Mr. Robert s. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear 11r. Grimm: We have reviewed the information about the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We suggest the potential effect on the recreational values of Black Bear Lake be investigated. Issues to be considered should include the potential for project enhancement of recreation use and the need, if any, for mitigation. We recommend the following agency and corporate representatives be consulted: Ms. Grace Kosanke, u.s. Forest Service, (907) 826-3271 Mr. Charles Osborn, u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, (907) 225-9691 Mr. Steve Hoffman, Department of Fish and Game, {907) 225-2859 Ms. Linda Kruger, Department of Natural Resources -Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, (907) 465-4563 Mr. Rick Harris, Sealaska Corporation, {907) 586-1512 Let us know if we can assist you further. Questions may be directed to Mr. Larry Wright, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (907) 257-2649. ;;i~ ?ad#~-J) Associate Regio~irector Resource Services 10-J4 lR ' DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT i December 22, 1988 Mr. Robert s. Grimm, President Alaska Power and Telephone P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: / I I / I / STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET P.O. BOX 107005 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510·7005 PHONE: (907) 561-2020 This is a response to your September 15, 1988, letter requesting comments on the Initial Stage Consultation Information for the proposed Black Bear Hydroelectric Project. I apologize for the tardiness of the response, but only recently did I learn our original effort was misplaced inhouse. Even though it is late, the information below should be of value to you. Based on the limited information contained in the document I recommend the dam option with power house location B and transmission line location A. As more detailed information is developed I would appreciate the opportunity to review it and reserve the right to change my recommendations in the light of that material. There are several other issues which should be brought to your attention which could affect the project. First, your application for water rights dated October ~4, 1987, was returned to you due to a lack of proof of present possessory interest in the real property where the water is to be beneficially used. Your application can not be adjudicated until this issue is resolved. Second, the Prince of Wales Island Area Plan (POWIAP) makes several recommendations regarding the project area. An instream flow study and subsequent instream flow reservation is recommended for Black Bear Creek for fish habitat protection. The POWIAP also recommends a state land selection from available U.S. Forest Service lands around Black Bear Lake. This could facilitate the project and provide community recreation opportunities. A land exchange with Sealaska Corporation is also recommended by the plan for the penstock and powerhouse sites. This would guarantee public access to state selected lands around the lake via the road. Robert S. Grimm December 22, 1988 Page 2 I hope these comments prove useful. It probably would be of value if you were to meet with some of my staff in our Southeast Regional office to discuss the above items in greater detail. To set up such a meeting please contact Andy Pekovich, Southeast Regional Manager, at 465-3400 in Juneau. cc: Andy Pekovich, SERO ALASKA POWER ' TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O. BOX 222 PORT TOWNSEND, WA. 98368 (206) 385-1733 February 15, 1989 *Title* *First name* *Last name* *Position* *Company* *Address* *City*, *State* *Zip* Re:Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska State I.D. No. AK880930-16J Hello: Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) holds a FERC Preliminary Permit for the Black Bear Lake Project. We are in the process of developing our environmental study plan for this project and wish to consult with you in accordance 18CFR 4.38. We understand that some people and agencies receiving this letter are not directly involved in the fish and wildlife matters, thus an answer to our request is not necessary. We need assistance in determining the specific's of the Environmental Study Plan. We believe the necessary studies can be grouped into four categories as follows: 1. Hydrogeologic examination of the project area; 2. Predict the temperature regime in the regulated flow. 3. Establish a record of the present general condition of the stream, ponds, lake, fisheries and wildlife in the area. 4. Development of the instrumentation or routines of measurement and how to evaluate the project once it is in operation. Study Plan Page 2 We have a specific proposal for you to review for the first category. We plan to do this work in April, 1989 so we need your input as soon as possible. A copy of the proposal from Dan Bishop is enclosed for your review. We do not have specific proposals for the other three categories at this time. We do have some recommendations, again from Dan Bishop, as to temperature modelling, pre- project studies, instrumentation and post-project evaluation. These were contained in the First Project Report but a copy is enclosed for your review and comment. Please let me know if you wish to have another joint-agency meeting to informally discuss our Environmental study Plan. I want to thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Robert s. Grimm President cc Vern Neitzer enc. Draft Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project study Plan A. Hydrogeologic examination of Black Bear Creek between base of falls and head of Spring Fork will be conducted in April of 1989. Attached is a proposal which gives a detailed summary of the purpose, approach, study team and costs. B. Predict the temperature regime in the regulated flow system that will be compatible with rearing and spawning salmon. Scheduled in the fall of 1989 or Spring of 1990. It is believed that sufficient information to work towards modelling to determine optimum tailrace discharge temperatures. The specific's of this task need to be developed. c. Establish a record of the present general condition of stream, ponds, lake, fisheries and wildlife between the waterfall and the outlet of Black lake. Specific's of this task also need to be developed. Scheduled for Spring and summer 1990. D. Development of the instrumentation or routines of measurement and evaluation of the project in operation. Again, the specific's of this task need to be developed. Scheduled to begin prior to the commencement of construction. Regional Director u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Director Office of Hydropower Licensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 301-RB 825 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Suite 1340 1120 s.w. 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Director Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Endangered Species Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List study Plan Mai~ing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Chief of History and Archeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks Pouch 7001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Regional Forester u.s. Forest Service P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628 State Director Bureau of Land Management 710 c Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Regional Environmental Officer Department of the Interior 1675 c Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5198 Division of Environmental Quality Study Plan Mailing List study Plan Mailing List study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Regional Environmental Coordinator National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2892 Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Division of Parks & outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Juneau, Alaska 99801 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Environmental Impact Review Officer Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Director Division of Land & Water Management P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005 Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Regional Director Alaska Regional Office National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dan Bishop Environaid 12175 Mendenhall Loop Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Study Plan Mailing List Jack Broughton General Manager Study Plan Mailing List Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-0149 Glen Charles President Shaan Seet, Inc. P.O. Box 90 craig, Alaska 99921-0090 . Dennis Dorratcague Ott Water Engineers 12310 N.E. 8 th street Bellevue, wa. 98005 Corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sealevel Drive Suite 203 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Robert w. Loescher Senior Vice President Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Diane Mayer Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99801 Theodore F. Meyers Chief, Habitat Conservation National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Eugene Neblett 1617 Roger Court El Cerrito, Ca. 94530 study Plan Mailing List study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List study Plan Mailing List Acting Regional Manager Andrew Pekovich Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1000 Constance Sathre Staff Attorney study Plan Mailing List National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Jim Sprague Mayor City of Craig P.O. Box 23 craig, Alaska 99921 Dan Wagner Mayor City of Thorne Bay P.O. Box 19110 Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919 Roy S. Williams Mayor City of Klawock P.O. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Study ¥1an Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project study Plan and Schedule A. Hydrogeologic examination of Black Bear Creek between base of falls and head of Spring Fork will be conducted in May of 1989. A proposal which gives a detailed summary of the purpose, approach, study team and costs is included in the seco~d progress report. B. Predict the temperature regime in the regulated flow system that will be compatible with rearing and spawning salmon. Scheduled in the fall of 1989 or Spring of 1990. It is believed that sufficient information to work towards modelling to determine optimum tailrace discharge temperatures. The specific's of this task need to be developed. c. Establish a record of the present general condition of stream, ponds, lake, fisheries and wildlife between the waterfall and the outlet of Black lake. Specific's of this task also need to be developed. Scheduled for Spring and Summer 1990. D. Development of the instrumentation or routines of measurement and evaluation of the project in operation. Again, the specific's of this task need to be developed. Scheduled to begin prior to the commencement of construction. DEPART11ENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT February 24, 1989 Mr. Robert s. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET P.O. BOX 107005 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510-7005 PHONE: !90n561·2020 Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposals for certain matters related to the Environmental Study Plan for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. I have requested our Southeast Office to respond directly to you in this matter, as they have been assigned the coordination for hydroelectric projects within their region. cc: Andy Pekovich, SERO Cordially, D QJ~ Gary~tafson Director ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska February 28, 1989 Mr. Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Subject: Black Bear Lake Environmental Study Plan Dear Mr. Grimm: Steve Cowper. Governor The Alaska Power Authority has reviewed the February 15, 1989 Black Bear Lake Environmental Study Plan. We have no comments on the Hydrogeologic Examination phase of the plan other than that it appears to be adequate from the description prepared by Dan Bishop. In our estimation, the source and areas of emergence of subsurface flows are the critical question that will be posed by the fisheries agencies. As for powerhouse siting, we expect that much of this effort will be conducted during the design phase of the project and this study will give only preliminary indications of where it should be located. As you stated in your letter, the scopes of the other three areas of study will need to be expanded upon and finalized in the near future. We would suggest, however, that careful attention be paid to the distri- bution and importance of salmonid rearing in the system. This is of particular importance to the fisheries management agencies. We are concerned that the task, as currently proposed, may not do this. Finally, we are available to meet with you and other parties involved in this licensing effort at your convenience. We are especiQlly interested in those meetings which seek to finalize study plans. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Donald L. Shira Director of Program Development and Facilities Operations TJA:DLS:aa cc: Remy Williams, Alaska Power Authority 0 P.O. Box AM Juneau. Alosko 99811 2 P.O. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Rood (907) 465·3575 Anchorage, Alaska 99519·0869 5149/DDS0/1 (907) 561·7877 thited states Department of Agriculture Forest Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21628 Mr. Robert s. Grinm President Alaska POwer and Telephone Co. P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Gri.nm: JUneau, AK 99802-1628 Reply to: 2770 · oate: MAR u 1 l:.:;IJ ::J During the environmental process of the Black Bear hydro project, we request that you coordinate with our Ketchikan field office and address the following issues: 1. Effect on scenic quality of the project area and the surrourrling area. 2. Effect on the recreation experience. 3. Effect on fish and wildlife. Please contact the Forest SUpervisor, Federal Building, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, or call 907-225-3101 to arrange coordination of these activites. Sincerely, Lu Lt,'\_ ~ ~wa_~ WILLIAM G. EDWAIDS Director, Lands, Minerals and W!ltershed Management cc: Ketchikan Area F$·8200·28(7·82) March J, 1989 Robert s. Grimm Alaska Power and Telephone Company P. o. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: UNITED STATES r 'RTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic •· _ Atmospheric Administration National. Ma:rine Fisheries Service P.O. Bo::: 21668 Juneau, ALaska 99802-1668 The National Marine Fisheries service (NMFS) has reviewed the proposal for "Hydrogeologic Examination of Black Bear Creek Between Base of Falls and Head of Spring Fork" by Environaid. Due·to your need for input prior to field studies in April 1989, we defer our comments on "Further Environmental studies Needed for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project" until a later date. In general, we have no major problem with the studies as proposed. We recognize the existing limitations on the measure- ment of groundwater vectors. You appear to be committed, however, to gaining the best possible understanding of surface and subsurface flows at this site. The proposed studies should provide additional information necessary to select the optimal location for a tailrace and powerhouse. Four possible sites are now being considered for the powerhouse. It is our understanding that studies in April will evaluate potential effects of each site and its associated tailrace on maintaining the groundwater flow system and upwelling habitat for spawning salmon. Please let us know if this is not the case. We recommend that both the definition of the path of subsurface flows and verification of their origin be included in the field effort. NMFS requests that flow recharge and groundwater emergence be measured so that discreet areas of major groundwater input can be identified. This will allow a meaningful comparison of these groundwater areas and spawning habitat after the powerhouse is in operation. If feasible, flow measurements of Lake Fork and Spring Fork should be made to allow a comparison both before and after operation of the powerhouse. Should groundwater flows andjor spawning habitat decrease as a result of the project, the above information will be a basis for deter- mining appropriate compensation. A joint-agency meeting would be helpful soon after this field investigation is completed. A summary of the study findings should be provided. This may also be an suitable time to discuss the "Further Environmental Studies Needed for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project" proposal by Environaid. Sincerely, ~;e~,~ Chief, Habitat Conservation Division NMFS contact person: John Hamilton cc: AOFG, Ketchikan FWS, Juneau, Oiv. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau Environaid EPA, Anchorage, Juneau ADEC, Juneau ADNR, Juneau FERC GC, Sathre 11·/0SLH DEPART~IENT OF FISH AND G.-\.ME SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE March 7, 1989 Mr. Robert s. Grimm President Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 20 DOUGLAS, ALASKA 99824..0020 PHONE: (907) This is in response to Commissioner Collinsworth Hydroelectric project. your February 15 regarding the Black letter to Bear Lake We have reviewed the study proposal submitted by Dan Bishop and believe it adequately addresses the issues raised at our last interagency meeting. We believe the study proposed by Mr. Bishop should proceed. In response to your question regarding the next interagecny meeting, we recommend waiting until results of this summer's field work are available. Thank you for the opportunity to review the study proposal. In the future, please send review documents directly to me at the above address as it will allow maximum time for review. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~~J:>~~~ Richard D. Reed Regional Supervisor cc: USFWS NMFS Chris Landis, DNR Diane Mayer, DGC Jack Gustafson, ADFG -A35LH --r--.~--"".;"-~~ 1 ~r:- ·, \ ! I ; ,\ \ I . ! '-:\' I I ;.,; I l i j [ \-...~: ! i -I •j i ·.............. ·...,; w ·~ w L.._, il' ]' c ! I: I;' 1 •.; I I' \~ ... OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN P.O. BOX AW, SUITE 101 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811..0165 PHONE: f90n 465-3562 Mr. Robert S. Grimm SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 2600 DENALI STREET SUITE 700 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798 PHONE: (907) 274-1581 March 9, 1989 Alaska Power & Telephone Co. P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: SUBJECT: BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX AW JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811..0165 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 NORTHERN REGIONAl OFFICE 675 SEVENTH A VENUE STATION H FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (90n 45&-3084 The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) received your letter regarding studies necessary for the Environmental Study Plan, and the supporting information regarding the hydrogeologic examination study you submitted for our review. The process for obtaining a FERC License requires extensive preapplication consultation. State agency reviewers have been providing stage one consultation comments to you in response to the project application and your meeting of October 26, 1988. We have distributed your proposal for the studies which have been requested and anticipate agencies will respond to you directely. This information should assist you in compiling .the FERC applica- tion. The project will then be subject to a formal consistency review when all permit applications are submitted and FERC officially accepts the application and issues the public notice. The enclosed project information sheet includes a State I.D. Number (AK890309-03J) • Please refer to this number in any future reference to the project. Reviewer milestones and the associated permits are also indicated on the enclosed sheet. By a copy of this letter we are informing FERC that the state's Lnformational review is underway. Mr. Robert S. Grimm - 2 - March 9, 1989 Thank you for your cooperation in this review process. Sincerely, (!~~ £.Diane E. Mayer CJOV Project Review Coordinator Enclosure cc: Project Reviewers csak89030903jsuce ORIC:B OP TIIB GOVBRNOB DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COOROINA TION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET I STEVE COWI'!Rr GOVERNOR SOV1'1-IEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NOFITH FFIANKUN P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 JUNEAU, ALASKA 9961 t-<J165 PHONE: (90n 465-3562 PROJECT TITLE: 13&11'Je. Bt.o.l. H!jdh..)c Oq,c:fn <.. ~d- -FERC. ~ohtit'"*' xifast :r: STATE I.D. NUMBER/REVIEWING OFFICE: AK89 08Qq -()3J DGC CONTACT: :}J tttiv £,I ::Yl'lo. alA..t APPLICANT CONDUCTING ACTIVIT"!: ilioaJiA. (]1, ... q} Jitfb4IJ.L fu r>Lll'l<.J-, DIRECT FEDERAL ACTION: YES_ NO_L_ -u 0 ~ REVIEW TYPE: CONSISTENCY ____ ANILCA ____ OCSLA ____ NEPA ____ OTHER~ ACTIVITY TYPE: ARMED FORCES ACTIVITIES COMMERCIAL/TYPE V" ±Jt.vibfVITe eta~ LAND MGMT. PLAN 7J MINING: HARDROCK MINING PLACER MINING OFFSHORE MINI~ OIL AND GAS OTHER PUBLI~C~U~T~I~L~I~T~I:E=s/T.F~A~C~I~L~I:T~I=Es~------ PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL ---- FILL PLACEMENT FLOATING STRUCTURES TIMBER FISHERIES PRODUCTION: GENERAL HATCHERy- REMOTE RELEASE FISHERIES FARMS:---- FINFISH SHELLFI~ SEA VEGETA.BLES FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT FISHERIES PROCESSING PROJECT LOCATION: NEAREST COASTAL DISTRICT: PROJECT INSIDE THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY: YES __ NO~ DISTRICT PLAN APPROVED: YES ~ NO ____ PENDING REVIEW MILESTONES: DAY l _____ ,..,.~"'+J.....,cfJ'-'+jR ........... 9 ___________ _ REVIEW SCHEDULE: 15-Day __ 30-Day v.-so-Day_ OTHER ______ _ REVIEWER REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY: __ ~-T~~~~3~---------- COMMENTS DUE TO DGC BY: .,3/Q)~ ---=~.~---------------------------------- NOTIFICATION TO APPLICANT BY: ____ ~<f~~~O~Ek~-------------------------- DECISION DEADLINE: AJSLH [1206] [2270] [691] [52] [1421] [745] [1211] [1672] (163] [73] (394] [389] [72] [1970] (275] [491] (15] (375] DISTRIBUTION LIST Hs. Judith Bittner, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage Hr. Clenn Freeman, Department of Fish and Came, Klawock Hr. Jack Gustafson, Department of Fish and Came, Ketchikan Hr. Rick Harris, Juneau Ms. Nancy Holguin, Division of Covernmental Coordination, Juneau Hr. Nevin Holmberg, U.S. Department of the Interior, Juneau Ms •. Linda Kruger, Department of Natural Resources, Juneau Ms. Amy Kruse, Department of Environmental ~onservation, Juneau Hr. Al Macasaet, Klawock Mr. Hike McKinnon, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau Hr. Steve Penoyer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Juneau Hr. Rich Poor, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau Mr. Rick Reed, Department of Fish and Came, Douglas Ms. Fran Roche, Department of Natural Resources, Juneau Hs. Rochelle Rollenhagen, Craig The Honorable James Sprague, Craig Mr. Richard Sumner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage The Honorable Roy S. Williams, Klawock distribution 1i st March 9, 1989 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Robert s. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Co. P.O.Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR March 20, 1989 Dear Mr. Grimm: Subject: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project AK# 890309-03J FERC # 10440-000-Alaska The Department of Environmental Conservation has completed our review of the environmental study plan as proposed for this project. The hydrogeologic study of the project area proposed by Dan Bishop appears adequate to address surface and sub-surface flows. As we outlined in our October 31, 1988 letter to you we have several other areas of concern with this project and are looking forward to reviewing the other studies that will address these issues. Thank you for involving us in this early planning stage. cc Diane Mayer, DGC Rick Reed, ADF&G Chris Landis, ADNR Nevin Holmberg, USF&WS Duane Petersen, NMFS Sincerely, A "'u.t ~ ,tMAJL A!!ty Kruse Ecologist MqY 10 '89 1:3:15 FR~M ALASKA POWER AND TELE - •' !u..ASKA POW'EI. &: T.El.EPHON! COMPANY Robert W. Loescher Sealaska Corporation one Sealaska Plaza Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 .. .o. 1101 ua • ?Oa w~<T'III'I ~ _..,.._ooo. w-..,. ... - -I nil April 3, 1989 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska Dear Mr. Loescher; PAGE.002 We wish your permission to make a site visit to the Black Bear Lake project area, this Sprinq. The purpose o~ the visit is to conduct groundwater studies, as outlined in the proposal from Environaide, which is enclosed. AP&T agrees to hold Sealaska harmless for any claims or liability arising from site visit and studies. We will also, advise you o~ the exact dates once known. Thank you for your consideration sincerely, ~ Robert s . Grimm President cc Vern Neitzer enc. bert·w. Loescher Senior Vice President Sealaska Corporation ~~n ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O. BOX ZU • I •1 OTTO STIOIEET PCI~TOWNKNO. -ON MMII (-)..M5oi7U I'AJC (-)-J85.SIT7 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O_. BOX 222 PORT TOWNSEND, WA. 98368 (206) 385-1733 July 7, 1989 *Title* *First name* *Last name* *Position* *Company* *Address* *City*, *State* *Zip* Re:Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska State I.D. No. AK880930-l.6J Hello: Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) holds a FERC Preliminary Permit for the Black Bear Lake Project. We are in the process of developing our environmental study plan for this project and wish to consult with you in accordance with 18CFR 4.38. We ·understand that some people and agencies receiving this letter are not directly involved in the fish and wildlife matters, thus an answer to our request is not necessary. We need assistance in determining the specific's of the Environmental Study Plan. We believe the necessary studies can be grouped into four categories as follows: l.. Hydrogeologic examination of the project area; 2. Prediction of the temperature regime in the regulated stream flow. 3. Establish a record of the present general condition of the stream, ponds, lake, fisheries and wildlife in the area. 4. Development of the necessary instrumentation or routines of measurement to evaluate the project's effect on the environment once it is in operation. Study Plan Page 2 We have received favorable agency comments on 'the proposal sent to you on February 15, 1989 pertaining to the . hydrogeological examination of the project area. Enclosed is a report prepared by Environaid. The report makes several recommendations as to the preferred powerhouse site and method of recharging or injecting tailrace water into the near-surface aquifer. We believe these recommendations are practical and would insure that the groundwater flows reach both Spring and Lake Forks. We request your comments on the report and the recommendations. Several of the agencies have requested a joint agency meeting to discuss the report and formalize the remaining studies needed for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have previously circulated a draft of the study plan for this project and need your assistance in formalizing this plan. I have enclosed another copy of the draft as well as the document titled "Further Environmental Studies Needed for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project" proposed by Environaid. The draft study plan indicated that further study was needed to be able to predict the water temperature in the regulated flow system and insure that it will be compatible with rearing and spawning salmon. We had scheduled this work for the fall of this year or the Spring of 1990. We need your assistance in determining the specific's of this task. We also need assistance and comments on how to establish the present general condition of the stream, ponds, lake, fisheries and wildlife between the waterfall and the outlet of Black Lake. We have scheduled this work for the Spring and Summer of 1990. The remaining item that requires your attention is the development of the necessary instrumentation or routines of measurement to evaluate the project's effect on the environment once it is operation. Study Plan Page 3 Thank you for your assistance. We believe this project will provide a renewable source of low cost power for the citizens who live on Prince of Wales Island. We also believe this project can be developed and operated in a manner that is compatible with·the fish, wildlife, and habitat of the area. We will be scheduling the joint meeting soon, so please forward any responses you have to this letter or the accompanying report within the next 30 days. Sincerely, Robert s. Grimm President cc Vernon Neitzer Enc. Regional Director u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Director Office of Hydropower Licensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 301-RB 825 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Suite 1340 1120 s.w. 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Director Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Endangered Species Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Chief of History and Archeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks Pouch 7001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Regional Forester u.s. Forest Service P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628 State Director Bureau of Land Management 710 c Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Regional Environmental Officer Department of the Interior 1675 C street Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5198 Division of Environmental Quality Study Plan Mailing List study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 ~uneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Regional Environmental Coordinator National Park ~ervice 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2892 study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Division of Parks & outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Juneau, Alaska 99801 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Environmental Impact Review Officer Environmental Protection Agency 1200 sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Director Division of Land & Water Management P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005 Study Plan Mailing List study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Regional Director Alaska Regional Office National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dan Bishop Environaid 12175 Mendenhall Loop Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Study Plan Mailing List Jack Broughton General Manager Study Plan Mailing List Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-0149 Glen Charles President Shaan Seet, Inc. P.O. Box 90 Craig, Alaska 99921-0090 Dennis Dorratcaque Ott Water Engineers 12310 N.E. 8 th Street Bellevue, Wa. 98005 Corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sealevel Drive Suite 203 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Robert w. Loescher Senior Vice President Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Diane Mayer Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99801 Theodore F. Meyers Chief, Habitat Conservation National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Eugene Neblett 1617 Roger Court El Cerrito, ca. 94530 study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Acting Regional Manager Andrew Pekovich Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Suite 400 . Juneau, Alaska 99801-1000 Constance Sathre Staff Attorney·- study Plan Mailing List National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Jim Sprague Mayor City of craig P.O. Box 23 Craig, Alaska 99921 Dan Wagner Mayor City of Thorne Bay P.O. Box 19110 Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919 Roy S. Williams Mayor City of Klawock P.O. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Study ~lan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List Study Plan Mailing List ----e Unitoo States .,~ fj ~ Department of ~ Agriculture Forest Service Alaska ·Reg ion r.O. Box 21628 JuneaJ, N. 99802-1628 Mr. Robert s. Grimm President Alaska Power and Telephone Co. P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Black Bear Lake, 110440-QOO Dear Mr. Grimn: Reply to: 2770 Date:J U L 14 1989 --- We have received your July 7 letter requesting assistance in determining specifics of your Environmental Study Plan. As indicated to you in our March 1 letter, COP.f enclosed, you need to conta::t the Forest SUpervisor in Ketchikan to coordinate activities related to this project that affect National Forest Systan lands. Sincerely, {UlHG ~&l0a.Lciy--- WILLIAM G. EDWAIDS Director, Lands, Minerals and Watershoo Management Enclosure cc: Ketchikan FS-6200-28(7·82) August 7, 1989 Robert s. Grimm President UNITED STATES r"~PARTMENT OF COMMERCf: National Oceanic · Atmospheric Administration Na.tiona.Z Marins r· .. ohsries Service P.O. Boz 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 Alaska Power & Telephone Company P. o. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the June 21, 1989, report "Hydrogeological Examination of Black Bear creek Between Base of Falls and Head of Spring Fork" by Environaid. The study provides information needed to site the powerhous' tailrace in a location which is optimal in terms of both groundwater recharge and minimization of geophysical hazards. We concur with the recommendation that the powerhouse be constructed at site E1 or E2, preferably the latter. Tailrace water needs to be reintroduced into subsurface flows to maintain groundwater and upwelling habitat .for spawning salmon downstream, a critical requirement during low flow periods. Recharge should take place in the middle of the valley (near the existing channel immediately south of E2) to sustain the springs at the head of Spring Fork and Lake Fork of Black Bear Creek. If the powerhouse is constructed at E2, it would be in close proximity to such a recharge area. Once a precise recharge site is proposed based on engineering and construction considerations, the dye test should be repeated from this site to verify that connected subsurface flows will upwell at the head of Lake Fork and Spring Fork, and not in less desirable areas such as Iron stained tributary (near site B). We recognize that recent activities in the Black Bear Creek watershed could result in lateral movement of the main channel from Lake Fork to Sprinq Fork; however, the mid-valley intro- duction of tailrace waters into a wide area should provide for downstream upwelling in both forks. The relationship between instantaneous flows of Spring Fork and comparable flows at the outlet of Black Bear Lake must continue to be monitored after the project is implemented to evaluate aquifer recharge. If, despite the above efforts to maintain upwelling areas, flows andjor spawning habitat decrease as a result of the project, the above monitoring information will be a basis for determining appropriate compensation or compensatory mitigation. At our meeting in Juneau on October 26, 1988, both dam and siphon alternatives for intake in Black Bear Lake were being considered. There appears to be sufficient information on Black Bear Lake water temperatures to determine at what depths water should be taken during different months. We suggest you consider an intake structure with at least two intake depths or an adjustable intake depth to avoid discharge temperatures which are unsuitable to rearing fish in· Black Bear Creek. NMFS remains available to discuss intake design proposals. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 0, --9/:d-f;__ !;·. !~~er, Director ~ska Region cc: ADFG, Douglas, Klawock FWS, Juneau, Anchorage Applicant Div. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau EPA, Anchorage, Juneau CE, Env. Sec., Anchorage ADEC, Juneau ADNR, Juneau AKGC, Sathre I ' DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION / I SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE August 9, 1989 Robert s. Grimm President Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: I STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR P.O. Box 32420 Juneau, Ak 99803 789-3151 FAX 789-4877 I have reviewed two documents prepared by Environaid and recently forwarded to this office. The first, entitled "Further Environmental Studies Needed for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project" identifies the need for post-project environmental assessment, including water te~peratures, flow rates, and a daily record of lake levels. The second, a draft study plan for the project, stresses the need for developing environmental monitoring routines prior to the commencement of construction, but gives no specifics as to what these routines might include. The primary concern of this department is to protect the aquatic habitat of the affected watershed during and following construction by ensuring compliance with the State Water Quality Standards. Any environmental monitoring program that is implemented should first include baseline measurements of physical and chemical parameters important to aquatic life. These measurements should be continued during construction activities when possible deleterious impacts to water quality are likely to be greatest. Post-construction monitoring is necessary to ensure long-term changes to the aquatic habitat, species abundance, and species diversity do not develop as a result of chronic impacts to water quality. If you need further clarification regarding our requirements, please call. The Department will provide as much assistance as possible in the development of a monitoring program. Sincerely, ~)2:: ~Janes Ecologist '.1( 1 LH ":'J· ·=-= .-, c:-:: r::::i . . ' . I I I' . ' i ~ !j ;\ \ ! I . ;:: · .. '-·, I -1 ; I t! a ' I :_ ~~·J ;_! l:::: DEP.