HomeMy WebLinkAboutLake Dorothy Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Package 1996•
•
•
•
•
•
III
•
•
..
II
•
•
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC.
LAKE DOROTHY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC NO. 11556-000
FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION
INITIAL CONSULTATION PACKAGE
March 1996
RECEIVED
MAR 2 8 ~996
REGULA 1 UKY t-UN\...IIV":' t1RANCH
AloSKO District, Corps of Engineers
•
..
• ..
•
•
•
..
..
,.
•
•
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC.
LAKE DOROTHY HYDROELECfRIC PROJECT
FERC NO. 11556-000
FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION
INITIAL CONSULTATION PACKAGE
Prepared by:
Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc.
and
Tinney Associates
March 1996
; ..:",:~n Kcsour;:;cs I.-ibrary ;.~ ):1formation Services
. Libwry Jui:di;ig. Suil~ 111
3211 provkkncc Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508--1-614
..
•
•
•
• ..
til
•
•
..
-
•
-
Lake Dorothy
Hydro, Inc.
889 South Franklin Street
Juneau, AK 99801
March 21, 1996
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
Re: Lake Dorothy Hydroelectric Project
Federal Energy Regulator Commission (FERC) Project No. 11556
Initial Consultation Package
907 -463-6315
Fax 907-463-4833
Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc. (LDID) is investigating the feasibility of constructing a
hydroelectric generation project at Lake Dorothy, 16 miles southeast of Juneau, Alaska.
The project is designated in its preliminary pennit as FERC Project No. 11556.
LDID will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) in coordination with the FERC, the US Forest Service (USFS), and
any other agencies wishing to be a cooperating agency. The EA will be submitted as part
ofLDID's Application for License.
LDID provides the enclosed Initial Consultation Package (lCP) for your review and
comment in compliance with FERC's regulations. The ICP describes the proposed project
and identifies, to the extent possible, the affected environment and significant resources
present in the vicinity ofthe project site as required by regulation (18 CFR 16.8).
PUBLIC AND JOINT AGENCY MEETING DATE: Week of April 22-26, 1996.
LDID requests dates that would be preferable during that week. Exact date, time,
and location will be announced and published.
SITE VISIT DATE: Week of April 22-26, 1996.
LDID requests dates that would be preferable during that week .
If any parties cannot participate in this site visit, another site visit will be offered
during the NEP A Scoping process. The scoping meeting will be held in late
August or early September 1996.
COMMENT DUE DATE: Comments are due 60 days after the public meeting.
Written comments on the infonnation presented in this ICP are requested, and
include comments to LDID regarding the proposed project, environmental issues,
and recommended environmental studies. Federal regulations require that, not later
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
than 60 days after the public meeting (est date April 23, 1996), each interested
resource agency and native organization must provide LDHI with written
comments (18 CFR 16.8). The date is for response is approximately, June 24,
1996.
NOTICE TO AGENCIES: If the recipient of this ICP is not the person responsible
for consultation, contact Susan Tinney immediately at (907) 364-2233, with the
name, address and telephone number of the person your agency wishes to consult
on this project.
Susan Tinney, Licensing Coordinator for LDHI, will contact resource agencies to finalize
a date for a joint agency meeting and agenda items.
Any questions regarding the information package or upcoming public meeting can be
directed to the persons listed below.
Mr. Cony Hildenbrand
Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc.
889 South Franklin
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 463-6315 Fax: (907) 463-4833
Ms. Susan Tinney
Tinney Associates
2112A Second St.
Douglas, AK 99824
(907) 364-2233 Fax: (907) 364-2709
..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION
• General 1
• Background 1
• Proposed Project 1
• Location 2 • Hydropower in Juneau 2 •
• Project Need 3
• Map 5 •
D. GENERAL DESIGN 6
• • Water Coveyance 7
• Power Generation 8
• Power Transmission 9
• SCADA and Communications 11
ID. POWER OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION • Project Capability and Mode of Operation 12 •
• Alternative Generation 12
• IV. ENVIRONMENTALIRESOURCE IDENTIFICATION
AND PROTECTION 13 .. • Previous Studies 13
• Existing Environment 15
• V. STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME
• Drainage Basin and Watershed 22
• Hydrology and Power Generation 23 •
VI. PROPOSED STUDIES
• Fish and Wildlife 26
• Water Quality 27
• Botanical Resources 27
• Geology and Soils 27 .. • Cultural Resources 28
• Socioeconomics 28 -• Recreation 28
• Visual Resources 29
• Land Use 29
•
• -
•
..
•
•
..
..
..
•
..
VII. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 4.301(A)-
PURPA
VIII. REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A
• Preliminary Engineering Design Drawings
AppendixB
• Initial Consultation Package Distribution List
30
31
• ..
•
•
•
• ..
•
•
•
-
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION
GENERAL
The submission of this Initial Consultation Package (ICP) is the beginning of the formal
application process between LDID, the agencies and other interested members of the
public. The ICP is the principal focus of discussion during the first stage of consultation.
BACKGROUND
Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc. (LDID) was incorporated on August 24, 1995. LDID is a
subsidiary of the Alaska Energy Resources Company, and is an affiliate of the Alaska
Electric Light & Power Company (AELP). Persons responsible for development of the
proposed Lake Dorothy Hydroelectric Project (project) serve AELP in its operation of the
licensed Annex Creek and Salmon Creek Projects located in the City and Borough of
Juneau, FERC Project No. 2307. Annex Creek Project lands are under the jurisdiction of
the US Forest Service (USFS) and requires annual consultation with USFS staff regarding
maintenance and operation. AELP's stewardship of natural and social resources
established in its record of operating the Annex/Salmon Creek Project for over 30 years
will be applied to the proposed Lake Dorothy Project.
On August 24, 1995, LDID applied for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
preliminary permit to investigate the feasibility of developing the Project. The permit was
issued by the FERC on January 5, 1996, and assigned FERC Project No. 11556. The
permit term is 36-months, and sets the License Application filing deadline no later than
January 1, 1999. LDID is beginning its First Stage Consultation by submitting this ICP.
The ICP complies with the FERC's consultation requirements for filing for an Application
for License for the proposed Project.
During the permit term, LDID will consult with the resource management agencies and
the public to determine what effects this project will have on the environment and the
economy of Juneau. LDID will gather the necessary information to present in the FERC
License Application.
PROPOSED PROjECT
LDID proposes to develop the Lake Dorothy Project by tapping into the lake to develop
reservoir storage for inflow regulation. The Project would include a combination power
tunnel and underground penstock approximately 3 miles in length for water conveyance to
a surface powerhouse near tidewater. The powerhouse would contain two impulse-type
turbines that could develop approximately 31.4 MW of capacity from the 2,400 ft. of
available static head. A submarine cable transmission line, approximately 4-112 miles in
length, would be necessary to intertie to an existing transmission line running from the
Snettisham Hydro project into Juneau. Average annual energy from the Project is
1
• ..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
-
•
-
estimated to be 166,400 MWh (this equates to about 40% of the existing hydroelectric
capacity for the Juneau power grid).
LOCATION
The proposed Lake Dorothy Project is located approximately 16 miles southeast of Juneau
(Lat. 58° 14.7' N., Long. 133° 58.4'W.) on the east shore ofTaku Inlet between Greely
and Jaw Points. Lake Dorothy lies at an elevation of 2421 feet, approximately 3 miles
from the south shore ofTaku Inlet. The Project is located within the Tongass National
Forest, US Forest Service (USFS) (CRM T42S, R70E, Sec. 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16,
17, 18,21,22,27; T42S, 69E, Sec. 1,12, 13,22,24,26 and 35). The total amount of
Federal land enclosed within the project boundary is about 5,600 acres.
The Project area has been extensively evaluated by the US Bureau of Reclamation as part
of a hydropower evaluation of Lake Dorothy that extended from 1948 through 1954.
Preliminary feasibility investigations conducted as a prelude to compiling this report
included a preliminary environmental assessment, preliminary hydrology and power
studies, and a preliminary geology report.
HYDROPOWER IN JUNEAU
The climate and topography of Southeast Alaska are ideally suited for hydroelectric
generation, and many communities, including Juneau, are isolated from interconnection,
and derive a large portion of their energy from this source. Having barriers of the ocean,
mountains and glacier, Juneau's remote location is blessed with the geophysical
characteristics that lends itself to hydroelectric development. Juneau also has a history of
obtaining energy from long term, reliable hydropower sources. The projects listed below
continue to supply Juneau with hydroelectric energy.
• The Gold Creek Project, in downtown Juneau, is a "run-of-the-river" project
and was originally constructed in 1904;
• Annex Creek Project, located on Taku Inlet was constructed in 1915;
• Salmon Creek Project, 3-miles from downtown Juneau, was constructed in
1915; and
• The federally owned Snettisham Project began operating Long Lake in 1973,
the Crater Lake addition came on line in early 1990.
Hydropower has a number of advantages as a means of generating electricity.
Hydropower is a clean, renewable resource that is non-polluting and provides reliable
power over a long period of time. This offers consumers long term rate stability unlike
fossil fuel derived energy, which is dependent upon foreign oil and fluctuating prices. The
major consideration when deciding the feasibility of developing hydropower is finding a
site that can be developed economicaHy. If the site can be developed economically, the
next step is to determine if the project can be financed. Thus, much of the early work on
any hydro project focuses on site selection and evaluation, and feasibility studies.
2
• '.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• .,
•
•
Development of a hydro project typically 'takes between 3 -10 years, depending on the
size of the project.
Electricity is supplied to the CBJ by the federally owned Snettisham hydroelectric plant,
and AELP's smaller hydroelectric plants. AELP maintains 100% stand-by power, if
needed, by generating power using fossil fuel .
PROJECT NEED
In an effort to plan for the future, AELP contracted with The McDowell Group, Inc. to
prepare a report (dated February 1996) on Juneau's economic condition and outlook. The
report summarized that:
"Juneau's economy is in a period of transition. The community has experienced
significant economic growth since 1990 (2,500 new jobs), yet the community's top
industries, state and federal government, have been declining. Tourism is Juneau's
only basic industry that has grown significantly. All other growth has occurred in
the support sector."
" .... barring any catastrophic changes in state government, Juneau should expect
continuing population and employment growth, though at a slightly slower rate
than experienced between 1994 and 1995. Growth will not be uniform, however,
with state and federal governments showing further decline, and tourism showing
the only significant basic industry expansion."
"In terms of population growth, Juneau is expected to continue growth at an
annual rate of between 1.5% and 2%. Carrying these growth rates over a ten year
forecast period, Juneau's population would grow between 33,900 and 35,600 by
the year 2005. This represents a total population increase of between 16% and
22%."
"Ifboth the AJ and Kensington mines are developed, Juneau's population, will
grow at a faster rate, probably between 2.0% and 2.5% annually. At that rate, the
local population would rise to between 35,600 and 37,400 by 2005."
