HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlllison Creek Hydropower Project Water Quality Study - Apr 2010 - REF Grant 2195390Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
i Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
INTERIM REPORT: 2008-2009 WATER QUALITY STUDY
ALLISON LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VALDEZ, ALASKA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Location and Description............................................................................... 1
1.3 Contract Authorization............................................................................................... 3
1.4 Related Documents and Previous Studies.................................................................. 3
1.5 Regulatory Permits..................................................................................................... 3
2.0 WATER QUALITY .......................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Methods...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Allison Creek In-Situ Water Quality ............................................................. 5
2.2.2 Allison Creek Continuous Temperature Monitoring ..................................... 5
2.2.3 Allison Lake Thermal Profiles ....................................................................... 6
2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.3.1 Allison Creek In-Situ Water Quality ............................................................. 7
2.3.2 Allison Creek Continuous Temperature Monitoring ..................................... 8
2.3.3 Allison Lake Thermal Profiles ....................................................................... 9
2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 10
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 12
4.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 13
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 14
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
ii Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Allison Creek Opportunistic In-situ Water Quality Data ........................................8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................2
Figure 2 Allison Creek Gage Locations .................................................................................5
Figure 3 Approximate Location of Allison Lake Thermal Profiles .......................................6
Figure 4 Allison Creek Continuous Temperature Monitoring
6 August 2008 to 9 October 2009 ............................................................................9
Figure 5 Allison Lake Thermal Profiles
26 September 2008 and 16 July 2009 ....................................................................10
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Photo Log ........................................................................................ A-1 through A-6
Appendix B Literature Review To Date .............................................................. B-1 through B-2
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
iii Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
APSC Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
ºC Degrees Celsius
CVEA Copper Valley Electric Association
DNR Department of Natural Resources (Alaska)
DO Dissolved Oxygen
FDPPA Four Dam Pool Power Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GPD Green Power Development
Hatch Hatch-Acres Corporation
mi Mile(s)
N North
NA Location Not Sampled That Date
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pH Potential of Hydrogen
R&M R&M Consultants, Inc.
SI International System of units (abbreviated from Le Système international d'unités)
TAC Temperature Acquisition Cable
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
µS/cm MicroSiemens per Centimeter
W West
WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
1 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
INTERIM REPORT: 2008-2009 WATER QUALITY STUDY
ALLISON LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VALDEZ, ALASKA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) is in its second year of investigating the
potential hydropower development of Allison Lake near Valdez, Alaska (Figure 1). CVEA is
being assisted in this effort by their principal consultant, Hatch Acres Corporation (Hatch). In a
pre-feasibility study (Hatch, 2008) performed for this project, Hatch evaluated three alternative
development schemes that would rely on flow from Allison Lake. These three alternatives were
described in an Application for Preliminary Permit (CVEA, 2008) that was submitted to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on 3 March 2008; FERC subsequently issued a
Preliminary Permit for the site on 4 September 2008 (FERC, 2008).
Information is needed to describe the hydrologic setting of the Allison Lake Watershed, to
describe and quantify flow variations in Allison Creek, and to characterize the Allison
Lake/Allison Creek water quality. To that end, studies of the Allison Lake Watershed began in
summer of 2008 and will proceed throughout the 36-month life of the Preliminary Permit, as
required to help determine the feasibility of this project. FERC typically requires at least two
consecutive years of water flow and quality data to support a Development Application, and the
State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) typically requires a minimum of two
years of data that may be correlated with other nearby stream data to make a five-year record.
This report provides the findings of the 2008-2009 water quality studies. It supersedes the
previous edition – describing 2008 water use and quality studies – that was issued in final form
on 1 April 2009 (R&M, 2009). The 2008 water studies interim report was a single document
describing both water use and water quality (R&M, 2009). The 2008-2009 work will be reported
in two separate documents, water use and water quality (R&M, 2010). R&M Consultants, Inc.
(R&M) conducted this work under contract to Hatch.
1.2 Project Location and Description
Allison Lake is located on the south side of Port Valdez, near the Valdez Marine Terminal of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (Figure 1). The Allison Lake Watershed is located within the
Chugach Mountain Range, a coastal range which intercepts moisture from the Gulf of Alaska
and hosts numerous glaciers as a result of heavy, wet snows.
The lake comprises roughly 247 surface acres and is located approximately 1,364 feet above
mean sea level. Allison Creek flows northward from the outlet of Allison Lake down to Port
Valdez. The headwaters at the south end of the long narrow watershed are fed by glaciated peaks
of up to 4,900 feet in elevation. The Allison Lake Watershed is approximately 6 miles in length
and up to approximately 1.4 miles in width.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
2 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
3 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
1.3 Contract Authorization
This work was completed under the terms of Agreement No. H-327730 between Hatch and
R&M. This report is in specific fulfillment of Task 1 of B. Environmental Studies as outlined in
Task Order No. 05 of the Prime Contract between CVEA and Hatch.
Measurements and weights presented in this report are a combination of United States customary
units and International System (SI) units. By convention, water quality data are reported in
SI units. The remainder of the data is generally reported in United States customary units.
1.4 Related Documents and Previous Studies
Allison Lake has been studied for hydropower development prior to this effort. Most recently, an
entity known as Green Power Development (GPD) began to study this prospect under a
Preliminary Permit from FERC. Their authorization expired in early 2008, following which
CVEA immediately filed for a new Preliminary Permit. GPD developed a study plan (GPD,
2006), dated 28 February 2006, based on professional judgment and agency guidance. The plan
ultimately gained approval from a number of State agencies, and was approved by FERC on
24 March 2006. The studies described herein are based on that plan, as approved by FERC.
Prior to recent and current interest, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied the hydropower
potential of Allison Lake in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. This effort culminated in a
document entitled “Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin: Interim Feasibility
Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement”, published in March 1981 (USACE, 1981).
1.5 Regulatory Permits
Several regulatory approvals have been obtained for water studies and other exploratory
activities conducted at Allison Lake. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) issued
Title 16 Fish Habitat Permits for the stream gages installed in Allison Creek
(Permit # FH 09-II-0142) and for the water withdrawal (Permit #FH 09-II-0124) needed to
support the July 2009 geotechnical investigation. Land Use Permit #27334 was issued by the
DNR Division of Mining, Land and Water authorizing the stream gages and the stand pipes that
were installed during the geotechnical investigation. The Division of Coastal and Ocean
Management reviewed the water studies and geotechnical program and found them to be
consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program under Generally Consistent
Determination #4-Stream Gauges, and #8-Temporary Water Use.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
4 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
2.0 WATER QUALITY
2.1 Objectives
The focus of the water quality monitoring conducted for the 2008-2009 water studies was to
characterize the existing conditions in the Allison Lake Watershed to establish an environmental
baseline. To that end, the following three objectives were pursued:
Perform monthly, opportunistic in-situ monitoring of pH, temperature, specific
conductivity, and turbidity in two locations of Allison Creek,
Continuously monitor stream temperature in two locations of Allison Creek, and
Annually model the thermal profile of Allison Lake
As Allison Lake hydropower development continues to be studied, its potential impacts to water
quality may be assessed against environmental baseline data. The rationale for this effort comes
from the fact that FERC and State agencies require at least two consecutive years of water
quality data to support a Development Application. The two-year data set is stipulated to
illustrate variations from season to season and year to year. As such, water quality monitoring
has continued through 2009 on a regular basis, the results of which are included in this report.
It is important to note that dissolved oxygen (DO) – often a key parameter in hydropower impact
studies – was not included in the water quality monitoring program for Allison Lake. In their
original study plan, Green Power Development did not adopt the DO studies requested by FERC.
The GPD plan based this exclusion on the fact that “None of the resource agencies
knowledgeable about Allison Creek…included DO studies in their study requests. Given the cold
temperatures of the creek and lake [which tend to foster high DO saturation], existing
information indicating relatively high DO [concentrations] and lack of project means to
reduce DO, we do not find that DO studies are warranted on this project” (GPD, 2006). FERC
concurred with this finding in their 24 March 2006 study plan approval.
2.2 Methods
Water quality monitoring in the Allison Lake Watershed was begun in August 2008; monthly
visits continued through October 2008. A final monthly visit for 2008 was attempted in
November of that year, but adverse weather conditions prevented the trip after multiple weather
delays. The water quality monitoring locations were visited again in February 2009, and then
each month from June through October of 2009, the end of the water year. A helicopter was used
to access the upper reach of Allison Creek, while the lower reach was accessed on foot.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
5 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
FIGURE 2: ALLISON CREEK GAGE LOCATIONS
2.2.1 Allison Creek In-Situ Water Quality
Two water quality monitoring locations were
established in Allison Creek in 2008, one each in the
upper and lower reaches of the stream; these
locations coincide closely with the permanent stream
gage installations that are depicted in Figure 2. The
lower reach monitoring location was the same as the
stream gage installation, while the upper reach
monitoring location was established approximately
210 feet upstream of the gage installation.
Photographs of each location are presented in
Appendix A.
During each visit to the sampling sites in upper and
lower Allison Creek, surface water temperature, pH
(potential of hydrogen), specific conductivity, and
turbidity were measured in-situ and real-time. This
was accomplished in 2008 by placing a Horiba U-22
XD multi-parameter water quality meter directly into
the stream and allowing sufficient time for all
parameters to stabilize. In 2009, a Horiba U-50
multi-parameter water quality meter was used.
Temperature was recorded in degrees Celsius (°C),
pH in unitless hydrogen potential, specific
conductivity in microSiemens per centimeter
Units (NTU’s). The standard for reporting specific
conductivity is to standardize the measured value to
a compensated value at 25°C; both the U-22 XD and
the U-50 perform this conversion automatically, so
that the reported values are already standardized to
25°C.
2.2.2 Allison Creek Continuous Temperature Monitoring
The Onset HOBO Water Level Data Loggers used for the stream gage installations (R&M, 2010)
have a built-in temperature monitoring feature that allows continuous temperature data
collection. In this way temperature data have been constantly collected at the Upper Allison
Creek gaging station since 6 August 2008, and at the Lower Allison Creek gage station since
5 September 2008. Temperature readings are set to be recorded once every fifteen minutes; using
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
6 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
this interval, the data logger has enough internal memory capacity to run unattended for
approximately 226 days. Temperatures are recorded accurately to the nearest 0.1°C.
2.2.3 Allison Lake Thermal Profiles
A thermal profile of Allison Lake was first successfully collected on 26 September 2008, and
then again on 16 July 2009. The profile location was at an arbitrary point in the northeast quarter
of Allison Lake at approximate WGS84 coordinates 61°03’06”N, 146°20’51”W (Figure 3).
A small rubber raft and other equipment were mobilized to the north lake shore via helicopter.
After paddling or motoring to the northeast quarter of the lake, a digital temperature acquisition
cable (TAC) was lowered to the lake bottom; the end of the cable was weighted to ensure a
straight cable run, and the raft was anchored to ensure minimal drift and a vertical cable run.
The TAC is a flexible cable that houses sensors at periodic intervals; each sensor is capable of
measuring temperature to an accuracy of +/-0.1°C. In this case, a 200-foot TAC with four-foot
sensor spacing was utilized. Because each sensor is sequentially numbered from the end of the
cable, a relatively accurate estimate of lake depth and the depth of each sensor within the lake
was achieved. Once the cable was in the water column and had equilibrated over approximately
one hour, a field computer was connected to the TAC output and a reading taken. The field
computer stored the temperature at each sensor for later analysis. A photograph of the TAC and
one of its sensors is included in Appendix A.
FIGURE 3
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ALLISON LAKE THERMAL PROFILES
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
7 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Allison Creek In-Situ Water Quality
In the upper reach of Allison Creek, opportunistically collected stream temperatures have ranged
over time from 0.6°C (22 February 2009) to 11.6°C (4 September 2008). In the lower reach of
the creek, the opportunistically measured stream temperatures have ranged over time from
0.9°C (22 February 2009) to 11.6°C (17 July 2009) (Table 1). General temperature trends are
explored in Section 2.4.
Stream pH was relatively consistent from the upper reach to the lower reach of the creek across
all monitoring events (Table 1). It ranged from 6.5 to 7.4 across the 2008 and 2009 monitoring
events.
Specific conductivity measurements collected in the upper reach of Allison Creek fell within the
range of 23 to 47µS/cm between August 2008 and October 2009. The lowest reading occurred in
February 2009 and the highest in October 2008 (Table 1). In the lower reach of the creek,
specific conductivity ranged slightly higher, from 26 to 54 µS/cm. The lowest measurement for
this reach of the creek occurred in June 2009 and the highest in October 2008.
Turbidity as measured in the upper reach of Allison Creek ranged from 4.2 NTUs (22 June 2009)
to 17 NTUs (25 August 2009) (Table 1). In the lower reach of the creek, turbidity measurements
ranged from 3.0 NTUs (22 June 2009) to 14 NTUs (25 August 2009). Turbidity tends to range
slightly lower in the lower reach of the creek. In general, though, both sampling locations have
exhibited similar turbidity readings over time.
Higher turbidity readings have been recorded in the upper and lower reaches of the creek, as
presented in Table 6 for September and October 2008. However, erratic turbidity sensor behavior
at the time of sampling, as well as comparisons with trends over time in the upper and lower
reaches of the creek, make these high readings highly suspect. This issue is discussed further in
Section 2.4.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
8 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
TABLE 1
ALLISON CREEK OPPORTUNISTIC IN-SITU WATER QUALITY DATA
Monitoring
Location Date Temperature
(°C)pH
Specific
Conductivity
(µS/cm)
Turbidity
(NTU’s)
Upper Reach 8/6/2008 7.7 7.3 38 7.2
Lower Reach NA NA NA NA
Upper Reach 9/4/2008 -
9/5/2008
11.6 7.2 46 33
Lower Reach 11.6 7.2 49 130
Upper Reach 10/8/2008 7.2 7.1 47 **
Lower Reach 5.9 7.2 54 260
Upper Reach 2/22/2009 0.6 6.7 23 5.0
Lower Reach 0.9 7.2 35 4.2
Upper Reach 6/22/2009 3.6 7.0 26 4.2
Lower Reach 5.3 7.0 26 3.0
Upper Reach 7/16/2009 -
7/17/2009
10.6 6.5 33 11
Lower Reach 11.6 6.9 33 6.9
Upper Reach 8/25/2009 8.8 7.2 28 17
Lower Reach 8.2 7.4 28 14
Upper Reach 9/17/2009 8.6 6.6 30 13
Lower Reach 9.1 7.0 33 8.5
Upper Reach 10/8/2009 -
10/9/2009
6.5 6.8 26 8.8
Lower Reach 6.3 6.7 32 6.7
Note: Shaded cells within the table indicate readings that have become questionable when compared to
trends over time. Data should be used cautiously, as instrument malfunction is suspected.
Key:
°C – degrees Celsius pH – potential of hydrogen
µS/cm – microSiemens per centimeter NTU – Nephelometric Turbidity Units
NA – Location not sampled that date ** - Turbidity sensor malfunction; no reading taken
2.3.2 Allison Creek Continuous Temperature Monitoring
Figure 4 graphically presents the variation in stream temperatures in both the upper and lower
reaches of Allison Creek over the August 2008 to October 2009 monitoring period. The data gap
in the lower creek record is due to a malfunction of the data logger, leading to unrecoverable data
(Figure 4). As a result of this discrepancy, the lower data logger has since been replaced with a
new unit.
Stream temperatures in the upper reach of the creek ranged from 0.0°C to 10.1°C over the course
of the monitoring period. In the lower reach of the creek, stream temperatures ranged from
0.0°C to 12.3°C.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
9 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
7/21/08 9/4/08 10/19/08 12/3/08 1/17/09 3/3/09 4/17/09 6/1/09 7/16/09 8/30/09 10/14/09Water Temperature (°C)Upper Creek Lower Creek
FIGURE 4
ALLISON CREEK CONTINUOUS TEMPERATURE MONITORING
6 AUGUST 2008 to 9 OCTOBER 2009
Note: Depicted temperature values at or below 0.0°C are ice affected.
2.3.3 Allison Lake Thermal Profiles
The 26 September 2008 temperature profile measured in Allison Lake ranged from 6.1°C at the
lake surface to 3.9°C at the lake bottom, 133 feet in depth (Figure 5). The thermocline – defined
as a transition layer separating warmer surface water from colder deep water – can be seen in
Figure 18 at a depth of roughly 60 feet.
The 16 July 2009 temperature profile for Allison Lake ranged from 10.4°C at the surface of the
lake to 3.4°C at the lake bottom, 176 feet in depth (Figure 5). The thermocline is depicted in
Figure 18 at approximately 30 feet.
The difference in depth between the 2008 and 2009 thermal profiles is tied to the fact that the raft
from which work was being conducted was anchored. Minor drift can still occur while at anchor,
and the two profiles were therefore likely taken at slightly different locations over the lake
bottom.
Gap in Lower Creek data
from 6/22/09-7/16/09 due to
equipment malfunction
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
10 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
3.004.005.006.007.008.009.0010.0011.00
Temperature (°C)
7/16/2009
9/26/2008
FIGURE 5
ALLISON LAKE THERMAL PROFILES
26 SEPTEMBER 2008 AND 16 JULY 2009
2.4 Discussion
Indications to date are that water quality is relatively consistent between upper and lower Allison
Creek. Stream temperatures have followed generally expected trends of peaking in July, then
beginning a cooling trend in August that continues through the fall months to bottom out in
November. Daily temperature variations in Allison Creek tend to decrease markedly beginning
in early September, likely coinciding with shorter, cooler days (Figure 4). Daily variations begin
to increase noticeably in June when the snow melt becomes prevalent during daytime hours. The
temperature data collected opportunistically (Table 1) show differences with the continuous
temperature data (Figure 4) when compared data point for data point. Opportunistic temperature
data were collected with an instrument of lower precision, and are considered less accurate than
the continuously collected temperature data.
Because it is a function of the type and quantity of dissolved solids in a given water body,
specific conductivity can range widely between streams in a similar area (Radtke et al, 2005).
Within a given stream, however, this property typically proves to be quite consistent. Available
data (Table 1) indicate that specific conductivity is either equivalent between the upper and
lower reaches of Allison Creek or ranges slightly higher in lower Allison Creek. The higher
Bottom of lake = -133 feet at
chosen sampling location
Bottom of lake = -176 feet at
chosen sampling location
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
11 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
readings in the lower creek could be a result of the increased sediment load in the lower reaches
of the stream after traversing a mountainside and receiving side input from multiple drainages.
Ongoing data collection continues to more clearly define this trend.
Turbidity levels in lower Allison Creek tend to range slightly lower than those measured in the
upper reach of the stream. This trend contradicts the indications described in the previous edition
of this report (R&M, 2009). At the time that the previous report was published as a final version
in April 2009, insufficient data had been collected to illustrate the inconsistency of turbidity
readings collected in September and October of 2008. When viewed against the backdrop of
subsequent turbidity readings shown in Table 1, the September/October 2008 readings appear
anomalously high. Based on this fact and on the obvious turbidity sensor malfunction
experienced by the field personnel on 8 October 2008 (Table 1), the September/October 2008
turbidity readings are considered suspect. As such, they should only be used for modeling and/or
regulatory purposes with caution, if at all. Excluding these readings from analysis leaves a clear
trend to date of slightly higher measured turbidity in upper Allison Creek than in lower Allison
Creek. The difference between upper station and lower station readings is relatively small,
however, with a delta generally ranging from 0.8 to 4.5 NTUs.
Seasonally, turbidity measurements to date in the creek tend to range highest in August
(Table 1); this is expected, and is likely due to peak flows during that month (R&M, 2010).
Turbidity is not an inherent property of water as is pH or temperature (Davies-Colley and Smith,
2001), and so it can be a useful indicator of the environmental health of a water body. Within the
context of this study, it will be important to compare the potential effects of hydropower
development at Allison Lake on turbidity within Allison Creek. Significant changes in this water
characteristic as a result of development could be detrimental to the ecology of Allison Creek
and its ability to support aquatic life. Additional study of the turbidity levels within Allison
Creek will help to establish an adequate environmental baseline against which the potential
effects of future hydropower development can be measured.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
12 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made for continuation of the water quality study at Allison
Lake in 2010.
1. The Onset HOBO data loggers installed at the stream gage locations will run unattended
until spring 2010. The next data download should be performed manually at or prior to
that time by visiting each stream gage installation, weather and snow cover permitting.
2. Monthly water quality monitoring visits should be continued, when weather and
snow/ice cover permit, through 2010. Seasonal and other variations in water quality
within the Allison Lake Watershed must be further characterized to support a
Development Application.
3. Continuous temperature data collection in upper and lower Allison Creek should continue
through 2010.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
14 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
5.0 REFERENCES
Note: A literature review effort is ongoing to support the water studies program at Allison
Lake. Those references from that review that have not been used in this report are listed in a
separate bibliography in Appendix B. The references cited below are also carried over in
Appendix B.
Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA, 2008) “Copper Valley Electric Association
Application for Preliminary Permit, Allison Lake Project - AK”, Before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. 3 March 2008
Davies-Colley, R.J., and Smith, D.G. (Davies-Colley and Smith, 2001), “Turbidity, Suspended
Sediment, and Water Clarity: A Review”, Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, v. 37, no. 5, p. 1085–1101. October 2001.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, 2008), “Order Issuing Preliminary Permit” for
Copper Valley Electric Association, Project No. 13124-000. 4 September 2008.
Green Power Development, (GPD, 2006), “Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC P-12530,
Revised Study Plan, Revision #2”, 28 February 2006.
Hatch Acres, (Hatch, 2008), “Allison Lake Hydropower Development Pre-Feasibility Study”,
Prepared for Copper Valley Electric Association. February 2008.
Radtke, J.B., Davis, J.V., and Wilde, F.D. (Radtke et al, 2005), “Specific Electrical Conductance,
Version 1.2”, August 2005.
R&M Consultants Inc. (R&M, 2009), “Interim Report: 2008 Water Studies Allison Lake
Hydroelectric Project”, Prepared for Hatch Acres Corporation. 1 April 2009.
R&M Consultants Inc. (R&M, 2010), “Interim Report: 2008-2009 Water Use Study Allison
Lake Hydroelectric Project”, Prepared for Hatch Acres Corporation. 1 April 2010.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1981), “Electrical Power for Valdez and the
Copper River Basin: Interim Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact
Statement”, March 1981.
APPENDIX A
PHOTO LOG
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
A-1 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
Looking south into the Allison Lake Watershed from the upper reach of Allison Creek.
7 August 2008
The headwaters of Allison Creek at the outlet of Allison Lake.
6 August 2008
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
A-2 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
Gaging station at Upper Allison Creek, looking upstream.
7 August 2008
Looking downstream from Upper Allison Creek gaging station.
7 August 2008
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
A-3 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
Upper reach of Allison Creek near stream gage; wintertime conditions.
22 February 2009
Lower reach of Allison Creek near stream gage; wintertime conditions.
22 February 2009
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
A-4 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
Gaging station at Lower Allison Creek, looking upstream..
4 September 2008
Looking downstream from Lower Allison Creek gaging station.
4 September 2008
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
A-5 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
Upper water quality monitoring site, looking upstream.
7 August 2008
Lower water quality monitoring site, looking downstream.
4 September 2008
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
A-6 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
Thermal profiling underway in northeast quarter of Allison Lake.
26 September 2008
Temperature acquisition cable (TAC) with one blue sensor visible.
26 September 2008
APPENDIX B
LITERATURE REVIEW TO DATE
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
B-1 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE REVIEW TO DATE (31 DECEMBER 2009)
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Div. of Sport Fish Research and Technical Services, Letter from
Christopher Estes to Cevin Gilleland, Habitat Biologist, Concerning Allison Creek Flow
Enhancement. 22 November 1989
Bauer, Stephen B. and Ralph, Stephen C., “Aquatic Habitat Indicators and their Application to
Water Quality Objectives within the Clean Water Act”, United States EPA Region 10 and
Idaho Water Resource Research Institute. July 1999
Bigelow, Bruce B., “Hydrologic Data Collection Activities in the Solomon Gulch Basin Near
Valdez, Alaska”, United States Geological Survey Open File Report 88-719. 1988.
Bower, Jonathan, Hoferkamp, Lisa, and Hood, Eran, “Synoptic Survey of Major Solutes, Metals
and Volatile Organic Compounds in Snowpacks of Valdez, Alaska” University of Alaska
Southeast. 2006
Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA, 2008) “Copper Valley Electric Association Application
for Preliminary Permit, Allison Lake Project - AK”, Before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. 3 March 2008
Curran, J. H., Meyer, D.F., and Tasker, G.D., “Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak
Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Conterminous Basins in
Canada”, United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-
4188.
Davies-Colley, R.J., and Smith, D.G., “Turbidity, Suspended Sediment, and Water Clarity: A
Review”, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 37, no. 5, p.
1085–1101.
Ellsworth, C.E., Davenport, R.W., and Hoyt, J.C., “A Water-Power Reconnaissance in South-
Central Alaska”, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 372, Government Printing
Office. 1915
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Regulation, “Final
Environmental Impact Statement: Solomon Gulch Project No. 2742-Alaska”. 1978
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Order Issuing Preliminary Permit” for Copper Valley
Electric Association, Project No. 13124-000. 4 September 2008
Fountain, A.G., and Tangborn, W.V., “The Effect of Glaciers on Streamflow Variations”, Water
Resources Research, Vol 21 (4), pp 579-586.
Four Dam Power Pool Agency, Information retrieved on the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project
from http://www.fdppa.org/servlet/content/11.html, No Date.
Green Power Development, “Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC P-12530, Revised Study
Plan, Revision #2”, 28 February 2006.
Hatch Acres, (Hatch, 2008), “Allison Lake Hydropower Development Pre-Feasibility Study”,
Prepared for Copper Valley Electric Association. February 2008.
HDR Engineering, “Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study”, Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority.
1992
Jones, S.H., and Fahl, C.B., “Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Alaska and Conterminous
Basins of Canada”, U.S.G.S. Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4179.
Final Submittal 2008-2009 Water Quality Study
B-2 Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project, Valdez, Alaska
National Marine Fisheries Services, Letter to Robert Bell from Linwood A. Watson, Jr. of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, concerning potential adverse impacts to existing
and potential fish resources in the Allison Lake Basin. 7 July 1998
R&M Consultants Inc. (R&M, 2009), “Interim Report: 2008 Water Studies Allison Lake
Hydroelectric Project”, Prepared for Hatch Acres Corporation. 1 April 2009.
Radtke, J.B., Davis, J.V., and Wilde, F.D., “Specific Electrical Conductance, Version 1.2”, 2005.
Reger, Richard D., “Deglaciation of the Allison-Sawmill Creeks Area, South Shore of Port Valdez,
Alaska”, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys Public Data File 90-19.
September 1990.
Roach, Cristopher H. and Shoulders, Macnamara C., “Allison Creek Dam Removal and Stream
Restoration Near Valdez Alaska”, Part of Impacts of Global Climate Change World Water
and Environmental Resources Congress 2005.
Roberson, Kenneth, “Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project Evaluation”, Alaska Dept. of Fish and
Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 1987
Robert W. Retherford Associates, “Environmental Report for Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric
Project” Prepared for Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. 1970
United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin:
Interim Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement”, March 1981.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Alaska Ecological Services Field Office, “Valdez
Interim Southcentral Railbelt Study Allison Lake Hydropower Project Alaska”, Final Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. May 1980
United States Geological Survey (USGS, n.d.), Water Data Report 2008, Solomon Gulch and
Solomon Lake, http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/water
United States Geological Survey, “Water Resources Data; Alaska Water Year 2003, Water-Data
Report AK-03-1” Authors: D.F. Meyer, D.P. Bartu, J.D. Eash, W.A. Swenson.
United States Geological Survey, “Water Resources Data; Alaska Water Year 2004, Water-Data
Report AK-04-1” Authors: Meyer, D.F., Best, H.R., Host, R.H., Murray, R.P., Solin, G.L.
United States Geological Survey, “Water Resources Data; Alaska Water Year 2005, Water-Data
Report AK-05-1” Authors: Jackson, M.L., Castor, M.E., Goetz, J.M., Solin,G.L., Wiles,
J.M.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC, n.d.), Information retrieved on Valdez, Alaska (Station
509685) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for 9/1/49 to 7/31/09,
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu
Valdez Coastal District, Valdez Planning and Zoning Commission, Bechtol Planning and
Development, “Valdez Coastal Management Plan: 2006 Plan Amendment”, 2006.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE
ALLISON LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA:
2009 STUDIES AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
PREPARED FOR
HATCH ACRESSEATTLE, WASHINGTON
PREPARED BY
–ABR, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH & SERVICES
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Printed on recycled paper.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE ALLISON LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AREA:
2009 STUDIES AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
Hatch Acres
6 Nickerson, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98109
By
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services
P.O. Box 80410
Fairbanks, AK 99708-0410
April 2010
iii Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1
PRIORITY FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION..................................................1
VEGETATION, WETLANDS, AND WILDLIFE HABITATS .................................................................4
WETLANDS...............................................................................................................................................5
MITIGATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS...........................................................................................10
WILDLIFE HABITATS...........................................................................................................................10
WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................11
DIRECT IMPACTS ON VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITATS..............................................15
AQUATIC RESOURCES...........................................................................................................................17
FISH POPULATIONS..............................................................................................................................17
FISH SAMPLING..................................................................................................................................18
PINK SALMON OTOLITH ANALYSIS..............................................................................................21
FISH HABITATS.....................................................................................................................................24
WATER QUALITY..................................................................................................................................28
MACROINVERTEBRATES....................................................................................................................28
POTENTIAL PROJECT-RELATED EFFECTS ON FISH.....................................................................29
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................................32
MAMMALS..............................................................................................................................................32
MOUNTAIN GOAT..............................................................................................................................32
BEARS...................................................................................................................................................34
AQUATIC FURBEARERS...................................................................................................................37
OTHER MAMMALS.............................................................................................................................37
POTENTIAL PROJECT-RELATED EFFECTS ON MAMMALS......................................................39
BIRDS.......................................................................................................................................................44
RAPTORS..............................................................................................................................................44
SEABIRDS.............................................................................................................................................48
WATERBIRDS......................................................................................................................................52
LANDBIRDS AND SHOREBIRDS......................................................................................................54
POTENTIAL PROJECT-RELATED EFFECTS ON BIRDS ...............................................................60
LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................................................67
PLATES.......................................................................................................................................................77
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact assessment area for the Allison Lake project near Valdez, Alaska..............................2
Figure 2. Wetland and habitat plot locations and infrastructure footprint of the Allison Lake
project, Alaska..........................................................................................................................6
Figure 3. Wetlands map for the Allison Lake project, Alaska.................................................................7
Figure 4. Wildlife habitat map for the Allison Lake project, Alaska.....................................................14
Figure 5. Sampling locations for fish habitat assessments, fish sampling, and macroinvertebrate
sampling in Allison Creek and Allison Lake, Allison Lake project, Alaska, 2008–2009......19
Figure 6. Fish habitat on Allison Creek, Allison Lake project, Alaska.................................................25
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources iv
Figure 7. Locations of large mammals observed in the Allison Lake project area, Alaska,
summer 2008 and 2009...........................................................................................................36
Figure 8. Locations of raptor nests in Allison Lake project area, Alaska, 2009....................................47
Figure 9. Survey stations for murrelet surveys and murrelet observations, Allison Lake
project area, 3–8 June and 4–9 July 2009...............................................................................51
Figure 10. Location of the Red-throated Loon nest on Allison Lake, Alaska, 2009...............................53
Figure 11. Point count locations used to census breeding landbirds and shorebirds, Allison
Lake project, 2009..................................................................................................................55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Birds considered high-priority species for conservation that are known to occur in
the Allison Lake project area....................................................................................................3
Table 2. Jurisdictional wetlands and uplands in the Allison Lake project facility footprints.................9
Table 3. Wildlife habitat types in the Allison Lake project impact assessment area ...........................12
Table 4. Wildlife habitat types affected by the Allison Lake project facility footprints......................16
Table 5. Fish species likely to occur in Allison Creek and Allison Lake, and in Solomon
Gulch Creek and Solomon Gulch Lake..................................................................................17
Table 6. Minnow trap locations and set times in Allison Lake and upper and lower Allison
Creek, 18–20 September 2008................................................................................................20
Table 7. Fish captured by trap in lower Allison Creek, 18–19 September 2008..................................22
Table 8. Fish habitat assessment sites in Allison Lake and in upper and lower Allison
Creek, 18–20 September 2008................................................................................................26
Table 9. Ambient water quality at Allison Lake and upper and lower Allison Creek,
18–20 September 2008 and 6–7 July 2009.............................................................................29
Table 10. Mean macroinvertebrate community metrics, standard deviations, and level of
significance of t-tests comparing upper and lower Allison Creek, July 2009........................30
Table 11. Mammal species known or expected to occur in the Allison Lake project area. ...................33
Table 12. Ranking of habitat value for selected mammal species in the Allison Lake project
impact assessment area, Alaska..............................................................................................40
Table 13. Bird species known or expected to occur in the Allison Lake project area............................45
Table 14. Number, percent of total observations, and average occurrence of landbird and
shorebird species during point-count surveys, Allison Lake project, June and July 2009.....57
Table 15. Number of point counts, focal observations, and species richness recorded in each
habitat type during point-count surveys for landbirds and shorebirds, Allison Lake
project, June and July 2009 ....................................................................................................58
Table 16. Relative abundance of landbirds and shorebirds by habitat during point-count surveys,
Allison Lake project, June and July 2009...............................................................................59
v Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Table 17. Ranking of habitat value for selected raptor, seabird, and waterbird species in the
Allison Lake project impact assessment area, Alaska............................................................61
Table 18. Ranking of habitat value for selected landbird and shorebird species in the Allison
Lake project impact assessment area, Alaska.........................................................................62
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Literature sources for habitat-use information for bird and mammal species
considered in the wildlife habitat-value assessments for the Allison Lake
project, and outline of assessment procedures for landbirds and shorebirds..................93
Appendix B. Aquatic habitat assessment forms...................................................................................99
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources vi
Introduction
1 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
INTRODUCTION
The Copper Valley Electric Association
(CVEA) has filed for and received a Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
preliminary permit for the Allison Lake
Hydroelectric Project (hereafter, the Allison Lake
project). In support of the permitting process for
the Allison Lake project, CVEA and Hatch Acres
contracted with ABR, Inc., to conduct a review of
published and unpublished data and reports on
biological resources in the project area and prepare
a gap analysis (ABR 2008) and, in 2009, to
conduct field studies to fill data gaps and to assess
potential impacts of the proposed hydroelectric
project on biological resources. This report
summarizes available relevant information,
including results of 2009 studies, for terrestrial
mammal, bird, and fish species in the impact
assessment area and, for those species identified as
conservation priorities, presents a semiquantitative,
habitat-based assessment of potential impacts of
the Allison Lake project. The impact assessment
area boundaries (Figure 1) were defined as the
assumed maximal distance of potential impact for
any wildlife or fish species, resulting in inclusion
of the entire upper and lower Allison Creek basin
within about 1 mile of Allison Lake and the coastal
portion of the Solomon Gulch drainage west of
Solomon Gulch Creek. Marine habitats were
excluded as not affected by the Allison Lake
project.
