Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11599 Initial Consultation Document December 1998
CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 11599 INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT Ketchikan Public Utilities December 1998 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 GENERAL ENGINEERING DESIGN Zell Alternative Project Arrangements 2.2 Alternative A — Powerhouse Located at Ketchikan Pulp Mill 2.3 Alternative B —- Powerhouse at Upper End of Ward Cove 2.4 Diversion from White River 3.0 OPERATIONAL MODE 3.1 Energy Generation Model 3.2 Average Annual Energy 3.3. Instream Flow Release 3.4 Diversion for Industrial Use 3.5 Reservoir Operation 4.0 © ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES 4.1 Environmental Issues 4.1.1 Topography 4.1.2 Climate 4.1.3 Water Quality/Quantity 4.1.4 Fishery Resources 4.1.5 Wildlife Resources 4.1.6 Botanical Resources 4.1.7 Aesthetic Resources 4.1.8 Cultural Resources 4.1.9 Recreation and Other Land Uses 4.2 Regulatory Issues 5.0 STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME 5.1 Representative Time Period for Hydrologic Analysis 5.2. Development of Average Monthly Flow Values 5.3. Average Monthly Flows — Connell Lake 5.4 Divertable Flow From White River 5.5 Flow-Duration Curve Data 6.0 PURPA BENEFITS 7.0 LICENSING STUDY PLANS ek Water Quality and Quantity 7.2 Fisheries December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 7.3 Wildlife 7.4 Vegetation TS Aesthetics 7.6 Cultural Resources del, Recreation and Land Use 8.0 REFERENCES 9.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENT MAILING LIST Table of Contents December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Connell Lake Project is located approximately five miles north of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska (Figure 1-1). The Project would utilize the water supply and head developed by the existing Connell Lake Dam. Connell Lake Dam was constructed by the Ketchikan Pulp Company and began storing water in 1952. The water supply was developed for the recently closed Ketchikan Pulp Company mill located on Ward Cove. The hydroelectric Project would utilize the existing water supply pipeline to deliver water to the hydroelectric plant constructed at one of two locations on the shore of Ward Cove. The Project is located on lands owned by the United States Forest Service (USFS), Ketchikan Gateway Borough, and Ketchikan Pulp Company (alternative powerhouse location). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued a three-year Preliminary Permit for the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project on July 24, 1997. The permit gives Ketchikan Public Utility District (KPU) priority for filing a development application while conducting engineering and environmental feasibility studies. KPU intends to file an application for a “Major Project-Existing Dam” with a total installed capacity of 5 MW or less (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Subpart G, Section 4.60). The FERC regulations require the Applicant to follow a three-stage consultation process in the preparation of a hydropower license application for the Project. The Applicant is combining the Applicant Prepared EA (APEA) process with the three-stage consultation process. This Initial Consultation Document (ICD) begins the first stage of the process. The attached Scoping Document 1 (SD1) begins NEPA scoping as part of the APEA process. The purpose of this ICD is to obtain input from federal/state/local agencies, native groups, and public citizens who are interested in the Project. The applicant wishes to receive input on concerns about the proposed Project, to identify environmental or other issues surrounding the Project development, and to provide clear communication about the proposal and its possible impacts to all interested parties. This ICD has been prepared to provide a general overview of the proposed Project design, operation, and potential impacts. A description of studies proposed in order to gain more detailed information about potential impacts is included in the ICD. After review of this document, public and agency meetings will be held in Ketchikan, Alaska. Following these meetings, agencies and the public are invited to submit written comments about the proposed Project and the proposed study plans. The plans will then be revised to incorporate comments received. A final version of the Consultation Document will be issued that contains finalized study plans and copies of consultation correspondence. This three-stage consultation process will lead to the submittal to the FERC of a license application and draft environmental assessment that have been developed utilizing the results of the agreed-to studies. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 1 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project LAKE Ap HARRIET PROJECT LOCATION REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND & Se) UPPER : PROJECT KETCHIKAN XS LAKE LOWER SILVIS LAKE LOCATION KETCHIKAN 4 S UPPER SILVIS LAKE : ww v ea” Q PACIFIC OCEAN GRAVNA > KEY MAP ISLAND WHITMAN LAKE PROJECT LOCATION 3 KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 ° 1 2 3 CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ——_—— eager tee PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1-1 WESCORP General Engineering Design 2.0 GENERAL ENGINEERING DESIGN The Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project would be located approximately 5 miles north of Ketchikan and would utilize the water supply and head developed by the existing Connell Lake Dam. The water supply was developed in the early 1950’s for the recently closed Ketchikan Pulp Company mill located on Ward Cove. The hydroelectric project would utilize the existing water supply pipeline to deliver water to a hydroelectric plant constructed at one of two locations on the shore of Ward Cove. Figures 2-1 through 2-3 show the arrangement of the proposed project. Connell Lake Dam was constructed by the Ketchikan Pulp Company and began storing water in 1952. Since that time, the lake has supplied approximately 45 mgd (70 cfs) to the mill on a continuous basis. The existing dam is approximately 78 feet high and impounds approximately 8,370 acre-feet of stored water. Water from the dam is transferred to the mill through approximately 3 miles of wood stave and steel pipe and two sections of concrete lined tunnel. However, due to a decrease in demands for pulp, the plant was closed in early 1997 and its water supply is being considered as a water source for the proposed hydroelectric plant. 2.1. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS The project includes two alternative powerhouse locations and one additional source of water to supplement water available in Connell Lake. The supplemental water source can be used with either of the powerhouse locations. e Alternative A - This alternative utilizes the existing water supply pipeline to furnish water to a powerhouse located on the existing pulp mill site with discharge to Ward Cove downstream of North Tongass Highway. e Alternative B - This alternative also utilizes the existing water supply pipeline but the powerhouse would be located near the head of Ward Cove, upstream of North Tongass Highway. e Added Water Source - Water from the upper reaches of White River would be diverted into upper Ward Creek and provide an additional supply of water for either of the above alternatives. 2.2. ALTERNATIVE A - POWERHOUSE LOCATED AT KETCHIKAN PULP MILL This alternative involves using the existing Connell Lake as the water supply source for the hydroelectric project, a penstock which utilizes the existing pipeline plus 2 new sections of steel pipe, a powerhouse located at the pulp mill, and a discharge tube which leads to Ward Cove. Pertinent statistics on the project are presented in Table 2-1. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 2 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project General Engineering Design Table 2-1 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description — Alternative A Existing Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Level 254 feet Surface Area at Elev. 254 400 acres Reservoir Storage at Elev. 254 8370 acre-feet Reservoir Storage at Min. Pool (Elev. 210) 970 acre-feet Existing Dam Type Concrete gravity Structural Height 76 feet Crest Length 600 feet Dam Crest Elevation 263.5 feet Spillway Crest Elevation 250.0 feet Top of Spillway Crest Gates 254.0 feet Penstock Length of existing 60-inch wood stave pipe 12,750 feet Length of existing 48-inch wood stave pipe 1,780 feet Length of existing tunnels 1,675 feet Length of existing 48-inch steel pipe 375 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ dam) 77 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ p. h. 600 feet Powerhouse Size 2,400 square feet Type Concrete substructure with steel frame Number of Units 1 Capacity 1.9 MW Type of Unit Horizontal Francis w/ synchronous bypass Switchyard Location Adjacent to powerhouse Intertie To KPU 34.5 kV line along N. Tongass December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 3 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project General Engineering Design Connell Lake The lake can be operated between the crest of the spillway gates, elevation 254, and approximately elevation 210. The existing outlet works on the dam discharge to a concrete forebay which then discharges to the 60-inch wood stave pipe. This section will be modified and a 77-foot section of 48-inch steel pipe will be added to fully pressurize the entire pipeline and take advantage of approximately 44 feet of additional head. Penstock The existing pipeline will be used to convey up to 130 cfs to the powerhouse. Since the pipeline will be pressurized to the reservoir elevation, an increase of about 50 feet, the 1,780 feet of 48- inch wood stave pipe will require additional bands to withstand the additional pressure. The penstock to the powerhouse will take off of the existing 48-inch steel pipe approximately . 100 feet north of the filtration plant and run approximately 600 feet to the powerhouse. Several alternative sizes for the penstock were investigated (42-, 48-, and 54-inch) and the 48-inch was found to be the most cost effective. Powerhouse , Turbine, and Generator There are several potential locations for the powerhouse on the site of the closed pulp mill. The preliminary selected site is located adjacent to the silos, within 200 feet of the shore of Ward Cove. The powerhouse is planned to be rectangular steel and concrete building with approximately 2400 square feet of floor space. The building will house the turbine, generator, and controls as well as a small office and storage space. The turbine will be a horizontal Francis type unit with maximum output of approximately 1.9 MW at 195 feet of net head. The turbine runner elevation will be approximately 5 feet above the tailwater elevation of 18 feet. The generator will be a horizontal synchronous type with a nominal output of 1.9 MW at 4160 volts. Switchyard The switchyard will be located just east of the powerhouse and will include the transformers, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches and will transform the generator output to 34.5 kV. An overhead line will connect to KPU’s existing 34.5 kV line along North Tongass Avenue. 2.3. ALTERNATIVE B—- POWERHOUSE AT UPPER END OF WARD COVE This alternative is similar to the plan described above with the only major difference being the location of the powerhouse. The pertinent statistics on the project are shown in Table 2-2. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 4 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project General Engineering Design Table 2-2 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description — Alternative B Existing Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Level Surface Area at Elev. 254 Reservoir Storage at Elev. 254 Reservoir Storage at Min. Pool (Elev. 210) 254 feet 400 acres 8370 acre-feet 970 acre-feet Existing Dam Type Concrete gravity Structural Height 76 feet Crest Length 600 feet Dam Crest Elevation 263.5 feet Spillway Crest Elevation 250.0 feet Top of Spillway Crest Gates 254.0 feet Penstock Length of existing 60-inch wood stave pipe 12,750 feet Length of existing tunnels 1,150 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ dam) 77 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ p. h. 1800 feet Powerhouse Size 2,400 square feet Type Concrete substructure w/ steel frame Number of Units 1 Capacity 1.9 MW Type of Unit Horizontal Francis with Synchronous bypass Switchyard f Location Adjacent to powerhouse Connection To KPU 34.5 kV line along N. Tongass Ave December 1998 Page 5 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project General Engineering Design The Connell Lake facilities (lake, outlet, and connecting pipeline) are exactly the same as Alternative A. The major difference in the configuration is that the penstock takes off at the upstream end of the last tunnel section and a 1,800-foot penstock leads to the powerhouse which will be located adjacent to the upper end of Ward Cove. The 48-inch steel penstock leads to the powerhouse which will be similar to the one described earlier. The powerhouse, turbine and generator will be the same as described above for Alternative A. Since the powerhouse will be located adjacent to Ward Cove, the draft tube will be about 50 foot long and will discharge directly to the cove. The switchyard will be locate just west of the powerhouse and the transmission line will run westward about 1,400 feet to the existing 34.5 kV KPU line along North Tongass Avenue. 2.4 DIVERSION FROM WHITE RIVER The upper reach of the White River is located about 2,000 feet east of upper Ward Creek and a portion of its water could be diverted into Ward Creek and Connell Lake to increase the amount of power generated in either Alternative A or B. A simple, 5-foot high, concrete diversion structure would be used to divert flows in excess of those needed in the White River below the diversion. A 24-inch pipeline, approximately a mile long, will be used to deliver water to Ward Creek upstream of Talbot Lake. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 6 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project SCALE IN FEET KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROVECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11599 PROJECT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 2-1 i WA. , We ee \\ \S ~4 r oN NW aS TNS c ns —STAVE PIPE = NEW 480 STEEL PI \ / \ y | 2 ~200-— ine Ve ve | <\6 Y | wis EXISTING 34.5 KV) | z\~ i | TRANSMISSION LINE 26 i | ) Mis NEW. 48"9) STEEL PENSTOCK Ne . 3 ae SWITCHYARD ee ? My NEW 34.5 KV TRANSMISSION LINE a \ \ \\ a \\ N i \\\ iS mS LUNE \ \ a 7 Z Oy ALTERNATIVE 8 ReOICole POWERHOUSt PLAN 500 0 500 SCALE IN FEET KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11599 PENSTOCK PLAN FIGURE 2-2 WESCORP STOPLOG (NORMALLY WTHDRAWN) 18” SYNCHRONOUS $$ — BYPASS VALVE GUARDRAIL a ol TAILWATER TAILWATER CONTROL WEIR CONTROL THRUST BLOCK EL. 18 (APPROX. MHHW) WEIR EL 18 G TAILRACE COVER a f 3 / 4'0 STEEL PENSTOCK ite 48" BUTTERFLY VALVE 2100 kVA GENERATOR DRAFT TUBE SAeM= Sil NEW TAILRACE CONNECTED TO EXISTING UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE CHANNEL ROLL-UP DOOR SECTION A-A EQUIPMENT LEGEND KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONTROLS AND) REEAY PANE: FERC PROJECT NO. 11597 SWITCHGEAR AND STATION SERVICE POWER CENTER MOTOR CONTROL CENTER ether aio aneeik POWERHOUSE PLAN AND SECTION HYDRAULIC PRESSURE UNIT FIGURE 2-3 SUMP AND SUMP PUMP Operational Mode 3.0 OPERATIONAL MODE The project configuration and operation for this study were developed based on maximizing average annual energy generation at the least cost. In order to achieve this goal it was assumed that reservoir level sensors will be installed to provide real-time control over reservoir releases for hydropower, fishery and other uses. It was further assumed that plant operation will have dispatch priority over all other KPU-owned generating resources. 3.1 | ENERGY GENERATION MODEL An energy generation model was developed to estimate average monthly and annual energy generation for the two project alternatives and to evaluate various operational strategies The model takes into consideration natural inflow to Connell Lake, diversion flows from the adjacent White River, assumed minimum instream releases below the dam, excess spill, conveyance losses, turbine and generator efficiencies, and assumed reservoir operating criteria. Inflow used in the energy generation model was based on the 10 years of monthly streamflow data presented in Section 5.0, which we consider a representative hydrologic period of record 3.2 AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY The annual amount of energy generated from a hydroelectric project is dependent on the amount of annual precipitation that falls in the project drainage basin. Wet years result in above average amounts of generation and dry years result in lower than average expectations. Based on the 10 years of analysis for Alternative A, the lowest energy production year was 9,350 MWH, which is 80 percent of the ten-year average. The highest single year was 14,548 MWH, or 125 percent above the average. A summary of average monthly energy generation for Project Alternative A is shown below. Average Monthly Energy Generation, MWH Project Alternative A Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Spt | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual 783 | 739 | 1,103 | 1.068 | 1,224 | 977 | 1,068 | 597 | 902 | 1,117 | 1,093 | 971 | 11,643 3.3 INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE Developing the hydroelectric project will require negotiations with state and federal agencies responsible for managing the state’s water resources and activities related to these resources. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 7 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Operational Mode Since completion of the existing dam in the early 1950’s, the minimum required release from the dam has been about 4 cfs when such flow has been physically available. In order to determine preliminary estimates of the average annual energy generation from the project, an estimate of instream flow releases was required. Determining instream flow releases normally requires rigorous field work in cooperation with the responsible resource agencies. Because such studies have yet to be accomplished, it was necessary to develop instream flows based on a less rigorous methodology. For earlier studies, the USGS Toe-Width method was used, and based on this method the following monthly instream flows were assumed. Assumed Monthly Instream Flows, cfs Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Spt | Oct | Nov | Dec 15 15 15 40 50 50 30 30 30 60 60 10 3.4 DIVERSION FOR INDUSTRIAL USE The hydroelectric project can be designed to allow a small amount of water to be diverted for industrial use at the pulp mill site. Such water would bypasss the turbine resulting in a loss of potential generation capability. Assuming diversion of 100,000 gallons per day for industrial purposes, the hydroelectric project would generate about 20,000 kWh less per year, or less than 0.2 percent of the average annual generation. 3.5 RESERVOIR OPERATIONS The storage available in Connell Lake can be used to regulate inflows to the lake to maximize the amount of power generated and to insure that minimum instream flow goals for Ward Creek can be met. Although the amount of storage available is relatively small when compared to the inflow, the storage can be fluctuated on a monthly basis to the benefit of the project and instream flows. The energy generation model described above was used to establish target operating levels for Connell Lake for each month of the year. The target elevations range from 230 feet in March to 254 feet in May, June, and December. In a typical month, the priority of operations are: (1) meet the minimum flow requirements; (2) fill the reservoir to the target elevation; (3) release water into the penstock for power generation up to the capacity of the turbine; and (4) spill the excess into Ward Creek. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 8 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues 4.0 | ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES This section discusses the environmental setting, preliminary identification of environmental impacts and possible agency concerns, and permitting requirements to the extent known at this time 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 4.1.1 Topography The Project site is located on Revillagigedo Island in southeast Alaska. The Project is approximately 5 miles northwest of Ketchikan within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Ketchikan Gateway Borough is characterized by steep mountains and high mountain lakes, deeply incised tributaries, and saltwater shorelines with steep slopes descending to narrow, rocky beaches. The Connell Lake Dam crest elevation is 263.5 feet. The powerhouse would be located near sea level. 4.1.2 Climate The climate in the Project area is typical of a temperate rain forest with mild winters and summers, and plentiful rainfall. Yearly average rainfall is approximately 162 inches per year and snowfall is approximately 32 inches. The heaviest rainfall is from October to December. Average monthly temperature ranges from 34°F in January to 58.7°F in August. Prevailing winds in the Ketchikan area are from the southeast. 4.1.3 Water Quality/Quantity Existing Conditions The Ward Creek drainage consists of Ward Creek and four lakes which interconnect: 1) Perseverance Lake, the highest of the four, which drains into Connell Lake via Perseverance Creek; 2) Talbot Lake, which drains into the north end of Connell Lake via upper Ward Creek; 3) Connell Lake, the location of the existing Ketchikan Pulp Company dam and diversion structure; and 4) Ward Lake, situated downstream of Connell Lake and upstream of Ward Cove. Ward Creek drains Connell Lake and flows through Ward Lake before emptying into Ward Cove. Existing water quality information for Connell Lake indicates that conditions are good. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) conducted limited studies in Connell Lake in 1989 to evaluate fishery resources and results of this study are listed below on Table 4-1. These data are similar to data collected from seven other lakes in the Ketchikan area as part of those studies. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 9 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues Table 4-1 Water Quality Data for Connell Lake (Source: Hubartt, 1990) LAKE DATE | TEMP | DISSOLVED |CONDUCTIVITY| ALKALINITY| pH OXYGEN (°C) (mg/l) (umhos) (mg/l) Connell; 9/20/89 Surface 14.0 8.47 20 23 6.5 Middle Os) 20 6.5 Bottom Ss) 10.02 23 23 6.5 The quantity of precipitation combined with steep slopes and shallow soils allow surface water to drain quickly into the lakes and reduces the time for water to concentrate dissolved ions and minerals (Dames and Moore 1990). Though the existing information does not include chemical analysis of the water samples, it is likely that chemical conditions of these lakes are consistent with federal and state water quality standards. Median monthly (50% exceedence) inflows to Connell Lake range from a low of 42 cfs in August to a high of 193 cfs in October. Average annual runoff has been estimated to be 143 cfs, approximately 103,000 acre-feet per year. Currently, Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) holds a water right for 45 MGD (approximately 70 cfs) for pulp processing. KPU would need to revise the purpose of this water right and obtain additional water rights. In the event that KPU does not secure the Pulp Mill’s water right, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough has expressed an interest in obtaining the water right. KPC provided a minimum instream flow release of 4 cfs. In late 1989, the ADFG submitted an application for instream flow releases to Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). The requested instream flows vary from 56 cfs up to 141 cfs. The application is pending. Refer to “Fisheries, Instream Flow Requirements”, section for further discussion regarding the ADFG instream flow application. Potential Water Issues/Concerns/Mitigation Water quality issues that have been identified by ADFG are temperature, gas saturation and water quantity. These concerns can be managed with project design features and monitoring of water quality. The proposed Connell Lake Project will not likely to have long-term impact on water quality of Ward Lake or the bypass reaches. Project construction may cause short-term impacts such as increased turbidity and suspended solids. An erosion and sediment control plan will need to be December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 10 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues developed and strict adherence to best-management practices (BMPs) will need to be followed to avoid excessive impacts to the waterbodies during the construction phase. Water quantity concerns relate to minimum instream flows released at the dam needed to improve and enhance Ward Creek fisheries resources. 4.1.4 Fishery Resources The Ward Creek watershed supports populations of both resident and anadromous salmonids that are of economic and recreational importance. The populations include those that reside within several of the lake systems in the watershed (e.g. Perserverance Lake, Talbot Lake, Connell Lake, and Ward Lake), as well as those that utilize primarily the streams and tributaries within the basin. Several of the anadromous species will utilize both lake and stream systems during part of their life history; e.g. adult spawning in streams and juvenile rearing in lakes. The discussion that follows provides a general overview of existing conditions of the fish populations within the Ward Creek watershed, based on an initial review of the literature and discussions with agency personnel. The discussion has been organized by major water body including lakes and streams. Existing Conditions Anadromous salmonid fish species that utilize portions of the Ward Creek drainage include; steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) and occasionally, chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). According to S. Hoffman (ADFG personal communication), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) have also recently been found in Ward Creek, presumably a result of net-pen escapements in British Columbia. The four major resident sports fish found in the drainage include rainbow trout and cutthroat trout (O. clarki), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma; possibly resident and anadromous forms), and eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Perseverance Lake and Creek: Perseverance Lake currently has populations of rainbow and eastern brook trout (Dames and Moore, 1990; Denton, 1997). Both of these species are believed to spawn in Perseverance Creek, the lake outlet (Hoffman 1990 as cited in Dames and Moore, 1990; Denton, 1997). Brook trout were planted in the 1950's (Dames and Moore, 1990); the origin of the rainbow trout is not known. Surveys conducted by ADFG in 1989 indicate the presence of only brook trout in the lake (Hubartt, 1990). Rainbow trout are thought to spawn from mid-April to late June, while brook trout spawn from the late summer through the fall (August through December) (Dames and Moore, 1990). December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 11 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues Talbot Lake: Hubartt (1990) sampled Talbot Lake and found resident cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden in 1989 during June, July, and August. The timing of spawning for cutthroat trout is considered to be from April through mid-May. Dolly Varden are thought to spawn from late August through November. Connell Lake: A dam which forms Connell Lake prevents upstream migration of anadromous fish from Ward Creek (Hubartt, 1990). The dam prevents passage of anadromous fish into the upper Ward Creek watershed, reportedly resulting in the loss of about 7 miles of spawning and rearing habitat (Letter from B. Hanson — ADFG to K. Keeley — EPA; dated September 29, 1998). However, the local topography and channel morphology of Ward Creek that existed prior to the construction of Connell Dam are presently not known, and hence it is not possible (at this time), to determine the extent to which the upper watershed was utilized by anadromous fish stocks. A series of falls within Ward Creek exists between the dam and Ward Lake and presently, under most flow conditions, prevents the passage of certain anadromous fish species (i.e. chum salmon and pink salmon) to the base of the dam. Studies are underway to assess the passage characteristics of the different sets of falls under different flow conditions. As a result of the dam, only resident fish are found in Connell Lake and upstream. Cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden (Denton, 1997; Hubartt and Bingham, 1990), as well as rainbow and eastern brook trout (Dames and Moore, 1990) are found in Connell Lake. Sculpins (Coftus sp.) and stickleback (Gasterostus sp.) also inhabit the lake (Dames and Moore, 1990). Cutthroat trout reportedly spawn from April through mid-May; Dolly Varden from late August through November. Rainbow and eastern brook trout spawning is thought to be the same as for Perseverance Lake (Dames and Moore, 1990). Ward Lake: Ward Lake is accessible to anadromous salmonids moving upstream from Ward Cove. The lake supports anadromous runs of steelhead trout, as well as sockeye, coho, chum, and pink salmon. Examination of existing data does not explicitly indicate the presence of resident salmonids, but it is assumed that the four species mentioned above (i.e., cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and Dolly Varden) likely inhabit Ward Lake as well. The lake levels of Ward Lake are influenced by inflows from several tributaries, the major one being Ward Creek. Lake level — tributary inflow relationships are presently undefined for Ward Lake. The USFS maintains several day-use picnic and recreational sites around Ward Lake; the system receives high recreational use, including fishing by local residents. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 12 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues Ward Creek: Ward Creek below Connell Lake Dam is accessible to anadromous salmonids moving upstream from Ward Cove. The creek supports anadromous runs of steelhead trout (spring and summer runs), as well as sockeye, coho (summer and fall runs), chum and pink salmon. However, as noted above, a series of falls located between the dam and Ward Lake appears to effectively (under most flow conditions) prevent the passage of chum and pink salmon into the upper reach of the stream below the dam. Coho and sockeye salmon, and steelhead trout reportedly are able to pass the series of falls and migrate as far as the base of the dam (S. Hoffman — ADFG, personal communication with D. Reiser — R2 Resource Consultants). Coho and some sockeye salmon adults were observed in the upper reaches of the stream during a recent (September 22, 1998) habitat mapping survey of the system. Steelhead of hatchery origin have been planted in Ward Creek since 1981 both as mitigation and enhancement to provide for angler harvest while reducing pressure on wild stocks. Several stocks of steelhead have been planted in Ward Creek; however, those hatchery fish originating from Klawock River were comprised of both fall-run and spring-run steelhead. Some of these steelhead plants have been known to residualize (i.e., remain in the system and not migrate out to sea) (Freeman, 1995). Examination of existing data does not explicitly indicate the presence of resident salmonids, but it is assumed that the four species mentioned above (i.e., cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and Dolly Varden) inhabit Ward Creek as well. The agencies stated at an informal meeting held at KPU’s office on October 8, 1997 that Ward Creek has all of the anadromous and resident fish (found in the watershed), has a high fisheries value, and has great potential for improvement and enhancement. Potential Fisheries Issues/Concerns/Mitigation 1) 2) Ward Creek Instream Flows - As mentioned above, Ward Creek has a highly valuable fishery that has an active enhancement program. KPC has a water right for approximately 70 cfs, and volitionally released a minimum flow of 4 cfs at the dam into Ward Creek. ADFG has a pending streamflow reservation for Ward Creek; however, it has not yet been adjudicated by the ADNR. Agencies have stated they would consider additional information and data collected specifically on Ward Creek to define its instream flow needs. An instream flow study, using the Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) component of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) has recently been conducted to address these issues. Fish Passage at Natural Falls in Ward Creek Between Ward Lake and Connell Dam — There are 5-6 sets of falls within the reach of Ward Creek extending from Ward Lake to Connell Dam that can, under certain flow conditions impact (i.e. delay) and/or prevent adult fish passage into the upper portions of the stream. It is assumed that the efficacy of passage is influenced at any one time, primarily by the quantity of streamflow in Ward Creek. An analysis has been conducted to evaluate the barrier potential of these sets of falls under different flow conditions. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 13 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues 3) Fish Passage above Connell Dam — The ADFG, in a recent letter to the EPA (see letter from B. Hanson referenced above) expressed an interest in providing upstream and downstream anadromous fish passage above and below Connell Dam as part of the clean-up and restoration actions associated with the closing of the pulp mill at Ward Cove. However, questions remain as to the overall benefits, costs, and potential impacts (related to resident fish populations in Connell Lake and upper Ward Creek) associated with the provision of passage facilities at the dam. This will be addressed as part of the licensing studies. 4) Ward Lake Water Levels — The level of Ward Lake is influenced by the amount of tributary inflow, including that from Ward Creek. There is a range of lake levels which allow unimpaired use of the recreational sites and trails associated with Ward Lake, as well as provide fishing opportunities. The relationship of inflow to lake elevation has not been determined and will need to be evaluated as part of licensing studies. The evaluation will integrate/consider the results of the instream flow investigations on Ward Creek. 4.1.5 Wildlife Resources Existing Conditions Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the Project area can be divided into seven broad categories: alpine, subalpine, estuary, riparian forest, upland forest, open water, and wetland. The alpine category encompasses lands above the timberline, including cliff and talus slopes. The subalpine category includes forested and scrub covered areas, with some unvegetated terrain lying between the alpine zone and the upland forest. The upland forest includes all forested and non-forested habitat below the subalpine zone and outside of riparian and wetland areas. Open water habitat includes all lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters. Riparian and wetland habitats include those lands adjacent to streams, lakes, and estuaries that support plant and animal species requiring more mesic habitat conditions. Estuaries are comprised of all lands lying within the zone of tidal influence. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: There are no endangered or threatened wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project (USFWS, 1997; USFS, pers. comm. 1997a; ADFG, pers. comm. 1997). Birds: Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus pealei) is the only listed species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project. This species may occur as a transient in Southeast Alaska, primarily during seasonal migration. No critical habitat has been designed for this species and there have been no historical records of peregrine falcons in the Project area. Preliminary review of photographs and topographic maps did not reveal suitable nesting habitat (cliff eyries) and relatively low usage of waterfowl in the Project area indicates that there may not be much of a prey base to support peregrine falcons. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 14 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Although the bald eagle is not a threatened or endangered species in Alaska, it is protected by the state and therefore surveys will likely be requested by the various state and federal agencies in the area. The marbled murrelet (Branchyramphus mamrmoratus) and the Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) are both species of special interest to the USFS and the USFWS due to their association with old growth and mature conifer forest habitats. It is possible that marbled murrelets and northern goshawks are nesting in the vicinity of the Project area (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997; USFS, pers. comm. 1997a). Complete raptor and marbled murrelet surveys will need to be conducted in order to document the presence or absence of these birds within the Project area. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) was also mentioned as a species of special interest and might warrant surveys due to its close association with open water and riparian habitats (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997) Surveys for this species can be combined with stream habitat inventories. Mammals: The Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) is a high profile species known and/or suspected to occur in the vicinity of the Project area (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997). The Connell Lake area is expected to have moderate usage by wolves. Studies of wolf populations and range are good indicators of the overall deer population and habitat sustainability. The USFS and USFWS have both identified the Alexander wolf as a possible species for federal listing, which also makes surveying for this species important. Revillagigedo Island red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi solus) is a subspecies of the red-backed vole and is only found on Revillagigedo Island. There is a mapped record for this vole in Ketchikan (Natural Heritage Database 1997) and therefore may occur within the Project area. These voles appear to prefer mesic areas in coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests with dense cover and abundant litter, stumps, rotting logs, exposed roots, and a dense leaf litter. Habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor for this species and there was no mention of declining population status in the literature. Therefore, surveys for red-backed vole may not be warranted in the Project area. Opportunistic sightings and areas with good habitat suitability could be documented in conjunction with other studies. Although Ketchikan is not classified as a subsistence community, many residents rely on hunting in the surrounding Tongass National Forest to provide food for their families. Sitka black-tailed deer and black bear are two primary game species with importance to December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 15 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues local residents of Ketchikan. Habitat mapping and field reconnaissance surveys would be useful for identifying baseline conditions and providing an analysis tool for managing deer and bear habitat within the Project area (ADFG, pers. comm. 1997). Amphibians: The Spotted Frog is a species of special interest to the agencies (USFWS, ADFG, USFS). Opportunistic searches and dip-netting of selected areas will identify presence of the species and project related effects. Potential Wildlife Issues/Concerns/Mitigation Connell Lake and Ward Creek system have been identified as having a high fisheries value. Ward Creek contains anadromous fish runs throughout the year and the area in general receives a great deal of recreational use from residents and visitors alike. The USFS is planning trail, campground, and parking improvements around the lake, which may in turn lead to increased pressure on area wildlife. Right-of-way land clearing and construction of the penstock and powerhouse may also effect wildlife through possible loss of habitat, depending upon the final powerhouse site selected. Agencies are concerned about the Project’s aerial transmission lines and their impacts on birds. The status of threatened and endangered species is a concern for natural resource agencies and will be addressed. Protecting high wildlife use areas such as emergent vegetation wetlands, riparian corridors and old growth forests will help maintain good biodiversity and species richness within the Project area. New transmission line construction should be built using state of the art practices to avoid and minimize avian collisions with powerlines as well as providing nesting platforms, territorial boundaries, and hunting perches for raptors (Avian Powerline Interaction Committee, 1992). Proper designing of roads can also reduce the amount of habitat fragmentation which could occur. Gating new and existing roads coupled with seasonal access restrictions may help prevent over-hunting and protect rearing habitats for deer, bear, mountain goat, waterfowl, and other game species. 