Demand for energy may soon exceed the capacity of current hydroelectric sources, as
growth in Juneau, both commercially and residentially, increases. Most of Juneau's recent
growth has been in the retail and service sectors. Juneau has become a retail sales hub in
Southeast Alaska, with consumers shopping at the Mendenhall and Nugget MaIls, K-mart,
Fred Meyer's and Carr's grocery and variety stores, and Costco for wholesale prices.
When energy demand exceeds the hydroelectric supply, AELP, as the regulated utility for
the CBJ, would need to provide additional energy by generating power with fossil fuel, if
additional hydroelectric facilities are not developed. One of the constraints AELP faces is
further dependence on fossil fuel as an energy resource, and the operating restrictions
3
•
-
•
,.
•
•
•
•
-
•
• ..
•
--
imposed on the current Air Quality Control Pennits to comply with the Clean Air Act the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed in 1990.
Juneau is all hydroelectric powered, except for stand-by power, and the community
strongly supports development of a non-diesel alternative to serve current and future
needs. The tradition of the Juneau community has been to look for innovative and low-
cost renewable energy resources within the region, rather than to rely principally on
imported and unpredictably priced fuel for diesel resources. In the 1990 Juneau 20-year
Power Supply Plan Update, prepared by CH2M Hill, Lake Dorothy was identified as the
best major hydroelectric project for supplying the electrical needs of the CBJ.
4
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
1
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
~nettisham West Terminal
Intertie Point
\
/
\
("" ( . ~.
Snettisham East Terminal
Intertie Point
,S"
/1 . I
Existing Overh~ad
Transmission lines
~II&~~~
~ \
FAIFBAN<S • \
IIfI"'l'
T42S R70E Section 13 VICINITY MAP Copper River Meridian
• , ,-
LAKE DOROTHY HrDRO.INC. .JUN£AU AI<
FE'Re PRC.JE'CT NC. 11556-00ll-AK
TITLE' LAKE: DDRIlTHY VlCINITY MAP
PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT G-1
SCALE:
D .... G. NIl
INT'S LDV"
DATE:
•
•
•
-
-
•
,
-
•
•
•
•
• ..
..
-
II. GENERAL DESIGN
Please reference Appendix A, Preliminary Exhibit G-l for project layout, and Preliminary
Exhibits F-I, F-2, F-4 and F-7 for conceptual project feature design.
The Project features include a lake tap into Lake Dorothy to develop reservoir storage for
inflow regulation; and a combination power tunnel and penstock, approximately 3 miles in
length, for water conveyance to a powerhouse near tidewater. The powerhouse would
contain two impulse-type turbines that could develop approximately 31.4 MW of capacity
from the 2,400 ft. of available static head. A submarine cable, approximately 4.5 miles in
length, would be necessary to intertie to an existing transmission line running from the
Snettisham Hydro project into Juneau.
The conceptual design of the Project includes the following major features.
• Water Conveyance:
• A 12 ft. diameter, horseshoe shaped, unlined power tunnel will be
driven approximately 15,000 ft. from tidewater to Lake Dorothy, at
elevation 2,240 ft.
• The lake will be "tapped" with the blasting of a 15 ft. plug,
approximately 240 ft. below the surface elevation of Lake Dorothy.
• A 54-inch, 2,000 ft. long, steel penstock will provide the transition
from the tunnel to the two power turbines.
• Power Generation:
• A bench, approximately 2 acres in size, will be cut into the hillside just
above extreme high water elevation to accommodate the powerhouse
and support facilities. A small cantilevered dock will be constructed at
the site to support boat service to the facility.
• Two, 15.7 MW Pelton type turbines will be housed in a powerhouse
located near tidewater. There will likely also be a caretaker/operator
residence at the site.
• Power Transmission:
• Power will be transmitted through approximately a 4.5 mile submarine
cable running from a point near the mouth of Dorothy Creek to the
existing West Tenninal intertie point at Point Bishop.
• The Thane substation will be upgraded to handle the increased load
from the Project.
• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and
Communications
The Project design will incorporate the requirements outlined in the Environmental
Protection Agency's Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations (40 CFR 112) for the facilities.
The regulations include designing for oil containment, spill prevention control and
countenneasure planning (SPCC), inspection, training, and documentation of compliance .
Following is a more detailed look at each project feature .
6
..
•
-
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ..
•
•
II
•
WATER CONVEYANCE
Reference Preliminary Exhibit F~2.
Water Conveyance for the Lake Dorothy Project consists of the inlet works and the
combination power tunneUpenstock. The Lake Dorothy Inlet Works consists of two major
components, the underwater lake tap into Lake Dorothy, and the inlet valve and valve shaft
that control the water flow into the power tunnel.
LDHI proposes the following:
• Inlet Works (Lake Tap El2,240
and Gate Shaft)
• Tunnel type 12~ft horseshoe shaped, conventional drill
and blast, unlined
• Tunnel length 15,750 feet
• Penstock diameter 54-inches
• Penstock length 2,040 feet
Underwater lake taps have a long and successful history in the Juneau area. AELP's Annex
Creek powerplant (1914) on the opposite shore of the Taku Inlet utilized, as far as can be
detennined, the North America's first underwater lake tap. Based on the available USGS
fathometer survey of Lake Dorothy, an underwater lake tap of240 ft is anticipated. A
preliminary location for the lake tap just to the north of the existing Lake Dorothy outlet, will
permit a tap into an area free of bottom sediments and well away from any snow avalanche or
rock fall areas such as those which surround the lake. Access to the lake tap will be from the
constructed power tunnel and will help to minimize the visual effects of the excavation in the
area.
The intersection between the lake tap area and the power tunnel will contain a concrete plug
with a hydraulic gate valve that will control the flow of water from the lake into the power
tunneL The valve will be operated from a valve house constructed on the surface on a rock
ridge above the tunnel. Access from the ground surface to the gate valve will be via a 15~ft~
diameter conventionally sunk shaft that will also serve as the air inlet for the power tunnel
dewatering .
A small prefabricated metal gatehouse containing an electric winch for examination of the valve
shaft and access to the power tunnel will be constructed at the surface. An electric generator
to supply power for operating the hydraulic motors controlling the inlet valve will be installed.
Access for construction, outfitting, and operation of the inlet shaft and gatehouse will be by
helicopter.
7
•
-
• ..
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
• -..
•
•
..
-
Based on the preliminary site geology report, the rock conditions for economical and safe
power tunnel excavation appear to be excellent. From the air photo analysis conducted as part
of the study, it appears that the power tunnel will be excavated totally within a high quality,
quartz diorite gneiss.
Construction of the power tunnel will be a value engineering approach. LDID proposes to
allow the contractor to decide whether to use a tunnel bore machine, or a conventional
drill and blast approach. The contractor, will base his decision on the equipment available
at the time of construction.
POWER GENERATION
Reference Preliminary Exhibit F-l.
LDID proposes to locate the powerhouse on the surface near tidewater at Taku Inlet. The
surface powerhouse will be the distinct feature on the outlet structure bench. The
powerhouse, approximately 42-ft-wide by I30-ft-Iong by 42-ft-high, will house the two
automated, remotely controlled, Pelton wheel turbines and their generators. Attached to
the powerhouse will be a 3 bay shop and storage facility approximately 42-ft-wide by 60-
ft-long. It is anticipated that the building itself will be an insulated, pre-engineered, slab-
on-grade, steel frame, metal clad building painted to blend into the environment. Within
the building will be·a bridge crane for assembling and maintaining the turbines and
generators.
Integral to the powerhouse will be a control room, machine shop, and supply storage for
the maintenance and operation of the facility. Control of the project will be from the
remote central operation station at the Thane Substation, and when necessary, the plant
can be controlled locally at the site. Power tunnel access to the powerhouse would be
through a chamber excavation for the bifurcation.
A boat will be kept at the facility for emergency service and for transportation of materials
if needed. Snow removal equipment, such as a backhoe, will be kept at the powerhouse as
well.
LDID proposes the following:
• Powerhouse Location Tidewater
• Powerhouse Type Surface (Architecturally designed to blend
with existing terrain)
• Turbines 2 Pelton-type
• Unit hydraulic capacity 185 cfs
• Generator output 31.4 MW total (initial run)
8
• ..
•
-
•
-
..
.'
•
• ..
•
•
•
-
•
•
..
-
The preliminary design for the powerhouse includes excavating an area approximately 600' x
130', by blasting a bench into the rock face. It is anticipated that the bench rock will be cast off
into Taku Inlet and will be used to provide a transition area for the submarine cable (refer to
Preliminary Exhibit F-4). Included in the powerhouse excavations will be construction of a
channel for the discharge waters. The outlet will be placed under the powerhouse and the
waters will flow to tidewater. It is anticipated that the powerhouse elevation will be above the
maximum stonn surge at maximum tide, and the outlet channel will slope to tidewater.
On the upslope side of the powerhouse will be a chamber connected to the power tunnel
excavated to contain the steel bifurcation that splits the water from the 54-inch-diameter steel
penstock for delivery to each of the two power generation units. It is anticipated that both the
outlet tunnel and the bifurcation tunnel will have nominal ground support requirements and be
essentially unlined .
POWER TRANSMISSION
Reference Preliminary Exhibit F-4 and F-7.
The power transmission component of the Project includes the following:
• The Lake Dorothy Powerhouse Substation;
• A New Submarine Cable transmission line;
• Two submarine cable support buildings;
• East Terminal adjacent to the powerhouse
• West Terminal adjacent to the existing building for the Snettisham
Project near Pt. Bishop
• Intertie into existing overhead transmission system to the Thane Substation
• Modifications to the Thane Substation to accommodate the Lake Dorothy
Project.
LDID proposes the following:
• Switchvard Location Adjacent to powerhouse
• Primary Transmission Line
0 Type: New submarine cable crossing to
intertie to existing 138kV overhead
line.
0 Length: Approximately 4.8 miles
9
..
•
•
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
-
•
..
138kV Submarine Cable & Support Systems .
The submarine cable portion of the project includes the cable and the east and west
terminal cable support buildings. The support buildings provide the transition for the
overhead bus work to the submarine cable, and required equipment to support the
submarine cable operating system .
The preliminary design for the support buildings include:
• Cable support systems that have a pressurized insulating oil system to ensure
positive pressure on the cables during their operational life.
• Stand-by emergency generators to supply power for critical support systems.
• Batteries and inverters to supply critical AC and DC power .
• SCADA interfaces to monitor the cable support system at the Thane
Substation.
Lake Dorothy Powerhouse Substation and Switchyard
The Lake Dorothy powerhouse substation and support building will be located adjacent to
the surface powerhouse, and will be fenced to provide security and safety. There will be
two transformers at the substation. Redundancy of the equipment will ensure reliability at
the Project Either transformer will be sized to transform the power generated by both
turbines. This will ensure reliability of service when performing maintenance on either
transformer.