PRIORITY FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
FOR CONSERVATION
Nearly all of Alaskas birds are protected
under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA). The only species exempt from the
no-take provisions of the MBTA are introduced
and invasive species, such as Starlings in Alaska.
Bald and Golden eagles and their nests are further
protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects
all listed and candidate threatened or endangered
species, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). In Alaska, Kittlitzs
Murrelet is a candidate species for listing under the
ESA (USFWS 2007a) and, on 2 October 2008, the
USFWS announced that the Marbled Murrelet also
is under review for listing. Eight additional bird
species that are confirmed in the project area are
considered high-priority species for conservation
in Alaska (Table 1). Although not federally listed
or candidate threatened or endangered, these
species are of increasing concern because of low
and/or declining populations or other population
threats. These species of conservation concern are
likely to occur in terrestrial and freshwater habitats
in the project area during the breeding, migration,
and/or wintering seasons.
Although few of the fish or mammal species
likely to occur in the Allison Lake project area are
considered priority species for conservation
because of population declines or threats, most fish
and many mammal species are of considerable
conservation interest, largely because of their use
in subsistence and/or recreational activities. The
mountain goat, however, is considered a
management indicator species by the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and mountain goat habitats on
USFS lands can be removed from logging plans.
Other mammals also are of conservation interest to
management agencies, largely due to the regulation
of human harvest activities, such as sport hunting,
trapping, and subsistence activities, which are
managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADFG). Similarly, freshwater habitats for
fish are protected by many state and federal
water-quality and fisheries-habitat regulations.
Because of their importance in commercial, sport,
and subsistence harvest, anadromous fish (salmon
and some trout populations) are of particular
conservation interest and development activities
that could potentially affect anadromous fish
streams are highly regulated by ADFG and NMFS.
Introduction
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 2 Figure 1. Impact assessment area for the Allison Lake project near Valdez, Alaska.146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W146°18'W146°18'W
Introduction
3 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Table 1. Birds considered high-priority species for conservation
a that are known to occur in the
Allison Lake project area. Only species listed on 2 or more agency or conservation
organization lists are included. Scientific names of birds are presented in Table 13.
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 4
VEGETATION, WETLANDS, AND
WILDLIFE HABITATS
By Wendy A. Davis
General descriptions of the vegetation in the
Allison Lake project area are available in NEPA
documents and feasibility reports produced in
support of earlier plans to develop hydropower at
the site (Retherford Associates 1976, FERC 1978,
USACE 1981, USFWS 1981, AEA 1992). These
descriptions outline the occurrence of alpine rock
and scrub tundra surrounding Allison Lake, the
subalpine area of tall alder scrub at intermediate
elevations, and the Sitka spruce forest stands at
lower elevations. Spruce forests were noted to
occur up to about 120 m (400 ft) elevation along
Solomon Gulch Creek. No mapping of vegetation
was conducted in these studies, however, and few
details on the vegetation types are presented
beyond noting several associated plant species that
occur in the alder scrub and spruce forests.
Vegetation maps for the Port Valdez area are
available in Dames and Moore (1979b), Le
Compte (1980), and USGS (1982) but these data
are over 25 years old and are coarse scale. The
mapping in Dames and Moore (1979b) was
conducted from 1978 black and white aerial
photography (1:24,000 scale) and that in Le
Compte (1980) and USGS (1982) was coarser still,
based on spectral image classification of Landsat
satellite imagery from the 1970s. These mapping
efforts did not provide the necessary resolution to
accurately interpret vegetation types specific to the
project area.
Vegetation and land cover in the Port Valdez
area is similar to that of other terminal bays in
northern Prince William Sound that have been
influenced by glacial events in the recent past
(Crow 1977, Dames and Moore 1979b, Le Compte
1980, USGS 1982, Heusser 1983, DeVelice et al.
1999). Steep mountainous terrain alternates with
relatively flat glacial outwash floodplains at the
head of the bay, which are traversed by glacial
streams. Elevation, slope, aspect, and available
soils largely dictate the plant communities present.
At the highest elevations in the mountains, along
ridges, cliffs, and steep upper slopes, partially
vegetated and barren alpine rock predominate.
Alpine vegetation, dominated by dwarf
ericaceous-scrub and patchy low willow (Salix
spp.) and alder (Alnus viridis) scrub communities,
occurs just below the exposed rock areas. The
vegetation in these areas often is interspersed with
colluvium and large boulders. Pure herbaceous
communities are rare in the alpine zone but forbs
are common elements of the dwarf-scrub and
low-scrub communities, especially in more
protected sites where water gathers. At lower
elevations, alpine dwarf-scrub gradually merges
into a subalpine zone where tall alder scrub
strongly dominates on the mountain slopes. Lush
graminoid and herbaceous plant communities
occur in openings in the alder scrub and small
black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) stands are
common in protected swales and incised drainages.
Near sea level and on more gentle slopes, Sitka
spruce (Picea sitchensis) forests begin to dominate,
especially on alluvial fans and the upper portions
of floodplains. In more active outwash and river
floodplains, open black cottonwood forests and
mixed black cottonwood/Sitka spruce forests occur
in areas with thin silt loam soils overlaying glacial
outwash whereas alder and willow thickets occur
in areas with more frequent disturbance and
gravelly/sandy soils. Riverine barrens occur near
active stream channels and saltmarsh and intertidal
mudflats are common in estuarine areas. Rocky
intertidal areas with small pocket beaches of
cobbles and sand are occur where mountain slopes
meet tidewater.
In Alaska, areas are classified as wetlands
using the 3-parameter approach described in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region
Version 2.0 (USACE 2007). To be classified as a
wetland, a site must be dominated by hydrophytic
plants, have hydric soils, and show evidence of
wetland hydrologic conditions (saturation or
inundation of sufficient duration during the
growing season). Wetlands in the mountains in the
Port Valdez area occur in low passes and valleys,
morainal depressions, and locally on slopes in
seeps and drainages. These wetlands include tall-
and low-scrub types, sedge- and herbaceous-
dominated meadow types, and scrub bogs. Other
wetlands in the Port Valdez area include freshwater
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
5 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
lakes and ponds, streams and rivers, and at sea
level, saltmarshes, intertidal mudflats, and marine
waters.
AEA (1992) presented wetland information
for the project area that was derived from the
existing National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data
for Alaska. Lacustrine, palustrine, riverine, and
estuarine wetlands were noted in the project area.
Current NWI data for the Port Valdez area
(USFWS 2007b) shows 5 wetland types mapped in
the Allison Creek drainage and in the Solomon
Gulch Creek drainage downstream of Solomon
Lake. These include freshwater emergent wetlands
and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands
(palustrine), freshwater ponds and lakes
(lacustrine), and riverine wetlands. The mapped
estuarine wetlands at the mouths of Allison Creek
and Solomon Gulch Creek were not included in
this assessment because the Allison Lake project is
not expected to affect estuarine areas. These NWI
wetland types, mapped from aerial photography
collected in 1978 and 1979 (USFWS 2007b),
comprise approximately 129 hectares (320 acres)
in the project area, and this includes the area for
Allison Lake. This likely is an underestimate of the
wetlands present in the area, however, because the
wetland boundaries for these NWI data were drawn
at a broad scale (approximately 1:24,000); for
example, linear features are difficult to detect at a
broad scale and many portions of Allison Creek are
not mapped in the NWI data set.
A wetlands mapping effort was conducted in
August 2009 to provide vegetation and wetlands
information for the NEPA process and to allow the
preparation of a Section 404 wetlands permit
application for the proposed project (ABR 2009).
The wetland study area was restricted to actual
Allison Lake project footprints and included the
area for 2 alternative dam locations, the inundation
area surrounding Allison Lake up to 1,450 ft
elevation, the access road to the dam site, the
powerhouse facility, and the buried penstock
(Figure 1). A broader study area was used for the
habitat map, to allow representation of all habitats
in which project impacts to some wildlife species
may potentially occur during either construction or
operation. As such, the habitat map study area,
hereafter the impact assessment area, included
much of the upper Allison Creek basin, from ridge
to ridge on the east and west and upstream to about
1 mile above the inundation area (Figure 1). To
cover the proposed transmission line corridor, the
impact assessment area also includes the coastal
forest area between Allison Creek and Solomon
Gulch Creek.
WETLANDS
Data for both the wetland delineation and the
mapping of wildlife habitats were collected during
the same field trip and standard wetland
delineation forms used for both purposes. For the
wetland delineation, the total area of potential
ground disturbance was surveyed and mapped. For
access roads, the estimated area of ground
disturbance was 100 feet wide, except 200 feet
wide in areas of steep switchbacks. For the
penstock, both buried and open portions were
estimated to have an area of potential ground
disturbance 100 feet wide. For the inundation area,
the elevation contour for 1,450 feet was used to
approximate the reservoir water surface. For the
wetland delineation, the entire proposed facility
footprint area was sampled intensively either on
foot or by helicopter. On 24 August, the lower
portion of the access road was accessed by foot
using the right-of-way cleared earlier in the year.
On 25, 26 and 27 August, the helicopter was used
to access the upper elevations of the basin when
weather allowed; in poor weather areas in the
lower basin were accessed on foot. In total, full
wetland delineation data were collected at 30 sites
throughout the broad study area and 3 wildlife
habitat verification areas also were sampled (see
Wildlife Habitats below), ensuring that all
available habitat types were sampled in at least 1
location (Figure 2).
The wetland field survey methods used
followed guidelines in the Regional Supplement
to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0) (USACE
2007). The methods specify a 3-parameter
approach to determining wetland status, which
includes an assessment of vegetation cover, soils,
and hydrology. For mapping wildlife habitats, each
site was assigned a vegetation type based on
The Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck
1992). After the field survey, polygon boundaries
were delineated on-screen using ArcGIS software
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 6 Figure 2. Wetland and habitat plot locations and infrastructure footprint of the Allison Lake project, Alaska.146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W146°18'W146°18'W
146°21'30"W146°21'30"W146°21'W146°21'W146°21'30"W146°21'30"W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'30"W
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
9 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
overlaid on high resolution (0.3 m pixels)
digital orthophotography obtained in September
2007 (USGS 2009). Each polygon was given a
formal NWI wetland class following Cowardin
et al. (1979). Acreages were obtained for each
mapped wetland type using ArcGIS software.
Six wetland types were delineated in the
Allison Lake project footprints (Table 2, Figure 3;
Wetlands Plates 19, page 77). Only about 40% of
the project footprint occurs in upland habitats.
About half of the project footprint falls into the
category of non-navigable waters of the U.S.:
specifically, Allison Lake, Allison Creek, and
numerous intermittent tributaries to this hydrologic
system. Excluding these waters, only about 14%
of the project footprint comprises wetlands of just
3 types. The most common wetland type was
Upper Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom/
Unconsolidated Shore (R3UB/US, 49 acres),
which is located in the inundation area and
consists of river bars and rapidly shifting flooded
channels associated with the reach of Allison
Creek that flows through the outwash plain at the
south end of the lake (Figure 3, Table 2). This
wetland type was either barren or partially
vegetated (<30% vegetation cover) and was
interspersed with permanently flooded channels.
Seasonally Flooded Palustrine Shrub Scrub
(PSS1C, 17 acres) was found occupying less well
drained, stable areas of the outwash terrace.
Dominant plant species in these 2 types include
Barclays willow (Salix barclayi) with bluejoint
grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) and alpine
willow herb (Epilobium latifolium) in the
understory. Seasonally Flooded Palustrine
Emergent Meadow (PEM1C, 10.26 acres) was the
third wetland type that occurred in the Allison
Lake outwash terrace and this type also occurred in
the upper portion of the proposed access road,
within a small depressional area associated with a
permanently flooded tributary to Allison Creek.
The plant community composition in Seasonally
Flooded Palustrine Emergent Meadow in the
outwash terrace areas was similar to the graminoid
and herb components of the other habitats in the
outwash terrace (i.e., PSS1C and R3UB/US). In the
access road footprint, Seasonally Flooded
Palustrine Emergent Meadow vegetation was
dominated by bladder sedge (Carex utriculata),
round sedge (C. rotundata), bluejoint grass (C.
canadensis), and Enander s sedge (C. lenticularis
var. dolia).
Table 2. Jurisdictional wetlands and uplands in the Allison Lake project facility footprints. Acreages
are calculated for the downstream dam site option and include 100-foot-wide zones around the
powerhouse, penstock, and access road center lines (200 feet wide in steep road switchbacks).
All waters and wetlands are considered jurisdictional, due to their downstream connection
with navigable waters.
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 10
General upland vegetation communities
within the project footprint study area include,
dwarf ericaceous scrub, herb meadows, tall alder
scrub, and Sitka spruce forest. The majority of
these types are found on steep slopes. Soils are
well drained often with little soil development over
underlying bedrock or colluvium deposits.
MITIGATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS
Section 204 of the Clean Water Act and
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands,
requires that there be no practicable alternative to
the proposed Action, and that the project includes
all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands. The project has been designed to avoid
wetlands to the extent practical and no practicable
alternatives are available that have less impact on
wetland ecosystems. Because it is impossible for
the project to completely avoid wetland impacts,
compensatory mitigation is the primary mitigation
measure available to the project. The new
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources; Final Rule emphasizes a watershed
approach to include all aquatic resources (water
bodies and wetlands) in proposed mitigation plans:
[T]his rule should apply to compensatory
mitigation for all types of aquatic resources that
can be impacted by activities authorized by DA
permits, including streams and other open waters
(73 FR 19596). Keeping the watershed approach in
mind, the measures to minimize harm to the
jurisdictional waters and wetlands associated with
this project will be compensated by in-lieu fee
mitigation in compliance with federal rules and
regulations.
The Proposed Project would impact
approximately 11.45 acres of jurisdictional waters
in Allison Creek and tributaries and 248 acres of
Allison Lake, which will increase to 423 acres in
surface area with the project, and 75.7 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands (Table 2). Six wetland
avoidance and minimization procedures are
proposed for this project:
Project design has minimized the fill foot-
print to the extent practicable;
Facilities would be consolidated to the
extent practical;
Slopes subject to erosion and disturbed
surfaces would be re-vegetated to mini-
mize stormwater pollution;
Sediment prevention measures would be
placed and maintained along the toe of all
fill areas adjacent to wetlands or water of
the United States, to prevent the introduc-
tion of sediments and these devices would
remain in place until fill and exposed
earthwork are stabilized and revegetated;
Only clean sand and gravel would be used
for fills;
Material would be stockpiled primarily in
developed areas and/or on uplands.
WILDLIFE HABITATS
The availability of habitats for wildlife often
is assessed using only a vegetation map but can be
assessed more accurately by integrating mapping
data on physiography and land surface forms with
data on vegetation and land cover (Jorgenson et al.
2002, Schick and Davis 2008). For this study,
habitats were mapped using a technique modified
from an ecosystem-based method for use in
ecological land surveys (Jorgenson et al. 1999a,
Jorgenson et al. 1999b). Field methods were
described above for wetlands and, as for wetlands,
wildlife habitats were delineated on-screen using
ArcGIS software overlaid on high resolution (0.3 m
pixels) digital orthophotography obtained in
September 2007 (USGS 2009). Three variables
were mapped across the study area: vegetation type
(Level IV; Viereck et al. 1992), physiography (a
simplified list used as a proxy for geomorphology),
and surface form. Rivers and Streams (which were
sometimes obscure in the aerial photography) were
delineated using a combination of field locations, a
digital elevation model (DEM; provided by R&M),
and U.S.Geological Survey hydrography data.
These delineated boundaries were used to create a
preliminary list of habitat types by concatenating
all occurring combinations of vegetation type,
physiography, and surface form. A final list of
wildlife habitats was derived by aggregating
3-variable combinations that were similar in
vegetation structure and function, particularly with
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
11 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
respect to the use of those habitats by the specific
wildlife species occurring in the area. This habitat
mapping method provides flexibility to isolate
specific habitat characteristics where needed and to
generalize in other areas that are less important for
the wildlife species in the project area.
To support the subsequent evaluation of
impacts to wildlife habitats, wildlife distribution
and habitat use information was compiled for focal
wildlife species (see Wildlife Habitat Value
Assessment, below). Habitats found in the project
area were then ranked by importance for each focal
wildlife species. The habitat map and habitat value
indices then were linked via a GIS database to
provide a means of assessing the distribution of
habitat values across the landscape. Habitat
information is summarized for each focal wildlife
species in separate sections, below, and the results
of the assessments of potential project-related
effects for birds and mammals are presented at the
end of those report sections, below.
The Allison Lake impact assessment area is
4,236 acres in size and includes 6 physiographic
zones: Coastal, Riverine, Upland, Subalpine,
Alpine, and Lacustrine zones. The Coastal zone is
limited to areas directly influenced by tidewater
and is uncommon in the impact assessment area.
Uplands include the lower forested slopes adjacent
to the coast mainly composed of coniferous forest.
The Alpine zone includes mountain heath, barrens,
and partially vegetated community types found on
mountain crests and ridge tops. Riverine
communities include barrens, open water, and
shrub vegetation types found commonly
throughout the entire impact assessment area. The
Subalpine Zone is the most common physiographic
region and includes the entire area surrounding
Allison Lake, primarily steep slopes supporting tall
shrub, mixed forb, and mountain heath vegetation
types. Lacustrine types include small ponds, but
primarily comprise Allison Lake, which has a
surface area of approximately 250 acres.
Twenty-three wildlife habitat types were
identified in the Allison Lake project impact
assessment area (Table 3; Figure 4). The most
abundant wildlife habitat is Upland and Subalpine
Tall Alder Scrub, which covers 38% of the impact
assessment area. Other habitats that comprise more
than 10% of the impact assessment area include
Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf Ericaceous Scrub
(15%) and Subalpine and Alpine Herb Meadow
(14%). Subalpine and Alpine Barrens covers 9% of
the area, Upland Sitka Spruce Forest 8%, Lakes
(i.e., Allison Lake) 6%, and Rocky Cliffs 5%. No
other habitat type covered more than 5% of the
total impact assessment area.
WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE ASSESSMENT
To support the assessment of project impacts,
information on habitat use and habitat values for
focal wildlife species was collected from various
sources. Two general types of information are
available to contribute to an understanding of
habitat use and habitat values: distributional
information and habitat-use information. Detailed
local distributional information requires some
knowledge of species presence/absence or
population data and is available (on the scale
necessary for this type of review) mainly for
managed game species. Information on the
distribution of species and the distribution of
harvest in the project area was obtained from
various ADFG sources, including management
reports, research reports, harvest statistics, survey
and inventory reports, and Alaska Habitat
Management Guides (ADFG 1986); from
interviews with local biologists; and from surveys
and observations conducted in the Allison Lake
project area in 20082009. Additional information
on habitat use was compiled from published and
unpublished literature (see Appendix A) and from
local species experts and included habitat-use
patterns and biological requirements of both game
and non-game species. For landbirds and
shorebirds, local habitat-use data were obtained
from field surveys described below. These various
sources of information were used to evaluate
habitat values for each focal wildlife species.
Focal terrestrial mammal and bird species
were identified by a combination of factors, but
only those species considered likely to occur in the
Allison Lake project area were included. From that
group, species were selected for their ecological,
conservation, or cultural importance. Unless of
conservation concern, rare species were excluded.
An attempt was made to include bird and mammal
species representative of each of the most abundant
habitats in the impact assessment area. The
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 12
Table 3. Wildlife habitat types in the Allison Lake project impact assessment area.
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
13 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Table 3. Continued.
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 14 Figure 4. Wildlife habitat map for the Allison Lake project, Alaska.146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W146°18'W146°18'W146°17'W146°17'W
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
15 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
selected focal species can also be viewed as
representative of other species with similar habitat
use.
For each habitat and focal species, habitat
value was ranked as none/negligible (coded as 0),
low (1), medium (2), high (3), or essential (4),
based on a qualitative evaluation of the data
synthesis. Essential habitats were recognized only
for those species for which a specific habitat was
identified as essential to survival, persistence, or
completion of the life cycle (e.g., denning,
nesting/birthing, or brood-rearing habitats). High-
value habitats are those known to be important
seasonally; for example, habitats used during the
breeding season for nesting, denning, rearing,
and/or foraging or, for mammals, habitats
important during winter for foraging or escape.
Moderate-value habitats are those used regularly in
any season but are less important, being used by
fewer individuals or representing one of several
available habitats that are used similarly by the
species. Low-value habitats are those used little by
the species under consideration; and the species is
not expected to occur in habitats ranked as
none/negligible.
In general, habitat-use data tended to be of
higher quality for most birds than for most
mammals, primarily because field studies in the
project area provided quantitative habitat use data
only for birds. Therefore, a ranking system was
employed to indicate the quality of information
used to develop the habitat maps. The quality of
rankings was characterized as data-supported
(from project-specific survey data and scientific
literature), partially data-supported (literature
only) or judgmental (based on professional
judgment). In data-supported evaluations,
quantitative data and the range of habitats surveyed
were sufficiently detailed to reliably assign a rank
to most habitat types. For partially data-supported
rankings, some quantitative data were available to
evaluate many ecotypes and extrapolations to the
Allison Lake project area were considered reliable.
For judgmental evaluations, quantitative data were
lacking or covered so few habitats that a
quantitative ranking was difficult or impossible to
derive from the referenced data. In such cases,
general qualitative knowledge of species experts
on life-history characteristics, breeding, and
feeding habits was used to assess habitat
importance. Results of the habitat assessment are
presented for each species/group in the following
sections.
DIRECT IMPACTS ON VEGETATION AND
WILDLIFE HABITATS
The estimated ground disturbance by the
Allison Lake project would total 301 acres, of
which 58% (175 acres) would comprise the
inundation area and dam footprint (Table 4). Of the
remaining 126 acres, access roads would total 84
acres, the penstock 39 acres, and the powerhouse
about 3.5 acres. The project would affect 8 acres of
Rivers and Streams, 5 acres in the inundation area
and 3 acres for the penstock and powerhouse.
Excluding Lakes and Rivers and Streams, the
habitats most affected by the Allison Lake project
are Upland and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub (105
acres), Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf Ericaceous
Scrub (65 acres), River Barrens (51 acres, both
types combined), and Subalpine and Alpine Herb
Meadow (45 acres), which together comprise 88%
of the total estimated ground disturbance.
The dam and inundation area would increase
the lake from 248 acres to 423 acres, inundating
175 acres of terrestrial habitats. Of the 175 acres
inundated, 28% (49 acres) is Riverine Barrens
(Outwash) at the inlet to the lake, 26% (45 acres) is
Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf Ericaceous Scrub
near the outlet of the lake, and 24% (43 acres) is
Subalpine and Alpine Herb Meadow primarily
along the steep eastern and western shores of the
lake. Other habitats affected are Riverine Low and
Tall Willow (10%), Riverine Graminoid Meadow
(4%), Upland and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub
(3%), Rivers and Streams (Low gradient-high
flow) (3%), and Riverine Barrens (2%).
Access roads would affect primarily Upland
and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub (71 acres). Other
habitats affected include Subalpine and Alpine
Dwarf Ericaceous Scrub (8 acres), Subalpine and
Alpine Herb Meadow (3 acres), and Subalpine Wet
Graminoid Moss Bog (3 acres).
The penstock would disturb 2.2 total acres of
Rivers and Streams (i.e., Allison Creek and
tributaries). Adjacent affected habitats would be
Upland and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub (25 acres)
and Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf Ericaceous Scrub
(11 acres).
Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 16
The powerhouse would be located in Upland
and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub (3 acres) and
would also affect a small area of Upland Sitka
Spruce Forest (>1 acre) and Rivers and Stream
(i.e., Allison Creek, >1 acre). The powerhouse is
the only Allison Lake project facility that would
affect Upland Sitka Spruce Forest.
The Allison Lake project impact assessment
area represents nearly all of the non-alpine habitats
in the drainage basin and can be used to assess the
relative effects of habitat loss in the basin. By
percent of occurrence in the impact assessment
area (and excluding the Lake habitat, which will
increase), the most affected habitats in the basin are
associated with Allison Creek: Riverine Graminoid
Meadow (nearly 100% loss), Riverine Barrens
(86% loss), Riverine Low and Tall Willow Scrub
(60% loss), and Rivers and Streams (Low
Gradient-High Flow) (53% loss). The only
non-riparian habitats that will decrease in
availability by more than 10% are Subalpine Wet
Graminoid Moss Bog (59% loss, only one
subalpine bog of 4.2 acres was mapped in the
basin) and Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf Ericaceous
Scrub (11% loss). Most of the project footprint lies
in the most abundant habitat in the basin, Upland
and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub, which will be
reduced in availability by about 7%.
Table 4. Wildlife habitat types affected by the Allison Lake project facility footprints.
Aquatic Resources
17 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
AQUATIC RESOURCES
By John C. Seigle and Andra Love
FISH POPULATIONS
Seven fish species are likely to occur in
freshwater systems in the Port Valdez area (Table
5). Nearly all streams and tributaries in the Port
Valdez area are considered anadromous fish habitat
and are known to support pink, sockeye, coho,
Dolly Varden, and sometimes chum salmon
populations (ADFG 2008). Other resident species
are rare in these waterbodies. Allison Lake is not
known to support fish but the lower 300 meters of
Allison Creek supports spawning and rearing pink
and chum salmon as well as Dolly Varden and
sculpin (USACE 1981).The anadromous fish
populations in these streams are sensitive to
disturbance year-round and critically sensitive
from late summer through winter, during spawning
and overwintering.
Pink salmon are the most abundant salmon
species in Prince William Sound, with the wild
population averaging 6.65 million fish 19891998
(Morstad et al. 1999). Pink salmon are considered
particularly vulnerable to oil contamination in
Prince William Sound waters because a large
portion of the population spawns in the intertidal
region of local spawning streams (Noerenberg
1963, Helle et al. 1964, Helle 1970, Morsell 1979).
Dolly Varden are considered anadromous in
Prince William Sound streams and have a complex
life cycle that includes repeated annual migrations
between freshwater rivers or lakes and the sea.
Dolly Varden alevins emerge from spawning-
stream gravel in May and remain in the stream for
24 years (Armstrong 1970). In Prince William
Sound, most smolts leave spawning streams in
May and June at ages of 2, 3, or 4 years to feed in
saltwater, typically returning to overwinter in
freshwater streams in fall. Numerous variations in
life history exist (Armstrong and Morrow 1980)
but each spring adult and immature fish migrate
from freshwater and in the fall, at ages 79, mature
fish return to their natal streams to spawn.
Management is complicated by the various
migration patterns because individual stocks are
difficult to recognize and each lake or stream
system may contain mixed stocks of Dolly Varden
originating from widely dispersed streams
(Currens et al. 2003).
The Solomon Gulch hatchery raises mainly
pink salmon; between 1989 and 1995, it was
estimated that 75205 million pink salmon fry
were released each year, with 1.6% to 8.9% of
these salmon making it back to Solomon Gulch to
spawn (Jewett and Blanchard 1997). ADFG
estimates that in 2006, hatchery returns for
Solomon Gulch were approximately 9,176,489
pink salmon and 294,009 coho (Botz et al. 2008).
A smaller hatchery run of coho salmon at the
Solomon Gulch hatchery also supports a large
fishery in August of each year (Coggswell 2000).
In the late 1970s, Alaska Petrochemical
Company commissioned studies to examine
salmon-fry dispersion and freshwater aquatic
habitats in the Port Valdez area (Morsell 1979,
Morsell and Perkins 1979). Much of the focus of
Table 5. Fish species likely to occur in Allison Creek and Allison Lake, and in Solomon Gulch Creek
and Solomon Gulch Lake.
Aquatic Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 18
the salmon-fry study was on the marine
environment, or on other freshwater streams, but
Solomon Gulch Creek and Allison Creek are
discussed briefly. Morsell and Perkins (1979)
provide a summary of estimated salmon
escapement in Allison Creek and Solomon Gulch
Creek using data derived from other studies:
Pink salmon escapement in Allison Creek
was estimated at 300 in 1971 (Mattson
1974), 25 in 1973 (Mattson 1974), and 500
in 1975 (Johnson and Rockwell 1978);
Chum salmon escapement in Allison
Creek was estimated at 700 in 1975 (John-
son and Rockwell 1978);
Pink salmon escapement in Solomon
Gulch Creek was estimated at 1,500 in
1975 (Johnson and Rockwell 1978); and
Chum salmon escapement in Solomon
Gulch Creek was estimated at 10 in 1973
(Pirtle 1977).
From 1960 to 1973, the ADFG sporadically
monitored escapement in Allison Creek. Pink
salmon reached a high of 1,000 fish in 1969 and a
high of 2,660 chum were counted in 1963 (USACE
1981). Salmon spawning occurred all the way up to
the weir, which was probably located ~200 meters
upstream from the mouth where the gradient of the
stream changes dramatically (the weir is no longer
present in the stream).
Jewett and Blanchard (1997) assessed habitat
use of juvenile pink salmon from the Solomon
Gulch hatchery during a 10-year period from
19851995. Salmon escapement and survival
estimates were provided but the report focused
mainly on habitat use in the marine environment.
The ADFG produces annual estimates of projected
and actual chum and pink salmon returns for
Solomon Gulch and other Prince William Sound
hatcheries.
In 1987, the ADFG evaluated the impacts
resulting from the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric
Project (Roberson 1987). The report summarizes
ambient water temperature, flow, turbidity, and
habitat conditions in the creek for pre- and
posthydroelectric installation periods. The study
found that temperatures were slightly higher in the
creek after the hydroelectric project was built
(3.74° C vs. 4.14° C, mean annual temperature,
pre- and postconstruction, respectively), but that
the benefits to fish habitat (e.g., lower turbidity,
higher-quality spawning gravels) from
construction of the dam at the mouth of Solomon
Lake off-set the minor increase in temperature in
the creek.
In August and September 2008, ABR
collected basic fish-habitat information in the
lowermost and uppermost reaches of Allison
Creek, sampled fish with minnow traps in lower
and upper Allison Creek and in Allison Lake, and
measured ambient water quality conditions at all
sample sites (Fish Plates, page 77; see plates 130).
In 2009, additional sampling was conducted to
confirm 2008 results, to further evaluate the origins
of pink salmon in lower Allison Creek, and to
evaluate the macroinvertebrate community in
lower Allison Creek (Fish Plates 3142).
FISH SAMPLING
Minnow traps were used to verify fish
presence or absence in lower and upper reaches of
Allison Creek and Allison Lake. Upon retrieval of
minnow traps the fish were removed, identified,
and measured to the nearest millimeter by fork
length or total length in the case of sculpin. At the
time of trap removal ambient water quality
parameters (temperature in ˚C, dissolved oxygen in
mg/l and % saturation, pH, and conductivity in
µS/cm) were collected using a YSI-85 multimeter
and an Orion pHTestr2. Turbidity (in
Nephelometric Turbidity Units [NTUs]) was
measured in the lake, upper creek, and lower creek
using a Hach 2100p turbidimeter.
On 18 September 2008, 8 minnow traps were
set in 6 different habitats in the lower creek, most
in swollen stream areas with very high flow
(Figure 5, Table 6). The first 4 traps were located in
higher-gradient waters above known salmon
spawning and rearing habitat. A trap could not be
deployed in habitat site AC-Low-03 due to an
extremely high-gradient stream bed with high
volumes of water and turbulent flow. The other 4
traps in the lower creek were deployed in
lower-gradient waters in known salmon spawning
and rearing habitat, in the lowest flow areas of
various habitat sites in pools or riffles. Traps were
baited with fresh coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) roe collected from the docks in Valdez and
left to fish over night. All traps fished between 17
Aquatic Resources
19 Allison Lake Project Biological ResourcesFigure 5. Sampling locations for fish habitat assessments, fish sampling, and macroinvertebrate sampling in Allison Creek and Allison Lake, Allison Lake project, Alaska, 20082009.146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W
Aquatic Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 20Table 6. Minnow trap locations and set times in Allison Lake and upper and lower Allison Creek, 1820 September 2008.
Aquatic Resources
21 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
and 23 hours. Eleven Dolly Varden (Salvelinus
malma malma) were found in the first 4 traps
between AC-Low-01 downstream and AC-Low-05
and these fish measured between 92 and 157
millimeters fork length (Table 7). Trap 2 had been
pushed out of the water onto a rock due to high
flows and did not catch any fish. Two Dolly Varden
mortalities occurred in the traps caused by
turbulent flows spinning the fish around in the trap.
Juvenile Dolly Varden in Allison Creek appear to
utilize very high-gradient and high-flow waters.
There are no obstacles to their passage up to
AC-Low-01. This use of steep-gradient, low-order
tributaries year-round by juvenile Dolly Varden is
common (Bramblett et al. 2002, Bryant et al.
2004).
In the lower 4 traps at sites AC-Low-05 and
AC-Low-06, 14 Dolly Varden and 59 sculpin
(Cottus sp.) were caught. Traps in the area around
the old dam site (AC-Low-06) caught 57 of the
sculpin and all 14 of the Dolly Varden. Only 2
sculpin were captured in the lowest trap on the
creek located at AC-Low-07.
All spawning activity by adult salmon species
had ceased by the time of our September sampling
event. During our earlier August sampling event
ABR documented the presence of hundreds and
perhaps thousands of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha) in the lower reaches of Allison Creek
(AC-Low-06 and AC-Low-07) (Figure 5).
Site-specific permit issues made it difficult to
estimate how many salmon were present at that
time. Coho, sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), and
chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) are also
well-documented as spawning and rearing
populations in lower Allison Creek (ADF&G
2008). No spawning pink salmon were
documented more than a few meters beyond the
site of the old dam located at AC-Low-06. Beyond
this area the stream begins to increase in gradient
and suitable spawning and rearing habitat is scarce.
Most of the stream beyond this point is suitable
only for rearing Dolly Varden.
On 20 September 2008, 6 traps were deployed
in the nearshore lake and outlet area in 2 habitat
sites, one with shallow, calm waters and the other
in a transitional area between the lake and upper
creek (Table 6, Figure 5). In the upper creek an
additional 6 traps were set over 2 more habitat
sites, one distinguished by shallow, constrained
stream flow and the other a wider site in the river
marked by less turbulent waters. Poor weather
limited our helicopter support time to
approximately 3 hours of fishing time per trap, or a
total of ~36 hours of fishing time for the upper
creek and lake. During sampling, the crew walked
the nearshore lake environment and upper creek
and saw no evidence of fish presence. All 12
minnow traps were found empty after the sampling
period. Previous reports have suggested that there
are likely no fish in the upper reaches of Allison
Creek and Allison Lake (USACE 1981).
Although studies have been conducted on
salmon species in the creeks in the project area,
little is known about the populations of Dolly
Varden. ABR collected Dolly Varden in minnow
traps at nearly all locations in the lower portions of
Allison Creek during the September 2008 field
survey. The Dolly Varden found in Allison Creek
were assumed to be juveniles due to their small
size. These fish probably will become anadromous
adults, but current research on Dolly Varden in
other parts of Alaska indicates dwarf resident
populations also are possible.