\IlT~IEXT Ot" t"ISII AXD GA:liE SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Habitat Division August 10, 1989 Mr. Robert s. Grimn Alaska Power and Telephone Company P. 0. Box 22 Port Townsend, W'ashington 98368 Dear Mr. Grim:n: Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska State I. D. No. AK880930-16J STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR P.O. Box 20 Douglas, AK 99824 Phone: (907) 465-4290 Thank you for your recent transmittal of materials regarding the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Upon revie<Ning the hydrogeological examination report dated July 7, 1989, and other background reports and information, it appears that at least several fisheries studies should be conducted for pre-and post-project rronitoring. While these recarmendations are not intended to be carplete study requirem:mts, we would suggest their incorporation into project rronitoring. (1) Conduct studies to derive population estimates for juvenile and adult salm:mids in various affected habitats (i.e., Black Lcike, wetlands/streams upstream fran Black Lake to falls, Black Bear Lake) • SUch studies should be conducted for at least one year prior to project start-up and continue for five years after project canpletion. Specifics of these studies might include: a. peak escapement surveys for adult sockeye (late August), coho pink, a.r.d chum (late September -early October) salrron and steelhead trout (late May); b. trapping within both lakes to estimate adult rainl:x:w and cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char populations. c. trapping dC1NnStrearn of falls and within Black Lake to' estimate populations of rearing juvenile salrronids; and d. fyke netting of Black Lake in spring to target on rearing sockeye p:lpU.lation estimates. (2) l-'.ap all identified fisheries habitats within the affected area, including relative contribution of each habitat type, for each fish species, annually through the study pericd. - Perhaps these studies could be designed CNer short duration with the intent fcx:::used on trends and observations of changes in fish pcpula.tions and available habitats. Reports which sunmarize reS';llts should be provided to the depa.rt:Irent annually. Thank you for the opportunity to carment. Sincerely, =-12:~~ Richard Reed Regional Supervisor cc: N. Holmberg, USFWS s. Pennoyer, NMFS J. Gustafson, ADF&G G. Free-tan, ADF&G D. Mayer, rx:;c C. Landis, DNR P!GE 2 Alaska Energy Authority August 23, 1989 Mr. Robert S. Grimm President A Public Corporation Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Subject: Environmental Study Plan -Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project State ot Alaska Steve Cowper. Governor Reference: Alaska Power & Telephone Letters of July 7 and 13, 1989 Dear Mr. Grimm: The Alaska Energy Authority has reviewed the materials submitted to us in your recent letters and offers the following comments. Hydroelectric Examination We agree that further investigation should be conducted to locate the area where tailrace waters should be discharged to optimize groundwater recharge necessary to maintain fisheries resources. Temperature Regime While we agree that there is sufficient data to model tailrace discharge temperature, we suggest that commensurate effort be spent on examining the temperature moderating influence of passage of tailrace waters through surface and subsurface watercourses. This may reveal that drawing waters from certain lake levels to control discharge temperature is not necessary. Present Conditions Baseline conditions of aquatic and terrestrial resources need to be updated in light of extensive logging in the project area since earlier environmental investigations. Instrumentation/Post Project Studies There will be a requirement of the Department of Natural Resources to monitor water use. In addition, pre and post project water temperature monitoring snould be conducted in at least one representative spawning and rearing area (each). Escapement enumeration and fry/rearing observations should be continued. Post project fisheries, temperature, :: P.O.-Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 2/ P.O. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Rood Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 6456/994{1) Mr. Robert : ~~imm August 23, b Page 2 and fisheries related flow data collection should be done for three to four years. At the end of this period, an impact assessment report will need to be prepared. It is our sense that there is not much concern related to project impact on terrestrial wildlife resources. Casual wildlife observations made during the course of the fisheries studies will probably suffice. Beaver activity however, may be of greater concern because of its relation to fisheries habitat modification. Powerhouse Location Absent any design engineering, we would agree with Mr. Bishop that powerhouse sites, E1 and E2 appear to meet both the needs of protection from avalanches and suitable location for tailrace discharge. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. s/')ely, .;-// /J£ ;<f/'----c< L , .J/~-::: Dona 1 d L. Shira Director, Program Development & Facilities Operations TJA:DLS:dm cc: Remy Williams, Alaska Energy Authority 6456/994(2) DEPARTltiENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION January 3, 1990 Re: 3130-1R (FERC) Subject: Black .Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440 Neil H. MacDonald Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 Dear Mr. MacDonald: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE: (907)561·2020 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 107001 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510·7001 This is to let you know we concur with the Cultural and Archaeological Resources Plan for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project you submitted on December 18, 1989. If we can be of any further assistance with this matter, please don't hesitate to contact us at 762-2622. Sincd&ruu / / Judith E. Bittner ~ State Historic Preservation Officer GO: elk 11-K 15LH DEPARTlUENT OF FISH .t\N'D G.~)IE SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE January 8, 1990 Mr. Neil H. MacDonald, Director Water Resources and Energy Department Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, WA 98007 Dear Mr. MacDonald: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 20 DOUGLAS, ALASKA 99824-0020 PHON£: (907}4 6 5-4 2 9 0 ]~ ~N~ ~!~[ill OTf WAiER ENGlNEtR3 BELLEVUE The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft study outline for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We offer the following comments for your consideration: 1. Dollv Varden char, and cutthroat and steelhead trout should be sampled on the same level as anadromous salmonids rather than "incidentally". 2. Angler interviews should be expanded to June through September. 3. Coho salmon and steelhead trout escapement surveys should be added. 4. Monitoring of the resident fish populations in both Black Lake and Black Bear Lake before and after project completion is needed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ~00.~~ Richard Reed Regional Supervisor cc: G. LaRoche, DGC J. Gustafson, ADFG, Ktn G. Freeman, ADFG, Klawock S. Hoffman, ADFG, Ktn USFWS, NMFS, C. Landis, DNR, Juneau January 10, 1990 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National ~ine Fisheries Service P. 0. Bo:c 21668 Juneau, ALaska 99302-1668 Mr. Neil H. Macdonald, Director Water Resources and Energy Department Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, WA 98007 Dear Mr. Macdonald: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed your "Draft" study outlines submitted in behalf of Alaska Power and Telephone Company for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC #10440-000). In general, we have no major problems with the proposed studies. our primary concern at this point is with temperature effects of diverted lake water on downstream rearing and spawning fish. While your proposed approach of controlling downstream water temperatures through the discharge of tailrace water at various locations may have merit, we believe the best (and perhaps simplest) approach to insuring consistency with the past temperature regime is to have siphons or intake structures which can withdraw water from several depths in Black Bear Lake. Considerable documentation of fisheries habitat of Black Bear Creek and Black Lake has been completed, therefore, the emphasis from this point should be to note departures from past salmonid abundance and distribution which may have resulted from recent activity in the watershed. Estimates of juvenile salmonid abundance based on one time use of minnow traps are not reliable (Bloom, 1976). Mark and recapture using minnow traps can result in accurate estimates, but steps must be taken to avoid recapture of trap-happy fish which can introduce bias. Recovery of fish with electroshockers as well as traps is preferable for estimates, but this may not be consistent with the past efforts used by Bishop (1982). Reliable, consistent estimates of fry will require 1/8 inch mesh minnow traps (Bloom, 1976) and nets. Methods similar to those used by Bohlin (1981) may be useful in estimating the total rearing coho population. The type of classification of instream or channel-type habitat used to stratify and sample reaches of Black Bear Creek needs to be specified. Since the peak of outmigration for pinks and chums occurred in late March, 1981 (Bishop, 1982) and some coho and sockeye smelts outmigrated into June, the period of Fyke netting should be expanded. Data to be collected to develop the multi~variate statistical relation between the lake (we assume Black Bear Lake) outlet and upwelling areas also needs to be specified. NMFS looks forward to consulting with you on January 17-18, 1990, regarding the proposed studies. Due to a possible meeting conflict, we are requesting that non-fisheries aspects of the project be scheduled for Wednesday (January 17) afternoon so that our representative can be excused if necessary. Please contact John Hamilton of our office in this regard. SiPlJy, ~nT Habitat Literature Cited: Chief Division Bishop, D. M. 1982. Biological-Ecological investigations on the Black Bear Creek system near Klawock, Alaska. 180 p. Bloom, A. M. 1976. Evaluation of minnow traps for estimating populations of juvenile coho salmon and Dolly Varden. Prog. Fish-Cult. 38:99-101. Bohlin, T. 1981. Methods of estimating total stock, smolt output, and survival of salmonids using electrofishing. Institute of Freshwater research Drottingholm. Report No. 59, pp 5-14. United States Department of the !~rio~ _ FisH AND wiLDLIFE sERvicE ! .~...~ fff {f.]· l~ 0 nn re/JJ Juneau Fish and Wildlife Enhancement L...i i } -_':J 1!/ /.5 o Southeast Alaska Ecological Services W 1 l.f P. 0. Box 021287 ' M J l 9 1000 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1287 0 ... T W,. ,... """' (907) s86-724o 1 A r tR t:r~,f"\·,·- IN REPkY REFER TO: 8 -L ... tlliUrfr..·..._ t LEvuc -•I,) Mr. Neil H. Macdonald January 16, 1990 '- Director of Water Resources & Energy Development OTT Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, W A 98007 Dear Mr. MacDonald: Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440 The U.S. Fish and \Vildlife Service has reviewed the draft study outline proposed for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. \Ve offer the following comments. General: Information on discharge and all potential flow regimes from the dam and the penstock should be obtained and related to consequent effects on the impoundment and all portions of downstream aquatic fish and wildlife habitats. Additional comments for specific proposals include the following: Fisheries Habitat Mapping: A Primary Impact Zone is defined in the study outline, but a map is not provided. The methods employed for fisheries habitat mapping should be further described, particularly the habitat classification system. The bald eagle is not endangered in Alaska. Salmonid Studies: Fyke nests will not adequately sample both fry and smolt. Different size traps and mesh sizes Y.ill be necessary to capture both life stages. Scale samples generally are not required for age composition of juvenile salmonids; ages can be determined by the length composition. Only incidental observations are proposed to establish the pre-project conditions for steelhead, Dolly Varden, and trout. \Ve suggest that a more detailed studies should be conducted for these species, particularly the enumeration of steelhead escapement. The methods described for estimating escapement will not accomplish the stated objective. A single survey for each species may miss the run peak and severely bias the results. Furthermore, a single survey is only a measure of relative abundance, not absolute abundance. More pertinent methods to estimate absolute abundance include weekly stream-walking surveys, a weir, or sonar estimation. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this study proposal. cc: NPS, FWSFR, Anchorage ADFG, Douglas NMFS, DGC, Juneau Sincerely, ~ ~evin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor OTT ENGINEERING, INC. MEETING REPORT .-IOJECT LOCATION ATTENDEES Black Bear bake ProJect FERC Project 10440 State ld No. AK880930-16J JOB NO. S1401.01-003 State of Alaska Dept of Natural Resources. Div. land & Water Management DATE _Jll_/ ...J.LI 90 Vernon Neitzer-APT: Neil Macdonald. Roger Clay. Per Zimmerlund-OTT BY N. Macdonald Terry Rader-AK/DNR: Michael Eberhardt-DNR: Rick Reed-ADF&G; Chris Landis-ADNR; Gabrielle LaRoche- AK/DGC: Andrew Grossman-USFW /Ketchikan: John Hamilton-USNMFS: Bill James-DEC: Tom Arminski-AK Energy Authority; Dan Bishop-Environaid: Gretchen Blshop-Environaid; Chuck Osborn-USFWS SUBJECT NOTES: FERC Consultation Meeting -Black Bear bake Hydroelectric Project Neil Macdonald -OTT -Introduced purpose of meeting This is the FERC consulting meeting for agency /intervenors Summarized what OTT has done: developing discussion study outlines for the pre-project conditions Would everyone Introduce themselves, discuss their project role, Vern would you start: INTRODUCTION: Vern Neitzer -APT, the developer: Want to finalize these studies Feel it is a good project Feel this should be last summer of study (for license) Desire to keep cost down Have summarized past studies . New powerhouse site developed from last summer's work APT is looking into siphonjlake tap alternatives Preparing to file license with FERC 1dy Grossman -USFWS, Juneau Will propose mitigation Terry Rader -AKfDNR Look at water use Gabrielle LaRoche -AK/DGC Coordinate response of State agencies Rick Reed -Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Ketchikan office will have lead Chris Landis • AK/DNR Permitting Roger Clay -OTT Temperature and dye studies Erosion control plan Michael Eberhardt -AK/DNR -Parks Recreation aspects Chuck Osborn -USFWS-Ketchikan Lead biologist for USFWS Dan/Gretchen Bishop -Environaid Past work and summaries Fish studies wohn Hamilton -NMFS -Juneau SUOI·I/aTC..IPT.117 -1- MEETING REPORT _ .... HEDULE: Neil Macdonald -Discussion of schedule Goal: 1991 license application has until June 1, 1991 to submit • If fail to file a timely application, APT will loose its permit status and water right • Our goal is to file in April 1991 If we waited until June of 1990: FERC response • Would expect letter back August/September 1991 • Usually at this point, there are requests/requirements for additional Information • FERC's August/September response would mean loss of 1991 study season Current Plan • Submit license on April 1, 1991 • Therefore, have summer of 1991 to do additional studies if necessary Prior to the final application, a draft application is sent to agencies of record for review. Agencies are then given 60 days to respond. .January 17, 1990 With this plant, it looks like draft license application will need to be done during November, in order to get drafts to the agencies to allow time for their review/revisions. With the current studies, we are anticipating getting agency concurrence on the 1990 study plans by end of February. This gives consultant the month of March to prepare for April field work. Neil Macdonald-Any comments or feedback about this schedule There were no comments Summary: -Study scoping information Is out to agencies and intervenors of record • Held this meeting to obtain agency input -State responses to be coordinated -Look to get responses by end of February -Are there any problems with the dates? No response. Review of Meeting Notes: (from hand-out) Rough Schedule showing study time-frames Temperature/Water Quality sampling will be done in conjunction with other studies. FERC License Process We presently are on the latter half of the first stage of the consultation process. Table showing who Information from studies will be sent to. Are we missing any agencies? Responses: AK/DGC should get copy of everything sent to State agencies. USFWS should be included in recreation. AK/DLW should be included In recreation. DLW is a division of DNA. The rest of the information in the handout is a background and informational primer on the project. -2- SI401•1/Af~PJ. I 11 MEETING REPORT ..~AAFT STUDY OUTLINE DISCUSSIONS: Mike Eberhardt -Parks • Angler interviews, summer study being done. Should also look at hunting use of cabin. Chris Landis • DNR/DLWM How does condemnation affect project. (Eminent Domain) Neil Macdonald -OTT Can take place by licensee according to the statutes in the Federal Power Act which Allows preemption of land and water rights for the public good Can be done by private agency FERC does not get involved in condemnation of private land .Januarv 17, 1990 State court can enact the taking of lands for Its appropriate and reasonable cost after an assessment is done. this is called ·eminent domain" Typically a project does not get to this point. • Long-term leasing or some other business deal is normally worked out. This issue should be resolved and should not affect license application timing. Land acquisition process has several years before it becomes important. Chris Landis -DNR When will land negotiations begin? Neil Macdonald -OTT Typically after the license is issued. But as far as I know. these negotiations (with Sealaska) are proceeding without problem at this time. -Sealaska Is on the project mailing list and was Invited to attend this meeting. Vern Neitzer • APT General overview APT serves Craig and Klawock. Thorne Bay would also like energy from the project but distance is a problem (transmission line costs). Craig/Klawock current load is slightly > 1 MW Current idea is for a 3 MW project with the powerhouse located in the area of E1-E·2 as shown on map Two pelton units Buried penstock bringing water to powerhouse -buried from cliffs down -overground from lake to base of cliffs Siphon Intake· could draw lake down max -15 feet Bypass valve at powerhouse • Bypass valve just below siphon to maintain flows if penstock out of service • Back up on siphon if out of service Considering either a second siphon or a pump system Neil Macdonald • OTT Site E-2 is the preferred powerhouse location at this time. Rick Reed -ADF&G Is this meeting about pre-project studies? How about post-project? Neil Macdonald -OTT We are only looking at pre-project studies now, and as agreement on this proceeds the post-project studies will evolve. Which may involve additional meetings and/or field trips. Are there other questions on the process? No. -3- s••a•-1/arc;..apr. 111 MEETING REPORT January 17. 1990 *.nperature Monitoring Plan: AK Parks rep left at this point 9:45am. Roger Clay -orr Explained the temperature regime monitoring plan and the goal of assessing the effects of the project on temperatures. Establish pre-project temperature conditions. Discussion: Groundwater less subject to diurnal fluctuations through changes of sun and air temperature. Will model thermoclimes and develop year-round temperature of the affected system. The falls are a natural condition. Rick Reed • ADF&G Does flow through the groundwater system chill or heat the water. Dan Bishop -Environaid Varies with where the groundwater system discharges. Groundwater has an ameliorating effect when the system is fully charged there should be no volatile fluctuations. Chuck Osborn • USFWS Does exposed water including the falls fluctuation have an effect on subsurface temperature? Dan Bishop -Environaid We need to select the right depth for an intake to provide the degreejdays appropriate for fry emergence. Our studies will add missing information. 4°C to 10-12°C appears to be the maximum year-round temperature fluctuation. Warmest water off bottom -winter Coldest water off bottom -summer We expect to model the drawdown to approximate a normal range of conditions. Rick Reed -ADF&G Will the flow (from the powerhouse) be on the surface to the spring fork? Dan Bishop -Environaid No a diffusion system will be used. We need to establish what system works including what types and temperature range. Tom Arminski -AEA The groundwater system changed after the logging. It is now more dynamic than it used to be. Now there are no logs in the streams Have we measured the temperatures In the streams to show changes? Dan Bishop -Environaid We have taken frve years of monitoring. Our data Is not good on this (post logging) question. Besides, this is a north facing valley and it does not receive as much radiation. Dye Studies Roger Clay -orr We plan to model the system this summer, to support our engineers data requirements, they will be designing a discharge system at the tailrace. A system for discharging to feed the upwelling areas at Lake Fork and at Spring Fork. The system needs Y amount of water to achieve the upwelling. Our studies will attempt to model this amount with the dye program. Chuck Osborn -USFWS Will you release over the span of the gallery? 1 Bishop -Environaid Yes MEETING REPORT .January 17. 1990 . .:>h Habitat Mapping: Neil Macdonald -On Will look at PiZ (primary impact zone) present outline (PIZ) based on review of letters received by APT. We want your comments so we know we are Incorporating positions correctly, be bold, tell us where our assumptions are wrong. Baseline Habitat Mapping, Wildlife, and Vegetation Mapping: Gretchen Bishop -Environaid Review of existing Information Showed the 1"=50' map ENVIRONAID prepared Map zone from Black Lake to head of spring fork Study traverse survey of channel changes logged areas have no fish habitat -most of the stream in this area has a sand bed bottom Remapping of gravel spawning areas Provide new map, 1" = 200' One goal, how the logging has affected the habitat. Vegetation and Wildlife Aerial photography would be used for vegetation Wildlife observations to be made as other studies are done and will be placed on map with overlays; travel routes and habitat areas. Neil Macdonald -On Pipe crossings need to be correlated to large animal travel routes in those areas where the pipe may be on the surface. Library search for information on vegetation and rare and endangered species, as well as field work for standard Exhibit E coverage of issues. Chuck Osborn -USFWS lnstream flow requirements, what have been done. John Hamilton -NMFS Previous DEIS, identified instream flows that were agreed to by agencies IFIM not thought appropriate because of groundwater conditions. Keyed more on upwelling this was consciously discussed. Neil Macdonald -On APT will ask for letters of concurrence that previously agreed upon instream flows and conditions are agreeable to agencies/intervenors of record. Andy Grossman -USFWS What discharge from Black Bear Lake required to ensure inundated spawning gravels. Dan Bishop -Environaid Past studies, reached agreement on what habitat/flow conditions were needed. Rick Reed -ADF&G Agencies consciously discussed IFIM, but found it was not appropriate because of groundwater conditions. Instead, wanted to key on groundwater conditions, instream flows were set, flow regime was agreed to, and minimums were agreed. Dan Bishop -Environaid Current project has altered flow regime, and this needs to be recalculated. Habitat requirements are in DEIS (APA license application). Power regime not the same as APA's. -5- SU01-1/ATcr-IPT.117 MEETING REPORT January 17, 1990 vnris Landis • DNR lnstream flows relate to flows when project shut down and spill out of lake is required (and lake in draw down condition). Neil Macdonald -OTT Project should be able to adjust relationship between turbine flow and spill at lake. Discussed operation of system, shutting off machine and staning spill over lake. John Hamilton -NMFS Question concerning run-of-river operation at stan versus load growth gradually requiring more draw down. Wants more data on flow regimes for these cases, Vern will reply soon on projections of load growth. Neil Macdonald-OTT Incorporating NMFS comment about convening existing information into the studies. We will use existing data as much as possible. Rick Reed • ADF&G Suggested adding coho and steelhead surveys and angler surveys. Change of schedule, ADFG. FINS, and NMFS indicated schedule conflicts, so are moving to salmon outmigrant studies. Salmonid Outmigrant, Rearing, and Escapement Studies: Neil Macdonald -OTT There is a great deal of information on the project, our objective is to respond to agency comments of the last year and to try to incorporate these comments into studies. 1tchen Bishop -Environaid Suggested outmigrant study: Objectives Post-logging database for fishery versus providing an evaluation of post-project conditions Appear to be differences between NMFS, ADFG, and Environaid over the scope. Fishery habitat low in PIZ most of habitat is In Black Lake. Fyke netting at night, would allow some daytime steelhead work, but night work is priority. Rainbow trout in lake, wide confidence interval in 1983, averaged 10 fish per day for 7 days. To really nail this down, several months of data would be require. Do not feel that project impacts versus cost of studies are warranted. Rainbow population studies would take two months. Outmigrant Study at outlet of Black Lake Target-sockeye and coho smolt and Incidently caught dolly varden and cutthroat Reasons for monitoring outlet location: Inlet is low gradient, difficult to operate fyke net in these conditions. Fyke net and escapement data, need smolt count of sockeye to give best index on sockeye population. Length, weight, and scales will be done for all species but dolly varden Start April 1, slightly late for pink, chum would be well within time to capture peak outmigration anticipated chum escapement is low (40). No rearing cutthroat captured in upper Black Bear Creek. No specific studies on dollysjcutthroat though these would be panially done during salmon studies Discussion followed indicating the agencies wanted a creel census to augment other studies incidental to those studies. Fishery guides would be seen as evidence that the primary species fished is coho on Black Lake. Also should monitor Black Bear Lake while there incidental to other work studies. Rick Reed • ADF&G June-September is a reasonable time range for a creel census -according to ADF&G spon fish division ~tchen Bishop -Environaid Four visits are currently proposed: -6- suot-t/atc-af'T.II7 MEETING REPORT January 17, 1990 April through May -fyke netting. July -habitat mapping, coho and dolly rearing studies, and escapement survey for sockeye/chum. Last week August -escapement for sockeye. Last week October-escapement for coho, stream walking. Rick Reed -ADF&G Change scope to say that while in area while doing other studies will provide for incidental angler surveys, this to address the (ADF&G) sport fish concerns. Dan Bishop -Environaid His experience is that guides key on coho In Slack Lake. Neil Macdonald -OTT We have talked a little about Black Bear Lake, does ADF&G conduct creel census there? --Rick Reed • ADF&G Not certain if ADF&G does this at Slack Bear Lake currently. Neil Macdonald-OTT Why would we monitor Black Lake? Rick Reed • ADF&G If present data shows no Impact, then fine. We must work on a post-project study framework. There could be questions of how far downstream the project Influence would be. When parts are pulled together in exhibits, then our questions may be answered. Sport fish may not be understanding that these studies are for one year in duration and may not have recognized scope. Covers only pre-project. Many of our comments address post-project studies. Studies that have been proposed need to be done. Comments concerned items that apparently they did not see in their review. Per Zimmerlund -OTT Why study Slack Lake? Neil Macdonald-OTT How does project affect resident species since it is downstream of the project? Rick Reed • ADF&G Example, spawning in Black Bear Creek. Neil Macdonald • OTT What is ADF&G looking for in terms of monitoring resident fish? Rick Reed -ADF&G You are probably getting the data anyway since you are fyke netting at the outlet aren't you? Gretchen Bishop -Environaid Yes, so we will know about outmigrants but it will not show much about residents. Rick Reed -ADF&G Population estimates not really necessary in lake for resident species, you should be looking at utilization of habitat. Example, does drawdown affect habitat? If the project does not affect habitat, then an assumption can be made that it is not affecting resident fish. '"~hn Hamilton -NMFS If we cut off the fyke net study at June 1, we may miss some fish. There was mini peak first week of June. -7- MEETING REPORT January 17. 1990 ~.:~retchenjDan Bishop • Environald Can potentially extend one week, for one end of study. Say to get more data for pinks In March and data In June. There appears to be 50 percent mortality or pinks In lake, so want to get them before they pass through Black Lake, but it is hard to measure at inlet. Problems at inlet, velocities are so low, fry potentially can swim out of trap. Problems with getting in there under winter conditions, significant problems with logistics. Neil Macdonald to John and Rick Is there any other method we could use that can be done here? Rick Reed • ADF&G For chumfpinks this Is the only way I know for It to be done. John Hamilton· NMFS Need to be consistent with past work. Do not know who recommended particular method-talk to Gretchen. Gretchen Bishop· Environaid What have we decided on with the tyke net? One tyke net only? ADFG/NMFS . Extend netting to first week of June. An Inlet tyke net is not necessary, therefore only one tyke net is necessary. Rearing Coho Study Discussion: Gretchen Bishop • Environaid Plan to use 100-foot reaches for population estimates. Will look at beaver ponds. Trapping methods to be used. Perhaps will use electro-shocking to check estimates from traps. : Reed • ADF&G Suggest other species could be counted as Incidental fish, so that you actually get some measure of them. These fish are important. Gretchen Bishop • Environaid We will key on coho, we do not want make incidental fish work reduce the coho quality. However, we will count incidentals as best we can, given the emphasis on coho. Tom Arminski • AEA How wilt water level in Black Lake be changed (by the project)? Dan Bishop -Environaid Past study showed small change. Impacts will be less with current proposal Tom Armin ski -AEA Will this be addressed? Dan Bishop • Environald After flows are defined, can take another look at this question. Neil Macdonald • OTT We want to operate as base load machine. Tom Arminski -AEA If you stored water all summer, that may reduce littoral habitat in Black Lake in summer. How will surface water release affect habitat? · · -;1 Macdonald · OTT Power demand may increase the flow through system. Although if the use is X, and inflow = outflow. then the effect on habitat is small. -8- MEETING REPORT January 17. 1990 rom Arminski-AEA 1990 is the last year of study. Now it Is a question of schedule/time frame. You may need to do some work immediately so you know if water level Issues can be addressed In this summer's field work. Dan Bishop -Environaid We could perhaps put staff gage at Black Lake. But this would then not be done In conjunction with gaging. Gretchen Bishop -Environaid We will be mapping the littoral margin of Black Lake. RickjADFG This Black Lake question will be asked by someone. Dan Bishop -Environald Past studies have showed affects In winter. John Hamilton -NMF We need information on the flow regime ASAP. Adult Escapement: Gretchen Bishop -Environaid Odd year escapement of pinks above Black Lake, so these will not be done this year. Pairs of people will walk the stream from Inlet to head of springs and along south fork. This will be done for three one-week periods. "';r;k Reed -ADF&G Probably no aerial work Is done for cohos but you need to check this with commercial fish management in Ketchikan. Neil Macdonald -On Are there any other questions on escapement, or on other parts of study? -None expressed. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Neil Macdonald -On What is the sensitivity of ADF&G to Erosion and Sediment Control plan? Rick Reed -ADF&G Sensitive to introduction of sediments Into stream need to minimize Impacts on fisheries. Neil Macdonald -OTT Erosion and sediment control plan will probably become a license article currently it is a critical activity from the FERC's standpoint Tom Arminski -AEA AEA has BMP manual for Erosion and Sediment Control standards the agencies have approved it. On Bradley Lake, we (AEA) stated these methods will be Incorporated. Roger Clay -OTT Send us a copy of this manual. We will incorporate methodology from the manual into the Erosion Control Plan. Break for Lunch -9- SUOI-1/aTc:-«PT .117 ,__,EETING REPORT .January 17. 1990 1/17/90 3:00 pm Continuation of meeting Attendees: Terry Aader-DNR; Tom Arminski-AEA; Chris Landis-DNA; Neil Macdonald-OTT; Roger Clay-OTT; Vern Nietzer- APT; Mike Eberhardt-DNR Parks Neil Macdonald -OTT Looks like DNA would be the lead agency for Erosion and Sediment Control Activities would be limited to project Impact zone Cultural • Photographic control points will be used to document Impacts • Identify hazards and sensitive areas Identify project facility locations • Will contact native corporations and state historical resources office Will do everything FERC requires Including obtaining letters specific to AP&T project. Recreation Native corporation does not appear to want public access for recreation. However under the FERC process the data collection and consultation must be done. In the license the goals of land owners and the agencies will be set forth. Tom Arminski-AEA It is not out of the realm of possibility that no recreation will occur. Example: Terror Lake in a wildlife refuge and no recreation was developed. Cabin on State selected land at Black Bear Lake. • •;ke Eberhardt -DNA-Parks Does not want to start "argument• with Sealaska over recreation. But we are interested in the use of the cabin. It is a fly-in cabin, who uses it? Need data. Other recreation at lake may even be considered negative impact. How will water fluctuation affect cabin -Is there a dock or boat ramp for the skiff? Chris Landis -ADNA There is another scenario, land exchange. 1985-1987, there was talk of a !and exchange with the state but the state never gave firm proposal and have not heard anything. But state would have ownership of project land Neil Macdonald -OTT His current understanding is the land exchange is dead. Applicant (AP&T) will make recommendations in license application for recreation plan based on input to the process findings will be supplied to all agencies/intervenors Questions -None expressed END OF MEETING SI•GI•I/&Tc-&PT. 117 11-KISLH SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE ~abitat Division STEVE COWPER, GOVER.\'OR PO BOX 20 DOUGLAS. ALASKA 99824-0020 PHONE. (907)4 6 5-4 2 9 0 February 7.0, 1990 Mr. Neil H. Macdonald Director of Water Resources ;"'":) r? (iU f? n r:n 12 r=---· I tJ .i ! ~ 1 i f'j i ;: ! I \1/ ! c: i i i I :11•-~ ~ --" '-< u ~ .J""'"' FEB 2,.,. ~-~r ·1 ~..) and Energy Development Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, WA 98007 j ·-~· Dear P.r. Macdonald: Thank you for your February 1 letter regarding concerns you have regarding certain proposed studies for the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project for 1990. 1. 2. 3 • Juvenile outmigrants. We believe that juvenile outmigrant information is necessary for 1990. We also understand, however, your cost concerns and thus are agreeable to eliminating chum and pink fry from the outmigrant study. This should result in a reduced time period for fyke netting with a corresponding reduction in costs. Specific timing which encompasses the outmigratio:-1 of sockeye and coho could be determined from the past field studies. We believe rearing species, especially coho, will provide a good indication of habitat viability. Rearinq coho study. ~e agree with eliminating the coho population estimates in Black Lake and concentrating the work in the creek. Ne do recmnmend that habitat evaluations by means of mapping and minnow trapping be conducted in Black Lake to determine habitat use. ~e have no objections to using snorkel gear for direct observations or minnow trapping (mark/release) for the population estimates. We object to electrofishing due to high mortality. . f Incidental angler survev. The incidenta catch per unit effort studies as proposed wo d be of very limit~d value. Preferred methodology ould incorporate a direct expansion angler creel census for the waters downstream of Black Bear Lake, with an individual stationed at the Big Salt bridge (or possibly moving along the road systen) to interview anglers on a random schedule during the period from April to October. -2- Sampling of all harvested fishes encountered during the interviews is mandatory. A questionnaire should also be developed and left at the Forest Service cabin for distribution to those vJho fish Black ?.ear Lake. \ve realize such an angler survey may be cost excessive for this project. Ho,.;ever, if other options are uti 1 i zed their limitations need to be clearly stated. 4. Adult escapement. i•ie agree vii th the additional escapement survey. Eowever, the surveys must be keyed to the peak escapement timing rather than for convenience. We again suggest using past study data to determine the appropriate dates. Sincerely, ="*~:a. k-:b. ~~ Richard Reed Regional Supervisor cc: NMFS USFNS macdonald/RICK3 February 20, 1990 Neil H. Macdonald Director of Water Resources and Energy Development Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, Washington 98007 Dear Mr. Macdonald: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Bo:c 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 The National Marine Fisheries Service (N~~S) has reviewed your proposal to modify the content of the draft "Baseline and/or Pre- project Conditions: Salmonid Outmigrant, Rearing, and Escapement Studies". Based upon our review and conversations with you this past week, NMFS has no problem with deletion of pink and chum fyke netting from the 1990 field season plans. We do, however, believe that fyke netting for coho and sockeye smolts should be continued in 1990. While temporal variation in counts of fry can be several orders of magnitude, temporal variation in smolt counts, in particular coho smolt counts in southeast Alaska (Crone and Bond, 1976), is generally less. Since it seems reasonable to assume that Black Bear Creek has been seeded at or near capacity for coho, accurate information on smolt outmigration is probably the best indicator of habitat capability and is consistent with past data for Black Bear Creek. In studies of the effects of timber harvest on anadromous salmonid resources, it has been shown that coho salmon rearing habitat can be adversely impacted by the alteration of the riparian zone. Because of recent timber harvest in the Black Bear Lake watershed and associated concern about habitat, we believe smelt outmigration and habitat quality need to be assessed prior to project implementation. Discontinuation of fry sampling should reduce fyke netting costs considerably. NMFS remains willing to assist in the development of study plans or discuss alternative methods of estimating smelt outmigration, other population parameters, or the quality of habitat. As discussed in the January 17-18, 1990, consultation meeting, please provide us with information on projected peak flows and any new information on the design of the water intake in Black Bear Lake. Sincerely, ~i.,f~ (~~teven T. Zimmerman Ph.D., Chief ~Protected Resources Division Literature Cited: Crone, R.A., and C.E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon, Oncoryhnchus kisutch, in Sashin Creek, southeastern Alaska. Fish. Bull. 74:897-923. cc: ADFG, Reed, Freeman, Gustafson Div. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau FERC, D.C., Portland EPA, Anchorage FWS, Ketchikan, Juneau ADNR, Juneau GC -Sathre OTT ENGINEERING, INC. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue. Washington 98007 2061747-1126 Mr. Neil Macdonald Director Water Resources and Energy Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, Washington 98007 February 22, 1990 S1401.01-003/5 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440 :Alaska State 10 No. AL880930-16J The purpose of this letter is to provide copies of our corrected Study Outlines for Agency "Final Determination" responses, as well as copies of the minutes of the January 17, 1990 Agency Consultation meeting which was held in Juneau. The draft meeting minutes were mailed out to those attending, soliciting corrections. Some changes were received and have now been included in the attached final minutes. We believe that these minutes accurately reflect conversations, overall discussions, and the understandings which took place. The following is a recap of the consultation meeting, telephone contacts, agency letters, and agency letter corrections to the Study Outlines and an update on other items which were discussed or requested in the Juneau meeting. Copies of the corrected Study Outlines are included with this letter as are copies of the agency letters received. Several agencies in the meeting asked about the project operation plan and its flow /drawdown characteristics. Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) is currently reviewing this information including the development of new load growth projections. It is anticipated this data should be completed in mid-spring of 1990 and would be made available to the agencies and other interested parties of record at that time. The agencies were not asking for additional instream flow requirements. The previous project (APA FERC Project No. 5715.DEIS) had identified the flow issues to agency satisfaction, concerns now are keyed to the groundwater conditions and the upwelling. AP&T seeks agency letters, for their license application, to provide statements of agency agreement that the previous project instream flow rationale remains acceptable to them for AP&Ts Project No. 10440. Agreement seems to have been reached with the general scope of most of the study outlines. The primary focus with the draft study outlines and consultation meeting was to give agencies the opportunity to discuss and potentially adjust the scope of these major studies. Some studies were not discussed in-depth, nevertheless they are warranted studies leading to the license application. This is because of the FERC licensing process and the more stringent study requirements under Section 10U)(l) of the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA). SI.OI-1/AGlNC llS.051. Anchorage Atlanta Bellevue Los Angeles February 22, 1990 Page 2 Temperature Reeime Monitorine Plan Roger Clay of Ott Engineering, Inc. (OTT) explained the purpose of the monitoring plan and discussed how OTT would model the system temperature regimes. This modelling would use the existing database (from previous readings) which was to be augmented with the emplacement of recording thermographs in at least four locations. From the modelling, we expect to develop information which will be used in the license level design of the intake system as well as the tailrace diffusion system. In its January 10, 1990 letter, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) discussed their concerns with the potential for changes in the downstream temperatures on rearing and spawning fish. They further suggest that intakes/siphons which can take water from different lake (temperatures) levels may be a solution. Both APT and OTT will take these concerns under appropriate advisement in both the projected temperature and dye studies. We expect to be able to respond more fully to these concerns at the conclusion of the studies after our engineering staffs have an opportunity to use the data. Future agency /applicant contact and consultation meetings are expected to deal with this issue. No other agency sponsored study requirements on changes have been received to date. Therefore, we anticipate proceeding with the temperature regime monitoring plan as it is presented in the attachments to this letter. Dye Studies Roger Clay of OTT presented an overview of the dye study testing program using the E2 potential powerline site location. Dye studies are to focus on the tailrace injection designs and the groundwater re-emergence requirements. Re-charge timing and flow temperatures would also be part of the studies. No agency sponsored study requirements changes have been received to date. It is therefore presumed that proceeding with the dye testing studies as presented in the attachments to this letter is appropriate. Baseline-Habitat. \Vildlife. and Veeetation MaP.Dl.n2 A general review of the existing habitat information was covered in the consultation meeting. The Primary Impact Zone (PIZ) for the project was defined in the meeting as Upper Black Bear Creek and Black Lake with the limit of upstream fish habitat being at the base of the upwelling areas. A revised series of maps of the project are and the PIZ showing fisheries habitat, wildlife observations, and vegetative communities will be generated as the major work product of these studies. Of the two agency letters received, NMFS comments concerned the following, "emphasis from this point should be to note departures from past salmonid abundance and distribution which may have resulted from recent activity in the v.:atershed". The studies for this task, most definitely, are targeting recent changes in the system. The other letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) presented three specific comments. The first asked for a map defining the "Primary Impact Zone" this part of the S UQ 1-1/ACl...:: liS .OSl February 22, 1990 Page 3 work product to be developed this summer. USFWS also requested a description of the methods proposed for the mapping and the type of classification system to be employed. Aerial photographs will be used with overlays to provide demarcation of riffle, runs, and pool characteristics of the streams. The air photos will be at approximately 1"=200' scale and the resultant overlay mapping will be ground truthed by professional biologists. On the ground photo records, suitably marked for future return will be established. Overlays to show wildlife and vegetative communities would be similarly developed for the project area, transmission corridors, and new roads. We also take note of the USFWS point, that the bald eagle is not endangered in Alaska. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan No changes to the proposed study have been identified to date. Cultural and Archaeoloeical Resources Plan In a January 3, 1990 letter to the Alaska SHPO, Ms. Judith E. Bittner concurred with the proposed study plans. Recreational Resources No changes have been identified for the plan other than including a survey of the potential hunting use of the Black Bear Lake cabin. Mike Eberhardt of DNR-Parks wanted this as well as the summer use angler interviews. During the consultation meeting agreement was reached to develop information concerning the lake water surface elevation and its potential affect upon the cabin. These activities fit within the goals of the existing plans as we expect to be able to review past utilization records at the Forest Supervisors office in Ketchikan. Salmonid Outmierant. Rearine. Escapement Studies During the January 17, 1990 consultation meeting, discussions centered around the fyke netting requirements at the outlet from Black Lake. Questions were asked regarding inlet fyke netting sites. It was suggested that because of the low gradients it would be most difficult to operate nets. Through additional telephone conversations with NMFS, USFWS, and ADFG the juvenile outmigrant fyke netting is now to concentrate on coho and sockeye smelts and would be in place from April 25, 1990 through June 5, 1990. No fry netting would take place covering either pinks or chum fry. Other species captured during the netting process, would be identified incidental to the main purpose which is sockeye and coho smolt outmigration. Length and weight would be measured for a sub sample of each species netted in order to determine aggregate age and condition. No scale sampling is now proposed. Steelhead spawning surveys would be conducted by walk-through observations. Dolly Varden and Cutthroat outmigrants would be counted during the netting process. An estimate of steelhead escapement would also be made during the fyke netting. S I •O t-1/AClNC I! S. 05(. February 22, 1990 Page 4 A creel census would be established on Black Lake for the period of June through September. This census would take the form of signed, card box locations for fishermen and guides at the boat landing locations of the lake. A similar card box would also be located at the Black Bear Lake Cabin for a census there. The Forest Service would also be contacted regarding past fishing and hunting cabin utilization information. The rearing coho study, which is scheduled for late July through early August, proposes using mark-recapture minnow-trapping methodologies. This activity is to be backed up with electroshocking. The classification of the reaches will be based on types of habitat found and will reflect their stratification and location within the approximate 100-foot reaches. Species other than coho would be counted as they are captured. No scale sampling is pro- posed, however, length, weight, and condition factor would be noted for all captured species. The adult escapement studies are unchanged from the initial study outline. Pink escapement will not be done as 1990 is an odd year. The study will be accomplished by three stream- walking surveys from the inflow of upper Black Bear Creek to the head of the spawning grounds above Black Lake. As part of this study and the others, we will be checking with commercial fish management and sport fish management so as to use their available fishery data and combine it as appropriate into our reports. During the continued study development process and throughout the 1990 environmental studies, AP&T anticipates the continued and active support of the agencies. Attached to this letter you will find copies of both the licensing studies and the exhibits schedules. These are included in order to provide activities timing estimates in conjunction with the licensing application submittal schedule. Yo~ may expect AP&T to convene two to three additional agency consultation meetings in order to facilitate the dissemination of study results and to give opportunity for valued agency input during the course of the studies. At this stage of the process and in response to these final study outlines, we are anticipating letters from those agencies or intervenors who have not yet given their comments. We would very much appreciate a speedy response for as you may see from our schedules we need to be about the business of setting up our study teams on Prince of \Vales Island. Should you have questions, comments, or suggestions as to how we might better facilitate this process, please feel free to call either Robert Grimm at AP&T or myself at OTT. KHDjsal Enclosures • St•Ot-1/ACO.CI l$.0'14. Sincerely, BLACK BEAR PROJECT LICENSING STUDIES 1990-1991 Page 1 STUDIES Apr __ . M!IY _ _ Jun Jul Auq SoP_ -~-0~ _ Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Black Lake Coho and Sockeye Smolt Fyke Netting Dye Testing Temperature Monitoring Angler Interviews Black Bear Creek Habitat Mapping Black Lake Rearing Coho Study Black Bear Creek Rearing Coho Study Adult Escapement Study Vegetation and Wildlife Observations Erosion and Sediment Plan Recreation Studios Cultural and Archaeological Reports Draft to Agencies ----· --- ·-• • ·--··-··· -.... ·-----· -- • • -... ---·----... - - --.... .. .. •••• -.... ••••• • •• ..... .... ···············-------·--... •••••• ..... .... Final Reports for License •n••••l••n••n•• .. ---1 Draft License Application Filed with Agencies and FERC Jan. 15, 1991 Final License Application Filed with FERC April 1, 1991 Report Development -•••• Study-- '140·~ 1/SIU)IA S. n:Aa BLACK BEAR PROJECT LICENSING STUDIES 1990-1991 (4.61 Application) APPLICATION FOR LICENSING FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT 5 MW OR LESS Page 2 Page 1 STIJDIES Aor-Seo ____ Oct __ NQV_ Pee Jan __ Feb Mar Apr May Juo__ Jul __ Aug Engineering Studies Siphon/Penstock Tailrace Injection Exhibit A Exhibit E Reports on: General Description Water Use Quality fish and Wildlife Botanical Resources Historic/Archaeological/Cultural Soclo Economic Impacts Geological and Soils Recreation Aesthetics Land Use Alternatives Ust of Uterature Exhibit f Exhibit G ..... , ..... , ..... , -I --1 -I ..... , -I _________ ...... , ..... , ---------···-1 -1 • • Draft license Application Filed with Agencies and FERC Jan. 15, 1991 Final license Application Filed with FERC April 1, 1991 Report Development -•••• Study-- .. 01-tiS IU)Il S .ftAI orr ENGINEERING, INC. MEETING REPORT PROJECT Black Bear Lake Project FERC Project 10440 State ld No. AK880930-16J JOB NO. S1401.01-003 LOCATION State of Alaska Deot. of Natural Resources. Div. Land & Water Management DATE _Qj_/ ...JL_/ go ATTENDEES Vernon Neltzer-APT: Neil Macdonald. Roger Clay. Per Zimmerfund ·OTT BY N. Macdonald Terry Rader-AK/DNR: Michael Eberhardt-DNR: Rick Reed-ADF&G: Chris Landis-ADNR: Gabrielle LaRoche- AK(DGC: Andrew Grossman-USFW/Ketchikan: John Hamilton-USNMFS: Bill James-DEC: Tom Arminski-AK Energy Authority; Dan Bishop-Environald: Gretchen Bishop-Environaid: Chuck Osborn-USFWS SUBJECT FERC Consultation Meeting-Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project NOTES: Neil Macdonald -OTT -Introduced purpose of meeting This is the FERC consulting meeting for agency /intervenors Summarized what OTT has done: developing discussion study outlines for the pre-project conditions Would everyone Introduce themselves, discuss their project role, Vern would you start: INTRODUCTION: Vern Neitzer ·APT, the developer: Want to finalize these studies Feel it is a good project Feel this should be last summer of study (for license) Desire to keep cost down Have summarized past studies New powerhouse site developed from last summer's work APT is looking into siphon/lake tap alternatives Preparing to file license with FERC Andy Grossman -USFWS, Juneau Will propose mitigation Terry Rader-AK/DNR • Look at water use Gabrielle LaRoche -AK/DGC Coordinate response of State agencies Rick Reed -Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Ketchikan office will have lead Chris landis -AK/DNR • Permitting Roger Clay -OTT Temperature and dye studies Erosion control plan Michael Eberhardt -AK/DNR -Parks Recreation aspects Chuck Osborn • USFWS-Ketchikan Lead biologist for USFWS Dan/Gretchen Bishop • Environaid Past work and summaries Fish studies John Hamilton -NMFS -Juneau -1· MEETING REPORT January 17, 1990 SCHEDULE: Neil Macdonald -Discussion of schedule Goal: 1991 license application has until June 1, 1991 to submit • If fail to file a timely application, APT will loose Its permit status and water right • Our goal is to file in April 1991 If we waited until June of 1990: FERC response • Would expect letter back AugustjSeptember 1991 • Usually at this point, there are requests/requirements for additional information • FERC's August/September response would mean loss of 1991 study season Current Pian • Submit license on April 1, 1991 • Therefore, have summer of 1991 to do additional studies If necessary Prior to the final application, a draft application is sent to agencies of record for review. Agencies are then given 60 days to respond. With this plant. it looks like draft license application will need to be done during November, in order to get drafts to the agencies to allow time for their reviewjrevisions. With the current studies, we are anticipating getting agency concurrence on the 1990 study plans by end of February. This gives consultant the month of March to prepare for April field work. Neil Macdonald -Any comments or feedback about this schedule • There were no comments Summary: -Study seeping information Is out to agencies and intervenors of record -Held this meeting to obtain agency input -State responses to be coordinated Look to get responses by end of February -Are there any problems with the dates? No response. Review of Meeting Notes: (from hand-out) Rough Schedule showing study time-frames Temperature/Water Quality sampling will be done in conjunction with other studies. FERC License Process We presently are on the latter half of the first stage of the consultation process. Table showing who information from studies will be sent to. Are we missing any agencies? Responses: AK/DGC should get copy of everything sent to State agencies. USFWS should be included in recreation. AK/DLW should be included in recreation. DLW is a division of DNA. The rest of the information in the handout is a background and informational primer on the project -2- MEETING REPORT "DRAFT STUDY OUTLINE DISCUSSIONS: Mike Eberhardt -Parks Angler interviews, summer study being done. Should also look at hunting use of cabin. Chris Landis -DNR/DLWM How does condemnation affect project. {Eminent Domain) Neil Macdonald -On Can take place by licensee according to the statutes in the Federal Power Act which Allows preemption of land and water rights for the public good Can be done by private agency FERC does not get Involved In condemnation of private land January 17, 1990 State court can enact the taking of lands for Its appropriate and reasonable cost after an assessment Is done, this Is called "eminent domain" Typically a project does not get to this point. -Long-term leasing or some other business deal Is normally worked out. This issue should be resolved and should not affect license application timing. Land acquisition process has several years before It becomes Important. Chris Landis -DNA When will land negotiations begin? Neil Macdonald -On Typically after the license Is Issued. But as far as I know, these negotiations (with Sealaska) are proceeding without problem at this time. -Sealaska Is on the project mailing list and was Invited to attend this meeting. Vern Neitzer-APT General overview APT serves Craig and Klawock. Thorne Bay would also like energy from the project but distance Is a problem (transmission line costs). Craig/Klawock current load Is slightly > 1 MW Current idea Is for a 3 MW project with the powerhouse located In the area of El-E-2 as shown on map Two pelton units Buried penstock bringing water to powerhouse -buried from cliffs down -overground from lake to base of cliffs Siphon Intake -could draw lake down max -15 feet Bypass valve at powerhouse Bypass valve just below siphon to maintain flows if penstock out of service Back up on siphon if out of service Considering either a second siphon or a pump system Neil Macdonald -On Site E-2 is the preferred powerhouse location at this time. Rick Reed -ADF&G Is this meeting about pre-project studies? How about post-project? Neil Macdonald -On We are only looking at pre-project studies now, and as agreement on this proceeds the post-project studies will evolve. Which may involve additional meetings andjor field trips. Are there other questions on the process? No. -3- SI~OI·I/arc;.aPr. 111 MEETING REPORT January 17. 1990 Temperature Monitoring Plan: AK Parks rep left at this point 9:45 am. Roger Clay • OTT Explained the temperature regime monitoring plan and the goal of assessing the effects of the project on temperatures. Establish pre-project temperature conditions. Discussion: Groundwater less subject to diurnal fluctuations through changes of sun and air temperature. Will model thermoclimes and develop year-round temperature of the affected system. The falls are a natural condition. Rick Reed -ADF&G Does flow through the groundwater system chill or heat the water. Dan Bishop • Environaid Varies with where the groundwater system discharges. Groundwater has an ameliorating effect when the system is fully charged there should be no volatile fluctuations. Chuck Osborn • USFWS Does exposed water Including the falls fluctuation have an effect on subsurface temperature? Dan Bishop • Environaid We need to select the right depth for an Intake to provide the degreejdays appropriate for fry emergence. Our studies will add missing information. 4°C to 10-12°C appears to be the maximum year-round temperature fluctuation. Warmest water off bottom • winter Coldest water off bottom -summer We expect to model the drawdown to approximate a normal range of conditions. Rick Reed -ADF&G Will the flow (from the powerhouse) be on the surface to the spring fork? Dan Bishop -Environaid No a diffusion system will be used. We need to establish what system works Including what types and temperature range. Tom Arminski • AEA The groundwater system changed after the logging. It Is now more dynamic than it used to be. Now there are no logs in the streams Have we measured the temperatures In the streams to show changes? Dan Bishop -Environaid We have taken five years of monitoring. Our data Is not good on this (post logging) question. Besides, this is a north facing valley and it does not receive as much radiation. Dye Studies Roger Clay • OTT We plan to model the system this summer, to support our engineers data requirements, they will be designing a discharge system at the tailrace. A system for discharging to feed the upwelling areas at Lake Fork and at Spring Fork. The system needs -x· amount of water to achieve the upwelling. Our studies will attempt to model this amount with the dye program. Chuck Osborn -USFWS Will you release over the span of the gallery? Dan Bishop -Environaid Yes MEETING REPORT January 17, 1990 Fish Habitat Mapping: Neil Macdonald -On Will look at PIZ (primary impact zone) present outline (PIZ) based on review of letters received by APT. We want your comments so we know we are Incorporating positions correctly, be bold, tell us where our assumptions are wrong. Baseline Habitat Mapping, Wildlife, and Vegetation Mapping: Gretchen Bishop -Environaid Review of existing information Showed the 1"=50' map ENVIRONAID prepared Map zone from Black Lake to head of spring fork Study traverse survey of channel changes logged areas have no fish habitat -most of the stream in this area has a sand bed bottom Remapping of gravel spawning areas Provide new map, 1"=200' One goal, how the logging has affected the habitat. Vegetation and Wildlife Aerial photography would be used for vegetation Wildlife observations to be made as other studies are done and will be placed on map with overlays; travel routes and habitat areas. Neil Macdonald -On Pipe crossings need to be correlated to large animal travel routes In those areas where the pipe may be on the surface. Library search for information on vegetation and rare and endangered species, as well as field work for standard Exhibit E coverage of issues. Chuck Osborn -USFWS lnstream flow requirements, what have been done. John Hamilton -NMFS Previous DEIS, identified instream flows that were agreed to by agencies IFIM not thought appropriate because of groundwater conditions. Keyed more on upwelling this was consciously discussed. Neil Macdonald -on APT will ask for letters of concurrence that previously agreed upon lnstream flows and conditions are agreeable to agencies/intervenors of record. Andy Grossman-USFWS What discharge from Black Bear Lake required to ensure Inundated spawning gravels. Dan Bishop -Environaid Past studies. reached agreement on what habitatjflow conditions were needed. Rick Reed -ADF&G Agencies consciously discussed IFIM, but found it was not appropriate because of groundwater conditions. Instead, wanted to key on groundwater conditions, lnstream flows were set, flow regime was agreed to, and minimums were agreed. Dan Bishop -Environaid Current project has altered flow regime, and this needs to be recalculated. Habitat requirements are in DEIS (APA license application). Power regime not the same as APA's. -5- suao-ttarc.-IPI. 111 MEETING REPORT January 17. 1990 Chris Landis -DNA lnstream flows relate to flows when project shut down and spill out of lake Is required (and lake in draw down condition). Neil Macdonald • OTT Project should be able to adjust relationship between turbine flow and spill at lake. Discussed operation of system, shutting off machine and starting spill over lake. John Hamilton -NMFS Question concerning run-of-river operation at start versus load growth gradually requiring more draw down. Wants more data on flow regimes for these cases, Vern will reply soon on projections of load growth. Neil Macdonald-OTT Incorporating NMFS comment about converting existing Information Into the studies. We will use existing data as much as possible. Rick Reed -ADF&G Suggested adding coho and steelhead surveys and angler surveys. Change of schedule, ADFG, FWS, and NMFS Indicated schedule conflicts, so are moving to salmon outmigrant studies. Salmonid Outmlgrant, Rearing, and Escapement Studies: Neil Macdonald -OTT There is a great deal of information on the project, our objective Is to respond to agency comments of the last year and to try to incorporate these comments Into studies. Gretchen Bishop -Environaid Suggested outmigrant study: Objectives Post-logging database for fishery versus providing an evaluation of post-project conditions Appear to be differences between NMFS, AOFG, and Environaid over the scope. Fishery habitat low in PIZ most of habitat Is In Black Lake. Fyke netting at night, would allow some daytime steelhead work, but night work is priority. Rainbow trout In lake, wide confidence Interval in 1983, averaged 10 fish per day for 7 days. To really nail this down, several months of data would be require. Do not feel that project impacts versus cost of studies are warranted. Rainbow population studies would take two months. Outmigrant Study at outlet of Black Lake Target -sockeye and coho smolt and incidently caught dolly varden and cutthroat Reasons for monitoring outlet location: Inlet Is low gradient, difficult to operate fyke net In these conditions. Fyke net and escapement data, need smolt count of sockeye to give best index on sockeye population. Length, weight, and scales will be done for all species but dolly varden Start AprH 1, slightly late for pink, chum would be well within time to capture peak outmigration anticipated chum escapement Is low (40). No rearing cutthroat captured in upper Black Bear Creek. No specific studies on dollysjcutthroat though these would be partially done during salmon studies Discussion followed indicating the agencies wanted a creel census to augment other studies incidental to those studies. Fishery guides would be seen as evidence that the primary species fished is coho on Black Lake. Also should monitor Black Bear Lake while there incidental to other work studies. Rick Reed • ADF&G June-September is a reasonable time range for a creel census -according to ADF&G sport fish division Gretchen Bishop -Environaid Four visits are currently proposed: -6- S1401·1/arc-1Pf.117 MEETIKG REPORT January 17. 1990 April through May • fyke netting. July • habitat mapping, coho and dolly rearing studies, and escapement survey for sockeye/chum. Last week August· escapement for sockeye. Last week October· escapement for coho, stream walking. Rick Reed • ADF&G Change scope to say that while In area while doing other studies will provide for Incidental angler surveys, this to address the (ADF&G) sport fish concerns. Dan Bishop • Environaid His experience is that guides key on coho In Black Lake. Neil Macdonald • OTT We have talked a little about Black Bear lake, does ADF&G conduct creel census there? Rick Reed • ADF&G Not certain If ADF&G does this at Black Bear Lake currently. Neil Macdonald -OTT Why would we monitor Black Lake? Rick Reed • ADF&G If present data shows no Impact, then fine. We must work on a post-project study framework. There could be questions of how far downstream the project Influence would be. When parts are pulled together in exhibits, then our questions may be answered. Sport fish may not be understanding that these studies are for one year in duration and may not have recognized scope. Covers only pre-project. Many of our comments address post-project studies. Studies that have been proposed need to be done. Comments concerned items that apparently they did not see in their review. Per Zimmerlund • OTT Why study Black Lake? Neil Macdonald -OTT How does project affect resident species since it is downstream of the project? Rick Reed • ADF&G Example, spawning In Black Bear Creek. Neil Macdonald • OTT What is ADF&G looking for In terms of monitoring resident fish? Rick Reed • ADF&G You are probably getting the data anyway since you are fyke netting at the outlet aren't you? Gretchen Bishop • Environaid Yes, so we will know about outmigrants but it will not show much about residents. Rick Reed • ADF&G Population estimates not really necessary In lake for resident species, you should be looking at utilization of habitat. Example. does drawdown affect habitat? If the project does not affect habitat, then an assumption can be made that it is not affecting resident fish. John Hamilton -NMFS If we cut off the fyke net study at June 1, we may miss some fish. There was mini peak first week of June. -7- MEETING REPORT January 17. 1990 Gretchen/Dan Bishop • Envlronaid . Can potentially extend one week, for one end of study. Say to get more data for pinks in March and data In June. There appears to be 50 percent mortality or pinks In lake, so want to get them before they pass through Black Lake, but it is hard to measure at Inlet. Problems at inlet, velocities are so low, fry potentially can swim out of trap. Problems with getting in there under winter conditions, significant problems with logistics. Neil Macdonald to John and Rick Is there any other method we could use that can be don~; here? Rick Reed • ADF&G For chum/pinks this Is the only way I know for it to be done. John Hamilton • NMFS Need to be consistent with past work. Do not know who recommended particular method -talk to Gretchen. Gretchen Bishop • Environaid What have we decided on with the tyke net? One tyke net only? ADFGfNMFS Extend netting to first week of June. An Inlet tyke net Is not necessary, therefore only one tyke net is necessary. Rearing Coho Study Discussion: Gretchen Bishop • Envlronaid Plan to use 100-foot reaches for population estimates. Will look at beaver ponds. Trapping methods to be used. Perhaps will use electro-shocking to check estimates from traps. Rick Reed • ADF&G Suggest other species could be counted as Incidental fish, so that you actually get some measure of them. These fish are important. Gretchen Bishop • Environaid We will key on coho, we do not want make incidental fish work reduce the coho quality. However, we will count incidentals as best we can, given the emphasis on coho. Tom Arminski-AEA How will water level In Black Lake be changed (by the project)? Dan Bishop -Environaid Past study showed small change. Impacts will be less with current proposal Tom Arminski • AEA Will this be addressed? Dan Bishop -Environaid After flows are defined, can take another look at this question. Neil Macdonald· On We want to operate as base load machine. Tom Arminsl<i-AEA If you stored water all summer, that may reduce littoral habitat in Black Lake in summer. How will surface water release affect habitat? Neil Macdonald -On Power demand may increase the flow through system. Although if the use Is X, and inflow = outflow, then the effect on habitat is small. -8- s••o•·•tar<;.IPI tl7 l\IEETING REPORT January 17, 1990 Tom Arminski • AEA 1990 Is the last year of study. Now It Is a question of schedule/time frame. You may need to do some work immediately so you know if water level Issues can be addressed In this summer's field work. Dan Bishop • Environaid We could perhaps put staff gage at Black Lake. But this would then not be done In conjunction with gaging. Gretchen Bishop • Environaid We will be mapping the littoral margin of Black Lake. RickJADFG This Black Lake question will be asked by someone. Dan Bishop • Environaid Past studies have showed affects In winter. John Hamilton • NMF We need information on the flow regime ASAP. Adult Escapement: Gretchen Bishop • Envlronaid Odd year escapement of pinks above Black Lake, so these will not be done this year. Pairs of people will walk the stream from Inlet to head of springs and along south fork. This will be done for three one-week periods. Rick Reed -ADF&G Probably no aerial work Is done for cohos but you need to check this with commercial fish management in Ketchikan. Neil Macdonald -on Are there any other questions on escapement, or on other parts of study? • None expressed. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Neil Macdonald • On What is the sensitivity of ADF&G to Erosion and Sediment Control plan? Rick Reed -ADF&G Sensitive to Introduction of sediments Into stream need to minimize Impacts on fisheries. Neil Macdonald • on Erosion and sediment control plan will probably become a license article currently it is a critical activity from the FERC's standpoint Tom Arminski -AEA AEA has BMP manual for Erosion and Sediment Control standards the agencies have approved it. On Bradley Lake, we (AEA) stated these methods will be Incorporated. Roger Clay -On Send us a copy of this manual. We will Incorporate methodology from the manual into the Erosion Control Plan. Break for Lunch -9- st•o•-ttarc.-tPf.117 MEETING REPORT .January 17, 1990 1/17/90 3:00 pm Continuation of meeting Attendees: Terry Rader-DNR; Tom Arminski-AEA; Chris Landis-DNA; Neil Macdonald-On; Roger Clay-On; Vern Nietzer- APT; Mike Eberhardt-DNR Parks Neil Macdonald-On Looks like DNA would be the lead agency for Erosion and Sediment Control Activities would be limited to project Impact zone Photographic control points will be used to document Impacts Identify hazards and sensitive areas Identify project facility locations Cultural Will contact native corporations and state historical resources office Will do everything FERC requires including obtaining letters specific to AP&T project. Recreation Native corporation does not appear to want public access for recreation. However under the FERC process the data collection and consultation must be done. In the license the goals of land owners and the agencies will be set forth. Tom Arminski-AEA It is not out of the realm of possibility that no recreation will occur. Example: Terror Lake in a wildlife refuge and no recreation was developed. Cabin on State selected land at Black Bear Lake. Mike Eberhardt -DNA-Parks Does not want to start •argument" with Sealaska over recreation. But we are Interested in the use of the cabin. It is a fly-in cabin, who uses It? Need data. Other recreation at lake may even be considered negative Impact. How will water fluctuation affect cabin -Is there a dock or boat ramp for the skiff? Chris Landis -ADNR There Is another scenario, land exchange. 1985-1987, there was talk of a land exchange with the state but the state never gave firm proposal and have not heard anything. But state would have ownership of project land Neil Macdonald -on His current understanding is the land exchange is dead. Applicant (AP& T) will make recommendations In license application for recreation plan based on Input to the process findings will be supplied to all agencies/intervenors Questions -None expressed END OF MEETING -10- SI4QI•I/ATC"-1Pf. I 17 I PURPOSE STUDY OUTLINE BASELINE AND/OR PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS TEMPERATURE REGIME MONITORING PLAN To develop agency accepted project area temperature modelling and monitoring studies which will accomplish the development of pre-project conditions information and which would allow prediction of tailrace discharge temperatures. The results of these studies are expected to provide information which will be used in the design of both the intake system and the tailrace discharge system. OBJECTIVES In the development of the pre-project condition temperature, we will gather the existing temperature information and combine into one database. Where necessary and with agency concurrence, we \vill select new sites or continue spot monitoring at existing locations. This overview of the temperature regime will focus on the project intake and discharge locations as well as salmonid spawning and rearing habitat which may be affected by the project. \Vithin this study we would expect to develop information on the potential for temperature moderation through passage of tailrace waters from selected recharge areas through surface and subsurface water courses to the downstream upwelling sites. \Ve would also expect to develop predicted models for water temperature for key locations and habitats in the Black Bear Creek system where water temperature could be influenced by the project. l\IETHQD Extensive temperature studies have been conducted in the project area and this data will be used as much as possible. Existing temperature data collected by Environaid includes lake profile measurements in Black Bear Lake and measurements from six sites total in Black Bear Lake, Black Bear Creek, and Black Lake. The record length for the sLx sites is five to sLx years. This existing data should be sufficient to model tailrace discharge temperatures for different siphon depths and configurations. In addition, the existing data should be sufficient to model the temperature moderating affects of the waterfalls at the outlet of Black Bear Lake. A unique characteristic of Black Bear Creek is the reach of the stream where water completely infiltrates to shallow groundwater. This reach lies along the top of an alluvial fan. The water upwells at locations near the toe of the alluvial fan and supplies the flows of Spring and Lake Forks. These upwelling areas are important spawning and rearing habitat. Existing site data is insufficient to model the temperature regime of Black Bear Creek as it passes through shallow groundwater to the upwelling areas. Additional field work proposed for this study will focus on providing data on how the passage of Black Bear Creek through shallow ground\vater affects the temperature regime of the stream. A further benefit of the additional field work is it ~ill help quantification of the affects of recent logging on the temperature regime of the stream. -1- ~·01-ISlO¥-QJT, TIOP Ott Engineering. Inc. Temperature continued A recording thermograph would be established at the lake outlet. Three other recording thermographs would be placed at the proposed powerhouse locations, buried in gravel at a groundwater upwelling site, and at the head of Spring Fork. The units would record temperature on a half-hour or hourly basis. Where possible, the selected sites would correspond to the location of other study sites and/or photographic record points. Physical water temperature models require knowledge of air temperature at the study reach. However, there is no air temperature data available for the project area. Therefore, in conjunction with monitoring of water temperature, air temperature will be monitored at the outlet of Black Bear Lake. Air temperature data collected at Black Bear Lake will be correlated with the long-term record available for Ketchikan to develop a long-term physical temperature model for parts of the Black Bear Creek system. Parallel to the physical temperature mode, a multi-variate statistical relation will be developed between water temperature at the lake outlet and upwelling areas. The data would be used to analyze how flow through the shallow aquifers affects the temperature of water in Black Bear Creek. This data in turn, will be used to help estimate how the project will affect temperatures in the spav.rrting gravels and rearing areas. The data on temperature affects of water flowing through shallow aquifers will be coupled with temperature relations for Black Bear Lake and Creek to form a model of that part of the overall system. Additionally, the newly collected data and coupled model will be used to assist in the design project facilities. It is anticipated that the therrrographs will be operated for up to one year as a pre-project study. Six site visits would be made to install, service, and dismantle the gages. When possible, personnel on-site for other related studies will be used to service the thermographs. RESULTS The completed pre-project condition study would be assessed for its applicability and utility as a long-term model for post-project monitoring. Prior to developing this final study plan we would obtain agency input and concurrence. The temperature modelling data, maps, and study objectives information would be reduced to draft reports and would be shared with the service list agencies of record for their comments. \Vhere necessary, adjustments to the draft reports would be undertaken. -2- UOI·ISTllY-O.JT.liiP 0tt Engineering. Inc. ---------------- PURPOSE STUDY OUTLINE BASELINE AND/OR PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS DYE TESTING OF TAILRACE INJECTION SYSTEM DESIGN AND LOCATION Environmental Consultant and Engineering Consultant To verify the design of the tailrace injection system location and recharge site to ensure that groundwater will re-emerge in the vital spawning habitat at the head of Lake Fork and Spring Forks of Black Bear Creek. OBJECTIVES The engineering consultant will design a tailrace injection system. A potential powerhouse site has been identified at Location E2 (June 21, 1989, Hydrogeological Examination Report). Additional site-specific dye testing is required to test design of the tailrace injection system and verify the preliminary site selection. METHOD The dye testing would be conducted by the Environmental Consultant and the Engineering Consultant following the sampling techniques of Environaid, (June 21, 1989). Fluorescent dyes would be introduced at the proposed E2 tailrace site in a manner which would simulate the injection system and activated charcoal filters would be installed to monitor the emerging groundwater flows corresponding to both Spring and Lake Forks of Black Bear Creek. Speed of flows through the groundwater would be measured and occasional temperature measurements taken. These activities are proposed for early May, 1990. RESULTS Data from the dye tests, temperatures measurements, and time of passage will be interpreted and used to modify design of the tailrace diffusion system if necessary. The results of this study would be presented in a draft report and shared with the service list of agencies for their comments. -1· \.::. 