The transformers will incorporate the standard AELP relay package mounted adjacently to
the transformer on the existing enclosure. Two. 138kV vacuum circuit breakers will be
installed. The breakers will provide the mechanism for isolating the submarine cable.
West Taku 138kV Cable Interface Switchyard (near Pt. Bishop)
There will be one 138kV vacuum circuit breaker feeding the Lake Dorothy cable and one
138kV vacuum circuit breaker to feed the Snettisham Project A new 138kV dead-end
structure will be constructed to support the 138kV line where it ties into the overhead
transmission line. The new structure will be located near the terminal buildings.
Thane Substation Modification
Modifications to the Thane Substation are required for the Lake Dorothy Project to
incorporate it into the Juneau power grid. The expansion is needed to accommodate the
additional step-down transformer and bus work.
10
•
•
-
•
.,
..
• ..
•
-
•
•
-
-
..
..
-
SCADA & COMMUNICATIONS
LDID will install a Supervisory Communication and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to
monitor and control the Project, and communications. This system, as proposed in the
preJiminary design, would incorporate a microwave system and repeaters to serve the
Lake Dorothy Plant, the gate shaft at the outlet of the lake, back to the Thane substation.
Status points for monitoring the Project would include the gate shaft at the outlet of Lake
Dorothy, status of the turbines and generators (including power output, voltage,
frequency, and alarms), and the status of the cable support buildings. All the information
would be relayed to the operator at the Thane Substation.
It is envisioned that a microwave system will be installed for communications (telephone,
facsimile, etc.) for the contractor's use early on at the commencement of the project
construction .
11
•
-
•
II
• ..
•
•
•
.,
•
•
• --
.,
.,
.,
III. POWER OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION
Project Capability and Mode of Operation
This Project will supply additional hydroelectric energy for the CBJ. Currently, electricity
is supplied to the CBJ by the federally owned Snettisham hydroelectric plant, and AELP's
smaller hydroelectric plants. AELP also maintains 100% stand-by fossil fuel generation in
the event of loss of energy from the remote hydroelectric power sources.
Demand for this renewable energy may soon exceed the capacity of current hydroelectric
sources, as growth in the commercial and residential sector increases. When energy
demand exceeds the hydroelectric supply, AELP, as the regulated utility for the CBJ,
would need to provide additional energy by generating power with fossil fuel, if additional
hydroelectric facilities are not developed. One of the constraints AELP faces is further
dependence on fossil fuel as an energy resource, and the operating restrictions imposed on
the current Air Quality Pennits of its facilities to comply with the Clean Air Act the EPA
passed in 1990.
Preliminary power studies for Lake Dorothy, performed by R W. Beck, indicate an annual
firm energy production of 150,900,000 kWh, and average annual energy of 166,400,000
kWh. Comparatively, the annual firm energy available from the Snettisham project is
179,000,000 kWh for Long Lake and 106,000,000 kWh for Crater Lake (285,000,000
kWh total).
The Project will tap into Lake Dorothy to develop reservoir storage for inflow regulation.
Water for generation purposes would be conveyed by a combination power tunnel and
penstock, approximately 3 miles in length, to a powerhouse near tidewater. The
powerhouse would contain two impulse-type turbines that could develop approximately
31.4 MW of capacity from the 2,400 ft. of available static head. Water that passes through
the turbines would be released to tidewater. A submarine cable, approximately 4.5 miles
in length, would be necessary to intertie to an existing overhead transmission line running
from the Snettisham Hydro project into Juneau.
The project will be automated and remotely controlled by AELP's existing Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. This will allow AELP staff to remotely
start and stop the plant, and to monitor critical parameters of the power generation
facilities. The project will likely be staffed with an Operator/Watchmen for security
reasons related to the remote location of the plant.
Alternative Generation
The alternative to the Lake Dorothy Project to meet the future energy needs would be for
AELP to install additional fossil fuel generation capacity .
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
-
-
-
•
--
IV. ENVIRONMENTIRESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND
PROTECTION
Individuals associated with the development of the Lake Dorothy Project have been
involved for a number of years in operating other hydroelectric projects in Alaska and will
bring that knowledge to this effort. Regarding environmental protection and related
measures for the Project, the study team has considered the environmental aspects at each
step in project development. Project facilities will be sited, constructed, and operated
harmoniously with the surrounding environment. At this time, specific environmental
measures have not been developed. LDHI invites commentators on this ICP to provide
information regarding appropriate environmental protection measures during the formal
scoping meetings that will be held or in written response during the comment period.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
The Lake Dorothy hydroelectric project has been extensively evaluated as a hydropower
source since the late 1920's. There was a Preliminary Permit Application (No. 1038) filed
with the Federal Power Commission on November 26, 1929, and a permit granted on the
Project on June 5, 1930 1
. Application No. 755 included a request for a license of Lake
Dorothy at the same time a license was requested for the Long Lake project. This
application was authorized and terminated. .
The US Bureau of Reclamation undertook a series of geologic and feasibility studies on
developing Lake Dorothy as a hydropower source beginning in the 1940's and extending
through 1959. The reports conclude that development of Lake Dorothy is feasible from a
geologic standpoint, although its remote location and access to the area may increase the cost
of the project. Territorial and Federal agencies submitted statements to the USDI regarding
their interest in the project (Chapter VIII, Cooperating Interests, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Lake Dorothy Project Alaska. September 1949.).
Generally, all comments submitted in 1949 were positive toward development of Lake
Dorothy as a power source. In addition, the development was considered highly desirable to
attract the establishment of new industries and expand and modernize existing industries.
Listed below are the USBR historic reports.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Alaska -A Reconnaissance
Report on the Potential Development of Water Resources in the Territory of
Alaska. December 1948.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Hydroelectric Power.
Summary Data Lake Dorothy Project Near Juneau. 10-22-59.
1 Federal Power Commission. Water Powers of Southeast Alaska. Number 48, Dorothy Lake near
Taku Inlet. 1947.
13
-
• ..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
-
•
-
-
•
-
-
u.s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Lake Dorothy Project
Alaska. September 1949.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Status Report on the Lake
Dorothy Project Alaska. April 1955.
Athearn, M. J. Preliminary Geologic Report Lake Dorothy Project. US Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Alaska Geologic Report No.5, Alaska
Investigations Office, Juneau, Alaska. 28p. 1954
In the 1984 Juneau 20-year Power Supply Plan 2 and the 1990 Update to the plan 3, Lake
Dorothy was identified as the best major hydroelectric project for supplying the electrical needs
of the CBJ. The advantages cited in the 1984 report and summarized below include:
• Low installed cost. The low cost is primarily the result of the fact that the Lake
Dorothy is a lake tap project (not requiring construction of a dam) and that it is
close the existing transmission facilities.
• Very high head project (greater than 2,000 feet). Also, because of the steepness of
the terrain, it can be developed with a relatively short tunnel.
• Large storage capacity. Allows for a high degree of flow regulation and makes the
project valuable for meeting winter energy requirements.
• Total length of the transmission facilities required is only 4-112 miles. This is a very
short interconnection distance given the size and potential of the project.
• Proximity to Juneau. This project is the closest to the load centers of Juneau of the
hydro projects located south of Juneau.
The report did cite two disadvantages, they include:
• Powerhouse location is an area of extreme weather on a steep hillside, with limited
topographic area suitable for use as a powerhouse site. The cost to develop the
powerhouse could be costly.
• Currently in an undeveloped area. The development of such new sites can be costly
due to construction support requirements.
See References for complete bibliography on available data on the Lake Dorothy project
area.
2 Ebasco. 20-Year Power Supply Plan for Juneau, Alaska. 1984.
3 CH2M Hill. 20-Year Power Supply Plan Update for Juneau, Alaska. August 1990.
14
• ..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
-
-
-
-
-
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Early in January 1996, LDill contracted with Raven Environmental and R.W. Beck to do
a Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the Lake Dorothy Project. The general
findings in the report are discussed below.
Climate
The Juneau area is characterized by a mild maritime climate, heavy precipitation and high
number of cloudy days. Winter temperatures average 31.5°F at Juneau, and 26.9°P at Annex
Creek on Taku Inlet. July temperatures in Juneau average 55.3°P. Precipitation is highly
variable in the region, with the Juneau Airport averaging 90 inches of precipitation and 94
inches of snow per year. The average rainfall recorded at the Snettisham Power Project,
located 11 miles east of the Project, is 150 inches per year. Precipitation in the Dorothy Creek
watershed is estimated at 130 inches annually (Johnson, 1957). The average number of clear,
cloud free days at Juneau averages on 54 per year, while at Annex Creek on Taku Inlet the
average is 94 days (Johnson, 1957).
Geology
The Project lies within the Juneau Mining District, in the Coast Range subdistrict,
immediately adjacent to the Juneau Gold Belt subdistrict. Topography of the area is
rugged and mountainous, with elevations extending to more than 5,000 ft. within the Lake
Dorothy watershed. The Coast Range subdistrict is dominated by the Alexander terrane4
•
It is predominantly composed of metamorphosed Paleozoic through Triassic clastic
sediments (shale, siltstone, graywacke, and sandstone) and limestone with areas of mafic
and felsic volcanic rocks. Most of the rocks in the Juneau Mining District have undergone
at least one metamorphic event. In the Coast Range subdistrict the rocks have been
subjected to progressive regional metamorphism ranging from greenschist through
amphibolite. Extremely high grade metamorphic rocks exist in the core of the Coast
Range plutonic-metamorphic complex. In contrast to the adjacent area in the Juneau Gold
Belt subdistrict, which contains numerous mine workings and prospects, the Project area
is devoid of such features.
Lake Dorothy was formed by natural quarrying and abrasion by a thick mass of ice that
joined a major glacier flowing down Taku Inlet. Pleistocene glaciation completely
covered the area and was the dominant force in shaping the landforms in the area. Glacial
abrasion deepened the Lake Dorothy basin well below its present rock outlet and removed
virtually all preglacial material. Most of the area above Lake Dorothy is exposed bedrock,
with a few talus slopes and pockets of vegetation. A small delta of glacial debris, sand and
gravel material exists at the south end of Lake Dorothy originating from an existing, small,
receding glacier.
4 The geologic deScription of the Alexander terrane is based on the Bureau of Mines Special
Publication, Mineral Investigations in the Juneau Mining District, Alaska, 1984-1988.
15
•
•
• ..
• ..
•
..
..
..
-
• ..
-
-
-
-
-
-
Soils
Unconsolidated deposits in the Project area consist of glacial moraine, glacial outwash,
deltaic deposits, beach sand and gravel, and talus deposited since the retreat of the
Pleistocene glaciers. These deposits are typically small, less than 20 ft. deep, and
discontinuous over the project area. Glacial sediments are confined to creek valleys and
fronts of existing glaciers. The nearest large deposit of sand and gravel is the delta of the
receding Norris Glacier, about 7 miles north of Jaw Point.