4.1.6 Botanical Resources Existing Conditions The Connell Project area includes a variety of conifer forest types ranging from mature and old growth stands to managed stands of younger generation trees. Old growth stands are generally characterized by multiaged trees of various sizes, large dead standing and fallen logs, a range in the degree of canopy closure, and variation in the composition and density of understory. In contrast, managed stands typically have even-age trees, a high density of trees until thinned, and arelatively depauperate understory. The most common native species of conifer trees in the area December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 16 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues include Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), with western red cedar (Thuja plicata), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Pacific silver fir (Abies amabalis), and shorepine (Pinus contorta var. contorta) occurring in lesser amounts. Deciduous tree species include red alder (Alnus rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). The dominant forest type in the Project area is western hemlock-Sitka spruce, which extends from sea level to treeline. Common understory shrub species in this forest type include huckleberry and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), devil’s club (Oplopanix horridus), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), western thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and bunchberry (Cornus canadensis). Common herbaceous species include skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia) and a variety of ferns, mosses, grasses and sedges. Acidic bog areas known as muskeg are also common in the Project area. Muskeg occurs in wet poorly drained areas, is typically dominated by sphagnum moss, and has deep accumulations of organic matter. Common muskeg species include small shrubs such as crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), mountain cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), and bog kalmia (Kalmia polifolia). Herbaceous species in muskegs include sundews (Drosera spp.), a variety of orchids (e.g., Habenaria spp.), deercabbage (Fauria crista-galli), buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata); and numerous types of sedges (Carex spp, Eleocharis spp., Eriophorum spp.). A few stunted shorepine, western hemlock, and Alaska-cedar are also common in muskeg areas. Intermediate plant communities that combine elements of forest and muskeg habitat grow near the forest edge and along the shorelines of Connell Lake. Wetlands in the area include both acidic muskeg and wetlands with flowing water and emergent vegetation (commonly referred to as fens). Fens generally support greater wildlife diversity and richness than muskeg. However, muskeg is the more common wetland type found near the Project area. Potential Botanical Issues/Concerns/Mitigation Some vegetation will likely be lost to due to construction activities associated with building the powerhouse. Revegetation of disturbed areas will occur as soon as construction activities are completed. Threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species could potentially be aconcern. Table 4-2 details sensitive plants known to occur or potentially occurring within the vicinity of the Connell Project area. The majority of sensitive plant species listed above are found in wet, moist habitats such as muskeg and other wetlands, riparian areas, and shorelines. Since these areas typically also have high wildlife value, an emphasis is placed on avoiding them when planning project facilities. However, in cases where the project development can not avoid a sensitive area, steps will be December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 17 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues taken to minimize impacts to that area and on-site or near-site mitigation will need to be provided. Table 4-2 Sensitive Plants Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Connell Project Area Choris bog orchid (Platanthera chorisiana) Circumpolar starwort (Stellaria ruscifolia ssp. Aleutica) Bog orchid (Platanthera gracilis) Calder lovage (Ligusticum calderi) Goose-grass sedge (Carex lenticularis var. Pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum) dolia) Edible thistle (Cirsium edule) Loose-flowered bluegrass (Poa laxiflora) Davy mannagrass (Glyceria leptostachya) Northern bog clubmoss (Lycopodium inundatum) = Two-flowered marsh marigold (Caltha Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) biflora) Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) Poverty oat-grass (Danthonia spicata) Straight-beak buttercup (Ranunculus Western paper birch (Betula papyrifera var orthorhynchus var. alaschensis) commutata) Water lobelia (Lobelia dortmanna) Cassiope lycopodioides Small cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) Prairie lupine (Lupinus lepidus) Northern bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus) Mexican hedge-nettle (Stachys mexicana) Kamchatka spike-rush (Eleocharis Water bulrush (Scirpus subterminalis) kamtschatica) False solomon’s-seal (Smilacina racemosa) Bog bluegrass (Poa leptocoma) Spleenwort (Asplenium viride) Alaska holly fern (Polystichum setigerum) Boreal bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum) Lewis monkeyflower (Mimulus lewisii) Saxifraga occidentalis Cascade beardtongue (Penstemon serrulatus) Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) Wright filmy fern (Hymenophyllum wrightii) | Black hawthorm (Crateagus douglasii var douglasii) —| Queen Charlotte butterweed (Senecio Unalaska mist-maid (Romanzoffia moresbiensis) unalaschcensis) December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 18 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues 4.1.7 Aesthetic Resources Existing Conditions Connell Lake is composed of hemlock-spruce forest which extends to the edge of the water. The dam is located on the western side of the lake and there is a parking lot near the dam. During times when water is drawn down from the lake, tree stumps usually inundated by the reservoir are exposed. In the driest months of the year the level of the lake may lower by as much as 20 to 30 feet. During the rainy season, when the water level is high, the tree stumps are not exposed. Ward Creek is a gently meandering creek that passes several campgrounds and picnic areas, and can be seen from Ward Lake Road at several locations. The existing wood stave pipe traverses gently sloping terrain surrounded by forests. The upper portion of the pipeline is near Ward Lake Road. The USFS has assigned the Visual Quality Objective of Retention to the Project area, except in the developed recreation facilities around Ward Lake. In the Ward Lake area, the Visual Quality Objective of Modification in the foreground and Partial Retention in the middleground and background is applied. Under the Retention designation, design activities should not be visually evident to the casual observer. Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments may be made on a case by case basis. Developments must use designs and materials that are compatible with forms, colors, and textures found in the characteristic landscape. Under the Modification designation, activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but will borrow from existing form, line, color and texture. Alterations appear to be natural when viewed as foreground or middleground. Under the Partial Retention designation, activities may be evident, but will remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape (USFS, 1997b). Potential Visual Issues/Concerns/Mitigation The proposed Project would use the existing dam and pipe, therefore, impacts to the visual resources would be minimal. The new powerhouse for both alternatives would be visible. Both alternative powerhouse sites may be visible from Tongass Avenue and from Ward Cove. Additional draw downs to Connell Lake would change the appearance of the Lake during those periods. Changes to instream flows in Ward Creek would change the appearance of Ward Creek and Ward Lake. Revegetation following any clearing activities would be required to reduce any visual impacts resulting from construction of the Project. Vegetative plantings could also be used to screen the powerhouse from adjacent areas.. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 19 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues 4.1.8 Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Little is recorded regarding the prehistoric period for southeast Alaska, although it is known that the Tlingit Indians for years had fish camps near the present City of Ketchikan and that they had a village at Ketchikan Creek. White settlements formed around canneries and mines in early Alaska. Ketchikan was founded near the salmon saltery at the mouth of Ketchikan Creek and canneries gradually relocated to Ketchikan because of its convenience for shipping. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was contacted regarding reported historic and prehistoric sites within the Project area. A review of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database and maps by the SHPO revealed three historic sites associated with the National Recreation Area. Since the project features are outside of the National Recreation Area boundary, it is not expected that the proposed Project would impact the reported historic sites. Potential Cultural Issues/Concerns/Mitigation No cultural resources issues or agency concerns are anticipated unless additional eligible cultural resources sites are identified during field surveys. If cultural resources are identified during surveys, compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be required. The site’s eligibility under the National Register and the effects of activities on the property would need to be determined. If the property is found eligible, avoidance or mitigation measures would need to be developed in consultation with the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources office of History and Archaeology. If during-construction, it is determined that the Project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, work would be suspended and the responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would need to be followed. 4.1.9 Recreation and Other Land Uses Existing Conditions Activities such as hiking, fishing, boating, hunting, camping, and picnicking are popular among residents and tourists of Ketchikan. The USFS Tongass National Forest, which surrounds Ketchikan, has constructed many hiking trails and cabins for public use in southeast Alaska. Dispersed recreation activities including hiking, hunting, fishing, and canoeing/kayaking occur throughout the Project area. The area has several developed campgrounds, picnic areas, and hiking trails and is a very popular recreation destination for locals and visitors. Connell Lake is used for boating, fishing, hiking and firewood gathering. Connell Lake Trail, which starts at the parking area near Connell Lake Dam, is a 2 mile trail that skirts the north edge December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 20 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues of the Lake. Last Chance Campground is located less than a mile down Ward Lake Road from the Connell Lake Dam. It has 19 camp sites. Within the Ward Lake Recreation Area, located less than 3 miles down Ward Lake Road from the dam, there are 2 campgrounds (Signal Creek with 24 campsites, and Three C’s with 4 campsites). The Ward Lake Group Day Use Area and Grassy Point Picnic Area are also located within the Ward Lake Recreation Area. Ward Lake Nature Trail is a 1.3 mile trail around Ward Lake that connects all of the facilities around the Lake including the campgrounds, picnic areas, and fishing sites. The trail starts at the Ward Lake Day Use parking area. It is a heavily used trail with signs interpreting old-growth forests. Perseverance Trail is a 2.3 mile trail to Perseverance Lake. The Perseverance Trail starts near the entrance to the Three C’s Campground. An old trail built during the CCC era extends from the Perseverance Trail to Connell Lake. The .4 mile CCC Trail has fallen into disrepair and has low use. The Ward Creek Recreation Area provides one of only a few opportunities for recreation in the area that is accessible by car. It is the primary recreation area for the community of Ketchikan. Ward Creek provides some of the best stream fishing in the Ketchikan area. The USFS is planning to upgrade the Connell Lake trail and parking lot at the dam. They are also pursuing public access along the wood stave pipeline route and are looking at building a ramp into Connell Lake and cleaning up the Lake by removing the tree stumps (USFS, pers. comm. 1997c). The Ketchikan Trails Plan has also identified several projects for the area. Development of a new paved multiple use (biking/walking) trail parallel to the new Ward Lake Bypass from Ward Cove to Last Chance Campground was identified during the Ketchikan Trails Coalition planning process as one of the “Top Ten” actions. Improvements to Ward Lake Nature Trail to make it “barrier-free” was also identified as a top ten action in the Ketchikan Trails Plan. Development of a new Ward Creek fishing access trail off of the Perseverance trailhead is listed as a “Second Ten Actions” item in the Plan (Ketchikan Trails Coalition, 1995). The USFS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) designation around Connell Lake is Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM), and Roaded Natural (RN) downstream of Connell Lake. Under the SPNM designation, alterations are few and subordinate to the landscape, trails and lakes are closed to motorized use, and human use is noticeable but not degrading to the resources elements. Under the RN designation, alterations to the landscape are subordinate, all methods of access and travel may occur when compatible with intended activities, recreation structures and facilities are allowed for site protection and user convenience, and interactions with others may be moderate to high. Recreation is the dominant land use in the Project area. Other industrial land uses are in the vicinity of the Alternative A powerhouse site occupied by the Ketchikan Pulp Company Mill. Connell Lake, the dam, and the upper half of the existing wood stave pipe are on lands owned by the USFS. The lower portion of the existing pipe and the Alternative B powerhouse site are December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 21 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues located on lands that were recently transferred from the state to Ketchikan Gateway Borough (north and west of Ward Lake). The Connell Lake Project area has been designated as a Special Interest Area by the USFS. The primary goal of the Special Interest Area is to preserve areas with unique archaeological, historical, scenic, geologic, botanical, or zoological values (USFS, 1997b). Only facilities and recreation developments that contribute to the interpretation of natural features or provide for compatible public uses and that blend with the natural setting are allowed. Special Interest Areas are characterized by generally unmodified environments, and remain largely undisturbed by human uses or activities, except for localized interpretive purposes and recreation developments. The existing 440-acre Ward Lake Recreation Area, that includes only the immediate area surrounding Ward Lake, is recommended for expansion to 7,535 acres in the USFS Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1997b). The expansion would include all National Forest lands that drain into the Ward Creek/Ward Lake watershed. The Ward Lake Recreation Area currently does not include any of the project features (dam, pipeline, powerhouse). The dam and upper portion of the existing pipeline would be included in the Ward Lake Recreation Area with the expansion. The majority of the Project is located on Future Development Zone lands as designated by Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Under this designation hydroelectric generation is considered a permitted uses. Alternative A is located in an area zoned as heavy industrial. This zone is reserved for industrial development; hydroelectric development should be a permitted use within this zoning designation. The Ward Lake area has been designated as an environmentally sensitive area in the Ketchikan District Coastal Management Program (Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 1983). According to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, the Ward Lake area consists of Ward Lake and Ward Creek, downstream of Ward Lake, to Ward Cove. The Ward Lake area is considered an environmentally sensitive area because the entire Ward Creek/Lake system offers salmon spawning habitat, and because Ward Lake is a popular sportfishing and picnicking area with developed recreation facilities. Development is not precluded in environmentally sensitive areas. However, special consideration must be given to the identified concerns. No National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, National Trails Systems or Wilderness Areas are currently located within the Connell Lake Project area. Ward Creek, including Ward Lake was reviewed, however, by the USFS for inclusion as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (USFS, 1997b). Potential Recreation and Land Use Issues/Concerns/Mitigation Since the existing dam and pipe would be used for the proposed hydroelectric Project, no significant impacts to recreation activities in the area are expected. Construction activities at the dam and pipeline may temporarily disrupt recreation visitors for short periods of time. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 22 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues 4.2 REGULATORY ISSUES In addition to the FERC License, other environmental and regulatory permits that may be required for the Project are described below. e AUS. Forest Service Special Use/Study Permit will be obtained prior to conducting studies on USFS lands and for construction on USFS lands. e An Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) questionnaire has been submitted along with a water rights application. A request for Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency and for Section 401 Water Quality Certification will also be submitted to the ADGC during the early stages of the licensing process. e Ifthe Project requires dredging or filling within tidewaters, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sections 404 Permit will be required e Local building permits may be required prior to construction. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 23 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Regulatory Issues 5.0 STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME The hydrology for the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project is based upon recorded runoff at gaging stations which are, or were, located within the Ward Creek Basin. The stations which were used in the analysis are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Stream Gaging Stations in the Vicinity of Connell Lake Sept 1951 Ward Creek nr. Wacker : Oct. 1948- | 100* | 7.2* Oct-1958 Perseverance Creek near Wacker : Oct. 1931- 372. 13.3 Sept.1939; Oct. 1946- Oct. 1969 * After September 1953, flows were diverted to Ketchikan Pulp Company mill. Prior to diversion, average runoff was 133 cfs. After diversion, average flow was 64 cfs. Difference in flows is 69 cfs which is approximately equal to average diversion to pulp mill of 70 cfs (45 mgd). 5.1 REPRESENTATIVE TIME PERIOD FOR HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS For purposes of hydrologic analysis and the computation of power production, it is desirable to identify a period of time that is representative of the long-term runoff, has both high and low runoff years, and is short enough to simplify the computational analysis. The Perseverance Creek gage, with approximately 31 years of record and a major tributary of Ward Creek, was reviewed with the objective of identifying about a 10 year time period that was representative of the entire 31 years. The period between 1948 and 1958 was found to have an average runoff of 36.6 cfs whereas the long term average was 37.2, or 98.4 percent of the long term average. This time period included the two highest runoff years (1949 and 1955) and the second lowest low flow year (1957). December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 24 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Streamflow and Water Regime In addition, this time period also includes the time period when flows were recorded at the dam site (1948 to 1951) and the time period when flows were collected on Ward Creek downstream of the damsite before the dam began to fill (1952 and 1953). Consequently, the 10 year time period between October 1948 and September 1958 was selected _ as a representative period to use in the power analysis. 5.2. DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW VALUES October 1948 to September 1951 - A gaging station was established at the proposed site of the Connell Lake Dam in September 1948 and continued until September 1951. These flows, therefore, are exact representations of the inflow into Connell Lake and will be used unaltered. October 1951 to September 1953 - The gaging station on Ward Creek downstream of Connell Lake existed during the same time period that the gage at the dam site was being maintained as well as for several years later. Therefore, a regression analysis was performed on the two gaging station records for the overlapping period (1948 to 1951) on a monthly and annual basis. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 5-2. The analysis shows an excellent correlation as the coefficient of correlation R was equal to 0.99 for the annual values. Table 5-2 Correlation of Ward Creek Flows to Connell Dam Flows (Connell Dam Flow = X coefficient times Ward Creek Flow plus Y) LS | aX Coefficient October 0.964 November 1.057 December 0.935 0.984 0.944 1.056 0.878 1.663 1.065 July 0.982 August 0.941 September 1.076 1.062 October 1953 to September 1958 - Since the Ward Creek gage after September 1953 does not include flows diverted to the pulp mill, it cannot be used as a source of natural flow data for inflow to Connell Lake and the Perseverance Creek gage must be used. This gage, Perseverance December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 25 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Streamflow and Water Regime Creek, was analyzed using a regression analysis against the Ward Creek gage for the period between 1948 and 1953. This analysis also produced excellent results as the correlation coefficient R equals 0.923 on the annual flow values. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 Correlation of Perseverance Creek Flows to Connell Dam Flows (Connell Dam Flows = X coefficient times Perseverance Creek Flow plus Y) Month <> 5.5. | S28. X Coefficient® Y= -|*: October 3.44 November 3.00 December S57 434 5.30 3.10 3.61 0.376 2.60 2.42 August 3.19 September 3559 2.86 5.3. AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS - CONNELL LAKE Inflow into Connell Lake has been computed following the methodology described in the previous paragraphs. Consequently, 1948 to 1951 flows are based upon flows recorded at the dam site, 1952 and 1953 flows are based upon a correlation with Ward Creek near Wacker, and 1954 to 1958 flows are based upon a correlation with Perseverance Creek near Wacker. (Wacker is now called Ward Cove). These flows are presented in Table 5-4. The average annual flow is 143 cfs, or 11.5 cfs per square mile. This represents a total annual volume of approximately 103,000 acre-feet per year. 5.4 DIVERTABLE FLOWS FROM WHITE RIVER There are no gaging stations in the White River drainage upon which to estimate runoff. However, since the White River lies just east of the Ward Creek drainage, it is reasonable to estimate its runoff based upon flows in Ward Creek. The upper reach of the White River has a slightly higher average elevation than Ward Creek above Connell Lake (1320 feet vs. 1033) and a smaller drainage area (2.0 square miles versus 12.4 square miles). Consequently, it is December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 26 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Streamflow and Water Regime reasonable to estimate runoff at the diversion site as being approximately 21 percent of the runoff into Connell Lake. However, not all of the runoff at the diversion site can be diverted since some flows should remain for fish and aesthetic purposes. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that 33 percent of the average annual runoff will be left in the stream. Since the average annual runoff into Connell Lake is 143 cfs, the estimated average annual runoff in the White River at the diversion site is 30 cfs and the minimum stream flow below the diversion site is 10 cfs. Consequently, the divertable flows are estimated to be 21 percent of the Ward Creek flow into Connell Lake (Table 5-4) minus 10 cfs. The divertable flows are shown in Table 5-5. 5.5 FLOW-DURATION CURVE DATA Data which relates streamflow to frequency of occurrence is used in hydropower investigations in selecting the sizes for turbines and generators and in estimating minimum streamflow below the points of diversion. Since only a couple years of streamflow data is available from Ward Creek prior to the construction of Connell Dam, long term flow data from Perseverance Creek has been used to develop flow-duration data and curves for the Connell Lake Project. The 33-years of flow data on Perseverance Creek was arranged in ascending order, by month, and multiplied by 3.92 (the approximate ratio of the flows in Perseverance Creek and Ward Creek at the Connell dam site). The flows for various exceedence frequencies are shown in Table 5-6. Table 5-4 Ward Creek at Connell Dam Site (cfs) oy»; Dec... Jan eb Mar... Apr. May? Jun sij,JulS SA 195 69 97 289 208 202 94 248 57 9 137. 209 166 121 101 215 89 131 230 214 42 122 133 221 197 168 76 135 134 64 126 214 67 62 194 287 13) 130 217 158 68 251 388 159 214 158 54 122 Si 21 206 225 179 51 227 326 34 181 9-213 96 66 206 120 195 212 36 22 180 177 95 178 214 145 66 December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 27 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Streamflow and Water Regime Table 5-5 Divertable Flows From White River (cfs) »]2Nov |:Dec \[:Jan’]*Feb :|“Mar:|*Apr2|/May [-Jun- *Jul 32 5 11 4 15 53 35 34 10 44 2 0 0 5 20 35 26 12 37 9 il 18 40 37 17 19 18 16 38 35 27 19 19 4 29 17 36 ) 32 52 6 92 18 37 24 45 74 28 17, 25 36 24 17 0 0 3 35 39 29 39 61 0 0 29 36 ll 35 16 46 11 32 36 0 29 29 12 17 29 36 72) > — a UR COWOND Woke NUW AO Table 5-6 Flow-Duration Data for Ward Creek at Connell Lake Dam (Flows in cfs) Percent Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun Exceedence 100 7 3 8 4 7 5 5{ 29| 29 90 42{ 34{ 21| i] 14{ 19| 38] 76] 31 380 75| 55| 38| 23| 26] 28| 55| 93 [55 [70 ~~+‘{ ti3| 7] Sif 36/ 34] 37{ 72{ 114 60 147| 97| 67| 46] 38| 46| 84/ 135 | 50 | 193] 126] 93] 55| 51| 55| 105| 156 40 244 | 168] 126 84 63 72| 131) 185 Jul Aug | Sep 2.1 ee 27 15 30 36 21 38 46 32 59 30 307 122 97 20 412 10 564 0 2012 December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 28 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project 6.0 PURPA BENEFITS PURPA benefits will not be sought for this Project. PURPA Benefits December 1998 Page 29 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans 7.0 LICENSING STUDY PLANS 7.1 WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Purpose The purpose of the water quality and quantity studies is to refine information developed during the feasibility study of the project and to develop final operating criteria for the project. A new gauging station will be constructed and maintained and the data developed will be used to determine if the flow relationships described earlier are still valid. The water quality study will evaluate the impact that reservoir elevation will have on downstream flow releases. Agencies to be Consulted State and federal agencies and non-governmental agencies that will be contacted as part of the water quality and quantity investigations will include, but not limited to, the following: Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) Methodology Stream Gauging Station A stream gauging station will be developed on Ward Creek below the dam, calibrated and a rating curve developed, and the station maintained for the life of the FERC license. Data developed for the site during the life of the license application phase of the project will be evaluated to determine if the data developed previously was still valid. Revised Hydrologic Data If newly collected data or data developed by the stream gauging station indicates that flow estimates should be revised, then the flow data developed previously will be re-worked and a new set of data developed. The new data will be presented to the consulted agencies before proceeding to the revised energy studies. Operations Studies and Energy Estimates The operations studies from earlier studies will be revised utilizing any new flow data that becomes available and agreed-upon minimum flow from the fishery studies. The purpose of the revised studies is to determine if a revision and modification of the operations studies will result in increases in energy and an optimization of the minimum instream flows to better meet fishery needs. An optimum operating procedure for the project will be developed. The revised studies December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 30 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans will also reflect other operating criteria which may develop out of other ongoing studies of the project. Water Temperature Study The results of the operations studies will be reviewed and used to predict water temperatures for the water that is released from Connell Lake. The results of the temperature analysis will be furnished to the biologist conducting the instream flow studies to determine if the revised flows and temperature are detrimental to the fishery. 