40 1·1/STllY -oJT. O't'l Ott Engineering. Inc. \ PURPOSE STUDY OUTLINE BASELINE AND/OR PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS FISHERIES HABITAT MAPPING \VITH INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION Environmental Consultant To provide a baseline description of existing fisheries and wildlife habitat and vegetative communities of Black Bear Creek and Black Lake. This area is hereafter referred to as the Primary Impact Zone (PIZ) and is shown for reference in its appropriate configuration on the attached project area map. OBJECTIVE To develop a study format to record pre-project habitat conditions providing: 1. FISH Mapping of the fisheries habitat of Black Bear Creek and Black Lake (including both rearing salmonid and spawning habitat) would target recent changes in the system. 2. \VILDLIFE Incidental wildlife observations to be conducted throughout field work conducted by the Environmental Consultant. Beaver activity and bald eagle activity would be of note. 3. VEGETATION METHODS 1. Description of vegetative communities of the PIZ riparian zone, transmission corridors, and new roads. FISH In mid-July, 1990, Black Bear Creek and Black Lake fisheries habitat \vould be surveyed, simultaneously describing rearing and adult salmonid habitat. \Vhere still accurate previous survey work would be updated and tied in. A field map would result on which subsequent observations could be recorded. The map would be at a 1"=200' scale. It would later be used to quantify amounts of different fish habitat types and, from habitat-stratified minnow· trapping, to estimate total rearing coho populations. -1- Ott Engineering. Inc. \ Fisheries Habitat continued 2. WILDLIFE Using the map as developed above wildlife observations would be conducted throughout all studies conducted by the Environmental Consultant. Observations would be made of tracks, carcasses, animals, and browsed vegetation allowing a qualitative discussion of habitat use and travel routs in the PIZ. Any eagle nest trees found would be mapped. Evidence of trends in beaver activity would be looked for. Previous Environaid information would be incorporated where still valid. 3. VEGETATION During the July mapping survey, vegetative communities of the riparian zone and proposed penstock, powerhouse transmission corridors, and new roads would be qualitatively described for later inclusion in the habitat mapping. RESULTS Aerial photographs will be used with overlays to provide demarcation of riffle, runs, and pool characteristics of the streams. The air photos will be at approximately 1" = 200' scale and the resultant overlay mapping will be ground truthed by professional biologists. On the ground photo records, suitably marked for future return will be established. Overlays to show wildlife and vegetative communities by habitat type and species would be similarly developed for the project area, transmission corridors, and new roads. The results of this study would be presented in a draft report and shared with the service list of agencies for their comments. -2- 't<CH•I/SIDV..QJT .t .. a Ott Engineering, Inc. --------------- STUDY OUTLINE CULTURAL RESOURCES PURPOSE The Cultural and Archaeological Resources Plan for the proposed Black Bear Hydroelectric Project is designed to supply the agencies and the FERC with supporting evidence of a strong commitment to preservation on the part of the applicant. OBJECTIVES The prime objective of this Plan is to present current verification of cultural, anthropological and archaeological resources. A major part of this study will involve the creation of an Artifact Recovery Plan to be in effect during construction of the project. 1\IETHODS The Alaska Heritage Research Group conducted an archaeological survey in 1982. No cultural resources were found at that time. As part of this study, the 1982 report and any supplemental information will be reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Alaska Natives represented in the region. LDcal historians and archaeologists will be consulted to ensure all areas of known or possible concern are examined. All Federal and State antiquities laws and records will be reviewed. There is always the possibility of encountering unknown prehistoric or historic archaeological sites during construction of any project. An Artifact Recovery Plan will be developed for use during the construction phase of the project. Development of this Plan will include, but not be limited to, consultations with registered archaeologists, universities, historical research organizations and agency personnel. Guidelines will be established for on-site assessment of significance, requirements for artifact preservation, and impacts/alternatives of continued construction. Should a site be encountered, an appropriate plan of action, chain of notification and temporary site preservation will be a pre-established procedure for the construction supervisor. The purpose of the Artifact Recovery Plan is to incorporate historic preservation into the normal flow of the project. The construction crew will be made aware of physical conditions where sites are likely to occur and how to recognize a find. RESULTS The data, maps, and study objectives information would be reduced to draft reports and would be shared \\.1th the service list agencies of record for their comments. Where necessary, adjustments to the draft reports would be undertaken. The format for the reports would be in a manner in keeping Y<ith the requirements for the FERC license application Exhibit E. \ 51(01·1/STDY-Q./T.CU -1- ---------------Ott Engineering. Inc. STUDY OUTLINE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PURPOSE To provide sufficient information to enable preparation of a licensing level Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) which upon final project design will assist in preparation of the final construction level ESCP. OBJECTIVES 1. To identify existing environmental hazards which must be taken into account during project design. 2. To allow for project design and construction planning which v.rill minimize project potential for adverse impact. 3. To establish baseline conditions in order to allow comparison with monitoring data obtained during project construction and operational phases. 1\IETHODS The following tasks have been performed by previous investigators. Data from these studies will be reviewed by OTT and incorporated into the ESCP as appropriate. 1. Mapping (performed by Harza Engineering, Alaska \Voods Service, and Environaid) A. Bedrock Geology B. Surficial Geology C. Vegetation Cover 2. Aerial photography (by Environaid) 3. Determination of flow regime (by Harza) 4. Investigations of hydrogeology· (by Environaid) 5. Identification of mass wasting zones and other environmental hazards (by Alaska \Voods Service, Environaid, and OTT) OTI will coordinate a field investigation in order to tie together data concerning sources of sediment and environmental hazards \ltithin the PIZ. Tasks to be performed for these investigations will include: -1- -----------------Ott Engineering, Inc. S1401-1/STO'W'-O..T f~O j _________________________________________ / Erosion continued 1. Establishment of photographic control points which will allow records to be made of the initial conditions and to provide a baseline of information from which changes during the project duration can be assessed. \Vithin the drainage basin, these control points will be useful in measuring the size, frequency, and location of events such as avalanches, landslides, major rock falls, and floods. Within Black Bear Creek photographic control points along with surveying data, will allow records to be made of long-term changes in the river channel, shifts in the morphology and flow regimes. 2. Observations will be conducted within the immediate project area drainage basin to assess sediment contributions from continuous sources such as surface runoff, road drainage, and tributary creeks. Clearcut and avalanche areas will be included in this survey. This will also include a survey for sensitive areas in the PIZ which will need to be protected during construction and operation. 3. Downstream features which may function as sediment traps such ·as beaver ponds, will be evaluated for use as monitoring points for changes in sediment transport characteristics. RESULTS The data, maps, and study objectives information would be reduced to draft reports and would be shared with the service list agencies of record for their comments. \Vhere necessary, adjustments to the draft reports would be undertaken. The format for the reports would be in a manner in keeping with the requirements for the FERC license application Exhibit E. -2- 0tt Engineering, Inc. ---------------- STUDY OUTLINE RECREATIONAL RESOURCES PURPOSE The Recreation Plan for the proposed Black Bear Hydroelectric Project will provide essential information to the agencies and the FERC. The Plan will discuss existing recreation use, future recreational opportunities without the project, and the potential impacts on recreation resulting from construction of the project. At the outset, the plan seeks agency input and concurrence with its objectives. OBJECTIVES The Recreation Plan has several objectives designed into three phases. First is the identification of the current recreation types, demands and existing facilities. The second phase is to evaluate existing and future demands in terms of facilities, constraints, and economics. The third phase requires development of goals to meet demands, determine the value of changes in recreation both pre-and post-project, and recommend mitigation if necessary. METHODS The three phases of the Plan implementation are sub-divided into tasks. PHASE I • Existing Recreation S 140 1·1 ISTllY..QJT .I(C Task A • Data Collection Identify project impact area. Identify and map existing facilities. Determine existing demand. Iask B • Consultation Identify and consult agencies with legal responsibilities for recreation management. Determine current direction and policy. Identify and consult native organizations and others which track or project recreation use in the area. Consult special interest groups, local residents, and businesses that focus on recreation and tourism. Task C -Gather Demographic Data ·1· ..__ ______________ Ott Engineering. Inc. Recreational continued PHASE II-EVALUATE RECREATION POTENTIAL Task A -Demand Evaluate existing recreation facilities in terms of activity type, physical setting, · experience required, economic costs, and current demand. Task B -Projection Using demographic data, estimate anticipated demand with and without the project. Task C -Consequences Identify constraints to development of recreation facilities. Examine regional opportunities for similar recreation. Evaluate the socio-economic consequences of recreational development. Evaluate environmental impacts of recreational development. PHASE III· RECREATION GOALS Task A -Requirements Identify alternatives to meet demands. Identify location and type of facility needed to accommodate existing and future demands. Task B -Costs Estimate costs for any new facility and transportation access, plus operation and maintenance costs. Task C -Monitorins Identify methods for measuring the increase in recreational use and related economic values. Task D -Mitigation Recommend mitigation of any adverse affects if appropriate. RESULTS The data, maps, and study objectives information would be reduced to draft reports ancf"-., would be shared with the service list agencies of record for their comments. \Vhere necessary, adjustments to the draft reports would be undertaken. The format for the reports would be in a manner in keeping with the requirements for the FERC license application Exhibit E. -2- 0tt Engineering, Inc. ---------------- PURPOSE STUDY OUTLINE BASELINE AND/OR PRE-PROJECI' CONDITIONS SALMONID OUTMIGRANT, REARING, AND ESCAPEMENT STUDIES Environmental Consultant To describe estimated population levels of existing salrnonid stocks and to obtain a measure of the condition of the rearing environment. Emphasis is placed on sockeye and coho salmon, but Dolly Varden char, Cutthroat trout, and steelhead are included. OB.JECfiVES To develop information on the pre-project statu.s of specific salrnonid stocks of the Black Bear Creek and Black Lake system by providing information on: 1. JUVENILE OUTMIGRANTS Through fyke-netting at the outlet of Black Lake, estimate the numbers of coho and sockeye outrnigrating smolt. Fyke netting count information of Dolly Varden and Cutthroat outrnigrants would also be provided. \Valk through observations would be made on spawning steelhead during this period. 2. REARING COHO- Rearing coho population estimates would be obtained for discrete habitats and reaches of Black Bear Creek and Black Lake. A creel census would be conducted for Cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden in Black Lake. 2. ADULT ESCAPEMENT I- METHODS Estimation of sockeye, churn, pink, and coho escapement above Black Lake would be made as mentioned above, steelhead escapement estimation would be made during fyke-netting. 1. JUVENILE OUTMIGRANTS Fyke-netting at the mouth of Black lake would be conducted from April 25 to June 5 to obtain outrnigrant information on sockeye and coho smolt. It is anticipated from previous studies that lesser numbers of Dolly Varden and Cutthroat trout would also be captured and recorded. Length and weight would be measured for a sub-sample of each species in order to determine condition factor and age-composition. Much of the work would be done at night leaving time for occasional stream-walking to make observations on spa'NI1ing steelhead during the day. -1· ---------------Ott Engineering. Inc. Salmonid Outmi~ant continued 2. REARING COHO Mark-recapture minnow-trapping methods and/or electrofishing would be used to estimate juvenile coho abundance for several habitat-stratified reaches of Black Bear Creek and Black Lake. Along with total habitat areas provided by the mapping, numbers would be extrapolated to estimate total rearing coho numbers for both the lake and creek. Again, length and weight would be measured in order to determine condition factor and age-composition. Anglers would be interviewed on a time-allows basis to determine an estimate of the Cutthroat and Dolly Varden catch on Black Lake. This work would be conducted from June through September. A card box system of census would also be used. 3. ADULT ESCAPEMENT RESULTS Three stream-walking surveys from the inflow of upper Black Bear Creek to the head of spawning grounds above Black Lake would be conducted, targeting the peaks for chum, sockeye, and coho salmon runs. These are respectively: the second week of August, the last week of August, and the last week of October. Pinks would be counted incidentally as they run in sizeable numbers odd-years into the upper Black Bear drainage. Coho escapement counts would be partial only due to the extended spawning period. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) aerial survey information may also be available. The results of this study would be presented in a draft report and shared with the service list of agencies for their comments. -2-) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration March 19, 1990 Neil H. Macdonald Director of Water Resources and Energy Development Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue, Washington 98007 Dear Mr. Macdonald: NationaL Marine Fisheries Service P. 0. Bo:r 21668 Juneau, AZaska 99802-1668 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed your Fabru~Z}· 22, 1S90, lettar ar.d copies of cor~ected Study o~tlines for Agency "Final Determination" responses. We must clarify NMFS position on instream flow issues associated with the Black Bear Lake project. Based upon past negotiations, NMFS feels that minimum and maximum instream flow constraints proposed in the February, 1983, project Draft Environmental Impact Statement are acceptable. Due to uncertainty about the project intake and operation regime, however, it is difficult to identify other instream flow studies which may be required. For example, within the above flow constraints, the magnitude and duration of instream flows remain a concern of NMFS. In particular, regulated flow scheduling and magnit~d9 must be consistent with optimal periods for emergence and migration of salmon fry in Black Bear Creek (Milner et al, 1985). Thus, if the project will be a peaking operation, the effects of regulated flows may have to be further evaluated. Some unrestrained flows may be necessary to maintain spawning gravels. NMFS requests, therefore, that we be provided with projected flows and a firm design for the intake structure immediately. In general, NMFS is in agreement with the other studies proposed in your February 22, 1990, letter. In regard to the smolt outmigrant fyke netting, we understand that the fyke netting is to be done at the outlet of Black Lake. NMFS recommends that scales from a sample of smolts be taken and analyzed to verify that tha age structure of outmigrants and length used to dif- ferentiate fry from parrfsmolts are the same as in past years. It appears that mapping of fish habitat of Black Bear Creek and Black Bear Lu.ke will need to be completed prior to the rearing ~--.... /~--1''.\ ' ' i ;: ' ' ' . ·~, .... ~ .. \. • ... .:!" coho study. NMFS requests that we be able to review the habitat classification used in the rearing coho study and that lake locations and stream reaches sampled for this study be randomly selected (rather than "representative") within areas stratified by habitat type. If you have any questions regarding the related please contact John Hamilton at (907) 586-7235. the opportunity to assist in the development of Lake project license application. concerns of NMFS, We appreciate the Black Bear Si~erely, ~ ,t;;i;J ';? . Steven T. z·mm rman Ph.D., Chief Protected urces Management Division Literature cited: Milner, A.M., D.M. Bishop, and L.A. Smith. 1985. The influence of water temperature and streamflow on sockeye salmon fry emergence and migration in Black Bear Creek, Southeastern Alaska. Pages 54-58 in: Proceedings of the symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. May 1-3, 1985, Aurora, Colorado. American Fisheries Society Pub- lication. cc: ADFG, Reed, Freeman, Gustafson Div. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau FERC, D.C., Portland EPA, Anchorage FWS, Ketchikan, Juneau ADNR, Juneau GC -Sathre APT, Grimm, Neitzer ,, . 4 1C:I l-1 ro:·w ' ! I ~0 L r\ n r, ~ ,., '7 n ,, I II I '. II' . ; I I,, ! I· I \" ' L.i , I ..: "'\ ~, :.; Lru LS &-.J \~l lr ~~ ~-.. ~ OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COOROINA TION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN P.O. BOX. AW, SUITE 101 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811.{)165 PHONE: (907) 46~3562 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 2600 DENALI STREET SUITE 700 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503-2798 PHONE: (907) 274-1581 I I I / / STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX AW JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811.0165 PHONE: (907) 46~3562 NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 675 SEVENTH A VENUE STATIONH FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (907) 456-3084 February 23, 1990 Mr. Neil H. MacDonald, Director Water Resources & Energy Dept. Ott Engineering, Inc. 1412 140th Pace NE Bellevue, WA 98007 Dear Mr. MacDonald: SUBJECT: BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC. NO. 10440-000-Alaska STATE I.D. NO. AK891221-09J The Division of Governmental Coordination has completed coordinating the State's review of the Draft Study Outlines prepared by Ott Engineering for Alaska Power and Telephone Company in the Black Bear Hydroelectric Project. As you are aware, the process for obtaining a FERC license requires extensive preapplication cor.sultation. State agency reviewers have been providing consultation comments to you in response to the draft study outlines and your meeting of January 17, 1990, and have no additional co~ments at this time. The project will then be subject to formal consistency review when all permit applications are submitted and FERC officially accepts the application and issues the public notice. By copy of this letter, we are informing FERC of the State's participation in the preapplication consultation stage. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process. (~1~· ~'-0c __ ~~e\r. La~e Project Review Coordinator Mr. Neil H. MacDonald cc: Bill Janes, DEC, Juneau Rick Reed, DFG, Juneau - 2 - Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Glenn Freeman, DFG, Klawock Chris Landis, DNR, Juneau Bill Garry, DNR/DPOR, Juneau Andy Grossrnan, FWS, Juneau Steven Zimmerman, Nl1FS, Juneau Fred Springer, PERC, Washington, D.C. Tom Arminski, Alaska Energy Authority Robert Grimm, Alaska Power & Telephone Co. James Sprague, Mayor, City of Craig Rochelle Rollenhagen, Craig Aaron Isaacs, Mayor, City of Klawock deak9002230lglb February 23, 1990 DEPAHT~IENT OJ.' Jo'JSH AND GA~IE DIVISION OF HASh AT APri 1 27, 1990 Mr. Neil Macdonald Ott Engineering, lnc. 1412 140th Place NE Bellevue. Washington 98007 Dear Neil: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 1'.0. sox 101 XU.WOCK, ALASKA 99925-0101 This is in response to your request during our phone conversation yesterday for questions to ask anglers at Black Lake. You stated that you will have someone stationed at the Black Lake outlet fyke trap essentially 24 hr./day nou thru June 5. 1990. You indicated it is your interpretation that the ''impacted area" is the upper Black Bear Lake and from the project site to the outlet ·Cf Black Lake <and not including lower Black Bear Creek), Thus, that it is Your intention to interview anglers who fish in Black Lake and leave questionnaires for those who fish in Black Bear Lake. Based on this inrormation. it appears feasible that the person(s) ,stationed at the fyke net would be able to interview essentially al 1 sport fishing activity within Black Lake unti 1 June ~. The most important data, at this time, which should be collected from all anglers includess 1> Place or residence <e.g,, Prince of Wales Island?, Oregon?> 2> Number of people in each party 3> Guided or unguided? . 4) Target species (i,e,, steelhead, other trout/Dollies, salmon?> 5> Time fished, to the nearest half hour. Include actual times fished Ce,g., 2.5 hours total, from 6z~O a.m.-9:00a.m.) 6> Portion or lake or stream fished Cas iPecific as possible> 7> General gear type used, cut of the following types: bait; spinners/spoons; flies; or ether artificial$ 8> The exact number or each species caught and hou many or each species were kept and/or released Ce.g., 1 steelhead kept, 1 steelhead released, 4 cutthroat released) 9) Size of fish which uere harvested, Of Particular use would be the length of steelhead and cutthroat trout from mid-eye to the fork in tai 1 and the weigh.t Cto nearest 1 b • > This. data ihould be entered into a daily notebook and summarized in an annual report. You also discussed tne placement or boxes for anglers to place answered questionnaires. Appropriate locations for these would be at the Black Bear Lake Forest Service cabin and along the northern Black Bear Road, near the Big Salt Road. This should help to intercept those not 1ntervieued. We should discuss an appropriate method to interview anglers from June 6 thru Sept. 30, in the future as uell. The limitations or methods used to determine sport fishing use should be clearly stated in the report. Do net hesitate to call if ycu have further questions. ~ ..... ,. -I • .; May 9, 1990 Mr. Steve Segovia, District Ranger Craig Ranger District United States Forest Service Tongass National Forest P.O. Box 500 Craig, Alaska 99921 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project: FERC Project No. 10440 Dear Mr. Segovia: HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) is in the process of developing data and performing environmental studies for the license application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. During the course of project scoping, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game requested the applicant, Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) to provide information on the fishery up at Black Bear Lake. HDR, on behalf of its client AP&T, developed the attached forms to be used in this survey and is also supplying stamped, addressed envelopes for the data return. Since the cabin users probably are the majority of people who fish this lake, we would appreciate the Service carrying in these forms into the cabin on the first flight in. We are also providing an instruction sheet and pencils to be placed with the materials in the cabin. Bob Latham of your Ketchikan Supervisors office, has suggested that this might be the best way to accomplish our task. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Also, as one of the intervenor agencies of record in this licensing proceeding, you will receive a copy of the full survey results (June 1991) as an appendix to the project license application. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, ~~RING, INC. &~= L'-..) Neil H. Macdonald National Program Manager for Hydropower NHM/sal Enclosures cc: Glenn Freeman • ADF&G Klawock Robert Grimm -AP&T HDR Engineering, Inc. SUOl•l/ttQOVIa OIL Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004·6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 FISHERY RESEARCH PROJECT Black Bear Lake The purpose of this data inquiry, sponsored byHDR Engineering, Inc. is to provide information to the 'aska Department of Fish and Game on the current fishing activity in the above areas. We would ~preciate your filling out this questionnaire card and placing it into the envelope provided and mailed. Please fill out a questionnaire each day you are in this area. Thank you. DATE: __j _/ 90 WEATHER: Rain Overcast __ Fog __ Sunny PLACE OF ANGLER RESIDENCE: ___________ (town) (state) NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PARTY: aduHs. children. GUIDED: UNGUIDED: TARGET SPECIES: __ Cutthroat. __ Rainbow. __ Other. __ Salmon -Type----------------- TIME ACTUALLY FISHED: (nearest 1/2 hr) From _ : _ am I pm To_·_ am/ pm Artlflclals. GEAR USED: __ Bait. __ Spinners/Spoons. Flies. EXACT NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT: Kept __ Species ------Released Please circle the locations fished on the map. . -······ .. -...._._ .. Total Length (In) Weight (lbs) Kept __ Species Released Total Length (In) Weight (lbs) Kept __ Species ------Released Total Length (In) Weight __ (lbs) Kept __ Species Released Total Length (In) Weight __ (lbs) Please circle the location you fished each day on a separate survey form. BLACK BEAR LAKE FISHERY RESEARCH PROJECT Black Lake and Upper Black Creek The purpose of this data inquiry, sponsored by HDR Engineering, Inc. is to provide information to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on the current fishing activity in the above areas. We would 1ppreciate your filling out this questionnaire card and placing it into the box provided. Please fill out a questionnaire each day you are in this area. Thank you. DATE: _/ ___/ 90 PLACE OF ANGLER RESIDENCE: NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PARTY: TARGET SPECIES: WEATHER: Rain __ Overcast __ Fog ___________ (town) __ Sunny ________ (state) ___ adults. children. GUIDED: UNGUIDED: __ Steelhead. __ Cutthroat. __ Rainbow. __ Dolly Varden. __ Salmon -Type----------------- TIME ACTUALLY FISHED: (nearest 1/2 hr) From _: _ am I pm __ Spinners/Spoons. To_:_ am/ pm Files. Artificlals. GEAR USED: Bait. EXACT NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT: Kept __ Species ------Released Please circle the locations fished on the map on the reverse side of this form. Total Length (In) Weight __ (lbs) Kept __ Species Released Total Length (In) Weight (ibs) Kept __ Species------Released Total Length (In) Weight __ (lbs) Kept __ Species Released Total Length (In) Weight (lbs) INFORMATION REQUEST FISHERIES RESEARCH PROJECT HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Bellevue, Washington To provide valuable resource data, please fill out a data card fo each day you fish the Black Lake area. Your information will be used to establish a database. If you have questions please contact ADF&G, Division of Habitat Klawock (907) 755-2331 or HDR Engineering, Inc., Neil Macdonald (206) 747-1126. THANK YOU DEP:\RT:tiENT OF FISH AND GAME May 10. 1990 Mr. Richard c. Konopacky Pentee Environmental, Inc. 120 w. Dayton. Suite A7 Edmonds. Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Konopacky: STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR P. Q.Box 101 Klawock, Alaska 99925 907-755-2331 Re: Fyke Net Installation and Operation-Black Bear Creek <Stream No. 103-60-10310>, Outlet Stream of Black Lake <Section 36. T.72S •• R.81E., C.R.M.> FG-90-I< k 1 > -7 Pursuant to AS 16.05.870Cb> the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed your proposal to install and operate a 3/16 inch mesh fyke net with a live box trap along Black Bear Creek. approximately 100 feet downstream from Black Lake. The net and trap will be in Black Bear Creek between April 25 and June 15 for the purpose of enumerating and sampling coho and sockeye smolt during outmigration from the Black Lake drainage. A person<s> will be on-site continuously during fyke net/trap operation to monitor the structures and fish ·passage and to facilitate upstream and downstream migration of all fishes. These activities are part of a baseline environmental assessment to aid planning and evaluation of a proposed hydroelectric project. Black Bear Creek has been specified as being important for the migration, spawning, and rearing of anadromous fish pursuant to AS 16.05.870Ca>. Your net installation site is in an area essential for the migration of all coho. sockeye. pink and chum salmon and steelhead which migrate upstream and downstream between lower Black Bear Creek and Black Lake du~ing various life phases. In accordance with AS 16.05.870Cd> <Anadromous Fish Act> and AS 16.05.840 <the Fishway Act>, project approval is hereby given subject to the following conditions: <1> Disruptions to the natural upstream and downstream migration of fishes shall be.minimized by continuous monitoring and dailY excavation of the fish trap. Adult migrating salmonids shall be passed by the net daily and as encountered. <2> The fyke net and trap shall be in the stream only from Apri 1 25 to June 15. All associated structures shall be removed from the stream upon termination of operations. by June 15. Richard Konopacky -2-May 10. 1990 For any activity which significantly deviates from the approved plan, the permittee shall notify the ADF&G and obtain written approval in the form of a permit amendment prior to commencement of the activity. Any action taken by the permittee which increases the overall scope of the project or which negates, alters or minimizes the intent or effectiveness of any stipulation contained in this permit will be considered a significant deviation from the approved plan. The final determination relative to the significance of any deviation and the need for a permit amendment is the responsibility of the ADF&G: therefore. it is recommended that the ADF&G be consulted immediately when a deviation from the approved plan is being considered. This letter constitutes a permit issued under the authority of 16.05.870. It must be retained onsite during construction, and expires on June 15, 1993. Please be advised that our approval does not relieve you of the responsibility of securing other permits; state. federal or local. You are encouraged to contact the Juneau Permit Information and Referral Center, telephone 465-2615, if you are in doubt as to the need for obtaining other permits. Pursuant to 6 AAC 80.010<b> the conditions of this permit are consistent with the Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. In addition to any penalty provided by law, this permit may be terminated or revoked for failure to comply with its provisions or failure to comply with applicable statutes and regulations. The Department reserves the right to require mitigation measures to correct disruption to fish and game created by the project and which were a direct result of the failure to comply with this permit or any applicable law. This permit decision may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of AS44.62.330 --44.62.630. Please contact us at 225-2027 if you nave any questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely. Norman A. Cohen Deputy Commissioner By: cc: ~o s:. Ow ) ~ . Glenn Freeman JJ ' ~\ Habitat Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game R. Reed, ADF&G, Juneau G. LaRoche, OMB, Juneau JN. McDonald, Ott Engineering, Bellevue, WA J. Gustafson, ADF&G, Ketchikan s. Hoffman, ADF&G. Ketchikan July 27, 1990 Ms. Grace Kosanke, Recreation Specialist Craig Ranger District United States Forest Service Tongass National Forest P.O. Box 500 Craig, AK 99921 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project: FERC Project No. 10440 Dear Ms. Kosanke: HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) is in the process of developing data and performing environmental studies for the license application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. During the course of project scoping, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources requested the applicant. Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) to provide information on hunting use of the Black Bear Lake cabin. HDR, on behalf of its client AP&T, developed the attached questionnaires to be used in this survey and is also supplying stamped, addressed envelopes for the data return. As we discussed, we would appreciate the Service carrying in these forms into the cabin on the first flight in. Instructions are included on the survey form. We are also providing pencils to be placed with the materials in the cabin. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Also, as one of the intervenor agencies of record in this licensing proceeding, you will receive a copy of the full survey results (June 1991) as an appendix to the project license application. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~0.~ cc. Mike Eberhardt· DNR-Juneau Robert Grimm • AP&T Don Fisher • USFS · Glenn Seaman • ADF&G, Klawock HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plea 11225 s.e. Sixth Street. Building c Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 HUNTING USE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE BLACK BEAR LAKE CABIN ""'ease fill out this questionnaire and locate the areas that you hunted on the map below. Fill out a .estionnaire for each day you are in the area. Place the completed questionnaires in the envelopes provided and mail it. The purpose of this questionnaire, sponsored by HDR Engineering, Inc., is to provide information to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Department of Natural Resources on the current hunting activity at the Black Bear Lake cabin. We appreciate your cooperation. DATE:_/_/_ WEATHER: RAIN OVERCAST FOG SUNNY (STATE) '=G':"'!'UI:o:D~E=-D:--":""!U':"'!'N'='GU~I="DED: PLACE OF RESIDENCE: (TOWN) NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PARTY: ADULTS CHILDREN TARGET SPECIES: DEER BLACK BEAR TIME ACTUALLY HUNTeD: (NEAREST 1/2 HR.) FROM : N-AjPM WEAPON USED: HANDGUN CAL --RIFLE TO: : AM/PM -BOW NUMBER OF SPECIES CAUGHT: DEER BLACK BEAR NUMBER OF SPECIES OBSERVED: DEER BLACK BEAR HOW OFTEN DO YOU COME TO THIS CABIN? WHAT OTHER PLACES 00 YOU GO FOR HUNTING? HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THIS CABIN? -- ~ IMII:. 1MI LDCATION 'fOU ....-r.t .at DAY ON A I&'MA'n IUirftY ~ IeALa. 