The Soil Conservation Service (1962) has mapped the Project area as "SOI8". This
mapping unit is described as "Humic Lithic Cryorthods, very gravely, hilly to steep
association." The association has 1 0 components, split between well and poorly drained
descriptions. Generally soils on slopes of less than 1 0% tend to be hydric, or poorly
drained. Mineralized soils dominate the Project area when soils are present.
In the non-forested portions of the Project area residual soil is almost entirely absent.
Where it does occur it is limited to a few inches in depth. In the forested areas it is usually
only a superficial accumulation ofthin slope.wash, leaves, evergreen needles, and moss .
At low elevation and to the west of Dorothy Creek soils tend to be more productive (and
may be thicker due to less steep slopes in this area) and support a small amount of
commercial quality timber.
Site Seismicity
Juneau is in Seismic Risk Zone 3, which indicates that major damage may occur from
earthquakes equal to or greater than 6.0 on the Richter Scale. During the past 100 years
16 earthquakes of this magnitude or greater have been recorded for the greater Juneau
area. The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) earthquake data base was consulted
to determine the low intensity earthquake activity within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of the
Project. A total of 890 earthquake events, less than 4.0 on the Richter Scale, exists in this
data base for the Project.
Vegetation Resources and Effects
The Dorothy Creek watershed is dominated by rock and ice landfonns, which comprise 50%
or more of the watershed. The remaining area is dominated primarily by Alpine Tundra and
Coastal Rainforest, with limited occurrences of Muskeg. The lakes within the watershed are
deep, lack significant shallow water areas, and have precipitous shorelines that provide almost
no opportunity for the development of riparian or wetland vegetation.
Dorothy Creek flows over bedrock from Lake Dorothy to Lieuy and Bart Lakes, while
dropping 1,500 ft in elevation in a distance of 1.2 miles. Dorothy Creek drops another 900 ft.
in the remaining 1.5 miles before entering Taku Inlet. The last mile flows through a narrow,
steep-sided, forested north-south trending canyon. These physical conditions provide almost
no opportunity for significant occurrence or development of riparian or wetland vegetation.
16
•
•
..
•
•
•
•
II
-
•
•
-
-
-
-
--
There are few effects anticipated for vegetation in the Project area. This is due to the fact that
the Project features only include a lake tap, tunnel to tidewater, and a powerhouse site. Roads
and other surface support activities are not needed to complete the Project. Surface
construction activities will be limited to the Powerhouse bench and the location of the lake tap
above Lake Dorothy .
Fisheries Resources and Effects
Dorothy Creek is a nonanadromous, high gradient, Class III stream originating at Lake
Dorothy, flowing through Lieuy and Bart Lakes, and terminating in Taku Inlet. Eastern Brook
trout were stocked in Lake Dorothy in 1931, and were still present during an ADF&G survey
in 1972. Drawdown effects are not expected to significantly alter the oxygen content or
temperature of Lake Dorothy. However, the oo1y habitat that could be used for spawning
either exists on the face of the delta or in streams traversing it. This habitat may no longer be
accessible to fish use as a result of the Project. Based on LDHI's experience with the hydro
project at Salmon Creek, the drawdown effects of the lake, may not effect the survival of the
the small residual population of Eastern Brook trout in the lake.
The Taku Io1et is a 48 mile long estuary of the Taku River, the most important commercial
salmon river in northern Southeast Alaska. Taku Inlet carries a heavy glacial sediment load
originating both from glaciers within the estuary and from glaciers located along the Taku
River and its tributaries. T aku Inlet joins Stephens Passage approximately 14 miles south of
Juneau. The ProjeCt is located approximately 6 miles up from the mouth ofTaku Inlet where it
joins Stephens Passage.
The lower 15 miles ofTaku Inlet supports the most significant regional salmon fishery in the
Juneau area. Slightly more than 50% of the catch is comprised of Pink and Chum salmon,
while the rest is made up of almost equal amounts of Sockeye and Coho salmon. King salmon
make up less than 1% of the commercial catch. The Taku Inlet fishing district (ADF&G
statistical area 111-32) includes Taku Io1et and that portion of Stephens Passage enclosed by a
line extending from approximately Rhine Creek, near Bishop Point, to Point Arden, and thence
to Circle Point, just below Slocum Inlet.
In addition to the salmon fishery Taku Inlet also supports crab and shrimp fisheries.
Brown and Red king Crab, Tanner Crab, and Dungeness Crab are commercially harvested,
as well as several species of shrimp. However, these fisheries are quite small.
Project related effects to fisheries include the reservoir drawdown effects on Lake Dorothy
described above, and marine traffic effects in Taku Inlet that are limited to Project construction
related travel to the site. Travel will be coordinated with commercial fishing activities.
17
•
•
•
•
II
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
---
-
Wildlife Resources and EtTects
Mammals
The Project area lies at the lower end ofthe Taku Inlet. The Taku River is one of the major
corridors through the Coast range for movement of wildlife between the interior and the coast.
It is the only such corridor in Northern Southeast Alaska. As a consequence many terrestrial
mammals and birds may seasonally move through this region.
The Project area has an assemblage of mammals drawn from both interior and coastal regions
due to the Taku River corridor. Of the 49 species of mammals in Southeast Alaska, 39 may
reside or seasonally occur in the Project area. However, the Project area is not known for
having large concentrations of wildlife, and receives very limited hunting and recreational
activity. This may, in part, be due to the influence of strong Taku winds present in the area
and the lack of sheltered habitat from these winds. Most of the hunting and recreational
activity occur along the Taku River and the head of the Taku Inlet, 10-15 miles or more from
the Project area. This may be related to the greater diversity of habitat, and to the general ease
of accessibility from the water, which occurs in the river corridor and upper Taku Inlet.
The most notable wildlife use of the area is for goat hunting. There are no records that
indicate the Project area is used significantly to harvest other big game species or furbearers.
The Project area is easily accessible by floatplane from Juneau. The Project lies in Game
Management Unit (GMU) lC, which extends along the Southeast mainland ofLynn Canal and
Stephens Passage to the latitude of Cape Fanshaw and Eldred Rock, encompassing an area of
7,600 mi 2. There are typically 125-150 permits issued each year for this GMU, with a
corresponding success rate of25-33%. For the period 1990-1995 there were eight goat hunts
conducted in the Project area, which resulted in the harvest of one nanny. This level of use
accounted for less than 1 % of the hunting effort for GMU 1 C. In this general region of GMU
1 C, the most significant goat hunting areas are in Endicott and Tracy arms, and the upper Taku
Inlet area in the vicinity of Wright Peak.
Alaska supports a diverse seasonal bird population, and is the breeding ground for many
migratory species. There are at least 424 species known to occur in the State, and 298 in
Southeast Alaska, alone. Of these, 160 are known to nest in Southeast Alaska. More than
100 species are known to reside year round in Southeast Alaska. Within the Juneau area more
than 270 species have been recorded. However only 77 are commonly observed. It is likely
that fewer species may be observed in the Project area than the 77 commonly observed, since
the Project area does not contain the Black Cottonwood and shallow intertidal habitats present
in the Juneau area.
The last Bald Eagle survey was conducted in this area more than 15 years ago. At that time
two Bald Eagle nests were recorded in the vicinity of the Project. The closest one (#95) lies
approximately 700 ft. west of the mouth of Dorothy Creek. The second one (#96) is located
18
•
..
•
..
•
•
..
..
,
..
,.
••
•
-
-
-
-
-
1/4 mile north of Dorothy Creek. The present status of Bald Eagle nests in the Project area is
unknown.
Northern Goshawk are known to occur in the Point Salisbury area and on the southern
shoreline of Douglas Island. Although no sightings have been reported from the Project area,
the proximity of other sightings to the Project area suggests that they may be present in the
Project area .
There have also been reports of Peregrine falcons using the cliff areas to the north of Dorothy
Creek. However, this activity, and their seasonal presence, is unconfirmed.
A Steller's Sea Eagle also inhabits the Taku River Valley. This species, native of Russian
Siberia, is the only know occurrence in North America. It has resided in the Taku River Valley
for the past 7 years. It is most commonly seen at the confluence of the Tulsequah and Taku
rivers, eight miles above the US-Canada border, but has been sighted up and down the river
and upper Taku Inlet.
Effects
Wildlife effects are expected to be of short duration and minimal. This is in large part due to
the design features of the Project. The only surface activities are associated with a
powerhouse location near tidewater and a lake tap at Lake Dorothy. The total land area
disturbed by the project is expected to be less than 4 acres, with less than 2 acres permanently
altered to support the powerhouse and associated facilities.
It is likely that goats may be displaced temporarily during the 2 month work period needed to
construct the lake tap. This activity might also interfere with goat hunting in the area during
that year. However, no residual effects are expected after completion of the lake tap.
The powerhouse site is proposed for a cliff area adjacent to the mouth of Dorothy Creek.
Preparation of this site will result in minimal alteration of existing habitat~ and, because of the
cliff, will not affect existing patterns of wildlife use of the area. However, there may be some
avoidance of the mouth of Dorothy Creek during the 2 year construction period .
Project-related effects to Bald Eagles and other raptors is not expected to be significant.
However, if any new nests have been established closer to the mouth of Dorothy Creek in the
past 15 years then some conflict may occur. This will not be known until an Eagle survey is
conducted in the area to look for nest trees. Confirmation of the occurrence of Peregrine
falcons in the area is also needed before any concerns for this species could be addressed.
19
• -
•
•
•
•
•
..
• ..
•
•
•
-
-
-
-
-
Water Quality
At present the entire flow of Dorothy Creek, averaging 96.2 cfs, enters Lieuy and Bart Lakes.
Once the Project is completed only 9.9 cfs can be expected to flow into Lieuy Lake, and 26.8
cfs into Bart Lake. These flows are derived from surface runoff within the watershed and
would not contain the glacial silt that originates from Lake Dorothy. Both lakes would be
expected to become clear water lakes in a short time with an increased euphotic zone.
Additionally due to the 70-90% reduction in glacial and high elevation watershed runoff water,
lake waters are expected to warm considerably during the summer months. Due to the
deepness of these lakes it is anticipated that lake waters will become stratified, with warm
waters confined to a shallow surface layer. The slow lake flushing rates, resulting from the
reduced inflows, combined with temperature differences between surface and deeper waters,
could result in blocking the exchange or flushing of bottom waters during summer stratification
periods. Some enhancement of lake productivity might also be expected as a result of the
warmer summer temperatures. However, this effect may be very limited due to the low
concentration of nutrients in these high quality waters.
