HomeMy WebLinkAboutFirst Stage Consultation Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project 1992TK
1424
.A4
L43
1992
FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION
LEANNE LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Kodiak Electric Association
"--""'" "t-
-, ....
Mini P<!lwerhause
exisling channel
HllO-LHP.,."
First Stage Consultation
Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project
Kodiak Electric Association
P.O. Box 787
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Prepared by:
Trihey & Associates
P.O. Box 4964
Walnut Creek, California 94596
April 24, 1992
.t4~~::_:> '<
PJaska Resources Lih.-~_ -\ ," . rJn·:~r;1:tll()1l 0,,~rvice,
:""ibrar\' Bt...!: ,1;>-:. \ti;tc 11J
321; l'f(i\ Ij:_',;{~_,,: I )rivc
AnChoritg(;, j-"",. ;')),}k--Ml'f
/I(
/ if'l y"
/
;,
• J!
Ll//
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ............................................ HI
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV
1.0 Introduction......................................... 1
2.0 Detailed Maps of Project Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
3.0 General Engineering Design ............................... 9
3.1 Leanne Lake .................................... 9
3.1.1 Dam ..................................... 9
3.1.2 Penstock..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
3.1.3 Service Road and Transmission Line ................. 10
3.1.4 Powerhouse and Generator ....................... 10
3.2 No-Name Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
3.2.1 Dam ..................................... 12
3.2.2 Penstock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
3.2.3 Service Road and Transmission Line ................. 13
3.2.4 Powerhouse and Generator ....................... 13
4.0 Operational Mode ..................................... 14
5.0 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
5.1 Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
5.2 Geology........................................ 15
5.3 Seismicity....................................... 16
5.4 Climate ........................................ 16
5.5 Vegetation ...................................... 17
5.6 Fish .......................................... 17
5.7 Wildlife........................................ 19
5.8 Marine Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
5.9 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
5.10 Cultural Resources ................................. 20
5.11 Population, Economy, Land Ownership, Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
6.0 Streamflow and Water Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
7.0 PURP A Benefits ...................................... 27
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
8.0 Description of Proposed Studies ............................ , 28
8.1 Project Study Team ................................ 28
8.2 Soils and Geology Studies ............................ 29
8.3 Water Use and Quality .............................. 30
8.4 Fish Resources ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
8.4.1 Fish Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
8.4.2 Fish Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32
8.5 Wildlife and Botanical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
8.6 Socioeconomic, Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetic Resources . . . .. 36
8.7 Cultural Resources ............................... " 37
8.7.1 Archaeological Resources Work Plan Summary . . . . . . . . . .. 38
8.8 Mitigation and Precautionary Measures for Environmental
Studies and Project Construction ........................ 39
9.0 Project Schedule ...................................... 41
10.0 References.......................................... 43
APPENDIX A. AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ...................... A-I
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Average historic escapement of pink and chum salmon in the
Kizhuyak River, 1952-1988 and 1990 ..................... 18
111
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location map for the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project 3
Figure 2. Location map showing project boundaries and watershed of
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
. Figure 3. Location map showing land ownership within proposed
project boundaries ................................. 6
Figure 4. Location map of Leanne Lake proposed facilities
and penstock alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
Figure 5. Location map of No-Name Lake proposed facilities
and penstock alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
Figure 6. Typical 1.5-MW powerhouse .......................... 11
Figure 7. Location map of the precipitation stations .................. , 24
Figure 8. Reservoir storage capacity of Leanne Lake, 1905-1990 ft ......... 26
Figure 9. Reservoir storage capacity of No-Name Lake, 1924-1990 ft . . . . . . .. 26
IV
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This document contains information required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to satisfy First Stage Consultation procedures. The first stage consultation requires the
applicant to provide prescribed information describing the project and to solicit comments from
federal and state resource management agencies as well as the public. Consultation with
agencies, tribes, and the public, is intended to foster a clear understanding of the resource
issues, and to develop the types of studies which would be undertaken in order to evaluate the
environmental effects of the project. Appendix A provides agency comments to the Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application (April 16, 1991) for the Leanne Lake Hydropower Project.
The project applicant, Kodiak Electric Association (KEA), is a Rural Electric cooperative which
operates the existing Terror Lake Hydropower Project for the Alaska Energy Authority under
FERC License No. 2743. KEA currently relies on the Terror Lake Hydropower Project for
most of its electric generation. That project is rated at 20-MW or 127 million kilowatt hours
(KWHr). The total annual power consumption by approximately 5,500 KEA customers has
averaged 110 million KWHr over the past 3 years with peak generation of 20-MW.
Approximately 20 percent of this power consumption has been, and is currently being, met by
diesel generation.
Since the Terror Lake Hydropower Project was first designed, residential growth on Kodiak
Island has occurred as anticipated. However, demands for power from the commercial bottom
fishing industry has dramatically increased in the region. The commercial power needs were
previously heavy for short durations, but are now greater on a year-round basis. This increased
power demand can be partially satisfied by the proposed Leanne Lake project and used at peak
time or during low water conditions at Terror Lake.
Trihey & Associates 1
The proposed Leanne Lake project is located about two miles west of the mouth of the Kizhuyak
River on Kodiak Island, Alaska (Figure 1). The project would consist of two separate but nearly
identical powerhouse and penstock facilities which are supplied by two adjacent drainage basins
known as Leanne and No-Name lakes. Each of the lakes would require the construction of a
small dam to increase storage capacity and to regulate flow to the power plants.
Trihey & Associates 2
Leanne Lake
Project Area
Figure 1. Location map for the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project.
Trihey & Associates 3
2.0
DETAILED MAPS OF PROJECT BOUNDARIES
The proposed Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project is located about two miles west of the mouth
of the Kizhuyak River on Kodiak Island, Alas~ and includes two small watersheds at
approximately 2,000 ft in elevation. The Leanne Lake watershed is approximately 0.65 mi 2 and
is located in portions of Sections 25 and 36, T28S, R23W; Sections 30 and 31, T28S, R22W;
and Sections 1 and 2, T29S, R23W. The outlet of Leanne Lake drops precipitously in a series
of cascades and waterfalls from approximately 1,976 ft elevation to 600 ft elevation over
2,000 ft before joining Rolling Rock Creek, and then flows an estimated 4,000 ft to the
Kizhuyak. An unnamed watershed to the north (subsequently referred to as No-Name Lake),
is approximately 0.90 mi 2 and is located in portions of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, T28S,
R23W; and Sections 19 and 30, T28S, R22W. The outlet of No-Name Lake also drops
precipitously in a series of cascades and waterfalls from approximately 1,956 ft elevation to 50 ft
elevation over 6,000 ft before joining a small tributary stream (herein designated Eagle Creek),
and then flows 750 ft to Kizhuyak Bay. Figure 2 shows the Leanne and No-Name lakes
watershed and project boundaries.
The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge boundary is adjacent to the Leanne Lake Watershed in
Sections 25, 26 and 36, T28S, R23W and Section 2, T29S, R23W. The Refuge boundary is
also adjacent to the No-Name Lake watershed in Sections 23, 25 and 26, T28S, R23W.
However, no part of the proposed project is within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. No-
Name Lake in Section 30 and Leanne Lake in Section 31 are on land belonging to the State of
Alaska. The proposed No-Name Lake powerhouse, access road to the powerhouse, and
transmission line would be constructed on land belonging to the Afognak-Native Corporation.
All of the proposed Leanne Lake facilities would be constructed on State of Alaska lands.
Figure 3 shows the location of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, State of Alaska, and Afognak-
Native Corporation lands in relation to the proposed project. Figures 4 and 5 show the location
of the proposed facilities for both Leanne and No-Name lakes, respectively.
Trihey & Associates 4
L ...
I "'-
U1
(JJ
N
F--
,
26
35
Figure 2.
R 23 W
13
24
~
0' o o
\. R 22 W
0Q o
18
19
NO-NAME
LAKE
---------~--------~
--1: -------I
':
I
\ / \ (
~ \
I, , , , , : ~
I \ , , , \
\ \ , I
I I
L . .1 , ,
, I
\ I
\ I ~ \\
'l1, '{
~ )\
-~\
~\ \~\
\ "" \ \ ~\ , I
\ :
\ : I :
29; /
.. L __ .. t , , , ,
32/ ! I , : : \ , , ,
\ :
" : II /,
$/1 .Q;'/ : , '
/ : , ,
/ , , ,
§ / !
~ \!
\ :
\ '
} / ~ 6
1/ .fI
/,' ~
J/ ~ , ~
// ~
// /:l
,f '" , ,
// // (' ,/>'
, f
//
_U-j>.
"11'-
r-------~-
\----'!j>.
28
33
5
/,...--.,.--------;--O/~SlI~gW ~~~~~E
Location map showing project boundaries and watershed of Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project.
Trihey & Associates 5
R 23 W I-IR 22 til
, ' 600 I 'JO
I • 0
14 13 I
23 24 i
I ....
• 0'
I %
-2 I '000 I , '.
I
STATE OF ALASKA
~ l <::i
'\I'
30
31
Figure 3. Location map showing land ownership within proposed project boundaries.
Trihey & Associates 6
c c
II) .....
TERMINATION POINT OF
PROPOSED LAKE TAP
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ :
I I
I I
I I
/;' i
I I
I I
I : EXISTING 14.SKV I I
TRANSMISSION LINE \ :
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I f
PENSTOCK ALlGNM~NT,'
I
I
I
I
A '·,:
I f
I J
I
APPROXIMATE LOCATIO)<J OF
PROPOSED POWER ~USE
cl< CREEK
\'to
I
I
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
oj
0' 0::/
I
I
I G 0~
()v ~
J
J
I
I
o
I
I
/
I
I
/
I
SCALE (FT)
2000
I
Figure 4. Location map of Leanne Lake proposed facilities and penstock alignment.
