HomeMy WebLinkAboutChignik Alaska Draft Small Hydropower Feasibility Report and Environemental Impact Statement 1984CHIGNIK, ALASKA
DRAFT SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY
REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT JULY 1984
1 i
, Corps
leers
'i. ~'ict
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
DRAFT SMALL HYDROPOWER INTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JUL Y 1984
/i) ~ :!
',Ii
Ih'\
) , ~,
, ; ';' ,1
SUMMARY
This interim study encompasses the communities of Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon, located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately
500 miles southwest of Anchorage. Electricity produced by diesel fired
generation was priced at approximately 30¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 1983
and is projected to increase as fuel costs continue to rise.
Three alternatives -conservation, wind, and hydropower -were
identified as having the potential for significantly reducing the overall
use of diesel fuel in the communities. In addition, provision for water
supply to the City of Chignik would be included in the hydropower
alternative.
The tentatively selected alternative is a 1,100-kilowatt (kW)
hydropower project on Indian Creek with provisions for continued
maintenance of the existing water supply system at Chignik would generate
about 3,250,000 kWh per year of usable energy for the community of
Chignik. The project first cost is estimated at $6,675,000 (October 1983
price levels). The annual cost is calculated at $604,000 (including
$30,000 for operation and maintenance) and annual benefits would be
$678,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.12. Total project first costs
would be shared in accordance with cost sharing and financing arrangements
satisfactory to the President and the Congress.
General Data
Project Installed Capacity
Number of Units
Size of Each Unit
Type of Turbine
Average Annual Energy
PERTINENT DATA
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Estimated Usable Energy (1995)
Equivalent Annual Usable Energyl/
Dependable Capacity
Penstock Length
Penstock Diameter
Gross Head
Design Head
Drainage Area at the Dam
Dam Height
1,100 kW
2
550 kW
Francis
5,118,000 kWh
3,180,000 kWh
3,250,000 kWh
o
5,500 ft.
34 in.
425 ft.
409 ft.
3 sq. mi.
24 ft.
Economic Data (50 yr. life, 8-1/8 percent interest, October 1983 Prices)
Project First Cost
Project Investment Cost
Project Total Annual Cost
Project Annual Benefit
Net Annual Benefit
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Estimated Energy Cost
$ 6,675,000
$ 6,929,000
$ 604,000
$ 678,000
$ 74,000
1.12 to 1
$ 0.186/kWh
1/ This is the amortized value of the sum of the annual usable-energy
over the life of the project.
INTRODUCTION
Chignik, Alaska
Table of Contents
• Authority 1
Scope of Study 1
Study Participants 1
Studies by Others 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS 3
Community Profile 3
Existing Facilities and Usage 7
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES 12
Area Description 12
Climate 13
Regional Geology and Topography 13
Streams 14
Biology 15
Anthropology and Archeology 15
PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES 16
Future Conditions 16
Study Objectives 25
PLAN FORMULATION 27
Evaluation of Alternative Plans 27
Comparison of Alternatives and Designation of the NED Plan 44
The Selected Plan 45
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION 48
RESPONSES TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS 49
CONCLUSIONS 51
TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 52
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EIS-l
APPENDIX A -TECHNICAL ANALYSIS A-l
APPENDIX B -404 (b) (1) EVALUATION B-1
APPENDIX C -COORDINATION ACT REPORT C-l
APPENDIX 0 -REPORT RECIPIENTS AND PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE 0-1
ii
INTRODUCTION
1.1 AUTHORITY
The evaluation of small scale hydroelectric systems was authorized by
a United States Senate Resolution dated 1 October 1976. That resolution
directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of
installing small prepackaged hydroelectric units in isolated communities
throughout Alaska. This report is in partial response to the study
resolution which reads as follows:
RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors be, and is hereby
requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on Rivers
and Harbors in Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 414, 83rd
Congress, 2nd Session; Southeastern Alaska, published as House
Document Numbered 501, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session; Cook Inlet and
Tributaries, Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 137, 84th
Congress, 1st Session; Southwestern Alaska, published as House
Document Numbered 99, 86th Congress, 1st Session; Yukon and Kuskokwim
River Basins, Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 218, 88th
Congress, 2nd Session; and other pertinent reports, with a view to
determining the advisability of modifying the existing plans with
particular reference to the feasibility of installing 5 megawatts or
less prepackaged hydroelectric plants to service isolated communities.
1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of this interim report is to formulate a detailed plan for
reducing the use of diesel fuel for electrical generation and water supply
needs. Consideration is given to the engineering, economic,
environmental, and social factors involved. These factors were in turn
weighted against the overall project development costs.
1.3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS
The following organizations and agencies assisted the Alaska District,
Corps of Engineers in preparation of this report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alaska Power Administration (Federal)
Alaska Power Authority (State)
Arctic Slope Technical Services
The cooperation of the people of the Chignik region and the Alaska
Packers Cannery is gratefully acknowledged.
1.4 STUDIES BY OTHERS
The power requirements and potential for hydropower development in the
Chignik area were also assessed in the following reports:
ItBristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential,lt Phase 1, December
1979. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power
Administration, by Robert W. Retherford Associates, Arctic District of
International Engineering Co., Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.
"Draft 1982, Community Profiles for the Villages of Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon.1I Prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs by Environmental Services Limited.
IIFeasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project,1I Vol. B, Final
Report, August 1982. Alaska Power Authority.
II (Draft) Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives: Akhiok, King
Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Sand Point,1I February 1981.
Alaska Power Authority.
"Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for
Chignik Lake,1I July 1982. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by
Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik and Associates.
IIReconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for the
Villages of Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False
Pass, Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag,
Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St.
Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak,lI July 1982. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority by Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik and
Associates.
"Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower
Projects -Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island,
Alaska," October 1980. Prepared for Department of the Army, Alaska
District, Corps of Engineers by Ebasco Services, Inc.
IITenakee Springs Water and Sewer Study,1t Working Draft, June 1983.
QUADRA Engineering, Inc.
2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE
2.1.1 Location and History
The villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are located on the
south shore of the Alaska Peninsula, bordering the Pacific Ocean
(See Figure 1). The villages are approximately 275 miles east of
Unimak Pass (the separation between the Alaska Peninsula and the
Aleutian Islands), approximately 450 miles southwest of Seward,
Alaska, and approximately 270 miles southwest of Kodiak Island. The
study area is located between 158 and 159 degrees west longitude and
56 and 57 degrees latitude.
Before Chignik, a Kaniagmiut Native village called Kaluak was
located there. The village was destroyed during the Russian fur
boom of the late 1700's. Chignik was established as a fishing
village and cannery in the second half of the 19th century. A post
office was established in 1901. A four-masted sailing ship called
the Star of Alaska transported workers and supplies between Chignik
and San Francisco. Chinese crews from San Francisco traveled to
Chignik in early spring to make tin cans for the cannery. Japanese
workers followed in mid-June to begin processing. Two canneries
operated in Chignik during the first part of the 20th century.
Today, only one cannery is in operation. A second cannery was
recently built by Peter Pan, Inc., in anticipation of an expanded
fish processing potential in the Chignik area. However, this new
cannery has yet to be put into operation and company officials are
attempting to sell it.
2.1.2 Population (Source U.S. Bureau of Census)
Year Chignik Chignik Lagoon
1890 193
1939 224
1950 253
1960 99 108
1970 83 4S
1980 178 48
Chignik has 48 houses and the active cannery has bunkhouses for
its seasonal workers. A few newer houses in good condition are
scattered throughout the community; however, most of the houses are
in fair to poor condition. Usually three or four houses are vacant
in the winter, but when people move to Chignik in the summer for
fishing, a severe housing shortage occurs. During the summer
fishing season, approximately 600 to 700 people converge on Chignik
from Kodiak, Anchorage, Seward, Seattle, and villages throughout the
region to fish and work in the cannery.
3
I 1/2 0 -
\
" " '-
"
----
2 3 4
I
MILES
'" "-"-"
---
Figure 1
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
LOCATION &
VICINITY MAP
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
In Chignik Lagoon, some of the community's 61 single-family
houses are new; others are substandard, but the majority are in good
condition. Houses are of wood frame or prefabricated construction
and most are owner built. There is sufficient housing for village
residents. Many people who arrive each summer to fish have summer
cabins in or near the village. Others live on their boats for the
summer. The vacancy rate is about 20 percent in the winter.
2.1.3 Government and Services
Chignik was incorporated as a second class city in May 1983.
Chignik Lagoon is an unincorporated community recognized by the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and located within an
unorganized borough. As a second class city, Chignik is governed by
a seven-member city council, with one member serving as mayor.
Chignik's incorporation as a second class city allows it to receive
a percentage of the State's raw fish tax and makes it eligible for
increased revenue sharing funds.' Chignik Lagoon's Native population
is represented by a traditional council with eight or nine members.
After adopting a constitution and bylaws, the council was recognized
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as the official traditional
governing body of the village. The village council is entitled to
participate in various State and Federal programs.
2.1.4 Land Ownership
The villages are participating in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. Chignik's Native corporation, Far
West, Inc., is entitled to select 115,200 acres of land from the
Federal Government, wh"ile Chignik Lagoon is entitled to select
94,080. As of this writing, the Chignik corporation has received
interim conveyance (working title) from the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for 107,244 acres of unsurveyed land, while Chignik
Lagoon has received 89,511 acres. A patent will be issued once the
boundary descriptions are confirmed with a survey. Pursuant to
ANCSA, the village corporation has title to the surface estate while
the regional corporation, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, holds the
subsurface rights.
Chignik has an approved Federal townsite survey and is waiting
for a patent to be issued to the BLM Townsite Trustee. When the
patent is issued, the trustee will issue deeds to parcels of land to
individuals and organizations for private parcels.
Chignik Lagoon has a patented Federal townsite consisting of 123
acres. It is managed by a BLM Townsite Trustee who issues deeds to
the parcels of land to individuals and organizations. Those lands
used for public purposes within the townsite will be deeded to the
municipality if and when Chignik Lagoon incorporates.
5
2.1.5 Transportation
The villages are primarily accessible by air and sea. No roads
connect the villages to any other community. Peninsula Airways,
based in King Salmon, flies scheduled mail service to the villages
and also provides charter service. A 1,700-foot by 80-foot gravel
runway exists at Chignik Lagoon. Chignik's runway is 2,800 feet by
100 feet. The airports are owned by the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF). The State annually
contracts with local residents to maintain the airstrips. There is
also a public domain seaplane base at Chignik.
State maintained roads include the 2.5-mile Chignik airport road
and approximately one-half mile of local roads. The North Star ship
stops in Chignik once a year. Supplies from the ship must be
lightered to shore. The cannery owns a dock for unloading fishing
vessels. The Alaska Marine Highway ferry system provides scheduled
service to Chignik three to four times a year beginning in May, with
scheduled stops in June, September, and occasionally October.
Chignik Lagoon has approximately one-half mile of local roads,
which are
council.
Star ship
spring or
lightered
maintained by residents under contract to the village
There is no dock or harbor in Chignik Lagoon. The North
brings supplies to the village once a year either in the
summer. The ship stops offshore and cargo must be
ashore.
2.1.6 Economy
Fishing is the mainstay of the cash economy of the villages.
Beginning around the second week in June, residents fish for red
salmon and successive runs of pink, dog (chum) and silver salmon.
Fish are taken in purse seiners and delivered to the local cannery
or to Kodiak for freezing. Boats, crews and families from several
area villages and elsewhere congregate in Chignik during the salmon
season.
The economic well-being of the whole region depends on the
success of the salmon fishing. Salmon runs have been good the last
several years. The 1981 Chignik red salmon runs of 3,072,599 fish
broke the previous record set in 1888. Runs for other salmon
species approached record numbers in 1981. For example, the 103
fishing boats in the Chignik area in 1981 caught a total of
$22,090,000 worth of salmon (all species) averaging $214,446 per
vessel.
6
Other employed people in the communities include teachers,
teacher's aides, maintenance persons, cooks at the schools, and a
U.S. Postal Service employee. A health aide is hired through the
Bristol Bay Health Corporation. At Chignik, the city council
employs a maintenance person for the electrical system and the State
employs a maintenance person for the airport.
In addition to the historical salmon fishery, herring roe and
crab have been commercially harvested in recent years. People in
the region also supplement their income with subsistence hunting and
fishing.
2.1.7 Minerals
Although there are mlnlng areas with high potential near Chignik
Bay, there has been little mining activity in the area. Coal
deposits consisting of bituminous and lignite beds, closely spaced
and up to 7 feet thick, have been identified in a pelt 1 to 3 miles
wide and 25 miles long on the west shore of Chignik Bay. Mining the
coal was attempted from 1899 to 1915. Transportation and access
problems, however, make development of this deposit economically
infeasible at this time. Residents currently obtain sand and gravel
from the beach.
2.1.8 Health Care
At Chignik, health care is provided by a privately owned clinic
operated by the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) with
funding from the Alaska Area Native Health Service. The cannery
also provides health care for its employees. Patients who cannot be
treated at the clinic are sent on charter or scheduled flights to
the BBAHC hospital at Kanakanak or to clinics or hospitals in larger
communities, such as Anchorage, for treatment.
2.1.9 Sewage
The community has no sewage treatment facilities. Most homes
have flush toilets with septic tanks or seepage pits. Some homes
have privies. The schools and cannery have septic tanks.
2.2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND USAGE
2.2.1 Existing Projects
Indian Creek drains about 3 square miles generally
north-northeast of the city. At elevation' 442 feet, there is a wood
buttress dam, 25 feet high, reported to have been constructed in
1947. However, the community leader present at the public meeting
dated the use of water for power generation back to 1925. The dam
forms a small 20-acre reservoir called Indian Creek Lake. The
7
present water project conveys basin run-off from the dam through a
wood stave/steel pipe (approximately 10 inches by 6,500 feet) down
to Anchorage Bay for community and cannery water supply and to a
60-kW pelton-wheel in the cannery. This water supply right
application is recognized by the State of Alaska through the
appropriation of 2,000 gallons per minute (case Serial No. 46026)
from Indian Creek to the Alaska Packers Association. The 60-kW
pelton-wheel is used primarily to balance the pressure on the water
mains, while generating some electricity. The dam has served its
time and would have to be replaced if hydropower development is to
ensure continuous operation. The pipeline itself also would be too
small to accommodate the actual discharge of a hydropower system,
but would be maintained for water supply.
2.2.2 Generation and Distribution Systems
At Chignik, the village council operates two 175-kW generators
and one 75-kW generator. The generators provide power to approxi-
mately 45 homes. The remaining 3 residences, which provide their
own electricity by operating small generators, are expected to be
connected to the main distribution system by 1988. In September
1983, power cost $.30/kWh. The operational cannery has four 300-kW
generators and two 250-kW generators. The cannery also diverts some
of its water through a 60-kW impulse turbine to produce power. The
new cannery (not yet operating) has installed one 10-kW, one 60-kW
and two 500-kW diesel electric generators. Hence, the overall
available diesel electric generation capacity totals 3,195 kW. Fuel
oil is the primary heat source for the village; however, many
households also use wood. In Chignik, a 5-kW wind generator at a
private residence began successfully operating in the spring of
1982. It is estimated that the wind at Chignik averages at least 10
mph.
There is no central generator in Chignik Lagoon. Individual
homes or groups of two to three homes operate small generators of 4
to 10 kW. Approximately 30 small generators operate in the
village. The school has its own power plant (two 15-kW
generators). Electrical use increases significantly during the
summer fishing season. Fuel oil burned in pot burner furnaces is
the primary heat source for the village. Several households also
burn wood gathered from the beach.
2. 2. 3 E 1 ec t ric a l' Use
No records exist of historic or present electricity use for the
communities of Chignik or Chignik Lagoon. Since this data is needed
to develop a basis for future electrical demand, it must be esti-
mated from typical averages. Typical household electricity use
information provided by Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) of
Anchorage, Alaska has been used to analyze the probable use patterns
in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon.
8
Chignik
Estimating the electricity use at Chignik requires an evaluation
of probable demands of the community (residential and school) and
the cannery. During 1982-1983, the central distribution system at
Chignik was connected to 94 percent of the community's existing
homes. Before that time, only half of the residences were served by
the central system. Therefore, estimates of historic and present
electric use are provided by two separate categories: Pre-1982
(historic) and 1982-1983 (present).
For the pre-1982 (historic) estimate, it is known that 27 of the
48 homes in the area were connected to the central distribution
system. Also, seven of those homes utilized electric resistance
space heating. Residents of the 21 remaining homes either provided
their own electricity with small generators or had no electrical
needs. For the purpose of estimating pre-1982 (historic) community
electricity use, the following assumptions are made:
-21 homes require basic (or less) electrical needs.
-20 homes connected to the central system have basic needs plus
some supplemental needs plus electric hot water.
- 7 homes connected to the central system have all the needs
identified above as well as some luxury needs and electric space
heating.
Table 1 identifies the items included for each assumption and
shows the pre-1982 (historic) residential use to be 761 MWh per year.
Community estimates of historic electricity use also include
demands of the school and cannery. The school is connected to the
central generation system and records of its use do not exist.
However, the school's use can be estimated by comparing it to the
school at Chignik Lagoon (see discussion of Chignik Lagoon
electricity use), which has used an estimated 23 MWh annually.
Since the floor space of the school at Chignik is about 3 times that
of Chignik Lagoon, it is assumed the school at Chignik would use
about 3 times the electricity as the school at Chignik Lagoon.
Therefore, pre-1982 (historic) demands for the Chignik school were
estimated at 70 MWh per year.
Cannery use at Chignik is also not documented and pre-1982
(historic) demands must be estimated. Since cannery operations are
not expected to expand in future years, the pre-1982 (historic)
cannery use of 3,020 MWh a year was taken as the estimate of future
demand.
9
For the 1982-1983 (present) estimate, it was known that 45 of
the 48 homes in Chignik were connected to the central distribution
system. Again, seven of these residences use electricity for space
heating. The remaining three homes provide their own electricity
with small generators. For the purpose of estimating 1982-1983
(present) community electricity use, the following assumptions were
made:
3 homes require basic (or less) electrical needs.
-38 homes connected to the central system have basic needs plus
some supplemental needs plus electric hot water.
- 7 homes connected to the central system have all the needs
identified above as well as some luxury needs and electric space
heating.
Table 2 shows the 1982-1983 (present) residential use to be 898
MWh per year.
Community estimates of 1982-1983 (present) electrical use also
included demands of the school and cannery. The present use of
these two items is considered to be the same as that estimated for
the pre-1982 (historic) condition.
Chignik Lagoon
Estimating the electricity use at Chignik Lagoon requires
evaluation of probable demands of the community residences and
school. Since no central generation system exists in Chignik
Lagoon, only one historic/present use estimate is needed. All 61
homes in the community obtain their electricity from small diesel
generators (4 to 10 kW each). In some cases more than one home is
connected to the same generator(s). The school has two 15-kW units
to meet its electricity requirements. For the purpose of estimating
historic and present electricity use in the community, the following
assumptions were made:
-All 61 homes have basic (or less) electrical needs.
-The school operates only one 15-kW unit at a time, 8 hours/day,
5 days/week, nine months of the year.
Table 1 shows the estimated historic/present use of electricity
at Chignik Lagoon.
10
Table 1
Historic/Present Use of Electricity at Chignik Lagoon
Residences School
Basic (or less~ Items (kWh/year)
Fry Pan 100
Toaster 39 operated at 8
Refrigerator 1,100 hours/day for 5
Lighting 810 days/week during
Clock 17 months/year.
Subtotal for each of
the 61 homes 2,066
Tota 1 126 MWh/~ear 23 MWh/~ear
Community Total 149 MWh per year
Total Historic and Present Electrical Use
Combining the estimated electricity use of Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon gives the total community historic and present use as shown
on Table 2.
Total
Table 2
Historic and Present Electricity Use
for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
(MWh per year)
9
Pre-1982 (Historic) 1982-1983 (Present)
Chignik
Basic (See Table 1)
Basic plus hot water
All plus space
Schoo III
Cannery.~/
Subtotal
Chignik Lagoon
Commun ity
School
Subtotal
TOTAL
heat
43 6
56 108
347 341
70 70
3,020 3,020
3,536 3,545
126 126
23 23
~1~4=9 149
3,685 3,694
1/. Assumed to be 3 times the estimate of school use at Chignik
Lagoon (based on floor space comparison).
2/. Assumed equal to the future demand projections because no
cannery expansion is anticipated.
11
2.2.4 Fuel Use and Availability
Chevron's tanker, Alaska Standard, delivers fuel from Nikiski
about once a month to the cannery. The fuel is stored at the
cannery's 130,000-gallon tank farm and in the school's storage
tanks. The cannery, which purchases fuel oil at a bulk rate to
minimize costs, sells fuel directly to the villagers, the school and
the Chignik Electric Association. In September 1983, diesel fuel
cost $1.25 per gallon.
2.2.5 Water Supply
At Chignik, the dam on Indian Creek provides water to the
cannery and some village residents. This use is currently under
application, recognized by the State of Alaska issuance of water
rights (case Serial No. 46026), to appropriate 2,000 gallons per
minute (gpm) from Indian Creek to the Alaska Packers Association.
Five homes, which have buried lines connected to the main
distribution line, have water year-round. Several other homes are
connected via above-ground lines, which often freeze in the winter.
When this happens, residents carry water from the cannery. The
water is untreated, but of good quality. Six houses and the school
have private wells. Since no records exist of actual water use
within the community, present water supply demands are based on
typical averages for domestic, commercial, industrial, and public
needs. Current water supply needs of the community are estimated at
255 gpm and 1,600 gpm for average use and peak requirements,
respectively.
Residents of Chignik Lagoon use individual wells as their water
source. These wells average 10 to 30 feet in depth. The school has
its own hand-dug well. The water is untreated, but of good quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3. 1 AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area comprises the immediate vicinity surrounding the
villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, located on the south side of
the Alaska Peninsula.
12
3.2 CLIMATE
The villages of Chignik Lagoon and Chignik are partially protected
from the most severe southerly Pacific storms by a ridge of mountains
rising to 3,000 feet. Frequent cyclonic storms crossing the Northern
Pacific and the Bering Sea are the predominant weather factors. These
storms account for the frequent high winds and the common occurrence of
fog and low visibility. Fog occurs most often from mid-July to
mid-September.
The climate at Chignik is basically maritime due to the nearness of
the open ocean. Temperature extremes, both seasonal and diurnal, are
generally confined to fairly narrow limits, with differences between
maximum and minimum temperatures for all individual months averaging less
than 15 degrees F. Temperatures below 0 degrees F occur in occasional
years when the Bering Sea freezes and allows the influx of cold
continental air.
Precipitation of more than one-hundredth of an inch occurs about 170
days per year. The greatest observed precipitation rate is 7.3 inches in
24 hours. Snow has been observed every month except June, July, August
and September. The greatest recorded monthly snowfall was 31 inches in
February, 1931.
3.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Alaska Peninsula is divided into two major and one minor
physiographic sub-provinces. The major divisions are the Aleutian
Mountain Range and the Bering Sea lowlands. The narrow lowlands adjacent
to the Pacific Ocean constitute the minor division. Within the study area
the lowlands are extremely narrow and limited, with mountains rising
directly from the ocean in many places.
Geologically, sedimentary rocks (mid-Jurassic to late Cretaceous
shale, sandstone, and conglomerate) compose the base of the northeast
headlands of the Chignik Peninsula. Tertiary formations of sedimentary
rocks, especially siltstones and interbedded volcanic lavas, are found to
the southwest of the older headland formations. The area was glaciated
during the Wisconsin period. This area is on the Pacific "ring of fire"
of seismically active areas, but has been generally free of earthquakes of
more than five on the Richter scale. Mt. Veniaminof (8,450 feet), is
located about 30 miles west of Chignik; it last erupted in June 1983.
13
In the vicinity of the two proposed dam sites, the lowlands are
extremely narrow and limited in area. Notably, in the Mud Bay, Anchorage
Bay, and Negro Head areas, the mountains rise directly from the ocean.
Faulting and uplift have raised the land mass southeast of Chignik Lagoon
to the general altitude of the Aleutian Mountain Range, which can be more
than 3,000 feet. In the area between Chignik Lagoon and Kuiukta Bay, the
adjacent Pacific lowlands are usually less than one-half mile wide and
consist of alluvial material.
3.4 STREAMS
Indian Creek is about 3.5 miles long and drains generally
north-northwest from an elevation of 1,200 feet to sea level, exiting
through the flatlands containing the village of Chignik into Anchorage
Bay. The valley is relatively narrow and approximately 1.5 miles wide
(crest to crest). The valley walls are steeply sloping, ranging from 50
percent to almost vertical near the top. A small timber dam and lake
impoundment are located at elevation 442 feet. These facilities provide
both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to the cannery at
Chignik. The average stream gradient is 15 percent from headwaters to
mouth. The stream is generally very incised downstream of the dam and
lake.
Mud Bay Lake Creek is approximately 2.5 miles long, drains generally
to the north from an elevation of about 500 feet to sea level, and exits
into Mud Bay. The valley is fairly wide, 2.2 to 1.4 miles crest to crest,
north to south, with a small lake approximately 30 acres in size at
elevation 127 feet. The western valley walls are relatively steep and
have slopes ranging from 18 to 38 percent. Near the northwestern valley
wall, crest slopes approach vertical. The eastern valley wall is less
steep at the mouth and has slopes of approximately 24 percent. The valley
walls narrow to the south and slopes approach 47 percent in the
southeastern area of the valley. The drainage area is about 5 square
miles with one small tributary stream, approximately one-half mile long,
entering the main stream north of the lake at 127 feet elevation.
Upstream of the lake, the valley floor is relatively wide and very gently
sloping. The average stream gradient is about 4 percent over the 2.5-mile
length.
Packers Creek is approximately 1.8 miles long, drains to the northwest
from an elevation of 1,000 feet to sea level, and exits at Chignik
Flats-Packers Point into Chignik Lagoon. Total estimated drainage area is
about 3 square miles. The valley is narrow, approximately 1.2 miles wide
(crest to crest), and steep sided, with slopes up to 32 percent on the
east valley wall and 94 percent on the west valley wall. The stream is
incised and narrow, cutting through an old landslide deposit in the
mid-valley area. The average stream gradient is about 10 percent from
headwaters to mouth. Field reconnaissance photos taken in April 1982 show
rock outcrops under shallow colluvial cover within the creek drainage.
14
3.5 BIOLOGY
3.5.1 Fish and Wildlife
Major fish and wildlife species of the region are the five salmon
species that support the economy of the people, a few brown bears, moose,
and occasionally small bands of caribou. The Chignik River salmon fishery
is a major concern of all public and private interests because of its
impressive size and continued support of a large portion of the Alaskan
fishing economy.
3.5.2 Vegetation
Vegetation of the project environs is classified as predominantly
closed tall shrub scrub or open tall shrub scrub, with a few areas of
alpine tundra. Sitka alder and American green alder are the major woody
species in the shrub scrub areas, with several species of willow and other
low shrubs present. Bluejoint and fescue grasses are important understory
plants. Sedges predominate in the alpine tundra areas.
3.6 ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY
The Alaska Peninsula has been of particular interest to
anthropologists because, at the time of European contact, three separate
ethnic and racial groups existed in this area: Aleuts, Eskimos and
Athabaskans. The most recent research on the peninsula seems to indicate
that the Chignik region on the Pacific coast, west to Port Moller on the
Bering Sea coast, was the northernmost extent of the Aleutian tradition.
The prehistoric boundary between the groups probably fluctuated somewhat
throughout time, so precise boundaries cannot be drawn.
The University of Oregon performed some archeological surveys and
excavations in the Chignik area as part of a long term program on Alaska
Peninsula prehistory. Several sites were located and tested on the
Chignik River between Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon. The majority of
these sites have assemblages closely related to those from the Hot Springs
collection at Port Moller and other collections from Izembek Lagoon at the
tip of the Alaska Peninsula.
15
PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 FUTURE CONDITIONS
To properly assess the future power demands, projections of future
requirements are necessary. Because almost no historical energy use
information is available for the Chignik area and since by its nature it
is highly speculative, the per capita and household energy use projections
were based on the recent studies done by the Alaska Power Authority (APA)
for Chignik Lake, Ivanof Bay, False Pass, Sand Point, and King Cove
(reference Section 1.4).
4.1.1 Population Growth
Table 3 shows the prOjected population, based on growth at a rate of
2.3 percent until the turn of the century and then 1 percent thereafter.
APA's July 1982 Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Study projected growth rates
of 2.3 percent. The projections used are considered most realistic when
we look at the position of Chignik as a fish processing center, recent
city incorporation and land transfer to private ownership, the harbors and
canneries at Chignik, the proposed commercial boat harbor at Chignik, and
what is projected in the future for the overall Alaskan village growth and
the area fishing economy. These overall factors provide the stimulation
and motivation for people fishing in the region to maintain a permanent
residence in Chignik.
Historically, Chignik has been a leader in the salmon fishing industry
especially, the famous IIChignikll red salmon. With the world market
continuing to expand, salmon fishing would continue to be the driving
force behind the Chignik economy.
Chignik was incorporated as a second-class city in May 1983. The two
primary benefits from the community incorporating are that it allows the
village to receive full title to its townsite lands and receive a
percentage of the State's raw fish tax that is obtained from fishing
operations in the area. Local estimates indicate Chignik's share of the
raw fish tax would be roughly $300,000 per year. Prior to incorporation,
the only source of revenue for the village was through various State and
Federal grants, some revenue sharing, and assistance from the Bristol Bay
Native Association. In FY 82, the community received about $25,000 from
the State's revenue sharing program. This increase in annual revenues
would enable the community to undertake economic development activities
designed to support the local fishing fleet's operations, to maintain and
upgrade services to the residents, and provide additional services which
are essential to permanent residents.
Prior to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, land ownership in
the area was predominantly Federal. Transfer to private ownership has
created the demand for new housing development. The State of Alaska,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, has constructed a
bridge over Indian Creek for the primary purpose of increasing the amount
of land available for development.
16
The Chignik and Chignik Lagoon population estimates compare quite
favorably to estimates projected for 20 different Alaskan communities in
the reconnaissance report on energy requirements and alternatives prepared
in July 1982 for APA by Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik and
Associates referenced in Section 1.4.
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
to 2045
Growth Rate
(Percentage)
-0-
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
TABLE 3
POPULATION PREDICTION
Chignik
(Individuals)
178
199
223
250
280
284
4.1.2 Electricity Use/Load Forecast
Energy use is currently growing faster in many of the
Alaska rural communities than in the larger cities. This energy use
gap will close, it is believed, near the turn of the century. The
energy forecast developed for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon consists of
two separate electricity use evaluations: residential use and
industrial use. Estimates of residential electricity use consider
basic electricity use (appliance, lights, etc.), space heating
requirements, and hot water heating needs. The industrial use
estimates considers the existing cannery electricity demands.
Residential Electricity Use Estimate
Since no data exists on historic electricity use within
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, developing the estimate for residential
electric use requires evaluation of needs for home appliances,
lighting, entertainment, housewares, personal care, and the
potential for increased use of electric resistance space heating and
hot water heating. Calculations are made on a per capita basis to
allow dirEct comparison of electric needs and to simplify estimation
of overall electricity requirements in both communities.
Basic electricity use estimates were developed by
comparing the projected electrical demands prepared for similar
communities. The communities used are all located along the
southern portion of the Alaska Peninsula, 300 miles or less from the
stUdy area. While they differ slightly from Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon in present and future population estimates, they are Quite
representative of the study area's economic base and village
lifestyle. Recent energy projections are available from various
studies (see Section 1.4) for each of these representative
17
communities. To obtain the residential electricity use est"imates
for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, the energy estimates for five of the
most representative communities were averaged as shown on the Table
4.
Table 4
Basic Electricity Use
Energy Projections for
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
(kWh per person per year)
Communit,z:: 1985 1990 1995 2000 and be,z::ond
False Pass 1,700 1,810 1,860 1,850
Chignik Lake 1,990 2,030 2,090 2,070
Ivanof Bay 2, 140 2, 180 2,200 2,210
Sand Point 3,619 3,516 4,284 4,231
King Cove 963 1, 112 1 , 169 1,226
TOTAL 10,412 10,648 11 ,603 11 ,587
AVERAGE 2,082 2, 130 2,321 2,317
USE 2,100 2, 150 2,300 2,350
To confirm the suitability of these estimates, a brief check was made
with estimated annual electricity use values for various home appliances
provided by Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) of Anchorage, Alaska. The
1985 usage estimate of 2100 kWh/person-year equates to 8400 kWh/year for
an average residence in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon (there are
approximately 4 residents per household in the communities). Using ML&p·s
estimates for typical home appliances expected to be in llse in the
villages gives an annual energy use of 8500 kWh per household. The sli9ht
increases in projected energy use in 1990, 1995, and 2000 and beyond are
justifiable in that as the population increases there will be minor
additional amounts of energy consumed over and above the basic demands to
meet the needs of these additional people. Hence the energy demand values
calculated by utilizing estimates for other similar communities are
considered adequate and representative of the expected residential
electricity use at Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. Table 5 provides a suwmary
for both communities.
Table 5
Basic Energy Use (kWh)
Year Chignik Chignik LagoN'
1985 417,900 113,400
1990 479,450 129,000
1995 575,000 156,400
2000 658,000 178,600
18
Space Heating
Space heating needs in Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are met primarily by
burning fuel oil. It would be expected that this practice will continue
in Chignik Lagoon. However, in Chignik seven of the 48 homes (15%) now
use electric resistance space heating. It is expected that the desire for
electric resistance space heating will continue but to a limited extent.
It has been assumed that these seven homes would continue to use
electric resistance space heating. Assuming that the desire for electric
heat would continue, an increase of 2.3 percent in the number of homes
using electric heat would occur (See Table 6). The remaining homes would
continue to use fuel oil for space heating.
Year
1983
1986
1990
1995
2000
to 2045
Table 6
Number of Homes
7
7
8
9
10
10
Since no records exist of fuel use for space heating in the
communities, developing the estimate for electric resistance space heating
requires evaluation of a comprehensive analysis of heating requirements
provided for another community. The most complete forecast for an Alaskan
community comes from Alaska Power Authority I s November 1982, "Kotzehue
Coal-fired Cogeneration, District Heating and Other Energy Alternatives
Assessment. II To relate this data to Chignik and Chignik Lagoon the
following assumptions were made:
-Floor area per capita is the same.
-Insulation standard is comparable (i.e. R-19 walls and R-24
ceilings).
To determine the amount of energy required per capita for space
heating requires estimates of consumption and heating degree hours for the
study area. Data from the Kotzebue report is shown on Table 7.
Table 7
Floor Space per Cap it a
Total Floor Kotzebue Sa. Feet
Area Population per Capita
Year (sq. ft)
1985 1.23 X 10 6 2850 432
1990 1.45 X 10 6 3200 453
1995 1. 69 X 10 6 3600 469
2000 1. 96 X 10 6 4000 490
19
Heat consumption is estimated from the Kotzebue report as shown on Table 8.
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
Tab le 8
Heat Consumption
BTU per hr -degree
eer Sq. Feot
0.385
0.380
0.375
0.370
F
The heat consumption estimates decline into the future, which is
indicative of conservation measures such as increased insulation
standards, installing storm windows and doors, and improved furnace
efficiency. It is estimated that there are 10,000 heating degree days per
year (240,000 heating degree hours) required in the study area.
Compilation of this data estimates the space heating load as shown on
Table 9.
Heating
Degree
Year Hours
1985 240,000
1990 240,000
1995 240,000
2000 240,000
Table 9
Estimated Space Heating Requirement
Chignik
BTU per kWh per kWh per
Capita per Capita per Household
Year Year Year
39.93 X 10 6 11 , 700 46,800
41.32 X 10 6 12,100 48,440
42.21 X 10 6 12,370 49,480
43.51 X 10 6 12,750 51,100
per kWh for
Community
327,600
376,000
425,520
476,520
Note: The estimate uses a conversion factor of 3413 BTU per kWh.
Hct Water Heating
No records of hot water usage and needs are available.
Therefore, the estimate of electricity required for hot water heating must
be obtained from estimates for other communities. The most comprehensive
estimate is available from Alaska Power Authority's Kotzebue report sited
as the basis for space heating estimates. To develop an estimate of hot
water heating needs, data from the Kotzebue study was used to develop
Table 10.
20
Table 10
Hot Water Heating Requirements per Household
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
Btu per Household
per Year
2.60 X 10 6
3.61 X 10 6
5. 19 X 10 6
7.09 X 10 6
1/ Limited by a maximum amount.
kWh per Household per
Year
762
1058
1521
1825 1
The maximum value (1825 kWh per person per year) equates to 7300 kWh
per residence per year, which is the amount of energy a 5000 watt electric
water heater would use if it operated at full output for 4 hours per day
(17%), every day, for one year. This maximum was selected as a probable
average of typical hot water use and compares favorably to Municipal Light
and Power's estimate of 6740 kWh per year for residential electric hot
water use. The projected increases in usage are justified by the expected
utilization of electric hot water in homes and the future replacement of
existing units in older homes.
Combining the separate estimates for residential electricity use,
probable space heating requirements, and hot water heating needs gives the
total expected electricity demand on a per capita basis for Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon. Table 11 and 12 provides these results.
Table 11
Chignik Electricity Demand l
(MWh)
Electrical
Resistance Hot
Year E 1 ec t ric iti: Heating Water Tota 1
1985 418 328 152 898
1990 479 376 236 1,091
1995 575 426 380 1 ,381
2000 658 477 511 1,646
to 2045 658 477 511 1,646
1/ Does not include line losses.
21
1/ Does not
Table 12
Chignik Lagoon Electricity Demand 1/
(MWh)
Hot
Year Electricit~ Water Total
1985 113 41 154
1990 129 63 192
1995 156 103 259
2000 179 139 318
to 2045 179 139 318
include line losses.
Industrial Electricit~ Use Estimate
Since no accurate data exists on historic electricity use at the
cannery in Chignik, developing the estimate for industrial electricity use
requires evaluation of the probable cannery needs as associated to fish
processing. The Alaska Packers Association plant mar.ager has stated that
the ~ompany has no plans to expand to bottomfishing. Their land-based
plant is not in a competitive position to displace floating processors.
Since there is no expected change in plant operations, the estimated
electrical needs of the cannery are constant throughout the period of
analysis. Discussions with the cannery plant manager determined the
cannery·s peak operation months to be February, March, June, July, and
August. During those months, the plant is operated 16 hours per day, 7
days per week. Its average load during this time frame is estimated from
500 to 1000 kW. During the remaining months, cannery employees work one
9-hour per day shift, 6 days per week. Average plant load during this
time frame is estimated at 350 kW.
To estimate the cannery·s annual energy requirements the following
assumptions were made based on discussions with cannery personnel.
During times of cannery operation, the diesel units are generating
at average output for the entire period of operation at an approximate
efficiency rate of 10.5 kWh/gal.
During times of cannery non-operation, the diesel units are
generating at approximately 350 kW.
The total electrical needs of the Chignik cannery are depicted in
graph form on Figure 2. No change in cannery operations is anticipated,
therefore, the estimate is constant for the entire period of analysis.
22
o o
C')
o o
(II
o o ...
302 302
124
564
:::",:." .
. .... :. ".::." .
. "
.' ';:.
128
23
484
.. .':.:::
484
.::::".: ..: .. " .......
...... .
" .:. ".'
........
.'
'," .. :
.. ......
124
Figure 2
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
SMA LL H YO ROPOWER
FE A SIBILITY STUD Y
128
. '. ....
CHIGNIK CANNERY
ELECTRIC DEMAND ESTIMATE
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
The second cannery (a cold storage/freeze plant), constructed a few
years ago, has yet to start initial operation. The present owners, Peter
Pan, Inc. of Seattle, Washington, are attempting to sell the plant but
have been unsuccessful to date. Company officials are concerned whether
the area fishery can support two major land-based plants plus the floating
processors that arrive during peak salmon runs. There is little prospect
for the second cannery to begin operations in the near future and,
consequently, the estimates of industrial electricity needs reflect zero
demand for this facility.
Total Electricity Use Estimate
Combining total residential and industrial electricity use demands
provides an estimate of the total electrical needs of the Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon communities as shown on Table 13.
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
to 2045
Table 13
Total Electric Usage Demand for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
(MWh per Year)
RES IDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL TOTALS
Chignik Chignik Chignik/Chignik
Chignik Chignik Lagoon Canner,z: Total Lagoon/Industrial
898 154 3,020 3,918 4,072
1,091 192 3,020 4, 111 4,302
1 ,381 259 3,020 4,401 4,660
1,646 318 3,020 4,666 4,984
1,646 318 3,020 4,666 4,984
Total energy demand forecasts for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are
obtained by utilizing the monthly energy demand distributions for
community demand and industrial demand. The community distribution,
excluding the cannery demand, is shown on Table 14, and is based on the
"Bristol Bay and Electric Power Potential report for a typical small
Alaska Peninsula community. The percentages have been modified to include
future use of electricity for space heating. Energy requirements are
forecast graphically on Figure 3.
24
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
Ju ly
August
September
October
November
December
4.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES
Table 14
MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND DISTRIBUTION
(PERCENT)
Community
1981 -2000
9
10
11
10
9
6
3
7
8
9
9
9
100
2005 -2040
9.5
11.0
12.0
11.0
8.0
6.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
9.5
100.0
Based on information presented on the problems and needs affecting
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, the following study objectives were determined
for this evaluation:
a. Reduce the real cost of meeting energy needs to the local
residents for the period of analysis.
b. Reduce Chignik's and Chignik Lagoon's dependence on diesel fuel
for electrical generation during the period of analysis.
c. Maintain the ability to meet the water supply needs of Chignik for
the period of analysis.
d. Preserve the terrestrial environment of the area during the period
of analysis.
e. Preserve the commercial fishing resources of the area during the
period of analysis.