On 67 July 2009, ABR again deployed
minnow traps in lower and upper Allison Creek.
Three of the 4 traps in the lower creek were either
pulled out of the water or partially destroyed by
river otters and only 1 Dolly Varden was captured
before traps were removed from the area to prevent
further damage. An additional 6 traps were set in
the lake and outlet/upper creek area. Traps were
allowed to fish overnight. As in 2008, no fish were
captured in the upper creek or lake and no fish
were observed during visual surveys of the lake or
creek shores.
PINK SALMON OTOLITH ANALYSIS
The otoliths of hatchery reared fish are
marked during early development and prior to
their release into salt-water holding pens by
manipulation of water temperatures (http://
tagotoweb.adfg.state.ak.us/OTO/). These thermal
marks on pink salmon otoliths allow scientists to
distinguish hatchery-reared from wild adult salmon
and, for the Allison Lake project, allow an
assessment of the source of pink salmon that enter
lower Allison Creek during spawning runs. On 7
August 2009, during a peak run of pink salmon, 22
spawned-out pinks for were collected from lower
Aquatic Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 22
Table 7. Fish captured by trap in lower Allison Creek, 1819 September 2008. No fish were captured
at any site in upper Allison Creek or Allison Lake.
Aquatic Resources
23 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Table 7. Continued.
Aquatic Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 24
Allison Creek for extraction and analysis of
otoliths (Fish Plates 4547).
Otoliths were removed from the salmon,
cleaned, dried and stored in coin envelopes until
laboratory processing. In the laboratory, otoliths
were glued to standard microscope slides using a
low temperature glue heated over a hotplate.
Otoliths were ground to near the primordial region
using 1,200 grit wet/dry sandpaper and then
fine-polished using 0.3 micron alumina polishing
powder in aqueous solution. Otoliths were viewed
under transmitted light on a standard bright field
compound microscope with magnification between
100 and 200 . If the preparation was still too
thick for proper light transmission for viewing the
slides were returned to the hotplate and the otoliths
were flipped over. At this point the otoliths were
ground to near the primordial region to expose the
area where a thermal mark would be viewable.
Twenty-two otoliths were analyzed for a
thermal mark indicative of a hatchery fish. In the
case of Allison Creek pink salmon, the most likely
hatchery of origin would be the Solomon Gulch
hatchery operated by the Valdez Fisheries
Development Association (VFDA) (Fish Plates 36
and 37). Pink salmon returning to Solomon Gulch
hatchery or straying to Allison Creek in 2009
would be part of the 2007 brood year as pink
salmon display a 2-year spawning cycle.
The ADFG maintains an online catalog of
hatchery-specific thermal marking patterns. The
page associated with the 2007 brood year can
be found on the ADFG website (http://
tagotoweb.adfg.state.ak.us/OTO/reports/VoucherS
ummary.asp?mi=SGH07) and clearly defines the
marking pattern that associated with fish released
from Solomon Gulch hatchery later in 2008 (Fish
Plate 45).
Of 22 fish analyzed for hatchery marks, 15
(68%) show clear evidence of origin from the
Solomon Gulch hatchery. The mark from 2007
brood year fish is marked by a regular pattern of 6
alternating dark and light bands (Fish Plate 46).
The other 7 fish appear to have regular banding
patterns near the primordia which would indicate a
hatchery origin; however, they could not clearly be
distinguished as Solomon Gulch hatchery fish. A
search for mark patterns from other hatcheries did
not confirm these fish as known hatchery fish. It is
possible that these are native Allison Creek
spawned fish or that they are the progeny of
hatchery fish.
FISH HABITATS
In September 2008 and in July 2009, fish
habitats of Allison Creek were documented and
photographed and the extent of anadromous fish
habitat was assessed by observed barriers to
movement. In September 2008 and again in July
2009, a helicopter reconnaissance flight was used
to cover areas of extreme gradient between the
creek mouth and the lake. Between ground and
aerial efforts, photographs were taken along the
entire route and potential barriers to fish passage
were noted. A potential barrier was described as an
area in the stream with apparently impassable
waterfalls and/or extreme gradients (Figure 6).
Habitat characteristics in the creek and lake were
documented for future field efforts. In the lower
creek, 7 different stream reaches were described. In
the upper creek, 2 reaches were described. Two
additional reaches were described in the lake/creek
transition zone.
Three types of stream habitats were noted in
the Allison Creek project area: low-gradient with
moderate-to-high flow, high-gradient with
turbulent flows, and lake habitat (Figure 5,
Table 8). The nearshore lake habitat (AL-1) was
marked by shallow waters with boulder (>256
mm), cobble (64256 mm), and gravel (264 mm)
substrates (Fish Plates 12). Periphyton appeared
to be present on submerged rocks and moss on
exposed boulders. AL-2 marked a transition zone
between the lake and creek (Fish Plate 3). Boulders
and cobble dominated the substrate, and
periphyton and moss were prevalent. Water was
generally shallow (< 0.5 m) in this transition zone
and relatively slow-flowing as the outflow gradient
was low (<3%).
Sites AC-High-01 and AC-High-02 in upper
Allison Creek were very similar in terms of
substrate material. These sites were dominated by
cobble habitat with slightly fewer boulders than in
AL-2. Periphyton was diminished but still apparent
as water flow increased to a moderate level outside
the lake. Riffle, run, and pool habitats were
numerous throughout AC-High-01 for the first 100
meters downstream from the lake outlet. The
Aquatic Resources
25 Allison Lake Project Biological ResourcesFigure 6. Fish habitat on Allison Creek, Allison Lake project, Alaska.146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W
Aquatic Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 26Table 8. Fish habitat assessment sites in Allison Lake and in upper and lower Allison Creek, 1820 September 2008.
Aquatic Resources
27 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
stream in this habitat site was somewhat
constricted with wetted bank widths between 10
and 20 meters. Mosses covered most boulders in
this site (Fish Plates 46).
Downstream from AC-High-02 the stream
widens over a more significant flood plain as
waters from the surrounding hills flows into upper
Allison Creek and the gradient remains steady
between 3 and 7% (Fish Plate 7). Cobble, gravel,
and sand (0.062 mm) dominated the substrate in
this section of upper Allison Creek. Mosses
covered what few emergent boulders remained and
bank vegetation consisted of a mix of grasses and
dwarf willow. The stream width in this reach was
between 10 and 30 meters (Fish Plates 89). Flow
remained moderate in this area and resulted in
typical riffle-pool combinations.
The lower portion of Allison Creek (Figure 6)
comprised 2 habitat and flow regimes:
high-gradient and low-gradient. Habitat sites
AC-Low-01 through AC-Low-05 are all
high-gradient stream reaches with a mixture of
boulder, cobble, gravel, and sand substrate. The
high- gradient (>10%) and turbulent flow
associated with these sites often result in plunge
pools with very little riffle-pool-run habitat, and
bedrock often is exposed. Vegetation cover was at
least 20%, dominated by alder and spruce, with
some ferns and mixed grasses (Fish Plates 1023).
The lowest 200 meters of the stream before
the outlet to Port Valdez was marked by lower
gradient (<7%) but still high-flowing, channelized
stream conditions. The banks on either side of
lower Allison Creek have been channelized and
supported with rip-rap to provide bank stability for
parking lots and roads for the TAPS facility (Fish
Plates 2430). Pools still were rare and flow
turbulent. Some shallow riffle habitat was available
to spawning salmon. The stream averaged ~8
meters in width and the substrate was mostly
smaller boulders and large cobble.
During an aerial reconnaissance, photos were
taken to document at least 3 sections of mid-stream
Allison Creek that appear to represent barriers to
any upstream fish passage (Figure 6, Fish Plates
3841). These sections were called barriers due to
gradients greater than 50% over reaches with
highly turbulent white water for runs exceeding
50 meters in length, as estimated from the air.
On 6 July 2009, a habitat assessment was
completed for the upper and lower portions of
Allison Creek. The stream habitat assessment
protocols were in accordance with the Alaska
Stream Condition Index (Major and Barbour
2001), which are from EPA methods. Habitat
parameters in stream are divided into 10 categories
which briefly quantify the status of the stream's
geomorphology, flow, bank, and riparian
conditions (Appendix B). Each parameter is scored
within sub-categories labeled Poor (05), Marginal
(610), Suboptimal (1115), and Optimal (1620),
such that increasing values equate to better habitat
scores. The total habitat score is added from each
category and averaged to give a sense of over all
quality for instream habitat characteristics. The
first 5 parameters represent habitat conditions
within the sampling reach and the second 5
parameters represent a broader view of stream
habitat in the surrounding area of sampling.
Habitat characteristics in the lower stream
were measured adjacent to the green pump shed
(near the 2008 sample station AC Low-06 in
Figure 5). Above this reach, the stream increases in
gradient and useable pink salmon habitat is
lacking. Below the sampling station, the left bank
of the stream (looking upstream) was marked by
rip-rap used to channelize the lower 200 meters of
Allison Creek before it empties into Valdez Bay.
The right bank (looking upstream) appears less
altered downstream of the sampling station and is
vegetated by alder and willow thickets where black
bears congregate to feed on spawning salmon
during the late summer and early fall. Habitat
scores for this reach of lower Allison Creek were
optimal reflect the suboptimal conditions resulting
from channel alteration, but continue to provide
high-quality epifaunal substrate with low
embeddedness and an optimal variety of
velocity/depth habitats.
Habitat characteristics in upper Allison Creek
were measured approximately 600 feet
downstream from Allison Lake (near the 2008
sample station AC-01 in Figure 5). The stream in
this reach is not altered by human activities and the
habitat scores were optimal for all parameters.
Aquatic Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 28
WATER QUALITY
Ambient water conditions in the stream and
lake were measured on 19 September 2008 in the
lower creek and 20 September 2008 in the upper
creek and lake (Table 9). Temperature and
dissolved oxygen also were measured during
macroinvertebrate sampling, on 6 and 7 July 2009
(Table 9). In 2008, temperatures in the upper creek
and lake shallows ranged from 5.9 to 6.1˚C. The
lower creek was warmer and ranged from 6.8 to
7.2˚C. In July 2009, the temperature difference
between upstream and downstream sites was
greater, 5.4 upstream and 9.5 downstream. This
increase in temperature is to be expected as cold
water flows from the lake and is aerated by the
warmer temperatures found near sea-level around
Port Valdez. Dissolved oxygen percent saturation
was generally high throughout the lake and creek
in September 2008 (86.5%94.7%), and only
slightly lower in July 2009. The lower creek was
slightly higher in percent oxygen saturation on
average than the upper creek and lake and this is
probably due to turbulent mixing of creek water
with air during its descent down Allison Creek.
Conductivity was generally low throughout the
lake and creek (26.330.5 µs/cm). This is likely
due to the relatively low level of dissolved and
particulate materials in the stream, also reflected in
the low turbidity of the stream (2.74.6 NTU).
While the lake is formed from glacial melt, most
mineral material appears to settle in the lake
leaving clear water at the surface to drain. The pH
was highest in the lake and upper creek (8.78.9)
and is perhaps a product of glacial material
incorporated into the melt waters which form the
lake. In the lower creek, pH ranged between 7.6
and 8.4. These levels are normal for high mountain
glacial streams in Alaska (Hem 1985).
MACROINVERTEBRATES
The aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna was
documented in both Allison Creek and Solomon
Gulch Creek during surveys conducted in the early
1970s (Nauman and Kernodle 1974). Taxa
composition was typical of cold-water Alaskan
streams but little interpretation of the results was
made.
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities were
sampled in lower (AC-Low-06) and upper
(AC-High-01) Allison Creek on 6 July 2009
(Figure 5). Five replicate samples were collected
from riffle habitats at each site using Surber
samplers (363-µm mesh). Samples were placed
into 1-L polyethylene wide-mouth sample bottles,
labeled, and preserved with 70% ethanol for later
sorting and identification at the ABR laboratory.
Samples were sorted to remove a 500-organism
subsample from each preserved sample. If fewer
than 500 organisms were present in the sample,
the entire sample was sorted. Total abundance
was generally low with 29517 organisms per
sample (mean = 181 organisms per sample).
Macroinvertebrates were identified to genus with
the exception those in the family Chironomidae
(midges); 20% of the Chironomidae in each sample
were identified to genus.
Macroinvertebrate community metrics were
calculated for each sample, including total taxa
richness, EPT richness (combined taxa from the
orders Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera
[stoneflies], and Trichoptera [caddisflies]), percent
EPT, and percent Diptera. The total density of
organisms per m² of the stream bottom was
calculated by multiplying the total number of
macroinvertebrates collected in the 1-ft² Surber
sample by a conversion factor of 10.82.
Community metrics were calculated for each
replicate sample, and means and standard
deviations of each metric were calculated for both
sites. Metrics from the upper and lower Allison
Creek sampling sites were compared using t-tests.
At the time of macroinvertebrate sampling,
habitats were characterized using the Alaska
Stream Condition Index, as described above.
Macroinvertebrate habitats were similar at the
upper and lower Allison Creek sampling sites.
Embeddedness was optimal (low) at both sites, but
somewhat greater at the upper site. Habitat
variability was also was somewhat less (fewer
velocity-depth combinations, categorized as
suboptimal) at the upper site. Bank stability was
lower at the downstream site (suboptimal on the
left bank), as was bank vegetative protection (poor
on the left bank), and the width of the riparian zone
was less than at the upstream site (marginal on the
left bank).
Aquatic Resources
29 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Upper Allison Creek (AC-High-01) had
higher mean densities of macroinvertebrates
(mean: 2,514 organisms/m²; range: 3145,594
organisms/m²) than lower Allison Creek
(AC-Low-06; mean: 1,410 organisms/m²; range:
4543,228 organisms/m²; Table 10). This
difference was not significant, however, due to
high variability among replicate samples at both
sites (p = 0.3280; Table 10). While
macroinvertebrate densities were higher in upper
Allison Creek, overall taxa richness (the number of
taxa within each sample) was significantly lower
(mean: 8 taxa; range: 512 taxa) than at the lower
creek site (mean: 14 taxa; range: 1018 taxa; p =
0.0314).
Macroinvertebrates of the orders
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT
taxa) are known to be relatively sensitive to
disturbance. EPT richness and percent EPT were
significantly lower in lower Allison Creek than
they were in upper Allison Creek (EPT richness, p
= 0.0034; Percent EPT, p = 0.0025). The ranges in
EPT richness were 14 taxa at AC-High-01
(mean: 3) and 46 taxa at AC-Low-06 (mean: 5;
Table 10). At the lower Allison Creek site,
mayflies were most common, comprising 91.6% of
EPT taxa among the 5 replicate samples; stoneflies
(7.1%) and caddisflies (1.3%) were less common.
The mayflies Baetis bicaudatus (Baetidae) and
Epeorus grandis (Heptageniidae) were the most
common EPT taxa in lower Allison Creek.
Mayflies of the genus Ameletus (Ameletidae) and
the stonefly Isoperla katmaiensis (Perlodidae)
were absent in lower Allison Creek but present in
upper Allison Creek.
Conversely, macroinvertebrates of the order
Diptera, as a group, are known to be relatively
tolerant to disturbance. Percent Diptera was
significantly higher in upper Allison Creek than it
was in lower Allison Creek (p = 0.0029).
Chironomids of the genus Rheocricotopus were
most common, comprising 82.8% of the dipterans
collected at the upstream site.
POTENTIAL PROJECT-RELATED
EFFECTS ON FISH
Potential project-related effects of the Allison
Lake project on fish include:
Habitat alteration by sedimentation in
lower fish-bearing reaches of Allison
Creek during construction of the dam, pen-
stock, and powerhouse upstream
Table 9. Ambient water quality at Allison Lake and upper and lower Allison Creek, 1820 September
2008 and 67 July 2009.
Aquatic Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 30
Habitat alteration by stream-bed distur-
bance by powerhouse construction in
lower fish-bearing reaches of Allison
Creek, upstream of pink salmon habitat
Water temperature and flow changes in
Allison Creek during construction that
may affect spawning populations of pink
and chum salmon, Dolly Varden, or other
fish species present in lower Allison Creek
Accidental release of contaminants into
Allison Creek during construction
Water temperature and flow changes in
Allison Creek during operation that may
affect spawning populations of pink and
chum salmon, Dolly Varden, or other fish
species present in lower Allison Creek
Sedimentation during Construction
During project construction, in particular
during construction of the penstock, construction
activities in the streambed may increase
sedimentation, potentially affecting water quality
in downstream fish habitats. The construction
contractor will implement best management
practices to protect the stream from sedimentation
impacts.
Stream-bed Disturbance
The Allison Lake project facility footprints
would alter the stream bed of Allison Creek in the
footprint of the dam and inundation area (5 acres of
Rivers and Streams, Table 4) and in some portions
of the penstock and powerhouse footprints (2.2
acres and 0.4 acres, respectively). However, only
the powerhouse footprint would potentially affect
fish habitat (primarily Dolly Varden), because of
upstream barriers to fish passage. The powerhouse
would be located upstream of the anadromous
salmon habitats in Allison Creek and no
stream-bed disturbance would occur in salmon
habitats.
Water Temperature and Flow Changes during
Construction
Estimates of temperature and flow change
during the construction period are unavailable, but
will likely change from pre-development
conditions with consequent potential effects on fish
populations in lower Allison Creek. Construction
schedule and practices will be designed to
minimize impacts on fish, particularly for
spawning salmon.
Accidental Release of Contaminants during
Construction
Fuels and explosives will be used and stored
in the project area and accidental spills or
inappropriate handling procedures may pose some
risk of contamination for Allison Creek and fish
populations. The construction contract would
require the contractor to control, contain, and
remove any spill occurrence during construction.
Any reportable spills as defined in 40 CFR 110 will
be reported as required. The contractor would be
required to develop a Hazardous Materials
Containment Plan (HMCP) to address hazardous
material that will be used during project
construction and to detail measures to control
discharges of such materials into waters of the
United States. The risk of accidental spill is
considered low and it is anticipated that
Table 10. Mean macroinvertebrate community metrics, standard deviations (SD), and level of
significance of t-tests comparing upper and lower Allison Creek, July 2009.
Aquatic Resources
31 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
appropriate response will limit impacts of any
accidental spills; the overall impacts of spills on
fish in Allison Creek therefore are likely to be
minor.
Water Temperature and Flow Changes during
Operation
During operation of the Allison Lake project,
water temperature and stream flow in Allison
Creek will change from pre-development
conditions, potentially affecting fish populations in
lower Allison Creek. Estimates of stream
temperature and flow are unavailable, but
operations practices will be designed to minimize
impacts on fish, particularly for spawning salmon.
Mitigation of Impacts
The proposed improvements would involve
more than one acre of ground disturbance;
therefore, compliance with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction Activities in Alaska
would be required. CVEA will prepare an Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). The
Contractor will use the ESCP to develop their
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
which will employ measures to protect water
quality during on-site construction activities,
including gravel mining and hauling material to the
construction site. Work would be done in
accordance with the Best Management Practices
for Construction Erosion and Sediment Control
(1997) to ensure that water-quality standards are
met. All disturbed ground, consisting of silt and
overburden, would be seeded, fertilized, and
watered to establish ground cover and minimize
stormwater runoff. Clean sand and gravel would be
used for all fills. A Section 401 Water Quality
Certification would also be obtained from the
ADEC as part of the permitting for this project.
Construction and operation practices and schedules
will be designed to minimize impacts on fish in
Allison Creek.
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 32
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES
MAMMALS
By Brian E. Lawhead, Robert M. Burgess, and
Jennifer H. Boisvert
Approximately 32 species of land mammals
are known or expected to occur in the Allison Lake
project area (Table 11); the presence of several
cryptic species of small mammals (shrews and
microtine rodents) has not been confirmed by field
surveys. The most notable species of mammals for
this analysis are the mountain goat (which is
considered a management indicator species by the
USFS), brown and black bears, and furbearers,
which are judged to be the species of concern
for most stakeholders. The project area is
encompassed by Game Management Unit (GMU)
6, an area of 10,140 mi² that includes all of Prince
William Sound and the northern coast of the Gulf
of Alaska. The project area is located in the subunit
designated GMU 6D East, which is the portion of
GMU 6D located south of Port Valdez and east of
the Lowe River. Most of the available data on
mammal populations in the project area come
from survey and inventory activities conducted by
the ADFG, focusing on large mammals and
furbearers.
MOUNTAIN GOAT
Mountain goats are native to the mountains of
south coastal Alaska, including those surrounding
Port Valdez. Goat populations in coastal Alaska are
limited principally by winter severity (mainly snow
depth) and the availability of suitable habitat (Fox
et al. 1989), but they have a low reproductive rate
and thus are susceptible to predation and
overhunting (Fox and Streveler 1986, Côté and
Beaudoin 1997, Toweill et al. 2004). Goats
generally summer around high alpine meadows
and ridges and move to lower slopes in winter as
snow depth increases (Hjeljord 1973, White 2006),
often using cliffs and rocky outcrops near valley
floors and beaches. Stands of old-growth forest
near steep escape terrain provide important winter
habitat for goats (Fox et al. 1989) and National
Forest lands with evidence of goat use can be
removed from logging schedules (Crowley 2004).
Female goats seek rugged, isolated areas in
which to give birth to kids in late May and early
June. Females require adequate foraging areas
nearby, generally located within 400 m of steep
escape terrain (Fox et al. 1989, Hamel and Côté
2007). Summer habitats include alpine ridges,
slopes, and meadows vegetated with grasses,
sedges, and low shrubs (Hjeljord 1973, Fox et al.
1989).
Mountain goats are sensitive to disturbance by
aircraft (especially helicopters) and ground
activities (Foster and Rahs 1983, Côté 1996),
which has led to recommendations that helicopters
avoid goat habitat by a buffer distance of 2 km.
However, goats also are able to habituate to
well-managed activities that restrict behavioral
disturbance, flight altitudes, and approach
distances (Smith and Van Daele 1987, Goldstein et
al. 2005). Aircraft over National Forest lands in
south coastal Alaska must maintain approach
distances of >800 m and altitudes of 500 m or more
in goat habitat. Goldstein et al. (2005) found that
goats on steep slopes near escape terrain in coastal
Alaska showed milder responses to helicopter
disturbance than did goats on less steep ridges
inland in Alberta, but also suggested that goats in
areas where hunting is legal would be more
disturbed by helicopter landings that dropped off
people in goat habitat. Mountain goats around the
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project on Kodiak
Island experienced relatively few project-related
impacts, evidently because it was located in an area
of spring and summer habitat that received
low-density use, and they appeared to habituate to
human facilities and activities (Smith and Van
Daele 1987). The key to habituation is that human
activities be predictable and nonthreatening.
The mountain goat population in GMU 6 has
fluctuated widely over the last 60 years, primarily
as a result of winter severity, hunting, and
predation. Conservative harvest management and
mild winters since the late 1990s have allowed the
population to rebound from a relatively low level
in the early to mid-1990s and the population is
currently thought to be stable (Crowley 2008a).
The current management goal for GMU 6 is to
maintain a unit-wide population of at least 2,400
mountain goats.
ADFG conducts aerial surveys in late summer
or early fall to obtain data on the sex and age
composition of the mountain goat population. In
1952, the goat population in GMU 6 was estimated
roughly at 4,350 animals (Crowley 2006a). Aerial
Terrestrial Resources
33 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
surveys began in 1969 but were not standardized
until 1986. Beginning in 1986, goat harvests were
regulated under a registration permit system within
relatively small geographic units. The population
in GMU 6 in the early to mid-1990s was estimated
at 2,790 animals; by 1999, the population had
rebounded to approximately 4,000 goats (Crowley
2006a). Unit-wide population estimates were 3,650
goats with 18% kids in 2000; 3,450 with 19% kids
in 2001; and 3,650 with 17% kids in 2002
(Crowley 2004). The most recent unit-wide
estimate was 4,125 goats in 2006, of which about
2,480 goats were estimated to inhabit subunit 6D
(Crowley 2008a), with the highest densities
recorded in GMU 6D East (in which the Allison
Lake project would be located).
Two separate aerial surveys flown by ADFG
in recent years found very few goats in the Allison
Lake basin (D. Crowley, pers. comm.), and the area
is not considered to be critical goat habitat. An
ADFG survey on 22 August 2002 found 9 goats,
including 2 kids, above 750 m elevation in the
Table 11. Mammal species known or expected to occur in the Allison Lake project area. Bold font
indicates confirmed observation in the project area in 2009.
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 34
southwestern portion of the Allison Lake basin and
a survey on 24 May 2006 found 1 goat on the
eastern side of the basin about 3 km from
tidewater. Although it appears that mountain goat
densities are low, use of the project area by goats
for critical life-history events such as birthing,
rutting, and wintering is not well understood.
No field surveys specifically for mountain
goats were conducted in support of the Allison
Lake project, however, all mammal sightings
during other field investigations in 2008 and 2009
were recorded. The ADFG area biologist planned
an aerial survey of the Allison Lake project area in
late May to early June 2009, specifically to survey
for birthing mountain goats, but was unable to
complete the survey as planned (D. Crowley, pers.
comm.).
Aerial surveys for other species were
conducted by ABR in the Allison Lake project area
during early August 2008, late May 2009, and
mid-June 2009, and a field camp near the lake
outlet was occupied 38 June and 49 July 2009.
The following mountain goat observations were
recorded during field work in 2008 and 2009.
On 7 August 2008, 4 groups of mountain
goats were observed: 3 groups (totaling 6
adults and 1 kid) were within the Allison
Lake impact assessment area, all were
located on upper slopes south and west of
Allison Lake, 3.14.3 km from the lake
outlet (Figure 7). Another group of 3
adults was outside the impact assessment
area, farther south on Mt. Kate, 6.4 km
from the lake outlet.
No mountain goats were observed in the
project area on 28 May 2009.
During the first week of June 2009, indi-
vidual mountain goats (1 female and 2
males) were observed foraging and resting
about halfway up slopes west of the lake.
On 7 June, a group of 5 goats was
observed high on the ridge east of the lake.
On 5 July, a goat (sex unknown) was
observed high on the ridge east of the lake.
On 8 July and again on 9 July, another goat
(male) was observed on the ridge east of
the lake.
No mountain goats were observed in the
Allison Lake project area during aerial sur-
veys conducted during 516 June 2009.
Most of the goats observed in the Allison
Lake project area were lone males and only one
nanny with a kid was observed (during August
2008). Taken together, the available evidence does
not indicate that the upper Allison Lake basin
contains important birthing or rearing habitats for
mountain goats.
BEARS
Both black and brown bears inhabit the
Allison Lake project area, with black bears being
more numerous (Crowley 2007a, 2008b). Bears in
the vicinity of Port Valdez frequent tidal flats after
they emerge from hibernation in May and forage
on adjacent mountain slopes as snow melts and
vegetation is exposed. During spring and early
summer they forage in grassy flats, sedge
meadows, and bogs. During late summer, bears
forage in intertidal areas and streams where they
consume spawning salmon. Salmon and berries are
the most important foods in fall. Denning begins
by late October and most bears have entered dens
by mid-December.
Brown bears inhabit most of GMU 6,
although they are absent from the western islands
and western mainland of Prince William Sound.
Brown bears occur on the mainland east of the
Columbia Glacier and on several of the larger
islands in Prince William Sound. Old-growth
forests provide important habitat for coastal bears
in Southeast Alaska (Schoen et al. 1994) and the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council
acquired or protected most lands scheduled for
timber harvest in subunit 6D, thus removing the
threat of large-scale habitat loss in Prince William
Sound (Crowley 2007a). The brown bear
population of GMU 6 has been stable or declining
slightly since 1989.
Black bears are common throughout GMU 6
except on Montague, Hinchinbrook, and several
smaller islands in Prince William Sound. Densities
in GMU 6 generally are higher in western Prince
William Sound and lower in eastern Prince
William Sound and on the North Gulf Coast
(Crowley 2008b). The highest concentrations of
black bears in GMU 6 occur in the area of Valdez
Terrestrial Resources
35 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Arm, where they use coniferous forest and
alder-dominated mountain slopes most heavily.
Both species of bears likely use the entirety of
the Allison Lake project area, including the upper
basin and forested habitats between Allison Creek
and Solomon Gulch, although black bears do not
use alpine habitats as commonly as do brown
bears. During a May 2006 ADFG aerial survey of
mountain goats, a black bear was observed 1 mile
below the Allison Lake outlet and other bear tracks
were identified in the snow near the lake outlet (D.
Crowley, pers. comm.). Security guards at the
Alyeska terminal report both black and brown
bears as common in both Allison Creek and
Solomon Gulch, and along Dayville Road and the
pipeline access road, particularly during the
salmon-spawning seasons.
Food abundance, weather conditions, and
harvest levels can affect black bear populations in
GMU 6 (Crowley 2008b). Salmon abundance and
winter severity are particularly important factors
affecting population size, and competition and
predation by brown bears can be important locally.
The highest densities of black bears occur where
brown bear density is low.
Harvest monitoring of brown bears and black
bears in GMU 6 began in 1961 and 1973,
respectively, with mandatory sealing of hides. In
the late 1990s, the populations of both brown and
black bears in GMU 6 appeared to be increasing
and able to sustain the harvest levels occurring at
the time (Crowley 2005). The brown bear
population in Unit 6 was estimated at 850 in 2001,
with an estimated 310 bears in subunit 6D
(Crowley 2001). For the period 20042006, the
number of black bears in Valdez Arm was
estimated roughly at 466 animals and it was
concluded that harvest levels in GMU 6D were
high enough that the population may be affected
(Crowley 2008b). Three of 19 black bears killed by
hunters on the south side of Port Valdez during the
last 5 years were taken between Allison Creek and
Solomon Lake, but no brown bears were taken in
the area (D. Crowley, pers. comm.).
No field surveys specifically for mammals
were conducted in support of the Allison Lake
project, however, incidental sightings of bears were
recorded by field personnel during other aerial and
ground-based wildlife surveys in the project area in
20082009 (Figure 7; Mammal Plates, page 77).
During mid-August 2008, 5 black bears,
including a female with 2 cubs, were
observed feeding on pink salmon along
Allison Creek.
In late May 2009, 2 black bears were
reported during aerial surveys on 28 May.
Both were located in recently snow-free
herbaceous habitat on steep-alder domi-
nated slopes, 1 in the Solomon Creek
drainage near the ridge above Allison
Lake, the other on the west side of the Alli-
son Creek basin ~ 0.8 mi below the lake
outlet.
During 38 June 2009, 4 different black
bears (including 1 sow with a cub) and 1
young brown bear were observed foraging
in recently snow-free habitats around Alli-
son Lake (Mammal Plate 1). One of the
black bears and the young brown bear also
were observed crossing Allison Lake on
the frozen ice (Mammal Plate 2).
On 15 and 16 June 2009, 2 black bears
were observed using forested habitats
along the proposed transmission line area
in the lower elevations of the project area,
and 2 black bears also were observed in
upland herbaceous habitats on the lower
slopes west of Allison Lake, just below the
lake outlet.
During 49 July 2009, 4 different black
bears were observed foraging in habitats
around Allison Lake. One of these was
recorded 3 times on the upper slopes east
of the lake outlet, one was on the lower
slopes west of the creek below the lake,
one was recorded 3 times in the glacial
outwash flats on the south end of the lake,
and one small black bear was observed
near Allison Creek downstream of the lake
outlet.
On 4 July 2009, 1 young brown bear was
observed fishing at Solomon Gulch and
then along the coast towards Allison Creek
a couple days thereafter.
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 36 Figure 7. Locations of large mammals observed in the Allison Lake project area, Alaska, summer 2008 and 2009. (Locations may represent repeat sightings of the same individuals for mountain goats and black bears).146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W146°18'W146°18'W
Terrestrial Resources
37 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Black bears are particularly common in the
project area and often were observed foraging in
recently snow-free and herbaceous habitats in the
lake basin, in lower elevation conifer forests, and
along the coast throughout the summer. Most of the
bears recorded in the Allison Lake basin in June
and July were observed multiple times in the same
general area for several days at a time. Many of the
same individual bears may have been recorded on
multiple occasions over the course of observations.
In the lower elevations of the project area along
Dayville Road, black and brown bears were
particularly common during salmon runs in mid- to
late summer.
AQUATIC FURBEARERS
River otters and mink are reportedly common
with stable populations in GMU 6 (Crowley
2007b). River otters occur in aquatic and marine
shoreline habitats where they consume mainly fish
and invertebrates (Larsen 1983). They are common
throughout most of GMU 6 and were reported as
the most abundant carnivore in Prince William
Sound since the early 1900s (Crowley 2007b).
Since the 1930s, populations of river otters have
fluctuated, apparently with trapping and hunting
playing an important role in declines, as well as the
Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. They are likely to
use Allison Creek and adjacent shorelines,
especially during salmon spawning. River otters
were observed in estuarine waters adjacent to
Allison Creek in June 2009 and river otters were
documented in lower Allison Creek in July 2009,
when they disturbed and destroyed several fish
traps. River otters probably frequent much of the
low-gradient reach of Allison Creek where fish are
present and much of the shoreline and forested
habitats along Valdez Bay. They probably also use
coastal portions of other small creeks mapped in
the impact assessment area. River otters probably
are uncommon in the Allison Lake impact
assessment area above stream reaches occupied by
fish, including most of Allison Creek and all of
Allison Lake.
Mink inhabit the shores of streams, lakes, and
marine coastlines, where they prey on fish and
aquatic invertebrates, birds, and small mammals
(Johnson 1985). Mink are common in most of
GMU 6 and numbers may be limited by harvest
(Crowley 2007b). Similar to river otters, they are
likely to occur in Allison Creek primarily where
fish are present and in shoreline and forested
habitats adjacent to Valdez Bay. Mink were
observed in estuarine habitats at the mouth of
Allison Creek in June 2009.
Although the species occurs in the region,
there is little habitat for beaver in the Allison Lake
basin. Beavers occur exclusively in association
with woody vegetation and fresh water habitats,
including streams, rivers, impoundments, and
lakes, from sea level to alpine zones. They eat a
variety of plants but their distribution is limited by
the winter availability of woody plants, particularly
cottonwood, aspen, willow, and alder. Beaver
habitat is relatively limited in GMU 6D, although
beaver are present in the Rude and Gravina river
drainages, on Hawkins and Hinchinbrook islands,
in Simpson Bay, and in the Sheep River drainage
(Crowley 2007b). If present, beaver are likely rare
in the project area.
Muskrats are found in aquatic habitats with
standing or slowly flowing water with emergent
vegetation. Muskrats occur at low density in GMU
6 east of Prince William Sound, but appear to be
absent from the Prince William Sound area
(Crowley 2007b) and thus are unlikely to occur in
the project vicinity.
ADFG monitors trapping harvest of selected
furbearers, such as river otter and beaver, by
requiring sealing of hides, but generally does not
conduct population surveys of furbearers. ADFG
conducts scat counts and latrine surveys for river
otters in GMU 6 (Crowley 2007b), but none have
been done recently in the portion of Port Valdez
near the project area (D. Crowley, pers. comm.).