Trihey & Associates 7
EXISTING 14.SKV
TRANSMISSION LINE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED POWER HOUSE
NO-NAME
LAKE
c ~ PROPOSED :RA~TY
o
I
~ -H-
I
SCALE en)
ARCH DAM
2000
\
\
Figure 5. Location map of No-Name Lake proposed facilities and penstock alignment.
Trihey & Associates 8
3.0
GENERAL ENGINEERING DESIGN
The Leanne Lake Project would consist of two nearly identical developments, each with a small
diversion dam, penstock, powerhouse, and generator. Water supply for each development would
come from the Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake watersheds respectively.
Construction and future maintenance of the impoundment facilities will be performed with the
aid of a helicopter eliminating the need for new, permanent road development, except for a 0.5-
mile spur road to connect the No-Name Lake powerhouse with the existing Terror Lake
Powerhouse service road. This minimal road construction on relatively flat terrain will reduce
erosion and potential impacts resulting from sedimentation. Temporary road construction may
be necessary for equipment access to align and bury the penstocks. However, these roads would
be abandoned when construction was completed and revegetated to a near-natural condition. An
erosion control plan will be developed for construction and operation of the proposed project.
3.1 LEANNE LAKE
3.1.1 DAM
It is proposed that a small dam be constructed to a height of approximately 10ft using granite
cobble with an impermeable synthetic liner for facing and a lake tap would be made with a
siphon line. The rubble dam could be designed to allow overtopping for spillway flood
discharge. Leanne Lake would have an approximate surface area of 72 acres with a total storage
volume of 1,475 ac/ft (at 1,990 ft elevation). The natural water surface elevation of the lake
during low runoff periods (October) is approximately 1,976 ft representing a total surface area
of 57 acres and storage volume of 1,000 ac-ft. The outlet of Leanne Lake would be tapped at
the northeast comer of the lake with a siphon line. The siphon line would flow east from
Trihey & Associates 9
Leanne Lake and connect to the penstock. The static head to the powerhouse is estimated to be
1,900 ft.
3.1.2 PENSTOCK
The penstock route would be through a swale about .25 mile to the north of the lake outlet and
then easterly down the slightly flatter slopes to a powerhouse adjacent to the existing Terror
Lake Powerhouse service road. Granite is expected to be the underlying bedrock down to about
elevation 1,300 ft. Below that elevation, the penstock route is expected to be underlain by a
slate-grawacke complex. Although the meta-sedimentary rocks are expected to be much more
intensely fractured than the granite, exposed bedrock along the penstock route is suitable for
rockbolting that might be needed to anchor the penstock pipe. Soil cover over the rock will tend
to thicken at lower elevations. Soil anchors probably can be used in the materials below the
volcanic ash layer and the old topsoil horizon that was buried in 1912. The penstock is not
expected to be buried at the higher elevations where bedrock is exposed and there is little soil
cover. At lower elevations where soil depths are sufficient, the penstock will be buried.
3.1.3 SERVICE ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE
The proposed powerhouse could be connected directly without a power pole to the existing
14.5-KV transmission line currently serving Port Lions. No road work will be required to
secure the Leanne Lake powerhouse because the powerhouse will be constructed adjacent to the
existing service road for the Terror Lake Powerhouse.
3.1.4 POWERHOUSE AND GENERATOR
A small power plant rated at 1.4-MW would be sited on the valley floor near the toe of the
mountain below the 100-ft elevation contour. Figure 6 shows a perspective cutaway of a typical
1.45-MW powerhouse. Outflow from the powerhouse would be discharged into the Kizhuyak
River through an excavated channel approximately 500 ft in length. Talus and alluvial gravels
Trihey & Associates 10
TYPICAL 1.45 MW POWERHOUSE -PERSPECTIVE CUTAWAY
Heavy Steel Framework with Enameled Steel Skin
Overhead Crane H-Beam and Electrical Power and Control Ducting
.".
~."..
Tail Race Discharges Through Submerged Bar Grate
Via Buried Culvert; 1 in. Solid Bars, 2 in. o. C.
Discharge Velocity < One Foot Per Second
And « Main Channel Velocity
Entry Way into 64 Sq. Ft. Control and Data Acquisition Quiet Room
Adequate Parts Storage and Work Area in Main 500 Sq. Ft. Room
Hydromachinery Concept Shown Above Utilizes Vertical Shaft Twin Nozzle
Impulse Turbine with Direct Drive Generator and Common Thrust Bearing
Wet Pit / Tail Race with Ample Room for Inspection and Maintenance
Figure 6. Typical 1.45-MW powerhouse.
Trihey & Associates 11
Transformer
Yard
Switch Gear
as deep as 30 ft were present at the toe of the mountain in borings drilled for the existing Terror
Lake power plant and are expected to occur at the Leanne Lake power plant location. The
proposed power plant would be constructed as a relatively small building which can probably
be supported on spread footings or a mat foundation bearing on the alluvial gravels. The density
of the alluvial materials will strongly effect the risk of settlement from vibratory loadings from
either the power generation equipment or earthquake shaking. The hydrogeneration equipment
would include an impulse wheel, one or two nozzles, and the associated generator. The ability
to operate the powerhouse by remote control from the town of Kodiak will be investigated.
3.2 NO-NAME LAKE
3.2.1 DAM
A small dam, possibly 20-ft high, would be built at the outlet of No-Name Lake. The dam
would be either a poured or pre-fabricated concrete arch dam. A siphon line would pass through
this dam and connect to the penstock aligned along the existing water course. No-Name Lake
would have an approximate surface area of 22 acres and a total storage volume of 300 ac-ft (at
1,976 ft elevation). The static head to the powerhouse is estimated to be 1,900 ft. The natural
surface elevation of the lake during low runoff periods (October-February) is approximately
1,956 ft, representing a total surface area of 11 acres and storage volume of 95 ac-ft.
3.2.2 PENSTOCK
Geotechnical conditions along the penstock route are expected to be very similar to those at
Leanne Lake. The total length of the No-Name penstock line will be longer due to the
topography of the terrain. Penstock alignment on both the north and south side of the outlet
stream will be investigated. The boundary between the granite rock and meta-sediments is
expected to be at about elevation 1,000 ft. Similar to the Leanne Lake penstock, the pipeline
will be buried where soil conditions are suitable, probably at the lower elevations.
Trihey & Associates 12
3.2.3 SERVICE ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE
Approximately 0.5 mile of road would be constructed along the 100-ft contour line in Section 20
to connect the new powerhouse with the existing service road between Kizhuyak Bay and the
Terror Lake Powerhouse. A switch yard and O.l-mile transmission line would also be
constructed to connect the proposed powerhouse with the 14.5-KV transmission line currently
serving Port Lions.
3.2.4 POWERHOUSE AND GENERATOR
Outflow from the powerhouse would be returned to the existing stream channel upstream of that
portion of Eagle Creek which is seasonally occupied by fish. The power plant will be sited on
relatively flat ground near the 100-ft contour line in Section 20. Soil conditions at the power
plant site will probably be similar to those expected for the Leanne Lake project. Cobbley
gravel is exposed beneath the ash deposits in the creek banks near the power plant site, and
alluvial deposits are expected beneath the power plant site. Powerhouse equipment would
include an impulse wheel, one or two nozzles, and the associated generator. The ability to
operate the powerhouse by remote control from the town of Kodiak will be investigated.
Trihey & Associates 13
4.0
OPERATIONAL MODE
The Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project is anticipated to be operated as both a run-of-the river
and reservoir draw-down project. The lake level information or penstock pressure information
will allow the KEA operations dispatcher to add generating capacity to the system when
necessary. It will be up to the dispatcher to establish the level of power generation. A remote
control option could allow some power production while holding the head level nearly constant.
The powerhouse will be operated from late April or May through September, approximately
150 days per year. Spills will be allowed to occur without generating hydropower during the
winter shutdown. Hydropower will be generated throughout the operational season at both
powerhouses, regardless of how much power is being generated at the Terror Lake Project.
During the course of the licensing studies, minimum streamflows will be investigated for Eagle
Creek, the only watercourse affected by either project which contains anadromous fish.
The Leanne Lake Hydroelectric project is expected to increase the staff level at the KEA by one
full-time mechanic for approximately two years. After that time, the staffing level will decrease
to the current level. Both a full-time operator and maintenance superintendent currently
employed by the KEA will increase their responsibilities to include the Leanne Lake project.
A total of six personnel will be directly impacted by adding the Leanne Lake project other than
the office support staff.
Trihey & Associates 14
5.0
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed project will affect the terrestrial vegetation along the penstock and service routes,
inundate a small portion of the land surrounding the existing Leanne and No-Name lakes, and
alter the streamflow from both lakes.
5.1 REGIONAL LOCATION
Kodiak Island is located south of the mainland of Alaska in the northwest portion of the Gulf
of Alaska. The topography of the island is characterized by high rugged mountains with deep
glaciated valleys. The lower portions of most of the valley are below sea level and are flooded
by the ocean so that sea inlets extend large distances into the island.
5.2 GEOLOGY
Two principle rock formations are present in the area of the project: a metamorphosed
sedimentary complex and a granitic rock that intruded into the meta-sediments. Both formations
date from the Cretaceous period (about 70 to 100 million years ago). The metamorphosed
sedimentary complex includes slate, argillite, and graywacke rocks. During the metamorphosis,
the rocks were also folded, faulted, and contorted so they are generally tightly compressed and
steeply tilted. The granitic rock is more resistant to erosion and glacial scouring, forming the
higher ridges in the project area.
