Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment E- Feasibility Reports2. Ilb._ 7 MN CHIGNIK, ALASKA DRAFT SMALL HYDROPOWER INTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS JULY 1984 SUMMARY This interim study encompasses the communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 500 miles southwest of Anchorage. Electricity produced by diesel fired generation was priced at approximately 30¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 1983 and is projected to increase as fuel costs continue to rise. Three alternatives - conservation, wind, and hydropower - were identified as having the potential for significantly reducing the overall use of diesel fuel in the communities. In addition, provision for water supply to the City of Chignik would be included in the hydropower alternative. The tentatively selected alternative is a 1,100-kilowatt (kW) hydropower project on Indian Creek with provisions for continued maintenance of the existing water supply system at Chignik would generate about 3,250,000 kWh per year of usable energy for the community of Chignik. The project first cost is estimated at $6,675,000 (October 1983 price levels). The annual cost is calculated at $604,000 (including $30,000 for operation and maintenance) and annual benefits would be $678,000. The benefit -to -cost ratio is 1.12. Total project first costs would be shared in accordance with cost sharing and financing arrangements satisfactory to the President and the Congress. PERTINENT DATA CHIGNIK, ALASKA General Data Project Installed Capacity Number of Units Size of Each Unit Type of Turbine Average Annual Energy Estimated Usable Energy (1995) Equivalent Annual Usable Energy—/ Dependable Capacity Penstock Length Penstock Diameter Gross Head Design Head Drainage Area at the Dam Dam Height 1,100 kW 2 550 kW Francis 5,118,000 kWh 3,180,000 kWh 3,250,000 kWh 0 5,500 ft. 34 in. 425 ft. 409 ft. 3 sq. mi. 24 ft. Economic Data (50 yr. life, 8-1/8 percent interest, October 1983 Prices) Project First Cost $ 6,675,000 Project Investment Cost $ 6,929,000 Project Total Annual Cost $ 604,000 Project Annual Benefit $ 678,000 Net Annual Benefit $ 74,000 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.12 to 1 Total Estimated Energy Cost $ 0.186/kWh l/ This is the amortized value of the sum of the annual usable -energy over the life of the project. M Chignik, Alaska Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 •Authority 1 Scope of Study 1 Study Participants 1 Studies by Others 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Community Profile 3 Existing Facilities and Usage 7 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES 12 Area Description 12 Climate 13 Regional Geology and Topography 13 Streams 14 Biology 15 Anthropology and Archeology 15 PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES 16 Future Conditions 16 Study Objectives 25 PLAN FORMULATION 27 Evaluation of Alternative Plans 27 Comparison of Alternatives and Designation of the NED Plan 44 The Selected Plan 45 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION 48 RESPONSES TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 49 CONCLUSIONS 51 TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 52 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EIS-1 APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL ANALYSIS A-1 APPENDIX B - 404 (b) (1) EVALUATION B-1 APPENDIX C - COORDINATION ACT REPORT C-1 APPENDIX D - REPORT RECIPIENTS AND PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE D-1 M INTRODUCTION 1.1 AUTHORITY The evaluation of small scale hydroelectric systems was authorized by a United States Senate Resolution dated 1 October 1976. That resolution directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of installing small prepackaged hydroelectric units in isolated communities throughout Alaska. This report is in partial response to the study resolution which reads as follows: RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors be, and is hereby requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors in Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 414, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session; Southeastern Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 501, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session; Cook Inlet and Tributaries, Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 137, 84th Congress, 1st Session; Southwestern Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 99, 86th Congress, 1st Session; Yukon and Kuskokwim River Basins, Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 218, 88th Congress, 2nd Session; and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining the advisability of modifying the existing plans with particular reference to the feasibility of installing 5 megawatts or less prepackaged hydroelectric plants to service isolated communities. 1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of this interim report is to formulate a detailed plan for reducing the use of diesel fuel for electrical generation and water supply needs. Consideration is given to the engineering, economic, environmental, and social factors involved. These factors were in turn weighted against the overall project development costs. 1.3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS The following organizations and agencies assisted the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers in preparation of this report. - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - U.S. Public Health Service - U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs - Alaska Power Administration (Federal) - Alaska Power Authority (State) - Arctic Slope Technical Services The cooperation of the people of the Chignik region and the Alaska Packers Cannery is gratefully acknowledged. 1.4 STUDIES BY OTHERS The power requirements and potential for hydropower development in the Chignik area were also assessed in the following reports: "Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential," Phase 1, December 1979. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, by Robert W. Retherford Associates, Arctic District of International Engineering Co., Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. "Draft 1982, Community Profiles for the Villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon." Prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs by Environmental Services Limited. "Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project," Vol. B, Final Report, August 1982. Alaska Power Authority. "(Draft) Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives: Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Sand Point," February 1981. Alaska Power Authority. "Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Chignik Lake," July 1982. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik and Associates. "Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for the Villages of Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False Pass, Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag, Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak," July 1982. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik and Associates. "Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects - Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, Alaska," October 1980. Prepared for Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers by Ebasco Services, Inc. "Tenakee Springs Water and Sewer Study," Working Draft, June 1983. QUADRA Engineering, Inc. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1.1 Location and History The villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are located on the south shore of the Alaska Peninsula, bordering the Pacific Ocean (See Figure 1). The villages are approximately 275 miles east of Unimak Pass (the separation between the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Islands), approximately 450 miles southwest of Seward, Alaska, and approximately 270 miles southwest of Kodiak Island. The study area is located between 158 and 159 degrees west longitude and 56 and 57 degrees latitude. Before Chignik, a Kaniagmiut Native village called Kaluak was located there. The village was destroyed during the Russian fur boom of the late 1700's. Chignik was established as a fishing village and cannery in the second half of the 19th century. A post office was established in 1901. A four -masted sailing ship called the Star of Alaska transported workers and supplies between Chignik and San Francisco. Chinese crews from San Francisco traveled to Chignik in early spring to make tin cans for the cannery. Japanese workers followed in mid -June to begin processing. Two canneries operated in Chignik during the first part of the 20th century. Today, only one cannery is in operation. A second cannery was recently built by Peter Pan, Inc., in anticipation of an expanded fish processing potential in the Chignik area. However, this new cannery has yet to be put into operation and company officials are attempting to sell it. 2.1.2 Population (Source U.S. Bureau of Census) Year Chignik Chignik Lagoon 1890 193 - 1939 224 - 1950 253 - 1960 99 108 1970 83 45 1980 178 48 Chignik has 48 houses and the active cannery has bunkhouses for its seasonal workers. A few newer houses in good condition are scattered throughout the community; however, most of the houses are in fair to poor condition. Usually three or four houses are vacant in the winter, but when people move to Chignik in the summer for fishing, a severe housing shortage occurs. During the summer fishing season, approximately 600 to 700 people converge on Chignik from Kodiak, Anchorage, Seward, Seattle, and villages throughout the region to fish and work in the cannery. m m c W > C 3c W ,:._� arm:...;...:• �t O � p� a o r Q CC >- �~ O> a. O ca �...".: ,LL. S _j N V V W O U i LL cv �. .•• 1'f�7 .l r.:• to 1 � 1 � 1 1 Y_ N N :.` `; :.:.•.• ,..::i'i_•',: `• :.:": •.:4�;..:::��;:::.;.�::':'�•::.::::.••;;:: •::::" .:::""'• w :::: = REEK ' :.: Via•..: U — ••;..:•....• MUD SAY CREEK tia."• 5G� c2.� w a .5� In Chignik Lagoon, some of the community's 61 single-family houses are new; others are substandard, but the majority are in good condition. Houses are of wood frame or prefabricated construction and most are owner built. There is sufficient housing for village residents. Many people who arrive each summer to fish have summer cabins in or near the village. Others live on their boats for the summer. The vacancy rate is about 20 percent in the winter. 2.1.3 Government and Services Chignik was incorporated as a second class city in May 1983. Chignik Lagoon is an unincorporated community recognized by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and located within an unorganized borough. As a second class city, Chignik is governed by a seven -member city council, with one member serving as mayor. Chignik's incorporation as a second class city allows it to receive a percentage of the State's raw fish tax and makes it eligible for increased revenue sharing funds. Chignik Lagoon's Native population is represented by a traditional council with eight or nine members. After adopting a constitution and bylaws, the council was recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as the official traditional governing body of the village. The village council is entitled to participate in various State and Federal programs. 2.1.4 Land Ownership The villages are participating in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. Chignik's Native corporation, Far West, Inc., is entitled to select 115,200 acres of land from the Federal Government, while Chignik Lagoon is entitled to select 94,080. As of this writing, the Chignik corporation has received interim conveyance (working title) from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for 107,244 acres of unsurveyed land, while Chignik Lagoon has received 89,511 acres. A patent will be issued once the boundary descriptions are confirmed with a survey. Pursuant to ANCSA, the village corporation has title to the surface estate while the regional corporation, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, holds the subsurface rights. Chignik has an approved Federal townsite survey and is waiting for a patent to be issued to the BLM Townsite Trustee. When the patent is issued, the trustee will issue deeds to parcels of land to individuals and organizations for private parcels. Chignik Lagoon has a patented Federal townsite consisting of 123 acres. It is managed by a BLM Townsite Trustee who issues deeds to the parcels of land to individuals and organizations. Those lands used for public purposes within the townsite will be deeded to the municipality if and when Chignik Lagoon incorporates. 5 2.1.5 Transportation The villages are primarily accessible by air and sea. No roads connect the villages to any other community. Peninsula Airways, based in King Salmon, flies scheduled mail service to the villages and also provides charter service. A 1,700-foot by 80-foot gravel runway exists at Chignik Lagoon. Chignik's runway is 2,800 feet by 100 feet. The airports are owned by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTJPF). The State annually contracts with local residents to maintain the airstrips. There is also a public domain seaplane base at Chignik. State maintained roads include the 2.5-mile Chignik airport road and approximately one-half mile of local roads. The North Star ship stops in Chignik once a year. Supplies from the ship must be lightered to shore. The cannery owns a dock for unloading fishing vessels. The Alaska Marine Highway ferry system provides scheduled service to Chignik three to four times a year beginning in May, with scheduled stops in June, September, and occasionally October. Chignik Lagoon has approximately one-half mile of local roads, which are maintained by residents under contract to the village council. There is no dock or harbor in Chignik Lagoon. The North Star ship brings supplies to the village once a year either in the spring or summer. The ship stops offshore and cargo must be lightered ashore. 2.1.6 Economy Fishing is the mainstay of the cash economy of the villages. Beginning around the second week in June, residents fish for red salmon and successive runs of pink, dog (chum) and silver salmon. Fish are taken in purse seiners and delivered to the local cannery or to Kodiak for freezing. Boats, crews and families from several area villages and elsewhere congregate in Chignik during the salmon season. The economic well-being of the whole region depends on the success of the salmon fishing. Salmon runs have been good the last several years. The 1981 Chignik red salmon runs of 3,072,599 fish broke the previous record set in 1888. Runs for other salmon species approached record numbers in 1981. For example, the 103 fishing boats in the Chignik area in 1981 caught a total of $22,090,000 worth of salmon (all species) averaging $214,446 per vessel. M. Other employed people in the communities include teachers, teacher's aides, maintenance persons, cooks at the schools, and a U.S. Postal Service employee. A health aide is hired through the Bristol Bay Health Corporation. At Chignik, the city council employs a maintenance person for the electrical system and the State employs a maintenance person for the airport. In addition to the historical salmon fishery, herring roe and crab have been commercially harvested in recent years. People in the region also supplement their income with subsistence hunting and fishing. 2.1.7 Minerals Although there are mining areas with high potential near Chignik Bay, there has been little mining activity in the area. Coal deposits consisting of bituminous and lignite beds, closely spaced and up to 7 feet thick, have been identified in a belt 1 to 3 miles wide and 25 miles long on the west shore of Chignik Bay. Mining the coal was attempted from 1899 to 1915. Transportation and access problems, however, make development of this deposit economically infeasible at this time. Residents currently obtain sand and gravel from the beach. 2.1.8 Health Care At Chignik, health care is provided by a privately owned clinic operated by the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) with funding from the Alaska Area Native Health Service. The cannery also provides health care for its employees. Patients who cannot be treated at the clinic are sent on charter or scheduled flights to the BBAHC hospital at Kanakanak or to clinics or hospitals in larger communities, such as Anchorage, for treatment. 2.1.9 Sewage The community has no sewage treatment facilities. Most homes have flush toilets with septic tanks or seepage pits. Some homes have privies. The schools and cannery have septic tanks. 2.2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND USAGE 2.2.1 Existing Projects Indian Creek drains about 3 square miles generally north-northeast of the city. At elevation 442 feet, there is a wood buttress dam, 25 feet high, reported to have been constructed in 1947. However, the community leader present at the public meeting dated the use of water for power generation back to 1925. The dam forms a small 20-acre reservoir called Indian Creek Lake. The 7 present water project conveys basin run-off from the dam through a wood stave/steel pipe (approximately 10 inches by 6,500 feet) down to Anchorage Bay for community and cannery water supply and to a 60-kW pelton-wheel in the cannery. This water supply right application is recognized by the State of Alaska through the appropriation of 2,000 gallons per minute (case Serial No. 46026) from Indian Creek to the Alaska Packers Association. The 60-kW pelton-wheel is used primarily to balance the pressure on the water mains, while generating some electricity. The dam has served its time and would have to be replaced if hydropower development is to ensure continuous operation. The pipeline itself also would be too small to accommodate the actual discharge of a hydropower system, but would be maintained for water supply. 2.2.2 Generation and Distribution Systems At Chignik, the village council operates two 175-kW generators and one 75-kW generator. The generators provide power to approxi- mately 45 homes. The remaining 3 residences, which provide their own electricity by operating small generators, are expected to be connected to the main distribution system by 1988. In September 1983, power cost $.30/kWh. The operational cannery has four 300-kW generators and two 250-kW generators. The cannery also diverts some of its water through a 60-kW impulse turbine to produce power. The new cannery (not yet operating) has installed one 10-kW, one 60-kW and two 500-kW diesel electric generators. Hence, the overall available diesel electric generation capacity totals 3,195 kW. Fuel oil is the primary heat source for the village; however, many households also use wood. In Chignik, a 5-kW wind generator at a private residence began successfully operating in the spring of 1982. It is estimated that the wind at Chignik averages at least 10 mph. There is no central generator in Chignik Lagoon. Individual homes or groups of two to three homes operate small generators of to 10 kW. Approximately 30 small generators operate in the village. The school has its own power plant (two 15-kW generators). Electrical use increases significantly during the summer fishing season. Fuel oil burned in pot burner furnaces is the primary heat source for the village. Several households also burn wood gathered from the beach. 2.2.3 Electrical -Use No records exist of historic or present electricity use for the communities of Chignik or Chignik Lagoon. Since this data is needed to develop a basis for future electrical demand, it must be esti- mated from typical averages. Typical household electricity use information provided by Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) of Anchorage, Alaska has been used to analyze the probable use patterns in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. Chignik Estimating the electricity use at Chignik requires an evaluation of probable demands of the community (residential and school) and the cannery. During 1982-1983, the central distribution system at Chignik was connected to 94 percent of the community's existing homes. Before that time, only half of the residences were served by the central system. Therefore, estimates of historic and present electric use are provided by two separate categories: Pre-1982 (historic) and 1982-1983 (present). For the pre-1982 (historic) estimate, it is known that 27 of the 48 homes in the area were connected to the central distribution system. Also, seven of those homes utilized electric resistance space heating. Residents of the 21 remaining homes either provided their own electricity with small generators or had no electrical needs. For the purpose of estimating pre-1982 (historic) community electricity use, the following assumptions are made: - 21 homes require basic (or less) electrical needs. - 20 homes connected to the central system have basic needs plus some supplemental needs plus electric hot water. - 7 homes connected to the central system have all the needs identified above as well as some luxury needs and electric space heating. Table 1 identifies the items included for each assumption and shows the pre-1982 (historic) residential use to be 761 MWh per year. Community estimates of historic electricity use also include demands of the school and cannery. The school is connected to the central generation system and records of its use do not exist. However, the school's use can be estimated by comparing it to the school at Chignik Lagoon (see discussion of Chignik Lagoon electricity use), which has used an estimated 23 MWh annually. Since the floor space of the school at Chignik is about 3 times that of Chignik Lagoon, it is assumed the school at Chignik would use about 3 times the electricity as the school at Chignik Lagoon. Therefore, pre-1982 (historic) demands for the Chignik school were estimated at 70 MWh per year. Cannery use at Chignik is also not documented and pre-1982 (historic) demands must be estimated. Since cannery operations are not expected to expand in future years, the pre-1982 (historic) cannery use of 3,020 MWh a year was taken as the estimate of future demand. 9 For the 1982-1983 (present) estimate, it was known that 45 of the 48 homes in Chignik were connected to the central distribution system. Again, seven of these residences use electricity for space heating. The remaining three homes provide their own electricity with small generators. For the purpose of estimating 1982-1983 (present) community electricity use, the following assumptions were made: - 3 homes require basic (or less) electrical needs. - 38 homes connected to the central system have basic needs plus some supplemental needs plus electric hot water. - 7 homes connected to the central system have all the needs identified above as well as some luxury needs and electric space heating. Table 2 shows the 1982-1983 (present) residential use to be 898 MWh per year. Community estimates of 1982-1983 (present) electrical use also included demands of the school and cannery. The present use of these two items is considered to be the same as that estimated for the pre-1982 (historic) condition. Chignik Lagoon Estimating the electricity use at Chignik Lagoon requires evaluation of probable demands of the community residences and school. Since no central generation system exists in Chignik Lagoon, only one historic/present use estimate is needed. All 61 homes in the community obtain their electricity from small diesel generators (4 to 10 kW each). In some cases more than one home is connected to the same generator(s). The school has two 15-kW units to meet its electricity requirements. For the purpose of estimating historic and present electricity use in the community, the following assumptions were made: - All 61 homes have basic (or less) electrical needs. - The school operates only one 15-kW unit at a time, 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, nine months of the year. Table 1 shows the estimated historic/present use of electricity at Chignik Lagoon. In Table 1 Historic/Present Use of Electricity at Chignik Lagoon Basic (or less) Items Fry Pan Toaster Refrigerator Lighting Clock Subtotal for each of the 61 homes Total Community Total Residences School kWh/year 100 39 operated at 8 1,100 hours/day for 5 810 days/week during 9 17 months/year. 2,066 126 MWh/year 23 MWh/year 149 MWh per year Total Historic and Present Electrical Use Combining the estimated electricity use of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon gives the total community historic and present use as shown on Table 2. Table 2 Total Historic and Present Electricity Use for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon (MWh per year) Chignik Basic (See Table 1) Basic plus hot water All plus space heat Schooll/ Cannery?/ Subtotal Chignik Lagoon Community School Subtotal TOTAL Pre-1982 (Historic) 1982-1983 (Present) 43 6 56 108 347 341 70 70 3,020 3,020 3,536 3,545 126 126 23 23 149 149 3,685 3,694 l/. Assumed to be 3 times the estimate of school use at Chignik Lagoon (based on floor space comparison). 2/. Assumed equal to the future demand projections because no cannery expansion is anticipated. 2.2.4 Fuel Use and Availability Chevron's tanker, Alaska Standard, delivers fuel from Nikiski about once a month to the cannery. The fuel is stored at the cannery's 130,000-gallon tank farm and in the school's storage tanks. The cannery, which purchases fuel oil at a bulk rate to minimize costs, sells fuel directly to the villagers, the school and the Chignik Electric Association. In September 1983, diesel fuel cost $1.25 per gallon. 2.2.5 Water Supply At Chignik, the dam on Indian Creek provides water to the cannery and some village residents. This use is currently under application, recognized by the State of Alaska issuance of water rights (case Serial No. 46026), to appropriate 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) from Indian Creek to the Alaska Packers Association. Five homes, which have buried lines connected to the main distribution line, have water year-round. Several other homes are connected via above -ground lines, which often freeze in the winter. When this happens, residents carry water from the cannery. The water is untreated, but of good quality. Six houses and the school have private wells. Since no records exist of actual water use within the community, present water supply demands are based on typical averages for domestic, commercial, industrial, and public needs. Current water supply needs of the community are estimated at 255 gpm and 1,600 gpm for average use and peak requirements, respectively. Residents of Chignik Lagoon use individual wells as their water source. These wells average 10 to 30 feet in depth. The school has its own hand -dug well. The water is untreated, but of good quality. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES 3.1 AREA DESCRIPTION The study area comprises the immediate vicinity surrounding the villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula. 12 3.2 CLIMATE The villages of Chignik Lagoon and Chignik are partially protected from the most severe southerly Pacific storms by a ridge of mountains rising to 3,000 feet. Frequent cyclonic storms crossing the Northern Pacific and the Bering Sea are the predominant weather factors. These storms account for the frequent high winds and the common occurrence of fog and low visibility. Fog occurs most often from mid -July to mid -September. The climate at Chignik is basically maritime due to the nearness of the open ocean. Temperature extremes, both seasonal and diurnal, are generally confined to fairly narrow limits, with differences between maximum and minimum temperatures for all individual months averaging less than 15 degrees F. Temperatures below 0 degrees F occur in occasional years when the Bering Sea freezes and allows the influx of cold continental air. Precipitation of more than one -hundredth of an inch occurs about 170 days per year. The greatest observed precipitation rate is 7.3 inches in 24 hours. Snow has been observed every month except June, July, August and September. The greatest recorded monthly snowfall was 31 inches in February, 1931. 3.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY The Alaska Peninsula is divided into two major and one minor physiographic sub -provinces. The major divisions are the Aleutian Mountain Range and the Bering Sea lowlands. The narrow lowlands adjacent to the Pacific Ocean constitute the minor division. Within the study area the lowlands are extremely narrow and limited, with mountains rising directly from the ocean in many places. Geologically, sedimentary rocks (mid -Jurassic to late Cretaceous shale, sandstone, and conglomerate) compose the base of the northeast headlands of the Chignik Peninsula. Tertiary formations of sedimentary rocks, especially siltstones and interbedded volcanic lavas, are found to the southwest of the older headland formations. The area was glaciated during the Wisconsin period. This area is on the Pacific "ring of fire" of seismically active areas, but has been generally free of earthquakes of more than five on the Richter scale. Mt. Veniaminof (8,450 feet), is located about 30 miles west of Chignik; it last erupted in June 1983. 13 In the vicinity of the two proposed dam sites, the lowlands are extremely narrow and limited in area. Notably, in the Mud Bay, Anchorage Bay, and Negro Head areas, the mountains rise directly from the ocean. Faulting and uplift have raised the land mass southeast of Chignik Lagoon to the general altitude of the Aleutian Mountain Range, which can be more than 3,000 feet. In the area between Chignik Lagoon and Kuiukta Bay, the adjacent Pacific lowlands are usually less than one-half mile wide and consist of alluvial material. 3.4 STREAMS Indian Creek is about 3.5 miles long and drains generally north-northwest from an elevation of 1,200 feet to sea level, exiting through the flatlands containing the village of Chignik into Anchorage Bay. The valley is relatively narrow and approximately 1.5 miles wide (crest to crest). The valley walls are steeply sloping, ranging from 50 percent to almost vertical near the top. A small timber dam and lake impoundment are located at elevation 442 feet. These facilities provide both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to the cannery at Chianik. The average stream gradient is 15 percent from headwaters to mouth. The stream is generally very incised downstream of the dam and lake. Mud Bay Lake Creek is approximately 2.5 miles long, drains generally to the north from an elevation of about 500 feet to sea level, and exits into Mud Bay. The valley is fairly wide, 2.2 to 1.4 miles crest to crest, north to south, with a small lake approximately 30 acres in size at elevation 127 feet. The western valley walls are relatively steep and have slopes ranging from 18 to 38 percent. Near the northwestern valley wall, crest slopes approach vertical. The eastern valley wall is less steep at the mouth and has slopes of approximately 24 percent. The valley walls narrow to the south and slopes approach 47 percent in the southeastern area of the valley. The drainage area is about 5 square miles with one small tributary stream, approximately one-half mile long, entering the main stream north of the lake at 127 feet elevation. Upstream of the lake, the valley floor is relatively wide and very gently sloping. The average stream gradient is about 4 percent over the 2.5-mile length. Packers Creek is approximately 1.8 miles long, drains to the northwest from an elevation of 1,000 feet to sea level, and exits at Chignik Flats -Packers Point into Chignik Lagoon. Total estimated drainage area is about 3 square miles. The valley is narrow, approximately 1.2 miles wide (crest to crest), and steep sided, with slopes up to 32 percent on the east valley wall and 94 percent on the west valley wall. The stream is incised and narrow, cutting through an old landslide deposit in the mid -valley area. The average stream gradient is about 10 percent from headwaters to mouth. Field reconnaissance photos taken in April 1982 show rock outcrops under shallow colluvial cover within the creek drainage. 14 3:5 BIOLOGY 3.5.1 Fish and Wildlife Major fish and wildlife species of the region are the five salmon species that support the economy of the people, a few brown bears, moose, and occasionally small bands of caribou. The Chignik River salmon fishery is a major concern of all public and private interests because of its impressive size and continued support of a large portion of the Alaskan fishing economy. 3.5.2 Vegetation Vegetation of the project environs is classified as predominantly closed tall shrub scrub or open tall shrub scrub, with a few areas of alpine tundra. Sitka alder and American green alder are the major woody species in the shrub scrub areas, with several species of willow and other low shrubs present. Bluejoint and fescue grasses are important understory plants. Sedges predominate in the alpine tundra areas. 3.6 ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY The Alaska Peninsula has been of particular interest to anthropologists because, at the time of European contact, three separate ethnic and racial groups existed in this area: Aleuts, Eskimos and Athabaskans. The most recent research on the peninsula seems to indicate that the Chignik region on the Pacific coast, west to Port Moller on the Bering Sea coast, was the northernmost extent of the Aleutian tradition. The prehistoric boundary between the groups probably fluctuated somewhat throughout time, so precise boundaries cannot be drawn. ine University of Oregon perfor excavations in the Chignik area as Peninsula prehistory. Several site Chignik River between Chignik Lake these sites have assemblages closet collection at Port Moller and other tip of the Alaska Peninsula. med some archeological surveys and part of a long term program on Alaska s were located and tested on the and Chignik Lagoon. The majority of y related to those from the Hot Springs collections from Izembek Lagoon at the UP PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 4.1 FUTURE CONDITIONS To properly assess the future power demands, projections of future requirements are necessary. Because almost no historical energy use information is available for the Chignik area and since by its nature it is highly speculative, the per capita and household energy use projections were based on the recent studies done by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) for Chignik Lake, Ivanof Bay, False Pass, Sand Point, and King Cove (reference Section 1.4). 4.1.1 Population Growth Table 3 shows the projected population, based on growth at a rate of 2.3 percent until the turn of the century and then 1 percent thereafter. APA's July 1982 Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Study projected growth rates of 2.3 percent. The projections used are considered most realistic when we look at the position of Chignik as a fish processing center, recent city incorporation and land transfer to private ownership, the harbors and canneries at Chignik, the proposed commercial boat harbor at Chignik, and what is projected in the future for the overall Alaskan village growth and the area fishing economy. These overall factors provide the stimulation and motivation for people fishing in the region to maintain a permanent residence in Chignik. Historically, Chignik has been a leader in the salmon fishing industry especially, the famous "Chignik" red salmon. With the world market continuing to expand, salmon fishing would continue to be the driving force behind the Chignik economy. Chignik was incorporated as a second-class city in May 1983. The two primary benefits from the community incorporating are that it allows the village to receive full title to its townsite lands and receive a percentage of the State's raw fish tax that is obtained from fishing operations in the area. Local estimates indicate Chignik's share of the raw fish tax would be roughly $300,000 per year. Prior to incorporation, the only source of revenue for the village was through various State and Federal grants, some revenue sharing, and assistance from the Bristol Bay Native Association. In FY 82, the community received about $25,000 from the State's revenue sharing program. This increase in annual revenues would enable the community to undertake economic development activities designed to support the local fishing fleet's operations, to maintain and upgrade services to the residents, and provide additional services which are essential to permanent residents. Prior to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, land ownership in the area was predominantly Federal. Transfer to private ownership has created the demand for new housing development. The State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, has constructed a bridge over Indian Creek for the primary purpose of increasing the amount of land available for development.' IZ• The Chignik and Chignik Lagoon population estimates compare quite favorably to estimates projected for 20 different Alaskan communities in the reconnaissance report on energy requirements and alternatives prepared in July 1982 for APA by Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik and Associates referenced in Section 1.4. TABLE 3 POPULATION PREDICTION Growth Rate Chignik Chignik Lagoon Percentage) (Individuals) Individuals) 1980 -0- 178 48 1985 2.3 199 54 1990 2.3 223 60 1995 2.3 250 68 2000 2.3 280 76 to 2045 2.3 284 76 4.1.2 Electricity Use/Load Forecast Energy use is currently growing faster in many of the Alaska rural communities than in the larger cities. This energy use gap will close, it is believed, near the turn of the century. The energy forecast developed for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon consists of two separate electricity use evaluations: residential use and industrial use. Estimates of residential electricity use consider basic electricity use (appliance, lights, etc.), space heating requirements, and hot water heating needs. The industrial use estimates considers the existing cannery electricity demands. Residential Electricity Use Estimate Since no data exists on historic electricity use within Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, developing the estimate for residential electric use requires evaluation of needs for home appliances, lighting, entertainment, housewares, personal care, and the potential for increased use of electric resistance space heating and hot water heating. Calculations are made on a per capita basis to allow direct comparison of electric needs and to simplify estimation of overall electricity requirements in both communities. Basic electricity use estimates were developed by comparing the projected electrical demands prepared for similar communities. The communities used are all located along the southern portion of the Alaska Peninsula, 300 miles or less from the study area. While they differ slightly from Chignik and Chignik Lagoon in present and future population estimates, they are quite representative of the study area's economic base and village lifestyle. Recent energy projections are available from various studies (see Section 1.4) for each of these representative 17 communities. To obtain the residential electricity use estimates for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, the energy estimates for five of the most representative communities were averaged as shown on the Table 4. Table 4 Basic Electricity Use Energy Projections for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon (kWh per person per year) Community 1985 1990 1995 2000 and beyond False Pass 1,700 1,810 1,860 1,850 Chignik Lake 1,990 2,030 2,090 2,070 Ivanof Bay 2,140 2,180 2,200 2,210 Sand Point 3,619 3,516 4,284 4,231 King Cove 963 1,112 1,169 1,226 TOTAL 10,412 10,648 11,603 11,587 AVERAGE 2,082 2,130 2,321 2,317 USE 2,100 2,150 2,300 2,350 To confirm the suitability of these estimates, a brief check was made with estimated annual electricity use values for various home appliances provided by Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) of Anchorage, Alaska. The 1985 usage estimate of 2100 kWh/person-year equates to 8400 kWh/year for an average residence in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon (there are approximately 4 residents per household in the communities). Using ML&P's estimates for typical home appliances expected to be in use in the villages gives an annual energy use of 8500 kWh per household. The slight increases in projected energy use in 1990, 1995, and 2000 and beyond are justifiable in that as the population increases there will be minor additional amounts of energy consumed over and above the basic demands to meet the needs of these additional people. Hence the energy demand values calculated by utilizing estimates for other similar communities are considered adequate and representative of the expected residential electricity use at Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. Table 5 provides a summary for both communities. Table 5 Basic Energy Use (kWh) Year Chignik Chignik Lagoon 1985 417,900 113,400 1990 479,450 129,000 1995 575,000 156,400 2000 658,000 178,600 Space Heating Space heating needs in Chigrik and Chignik Lagoon are met primarily by burning fuel oil. It would be expected that this practice will continue in Chignik Lagoon. However, in Chignik seven of the 48 homes (15%) now use electric resistance space heating. It is expected that the desire for electric resistance space heating will continue but to a limited extent. It has been assumed that these seven homes would continue to use electric resistance space heating. Assuming that the desire for electric heat would continue, an increase of 2.3 percent in the number of homes using electric heat would occur (See Table 6). The remaining homes would continue to use fuel oil for space heating. Table 6 Year Number of Homes 1983 7 1986 7 1990 8 1995 9 2000 10 to 2045 10 Since no records exist of fuel use for space heating in the communities, developing the estimate for electric resistance space heating requires evaluation of a comprehensive analysis of heating requirements provided for another community. The most complete forecast for an Alaskan community comes from Alaska Power Authority's November 1982, "Kotzebue Coal-fired Cogeneration, District Heating and Other Energy Alternatives Assessment." To relate this data to Chignik and Chignik Lagoon the following assumptions were made: - Floor area per capita is the same. - Insulation standard is comparable (i.e. R-19 walls and R-24 ceilings). To determine the amount of energy required per capita for space heating requires estimates of consumption and heating degree hours for the study area. Data from the Kotzebue report is shown on Table 7. Table 7 Floor Space per Capita Total Floor Kotzebue So. Feet Area Population per Capita Year (sq. ft) 1985 1.23 X 100 2850 432 1990 1.45 X 106 3200 453 1995 1.69 X 106 3600 469 2000 1.96 X 106 4000 490 W7 Heat consumption is estimated from the Kotzebue report as shown on Table 8. Table 8 Heat Consumption BTU per hr - degree F Year per Sq. Foot 1985 0.385 1990 0.380 1995 0.375 2000 0.370 The heat consumption estimates decline into the future, which is indicative of conservation measures such as increased insulation standards, installing storm windows and doors, and improved furnace efficiency. It is estimated that there are 10,000 heating degree days per year (240,000 heating degree hours) required in the study area. Compilation of this data estimates the space heating load as shown on Table 9. Table 9 Estimated Space Heating Requirement Chianik Heating BTU per kWh per kWh per Degree Capita per Capita per Household per kWh for Year Hours Year Year Year Community 1985 240,000 39.93 X 106 11,700 46,800 327,600 1990 240,000 41.32 X 106 12,100 48,440 376,000 1995 240,000 42.21 X 106 12,370 49,480 425,520 2000 240,000 43.51 X 106 12,750 51,100 476,520 Note: The estimate uses a conversion factor of 3413 BTU per kWh. Hct Water Heatin No records of hot water usage and needs are available. Therefore, the estimate of electricity required for hot water heating must be obtained from estimates for other communities. The most comprehensive estimate is available from Alaska Power Authority's Kotzebue report sited as the basis for space heating estimates. To develop an estimate of hot water heating needs, data from the Kotzebue study was used to develop Table 10. 