OTHER MAMMALS
ADFG conducts periodic sex and age
population surveys for moose in GMU 6, but has
not recently included subunit 6D. The most recent
estimate of the numbers of moose in GMU 6D was
approximately 50 animals (Crowley 2006b). The
reported annual harvest of moose in GMU 6D was
3 or fewer animals during 19992006. The only
moose indigenous to Unit 6 are small populations
in the Lowe River drainage and Kings Bay in
subunit 6D, totaling about 4050 animals (Crowley
2006b). These small populations have not extended
their ranges since at least 1960. Moose are more
abundant in other subunits of GMU 6 to the east,
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 38
having originated from translocations into subunit
6C (the Copper River delta) and subsequently
spreading into adjacent subunits. Thus, the species
is not an issue for the Allison Lake project.
ADFG conducts annual pellet counts to assess
the relative densities of deer (Crowley 2007c).
Recent counts suggest no significant changes in the
density of deer in GMU 6. The highest densities of
deer in Subunit 6D (Prince William Sound)
occurred on large islands and lower densities
occurred on smaller islands and mainland areas
(Crowley 2007c). The Sitka black-tailed deer
population in GMU 6 resulted from introductions
on Hawkins and Hinchinbrook islands in Prince
William Sound during 19161923 (Reynolds
1979). Following those introductions, deer
increased in number and dispersed to other islands
and the mainland. The population peaks and
declines periodically in response to winter severity
and other limiting factors (Reynolds 1979). Snow
depth and duration are the most important limiting
factors for deer in the region; other factors include
wolf predation, timber harvest and management,
and hunting (Crowley 2007c). Old-growth spruce
forest is critical wintering habitat because the tree
canopy limits ground cover of snow, providing
greater access to forage for deer in the region, but
old-growth forests also are used during summer
(Reynolds 1979, Shishido 1986). Deer are not
numerous on the mainland but have managed to
spread inland during periods of mild winters
(Roberson 1986). Due to the marginal range
available for this species in the vicinity of the
project, deer are not an issue for the Allison Lake
project.
ADFG conducts periodic population surveys
of wolves in GMU 6, but no surveys were
conducted 19972003 (Crowley 2006c). A USFS
study estimated a stable population of wolves in
GMU 6 of 4761 wolves in 8 packs in 1999 and
5065 wolves in 8 packs in 2000. In 2006, ADFG
estimated that Unit 6D has only 46 wolves in 2
packs (Crowley 2006c), down from 1014 wolves
in 3 packs in 2001 (Crowley 2003), but that pack
size and distribution in Unit 6D remains
speculative. ADFG requires sealing of harvested
wolves and the reported harvest in GMU 6 ranged
from 2 to 13 wolves in the period 19972003.
Wolves have been present in low numbers in GMU
6 since at least the early 1900s and have increased
in numbers since then, perhaps in response to
increased abundance of introduced deer in Prince
William Sound and moose in the Copper River
delta, as well as the cessation of federal wolf
control in the 1950s. Wolves are present on the
eastern mainland of Subunit 6D, including Valdez
Arm. In 2005, there were approximately 41 to 52
wolves in 811 packs in GMU 6 and numbers were
relatively stable (Crowley 2006c). Pack size and
distribution in the Prince William Sound area
(Subunit 6D) remains speculative, although there
were reportedly only 46 wolves in 2 packs in the
Rude River and Lowe River areas (Crowley
2006c).
Coyotes occur in low numbers in GMU 6,
mainly where wolves are uncommon. Recent
observations suggest that coyotes recently have
declined in abundance as wolves have increased
(Crowley 2007b). Coyotes were observed in June
2009 in the upper Allison Creek basin, near Allison
Lake. Red foxes are rare in GMU 6, possibly
having been displaced by coyotes (Crowley
2007b).
ADFG requires sealing of the hides of marten,
wolverine, and lynx. Marten sealing began in
19992000. Marten were reported as common and
stable to increasing in abundance in GMU 6 in
2007, wolverine were reported as present at low to
moderate densities and stable, and lynx were
reported as rare or absent (Crowley 2007b). Marten
populations in GMU 6 have been described as
scattered and variable in density, and are frequently
subject to heavy trapping (Crowley 2007b). The
species is most numerous in forested habitats, and
thus is probably not abundant in the project
vicinity. Wolverines are present in most of GMU 6
and are likely to occur in the alpine habitats of the
Allison Lake project area. In the 1930s they were
considered plentiful and a nuisance and in 1954 a
bounty was placed on wolverines that was removed
in 1959 after excessive harvest. Harvests peaked in
19721978 and again in 19921998, probably due
to both increased trapper effort as well as greater
numbers of wolverines (Crowley 2007b). The
primary prey of lynx is the snowshoe hare, which
is cyclical in numbers. When hares are not
abundant, lynx select alternate prey including
grouse, ptarmigan, red squirrels, and microtine
Terrestrial Resources
39 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
rodents. Neither lynx nor snowshoe hares were
observed in the project area during field efforts in
20082009.
The other small mammals likely to occur in
the project area are poorly documented, but there
are no mammal species of conservation concern in
the area.
Field surveys were not conducted specifically
for mammals but incidental sightings were
recorded by field personnel during ground-based
surveys in the project area during 2009.
A mink was observed foraging in the inter-
tidal zone at the mouth of Allison Creek in
early June 2009.
A group of 3 river otters was observed on 6
June 2009 in the marine waters near Alli-
son Point.
On 5 June 2009, a pair of coyotes was
observed hunting together west of the out-
let of Allison Lake in the Allison Lake
basin (Figure 7, Mammal Plate 3).
In early July 2009, 1 porcupine was
observed moving across the moraine area
below Allison Lake and another was
observed along the coast near Allison
Creek.
Arctic ground squirrels were common in
the lower alpine tundra habitats and herba-
ceous vegetation on the lower slopes
around Allison Lake during June and July
2009.
Red squirrels often were observed and
heard in conifer forests in the lower eleva-
tions of the project area along Dayville
Road between Allison Creek and Solomon
Gulch.
A red-backed vole was observed at the for-
est edge near the mouth of Allison Creek
in early July 2009.
POTENTIAL PROJECT-RELATED EFFECTS
ON MAMMALS
Potential project-related effects of the Allison
Lake project on mammals include:
Direct and indirect habitat loss or altera-
tion due to project facilities, including the
inundation area, penstock and powerhouse
footprints, and access roads
Behavioral disturbance during project con-
struction
Exposure to hazardous materials during
construction
Behavioral habituation and attraction of
scavengers during construction
Behavioral disturbance during project
operation
Inhibition of free passage or a barrier to
free passage of mammals across Allison
Creek
Increased recreational and subsistence
hunting and trapping, facilitated by
improved access
Habitat Loss
Habitat loss for mammals will occur during
the construction period for all species and most
such loss is permanent. Nine focal species of
mammals and small mammals (voles and shrews as
a group) were selected for assessment of habitat
loss (Table 12). Potential project-related effects on
focal species are assumed to be representative of
other mammal species with similar patterns of
habitat use.
In terms of percent loss in the basin, the
habitats most affected by the Allison Lake project
all are riparian (Riverine Graminoid Meadow,
Riverine Barrens, Riverine Tall and Low Willow
Scrub, and Rivers and Stream) and these riparian
habitats are important for black and brown bears,
river otters, and mink. The proposed project will
affect habitats that were designated as essential for
river otter and mink, specifically Rivers and
Streams (Low Gradient-High Flow) which will be
50% less available in the basin with the Allison
Lake project. High-value habitats for bears also
will be affected by the Allison Lake project,
including Rivers and Streams (Low Gradient-High
Flow), Subalpine and Alpine Herb Meadow, and
Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf Ericaceous Scrub.
The project will not affect any habitats designated
as high-value for mountain goats, porcupine,
collared pika, red squirrel, or voles and shrews.
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 40Table 12. Ranking of habitat value for selected mammal species in the Allison Lake project impact assessment area, Alaska. Habitat value is ranked: 0 = none/negligible, 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high, 4 = essential. Data quality is characterized by font type as data-supported from project-specific data and scientific literature (bold), partially data-supported from literature only (regular), or professional judgment (italic).
Terrestrial Resources
41 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
For river otter, mink, and bears, Rivers and
Streams (Low Gradient-High Flow) is an important
habitat primarily in the lowest reaches of Allison
Creek where fish are present and the occurrence
of Low Gradient-High Flow in the basin
overestimates the availability of important habitat.
For bears, the lower reaches of Allison Creek are
an important habitat primarily in locations and
seasons when salmon are present. Natural barriers
to fish passage currently exclude fish from most of
the available riparian habitat and no loss of habitat
within the anadromous salmon reach is anticipated
to occur. Unlike bears, which use a variety of
habitats, both river otters and mink probably occur
primarily in riparian and other shoreline habitats
and they may be somewhat more affected than
bears by the loss of riparian habitat in the basin. As
with bears, however, the important habitats for
river otters and mink are adjacent to river reaches
that have fish, entirely downstream of the barriers
to fish passage, where little loss of riparian habitats
will occur. The loss of riparian habitats upstream of
barriers to fish passage is not anticipated to affect
bears, river otters, or mink.
Although stream habitats will be greatly
altered in some areas of Allison Creek that are
affected by the penstock, some level of stream flow
will be maintained and a stream channel with
natural and modified habitats will continue to exist.
Complete loss of riverine habitats will occur,
however, in the inundation area and dam footprint.
Nearly all loss of riverine habitats will be in the
outwash area at the south end of Allison Lake and
60100% of riverine habitats in the basin will be
inundated. These riparian habitats in the outwash
area are not high-value habitats for any species of
mammals, although they are of moderate value to
bears, porcupine, and voles and shrews. Their
value for other species is limited by the absence
of fish.
Most of the non-riparian habitats that would
be affected by the Allison Lake project are
abundant in the basin. These upland, subalpine,
and alpine habitats are important for bears, ground
squirrels, and voles and shrews, but loss
attributable to the project is unlikely to be
significant. In terms of percent loss, only one of
these habitats is strongly affected by the proposed
project: approximately 60% of Subalpine Wet
Graminoid Moss Bog available in the basin will be
affected. Subalpine Wet Graminoid Moss Bog may
be an important habitat to some species of voles or
shrews but is a low value habitat for other mammal
species. Only one subalpine bog occurs in the
project area, in the footprint of the access road
(Figure 4).
For the Allison Lake project, the overall
effects of habitat loss for mammals are negligible.
Behavioral Disturbance during Construction
Behavioral disturbance of mammals may
result during July through September of each of the
3 proposed construction seasons. During the first
and second construction years, project personnel
will be housed off-site and helicopters will be used
by construction crews to access the project dam
site. Activities during the first year include clearing
the access road, dam site, and powerhouse
footprints and initial construction of the
powerhouse. During the second year, the access
road to the dam will be completed, the penstock
site will be cleared, stream diversions and penstock
construction will be initiated, the dam embankment
will be raised to 1,365 feet elevation, and the intake
structure will be built. During the third year,
personnel will be housed at a construction camp at
the dam site, the embankment will be raised to its
final elevation (1,420 feet), the spillway, penstock,
powerhouse, and transmission line will be
completed, and the reservoir will be filled. No
estimates of helicopter traffic rates, vehicle traffic
rates, or on-site numbers of personnel are
available, but all of these activities may result in
disturbance of local mammals.
Behavioral disturbance would affect primarily
larger mammal species; small mammals would be
displaced by the project footprint but continue to
be present in adjacent undisturbed habitats. Among
animals in general, the most common response to
disturbance is avoidance or displacement: affected
mammals move to areas where they are
undisturbed or where humans are absent. Energy
costs associated with startle reactions, escape
movements, and other such disturbance responses
also may occur. If present in the Allison Lake
project area, wolves, wolverine, lynx, deer, and
moose are uncommon and few individuals would
be affected. Project construction in riparian
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 42
habitats could cause disturbance of bears and river
otters, but these species probably occur primarily
in fish-bearing reaches downstream of most project
construction activity. No project activities are
proposed in the lower reaches of Allison Creek
where bears are numerous during salmon runs.
However, some disturbance of bears, river otters,
and mink may occur in riparian habitats near the
powerhouse, where Dolly Varden are present, but
just upstream of reaches with salmon. Behavioral
disturbance and displacement are likely to have
negligible effects on bears, river otters, and mink.
Among mammals, behavioral disturbance
would be of particular concern primarily for
mountain goats. If disturbed in their subalpine and
alpine habitats in the Allison Lake basin, mountain
goats would probably move away from the
disturbance, perhaps higher or farther south within
the basin, or possibly into an adjacent basin. If so,
affected goats may be displaced from preferred
habitats during the 3 JulySeptember construction
seasons. Reports of observations of mountain goats
in the Allison Lake basin confirm low levels of use
by mixed groups in mid-summer. It is difficult to
predict the distance at which mountain goats may
react to project activities, but much of the goat
habitat in the basin is more than 2 kilometers from
the access road, dam, and penstock areas. Some
level of habituation by goats to normal
construction activities is to be anticipated,
particularly since most construction activities will
be predictable and non-threatening. However,
mountain goats can be particularly sensitive to
helicopter disturbance, so restrictions on helicopter
activities would be appropriate, including
restricting flight paths to the lower basin, no farther
upstream than the actual dam site. With appropriate
restrictions of helicopter traffic, impacts related to
behavioral disturbance of mountain goats should
be minor or moderate during project construction.
Exposure to Hazardous Materials during
Construction
Fuels and explosives will be used and stored
in the project area and accidental spills or
inappropriate handling procedures may pose some
risk of contamination for mammals. The
construction contract would require the contractor
to control, contain, and remove any spill
occurrence during construction. Any reportable
spills as defined in 40 CFR 110 will be reported as
required. The contractor would be required to
develop a Hazardous Materials Containment Plan
(HMCP) to address hazardous material that will be
used during project construction and to detail
measures to control discharges of such materials
into waters of the United States. It is anticipated
that appropriate response will limit impacts of any
accidental spills and that very few individual
mammals would be affected. Overall impacts of
spills are considered likely to be minor.
Behavioral Habituation and Attraction of
Scavengers during Construction
Human-animal interactions may occur during
both construction and operation, but would occur
most frequently during the construction phase,
when human activity would be most intensive and
wide-ranging. The rate of human-animal
interactions is further increased by the attraction of
opportunistic predators/scavengers, specifically
foxes, coyotes, bears, gulls, and ravens, to areas of
human activity. The most important causes of
attraction of animals are human foods and garbage.
Attraction to the construction site and increased
interaction with humans creates the potential for
mortality from control measures (i.e., killing
problem animals in defense of life or property
[DLP]), vehicle strikes, or ingestion of toxic
substances, as well as potential injury to humans
from rabies or aggressive behavior.
Regulations prohibiting the feeding of wildlife
will be enforced, an employee training program
will be required, and modern garbage-handling
procedures will be implemented to minimize the
occurrence of attraction and habituation of
wildlife. Nonetheless, artificial food sources are
powerful attractants and project construction may
attract some individual foxes, coyotes, or bears.
Control measures, including fox trapping and DLP
kills of bears, may be necessary on occasion during
construction. Such mortality would be expected to
have minor effects on local populations of foxes,
coyotes, or bears.
Behavioral Disturbance during Operation
The need for year-round access to the dam and
upper penstock area during project operation may
result in some level of ongoing behavioral
disturbance of mammals. Because the access road
Terrestrial Resources
43 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
will not be maintained after the construction
period, access would be via helicopter. The
frequency of required access has not been
described, but is anticipated to be no more than
several visits annually and effects on mammals
would be negligible.
Recreational activities, including helicopter
supported skiing, snow machines, and all-terrain
vehicles, are likely to increase in the Valdez area,
and it is likely that human presence will increase in
the Allison Lake basin, as in other sites in the
region. However, because of security concerns at
the Alyeska terminal, near the mouth of Allison
Creek, the abandoned road will be gated and no
trespassing signs will inhibit access via the
abandoned right-of-way. Should human presence
increase in the upper basin, behavioral disturbance
would be a concern primarily for mountain goats,
as described for the project construction period.
There have been no winter observations in the
basin, but mountain goats may be present in the
basin in any season. If the posted signs inhibit
access, the impact on mammals of increased
human presence, facilitated by improved access, is
likely to remain minor. Should recreational
activities negatively affect mountain goats in the
Allison Lake basin in the future, protective
management action presumably would be
implemented by the State of Alaska.
Habitat Connectivity
The penstock may inhibit or be a barrier to
movements of mammals between habitats on either
side of Allison Creek between the dam and the
powerhouse. Although no specific movement
corridors have been identified, it is likely that large
mammals cross between the west and east sides of
the basin primarily in the relatively low-gradient
terrain within 2,000 feet of the outlet of Allison
Lake. After construction, the dam and reservoir
and the upper portion of the penstock may inhibit
free passage primarily in this area. All mammal
species could be affected, but such a barrier to
movement would be of concern primarily for
mountain goats that may periodically cross the
basin to access preferred seasonal habitats. A
habitat connectivity plan will be developed to
minimize the effects of such a barrier to movement
and, if necessary, measures would be taken to
mitigate such impacts. If habitat connectivity
appears to be an issue for mountain goats or other
species, mitigation efforts are anticipated to reduce
impacts to negligible levels.
Increased Recreational and Subsistence Harvest
The improved access provided by project
construction may facilitate increased recreational
hunting and subsistence activity in the Allison
Lake basin. As described above, due to security
concerns the access road will be abandoned and
gated and no trespassing signs posted to
minimize access. The Allison Lake basin is
unlikely to become an important location for
hunting or trapping, however, due to its high
elevation, the limited availability of game animals,
and the relatively small total area of the drainage.
Should harvest increase, ADFG would implement
regulations protective of game populations. It is
likely that harvest concerns would focus primarily
on mountain goats, which can be susceptible to
over-harvest. With ADFG management oversight,
increased harvest associated with the Allison Lake
project is anticipated to have minor effects on
mammals.
Mitigation of Impacts
Operation of construction vehicles would be
limited to the permitted boundaries within the
project area or on designated roads. Equipment
servicing and fueling operations would not occur
within 100 feet of Allison Lake or Allison Creek,
or any drainage channels, wetlands, or other water
bodies. The contractor would have the capacity to
control, contain, and remove any spill occurrence.
Adequate sorbent and spill response materials
would be kept on site to contain and clean up any
accidental fuel spills. Any reportable spills as
defined in 40 CFR 110 would be reported as
required. The contractor would be required to
develop a HMCP to address hazardous material
that would be used during project construction and
to detail measures to control discharges of such
materials into waters of the United States. All
debris would be disposed of in compliance with all
federal and state laws and requirements, and in
accordance with 40 CFR, Parts 260268. Dust
would be minimized by watering during
dust-producing activities, as needed. All exposed
earthwork attributable to the project would be
stabilized at the earliest date possible to prevent
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 44
erosion both during and after project completion,
as addressed in the ESCP and SWPPP. Sediment
prevention measures would be placed and
maintained along the toe of all fill areas adjacent to
wetlands or water of the United States, to prevent
the introduction of sediments. These devices would
remain in place until fill and exposed earthwork are
stabilized and revegetated. As described above, the
access road would be temporary and maintained
only during the construction period. To minimize
effects of improved access to the Allison Lake
basin, the access road to the dam will be
abandoned after construction, gated to prevent
vehicle access, and no trespassing signs will be
posted to minimize pedestrian and off-road vehicle
access.
BIRDS
Habitats in the Allison Lake project area may
be used by at least 73 of the nearly 150 bird species
known to occur in the Port Valdez area (Table 13).
The lake and stream habitats are used by several
species of waterbirds (waterfowl, loons, and gulls)
and shorebirds, and the forest, scrub, and tundra
habitats are occupied by many landbird species
(primarily passerines) and a few species of raptors
and shorebirds. Two species of murrelets, one a
candidate for listing under the ESA (Kittlitzs
Murrelet) and the other under review for listing
(Marbled Murrelet) likely nest in alpine and
forested habitats in the project area or may traverse
the area between feeding and nesting areas. Eight
bird species that are confirmed in the project area
are considered high-priority species for
conservation in Alaska (Table 1).
RAPTORS
By Jennifer H. Boisvert
At least 12 species of raptors (eagles, hawks,
falcons, owls) potentially breed in or migrate
through the Allison Lake project area (Table 13).
Bald Eagles commonly breed in Prince William
Sound, including Port Valdez (Isleib and Kessel
1973), and primarily nest in large trees such as
Sitka spruce and black cottonwood along the coast,
often on or near salmon streams. In winter, Bald
Eagles congregate in coastal habitats, such as Port
Valdez, where they depend on open water for
major prey including fish and waterbirds. Golden
Eagles are rare breeders in coastal mountains, but
typically nest on alpine cliffs (Isleib and Kessel
1973) in habitats similar to those in the upper
Allison Creek and Solomon Gulch drainages.
Other raptor species that likely breed or may be
year-round residents in the Allison Lake project
area include Northern Goshawks, Red-tailed
Hawks, Peregrine Falcons, Great-horned Owls,
Boreal Owls, and Northern Saw-whet Owls.
Possible breeders also include Sharp-shinned
Hawks, Gyrfalcons, Merlin, and Northern Harrier.
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) may also occur during
migration, but do not nest at Allison Lake (due to
lack of fish) and are likely uncommon in the area.
Protection is provided for all raptor species under
the MBTA, but more specific regulation under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides
additional protection for Bald and Golden Eagles
and their (active or inactive) nests.
Several studies have documented Bald Eagles
nesting in Port Valdez. Surveys conducted by the
USFWS in 1976 located 10 nests in Port Valdez, 2
of which were located within 3 miles of Allison
Creek (USACE 1981). Another study in the late
1970s (Dames and Moore 1979a) recorded 5 Bald
Eagle nests, including 2 active nests along the
coast in Port Valdez. One nest was near Old Valdez
and 4 nests were in Dayville Flats, but none were
reported near Allison Creek. Dames and Moore
(1979a) reported that Bald Eagles were common in
the Allison Creek area. Hogan and Colgate (1980)
also located 5 Bald Eagle nests, including 3 active
nests at the eastern end of Port Valdez in what
appear to be the same locations reported by Dames
and Moore (1979a). Data from ADFG in 1980
recorded 7 occupied and 7 inactive Bald Eagle
nests in Port Valdez, including 1 active nest near
Allison Creek (ACMP 1981).
An aerial survey for tree-nesting and
cliff-nesting raptors and active or inactive nests
was conducted on 28 May and 3 June 2009. The
specific focus of the survey was to detect Bald and
Golden eagle nests and evaluate potential use of
the area by cliff-nesting Peregrine Falcons and
Gyrfalcons. Other nesting raptor species, such as
Northern Goshawks, Red-tailed Hawks, and owls
were recorded when observed. The survey was
conducted with an R44 helicopter. Both biologists
sat on the left side of the helicopter and surveyed
all appropriate cliff and forest habitats for nesting
raptors.
Terrestrial Resources
45 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Table 13. Bird species known or expected to occur in the Allison Lake project area. Uncommon
migrants and species occurring only in marine habitats are excluded. Bold font indicates
confirmed observation in the project area in 20082009.
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 46
In forested habitats in the lower project area,
the helicopter was flown at approximately 150250
ft (4575 m) above tree tops and at 3040 mph,
slowing at potential nest locations. Suitable
tree-nesting raptor habitat in the project area
comprises spruce forest (with few or no deciduous
trees) between Solomon Gulch and Allison Creek
on lower elevation terrain along Dayville Road. In
cliff habitats in the upper project area, survey
altitude was dependent on cliff heights. Observers
maintained a 45° angle of view, at approximately
two-thirds the height of the cliff face and at ~150 ft
(45 m) horizontal distance from the cliff face. For
full coverage, larger cliffs required multiple passes
at different altitudes. Cliff habitat is abundant in
the project area, primarily in the upper portions of
the Allison Lake basin south of the lake outlet. The
survey area included both the east and west-facing
slopes of the ridge dividing upper Solomon Creek
and Allison Creek basins.
During the survey, 2 active Bald Eagle nests
were found in forested habitats along Dayville
Road near Solomon Gulch, and 1 old stick nest
(suspected Golden Eagle) was located on a cliff
face above Solomon Creek (Figure 8; Raptor Plates
12, page 77). Bald Eagle nest 2 was outside the
area that would be affected by the Allison Lake
project (Figure 8). Bald Eagle nest 1 was not
monitored subsequent to discovery, but other
Allison Lake project personnel were notified of its
presence and potentially disturbing activities near
the nest were limited in summer 2009. The pair of
Table 13. Continued.
Terrestrial Resources
47 Allison Lake Project Biological ResourcesFigure 8. Locations of raptor nests in Allison Lake project area, Alaska, 2009.146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W146°18'W146°18'W146°17'W146°17'W146°16'W
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 48
Bald Eagles associated with nest 1 was observed
daily near Solomon Gulch between 38 June and
49 July acting defensively towards other birds and
suggesting that the nest was active into mid-July.
The cliff nest recorded during the survey was
inactive and may have been several years old, and
was suspected to have been used previously by
Golden Eagles or Common Ravens.
No other raptors were observed nesting during
the 28 May and 3 June helicopter surveys.
However, Bald Eagles were observed on a daily
basis during June and July field activities, moving
between the coast and spruce forest habitats or
perched in trees along Dayville Road between
Allison Creek and Solomon Gulch. Bald Eagles
also were often observed in the upper basin near
Allison Lake in June and July.
Red-tailed Hawks were observed regularly
during early and mid-June and in early July 2009
near a spruce stand near the mouth of Allison
Creek and their behavior (territorial interactions
with other birds and persistence at the site) strongly
suggested that they were breeding nearby, although
a nest was not located (Figure 8).
Northern Goshawks were observed in the
project area in early June near the mouth of Allison
Creek and in mid-July soaring above the canyon.
They were confirmed nesting in the project area in
mid-June 2009 in forested habitat along the
proposed transmission corridor between the
Allison Creek and Solomon Gulch powerhouses
(Figure 8; Raptor Plate 3).
A Northern Saw-whet Owl was heard calling
consistently from the spruce stand at Allison Point
in early June, and may have been nesting in the
area.
SEABIRDS
By Jennifer H. Boisvert
Seabirds include species that are dependent on
marine waters for their food sources over most of
their annual life cycle. Excluding gulls (which are
grouped with the waterbirds in this report), only 5
species of seabirds are commonly recorded in Port
Valdez (Dames and Moore 1979a, Hogan and
Colgate 1980, Hogan and Irons 1988): Pelagic
Cormorant, Common Murre, Pigeon Guillemot,
Marbled Murrelet, and Kittlitzs Murrelet. Of
these, Pelagic Cormorants and Common Murres
occur in Port Valdez only during winter (Hogan
and Colgate 1980, Hogan and Irons 1988) and do
not use inland or terrestrial habitats such as those
found in the Allison Lake project area. Pigeon
Guillemots are present during summer months and
commonly breed in Port Valdez (Hogan and
Colgate 1980), but they nest on steep, creviced
marine shoreline rock faces and outcroppings
(Ewins 1993)habitats that also do not occur in
the project area. Marbled and Kittlitzs murrelets
use inland terrestrial habitats, such as those found
in Port Valdez and in the Allison Lake project area,
during breeding and nesting (Nelson 1997, Day et
al. 1999, Kissling et al. 2007). Although they
forage primarily in marine waters, Marbled
Murrelets occasionally have been recorded
foraging in very large freshwater lakes (i.e.,
Iliamna and Harlequin lakes; Carter and Sealy
1986).
Marbled Murrelets typically nest in large
coniferous trees in mature coastal forests, a habitat
found in abundance in both Prince William Sound
and Port Valdez. Mature coastal forest occurs in the
Allison Lake project area, but most of the project
area is above forested elevations. In some cases,
Marbled Murrelets also nest on the ground in areas
where trees do not occur (Nelson 1997), where
prey is abundant, and where high-quality
tree-nesting habitat is limited and ground predators
uncommon (Marks and Kuletz 2001, Piatt et al.
2007). Even in unforested nesting areas used by
Marbled Murrelets, vegetation cover is an
important factor, and most ground nests found in
southcentral Alaska have been located on steep,
shrubby slopes that included an average of 17%
open bare ground and 50% alder cover (Kuletz et
al. 1994, Bradley and Cooke 2001, Marks and
Kuletz 2001). Mature coniferous forest and open
alder-shrub habitats such as those used by Marbled
Murrelets for nesting occur in the lower areas of
the project area, along Allison Creek and the lower
slopes above Allison Lake.
Kittlitzs Murrelets nest in mountainous
alpine areas, generally on unvegetated stable scree
slopes or steep, rocky faces with crevices; both are
habitats typically associated with recent
deglaciation (Day et al. 1999, Kissling et al. 2007),
similar to the upper Allison Creek basin. Kittlitzs
Murrelets have been reported in marine waters of
Port Valdez during the breeding/nesting season
(Hogan and Irons 1988), and alpine habitats within
Terrestrial Resources
49 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
the project area are similar to sites where Kittlitzs
Murrelets have been recorded nesting.
Populations of both Marbled and Kittlitzs
murrelets have been declining in recent decades
(Piatt et al. 2007), and they are both considered
high-priority species for conservation (Table 1).
Both species general rarity, patchy distribution,
and cryptic nest-sites make them difficult to study;
consequently, little information about their
populations and biology has been available
historically (Nelson 1997, Day et al. 1999, Piatt et
al. 2007). Marbled Murrelet populations in
Washington, Oregon, and California were listed as
threatened under the ESA in 1992, and the USFWS
recently announced (2 October 2008) that the
Alaska population also is under review for listing.
More information about recent rapid population
declines in both murrelet species in Alaska has
elicited concern over their future population
viabilities (Day et al. 1999, Kuletz et al. 2003,
USFWS 2004, Piatt et al. 2007, Drew and Piatt
2008). Marbled Murrelets are estimated to have
undergone a 60% population decline in Prince
William Sound between 1989 and 2005, although
this figure is lumped with other Brachyramphus
murrelets observations because of identification
difficulties between the species (Kuletz 2005, Piatt
et al. 2007). Large population declines of Kittlitzs
Murrelets also have been recorded in Glacier Bay
(Drew and Piatt 2008) and Prince William Sound
(Kuletz et al. 2003, Kuletz 2005) in recent years.
These declines, in combination with limited
distribution and low population sizes, have led to
the Kittlitzs Murrelet's being listed as a candidate
species under the ESA (USFWS 2004, 2007a).
Previous studies of seabirds in Port Valdez
have been initiated primarily in response to
construction and operation of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline terminus and the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
These studies have provided general information
about the seasonal occurrence and abundance of
seabird species and about general and specific
seabird use of marine waters and coastal habitats in
Port Valdez, Valdez Arm, and Prince William
Sound. These studies have found that both Marbled
and Kittlitz's murrelets occur in Port Valdez
year-round (i.e., they are resident) and that
densities are highest in summer, during the
breeding season (Hogan and Colgate 1980, Hogan
and Irons 1988). Murrelets typically use marine
waters near their nesting areas prior to nesting, and
they transit daily between their inland nest sites
and nearby marine waters to feed themselves and
their young during nesting and brood-rearing
(Nelson 1997, Day et al. 1999, Marks and Kuletz
2001). Because both murrelet species are patchily
distributed and cryptic while nesting, and because
both nest in terrain that is difficult to survey, few
studies have been conducted to identify nesting
locations or murrelet nesting habitats in Alaska.
Recent concern over their rapid population
declines, however, has increased interest in
understanding and identifying their current nesting
distributions, breeding habitat needs, and nesting
characteristics and has increased concern about
impacts to their productivity (DeVelice et al. 1995,
Kuletz et al. 1994, Marks and Kuletz 2001, Kuletz
2005, Piatt et al. 2007, Kissling et al. 2007, Kaler
et al. 2008).
On 7 August 2008, a helicopter-based
reconnaissance survey was conducted to determine
whether or not potential murrelet nesting habitat
was present in the Allison Lake project area. Effort
focused primarily on Kittlitzs Murrelets nesting
habitat and covered all suitable habitats within the
lake basin and along the ridges that separate
Allison Lake from Sawmill Creek, Solomon
Gulch, and the Jack Bay drainage, including the
bench between Allison Lake and Solomon Lake
and the mountainsides and upper glacial cirques of
Allison Lake, Solomon Lake, and the adjacent
ridges of the Jack Bay drainage. The aerial survey
of the project area was conducted by a single
observer and pilot under near-optimal conditions,
with partly-cloudy skies and a high cloud ceiling.
All alpine areas in the project area were surveyed,
particularly upland rocky scree-slope and/or
cliff-crevice habitats that are preferred for nesting
by Kittlitz's Murrelets (Day et al. 1999; Kissling et
al. 2007, M. Kissling, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Juneau, AK, pers. comm.).
Detailed notes and photos were taken and the
terrain and habitats were classified as either
probably suitable or probably unsuitable for
nesting by Kittlitz's Murrelets based on their
characteristics in the field and in photographs.
Probably-suitable habitats typically included
glacial cirques, stable scree slopes, and steep,
rocky faces with crevices in which birds could nest
(Day et al. 1983, 1999; Day 1995; Day and
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 50
Stickney 1996; Kissling et al. 2007).
Probably-unsuitable areas and habitats included
glacial ice, unstable (extremely steep) scree slopes,
areas with shrubs, tall grasses, or other extensive
vegetative cover, and streams and lakes. Survey
observations and photo-documentation indicated
that potential nesting habitat for Kittlitzs
Murrelets was present, but uncommon, in the
Allison Lake project area (Figure 9, Seabird Plates
13, page 77).
After verifying the presence of potential
breeding habitats for murrelets in 2008, more
extensive ground-based audio-visual surveys were
conducted during June and July 2009 to attempt to
detect murrelet nesting activity in the area,
primarily by observing or audibly detecting adult
murrelets flying between terrestrial nest sites
and marine foraging areas. Ground-based surveys
were conducted 38 June and 49 July 2009 and
weather was optimal for surveys during both
periods. Three observers conducted daily
observations simultaneously during crepuscular
hours (~2 h before to ~2 h after sunrise and from
~1.5 h before to ~1.5 h after sunset) when Kittlitzs
and Marbled murrelets are likely to make
movements between terrestrial nesting habitats and
marine feeding areas. Two observers were
stationed in the upper Allison Lake basin near
Allison Lake and 1 observer conducted surveys
along Dayville Road between Allison Creek and
Solomon Gulch. During the June surveys, 1
observer in the upper basin conducted surveys
from a station on the western side of the lake near
the outlet and the other observer conducted surveys
from a lower station west of Allison Creek and
downstream from the lake. During July, slightly
different survey stations were used by the 2 lake
basin observers, one being at the highest point on
the western side of the moraine below the lake and
the other down the moraine near the west side of
Allison Creek (Figure 9). These sites were chosen
to optimize visibility and detection of murrelet
movements into and from the upper basin. Along
Dayville Road, the third observer chose 1 of the 4
coastal survey stations each day to optimize
detection of murrelets moving to and from the
spruce forest habitat between Solomon Gulch and
Allison Creek or to and from the upper Allison
Lake basin (Figure 9).