The hydrologic analyses for the Project indicate that the maximum fluctuation of the water
level in Lake Dorothy could reach 162 ft. However, during most years the fluctuation in
surface water level is expected to seasonally reach only 41 ft. In most years the lake is not
expected to flow into Dorothy Creek. This will result in dewatering of the section of Dorothy
Creek flowing into Lieuy Lake. This portion of Dorothy Creek flows over bedrock and drops
700 ft. in 0.6 miles. ·Analysis of air photos shows virtually no pool or riffle structure in this
segment of Dorothy Creek. It appears to cascade as a white water stream from its outlet to
the point where it flows into Lieuy Lake. No significant effects have been identified with
dewatering of this portion of Dorothy Creek.
Recreation
Lake Dorothy is accessible by floatplane from Juneau. Local charter services occasionally fly
tourists to the Lake Dorothy for camping and alpine hiking. It is not a frequently used
destination, but may represent a half dozen or more destination trips during the summer and
fall. The air charter services also fly goat hunters into Lake Dorothy during the Fall hunting
season .
There is a 4-5 mile trail from tidewater to Lake Dorothy. However, the trail can not be
detected from helicopter or aircraft overflights of the area. The only records of trail use in the
area are associated with the abandoned USGS gaging station on the lower end of Dorothy
Creek. The US Forest Service has removed the trail designations from their topographic quad
maps because of lack of information on public use and because it has not been maintained.
The marine waters in the Project area are not suitable for recreational development or use of
shore fixed structures. The area is subject to strong local tidal currents and scouring by ice
flows and debris when tides are greater than + 15 ft. The deep water adjacent to the shore also
precludes anchoring at Dorothy Creek.
20
•
-
•
•
• ..
..
..
III
•
-
--
-
-
Cultural Resources
In contrast to other areas near the Project, this area appears to have no recent history of
cultural use. The Office of History and Archaeology has no records of historic sites occurring
in the Project area. The area is also not listed in the Sealaska inventory of historic sites in the
Juneau area. The closest site to the Project is Taku Village near Point Bishop on the west
shore of Taku InJet. This may be a result of the general inaccessibility of the east shore of
Taku Inlet between Jaw and Greely Points due to cliffs, precipitous shorelines, and deep water.
21
..
..
•
•
..
--,.
•
-
•
all
•
-..
-
-
-
V. STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME
Drainage Basin and Watershed
The Project lies wholly within the Dorothy Creek drainage basin on the southeast side of
Taku Inlet. The Dorothy Creek watershed is approximately 15 me, and ranges from sea
level to over 5,000 ft in elevation. Approximately 72% of the watershed lie above 2,500 ft
elevation. Less than 4% of the watershed lie below 1,000 ft elevation. Three lakes carved
into the bedrock by glaciers, Lieuy, Bart, and Dorothy, ranging in surface area from 80 to
950 acres, are located in the watershed. The drainage basin consists of extensive areas of
bare, placated rock, particularly above 1,800 ft elevation. Shrubs and sparse forest cover
much of the drainage below 1,800 ft to less than 800 ft elevation. Below the 800 ft
elevation the watershed is covered mostly by a mixture of sparse to commercial quality
timberlands.
Lakes
Lake Dorothy is the largest of the three lakes, and the origin of Dorothy Creek. More than
72% of the watershed lie above and drains into Lake Dorothy, which sits at an elevation of
2,421 above sea level. The surface area of Lake Dorothy is approximately 950 acres. It is
approximately 31/l. miles long, I/z mile wide over most of its length, and 3/. mile wide at its
widest point. Lake Dorothy is a steep-sided, elongate lake that reaches a maximum depth
of 565 ft. Water depths in excess of300 ft are reached within 500 ft of the shoreline,
except at the south end of the lake where glacial debris and outwash have created a small
delta.
Lieuy Lake lies downstream 0.6 miles west of Lake Dorothy on Dorothy Creek. It is at an
elevation of 1,710 ft., and has a surface area of approximately 80 acres. It was formerly
known as Veronica Lake. Less than 10% (approximately 1.4 mi 2
) of the Dorothy Creek
watershed drains into Lieuy Lake.
The third lake in the watershed is Bart lake, formerly known as Mary Lake. It lies 0.6 miles
south ofLieuy Lake on Dorothy Creek at an elevation of 890 ft. Bart Lake has a surface
area of approximately 250 acres. It is a steep-sided lake with a maximum depth of 543 ft.
Water depths exceed 100 ft within 300 ft of the shoreline. Approximately 16% (2,4 mi 2
) of
the Dorothy Creek watershed drains into Bart Lake.
Dorothy Creek
Dorothy Creek is a nonanadromous, high gradient, Class III stream originating at Lake
Dorothy, flowing through Lieuy and Bart Lakes, and terminating in Taku Inlet. The total
length of Dorothy Creek is 3.6 mi. It drops more than 700 ft in 0.6 mi. to enter Lieuy Lake,
and then drops another 800 ft in 0.6 miles before entering Bart Lake. Dorothy Creek drops
another 500 ft in 0.5 miles as it leaves Bart Lake, and the remaining 400 ft in the last mile of
22
..
•
•
AI
•
"
••
••
•
•
-
-
...
-
its flow to Taku Inlet. Dorothy Creek flows over bedrock for most of its length and would
be classified as a high gradient incised glacial torrent channel (HC9) for most of its length.
Typical characteristics of these streams are gradients averaging 19%, bedrock confined,
mean incision depth of6.5 mi., and bedrock streambanks.
Hydrology and Power Generation
Data are available from two gaging stations on Dorothy Creek. The upper gage at the Lake
Dorothy outlet has nine years of data available for water years 1987 through 1995. The
lower gaging station 0.8 miles upstream from the mouth of Dorothy Creek has 36 complete
years of data for water years 1930 through 1941, 1943, and 1945 through 1967.
Location Drainage Area
(est. SQ. mi.)
Lake Dorothy at Outlet 11.0
LieuvLake 1.4
Bart Lake 2.4
Bart Lake Outlet to Lower USGS Gage 0.4
Site
Total Area at Lower USGS Ga~e Site 15.2
Stream flows at the lower gaging station average 143 cfs; with average maximum and
minimum flows of 184 and 108 cfs, respectively. The majority of this flow originates within
Dorothy Lake (81 %), with only 26.8 cfs originating from surface drainage into Lieuy and
Bart Lakes. The lowest streamflows occur from December through April, and highest in
July and August.
The average outlet flow from Lake Dorothy into Dorothy Creek is 123 cfs, and seasonally
ranges from 104 to 141 cfs. This represents approximately 86% of the average flow from
the Dorothy Creek watershed, as measured from stream gaging records near the mouth of
the creek.
Method
In January 1996, LDHI contracted with R.W. Beck to perform preliminary hydrology and
power studies. Two alternative approaches were selected by R.W. Beck to develop
estimates of Lake Dorothy monthly inflows. The first approach was with mUltiple
correlation using the HEC-4, Monthly Streamflow Synthesis computer model, which was
developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
second approach is referred to as a volume frequency distribution approach. It recognizes
23
•
J'
••
II
..
•
-
•
-
-
that, for Lake Dorothy, the development of the range and distribution of the time-series of
annual inflows is of critical importance. The volume frequency distribution approach is
suggested in the third edition of Ray Linsley's Hydrology for Engineers .
The volume frequency approach produces Lake Dorothy inflow results for the period of
record available at the Lake Dorothy Creek gage. To determine which method probably
yields the most accurate results, additional data from the Juneau vicinity was reviewed for
the recent period of record concurrent with the Lake Dorothy outlet recorded data.
Recorded data from the Mendenhall River, shows that flow for the 1987 through 1994
period was about 14 percent above the average for the longer term from 1966 through
1994. Precipitation data at the Juneau airport, show that the 1987 through 1994 period was
about 18 percent above the average for the longer term from 1950 through 1994 for which
recorded data is available. From this it is concluded that the 1987 through 1995 period, for
which data is available at the Lake Dorothy outlet, is a wetter than average period.
Therefore, HEC-4 Lake Dorothy inflow data set was selected for use in the power studies
because it should provide a better estimate of the average inflows.
Power Study Model Description
A monthly reservoir operation and power study model written in FORTRAN were
developed for the Lake Dorothy Hydro Project based on RW. Beck's standard reservoir
power model routines. Input to the model consisted of monthly inflows, an elevation-
capacity table, desired minimum flow through the conduit, desired maximum reservoir level,
and parameters as summarized below:
Parameter
Maximum normal pool
Minimum normal pool
Elevation of lake tap
Storage at maximum normal pool
Storage at minimum normal pool
Active storage
Tunnel type
Tunnel length
Penstock diameter
Penstock length
Turbines
Turbine centerline
Turbine efficiency
Unit hydraulic capacity
Generator output
Generator efficiency
Transformer efficiency
Station service
Value
E12,421
E12,259
E12,240
142,400 acre-feet
12,500 acre-feet
130,000 acre-feet
12-ft horseshoe-shaped conventional drill and blast,
unlined; or tunnel bore machined with a diameter
between 8-ft to 10-ft.
15,750 feet
54 inches
2,040 feet
2 Pelton-type
El30
91% avg.
185 cfs
31,4 MWtotal
96.5%
99010
0.5%
24
•
.'
•
••
•
•
..
•
•
..
•
-..
Based on the above parameters, hydraulic losses were estimated to be about 14 feet at a
conduit flow of 115 cfs, which is the average Lake Dorothy inflow, A maximum net power
output of about 31.4 MW would correspond to a flow of 185 cfs at the expected average
net head. It was assumed that all of the generation would be useable, which means there
would always be sufficient load to be served by the Project output.
Overall efficiencies would be about 86 percent. This reflects a short transmission line and a
powerhouse that would operate mostly at a constant flow rate and at almost the same head.
Under these conditions, the plant would operate near its point of maximum efficiency most
of the time. The Lake Dorothy elevation-capacity curve used in the power studies was
based on data from the 1955 USBR Status Report on the Lake Dorothy Project.
Power Study Results
Results of the power study were reviewed by LDill. The basic type of operation chosen
and presented in this ICP is Run 2 and is described below:
Installed Operation Average Firm Energy Maximum Hydraulic
Capacity Type Annual (MWh) Energy Capacity
(MW) Energy (MWh) (cfs)
(MWh)
31.4 Basic 166,400 150,900 200,000 185
Run 2 was recommended for use in preliminary economic studies. The installed capacity of
31.4 MW with a hydraulic capacity of 185 cfs were recommended for use in preliminary
layouts and cost estimates.
This model:
• Maximizes the firm energy, regardless of reservoir drawdown
• Increases flexibility of operation
• Gains some peaking potential
2S
•
•
•
•
•
•
• I.
•
• ..
•
•
,.