4H I&~ BEAR LAKE September 20, 1990 Mr. John Autrey U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Autrey: As we discussed in our recent telephone conversatio~ enclosed please find copies of the 1980 and 1982 Archeological Investigations for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Below is a brief description of the project, as currently envisioned, and a summary of the two previous archeological studies in relation to the current project. We have also included a conclusion and recommendations. Please search your records and let us know if any cultural or historic sites have been identified in the project area, since the 1980 and 1982 studies, that would be impacted by the project. Additionally, please let us know if you concur with our findings, conclusions and recommendations, as described below. Project History The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska, approximately 14 road miles northeast of the town of Klawock. This hydroelectric site has been studied by the Alaska Power Authority and others since 1977. During this period numerous studies were conducted; the affected environment and resources in the project area were identified, impacts assessed and mitigative measures proposed by the Alaska Power Authority (AP A). A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application was prepared in 1981 and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the FERC in 1983 for a 6 megawatt (MW) project. HDA Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Uncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 Mr. John Autrey September 20, 1990 Page 2 Project Description The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, as currently envisioned, is smaller than the initial project. It will have an installed capacity of slightly less than 5 MW and would consist of a siphon intake, penstock, powerhouse, two substations, access road and transmission line. Figure 1 shows the location of the project components. The siphon type intake, &s described in the Initial Stage Consultation Information Document (AP&T, 1988), will use an unconventional screened intake structure to minimize intake water velocities and submersion requirements. A redundant siphon or pump arrangement is proposed to insure flows from the lake. An approximate 22-inch welded steel penstock is proposed to convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock will be above ground supported on saddles down to about 550 feet elevation. From that point it will be buried up to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location is presently envisioned at a site as shown on Figure 1. This site was chosen following a 1989 study of the geophysical hazards ana the groundwater flows in upper Black Bear Creek (Bishop, et al. 1989). The ·powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal- building approximately 30 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet high, located on a reinforced concrete foundation. A substation will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to another substation at Klawock via transmission line. The transmission line would follow the existing Sealaska logging and U.S. Forest Service roads for about 14 miles from the powerhouse to the Klawock substation. Archeological Investigations In 1980 a cultural resources assessment of the impact of construction of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project was begun (Bacon, 1980). The 1980 study was designed to provide data for planning purposes and did not cover all of the proposed project in detail. In 1982, another detailed archeological survey was performed over those areas which had not been surveyed in 1980 (Bacon, 1982). Uterature searches and field studies were conducted of the project area for the 1980 and 1982 studies. Literature searches, including a search of the records maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Alaskarctic library, were conducted for the project area. Additionally, persons with special knowledge of the history of the project area were also consulted. The literature searches did not identify any cultural resources within the areas of the currently proposed project. The field survey conducted in 1980 included the shoreline of Black Bear Lake, the damsite, spillway area, penstock alignment, and portions of the transmission line corridors, as proposed in 1980. The 1982 field survey covered Black Lake Valley from the site of the powerhouse proposed in 1982, along the proposed transmission line/access road route, to the point where the earlier 1980 survey ended. Additional transmission line routes were also surveyed in both the 1980 and 1982 studies that are no longer relevant for the currently proposed project. I I ) . . .. .. .. CQ I . ; . ··~··I .~,i '• .~ .. 3~8~ \ 111111111111111 't-3.8~ Mr. John Autrey September 20, 1990 Page 3 No cultural resources were identified around Black Bear Lake or at the locations of the damsite, spillway area, and penstock alignment as proposed back in 1980. The damsite and spillway, previously proposed, has changed to a siphon type intake; however, the location of the currently proposed siphon intake is within the same general area as that surveyed in 1980. Although the currently proposed penstock configuration has changed somewhat from the configuration proposed in 1980, the upper less steep general area was surveyed and no cultural features were noted. The remainder of the penstock alignment was too steep to survey. It was concluded that this unsurveyed hillside was considered uninhabitable due to the steepness of the slope. During the 1980 study, the proposed transmission line was also surveyed from the town of Klawock on U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 to the middle of Section 25, T 72 S., R 82 E. No cultural resources were identified in areas near both sides of the road. (Bacon, 1980) The remainder of the proposed transmission line route, along U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 from the middle of Section 25 to the area of the powerhouse site, was surveyed in 1982. No cultural resources were identified during this field survey. The location of the powerhouse site has moved slightly from the powerhouse location proposed during the 1982 study. During the 1982 study, however, the visibility in the area was said to have been extremely poor, but the likelihood of undetected sites was stated to be equally extremely poor. The 1982 study also stated that the area exhibited all indications of being too unstable to have attracted human occupation. (Bacon, 1982) Conclusion and Recommendations No significant archeological or historical sites were discovered in the 1980 or 1982 studies during both the archeological survey and during the pre-field literature search and interviews held with several people knowledgeable about the area history. Since the currently proposed project components are in the same location or within the immediate vicinity of the past surveys, it is concluded that no significant cultural material would be adversely effected by proposed construction of the currently envisioned Black Bear Lake hydroelectric facility and associated transmission lines. A letter dated September 26, 1988, from Ms. Judith Bittner of your office confirmed that no cultural resources will be effected by the project. Additionally, you had stated in our telephone conversation on September 12, 1990 that an artifact recovery plan is not required for projects where no cultural resources have been identified. Since no cultural resources are known to be under threat of adverse impact from the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project, no specific plans to mitigate adverse impacts are proposed. If, after construction has started, the contractor should discover the project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, the contractor will fulfill its responsibilities under 35 CFR, Part 800, by suspending work in the area of the impact, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to assess the significance of the resource, and developing mitigation measures, if warranted. Should any archeological resources be identified, the contractor would ·comply with requirements of the Mr. John Autrey September 20, 1990 Page 4 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which protects archaeological resources on publicly owned and Indian lands. I appreciate your review of this letter report and the enclosed studies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Robert S. Grimm Vern Neitzer September 20, 1990 Mr. Gregg Dixon Office of History & Archeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Pouch 107001 Anchorage, A.K 99510-7001 lil\ Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. A.K 880930-161 Dear Mr. Dixon: As we discussed in our recent telephone conversation, enclosed please find copies of the 1980 and I982 Archeological Investigations for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Below is a brief description of the project, as currently envisioned, and a summary of the two previous archeological studies in relation to the current project. We have also included a conclusion and recommendations. Please search your records and let us know if any cultural or historic sites have been identified in the project area, since the 1980 and 1982 studies, that would be impacted by the project. Additionally, please let us know if you concur with our findings, conclusions and recommendations, as described below. Project History The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska, approximately 14 road miles northeast of the town of Klawock. This hydroelectric site has been studied by the Alaska Power Authority and others since 1977. During this period numerous studies were conducted; the affected environment and resources in the project area were identified, impacts assessed and mitigative measures proposed by the Alaska Power Authority {AP A). A Federal Energy Reg-Ulatory Commission {FERC) license application was prepared in 1981 and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the FERC in 1983 for a 6 megawatt {MW) project. HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Uncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 Mr. Gregg Dixon September 20, 1990 Page 2 Project Description The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, as currently envisioned, is smaller than the initial project. It will have an installed capacity of slightly less than 5 MW and would consist of a siphon intake, penstock, powerhouse, two substations, access road and transmission line. Figure 1 shows the location of the project components. The siphon type intake, as described in the Initial Stage Consultation Information Document (AP&T, 1988), will use an unconventional screened intake structure to minimize intake water velocities and submersion requirements. A redundant siphon or pump arrangement is proposed to insure flows from the lake. An approximate 22-inch welded steel penstock is proposed to convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock will be above ground supported on saddles down to about 550 feet elevation. From that point it will be buried up to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location is presently envisioned at a site as shown on Figure 1. This site was chosen following a 1989 study of the geophysical hazards and the groundwater flows in upper Black Bear Creek (Bishop, et al. 1989). The powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal building approximately 30 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet high, located on a reinforced concrete foundation. A substation will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to another substation at Klawock via transmission line. The transmission line would follow the existing Sealaska logging and U.S. Forest Service roads for about 14 miles from the powerhouse to the Klawock substation. Archeological Investigations In 1980 a cultural resources assessment of the impact of construction of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project was begun (Bacon, 1980). The 1980 study was designed to provide data for planning purposes and did not cover all of the proposed project in detail. In 1982, another detailed archeological survey was performed over those areas which had not been surveyed in 1980 (Bacon, 1982). Uterature searches and field studies were conducted of the project area for the 1980 and 1982 studies. Literature searches, including a search of the records maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Alaskarctic library, were conducted for the project area. Additionally, persons with special knowledge of the history of the project area were also consulted. The literature searches did not identify any cultural resources within the areas of the ·currently proposed project. The field survey conducted in 1980 included the shoreline of Black Bear Lake, the damsite, spillway area, penstock alignment, and portions of the transmission line corridors, as proposed in 1980. The 1982 field survey covered Black Lake Valley from the site of the powerhouse proposed in 1982, along the proposed transmission line/access road route, to the point where the earlier 1980 survey ended. Additional transmission line routes were also surveyed in both the 1980 and 1982 studies that are no longer relevant for the currently proposed project. I I I jl ,_ . -·-Ill .. • ::: ~. > ~- •·· ;., , ... ·' ·i' .... \.~' '~ • \ ----\ -........-· --... ~~·:_ . ~ .r. . .. , I -:-..... -:_;./ t r~1 • .' 1 ,J : '· Mr. Gregg Dixon September 20, 1990 Page 3 No cultural resources were identified around Black Bear Lake or at the locations of the damsite, spillway area, and penstock alignment as proposed back in 1980. The damsite and spillway, previously proposed, has changed to a siphon type intake; however, the location of the currently proposed siphon intake is within the same general area as that surveyed in 1980. Although the currently proposed penstock configuration has changed somewhat from the configuration proposed in 1980, the upper less steep general area was surveyed and no cultural features were noted. The remainder of the penstock alignment was too steep to survey. It was concluded that this unsurveyed hillside was considered uninhabitable due to the steepness of the slope. During the 1980 study, the proposed transmission line was also surveyed from the town of Klawock on U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 to the middle of Section 25, T 72 S., R 82 E. No cultural resources were identified in areas near both sides of the road. (Bacon, 1980) The remainder of the proposed transmission line route, along U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 from the middle of Section 25 to the area of the powerhouse site, was surveyed in 1982. No cultural resources were identified during this field survey. The location of the powerhouse site has moved slightly from the powerhouse location proposed during the 1982 study. During the 1982 study, however, the visibility in the area was said to have been extremely poor, but the likelihood of undetected sites was stated to be equally extremely poor. The 1982 study also stated that the area exhibited all indications of being too unstable to have attracted human occupation. (Bacon, 1982) Conclusion and Recommendations No significant archeological or historical sites were discovered in the 1980 or 1982 studies during both the archeological survey and during the pre-field literature search and interviews held with several people knowledgeable about the area history. Since the currently proposed project components are in the same location or within the immediate vicinity of the past surveys, it is concluded that no significant cultural material would be adversely effected by proposed construction of the currently envisioned Black Bear Lake hydroelectric facility and associated transmission lines. A letter dated September 26, 1988, from Ms. Judith Bittner of your office confirmed that no cultural resources will be effected by the project. Additionally, you had stated in our telephone conversation on September 12, 1990 that an artifact recovery plan is not required for projects where no cultural resources have been identified. Since no cultural resources are known to be under threat of adverse impact from the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project, no specific plans to mitigate adverse impacts are proposed. If, after construction has started, the contractor should discover the project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, the contractor will fulfill its responsibilities under 35 CFR, Part 800, by suspending work in the area of the impact, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to assess the significance of the resource, and developing mitigation measures, if warranted. Should any archeological resources be identified, the contractor would · comply with requirements of the Mr. Gregg Dixon September 20, 1990 Page 4 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which protects archaeological resources on publicly owned and Indian lands. I appreciate your review of this letter report and the enclosed studies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Robert S. Grimm Vern Neitzer September 20, 1990 Ms. Corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock/Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, AK 99925 fil\ Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Ms. Garza: As we discussed in our recent telephone conversation, enclosed please find copies of the 1980 and 1?82 Archeological Investigations for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Below is a brief description of the project, as currently envisioned, and a summary of the two previous archeological studies in relation to the current project. We have also included a conclusion and recommendations. Please search your records and let us know if any cultural or historic sites have been identified in the project area, since the 1980 and 1982 studies, that would be impacted by the project. Additionally, please let us know if you concur with our findings, conclusions and recommendations, as described below. Project History The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska, approximately 14 road miles northeast of the town of Klawock. This hydroelectric site bas been studied by the Alaska Power Authority and others since 1977. During this period numerous studies were conducted; the affected environment and resources in the project area were identified, impacts assessed and mitigative measures proposed by the Alaska Power Authority (AP A). A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application was prepared in 1981 and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the FERC in 1983 for a 6 megawatt (MW) project. HDR Engin .. ring, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 Ms. Corrine Garza September 20, 1990 Page 2 Project Description The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, as currently envisioned, is smaller than the initial project. It will have an installed capacity of slightly less than 5 MW and would consist of a siphon intake, penstock, powerhouse, two substations, access road and transmission line. Figure 1 shows the location of the project components. I The siphon type intake, as described in the Initial Stage Consultation Information Document (AP&T, 1988), will use an unconventional screened intake structure to minimize intake water velocities and submersion requirements. A redundant siphon or pump arrangement is proposed to insure flows from the lake. An approximate 22·inch welded steel penstock is proposed to convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock will be above ground supported on saddles down to about 550 feet elevation. From that point it will be buried up to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location is presently envisioned at a site as shown on Figure 1. This site was chosen following a 1989 study of the geophysical hazards and the groundwater flows in upper Black Bear Creek (Bishop, et al. 1989). The powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal building approximately 30 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet high, located on a reinforced concrete foundation. A substation will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to another substation at Klawock via transmission line. The transmission line would follow the existing Sealaska logging and U.S. Forest Service roads for about 14 miles from the powerhouse to the Klawock substation. Archeological Investigations In 1980 a cultural resources assessment of the impact of construction of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project was begun (Bacon, 1980). The 1980 study was designed to provide data for planning purposes and did not cover all of the proposed project in detail. In 1982, another detailed archeological survey was performed over those areas which had not been surveyed in 1980 (Bacon, 1982). literature searches and field studies were conducted of the project area for the 1980 and 1982 studies. Literature searches, including a search of the records maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Alaskarctic library, were conducted for the project area. Additionally, persons with special knowledge of the history of the project area were also consulted. The literature searches did not identify any cultural resources within the areas of the currently proposed project. The field survey conducted in 1980 included the shoreline of Black Bear Lake, the damsi te, spillway area, penstock alignment, and portions of the transmission line corridors, as proposed in 1980. The 1982 field survey covered Black Lake Valley from the site of the powerhouse proposed in 1982, along the proposed transmission line/access road route, to the point where the earlier 1980 survey ended. Additional transmission line routes were also surveyed in both the 1980 and 1982 studies that are no longer relevant for the currently proposed project. I I 17 • .... . · ..... ~·...;.. \ 'rongass National :Forest , . .: v" / . "*'" . . ....... , --. ! ·----~' / -~ ~ uamuuuu~m. t. ' ( -"' . I ·•. -\) '"'l.oo.-:...~ II ;·-..,i _: i i ':; , = ,. . I ."").~-I" :, ; ...:..,;'-4 ;o _\_.. 'I ~.~. 4 .---. , ~ 1 . ·~ w-. "'C)Jo ~ /~~~.-' ~= .;·'.~-~---<~1 .. · __ :~·:i .·:~:y --' ··iti.i.iulf•_P,Utl_alfl :··::.,~ ... --5 ~".......-.-... -.\." -} ___ , ........ ·-· ";) ) =' (_,;; ~--....::_. I ,, .. = -~::~ ~ ~ :·:\ l6,_:/i~. -: .... ·~·· =;. ,;• ..J: ... , ... , .... ~ ·~-o 1- ~ . -~ -Bat , ·---....__ T72S \ T73S 0 !> -- ._.:..i ·:: .. ~='·>' . \! ,, r-/ '{_ ':. 'l . ' ( (' ( ~ , ) ,) N ' ~ . ' "i ~! ~-. r ~.--r -~=(-_-~·:.,_ __ -:..W --:-1:---- . ":... : . ' . --t ··. • ..... .......... -' \ •• t ' \ .....__ 19 _-'Tongass ~~~-2 1 \:1'--: • • I l .--··00~ National · -:l t -.-:--Forest ~-=-----=-F'·o-~ E , .... '\. I ' • • • ~ •• ,..J ' • .;. . t v 21 . ' 28 -!: r --.... • \ '• ;;· ·---~ \ .;.-.. ""' -----..:. '='""·' • /~·-,-\ .... I . ·-.. I : '-~ . ';""\ \ ~, ~ · ... __ ..... .-----~ . -~ .. ·•. -· . ' . , .. . -I ,.-:--I . ·-----... ~,_,. ~- \ · .... ~J :·---· ...... : ! ' · •• ·. r-:··.... r . ·' lt ··. \ -ci' ..;;---:P Jl"l . ~;;..'~·-~·· ---~,-: ' \ • ' I ---.. 'I ' \ ' ; ::.:~ l -...:. . • : 33 ;: :. _,.Jf n .-J ,....-' ... ..r.; . f ' ., (> ' I . { \ : •' ''"'"' ~ I ' .-. . -·· ~ : _: .l· _,o.:cP '_,.···~~· .• ~.~~··~~-~ -:.. -· I ~---'t --~-------.• ___ ")______ ;r•'mff~.J ' ~ I ''-., '/ ,-I . ......_ . L . __ . -~ fill~ , tJ . ~ _, .! I . . . -~-· II -.. _. I -i -· .,,.;,. -/ .. 1 ~. • s . I , 9 ,, -T·-._... . . . / .. / .: . -;,.:.... ·. '-, ~ . . / ..,. .....__.. -.,.~. ~ \\ '-,-. ) Kl•-'" ---·------~~~~~~-. .. •. ( I . ·:-~\·~ t-fl 14 \/~ ""=,.__-----:. ----~--.... I ~ ( \ \ _.1 • 2). ~ --' \.• · •. .,:,, 1 r -~ .-. " ... -. ..,f-._ . .. -. -l'i \ ' ' -(!].-, ~ --;..J . I I //)/-~ . -- -<) = -~ / "-~. ,14 - . • ..:.:·7 t2 ·~Siphon • .· . s '-,$ . i\..l~take, _· ~ I . ' . . ' ' ~ t . ~. " .. \ . ...__._ :.# -\ -~~-.... .__ - . w <. \ -~oil --' :n_ 4'. ;~ ..... ~.! .... ,~. rr "-.A . ' " , . --, u 18 '.,"\' 17 Black Bear LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Agt.re 1 Ms. Corrine Garza September 20, 1990 Page 3 No cultural resources were identified around Black Bear Lake or at the locations of the damsite, spillway area, and penstock alignment as proposed back in 1980. The damsite and spillway, previously proposed, has changed to a siphon type intake; however, the location of the currently proposed siphon intake is within the same general area as that surveyed in 1980. Although the currently proposed penstock configuration has changed somewhat from the configuration proposed in 1980, the upper less steep general area was surveyed and no cultural features were noted. The remainder of the penstock alignment was too steep to survey. It was concluded that this unsurveyed hillside was considered uninhabitable due to the steepness of the slope. ·During the 1980 study, the proposed transmission line was also surveyed from the town of Klawock on U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 to the middle of Section 25, T 72 S., R 82 E. No cultural resources were identified in areas near both sides of the road. (Bacon, 1980) The remainder of the proposed transmission line route, along U .. S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 from the middle of Section 25 to the area of the powerhouse site, was surveyed in 1982. No cultural resources were identified during this field survey. The location of the powerhouse site has moved slightly from the powerhouse location proposed during the 1982 study. During the 1982 study, however, the visibility in the area was said to have been extremely poor, but the likelihood of undetected sites was stated to be equally extremely poor. The 1982 study also stated that the area exhibited all indications of being too unstable to have attracted human occupation. (Bacon, 1982) Conclusion and Recommendations No significant archeological or historical sites were discovered in the 1980 or 1982 studies during both the archeological survey and during the pre-field literature search and interviews held with several people knowledgeable about the area history. Since the currently proposed project components are in the same location or within the immediate vicinity of the past surveys, it is concluded that no significant cultural material would be adversely effected by proposed construction of the currently envisioned Black Bear Lake hydroelectric facility and associated transmission lines. A letter dated September 26, 1988 from Ms. Judith Bittner, the State Historic Preservation Officer, confirmed that no cultural resources will be effected by the project. Additionally, the State of Alaska Office of History and Archeology stated that an artifact recovery plan is not required for projects where no cultural resources have been identified (Personal communication, Gregg Dixon, September 19?0). Since no cultural resources are known to be under threat of adverse impact from the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project, no specific plans to mitigate adverse impacts are proposed. If, after construction has started, the contractor should discover the project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, the contractor will fulfill its responsibilities under 35 CFR, Part 800, by suspending work in the area of the impact, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to assess the significance of the resource, and developing mitigation measures, if warranted. Should any archeological resources be identified, the contractor would comply with requirements of the Ms. Corrine Garza September 20, 1990 Page 4 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which protects archaeological resources on publicly owned and Indian lands. I appreciate your review of this letter report and the enclosed studies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Robert S. Grimm Vern Neitzer September 20, 1990 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930·161 Dear Mr. Harris: As we discussed in our recent telephone conversation, enclosed please find copies of the 1980 and 1982 Archeological Investigations for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Below is a brief description of the project, as currently envisioned, and a summary of the two previous archeological studies in relation to the current project. We have also included a conclusion and recommendations. Please search your records and let us know if any cultural or historic sites have been identified in the project area, since the 1980 and 1982 studies, that would be impacted by the project. Additionally, please let us know if you concur with our findings, conclusions and recommendations, as described below. Project History The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska, approximately 14 road miles northeast of the town of Klawock. This hydroelectric site has been studied by the Alaska Power Authority and others since 1977. During this period numerous studies were conducted; the affected environment and resources in the project area were identified, impacts assessed and mitigative measures proposed by the Alaska Power Authority (AP A). A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application was prepared in 1981 and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the FERC in 1983 for a 6 megawatt (MW) project. HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 Mr. Rick Harris September 20, 1990 Page 2 Project Description Th~ Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, as currently envisioned, is smaller than the initial project. It will have an installed capacity of slightly less than 5 MW and would consist of a siphon intake, penstock, powerhouse, two substations, access road and transmission line. Figure 1 shows the location of the project components. The siphon type intake, as described in the Initial Stage Consultation Information Document (AP&T, 1988), will use an unconventional screened intake structure to minimize intake water velocities and submersion requirements. A redundant siphon or pump arrangement is proposed to insure flows from the lake. An approximate 22-inch welded steel penstock is proposed to convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock will be above ground supported on saddles down to about 550 feet elevation. From that point it will be buried up to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location is presently envisioned at a site as shown on Figure 1. This site was chosen following a 1989 study of the geophysical hazards and the groundwater flows in upper Black Bear Creek (Bishop, et al. 1989). The powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal building approximately 30 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet high, located on a reinforced concrete foundation. A substation will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to another substation at Klawock via transmission line. The transmission line would follow the existing Sealaska logging and U.S. Forest Service roads for about 14 miles from the powerhouse to the Klawock substation. Archeological Investigations In 1980 a cultural resources assessment of the impact of construction of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project was begun (Bacon, 1980). The 1980 study was designed to provide data for planning purposes and did not cover all of the proposed project in detail. In 1982, another detailed archeological survey was performed over those areas which had not been surveyed in 1980 (Bacon, 1982). Uterature searches and field studies were conducted of the project area for the 1980 and 1982 studies. Literature searches, including a search of the records maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Alaskarctic library, were conducted for the project area. Additionally, persons with special knowledge of the history of the project area were also consulted. The literature searches did not identify any cultural resources within the areas of the currently proposed project. The field survey conducted in 1980 included the shoreline of Black Bear Lake, the damsite, spillway area, penstock alignment, and portions of the transmission line corridors, as proposed in 1980. The 1982 field survey covered Black Lake Valley from the site of the powerhouse proposed in 1982, along the proposed transmission line/access road route, to the point where the earlier 1980 survey ended. Additional transmission line routes were also surveyed in both the 1980 and 1982 studies that are no longer relevant for the currently proposed project. w 5 ... ). ' . \.~ ·' I •. (I) (I) N "' .... .... . .... ... . . .n .. -CQ I I • ~. ' > .. :: : \ Mr. Rick Harris September 20, 1990 Page 3 No cultural resources were identified around Black Bear Lake or at the locations of the damsite, spillway area, and penstock alignment as proposed back in 1980. The damsite and spillway, previously proposed, has changed to a siphon type intake; however, the location of the currently proposed siphon intake is within the same general area as that surveyed in 1980. Although the currently proposed penstock configuration has changed somewhat from the configuration proposed in 1980, the upper less steep general area was surveyed and no cultural features were noted. The remainder of the penstock alignment was too steep to survey. It was concluded that this unsurveyed hillside was considered uninhabitable due to the steepness of the slope. · During the 1980 study, the proposed transmission line was also surveyed from the town of Klawock on U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 to the middle of Section 25, T 72 S., R 82 E. No cultural resources were identified in areas near both sides of the road. (Bacon, 1980) The remainder of the proposed transmission line route, along U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 from the middle of Section 25 to the area of the powerhouse site, was surveyed in 1982. No cultural resources were identified during this field survey. The location of the powerhouse site has moved slightly from the powerhouse location proposed during the 1982 study. During the 1982 study, however, the visibility in the area was said to have been extremely poor, but the likelihood of undetected sites was stated to be equally extremely poor. The 1982 study also stated that the area exhibited all indications of being too unstable to have attracted human occupation. (Bacon, 1982) Conclusion and Recommendations No significant archeological or historical sites were discovered in the 1980 or 1982 studies during both the archeological survey and during the pre-field literature search and interviews held with several people knowledgeable about the area history. Since the currently proposed project components are in the same location or within the immediate vicinity of the past surveys, it is concluded that no significant cultural material would be adversely effected by proposed construction of the currently envisioned Black Bear Lake hydroelectric facility and associated transmission lines. A letter dated September 26, 1988 from Ms. Judith Bittner, the State Historic Preservation Officer, confirmed that no cultural resources will be effected by the project. Additionally, the State of Alaska Office of History and Archeology stated that an artifact recovery plan is not required for projects where no cultural resources have been identified (Personal communication, Gregg Dixon, September 1990). Since no cultural resources are known to be under threat of adverse impact from the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project, no specific plans to mitigate adverse impacts are proposed. If, after construction has started, the contractor should discover the project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, the contractor will fulfill its responsibilities under 35 CFR, Part 800, by suspending work in the area of the impact, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to assess the significance of the resource, and developing mitigation measures, if warranted. Should any archeological resources be identified, the contractor would comply with requirements of the Mr. Rick Harris September 20, 1990 Page 4 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which protects archaeological resources on publicly owned and Indian lands. I appreciate your review of this letter report and the enclosed studies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Robert S. Grimm Vern Neitzer September 20, 1990 Mr. Robert Loescher Executive Vice President One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930..161 Dear Mr. Loescher: As we discussed in our recent telephone conversation, enclosed please find copies of the 1980 and 1982 Archeological Investigations for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Below is a brief description of the project, as currently envisioned, and a sumniary of the two previous archeological studies in relation to the current project. We have also included a conclusion and recommendations. Please search your records and let us know if any cultural or historic sites have been identified in the project area, since the 1980 and 1982 studies, that would be impacted by the project. Additionally, please let us know if you concur with our fmdings, conclusions and recommendations, as described below. Project History The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska, approximately 14 road miles northeast of the town of Klawock. This hydroelectric site has been studied by the Alaska Power Authority and others since 1977. During this period numerous studies were conducted; the affected environment and resources in the project area were identified, impacts assessed and mitigative measures proposed by the Alaska Power Authority (APA). A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application was prepared in 1981 and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the FERC in 1983 for a 6 megawatt (MW) project. HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 Mr. Robert Loescher September 20, 1990 Page 2 Project Description The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, as currently envisioned, is smaller than the initial project. It will have an installed capacity of slightly less than 5 MW and would consist of a siphon intake, penstock, powerhouse, two substations, access road and transmission line. Figure 1 shows the iocation of the project components. The siphon type intake, as described in the Initial Stage Consultation Information Document (AP&T, 1988), will use an unconventional screened intake structure to minimize intake water velocities and submersion requirements. A redundant siphon or pump arrangement is proposed to insure flows from the lake. An approximate 22-inch welded steel penstock is proposed to convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock will be above ground supported on saddles down to about 550 feet elevation. From that point it will be buried up to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location is presently envisioned at a site as shown on Figure 1. This site was chosen following a 1989 study of the geophysical hazards and the groundwater flows in upper Black Bear Creek (Bishop, et al. 1989). The powerhouse will be a pr~fabricated metal building approximately 30 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet high, located on a reinforced concrete foundation. A substation will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to another substation at Klawock via transmission line. The transmission line would follow the existing Sealaska logging and U.S. Forest Service roads for about 14 miles from the powerhouse to the Klawock substation. Archeological Investigations In 1980 a cultural resources assessment of the impact of construction of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project was begun (Bacon, 1980). The 1980 study was designed to provide data for planning purposes and did not cover all of the proposed project in detail. In 1982, another detailed archeological survey was performed over those areas which had not been surveyed in 1980 (Bacon, 1982). Literature searches and field studies were conducted of the project area for the 1980 and 1982 studies. Literature searches, including a search of the records maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Alaskarctic library, were conducted for the project area. Additionally, persons with special knowledge of the history of the project area were also consulted. The literature searches did not identify any cultural resources within the areas of the cilrrently proposed project. The field survey conducted in 1980 included the shoreline of Black Bear Lake, the damsite, spillway area, penstock alignment, and portions of the transmission line corridors, as proposed in 1980. The 1982 field survey covered Black Lake Valley from the site of the powerhouse proposed in 1982, along the proposed transmission line/access road route, to the point where the earlier 1980 survey ended. Additional transmission line routes were also surveyed in both the 1980 and 1982 studies that are no longer relevant for the currently proposed project. I I I I I I ~~~· ~ ,, ~ • ·-IQ • .. ::: : ··- ~. > ·•. ~ \ (I) N ... .... (I) .. - ~ .. ... .... .. "' \ Mr. Robert Loescher September 20, 1990 Page 3 No cultural resources were identified around Black Bear Lake or at the locations of the damsite, spillway area, and penstock alignment as proposed back in 1980. The damsite and spillway, previously proposed, has changed to a siphon type intake; however, the location of the currently proposed siphon intake is within the same general area as that surveyed in 1980. Although the currently proposed penstock configuration has changed somewhat from the configuration proposed in 1980, the upper less steep general area was surveyed and no cultural features were noted. The remainder of the penstock alignment was too steep to survey. It was concluded that this unsurveyed hillside was considered uninhabitable due to the steepness of the slope.