In addition, Congressional acts of the last decade directed Federal
land and water resource development studies to incorporate a
multi objective planning process. Those local needs that can address
national objectives with the goal of promoting the quality of life become
the planning objectives. These objectives are used to evaluate the
alternatives on the basis of equally weighted economic, social, and
environmental assessments. The Federal objective of water and related
land resources planning is to contribute to national economic development
consistent with protecting the Nation's environment pursuant to national
environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal
planning requirements.
25
<.Q II) I I I I I I I I 1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
z
0
0,
CI \ <C( ,
...I \ >-\ a:~~ \
...II./J ZZ \
<C(ZCICI \
t-z-_ \
0<C(:t:t \
t-(.)(.)(.) \ , . I' ,
I' , I: I
i
(Q It)
SON'tsnOH.1 NI HMW ~ C') N ,..
\
\
\
"> I I T
'It C') N ,..
,
0 II) ~ 0 N II) C') 0 N
~ II)
N
0
N
II)
I-,..
o
N
II)
I-0 o
N
'\ ~ II) , 0)
I 0)
o
,..
II)
(Q
0) ,..
>0 en ... IV c: IV '" 0 c: -I( >0 ~ -; t'a U -.-~ ... "a 0 _ IV 1/1 <II J: :I
-,
LI.I
I-
0 z
en
c:
< w
>
SON'tsnOH.1 NI HMW
26
Figure 3
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ENERGY REaUIREMENT~
CHIGNIK, CANNERY &
CHIGNIK LAGOON
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
PLAN FORMULATION
5.1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Three drainages (Indian Creek, Mud Bay Lake Creek, and Packers Creek)
have been analyzed to determine their hydropower potential to serve, on an
economic basis, the villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. The basic
alternative of hydropower was developed into a variety of options and
combinations for analysis. Other alternative energy sources considered in
this study include conservation, wind, coal, geothermal, waste heat
recovery, and diesel .. Diesel is essentially the existing condition for
electrical generation in the study area and is, therefore, also considered
the No Action alternative.
5.1.1 Hydropower
Description
The hydropower alternative (See Figure 4) evaluates the potential
electrical generation from three separate streams (Indian Creek, Mud Bay
Lake Creek, and Packers Creek). The potential of these streams is
analyzed on an individual basis by evaluating different options for
development within each stream drainage basin. In addition, the stream
potentials are evaluated in combination by considering the development of
a transmission intertie between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon.
Evaluation
Diesel generation is the base case by which other alternatives are
evaluated. Savings in fuel, fuel escalation, and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs,and extended diesel life would be the primary
benefits for other alternatives.
For the purpose of this study, the national fuel cost escalation rate
estimated by Data Re~ources Incorporated (DRI) in 1983 was adopted. The
proposed escalation is shown below:
YEARS
1982 -1985
1986 -1990
1991 -1995
1996 -2000
2001 -2013
27
ANNUAL ESCALATION RATE
1.6 percent
1.6 percent
3.6 percent
3.4 percent
1.6 percent
N
00
~ I070Q tJ -~~
INDIAN CREEK
POWERHOUSE
Figure 4
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydropower
Feasibility Study
HYDROPOWER
AL TERNATIVES
AlaBka DIBtrlct, CorpB of Engineer.
These increases result in the following estimated fuel costs for Chignik
and Chignik Lagoon.
1985 $1.27/gal.
1990 1.37/gal.
1995 1.64/gal.
2000 1.94/gal.
2014 2.42/gal.
Costs for each project have been calculated separately. All estimates
are at October 1983 price levels and use an 8 1/8 percent interest rate
for evaluation purposes.
Packers Creek
Description
The Packers Creek project would utilize the head between elevation 300
feet and elevation 100 feet. Energy generated by this system would be
utilizea to meet the needs of the community of Chignik Lagoon. Only one
dam, penstock, and powerhouse option was evaluated for this drainage
basin. The evaluation performed during preliminary studies considered the
optimum project to be a 20-foot-high concrete gravity diversion dam. Only
minor, daily pond age would be provided by the reservoir. A 21-inch
diameter, 3,000-foot-long steel penstock would carry flows to a 150-kW
powerplant. The Francis unit would operate under a 190-foot maximum net
head and would generate approximately 977,000 kWh per year. Tailwater
would be discharged directly back into Packers Creek through a short
tailrace channel. Approximately 1/4 of transmission line which would
parallel the stream would extend from the powerhouse to the community.
Impact Assessment
Packers Creek, located in Chignik Lagoon, is approximately 1.8 miles
long and exits at Chignik Flats -Packers Point into Chignik Lagoon. At
one time, pink, coho, and chum salmon spawned in the lower reaches of
Packers Creek. Recently, however, it has been found that only pinks are
found in the lower reaches and Dolly Varden are found as far as the upper
reaches of the creek. Alpine tundra habitat, which is generally composed
of mosses, sedge, meadows, and low willow thickets, occurs throughout the
project area. Terrestrial wildlife includes hares, foxes, and wolves.
Evaluation
The project1s first cost includes a 20 percent allowance for
contingencies: Project costs were amortized over 50 years at 8 1/8
percent.
29
First Cost
IDC (12 months)
Investment Cost
Annual Costs
Equivalent Annual Usable Energy
Annua 1 Benefits
BIC Ratio
Net Benefits
$4,215,000
160,000
$4,375,000
$ 393,000
$ 182,000 kWh
$ 40,000
.10
$ -353,000
The above economic data indicate that this scenario would result in a
project with negative net benefits. Therefore, the Packers Creek
alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
Mud Bay Lake Creek
Description
The Mud Bay Lake Creek project would utilize the head between Mud Bay
Lake, at elevation 127 feet, and the sea. A 6.5 mile transmission line
intertie would enable the project to serve the communities of Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon (See Figure 4). Only one powerplantlpenstock combination,
a 500-kW powerhouse with a 34-inch diameter penstock was considered.
Refinements and detailed consideration of each of these optimizing steps
determined the optimum Mud Bay Lake Creek project to be a 20-foot-high
concrete weir that would raise the lake level to an elevation of 140
feet. A maximum drawdown of 10 feet would create a 560-acre-foot pool. A
34-inch diameter elevated steel penstock would convey the discharge 5,100
feet down to the powerhouse at the head of Mud Bay. One-half of the
penstock would run through a very steep gorge. A 20-foot diameter,
50-foot-high surge tank just above the powerhouse would protect the
penstock and insure smooth performance of the generating unit. The
Francis unit would generate 500 kW at a maximum discharge of 58.3 cfs
under a maximum net head of 120 feet. The potential average energy
production as estimated through the use of a single reservoir regulation
model would be 2,400,000 kWh annually. Tailwater would be discharged
directly into the sea.
Impact Assessment
Mud Bay Lake Creek has a significant finfish population. The most
numerous are the four species of salmon, chum, sockeye, pinks, and coho.
In addition to this resource are Dolly Varden and sculpins. Habitat types
of the Mud Bay Lake region are generally similar to those of Indian Creek
Lake some two miles to the east; the drainage is larger and the immediate
vicinity of the lake is more densely covered by the nearly continuous
stands of closed tall shrub scrub and open tall shrub scrub type habitats
that are composed mainly of Sitka Alder. Brown bear have been observed
within the lake perimeters. Moose are relatively few in number and the
population of furbearers is similar to that of Indian Creek's furbearer
population.
30
Significant disruption to local wildlife populations and fishery
resources could occur as a result of the proposed project due to access
roads, penstock routing, an intertie transmission corridor, and, in
general, construcion activities to and from the project area.
Evaluation. For the optimum project chosen, the estimated annual costs
and benefits, based on October 1983 prices and 8 1/8 percent interest, are
as follows:
First Cost
IDC (12 months)
Investment Cost
Annual Costs
Equivalent Annual Usable Energy
Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit/Cost Ratio
$12,365,000
471,000
$12,836,000
$ 1,094,000
2,181,000 kWh
$ 412,000
$ 682,000
0.38
The above economic data indicate that this would result in a project
with net negative benefits. Therefore, the Mud Bay Lake Creek alternative
has been eliminated from further consideration.
Indian Creek
Description
The Indian Creek project which would serve the city of Chignik, would
utilize the head between Indian Creek Lake, at existing lake elevation 442
feet, and the Chignik townsite, at elevation 15 feet. Options evaluated
for this drainage basin include various dam heights, different types of
dam construction, and combinations of powerp1ant and penstock sizes.
Based on an analysis of cost, safety requirements, vulnerability to
cracking, availability of materials, and ease of construction, a
24-foot-high timber dam was selected as the optimum structure for this
site. Following the identification of the most efficient dam height and
design and construction techniques, the power potential of this
a1t~rnative was analyzed by evaluating different powerp1ant and penstock
combinations. Powerp1ants of 700 kW, 900 kW, 1,100 kW, and 1,300 kW were
evaluated with penstock diameters of 26 inches, 30 inches, 34 inches, and
36 inches, respectively. A comparison of the estimated costs and benefits
for each powerp1ant/penstock option determined that the 1,100-kW project
developed to service demands (see Figure 5) would provide the greatest
net annual benefits. Refinements and detailed consideration of each of
these optimizing steps confirmed the Indian Creek project to be a
24-foot-high timber structure that would replace the existing wooden dam
now used for water supply. This dam would raise the present water level 5
feet to elevation 447 feet. From the dam, the discharge would be conveyed
through an elevated 34-inch diameter steel penstock 5,500 feet parallel to
the existing water supply pipe down to the flats behind Chignik. The
31
~
III • 7'r
III
C
a .. ..
n ..
o
o ..
" a
o -m
:2 u:a
:2 • • .. a
W
N
M
E
G
A
W
A
T
T
H
o
U
R
S
800
700
Ed HYDRO OUTPUT MWH
:::::::::: TOTAL DEMAND MWH
600
500
400
300
200
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
800
700
600 M
E
G
A
500 W
A
T
400 T
H
0
300 U
R
S
200
JUN JUL AUG S~P OCT NOV DEC
MONTHS
system, with two 550-kW Francis turbines, would generate 1,100 kW at a
maximum net head of 414 feet. The potential average energy production
would be 5,118 MWh annually. Tailwater would be discharged through a
system of ditches and ponds across the flats to the open channel that
exists between the cannery and the village and then into the sea.
Approximately 1/4 mile of transmission line would be constructed from the
powerhouse to the city. Water supply for the city and the cannery would
be maintained during and after construction by installing a bifurcation
for the existing waterline downstream of the diversion structure. A
detailed discussion of this alternative is included in APPENDIX A.
Impact Assessment
Specifically, the biota for Indian Creek drainage includes a small
population of furbearers such as red foxes, weasels, mink, and wolverine.
There are a few bald eagles, several species of marine birds, and ducks
and geese situated in and along the drainage basin of Indian Creek. A
small pink salmon population ranging from 50 to 100 fish is maintained by
this water system and anadromous Dolly Varden have also been observed in
the creek. Plant communities in the study area are composed principally
of closed tall alder scrub, open tall alder-willow, and open tall alder.
Few impacts caused by the proposed hydropower project would occur.
Loss of the 2.16 acres of closed tall alder scrub and its understory
vegetation would undoubtedly cause temporary reduction of small mammal
populations.
Evaluation
A summary of the associated costs and benefits for the run-of-river
hydroelectric system is shown below. The analysis is based on October
1983 price levels, an interest rate of 8-1/8 percent and a 50-year project
life.
First Cost
IDC (12 months)
Investment Cost
Annual Costs
Interest & Amortization (8-1/8% @
Operation and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Diesel Displacement Benefit
Fuel Escalation Benefit
O&M Saved
Extended Life
Employment Benefits
Total Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit-Cost Ratio
$6,675,000
254,000
6,929,000
574,000
50 years)
30,000
$ 604,000
$ 320,000
217,000
68,000
6,000
67,000
$ 678,000
$ 74,000
1.12 to 1
33
Implementation
Various options are possible for the implementation of this
alternative. Under all scenarios, it is anticipated that the local
utility would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the
plant. The options available are listed below:
1. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with Federal funding.
2. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with State or local funding.
Intertie
Description
To maximize the usability of energy produced by the three
alternatives, a 6.S-mile intertie between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon was
evaluated. Initial voltage would be 14.4 kv, which would be compatible
with the existing Chignik generators and distribution. Since there is no
voltage or distribution system to match in Chignik Lagoon, one would have
to be constructed as part of the intertie system. Development of the
intertie would allow service to both Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. This
enables a greater use of potential energy from a project by providing the
distribution network needed to meet the load at one community with what
otherwise might be surplus electricity from another project.
Impact Assessment
Environmental concerns associated with the Packers Creek hydroelectric
alternative are primarily related to the intertie with the Mud Bay Lake
and Indian Creek developments. Impacts to the fishery resource of Packers
Creek would be insignificant as compared to the total picture of the
nearby Chignik River salmon production. However, the impacts upon the
wildlife populations of the generally inaccessible area between Chignik
and Chignik Lagoon would be potentially damaging. For instance, increased
public access into this area could seriously deplete the brown bear and
moose population. Trapping of furbearers in areas, which at one time were
remote and unimpacted, could have a costly effect. Lastly, newly built
roads would be subjected to heavy erosion due to seasonal rains.
Evaluation
Various combinations were analyzed. The estimated annual costs and
benefits, based on October 1983 prices and 8 1/8 percent interest, are as
follows:
34
Intertie Alternatives
(Chignik and Chignik Lagoon Demand)
Mud Ba~ Lake Packers Creek Indian Creek
First Cost $14,714,000 $6,565,000 $9,025,000
IDC(12 months) 561,000 250,000 344,000
Investment Cost $15,275,000 $6,815,000 $9,369,000
Annual Cost $ 1,297,000 $ 595,000 $ 807,000
Equivalent Annual
Usable Energy MWh 2,235 934 3,342
Annua 1 Benefit $ 422,000 $ 152,600 $ 628,000
Net Annual Benefit - $
875,000 - $
443,000 - $
179,000
BIC Rat io 0.33 0.26 0.78
Annual benefits shown above do not include an employment benefit. The
above economic data indicate that this scenario would result in a project
with negative net benefits. Therefore, the intertie alternative has been
eliminated from further considerations.
5.1.3 Conservation: The Non-Structural Alternative
Description
Conservation involves the more efficient use of electricity. This
means (a) insuring the new houses and commercial and industrial facilities
are more energy efficient; (b) installing more efficient water heaters and
appliances; and (c) finding more efficient ways to manufacture products,
or to perform industrial processes.
Conservation also involves steps to make existing houses and buildings
more energy-efficient by adding insulation in walls and ceilings,
installing water heater blankets, and adding other cost effective
conservation measures.
Conservation measures also reduce the need for additional
transmission lines and other distribution facilities. When a conservation
action reduces the need for these facilities, it reduces the associated
facilities costs by approximately 2.5 percent.
Conservation avoids the Illine losses" that occur when electricity is
transmitted over long distances. About 7.5 percent of the electricity
generated at a powerplant is "lost" in transmission to its ultimate point
of use.
35
To assess accurately the amount cost effective conservation available,
the administrative cost of programs needed to secure conservation must be
included. Typically, conservation program administrative costs are in the
range of 15 to 25 percent of the direct cost of measures for full
operational programs.
The amount of technically and economically achievable conservation is
directly related to the amount of energy used. Changes in consumer
behavior and consumer resistance, quality control, and unforeseen
technical problems could prevent an area from developing 100 percent of
this potential.
Impact Assessment
The environmental benefits of conservation are substantial. Reduction
of electric demand due to conservation measures can help avoid the
construction of new conventional energy resources with their accompanying
environmental impacts. Conservation "generates" electricity without
transmission lines, significant air or water pollution, noise, solid
waste, or land use impacts. .
However, there exists, the potential for degradation of indoor air
quality due to weatherization unless mitigation measures are employed.
Residential weatherization could reduce ventilation and cause harmful
concentrations of various pollutants from space heating equipment,
insulation, and building materials. These pollutants include formaldehyde
from particle board and some insulation, and radioactive emissions from
masonry and concrete buildings. Heat exchangers could adequately mitigate
these air quality impacts in that they provide adequate ventilation
without sacrificing much heat.
Evaluation
The two largest residential uses of electricity are space heat and
water heating. Space heat consumption is approximately 31 percent of the
time residential use, water heating represents 26 percent, and the
remaining 43 percent was consumed by lights and other appliances.
Approximately, a 33 percent reduction in energy used for space heating
could be achieved through improving the insulation levels, adding storm
windows and reducing the air leakage in existing houses. Water heating
represents the second largest single residential use. Savings would be
achieved through better insulated water heaters, pipe wraps and lower
water temperatures. Nearly one-half of residential electricity is
consumed by an assortment of appliances. Refrigerators and freezers,
cooking and lighting make up approximately one-half of the electricity
used by these appliances. The conservation potential from more efficient
appliances is 10 percent of the total electricity used by appliances.
36
Space heating use in existing houses could be 1/3 more efficient than
at present. New houses could use nearly 60 percent less for space heating
than houses built to current standards. Water heating demands could be
reduced over 21 percent. Refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances
could consume 7 percent less than projected at current efficiencies.
Together, these savings are projected to bring about a 21 percent
reduction in residential electric needs.
The commercial sector is composed of diverse customers. Studies of
the conservation potential in commercial buildings indicate that a 30 to
40 percent reduction in electric energy use could be achieved. Assessing
the technical and economic potential for industrial conservation presents
a more difficult problem. Not only are industrial uses more diverse, but
the conservation potential is also more site specific. Past attempts to
assess the industrial sector's conservation potential have not been
particularly successful.
Implementation
The basic responsibility for implementing this alternative lies with
the local resident. To aid in this responsibility and to lessen the
burden, various State and Federal programs are available. The State
offers energy auditing services, conservation grants, and low interest
loans, and the Federal Government offers income tax credits. These
opportunities should be pursued to the maximum extent possible by the
community.
5.1.4 Wind
Description
A wind energy conversion system (WECS) transforms the force of wind
moving past a tower mounted generator into either alternating (AC) or
direct (DC) current electricity. DC power may be used directly for
lighting, resistance space heating, and water heating or, it may used to
charge batteries for later use during peak demand periods or when wind
velocity is insufficient to drive the generator. The operating range of a
wind generator varies with its design. To illustrate the probable range
of operation for many of the WECS currently available the operating
characteristics of a 40 kW rat~d WECS (Kaman Co.) are shown in Table 15.
37
Wind Velocity
(mph) .
o to 8
8
10 to 20
20 to 60
Above 60
TABLE 15
Remarks
No rotation
Rotation begins; no power output
Power ranges from 4 to 40 kW
Power constant at 40 kW
No output (and rotor stopped, or at least
turned out of the wind and rotating slowly)
Source: "Alaskan Wind Power, An Introductory User's Manual," Tunis
Westinke, Jr., June 1980.
Wind resource studies of the continental United States, including
Alaska, have identified the Alaska Peninsula as having the required wind
conditions for generation of electrical power.
Evaluation
An inherent problem with Alaskan WECS development is that those who
could most profit from their potential are the individuals and small
remote communities least able to afford the high cost of installation,
operation and maintenance. Installation and typical add-on equipment for
improved operation and the reduction of television and radio interference
substantially increase costs. Relatively complicated maintenance
requirements require extensive operator training and operation.
In the January 1982 "white paper" publ ished by the Alaska Power
Authority, it was determined that:
a. Wind energy conversion systems are not yet commercially proven to
the degree necessary to meet a significant portion of the near term
electrical needs of Alaskan communities.
b. Where two alternatives appear over the analysis period, and where
environmental and cultural factors are comparable, the more reliable
alternative should be the one recommended for the followup.
The above problems affecting implementation and operation of WECS in
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon suggest that development of this resource on a
sufficient scale to meet the energy needs of the community is highly
unlikely. However, limited development, initially on an experimental
basis, may be a cost effective addition to existing power generation
resources. Further study of this resource by State or local interests is
encouraged.
38
Impacts
Impacts associated with this alternative would be minimal. The
primary impact would be the ability of the residents of Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon to accept the visual aspects of wind power.
Implementation
The implementation of this alternative would be the responsibility of
the city or individual residents, aided by the State of Alaska or the
Department of Energy. Various income tax credits, investment allowances,
and grant programs can assist a local WECS program. The responsibility
for the installation of recording instrumentation appears beyond the
financial capability of either community.
5.1.5 Geothermal
No potential sites are known to exist in the Chignik or Chignik Lagoon
regions. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further
consideration.
5.1.6 Coal
Description
Coal deposits consisting of bituminous and lignite beds, closely
spaced and up to 7 feet in thickness, have been identified in a belt 1 to
3 miles wide and 25 miles long on the west shore of Chignik Bay. These
deposits are located as far as 10 miles north of Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon across Chignik Bay. In the early part of the century, interest was
shown in active coal mines, with mining of the more attractive deposits
occurring between 1899 and 1915. Electricity production would require
development of mining, transportation, storage, and generation
facilities. Currently, no coal utilization facilities of any type exist
at Chignik or Chignik Lagoon. Consequently, new facilities would have to
be developed. Utilizing coal for space heating is possible on an
individual basis. Most homes would likely require installation of
furnaces or stoves capable of burning coal.
Evaluation
Both coal utilization options face considerable obstacles for the
potential developments to be realized. Commercial coal mining existed in
the early 1900's. Since termination of that operation no interest in
reviving the commercial activities has been shown by any group. In
addition, the size of generation units needed at Chignik or Chignik Lagoon
is considerably smaller than commercial coal-fired electrical production
facilities being developed around the country. Scales of economy are
often vital in the development of coal-fired generating plants.
Consequently, the option for electric generation from coal holds no likely
potential for development.
39
Impact Assessment
Impacts caused by both options for coal use would be related to
visual, noise, air quality, and land/water resource areas. Significant
visual and noise impacts would occur with the development of mining,
transportation, storage, and generation facilities necessary to use coal
for electricity production. The need for new equipment, roads and/or
docks, a storage location, and the actual generating units all would be
items that would be seen and heard regularly. The space heating option
would likely require different mining, transportation, and storage
facilities.
Air quality would be impacted by the burning of coal in both options.
Exhausting stack gases into the area's air could cause hazing, eye, throat
and breathing irritations, and general overall reduction in air quality.
Scrubbers could be added to the generation facilities, which would help to
reduce air quality problems; however, very little could be done to reduce
emissions from home space heating units. Weather changes in the area due
to winds and storms would likely help to periodically remove stack gases
from the area.
Land and water resources could be significantly impacted by mining
activities, transportation, storage, and generation facilities required
for electricity production. Mining would require some land removal to
obtain the coal. The potential exists for substantial, and possibly
irrepairable, damage to the surrounding land. Accidents during
transportation could cause discharges into waterways. Storage facilities
would require some land area near the generating facilities. Burning of
coal for electric generation produces a fly ash waste product that would
require proper disposal. Designation of a proper disposal site would be
necessary.
Implementation
Implementation of this alternative would be the responsibility of the
local community or some outside organization. Also, the local residents
are aware of the coal deposits and they have shown no interest, to date,
in using them for electricity production or for space heating. Therefore,
this alternative has no reasonable expectation of being developed and it
is not considered further in the analysis.
40
5.1.7 Diesel/No Action
Description
This alternative involves continuation of the existing condition.
Under this scenario, diesel generation would continue to be used to meet
all electricity requirements at Chignik and Chignik Lagoon.
Evaluation
Present diesel capacity is sufficient to meet the current and
estimated short term future loads of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. However,
as the electrical needs of the region continue to increase, additional
diesel capacity would have to be developed. The communities would
experience increases in the cost of electricity production due to the
capital cost of additional generation units and increased fuel usage
needed to help meet the future electricity demands.
Impact Assessment
The primary impact associated with this alternative is economic. It
is very likely that the cost of diesel fuel will eventually rise again as
shortages occur and demand exceeds supply. By continuing to use diesel,
the village is leaving itself exposed to possible shortages in the future
if supplies are interrupted due to physical or economic constraints. In
addition to this economic impact, the communities can expect air and noise
pollution to continue at existing levels. Also, as additional diesel
generating units are added to meet new loads, air and noise pollution will
likely increase.
Implementation
Implementation of this alternative is the responsib"i1ity of the local
communities.
5.1.8 Waste Heat Recovery
Description
Two forms of potential energy recovery from existing diesel generators
are possible. The first is direct waste heat recovery for heating
purposes. This is accomplished with the use of heat exchangers, which
transfer waste heat from the water jacket and exhaust of the diesel
generators to another fluid that can be used for hot water or building
heating. Direct waste heat recovery requires that the generators be close
to the building or water supply being heated, otherwise heat is lost to
the atmosphere. The second form is by use of the Rankine Cycle. This
system vaporizes a fluid such as freon with the waste heat from the
diesels. The freon, which is under high pressure, is then used to drive a
turbine that produces shaft horsepower to turn a generator for additional
electrical power.
41
Evaluation
The feasibility of a waste heat recovery system is dependent upon the
distance between the diesel generators and the major structures or water
supply system expected to benefit from implementation of such a system.
In Chignik, the three generators operated by the village council are
closest to the school. However, this distance (approximately 100 yards)
is considered too great to allow economical recovery of waste heat from
the diesel generating units. At the cannery, four generators are within
the cannery structure. These units offer the best alternative for a
direct waste heat recovery system. Chignik Lagoon has no large central
generators, and a direct waste heat recovery system is not considered
feasible. The Rankine Cycle energy recovery systems are now in the
development stage. When they do become commercially available, it will
probably only be for units above 1000 kW.
Impact Assessment
This alternative has essentially no adverse environmental impacts
assuming no relocations are necessary. Since construction of the recovery
system is directly associated with location of the generating units, no
new lands would be needed and no impacts would occur to existing habitat
systems. If relocations were accomplished as part of this alternative,
then a small impact to land and habitat could potentially occur. Social
impacts are anticipated to be negligible. The residents and cannery
operators could expect some reduction in the use of fuel needed for space
heating and in the amount of electricity needed for hot water heating.
Implementation
Implementation of a waste heat recovery system would be the
responsibility of the Chignik community or the cannery. The community may
be able to obtain some assistance from the State, depending on what
assistance programs are available. The cannery seems to be the best
situated for capturing waste heat from its diesel generating units. Since
the cannery is a private corporation, implementation of a waste heat
recovery system would have to be pursued by the owners.
5.1.9 Water Supply/Hydropower -Indian Creek
Description
See description for Indian Creek, page 31.
Impact Assessment
See impact assessment for Indian Creek, page 33.
42
Evaluation
An alternative evaluation for Indian Creek analyzed this project as a
multipurpose project with costs being allocated between hydropower and
water supply. The Corps of Engineers "Planning Guidance Notebook"
provides for the allocation of residual costs between project purposes
when more than one need can be satisfied by a common solution.
Several conditions should exist to make the separable cost remaining
benefits method cost allocation feasible.
1. The separable or identifiable costs associated with each purpose
must be covered by the benefits earned by that purpose.
2. The remaining benefits (earned by all purposes) should cover the
unallocated or residual costs.
By definition (EP 1105-2-45) the separable costs for each project
purpose is the difference between the cost of the multipurpose project and
the project with the purpose omitted.
The following table shows the separable costs remaining benefit method
of cost allocation applied to Chignik as a multipurpose project.
Project Cost
Item SC H~dro
Inv. Cost $4,818
Proj. Ben. 611
Ann. Costs 400
Rem. Ben. 211
To be Allocated
% by Purpose 57
Cost All ocat i on 90
Total Proj. Costs 490
O&M 30
Ann. Proj. Costs 520
Allocation {lOOOS)
SC Water Su[![!l~
$ 209
1 75.1I
17
158
43
68
85
85
Res. Costs
$ 1,902
158
Total
$6,929
786
575
605
11 Water supply costs (separate project) were estimated to be $2,111,000
and to have 1 to 1 BIC ratio or annual benefits of $175,000.
By the separable costs remaining benefit method of allocating residual
costs, the position of each project purpose is improved.
The following table shows the result of cost allocation among project
purposes of the associated BIC ratios.
43
BIC Anal~sis b~ PurQose and For the Project
Item H~dro Water Su~~l~ Total
Project Ben. $611 ,000 $175,000 $786,000
Costs
Separable $400,000 $ 17,000
Allocated 90 2 °00 68,000
Total $490,000 $ 85,000
O&M $ 30,000
Total Annual $520,000 $ 85,000 $605,000
BIC 1. 17 2.06 1.30
Rem. Ben. $ 91,000 $ 90,000 $181,000
The City of Chignik and the cannery have expressed their concern that
the water supply continue to operate during and after construction of the
hydropower development on Indian Creek. The owner of the system, Sealaska
Corporation, intends to maintain and retain ownership of the water supply
system in the future. The City of Chignik does not intend to assume the
responsibility of maintaining and operating the water system. Based on
the lack of support of a multipurpose project at Chignik by local
interests, a multipurpose evaluation was eliminated from further
consideration.
5.2 CO~IPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGNATION OF THE NED PLAN
As discussed in the previous sections various alternatives were
considered to determine which plan or combination of plans would best
satisfy local and national planning objectives. National Economic
Development (NED) objectives are achieved by increasing the value of the
Nation's output of goods and services and by improving national economic
efficiency. The alternative plan that maximizes net national economic
benefits consistent with protecting the environment is defined as the NED
plan.
Alternatives considered to meet the needs of the Chignik study area
included: conservation measures; diesel generation; waste heat recovery;
geothermal power development; coal generation; wind generation;
run-of-river projects on Packers Creek and Mud Bay Lake Creek; an intertie
between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon; hydropower run-of-river project on
Indian Creek with water supply. Opportunities for reducing future costs
of energy via diesel; windpower, geothermal, coal and waste heat recovery
appear limited. Accordingly, they were not studied in detail.
Implementation of conservation measures would probably not reduce area
energy demands drastically; however, measures such as increased insulation
of electric water heaters and electrically heated buildings are cost
effective and should be considered further by the State and local
interest. Because construction of run-of-river projects on Packers and
Mud Bay Lake Creek and an intertie system would not result in net positive
44
economic benefits, these alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration. Accordingly this alternative has been designated as the
NED plan. Development of a run-of-river hydropower project on Indian
Creek with a provision for water supply would result in maximum net
national economic benefits and address the planning objectives. As can be
seen in Table 16, the average net annual NED benefit over the life of this
project is estimated at $74,000.
5.3 THE SELECTED PLAN
Description
Based on the foregoing comparison of alternatives, hydropower
development on Indian Creek has the best potential for satisfying NED and
local study objectives and become the selected plan. Specific features of
the selected plan are briefly summarized below. Appendix A provides
detailed information on the selected plan.
Indian Creek With Water Supply
The hydropower project would consist of an A-frame, 24-foot-high
timber dam constructed downstream of the existing dam. A spillway,
capable of accommodating a 100-year flood event (740 cfs) would be added
to the existing spillway. A 34-inch steel penstock would convey river
flows 5,500 feet from dam to the powerhouse downstream. For its entire
length, the penstock would follow the alinement of the present wood stave
water supply pipeline. The entire penstock would be constructed above
ground on saddles and with concrete anchor blocks at both vertical and
horizontal bends. The invert of the penstock at the intake would be 428
feet mean sea level (MSL) or 19 feet below the maximum expected lake
level. The center line of the penstock at the powerhouse would be at
elevation 20 feet MSL, resulting in a gross powerhead at 425 feet. The
powerhouse itself would be a conventional indoor plant consisting of two
550-kW Francis turbines. Flows to the powerhouse could be controlled via
two hydraulically operated butterfly valves located immediately upstream,
two manual sluice gates and an intake gate at the dam.
Access to Indian Creek Lake would be by the existing 5 to 6-foot cat
trail (minor upgrading only envisioned). Approximately 0.25 miles of 14.4
KV transmission line would run from the powerhouse to the community of
Chignik. The transmissin line would be mounted on wood poles, which would
provide a nominal 30-foot pole height above the ground, providing no less
than a 20-foot clearance at the mid-point of the conductor sag.
Construction of the Indian Creek project would take about 12 months. Real
estate requirements for the proposed project is as follows: easement
(road) -2.5 acres, easement (powerline) -0.6 acres, easement (staging
area) -1.0 acre, easement (reservoir) -7.0 acres, fee estate (project
feature) -3.0 acres.
45
Table 16
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
A. PLAN DESCRIPTION
B.
C.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1. Economic Impacts
a. Total Cost/year
b. Total Benef it s/ year
c. Net Benefits/year
d. Benefit/Cost ~atio
e. Property Values
f. Tax Revenue
g. Regional Growth
h. Employment
i. Business Activity
j. Displacement of
Homes, etc.
2. Environmental Impacts
a. Archeological
b. Water Quality
c. Water Quant ity
d. Air Pollution-
e. Natural Resources
f. Lands
g. Habitat
3. Social Impacts
a. Noise
b. Displacement of
People
c. Esthetics
d. Community Growth
and Cohesion
PLAN EVALUATION
Indian Creek (NED Plan)
Indian Creek
With Water Supply
1100 kW
Ch im i k Demand
NED Plan)
$ 634,000
$ 678,000-
$ 74,000
Without Condition
Diesel/No Action
No Change
Equal costs
N/A
1.12 N/A
No Change No Change
N~ N~
No Ch ange No Change
Short term jobs during construction. No Change
Temporary increase due to construction activity. No Change
All construction would be in areas devoid of housing. None
Sites have been identified in the study area, but none None
are known to exist in the project area.
Temporary increase in turbidity during construction. No Change
Existing water supply system to remain in operation No Change
during and after construction.
An increase in particulates would occur during con-No Change
struction. No long term effects would occur.
Construction activities would temporarily increase None
the use of fossil fuels. The project would reduce
fossil fuel dependence.
Minor lands required for construct lon, most of which No Change
now have existing structure. (Dam an~ pipeline).
Minor. temporary disturbances of birds and animals No Change
during construction. Minor loss of undocumented
indeterminate fish spawning areas.
Slight increase during construction followed by No Change
decrease once project is on line.
Potential strain on summer housing needs. None
Minor adverse visual impacts due to new project. No Change
Visible scar at lake due to drawdown.
No Change No Change
W1thout Condition
Diesel/No Action
Project would reduce fossil fuel dependency,
maintain water supply. and produce minor
environmental,and social impacts. Project is
economically justified and produces maximum
annual net benefits. Implementation could be
pursued through Corps of Engineers authoriza-
tion proceSSES, through an independent effort
by a local interest, or through a cost sharing
Under existing conditions, Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon residents will continue to use fossil
fuels for total electrical generation. This will
cause increases in electricity costs as well as
dependence on imported petroleum products.
;arrangement between a local sponsor and the
Federal Government.
46
5.3.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Specifically, the biota for Indian Creek drainage includes a small
population of furbearers such as red foxes, weasels, mink, and wolverine.
There are a few bald eagles, several species of marine birds, and ducks
and geese situated in and along the drainage basin of Indian Creek. A
small pink salmon population ranging from 50 to 100 fish is maintained by
this water system and anadroumous Dolly Varden have also been observed in
the creek. Plant communities in the study area are composed principally
of closed tall alder scrub, open tall alder-willow, and open tall alder.
Few impacts caused by the proposed hydropower project would occur.
Loss of the 2.16 acres of closed tall alder scrub and its understory
vegetation would undoubtedly cause temporary reduction of small mammal
populations. At this time, mitigation is not required.
5.3.3 Project Operation
Once constructed, the project would be turned over to the local
utility for operation and maintenance in conjunction with the eXisting
diesel generators. All maintenance associated with the intake works,
penstock, powerhouse and distribution system would be the responsibility
of the utility. Project operators are envisioned to be locally based.
The overall systems (hydropower and diesel) would be intermeshed so that
any, both, or only one may be operated at anyone time. The unit would be
capable of matching necessary load during the time of year when flows
equal or exceed the demand. During those low flow times, when energy
demand exceeds the capabilities of the system, the hydropower unit would,
when water is available, operate in a base load mode while the diesel
units would be utilized for peaking.
5.3.4 Economic Analysis
The estimated annual costs and benefits based on October 1983 prices
and 8-1/8 percent interest, are shown in Table 17.
First Cost
Project Annual Cost
Project Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit-Cost Ratio
TABLE 17
47
$ 6,675,000
604,000
678,000
74,000
1.12 to 1
The analysis shown on page A-27,APPENDIX A, indicates the sensitivity
of the project's feasiblity to population growth. To demonstrate this,
Indian Creek was analyzed assuming the worst possible scenario, population
of Chignik remaining at the 1980 level. The results of the analysis shows
the benefit-to -cost ratio for hydropower development on Indian Creek
would be 0.88 and usable energy would decrease from an equivalent annual
usable energy of 3,250,000 KWh to 2,608,000 KWh.
5.3.5 Marketability Analysis
The Chignik hydropower project with water supply on Indian Creek has
an investment cost of $6,929,000, an annual cost of $604,000, a marketable
output of 3,250,000 kWh. By crediting the project with estimated future
fuel price increases, it can be demonstrated that hydropower production is
feasible compared to the least costly alternative. Table 18 shows the
cost per kWh required to recover project costs by marketing 3,250,000 kWh
of energy under conditions applied by concerned agencies.
TABLE 18
Marketability Comparison
Agenc~ Terms Annual Costs $ eer kWh
APA (Federal) $ 779,000 0.24
(10.75%, 50 yrs)
APA (State) $ 796,000 0.245
(10.5%, 30 yrs)
REA (Federal) $ 410,000 0.126
(5% 50 yrs)
State Grant $ 546,000 O. 168
(20% loan, 80% grant,
8.5%, 30 yrs)
The best opportunity for marketing Chignik power would occur if the
project would financed through REA funding or by a combination of grant
and loan by the State of Alaska.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION
To gain public input during the study process numerous State and
Federal agencies, other organizations, and individuals were contacted. At
a public meeting held in Chignik on June 1, 1983, general support for the
hydropower plan was voiced. In addition, discussions were held with the
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon village councils. Also, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) provided a draft Coordination Act report.
48
~ESPONSES TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES cA REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations
1. During ensuing project planning
stages, additional site-specific
baseline studies be done to docu-
ment:
A. timing and numbers of
spawning pink salmon in lower
Indian Creek:
B. hydrological and meteoro-
logical characterization of the
Indian Creek drainage;
C. temperatures and water
quality within the lake and lower
creek;
D. aquatic mitigation alterna-
tives and costs;
Responses
1. Concur with A,B,C, and F. See
EIS text for further explanation of
D and E. Advanced project planning
would include more terrestrial and
fishery studies.
E. raptor nesting sites in vicinity
of proposed intertie; and
F. adequate subsistence surveys
and game harvest data.
2. If the Chignik Lagoon intertie is
economically justified, a construc-
tion plan be formulated incorpora-
ting timing, methods of clearing,
design for raptor proofing within
0.5 miles of Mud Creek, etc., and
submitted to FWS for review and
incorporation into permits and
licenses;
3. When Indian Creek pink salmon
spawning use is quantified, a tail-
race will need to be designed to
replace a part of the 0.5 mile of
lost migratory and spawning habitat.
If hydropower generation occurs for
only part of the year, a method of
supplying adequate incubation flows
into the spawning area of the tail-
race will be needed;
49
2. Concur, however, the study con-
concluded that the intertie lacked
economic feasibility. (See EIS text
page EIS-i).
3. The provlSlon of artificial
spawning gravels in the tailrace
needs to be further evaluated since
there is a lack of available infor-
mation on fish utilization in
Indian Creek (See EIS page 24).
4. During ensuing project planning
stages, additional biological studies
and detailed impact/mitigation
assessment be-scoped and funded;
5. Altered or new project designs
and plans be provided to, be
reviewed by, and commented on by
FWS;
6. FWS recommendations be included
in all contractors' specifications
and that FWS and other interested
resource agencies be able to re-
view those specifications prior
to construction bid submission;
7. Organic soils excavated during
construction be stockpiled, con-
tained in such a way as to prevent
erosion, and used in revegetation
of disturbed areas;
8. During construction, all food-
related garbage be stored in metal
containers, removed as soon as
possible, and incinerated to pre-
vent a nuisance bear situation;
9. For construction and operation
phases of the project, waste petro-
leum and waste water disposal plans
and oil spill contingency plans
addressing safe storage, use, and
clean-up of oil and gas be prepared
in accordance with State and Federal
guidelines (40 C.F.R. 112.28,
Dec. 11, 1973);
10. Erosion control plans for road/
bulldozer trails, transmission route
clearing, penstock, and dam construc-
tion should be formulated, then re-
viewed by FWS and other resource
agencies. Cleanup, restoration, and
revegetation of work areas, material
sites, disposal/stockpile sites, and
areas requiring recontouring to pre-
project conditions should take place
concurrent with construction;
4. Additional biological studies
would be needed during the advance
stages of project planning.
5. Concur. FWS would be notified
of any altered or new project
designs and plans through the for-
mal coordination process.
6. Appropriate FWS recommendations
and interests would be considered
while preparing the construction
plans and specifications.
7. Very little removal of organic
materials is anticipated; however,
considerations for proper disposal
would be included in the plan.
8. Concur, as this action would be
necessary to minimize bear-human
conflicts.
9. Because this project may be a
State-built operation, it may be-
come difficult to assume responsi-
bility for contingency plans.
50
10. Adequate precaution will be
taken to assure erosion control is
implemented during construction.
11. Review and approval of construc~ 11. Refer to recommendation #6 for
tion plans, specifications, and response.
methodologies by FWS and arrange-
ments for construction surveillance
by interested resource agency per-
sonnel shall be made prior to permit/
license review and a construction start.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis contained in this report, a hydropower project
constructed on Indian Creek with water supply provision, provides the
least costly alternative for electrical generation at Chignik. An
intertie from Chignik to Chignik Lagoon, and construction of hydropower
projects on Mud Bay Lake Creek and Packers Creek are not considered
economically feasible. The NED Plan for the Indian Creek project provides
net annual benefits of $74,000. This hydropower plan would have to be
supplemented with diesel electric generation during periods of low
streamflow since the project is basically a run-of-the-river development.