During the Pleistocene to Recent epochs the entire area was covered with glaciers. In addition
to scouring the bedrock, the glacial activity deposited much of the unconsolidated materials that
blanket the bedrock. The valleys are underlain by varying thicknesses of alluvial sediments, and
deposits from landslides and erosion cover the slopes. Talus and scree deposits are common on
the steep mountainous slopes. Most of the area is blanketed by volcanic ash from the eruption
Trihey & Associates 15
of Novarupta and Katmai Volcanoes in 1912. The ash deposit, a low density silty sand,
averages about 12 inches thick in the project area but thicker deposits are frequently
encountered.
5.3 SEISMICITY
Kodiak Island is part of the Alaskan-Aleutian Arc which is the most seismically active region
in the world. The great Alaskan earthquake of Good Friday 1964 was the most severe
earthquake to be felt in Kodiak in historical times. Although the epicenter was located 250 miles
northeast of the island, the earthquake resulted in strong ground shaking on the island of at least
2.5 minutes duration. Virtually the entire Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Archipelago experienced
a tectonic subsidence of two to six feet. However, no surface faulting was observed on the
island. Recent work by Algermissen et al. (1990) shows that at the project site, an earthquake
acceleration of 0.7xgravity has a 90 percent probability of not being exceeded in 50 years.
5.4 CLIMATE
The following weather data have been compiled by the Alaska Climate Center (Leslie 1986).
Kodiak Island is in the maritime climate zone. The Naval Air Station, which used a 4-inch
diameter precipitation gage from 1942 to 1972, recorded an average annual precipitation of about
57 inches, which included 72 inches of snow. The National Weather Service, which uses an
8-inch diameter gage at the airport, has recorded an average annual precipitation of about
73 inches, including 65 inches of snow, between 1973 and 1984. Summer temperatures range
from 45 to 60°F, and winter temperatures from 26°F to 45°F. Average wind speed is 8.7 knots
from the northwest, and extreme northwest winds up to 100 knots have been recorded.
The limited data collected in the vicinity of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project to date
indicate that at the 1,900-ft elevation, Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake should receive about
72 inches of precipitation. Additional hydrologic monitoring is ongoing to better define the
annual water yield of the Leanne Lake and No-Name basins. The lakes are usually ice-free in
Trihey & Associates 16
late July but can still be frozen into August. They typically ice over in late October or
November, but may remain only partially ice covered into December.
5.5 VEGETATION
Vegetation on Kodiak varies from dense spruce forests on the northern margin of the island to
alpine tundra on the upper reaches of the mountains. At the project sites the vegetation consists
primarily of dense, high brush terrain on the valley floors and lower slopes and alpine tundra
and barren ground on the upper elevations. The high brush terrain is covered with dense willow
and alder patches and thick grass cover. Cottonwood trees grow along the drainages. In the
higher mountainous areas of the project, alpine tundra consisting of mosses, lichens, and low
shrubs grow between the extensive areas of bare rock and rubble.
The only wetlands identified within the project site are the lacustrine wetlands of Leanne Lake
and No-Name Lake (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988).
5.6 FISH
There are two anadromous fish streams in the project area. The Alaska Department of Fish and
Game's (ADF&G's) Habitat Division (1990) has designated the stream draining No-Name Lake
(referred to as Eagle Creek in 1980 study reports) as Stream Number 252-36-10045 (Figure 5).
The stream into which Leanne Lake drains (referred to as Rolling Rock Creek in 1980 study
reports), designated Stream Number 252-36-10050, joins the Kizhuyak River (Figure 4). An
anadromous fish stream located between Eagle Creek and the Kizhuyak River that would not be
affected by the proposed project is Stream Number 252-36-10049 (referred to as Beaver Pond
Creek in the 1980 study reports).
Fish have been observed in the lower .25 mile of Eagle Creek. Above this point, the stream
channel is often dry because the streambed is so permeable that only subsurface flow is present.
No fish have been observed in No-Name Lake. There are several natural waterfall barriers
Trihey & Associates 17
below this lake, preventing fish from entering it. No fish have been observed in Rolling Rock
Creek. Due to the porosity of its streambed, Rolling Rock Creek is often dry during August and
September. Dolly Varden (3 to 5 inches in total length) have been observed along the margins
of Leanne Lake.
The Kizhuyak River provides spawning habitat for pink salmon and spawning and rearing habitat
for both chum and coho salmon, and the lower .25 mile of Eagle Creek provides spawning
habitat for pink salmon. Pink salmon spawn from late July to early October and chum salmon
spawn from mid-July through early October. The eggs incubate over the winter in stream
bottom gravel and fry emergence occurs from March through May.
ADF&G escapement data for the Kizhuyak River are shown in Table 1. The estimated
escapement of pink salmon into Eagle Creek is 500 fish.
Table 1. Average historic escapement of pink and chum salmon in the Kizhuyak River,
1952-1988 and 1990 (Blackett 1992).1
Years Pink Chum
1952-1961 11,091 3,250
(l,700-30,000) (1,500-5,000)
1962-1971 7,258 3,863
(800-15,000) (300-12,000)
1972-1981 15,350 12,414
(2,250-55,250) (3,500-31,000)
1982-1988/1990 30,875 16,500
(15,000-47,000) (2,000-55,000)
Ranges are given within parentheses.
I Estimates for 1989 are not included in this table because no harvest occurred due to the
Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Trihey & Associates 18
5.7 WILDLIFE
Significant wildlife present in the project area include Sitka black-tailed deer, brown bear,
mountain goat, and bald eagle. Deer were introduced to Kodiak in 1934, and mountain goat in
1952-1953 (ADF&G, Habitat Division 1985). Information from studies (University of Alaska,
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center 1979, 1980a, 1980b) on each species is
summarized below:
• Deer are present throughout the project area during summer. In winters with
light snowpack, they range from the shore of Kizhuyak Bay up to the 500-ft
elevation. In winters with a heavy snowpack, they are restricted to the shore of
the bay.
• Food availability influences brown bear distribution in the project area. They are
concentrated on the lower two miles of the Kizhuyak River and the lower
.25 mile of Eagle Creek during summer months. There is a general movement
from salmon streams to berry feeding areas, which extend from the streams up
to an elevation of 1,000 to 1,200 ft (the upper limit of the alder zone), in late
summer and early fall. The area between 1,000 ft and the lake shores contains
potential denning habitat. A den was located below Leanne Lake in 1980.
Spring movements occur along the 1000-ft contour between Leanne Lake and No-
Name Lake.
• Mountain goat utilize the area around Leanne Lake during summer months, and
the area east of the lake extending down to 1,000 ft is suitable for a wintering
area.
• A bald eagle nest near the mouth of Eagle Creek was occupied in 1979 and 1980.
Trihey & Associates 19
5.8 MARINE RESOURCES
Information on marine species utilizing Kizhuyak Bay was collected in 1979 (University of
Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center 1979). Principal benthic species in
the delta and upper bay include sloe, starry flounder, greenling, sculpin, and Dungeness crab.
Halibut enter the deeper portion (20-meter depth) of the upper bay, which also supports king,
tanner, and Dungeness crab. Clams occupy the subtidal zone. Shrimp are present in small
numbers, and herring feed in the middle and outer portions of the bay during summer. A few
sea otter use the head of the bay, and harbor seal, common in the bay, were observed at the
mouth of Kizhuyak Creek during salmon runs. Killer whales enter the bay.
5.9 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
There are no known federally threatened or endangered plant or animal species at the project
site. Peregrine falcons are known to occur in the Kodiak area but there was no record of their
occurrence in the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project area (University of Alaska, Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center 1979).
5.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES
There has been continuous occupation of the Kodiak archipelago since 6,500 B.c., and almost
all archeological sites are located along the coast, where seasonal movement between camps was
determined by the availability of fish and game resources (ADF&G, Habitat Division 1985).
Kodiak Natives are known as the Koniag, and their ancestors have been living on Kodiak since
800 A.D. Prior to the arrival of the Russians in the mid-1700s, the Koniag relied on sea
mammals (primarily seals) and fish for food, and permanent villages were located near the
shore.
Two archaeological sites were discovered on the shore of Kizhuyak Bay during the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project investigation (Righter 1979; Righter and Jordan 1980). The sites, KOD-
Trihey & Associates 20
138 and KOD-190, are located approximately .5 mile east of the existing road and transmission
line, and would not be affected by the proposed project facilities.
5.11 POPULATION, ECONOMY, LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND USE
The closest communities to the project areas are Port Lions, located approximately 10 miles
north on the west side of Kizhuyak Bay, and the City of Kodiak, approximately 15 miles
northeast. There are no roads from Port Lions or the City to the project area, and access to the
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project powerhouse from the City of Kodiak is generally by
floatplane, although boats or helicopters may also be used. Port Lions has a population of 300,
the City of Kodiak, 6,787, and the Kodiak Island Borough, 15,679 (Alaska Department of
Community and Regional Affairs 1991). About 85 percent of borough residents live in the City
of Kodiak or the area accessible from the city by the road system, 10 percent in the six smaller
communities (including Port Lions), and 5 percent at remote sites, such as canneries and camps
(ADF&G, Habitat Division 1985).
The Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project provides electricity for the cities of Kodiak and Port
Lions and promotes the conservation of fossil fuels by reducing the use of existing diesel power
generation. The current generating capacity of the project is approximately 18-MW. This
generating capacity is not entirely capable of producing enough power to meet the needs of the
Island including the U. S. Coast Guard Support Center. The Alaska Energy Authority delivers
the electric power over the existing 17-mile transmission line to the City of Kodiak.
The project site is east of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and the area is owned by the
State of Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough, and the Afognak Native Corporation, the village
corporation which holds title to the surface estate of all village lands (see Figure 3).