· During the 1980 study, the proposed transmission line was also surveyed from the town of Klawock on U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 to the middle of Section 25, T 72 S., R 82 E. No cultural resources were identified in areas near both sides of the road. (Bacon, 1980) The remainder of the proposed transmission line route, along U.S. Forest Development Road No. 5000 from the middle of Section 25 to the area of the powerhouse site, was surveyed in 1982. No cultural resources were identified during this field survey. The location of the powerhouse site has moved· slightly from the powerhouse location proposed during the 1982 study. During the 1982 study, however, the visibility in the area was said to have been extremely poor, but the likelihood of undetected sites was stated to be equally extremely poor. The 1982 study also stated that the area exhibited all indications of being too unstable to have attracted human occupation. (Bacon, 1982) Conclusion and Recommendations No significant archeological or historical sites were discovered in the 1980 or 1982 studies during both the archeological survey and during the pre-field literature search and interviews held with several people knowledgeable about the area history. Since the currently proposed project components are in the same location or within the immediate vicinity of the past surveys, it is concluded that no significant cultural material would be adversely effected by proposed construction of the currently envisioned Black Bear Lake hydroelectric facility and associated transmission lines. A letter dated September 26, 1988 from Ms. Judith Bittner, the State Historic Preservation Officer, confirmed that no cultural resources will be effected by the project. Additionally, the State of Alaska Office of History and Archeology stated that an artifact recovery plan is not required for projects where no cultural resources have been identified (Personal communication, Gregg Dixon, September 1990). Since no cultural resources are known to be under threat of adverse impact from the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project, no specific plans to mitigate adverse impacts are proposed. If, after construction has started, the contractor should discover the project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, the contractor will fulfill its responsibilities under 35 CFR, Part 800, by suspending work in the area of the impact, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to assess the significance of the resource, and developing mitigation measures, if warranted. Should any archeological resources be identified, the contractor would comply with requirements of the Mr. Robert Loescher September 20, 1990 Page 4 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which protects archaeological resources on publicly owned and Indian lands. I appreciate your review of this letter report and the enclosed studies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Deborah A. Howe Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Robert S. Grimm Vem Neitzer October 3, 1990 Ms. Yvonne Bird USFS 3031 Tongass Ave Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Re: Black Bear Lake Recreation Study Dear Ms. Bird: As we discussed in our telephone conversation, enclosed please find the survey forms which were put in Black Bear Lake cabin last May and August. I have also enclosed, for your information, ~he letters which we sent to the Craig Ranger District with the survey forms. I appreciate your help by sending these forms to those groups who had reserved the Black Bear Lake cabin in the last year. Sincerely, Deborah A. Howe Enclosure cc: Robert Grimm -AP&T Mike Eberhardt -DNR-Juneau Don Fisher -USFS Glenn Freeman -ADF&G, Klawock HDR Envineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 TeleQhone 206 453-1523 May 9, 1990 Mr. Steve Segovia, District Ranger Craig Ranger District United States Forest Service Tongass National Forest P.O. Box SOO Craig, Alaska 99921 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project: FERC Project No. 10440 Dear Mr. Segovia: HDR Engineering, Inc:. (HDR) is in the process of developing data and performing environmental studies for the license application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric: Project. During the course of project scoping, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game requested the applicant, Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) to provide information on the fishery up at Black Bear Lake. HDR, on behalf of its client AP&T, developed the attached forms to be used in this survey and is also supplying stamped, addressed envelopes for the data return. Since the cabin users probably are the majority of people who fish this lake, we would appreciate the Service carrying in these forms into the cabin on the first flight in. We are also providing an instruction sheet and pencils to be placed with the materials in the cabin. Bob Latham of your Ketchikan Supervisors office, has suggested that this might be the best way to accomplish our task. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Also, as one of the intervenor agencies of record in this lic:ensiqg proceeding, you will receive a copy of the full survey results (June 1991) as an appendix to the project license application. Thank you in advance for your assistance. NHM/sal Enc:lo_sures cc: · Glenn Freeman • ADF&G Klawock Robert Grimm • AP&T HDR lntin .. rin .. Inc. ....... ., ......... . Suite 200 Uncoln Pl•a 11225 S.!. Sixth Street. 8uildi"9 C Bellevue. Wllhin;ton · 98()01&.&441 Telephone 2oe 453-1523 . 1 I I I I I .: .. : .. .. .. . " . . .. -~ ........ .. .. . . .. .. . . .. 'i·~ .. • ... -I ·.: ;.·. ,l" July 27, 1990 Ms. Grace Kosanke, Recreation Specialist Craig Ranger District United States Forest Service Tongass National Forest P.O. Box SOO Craig, AK 99921 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project: FERC Project No. 10440 Dear Ms. Kosanke: HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) is in the process of developing data and performing environmental studies for the license application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project.. During. the ·course of project scoping, the Alaska Depanment of Natural Resources requested the applicant, Alaska Power ahd Telephone (AP&T) to provide information on hunting use of tl;te Black Bear Lake cabin. HDR., on behalf of its client AP&T, developed the attached questionnaires to be used in this survey and is also supplying stamped, addressed envelopes for the data return. As we discussed, we would appreciate the Service carrying in these forms into the cabin on the first flight in. Instructions are. included on the survey form. We are also providing pendls to be placed with the materials in the cabin. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Also, as one of the intervenor agencies of record in this licensinJ proceeding, you will receive a copy of the full survey results (June 1991) as an appendix to the project license application. • Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~0.~ Deborah A. Howe ,.,. cc. Mike Eberhardt • DNR-Juneau Robert Grimm • AP&T Don Fisher • USFS · Glenn Seaman-ADF&G, Klawock Suitll200 UncotnPtaa 11225 S.E. Sixd'l Sn«. Building C Bel14wue. Wunincn:an Te~eot~one 208 453-1523 HUNTING USE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE BLACK BEAR LAKE CABIN. ease fill out this questionnaire and locate the areas that you hunted on the map below. Fill out a questionnaire for each day you are in the area. Place the completed questionnaires in the envelopes · provided and mail it. · The purpose of this questionnaire, sponsored by HDR Engineering, Inc., is to provide information to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Department of NaturaJ Resources on the current hunting activity at the Black Bear Lake cabin. We appreciate your cooperation. DATE: J J _ · WEATHER: RAIN OVERCAST PLACE OF RESIOENCE: (TOWN) FOG SUNNY (STATE) ':'GU~I~O:ED=-:--":"':'UN:"'!"G:o:U~I~DED: NUMBER OF PEOPL! IN PARTY: ADULTS CHILOREN TARGET SPECIES: OEER BL.ACi<BEAR TIME ACTUAU.Y HUNii'f5: (NEAREST 1/2,HR.) FROM _:_AM/PM TO: . : AM/PM -BOW WEAPON USED: HANDGUN CAL RIFLE NUMBER OF SPECIES CAUGHT: · OEER BLACK BEAR NUMBER OF SPECIES OBSERVED: • -OEER BLACK BEAR HOW OFTEN 00 YOU COME TO THIS CAirN? WHAT OTHER PlACES 00 YOU GO FOR HUNTING? HOW 010 YOU LEARN AIOUT THIS CABIN? -- ft.aMa IHOW .,.. L.OCAnat 'fOU HWITm UICH ~y at A MPMATi .IURVU fiiiOIIIa 0 400 100ott SCALI -iiil!!!&iil!!!il BlACK BEAR LAKF ' '.-- . -·' ; __, .... DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I I OIVISION OF PARKS ANO OUTOOOR RECREATION J October 5, 1990 File No: Subject: 3130-1R FERC Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440 AK990930-16J Mrs. Deborah A. Howe HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, W A 98004-6441 Dear Mrs. Howe: / I I STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE: (907) 561·2020 MAILING AOORESS: P.O. Box 10 7001 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510-7001 As requested in your September 20, 1990 letter to Greg Dixon of my staff, we have reviewed our Alaska Heritage Resources Survey record for sites in the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project area that may have been found since Dr. Bacon's 1980 and 1982 surveys. We find no sites have been reported within the project area and the probability for sites to be encountered there is low. Therefore, I concur with your opinion that no historic properties are present to be effected by the proposed facility and transmission lines construction. If the contractor unexpectedly encounters historic or prehistoric properties during construction, activities which may disturb them should be suspended and the lead federal agencv, probably the Federal Energy Regulation Commission in this 'case, should be contacted immediately so they can comply with their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Their compliance will include arriving at the National Register eligibility of the property encountered and assessing the effect of the activities on it. If the property is found eligible, it will have to be avoided or they will need to develop mitigating measures in consultation with this office. If we can be of further assistance with this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at (907) 762-2622. Sincerely, ~~~l~ State Historic Preservation Officer JEB:GD October 12, 1990 Mr. Nevin Holmberg Field Supervisor U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1287 Juneau,AJC 99802 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AJ( 880930-161 Dear Mr. Holmberg: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the 1990 DRAFI' fisheries studies associated with the proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company hydroelectric project on Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The enclosed document includes a Salmonid Out-migrant Study, Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study, Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study, and Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study. Observations for adult coho salmon, to be performed as part of the Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study, had not been performed at the time of this draft report. The survey is scheduled to be conducted in Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, in late October. The results of the observations will be presented in a letter report and in the final report. An angler survey was conducted from May through October. A signed card box with survey forms were placed at the mouth of Black Lake for fishermen and guides. Additionally, survey forms were put in the US Forest Service cabin at Black Bear Lake. The results of the angler census and hunter surveys will be provided in a separate report. HDR Engineering. Inc. Su1te 200 Lsncoln Pla.za 11225 S. E. Sixth Street, Build1ng C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1 523 October 12, 1990 Page 2 We would appreciate your timely review of the DRAFT studies and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any questions concerning these studies. Sincerely, Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager cc: Robert Grimm VemNeitzer October 12, 1990 Mr. Chuck Osborne U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 3193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Mr. Osborne: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the 1990 DRAFT fisheries studies associated with the proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company hydroelectric project on Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The enclosed document includes a Salmonid Out-migrant Study, Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study, Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study, and Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study. Observations for adult coho salmon, to be performed as part of the Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study, had not been performed at the time of this draft report. The survey is scheduled to be conducted in Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, in late October. The results of the observations will be presented in a letter report and in the final report. An angler survey was conducted from May through October. A signed card box with survey forms were placed at the mouth of Black Lake for fishermen and guides. Additionally, survey forms were put in the US Forest Service cabin at Black Bear Lake. The results of the angler census and hunter surveys will be provided in a separate report. HDR EnginHring. Inc. SUite 200 lmcoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Butlding C Bellevue. Washtngton 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 October U, 1990 Page 2 We would appreciate your timely review of the DRAFr studies and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any questions concerning these studies. Sincerely, -Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager cc: Robert Grimm Vern Neitzer October 12, 1990 Mr. Rick Reed Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Protection Division Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 20 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Reed: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the 1990 DRAFT fisheries studies associated with the proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company hydroelectric project on Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The enclosed document includes a Salmonid Out-migrant Study, Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study, Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study, and Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study. Observations for adult coho salmon, to be performed as part of the Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study, had not been performed at the time of this draft report. The survey is scheduled to be conducted in Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, in late October. The results of the observations. will be presented in a letter report and in the final repon. An angler survey was conducted from May through October. A signed card box with survey forms were placed at the mouth of Black Lake for fishermen and guides. Additionally, survey forms were put in the US Forest Service cabin at Black Bear Lake. The results of the angler census and hunter surveys will be provided in a separate report. HDR Engin-ring. Inc. SUite 200 l.Jncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Slltth Street. Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 October 12, 1990 Page 2 We would appreciate your timely review of the DRAFT studies and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any questions concerning these studies. Sincerely, ~ EN1INEERING, INC ~~.=<" Neil H. Ma onald National Hydropower Program Manager cc: Robert Grimm Vern Neitzer October 12, 1990 Mr. Glenn Freeman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Span Fish Division P.O. Box 101 Klawock, AK. 99925 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Freeman: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the 1990 DRAFT fisheries studies associated with the proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company hydroelectric project on Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The enclosed document includes a Salmonid Out-migrant Study, Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study, Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study, and Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study. Observations for adult coho salmon, to be performed as part of the Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study, had not been performed at the time of this draft report. The survey is scheduled to be conducted in Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, in late October. The results of the observations will be presented in a letter report and in the final report. An angler survey was conducted from May through October. A signed card box with survey forms were placed at the mouth of Black Lake for fishermen and guides. Additionally, survey forms were put in the US Forest Service cabin at Black Bear Lake. The results of the angler census and hunter surveys will be provided in a separate report. HDR Enginnring. Inc. Sutte 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue. W&shtngton 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 October 12, 1990 Page 2 We would appreciate your timely review of the DRAFT studies and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any questions concerning these studies. Sincerely, Neil H:·Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager cc: Robert Grimm Vern Neitzer October 12, 1990 Mr. Bill Janes Department of Environmental Conservation Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 2420 Junea~AJC 99811 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AJ( 880930-161 Dear Mr. Janes: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the 1990 DRAFT fisheries studies associated with the proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company hydroelectric project on Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The enclosed document includes a Salmonid Out-migrant Study, Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study, Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study, and Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study. Observations for. adult coho salmon, to be performed as part of the Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study, had not been performed at the time of this draft report. The survey is scheduled to be conducted in Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, in late October. The results of the observations will be presented in a letter report and in the final report. An angler survey was conducted from May through October. A signed card box with survey forms were placed at the mouth of Black Lake for fishermen and guides. Additionally, survey forms were put in the US Forest Service cabin at Black Bear Lake. The results of the angler census and hunter surveys will be provided in a separate report. HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S E. S1xth Street. Bu1ld1ng C Bellevue. Wash~ngton 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 October U, 1990 Page 2 We would appreciate your timely review of the DRAFT studies and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any questions concerning these studies. Sincerely, ~GINEE~G, INC Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager cc: Robert Grimm Vern ~eitzer October 12, 1990 Mr. Chris Landis Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400 Juneau, A.K. 99801-1796 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. A.K. 880930-161 Dear Mr. Landis: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the 1990 DRAFr fisheries studies associated with the proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company hydroelectric project on Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The enclosed document includes a Salmonid Out-migrant Study, Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study, Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study, and Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study. Observations for adult coho salmon, to be performed as part of the Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study, had not been performed at the time of this draft report. The survey is scheduled to be conducted in Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, in late October. The results of the observations will be presented in a letter report and in the final report. An angler survey was conducted from May through October. A signed card box with survey forms were placed at the mouth of Black Lake for fishermen and guides. Additionally, survey forms were put in the US Forest Service cabin at Black Bear Lake. The results of the angler census and hunter surveys will be provided in a separate report. HDR Engin .. ring. Inc. Su1te 200 L.ncoln Plaza 11225 S E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washtngton 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453·1523 October 12, 1990 Pagel We would appreciate your timely review of the DRAFT studies and response in the fonn of written comments so that we c:a.n finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Roben Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any questions concerning these studies. Sincerely, Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager cc: Roben Grimm Ve~ Neitzer October 12, 1990 Ms. Tamra Faris U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 1-il\ Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Ms. Faris: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the· 1990 DRAFT fisheries studies associated with the proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company hydroelectric project on Black Bear Lake, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The enclosed document includes a Salmonid Out-migrant Study, Habitat Mapping of Black Bear Creek/Black Lake Study, Juvenile Coho Salmon Habitat Use Study, and Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study. Observations for adult coho salmon, to be performed as pan of the Adult Anadromous Salmonid Escapement Study, had not been performed at the time of this draft report. The survey is scheduled to be conducted in Black Bear Creek, between Black Lake and the upwelling areas, in late October. The results of the observations will be presented in a letter report and in the final report. An angler survey was conducted from May through October. A signed card box with survey forms were placed at the mouth of Black Lake for fishermen and guides. Additionally, survey forms were put in the US Forest Service cabin at Black Bear Lake. The results of the angler census and hunter surveys will be provided in a separate report. HDR Engineering. Inc. SUite 200 Lmcoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 October U, 1990 Pagel We would appreciate your timely review of the DRAFT studies and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any questions concerning these studies. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager cc: Robert Grimm Vern Neitzer October 15, 1990 (See Attached Ust) Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear: A meeting has been planned on November 8, 1990 to discuss the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. It will be held at: . State of Alaska Office of the Governor Division of Governmental Coordination 431 North Franklin, Fourth Floor Conference Room Juneau, Alaska 99811·0165 The meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. and is expected to last all day. The agenda for the meeting will include the following: a General Project Overview a Progress Report a Results of Studies/Plans to Date Including: • Temperature Regime Monitoring • Dye Testing of Tailrace Injection System • Baseline Habitat, Wildlife, and Vegetation Mapping • Erosion and Sediment Control Plan • Cultural and Archaeological Resources • Recreational Resources • Salmonid Outmigrant, Rearing, Escapement Studies a Schedule of Upcoming Items HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200 Uncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 October 15, 1990 Page 2 Enclosed, for your information, is a location map, site plan and profile showing the proposed project facilities. The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, as currently envisioned, will have an installed capacity of up to slightly less than 5 MW and would consist of a siphon intake, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace, a switchyard, substation, an access road, and transmission line. The siphon intake will include a pump arrangement to insure flows from the lake. The penstock will be either above ground or angle bored down to about the 550 foot elevation. From that point, it will be buried in a trench down to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location is proposed at a site as shown on the enclosed figures. This site was chosen following a 1989 study of the geophysical hazards and the groundwater flows in upper Black Bear Creek (Bishop, et al. 1989). A switchyard will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to a substation at Klawock via a 34 KV A transmission line. The transmission line would follow the existing Sealaska logging and U.S. Forest Service roads for about 14 miles from the powerhouse to interconnect with the Klawock substation. Please do nqt hesitate to call either Robert Grimm at AP&T or me if you have any question, comments, or suggestions concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. We hope to see you at the November 8th meeting. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure BLACK BEAR LAKE AGENCY MEETING-NOVEMBER 8, 1990 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Endangered Species Specialist u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Nevin Holmberg U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1287 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Chuck Osborne U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 3193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Rick Reed Department of Fish and Game Habitat Protection Division Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 20 Douglas, Alaska 99824-0020 Mr. Jack Gustafson Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, Suite 205 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Mr. Glenn Freeman Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division P.O. Box 101 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Director Office of Hydropower Licensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 301-RB 825 North Capitol Street N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Hr. William Wakefield II, P.E., Chief Planning and Support Branch Division of Project Review Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 810 First Street. NE, Room 1018 Washington, D.C. 20426 Hr. Arthur Hartin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, Oregon 97204 Division of Environmental Quality Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Hr. Bill Janes Department of Environmental Conservation Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 2420 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99801-0165 Director Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management Southcentral Regional Office 3601 •c• Street P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005 ACHP Liaison Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Andrew Pekovich Acting Regional Manager Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby, Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1000 Hr. Chris Landis Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1796 Mr. Michael Eberhardt Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801-1796 Ms. Judith Bittner and Mr. Gregg Dixon Office of History l Archaeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Pouch 107001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7001 Ms. Georgina Akers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 Mr. Steven T. Zimmerman Chief, Protected Resources Division National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Steve Penoyer, Director. Alaska Region U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service ~.0. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 Ms. Tamra Faris U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 Ms. Constance Sathre Staff Attorney Nat1onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P.O. Box 21109 Juneau, AK 99802-1109 Environmental Impact Review Officer Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Mr. Dan Robison u.s. Environmental Protection Agency 701 •c• Street Anchorage, AK 99513 Mr. Paul Haertel Associate Regional Director Resource Services Alaska Regional Office National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2892 Mr. Larry Wright Environmental Protection Specialist National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Michael Lunn, Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Mr Gary Laver U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Ms. Jeannie Grant U.S. Forest Service Craig Ranger District P.O. Box 500 Craig, Alaska 99921 Ms. Charity Fletcher City Planner City of Craig P.O. Box 23 Craig, AK 99921 The Honorable Dennis Watson Mayor, City of Craig P.O. Box 23 Craig, AK 99921 The Honorable Mr. Dan Wagner Mayor, City of Thorne Bay P. 0. Box 19 110 Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919 The Honorable Aaron T. Isaacs, Jr. Major, City of Klawock P.O. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Mr. Al Macasaet City of Klawock P .0. Box 113 Klawock, AK 99925 Mr. Mike McKinnon Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Technical Services P.O. Box 1467 Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Rich Poor Department of Transportation and Public Facilities P.O. Box Z Juneau, AK 99811 Regional Environmental Officer Department of the Interior 1675 c Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5198 Mr. George A. Walters Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Mr. Bob Martin General Manager Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-0149 Mr. Robert W. Loescher Executive Vice President One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 'Mr. Glen Charles President Shaan Seet, Inc. P.O. Box 90 Craig, Alaska 99921-0090 Mr. Robert s. Grimm, President Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 2222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Vern Neitzer V1ce President, Engineering Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 456 Skagway, AK 99840 Mr. Eugene Neblett 1617 Roger Court El Cerrito, California 94530 Richard C. Konopacky, Ph.D. Pentec Environmental, Inc. 200 S. Cole Rd., Suite 200 Boise, Idaho 83709 -.. ....--------~-. ~ •JV . r-L · /-:·~· ~ •:,·_.· / I ~ .rr__. ' /,J . ·-• ,, .· ,.J I ) J J II 1 ' . t ' I ( ,i ··-· .. lfJ ~-.... _, .. ·. _, .•· ,. : I .. .... ..,o 8if $•It -........, '• '\; . . . : ( ·, ···' . ' ~ . 17 • ·. I } / ) -,, .. ,.. 18 :r-·.-1·-. •,'*-·.... : \ \ . I ' . ·.... . ... '. \ ·,j 19 . Tongass : __ -~-21 ~ : ~ ,.. ~ 1 ~ _j National _ _ '' ()-· ' · Forest 1 F o JJ; E lr • ........... ~. •. _ _.,-;· .. · .... I ~ .• .·••• t ,· __ .. , .. t)fl ,.•' • ._.-~-· I ·. ]() l/ 29 .. \ 28, •: • ·-._I ·-· ,_( .. ) . ·~folo~lllii-~fff+lf+f+-f.-~· ,M,.~'l:..:-t · · ·· · -· · ··· · ·'!-.:.: ' . ' -f . ;··· l~ ! . ; ! ,,.· 3J ' ~ ·t. > :,-. ·-· I \ ~725 •: , , '• '. :.:.t/ ' ; c., ... ,. ··~. . . ..... ~~)!' \ .,... __ ., I I . \ .... i j,{~-~ 14 ) ; ~--\' ( \_ • I <• / IJ I . 1 ,--· ( c1 '/ !\ \ /-<:](~-~ .,,., « « '*"' c. T73S ,·. li, . .. !> ~ )~. -~ .... JJ .• •• .......4,..--·----~---..tL--- ,14 "' I ' I ~ .. -.......... . I ,, 1.1 Black Bear LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PAQJECT LOCATION MAP 8 --::::-~ ··:· . ...... BLACK BEAR LAKE ~ c:: ~ " \ ·-···---- ... --. -___. '\. . '" ~,oO ·. " ,• I , \ ~ . , ...... '· ' '· -. ..,:--' .. ' ·-. . , " ' ., -·-- ·· ... -. fJ . , I ...... ~~ 'l ,,, ... / -··' ,:;:..-~ ..... lj .•• ,,:··'" ~ '• -, ·'-...... , , .. ' , '", ,, . \.': ' ., ' /.l' ,, I' " ,, ~ .-.... •• ) •,7 / """,.. . ,, -t :: ~' ,,'.' -. .~ (, , .. ,· " ,, -, .. •-,> .~' rlt" ~~ ~··· •. -1 \ ) ..--: .-,. I '-,,. :: ,..., ., . '• . __ .•. / / (_ / ·--- '• :. •' ,, . . . . I' ,. ,.~: . , '" ~ .. --- _,.,-/" .. r-.. ::-J~'-~ -~--.:..:_ -,.) _,.. .// BLACK BEAR LAKE -I HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ,----- SITE PLAN I "' LL u < II: .. .. 0 < . ... .. '--.. fr ... u w w..., 0 :IC:Q 0 <a: "' I • ..JQ.w (I) .. ;:, .. ~~= 0 ::1: I wa::u. II: c.ol-0 "' ua:: ~ t :~C:WQ. 0 0 u..J IL .. <w ) . ...~o ... c.oa:: .., c r > r J: r .. 0 . 0 .., .. u .. . 0 ... ... ... ., z 0 "' II. .. % w ., 0 "' .. 0 ..J I II: .. u: :.. ;:, . ... 0 .. < w • .. a: ) ... Q. ... Cl) < u I Cl) I .. .. I . .. I ~ I I .. .. . I ~ I'\ 0 c 0 I 0 . ID "' • liC I "' < .. ... I " ! z < z I 0 ::1: .. !!:: .. . 0 llif Uc:.: <~~o~c ; ... .. .. 0 0 .. .. .. .. 2 "" 0 .. .. - HOI.&. Y l\liU P.O. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 October 30, 1990 Neil H. MacDonald HDR Engineering Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza CITY OF KLAWOCK ALASKA 11225 S.E. 6th Street, Building C Bellevue, WA 98004-6444 Dear Mr. MacDonald, Phone: (907)-755-2216 or 755·2262 !~90 L----------- Thank you for your invitation to testify at the Hydro-Electric hearing in Juneau regarding The Black Bear Lake Project. Due to budget constraints, the City of Klawock will not be represented but would like to take this opportunity to comment by letter. The City of Klawock supports the Black Bear Lake Hydro-Electric Project. In the last few years, we have seen rapid population growth in our community and expect both the population and business growth to continue. A stable and predictable utility rate would sreatly aid in economic development and would stabilize an economy that has been somewhat erratic. Additionally, we are looking for a way to lower costs to the individual user. The current rates and the dependency on petroleum with its volatile price fluctuations is a hardship for many of our local residents. Finally, let me add that if we at the City can help facilitate the project, please let us know. Sincerely, -]'1~~'(.-.-./. 4=-c - Marvin L. Yode'r City Administrator MY/cg November 12, 1990 Mr. Chuck Osborne U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 3193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Mr. Osborne: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on the epclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453-7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~<\b~ Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Clay, HDR Jim Peterson., HDR Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring.lnc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 12, 1990 Mr. Jack Gustafson Depanment of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, Suite 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Mr. Gustafson: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy ap.y comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453·7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HOR ENGINEERING, INC. ~<tbb'- Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Oay, HDR Jim Peterson, HDR . Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 12, 1990 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW Juneau, AK 99801-0165 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Ms. Marshall: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453-7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~<lhrt~ Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Clay, HDR Jim Peterson, HDR Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDA Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 12, 1990 Ms. Elena Witkin Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 2420 Juneau, AK 99811 Re: Bli1ck Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Ms. Witkin: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453-7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~~ Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Clay, HDR Jim Peterson, HDR Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1 523 November 12, 1990 Mr. Chris Landis Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Mr. Landis: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or ~om.ments, on the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453-7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~ctbi~ Nell H. Macdonald · National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Qay, HDR Jim Peterson, HDR Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDR EnginHring. Inc. Suite200 Uncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 12, 1990 Mr. Bob Martin Tiingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821-0149 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453-7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~~ Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Oay, HDR Jim Peterson, HDR Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring, Inc. Suite200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue. WashingtOn 980()4...64.41 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 12, 1990 Mr. Richard Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Harris: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453-7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. (\IJ.u~~ ~acdon2Ud National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Oay, HDR Jim Peterson, HDR Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitter, AP&T HDR EnginHring. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 12, 1990 Mr. Ernest Hillman Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Hillman: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453-7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. U%~t1- Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Oay, HDR Jim Peterson, HDR Richard Konopack:y, Pentec Environmental .BobG~AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 12, 1990 Mr. George Gardner Klawock Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, AK. 99925 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK. 88093()..16J Dear Mr. Gardner: Enclosed are the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please review these meeting notes and forward any changes or comments, on· the enclosed, to us as soon as possible. You may call, send, or telecopy any comments you may.have to us. Our telecopy number is (206) 453·7107. We appreciated your attendance at the meeting and look forward to talking with you again soon. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. U%dM~ Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager Enclosure cc. Roger Oay, HDR Jim Peterson,.HDR Richard Konopacky, Pentec Environmental Bob Grimm, AP&T Vernon Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring. Inc. Suite200 Uncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453·1523 BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECI'RIC PROJECT AGENCY CONSULTATION MEETING NOTES NOVEMBER 8, 1990 • JUNEAU, ALASKA The morning meeting was held in the conference room of the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination in Juneau, Alaska. Lorraine Marshall called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. and self introductions of the participants were made. N. Macdonald opened the meeting by presenting a brief summary update of the status of the application process for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. B. Grimm gave a brief presentation of the Alaska Power and Telephone position regarding development of the project. N. Macdonald explained the project is currently in the second stage of consultation in the FERC process. A final draft license application will be completed by January 15, 1991 and final agency comme.nts were due by April 15, 1~1. R. Konopacky gave an explanation of the Pentec fisheries studies. As such he reviewed the text o£ the Pentec fisheries draft report "Fisheries Studies Associated with the Proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company Hydroelectric Project on Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska" dated September 24, 1990. USFS and Sealaska representatives said that they had not seen copies of the Pentec report. N. Macdonald said that they were on the list to receive copies. They were given copies of th e report at the meeting. During the R. Konopaclcy's presentation, J. Gustafson asked if drawdown and other fisheries studies were completed at Black Bear Lake. N. Macdonald responded that all of the studies that were requested during the initial consultation had been completed. There had been no agency request for a Black Bear Lake study. At the end of R. K.onopacky's presentation, J. Gustafson asked if a creel study had been completed. N. Macdonald responded that an angler study had been completed and was included in the recreational study section. N. Macdonald discussed some of the angler survey results, including the frustration of not getting meaningful responses from the Black Bear Lake cabin users, in spite of all the primary efforts and secondary mailings to cabin users. No further questions were asked regarding fisheries studies. The meeting was adjourned for a break and reconvened at the Sealaska Building boardroom. R. Clay discussed groundwater tracing studies including methods and location of dye injection and sampling for analysis of the E-2 powerhouse site. Roger concluded from the studies that the reintroduction of water into the creek at the E-2 site would result in natural recharging of the groundwater and continued upwelling of water in the existing downstream upwelling areas above Black Lake. . 1 R. Loescher asked why these studies were important R Cay explained that they were requested to determine the effect of the project on downstream fishery spawning habitat. C. Osborn asked how long it took for the dye to reach the springs from E-2 and how long the dye continued to show up in the sampling areas. R. Cay explained gave some sample times and said how the aquifer acts to damp the flows to the spring. C. Osborn also wanted to know if red sites would be affected or dry up due to the powerhouse operation. R. Clay again explained how the project would serve to even out flows to the springs by reducing maximum flows and increasing minimum flows. R. Konopacky added comments about fish behavior including how they will move around to adapt to flow conditions. C. Osborn he was primarily concerned about spawning habitat R Konopacky discussed the spawning issues. C. Osborn said that he was comfonable with the reintroduction of water at the E-2 site. His other concern was the pattern of flows to the upwelling areas but he was satisfied with the study results. R. Loescher wanted to know the range of flows required for plant operation. The design flows will be from the minimum required flow to a maximum of 45 cfs. C. Landis wanted to know if the· ability of float plains to land on the upper lake had been formally studied. The response was that it had not been formally investigated but the sense of those who had flown in to the lake was that it would not be a problem. Float plane access to the end of the lake north of the neck may be restricted during low lake elevations but the cabin is located at the southeast end. · T. Arm.insk:i asked what the normal level lake operation would be. The lake would normally operate between the normal maximum elevation of 1,687 feet and a minimum drawn down elevation of 1,672. There was additional discussion regarding the mean monthly and annual lake levels. C. Landis asked if a backup siphon or pump system was proposed. N. Macdonald responded that it had been considered but that it was determined that it would only add complexity and cost without meaningful benefit A non-pumped siphon is reliable and any event that would deactivate one siphon would also be likely to destroy a parallel backup. The Meeting adjourned for lunch from approximately 12:05 P.M. to 1:15 P.M. When the meeting reconvened after lunch, J. Gustafson, T. Faris, and C. Landis were not in attendance. The afternoon session began with R Cay illustrating a typical year's lake level variation. R. Cay also began a discussion of water quality issues. The results of water quality studies indicate that the water is pure. R. Konopacky pointed out that the water does not contain nutrients that are helpful in the production and growth of fish. J. Peterson pointed out that only approximately 3,000 acre-feet of the 23,000 acre-feet of storage would be used. The maximum rate of lake withdrawal at 45 cfs with no recharge would result in a lake level variation of one foot in 58 hours or one inch in 4.8 hours. Actual rates would be less than that however because there would normally be some recharge and the maximum flow rate would only be sustained during future peak demand periods. R. Oay discussed the status and methodology of the nearly completed temperature studies. The results indicate that August through April withdrawals from the lake will result in similar water temperatures in the upwelling areas. Withdrawals between May and July will result in slight cooling of the water in the upwelling areas. T. Arminski asked if the study included a look at the temperature gradient between the lake and the powerhouse. R. Oay said that it did. J. Peterson then began a description of the engineering features of the project as shown in the Exhibit A handout. The description also included some discussion of the alternative angled raise bore penstock. During a discussion of the project area map, R. Loescher said that Sealaska was in the process of attempting to purchase the remainder of the property in Sections 1 and 12 at the northwest end of Black Bear Lake from the Tongass National Forest. C. Landis offered that the State of Alaska was also looking at purchasing the rest of the land around Black Bear Lake. R. Loescher offered that Sealaska would compete for that land purchase. J. Peterson explained that the surface penstock route had been selected to be presented in the FERC license application due to apparent lower cost and lack of information to further refine the raise bore estimates. R. Loescher wanted to know if the design had considered future development in sizing. J. Peterson answered that the project had been sized as a run-of-river plant to utilize a small amount of storage for peaking demands. The plant had been sized on the flow duration curve to optimize the available water while staying within the 15-feet of drawdown to minimize impacts on Black Bear Lake. Because of the amount of water available from the watershed more capacity could only be developed by increasing the storage. The plant was sized to replace existing diesel capacity in consideration of moderate growth on the island. R. Loescher replied that Sealaska could eventually be the largest energy user on the island and that should be considered in the design. R. Loescher asked APr if they had agreed to the design capacity and surface route penstock. B. Grimm said that they were because of the apparent higher cost of the angle bore alternative. 3 N. Macdonald pointed out that both alternatives were designed with the same diameters. In either case another parallel conduit would be required if development of additional capacity was desired in the future. R. Loescher asked how the above ground penstock was to be held in place. I. Peterson replied that the penstock would be supported on concrete and steel saddles that were anchored to existing rock with rock anchors. N. Macdonald discussed cultural resources and recreational plans. R. Loescher stated that even though no existing cultural resources bad been identified during the study, Sealaska does want to have a cUltural resources plan completed in case resources are encountered during the construction of the project. He felt that the state and federal agencies bad not been adequately representing their interests in this regard. N. Macdonald said the license application would be revised accordingly. N. Macdonald also said that due to the limited recreational use of the project area, there are no provisions for reaeational enhancement. R. Loescher said that Sealaska is opposed to any reaeational development or enhancement on their property which includes most of the project area. They are planning to restrict public access to the area by posting and gating the access roads. . . G. Laver was concerned about the storage of the fishing boat at the USFS cabin. He requested that something be considered to allow safe bank storage of the boat with fluctuating lake levels. N. Macdonald presented botanical 'and wildlife summaries. There are no known endangered or threatened species in the project area. R. Loescher is concerned about protection of eagle nesting trees. G. Gardner had a similar concern for the tnmsmission line construction on KlawockfHeenya Corp property. That concluded the presentation part of the meeting. It was then opened to a general question and answer session. G. Laver wanted to know where the power was going to be used. V. Neitzer answered that the power would initially be used in the Craig/Klawock area. G. Gardner mentioned that they would probably have some additional future questions and comments regarding the transmission line. Both Sealaska and the Klawock/Heenya Corp want the power lines to follow existing roads as much as possible to preserve land for other uses. 4 ----·----' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I R. Loescher mentioned that Sealaska wants to see copies of energy /power requirement and growth projections that justify the project. B. Grimm said that APT could and would provide that information. R. Loescher wanted to know the estimated cost for the project. B. Grimm answered that the estimated cost was around 10-m.illion dollars. There were no further questions or comments and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00P.M. A list of those who attended all or part of the meeting is attached 5 BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECI'RIC PROJECf AGENCY CONSULTATION MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1990 • JUNEAU ALASKA ATI'ENDANCE LIST Tom Arminski Alaska Energy Authority 91.17 561 7877 Harry Brown Tiingit-Haida REA 91.17 789 3196 Roger Cay HDR Engineering, Inc. 206 453 1523 206 453 7107 (FAX) Tamra Faris• USDC NOAA NMFS 91.17 586 7235 George Gardner Klawock Heenya Corp 91.17 755 2270 Bob Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone 206 385 1733 Jack Gustafson • Alaska Dep of Fish & Game 91.17 225 2027 Richard Harris Sealaska Corp 91.17 586 1512 91.17 586 9266 (FAX) Ernest HUJman Sealaska Corp 91.17 586 1512 91.17 586 9266 (FAX) Richard Konopacky Pentec Environmental 208 377 0822 208 377 0858 (FAX) Chris Landis· Alaska Dep Natural Resources 91.17 465 3400 Gary Laver USFS Ketchikan 91.17 225 3101 Roben Loescher Sealaska 91.17 586 9231 Neil Macdonald HDR Engineering, Inc. 206 453 1523 206 453 7107 (FAX) Bob Martin Tiingit-Haida REA 206 789 3196 Lorraine Marshall Ak Div of Governmental Coord 91.17 465 3562 91.17 465 3075 (FAX) Vernon Neitzer Alaska Power & Telephone 91.17 983 2202 ChuckOsbom USFWS • Ketchikan 91.17 225 9691 Jim Peterson HDR Engineering, Inc. 206 453 1523 206 453 7107 (FAX) Elena Witkin Ak Dept -of Environ Conserv 91.17 789 315 1 • Attended morning session only ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I November 14, 1990 Mr. Chuck Osborne U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 3193 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 lil\ Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Mr. Osborne: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~oh a. 11a.ue Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-, 523 November 14, 1990 Mr. Steve Hoffman Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, Suite 205 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. WetJl.h o .cttU}f Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, WashingtOn 98004-6441 • Telephone 206 453-1523 November 14, 1990 Mr. Glenn Freeman Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division P.O. Box 101 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Freeman: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Q~a.~ Deborah A. Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring, Inc. Suite 200 Uncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 14, 1990 Mr. Chris Landis Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1796 Hl\ Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK. 880930-16J Dear Mr. Landis: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ()J:m~ 0.<1\o..tx Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob G~ AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue. Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 14, 1990 Mr. Michael Eberhardt Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801·1796 Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK. 880930-161 Dear Mr. Eberhardt: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that bas been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~~0-~ Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdb enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR EnginHring. Inc. Suite 200 Uncoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 14, 1990 Mr. Larry Wright Environmental Protection Specialist National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Wright: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~\o.<tbx Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engin .. ring, Inc. Suite 200 Uncoln Plaza .. 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98()()4...6441 Telephone 206 463-1523 November 14, 1990 Mr. Don Fisher U.S. Forest· Service Federal Building Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Hll. Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-16J Dear Mr. Fisher: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form, of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~ (j. ctl'\U( Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Buildin; C Bellewe, Washington . 98Q04...8441 Telephone 206 453·1523 November 14, 1990 Ms. Grace Kosanke U.S. Forest Service Craig Ranger District P.O. Box 500 Craig, Alaska 99921 Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Ms. Kosanke: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and "fesponse in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Roben Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~u.<thve Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engl ........ ng. Inc. Suite200 UncolnPiua 11225 S.E. Sixth StrMt. Building C Beflftue, W.lhing!Dn 98()()4.&441 Telephone 208 463·1623 November 14, 1990 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930-161 Dear Mr. Harris: Enclosed please find the Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~ Deborah A. Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 November 14, 1990 Mr. Robert W. Loescher Executive Vice President One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Re: Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. No. AK 880930..161 Dear Mr. Loescher: Enclosed please find the. Draft Recreational Study that has been prepared for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We would appreciate your timely review of this draft study and response in the form of written comments so that we can finalize this document as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate to call Robert Grimm at AP&T, or me, if you have any questions concerning this study. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. lli~.oJ\0.~ Deborah A Howe Environmental Planner DAH/sdh enclosure cc: Bob Grimm, AP&T Vern Neitzer, AP&T HOR EnginHring, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 •:· "'' ' United States Department of Agriculture Forest S.er.v_ic.e. _ Ms. Deborah A. Howe Environmental Planner HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200 ', Lincoln Plaza . 11225 s.E. Sixth Street, Bu-ild.ing c Bellevue, Washington . 98004-6441 Region 10 •• Tongass National Forest Ketchikan Area Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Reply To: 2360 Date: November 14, t990 . -· ..... ~ .- Re: i.Black··Sear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID. 'No. AK 880930-16J Dear Ms. Howe: I have reviewed the previous documents, Archaeological Investigation for the Proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project 1980 and 1982 and current records for the vicinity. No cultural resource sites have been identified in the project area subsequent to the previous studies. Dr. Doug Reger of the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office and I agree that the previous investigations-of the project area are adequate and that no cultural resource sites will be effected by the currently proposed project design changes. This consultation on October 15, 1990 reaffirms the September 26, 1988 letter of concurence from Judith Bittner, Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, that no cultural resources would be effected by the project. contact me if you have any additional questions~ Sine a/) /}_ ~~~~~ JOHN T. AUTREY V: Ketchikan Area Archaeologist cc: Craig District Ranger FS-8200·28(7-82) ltEI-.\IlT~IE~T 01: ~.\TI"Il.\1. n•:so1·1u~•:s SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT November 26, 1990 Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager HDR Engineering Inc., Suite 200 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Eellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Re: Black Bear Lake Project Dear Mr. Macdonald, .~r;: -. ·: I 'sr&e co.wPER, covER.,; oR 400 WILLOUGHBY AVENUE SUITE 400 · · ---- L_JVtJ.~ (L ~~.$~_ 9980 '·1000 PHONE (907) 465-3400 I have just reviewed the November 8th meeting notes and wish to point out one very glaring error on page 3, paragraph 5 (During a discussion ... ) . According to the notes everything on page 3 occurred in the afternoon session which I did not attend. Therefore, the statement that "C. Landis offered that the State of Alaska was also looking at purchasing the rest of the land around Black Bear Lake" is incorrect and did not occur. Not having witnessed the discussion described, I don't know for sure but from my reading this account I suspect that this paragraph is also inaccurate in so far as it conveys the impression that both Sealaska and the State of Alaska are both trying to compete in the purchase of National Forest system lands. I do not believe this is true. Both Sealaska Corp. and the State select and receive federal lands as a result of various land entitlement grants administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . Any competition between the two entities for lands in the project area are governed by federal law and BLM administrative decisions and not by monetary considerations. Also, I am in receipt of HDR's request for comments on the draft recreational study and am forwarding this on to Mr. Bill Garry, southeast regional manager of the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The Division of Parks will send any official comments on this study for the Department of Natural Resources. Sincerely, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Ms. Deborah A. Howe Environmental Planner HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Dear Ms. Howe: Region 10 i Tongass National Fares~ Ketchikan Area Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Reply To: 2300 Date: December 14, 1990 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Recreational Resources Study for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectic Project. I have written our comments directly on the copy you furnished for review. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (907)225-3101. Sincerely, Don Fisher Recreation Group Leader Enclosure 11·K69LH HABITAT DIVI$j.ON December 26, 1990 Mr. Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager HDR Engineering suite 200, Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building c Bellevue, WA 98004-6441 Mr. Robert s. Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone Company P. o. Box 22 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Dear Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Grimm: I I I I STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 2030 SEA LEVEL DRIVE SUITE 205 KETCHIKAN. ALASKA 99901·6064 PHONE. (907) 225·2027 At the Black Bear Hydroelectric Project meeting on November 8, 1990, I referenced the need of conducting studies to monitor the impacts of lake drawdown on resident fish species within Black Bear Lake. I also indicated it would be necessary to implement mitigation measures if fisheries impacts were identified in Black Bear Lake. Upon receiving the minutes from the November 8 meeting, and reviewing our past departmental correspondence it seems some incorrect ~tatements were made concerning fisheries studies on Black Bear Lake. The minutes of this meeting show that: "During the R. Konopacky's presentation, J. Gustafson asked if drawdown and other fisheries studies were completed at Black Bear Lake. N. Macdonald responded that all of the studies that were requested during the initial consultation had been completed. There had been no agency request for a Black Bear Lake study." In a letter to Mr. Grimm on August 10, 1989 (Attachment 1), Habitat Division Regional Supervisor Rick Reed requested that Black Bear Lake be included in pre and post project monitoring studies. Mr. Reed suggested specific studies include .•. "Trapping within both lakes to estimate adult rainbow and cutthroat trout ./ Neil H. Mcdonald Robert S. Grimm -2-December 26, 1990 and Dolly Varden char populations." In another letter to Mr. Macdonald on January 8, 1990 (Attachment 2), Mr. Reed stated, that, "Monitoring of the resident fish populations in both Black Lake and Black Bear Lake before and after project completion is needed." Although good technical work has been accomplished regarding the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, we still feel that the impacts of drawdown, population structure, spawning success, effects on sport fishing experiences, and potential mitigation measures at Black Bear Lake need to be evaluated. We also concur with the Forest Service that converting this recreational lake into a reservoir could have other impacts to recreational users which should be considered. Please review the attached correspondence on this subject and advise us as to details of potential plans to study the impacts on Black Bear Lake as previously outlined. Thank you for the opportunity to comment once again. Sincerely, ~ \ • I / .r.~. , Jack Gustafson Area Habitat Biologist Attachments (3) cc: Rick Reed, ADF&G, Juneau Steve Hoffman, ADF&G, Ketchikan Steve Ambrose, USFS, Ketchikan Gary Laver, USFS, Ketchikan Pete Johnston, USFS, Thorne Bay Nevin Holmberg, USFWS, Juneau Steve Zimmerman, NMFS, Juneau Chris Landis, ADNR, Juneau Lorraine Marshall, DGC, Juneau December 26, 1990 (See Attached List) Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 10440, Station ID No. A.K 880930·161 Dear: Attached please find the meeting notes for the November 8, 1990 meeting concerning the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any comments concerning the meeting or the project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~~ Neil H. Macdonald National Hydropower Program Manager NHM/las Enclosure BLACK BEAR LAKE AGENCY LIST Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Endangered Species Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Nevin Holmberg U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1287 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Chuck Osborn U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 3193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Rick Reed Department of Fish and Game Habitat Protection Division Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 20 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 Mr. Jack Gustafson Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, Suite 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Glenn Freeman Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division P.O. Box 101 Klawock, AK 99925 Director Office of Hydropower Licensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 301~RB 825 North Capitol Street N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Mr. William Wakefield II, P.E., Chief Planning and Support Branch Division of Project Review Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 810 First Street. NE, Room 1018 Washington, D.C. 20426 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Division of Environmental Quality Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, AK 99811-1800 Mr. Bill Janes Department of Environmental Conservation Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 32420 Juneau, AK 99803 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW Juneau, AK 99801~0165 Director Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management Southcentral Regional Office 3601 "C" Street P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, AK 99510-7005 ACMP Liaison Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Andrew Pekovich Acting Regional Manager Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801-1000 Mr. Chris Landis Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801·1796 Mr. Michael Eberhardt Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801·1796 Ms. Judith Bittner Office of History & Archaeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Pouch 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Gregg Dixon Office of History & Archaeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Pouch 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Ms. Georgina Akers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Mr. Steven T. Zimmerman Chief, Protected Resources Division National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Steve Penoyer, Director, AJaska Region U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 Ms. Tamra Faris U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99802 Ms. Constance Sathre Staff Attorney National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P.O. Box 21109 Juneau, AK 99802·1109 Environmental Impact Review Officer Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Dan Robison U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 701 "C" Street Anchorage, AK 99513 Mr. Paul Haertel Associate Regional Director Resource Services Alaska Regional Office National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503-2892 Mr. Larry Wright Environmental Protection Specialist National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Michael Lunn, Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Laver U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Jeannie Grant U.S. Forest Service Craig Ranger District P.O. Box 500 Craig, AK 99921 Ms. Charity Fletcher City Planner City of Craig P.O. Box 23 Craig, AK 99921 The Honorable Dennis Watson Mayor, City of Craig P.O. Box 23 Craig, AK 99921 The Honorable Mr. Dan Wagner Mayor, City of Thorne Bay P.O. Box 19110 Thorne Bay, AK 99919 The Honorable Aaron T. Isaacs, Jr. Major, City of Klawock P.O. Box 113 Klawock, AK 99925 Mr. AI Macasaet City of Klawock P.O. Box 113 Klawock, AK 99925 Mr. Mike McKinnon Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Technical Services P.O. Box 1467 Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Rich Poor Department of Transportation and Public Facilities P.O. Box Z Juneau, AK 99811 Regional Environmental Officer Department of the Interior 1675 C Street Anchorage, AK 99501-5198 Mr. George A. Walters Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Mr. Bob Martin General Manager Tiingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821-0149 Mr. Robert W. Loescher Executive Vice President One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Harris Ms. Corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, AK 99925 Mr. Glen Charles President Shaan Seet, Inc. P.O. Box 90 Craig, AK 99921-0090 Mr. Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 2222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Vern Neitzer Vice President, Engineering Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 456 Skagway,AK.99840 Richard C. Konopack:y, Ph.D. Pentec Environmental, Inc. 200 S. Cole Rd., Suite 200 Boise, ID 83709 Ms. Elena Witkin Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Southeast Regional Office P.O. Box 2420 Juneau, AK 99811 Mr. Tom Arminski Executive Director Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Mr. Harry Brown Tlingit-Haida Rgional Electric Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821-0149 Mr. Ernest Hillman Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. George Gardner Klawock Heenya Corporation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, W A 99925 BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECfRIC PROJECf AGENCY CONSULTATION MEETING NOTES NOVEMBER 8, 1990 -JUNEAU, ALASKA The morning meeting was held in the conference room of the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination in Juneau, Alaska. Lorraine Marshall called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. and self introductions of the participants were made. N. Macdonald opened the meeting by presenting a brief summary update of the status of the application process for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project. B. Grimm gave a brief presentation of the Alaska Power and Telephone position regarding development of the project. N. Macdonald explained the project is currently in the second stage of consultation in the FERC process. A final draft license application will be completed by January 15, 1991 and final agency comments were due by April 15, 1991. R. Konopacky gave an explanation of the Pentec fisheries studies. As such he reviewed the text of the Pentec fisheries draft report "Fisheries Studies Associated with the Proposed Alaska Power and Telephone Company Hydroelectric Project on Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska" dated September 24, 1990. USFS and Sealaska representatives said that they had not seen copies of the Pentec report. N. Macdonald said that they were on the list to receive copies. They were given copies of the report at the meeting. During the R. Konopacky's presentation, J. Gustafson asked if drawdown and other fisheries studies were completed at Black Bear Lake. N. Macdonald responded that all of the studies that were requested during the initial consultation had been completed. There had been no agency request for a Black Bear Lake study. At the end of R. Konopacky's presentation, J. Gustafson asked if a creel study had been completed. N. Macdonald responded that an angler study had been completed and was included in the recreational study section. N. Macdonald discussed some of the angler survey results, including the frustration of not getting meaningful responses from the Black Bear Lake cabin users, in spite of all the primary efforts and secondary mailings to cabin users. No further questions were asked regarding fisheries studies. The meeting was adjourned for a break and reconvened at the Sealaska Building boardroom. R. Clay discussed groundwater tracing studies including methods and location of dye injection and sampling for analysis of the E-2 powerhouse site. Roger concluded from the studies that the reintroduction of water into the creek at the E-2 site would result in natural recharging of the groundwater and continued upwelling of water in the existing downstream upwelling areas above Black Lake. 1 R. Loescher asked why these studies were important. R. Clay explained that they were requested to determine the effect of the project on downstream fishery spawning habitat. C. Osborn asked how long it took for the dye to reach the springs from the E-2 location. R. Clay said that the time was unknown but greater than 48 hours. This relatively long time period was due to the fact that dye was released into the dry stream bed. R. Clay also explained that the travel time through the groundwater system was less than one hour in the 1989 Environiad study. C. Osborn asked if the redds could dry up due to powerhouse operation and if the aquifer had large enough storage capacity to protect the redds from drying. R. Clay stated that· the aquifer was large enough to continue spring flows if tailrace and/ or lake spill were interrupted for one to two days. The aquifer will dump out high and low flows in a manner resulting in fairly uniform flow rates at the springs. R. Konopacky added comments about fish behavior including how they will move around to adapt to flow conditions. C. Osborn he was primarily concerned about spawning habitat. R. Konopacky discussed the spawning issues. C. Osborn said that he was comfortable with the reintroduction of water at the E-2 site. His other concern was the pattern of flows to the upwelling areas but he was satisfied with the study results. R. Loescher wanted to know the range of flows required for plant operation. The design flows will be from the minimum required flow to a maximum of 45 cfs. C. Landis wanted to know if the ability of float planes to land on the upper lake had been formally studied. The response was that it had not been formally investigated but the sense of those who had flown in to the lake was that it would not be a problem. Float plane access to the end of the lake north of the neck may be restricted during low lake elevations but the cabin is located at the southeast end. T. Anninski asked what the normal level lake operation would be. The lake would normally operate between the normal maximum elevation of 1,687 feet and a minimum drawn down elevation of 1,672. There was additional discussion regarding the mean monthly and annual lake levels. C. Landis asked if a backup siphon or pump system was proposed. N. Macdonald responded that it had been considered but that it was determined that it would only add complexity and cost without meaningful benefit. A non-pumped siphon is reliable and any event that would deactivate one siphon would also be likely to destroy a parallel backup. The Meeting adjourned for lunch from approximately 12:05 P.M. to 1:15 P.M. When the ~eeting reconvened after lunch, J. Gustafson, T. Faris, and C. Landis were not in attendance. 2 The afternoon session began with R. Clay illustrating a typical year's lake level variation. R. Clay also began a discussion of water quality issues. The results of water quality studies indicate that the water is of high quality. R. Konopacky pointed out that the water does not contain nutrients that are helpful in the production and growth of fish. J. Peterson pointed out that only approximately 3,000 acre-feet of the 23,000 acre-feet of storage would be used. The maximum rate of lake withdrawal at 45 cfs with no recharge would result in a lake level variation of one foot in 58 hours or one inch in 4.8 hours. Actual rates would be less than that however because there would normally be some recharge and the maximum flow rate would only be sustained during future peak demand periods. R. Clay discussed preliminary results of the temperature study. These results indicate that for the months of August through April, withdrawals from the lake will create little change in water temperatures in the upwelling areas. However, he also stated that temperatures could be markedly changed in the May through July period. The temperatures could be from -2° cooler to 6° warmer depending on the time ice goes out on the lake. R. Konopacky discussed how low fry emergence depends on more factors than degree days alone. For instance, day length. T. Arminski asked if the study included a look at the temperature gradient between the lake and the powerhouse. R. Clay said that it did. J. Peterson then began a description of the engineering features of the project as shown in the Exhibit A handout. The description also included some discussion of the alternative angled raise bore penstock. During a discussion of the project area map, R. Loescher said that Sealaska was in the process of attempting to purchase the remainder of the property in Sections 1 and 12 at the northwest end of Black Bear Lake from the Tongass National Forest. G. Laver offered that the State of Alaska was also looking at acquiring rights to the rest of the land around Black Bear Lake. R. Loescher offered that Sealaska would compete for those land rights. J. Peterson explained that the surface penstock route had been selected to be presented in the FERC license application due to apparent lower cost and lack of information to further refine the raise bore estimates. R. Loescher wanted to know if the design had considered future development in sizing. J. Peterson answered that the project had been sized as a run-of-river plant to utilize a small amount of storage for peaking demands. The plant had been sized on the flow duration curve to optimize the available water while staying within the 15-feet of drawdown to minimize impacts on Black Bear Lake. Because of the amount of water available from the watershed more capacity could only be developed by increasing the 3 storage. The plant was sized to replace existing diesel capacity in consideration of moderate growth on the island. R. Loescher replied that Sealaska could eventually be the largest energy user on the island and that should be considered in the design. R. Loescher asked APT if they had agreed to the design capacity and surface route penstock. B. Grimm said that they were because of the apparent higher cost of the angle bore alternative. N. Macdonald pointed out that both alternatives were designed with the same diameters. In either case another parallel conduit would be required if development of additional capacity was desired in the future. R. Loescher asked how the above ground penstock was to be held in place. J. Peterson replied that the penstock would be supported on concrete and steel saddles that were anchored to existing rock with rock anchors. N. Macdonald discussed cultural resources and recreational plans. R. Loescher stated that even though no existing cultural resources had been identified during the study, Sealaska does want to have a cultural resources plan completed in case resources are encountered during the construction· of the project. He felt that the state and federal agencies had not been adequately representing their interests in this regard. N. Macdonald said the license application would be revised accordingly. N. Macdonald also said that due to the limited recreational use of the project area, there are no provisions for recreational enhancement. R. Loescher said that Sealaska is opposed to any recreational development or enhancement on their property which includes most of the project area. They are planning to restrict public access to the area by posting and gating the access roads. G. Laver was concerned about the storage of the fishing boat at the USFS cabin. He requested that something be considered to allow safe bank storage of the boat with fluctuating lake levels. N. Macdonald presented botanical and wildlife summaries. There are no known endangered or threatened species in the project area. R. Loescher is concerned about protection of eagle nesting trees. G. Gardner had a similar concern for the transmission line construction on Klawock/Heenya Corp property. That concluded the presentation part of the meeting. It was then opened to a general question and answer session. 