The Indian Creek hydropower project could be accomplished by the Corps of
Engineers with appropriate authorization and funding.
In addition to the hydropower project on Indian Creek, two other
alternatives offer the potential for decreasing diesel fuel use for
heating and electrical consumption in the Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
communities. Conservation in the form of home weatherization would assist
in reducing diesel fuel use for home heating and would help to slightly
decrease home electricity use. Development of the potential wind resource
of the region would help to decrease diesel fuel used for electrical
generation. Development of the conservation and wind alternatives is the
responsibility of the local communities. Various assistance programs and
expertise are available from State and Federal agencies.
51
TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
I have carefully considered the environmental, social, and economic
ramifications of providing hydroe~ectric generating capacity at Chignik,
and find that such development is a feasible means for producing
additional energy in the overall public interest. I recommend that the
Indian Creek hydroelectric project with provision for water supply, for
Chignik be authorized for Federal construction, generally in accordance
with the plan described herein, with such modifications that the Chief of
Engineers may find advisable, and in accordance with cost recovery, cost
sharing, and financing arrangements satisfactory to the President and the
Congress. Authorization of this project for Federal construction should
not preclude the development of hydroelectric facilities at this site by a
qualified nonfederal interest or local sponsorship of Federal development
through an innovative financing agreement with a nonfederal interest.
Based on October 1983 price levels, the total first cost of the project,
including necessary transmission facilities, is estimated at $6,675,000
for construction and $30,000 annually for operation, maintenance, and
replacements.
The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available
at this time and current Departmental policies governing formulation of
individual projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities
inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program
nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch.
Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are
transmitted to the Congress as proposals for authorization and/or
implementation funding.
52
•
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SMALL HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL
ON INDIAN CREEK
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
Abstract:
Because of the bleak long-range forecast for rlslng diesel fuel costs and
increasing transportation expenses, hydropower development in the State of
Alaska has assumed major importance. Sites at Indian Creek, Mud Bay Lake,
and Packers Creek, located in the Chignik and Chignik Lagoon vicinities,
are being evaluated to determine their potential for hydropower development.
Adverse environmental impacts associated with hydropower development at Mud
Bay Lake would be the loss of salmon food resources for brown bears, bald
eagles, and other raptors, and disturbance of their habitat through
increased public access via the associated transmission line/access road
corridor. Therefore, Mud Bay Lake was dropped from further consideration
due to economic and environmental factors.
Likewise, hydropower development at Packers Creek was not studied further
due to the lack of economic feasibility. It was found that Packers Creek
had low potential for energy output in a run-of-the-river installation and
would therefore require an intertie transmission line route to the Indian
Creek -Mud Bay Lake Creek sites. Again, high costs for an intertie ruled
out all efforts to pursue hydropower development at Chignik Lagoon.
Indian Creek, however, seems to be a viable candidate for hydropower
development. No cultural resource impacts are anticipated, and long term
environmental impacts are considered minimal. Field investigations
indicate that a small run of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and
anadromous Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) are indigenous to Indian Creek.
A location for the powerhouse and tailrace is under consideration. The
selected site for the powerhouse would be at the base of the bluffs behind
the village, thereby achieving maximum hydropower potential.
If you would like further information regarding this statement, please
contact:
Mr. William D. Lloyd
U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Telephone: (907) 552-2572
NOTE: Information, tables, and maps contained in the main report are
incorporated by reference in this Environmental Impact Statement.
EIS-i
SUMMARY
The villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are located on the southeast end
of ttle Alaska Peninsula, approximately 275 miles east of Unimak Pass, and
450 miles southwest of Seward, Alaska. The Aleutian Range in this area
lies more toward the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula and provides a
rugged coastline with many bays bordered by steep-sided cliffs. On the
Bering Sea side, the mountains diminish into a wide, relatively low-relief
plain dotted with numerous lakes and swampy areas. The village of Chignik
is surrounded on three sides by steep, talus valley walls; to the north
lies Anchorage Bay. (See Figure EI5-I.)
Several alternatives for potential hydropower have been examined; all but
one of these plans were eliminated due to high costs and adverse
environmental conditions. Currently, residents in Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon rely on power supplied by diesel generators. With hydropower
development, concerns about projected diesel fuel costs, noise, and
dependability would greatly diminish.
Two alternative hydropower sites at Mud Bay Lake and Packers Creek were
assessed for power potential, economic feasibility and environmental and
social factors. Based on these studies, both proposed sites were
eliminated from further considerations.
Biological resources in the project area of Indian Lake and Creek were
identified oyer a period of two field seasons. Field surveyors included
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Habitat Division), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Services, consultants to the
Alaska District (Anchorage based), and Corps personnel.
Use of land in the project vicinity by small furbearers, song birds, brown
bear, and moose is minimal. Brown bears have been spotted in the village
of Chignik, but no critical habitat has been identified within the
project's perimeter. Little waterfowl nesting occurs in pond areas located
directly behind the village. The ponds appear to be linked by exposed and
underground channels ultimately feeding into the creek channel. Adult and
juvenile three-spine sticklebacks are supported by these small water
pockets.
Impact to vegetation in the surrounding project area would be relatively
small. Sedges, willows, and some alder would be affected by the proposed
penstock routing, widening of an existing trail, and by the expected plan
of raising the water level of Indian Lake by an additional 3 feet.
The potential for a 6.5-mi1e transmission intertie between Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon was eliminated since it was not economically feasible.
Appendix B is the Section 404(b) (1) Evaluation, which fully conforms to
all the guideline requirements. The proposed project is also consistent
with the requirements posed by the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Plan.
EIS-ii
m
(J)
I
1 1/2 0 -
\
\
\.
"-"-
"-
"
-----
2 3 4
I
MIL fS
"-"
Figure EIS I
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
LOCATION &
VICINITY MAP
Alaska District. Corps of Engineers
TABLE EIS-I
Relationships of Plans to Environmental Protection Statutes and other
Environmental Requirements---Chignik Hydropower Project.
Federal Statutes
Endangered Species Act
Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
Estuary Protection Act
Federal Water Project Recreation Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
River and Harbor Act
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Executive Orders and Memoranda
Floodplain Management (11988)
Protection of Wetlands (11990)
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal
Act ion s (1 211 4 )
Analysis of Impacts on Prime or Unique
Agricultural Lands in Implementing NEPA
EIS-iv
Compliance Status
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
(see Appended 404(b)(1)
Evaluation)
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Full Compliance
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Full compliance will
be met with the filing
of the final EIS with
EPA
Full Compliance
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Compliance Status
Not Applicable
Full Compliance
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Table I (cont.)
State Requirements
Clean Water Act-Section 401
Coastal Zone Management Act
EIS-v
Compliance Status
Full compliance after
State issuance of Water
Quality Certification
(See EIS Text)
Full compliance after
State concurs with
determination that
project is consistent
with State's coastal
management plan.
(See EIS Text)
Table of Contents
Abstract
Summary
A. Need and Objectives for Action
1. Study Authority
2. Pub 1 i c Concern
3. Planning Objectives
B. Alternatives
1. Plans Eliminated from Further Study
2. Pl ans Cons i dered Further
a. Diesel Generation
b. Wind Power
c. Hydropower -Indian Creek
d. Without Conditions (No Action)
3. Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
C. Affected Environment
1. Environmental Setting
a. General
b. Hydro logy
c. Esthetics
2. Significant Resources
a. Vegetation
b. Wildlife
c. Birds
d. Fisheries
e. Marine
f. Rare and Endangered Species
3. Socioeconomics
a. Chignik
(1) Population
(2) Economy
(3) Housing
(4) Water
(e) Solid Waste
EIS-vi
Page
EIS-i
EIS-i i
EIS-
EIS-
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
E IS-1
EIS-1
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-4
EIS-6
EIS-6
EIS-6
EIS-7
EIS-9
EIS-9
EIS-13
EIS-14
EIS-14
EIS-14
EIS-14
EIS-14
EIS-15
E IS-15
EIS-15
Table of Contents (cont.)
b. Chignik Lagoon
(1) Population
(2) Economy
(3) Hous i ng
(4) Water
(5) Solid Waste
4. Cultural Resources
a. Previous Archeological Studies
b. Field Reconnaissance
D. Environmental Effects
1. Hydrology and Water Quality
2. Esthetics
3. Significant Resources
a. Vegetat i on
b. Wildlife
c. Birds
d. Fisheries
e. Marine
f. Rare and Endangered Species
4. Socioeconomics
5. Cultural Resources
E. Mitigation
1. Physical
2. Significant Resources
a. Vegetation, Wildlife,and Birds
b. Fish
F. Public Involvement
G. Coastal Zone Management
H. List of Preparers
I. Index
J. Literature Cited
EIS-vii
EIS-15
EIS-15
E1S-16
EIS-16
EIS-16
E1S-16
E1S-16
E IS-17
E 1S-17
E 1S-18
EIS-19
E1S-19
E1S-20
E1S-20
E1S-20
E 1S-21
E1S-21
EIS-22
E1S-22
E1S-22
EIS-23
EIS-23
EIS-23
EIS-24
EIS-24
E1S-24
E1S-25
EIS-25
EIS-27
EIS-28
EIS-29
Table EIS-I
Table EIS-II
Tab le ElS-I II
Table EIS-IV
Tab 1 e EIS-V
Figure ElS-I
Figure ElS-I I
Statement Recipients
Table of Contents (cont.)
Tables and Figures
Relationship of Plans to EIS-iv
Environmental Protection
Statutes and Other
Environmental Requirements--
Chignik Hydropower Project
Comparative Impacts of Alternatives EIS-3
Water Distribution of Indian EIS-5
Creek, Alaska---Average Monthly Flows
Drainage Basin Runoff Between EIS-5
Dam Site and River Mile 0.5 For
Indian Creek, Chignik, Alaska
Alaska Coastal Management Program EIS-26
(ACMP) Consistency Evaluation
Location of Project Site EIS-iii
Fishery Resources EIS-12
for the Hydropower Alternatives
Appendix
EIS-viii
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Hydroelectric Development
Chignik, Alaska
A. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION
1. STUDY AUTHORITY
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress in 1976 to
determine the feasibility of installing small prepackaged hydroelectric
units (5 megawatts or less) in isolated communities throughout Alaska.
2. PUBLIC CONCERN
The communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon have expressed interest
in developing small hydropower plants to replace or supplement existing
diesel-powered generation facilities. The escalating costs of diesel fuel,
-the noise and smell of diesel generators, and uncertainty about the
long-range diesel supply are all reasons for local residents' concern.
3. PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The objectives of feasibility studies for hydropower development are to
determine if such power development is technically, economically, and
environmentally feasible. It is anticipated that through a complete
assessment, adverse environmental impacts could be minimized.
B. ALTERNATIVES
1. PLANS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
Numerous hydroelectric power development scenarios to serve either
Chignik and/or Chignik Lagoon have been investigated, and various
co-development and intertie options also have been considered. Proposed
plans for a transmission intertie route between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
have been eliminated from further study. Considerations to develop
hydropower for Mud Bay Lake and Packers Creek also have been dropped due to
low economic feasibility.
Other generation alternatives include diesel generation, Indian Creek
hydropower, and wind power. Since these are potential energy resources, a
brief explanation is provided.
2. PLANS CONSIDERED FURTHER
(a) Diesel Generation
The existing electrical generation facilities at Chignik, excluding
the cannery, consist of one 75-ki1owatt (kW) diesel generator and two
17S-kW diesel generators. These generators supply power to the school and
residents of the village. The functioning cannery at Chignik operates on
its own generators, consisting of one Pelton wheel producing 60 kW, two
250-kW diesel generators, and four 300-kW diesel generators. The village
of Chignik Lagoon operates on a dispersed power generation system,
consisting of various 3-to lO-kW diesel generators owned and operated by
individual residents or groups of residents. No commercial generation
facilities serve Chignik Lagoon. Concerns relative to diesel fuel, however,
involve the rising costs of diesel fuel and fuel shipment dependability.
(b) Wind Power
It is unlikely that competitive and fully dependable wind powered
commercial generators would be possible at Chignik Lagoon and Chignik to
meet the energy needs of both communities.
(c) Hydropower -Indian Creek
The Indian Creek hydropower project would include a dam and a
spillway constructed just downstream of the existing wood buttress dam.
The dam would be a timber structure with a maximum height of 24 feet and a
crest elevation of 451 feet. This structure would raise the lake level
from its present elevation of 442 feet to 445 feet with maximum drawdown of
15 feet. Installed power capacity would be 1.1 megawatts (MW).
The proposed penstock would follow the alinement of the present
wood stave water supply pipeline.
(d) Without Conditions (no action)
Without the development of the proposed hydroelectric project, some
environmental impacts would occur in the form of air and noise pollution
and possible fuel spills from diesel generators. Escalating costs of fuel
could prove to be an important economic consideration for the community.
The no-action alternative would essentially result in a
continuation of the present reliance on diesel-powered generators, both
commercial and dispersed, in the two nearby communities.
3. COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES. (See page EIS-3)
C.AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
(a) Genera 1
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are located on the southeast coast of
the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 275 miles east of Unimak Pass, and 450
miles southwest of Seward, Alaska. The area that would be affected by the
project lies between longitude 158 0 and 159 0 west, and latitude 56 0 and 57 0
north. Portions of the project area are within the Aleutian Mountain Range
and the adjacent Pacific Ocean lowlands.
EIS-2
TABLE EIS-II. COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Archeological
Resources
Social values
Endangered Species
DIESEL GENERATION
No Effect
The continued use
of diesel gener-
ators wi 11 not
alleviate local
concerns for ri s-
ing costs of die-
sel fuel.
NO Effect
Fisheries Resources NO Effect
Wildlife Resources NO Effect
Vegetation NO Effect
WIND POWER
NO Effect
Since wind power
has the interest
of only a few in-
dividuals in
Chignik, it seems
unlikely that
enough energy
could be generated
to have an overall
economic effect.
NO Effect
NO Effect
NO Effect
NO Effec t
INDIAN CREEK HYDROPOWER
NO significant archeological sites are
near the proposed project site.
A slight economic increase for the local
community should occur during the
construction phase. The construction
labor force would require housing and
the use of the local store and
restaurant. The potential for local
employment would also exist.
NO effect -U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service states that there are no
Rare and Endangered Species existi ng
near the proposed project.
NO ACTION
NO Effect
NO Change in
economic growth
or income
NO Effect
Possible impact on small pink salmon NO Effect
population; however, there is a data gap
regarding the exact number. It is
assumed to be 50-100 salmonids.
Minor impacts on wildlife may exist. NO Effect
LOSS of closed tall alder scrub and its
understory vegetation may cause temporary
reduction of small mammal
populations; however, no serious impact
upon predators nor upon the minor use
of small mammals for food by brown
bears can be expected.
There will be minimal impacts to
vegetation where construction
activities would occur. However,
those areas should regenerate
immediately following
construction and would then be
stabilized in a few years.
NO Effec t
Indian Creek is approximately 3.5 miles long and drains generally
north-northwest from an elevation of 1,200 feet to sea level, exiting
through the flatlands (containing the village of Chignik) into Anchorage
Bay. The creek valley is relatively narrow and approximately 1.5 miles
wide (crest to crest). The valley walls are steeply sloping, ranging from
50 percent to near vertical along the upper valley walls. A small timber
dam and lake impoundment are located at an elevation of 442 feet. These
facilities provide both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to
the cannery at Chignik. The average stream gradient is 15 percent from the
headwaters to the mouth. The stream is generally incised downstream of the
dam and lake. Field reconnaissance photos taken in April of 1982 show
sedimentary bedrock outcrops both within and adjacent to the incised creek
drainage.
(b) Hydrology
Above the existing damsite, Indian Creek has a drainage area of 3
square miles. The basin ranges in elevation from 3,430 feet at the highest
point to a low of about 442 feet at the existing 20-acre reservoir. The
basin is sparsely vegetated and consists predominantly of bedrock and talus
slopes. The basin is open to the northwest and partially shielded from
southerly Pacific storms by the mountains on its southern boundary. The
existing lake has been formed by a glacial terminal moraine.
A stream gaging station was established near the proposed damsite
in early 1982. This station has not yet developed enough records to be
useful for estimation of potential streamflow.
Table EIS-III includes the monthly average synthetic streamflow
over a 50-year period for the Indian Creek system. Monthly streamflows
were developed by the HEC-4 Computer program. Because only limited
rainfall records from Chignik were available, monthly flows also were
derived from runoff from Myrtle Creek near Kodiak and Spruce Creek near
Seward. These two streams seem to be consistent with the size and
characteristics of Indian Creek drainage basin. Installation of rain and
temperature gages at Indian Creek took place in June 1983.
It is apparent that winter flows (Jan-Mar) after cannery use are
nearly nonexistent. Generated runoff data shown in Table EIS-IV represent
the area between the damsite and upper reach of pink salmon habitat as
indicated in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (CA) Report's
schematic habitat diagram. Table IV represents streamflow for each month
produced solely by drainage basin runoff. While it is assumed that water
will be diverted from the creek, very little flow may exist from basin
precipitation (i.e., 1.26 cubic feet per second in January). After
hydroelectric development, using the selected alternative, these estimated
runoff flows would be the only flows available for the Indian Creek system.
EIS-4
TABLE EIS-III. WATER DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN CREEK, CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Average CFS Left After CFS Available for
Monthly Cannery Water CFS Left After Hydroelectric &
Month Flow 1/ Right Use 2/ Cannert Use 3/ Fisheri: Use 4/
Jan 3.80 None 2.24 None
Feb 4.42 None 2.86 None
Mar 2.42 None None None
Apr 23.09 18.69 19.45 18.69
May 56.23 51.83 52.71 51.83
Jun 55.23 50.83 51 .59 50.83
Jul 24.65 20.25 21 .01 20.25
Aug 28.66 24.26 25.02 24.26
Sep 40.35 35.95 36.71 35.95
Oct 43.76 39.36 40.12 39.36
Nov 36.73 32.33 36.73 32.33
Dec 29.37 24.97 29.37 24.97
1 50-year average monthly flow measured in cubic feet per second.
2 2,000 gals/minute = 4.4 cfs (State of Alaska issuance of water rights).
3 300 gal/min. (1.56 cfs) (Jan-Feb) and 700 gal/min. (3.64 cfs) (Jun-Oct).
4 CFS available for Hydroelectric and Fishery after cannery water rights
are allocated. Maximum and minimum hydroelectric use is cfs = 40 (max.),
cfs = 7 (min.). For simplicity, calculations included only maximum use.
TABLE EIS-IV. DRAINAGE BASIN RUNOFF BETWEEN DAM SITE AND
RIVER MILE 0.5 FOR INDIAN CREEK, CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Month
Jan
Feb
[vlar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2/ Runoff 1/
3.802/3 = 1.26
4.422/3= 1.47
2.420/3 = .80
23.09/3 = 7.69
56.35/3 ::: 18.78
55.23/3 = 18.41
24.65/3 = 8.21
28.66/3 = 9.55
40.35/3 = 13.45
43.76/3 = 14.58
36.73/3 = 12.24
29.37/3 = 9.79
1/ Runoff measured in cubic feet per second (cfs).
2/ Basin precipitation for the area between the dam site and river mile
0.5 (approx. 1 sq. mi. or 1/3 of the total catchment area) was calculated
by taking 1/3 of the average monthly flow (representing the surrounding 3
sq. mi. basin). This calculated precipitation amount seems to be the only
generated flow in Indian Creek after construction of the proposed project.
EIS-5
Observations of historical floods are not available for Indian
Creek. The probable magnitude of annual peak flood discharges for each
stream has been estimated by means of a U.S. Geological Survey method as
presented in "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams" by John Lamb.
Flood frequency curves developed by this method are presented in the
engineering report. For preliminary purposes, the maximum probable flood
may be approximated as three times greater than the 50-year flood
magnitude. Thus, for the purpose of this document, the maximum probable
flood for Indian Creek is about 1,800 cubic feet per second (cfs). This
estimate represents the runoff resulting from the most severe rainfall and
snowmelt situation considered possible for the region. It should be used
only for consideration of dam integrity when failure would result in loss
of life and extensive property damage downstream.
No sediment transport studies have been performed at Indian Creek.
The observed discharge is very clear. The existence of a relatively deep
lake without topset beds indicates that there is little sediment inflow.
For that reason, depletion of storage by sediment is not expected.
(c) Esthetics
The Indian Creek drainage has already been impacted by man-made
developments. Existing facilities include a small timber dam and lake
impoundment at an elevation of 442 feet. An elevated water supply pipeline
runs from this elevation to the Alaska Packers Association Cannery at
Chignik.
2. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
(a) Vegetation
Plant communities in the study area were analyzed by means of
observations made and photographs taken during April 1982, recent
photogrammetric maps produced as a part of this project, and preliminary
vegetation maps furnished by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servie (FWS).
Although the general environment of the Chignik area appears
homogeneous, the proposed sites of hydroelectric development lie in
slightly different environmental settings that will have important
influences on the vegetation and associated animal populations.
Indian Creek Lake is situated at an elevation of 442 feet
approximately 1.5 miles south of Chignik village. Mountains rise steeply
to elevations of 1,500 feet to 2,000 feet on the east, south and west sides
of the lake, closing in more abruptly on the west side of the lake.
Drainage into the lake is principally from the south. Much of the drainage
basin is relatively barren of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation because of
the harsh environment of broken rock and steep topography. An analysis was
done of 1.6 square miles of mapped habitat, encompassing the Indian Creek
Lake and Indian Creek drainages, which will be traversed by the proposed
project. The analysis indicated that approximately 48 percent of the area
is covered by closed tall alder scrub, principally composed of dense (more
than 75 percent canopy cover) Sitka alder thickets that are six to nine
EIS-6
feet tall with a fairly dense understory of b1uejoint grass. Alder and
willow thickets occur around the small lake north of Indian Creek Lake.
This habitat type predominates just east of the larger lake on the
southwest exposures between 1,000 to 1,500 feet elevation. Open tall alder
thickets occupy about 17 percent of the area, mostly between 1,500 to 2,000
feet, and a narrow band along the east side of Indian Creek Lake. The
terrain on the southwest side of the lake is covered by a mosaic of low
(less than 6 feet in height) open alder and tall herbaceous habitat of
b1uejoint grass with a mixture of herbs. Coverage of major habitat types
at the proposed Indian Creek and Mud Bay Lake project areas is estimated in
the chart below. Habitat types are classified according to Viereck,
Oyrness and Batten (1982).
Habitat Type
Closed Tall Alder
Open Tall Alder-Willow
Open Tall Alder
Closed Tall Alder-Willow
Open Low Alder
Tall Grass (B1uejoint and herbs)
Miscellaneous
Indian Creek
44
23
16
5
3
3
6
100
Mud Bay Lake
5
12
50
10
23
100
Une of the most important examples of wet meadow habitat is a wet
sedge meadow located between the village of Chignik and the steep bluff
just west of it, across which the current penstock extends on pilings.
Such areas are considered sensitive, highly productive habitat for a
variety of animal and plant life. Wet sedge meadow is not locally abundant
and should not be impacted if at all possible.
(b) Wildlife
Emphasis was placed on determining the importance of the Indian
Creek drainage in relation to brown bears and moose because of the value
placed on these animals as big game species. Aerial surveys were made by
helicopter inspection of north-and east-facing slopes of the project area
perimeters during late April 1982. Special emphasis was placed on dense
alder and willow thickets with deep snow located between 1,000 feet and
1,500 feet, the preferred brown bear denning habitat (Lentfer et a1. 1972).
Uens were not discovered, nor do such preferred denning areas appear to be
in the lake impoundment or the penstock right-of-way. The entire penstock
alinement was surveyed on foot during September and no signs of bear
denning activities were seen. In general, the project area can be
consiaered to be on the border of optimum brown bear habitat such as exists
near Black Lake, where up to 148 animals were seen during one evening
aerial survey during the past summer (Richard Sellers, personal
communication).
Signs of moose and other big game animals were seen near Indian
Creek and Indian Creek Lake during the field surveys. There were reports
during our April survey of a denning brown bear in the creek drainage
immediately east of Chignik, and a sow and her cub were observed feeding on
EIS-7
salmon cannery wastes on the shores of Anchorage ~ay during the FWS's
August field trip. One bear, apparently a male, was observed during the
survey of the Mud Bay Lake area in April. Although its den was not
discovered, it was believed to be near the northeast corner of S14 T45S
R59W, based upon the short distance the bear trail was visible in fresh
snow and the lateness of the season. Another fresh bear trail was followed
for about one-half mile on the peninsula between Mud Bay and Chignik
Lagoon. Previously, a sow and three cubs were seen in June 1981 near Mud
Bay Lake. Alaska Department of Fish and Game tADF&G) biologists estimated
that during that same year six brown bears were in the drainage basin to
the south of the proposed project area. Aerial surveys conducted by the
ADF&G from 1970 to 1975 provided only scattered observations of bear in
this region, giving no specific locations and densities. Den emergence for
brown bears in this area varies with the weather conditions, but usually
occurs between early April and early June. Most emerge in May; sows with
cubs usually emerge later than males. In contrast to Indian Creek,
abundant bear signs were noted around Mud Bay Lake during all FWS and
contractor surveys, indicating that the salmon resource provides support
for a significant bear population.
Three moose were sighted during the April survey in the western
part of the Chignik Peninsula, and two moose were seen during the September
survey. The population is considered to be relatively stable, although not
as high as about 5 years ago. Chignik residents have reported that the
population has never recovered to former levels. The ADF&G biologists in
King Salmon verify that the moose population in this area has gradually
declined during the past 10 to 15 years (Richard Sellers, personal
communication). Une or two moose are usually taken annually by hunters of
the Chignik area, but most residents harvest animals in the Aniakchak-Amber
Bay area, some 35 to 50 miles farther up the Alaska Peninsula from Chignik
and Chignik Lagoon.
Caribou are taken in limited numbers by Chignik residents, mostly
in the Port Heiden or Kujulik Bay areas, and there is an appreciable
exchange of food items with Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon residents.
Early runs of salmon produce fresh fish that is traded for caribou and
moose at those locations (Payne and Braund 1981), thus expanding the
subsistence resource base.
Furbearers in the Chignik region receive only slight attention from
the residents, although appreciable numbers of red foxes, weasels, mink,
wolverine, and tundra hares are indicated by signs noted during all field
surveys conducted this year. Lesser numbers of wolves and land otters are
also present in the area. Sizable populations of small mammals occur
throughout the alder and willow thickets, especially where the more open
areas have extensive stands of grasses and herbs for food. One Chignik
Lagoon resident ran an extensive trap line in this area, and several of his
abandoned traps were found during our field survey. One trap contained
remains of a wolverine eaten by predators. Signs of furbearers were
especially abundant around the headwaters of Packers Creek and eastward
toward Mud Bay Lake. Residents of this area do not possess much interest
in trapping (ADF&G's Richard Sellers, personal communication), although
socioeconomic studies indicate that a few residents do trap. Kecent mild
winters in the region may have discouraged greater involvement; however,
EIS-8
beaver lodges on Mud Bay Lake have been dynamited in the past (apparently)
as a management procedure by fisheries personnel who were concerned for the
potential blockage of the lake outlet to salmon. Fresh beaver cuttings and
dams were noted on Mud Bay Lake drainages during May (FWS Planning Aid
Letter, July 1982), and a new dam was noted in the lake outlet in September
(Ken Middleton, personal communication). This dam did not obstruct the
sockeye salmon movement into Mud Bay Lake, and provided
schooling habitat for some 40 to 50 large (12-to 24-inch) Dolly Varden
char.
(c) Birds
Chignik Lagoon is situated on the edge of a major north-south
migration route for waterfowl, shorebirds, and marine birds that follow the
Alaska Peninsula and colonize major rookeries near Chignik. Some birds
also cross the Aleutian Kange in the Black Lake-Chignik Lake area as
various population segments move between Bristol Bay and the Gulf of Alaska
on their way to and from breeding grounds in western Alaska. Estuaries of
Chignik Bay serve as shelter and feeding areas for several species of
marine birds that winter in the area. Castle Bay, about 10 miles southwest
of Chignik, is an important area for the harvesting of ducks and geese,
important subsistence resources for Chignik residents. ChanKliut Island,
located about 5 miles southeast of Castle Bay, supports a seabird colony of
about 4,000 murres, kittiwakes, puffins, guillemots, gulls, and cormorants
(Sowls, Hatch and Lensink, 1978). About 250 species of birds are expected
to occur in the Chignik-Chignik Lagoon environs, mostly marine and
passerine species. Of these only the Aleutian Canada Goose is considered
to be threatened or endangered; it may cross the area on its migrations to
and from the Pacific coast states from its main breeding ground on Buldir
Island in the western Aleutian Islands.
(d) Fisheries
Due to the importance of the salmon fishing industry to the State
of Alaska in general, and to the communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
in particular, the affected fishery resources of the Chignik area should
first be discussed in a broader context. To do so, it must be understood
how the finfish resources of Indian Creek fit into the overall State of
Alaska Fisheries Management Plan.
The Chignik Fishery Management Area is bounded on the north by the
Kilokak Rocks, near the entrance to Imuya Bay, and on the south by
Kupreanof Point. This management area is further divided into five fishing
districts tfor finfish). These five fishing districts are further
subdivided into a total of 14 sections. These smaller divisions serve
specific management and geographic orientation purposes. Overlapping the
districts and sections are 25 statistical catch reporting units. These
units dO not always conform exactly to the regulatory descriptions for
districts and sections due to regulation changes; however, they remain
constant in order to maintain the integrity of the historical catch data
base.
EIS-9
The Indian Creek watershed drains into Anchorage Bay, a component
of the Chignik Bay Fishing District. The Chignik Bay District is confined
to those waters southwest of a line extending from Jack Point on the south
to Neketa Creek on the north. Anchorage Bay is also a component of the
slightly smaller statistical catch reporting unit known as 271-70, or
Chignik Lagoon.
In 1981, ADF&G personnel surveyed some 86 salmon streams in the
Chignik Management Area. Such surveys were routine annual surveys
conducted by aircraft throughout the summer fishing season to assess salmon
run strength and escapement levels for management purposes.
The Chignik Fishery I~anagement Area salmon harvest in 1981 totaled
3.6 million fish, valued at $22 million to the fishermen. For 103
registered vessels, the harvest resulted in gross income of $214,000 per
vessel. The Chignik Lagoon statistical area produced back-to-back record
sockeye harvests of 1.3 and 1.4 million fish in 1981 and 1982 respectively.
The Chignik Bay District accounted for 42 percent of the area's
total salmon catch, 74 percent of the sockeye catch, 45 percent of the coho
catch, 10 percent of the pink catch, 6 percent of the chum catch, and 74
percent of the king salmon catch in 1981. Virtually all of the Chignik Bay
District catch and production is generated by the highly productive Chignik
River system, where the commercial fishing fleet concentrates (in Chignik
Lagoon) during the fishing season. As few as four seine vessels normally
venture into the outer area of Chignik Lagoon toward the Anchorage Bay-Jack
Point area. Consequently, exploitation of salmon stocks specific to the
Mud Bay-Anchorage Bay systems is probably minimal.
With the exception of reported personal use of clams in the Mud Bay
area, no documentation is available concerning recreational or sUbsistence
utilization of marine species in the Anchorage Bay or Mud Bay areas.
Indian Creek Fisheries Resources
Historical documentation concerning the Indian Creek system does
not exist. This system has recently been listed in the ADF&G Anadromous
Stream Catalog; however, it is one of the many streams in the area that is
surveyed by the ADF&G annually.
According to the FWS, local residents estimate a population of pink
salmon ranging from 300 to 1,000 fish. It is not clear, however, whether
these estimates were based on pre-or post-1964 earthquake observations.
Local opinion also maintains that the pink salmon run was larger and that a
small coho salmon population existed in Indian Creek before the 1964
earthquake. The earthquake presumably moved the stream mouth outlet from
its former site just behind and east of the gravel spit upon which the
Alaska Packers cannery ;s situated to a location several hundred yards west
of this point. However, aerial photos dated August 20, 1963 show the
Indian Creek outlet in its current position, suggesting either that local
oplnlon is mistaken as to the date of the alteration or that the aerial
photo date is erroneous.
EIS-10
The physical characteristics of the stream definitely limit salmon
production. A significant velocity barrier exists approximately one mile
upstream from the stream's mouth. In all probability, this is the upper
limit of anadromous fish migration. Again, local opinion has it that the
limit of pink salmon spawning may be restricted to the lower one-half mile
of stream. The stream's substrate consists primarily of boulders, large
rubble, and cobble with little available gravel for spawning.
Three field investigations were conducted during 1982 to ascertain
fisheries resources. A 2-day field investigation conducted by FWS
personnel on May 14 and 15, 1982 revealed the presence of juvenile pink
salmon, Dolly Varden char, and sculpin in the lower reaches of Indian
Creek. The timing and duration of this sampling period may not have been
optimal to evaluate the abundance of outmigrating pink salmon fry. Pink
salmon fry typically emerge from their redds in Alaskan streams from March
through May. ' Nevertheless, this limited sampling effort did establish that
pink salmon utilize Indian Creek for spawning, because a 24-hour fyke net
set produced a catch of 200 juvenile pink salmon. Additionally, a 24-hour
sample with four baited minnow traps captured seven Dolly Varden juveniles
and one sculpin. (See Figure EIS II for Fishery Resources.)
A subsequent FWS field trip from July 27 to August 2 revealed that
juvenile Dolly Varden and sculpin were inhabiting the lower one-half mile
of Indian Creek. No adult pink salmon were found, although observations
centered on the general timing of adult migration of pink salmon spawners
in this area (July 10 through August 30).
A field trip to this same area of Indian Creek was conducted during
September 6 to 9, 1982, by Middleton & Associates. Helicopter and ground
surveillance substantiated previous investigations that fish did not occur
in the lake or immediately below the lake. A foot survey 500 yards
upstream from the mouth of Indian Creek revealed the presence of eight
adult Dolly Varden and one female pink salmon in a gravid, pre-spawning
condition. There was no evidence of post-spawners, carcasses, or other
salmon species in this area.
Alaskan studies of anadromous Dolly Varden char indicate that
mature fish use their natal streams to spawn and seek lakes to overwinter.
Since Indian Creek Lake is not available for this purpose, these apparently
anadromous Dolly Varden probably leave Indian Creek by late November,
either to feed or in the ocean or to overwinter in lake systems. Migration
from the ocean into freshwater streams can extend from July through
October, the latter month being the peak period for spawning.
It is apparent that Indian Creek does not support a significant
finfish population. At one time, before the 1964 earthquake, it may have
supported up to 1,000 pink salmon, but this number is unsubstantiated and
unlikely in light of observations made during 1982. Since pink salmon are
noted for their "straying" habits, the presence of salmon in the Indian
Creek system could possibly be related to population pressures (abundance
indicating competition for space between species) in adjacent systems, or
even random straying of individual fish.
t:IS-ll
m
o
I ...
N
I DV I DOLLY VARDEN
~ PINK SALMON
I SS I SOCKEYE SALMON
@J CHUM. SALMON
0" ~O
'y'D-
o tI
o I010Q t? ~ .~~
INDIAN CREEK
POWERHOUSE
Figure EIS II
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydropower
Feasibility Study
l o
It)
FISHERY RESOURCES
FOR THE
HYDROPOWER ALTERNATIVES
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
Had there been any significant numbers of salmon present, they
would have been readily apparent in this small, clearwater stream. Adult
pink salmon were still entering the adjacent Mud Bay Creek in early
September, so timing was not the factor. It seems another factor involved
is the limited streamflows during the winter months, which affect egg
incubation requirements and survival of young hatching out from late
December through February. Fluctuation of flows in the lower reaches of
the creek from June to September may also inhibit upstream migration and
the eventual occurrence of pink salmon spawning.
Since pink salmon have a distinctive 2-year life cycle, the even
and odd year populations are genetically distinctive and may vary
considerably in number. If a remnant pink salmon run is maintained in this
system, this brood year was a virtual failure. Pink salmon production was
generally down in the Chignik Bay District in 1982.
(e) Marine
The shellfish fishing areas for the Chignik District vary somewhat
by species. The tanner and king crab areas approximate the finfish area,
extending from Kupreanof Point to the longitude of Cape Kumlik. For shrimp,
the boundaries are the Kilokak Kocks on the east and Cape Sarichef on the
west.
Shellfish production has varied considerably in recent years. King
crab production from the Chignik District has averaged 165,000 pounds per
season for the past ten years, with a range of 12,000 to 365,000 pounds.
Tanner crab production has averaged 4.9 million pounds over the last 8
years, ranging from 2.5 to 6.9 million pounds. The shrimp fishery began in
1968 with a harvest of 900,000 pounds. Peak production occurred during the
1977-78 season, when 71.6 million pounds were landed. Production during
the 1981-82 season dropped to 71,000 pounds. Since the peak year of
1977-78, the entire area has been virtually closed to shrimp fishing in
oraer to rebuild the stocks. Shrimp populations have been in a depressed
condition in recent years throughout the Chignik-South Peninsula area.
Both Dungeness crab and scallop fisheries are sporadic and relatively minor.
Herring have been harvested in the general area since 1906. Total
annual catches in the early 1900's did not exceed one million pounds. The
fishery ended in the late 1930's. Commercial herring fishing recommenced
in the Chignik area in 1980, and was directed at sac roe production for
export to Japan. In 1980, 48 tons of herring were harvested in Anchorage
Bay from l"lay 16 to 21. On May 24, aeri a 1 surveys undertaken by ADF&G
indicated that 40 tons of herring were present in the area. In 1981, 1,000
tons were observed during the entire season. Fishermen seined schools of
fish totaling 3,000 tons to 5,000 tons, but they turned out to be
unmarketable spawned-out herring and capel in. No commercial landings of
herring were recorded that season. Only 196 tons were harvested in 1982.
Mud ~ay is extremely shallow and supports a healthy aquatic plant
community. Even though no data exist other than the general knowledge that
there are clam resources in the area, it is very likely that the aquatic
plants are important to a variety of marine life forms.
EIS-13
(f) Rare and Endangered Species
These species are discussed under the "Environmental Effects"
section of this report (see Section (D) (3) (f).
3. SOCIOECONOMICS
Project resources did not permit field research on the socioeconomic
structures of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. The following material is
excerpted from the most recent studies completed in the area (Environmental
Services, Ltd. 1982a, b.)
Date:
(a) Chignik
\1) Population
Population:
1890
193
1939
224
1959
253
1960
99
1970
83
1980
178
The population of Chignik peaked in 1950 with 253 persons and then
decreased dramatically. Between 1970 and 1980, the population increased by
114 percent. Residents report that this increase is primarily due to a
healthy economy. The population is 53.4 percent native, mostly Aleut. In
1980, the median ages were 25.3 and 25.2 years for males and females,
respectively. The population was 53.4 percent male and 46.6 percent female.
During the summer fishing season, approximately 600 to 700 people
move to Chignik from Kodiak, Anchorage, Seward, Seattle, and villages
throughout the region to fish and work in the cannery.
(2) Economy
Fishing is the mainstay of the cash economy in Chignik. Beginning
around the second week in June, residents prepare to fish for red salmon
and successive runs of pink, dog (chum), and silver salmon. Fish are taken
in purse seiners and delivered to the local cannery or to Kodiak for
freezing. Chignik is the major fishing community in the area, with boats,
crews and families from several area villages and elsewhere congregating
there during the salmon season. All but a few of the Sea-Alaska cahnery
employees come from outside the state.
The economic well-being of Chignik, as well as the whole region,
depends on the success of the salmon fishermen. Salmon runs have been good
the last several years. The 1981 Chignik red salmon runs of 3,072,599 fish
broke the previous record set in 1888. Runs for other salmon species
approached record numbers in 1981. The 103 fishing boats in the Chignik
area in 1981 caught a total of $22,090,000 worth of salmon (all species)
averaging $214,446 per vessel. Red salmon comprised the major portion of
the total catch of 3,621,800 fish.
Subsistence is an important part of the residents' lifestyle and
native cultural heritage, as well as a major source of food. Salmon are
caught by seining from spring until early winter. Marine fish, such as
EIS-14
cod, black bass and halibut, are caught year round. Rainbow trout are
taken in the winter and summer. Dolly Varden are caught during the summer
and early fall. Residents fish for Dungeness, king, and tanner crab, clams
and octopus through the year. I~oose, caribou, ptarmigan, ducks, and geese
are hunted in season (villagers travel extensively for hunting). In the
fall, residents pick blueberries, cranberries, mossberries, and
salmonberries.
(3) Housing
Chignik has 48 houses, and the cannery has bunkhouses for its
seasonal workers. A few newer houses in good condition are scattered
throughout the community; however, most of the houses are in fair to poor
condition. Chignik usually has three or four vacancies in the winter, but
during the summer fishing season a severe housing shortage occurs.
l4) Water
The village built a dam on Indian Creek in 1947 to provide a
reservoir for the cannery and the vi llage residents. The water is
untreated, but of good quality. A line distributes water from the dam to
the cannery. Five homes, which have buried lines connected to the main
line, have water all winter. Other homes are connected via aboveground
lines. These lines often freeze in the winter. When this happens,
residents carry water to their homes from the cannery. Six houses and the
school have private wells.