7.2 FISHERIES Purpose The purpose of the fisheries studies is to describe the fishery resources existing within and reliant upon the streams and lakes within the Connell Hydroelectric Project area, and to evaluate potential impacts resulting from project construction and operation. For this, fisheries literature/data and information pertaining to the Ward Creek watershed shall be identified, compiled and reviewed. In addition, pedestrian habitat and fisheries surveys shall be completed of Ward creeks (and adjoining tributaries) to collect qualitative physical habitat and biological information needed to address project impacts. Site surveys shall also be completed on each of the lakes that may be influenced by the project, including, Talbot, Connell, Ward. Please note that some field studies were initiated in September 1998 in consultation with key agencies. The processes and objectives of these studies are described in the following paragraphs. Agencies to be Consulted State and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations that will be consulted as part of the fishery investigations will include but not be limited to the following: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) USS. Fish and Wildlife Service UUSFWS) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) USS. Forest Service (USFS) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Methodology Literature Review Sources and types of information that will be collected and reviewed shall likely include but not be limited to: December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 31 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans - ADF&G: stocking records, fish population data, management plans; State listed T& E species - ADNR: water quantity information and flow records - ADEC: water quality information, NPDES permits - USFWS: general fisheries data; ESA listed species - NMFS: anadromous fisheries data; escapement estimates; ESA listed species - USFS: habitat information, species presence/absence data - KPU: technical reports prepared by consultants, anecdotal information - University of Alaska: thesis, technical reports - USGS: streamflow statistics, regional hydrology data Supplemental information shall be provided via personal contacts made with local and regional biologists within the ADF&G (e.g. Steve Hoffman, Jack Gustafson, Ricardo Sainz) to discuss individual species distributions and management goals for the Ward Creek watersheds. Qualitative Habitat and Fish Surveys The qualitative habitat and fish surveys shall be conducted in a downstream direction; from Connell Lake to Ward Lake to the Ward Creek outlet. The surveys shall be completed by a two — person field crew experienced in habitat assessments and fisheries surveys. The surveys shall be completed following protocols specified by the USFS using a modified Hankin — Reeves approach, and shall include the mapping of habitats (classified as to riffle, pool, run, cascade, glide, ripple) throughout the stream length, as well as fish species composition. Fish species composition shall be determined via electrofishing using a Smith —- Root POW backpack shocker. Fish sampling (to determine species composition and relative abundance) shall be conducted at selected intervals throughout the length of the each stream. All salmonids captured during the surveys shall identified, measured (length and weight) and released unharmed within the general vicinity of capture. Scale samples shall be collected from a representative number of salmonids (> 200 mm in length) to enable age: growth analysis, should it be deemed necessary at some later time. Non-salmonid fishes shall be identified, enumerated and released. In addition, qualitative fish sampling shall be completed within the first 50 ft (depending on access) of each of the tributaries entering Ward Creek. Ward Creek Instream Flow Study Based on a review of the Feasibility study for the Connell Project, and preliminary discussions with ADF&G personnel (C. Estes and S. Hoffman), an instream flow study will be completed in December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 32 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans Ward Creek. The ADF&G has already applied for a flow reservation for the section of Ward Creek extending from Connell Dam to its outlet in Ward Cove (ADF&G 1990; amended 1996). That application was based on a determination by the ADF&G biologists that four species of salmon utilize Ward Creek, including coho, sockeye, chum and pink (Haddix, Hoffman 1988). In addition, the stream apparently maintains runs of steelhead trout, Dolly Varden, as well as resident rainbow trout. Therefore, the ADF&G developed instream flow recommendations designed to protect important fishery resources in the basin. Those recommendations were based on the application of the Tennant Method (Tennant 1975) and resulted in the development of an instream flow reservation for Ward Creek that includes specific monthly flow amounts to meet important biological functions in the basin. Specific flow amounts requested are as follows: MONTH FLOW (cfs) January 56 February 56 March 56 April 129 May 141 June : 141 July 71 August 71 September 141 October 141 November 141 December 85 The ADF&G routinely utilizes the Tennant Method for developing instream flow recommendations and evaluating effects of water developments on important fishery resources. The method is hydrologically based and is premised on protecting a certain percentage of the average annual flow (Qaa) within a basin for a given month to protect fish populations, under the assumption that the populations have evolved within a given basin around its “signature” hydrology . The percentages considered protective of the fishery resource range from around 10% of the Qaa (considered as severely degrading) to around 200% of the Qaa, which is considered sufficient for flushing fine sediments from streams. There is a range of percentages intermediate to these values which have been applied by the ADF&G and other researchers that are considered to provide protection levels ranging from Good to Outstanding. The selection of a given level of protection can be made based on a variety of technical and institutional considerations, including but not limited to management objectives of the basin, the importance of the fishery resources, the existing condition of a system (pristine, regulated, degraded, etc.), and availability of empirical data. Because site specific data are generally lacking, this latter consideration often dictates that instream flow recommendations based on the Tennant Method invoke a conservative approach to protecting the resource. As a result, the ADF&G appropriately tends to use the higher protection levels of the Tennant Method, generally reserving flows that represent the “excellent” or “outstanding” categories of protection. This was apparently the case for the Ward Creek reservation, as suggested in the ADF&G application, December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 33 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans dated February 2, 1990. The flows noted above and contained in the instream flow application represent from 40% (56 cfs) to 100% (141 cfs) of the Qaa. Although the Tennant Method has been used and applied by the ADF&G in developing the majority of instream flow recommendations in Alaska, it is not the only viable method for evaluating instream flow needs of fish. Indeed, there are other, more scientifically rigorous methods that can be used for developing instream flow recommendations, methods that generally require the collection of site/stream-specific data from which to base flow needs. Of the field based methods available, the USFWS IFIM and its associated software, PHABSIM is the most widely utilized throughout the United States (Reiser et al. 1989). Application of the IFIM requires the collection of site specific data and the integration of biological information concerning fish species and life history stage utilization of various habitat components, including water depth, water velocity and substrate. These latter parameters are integrated into what are termed Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) curves, which provide the biological foundation for developing habitat:flow relationships. In the case of PHABSIM, the habitat units calculated from the method are termed weighted usable area (WUA), so named because the habitats are weighted based on the probability that a given habitat will be utilized, as defined by the HSI curves. Because the IFIM/PHABSIM method is considered the most scientifically defensible (Reiser et al. 1989) and biologically rationale, it has been widely used by the FERC for deriving instream flow regimes below hydroelectric projects that are both protective of the aquatic resources, and yet provide for power generation. The method is especially useful since it is incremental, and therefore, tradeoffs in flow (and hence power production) can be readily compared with habitat gains/losses for specific species and life history stages. For these reasons, the Ward Creek instream flow study will be completed using the IFIM/PHABSIM method. Scoping of Instream Flow Study: Because there are a number of components within the IFIM/PHABSIM method that are sensitive determinants of the resulting habitat:flow relationship, it is important that all phases of the instream flow study be closely coordinated with state and federal resource agencies, in particular, the ADF&G. This coordination will begin with the initial scoping of the study in which the overall objectives and methods will be reviewed, and a schedule of both field activities and data analysis developed. The major components of the study which shall be described in the study plan include target species and life history stage identification, habitat mapping and transect selection, field data collection, development of HSI curves, PHABSIM modeling, and derivation of habitat:flow relationships. For this, R2 shall attend an initial scoping meeting with personnel from the ADF&G, USFWS, and NMFS. Subsequent to this meeting, a Draft Study Plan shall be developed and transmitted to the agencies for review and comment. Habitat Mapping and Transect Selection: The initial step in the completion of the instream flow study is the habitat mapping of the reaches of Ward Creek deemed biologically important. The entire length of each of the December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 34 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans segments shall be surveyed and habitats mapped (linear distances determined). A habitat map shall subsequently be prepared of each of the reaches of Ward Creek; the habitat map shall depict locations of major habitat types (classified into riffle, run, pool, cascade) throughout the stream. Candidate transect locations shall subsequently be selected and depicted for each of the reaches. The transects shall include those habitats which represent at least 10% of the habitats noted from the surveys. The candidate transect locations shall be discussed with the agencies, and modifications in location and number of transects integrated into the final study plan. Transects representing critical habitats may be identified during the habitat surveys or as noted by agency personnel. Final transect selection and placement in the field shall be made with agency personnel participation. . The rationale used in selecting each of the transects shall be documented; photographs of each transect shall be taken during the transect selection process. Field Data Collection: The collection of field data from each transect shall follow procedures as outlined in Trihey and Wegner (1984), Bovee (1982), and Bovee and Milhous (1978). R2 is assuming that three separate flows shall be measured to enable as wide an extrapolation range in flow conditions as possible. Based on a review of existing hydrology, R2 has identified the following three target flows - low flow (20 cfs), mid -flow (40 cfs) and high flow (100 cfs). In general, field measurements shall include the following: - Headpins (HP) shall be established at each transect marking the right and left end points of each transect. The headpins shall consist of 18-inch sections of 0.75- inch rebar; an 18-inch wood survey stake comprised of a working pin (WP) shall be placed on the right bank to enable tape anchoring and tie-off. The HP and WP shall be marked with fluorescent survey flagging and labeled according to location downstream from Talbot Lake (transect 1 located closest to Talbot Lake, transect 27 representing the most downstream location). - Survey of HP Elevations and Completion of Level Loops — subsequent to installation of HPs, a level loop shall be completed for all adjacent transects to establish pin elevations and ensure survey accuracy. - Elevations shall be determined for all transects relative to either an established datum (benchmark) or an arbitrary, yet permanent datum. , - Staff Gages — during measurement of depths and velocities, a temporary staff gage shall be installed adjacent to each transect to monitor flow stability during the field measurements. - Transect Measurements shall include the following: channel width (ft)(measured from HP to WP), water depths (measured with a top setting rod), mean column velocities measured at 0.6 depth or 0.2 and 0.8 depth for water depths over 2.5 ft (using a Swoffer Model 2100 current meter), substrates (visually characterized into dominant and subdominant types — silt, sand, fine gravel, coarse gravel, cobble, boulder, bedrock, and vegetation), and embeddedness (%) (defined as the December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 35 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans relative degree to which the largest-sized bottom materials of a stream segment are surrounded by smaller size particles). Measurements shall be made across each transect at intervals which capture the changes in channel morphology across the width of the stream; a minimum of ten measurements shall be made for each transect. - Photographs shall be taken across each transect as well as upstream and downstream of each transect; photographs shall be taken during each of the three flow conditions. A crew of two individuals experienced in PHABSIM field data collection and modeling shall complete the fieldwork. All data shall be recorded in “write in the rain” waterproof survey books. After each field effort, all data shall be photocopied, checked, and entered into computer data files. Field data collection activities are scheduled to occur in September/October, depending on flow availability. Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Curves: HSI curves reflect species and life stage use and preference for selected habitat parameters (depth, velocity, substrate)(Bovee 1982) . Depending on the extent of data available, HSI curves can be developed from the literature (Category 1 curves), or from physical and hydraulic measurements made in the field over species microhabitats (Category 2 curves). When adjusted for availability, these latter curves may more accurately reflect species preference (Category 3 curves)(Bovee 1986). For the Ward Creek watershed, R2 does not believe site specific HSI data are available, and because of its already regulated nature, such data collected in Ward Creek would not be representative of the overall habitat conditions utilized by fish given a wide range of flows. Therefore, R2 is proposing to compile and review existing curves reported in the literature (coho, pink, chum, steelhead, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout) for possible use in the PHABSIM modeling. R2 has an extensive library of curve sets for these species, which will be supplemented with any new information obtained during the initial scoping of the study. Based on this review, R2 shall select a set of candidate HSI curves for each species and life stage of concern. These curve sets shall be transmitted to the agencies for review and comment. Upon receipt of comments, and subsequent discussions via teleconference, R2 shall finalize a set of HSI curves considered appropriate for and endorsed by the agencies, for application in Ward Creek. It should be noted that a separate meeting with the agencies to present, discuss and finalize the HSI curves might be necessary. However, costs are not included for such a meeting. PHABSIM Modeling: R2 shall utilize the latest version of the USFWS microcomputer software of PHABSIM. Based on anticipated channel morphologies, R2 will likely employ the IFG4 computer December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 36 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans models to develop stage-discharge relationships for the various transects. This model will be supplemented with additional programs such as MANSQ and WSP as necessary to obtain the best possible calibrated hydraulic model. Details of all calibration steps shall be recorded and submitted as an appendix in the final report. Once the models are calibrated, habitat:flow relationships shall be computed using the HABTAT or HABTAV programs, depending on appropriateness for given hydraulic conditions. Based on the range of flows measured in the field, habitat (WUA) values shall be calculated for each of the target species and life history stages for discharges ranging from 8 cfs to 250 cfs at increments of 10 cfs. This range of flow brackets the entire range of flows that the ADF&G has recommended for Ward Creek, and therefore will be useful in evaluating gains in habitat resulting from incremental increases in flow. R2 will also estimate the total quantity of habitat within the entire segment of Ward Creek that occurs under varying flow conditions for the different species and life stages. For this, the habitat:flow relationships representative of the different habitat types shall be expanded to include other habitats as identified during the habitat mapping surveys. A habitat time series will also be computed to identify differences in habitat duration between existing, proposed, and natural flow conditions. This will be useful for evaluating the temporal percentage increases/decreases in habitat availability that may result from different operating regimens. Impacts Assessment Based on the information and data obtained and reviewed, and the results of the habitat and fishery surveys, an assessment of the effects of the proposed project construction and operations on the existing fishery resources shall be made. This shall include potential habitat loss, habitat alteration/degradation (e.g. water quality changes — temperature), effects on resident fish and aquatic biota, and modifications in streamflow and lake level regime. The assessment shall also focus on the effects of lake level fluctuations on littoral margin habitats and productivity. The impacts on fish shall focus on determining to what extent project operations will directly or indirectly impact existing fish populations within the watershed. Examples of direct impacts include habitat loss (due to passage barriers, loss of stream length, fluctuations in lake levels), false attraction to powerhouse outfalls resulting in delay of adult migrations, and mortality occurring during construction. Indirect impacts include loss of food production within a given reach which could influence fish population abundance, reduction in spawning gravel recruitment below the dam, changes in water quality (e.g. temperature alterations) that could alter the timing of certain life history components (e.g. spawning, egg incubation and fry emergence), and changes in flow availability and quantity that could likewise impart changes in fish life history patterns (upstream and downstream passage of salmonids). This latter component shall be evaluated in detail for the Connell Project based on the results of a detailed instream flow study conducted in selected reaches of Ward Creek (see below). The discussion of impacts shall be made on a species and life history stage - specific basis (to the extent information is available). December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 37 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans Instream Flow Report - Assessment of Proposed Project Operations: R2 shall utilize the habitat:flow relationships and resulting time series and habitat duration curves to evaluate the effects of the proposed project operations on the fishery resources in Ward Creek. The results of this analysis shall be presented in a Draft Report that shall be submitted to KPU and state and federal agencies for review and comment. A subsequent meeting with the agencies shall occur, during which time the overall results of the instream flow study shall be presented. Identification of Mitigation Measures For each of the impacts identified, mitigation measures shall be described and discussed that serve to reduce or eliminate project impacts. Such measures may include the provision of instream flows in Ward Creek and other streams to maintain existing fishery resources, development and funding of a lake stocking program (if deemed desirable by the ADF&G), development of lake level and flow operation rule curves that are compatible with salmonid life history requirements and periodicities, and other measures as “agreed-to” during agency consultations. Emphasis shall be placed on identifying those measures which substantially reduce or eliminate project impacts, and which in some cases may actually provide an enhancement of existing conditions. 7.3 WILDLIFE Purpose The purpose of the wildlife study is to describe and quantify habitats and confirm presence or absence wildlife species. The potential impact of the Project on wildlife resources will be evaluated and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts will be developed. Agencies to be Consulted USFWS USFS ADFG NMFS Methodology Studies will include agency consultation, literature reviews, field studies, interpretation of field data, analysis of aerial photographs, and documentation. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 38 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans Tasks All existing data on wildlife species and habitat in or near the Project area will be reviewed. This will include lists, survey data, aerial photographs, and reports from with USFWS, USFS, ADFG and NMFS. Field Surveys A field survey will be conducted to confirm existing project data. Areas to be surveyed will include the dam, penstock route, power house location, and access road/transmission route. The field survey will confirm presence/absence of common wildlife species, as well as species of concern (i.e., threatened and endangered species). The field survey will consist of: a) qualitative survey of wildlife habitats; b) general inventory of wildlife species will be conducted for mammals and birds. Ancillary observations will include identification of calls, tracks, scat, and raptor pellet analysis. Surveys of the Project area will be conducted while walking to and from fixed points. If individuals of an animal species of concern are located, the pertinent officials will be informed The appropriate extent of the analysis area for other potential animal species will be determined in consultation with the agencies. 7.4. VEGETATION Purpose The purpose of the vegetation studies is to characterize the plant communities in and around the Project area and to identify any populations of threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) plant species that will be potentially impacted by the Project. Any potential impacts to botanical resources will be evaluated and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts will be developed. Agencies to be Consulted USFS USFWS ANHP Methodology Plant Community Classification and Identification Characterization of botanical resources shall include a classification and description of plant communities in and around existing and proposed facilities (lakeshores, dams, penstocks, December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 39 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans powerhouses, and access roads). The vegetation in the area around the existing and proposed facilities will be described in terms of dominant tree species, component understory shrubs, and understory herbaceous species. Successional stage and evidence of past disturbance will also be characterized. A list of species observed in the Project area will be developed and included in the Environmental Assessment. The regional and local importance of plant communities occurring in the Project area will be discussed to provide a basis for assessing impacts to plant communities as a result of the proposed Project. Coordination of wildlife studies with plant community classification and identification will ensure consistency between the two resource studies and how they are addressed in the Environmental Assessment. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Surveys A survey for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species occurring in areas to be impacted by the Connell Lake Project will be conducted. An up-to-date list of TES will be determined from information requests to the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Surveys will consist of two individuals walking the pipeline corridors and examining areas to be affected by ground disturbance, shoreline effects, or indirect impacts from changes in hydrology. Consultation with USFS and ANHP botanists will be conducted to ensure that local knowledge and all available information is being incorporated into the study. Any individuals or populations of TES plant species found will be thoroughly documented with photographs, maps, and notes. An ANHP form will be completed for each population/individual found and submitted to the ANHP. Results The project alternatives will be evaluated for potential impacts to both plant communities and TES plant species. Loss or conversion of native plant communities will be assessed in terms of their relative sensitivity and rarity in the region, as well as their importance to hydrology and wildlife habitat. Special attention will be given to wetland plant communities. Areal extent of disturbance to each community type will be estimated and the nature and degree of disturbance described. Any individuals/populations of TES plant species that are potentially impacted by the Connell Lake Project will be identified. Where high value plant communities or TES plant species occur in areas to be impacted, possible mitigation measures will be developed. Avoidance of impacts will be the highest priority, and the project botanist will work with the project engineers to determine possible design or route changes to avoid impacts to important botanical resources. The botanist will also help develop revegetation/reclamation plans to identify ways to mitigate for loss of botanical resources. Use of native species, establishment or relocation of TES species, and design of revegetated natural communities are possible mitigation measures that can be incorporated into revegetation/reclamation plans. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 40 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans 75, AESTHETICS Purpose The primary purpose of the aesthetics study is to evaluate aesthetic impacts from the proposed Project and describe measures proposed by the Applicant to reduce impacts. Agencies to be Consulted e USFS e City and Borough of Ketchikan e ADNR Methodology The aesthetic study will evaluate existing visual conditions, assess project effects, and identify potential mitigation measures. Existing Visual Conditions A summary of existing visual conditions that addresses both project facilities and the adjacent landscape will be addressed. Existing visual resource data related to the Project area, including the USFS Visual Management System, will be reviewed. Landscape character of the Project area will also be described. Approximate seen areas from selected viewpoints at and near the Project will be identified. Project Effects Assessment The effects of the proposed project facilities on visual quality will be determined. The visibility of project features and changes in instream flows from selected viewpoints will be evaluated. Proposed Aesthetic Measures Potential measures that will reduce the visual contrast of project features with the surrounding environment will be identified and their feasibility will be reviewed. 