Observations during June indicated that
available Kittlitzs Murrelet nesting habitat was
limited by persistent snow cover in spring and
summer 2009. Persistent snow may limit habitat
availability in most years over much of the area
mapped as potential nesting habitat. Nonetheless,
murrelets were detected in the project area on 2
occasions during early June: an unidentified
murrelet observed in the upper basin flying toward
Valdez Arm and a Kittlitzs Murrelet observed
flying out of the basin at the mouth of Allison
Creek and then turning west into Valdez Arm
(Figure 9). Marbled Murrelets were never observed
in the project area during June surveys, although
they were observed on multiple occasions feeding
in waters of Valdez Arm near Dayville Road (see
below).
During July surveys, murrelets were detected
using the Allison Lake project area on 5 separate
occasions. Two observations of murrelets at the
coast (1 leaving the Allison Creek drainage and
another flying over the Dayville Road and into the
Allison Creek drainage) could not be identified to
species (Figure 9). Three additional detections on 3
consecutive mornings (at ~0330 h, 7, 8, and 9 July)
were identified by calls as Marbled Murrelets and
all were detected in the upper basin near Allison
Lake. These calls emanated from the west side of
the glacial moraine downstream of the lake (Figure
9), near a steep alder-covered slope mixed with
alpine talus and rocky cliffs at the mid-slope of the
ridge (Seabird Plate 4); an area that appears to be
suitable ground-nesting habitat for Marbled
Murrelets (Nelson 1997, Marks and Kuletz 2001).
Marbled Murrelets are known to make calls as
they transit over water or are in vicinity of nest
sites (Nelson 1997; B. Cooper, ABR Inc., pers.
comm.), and the detection of calls under these
circumstances is strongly suggestive of the
presence of nesting Marbled Murrelets in the
western portion of the lower Allison Lake basin.
Although not in the actual project area, small
groups of Marbled Murrelets (14 birds) and
sometimes Kittlitzs Murrelets often were seen
offshore of the Dayville Road near Allison Creek
during June and July. In July these birds were
sometimes holding fish in their mouths, which
suggests a nearby nest with nestlings (Figure 9).
Terrestrial Resources
51 Allison Lake Project Biological ResourcesFigure 9. Survey stations for murrelet surveys and murrelet observations, Allison Lake project area, 38 June and 49 July 2009.146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W146°18'W146°18'W
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 52
Although nesting could not be confirmed in
the Allison Lake project area, multiple
observations of both Kittlitzs and Marbled
murrelets in the Allison basin strongly suggest that
both species are nesting in or near the project area.
WATERBIRDS
By Jennifer H. Boisvert and Charles T. Schick
Waterbirds in the Allison Lake project area
include waterfowl (ducks and geese), loons,
grebes, and larids (gulls and terns). Relatively few
studies of waterbirds were conducted in the Port
Valdez area prior to the mid-1970s (Gabrielson and
Lincoln 1959, Isleib and Kessel 1973), but since
that time the area has received great focus as the
southern terminus of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System and various studies have documented the
use of Port Valdez by waterbirds (Retherford
Associates 1976, FERC 1978, Sangster 1978,
Dames and Moore 1979a, Hogan and Colgate
1980, USACE 1981, USFWS 1981, Hogan and
Irons 1988, North 1993). Few studies, however,
have focused specifically on waterbird use of the
Allison Lake or Solomon Gulch area. In NEPA
documents and feasibility reports prepared for
hydropower development plans at Solomon Gulch
and previously for Allison Lake (Retherford
Associates 1976, FERC 1978, USACE 1981,
USFWS 1981, AEA 1992), only general
information was documented on waterbird
occurrence and little of it was specific to the areas
proposed for development. The only waterbird
species specifically recorded using the Allison
Lake project area prior to 2008 field studies were
Canada Geese. In the fall of 1979, a group of
approximately 18 Canada Geese were observed
using alpine habitats along the shore of Allison
Lake along with another flock of molting geese
observed on the lake (USFWS 1981).
Based on an evaluation of potential waterbird
habitats available in the Allison Lake project area,
11 species of waterbirds likely breed and/or occur
in the area during migration (Table 13). Most
waterbirds would not be attracted to Allison Lake
because of the high elevation, persistent ice cover,
and lack of emergent vegetation.
No field efforts were conducted to evaluate
waterbirds in the Allison Lake project area.
However, observations of waterbird species using
the project area were recorded during other bird
surveys conducted during June and July 2009.
Harlequin Ducks were observed daily in
Allison Creek near the lake outlet during early
June. Four pairs were observed daily loafing and
foraging within about a mile of the lake outlet,
upstream of where the stream increases in gradient.
A similar number of Harlequin Ducks was reported
in the area on 22 June (K. Pendergast, R& M
Consultants, Inc. Anchorage, AK, pers. comm.).
During early July, multiple Harlequin Duck hens
and a few molting males again were observed daily
in the same reach of Allison Creek. Small flocks of
48 adult Harlequin Ducks also were observed in
Allison Lake during early July. Although no nests
or broods were observed, it is possible that
Harlequin Ducks may breed in the areamost
likely in the low-gradient reach of stream near the
outlet of the lake. Although breeding is
speculative, a small number of Harlequin Ducks
were resident in the low-gradient reach of Allison
Creek throughout the summer and some use of
Allison Lake also was documented. Harlequin
Ducks are considered priority species for
conservation (Table 1).
The only other ducks observed in the Allison
Lake project area were a pair of Mallards that
landed in lower Allison Creek on 5 July.
Two species of gulls (Mew Gulls and
Glaucous-winged Gulls) were recorded using the
Allison Lake project area during June and July
(Table 13). Herring Gulls were observed along the
coast at Dayville Road, but were not observed in
the project area. None of these species were
abundant in the project area, nor were they
observed using Allison Creek or Allison Lake.
A pair of Common Loons was observed on 4
different occasions in early June circling and flying
over Allison Lake, which was mostly frozen at the
time. Common Loons were not observed in the
project area during July.
During July, Red-throated Loons were
observed daily on Allison Lake, and occasionally
flying between the upper basin and marine waters
in Port Valdez. The Red-throated Loons were
confirmed to be nesting on the large island in
Allison Lake near the creek outlet on 9 July (Figure
10). Red-throated Loons are considered a priority
species for conservation (Table 1).
Terrestrial Resources
53 Allison Lake Project Biological ResourcesFigure 10. Location of the Red-throated Loon nest on Allison Lake, Alaska, 2009.146°23'W146°23'W146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 54
LANDBIRDS AND SHOREBIRDS
By Lauren B. Attanas and Charles T. Schick
Excluding accidental occurrences during
migration, at least 71 species of landbirds
(primarily songbirds) and 30 species of shorebirds
have been recorded or are likely to occur in the
Port Valdez region (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959,
Isleib 1973, Isleib and Kessel 1973, Sangster 1978,
Dames and Moore 1979a, Hogan and Colgate
1980, Hogan and Irons 1988, Gibson and Kessel
1989, North 1993). Based on habitats available in
the Allison Lake project area, about 6 species of
shorebirds and 50 species of landbirds (primarily
passerines, but including grouse [1] and ptarmigan
[2], hummingbird [1], kingfisher [1], and
woodpeckers [2]) likely occur. Two shorebirds,
Wandering Tattler and Lesser Yellowlegs, and 2
landbirds, Rufous Hummingbird and Townsends
Warbler, observed in the Allison Lake project area
are considered high-priority species for
conservation (Table 1).
Earlier studies that have documented landbird
and/or shorebird occurrence in the Port Valdez area
include those conducted by Sangster (1978),
Dames and Moore (1979a), Hogan and Colgate
(1980), Hogan and Irons (1988), and North (1993).
These studies noted broad seasonal patterns of
occurrence for landbirds and shorebirds in the Port
Valdez area. They also provide site-specific
information for many of the species observed but
no data are presented that indicate presence or
absence specific to the Allison Lake project area.
Some coarse-scale information on habitat use by
these bird species-groups in the Port Valdez area is
presented by Sangster (1978), Dames and Moore
(1979a), and Hogan and Colgate (1980). In the
NEPA documents and feasibility reports prepared
for previous hydropower development plans at
Solomon Gulch and Allison Lake (Retherford
Associates 1976, FERC 1978, USACE 1981,
USFWS 1981, AEA 1992) surprisingly little
information is presented on landbird and shorebird
occurrence and none of it is specific to the areas
that were proposed for development.
Surveys for breeding landbirds and shorebirds
in the Allison Lake project area were conducted
during 1517 June 2009, with additional surveys
on 4, 6, and 8 July. These surveys were designed to
collect baseline information on the occurrence,
distribution, abundance, and habitat use of
breeding landbird and shorebird species in the
project area. Ground-based point-count surveys
with 10-min observation periods were used (Ralph
et al. 1995, Buckland et al. 2001). These survey
methods are the standard for surveying breeding
landbirds in remote terrain in Alaska (Handel and
Cady 2004, USGS 2006) and have recently been
adopted for inventories of breeding shorebirds in
Alaska as well (ASG 2006, Ruthrauff et al. 2007).
No field surveys for migrant landbirds or
shorebirds were conducted but observations of
some species during spring migration were made
while conducting surveys for other bird groups (see
above) in the project area.
The majority of the point-count locations in
the project area were pre-determined in GIS by
first placing a seed point at the mouths of
Allison Lake and Solomon Lake. Additional
point-count locations then were determined by
placing a total of 38 points within the project
areasystematically radiating out from the seed
pointssubject to a set distance of 500 m between
points (Figure 11). This plot allocation was done
without the use of an aerial photo base map and
resulted in a selection of point-count locations that
was unbiased with respect to the distribution of
habitats or breeding birds in the project area. In the
field, however, navigating to some of the
pre-determined point-count locations proved
difficult; some steep slopes in particular were
difficult to access either on foot or by helicopter.
To compensate, the inaccessible point-count
locations were moved, when possible, to nearby
areas (with similar habitats) that could be accessed
more easily.
Point counts were conducted in all the
prominent, snow-free, and vegetated wildlife
habitats in the Allison Lake impact assessment
area that could be discerned from (1) 2007
high-resolution aerial photography, and (2)
reconnaissance flights during the survey period.
The number of point-count locations that could be
surveyed in the relatively small project area was
limited by the need to maintain approximately 250
or 500 m between point-count locations and avoid
the double-counting of individual birds. Handel
and Cady (2004) recommend a distance of 250 m
between point-count locations in forested areas and
Terrestrial Resources
55 Allison Lake Project Biological ResourcesFigure 11. Point count locations used to census breeding landbirds and shorebirds, Allison Lake project, 2009.146°22'W146°22'W146°21'W146°21'W146°20'W146°20'W146°19'W146°19'W146°18'W146°18'W
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 56
500 m in open areas. These recommendations were
followed in most cases, but when terrain features
(e.g., ridges and slopes, which can block bird
vocalizations and prevent the double-counting of
birds) were present, a minimum distance of 250 m
between point-count locations was used in both
forested and open areas.
In total, 38 point-count locations were
surveyed, 31 of which were surveyed over the
3-day sampling period in June (Figure 11). In June,
persistent snow and logistic constraints limited
sampling in the upper Allison Creek basin.
Therefore, on 4, 6, and 8 July, 7 additional point
counts were conducted in the upper Allison Creek
basin in areas not surveyed during June. Four point
counts were conducted along the slopes of Allison
Lake (2 on each side), and 3 were conducted above
the south end of the lake in the glacial
outwash/braided stream area (Figure 11).
Point-count locations were accessed by
helicopter and on foot and GPS was used to
navigate to pre-determined locations or (when
locating new points to replace inaccessible points)
to maintain a minimum distance of 250 or 500 m
between point-count sites, depending on terrain
and habitat openness. Survey efforts were started
as soon after dawn as possible, typically about
0500 h, and were stopped by mid-afternoon. Most
observations were of singing or calling birds, as is
typical in point-count surveys, and observation
conditions during the survey period were good,
with only limited rainfall and wind on 17 June.
Additional observations of uncommon species
and/or species of conservation concern were
recorded when moving between point-count
locations. The habitat being used by each bird
observed in the field was recorded whenever
possible to facilitate habitat-association analyses
for each species (see below). Habitats were
classified in the field using a combination of
vegetation and physiography, following methods
outlined by Jorgenson et al. (2002) and Schick and
Davis (2008). These field habitat determinations
were then revised to conform to the final mapped
habitat types for the project area (described above
under Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife
Habitats).
During the point-count surveys, 25 bird
species were observed (Table 14). Seven additional
species were recorded before and after point counts
or in transit between points. The dominant species
group was passerines (songbirds) with 22 species,
followed by shorebirds (3 species), raptors (3
species), waterbirds (2 species), and ptarmigan and
hummingbirds (1 species each). It is likely all these
species breed in or near the project area. No
threatened or endangered species were observed,
but 5 species of high-priority concern for
conservation were recorded during the survey
effort (Table 1). These included 2 waterbird species
(Harlequin Duck and Red-throated Loon), 1
shorebird (Wandering Tattler), 1 hummingbird
(Rufous Hummingbird), and 1 passerine
(Townsends Warbler).
Four species of passerines (Fox Sparrow,
Wilsons Warbler, Hermit Thrush, and
Orange-crowned Warbler) were abundant in the
project area and accounted for 61% of all birds
observed during point counts (Table 14). The
number of observations recorded for each of these
species ranged from 36 to 57. Seven passerine
species (Golden-crowned Sparrow, Varied Thrush,
Savannah Sparrow, Ruby-crowned Kinglet,
Common Redpoll, Townsends Warbler, and
Yellow Warbler) were common and accounted for
an additional 31% of all bird observations; each of
these species was recorded 820 times each during
the point-count surveys. The remaining 14 bird
species were recorded < 4 times each and were
considered uncommon in the project area.
Nine habitat types were sampled in the
Allison Lake project impact assessment area and
birds were observed in 6 habitat types: Riverine
Barrens (outwash), Riverine Low and Tall Willow
Scrub, Upland and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub,
Upland Sitka Spruce Forest, Subalpine and Alpine
Herb Meadow, and Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf
Ericaceous Scrub (Table 15). No birds were
observed in Artificial Fill, Upland Human
Modified Graminoid Meadow, or Upland Herb
Meadow. These 9 habitats comprised 77% of the
impact assessment area. Habitats that were not
surveyed included Subalpine and Alpine Barrens
(9%), Lakes (5.9%), Rocky Cliffs (5.2), and other
habitats that together comprised ~2% of the impact
assessment area. The number of species in each
Terrestrial Resources
57 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Table 14. Number, percent of total observations, and average occurrence of landbird and shorebird
species during point-count surveys, Allison Lake project, June and July 2009 (* indicates
observation of 1 nest, species observed before or after or between point counts occur at the
bottom of the table without estimated numbers).
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 58
habitat ranged from 0 to 14. The average number
of birds recorded per count in each habitat ranged
from 0.0 to 10.3.
Species richness and number of focal
observations per count were highest in Upland
Sitka Spruce Forest, with 14 species and 10.3 focal
observations per count (Table 15). Upland and
Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub had the second-highest
species richness (8 species) and focal observations
per count (7.4), followed by Riverine Low and Tall
Willow Scrub with 7 species and 7.0 observations
per count. Four species each were recorded in
Subalpine and Alpine Herb Meadow and Subalpine
and Alpine Dwarf Ericaceous Scrub and only 2
species were recorded in Riverine Barrens
(Outwash).
To evaluate habitat-use by landbirds and
shorebirds, the average occurrence of each species
was calculated in each habitat that was sampled by
point count surveys (Table 16). Each point count
station was assigned to a focal habitat (the habitat
at the point) and only observations of birds in that
focal habitat were included in analysis. For each
species in each habitat, average occurrence was
calculated as the number of birds observed divided
by the number of point-count surveys in that
habitat; this ratio corrects for different survey effort
in different habitats, allowing comparisons of
relative abundance among habitats.
The 38 point count stations were distributed
among 6 focal habitats, 211 individuals of 18
landbird and 3 shorebird species were observed in
the focal habitats, and average occurrence ranged
from 0 to 2 (Table 16). Thirteen of the 21 species
were observed in only one focal habitat. Other
species were observed in as many as many as 4
focal habitats and, for these species, different
values of average occurrence indicate relative
levels of abundance in each habitat. For example,
Orange-crowned Warblers were most abundant in
Upland and Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub, less
abundant but present in Upland Sitka Spruce
Forest, and also used Subalpine and Alpine Herb
Meadow in low numbers.
The 4 abundant species in the project area
(Fox Sparrow, Wilsons Warbler, Hermit Thrush,
and Orange-crowned Warbler) were recorded in
several different habitats but were most frequently
observed and had their highest average occurrence
(1.29 to 1.79) in Upland and Subalpine Tall Alder
Scrub (Table 16). Upland and Subalpine Tall Alder
Scrub was the only habitat in which Yellow
Warblers were observed. The 6 other common
species in the project area showed variable use of
habitats. Golden-crowned Sparrows were most
abundant in Riverine Low and Tall Willow Scrub
(mostly in low scrub) but also were common in 3
subalpine habitats. Savannah Sparrows were most
Table 15. Number of point counts, focal observations, and species richness recorded in each habitat
type during point-count surveys for landbirds and shorebirds, Allison Lake project, June and
July 2009.
Terrestrial Resources
59 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
common in Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf
Ericaceous Scrub but also were common in
Riverine Barrens and Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf
Herb Meadow, and uncommon in Upland and
Subalpine Tall Alder Scrub. Common Redpolls
were common in 3 habitats, Riverine Low and Tall
Willow Scrub, Subalpine and Alpine Dwarf
Ericaceous Scrub, and Upland and Subalpine Tall
Alder Scrub, and were uncommon in Upland Sitka
Spruce Forest. Savannah Sparrows generally
occurred more frequently in low- and dwarf-scrub
and meadow habitats at higher elevations.
Common Redpolls also occurred more frequently
in low- and dwarf-scrub habitats at higher
elevations but were not found in meadow habitats.
Varied Thrush, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and
Townsend's Warblers were found almost
exclusively at lower elevations in Upland Sitka
Spruce Forest.
Data for uncommon species were few and
may be incomplete (i.e., more observations might
indicate greater variability), but of the 3 shorebirds
observed each occurred in a single habitat: Spotted
Sandpipers in Riverine Low and Tall Willow
Scrub, Wandering Tattlers in Riverine Barrens, and
Wilson's Snipe in Upland Sitka Spruce Forest.
Breeding pairs of Spotted Sandpipers and
Wandering Tattlers were concentrated in the
partially vegetated glacial outwash area at the head
of Allison Lake. All observations of these 2 species
(including incidental observations) were recorded
along Allison Creek or along the shore of Allison
Table 16. Relative abundance (average occurrence
a) of landbirds and shorebirds by habitat during
point-count surveys, Allison Lake project, June and July 2009.
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 60
Lake. Similar habitats were used by Lesser
Yellowlegs, another shorebird, during spring
migration when ABR biologists were conducting
the murrelet surveys (described above).
Most of the uncommon landbirds also
occurred in only a single habitat. Rufous
Hummingbird, Gray Jay, Golden-crowned Kinglet,
American Robin, and Dark-eyed Junco all
occurred only in Upland Sitka Spruce Forest. Rock
Ptarmigan occurred only in Subalpine and Alpine
Dwarf Ericaceous Scrub. American Tree Sparrow
occurred only in Riverine Low and Tall Willow
Scrub.
POTENTIAL PROJECT-RELATED EFFECTS
ON BIRDS
Potential project-related effects of the Allison
Lake project on birds include:
Direct and indirect habitat loss or altera-
tion due to project facilities, including the
inundation area, penstock and powerhouse
footprints, and access roads
Behavioral disturbance during project con-
struction
Exposure to hazardous materials during
construction
Behavioral habituation and attraction of
scavenging species during construction
Behavioral disturbance during project
operation
Increased recreational and subsistence
hunting and trapping, facilitated by
improved access
Increased mortality due to collision of
birds with project infrastructure, in partic-
ular powerlines, towers, and guy-lines
Habitat Loss
Habitat loss for birds will occur during the
construction period for all species affected and
most such loss is permanent. Twenty-eight focal
species of birds were selected for assessment of
habitat loss, 8 raptors, 2 seabirds (Kittlitzs and
Marbled murrelets), and 2 waterbirds (Table 17),
and 2 shorebirds and 14 landbirds (Table 18).
Potential project-related effects of focal species are
assumed representative of other bird species with
similar patterns of habitat use.
The Allison Lake project will not affect any
habitats designated as high-value or essential for
12 of the focal bird species, including 7 of the 8
raptors (all but Bald Eagle), both seabirds, and 3
passerines (Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Varied Thrush,
and Townsends Warbler). For most of these
species, high-value habitats are forested and the
project footprint includes <0.1 acres of forested
habitat. In terms of percent loss in the basin, the
habitats most affected by the Allison Lake project
all are riverine (Riverine Graminoid Meadow,
Riverine Barrens, Riverine Tall and Low Willow
Scrub, and Rivers and Stream) and these habitats
are either high-value or essential for Bald Eagles,
Harlequin Ducks, Wandering Tattlers, Lesser
Yellowlegs, American Dippers, Fox Sparrows,
Golden-crowned Sparrows, and Common
Redpolls.
For Bald Eagles, it is primarily fish-bearing
reaches of Rivers and Streams that comprise
high-value habitats and, in Allison Creek, the only
fish-bearing reach is classified as Rivers and
Streams (Low Gradient-High Flow). However,
none of the anadromous salmon habitat in Allison
Creek would be affected by the Allison Lake
project footprint. The effects of direct habitat loss
on Bald Eagles are therefore anticipated to be
negligible. Because of the requirement for large
trees for nesting, Upland Sitka Spruce Forest is
considered an essential habitat for Bald Eagles.
Although the Allison Lake project affects little
forest habitat, USFWS guidelines for protection of
nests recommend that overstory trees not be
removed within 330 feet of a nest at any time of
year, and that timber removal not occur within 660
feet of active nests (USFWS 2007d). The Allison
Lake project is not anticipated to result in loss of
important foraging or nesting habitat for Bald
Eagles.
For Harlequin Duck and American Dipper, the
low-gradient reaches of Allison Creek (Rivers and
Streams [Low gradient-high flow]) are essential
habitat. About 50% of this habitat in the basin will
be affected by the Allison Lake project, including
virtually all of the areas in which Harlequin Ducks
and dippers were observed, below the outlet of
Allison Lake. Although some stream flow will be
maintained below the dam in portions of altered
and unaltered channel, it is uncertain whether the
low-gradient habitat there will continue to support
Terrestrial Resources
61 Allison Lake Project Biological ResourcesTable 17. Ranking of habitat value for selected raptor, seabird, and waterbird species in the Allison Lake project impact assessment area, Alaska. Habitat value is ranked: 0 = none/negligible, 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high, 4 = essential. Data quality is characterized by font type as data-supported from project-specific data and scientific literature (bold), partially data-supported from literature only (regular), or professional judgment (italic).
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 62Table 18. Ranking of habitat value for selected landbird and shorebird species in the Allison Lake project impact assessment area, Alaska. Habitat value is ranked: 0 = none/negligible, 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high, 4 = essential. Data quality is characterized by font type as data-supported from project-specific data and scientific literature (bold), partially data-supported from literature only (regular), or professional judgment (italic).
Terrestrial Resources
63 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Harlequin Ducks or American Dippers after
construction.
For both focal shorebirds (Wandering Tattlers
and Lesser Yellowlegs), the low-gradient reaches
of Allison Creek (Rivers and Streams [Low
gradient-high flow]) are high-value habitat. For
shorebirds, however, all important habitat in this
type is located in the low-gradient reach of Allison
Creek above the lake. Most of the low-gradient
stream habitat for shorebirds in the outwash area
above the lake lies within the inundation area and
will be lost. Most of the riverine habitats in the
Allison Lake basin also lie within the inundation
area of this outwash, including about 86% of
Riverine Barrens (Outwash) and 60% of the
Riverine Low and Tall Willow Scrub in the basin.
Riverine Barrens and Riverine Low and Tall
Willow Scrub both are high-value habitats for
Wandering Tattlers and medium-value habitat for
Lesser Yellowlegs. The loss of riparian habitats to
the Allison Lake project may decrease the
abundance of breeding Wandering Tattlers and
migrant Lesser Yellowlegs in the basin.
Riverine Low and Tall Willow Scrub also is a
high-value habitat for Fox Sparrow,
Golden-crowned Sparrow, and Common Redpoll,
but the latter 3 species (all passerines) are also
abundant in other habitats that will be little
affected. No habitat-related effects are anticipated
for these species.
Most of the non-riparian habitats that would
be affected by the Allison Lake project are
abundant in the basin. These upland, subalpine,
and alpine habitats are important for 10 of the 14
focal species of landbirds, but loss attributable to
the project is unlikely to be significant for any of
these species. In terms of percent loss, only one of
these habitats is strongly affected by the proposed
project: approximately 60% of Subalpine Wet
Graminoid Moss Bog available in the basin will be
affected. Subalpine Wet Graminoid Moss Bog was
not identified as a high-value habitat for any bird
species.
Although not included in the habitat map, the
small island in Allison Lake presents a unique
nesting habitat for one pair of Red-throated Loons.
The Allison Lake project will result in the
inundation of that nesting island and the reservoir
is not anticipated to have any similar island habitat.
It is likely that other nest sites are unavailable on
the lake and that no further nesting on the lake will
be possible for Red-throated Loons.
In summary, habitat loss may result in
decreased abundance of bird species associated
primarily with low-gradient stream habitats of
Allison Creek, in particular Harlequin Ducks,
Wandering Tattlers, American Dippers, and Lesser
Yellowlegs. Observations suggest that the number
of birds affected is likely to be small, in part
because of the relatively low availability of
high-value habitats for these species in the basin.
However, it is possible that Wandering Tattlers and
Harlequin Ducks, in particular, will become
uncommon or absent in Allison Lake basin due to
loss of what the relatively limited riverine habitat
that available there for those species. Red-throated
Loons probably will cease nesting on Allison Lake,
but only one nesting pair would be affected. For
raptors, seabirds, and all other landbirds, the effects
of habitat loss are anticipated to be negligible.
Regionally, the bird species affected by habitat loss
associated with the Allison Lake project are
common and their habitats widespread. The small
area of high-value or essential riverine habitat loss
in the Allison Lake basin should result in
negligible effects on the abundance of these
species in the region.
Behavioral Disturbance during Project
Construction
To prevent the destruction of most bird nests,
clearing would be conducted prior to 1 May or
after 15 July (see USFWS 2007c, Advisory:
Recommended Time Periods for Avoiding
Vegetation Clearing in Alaska in order to Protect
Migratory Birds). Behavioral disturbance would
affect birds nesting or using habitats adjacent to the
project footprint. Outside of the nesting season,
escape would be the primary response of birds to
disturbance, and the primary effect limited to
displacement, often without negative impacts.
However, for nesting birds, behavioral disturbance
may affect nesting success, body condition, and
even survival of nesting birds. For the Allison Lake
project, sources of disturbance would include road
vehicles, helicopters, humans on foot, and off-road
vehicles and heavy machinery. The
JulySeptember construction period would occur
after the main period of nesting for many local bird
species, but some species may have active nests
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 64
through mid-July; some raptors and loons even
later. Disturbance effects would be of concern
mainly for raptors (particularly eagles), listed
threatened or endangered or candidate species (the
Kittlitzs and Marbled Murrelets, in the project
area), and other species of concern for
conservation.
Known and suspected raptor nests in the
Allison Lake project area include 2 Bald Eagle
nests, 1 Northern Goshawk nest, and 1 Red-tailed
Hawk nest, as well as an inactive cliff nest
(potentially used by Golden Eagles) (Figure 7).
Most are some distance from the project footprint,
but all could be subject to disturbance by
construction activities, in particular to disturbance
by helicopter traffic. To prevent disturbance of
active Bald Eagle nests, project pilots will be
instructed to avoid flight paths within 1,000 feet
(USFWS 2007d). To the extent possible, other
raptor nests will be similarly avoided by helicopter
traffic. To further protect eagle nests from
disturbance, blasting and other loud activities will
be limited within 0.5 miles of active eagle nests
between 10 April and 10 August (USFWS 2007c,
d). Other ground activities (pedestrians, vehicle
traffic, etc.) will maintain a 330-foot buffer around
active nests during the breeding season, especially
for pairs that are not accustomed to similar
activities (USFWS 2007d).
Both Kittlitzs and Marbled murrelets may
nest in the project area, but potential nesting
habitat for Kittlitzs Murrelets is located only at
high elevations in the upper basin. It is unlikely
that nesting Kittlitzs Murrelets would be disturbed
by construction activities of the Allison Lake
project. Marbled Murrelets may nest in mature
coastal forest or in steep subalpine and alpine
shrubby slopes, both of which occur extensively in
the Allison Lake project area, throughout the lower
elevations and on the slopes surrounding Allison
Lake. Because of their nesting habits and mainly
crepuscular activity, ground activities near the nest
would be the most likely cause of disturbance for
nesting murrelets and helicopter traffic probably
would be less of a concern. It is possible that one or
more Marbled Murrelet nests could be affected by
on-the-ground construction activities in areas
within or adjacent to the project footprint. Clearing
prior to 1 May likely would prevent murrelets from
nesting within the project footprint, but murrelet
nests may occur in adjacent areas and may not be
apparent. To minimize potential for disturbance of
murrelet nests, construction personnel will be
trained to recognize nests and nesting adult
murrelets and to avoid disturbing known nests, in
the event that any nests are found. Flight
restrictions of helicopters to protect mountain goats
in the upper basin will also be protective of nesting
murrelets. In particular, helicopter traffic should
remain clear of steep subalpine and alpine slopes
above the lake to avoid potential disturbance of
nesting murrelets. Blasting should be conducted
prior to 1 May or after 10 August (Day et al. 1999)
to avoid disturbing murrelet adults or chicks in
nests.
Among species of conservation concern,
behavioral disturbance during construction of the
Allison Lake project would affect mainly birds
associated with the riverine habitats of Allison
Creek, particularly in the low-gradient reach just
below the lake, and Red-throated Loons (should
they nest again on Allison Lake). In riverine
habitats of Allison Creek, the species of concern
for conservation that are likely to be affected by
disturbance during project construction include
Harlequin Duck, Wandering Tattler, and Lesser
Yellowlegs. A small number of Harlequin Ducks
and shorebirds may nest in habitats adjacent to
Allison Creek in the low-gradient reach just below
the lake, but these species are likely to have
completed nesting each year by the time that
project construction is initiated in July. Although
no nests were confirmed and nesting habitats are
unknown, Harlequin Ducks were observed in this
low-gradient reach and construction activities after
1 July would probably result in disturbance of
Harlequin Ducks. Construction activity may be
fairly intense in this reach of Allison Creek that is
constrained on the upstream end by the lake and on
the downstream end by the waterfalls and rapids of
the drop-off to the bay. For Harlequin Ducks, it
may be that alternative habitats are not available in
the basin outside of this low-gradient reach of
Allison Creek. Therefore, any Harlequin Ducks
that might be present in that stream reach in early
July are quite likely to be subject to some level of
disturbance by construction activities. For this
small group of Harlequin Ducks, behavioral
disturbance may be frequent, possibly resulting in
some level of habituation, but potentially with
Terrestrial Resources
65 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
some negative effects on survival or productivity.
If alternative habitats are, indeed, absent in the
basin, the habitat alteration in this reach of Allison
Creek may reduce its suitability for Harlequin
Ducks and prevent nesting during year 2 of
construction. Although stream flow would be
maintained in both altered and natural channels
downstream of the dam, it is uncertain whether
these stream reaches would be attractive to
Harlequin Ducks after the construction period.
Loon nests are active into July in the region
and nesting loons can be particularly vulnerable to
disturbance. The Red-throated Loon nest site, on
the small island near the outlet of Allison Lake, is
approximately 1,2001,500 feet from the dam
footprint and adjacent access road. In a survey of
species experts, Red-throated Loons were
considered likely to react to human activity on foot
at distances greater than 500 m (1,640 feet),
although wide individual variability and
considerable habituation also were reported
(Ruddock and Whitfield 2007). During the first
and second years of construction activities in July,
a loon nest on the island in Allison Lake would be
susceptible to failure caused by human
disturbance. If loons are present, activities on the
island or on shore near the island should be
prohibited while the nest is active. Should the nest
survive, ground activities most likely would cause
the young loons and their parents to move away
from the nest island shortly after hatching to
inhabit other parts of Allison Lake. During the
second year of construction (probably after the
nesting season), the island will be inundated and
the nest site no longer available.
In summary, behavioral disturbance during
project construction may have negative effects on a
small number of Harlequin Ducks and one pair of
nesting Red-throated Loons. Because of
disturbance or habitat loss, both species may be
absent from the project area following the first or
second year of construction and no longer subject
to behavioral disturbance. Disturbance of raptor
nests by helicopter traffic will be minimized by
avoidance of known nests and effects are
anticipated to be negligible. Disturbance of
Marbled Murrelets by ground activities may occur,
but few individuals would be affected and the
effects are anticipated to be negligible. No
disturbance-related impacts are anticipated to
occur for other species of conservation concern
(Wandering Tattler, Lesser Yellowlegs, Kittlitzs
Murrelet, Rufous Hummingbird, or Townsends
Warbler).
Exposure to Hazardous Materials during
Construction
Fuels and explosives will be used and stored
in the project area and accidental spills or
inappropriate handling procedures may pose some
risk of contamination for birds. The construction
contract would require the contractor to control,
contain, and remove any spill occurrence during
construction. Any reportable spills as defined in 40
CFR 110 will be reported as required. The
contractor would be required to develop a
Hazardous Materials Containment Plan (HMCP) to
address hazardous material that will be used during
project construction and to detail measures to
control discharges of such materials into waters of
the United States. It is anticipated that appropriate
response will limit impacts of any accidental spills
and that very few individual birds would be
affected. Overall impacts of spills are considered
likely to be minor.
Attraction of Scavengers during Construction
Ravens and gulls may be attracted to human
activities and facilities during both construction
and operation periods, but attraction would be
greatest when human foods and garbage are
present, primarily during the construction phase.
Attraction to the construction site and increased
interaction with humans creates the potential for
mortality from control measures (i.e., killing
problem animals), vehicle strikes, or ingestion of
toxic substances.
Regulations prohibiting the feeding of wildlife
will be enforced, an employee training program
will be required, and modern garbage-handling
procedures will be implemented to minimize the
occurrence of attraction and habituation of
wildlife. Nonetheless, artificial food sources are
powerful attractants and project construction may
attract some ravens or gulls. No negative effects
would be anticipated to result from a slight
increase in the local abundance of ravens and gulls,
should it occur.
Terrestrial Resources
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 66
Behavioral Disturbance during Project Operation
The need for year-round access to the dam and
upper penstock area during project operation may
result in some level of ongoing behavioral
disturbance of birds. Because the access road will
not be maintained after the construction period,
access would be via helicopter. The frequency of
required access has not been described but is
anticipated to be no more than several visits
annually and effects on birds would be negligible.