(5) Solid Waste
Trash is burned at an incinerator operated by the cannery. Solid
waste that cannot be burned 1S dumped in a slough whicn empties into
Anchorage Bay. This dump site is not approved by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Date:
(b) Chignik Lagoon
(1) Population
Population
1960
1M
1980
48
There are no early census figures for Chignik Lagoon, nor was the
population counted in the 1970 census. The population declined 125 percent
from 1960 to 1980. A local census conducted by the village council on
October 1, 1981, counted 84 people. The present population is 85.4 percent
Native (mostly Aleut). In 1980, the median age was 21.8 years for males
and 19.5 for females. The population was 52.1 percent male and 47.9
percent female.
In the summer during the salmon season, people from the surrounding
area move to Chignik Lagoon to fish. The village population swells to as
many as 200 people; an additional 10 live on boats moored offshore.
EIS-15
(2) Economy
The economy of Chignik Lagoon is similar to that described
previously for Chignik; fishing is the mainstay of the economy, and
subsistence is an important part of the lifestyle and source of food.
Chignik Lagoon does not have a cannery, however.
Other employed people in the community include a teacher, a
part-time school custodian, a U.S. Postal Service employee, a health aid,
and a part-time road maintenance person.
(3) Housing
Some of the community's 61 single-family houses are new. Others are
in substandard condition, but the majority are in good condition. Houses
are of wood frame or prefabricated construction. Most are owner built.
(4) Water
Residents of Chignik Lagoon have individual wells as their water
source. The wells average 10 to 30 feet in depth. The school has its own
hand-dug well. The water is untreated, but of good quality.
l5) Solid Waste
Garbage is dumped on the sandy point near the airport and burned,
and the tide washes away the residue. Tne disposal site is not approved by
the State Department of Environmental Conservation.
4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Alaska Peninsula has been of particular interest to anthropologists
because, at the time of European contact, three separate ethnic and racial
groups existed in this area: Aleuts, Eskimos and Athabaskans. The most
recent research on the Peninsula seems to indicate that the Chignik region
on the Pacific coast, west to Port Moller on the Bering Sea coast, was the
northernmost extent of the Aleutian tradition. The prehistoric boundary
between the groups probably fluctuated somewhat throughout time, so precise
boundaries cannot be drawn.
In historic times, before the start of the canning industry, the
westernmost Eskimo village on the Pacific coast of the Peninsula was
located on the small peninsula between Chignik and Kujulik Bays, which is
north of the study area (Pinart 1871 quoted in Uumond, et al. 1975). At
that time, the nearest Aleut settlements to the project area were in the
Shumagin Islands to the south and on the Peninsula itself near present day
Perryville (Dumond 1974).
The early history of the Chignik area is summarized by Dumond, et ale
(1975) and is somewhat confusing. The 1880 census indicates that two small
Eskimo towns flanked Chignik Bay. By 1889 three canneries were in the bay,
and a year later the 1890 census indicates only five remaining Natives.
Church records at the end of that decade give conflicting reports of Aleut
E1S-l6
and Agiemiut (Eskimo) marriages and births, possibly reflecting white
confusion of terminology about these Natives. Dumond, Conton and Shields
conclude that the "bulk of the evidence suggests Chignik Natives were
Eskimo" .
Currently the village participates in the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation (Eskimo).
(a) Previous Archeological Studies
The University of uregon performed some archeological surveys and
excavations in the Chignik area as part of a long term program on Alaska
Peninsula prehistory. Several sites were located and tested on the Chignik
River between Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon as a result of this program
(see Dumond 1975 for map).
The majority of these sites have assemblages closely related to
those from the Hot Springs collection at Port Moller and other collections
from Izembek Lagoon at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula (Henn 1978; Dumond,
et aJ. 1976). The chipped stone assemblage is almost exclusively of basalt;
there is no pottery and little slate. The sites may date to roughly 2000
B.C. Clearly, Chignik's affiliation is to the Aleutian traditions to the
south in its Alaska Peninsula manifestation, which is distinct from the
Aleutian proper, but even more distinct from Eskimo traditions.
Une site on the Chignik River, Alaska Historic Resources Survey
(AHRS) No. CHK 011, includes Thule-like material indicating some Eskimo
influence or influx in the second millenium A.D.
Near the project areas, Dumond found a site, AHRS No. CHK 010,
located behind the uppermost houses at the upstream end of Chignik Lagoon
village. Ten specimens were collected that were similar to the Chignik
River Aleutian tradition material. The site was obscured by modern
construction.
Another site was located at the present landing strip at Chignik
(Alaska Division of Parks, June 1976). Strip construction destroyed the
site, and its cultural affiliation is unknown.
(b) Field Reconnaissance
(1) Chignik
Two days were spent surveying the Chignik area. Damsite,
powerhouse site, penstock route, and transmission line route were all
scrutinized. Intensive visual coverage was given to the project area.
Vegetation and landforms were scanned for any anomalies and soil exposures
were studied. Four judgmental shovel test pits were excavated on the banks
of Indian Creek.
EIS-17
The area near the present village is highly disturbed. Recent and
old bulldozer activity can be noted as well as rubble from old canneries
that have been razed in the past. No prehistoric remains were found, and it
is highly unlikely that any could survive the intensive modern occupation.
The gravel deposits of Indian Creek indicate a great volume of
runoff in the spring. The banks do not seem very stable in the lower
reaches. No cultural remains were noted.
The damsite and penstock are located in a high, rugged area where
aboriginal use would not be expected. They were checked, however, due to
the possibility of historic remains. None were noticed. The picturesque
wooden pipe which constitutes the village's water supply follows this route,
yet it apparently postdates World War II.
(2) Chignik Lagoon
The methodology used at Chignik Lagoon was the same as that at
Chignik. Site CHK 010, reported by Dumond (1975), was not located. It may
be that very recent construction had totally obscured this site or that the
proper area was not tested. The Corps project should not impact the area
Dumond describes, altho~gh it is possible that power distribution to
individual houses could have marginal impact. Local people were unaware of
a site.
The area north of the mouth of Packers
what locals indicated was an old cannery. The
fragments, concrete chunks, rusted metal, etc.
remains.
Creek exhibited rubble from
rubble consisted of brick
There were no significant
The old cemetery on a hill overlooking Chignik Lagoon is quite
interesting. It includes some marble gravestones of people who died in the
19th century. Birthplaces represented include Norway, Sweden, Finland and
New Jersey. This would not be impacted by the project.
Paralleling Packers Creek for at least a half mile is a decrepit
wood stave pipe. Upstream are the remains of a timber wing dam.
Apparently, this constitutes the remains of the water supply system built by
a cannery earlier in the century.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Certain small modifications of the existing topography at the Indian
Creek project location would result from construction of a new dam.
Excavations to key the proposed structure into the metamorphosed sandstones
(which would serve as the rock abutments in the valley walls) would require
drilling and shooting with explosives.
EIS-1B
Some limited soil excavation may occur along the proposed penstock
alinement for the Indian Creek proposed hydropower development. The
raising of the lake level after dam construction is not expected to lead to
significant slope failures into the reservoir.
Certain small modifications of the existing topography at Mud Bay Lake
Creek would result from construction of a new dam and spillway.
Excavations to key the structures into the sandstones (which would serve as
the rock abutments in the valley walls) would require drilling and shooting
with explosives.
1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No existing water quality data exists for Indian Creek or Mud Bay Lake
Creek. However, visual observations of the water during brief field visits
suggest that the existing streams exhibit high clarity and low turbidity.
Increases in turbidity can be expected during the construction phase of a
dam and spillway on either creek. These increases would be localized and
of short duration. Long-term increases in stream turbidity are not
expected, particularly with proper design of project water intakes and
tailraces. The low level of existing turbidity in both Mud Bay Lake and
the Indian Creek Reservoir suggest that sediment entrapment behind the
proposed structures would be insignificant.
Existing streamflow would be impacted in the reach of both streams
between the water intake structures and the powerhouse. Indian Creek would
essentially be dewatered in the impacted reach of the stream during certain
months of the year. .
2. ESTHETICS
Construction of a new dam, penstock, and powerhouse on Indian Creek
would have little impact on the existing esthetic values of Indian Creek.
The new dam would be constructed very near the site of an existing timber
dam on Indian Creek. The proposed penstock would closely follow the route
of an existing water supply pipeline to the village of Chignik. The
location of the proposed powerhouse is very near the existing cannery.
A visible scar would exist along the lakeshore between the water line
at full pool elevation and the pool elevation when the pool is at maximum
drawdown.
The Indian Creek reservoir does not support a migratory fish
population, and therefore its recreational sport fishing value is minimal.
The isolation of Mud Bay Lake virtually precludes its use for a
recreational sport fishery. Therefore, recreational impacts are considered
minimal in either stream system.
Positive esthetic benefits would be gained in both scenarios from the
decreased usage of the diesel generators now in operation in Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon.
EIS-19
3. ~IGNIFICANT RESOURCES
(a) Vegetation
Assuming that a high dam on Indian Creek Lake is infeasible and
that a feasible alternative is to increase the existing lake level by about
3 vertical feet to slightly increase its storage capacity, very little
environmental impact is expected to occur. The steep talus topography of
the lake edge supports limited plant and animal communities, at least
partially because of the action of winter ice cover on the shoreline and
seasonal changes of the lake level. The potential 15-foot vertical
drawdown zone around the lake would appear as a more visible scar on the
lake periphery compared to the existing zone of limited plant and animal
commun it i es.
Construction of the dam and penstock would require heavy equipment
such as bulldozers, front-end "loaders, and haul ing equipment that
presumably would be brought to the site by way of the penstock alinement
and connecting pioneer road. A 12-foot cat trail for hauling material
would be required in place of the 5-to 6-foot-wide path that now follows
the wood stave penstock. Assuming that the penstock is about 5,500 feet
long to the upper limit of the bluff behind the village, and that the
vegetation within the 10-foot wide alinement corridor would be removed, a
worst case situation would require disruption of about 2.16 acres of
predominantly closed tall alder habitat, including associated understory
plants and dependent vista. This represents about 0.6 percent of the
available habitat of that type in the project area, and 0.3 percent of the
total cover considered in our analysis. Regeneration would begin
immediately following the completion of construction activities and would
be stabilized in a few years. The landscape would gradually return to its
natural state in most areas when bedrock was not left exposed.
(b) Wildlife
The proposed construction and operation of the Indian Creek
hydroelectric developments would have minor impacts on wildlife. Loss of
the 2.16 acres of closed tall alder scrub and its understory vegetation
would undoubtedly cause temporary reduction of small mammal populations
that are important food items for furbearers and for limited numbers of
raptorial birds that were not defined in this study. No serious impact
upon those predators, nor upon the minor use of small mammals for food by
brown bears, can be expected. Assuming a linear relationship between loss
of cover and small mammal populations, the 0.6 percent loss expected in a
worst case situation would be impossible to detect in field studies. It is
EIS-20
also doubtful whether the food chain effects of such loss on the upper
trophic levels (foxes, weasels, wolverines, wolves, and bears) can be
realistically judged as measurable or even as being greater than normal
variations in availability that occur as a result of population variations,
weather conditions, or other natural influences.
About seven small tributaries to Indian Creek would be crossed by
the Indian Creek penstock, and the crossings woula provide underpasses for
bear and other game animals that may occupy some ranges traversed by the
penstock. The wider roadway constructed for the project, along the
penstock, may provide a trail for wildlife and expedite their travel for
short distances, but would also prove attractive for human travel by
all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The benefits to wildlife would
probably be offset by more interactions with humans in terms of trapping,
shooting, or other harassment.
lc) Birds
Impacts to bird populations in the Indian Creek drainage would
probably result mainly from destruction of nesting, resting and
brood-rearing habitats by removing brush and associated vegetation along
the penstock right-of-way. As noted previously, this loss is considered to
be very slight (0.6 percent of the available habitat) and at least
partially temporary.
Construction activities would occupy at least 12 months; some
disruption of nesting birds would occur. No known eyries of raptorial
birds have been identified in the project area but may, nevertheless,
exist. ~lasting of bedrock and other noise of construction equipment may
have detrimental effects on nesting birds that probably would not be
measurable.
Effects of lake reservoir operations as a part of the hydroelectric
operations would probably be minimal, although insufficient information on
several wildlife species precludes definitive eval~ations.
ld) Fisheries
Indian Creek System
The construction of a new dam and the resultant rise of 5 feet in
the lake level would have no effect on fisheries resources in Indian Creek
Lake, since it does not support any fish due to the velocity barrier below
the rock cut spillway.
The proposed hydroelectric facility would essentially dewater
Indian Creek. Therefore, the most direct environmental effect upon
fisheries resources is the loss of this habitat in Indian Creek proper, and
in particularly, the lower one-half mile of stream below an apparent
velocity barrier. This loss involves a remnant (approximately 50 -100)
pink salmon population. Documentation of this pink salmon population is
virtually nonexistent except for local opinion and limited field
observations made during 1982. Additionally, a population of presumably
EIS-21
anadromous Oolly Varden char resides in the lower portion of Indian Creek
during various life stages. This population is considered small on the
basis of available data.
No documentation or reports exist of commercial, recreational, or
subsistence use of fisheries resources specific to Indian Creek.
Therefore, no loss in terms of economic, esthetic, or subsistence values
can be attributed to the project from a fisheries standpoint.
Construction of a penstock access and service roadbed or trail
should not present any special concerns relative to fisheries resources.
The proposed penstock routing is well removed from Indian Creek except in
the area immediately below the dam, where special attention should be paid
to minimizing any long term erosion problems that would further detract
from existing stream conditions.
One alternative relating to the Indian Creek fisheries resources
concerns the location of the powerplant and the subsequent tailrace
configuration. One option that has been suggested would site the
powerplant at the base of the hillside immediately behind the village with
a tailrace ditch to the tidewater. However, this particular option would
require an open ditch between the powerplant and the tailrace outlet,
creating some concern for the freshwater pond environment through which the
ditch would pass.
(e) Marine
The hydroelectric project is not expected to generate any
significant marine environmental impacts.
(f) Rare and Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was requested to investigate the
presence of threatened or endangered species near the Indian Creek system.
The response indicated that the agency was not aware of any threatened or
endangered species within the influence of the proposed project.
4. SOCIOECONOMICS
(a) Chignik (Indian Creek)
The socioeconomic effects of the hydropower facility can be
addressed in two sections: Effects during construction and effects during
operation.
The major socioeconomic effects during construction would be
occasioned by the construction labor force, which would move. into the
community during the construction period. Housing accommodations in
Chignik are scarce in the summer, and more people may place further strain
upon the housing situation. However, the community is accustomed to
influxes of large numbers of people for the fishing season, and the
additional construction labor force should not significantly change the
existing situation.
EIS-22
Construction of the facility does offer the potential for local
employment, particularly if such activities are conducted during the
spring, fall, and winter seasons when fishing and canning activities are at
low levels. The number of jobs available for local residents is expected
to be small.
When operational, the hydropower facility would provide lower cost
power than is currently provided to community residents and the cannery.
This would result in a substantial savings to local residents and would
reduce the cost of operating the cannery, making it more competitive in the
market place and thereby helping to insure that the cannery remains a major
element in the local cash economy.
One person may be required part-time to assist in scheduled
maintenance for the utility, in addition to the maintenance person now
employed for the diesel generating facilities. It is expected that this
additional person would be a current resident of Chignik.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No cultural resource impacts at Indian Creek should result from this
project.
E • M IT I GAT IO N
1. PHYSICAL
Slight topographic changes resulting from project activities are
unavoidable. These impacts on the physical environment are negligible.
Impacts to the hydrologic system can be mitigated by proper diversion
and care of surface water during the construction phase, and through
minimizing siltation from construction activities within or near the stream
channel. Reduction or elimination of cflannel flow within the reach of the
streams between the water intake structures and the powerhouse is
unavoidable.
Impacts to the esthetic value of Indian Creek can be minimized by
reducing the usual contrasts of project facilities with surrounding
terrain, and through minimizing construction activities along the proposed
intertie transmission corridor, perhaps through helicopter assisted
placement of wooden poles.
£IS-23
2. SIGNIFICANT RESOUKCES
(a) Vegetation, Wildlife, and Birds
Design, construction, and operational details of the Indian Creek
project and its alternatives have not been sufficiently defined to allow an
in-depth consideration of potential mitigation measures.
In general, the terrestrial wildlife impacts could be mitigated
most effectively by adopting sound environmental practices. Major impacts
on the wetlands area between Chignik and the steep bluff behind the village
can be avoided by locating the powerhouse on the sand near the cannery.
Widening of the penstock right-of-way should be engineered to remove a
minimum of habitat and to avoid sidehill erosion. Exposed soil should be
planted with grass to avoid erosion until natural reg~neration can occur.
(b) Fish
In terms of the benefit-cost ratio for this project, the extremely
limited fisheries resources involved, and the documented needs and desires
of local and regional concerns, mitigation does not appear to be realistic
for the Indian Creek system's fisheries.
While it has been suggested by FWS that a tailrace spawning
facility for pink salmon be designed as a part of the final project, the
question arises as to what purpose such a facility would serve. Based on
available information, the Indian Creek system accommodates no commercial,
recreational, or subsistence uses of fisheries resources. If the object of
mitigation is to enhance the system's fisheries beyond existing known
natural conditions, then perhaps such a proposal could be justified.
However, it may be difficult to justify a substantial outlay of public
funds to create, or even to sustain, an unknown but definitely small
fisheries resource without a rationally determined end point
It appears from hydrological information, that adequate streamflows
are unavailable year-round particularly during the incubation months of
January through March. The lower reach of the creek in April has been
sighted as a dewatered, gravel/cobble surface, although intragravel seepage
may exist to sustain a pink salmon rearing habitat. On the basis of
streamflow limitations, FWS recommendations for instream flow releases (see
supplemental letter appended to final CA report) cannot be accepted as a
valid mitigative measure. In addition, information concerning the
enumeration of adult pink spawners, location of pink spawning activity, and
other fish use, has been inadequate and again may not justify incorporating
instream releases as a project feature. Opportunities for future studies
may better increase our understanding of the level of fish productivity in
the creek system. The State of Alaska has issued water rights to the
Alaska Packers cannery (case Serial No. 46026) appropriating 2,000 gallons
of water per minute (4.46 cubic feet per second) from Indian Creek. This
means that the available streamflows from January through I~arch would be
totally consumed, since the maximum flow is 4.42 cfs in February. The
region's relatively rich resource-based economy is geared to the adjacent,
highly productive Chignik River-Lagoon area.
EIS-24
F. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
During the project scoping process, four public meetings were held in
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. The most recent meeting was held on 31 May
1983. The meeting was well attended, and the information provided was well
accepted. Participants were informed of current project evaluations and
briefed on the procedural steps for submittal of the final report which
would be sent to the village for their review. Corps personnel also
explained that alternative plans were available to the village if this
route for power generation was not favorable.
Between June 1981 and the present, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
has submitted two planning aid letters and a Coordination Act Report. In
March 1982, a joint effort between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) and FWS was initiated. Both agencies participated in field
investigations with Corps personnel at Chignik. Correspondence requesting
ADF&G Habitat Division participation is provided in Appendix C.
G. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
The villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are both within the Coastal
Resource Service Area (CRSA) established by the Bristol Bay Coastal
Management Program (BBCMP). However, at the present time, the Management
Program for this area has not yet been finaliled. All developmental
activities within the CRSA must be consistent with the stipulations of the
BBCMP.
The proposed hydropower project will be undertaken in a manner
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Alaska Coastal
Management Program. This determination is based upon the description in
this document of the proposed project and its effects, and upon an
evaluation of the relevant provisions of the management program.
A completed coastal project questionaire will be submitted to the
Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination, concurrently with publication
of the Final Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement,
to initiate the State's project consistency review.
EIS-25
TABLE EIS-V
ALAS KA COASTAL MANAGEMEI~T PROGRAM (ACt-'IP)
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
ACMP REqUIREMENTS (6 AAC BO.)
USES AND ACTIVITIES
040. Coastal deve 1 opment
050. Geophysical hazard areas
060. Recreation
070. Energy f ac i 1 it i es
OBO. Transportation and utilities
090. Fish and seafood processing
100. Timber harvest and processing
110. Mining and mineral processing
120. Subsistence
RESOURCES AND HABITATS
130. Habitats
( 1 ) Offshore areas
(2 ) Estuaries
(3 ) Wetlands and tideflats
(4 ) Rocky islands and seacliffs
(5 ) Barrier islands and lagoons
( 6) Exposed high energy coasts
(7) Rivers, streams, and lakes
(B) Important upland habitat
140. Air, land and water quality
150. Historic, prehistoric, and
archeological resources
REFERENCE PAGE
N/A
Pages EIS-l0 and EIS-ll
N/A
Page EIS-l
Pages EIS-l and EIS-2
Pages EIS-13 and EIS-14
N/A
N/A
Pages EIS-14 and EIS-15
Pages EIS-l0 and EIS-13
Page t1S-7
Pages E1S-7 and E1S-13
Page EIS-9
Page EIS-9
Page EIS-9
Pages EIS-10, EIS-ll, EIS-21 and EIS-22
Pages EIS-B and EIS-17
Pages EIS-1B and EIS-19
Pages EIS-16, EIS-17, and EIS-1B
EIS-26
List of Preparers
Role in
Name Disc'i~l ine EXQerience Preparing
Ms. Linda S. Ferrell Biology 3 1/2 years, EIS, Coordinator
Environmental
Studies,
Alaska District
Ms. Julia Steele Archaeology 1 year, graduate Prepared Cultural
field work in Resources Section
Alaska and New York. of EIS.
1 year archeologist,
LJept. of Interior.
3 years, Archeologist,
Corps of Engineers.
Ron jVlaj Ci vi 1 2 1/2 years, Study jVlanager
Engineering Consultant; 2 years
Alaska District
STATEMENT RECIPIENTS
A complete listing of Draft EIS recipients is included in Appendix C.
E IS-27
SUBJECT
Affected Environment
Alternatives
INDEX
Plans Eliminated from Further Study
Diesel Generation
Wind Power
Hydropower -Indian Creek
Without Conditions
Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
Coastal Zone Management
Environmental Effects
Historical/Archeological Resources
Need for and Objectives of Action
Study Authority
Public Concern
Planning Objectives
Mitigation
Physical
Significant Resources
Public Involvement
Significant Resources
Air and Noise
Birds
Esthetics
Fisheries
Hydrology/Walter Quality
Marine
Rare and Endangered Species
Vegetation
Wildlife
Socioeconomics
Summary
EIS-28
PAGES
EIS-2
ElS-1
EI5-1
ElS-1
El5-2
ElS-2
ElS-2
ElS-2
E15-25
ElS-18
ElS-16
E15-1
E IS-1
E15-1
E 15-1
E15-23
ElS-23
E15-24
EIS-25
EIS-24
ElS-
E15-9
E1S-6
EIS-9
ElS-19
El5-13
E15-14
EIS-6
E1S-7
E15-14
EIS-i i
Literature Cited
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1981. Chignik Management Area Finfish Annual
Report. Division of Commercial Fisheries, Kodiak, AK. 118 pp.
1982. South Peninsula and Chignik Area Shellfish Management
Report to Alaska Board of Fisheries. Division of Commercial Fisheries,
Kodiak, AK. 21 pp.
1982. Freshwater Habitat Relationships, Dolly Varden Salvelinus
malma (~~albaum). Habitat uivision, Anchorage, AK. 38 pp.
1981. Freshwater Habitat Relationships, Pink Salmon,
Oncorhyunchus gorbuscha. Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK. 44 pp.
1981. Freshwater Habitat Relationships, Chum Salmon,
Oncorhynchus keta. Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK. 81 pp.
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc., 1982. Preliminary Feasibility
Report of Small Hydropower.
Atwell, G., D.L. Boone, J. Gustafson, and V.D. Berns. 1981. "Brown Bear
Summer Use of Alpine Habitat on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge,"
pp. 297-305. In: Bears --Their Biology and Management. Bear Biology
Assoc. Conf. No.3, C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.). U.S. Govt.
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Bailey, E.P., and 1~.H. Faust. 1980. "Summer Distribution and Abundance of
Marine Birds and Mammals in the Sandman Reefs, Alaska." The Murrelet
61 :6-19.
Dames & Moore. 1982. Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Environmental Report.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. 228 pp.
Dumond, Don E. 1974. "Prehistoric Ethnic Boundaries on the Alaska
Peninsula" Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1).
1975. Archeological Research on the Alaska Peninsula, 1975
Report to the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, on research conducted
under permits 75-AK-048, 75-AK-05l. Prepared with the assistance of
Winfield Henn.
, Leslie Conton and Harvey Shields. 1975. "Eskimos and Aleuts on
----;t"7h-e---;;""Alaska Peninsula: A Reappraisal of Port lv/oller Affinities." Arctic
Anthropology 12 (1).
-----:::--..,........,... , Winfield Henn and Robert Stuckenrath. 1976. "Archeology and
Prehistory on the Alaska Peninsula." Anthropological Papers of the
University of Alaska 18 (1).
Invironmental Services, Ltd. 1982a. Community Profile of Chignik, Alaska
(Draft). Prepared for Alaska Uept. of Community and Regional Affairs.
EIS-29
1982b. Community Profile of Chignik Lagoon, Alaska (Draft).
Prepared for Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs.
Forsell" D.J. and P.J. Gould. 1981. Uistribution and Abundance of Marine
Birds and Mammals Wintering in the Kodiak Area of Alaska. U.S. Dept.
Interior Report FWS/OBS-81/3l. USDOI, Washington, D.C.
Gill, R.E., Jr., M.R. Petersen, and P.D. Jorgensen. 1981. IIBirds of the
Northcentral Alaska Peninsula, 1976-1980.11 Arctic 34:286-306.
Glenn, L.P. and L.H. Miller. 1980. IISeasonal Movements of an Alaskan
Peninsula Brmvn Bear Population,1I pp. 307-312. In: Bears --Their
Biology and Management, C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.) Bear
Biology Assoc. Conf. No.3, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Harding, L. and J.A. Nagy. 1980. IIResponses of Grizzly Bears to
Hydrocarbon Exploration on Richards Island, Northwest Territories
Canada,1I pp. 277-280. In: Bears --Their Biolo and Mana ement,
Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No.3, C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur eds.)
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Henn, Winfield.
Peninsula.1I 1978. liThe Ugash-ik Drainage: Archeology on the Alaska
University of Oregon Anthropological Papers.
Jones, J.K., Jr., D.C. Carter, and H.H. Genoways. 1979. IIRevised Checklist
of North American t~ammals North of Mexico, 1979.11 Occas. Papers l"1us.
Texas Tech. Univ. 62:1-17.
Kessel, B. 1979. "Avian Habitat Classification for Alaska.1I The Murrelet
60:86-94.
Kl inkhart, E.G. (comp.). 1978.
Alaska Dept. Fish and Game.
Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, vol. II,
Print Northwest, Tacoma, Washington.
Lentfer, J.W. and R.J. Hensel, L.H. Miller, L.P. Glenn, and V.D. Berns.
1972. IIKemarks on LJenning Habits of Alaska Brown Bears," pp. 125-137.
In: Bears --Their Biology and Management, IUCN publ. N.S. No. 23.
IUCN, Morges, Switzerland.
McLean, R.F. and K.J. Delaney (comp.). 1978.
vols. I & II, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game.
Washington.
Alaska's Fisheries Atlas,
Print Northwest, Tacoma,
Manville, R.H. and S.P. Young. 1965. Distribution of Alaskan Mammals.
~ureau Sport Fish. Wildl. Circ. 211. U.S. Govt Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
R.S. Thorsell and R.R. Olendorff. 1975. Suggested
Protection on Powerlines. Raptor Research
ta. 0 pp.
Miller, G.S., Jr. and R. Kellogg. 1955. List of North American Recent
Mammals. U.S. National Mus. Bull. 205. Smithsonian Inst.,
Wash i ngton/U. C.
EIS-30
Narver, D.W. 1970. IIBirds of the Chignik River Drainage, Alaska.1I Condor
70: 102-105.
Payne, J.T. and S.R. Braund. 1981. North Aleutian Shelf Basin Sociocultural
Systems Analysis. Draft Final Technical Report, Alaska OCS
Socioeconomic Studies Program. BLM-OCS Contract No. AA851-CTO-33. 21 pp.
Salter, T.E., M.A. Gollop, S.R. Johnson, W.R. Koski, and C.E. Tull. 1980.
IIDistribution and Abundance of Birds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of
Northern Yukon and Adjacent Northwest Territories, 1971-1976.11 Canadian
Field -Natur. 9:219-238.
Selkregg, L.L. 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles --Southcentral Region.
Univ. Alaska Env. Inform. Data Center, Anchorage. 255 pp.
Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of Alaska Seabird
Colonies. U.S. Dept. Interior Report FWS/OBS-78/18.
Viereck, L.A. and E.L. Little, Jr.
Agriculture Handbook No. 410.
Washington, D.C.
1972. Alaska Trees and Shrubs.
U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service,
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, and A.R. Batten. 1982. 1982 revision of
preliminary draft classification for vegetation of Alaska. U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Forest Service (in press). Update of General Technical
Report PNW-106, 72 pp.
Vroom, G.W., S. Herrero, and R.T. Ogilvie. 1980. liThe Ecology of Winter
Den Sites of Grizzly t)ears in Banff National Park, Alberta,1I pp 321-330.
In: Bears --Their Biolo and Mana ement, Bear Biology Assoc. Conf.
No./3, C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur eds.). U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
EIS-31
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL'ANALYSIS
T.l General
T.2 Hydrology
T. 3 Geo logy
T.4 Dam and Foundation
T. 5 Sp ill way
T.6 Powerhouse
T.7 Tailrace
T.8 Construction Procedures
Appendix A
Technical Analysis
Table of Contents
T.9 Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement
T.10 Economic Analysis
T.11 Project Cost Estimates
T.12 Project Economics
A-1
A-1
A-13
A-18
A-21
A-21
A-24
A-24
A-24
A-25
A-28
A-29
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
T. 1 GENERAL
The tentatively selected plan for hydropower development on Indian
Creek is a diversion project, which has an installed capacity of 1,100 kW
(See Plate 1). Minor storage would be available for short periods of
operation only. The tentatively recommended plan would consist of a
24-foot timber buttress dam 5,500 feet of 34-inch steel lined penstock,
and a powerhouse with 2-550 kW Francis turbines. As a provision for water
supply to the community and the cannery, the existing water supply
penstock would be maintained during and after construction.
T. 2 HYDROLOGY
T.2.1 Climate
The village of Chignik is located on the south side of the Alaska
Peninsula and is partially protected from the most severe southerly
Pacific storms by a ridge of mountains rising to 3,000 feet. Frequent
cyclonic storms crossing the Northern Pacific and the Bering Sea are the
predominant weather factors. These storms account for the frequent high
winds and the frequent occurrence of fog and low visibility.
The climate at Chignik is basically maritime due to the nearness of
extensive open ocean areas. Temperature extremes, both seasonal and
diurnal, are generally confined to fairly narrow limits, with differences
between maximum and minimum temperatures for all individual months
averaging less than 15 0 F. Temperatures below 00 F are unusual.
However, they do occur in occasional years when the Bering Sea freezes and
allows the influx of cold continental air.
Precipitation of more than one-hundredth of an inch occurs about 170
days per year. The greatest observed precipitation rate is 7.3 inches in
24 hours. Snow has been observed every month except June, July, August
and September. The greatest recorded monthly snowfall was 31 inches in
February, 1931.
The beginning of spring is late; vegetation begins to grow in late
May. August is fegarded as midsummer and autumn arrives early in
October. The greatest frequency of fog occurs from mid-July to
mid-September. A summary of climatic conditions is shown on Table A-l.
A-l
TABLE A-I CLIMATOLOGICAL D.l\TA SUMMARY
STATION: Chignik LATITUDE: 56 0 18' LONGlTUDE: 158 0 24' ELEVATION: 30
MONTH POll JAN fEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR
TEMPEHATUHE (OF)
Means
Oaily Max. 12 32.4 31.2 33.1 38.9 45.9 54.2 59.6 60.6 50.3 45. 1 39.1 34.4 43.7
Daily Min. 12 22.0 19.6 20.5 26.6 33.8 40.4 44.9 45.8 41.0 34.1 27. 1 23.7 29.7
~lOlltldy 12 26.9 25.1 26.8 32.6 39.4 44.3 52.3 52.8 44.4 39.4 33.5 29.0 37.2
Extrellles
Hec. lIigh 13 48 47 50 51 69 72 76 72 75 63 57 55 76
Year' 196B 1971 + 1974 1930 196El 1974+ 1971 1969' 1930 1967 1970 1970 1971
Rec. Low 13 -12 -9 -10 r' :J 15 30 33 33 27 14 4 2 -12
Year 1971 1974 1975 1971 + 1973 1930 1930 192B 1976+ 1976+ 1930 1975+ 1971
PRECIPITATION ( ; n inches)
~lean 12 10.52 11. 21 6.36 4.50 11.44 B.44 4.86 5.98 12.75 10.99 12.03 8.B7 107.9
Greatest/d 11 7. 15 5.80 3.49 2.90 7.33 3.60 3.68 7. 15 7. 12 6.52 11.82 '1.40 57.33
Year' 1930 1927 1928 1970 1930 1969 1929 19(7 1927 1930 1928 19?7 1930
Greatest/mo 11 29.89 22.49 16.26 7.48 35.71 27.25 11. 61 18.09 3'1.34 20.13 ?7.99 HUll 3'1.3'1
Year 1930 1928 1974 l%B 1 S130 1969 1971 19?7 1929 1930 E 129 19?El 1929
Snow, Ice Pellets
J> Mean 11 8.9 16.0 8.3 6.0 1.1 0 0 0 0 3.8 4.6 9.1 57.8 I
N Greatest/mo 11 27.2 31.0 18.0 18.2 5.3 0 0 0 T 1?0 12.0 75.5 31.0
Year' 1931 1969 1%9 1972 1971 1972 1977 1930 1930 1%9
Gr'edtest/d 10 9. 1 1?0 fLO 8.0 5.3 0 0 0 T 10.0 14.1 9.0 1 I] • 1
Year 1975 1929 1969 1928 1971 1972 1927 1975 1930 1975
lIigh Depth 1 1 23 3'1 '17 57 59 0 0 0 0 10 7 16 59
Year 1972+ 1973 1972 1973 1973 1927 197?-1928 1973
WI flD
Ave. speed (mph) * * * * * NOT AVAILABLE * * * * * * Oirection 5 SE N\~ NW NW SE SE S\~ SW W NW N\~ ~J NW
MEAN NUMBER OF DAY
IJrecipitation .10 inches or more
7 6 9 8 6 7 5 4 5 9 11 10 9 89
1 elllperature
Nax ;IIIUIIi
i'00+ 12 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 1 * 0 0 0 2
32°-12 10 10 11 3 'A 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 ? 5?
~J in i ilium
32(L 12 24 23 25 22 10 1 0 0 2 12 21 24 If)'1
00 -12 2 2 2 [) () 0 0 * * 0 * 0 6
POR Period of Record * Less than one half
+ Also on earlier dates, months, or years T haee, an ailiount too small to measure
T.2.2 Basin Description
Above the damsite, Indian Creek has a drainage area of 3 sauare
miles. The basin ranges in elevation from 3,430 feet at the highest point
to a low of about 442 feet on the existina 20-acre reservoir. The basin
is sparsely vegetated; bedrock and talus slopes predominate. The basin is
open to the northwest and partially shielded from the predominant
southerly Pacific storms by the mountains on its southern boundary.
T.2.3 Streamflow
A stream gaging station was established near the proposed dam site in
April 1982. Therefore, a synthetic 50-year sequence of monthly average
streamflows was developed for Indian Creek. The synthetic record was
developed using records from precipitation stations and streams in the
region having similar size and characteristics to the basins under
consideration. The Corps of Engineers computer program "Monthly
Streamflow Simulations" (HEC-4) was employed to develop statistics from
these similar streams. The limited rainfall record available at Chignik
was extended by correlation with precipitation records from stations in
the region having longer records. An attempt was made to explain the
minor variation of standard deviations, skews and serial correlation
coefficients of monthly runoff by correlations with known basic
characteristics and precipitation. No significant correlations were
achieved. Therefore, the mean values from the study were adopted as
regional coefficients. The mean monthly flows were derived from runoff
from Myrtle Creek near Kodiak and Spruce Creek near Seward. The adopted
monthly means, standard deviations, skews and preceding month serial
correlation coefficients of logs of monthly flows are listed in Table A-2.
Fifty-year sequences of simulated monthly average streamflows were
generated by means of HEC-4 for Indian Creek (See Table A-3). These
simulated records represent the best estimate possible of a synthetic
streamflow record having the same statistical properties as those that
would have been obtained by actual measurement at the site. This record
was employed in the hydropower evaluations with an allowance made for
water supply (See Table A-4). The gage data obtained to date was compared
to the average for the 50-year sequence, and it was found that the
assumptions made in synthesizing the 50-year sequence were reasonable (see
Figure A-l). No adjustments were made due to the short period of record
of the gage data.
A-3
Month
January
February
March
Apri 1
tv'lay
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TABLE A-2
Adopted Monthly Streamflow Statistics
Indian Creek
Log Mean Monthly
Discharge Standard
(cfs) Deviation
0.45 0.35
0.53 0.34
0.28 0.36
1.31 0.22
1.71 0.18
1.72 0.14
1.36 0.17
1.41 0.21
1.57 0.19
1.52 0.30
1.41 0.38
1.32 0.35
A-4
Skew
Coefficient
-0.35
-0.53
-1 .76
-0.34
0.62
-1.32
O. 11
-0.44
0.61
0.26
-0.29
O. 16
Serial
Correlation
Coefficient
0.56
0.66
0.58
0.50
0.44
0.06
0.40
0.51
0.03
O. 11
0.32
0.50
Indian Creek
YEAR
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
JAN
2.2
.9
5.4
4. 1
1.9
2.8
2.9
5.8
6.8
2.8
3.8
.5
14.5
3.8
1.2
4.6
2.7
2.3
8. 1
4.4
3.4
3.8
3.8
3.0
4.5
15.2
2.1
5.0
.4
2.4
3.0
1.6
3.1
.4
2.4
.8
6.4
1.9
2.2
3.3
2.3
.8
2.4
9.9
3.9
1.8
3.0
1.6
2.0
FEB
1.4
1.5
5.1
2.6
.9
3.6
.9
1. 1
2.1
7.0
4. 1
.7
5.7
8.2
1.7
7.6
3.8
3.8
12.2
9.3
7.5
9.7
1.6
6. 1
7.8
4.7
2.3
5.9
2.0
3.2
2.7.
2.3
6.6
2.4
5.3
5.2
10.9
.6
3.7
4.5
3.6
.4
3.9
6.5
4.2
2.5
2.6
1.9
5. 1
50 12.2 12.1
Table A-3
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
1.1 16.9 30.0 67.4
1.2 31.9 42.8 74.1
2.7, 24.1 58.7 69.4
30.0 21.1
30.8 32.3
39.7 53.8
12.7 22.2
45.0 26.2
29.4 60.3
34.7 15.3
48.1 39.7
17.6 37.1
24.6 34.1
29.1 11.0
18.2 33.3
.5 14.5 58.5 16.1
.3 35.7 61.5 68.4
1.0 7.9 53.2 71.9
1.3 17.0 51.4 77.4
.1 27.9 49.3 75.7
1.8 22.2 41.5 27.2
3.2 30.9 75.1 71.4
.8 17.0 48.7 50.5
1.0 7.6 25.3 63.6
1.0
4.3
3.4
2.2
3.5
3.4
3.8
2.0
3.7
1.9
3. 1
4.5
4.4
2.1
.3
3.6
3.3
2.5
.8
2.7
4.5
4.4
3.3
1.4
25.8 40.0
50.4 79.8
15.3 73.9
14.0 98.6
25.6 33.0
23.8' 56.3
22.4 40.1
14.9 32.5
23.5 49.6
18.1 26.6
19.0 35.3
21.2 48.8
20.8 36.0
19.6 157.3
8.5 30.1
32.2 60.5
10.0 43.5
12.2 31.5
27.9 43.2
24.2 38.1
10.8 53.6
35.9 94.9
71.2 112.7
14.4 29.9
4.1 29.9 95.8
.5 20.3 53.6
2.5 29.9 56.5
.4 15.0 33.3
2.8 30.1 76.1
3.2 28.6 63.9
2.2 17.5 44.5
2.2 20.8 56.7
4.8 60.6 129.3
1.9 20.0 89.8
1.9, 12.3 43.8
2.8 31.5 52.7
2.4 S.9 30.9
37.6 9.2 11.1
50.3 24.1 24.0
69.6 33.4 35.8
62.1 33.4 56.9
66.7 31.5 35.0
55.6 37.7 18.7
41.8 16.6 13.5
31.7 17.6 • 27.1
10.7 12.5 41.2
77.8 23.5 14.1
51.7 31.0 41.2
64.6 38.6 35.8
54.4 28.5 41.5
54.6 24.3 21.6
45.6 13.2 11.0
43.5 18.7 26.4
63.5 21.1 22.1
44.5 17.3 30.3
56.7 18.4 29.6
70.3 27.8 28.4
52.5 20.4 30.1
46.7 18.0 10.8
65.5 19.8 23.8
63:5 16.6 33.4
51.119.1
50.5 35.2
74.8 37.0
73.7 23.6
40.1 11.8
65.6 39.3
45.4 15.8
35.6 12.7
48.7 13.0
61.3 30.0
43.1 17.6
54.1 16.7
49.6'· 23.9
30.1
62.5
33.5
21.,2
6.8
42.3
14.7
22.3
22.0
26.5
12.0
31.5
39.1
SEP OCT ,NOV DEC
78.1 41.4
57.8 19.0
3.6 4.57
7.5 34.19
54.1 35.9 18.7 23.84
29.4 256.8 13.3 9.74
37.9 14.4 33.5 17.96
26.1 33.6 78.1 24.32
21.1 20.9 25.8 27.30
31.8 10.9 6.6 15.44
80.6 101.1 80.4 11.82
50.0 54.9 76.1 58.23
27.2 11.1 76.1 ,4.82
49.7 72.4 165.8 218.78
44.7 55.7 29.1 47.26'
26.2 24.5 32.5 7.34
34.9 32.5 22.5 10.35
56.4 16.8 22.1
60.4 40.6 26.0
50.8 33.5 55.0
30.3 29.7 19.1
52.8 13.7 15.5
35.2 25.9 25.4
14.8 23.2 44.4
19.1 27.3 45.2
35.2 80.4 11.7
36.7 23.2 36.3
30.74 '
20.19
47.43
24.40
13.61
23.95
25.87
21.25
36.43
71. 12
31.0 153.S 23.1 16.66
20.4 37.0' 21.5 54.55
43.5 31.7 3.8 8.20
28.5 16.6 17.8 19.93
42.2 21.1 28.0 23.02
28.5 10.6 6.9 7.97.