There are no recreational facilities at the head of Kizhuyak Bay. However, the bay is used for
commercial, sport, and subsistence fishing and sport and subsistence hunting occurs in the
vicinity of the project site (ADF&G, Habitat Division 1985). Pink salmon are the main species
Trihey & Associates 21
harvested around Kodiak Island, and purse seining accounts for about 90 percent of the harvest.
Beach seines and set gill nets are also used. King, tanner, and Dungeness crab are fished
commercially, as are herring. The Kodiak brown bear is hunted as a trophy species as well as
a food source by island residents.
Residents of Port Lions, most of whom are Koniag, depend on non-commercial (subsistence and
sport) hunting and fishing for a major source of food, as do Koniag and other residents of the
road-connected area around the City of Kodiak. Although they hunt deer, hare, and ducks,
residents of Port Lions primarily harvest seafood, including salmon (mainly sockeye and coho,
and some pink), halibut, Dolly Varden, crab (primarily king, and some Dungeness and tanner),
and butter clams (ADP&G, Habitat Division 1985).
Trihey & Associates 22
6.0
STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME
Data describing the hydrologic regime for the Kodiak region has been collected from the existing
Terror Lake project. However, there is little available data which is specific to the hydrology
of the Leanne and No-Name drainage basins for the proposed project. Studies are presently
being conducted to determine the amount and timing of water flowing from Leanne and No-
Name lakes.
Three precipitation stations, each consisting of a snow survey marker and precipitation gage,
were established during October 1991 in the No-Name drainage basin and three stations in the
Leanne Lake drainage basin (Figure 7). Snow accumulation, snow water content, and
precipitation gages are currently being monitored. Data gathered from these precipitation
stations, in conjunction with existing regional hydrologic data from the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project, will be used to characterize the hydrologic regime for the proposed
project.
A stream gaging weir was completed at the outlet of the No-Name Lake in October 1991.
Below the weir, two data loggers connected to a pressure transducer and temperature probe were
installed. The data loggers were programmed to record daily average, minimum, and maximum
values for stage and temperature. In conjunction with discharge measurements taken at the weir
and development of a stage-discharge rating curve, the data logger will provide daily discharge
measurements from the No-Name Lake drainage basin. The outflow of Leanne Lake passes
through a poorly defined stream channel filled with large boulders and bedrock outcrops before
plunging over a 1,000-ft waterfall. Hence, gaging its outlet is not practical.
The outflow from these lakes would be highly variable. During winter, when most precipitation
is snow and the lakes are frozen, there would be no flow for power generation. Peak flows are
expected in early summer during breakup. Steady streamflow rates from both the Leanne and
Trihey & Associates 23
.... 2,5 00
""":\:" ===--
"'" ------~-------I
""" --1: ------I
""" _6~
~f-,
i , , ,
\ ,I
\ (
\ \ , , , ,
\ \ , , , , , \
\ \ , , , , , , , , , ,
\ I
\ I ~ \' ~ '{
~ )\
~\ ~\ ~~ \
\ ~\ \ ~\ , I
\ :
\ : , ,
I ' , '
I :
j !
! : : ! , ' , ,
\ ' \f
Ii
" I' $i!
0::/ : , '
/ : , ,
/ ' , ,
~ /! ~ \ /
\ ;
} ,/ ~
J / ~
1/ ~
1/ ~
, 1<. ...
// ~ // Q
" ,It'
//
/::/
f----~
)-----:!~
, ,
-",,1,/
-0 EXISTING ERROR • PRECIPITATJON
/------------;-LAKE POW RHOUSE STATIONS
Figure 7. Location map of the precipitation stations.
Trihey & Associates 24
No-Name lakes could be provided through summer and fall by operating the impoundments as
a reservoir drawdown project.
Reservoir storage capacity has been determined from topographic mapping based on aerial
photography dated October 6 and October 11, 1991. From these storage capacity curves
(Figures 8 and 9), the actual storage volume for Leanne Lake is approximately 500 ac-ft for a
lO-ft high dam with a spillway crest at 1,990 ft. The active storage for No-Name Lake is
. approximately 300 ac-ft assuming a 20-ft high dam at a spillway crest of 1,996 ft.
A preliminary forecast of the annual average volume of flow has been determined by multiplying
the estimated annual average runoff from the adjacent Falls Creek watershed by the watershed
areas of the two lakes. These estimates are:
Leanne Lake: 0.65 mP x 72 in/year == 2,500 ac-ft per year
No-Name Lake: 0.90 mi 2 x 72 in/year == 3,400 ac-ft per year
Assuming this flow is available as snowmelt or rainfall during a six-month period (May through
October), the estimated average flows are approximately 7 cfs for Leanne Lake and
approximately 10 cfs for No-Name Lake.
There is currently no data available to assess the quality of the water from either lake. The
water temperature during the winter is expected to be at or near freezing (O°C). Summer water
temperatures at the mouth of the Kizhuyak River, downstream from the Leanne Lake proposed
dam site, are typically between 5°C and 8°C. Similar water temperatures are expected in both
streams draining the lakes. Periodic visits to the area indicate the water turbidity is typically
low.
Trihey &. Associates 25
2,000
1,980
1,960
1,940
1,920
Figure 8.
2,000
1,980
1,960
1,940
Figure 9.
Elevation, ft
o 200 400 600
*Reservoir capacity determined from
topographic mapping based on aerial
photography dated 10-11-1991
800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
Storage Volume, ac-ft
Reservoir storage capacity of Leanne Lake, 1905-1990 ft.
Elevation, ft
WSEL = 1,956 f1
o 100 200 300
*Reservoir capacity determined from
topgraphic mapping based on aerial
photography dated 10-6-1991
400 500 600 700
Storage Volume, ac-ft
Reservoir storage capacity of No-Name Lake, 1924-1990 ft.
Trihey & Associates 26
7.0
PURP A BENEFITS
PERC regulation 18 CPR 4.301 (a) requires new dam or diversion license applicants to notify
fish and wildlife agencies during first stage consultation whether it will seek PURPA benefits.
Exemption applicants are required to similarly notify the agencies that an exemption from
licensing will be sought.
The KEA will not be seeking PURP A benefits for the proposed Leanne Lake Hydroelectric
Project.
Trihey & Associates 27
8.0
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED STUDIES
The following is a description of studies KEA is proposing to support licensing the Leanne Lake
Project. The study proposals are based largely on review of Terror Lake licensing studies
conducted during the early 1980s. Detailed study or work plans will be developed after
consultation with the resource agencies to ensure al1legitimate concerns are incorporated. We
look forward to receiving comments on studies and methods proposed below as part of the First
Stage Consultation. KEA intends to meet with interested agency representatives at the beginning
of this process to develop specific study plans.
8.1 PROJECT STUDY TEAM
The following lists the project team members and their areas of responsibility in this study:
E. Woody Trihey, P. E.
Mitchell Katzel
Linda Perry Dwight
N. Diane Pottinger, P. E.
Charlie Greenwood, P. E.
Duane Miller, P. E.
Roger Blackett
Dick Hensel
John Isaacs
Rick Knecht
James Dryden
Trihey & Associates
Principal-In -Charge
Project Manager and Hydrology
Assistant Project Manager and Permitting
Liaison Officer and Water Quality
Design Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering
Fish Resources
Wildlife and Botanical Resources
Socioeconomic, Land Use, Recreation, and
Aesthetic Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrologic Instrumentation
28
8.2 SOILS AND GEOLOGY STUDIES
Geotechnical work that has been completed for the Lake Leanne Hydropower Project for Kodiak
Electric Authority includes an initial site visit in 1991, collection and compilation of previous
geotechnical studies in the project area, and terrain unit mapping of geotechnical units using
1991 aerial photography.
Geotechnical exploration will be performed in 1992 to provide information on the soil, bedrock,
and groundwater conditions at the two power plant sites and along the penstock alignments and
to evaluate earth materials that could be used for construction. The field work will be
performed during the summer when snow has disappeared from the higher elevations. The field
work will include geological reconnaissance of the dam sites, penstock routes, power plant sites
and material locations, and subsurface exploration using hand dug test pits. Samples of
representative materials obtained during the field work will be tested in the laboratory to
measure their engineering properties. Using the results of the field and laboratory data,
engineering analysis will be performed to evaluate design alternatives and to develop conclusions
and recommendations regarding the geotechnical design of the hydropower project. Concurrent
with this geotechnical work, the proposed penstock routes for both lakes will be surveyed.
The field work will be performed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The
surface reconnaissance will include mapping of exposed soil types, water seeps, and bedrock
type and qUality. In soil areas, shallow pits will be dug by hand and the materials will be
logged.
The analysis will be performed to develop conclusions regarding the following items:
• Soil and bedrock conditions in the project area including a description of the
bedrock lithology, structural features, glacial features, and soil types, density,
strength, and compressibility.
Trihey & Associates 29
• Existing and potential geotechnical hazards at the dam sites, penstock routes, and
power plant sites.
• Erosion potential and methods of controlling erosion and other mass movement
of soils.
• Alternative types of dam and spillway structures.
• Criteria for design of the dam and penstock alignment.
• Support and restraint of penstocks for both aboveground and buried conditions.
• Foundation support for the power plant including estimates of settlements from
vibratory and static loadings.
8.3 WATER USE AND QUALITY
To estimate the annual water yield from Leanne and No-Name lakes, precipitation stations have
been established in each drainage basin. Data from these gages, along with the drainage area
for each respective gage, will be used to refine estimates of the water supply available during
the summer of 1992 for potential hydropower use.