To prevent disturbance of nesting Bald Eagles,
known active nests will be avoided by any
helicopter flights by a distance of at least 660 feet
during the operation period.
Recreational activities, including helicopter
supported skiing, snow machines, and all-terrain
vehicles, are likely to increase in the Valdez area,
and it is likely that human presence will increase in
the Allison Lake basin, as in other sites in the
region. However, because of security concerns at
the Alyeska terminal, near the mouth of Allison
Creek, the abandoned access road to the dam site
will be gated and no trespassing signs will inhibit
access via the abandoned right-of-way. Few birds
would be negatively affected by disturbance during
winter, so increased recreational activities would
affect birds primarily during nesting or, for some
waterbirds, through brood-rearing and molting.
Overall, the impact on birds of increased human
presence, facilitated by improved access, is likely
to be negligible.
Increased Recreational and Subsistence Hunting
The improved access provided by project
construction may facilitate increased recreational
hunting and subsistence activity in the Allison
Lake basin. As described above, due to security
concerns the access road will be abandoned and
gated and no trespassing signs posted to minimize
access. The only bird species present in the basin
that typically would be subject to harvest are
grouse and ptarmigan, and ducks and geese. None
of these species is abundant in the Allison Lake
basin and the basin is unlikely to become an
important location for harvest due to the limited
availability of game birds. Increased harvest
facilitated by improved access is anticipated to
have negligible impacts on birds.
Increased Mortality due to Collision
For birds, the Allison Lake project poses some
risk of collisions with project facilities, primarily
powerlines and communications towers. All
species may be susceptible to strikes, but in the
Allison Lake project area murrelets may be the
species of greatest concern. Red-throated Loons in
Allison Lake, like murrelets in the upper basin,
make foraging flights between nest sites and
feeding areas in marine waters and may also be
susceptible to strikes. Bald Eagles also are
susceptible to electrocution by power poles that are
not designed appropriately. The Allison Lake
project would supply power from the powerhouse
to the Solomon Gulch powerhouse via additional
wires on an existing line of towers. A very short
distance of new powerline corridor would be
required to connect the existing line to the
powerhouse. Tower locations and designs have not
been determined, but radio communications
between the Solomon Gulch powerhouse and the
Allison Lake dam and powerhouse will be used to
control many functions and radio transmissions
will be ensured by appropriate antennas, probably
on towers at each site.
Both Kittlitzs and Marbled murrelets would
be susceptible to strikes during daily movements
between nests in uplands and marine foraging
habitats. Murrelet nests may be active in the region
between mid-May and late July and daily
movements typically occur during crepuscular
hours, when visibility is poor. Red-throated Loons
nesting on Allison Lake make similar flights,
probably diurnal and more frequent, particularly
when carrying food from marine habitats to young
at the nesting lake. Although no data are available
on flight paths, it is anticipated that the addition of
a power line to existing towers would result in a
negligible increase in risk of collision for murrelets
and other birds. Communication towers may pose
greater risk to murrelets and loons, depending on
their height and design, in particular the presence
of guy wires. To minimize the risks of collision,
new powerlines and guy wires would be marked
and lighted according to best management
practices for protection of birds. Any structures or
communication towers would have lighting
designed to reduce bird attraction and the potential
for bird strikes. In general, the overall effect of
Literature Cited
67 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
mortalities to birds from strikes of powerlines and
towers associated with the Allison Lake project is
expected to be minor to moderate, depending on
tower designs and locations relative to flight paths
of birds.
Mitigation of Impacts
The USFWS recommended time period for
avoiding vegetation clearing in the Southcentral
Alaska region to protect migratory birds is 1 May
to 15 July (see USFWS 2007c, Advisory:
Recommended Time Periods for Avoiding
Vegetation Clearing in Alaska in order to Protect
Migratory Birds), and would be followed for all
vegetation clearing. Disturbance of eagle nests will
be minimized by controlling ground activities,
helicopter traffic, and blasting in the vicinity of
known active nests between 10 April and 10
August (earlier if pairs are present). To minimize
the risks of collision, new powerlines and guy
wires would be marked and lighted according to
best management practices for protection of birds.
Any structures or communication towers would
have lighting designed to reduce bird attraction and
the potential for bird strikes.
LITERATURE CITED
ABR. 2008. Biological resources in the Allison
Lake Hydroelectric Project area: Literature
review and gap analysis. Report for
HatchAcres, Seattle, WA, by ABR, Inc.,
Fairbanks, AK. 3 November 2008.
ABR. 2009. Wetlands determination and functional
assessment, Allison Lake hydroelectric
project area. Report for HatchAcres, Seattle,
WA, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).
1981. Valdez coastal management program:
resource maps. City of Valdez, AK. 14 pp
maps.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG).
1986. Alaska Habitat Management Guides:
Southcentral region map atlas. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Habitat, Juneau.
ADFG. 1998. State of Alaska species of special
concern (November 27, 1998). Accessed
online at http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/
esa/species_concern.php (May 2008).
ADFG. 2006. Our wealth maintained: A strategy
for conserving Alaskas diverse wildlife and
fish resources. Juneau, Alaska. Accessed
online at http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/
statewide/ngplan/ (May 2008).
ADFG. 2008. Catalog of Waters Important for the
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of
Anadromous Fishes. Accessed online at
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/awc/ind
ex.cfm/FA/main.overview (October 2008).
ADFG. 2008. Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Fish Distribution Database. Viewed online
3 November 2008 at: http://www.sf.
adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/FishDistrib/FDD_ims.
cfm
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 1992. Allison
Lake reconnaissance study. Report for the
State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, by
HDR Engineering, Inc., Anchorage, AK.
Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2007.
Birds tracking list, 2007. University of Alaska
Anchorage, Anchorage, AK. Accessed online
at http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/zoology/
Zoology_birds_track07.htm (May 2008).
Alaska Shorebird Group (ASG). 2004. Alaska
shorebird conservation plan, second edition
(draft). Anchorage, AK. 68 pp.
Alaska Shorebird Group (ASG). 2006. Shorebird
monitoring discussion at the annual meeting
of the Alaska Shorebird Group. Anchorage,
AK, 5 December 2006.
American Bird Conservancy and National
Audubon Society (ABC and NAS). 2007. The
United States watchlist of birds of
conservation concern. Accessed online at
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/science
/watchlist/ (May 2008).
Literature Cited
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 68
Anderson, B. A., R. J. Ritchie, J. Rose, B. E.
Lawhead, A. Wildman, and S. Schlentner.
2000. Wildlife studies for Fort Wainwright
and Fort Greely, central Alaska, 1998. Final
Rep. for US Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, by
ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.
Armstrong, R. 1970. Age, food, and migration of
Dolly Varden smolts in Southeastern Alaska.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 27: 9911004.
Armstrong, R. H., and J. E. Morrow. 1980. The
Dolly Varden char, Salvelinus malma. Pages
99-140 in E. K. Balon (ed.). Carrs: Salmonid
fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk
Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands.
Boisvert, J. H., and R. H. Day. 2008. Allison Lake
Hydroelectric Project: Kittlitzs Murrelet
habitat surveys, August 2008. Report for
Hatch Acres, Seattle, WA, by ABR,
Inc.Environmental Research & Services,
Fairbanks, AK. 9 pp.
Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group
(BPIFWG). 1999. Landbird conservation plan
for Alaska biogeographic regions, Version
1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Anchorage, AK. 116 pp.
Botz, J., R. Brenner, G. Hollowell, B. Lewis, and S.
Moffitt. 2008. 2006 Prince William Sound
area finfish management report. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Fishery
Management Report No. 08-30. Anchorage,
AK.
Bradley, R.W., and F. Cooke. 2001. Cliff and
deciduous tree nests of Marbled Murrelets in
southwestern British Columbia. Northwestern
Naturalist 82: 5257.
Bramblett, R. G., M. D. Bryant, B. E. Wright, and
R. G. White. 2002. Seasonal use of small
tributary and mainstem habitats by juvenile
steelhead, coho salmon, and Dolly Varden in a
Southeastern Alaska drainage basin.
Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 131: 498506.
Bryant, M. D., N. D. Zymonas, and B. E. Wright.
2004. Salmonids on the fringe: Abundance,
species composition, and habitat use of
salmonids in high-gradient headwater
streams, Southeast Alaska. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 133: 1,5291,538.
Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J.
L. Laake, D. L. Borchers and L. Thomas.
2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling:
Estimating Abundance of Biological
Populations. Oxford University Press.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005.
Special status species list for Alaska.
Instruction Memorandum No. AK 2006-03.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage,
AK. 5 pp.
Burris, O. E., and D. E. McKnight. 1973. Game
transplants in Alaska. Game Technical
Bulletin Number 4. Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Project W-17-R. ADFG, Juneau,
AK.
Carter, H. R., and S. G. Sealy. 1986. Year-round use
of coastal lakes by Marbled Murrelets.
Condor 88:473-477.
Coggswell, S. 2000. Tatitlek coho salmon release,
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project
Annual Report (Restoration Project 98127),
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat
and Restoration Division, Anchorage, AK.
Côté, S. D. 1996. Mountain goat response to
helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 24: 681685.
Côté, S. D., and C. Beaudoin. 1997. Grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos) attacks and nannykid
separation on mountain goats (Oreamnos
americanus). Mammalia 61: 614617.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv., Office of Biol. Serv.,
Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Crow, J. H. 1977. Salt marshes of Port Valdez,
Alaska, and vicinity: A baseline study. Report
prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior by
Department of Botany, Rutgers University,
Newark, NJ. 62 pp.
Literature Cited
69 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Crowley, D. W. 1993. Breeding habitat of
Harlequin Ducks in Prince William Sound,
Alaska. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University,
Corvallis. 64 pp.
Crowley, D. 2001. Unit 6 brown bear management
report. Pages 4260 in C. Healy, ed. Brown
bear management report of surveyinventory
activities, 1 July 199830 June 2000. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2003. Unit 6 wolf management report.
Pages 5257 in C. Healy, ed. Wolf
management report of surveyinventory
activities, 1 July 199930 June 2002. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2004. Unit 6 mountain goat
management report. Pages 82105 in C.
Brown, ed. Mountain goat management report
of survey and inventory activities, 1 July
200130 June 2003. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2005. Unit 6 black bear management
report. Pages 129151 in C. Brown, ed. Black
bear management report of survey and
inventory activities, 1 July 200130 June
2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau,
AK.
Crowley, D. 2006a. Unit 6 mountain goat
management report. Pages 7792 in P. Harper,
ed. Mountain goat management report of
survey and inventory activities, 1 July
200330 June 2005. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2006b. Unit 6 moose management
report. Pages 85100 in P. Harper, ed. Moose
management report of survey and inventory
activities, 1 July 200330 June 2005. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2006c. Unit 6 wolf management
report. Pages 5258 in P. Harper, ed. Wolf
management report of survey and inventory
activities, 1 July 200230 June 2005. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2007a. Unit 6 brown bear
management report. Pages 4963 in P. Harper,
ed. Brown bear management report of survey
and inventory activities, 1 July 200430 June
2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau,
AK.
Crowley, D. 2007b. Unit 6 furbearer management
report. Pages 8290 in P. Harper, ed.
Furbearer management report of survey and
inventory activities, 1 July 200330 June
2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau,
AK.
Crowley, D. 2007c. Unit 6 deer management
report. Pages 7689 in P. Harper, ed. Deer
management report of survey and inventory
activities, 1 July 200430 June 2006. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2008a. Unit 6 mountain goat
management report. Pages 8397 in P. Harper,
ed. Mountain goat management report of
survey and inventory activities, 1 July
200530 June 2007. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Juneau, AK.
Crowley, D. 2008b. Unit 6 black bear management
report. Pages 124142 in P. Harper, ed. Black
bear management report of survey and
inventory activities, 1 July 200630 June
2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau,
AK.
Currens, K. P., K. E. Griswold, G. H. Reeves. 2003.
Relations between Dolly Varden populations
and between coastal cutthroat trout
populations in Prince William Sound. Exxon
Literature Cited
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 70
Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final
Report (Restoration Project 98145), USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station, Corvallis, OR.
Dames and Moore. 1979a. The birds of Port
Valdez. Unpublished report for Alaska
Petrochemical Company by Dames and
Moore, Engineering and Environmental
Consultants, Anchorage, AK. 31 pp.
Dames and Moore. 1979b. Plant communities of
eastern Port Valdez, Alaska. Unpublished
report for Alaska Petrochemical Company by
Dames and Moore, Engineering and
Environmental Consultants, Anchorage, AK.
10 pp.
Day, R. H. 1995. New information on Kittlitz's
Murrelet nests. Condor 97: 271273.
Day, R. H., K. L. Oakley, and D. R. Barnard. 1983.
Nest sites and eggs of Kittlitz's and Marbled
murrelets. Condor 85: 265273.
Day, R. H., K. J. Kuletz, and D. A. Nigro. 1999.
Kittlitzs Murrelet (Brachyramphus
brevirostris). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.).
The birds of North America, No. 435.
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
PA, and American Ornithologists Union,
Washington, DC. 28 pp.
Day, R. H., and A. A. Stickney. 1996. Kittlitzs
Murrelet surveys at remote Air Force sites in
Alaska, 1995. Unpublished final report by
ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK, for U.S. Air Force,
Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK. 53 pp.
DeVelice, R. L., C. Hubbard, M. Potkin, T.
Boucher, and D. Davidson. 1995.
Characterization of upland habitat of the
Marbled Murrelet in the Exxon Valdez oil spill
area. Final report (Restoration Project
93051B) for Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council, Anchorage, AK, by USDA Forest
Service, Anchorage, AK. 36 pp.
DeVelice, R. L., C. J. Hubbard, K. Boggs, S.
Boudreau, M. Potkin, T. Boucher, and C.
Wertheim. 1999. Plant community types of
the Chugach National Forest, southcentral
Alaska. Tech. Publ. R10-TP-76. Chugach
National Forest, USDA Forest Service,
Anchorage, AK. 375 pp.
Drew, G. S., and J. F. Piatt. 2008. Using geographic
information systems to compare nonuniform
marine bird surveys: detecting the decline of
Kittlitzs Murrelet (Brachyramphus
brevirostris) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Auk 125:
178182.
Ewins, P. J. 1993. Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphus
columba). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The
birds of North America, No. 49. Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and
American Ornithologists Union, Washington,
DC. 23 pp.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
1978. Final environmental impact statement.
Solomon Gulch Project No. 2472-Alaska.
Office of Electric Power Regulation.
Washington, D.C.
Foster, B. R., and E. Y. Rahs. 1983. Mountain goat
response to hydroelectric exploration in
northwestern British Columbia.
Environmental Management 7: 189197.
Fox, J. L., and G. P. Streveler. 1986. Wolf predation
on mountain goats in southeastern Alaska.
Journal of Mammalogy 67: 192195.
Fox, J. L., C. A. Smith, and J. W. Schoen. 1989.
Relation between mountain goats and their
habitat in southeastern Alaska. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-246. U.S. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Portland, OR. 25 pp.
Gabrielson, I. N., and F. C. Lincoln. 1959. The
birds of Alaska. The Stackpole Company,
Harrisburg, PA, and the Wildlife Management
Institute, Washington, D.C. 992 pp.
Gibson, D. D., and B. Kessel. 1989. Geographic
variation in the Marbled Godwit and
description of an Alaskan subspecies. Condor
91: 436443.
Literature Cited
71 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Goldstein, M. I., A. J. Poe, E. Cooper, D. Youkey,
B. A. Brown, and T. L. McDonald. 2005.
Mountain goat response to helicopter
overflights in Alaska. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 33: 688699.
Hamel, S., and S. D. Côté. 2007. Habitat-use
patterns in relation to escape terrain: are
alpine ungulate females trading off better
foraging sites for safety? Canadian Journal of
Zoology 85: 933943.
Handel, C. M., and M. N. Cady. 2004. Alaska
Landbird Monitoring Survey: protocol for
setting up and conducting point count surveys.
Available online as of April 2009:
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/bpif/Moni
tor/alms/ALMSprotocol_2004.pdf.
Helle, J. H. 1970. Biological characteristics of
intertidal and fresh-water spawning pink
salmon at Olsen Creek, Prince William
Sound, Alaska, 19621963. USFWS Special
Science Report Fisheries 602.
Helle, J. H., R. S. Williamson, and J. E. Bailey.
1964. Intertidal ecology and life history of
pink salmon at Olsen Creek, Prince William
Sound, Alaska. USFWS, Special Science
Report 483.
Heller, E. 1910. Mammals of the 1908 Alexander
Alaska expedition, with descriptions of the
localities visited and notes on the flora of the
Prince William Sound region. University of
California Publications in Zoology 5:
321360.
Hem, J. D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the
chemical characteristics of natural water.U.S.
Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 2254.
Heusser, C. J. 1983. Holocene vegetation history of
the Prince William Sound region,
south-central Alaska. Quaternary Research
19: 337355.
Hjeljord, O. 1973. Mountain goat forage and
habitat preference in Alaska. Journal of
Wildlife Management 37: 353362.
Hogan, M. E., and D. B. Irons. 1988. Waterbirds
and marine mammals. Pp. 225242 in Shaw,
D. G., and M. J. Hameedi, eds. Environmental
studies in Port Valdez, Alaska: a basis for
management. Lecture Notes on Coastal and
Estuarine Studies Vol. 24. Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
Hogan, M. E., and W. A. Colgate. 1980. Birds of
coastal habitats in Port Valdez and Valdez
Arm, Alaska. Unpublished report by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 58 pp.
Isleib, M. E. 1973. Birds of the Chugach National
Forest Alaska: a checklist. National Forest
Leaflet. U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Isleib, M. E., and B. Kessel. 1973. Birds of the
North Gulf Coast Prince William Sound
Region, Alaska. Biological Papers, University
of Alaska No. 14.
Jewett, S.C., and A. Blanchard. 1997. Habitat
utilization of juvenile hatchery pink salmon
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in Port Valdez,
Alaska: 198995. Institute of Marine Science,
School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks,
AK.
Johnson, C. B. 1985. Use of coastal habitat by
mink on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. M.S.
thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 179
pp.
Johnson, R. L., and J. Rockwell, Jr. 1978. List of
streams and other water bodies along the
trans-Alaska oil pipeline route. Alaska
Pipeline Office, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Jorgenson, M. T., J. E. Roth, M. K. Raynolds, M.
D. Smith, W. Lentz, A. Zusi-Cobb, and C. H.
Racine. 1999a. An ecological land survey for
Fort Wainwright, Alaska. U.S. Army Cold
Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory, Hanover, NH. CRREL Report
99-9. 83 pp
Literature Cited
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 72
Jorgenson, M. T., J. E. Roth, M. D. Smith, S.
Schlentner, W. Lentz, and E. R. Pullman.
1999b. An ecological land survey for Fort
Greely, Alaska. Unpublished Report, prepared
for U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, by
ABR, Inc. 97 pp.
Jorgenson, M. T., J. E. Roth, S. F. Schlentner, E. R.
Pullman, and M. Macander. 2002. An
ecological land survey for Fort Richardson,
Alaska. Report for U.S. Army Alaska,
Directorate of Public Works by ABR, Inc.,
Fairbanks, AK. 142 pp.
Kaler, R. S. A., L. A. Kenney, and J. F. Piatt.
2008. Breeding biology of Kittlitzs
Murrelet at Agattu Island, Alaska, in 2008:
Progress report. Unpublished report (Rep.
AMNWR 08/17) by U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Service, Homer, AK. 42 pp.
Kessel, B., and D. D. Gibson. 1979. Status and
distribution of Alaska birds. Studies in Avian
Biology No. 1. 100 pp.
Kissling, M. 2008. Ecology of the Kittlitzs
Murrelet: new information from Icy Bay,
MayAugust 2007. Symposium presentation,
Alaska Bird Conference, Fairbanks, AK, 37
March 2008.
Kissling, M., S. Gende, M. Reid, S. B. Lewis, P.
Lukacs, and N. Hatch. 2007. Identifying
nesting and foraging habitat of Kittlitzs
Murrelets (Brachyramphus brevirostris) in Icy
Bay, Alaska: 2007 annual summary.
Unpublished report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Juneau, AK. 10 pp.
Kuletz, K. J. 2005. Foraging behavior and
productivity of a non-colonial seabird, the
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus), relative to prey and habitat.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Victoria,
BC, Canada.
Kuletz, K. J., D. K. Marks, N. L Naslund, N. J.
Goodson, and M. B. Cody. 1994. Information
needs for habitat protection: Marbled Murrelet
habitat identification. Final report
(Restoration Project 93051B) for Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Anchorage,
AK, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Anchorage, AK. 43 pp.
Kuletz, K. J., S. W. Stephensen, D. B. Irons, E. A.
Labunski, and K. M. Brenneman. 2003.
Changes in distribution and abundance of
Kittlitzs Murrelets (Brachyramphus
brevirostris) relative to glacial recession in
Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine
Ornithology 31: 133140.
Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J.
Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I.
Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot,
R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S.
Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E.
Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and
K. Wohl. 2002. Conservation for the
Americas: the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, Arlington,
VA. 78 pp.
Larsen, D. N. 1983. Habitats, movements, and
foods of river otters in coastal southeastern
Alaska. M.S. thesis, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. 149 pp.
Le Compte, J. R., 1980. Map showing
interpretation of Landsat imagery of the
Valdez 1 degree by 3 degrees Quadrangle,
southern Alaska. Open File Report, 80-892.
U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Science
Information Center, Anchorage, AK.
MacDonald, S. O., and J. A. Cook. 2001. Catalog
of the recent mammals of Alaska.
Unpublished draft report, University of
Alaska Museum, Fairbanks. 366 pp.
MacDonald, S. O., and J. A. Cook. 2009. Recent
Mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska
Press, Fairbanks. 387 pp.
Major, E. B., and M. T. Barbour. 2001. The Alaska
Stream Condition Index (ASCI): a
modification of the USEPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols. Prepared for Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation,
Anchorage, AK.
Literature Cited
73 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Manville, R. H., and S. P. Young. 1965.
Distribution of Alaska mammals. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Circular 211,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC. 74 pp.
Marks, D. K., and K. J. Kuletz, 2001. Use of
treeless and forested habitat by Marbled
Murrelets in south-central Alaska. Waterbirds
24: 161168.
Mattson, C. R. 1974. Valdez pipeline terminus
salmon evaluation studies pink and chum
salmon fry observations, MayJune 1974.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay,
AK.
Morsell, J. W. 1979. Freshwater aquatic habitats of
the Valdez area. Report by Dames and Moore
for Alaska Petrochemical Company,
Anchorage, AK.
Morsell, J. W. and G. Perkins. 1979. Salmon fry
dispersion in eastern Port Valdez. Report by
Dames and Moore for Alaska Petrochemical
Company, Anchorage, AK.
Morstad, S., D. Sharp, J. Wilcock, T. Joyce, and J.
Johnson. 1999. Prince William Sound
management area 1998 annual finfish
management report. Regional Information
Report 2A99-20. ADFG, Division of
Commercial Fisheries Management and
Development, Anchorage, AK.
Nauman, J. W. and D. R. Kernodle. 1974. Aquatic
organisms from selected sites along the
proposed trans-Alaska pipeline corridor;
September 1990 to September 1972. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey, Anchorage, AK.
Nelson, S. K. 1997. Marbled Murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus). In A. Poole
and F. Gill (eds,). The birds of North America,
No. 276. Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, PA, and American
Ornithologists Union, Washington, DC. 32 pp.
Noerenberg, W. H. 1963. Salmon forecast studies
on 1963 runs in Prince William Sound.
Information Leaflet 21. ADFG, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska.
North, M. R. 1993. Valdez winter waterbird
surveys, February 1993: trip report. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Ecological Services,
Anchorage, AK. 10 pp.
Piatt, J. F., K. J. Kuletz, A. E. Burger, S. A. Hatch,
V. L. Friesen, T. P. Birt, M. L. Arimitsu, G. S.
Drew, A. M. A. Harding, and K. S. Bixler.
2007. Status review of the Marbled Murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Alaska and
British Columbia. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2006-1387. 258 pp.
Pirtle, R.B. 1977. Historical pink and chum salmon
estimated spawning escapements from Prince
William Sound, Alaska streams, 19601975.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Technical Data Report No. 35.
Ralph, C. J., S. Droege, and J. R. Sauer. 1995.
Managing and monitoring birds using
point-counts: standards and applications. Pp.
161168 In Ralph, C J., J. R. Sauer, and S.
Droege, eds., Monitoring Bird Populations by
Point-counts. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S.
Forest Service General Technical Report
PSW-GTR-149.
Retherford Associates. 1976. Environmental report
for Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project.
Exhibit-W. FPC Project No. 2742.
Reynolds, J. R. 1979. History and current status of
Sitka black-tailed deer in Prince William
Sound. Pages 177183 in O. C. Wallmo and J.
W. Schoen (eds.). Sitka black-tailed deer:
proceedings of a conference in Juneau,
Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region,
Juneau, AK. Series Number R10-48.
Ritchie, R. J., and R. E. Ambrose. 1996.
Distribution and population status of Bald
Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in interior
Alaska. Arctic 49: 120128.
Ruddock., M., and D. P. Whitfield. 2007. A review
of disturbance distances in selected bird
species. Report to Scottish Natural Heritage
by Natural Research (Projects) Ltd.
Roberson, K. 1986. Range extension of the Sitka
black-tailed deer, Odocoileus hemionus
sitkensis, in Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist
100: 563565.
Literature Cited
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 74
Roberson, K. 1987. Solomon Gulch hydroelectric
project evaluation. Prince William Sound
Data Report #1987-02. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Glennallen, AK
Ruthrauff, D. R., T. L. Tibbitts, R. E. Gill, Jr., and
C. M. Handel. 2007. Inventory of
montane-nesting birds in Katmai and Lake
Clark National Parks and Preserves.
Unpublished final report for National Park
Service, by U. S. Geological Survey, Alaska
Science Center, Anchorage, AK.
Sangster, M. 1978. Bird use of Port Valdez and
Valdez Arm, Winter 19771978, Final Report.
Unpublished report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 18 pp.
Schick, C. T., and W. A. Davis. 2008. Wildlife
habitat mapping and evaluation of habitat use
by wildlife at the Stewart River Training Area,
Alaska. Draft report for the Alaska Army
National Guard by ABR, Inc., Anchorage,
AK. 54 pp.
Schoen, J. W., R. W. Flynn, L. H. Suring, K. Titus,
and L. R. Beier. 1994. Habitat-capability
model for brown bear in Southeast Alaska.
Proceedings of the International Conference
on Bear Research and Management 9(1):
327337.
Shishido, N. 1986. Seasonal distribution and
winter habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer in
the Prince William Sound region, Alaska.
M.S. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
105 pp.
Smith, R. B., and L. J. Van Daele. 1987. Terror
Lake Hydroelectric Project: final report on
mountain goat studies. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Kodiak, submitted to the
Alaska Power Authority. 38 pp.
Stenhouse, I.J., and S.E. Senner. 2005. Alaska
watchlist2005. Audubon Alaska,
Anchorage, AK. Accessed online at
http://www.audubon.org/chapter/ak/ak/BirdSc
i_WatchList.html (May 2008).
Toweill, D. E., S. Gordon, E. Jenkins, T. Kreeger,
and D. McWhirter. 2004. A working
hypothesis for management of mountain
goats. Proceedings of the Biennial
Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and
Goat Council 14: 445.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1981.
Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska
(hydroelectric power), interim feasibility
report and final environmental impact
statement, Valdez and Copper River Basin.
USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands
delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1.
Department of the Army, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp. +
appendices.
USACE. 2007. Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers wetland delineation manual: Alaska
Region version 2.0. Wetlands Regulatory
Assistance Program, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS. 72 pp. + appendices.
USWFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1981.
Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
report. Appendix H in Southcentral Railbelt
Area, Alaska (hydroelectric power), interim
feasibility report and final environmental
impact statement, Valdez and Copper River
Basin. 39 pp.
USFWS. 2002. Birds of conservation concern,
2002. Arlington, VA. 105 pp.
USFWS. 2004. Review of species that are
candidates or proposed for listing as
endangered or threatened; annual notice of
findings on resubmitted petitions; annual
description of progress on listing actions.
Federal Register 69: 24,87524,904.
USFWS. 2005. Focal species strategy for
migratory birds. Arlington, VA. 2 pp.
USFWS. 2007a. Endangered, threatened,
proposed, candidate, and delisted species in
Alaska, April 2007. Anchorage, AK. 2 pp.
USWFS. 2007b. National wetlands inventory. Data
for the Valdez A-7 1:63,360 quadrangle,
accessed online at http://www.fws.gov/nwi/
(October 2008).
75 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
USFWS. 2007c. Advisory: Recommended time
periods for avoiding vegetation clearing in
Alaska in order to protect migratory birds.
Anchorage, AK. 2 pp.
USFWS. 2007d. National Bald Eagle management
guidelines. Washington, DC. 25 pp.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1982. Land use
and land cover and associated maps for
Valdez, Alaska. Open-File Report, 82-007.
USGS Earth Science Information Center,
Anchorage, AK.
USGS. 2006. The Alaska Landbird Monitoring
Survey. USGS Alaska Science Center,
Anchorage, AK. Available online as of April
2009:
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/bpif/Moni
tor/alms2.html.
USGS. 2009. The National Map Seamless Server
[Online] http://seamless.usgs.gov.
USSCP (U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan). 2004.
High priority shorebirds 2004. Unpublished
report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arlington, VA. Accessed online at
http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/ (May
2008).
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1994. Sensitive
species list, Alaska region. Obtained from the
Alaska Natural Heritage Program by ABR,
Inc., Anchorage, AK.
Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dryness, A. R. Batten, and K.
J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska Vegetation
Classification. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, PNW-GTR-286.
278 pp.
White, K. S. 2006. Seasonal and sex-specific
variation in terrain use and movement patterns
of mountain goats in southeastern Alaska.
Proceedings of the Biennial Symposium of
the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council
15: 183193.
Plates
77 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
PLATES
Wetlands, 19
Fish, 142
Mammal, 13
Raptor, 13
Seabird, 14
WETLAND PLATES
WETLAND TYPES
Plate 1. NWI Class: L1UBH Plate 2. NWI Class: R3UBH
Plate 3. NWI Class: R4SBC Plate 4. NWI Class: PEM1F
VEGETATION TYPES
Plate 5. Closed Sitka Spruce Forest Plate 6. Tall Closed Alder Shrub
Plate 7. Subarctic Lowland Sedge Moss Bog Meadow Plate 8. Mixed Herbs
Plate 9. Mountain Heath Dwarf Shrub Tundra
FISH PLATES
2008
Plate 1. View of Allison Lake looking north with AL-1
habitat area in the right foreground.
Plate 2. View of lake shallows in AL-1 habitat area
with minnow trap and orange marker.
Plate 3. View across the outlet of Allison Lake from west
to east. Habitat area AL-2 is on the right and AC-
High-01 is on the left.
Plate 4. View of Allison Lake from outlet at AC-
High-01 towards AL-2.
Plate 5. View of Allison Lake towards the outlet and AL-2
and AC-High-01.
Plate 6. Typical view of AC-High-01 looking
downstream with submerged minnow trap.
Plate 7. View above AC-High-02 on Allison Creek looking
back at Allison Lake.
Plate 8. A minnow trap submerged near a small
island in wider, slow flowing section of
Allison Creek at AC-High-02.
Plate 9. Downstream extent of AC-High-02 on upper
Allison Creek with submerged minnow trap. Note
small flow-gauge sticking up to left of boulder.
Plate 10. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-01 looking
upstream.
Plate 11. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-01 looking across and downstream.
Plate 12. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-02 looking
upstream.
Plate 13. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-02 looking
across stream from east.
Plate 14. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-02 looking downstream.
Plate 15. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-03 looking
upstream (no fish trapping in this area).
Plate 16. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-03 looking
across from the east.
Plate 17. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-03 looking
downstream. Plate 18. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-04 looking
upstream
Plate 19. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-04 looking
across stream from east.
Plate 20. Lower Allison Creek at AC-low-04 looking
downstream.
Plate 21. Lower Allison Creek at AC-low-05 looking
upstream.
Plate 22. Lower Allison Creek at AC-low-05 looking
across stream from east.
Plate 23. Lower Allison Creek at AC-low-05 looking
downstream.
Plate 24. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-06 looking
upstream. This is the approximate site of the
old dam.
Plate 25. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-06 looking
upstream. Green building marks approximate
location of old dam.
Plate 26. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-06 looking
across stream from the west.
Plate 27. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-06 looking
downstream.
Plate 28. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-07 looking
upstream.
Plate 29. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-07 looking
across stream from west at Alyeska perimeter
fence with gravel parking lot on opposite side.
Plate 30. Lower Allison Creek at AC-Low-07 looking
downstream from west.
2009
Plate 31. ABR biologist John Seigle prepares
minnow traps for deployment in lower
Allison Creek
Plate 32. ABR biologist Andra Love collects stream
macroinvertebrates using a Surbur Sampler.
Plate 33. Andra prepares to collect ambient water
quality information using the YSI-85 multi-
meter.
Plate 34. View of upper Allison Creek at the outlet from
Allison Lake.
Plate 35. View of length of Allison Creek. Photo
taken from helicopter hovering over Valdez
Bay.
Plate 36. Valdez Fisheries Development Association, Inc.,
operated salmon hatchery at Solomon Gulch.
Plate 37. Pink salmon alevin holding pins near salmon
hatchery at Solomon Gulch.
Plate 38. Part of the upper most barrier region at
Allison Creek .
Plate 39. Long series of cascades creating barrier to fish
passage in middle section of Allison Creek.
Plate 40. Continuation of barrier section below area
in plate 9. Note dead snag in both photos.
Plate 41. Long series of cascades creating barrier to fish
passage in lower area of Allison creek.
Plate 42. Collecting spent pink salmon for otolith
extraction in lower Allison Creek.
Plate 43. Spent pink salmon collected from lower Allison
Creek for otolith extraction.
Plate 44. Spent pink salmon and otolith extraction kit
in lower Allison Creek.
Plate 45. ADFG standard otolith marking pattern for the
pink salmon from the Solomon Gulch hatchery.
(http://tagotoweb.adfg.state.ak.us/
OTO/reports/VoucherSummary.asp?mi=SGH07)
Plate 46. Pink salmon otolith from Allison Creek in
August 2009 showing markings typical of
fish from the Solomon Gulch hatchery.
Plate 47. Pink salmon otolith from Allison Creek in August
2009 showing indeterminate markings, probably
not from the Solomon Gulch hatchery.
MAMMAL PLATES
Plate 1. Black bear sow with cub foraging in recently snow-
free habitats on lower slopes near Allison Lake, early
June 2009.
Plate 2. Brown bear crossing lake ice on Allison Lake, early
June 2009.
Plate 3. Pair of coyotes foraging in Allison Lake basin,
June 2009.