-
•
-
...,
VI. PROPOSED STUDIES
Considering the findings in the preliminary environmental assessment, preliminary
hydrology and power studies, the preliminary geology report, and discussions with
resource management agencies, the following section presents LDRI's current
understanding of the region. LDRI proposes the following studies.
LDRI has gathered historic and baseline site documentation through literature review of
historical reports, data base searches, resource agency consultation, photographs, site visit
reports, field note documentation and video recordings. After the initial agency meeting
has been conducted, and all comments are received, LDRI will build upon the existing
resources to document the environmental conditions at the project site.
The results of the site documentation will be presented in the Draft Environmental
Assessment portion (in lieu of an Exhibit E) of the License Application that describes the
existing environment.
Fish and Wildlife
Consultation will be maintained with the USFS and ADF&G to determine the possible
project related effects to the Eastern Brook Trout in Lake Dorothy. LDRI proposes to do
a fish popUlation survey in Lake Dorothy to confirm the presence offish. Spawning
habitat for the trout will be documented, to include areas of upwelling and permeable
gravel. Based on LDRI's experience with the hydro project at Salmon Creek, the
drawdown effects of the lake, may not effect the survival of the fish in the lake .
LDRI will consult with the USFWS regarding nests for Bald Eagles and the Peregrine
Falcon. If any nests are identified, they will be documented and mapped. The area of
concern for nests is limited to the powerhouse bench. An aerial survey for nests will be
conducted, and if Bald Eagle or Peregrine Falcon nests are found, appropriate avoidance
guidelines will be followed during construction. Since Peregrine Falcons nest in cliff
areas, it is assumed that the excavation of the bench for the powerhouse will create
additional nesting areas for this species, therefore, the additional nesting areas created
should mitigate any project-related effects for the Peregrine Falcon.
The Northern Goshawk has been spotted in the Point Salisbury area. When conducting
the nest survey described above, any sightings of the Northern Goshawk will be
documented.
Most of the project features are located underground, with the exception of the
powerhouse. The location for the powerhouse is a steep rock face (approximately 350-ft)
that descends into tidewater. Site visits to the lake area have confirmed the presence of
bears and goats. Mountain Goats are the species of concern and the project-related
effects to this species are limited to the construction of the lake tap.
26
..
•
•
•
'.
•
•
•
..
-..
Experience by other developers of hydro projects indicate that wildlife living near or
passing through the Lake Dorothy Hydro Project while under construction, will either not
be affected or would only be temporarily affected by the noise and activities of
construction.
The Applicant will be working with the USFS, ADF&G and USFWS to address any other
wildlife concerns.
Water Quality
In order to document the baseline water quality, ,samples will be taken at the outlet of
Lake Dorothy near the upper and at the outlet of Dorothy Creek near the abandoned
lower gaging station.
It is proposed that USGS take the samples at a time when they are conducting a stream
gage check. At the time USGS takes the samples, they will document temperature, pH,
turbidity and conductivity. The samples will be sent to a laboratory for analysis, in
accordance with the FERC license requirements. Analysis may include measurements of
significant ions, chlorophyll-a, nutrients, total dissolved solids, total alkalinity, total
hardness, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, suspended sediments, and turbidity.
Because Dorothy Creek is a nonanadromous stream, no effect is expected from the
diversion of the water through the tunnel and turbine to tidewater north of the creek.
Effects to the lower lakes are limited due to the low concentration of nutrients in these
high quality waters.
Botanical Studies
The Project area is located within the Tongass National Forest. The USFS reports that
there are no threatened or endangered species in the area. Few effects are anticipated for
vegetation in the Project area, this is due to the fact that the Project features only include a
lake tap, tunnel to tidewater, and a powerhouse site. Roads and other surface support
activities are not needed to complete the Project. Studies proposed are limited to a
biological evaluation for sensitive plant species, and may include a ground survey. The
study area will be limited to the areas involving surface construction activities, which are
the Powerhouse bench and the location of the lake tap at Lake Dorothy.
Geology and Soils
The draft License Application will contain a detailed description of the geologic features
and soils. These will include bedrock lithology, stratigraphy, structural features, glacial
features, unconsolidated deposits, mineral resources, soil erodability and potential for
27
•
•
•
•
•
It
..
..
mass movement. A description will be provided to show the location of existing and
potential geological and soil hazards.
Cultural Resources
In contrast to other areas near the Project, this area appears to have no recent history of
cultural use. The Office of History and Archaeology has no records of historic sites
occurring in the Project area. The area is also not listed in the Sealaska inventory of
historic sites in the Juneau area. The closest site to the Project is Taku Village near Point
Bishop on the west shore ofTaku Inlet. This may be a result ofthe general inaccessibility
of the east shore ofTaku Inlet between Jaw and Greely Points due to cliffs, precipitous
shorelines, and deep water.
In addition to the literature search already conducted and telephone discussions with
selected agencies, LDID will consult with local historians and archaeologists to ensure all
areas of known or possible concerns are examined. All Federal and State antiquities' laws
and records will be reviewed. The work will be conducted by an entity approved by the
State Historic Preservation Officer. The data will be compiled and reviewed, and potential
effects to any identified resources will be identified.
Socioeconomic Studies
Socioeconomic studies will be conducted once agreement regarding the scope of
necessary studies is reached with the agencies during the initial consultation meeting.
They will generally include a literature search and telephone discussions with selected
agencies. Once studies are completed, data will be compiled and reviewed, and changes
resulting from the project that will affect the local economy and the region will be
identified.
Recreation
As stated in the Existing Environment section ofthis ICP, the Project area is not heavily
used for recreation. Project-related effects are limited to the season of construction
activity. This activity may detract from the remote character of the lake and its
surroundings during the construction period. Once the project is on line, visitors will be
able to continue experiencing a wild lands setting. A recreational plan will be prepared in
consultation with the resource agencies as part of the Draft EA of the FERC License
Application .
28
-.
•
...
..
..
..
Visual Resources
The draft License Application will present a plan to protect visual resources. The
powerhouse and substation will be constructed in as unobtrusive a manner as possible, and
architecturally colored to blend into the landscape. Specific measures will be developed in
consultation with the USFS.
Land Use
The draft License Application will describe the existing land uses of the proposed project
lands and those land uses that would occur if the project is constructed. Identification of
lands will be made on a map, drawing, or aerial photograph to show the location, extent
and nature of land uses .
29
---
•
".
•
•
•
..
III
VII. PURPA STATEMENT
Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc. does not intend to seek benefits under section 210 ofPURP A
and will not seek to satisfY the requirements for qualifYing as a small hydroelectric power
production facility as outlined in 18 CFR 292.203 .
30
• ..
-
•
•
..
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
VIII. REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADF&G. Life Histories and Habitat Requirements ofFish and Wildlife. Alaska Habitat
Management Guide. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Division of Habitat,
Juneau, Alaska. 1986.
ADF&G. Wildlife Notebook Series-Pikas, Lemmings, Hares, Bats, Porcupine, Shrews,
Voles, Marmot, Mink, Muskrat, Northern Flying Squirrel, Red Squirrel, Weasels,
Sitka Black-tailed Deer, Coyote, Black Bear, Brown Bear, Moose, Mountain
Goat, Lynx, Beaver, Wolverine, Wolf, River Otter, Red Fox, Marten, Eagles,
Common Rav(!n, Chickadees, Boreal Owl, American Dipper, Accipters, Greater
and Lesser Yellowlegs, Grouse, Gulls, Ptarmigan, Sparrows, Woodpeckers,
Osprey. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 1994.
Annstrong, R. H. A Guide to the Birds of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing
Company, Anchorage, Alaska. 1980.
Annstrong, R., and P. lsleib. Listing of Birds of the Sheep Creek Watershed and Adjacent
Gastineau Channel. Undated.
Athearn, M. 1. Preliminary Geologic Report Lake Dorothy Project. US Department of
the Interior, Bureau ofRec1amation, Alaska Geologic Report No.5, Alaska
Investigations Office, Juneau, Alaska. 1954.
CH2M Hill. Twenty Year Power Supply Plan Update for Juneau, Alaska. Submitted to
Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, Juneau, Alaska. 1990.
CH2M HilL AJ Mine Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Draft
Resource Characterization, Task 12.10 Cultural Resources, Archaeology, and
Subsistence. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency. 1995.
CH2M Hill. AJ Mine Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Draft
Resource Characterization, Task 12.6 Geology and Soils. Prepared for US
Environmental Protection Agency. 1995 .
City & Borough of Juneau. Comprehensive Plan of the City & Borough of Juneau.
Community Development Department, City & Borough of Juneau, 155 South
Seward S1. Juneau, Alaska, 99802. August, 1995.
31
•
-
•
..
•
•
•
..
•
•
•
•
..
•
..
EBASCO. Twenty Year Power Supply Planfor Juneau, Alaska. Submitted to Alaska
Electric Light and Power Company, Juneau, Alaska. 2 vol. 1984.
Environaid. Environmental Scoping Study of SnettishamlKetchikan Transmission Line
System. November 1981.
Federal Power Commission. Water Powers of Southeast Alaska. Number 48, Dorothy
Lake near Taku Inlet. 1947.
Gulliver, John S. and Roger E.A. Arndt. Hydropower Engineering Handbook. McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1991.
Hicks, M. D. Mountain Goat. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Annual Performance
Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, July 1, 1993-June 30, 1994. Alaska
Department ofFish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Grant W-24-2,
Study 12.0. 1994.
Icy Strait Environmental Services. AJ Mine Project, Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement. Draft Resource Characterization, Task 12.2 Terrestrial Birds and
Mammals. Prepared for CH2M Hill and US Environmental Protection Agency.
1996.
Isleib, P., R. Armstrong, R. Gordon, F. Glass. Birds of Southeast Alaska: A Checklist.
Alaska Natural History Association, Anchorage, Alaska. 1993.
Jarell, G. R., S. O. MacDonald. Checklist to the Mammals of Alaska. University of
Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska. 1989 .
Johnson, F. A. Water Power Possibilities of Sheep Creek, Carlson Creek, Lake Dorothy
and Turner Lake near Juneau, Alaska. Preliminary Report. US Departmentof
the Interior, Geological Survey, Open File Report. 1957.
Juneau Audubon Society. Birds of Juneau, Alaska, Checklist. Juneau Audubon Society,
P.O. Box 21725, Juneau, Alaska 99802. 1993.
LACHEL & Associates. Report on the Geology of the Lake Dorothy Hydroelectric
Project prepared for Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc. 1996.
McDowell Group, Inc. Juneau's Economic Condition and Outlook. Prepared for Alaska
Electric Light & Power Company. February 1996 .
O'Clair, R. M., R. H. Armstrong, and R. Carstensen. The Nature of Southeast Alaska.
Alaska Northwest Books, 22026 20th Ave., S.E., Bothell, W A, 98021. 1992.
32
•
•
'"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ..