4 G. Laver wanted to know where the power was going to be used. V. Neitzer answered that the power would initially be used in the Craig/Klawock area. G. Gardner mentioned that they would probably have some additional future questions and comments regarding the transmission line. Both Sealaska and the Klawock/Heenya Corp want the power lines to follow existing roads as much as possible to preserve land for other uses. R. Loescher mentioned that Sealaska wants to see copies of energy /power requirement and growth projections that justify the project. B. Grimm said that APT could and would provide that information. R. Loescher wanted to know the estimated cost for the project. B. Grimm answered that the estimated cost was around 10-million dollars. There were no further questions or comments and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00 P.M. A list of those who attended all or part of the meeting is attached. s BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECfRIC PROJECT AGENCY CONSULTATION MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1990 • JUNEAU, ALASKA ATTENDANCE LIST Tom Arminski Alaska Energy Authority 907 561 7877 Harry Brown 11ingit-Haida REA 907 789 3196 Roger Clay HDR Engineering, Inc. 206 453 1523 206 453 7107 (FAX) Tamra Faris • USDC NOAA NMFS 907 586 7235 George Gardner Klawock Heenya Corp 907 755 2270 Bob Grinun Alaska Power & Telephone 206 385 1733 Jack Gustafson• Alaska Dept of Fish & Game 907 225 2027 Richard Harris Sealaska Corp 907 586 1512 907 586 9266 (FAX) Ernest Hillman Sealaska Corp 907 586 1512 907 586 9266 (FAX) Richard Konopacky Pentec Environmental 208 377 0822 208 377 0858 (FAX) Chris Landis • Alaska Dept Natural Resources 907 465 3400 Gary Laver USFS Ketchikan 907 225 3101 Robert Loescher Sealaska 907 586 9231 Neil Macdonald HDR Engineering, Inc. 206 453 1523 206 453 7107 (FAX) Bob Martin 11ingit-Haida REA 206 789 3196 Lorraine Marshall Ak: Div of Governmental Coord 907 465 3562 907 465 3075 (FAX) Vernon Neitzer Alaska Power & Telephone 907 983 2202 Chuck Osborn USFWS • Ketchikan 907 225 9691 Jim Peterson HDR Engineering, Inc. 206 453 1523 206 453 7107 (FAX) Elena Witkin Ak: Dept of Environ Conserv 907 789 3151 • Attended morning session only 6 Pen tee ~iRONMENTAL State of Alaska -Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802-2000 Attention: Mr. Mark Schwan December 21, 1990 Annual Report Associated with Fish Collection Permit FG-90-HkU-7 Dear Mr. Schwan: As required by permit conditions, we are submitting our annual report for Scientific/ Educational Collecting Permit (FG-90-I(kl}-7). The permit was associated with an out-migrant trap on Black Bear Creek just downstream of Black Lake (near Klawock} during spring and summer 1990. Per the report, all trap mortalities were buried on-site and, although scale samples from a ( representative number of fish were obtained, fish scales were not analyzed for age. We intend our document will adequately cover the needs of the field data report (due within 30 days of the expiration of the permit} as well as the analyses report (due within six months of the expiration of the permit). At this time, we do not anticipate renewing the permit. If you have <my questions concerning the report, please give me a call. Thank you. RCK Enclosure cc: Neil Macdonald/HDR Sincerely, Pentec Environmental/Boise ,.........-. /. r"' '.1Jw -~ 74t~.l.-l/ ~r0'·~'~ /-:•/\ Richard C. Konopacky, Ph.D. Manager /Senior Fisheries Biologist Pentec Envitonmenttll, Inc. • 120 We:tt O.yton, SUite A7 • Edmonchl, WA 98020 • Phone: (206) 775-4682 • Fsx: (206) 778-9417 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PORTLAND REGIONAL OFFICE 1120 S.W. 5th AVENUE, SUITE 1340 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 M.AR I I 1991 Mr. Neil McDonald, Project Manager HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200, Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, WA 98004-6441 Dear Mr. McDonald: In reply refer to: OHL-PR0-10440-AK This is to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the draft license application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Proj- ect, FERC No. 10440. We have no comments since any review of a draft application is done by our Division of Project Review in Washington, D.C. It is not necessary that draft applications for license be provided to this office; however, a copy of the final application will be appreciated. Sincerely, ~c~~ Arthur C. Martin Regional Director P.O. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 March 1 3, 1 9 91 Mr. Neil McDonald Project Manager City of Klawock Alaska "Sitt of thl. First Ca.nnt.ry in Afaska" HDR Engineering Inc. 11225 S.E. Sixth Street Building C, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (907) 755-2261 or: (907) 755-2262 FAX #: (907) 755-2403 RE: Draft License application for Black Bear Lake Hydroelctric Project-FERC No. 10440 Dear Mr. McDonald, 3/11/91, received your voluminous draft license application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project -FERC No. 10440. The City of Klawock Hydroelectric Project. strongly supports the Black Bear This project is not within the Klawock Coastal District therefore Klawock is limited to comments which were verbally given to Alaska Power and Telephone Company. The concerns the Klawock Coastal District may have commented on have been comprehensively addressed by various, involved state and federal agencies. Although not specifically addressed is possible project impact, if any, on commercial, sport and subsistence fishing. Although fishing is no longer the major economic base in Klawock, fishing still plays an important role in the economic and cultural lifestyle in Klawock and will play a still more important role as ANCSA Corporation timber harvesting decreases resulting in fewer employment opportunities and a greater dependency upon local resources for family nutri tiona! needs. A major concern not addressed in the Draft License Application and cannot be addressed until total construction costs are finalized, is electrical rates. Current diesel generated Mr. Neil McDonald March 1 3 , 1 9 9 1 Page 2 electrical rates are a deterrent to economic development in Klawock. What economic impact will the Black Bear Lake Project have on economic development in Klawock? Respectfully, -, / -' ' / ----.,.L:.:. r::. ~ . ./. .' / .·" I" ,.. ~ _, ~ Al P. Macasaet, Sr. Klawock Coastal District cc;: Mr. Peter McKay AM/cg Community and Regional Affairs P.O. Box BD Juneau, AK 99811 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW Juneau, AK 99801-0165 01-A35LH OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN PO. BOX AW. SUITE 101 JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811·0165 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 Mr. Neil H. Macdonald HDR Suite 200, Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Dear Mr. Macdonald: SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 3601 'C' STREET SUITE 370 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-5930 PHONE: (907) 561-6131 March 15, 1991 SUBJECT: BLACK BEAR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONSULTATION STAGE TWO STATE I.D. NO. AK910315-06J N~z("fot WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX AW JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 675 SEVENTH AVENUE STATION H FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (907) 451·2818 The Division of Governmental Coordination received the information regarding the Black Bear Hydroelectric Project you submitted for our review. The enclosed project information sheet includes a State I. D. No. number AK910315-06J. Please refer to this number in any future reference to the project. Appropriate materials have been distributed by you directly to participants in the Alaska Coastal Management Program for their review and comments. Reviewer milestones are also indicated on the enclosed sheet. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process. Sincerely, PJM~ 1'~~G Lorraine Marshall Project Review Coordinator Enclosure cc: Project Reviewers Robert Grimm, Alaska Power and Telephone Company @ pnnted on recycled paper by C.C DISTRIBUTION LIST Ms. Elena Witkin, DEC, Juneau Mr. Rick Reed, DFG, Juneau Mr. Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Mr. Art Dunn, DOT/PF, Juneau Ms. Valerie Delaune, DNR, Juneau Mr. Chris Landis, DNR, Juneau Mr. Bill Garry, DNR/DPOR, Juneau Ms. Judith Bittner, DNR/DPOR, Anchorage Mr. Rick Harris, Sealaska, Juneau The Honorable Aaron T. Isaacs, Jr., Mayor, Klawock Mr. Marvin Yoder, City Administrator, Klawock The Honorable Dennis Watson, Mayor, City of Craig Ms. Charity Fetcher, City Planner, City of Craig Ms. Ginny Tierney, District Contact, Thorne Bay The Honorable Daniel A. Wagner, Mayor, Thorne Bay I WALTER J. HICKEL. GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR I. Phoao SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKUN P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 DEC [I.!Ltfl_~ 7?1 -315' I DFG ru..14 ia kltr/U ~;;..;;. :.az.? OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DNR ;:; 4?7 ·zu .a;z...; -~4(;r;) DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811-0165 PHONE: (907} 465-3562 COE ...___, PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET (2.) CL elL 6 _, / J ~ lJ JJro Ef o r : j v <.j STATEI.D.~ER: ~A=K~9~10~1~/~:)~-~0~/.~2~'------------------------~------ DGC CONTACT: ifO),.J~ 4 ,·if " ~/7!2dtl /I Phone lfh5~~5rf';(Faxlflo5/~~Q APPLICANT/PRoroNENT: f//o.d..GQ pbf.tee i Ti..-!_7 ~~ & . Agent._· ____________________ _ Phone _____ F.ax _______ __ DIRECT FEDERAL ACTION: YES Nox_ REVIE\V TYPE: CONSISTENCY ANILCA OCSLA NEPA OTHER X - ACTIVITY TYPE: ARMED FORCES FISHERIES PRODUCTION: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN HATCHERY MINING: REMOTE RELEASE HARDROCK___ ENHANCEMENT PL-\CER PROCESSING OFFSHORE__ AQUATIC FARMS: OIL & GAS SHELLFISH PUBLIC UTILffiES/FACILITIES AQUATIC PLANTS PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL--HYDRO POWER...lS,_- FILL PLACEMENT TIMBER FLOATING STRUCTURES OTIIER PROJECT LOCATION: Nearest Coastal District ...... ~~~~~n'A.;j..,.:;~~::....<oc:::.:..::f:_..::::....:,__ __ --:-....,--------- Project Inside the Distric~dary Yes __ No_k_ District Plan Approved Yes No REVIE\V MILESTONES: Day 1 ~p ~/C)_( . -------·-l -----------·:....·~ .... -..... Zi.M ____ ___,,. __ -------·--~-------- Comments Due To DGC . 4/ '/ --~~~------------------- Notification To Applicant_; __,LI;...:.· ,_/_;..::::::} ________________ _ Decision Dea.dline_~--l..f-J0"--3'--------------------- REVIEW SCHEDULE: 15 DAY 30 DAY 50 DAY OTHER_l(_ PROJECf PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED UNDER STATE I.D. NO. AK 0'1 ( 22/ -{) o-- STATE APPROVALS (LIST AGE.t'{CY, APPROVAL TYPE, NUMBER): NOTE TO REVIE'\'\'E...~: Distribution of applications for appropriation of water constitutes DNR's agency notice under AS 46.15. Separate notice from DNR discontinued beginning January 1991. FEDERAL APPROVALS (LIST AGE.J.'{CY, APPROVAL TYPE, NUMBER): -----------J EXTENSION GRANTED FOR: 1. Formal Information Request 6. Public Hearing Held 2. Project In U.O.B. 7. Field Review 3. DNR Disposal 8. SMCRA 4. Miscellaneous Applicant Request 9. Unusually Complex Project 5. Proposed Finding En Route •, __ Elevation to Directors, Elevated by -------------------- --Elevated to Commissioners, Elevated by ------------------- CLOCK STOPPED ON: REASON#: CLOCK RESTARTED ON: ACTION AT CLOSEOUT: CLOSE OUT DATE:------------------ DISTRICT COMMENTS RECEIVED: Yes No FOR CONCLUSIVE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS: Consistent Consistent With Stipulations__ Inconsistent__ Withdrawn FOR OTHER REVIEWS: Comments Submitted __ SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 : 4-22-91 ; s:ss MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO: Lorraine Mauhall Div. of Gov. Coordination Juneau 4653075 ... 206 453 7107:# 5 1/U State of Alaska DIVISION OF PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION DATE: Ms:r<::h 26, 1991 FILE NO.: 3130•1R FERC THAU: TELEPHONE NO.: ,./ 0 SUBJECT: 762-2622 FROM: E: Be~ -~ State Historic Pres. vation Officer Office of History & Archaeology Anchorage Black Bear take Hydroelectric Project Consultation Stage Two AK910315-06J The proposed action appears to ba consistent with tha Alaska Coastal Manageront Program's historic. prehistoric and archaeological resources standard. JEB:GD:dw Off,~E OF ~~ANAGEMENT & BUOGET APR -2 1991 GOVERNMENTAL COORD! NATION 10-J37LH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION March 27, 1991 HDR Engineering, Inc. 11225 S. E. Sixth Street Building C, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98004 o~borah, Dear HD~eering, Inc., WALTER}. HICKEL, GOVERNOR 400 WILLOUGHBY, 5th FLOOR JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801-1381 PHONE: (907) 465-4563 In the Draft of the FERC application for Black Bear Lake Project it was stated on page E-91 that "In the event that the state selection does take place, Alaska Power & Telephone would be willing to work with the State concerning the maintenance of the cabin. We would like this to be a little more specific so there is no misunderstanding as to what we are looking for. A statement along the lines of" Alaska Power & Telephone would agree to remove trash, supply firewood and provide operational maintenance (i.e. keep the Cabin's stove, doors and windows in working order) with the state responsible for major maintenance through the fee program. Sincerely, /f)$ ichael w. Eberhardt / Chief Ranger United States Department of the Interior IN R~.PU RFFER IC >: L7427(ARO-REC} Mr. Neil Macdonald NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE 2525 Gambell Street, Room 107 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2892 HDR Engineering, Inc. Lincoln Plaza, Suite 200 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Dear Mr. Macdonald: APR 01 '1991 We have the following comments on the Draft License Application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. The Draft License Application, page E-91, indicates that the Alaska Power and Telephone Company is willing to consider maintenance of the existing Forest Service cabin if the site is state selected. We understand the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation has requested clarification of cabin maintenance responsibilities. We recommend that the Alaska Power and Telephone Company and the Alaska Division of Parks and outdoor Recreation come to an agreement on cabin maintenance prior to the finalization of the license application. The maintenance responsibilities should be stated in the license application. Questions may be directed to Larry Wright, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (907} 257-2649. Sincerely, Chief, Environmental Compliance Division cc: Division of Parks MEIVIORANDUM To: Lorraine Marshall Project Coordinator Division of Governmental Coordination Juneau ~· FRoM: Jack Gustafson~) Area Habitat B~hlogist Habitat Division Ketchikan STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DA:m: April 3, 1991 FILE No: PHOHE: 225-2027 S~cr: Black Bear Lake Hydro Stage II Consultations Due to our involvement in other projects, we have been unable to conduct a detailed review of the two large volumes of information (February 1991) provided for Stage II Consultation. Generally, it appears some good technical work has been accomplished regarding the Black Bear Hydroelectric Project, and the applicant is well on the way toward completing their final license application. one item of unfinished business, however, has been the need for an evaluation of the impacts of drawdown, as it relates to the population structure and spawning success of resident fish in Black Bear Lake. Our primary concerns relate to potential impacts of lake water drawdown on the shallower littoral areas along the lake and at inlet stream mouths. These areas appear to provide critical rearing and possible spawning habitat for salmonids. The status of the rainbow trout population within Black Bear Lake is presently unknown. Thus, we continue to request that pre-and post-project population estimates be accomplished for resident fish within Black Bear Lake prior to lake drawdown and for five years following project completion. If resident fish become significantly impacted or are no longer viable in Black Bear Lak8 following its conversion to a reservoir, mitigation may be necessary. Our requests for the collection of information regarding this aspect of the project were previously transmitted on 12-26-90, 1-8-90, and 8-10-89 (see attachments). In a review of projects with similar potential impacts to resident fish, we have in the past requested population studies and mitigation due to losses which are sometimes unavoidable. An example of stipulations we have proposed in a situation such as this occurred with the Perseverance Lake water withdrawal project review (see attachment of J-1-91) • While stipulations of this type may or may not eventually be necessary in the Black Bear Lake project, the monitoring of resident fish populations is the first step needed to assure project compliance with 6AA~ 80.130 of the ACMP. We hope these comments help in advancing the expeditions review and licensing of this project. ~ ·Lorraine Marshall -2- Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Attachments cc: Rick Reed Steve Hoffman Nevin Homberg Steve Zimmerman Chris Landis vNeil MacDonald April 3, 1991 ' Neil Macdonald, Project Manager HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT CF COMMEqCE National Ocennic and Atmospheric Administration NationaL Marine Fisheriea Se~Jice P.O. Box • Juneau, ALaska .'.'·<:. '' April 4, 1991 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Dear Mr. Macdonald: The National Marin~ Fisheries Service has reviewed the Draft License Application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project -FERC No. 10440 and has no substantive comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed project and resource studies conducted on its behalf. cc: ADFG, Reed, Gustafson ADGC FERC, D.C., Portland AKGC -Sathre Sincerely, --~~SP.~ en Pennoyer D·rector, Alaska Region EPA, Anchorage FWS, Juneau ADNR, Juneau ~··.·. h.-~A .. ·~· SENT BY;xerox Telecopier 7020 4-22-91 4653075 ... 206 453 7107;# 2 MEMORANDUM STATE OF ALASKA Department of Environmental Conservation Southeast Regional Office ra: Lorraine Marshall DATE: April 5, 1991 THRU: Division of Governmental Coordination FILE NO: TtLEPMON£ NO: /? --,--. suBJEcT: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Ann Tlplady ~v-.J 1'-l;.../ -. 1----Project (AK910315-06J) Environmental Specialist ~ / The Department has reviewed the draft license application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1 0440) prepared by HDR Engineering. Inc. on behalf of Alaska Power & Telephone Company. The applicant has adequately addressed most of the concerns that were raised by the department during previous reviews. The only concern that has not yet been addressed is the need for long-term monitoring of water quality. Such a monitoring program should Include monitoring both during and after construction. We are quite willing to assist the applicants In designing a monitoring program. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. cc: Jack Gustafson. AOFG Valerie DeLaune, DNR ADEC, Ketchikan District Office APR ·8 1991 CITY OF THORNE BAY P. 0. BOX 19110 THORNE BAY, ALASKA 99919 (907) 828-3380 FAX (907) 828-3374 April 5, 199.1 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW, Suite 101 Juneau, AK 99811-0165 RE: Black Bear Hydroelectric Project Consultation Stage Two State I.D. No. AK910315-06J Dear Ms. Marshall: The City Council for the City of Thorne Bay, Alaska, has reviewed the Draft License Application. The City of Thorne Bay supports this project and has no addi.tional comments to the draft license application. Sincerely, Ha&?:~~ City Clerk ~ Neil Macdonald, Project Manager, HDR Engineering, Inc. United States Department of the Interior IN REPLY REFER TO: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Juneau Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Southeast Alaska Ecological Services P. 0. Box 021287 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1287 (907) 586-7240 Neil Macdonald, Project Manager HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Dear Mr. Macdonald: April 19, 1991 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Draft License Application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project -FERC No. 10440 and has no substantive comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed project and resource studies conducted on its behalf. cc: ADF&G, Reed, Gustafson ADGC, NMFS, DNR, Juneau FERC, D.C., Portland AKGC-Sathre EPA, Anchorage Sincerely, f7Jt!;;l; Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor 01-A35LH OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811·0165 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 Mr. Neil Macdonald SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 3601 'C' STREET SUITE 370 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503·5930 PHONE: (907) 561·6131 April 26, 1991 National Program Manager, Hydropower HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200, Building C 11225 SE Sixth Street Bellevue, WA 98004-6441 Dear Mr. Macdonald: WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR OFFICE P.O. BOX AW JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 675 SEVENTH AVENUE STATION H FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (907) 451·2818 SUBJECT: BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROPOWER PROJECT, CONSULTATION STAGE TWO STATE ID NO. AK910315-06J The Division of Governmental Coordination has concluded coor- dinating the Stat'e' s informational review of the second consulta- tion stage of the Alaska Power and Telephone Company's draft application for a license for a major water power project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In the second consul- tation phase, procedures call for State agencies to provide input prior to final application being accepted and formally reviewed by FERC, at which time the project is reviewed for consistency with the ACMP. Per 15 CFR 930 Subpart D, all federal permitting agencies must receive from the State a determination of consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) prior to issuance of an authorization. As indicated on Table 1, page iii, applications for permits should be included in the scope of the ACMP review at that time. I regret the delay in this letter due to an extremely heavy workload and illness; however, to assist HDR I sent the State agencies' comments via fax on April 22. Fish Habitat The Department of Fish and Game has raised the matter of fish habitat in this preapplication consultation stage. As I'm sure you know, the ACMP contains a fish habitat standard (enc~ose~) which requires "habitats ••. must be managed so as to ma~nta~n or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of @ pnnted on recycled paper b y C C the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources," and "rivers, streams, and lakes must be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow." The fish habitat concerns should be addressed in the final permit application. DFG will address habitat concerns during the subsequent ACMP review which is binding on the applicant. DFG points out the need for an evaluation of the impacts of drawdown on population of resident fish, and rearing and spawning habitat for salmonids at the shallower littoral areas along the lake and at inlet stream mouths. DFG requests population estimations be accomplished for resident fish within Black Bear Lake prior to lake drawdown (preproject) and for five years following project completion (postproject) . Water Quality The Department of Environmental Conservation mentioned the need for long-term water quality monitoring, during and after con- struction. This monitoring program should be designed and included as part of the packet of applications submitted later for the ACMP consistency review. We look forward to working with you on this project during the upcoming consistency review. Sincerely, Lorraine Marshall Project Review Coordinator Enclosure cc: Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Judith Bittner, DNR, Anchorage Valerie DeLaune, DNR, Juneau Chris Landis, DNR, Juneau Ann Tiplady, DEC, Juneau Harriett Edwards, City of Thorne Bay Steven Pennoyer, NMFS, Juneau Nevin Holmberg, FWS, Juneau FERC, Washington, D.C. lmbbhcol7 STATE OF ALASKA DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION STANDARDS OF THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Standard(s): 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS. (a) Habitats in the coastal area which are subject to the Alaska coastal management program include: (1) offshore areas; (2} estuaries; (3) wetlands and tideflats; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons; (6) exposed high energy coasts; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (8) important upland habitat. (b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources. (c) In addition to the standard contained in (b) of this section, the following standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1) offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state's sport, commercial, and subsistence fishery; (2) estuaries must be managed so as to assure ade- quate water flow, natural circulation patterns, nutrients, and oxygen levels, and avoid the discharge of toxic wastes, silt, and destruction of productive habitat; (3) wetlands and tideflats must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels and avoid adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, the destruc- tion of important habitat, and the discharge of toxic sub- stances; -11 - f (4) rocky islands and seacliffs must be managed so as to avoid the harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat, and the introduction of competing or destructive species and predators~ '(5) barrier islands and lagoons must be managed so as to maintain adequate flows of sediments, detritus, and water, avoid the alteration or redirection of wave energy which would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion of barrier islands, and discourage activities which would decrease the use of barrier islands by coastal species, including polar bears and nesting birds; (6) high energy coasts must be managed by assuring the adequate mix and transport of sediments and nutrients and avoiding redirection of transport processes and wave energy; and {7) rivers, streams, and lakes must be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow. (d) Uses and activities in the coastal area which will not conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section may be allowed by the district or appropriate state agency if the following are established: {1) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; {2) there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity which would conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this · section; and · {3) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section will be taken. (e) In applying this section, districts and state agencies may use appropriate expertise, including regional programs referred to in sec. 30(b) of this chapter. Authority: AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 -12 - 1 O·J35 LH May 2, 1991 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER Neil H. Macdonald, Project Manager HDR Engineering Inc., Suite 200 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR 400 WILLOUGHBY AVENUE SUITE 400 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 PHONE: (907) 465-3400 Re: Draft License Application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project -FERC No. 10440 Dear Mr. Macdonald, The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water has reviewed the Draft Application document and appreciates the opportunity to comment. This agency's primary involvement in this project is the permitting associated with the establishment of water rights under the laws of the State of Alaska. Initially it was suggested that this agency should also be involved in terms of a land exchange with Sealaska Corp but the concept had little support and no firm proposal was ever considered. Since 1987, Alaska Power and Telephone Co. has twice submitted to us an application to establish water rights for the Black Bear Project. In both instances, this agency was unable to accept the application because it failed to meet basic regulatory requirements. Specifically we cannot accept an application and establish a priority date without documented proof that the applicant has a present possessory interest in the property where the water will be beneficially used (the Powerhouse site). In November of 1988, APT asked us to retain possession of the second incomplete application document until April 25, 1989, in order to allow time to negotiate with Sealaska Corp for an interest in their lands. It is now over two years later and no final settlement has occurred. As a result, the incomplete application is again being returned to APT, under separate cover. The resolution of land use negotiations with Sealaska Corporation is the most important unresolved issue affecting this agency's involvement with this project and must be resolved in order to adjudicate the water rights. It would be preferable that the resolution occur before commencement of the State's ACMP review process. Sinf.ftTirel:J:-t I { i!Jp!#Jh~ Chri~~; Landis Land and Water Resource Manager @ pnnted on recycled paper by C. D. May 22, 1991 Mr. Michael W. Eberhardt Chief Ranger State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby, 5th Floor Juneau, AK 99801-1381 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440 (AK 910315-061) Dear Mr. Eberhardt: Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1991 in which you provide comments on the Draft License Application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have reviewed your comments and offer the following response. The Applicant agrees to assist the State in the maintenance of the cabin in the event that the state selection does take place. A statement has been added to the Recreation Resources Section of the Exhibit E referring to Alaska Power & Telephone's assistance in removing trash, supplying firewood, and providing operational maintenance, as suggested. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. c-· ... <., . \ , ~ ~·, . ! ' Neil H. Macdonald Project Manager cc: Robert Grimm, AP&T Lorraine Marshall, ADGC HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 May 22, 1991 Mr. William Lawrence Chief, Environmental Compliance Division United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Alaska Regional Office 2525 Gambell Street, Room 107 Anchorage, AK 99503-2892 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440 (AK 910315-06J) Dear Mr. Lawrence: Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1991 in which you provide comments on the Draft License Application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. We have reviewed your comments and offer the following response. The Applicant agrees to assist the State in the maintenance of the cabin in the event that the state selection does take place. As suggested by the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, a statement has been added to the Recreation Resources Section of the Exhibit E referring to Alaska Power & Telephone's assistance in removing trash, supplying firewood, and providing operational maintenance. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Neil H. Macdonald Project Manager cc: Robert Grimm, AP&T Lorraine Marshall, ADGC HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 May 22, 1991 Mr. Jack Gustafson Area Habitat Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sealevel Drive, Suite 203 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440 (AK 910315-061) Dear Mr. Gustafson: Thank you for the copy of your memorandum of April 3, 1991 to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination, in which you provide comments on the Draft License Application for this project. We have reviewed these comments and offer the following response. The Applicant is prepared to conduct additional pre-project, as well as post-project population studies of resident fish in Black Bear Lake, as requested by the ADF&G. This commitment is stated in Exhibit E, Section 3.4 of the License Application. As stated in Exhibit E, Section 3.4; the Applicant proposes that additional pre-project studies begin at a time just prior to the start of construction, when access to the lake is available on a more regular basis. More specifically, it is requested that studies begin after the construction tramway is in place, since this will greatly facilitate efficient and economical access to the lake. The Applicant further proposes to conduct population studies on a periodic basis after initiation of project operations. As stated in Exhibit E, Section 3.4; if post-project monitoring determines that resident trout populations in Black Bear Lake are negatively impacted by project operation, the Applicant will work directly with the ADF&G to plan additional mitigation steps. The Applicant proposes that additional population studies be of the same or similar nature to those previously accomplished during the studies for the License Application. The Applicant will continue to coordinate with the ADF&G on appropriate details of the additional pre-and post-project studies. HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street. Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 Mr. Jack Gustafson May 22, 1991 Page 2 Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Neil H. ·Macdonald Project Manager NHM:mbr cc: Robert Grimm, AP&T Lorraine Marshall, ADGC May 22, 1991 Ms. Ann Tiplady Environmental Specialist Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Southeast Regional Office Post Office Box 32420 Juneau, AK. 99803 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440 (A.K 910315-065) Dear Ms. Tiplady: Thank you for your memorandum of April 5, 1991, to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination, in which you provide comments on the Draft License Application for this project. We have reviewed these comments and offer the following responses. Water temperature and quality sampling was conducted previously by Environaid from 1981 to 1986 (See Appendix E-1). The Applicant's water temperature and water quality monitoring program to date has consisted of the following activities: Water Temperature In June of 1990, the Applicant established four water temperature monitoring stations in the study area to obtain current and long-term data, as follows: Black Bear Lake, at depths of 20 and 30 feet, near the location of the proposed hydropower intake, in Black Bear Creek, upstream of the proposed powerhouse site, Lake Fork and Spring Fork upwelling areas. Thermograph instrumentation is stationed at each of these sampling sites. The thermographs are battery powered for extended remote operation and programmed to record at regular intervals. At Black Bear Lake, thermograph readings were limited to once per day, to conserve battery life. This is necessary since the lake is inaccessible due to snow and ice from late November to late May of each year. HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 200 Lincoln Plaza 11225 S.E. Sixth Street, Building C Bellevue, Washington 98004-6441 Telephone 206 453-1523 Ms. Ann Tiplady May 22, 1991 Page2 Instrument problems have created breaks in the record at the Black Bear Lake site. However, comparative data are available from previous studies for summer months (Environaid, 1981-86). At all other monitoring sites, thermograph data are recorded once per hour. Data is stored on a memory chip, which is collected by AP&T personnel approximately once monthly. This water temperature monitoring program is ongoing. Water temperature data collected through February 1991 are presented in Appendix E-1 of the License Application Appendices. In addition to water temperature, the Applicant also has an ongoing air temperature monitoring program at Black Bear Lake. Air temperature at the lake was recorded on selected dates in June, July, and August of 1990. Since October 10, 1991 a daily record has been made, subject to equipment reliability. Air temperature data through November 15, 1990 is shown in Appendix E-1 of the License Application. Water Quality Sampling In the summer of 1990, the Applicant conducted a water quality sampling program in the Project area. Samples of water were collected at five locations, including: near the outlet of Black Bear Lake, Black Bear Creek below the falls, near the powerhouse site, Spring Fork, and Lake Fork. Samples from these locations were collected three times during the summer of 1990, as follows: July 23, September 6, and October 15. Samples were collected by allowing lake or creek water to fill a sampling bottle. The bottle was labeled and sent immediately to a laboratory for analysis. Results of lab analysis are shown in Table E2-1 and sampling locations are shown on Figure E2-4, in Exhibit E of the License Application. Proposed Monitoring Program The Applicant proposes to continue the existing water temperature monitoring program and conduct additional water quality monitoring as stated above. Proposed locations for additional water quality monitoring are at the outlet of Black Bear Lake, near the powerhouse site and at Lake Fork. Sampling at these locations will allow comparison of pre-and post-project conditions. Water quality monitoring is proposed to begin after a license is issued by FERC and at a time when access to Black Bear Lake is on a more regular basis. Water quality monitoring is proposed to continue at periodic intervals during construction and for an extended period after start-up of project operation. Ms. Ann Tiplady May 22, 1991 Page 3 The Applicant will coordinate with the ADEC on appropriate details and duration of the monitoring program. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments you may have. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, NHM:mbr cc: Robert Grimm, AP&T Lorraine Marshall, ADGC