RAPTOR PLATES
Plate 1. Incubating adult Bald Eagle on active nest
(Active Bald Eagle 1; Figure 8) west of
Solomon Gulch near Dayville Road.
Plate 2. Old inactive stick nest (possibly Golden Eagle;
Figure 8) located on cliff above Solomon
Creek.
Plate 3. Active Northern Goshawk nest located along
proposed transmission line between Allison
Creek and Solomon Gulch (Figure 8).
SEABIRD PLATES
Plate 1. Allison Lake basin and availability of snow-
free murrelet breeding habitat, early June
2009.
Plate 2. Potentially suitable nesting habitat for
Kittlitz’s Murrelets in Allison Lake basin,
August 2008.
Plate 3. Potentially suitable nesting habitat for
Kittlitz’s Murrelets in Allison Lake basin,
August 2008.
Plate 4. General area of potential nesting habitat used
by calling Marbled Murrelets detected in July
2009.
93 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Appendix A. Literature sources for habitat-use information for bird and mammal species considered
in the wildlife habitat-value assessments for the Allison Lake project, and outline of
assessment procedures for landbirds and shorebirds.
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 94
ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1999. Population and habitat ecology of brown bears on
Admiralty and Chichagof islands, research final report, 1 July 1989 – 30 June 1999. 15 pp.
Ammon, E. M., and W. M. Gilbert. 1999. Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds
of North America Online (No. 478). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/478.
Banasiak, K. 2001. "Sorex monticolus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 28, 2009 at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/ Sorex_monticolus.html.
Barr, J. F., C. Eberl, and J. W. Mcintyre. 2000. Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata).In A. Poole, ed. The
Birds of North America Online (No. 513). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online
at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/513.
Belik, T., and L. Olson. 2005. "Myodes rutilus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 28,
2009 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/ information/Myodes_rutilus.html.
Bieberich, C., and L. Olson. 2007. "Microtus oeconomus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed
December 28, 2009 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/
information/Microtus_oeconomus.html.
Brensike, J. 2000. "Spermophilus parryii" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 28, 2009
at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/ Spermophilus_parryii.html.
Bromley, D., and T. Osborne. 1994. Porcupine; Alaska wildlife notebook series. Online at
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/smgame/porky.php. Dec 2009.
Buelher, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle. In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill (editors). The Birds of North
America, No. 506. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, and The Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Cannings, R. J. 1993. Northern Saw-whet Owl. In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill (editors). The
Birds of North America, No. 42. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, and The
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Carmen, M. 2001. "Sorex palustris" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 28, 2009 at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/ Sorex_palustris.html.
Christensen, B., and C. Van Dyke. 2004. Brown bear (Ursus arctos) habitat and signs of use: Berners Bay,
Alaska, site survey - June 15–19, 2003. Unpublished report for SEAWEAD, Juneau, AK. 11 pp.
Cook, J. A., and S. O. MacDonald. 2003. Mammal inventory of Alaska's National Parks and Preserves:
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, annual report 2001–2002. Idaho State University, Twin Falls, ID. 32
pp.
Cook, J. A., and S. O. MacDonald. 2004. Mammal inventory of Alaska's National Parks and Preserves:
Kenai Fjords National Park, annual report 2003. Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 34 pp.
Day, R. H., K. J. Kuletz, and D. A. Nigro. 1999. Kittlitz’s Murrelet. In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B.
Gill (editors). The Birds of North America, No. 435. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington,
DC, and The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Dewey, T., and E. Ellis. 2003. "Lontra canadensis" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December
28, 2009 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/
Lontra_canadensis.html.Partridge, S., T. Smith, and T. Lewis. 2009. Black and brown bear activity at
selected coastal sites in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska: A preliminary assessment
using noninvasive sites in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska: A preliminary assessment
using noninvasive procedures: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1169, 62 p.
95 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
George, T. L. 2000. Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online
(No. 541). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/541.
Gill, R. E., B. J. McCaffery, and P. S. Tomkovich. 2002. Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus [=Tringa
incana]).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 642). Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ species/642.
Healy, S., and W. A. Calder. 2006. Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of
North America Online (No. 53). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/053.
Houston, C. S., D. G. Smith, and C. Rohner. 1998. Great Horned Owl. In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F.
B. Gill (editors). The Birds of North America, No. 372. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington,
DC, and The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Ingold, J. L., and G. E. Wallace. 1994. Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula).In A. Poole, ed. The
Birds of North America Online (No. 119). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online
at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/119.
Jones, P. W. and T. M. Donovan. 1996. Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of
North America Online (No. 261). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/261.
Kingery, H. E. 1996. American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America
Online (No. 229). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/229.
Knox, A. G., and P. E. Lowther. 2000. Common Redpoll (Carduelis flammea).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds
of North America Online (No. 543). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/543.
Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. McIntyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).In
A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 684). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Accessed online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684.
Lee, W. 2001. "Sorex cinereus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 28, 2009 at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Sorex_cinereus.html.
Lowther, P. E., C. Celada, N. K. Klein, C. C. Rimmer, and D. A. Spector. 1999. Yellow Warbler
(Dendroica petechia).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 454). Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ species/454.
MacDonald, S. O., and J. A. Cook. 2009. Recent mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska Press.
Fairbanks, AK. 387 pp.
Macwhirter, R. B., and K. L. Bildstein. 1996. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus).In A. Poole, ed. The
Birds of North America Online (No. 210). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online
at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/210.
Montgomerie, R., and K. Holder. 2008. Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of
North America Online (No. 51). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/051.
Nelson, S. K. 1997. Marbled Murrelet. In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill (editors). The Birds of
North America, No. 276. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, and The Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 96
Norment, C. J., P. Hendricks, and R. Santonocito. 1998. Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia
atricapilla).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 352). Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/352.
Preston, C. R., and R. D. Beane. 1993. Red-tailed Hawk. In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill
(editors). The Birds of North America, No. 52. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC,
and The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Robertson, G. J., and R. I. Goudie. 1999. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus).In A. Poole, ed. The
Birds of North America Online (No. 466). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online
at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/466.
Schlimme, K. 2003. "Neovison vison" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 28, 2009 at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/ Neovison_vison.html.
Sogge, M. K., W. M. Gilbert, and C. Van Riper III. 1994. Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata).In
A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 101). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Accessed online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/101.
Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk. In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill
(editors). The Birds of North America, No. 298. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC,
and The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Tibbitts, T. L., and W. Moskoff. 1999. Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes).In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of
North America Online (No. 427). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/427.
Weckstein, J. D., D. E. Kroodsma, and R. C. Faucett. 2002. Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca).In A. Poole,
ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 715). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed
online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/715.
Wheelwright, N.T. and J.D. Rising. 1993. Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis).In A. Poole,
ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 45). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed
online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/045.
White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon. In A. F. Poole, P.
Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill (editors). The Birds of North America, No. 660. American Ornithologists’
Union, Washington, DC, and The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
Wright, A. L., G. D. Hayward, S. M. Matsuoka, and P. H. Hayward. 1998. Townsend's Warbler (Dendroica
townsendi). In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online (No. 333). Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Accessed online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/ bna/species/333.
Wund, M. 2000. "Sorex hoyi" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 28, 2009 at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Sorex_hoyi.html.
Yuke, C., and L. Olson. 2007. "Sorex tundrensis" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December
28, 2009 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/ information/Sorex_tundrensis.html.
97 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Habitat Assessment Procedures for Landbirds and Shorebirds
For each landbird and shorebird species selected for impact assessments in the Allison Lake project
area, habitat values in each mapped habitat type were categorized into 1 of 5 value classes as described
above under Vegetation, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitats. Habitat-value assessments were conducted for
habitats expected to be used by landbirds and shorebirds during both breeding and migration periods. The
assessments of habitat value for these species were conducted primarily using the dataset of bird
observations recorded during point-count surveys in the Allison Lake project area in 2009. When these
data were insufficient (e.g., for habitats that were undersampled or unsampled for breeding birds or for
habitats that were expected to be used during migration), additional habitat-use information was sought in
the published literature (see table above) and supplemented by professional judgment based on
observations of habitat use by these species elsewhere in south-central Alaska.
To derive habitat-use information for landbirds and shorebirds, each bird point-count location
surveyed in the Allison Lake project area in 2009 first was assigned a mapped wildlife habitat defined by
the habitat map polygon that each point-count location occurred in (i.e., a spatial-join in ArcGIS was
conducted). Average-occurrence figures then were calculated for each combination of bird species and
mapped habitat. Average occurrence calculations standardize abundance data across habitats and allow
direct comparisons of relative bird abundance among habitats.
To determine the habitat-value class for each combination of habitat and landbird/shorebird species,
the average-occurrence data for each bird species were inspected for natural groupings of
average-occurrence figures and for breakpoints between those groupings. For the common species, it was
often clear from the data which habitats were used to a substantially greater degree, which were used very
little, and which were intermediate. In these cases, with 3 clear classes of average-occurrence figures, the
habitats in the 3 classes were defined as high, moderate, and low value. For landbirds and shorebirds,
essential-value habitats were only listed for those species which were observed almost exclusively in one
habitat throughout the field studies in 2009. Negligible-value habitats were classified as those that were not
observed to be used in the 2009 breeding season. For less common species, for which there sometimes
were only 1 or 2 classes of average-occurrence figures in the dataset, the habitat(s) with the highest (or
only) average-occurrence figure(s) was typically treated as high value; those with lower
average-occurrence figures were treated as moderate- or low-value habitats depending on the numerical
distance between the higher and lower average-occurrence figures.
Several corrections to the habitat-value classifications then were needed for those habitats that were
undersampled or not sampled during point-count surveys in 2009 and for the less common species, for
which insufficient data were available to adequately evaluate habitat use. First, for habitats that were
Allison Lake Project Biological Resources 98
undersampled (<4 point counts) or not sampled, habitat-value classes were determined by comparison with
the data from adequately sampled habitats. Habitat-value classes for undersampled and unsampled habitats
were determined to be similar to those assessed for adequately sampled habitats that shared similar
vegetation structure and/or physiography. To account for the uncertainly involved, habitat-value
classifications for the undersampled and unsampled habitats often were reduced 1 class from the
comparable sampled habitat. When possible, habitat-association data from incidental observations made
during the point-count surveys and from other observations made during other wildlife surveys in the
Allison Lake project area also were evaluated to help classify habitat values for undersampled and
unsampled habitats. In these cases, to account for the lower data quality in the incidental-observation
dataset(s), the habitats used typically were treated as moderate or low value depending on how often the
species was recorded in each habitat. Some exceptions were made, however, and some habitats were
considered high value, especially when the habitats considered were known to be frequently used by the
species elsewhere in south-central Alaska during the breeding season. In cases in which data from the
surveys in 2009 were insufficient to assess habitat use for a particular species, the published literature on
habitat use for that species (see table above) and professional judgment based upon knowledge of habitat
use for the species elsewhere in south-central Alaska were used to classify habitat values for undersampled
and unsampled habitats.
Finally, corrections were needed to minimize the bias that can occur for uncommon species, which
may be observed only in a few habitats but that actually use a greater number of habitats. For each bird
species that was observed in 3 or fewer habitats, but that was expected to occur more commonly in the
area, additional habitat-association observations were sought in the dataset of incidental bird observations
recorded during the point-count surveys and from other observations made during other wildlife surveys in
the Allison Lake project area in 2009. Any additional habitats used were given a habitat-value class, but, as
noted above, to account for the lower data quality of the incidental observations, the habitat classes
typically were treated as moderate or low value depending on how often the species was recorded in each
habitat. Again some exceptions were made, and in cases in which the habitats considered were known to be
frequently used by the species during the breeding season elsewhere in south-central Alaska, the habitats
being assessed were considered high value.
99 Allison Lake Project Biological Resources
Appendix B. Aquatic habitat assessment forms (the Alaska Stream Condition Index; from Major and
Barbour 2001).
CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE VICINITY OF ALLISON
LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT,ALASKA
NORTHERN LAND USE RESEARCH,INC.
Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 83990
600 University Avenue, Suite 6
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
(907) 474-9684
nlur@northernlanduse.com
November, 2009
CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE VICINITY OF ALLISON
LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT,ALASKA
Report prepared for:
Hatch Acres - Water and Wind Power
6 Nickerson, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98109
(206) 352-5730 phone
(206) 352-5734 fax
Report prepared by:
Richard O. Stern, Ph.D., Senior Project Archaeologist
Peter M. Bowers, M.A., R.P.A., Principal Investigator
Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 83990
600 University Avenue, Suite 6
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
(907) 474-9684 phone
(907) 474-8370 fax
nlur@northernlanduse.com
November, 2009
i
Confidentiality Notice
The locations of cultural resources given in this report are provided to facilitate
environmental and engineering planning efforts only. Under the provisions of the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, site
location information is confidential; disclosure of such information is exempt from
requests under Federal and State freedom of information laws. This report is not a public
document. It is intended for release to Hatch Acres-Water and Wind Power, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), interested Native American tribes and
organizations, the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and appropriate
permitting agencies only.
ii
Table of Contents
Confidentiality Notice......................................................................................................i
Table of Contents............................................................................................................ii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................ii
Acronyms and Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................iii
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Cultural Resources Information Required................................................................ 1
2.0 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Research Methods..................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) Information ........................................ 4
2.3 National Register of Historic Places Information..................................................... 5
3.0 Cultural Environment ................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Regional Cultural Chronology.................................................................................. 6
3.2 Prehistory of Prince William Sound......................................................................... 7
3.3 Ethnographic and Historical Overview..................................................................... 8
3.4 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) ................................................... 12
4.0 Results ........................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Section Organization............................................................................................... 13
4.2 Results..................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys....................................................................... 16
4.4 Identification of Indian Tribes................................................................................ 17
4.5 Identification of Other Interested Parties................................................................ 18
5.0 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................ 20
5.1 Summary................................................................................................................. 20
5.2 Recommendations................................................................................................... 20
5.2.1 Plan to Do a Reconnaissance Level Field Survey ............................................... 20
5.2.2 Initiate Consultation under Section 106 and FERC Guidance............................. 20
5.2.3 Human Remains................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Limitations.............................................................................................................. 21
6.0 References .................................................................................................................. 22
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Survey 3328 Alaska, June 8, 1955............................................................. 1
List of Tables
Table 1. Diagnostic Attributes of Cultural Stages in Prince William Sound..................... 7
Table 2. AHRS (2009) Sites Within and Adjacent to Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project.
................................................................................................................................... 13
iii
ACRONYMS (1)ANDGLOSSARY OFTERMS
(2)
TERM MEANING
ADNR,
DOPOR, OHA
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, Office of History and Archaeology (Formerly
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
AMRC Alaska Museum at the Rasmuson Center, Anchorage, Alaska
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
APSC Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
ARLIS Alaska Resources Library and Information Services, Anchorage,
BP Before Present
CMT Culturally Modified Tree
CVEA Copper Valley Electric Association
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EVOS Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
HPA Historic Preservation Act
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NLUR Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHA Office of History and Archaeology
ROW Right-of-Way
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer (Office)
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (Office)
TAGS LNG Trans-Alaska Gas System, Liquified Natural Gas
TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
TCP Traditional Cultural Properties
UAA/APU University of Alaska Anchorage/Alaska Pacific University
Consortium Library
USDOI, GLO U.S. Department of the Interior, General Land Office (later the BLM-
Bureau of Land Management)
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
WAMCATS Washington-Alaska Military Cable and Telegraph System
(1) Acronyms are words formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or
series of words, for example SHPO (pronounced Ship-O) from State Historic Preservation Officer.
Abbreviations are contractions of a word or phrase to represent the whole word, for example Dr.
for Doctor.
(2) Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Analyses commonly have lengthy lists of
Acronyms in each volume.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 1 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA-project licensee) plans to construct a
hydroelectric facility at Allison Lake, Alaska. Hatch Acres is preparing the pre-application
document/Draft PDEA for submission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC,
the “Commission”). The Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project is referenced as FERC Preliminary
Permit No. P-13124. Hatch Acres contracted with Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR) to
prepare the cultural resources section of the pre-application document. This report to Hatch
Acres is Northern Land Use Research, Inc.’s submittal for use in preparing the pre-application
document.
This report should be placed in Section 3.3.7 Cultural Resources in the description of potentially
affected resources of the Preferred Alternative.
The pre-application document provides the Commission and the entities identified in 18 U.S.C.
5.6(a) (Conservation of Power and Water Resources) with existing information relevant to the
project proposal that is in the potential applicant's possession or that the potential applicant can
obtain with the exercise of due diligence. This existing, relevant, and reasonably available
information is distributed to these entities to enable them to identify issues and related
information needs, develop study requests and study plans, and prepare documents analyzing any
license application that may be filed. It is also a precursor to the environmental analysis section
of the Preliminary Licensing Proposal or draft license application provided for in §5.16, Exhibit
E of the final license application, and the Commission's scoping document(s) and environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
1.2 Cultural Resources Information Required
Information required for the preparation of the pre-application document is listed at 18 U.S.C.
5.6(d)(x):
“(x)Cultural resources. A description of the known cultural or historical
resources of the proposed project and surrounding area. Components of this
description include:
(A) Identification of any historic or archaeological site in the proposed project
vicinity, with particular emphasis on sites or properties either listed in, or
recommended by the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places;
(B) Existing discovery measures, such as surveys, inventories, and limited
subsurface testing work, for the purpose of locating, identifying, and assessing the
significance of historic and archaeological resources that have been undertaken
within or adjacent to the project boundary; and;
(C) Identification of Indian tribes that may attach religious and cultural
significance to historic properties within the project boundary or in the project
vicinity; as well as available information on Indian traditional cultural and
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 2 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
religious properties, whether on or off of any federally-recognized Indian
reservation. (A potential applicant must delete from any information made
available under this section specific site or property locations, the disclosure of
which would create a risk of harm, theft, or destruction of archaeological or
Native American cultural resources or to the site at which the resources are
located, or would violate any Federal law, including the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470w-3, and the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470hh).”
The three sections of cultural resources information required are presented in the following
sections of this report.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 3 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
2.0METHODS
2.1 Research Methods
Cultural resources information available for Alaska resides in numerous sources, varies in
quality and availability, and presents a sometimes daunting challenge for researchers to
identify, locate, and summarize during the preparation of literature reviews such as the
present report.
Several articles in the Alaska Journal of Anthropology recently reviewed cultural
resources research and anthropology research in Alaska over the last 30 years. Dan
Odess edited an entire issue devoted to the Arctic Small Tool tradition in Alaska (Odess
2005). Feldman, Langdon, and Natcher (2005) reviewed applied cultural anthropology.
Tiger Burch (2005) reviewed sociocultural anthropology research, 1972-2002. Wheeler
and Thornton (2005) reviewed subsistence research. James Kari (2005) reviewed
linguistic work on Alaskan Athabascan languages; while Kaplan (2005) covered Eskimo-
Aleut research. Scott (2005) discussed physical anthropology research. An entire issue
of AJA presented articles discussing cultural resource management, curation, site
destruction, human remains and other issues in Alaskan cultural resources management
(Hanson 2007). An entire issue of Arctic Anthropology (Esdale and Rasic 2008) was
devoted to the Northern Archaic in Alaska. All of these articles are excellent reviews of
several decades of recent research within particular sub-fields of anthropology. None of
these sources identify research in Valdez Arm in general, or the Allison Lake vicinity
specifically.
Cultural resource investigation reports from every community in Alaska are stored at the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Office of History and Archaeology (ADNR, DOPOR, OHA)– the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), in Anchorage. The NLUR offices in Fairbanks and
Anchorage maintain photocopies (or .pdfs), or both of many of these reports. The SHPO
office has re-organized and re-filed its report library many times over the years. More
than 10,000 file reports, letter reports, and project correspondence files are scanned, and
can be downloaded at the SHPO offices. This is the OHA “Citations” database.
Regrettably, the “Citations” database is not accessible from remote computer terminals.
OHA does not know how many “reports” are filed. OHA receives more reports every
month, and has a backlog of unreviewed and unscanned “reports” and “citations”.
We searched the “Citations” database at OHA using keywords “Valdez”, “Allison Lake”,
“Fort Liscum”, “Solomon Gulch”, and “Alyeska terminal” (including variations) to
discover information relevant to the project vicinity. The search revealed several
references, discussed further below.
Previous research is often in the unpublished literature for a particular community. To
identify these sources, it is common practice to locate a recent report, and then to
examine the bibliography for references to earlier works. This “data mining” research
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 4 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
methodology is necessary when so many of the source materials are unpublished,
narrowly circulated, and ephemeral reports.
We examined published and unpublished sources of information pertaining to the cultural
resources within and adjacent to the project area. We checked the NLUR in-house files
and reports for information relevant to Allison Lake. We searched the electronic card
catalogs of the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS), UAA/APU
Consortium Library, Loussac Public Library, Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center
(AMRC), and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Library electronic card catalog
“GOLDMINE”. We reviewed the U.S. survey plats for homesteads and Fort Liscum
located within and adjacent to the project area (website accessed various dates, 2009,
http://landrecords.alaska.gov).
2.2 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) Information
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology
(ADNR, OHA) maintains the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database. The
AHRS is primarily a map-based system that consists of an inventory of all reported
historic and prehistoric sites within the State of Alaska. Sites include objects, structures,
buildings, sites, districts, and travel ways, with a general provision that they are over 50
years old. ADNR, OHA assigns each site a unique designation consisting of a trigraph
for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:63,360 scale (inch to the mile) quadrangle map
in which it is located and a unique sequential number within that quadrangle. For
example, 49-ANC-00010 is the AHRS number for the tenth site recorded within the
Anchorage quadrangle. The “49” prefix indicates that the site is in the State of Alaska,
the forty-ninth state, but this number is commonly omitted, because it is implied that all
the sites under discussion are within Alaska. Each individual site record contains
information such as the site name, a description of the physical remains, data on the site's
location, a list of bibliographic citations, site significance, affiliated cultures and dates,
preservation status, site condition, property owner, and other associated site numbers.
Access to site location information contained in the AHRS is closed to the general public
(PL 96-95; AS 9.25.120, exception 4; Policy and Procedure No. 50200). OHA maintains
a list of authorized users of AHRS information. Such users include representatives of
federal, state, or local governments on official business; researchers engaged in legitimate
scientific research; individuals or representatives of organizations conducting cultural
resource surveys aimed at protection of such information or sites; or such individuals
determined by OHA as having a legitimate need for access. The fundamental use of the
AHRS is to protect cultural resource sites from adverse impacts. By using the AHRS as a
planning tool, the location of cultural resources allows agencies to avoid project delays
and prevent unnecessary destruction of these non-renewable resources. Listing on the
AHRS does not, in and of itself, provide protection for sites; however, it does allow
agencies to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the future of these sites. Listing on
the AHRS is not the same as listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 5 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
2.3 National Register of Historic Places Information
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s inventory of historic properties
that meet specific criteria of local, state, or national importance. In order for a property
to be eligible for the National Register, it must possess integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and significance under one or
more criteria:
• be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
• be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
• embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represent the work of a master, or posses high artistic values,
or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinction; or
• have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
There are some exceptions to these criteria for properties achieving significance in the
last fifty years, certain cemeteries or religious properties and other property types.
Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are properties, or places that are eligible for
inclusion on the NHRP because of its association with the cultural practices and beliefs
that are (1) rooted in the history of a community, and (2) are important for maintaining
the continuity of that community’s traditional beliefs and practices (Parker 1993).
At the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, we examined the AHRS database
maintained by the SHPO, and Alaska listings on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). There are no sites in the vicinity of the project area listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. AHRS sites are discussed below under Results.
The cleanup efforts following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) included numerous
cultural resources research studies (Mobley et al. 1990; Restoration Planning Work
Group 1990; L. Yarborough 1997 and references therein). Post-EVOS research on
subsistence included reports on specific communities, specific species or species groups,
and long-term studies of the EVOS effects on subsistence (for example Fall et al. 1996;
Picou et al. 2009; Fogarty et al. 2000; Simeone 2008; Fall 2009 and references therein).
NLUR senior project archaeologist Richard O. Stern, Ph.D. performed the literature
search and wrote this report between August and October, 2009.
Sites listed on the AHRS within and immediately adjacent to the Allison Lake drainage
are presented in Table 1 in the Results section.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 6 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
3.0 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT1
3.1 Regional Cultural Chronology
Prehistoric culture history in Prince William Sound is known from comparatively few sites,
compared to other regions of Alaska. The low number of sites per unit area is likely a result of
both natural and cultural factors. De Laguna (1956:255) discussed at length the paradox of a rich
environment but low historic and prehistoric population numbers. Much of the region is
glaciated with few or no subsistence resources. The region is tectonically active. Shorelines
have risen and fallen over time, leaving coastal located sites vulnerable to erosion following
subsidence. Earthquakes produce tsunamis and other waves that have rolled over the land,
flattening trees, communities and the archaeological record. Late Pleistocene and Holocene
glaciations have scraped the bedrock clean, resulting in shallow rocky soils in many areas with
little opportunity for cultural stratigraphy to develop.
Foremost among the natural factors affecting site density are the relatively few coastal locations
that are favorable for human habitation over time. Steep, high-energy shores are not conducive
to human occupation. Pocket beaches with protected access to the ocean, and nearby freshwater
sources, protected small bays, the leeward side of headlands or small islands are favored winter
village locations for people oriented to the marine environment for the bulk of their subsistence
efforts. Summer fish camps or villages were typically located on or near the mouths of salmon
streams. Ephemeral hunting or travel camps could be constructed anywhere. Other types of
sites include defensible refuge or fort sites located on rocky headlands, or steep-sided and
relatively inaccessible headlands. Petroglyphs and pictograph sites are known in the Prince
William Sound region, and caves or rockshelters were used as temporary shelters and burial
sites.
People probably occupied or at least utilized the resources of Prince William Sound as soon as
coastal, tidewater glaciations had retreated long enough for resources to occupy the previously
ice-covered region. Evidence of these earliest occupations has not been identified yet within
Prince William Sound, for the reasons noted above. In addition, Prince William Sound
archaeology had not been given the same degree of attention or interest by professional
archeologists as many other more accessible, less expensive, and less logistically demanding
regions of the state. The cultural resources work that followed the EVOS event added greatly to
our knowledge of the Chugach Alaska region.
The cultural chronology of southcentral Alaska includes a general regional chronology, with
specific periods named after the sub-regions in which they occur, such as Prince William Sound.
The regional chronology from oldest period to youngest includes a hypothetical coastal
Paleoarctic horizon dating from 9,500 to 11,000 yrs BP (Dixon 1999). A Paleoarctic period from
7,500 to 11,000 yrs BP is followed by the Ocean Bay period (3,500 to 7,000 yrs BP) on Kodiak
Island and the Pacific Coast of the Alaska Peninsula. Kachemak period sites date from 1,000 to
3,500 yrs BP. The Late Prehistoric period (500 to 1,000 BP) follows the Kachemak period and
1 Much of this section is derived from de Laguna (1956), Mobley et al. (1990) and L. Yarborough (2000)
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 7 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
leads to the Historic Period from 500 BC to the present. The modern historic people encountered
by EuroAmerican explorers and the Russian occupiers of Prince William Sound have ancestral
ties to these prehistoric cultures.
3.2 Prehistory of Prince William Sound
Prior to the EVOS event in 1989, the cultural sequence for Prince William Sound was known
largely from Frederica de Laguna’s (de Laguna 1956) pioneering work in the 1930s.
Excavations at the Palugvik site (COR-00001) and the Palutat rockshelter (SEW-00048) yielded
four stratigraphic units covering at least 500 years of occupation predating European contact.
Radiocarbon dates of 1753 + 105 and 1727 ± 105 BP (Rainey and Ralph 1959:358) were
obtained from the deepest layer at Palugvik. De Laguna defined four cultural stages in Prince
William Sound based on (1) diagnostic artifacts; (2) European trade goods presence or absence;
(3) skeletal evidence of introduced European diseases; (4) degree of bone and shell
decomposition in middens; and, (5) characteristics of trees regrowing in abandoned areas.
Mobley et al. (1990:60) depicted these attributes in table form, adding information from the work
done by Hassen (1978:37-38), and Workman (1980). That table is reproduced and updated as
Table 1 below. The artifacts and features characteristic of each time period demonstrate the
range of elements that can be predicted to occur within Prince William Sound archaeological
sites.
Table 1. Diagnostic Attributes of Cultural Stages in Prince William Sound.
DIAGNOSTIC ATTRIBUTES OF CULTURAL STAGES IN PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND
Period Date Diagnostic Attributes
Historic after AD 1783 Appearance of small, “Glacier Island” trade beads and other
European goods associated with the beginning of Russian
expansion into the North Pacific and PWS. Human bones
with evidence of European-introduced diseases. Christian
burial practices.
Historic mines, tunnels, shafts, and related equipment.
Log cabins and dimension lumber shelters.
Cultural Modified Trees (CMTs). Metal objects.
Protohistoric undated - but
possibly 300 to
1,000 BP
Same assemblage as Younger Prehistoric with large blue
“Cook type” beads and presumably some iron artifacts.
Younger
Prehistoric
undated – but
perhaps 1,000 to
1750 BP
Less shell decomposition, emphasis on grooved splitting adze
use, appearance of stone picks, absence of European trade
goods. Very small adze blades or scraper, small ground
chisels, barbed slate points, socket pieces with plain bases,
presence of war clubs, presence of native copper. Abundant
amounts of fire-cracked rock (implies sweatbath use).
Older
Prehistoric
before 1750 BP Decomposed shells in middens. Incised stone plaques, a
relative abundance of planning adzes and smaller
woodworking tools, preference for simple stemmed slate
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 8 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
“Late
Kachemak”
blades and slender, awl-like slate points over barbed slate
blades. Chipped ulu-shaped scrapers, socket pieces with
bifurcated bases. Absence of native copper. Greater
abundance of bone or shell beads, scarcity of fire-cracked
rock.
Adapted from Mobley et al. 1990:60, table 8 after Hassen 1978, and Workman 1980.
Controlled excavations at the multicomponent Uqciut Village site (SEW-00056) in the 1980s and
1990s provided additional information about the culture sequence in Prince William Sound (L.
Yarborough 2000). Trade beads dominate the artifact assemblage by numbers (1655 of 2200
artifacts). Lithics include slate and greywacke material shaped into hammerstones, grinding
slabs, and broken and unfinished objects. Small amounts of shell and bone are present, and large
amounts of firecracked rock. The assemblage and radiocarbon dates suggest relations with the
Palugvik 1-2 and 3-4 levels.
Linda Yarbrough examined recent faunal collections for Palugvik, the type-site for Prince
William Sound, comparing them to de Laguna’s collections from the 1930s. She found a greater
abundance of fish species in the zooarchaeolgical record, with cod and salmon predominating.
Rockfish, flatfish and other fish taxa are present along with pinniped, bird, land mammal and
some whale remains. During the Little Ice Age (600-200 BP), use of harbor seal and cod
increased, while salmon use decreased (Yarborough 2000).
Researchers from a number of institutions conducted archaeological investigations throughout
Prince William Sound in the 1970s through the present time. Most of these are well outside the
project area. M. Yarborough and L. Yarborough (n.d., 1998) and L. Yarborough (2000:68)
reviewed that research, which is incorporated by reference. Research closer to the project area is
reviewed below under Results.
3.3 Ethnographic and Historical Overview
The study area in northeast Prince William Sound-Valdez Arm is part of the larger Pacific
Eskimo culture area. The Pacific Eskimo are identified now as the Alutiiq people, who were
variously identified (and mis-identified) in the literature as Pacific Eskimo, Chugach Eskimo,
Aleuts, Chugach, Sugpiaq, or Sugtestun. The Alutiiq culture area extends from the lower Copper
River to the middle of the Alaska Peninsula including Prince William Sound and the Kodiak
Archipelago. The outer reaches of lower Cook Inlet were occupied historically by Dena’ina
Athabascan Indians. Neighboring groups surrounding the Pacific Eskimos included the Tlingit,
Eyak, Interior Athabascans, Dena’ina, Aleut (Unangan), and Yup’ik-speaking Eskimos.
Relations between the groups ranged from peaceful to warring. As a result, all groups shared
some traits through trade, ceremonial exchanges, and occasional marriages. At the same time,
language differences and ownership of lands by use and occupancy formed clear boundaries
between the aboriginal people of the region. Systems of lineage affiliation and social rankings
formed the basis of social organization. The cultures of Alaska’s southern coast and
southeastern panhandle were stratified societies with classes of elite people, commoners, and
slaves (Crowell, Steffian, and Pullar 2001).
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 9 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Exploration of Prince William Sound began with British, Spanish and Russian parties in the late
1700s. By the 1800s, the Russians had established their presence in Prince William Sound, but
made only a few tentative trips into the Interior via the Copper River route. The Native
settlement at Nuchek was the largest in Prince William Sound. The Russians added a trading
post, “Fort Saint Constantine and Helen” at the site in the 1790s. Hostile Ahtna kept most
Euroamericans out of the Copper River basin until the early American period after 1867. Early
Russian explorers, fur traders, and clergy had a significant impact on the people of the Prince
William Sound region, as evidenced by the present-day prominence of the Russian Orthodox
Church and of "Russian" surnames. During the American period, copper mines and the
commercial fishing industry brought many non-Natives to the Prince William Sound region. The
Euro-American presence resulted in continued contact between Native cultures and non-Native
beliefs and values. Native religious and social practices changed under the influence of Russian
Orthodox teaching.
American government interests in exploring, mapping, and defending the distant territory led to a
number of exploration efforts. Army Captain Abercrombie failed to ascend the Copper River in
1884, but entered the Interior from the Valdez Arm. In 1885, U.S. Army Lieutenant Henry Allen
began explorations in March at the Copper River mouth, traveled up the Copper, crossed the
Alaska Range through Suslota Pass, then traveled down the Tetlin to the Tanana, descended the
Tanana to the Yukon, and explored the Koyukuk River drainage before finally reaching the
Yukon River mouth (Allen 1887). In 1898, Mendenhall’s geological expedition reached the
Tanana valley via the Copper and Delta rivers. His party ventured as far as Jarvis Creek but
failed to reach the Tanana before having to return to the Copper River (Sherwood 1992).
While in operation from 1898 to the 1920s, Ft. Liscum supported the operation and maintenance
of the WAMCATS telegraph line linking Valdez with other military posts throughout Alaska, as
well as with Seattle, and the continental United States. Valdez was a critical link in this
communication system, as submarine cables and the landlines converged at Valdez. Valdez
offered an “All-American” route to the gold fields of the Klondike, Fairbanks, and Fortymile
areas, allowing stampeders to avoid the difficulties of hauling goods over Chilkoot Pass on Lynn
Canal (Brown 1975).
Valdez (Old Valdez, Copper City, VAL-122) flourished as a year-round, open-water port for
gold seekers entering Alaska. A party of 22 Klondikers arrived at the locality called “Swanport”
in November, 1897, intent on crossing into the Interior over the Valdez Glacier (Brown 1975:8).