38.0 23.3 20.1 31.19
59.3 20.9 9.8 2.95
45.7 33.4 111.4 21.55
31.2 28.5 19.6 12.92
26.1 38.2 29.5 32.77
45.8 128.9 47.8
42.4 42.7 27.4
44.3 37.4 69.6
33.5 56.5 126.3
23.5 24.4 27.4
38.4 58.5 29.3
28.4 31.0 9.5
28.2 33.2 80.9
16.4 7.9 6.7
93.5 ,64,2 29.5
69.0 97.2 20.9
53.1 30.5 10.2
18.3 16.0 72.0
15.21
20.40
11.48
94.25
13.98
41.92
8.03
26.77
17.16
56.33
22.71
9.84
54.46
4.2 17.0 38.8 53.5 24~0 18.4 47.4 45.7' 17.5 15.42
A-5
Table A-4
WATER DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN CREEK
Average CFS Left After CFS Available for
Monthly Cannery Water CFS Left After Hydroelectric &
Month Flow 1/ Right Use 2/ CannerJ:: Use 3/ Fishery Use 4/
Jan 3.80 None 2.24 None
Feb 4.42 None 2.86 None
Mar 2.42 None None None
Apr 23.09 18.69 19.45 18.69
May 56.23 51.83 52.71 51.83
Jun 55.23 50.83 51.59 50.83
Jul 24.65 20.25 21 .01 20.25
Aug 28.66 24.26 25.02 24.26
Sep 40.35 35.95 36.71 35.95
Oct 43.76 39.36 40. 12 39.36
Nov 36.73 32.33 36.73 32.33
Dec 29.37 24.97 29.37 24.97
1/ 50-year average monthly flow measured in cubic feet per second.
2/ 2,000 gals/minute = 4.4 cfs (State of Alaska issuance of water rights).
3/ 300 gal/min. = 1.56 cfs (Jan-Feb) and 700 gal/min. = 3.64 cfs
TJun-Oct).
4/ CFS available for Hydroelectric and Fishery after cannery water rights
are allocated. Maximum and minimum hydroelectric use is cfs = 40 (max.),
cfs = 7 (min.). For simplicity, calculations included only maximum use.
T.2.4 Sedimentation
No sediment transport studies have been performed at Indian
Creek. The observed discharge is very clear. The existence of a
relatively deep lake without topset beds indicates there is little
sediment inflow. For that reason depletion of storage by sediment is not
expected.
A-6
»
It • Jr'
It
C
• .. ..
n ..
v
n o ..
'1:1 •
o ...
m ::;,
fa
S' • • .. •
Ci) »
Ci)
m enc .... :1:1< mm »:rJ
i:en
"'I1C: ,en
0»
~o ....
c: » ,
Ul
LL o
Z
120
100
80
60
Max. Plant == Flow = 41 c:1.
o
..J
LL
20
Min. Plant
Fbw = 7 c:1 •
o
INDIAN CREEK
MONTHLY FLOW DATA
,----------------------------------------------------------.12o
ACTUAL GAGED DATA
50 YEAR AVERAGE ADOPTED
FLOW DATA f-100
80
Ul
LL o
-60 Z
\,
~
~
~
\,
r-----------~ 40
~ ~
" 20
~~~-~~~~~~LU~~~~~~~~~~if~~~~~~·~~~~~~~~~o
I I I
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTHS APRIL 1982 -SEPTEMBER 1983
-
== o
..J
LL
T.2.S Snow and Ice Problems
There is no record of problems with the water freezino in the existinq
small diameter wood stave and steel pipeline. No significant operational-
problems are anticipated in the proposed larger penstock at Indian Creek.
Valves would be provided at low spots in the pipeline for emergency
drainage.
T.2.6 Water Supply
Water supply needs at Chignik are met by the existing dam on Indian
Creek or by individual wells. All future needs within the community can
be expected to require continuation of both of these methods of water
distribution. The existing wood stave pipe would continue to meet the
water supply needs of the community of Chignik. Bifurcation from 34-inch
penstock would be provided on the downstream dam side to conect the water
supply line to the hydropower penstock. (See Plate 3)
At Chignik Lagoon, all water supply requirements are met by individual
wells. This method of obtaining water is quite satisfactory for Chignik
Lagoon and there is no reason to expect that future needs would require
development of some other type of distribution system, such as a reservoir
and pipeline. Therefore, evaluation of future water supply requirements
is limited to the expected needs of Chignik.
In Chignik, the Alaska Packers Association has applied for water
rights to 2,000 gallons per minute from Indian Creek and uses the existing
wood stave penstock to service the water requirements of the cannery and
several village homes. Although this system has existed for a number of
years, no records exist of historical water use. Hence, present and
future water supply needs are based on typical averages or comwunity
estimates for domestic, commercial, industrial, and public needs. Averaoe
ano peak use requirements are estimated as appropriate and compared with
the existing water right application to determine if supplemental water
supply would be necessary from Indian Creek.
Domestic Needs
Domestic water supply needs consider the basic household demands of
Chignik's permanent residents (i.e. cooking, cleaning, lavatory, drinking,
etc) . Domest i c water use duri ng December and January is ant i ci pated to
slacken, reflecting an 80 percent housing unit occupation rate during this
off-season. In this respect, Chignik does not have the great domestic
seasonal water demand fluctuations found in some communities. The town's
domestic consumption, however, probably follows a morning and evening peak
with low usage during the day and night. Domestic water supply use
averages an estimated 12 gpm; peak use is approximately 89 gpm (See Table
A-S). Chignik's population is expected to increase, thereby more than
doubling the domestic demand by the year 2045. Seasonal and hourly de~and
patterns are not expected to change significantly, if at all.
A-8
Table A-5
Chignik Domestic Water Demand
(gpm)
Year Population Ave. Da ily 1 Peak 2
1980 178 12 89
1985 199 14 115
1990 223 15 124
1995 250 17 132
2000 280 19 142
2005 294 20 146
2010 309 21 152
2015 325 23 156
2020 342 24 161
2025 359 25 166
2030 377 26 171
2045 397 28 176
. 1I Assumes 100 ga 11 ons per person per day •
'l:./ Peak use is based on QUADRA Engineering Inc, Tenakee Springs
Water and Sewer StUdy, June 1983.
Industrial Needs
Industrial water requirements cover the needs of the operating cannery
and its associated seasonal employees. The freezer plant is now closed
and is not expected to begin operations in the near future. Therefore, no
estimate of water needs for the other cannery is included in the future
industrial needs.
The cannery currently has three primary uses for water. First, water
is used for cannery operations related to fish processing activities.
Second, the cannery has a bunkhouse that requires water for the domestic
needs of its seasonal labor force. Third, water supplied to the cannery
sometimes drives a pelton wheel that generates electricity for cannery
operations. The pelton wheel is considered a non-competitive water user
since electricity is generated only after cannery and domestic needs have
been met.
The cannery follows a seasonal pattern, using the most water during
the peak operation periods of February, March, June, July, and August.
Unlike domestic needs, the cannery's peak use may continue for many hours
as opposed to the peak morning and evening water uses of the community.
Bunkhouse requirements are based on the number of bunkhouse dwellers
which, in turn, is related to the number of cannery workers. During the
months of December and January the bunkhouse is expected to be vacant,
A-9
thereby eliminating water demand at these times. Since the operating
cannery has no plans for expanded activities and the second cannery is now
closed and not expected to reopen, the estimated industrial water needs
remain constant in future years. Table A-6 shows the estimated combined
peak water needs of the cannery and bunkhouse.
Table A-6
Present and Future Projected Water Supply Requirements
for Chignik Cannery
Figures remain constant for period of analysis
Bunkhouse
Peak Cannery
Operations Flow l Estimated Dwellers 2 Peak Flow 3
Total Cannery
Peak Flow
(gpm) (count) (gpm)
Jan 108 0 0
Feb -Mar 650 167 114
Apr -May 108 45 49
June -Aug 650 167 114
Sep -Nov 108 42 47
Dec 108 0 0
1/ Calculated from cannery estimates of daily water use and peak
operation activities.
(gpm)
108
764
157
764
155
108
2/ Assumes number of dwellers is 8 less than total number of cannery
workers. The 8 workers are assumed to live in town year-round. The
remaining dwellers are seasonal workers.
3/ Peak use is based on Quadra Engineering's study.
The bunkhouse's average annual water demand, based on 100 gallons per
person per day, is calculated to be 6 gpm. No average flow for cannery
operations is known, but it can be estimated by assuming that the
operational requirements for water follow the same pattern as requirements
for power. During peak operation times, it is assumed that the cannery
uses the peak flow for 16 hours and a nonpeak flow for the remaining 8
hours of each day (7 days per week). During the off-season, the cannery
uses a reduced peak flow for 9 hours and a non peak flow for the remaining
15 hours of each day (six days per week). Based on these assumptions, as
more fully described in the power use discussion, the average cannery flow
is estimated at 305 gpm.
Commercial Needs
The commercial water needs of Chignik are limited to a small store and
a restaurant that is closed much of the time. Water used by these two
businesses is minor compared to other community needs and is considered
insignificant. Estimating average and peak water demands for these needs
A-10
is conjecture, at best, because a small community like Chignik does not
require the services of these commercial activities on a large-scale
basis. Assuming that the store and restaurant each average 10 gpm, total
daily use amounts to almost 30,000 gallons of water. The size and
services provided by these two businesses make it highly unlikely that
such an average use would be necessary. Assuming that peak use of
commercial needs can be estimated relative to the average/peak
relationship of domestic needs, Chignik's commercial peak use would be
more than 120 gpm. As with the estimated average demand, it is highly
unlikely that this peak use would ever be required. No significant
increase in commercial needs is planned for Chignik; therefore, the
average and peak water supply estimates are considered constant throughout
the period of analysis.
Public Needs
Public water needs consist of the water requirements necessary to meet
fire fighting demands as well as demands by the school and clinic. Of
these demands, the fire fighting standby water supply is the largest.
This peak usage must be available at all hours. The school's peak demand
occurs during the daytime hours, which is not concurrent with the large
domestic demand. The clinic's water demand is considered insignificant
because of the limited capability and services provided by the
facilities. Based on the QUADRA Engineering, Inc., study, peak use for
fire fighting standby needs is estimated at 500 gpm. This assumes that
buildings are spaced more than 100 feet apart. Although this distance is
not met in some cases at Chignik, this water requirement exceeds the 80 to
120 gpm said to be required by the town's acting fire chief. Since no new
public facilities are scheduled to be developed at Chignik, peak water
supply estimates are considered constant throughout the period of analysis.
Total Water Supply Needs
Figure A-2 shows the combined estimated requirements for domestic,
commercial, industrial, and public water needs. Comparing those needs to
the cannery's existing water rights shows that all future water supply
demand can be met without adding any supplemental water supply capability
to the existing Indian Creek project.
A-ll
at ..
~
c
~ ..
at a.
• c
0
tV
CJ
c -
" C
tV
E
at
Q
~
tV
at a.
o 0
O~----------------------------------______________________________ r-0
o 0
N N Water Rights Application : 2000 gpm
0
0
1ft ...
0
0
0 ...
0
0
1ft
Domestic : 89 gpm In 1980 to 178 gpm In 2035 o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0
1ft
Public: 820 gpm
po
o o o
po
o o
1ft
o
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035
Year
A-12
Figure A-2
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydrol:l.Qwer Feasibility Study
WATER SUPPLY NEEDS
PEAK DEMAND
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
T.2.7 Potential Floods
No direct observations of historical flood discharges are available
for Indian Creek. The probable magnitude of annual peak flood discharges
has been estimated by means of a U.S. Geological Survey method as
presented in "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams·· by John Lamb.
Flood frequency curves developed by this method are presented in Figure
A-3. For preliminary purposes, the maximum probable flood may be
approximated as three times the 50-year flood magnitude. Thus, for the
purpose of this study the maximum probable flood for Indian Creek is about
1,BOO cfs. This estimate represents the runoff resulting from the most
severe rainfall and snowmelt situation considered possible for the
region. They should be used only for consideration of dam integrity when
failure would result in loss of life and extensive property damage
downstream.
T.2.B Evaporation
The total annual lake evaporation at Chignik would be about B inches.
This low value is the result of low temperatures and a high average
relative humidity of about 86 percent. The average annual evaporation
amounts to about 0.001 cfs per acre of reservoir. Since the increase in
lake area is modest, evaporation losses are negligible.
T.3 GEOLOGY
T.3.1 Regional Setting
The Alaska Peninsula is divided into two major and one minor
physiographic subprovinces. The major divisions are the Aleutian Mountain
Range and the Bering Sea lowlands. The narrow lowlands adjacent to the
Pacific Ocean constitute the minor division. In the Mud Bay, Anchorage
Bay, and Negro Head areas, the mountains rise directly from the ocean.
Faulting and uplift have raised the land mass southeast of Chignik Lagoon
to the general altitude of the Aleutian Mountain Range, which can be more
than 3000 feet. In the area between Chignik Lagoon and Kuiukta Bay, the
adjacent Pacific lowlands are less than one-half mile wide and consist of
alluvial materials.
A-13
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
(/)
U.
0 200
Z
30~~+~~~~~I--_+++++~-H+1+---+-~-~-~M4+4HH~~-HH+H-H+~+4H+MH
1--+
I
----I---+_ ---, -
20 ---I---~-H+"~---4-+-+--
.----.. .-----
-----'--
I
I I --
0.01 lLO~) 01 0_2 0_5 2 :) 10 20 30 .10 50 60 70 flO go 9'1.S Ill)
T.3.2 Regional Geology
Five basic geologic formations occur in the Chignik area. They range
from late Cretaceous to Quaternary (recent) in age. The following
descriptions are based on the work done by Knappen (1929).
Chi nik Formation (Kc : The Chignik Formation is late Cretaceous (135
million years and consists of sedimentary fluvial and marine deposits.
The. rock types consist of black and brown fine-grained sandstones, black
shales, and arkosic conglomerates with class sizes ranging from 3 inches
to 2 feet in diameter. Two coal seams are reported northwest of Chignik
Lagoon. The Chignik Formation outcrops in a continuous band along the
promontories at Negro Head, Eagle Rock and east of Anchorage Bay.
Reported thickness of the Chignik Formation ranges from 780 feet at Negro
Head to 450 feet in other areas.
Tertiary (Eocene) Series (Tc): The Tertiary sedimentary series crops out
along the west side of Anchorage Bay to Chignik Lagoon. This broad band
of Eocene-age sediments consists of predominantly black shale
approximately 1,200 feet thick with a minor amount of interbedded sand and
gravel. The black shales are easily weathered and fissile and interbedded
with fine-to coarse-grained sands indicating deposition by streams or in
lakes. Generally, the stratification and sorting are excellent in these
rocks, but crossbedding in the gravels indicates limited deposition by
strong currents. Plant fossils are present in the shale and have been
collected along the shore of Anchorage Bay. The contact betweer these
black shales and the Chignik Formation is unconformable and, in the study
area, poorly exposed.
Meshik Formation (Tm): In the Chignik area the uplands are mapped as the
Miocene or Oligocene Meshik Formation. This sequence of rocks consists
primarily of sediments of volcanic origin including purple and green-gray
andesitic agglomerates, varicolored volcanic ash and bentonitic clays and
intercalated black soil horizons. The volcanic agglomerate forms
resistant ridges and mountain spurs. The Meshik Formation is reported to
have a minimum thickness of 2,000 feet but may reach 3,500 to 4,000 feet
outside of the study area near the Aniakchak River mouth.
Glacial Drift (Qd): Valley glaciers scoured existing stream valleys and
deposited a blanket of glacial drift. Quaternary (Pleistocene) glacial
drift is mapped within the lower reaches of the Indian Creek drainage.
Reconnaissance photos (April 1982) suggest morainal-type glacial deposits
within the valley. Exposed cutbanks show the glacial drift deposits to be
a mixture of sand, silt, clay, and boulders.
A-15
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal): Recent deposits of sand, gravel, and clay of
fluvlal and lacustrlne origin occupy the narrow flatlands at the head of
both Anchorage and Mud Bays and at Chignik Flats. These deposits consist
of detrital material eroded from existing bedrock in the Indian Creek
drainage. Marine tidal flat and sand spit deposits are also present in
Mud Bay and Anchorage Bay.
The United States Geological Survey (1924, 1929, and 1965) does not
show any faults within the study area. An inferred normal fault is mapped
beneath Chignik Lagoon. The rocks within the study area, from Negro Head
to the promontories between Mud and Anchorage Bays, have a generally
northwesterly strike and have been deformed by folding. The anticlinal
axis is mapped at N 700 Wand can be traced through the coastal
promontories to the east side of Anchorage Bay and into the hills north
and east of Chignik. Northeast of the axis, beds are mapped dipping 40
to 90 NE.
T.3.3 Regional Seismicity
Southern and southwestern Alaska have high seismic activity. The
seismicity is due to subduction of the Pacific Plate under the North
American Plate. This is an ongoing process, with the majority of the
accumulated strain resulting from pl.ate-plate interaction being released
in great earthquakes (magnitude greater than or equal to 7.8). Because
the Pacific Plate is being subducted beneath the Alaska Peninsula, the
earthquake foci tend to be deeper north, away from the Aleutian Trench,
which is the point of the initial interaction between the two plates.
The Chignik area is within the Shumagin Islands Seismic Gap. Seismic
gaps are the areas between aftershock zones of great earthquakes. The
aftershock zones between great earthquakes do not overlap, suggesting that
the intervening areas are the most likely sites for the next great event
(Davies and Jacob, 1979). The Shumagin Islands region is one of these
gaps. This area must be considered a high seismic risk zone with the
possibility of a great earthquake occurring in the future.
In addition to the great earthquake, numerous smaller (magnitude less
than or equal to 7.8) earthquakes are common throughout the region.
T.3.4 Local Geology
Indian Creek is approximately 3.5 miles long and drains generally
north-northwest from an elevation of 1,200 feet to sea level, exiting
through the flatlands containing the village of Chignik into Anchorage
Bay. The valley is relatively narrow and approximately 1.5 miles wide
(crest to crest). The valley walls are steeply sloping, ranging from 50
percent to near vertical along the upper walls. A small timber dam and
lake impoundment are located at elevation 442 feet. These facilities
A-16
provide both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to the
cannery at Chignik. The average stream gradient is 15 percent from
headwaters to mouth. The stream is generally very incised downstream of
the dam and lake.
A talus deposit, approximately one-third mile west of the proposed dam
site, at elevation 720 feet, should be adequate for the pervious fill
requirements. The talus deposit consists of material from sand size to 24
inches long, with the average size being approximately 6 inches.
Particles tend to be fl~t and elongated, with diorite to quartz diorite
being the predominant rock type. The angle of repose for the talus is
greater than 45 0 .
The talus deposit should be adequate as material for the proposed
dam. The steep angle of repose suggests very high shear strengths for
this deposit. Limited material for filters and drains may be available by
processing the talus.
Southeast of the proposed dam site near the end of the existing lake
is a small knoll underlain by residual soil formed on hornfelsed
conglomerate. The soil ranges up to greater than 10 feet in thickness and
consists of silty sand with some pebbles and cobbles. Other than this
knoll, no other fine-grained material that may be suitable for impervious
fill exists within economic hauling distance of the site. Additional
exploration drilling would be required to determine the amount of material
present at the knoll.
At the existing dam, a small fillet of concrete (less than two cubic
yards) appears to have been made from material hauled to the site and
local sand and aggregate. The talus and sand in the immediate area is
high in elongated particles and would produce very harsh concrete. The
rock type present in the talus deposits would not preclude their use as
concrete aggregate.
At the time of the field investigation (7 to 9 September 1982),
numerous water seeps and springs were observed within the drainage area.
Generally, these seeps and springs occur in sandstone that underlies caps
of very hard, resistant conglomerate. The water appears to move along
joints and bedding surfaces. The stability of the natural slopes is good,
and no recent significant slope failures were observed.
No ash-fall tephra deposits were observed within the Indian Creek
area. Although active volcanism occurs along the Alaska Peninsula, it is
not considered a potential hazard for this site.
A-17
T.4 DAM AND FOUNDATION
T.4.1 Structure
The proposed structure would be a direct strutted A-Frame timber
buttress. Maximum height would be 24 feet and total crest length would be
105 feet. Both upstream and downstreaw dam faces would have a slope of
450 degrees. The upstream face would be faced with one layer of pressure
treated tongue and groove wood decking. Each individual timber buttress
section would be constructed of pressure treated wood to avoid
deterioration. A catwalk would extend along the crest of the dam.
The intake would consist of a 60-inch diameter slide qate located on
the upstream face. Slide gate operation would be providea by a hand wheel
valve control on the top of the daw. The gate stem would be protected
from ice with a steel channel. A trashrack would also be provided which
could be cleaned with a rake.
A 4-foot freeboard allowance would exist in the structure for the
100-year flood event. Plate 2 and 3 show the selected design. Pertinent
structure information follows:
Crest elevation
Water elevation at 100-year flood event
Full pool elevation
Existing lake elevation
Minimum operating pool elevation
Base elevation
T.4.2 Seepage Control
451 feet
451 feet
447 feet
442 feet
430 feet
420 feet
The proposed dam site on Indian Creek is the present site of a small
timber dam. The foundation at this site consists of hard, massive,
unyielding, hornfelsed sandstone (Quartzite) and siltstone with a thin
residual soil cover. The original sedimentary rock has been thermally
metamorphosed. The original sedimentary structures (bedding) have been
preserved, and no metamorphic structures were observed. Bedding is
oriented 081 0 /26 0 N above the existino dam and 327 0 /15 0 SW
(strike/dip) below the existing dam. -The joints within the foundation rock
are oriented 1200/700 S, 2900/900, and 145°/80° to 90. Their
spacing is one-half to 4 inches and is tight. Some sulphide mineralization
occurs on the joint surfaces. To control seepage and support the face of
the dam, a 5-foot wide by 11-foot deep concrete cut-off sill would be cast
into a trench extending across the river and up both abutwents to the top
elevation of the dam (see Plate 2). About 23 cubic yards of excavation
would be required for the cut-off sill. Close line drilling would be
necessary to excavate the cut-off sill. The grout curtain should extend
along the entire length of the cut-off sill and should be at least 15 feet
deep. The grout holes should be spaced on 5-foot centers. Twenty-four
grout holes, 15 feet deep on 5 foot centers would require 360 linear feet
of drilling and grouting. The estimated amount of Portland cement for
grouting is approximately 150 sacks.
A-18
T.4.3 Penstock
The 5,500-foot-long steel penstock would have an inside diameter of 34
inches. The interior of the penstock would be vinyl lined to prevent
large increases in pipe roughness as a result of the deterioration of the
penstock interior over the project life. A penstock thickness of
one-quarter inch was chosen to withstand the hydraulic pressures and to
allow adequate metal for corrosion losses. For its entire length, the
penstock would follow the alinement of the present wood stave water supply
pipeline (See Plate 1). This part of the penstock alinement would go
through rolling terrain and could be easi~y reached, enabling construction
to take place simultaneously at several locations. The entire penstock
would be constructed above ground on saddles spaced at 30-foot intervals
and with concrete anchor blocks at both vertical and horizontal bends (See
Plate 4). At two locations, approximately 2,600 feet and 3,300 feet from
the intake penstock, high bends would be fitted with air vents to prevent
entrapment of air pockets. A wooden support structure, approximately 400
feet in length and 20 feet in height would be constructed across a deep
ravine from station 36+ 00 to station 40 + 00. (See Plate 1.)
T. 4.4 Net heads
The maximum net head is 414.4 feet. This value was calculated with
the following parameters:
Maximum power pool elevation
Tailwater elevation
Plant efficiency
Generator at rated power
= 441 feet
= 15 feet
= 83 pct
= 1100 kW
Expected hydraulic losses were used in the calculation and are based on a
Darcy-Weisbach friction factor of .014 (Manning "n" = .0103). The
discharge and accompanying head loss are 36.5 cfs and 17.3 feet,
respectively.
The design head is 409.7 feet, with a discharge of 38.0 cfs along with
a head loss of 17.3 feet. Design head is based on the same parameters as
maximum net head except for power pool elevation, which is set at an
elevation of 440 feet. Gross head is 425 feet, which is based on power
pool elevation of 440 feet and a tailwater elevation of 15 feet.
T.4.5 Hydraulic Transients and Hydraulic Losses
(a) The initial design included a surge tank, but further study
indicated that the use of a surge tank could be avoided by realining the
penstock to utilize lower elevations and increasing the gate opening time
to 60 seconds. The gate closure time is now 10 seconds.
(b) If the hydraulic gradient falls beneath the penstock, negative
pressures will occur. This could lead to separation of the water column
and/or collapse of the penstock if the negative pressures are great
enough. Because of the importance in locating the minimum hydraulic grade
line in this project, calculations for the minimum hydraulic elevation at
A-19
the powerhouse were made using both the Allievi Charts and the Arithmetic
Integration procedure. The Allievi Charts showed a minimum hydraulic
elevation of 392.7 feet, while the Arithmetic Integration process resulted
in an elevation of 390.6 feet. These values were based on a minimum power
pool elevation of 432 feet, a maximum power output of 1,222 kW, maximum
hydraulic losses (f=.02l, n=.0127), a tailwater elevation of 15 feet and a
gate opening rate of 60 seconds. Minimum clearances between the penstock
and the minimum gradient are approximately 15 feet at critical locations.
During the detailed design phase of this project, accurate water
hammer calculations will be done by using either Arithmetic Integration or
the Method of Characteristics. A final alinement (both vertical and
horizontal) of the penstock will then be made. This will assure proper
clearances between the penstock and the minimum hydraulic grade line.
(c) Maximum Hydraulic Gradient at the powerhouse is 595 feet. This
is based on a maximum power pool elevation of 447 feet, a maximum power
output of 1222 kW (1638 hp), a tailwater elevation of 15 feet, expected
hydraulic losses (f=.014), and a 10-second gate closure.
(d) All the above transient calculations were based on specific loss
coefficients, but it is well known that over time, an unlined penstock can
build up encrustations that result in greater loss coefficients and
hydraulic losses. Increased losses will tend to lower the minimum
hydraulic gradient resulting from rapid valve openings and, in addition,
will lower the steady state hydraulic gradient. The following table shows
the minimum hydraulic gradient elevation at the powerhouse for a 34-inch
penstock with a variety of loss coefficients:
Darcy Absolute Hydraulic Minimum Hydraulic
Weisbach Roughness Losses Elevation @ Powerhouse
"fll Steady State Transient
(inc h1 (ftl {ft1 (ft) (ft)
.016 0.0126 0.0011 24.5 405.5 396.8
.021 0.043 0.0036 34. 1 395.9 390.6
.043 0.500 0.0416 103 307.0 382.3
The last line in the table shows that if absolute roughness
developed to 0.5 inches, the steady state elevation line would be
well below the transient level. This condition would cause negative
pressures in the penstock and would probably collapse it. To avoid
this possibility, it is recommended that the penstock be lined with
vinyl or enamel, whichever is more appropriate.
The calculations for steady state conditions were based on mlnlmum
power pool (el. 432 ft); maximum power (1222 kW) and tailwater
elevation of 15 feet.
A-20
T.5 SPILLWAY
To avoid overtopping of the wood structure, the existing rock channel
(See Plate 3) would be used as the exclusive spillway except for floods
greater than the 100-year event. A concrete weir approximately 8 feet in
height and 25 feet long along the crest would be located in the narrowest
section of the channel. Water would discharge over the weir onto gabions
for erosion protection. These gabions would act as energy dissipators.
The following table illustrates the performance of the spillway at
different discharges. The calculations were based on the assumption of a
fully suppressed rectangular weir with a weir coefficient of J.34, with no
attenuation of flood flows occurring in the reservoir:
Flood Water Surface
Frequency Elevation in
Di scharge Reservoir
(years) (cfs) (ft)
30 500 450.4
50 600 450.9
100 740 451.0
PMF 1,800 452.9
The 30-, 50-, and 100-year discharges are based on Figure 6 of this report
while the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is assumed to be 3 times greater
than the 50-year event. The above chart shows that the spillway will
handle all anticipated flows without over topping the dam crest. Although
the diversion structure would be overtopped by 100 year plus events,
failure of structure would not occur. Damage would be expected to be
negligible.
T.6 POWERHOUSE
T.6.1 Powerhouse
The powerhouse dimensions would be 30 by 35 feet, which would
provide floor space sufficient to house and service the equipment. For
this study, a pre-engineered, insulated, weather tight metal building set
on concrete foundation walls was used. To reduce excavation costs, the
discharge chamber would be located outside the building. The floor
upstream of the turbines would be raised so the penstock can be set below
it. Since the l2-inch floor slabs should be placed on rock or dental
concrete, the powerhouse would be set back into the hillside enough so
that the upper slab would be supported mostly by rock. This would reduce
concrete costs. See Plate 5.
T.6.2 Turbine
Two single runner "standardized" horizontal Francis turbines with
wicket gates and butterfly valves would be installed and would match the
site's hydraulic conditions. Francis turbines were selected for
evaluation of feasibility of this project because, in general, they are
A-21
more efficient at high heads and gate openings and are normally less
costly than impulse turbines. The turbines would have the following
characteristics. Each turbine would be rated to produce 550 kW of
generator output at a rated net head of 402 feet. At this condition each
turbine will discharge approximately 20 cfs, assuming a generator
efficiency of 95 percent. The turbines are estimated to have a 13-inch
runner diameter and to operate at 1,200 rpm. Because of the long penstock
(5,500 ft), it is assumed that the turbines will be designed to operate at
full run-away conditions to reduce the waterhammer pressures and limit the
requirements for a surge tank. The turbine centerline would be set to
meet both cavitation and civil requirements. Minimum project tailwater is
fixed by the weir at elevation 15. See Plate 5.
T.6.3 Generators
The generators would be of the horizontal shaft, synchronous type with
the shaft connected directly to the turbine. The generators would be
3-phase, 60 Hz, ·2,400 V, rated 550 kW (688 KVA @ 0.8 P.F.). A drip-proof
housing would be provided. The generators would be open ventilated with
an 80 0 C rise, and have a Class B insulation system without provisions
for overload. The generators would have full run-away speed capability.
T.6.4 Excitation Systems
The excitation systems would be specified to be the generator
manufacturer1s standard type. This could be either a direct-connected
brushless exciter or a bus-fed power potential source static excitation
system. Solid state, continuously acting, dynamic type voltage regulators
would be incorporated into the unit switchgear.
T.6.5 Governors
The governors would be of the oil pressure, distributing valve,
actuator type with mechanically driven speed responsive elements designed
for regulating the generator speed by controlling the butterfly valve.
Each governor unit would consist of an actuator, a restoring mechanism, a
motor driven pumping unit, a pressure or accumulator tank, a sump tank, an
oil piping, and accessories.
T.6.6 Generator Voltage System
The connection between the generator and breaker or breakers would be
with cable. The generator breaker or breakers would be metal-clad drawout
type rated 250 MVA (nominal) 5 kV, 1,200 amps continuous. The breakers
would be combined in a common switchgear lineup along with generator surge
protection and instrument transformers.
A-22
T.6.7 Station Service
The station service power would be obtained via a tap between the
generator breaker and the main power transformer. The station service
distribution panel would be adjacent to the generator switchgear lineup.
Station service power distribution would be 4S0 volts 3-phase and 20SY/120
volts single phase.
T.6.S Connection to Load
Approximately 0.25 miles of 14.4 kV transmission (3-phase) line would
run from the powerhouse to the community of Chignik. The line would be
connected to the powerhouse through a disconnect switch. The transmission
line would be mounted on wood poles, which would provide a nominal 30-foot
pole height above the ground, providing no less than a 20-foot clearance at
the midpoint of the conductor sag.
T.6.9 Unit Control and Protective Equipment
Unit controls would consist of manual start-up and shut-down circuits,
basic protective relays, and basic instrumentation. Protective relays for
each unit would include generator differential, overspeed, overvoltage and
ground overcurrent. Instrumentation for each unit would include a
voltmeter, an ammeter, a wattmeter, and a watthour meter. The controls
would be contained in a single cabinet. No annunciation or station battery
would be provided. It is recommended that the control equipment enclosures
be located adjacent to the governor cabinets. See Plate 5.
T.6.10 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
The HVAC system would be a forced air system mixing outside air and
recirculated inside air. Equipment would consist of a fan, filters, a
mixing box, a duct heater, ductwork, and electric controls. The system
would provide powerhouse cooling using outside air and heating with an
electric resistance duct heater. Positive pressure would be maintained
inside the powerhouse. See Plate 5.
T.6.11 Piping system
The draft tube discharge chamber would be dewatered by a portable
pump. A drainage sump with a pump would be used for draining the
powerhouse floor. The water would be pumped to the tailrace. The
powerhouse raw water would be taken from the penstock, and the pressure
would be reduced to 100 psi by using a pressure reducing valve. The
turbine gland water would be strained or filtered. A hose outlet would be
used for floor and equipment washing and fire protection. A single air
compressor would serve all compressed air needs. Equipment furnished with
the governors would boost air pressure as required for the governors.
Governors and lubricating oil will be handled and filtered by a portable
pump/filter and 55 gallon drums. C02 fire protection would be provided
for the generators. See Plate 5.
A-23
T.6.12 Bridge Crane
The powerhouse would be furnished with an underhung singlegirder
bridge crane. The hoist would be a 2-ton electric chain hoist with a
geared trolley. The bridge would be an underhung type, hand operated.
The power to the hoist would be supplied by a festoon cable or power rail
or a combination of both. See Plate 5.
T.6-13 Power Transformer
One 2.4/14.4 kV, delta-grounded wye, 3-phase transformer, OA class
1500 kVa, with the minimum nonpremium impedance specified, would be
provided.
T.7 TAILRACE
The proposed tailrace section would have a trapezoidal cross section
with side slopes of one vertical on two horizontal. Maximum flow depth
would be 3.5 feet with a free board of 1.0 feet. A 1.0-foot thick layer
of cobbles would be sufficient to prevent erosion of the underlying
material. Plate 5 shows a typical channel section.
T.8 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
Diversion of the stream during construction would be accomplished
through the use of the existing wood dam structure. Additional stoplogs
would be installed which would prevent overflow of the existing
structure. Approximately 40 linear feet of pipe would be installed to
extend the existing out pipe beyond the construction area. A cofferdam
downstream of the proposed structure would not be required due to the
supercritical flow regime in that reach of stream. After construction has
been completed, the existing water supply would be removed. As the lake
level is lowered the dam would be disassembled.
Overall project cost would largely be dictated by the simplicity ard
durability of the design. Most material and crafts would have to be
brought in. This means barge shipment of materials with possible
lightering required. It is anticipated that most Indian Creek project
materials could be off-loaded over the cannery docks.
All concrete material would most likely be brought in by barge because
the overall quantities are so small that it is judged uneconomical to set
up a crushing and screening plant. As nearly as possible, all materials
would be prefabricated and packaged for shipment to Chignik. Access to
Indian Creek Lake would be by the existing cat-trail, which would be
upgraded to a 12-foot width. Approximate length is 1.7 miles. See Plates
1 and 5.
T.9 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT
Once constructed, the project would be turned over to the local
utility for operation and maintenance in conjunction with the existing
diesel generators. All maintenance associated with the intake works,
penstock, powerhouse and distribution system would be the responsibility
A-24
of the utility. Project operators are envisioned to be locally based.
The overall systems (hydropower and diesel) would be intermeshed so that
any, both, or only one may be operated at anyone time. The unit would be
capable of matching necessary load during the time of year when flows
equal or exceed the demand.
When energy demand exceeds the capabilities of the system, the
hydropower unit would operate in a base load mode while the diesel units
would be utilized for peaking. Accumulation of debris of the intake
trashrack is not expected to be a problem. Minor accumulation would be
removed with a modified trash rake. Based on the operation of the
existing water supply, dam icing would be expected.
T.10 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Table A-7
Average Annual Energy Production
700-kW Unit 900-kW Un it 1,100-kW Unit 1,300-kW Urit
Month MWh MWh MWh MWh
Oct 453 530 584 600
Nov 394 449 492 509
Dec 362 401 429 423
Jan 0 0 0 0
Feb 0 0 0 0
I~ar 0 0 0 0
Apr 380 402 417 415
May 523 667 775 843
Jun 512 659 776 855
Jul 398 433 453 438
Aug 426 483 517 509
Sep 499 602 675 712
Tota 1 3,947 4,626 5, 118 5,304
To optimize the turbine size, the information in Table A-7 compared
with the energy demand for the months of January through December. The
estimated usable energy is shown in tabular form in Table A-8. With the
corresponding avsrage annual equivalent output to be used in calculating
annual power benefits.
Table A-8
Estimated Yearly Usable Energy
Plant Size -Energy Use ; n M~lh
Year 700 kW 900 kW 1 ,100 kW 1,300 kW
1995 2,893 3,126 3,180 3,157
2000 2,967 3,208 3,262 3.239
to 2045
Annual Equivalent 2,955 3, 180 3,250 3,227
A-25
The value of the diesel energy that was deter~ined to be displaced by
the hydropower system was calculated in accordance with the following
analysis. The value of diesel costs avoided was calculated for
residential use and industrial use (cannery) to reflect fuel cost and
efficiency differences found in the community. Residential fuel costs
$1.25/gal with an efficiency of 10.5 kWh/gal for an avoidable fuel
cost/kWh of $.1190 and an escalation value of $.0807 was used. Cannery
fuel costs $1.06/gal with an efficiency of 12 kWh/gal for an avoidable
fuel cost of $.0883/kWh and an escalation value of $.06 were co~puted.
Reduced operation and maintenance savings for the city and the cannery of
$0.021/kWh was claimed as a cost avoided. In addition, the use of
hydropower would allow diesel plants an increased useful life which is not
expressed as an extended life benefit. Comparing annual benefits with
annual costs showed that hydropower development at Chignik appeared
economically feasible.
The annual cost of the hydropower system was then determined by
applying a capital recovery factor (CRF) for 8 1/8 percent and 50 years to
the project investment costs. An additional figure of $30,000 was added
for operation and maintenance of the hydropower system •.
A summary of benefits and costs for the various unit sizes being
considered are shown in Table A-9.
NED Employment Benefits. The principal criterion in determining
feasibility of water resource projects for hydropower development is
whether marketable energy can be produced at a lower cost over time than
the most likely alternative. Once this critical determination has been
established, other incidental project benefits can be claimed. WRC
guidelines permit the inclusion of NED employment benefits in project
evaluation for areas where substantial and persistent unemployment
exists. Construction projects tend to attract the unemployed from the
communities of the region. The Chignik labor market area typically
reaches full employment during June through September, when virtually the
entire resident labor force participates in salmon harvesting and
processing activities. At season's conclusion, however, employment
opportunities are restricted to fewer than a dozen full-time positions.
Although some persons find temporary employment on local construction
projects, most people remain unemployed through the 8-month off season.
It is estimated that labor costs are 30% skilled, 40% unskilled, and 30%
other and that Chignik residents and workers from nearby areas could
provide approximately 20 percent of skilled labor requirements, 75 percent
of unskilled, and 30 percent of other labor needs during project
construction. Approximately 60 percent of project costs by line item
analysis (less E&D/S&A) is assigned to labor and 40 percent to materials.
Using NED applied ratios for the local hire rule and amortizing the gross
NED benefit over the 50-year project life results in $67,000 in annual NED
employment benefits for the 1,100-kW recommended plan.
A-26
Employment benefits are considered separately since they do not
directly impact the output of the hydropower system. The effect of this
benefit category is shown in addition to the benefit-to-cost analysis
table.
First Cost
IDC
Investment Cost
Table A-9
Estimated Costs and Benefits
700-kW
$6,170,000
235,000
$6,405,000
900-kW 1, 100-kW 1,300-kW
$6,539,000 $6,675,000 $7,031,000
248,000 254,000 268,000
$6,787,000 $6,929,000 $7,299,000
Annual Cost (@ 50 yrs. 8-1/8%)
Interest and
Amortization
Operation and
Maintenance
Total Annual Costs
Annual Benefits
Fuel Displacement
Fuel Escalation
Operation and Main-
tenance
Ext. Life
Tota 1 Annu a 1
Benef it s
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Net Benefits
$ 531,000
30,000
$ 561,000
$ 280,000
190,000
60,000
3,000
$ 533,000
0.95
$ -0-
$ 563,000 $ 574,000 $ 605,000
30,000 30,000 30,000
$ 593,000 $ 604,000 $ 635,000
$ 312,000 $ 320,000 $ 317,000
211,000 217,000 216,000
46,000
4,000
68,000
6,000
68,000
7,000
$ 573,000 $ 611,000 $ 608,000
0.96
$ -0-$
1. 01
7,000 $
.96
-0-
When employment benefits are considered, the B/C analysis for the
1,100 kW plant is as shown.