7.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Purpose The purpose is to develop information on the nature and distribution of cultural resources within the Project area that have not been previously surveyed. This information, together with professional opinions and consultations with affected native groups and agencies will be presented in a written cultural resources report. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 41 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans Agencies to be Consulted Native Groups U.S. Forest Service SHPO Methodology Historical/Archeological studies will be conducted to comply with FERC’s regulations and requirements of the NEPA EA. A literature search and surficial investigation of the existing and proposed structures will be performed to determine if there are any cultural remains that might be impacted. This will include a pedestrian survey of the Project area. Subsurface testing will be conducted in areas judged to have archeological potential. The search will be for indications of prehistoric as well as proto-historic materials. 7.1 RECREATION AND LAND USE Purpose The purpose of the recreational resources study is to identify information regarding existing recreation use, future demand and opportunities, and the potential impacts on recreation resulting from development of the Project. The purpose of studying other land uses is to provide updated information on existing land use and ownership in the Project area and evaluate the project’s consistency with relevant comprehensive and land management plans. Agencies to be Consulted Agencies who are responsible for recreation and land use planning and management within the Project area will be consulted. Methodology Evaluation of Existing Recreation and Land Uses Existing information will be collected including maps, recreation guides, USFS plans and policies, assessors information and local and regional planning documents. From data collected, existing recreation facilities in the Project area will be described and mapped. Land use and ownership in the Project area will described and ownership information will also be mapped. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 42 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Licensing Study Plans Evaluate Recreation Demand Existing recreation facilities in terms of activity type, physical setting, experience required, economic costs, and current demand will be evaluated. Future recreation use within the Project area will be identified and evaluated. Anticipated recreation demand with and without the proposed Project will be estimated using demographic data, the Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, USFS and other local and regional planning documents. Consistency with Comprehensive and Land Management Plans Project facilities will be examined for consistency with existing federal, state, and local comprehensive and land management plans. : Evaluate Project Impacts of Existing and Future Recreation and Other Land Uses Potential environmental, social and economic impacts created by the Project regarding existing and future recreation and other land uses in the Project area will be identified. If appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended if it is determined that the Project will produce adverse effects on existing and proposed future recreation and other land uses. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 43 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project References 8.0 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Personal Communication with S. Brockman and J. Gustafson. November 18, 1997. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Letter from J. Bittner. October 7, 1997. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Letter from J. Lenz. October 3, 1997. Avian Powerline Interaction Committee. 1992. State of the Art Powerline Designs. Dames and Moore. 1990. Ketchikan Pulp Company Environmental Analysis of Supplemental Water Supply. Prepared for the Forest Service. August 9, 1990. Denton, C. 1997. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication October 17, 1997 and meeting minutes from October 8, 1997. Freeman, G.M. 1995. An evaluation of steelhead enhancement in the Ward Creek drainage, Ketchikan, Alaska, 1991-1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Manuscript NO. 95-2. December 1995. Hubbart, D.J. 1990. Evaluation of lake characteristics and fish population size and status for three lakes in the vicinity of Ketchikan, Alaska during 1989. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Data Series No. 90-39. September 1990. Hubbart, D. J., and A. E. Bingham. 1989. Evaluation of population size, status of fish populations, and the lake characteristics for three lakes in the vicinity of Ketchikan, Alaska during 1988. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Data Series No. 110. September 1989. Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department. 1993. Ketchikan District Coastal Management Program. Ketchikan Gateway Borough. 1994. Parks and Recreation Plan. Ketchikan Trails Coalition. 1995. Ketchikan Trails Plan. A cooperative effort to improve Ketchikan’s Trail System. Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. 1997. Personal Communication with J. Creasy. November 21, 1997. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 44 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project References Swift, CH. 1976. Estimation of stream discharges preferred by steelhead trout for spawning and rearing in Western Washington. Open File Report 75-155. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Tacoma, WA. Swift, C.H. 1979. Preferred stream discharges for salmon spawning and rearing in Washington. Open File Report 77-422. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Tacoma, WA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Letter from J. Lindell. September 18, 1997. -U.S. Forest Service, Ketchikan Ranger District. 1997a. Personal Communication with K. Burnds. November 18, 1997. U.S. Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 1997b. Land and Resources Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 1997c. Personal Communication with T. Trulock. October 8, 1997. WESCORP, 1998. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study, Ketchikan Public Utilities, August 1998. Final Report. December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 45 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Consultation Document Mailing List 9.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENT MAILING LIST Federal Agencies: Mr. David P. Boergers Acting Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Vincent Yearick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Mike Henry Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 101 SW Main Street, Suite 905 Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Paul D. Gates U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance Regional Environmental officer 1689 C. Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Mr. John Lindell, Regional Endangered Species Coordinator USS. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801-7100 Steve Brockmann U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 624 Mill St. Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 December 1998 Page 46 Mr. Andy Grossman, Fisheries Biologist U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service Resources Management Division P.O. 21668 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 Mr. Pete Griffin, Acting District Ranger Ms. Theresa Trulock, Recreation Contact U.S. Forest Service Ketchikan Ranger District Tongass National Forest 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Brad Powell, Forest Supervisor Mr. Tom Somrak, Lands Forester USS. Forest Service Tongass National Forest Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Stan Burst U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works - Public Facilities C-ENPA-EN-CW-PF P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Victoria Taylor U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Processing Section Regulatory Branch C-ENPA-CO-R P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Mr. Ralph Thompson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Juneau COE Office Suite 106B, Jordan Ck Center 8800 Glacier Highway Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Bruce Bigelow U.S. Geological Survey P.O. Box 21568 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Mark Jen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Scientist EPA - Alaska Operations Office 222 W. Seventh Ave #19 Anchorage, AK 99513 Mr. John Bregar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MS-ECO-088 1200 6" Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Robert L. Lloyd Assistant District Manager, Lands U.S. Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 Mr. Larry Wright U.S. National Park Service Alaska Regional Office 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503-2892 Consultation Document Mailing List State Agencies and Native Groups: Ms. Lorraine Marshall Project Review Coordinator Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination Office of Management and Budget P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Mr. Jack Gustafson, Habitat Division Ms. Carol Denton, Commercial Fisheries Mr. Steve Hoffman, Sport Fish Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Clayton Hawkes Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat And Restoration Division P.O. Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 Mr. Kevin Brownlee Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish/RTS Region 1 P.O.Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 Mr. Christopher Estes Statewide Instream Flow Coordinator Sport Fish Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Mr. John Dunker, Water Resources Division of Mining and Water Management Department of Natural Resources Southeast Regional Office Water Resources Section 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1795 December 1998 Page 47 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Mr. Chris Landis, Natural Resource Manager, Ms. Elizaveta Shadura, Regional ACMP Coordinator Department of Natural Resources Southeast Regional Office Division of Lands 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1795 Mr. Bill Garry, Superintendent Department of Natural Resources Southeast Regional Office Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1795 Ms. Mary Kowalczyk Ranger Department of Natural Resources Alaska State Parks 9983 North Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Prokosch Chief of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining and Water Management 3601 C. Street #800 Anchorage, AK 99503-5935 Mr. Steve Planchon Executive Director Trust Land Office Department of Natural Resources 3601 C. Street #1122 Anchorage, AK 99503-5935 Mr. Dave Sturdevant Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 December 1998 Page 48 Consultation Document Mailing List Ms. Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer Office of History and Archaeology 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 98503-8921 Mr. Dick Emerman State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Stanley Sieczkowski, Operations Mgr. Alaska Energy Authority 480 West Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Dennis McCrohan Maintenance and Operations Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Andy Hughes Department of Transportation 6860 Glacier Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-7999 Mr. Percy Frisby, Division Director Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 West 4" Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Paul Morrison Alaska Public Utilities Commission Chief Utility Engineer 1016 West Sixth #400 Anchorage, AK 99501-1963 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Ms. Corrine Garza, General Manager Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deermount Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Charles W. White Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deermount Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza #400 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Beatrice Watson Chairman, Tongass Tribe Tongass Tribe P.O. Box 23116 Ketchikan, AK 99901 General Manager Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Local Governments: Mr. Bob Weinstein, Mayor Mr. Jim Wingren, Council Member Mr. Tom Coyne, Council Member Mr. Tom Friesen, Council Member Ms. Judy Jenkinson, Council Member Mr. Robert Norton, Council Member Mr. Lew Williams III, Council Member Ms. Kay Suiter, City Clerk City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 December 1998 Consultation Document Mailing List Ms. Joy Butler Council Member City of Ketchikan P.O. Box 6013 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Theresa Garland Executive Director Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Tom Fitzgerald Ketchikan City Administrator Route 2, Box 1 - Saxman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Georgiana Zimmerle, Borough Manager Mr. Jack Shay, Borough Mayor Mr. John Hill, Coastal Coordinator Susan Dickinson, Planning Director Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Other Interested Parties: Mr. William J. Halloran, Operations Mgr. Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association 2721 N. Tongass Ave Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Ron Wolfe Klukwan Forest Products, Inc. P.O. Box 34659 Juneau, AK 99803 Page 49 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Mr. Allyn Hayes Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O.Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Paul Berkshire Ketchikan Electric Company 2727 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Ron Settje, Administrative Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rich Trimble Power Projects Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way Suite 200 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mr. Dudley Reiser R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 15250 NE 95" Street Redmond, WA 98052 Consultation Document Mailing List December 1998 Page 50 Initial Consultation Document Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project