The Alaska Commercial Company and the Pacific Steam Whaling Company used the head of
Valdez Arm to offload passengers from their ships arriving from the west coast. Travelers to the
Interior over Valdez Glacier, Klutina Lake and into the Copper River basin faced difficult,
dangerous conditions, resulting in many lost outfits as well as lost lives. A better overland route
to Interior Alaska and the Klondike was needed (Lethcoe and Lethcoe 1996).
The Richardson Highway began as a result of the U.S. Army’s actions in 1898, which sent
Captain W. Abercrombie to find an all-American overland route to the American gold fields in
Alaska (Abercrombie 1900). Named for General Wilds P. Richardson, it is considered the
oldest highway in the state (Alaska Route 4). In the spring of 1899, construction began on a 5-
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 10 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
foot-wide pack trail out of Valdez, which eventually became the first part of the Richardson
Highway. By the end of the summer, 40 miles had been completed, and over 90 additional miles
had been surveyed and cleared. By 1901, the Army had completed the Trans-Alaska Military
Road, which extended from Valdez to Eagle City. In 1902, gold discoveries in the Tanana
Valley encouraged the creation of a spur trail from Gulkana on the Valdez-Eagle route to
Fairbanks. This Valdez-Fairbanks Trail became the northern portion of the Richardson
Highway. Summer and winter travel was common on the Valdez to Fairbanks trail. By 1903,
the construction of a telegraph line from Eagle at Fort Egbert to the mouth of the Goodpaster
River, under the supervision of Lt. Billy Mitchell of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, was complete.
The Washington/Alaska Military Cable and Telegraph System (WAMCATS) linked Alaska to
the continental United States. Stations were also at Tanana Crossing (later known as Tanacross),
Fort Liscum in Valdez, St. Michael on Norton Sound, and other maintenance and repair station
locations (Mitchell 1982; Antonson and Hanable 1992).
The Board of Road Commissioners was organized in 1904, and General Wilds P. Richardson
supervised the early upgrades from pack trail to wagon trail. The upgrades to the over 400 mile
trail were a yearly undertaking, and by 1913, an Army truck successfully traveled the route from
Valdez to Fairbanks and back, covering about 50 miles per day. But, by 1910, the Copper River
and Northwestern Railway to serve the copper mines at McCarthy (Kennecott) reached Chitina
from Cordova. Traffic through Valdez to Fairbanks diminished considerably, as travelers could
go by rail from Cordova to Chitina, and then transfer to overland transportation from Chitina to
Copper Center, and on to Fairbanks. By 1919, 90% of highway traffic was by motorized vehicle,
and upgrades to accommodate faster vehicular traffic necessitated work camps; a camp was
located at Big Delta in 1919. The completion of the Alaska Railroad in 1923 offered another
year-round transportation route from tidewater to the Interior, further diminishing Valdez’ and
the Trail’s importance. Highway maintenance was financed by tolls on commercial vehicles,
beginning in 1933, and the highway was finally paved in 1957 (Naske 1982; Antonson and
Hanable 1985).
Fort Liscum was constructed in 1900 by soldiers from Company G, Seventh Infantry under the
command of Captain James B. Jackson. By winter, 1900, 21 buildings were constructed
including barracks for enlisted men, officers’ quarters, a hospital, storehouses, a stable and a
bakery. A dock facility for the post launch enabled rapid transport to Valdez town, four miles
north across Valdez Arm, weather permitting. The Fort provided an American presence in
Alaska, and its personnel constructed, operated, and maintained the telegraph line from Valdez
northward to the Gakona area. With the completion of the Alaska Railroad from Seward to
Fairbanks, and the installation of wireless and submarine cable communication systems, the
Fort’s operation was redundant. The Fort was closed in July, 1922 and the some of the buildings
appraised and sold.
Allison Creek was a source of water for the Fort. Michael Brown (1975:53-54) described the
water and sewer system constructed in 1906.
Completed in 1906, the new water system eliminated the old method of
transporting water by cart to post buildings and disposing garbage and refuse in
dry earth closets. A four-inch main conducted water from Allison Creek to
distributing pipes with a pressure of about seventy-five pounds to the square inch.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 11 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Barracks, officers’ quarters, the hospital, and other buildings were thus equipped
with enamel bath tubs and wash bowls, shower baths in the barracks, wash sinks,
and closets. Two sewer mains drained into the bay near the limit of low tide. Fire
hydrants were conveniently located about the grounds. Water pressure at the
lower levels of the reservation was sufficient to throw two fair streams of water
over two-story buildings. At higher points, the results were not satisfactory. By
1913, hydroelectric dams with an aggregate rated capacity of 700 horsepower
were operating in Solomon Gulch, providing electricity for lights, heat, etc. for
the post. (Ellsworth and Davenport 1914:178).
The Alaska Water, Light, and Telephone Company built a small hydro-plant near
tidewater at Solomon Creek. Alfred Iles rented water for its operation from 1907 to
1912. Another powerhouse was built on the right bank of Solomon Creek below the dam
but was abandoned in 1943. The tidewater powerhouse ceased operation in 1949 or
1950. Ownership of the Federal Power Commission license changed hands several times
until the CVEA Solomon Gulch dam and power project were built in the 1970s.
Examination of the U.S. surveys referenced in the documents revealed no structures in
the vicinity of Allison Creek, except the wagon road that crossed through Fort Liscum,
and the telegraph line near the shore from Fort Liscum to Valdez (Robert W. Retherford
Associates 1975:49-51 and FERC 1978:2-28).
After Fort Liscum’s abandonment, several parties attempted to obtain the buildings through gift
or purchase. By the late 1920s, the General Land Office (USDOI, GLO 1929) appraised the
buildings. GLO also surveyed the Fort Liscum reservation (U.S. Survey 1746) for transfer to the
Alaska Road Commission. The ARC removed and utilized some of the dilapidated buildings
and razed others. Mr. Andy S. Day, Sr. bought some of the buildings and homesteaded the
surveyed land in the 1930s. .The family is reported to have constructed a hand salmon cannery
at the site (Wooley 1994:10). Dayville Road from the Richardson Highway across the Lowe
River to the Alyeska Terminal is named after the Day family.
In the 1970s and 1980s, construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS-now referred
to as Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, or APSC) and oil storage terminal impacted the
vicinity of the project area. These activities spurred several archaeological surveys and cultural
resource discoveries which are further detailed below in Results.
Construction of the TAPS oil terminal and storage facilities demolished what remained of Fort
Liscum and the Day homestead. An Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks, Office of History and Archaeology memo indicated that the Fort Liscum Historic Site
(VAL-00055) had “...been totally destroyed (seen by myself [R. Greg Dixon] in 1975, and
therefore contains no site integrity” (Dixon, March 24, 1981 in Brown 1975).
Disasters, both natural and man-made, have devastated the region. A smallpox epidemic
decimated the community of Nuchek in the early 1900s. After depopulation, Nuchek’s
prominence as a trading center and gathering ground declined. The Spanish Influenza after
World War I and a pneumonia epidemic in the 1930s also had a significant impact on the region.
By the time that detailed anthropological studies took place, some 150 years of Euro-American
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 12 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
presence had altered many aboriginal traits (Birket-Smith 1953). The 1964 Good Friday
Earthquake and subsequent tsunami washed away many of the residents and most of the
buildings in Chenega. Valdez and Seward suffered extensive damage and loss of life. The
community of Valdez relocated from the floodplain of the Lowe River to its present townsite
following the earthquake. The oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in March,
1989, only seven miles from Tatitlek. The Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) released an estimated
11 million gallons of oil which spread across Prince William Sound to lower Cook Inlet and on
to Kodiak Island and beyond.
3.4 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
The passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 settled aboriginal
claims to land in Alaska. The act transferred title to 40 million acres of land and nearly a billion
dollars over a ten year period to Alaska Natives. The Alaska land settlement was handled
differently than any other that the U.S. government had reached. Historically, the federal
government had settled Indian affairs by executing treaties and establishing reservations for
Native American tribes. The model in Alaska was to not settle directly with tribes (or Alaska
Native counterparts, villages). Instead, the U.S. government structured the settlement with
federal legislation and established for-profit business corporations for Alaska Natives at village
and regional levels. To implement ANCSA, the state of Alaska was divided into twelve
geographical regions, based largely on the cultural affiliations within broad regions throughout
the state. The for-profit regional native corporations roughly approximated aboriginal culture
areas. Valdez lies within the Chugach Alaska Corporation boundaries.
While there are many important consequences of the ANCSA legislation, the management of
subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering is one of the most important. The communities of
Prince William Sound are traditional fishing communities. Subsistence gathering of fish, game,
and plants for use during the winter are activities which dominate the summers. Villagers gather
subsistence foods not just for the sake of feeding themselves, but as a social and ceremonial
activity which involves entire extended families. Different family members have different duties
depending on their age, gender, and skills. After harvesting and processing, subsistence food is
shared within and between communities (Wolfe and Bosworth 1994). Studies of subsistence in
Valdez indicate that non-Natives participate in subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering at
lower levels than Natives (Fall et al. 2006; Fogarty et al. 2000).
There are seven coastal communities in Prince William Sound and on the southwestern tip of the
Kenai Peninsula with significant Native populations. They are the constituent communities of
the Chugach Alaska Native Corporation. From west to east these are Port Graham, Nanwalek
(formerly English Bay), Seward, Chenega Bay, Eyak (near Cordova), Tatitlek, and Valdez.
Abundant natural resources, especially fisheries and marine mammals, combined with
commercial fishing, and permanent and seasonal employment support the region’s population.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 13 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Section Organization
This section presents information on: (1) the known cultural resources within and immediately
adjacent to the project area; (2) summarizes the previous cultural resources work undertaken
within and adjacent to the project area; and, (3) identifies the Indian tribes that may attach
religious and cultural significance to historic properties within the project boundary or in the
project vicinity. A survey of available literature did not identify any available information on
Indian traditional cultural and religious properties in the project vicinity. However, it does not
appear that any specific research on this sensitive subject has been undertaken. Figure 1 shows
the location of structures that were present on the former Fort Liscum property on the left (west)
bank of Allison Creek during a cadastral survey in the 1950s (U.S. Survey 3328). The
construction of the Alyeska marine terminal destroyed these properties.
4.2 Results
The known cultural resources within and immediately adjacent to the project area are listed in
Table 2 below. The sites are listed on the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database
maintained by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office. This table fulfills the FERC
requirement listed below:
(A)Identification of any historic or archaeological site in the proposed project
vicinity, with particular emphasis on sites or properties either listed in, or
recommended by the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places;
Table 2. AHRS (2009) Sites Within and Adjacent to Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project.
Site # Site Name/Location Current Project Effects
VAL-054 Midas Camp, about 0.5 mile south of Solomon Gulch None. Probably inundated by
Solomon Gulch project.
VAL-055 Fort Liscum (Dayville), south shore Valdez Arm at site of
present TAPS oil terminal facility.
None. Site destroyed by
construction of TAPS terminal.
VAL-093 Solomon Dam None. Site inundated by
Solomon Gulch project.
VAL-090 Granby Roadhouse, south of Fort Liscum, near Valdez.
Exact location uncertain. Never ground verified.
Probably none
Source: AHRS database, October 2009. Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
Figure 1 depicts U.S. Survey number 3328, Alaska, situated on the south shore of Valdez
Bay, about 4 miles southwesterly from Valdez (USDOI, GLO 1955). Though not labeled
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 14 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
on the survey, the northward flowing stream in the center of the survey plat is Allison
Creek.
The TAPS pipeline and the Alyeska marine terminal are in close proximity to the project
area. Indeed, the TAPS pipeline crosses Allison Creek not far upstream from its mouth.
The Environmental Impact Statement for the TAPS Right-of-Way lease renewal in 2002
discussed the pipeline and terminal and is worth repeating in its entirety here.
“One historic structure worth noting is the TAPS itself. The construction
of the TAPS occurred following the discovery of large oil deposits in Prudhoe
Bay on Alaska’s North Slope in 1968. A pipeline was judged as the best method
for moving oil from the North Slope to tankers bound for the lower 48 states.
Numerous legal controversies involving land rights, Alaska Native rights, and
environmental issues delayed pipeline construction. The controversy over
whether the pipeline would be constructed ended with passage of the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act in November of 1973. Construction of the
TAPS began in March 1975, and the pipeline began carrying oil in June 1977.
The TAPS consists of 800 mi of pipeline (about 420 mi of which is elevated and
the remainder is belowground), 11 pump stations, and the Valdez Marine
Terminal, where the oil is transferred to tankers. Pipeline operation has continued
uninterrupted since 1977, with only minor shutdowns for repairs.
An historical evaluation of the TAPS has not been conducted. However,
because of its place in history as an example of remarkable engineering and
construction over a short period of time, its central role in the economy of Alaska,
and its contribution to the domestic oil industry, the TAPS infrastructure could be
considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP.” (USDOI, BLM
2002:3.26-6)
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 15 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Figure 1. U.S. Survey 3328 Alaska, June 8, 1955.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 16 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
4.3 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys
This section reviews the previous cultural resource surveys in the vicinity of the project
area to fulfill the FERC requirement cited below:
(B) Existing discovery measures, such as surveys, inventories, and limited
subsurface testing work, for the purpose of locating, identifying, and assessing
the significance of historic and archaeological resources that have been
undertaken within or adjacent to the project boundary…
The literature review did not identify any specific information concerning archaeology or
cultural resources surveys in the project area prior to 1970. U.S. Surveys conducted for
cadastral purposes before 1970 were reviewed, as described above.
William B. Workman (1970:12) examined the area being cleared for placement of the
Alyeska storage tanks in August, 1970. He commented that the clearing work was
proceeding “…south of the remaining buildings of old Fort [sic] Liscomb.” But he did
not document the number or condition of those buildings.
By 1975, Brown (1975) reported that no physical features of Fort Liscum (VAL-00055)
remained following demolition of the site, and construction of the TAPS oil terminal
facility. This was confirmed by observations made by R. G. Dixon in 1981 (in Brown
1975), who worked on TAPS archaeology surveys in the area in the mid-1970s.
G. Clark led the archaeology survey efforts for TAPS construction between Hogan Hill
and Valdez in 1974 and 1975 (Clark 1974a, 1974b, 1975). Their survey efforts did not
identify any cultural resources in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing at Allison Creek.
Lobdell (1978) surveyed the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project and transmission line
for cultural resources. We focus only on the Solomon Gulch research locale in this
report, as the transmission line northward is outside of the project area. Lobdell
conducted subsurface testing in the Solomon Lake and Gulch area. No prehistoric sites
were discovered. Historic remains included evidence of the previous hydroelectric power
facilities (VAL-054) and Midas Camp (VAL-054). The hydroelectric remnants included
a caretaker’s cabin, the mostly rotted remains of the old penstock, the abandoned turbine
and generator at the old powerhouse, and the original concrete dam on Solomon Gulch
(VAL-093). Midas Camp included the flattened lumber remains of ten to 15 structures,
and portions of an aerial tram system (support towers) used to reach the mine, which
operated between 1914 and the 1920’s.
The Environmental Report for the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project (Robert W.
Retherford Associates 1975:49-51 and FERC 1978:2-28) presents historical information
about the development of and legal disputes surrounding the Solomon Gulch
hydroelectric power plant constructed in the early twentieth century. The General Land
Office prepared U.S. Survey number 642 for John F. Rice’s application for a Soldier’s
Additional Homestead (USDOI, GLO 1902, amended 1907). Alfred Iles filed mineral
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 17 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
claim number 894 in 1905 (USDOI, GLO, MS 894). The survey plats show a flume, a
house, a power house, and a wagon road on the claim. The wagon road led to Fort
Liscum, located to the west, through which Allison Creek flowed. Legal actions
continued between the parties until 1919 “when all unacted upon patents were cancelled.”
A concrete dam was still present in the 1970s.
Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and John E. Lobdell surveyed the proposed TAGS LNG plant and
marine terminal area at Anderson Bay, west of the TAPS terminal facility (Hall 1990).
Their review of the then-available literature on cultural resources and subsistence
suggested that due to recent deglaciation, Valdez Arm was a low probability area for
early prehistoric site locations. Wooley (1994) noted that absent more geoarchaeological
research in Valdez Arm, no age period for prehistoric sites can be dismissed outright.
Wooley (1994:7, 10) investigated the effects of the Eastern Lion oil spill response on
cultural resources. He noted historic wooden features approximately 120m west of
Allison Creek that may be related either to Fort Liscum or to the historic cannery that
operated after Fort Liscum’s abandonment. Two areas of wood are present in the
intertidal zone next to a small stand of spruce trees. Area 1 is a horizontal decomposing
wood feature with rusted iron spikes eroding out of the bank into the intertidal zone.
Area 2 is approximately 50m west of Area 1. Area 2 consists of a series of vertical
timbers eroding into the intertidal zone. Wooley did not conclude whether the features
were remnants from Fort Liscum or the old Dayville hand salmon cannery
The State of Alaska upgraded Dayville Road in the early 1970s to support construction of
the TAPS marine terminal. The road was reconstructed in 2004 to widen it, create more
parking for RVs and fishing access, and to provide tourism experiences viewing fish and
other wildlife at the recently constructed Solomon Gulch hatchery. We could not
determine if cultural resources surveys were conducted prior to these three construction
projects.
4.4 Identification of Indian Tribes
FERC requirements to identify interested Indian tribes are cited below:
(C) Identification of Indian tribes that may attach religious and cultural significance to
historic properties within the project boundary or in the project vicinity; as well as
available information on Indian traditional cultural and religious properties, whether on
or off of any federally-recognized Indian reservation.
The names and addresses of the Native organizations in the immediate project area are:
Chugach Alaska Corp.
3800 Centerpoint Drive
Suite 601
Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 563-8866
(907) 563-8402
www.chugach-ak.com
Valdez Native Tribe
1750 Zurich Loop Road
PO Box 1108
Valdez, AK 99686
(907) 835-4951
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 18 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Other Native and non-Native organizations may have an interest in the project although their
present organizational boundaries may lie outside the immediate project area. At least the
following organizations should be included in the initial consultation stage:
Ahtna, Inc.
P.O. Box 649
Glennallen, AK 99588
(907) 822-3476
(907) 822-3495
www.ahtna-inc.com/
Chugach Heritage
Foundation
3800 Centerpoint Drive
Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 261-0386
1-800-858-2768
Alaska Native Heritage
Center
8800 Heritage Center Drive
Anchorage, AK 99506
(907) 330-8000
(907) 330-8030
www.alaskanative.net
Eyak Corporation
Box 340
Cordova, AK 99574
(907) 424-7161
(907) 424-5161
Mr. John Johnson, chair
eyakcorp@ctak.net
Tatitlek Corporation
Box 650
Cordova, AK 99574
(907) 424-3777
(907) 424-3773
Mr. Lloyd Allen, chair
Chenega Corporation
4000 Old Seward Highway
Suite 101
Anchorage, AK
(907) 277-5706
(907) 277-5700
Mr. Charles Totemoff, chair
Ahtna Heritage Foundation
PO Box 213
Glennallen, AK 99588
(907) 822-5778
(907) 822-5338
www.ahtna-
inc.com/heritage_foundation.html
4.5 Identification of Other Interested Parties
The parties and organizations listed below may have information about, or hold an interest in the
cultural resources in the vicinity of the Allison Lake Hydroelectric project.
USDA, Forest Service
Chugach National Forest
3301 C Street, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 743-9500
USDOI Bureau of Indian
Affairs
Alaska Regional Archeology
3601 C Street, Suite 1100
Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 271-4003
Valdez Historical Society, Inc.
705 N.Glacier Dr.
Valdez, AK 99686
mailing address: PO Box 6.
Valdez, AK 99686
(907) 835-4367 and 4377
USDOI, National Park
Service
240 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 644
Judith Bittner, SHPO
Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Office of History
and Archaeology
550 West 7th Ave., Suite
1310
Valdez Museum and Historical
Archive
PO Box 8
Valdez, AK 99686
(907) 835-2764
(907) 835-5800
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 19 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Anchorage, AK 99501-3565
Phone: (907) 269-8715 or
269-8720
Fax: (907) 269-8908
Judith.Bittner@dnr.state.ak.us
http://www.valdezmuseum.org/
USDOI, Bureau of Land
Management
Glennallen Field Office
PO Box 147
Glennallen, AK 99588
(907) 822-3217
(907) 822-7335
Attn: Cultural Resource
Specialist
Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company
900 East Benson Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99504
(907) 787-8700
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 20 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
Northern Land Use Research, Inc. conducted a cultural resource investigation of the Allison
Lake Hydroelectric project. The investigation included background literature research, and the
preparation of this report. No field survey was conducted. No agencies or individuals were
contacted during this literature review, except that Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
(OHA) staff provided assistance in locating unpublished reports held at the State Historic
Preservation Office.
A total of four sites are known from the literature in the vicinity of the Allison Lake
Hydroelectric project. Two of them, VAL-00054, Midas Camp and VAL-00093 Solomon Dam
are within the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project area and should not be affected by the
Allison Lake project, if the sites still even exist. VAL-00055, Fort Liscum (Dayville) reportedly
was completely demolished during the construction of the Alyeska marine terminal facility in the
1970s. It is possible that some features relating to the Fort and subsequent homesteading and
cannery operations exist in upland areas. VAL-00090 Granby Roadhouse is listed in the AHRS
on the basis of its presence on a 1923 National Geographic map (Smith 1974:67). Granby
Roadhouse has never been field verified as to its location or condition.
The Alyeska marine terminal and TAPS pipeline are not listed in the AHRS. The TAPS pipeline
crosses Allison Creek.
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Plan to Do a Reconnaissance Level Field Survey
This literature review suggests that there might be previously unrecorded prehistoric and/or
historic resources within the Allison Lake hydroelectric project area. A reconnaissance level
survey (“Level I”) survey of the project area with limited sub-surface testing should be
undertaken at the earliest opportunity.
5.2.2 Initiate Consultation under Section 106 and FERC Guidance
The Section 106 process for the identification and evaluation of cultural resources includes
consultation with interested parties throughout the project’s planning and development. One
cultural resources practitioner sums up this process by suggesting consult early, consult with
everyone interested, consult with sincerity, and consult often. Federal heritage laws do not call
for preserving every historic property. They do call for flexibility and that historic preservation
concerns be given fair consideration in planning activities (King 2009).
Sections 4.4 and 4.5 above listed the known parties that should, at a minimum, be involved in the
consultative process.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 21 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
5.2.3 Human Remains
Because archaeological materials, features, and other potentially significant cultural remains are
commonly buried, they may not be identifiable from the surface or revealed in limited subsurface
sampling. Should indications of additional potentially significant cultural resources be
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work in that area should cease until the
discovery can be fully evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and the Alaska SHPO notified. In
the event that human remains or other indications of burials are found on federal or tribal lands
during ground-disturbing activities, the protocol established under the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) must be followed. Immediate steps should be taken
to secure and protect the human remains and cultural items, including stabilization or covering,
as appropriate. The Project Manager should immediately notify both the SHPO and the local
Native American organizations likely to be culturally affiliated with the discovered remains.
A detailed protocol for the discovery of unexpected cultural resources and human remains should
be developed as part of the cultural resources field survey and assessment program and in
consultation with Tribes and other interested parties.
5.3 Limitations
This project was carried out, and this report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted
professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar
localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Hatch
Acres-Water and Wind Power, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Alaska State
Historic Preservation Officer, interested Tribes and Native American organizations, and other
authorized agencies or individuals for specific application to the referenced project. It should be
noted that NLUR relied upon written information and/or verbal accounts provided by the
agencies and individuals indicated in the report. NLUR can only relay this information and
cannot be responsible for its accuracy or completeness. This report is not meant to represent a
legal opinion.
We do not warrant that we have identified all potentially significant cultural resources present at
the Allison Lake Hydroelectric project through this literature review. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made. Any questions regarding our work and this report, the
presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be
referred to Project Archaeologist Richard Stern in Anchorage (907) 345-2457 or to NLUR
Project Manager Burr J. Neely, or Principal Investigator-NLUR Peter M. Bowers in Fairbanks at
(907) 474-9684.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 22 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
6.0 REFERENCES
Abercrombie, W.R.
1900 Survey and Opening Up of a Military Road from Valdez to Copper Center, 1899.
In Compilation of Narratives of Explorations in Alaska. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
AHRS (Alaska Heritage Resources Survey)
2009 ALaska Heritage Resources Survey. electronic database maintained by Alaska
Office of History and Archaeology. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage, AK.
Allen, Lt. Henry T.
1900 A Military Reconnaissance of the Copper River Valley in 1885. In Compilation of
Narratives of Explorations in Alaska. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Antonson, Joan M. and William S. Hanable
1992 Alaska's Heritage, Unit 4--Human History: 1867 to Present. Alaska Historical
Commission Studies in History No. 133 vol II. Alaska Historical Society for the Alaska
Department of Education, Alaska Historical Comission, Anchorage.
Birket-Smith, Kaj
1953 The Chugach Eskimo. Nationalmuseets skrifter. Etnografisk række;
Nationalmuseets skrifter. v. 6. Nationalmuseets publikationsfond, Kobenhavn.
Brown, C. Michael
1975 Fort Liscum, Alaska: An Historical Summary of the Army in Prince William
Sound, 1898-1922. Office of Statewide Cultural Programs, Alaska Division of Parks,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK.
Burch, Ernest S., Jr.
2005 Sociocultural Anthropology in Alaska, 1972-2002: An Overview. Alaska Journal
of Anthropology 3:(1)9-46.
Clark, Gerald H.
1974 Archaeological Survey and Excavations in the Copper River Basin. Paper
presented at the 3rd annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, March
26-27, Anchorage, AK.
1974 Archaeological Survey and Excavations Along the Southernmost portion of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Final Report to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company by
Alaska Methodist University, Anchorage, AK.
1975 Archaeology in the Copper River Basin: Survey and Excavations along the
Southern Portion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (Valdez to Hogan Hill), 1974.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 23 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Crowell, Aron L., Amy F. Steffian, and Gordon L. Pullar, editors
2001 Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People. University of
Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK.
de Laguna, Frederica
1956 Chugach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince William Sound, Alaska.
Publications in Anthropology, No. 13. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Dixon, E. James, Jr.,
1999 Bones, Boats and Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of Western
North America. 1st ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Ellsworth, C. E. and R. W. Davenport
1914 Preliminary report on a water-power reconnaissance in south-central Alaska. In
Mineral resources of Alaska, report on progress of investigations in 1913, pp. 155-193.
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Esdale, Julie A. and Jeffrey T. Rasic
2008 Introduction, "Current Prespectives on the Northern Archaic". Arctic
Anthropology 45:(2)1-2.
Fall, James A., editor and with contributions by James A. Fall , Robert J. Walker, Ronald T.
Stanek, William E. Simeone, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, Philippa Coiley-Kenner, Liz
Williams, Brian Davis, Theodore Krieg, Bridget Easley and David Koster,,
2006 Update on the Status of Subsistence Uses in Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Area
Communities, 2003. Technical Paper no. 312. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project
Final Report (Restoration Project 040471). Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK.
Fall, James A.
2009 Long-Term Consequences of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill for Subsistence Uses of
Fish and Wildlife. In Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects
Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska, edited by S. R. Braund
and J. Kruse, pp. 245-278. Alaska OCS Study MMS 2009-006. USDOI, Minerals
Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK.
Fall, James A., Lee Stratton, Philippa A. Coiley, Louis Brown, Charles J. Utermohle and
Gretchen Jennings
1996 Subsistence Harvests and Uses in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek in the Year
Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Technical Paper Number 199. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
1978 Final Environmental Impact Statement: Solomon Gulch Project No. 2742-Alaska.
Office of Public Information, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 24 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Feldman, Kerry D., Steve J. Langdon and David C. Natcher
2005 Northern Engagement: Alaskan Society and Applied Cultural Anthropology,
1973-2003.Alaska Journal of Anthropology 33:(1)121-156.
Fogarty, Mary E., Phillippa Collety Kenner, Lisa Ka'aihue and Rita A. Miraglia
2000 Valdez and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Technical Memorandum No.. 4. Report
submitted to USDOI, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, AK.
Hall, Edwin S., Jr.
1990 TAGS: An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed TAGS LNG Plant and Marine
Terminal at Anderson Bay (Port Valdez). Technical Memorandum #37. Edwin Hall &
Associates, Brockport, NY.
Hanson, Dianne K.
2007 Cultural Resource Management in Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology
5:(2)1-16.
Hassen, Harold
1978 The Effect of European and American contact on the Chugach Eskimo of Prince
William Sound, Alaska, 1741-1930. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Milwaukee, Wis.
Kaplan, Lawrence D.
2005 Three Decades of Eskimo-Aleut Linguistics in Alaska: 1972 to 2002. Alaska
Journal of Anthropology 3:(1)181-189.
Kari, James
2005 Language Work in Alaskan Athabascan and Its Relationship to Alaskan
Anthropology.Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3:(1)105-120.
King, Thomas F.
2009 Our Unprotected Heritage. Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Cultural and
Natural Environment. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.
Lethcoe, Jim and Nancy Lethcoe
1996 Valdez Gold Rush Trails of 1898-99. Prince William Sound Books, Valdez, AK.
Lobdell, John E.
1978 An Archaeological Evaluation of the Lands to be Impacted by the Solomon Gulch
Project and the 138-kV Transmission Line: Valdez to Glennallen, Alaska. Anchorage
Community College, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK.
Mitchell, William L., Brig. Gen.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 25 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
1982 The Opening of Alaska 1901-1903. Cook Inlet Historical Society, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Mobley, Charles M., James C. Haggarty, Charles J. Utermohle, Morley Eldridge, Richard E.
Reanier, Aron Crowell, Bruce A. Ream, David R. Yesner, Jon M. Erlandson, Paul E.
Buck and with an appendix by William B. Workman and Karen Wood Workman
1990 The 1989 EXXON Valdez Cultural Resource Program. Exxon Shipping Company
and Exxon Company, USA, Anchorage, AK.
Naske, Claus-M
1982 The Alaska Board of Road Commissioners. In Transportation in Alaska's Past,
pp. 91-139. Office of History and Archaeology, Miscellaneous Publications, no. 30.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Anchorage, AK.
Odess, Daniel
2005 Introduction: The Arctic Small Tool Tradition Fifty Years On. Alaska Journal of
Anthropology 3:(2)5-16.
Parker, Patricia L.
1993 Traditional Cultural Properties - What You Do and How We Think. CRM
16:(Special Issue)1-4.
Picou, J. Steven, Cecilia Formichella, Brent K. Marshall and Catalina Arata
2009 Community Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Synthesis and Elaboration
of Social Science Research. In Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic
Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska, edited by S. R.
Braund and J. Kruse, pp. 279-310. Alaska OCS Study MMS 2009-006. USDOI,
Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK.
Rainey, Froelich G. and Elizabeth K. Ralph
1959 Radiocarbon Dating the Arctic. American Antiquity 24:(4)365-374.
Restoration Planning Work Group, Alaska Departments of Fish and Game, Natural Resources,
and Environmental Conservation, U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and
Interior and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1990 Restoration Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Proceedings of the Public
Symposium Held in Anchorage, Alaska, March 26-27, 1990, Anchorage, AK
Retherford, Robert W. and Associates
1975 Exhibit-W: Environmental Report for Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project, FPC
Project No. 2742. Applicant: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc., Glennallen,
Alaska Before the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.
Scott, G. Richard
2005 Physical Anthropology in Alaska, 1973-2003. Alaska Journal of Anthropology
3:(1)47-68.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 26 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Sherwood, Morgan B. and Preface by Terrence Cole
1992 Exploration of Alaska, 1865-1900. Fourth printing 1995 ed. University of Alaska
Press, Fairbanks, AK.
Simeone, William E.
2008 Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Black Bears and Mountain Goats in Prince
William Sound. Technical Paper no. 334. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division
of Subsistence, Anchorage, AK.
Smith, Michael E.
1974 Alaska's Historic Roadhouses. History and Archaeology Series, Miscellaneous
Publications No. 6. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, CO,
Alaska Division of Parks, Office of Statewide Cultural Programs, Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Renewal of the Federal Grant for
the Trans-Alaska Pipleline System (TAPS) Right-of-Way (ROW). USDOI, BLM and Joint
Pipeline Office, Anchorage, AK.
U.S. Department of the Interior, General Land Office
1902 U.S. Survey No. 642 of the S.A.. [Soldier's Additional] Homestead Claim of John
F. Rice. accessed online at http://plats.landrecords.info/, Anchorage, AK.
1907 U.S. Survey No. 642 Amended of the S. A. [Soldier's Additional] Homestead
Claim of John F. Rice. accessed online at http://plats.landrecords.info/, Anchorage, AK.
1909 Mineral Survey No. 894, Plat of the Claim of Alfred B. Iles, Known as the Ida
May Lode and the Solomon Falls and Huckleberry Placer Claims. accessed online at
http://plats.landrecords.info/, Anchorage, AK.
1929 U.S. Survey No. 1746 of the Fort Liscum Military Reservation. accessed online at
http://plats.landrecords.info/, Anchorage, AK.
1955 U.S. Survey No. 3328 Alaska, on the South Shore of Valdez Bay. accessed online
at http://plats.landrecords.info/, Anchorage, AK.
West, Frederick Hadleigh and William B. Workman
1970 A Preliminary Archeological Evaluation of the Southern Part of the Route of the
Proposed Trans Alaska Pipeline System: Valdez to Hogan's Hill. Alaska Methodist
University, Anchorage, AK.
Wheeler, Polly and Tom Thornton
2005 Subsistence Research in Alaska: A Thirty Year Retrospective. Alaska Journal of
Anthropology 3:(1)69-104.
Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Page 27 of 32 November, 2009
NLUR Project 09_908
Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert G. Bosworth
1994 Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 Update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK.
Wooley, Chris B.
1994 Cultural Resources Survey of Shorelines in Port Valdez, Alaska: Eastern Lion Oil
Spill Response. Report prepared for B.P. Exploration (Alaska), Inc. (BPXA). Ms. on file
with Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation, Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, AK.
Workman, William B.
1970 Report On An Archaeological Survey Of The Southern Part Of The Route Of The
Proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline System: Valdez To Hogan's Hill. Alaska Methodist
University, Anchorage, AK.
1980 Continuity and Change in the Prehistoric Record from Southern Alaska. In Alaska
Native Culture and History, edited by Y. Kotani and W. B. Workman, pp. 49-102. Senri
Ethnological Studies, No. 4. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan.
Yarborough, Linda Finn
1997 Exxon Valdez oil spill restoration project final report: site specific archaeological
restoration at SEW-440 and SEW-488 : Restoration Project 95007B, final report. U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska.
2000 Prehistoric and Early Historic Subsistence Patterns Along the North Gulf of
Alaska Coast. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI.
Yarborough, Michael R. and Linda Finn Yarborough
1998 Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of Prince WIlliam Sound and the Pacific Coast
of the Kenai Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 35:(1)132-145.
Yarborough, Michael R. and Linda F. Yarborough
n.d. Uqciuvit: A Multicomponent Site in Northwestern Prince William Sound, Alaska.
Report to USDA, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, prepared by Michael and
Linda Yarborough, Cultural Resource Consultants, Anchorage, AK.