Item B/C Analysis Annual Amount
Annua 1 Benefit
Power $611,000
Employment 67,000
Overall Annual Benefit $678,000
Annual Costs
BIC
Net Benefit
$604,000
1. 12
$ 74,000
Based on this analysis, a 1,100-kW (2 turbine system) unit
was chosen for the selected plan because of its ability to pick up
minimum loads more efficiently. Additional streamflow information
may alter this selection slightly during post authorization design
work.
A-27
T.ll PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
The total project cost estimate for Indian Creek is computed for
a 1,100-kW system (2-550 kW units) at October 1983 price levels.
COST ESTIMATE FOR INDIAN CREEK PROJECT
ITEM/DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1. MOB and DEMOB 1. s. $ 900,000
2. LANDS AND DAMAGES 1. s. $
Lands 19,000
Administration 5,000
Subtotal $ 24,000
3. DAM AND SPILLWAY
Rock Excavation 1,000 c.y. 150 $ 169,000
Removal of Existing Dam 19,000
Dam Concrete 75 c.y. 1,464 109,800
Anchor Bolts 95 ea 75 7,200
Spillway Concrete 30 c.y. 1,300 39,000
Gabions 8 ea 500 4,000
Gates 36 x 48 inch
slide w/operators 2 ea 20,250 40,500
Diversion Outlet Pipe 40 If. 203 8,100
Lumber, Fastenings, Dam 32.5 M.B.F. 3,382 109,900
Diversion 1 1. s. 8,790 8,800
Transition, Gate to
34" Pipe 2 ea 2,314 4,600
Switch Over 1011
Water Pipe and Valve 1 1. s. 1,000 1,000
Trash Rack 1 1. s. 900 900
Rake, Trash Rack 1 1. s. 300 300
Grouting, drilling 750 If. 43 32,250
Grout 150 Sacks 260 39,000
SUBTOTAL $ 574,600
4. PENSTOCK
Rock Excavation 3,660 c.y. 50.00 183,000
Rock Bolts 366 ea 30.00 10,980
Timber Supports 183 ea 255.00 46,665
Anchors 350 c.y. $ 1,200.00 $ 420,000
Ring Stiffeners 32,025 lbs. 1.80 57,645
Bridge
Support Concrete 50 c.y. $ 1,200.00 60,000
Structure 1. s. 51,500
Penstock
34 11 Dia. x 4,500 L.F. @ 1/411 wall
34" Dia. x 1,000 L. F. @ 3/8 11 wa 11
Pipe 546,500 lbs. 2.00 1,093,000
Pipe Lining 5,500 1.f. 11 .40 62,700
Valvage 1. s. 51,500
Subtotal $2,036,990
A-28
ITEM/DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UN IT
5. POWERHOUSE
Structure ea.
Turbine/Generator (2-550 kW) 2 ea.
Accessory Electrical Equipment l.s.
Auxilary Systems & Equipment l.s.
Switchyard 1 ea.
Subtotal
6. TAILRACE
Excavation
Rockfi 11
Subtotal
7. TRANSMISSION
Transmission Line,
2,000 c.y.
1,800 c.y.
1/4 mile, 3 wire (14.4 kV)
Subtotal
1. s.
8. ACCESS ROAD
Fill
Rock Excavation
24" C~IP
Subtotal
SUBTOTAL
Contingencies (20%)
SUBTOTAL
2,100 c.y.
3, 100 c.y.
150 l.f.
Engineering and Design (8%)
Supervision and Administration (6.5%)
TOTAL PROJECT FIRST COST
T.12 PROJECT ECONOMICS
UNIT PRICE TOTJl.L
$ 88,900
626,600
278,000
43,000
51,500
$1,088,000
5.00 $ 10,000
10.00 18,000
10.00
50.00
38.00
$ 28,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 21,000
155,000
5,700
$ 181,700
$4,858,290
971,660
$5,829,950
466,400
378,650
$6,675,000
Under criteria established for Federal water resource prGjects, the
Tentatively Selected Plan is feasible. Factors influencing the
feasibility have been presented in appropriate sections of the
report. The results are presented below.
Annual Costs and Berefits
Investment Cost (including IDC)
Interest and Amortization (8-1/8% @ 50 yrs)
Operation and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Fuel Displacement Benefit
Fuel Cost Escalation Benefit
O&M Saved
Ext. Life
Employment Benefit
Total Annual Benefit
B/C Ratio
Net Annual Benefit
A-29
$6,929,000
$ 574,000
$ 30,000
$ 604,000
$ 320,000
$ 217,000
$ 68,000
$ 6,000
$ 67,000
$ 678,000
1 . 12 to 1
$ 74,000
GENERAL PLAN
o 300 600 900 1200 1500 feet
HWL
:::'~l = Lel"NTS J ~
20' ~-~~~----,r---------.---------r,----~---',----~~_r,--------~,------~-', __________ ,r-_~------_r--------_r----~~~-,---ELEV. 15'
STA.
0+00
~. m. ~. ~ ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~.
5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00 35+00 40+00 45+00 50+00 55+00
PENSTOCK PROFI LE
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
U. S. ARMY
SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
INDIAN CREEK
GENERAL PLAN &
PENSTOCK PROFILE
INV. NO. DACW85-PLATE 1
D
-450-
-445-
--440-
-435-
c
--. --
B
A
5
CONNECT TO EXISTING
10" WATER SUPPLY LINE
TO CANNERY
5
I
....... _------------
I
4
"
I DAM AXIS
I
4
..
I 3 1
~
105'-0·
I '" I .-10-0-~1:----~--------~----------------~-----------_---4-7-'-6-'-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-:--
I
-440-
-435-
LWL ELEV. 432 ~ f~~
-430-I~
I\, ./
RESERVOIR D;;;:W~~W-;; J
SLUICE GATE, ELEV.427
(See Delail A-3)
SECTION
SCALE 1"=5'-0"
s· 0' 5' 10'
iIIIIiIIIIiIIII ,
SECTION 0
SCALE' 1"=5'-0"
~/ 0' 5' Id
i0oi iIIII iIIII ' ,
BOTTOM OF WALKWAY _ ELEV. 453.5
TOP OF DAM_ ELEV. 451
HWL_ ELEV. 447
_ ELEV 427
SECTION
SCALE: I": 5'-0"
" 0' " 10' ... ... i0oi , ,
3 I ..
2
WATER SUPPLY LINE
2
C7
47'-6'
Symbol
ELEVATION VIEW
SCALE' I": 5'-0"
5' 0' 5'
UUU !
10' ,
Revisions
De$criptions
1
,I
-445-
-
c
8
Date Appro"ed
~-~-----------------------~---~-~.--
Designed by;
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
m CHIGNIK, ALASKA -INDIAN CREEK
I--o,-.-w-n -b,-, -----j~Stnr;Xe;~ps TIMBER DAM DESIGN
IIR. B.
~---------j
Checked by:
Reviewed by:
,----------1
Approved by:
I
Scale:
Dale:
Drawing
Code:
ELEVATION VIEW
AND SECTIONS
She.' I"· 5-0' r.t.renee
number:
MAY 1984
Shee_ o.
1
PLATE 2
5
o
c
B
A
5
4"X 8" JOISTS~
J o ,
i
,
'"
4
I... +--2" X 12" DECKING
p~-.-.
I '
PLAN VIEW 8
SCALE
, o· w-w M!
I": 5-0' ,.
I '0· ,
4
SECTIONG
N.T.S.
.-
3
3 ..
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ t
\
\
\ ,
2
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ , ,
"-"-
LAKE ELEVATION 442'·0"
2
/
/
/
/
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PLAN VIEW
20' SCJLE: I': 2 02'g. ,
!w.! IwwI IwJ !
1
40· ,
Symbol Descnptions 0.,. Approved
u.s. ARMV ENGINEEItOISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
D •• igned by: IP.IIr.I
1--------' 1LiUJ CHIGNIK, ALASKA -INDIAN CREEK
USAnrryC~ Drawn by:
IIR. B.
Checked by:
Reviewed by:
of IE"""I_" TIMBER DAM DESIGN
PLAN VIEWS
AND SECTION
Scale: Sh •• t A S SHOWN ,..,terence
I-_____ ---jr----------l number: 1--------1
Dete: MAY 1984 Approved by:
Sh •• t __ •• __
1
0
c
B
A
PLATE 3
5
o
,----
c
-.f--
B
o
-
A
5
4
-~--------T
TT~ , I
il
I
,
'"
I I
I U
o
4
I 3
I 3
I
DETAIL 8
N.T.S.
I
2 I 1
34" DIA. PENSTOCK, "
WALL THIC KNESS -1/4 o
1/4" X 4" STIFFENER RING
:ll ~ II:; II (I ;: :: : ~ I! " : :
II II :: II II d II II
:: :: :: ::
II II l! :: L---1"-'l'I'-';' 'li"------=:::S;;;;;ZZ::;;;;;2::::::.-------'~"~f:"---1 12"X 12" X 3' " ,~: ~ " " .. " -+--TREATED
II II II :: I: :: H SUPPORTS
_WEDGE
II:: II II II II
II II II :: U II U
:: U :: :: :: _______ +-_ 3/4" ROCKBOLTS C
II II I, II
tl II .. II
II : : : ~ l/
11 II II II
II II II I
" II J
~"'--ir--, .. -'''''-'''''''_. --...... 7'-~~ -tt -tJ..-Z ' "",'-
.:t: f.: ij n-2" X 6" SHIMS, WHERE NECESSARY u u
DETAIL 8
N.T.S.
Aevision_
B
Date Appro"ed Symbol ~ t~~~=====-___ ~D~ •• ~C'~IP~.~~n.~ ______ ~~~====t-
2
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
I
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
~-__ -_---~----.N-C-H-OR-.-GE-.• -L-.S-K-.--~
Deslgnedb., m CHIGNIK, ALASKA-INDIAN CREEK
'--D'-.w-n-b-.,-----l ~ISEA,;:":;~ T IMBER DAM DESIGN
UR. B.
Chec:ked by: DETAILS
Sc Sheet ~-a'·-'~A~S~S_HO_W_N ___ ~=:~.~------~
1---------1 Da'.' MAY 1984
Appt'Qved by:
I
Drawing
Code: Sheet __ 01 __
1
A
PLATE 4
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GENERATOR RATING
(KYA 0,8 P.F.)
TURBINE CAPACITY
$VNCHAONUS SPEED
RUNNER THROAT DIA.
U. S. ARMY
r
35'-0" ~I It.PENSTOCK~I-.:".~,--13'-9"_ ,
q>--i :--1 12' -I ..... .....
I t
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE -----'"
8' WIDE ROLL-UP
DOOR WITH
PERSONNEL DOOR
("'"EL. 19.5'
, , , SWITCHGEAR
CABINET
I I
I i
'" I ~ I
I I i~ yi , ~I ~ll
1 I
C':EL. 16.5' 'I '
'" I
.' I I
I CONTROL el I L CABINET 11 ~=========;~~;=;=:=::::Q±=~ _--.1..
ASSUMED
GROUND LINE
TOP OF WEIR
EL.15.0·
~. ,;"'----4'.,.,
----TAIL RACE -
CHANNEL
-@----1-----1~
PLAN
4 0 ,,' ,.........
1/4' = l'
2'-3 •
STEEL BUILDING
r-~============================================~--,--E~ 36.0'
1 ~ ~1~ RIPRAP-'~~ ~ RIPRAP
r---12:-6'-------1
TYPICAL TAILRACE SECTION
I-12'
ROAD SURF ACE
5' 0 5'
5-.-I
SC8'e; 1'" 5'
• I
,/
/'
/'
,/
,/
/'
/'
>"--EXISTING
,//' GROUND SURFACE
FILL MATERIAL --,
1 CUT MATERIAL
2 17_
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
'~~"I_ii-~'ii_rl."""O'-iiiiii2~"
So;:ale; ,-:: 5'
CUT MATERIAL --FILL MATERIAL
1
;::]2
TYPICAL ROAD CUT SECTION
ROAD SURFACE \
s' 0 s'
~-=v
12'
seela: ,"" s·
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ ~3
/
/
/ EXISTING GROUND
~ SURFACE
CUT MATERIAL
FILL MATERIAL ------,-r--
UNIT 1 ... . ..
785HP 785HP
1200RP.. 1Z00RP ..
12.8111c:h 12.Slnc:h
2 TON BRIDGE
CRANE
SECTION A-A
J 't. DISTRIBUTOR
EL. 20.0'
-----~-
rDRAFT TUBE DISCHARGE CHAMBER
/ ;-~:,':.. gtE::11IN_GELW,'5~,D
-TAIL RACE CHAMBER ___
I
REFERENCE NO.
TYPICAL ROAD FILL SECTION
,..""" M.F.C.
S' 0 5' /"\iil!_.... iii1
5<;818: 1":. S'
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORA.GE. ALASKA
CHIGNIK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INDIAN LAKE CHIGNIK, ALASKA
POWERHOUSE PLAN & SECTION,
TYPICAL TAILRACE & ROAD
SECTIONS
API'ItOVED: ----.,.-;;OA"""'.:-.---l
"''"' Of
INV. NO. DACA85-L.._. _________________________________________ -. ___ ._ --------~--------------. _______ _ ----------------.--. ----·---------,P=L~A~T=E~5
APPENDIX B
Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation
A. PKOJECT DE~CKIPTION
APPENDIX B
Section 404(b)(1)
The Chignik area is located at the head southwestern shore of Anchorage
Bay. This sheltered bay provides a deep anchorage for fishing vessels that
supply a major salmon and crab canning industry of the region. The village
of Chignik and the cannery acquire their water from Indian Creek, which lies
at an elevation of 455 feet. Local residents and a congressional directive
under Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act, as amended, requested
that the Alaska District Corps of Engineers analyze the feasibility of
hydropower development on Indian Creek. The proposed plan consists of a dam
with a maximum height of 24 feet and a spillway constructed just downstream
of the existing wood buttress dam. Due to water requirements of the local
residents, the cannery, and the proposed hydropower project, the eXisting
streamflow in Indian Creek would essentially be eliminated except for the
spillway overflow and basin runoff caused by snowmelt and precipitation. The
proposed penstock would follow the alinement of the present wood stave water
supply pipeline.
The powerhouse would be a prefabricated, weathertight steel structure
constructed on a 30-foot by 35-foot concrete slab. A horizontal Francis
type turbine generator would discharge water into an open channel tailrace.
The transmission system to Chignik would consist of a stepdown
transformer and a single 14.4kV wood pole line to the existing village
distribution system.
B. FACTUAL DETERMINATION
1. Physical Substrate Determinations
The tentatively recommended plan for construction of the dam would
consist of a 24-foot timber dam It should be noted that the present small
timber dam is also the site for the proposed dam project. The foundation at
the present site contains hard, massive, unyielding, hornfelsed sandstone,
and siltstone with a thin residual soil cover. The original sedimentary
rock has been thermally metamorphosed.
The tailrace scheme is expected to be nothing more than the utilization
of a natural flow of connecting pools behind the village. These pools
eventually spill into the Chignik slough.
2. Water Circulation, Fluctuation and Salinity Determinations
Increases in water turbidity can be expected during construction of a
dam and a spillway for Indian Creek. These increases would be localized and
of short duration. Long-term increases in stream turbidity should not be
expected, since the water level may be minuscule in size after the
completion of the project.
Slight water level fluctuations would occur at the lake; however, no
impacts are anticipated.
3. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations
Since the fill material is primary large rock, it is assumed that little
or no suspended particulate matter will increase.
4. Contaminant Oeterminations
There are no sources of manmade pollutants or contaminants in or near
the project area and no identified source of natural contaminants. Again,
the fill material has little potential to release contaminants.
5. Aquatic Ecosystems and Organism Determinations
Determination of plankton and benthic presence in Indian Creek has not
been undertaken; however, Dolly Varden, sculpins and pinks there would
indicate that aquatic organisms exist in plentiful supply. Since the
long-term forecast projects a significant lowering of the water level for
the creek, as stated earlier, then obviously aquatic nutrients and organisms
will be lost.
6. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations
Not applicable.
7. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
As a result of the proposed project, the aquatic ecosystem will be
greatly affected. The small salmhn run and the indeterminate number of
aquatic invertebrates will be adversely affected due to the substantially
reduced flow of water in the upper reach of Indian Creek.
The alternative route for the open channel tailrace would be to follow
the natural flow within a nearby wetland environment which eventually
empties into the Chignik slough. Adverse impacts to the aquatic organisms
of the freshwater ponds occurring in the wetland would also occur, since
flooding is anticipated in those areas. It seems that those ponds provide
feeding and nesting sites for a few migratory waterfowl.
8. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
There are no secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
B-2
C. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON
DISCHARGE
1. Adaptation of the Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines.
All requirements of the guidelines associated with the proposed disposal
sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material have been met.
2. Evaluation of Availability of Practicable Alternatives.
Practical alternatives to other energy sources for the community of
Chignik have been given consideration in the Alternative Section of the
EIS. However, the placing of fill material in waters of the United States
cannot be avoided if hydroelectric power development at Chignik is to be
successful.
3. Compliance with Applicable State Water Quality Standards.
The proposed action will not violate any applicable state water quality
standards.
4. Compliance with Applicable Toxic Effluent Standard or Prohibition
under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The action will not violate the Toxic Effluent Standards of Section 307
of the Clean Water Act.
5. Compliance with Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The proposed plan will not adversely impact those species that are
considered by FWS to be threatened or endangered.
6. Compliance with Specified Protection Measures for Marine Sanctuaries
Designated by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
The proposed disposal sites fully conform with the Specified Protection
Measures for Marine Sanctuaries.
7. Evaluation of Extent of Degradation of the Waters of the United
States.
The proposed action will not contribute to any adverse effect to human
health and welfare, including municipal and private water supplies.
8. Appropriate and Practicable Steps Taken to Minimize Potential
Adverse Impacts of the Discharge on the Aquatic Ecosystem.
All appropriate steps have been taken to minimize project impacts. On
the basis of the guideline, the proposed disposal sites for the discharge of
dredged and fill material are specified as complying with all guideline
requirements.
8-3
APPENDIX C
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
-----
HAES
Colonel Ne11 E. Salin~
District Engineer
Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Dear Colonel Saling:
2 3 SEP 1983
Re: Indian Creek Hydroelectric Project
Preliminary Est1mates of Instrcam
Flows for F1sher1es Maintenance
Th1s letter is a supplement to our 4 August 1983 Final Coordination Act (CA) Report
for Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek Hydropower Projects near Chign1k, Alaska.
Infomation here1n is submitted in accordance '{nth the Fish and Wildl He Coordina-
tion Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et 5e~.).
On 12 September 1983. Corps of En9ineers (CE) Plannin~ and Environmental staffs
requested an interagency meeting to discuss justification for mitigation of aquiltic
habitat losses identified in our report.
The CE contended that there is insufficient documer.tation of the presence of a
fishery in Indian Creek to support the need for nitigation to protect aquatic
resources. The Fish and Ulldl1fe Service (FWS) ~iterated its pOSition that
although our baseline data wer~ 1Ua1itative in nature (due to limited ti~ and
funding for studies) and not sufficient for fornulation of a detailed Mitigation
plan, we did establish that Indian Creet supports pink salmon (by fyke netting 0
class pin~t2rtgrants in Hay) and anadromous and resident Oolly V~rde~ (~y
~1"ctro!hoct:1ng and m1nno\1 trapp1nIJ in Hlty and August). Thfs WeH corroooratcrl I)Y
several res1dents of the Chigni~ area, who reported 200 to 1,000 adult pink salmon
spJ\min9 in Indian Creek.
Th~refore, based Of'! the presence of anadrofilous sall'l1Onids and ne~ium value fish
habitat in the lower 0.5 liIile of Indian Creek. f' .. IS has recQ1;)llended that t.'1e fishery
be maintained via ~"ater releases into the naturill stream chennel or a tailrace
facility. Our preference would be release of water into the existing strean
channel to avoid the loss of naturally occurring ilquatic hilbitat. The FHS also
recommended that additional studies would be necessary to establish the extent of
the fishery and refinement of measures to protect it.
The CE requested that the F1-IS revie~'1 the CEls projected I.mnthly inflmls for the
Indian Creel< drainage and use those estimates to provide a preliminary estinate of
instreclr.J flows required for fish habitat r:laintenance in the lOHer 0.5 i1ile of
Indian Creek. In the absence of an Indian Creck-specific annual hydrograph and
meteorological/precipitation data, the CE used a ilonthly Streamflow Sil:~!.!lation
(HEC-4) computer program to predict avera!Jc monthly runoff; correlations were
derfvp.d from runoff measurements on ;,lyrtl P. Cr'cek, Kodi ak I sl and, approxir:1at~ly ~20
miles east of Chignik. Projected monthly inf10\l5 are as follows:
~1onth
Inflow (cfs)
Jan Feb ~1ar J\pr "ay Jun Jul
4 4 2 23 57 55 25
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
29 40 4~ 37 30
These fi qures were used for the CE I sengi nep.ri fl!1 ()nd economi c feas i b11 ity deter-
mination.
The following proposed f10\', regiMe is based upon t:'e CEls projected inflows,
Tennantls Nt~ntana Method,· 1982 field observations, and professional judg~ent.
The -Montana r,~thod· developed by Tennant (1975) pravi des an i nexpensi V~, qui ck
n~ans of assessing instrean flow requirements in the absence of detailed biological
data. Table 1 describes percenta.ges of a'lerage f1o..,/ recon:i~nded to protect cC]uatic
resources. In order to Make conservative prelir,linary instream estimates that could
be ood1f1ed/ref1ned as additional data are !]encr.1t2rJ, FilS chose flO\/s equal to 20~
af the mean annual flow for the October -j'1arch peri od and 50'b of the n~an annuc 1
flow for April -Septer.1ber. Our preliminary estir.ates of instrear.; flO\.Js to r.lain-
tain pink salmon and Dolly Varden populations in Indian Creek are presented ir:
Table 2. Probable life stages of pinks and Dolly Varden to be affected by t!lt"'se
prelininary flow estimates are presented in Table J. These flo';l estimates ','ould
apply if the CE elects to rilitigate aquatic ir:1pacts through instrear.l releases into
the existing strear.l channel. Other aquatic rniti('1ation alternatives, such as tai1-
race facilities, ~ou1d necessitate a totally rliffercnt set of fl0~ recorDcndations.
~Iith the understanding that additional datu to quantify fish use and habitat para-
f:1eters are needed to refi ne mi ti gati on r:1easures for I ndi an Creek, VIe SUbUli t tllesc
release estiMates to protect its aquatic resources. If, upon further studies, fisll
use is demonstrated by State and Fed~ral resource professionals to ~e of a lC$ser
extent than originally reported by ChiQnik residents, we will reanalyze our prelir~
in~ry recor;'f:1endoltions. If you have additional questions concerning our r~ports
and/~r reco~.endatfons, please contact our liestcrn Alaska Ecolo,)ical Services stJff
at 271-1',575.
cc: FHS-ROES, \~AE S
DGC 7 Juneau
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
Keith M. Schreiner
Regional Director
AOF e.G 7 liHF5, ADEC, EP)\, Anchora ge
Nation:pk:0039B:09/l4/83: Authored by Nation: Approved by 30wker
received 9/15/83:rb:5364L
C-2
~Olonel Ne, I t. ~al'ng
Table 1. Montana Method flow recommendations. (Source: Tennant, 1975)
Narrative
Description
Of Flows
Flushing flow
Optimum Range
Outstanding
Excell ent
Good
Fair
Poor or Minimum
Severe Degradation
C-3
Recommended Base
Flow Regimes •
Oct. -Mar. Apr. -Sept.
200% of the average flow
60-100% of the average flow
40%
30%
20%
10%
10%
60~
50~
30%
30%
10%
10% of average flow to zero flow
-j-
{one1 Neil E. Saling
Table 2. Preliminary estimates of instream fisheries flows for Indian
Creek Project planning purposes.
Month
October
November
December
January *
February *
March *
April
May
June
July
August
September
Life Stage
Rearing/Spawning
Incubation
Incubation
Incubation
Incubation
Incubation
Incubation/Outmigration
Outmi grati on
Rearing
Rearing
Spawning
Spawning
Recorrmended
Stream Flow (cfs)
9
9
9
4 (9).!/
4 (9)
2 (9)
15
15
15
15
15
15
-4-
* Assume that with hydro shut down, 100% of runoff is spilled into Indian
Creek.
~/ Flow required when available.
C-4
n
I
11l
Table 3. Estimated 1 He history periodicity and flow requirements for salmonids in
Indian Creek, Chignik, Alaska.
Species Life Stage
Pi nk Salmon
Spawning
Incubation
Juvenile Outmigration
Adul t Higration
Dolly Varden
Spawning
Incubation
Adult Migration
Reari ng
Recommended
Flows (cfs)
* Flow required when available
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
4 4 2 15 15 15 15 15 15 9 9 9
(9)* (9)* (9)*
•
"
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
WAES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
Colonel Neil E. Saling, Jr.
District Engineer, Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
o 4 AUG 19$3
Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Re: Final CA Report
Indian Creek/Mud Bay
Dear Colonel Saling:
This correspondence transmits a Final Coordination Act Report for the
Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek Hydropower projects near Chignik, Alaska.
The report was prepared in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (CA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.,)
and provides biological information to be used by the Corps of Engineers
(CE) in planning the small hydropower projects. Fish and W'ildlife
Service participation in Chignik project planning began in June 1981;
data gathered were presented in Planning Aid letters dated 6 October
1981, 13 July 1982, and 1 October 1982.
This report is submitted to satisfy requirements in our FY 82 Scope of
Work. Information herein is based on field investigations, literature
review, and coordination with personnel from the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, the CE, and consulting firms.
As a result of logistics, access, and timing difficulties encountered,
and the CE one-year, fast-track planning mode for these small hydro
projects, data presented in this report are qualitative in nature.
Therefore, we are concerned that our analysis of data available at this
time does not provide the detail necessary for full assessment of the
projects's impacts. Significant data gaps exist; additional studies
would be needed if a Chignik project were demmed feasible and went on to
advanced engineering and design phase.
Because hydro development in the state of Alaska has become a high
priority and many of the CE's projects are being brought forward with
state funds, we believe that identifying resource values and appropriate
studies during early planning stages is critical. In light of this, this
CA Report is not intended as our final input, but instead points out
resources that will become our focal point for mitigation of project
impacts.
C-6
We enjoyed working on the Chignik project. If you have any questions,
please contact our Western Alaska Ecological Services field office.
cc: ROES, WAES
DGC, Juneau
. ,
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage
C-7
Sincerely,
Alaska Peninsula Hydropower Projects
Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek
Chignik, Alaska
Final Coordination Act Report
Submitted to the Alaska District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Anchorage, Alaska
Prepared by: M.L. Nation
Approved by: Robert G. Bowker, Field Supervisor
Western Alaska Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 W. 4th Avenue, Room G-8l
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
July 1983
C-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
List of Tables and Figures .................................... . iii
INTRODUCTION................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS........................................... 1
Indian Creek............................................... 1 Mud Bay Creek.............................................. 3
Chignik Lagoon Intertie.................................... 6
PROJECT AREA RESOURCES......................................... 6
Indian Creek............................................... 6
Aquatic............................................... 6 Terrestrial........................................... 10
Mud Bay Creek.............................................. 16 Aquatic............................................... 16 Terrestrial........................................... 21
Endangered Species......................................... 29
Resource Harvest........................................... 29 Aquatic............................................... 29 Terrestrial........................................... 29
IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Indian Creek............................................... 30 Aquatic............................................... 30 Terrestrial........................................... 30
Mud Bay Creek.............................................. 31 Aquatic............................................... 31 Terrestrial........................................... 32
Chignik Lagoon Intertie.................................... 32
DISCUSSION..................................................... 33
FWS RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ 35
REFERENCES..................................................... 37
APPENDICES
A. Scientific names of plants and animals occurring in the Chignik area.
B. Interagency Coordination
C. 1981 ADF&G commercial fish harvest data for Chignik vicinity
ii C-9
List of Tables
Table Page Number
1. General life history for the species of Pacific
salmon in Indian Creek and Mud Bay systems............... 7
2. Spawning depth-water velocity criteria for salmon
found in the Indian Creek and Mud Bay systems............ 8
3. Vegetative codes for Figures 6 and 12...................... 14
4. Bird observations, Indian Creek -Anchorage Bay, 1982...... 17
5. Bird observations, Mud Bay area, 1982 ••••••••••••••••••••• e 26
List of Figures
Figure Page Number
1. General plan, Indian Creek project......................... 2
2. General plan, Mud Bay Creek project........................ 4
3. Chignik Lagoon transmission intertie....................... 5
4. Fish occurrence, Indian Creek.............................. 9
5. Indian Creek habitat map................................... 11
6. Vegetation map, Indian Creek system........................ 13
7. Waterfowl and shorebird habitat............................ 18
8. Raptor habitat in the Mud Bay system....................... 19
9. Furbearer habitat.......................................... 20
10. Sockeye staging and spawning habitat, Mud Bay Lake......... 22
11. Fish occurrence, Mud Bay Creek and Lake.................... 23
12. Vegetative cover map, Mud Bay.............................. 24
13. Brown bear habitat in the Mud Bay system................... 27
14. Beaver habitat in the Mud Bay system....................... 28
iii C-I0
INTRODUCTION
On 1 October 1976, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution directing the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (CE) to undertake feasibility studies for installing small,
prepackaged hydroelectric units in isolated communities throughout Alaska. As
a result of this directive, the CE identified 36 villages on the Alaska
Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak Island with possible hydropower
sites. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) personnel participated in an
initial reconnaissance trip that investigated potential sites during the
summer of 1981. The Chignik community was found to have two potential sites
in adjoining drainages: Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek.
Last fiscal year, in an effort to accommodate the CE's fast-track planning
mode, the FWS conducted baseline aquatic and terrestrial studies during two
on-site trips. The first trip, made during mid-May, 1982, resulted in a
Planning Aid (PA) letter submitted on 13 July 1982. The second trip,
conducted during the first week of August 1982, was the basis for another PA
letter, submitted 1 October 1982. Our Draft Coordination Act (CA) Report was
circulated for agency review in March 1983. This CA Report synthesizes data
gathered from all our field trips, our early impact assessments, and potential
mitigation/enhancement measures; review comments have been incorporated in
this Final Report.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
The following project descriptions were obtained from the December 1982 Draft
Feasibility Report by Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. Engineering data
differ somewhat from those included in our earlier PA letters.
Indian Creek
Indian Creek project features would include a reservoir, new rockfill dam,
penstock, surge tank, powerhouse, tailrace, and two material sites near Indian
Creek Lake (Figure 1).
Increasing the existing wooden dam height will raise the lake from its present
20-acre area and surface elevation of 442 feet mean sea level (msl) to a
maximum area of 33 acres with surface elevation of 455 feet msl. Maximum
operational drawdown of 25 feet would reduce the impoundment to a nine acre
surface area with an elevation of 430 feet msl. The storage capacity of this
system would be 540 acre-feet.
The dam would be a rockfill type with a central impervious membrane of
reinforced concrete. Due to the topography of the damsite, the dam would be a
maximum of 40 feet high (from bedrock to top of membrane), with a l3-foot
wide, 255-foot long crest just below the existing wood buttress dam. The
concrete membrane crest elevation would be 460 feet msl; the rockfill on
either side would have a crest elevation of 458 feet msl.
A 55-foot wide, ungated Ogee spillway (consisting of a concrete weir with a
crest elevation of 455 feet msl) would be excavated on the left bank. This
spillway is designed to accommodate the 50-year design flood of 600 cubic feet
per second (cfs).
1 C-ll
COl" O' INCIHUII
N
G Inundation Area
GENERAL PLAN
," • ~L6' -0" ===---===----2f~~2 79~ I':'~" ,,,1
Figure i. General pian, Indian Creek project
N
r-f
I
U
The intake structure would be a five-foot diameter, corrugated steel culvert
placed through the upstream rockfill to the membrane. The discharge would
then be funneled into a 40-inch diameter steel penstock, embedded in concrete,
through the downstream rockfill.
The 40-inch diameter, S,SOO-foot long penstock would be approximately 2.S feet
above ground supported by concrete saddles. Concrete anchor blocks would be
needed at vertical and horizontal bends and air vents would be placed at bends
2,600 and 3,300 feet below the intake. A 70-foot high, IS-foot diameter surge
tank would be located 4,700 feet below the intake. An additional 800 feet of
penstock would lead to a powerhouse at the foot of a bluff, 385 feet lower in
elevation than the surge tank.
The powerhouse would be a prefabricated, weather-tight steel structure
constructed on a 30-foot by 38-foot concrete slab. A horizontal Francis type
turbine generator would discharge water into an open channel tailrace.
The transmission system to Chignik would consist of a stepdown transformer and
single 15 kV, woodpole line to the existing village distribution system. The
upper project features would be accessed by an existing all-terrain vehicle
trail which would follow the penstock route and need only minor upgrading.
Mud Bay Creek
Mud Bay project features would include a reservoir, dam, penstock, powerhouse,
and tailrace (Figure 2). Because there are no nearby material sites, rock
would have to be quarried from outcrops in adjoining drainages, crushed, and
transported into the project area.
The reservoir would be raised from the present lake elevation of 127 feet msl
and surface area of 30 acres, to a full-pool elevation of 140 feet msl and a
maximum surface area of 68 acres. Maximum drawdown would be 10 feet and
active storage capacity would be 560 acre-feet.
The dam would be a concrete gravity type with a 62-foot crest length and
20-foot height. A 40-foot spillway would accommodate the 50-year design flood
of 430 cfs. The intake, located on the right (looking upstream), would
consist of.the 42-inch diameter penstock through the dam to the upstream side.
A benched steel penstock would run 5,100 feet along the right bank of Mud Bay
Creek to a powerhouse located approximately 300 feet upstream of the creek
mouth. A 50-foot high, 20-foot diameter surge tank would be constructed at
105 feet msl, about 100 feet from the powerhouse.
The powerhouse would be a prefabricated, weather-tight steel structure built
on a 30-foot by 38-foot concrete slab. A horizontal Francis type turbine and
generator would discharge water into an open channel tailrace.
Full time access to the project would be by bulldozer trail, which would
follow an existing footpath from Chignik. Barge access into Mud Bay would be
limited to high tide conditions only. A transmission corridor would parallel
the access trail (Figure 3).
3 C-13
d
I
GENERAL PLAN
~-----' o 266 !t32 798 1064' ...
Figure 2. General plan, Mud Bay Creek project
1000'
I
2000'
I
~
I
4000'
I
Inund.ation Area
SUAG[
WJtI •
T"'HI(~ r " HCUS[
c.<f] w WWl.'~ .. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ -----------------~ .
u ~ .. '.l.rd
If)
n
I
I--'
U1 ••••••• p.
:,·f:.
> ...
" .
-.p ....
.. .. ' .
Figure 3.
CHIGNIK, ALASkA
Feasibility of
Small Hydropower
TRANSMISSION INTl:~TIE
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS Of ENGINEER8·
DECEM8ER '881
Chignik Lagoon Intertie
The 6.5 mile transmission line to Chignik Lagoon would consist of a 15 kV
single wire ground return system supported by wood poles (Figure 3). If the
line were constructed by helicopters, vegetation clearing in area of tall
shrub would be needed for constructing helipads.
PROJECT AREA RESOURCES
Indian Creek
Aquatic:
Stream surveys and fish trapping efforts during the summer of 1982'established
that Indian Creek supports several age classes of Dolly Varden, coastrange
sculpin, and an unknown number of pink salmon. In the absence of life history
data specific, to Indian Creek, we assumed that general literature values for
salmon species lifecycles and preferred habitat parameters can be applied
(Tables 1 and 2).
Due to timing of FWS's trips, approximately 200 pink salmon outmigrants were
trapped in mid-May, but adult staging and spawning were not observed in early
August. Local residents estimated that between 300 to 1,000 pink salmon used
the lower 0.5 mile reach of Indian Creek in an average year. However, during
the consultants' 9 September on-site trip, one large, gravid female pink
salmon was observed in the lower reach of the stream (Middleton, 1982).
Although adult pink salmon could possibly move up Indian Creek to the falls at
approximately river mile (RM) 1.7, local reports of spawning observations and
FWS' outmigrant trapping were limited to the lower 0.5 miles of the stream.
Above a large, deep pool at RM 0.5 the stream narrowed, gradient increased,
water velocities increased, and the substrate was primarily imbedded
boulders. Constrictions between boulders created a number of hydraulic chutes
and rapids, rendering habitat less suitable for pink salmon spawning and poor
for rearing.
In addition to reports of pinks in lower reache~, Chignik residents also
indicated that small numbers of chum salmon can occasionally be seen near the
mouth of Indian Creek. However, since no chum outmigrants were observed or
captured, FWS assumed that chums in Indian Creek are probably straying into
the system prior to moving into their natal streams in adjoining drainages.
Indian C~eek provides spawning and rearing habitat for Dolly Varden. Adult
and juvenile Dolly Varden were observed and/or captured fro~ approximately
river mile 1.0 to the mouth of Indian Creek; adults present in May were
assumed to be resident, while larger adults in the stream's lower reaches in
August were assumed to be anadromous. Dollies can probably be found
throughout the stream up to the falls at about river mile 1.7. However, the
distribution of Dolly Varden presented in Figure 4 is limited to areas of
confirmed use in the section of the stream where sampling took place.
6 C-16
Table 1. General life history for the species of Pacific salmon
Indian Creek and Mud Bay systems.* (Hart, 1973.)
Item
Freshwater habitat
Length of time young
stay in freshwater
Length of ocean life
Year of life at
maturity
Average length at
maturity (inches)
Range of length at
maturity (inches)
Average weight at
maturity (pounds)
Range of weight at
maturity (pounds)
Principal spawning
months
Fecundity (number of
eggs/fish)
Pink
Short streams
1 day or less
1.3 years
2
20
14 to 30
4
2 to 9
Jul-Sep
2,000
Sockeye
Short streams
and lakes
1 to 3 years
0.5 to 4 years
3 to 7
25
15 to 33
6
1.5 to 10
Jul-Sep
4,000
* Exceptions to these general descriptions occur frequently.
7
as applied to the
Coho Chum
Short streams Short and
and lakes long streams
1 to 2 years 0.5 to 1 year
1 to 2 years 0.5 to 4 years
2 to 4 2 to 5
24 25
,.......
17 to 36 17 to 38 .......
I
LJ
10 9
3 to 30 3 to 45
Sep-Dec Sep-Nov
3,500 3,000
Table 2. General spawning depth-water velocity criteria as applied to the
salmon species occurring in the Indian Creek and Mud Bay systems.
Species Depth
Coho
Coho
Coho
Coho
Sockeye
Sockeye
Pink
Chum
Chum
Chum
a Minimum
(meters) (feet)
1.0-1.25
0.3-1.90
0.6
1.0-1.5
0.5-1.75
0.5-1.75
0.6
Velocity
(em/sec) (ft/sec)
21-70
46-101
1.2-1.8
0.5-3.0
1.0-3.0
0.7-3.3b
0.7-3.3b
1.5-3.2
b Measured at 0.4 feet above streambed.
Source: Stalnaker and Arnette (1976).
8 C-18
Reference
Chambers, et al., 1955
Sams & Pearson, 1963
Thompson, 1972
Smith, 1973
Chambers et al., 1955
Clay, 1961
Collings, 1974
Collings, 1974
Smith, 1973
Thompson, 1972
Pink s2lmon
Dolly Varden
Figure 4.
.........
Fish occurrence, Indian Creek.
J •• I ......
\
I
During a stream survey on 1 August, electrofishing produced a total of 56
juvenile Dolly Varden in the lower 0.5 mile of Indian Creek. Individuals were
collected in a variety of areas, including slow, deep pools, stream edges with
high velocities, mid-channel in areas where large boulders provided cover, and
in backwaters and temporary side channels. Schools of fry were observed
primarily in slower, backwater pools. Juveniles ranged in length from 30 mm
to 132 mm and represented at least two age classes. Larger juveniles and
adults were seen more frequently in riffle areas, using boulders for cover.
Because reliable population estimates and stream surveys prior to 1982 have
not been conducted, additional seasonal occurrence and abundance data need to
be collected if the Indian Creek project moves forward to the next study phase.
Local reports indicated that there has never been a fishery in Indian Creek
Lake. There were no records of stocking attempts or sampling studies.
Because of two falls at RM 1.7 and just below the existing wooden dam were
sufficiently high to prevent fish migration above, sampling and fish surveys
were limited to lower stream reaches. Eighteen trap-hours of minnow bucket
sampling produced no fish. Lacustrine thermal regimes and large drawdowns for
Chignik's water supply during winter months (resulting in heavy icing) could
also be responsible for the lack of fish use in the lake.
Large numbers of threespine stickleback, the only other fish species within
the Indian Creek drainage, were found in freshwater ponds and brackish
wetlands located immediately southwest of Chignik in the vicinity of the
powerhouse and tailrace sites. Male sticklebacks were in bright spawning
colors during the last week of July.
A schematic habitat diagram depicting substrate sizes and some of the general
characteristics of Indian Creek to river mile (RM) 1.0 was drawn from stream
observations (Figure 5). Stream substrate analysis revealed a sparse algal
and macroinvertebrate distribution and scattered pockets of preferred size
gravels for various salmon uses. Throughout our field investigations, the
stream was always clear and cold (4.50 C 14 May 1982 and 6.5 0 C on 1 August
1982).
Terrestrial:
Indian Creek drainage basin had homogeneous vegetative cover. The two major
vegetative types in the project area were alder/willow shrubland in the upper
drainage area and riparian corridor, and a pocket of freshwater wetland
coastal marshland directly adjacent to the village of Chignik (Figure 6 and
Table 3).
Riparian shrub type was an association of willows and alder, with an
understory of river beauty, fireweed, blue joint grasses, horsetail, fragile
fern, Jacob's ladder, monkshood, cranesbill, and assorted other forbs.