The precipitation data from the winter of 1991-1992 from Leanne Lake, No-Name Lake, and
Terror Lake will be correlated. If a correlation is found to exist between the two watersheds
for the proposed project and the Terror Lake watershed, historical precipitation data can be
developed for Leanne and No-Name lake watersheds. Field reconnaissance work during the
summer of 1992 will include identifying drainage area boundaries and collecting monthly
precipitation information.
Trihey & Associates 30
A weir was installed in October 1991 to monitor the outflow from No-Name Lake. Estimated
daily streamflow data will be collected below the weir. Runoff from Leanne Lake will be
determined based on correlation from data developed for No-Name Lake.
The chemical and thermal characteristics of both lakes will be monitored on several occasions
during the summer of 1992. These will include monitoring of: turbidity, conductivity,
nutrients, silt, coliform, etc. It is anticipated there would be little, if any, change to the water
quality in either lake. Seasonal sampling of dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles will be
made in Leanne Lake. No such measurements are planned for No-Name Lake unless fish are
found to inhabit the lake.
No groundwater information currently exists in either basin. During the winter, spring, and fall
seasons of 1992, streamflow observations will be made near the mouth of Rolling Rock and
Eagle Creeks to estimate groundwater contributions to these streams.
8.4 FISH RESOURCES
8.4.1 FISH SPECIES
Sampling of fish populations in Leanne Lake and the No-Name Lake basin (three unnamed lakes)
is to be accomplished in August 1992. A variable mesh gill net and 10 minnow traps, baited
with cheesecloth sacs of disinfected salmon eggs, will be fished in each lake for 24 hours. Net
and trap location will be mapped for each lake. Traps will be fished within the lake perimeter
while the net will be fished near the lake center. Fish catch will be recorded by gear (net or
trap) and location. Specimens (maximum of 200 Dolly Varden) will be placed in separate
containers (one for trap catch; one for the net catch) and transported to Kodiak. Fish specimens
will be processed in Kodiak within eight hours. Specimen number, species, length, weight, sex,
and maturity stage will be recorded for each fish. Otoliths will be taken from each fish for age
analysis.
Trihey & Associates 31
The results will be summarized to develop conclusions regarding the conditions of the existing
fish population.
• Species, number of fish caught by trap or net per 24-hour fishing period, and
location of catch (sketch map) for each lake.
• Sex, maturity stage, length, weight, and age by species, and by gear type (net or
trap) for each lake.
• Description and assessment of fish populations residing within each of the lakes.
• Discussion of the possible implications of hydroelectric development upon
resident fish populations.
8.4.2 FISH HABITAT
The outflow from Leanne Lake is intermittent, with zero outflow occurring naturally during late
summer and fall in the absence of rainfall. At No-Name Lake, flow appears to be more
persistent, but the stream channel into which the powerhouse will discharge has been observed
to be dry on several occasions since 1989. During the winter field studies, no water was
observed to be flowing from the lake. The steep stream gradients and waterfall barriers make
it unlikely that fish reside in the stream reaches that would be directly affected by water
diversion from these projects. Instream flow requirements for these projects are expected to be
minimal, and it is not expected that a data-intensive in stream flow study would be conducted.
With the development of storage in No-Name Lake to even out the monthly outflow rate, an
opportunity exists to improve spawning conditions for pink and chum salmon in a .5 mile
segment of Eagle Creek. Barriers to migration will be identified on both streams. This
opportunity has yet to be investigated so it is not yet certain to what degree the proposed
hydropower development might improve salmon spawning conditions.
Tribey & Associates 32
Baseline surveys will be performed to describe habitat characteristics in the lower .5 mile of
Eagle and Rolling Rock creeks. Substrate type, amount of cover, estimated stream habitat length
and width, and redd locations will be identified. The location and extent of potential salmon
spawning areas and any resident species in the stream will be determined from field
investigations. An escapement count will be performed in Eagle Creek. Any potential for
improving habitat conditions in these streams will be identified during the baseline surveys.
Members of the project team and KEA personnel have observed the stream to become dry when
the precipitation ceased, generally during August or early September. Photographs will be taken
throughout the field season to document when the stream becomes dry.
Stream temperature monitoring stations will be established at the outlet of both lakes and at one
downstream location in both Eagle Creek and Rolling Rock Creek. Because it was shown in
both the Terror and Kizhuyak basins that the intragravel temperature did not differ significantly
from the surface water temperature (Trihey et al. 1992), we will only be monitoring the surface
water temperature.
Salmon rearing on the upstream reaches of Eagle Creek, .5 mile above Kizhuyak Bay, is
extremely unlikely. Gradients are very steep, characterized by boulder cascades and waterfalls,
preventing migration. There are also no stream gravels available for spawning and the upstream
reaches are known to go dry. For similar reasons, it is also unlikely that there is any salmon
production in the stream segment between the outflow of Leanne Lake and the confluence with
the Kizhuyak River. Installation of the penstock will be timed to avoid dewatering of the
spawning habitat on the lower .5 mile of Eagle Creek.
The addition of a dam in the proposed location at either the Leanne Lake or No-Name Lake does
not introduce any new fish barrier below the existing natural barriers. Therefore, we will not
be looking at fish passage facilities.
Trihey & Associates 33
8.5 WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES
The objective of wildlife and botanical investigations would be to qualify resource/habitat values
so as to make a projection of short-and long-term effects resulting from project development.
Considering the relatively small size of the area to be impacted, and the area's elevation,
northern exposure, slope steepness, and rock-bare ground substrate, it stands to reason that
wildlife and habitat values would appear to be low or unremarkable. A major consideration,
however, is that the area to be impacted superimposes part of a broad, wildlife-rich region, and
consequently, site locations, and the general vicinity should be investigated to determine the
biological/ecological relationships of the project area to other associated parts of the Kizhuyak-
Terror bay region.
Sitka black-tailed deer, brown bear and mountain goat represent species with the most ecological
significance and each would expectedly use and move through the project area albeit in low
numbers and at limited times according to season. Information of such usage and activity would
be obtained by a wildlife biologist during a field investigative effort proposed to take place in
mid-summer and fall periods.
At least two field trips would be conducted in July and September and on each occasion, detailed
information on the extent mammals may have used, or not used the area, will be recorded for
reporting purposes. Breeding, feeding, resting, moving, and other habits of these large
mammals differ markedly by season and, for this reason, investigations would be performed to
assess habitat usages at times when activity patterns become more discernable. A series of aerial
and ground transects using direct observation methods would facilitate data collection. Such
revealing signs as established trails, mammal tracks, grazed and trampled plants, bedding
depressions, and scat noted to be present in the area would be systematically recorded and
analyzed. This approach would provide a general understanding of how and when mammals
used the area as part of their daily life sustaining activities or as a means of traversing the area
in order to reach more supportive habitat.
Trihey & Associates 34
While no attempt would be made to estimate relative abundance of those species in question,
direct observations would provide an insight on mammal occurrence within and near the project
area. Findings pertaining to mammal occurrence would be classified as negligible, low,
moderate and high usage as connoted by specific species. Field investigations would also focus
upon identifying specialized habitats such as those used for denning (bears), birthing, and rearing
young (deer and goats), mineral licks and other life supporting essentials. The presence of
established trails would be indicative of directional movement patterns, information of which
could be used to evaluate effects of surface structures on moving mammals. Salmon streams
used by bears and other fish-eating creatures would also be investigated to qualify their relative
importance to the area's ecology. Lastly, in respect to wildlife resources, raptor investigations
would be performed incidental to, and simultaneously to, the mammal field work. Active and
inactive eagle and other raptor nests as well as other habitat essentials would be mapped as part
of the data record.
The objective of the botanical resource investigation would be to document occurrences of plant
communities and to classify them into habitat types. The simplistic vegetative composition
characterizing the area to be affected (i.e., rock-bare ground prevalence and low plant
community diversity) and extant information on the regional flora precludes the necessity to
undertake an inordinate amount of field work to meet this objective. The University of Alaska's
AEIDe has developed a detailed account of the area's botanical resource as part of an
environmental impact effects study of the now operational Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility.
Additionally, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has produced two vegetation cover maps in
response to requirements concerning a National Wetlands Inventory and master planning for the
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. This agency used 1 :60,000 scale color-infrared photo imagery
to delineate vegetation cover and produce maps (l :63,360 and 1 :250,000 scale, respectively)
which show the location, shape and characteristics of major plant community associations and
habitats on a U. S. Geological Survey base map. Collectively, this information is applicable
toward describing the area's botanical resource in a general sense. To ensure applicability,
however, a biologist will ground truth the area to be affected so as to verify accuracy and utility
of the scales used by the mapping agency. This task would be conducted simultaneously with
Trihey & Associates 35
other field work, and if warranted, configure refinements would be accomplished by direct
observation. The value of lacustrine wetlands will be determined, and mitigation developed.
8.6 SOCIOECONOMIC, LAND USE, RECREATION AND AESTIlETIC RESOURCES
Preparation of the socioeconomic, land use, recreation and aesthetic resources reports will follow
the guidelines of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission presented in 18 CFR 4.61,
Exhibit E.
Data for the affected environment will be collected from several sources. Published reports on
the Kodiak area will be reviewed, including documents associated with the Terror Lake Project,
Kodiak Island National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska
Department of Labor, and the Kodiak Island Borough. This information would then be
supplemented with phone contacts and file data from these organizations. A field trip to Kodiak
and flyover of the project site will be necessary to collect additional data, and view the site,
particularly for the Aesthetic Resources Report. The affected environment would be prepared
with the collected information, following the outlines for the socioeconomic, land use,
recreation, and aesthetic resources reports. In addition to text, appropriate maps and figures will
be included.