20 Year Table 10 Hot Water Heating Requirements per Household Btu per Household kWh per Household per per Year Year 1985 2.60 X 106 762 1990 3.61 X 106 1058 1995 5.19 X 106 1521 2000 7.09 X 106 18251 l/ Limited by a maximum amount. The maximum value (1825 kWh per person per year) equates to 7300 kWh per residence per year, which is the amount of energy a 5000 watt electric water heater would use if it operated at full output for 4 hours per day ON), every day, for one year. This maximum was selected as a probable average of typical hot water use and compares favorably to Municipal Light and Power's estimate of 6740 kWh per year for residential electric hot water use. The projected increases in usage are justified by the expected utilization of electric hot water in homes and the future replacement of existing units in older homes. Combining the separate estimates for residential electricity use, probable space heating requirements, and hot water heating needs gives the total expected electricity demand on a per capita basis for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. Table 11 and 12 provides these results. Table 11 Chignik Electricity Demandl (MWh) Electrical Resistance Hot Year Electricity Heating Water Total 1985 418 328 152 898 1990 479 376 236 1,091 1995 575 426 380 1,381 2000 658 477 511 1,646 to 2045 658 477 511 1,646 l/ Does not include line losses. 21 Table 12 Chignik Lagoon Electricity Demand l/ (MWh) Hot Year Electricity Water Total 1985 113 41 154 1990 129 63 192 1995 156 103 259 2000 179 139 318 to 2045 179 139 318 1/ Does not include line losses. Industrial Electricity Use Estimate Since no accurate data exists on historic electricity use at the cannery in Chignik, developing the estimate for industrial electricity use requires evaluation of the probable cannery needs as associated to fish processing. The Alaska Packers Association plant manager has stated that the company has no plans to expand to bottomfishing. Their land -based plant is not in a competitive position to displace floating processors. Since there is no expected change in plant operations, the estimated electrical needs of the cannery are constant throughout the period of analysis. Discussions with the cannery plant manager determined the cannery's peak operation months to be February, March, June, July, and August. During those months, the plant is operated 16 hours per day, 7 days per week. Its average load during this time frame is estimated from 500 to 1000 kW. During the remaining months, cannery employees work one 9-hour per day shift, 6 days per week. Average plant load during this time frame is estimated at 350 kW. To estimate the cannery's annual energy requirements the following assumptions were made based on discussions with cannery personnel. - During times of cannery operation, the diesel units are generating at average output for the entire period of operation at an approximate efficiency rate of 10.5 kWh/gal. - During times of cannery non -operation, the diesel units are generating at approximately 350 kW. The total electrical needs of the Chignik cannery are.depicted in graph form on Figure 2. No change in cannery operations is anticipated, therefore, the estimate is constant for the entire period of analysis. 22 (a 0 0 0 Cl) 0 0 N I 23 MONTHS Figure 2 CHIGNIK, ALASKA SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY CHIGNIK CANNERY ELECTRIC DEMAND ESTIMATE Alaska District, Corps of Engineers The second cannery (a cold storage/freeze plant), constructed a few years ago, has yet to start initial operation. The present owners, Peter Pan, Inc. of Seattle, Washington, are attempting to sell the plant but have been unsuccessful to date. Company officials are concerned whether the area fishery can support two major land -based plants plus the floating processors that arrive during peak salmon runs. There is little prospect for the second cannery to begin operations in the near future and, consequently, the estimates of industrial electricity needs reflect zero demand for this facility. Total Electricity Use Estimate Combining total residential and industrial electricity use demands provides an estimate of the total electrical needs of the Chignik and Chignik Lagoon communities as shown on Table 13. Table 13 Total Electric Usage Demand for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon (MWh per Year) RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL TOTALS Chignik Chignik Chignik/Chignik Year Chignik Chignik Lagoon Cannery Total Lagoon/Industrial 1985 898 154 3,020 3,918 4,072 1990 1,091 192 3,020 4,111 4,302 1995 1,381 259 3,020 4,401 4,660 2000 1,646 318 3,020 4,666 4,984 to 2045 1,646 318 3,020 4,666 4,984 Total energy demand forecasts for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are obtained by utilizing the monthly energy demand distributions for community demand and industrial demand. The community distribution, excluding the cannery demand, is shown on Table 14, and is based on the "Bristol Bay and Electric Power Potential report for a typical small Alaska Peninsula community. The percentages have been modified to include future use of electricity for space heating. Energy requirements are forecast graphically on Figure 3. 24 Table 14 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND DISTRIBUTION (PERCENT) Community 1981 - 2000 2005 - 2040 January 9 9.5 February 10 11.0 March 11 12.0 April 10 11.0 May 9 8.0 June 6 6.0 July 3 3.0 August 7 6.0 September 8 7.0 October 9 8.0 November 9 9.0 December 9 9.5 100 100.0 4.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES Based on information presented on the problems and needs affecting Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, the following study objectives were determined for this evaluation: a. Reduce the real cost of meeting energy needs to the local residents for the period of analysis. b. Reduce Chignik's and Chignik Lagoon's dependence on diesel fuel for electrical generation during the period of analysis. c. Maintain the ability to meet the water supply needs of Chignik for the period of analysis. d. Preserve the terrestrial environment of the area during the period of analysis. e. Preserve the commercial fishing resources of the area during the period of analysis. In addition, Congressional acts of the last decade directed Federal land and water resource development studies to incorporate a multiobjective planning process. Those local needs that can address national objectives with the goal of promoting the quality of life become the planning objectives. These objectives are used to evaluate the alternatives on the basis of equally weighted economic, social, and environmental assessments. The Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the Nation's environment pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. 25 SaNvsnOH.l NI HMW � M w 71; cp to It cM N r SaNdSnOHI NI HMW Figure 3 CHIGNIK, ALASKA SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY ENERGY REQUIREMENT` CHIGNIK, CANNERY &� CHIGNIK LAGOON Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 26 PLAN FORMULATION 5.1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Three drainages (Indian Creek, Mud Bay Lake Creek, and Packers Creek) have been analyzed to determine their hydropower potential to serve, on an economic basis, the villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. The basic alternative of hydropower was developed into a variety of options and combinations for analysis. Other alternative energy sources considered in this study include conservation, wind, coal, geothermal, waste heat recovery, and diesel. Diesel is essentially the existing condition for electrical generation in the study area and is, therefore, also considered the No Action alternative. 5.1.1 Hydropower Description The hydropower alternative (See Figure 4) evaluates the potential electrical generation from three separate streams (Indian Creek, Mud Bay Lake Creek, and Packers Creek). The potential of these streams is analyzed on an individual basis by evaluating different options for development within each stream drainage basin. In addition, the stream potentials are evaluated in combination by considering the development of a transmission intertie between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. Evaluation Diesel generation is the base case by which other alternatives are evaluated. Savings in fuel, fuel escalation, and operation and maintenance (0&M) costs,and extended diesel life would be the primary benefits for other alternatives. For the purpose of this study, the national fuel cost escalation rate estimated by Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) in 1983 was adopted. The proposed escalation is shown below: YEARS ANNUAL ESCALATION RATE 1982 - 1985 1.6 percent 1986 - 1990 1.6 percent 1991 - 1995 3.6 percent 1996 - 2000 3.4 percent 2001 - 2013 1.6 percent 27 x 009 m N 'c+ g % NewY C W; w s CL W a -� C �+ 0 a c _ �= O Z U m cc Y ZW S LL _� pW G ZO cn � R a 0 These increases result in the following estimated fuel costs for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. 1985 1990 1995 2000 2014 Costs for each project are at October 1983 price for evaluation purposes. Packers Creek Description $1.27/gal. 1.37/gal. 1.64/gal. 1.94/gal. 2.42/gal. have been calculated separately. All estimates levels and use an 8 1/8 percent interest rate The Packers Creek project would utilize the head between elevation 300 feet and elevation 100 feet. Energy generated by this system would be utilizea to meet the needs of the community of Chignik Lagoon. Only one dam, penstock, and powerhouse option was evaluated for this drainage basin. The evaluation performed during preliminary studies considered the optimum project to be a 20-foot-high concrete gravity diversion dam. Only minor, daily pondage would be provided by the reservoir. A 21-inch diameter, 3,000-foot-long steel penstock would carry flows to a 150-kW powerplant. The Francis unit would operate under a 190-foot maximum net head and would generate approximately 977,000 kWh per year. Tailwater would be discharged directly back into Packers Creek through a short tailrace channel. Approximately 1/4 of transmission line which would parallel the stream would extend from the powerhouse to the community. Impact Assessment Packers Creek, located in Chignik Lagoon, is approximately 1.8 miles long and exits at Chignik Flats - Packers Point into Chignik Lagoon. At one time, pink, coho, and chum salmon spawned in the lower reaches of Packers Creek. Recently, however, it has been found that only pinks are found in the lower reaches and Dolly Varden are found as far as the upper reaches of the creek. Alpine tundra habitat, which is generally composed of mosses, sedge, meadows, and low willow thickets, occurs throughout the project area. Terrestrial wildlife includes hares, foxes, and wolves. Evaluation The project's first cost includes a 20 percent allowance for contingencies. Project costs were amortized over 50 years at 8 1/8 percent. Fe First Cost IDC (12 months) Investment Cost Annual Costs Equivalent Annual Annual Benefits B/C Ratio Net Benefits Usable Energy $4,215,000 160,000 $4,375,000 $ 393,000 $ 182,000 kWh $ 40,000 .10 $-353,000 The above economic data indicate that this scenario would result in a project with negative net benefits. Therefore, the Packers Creek alternative has been eliminated from further consideration. Mud Bay Lake Creek Description The Mud Bay Lake Creek project would utilize the head between Mud Bay Lake, at elevation 127 feet, and the sea. A 6.5 mile transmission line intertie would enable the project to serve the communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon (See Figure 4). Only one powerplant/penstock combination, a 500-kW powerhouse with a 34-inch diameter penstock was considered. Refinements and detailed consideration of each of these optimizing steps determined the optimum Mud Bay Lake Creek project to be a 20-foot-high concrete weir that would raise the lake level to an elevation of 140 feet. A maximum drawdown of 10 feet would create a 560-acre-foot pool. A 34-inch diameter elevated steel penstock would convey the discharge 5,100 feet down to the powerhouse at the head of Mud Bay. One-half of the penstock would run through a very steep gorge. A 20-foot diameter, 50-foot-high surge tank just above the powerhouse would protect the penstock and insure smooth performance of the generating unit. The Francis unit would generate 500 kW at a maximum discharge of 58.3 cfs under a maximum net head of 120 feet. The potential average energy production as estimated through the use of a single reservoir regulation model would be 2,400,000 kWh annually. Tailwater would be discharged directly into the sea. Impact Assessment Mud Bay Lake Creek has a significant finfish population. The most numerous are the four species of salmon, chum, sockeye, pinks, and coho. In addition to this resource are Dolly Varden and sculpins. Habitat types of the Mud Bay Lake region are generally similar to those of Indian Creek Lake some two miles to the east; the drainage is larger and the immediate vicinity of the lake is more densely covered by the nearly continuous stands of closed tall shrub scrub and open tall shrub scrub type habitats that are composed mainly of Sitka Alder. Brown bear have been observed within the lake perimeters. Moose are relatively few in number and the population of furbearers is similar to that of Indian Creek's furbearer population. m Significant disruption to local wildlife populations and fishery resources could occur as a result of the proposed project due to access roads, penstock routing, an intertie transmission corridor, and, in general, construcion activities to and from the project area. Evaluation. For the optimum project chosen, the estimated annual costs and benefits, based on October 1983 prices and 8 1/8 percent interest, are as follows: First Cost $12,365,000 IDC (12 months) 471,000 Investment Cost $12,836,000 Annual Costs $ 1,094,000 Equivalent Annual Usable Energy 2,181,000 kWh Annual Benefits $ 412,000 Net Annual Benefits $ 682,000 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.38 The above economic data indicate that this would result in a project with net negative benefits. Therefore, the Mud Bay Lake Creek alternative has been eliminated from further consideration. Indian Creek Description The Indian Creek project which would serve the city of Chignik, would utilize the head between Indian Creek Lake, at existing lake elevation 442 feet, and the Chignik townsite, at elevation 15 feet. Options evaluated for this drainage basin include various dam heights, different types of dam construction, and combinations of powerplant and penstock sizes. Based on an analysis of cost, safety requirements, vulnerability to cracking, availability of materials, and ease of construction, a 24-foot-high timber dam was selected as the optimum structure for this site. Following the identification of the most efficient dam height and design and construction techniques, the power potential of this alternative was analyzed by evaluating different powerplant and penstock combinations. Powerplants of 700 kW, 900 kW, 1,100 kW, and 1,300 kW were evaluated with penstock diameters of 26 inches, 30 inches, 34 inches, and 36 inches, respectively. A comparison of the estimated costs and benefits for each powerplant/penstock option determined that the 1,100-kW project developed to service demands (see Figure 5) would provide the greatest net annual benefits. Refinements and detailed consideration of each of these optimizing steps confirmed the Indian Creek project to be a 24-foot-high timber structure that would replace the existing wooden dam now used for water supply. This dam would raise the present water level 5 feet to elevation 447 feet. From the dam, the discharge would be conveyed through an elevated 34-inch diameter steel penstock 5,500 feet parallel to the existing water supply pipe down to the flats behind Chignik. The 31 � Wc�a3a�H So�occn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 h t0 to d' CO) N 0 0 c O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 ti W in V M N �WC'ja3QHF- SOSCCtn U w 0 O Z H U 0 a w O a J i— z z 0 O � a a Q Q m W U. Z Q Figu e 5 CHIGNIK, ALASKA Small Hydropower Feasibility Study ESTIMATED MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND & HYDROPOWER OUTPUT (1 100 kW) FOR 1995 32 Alaska District, Corps of Engineers system, with two 550-kW Francis turbines, would generate 1,100 kW at a maximum net head of 414 feet. The potential average energy production would be 5,118 MWh annually. Tailwater would be discharged through a system of ditches and ponds across the flats to the open channel that exists between the cannery and the village and then into the sea. Approximately 1/4 mile of transmission line would be constructed from the powerhouse to the city. Water supply for the city and the cannery would be maintained during and after construction by installing a bifurcation for the existing waterline downstream of the diversion structure. A detailed discussion of this alternative is included in APPENDIX A. Impact Assessment Specifically, the biota for Indian Creek drainage includes a small population of furbearers such as red foxes, weasels, mink, and wolverine. There are a few bald eagles, several species of marine birds, and ducks and geese situated in and along the drainage basin of Indian Creek. A small pink salmon population ranging from 50 to 100 fish is maintained by this water system and anadromous Dolly Varden have also been observed in the creek. Plant communities in the study area are composed principally of closed tall alder scrub, open tall alder -willow, and open tall alder. Few impacts caused by the proposed hydropower project would occur. Loss of the 2.16 acres of closed tall alder scrub and its understory vegetation would undoubtedly cause temporary reduction of small mammal populations. Evaluation A summary of the associated costs and benefits for the run -of -river hydroelectric system is shown below. The analysis is based on October 1983 price levels, an interest rate of 8-1/8 percent and a 50-year project life. First Cost $6,675,000 IDC (12 months) 254,000 Investment Cost 6,929,000 Annual Costs 574,000 Interest & Amortization (8-1/8% @ 50 years) Operation and Maintenance 30,000 Total Annual Cost $ 604,000 Annual Benefits Diesel Displacement Benefit $ 320,000 Fuel Escalation Benefit 217,000 0&M Saved 68,000 Extended Life 6,000 Employment Benefits 67,000 Total Annual Benefits $ 678,000 Net Annual Benefits $ 74,000 Benefit -Cost Ratio 1.12 to 1 33 Implementation Various options are possible for the implementation of this alternative. Under all scenarios, it is anticipated that the local utility would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the plant. The options available are listed below: 1. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with Federal funding. 2. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with State or local funding. Intertie Description To maximize the usability of energy produced by the three alternatives, a 6.5-mile intertie between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon was evaluated. Initial voltage would be 14.4 kv, which would be compatible with the existing Chignik generators and distribution. Since there is no voltage or distribution system to match in Chignik Lagoon, one would have to be constructed as part of the intertie system. Development of the intertie would allow service to both Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. This enables a greater use of potential energy from a project by providing the distribution network needed to meet the load at one community with what otherwise might be surplus electricity from another project. Impact Assessment Environmental concerns associated with the Packers Creek hydroelectric alternative are primarily related to the intertie with the Mud Bay Lake and Indian Creek developments. Impacts to the fishery resource of Packers Creek would be insignificant as compared to the total picture of the nearby Chignik River salmon production. However, the impacts upon the wildlife populations of the generally inaccessible area between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon would be potentially damaging. For instance, increased public access into this area could seriously deplete the brown bear and moose population.. Trapping of furbearers in areas, which at one time were remote and unimpacted, could have a costly effect. Lastly, newly built roads would be subjected to heavy erosion due to seasonal rains. Evaluation Various combinations were analyzed. The estimated annual costs and benefits, based on October 1983 prices and 8 1/8 percent interest, are as follows: 34 Intertie Alternatives (Chignik and Chignik Lagoon Demand) Mud Bay Lake Packers Creek Indian Creek First Cost $14,714,000 $6,565,000 $9,025,000 IDC(12 months) 561,000 250,000 344,000 Investment Cost $15,275,000 $6,815,000 $9,369,000 Annual Cost $ 1,297,000 $ 595,000 $ 807,000 Equivalent Annual Usable Energy MWh 2,235 934 3,342 Annual Benefit $ 422,000 $ 152,600 $ 628,000 Net Annual Benefit - $ 875,000 - $ 443,000 - $ 179,000 B/C Ratio 0.33 0.26 0.78 Annual benefits shown above do not include an employment benefit. The above economic data indicate that this scenario would result in a project with negative net benefits. Therefore, the intertie alternative has been eliminated from further considerations. 5.1.3 Conservation: The Non -Structural Alternative Description Conservation involves the more efficient use of electricity. This means (a) insuring the new houses and commercial and industrial facilities are more energy efficient; (b) installing more efficient water heaters and appliances; and (c) finding more efficient ways to manufacture products, or to perform industrial processes. Conservation also involves steps to make existing houses and buildings more energy -efficient by adding insulation in walls and ceilings, installing water heater blankets, and adding other cost effective conservation measures. Conservation measures also reduce the need for additional transmission lines and other distribution facilities. When a conservation action reduces the need for these facilities, it reduces the associated facilities costs by approximately 2.5 percent. Conservation avoids the "line losses" that occur when electricity is transmitted over long distances. About 7.5 percent of the electricity generated at a powerplant is "lost" in transmission to its ultimate point of use. 35 To assess accurately the amount cost effective conservation available, the administrative cost of programs needed to secure conservation must be included. Typically, conservation program administrative costs are in the range of 15 to 25 percent of the direct cost of measures for full operational programs. The amount of technically and economically achievable conservation is directly related to the amount of energy used. Changes in consumer behavior and consumer resistance, quality control, and unforeseen technical problems could prevent an area from developing 100 percent of this potential. Impact Assessment The environmental benefits of conservation are substantial. Reduction of electric demand due to conservation measures can help avoid the construction of new conventional energy resources with their accompanying environmental impacts. Conservation "generates" electricity without transmission lines, significant air or water pollution, noise, solid waste, or land use impacts. However, there exists, the potential for degradation of indoor air quality due to weatherization unless mitigation measures are employed. Residential weatherization could reduce ventilation and cause harmful concentrations of various pollutants from space heating equipment, insulation, and building materials. These pollutants include formaldehyde from particle board and some insulation, and radioactive emissions from masonry and concrete buildings. Heat exchangers could adequately mitigate these air quality impacts in that they provide adequate ventilation without sacrificing much heat. FvAlliatinn The two largest residential uses of electricity are space heat and water heating. Space heat consumption is approximately 31 percent of the time residential use, water heating represents 26 percent, and the remaining 43 percent was consumed by lights and other appliances. Approximately, a 33 percent reduction in energy used for space heating could be achieved through improving the insulation levels, adding storm windows and reducing the air leakage in existing houses. Water heating represents the second largest single residential use. Savings would be achieved through better insulated water heaters, pipe wraps and lower water temperatures. Nearly one-half of residential electricity is consumed by an assortment of appliances. Refrigerators and freezers, cooking and lighting make up approximately one-half of the electricity used by these appliances. The conservation potential from more efficient appliances is 10 percent of the total electricity used by appliances. 36 Space heating use in existing houses could be 1/3 more efficient than at present. New houses could use nearly 60 percent less for space heating than houses built to current standards. Water heating demands could be reduced over 21 percent. Refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances could consume 7 percent less than projected at current efficiencies. Together, these savings are projected to bring about a 21 percent reduction in residential electric needs. The commercial sector is composed of diverse customers. Studies of the conservation potential in commercial buildings indicate that a 30 to 40 percent reduction in electric energy use could be achieved. Assessing the technical and economic potential for industrial conservation presents a more difficult problem. Not only are industrial uses more diverse, but the conservation potential is also more site specific. Past attempts to assess the industrial sector's conservation potential have not been particularly successful. Implementation The basic responsibility for implementing this alternative lies with the local resident. To aid in this responsibility and to lessen the burden, various State and Federal programs are available. The State offers energy auditing services, conservation grants, and low interest loans, and the Federal Government offers income tax credits. These opportunities should be pursued to the maximum extent possible by the community. 5.1.4 Wind Description A wind energy conversion system (WECS) transforms the force of wind moving past a tower mounted generator into either alternating (AC) or direct (DC) current electricity. DC power may be used directly for lighting, resistance space heating, and water heating or, it may used to charge batteries for later use during peak demand periods or when wind velocity is insufficient to drive the generator. The operating range of a wind generator varies with its design. To illustrate the probable range of operation for many of the WECS currently available the operating characteristics of a 40 kW rated WECS (Kaman Co.) are shown in Table 15. 37 TABLE 15 Wind Velocity (mph) Remarks 0 to 8 No rotation 8 Rotation begins; no power output 10 to 20 Power ranges from 4 to 40 kW 20 to 60 Power constant at 40 kW Above 60 No output (and rotor stopped, or at least turned out of the wind and rotating slowly) Source: "Alaskan Wind Power, An Introductory User's Manual," Tunis Westinke, Jr., June 1980. Wind resource studies of the continental United States, including Alaska, have identified the Alaska Peninsula as having the required wind conditions for generation of electrical power. FvA1jlatlnn An inherent problem with Alaskan WECS development is that those who could most profit from their potential are the individuals and small remote communities least able to afford the high cost of installation, operation and maintenance. Installation and typical add -on equipment for improved operation and the reduction of television and radio interference substantially increase costs. Relatively complicated maintenance requirements require extensive operator training and operation. In the January 1982 "white paper" published by the Alaska Power Authority, it was determined that: a. Wind energy conversion systems are not yet commercially proven to the degree necessary to meet a significant portion of the near term electrical needs of Alaskan communities. b. Where two alternatives appear over the analysis period, and where environmental and cultural factors are comparable, the more reliable alternative should be the one recommended for the followup. The above problems affecting implementation and operation of WECS in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon suggest that development of this resource on a sufficient scale to meet the energy needs of the community is highly unlikely. However, limited development, initially on an experimental basis, may be a cost effective addition to existing power generation resources. Further study of this resource by State or local interests is encouraged. Impacts Impacts associated with this alternative would be minimal. The primary impact would be the ability of the residents of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon to accept the visual aspects of wind power. Implementation The implementation of this alternative would be the responsibility of the city or individual residents, aided by the State of Alaska or the Department of Energy. Various income tax credits, investment allowances, and grant programs can assist a local WECS program. The responsibility for the installation of recording instrumentation appears beyond the financial capability of either community. 5.1.5 Geothermal No potential sites are known to exist in the Chignik or Chignik Lagoon regions. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration. 5.1.6 Coal Description Coal deposits consisting of bituminous and lignite beds, closely spaced and up to 7 feet in thickness, have been identified in a belt 1 to 3 miles wide and 25 miles long on the west shore of Chiqnik Bay. These deposits are located as far as 10 miles north of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon across Chignik Bay. In the early part of the century, interest was shown in active coal mines, with mining of the more attractive deposits occurring between 1899 and 1915. Electricity production would require development of mining, transportation, storage, and generation facilities. Currently, no coal utilization facilities of any type exist at Chignik or Chignik Lagoon. Consequently, new facilities would have to be developed. Utilizing coal for space heating is possible on an individual basis. Most homes would likely require installation of furnaces or stoves capable of burning coal. Evaluation Both coal utilization options face considerable obstacles for the potential developments to be realized. Commercial coal mining existed in the early 1900's. Since termination of that operation no interest in reviving the commercial activities has been shown by any group. In addition, the size of generation units needed at Chignik or Chignik Lagoon is considerably smaller than commercial coal-fired electrical production facilities being developed around the country. Scales of economy are often vital in the development of coal-fired generating plants. Consequently, the option for electric generation from coal holds no likely potential for development. 39 Impact Assessment Impacts caused by both options for coal use would be related to visual, noise, air quality, and land/water resource areas. Significant visual and noise impacts would occur with the development of mining, transportation, storage, and generation facilities necessary to use coal for electricity production. The need for new equipment, roads and/or docks, a storage location, and the actual generating units all would be items that would be seen and heard regularly. The space heating option would likely require different mining, transportation, and storage facilities. Air quality would be impacted by the burning of coal in both options. Exhausting stack gases into the area's air could cause hazing, eye, throat and breathing irritations, and general overall reduction in air quality. Scrubbers could be added to the generation facilities, which would help to reduce air quality problems; however, very little could be done to reduce emissions from home space heating units. Weather changes in the area due to winds and storms would likely help to periodically remove stack gases from the area. Land and water resources could be significantly impacted by mining activities, transportation, storage, and generation facilities required for electricity production. Mining would require some land removal to obtain the coal. The potential exists for substantial, and possibly irrepairable, damage to the surrounding land. Accidents during transportation could cause discharges into waterways. Storage facilities would require some land area near the generating facilities. Burning of coal for electric generation produces a fly ash waste product that would require proper disposal. Designation of a proper disposal site would be necessary. Implementation Implementation of this alternative would be the responsibility of the local community or some outside organization. Also, the local residents are aware of the coal deposits and they have shown no interest, to date, in using them for electricity production or for space heating. Therefore, this alternative has no reasonable expectation of being developed and it is not considered further in the analysis. 5.1.7 Diesel/No Action Description This alternative involves continuation of the existing condition. Under this scenario, diesel generation would continue to be used to meet all electricity requirements at Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. Evaluation _Present diesel capacity is sufficient to meet the current and estimated short term future loads of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. However, as the electrical needs of the region continue to increase, additional diesel capacity would have to be developed. The communities would experience increases in the cost of electricity production due to the capital cost of additional generation units and increased fuel usage needed to help meet the future electricity demands. Impact Assessment The primary impact associated with this alternative is economic. It is very likely that the cost of diesel fuel will eventually rise again as shortages occur and demand exceeds supply. By continuing to use diesel, the village is leaving itself exposed to possible shortages in the future if supplies are interrupted due to physical or economic constraints. In addition to this economic impact, the communities can expect air and noise pollution to continue at existing levels. Also, as additional diesel generating units are added to meet new loads, air and noise pollution will likely increase. Implementation Implementation of this alternative is the responsibility of the local communities. 5.1.8 Waste Heat Recovery Description Two forms of potential energy recovery from existing diesel generators are possible. The first is direct waste heat recovery for heating purposes. This is accomplished with the use of heat exchangers, which transfer waste heat from the water jacket and exhaust of the diesel generators to another fluid that can be used for hot water or building heating. Direct waste heat recovery requires that the generators be close to the building or water supply being heated, otherwise heat is lost to the atmosphere. The second form is by use of the Rankine Cycle. This system vaporizes a fluid such as freon with the waste heat from the diesels. The freon, which is under high pressure, is then used to drive a turbine that produces shaft horsepower to turn a generator for additional electrical power. 41 Evaluation The feasibility of a waste heat recovery system is dependent upon the distance between the diesel generators and the major structures or water supply system expected to benefit from implementation of such a system. In Chignik, the three generators operated by the village council are closest to the school. However, this distance (approximately 100 yards) is considered too great to allow economical recovery of waste heat from the diesel generating units. At the cannery, four generators are within the cannery structure. These units offer the best alternative for a direct waste heat recovery system. Chignik Lagoon has no large central generators, and a direct waste heat recovery system is not considered feasible. The Rankine Cycle energy recovery systems are now in the development stage. When they do become commercially available, it will probably only be for units above 1000 kW. Impact Assessment This alternative has essentially no adverse environmental impacts assuming no relocations are necessary. Since construction of the recovery system is directly associated with location of the generating units, no new lands would be needed and no impacts would occur to existing habitat systems. If relocations were accomplished as part of this alternative, then a small impact to land and habitat could potentially occur. Social impacts are anticipated to be negligible. The residents and cannery operators could expect some reduction in the use of fuel needed for space heating and in the amount of electricity needed for hot water heating. Implementation Implementation of a waste heat recovery system would be the responsibility of the Chignik community or the cannery. The community may be able to obtain some assistance from the State, depending on what assistance programs are available. The cannery seems to be the best situated for capturing waste heat from its diesel generating units. Since the cannery is a private corporation, implementation of a waste heat recovery system would have to be pursued by the owners. 5.1.9 Water Supply/Hydropower - Indian Creek Description See description for Indian Creek, page 31. Impact Assessment See impact assessment for Indian Creek, page 33. r, Fvaliiatinn An alternative evaluation for Indian Creek analyzed this project as a multipurpose project with costs being allocated between hydropower and water supply. The Corps of Engineers "Planning Guidance Notebook" provides for the allocation of residual costs between project purposes when more than one need can be satisfied by a common solution. Several conditions should exist to make the separable cost remaining benefits method cost allocation feasible. 1. The separable or identifiable costs associated with each purpose must be covered by the benefits earned by that purpose. 2. The remaining benefits (earned by all purposes) should cover the unallocated or residual costs. By definition (EP 1105-2-45) the separable costs for each project purpose is the difference between the cost of the multipurpose project and the project with the purpose omitted. The following table shows the separable costs remaining benefit method of cost allocation applied to Chignik as a multipurpose project. Item Inv. Cost Proj. Ben. Ann. Costs Rem. Ben. To be Allocated by Purpose Cost Allocation Total Proj. Costs 0&M Ann. Proj. Costs Project Cost Allocation (1000s) SC Hydro SC Water Supply Res. Costs Total $4,818 $ 209 $ 1,902 $6,929 611 1751/ --- 786 400 17 158 575 211 158 --- --- 57 43 --- --- 90 68 --- --- 490 85 --- --- 30 --- --- --- 520 85 --- 605 l/ Water supply costs (separate project) were estimated to be $2,111,000 and to have 1 to 1 B/C ratio or annual benefits of $175,000. By the separable costs remaining benefit method of allocating residual costs, the position of each project purpose is improved. The following table shows the result of cost allocation among project purposes of the associated B/C ratios. 43 B/C Analysis by Purpose and For the Project Item Hydro Water Supply Total Project Ben. $611,000 $175,000 $786,000 Costs Separable $400,000 $ 17,000 Allocated 90,000 68,000 Total $490,000 $ 85,000 0&M $ 30,000 Total Annual $520,000 $ 85,000 $605,000 B/C 1.17 2.06 1.30 Rem. Ben. $ 91,000 $ 90,000 $181,000 The City of Chignik and the cannery have expressed their concern that the water supply continue to operate during and after construction of the hydropower development on Indian Creek. The owner of the system, Sealaska Corporation, intends to maintain and retain ownership of the water supply system in the future. The City of Chignik does not intend to assume the responsibility of maintaining and operating the water system. Based on the lack of support of a multipurpose project at Chignik by local interests, a multipurpose evaluation was eliminated from further consideration. 5.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGNATION OF THE NED PLAN As discussed in the previous sections various alternatives were considered to determine which plan or combination of plans would best satisfy local and national planning objectives. National Economic Development (NED) objectives are achieved by increasing the value of the Nation's output of goods and services and by improving national economic efficiency. The alternative plan that maximizes net national economic benefits consistent with protecting the environment is defined as the NED plan. Alternatives considered to meet the needs of the Chignik study area included: conservation measures; diesel generation; waste heat recovery; geothermal power development; coal generation; wind generation; run -of -river projects on Packers Creek and Mud Bay Lake Creek; an intertie between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon; hydropower run -of -river project on Indian Creek with water supply. Opportunities for reducing future costs of energy via diesel; windpower, geothermal, coal and waste heat recovery appear limited. Accordingly, they were not studied in detail. Implementation of conservation measures would probably not reduce area energy demands drastically; however, measures such as increased insulation of electric water heaters and electrically heated buildings are cost effective and should be considered further by the State and local interest. Because construction of run -of -river projects on Packers and Mud Bay Lake Creek and an intertie system would not result in net positive ME economic benefits, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. Accordingly this alternative has been designated as the NED plan. Development of a run -of -river hydropower project on Indian Creek with a provision for water supply would result in maximum net national economic benefits and address the planning objectives. As can be seen in Table 16, the average net annual NED benefit over the life of this project is estimated at $74,000. 