Botanical names follow Hulten (1968) and are listed in Appendix A. Upland
shrub in the Chignik area included Sitka alder thickets interspersed with
willow patches and grass/forb meadows. Meadows were generally too small to
map as separate units, but composed a substantial area within the tall shrub
10 C-20
.(' j '\Jr."e \
"-i ;".c ... ~IL.
11 C-21
~ \\
Fi~ure 5. Schenatic ha~itat
diagran fron 14 Mav
strean survey. ~at
dravn to scalf' .
• AA Dischrtrge meaS\lre"1ent
-9-Fyke net
Minnow trap
RM 1.0
ri~;Q.1'\.
v~~+.AiOf'o. A 1 .. 06t ",,,;for ... ly
'\1,( ..... / .... illow) ~I'UUS
1'\.0 tor~s 5 'kolol; "'j
0,", may N,I'~
RMO.~
ftll.Uov..S
I"'~t.
\'OILt ;.U's RMO.8
Ftgurp. 5. Continued
I r
,,-/O~O I -
Figure 6. Vegeta
..3 A(f)~
/ /
)
/~
3 A{I)b
.. ,
I
f
I
( i
J ,
/
/
( /' .'.--L'>"-
/
Indian Cree tion nap, k System.
JA(4C-
P resented Codes in Table 3.
/
3A(I) 10
/"
/
/
, (V')
IN i I
U
C""l
. rl
Table 3. Vegetative codes for Figures 6 and 12 (from Viereck and Dyrness,
1980)
us -unconsolidated shoreline
UN -unvegetated snowbed
3 -Shrub
A. Tall (.> 5 feet)
. B. Low ( < 5 feet)
(1) Closed
(2) Open
( > 75% canopy cover)
(<: 25-75% canopy cover)
a. willow
b. alder
d. alder-willow
h. mixed shrub, sphagnum
4 -Herbaceous vegetation
A. Tall grass (> 3 feet)
(1) Bluejoint
a. blue joint meadow
(2) Bluejoint herb
a. blue joint-mixed herbs
(3) Bluejoint shrub
a. blue joint alder
(4) Herbs
a. mixed herbs
b. fireweed
c. cow parsnip
d. ferns
(5) Elymus
a. coastal elymus
b. coastal elymus -herb
B. Midgrass
(1) Mesic midgrass
a. midgrass -herb
C. Sedge grass
(1) Wet sedge-grass
a. fresh water sedge marsh
14 C-24
5. Aquatic vegetation
A. Freshwater
(1) Ponds and lakes
a. floating and submerged vegetation
15 C-25
association. Grass/forb meadows were made up of bluejoint grass, salmonberry,
fireweed, cow parsnip, false hellebore, yarrow, cranesbill, and dwarf birch.
Shrub associations in the project area extended directly into unvegetated
areas such as mountain tops, talus slopes, cliffs and snowfield.
Wetlands vegetation adjacent to Chignik reflected a gentle gradient northwest
toward the present mouth of Indian Creek. On the drier southeast end, low
willow and alder shrub, blue joint reed, bent grass, brome grass, chickweed,
wild flag, and chocolate lily predominated. Around the ponds and sloughs on
the northwestern end,. sedges, cotton grass, equisetum, arrowgrass, marsh
fivefinger, silverweed, and marsh marigold were found. Pondweed occurred in
some of the freshwater ponds near the bluff.
Bird species diversity in the Indian Creek vicinity increased from May to
August (Table 4). Numbers of individuals per species were also observed to
increase from May to August. Small passerines were not abundant in riparian
and upland shrub areas. Waterfowl and shorebirds were observed scattered
along the shoreline; fewer individuals were seen in the sloughs and tidal
marsh behind the village (Figure 7). Two adult and one juvenile bald eagle
were observed regularly flying over the lower Indian Creek drainage; no
established perches were identified (Figure 8).
Mammal sign seen along lower Indian Creek were limited to snowshoe or tundra
hare droppings, fox scat, redback vole runs and nests (Figure 9). Other than
ptarmigan tracks, wildlife sign were not observed around the periphery of the
lake. Hare sign, fox scat and tracks were seen in shrub and river corridor
areas. Tundra redback vole runs were numerous in drier upland meadow areas.
An unidentified shrew (possibly a masked or dusky shrew) was momentarily seen
in underbrush along the lower reach of the creek.
FWS personnel's only sighting of bear in the Indian Creek vicinity occurred in
August. A brown bear sow and cub walked along the shoreline in front of
Alaska Packers cannery, scavenging fish waste and garbage. Local reports
indicated that bear or bear tracks are rarely seen in the upper Indian Creek
drainage (Ralph Schoenberg, pers. comm.).
Mud Bay Creek
Aquatic:
Mud Bay Creek and Lake support runs of sockeye, coho, chum, and pink salmon,
and Dolly Varden. Coastrange sculpin were also found near the creek mouth.
Fish use of Mud Bay Creek was evident from the mouth upstream to Mud Bay Lake
and its tributaries. Approximately 100 salmon skeletons, probably discarded
by feeding bears, were scattered along downstream banks of the creek near
pools. These were thought to be pink salmon skeletons. An approximate three
hundred fish skeletons along the shoreline of Mud Bay Lake and its tributaries
were assumed to be chum or sockeye salmon because of their size.
16 C-26
Table 4. Bird observations, Indian Creek -Anchorage Bay area, 1982
M = Nay A = August
Common Name Location
Marine7Shore Riparian Wetland Stream Shrub7Lake
Pelagic cormorant M A
American wigeon A A A
Greater scaup A
Harlequin duck M A M
Bald eagle M A M A M A
Willow ptarmigan MA M A
Greater yellowlegs A A A A
Common snipe M M A
Least sandpiper M A A
Rock sandpiper M
Dunlin A
Glaucous-winged gull M A M A
Mew gull M A M A M A
Black-legged kittiwake A
Pigeon guillemot M
Crested auklet M
Parakeet auklet M
Belted kingfisher A A
Tree swallow A A
Black-billed magpie M A M A 1'-1 A
Common raven M A M A M A
Black-capped chickadee M M
Dipper M A
American robin A A
Varied thrush A A
Hermit thrush A A
Gray-cheeked thrush A A
Yellow warbler A A
Wilson's warbler A A
Gray-crowned rosy finch A A
White-crowned sparrow A A A
Golden-crowned sparrow A A A
17 c-27
"laterfowl and shorebird hahHat
bnsed on observation. Areas shmm
reflect only areas surveyed and are
not Intended to depict limits of
r:1Il~e within the project draina~es.
Scale 1" ~ 2000'
hahittlt
co
N
I
U .., .....
Figure 8. Raptor habitat based nn "bservati"n
and sign. Shaded areas rerlC'ct ""ly
areas surveyed and ;ore not intendC'd
to depict limit!'; "r rClnr,c within the
project drainar,es.
Scale ~ 2000
habitat
o established perch
0"1
N
I
U
9. Furbearer habitat based on
observation and/or sign. Areas
shown reflect only areas surveyed
lind are not intended to depict
limits of range within the project
drainages.
Scale 1" ~ 2000'
habitat
o
('Y")
I
U
·0
'"
Four species of salmon, (i.e., chum, pink, sockeye, and coho) were observed
using the Mud Bay Creek system. Five chum salmon in spawning colors were
observed staging beneath overhanging banks just upstream from the mouth of the
creek. An additional 15 chum were seen in pools approximately 0.25 miles
upstream, while approximately 20 chum were observed in a deep stream reach at
river mile 0.5.
Pink salmon were seen from the mouth of Mud Bay Lake to the mouth of Mud Bay
Creek. Small schools of pinks concentrated in pools at approximately river
mile 0.5. Examination of one male pink salmon captured at river mile 0.5
disclosed that the fish was highly colored, had a pronounced hump, and
spawning had begun. The CE's consultants, Arctic Slope Technical Services,
also observed pink salmon at the mouth of the lake and within 40 yards of the
mouth of the stream. (Middleton, 1982).
On July 29, approximately 1,100 sockeye salmon were seen spawning and staging
15 feet offshore in the shallow periphery of Mud Bay Lake. Greatest
concentrations were around the mouths of two inlet streams and the shoreline
near the outlet of the lake. From the air, redds could be seen. Salmon had
not begun to move up into the two inlet streams; however, we believed that
they would probably do so at a later date. Two captured male sockeye were
both brightly colored and ripe. Arctic Slope Technical Services personnel
were on-site 9 September and verified that sockeye salmon did use the lake's
inlet streams for spawning (Figure 10).
Coho salmon were a fourth species of salmon using Mud Bay drainage system. On
18 November 1982, six spawned out coho salmon were observed drifting in pools
at the CE's gage site approximately 1,000 feet below the mouth of Mud Bay Lake
(D. Mierzejewski, personal communication). CE hydrologists did not survey the
inlet streams above the lake. It is unknown how far coho move into the
system; based on the best available data, areas of salmon use have been
delineated for Mud Bay Creek and Lake (Figure 11).
Dolly Varden were distributed throughout the Mud Bay system. Adults were seen
from the mouth of the creek to the lake mouth. Large Dolly Varden (greater
than 20 cm) were also observed in the shallow lake zones. Numerous Dolly
Varden juveniles and fry were collected in the inlet tributaries using a
backpack electroshocker.
Terrestrial:
Vegetation in the Mud Bay drainage was extremely similar to that in the Indian
Creek area. However, instead of tidal wetlands at the head of Mud Bay, there
was a small fringe of lyme grass at the mouth of the creek between the mud
flat shoreline and the edge of the shrub upland. During our May field trip,
small forbs and sedges had not yet appeared, but horsetail, crowberry, cow
parsnip, blueberry, bluegrass, and dense salmonberry were identified in open
areas, with tall alder/willow as shrub cover (Figure 12).
Open meadows-alder/willow mosaic areas were large (up to 1.0 acre) in the Mud
Bay watershed. Our vegetative mapping showed open alder/willow associations
predominating (30 to 70% coverage). Open meadow complexes and herbaceous
21 C-31
Figure 10. Sockeye Staging and Spawning Habitat, Mud Bay Lake .
. . , .... ~.
Observed Staging
Habitat
Observed Spawning
J ":::"Icv'
N
M
I
U
rJ
J
pink
chum
sockeye
Dolly Varden
coho
Fi~ure 11. Fish Occurrence, ~ud Bay Creek and Lake.
23 C-33
.........
-.-.-.
OOOO':-Ob
/
" I / =-/000
I ,.
",
\
" '
/'
./
)
I
/
/
,/ .---_._. --' ,
Figure 12. Vegetative cover map, ~ud Bay. Codes from Table 3,
24 C-34
vegetation covered a much larger percentage of the Mud Bay area than the
Indian Creek area. Because Mud Bay watershed was less steep than that of
Indian Creek, more pockets of wet meadow existed. Wet meadows along the creek
consisted of sphagnum, dwarf birch, Labrador tea, cloudberry, crowberry,
salmonberry, and assorted sedges and grasses. These meadows intergraded into
the open alder/willow complexes.
Bird use in the Mud Bay drainage increased from May to August as evidenced by
an increased number of species sighted and increased numbers of individuals
per species (Table 5). Waterfowl were more numerous in spring, while
passerines were more abundant in summer.
In addition to the constant presence of adults seen along the river and lake,
at least two pairs of adult bald eagles nested in the Mud Bay drainage. Two
molting juvenile bald eagles used well-established hunting perches, evidenced
by large areas of droppings and molted feathers (Figure 8).
During our May field trip, mammals using the Mud Bay drainage included several
brown bear, approximately three moose, and numerous furbearers. Two separate
sets of fresh bear tracks were observed on both days of stream surveys, both
at the lake, and along bear trails on lower stream reaches. One brown bear
was observed on a ridge above the stream (Figure 13). Wolverine, mink,
snowshoe hare, and fox tracks were seen in the mud on the lake shore.
Snowshoe hare droppings and fox scat were commonly scattered throughout the
drainage. Recent beaver cuttings and dams were noted 200 to 400 yards
upstream from the lake (Figure 14).
In August, mammal sign were more abundant throughout the Mud Bay system than
in May. Heavily used wildlife trails were located on both sides of the creek
below the canyon. Tracks, scats and/or droppings of fox, weasel, mink,
wolverine, brown bear, moose, and tundra/snowshoe hare were seen along the
trails and in wet meadows. Tundra vole runs and nests were abundant through
the sphagnum -wet meadow areas.
Based on the various sets of tracks and our helicopter sightings, there appear
to have been at least one sow and cub, and three other yearling or adult bears
using stream side trails on a regular basis.
On the north end of Mud Bay Lake, cow moose and calf tracks were seen. A
large set probably belonging to a bull was found along a drainage leading down
to the lake. On the south end of the lake and along meandering tributaries
above the lake, additional moose tracks were seen, the total number of moose
in the Mud Bay drainage is unknown.
During our August trip, no beaver activity was noted in the inlet tributary
areas which during our May trip appeared to support a population. However, a
low beaver dam and fresh cuttings were observed between the lake mouth and the
upper canyon.
25 C-35
Table 5. Bird Observations, Mud Bay area, 1982
M = May A = August
Common Name
Marine/Shore
Mallard
Pintail
Green-winged teal
American wigeon
Harlequin duck
Red-breasted merganser
Bald eagle
Peregrine falcon
Willow ptarmigan
Whimbrel
Greater yellowlegs
Common snipe
Least sandpiper
Herring gull
Tree swallow
Black-billed magpie
Black-capped chickadee
Dipper
American robin
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Water pipit
Yellow warbler
Wilson's warbler
Common redpoll
White-crowned sparrow
Golden-crowned sparrow
M A
M
A
M A
A
M A
Location
Riparian Stream
M
A
A
A
M
A
A
A
A
26 C-36
M
M A
M A
M A
Shrub/Lake
N
H
M
M A
M
M A
M A
M
A
A
A
A
A
H A
A
A
A
A
A
Bear habitat based on aerial surveys,
observation, and/or sign. Shaded areas
reflect only areas surveyed and are
not intended to depict limits of range
within the project drainages.
Scale 1'· 2000'
habitat
.'V
~ ii4 "'V. !, ,,",.
Beaver habitat based on observation
and/or sign. Shaded area reflects
only areas surveyed; however, it
probably depicts beaver limits of
range within the project drainages.
habitat
'v v '. I ... ' .... ,,,
co
("")
I
U
a:I
N
One adult brown bear was flushed from cover by the helicopter while we were
flying the Chignik Lagoon intertie route. Due to the dense shrub cover and
steep terrain, no other mammals were spotted between the Mud Bay drainage and
Chignik Lagoon. However, bear and moose tracks were seen in a muddy
depression on top of the ridge above Chignik Lagoon.
Endangered Species
To the best of our knowledge, there are no listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species occurring in Indian Creek or Mud Bay Creek watersheds. The
endangered Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucoparlia) is found in
the western Aleutians, with the main known breeding population occurring on
Buldir Island. In 1982 a remnant population of Aleutian Canada geese was
discovered near Chigulik. However, considering their limited range in the
Aleutians, no conflicts are anticipated. The endangered peregrine subspecies,
Falco peregrinus anatum has not been sighted in the Chignik vicinity.
(Benfield, pers. comm.).
New information indicating the presence of currently listed threatened or
endangered species administered by the FWS, or the listing of new species
which might be affected by the proposed project would require reinitiation of
the consultation process.
Resource Harvest
Aquatic:
Chignik area subsistence salmon catches for 1980 and 1981, as estimated by
ADF&G personnel, were as follows:
1980
1981
Chinook
6
100
Sockeye
7,805
5,840
Coho
-cI
o
Pink
~
o
Total
7,815
5,940
In 1980, a total of 67 subsistence permits were issued, with only 37 completed
and returned to ADF&G. In 1981, a total of 27 subsistence permits were
issued. with seven returned.
The Indian Creek and the Mud Bay drainage are within ADF&G's Chignik Area,
Central District, Outer Chignik Bay Section for harvest management. However.
commercial fish harvest data specific to Anchorage Bay or Mud Bay were not
available. Central District catch and price information for 1981 is presented
in Appendix C. (Nicholson. 1981).
Terrestrial:
Subsistence and game harvest information specific to Indian Creek or Mud Bay
Creek drainages was not available. According to ADF&G biologists, one or two
moose are harvested annually in the Chignik area, but most local residents
moose hunt in the Aniakchak-Amber Bay area, approximately 50 miles northeast
of Chignik. Small numbers of caribou are also utilized by Chignik residents,
29 C-39
who hunt in the Port Heiden or Kijulik Bay areas (Sellers, pers. comm.).
Apparently, local residents from Chignik and Chignik Lagoon exchange salmon
for moose and caribou. Hunting ducks and geese in Castle Bay, 10 miles
southwest of Chignik, is another subsistence use for most Chignik residents.
It is unknown what level of effort Chignik residents expend on trapping
(Morris, pers. comm.). Primary reasons for the lack of subsistence and
harvest data in many remote areas such as Chignik include (1) local resistance
to turning in harvest tickets to ADF&G, and (2) the difficulty of enforcing
state hunting and fishing regulations.
IMPACTS
Indian Creek
Aquatic:
One of the most significant impacts associated with the Indian Creek project
would be dewatering of the Creek from damsite to mouth. This would eliminate
approximately 0.5 mile of medium to low value pink salmon habitat and
approximately 1.0 mile of Dolly Varden rearing and spawning habitat. With the
limited survey data available, it is unknown what number of each species would
be lost.
Terrestrial:
Dewatering the creek would cause riparian habitat alteration. Vegetation
would probably encroach on old side channels and gravel bars. Other small
tributaries or upwelling areas would provide some water for small mammal or
passerine species, but most runoff below the damsite would be lost in
intragravel flow. Waterfowl and birds such as kingfishers and dippers would
be displaced.
Raising the Indian Creek dam would inundate an additional 13 acres along the
periphery of the existing 20 acre lake. Approximately 9.75 acres of open tall
alder/willow shrub vegetation and 3.25 acres of unvegetated talus slopes would
be lost. Loss of such habitat would result in a loss of passerine bird
habitat, but overall impact would be slight. An additional 2.6 acres of shrub
cover would be removed by the penstock/bulldozer trail and less than 1;0 acre
of low shrub/grass/sedge wetland would be covered by the powerhouse.
Passerines and possibly small mammals would lose small amounts of habitat.
Operation of the project would create a 25-foot drawdown zone during low-pool
conditions. Because the lake area has only incidental mammal use, lake
fluctuation should have little effect.
An open channel tailrace allowed to cut its own path through the ponds and
wetlands adjacent to Chignik could eliminate an unknown amount of shallow pool
shorebird and waterfowl habitat and probably alter hydrological regimes. If
groundwater flows were changed, vegetation types could be altered and wetlands
could be drained.
30 C-40
Temporary construction disturbances would result from concentrated human
activities y heavy equipment use along the penstock route/bulldozer trail y and
blasting at the dam and material sites. Birds and mammals would avoid
construction areas. Assuming the bulldozer trail would not be maintained
after construction y some natural revegetation could be expected y except in
trail areas kept open by dam operation and maintenance personnel y local
residents y and summer cannery workers.
An above ground penstock would be a barrier or deterrent for large mammal
movement into the lake area. Because (1) no well-established game trails were
observed; (2) small numbers of prey species or fish were available for
predators y and (3) a high degree of human and all-terrain vehicle use occurs
during summer months y it was assumed that large mammal use of the Indian Creek
upper drainage is limited, even incidental. Therefore, because animals from
Mud Bay seldom drift into the Indian Creek area y the penstock would seem to
have minor on population distributions between the Mud Bay and Indian Creek
drainages. A widened trail could provide a travel corridor for wildlife, but
with an anticipated increase in human activity along the penstock route y most
animals would probably avoid this area. Loss of less mobile mammals would
result both from habitat removal and/or mortality due to collisions with
construction equipment and vehicles.
Mud Bay Creek
Environmental impacts associated with a hydroelectric project on this drainage
would have adverse effects on both terrestrial and aquatic resources of Mud
Bay Creek. Because Mud Bay, the Creek, and the Lake have experienced less
human activity and have more diverse habitats, large and small mammal bird and
fish populations are larger than those occurring in the Indian Creek drainage
area.
Aquatic:
Building a dam at Mud Bay Lake would eliminate access to the lake and inlet
tributaries that provide spawning and rearing habitat for sockeye and possibly
coho salmon, and Dolly Varden. At least 0.5 miles of high to medium value
spawning habitat for sockeye and an unknown number of coho salmon would be
lost from the inlet streams, and approximately 15 acres of high to medium
value spawning habitat for sockeye would be lost in the lake. The exact
number of fish lost for each species cannot be ascertained at this time.
If all stored water were diverted for power production, the remaining 2.5
miles of Mud Bay Creek would be dewatered y causing loss of pink and chum
salmon spawning habitat in the lower stream reaches. If water were available
for downstream releases to maintain fisheries resources, an unknown amount of
spawning and rearing habitat would still be lost due to lower flows and
decreased wetted area. Again, exact numbers of each species to be lost cannot
be estimated from existing survey data.
31 C-41
Terrestrial:
A Mud Bay project would have greater adverse impacts than an Indian Creek
project, because of the larger area to be altered and the numbers and
diversity of species affected.
The 30 acre lake would increase to 68 acres, inundating 38 acres of
willow/alder shrub and open meadow mosaic. Raising the level of the lake 50
feet would eliminate beaver and other furbearer habitats. This area is of
high value to brown bear, beaver, moose, eagles and small mammals. An unknown
acreage along the creek would also be lost due to benching the penstock and
its subsequent production and disposal of spoil. Less than 1.0 acre of lyme
grass would be covered by the powerhouse and intertidal tailrace.
Approximately 3.6 acres of shrub/meadow would be removed by constructing a
transmission corridor and road from Chignik into Mud Bay. Existing beaver
habitat would be lost as the lake level rises; however, new habitat may be
created, depending on the lake's frequency and magnitude of fluctuation.
Impacts associated with a transmission line include possible bird collisions
with conductors and raptor electrocution. A transmission corridor and/or road
would probably become a travel route for terrestrial species; some losses,
especially of small mammals, to vehicle collisions can be expected. Road or
all terrain vehicle access from Chignik would increase hunting, trapping,
fishing, and associated habitat alteration in the Mud Bay watershed.
Brown bear and moose can be expected to temporarily move out of
human activity associated with project construction increases.
conflicts can be expected if garbage and construction materials
properly contained and disposed.
the area as
Bear/human
are not
Loss of fish resources from dewatering the creek would greatly decrease the
area's value to furbearers due to loss of a major food source. Eagles would
probably move out of the project area because of nesting disturbances and lack
of available fish food sources.
Chignik Lagoon Intertie
The extent of impacts associated with a Chignik-Chignik Lagoon intertie
depends largely on the amount of clearing necessary for a right-of-way,
construction timing and methods, and whether or not a road is associated with
the corridor. Impacts on Mud Bay and two other drainages between Chignik and
Chignik Lagoon villages may include: (1) increased hunting, fishing, trapping
efforts, and associated habitat alteration as a result of creating access to
formerly remote sites; (2) raptor electrocution and bird collision with
transmission lines; (3) mammal population redistribution and alteration of
interdrainage migration patterns; (4) increased human/bear conflicts; and (5)
changes in plant succession as a result of clearing, with altered food and
cover values for birds and mammals.
32 C-42
DISCUSSION
We are concerned that many of the remote, small hydroelectric projects
currently being planned in Alaska are located on short, coastal anadromous
fish streams which often support relatively small numbers (hundreds) of fish.
Because the economic constraints of small hydroelectric project are fairly
inflexible and storage capacities are low, instream releases as a mitigation
measure are quickly deemed infeasible.
On a commercially comparative basis, streams producing small populations of
salmon are judged unimportant; therefore, replacement mitigation measures,
such as tailrace spawning facilities or hatcheries, are deemed economically
unrealistic because of the low numbers of fish to be lost. Ultimately small
anadromous streams are "written off" without mitigation or enhancement. The
cumulative impact of small remote hydros being developed will be the permanent
loss of anadromous fish populations. The Indian Creek project is one of many
such small hydropower facilities in Alaska being planned.
Comparing the possible environmental impacts associated with an Indian Creek
project and a Mud Bay project, the FWS believes that Indian Creek would be the
preferred location for a hydroelectric facility. A Mud Bay facility would
entail greater aquatic and terrestrial losses, because of the area affected,
numbers of animals, and the relative value of their respective habitats.
Per conversations between our office and the CE planning staff and the
findings presented in the Draft Feasibility Report prepared by Arctic Slope
Technical Services, Inc., the Mud Bay project is not feasible (Benefit/cost
ratio -0.16). Therefore, the project's feasibility and environmental impacts
will not be studied in greater detail by the CE or FWS at this time. Resource
information generated in this report should be used in project planning if and
when power demands in the Chignik area increase substantially. Additional
studies and better quantification of impact would be needed if the Mud Bay
project were to be pursued at a later date.
If the Chignik hydroelectric facility goes into an advanced engineering and
design phase, additional fisheries work should be undertaken. Although we
ascertained that Indian Creek is an anadromous fish stream, more study will be
needed to obtain population estimates for pink salmon and Dolly Varden. This
information will be needed before a realistic assessment of fisheries
mitigation/enhancement options and costs can be made. Other aquatic data,
such as hydrologic, temperature, and water quality will also be needed.
Originally, our 13 July 1982 PA letter recommended that instream releases be
devised to maintain pink salmon and Dolly Varden runs in the lower reaches of
Indian Creek. However, project feasibility assumes total use of water for
power production. In our 1 October 1982 PA letter, we suggested that the
possibility of some kind of tailrace spawning facility be examined. This
would allow cost comparison of releases versus tailrace facility. In the next
phase of study, when fish populations estimates are available,
mitigative/enhancement alternatives should be explored and the costs thereof
figured into the project's total cost.
33. C-43
One issue that was not addressed in the Draft Feasibility Report submitted to
the CE was the existing use of the lake for Chignik's water supply and its
potential competition with a hydroelectric facility. An analysis of whether
the storage capacity of the reservoir is able to accommodate power production
and water supply needs to be made. If the hydroelectric facilities were only
used seasonally, would water be available year-round for water supply? Could
extra water be diverted from the water supply lines into a tailrace facility,
if hydropower facilities were shut down during winter months? These questions
will have a bearing on the fisheries mitigation costs and feasibility of the
Indian Creek project.
Recent communications with CE planning personnel established that additional
environmental studies on the Chignik small hydroelectric project will be
foregone. Also, because the Alaska Packers Cannery has an existing water use
appropriation, the CE contends that no water would be available for either
releases or maintaining a tailrace facility. Therefore, no mitigation options
would be feasible. In the event that project planning proceeds without an
agreement to quantify and mitigate the Chignik projects aquatic losses, the
FWS will have no recourse but to recommend the no project alternative in our
review of the project EIS.
Terrestrially, the Indian Creek project (without the Chignik Lagoon intertie)
has few potential adverse impacts. Most of the possible impacts to birds and
mammals can be minimized with proper construction methods, erosion control,
and post construction clean-up. During the next phase of project planning,
the contractors' plans, specifications, and methods for construction will need
to be reviewed and arrangements for on-site, construction surveillance by
resource agency personnel should be made.
If the intertie is pursued in conjunction with the Indian Creek project, using
the following methods will mitigate some the possible impacts: (1) setting
poles by helicopter and not constructing a road, (2) limiting clearing to the
smallest extent possible, (3) clearing by hand (no herbicides) and piling
slash, and (4) using raptor-proofed pole configurations and/or insulators in
areas of eagle activity.
As project plans move into advanced engineering and design phase, manpower and
funds should be allocated for (1) additional baseline studies to fill fish and
wildlife data gaps, (2) feature by feature design review, and approval of
construction plans and methods, and (3) formulation of a mitigation plan.
The FWS is concerned about the project's one-year, "fast track" planning mode
because it has limited collection of needed biological data and, consequently,
our ability to make a thorough and complete analysis of project impacts.
Therefore, we recommend that future project planning set project milestones
which will avoid such information deficiencies.
In March 1983, the CE Environmental Branch assessed whether or not an
Environmental Assessment (EA) could be substituted for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in order to fulfill their obligations within the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. An EA is an in-house document
34 C-44
written by the lead agency which recommends that either an EIS or "Finding of
No Significant Impact" (FONSI) be written. While we understood that the CE's
intent was to save time, the FWS believes that an EIS is the appropriate NEPA
document for all hydroelectric projects with the potential to dewater an
anadromous fish stream. Additionally, due to current Federal economic
constraints, many CE post-feasibility projects are being picked up by State
development agencies for further study. In light of this, an EIS becomes a
State planning tool which documents potential impacts on fish and wildlife and
necessary mitigation measures. As a result of our correspondence on this
subject (Appendix B), this Final CA Report will accompany the CE's Draft EIS.
FWS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations pertain to the Indian Creek hydroelectric
project. Based on our evaluations of potential project impacts and to insure
that those impacts are adequately addressed, or mitigated, we recommend that:
1. During ensuing project planning stages, additional site-specific baseline
studies be done to document:
A. timing and numbers of spawning pink salmon in lower Indian Creek;
B. hydrological and meteorological characterization of the Indian Creek
drainage;
C. temperatures and water quality within the lake and lower creek;
D. aquatic mitigation alternatives and costs;
E. raptor nesting sites in vicinity of proposed intertie; and
F. adequate subsistence surveys and game harvest data.
2. during ensuing project planning stages, detailed impact/mitigation
assessment based upon the above studies be scoped and funded;
3. when Indian Creek pink salmon spawning use is quantified, a mitigation
plan for preserving or replacing the 0.5 mile of spawning and migratory
habitat be devised. Two aquatic mitigation options that should be
compared are 1) instream releases into Indian Creek or 2) a tailrace
spawning facility;
4. altered or new project designs and plans be provided to, reviewed by, and
commented on by FWS;
5. if the Chignik Lagoon intertie is economically justified, a construction
plan be formulated incorporating timing, methods of clearing, design for
raptor proofing within 0.5 miles of Mud Bay Creek, etc. and submitted to
FWS for review and incorporation into permits and licenses;
35 C-45
6. FWS recommendations be included in all contractors' specifications and
that FWS and other interested resource agencies be able to review those
specifications prior to construction bid submission;
7. organic soils excavated during construction be stockpiled, contained in
such a way as to prevent erosion, and used in revegetation of disturbed
areas;
8. during construction, all food-related garbage be stored in metal
containers, removed as soon as possible, and incinerated to prevent a
nuisance bear situation;
9. for construction and operation phases of the project, waste petroleum and
waste water disposal plans and oil spill contingency plans addressing safe
storage, use, and clean-up of oil and gas be prepared in accordance with
State and Federal guidelines (40 C.F.R. 112.38, Dec. 11, 1973);
10. erosion control plans for road/bulldozer trails, transmission route
clearing, penstock and dam construction should be formulated, then
reviewed by FWS and other resource agencies. Clean-up, restoration, and
revegetation of work areas, material sites, disposal/stockpile sites, and
areas requiring recontouring to pre-project conditions should take place
concurrent with construction;
11. review and approval of construction plans, specifications, and
methodologies by FWS and arrangements for construction surveillance by
interested resource agency personnel shall be made prior to permit/license
review and a construction start.
We assume that the Mud Bay project is economically infeasible at this time;
however, in the event that its planning is reactivated, we recommend that:
1. Additional biological studies to 1) quantify impacts associated with a Mud
Bay facility and 2) formulate a project mitigation plan be scoped and
funded;
2. any additional dam designs and plans include a release mechanism and fish
passage facilities;
3. altered or new project designs and plans be provided to be reviewed by,
and commented on by all interested resource agencies.
36 C-46
References
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat.
Edited by R. LeResche and R. Hinman. 143 pp., 563 maps.
1978a. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volume I. Compiled by R. McLean
and K. Delaney. 40 pp., 357 maps.
1978b. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volume II. Compiled by R.
McLean and K. Delaney. 43 pp., 269 maps.
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. 1982. Feasibility Report of Small
Hydropower and Environmental Document from Indian and Mud Bay Lake
Creeks. 136 pp.
Benfield, D. 1982. Personal Communication., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Chambers, J.S., G.A. Allen, and T. Pressey. 1955. Research relating to study
of spawning grounds in natural areas. Washington Department of Fisheries,
Olympia, Washington, Unpublished. MS 175 pp.
Clay, C.H. 1961. Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities. Canadian
Department of Fish. 301 pp.
Collings, M.R. 1974. Generalization of spawning and rearing discharges for
several Pacific salmon species in western Washington. U.S.G.S. open file
report. 39 pp.
Hart, J.L. 1973.
Canada, Ottawa.
Pacific Fishes of Canada.
740 pp.
Fisheries Research Board of
Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford
University press, Stanford, CA. 1008 pp.
Kopun, Arlene. 1982. Chignik Council President, Chignik, Alaska. Personal
Communication.
Middleton, K. 1982. Field Trip Report, Alaska Peninsula Hydroelectric
Feasibility Study, Chignik, Alaska. 15 pp.
Morris, J. 1982. Personal Communication, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Dillingham, Alaska.
Morrow, J. E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Pacific Northwest
Publishing Co., Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
Mierziejewski, David. 1982. Personal Communication, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Alaska District.
37 C-47
Nicholson, L., O'Neill, H., and Wright, L. 1981. Annual Management Report,
Chignik Management Area. 108 pp.
Olendorff, R.R., et ale 1981. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on
Power Lines -State of the Art in 1981. Department of Veterinary Biology,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn. 110 pp.
Sams, R.E. and L.S. Pearson. 1963. A study to develop methods for determining
spawning flows for anadromous salmonids. Oregon Fish Comm., Unpub, M.S.
56 pp.
Schoenberg, Ralph. 1982. Personal Communication, Chignik, Alaska.
Scott, W.B. and Crossman, E.J. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, 966 pp.
Sellers, R. 1982. Personal Communication, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, King Salmon, Alaska.
Smith, A.K. 1973. Development and application of spawning velocity and depth
criteria for Oregon salmonid. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102(2): 312-316.
Stalnaker, C.B. and Arnette, J.L. 1976. Methodologies for the Determination
of Stream Resource Flow Requirement: An Assessment. Utah State
University press, Logan, Utah. 199 pp.
Thompson, K.E. 1972. Determing streamflows for fish life. In Proc. Instream
Flow Requirement Workshop. Pacific N.W. River Basinsk Comm., Portland,
Ore. p. 31-50.
Viereck, L.A. and Dyrness, C.T. 1980. A Preliminary Classification System
for Vegetation of Alaska. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station Technical Report, PHW -106. 38 pp.
38 C-48
FISH
COl1il1on Name
Chum salmon
Coastrange sculpin
Coho salmon
Dolly Va rden
Pink salmon
Sockeye salmon
Threespine stickleback
BIRDS
Willow ptarmigan
Dipper
COl11llon raven
Black-billed magpie
Greater yellowlegs
Bald eagle
Peregrine falcon
Comlllon snipe
Glaucous-winged gull
Mew gull
Dunlin
Least sandpiper
Black-legged kittiwake
Harl equ"j n duck
Pelagic cormorant
Greater scaup
American wigeon
Green-winged teal
Mall ard
Pi nta i 1
Red-breasted merganser
Water pipit
Yell ow warbl er
Wilson's warbler
White-crowned sparrow
Golden-crowned spdrrow
Gray-crowned rosy finch
Gray-cheeked thrush
Hernli t thrush
Robin
Varied thrush
Tree swallow
Belted kingfisher
C-49
Sci entifi c Name
Oncorhynchus keta
Cottus aleutiCUS-
Oncorh~nchus kisutch
Salvellnus malma
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
OncorhYnchus nerka
Gasterosteus aculeatus
LagO~US lagopus
Cinc us mexicanus
Corvus corax
Pica pica
TrTnga melanoleuca
Haliaeetas leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus
Gallina~o gallinago
Larus 9 aucescens
Larus canus
Calidris alpina
Calidris minutilla
Rissa tridactyla
Hlstrionlcus hlstrionicus
Phalacrocorax pelag;cus
Aythya mar11 a
Arias amen cana
Anas crecca
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas acuta
~us serra tor
Ant us sp;noletta
Dendroica petechia
Wilsonia eusilla
Zonotrichla leucophyrs
Zonotrichia atricapi11a
Leucosticte tephrocotis
Catharus minimus
Latharus guttatus
Turdus migratorius
Ixoreus naevi us
Iridopro~ne bicolor
Megaceryle alcyon
MAMMALS
Conunon Name
Beaver
Brown bear
Mink
Shorttail weasel
Moose
Red fox
Tundra hare
Snowshoe hare
Tundra redback vole
Wolverine
Dusky shrew
Masked shrew
PLANTS
Club moss
Horsetail
Pa rs 1 ey fern
Fragile fern
Pond weed
Arrow grass
Polar grass
Bent grass
Bluejoint reed grass
Grass
Fescue
Brome grass
Lyme grass
Cotton grass
Sedge
Wood rush
False hellebore
Chocol ate 1 ily
Wild flag
Wi 11 ow
Birch
Alder
Sorrel
Spri ng beauty
Chickweed
Sea beach sandwort
Marsh marigold
Monkshood
Anemone
Buttercup
Meadow rue
C-50
Scientific Name
Castor canadensis
Orsus arctos
Mustela vison
Mustela enninea
Alces alces
9ulpes vulpes
tepus othus
~ americanus
LTetnrionemys rutilus
Gul0 9U~O
"S'O'rex 0 scurus
Sorex ci nereus
Lycopodium selago
Equisetum spp.
Cryptogranuna cris~a
Cystopteris fragi is
Potamogeton spp.
Triglochin spp.
Arctagrostis latifolia
Agrostis spp.
Calamagrostis canadensis
Poa spp.
mtuca spp.
Bromus spp.
Elymus arenarius
Eriophorum angustifolium
Carex spp.
Luzula spp.
Veratrum vi ri de
Friti"aria camschatcensis rri s setosa
"SiTTx spp.
Betula ndna
Alnus crrspa
Rumex spp.
c'a~tonia sibirica
Ste 1 aria spp.
Honckenya peploides
Caltha palustris
Aconitum delphinifolium
Anemone spp.
Ranunculus spp.
Thalictrum sparsiflorum
Plant Species Con't:
Common Name
Shepherd I S Purse
Saxifrage
Cloudberry
Sa 1 monberry
Marsh fivefinger
Pacific silverweed
Sitka burnet
Lupine
Clover
Milk vetch
Beach pea
Cranesbi 11
Violet
Fireweed
River beauty
Mare I s tail
Beach lovage
Hemlock parsley
Cow parsnip
Bunchberry
Crowberry
Labrador tea
Kamchatka rhododendron
Bearberry
Cranberry
Starflower
Jacob's ladder
Oyster 1 eaf
Monkey flower
Indian paintbrush
Lousewort
Plantain
Bell flower
Goldenrod
Coastal feabane
Common yarrow
Seabeach senecio
Dandelion
C-51
Sci ent ifi c Name
Capse 11 a rube 11 a
Saxi fra~a spp.
Rubus c amaemorus
Rubus srecta6ilis
Potenti 1a palustris
Potentil1a egedli
San~uisorba stipulata
Luelnus nootkatensis
Tn fol ium repens
Astragalus polaris
Lathyrus mar;t;mus
Geranium erianthum
Viola Langsdorff;
Epilobium angustifolium
Eeilobium latifol;um
Hlppurus tetraphylla
Liusticum scoticum
onlose lnum chinense
Heracleum lanatu~
Cornus canadensis
Em~etrum nigrum
Le um palustre
Rhododendron camtschaticum
Arctostaphylos alpina
Ox£coccus microcarpus
Trlentalus euroeaea
Polemonium acutlflorum
Mertensia maritima
Mimulus.guttatus
Castilleja unalaschensis
Pedicularis spp.
Plantago maritima
Plantago major
Caneanula lasiocarpa
Solldago lepida
trireron p~~rinus
~cfi Ilea oorcarrs--
Senecio pseudo-Arnica
Taraxacum spp.
DEPt\RTMENT OF FISH ,'NO G,\ ~.~
Apri 1 22, 1983
Mr. Robert Bowker
Field Supervisor
Western Alaska Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 W. 4th Avenue, Room G-81
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Bowker:
BILL SHEFFIELD, QOVEP"OR
344-0541
333 RASPflERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502
0383-IV-36
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Draft
Coordination Act Report for the Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek Hydropower
Projects near Chignik,. Alaska. We concur with your analysis of available
data and your recommendations, particularly that as project plans for Indian
Creek become more advanced: 1) additional fish and wildlife baseline
studies will be required to fill information gaps, 2) resource agencies must
be allowed to review design features and construction plans, and 3)
appropriate mitigation plans must be developed.
\~e are concerned that numerous small hydroelectric projects along the coast
of Alaska will adversely affect incrementally small, but cumulatively
important, popul ati ons of anadromous fi shes. Therefore, we wi 11 strongly
recolllTlend, and may requi re under our own statutory authority, the
implementation of appropri~te mitigation such as a tailrace spawning
facil ity and/or instream releases of water in Indian Creek, if future
baseline surveys define appreciable runs of salmon.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have any Questions, please
contact Denby Lloyd or me (267-2346),
Sincerely,
Don W. Collinsworth
Conm· s·
Kimbal A. Sun berg
Projects Review Coordinator
Habitat Division
C-52
-
Carl Y"nllealill
r.er,1onal Sup~rv1~or
~::., ;~':i:l; I~I
\ i. ,. I ;" ,'·.~I1l!,,), : ><:
ilr.:hit!\t Protectiou Division
Alll.6~!1 DcpllrtJ:Ient of Finh and Gl\ne
"3 ~3 r~ll1:'pberry noad
ft~chora~~, A18~ka 9 0 502
,.,:,..., ....