The environmental consequences portion of the report will be prepared using the information
provided on the description of the proposed action and its alternatives. This information will
be compared to the description of the affected environment, and potential impacts will be
assessed, following the outlines for the socioeconomic, land use, recreation and aesthetic
resources reports. Recreational opportunities will be examined; however, the portion of the
proposed project adjacent to Kizhuyak Bay is on private land. Afognak Corporation will be
involved in all land use decisions. The reports will also address any mitigation measures
proposed or recommended by the applicant.
Trihey & Associates 36
8.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey files indicate two prehistoric archaeological sites, KOD-138
and KOD-190, which are located on the shores of Kizhuyak Bay near the project area. As the
State Historic Preservation Officer has noted, they are both located at least .5 miles from the
project area and are not in any danger of adverse impacts from the proposed project.
Within the project vicinity, there is a moderate potential for the presence of undiscovered
cultural resources. In the higher elevations, there exists the potential for the presence of stone
cairns. These consist of circular piles of stone ranging in size from one to four meters in
diameter. They most often are found in clusters on high elevations which overlook prehistoric
village locations or strategic passes between bays, and are of unknown function. Cairns can be
easily located in the low alpine tundra vegetation by surface reconnaissance.
Other cultural resources which may occur in elevations above 500 ft above sea level include
burial caves, boulder arrangements, and other types of prehistoric ceremonial sites. These are
quite rare, however. There is also a remote possibility of historic sites, such as mining debris,
or aircraft wreckage dating from World War II.
A surface reconnaissance around Lake Leanne, No-Name Lake, and the penstock routes should
be sufficient to determine whether any cultural resources are located in these areas.
A somewhat greater potential for undiscovered prehistoric sites exists along ancient marine
terraces which extend south of Kizhuyak Bay. Recent collaborative research by geologists and
archaeologists has found that the location of early prehistoric sites, dating between 6,000 and
3,000 years ago, is related to long-term tectonic uplift. Preliminary results show that the east
half of Kodiak Island is rising at a rate of 2 to 3 mm a year, or one meter every 500 years.
Prehistoric sites on Kodiak were nearly always located adjacent to the sea. With this rate of
uplift, the earlier prehistoric sites have been left far inland, along former marine terraces. By
Trihey & Associates 37
using this predictive model, prehistoric occupations have been found as much as 2 miles inland
from the modern shoreline.
The low topography south of Kizhuyak Bay strongly suggests that this is former bay bottom,
drained by the gradual uplift. Sedimentation and ash fails have also contributed to this process.
Sites of this great age seldom display any surface indications. They tend to be small, but
because of their age, are of great scientific significance.
Accordingly, it would be prudent to install shovel tests will be installed at 30-ft intervals, along
the impacted areas below 100 ft in elevation. A shovel test is about 1 x 1 ft in size and will be
excavated until Pleistocene till, or similar sterile levels have been reached. Sides of the shovel
test will be trowelled for charcoal, red ocher, or other evidence of human occupation. A soil
profile and description will be recorded for every shovel test.
In the event that a prehistoric site is discovered, the shovel test will be expanded to 1 x 1 meter
in size, and additional shovel tests will be installed to determine the nature and extent of the site
so that recommendations can be made for its protection and/or recovery.
Field work will be conducted prior to the geotechnical investigations that include hard, dry test
pits and core drilling. The archaeologist will accompany the geologist to ensure that materials
sites are not located on areas of prehistoric or cultural resources.
8.7.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WORK PLAN SUMMARY
Surface Reconnaissance:
• Lake Leanne lake area and penstock route.
• No-Name Lake lake and dam area, penstock routes.
Trihey & Associates 38
Sub-Surface Testing:
• Approximately .5 miles (2,500 ft) of roadway on 100 ft contour in Section 20.
Maximum of 80 shovel tests expected.
• Powerhouse site in Section 20. Maximum of 15 shovel tests expected.
• Lake Leanne penstock route from 100 ft elevation to Kizhuyak River powerhouse,
and 500 ft channel route in Section 32. Maximum of 30 shovel tests expected.
• No-Name Lake. 800 ft of penstock route in lower elevations in Section 20.
Maximum of 30 shovel tests expected.
8.8 MITIGATION AND PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES AND PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Construction and future maintenance of the impoundment facilities will be performed with the
aid of a helicopter eliminating the need for new, permanent road development, except for a 0.5-
mile spur road to connect the No-Name Lake powerhouse with the existing Terror Lake
Powerhouse service road. This minimal road construction on relatively flat terrain will reduce
erosion and potential impacts resulting from sedimentation. Temporary road construction may
be necessary for equipment access to align and bury the penstocks. However, these roads would
be abandoned when construction was completed and revegetated to a near-natural condition.
An erosion control plan will be developed for construction and operation of the proposed project.
Disturbed side slopes, construction areas, and material sites will be revegetated.
Construction crews will receive environmental training, including bear avoidance techniques,
similar to that employed for the Terror Lake project in the early 1980s. No construction will
occur within 400 ft of the eagle nest at Eagle Creek, if it is still active, or any other eagle nest
Trihey & Associates 39
in the project area. Construction windows for aircraft use and blasting operations near eagle
nests will be developed with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental training will
include instruction on reporting new cultural resources, should any be discovered during
construction. The existing archaeological sites will be avoided.
Trihey & Associates 40
9.0
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Phase 1: Conduct environmental studies and prepare draft application.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Applicant submits first stage consultation package
containing information on the project, the environment,
and proposed studies to agencies and interested parties.
Agencies and interested parties review first stage
consultation package; applicant holds meeting with
agencies and interested parties to discuss project.
Agencies and interested parties submit comments on
study needs.
Applicant conducts field studies. (Estimated duration
assumes no long-term environmental studies are
required and that some geotechnical and archaeological
studies could be initiated by August of 1992.
Applicant prepares draft license application which
contain the results of field studies.
Applicant transmits draft application to FERC, Native
Groups, Resources Agencies, and interested parties.
Phase 2: Revise license application.
a.
b.
Agencies and interested parties provide comments on
draft license application.
Applicant revises application. (Estimated duration
assumes no al studies are required and no substantial
disagreement with agencies arise over mitigation
requirements.
Phase 3: Final license application.
a.
b.
Applicant files application.
Agencies and interested parties have 45 days in which
to request additional studies they feel may be
necessary. (Estimated duration assumes no additional
studies are requested.
Trihey & Associates 41
April 1992
May and June 1992
July 1992
August-October
1992
November 1992-
February 19933
March 1993
March-May 1993
May-June 1993
July 1994
July-August 1994
Phase 3: Final license application. (continued)
c.
d.
FERC reviews application and publishes notice that it
is ready for environmental analysis. (Estimated
duration assumes that FERC does not request revision
of application.)
Agencies and interested parties submit mandatory and
recommended mitigation requirements. Applicant
submits comments on mitigation.
Trihey &; Associates 42
September-
December 1994
January-March
1994
10.0
REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1991. Community/borough map.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide.
Southwest Region. Volume II: Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. Juneau, Alaska.
630 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. 1990. Catalog of Waters Imponant for
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. Southwestern Region Resource
Management. Region III. Juneau, Alaska. p. 27.
Algermissen et. al. 1990. Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United
States and Pueno Rico. USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2120.
Blackett, R. and Trihey & Associates. 1992. Salmon Returns, Spawner Distribution, and Pre-
emergent Fry Survival in the Terror and Kizhuyak Rivers, 1982-1990, Kodiak Island,
Alaska. 49 pp.
Leslie, L. 1986. Alaska Climate Summaries. Alaska Climate Center, Arctic Environmental
Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. Technical
Note 3. 1 vol.
Righter, E. 1979. Repon on a Preliminary Archaeological Pedestrian and Aerial Reconnaissance of
the Proposed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Plant Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Wapora,
Inc., Berwyn, Pennsylvania. 1 vol.
Trihey & Associates 43
Righter, E. and R. Jordan. 1980. Report of a Comprehensive Archaeological Reconnaissance and
National Register Eligibility Tests at the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Site, Kodiak,
Alaska. Wapora, Inc., Berwyn, Pennsylvania. 1 vol.
Trihey, E. W., N. D. Pottinger, and S. F. Railsback. 1992. Effects of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project on the Temperature and Streamflow of the Terror and Kizhuyak Rivers, Kodiak
Island, Alaska. 81 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory. Kodiak: (C-3), Alaska.
Anchorage, Alaska. 1 sheet.
University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1979. An Assessment of
Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 334 pp.
University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1980a. An Assessment of
Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak, Alaska. Brown bear studies. Mountain goat studies.
Anchorage, Alaska. 84 pp.
University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1980b. An Assessment of
Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak, Alaska. Raptor studies. Intragravel water temperature
studies. Anchorage, Alaska. 57 pp.
Trihey & Associates 44
APPENDIX A
Agency Correspondence
A-I
-\. UNITED STATES Dl RTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.o. Box 21668
Juneau, ALaska 99802-1668
August 21, 1991
Lois D. Cashell, secretary
FilE
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 N. Capitol street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
ATTN: Michael Strzelecki
HL-20.2/UCP
Dear Ms. Cashell:
Project No. 11130-000
Leanne Lake
Hydropower Project
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has received the
Notice of preliminary Permit Application for the above referenced
project. The proposed project would generate power using waters
within the Leanne Lake system and an adjacent unnamed drainage.
Although we have no information on the fishery resources of these
waters, the lower reaches of both systems may provide spawning,
migrational, or rearing habitat for several commercially impor-
tant species, including pink, chum, and coho salmon.