5.3 THE SELECTED PLAN Description Based on the foregoing comparison of alternatives, hydropower development on Indian Creek has the best potential for satisfying NED and local study objectives and become the selected plan. Specific features of the selected plan are briefly summarized below. Appendix A provides detailed information on the selected plan. Indian Creek With Water Supply The hydropower project would consist of an A -frame, 24-foot-high timber dam constructed downstream of the existing dam. A spillway, capable of accommodating a 100-year flood event (740 cfs) would be added to the existing spillway. A 34-inch steel penstock would convey river flows 5,500 feet from dam to the powerhouse downstream. For its entire length, the penstock would follow the alinement of the present wood stave water supply pipeline. The entire penstock would be constructed above ground on saddles and with concrete anchor blocks at both vertical and horizontal bends. The invert of the penstock at the intake would be 428 feet mean sea level (MSL) or 19 feet below the maximum expected lake level. The center line of the penstock at the powerhouse would be at elevation 20 feet MSL, resulting in a gross powerhead at 425 feet. The powerhouse itself would be a conventional indoor plant consisting of two 550-kW Francis turbines. Flows to the powerhouse could be controlled via two hydraulically operated butterfly valves located immediately upstream, two manual sluice gates and an intake gate at the dam. Access to Indian Creek Lake would be by the existing 5 to 6-foot cat trail (minor upgrading only envisioned). Approximately 0.25 miles of 14.4 KV transmission line would run from the powerhouse to the community of Chignik. The transmissin line would be mounted on wood poles, which would provide a nominal 30-foot pole height above the ground, providing no less than a 20-foot clearance at the mid -point of the conductor sag. Construction of the Indian Creek project would take about 12 months. Real estate requirements for the proposed project is as follows: easement (road) - 2.5 acres, easement (powerline) - 0.6 acres, easement (staging area) - 1.0 acre, easement (reservoir) - 7.0 acres, fee estate (project feature) - 3.0 acres. 45 Table 16 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS A. PLAN DESCRIPTION Indian Creek With Water Supply 1100 kW Chi nik Demand Without Condition NE Plan Diesel/No Action B. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. Economic Impacts a. Total Cost/year $ 634,000 No Change b. Total Benefits/year $ 678,000 Equal costs c. Net Benefits/year $ 74,000 N/A d. Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.12 N/A e. Property Values No Change No Change f. Tax Revenue N/A N/A g. Regional Growth No Change No Change h. Employment Short term jobs during construction. No Change i. Business Activity Temporary increase due to construction activity. No Change j. Displacement of Homes, etc. All construction would be in areas devoid of housing. None 2. Environmental Impacts a. Archeological Sites have been identified in the study area, but none None are known to exist in the project area. b. Water Quality Temporary increase in turbidity during construction. No Change c. Water Quantity Existing water supply system to remain in operation No Change during and after construction. d. Air Pollution An increase in particulates would occur during con- No Change struction. No long term effects would occur. e. Natural Resources Construction activities would temporarily increase None the use of fossil fuels. The project would reduce fossil fuel dependence. f. Lands Minor lands required for construction, most of which No Change now have existing structure. (Dam and pipeline). g. Habitat Minor, temporary disturbances of birds and animals No Change during construction. Minor loss of undocumented indeterminate fish spawning areas. 3. Social Impacts a. Noise Slight increase during construction followed by No Change decrease once project is on line. b. Displacement of People Potential strain on summer housing needs. None c. Esthetics Minor adverse visual impacts due to new project. No Change Visible scar at lake due to drawdown. d. Community Growth ana Cohesion No Change No Change C. PLAN EVALUATION Indian Creek (NED Plan Project would reduce fossil fuel dependency, maintain water supply, and produce minor environmental,and social impacts. Project is economically justified and produces maximum annual net benefits. Implementation could be pursuea through Corps of Engineers authoriza- tion processes, through an independent effort by a local interest, or through a cost sharing ,arrangement between a local sponsor and the Federal Government. Without Condition Diesel/No Action Under existing conditions, Chignik and Chignik Lagoon residents will continue to use fossil fuels for total electrical generation. This will cause increases in electricity costs as well as dependence on imported petroleum products. 5.3.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitiqation Specifically, the biota for Indian Creek drainage includes a small population of furbearers such as red foxes, weasels, mink, and wolverine. There are a few bald eagles, several species of marine birds, and ducks and geese situated in and along the drainage basin of Indian Creek. A small pink salmon population ranging from 50 to 100 fish is maintained by this water system and anadroumous Dolly Varden have also been observed in the creek. Plant communities in the study area are composed principally of closed tall alder scrub, open tall alder -willow, and open tall alder. Few impacts caused by the proposed hydropower project would occur. Loss of the 2.16 acres of closed tall alder scrub and its understory vegetation would undoubtedly cause temporary reduction of small mammal populations. At this time, mitigation is not required. 5.3.3 Project Operation Once constructed, the project would be turned over to the local utility for operation and maintenance in conjunction with the existing diesel generators. All maintenance associated with the intake works, penstock, powerhouse and distribution system would be the responsibility of the utility. Project operators are envisioned to be locally based. The overall systems (hydropower and diesel) would be intermeshed so that any, both, or only one may be operated at any one time. The unit would be capable of matching necessary load during the time of year when flows equal or exceed the demand. During those low flow times, when energy demand exceeds the capabilities of the system, the hydropower unit would, when water is available, operate in a base load mode while the diesel units would be utilized for peaking. 5.3.4 Economic Analvsis The estimated annual costs and benefits based on October 1983 prices and 8-1/8 percent interest, are shown in Table 17. First Cost Project Annual Cost Project Annual Benefits Net Annual Benefits Benefit -Cost Ratio TABLE 17 47 $ 6,675,000 604,000 678,000 74,000 1.12 to 1 The analysis shown on page A-27,APPENDIX A, indicates the sensitivity of the project's feasiblity to population growth. To demonstrate this, Indian Creek was analyzed assuming the worst possible scenario, population of Chignik remaining at the 1980 level. The results of the analysis shows the benefit -to -cost ratio for hydropower development on Indian Creek would be 0.88 and usable energy would decrease from an equivalent annual usable energy of 3,250,000 KWh to 2,608,000 KWh. 5.3.5 Marketability Analysis The Chignik hydropower project with water supply on Indian Creek has an investment cost of $6,929,000, an annual cost of $604,000, a marketable output of 3,250,000 kWh. By crediting the project with estimated future fuel price increases, it can be demonstrated that hydropower production is feasible compared to the least costly alternative. Table 18 shows the cost per kWh required to recover project costs by marketing 3,250,000 kWh of energy under conditions applied by concerned agencies. Agency Terms APA (Federal) (10.75%, 50 yrs) APA (State) (10.5%, 30 yrs) REA (Federal) (5% 50 yrs) State Grant (20% loan, 80% 8.5%, 30 yrs) TABLE 18 Marketability Comparison Annual Costs $ per kWh $ 779,000 0.24 $ 796,000 0.245 $ 410,000 0.126 $ 546,000 0.168 grant, The best opportunity for marketing Chignik power would occur if the project would financed through REA funding or by a combination of grant and loan by the State of Alaska. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION To gain public input during the study process numerous State and Federal agencies, other organizations, and individuals were contacted. At a public meeting held in Chignik on June 1, 1983, general support for the hydropower plan was voiced. In addition, discussions were held with the Chignik and Chignik Lagoon village councils. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided a draft Coordination Act report. E• RESPONSES TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES A REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations 1. During ensuing project planning stages, additional site -specific baseline studies be done to docu- ment: A. timing and numbers of spawning pink salmon in lower Indian Creek: B. hydrological and meteoro- logical characterization of the Indian Creek drainage; C. temperatures and water quality within the lake and lower creek; D. aquatic mitigation alterna- tives and costs; Responses 1. Concur with A,B,C, and F. See EIS text for further explanation of D and E. Advanced project planning would include more terrestrial and fishery studies. E. raptor nesting sites in vicinity of proposed intertie; and F. adequate subsistence surveys and game harvest data. 2. If the Chignik Lagoon intertie economically justified, a construc- tion plan be formulated incorpora- ting timing, methods of clearing, design for raptor proofing within 0.5 miles of Mud Creek, etc., and submitted to FWS for review and incorporation into permits and licenses; is 2. Concur, however, the study con - concluded that the intertie lacked economic feasibility. (See EIS text page EIS-i). 3. When Indian Creek pink salmon spawning use is quantified, a tail- race will need to be designed to replace a part of the 0.5 mile of lost migratory and spawning habitat. If hydropower generation occurs for only part of the year, a method of supplying adequate incubation flows into the spawning area of the tail- race will be needed; E. 3. The provision of artificial spawning gravels in the tailrace needs to be further evaluated since there is a lack of available infor- mation on fish utilization in Indian Creek (See EIS page 24). 4. During ensuing project planning stages, additional biological studies and detailed impact/mitigation assessment be scoped and funded; 5. Altered or new project designs and plans be provided to, be reviewed by, and commented on by FWS; 6. FWS recommendations be included in all contractors' specifications and that FWS and other interested resource agencies be able to re- view those specifications prior to construction bid submission; 7. Organic soils excavated during construction be stockpiled, con- tained in such a way as to prevent erosion, and used in revegetation of disturbed areas; 8. During construction, all food - related garbage be stored in metal containers, removed as soon as possible, and incinerated to pre- vent a nuisance bear situation; 9. For construction and operation phases of the project, waste petro- leum and waste water disposal plans and oil spill contingency plans addressing safe storage, use, and clean-up of oil and gas be prepared in accordance with State and Federal guidelines (40 C.F.R. 112.28, Dec. 11, 1973); 10. Erosion control plans for road/ bulldozer trails, transmission route clearing, penstock, and dam construc- tion should be formulated, then re- viewed by FWS and other resource agencies. Cleanup, restoration, and revegetation of work areas, material sites, disposal/stockpile sites, and areas requiring recontouring to pre - project conditions should take place concurrent with construction; 4. Additional biological studies would be needed during the advance stages of project planning. 5. Concur. FWS would be notified of any altered or new project designs and plans through the for- mal coordination process. 6. Appropriate FWS recommendations and interests would be considered while preparing the construction plans and specifications. 7. Very little removal of organic materials is anticipated; however, considerations for proper disposal would be included in the plan. m 8. Concur, as this action would be necessary to minimize bear -human conflicts. 9. Because this project may be a State -built operation, it may be- come difficult to assume responsi- bility for contingency plans. 10. Adequate precaution will be taken to assure erosion control is implemented during construction. 11. Review and approval of construc- 11. Refer to recommendation #6 for tion plans, specifications, and response. methodologies by FWS and arrange- ments for construction surveillance by interested resource agency per- sonnel shall be made prior to permit/ license review and a construction start. CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis contained in this report, a hydropower project constructed on Indian Creek with water supply provision, provides the least costly alternative for electrical generation at Chignik. An intertie from Chignik to Chignik Lagoon, and construction of hydropower projects on Mud Bay Lake Creek and Packers Creek are not considered economically feasible. The NED Plan for the Indian Creek project provides net annual benefits of $74,000. This hydropower plan would have to be supplemented with diesel electric generation during periods of low streamflow since the project is basically a run -of -the -river development. The Indian Creek hydropower project could be accomplished by the Corps of Engineers with appropriate authorization and funding. In addition to the hydropower project on Indian Creek, two other alternatives offer the potential for decreasing diesel fuel use for heating and electrical consumption in the Chignik and Chignik Lagoon communities. Conservation in the form of home weatherization would assist in reducing diesel fuel use for home heating and would help to slightly decrease home electricity use. Development of the potential wind resource of the region would help to decrease diesel fuel used for electrical generation. Development of the conservation and wind alternatives is the responsibility of the local communities. Various assistance programs and expertise are available from State and Federal agencies. 51 TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS I have carefully considered the environmental, social, and economic ramifications of providing hydroelectric generating capacity at Chignik, and find that such development is a feasible means for producing additional energy in the overall public interest. I recommend that the Indian Creek hydroelectric: project with provision for water supply, for Chignik be authorized for Federal construction, generally in accordance with the plan described herein, with such modifications that the Chief of Engineers may find advisable, and in accordance with cost recovery, cost sharing, and financing arrangements satisfactory to the President and the Congress. Authorization of this project for Federal construction should not preclude the development of hydroelectric facilities at this site by a qualified nonfederal interest or local sponsorship of Federal development through an innovative financing agreement with a nonfederal interest. Based on October 1983 price levels, the total first cost of the project, including necessary transmission facilities, is estimated at $6,675,000 for construction and $30,000 annually for operation, maintenance, and replacements. The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at this time and current Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch. Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to the Congress as proposals for authorization and/or implementation funding. 52 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SMALL HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL ON INDIAN CREEK CHIGNIK, ALASKA U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Anchorage, Alaska Abstract: Because of the bleak long-range forecast for rising diesel fuel costs and increasing transportation expenses, hydropower development in the State of Alaska has assumed major importance. Sites at Indian Creek, Mud Bay Lake, and Packers Creek, located in the Chignik and Chignik Lagoon vicinities, are being evaluated to determine their potential for hydropower development. Adverse environmental impacts associated with hydropower development at Mud Bay Lake would be the loss of salmon food resources for brown bears, bald eagles, and other raptors, and disturbance of their habitat through increased public access via the associated transmission line/access road corridor. Therefore, Mud Bay Lake was dropped from further consideration due to economic and environmental factors. Likewise, hydropower development at Packers Creek was not studied further due to the lack of economic feasibility. It was found that Packers Creek had low potential for energy output in a run -of -the -river installation and would therefore require an intertie transmission line route to the Indian Creek - Mud Bay Lake Creek sites. Again, high costs for an intertie ruled out all efforts to pursue hydropower development at Chignik Lagoon. Indian Creek, however, seems to be a viable candidate for hydropower development. No cultural resource impacts are anticipated, and long term environmental impacts are considered minimal. Field investigations indicate that a small run of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and anadromous Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) are indigenous to Indian Creek. A location for the powerhouse and tailrace is under consideration. The selected site for the powerhouse would be at the base of the bluffs behind the village, thereby achieving maximum hydropower potential. If you would like further information regarding this statement, please contact: Mr. William D. Lloyd U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Telephone: (907) 552-2572 NOTE: Information, tables, and maps contained in the main report are incorporated by reference in this Environmental Impact Statement. EIS-i SUMMARY The villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are located on the southeast end of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 275 miles east of Unimak Pass, and 450 miles southwest of Seward, Alaska. The Aleutian Range in this area lies more toward the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula and provides a rugged coastline with many bays bordered by steep -sided cliffs. On the Bering Sea side, the mountains diminish into a wide, relatively low -relief plain dotted with numerous lakes and swampy areas. The village of Chignik is surrounded on three sides by steep, talus valley walls; to the north lies Anchorage Bay. (See Figure EIS -I.) Several alternatives for potential hydropower have been examined; all but one of these plans were eliminated due to high costs and adverse environmental conditions. Currently, residents in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon rely on power supplied by diesel generators. With hydropower development, concerns about projected diesel fuel costs, noise, and dependability would greatly diminish. Two alternative hydropower sites at Mud Bay Lake and Packers Creek were assessed for power potential, economic feasibility and environmental and social factors. Based on these studies, both proposed sites were eliminated from further considerations. Biological resources in the project area of Indian Lake and Creek were identified over a period of two field seasons. Field surveyors included Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Habitat Division), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Services, consultants to the Alaska District (Anchorage based), and Corps personnel. Use of land in the.project vicinity by small furbearers, song birds, brown bear, and moose is minimal. Brown bears have been spotted in the village of Chignik, but no critical habitat has been identified within the project's perimeter. Little waterfowl nesting occurs in pond areas located directly behind the village. The ponds appear to be linked by exposed and underground channels ultimately feeding into the creek channel. Adult and juvenile three -spine sticklebacks are supported by these small water pockets. Impact to vegetation in the surrounding project area would be relatively small. Sedges, willows, and some alder would be affected by the proposed penstock routing, widening of an existing trail, and by the expected plan of raising the water level of Indian Lake by an additional 3 feet. The potential for a 6.5-mile transmission intertie between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon was eliminated since it was not economically feasible. Appendix B is the Section 404(b) (1) Evaluation, which fully conforms to all the guideline requirements. The proposed project is also consistent with the requirements posed by the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Plan. EIS-ii 4 r.Y.\ tiy. U m W 3° G. Q _ Le U),c a O Z2 m .Q p F- O ` Y } J E'— �.= Jy UZ U (� a p yU. - > o� b� QP Y Z O J�yJ 00 . TT Y L7 S fn r W { a EEK M EIS-iii Relationships of Plans to Environmental Protection Statutes and other Environmental Requirements --- Chignik Hydropower Project. Federal Statutes Compliance Status Endangered Species Act Full Compliance Clean Water Act Full Compliance (see Appended 404(b)(1) Evaluation) Clean Air Act Full Compliance Archeological and Historic Preservation Act Full Compliance Estuary Protection Act Not Applicable Federal Water Project Recreation Act Not Applicable Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Full Compliance Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Not Applicable Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act Not Applicable National Environmental Policy Act Full compliance will be met with the filing of the final EIS with EPA National Historic Preservation Act Full Compliance River and Harbor Act Not Applicable Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act Not Applicable Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Not Applicable Executive Orders and Memoranda Compliance Status Floodplain Management (11988) Not Applicable Protection of Wetlands (11990) Full Compliance Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Not Applicable Actions (12114) Analysis of Impacts on Prime or Unique Not Applicable Agricultural Lands in Implementing NEPA EIS -iv State Requirements Clean Water Act -Section 401 Coastal Zone Management Act Table I (cont.) EIS-v Compliance Status Full compliance after State issuance of Water Quality Certification (See EIS Text) Full compliance after State concurs with determination that project is consistent with State's coastal management plan. (See EIS Text) Table of Contents Page Abstract EIS-i Summary EIS-ii A. Need and Objectives for Action EIS- 1 1. Study Authority EIS- 1 2. Public Concern EIS- 1 3. Planning Objectives EIS- 1 B. Alternatives EIS- 1 1. Plans Eliminated from Further Study EIS- 1 2. Plans Considered Further EIS- 1 a. Diesel Generation EIS- 1 b. Wind Power EIS- 2 c. Hydropower - Indian Creek EIS- 2 d. Without Conditions (No Action) EIS- 2 3. Comparative Impacts of Alternatives EIS- 2 C. Affected Environment EIS- 2 1. Environmental Setting EIS- 2 a. General EIS- 2 b. Hydrology EIS- 4 c. Esthetics EIS- 6 2. Significant Resources EIS- 6 a. Vegetation EIS- 6 b. Wildlife EIS- 7 C. Birds EIS- 9 d. Fisheries EIS- 9 e. Marine EIS- 13 f. Rare and Endangered Species EIS- 14 3. Socioeconomics EIS- 14 a. Chignik EIS- 14 (1) Population EIS- 14 (2) Economy EIS- 14 (3) Housing EIS- 15 (4) Water EIS- 15 (e) Solid Waste EIS- 15 EIS-vi Table of Contents (cont.) Page b. Chignik Lagoon EIS- 15 (1) Population EIS- 15 (2) Economy EIS- 16 (3) Housing EIS- 16 (4) Water EIS- 16 (5) Solid Waste EIS- 16 4. Cultural Resources EIS- 16 a. Previous Archeological Studies EIS- 17 b. Field Reconnaissance EIS- 17 D. Environmental Effects EIS- 18 1. Hydrology and Water Quality EIS- 19 2. Esthetics EIS- 19 3. Significant Resources EIS- 20 a. Vegetation EIS- 20 b. Wildlife EIS- 20 c. Birds EIS- 21 d. Fisheries EIS- 21 e. Marine EIS- 22 f. Rare and Endangered Species EIS- 22 4. Socioeconomics EIS- 22 5. Cultural Resources EIS- 23 E. Mitigation EIS- 23 1. Physical EIS- 23 2. Significant Resources EIS- 24 a. Vegetation, Wildlife,and Birds EIS- 24 b. Fish EIS- 24 F. Public Involvement EIS- 25 G. Coastal Zone Management EIS- 25 H. List of Preparers EIS- 27 I. Index EIS- 28 J. Literature Cited EIS- 29 EIS-vii Table of Contents (cont.) Page Tables and Figures Table EIS -I Relationship of Plans to EIS -iv Environmental Protection Statutes and Other Environmental Requirements-- Chignik Hydropower Project Table EIS -II Comparative Impacts of Alternatives EIS- 3 Table EIS -III Water Distribution of Indian EIS- 5 Creek, Alaska ---Average Monthly Flows Table EIS -IV Drainage Basin Runoff Between EIS- 5 Dam Site and River Mile 0.5 For Indian Creek, Chignik, Alaska Table EIS-V Alaska Coastal Management Program EIS-26 (RCMP) Consistency Evaluation Figure EIS -I Location of Project Site EIS- iii Figure EIS -II Fishery Resources EIS-12 for the Hydropower Alternatives Statement Recipients Appendix EIS-viii Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Hydroelectric Development Chignik, Alaska A. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION 1. STUDY AUTHORITY The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress in 1976 to determine the feasibility of installing small prepackaged hydroelectric units (5 megawatts or less) in isolated communities throughout Alaska. 2. PUBLIC CONCERN The communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon have expressed interest in developing small hydropower plants to replace or supplement existing diesel -powered generation facilities. The escalating costs of diesel fuel, •the noise and smell of diesel generators, and uncertainty about the long-range diesel supply are all reasons for local residents' concern. 3. PLANNING OBJECTIVES The objectives of feasibility studies for hydropower development are to determine if such power development is technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. It is anticipated that through a complete assessment, adverse environmental impacts could be minimized. B. ALTERNATIVES 1. PLANS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY Numerous hydroelectric power development scenarios to serve either Chignik and/or Chignik Lagoon have been investigated, and various co -development and intertie options also have been considered. Proposed plans for a transmission intertie route between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon have been eliminated from further study. Considerations to develop hydropower for Mud Bay Lake and Packers Creek also have been dropped due to low economic feasibility. Other generation alternatives hydropower, and wind power. Since brief explanation is provided. 2. PLANS CONSIDERED FURTHER (a) Diesel Generation include diesel generation, Indian Creek these are potential energy resources, a The existing electrical generation facilities at Chignik, excluding the cannery, consist of one 75-kilowatt (kW) diesel generator and two 175-kW diesel generators. These generators supply power to the school and residents of the village. The functioning cannery at Chignik operates on its own generators, consisting of one Pelton wheel producing 60 kW, two 250-kW diesel generators, and four 300-kW diesel generators. The village of Chignik Lagoon operates on a dispersed power generation system, consisting of various 3- to 10-kW diesel generators owned and operated by individual residents or groups of residents. No commercial generation facilities serve Chignik Lagoon. Concerns relative to diesel fuel, however, involve the rising costs of diesel fuel and fuel shipment dependability. (b) Wind Power It is unlikely that competitive and fully dependable wind powered commercial generators would be possible at Chignik Lagoon and Chignik to meet the energy needs of both communities. (c) Hydropower - Indian Creek The Indian Creek hydropower project would include a dam and a spillway constructed just downstream of the existing wood buttress dam. The dam would be a timber structure with a maximum height of 24 feet and a crest elevation of 451 feet. This structure would raise the lake level from its present elevation of 442 feet to 445 feet with maximum drawdown of 15 feet. Installed power capacity would be 1.1 megawatts (MW). The proposed penstock would follow the alinement of the present wood stave water supply pipeline. (d) Without Conditions (no action) Without the development of the proposed hydroelectric project, some environmental impacts would occur in the form of air and noise pollution and possible fuel spills from diesel generators. Escalating costs of fuel could prove to be an important economic consideration for the community. The no -action alternative would essentially result in a continuation of the present reliance on diesel -powered generators, both commercial and dispersed, in the two nearby communities. 3. COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES. (See page EIS-3) C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (a) General Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are located on the southeast coast of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 275 miles east of Unimak Pass, and 450 miles southwest of Seward, Alaska. The area that would be affected by the project lies between longitude 158' and 159' west, and latitude 56' and 57' north. Portions of the project area are within the Aleutian Mountain Range and the adjacent Pacific Ocean lowlands. EIS-2 V) W F- ¢ Z Z w F- J ¢ w O t� 1 F- U Ci w F- ¢ d O U i w w J m ¢ f— a) L =I w 4j 3 U O o CL 4- 4- C) W z 0 3 z 3 C p L O) O Q) 41 44 4J 41 Q1 U E U U V U c •.- o � a, v v A E p4- v c .� w w w w O O U i O O O O Z a) O Z Z Z Z T a L 10 N '0 41 U 0) 4J L V O C r O C r C td • a a N .— ,o c c p 41 +, -TD E E� N .N U (3) E rt3 N V) C (v e- C O U p) O 4- 10 41 L 3 41 L O C r — O VI R} x N O O O L 41 i C N r0 41 7 C S- L Y N •O i X ~ LA O N O .a > Q) O 0) N O C 0 '— N Q) Y V) 'fl %'I L. O L E N C N 4- G C p 4- i C •" rO U a >, •NI O 3 41 41 3 10 N . C E N U a) a) a U •*- O 10 C (3) i U a) r•- N a) • a a) i O N _C rt5 •� S L a) t/1 O 4) i r6 •� a) r ++ i O E a) L >, r 4•.1 a U a) L N 10 a) L O X C L U U r a) r' 4- a) m r0 O O E 7 C 41 S- U ='- 41 4J v a a) r C E b - 'v E E c c 0 - L U 10 L S.. F- O N C L a •r7 m 41 O N E O 4- • 41 L O, 'O (v U o v a) O -W v) o E c o o C a a o r N O U 0) r > C V U r yl VI N i N O r O E 5.. 3 L a) r0 C U 5.. C O U L b p r +, 'O a L 41 O r" - a) O +.+ E O V o 3 O O V a la U- 10 a) G a) U r 3 '— r > L 4- U U Ln •O O .0 SL 'O 0> IO I R3 m r a) O a) C r O 4- •- '0 �O r r aJ •�-) a) a) a) x O c 4-) +-+ m a c N a •- a) O r •n C r O r ti l O) (A 3 a) Ln 0 a) E O r x E L r p r C R O O a p a F- O • VI C O U O 'm O) N 0 m a) o1 O= O m C 0 ; L O = a) m a 10 L a) a) N a) (v i. E a) O N 4- C O s c +•+ 3 41 'O O a t.0 +, N > 4_ •^ O E a)•- U N O O 1 0 U O O V) 4H (0 -0 0 >, O a) U 4- 4••) iJ 41 W a C O 10 r >> C m E r C N rd r r >> 41 i O C C i63 V) O cm a U i C 0_0 C r O a) a) a) 4- W 41 a ' ) O) L } U N L+a O 4- i E O N C .0 4j •r •p r 4- 4J S.-r U 3 •+•� +� rt) m 7 •� 01 C i U, > >> 4- U ro 41 _0 10 -0 a) O N 4••1 rO a 10 (0 L r p 41 L O M O 4_ L E Z. L U r E (A a) +, > a) 'O 1.1 r E o p y, r W > a) 1. o m m = O 0 w = = C N L N E C ,n a) N a L L m V) a IT (A C VI 'O '0 a 0 lO a) IT 4. O E C rt) p O rO L a) E O a) rO a) o O a) 0 O C a) O a 4- a) .0 a) U t E p •+-1 ¢ u v r -W i v z (n cz c a a i ro J L a o o .0 F- > 10+ •- U N 1 N r 41 a) N • - a) CO i 41 3 a) a) i N U O L 3 (A .W >) a) > a) a v a) c M o) c 0 4- 4..1 4- 41 L L aJ 4- c - 4-1 of v) C a) 10 +, 4.1 .)..I 41 a) a) U U U U U 3 () >, rts Y r� a) a a) a) a) L r O N L > E 4' 4- 4- 4- a) 41 c m O 4- 4- 4- 4- U O M ••- 3 r C W W W W C N > 0 O b 4- ..- ,; c C p O U O O O O V1 O 'p U p O V 4J a) Z Z Z Z a1 1 1 N I N a) � L y a../ C O U ai a) c O i 4-- 0 O C r 4_ •- r r d y 41 41 4..1 41 41 a) .1., (n y r V U U U C N 3 r0 C o a) a) a) a) (1) O p i O O 4- 4- 4- 4-- ; U•'- N > (V U 4- 4- 4- 4- 4•- i m U W W W W C T r .0 4- 41 r O C a) O O O O F- O IO ro U •r N Z Z Z Z N N a) N O U a) i. U U L O O O N a N o a) V) a) N O C)= Q1 O Q) N p L a) a) Qf L r IO ra C a) y s 73 a) U N r m O C a) V) w w 3 Indian Creek is approximately 3.5 miles long and drains generally north-northwest from an elevation of 1,200 feet to sea level, exiting through the flatlands (containing the village of Chignik) into Anchorage Bay. The creek valley is relatively narrow and approximately 1.5 miles wide (crest to crest). The valley walls are steeply sloping, ranging from 50 percent to near vertical along the upper valley walls. A small timber dam and lake impoundment are located at an elevation of 442 feet. These facilities provide both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to the cannery at Chignik. The average stream gradient is 15 percent from the headwaters to the mouth. The stream is generally incised downstream of the dam and lake. Field reconnaissance photos taken in April of 1982 show sedimentary bedrock outcrops both within and adjacent to the incised creek drainage. (b) Hydrology Above the existing damsite, Indian Creek has a drainage area of 3 square miles. The basin ranges in elevation from 3,430 feet at the highest point to a low of about 442 feet at the existing 20-acre reservoir. The basin is sparsely vegetated and consists predominantly of bedrock and talus slopes. The basin is open to the northwest and partially shielded from southerly Pacific storms by the mountains on its southern boundary. The existing lake has been formed by a glacial terminal moraine. A stream gaging station was established near the proposed damsite in early 1982. This station has not yet developed enough records to be useful for estimation of potential streamflow. Table EIS -III includes the monthly average synthetic streamflow over a 50-year period for the Indian Creek system. Monthly streamflows were developed by the HEC-4 Computer program. Because only limited rainfall records from Chignik were available, monthly flows also were derived from runoff from Myrtle Creek near Kodiak -and Spruce Creek near Seward. These two streams seem to be consistent with the size and characteristics of Indian Creek drainage basin. Installation of rain and temperature gages at Indian Creek took place in June 1983. It is apparent that winter flows (Jan -Mar) after cannery use are nearly nonexistent. Generated runoff data shown in Table EIS -IV represent the area between the damsite and upper reach of pink salmon habitat as indicated in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (CA) Report's schematic habitat diagram. Table IV represents streamflow for each month produced solely by drainage basin runoff. While it is assumed that water will be diverted from the creek, very little flow may exist from basin precipitation (i.e., 1.26 cubic feet per second in January). After hydroelectric development, using the selected alternative, these estimated runoff flows would be the only flows available for the Indian Creek system. EIS-4 TABLE EIS -III. WATER DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN CREEK, CHIGNIK, ALASKA Average CFS Left After CFS Available for Monthly Cannery Water CFS Left lifter Hydroelectric & Month Flow 1/ Right Use 21 Cannery Use 3/ Fishery Use 4/ Jan 3.80 None 2.24 None Feb 4.42 None 2.86 None Mar 2.42 None None None Apr 23.09 18.69 19.45 18.69 May 56.23 51.83 52.71 51.83 Jun 55.23 50.83 51.59 50.83 Jul 24.65 20.25 21.01 20.25 Aug 28.66 24.26 25.02 24.26 Sep 40.35 35.95 36.71 35.95 Oct 43.76 39.36 40.12 39.36 Nov 36.73 32.33 36.73 32.33 Dec 29.37 24.97 29.37 24.97 1 50-year average monthly flow measured in cubic feet per second. 2 2,000 gals/minute = 4.4 cfs (State of Alaska issuance of water rights). 3 300 gal/min. (1.56 cfs) (Jan -Feb) and 700 gal/min. (3.64 cfs) (Jun -Oct). 4 CFS available for Hydroelectric and Fishery after cannery water rights are allocated. Maximum and minimum hydroelectric use is cfs = 40 (max.), cfs = 7 (min.). For simplicity, calculations included only maximum use. TABLE EIS -IV. DRAINAGE BASIN RUNOFF BETWEEN DAM SITE AND RIVER MILE 0.5 FOR INDIAN CREEK, CHIGNIK, ALASKA Month 2/ Runoff 1/ Jan 3.802/3 = 1.26 Feb 4.422/3 = 1.47 Mar 2.420/3 = .80 Apr 23.09/3 = 7.69 May 56.35/3 = 18.78 Jun 55.23/3 = 18.41 Jul 24.65/3 = 8.21 Aug 28.66/3 = 9.55 Sep 40.35/3 = 13.45 Oct 43.76/3 = 14.58 Nov 36.73/3 = 12.24 Dec 29.37/3 = 9.79 1/ Runoff measured in cubic feet per second (cfs). 2/ Basin precipitation for the area between the dam site and river mile 0.5 (approx. 1 sq. mi. or 1/3 of the total catchment area) was calculated by taking 1/3 of the average monthly flow (representing the surrounding 3 sq. mi. basin). This calculated precipitation amount seems to be the only generated flow in Indian Creek after construction of the proposed project. EIS-5 Observations of historical floods are not available for Indian Creek. The probable magnitude of annual peak flood discharges for each stream has been estimated by means of a U.S. Geological Survey method as presented in "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams" by John Lamb. Flood frequency curves developed by this method are presented in the engineering report. For preliminary purposes, the maximum probable flood may be approximated as three times greater than the 50-year flood magnitude. Thus, for the purpose of this document, the maximum probable flood for Indian Creek is about 1,800 cubic feet per second (cfs). This estimate represents the runoff resulting from the most severe rainfall and snowmelt situation considered possible for the region. It should be used only for consideration of dam integrity when failure would result in loss of life and extensive property damage downstream. No sediment transport studies have been performed at Indian Creek. The observed discharge is very clear. The existence of a relatively deep lake without topset beds indicates that there is little sediment inflow. For that reason, depletion of storage by sediment is not expected. (c) Esthetics The Indian Creek drainage has already been impacted by man-made developments. Existing facilities include a small timber dam and lake impoundment at an elevation of 442 feet. An elevated water supply pipeline runs from this elevation to the Alaska Packers Association Cannery at Chignik. 2. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES (a) Vegetation Plant communities in the study area were analyzed by means of observations made and photographs taken during April 1982, recent photogrammetric maps produced as a part of this project, and preliminary vegetation maps furnished by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servie (FWS). Although the general environment of the Chignik area appears homogeneous, the proposed sites of hydroelectric development lie in slightly different environmental settings that will have important influences on the vegetation and associated animal populations. Indian Creek Lake is situated at an elevation of 442 feet approximately 1.5 miles south of Chignik village. Mountains rise steeply to elevations of 1,500 feet to 2,000 feet on the east, south and west sides of the lake, closing in more abruptly on the west side of the lake. Drainage into the lake is principally from the south. Much of the drainage basin is relatively barren of shrubs and herbaceoLts vegetation because of the harsh environment of broken rock and steep topography. An analysis was done of 1.6 square miles of mapped habitat, encompassing the Indian Creek Lake and Indian Creek drainages, which will be traversed by the proposed project. The analysis indicated that approximately 48 percent of the area is covered by closed tall alder scrub, principally composed of dense (more than 75 percent canopy cover) Sitka alder thickets that are six to nine EIS-6 feet tall with a fairly dense understory of bluejoint grass. Alder and willow thickets occur around the small lake north of Indian Creek Lake. This habitat type predominates just east of the larger lake on the southwest exposures between 1,000 to 1,500 feet elevation. Open tall alder thickets occupy about 17 percent of the area, mostly between 1,500 to 2,000 feet, and a narrow band along the east side of Indian Creek Lake. The terrain on the southwest side of the lake is covered by a mosaic of low (less than 6 feet in height) open alder and tall herbaceous habitat of bluejoint grass with a mixture of herbs. Coverage of major habitat types at the proposed Indian Creek and Mud Bay Lake project areas is estimated in the chart below. Habitat types are classified according to Viereck, Dyrness and Batten (1982). Habitat Type Closed Tall Alder Open Tall Alder -Willow Open Tall Alder Closed Tall Alder -Willow Open Low Alder Tall Grass (Bluejoint and herbs) Miscellaneous Indian Creek 44 23 16 5 3 3 6 100 Mud Bav Lake 5 12 50 10 23 100 One of the most important examples of wet meadow habitat is a wet sedge meadow located between the village of Chignik and the steep bluff just west of it, across which the current penstock extends on pilings. Such areas are considered sensitive, highly productive habitat for a variety of animal and plant life. Wet sedge meadow is not locally abundant and should not be impacted if at all possible. (b) Wildlife Emphasis was placed on determining the importance of the Indian Creek drainage in relation to brown bears and moose because of the value placed on these animals as big game species. Aerial surveys were made by helicopter inspection of north- and east -facing slopes of the project area perimeters during late April 1982. Special emphasis was placed on dense alder and willow thickets with deep snow located between 1,000 feet and 1,500 feet, the preferred brown bear denning habitat (Lentfer et al. 1972). Uens were not discovered, nor do such preferred denning areas appear to be in the lake impoundment or the penstock right-of-way. The entire penstock alinement was surveyed on foot during September and no signs of bear denning activities were seen. In general, the project area can be considered to be on the border of optimum brown bear habitat such as exists near Black Lake, where up to 148 animals were seen during one evening aerial survey during the past summer (Richard Sellers, personal communication). Signs of moose and other big game animals were seen near Indian Creek and Indian Creek Lake during the field surveys. There were reports during our April survey of a denning brown bear in the creek drainage immediately east of Chignik, and a sow and her cub were observed feeding on EIS-7 salmon cannery wastes on the shores of Anchorage Bay during the FWS's August field trip. One bear, apparently a male, was observed during the survey of the Mud Bay Lake area in April. Although its den was not discovered, it was believed to be near the northeast corner of S14 T45S R59w, based upon the short distance the bear trail was visible in fresh snow and the lateness of the season. Another fresh bear trail was followed for, about one-half mile on the peninsula between Mud Bay and Chignik Lagoon. Previously, a sow and three cubs were seen in June 1981 near Mud Bay Lake. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) biologists estimated that during that same year six brown bears were in the drainage basin to the south of the proposed project area. Aerial surveys conducted by the ADF&G from 1970 to 1975 provided only scattered observations of bear in this region, giving no specific locations and densities. Den emergence for brown bears in this area varies with the weather conditions, but usually occurs between early April and early June. Most emerge in May; sows with cubs usually emerge later than males. In contrast to Indian Creek, abundant bear signs were noted around Mud Bay Lake during all FWS and contractor surveys, indicating that the salmon resource provides support for a significant bear population. Three moose were sighted during the April survey in the western part of the Chignik Peninsula, and two moose were seen during the September survey. The population is considered to be relatively stable, although not as high as about 5 years ago. Chignik residents have reported that the population has never recovered to former levels. The ADF&G biologists in King Salmon verify that the moose population in this area has gradually declined during the past 10 to 15 years (Richard Sellers, personal communication). One or two moose are usually taken annually by hunters of the Chignik area, but most residents harvest animals in the Aniakchak-Amber Bay area, some 35 to 50 miles farther up the Alaska Peninsula from Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. Caribou are taken in limited numbers by Chignik residents, mostly in the Port Heiden or Kujulik Bay areas, and there is an appreciable exchange of food items with Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon residents. Early runs of salmon produce fresh fish that is traded for caribou and moose at those locations (Payne and Braund 1981), thus expanding the subsistence resource base. Furbearers in the Chignik region receive only slight attention from the residents, although appreciable numbers of red foxes, weasels, mink, wolverine, and tundra hares are indicated by signs noted during all field surveys conducted this year. Lesser numbers of wolves and land otters are also present in the area. Sizable populations of small mammals occur throughout the alder and willow thickets, especially where the more open areas have extensive stands of grasses and herbs for food. One Chignik Lagoon resident ran an extensive trap line in this area, and several of his abandoned traps were found during our field survey. One trap contained remains of a wolverine eaten by predators. Signs of furbearers were especially abundant around the headwaters of Packers Creek and eastward toward Mud Bay Lake. Residents of this area do not possess much interest in trapping (ADF&G's Richard Sellers, personal communication), although socioeconomic studies indicate that a few residents do trap. Recent mild winters in the region may have discouraged greater involvement; however, EIS-8 beaver lodges on Mud Bay Lake have been dynamited in the past (apparently) as a management procedure by fisheries personnel who were concerned for the potential blockage of the lake outlet to salmon. Fresh beaver cuttings and dams were noted on Mud Bay Lake drainages during May (FWS Planning Aid Letter, July 1982), and a new dam was noted in the lake outlet in September (Ken Middleton, personal communication). This dam did not obstruct the sockeye salmon movement into Mud Bay Lake, and provided schooling habitat for some 40 to 50 large (12- to 24-inch) Dolly Varden char. (c) Birds Chignik Lagoon is situated on the edge of a major north -south migration route for waterfowl, shorebirds, and marine birds that follow the Alaska Peninsula and colonize major rookeries near Chignik. Some birds also cross the Aleutian Kange in the Black Lake-Chignik Lake area as various population segments move between Bristol Bay and the Gulf of Alaska on their way to and from breeding grounds in western Alaska. Estuaries of Chignik Bay serve as shelter and feeding areas for several species of marine birds that winter in the area. Castle Bay, about 10 miles southwest of Chignik, is an important area for the harvesting of ducks and geese, important subsistence resources for Chignik residents. Chankliut Island, located about 5 miles southeast of Castle Bay, supports a seabird colony of about 4,000 murres, kittiwakes, puffins, guillemots, gulls, and cormorants (Sowls, Hatch and Lensink, 1978). About 250 species of birds are expected to occur in the Chignik-Chignik Lagoon environs, mostly marine and passerine species. Of these only the Aleutian Canada Goose is considered to be threatened or endangered; it may cross the area on its migrations to and from the Pacific coast states from its main breeding ground on Buldir Island in the western Aleutian Islands. (d) Fisheries Due to the importance of the salmon fishing industry to the State of Alaska in general, and to the communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon in particular, the affected fishery resources of the Chignik area should first be discussed in a broader context. To do so, it must be understood how the finfish resources of Indian Creek fit into the overall State of Alaska Fisheries Management Plan. The Chignik Fishery Management Area is bounded on the north by the Kilokak Rocks, near the entrance to Imuya Bay, and on the south by Kupreanof Point. This management area is further divided into five fishing districts (for finfish). These five fishing districts are further subdivided into a total of 14 sections. These smaller divisions serve specific management and geographic orientation purposes. Overlapping the districts and sections are 25 statistical catch reporting units. These units uo not always conform exactly to the regulatory descriptions for districts and sections due to regulation changes; however, they remain constant in order to maintain the integrity of the historical catch data base. EIS-9 The Indian Creek watershed drains into Anchorage Bay, a component of the Chignik Bay Fishing District. The Chignik Bay District is confined Lo those waters southwest of a line extending from Jack Point on the south to Neketa Creek on the north. Anchorage Bay is also a component of the slightly smaller statistical catch reporting unit known as 271-70, or Chignik Lagoon. In 1981, ADF&G personnel surveyed some 86 salmon streams in the Chignik Management Area. Such surveys were routine annual surveys conducted by aircraft throughout the summer fishing season to assess salmon run strength and escapement levels for management purposes. The Chignik Fishery Management Area salmon harvest in 1981 totaled 3.6 million fish, valued at $22 million to the fishermen. For 103 registered vessels, the harvest resulted in gross income of $214,000 per vessel. The Chignik Lagoon statistical area produced back-to-back record sockeye harvests of 1.3 and 1.4 million fish in 1981 and 1982 respectively. The Chignik Bay District accounted for 42 percent of the area's total salmon catch, 74 percent of the sockeye catch, 45 percent of the coho catch, 10 percent of the pink catch, 6 percent of the chum catch, and 74 percent of the king salmon catch in 1981. Virtually all of the Chignik Bay District catch and production is generated by the highly productive Chignik Sliver system, where the commercial fishing fleet concentrates (in Chignik Lagoon) during the fishing season. As few as four seine vessels normally venture into the outer area of Chignik Lagoon toward the Anchorage Bay -Jack Point area. Consequently, exploitation of salmon stocks specific to the Mud Bay -Anchorage Bay systems is probably minimal. With the exception of reported personal use of clams in the Mud Bay area, no documentation is available concerning recreational or subsistence utilization of marine species in the Anchorage Bay or Mud Bay areas. Indian Creek Fisheries Resources Historical documentation concerning the Indian Creek system does not exist. This system has recently been listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Stream Catalog; however, it is one of the many streams in the area that is surveyed by the ADF&G annually. According to the FWS, local residents estimate a population of pink salmon ranging from 300 to 1,000 fish. It is not clear, however, whether these estimates were based on pre- or post-1964 earthquake observations. Local opinion also maintains that the pink salmon run was larger and that a small coho salmon population existed in Indian Creek before the 1964 earthquake. The earthquake presumably moved the stream mouth outlet from its former site just behind and east of the gravel spit upon which the Alaska Packers cannery is situated to a location several hundred yards west of this point. However, aerial photos dated August 20, 1963 show the Indian Creek outlet in its current position, suggesting either that local opinion is mistaken as to the date of the alteration or that the aerial photo date is erroneous. The physical characteristics of the stream definitely limit salmon production. A significant velocity barrier exists approximately one mile upstream from the stream's mouth. In all probability, this is the upper limit of anadromous fish migration. Again, local opinion has it that the limit of pink salmon spawning may be restricted to the lower one-half mile of stream. The stream's substrate consists primarily of boulders, large rubble, and cobble with little available gravel for spawning. Three field investigations were conducted during 1982 to ascertain fisheries resources. A 2-day field investigation conducted by FWS personnel on May 14 and 15, 1982 revealed the presence of juvenile pink salmon, Dolly Varden char, and sculpin in the lower reaches of Indian Creek. The timing and duration of this sampling period may not have been optimal to evaluate the abundance of outmigrating pink salmon fry. Pink salmon fry typically emerge from their redds in Alaskan streams from March through May. Nevertheless, this limited sampling effort did establish that pink salmon utilize Indian Creek for spawning, because a 24-hour fyke net set produced a catch of 200 juvenile pink salmon. Additionally, a 24-hour sample with four baited minnow traps captured seven Dolly Varden juveniles and one sculpin. (See Figure EIS II for Fishery Resources.) A subsequent FWS field trip from July 27 to August 2 revealed that juvenile Dolly Varden and sculpin were inhabiting the lower one-half mile of Indian Creek. No adult pink salmon were found, although observations centered on the general timing of adult migration of pink salmon spawners in this area (July 10 through August 30). A field trip to this same area of Indian Creek was conducted during September 6 to 9, 1982, by Middleton & Associates. Helicopter and ground surveillance substantiated previous investigations that fish did not occur in the lake or immediately below the lake. A foot survey 500 yards upstream from the mouth of Indian Creek revealed the presence of eight adult Dolly Varden and one female pink salmon in a gravid, pre -spawning condition. There was no evidence of post -spawners, carcasses, or other salmon species in this area. Alaskan studies of anadromous Dolly Varden char indicate that mature fish use their natal streams to spawn and seek lakes to overwinter. Since Indian Creek Lake is not available for this purpose, these apparently anadromous Dolly Varden probably leave Indian Creek by late November, either to feed or in the ocean or to overwinter in lake systems. Migration from the ocean into freshwater streams can extend from July through October, the latter month being the peak period for spawning. It is apparent that Indian Creek does not support a significant finfish population. At one time, before the 1964 earthquake, it may have supported up to 1,000 pink salmon, but this number is unsubstantiated and unlikely in light of observations made during 1982. Since pink salmon are noted for their "straying" habits, the presence of salmon in the Indian Creek system could possibly be related to population pressures (abundance indicating competition for space between species) in adjacent systems, or even random straying of individual fish. EIS-11 z O J Q N Y. z a z J Q N w W Y. U 0 n>Q �00)- o nou) \r\-,,° �4 W s tJ x 3 > > °os WN ssy O UV Y �� ZW Eti U za N IWO ,C� Y ♦A,\ m oos VVa�� y °4 LOA p N o �U C0� 3 AYg pnw N W > Q z m uj 1- J Q L. 0o0; o W 000; `W W o — N a y0 0 8 a WW a0 t OOS ���- �'i� �/ / /0 EIS-12 Had there been any significant numbers of salmon present, they would have been readily apparent in this small, clearwater stream. Adult pink salmon were still entering the adjacent Mud Bay Creek in early September, so timing was not the factor. It seems another factor involved is the limited streamflows during the winter months, which affect egg incubation requirements and survival of young hatching out from late December through February. Fluctuation of flows in the lower reaches of the creek from June to September may also inhibit upstream migration and the eventual occurrence of pink salmon spawning. Since pink salmon have a distinctive 2-year life cycle, the even and odd year populations are genetically distinctive and may vary considerably in number. If a remnant pink salmon run is maintained in this system, this brood year was a virtual failure. Pink salmon production was generally down in the Chignik Bay District in 1982. (e) Marine The shellfish fishing areas for the Chignik District vary somewhat by species. The tanner and king crab areas approximate the finfish area, extending from Kupreanof Point to the longitude of Cape Kumlik. For shrimp, the boundaries are the Kilokak Rocks on the east and Cape Sarichef on the west. Shellfish production has varied considerably in recent years. King crab production from the Chignik District has averaged 165,000 pounds per season for the past ten years, with a range of 12,000 to 365,000 pounds. Tanner crab production has averaged 4.9 million pounds over the last 8 years, ranging from 2.5 to 6.9 million pounds. The shrimp fishery began in 1968 with a harvest of 900,000 pounds. Peak production occurred during the 1977-78 season, when 71.6 million pounds were landed. Production during the 1981-82 season dropped to 71,000 pounds. Since the peak year of 1977-78, the entire area has been virtually closed to shrimp fishing in order to rebuild the stocks. Shrimp populations have been in a depressed condition in recent years throughout the Chignik-South Peninsula area. Both Dungeness crab and scallop fisheries are sporadic and relatively minor. Herring have been harvested in the general area since 1906. Total annual catches in the early 1900's did not exceed one million pounds. The fishery ended in the late 1930's. Commercial herring fishing recommenced in the Chignik area in 1980, and was directed at sac roe production for export to Japan. In 1980, 48 tons of herring were harvested in Anchorage Bay from May 16 to 21. On May 24, aerial surveys undertaken by ADF&G indicated that 40 tons of herring were present in the area. In 1981, 1,000 tons were observed during the entire season. Fishermen seined schools of fish totaling 3,000 tons to 5,000 tons, but they turned out to be unmarketable spawned -out herring and capelin. No commercial landings of herring were recorded that season. Only 196 tons were harvested in 1982. Mud Bay is extremely shallow and supports a healthy aquatic plant community. Even though no data exist other than the general knowledge that there are clam resources in the area, it is very likely that the aquatic plants are important to a variety of marine life forms. EIS-13 (f) Rare and Endangered Species These species are discussed under the "Environmental Effects" section of this report (see Section (D) (3) (f). 3. SOCIOECONOMICS Project resources did not permit field research on the socioeconomic structures of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. The following material is excerpted from the most recent studies completed in the area (Environmental Services, Ltd. 1982a, b.) (a) Chi gnik 0) Population Date: 1890 1939 1959 1960 1970 1980 Population: 193 224 253 99 83 178 The population of Chignik peaked in 1950 with 253 persons and then decreased dramatically. Between 1970 and 1980, the population increased by 114 percent. Residents report that this increase is primarily due to a healthy economy. The population is 53.4 percent native, mostly Aleut. In 1980, the median ages were 25.3 and 25.2 years for males and females, respectively. The population was 53.4 percent male and 46.6 percent female. During the summer fishing season, approximately 600 to 700 people move to Chignik from Kodiak, Anchorage, Seward, Seattle, and villages throughout the region to fish and work in the cannery. (2) Economy Fishing is the mainstay of the cash economy in Chignik. Beginning around the second week in June, residents prepare to fish for red salmon and successive runs of pink, dog (chum), and silver salmon. Fish are taken in purse seiners and delivered to the local cannery or to Kodiak for freezing. Chignik is the major fishing community in the area, with boats, crews and families from several area villages and elsewhere congregating there during the salmon season. All but a few of the Sea -Alaska cannery employees come from outside the state. The economic well-being of Chignik, as well as the whole region, depends on the success of the salmon fishermen. Salmon runs have been good the last several years. The 1981 Chignik red salmon runs of 3,072,599 fish broke the previous record set in 1888. Runs for other salmon species approached record numbers in 1981. The 103 fishing boats in the Chignik area in 1981 caught a total of $22,090,000 worth of salmon (all species) averaging $214,446 per vessel. Red salmon comprised the major portion of the total catch of 3,621,800 fish. Subsistence is an important part of the residents' lifestyle and native cultural heritage, as well as a major source of food. Salmon are caught by seining from spring until early winter. Marine fish, such as EIS-14 cod, black bass and halibut, are caught year round. Rainbow trout are taken in the winter and summer. Dolly Varden are caught during the summer and early fall. Residents fish for Dungeness, king, and tanner crab, clams and octopus through the year. Moose, caribou, ptarmigan, ducks, and geese are hunted in season (villagers travel extensively for hunting). In the fall, residents pick blueberries, cranberries, mossberries, and salmonberries. (3) Housing Chignik has 48 houses, and the cannery has bunkhouses for its seasonal workers. A few newer houses in good condition are scattered throughout the community; however, most of the houses are in fair to poor condition. Chignik usually has three or four vacancies in the winter, but during the summer fishing season a severe housing shortage occurs. (4) Water The village built a dam on Indian Creek in 1947 to provide a reservoir for the cannery and the village residents. The water is untreated, but of good quality. A line distributes water from the dam to the cannery. Five homes, which have buried lines connected to the main line, have water all winter. Other homes are connected via aboveground lines. These lines often freeze in the winter. When this happens, residents carry water to their homes from the cannery. Six houses and the school have private wells. (5) Solid Waste Trash is burned at an incinerator operated by the cannery. Solid waste that cannot be burned is dumped in a slough whicn empties into Anchorage Bay. This dump site is not approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (b) Chignik Lagoon (1) Population Date: 1960 1980 Population 108 48 There are no early census figures for Chignik Lagoon, nor was the population counted in the 1970 census. The population declined 125 percent from 1960 to 1980. A local census conducted by the village council on October 1, 1981, counted 84 people. The present population is 85.4 percent Native (mostly Aleut). In 1980, the median age was 21.8 years for males and 19.5 for females. The population was 52.1 percent male and 47.9 percent female. In the summer during the salmon season, people from the surrounding area move to Chignik Lagoon to fish. The village population swells to as many as 200 people; an additional 10 live on boats moored offshore. EIS-15 (2) Economy The economy of Chignik Lagoon is similar to that described previously for Chignik; fishing is the mainstay of the economy, and subsistence is an important part of the lifestyle and source of food. Chignik Lagoon does not have a cannery, however. Other employed people in the community include a teacher, a part-time school custodian, a U.S. Postal Service employee, a health aid, and a part-time road maintenance person. (3) Housin Some of the community's 61 single-family houses are new. Others are in substandard condition, but the majority are in good condition. Houses are of wood frame or prefabricated construction. Most are owner built. (4) Water Residents of Chignik Lagoon have individual wells as their water source. The wells average 10 to 30 feet in depth. The school has its own hand -dug well. The water is untreated, but of good quality. (5) Solid Waste Garbage is dumped on the sandy point near the airport and burned, and the tide washes away the residue. The disposal site is not approved by the State Department of Environmental Conservation. 4. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Alaska Peninsula has been of particular interest to anthropologists because, at the time of European contact, three separate ethnic and racial groups existed in this area: Aleuts, Eskimos and Athabaskans. The most recent research on the Peninsula seems to indicate that the Chignik region on the Pacific coast, west to Port Moller on the Bering Sea coast, was the northernmost extent of the Aleutian tradition. The prehistoric boundary between the groups probably fluctuated somewhat throughout time, so precise boundaries cannot be drawn. In historic times, before the start of the canning industry, the westernmost Eskimo village on the Pacific coast of the Peninsula was located on the small peninsula between Chignik and Kujulik Bays, which is north of the study area (Pinart 1871 quoted in Dumond, et al. 1975). At that time, the nearest Aleut settlements to the project area were in the Shumagin Islands to the south and on the Peninsula itself near present day Perryville (Dumond 1974). The early history of the Chignik area is summarized by Dumond, et al. (1975) and is somewhat confusing. The 1880 census indicates that two small Eskimo towns flanked Chignik Bay. By 1889 three canneries were in the bay, and a year later the 1890 census indicates only five remaining (datives. Church records at the end of that decade give conflicting reports of Aleut EIS-16 and Aglemiut (Eskimo) marriages and births, possibly reflecting white confusion of terminology about these Natives. Dumond, Conton and Shields conclude that the "bulk of the evidence suggests Chignik Natives were Eskimo". Currently the village participates in the Bristol Bay Native Corporation (Eskimo). (a) Previous Archeological Studies The University of Oregon performed some archeological surveys and excavations in the Chignik area as part of a long term program on Alaska Peninsula prehistory. Several sites were located and tested on the Chignik River between Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon as a result of this program (see Dumond 1975 for map). The majority of these sites have assemblages closely related to those from the Hot Springs collection at Port roller and other collections from Izembek Lagoon at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula (Henn 1978; Dumond, et a.l. 1976). The chipped stone assemblage is almost exclusively of basalt; there is no pottery and little slate. The sites may date to roughly 2000 B.C. Clearly, Chignik's affiliation is to the Aleutian traditions to the south in its Alaska Peninsula manifestation, which is distinct from the Aleutian proper, but even more distinct from Eskimo traditions. One site on the Chignik River, Alaska Historic Resources Survey (AHRS) No. CHK 011, includes Thule -like material indicating some Eskimo influence or influx in the second millenium A.D. Near the project areas, Dumond found a site, AHRS No. CHK 010, located behind the uppermost houses at the upstream end of Chignik Lagoon village. Ten specimens were collected that were similar to the Chignik River Aleutian tradition material. The site was obscured by modern construction. Another site was located at the present landing strip at Chignik (Alaska Division of Parks, June 1976). Strip construction destroyed the site, and its cultural affiliation is unknown. (b) Field Reconnaissance (1) Chignik Two days were spent surveying the Chignik area. Damsite, powerhouse site, penstock route, and transmission line route were all scrutinized. Intensive visual coverage was given to the project area. Vegetation and landforms were scanned for any anomalies and soil exposures were studied. Four judgmental shovel test pits were excavated on the banks of Indian Creek. EIS-17 The area near the present village is highly disturbed. Recent and old bulldozer activity can be noted as well as rubble from old canneries that have been razed in the past. No prehistoric remains were found, and it is highly unlikely that any could survive the intensive modern occupation. The gravel deposits of Indian Creek indicate a great volurne of runoff in the spring. The banks do not seem very stable in the lower reaches. No cultural remains were noted. The damsite and penstock are located in a high, rugged area where aboriginal use would not be expected. They were checked, however, due to the possibility of historic remains. None were noticed. The picturesque wooden pipe which constitutes the village's water supply follows this route, yet it apparently postdates World War II. (2) Chignik Lagoon The methodology used at Chignik Lagoon was the same as that at Chignik. Site CHK 010, reported by Dumond (1975), was not located. It may be that very recent construction had totally obscured this site or that the proper area was not tested. The Corps project should not impact the area Dumond describes, although it is possible that power distribution to individual houses could have marginal impact. Local people were unaware of a site. The area north of the mouth of Packers Creek exhibited rubble from what locals indicated was an old cannery. The rubble consisted of brick fragments, concrete chunks, rusted metal, etc. There were no significant remains. The old cemetery on a hill overlooking Chignik Lagoon is quite interesting. It includes some marble gravestones of people who died in the 19th century. Birthplaces represented include Norway, Sweden, Finland and New Jersey. This would not be impacted by the project. Paralleling Packers Creek for at least a half mile is a decrepit wood stave pipe. Upstream are the remains of a timber wing dam. Apparently, this constitutes the remains of the water supply system built by a cannery earlier in the century. D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Certain small modifications of the existing topography at the Indian Creek project location would result from construction of a new dam. Excavations to key the proposed structure into the metamorphosed sandstones (whicn would serve as the rock abutments in the valley walls) would require drilling and shooting with explosives. EIS-18 Some limited soil excavation may occur along the proposed penstock alinement for the Indian Creek proposed hydropower development. The raising of the lake level after dam construction is not expected to lead to significant slope failures into the reservoir. Certain small modifications of the existing topography at Mud Bay Lake Creek would result from construction of a new dam and spillway. Excavations to key the structures into the sandstones (which would serve as the rock abutments in the valley walls) would require drilling and shooting with explosives. 1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No existing water quality data exists for Indian Creek or Mud Bay Lake Creek. However, visual observations of the water during brief field visits suggest that the existing streams exhibit high clarity and low turbidity. Increases in turbidity can be expected during the construction phase of a dam and spillway on either creek. These increases would be localized and of short duration. Long-term increases in stream turbidity are not expected, particularly with proper design of project water intakes and tailraces. The low level of existing turbidity in both Mud Bay Lake and the Indian Creek Reservoir suggest that sediment entrapment behind the proposed structures would be insignificant. Existing streamflow would be impacted in the reach of both streams between the water intake structures and the powerhouse. Indian Creek would essentially be dewatered in the impacted reach of the stream during certain months of the year. 2. ESTHETICS Construction of a new dam, penstock, and powerhouse on Indian Creek would have little impact on the existing esthetic values of Indian Creek. The new dam would be constructed very near the site of an existing timber dam on Indian Creek. The proposed penstock would closely follow the route of an existing water supply pipeline to the village of Chignik. The location of the proposed powerhouse is very near the existing cannery. A visible scar would exist along the lakeshore between the water line at full pool elevation and the pool elevation when the pool is at maximum drawdown. The Indian Creek reservoir does not support a migratory fish population, and therefore its recreational sport fishing value is minimal. The isolation of Mud Bay Lake virtually precludes its use for a recreational sport fishery. Therefore, recreational impacts are considered minimal in either stream system. Positive esthetic benefits would be gained in both scenarios from the decreased usage of the diesel generators now in operation in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. EIS-19 3. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES (a) vegetation Assuming that a high dam on Indian Creek Lake is infeasible and that a feasible alternative is to increase the existing lake level by about 3 vertical feet to slightly increase its storage capacity, very little environmental impact is expected to occur. The steep talus topography of the lake edge supports limited plant and animal communities, at least partially because of the action of winter ice cover on the shoreline and seasonal changes of the lake level. The potential 15-foot vertical drawdown zone around the lake would appear as a more visible scar on the lake periphery compared to the existing zone of limited plant and animal communities. Construction of the dam and penstock would require heavy equipment such as bulldozers, front-end loaders, and hauling equipment that presumably would be brought to the site by way of the penstock alinement and connecting pioneer road. A 12-foot cat trail for hauling material would be required in place of the 5- to 6-foot-wide path that now follows the wood stave penstock. Assuming that the penstock is about 5,500 feet long to the upper limit of the bluff behind the village, and that the vegetation within the 10-foot wide alinement corridor would be removed, a worst case situation would require disruption of about 2.16 acres of predominantly closed tall alder habitat, including associated understory plants and dependent vista. This represents about 0.6 percent of the available habitat of that type in the project area, and 0.3 percent of the total cover considered in our analysis. Regeneration would begin immediately following the completion of construction activities and would be stabilized in a few years. The landscape would gradually return to its natural state in most areas when bedrock was not left exposed. (b) Wildlife The proposed construction and operation of the Indian Creek hydroelectric developments would have minor impacts on wildlife. Loss of the 2.16 acres of closed tall alder scrub and its understory vegetation would undoubtedly cause temporary reduction of small mammal populations that are important food items for furbearers and for limited numbers of raptorial birds that were not defined in this study. No serious impact upon those predators, nor upon the minor use of small mammals for food by brown bears, can be expected. Assuming a linear relationship between loss of cover and small mammal populations, the 0.6 percent loss expected in a worst case situation would be impossible to detect in field studies. It is EIS-20 also doubtful whether the food chain effects of such loss on the upper trophic levels (foxes, weasels, wolverines, wolves, and bears) can be realistically judged as measurable or even as being greater than normal variations in availability that occur as a result of population variations, weather conditions, or other natural influences. About seven small tributaries to Indian Creek would be crossed by the Indian Creek penstock, and the crossings would provide underpasses for bear and other game animals that may occupy some ranges traversed by the penstock. The wider roadway constructed for the project, along the penstock, may provide a trail for wildlife and expedite their travel for short distances, but would also prove attractive for human travel by all -terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The benefits to wildlife would probably be offset by more interactions with humans in terms of trapping, shooting, or other harassment. (c) Birds Impacts to bird populations in the Indian Creek drainage would probably result mainly from destruction of nesting, resting and brood -rearing habitats by removing brush and associated vegetation along the penstock right-of-way. As noted previously, this loss is considered to be very slight (0.6 percent of the available habitat) and at least partially temporary. Construction activities would occupy at least 12 months; some disruption of nesting birds would occur. No known eyries of raptorial birds have been identified in the project area but may, nevertheless, exist. Blasting of bedrock and other noise of construction equipment may have detrimental effects on nesting birds that probably would not be measurable. Effects of lake reservoir operations as a part of the hydroelectric operations would probably be minimal, although insufficient information on several wildlife species precludes definitive evaluations. (d) Fisheries Indian Creek System The construction of a new dam and the resultant rise of 5 feet in the lake level would have no effect on fisheries resources in Indian Creek Lake, since it does not support any fish due to the velocity barrier below the rock cut spillway. The proposed hydroelectric facility would essentially dewater Indian Creek. Therefore, the most direct environmental effect upon fisheries resources is the loss of this habitat in Indian Creek proper, and in particularly, the lower one-half mile of stream below an apparent velocity barrier. This loss involves a remnant (approximately 50 -100) pink salmon population. Documentation of this pink salmon population is virtually nonexistent except for local opinion and limited field observations made during 1982. Additionally, a population of presumably EIS-21 anadromous Dolly Varden char resides in the lower portion of Indian Creek during various life stages. This population is considered small on the basis of available data. No documentation or reports exist of commercial, recreational, or subsistence use of fisheries resources specific to Indian Creek. Therefore, no loss in terms of economic, esthetic, or subsistence values can be attributed to the project from a fisheries standpoint. Construction of a penstock access and service roadbed or trail should not present any special concerns relative to fisheries resources. The proposed penstock routing is well removed from Indian Creek except in the area immediately below the dam, where special attention should be paid to minimizing any long term erosion problems that would further detract from existing stream conditions. One alternative relating to the Indian Creek fisheries resources concerns the location of the powerplant and the subsequent tailrace configuration. One option that has been suggested would site the powerplant at the base of the hillside immediately behind the village with a tailrace ditch to the tidewater. However, this particular option would require an open ditch between the powerplant and the tailrace outlet, creating some concern for the freshwater pond environment through which the ditch would pass. (e) Marine The hydroelectric project is not expected to generate any significant marine environmental impacts. (f) Rare and Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was requested to investigate the presence of threatened or endangered species near the Indian Creek system. The response indicated that the agency was not aware of any threatened or endangered species within the influence of the proposed project. 4. SOCIOECONOMICS (a) Chignik (Indian Creek) The socioeconomic effects of the hydropower facility can be addressed in two sections: Effects during construction and effects during operation. The major socioeconomic effects during construction would be occasioned by the construction labor force, which would move.into the community during the construction period. Housing accommodations in Chignik are scarce in the summer, and more people may place further strain upon the housing situation. However, the community is accustomed to influxes of large numbers of people for the fishing season, and the additional construction labor force should not significantly change the existing situation. EIS-22 Construction of the facility does offer the potential for local employment, particularly if such activities are conducted during the spring, fail, and winter seasons when fishing and canning activities are at low levels. The number of jobs available for local residents is expected to be small. When operational, the hydropower facility would provide lower cost power than is currently provided to community residents and the cannery. This would result in a substantial savings to local residents and would reduce the cost of operating the cannery, making it more competitive in the market place and thereby helping to insure that the cannery remains a major element in the local cash economy. One person may be required part-time to assist in scheduled maintenance for the utility, in addition to the maintenance person now employed for the diesel generating facilities. It is expected that this additional person would be a current resident of Chignik. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES No cultural resource impacts at Indian Creek should result from this project. E. MITIGATION 1. PHYSICAL Slight topographic changes resulting from project activities are unavoidable. These impacts on the physical environment are negligible. Impacts to the hydrologic system can be mitigated by proper diversion and care of surface water during the construction phase, and through minimizing siltation from construction activities within or near the stream channel. Reduction or elimination of channel flow within the reach of the streams between the water intake structures and the powerhouse is unavoidable. Impacts to the esthetic value of Indian Creek can be minimized by reducing the usual contrasts of project facilities with surrounding terrain, and through minimizing construction activities along the proposed intertie transmission corridor, perhaps through helicopter assisted placement of wooden poles. EIS-23 2. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES (a) Vegetation, Wildlife, and Birds Design, construction, and operational details of the Indian Creek project and its alternatives have not been sufficiently defined to allow an in-depth consideration of potential mitigation measures. In general, the terrestrial wildlife impacts could be mitigated most effectively by adopting sound environmental practices. Major impacts on the wetlands area between Chignik and the steep bluff behind the village can be avoided by locating the powerhouse on the sand near the cannery. Widening of the penstock right-of-way should be engineered to remove a minimum of habitat and to avoid sidehill erosion. Exposed soil should be planted with grass to avoid erosion until natural regeneration can occur. (b) Fish In terms of the benefit -cost ratio for this project, the extremely limited fisheries resources involved, and the documented needs and desires of local and regional concerns, mitigation does not appear to be realistic for the Indian Creek system's fisheries. While it has been suggested by FWS that a tailrace spawning facility for pink salmon be designed as a part of the final project, the question arises.as to what purpose such a facility would serve. Based on available information, the Indian Creek system accommodates no commercial, recreational, or subsistence uses of fisheries resources. If the object of mitigation is to enhance the system's fisheries beyond existing known natural conditions, then perhaps such a proposal could be justified. However, it may be difficult to justify a substantial outlay of public funds to create, or even to sustain, an unknown but definitely small fisheries resource without a rationally determined end point It appears from hydrological information, that adequate streamflows are unavailable year-round particularly during the incubation months of January through March. The lower reach of the creek in April has been sighted as a dewatered, gravel/cobble surface, although intragravel seepage may exist to sustain a pink salmon rearing habitat. On the basis of streamflow limitations, FWS recommendations for instream flow releases see supplemental letter appended to final CA report) cannot be accepted as a valid mitigative measure. In addition, information concerning the enumeration of adult pink spawners, location of pink spawning activity, and other fish use, has been inadequate and again may not justify incorporating instream releases as a project feature. Opportunities for future studies may better increase our understanding of the level of fish productivity in the creek system. The State of Alaska has issued water rights to the Alaska Packers cannery (case Serial No. 46D26) appropriating 2,000 gallons of water per minute (4.46 cubic feet per second) from Indian Creek. This means that the available streamflows from January through March would be totally consumed, since the maximum flow is 4.42 cfs in February. The region's relatively rich resource -based economy is geared to the adjacent, highly productive Chignik River -Lagoon area. EIS-24 F. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT During the project scoping process, four public meetings were held in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. The most recent meeting was held on 31 May 1983. The meeting was well attended, and the information provided was well accepted. Participants were informed of current project evaluations and briefed on the procedural steps for submittal of the final report which would be sent to the village for their review. Corps personnel also explained that alternative plans were available to the village if this route for power generation was not favorable. Between June 1981 and the present, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has submitted two planning aid letters and a Coordination Act Report. In March 1982, a joint effort between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and FWS was initiated. Both agencies participated in field investigations with Corps personnel at Chignik. Correspondence requesting ADF&G Habitat Division participation is provided in Appendix C. G. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT The villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are both within the Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) established by the Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program (BBCMP). However, at the present time, the Management Program for this area has not yet been finalized. All developmental activities within the CRSA must be consistent with the stipulations of the BBCMP. The proposed hydropower project will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. This determination is based upon the description in this document of the proposed project and its effects, and upon an evaluation of the relevant provisions of the management program. A completed coastal project questionaire will be submitted to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination, concurrently with publication of the Final Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, to initiate the State's project consistency review. EIS-25 TABLE EIS-V ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ACMP) CONSISTENCY EVALUATION ACriP REQUIREMENTS (6 AAC 80.) REFERENCE PAGE USES AND ACTIVITIES 040. Coastal development N/A 050. Geophysical hazard areas Pages EIS-10 and EIS-11 060. Recreation N/A 070. Energy facilities Page EIS-1 080. Transportation and utilities Pages EIS-1 and EIS-2 090. Fish and seafood processing Pages EIS-13 and EIS-14 100. Timber harvest and processing N/A 110. Mining and mineral processing N/A 120. Subsistence Pages EIS-14 and EIS-15 RESOURCES AND HABITATS 130. Habitats (1) Offshore areas Pages EIS-10 and EIS-13 (2) Estuaries Page tIS-7 (3) Wetlands and tideflats Pages EIS-7 and EIS-13 (4) Rocky islands and seacliffs Page EIS-9 (5) Barrier islands and lagoons Page EIS-9 (6) Exposed high energy coasts Page EIS-9 (7) Rivers, streams, and lakes Pages EIS-10, EIS-11, EIS-21 and EIS-22 (8) Important upland habitat Pages EIS-8 and EIS-17 140. Air, land and water quality Pages EIS-18 and EIS-19 150. Historic, prehistoric, and Pages EIS-16, EIS-17, and EIS-18 archeological resources EIS-26 List of Preparers Role in Name Discipline Experience Preparing Ms. Linda S. Ferrell Biology 3 112 years, EIS, 'Coordinator Environmental Studies, Alaska District Ms. Julia Steele Archaeology 1 year, graduate Prepared Cultural field work in Resources Section Alaska and New York. of EIS. 1 year archeologist, Dept. of Interior. 3 years, Archeologist, Corps of Engineers. Ron Maj Civil 2 112 years, Study Manager Engineering Consultant; 2 years Alaska District STATEMENT RECIPIENTS A complete listing of Draft EIS recipients is included in Appendix C. EIS-27 INDEX SUBJECT PAGES Affected Environment EIS-2 Alternatives EIS-1 Plans Eliminated from Further Study EIS-1 Diesel Generation EIS-1 Wind Power EIS-2 Hydropower - Indian Creek EIS-2 Without Conditions EIS-2 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives EIS-2 Coastal Zone Management EIS-25 Environmental Effects EIS-18 Historical/Archeological Resources EIS-16 Need for and Objectives of Action EIS-1 Study Authority EIS-1 Public Concern EIS-1 Planning Objectives EIS-1 Mitigation EIS-23 Physical EIS-23 Significant Resources EIS-24 Public Involvement EIS-25 Significant Resources EIS-24 Air and Noise EIS - Birds EIS-9 Esthetics EIS-6 Fisheries EIS-9 Hydrology/Walter Quality EIS-19 Marine EIS-13 Rare and Endangered Species EIS-14 Vegetation EIS-6 Wildlife EIS-7 Socioeconomics EIS-14 Summary EIS-ii EIS-28 Literature Cited Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1981. Chignik Management Area Finfish Annual Report. Division of Commercial Fisheries, Kodiak, AK. 118 pp. .1982. South Peninsula and Chignik Area Shellfish Management Report to Alaska Board of Fisheries. Division of Commercial Fisheries, Kodiak, AK. 21 pp. •1982. Freshwater Habitat Relationships, Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma (Walbaum . Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK. 38 pp. 1981. Freshwater Habitat Relationships, Pink Salmon, Oncorhyunchus gorbuscha. Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK. 44 pp. 1981. Freshwater Habitat Relationships, Chum Salmon, Oncorhynchus keta. Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK. 81 pp. Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc., 1982. Preliminary Feasibility Report of Small Hydropower. Atwell, G., D.L. Boone, J. Gustafson, and V.D. Berns. 1981. "Brown Bear Summer Use of Alpine Habitat on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge," pp. 297-305. In: Bears -- Their Biology and Management. Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No. 3, C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.). U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Bailey, E.P., and N.H. Faust. 1980. "Summer Distribution and Abundance of Marine Birds and Mammals in the Sandman Reefs, Alaska." The Murrelet 61:6-19. Dames & Moore. 1982. Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Environmental Report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. 228 pp. Dumond, Don E. 1974. "Prehistoric Ethnic Boundaries on the Alaska Peninsula" Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1). 1975. Archeological Research on the Alaska Peninsula, 1975 Report to the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, on research conducted under permits 75-AK-048, 75-AK-051. Prepared with the assistance of Winfield Henn. , Leslie Conton and Harvey Shields. 1975. "Eskimos and Aleuts on the Alaska Peninsula: A Reappraisal of Port Ivioller Affinities." Arctic Anthropology 12 (1). , Winfield Henn and Robert Stuckenrath. 1976. "Archeology and Prehistory on the Alaska Peninsula." Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 18 (1). Invironmental Services, Ltd. 1982a. Community Profile of Chignik, Alaska (Draft). Prepared for Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs. EIS-29 1982b. Community Profile of Chignik Lagoon, Alaska (Draft). Prepared for Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs. Forsell„ D.J. and P.J. Gould. 1981. Distribution and Abundance of Marine Birds and Mammals Wintering in the Kodiak Area of Alaska. U.S. Dept. Interior Report FWS/OBS-81/31. USDUI, Washington, D.C. Gill, R.E., Jr., M.R. Petersen, and P.D. Jorgensen. 1981. "Birds of the Northcentrai Alaska Peninsula, 1976-1980." Arctic 34:286-306. Glenn, L.P. and L.H. Miller. 1980. "Seasonal Movements of an Alaskan Peninsula Brown Bear Population," pp. 307-312. In: Bears -- Their Biology and Management, C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.) Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No. 3, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C. Harding, L. and J.A. Nagy. 1980. "Responses of Grizzly Bears to Hydrocarbon Exploration on Richards Island, Northwest Territories Canada," pp. 277- 280. In: Bears -- Their Biology and Management, Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No. 3, C.J. M artinka and K.L. McArthur eds.) U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Henn, Winfield. 1978. "The Ugashik Drainage: Archeology on the Alaska Peninsula." University of Oregon Anthropological Papers. Jones, J.K., Jr., D.C. Carter, and N.H. Genoways. 1979. "Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 1979." Occas. Papers Mus. Texas Tech. Univ. 62:1-17. Kessel, B. 1979. "Avian Habitat Classification for Alaska." The Murrelet 60:86-94. Klinkhart, E.G. (comp.). 1978. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, vol. II, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Print Northwest, Tacoma, Washington. Lentfer, J.W. and R.J. Hensel, L.H. Miller, L.P. Glenn, and V.D. Berns. 1972. "Remarks on Denning Habits of Alaska Brown Bears," pp. 125-137. In: Bears -- Their Biology and Management, IUCN publ. N.S. No. 23. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland. McLean, R.F. and K.J. Delaney (comp.). 1978. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas vols. I & II, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Print Northwest, Tacoma, Washington. Manville, R.H. and S.P. Young. 1965. Distribution of Alaskan Mammals. bureau Sport Fish. Wildl. Circ. 211. U.S. Govt Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Miller, D., E.L. Boeker, R.S. Thorsell and R.R. Olendorff. 1975. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Provo, Utah. 20 pp. Miller, G.S., Jr. and R. Kellogg. 1955. List of North American Recent Mammals. U.S. National Mus. Bull. 205. Smithsonian Inst., Washington/D.C. EIS-30 Narver, D.W. 1970. "Birds of the ChigniK River Drainage, Alaska." Condor 70: 102-105. Payne, J.T. and S.R. Braund. 1981. North Aleutian Shelf Basin Sociocultural Systems Analysis. Draft Final Technical Report, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program. BLM-OCS Contract No. AA851-CTO-33. 21 pp. Salter, T.E., M.A. Gollop, S.R. Johnson, W.R. Koski, and C.E. Tull. 1980. "Distribution and Abundance of Birds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Northern Yukon and Adjacent Northwest Territories, 1971-1976." Canadian Field - Natur. 9:219-238. Selkregg, L.L. 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles -- Southcentral Region. Univ. Alaska Env. Inform. Data Center, Anchorage. 255 pp. Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of Alaska Seabird Colonies. U.S. Dept. Interior Report FWS/OBS-78/18. Viereck, L.A. and E.L. Little, Jr. 1972. Alaska Trees and Shrubs. Agriculture Handbook No. 410. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, and A.R. Batten. 1982. 1982 revision of preliminary draft classification for vegetation of Alaska. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service (in press). Update of General Technical Report PNW-106, 72 pp. Vroom, G.W., S. Herrero, and R.T. Ogilvie. 1980. "The Ecology of Winter Den Sites of Grizzly Dears in Banff National Park, Alberta," pp 321-330. In: Bears -- Their Biology and Management, Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No./3, C.J. ivlartinka and K.L. McArthur eds.). U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. EIS-31 APPENDIX A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS T.1 General T.2 Hydrology T.3 Geology T.4 Dam and Foundation T.5 Spillway T.6 Powerhouse T.7 Tailrace T.8 Construction Procedures T.9 Operation, Maintenance, T.10 Economic Analysis T.11 Project Cost Estimates T.12 Project Economics Appendix A Technical Analysis Table of Contents and Replacement A- 1 A- 1 A-13 A-18 A-21 A-21 A-24 A-24 A-24 A-25 A-28 A-29 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS T.1 GENERAL The tentatively selected plan for hydropower development on Indian Creek is a diversion project, which has an installed capacity of 1,100 kW (See Plate 1). Minor storage would be available for short periods of operation only. The tentatively recommended plan would consist of a 24-foot timber buttress dam 5,500 feet of 34-inch steel lined penstock, and a powerhouse with 2-550 kW Francis turbines. As a provision for water supply to the community and the cannery, the existing water supply penstock would be maintained during and after construction. T.2 HYDROLOGY T.2.1 Climate The village of Chignik is located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula and is partially protected from the most severe southerly Pacific storms by a ridge of mountains rising to 3,000 feet. Freauent cyclonic storms crossing the Northern Pacific and the Bering Sea are the predominant weather factors. These storms account for the frequent high winds and the frequent occurrence of fog and low visibility. The climate at Chignik is basically maritime due to the nearness of extensive open ocean areas. Temperature extremes, both seasonal and diurnal, are generally confined to fairly narrow limits, with differences between maximum and minimum temperatures for all individual months averaging less than 150 F. Temperatures below Oo F are unusual. However, they do occur in occasional years when the Bering Sea freezes and allows the influx of cold continental air. Precipitation of more than one -hundredth of an inch occurs about 170 days per year. The greatest observed precipitation rate is 7.3 inches in 24 hours. Snow has been observed every month except June, July, August and September. The greatest recorded monthly snowfall was 31 inches in February, 1931. The beginning of spring is late; vegetation begins to grow in late May. August is regarded as midsummer and autumn arrives early in October. The greatest frequency of fog occurs from mid -July to mid -September. A summary of climatic conditions is shown on Table A-1. A-1 M c _ -K < cc N _ . .- O v\ O C L7 ^ C Cr 'S; C G Cz w C M N N Ln tw c '- � N � G, M Q 1 CD M N M Ln c N ,- c '- .- .--- !\ f- -k Z '- O M s t Gl M O •- r- c r� tD N O O O E Ln C CC O O c M M l0 .- r- r- �,_, ,- N� M f- � .- •- O r- * Z � O ,_ N +% M O c t G Iz Ln c r- N r\ ^� O N N r o W -� w Or--c �. CM-, I\c� '^ W Ln N�c c^ c^i c^i Cn O cc cc QD ZD ram-- O I C I # N Ln c W O M O z wc;, r-- � �'^ C J W . r� M G'. c cc -Dc G� cN ,� �G GIM Cl ry F„y � r\ r-- M •- c' M ,- ✓^ CJ' r G ` C + Ln N J 0 w Z O N c M c C c�O ^ O -I'r- F- O O -D c c r a< N- W < U G � Ln M Gl Gl G� :C) Cil Cl >r Gl cc d CO t0 N �'� O • '� O N tv LJ.J G M .- G G G' N \ - N J •--- ct r- ,- ,_,,, .- Ln � is < <C'i O M N C CL] vl i r- c ICJ �D Gl G7 c C C1 C'li N C,, .-ZC r- c.' '- -K Z co i � O + _ CT i N 1p .- C' NOn cz OOv Cn M C con W � � 7 n \ Gl � Gl w � N Gl " 7 � N Gl � ✓1 V rW 7X Z i O M O r- N N O C O C G G �O Nr� :J �M N N C\' N Ccom ,- Cl - G Gl Gl '._,'"1 . !� Gl . Gl M � W U CD Q' U N C 1 r- U •--- f� .- N ,- M. X N O O •- C CD < U i C Q. v w C O O Uj ro ro E ¢ ;n N _U N O QJ O p + L VI'- "', i i 1 O r4 i ., i + + U Z .r s- � X C) J J i J i ;J ;J i ?J L u U i � Z H zi: ` p C- A-2 T.2.2 Basin Description Above the damsite, Indian Creek has a drainage area of 3 square miles. The basin ranges in elevation from 3,430 feet at the highest point to a low of about 442 feet on the existino 20-acre reservoir. The basin is sparsely vegetated; bedrock and talus slopes predominate. The basin is open to the northwest and partially shielded from the predominant southerly Pacific storms by the mountains on its southern boundary. T.2.3 Streamflow A stream gaging station was established near the proposed dam site in April 1982. Therefore, a synthetic 50-year sequence of monthly average streamflows was developed for Indian Creek. The synthetic record was developed using records from precipitation stations and streams in the region having similar size and characteristics to the basins under consideration. The Corps of Engineers computer program "Monthly Streamflow Simulations" (NEC-4) was employed to develop statistics from these similar streams. The limited rainfall record available at Chignik was extended by correlation with precipitation records from stations in the region having longer records. An attempt was made to explain the minor variation of standard deviations, skews and serial correlation coefficients of monthly runoff by correlations with known basic characteristics and precipitation. No significant correlations were achieved. Therefore, the mean values from the study were adopted as regional coefficients. The mean monthly flows were derived from runoff from Myrtle Creek near Kodiak and Spruce Creek near Seward. The adopted monthly means, standard deviations, skews and precedinc month serial correlation coefficients of logs of monthly flows are listed in Table A-2. Fifty-year sequences of simulated monthly average streamflows were generated by means of HEC-4 for Indian Creek (See Table A-3). These simulatea records represent the best estimate possible of a synthetic Streamflow record having the same statistical properties as those that would have been obtained by actual measurement at the site. This record was employed in the hydropower evaluations with an allowance made for water supply (See Table A-4). The gage data obtained to date was compared to the average for the 50-year sequence, and it was found that the assumptions made in synthesizing the 50-year sequence were reasonable (see Figure A-1). No adjustments were made due to the short period of record of the gage data. A-3 TABLE A-2 Adopted Monthly Streamflow Indian Creek Log Mean Monthly Discharge Standard Month (cfs) Deviation January 0.45 0.35 February 0.53 0.34 March 0.28 0.36 April 1.31 0.22 May 1.71 0.18 June 1.72 0.14 July 1.36 0.17 August 1.41 0.21 September 1.57 0.19 October 1.52 0.30 November 1.41 0.38 December 1.32 0.35 Statistics Serial Skew Correlation Coefficient Coefficient -0.35 0.56 -0.53 0.66 -1.76 0.58 -0.34 0.50 0.62 0.44 -1.32 0.06 0.11 0.40 -0.44 0.51 0.61 0.03 0.26 0.11 -0.29 0.32 0.16 0.50 Indian Creek Table A-3 YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2.2 1.4 1.1 16.9 30.0 67.4 30.0 21.1 78.1 41.4 3.6 4.57 2 .9 1.5 1.2 31.9 42.8 74.1 30.8 32.3 57.8 19.0 7.5 34.19 3 5.4 5.1 2.7. 24.1 58.7 69.4 39.7 53.8 54.1 35.9 18.7 23.84 4 4.1 2.6 .5 14.5 68.5 16.1 12.7 22.2 29.4 256.8 13.3 9.74 5 1.9 .9 .3 35.7 61.5 68.4 45.0 26.2 37.9 14.4 33.5 17.96 6 2.8 3.6 1.0 7.9 53.2 71.9 29.4 60.3 26.1 33.6 78.1 24.32 7 2.9 .9 1.3 17.0 51.4 77.4 34.7 15.3 21.1 20.9 25.8 27.30 8 5.8 1.1 .1 27.9 49.3 75.7 48.1 39.7 31.8 10.9 6.6 15.44 9 6.8 2.1 1.8 22.2 41.5 27.2 17.6 37.1 80.6 101.1 80.4 11.82 10 2.8 7.0 3.2 30.9 75.1 71.4 24.6 34.1 50.0 54.9 76.1 58.23 11 3.8 4.1 .8 17.0 48.7 50.5 29.1 11.0 27.2 11.1 76.1 4.82 12 .5 .7 1.0 7.6 25.3 63.6 18.2 33.3 49.7 72.4 165.8 218.78 13 14.5 5.7 1.0 25.8 40.0 37.6 9.2 11.1 44.7 55.7 29.1 47.26 14 3.8 8.2 4.3 50.4 79.8 50.3 24.1 24.0 26.2 24.5 32.5 7.34 15 1.2 1.7 3.4 15.3 73.9 69.6 33.4 35.8 34.9 32.5 22.5 10.35 16 4.6 7.6 2.2 14.0 98.6 62.1 33.4 56.9 56.4 16.8 22.1 30.74 17 2.7 3.8 3.5 25.6 33.0 66.7 31.5 35.0 60.4 40.6 26.0 20.19 18 2.3 3.8 3.4 23.8 56.3 55.6 37.7 18.7 50.8 33.5 55.0 47.43 19 8.1 12.2 3.8 22.4 40.1 41.8 16.6 13.5 30.3 29.7 19.1 24.40 20 4.4 9.3 2.0 14.9 32.5. 31.7 17.6 • 27.1 52.8 13.7 15.5 13.61 21 3.4 7.5 3.7 23.5 49.6 10.7 12.5 41.2 35.2 25.9 25.4 23.95 22 3.8 9.7 1.9 18.1 26.6 77.8 23.5 14.1 14.8 23.2 44.4 25.87 23 3.8 1.6 3.1 19.0 35.3 51.7 31.0 41.2 19.1 27.3 45.2 21.25 24 3.0 6.1 4.5 21.2 48.8 64.6 38.6 35.8 35.2 80.4 11.7 36.43 ' 25 4.5 7.8 4.4 20.8 36.0 54.4 28.5 41.5 36.7 23.2 36.3 71.12 26 15.2 4.7 2.1 19.6 157.3 54.6 24.3 21.6 31.0 153.5 23.1 16.66 27 2.1 2.3 .3 8.5 30.1 45.6 13.2 11.0 20.4 37.0 21.5 54.55 28 5.0 5.9 3.6 32.2 60.5 43.5 18.7 26.4 43.5 31.7 3.8 8.20 29 .4 2.0 3.3 10.0 43.5 63.5 21.1 22.7 28.5 16.6 17.8 19.93 30 2.4 3.2 2.5 12.2 31.5 44.5 17.3 30.3 42.2 21.1 28.0 23.02 31 3.0 2.7. .8 27.9 43.2 56.7 18.4 29.6 28.5 10.6 6.9 7.97, 32 1.6 2.3 2.7 24.2 38.1 70.3 27.8 28.4 38.0 23.3 20.1 31.19 33 3.1 6.6 4.5 10.8 53.6 52.5 20.4 30.1 59.3 20.9 9.8 2.95 34 .4 2.4 4.4 35.9 94.9 46.7 18.0 10.8 45.7 33.4 111.4 21.55 35 2.4 5.3 3.3 71.2 112.7 65.5 19.8 23.8 31.2 28.5 19.6 12.92 36 .8 5.2 1.4 14.4 29.9 63:5 16.6 33.4 26.1 38.2 29.5 32.77 37 6.4 10.9 4.1 29.9 95.8 51.1 19.1 30.1 45.8 128.9 47.8 15.21 38 1.9 .6 .5 20.3 53.6 50.5 35.2 62.5 42.4 42.7 27.4 20.40 39 2.2 3.7 2.5 29.9 56.5 74.8 37.0 33.5 44.3 37.4 69.6 11.48 40 3.3 4.5 .4 15.0 33.3 73.7 23.6 21._2 33.5 56.5 126.3 94.25 41 2.3 3.6 2.8 30.1 76.1 40.1 11.8 6.8 23.5 24.4 27.4 13.98 42 .8 .4 3.2 28.6 63.9 65.6 39.3 42.3 38.4 58.5 29.3 41.92 43 2.4 3.9 2.2 17.5 44.5 45.4 15.8 14.7 28.4 31.0 9.5 8.03 44 9.9 6.5 2.2 20.8 56.7 35.6 12.7 22.3 28.2 33.2 80.9 26.77 45 3.9 4.2 4.8 60.6 129.3 48.7 13.0 22.0 16.4 7.9 6.7 17.16 46 1.8 2.5 1.9 20.0 89.8 61.3 30.0 26.5 93.5 64w2 29.5 56.33 47 3.0 2.6 1.9_ 12.3 43.8 43.1 17.6 12.0 69.0 97.2 20.9 22.71 48 1.6 1.9 2.8 31.5 52.7 54.1 16.7 31.5 53.1 30.5 10.2 9.84 49 2.0 5.1 2.4 5.9 30.9 49.6 • 23.9 39.1 18.3 16.0 72.0 54.46 50 12.2 12.1 4.2 17.0 38.8 • 53.5 24:0 18.4 47.4 45.7 17.5 15.42 A-5 Table A-4 WATER DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN CREEK Average CFS Left After CFS Available for Monthly Cannery Water CFS Left After Hydroelectric & Month Flow 1/ Right Use 2/ Cannery Use 3/ Fishery Use 4/ Jan 3.80 None 2.24 None Feb 4.42 None 2.86 None Mar 2.42 None None None Apr 23.09 18.69 19.45 18.69 May 56.23 51.83 52.71 51.83 Jun 55.23 50.83 51.59 50.83 Jul 24.65 20.25 21.01 20.25 Aug 28.66 24.26 25.02 24.26 Sep 40.35 35.95 36.71 35.95 Oct 43.76 39.36 40.12 39.36 Nov 36.73 32.33 36.73 32.33 Dec 29.37 24.97 29.37 24.97 1/ 50-year average monthly flow measured in cubic feet per second. 2/ 2,000 gals/minute = 4.4 cfs (State of Alaska issuance of water rights). 3/ 300 gal/min. = 1.56 cfs (Jan -Feb) and 700 gal/min. = 3.64 cfs TJun-Oct). 4/ CFS available for Hydroelectric and Fishery after cannery water rights are allocated. Maximum and minimum hydroelectric use is cfs = 40 (max.), cfs = 7 (min.). For simplicity, calculations included only maximum use. T.2.4 Sedimentation No sediment transport studies have been performed at Indian Creek. The observed discharge is very clear. The existence of a relatively deep lake without topset beds indicates there is little sediment inflow. For that reason depletion of storage by sediment is not expected. A-6 SJO NI MOIJ a a �C p W =O 0.5 Z LL j p= Z_ �- Z O 2 0 0 0 0 o O N O t0 �D et N O r r a O O cC �^ It w O N eo � ON au c3 00 ZW SJO NI MOIJ 0 a W N C3 Q J z r Q a a a m W U. z a 9 W G O z F V O a W N Q J Z Q cc a a M CO r W CO 2 ui F- a ui Cn 1 N CO a Z Z O 2 Figure A- t CHIGNIK, ALASKA Small Hydro over Feasibility Study GAGED VERSUS ACTUAL STREAMFLOW A-7 Alaska District, Corps of Engineers T.2.5 Snow and Ice Problems There is no record of problems with the water freezing in the existing small diameter wood stave and steel pipeline. No significant operational problems are anticipated in the proposed larger penstock at Indian Creek. Valves would be provided at low spots in the pipeline for emergency drainage. y T.2.6 Water Supply Water supply needs at Chignik are met by the existing dam on Indian Creek or by individual wells. All future needs within the community can be expected to require continuation of both of these methods of water distribution. The existing wood stave pipe would continue to meet the water supply needs of the community of Chignik. Bifurcation from 34-inch penstock would be provided on the downstream dam side to conect the water supply line to the hydropower penstock. (See Plate 3) At Chignik Lagoon, all water supply requirements are met by individual wells. This method of obtaining water is quite satisfactory for Chignik Lagoon and there is no reason to expect that future needs would require development of some other type of distribution system, such as a reservoir and pipeline. Therefore, evaluation of future water supply requirements is limited to the expected needs of Chignik. In Chignik, the Alaska Packers Association has applied for water rights to 2,000 gallons per minute from Indian Creek and uses the existing wood stave penstock to service the water requirements of the cannery and several village homes. Although this system has existed for a number of years, no records exist of historical water use. Hence, present and future water supply needs are based on typical averages or community estimates for domestic, commercial, industrial, and public needs. Average and peak use requirements are estimated as appropriate and compared with the existing water right application to determine if supplemental water supply would be necessary from Indian Creek. Domestic Needs Domestic water supply needs consider the basic household demands of Chignik's permanent residents (i.e. cooking, cleaning, lavatory, drinking, etc). Domestic water use during December and January is anticipated to slacken, reflecting an 80 percent housing unit occupation rate during this off-season. In this respect, Chignik does not have the great domestic seasonal water demand fluctuations found in some communities. The town's domestic consumption, however, probably follows a morning and evening peak with low usage during the day and night. Domestic water supply use averages an estimated 12 gpm; peak use is approximately 89 gpm (See Table A-5). Chignik's population is expected to increase, thereby more than doubling the domestic demand by the year 2045. Seasonal and hourly demand patterns are not expected to change significantly, if at all. A-8 Table A-5 Chignik Domestic Water Demand (gpm) Year Population Ave. Dailyl Peak2 1980 178 12 89 1985 199 14 115 1990 223 15 124 1995 250 17 132 2000 280 19 142 2005 294 20 146 2010 309 21 152 2015 325 23 156 2020 342 24 161 2025 359 25 166 2030 377 26 171 2045 397 28 176 l/ Assumes 100 gallons per person per day. 2/ Peak use is based on QUADRA Engineering Inc, Tenakee Springs Water and Sewer Study, June 1983. Industrial Needs Industrial water requirements cover the needs of the operating cannery and its associated seasonal employees. The freezer plant is now closed and is not expected to begin operations in the near future. Therefore, no estimate of water needs for the other cannery is included in the future industrial needs. The cannery currently has three primary uses for water. First, water is used for cannery operations related to fish processing activities. Second, the cannery has a bunkhouse that requires water for the domestic needs of its seasonal labor force. Third, water supplied to the cannery sometimes drives a pelton wheel that generates electricity for cannery operations. The pelton wheel is considered a non-competitive water user since electricity is generated only after cannery and domestic needs have been met. The cannery follows a seasonal pattern, using the most water during the peak operation periods of February, March, June, July, and August. Unlike domestic needs, the cannery's peak use may continue for many hours as opposed to the peak morning and evening water uses of the community. Bunkhouse requirements are based on the number of bunkhouse dwellers which, in turn, is related to the number of cannery workers. During the months of December and January the bunkhouse is expected to be vacant, A-9 thereby eliminating water demand at these times. Since the operating cannery has no plans for expanded activities and the second cannery is now closed and not expected to reopen, the estimated industrial water needs remain constant in future years. Table A-6 shows the estimated combined peak water needs of the cannery and bunkhouse. Table A-6 Present and Future Projected Water Supply Requirements for Chignik Cannery Figures remain constant for period of analysis Bunkhouse Peak Cannery Total Cannery Operations Flowl Estimated Dwellers2 Peak Flow3 Peak Flow (gpm) (count) (gpm) (gpm) Jan 108 0 0 108 Feb - Mar 650 167 114 764 Apr - May 108 45 49 157 June - Aug 650 167 114 764 Sep - Nov 108 42 47 155 Dec 108 0 0 108 l/ Calculated from cannery estimates of daily water use and peak operation activities. 2/ Assumes number of dwellers is 8 less than total number of cannery workers. The 8 workers are assumed to live in town year-round. The remaining dwellers are seasonal workers. 3/ Peak use is based on Quadra Engineering's study. The bunkhouse's average annual water demand, based on 100 gallons per person per day, is calculated to be 6 gpm. No average flow for cannery operations is known, but it can be estimated by assuming that the operational requirements for water follow the same pattern as requirements for power. During peak operation times, it is assumed that the cannery uses the peak flow for 16 hours and a nonpeak flow for the remaining 8 hours of each day (7 days per week). During the off-season, the cannery uses a reduced peak flow for 9 hours and a nonpeak flow for the remaining 15 hours of each day (six days per week). Based on these assumptions, as more fully described in the power use discussion, the average cannery flow is estimated at 305 gpm. Commercial Needs The commercial water needs of Chignik are limited to a small store and a restaurant that is closed much of the time. Water used by these two businesses is minor compared to other community needs and is considered insignificant. Estimating average and peak water demands for these needs A-10 is conjecture, at best, because a small community like Chignik does not require the services of these commercial activities on a large-scale basis. Assuming that the store and restaurant each average 10 gpm, total daily use amounts to almost 30,000 gallons of water. The size and services provided by these two businesses make it highly unlikely that such an average use would be necessary. Assuming that peak use of commercial needs can be estimated relative to the average/peak relationship of domestic needs, Chignik's commercial peak use would be more than 120 gpm. As with the estimated average demand, it is highly unlikely that this peak use would ever be required. No significant increase in commercial needs is planned for Chignik; therefore, the average and peak water supply estimates are considered constant throughout the period of analysis. Public Needs Public water needs consist of the water requirements necessary to meet fire fighting demands as well as demands by the school and clinic. Of these demands, the fire fighting standby water supply is the largest. This peak usage must be available at all hours. The school's peak demand occurs during the daytime hours, which is not concurrent with the large domestic demand. The clinic's water demand is considered insignificant because of the limited capability and services provided by the facilities. Based on the QUADRA Engineering, Inc., study, peak use for fire fighting standby needs is estimated at 500 gpm. This assumes that buildings are spaced more than 100 feet apart. Although this distance is not met in some cases at Chignik, this water requirement exceeds the 80 to 120 gpm said to be required by the town's acting fire chief. Since no new public facilities are scheduled to be developed at Chignik, peak water supply estimates are considered constant throughout the period of analysis. Total Water Supply Needs Figure A-2 shows the combined estimated requirements for domestic, commercial, industrial, and public water needs. Comparing those needs to the cannery's existing water rights shows that all future water supply demand can be met without adding any supplemental water supply capability to the existing Indian Creek project. A-11 O O O N O O LO O O Lb O 0 0 0 N O O LO T 0 O LO L 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035 Year Figure A-2 S CCHIGNIK, ALASKA Feaisibi�t y �� dy WATER SUPPLY NEEDS PEAK DEMAND Alaska District, Corps of Engineers A-12 T.2.7 Potential Floods No direct observations of historical flood discharges are available for Indian Creek. The probable magnitude of annual peak flood discharges has been estimated by means of a U.S. Geological Survey method as presented in "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams" by John Lamb. Flood frequency curves developed by this method are presented in Figure A-3. For preliminary purposes, the maximum probable flood may be approximated as three times the 50-year flood magnitude. Thus, for the purpose of this study the maximum probable flood for Indian Creek is about 1,800 cfs. This estimate represents the runoff resulting from the most severe rainfall and snowmelt situation considered possible for the region. They should be used only for consideration of dam integrity when failure would result in loss of life and extensive property damage downstream. T.2.8 Evaporation The total annual lake evaporation at Chignik would be about 8 inches. This low value is the result of low temperatures and a high average relative humidity of about 86 percent. The average annual evaporation amounts to about 0.001 cfs per acre of reservoir. Since the increase in lake area is modest, evaporation losses are negligible. T.3 GEOLOGY T.3.1 Regional Setting The Alaska Peninsula is divided into two major and one minor physiographic subprovinces. The major divisions are the Aleutian Mountain Range and the Bering Sea lowlands. The narrow lowlands adjacent to the Pacific Ocean constitute the minor division. In the Mud Bay, Anchorage Bay, and Negro Head areas, the mountains rise directly from the ocean. Faulting and uplift have raised the land mass southeast of Chignik Lagoon to the general altitude of the Aleutian Mountain Range, which can be more than 3000 feet. In the area between Chignik Lagoon and Kuiukta Bay, the adjacent Pacific lowlands are less than one-half mile wide and consist of alluvial materials. A-13 T.3.2 Regional Geology Five basic geologic formations occur in the Chignik area. They range from late Cretaceous to Quaternary (recent) in age. The following descriptions are based on the work done by Knappen (1929). Chignik Formation (Kc): The Chignik Formation is late Cretaceous (135 million years) and consists of sedimentary fluvial and marine deposits. The rock types consist of black and brown fine-grained sandstones, black shales, and arkosic conglomerates with class sizes ranging from 3 inches to 2 feet in diameter. Two coal seams are reported northwest of Chignik Lagoon. The Chignik Formation outcrops in a continuous band along the promontories at Negro Head, Eagle Rock and east of Anchorage Bay. Reported thickness of the Chignik Formation ranges from 780 feet at Negro Head to 450 feet in other areas. Tertiary (Eocene) Series (Tc): The Tertiary sedimentary series crops out along the west side of Anchorage Bay to Chignik Lagoon. This broad band of Eocene -age sediments consists of predominantly black shale approximately 1,200 feet thick with a minor amount of interbedded sand and gravel. The black shales are easily weathered and fissile and interbedded with fine- to coarse -grained sands indicating deposition by streams or in lakes. Generally, the stratification and sorting are excellent in these rocks, but crossbedding in the gravels indicates limited deposition by strong currents. Plant fossils are present in the shale and have been collected along the shore of Anchorage Bay. The contact between these black shales and the Chignik Formation is unconformable and, in the study area, poorly exposed. Meshik Formation (Tm): In the Chignik area the uplands are mapped as the Miocene or Oligocene Meshik Formation. This sequence of rocks consists primarily of sediments of volcanic origin including purple and green -gray andesitic agglomerates, varicolored volcanic ash and bentonitic clays and intercalated black soil horizons. The volcanic agglomerate forms resistant ridges and mountain spurs. The Meshik Formation is reported to have a minimum thickness of 2,000 feet but may reach 3,500 to 4,000 feet outside of the study area near the Aniakchak River mouth. Glacial Drift (Qd): Valley glaciers scoured existing stream valleys and deposited a blanket of glacial drift. Quaternary (Pleistocene) glacial drift is mapped within the lower reaches of the Indian Creek drainage. Reconnaissance photos (April 1982) suggest morainal -type glacial deposits within the valley. Exposed cutbanks show the glacial drift deposits to be a mixture of sand, silt, clay, and boulders. A-15 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal): Recent deposits of sand, gravel, and clay of fluviai and lacustFi-neorigin occupy the narrow flatlands at the head of both Anchorage and Mud Bays and at Chignik Flats. These deposits consist of detrital material eroded from existing bedrock in the Indian Creek drainage. Marine tidal flat and sand spit deposits are also present in Mud Bay and Anchorage Bay. The United States Geological Survey (1924, 1929, and 1965) does not show any faults within the study area. An inferred normal fault is mapped beneath Chignik Lagoon. The rocks within the study area, from Negro Head to the promontories between Mud and Anchorage Bays, have a generally northwesterly strike and have been deformed by folding. The anticlinal axis is mapped at N 700 W and can be traced through the coastal promontories to the east side of Anchorage Bay and into the hills north and east of Chignik. Northeast of the axis, beds are mapped dipping 40 to 90 NE. T.3.3 Regional Seismicity Southern and southwestern Alaska have high seismic activity. The seismicity is due to subduction of the Pacific Plate under the North American Plate. This is an ongoing process, with the majority of the accumulated strain resulting from plate -plate interaction being released in great earthquakes (magnitude greater than or equal to 7.8). Because the Pacific Plate is being subducted beneath the Alaska Peninsula, the earthquake foci tend to be deeper north, away from the Aleutian Trench, which is the point of the initial interaction between the two plates. The Chignik area is within the Shumagin Islands Seismic Gap. Seismic gaps are the areas between aftershock zones of great earthquakes. The aftershock zones between great earthquakes do not overlap, suggesting that the intervening areas are the most likely sites for the next great event (Davies and Jacob, 1979). The Shumagin Islands region is one of these gaps. This area must be considered a high seismic risk zone with the possibility of a great earthquake occurring in the future. In addition to the great earthquake, numerous smaller (magnitude less than or equal to 7.8) earthquakes are common throughout the region. T.3.4 Local Geology Indian Creek is approximately 3.5 miles long and drains generally north-northwest from an elevation of 1,200 feet to sea level, exiting through the flatlands containing the village of Chignik into Anchorage Bay. The valley is relatively narrow and approximately 1.5 miles wide (crest to crest). The valley walls are steeply sloping, ranging from 50 percent to near vertical along the upper walls. A small timber dam and lake impoundment are located at elevation 442 feet. These facilities O provide both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to the cannery at Chignik. The average stream gradient is 15 percent from headwaters to mouth. The stream is generally very incised downstream of the dam and lake. A talus deposit, approximately one-third mile west of the proposed dam site, at elevation 720 feet, should be adequate for the pervious fill requirements. The talus deposit consists of material from sand size to 24 inches long, with the average size being approximately 6 inches. Particles tend to be flat and elongated, with diorite to quartz diorite being the predominant rock type. The angle of repose for the talus is greater than 450. The talus deposit should be adequate as material for the proposed dam. The steep angle of repose suggests very high shear strengths for this deposit. Limited material for filters and drains may be available by processing the talus. Southeast of the proposed dam site near the end of the existing lake is a small knoll underlain by residual soil formed on hornfelsed conglomerate. The soil ranges up to greater than 10 feet in thickness and consists of silty sand with some pebbles and cobbles. Other than this knoll, no other fine-grained material that may be suitable for impervious fill exists within economic hauling distance of the site. Additional exploration drilling would be required to determine the amount of material present at the knoll. At the existing dam, a small fillet of concrete (less than two cubic yards) appears to have been made from material hauled to the site and local sand and aggregate. The talus and sand in the immediate area is high in elongated particles and would produce very harsh concrete. The rock type present in the talus deposits would not preclude their use as concrete aggregate. At the time of the field investigation (7 to 9 September 1982), numerous water seeps and springs were observed within the drainage area. Generally, these seeps and springs occur in sandstone that underlies caps of very hard, resistant conglomerate. The water appears to move along joints and bedding surfaces. The stability of the natural slopes is good, and no recent significant slope failures were observed. No ash -fall tephra deposits were observed within the Indian Creek area. Although active volcanism occurs along the Alaska Peninsula, it is not considered a potential hazard for this site. A-17 T.4 DAM AND FOUNDATION T.4.1 Structure The proposed structure would be a direct strutted A -Frame timber buttress. Maximum height would be 24 feet and total crest length would he 105 feet. Both upstream and downstream dam faces would have a slope of 450 degrees. The upstream face would be faced with one layer of pressure treated tongue and groove wood decking. Each individual timber buttress section would be constructed of pressure treated wood to avoid deterioration. A catwalk would extend along the crest of the dam. The intake would consist of a 60-inch diameter slide gate located on the upstream face. Slide gate operation would be provided by a hand wheel valve control on the top of the dam. The gate stem would be protected from ice with a steel channel. A trashrack would also be provided which could be cleaned with a rake. A 4-foot freeboard allowance would exist in the structure for the 100-year flood event. Plate 2 and 3 show the selected design. Pertinent structure information follows: Crest elevation 451 feet Water elevation at 100-year flood event 451 feet Full pool elevation 447 feet Existing lake elevation 442 feet Minimum operating pool elevation 430 feet Base elevation 420 feet T.4.2 Seepage Control The proposed dam site on Indian Creek is the present site of a small timber dam. The foundation at this site consists of hard, massive, unyielding, hornfelsed sandstone (Quartzite) and siltstone with a thin residual soil cover. The original sedimentary rock has been thermally metamorphosed. The original sedimentary structures (bedding) have been preserved, and no metamorphic structures were observed. Bedding is oriented 0810/260 N above the existing dam and 3270/150 SW (strike/dip) below the existing dam. The joints within the foundation rock are oriented 1200/700 S, 2900/900, and 1450/800 to 90. Their spacing is one-half to 4 inches and is tight. Some sulphide mineralization occurs on the joint surfaces. To control seepage and support the face of the dam, a 5-foot wide by 11-foot deep concrete cut-off sill would be cast into a trench extending across the river and up both abutments to the top elevation of the dam (see Plate 2). About 23 cubic yards of excavation would be required for the cut-off sill. Close line drilling would be necessary to excavate the cut-off sill. The grout curtain should extend along the entire length of the cut-off sill and should be at least 15 feet deep. The grout holes should be spaced on 5-foot centers. Twenty-four grout holes, 15 feet deep on 5 foot centers would require 360 linear feet of drilling and grouting. The estimated amount of Portland cement for grouting is approximately 150 sacks. • T.4.3 Penstock The 5,500-foot-long steel penstock would have an inside diameter of 34 inches. The interior of the penstock would be vinyl lined to prevent large increases in pipe roughness as a result of the deterioration of the penstock interior over the project life. A penstock thickness of one -quarter inch was chosen to withstand the hydraulic pressures and to allow adequate metal for corrosion losses. For its entire length, the penstock would follow the alinement of the present wood stave water supply pipeline (See Plate 1). This part of the penstock alinement would go through rolling terrain and could be easily reached, enabling construction to take place simultaneously at several locations. The entire penstock would be constructed above ground on saddles spaced at 30-foot intervals and with concrete anchor blocks at both vertical and horizontal bends (See Plate 4). At two locations, approximately 2,600 feet and 3,300 feet from the intake penstock, high bends would be fitted with air vents to prevent entrapment of air pockets. A wooden support structure, approximately 400 feet in length and 20 feet in height would be constructed across a deep ravine from station 36+ 00 to station 40 + 00. (See Plate 1.) T.4.4 Net heads The maximum net head is 414.4 feet. This value was calculated with the following parameters: Maximum power pool elevation = 441 feet Tailwater elevation = 15 feet Plant efficiency = 83 pct Generator at rated power = 1100 kW Expected hydraulic losses were used in the calculation and are based on a Darcy-Weisbach friction factor of .014 (Manning "n" = .0103). The discharge and accompanying head loss are 36.5 cfs and 17.3 feet, respectively. The design head is 409.7 feet, with a discharge of 38.0 cfs along with a head loss of 17.3 feet. Design head is based on the same parameters as maximum net head except for power pool elevation, which is set at an elevation of 440 feet. Gross head is 425 feet, which is based on power pool elevation of 440 feet and a tailwater elevation of 15 