..
•
•
•
Raven Environmental and RW. Beck. Lake Dorothy Hydroelectric Project Preliminary
Environmental Assessment preparedfor Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc. 1996.
R W. Beck. Preliminary Hydrology and Power Studies, Lake Dorothy Hydroelectric
Project preparedfor Lake Dorothy Hydro, Inc. January 22, 1996.
Research Design Productions, Inc. The Juneau Factbook. Research Design Productions,
Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 1983.
Rinehart, W., H. Meyers, and C.A. von Hake. Summary of Earthquake Data Base, Key to
Geophysical records Documentation No. 21, updated to 1995. US Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration, National
Geophysical Data Center, Boulder CO. 80303. Data base records compiled for
Lake Dorothy area minor earthquakes. 1985.
Seitz, H. R, and D. S. Thomas. Fathometer Datafrom Bart Lake and Lake Dorothy near
Juneau, Alaska, 1988-1989. US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,
Open File Report 90-152. 1990.
Streveler, G., and 1. BrakeL Mammals of the Gold and Salmon Creek Watersheds.
Report to the City & Borough of Juneau. Icy Strait Environmental Services,
Gustavus, Alaska. 1993.
Three Parameters Plus. AJ Mine Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Process Resource Characterization Draft Report: Vegetation and Jurisdictional
Wetlands. Prepared for CH2M Hill, Inc. and US Environmental Protection
Agency. November, 1995 .
USACOE. Snettisham Project, Alaska, Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement I.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska, April, 1981.
USDA. Soils of the Juneau Area. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. February, 1974.
USDA. Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area, Integrated Resource Inventory Draft
Mapping Unit Descriptions (Soil, Vegetation, Landforms). us Forest Service,
Region 10, Juneau, Alaska. 1991.
USDA. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Region 10. Publication RlO-MB-145, August, 1991.
USDA. Alaska Hydric Soils List. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. January, 1992.
33
-
•
•
•
•
,
•
•
'. • ..
• ..
USDA. Channel Type User Guide, Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska. US
Forest Service, Region 10, Technical Paper 26, April, 1992. .
USDI. Alaska --A Reconnaissance Report on the Potential Development of Water
Resources in the Territory of Alaska. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Alaska District. December 1948.
USDI. Lake Dorothy Project, Alaska. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation. September 1949.
USDI. Preliminary Geologic Report Lake Dorothy Project. Alaska Geologic Report No.
5. US Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Alaska District. October
1954.
USDI. Status Report on the Lake Dorothy Project, Alaska. US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Alaska District. 1955.
USDI. Compilation of Records of Qualltity and Quality of Sutface Waters of Alaska
through September 1950. GeologiC Survey Water Supply Paper 1372. US
Department of the Interior, Geologic Survey. 1957.
USDI. Hydroelectric Power. Summary Data Lake Dorothy Project Near Juneau. US
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Alaska District. 10-22-59.
USDI. A-J Mille Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Publication BLM-AK-ES-91-010-2800-
980. 1991.
USDI. Mineral Investigations in the Juneau Mining District, Alaska, 1984-1988. Bureau
of Mines Special Publication. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Juneau, Alaska. Undated.
USFWS. National Wetlallds Inventory Juneau area Quad Maps and Juneau "Notes to
Users". US Fish & Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska. 1988.
Viereck, L. A., and E. L. Little, Jr. Alaska Trees and Shrubs. USDA Forest Service
Agriculture Handbook, No. 410. 1972 .
34
..
..
..
• ..
-
..
-
-
..
Appendix A
Engineering Design Drawings
Preliminary Exhibits G and F
---
I
I 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
I
I 0 0
I
I
I I~ .. I
of ~l 600'
f 220' 380'
"'
C 100' C
PENSTlJCK
I ACCESS TUNNEL 1 20'
11500 ~24'-l 15' t----I 1--10'
I GAL 1 FUEL
D=-111 .....
PERMANENT PERMANENT SHOP/BOAT STORAGE
TEMP CRE'" CARETAKER'S (3 BAYS)
I QUARTERS QUARTERS I 42' [J ~~ : ....... 50' t 1
L ____ _ ....
13 8 JIiIIi.:
( STAGIMCi to ! B CDNSTRIXTlDN l--60' .1. i-=-~I 130' B
YIlRIC N<EA
130'
I I
I TAIL
I RACE
I --""'" ~....,
I I ... 60' ..J
24' BOAT DOCK
I 1 CRANE
A LIIKE DORUIHT HYDRO, INC. JUNEAU ALASKA A
FERC PROJECT NO, 11556-000-AK
TAKU INLET flTlE
RAMP LAKE DOROTHY PLAN VIEW' I SUR> ACE PO'IoIER HOUSE
-------
SCIU AIRPLANE PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT F-1 /OlE
FLOAT
ENGII IJRI1II CII<a DWG. NO. l_
( JHT'S CVH DMB SDG
DATE: I9G SH11T1~
I 8 7 .1 6 5 4 3 2 1
a~AIlVIN'\IlIlA"'INGS\6E",IbmTHY'L IIPLA"I,bllG
)(
I
f
J
I
I
I
I
f
.jIlQO ----
I -I I ---
3CIOO
I
I
VL.--
2500 vV
2IlOO -------~
I
(
I
1-V l--~ 12 " HOR5£gfQ£
~ ... 1-j(--_. _,O.Ol'l
!laO 54 1M DIA ITEIL PIP£ .-VV II 12 FT HORSESHOE ruM~
WI I J 1 I I 1 1 1 1 .1 I I I 1 1
SHOO 10+00 ,_ UIO+OO 1411+00 140+00 ,_ llO+()O 1_ 120-+00 115+00 110+00 10:1+00 100+00 95-+00
I PROFILE -SOUTH ALIGNMENT
I
I
I
f
{
-----,-------------~ --------r--
----
--'---L-__ L--L---i.---
..---
OPTION lS -
OPTION 2S
I I I I I I 1 1 .1 1 I I
55+00 50+00 25+00
------------~ -
-------
'-
~ I 15FT_
-=5~---==~
I--
I ,.,. DIAAoIETER _ lIOII£ ~
-I---1500
~:~Al.VE-
IMrAk£ ruNM£L It IIQCK IIIAPS ~ I--1-
I--
1 I I
1-0+00
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC. __
fERC PROJECT NO. 11556-000-AJ(
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO PROJECT
PROFIlE ALa«I TUNNEl. CEN1'ERUNE
PREUIoiINARY EXHIBIT F-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I o·
-201)'
I
I
I -BOO'
I 400'
(
{
NOT ctlNTlHWUS \11TH WEST TERMiNAl PRIFllE
INDICATES SLOPE FlDt EAST T£RM1NAl !JIll. Y
TAKU INlET
SEA LEVEL
Z400' ZOllO' 1800' 1600' 1400' IZOO' 1000'
EAST TERMINAL PRCF1LE
r; TRANSITI'l»I TO EXISTING
OVERHEAD POVER LINES
r VEST TERMINAL CABLE
INTERFACE BLDG
400'
TAKU INLET
SEA LEVEL
1000' 1200'
1000'
600'
EST. RQCI( flU. IN INLET TAKE-(Jft
-400'
-600'
-800'
800' 600' 400' o· ZOO' 400' 600' 800' 1000' 1200' 1400'
------------------~f
(
NOT CONTINUOUS 'WITH EAST TERMINAL PROfiLE
INDICATES SLOPE F'ROM "'EST TERNlNAL ONLY
1400' 1600' 1800' 2000' 2600' 2800' 3000' 3200' 3400'
VEST TERMIHAl. PRIFIl.£
1. PROnLE [S PRELIMINARY 8. R(QUIR£S FlJRTHER
INVESTIGATION. NO SOUNDINGS HAVE BEEN
TAKEN.
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO. INC. .JUNEAU AI(
f"ERC PROJECT NO. 115:\6-000-AK
TITLE LAKE DIJROTHY PO'WER CABLE TAKECFF
EAST & 'WEST TAKU TERMINAlS
PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT f"-4 SCALE
I
I
I
J
I
I
I ,
PROPOSED LAKE DOROTHY CABLE
fNTERFACE BLDG L EQUIPMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
PROPOSED
SUBMARINE CABLE TD
LAKE DORIlTHY
PLAN VIE\{
EXISTING
SUBMARINE CABLE TO
SNETTISHAM
~ m,,,,,, '''''''''' ".U INTERFACE BLDG L EQUIPMENT
~"" '" "ROO'""
I
I
i • I
I I • I ,
I I I
--Wr-L
EXISTING OVERHEAD
TRANSMISSION LINE Til
THANE SUBSTATION
~---------z:.---------
<1. ---
Ii
I' ! I t j I j 1: 11
" "~~--------~--a
D
SUBMARINE CABLE
TYPICAL SECTION
NIJ. REVISION DIIT£
LAKE DOROTHI HYDRO. INC. JUNEAU AI(
FERC PROJECT NO. 11556-000-AI(
--------------~
TITLE LAKE DOROTHY
VEST SIDE SUB STATION
SCALE
PRELlMINARY EXHIBIT F-7
CHKED I-I-Ni--':i---+---!=::':"-+---!=~--I---'="'S~D"'tl"--I DVG. NO.
DATE VEST-SUB
C.'ACADVIN'DRAV1NGS'GEN'DllRUTHY' \lEST -SUB
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
(
~+
~..".
..".
-d>",
Snettlsham West Terminal
Intertie Point
(".,
,
\
/
f ~ ..
: Existing Snettisham
l ~Ubmarine Cable :BIIhop Pi
~\ -~ ~
~,,~
Snettisham East Terminal
Intertie Point
" /( , I
i
/" jP.
/' ,
i
/
!
Existing Overhead
Transmission Lines
~jl~~~~
~\ ~ ~
,.JJtIIII
T42S R70E Section 13
Copper River Meridian
FAlJBDH(S • \
VICINITY MAP
NIl.
LAKEDOROTHY HrDRO.INC. JUN£AU
F"ERC PROJECT NO. 11556-000-AK
TITLE
LAKE: DOROTHY VICINITY MAP
PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT G-1
SCALE:
Nt.
CHKEll DWG. NIl
CVH LDVM
2. 7/910
I
..
-..
..
•
•
•
•
..
-
•
•
-
-
•
-
.,
-
Appendix B
Initial Consultation Package Distribution List
-..
..
•
•
..
•
•
•
-..
--
--
NAME
APPLICANT
Corry Hildenbrand
-President
-Liaison Officer
Susan A. Tinney
-Licensing
Coordinator
STATE AGENCIES
.
Mr. Dennis Meiners
-Senior
Development
Specialist
Ms. Joan Hughes
-Environmental
Technician II
-ACMP Liaison
Ms. Lana Sheer
-Director
Ms. Janet Hall-
Schempf
-Habitat Biologist
Mr. Matt Robus
-Area Wildlife
Biologist
Mr. Mark Schwann
-Area Sport
Fisheries Biologist
Ms. Jackie Timothy
Mr. William Snell
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC.