The NMFS recommends the applicant expand the scope of studies
described in Exhibit 2 of their application to include specific
efforts to define the potential effect of this project on anadro-
mous fish and habitat. Investigations under the preliminary
permit should include an initial inventory and habitat mapping
for fish within both systems. Any impacts to fish due to the
project's effects on streamflow, up or downstream movement, or
loss of fish habitat must be fully mitigated. The applicant may
wish to initiate studies to quantify the flow requirements for
fishery resources in these systems. Other issues which must be
addressed, and which may require separate study, include 1) The
potential for stream ba~~ erosion and/or bed scouring below the
powerhouse or bed armoring due to removal of natural gravel
accretion, 2) Thermal changes to downstream flows, and 3) Poten-
tial attraction to or use by anadromous fish within the
powerhouse discharge.
If issued, the Preliminary Permit should contain an article
requiring the applicant to develop and submit a detailed work
plan, schedule, and budget for the aforementioned fishery-related
studies. NMFS requests the applicant coordinate their proposed
work plan and subsequent studies, providing copies of periodic
updates to all pertinent resource agencies. Please direct any
questions to Brad Smith in our Anchorage office at (907) 271-
5006.
Sincerely,
I -~ Pennoyer ~Director, Alaska Region
cc: USFWS, EPA, DGC, ADFG, ADEC
Trihey & Associates
Anchorage
(ill~o i= I ' d ...
I 1'-
i J
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
August 6, 1991
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Offlc. of HI.tory end ArchHoiogy
File No.: 3130-1R FERC
Subject: Project No. 11130-000
Leanne Lake Hydropower Project
Secretary Lois D. Cashell
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Secretary Cashelli
I
/
I
i
I
1
WALTER ,. HICKEL, GOVERNOR
3601 C STREET, Suhe 1278
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
PHONE: (907) 762-2622
MAILING ADDRESS:
P,O. Box 107001
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 9951G-7001
Thank you for the Notice of Application Filed with the Commission
concerning construction of a hydropower project at Leanne Lake on
Kodiak Island, Alaska.
Our records indicate that there are 2 archaeological sites, known
as KOD-138 and KOD-190, near the project area. They are, however,
located on the shore of Kizhuyak Bay approximately ~ mile east of
the proposed powerhouse location and do not appear to be in danger
of adverse impacts from the project.
Please call Tim smith at 762-2625 if there are any questions or if
we can be of further assistance.
/
/
cc:VE. Woody Trihey
I)EI·""'U.T~IENTOF FISII ANI) GA~IE
October 2, 1991
Mr. Woody Trihey, P.E.
Trihey and Associat~s
P.O. Box 4964
Walnut Creek, California 9459G
Dear Hr. Tr:i.hey:
WAL TER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR
333 RASPBERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99518·1599
PHONE: (907) 344-0541
Re: COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERHS AND CONDITIONS
1. PROJECT NO. 11139-000
PRELIMINI~RY PERMIT FOR TERROR LAKE RELEASE-\-Jl\TER
HYDROELEC7RIC PROJECT
2. PROJECT NO. 11130-000
PRELUUNARY PER~IT FOR LEANNE LAKE HYDROPOV\'E~
PROJEC'l'
The Alaska Department of Fish'and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the
two refere~ced notices, and per instructions from Mr. Michael
Strzelecki we are providing our COMments directly to yo~ with
n copy to the Federal Energy Re<Ju1atory Commisslon, among
o~hcrs. We have combined our comDents on these two notices
int.o one letter fcr the !jake of bn~vi ty because you are 1': s-:=.ed
.' , as ~he applicant I s contact for both projects, they are both
-·ti;.~_ :.,"'" l·E\lnted to the Terror Lake project, and the notices hu'.-e
~"'~~~~:~f1-':'i~1~11ar time itx:a~.s; .. :.
~~~ ~t~_ .~,"f-; -.~. -~. -.. -. ~ . . .,'
·-'··;·~.;>A:.~.AOF'G haG no' objections to initiating studies to determille
the feftsibility of either of these projects. We offer the
follc"Ning c()mr.lents on the scope and content of your studies to
guide you in de~errrining how these projects will affect fish
and ~ildlife resources and to help the applicant meet
permitting and licensing requirements pertaining to protection
of fish and uildlife.
AC~0rding to the not ice, this project would consist 0 & •
1. •
1) the existinG 8BO-acre T~rror La~e reservoir; 2)
the existing ~ ,)O-foot high Terror Lake dam; 3) a
val\'e~ouse; 4) a 36-inch-dia~,eter, 9,OOO-foot-long
Mr. Woody Trihey, P.E. -2-October 2, 1991
penstock; 5) a powerhouse containing a 3-MW
generator; 6) an 8-mile-Iong underground
transmission line interconnecting with an existing
138-kV transmission line; and 7) appurtenant
facilities.
The notice further states that:
No new access roads will be needed to conduct the
studies.
In an August 5 telephone conversation with Kim Sundberg, ADF&G,
you stated that a temporary access road would be needed from
the valvehouse to the generator house and that the penstock and
transmission line would be buried in the roadbed and the road
would be reclaimed to natural vegetation following
construction. You further stated that the purpose of this
project is to generate power from water that is currently
released into the upper Terror River as required by the current
FERC license and State of Alaska instream flow reservation
certificate. The ADF&G conceptually supports a project that
would co-generate electricity to benefit Kodiak Electric
Association users while maintaining instream flows in the
Terror River to meet the needs of fish and wildlife. We
believe such a project, if economically and environmentally
feasible, could help ensure the long term instream flow needs
for fish and wildlife in the Terror River drainage.
The proposed project is located in an area that provides
habitat for, among other species; coho salmon, pink salmon,
chum salmon, Dolly Varden, Sitka black-tailed deer, and brown
bear. Existing information indicates that the generator house
would be located at or near the upper limit of anadromous fish
habitat. Fish spawning and rearing downstream support
significant commercial fisheries and wildlife uses. The Terror
Ri ver is ranked by ADF&G among the top two drainages of
importance for brown bears in northern Kodiak Island. Brown
bear use is particularly intense in the lower 5-miles of the
Terror River and denning may occur within or adjacent to the
transmission line corridor.
Based upon the preli~inary information provide to us on this
project, we have the following recommendations for studies:
1. An analysis or all phases of the project (pre-
construction, construction, operation, maintenance) on the
existing instrc~m flow regimes of the Terror River and
Kizhuyak River :aking into account that current instream
flows in the T0rror River generally exceed the minimum
Mr. woody Trihey, P.E. -3-October 2, 1991
instream flows set by the FERC license and ADF&G instream
flow reservation certificate.
2. An analysis of 1. (above) with respect to any changes
proposed by the applicant to the current minimum instream
flow requirements in the Terror River.
3. An analysis of any changes to the instream flow identified
in 1. and 2. (above) with respect to effects on fish,
wildlife, recreation, and water quality.
4. An analysis of fish distribution and life history uses
(i.e., spawning, incubation, rearing, migration) for all
aquatic habitats affected by the project with particular
emphasis on the reach (es) of the Terror River affected
pre-and post-project by the proposed generator
house/tailrace.
5. An analysis of the effects of all other non-flow
components of the project (access, camp, temporary
storage/staging facilities, permanent structures) and
project phases (construction, operation, maintenance) of
the project on fish and wildlife, recreation, and water
quality with particular emphasis on salmon and brown bear.
6. A discussion of proposed measures to minimize or otherwise
mitigate impacts identified by analyses 1. through 5. on
fish, wildlife and their habitats. Mitigation should
include measures addressing water quality, erosion,
streambed scour, reclamation of disturbed areas,
wildlife/human interactions particularly as it relates to
minimizing construction impacts to brown bears, increased
access for deer and bear hunting I and pre-and post-
construction monitoring of flows, site reclamation, and
access.
Leanne Lake Hydropower Project
From the notice we understand that the proposed stUdies are
aimed at determining the feasibility of supplement l ng the
electrical generating capacity of the Kodiak Electric
Association. Power produced by the Leanne Lake project would
tie into the existing electrical distribution system from the
Terror Lake Hydropower facility.
Preliminary project plans call for construction of a 10 foot
high dyke that would enlarge Leanne Lake to 0.2 squar~ miles
(128 surface acres) and construction of a 20 foot high dyke
that would create a 0.1 square mile (64 surface acres)
Mr. Woody Trihey, P.E. -4-October 2, 1991
reservoir in an unnamed basin located north of Leanne Lake. An
8,940 and a 1,000 foot long siphon line would connect Leanne
Lake and the unnamed reservoir, respectively, to a 5,000 foot
long penstock leading to the powerhouse. Two each 2 megawatt
generators would produce electricity and a 600 foot long
transmission line would interconnect the powerhouse with the
existing Alaska Energy Authority transmission line.
The proposed project site is found in an area that currently
provides habitat used by brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer,
several species of birds including ba ld eag les, and
occasionally mountain goats. In the immediate vicinity of the
proposed reservoirs is found a documented brown bear denning
area. It is also used by deer during the spring, summer and
fall. The area surrounding the powerhouse provides habitat
known to support winter concentrations of deer. At this time
we have little or no site specific information relative to the
fish resources that may be found in the project area including
Leanne Lake and the small lake in the basin to the north and
their tributaries. However, the lower one half mile of the
unnamed stream (locally called Eagle Creek) which heads in the
small lake located in the NW 1/4 Section 3D, T. 28 5., R. 22
W., Seward Meridian, (i. e. the system proposed for the 0.1
square mile reservoir) has been specified as being important
for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fish
pursuant to AS l6.05.870(a). Eagle Creek provides spawning
habitat and is used by pink salmon. Therefore, any proposal to
darn the headwaters of this system and thereby modify the
natural flow regime must consider and provide for adequate
instream flow during both the reservoir filling period and the
post construction operation phase of the project to support the
salmon spawning and incubation requirements. This requirement
would also apply to other waterbodies discovered to support
fish populations in the project area.