feet. T.4.5 Hydraulic Transients and Hydraulic Losses (a) The initial design included a surge tank, but further study indicated that the use of a surge tank could be avoided by reclining the penstock to utilize lower elevations and increasing the gate opening time to 60 seconds. The gate closure time is now 10 seconds. (b) If the hydraulic gradient falls beneath the penstock, negative pressures will occur. This could lead to separation of the water column and/or collapse of the penstock if the negative pressures are ereat enough. Because of the importance in locating the minimum hydraulic grade line in this project, calculations for the minimum hydraulic elevation at A-19 the powerhouse were made using both the Allievi Charts and the Arithmetic Integration procedure. The Allievi Charts showed a minimum hydraulic elevation of 392.7 feet, while the Arithmetic Integration process resulted in an elevation of 390.6 feet. These values were based on a minimum power pool elevation of 432 feet, a maximum power output of 1,222 kW, maximum hydraulic losses (f=.021, n=.0127), a tailwater elevation of 15 feet and a gate opening rate of 60 seconds. Minimum clearances between the penstock and the minimum gradient are approximately 15 feet at critical locations. During the detailed design phase of this project, accurate water hammer calculations will be done by using either Arithmetic Integration or the Method of Characteristics. A final alinement (both vertical and horizontal) of the penstock will then be made. This will assure proper clearances between the penstock and the minimum hydraulic grade line. (c) Maximum Hydraulic Gradient at the powerhouse is 595 feet. This is based on a maximum power pool elevation of 447 feet, a maximum power output of 1222 kW (1638 hp), a tailwater elevation of 15 feet, expected hydraulic losses (f=.014), and a 10-second gate closure. (d) All the above transient calculations were based on specific loss coefficients, but it is well known that over time, an unlined penstock can build up encrustations that result in greater loss coefficients and hydraulic losses. Increased losses will tend to lower the minimum hydraulic gradient resulting from rapid valve openings and, in addition, will lower the steady state hydraulic gradient. The following table shows the minimum hydraulic gradient elevation at the powerhouse for a 34-inch penstock with a variety of loss coefficients: Darcy Absolute Hydraulic Minimum Hydraulic Weisbach Roughness Losses Elevation @ Powerhouse 11 f il Steady State Transient (inch) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) .016 0.0126 0.0011 24.5 405.5 396.8 .021 0.043 0.0036 34.1 395.9 390.6 .043 0.500 0.0416 103 307.0 382.3 The last line in the table shows that if absolute roughness developed to 0.5 inches, the steady state elevation line would be well below the transient level. This condition would cause negative pressures in the penstock and would probably collapse it. To avoid this possibility, it is recommended that the penstock be lined with vinyl or enamel, whichever is more appropriate. The calculations for steady state conditions were based on minimum power pool (el. 432 ft); maximum power (1222 kW) and tailwater elevation of 15 feet. A-20 T.5 SPILLWAY To avoid overtopping of the wood structure, the existing rock channel (See Plate 3) would be used as the exclusive spillway except for floods greater than the 100-year event. A concrete weir approximately 8 feet in height and 25 feet long along the crest would be located in the narrowest section of the channel. Water would discharge over the weir onto gabions for erosion protection. These gabions would act as energy dissipators. The following table illustrates the performance of the spillway at different discharges. The calculations were based on the assumption of a fully suppressed rectangular weir with a weir coefficient of 3.34, with no attenuation of flood flows occurring in the reservoir: Flood Water Surface Frequency Elevation in Discharge Reservoir (years) (cfs) (ft) 30 500 450.4 50 600 450.9 100 740 451.0 PMF 1,800 452.9 The 30-, 50-, and 100-year discharges are based on Figure 6 of this report while the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is assumed to be 3 times greater than the 50-year event. The above chart shows that the spillway will handle all anticipated flows without over topping the dam crest. Although the diversion structure would be overtopped by 100 year plus events, failure of structure would not occur. Damage would be expected to be negligible. T.6 POWERHOUSE T.6.1 Powerhouse The powerhouse dimensions would be 30 by 35 feet, which would provide floor space sufficient to house and service the equipment. For this study, a pre-engineered, insulated, weather tight metal building set on concrete foundation walls was used. To reduce excavation costs, the discharge chamber would be located outside the building. The floor upstream of the turbines would be raised so the penstock can be set below it. Since the 12-inch floor slabs should be placed on rock or dental concrete, the powerhouse would be set back into the hillside enough so that the upper slab would be supported mostly by rock. This would reduce concrete costs. See Plate 5. T.6.2 Turbine Two single runner "standardized" horizontal Francis turbines with wicket gates and butterfly valves would be installed and would match the site's hydraulic conditions. Francis turbines were selected for evaluation of feasibility of this project because, in general, they are A-21 more efficient at high heads and gate openings and are normally less costly than impulse turbines. The turbines would have the following characteristics. Each turbine would be rated to produce 550 kW of generator output at a rated net head of 402 feet. At this condition each turbine will discharge approximately 20 cfs, assuming a generator efficiency of 95 percent. The turbines are estimated to have a 13-inch runner diameter and to operate at 1,200 rpm. Because of the long penstock (5,500 ft), it is assumed that the turbines will be designed to operate at full run -away conditions to reduce the waterhammer pressures and limit the requirements for a surge tank. The turbine centerline would be set to meet both cavitation and civil requirements. Minimum project tailwater is fixed by the weir at elevation 15. See Plate 5. T.6.3 Generators The generators would be of the horizontal shaft, synchronous type with the shaft connected directly to the turbine. The generators would be 3-phase, 60 Hz, 2,400 V, rated 550 kW (688 KVA @ 0.8 P.F.). A drip -proof housing would be provided. The generators would be open ventilated with an 800 C rise, and have a Class B insulation system without provisions for overload. The generators would have full run -away speed capability. T.6.4 Excitation Systems The excitation systems would be specified to be the generator manufacturer's standard type. This could be either a direct -connected brushless exciter or a bus -fed power potential source static excitation system. Solid state, continuously acting, dynamic type voltage regulators would be incorporated into the unit switchgear. T.6.5 Governors The governors would be of the oil pressure, distributing valve, actuator type with mechanically driven speed responsive elements designed for regulating the generator speed by controlling the butterfly valve. Each governor unit would consist of an actuator, a restoring mechanism, a motor driven pumping unit, a pressure or accumulator tank, a sump tank, an oil piping, and accessories. T.6.6 Generator Voltage System The connection between the generator and breaker or breakers would be with cable. The generator breaker or breakers would be metal -clad drawout type rated 250 MVA (nominal) 5 kV, 1,200 amps continuous. The breakers would be combined in a common switchgear lineup along with generator surge protection and instrument transformers. A-22 T.6.7 Station Service The station service power would be obtained via a tap between the generator breaker and the main power transformer. The station service distribution panel would be adjacent to the generator switchgear lineup. Station service power distribution would be 480 volts 3-phase and 208Y/120 volts single phase. T.6.8 Connection to Load Approximately 0.25 miles of 14.4 kV transmission (3-phase) line would run from the powerhouse to the community of Chignik. The line would be connected to the powerhouse through a disconnect switch. The transmission line would be mounted on wood poles, which would provide a nominal 30-foot pole height above the ground, providing no less than a 20-foot clearance at the midpoint of the conductor sag. T.6.9 Unit Control and Protective Equipment Unit controls would consist of manual start-up and shut -down circuits, basic protective relays, and basic instrumentation. Protective relays for each unit would include generator differential, overspeed, overvoltage and ground overcurrent. Instrumentation for each unit would include a voltmeter, an ammeter, a wattmeter, and a watthour meter. The controls would be contained in a single cabinet. No annunciation or station battery would be provided. It is recommended that the control equipment enclosures be located adjacent to the governor cabinets. See Plate 5. T.6.10 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) The HVAC system would be a forced air system mixing outside air and recirculated inside air. Equipment would consist of a fan, filters, a mixing box, a duct heater, ductwork, and electric controls. The system would provide powerhouse cooling using outside air and heating with an electric resistance duct heater. Positive pressure would be maintained inside the powerhouse. See Plate 5. T.6.11 Piping system The draft tube discharge chamber would be dewatered by a portable pump. A drainage sump with a pump would be used for draining the powerhouse floor. The water would be pumped to the tailrace. The powerhouse raw water would be taken from the penstock, and the pressure would be reduced to 100 psi by using a pressure reducing valve. The turbine gland water would be strained or filtered. A hose outlet would be used for floor and equipment washing and fire protection. A single air compressor would serve all compressed air needs. Equipment furnished with the governors would boost air pressure as required for the governors. Governors and lubricating oil will be handled and filtered by a portable pump/filter and 55 gallon drums. CO2 fire protection would be provided for the generators. See Plate 5. A-23 T.6.12 Bridge Crane The powerhouse would be furnished with an underhung singlegirder bridge crane. The hoist would be a 2-ton electric chain hoist with a geared trolley. The bridge would be an underhung type, hand operated. The power to the hoist would be supplied by a festoon cable or power rail or a combination of both. See Plate 5. T.6-13 Power Transformer One 2.4/14.4 kV, delta -grounded wye, 3-phase transformer, CA class 1500 kVa, with the minimum nonpremium impedance specified, would he provided. T.7 TAILRACE The proposed tailrace section would have a trapezoidal cross section with side slopes of one vertical on two horizontal. Maximum flow depth would be 3.5 feet with a free board of 1.0 feet. A 1.0-foot thick layer of cobbles would be sufficient to prevent erosion of the underlying material. Plate 5 shows a typical channel section. T.8 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES Diversion of the stream during construction would be accomplished through the use of the existing wood dam structure. Additional stoplogs would be installed which would prevent overflow of the existing structure. Approximately 40 linear feet of pipe would be installed to extend the existing out pipe beyond the construction area. A cofferdam downstream of the proposed structure would not be required due to the supercritical flow regime in that reach of stream. After construction has been completed, the existing water supply would be removed. As the lake level is lowered the dam would be disassembled. Overall project cost would largely be dictated by the simplicity and durability of the design. Most material and crafts would have to be brought in. This means barge shipment of materials with possible lightering required. It is anticipated that most Indian Creek project materials could be off-loaded over the cannery docks. All concrete material would most likely be brought in by barge because the overall quantities are so small that it is judged uneconomical to set up a crushing and screening plant. As nearly as possible, all materials would be prefabricated and packaged for shipment to Chignik. Access to Indian Creek Lake would be by the existing cat -trail, which would be upgraded to a 12-foot width. Approximate length is 1.7 miles. See Plates 1 and 5. T.9 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT Once constructed, the project would be turned over to the local utility for operation and maintenance in conjunction with the existing diesel generators. All maintenance associated with the intake works, penstock, powerhouse and distribution system would be the responsibility A-24 of the utility. Project operators are envisioned to be locally based. The overall systems (hydropower and diesel) would be intermeshed so that any, both, or only one may be operated at any one time. The unit would be capable of matching necessary load during the time of year when flows equal or exceed the demand. When energy demand exceeds the capabilities of the system, the hydropower unit would operate in a base load mode while the diesel units would be utilized for peaking. Accumulation of debris of the intake trashrack is not expected to be a problem. Minor accumulation would be removed with a modified trash rake. Based on the operation of the existing water supply, dam icing would be expected. T.10 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Table A-7 Average Annual Energy Production 700-kW Unit 900-kW Unit 1,100-kW Unit Month MWh MWh MWh 1,300-kW Urit MWh Oct 453 530 584 600 Nov 394 449 492 509 Dec 362 401 429 423 Jan 0 0 0 0 Feb 0 0 0 0 Mar 0 0 0 0 Apr 380 402 417 415 May 523 667 775 843 Jun 512 659 776 855 Jul 398 433 453 438 Aug 426 483 517 509 Sep 499 602 675 712 Total 3,947 4,626 5,118 5,304 To optimize the turbine size, the information in Table A-7 compared with the energy demand for the months of January through December. The estimated usable energy is shown in tabular form in Table A-8. With the corresponding average annual equivalent output to be used in calculating annual power benefits. v Table A-8 Estimated Yearly Usable Energy Plant Size - Energy Use in MWh Year 700 kW 900 kW 1,100 kW 1,300 kW 1995 2,893 3,126 3,180 3,157 2000 2,967 3,208 3,262 3.239 to 2045 Annual Equivalent 2,955 3,180 3,250 3,227 A-25 The value of the diesel energy that was determined to be displaced by the hydropower system was calculated in accordance with the following analysis. The value of diesel costs avoided was calculated for residential use and industrial use (cannery) to reflect fuel cost ar.d efficiency differences found in the community. Residential fuel costs $1.25/gal with an efficiency of 10.5 kWh/gal for an avoidable fuel cost/kWh of $.1190 and an escalation value of $.0807 was used. Cannery fuel costs $1.06/gal with an efficiency of 12 kWh/gal for an avoidable fuel cost of $.0883/kWh and an escalation value of $.06 were computed. Reduced operation and maintenance savings for the city and the cannery of $0.021/kWh was claimed as a cost avoided. In addition, the use of hydropower would allow diesel plants an increased useful life which is not expressed as an extended life benefit. Comparing annual benefits with annual costs showed that hydropower development at Chignik appeared economically feasible. The annual cost of the hydropower system was then determined by applying a capital recovery factor (CRF) for 8 1/8 percent and 50 years to the project investment costs. An additional figure of $30,000 was added for operation and maintenance of the hydropower -system. A summary of benefits and costs for the various unit sizes being considered are shown in Table A-9. NED Employment Benefits. The principal criterion in determining feasibility of water resource projects for hydropower development is whether marketable energy can be produced at a lower cost over time than the most likely alternative. Once this critical determination has been established, other incidental project benefits can be claimed. WRC guidelines permit the inclusion of NED employment benefits in project evaluation for areas where substantial and persistent unemployment exists. Construction projects tend to attract the unemployed from the communities of the region. The Chignik labor market area typically reaches full employment during June through September, when virtually the entire resident labor force participates in salmon harvesting and processing activities. At season's conclusion, however, employment opportunities are restricted to fewer than a dozen full-time positions. Although some persons find temporary employment on local construction projects, most people remain unemployed through the 8-month off season. It is estimated that labor costs are 30% skilled, 40% unskilled, and 30% other and that Chignik residents and workers from nearby areas could provide approximately 20 percent of skilled labor requirements, 75 percent of unskilled, and 30 percent of other labor needs during project construction. Approximately 60 percent of project costs by line item analysis (less E&D/S&A) is assigned to labor and 40 percent to materials. Using NED applied ratios for the local hire rule and amortizing the gross NED benefit over the 50-year project life results in $67,000 in annual NED employment benefits for the 1,100-kW recommended plan. Employment benefits are considered separately since they do not directly impact the output of the hydropower system. The effect of this benefit category is shown in addition to the benefit -to -cost analysis table. Table A-9 Estimated Costs and Benefits 700-kW 900-kW 1,100-kW 1,300-kW. First Cost $6,170,000 $6,539,000 $6,675,000 $7,031,000 IDC 235,000 248,000 254,000 268,000 Investment Cost $6,405,000 $6,787,000 $6,929,000 7,299,000 Annual Cost (@ 50 yrs. 8-1/8%) Interest and Amortization $ 531,000 $ 563,000 $ 574,000 $ 605,000 Operation and Maintenance 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Total Annual Costs $ 561,000 $ 593,000 $ 604,000 $ 635,000 Annual Benefits Fuel Displacement $ 280,000 $ 312,000 $ 320,000 $ 317,000 Fuel Escalation 190,000 211,000 217,000 216,000 Operation and Main- tenance 60,000 46,000 68,000 68,000 Ext. Life 3,000 4,000 6,000 7,000 Total Annual Benefits $ 533,000 $ 573,000 $ 611,000 $ 608,000 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.95 0.96 1.01 Net Benefits $ -0- $ -0- $ 7,000 .96 $ -0- When employment benefits are considered, the B/C analysis for the 1,100 kW plant is as shown. Item B/C Analysis Annual Amount Annual Benefit Power $611,000 Employment 67,000 Overall Annual Benefit $678,000 Annual Costs B/C Net Benefit $604,000 1.12 $ 74,000 Based on this analysis, a 1,100-kW (2 turbine system) unit was chosen for the selected plan because of its ability to pick up minimum loads more efficiently. Additional streamflow information may alter this selection slightly during post authorization design work. A-27 T.11 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE The total project cost estimate for Indian Creek is computed for a 1,100-kW system (2-550 kW units) at October 1983 price levels. COST ESTIMATE FOR INDIAN CREEK PROJECT ITEM/DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. MOB and DEMOB I.S. $ 900,000 2. LANDS AND DAMAGES l.s. $ Lands Administration Subtotal 3. DAM AND SPILLWAY Rock Excavation 1,000 c.y. Removal of Existing Dam Dam Concrete 75 c.y. Anchor Bolts 95 ea Spillway Concrete 30 c.y. Gabions 8 ea Gates 36 x 48 inch slide w/operators 2 ea Diversion Outlet Pipe 40 lf. Lumber, Fastenings, Dam 32.5 M.B.F. Diversion 1 l.s. Transition, Gate to 34" Pipe 2 ea Switch Over 10" Water Pipe and Valve 1 I.S. Trash Rack 1 l.s. Rake, Trash Rack 1 l.s. Grouting, drilling 750 lf. Grout 150 Sacks SUBTOTAL 4. PENSTOCK Rock Excavation 3,660 c.y. Rock Bolts 366 ea Timber Supports 183 ea Anchors 350 c.y. Ring Stiffeners 32,025 lbs. Bridge Support Concrete 50 C.Y. Structure l.s. Penstock 34" Dia. x 4,500 L.F. @ 1/4" wall 34" Dia. x 1,000 L.F. @ 3/8" wall Pipe 546,500 lbs. Pipe Lining 5,500 l.f. Valvage l.s. Subtotal 19,000 5,000 $ 24,000 150 $ 169,000 19,000 1,464 109,800 75 7,200 1,300 39,000 500 4,000 20,250 40,500 203 8,100 3,382 109,900 8,790 8,800 2,314 4,600 1,000 1,000 900 900 300 300 43 32,250 260 39,000 574,600 30.00 10,980 255.00 46,665 $ 1,200.00 $ 420,000 1.80 57,645 $ 1,200.00 60,000 51,500 2.00 1,093,000 11.40 62,700 51,500 $2,036,990 ITEM/DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 5. POWERHOUSE Structure 1 ea. $ 88,900 Turbine/Generator (2-550 kW) 2 ea. 626,600 Accessory Electrical Equipment l.s. 278,000 Auxilary Systems & Equipment l.s. 43,000 Switchyard 1 ea. 51,500 Subtotal $1,088,000 6. TAILRACE Excavation 2,000 c.y. 5.00 $ 10,000 Rockfill 1,800 C.Y. 10.00 18,000 Subtotal $ --7�I 0 ,0 7. TRANSMISSION Transmission Line, 1/4 mile, 3 wire (14.4 kv) l.s. $ 25,000 Subtotal $ 25,000 8. ACCESS ROAD Fill 2,100 c.y. 10.00 $ 21,000 Rock Excavation 3,100 c.y. 50.00 155,000 24" CMP 150 l.f. 38.00 5,700 Subtotal $ 181,700 SUBTOTAL $4,858,290 Contingencies (20%) 971,660 SUBTOTAL $5,829,950 Engineering and Design (8%) 466,400 Supervision and Administration (6.5%) 378,650 TOTAL PROJECT FIRST COST $6,675,000 T.12 PROJECT ECONOMICS Under criteria established for Federal water resource projects, the Tentatively Selected Plan is feasible. Factors influencing the feasibility have been presented in appropriate sections of the report. The results are presented below. Annual Costs and Benefits Investment Cost (including IDC) $6,929 000 Interest and Amortization (8-1/8% @ 50 yrs) $ 574,000 Operation and Maintenance $ 30.000 Total Annual Cost $ 604"000 Annual Benefits Fuel Displacement Benefit $ 320,000 Fuel Cost Escalation Benefit $ 217,000 O&M Saved $ 68,000 Ext. Life $ 6,000 Employment Benefit $ 67,000 Total Annual Benefit $ 678,000 B/C Ratio 1.12 to 1 Net Annual Benefit $ 74,000 A-29 I 5 4 I 3 2 I 1 C I-' 47'-6° I-®--10_O„ I 47'_6" -450- TOP OF SPILLWAY ELEV. 447 -445- \\ ycsJ n GABION PLACEMENT -440- I'X3'X9' (DOWNSTREAM) - 435 - WALKWAY I DAi ROCK RU -- BOTTOM OF WALKWAY ELEV. 453.5 TOPOF DAM ELEV 451 - 450 - - OWL ELEV 447 I AXIS -445- n - -440- —APPROXIMATE ROCKLINE -435- it too LWL SECTION C SCALE- 1'=5'-O" 0 5' 10 - 425- PENSTOCK GATE WATER SUPPLY LINE RESERVOIR DRAWDOWN W/ TRASHRACK SLUICE GATE, ELEV 427 INVERT ELEV. 428 (See Detail A-3) 2 1/2" VENT PIPE, RUN ALONG DIAGONAL SUPPORT CONNECT TO EXISTINGl�._.._.1 10" WATER SUPPLY LINE --- - _ _ _ �___ _.._.. _ _...._. ....- -- - --- -- - TO CANNERY GATE VALVE SECTION B SCALE.... 1�� -5'.. 0„ DAM AXIS so' S to 13 2'X6 i RISING STEM OPERATOR N 4' VENT PIPE v 2" LECKING FOR PENSTOCK �- BOTTOM OF WALKWAY _._......... ELEV. 453.5 A a 4' X 4" POSTS 2 -��" \ �am-j-� TOP OF DAM ELEV. 451 S 0• HWL—ELEV. 447 ��\ �,, �O •, 4'GF Gc"0 TB qT 4'S 2 i I � c TRASHRACK, VERTICAL BARS o SPACED AS REQUIRED BY TURBINE MANUFACTURER. b �tioil IT PENSTOCK GATE ( See Detail A-3 ) STIFFENER RING (TYP.) �3•.� (See Detail A -I) �34°DIA. PENSTOCK °c FLANGE BACK A MASTIC SEAL ;> �;''a,. ,,10 c;:2 5,, •> ____ELEV. 427 SHIM '�. : .;: a _o ,.• .. ,�_. ' i Y R CKBOLT (TYP) BOLT T SO DECKING TO L(See Detail A-2I 8"XIO" WOOD BLOCK EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE 46'-0 BEGTION A SCALE"=5-O° 0 5 O 5 4 3 2 ELEVATION VIEW SCALE- 1"=5'-O" 5 0 5 0 ISLE BERM D -455-_ -450 - 445- _'+M aer ins Symbol _ Des pl ons Date Approved — U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Designed by: ® CHIGNIK, ALASKA-INDIAN CREEK "usa.myco,p> TIMBER DAM DESIGN En91n C ELEVATION MEW AND SECTIONS Draw b V. LER. B. Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale: I"=5-0' Sheet retereno® umber: Da4e: MAY 1984 Approved by: : C.d.a Code: Sheet of 1 i + PLATE 2 0 Q 2 I 1 1 0■ ME 0E 0■ 4" X 8" JOISTS WAT 4" X 4" POSTS ?" X 6" TOP RAILS "'X12" DECKING PLAN VIEW A -A SCALE i"=5-0' 5 0 5, 10, 1 I I I \ I 1 A A O Top Ofl # F Weir I � I I 449,/' x �. Channel /Lake E LAKE ELEVA PLAN VIEW SCALE- 1'=200' 20' 0 20 40 Revisions ■M NMI Mimi Designetl by: U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA CHIGNIK, ALASKA — INDIAN CREEK A Orawnb Y: �. B. US Army Corps otEnginears TIMBER DAM DESIGN A PL VIEWS Checked by: AND SECTION ION Reviewed by: Scale: Ste®ence AS SHOWN Date: umber. ppproaed by: MAY 1984 Drawinge: Sheet_ oe _ Cod 2 1 + PLATE 3 I BI AI 3 - 0 , - I DETAIL A 33 N.T. S. 4 34" DIA. PENSTOCK, WALL THICKNESS - 1/4" D I/4" X 4" STIFFENER RING II '� ii II o II ,I II II I II a t, 11 ,I II 11 �I II 11 II II ,1 II I� 1' II -WEDGE 12° X 12" X 3' TREATED n II �� ii it li 11 II '� II 11 II ii " ii II SUPPORTS D LiU �I 1 t 11 ii II II n II If _3/4" ROCKBOLTS n 'I II ji n II II II tl II it I C _ IJ , �-2"X 6" SHIMS, WHERE NECESSARY DETAIL A -I N.T. S. I31/2"� HOLE FOR 3/4" BOLT N r 3/8" STEEL PLATE B 1 I" ROCKBOLT, MINIMUM EMBEDMENT 42" Revisions LSymbol Descriptions Date Approved O U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Designed by: '" CHIGNIK, ALASKA- INDIAN CREEK A Drawn by: oSEngtrYees� TIMBER DAM DESIGN Checked by: DETAILS DETAIL A-2 Reviewed by' Scal.: Shee4 N.TS. AS SHOWN ef...... Date: ber: Approved by: MAY 1984 Drawing Sheet_ oP _ Cod.: 3 2 1 i PLATE 4 CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON O 35'-0' PENSTOCK A SWITCHGEAR CABINET 8' WIDE ROLL -UP DOOR WITH PERSONNEL DOOR I- . —1 1 - 1, 12-15" GENERATOR WAFER VAL GENERATOR - I � 1 1 7'-6- 11 j GOVERNOR \EL. 16.5' ERNOR- 30V CONTROL CABINET 4-� CONTROL ��2 6 CABINET i- 1 .4 !DRAINAGE- UMP TOP OF WEIR EL. 15.0' 2'-9' 12'-6" 2' TAIL RACE I CHANNEL ASSUMED GROUND LINE ASSUMED ROCK LINE CRA PLAN 0 GE BUILDING E EL. 36.0' EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ROAD SURFACE CUT MATERIAL --- FILL MATERIAL 2 RIPRAP�-�- �2�IPRAP � -12�-6 — ---- TYPICAL ROAD CUT SECTION I TYPICAL TAILRACE SECTION 5' o A' 5-1, 1, = 5' EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ROAD SURFACE 3 FILL MATERIAL CUT MATERIAL 2 F_ TYPICAL ROAD SECTION DISTRIBUTOR EL. 20.0' EL_ 19.5' DRAFT TUBE DISCHARGE CHAMBER EL. --MIN. OPERATING T.W. AND EL. JJJ TOP OF WEIR 15.0' NOTE UNIT I UNIT 2 , �- - - - - - - -- - - - - ------- JW','7 r GENERATOR RATING (-A 0.8 P.F.) ..A ..s TAIL RACE CHAMBER-)m-- TURBINE CAPACITY I.SHP 165- SYNCHRONUS SPEED 120ORPM 12GORPM RUNNER THROAT DIA. 12.8-1, 12.111— A - A Flillmolly-11%U41111 5 TYPICAL ROAD FILL SECTIOI 0. 1 2. 3 a 4 � "Flffli3il4pl �111 I . I �11- 2 �11 - 3 �O V GRAPHIC SCALES REFERENCE N. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE UAL ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE. Al-ASKA CHIGNIK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INDIAN LAKE CHIGNIK,ALASKA POWERHOUSE PLAN & SECTION, TYPICAL TAILRACE & ROAD SECTIONS INV. NO. DACA85- PLATE APPENDIX B Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation APPENDIX B Section 404(b)(1) A. PROJECT DESCRIPTIUN The Chignik area is located at the head southwestern shore of Anchorage Bay. This sheltered bay provides a deep anchorage for fishing vessels that supply a major salmon and crab canning industry of the region. The village of Chignik and the cannery acquire their water from Indian Creek, which lies at an elevation of 455 feet. Local residents and a congressional directive under Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act, as amended, requested that the Alaska District Corps of Engineers analyze the feasibility of hydropower development on Indian Creek. The proposed plan consists of a dam with a maximum height of 24 feet and a spillway constructed just downstream of the existing wood buttress dam. Due to water requirements of the local residents, the cannery, and the proposed hydropower project, the existing streamflow in Indian Creek would essentially be eliminated except for the spillway overflow and basin runoff caused by snowmelt and precipitation. The proposed penstock would follow the alinement of the present wood stave water supply pipeline. The powerhouse would be a prefabricated, weathertight steel structure constructed on a 30-foot by 35-foot concrete slab. A horizontal Francis type turbine generator would discharge water into an open channel tailrace. The transmission system to Chignik would consist of a stepdown transformer and a single 14.4kU wood pole line to the existing village distribution system. B. FACTUAL DETERMINATION 1. Physical Substrate Determinations The tentatively recommended plan for construction of the dam would consist of a 24-foot timber dam It should be noted that the present small timber dam is also the site for the proposed dam project. The foundation at the present site contains hard, massive, unyielding, hornfelsed sandstone, and siltstone with a thin residual soil cover. The original sedimentary rock has been thermally metamorphosed. The tailrace scheme is expected to be nothing more than the utilization of a natural flow of connecting pools behind the village. These pools eventually spill into the Chignik slough. 2. Water Circulation, Fluctuation and Salinity Determinations Increases in water turbidity can be expected during construction of a dam and a spillway for Indian Creek. These increases would be localized and of short duration. Long-term increases in stream turbidity should not be expected, since the water level may be minuscule in size after the completion of the project. Slight water level fluctuations would occur at the lake; however, no impacts are anticipated. 3. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations Since the fill material is primary large rock, it is assumed that little or no suspended particulate matter will increase. 4. Contaminant Determinations There are no sources of manmade pollutants or contaminants in or near the project area and no identified source of natural contaminants. Again, the fill material has little potential to release contaminants. 5. Aquatic Ecosystems and Organism Determinations Determination of plankton and benthic presence in Indian Creek has not been undertaken; however, Dolly Varden, sculpins and pinks there would indicate that aquatic organisms exist in plentiful supply. Since the long-term forecast projects a significant lowering of the water level for the creek, as stated earlier, then obviously aquatic nutrients and organisms will be lost. 6. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations Not applicable. 7. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem As a result of the proposed project, the aquatic ecosystem will be greatly affected. The small salmon run and the indeterminate number of aquatic invertebrates will be adversely affected due to the substantially reduced flow of water in the upper reach of Indian Creek. The alternative route for the open channel tailrace would be to follow the natural flow within a nearby wetland environment which eventually empties into the Chignik slough. Adverse impacts to the aquatic organisms of the freshwater ponds occurring in the wetland would also occur, since flooding is anticipated in those areas. It seems that those ponds provide feeding and nesting sites for a few migratory waterfowl. 8. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem There are no secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem. B-2 C. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON DI CHARGE 1. Adaptation of the Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines. All requirements of the guidelines associated with the proposed disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material have been met. 2. Evaluation of Availability of Practicable Alternatives. Practical alternatives to other energy sources for the community of Chignik have been given consideration in the Alternative Section of the EIS. However, the placing of fill material in waters of the United States cannot be avoided if hydroelectric power development at Chignik is to be successful. 3. Compliance with Applicable State Water Quality Standards. The proposed action will not violate any applicable state water quality standards. 4. Compliance with Applicable Toxic Effluent Standard or Prohibition under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. The action will not violate the Toxic Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. 5. Compliance with Endangered Species Act of 1973. The proposed plan will not adversely impact those species that are considered by FWS to be threatened or endangered. 6. Compliance with Specified Protection Measures for Marine Sanctuaries Designated by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The proposed disposal sites fully conform with the Specified Protection Measures for Marine Sanctuaries. 7. Evaluation of Extent of Degradation of the Waters of the United States. The proposed action will not contribute to any adverse effect to human health and welfare, including municipal and private water supplies. 8. Appropriate and Practicable Steps Taken to Minimize Potential Adverse Impacts of the Discharge on the Aquatic Ecosystem. All appropriate steps have been taken to minimize project impacts. On the basis of the guideline, the proposed disposal sites for the discharge of dredged and fill material are specified as complying with all guideline requirements. a-3 APPENDIX C U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT WAES 2 3 SEP 1983 Colonel Neil E. Saling District Engineer Alaska District Corps of Engineers Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Re: Indian Creel: Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Estimates of Instreari Flows for Fisheries Maintenance Dear Colonel Saling: This letter is a supplement to our 4 August 1983 Final Coordination Act (CA) Report for Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek Hydropower Projects near Chignik, Alaska. Infomation herein is submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordina- tion Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). On 12 September 1983, Corps of Engineers (CE) Planning and Envirorrnental staffs requested an interagency neeting to discuss justification for mitigation of aquatic habitat losses identified in oijr report. The CIE' contended that there is insufficient documentation of the presence of a fishery in Indian Creep to support the need for mitigation to protect aquatic resources. The Fish and Uildlife Service (FWS) reiterated its position t,at although our baseline data were qualitative in nature (due to limited time and funding for studies) and not sufficient for formulation of a detailed mitigation plan, we did establish that Indian Creek supports pink salmon (by fyke netting 0 class pin�out igrants in Hay) and anadromous ana resident Dolly Varden (by electroshocking and minnow trapping in Pay and ,August). This was corroborated 0Y several residents of the Chignik area, who reported 200 to 1,000 adult pink sal,lon spawning in Indian Creek. Therefore, based on the presence of anadromous salmonids and rrediuri value fis', habitat in the lower 0.5 mile of Indian Creek, F;IS has recoia�ended that tzhe fishery be maintained via water releases into the natural stream channel or a tailrace facility. Our preference would be release of crater into the existing stream channel to avoid the loss of naturally occurring aquatic habitat. The FUS also recornended that additional studies would be necessary to establish the extent of tY;e fishery and refinement of measures to protect it. C-1 The CE requested that the R.!S review the CE's projected l.i,cnthly inflmrs for the Indian Creek drainage and use those estimates to provide a preliminary estiriate of i nstrean flows required for fish habitat maintenance in the lower 0.5 i:1i 1 e of Indian Creek. In the absence of an Indian Creek -specific annual hydrograph and meteorological/precipitation data, the CE used a I,onthly Streanflow Sir:+.elation (,SEC-4) computer program to predict average nonthly runoff; correlations were derived from runoff measurements on 'Hyr'yle CreeV, Kodiak Island, approximately ?20 miles east of Chinnik. Projected rlonthly Inflows are as follows: Month Jan Feb Mar Apr Play Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Inflow (cfs) 4 4 2 23 57 55 25 29 40 44 37 30 These figures were used for the CE's enninePring and economic feasibility deter- mination. The following proposed flow regime is based upon the CE's projected infloins, Tennant's "Montana Method," 1982 field observations, and professional ,judgment. The "Montana Method" developed by Tennant (1975) provides an inexpensive, quick means of assessing instrean flow requirements in the absence of retailed biological data. Table 1 describes percentages of average floc- recor :ended to Oro tect <,puatic resources. In order to make conservative prelirdnary instrean estimates that could be modified/refined as additional data are ;encraLc,�, FWS chose flogs equal try 30 of the mean annual flow for the October - r1arc,r period and 50`; of t4he r:ean annul flow for April - September. Our preliminary estimates of instrear.; flows to main- tain pink salmon and Dolly Varden populations in Indian Creek are presented in Table 2. Probable life stages of pinks and Dolly Varden to be affected by those preliminary flow estimates are presented in Table 3. These floor estimates +ould apply if the CE elects to mitigate aquatic impacts through instrean releases into the e isting stream channel. Other aquatic mitigation alternatives, such as tail- race facilities, would necessitate a totally {fiffercnt set of flo;� recor.�.er,dations. r1ith the understanding that additional data to quantify fish use and habitat para- rteters are needed to refine mitigation measures for Indian Creek, vre subiait these release estimates to protect its aquatic resources. If, upon further studies, fish use is demonstrated by State and Fedoral resource professionals to be of a lesser extent than originally reported by Chiqnik residents, we will reanalyze our prelim- inary recor:r*ndations. If you have additional questions concerning our reports and/or reco�rriendations, please contact our !western Alaska Ecological Services staff at 271-4575. Sincerely, Original Signed by Keith A Schreiner Regional Director cc: FUS-ROES, ,SAES DGC, Juneau ADF&G, !;I -IFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage Nation:pk:00398:09/14/83: Authored by Hation: Approved by 3owker received 9/16/83:rb:5364L C-2 ,oionei Neii t. 5aiing Table 1. Montana Method flow recommendations. (Source: Tennant, 1975) Recommended Base Narrative Flow Regimes Description Of Flows Oct. - Mar. Apr. - Sept. Flushing flow 200% of the average flow Optimum Range 60-100110' of the average flow Outstanding 40% 600,.1 Excellent 30% 5001,11 Good 20% 30% Fair 10% 30% Poor or Minimum 10% 10% Severe Degradation 10% of average flow to zero flow C-3 ;onel Neil E. Saling ®4® Table 2. Preliminary estimates of instream fisheries flows for Indian Creek Project planning purposes. Recommended Month Life Stage Strum Flow (cfs) October Rearing/Spawning 9 November Incubation 9 December Incubation 9 January * Incubation 4 (9)1/ February * Incubation 4 (9) March * Incubation 2 (9) April Incubation/Outmigration 15 May Outmigration 15 June Rearing 15 July Rearing 15 August Spawning 15 September Spawning 15 Assume that with hydro shut down, 100% of runoff is spilled into Indian Creek. 1/ Flow required when available. C-4 U 0 .M ro f— U I 1 1 Iv 0 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 > I 1 1 1 I o t 1 1 z i 1 1 1 I I I 1 U 1 1 I 1 O i 1 i i 1 i 1 t t t t 1 a} N I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i i 1 t i I 1 1 I Q i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I i r 1 1 i 1 i 7 1 1 1 I I i C I � I 7 I I 1 1 ro I 1 � I 1 i 1 I L 1 1 I ¢ 1 1 1 i 1 1 L i 1 ro 1 i C 1 1 1 I I CJ I I LL i 1 i 1 i C I ! ro 1 1 7 I 1 C O tT ro tZ 4-. =3 ro ro C O L C i a)-- C) •r C mz •� N C a 4-) - C)C +� � !T a1 O ro ••- •0 ro C 3� r i 0 ro ro v> 0 > ro v 0 ro tZ N Q. C -0 d C Q1 N N¢ ¢ Y r C •r 0 CL 0 41 U 0) O 4-I IZ N v r N Ln Q r C Lo LL_ •k C-5 IN REPLY REFER TO: WAES United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907)276-3800 Colonel Neil E. Saling, Jr. District Engineer, Alaska District Corps of Engineers Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Dear Colonel Saling: 0 4 AUG 1983 Re: Final CA Report Indian Creek/Mud Bay This correspondence transmits a Final Coordination Act Report for the Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek Hydropower projects near Chignik, Alaska. The report was prepared in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (CA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.,) and provides biological information to be used by the Corps of Engineers (CE) in planning the small hydropower projects. Fish and Wildlife Service participation in Chignik project planning began in June 1981; data gathered were presented in Planning Aid letters dated 6 October 1981, 13 July 1982, and 1 October 1982. This report is submitted to satisfy requirements in our FY 82 Scope of Work. Information herein is based on field investigations, literature review, and coordination with personnel from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the CE, and consulting firms. As a result of logistics, access, and timing difficulties encountered, and the CE one-year, fast -track planning mode for these small hydro projects, data presented in this report are qualitative in nature. Therefore, we are concerned that our analysis of data available at this time does not provide the detail necessary for full assessment of the projects's impacts. Significant data gaps exist; additional studies would be needed if a Chignik project were demmed feasible and went on to advanced engineering and design phase. Because hydro development in the state of Alaska has become a high priority and many of the CE's projects are being brought forward with state funds, we believe that identifying resource values and appropriate studies during early planning stages is critical. In light of this, this CA Report is not intended as our final input, but instead points out resources that will become our focal point for mitigation of project impacts. C-6 We enjoyed working on the Chignik project. If you have any questions, please contact our Western Alaska Ecological Services field office. Sincerely, cc: ROES, WAES DGC, Juneau ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchor C-7 Alaska Peninsula Hydropower Projects Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek Chignik, Alaska Final Coordination Act Report Submitted to the Alaska District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Anchorage, Alaska Prepared by: M.L. Nation Approved by: Robert G. Bowker, Field Supervisor Western Alaska Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 605 W. 4th Avenue, Room G-81 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 July 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number List of Tables and Figures** .... o.o.o .............. o ........... iii INTRODUCTION................................................... 1 PROJECTDESCRIPTIONS ........................................... 1 Indian Creek ....................... 0... 0...... 0............ 1 Mud Bay Creek .............................................. 3 Chignik Lagoon Intertie.................................... 6 PROJECTAREA RESOURCES .................... s.................... 6 Indian Creek ............................................... 6 Aquatic.*...* ....... 000*..* ..... *so ................... 6 Terrestrial ........................................... 10 Mud Bay Creek.................................0............ 16 Aquatic ............................................... 