LAKE DOROTHY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC. PRO .. IECT NO. 11556-000
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY ADDRESS TELEPHONE
NO •
Lake Dorothy Hydro, 889 So. Franklin 463-6315
Inc. Juneau, AK 99801 Fax: 463-4833
Tinney Associates 2112A Second Street 364-2233
Douglas, AK 99824 Fax: 364-2709
••••••••••• Alaska Dept. of P.O. Box 112100 465-4632
Community & Juneau, AK
Regional Affairs, 99811-2100
Division of Energy
Alaska Dept. 410 W. Willoughby 465-5345
Environmental Suite 105 Fax -465-5362
Conservation, S.E. Juneau, AK 99801
alOffice
Alaska Dept. Fish & P.O. Box 240020 465-4289
Game Juneau, AK Fax: 465-4272
Habitat Division 99824
Alaska Dept. Fish & P.O. Box 240020 465-4290
Game Juneau, AK 99824
Alaska Dept. Fish & P.O. Box 240020 465-4290
Game Juneau, AK 99824
Alaska Division of 240 Main S1. 465-2142
Government Suite 500 Fax: 465-3075
Coordination Juneau, AK
99811-0030
Alaska Industrial 480 West Tudor 561-8050
-Executive Director Development and Anchorage, AK Fax: 561-8998
Export AuthOrity
Ms. Elizaveta Alaska Dept. Natural
Shadura Resources, Division of
-Liaison Lands
Mr. Bill Garry Alaska Dept. Natural
-SElAKArea Resources, Division of
Manager Parks & Recreation
99503-6690
400 W. Willoughby
Juneau, AK
99801-1724
400 W. Willoughby
Juneau, AK
99801
465-3513
Fax: 465-2954
465-4563
Fax: 586-2954
03/18/96
Page 1
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
-
-
'.
--
-
NAME
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC.
LAKE DOROTHY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC. PROJECT NO. 11556-000
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY ADDRESS TELEPH
NO.
STATE AGENCIES ./ ". . ...
Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Dept. Natural
-State Historic Resources, Division of
Preservation Officer Parks & Recreation,
History &
Mr. Tim Smith Archaeology
-SHPO
Mr. John Dunker Alaska Dept. Natural
-Water Resource Resources, Division of
Officer Mining and Water
Management
Mr. Terry Rader Alaska Dept. Natural
Resources, Division of
Lands
Mr. Paul Morrison Alaska Public Utilities
-Chief Engineer Commission
Ms. Patience Alaska State Library
Frederiksen, Reference Materials
Librarian
Mr. Bill Ballard Alaska Dept. of
-Regional Transportation
Environmental Public Facilities
Coordinator
State of Alaska Alaska Dept. of Public
Commissioner Safety
P.O. Box 10-7001
Anchorage, AK 99510-
7001
400·W. Willoughby
Juneau, AK
99801-1724
400 W. Willoughby
Juneau, AK
99801-1724
1016 West 6th
Suite 400
Anchorage, AK
99501-1963
P.O. Box 110571
Juneau, AK
99811-0571
6860 Glacier Hwy.
Juneau, AK 99801
45 Whittier St.
Juneau, AK 99801
762-2626
Fax: 762-2535
465-2533
Fax: 465-2954
465-3442
Fax: 465-2954
276-6222
Fax: 276-0160
465-2927
Fax: 465-2665
465-4498
Fax: 465-3506
Clerical Support:
465-4412
(messages)
03/18/96
Page 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
-
-
-
--
NAME
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC.
LAKE DORO"rHY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC. PROJECT NO. 11556-000
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY ADDRESS TELEPHONE
NO.
MUNICIPAL AGENCIES
Mr. Dennis Egan City & Borough of 155 S. Seward
-Mayor Juneau Juneau, AK 99801
Ms. Patty Ann Polley City & Borough of 155 S. Seward
-City Clerk Juneau Juneau, AK 99801
Chairman Juneau Chamber of 124 W. 5th St. 586-6420
Commerce Juneau, AK 99801
Mr. Jonathan Douglas Juneau Economic 400 W. Willoughby 463-3662
Chairperson Development Council Suite 211
Juneau, AK 99801
Director Juneau Public Library Juneau, Alaska
99801
Director City & Borough of Marine View Bldg.,
Juneau 4th Floor
Dept. of Community Juneau, AK 99801
Development
Mr. Bill Smith City & Borough of 155 S. Seward St. 586-5230
Juneau Juneau, AK 99801 Fax: 586-3365
Juneau Coastal District
NAME AGENCY ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO.
>:
FEDERAL AGENCIES .............
Ms. Margaret U.S. Forest Service
Bielharz Juneau Ranger District
-Project Manager
Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service
Tongass National
Forest
Mr. Michael Spencer Federal Energy
-FERC Project Regulatory
Contact Commission
Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy
-Secretary . Regulatory
Commission
Ms. Ann Miles Federal Energy
-Associate West Regulatory
Branch Chief Commission
-Office of Hydropower
Licensing
Mr. Arthur Martin Federal Energy
-Regional Director Regulatory
Commission
-Portland Regional
Office
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, AK 99801
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, AK 99801
825 North Capitol NE
Washington, DC
20426
825 North Capitol NE
Washington, D.C.
20426
810 First Street NE,
Room 1065
Washington, DC
20426
1120 S.W. Fifth Ave.
Suite 1340
Portland, OR 97204
..... .....
586-8800
202-219-2846
202-219-2700
503-326-5842
Fax: 503-326-5857
03/18/96
Page 3
..
-..
..
•
•
..
•
..
-
•
•
-
-
-
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC .
LAKE DOROTHY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC. PROJECT NO. 11556·000
SERVICE LIST
NAME AGENCY
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Mr. John Leeds U.S. Anny Corps of
Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Jim Helfinstine U.S. Coast Guard
-District Bridge Program Seventeenth District
Administrator Office
Ms. Sandra Dunn Bureau of Land
-Assistant District Management
Manager -Lands
Ms. Susan Lavin Bureau of Land
-Withdrawal Section Management
Alaska State Office
Mr. Chartes Tippeconnic Bureau of Indian
-Environmental Affairs
Specialist
Mr. Calvin Miller U.S. Dept. of
-Resource AgricuHure
Conservationists Soil Conservation
Service
Ms. Valerie Payne U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mr. Nevin Holmberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife
U.S. Dept. of the Service
Interior
Mr. Bruce Bigelow U.S. Geologic Survey
Mr. Steve T. Zimmerman US Dept. of
-Chief of the Protected Commerce-National
Resources Management Marine Fisheries
Division Service
NMFS AK Region Office
Regional Director National Park Service
Alaska Regional Office
Mr. Paul Gates Dept. of the Interior
-Regional Office of
Environmental Officer Environmental Affairs
ADDRESS
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK
99506
709 W. 9th St.
Juneau, AK 99801
6881 Abbott Loop
Road
Anchorage, AK
99506
222 West 7th Ave.,
#13
Anchorage, AK
99513-7599
P.O. Box 25520
Juneau, AK
99802-5520
949 East 36th Ave.,
Suite 400
Anchorage, AK
99508-4362
222 W. 7th Ave.
#19
Anchorage, AK
99513-7588
3000 Vintage Park
Blvd. #201
Juneau, AK
99801-7100
P.O. Box 1568
Juneau, AK 99801
P.O. Box 21668
Juneau, AK
99802-1668
2525 Gambell
Street
Anchorage, AK
99503
689 "C' Street
Room 119
Anchorage, AK
99501-5126
TELEPHON
ENO.
...
1-800-478-2712
Fax:
463-2250
1-800-478-1263
Fax: 1-267-
1267
907-271-3826
Fax: 907-271-
5479
586-7177
FAX: 586-7169
271-5083
Fax: 271-3424
586-7240
Fax: 586-7154
586-7216
Fax: 586-7996
586-7235
271-5011
03/18/96
Page 4
..
-..
..
..
•
• ..
..
..
..
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC.
LAKE DOROTHY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC. PROJECT NO. 11556-000
SERVICE LIST
NAME AGENCY ADDRESS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Mr. Larry Brockman U.S. Environmental 1200 Sixth Ave.
-Hydropower Protection Agency Seattle, WA 98101
Coordinator Region 10
Honorable Ted U.S. Senate Washington, DC
Stevens 20515
Honorable Frank U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510
Murkowski
NAME AGENCY ADDRESS
Non-Govemmentgl Organizations & Interested Parties
Mr. Robert Loescher Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza
-Vice President, St.,400
Resources Juneau, AK 99801-
Management 1276
Director Sealaska Heritage One Sealaska Plaza
Foundation Suite 201
Juneau, AK 99801
Ms. Danelle Southeast Alaska 419 Sixth St.
McCarthy Conservation Council Suite 328
-Executive Director Juneau, AK 99801
President Alaska Native 320 Willoughby Ave.
Brotherhood Juneau, AK 99801
President Alaska Native 320 Willoughby Ave .
Sisterhood Juneau, AK 99801
President Central Council Tlingit 320 West Willoughby
Haida Indian Tribes of Juneau, AK 99801
Alaska
Mr. Joseph Beedle Goldbelt 9097 Glacier Highway,
-President Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Ms. Mollie J. Dent Sierra Club Legal I 325 Fourth St.
-Director Defense Fund, Inc. Juneau, AK 99801
Ms. Patty Kirchoff Sierra Club, Juneau P.O. Box 210674
-Director Group Auke Bay, AK 99821
Director Southeast Alaska Franklin Bldg.
Tourism Council Juneau, AK 99801
Chairman Taku Conservation 1700 Branta Road
Society Juneau, AK 99801
Mr. Doug Mertz Alaskans for Juneau 319 Seward St. #5
Juneau, AK 99801
Director Juneau Audobon P.O. Box 21725
Society Juneau, AK 99802
TELEPHONE
NO.
••••••••••
. .....
TELEPHONE
NO.
.. .......>.\
586-1512
463-4844
586-6942
586-2049
586-2049
586-1432
790-4990
Fax: 790-4999
586-2751
586-4777
463-6305
03/18/96
PageS
-
--..
..
..
-..
-..
•
-
--
-
-
-
NAME
LAKE DOROTHY HYDRO, INC.
LAKE DOROTHY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC. PROJECT NO. 11556-000
SERVICE liST
AGENCY ADDRESS TELEPHONE
NO.
Non-Governmental Organizations & Interested Parties
Director Alaska Trollers
Association
Director United Fisherman of
Alaska
130 Seward, Suite 213
Juneau, AK 99801
211 -4th St., #112
Juneau, AK 99801
586-9400
586-2820
03/18/96
Page 6
':,
::,