To adequately assess the potential affects of the proposal on
fish and wildlife resources found in the area, site specific
and species spcci f ic use information mt1st be gathered. We
recommend that the studies of the project's environmental
impacts be designed and the relevant information collected so
that the follo~ing questions can be ans~0red.
1. What is ~he distribution and abcndance of fish and
wildlife species found in and aroL~d the project site?
Included in the area defined as the rroject site should be
the watershed of the areas that will be flooded by the
reservoir~, the siphon line and penstock routes, and the
powerhous~ and transmission ll~e facilities and
appurtenar-t. structures, cleared po'.,,·rl ine easements, and
roads.
Mr. Woody Trihey, P.E. -5-October 2, 1991
2. During what time(s) of the year are the fish and wildlife
species found in and around the project site?
3. For what purpose(s) do the fish and wildlife species use
the habitats found in the project area? Include
information pertinent to species specific life function
requirements (e.g. feeding, denning, rutting, perching,
nesting, migration, spawning, etc.) and time of year the
uses occur.
4. What are the volumes of water flow including the annual
and monthly average flow rates as well as the monthly high
and low flow rates of the waterbodies in the project area
and how do they relate to energy requirements? What is
the basic water balance of input versus output of these
systems? How will the proposed project affect these flows
and any fish resources found in the streams?
5. What changes in water temperature are likely to occur from
the increased reservoir capacities and stream flow
modifications?
6. After use, how will waters be treated and discharged?
Items of concern include the affect of increased water
temperatures, stream bed and stream bank erosion/scour at
point of discharge, and avoidance or attractant response
in fish to any temperature changes.
Both Projects
In addition, the following information would be useful to our
future review of these projects:
1. An analysis of the need for additional power production
from these projects and a cost/benef it analysis of the
proposals versus other energy options.
2. Preliminary site plans and maps which clearly show the
location of all proposed facilities and water bodies.
3. Ar explanation of the relationship between KEA and AEA
regarding the licensing of these projects, the proposed
amendment to the existing Terror Lake FERC license and how
this would affect the instream flow requirements tied to
the existing Terror Lake license.
4. A.n explanation concerning how the remote operation systems
f C':-the proposed Terror Lake Release-water Hydroelectric
Pl-,ject would work when the existing remote operations
Mr. Woody Trihey, P.E. -6-October 2/ 1991
systems for the Terror Lake release valve have not worked.
5. An analysis of how the impacts of these projects wi 11
affect existing commercial/subsistence, and sport harvest
and economic value of fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and would like to
participate in the planning associated with the design of the
environmental studies. In addition, some of the brown bear
information gathered by ADF&G during the environmental studies
for the Terror Lake Hydropower project pertains directly to the
Leanne Lake project site and is available for use. Should you
have any questions concerning these commer.ts please contact Kim
Sundberg (267-2342) or Wayne Dolezal (267-2284).
Sincerely,
~~ O. \I'f'.<'.-I .. <-.\
~ance L. Trasky
Regional Supervisor
Region II
Habitat Division
cc: Lois D. Cashell, FERC
Bill Eberhard, KEA
Tom Arminski, AEA
Jay Bellinger, Kodiak NWR
Brad Smith, NMFS
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill lAY ROAD
KODIAK. ALASKA 99615·6340
PHONE (907) .. 6.5736
September 22. 1991
RE: Comments -Project No. 11130-000
Preliminary Permit -Leanne Lake Hydropower Project
Honorable Secretary:
The Kodiak Island Borough would like to go on record as supporting the
Kodiak Electric Association's preliminary permit application (Project
No. 11130-(00) for the Leanne Lake Hydropower Project.
We understand that the issuance of a preliminary permit does not
authorize any construction. Rather, the issuance of the permit will
allow the Kodiak Electric Assodation to conduct economic analysis,
prepare of preliminary engineering plans and study environmental
impacts. It would be on the basis of these studies that a decision would
be made to proceed with the preparation of a development application
to construct and operate the project.,.
Since the.,purpose of this preliminary permit is for the gatJ.1~png of
information on which to base an informed decision, the KO,diak,lsland
Borough encourages the issuance of ,the ,preliminary permit. :: :1'
, ..., -...: • • • ' ••. If; IT
~qt: I .. . -
,~, ' .. ---,
,. '. -r, :' -("
Kodiak Island Borough
Secretaly
September 22, 1991
Page Two
If you have any questions about these comments please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
~' .. ~ -~}-'-.~ \... -
Linda L. Freed, Director
Community Development Department
cc: Kodiak Island Borough Mayor and Assembly
Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission
Director, Division of Project Review, Office of Hydropower
Licensing, FERC
E. Woody Trihey,Trihey & Assoc.'
Dave Nease, KEA
Elizabeth Benson, OMB·DGC, State of Alaska
'.
". -~.
'.-0'1:,· ,.,:,: l : ...... ~. ,.
vu ...... ~004
United States Department of the Interior ..~ .-. --
Ell 91/639
OFFICE OF11IE SECRETARY
OIICI of inviroftrMntal AffaIrs
'111 C Sntl. Room 119
AftdIcnge, AluM 8050 t -5121
Loi. D. Cashell, Secrecary
Federal Energy aegulatory Commission
825 Nor~h Capi~ol Stre.t, N. E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Dear Ms. Cashell:
We have reviewed the Notice of Application for a preliminary permit for the
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Rerulatory Commission (FERC)
Number 11130, Kodiak Island, Alaska. We offer the following commencs for your
conaideration:
We do not object to the proposed preliminary permit provided c.r~ain
additional consultacions occur wich the appropriate Deparcment of the In~erior
bureaus. We recommend the following lan&ua,a be incorporaced inco the p@rmi~.
The permittee will. wichin 60 day. of permit issuance, coft5ulc
wich: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [cololtcal Services
Field Supervisor, 605 We.t 4th Avenue, Room G-62, Anchorage,
Alaska, 99501 (David McCillivary 907-271-2788)
The Fish and Wildlife Service will assist in che permit procasQ by reviewing
project plans and determining what studies are needed ~o provide fish and
wildlife information necessary to adequately assess potenCial adverse impaccs
upon those resources and decermining appropriate ~.asures to minimize those
adverse impacts.
To facilita~. this ic is recommended that the applicant consult With the Fish
and Wildlife Service regularly during project planning and prior to preparing
any environmental reports pursuant ~o Ticle 18 of the Code of redaral
Regulations containing ~he Commission's regulations under the Federal Power
Act. The purpose of this consulcation would be to assure appropriate studies
are desilned and implemented to adequately assess impaccI to fish, wildlife
and habitat resource., and co provide assistance in planning.
The following commencs and recommendacions will provide some initlal guidance
for the project design 1n advance of the more detailed consultatlon:
The lower reach of stream number 252·36-10045 provides spawning habltae for
pink salmon. Ye recommend :hac the applicant conducc s~dies co verlfy the
extent of pink salmon spawning habitat and residen~ fish habita~ in the
s~ream. An instream flow srudy. such as Ins~ream Flow Incremencal
Mechodology, should be conducced Co determine flows necessary durlng and after
project conscruct10n to maincain or enhance resident and anadromou. fish
populations.
"
uo:".". ADM OFe FWS ENH ...... WAES
The proposed cons~ruction of addi~ional hydroe1ec~ric facili~ie. in the Terror
(Terror Lake Projec~) and Kizhuyak (Leanne take Projec~) drainage. could have
cumulative impact. on brown b.arl. The Leanne Lake hy6roelaotr1c project li ••
in a brown bear denning area, as documen~ed by radioed brown bears during the
7error Lake study. 70 help predict impac~s, ve recoMmGnd ~hat a brown bear
displacement study involvinc radio-collaring be conducted from at l.ast one
year prior to start of con.truction until a~ least one year after coapletion.
The goals of the .tu~y voul~ b. to docum.nt changes in repro6uc~ive rates,
feeding patterr~, and habitat~tilization by brown bear. The final phase of
the s~udy would investigate the reestablishment of the area by bear. af~er a
period of continual human activiey. The study plan should be coordinated with
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Although an active golden .agle nest waa found immediately south of Leanne
Lak(~ in 1983. the proposed projec~ area has not been surveyed. and ne.ting
eagles may occur within ehe vicinity of ~he project. Bald and ,oldan eagles
are pro~ec~ed from taking (including dia~urbance) under ~he £a,le ~rot.ction
Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). We recommend ~ha~ surveys be conducted in proposed
cons~ruction areas and alon, transmission corridors for eagle nest.. If nest
si~es are found. this informa~ion would be used for consideration in designing
the projec~ or in minimizing developmenc impacts.
Bas@d on Informa~ion currently available no candidate, proposed or 11s~ed
thr~a~ened or endangered species occur wi~hin the project area. The Fish and
Wildlife Service will advise the applicant should any new informa~iou become
available which could affect the project under requirements of the Endangered
SpeCies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et aeq.).
The applicant should conduct a cultural resource survey and consult v1th ehe
S~a~e Historic Preservation Officer in accordance vich the Nacional Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and 36 eFR 800.
The Bureau of Mines has reviewed ~he mineral data base for ~h. Leanne Lake
area and found no record of Any placer or lode mining claims Within Sections
19. 20, 30 and 31 of Township 28 South. Range 22 Uest or Section I of Township
29 South. Range 23 Ue5~ on Kodiak Island. ~e conclude that no mineral claims
vill b. affected by ~he Leanne Lake Hydro Project.
W. apprecia~e ~he opportunity ~o comment on the Notice of Application for a
preliminary permit.
Sincerely,
• '\ t "' , ,
~005