16 Terrestrial ........................................... 21 Endangered Species.***..**.*****.*** ... 00 ..... * ............ 29 Resource Harvest ........................................... 29 Aquatic-* ... 0 .................. 29 Terrestrial ........................................... 29 IMPACTS........................................................ 30 Indian Creek ............................................... 30 Aquatic ............................................... 130 Terrestrial* ... * ....... so* ................. *..* ....... 30 Mud Bay Creek******.***** ........ *** ... 0................... 31 Aquatics*.**.*** ........... o**.*.* .... e .......... * .... 31 Terrestrial ........................................... 32 Chignik Lagoon Intertie.................................... 32 DISCUSSION..................................................... 33 FWSRECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 35 REFERENCES..................................................... 37 APPENDICES A. Scientific names of plants and animals occurring in the Chignik area. B. Interagency Coordination C. 1981 ADF&G commercial fish harvest data for Chignik vicinity ii C-9 List of Tables Table Page Number 1. General life history for the species of Pacific salmon in Indian Creek and Mud Bay systems ............... 7 2. Spawning depth -water velocity criteria for salmon found in the Indian Creek and Mud Bay systems............ 8 3. Vegetative codes for Figures 6 and 12...................... 14 4. Bird observations, Indian Creek - Anchorage Bay, 1982...... 17 5. Bird observations, Mud Bay area, 1982...................... 26 List of Figures Figure Page Number, 1. General plan, Indian Creek project........ 0.........0... 0.. 2 2. General plan, Mud Bay Creek project ........................ 4 3. Chignik Lagoon transmission intertie....................... 5 4. Fish occurrence, Indian Creek .............................. 9 5. Indian Creek habitat map ................................... 11 6. Vegetation map, Indian Creek system ........................ 13 7. Waterfowl and shorebird habitat ............................ 18 8. Raptor habitat in the Mud Bay system ....................... 19 9. Furbearer habitat .......................................... 20 10. Sockeye staging and spawning habitat, Mud Bay Lake......... 22 11. Fish occurrence, Mud Bay Creek and Lake .................... 23 12. Vegetative cover map, Mud Bay .............................. 24 13. Brown bear habitat in the Mud Bay system ................... 27 14. Beaver habitat in the Mud Bay system ....................... 28 iii C-10 INTRODUCTION On 1 October 1976, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution directing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) to undertake feasibility studies for installing small, prepackaged hydroelectric units in isolated communities throughout Alaska. As a result of this directive, the CE identified 36 villages on the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak Island with possible hydropower sites. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) personnel participated in an initial reconnaissance trip that investigated potential sites during the summer of 1981. The Chignik community was found to have two potential sites in adjoining drainages: Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek. Last fiscal year, in an effort to accommodate the CE's fast -track planning mode, the FWS conducted baseline aquatic and terrestrial studies during two on -site trips. The first trip, made during mid -May, 1982, resulted in a Planning Aid (PA) letter submitted on 13 July 1982. The second trip, conducted during the first week of August 1982, was the basis for another PA letter, submitted 1 October 1982. Our Draft Coordination Act (CA) Report was circulated for agency review in March 1983. This CA Report synthesizes data gathered from all our field trips, our early impact assessments, and potential mitigation/enhancement measures; review comments have been incorporated in this Final Report. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS The following project descriptions were obtained from the December 1982 Draft Feasibility Report by Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. Engineering data differ somewhat from those .included in our earlier PA letters. Indian Creek Indian Creek project features would include a reservoir, new rockfill dam, penstock, surge tank, powerhouse, tailrace, and two material sites near Indian. Creek Lake (Figure 1). Increasing the existing wooden dam height will raise the lake from its present 20-acre area and surface elevation of 442 feet mean sea level (msl) to a maximum area of 33 acres with surface elevation of 455 feet msl. Maximum operational drawdown of 25 feet would reduce the impoundment to a nine acre surface area with an elevation of 430 feet msl. The storage capacity of this system would be 540 acre-feet. The dam would be a rockfill type with a central impervious membrane of reinforced concrete. Due to the topography of the damsite, the dam would be a maximum of 40 feet high (from bedrock to top of membrane), with a 13-foot wide, 255-foot long crest just below the existing wood buttress dam. The concrete membrane crest elevation would be 460 feet msl; the rockfill on either side would have a crest elevation of 458 feet msl. A 55-foot wide, ungated Ogee spillway (consisting of a concrete weir with a crest elevation of 455 feet msl) would be excavated on the left bank. This spillway is designed to accommodate the 50-year design flood of 600 cubic feet per second (cfs). I C-11 a C-12 The intake structure would be a five-foot diameter, corrugated steel culvert placed through the upstream rockfill to the membrane. The discharge would then be funneled into a 40-inch diameter steel penstock, embedded in concrete, through the downstream rockfill. The 40-inch diameter, 5,500-foot long penstock would be approximately 2.5 feet above ground supported by concrete saddles. Concrete anchor blocks would be needed at vertical and horizontal bends and air vents would be placed at bends 2,600 and 3,300 feet below the intake. A 70-foot high, 15-foot diameter surge tank would be located 4,700 feet below the intake. An additional 800 feet of penstock would lead to a powerhouse at the foot of a bluff, 385 feet lower in elevation than the surge tank. The powerhouse would be a prefabricated, weather -tight steel structure constructed on a 30-foot by 38-foot concrete slab. A horizontal Francis type turbine generator would discharge water into an open channel tailrace. The transmission system to Chignik would consist of a stepdown transformer and single 15 kV, woodpole line to the existing village distribution system. The upper project features would be accessed by an existing all -terrain vehicle trail which would follow the penstock route and need only minor upgrading. Mud Bay Creek Mud Bay project features would include a reservoir, dam, penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace (Figure 2). Because there are no nearby material sites, rock would have to be quarried from outcrops in adjoining drainages, crushed, and transported into the project area. The reservoir would be raised from the present lake elevation of 127 feet msl and surface area of 30 acres, to a full -pool elevation of 140 feet msl and a maximum surface area of 68 acres. Maximum drawdown would be 10 feet and active storage capacity would be 560 acre-feet. The dam would be a concrete gravity type with a 62-foot crest length and 20-foot height. A 40-foot spillway would accommodate the 50-year design flood of 430 cfs. The intake, located on the right (looking upstream), would consist of the 42-inch diameter penstock through the dam to the upstream side. A benched steel penstock would run 5,100 feet along the right bank of Mud Bay Creek to a powerhouse located approximately 300 feet upstream of the creek mouth. A 50-foot high, 20-foot diameter surge tank would be constructed at 105 feet msl, about 100 feet from the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be a prefabricated, weather -tight steel structure built on a 30-foot by 38-foot concrete slab. A horizontal Francis type turbine and generator would discharge water into an open channel tailrace. Full time access to the project would be by bulldozer trail, which would follow an existing footpath from Chignik. Barge access into Mud Bay would be limited to high tide conditions only. A transmission corridor would parallel the access trail (Figure 3). 3 C-13 Li- 0 :• , Ilk -�/ it 'r_1A s C-15 Chignik Lagoon Intertie The 6.5 mile transmission line to Chignik Lagoon would consist of a 15 kV single wire ground return system supported by wood poles (Figure 3). If the line were constructed by helicopters, vegetation clearing in area of tall shrub would be needed for constructing helipads. PROJECT AREA RESOURCES Indian Creek Aquatic: Stream surveys and fish trapping efforts during the summer of 1982 established that Indian Creek supports several age classes of Dolly Varden, coastrange sculpin, and an unknown number of pink salmon. In the absence of life history data specific, to Indian Creek, we assumed that general literature values for salmon species lifecycles and preferred habitat parameters can be applied (Tables 1 and 2). Due to timing of FWS's trips, approximately 200 pink salmon outmigrants were trapped in mid -May, but adult staging and spawning were not observed in early August. Local residents estimated that between 300 to 1,000 pink salmon used the lower 0.5 mile reach of Indian Creek in an average year. However, during the consultants' 9 September on -site trip, one large, gravid female pink salmon was observed in the lower reach of the stream (Middleton, 1982). Although adult pink salmon could possibly move up Indian Creek to the falls at approximately river mile (RM) 1.7, local reports of spawning observations and FWS' outmigrant trapping were limited to the lower 0.5 miles of the stream. Above a large, deep pool at RM 0.5 the stream narrowed, gradient increased, water velocities increased, and the substrate was primarily imbedded boulders. Constrictions between boulders created a number of hydraulic chutes and rapids, rendering habitat less suitable for pink salmon spawning and poor for rearing. In addition to reports of pinks in lower reaches, Chignik residents also indicated that small numbers of chum salmon can occasionally be seen near the mouth of Indian Creek. However, since no chum outmigrants were observed or captured, FWS assumed that chums in Indian Creek are probably straying into the system prior to moving into their natal streams in adjoining drainages. Indian Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for Dolly Varden. Adult and juvenile Dolly Varden were observed and/or captured from approximately river mile 1.0 to the mouth of Indian Creek; adults present in May were assumed to be resident, while larger adults in the stream's lower reaches in August were assumed to be anadromous. Dollies can probably be found throughout the stream up to the falls at about river mile 1.7. However, the distribution of Dolly Varden presented in Figure 4 is limited to areas of confirmed use in the section of the stream where sampling took place. 6 C-16 V P ((DD c w c (`D (D c(DD � (D n B H. 8 G B (D P G 8 (D P to G D7 G (D lTJ Jo G O p fu 00 W tt W JQ A) tt W *t Uo rt 90 0 DC 00 n ('t (D rt A) rt (D rt A) rt rt W rt n m p, rt H. G G Oo G G aq G O �1 l< G' E m i N• �7' b ri O rt (D �l O *t m " -n A� 'c7 F1 rt (A 0 h'• M-h J- . H. hh t b H. O O rt rt N C 1-+ rt rt $ rt rt } rt F- M p tt (D ! + V) E '4 (D (D C r• *t (D H. (D ," 3 F-h O G G b F1• e-, 40 ^ G Oro (D n H. G to ll7 Oo 'C �71 H.110 H. rt (D (D B A) @ O G" O rt P rt G�71 m (D cY rt Q G rt G n n rt p H. O (D H. P G' P) rt tt ' j �=, A) P. rt (D AO (D rt N A� O 0 rt 00 U7 rt V) m rt W F'• rt G rt �l O .. .. .. .. -t, (D G (D rn (D K ol� U) (o Po (D N P. P` c X. n N G N W `C rt ti F-' rt N (D tt rt rt O (D W tU tt i+• t7 LO O tf h' (D O n n G tt M tf (D ,n G rt W rr O ;1 rt • L� G In O j+ W O rt a, O in O .1- C� rt O (D W v C (D (D (D d t 1 W (D W (n P O l) rt S tt 17 U] ul Ln rY �j tat W (D O O a rt C7 rt F- rt N rt In ( O O O O N N F- W O fu rt O (D W W C C x" rf n O O (D (D (D (p rf *i B In O O m W G' W (D rt rt go O C) 1� O �O O In O rt rt O O C W In Cx Uq 1-1� tt (D tU G (D (D W .1� �f m ti to C-17 Table 2. General spawning depth -water velocity criteria as applied to the salmon species occurring in the Indian Creek and Mud Bay systems. Species Depth Velocity Reference (meters) (feet) (cm/sec) (ft/sec) Coho 1.0-1.25 1.2-1.8 Chambers, et al., 1955 Coho 0.3-1.90 0.5-3.0 Sams & Pearson, 1963 Coho 0.6 1.0-3.0 Thompson, 1972 Coho .15a --- 21-70 Smith, 1973 Sockeye 1.0-1.5 1.75a Chambers et al., 1955 Sockeye --- 1.75a-1.8b Clay, 1961 Pink 0.5-1.75 0.7-3.3b Collings, 1974 Chum 0.5-1.75 0.7-3.3b Collings, 1974 Chum .18b --- 46-101 Smith, 1973 Chum 0.6 1.5-3.2 Thompson, 1972 a Minimum b Measured at 0.4 feet above streambed. Source: Stalnaker and Arnette (1976). During a stream survey on 1 August, electrofishing produced a total of 56 juvenile Dolly Varden in the lower 0.5 mile of Indian Creek. Individuals were collected in a variety of areas, including slow, deep pools, stream edges with high velocities, mid -channel in areas where large boulders provided cover, and in backwaters and temporary side channels. Schools of fry were observed primarily in slower, backwater pools. Juveniles ranged in length from 30 mm to 132 mm and represented at least two age classes. Larger juveniles and adults were seen more frequently in riffle areas, using boulders for cover. Because reliable population estimates and stream surveys prior to 1982 have not been conducted, additional seasonal occurrence and abundance data need to be collected if the Indian Creek project moves forward to the next study phase. Local reports indicated that there has never been a fishery in Indian Creek Lake. There were no records of stocking attempts or sampling studies. Because of two falls at RM 1.7 and just below the existing wooden dam were sufficiently high to prevent fish migration above, sampling and fish surveys were limited to lower stream reaches. Eighteen trap -hours of minnow bucket sampling produced no fish. Lacustrine thermal regimes and large drawdowns for Chignik's water supply during winter months (resulting in heavy icing) could also be responsible for the lack of fish use in the lake. Large numbers of threespine stickleback, the only other fish species within the Indian Creek drainage, were found in freshwater ponds and brackish wetlands located immediately southwest of Chignik in the vicinity of the powerhouse and tailrace sites. Male sticklebacks were in bright spawning colors during the last week of July. A schematic habitat diagram depicting substrate sizes and some of the general characteristics of Indian Creek to river mile (RM) 1.0 was drawn from stream observations (Figure 5). Stream substrate analysis revealed a sparse algal and macroinvertebrate distribution and scattered pockets of preferred size gravels for various salmon uses. Throughout our field investigations, the stream was always clear and cold (4.50C 14 May 1982 and 6.50C on 1 August 1982). Terrestrial: Indian Creek drainage basin had homogeneous vegetative cover. The two major vegetative types in the project area were alder/willow shrubland in the upper drainage area and riparian corridor, and a pocket of freshwater wetland - coastal marshland directly adjacent to the village of Chignik (Figure 6 and Table 3). Riparian shrub type was an association of willows and alder, with an understory of river beauty, fireweed, bluejoint grasses, horsetail, fragile fern, Jacob's ladder, monkshood, cranesbill, and assorted other forbs. Botanical names follow Hulten (1968) and are listed in Appendix A. Upland shrub in the Chignik area included Sitka alder thickets interspersed with willow patches and grass/forb meadows. Meadows were generally too small to map as separate units, but composed a substantial area within the tall shrub 10 C-20 } { grave. ,ce661e- j R ,►tQ t+a+c a ��n.trvei ,j 4-S +R.tabbh- grove\ b� se+rK be+..� ers .Jaail _____� '7s f�,� ''ter` 1�.,�� in. Cei6�t� bot4.�dt✓ i YtQefa'f"cc� grare� bars J / .2 ;,,ctz aucIs c4ble � 6-8 i,..cobble. Y.s c see y—S rock co"Ic- RiR yewe-1 in ,vd �'j�o°sty - grove-�4 f7J� i T. f' G 6 i R • CoWt— =q. 5 C j 2 i w. r V4 l g i*. A..,, AV r, 7 Fie_ure 5. Schematic ha�-itat d iagram Fro^ 14 May stream survev. Not dra�,m to scale. AAA Dischnrc;e measure -lent Fvke net 0 Minnow trap t d%J� 6okidlrs , �ar�c cobble. ser yes a� �+ya��ay1 � c c{,k�ts 'I1C1 ptobo.blo %s� 61eek G tl cyLb►a , bo,.Wly RIYi I . o fa11t1 � `a I'd et. to661 �Kke�-e V1, +dAow a I #%a6s t�k �of,wlr a�•iI'/-%Itow 1, trusa5 no tbrbS s Y+ow; nq oi, may }q, 19gla: eo66 j e , %ea1 crier tiiq� dt�rae_ �m6eo�.(�, �5 G ('�eeiRts o; grave( v 6e l�; na� l 6.0 clefs tiyd i.tii'te- pess� 61e 7i5� b�oc.:4 nUMlIOU.S lark 8-/0 in.cc661e, � .a.tdlrs S.r.'e. c.6b1e �QM 0 e7 �ti�aY �fawt It/-�^ �•K�de� b�rlde�s Figure S. Continued RM o,Cs 74tvet) cobble , ioo4lo�w 1 1) C-22 Table 3. Vegetative codes for Figures 6 and 12 (from Viereck and Dyrness, 1980) US - unconsolidated shoreline UN - unvegetated snowbed 3 - Shrub A. Tall ( > 5 feet) B. Low ( <5 feet) (1) Closed ( >75% canopy cover) (2) Open (< 25-75% canopy cover) a. willow b. alder d. alder -willow h. mixed shrub, sphagnum 4 - Herbaceous vegetation A. Tall grass (> 3 feet) (1) Bluejoint a. Bluejoint meadow (2) Bluejoint herb a. bluejoint-mixed herbs (3) Bluejoint shrub a. bluejoint alder (4) Herbs a. mixed herbs b. fireweed c. cow parsnip d. ferns (5) Flymus a. coastal elymus b. coastal elymus - herb B. Midgrass (1) Mesic midgrass a. midgrass - herb C. Sedge grass (1) Wet sedge -grass a. fresh water sedge marsh 14 C-24 5. Aquatic vegetation A. Freshwater (1) Ponds and lakes a. floating and submerged vegetation 15 C-25 association. Grass,/forb meadows were made up of bluejoint grass, salmonberry, fireweed, cow parsnip, false hellebore, yarrow, cranesbill, and dwarf birch. Shrub associations in the project area extended directly into unvegetated areas such as mountain tops, talus slopes, cliffs and snowfield. Wetlands vegetation adjacent to Chignik reflected a gentle gradient northwest toward the present mouth of Indian Creek. On the drier southeast end, low willow and alder shrub, bluejoint reed, bent grass, brome grass, chickweed, wild flag, and chocolate lily predominated. Around the ponds and sloughs on the northwestern end, sedges, cotton grass, equisetum, arrowgrass, marsh fivefinger, silverweed, and marsh marigold were found. Pondweed occurred in some of the freshwater ponds near the bluff. Bird species diversity in the Indian Creek vicinity increased from May to August (Table 4). Numbers of individuals per species were also observed to increase from May to August. Small passerines were not abundant in riparian and upland shrub areas. Waterfowl and shorebirds were observed scattered along the shoreline; fewer individuals were seen in the sloughs and tidal marsh behind the village (Figure 7). Two adult and one juvenile bald eagle were observed regularly flying over the lower Indian Creek drainage; no established perches were identified (Figure 8). Mammal sign seen along lower Indian Creek were limited to snowshoe or tundra hare droppings, fox scat, redback vole runs and nests (Figure 9). Other than ptarmigan tracks, wildlife sign were not observed around the periphery of the lake. Hare sign, fox scat and tracks were seen in shrub and river corridor areas. Tundra redback vole runs were numerous in drier upland meadow areas. An unidentified shrew (possibly a masked or dusky shrew) was momentarily seen in underbrush along the lower reach of the creek. FWS personnel's only sighting of bear in the Indian Creek vicinity occurred in August. A brown bear sow and cub walked along the shoreline in front of Alaska Packers cannery, scavenging fish waste and garbage. Local reports indicated that bear or bear tracks are rarely seen in the upper Indian Creek drainage (Ralph Schoenberg, pers. comm.). Mud Bay Creek Aquatic: Mud Bay Creek and Lake support runs of sockeye, coho, chum, and pink salmon, and Dolly Varden. Coastrange sculpin were also found near the creek mouth. Fish use of Mud Bay Creek was evident from the mouth upstream to Mud Bay Lake and its tributaries. Approximately 100 salmon skeletons, probably discarded by feeding bears, were scattered along downstream banks of the creek near pools. These were thought to be pink salmon skeletons. An approximate three hundred fish skeletons along the shoreline of Mud Bay Lake and its tributaries were assumed to be chum or sockeye salmon because of their size. 16 C-26 Table 4. Bird observations, Indian Creek - Anchorage Bay area, 1982 M = May A = August Common Name Location Marine Shore Riparian Wetland Stream Shrub Lake Pelagic cormorant M A American wigeon A A A Greater scaup A Harlequin duck M A M Bald eagle M A M A M A Willow ptarmigan M A M A Greater yellowlegs A A A A Common snipe M M A Least sandpiper M A A Rock sandpiper M Dunlin A Glaucous -winged gull M A M A Mew gull M A M A M A Black -legged kittiwake A Pigeon guillemot M Crested auklet M Parakeet auklet M Belted kingfisher A A Tree swallow A A Black -billed magpie M A M A M A Common raven M A M A M A Black -capped chickadee M M Dipper M A American robin A A Varied thrush A A Hermit thrush A A Gray-cheeked thrush A A Yellow warbler A A Wilson's warbler A A Gray -crowned rosy finch A A White -crowned sparrow A A A Golden -crowned sparrow A A A 17 C-27 19 C-29 . . . . . . ... 20 C-30 Four species of salmon, (i.e., chum, pink, sockeye, and coho) were observed using the Mud Bay Creek system. Five chum salmon in spawning colors were observed staging beneath overhanging banks just upstream from the mouth of the creek. An additional 15 chum were seen in pools approximately 0.25 miles upstream, while approximately 20 chum were observed in a deep stream reach at river mile 0.5. Pink salmon were seen from the mouth of Mud Bay Lake to the mouth of Mud Bay Creek. Small schools of pinks concentrated in pools at approximately river mile 0.5. Examination of one male pink salmon captured at river mile 0.5 disclosed that the fish was highly colored, had a pronounced hump, and spawning had begun. The CE's consultants, Arctic Slope Technical Services, also observed pink salmon at the mouth of the lake and within 40 yards of the mouth of the stream. (Middleton, 1982). On July 29, approximately 1,100 sockeye salmon were seen spawning and staging 15 feet offshore in the shallow periphery of Mud Bay Lake. Greatest concentrations were around the mouths of two inlet streams and the shoreline near the outlet of the lake. From the air, redds could be seen. Salmon had not begun to move up into the two inlet streams; however, we believed that they would probably do so at a later date. Two captured male sockeye were both brightly colored and ripe. Arctic Slope Technical Services personnel were on -site 9 September and verified that sockeye salmon did use the lake's inlet streams.for spawning (Figure 10). Coho salmon were a fourth species of salmon using Mud Bay drainage system. On 18 November 1982, six spawned out coho salmon were observed drifting in pools at the CE's gage site approximately 1,000 feet below the mouth of Mud Bay Lake (D. Mierzejewski, personal communication). CE hydrologists did not survey the inlet streams above the lake. It is unknown how far coho move into the system; based on the best available data, areas of salmon use have been delineated for Mud Bay Creek and Lake (Figure 11). Dolly Varden were distributed throughout the Mud Bay system. Adults were seer. from the mouth of the creek to the lake mouth. Large Dolly Varden (greater than 20 cm) were also observed in the shallow lake zones. Numerous Dolly Varden juveniles and fry were collected in the inlet tributaries using a backpack electroshocker. Terrestrial: Vegetation in the Mud Bay drainage was extremely similar to that in the Indian. Creek area. However, instead of tidal wetlands at the head of Mud Bay, there was a small fringe of lyme grass at the mouth of the creek between the mud flat shoreline and the edge of the shrub upland. During our May field trip, small forbs and sedges had not yet appeared, but horsetail, crowberry, cow parsnip, blueberry, bluegrass, and dense salmonberry were identified in open areas, with tall alder/willow as shrub cover (Figure 12). Open meadows-alder/willow mosaic areas were large (up to 1.0 acre) in the Mud Bay watershed. Our vegetative mapping showed open alder/willow associations predominating (30 to 70% coverage). Open meadow complexes and herbaceous 21 C-31 ,, .. ,t�*�r�sx�ry: 7aaw.rewrtagn�Y9 P.' 0 7 A 22 C-32 Mud �t +r o. •r o• .t o + q fi . f c o � o � a 4 �01 � Pink ........ chum . x�! l \it sockeye Dolly Varden . xxx x x xk coho 0000coo H x x x x X C j �� l =/voot Figure 11. Fish Occurrence, 'dud Bav Creek and Lake. 23 C-33 A(i)� \ 'YA(3)— JA Pk 4M \\\ 1\ 33tz)h � e a Phl 6 1 Figure 12. Vegetative cover map, Mud Bay. Codes from Table 3. 24 C- 34 vegetation covered a much larger percentage of the Mud Bay area than the Indian Creek area. Because Mud Bay watershed was less steep than that of Indian Creek, more pockets of wet meadow existed. Wet meadows along the creek consisted of sphagnum, dwarf birch, Labrador tea, cloudberry, crowberry, salmonberry, and assorted sedges and grasses. These meadows intergraded into the open alder/willow complexes. Bird use in the Mud Bay drainage increased from May to August as evidenced by an increased number of species sighted and increased numbers of individuals per species (Table 5). Waterfowl were more numerous in spring, while passerines were more abundant in summer. In addition to the constant presence of adults seen along the river and lake, at least two pairs of adult bald eagles nested in the Mud Bay drainage. Two molting juvenile bald eagles used well -established hunting perches, evidenced by large areas of droppings and molted feathers (Figure 8). During our May field trip, mammals using the Mud Bay drainage included several brown bear, approximately three moose, and numerous furbearers. Two separate sets of fresh bear tracks were observed on both days of stream surveys, both at the lake, and along bear trails on lower stream reaches. One brown bear was observed on a ridge above the stream (Figure 13). Wolverine, mink, snowshoe hare, and fox tracks were seen in the mud on the lake shore. Snowshoe hare droppings and fox scat were commonly scattered throughout the drainage. Recent beaver cuttings and dams were noted 200 to 400 yards upstream from the lake (Figure 14). In August, mammal sign were more abundant throughout the Mud Bay system than in May. Heavily used wildlife trails were located on both sides of the creek below the canyon. Tracks, scats and/or droppings of fox, weasel, mink, wolverine, brown bear, moose, and tundra/snowshoe hare were seen along the trails and in wet meadows. Tundra vole runs and nests were abundant through the sphagnum - wet meadow areas. Based on the various sets of tracks and our helicopter sightings, there appear to have been at least one sow and cub, and three other yearling or adult bears using stream side trails on a regular basis. On the north end of Mud Bay Lake, cow moose and calf tracks were seen. A large set probably belonging to a bull was found along a drainage leading down to the lake. On the south end of the lake and along meandering tributaries above the lake, additional moose tracks were seen, the total number of moose in the Mud Bay drainage is unknown. During our August trip, no beaver activity was noted in the inlet tributary areas which during our May trip appeared to support a population. However, a low beaver dam and fresh cuttings were observed between the lake mouth and the upper canyon. 25 C-35 Table 5. Bird Observations, Mud Bay area, 1982 M = May A = August Common Name Location Marine Shore Riparian Stream Shrub Lake Mallard M Pintail M Green -winged teal M. _American wigeon M A Harlequin duck M Red -breasted merganser M' Bald eagle M A M M A Peregrine falcon M Willow ptarmigan M A Whimbrel A Greater yellowlegs M A M A Common snipe A A Least sandpiper A Herring gull M A M A Tree swallow A Black -billed magpie A Black -capped chickadee M M Dipper M A American robin A Varied thrush A Hermit thrush A Gray-cheeked thrush A Water pipit M A Yellow warbler A A Wilson's warbler A A Common redpoll A White -crowned sparrow A A Golden -crowned sparrow A A 26 C-36 .r 0 n F..• ro n n ❑ n < S R R w w S A O t+ N G. O 0 R 1+ p ^S R p O n w w C• R � t0 f9 G N R (D N o a b K o• r� N o < Oq w h SD m F+ << ry • N w S O w N 3 n N JC (p n w N C- 37 O 28 C-38 One adult brown bear was flushed from cover by the helicopter while we were flying the Chignik Lagoon intertie route. Due to the dense shrub cover and steep terrain, no other mammals were spotted between the Mud Bay drainage and Chignik Lagoon. However, bear and moose tracks were seen in a muddy depression on top of the ridge above Chignik Lagoon. Endangered Species To the best of our knowledge, there are no listed or proposed threatened or endangered species occurring in Indian Creek or Mud Bay Creek watersheds. The endangered Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucoparlia) is found in the western Aleutians, with the main known breeding population occurring on Buldir Island. In 1982 a remnant population of Aleutian Canada geese was discovered near Chigulik. However, considering their limited range in the Aleutians, no conflicts are anticipated. The endangered peregrine subspecies, Falco peregrinus anatum has not been sighted in the Chignik vicinity. (Benfield, pers. comm.). New information indicating the presence of currently listed threatened or endangered species administered by the FWS, or the listing of new species which might be affected by the proposed project would require reinitiation of the consultation process. Resource Harvest Aquatic: Chignik area subsistence salmon catches for 1980 and 1981, as estimated by ADF&G personnel, were as follows: Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Total 1980 6 7,805 0 Z7 7,815 1981 100 5,840 0 0 5,940 In 1980, a total of 67 subsistence permits were issued, with only 37 completed and returned to ADF&G. In 1981, a total of 27 subsistence permits were issued, with seven returned. The Indian Creek and the Mud Bay drainage are within ADF&G's Chignik Area, Central District, Outer Chignik Bay Section for harvest management. However, commercial fish harvest data specific to Anchorage Bay or Mud Bay were not available. Central District catch and price information for 1981 is presented in Appendix C. (Nicholson, 1981). Terrestrial: Subsistence and game harvest information specific to Indian Creek or Mud Bay Creek drainages was not available. According to ADF&G biologists, one or two moose are harvested annually in the Chignik area, but most local residents moose hunt in the Aniakchak—Amber Bay area, approximately 50 miles northeast of Chignik. Small numbers of caribou are also utilized by Chignik residents, 29 C- 39 who hunt in the Port Heiden or Kijulik Bay areas (Sellers, pens. Comm.). Apparently, local residents from Chignik and Chignik Lagoon exchange salmon for moose and caribou. Hunting ducks and geese in Castle Bay, 10 miles southwest of Chignik, is another subsistence use for most Chignik residents. It is unknown what level of effort Chignik residents expend on trapping (Morris, pers. comm.). Primary reasons for the lack of subsistence and harvest data in many remote areas such as Chignik include (1) local resistance to turning in harvest tickets to ADF&G, and (2) the difficulty of enforcing state hunting and fishing regulations. IMPACTS Indian Creek Aquatic: One of the most significant impacts associated with the Indian Creek project would be dewatering of the Creek from damsite to mouth. This would eliminate approximately 0.5 mile of medium to low value pink salmon habitat and approximately 1.0 mile of Dolly Varden rearing and spawning habitat. With the limited survey data available, it is unknown what number of each species would be lost. Terrestrial: Dewatering the creek would cause riparian habitat alteration. Vegetation would probably encroach on old side channels and gravel bars. Other small tributaries or upwelling areas would provide some water for small mammal or passerine species, but most runoff below the damsite would be lost in intragravel flow. Waterfowl and birds such as kingfishers and dippers would be displaced. Raising the Indian Creek dam would inundate an additional 13 acres along the periphery of the existing 20 acre lake. Approximately 9.75 acres of open tall alder/willow shrub vegetation and 3.25 acres of unvegetated talus slopes would be lost. Loss of such habitat would result in a loss of passerine bird habitat, but overall impact would be slight. An additional 2.6 acres of shrub cover would be removed by the penstock/bulldozer trail and less than 1.0 acre of low shrub/grass/sedge wetland would be covered by the powerhouse. Passerines and possibly small mammals would lose small amounts of habitat. Operation of the project would create a 25—foot drawdown zone during low —pool conditions. Because the lake area has only incidental mammal use, lake fluctuation should have little effect. An open channel tailrace allowed to cut its own path through the ponds and wetlands adjacent to Chignik could eliminate an unknown amount of shallow pool shorebird and waterfowl habitat and probably alter hydrological regimes. If groundwater flows were changed, vegetation types could be altered and wetlands could be drained. 30 C-40 Temporary construction disturbances would result from concentrated human activities, heavy equipment use along the penstock route/bulldozer trail, and blasting at the dam and material sites. Birds and mammals would avoid construction areas. Assuming the bulldozer trail would not be maintained after construction, some natural revegetation could be expected, except in trail areas kept open by dam operation and maintenance personnel, local residents, and summer cannery workers. An above ground penstock would be a barrier or deterrent for large mammal movement into the lake area. Because (1) no well -established game trails were observed; (2) small numbers of prey species or fish were available for predators, and (3) a high degree of human and all -terrain vehicle use occurs during summer months, it was assumed that large mammal use of the Indian Creek upper drainage is limited, even incidental. Therefore, because animals from Mud Bay seldom drift into the Indian Creek area, the penstock would seem to have minor on population distributions between the Mud Bay and Indian Creek drainages. A widened trail could provide a travel corridor for wildlife, but with an anticipated increase in human activity along the penstock route, most animals would probably avoid this area. Loss of less mobile mammals would result both from habitat removal and/or mortality due to collisions with construction equipment and vehicles. Mud Bay Creek Environmental impacts associated with a hydroelectric project on this drainage would have adverse effects on both terrestrial and aquatic resources of Mud Bay Creek. Because Mud Bay, the Creek, and the Lake have experienced less human activity and have more diverse habitats, large and small mammal bird and fish populations are larger than those occurring in the Indian Creek drainage area. Aquatic: Building a dam at Mud Bay Lake would eliminate access to the lake and inlet tributaries that provide spawning and rearing habitat for sockeye and possibly coho salmon, and Dolly Varden. At least 0.5 miles of high to medium value spawning habitat for sockeye and an unknown number of coho salmon would be lost from the inlet streams, and approximately 15 acres of high to medium value spawning habitat for sockeye would be lost in the lake. The exact number of fish lost for each species cannot be ascertained at this time. If all stored water were diverted for power production, the remaining 2.5 miles of Mud Bay Creek would be dewatered, causing loss of pink and chum salmon spawning habitat in the lower stream reaches. If water were available for downstream releases to maintain fisheries resources, an unknown amount of spawning and rearing habitat would still be lost due to lower flows and decreased wetted area. Again, exact numbers of each species to be lost cannot be estimated from existing survey data. 31 C-41 Terrestrial: A Mud Bay project would have greater adverse impacts than an Indian Creek project, because of the larger area to be altered and the numbers and diversity of species affected. The 30 acre lake would increase to 68 acres, inundating 38 acres of willow/alder shrub and open meadow mosaic. Raising the level of the lake 50 feet would eliminate beaver and other furbearer habitats. This area is of high value to brown bear, beaver, moose, eagles and small mammals. An unknown acreage along the creek would also be lost due to benching the penstock and its subsequent production and disposal of spoil. Less than 1.0 acre of lyme grass would be covered by the powerhouse and intertidal tailrace. Approximately 3.6 acres of shrub/meadow would be removed by constructing a transmission corridor and road from Chignik into Mud Bay. Existing beaver habitat would be lost as the lake level rises; however, new habitat may be created, depending on the lake's frequency and magnitude of fluctuation. Impacts associated with a transmission line include possible bird collisions with conductors and raptor electrocution. A transmission corridor and/or road would probably become a travel route for terrestrial species; some losses, especially of small mammals, to vehicle collisions can be expected. Road or all terrain vehicle access from Chignik would increase hunting, trapping, fishing, and associated habitat alteration in the Mud Bay watershed. Brown bear and moose can be expected to temporarily move out of the area as human activity associated with project construction increases. Bear/human conflicts can be expected if garbage and construction materials are not properly contained and disposed. Loss of fish resources from dewatering the creek would greatly decrease the area's value to furbearers due to loss of a major food source. Eagles would probably move out of the project area because of nesting disturbances and lack of available fish food sources. Chignik Lagoon Intertie The extent of impacts associated with a Chignik-Chignik Lagoon intertie depends largely on the amount of clearing necessary for a right-of-way, construction timing and methods, and whether or not a road is associated with the corridor. Impacts on Mud Bay and two other drainages between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon villages may include: (1) increased hunting, fishing, trapping efforts, and associated habitat alteration as a result of creating access to formerly remote sites; (2) raptor electrocution and bird collision with transmission lines; (3) mammal population redistribution and alteration of interdrainage migration patterns; (4) increased human/bear conflicts; and (5) changes in plant succession as a result of clearing, with altered food and cover values for birds and mammals. 