." , '
2 R JAN 1982
F:~r l'i'~:-' St'lr!tc~ :0, rHiililf4j,.,
i"·,filh:m In Slllil IT""'1T1'tt~
I ~tl rL J:.~.L2
I . _____ .. _
I
1
~I~:n Intter :is to :,C"quost HnHt"t'~ partiC'p'ltton 1n ft:'?l:i :lnv(!ati(~,'ti():Hl Il:,cl
dllta [\I;'1:I1Y61" for ~h~ Ilh.oVI) referonced projncb. Nex'l: ,lll;nnOl", l"inh /ln,l
"iildlt!'p ~(.:-vice I(ill cordu(!t et\l.ltl'A!'It f')t\"n'lokn P~ninf'\tJrt lO~fltion!':
Cri(.:;11~·, ';uJ nil::, C~1G1dk J.1l~OO:1, .'In.j P~rr'yvLl'" Thr) .3tnrJ\f'):) 1)('0 T1'-\!"t or n
~::D=_7~-Jr'Ctn.-.' (C'8) Genflr .. l !r1vontle'lt\on :l~~llrl.y t,) iletfJrrl1n(~ flC:I~~h1l1'<r
CtI' ~Y!1'"of.:'l.!ct~ic pOne:::" rcr C;ltf.~llk H'rOA vtl1!\"r>:,. At~:!chl)(l in O\!t' l~<j.J ;(:c~r,
0: ';.,,;.1: ~c?sr.r1Dinf .j/ltll to 1'e f':Jtl,eroJ 'In,1 ~tr.1!n~ for ou!' ,"purt,).
"l I IlDC ,:;tu,1165 pret'~:1t an CtJ"Porhl;'lity to incrol1"'" ou!' :i.ntor'1.i~Cricy COQt·J.L;:.':lon
(.1":''',,':,'' •• Joint ;urtidplltjon tn P;oJl1ct pl<l:lILill.<: ()hOlll.l provi.io 'I'dl~;tt<
("'r(~;·~.{:!",CR for p6r~o.1nal; it Dhould 111so retillcr) t~(' PWHllbility of lRtr~"
";"1C-cr::;:lcl~a in O~lr re3p~ctive input9 to tho cr.
n'J: p:-~}ji:\1nary pl!\os 3I'O for t .... o, :?-pernon tI?'I:111 to I~:\tnel' I!:~t.'l LIt t;(() :;it::>:J
~1;Lf~C:'; \leJ'Yl) /"otiwlt\·d t~.i~ ef'fo;-t 1(111 t.'tkl" ~O-~~O (il\,J'c of \I('r-;~, ,h[Ju.ro'i:.{;/l
}c;I~LJ~ic!i und ·oIpat!",t'lr.rh" cr; i.1 to proviJe t"n~l"portllti(1n to th:l f!ltf:~l i:
"'1 ~':"'~:' .ru~!o or July; ~.('W'eYQr, ft.x'l,~t dat'~:J ~():' t! •• l tl'~ n(.~l) ;l!1Vn. not L01);'
finJ:!.i::nL A Decti:'l~ with C;P; r~r~o~ne1 is ::c!I<""!ulc1 [or r:l1 r.1.-:·eb'1!--lr·J tCI
-: ! ~":' \l S" .:~. t '11 1 £ •
'!(' ~:(1'.ll,1 In'e (or ."IOCloone fl"oru YVIJ!' !It.'lff to b •. ' l:-,cllllcll ill ... od: 011 tl:u:l"
p:-O~ .... ('t:l; if jjtlhitJ\t 1s intercote! ir! pnrttc1"'Ht.ini~' r1rl·l\ng~rr.cnt~ for. tri~\
(Ixil'''~,,,,,~, an,l npe-cif1c p~r"cllt:l)l t.\4'k .'U)18n."·,):1·.~ .1\11 1>0 nN~Jti!\tvct •
c c: ';' :::~
NATION:jh:Ol/28/82
Il)#OllOA
C-53
• ~~ .' •••. l •• " -. .. r y .' '." :,\. '; ,·.' .. 1 .. ··.-\ ':','.':.:.:"
Fjole! ~llparviAor
r I
/
/
/, ,
,--~.-. ---~¢-------
----t;l---.
-:~~~ --J-' . , , ~
---~--
WAES
Mr. ~arl Yans8ava
RE:'Rional Supervi!';or
Southc~ntr~l nabitnt DiviRion
Al~f!?a Df\p~rtn:en t of Fi3h R.!1d G~ln ...
)~3 J\aspherr:or ROB(~
Anchor3Go, Ala3ka ~9~02
/
De err: ,"1 '!" 1 :
26 MAR 1382
,\i;'l 1') ~"lrch m~otin~ 'lIith the Corpll or Enginpl~]'f1 (c;.;) l'Ir1cl tiloir e0:13ult.:tnt
(\I~yne lhn:Hm of :8RT::;~E), va lIIF\d~ tent",Uv8 pb,,~' for our firnt fiold trip to
tl1!·P. rl~c(' f!"om May 10-17, 11)82. Allowi~? ri,"Vll {or wOllth"r ltnJ loot:l:ltic~
contjngpncje~, ve p!nn for the trip to t8k~ 7 ~~y~.
't,i~dR Ferr"l11 of thf' C~ ir, tlrrsnJirj~ for 4 poopl,:, tl'l fl.? ':!1n~ Air Alnfl):l to
K11,~ SelDon, 8!1d ch'!rter with P~nir.lji.lla A1r .... u/~ to C\~k. ",'t'l\v,')l CO,qtll :or
:,(Jur ATYF"liG 'hio1or,ist \:ill hp. pajd hy the F\iS.
Arrivi~g Rt ChiGnik,
": ~ "lIla t:) p ... :":;rvi 11" ;
:;~a r.roup Ifill 3pltt 1nt0;' L"nm[l.
the othnr 10'111 ,ei::'iin .II. t :~)I i R,ni k.
Ono t~qrn ~i~l ~8n
YOI1 r hi 0 10:'; i f1 t "t i ~
';'Jrk ,...-j.>: :!~,ry !.. .... nn N'lti\H\ of my ~t';irf' and thl'!.Y ..,ill ~t;lld.v t'\('\~'~i?l:~"
.. ,~"t"'~. F'or trl\nl'lpo!"'t to thA ~it,.~. ;:,\,:3.,,111 t!'.lppl::!1 mn:(n' ,l:l,l:'",!;v:,
Activit;":J 1;il1 C(>l\t.'ll" !l!'ollnri tr'lJlI111g olltmi!];'.qtjn.: Juvanil.: o,\lriG:1. ':",e
ter.l!1.t> ' .. ill UBI? lln ~l',ctroshocb)r. ,'''i:-,'"'1, n.!r,n~n' t;'IIPI1, ":'10. r.,',:r rt'1t.~l to ',:1P
,h:venilpf:. If ~i:C\'1 c:-" ~ollnn in t,I,(, f\tl"'fHU;I~, tnl' tOMr.t :~.·ll ('::1::'lbU :d. 1\1:'\
!'n('''O\lr<:l t,tH!!l"'Ct"l :~:. inntresm f;cw ~r)"1y81~. Any Avtr'!l thw liil1 }\(, :11J\!:t
1'.'rj;::!"'T.!roz,"" Y"'~"~I~tl"'(l :-\,/'1i tJ'p.-:r, -;Lf'''·~/1n~ 1f11rj}i['., 1'1~ ~'Jr:-';"","~ !-~I"~"":~
" p •• " >,.\1 j I " t , •
~\'t) a.~C' ~)on::jnR ,'i loll'~"r :.'I.lm:llor t:·tp (r('~I!jbly I:, Jill:,,) ~I) fir'], I ollr ;'t,,[.:
~fl")rJ, fo" thp.~e pr:-;,1 .. c:a anrt ''lOr'' ::f)11 ..-111 he '\~'l' t.:') T'I\T':i~j !)It,(. thr~1J[~\..,nu~.
'.''ll":v T),w~ ''''11 be 1:1 louch ,,1th rllrt~I,~r (I.tail:,.
NATION:jh:3/24/82
IDH0210A
Sinc"r"l.".
r~: " ,
'" '..J "',
C-54
~ i : .:", .... ,
MEMORANDUM
Tolarry Ni cho 1 son
Fisheries Biologist
Commercial Fisheries Division
Kodiak
FRO." Phi 1i P J. srn@
Habitat Biologist
Habitat Division
Anchorage
State of Alaska
DATE: May 20, 1982
FILE NO:
TELEPHONE NO: 344-0541
SUBJECT Chignik Area Streams
From 10-18 May I assisted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
stream surveys of several streams in the Chignik area. These surveys were
related to the Corps of Engineers hydropower feasibility studies.
Packers, Mud Bay, and Indian Creeks were surveyed. Pink salmon and
anadromous Dolly Varden were found in Packers Creek up to the falls. Pink
salmon and anadromous Dolly Varden were found in Mud Bay Creek. Unidenti-
fied fish skeletons were found in large numbers above Mud Bay lake. A local
resident (Roy Skonberg) reports 2-3 thousand chums in Mud Bay Creek. The
stream and lake also appear to be excellent coho and sockeye habitat. Pink
salmon and anadromous Dolly Varden were trapped in Indian Creek but the
upper 1 imit of migrations was not found. local residents report a handfu"1
of chums (coho were present prior to 1959) in Indian Creek as well. In
addition, local residents report pink salmon in two unnamed streams between
Chignik and Chignik spit (see enclosed map).
The USFWS will be doing further studies this surrmer; however, it would be
appreciated if you would take a look at these streams (especially Mud Bay
Creek) thi s surrmer when adults are present if you have the opportunity.
Thanks.
Enclosure
cc: D. Cook
11:1. Nation, ~AES
C-55
/l-
1':*··
SCALE 163360
:,..t,...-~, •• (~ ..... j • ...:., ..... ;., ...... ~ .. 't(1 C-'"" .. '\ .. ~ .... \ ...... ,,0.-.'ll.
~~ .... ~~ .. ' ... 1 ..... 1\ 1"""4 ~'I • __ c.-... _ ........ _t,.
t ... , .. , ...••• A VI 1<.«" ........ ) ....... ,', I , II.t
FOR S .... LE BY u. S. GEOLOGIC .... L SURVEY
,ANKS. ALASKA 99701. DENVER, COLORADO S022~, OR W .... SHINGTON. D C. 2024_
'CLO(R O(SCRI811'<C; TOPOGRAPHIC .. APS "1'<0 SYMeOlS IS A.,A'lJl8l( 0'" R(QU(ST
G
' ..
.. , ..
''''
ROAD CL
U\IGr~IK lB-2
N'ohl~-"";~8:·
1963
UNIT>;!) ST"TP.S Of "",r.P[C'
rHlEIH.L F:NERGY REGULATORY CO-O,,' ~~ION
Il~C ProV .. rtl~s. Inc.
AI .. "ka "ac-t~rs "''''<'Ielatlon. Inc. Project No. 620-001
'IOTIC>; Of "PPLtC"TIOo( mR TKANSf'£. OF LlCf:NSt::
(Novel1lber 21. 1982)
T .. t~ ""tic. th .. t the [)MC Prop.rtl"s. Inc. Irnr .... rly "l,uka
Pack~r~ ".soclatlon. Inc.1 .nd the "laS ta Packer" ""soclatlon.
I"c. (tnr ... rly !:on"qra Suh .. ldlary. l"c.)I~"lIcant") filed
on nct0~r 1). 1981. an appllcatlo" for tra~~fer of the
C"I'J"i~ l1ydr_l .. ctdc Proj.ct '10. 620 fro. th .. r.c Properties.
Inc. to, th .. "la .. ta Pack.r .. ""s"clatlon, t~. Th .. project Is
'"c.O\",\ .,n tlte l1pt>'tr Lall., 1,,<1la" C ..... II. I .. Chlqnlk. "'last ...
... pp I I C ~nt ....... cut~<1 '" 1'111 "t Sal .... "" "'--... ,,11 ... ", of L~a'l"
.. n<1 flVt I <'In to-" Purch ...... on Apr I 1 7. 1 '111. r ,.,rr .. spond.ne ... I t h
the "I'pl\c .. "tc .. 1'10,11" he directed t'>, .... r. la_ .. iii. Crittenden.
0..1 ~ont. Cnrvoratlon. 1 "'art"t Pl ..... ".n. 1\0. 1')1'), San "rancisco.
Califnrnla '4119, and ... r. 1II000000r w • .,.,11 •• 'IcGrath. North. O' .... l1ey
, lr .. t •• P.C •• Suit. 1100 -COn~ra To".'. On .. C.ntral Part Plaza.
O~ha. M.brAsta '810l.
~&nc-y c~nt. -".<'I"ral. Stata. a"" local. ayencle. ar.
;n,,1t<'1 t .... uoOoit co-._nts on the d .. acrlboed application. ("
c"py ot the aptJllcat Ion ... y he obt .. ln,,<1 by a<Jencles directly
tr"," "th. Apjllitantl. It .... ~ aq<ltncy d_" r>ot file co. ..... nt,.
"I th,,, t"<It t i.e 'lot belovo it .,i 11 b<! pre."_<1 to "ave "0 t:o.......,nt ...
C.-.. nt •• Prot"sts. or "'ot i"nllto I nt-ery<lt~e -""yone .... y ti Ie
c, __ nt4 •• prot ... t. De a .-otion to j.,ter_"e In .accordance
.. it~ the r<ltqulr ... nts of Ca-al,alon ~ules III ot 214, 18
C.Y ••. )8').211 br or 185.214. 47 '.d .• 89-'9025-26 (1982).
In d.ter.I"lnQ the appeoprlnte action to ta\e. the Co~ls"lon
~ill c"".ld.r all pcote.t. Or oth~r C~"t. filed. but only
tho~ • .,ho tile e -atlon to Interve ... In a~ordance ~Ith
t"<It Cn~.ls,.ion·s .ule~ .ay becQde a "party to the pcoceedl"Q.
"ny c.-nts. I'rot",.tS. or -otlon,. to interv.ne ",Ugt tJe
f i 1 .. <'1 n nOr be fore _"_ !!:I4,-,--"T~an=,--___ _
filln and "Service of Res nsly~ Docune"ts -... ny flllnQ" MU9t
b<ltAr in all cap tal lntter. the tltl<lt CL""'f.NTS·. ·PROTP.ST·, or
."40TION TIl INTt:I('/OI£·. all appllc""I",. an<1 the Project Number of
this notic". "ny of the above n_d <1ocu_ .. t,. mu,.t b<! filed by
I'ro",<1l nQ th<lt original an<'l those copies r~ulred by the Commission's
r~~ul~tion. to: l<ltnneth r. Plumb. Secr<lttary. Federal Enerqy
OC-A-9
-2-
. ReQulatory CQftalsslo ... 82~ North Capitol Street. N.F: •• Waghl,,?ton.
D.C. 20426. "n additional copy ",ust bit sent to: Pred f:. SprlnQ.c.
chl<ltf. "ppllcatlons Reanch. Diyl .. lon of Hydropower Llcen"lnq.
,ederal Enerqy R8qulatocy CO"MI~~lon. Rooa 208 RR At the above
address. "copy of any .otlon to int<ltryen<lt Must also b<lt sltcved
upon each representatlYn of the "'pp1lcant specified In the first
paraqrAl'h of this notice.
Lola D. Caah.,}1
Actlnq s.cretary
u: _
"n. ~r"'O'J(C:1 s:
: t..JrlJiJd. Ale" -
r-...
l.Cl
I
U
State of Alrtska
Department of Fish and Game
Public Review Nomination for Waters
lmportant to Anadromous Species
~ Addition D Deletion
Name of Waterbody (if known): __ r: __ ~d la.~_ C. (('f...~ ______ _
location:
Anadromous Waters Catalog Volume and Number Vol. 3) 5 0 .. :tL bl~$i« "-
USGS 1:63,360 Quadrangle _C.hij~~ k_"-E~;t __ --__________ _
or 1:250,000 (if 1:63,360 not available) ______________ _
r-------.--,---------------------------.-
Species Date{s) Observed Stage(s) (Srawning, Rearing,
1,1 i <J rat ion )
1-----------+-------------------------------------~
\---t"~"O"'......J,..,,w....ltL[~~--l----L.~-U...--------111.i '" r.~~() "-., (( lo..~ _
1--_____ -+ ___________ ~l,v'Grr-bs.;l----
-fl'" k. L-a..L IL l·t_,l--4_q.L.-... ----"9_ ... ~r:t=b=____ --5rQ.\oUI.~ -----
_))o.U,/ 'IAcrJ.,=. -..:t"t-ll'~.:.T·;l.... . """y'--L",,·srw~:J ~ .. Rt":JJ
C0I11:I~ents: Please provide any cl,arifying inforlndtion in Jddition to
identification on Anadromous Waters Catalog Public Review Maps.
-----------------------
rlame,of Observc,.-,(plcase print) _M,h. t.k,,·-L~.,? ].tr\,,-_)_K. f"L;dAlu~r'"\.
// S' t 1'_f'_""" d2 -d Date: 1-Il-\."_~_5 .. __ lqna uri': /. -/'---'----<-'---........ --1L -• ,.1. ') -, ! /---_ '-..u1. lr--______ _
/-
C-58
State of Alaska
Department of Fish ond Game
Public Review Nomination for Waters
Importont to Anadromous Species
rz1 Addition [ ] Deletion
Name of Waterbody (i f known): _~Io\~ _ :3~y ___ .cJ~e..l ___________ _
Location:
Anadromous \~(lters Catalog Volum~ and Number VoL;J-1---.5.Q.~h \.{.(5_h,.."
USGS 1 :63,360 Q\Jadrangle --C.h1~: k_-a-=-~ ___________ _
Species
or 1:250,000 (if 1:63,360 not available) __ _
Date(s) Observed
)..
Stage(s) (Spawning, Rearing,
Migration)
~J\:0
" II
1/ II
IA..-LI:A-.-____ ~ -~1-'4_ -----------JI------
:D. \\y VMrJ.~... {~7~J.';.n-'l2. ----~~.:l::J,---R~d 'I
1/ -1'/-'l2.. Sp~,.; .... i"'j '-
Conments: Please provide any cl~rifying inform~tion in addition to
identification on AnadromousWaters Catalog Public Review Maps.
mst. obUY'w'd1vn.'1 c,f~:\o,d.( >lJ.l.I~ -~{,; J-t..aIl~(O"'~r-L
-:'?.A~~~ky __ fh_..c.aqL,,:l __ E~~;~f (r1 .{.r ___ ~~ __ Ch:j_": L~b:: •. JL-
J1.yJJb-~~ l~; L; 41'.--5h.~Ll'~---~i-' ::k...11tlc h..), -o.r$------------
------------------.---.. ------------
C-59
"[~L" TO
ATT(NT10N 0"
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO 80)( 7002
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA ""!l10
January 20, 1983
Environmental Resources Section flail and Wlldll!o ~.rvlc. U,~. It E C ! I V E D
FEB 1 1983
,-:---J-)'
I) 1_.J.s,},
!-f; ,'------
Mr. Keith Schreiner
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
E IOQlc ol s-rv-taP Office Ecol . Serv; O~ ,\\o,lto co sit Ancho og'col Servl ~Oge .... 10 a roge, A/oslco c~
Dear Mr. Schreiner:
The Alaska District, Corps of Engineers is presently studying
the feasibility of hydropower potential for the community of
Chignik, Alaska. The village of Chignik, population 178 (1980),
is located on the southeast side of the Alaska peninsula,
approximately 270 miles southwest of Kodiak Island. A map showing
the project site on Indian Creek is provided as enclosure 1. At
this time, we are requesting corrments in order to determine the
appropriate type of environmental document needed for this
project. 'We would like to know if you feel' an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) should be
written based on the information supplied in this letter and
information on file in this office.
The hydroelectric development of Indian Creek and Indian
Creek Lake would consist af constructing an approximately 35-foot
high rockfil1 dam raising the current reservoir elevation by
13 feet. Installed power capacity would be 1.4 megawatts.
Placement of the new damsite would be just downstream of an
existing wood buttress dam constructed in 1947. The penstock
would be placed parallel to the existing water pipeline with
minimal disruption to vegetation. With continual project
activities, it would be necessary to upgrade the existing trail
which mdY latrr result In Increased public access to that drCd.
At Indian Creek Lak.e, field surveys report sPilrse vegetation
along the perimeter of the 20-acre reservoir conSisting of
alder-willow thickets and a dense understory of blue-joint grass.
'Wet meadows along the creek are characterized by dwarf birch,
salmonberries, crowberries, cloudberries, and other low shrub
habitats supporting a variety of anima~s. There are reports of a
small brown bear population in the area, but specific denning
locations and densities are Unk.nown. Fqx, weasel, and tundra hare
are known to frequent the project area. '
C-60
-2-
There is little information regarding the fishery resources
of Indian Creek. Trapping efforts at the stream mouth during a
May 1982 survey produced 200 pink outmigrants. Additional
trapping revealed small numbers of Dolly Varden throughout the
lower reach. The extent of upstream spawning is· still
questionable. although viable spawning habitat exists from
tidewater 0.5 miles upstream. Indian Creek Lake supports no known
fishery resources.
All stream flow would be diverted at the mouth of Indian
Creek Lake through a 1.2 mile penstock to a powerhouse located
near the village. Indian Creek would be essentially dewatered
from the lake outlet to tidewater. a distance of approximately 3.5
miles. Dolly Varden and pink salmon habitat would be eliminated.
Riparian habitat important for small furbearers would also be
eliminated.
To further assist you in your decision efforts the following
documents are on file: fish and Wildlife's Planning Aid Letter
and the Draft Feasibility Report for Indian and Mud Bay Lake
Creeks, dated December 1982. Also, contact can be made with
Ms. Linda Ferrell of our Environmental Resource Section at
552-2572 •
Sincerely,
Chief, Engineering Division
Enclosure
C-61
\
INCH: 1000 fEET
PLATE 2
CHIGNIK. ALASK A
Foasibilily 01 Small Hydropower
INDIAN AND'
MUD . BAY CREEKS
AlA'II .. OI3lRICl. CO"", 0' [HGONEE!"
O'CE.,6ER lO.a
f h I +-' t LrJ I-.J 'if -t J United States Department 0 t e nLenor SCn~;A\m
t-;Ii~'~~Tl ;
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ~~
Weslern Alnska EC0\n~lr~1 Scrviccn
IN RE'LY REFE~ TO: (lOS W, 4th, Rnom C-AI
WAES Al1cho r.1r,e. A 1.1 ~k.1 '11) 50 I --------'-1
Mr. lIarlan E. Hoore
Chief, Engineering Divisiol1
U.S. Army Engineer District, Al~sk~
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
ATTN: Environmental Resourn'~ Sl'cI \')11
Dear Hr. ~loof(?:
2 8 JAN 1981
Re: Cld~~l1ik Sm.l11 Hydropower
Pllljcct Fe.lslhillty
--~-._----,
Our office has reviewed your 20 J.111l1,lry 198J lC'ttC'r conc('rnln~ the
appropriate type of environment.11 dl1C\lm(!nt 11('('dl'J for the suhJC'ct project.
These conuncnts are bnseJ upon our studies of tIll' Idologlc~l r('~ourccs to
be impnctl?d by lhe project, our \lndC'rst:lndlng of the Natlon.,l I-:l1vlrol1l11('nt:ll
Policy Act (NEPA), ;ll1d the Ikp.1rtmC'l1t of thl' Armv's policy .111<1 prOCl'dllrl's f()r
implementing NEPA (ER 200-2-2; )J efR 2)0).
Under the auspices of NEPA (40 CFl~ 1508.9) ,111 cl1VlrOl1l11enlill ,1SSCSSm('llt (FA) is
;) concise public document thilt Sl'rvC's to brldlv prlwldr. slIfflcient ('v{cl.-nct'
~nJ ~llaly51s for JC'termin1n~ ... hL'tllC'r to prl'p;Hl ;111 l't1vlrollnl(,llt;,1 imp;lct
stntement (EIS) or ~ flnJing of no signific.1l1t illlP;lCt (FONSI).
AccorJing to your rolicy nnd rroceJures for Imp\"T11('Iltfng NErA, the district
engineer shall prcp.lre :In fA .15 SOOIl as pr.1C t ir.lhlo ;If ter ill 1 relev,lnt
information has been m:1Je .1vailable to the dlslrict ('ny,inecr :1od prior to
preparation of the FO~Sl. The F.A ~;h.lll COIIC\'IlIL-.... fth il detcrmin,1t{on of
a FONS! or the necessity of ;1n I:IS: thercfore. ')<lllr req\lest or lIS to detL'rrnlnl'
the necessity of an EIS canllot be fOI'm,111y m,lt1l' lI1ltil ,1ftcr YOll have ... rlttL'!l
i'ol)r FA.
The Fi6h olnd Wildlife Sl'rvicc (noS) hC1iCVl'~ th.1t rl'lC'vl1l1t inform~tl{)n .... h1<-1I l~l
currently lacking c'->uld influence the deci~ioll III write n FOtlSI/FA or EIS
olnd/or determine the environmental f('a~ihtllty ('If th(' tnrlinn Creek
hydro('lcctric project. Field .... ork (l)nductcJ hv the FWS .111t.! '\rcti(: Slop('
Technical Services Inc, (,stabllshc(\ Indian (r('l,k as ;111 .1n,1(\romO\lS f hh
stream. Pink salmon -lnll an:lJromouq ,1nd resident Dolly Vilrc!f'n do inhabit
the creek. Additional study .... o\lld lw nC('('SS;lrv tn .1';Cf'rt,lin relative
nbundnnces of the ;1for('mcntinn('ll spl'c!es, .11111 lil'l IIIC';lt(' tlll'lr dlstrib\ltlon
and timing of variolls life stages.
n,1ta gaps and conCl'rns also incl\1lll': 1) the dr(,('t!1 of .1n 01'('11 CI'.10Il('\
lnilrace mcanderint-; throu~h ... ·CtLll1,l~ heh!".! (hll~ll1k. 2) opl'ration .lnt!
rc-gul;)tion of the hydropo .... er f~clll!y on (hll~ll1k'~ I,)(l~tlll\· ...... ltrr sll\lply
;lnJ, 3) the possi1>111ly or 1"l'-e~;t;1\>llsldn~: till' 111111.111 Crl'ck fl';hc-ry 111;\
spavning tailrace facility.
C-63
Despite existing data gaps, the rws belicvc~ that de~nter1n~ nn onodromous
fish stream is a significant environmentnl imrnct; ther~(ore. 1mpnct
assessment and mitigation would most approprintely be nddrc~sed 1n on EIS
and not in a FONSI/EA.
We appreciate being able to respond to YOllr r('('I'I~~t nnd .1150 nppreci3te the
close coordination that exists between OIIT r"'r~onnel nnd yours in regards to
this project's planning process.
cc: NMFS -Anchorage
ADF~G -Anchorage
EPA -Anchorage
C-64
Sincerely,
Field S\lpcrv1~or
Appendix C
1981 ADF&G Commercial Fish Harvest
Data for Chignik vicinity
C-65
ClI IGNIK AREA SAL:-\ON CATCHES, 1960-1931 -
YEAR KINGS REDS COHOS PINKS CHUMS TOTAL
1960 643 715,969 8,9)) 557,)27 486,699 1,769,571
1961 409 322,890 ] ,088 443,510 178,760 948,657
1962 435 364,753 1,292 1,519.305 ]64,3)5 2,250,t20
1963 1,744 408,606 9,93) 1,662,)63 112,697 2,195,)4)
1964 1,099 560,703 2,735 1,682,365 333,336 2,580,2)3
1965 1,592 635,078 9,602 1,118,158 120,589 1,885,019
1966 636 224,615 16,050 683,215 2]8,88] 1,163,06]
1967 882 472,874 13, 150 108,981 75,543 671,430
1968 674 878,449 2,200 1,290,660 223,861 2,)95,~4!,
1969 ],448 310,087 18,10] 1,779,736 67,721 2,179,095 ~
1970 1,225 1,327,664 15,)48 1,287,605 464,674 ],096,51L
~
1971 2,010 1,016,1]6 14,557 612,290 ]53,952 1,998,945
1972 464 378,669 19,615 72,240 78,356 5!~9, )44
r
1973 525 870,706 22,322 25,445 8, 701 n 7,699
1974 255 662,905 12,245 70,017 34,454 779,876 r
1975 549 400,193 53,28) 66,165 25,161 545,)51 --
1976 763 1,1]5,572 3S,JOl ],9d,(lt7 80,221 1,64n,77~ r
I ..
1977 711 l,912.2t3 17 .1.29 6~.3H llf).~,)l .., -' ..... ~ .;. -: :. _to J_, .• _
• ~
1978 1,60] 1,576,283 20,212 985,lt4 120,839 2,70':',lCl
1979 1,266 1,063,742 93,146 2,056,999 188,169 ],403,]22
1980 2,325 846,356 117,862 1,125,465 312,572 2,40 /.,577
1981 2,694 1,839,469 73,805 1,162,613 580,])2 ],66],913 ,.
16 C-66
/ -
Stat.
District Area Kings
Chignik Bay 271-10 2,006
District
Total 2,006
272-20 23
272-30 82
(cntral 272-40 1
District 272-50 23
272-60 82
272-62 173
Tota 1 38 /• -\ 272-70 0
272-72 44
Eastern 272-80 15
District 272-90 47
272-92 0
272-96 0
Total 106
273-72 66
273-74 0
I.'estern 273-80 2
District 273-82 0
273-84 0
273-90 7
27 3 -<J!, 24
Total 99
Pc rryville 275-40 16
District 275-50 1 1
275-60 72
Total ')9
l
CRAi\[) TOTAL 2,694
1981
CHIGNIK CATCP.
Reds Coho
1,355.524 35,578
1,355,524 1';,578
14,390 2,203
231,270 5,300
237 163
42,377 223
34,856 4, 187
137,885 ROI.
461,015 12,880
56 2
70 206
814 391
785 1 ,433
0 0
37 3
1 ,762 2,035
278 954
377 3,447
3,038 63
I, 5
806 36
1/,41)6 13,725
),752 J, 817
14,751 22,047
3,407 5,100
2,9 /+1 1 , 1/,5
69 20
6,41 7 6,265
1,839, !~6C) 78,805
7 C-67
Pinks Chums Tot.--
121,380 38,061 1,552.:
121,380 38,061 1,552,:
45,406 16,372 78,)
106,924 97,726 441 ,3
18,470 2,663 2 1 , S
12,181 18,913 73, 7
1,5,090 14,280 98,4
27,042 25,056 190 , <~
255,113 175,010 904,4
130 797 S
3,648 15,552 19 , 5
5,798 33,485 40,5
60,905 35,577 98, 7
250 0 ::
57,472 8,977 66, I,
128,203 94,388 226,4
24,832 46,655 72, i
36,625 5,037 45, !,
31 ,963 74,580 109,E
8,562 2,481 1 1 , C
52,307 25,785 , 78,S
218,751 42,074 279, C
60,J(lJ 2 /,,%7 C) 5 , I
433,605 221,579 6<) 2, C
0
125,764 40,568 174,E
89,657 9,630 103,3
8,891 1,096 10, 1
224,312 51,294 288,3
1,162,613 580,332 3,663,9
Specie
Kings
Reds
Coho
Pinks
Chums
Specie
Kings
Reds
Coho
Pinks
Chums
No.
1981
AVERAGE PRICES PAID FISHERMEN FOR SALMON
(Fish Ticket Data)
Price Range x Price
$1. 45 -$1. 50 $1. 48
1.00 -1. 56 1. 28
.65 -.80 . 73
.40 -.44 .42
.48 -.60 .54
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AVERAGE WEIGHT PER FISH
Kings 18.9/1b
Reds 7.3/1b
Coho 7.6/1b
Pinks 3.9/1b
Chums 7.8/1b
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ESTH-tATED VALUE TO THE FISHERHEN
Average Lbs.
Caught Per Fish No. Pounds
2,694 18.9 50,832
1,839,469 7.3 13,486,031
78,805 7.6 602,603
1,162,613 3.9 4,479,368
580,332 7.8 4,502,632
Estimated total value to fishermen ~ $22,090,007.07
Estimated income per vessel = $2l4,466.09
6 C-68
Per Fish
$ 31. 86
9.32
5.08
1. 59
3.82
Average
Price Value
$1. 48 $ 75,231. 36
1. 28 17,262,119.68
.73 439,900.19
.42 1,881,334.56
. lI', 2,431,421.28
1981 SALUJN CATCH BY SPECIES, WEEK
STATISTICAL AREA AND DISTRICT
CONTINUED
CENTRAL DISTRICT
Area \.'eek Ending Boats Lndgs. Kings Reds Cohos rinks Chums Total ----
272-20 24 June 13 1 1 0 367 0 1 1 369
Chignik Bay 25 June 20 6 6 0 1,944 0 0 0 1,944
27 July I~ 1 1 0 260 0 6 0 266
28 July 11 1 1 0 30) 0 149 207 659
29 July 18 14 23 19 8,834 201 4,048 5,))9 18,441
30 July 25 6 10 3 750 166 1,)76 2,42 ) 4,718
31 Aug. 1 4 4 1 218 188 1,560 616 2,58)
32 Aug. 8 8 8 0 172 159 6,816 1,745 8,892
)3 Aug. 15 10 16 0 287 1,064 26,384 4,75 ) )2,488
34 Aug. 22 8 10 0 1,255 425 5,066 1,288 8,034
TOTALS 26 80 2) 14,)90 2,203 45,406 16,)72 78,394
0"1
N -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
I u
212-30 24 June 13 8 27 5 2),989 0 196 185 24,375
Hook Bay 25 June 20 12 45 6 34,729 0 1,175 )77 36,287
26 June 27 8 9 0 6,489 21. 2, ))0 893 9,736
27 July 4 15 28 0 12,950 0 2,211 1,658 16,819
28 July 11 18 68 17 54,204 37 8,583 25,)15 88,156
29 July 18 26 11 17 53,961 958 7,892 20,)56 83,184
)0 July 25 23 81 18 24,146 981 19,204 23,966 68,)15
)1 Aug. 1 24 52 3 12,262 1,206 24,704 15,328 53.503
)2 Aug. 8 7 16 0 2,591 ))5 16,159 4,115 2),200
)) Aug. 15 10 16 0 4,053 1,213 16, 7)0 2,544 24,540
)4 Auf!. 22 7 14 16 1,511 509 6,613 2,603 11,252
35 Aug. 29 1 1 0 )85 37 1,127 386 1, 935
TOTALS 47 428 82 231,270 5,)0() 106,924 97. 726 441.302
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-,.--, r--,
APPENDIX D
REPORT RECIPIENTS
AND
PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBIT NUMBER
1. Report Recipients
2. Letter from State of Alaska Division of Parks, dated 2 March 1981
3. Letter from State of Alaska, Division of Parks, dated 16 March 1981
4. Letter from State of Alaska, Division of Parks, dated 3 January 1983
5. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated 1 February 1983
Federal Agencies
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
REPORT RECIPIENTS
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation, NOAA, Department of Commerce
Department of Energy, Division of NEPA Affairs
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Advisor on Environmental Quality
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, Department cf Interior
Deputy Assistant, Secretary for the Environment
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Civil Works Programs
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
Director, Alaska Operations Office, Environmental Protection Agency
Director, Alaska Region, National Weather Service
Regional Director, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Commander/Director, U.S. Army CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire
Chief, Alaska Division, U.S. Army CRREL, Fairbanks, Alaska
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation
National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska
National Park Service, Juneau, Alaska
Soil Conservation Service
Area Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Supervisor, WAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service
National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska
Director, Anchorage Field Office, National Ocean Survey
Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S.G.S., Water Resources Library
Alaska Resources Library
U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
Honorable Tea Stevens, United States Senate
Honorable Frank Murkowski, United States Senate
Honorable Don Young, House of Representatives
State Agencies
Executive Director, Alaska Power Authority
Director, Division of Strategic Planning
Director, Division of Governmental Coordination
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management,
Southcentral District
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska
E~~i~it 1
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska
Coordinator, Office of Coastal Management
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Environmental Conservation, Southcentral Regional Office
Commissioner, Department of Commerce and Economical Development
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
Honorable Bill Sheffield, Governor
Alaska State Library
Alaska Historical Library
Organizations
Alaska Conservation Society, Kodiak-Aleutian Chapter
Anchorage Audubon Society
Library, University of Alaska, FairQanks, Alaska
Library, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska
Director, Institute of Waters Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska
Arctic Information and Data Center
State Representatives, Friends of the Earth
Alaska Native Foundation
Alaska Center for the Environment
General Manager, Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative
Local
Honorable Dan Boffey, Mayor
Karen Carlson, City Council Member
Arlene Kopun, City Council Member
George Tinker, City Council Member
Glenn Suydam, City Council Member
Ernie Carlson, City Council Member
David A. Patterson, Sea-Alaska Products Incorporated
Exhibit 1 cont'd.
~~17~ ~.\.? P li'l I I I ~ ~. U I "JIb
l \ i ! : , .. , / .~ \
n n '~', 1t=0
l
n17 n
!U\ il' /u' ~ Ir\ iLl\ LnJ LSlrJ \0 u \ilFu I
!
i
I
I
.'
I
/ 6'19 ,'.I.J_ ·(:::.-flOU~: OR., SUIJ t 2;;]
ANC.:"lv,-.AGE, .. ·.~.;-.SK...:... ::;~-':Dl
DIVISION OF P)'FlXS PHONE: 274-4676
Harch 12, 1981
Re: e30-2-l
Alaska District Corps of Engineers
Environmental Section
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Attn: }1r. William Lloyd
Subject: Proposed Chignik lake Hydro Project
Dear~r. Lloyd:
\\Te have reviewed the subj ect proposal and would like to offer L,,'-'
following comments:
STATE HIS~ORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
Our review indicates that significan~ cultural resourc,'s ~aybe 1~~act2d.
Specifically, AHRS sites CH...1{-005 and CHK-013 may be ac\'c:r-sly i::.:;.,.::ted.
Therefore, per 36 CFR 800, a preconstruction cultural resources s~rvey
is recorc.;:.cnded. If there are any q~,Z7Pl }f~e-co.-::.. ..... ct TyJi.~lip:";~r:..:!
of this office. i;;:;t~ y 't:::'J
Robert D. Sha,<l
State Historic Preservation Offi'::2r-
STATE PARK PL~~~ING
The propos<2d action is consistent with the Alaska Coas~,1l Hanag..:.:. ,-,nt
Program's recreation standard.
LAND .i\J.'m h'ATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRA'1
No comment.
Sincerely,
Ixhi bit 2
I-larch 16, 1981
Re: 1130-2-1
.~aska District Corps of Engineers
Environmental Section
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Attn: Mr. Hilliam Lloyd
DI'-IISION OF PARKS
Subject: Proposed Chignik Bay Hydro Project
1
Dear Mr. Lloyd: j
I
/
/ 6;9·i·'.fiEHOU~E DR., !.: :"E 21D
ANC-,i!AG£, A~ASK,I.. .If):;:;,
PHOr.'E,· 274-:676
We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer t~0
following COffiQents:
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
Our review indicates that significant cultural resources may be im-
.pacted. The mouth of the unnamed creek just south of Kegro Head .JOuld
have been an ideal location for a nativ~ habitation sice. The sites
proposed for construction at the head o~ Mud Bay and on the SOllL",72:3tern
side of Anchorage Bay may also have been village/camp lccations. The:-c.:-
fore per 36 CFR 800, a preconstruction Archaeologic;rl-jsurvey is re-
cOrnr.lended. If there are any questions,fiJ:;a~e 6nt.§c~t/TY ill'" lane 0:
this office. ~~.
, ' 7 ~-
J ~ ... ~ _ ,I
~
~Obert D. ShaH
State Historic Preservation Offic~r
STATE PARK PLANNING
The proposed action is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Xana';L,:-ent
Program's recreation standard.
LAJ."iD AND \.JATER CONSERVATION FUND GR.:\~.JT PROGR.\l1
No comment.
Exhi bit 3
DEPARTMENr OF N&nJRAL RESOIJRCES
DIVISION OF "AIIICS
January 3, 1983
Re: 1130-2-1
Harlan E. Moore
Chief, Engineering Division
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Mr. Moore:
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
6'9 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 9950'
PHONE: 2744676
Thank you for the reports titled "Cultural Resource Assessment of Hydropower
Projects in the Chignik Region" and "Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Perryville Hydropower Project" by Julia L. Steele.
We concur with the archaeologist's recommendations in both reports with minor
exceptions. Both should, in our opinion, carry the caveats that 1) additional
survey may be necessary if there are major design changes, and 2) should
cultural resources be uncovered during construction, activities that may
damage those resources should be halted and the State Historic Preservation
Officer contacted immediately.
Thank you for your continued cooperation and sensitivity towards Alaska's
cultural resources. Please contact us if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Marquez
Director
,{/ , .~
/ ~Vl f... r-\ ~.
/ <.. --,-"I I --/-1-'"v '. -"'''-' I /J.L. ~v.·(:.. ~
By: , Ty L. Dilliplane - /
F" \' State Historic Preservation Officer
TAS: elk
Exhibit 4
IN REPLY REFER TO:
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ALASKA PENINSULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
P.O. BOX 277
KING SALMON, ALASKA 99613 -0277
907 -246-3339
February 1, 1983
Mr. Harlan E. Moore
Chief, Engineering Division
Alaska District, Corp of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, AK 99506
Dear Mr. Moore:
In response to your letter of January 20, 1983 concerning hydropower
development on Indian Creek near Chignik~ I believe an EIS would
be the appropriate document to evaluate impacts. Because Indian Creek
supports anadromous fish and the proposal calls for dewatering Indian
Creek significant impacts are obviously present.
GE/ks
Glenn w. Elison
Refuge Manager
Exhibit 5