32 C-42 DISCUSSION We are concerned that many of the remote, small hydroelectric projects currently being planned in Alaska are located on short, coastal anadromous fish streams which often support relatively small numbers (hundreds) of fish. Because the economic constraints of small hydroelectric project are fairly inflexible and storage capacities are low, instream releases as a mitigation measure are quickly deemed infeasible. On a commercially comparative basis, streams producing small populations of salmon are judged unimportant; therefore, replacement mitigation measures, such as tailrace spawning facilities or hatcheries, are deemed economically unrealistic because of the low numbers of fish to be lost. Ultimately small anadromous streams are "written off" without mitigation or enhancement. The cumulative impact of small remote hydras being developed will be the permanent loss of anadromous fish populations. The Indian Creek project is one of many such small hydropower facilities in Alaska being planned. Comparing the possible environmental impacts associated with an Indian Creek project and a Mud Bay project, the FWS believes that Indian Creek would be the preferred location for a hydroelectric facility. A Mud Bay facility would entail greater aquatic and terrestrial losses, because of the area affected, numbers of animals, and the relative value of their respective habitats. Per conversations between our office and the CE planning staff and the findings presented in the Draft Feasibility Report prepared by Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc., the Mud Bay project is not feasible (Benefit/cost ratio - 0.16). Therefore, the project's feasibility and environmental impacts will not be studied in greater detail by the CE or FWS at this time. Resource information generated in this report should be used in project planning if and when power demands in the Chignik area increase substantially. Additional studies and better quantification of impact would be needed if the Mud Bay project were to be pursued at a later date. If the Chignik hydroelectric facility goes into an advanced engineering and design phase, additional fisheries work should be undertaken. Although we ascertained that Indian Creek is an anadromous fish stream, more study will be needed to obtain population estimates for pink salmon and Dolly Varden. This information will be needed before a realistic assessment of fisheries mitigation/enhancement options and costs can be made. Other aquatic data, such as hydrologic, temperature, and water quality will also be needed. Originally, our 13 July 1982 PA letter recommended that instream releases be devised to maintain pink salmon and Dolly Varden runs in the lower reaches of Indian Creek. However, project feasibility assumes total use of water for power production. In our 1 October 1982 PA letter, we suggested that the possibility of some kind of tailrace spawning facility be examined. This would allow cost comparison of releases versus tailrace facility. In the next phase of study, when fish populations estimates are available, mitigative/enhancement alternatives should be explored and the costs thereof figured into the project's total cost. 33 C-43 One issue that was not addressed in the Draft Feasibility Report submitted to the CE was the existing use of the lake for Chignik's water supply and its potential competition with a hydroelectric facility. An analysis of whether the storage capacity of the reservoir is able to accommodate power production and water supply needs to be made. If the hydroelectric facilities were only used seasonally, would water be available year-round for water supply? Could extra water be diverted from the water supply lines into a tailrace facility, if hydropower facilities were shut down during winter months? These questions will have a bearing on the fisheries mitigation costs and feasibility of the Indian Creek project. Recent communications with CE planning personnel established that additional environmental studies on the Chignik small hydroelectric project will be foregone. Also, because the Alaska Packers Cannery has an existing water use appropriation, the CE contends that no water would be available for either releases or maintaining a tailrace facility. Therefore, no mitigation options would be feasible. In the event that project planning proceeds without an agreement to quantify and mitigate the Chignik projects aquatic losses, the FWS will have no recourse but to recommend the no project alternative in our review of the project EIS. Terrestrially, the Indian Creek project (without the Chignik Lagoon intertie) has few potential adverse impacts. Most of the possible impacts to birds and mammals can be minimized with proper construction methods, erosion control, and post construction clean-up. During the next phase of project planning, the contractors' plans, specifications, and methods for construction will need to be reviewed and arrangements for on -site, construction surveillance by resource agency personnel should be made. If the intertie is pursued in conjunction with the Indian Creek project, using the following methods will mitigate some the possible impacts: (1) setting poles by helicopter and not constructing a road, (2) limiting clearing to the smallest extent possible, (3) clearing by hand (no herbicides) and piling slash, and (4) using raptor -proofed pole configurations and/or insulators in areas of eagle activity. As project plans move into advanced engineering and design phase, manpower and funds should be allocated for (1) additional baseline studies to fill fish and wildlife data gaps, (2) feature by feature design review, and approval of construction plans and methods, and (3) formulation of a mitigation plan. The FWS is concerned about the project's one-year, "fast track" planning mode because it has limited collection of needed biological data and, consequently, our ability to make a thorough and complete analysis of project impacts. Therefore, we recommend that future project planning set project milestones which will avoid such information deficiencies. In March 1983, the CE Environmental Branch assessed whether or not an Environmental Assessment (EA) could be substituted for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to fulfill their obligations within the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. An EA is an in-house document 34 C-44 written by the lead agency which recommends that either an EIS or "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) be written. While we understood that the CE's intent was to save time, the FWS believes that an EIS is the appropriate NEPA document for all hydroelectric projects with the potential to dewater an anadromous fish stream. Additionally, due to current Federal economic constraints, many CE post -feasibility projects are being picked up by State development agencies for further study. In light of this, an EIS becomes a State planning tool which documents potential impacts on fish and wildlife and necessary mitigation measures. As a result of our correspondence on this subject (Appendix B), this Final CA Report will accompany the CE's Draft EIS. FWS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations pertain to the Indian Creek hydroelectric project. Based on our evaluations of potential project impacts and to insure that those impacts are adequately addressed, or mitigated, we recommend that: 1. During ensuing project planning stages, additional site -specific baseline studies be done to document: A. timing and numbers of spawning pink salmon in lower Indian Creek; B. hydrological and meteorological characterization of the Indian Creek drainage; C. temperatures and water quality within the lake and lower creek; D. aquatic mitigation alternatives and costs; E. raptor nesting sites in vicinity of proposed intertie; and F. adequate subsistence surveys and game harvest data. 2. during ensuing project planning stages, detailed impact/mitigation assessment based upon the above studies be scoped and funded; 3. when Indian Creek pink salmon spawning use is quantified, a mitigation plan for preserving or replacing the 0.5 mile of spawning and migratory habitat be devised. Two aquatic mitigation options that should be compared are 1) instream releases into Indian Creek or 2) a tailrace spawning facility; 4. altered or new project designs and plans be provided to, reviewed by, and commented on by FWS; 5. if the Chignik Lagoon intertie is economically justified, a construction plan be formulated incorporating timing, methods of clearing, design for raptor proofing within 0.5 miles of Mud Bay Creek, etc. and submitted to FWS for review and incorporation into permits and licenses; 35 C-45 6. FWS recommendations be included in all contractors` specifications and that FWS and other interested resource agencies be able to review those specifications prior to construction bid submission; 7. organic soils excavated during construction be stockpiled, contained in such a way as to prevent erosion, and used in revegetation of disturbed areas; 8. during construction, all food -related garbage be stored in metal containers, removed as soon as possible, and incinerated to prevent a nuisance bear situation; 9. for construction and operation phases of the project, waste petroleum and waste water disposal plans and oil spill contingency plans addressing safe storage, use, and clean-up of oil and gas be prepared in accordance with State and Federal guidelines (40 C.F.R. 112.38, Dec. 11, 1973); 10. erosion control plans for road/bulldozer trails, transmission route clearing, penstock and dam construction should be formulated, then reviewed by FWS and other resource agencies. Clean-up, restoration, and revegetation of work areas, material sites, disposal/stockpile sites, and areas requiring recontouring to pre -project conditions should take place concurrent with construction; 11. review and approval of construction plans, specifications, and methodologies by FWS and arrangements for construction surveillance by interested resource agency personnel shall be made prior to permit/license review and a construction start. We assume that the Mud Bay project is economically infeasible at this time; however, in the event that its planning is reactivated, we recommend that: 1. Additional biological studies to 1) quantify impacts associated with a Mud Bay facility and 2) formulate a project mitigation plan be scoped and funded; 2. any additional dam designs and plans include a release mechanism and fish passage facilities; 3. altered or new project designs and plans be provided to be reviewed by, and commented on by all interested resource agencies. 36 C-46 RAfaranPPQ Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat. Edited by R. LeResche and R. Hinman. 143 pp., 563 maps. 1978a. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volume I. Compiled by R. McLean and K. Delaney. 40 pp., 357 maps. 1978b. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volume II. Compiled by R. McLean and K. Delaney. 43 pp., 269 maps. Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. 1982. Feasibility Report of Small Hydropower and Environmental Document from Indian and Mud Bay Lake Creeks. 136 pp. Benfield, D. 1982. Personal Communication., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Chambers, J.S., G.A. Allen, and T. Pressey. 1955. Research relating to study of spawning grounds in natural areas. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington, Unpublished. MS 175 pp. Clay, C.H. 1961. Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities. Canadian Department of Fish. 301 pp. Collings, M.R. 1974. Generalization of spawning and rearing discharges for several Pacific salmon species in western Washington. U.S.G.S. open file report. 39 pp. Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. 740 pp. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University press, Stanford, CA. 1008 pp. Kopun, Arlene. 1982. Chignik Council President, Chignik, Alaska. Personal Communication. Middleton, K. 1982. Field Trip Report, Alaska Peninsula Hydroelectric Feasibility Study, Chignik, Alaska. 15 pp. Morris, J. 1982. Personal Communication, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Dillingham, Alaska. Morrow, J. E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Pacific Northwest Publishing Co., Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp. Mierziejewski, David. 1982. Personal Communication, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 37 C-47 Nicholson, L., O'Neill, H., and Wright, L. 1981. Annual Management Report, Chignik Management Area. 108 pp. Olendorff, R.R., et al. 1981. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines - State of the Art in 1981. Department of Veterinary Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn. 110 pp. Sams, R.E. and L.S. Pearson. 1963. A study to develop methods for determining spawning flows for anadromous salmonids. Oregon Fish Comm., Unpub, M.S. 56 pp. Schoenberg, Ralph. 1982. Personal Communication, Chignik, Alaska. Scott, W.B. and Crossman, E.J. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 966 pp. Sellers, R. 1982. Personal Communication, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, King Salmon, Alaska. Smith, A.K. 1973. Development and application of spawning velocity and depth criteria for Oregon salmonid. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102(2): 312-316. Stalnaker, C.B. and Arnette, J.L. 1976. Methodologies for the Determination of Stream Resource Flow Requirement: An Assessment. Utah State University press, Logan, Utah. 199 pp. Thompson, K.E. 1972. Determing streamflows for fish life. In Proc. Instream Flow Requirement Workshop. Pacific N.W. River Basinsk Comm., Portland, Ore. p. 31-50. Viereck, L.A. and Dyrness, C.T. 1980. A Preliminary Classification System for Vegetation of Alaska. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Technical Report, PHW - 106. 38 pp. 38 C-48 FISH Common Name Chum salmon Coastrange sculpin Coho salmon Dolly Varden Pink salmon Sockeye salmon Threespine stickleback BIRDS Willow ptarmigan Dipper Common raven Black -billed magpie Greater yellowlegs Bald eagle Peregrine falcon Common snipe Glaucous -winged gull Mew gull Dunlin Least sandpiper Black -legged kittiwake Harlequin duck Pelagic cormorant Greater scaup American wigeon Green -winged teal Mallard Pintail Red -breasted merganser Water pipit Yellow warbler Wilson's warbler White -crowned sparrow Golden -crowned sparrow Gray -crowned rosy finch Gray-cheeked thrush Hermit thrush Robin Varied thrush Tree swallow Belted kingfisher C-49 Scientific Name Onc�orhynchus keta 5-1 ups a l euti cus ncor n�utch a ve i nus ma mT a nncorh ncFius gorbusc_ha ncor ync usus nercka asterosteus aculeatus Lagopus 1_ qTpus tnc us mextcanus o�—corax Pica pica T tr n a meianoleuca a taeetas leucocephalus Falco - ere rt nus Zallina oo ga inago arut s glaucescens Larus canus Cali drt a> a a t its minutilla t ssa tri actcT yTa 71-s-f-r-ionicus fiistrionicus P a acrocorax pelag us t�iya marrl i a Anas americana Anas crecca Teas p-Taiyrhynchos Anas acuta serrator n s ino etta eb ndroica etee is t sonia p_usi a onotrichta let o_Phyrs Zonotrtch a at a eC ucosttcte tep o otis athaa-rus minimus fat—aiarus utg tatus uT rdus'mi grratoFi us xT oreus naevius rt oDrocne bicolor MegaceryTe aTcyon MAMMALS Common Name Scientific Name Beaver Castor canadensis Brown bear rsus arctos Mink Mustela siv on Shorttail weasel Muste a erm n� ea Moose AAlces alces Red fox Vu- pes vvuT�-e_s Tundra hare �Lepu��sot�us.— Snowshoe hare Le�usus americanus Tundra redback vole Wolverine M thrionem s rutilus Lulu oro— Dusky shrew �orex oTscurus Masked shrew orex cin eus PLANTS Club moss selago Horsetail _Ly�cop_odium spp. Parsley fern �E�uisse��t__um ryptogramma cr�i spa Fragile fern Cysto teris fra2i s Pond weed otamoge_toonn spp. Arrow grass rri ochin—spp. Polar grass � rcX tagrostis latifolia Bent grass A rostis spp. Bluejoint reed grass a amagrostis canadensis Grass oa spp. Fescue Festuca spp, Brome grass Bromus spp. Lyme grass ETymus arenarius Cotton grass Eriophorum angustifolium Sedge Larex spp. Wood rush l—uzuTa spp. False hellebore eratrum viride Chocolate lily ri�TTaria camschatcensis Wild flag riT s setosa Willow Salix spp. Birch etu a nana Alder A -us c_ro�a Sorrel � spp. Spring beauty ZTaylonia sibirica Chickweed to aria spp. Seabeach sandwort o—npeploides �at Marsh marigold a austris Monkshood Acotum�ifolium Anemone Anemone spp. Buttercup Ranuncu us spp. Meadow rue i' hali strum sparsiflorum C-50 Plant Species Con't: Common Name Shepherd's Purse Saxifrage Cloudberry Salmonberry Marsh fivefinger Pacific silverweed Si tka burnet Lupine Clover Milk vetch Beach pea Cranesbill Violet Fireweed River beauty Mare's tail Beach lovage Hemlock parsley Cow parsnip Bunchberry Crowberry Labrador tea Kamchatka rhododendron Bearberry Cranberry Starflower Jacob's ladder Oyster leaf Monkey flower Indian paintbrush Lousewort Plantain Bellflower Goldenrod Coastal feabane Common yarrow Seabeach senecio Dandelion C-51 Scientific Name Ca sella rubella ax�i_fr�aag�a spp. Ru�maemorus TUT —Us secta1 is Potentill-a pa ustris oo tentilla egedii San uisorba sty ulata u inus noot atensis ri o iium re ens Astra a us o� ari s aus maritimus Geranium eria thum Viola Langsdorffi p-i oobium an ustifolium Epilobium latifolium Hippu_rru_s tetrapa �a �AC�Tgustt�icum scoticum ooniose lnum c inense erac eum l�anatum. ornus canadensis Fm etrum nigrum e um palustre 7F6 dendron camtschati cum Arctostap os ]_pJ na xycoccus microcarpus rl'i�entalus europ_ae_a Polemon um acutiiflorum ertensia`maritima M�mulus gittatus aast— illeda una aschensis ec�icularis spp. lslanta o maritima alsT nta o major an anu a-Tas oca_rpa Sol idago 1-e—plTa r1 eron ere ri nus c ea U o—re a17-s Sen o pseudo -Arnica araxacum spp. 37 E OF BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR DEPART.WENT OF FISH AND GAME 344-0541 333 RASPBERRY ROAD April 22, 1983 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 0383-IV-36 Mr. Robert Bowker Field Supervisor Western Alaska Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 605 W. 4th Avenue, Room G-81 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Bowker: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Draft Coordination Act Report for the Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek, Hydropower Projects near Chignik, Alaska. We concur with your analysis of available data and your recommendations, particularly that as project plans for Indian Creek become more advanced: 1) additional fish and wildlife baseline studies will be required to fill information gaps, 2) resource agencies must, be allowed to review design features and construction plans, and 3) appropriate mitigation plans must be developed. We are concerned that numerous small hydroelectric projects along the coast of Alaska will adversely affect incrementally small, but cumulatively important, populations of anadromous fishes. Therefore, we will strongly recommend, and may require under our own statutory authority, the implementation of appropriate mitigation such as a tailrace spawning facility and/or instream releases of water in Indian Creek, if future baseline surveys define appreciable runs of salmon. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact Denby Lloyd or me (267-2.346). Sincerely, Don W. Collinsworth Comm' s' r BY: Kimbal A. Sun berg Projects Review Coordinator Habitat Division C-52 �. 11t r� i `Z R JA N tg8L Carl Yr+nagava Regional Supervisor ;in.hi'.at Protection Division Alaska Department of Fish and Gal -,a 77J3 11.ngpberry Road Anchora7e, Alaska 99502 Ee: 1'}a? Stu+iicy *aa�., D-�nr I:nrl: '.in 1«tLer is to ^��qunst antitat'n particpnt_ton in ftell 1nv(,atig:stio.;n data analvsin for the ral>ovo referenced pro,ject:A. tiext :31mmer, Fish an(i tr'i1�i11fe SF3rvice will corluo.t ctildirA -It fon•• A!nnkn Pn)tinc-ulri locntionr+: C'l{,gnik T,ngoon, .-lni Pnrr,yvi li- Tho .-itudln.j nrn - or n (CF) General 'nvvntip,"Rion :itud.� to rletorm,,'nr! fe',.3t+ 1111,.• Or ' y iroElectric power- for C:,ig,-A'� Aron At`,ichod in o!,. cl' -1.escribine, d,ita to he Coat}ierod ind t!r,in,; for our ' leoc-.;tu,lies presort an opportunity to inCro,3ne our intara,gcncy rt?. ,Joint ',,rti.tion illprod ©c .; provi.in for prrooanel; it ohould also red,icf) t^Er � post3iliility of late '{4C"e^:,cins in oar respective inputs to the ^}'. ' `r rrnl!;,inary plane are for two, 2- eraon to,in � to + } , P 1 ttitA, _at.� u� a�, :i otiwitod this erfort will 'jke rtyc of ti.ao.r.., d-pon ...,�, 1 c,'i Utics and aeat!-.er. rhn Cr 1,3 to provi+.e t: n!;npor`Atio: to th-3 Qi tc:a is .7U!-Ie Or July; !:CYeVer, +3atq9 i i^ tT'!7t 1) 1!iV(? 71Ut ',;r cj;• finslir.ni. A necting with CF, personnel 1s .,c',��'u1Fd for nic}-uebri::ry to !c vo.,1,f lit e for .�uc:nona from your nta: f to L�� ! nclu lc�l in word o:, thu_!' t,c; i1' lie, itAt is intereote.'. In pnrtici:titin,-, nrtnngnrr.ents `o^ tri cxnVI:,:—e an,l specific pernoli!;nl ner.:)tinted, nttaC!?::3nt NATION:jh:01/28/82 ID#0110A ) ncoroly' Fiold S�,perviec>r C-53 �. Sr."°IICC3 Western Alaska Ccolog1C^1 733 1,1�. ;t•,i 1',Y r..' �'�'�� F ;1 WA ES Mr. Carl Yanagawa Regional Supervisor Southcmrtr.91 Habitnt Division Alaska D+-partment of Fi3); ftnd Rasp?�err• Roma AnchoraCo, Alaska r)C)r;L)2 Dear C9r1: 2 6 MIAR 1982 Rot A l R M is n P I 19ri-9 ;1111,ti•t-4fyti—o .i I'? "arch mootin:� Frith the Corpa of Enginfoorn (CT,) and tlioir con, ltlnt (knyne Hnn:{en of FFRTF; H), we mRde tentative plan:! for our firm field trip to t:li-e 1`l2cv from Mav 10-17, 1932. Allowing 1 dovm for wvathmr and logintics continCr'ricies, we pinn for the trip to toks 7 14ys. ', •Ila Farr^11 of tht- "r it arrsn3ing for 4 poople to fly ':l{}cion Air .klnPI:a to :nine Salmon, and chsrter with Peninuula Airwu,,!3 to ('��. "21-nvol cost") for "(Alr AT`NG t,iologist u111 be paid by the N- 8. Arriving nt C:ignik, t:;s Froup :rill aplit into +cnmo. One tr,=in gill t{^.ue t ?-rryvill-; the other will re,.:Kin at Your hiole; int 4t]! '1„ry -T, nn Nation of my nt.Yff and they vi ll gtla(ly Vic ' 1.�- e. For transport to tha S tn15 Will vI.jT)rj- ,'I mntot• .1,1'1 Activit;^a .,'ill cent-r around tr*11;n1ng o,ttmigr.9tin; ,iuveltil., o�lr;on. e tPFP.l." W., l.� a i. an ol,ictroshocl:rlr, ^1:, "S, T�i ^fl;)�t tr rip"), end :(` /lnt`1 to +„•llT 11lVeniIor. If fic`1 C^A found in V? StrPPMA trr+ t©mm 14' ., me--aure trannoct9 ` '. inrstr©am flew Rr1'ilysis. Any P-t:'.^. ti*14` 1; 11 r' :I1, t Yn. typal, ;,RA• f1 no ri i71 < fr., 1'1 j, , •i..� *�'ll i t�t'1e n~_ 1)annIng ,A i_mi-snr n, mor t-ip (pcnvihlV Ir. Jill;) `� f!r1 i our Wirt: 4nri; fog r.hpse pi•n,!-ots anri '-oT,• ;-oii will be 9''1 to plirt.i^i rltr' Tybo in touch with furt'iar detell:i. `3ince%rrl�•r, Field 3urn 1-v'. no r NATION:jh:3/24/82 ID#0210A C-54 MEMORANDUM State of Alaska TO:Larry Nicholson Fisheries Biologist Commercial Fisheries Division Kodiak p FROM: hill J. Brn g) P Habitat Biologist Habitat Division Anchorage DATE: May 20, 1982 FILE NO: TELEPHONE No:344-0541 suBJECT:Chignik Area Streams From 10-18 May I assisted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in stream surveys of several streams in the Chignik area. These surveys were related to the Corps of Engineers hydropower feasibility studies. Packers, Mud Bay, and Indian Creeks were surveyed. Pink salmon and anadromous Dolly Varden were found in Packers Creek up to the falls. Pink salmon and anadromous Dolly Varden were found in Mud Bay Creek. Unidenti- fied fish skeletons were found in large numbers above Mud Bay Lake. A local resident (Roy Skonberg) reports 2-3 thousand chums in Mud Bay Creek. The stream and lake also appear to be excellent coho and sockeye habitat. Pink salmon and anadromous Dolly Varden were trapped in Indian Creek but the upper limit of migrations was not found. Local residents report a handful of chums (coho were present prior to 1959) in Indian Creek as well. In addition, local residents report pink salmon in two unnamed streams between Chignik and Chignik spit (see enclosed map). The USFWS will be doing further studies this summer; however, it would be appreciated if you would take a look at these streams (especially Mud Bay Creek) this summer when adults are present if you have the opportunity. Thanks. Enclosure cc: D. Cook 14:t. Nation, iAES C-55 w•t.i B. f�23 (%r Chip[ i s ,o �egro Head w I� l TVat Flat Rabbit .�- . 2i 3 �.. Point ps?� ��.. 0 � � - �- � � I � � � QErr 1• Rock .. D,amond ` 7 F, roe H oa• 31 .elo�, 7i +moo r• jAic �4. 6P 4<>. `'f jT ( s d� C!„py.n_th` S AZ,.1 Tj IN ! > cannery F��Y A11 �� �� y,� • a C Rik - f -- 5� - _ '��- � � • � � Epp. li / //�� � � � � ,.ems'' '9 _ 8 j l i \J ) 1 I 25'53%ow- C. 36 Ic""I l+K �-71 SCALE 163360 , • .,,,� R•r ;,cm nt' Un,mprw CONTOUR INTERVAL 1C0 FEET• �s.. DATUm Is REAL• SEA L1vll µr" .�.C: •+•� :.. ,..:>+".S r fCtt trf...r S .in+• fJf+l� � .�...,• t .. a`� , ', ,mot n.w+u.�..,I., r nfr (Nµ 1•aa! ,OCi ISO^ CAI N55IS-wt�t FOR SALE BY U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 196 ,ANKS. ALASKA 99701, DENVER• COLORADO K225. OR WASHINGTON. C C. 20242 ;OLDER OESCRfBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REOL;EST C-56 n n . Q -n ••• > n n[ •-• n c non t •. n- 9 c < u -i n •- A u .- D . 7 � � •< .- � n n J 0. n n A • A A r�^ yr! .] n ♦ ] i 7 7 n w• a r n• JO ,..� �° �Q • i C� 7 n n a ,+ A g n u ^, D J A■ O 47 A n A Z n A pp N1 J c D O r c] J •i b n 4 J O O .- .1 n � r. D n n] 7G o n a • .•• n 6- • n r b aar onn ,�^ b• � enc o e C8 C O J n n—• A s A O r• n A O D M O Q i O N n A T n 70 J a O O r. A 1 a a 0 ".0 � m w O n e i1 � 0 •1 1 M O N •'•. 2 1 ! 0 l• •- •• ] J n •+ 7• J a A a '9 O. ap •i 0 n n 9 r 0 •1 'c 0 M n N n n ! n .• a b r • n O D W O '0 •a s i O r J a♦ 0 5 e] J ••- 3 •� 0 11 n a ] n T< n a 1 n n i nAA 4 .-a c • NO 3:7- c 'A• c • 0 a a 0 c 4 n n ➢ w0 111r.+0]n �C7• 3mJn Q1 a n ] < T n o - n v a • A l 0' a m A n i 0 •-K n r���1111 r n r 0 •t O] 0 •+ o a D• O.A n a 0 6 ] O.•-0 m A A c O D 7 n • p ^, r �] i n o 3, 3 b c] o A n A n u 0 r?? -. n] n 7qq0 .+ n •t D s� n r� nn C 3(n �•t • °4 °r� o p + �qR r q Y 7 r 66 • n= 7 n 1 A 1 • r �'! • V C G < 0 0 ne Z • n e+r-•A I A.�c r n w «i> ] rA Dom• O O. eD • N O �- j. e 7 bCL •- J V C A C D A D D N N IY O nA A n nrmi D W o 1 a wr O c na-0 rrn Tn7�g+ n .•p0 ^• J m n i 3 Der A l O T A O] O n 1 i •- p 7 n.0 M IA O. •••+a aoaK ] n A• n A n�a n 0 Q •i a J a LIM a a A . c c .- •- . e .- A -- n � 4 a v 0 0 33AA M `CMn ] 0 + r t l • T I T n - � • A r 3 Y 7 ] • w� � a .: r J •. a^ L = n •- 7 y 0 • A •^ J n n S� •� Y •- p O b A] a] 7< n r n ! n J] n A n n «• n r vn c or 7�nC Rn.00► an T >, n N7• ] 7 O 77] 3 71 i • n n N .•G � P A r b O S ] •-• • •1 0 • G • n 1116 n • r O A A • L r n nn a] �. +�- -i ♦ 0 0-+] C� a D• � J n a -• � N R • .. n u ] • .-- v it _ • •r .• R n n .. 9 h • Q 1" jz � •Ji r n >• a' n J •' �� � �?„� e o n s i • a w '0 3� A Y ] J ] n.nz0 ••nJ n 2 n f'• > 0 7 n O •.' v n r n s ♦one a r n] n a a n n o a R n D n u A o � J • • 7 u ] bin - �rr. • r• n eo •c . Dcbinvv I� aeD=n2m co n• A - c n Aar N b abn.- On c n > 0 7 T rf D N n o n >n In �ncn n�0•<r> ,.. pl •< p r a A m O b a J 0.0 J 5 w � A •'11 .C•• a w O a O n A b rZO 3 .• J A •1 r` A c< 0 r 0 A A n 7 2 W • i•t n b N O J TNv+ n n n - o n Z 7 a 0 0 On m •- < •G n D •- .- c n D •-0 0 a b ] J 3 nD n• A A O a" n •��•,mo < o n A J s a 7 • `< A N a A D ] n D N n n a maoo e ncmDnn -a 0 0 n n n p t ym• A b n Z 2 N a a n (" n n �7 J n n O.• a7A 7 a • b 0 a b •-• a m p7 !iT .w 1 0 O D ••• t A A •^J a C. n n O.J • ] n• i C-57 State of Alaska Department of Fish and Came Public Review Nomination for platers Important to Anadromous Species xAddition E Deletion Name of Waterbody (if known) : ar�mC.—tl-4' Location: Anadromous Waters Catalog Volume and Number Vol. Zi---kwti-il( rt, USGS 1:63,360 Quadrangle or 1:250,000 (if 1:63,360 not available) Species Date(s) Observed Stage(s) (Spawning, Rearing, Migration) C. j- Com,nents: Please provide any clarifying information in addition to identification on Anadromous platers Catalog Public Review 111,aps. game-3of Observer? (please print) - P.( ,���� _'• $rn�__)_1C . rrl,ct�(*��� Da te -2)L'r y. C-58 State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Public Review Nomination for Waters Important to Anadromous Species Addition El Deletion Name of Waterbody (if known) :r�oo Location: Anadromous Waters Catalog Volume and Number '(D- wr,� ire USGS 1:63,360 Quadrangle or 1:250,000 (if 1:63,360 not available) Stage(s)'(Spawning, Rearing, Migration) �. . K] ,o `/ . n -Doll Y.%rdeA 5-17-fZ) 7--Zl-4z X '.�;', � Mari •�q Comments: Please provide any clarifying information in addition to identification on Anadromous Waters Catalog Public Review Maps. _� �s..ns � ttt'�. � �/--_ � _ �`.r�► � �� _� � � � n t s r 7 � '. r_ � � _�� � _n � � �� 1 L.—__ r,-,o.�s----- �Z). M�t� ciC' •J�lC, Namesof 0bservers(please print) _pLL 4aJle^_#�j Q� Date: F 3 _ Signature: — �7 ,. 7 � C-59 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P O. BOX 7002 / / ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 January 20, 1983 / _--- REPLY TO ATTENTION Of: Environmental Resources Section Fish and Wildlllo $*-Ics r anrf w;idlif,, Sr R.' RECEIVED ECEI , Mr. Keith Schreiner FEB 1 1983 JA N 2 a 198; Reg10 Director e�ry As eU.S Fish andWildlife Servi d Aioko e.Alaska ncho'Oge, Ala&carvtcas 1011 East Tudor Road AnchWO Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Schreiner: The Alaska District, Corps of Engineers is presently studying the feasibility of hydropower potential for the community of Chignik, Alaska. The village of Chignik, population 178 (1980), is located on the southeast side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 270 miles southwest of Kodiak Island. A map showing the project site on Indian Creek is provided as enclosure 1. At this time, we are requesting comments in order to determine the appropriate type of environmental document needed for this project. We would like to know if you feel' an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) should be written based on the information supplied in this letter and information on file in this office. The hydroelectric development of Indian Creek and Indian Creek Lake would consist of constructing an approximately 35-foot high rockfill dam raising the current reservoir elevation by 13 feet. Installed power capacity would be 1.4 megawatts. Placement of the new damsite would be just downstream of an existing wood buttress dam constructed in 1947. The penstock would be placed parallel to the existing water pipeline with minimal disruption to vegetation. With continual project activities, it would be necessary to upgrade the existing trail which may later result in increased public access to that area. At Indian Creek Lake, field surveys report sparse vegetation along the perimeter of the 20-acre reservoir consisting of alder -willow thickets and a dense understory of blue -joint grass. Wet meadows along the creek are characterized by dwarf birch, salmonberries, crowberries, cioudberries, and other low shrdb habitats supporting a variety of animals. There are reports of a small brown bear population in the area, but specific denning locations and densities are unknown. Fox, weasel, and tundra hare are known to frequent the project area. . M r -2- There is little information regarding the fishery resources of Indian Creek. Trapping efforts at the stream mouth during a May 1982 survey produced ?00 pink outmigrants. Additional trapping revealed small numbers of Dolly Varden throughout the lower reach. The extent of upstream spawning is still questionable, although viable spawning habitat exists from tidewater 0.5 miles upstream. Indian Creek Lake supports no known fishery resources. All stream flow would be diverted at the mouth of Indian Creek Lake through a 1.2 mile penstock to a powerhouse located near the village. Indian Creek would be essentially dewatered from the lake outlet to tidewater, a distance of approximately 3.5 miles. Dolly Varden and pink salmon habitat would be eliminated. Riparian habitat important for small furbearers would also be eliminated. To further assist you in your decision efforts the following documents are on file: Fish and Wildlife's Planning Aid Letter and the Draft Feasibility Report for Indian and Mud Bay Lake Creeks, dated December 1982. Also, contact can be made with Ms. Linda Ferrell of our Environmental Resource Section at 552-2572. Enclosure Sincerely, i I 1 �� an 100re Chief, Engineering Division C-61 I -; lX7 a O T ll-� W Y fcrU CD N I r1 0 cr \ �w � � a O -, �\V L�--- J�l �-X- p v w � rt[QVt ym O v ✓ �° � Y v ® W W r O a uj �y < = w � - t11 Q A �J C O O 1- Q Y Q � o Q U a. Z p M U A � a O p � tL < 0 \ o Y 0 z w ° / W cr Y cr �r � CREEK iN��AN —5N C-62 -,,— / t QI IN REPLY REFEA T0: WA ES United States Department of the Interior ' SLn":;Jg>✓`3 FISH AND w'ILDLIFF SERVICE Western Alaska Ecological Services 005 W. 4th, Room G-81 Anchorage, Alask.r 't9501 Mr. Harlan E. Moore Chief, Engineering Division U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 ATTN: Environmental Resources Sort ion Dear Mr. Moore: 2 8 JAN 1903 Re: Chignik Smnll Hydropower Project Feasibility Our office has reviewed your 20 Jnnunry 1983 letter concerning the appropriate type of environmental document needed for the suhject project. These comments are based upon our studies of the biologtcal. resources to be impacted by the project, our understandin}, of the National E:nvirnnment.;1 Policy Act (NEPA), and the Department of the Army's policy and procedures for implementing NEPA (I:R 200-2-2; 33 CFR 230). Under the auspices of NFPA (40 CFR 1508.9) an environmental assessment. (Ej1) is a concise public document that serves to briefly provide sufficient c,vi<Iencc and analysis for determining whether to prepare nn environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no si};nificant imp;ict (FONSI). According; to your policy and procedures for implementing NE:PA, the district engineer shall prepare an i:A as soon as practicnhle after all relevant information has been made available to the district engineer and prior to preparation of the FONSI. The F.A shall conclrule with a determination of a FONSI or the necessity of an 1A S; therefore, }our request of us to determine the necessity of an EIS cannot be formally made until after you have written your FA. _ The Fish and Wildlife Service (FPS) helievcs th.rt relevant information which f�; currently lacking could influence the decision to write ,a FONSI/I,A or FIS and/or determine the environmental feasibility of the indinn Creek hydroelectric project. Field work conducted by the FWS and Arctic. Slope Technical Services Inc. established Indian Creel: as an anadromous fish stream. Pink salmon and anadromous and resident Dolly Varden <fo inhabit the creek. Additional study would he necessnry to n,certnin relative abundances of the aforementioned species, and dolinente their distributlon and timing of various life stages. Data gaps and concerns also include: 1) the efrc t<; of an ofun channel tailrace meandering; through wetland.,-; behind Chigilik, 2) operation and regulation of the lh),iropower facility on Chi��,ntk'^ cxtsttn<•, w,iter skipply rind, 3) the possibility of rc-establishing the Indian Creek flrchery fn rr spawning tailrace facility. C-63 M Despite existing data gaps, the FWS believes that dewatering an anadromous fish stream is a significant environmental impnet; therefore, impact assessment and mitigation would most appropriately be addressed in an EIS and not in a FONSI/EA. We appreciate being able to respond to yotir request and also appreciate the close coordination that exists between oeir personnel and yours in regards to this project's planning process. cc: NMFS — Anchorage ADF&G — Anchorage EPA — Anchorage Sincerely, It VYWVCr Field Supervisor C-64 Appendix C 1981 ADF&G Commercial Fish Harvest Data for Chignik vicinity C-65 CHIGNIK AREA SALMON CATCHES, 1960-1981 MP KINGS REDS COHOS PINKS CHUMS TOTAL. YEAR 643 715,969 8,933 557,327 486,699 1,769,571 1960 1961 409 322,890 3,088 443,510 178,760 948,657 1962 435 364,753 1,292 1,519,305 364,335 2.250,120 1963 1,744 408,606 9,933 1,662,363 112,697 2,195,343 1964 1,099 560,703 2,735 1,682,365 333,336 2,580,233 1965 1,592 635,078 9,602 1,118,158 120,589 1,885,019 1966 636 224,615 16,050 6839215 238,883 1,163,063 1967 882 472,874 13,150 108,981 75,543 671,430 r 1968 674 873,449 2,200 1,290,660 223,861 2,395,34!._ 1969 3,448 310,087 13,103 1,779,736 67,721 2,179,095 1970 1,225 1,327,664 15,348 1,287,605 464,674 3,096,51 1971 2,010 1,016,136 14,557 612,290 353,952 1,998,945 1972 464 378,669 19,615 72,240 78,356 549,344 1973 525 870,706 22,322 25,445 8,701 927,699 1974 255 662,905 12,245 70,017 34,454 779,376 1975 549 400,193 53,283 66,165 25,161 545,351 1976 763 1,135,572 35,301 333,917 80,221 r 1,640.77� 1977 711 1,972,219 17 429 611,32s 11^,,�5'_ '.'�=•=== a 1978 1,603 1,576,283 20,212 935,114 1201839 2,704,101 1979 1,266 1,063,742 93,146 2,056,999 183,169 3,403,322 1980 2,325 846,356 117,862 1,125,465 312,572 2,404,577 1981 2,694 1,839,469 73,805 1,162,613 580,332 3,663,913 16 C-66 1981 CIIICNIK CATCH -- Stat. District Area Kings Reds Coho Pinks Chums Chignik Bay 271-10 2,006 1,355,524 35,578 121,380 38,061 -- District Total 2,006 1,355,524 35,578 121,380 38,061 272-20 23 14,390 2,203 45,406 16,372 _ 272-30 82 231,270 5,300 106,924 97,726 Central 272-40 1 237 163 I8,470 2,663 District 272-50 23 42,377 223 12,181 18,913 272-60 82 34,856 4,187 45,090 14,280 _ 272-62 173 137,885 804 27,042 25,056 Total 384 461,015 12,880 255,113 175,010 272-70 0 56 2 130 797 272-72 44 70 206 3,648 15,552 _ Fastern 272-80 15 814 391 5,798 33,485 District 272-90 47 785 1,433 60,905 35,577 - 272-92 0 0 0 250 0 272-96 0 37 3 57,472 8,977 Total 106 1,762 2,035 128,203 94,388 - 273-72 66 278 954 24,832 46,655 273-74 0 377 3,447 36,625 5,037 l.estern 273-80 2 3,038 63 31,963 74,580 District 273-82 0 4 5 8,562 2,481 273-84 0 806 36 52,307 25,785 273-90 7 4,496 13,725 218,751 42,074 273-94 24 5,752 3,817 60,565 24,961 Total 99 14,751 22,047 433,605 221,579 O Perryville 275-40 16 3,407 5,100 125,764 40,568 District 275-50 11 2,941 1,145 89,657 9,630 275-60 72 69 20 8,891 1,096 Total 99 6,417 6,265 224,312 51,294 GRAND TOTAL 2,694 1,839,469 78,805 1,162,613 580,332 7 C-67 1981 AVERAGE PRICES PAID FISHERMEN FOR SALMON (Fish Ticket Data) Specie Price Range x Price Per Fish Kings $1.45 - $1.50 $1.48 $31.86 Reds 1.00 - 1.56 1.28 9.32 Coho .65 - .80 .73 5.08 Pinks .40 - .44 .42 1.59 Chums .48 - .60 .54 3.82 AVERAGE WEIGHT PER FISH Kings 18.9/lb Reds 7.3/1b Coho 7.6/lb Pinks 3.9/1b Chums 7.8/lb ESTIMATED VALUE TO THE FISHERPIEN Average Lbs. Specie No. Caught Per Fish No. Pounds Kings 2,694 18.9 50,832 Reds 1,839,469 7.3 13,486,031 Coho 78,805 7.6 602,603 Pinks 1,162,613 3.9 4,479,368 Chums 580,332 7.8 4,502,632 Estimated total value to fishermen = $22,090,007.07 Estimated income per vessel = $214,466.09 Average Price Value $1.48 $ 75,231.36 1.28 17,262,119.68 .73 439,900.19 .42 1,881,334.56 .54 2,431,421.28 led w w W w w N N N N N N Vt A W N ?- O �o m V as l,n r >>>>> • `G `G `C `C (D (D (D N N M m F-- N F-• F-+ 1T N N 1-e 1�0 N Ul In m M-+ V O W 4- NJ i-e 1-° F- In m V O-, N r N oo }-' ,, (7% O% fV M- N m m %D In V N 00%O0I.dmvv000�vT N W F� N In In I•••+ W N 1--• ►-° r N N t� W A N Q� r W N W VT O In N !-+ ,o Na ,o r V �O V m h- L-n �o a` Z. ON O In m N m Q In Y-• W h- N O` " 1, O �o %0 %D In F•� 1--• O w O F-e w O m In W N ,,,, v �O w In � F-• m y O -^ O O Q r•-• r N t-e %lo " ON V 1-° V rV m In /J w F-- r- N N F-e W Ln v ,o r V w O �o r r N W h• O In Q^ V N N r In w 0 In !••� �,, w O� �n F-• l.d �D w w a m w r--• N co O Z, !-e N O+ In ►-+ In 10 v CA O� (O\ w r Co ON c7N In m led v In r r r N N m m E- W N a-- rr-rwwmwmrn�c� r W N %n N In w r I-• co v N W O w v+ r 0 0 m to ).- w m v N In N O O W In r ON D O, V l.n F' N > v I 't N (p hr• I I Ga ?C' N O Cv H Ga O • `C H r W W W W W N N N N N (D r W N Z Co ^1 In r (� 7s` >>>>c.c.c�c,�.c, M Q'0 Q9 OO Q'J F-r !-+ 1--• 1-+ C C •.. • < C C �C (D (D r• a N F•-° Cb M•-� N V-+ t-e +'� N F-' N In In m M• O w CTJ N F-+ i--• O rn m0mrCTA T.- ON -+ m csi I'', H > cn o> >✓ N O O Q� CO r O W h-•+ F-j ON H > r� > O > C r-+ CTS 7� z>to w to C �t w 000�-e W�000 O d cn C� M H t0 n r H m H cn j7 17 W N N 4-e N V co W N W (D n v�oovr.-lnwornr ON m F O In V N m O r W O 4--4 UI r3 :T7 N F-e C7 O nd ON In C" CN O O td to = 'o m a° �-- 0 0 0 O 1 U1 r r� v+ vrn a� r-• r I ^� r• r owminwo� a O o` CO r• rn -1 r Zr 7- rn s r-a,ornor) Iza10 r✓ In O\ /-e t-• N In i C7 O, r W N JG V m In r i-+ N W O N cn W Vl C� W �O v O o F-e VV1 m Cb N co N r m W O r C7J In 1 r Q0� N �O W n wc»�oo7r-• r�_AONra ti r r CO N w co F' �o OI r o 1� C-69 osaxalftwo REPORT RECIPIENTS AND PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBIT NUMBER 1. Report Recipients 2. Letter from State of Alaska Division of Parks, dated 2 March 1981 3. Letter from State of Alaska, Division of Parks, dated 16 March 1981 4. Letter from State of Alaska, Division of Parks, dated 3 January 1983 5. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated 1 February 1983 CHIGNIK, A.LASKA REPORT RECIPIENTS Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation, NOAA, Department of Commerce Department of Energy, Division of NEPA Affairs Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Advisor on Environmental Quality Federal Emergency Management Administration Department of Health and Human Services Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, Department cf Interior Deputy Assistant, Secretary for the Environment Office of the Chief of Engineers, Civil Works Programs Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.0 Environmental Protection Agency, Region X Director, Alaska Operations Office, Environmental Protection Agency Director, Alaska Region, National Weather Service Regional Director, Department of Housing and Urban Development Commander/Director, U.S. Army CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire Chief, Alaska Division, U.S. Army CRREL, Fairbanks, Alaska Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska National Park Service, Juneau, Alaska Soil Conservation Service Area Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor, WAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, Alaska Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska Director, Anchorage Field Office, National Ocean Survey Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S.G.S., Water Resources Library Alaska Resources Library U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors Honorable Tea Stevens, United States Senate Honorable Frank Murkowski, United States Senate Honorable Don Young, House of Representatives State Agencies Executive Director, Alaska Power Authority Director, Division of Strategic Planning Director, Division of Governmental Coordination Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management, Southcentral District Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska Coordinator, Office of Coastal Management Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Environmental Conservation, Southcentral Regional Office Commissioner, Department of Commerce and Economical Development Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office Honorable Bill Sheffield, Governor Alaska State Library Alaska Historical Library Organizations Alaska Conservation Society, Kodiak -Aleutian Chapter Anchorage Audubon Society Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska Library, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska Director, Institute of Waters Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska Arctic Information and Data Center State Representatives, Friends of the Earth Alaska Native Foundation Alaska Center for the Environment General Manager, Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative Local Honorable Dan Boffey, Mayor Karen Carlson, City Council Member Arlene Kopun, City Council Member George Tinker, City Council Member Glenn Suydam, City Council Member Ernie Carlson, City Council Member David A. Patterson, Sea -Alaska Products Incorporated Exhibit 1 cont'd. D OL SMI 3/LL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR DEPA►RTMEW OF I AWURA►L RESOURCES 619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 DIVISION OF PARKS PHONE: 2744676 January 3, 1983 Re: 1130-2-1 Harlan E. Moore Chief, Engineering Division Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Mr. Moore: Thank you for the reports titled "Cultural Resource Assessment of Hydropower Projects in the Chignik Region" and "Cultural Resources Assessment of the Perryville Hydropower Project" by Julia L. Steele. We concur with the archaeologist's recommendations in both reports with minor exceptions. Both should, in our opinion, carry the caveats that 1) additional survey may be necessary if there are major design changes, and 2) should cultural resources be uncovered during construction, activities that may damage those resources should be halted and the State Historic Preservation Officer contacted immediately. Thank you for your continued cooperation and sensitivity towards Alaska's cultural resources. Please contact us if there are any questions. Sincerely, Judith E. Marquez Director By: Ty L. Dilliplane State Historic Preservation Officer TAS:clk Exhibit 4 �. ., a. . <xxvaxcaYazrtrrelmlkv�-}5£4A� § wkv vl IN REPLY REFER TO: United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ALASKA PENINSULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE P.O. BOX 277 KING SALMON, ALASKA 99613 — 0277 907-246-3339 February 1, 1983 Mr. Harlan E. Moore Chief, Engineering Division Alaska District, Corp of Engineers Pouch 898 Anchorage, AK 99506 Dear Mr. Moore: In response to your letter of January 20, 1983 concerning hydropower development on Indian Creek near Chignik., I believe an EIS would be the appropriate document to evaluate impacts. Because Indian Creek supports anadromous fish and the proposal calls for dewatering Indian Creek significant impacts are obviously present. Very Truly Yours, Glenn W. Elison Refuge Manager GE/ks Exhibit 5 JA Y S. Go 'VE LOP bu, Ll �11' �1� L Llir*�', D 'IE, 11A:ILMi 7& �7-- INT 0- 'P M011-MW ANC:Y—AGE, --SKA DIVISION OF PARRS PHO!',(E: 274-4675 March 12, 1981 Re: 1130-2-1 Alaska District Corps of Engineers Environmental Section P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, �,0nchorage, Alaska 99510 Attn: Mr. William Lloyd Subject: Proposed Chignik lake Hydro 'Project Dear Mr. Lloyd: We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer L;,, following comments: 0 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Our review indicates that significant cultural resourc-,s -maybe, Specifically, AHRS sites CHIK-005 and CHK-013 may be adv,2rsly Therefore, per 36 CFR 800, a preconstruction cultural resources --,rvey is recommended. If there are any quest' ns-,pl �� e --cc:i:--ct Ty of this office. --"Robert D. Shaw State Historic Preservation Officer STATE PARK PLANNING The proposed action is consistent with the Alaska CoaS---,--,1 Mana8�---nt Pro-ram's recreation standard. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRAM No co=,, ent. Sincerely, -,,---ChipDennerlein Director CD:m1b Exhibit 2 /7 ! , JrY S..,A; �: D":c�, C-OVER "SOP �L �u E�� Lt+a" Tag tL x i��%!L Dl 1i(tSlON OF PAPKS PHO(;E: 274-4676 :March 16, 1981 Re: 1130-2-1 .d aska District Corps of Engineers Environmental Section P. 0. Boa 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Attn: Mr. William Lloyd Subject: Proposed Chignik Bay Hydro Project 9 t Dear Mr. Lloyd: 1 We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer following comments: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Our review indicates that significant cultural resources may be im- pacted. The mouth of the unnamed creek just south of Negro Head would have been an ideal location for a nativq habitation site. The sites proposed for construction at the head ofi, Mud Bay and on the sout'.::"estern side of Anchorage Bay may also have been village/camp locations. Ther,- fore per 36 CFR 800, a preconstruction Archaeologic ;survey is re- commended. If there are any questions, ale ont ct/Ty ill.' lane of this office. 1-11-1obert D. Shaw ✓ State Historic Preservation Officer STATE PARK PLANNING The proposed action is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Program's recreation standard. LAND Ate, D WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRA'L'T PROGRAM No comment. Sincerely, y/�---Chip Dennerlein / Director Exhibit 3